[00:00:02]
[Ad Hoc Committee on General Investigating and Ethics on August 27, 2026.]
AND THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS IS CALLED TO ORDER.UH, OUR FIRST ITEM IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2ND.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALRIGHT, OUR FIRST ITEM, IT'S ACTUALLY A MEMO FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON FINANCIAL IMPACT TO DATE 2026 RESULTS.
SO I THINK, UH, SINCE THIS IS SUCH A NEW OFFICE, I'D LOVE TO JUST LET YOU GIVE A COUPLE OF HIGH POINTS AND THEN IF WE'VE GOT QUESTIONS, TAKE THOSE AND THEN, UH, MOVE ON TO ITEM B.
AND, UH, INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL CITY OF DALLAS.
AND, UH, APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO REVIEW AND HIT SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS.
THE, THE POINT OF THE MEMO WAS, UM, TO HELP THIS GROUP AND CITY COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL IMPACT THAT THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL IS HAVING AND, AND CAN HAVE AS WHAT HAS BEEN EN UNFOLDING SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR CONTINUES TO GROW.
UM, AND THE REASON I WANTED TO GET IT OUT AND TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO ALL THOSE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WAS TO HAVE A CHANCE TO SHOW THE NUANCE OF, OF THE NUMBERS.
UM, BECAUSE IT, ON THE ONE HAND, I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OH, I'VE SAVED $2 MILLION FOR THE CITY.
WHAT IS TRUE, AS WE'VE FOUND POCKETS OF MONEY IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, UM, THAT ARE IN THAT RANGE, AND THAT'S TO THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY.
BUT IT, IT'S NOT LIKE I HAVE A CHECK.
AND SO THAT WAS THE POINT OF WRITING THE MEMO.
AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR ABOUT IT, UM, YOU'D LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH, I CAN.
UM, BUT JUST WHAT IT'S IDENTIFYING IS, UH, FOUR TYPES OF THINGS.
UH, SOMETIMES YOU STOP A LOSS AND SO YOU CAN PUT A NUMBER ON A LOSS IN THE PAST THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, $692,000 THAT HAD GONE OUT TO FOLKS THAT WERE EMPLOYED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
AND THEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, WELL HOW MUCH OF THAT WAS ACTUALLY EARNED AND HOW MUCH WERE THEY DOING SOMETHING ELSE? UM, THEN TIED TO THAT CLOSELY ARE NUMBERS THAT WE CAN FIND FOR FUTURE LOSSES AVOIDED.
SO WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS WHEN WE BEGIN INVESTIGATING, OR EVEN WHEN SOMEONE FINDS OUT WE MIGHT BE INVESTIGATING IS THINGS START TO MOVE.
AND A LOT OF TIMES WHAT THAT MEANS IS SOMEBODY JUST, OKAY, I'M JUST GOING TO QUIT.
UM, IN THAT, IN THAT SCENARIO, I THINK WE'VE IDENTIFIED THREE TO $400,000, UH, WORTH OF SALARY.
AND THAT WOULD BE AN ANNUALIZED NUMBER THAT THE CITY'S NOT PAYING TO SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT PUTTING IN THE A HUNDRED PERCENT, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THEY'RE DUAL EMPLOYEES.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A, A NUMBER.
AND THEN, UH, EXPOSURE INTERRUPTED.
UH, THAT WOULD, AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE, UH, THE $18,000 SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A A, AN INVOICE THAT WAS QUESTIONABLE AND COUNSEL NEED TO, NEEDED TO HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU MOVE FORWARD ON OTHER BIGGER ITEMS THAT MIGHT BE COMING TO THAT GROUP.
AND THEN JUST GENERALLY FINANCIAL ACTIVITY, UH, REVIEWED, UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS ALL THE TIME.
ONE THAT EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT RIGHT, RIGHT NOW IS, IS OVER TIME WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THAT AND THERE'S, THERE'S A LONG STORY THERE, BUT WHEN YOU ADD UP ALL THOSE NUMBERS AND THERE, THE EXAMPLES ARE THERE FOR YOU IN THE MEMO, YOU GET A PICTURE OF THE KIND OF IMPACT WE'RE HAVING.
AND, UM, I'LL LEAVE IT THERE NOW AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR IF I CAN BETTER ANSWER WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
UH, CHAIR STEWART, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A IDEA OF YOU'VE, UM, COMMUNICATING THEM IN DOLLAR AMOUNTS, WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? MM-HMM
WE ABSOLUTELY WANNA KNOW, UM, WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNTS YOU GUYS ARE SAVING US IN THE FUTURE AND HAVE, AND HAVE IDENTIFIED AS PAST LOSSES AND PUT A STOP TO THEM.
BUT, UM, SO LIKE VENDOR OVERCHARGING, DO YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR HOW MANY VENDORS THAT 227,000 REPRESENTS? OR IS THAT JUST ONE THAT, THAT HAPPENED TO BE ONE CASE THAT CAME IN ON A COMPLAINT? MM, RIGHT.
[00:05:01]
SO, UM, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF YOUR OFFICE AND YOUR RELATIVELY NEW, YOUR ACTIONS TEND TO BE REACTIVE, RIGHT? YOU'RE WAITING FOR PEOPLE TO BRING YOU, UM, ISSUES THAT YOU THEN INVESTIGATE OR GET TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES TO INVESTIGATE.UM, AND THAT IF YOU HAD DIFFERENT TOOLS AND SKILLS THAT PERHAPS SOMEDAY YOU ALL COULD BE MORE, UM, PROACTIVE AS OPPOSED TO REACTIVE.
AND WE JUST WANNA PUT A PLUG IN FOR THAT, THAT WE HOPE THAT WE GET THERE AT SOME POINT.
THAT'S EXACTLY THE INVESTMENT THAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY.
UM, AND IS A SMALL NUMBER ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD SAVE 227,000 IN ONE, YOU KNOW, TRANSACTION HERE.
UM, SO THE SAME FOR THERE WAS A, THE $30,000, UM, UNSUPPORTED COMPENSATION, WAS THAT AGAIN, JUST A ONE TIME? IS THAT A, SOMEBODY'S BLOWN A WHISTLE ONCE.
THAT AND THAT ONE IS, UM, I CAN'T SAY TOO MUCH ABOUT IT OTHER THAN IT BECAUSE IT'S STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION AND THAT ONE'S ABOUT TO ROLL OUT, BUT IT'S, IT'S ONE PERSON.
SO THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL CONTRACTS THAT WHERE WE'VE OVERPAID OR ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES THAT WE MIGHT HAVE OVERPAID, DO WE HAVE ANY ABILITY TO DO THAT PROACTIVELY? W WE DO.
AND IT'S A COMBINATION OF THE PACKAGE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY YES.
AND THE TOOLS THAT COME WITH THAT MM-HMM
SO IF YOU THINK OF A OIG, LIKE A BODY, YOU NOW HAVE THE BONES OF AN OIG AND WE HAVE ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS, RIGHT? BUT WE NEED BLOOD AND MUSCLES.
UM, THINK OF IT HOWEVER YOU WANT, BUT THE BLOOD WOULD BE THE FLOW OF INFORMATION, RIGHT? AND THE MUSCLES ARE THOSE TOOLS THAT ARE IN THAT FINANCIAL, UH, PACKAGE.
NOW, IN TERMS OF THE FLOW OF THE BLOOD, UH, WE HAVE THAT UNDER THE CODE RIGHT NOW.
WE JUST HAVE TO ASK, THAT'S MANUAL.
IT RINGS THE BELL THAT WE'RE LOOKING.
UM, AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON PARTNERING WITH UH, DBI, WHAT THEY CAN DO BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION IS CREATE DASHBOARDS AND SYSTEMS. YES.
THAT RED FLAG THINGS OUTSIDE THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF WHAT'S NORMAL.
WE'RE LASER FOCUSED, WE'RE NOT GUESSING, WE'RE NOT FISHING.
THAT'S WHERE, AND THAT'S THE PROACTIVE PLAN, RIGHT? CORRECT.
THAT'S WHEN WE CAN USE TECHNOLOGY TO BEGIN TO, UM, IDENTIFY SOME OF THESE, THESE, THESE AREAS.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FEEL FOR WHAT THESE NUMBERS REPRESENTED WITH HOPING MAYBE IT MEANT THERE WERE 10 OR 20 OR 30 CASES BEHIND THERE.
I MEAN, BUT IT'S, AND IT'S GOOD TO KNOW IT'S, IT'S A VERY HONEST REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE TOOLS AND PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
AND IT WILL, WE'RE GONNA WORK TO GROW THAT.
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, WE'RE ON ITEM A.
UM, I THINK THAT FOR THE MOST PART, I WAS LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS TOO.
THE, LIKE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT VENDOR OVERCHARGING, YOU SAID THE FUTURE LOSS AVOIDED WAS 579,000.
DO YOU HAVE ACTUAL VENDORS THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY THAT TOO? I KNOW I CAN'T ASK YOU A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT DO YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE OR TWO? OR IS IT WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO, DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT A POLICY AND MAKE A POLICY CHANGE TO PREVENT THIS? OR IS THIS LIKE ONE OR TWO OFF? UH, IN MY OPINION, I, I WOULD SAY THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS, IS A ONE OFF IT.
AND YOU TELL ME IF YOU WANT MORE DETAIL BECAUSE THIS ONE'S COMPLETE.
SO I CAN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
THE NUMBERS ARE REAL AND THE NUMBERS ARE REAL ON LOOKING AT THE WAY THE CONTRACT WAS STRUCTURED.
THEY SAID WE'RE GONNA HAVE X NUMBER OF THESE OCCURRENCES WE'RE GONNA BILL AT THIS RATE.
SO I TOOK THAT NUMBER OF REMAINING OCCURRENCES TIMES WHAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY CHARGING OVER TO.
AND THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE 5 79.
SO IF THE CITY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THE PAYMENTS TO THAT VENDOR GOING FORWARD, WE WILL NOT MAKE THAT 500 SOME ODD AMOUNT OF OVERPAYMENTS.
IN OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS, WE HAVE SAFEGUARDS.
BUT MAYBE OUR SAFEGUARDS AREN'T SAFEGUARDING ENOUGH.
SO I, IS IT POLICY, IS IT SAFEGUARDS? WHAT WILL WE NEED? WHAT FOR THIS TO HAVE HAPPENED? IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.
[00:10:02]
AND WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO IN EITHER OUR PROCESSES, OUR POLICIES, OR OUR RULES THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN CATCH THIS FASTER, WE CAN AVOID IT.I I'M ALL ABOUT PRO ACTION, NOT REACTION AND WE NEED YOU 'CAUSE WE'RE IN A REACTIVE MODE.
SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS TO IT.
THE FACT THAT THIS HAPPENS ON ITS OWN WILL STIMULATE AND IMPROVE THE REACTIVE SIDE OF THE OFFICE.
'CAUSE PEOPLE WILL SEE THAT SOMETHING'S HAPPENING AND THE CASES WILL GET BETTER AND THEY HAVE HOPE THAT SOMETHING'S GONNA HAPPEN.
BUT ON THE PROACTIVE SIDE, THE THING THAT WE CAN DO TO ENCOURAGE THIS IS, IS JUST TO LET THE BLOOD FLOW, WHICH REALLY MEANS, UH, HAVING THE TOOLS SO WE CAN DO IT EFFICIENTLY AND, AND QUICKLY.
BUT ALSO THE, THE PARTNERSHIP, UH, WITH I THINK DBI GOING FORWARD IS GONNA BE CRITICAL 'CAUSE THEY HAVE THE SKILLS AND THE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.
AND THE SAME KIND OF, UH, C JS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM PROTECTION THAT WE HAVE FOR DEALING WITH DATA, UM, TO BE ABLE TO, TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT AREAS, UH, WHERE FRAUD CAN HAPPEN, THE DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE THINGS BREAK DOWN IN PROCUREMENT, THE DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE THINGS BREAK DOWN.
NOT ON THE PROCUREMENT SIDE, BUT HERE ON THE, THE PAYMENT SIDE IT WAS JUST GETTING MISSED.
UM, AND THEN THAT ALL COMES TOGETHER IN WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AS MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES AND ALERTS.
WE'RE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT THEM WITH DIFFERENT LANGUAGE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL SEEM CONFUSED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, AN ADVISORY AND ALERT.
SO WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WATCHES AND WARNINGS 'CAUSE THAT TRACKS WITH WEATHER.
BUT IN ANY CASE, UH, THOSE, THOSE PIECES HAVE BEEN, UH, VETTED PRETTY WELL.
WE'RE JUST TALK, SPEAK, TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ABOUT IT.
WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH IN A GOOD WAY AND WE HAVE IT IN A GOOD PLACE.
AND THE NEXT STEP FOR THAT IS FOR THIS, UH, COMMITTEE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE SO THAT COUNCIL ENDS UP KNOWING HOW THOSE PROCESSES ARE GOING TO WORK AND WHAT THOSE PROCESSES WILL DO.
PARTICULARLY, UM, WHAT WE CALL RIGHT NOW THE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY IS COUNCIL'S GONNA FIND OUT, UH, THAT WE'VE GOT A PROCESS THAT'S NOT BEING FOLLOWED OR THERE'S A GAP IN A PROCESS AND IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
AND IF IT'S HIGH RISK, IT'LL OPERATE THE SAME WAY THAT IT DOES WITH AUDIT.
THERE'LL BE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, TIME TO COMPLETE IT, COOPERATION WITH THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.
AND THEN THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED AND THE ROOT CAUSES, WE'LL BE THERE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE GONNA FIX IT.
UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING, UH, MADAM CHAIR AND TO OUR CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE PROCUREMENT AND AT ALL THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
I, I, I, I'LL BE VERY HONEST, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SOME, UM, HOLES IN OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS IN THE WAY WE GET OUR VENDORS.
AND THEN WHEN VENDORS DON'T NECESSARILY PERFORM TO, TO STANDARD, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS TO KEEP 'EM FROM NOT PERFORMING TO STANDARD.
BUT WHEN THEY DON'T, THEY STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT MAY BE MAYBE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE IN, IN HOW WE CHOOSE OUR VENDORS AND HOW WE ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO WORK FOR US.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CENA, ANY COMMENTS? UM, YEAH, I JUST WANNA THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER BECAUSE I THINK IT HELPS US JUST HAVE SUPPORT, UM, IN THIS, UM, DEPARTMENT AND THE WORK THAT Y'ALL ARE DOING.
AND ALSO I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE TIPS THAT WERE GIVEN TO YOU, IT SHOWS THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THEY CAME FROM VARIOUS, UM, SOURCES, MAYBE EMPLOYEES OR THE PUBLIC, THAT PEOPLE ARE, UM, WILLING TO REPORT, UM, THINGS THAT THEY, UM, SEE.
AND SO I WAS GLAD TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, JUST IN HOW THIS COULD IMPACT, UM, OUR, YOU KNOW, FUTURE, UM, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M BIG ON EDUCATION, SO I HOPE THAT IT ALSO, IF THERE'S ANY PIECES OUT OF THIS THAT WE CAN ALSO ADD TO OUR ETHICS TRAINING, UM, WHETHER IT'S FOR VENDORS OR FOR OUR EMPLOYEES, UM, BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE SOME REAL LIFE EXAMPLES THAT WE CAN ADD TO THAT, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY ADD TO THAT TRAINING.
[00:15:01]
ALRIGHT.AND SINCE WE'RE IN THE BUDGET SEASON, AND WE DID HEAR AN AMENDMENT ON THIS YESTERDAY, I THINK THIS IS ALL VERY TIMELY AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU INCLUDED IN YOUR MEMO THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY FINANCIAL RISKS SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDING THE RESOURCES DEVOTED TO PERFORMING THAT WORK, WHICH THIS SHOWS US THAT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY OUTPERFORMED YOUR BUDGET IN THE WAYS THAT YOU SUGGESTED, BUT PARTICULARLY WHEN INVESTIGATORS HAVE ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE DATA, ANALYTICAL TOOLS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES.
SO, UM, HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET MORE OF THAT SO WE CAN GET TO THE POINTS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MADE.
UH, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM B.
AND THIS IS CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12, A CODE OF ETHICS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CHARTER, UH, MANDATES EVERY TWO YEARS BY THIS COMMITTEE.
IF YOU'LL PULL THAT MIC A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOU, I THINK IT WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE CRISP.
READY? AND YEAH, THIS IS, IF YOU WANNA SET UP, UM, HOW THIS IS A FOLLOW UP ON.
SO, UM, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE, THE PROCESS REALLY BEGAN, UH, MUCH EARLIER IN THE YEAR, UH, AROUND NOVEMBER, OCTOBER.
AND THAT WAS IN ANTICIPATION OF A CITY COUNCIL'S OBLIGATION TO LOOK BI-ANNUALLY, UH, AT THE CODE OF ETHICS.
AND IN DOING THAT, UM, OUR OFFICE AND ALSO WE GOT SUGGESTIONS FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC TO MAKE CHANGES TO 12 A.
THOSE WERE ALL THOROUGHLY VETTED IN THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION THROUGH A WORKING GROUP, UH, THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER BY MR. PERKINS.
AND, UH, THEN THAT WENT TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND THEN IT CAME HERE.
WE'VE LOOKED AT MOST OF THOSE, AND COUNCIL MOST RECENTLY HAS APPROVED ALL THOSE THAT HAD TO DO WITH, UM, ADJUSTING AND CLARIFYING HOW PERSON'S DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY FALL UNDER THE CODE.
UM, BUT AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WERE SIX AREAS THAT THIS COMMITTEE WANTED TO BE RE REVIEWED A LITTLE BIT MORE AND TO DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER.
AND SO WE FOLLOWED THE SAME PROCESS.
WE WENT BACK TO THE EAC AND THE WORKING GROUPS, AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAD A, A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL SIX.
AND OF COURSE, WE WORKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND, AND MS. MORRISON, UH, A LOT TO COME UP WITH, WITH THOSE TO GET THE BALL ROLLING ON THAT, UH, THAT HAS ALL BEEN APPROVED AND, AND IS NOW BEFORE YOU.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE TO REVIEW WITH YOU NOW.
SO YOU WANNA TAKE THE FIRST ONE, UM, IN YOUR, IN YOUR SLIDE DECK.
I'M, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND JUST GET TO THE NITTY GRITTY, UH, BY SKIPPING TO SLIDE SIX.
AND IT IS THE FIRST ONE WHICH FALLS UNDER 12 A 22, UM, WHICH MIRRORS THE CITY CHARTER PROVISION LABELED 22, HAVING TO DO WITH CONTRACTS, UH, PROHIBITED INTEREST IN CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY.
UM, IT IS, UH, IT IS, UH, THE ONLY RULE THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT IF, IF YOU CROSS THAT LINE, THERE'S ONLY ONE LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE.
SO IT'S TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY IN THE CHARTER AND THE CODE.
UM, BUT THERE, THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDED TO BE, I THINK, REFINED.
SO THE GENERAL RULE IS IN, UH, 12 A 22, THERE'S A SECTION THERE THAT GOES EVEN FARTHER THAN THE CHARTER.
AND WHAT IT SAYS IS YOU CAN'T HAVE A CONTRACT AND YOU CANNOT EVEN NEGOTIATE TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
UM, AND SO THE REFINEMENT IS, UH, WHAT FOLLOWS FROM AN EXCEPTION.
AND THE EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE IS, UH, THAT CERTAIN IDENTIFIED APPOINTED OFFICIALS DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT RULE.
AND THIS HELPS PEOPLE THAT ARE ON BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THEY COME TO SERVE THE CITY.
UM, BUT THEY HAVE OTHER BUSINESS INTERESTS IN THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
SO IT, IT HELPS US RECRUIT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S BEEN THE REASON FOR THIS RULE.
BUT THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE WE FELT, UH, IT WAS FELT THAT THOSE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, UH, AT LEAST APPEARED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WARM RELATIONSHIP AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE SITTING ON A COMMITTEE.
AND SO WE, WE NEEDED TO REFINE THAT EXCEPTION.
AND SO THE REFINEMENT IS IF YOU ARE AN APPOINTED MEMBER OF A BOARD OF COMMISSION, YOU CAN STILL MEET THIS EXCEPTION AND HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, BUT IT'S GOTTA BE AN OPEN BID PROCESS.
IF IT'S NOT, UH, THAT'S GONNA BE AN ISSUE.
AND NUMBER TWO, YOU CAN'T WEIGH IN ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROVISIONS THAT GO INTO THE CONTRACT THAT JUST, AND THEN END UP GETTING THE CONTRACT.
UM, SO THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION HERE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, I'LL STOP.
I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS KIND OF LIKE WE DID LAST TIME, WHERE WE GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE WHILE YOU'RE ON THE SUBJECT AND WE CAN JUST REGISTER ANY
[00:20:01]
COMMENTS ON IT.I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
WE'VE HAD SOME EXAMPLES THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS NOTHING EGREGIOUS MEANT THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY WAS THERE.
AND SO, UM, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM COLLEAGUES ON THIS.
UH, I'LL START, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS? WELL, YEAH.
UM, I, I, I LOVE IT BECAUSE IT DOES MAKE IT, IF, EVEN IF THERE WAS NO SENSE OF IMPROPRIETY, BUT IT LOOKED LIKE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN THIS JUST TIGHTENS IT UP SO THAT EVERYBODY, IT, IT, THERE NO ONE LOOKS, FEELS AS THOUGH THEY'RE TREATED, THEY'RE, WELL, THE OUTSIDE WORLD DOES NOT SEE SOMEONE BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
WELL, THIS IS CHALLENGING FOR ME ALWAYS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS ONE IS, BUT CAN WE, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE? 'CAUSE IT WILL HELP ME CLARIFY.
I THINK I'VE GOT IT, BUT JUST IF YOU COULD GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE.
WELL, LET'S SUPPOSE THAT AT THIS COMMITTEE, UH, THAT I WAS SITTING UP THERE WITH YOU ALL, AND LET'S NOT DO THIS COMMITTEE.
UH, AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE, UH, THE CITY NEEDS SOMETHING.
LET'S SAY IT'S A PARK BOARD MEMBER.
AND JUST PICKING UP BOARD, I'M A PARK BOARD MEMBER, AND I KNOW YOU WANT TO ADVISORY.
MAYBE A BETTER EXAMPLE WOULD BE, UH, THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION, THEIR ADVISORY ONLY.
BUT LET'S SAY THEY HAD SOME INPUT, UM, THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMISSION MAYBE HAD SOME INPUT ON, UM, THE, A TYPE OF CONTRACT THAT MAYBE DAS, UM, WAS SHAPING.
AND THEN A MEMBER OF THAT COMMISSION ENDS UP GETTING THE CONTRACT, THE FACT THAT THEY WERE, THAT COMMISSIONER WAS INVOLVED IN SETTING THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT TYPE OF, UM, PARTY WOULD BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT.
NOW, IF COUNSEL ADOPTS THIS AMENDMENT, IT'S ALLOWED NOW, EVEN IF THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE CREATING OF THE CONTRACT, I THOUGHT THAT WAS, IT'S ALLOWED BECAUSE THE EXCEPTION IS IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION, THAT IS ADVISORY IN NATURE.
I, I THINK WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE AND MAYBE WE'RE IN LIKE A DOUBLE NEGATIVE SITUATION WHERE IT'S A POSITIVE, BUT IT IS, IT'S IT, YES.
IT'S, IS THAT WHAT IT, IS IT, BECAUSE THERE'S A GENERAL RULE THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT.
THE EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE RIGHT NOW IS THAT IT'S AN ADVISORY YOU IS THAT IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF A BOARD COMMISSION THAT'S ADVISORY ONLY, THEN THAT'S AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE, WHICH MEANS THEN YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT.
AND NOW WE'RE TIGHTENING UP THAT EXCEPTION ABOUT WHEN YOU CAN ABOUT MM-HMM
SO A PARK BOARD MEMBER WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY FORM BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ADVISORY.
SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY TYPE OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATING.
SAYING THAT CITY PLAN CREATION OF A CONTRACT YEAH.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THOSE ARE NOT ADVISORY ONLY EVER, RIGHT? MM-HMM
BUT YOU HAVE, UM, ART AND CULTURE, ANIMAL SERVICES, IT'S ADVISORY.
I THOUGHT IT SAYS OR WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THE CONTRACT TERMS. YEAH.
THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING BE ADDED.
SO IF THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THE CONTRACT, WHAT ARE THEY ABLE TO DO IT OR NOT ABLE TO DO IT THEN THEY ARE NOT EXCUSED FROM THE GENERAL RULE, WHICH IS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONTRACT.
THAT'S THE DE DOUBLE NEGATIVE.
WHEN YOU'RE NOT EXCLUDED FROM OKAY.
THE GENERAL RULE, WHICH SAYS YOU'RE EXCLUDED.
WE DON'T HAVE A BETTER WAY TO SAY THAT.
I, I I UNDERSTAND ORDINANCES AND STATUTES AND THEY'RE VERY OFTEN WORDED SIMILAR, VERY SIMILARLY, BUT THERE'S NOT ANOTHER WAY WE COULD SAY THAT.
I KNOW IT WOULD BE MORE OF A CHANGING OR, ANYWAY.
WELL, I, I, I THINK THAT ONE'S GONNA JUST BE CONFUSING TO YOUR AVERAGE CITY OFFICIAL PERSON WHO'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE I DID SITTING ON ART AND CULTURE, I WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND
[00:25:01]
EVEN AS A LAWYER, I'D GO, NO, I'M SORRY, WHAT AGAIN? YEAH, IT'S REALLY, IT'S JUST NOT SO STRAIGHTFORWARD.IS IT, IT'S REALLY TIGHTENING UP WHEN THE EXCEPTION APPLIES AND IT'S, IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THOSE BODIES LISTED UNDER SUBSECTION C, THEN THE EXCEPTION APPLIES MM-HMM
AND THEN YOU'RE SAYING THIS EXCEPTION DOESN'T APPLY, DOES NOT APPLY IF YOU'VE PARTICIPATED IN CREATING, SO THEN YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO.
IF YOU, IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF THE CONTRACT, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR POSITION AT THIS POINT, RIGHT.
THAT KNOCKS YOU OUT AND THERE IS THE EXCLUSION, THE EXCEPTION DOESN'T APPLY AND YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE ON THAT OR PARTICIPATE IN THAT.
IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF THE CONTRACT AND YOU'VE INFLUENCED THAT DEAL SOMEHOW, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE A DONE THAT.
AND IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM A VOTE ON THAT AT THE VERY LEAST.
YOU WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT, YOU, YOU WOULD RECUSE, BUT IF YOU HAD INVOLVEMENT, UM, ON, ON THE FRONT END IN CREATING THE PARAMETERS OF THE CONTRACT, THEN YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND GET THAT CONTRACT.
YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WITH THE CONTRACT TO GO OUT AND YOU PLEASE PULL YOUR MIC UP.
IT'S, YOU'RE A LITTLE SOFT-SPOKEN AND SO WE, YOU WOULDN'T NOT BE ABLE TO GO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY GO OUT ON THAT CONTRACT? YOU, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, UM, BE AWARDED THAT CONTRACT, THAT CITY CONTRACT IF YOU WERE SITTING ON A BORDER COMMISSION THAT HELPED CREATE THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT TYPE OF PARTY.
OH, YOU'RE SAYING THE CONTRACT IS WITH THE CITY OFFICIAL? MM-HMM
WELL, SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE PEOPLE IN ADVISORY CAPACITIES WHO ARE GONNA TRY TO WORK WHAT ON COULD BE ADVISING THE, THE VENDOR ON THE CONTRACT AND HAVE INFLUENCED THE DEAL THAT WAY.
BUT YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S NOT A CONTRACT WITH THEM DIRECTLY.
I KNOW I'M MAKING THIS WAY MORE COMPLICATED.
THIS IS A RULE ABOUT PARTICIPATING IN RECEIVING THE CONTRACT.
SO YOU COULD NOT BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT SUBMITTING A BID OR PROPOSAL FOR IF YOU'RE SITTING ON AN ADVISORY COMMISSION AND YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE CREATION OF THE CONTRACT.
WELL, BECAUSE IT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN HERE AND IYYY I'M GONNA WRITE IT DOWN SO I WILL REMEMBER IT THE NEXT TIME.
HOPEFULLY I'LL PUT IT IN SAFE PLACE.
AND I, I THINK THAT COULD BE ONE THING THAT COMES OUT OF THIS IS THAT THE CONCEPT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE LIKE, IT'S JUST THAT THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED WAY TO PUT IT.
SO I WOULD SAY WE PROBABLY WANNA REFINE THAT.
SO, UM, LAURA IS THIS, UM, I GUESS RULE ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARDS AND COMMISSION.
SO IS THIS JUST LIKE EVENING IT OUT BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES? RIGHT.
SO THE GENERAL, UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, THE GENERAL RULE FOR QUA MEMBERS OF QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WON'T CHANGE.
THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL RULE IN THAT A CITY OFFICIAL, UM, MAY NOT, UM, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR AS THE OFFICER OR PRINCIPAL OF AN ENTITY SUBMIT A BID OR PROPOSAL FOR A CONTRACT OR NEGOTIATION, NEGOTIATE OR ENTER INTO A CITY CONTRACT.
SO IT'S JUST MAKING MORE, IT MORE UNIFORM BETWEEN THE TYPES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
ALRIGHT, CHAIR RIDLEY, I SEE YOU'VE JOINED US.
DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WELL, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
UM, I, I WOULD JUST OBSERVE THAT THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE EASILY UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY CODIFIED SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SEPARATE SUBPOINTS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS MUCH CLEARER.
YOU'D HAVE THE FIRST POINT WOULD BE, UM, THERE IS THE GENERAL RULE AND THEN THE SUB SUBPOINT UNDER THAT WOULD BE HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A SUB, SUB SUB POINT UNDER THAT THAT SAYS, BUT THE EXCEPTION DOESN'T APPLY IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I'VE SEEN THAT NUMEROUS TIMES IN OUR ORDINANCES.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE OBVIOUS ONCE YOU SEE IT WRITTEN OUT THAT WAY.
AND I CAN, IF THE COMMITTEE IS GOOD WITH THE CONCEPT, I CAN TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WORDING TO MAYBE MAKE IT A LITTLE, LET'S, LET'S DO THAT.
AND SO WHAT WE WANT IS NOT SOMEONE WHO'S CREATING PART OF THE RFP THEN ABLE TO BID ON IT, AND WE'RE SAYING THAT EVEN IF IT'S COMPETITIVE, IF YOU HELPED CREATE THE PARAMETERS, YOU DON'T GET TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.
SO IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT, AND TO CHAIR RIDLEY'S POINT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, SEE IF WE CAN JUST
[00:30:01]
ADD CLARITY TO THIS THERE, BUT I, I'M HEARING THAT THERE'S, UH, THAT, THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS.I THINK IT'S A TREMENDOUS ADDITION.
LET'S MOVE ON TO 12 A 23 PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS.
12 A 23 PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS IS ON SLIDE SEVEN.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO, UH, PROHIBIT APPOINTED OFFICIALS FROM MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT IMPLIES OR EVEN ASSERTS THAT THEY'VE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING MATTER.
AND THIS, THIS RULE, UH, DESCRIBES AN ACTUAL SITUATION THAT HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST ONCE IN THE PAST.
AND SO IT'S DESIGNED TO, TO STOP, TO STOP THAT SO THAT, UM, THE PUBLIC, AT LEAST WHEN THEY'RE WATCHING THE, THE MEETINGS, CAN BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S TAKING THIS AND WAITING UNTIL YOU GET TO THE BOARD COMMISSION MEMBER TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS BEFORE THEY MAKE A A DECISION.
AND I THINK MS. MORRISON, YOU HAD A DISTINCTION HERE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE DIFFERENT BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE ALL PUBLIC HEARING BASED, UM, VERSUS COUNSEL THAT OPERATES ON A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AGENDA.
SO I MEAN, WHAT ARE, I THINK THERE'S SOME IMPLICATIONS HERE, UM, THAT IF WE COULD ADD SOME DEPTH AROUND THAT SO THERE'S MORE UNDERSTANDING.
UH, THERE ARE CERTAIN ITEMS, UM, THAT DIFFERENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON THAT ARE STATE MANDATED TO BE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHICH MEANS ONCE THE ITEM IS READ INTO THE RECORD AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT OPENS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOWS FOR SPEAKERS TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK ON THE ITEM.
UM, AND SINCE THOSE ARE STATE LAW MANDATED, UM, THOSE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO HAVE, WHO HAVE, WHO VOTE ON THOSE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ADVISED THAT IT'S A BEST PRACTICE TO NOT GET OUT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IT'S A BEST PRACTICE TO NOT MAKE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS PUBLICLY, UM, IN EVEN JUST INSINUATING HOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA VOTE ON AN ITEM BEFORE YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE SPEAKERS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT CAN PUT A CHILLING EFFECT ON PEOPLE COMING DOWN TO CITY HALL AND SPEAKING ON THOSE ITEMS. UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THIS PROPOSAL.
SO, I MEAN, IF IT'S A, IF THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING, IF IT'S ON SOME KIND OF APPLICATION, THIS IS ALSO SO AN APPLICANT FEELS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN PUBLIC STATEMENTS ARE MADE VERSUS DECISIONS MADE BEFORE THE STATE MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN ADD? RIGHT.
GENERALLY THERE'S AN APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN FOR ANYONE TO COME DOWN AND SPEAK THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION.
AND THE POINT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO SET A COMMON GROUND FOR EVERYONE TO COME DOWN AND HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE JUST THINK THAT A CHILLING EFFECT HAPPENS IF EVERYONE THINKS A DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE UP THAT BORDER COMMISSION.
SO THEN WHY BOTHER PARTICIPATING IN THE STATE MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING? UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE A ZONING CASE AS, UM, A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY MEETINGS HAPPEN ON THESE ZONING CASES OUTSIDE OF THE POSTED PUBLIC, UM, PUBLIC MEETING AT CITY HALL.
UM, AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO GAUGE INTEREST IN THAT ZONING CASE, SEE WHO'S FOR AGAINST, GET MORE INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING THAT ZONING CASE.
AND, YOU KNOW, ANY BOARD COMMISSION MEMBER ATTENDING A COMMUNITY MEETING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT THEM TO ATTEND SO THAT THEY ALSO GET MORE INFORMATION, UM, ABOUT THE ZONING CASE AND SO THAT THEY CAN HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY ON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE ZONING CASE.
BUT THE DECISION ON THAT ZONING CASE SHOULD BE MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER ALL SPEAKERS HAVE BEEN HEARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'LL, UM, GO TO CHAIR STEWART.
UM, NO, I THINK THAT THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
WE SHOULD PROTECT, UM, THAT SPACE AS BEING A TIME WHEN EVERYONE CAN SPEAK UP AND WE WOULDN'T WANT, UM, OUR RESIDENTS TO THINK THAT THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE.
[00:35:01]
AND I THINK SOCIAL MEDIA CERTAINLY LENDS ITSELF TO PEOPLE PROCLAIMING THINGS TO THE WORLD, ALMOST LIKE AT A HEARING, UM, AND GETTING INFORMATION OUT THERE ABOUT WHAT, UM, THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS IS OR WHAT THEIR DECISION IS ALREADY IF THEY'VE ALREADY MADE A DECISION ON SOMETHING.UM, I THINK, I THINK TRYING TO PROTECT THAT IS A, IS A GOOD IDEA.
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE FOR DOING THAT? 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE AN INTERESTING ONE TO MONITOR.
WELL, IT WOULD BE AN, AN ETHICAL CODE VIOLATION IF, IF THEY CROSSED THAT LINE AND THEN THERE'D BE AN INVESTIGATION.
AND IF WE COULD SUBSTANTIATE IT, UH, THEN DISCIPLINE HAPPENS WITH A CITY OFFICIAL THAT'S APPOINTED, THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DONE.
AND THEN A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT CAN GO TO THE EAC, BUT BASICALLY THE, THE PROCESS OF SUBSTANTIATING AND THEN WHATEVER DISCIPLINE MAY FOLLOW WOULD, WOULD HAPPEN.
YEAH, I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'LL HAVE TO REALLY EDUCATE ALL OF OUR MM-HMM
UM, BOARD MEMBERS, COMMISSION MEMBERS, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, EVERYBODY WHO HAS THAT ROLE, AND, UM, FIELDS PASSIONATELY ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS.
UM, SO JUST, IT'LL, IT'LL NEED A LOT OF, UM, DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND HELPING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY AS WELL.
AND I, I, I DO WANNA ADD THAT, UM, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE DOES MENTION LIKE SORT OF A PUBLIC, UH, DECLARATION HAPPENING, LIKE MAYBE AT A COMMUNITY MEETING HAPPENING ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
THIS DOESN'T PRECLUDE A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER FROM HAVING A PRIVATE CONVERSATION, LIKE SAY WITH AN APPLICANT SAYING, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY NOT INCLINED TO SUPPORT YOUR APPLICATION BASED ON THESE, LIKE MAYBE ON A ZONING CASE, THESE LAND LAND USE ISSUES SO THAT THEY CAN WORK THE CASE, UM, AND GET TO MAYBE A, A BETTER OUTCOME ON THAT CASE, UH, FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.
AND I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT DISTINCTION TO MAKE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS AS WELL.
COUNCILOR MCGUIRE? WELL, I HAVE SOME CHALLENGES WITH THIS, UM, COMING FROM A BOARD OR COMMISSION, UM, I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WHEN IN PUBLIC MEETING THE RESIDENTS HAVE ASKED ME, COMMISSIONER, WHAT DO YOU THINK? THIS PRECLUDES ME FROM GIVING THEM MY OPINION.
THIS PRECLUDES ME FROM TELLING THEM HOW I FEEL.
THIS PRECLUDES ME FROM HAVING THE A VOICE.
THIS IS IN ESSENCE SILENCING MY VOICE AS AN INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE I'M IN A POSITION, I HAVE A, I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO FEEL THE WAY I FEEL AND VOICE THAT.
AND JUST BECAUSE I'M ON A BOARD OR A COMMISSION, I SHOULD NOT BE SILENCED.
MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT GIVES ME A VOICE.
AND THIS IS LIKE, IT'S TAKING PART OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT AWAY FROM ME.
SO LET'S SAY I'M IN A, I'M IN A, I HAVE A CONSULTING CASE.
I'VE MASSAGED IT, I'VE WORKED IT, AND, AND IT'S GONE.
NOW WE'RE IN BEFORE OUR RE MY, MY RESIDENCE AND I'M YOU, THIS SAYS, I CAN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING.
I JUST HAVE TO SIT THERE AND, AND SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
EVEN THOUGH I KNOW WHAT MY, THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY FEEL WANT AND, AND HAVE ASKED FOR.
IT SAYS I JUST HAVE TO, IT, IT SILENCED ME.
I I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THIS ONE.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS MEANS THAT THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN SAY ABOUT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, I, I THINK A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER IS STILL VERY FREE, UH, TO GO TO A COMMUNITY MEETING AND VOICE WHAT THEY LIKE ABOUT THE APPLICATION, THINGS THEY DON'T LIKE ABOUT THE APPLICATION, THINGS THAT THEY ANTICIPATE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON TO GET TO A BETTER OUTCOME FOR ALL PARTIES.
UM, AS THOSE NEGOTIATIONS HAPPEN, IT REALLY IS JUST REQUIRING, UM, THE BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER TO, TO KEEP FROM CONVEYING TO THE PUBLIC HOW THEY INTEND TO VOTE ON THE ITEM BEFORE THEY'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WHERE I HAVE HAD, I HAVE
[00:40:01]
SAID AT A, AT A MEETING, I'M NOT VOTING FOR THIS, AND HERE'S THE REASON WHY MM-HMMYOU MAY SEE IT LIKE THIS ON THE SURFACE, BUT UNDERNEATH HERE, THIS IS WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AND GIVING.
AND THEN, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GIVING ME THE RIGHT TO TELL THE RESIDENTS THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING AND SUPPORTING THAT THERE ARE PITFALLS OR THERE IS E OKAY, SO NOW LET'S, LET'S CHANGE THAT INTO A POSITIVE.
THAT IF YOU DO THIS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT AND IT'S A POSITIVE.
SO THEY'RE GETTING READY TO SAY NO TO SOMETHING THEY SHOULD BE SAYING YES TO.
IT SAYS, I CAN'T SAY ANYTHING.
I AS A INDIVIDUAL, I CAN'T GO TO MY SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE AND SAY THAT IF THEY DO THIS, THIS IS THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO DENY THEMSELVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT.
AND THIS IS, OR THIS IS WHY OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE NOT WRITTEN CORRECTLY, OR OUR POLICIES NEED TO BE READDRESSED BECAUSE IT SILENCED THIS OR IT DOES THAT.
UH, THAT THIS SAYS IN WHAT YOU SAYS, RECOMMENDATION PROHIBIT APPOINTED OFFICIALS FROM MAKING PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT IMPLY OR ASSERT THAT THEIR DECISION IS ALREADY MADE.
NO, I, I CAN'T IN REGARDS TO MATTERS OF COMING BEFORE THE BODY OR A PUBLIC HEARING, I, I CAN'T, I, I, I DON'T, I I'M SORRY.
I STRONGLY, CAN I SAY I STRONGLY
UM, I THINK I ALSO HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS ONE.
MAYBE IT NEEDS MORE WORK AND MAYBE I'LL FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BUT I THINK OF MY CPC PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN THINK OF CASES.
I, I THINK, LORI, YOU GAVE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, UM, MAYBE TELLING SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THE, THIS WILL WORK VERY WELL IN THE COMMUNITY AND THEY MEET AND IT, IT DOESN'T WORK.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A GOOD FIT.
UM, AND THEN THEY STILL PUT THE APPLICATION IN AND IT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THAT CREATES A DIFFICULT SITUATION.
UM, I THINK FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I FEEL, I MEAN, MAYBE I WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE THIS ONE NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK.
UM, I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH IT.
'CAUSE OUR CPC PEOPLE DO REPRESENT OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
UM, AND THE OTHER THING I WAS GONNA MENTION, I THINK FOR EACH OF THESE, IF WHEN, WHENEVER IT DOES MOVE TO COUNCIL, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE AN EXAMPLE UNDER HERE.
AND MAYBE THAT MIGHT HELP A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I THINK THIS ONE I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH AS WELL.
UM, I, I CONFER WITH, UH, THE LAST TWO COLLEAGUES THAT SPOKE.
IN A PERFECT WORLD, THIS ITEM HAS A CERTAIN INTELLECTUAL ATTRACTION, BUT IN THE PRACTICAL WORLD, I, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF GRAY AREAS THAT COULD EASILY VIOLATE THIS RULE UNINTENTIONALLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PLAN COMMISSIONER IS MEETING WITH A DEVELOPER AND TELLS THEM IN A PRIVATE MEETING, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION THE WAY IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, THEN THEY APPLICANT TURNS AROUND AND POSTS THAT ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR TALKS TO THE PRINT MEDIA ABOUT IT.
DOES THAT GET THE COUNCIL MEMBER IN TROUBLE? BECAUSE NOW IT'S BECOME PUBLIC WHICH WAY THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY SPOKE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESS OR NOT, IT'S BECOME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
IS THAT A VIOLATION? OH, I THINK THAT WOULD MATTER.
I, BECAUSE THE PROHIBITION IS AGAINST THE BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER SAYING IT PUBLICLY, NOT ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE SAYING WHAT THEY SAID IN A PRIVATE CONVERSATION.
I DON'T, I DON'T, BUT IT HAS THE SAME EFFECT THOUGH, MAYBE, BUT, AND I JUST THINK THIS PROVISION WOULD CHILL, UM, OPEN DISCUSSION AT A COMMISSION MEETING.
FOR EXAMPLE, A COMMISSIONER COULD SAY, UM, THAT THEY CAN'T SUPPORT THIS PROJECT UNLESS THE DENSITY IS REDUCED.
AND THAT'S ON DAY A ON THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.
DAY B, THE DEVELOPER COMES BACK AND HASN'T MADE ANY CHANGES.
WELL, WHAT THEY SAID ON DAY A IS STILL GONNA STAND.
THEY'VE ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY THEY CAN'T SUPPORT THIS PROJECT UNDER THIS
[00:45:01]
CONDITION.THEY'VE ANNOUNCED THEIR POSITION.
IS THAT A VIOLATION EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE SAME DAY? YEAH.
IF IT HAPPENED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO.
IF IT HAPPENED BOTH TIMES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEY SAID AT DAY A AT A PUBLIC HEARING, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS UNLESS YOU REMOVE 10 UNITS.
THIS WOULDN'T APPLY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
TH THIS RULE APPLIES TO PUBLIC STATEMENTS OUTSIDE OF A HEARING, AND IT APPLIES TO ONLY ITEMS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING THAT ARE, WOULD BE IDENTIFIED OR CHARACTERIZED AS A PUBLIC.
WELL, THAT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE.
AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE BETTER SUITED FOR AN ASPIRATIONAL GOAL WITHOUT STRICT CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATING IT.
SO I HEARD A COUPLE OF THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL ABOUT TRAINING AND NEEDING TRAINING.
IS THERE TRAINING ON THIS ALREADY? THERE? THERE'S REALLY NOT TRAINING ON THIS BECAUSE, UM, AS COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALWAYS TREATED THIS AS AN ASPIRATIONAL GOAL THAT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS ADVISED BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS AGAINST GETTING OUT IN FRONT OF THE STATE MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL PARTIES ARE HEARD BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE.
UM, ALL PARTIES ARE HEARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARING TO RESPECT THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
UM, SO I THINK YES, THIS HAS BEEN AN ASPIRATIONAL GOAL.
SO THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN TRAINING ON THIS.
UM, BUT I KNOW I, I HAVE ADVISED AND SOME OF MY, I KNOW A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES ADVISE THEIR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS THE SAME.
AND SO HAS THE ASPIRATIONAL GOAL WORKED? I MEAN, NOBODY'S DOING THIS.
I THINK IT WORKS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME.
SO, BUT SOME OF THE TIME IT DOESN'T.
UM, SO I THINK THERE WAS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION MADE ON A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS ABOUT, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ASPECTS OF THE CASE.
IF YOU SAID, IF IT STAYED LIKE THIS, I WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, ON THE THINGS I DON'T LIKE, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT.
UM, IS THAT THE SAME AS SAYING I'M GOING TO VOTE? NO, I MEAN, I, I, I THINK THE CONTEXT WOULD MATTER.
I, I MEAN, I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WOULD HAVE TO INVESTIGATE WHAT WAS SAID IN THE MANNER IT WAS SAID.
UM, DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS ZONING APPLICATION NO MATTER WHAT WOULD VIOLATE, UH, THE PROVISION.
UM, BUT I THINK SHARING WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT THE APPLICATION, THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE ABOUT THE APPLICATION, REITERATING TO THE PUBLIC THAT THESE ARE ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE APP BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMUNITY AND, UM, UH, THE COMMISSIONER, UM, THE COMMISSIONER REITERATING TO THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M WORKING ON THESE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT AND WITH, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BUT A FINAL DECISION WON'T BE MADE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WHEN ALL SPEAKERS HAVE BEEN HEARD AT THE PODIUM.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I ALWAYS ENCOURAGE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS TO TAKE THAT APPROACH.
SO IT'S NOT ABOUT DISCUSSING THE ASPECTS OF IT OR WHAT YOU, YOU LIKE THIS AND COULD SUPPORT THAT AND DON'T LIKE THIS AND COULDN'T SUPPORT THAT.
IT'S ABOUT SAYING, THIS IS HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE PREDETERMINING THAT BEFORE THE STATE MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING WHERE OTHERS MAY COME AND PRESENT A DIFFERENT ASPECT OF THINGS.
AND, AND IF IN IN PRACTICE, THE, THE WAY I READ IT, WHICH, UM, I'M JUST, I'M ENTER IG AND YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE OTHER IGS OVER THE DECADE, BUT AS I READ IT IN THIS ROLE, UH, I SEE THIS MORE AS A BRIGHT LINE PROHIBITION AND I UNDERSTAND AS AN IG I NEED TO GO PROVE THAT THEY DID THIS AND THEY DID IT INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
AND NEED TO BE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT OR, OR THE CREDIBILITY OFFICE GOES DOWN IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, GOING AFTER EVERYBODY.
I THINK THAT IS A BIT OF A GUARDRAIL, UM, HERE AND IN, IN MY MIND'S EYE AS I READ IT, I'M JUST GIVING YOU THAT INTERPRETATION AS, AS I'M READING IT.
IT, IT'S SOMEBODY STRAIGHT UP SAYING, I'M NOT VOTING FOR THIS.
THERE IS NO SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT.
UH, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANYBODY'S GONNA SAY AT ANY PUBLIC
[00:50:01]
MEETING THAT WILL EVER CHANGE MY MIND.AND THEN FROM THERE, THE, WE CAN ALL COME UP WITH FACTS THAT GET, GET IT GRAYER AND GRAYER AND GRAYER.
AND, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE, THE REAL RUB HERE IS, IS THAT TRUTH THAT, UM, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SCENARIO IT UNTIL IT'S HARD TO DECIDE, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO PROVE IT.
SO IT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, THAT THE TRAINING COULD BE A LITTLE TIGHTER BECAUSE YOU, I MEAN, YOU KIND OF ADVISE.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT EXAMPLES ARE GIVEN.
AND THEN THE EFFECT OF IT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS STATE MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING.
AND SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT? WELL, IT'S TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE PEOPLE, UM, DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES AND OPPORTUNITY.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WELL TAKEN I THINK HERE.
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM 12, A 29 30 ABOUT NONPROFITS AND LOBBYING.
SO THIS IS, HAS, UH, TWO RECOMMENDATIONS IN IT THAT ARE BOTH GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
AND THE, THE DIRECTION IS ADDRESSING A SCENARIO WHERE, UM, A NONPROFIT BECOMES INVOLVED AS A COMPENSATED LOBBYIST.
UM, LET'S SAY SOMEBODY MAKES A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS 10,000 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, SOMETHING OVER $200, UM, WE'D REALLY LIKE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TO SHOW UP AND TELL THEM THIS IS WHAT THEY NEED TO SAY AT THE MEETING.
UH, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN EXAMPLE THAT WOULD BE REALLY CLEAR.
AND SO WE WANNA SAY, WELL, IN THOSE KINDS OF SITUATIONS, WHEN YOU CAN PROVE THAT IT WAS COMPENSATED THAT, THAT THE NONPROFIT WAS COMPENSATED, THAT SHOULD TRIGGER THE SAME LOBBYING PROVISIONS THAT IT DOES FOR ANY LOBBYIST.
AND THAT'S, SO THAT'S THE INTENT HERE.
ALRIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, I AM CHALLENGED.
UM, I'M NOT SO SURE, MAYBE I DON'T APPRECIATE THE, THE, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE ANYONE WHO, AND AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF I'M IN, IF I'M HEARING THIS INCORRECTLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE ANYONE WHO GETS MORE THAN $200 FROM, FROM A NONPROFIT, THAT NONPROFIT AND BUT, AND SAYS THAT THAT NONPROFIT SAYS TO THAT INDIVIDUAL THAT THIS NONPROFIT BECOMES A LOBBYIST.
IF THEY SAID, BUT I NEED YOU TO VOTE THIS WAY ON THAT, THAT THAT ITEM OR THAT SITUATION THEN DOES IT, DOES THIS HAVE THE TENDENCY TO MOVE OUR NONPROFITS INTO, IF YOU CAN PROVE IT INTO BEING, INTO, TO BEING MORE OF A LOBBYIST THAN A NONPROFIT SUPPORTING SOMEBODY? SO I I, I DON'T THINK SO IN MY, IN MY VIEW, I THINK WHAT THIS IS ADDRESSING IS WHEN THE NONPROFIT NOT SPEAKING ON ITS OWN BEHALF BECAUSE THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF SOMEBODY OR A MEMBER OF A NONPROFIT SPEAKING AS BARRON ELIASON, 'CAUSE I'M IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING, UH, IT, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT ANY OF THAT.
BUT IT, BUT IT WOULD AFFECT A SITUATION WHERE A DONATION IS MADE TO A NONPROFIT AND THEN PEOPLE FROM THE NONPROFIT SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY'RE DIRECTED TO DO THAT.
AND YOU, YOU ALL LOOK OUT AND THE PUBLIC LOOKS OUT AND EVERYBODY'S WEARING WHATEVER KIND OF SHIRTS AND YOU THINK WHAT A PUBLIC OUTCRY WHEN IN REALITY THIS IS LOBBYING AND THAT TRIGGERS THE, AND SO THE, THE INTENT HERE IS TO THEN TRIGGER THE, JUST THE REGISTRATION.
THAT'S ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS JUST REGISTER AND SAY, IN THIS CASE, WE'VE RECEIVED A DONATION AND THE REASON WE RECEIVED THE DONATION IS THEY WANTED US TO SHOW UP AND SUPPORT THIS AND WE WERE PAID TO DO IT.
AND SO THEY'VE REGISTERED IT DOESN'T STOP THEM, BUT NOW IT'S ON PAPER.
UH, I WOULD GUESS COUNCIL MEMBERS, BECAUSE YOU KNOW PEOPLE AND WHAT'S GOING ON, YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT MIGHT BE GOING ON, BUT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T.
AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE REGISTRATION TO AT LEAST GET IT ON PAPER THAT THAT COMPENSATION FOR REPRESENTATION HAS, HAS HAPPENED.
UM, AND BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST THING I THINK OF AND I SEE IS WHEN WE COME TO COUNCIL AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE SEE A LOT OF T-SHIRTS AND ARE WE SAYING THAT THOSE T-SHIRTS CAN'T SHOW UP? OR ARE WE SAYING THAT
[00:55:01]
IF SOMEONE PAID THOSE T-SHIRTS THAT ARE PAID, THAT NONPROFIT TO HAVE ALL THOSE T-SHIRTS SHOW UP, THEN THEY HAVE TO BE RE BE REGISTERED AS A LOBBYIST.JUST SO IT'S CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC, AT LEAST IN THE SENSE THAT THEY REGISTER THAT.
SO WITH IT, IS THAT JUST FOR NONPROFITS OR WOULD THAT BE FOR ANYBODY? SO, AND IF, IF IT'S FOR ANYBODY, THEN THE QUESTION FOR ME WOULD BE THEN WHY ARE WE APPLYING THIS RULE ONLY TO THE NONPROFITS WE'RE NO, WE'RE NOT.
UM, IT CAME UP IN THE LAST AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING THAT I THINK THE COMMITTEE FELT LIKE THERE WAS A LOOPHOLE FOR NONPROFITS TO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER ANYONE AS A LOBBYIST.
BECAUSE THE RULE IS THAT IF I RECEIVE AT LEAST $200 TO COME DOWN HERE AND LOBBY ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE ELSE TO GET SOMETHING PASSED, I HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST.
UM, BUT WHAT WE OFTEN SEE IS THAT AN ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS SOMETHING PASSED, WE'LL DONATE TO A NONPROFIT, UM, TO HAVE THE NONPROFIT COME DOWN AND LOBBY ON THEIR BEHALF BECAUSE THEY THINK IT LOOKS BETTER TO HAVE A NONPROFIT DO IT THAN A FOR-PROFIT LOBBYIST.
AND SO BECAUSE THAT WASN'T COVERED IN THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT, WE'RE NOW SUGGESTING OR PROPOSING THAT WE COVER THAT.
SO THAT IF YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO'S COMING DOWN ON BEHALF OF A, THAT RECEIVED DONATIONS FOR LOBBYING, THEN YOU, YOU CAN STILL LOBBY THE COUNCIL.
UM, YOU JUST HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO.
SO I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF VAGUE INFORMATION IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD, WHICH IS ALWAYS DANGEROUS, BUT I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH THAT I CAN MAKE THIS POINT.
IF YOU ARE A 5 0 1 C3 NONPROFIT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU ARE PRE PROHIBITED FROM LOVING, YOU HAVE TO BE A 5 0 1 C FOUR.
I LEARNED THIS AS A P DIRECTOR 'CAUSE PS ARE TYPICALLY MANAGED BY NONPROFITS 5 0 1 C THREES.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GUYS LOOK AT THE TAX CODE ON THAT.
UM, IT, YOU'D HAVE TO, I THINK SPECIFICALLY COMING DOWN HERE AND BEING PAID AND SPEAKING IN, YOU KNOW, FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR ITEM IS VERY SPECIFIC LOBBYING.
LIKE THERE WAS CONVERSATIONS LIKE IF THE PIN DIRECTOR WERE, WERE TO MEET WITH THE PARK DIRECTOR AND TRY TO, YOU KNOW, CONVINCED THAT CITY PERSON OR, OR WENT TO PARK BOARD AND ADVOCATED FOR SOMETHING WITHOUT LOBBYING.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF GRAY AREA THERE.
BUT, UM, I THINK THE SITUATION THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED IS PROBABLY VERY DISTINCTLY LOBBYING AND I DON'T KNOW THAT 5 0 1 C THREES CAN DO THAT.
THEY'RE POTENTIALLY JEOPARDIZING THEIR TAX STATUS.
UM, SO I WOULD, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE MORE WORK TO DO ON THAT JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND.
AND TO ALL THE NONPROFITS OUT THERE WHO ARE TAKING DONATIONS AND THEN DOING THAT, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT PLACE TO, TO WORK WITH NONPROFITS IN TERMS OF EDUCATION SAYING, OH, BY THE WAY, IF YOU'RE 5 0 1 C3 BE AWARE THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR YOU AND YOU CAN JEOPARDIZE A LOT.
YOU LOSE YOUR TAX STATUS, YOU'RE IN BAD SHAPE.
UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT.
I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME, A LITTLE MORE DIGGING TO DO BEFORE WE, UM, ARE READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT ONE.
YEAH, I AGREE WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, THAT MAYBE WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK ON THIS.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, I MEAN I'M TRYING TO THINK OF, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT ARE IN MY DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY, BUT MAYBE THEY'RE MORE INFORMAL.
THEY'RE NOT REALLY A PART OF THAT SPECIFIC NONPROFIT.
SO I WAS LIKE, HOW, I MEAN, HOW WOULD WE EVEN, YOU KNOW, AND I MEAN IS IT JUST STRICTLY A NONPROFIT OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LIKE, UM, OTHER TYPES OF GROUPS? SO I THINK MAYBE TO CLARIFY LIKE THE 5 0 1, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, THE TAX CODE AND HOW THAT MIGHT RELATE TO THIS I THINK MIGHT HELP WITH SOME OF THE, UM, MAYBE TO CLARIFY IT A BIT, WE'RE MAYBE REFINE IT IF WE, IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS ONE.
[01:00:01]
ALRIGHT, CHAIR RIDLEY.UM, I AGREE WITH THE POINT THAT, UH, CHAIR STEWART MADE ABOUT THE TAX CODE PROHIBITING POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY 5 0 1 C3, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT NEEDS TO AFFECT THIS PROVISION.
IT SHOULD STILL APPLY TO ANY NONPROFIT, WHETHER A C3 OR A C FOUR.
WE CAN'T RELY ON O OTHERWISE IF WE MAKE A DISTINCTION, WE'RE RELYING UPON C THREE'S SELF-POLICING THEMSELVES.
THEY WOULD PERHAPS BE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS, BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE IN VIOLATION OF OUR ETHICS CODE AND THEY SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN THAT SENSE.
SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.
I CAN FORESEE THAT IT COULD LEAD TO SOME AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT WHERE THERE'S A NONPROFIT THAT HAS APPEARED WITH THEIR VOLUNTEERS TO LOBBY, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH THAT NONPROFIT WHO FEEL THE SAME WAY AND ARE SAYING THE SAME MESSAGE.
SO IT WOULD BE A FACTUAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THEY'RE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE NONPROFIT DIRECTION IS A PRETTY BROAD TERM.
IF THE NONPROFIT HANDS THEM A T-SHIRT SO THAT THE AFFILIATED VOLUNTEERS AND THE NON-AFFILIATED VOLUNTEERS ARE WEARING THE SAME T-SHIRT THAT ADVOCATES FOR A CAUSE, IS THAT DIRECTION, IF THEY TELL THEM WHERE TO SIT TO SIT ALL TOGETHER, IS THAT NOT DIRECTION? ANY RESPONSE TO THAT? MM-HMM
IT GOES TO THE, THE ISSUE OF YOU'VE GOTTA PROVE IT AND IN PROVING IT, THERE WILL BE A STORY TO TELL.
AND OF COURSE I CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE YEAH.
WHERE THEY, THEY SAID, YOU'RE GONNA WEAR THIS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE EASY EXAMPLE, YOU'RE GONNA WEAR THIS SHIRT, YOU'RE GONNA SIT HERE TOGETHER, HERE'S THE CHANT THAT YOU'RE GONNA DO AT 11 ALL THE WAY TO JUST PASSING OUT T-SHIRTS.
BUT, UH, AN IG OFFICE IS STILL GONNA HAVE TO PROVE AND MAKE THAT CONNECTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TRIER OF FACT, WHICH WAS, IS GONNA BE THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE MANY OF THOSE, IF IT'S ON THE FENCE, I DON'T THINK THOSE CASES ARE GONNA BE COMING.
THAT'S, WELL, PERHAPS NOT, BUT I THINK TRANSPARENCY IS THE VALUE THAT WE WANT TO PROMOTE HERE.
SO THAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC KNOW WHO'S RECEIVING SOME COMPENSATION FOR TAKING THE POSITION AND THAT COULD AFFECT THEIR CREDIBILITY ON THE ISSUE.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO PROTECTION AT ALL FROM THAT.
SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA AS LONG AS IT'S COUPLED WITH EDUCATION OF NONPROFITS ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO AND WHAT THEY CAN'T DO, AND THAT WE SOMEHOW PUBLICIZE THESE RULES TO PEOPLE WHO COME DOWN TO CITY HALL TO ADVOCATE.
I MEAN, HAVING DONE A NONPROFIT CEO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CLEARLY DEFINED TAX EXEMPT PURPOSE AND MISSION, UH, TO BE A 5 0 1 C3 THAT, THAT SATISFIES THE IRS.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'D TRACK THIS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'D PROVE IT, HOW YOU ENFORCE THIS.
IT'S ABOUT THEIR VERY EXISTENCE AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT CAN FUNDRAISE IN A TAX EXEMPT WAY.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE COMMENTS, IF THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO, I THINK THIS IS ONE THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO EVER GET OUR ARMS AROUND.
SO, UM, I DON'T SUPPORT THIS IN THE STATE THAT IT'S IN.
LET'S MOVE ON TO 12 8 35 PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS IS A SUBSECTION OF 12, A 35, UM, AND IT IS LABELED G UH, IT DEALS WITH CONTRACTS AND PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
THIS PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION IS ONLY ADDRESSING PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
UM, AND WHAT THAT SECTION DOES RIGHT NOW AS A GENERAL RULE IS IT PROHIBITS COUNCIL MEMBERS AND APPLICANTS FROM DISCUSSING THE APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE TIME THAT, UH, THE APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED UNTIL SOME DECISION IS MADE.
UH, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION, UH, SEEKING TO FIND SOME MIDDLE GROUND THERE, UH, BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS AND SOMETIMES IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DO IT DIRECTLY AND NOT THROUGH CITY STAFF AND THEY, THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND SOME MIDDLE GROUND.
AND SO THIS WAS WHAT, UH, WE CAME UP WITH THROUGH THE EAC
[01:05:01]
PROCESS, WAS ALLOWING WRITTEN COMMUNICATION USING CITY EMAIL BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, TO APPLICANTS AND ONLY IN THAT DIRECTION WITH THE QUESTIONS.AND THE QUESTIONS ARE FACTUAL.
AND THEN THE APPLICANTS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE FACTUAL QUESTIONS WITHOUT ADVOCATING, WHICH I'M WALKING RIGHT INTO ANOTHER SCENARIO, YOU KNOW ABOUT, WELL IS THIS, WHEN IS THIS GONNA BE ADVOCATING? BUT THAT'S HOW THE RULE IS COUCHED.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ADVOCATE.
AND THAT IS A TIMEFRAME THAT RUNS FROM THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED UNTIL THE MOMENT THAT THAT ITEM IS PLACED ON AN AGENDA, WHETHER IT'S A COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL AGENDA.
SO IT PROVIDES A WINDOW AND IT, AND IT, UH, FOR INTERCHANGE FACTUAL QUESTIONS, IT PROVIDES A METHOD OF AUDITING THAT BECAUSE CITY EMAIL IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED AND SOME GUARDRAILS ON THE INTERACTION.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, ON THE FACE OF IT, IT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA, BUT I HAVE A SENSE THAT THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN THAT.
AND I DON'T JUST HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR, PARTICULAR SCENARIO.
SO I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TO SAY.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, I HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS
UM, ON THE FACE OF IT, IT'S A GOOD IDEA AND I LOVE IT.
RIGHT NOW, WHEN I HAVE PUBLIC SAFE SUBSIDY MATTERS, I CAN'T TALK TO AN APPLICANT.
AFTER THEY ISSUE THEIR APPLICATION, THEN I'M BLOCKED OUT.
I CAN'T, I CAN'T MAKE IT BETTER.
I NOT, UNLESS RIGHT NOW THE RULE IS NOT UNLESS THEY'RE MEMBERS OF STAFF AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS IT WITH ME.
I NOW FOR REASONS OF PROTECTION, I LIKE THAT.
SO I LIKE, BUT I LIKE THE FACT THAT I CAN SEND EMAIL.
THIS GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GET EMAIL FOR FACTUAL INFORMATION WITH GOING STRAIGHT TO THAT SOURCE OPPOSED TO GOING TO STAFF AND HAVING STAFF INTERPRET MY, MY QUESTION AND THEN RESEND THAT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT.
I PERSONALLY WILL ASK IF, IF THIS IS ADOPTED, ASK THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT, BUT INCLUDE STAFF.
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, STAFF STILL NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION IT'S GOING IN BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO PUT THE CONTRACT TOGETHER.
SO IF I'M GOING LEFT AND THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING RIGHT, I'M GONNA GET THE WRONG CONTRACT.
SO I WOULD LIKE THE FACT THAT, THAT I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD RECOMMEND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I, I, IF YOU'RE GONNA LET ME TALK TO THE APPLICANT UNTIL THE, THE CONTRACT IS, UM, UNTIL IT, IT'S POSTED, DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.
I'M DOING IT KIND OF ANYWAY BECAUSE I ALWAYS USE STAFF TO GET TO THE ANSWER FOR MY PROTECTION, THE APPLICANT'S PROTECTION, AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE WRITING OF THE CONTRACT.
SO I REALLY DON'T, AT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I, I REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS ONE THAT WE REALLY, WE SHOULD LEAVE IT ALONE.
JUST LET IT LET IT BE THE WAY IT IS.
'CAUSE WE STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
WE JUST HAVE THE SCA, THE SAFEGUARD THAT STAFF HAS TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE CONVERSATION IS BEING HAD.
UM, THE, THE BASIC PROBLEM THAT THIS OBVIOUSLY IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS IS ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE A DECISION MAKER FOR OR AGAINST AN APPLICANT, AN APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC SUBSIDY.
THAT'S A VERY WORTHWHILE GOAL.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I WOULD PROBABLY NEVER USE IT BECAUSE I WOULD SEEK THE PROTECTION OF A THIRD PARTY INTERMEDIARY ON THE STAFF
[01:10:01]
TO WHOM I CAN SEND MY QUESTIONS AND REQUEST THAT THEY GET ANSWERS FROM THE APPLICANT TO CONVEY THROUGH THE STAFF MEMBER TO ME, BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY UNCERTAINTIES THAT WOULD EXPOSE ME TO RISK IF I'M ABLE TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE APPLICANT.SUCH AS WHEN DOES A FACTUAL QUESTION STRAY INTO ADVOCACY? THAT'S A VERY GRAY LINE.
AND I WOULD BE PROTECTED IF I WENT THROUGH A STAFF MEMBER WHO COULD SCREEN SOMETHING AND SAY, GEE, THAT'S STRAYING INTO ADVOCACY.
UM, OR THEY COULD FILTER THE RESPONSE THAT COMES FROM THE APPLICANT TO JUST THE FACTUAL CONTENT AND DELETE ANY ARGUMENT OR ADVOCACY THAT PROTECTS ME.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO IN THIS SITUATION.
SO I'M NOT AGAINST THIS, I JUST THINK ANYONE WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THIS IS POTENTIALLY AT RISK, UNLESS THEY'RE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW THEY WORD QUESTIONS.
AND IF THEY GET A RESPONSE BACK THAT IS LESS FACTUAL AND MORE AD TY, MORE ADVOCACY, DOES THAT PLACE ME AT, AT RISK FOR HAVING INITIATED THE INQUIRY AND RECEIVED THE ADVOCATES ARGUMENTATIVE RESPONSE? AND DOES THAT NOT PLACE THE APPLICANT AT RISK FOR KNOWING JUST WHERE THAT FINE LINE IS THAT COULD DISQUALIFY THEIR ENTIRE APPLICATION IF THEY'RE FOUND TO HAVE ADVOCATED.
SO IT PLACES THEM AT RISK TOO.
SO, UH, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS, I JUST WOULDN'T USE IT.
UM, ONE THING I SEE MISSING THAT I THOUGHT HAD BEEN SUGGESTED WAS COPYING STAFF.
THAT STAFF WOULD BE INCLUDED ON THIS.
SO MAYBE IT'S, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO INCLUDE THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND EVEN MAYBE THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AS WELL.
UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN INCLUDE WELL BY AMENDMENT OR, OR HOWEVER THE PARLIAMENTARY WAY THAT WORKS FOR, FOR YOU ALL THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND REJECTED, UH, AS IN THE ROLE OF INTERIM IG? I, I THINK IT'S A CREATES A, A GREAT AUDIT TRAIL.
UM, BUT IT WAS, IT ULTIMATELY DIDN'T MAKE IT, BUT IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE EAC.
UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDITION MADE TO THE POINTS BEING MADE.
AND PLUS I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY, THEY NEED TO BE IN THE LOOP ON ANY DISCUSSION AROUND A PROJECT LIKE THIS.
IS THERE A REASON WHY THE COMMITTEE, UH, SAID THE TIMEFRAME ENDS WHEN THE MATTER APPEARS ON A POSTED COMMITTEE OR COUNSEL AGENDA? BECAUSE OFTENTIMES AS SOMETHING GETS CLOSER TO BEING HEARD IS WHEN THINGS START TO GEL, MORE AND MORE QUESTIONS COME UP AND MORE CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN BECAUSE IT'S THE ITEM THAT IS, YOU KNOW, COMING UP IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
I DON'T KNOW IF MR. PERKINS HAD, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT IN DETAIL.
UM, I THINK THE IDEA WAS TO GIVE A WINDOW OF TIME TO DO THAT AND THEN SOMETHING HAS TO TRIGGER THE CLOSING OF THAT WINDOW.
UM, BUT THEY DIDN'T, I, I DON'T RECALL THEM SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT WHY THAT WOULD BE THE, THE TRIGGER THAT CLOSES THE WINDOW.
AND THAT ACTUALLY MAKES ME WONDER ABOUT HAVING A WINDOW OF TIME.
I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THAT, BUT IS THAT AN UNNECESSARY PARAMETER TO PUT ON THIS IF THE, I MEAN, THE WHOLE IDEA HERE IS OF THE EMAIL AND KEEPING IT JUST FACTUAL QUESTIONS AND, AND ALL OF THAT IS, SO THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, A A A REQUEST YEAH.
A RECORD OF ALL OF THE EXCHANGES, ALL OF THE ANSWERS, UM, WHAT THE QUESTIONS WERE.
AND SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE NEEDS TO BE THAT KIND OF TIMING ON IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT AND AS IT EVOLVES AND MOVES THROUGH, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS AT THE VERY END BECOME AT BEFORE IT COMES TO A VOTE.
SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WITNESS GOES TO FULL COUNSEL BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SUPPORT, UH, THAT, THAT GETS COMBED THROUGH MORE THEN.
AND BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT TOUCHES SO MANY COUNCIL DISTRICTS, THERE MAY BE OTHER OPINIONS ON THIS.
I BELIEVE, UH, CHAIR, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CENA, YOU HAD A QUESTION? UM, WELL, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, REITERATE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY SAYS.
I DON'T THINK THAT I PERSONALLY WOULD USE THIS.
UM, UM, I TEND TO USE, I MEAN,
[01:15:01]
I TALKED TO STAFF, BUT I WAS WONDERING, DID ANYBODY TALK TO THE PFC BOARD OR ECO DEV LIKE ANY OF THE STAFF, UM, TO SEE WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS WERE ON THIS SPECIFICALLY? 'CAUSE SINCE THEY DEAL WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE KIND OF THE, THE IN BETWEEN.AND I WOULD FEEL LIKE IF WE DO MAKE ANY CHANGES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE VERY CLEAR ON THE RULES AS WELL.
ANY OF THE STAFF THAT WOULD, UM, WORK WITH US.
I, I, I DID NOT TALK TO ANYONE.
I THINK I, UM, I THINK THE SAFER ANSWER IS NO.
SAFE IN THE SENSE THAT I MAY HAVE HAD A CASUAL, BUT I DON'T THINK ABOUT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER WHAT YOU'RE ASKING A A REAL REVIEW OF ALL THIS.
I'M GONNA SAY, UH, THAT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
I CERTAINLY DIDN'T GO, OKAY, GO TO THEM AND MAKE A PRESENTATION ABOUT THIS RECOMMENDATION.
UM, AND YEAH, AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN I'VE HAD, UM, ITEMS COME BEFORE ME, LIKE I'M, I'M VERY CAREFUL.
LIKE I USUALLY HAVE STAFF PRESENT WITH ME.
UM, IF, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY COMES TO HAVE A MEETING WITH ME, I DOUBLE CHECK WITH STAFF, YOU KNOW, FIND OUT IF THE APPLICATION IS STILL ACTIVE, IF IT'S BEEN, IF IT'S, UM, EXPIRED, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
SO, UM, IT MIGHT BE WORTH A CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, JUST TO, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE MOVE THIS FORWARD.
BUT I AGREE OUTTA CAUTION, LIKE, I PROBABLY WOULD NOT USE THIS AND WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY FEEDBACK.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO, UH, SPEAK TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE HFC AND PFC ON, ON THIS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS EQUATION AND COULD, COULD PROBABLY REFINE OR AT LEAST GIVE YOU SOME, SOME THINKING AROUND IT.
BUT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING.
I, I, I DID HAVE A THOUGHT THAT I, I WANTED TO SHARE ABOUT THE, THE, THE ISSUE OF A WINDOW TO CLOSE WHEN THIS WOULD STOP, THE EMAILING WOULD STOP AND IT'S, IT'S JUST I'M BRAINSTORMING AND I'LL MAKE IT FAST.
UM, I, I THINK ONE, IF, IF THERE IS NO WINDOW, UH, WHAT HAPPENS, I'M DOING THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET TO A COUNCIL MEETING OR A, OR A COMMISSION MEETING OR YOU KNOW, WHO WHOEVER'S MAKING THE DECISION AND THE OTHER PARTIES THAT MAYBE WANT TO HAVE A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER BEFORE THE CITY AREN'T THERE AND THEN BEGINS FACTUALLY WORKING EVERYTHING OUT WITH THEM AND GETTING THEIR QUESTIONS.
AN IT JUST FEELS LIKE THERE'S A, IF THERE IS NO WINDOW SHUTTING THAT IN THE MOMENT, UH, IF IT, UH, OF THE DECISION MAKING, IF IF I ALSO HAD A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER AND DIDN'T HAPPEN TO BE THERE, I WOULD FEEL LIKE, UH, THE PROCESS WASN'T FAIR IN SOME WAY TO, I HOPE THIS IS MAKING SENSE.
I'LL, I'LL BE QUIET, BUT WELL, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD, WITH THE, THE DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED AT THE EAC AND THEN THE FACT THAT, UM, THERE'S A CONVERSATION YET TO BE HAD WITH THAT DIRECTOR THAT THIS COULD GET REFINED BEFORE COUNCIL CONSIDERS IT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE A PROVISION GRAFTED INTO THIS LANGUAGE THAT CREATES A SAFE HARBOR FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THEY COMMUNICATE THROUGH STAFF TO THE APPLICANT SO THAT THERE ARE NO FACTUAL ISSUES ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S USED.
IF IT GOES THROUGH THE STAFF, STAFF CAN INTERCEPT SOMETHING THAT'S IMPROPER, BUT FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIAL, IT'S A SAFE HARBOR.
IS I, WE'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
UM, WOULD THE INTENTION BE THAT IT WOULD BE THEN ON STAFF TO SHUT DOWN ANY COMMUNICATIONS THAT GET CLOSER TO LOBBYING? I THINK SO.
IN THEIR OPINION, THEY'RE THE BEST ONES TO DETERMINE THAT.
WHAT'S FACTUAL AND WHAT'S ADVOCACY.
I THINK YOU ALSO NEED TO DEFINE STAFF.
LIKE YOU DON'T MEAN THE STAFF THAT WORKS FOR ME IN MY OFFICE.
WE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHO CHAIR RIDLEY'S GROUP.
I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IS REFERENCING IT WOULD BE STAFF DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OR HIRE YEAH.
FROM THE P-F-C-H-F-C STAFF OR HOUSING STAFF.
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO DEFINE STAFF.
[01:20:01]
WELL, STAFF WOULD EITHER BE DEFINED AS HOUSING OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE THE, THE SUBSIDY MATTERS COME FROM THAT I HAVE SEEN.
IT'S P-F-C-H-F-C, SO IT'S THE DIRECTOR OF P-F-C-H-F-C.
AND THEY'RE SEPARATE FROM HOUSING AND THEY'RE SEPARATE FROM HOUSING AND THEY'RE SEPARATE FROM, AND HOUSING IS SEPARATE FROM, UM, UM, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SO IF YOU HAVE PF IF YOU HAVE APPLICANT P-F-C-H-F-C AND THE CITY STAFF, WHETHER IT BE HOUSING OR E OR OR ECO DEV, YOU HAVE THE, THE, THE COUNCIL PERSON HAS THE PROTECTION, THE SAFE HARBOR OF STAFF TO TELL US WHEN WE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT IS APPROPRIATE FROM THOSE THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ASKING.
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO CRAFT THE CONTRACT, THE DOCUMENT THAT WE WILL SEE AT CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WILL TELL US THEY ARE OUR SAFE HARBOR AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WILL PROTECT US WHEN WE ARE GOING TOO FAR LEFT TOO FAR.
AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT, WHATEVER APPLICABLE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO, SO I THINK WHAT YOU ALL CAN DO IS COMB THROUGH HERE ON WHO NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED ON WHO IS COPIED SO THAT THAT RECORD IS COMPLETE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO BE ON THAT, WHOSE EYES WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, THIS IS WITHIN THE LINES, OR THIS IS NOT WITHIN THE LINES.
AND WOULD THE COMMUNICATION HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE STAFF MEMBERS BEFORE BEING SENT TO THE APPLICANT? BECAUSE ONCE IT'S SENT AND THESE STAFF MEMBERS ARE JUST COPIED YOU, WOULD THE SAFE HARBOR KICK IN IF JUST STAFF THEN JUST DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING? WELL, YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT.
SO IT MAY BE, HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS, UM, THAT, THAT NEED TO BE APPROVED BY SOMEONE.
UM, SO I MEAN OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ADDING SOME STEPS TO THIS, BUT THIS IS BORN OF AN ISSUE WHERE WE'RE NOT GETTING INFORMATION AND, AND IT'S, IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT.
UM, AND SO I WOULD SAY THESE ARE SOME GOOD THINGS TO TAKE BACK AND CONSIDER HOW THAT PROCESS WOULD WORK.
MADAM CHAIR, COULD I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YES.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS WOULD NOT PROHIBIT COMMUNICATIONS FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER TO AN PFC BOARD MEMBER, WOULD IT NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AN APPLICANT OR REQUESTER OR AN AGENT ACTING IN THEIR BEHALF.
ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO 12 A 50 TOMA AND TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT JURISDICTION.
SO THIS SECTION OF THE CODE DEALS WITH THE JURISDICTION THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION HAS.
SO IT'S AN INTERESTING DISTINCTION.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN LOOK INTO, BUT IT, IF YOU'RE, IF, IF IF THERE'S AN ETHICAL VIOLATION THAT'S GOING TO A HEARING, THE WAY THE THE CODE IS, IS CREATED, IT, IT'S, IT TELLS THE EAC WHAT THEY CAN LOOK AT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS MISSING, UM, PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A STATE LAW, ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS REQUIREMENT, UH, EXCUSE ME, OPEN MEETINGS, UM, ACT AND THE TEXAS, UH, PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
AND SO THE, THE IDEA IS TO ADD SELECTED PROVISIONS, UM, SO THAT IF THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO HEAR THAT.
NOW, RIGHT NOW, ALL OF THE, THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM THAT ARE SUGGESTED AS RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, ATTACH CRIMINAL LIABILITY TO THAT BEHAVIOR.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, IS IF THAT VIOLATION HAPPENS AND AN OIG GETS THE COMPLAINT, OUR INVESTIGATION STOPS.
IT DOESN'T END FOREVER, BUT IT STOPS.
AND THAT'S REFERRED OVER TO DPDS PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT.
UM, WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS THEN SAY IF PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT DECIDES THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE OR WHATEVER, OR WHAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THERE'S COULD BE SEVERAL, THEN IT FALLS BACK TO THE EAC TO DETERMINE IF THE OIG BRINGS A COM BRINGS THAT COMPLAINT TO THEM, WHETHER A VIOLATION OCCURRED AND IT BECOMES AN ETHICAL MATTER AS OPPOSED TO A CRIMINAL MATTER.
[01:25:01]
AND, UH, THE PROVISIONS ARE, UH, HAVING OPEN MEETINGS WHEN THEY'RE REQUIRED, UH, WALKING QUORUMS, PROHIBITING THAT, UH, DESTRUCTION, REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT SOMEONE HAS REQUESTED OR DISTRIBUTING, UH, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, UH, TO THE PUBLIC.SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR PROVISIONS.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING I BELIEVE, DID YOUR OFFICE BRING FORWARD? IT DID.
SO I THINK ONE COMMON THING SINCE THIS OFFICE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE THAT WE HEAR IS THAT WHEN SOMETHING IS DETERMINED TO BE OF A CRIMINAL NATURE, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO SEND IT TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WHOEVER THAT MAY BE, THE FBI OR PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT, OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER.
AND SO IT LEAVES THE CITY'S CONTROL.
AND WHEN PEOPLE ASK FOR AN UPDATE, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT IS.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S A CRIMINAL FOCUS.
AND SO IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THERE CAN ALSO BE A CIVIL PATHWAY AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS RETAINED AND WE HAVE A BODY, OUR ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF WHATEVER COMPLAINT THERE IS.
SO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR? NO.
I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL MEMBER ENA HAD ANYTHING.
CHAIR RIDLEY, WERE YOU HERE ON THIS? YES.
UH, JUST, UH, SOME CLARIFICATION.
SO THESE TWO PROVISIONS, L AND M ARE CURRENTLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES, CORRECT? YES.
THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE EAC AT ALL? CORRECT.
WE'D HAVE TO, TO, TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, AND I KNOW YOU'RE IN A, IN A LINE OF, BUT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, WE COULD PULL THEM IN.
WE'D HAVE TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE PERTAIN TO ETHICS AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT EFFORT WITH THE EAC AND WONDER.
BUT IF THERE IS DUAL JURISDICTION, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO TAKE THE LEAD, WOULD YOU NOT? CORRECT.
AND THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T WANT YOU OR YOUR OFFICE INTERFERING WITH THEIR INVESTIGATION WHILE THEY'RE INVESTIGATING A CRIMINAL, A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
IT'S ONLY IN THE SITUATION WHERE THEY DECIDE NOT TO INVESTIGATE OR TO DROP THE MATTER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE THAT YOU WANT THE JURISDICTION TO TAKE THAT UP AS AN ETHICS MATTER.
NOW WHAT IF SOMEONE GOES THROUGH THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCESS AND IS FOUND NOT GUILTY, WOULD THIS ALSO GIVE YOU JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AS AN ETHICS VIOLATION OR WOULD THAT BE CONCLUSIVE ON YOUR JURISDICTION AS WELL? I THINK THAT THAT IS A, A GOOD POINT AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ADDED HERE.
I KNOW PERSONALLY WHAT I WOULD DO IF, IF UNDER THAT STANDARD AND THAT BURDEN OF PROOF THEY WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY, I WOULD NOT BE BRINGING A CHARGE TO THE EAC THEN I THINK THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN HERE.
TO AVOID ANY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE.
WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
UM, THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT.
SO SOME OF THESE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES JUST MAY NOT PURSUE THESE BECAUSE THEY HAVE OTHER ITEMS ON THEIR PLATE.
AND SO IT JUST SORT OF WIPES OUT THE ABILITY FOR, LET'S SAY THERE'S A, A WHISTLEBLOWER WHO, WHO REPORTS ON SOMETHING, KIND OF TAKES AWAY THAT OTHER PATHWAY, THAT CIVIL PATHWAY.
SO IT MAY NOT BE SEEN AS CRIMINAL, BUT THERE MAY BE, I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN OUR CODE.
WHY DON'T YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE WHAT IT MAY NOT REACH A CERTAIN STANDARD WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE SOMETHING IN OUR OWN ETHICS CODE THAT CAN YOU SHARE MORE ABOUT THAT? MM-HMM
SO IN A CRIMINAL CASE, IT'S BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH IS A HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF.
AND THEN IN OUR CASE, IN EAC HEARINGS, UM, IT'S A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
UH, INITIALLY IT WAS CLEAR AND CONVINCING AND SOME OF YOU WOULD REMEMBER THE WHOLE DEBATE THERE TO, TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
AND IN THE SCENARIO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, THE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN AIRING AND BEING TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WILL HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A, A TRIAL AND A JURY OF THEIR PEERS.
[01:30:01]
HAS HAPPENED IN THE OTHER SITUATION THAT I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THE CASE JUST COMES BACK FOR WHATEVER REASON, X, Y, OR Z, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PURSUE THIS.THEN WE, THIS PROVISION WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE CAN PICK IT UP ON THE CIVIL SIDE AND GIVE TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.
AND THEN OF COURSE IT'S UP TO THE EAC TO DECIDE BY THAT LOWER STANDARD WHETHER IT REALLY DID OR NOT.
IF THERE IS NOT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD? YES, CHAIR.
I MOVE THAT IN ADDITION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 12 A REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS WISHES TO ADVANCE ITEMS 12 A DASH 2212 A DASH 35, AND 12 A DASH 50 TO A CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING.
ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? ALRIGHT, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS MR. PERKINS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING TODAY AND FOR, UH, OVERSEEING THAT WORK OF THAT COMMITTEE.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ALL GOING BACK AND WORKSHOPPING THIS FOR US.
I THINK IT WAS REALLY BENEFICIAL FOR OUR DISCUSSION TODAY.
SO IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 2:45 PM THANK YOU.