[Administrative Services Committee on October 28, 2021]
[00:00:02]
AND IT'S OCTOBER 28TH.AND THIS IS THE MEETING OF THE GROWN CITIES, CITY COUNCILS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE.
I'M CHAIRMAN ROBERT JONES SMITH WITH ME TODAY ARE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, DEBRA MORRIS AND ED MOORE, ALONG WITH VARIOUS MEMBERS OF STAFF.
NUMBER ONE IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
I APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 15TH, 2021 MEETING.
HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW? AND IS THERE A MOTION, SORRY.
UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORE SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS, ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, A, UH, I DIDN'T SWEAR, INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I SEEN, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE TODAY, BUT IF ANYBODY DOES ARRIVE, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND STOP WHERE WE'RE AT AND GIVE THEM THEIR, THEIR TIME TO SPEAK.
MOVING ON TO ITEM TWO B COUNCIL ETHICS POLICY.
WE HAVE A PRESENTATION, UH, FROM MR. ENGLAND.
I BELIEVE I HAVE, UM, PLACED ON Y'ALLS.
UM, THAT'S A HARD COPY OF THE, UM, RED LINED ORDINANCE THAT I SENT YESTERDAY BY EMAIL.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THIS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO PAGE BY PAGE, UM, MR. CHAIR, OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS AND THE LOW LIGHTS YOU TALK ABOUT MAYBE THE OVERRIDING PHILOSOPHY OR HOW YOU APPROACHED IT, AND THEN WE'LL HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS AND THEN DIG INTO THE DETAILS HERE.
UM, WHAT BRAD AND I DID WITH THIS WAS THAT IT WAS NUMBER ONE.
WE WERE GOING TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.
WE TOOK OUT A LOT OF LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, SHORTER, THE BETTER, UM, MUCH SIMPLER.
WE HAD A LOT OF REPETITION THAT HAD DEVELOPED OVER THE YEAR.
CAUSE IT HAD BEEN SO LONG SINCE THIS ORDINANCE HAD BEEN IN PLACE.
A LOT OF THIS HAD BECOME, UM, UM, HAD BEEN ADDRESSED WITH STATE LAWS SINCE IT WAS WAS ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED.
SO WE TOOK OUT A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ALREADY IN STATE LAW, AND WE MADE A LOT OF REFERENCES AS YOU'LL SEE TO STATE LAW AND STATE LAW PROVISIONS.
AND WE ALSO CHANGED SOME DEFINITIONS TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT WITH BOTH STATE LAW END WITH CASE LAW THAT'S COME OUT.
AND SO, UM, HOPEFULLY I'M DOING ALL THAT THERE, IT WILL AVOID THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION IN THE FUTURE IN CASE SOMETHING, IN CASE WE EVER ACTUALLY NEED TO, UM, ENFORCE ANYTHING WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
AND THE IDEA WITH IT IS, IS TO SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE TO WHERE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE AND THERE'S SOME MORE WORK TO BE DONE ON THE LANGUAGE.
I WAS LOOKING THROUGH IT AGAIN TODAY.
I MADE SOME CHANGES AT BRAD THAT CAME UP WITH THE INITIAL DRAFT.
I MADE SOME MORE CHANGES TO, IT KEPT MOST OF WHAT, 98% OF WHAT HE DID ADDED A COUPLE OF THINGS.
UM, UM, BUT OVERALL I THINK THE, THE DOCUMENT THAT BRAD PREPARED WAS A REALLY GOOD DOCUMENT.
HE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB AND HE'D BEEN TALKING ABOUT DOING THIS FOR YEARS AND HAD THINKING ABOUT IT.
SO HE HAD AN IDEA OF WHAT HE THOUGHT WOULD WORK AND WHAT WOULDN'T.
AND YOU'LL SEE, AS WE GO THROUGH, THERE'S SOME, SEVERAL QUESTIONS IN HERE THAT I'LL PRESENT TO Y'ALL FOR POLICY DIRECTION AND, UM, UM, WHAT Y'ALL ULTIMATELY WANT TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, SECTIONS, UM, SECTION 10 50, THAT'S THE VERY FIRST SECTION IN THIS, THIS IS, THIS SECTION IS REALLY, UM, UM, ARE JUST GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND THEY'RE NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USED AS AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AGAINST ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER.
UH, I MEAN, IT'S JUST GIVES AN IDEA THAT THEY WOULD BE GENERALLY USED MORE FOR INTERPRETED PURPOSES FOR THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT AND WHAT WE'LL DO WHEN WE GET TO THE END, YOU'LL SEE A, A, A SPOT IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR SANCTIONS OR SOME TYPE OF PUNISHMENT.
AND IN ONE CASE IN PARTICULAR, IT'S, IT ACTUALLY REFERS TO, AND I LEFT THIS LANGUAGE IN THERE TOO, UM, CRIMINAL PENALTIES THROUGH OUR MUNICIPAL COURT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL, Y'ALL GONNA REALLY NEED TO TALK ABOUT AND WHETHER WE WANT TO DO THAT, THERE'S MIGHT BE ONE AREA AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE GET THERE, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE, BUT FOR A LOT OF THIS, THAT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE.
AND, UM, AND SO WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS AND WHAT TYPE OF SANCTIONS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE.
UM, AND THEN IF YOU GET PAST THE SECTION 10 50, Y'ALL JUST STOP ME ANYTIME.
OF COURSE, IT'S Y'ALLS, THIS IS Y'ALL'S MEETING AND THEY'LL JUMP IN ANYTIME YOU WANT.
AND LIKE I SAID, UM, UM, LIKE I JUST SAID, MOST OF THESE CHANGES IN DEFINITIONS ARE JUST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
UM, UM, THERE'S NOT ANY DEFINITION IN HERE THAT'S, UM, UNIQUE TO GARLAND AND WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH IT.
UM, THESE DEFINITIONS ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY ONLY IN ETHICS ORDINANCES.
UM, UM, AND SO WE, WE JUST TRIED TO, TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE WITH THE DEFINITIONS.
AND SO, UH, IF YOU SEE A DEFINITION DEFINITION IN THERE THAT YOU THINK IT COULD BE WRITTEN BETTER, JUST LET ME KNOW.
AND WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT AND, UM,
[00:05:01]
WRITE IT BETTER.UM, IT MAY BE THE FIRST DRAFT OF MANY, I DON'T KNOW, BEFORE WE GET FINISHED WITH THIS.
ON ITEM FIVE IN THE DEFINITIONS, THE WHOLE THING IS STRICKEN ALL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PERSONNEL MATTERS, LITIGATION AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
IS THAT STRICKEN BECAUSE ITEM ONE HAS BEEN MADE MORE GENERAL.
THAT'S EXACTLY THE REASON WHY.
UM, YOU'LL SEE, IN THIS, THAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WE EXPAND UPON BECAUSE IT USED TO READ IN THE WAY THE CURTAINS, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
WE'D TALK ABOUT GOVERNMENTAL INFORMATION AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT.
THERE IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AN ETHICS VIOLATION.
IT SHOULD NOT BE ONE FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER TO SHARE INFORMATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS IT'S PUBLIC, UM, UM, AND WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN.
I'M QUITE CERTAIN, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, THERE'S SOME AMBIGUITY THERE THAT WE NEEDED TO CLEAN UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE, A AFFINITY SECTION DOES THAT PROVIDE ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY, UH, FOR CHANGES IN THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AND DOMESTIC UNIONS AND WHATEVER ELSE WHATEVER'S GOING TO BE CALLED, WHATEVER IT IS TODAY, DOES IT COVER BROADLY EVERYTHING? UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU OFTEN SEE WHEN YOU SEE A, UM, UH, AN ORDINANCE OR ANY KIND OF LEGISLATION REALLY IS A REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR CODE UNDER THIS CASE IS THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT CODE, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT AFFINITY AND IT GIVES DEFINITIONS.
OFTENTIMES YOU'LL SEE, AS AMENDED HAS BEEN MARKED OUT THERE, THAT'S REALLY NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WHENEVER, WHENEVER ONE OF THE RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, LIKE THE SIXTH OR SEVENTH RULES OF CONSTRUCTION IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE AS AMENDED LANGUAGE.
IT AUTOMATICALLY CHANGES AS THOSE TERMS GET AMENDED.
AND SO AS TIME HAS CHANGED, THIS WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE.
UM, UM, WITH THE DEFINITION THAT'S LOCATED IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
NOW WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE, STATE LEGISLATURE KEEPS UP WITH TIMES, THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND WE MAY NEED TO GO IN LATER.
YOU KNOW, ANOTHER COUNCIL MAY NEED TO COME IN LATER AND, AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IF THEY SEE IT THAT NECESSARY, THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT DOING IT.
UM, ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS THEY LOOK CLEANER JUST TO COMMENT, WE, WE, ESPECIALLY WITH SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, YOU'LL SEE, WE TOOK A LOT OUT OF THAT DEFINITION AND BECAUSE CHAPTER 1 70, 1 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REALLY GOES INTO THAT AND COVERS IT QUITE WELL.
AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE A LOT OF THAT.
IF YOU GO TO SECTION 10 50, 10 POINT 52 OF THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, UM, SUBSECTION G IS ONE THAT I NOTED AS SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT AND THAT'S HAS TO DO WITH A ZONING MATTER THAT OCCURS WITHIN 200 FEET OR WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA OF, UM, OF YOUR HOUSE THAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BECAUSE IT'S STILL A MATTER OF GENERAL APPLICATION.
WOULD, WOULD IT BENEFIT YOU? UM, POSSIBLY IF YOU DECIDE A ZONING MATTER WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA OF YOUR HOUSE, UM, IT COULD BENEFIT YOU, BUT IT'S NOT JUST BENEFITING YOU SOLELY.
IT'S MUCH LIKE WHEN Y'ALL VOTE ON, UM, UM, TAX RATES, UM, IT CAN BENEFIT YOU PERSONALLY, BUT IT'S BEEN, IT'S A GENERAL APPLICATION ISSUE, AND THIS IS REALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL MAY WANT TO DISCUSS, WHETHER YOU ALL WANT TO LEAVE THIS PROVISION IN THERE OR NOT.
I DID SOME CHECKING AROUND SOME PLACES, HAVE IT, SOME PLACES DON'T.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY A MATTER FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE COUNCIL TO ULTIMATELY DECIDE IF Y'ALL WANT TO LEAVE THAT PROVISION IN THERE.
I THINK IT'S IT'S SENSIBLE OPINION.
NO, I WAS JUST SAYING, I WAS TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE EXTENDED RANGES OF THE VARIOUS ZONING CASES THAT WE HAVE THAT THOUSAND FOOT, BUT I THINK IT STILL APPLIES THE RIGHT IN THE RIGHT WAY BECAUSE WE'RE SPREAD OUT FAR ENOUGH THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HIT MORE THAN ONE COUNCIL MEMBER PROBABLY.
AND IF IT WORST CASE IT MIGHT GET TWO OR THREE EFFECTED, BUT WE'D STILL HAVE ENOUGH TO HOLD A QUORUM.
AND I ALSO DO LIKE ON, UM, 10 52 B I GUESS THREE OR TWO, UM, THE, UH, NO COUNCIL MEMBER MAY VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATE ON BEHALF OF OTHERS IN ANY LITIGATION OR, UM, NUMBER TO REPRESENT FOR COMP FOR COMPENSATION OR OTHER BENEFIT, ANY PRIVATE INTEREST, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
SO, UM, THIS ACTUALLY, THIS COMES CLOSE TO WHAT, UM, I HAD DISCUSSED WITH YOU ABOUT THE, UM, BUSINESS OWNER ON THE SQUARE, WHO IS ANTICIPATING SUING US
[00:10:01]
OVER THE SQUARE REZONING.AND SO THAT WAS, I THINK THAT, THAT DRAWS A NICE CLEAR LINE TO SAY, IF IT COULD, IF YOUR INVOLVEMENT COULD IN ANY WAY, UM, BENEFIT SOMEBODY OUTSIDE, RIGHT.
IT'S THE 10 52 B3, AND I'M ASSUMING THIS WAS, THIS WHOLE THING WAS WRITTEN IN LIGHT OF THE LETTUCE VOTE ISSUE, YOU KNOW, A DECADE AND A HALF AGO IT COULD HAVE BEEN HERE.
SO THIS WOULD SAY THAT A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY EVEN VOLUNTARILY OR FOR COMPENSATION.
NOW OF COURSE, IF YOU'RE SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED BY A COURT, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GOT TO FOLLOW STATE LAW, THIS IS JUST POLICY NOT LOST, SO, YEAH.
WELL, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
I WAS, I'VE BEEN READING ETHICS ORDINANCES IN OTHER CITIES AND, UM, JUST, JUST FOR GIGGLES AND STUFF, IT IS TERRIBLY EXCITING OR AT LEAST TERRIBLE.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PLANO DID FAIRLY RECENTLY IS, AND IT KIND OF REMINDS ME OF B2 HERE.
UM, THEY, THEY HAVE SAID THAT YOU CAN'T, UM, THEY ACTUALLY DID TWO THINGS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WAS ABOUT SITTING ELECTED OFFICIALS USING THEIR TITLE TO ENDORSED OTHER CANDIDATES OR APPLICANTS.
AND, UM, THAT HAS BEEN VERY POPULAR IN PLANO BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, POLITICS.
AND SO THAT, THAT ISN'T COMPENSATION ONE WOULD ASSUME OR BENEFITING THE PRIVATE INTEREST.
BUT THAT WAS THAT THAT I ACTUALLY SAT AND LOOKED AT AND THOUGHT THAT'S NEVER BEEN COMFORTABLE FOR ME.
AND I DON'T DO THAT BECAUSE THAT FEELS TO ME LIKE IT CROSSES LINES WHILE I'M IN THE SEAT WITH THIS TITLE, ENDORSING OTHER CANDIDATES.
UM, BUT THAT'S IN OUR CURRENT ETHICS ORDINANCE.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING THAT.
IS THERE A FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTION THERE THOUGH? I MEAN, CAUSE YOU, YOU ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE RESTRICTING FREE POLITICAL SPEECH.
UM, F AND ENDORSEMENT, SO PLANO HAS THAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF AN, AN ENDORSEMENT AND YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR ROLE AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IN YOUR TITLE TO RIGHT THERE, THEY'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T USE YOUR TITLE OR ANY IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S LIKE A MIRROR OF OUR ALREADY EXISTING CAMPAIGN RULES WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF I'M RUNNING FOR OFFICE AGAIN, I CAN'T USE, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T GO INTO PLACES.
I CAN'T USE ANY OF THOSE RESOURCES RIGHT.
UM, SO THAT, TO ME, THAT JUST KIND OF PUT IT EXPANDED ON THAT TO SAY, AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE EITHER.
SO TO ME THAT HAD SOME HINT OF MADE GOOD SENSE.
AND IT WAS CERTAIN THEN THEY HAD, THEY HAD TWO, I THINK, TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WANTED TO RECONSIDER IT IN THE PUBLIC, TURNED OUT IN A LARGE WAY TO SAY, WE LIKE THIS.
THIS MAKES IT ALL MORE HONEST.
I DON'T KNOW, JUST A THOUGHT, THROWING IT OUT THERE, TALKING WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN MIND.
IF YOU'RE, IF THE POLICY IS, UM, THAT YOU CAN'T USE YOUR TITLE TO ENDORSE ANOTHER CANDIDATE OR A CANDIDATE OR ANOTHER PERSON, I THINK THAT'S OKAY.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T ENDORSE SOMEBODY FROM YOUR SEAT UP AT THE, UP ON THE DOT, I MEAN UP ON THE HORSESHOE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A LIMIT ON FREE SPEECH AND YOUR WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE USING YOUR TITLE, ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD BE, YOU'D BE IN YOUR POSITION, BUT THERE'S A FINE LINE THERE.
BUT, UM, I THINK YOU WOULD BE OKAY TO SAY YOU CAN'T USE YOUR TITLE, MEANING, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S IN PRINT SAYING, YOU KNOW, I ENDORSE THIS CANDIDATE, THEY HAVE A QUOTE FROM YOU ENDORSING IT.
AND THEN IT SIGNED, YOU KNOW, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, DISTRICT FIVE, FOR WHATEVER.
SO I DON'T SEE WHY YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ATTACH YOUR RESUME TO AN ENDORSEMENT.
NOT, I USUALLY DON'T PUBLICLY ENDORSE EITHER.
SO I'M GLAD WE WE'D ANOTHER OF US HAVE THAT BAGGAGE TO DEAL WITH HERE.
UM, BUT I, I CAN'T SEE, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE ENDORSING, UH, AN IT SECURITY COMPANY, I'D CERTAINLY WANT TO PUT DOWN THAT I'M A CHIEF INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER OF A BUSINESS THAT, THAT MAKES MY ENDORSEMENT MORE MEANINGFUL AND IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A COMPONENT OF THAT POLITICAL SPEECH THAT GIVES GREATER WEIGHT TO WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO DENY SOMEBODY THE RIGHT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M JOHN SMITH, DAMN JOHN DOE, UH,
[00:15:01]
I AM JOHN DOE AND I'M AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AND I ENDORSED THIS PERSON FOR DOG CATCHER.I AM, I MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO FAR, BUT, UH, BUT I UNDERSTAND, I GET YOUR POINT.
AND I THINK YOU'VE, YOU HAVE ALREADY INSTINCTIVELY AVOIDED DOING THAT.
I THINK, YEAH, NOT OUT OF ETHICS.
IT JUST MAKES MEETINGS A LOT HARDER.
BUT IF SOMEBODY WINS 51 TO 49 AND THEN THE HALF YEAR CONSTITUENCY DISLIKES YOU, IT'S JUST, JUST A BAD IDEA.
BUT THAT IDEA VERSUS FIRST AMENDMENT, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED ACTIVITIES THAT ARE REALLY BAD IDEAS FOR THAT'S TRUE.
SO, SO YOU, UM, THE EXAMPLE YOU JUST GAVE WAS SAYING YOUR RESUME THAT I WORK AS AN IT, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, FOR THAT, WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT WOULD ONLY BE RELATED TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL TITLE.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED AS AN INDIVIDUAL TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I MANAGE SO MANY, UH, RENTAL HOMES AND DO THIS AND THIS, AND THAT'S NOT MY POSITION AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
I'M JUST THINKING LIKE TESTIMONIALS THAT I PUT ON MY CORPORATE WEBSITE, WE USE TOTAL APPS AND, AND I AM SO, AND SO THE VP OF THIS COMPANY, AND, AND THEN THAT'S MEANINGFUL, UH, WHAT ARE OUR CURRENT, I THINK IT'S IN THE COUNCIL POLICY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE CHARTER BASICALLY SAYS WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE CITY GUERLAIN LOGOS, ANYTHING THAT, THAT THE CITY OF GARLAND HAS CREATED OR AS PROPRIETARY TO THE CITY, BUT YOUR TITLE IS, IS YOURS.
SO I KINDA LIKE WHERE THE, WHERE THE COUNCIL POLICIES ON THAT TODAY.
BUT, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND, AND AGAIN, WE'RE VIOLATING COUNCIL POLICY, AS WE SAID THIS MOMENT, LET ME A LITTLE, SCOTT'S THE MAYOR, THE AMERICAN CURTAIN.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE AND RAISE THAT BECAUSE I, I FOUND THAT I FOUND THAT INTERESTING AND IT CAME CLOSE ENOUGH TO, UM, MY INSTINCTIVE AVERSION FROM USING MY POSITION TO ENDORSE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT CARRIES AT LEAST SOME FRAGRANCE OF THE CITY WITH ME, RATHER THAN ME INDIVIDUALLY.
THAT JUST MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE.
SO NOT, IS THAT SOMETHING Y'ALL WANT TO PUT IN THIS DRAFT IS, OR NOT WHAT DIRECTION CAN Y'ALL GIVE ME? WELL, I HAD THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD SIT AND DISCUSS THE FINER POINTS TODAY AND COME UP WITH A LIST OF SOME FUTURE ITEMS TO FINALIZE THE NEXT MEETING.
SO I WOULD SET THAT AS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'LL NEED TO VOTE ON.
AND THE SECOND THING IS, IF YOU CAN RUN THE SCENARIO THROUGH YOUR HEAD OF, LET'S SAY, WE DO PUT THE ORDINANCE IN AND YOU HAVE TO LEGALLY DEFEND IT, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? AND SO I LIKE TO KNOW THAT SOMETHING'S LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE AND THERE IS A PATH AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME CASE LAW ON IT, UH, 0.0, WOULD BE AN INTERESTING, I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S CASE LAW, BUT WE COULD LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE WRITTEN.
SO WE THOUGHT, OKAY, THAT'S FINE.
ANY FEEDBACK, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR, ESPECIALLY IF IT RELATES TO FIRST AMENDMENT BIKES AND WHAT I THINK WE ALL PROBABLY CONCUR WITH LEAVING THE LANGUAGE.
WE'LL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON IT AGAIN NEXT TIME, JUST TO MAKE SURE AND GO FORWARD FROM THERE.
UM, IF YOU NOTICE IN SUBSECTION EIGHT, WE REMOVED H I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S COVERED IN STATE LAW, RIGHT? HE THAT'S THE REASON WHERE HE REMOVED IT, BUT WE ALSO ADDED AT THE END, I CLARIFYING STATEMENT UNDER SUBSECTION H UH, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IS CONSIDERED TO EXIST.
IF THE OFFICIAL HAD A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT OF THE VOTE WITHIN THE 12 MONTH PERIOD PROCEEDING THE VOTER DECISION, THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S, UM, UM, THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY, UM, UH, WRITTEN, UM, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WENT BACK IN TIME.
AND SO, YEAH, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IT'S, IT'S A DECISION.
UM, SO WHAT Y'ALL NEED TO DECIDE.
SO IF I OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY, I SELL IT OFF 11 MONTHS LATER, WE HAVE A ZONING CASE ON IT.
I SHOULDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION.
NOT NECESSARILY, THAT'S NOT REALLY A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AS DEFINED OF YOU JUST TO GO LOOK UP SUBSTANTIAL, LIFT INTEREST DEFINITION BACK IN THE DEFINITIONS.
YOU'LL SEE, UM, WHAT A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IS.
UH, IT MEANS A LOT OF RED LINES, UH, SINCE CHAPTER 1 71.
SO, AND I THOUGHT I BROUGHT MY BOOK DOWN, OH, THERE IS 1 71.
YOUR QUESTION IS NO, BECAUSE YOUR CAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY SOLD YOUR INTEREST OFF.
IT JUST MEANS THAT, UM, UM, IF, LET ME PULL IT UP, OKAY.
[00:20:01]
HERE AS THE, UH, AS THIS ITEM WAS REFERRED IN, I REFERRED TO IT AS A GIANT LEGAL MINEFIELD, AND I WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO LET THE CITY ATTORNEYS LEAD US.UM, AND THIS IS WHY I STAND BY MY STATEMENT.
THIS IS WHY I'VE NOT TRIED TO WRITE A SINGLE LINE OF THIS BECAUSE EVERYTHING I THINK I'M, I KNOW EXACTLY, UM, YOU'RE ACTUALLY CORRECT.
IF YOU OWNED A, IF YOU OWNED, IF YOU OWNED 10% OR MORE OF THE VOTING STOCK OR SHARES OF THE BUSINESS ENTITY THAT COMES UP, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO RECUSE IN THE 12 MONTHS PREVIOUS, EVEN IF YOU DON'T CURRENTLY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF.
OR IF, UM, UM, AT THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE PERSON FROM THE BUSINESS ENTITY EXCEEDED 10% OF THE PERSON'S GROSS INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
SO IF IT WAS SOMEBODY, UM, UM, A BUSINESS THAT YOU DID BUSINESS FOR, AND IT EXCEEDED MORE THAN 10% OF YOUR GROSS INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE NET, THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, 12 MONTHS BACK AND ALSO REAL PROPERTY.
UM, IF THE INTEREST IS AN EQUITABLE OR LEGAL OWNERSHIP WITH A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF $2,500 OR MORE, THEN YOU'D HAVE BEACON HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN PROPERTY THERE THAT MIGHT PREVENT SOME FUTURE, BUT ZONING, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD APPLY.
WE MIGHT WANT TO CLARIFY IF WE WANT TO APPLY THAT TO ZONING, BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE TRACT OF LAND 12 OR 11 MONTHS AGO, AND IT COMES UP FOR ZONING, UM, THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN, UM, UH, AT THE CITY WAS BUYING THAT LAND.
SO YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES.
AND SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN ZONING AND WHETHER OR NOT THE SEED WAS GOING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY OR ACQUIRE SOME TYPE OF, UM, OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN IT.
LET'S THINK ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT MONTH THEN, BECAUSE THAT ONE SEEMS LIKE AN EVEN BIGGER MINEFIELD.
I'M TRYING TO THINK OF ALL THE WAYS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN UNETHICAL OVER THE LAST SIX, 8,000 YEARS, AND THAT'S COMPLICATED.
UM, AND MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF INTERESTS AND YOU CAN KIND OF COURSE AT LEAST TOO MUCH SLEEP.
SO I'M GOING TO PUT THAT ON OUR LIST FOR NEXT TIME.
AND THEN, UM, SECTION, UM, 10 53, AND WE NOTICED WHERE WE REMOVED IT AGAIN.
UM, IT'S COVERED IN STATE LAW.
SO WE JUST STRIPPED ALL THAT LANGUAGE OUT AND MOVED THE CONF CONFLICTING OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT UP TO THE NEW 10.53.
AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THERE IS THE EXCEPTION THAT YOU SEE IN SUBSECTION B.
UM, AND THAT'S JUST RELATED TO, UM, UH, A THREE UP AN OFFICIAL SHALL NOT PERSONALLY PROVIDE SERVICES FOR COMPENSATION TO A PERSON ORGANIZATION THAT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL INVESTIGATION OR TERMINATION FROM THE BODY OR DEPARTMENT FOR WHICH THE OFFICIAL IS A MEMBER.
AND THEN, UH, THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO WAGES, SALARY OR EMPLOYMENT FENCE RECEIVED BY THE MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM A VENDOR WHO IS REQUIRED TO FILE A VENDOR'S CONFLICT DISCLOSURE, DISCLOSURE.
SO, UM, UM, YOUR EMPLOYER, YOUR EMPLOYER MAY VERY WELL OFFER SERVICES TO THE CITY, BUT HE FILES A CONFLICTS DISCLOSURE WITH THE CITY AND THAT THAT'D BE ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW.
SO GENERAL, UM, SO A ONE CITY OFFICIALS SHALL NOT RECEIVE ANY FEE COMPENSATION OR BENEFIT FOR SERVICES AS AN OFFICER OF THE CITY.
I GUESS THAT'S THE KEY PIECES.
AND AS AN OFFICER OF THE CITY, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH ME HAVING A DAY JOB, IT JUST MEANS IN MY ROLE AS A CITY COUNCILMAN.
IN, UM, IN SECTION 82, THERE WE TALK ABOUT OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.
SHOULD THAT POTENTIALLY BE DEFINED AS JUST EMPLOYMENT? YEAH.
WE CAN TAKE OUT THE WORD OUT 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT IT TO, I'M NOT SURE THE ORGANIZATION, I'M NOT SURE.
I THINK WE ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT WE DO.
UM, YOU'RE NOT AT LEAST FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS ACTUALLY BOARDS AND WE ADDRESS ELSEWHERE IN OUR ORDINANCES
[00:25:01]
ABOUT BEING ABLE TO WORK FOR THE CITY AND BEING A MEMBER OF A BOARD OR A COMMISSION OR COUNCIL.SO THAT'S ALREADY ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY OUTSIDE YOU.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY OUTSIDE.
I THINK THE TRICK HERE IS SOLICIT.
I HAVE A NOTE HERE TO DISCUSS THAT LATER ON, WE ADDRESS, WELL, WE HAVE A SECTION SET ASIDE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY AFTER YOU'RE OFF OF COUNCIL OR FOR A PERIOD OF MONTHS.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL ARE GONNA HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IF Y'ALL WANT TO HAVE THAT PROVISION OR NOT.
IF THE COUNCIL WANTS THAT PROVISION, THERE'S A, THERE'S A SLOT IN HERE.
I THINK IT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO PUT THAT WE COULD CERTAINLY PUT, WE COULD CERTAINLY LEAVE THIS SOLICIT EXCEPT FOR ENGAGING CURRENT.
I SEE YOUR POINT WITH THE SOLICIT.
IF WE JUST SEE NOW WHY YOU'RE SAYING TAKE AWAY, RIGHT.
I GOT YOU THAT THAT COVERS BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FAIRPOINT OPPORTUNITIES.
WELL, AND I'LL, I'LL ALSO BRING UP, UH, ANOTHER THING.
AND AGAIN, THIS WAS THE, THE LAST ORDINANCE I READ THIS AFTERNOON WAS, WAS PLANOS AND I WAS GOING THROUGH IT.
AND MOST OF IT IT'S SAME OLD STUFF EVERYBODY HAS, BUT THEY RECENTLY, THE TWO CHANGES THAT THEY RECENTLY MADE.
ONE WAS THE NOT ALLOWING ELECTED OFFICIALS TO USE THEIR TITLE, OR BASICALLY JUST LIKE IF YOU'RE CAMPAIGNING IS DOING THAT IN ORDER TO ENDORSE.
UM, AND THE OTHER THING, WHICH I ALSO FOUND INTERESTING, PASSED A LAW TO LIMIT THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY ON COUNCIL BY SAYING THAT, UM, I FORGET WHETHER IT'S, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE OR WHETHER, UM, YOU HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF IF YOUR CAMPAIGN HAS RECEIVED MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THEY INITIALLY MADE IT OPEN-ENDED AND THEN THEY TURNED IT TO 24 MONTHS IN THE LAST 24 MONTHS WERE TO LOOK BACK, LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, THAT, THAT, UM, SO IF SOMEBODY GAVE YOU A THOUSAND DOLLARS OR MORE TO YOUR CAMPAIGN THAT CAME UP AND THEN THEY COME UP FOR SOMETHING, UM, AND YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE, I HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND, AND HAVE, HAVE, I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HAVING SUCH A THING AT A MINIMUM TO SAY, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT AT A MINIMUM, BUT IS IT, UM, IS IT REASONABLE FOR CITIZENS TO BE ALARMED IF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL GETS A LARGE DONATION LIKE THAT, AND THEN RULES FAVORABLY FOR THE PERSON WHO COMES IN FRONT OF THEM, IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF CONFLICT.
UM, SO I, I WOULDN'T MIND EXPLORING THAT IN WHATEVER FORM COUNSEL FELT, UM, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BUT THAT JUST KIND OF SET US PUT SOME BRIGHT LINES ABOUT FINANCIAL RECEIPTS OF MONEY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S SLIGHTLY DISTANCED, UM, FROM THE ACTUAL DECISION, IT ISN'T LIKE HERE'S, HERE'S AN ENVELOPE OF UNMARKED CASH.
SO FROM THE DISCLOSURE STANDPOINT, I KNOW THAT THAT'S PUBLIC RECORD PUBLIC RECORD, BUT YOU HAVE TO GO.
AND I QUOTED THAT FOR THOSE PLAYING THE AUDIO AT HOME GAME.
UM, CAUSE MOST PEOPLE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE OPEN RECORDS REQUEST TO GET THAT RIGHT INFORMATION.
OF COURSE, I STICK IT ON MY WEBSITE BECAUSE WHY NOT, BUT LET'S USE ME AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE I'M NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING.
AND ALL MY STUFF'S BEEN OUT THERE, UH, GROWING FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, UH, DID A LOT OF IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS TO ME IN 2017, PROBABLY TOTALED ABOUT 10, 12 GRAND.
WOULD I BE ABLE TO VOTE ON A BUDGET THAT COVERED THE FIREFIGHTERS IN THAT SAME 24 MONTH PERIOD? WOULD I HAVE TO RECUSE FROM THE BUDGET? OR WOULD THIS BE ANYTHING THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTED ONLY THE FIREFIGHTERS USING THE, THE TAXATION EXAMPLE OF GENERAL BENEFIT VERSUS SPECIFIC BENEFIT? WHAT, WHAT, HOW WOULD WE, HOW DO WE OPERATIONALIZE THAT KIND OF THING? ANY THOUGHTS ON THANK YOU AND LIMIT TO AN APPLICANT IF THEY CAME BEFORE THE WHATEVER COMMITTEE OR BOARD OR COMMISSION THAT YOU SIT ON, OR THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IF THEY'RE AN APPLICANT OR A PETITIONER REQUESTING SOMETHING, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE LIMITING FACTOR.
SO FOR THE BUDGET EXAMPLE, THE, THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, OBVIOUSLY ISN'T IN CHARGE OF THE TRUE.
AND IN FACT, THEY'RE NOT EVEN A LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET THAT I'M AWARE OF.
I DON'T THINK THE CITY CAN'T GIVE MONEY TO THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, AND SO, UM, IT WOULDN'T IMPACT A BUDGET CONVERSATION.
IT WOULD BE, I WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE INCLINED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO LIMIT IT TO, YOU KNOW, AN APPLICANT OR A PETITIONER
[00:30:01]
THAT COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION BOARD OR COUNCIL.SO IF WE WERE VOTING ON WHETHER TO PURCHASE A TABLE AT THE, UH, THE GFA ANNUAL BALL, RIGHT, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING I WOULD NEED TO RECUSE FROM, OR THAT IS SPECIFICALLY A BENEFIT TO THAT.
UH, UNDER HER EXAMPLE OR A MEDIA, A I GUESS, A, A COMPROMISE TO THAT MIGHT BE A MIDDLE POINT MIGHT BE, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF, BUT YOU HAVE TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT, UM, YOU RECEIVED WHATEVER AMOUNT YOU RECEIVED IN CAMPAIGN.
WHAT I'M DOING BENEFIT IS ONE RECEIVING IRELAND HAD VOTING.
I DON'T SEE ANY THE SITUATION IS THAT THE, OUR FIGHTERS, UH, DID ENDORSE A PERSON.
THEY DIDN'T GET MUCH, THEY WERE, UH, GOING TO THE CANDIDACY, BUT AT THIS POINT THERE IS NO, UH, BENEFIT TO VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO I JUST, I DON'T SEE THERE WHERE IT WOULD, IT WOULD COME INTO PLAY.
FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, YOU'RE CORRECT.
IT WOULD BE STRICTLY FOR A TRANSPARENCY AVOIDING, IT'D BE, IT'D BE A TRANSPARENCY, UM, MOTIVATION TO DO THAT MORE THAN A THERE'S NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT, YOU'RE CERTAINLY RIGHT.
OR THERE'S NO, UM, UH, VIOLATION OF LAW BY ACCEPTING A CAMPAIGN, UM, UM, CONTRIBUTION AND THEN LATER VOTING IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT THEY BRING BEFORE COUNT.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF LAW.
AND I, I, I DON'T, I WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND READ AGAIN.
I, I WOULD NOT SEE THAT APPLYING TO THINGS LIKE, LIKE ASSOCIATIONS, POLICE ASSOCIATION, FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, BUT MORE LIKE YOU'RE SAYING WITH, WITH AN APPLICANT, UM, WHO IS ACTUALLY COMING BEFORE COUNCIL ASKING FOR, UH, A VOTE IN THEIR FAVOR, THE GFA AND THE GPA, THEY, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T HAVE A REASON TO DO THAT.
BETTER EXAMPLE THOUGH, IS I'VE RECEIVED A SMALL DONATION FROM, UH, PAM'S WENDIG YEARS AGO FROM MY CAMPAIGN.
AND OF COURSE WE'VE HAD VOTED RECENTLY ON A GOOD SAM'S ISSUE.
AND SO IT WAS WAY UNDER A THOUSAND DOLLARS, TRUST ME.
BUT, UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE KIND OF EXAMPLE WHERE IF THEY'D GIVEN A THOUSAND DOLLARS OR MORE TO ME, AND I WAS UP FOR A VOTE ON AN ISSUE FOR THAT SPECIFICALLY FOR THEM, UH, OR ONE THAT THEY'RE INCLUDED IN, UM, WITH SOME LEVEL OF REASONABLENESS, I GUESS NOT AGAIN, THE GENERAL TAXATION EXAMPLE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, THEN I WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT.
AND OF COURSE, UH, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THIS COUNCIL, WE WOULD ALL DO THAT ANYWAY, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT, ETHICS, AFFORDANCES FOR IS WRITING DOWN THE THINGS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO ANYWAY.
AND THEN PUTTING SOME TEETH IN THEM.
I MEAN, I, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT, CONCEPTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WRITE IT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE AN EXAMPLE OF IT, CERTAINLY.
UM, I'M HEARING TWO, UH, HAVEN'T DONE ANY RESEARCH ON IT, BUT I'M HEARING THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW LAWS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE COMING INTO PLAY THAT HAVE TO DO WITH, UH, OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, UH, TO SHOW ENTAIL WHEN THERE MAY BE SOME UNDUE INFLUENCE, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE IMMEDIATE IT'S, IT'S BECOMING MORE LAX THAT IT IS MORE STRINGENT.
AND I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING THERE IS THAT I THINK THAT WE DO WANT TO HAVE A VERY CLEAN, UH, CODE OF CONDUCT HERE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE'LL WANT TO BE CAREFUL TOO, NOT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE W WE'RE CREATING MORE PROBLEMS THAN WE'RE SOLVING.
THAT'S FAIR, BUT DON'T, WE GET AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE LANGUAGE MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL IMPROVES US AS A COUNCIL, AND DOESN'T THROW TOO MANY BUREAUCRATIC LAYERS INTO THINGS, THEN WE CAN LOOK AT ADOPTION AND, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST SEE WHAT YOU COME UP WITH AND WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT NEXT MONTH.
I'LL BRING SOME LANGUAGE NEXT MONTH.
IT'S FUNNY ON MY WEBSITE, I LITERALLY STAYED, I DO NOT ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE EXPECTED TO DO BUSINESS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL.
IT'S THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.
AND THEN BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN OF YOUR SITE, YOU'RE PROBABLY ONE OF THE CATS, BECAUSE REALLY YOU DO, YOU, YOU, YOU LAY IT OUT AND JUST LAY IT OUT THERE.
NO TIME, NO TIME FOR GAMES AND NEITHER DOES ANYBODY ELSE.
AND THESE, THESE THINGS ARE ALL MEANT TO, TO FORM A FRAMEWORK SO THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A ROGUE COUNCIL MEMBER, WHICH HAS IN YEARS PAST BEEN TRUE, THAT, THAT THERE'S A WAY
[00:35:01]
TO CALL THEM OUT FOR BAD BEHAVIOR.SO LIMITING INFLUENCE OF MONEY ON COUNCIL, IF THERE'S A REASONABLE WAY THAT WOULDN'T DRIVE US ALL CRAZY.
UM, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A BAD THING.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE HARD PART ABOUT WHAT WE DO IS SO MUCH OF WHAT WE DO IS QUASI JUDICIAL, UH, AND THEN THESE PLANNING AND ZONING CASES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WE ALMOST HAVE TO ADOPT BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ETHICS CRITERIA TO KIND OF, WE'RE SORT OF COBBLING THIS TOGETHER.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT IN.
HEY, UM, AND THEN WITH SECTION 10.5 FOR THE UNFAIR ADVANCEMENT OF PRIVATE INTERESTS, UM, UM, IT WAS JUST, UH, IT WAS JUST CLEAN UP LANGUAGE IN THERE.
IT WAS, UM, UM, NUMBER FOUR HAS THE MOST BEFORE HAS THE, OBVIOUSLY HAS THE MOST AMENDMENTS LINE AMENDMENTS.
UM, UM, BUT IT'S REALLY ALL, UM, WAR CLEANUP AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THERE AND LET YOU ALL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A CHANGE THAT Y'ALL HAVE BEEN THINKING OF.
UM, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SUBSTANCE, SO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT WE PLACED IN THIS PARTICULAR DRAFT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF, UM, HOW ELECTED OFFICIAL COULD USE THEIR POSITION TO UNFAIRLY IMPEDE THE PERSONAL INTERESTS OF THE OFFICIAL OR ANOTHER PERSON? UH, UNFAIRLY ADVANCED? YOU CAN SEE THAT PRETTY CLEARLY IS OKAY.
YOU KNOW, I'LL VOTE FOR YOU, BUT UNFAIRLY IMPEDE.
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? IT WOULD BE IF, UM, SOMEBODY CAME TO YOU, UM, ON THE SQUARE, A BUSINESS ON THE SQUARE CAME TO YOU AND SAID, HEY, I'M GETTING SOME COMPETITION, UH, ACROSS THE WAY.
AND, UM, IT WOULD REALLY, UM, IT WOULD, IT'S GONNA HURT MY BUSINESS AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF HE WOULD DO WHAT YOU CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY AREN'T, YOU DON'T GET THE ZONING CHANGE.
I JUST DESCRIBED 10% OF MY PHONE CALLS THAT I GET FROM CONSTITUENTS.
AND I GO, YEAH, I'M NOT DOING THIS RIGHT.
SO AS FAR AS IMPEDING THOSE MIGHT, THAT ALSO COUNT FOR PEOPLE GIVING PEOPLE FAKE MAPS FOR CERTAIN, CERTAIN WAYS, OR PAYING AN OFFICER TO WALK ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER FROM CROSSING THE GUZZLER FINISHED LINE.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S IMPEDING MY PERSONAL INTERESTS.
WELL, PHYSICALLY IMPEDING, AND I HAVE THIS ON CAMERA WITH ASH PASSING HANDS.
LET'S, LET'S, LET'S CONVENE AN ETHICS BOARD ON ALL OF THIS.
I'VE SEEN SOME SHADY STUFF AROUND THAT GUZZLER THING, THE SECTION 10 54 PART FOUR, UH, WHAT DID JOEL DROP THE, UH, KHAN SANGUINE NUITY AND AFFINITY LANGUAGE ON THAT ONE? I, LET ME GO BACK TO THE IT'S BECAUSE THE REP THE TERM RELATIVE AS WE, SINCE WE CHANGED THAT DEFINITION, UM, WITH THE RED LINE, IT CAPTURES IT, UM, THE WAY WHERE HE WROTE IT, IT JUST MADE IT A LITTLE SIMPLER.
ALTHOUGH MY DAUGHTER KEEPS TELLING ME SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DO IT, SO YOU SHOULD JUST, SOMEBODY APPOINTS HER.
HOW ABOUT, UM, UM, CHILDREN OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND AGAIN, MY MINOR, ALL OLD PEOPLE, BUT WHO, WHO COMPLETE THE GARLAND YOUTH COUNSELING MADE ME THINK ABOUT THIS? WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN SOME CITY, UM, EVENT OR PROJECT THAT THEY WOULD BENEFIT FROM OR BE NAMED TO? UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY OTHER STUFF.
I THINK THIS ONLY COVERS APPOINTMENTS BY BORDER COMING TO APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS ARE COMING.
OH, A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SHOULD NOT APPOINT A MEMBER OF THEIR FAMILY TO ANY OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
WELL, IT GETS INTERESTING THOUGH, IS THAT THE WAY I READ THIS AND THE WAY THE ORIGINAL POLICY WAS ALSO NO OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER POINTS HERE IN A POINT YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER EITHER REALLY, OR YOUR RELATIVES.
SO I'VE GOT, UM, A HUSBAND AND WIFE TEAM AND MY DISTRICT, ONE OF THEIR, BOTH ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, ONE OF THEM MAY RUN FROM MY SEAT WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
THE OTHER ONE CAN NO LONGER BE A MEMBER OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION.
SO IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHICH ONE RUNS AND WHICH ONE GETS ANGRY.
I TOLD THEM BOTH TO BOTH RUN FOR COUNCIL AND THE WINTER WINDS OR
[00:40:01]
WHATEVER, A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF.JUST LET YOUR WIFE WHEN RURAL YOU'RE REALLY YOUR LIFE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ON 10.5, FIVE OR FIVE, FOUR OTHER.
FORMER CITY OFFICIALS IS 10.55.
AND, UM, THIS IS THE SECTION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PUNISHMENT AND THE SANCTIONS THAT IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE TO LEAVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN PLACE THAT IS CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES, BECAUSE HOW ELSE THE QUESTION BECOMES, HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THIS AGAINST FORMER CITY OFFICIALS? YEAH, UNLESS THAT'S IN PLACE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY COUNCIL SANCTIONS WOULD NOT WORK OR BE APPROPRIATE OR EVEN APPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT, THEY WOULDN'T BE ON A BOARD OR, UM, ON A COMMITTEE.
UM, YOU HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS TO SANCTION EACH OTHER.
AND, AND JUST SO EVERYONE, I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IMPEACHMENTS NEVER AN OPTION RIGHT NOW.
THEY, YOU KNOW, THE ONE THING THAT HOME RULE CITIES HAVE THAT NO OTHER, UM, UM, POLITICAL, UM, UM, BODY HAS IN TEXAS IS THE RIGHT TO RECALL.
AND SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO RIGHT TO RECALL, EXCEPT FOR HOME RULED MUNICIPALITIES IN TEXAS.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE RECOURSE THAT Y'ALL HAVE, IF SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, THEN THE RECOURSE THAT CITIZENS HAVE IS FOR IS THERE'S A DIRECT VOTE.
UM, BUT, AND SO W AND LOOKING AT THE FORMER CITY OFFICIALS, THIS IS THE ONE AREA WHERE I, I THOUGHT, OKAY.
CAUSE I, I NEVER REALLY LIKED THE IDEA OF A CRIMINAL PENALTY, UM, PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF THESE, BUT THEN I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD ENFORCE SECTION 10.55 WITHOUT ONE, QUITE FRANKLY, OTHER THAN SHAMING THEM IN PUBLIC, MAYBE.
UM, AND SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL SHOULD DISCUSS PROBABLY AND DECIDE IS WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR THESE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS, OR IF Y'ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH CRIMINAL PENALTIES OR NOT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
UM, ON, ON A, B ONE, THE FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, OR, OKAY.
WE'VE STRICKEN NUMBER OF THE COUNCIL OR A BOARD OR COMMISSION OF WHICH THE OFFICIAL WAS A MEMBER.
UM, SO FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION OF HIS OR HER DUTIES, A FORMER OFFICIAL MAY NOT REPRESENT ANY GROUP PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN HIMSELF, HERSELF, OR HIS, OR HER RELATIVE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO, SO I, I'M JUST SITTING HERE THINKING, AGAIN, YOU CAST A NET AND YOU TRY TO ONLY CATCH THE FISH YOU WANT.
SO DAVID GIBBONS, AS A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, WE THEN MOVED TO JFC.
WELL, WOULD IT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD NOT WANT TO THROW STUMBLING BLOCKS IN FRONT OF HIM, WHAT WE CAN DO THERE.
WE CAN DO A REWRITE AND TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME MORE LANGUAGE TO, UM, AVOID THAT SITUATION.
OR WE COULD EXPRESS EXPRESSLY RIGHT IN THERE, SOMETHING ABOUT, UM, ORGANIZATIONS OR ENTITIES THAT ARE, UM, THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY THE CITY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, OR, UH, TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
WE COULD EVEN NAME A OUT IF WE, IF WE, IF WE NEEDED TO.
SO I WAS GOING TO ASK SIMILAR QUESTION ABOUT THE, UM, UH, THE PARKS FOUNDATION THAT WE HAVE IF SOMEBODY STOPS BEING A MEMBER OF THE PARKS BOARD, BUT THEY REMEMBER THE PARKS FOUNDATION.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PARKS BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT MAYBE LET ME WORK ON SOME LANG.
THAT'S A GOOD, THAT'S A GREAT CATCH.
LET ME WORK SOME ON SOME LANGUAGE FOR THAT.
LET'S DO SCHOOL BACK TO LET'S TAKE DAVID SOMEONE WAY, LIKE LET'S TAKE HIM OUT OF THE EQUATION.
AND THEN WHY WOULD THE LAW HAVE BEEN PUT THERE TO BEGIN WITH? HMM, I DON'T THINK THE, I DON'T THINK IT WAS PLACED THERE.
I DON'T THINK IT CONTEMPLATED THE ENTITIES THAT THE CITY HAS CREATED.
I THINK IT WAS ONLY FOR OUTSIDE ENTITIES.
I DON'T KNOW IF I REALLY WANT TO EVER BRING A PERSONALITY OR A PERSON INTO PLAY AS IT RELATES TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT.
I REALLY THINK IT HAS TO, IT SHOULD BE, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
WHO DO WE WANT THAT THERE OR NOT.
AND IS THERE A PURPOSE FOR IT BEING THERE TO BEGIN WITH? WELL, AND I GOT TO GO BACK TO AGAIN, TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTION, WHAT RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE TO STOP SOMEBODY FROM ENGAGING IN POLITICAL SPEECH AT THE PODIUM,
[00:45:01]
IN OUR, IN THIS PUBLICLY FUNDED BUILDING, NO MATTER WHO THEY REPRESENT.I MEAN, I DON'T LIKE THE REVOLVING DOOR LOBBY THING EITHER, BUT IF YOU'RE HERE TO, TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO HEAR THAT POLITICAL STATEMENT.
WELL, THIS IS TIME LIMITED TO ONE YEAR.
SO THIS ISN'T A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
WHAT ABOUT ANY, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, WE COULD SAY ANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR CORPORATION OF A GOVERNMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME SORT OF PUBLIC SECTOR, PUBLIC SECTOR ENTITY, OR WHATEVER THE, WHAT ARE THE, WHATEVER THE BEST LEGAL DEFINITION IS THAT THAT GIVES US A PLACE.
WELL, WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE'RE GOING DOWN THIS QUARTER DIRECTION.
I THINK ONE YEAR IS A REASONABLE THING.
AND THAT JUST TO BREAK THAT, UM, KIND OF EMOTIONAL, IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY YOU'RE USED TO WORKING WITH THEM AS A COLLEAGUE, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE OVER THERE, ADAMANTLY LOBBYING FOR SOMETHING, I CAN SEE THAT AS BEING A PROBLEM.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE A YEAR IS JUST, THAT'S PRETTY MILD AND IT'S PRETTY SENSIBLE.
SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT, BUT JUST MAKING SURE WE'RE ONLY CATCHING THE FISH WE WANT.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES THAT WOULD INCLUDE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OF OUR CREATION AND MARROW TASKS FOR TASK FORCES, THERE'S BEEN A DISCUSSION, UH, JUST STARTED TODAY THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WHEN CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL ROLL OFF, UH, THERE ARE SOME, SOME INITIATIVES IN FLIGHT THAT THEY MAY WANT TO STILL BE A PART OF.
AND SO WE COULD USE THE MAYORAL TASKFORCE AS IT PART, BUT THEY MAY NEED TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, UH, TO GIVE THOSE UPDATES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO CATCH THAT AND THIS NET, SO JUST SOME THOUGHTS.
UM, FOR A NON-PROFITS, CAN YOU GIVE US A SHOPPING LIST IN THE, UH, FOR NEXT TIME? IT'S A FAIR.
IF YOU FLIP PAGE OVER, YOU'LL SEE THE REVOLVING DOOR.
THIS IS ONE THAT, UM, THIS IS A PLACE WHERE IF Y'ALL WERE TO, UM, PUT EXPRESS LANGUAGE IN HERE CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF PAST SINS, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO DO THAT.
IF Y'ALL WANTED TO PUT ANY KIND OF LIMITATIONS ON THAT.
WE SAW SOME OF THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO A FORMER MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO THEN WANTED TO WORK FOR THE CITY, BUT THERE WAS A, A TIME LIMIT.
UM, AGAIN, ONE YEAR IS NOT HORRIBLY ONEROUS WITH ANY OF THESE THINGS.
IT JUST KIND OF, IT BREAKS THAT THAT IMPRESSION OF AUTHORITY AUTHORITATIVE VERSUS A CITIZEN.
I, I DON'T LIKE THE REVOLVING DOOR LOBBYING.
SO WITH THE GIBBONS EXAMPLE, IS HE OKAY IN HIS CURRENT ROLE UNDER THIS? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE CITY, IT'S A, IT'S ITS OWN GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT IT IS A, IS IT A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT IS UNDER THE CITY'S UMBRELLA OR IS IT KIND OF A STANDALONE THING? IT'S, IT'S A STANDALONE.
IT IS, IT IS, WAS CREATED TO BENEFIT THE CITY.
AND THAT'S THE KIND OF THE LANGUAGE I WOULD USE AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED IN OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION ABOUT LOBBYING FOR A THIRD PARTY.
UM, BUT IT IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY.
BID, UM, REMIND ME WHEN MR. GIBBONS WAS, UM, PUT IN HIS POSITION NOW, WAS THAT HE WAS THAT AFTER A YEAR OF NO, NO, NO.
HE RESIGNED FROM, HE RESIGNED TO TAKE THAT ROLE IMMEDIATELY.
AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING EVERYONE'S COMFORTABLE WITH THEN, UM, THAT'S DEFINITELY A TALKING POINT.
WELL, THAT WOULD BE THE DISCOUNT.
WELL, THAT WOULD BE THE POINT ABOUT SOLICITING EMPLOYMENT, WHICH WOULD BE, WHICH WOULD COVER THAT PIECE IS ESSENTIALLY IT'S RESIGNED AND WAIT A YEAR TO APPLY.
AND JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO SECTION IT FOR THE FUTURE.
[00:50:02]
BUT IT'S TRYING TO SUSS OUT WHAT DOES HARM THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO PUT IN BOUNDARIES TO PREVENT HARM FROM HAPPENING.SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED WITH DAVID GIBBONS DIDN'T IN ANY WAY HARM THE CITY, THE OPPOSITE HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN A MAGICAL, WONDERFUL THING FOR ALL OF US.
SO I JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT HERE TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT, WHAT WOULD MAKE THIS UNIQUE FROM, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM ME FROM SOMEBODY RESIGNING OR ROLLING OFF OF COUNCIL AND THEN PURSUING THEIR OWN AGENDA AND COMING BACK TO US ALL THE TIME.
SO I DON'T KNOW, GLAD I'M NOT A LAWYER.
YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM TO WORK ALL THIS STUFF OUT.
IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S CERTAINLY FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE OF A BALANCING ACT.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE BENEFITS VERSUS THE DOWNSIDE OF POINTING A COUNCIL MEMBER TO A PLACE IN DAVID'S POSITION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE, AND THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS TO IT AND, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST HAVE TO ASK, OKAY.
DAVE HAD, HE HAD SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.
HE HAS THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT HE'S DEVELOPED.
AND SO THERE WAS A LOT OF BENEFIT.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY, UM, CERTAINLY NOTHING IN LAW IS, UM, IT'S NOT A GRAY AREA IN LAW AT ALL.
IT'S CLEARLY, UM, LEGAL TO, UM, UM, FOR THAT APPOINTMENT OR FOR THAT HIRE TO OCCUR.
IT'S JUST REALLY WHAT, WHAT DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO DO ABOUT THAT? YEAH.
COMMENTS, IT'S A BALANCING ACT.
I MEAN, IT'S LIKE HE STATED, UH, BUT AGAIN, I'M DAVID AGAIN, ONE OF THOSE UNIQUE CREATURES, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, SUPPOSE HE HAD BEEN SOMEONE ELSE THOUGH, I SUPPOSE THERE HAD BEEN A SITUATION WHERE HE DIDN'T TURN OUT TO BE A DAVID GIBBONS AND THEN HE COULD USE THAT SITUATION TO REALLY, UH, CAUSE US HARM.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE REALLY WANT TO WATCH OUR LANGUAGE.
I MEAN, IF HE WAS, IF SOMEBODY IN THAT POSITION, ANOTHER JOHN DOE DOE UH, THEY COULD ALWAYS BE FIRED TOO.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT THAT, I MEAN, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A CHARTER RULES THAT THEY CAN'T BE A COUNCIL APPOINTEE WITHIN TWO YEARS.
SO THAT, THAT COVERS THE, THE ORGANIZATION AT THE VERY TOP, BUT IT CAN GET WEIRD.
CAREFUL NOT TO ENACT SOMETHING.
THAT WE REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO ENACT RIGHT THERE.
AND THEN FOR EVERY, EVERY BAD PERSON OUT THERE DOING BAD THINGS, THERE'S A GOOD PERSON TRYING TO DO GOOD THINGS.
AND, AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE, UH, AND I KEEP BRINGING UP FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO TRUMP ALL OF THIS.
AND THAT'S WHY HE'S THE ATTORNEY.
THIS IS WHY YOU ATTORNEY INDEED.
UM, SO I THINK THE THING WE SORT OF GLOSSED OVER WAS THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
CAN WE STEP BACK TO THAT REAL QUICK AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH ANY DIRECTION, UH, WHAT TYPE OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES? AND LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THIS, WHAT SECTION ARE WE IN? UM, IF YOU GO TO, UM, SECTION GO TO PAGE 18, YOU'LL SEE WHERE, OH, WE'RE NOT FINISHED.
I THOUGHT WE WERE, OH, THAT'S OKAY.
UM, THE NEXT SECTION IS PROHIBITED POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY.
THAT'S JUST BASICALLY, IT'S, WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE.
IT'S JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO MEET WITH AN EMPLOYEE, IT NEEDS TO BE OFF DUTY.
UM, UM, NOW THE QUESTION BECOMES, WELL, WHAT ABOUT AT LUNCH? WELL, IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANTED TO FIND DUTY AND WHO YOU'RE MEETING WITH.
UM, UH, IT HASN'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM.
AND SO ESSENTIALLY NOT ON CITY TIME WITH CITY RESOURCE.
AND THEN SECTION 10.58, THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
UM, UH, BRAD PUT A NOTE OUT TO THE SIDE THAT THIS WAS ORIGINALLY DONE JUST TO KEEP, UM, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS OR OTHER CITY OFFICIALS FROM SNOOPING, UM, THROUGH SOMEONE'S PRIVATE INFORMATION, UM, UM, FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN OR FOR, UM, SOME OTHER, UM, MISCHIEVOUS REASONS AND MITCH, YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS.
I WOULD IMAGINE QUITE A BIT ON THE PD SIDE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WANTING A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED.
[00:55:01]
OKAY.I WOULD RECOMMEND LEAVING IT IN THERE.
I MEAN, IT DOESN'T HURT TO HAVE IT IN THERE.
UM, IN THIS CASE, NORMALLY I WOULD SAY SINCE IT'S COVERED BY STATE LAW, BUT IN THIS CASE, IT KIND OF GIVES CONTEXT TO THE NEXT SECTION WITH SUIT, WHICH IS THE IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OR USE OF THAT INFORMATION.
AND SO JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTEXT, I WOULD LEAVE A, UM, UM, AND WE CHANGED IT.
IF YOU NOTICE THAT THE, ONE OF THE WORDS THAT WAS PROBLEMATIC WAS GOVERNMENTAL OR GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
IT'S, UM, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT WE'RE, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
UH, QUITE FRANKLY, UM, IF IT'S AVAILABLE THROUGH AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, THEN, UM, UM, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY HARM IN DISCLOSING THAT, UM, NOW YOUR OWN PERSONAL MOTIVATIONS SETTING, THOSE ASIDE THERE MIGHT BE, UM, THERE MIGHT BE SOME BAD MOTIVATION PERSONALLY TO DO IT, BUT, UM, UM, QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S LEGAL, UM, AND IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO ASKS, SO IT'S, YOU'RE, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE NOT RECEIVING A BENEFIT BECAUSE OF YOUR POSITION ON COUNCIL BY DISCLOSING THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT ANYBODY ELSE COULD DO.
SO IF SOMEBODY, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS I GET QUITE OFTEN IS A CONSTITUENT WILL REACH OUT AND SAY, HEY, ARE YOU GUYS WRITING THESE FOLKS CITATIONS FOR THIS CODE VIOLATION? NOW THAT'S OPEN FOR PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST.
HERE'S THE STAGE THAT WE'RE IN.
BUT WHAT IF WE DISCUSSED THAT ISSUE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH YOU TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE, THE CONTENTS AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WOULD NOT BE OKAY? THAT'S CORRECT.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON 10, 5, 8? OKAY GUYS.
WE'RE AT THE ONE HOUR, MARK, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO NEED A RECESS OR WE WANT TO KEEP GOING? WE'RE GOOD.
UM, SECTION 10.59 PUBLIC PROPERTY AND RESOURCES.
UM, AND THIS IS JUST CLEAN UP LANGUAGE IT'S UM, WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
UM, YOU CAN'T USE PUBLIC PROPERTY, UM, UH, FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN CITY BUSINESS.
AND SO, AND THAT'S NOT ONLY COVERED IN OUR, ON OUR END, THIS ORDINANCE, IT'S ALSO COVERED IN STATE LAW, QUITE FRANKLY.
UM, AND THEN WE REMOVED THE DISCLOSURE, THE 10.60 10.61, CAUSE THIS IS ALL COVERED IN STATE LAW.
UM, THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO BE, UM, DUPLICATIVE OF IT.
OH, UM, COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBERS OR OTHER OFFICERS.
OH, UH, JUST TO, TO KNOW, YES.
OH, THIS DOES REMOVE THE NEED FOR US TO STEP OUT OF THE MEETING PHYSICALLY BASED ON THE NOTE ON THE SIDE.
THAT'S KINDA DUMB, BUT IT IS KIND OF DUMB, BUT YES.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL IS ACCUSTOMED TO AND THEY MAY WISH FOR US TO KEEP IT RIGHT.
SO WE SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR FUTURE PRESENTATIONS, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE ATTACHED TO THAT.
I FEEL LIKE THAT COULD BE ONE.
HE IS YOUR SELF TO THE NEXT ROOM WHERE YOU'RE STILL WATCHING AND PARTICIPATING IN THE WHOLE THING AND LISTENING TO IT ALL SEEMS A LITTLE, IT'S A LITTLE CONTRIVED, BUT IT'S OKAY.
SO COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBERS OR OTHER OFFICERS.
UM, THIS IS A, UM, IF YOU GO TO SUBSECTION C, UM, WHERE DO YOU SEE MOST OF THE RED LINES? UM, IT MAKES A, IT, WE ADD IN THE, THE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT SECTION IN THERE.
AND, AND WHAT'S BEEN UNIQUE ABOUT THIS IN BOTH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND EVEN THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED FOR THE PROPOSED NEW ORDINANCE, UM, IS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ROLE IN THAT.
AND THAT'S WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARS TO BE FRIVOLOUS ON AND ON ITS FACE.
I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, I'LL DO MY JOB ON THAT.
I MEAN, WHO ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, AND MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
BUT, BUT IF Y'ALL AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THEN IT CAN BE Y'ALL CAN CERTAINLY SELECT SOMEONE OR HAVE A BOARD OF PEOPLE TO SELECT IT, OR, WELL, THE ONLY ISSUE IS THAT YOU WORK DIRECTLY FOR THE COUNCIL, RIGHT.
AND WHILE I KNOW YOU'LL BE FORTHRIGHT, I LOOK AT SOME, SOME PRIOR CITY ATTORNEYS AND MAYBE THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THE CASE.
I DON'T HAVE A BETTER IDEA, BUT, UM, YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S IN THE CURRENT ONE AND IT'S, WE LEFT IT IN PLACE HERE.
SO WE MIGHT WANT TO THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL MIGHT WANT TO DISCUSS ON WHO WOULD BE THE BEST PARTY TO LOOK AT, TAKE A COMPLAINT, LOOK AT IT AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S
[01:00:01]
FRIVOLOUS ON ITS FACE.AND I JUST, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S EVER GOT A PERFECT, AND IF WE GET A DIFFERENT CITY ATTORNEY, MAYBE WE'LL CHANGE THE SERVICE.
IT'S HARD TO FIND SOMEBODY THAT WE DIDN'T APPOINT THAT WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMPEL US TO ACT ON.
AND OBVIOUSLY, UM, ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS WON'T BE ACCEPTED.
UM, THEY AREN'T NOW, UM, SOMEBODY HAS A COMPLAINT AND AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST A MEMBER OF COUNCIL OR A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER, THEN THEY SHOULD AT LEAST IDENTIFY THEMSELVES RIGHT.
IT SAYS, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS OR OTHER OFFICERS THAT WOULDN'T INCLUDE YOU, WOULD IT OFF THE, AN APPOINTEE? IT WOULD ACTUALLY.
SO WE WOULD NEED FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY, IT WOULD NOT.
I'M SORRY, BECAUSE IT MEANS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, ANY APPOINTED MEMBER OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE CHARTER OR STATE LAW IN ANY MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE CREATED, APPOINTED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO IT'S ONLY COMMITTEE, IT'S ONLY MULTI MULTIPERSON BODIES AND NOT OUR DIRECT APPOINTEES.
WE DON'T GET THAT MUCH DUE PROCESS.
IF WE GET A COMPLAINT, THAT'S GOOD.
WE, WE GET AND SOMETIMES THE BROWN CORD CARDBOARD BOX THAT'S RIGHT.
SO THE NEXT ONE, 10.61 IS KIND OF INTERESTING HOW WE DID THIS.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THIS GOT CREATED THE WAY IT DID, BUT UM, WHY WE HAVE A CREATION AND COMPOSITION OF AN ETHICS HEARING BOARD.
AND THEN FROM THAT BOARD, IF A COMPLAINT IS FILED, YOU TAKE FIVE MEMBERS OF THAT BOARD, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A PERMANENT BOARD THAT NEVER DOES ANYTHING BY THE WAY, WITH IT, YOU KNOW, YOU TAKE IT, YOU TAKE AN ETHICS REVIEW PANEL AND CREATE THAT.
AND SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BETTER IF WE JUST HAVE A AD HOC ETHICS REVIEW BOARD F THE COMPLAINT GETS FILED, COUNSEL, THEN APPOINTS AN AD HOC ETHICS REVIEW BOARD.
AND I CAN COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE IF THAT'S DIRECTION, OR WE CAN LEAVE IT.
LIKE IT IS IT'S REALLY UP TO Y'ALL, BUT IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS LIKE AN EXTRA STEP THAT WE DON'T REALLY NEED.
IT DOES AT FIRST I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF WEIRD THAT I LET'S SAY I COME UNDER AN ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT I WOULD GET TO A POINT A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD, BUT YOU DO NEED TO HAVE A CHAMPION FOR THE, FOR THE ACCUSED ON THAT BOARD AND TO INTERPRET THINGS FAVORABLY.
LET ME TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE TO COMBINE A AND B TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE AD HOC BOARD.
THAT'S CONVENED UPON RECEIPT OF A, UM, OF A, A COMPLAINT THAT'S NOT FRIVOLOUS GOOD WITH IT.
AND THEN WEREN'T MANY CHANGES UNTIL WE GO ON A COUPLE MORE PAGES BACK.
IF YOU GO TO NUMBER SIX, WE NEED, YEAH, I'M SORRY.
IF YOU WOULD JUST GIVE ME SOME DIRECTION ON WHAT Y'ALL ARE THINKING ABOUT WHAT SANCTIONS SHOULD BE APPLIED.
IF SOMEONE HAS BEEN FOUND, IF A COUNCIL MEMBER OR A BOARD MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER HAS BEEN FOUND TO, UM, VIOLATE THIS ORDINANCE, THEY ONLY BRAD PUT IN THEIR LOSS OF PAY, BUT I DON'T THINK HE WAS THINKING CLEARLY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU Y'ALL'S PAY A SET BY CHARTER.
AND I DON'T THINK Y'ALL WOULD BE ABLE TO BY ORDINANCE, UM, CHANGE THE CHARTER.
AND SO, BECAUSE OF THE PAY SET BY CHARTER, AND WE DON'T HAVE A PLACE IN THE TRAIN, MAYBE WHEN WE DO OUR NEXT CHARTER REVIEW, THAT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL ADDRESS IN THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW.
BUT SINCE IT'S SET BY CHARTER, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LOSE PAY, BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, REMOVE PEOPLE FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND, UM, UM, OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE.
SO Y'ALL, Y'ALL MIGHT WANT TO BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT SANCTIONS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE.
HEAVEN FORBID YOU WOULD NOT PAY US.
I MEAN, I KNOW THAT'S NOT MUCH OF A SANCTION, IS IT? SO WOULD WE BE ALLOWED TO DO,
[01:05:01]
LET ME CHECK MY COUCH CHRISTIANS? WELL, YEAH, YOU PROBABLY COULD DO FINES.UM, WHAT'D YOU DO IT UNDER A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR THOUGH, AND MAKE IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE OR COULD YOU DO A CIVIL? YEAH, MAYBE THAT MAYBE, UM, MAYBE YOU COULD DO IT UNDER A REFERRAL TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT, UM, FOR A, UM, FOR A CRIMINAL FINE FOR A CIVIL FINE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THERE THAT, UH, REALLY CAN'T HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE TO BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF RULES HERE, BUT WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO TRULY BACK IT UP? I JUST, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING HERE AT THIS POINT THAT REALLY WOULD CAUSE A PERSON TO HAVE TO STOP AND THINK SHIT I SHOULD I NOT.
BUT IF I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE A COUNCIL, WE NEED TO REALLY DISCUSS IF NOTHING ELSE REFERRING IT, WHAT'D YOU EDUCATION TO SOME COURT OR SOMETHING.
BUT UH, EVERY, EVERY LICENSE THAT I HAVE, EVERY CERTIFICATE I HAVE IN THE END, THERE IS SOMETHING THERE IN THE WAY OF, UH, SOME TYPE OF, UH, PENALTY OR REAL PENALTY FOR A FIVE-HOUR LATE THAT OATH.
CIVIL FINES MIGHT BE A LITTLE HARDER IN THIS CASE.
I MEAN, I KNOW THEY WORK PARKING VIOLATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT AS WE KNOW WITH PARKING VIOLATIONS, IF, IF THEY DON'T PAY THEIR FINES OVER TIME, WE'LL PUT THE, UM, WHAT'S MIKE'S FAVORITE.
UM, THE BARNACLE BARNACLE, SORRY, YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, WE COULDN'T CATCH THE BURNER KLARNA COLE ON THE HOUSE OR THE PERSON OR THE, IT JUST, IT JUST DOESN'T IN, IN THESE KINDS OF THINGS.
JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS AS COUNCIL CONSIDERS OPTIONS FOR THIS, THE CIVIL FINES WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING IF SOMEBODY WAS DEFIANT ON WHATEVER IT IS, IT WOULD BE MUCH HARDER TO OKAY.
AND A RESOURCE THAT DIDN'T COME BACK TO US WITH OPTIONS.
MAYBE YOU COULD DO A BARNACLE ROBE THAT THEY HAVE TO WEAR A PUBLIC MEETING.
ADAM, SHANE, I THINK A BARTLET BARNACLE, UH, LOSS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP, CERTAINLY AS AN OPTION LOSS OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP POSITION AS AN OPTION.
UM, WE DO, WE HAVE A, I KNOW WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMPEL PEOPLE TO TESTIFY BEFORE US, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HOLD PEOPLE IN CONTEMPT? OOH.
UM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CURRENTLY, WE DON'T, YEAH, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NOT AN, THEIR VEHICLE UNDER LAW.
THERE W WE COULD, YOU COULD ADOPT TO HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO CONTEMPT.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE SANCTUARY, THAT'D BE A MONETARY SANCTION PROBABLY OF SOME SORT.
AND I REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT TO SEE IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR A MONITOR.
THAT'S SOMETHING I'LL LOOK AT ALSO IS WHEN WE LOOK AT, UM, LOSS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP, LOSS OF, UH, UH, COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIP AND LOSS OF A APPOINTMENT TO EXTERNAL ENTITIES.
SO I COULD USE RICH AS AN EXAMPLE, CAUSE OUR RTC IS AN EASY ONE.
YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY WE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND SANCTION HIM.
WOULD WE BE, COULD WE REMOVE HIS, UH, CAUSE THAT'S A MAYORAL POWER FOR THE APPOINTMENT, BUT I THINK ONCE THE COUNCIL VOTES ON IT, IT'S, IT'S A COUNCIL APPOINTMENT.
SO I THINK THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE THAT TYPE OF, UM, APPOINTMENT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, IN THE COUNCIL LEADERSHIP AS WELL.
SO A MAYOR PRO TEM, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM IT'S STRIP TITLE AND YEAH, THEY DO THAT BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT TRUSTED ANYMORE, YOU PULL, RIGHT.
AND IT BECOMES A PART OF PUBLIC RECORD.
SO THAT REALLY IS A, A SANCTION THERE AND IT FELL YEAH.
FOR ALL THE PUBLIC WHO PAY ATTENTION TO ANYTHING WE DO, WHO MOSTLY DON'T KNOW US AND THEY AREN'T EVEN, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THE MAYOR'S NAME.
SO TO SOME EXTENT, I THINK SOME OF THESE OTHER FINES WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN JUST COUNTING ON THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD NOTICE WELL.
AND YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY COUNSEL PAYCHECKS BEING WHAT THEY ARE.
I'M NOT INTERESTING IN BREAKING ANYBODY FINANCIALLY THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THE FINE, BUT THEY CERTAINLY NEED TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN'T DAMAGE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THAT LOSS OF TITLE, LOSS OF MEMBERSHIP.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO I DON'T WANT TO HURT ANYBODY'S POCKET BOOK OR KEEP THEM FROM PAYING THEIR RENT.
I'LL COME UP WITH SOME OPTIONS FOR YOU GUYS NEXT UP AT 10.9.
[01:10:02]
I DON'T KNOW.UM, I CAN SEE SOME ISSUES WITH A DECLARATORY RULING.
I COULD SEE HOW IT CAN GET US IN TROUBLE AS, AS A CITY WHERE YOU HAVE, ALTHOUGH NOT FINAL POLICYMAKERS, BUT AN ETHICS HEARING BOARD TO REVIEW ALLEGATIONS.
IT COULD, IN THAT DISCOVERY PROCESS, IT COULD BRING TO LIGHT AND MAKE IN A, IN A VERY PUBLIC WAY INFORMATION THAT WOULD HURT HARM THE CITY.
UM, UM, IF IT EVER WENT TO ANY TYPE OF LITIGATION, HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH THE COMPLAINT PROCESS? CAUSE THAT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S FORMALLY SUBMITTED.
AND THIS JUST SAYS, IF SOME, SOMEBODY SAYS SOMETHING MEAN ABOUT YOU ON SOCIAL, ON FACEBOOK, I'M IN TROUBLE, TAKE A NUMBER LINE TO THE LEFT, RIGHT.
UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN CALLED EVERY NAME UNDER THE SUN AND I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ALL HAVE TOO.
I FRANKLY, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WAS HERE UNTIL I STARTED REVIEWING THIS ORDINANCE ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO.
AND, AND I WAS LIKE, WHOA, WHAT IS THAT? IF WE WANT TO ROLL THIS INTO THE, UH, THE DISCUSSION OF THE AD HOC ETHICS COMMITTEE AND ALL THE REST OF IT AND MAKE THIS A PART OF THE PROCESS WHERE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE THAT SWORN STATEMENT.
I THINK IT'S FINE, BUT I DON'T SEE HANGING IT OUT HERE BY ITSELF JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S BAD MOUTH GN, PUBLIC.
I MEAN I BAD MOUTH MITCHELL ALL THE TIME AND THERE'S NO, NO IT'S YEAH.
THAT DOES MAKE SENSE TO ROLL THAT BACK INTO THE PREVIOUS SECTION.
AND I CAN SEE WHY THIS IS PROBABLY WAS PUT IN HERE, WHICH IS TO GIVE AN AVENUE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING SLANDERED AND LIBELED AND FALSELY ACCUSED TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND TO RE REQUEST JUDGE JUSTICE ON SOME LEVEL.
BUT I DON'T THINK IT BELONGS HANGING OUT HERE BY ITSELF.
AND IF NOBODY'S FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT, THEN IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST TALK.
AND THEN NUMBER 11, UM, RED MAKES A GOOD POINT ON THE, ON THE OUTSIDE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THAT ALREADY WITH ALL OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES.
UM, SO YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO HAVE THAT HERE.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THIS 10 69 OH.
SOMEONE THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO PUT THERE.
WELL, I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY PALS, I WASN'T GOING TO CALL YOU OUT.
AND ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER SLANDER ME IN PUBLIC REPEATEDLY ON FACEBOOK.
REPEATEDLY, REPEATEDLY WITH VULGARITY.
UM, ACTING COUNCIL MEMBERS THEN, AND WHEN IT'S NOT A FORMAL PROCESS, THEN THAT LEAVES ONE EITHER JUMPING INTO SOCIAL MEDIA TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, WHICH IS UNWISE AND WHICH I PERSONALLY DID NOT DO.
AND OTHER THAN THAT, IT JUST LETS IT LETS THE PUBLIC SLANDER AND LIBEL JUST GO ON.
SO I CAN SEE, LIKE I SAID, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I CAN SEE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME VALUE.
IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO GO THIS ROUTE TO SAY, I AM SICK OF BEING SLANDERED.
I'M SICK OF HAVING MY CHARACTER DEFAMED.
SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHY IT'S OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE FIGHTING VAPOR AT THAT POINT.
WE'RE CONSIDERING FOLDING IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
THIS ASSUMES THAT THERE IS AN, UH, AN ETHICS HEARING BOARD ALREADY FORMED THAT THERE'S A STANDING COMMITTEE.
AND SO THE THOUGHT IS IF THIS CAN CERTAINLY BE CAUSE OF ACTION TO CREATE THE ETHICS BOARD, IF SOMEBODY SO WISHES.
BUT I JUST THINK ORGANIZATIONALLY WITHIN THE DOCUMENT, IT BELONGS BACK WITH THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ETHICS BOARD.
SO THE ETHICS BOARD CAN BE CREATED FOR TWO REASONS.
UH, ONE IN RESPONSE TO A FORMAL COMPLAINT AND SECOND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 10 69.
BY, BY AN OFFICIAL, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE MORE OF AN INTERNAL TRIGGER.
IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST TUCKING IT IN AND MAKING IT FLOW A LITTLE BETTER IN THE DOCUMENT.
I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE DONE IT THIS ENTIRE TIME, SO IT'S NOT INTRODUCING ANYTHING NEW.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S STILL THERE.
IT'S STILL THERE INSTEAD OF HANGING IT.
I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN TO A COUPLE
[01:15:01]
OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OVER THE YEARS.AND HOW DO YOU DEFEND YOURSELF UNLESS YOU GO ON THERE AND THAT'S THE WORST THING YOU COULD EVER DO WITH WELL, THE OFFENSIVE.
YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR PEOPLE TO QUIT HATING YOU INSTEAD OF CHANGING THEIR MIND.
BUT I'VE, I'VE, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT PERSONALLY WITH SOME, SOME, UH, PARTICULAR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD OR A, UH, A GROUP THAT, YOU KNOW, NO SUBSTANCE TO ANY ALLEGATIONS, BUT THEY, THEY BEAT THAT DRUM FOR A WHILE AND I JUST WAITED THEM OUT.
YOU GOT TO DO THROW IT AGAINST THE WALL, SEE IF IT STICKS AND IT DOESN'T.
SO, BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR ME TO GO THROUGH AND SAY, OKAY, IF YOU THINK THERE'S SOMETHING UNETHICAL AND WHAT I'VE DONE, RIGHT.
AND MY USUAL ANSWER TO THEM IS, WELL, FOLLOW THE MONEY.
YOU CAN LOOK THROUGH MY FINANCES, WE CAN CRY TOGETHER AND I'LL SHOW YOU MINE, MY BILL FOR MY STUDENT LOAN.
AND YOU'LL SEE, ON 10.71 THAT WE DELETED THE ADOPTION OF STATE STATUTES.
THERE'S NO REASON TO SAY THAT.
OF COURSE WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO, RIGHT.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, NOT TEMPO.
72 IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
UM, THAT'S THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
UM, THE EFFECTIVE DATE REALLY WOULDN'T APPLY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN AFFECTED FOR SO LONG.
UM, BUT, UM, THE STATUTE LIMITATION MIGHT, UM, CURRENTLY IT SAYS THAT IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE ARTICLE, IT HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE ALLEGED DATE OF THE VIOLATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS FROM FEEDBACK, FROM WHAT, FROM SOMEBODY ON COUNCIL TO MARK THAT OUT, TO REMOVE THAT LIMITATION OR IF, UM, IF Y'ALL WANT A LIMITATION, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO PUT THAT BACK IN.
UH, THE 12 MONTH LIMITATIONS WRITTEN INTO THE, THE ETHICS BOARD SECTION, BUT I WILL SAY THAT'S PROBABLY WHY HE REMOVED IT.
THEN LET ME, LET ME CREATE AN EXAMPLE THAT, UM, WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE ALL THE NEGATIVE ABOUT ME.
LET'S SAY I DID A HORRIBLE THING, UH, TWO YEARS AGO THAT HAS JUST NOW COME TO LIGHT THAT I WOULD WANT THE COUNCIL TO HAVE SOME RECOURSE THERE AND NOT JUST HAVE TO THROW UP THEIR HANDS AND SAY, WELL, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO.
IT'S IT'S BEEN 12 MONTHS SINCE THE VIOLATION.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR LEGAL KNOWLEDGE THAT, THAT APPLIES IN THAT SAME WAY? OR IS IT STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS A STATUTE OF LIMITATION? NO, THERE'S SOME LIMITATIONS THAT ARE BASED ON DISCOVERING, UM, W WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY A REASONABLE PERSON DOING, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE DUE DILIGENCE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN, UM, IN SOME CAUSES OF ACTION THAT ARE LIKE THAT.
I CAN FIND SOME LANGUAGE WHAT'D, Y'ALL BE OKAY WITH THE 12 MONTH RULE SUBJECT TO THAT, THAT LANGUAGE.
I DO LIKE THOUGH HAVING, UM, A LIMITATION JUST BECAUSE OF IN A POLITICAL FIELD.
HOLDING SOMETHING OVER THEIR HEAD FOREVER.
ANY GENERAL DIRECTION OR COMMENTS MAKE IT HAPPEN, RIGHT? YEAH.
ANY FURTHER DIRECTION, COMMENTS, ANYTHING THAT WAS MISSED? ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO SEE ADDED THAT, THAT ISN'T HERE ALREADY, THAT IS NOT GUZZLER RELATED.
WELL, THAT GOES BACK TO THAT SANCTION ABOUT SOMETHING OR OTHER PUNISHMENT LOSS OF PARKING SPACE.
MAYBE HAVING THE ETHICS, UH, SAY THAT ARE NUMBERED PARKING SPACES ARE IN VIOLATE.
DOUBLE BARNACLES GO TO THE WOMAN'S HOME.
THAT WAS OPTION TWO, BE ONE LAST LOOK, NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK TODAY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT PENDING FOR THE NEXT MEETING, UH, ITEM THREE, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. UM, JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE DO HAVE SOME THINGS ON THE HORIZON.
UH, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS A COMMUNITY SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY, UH, REFERRED TO US BY A COUNCIL MEMBER MORE.
AND WE HAVE A POLICY OF REMOTE ATTENDANCE BY COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, WHICH THIS ASC HAS ACTUALLY PASSED, HAS DONE THAT WORK BEFORE.
AND WE DID PASS SOMETHING BACK TO COUNCIL.
I'M GOING TO SEE IF I CAN GO FIND THAT OLD DOCUMENTATION, PULL IT, AND
[01:20:01]
THEN MAYBE USE IT AS A BASELINE FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION.UM, ALSO POLICY ON ACCESS TO PURCHASING EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO AUCTION, UH, THAT WAS REFERRED BY COUNCILMAN SMITH.
UH, THESE ITEMS ARE CURRENTLY IN THE COMMITTEE'S BACKLOG.
ALSO WANNA REMIND YOU THAT, UH, AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, UH, BY POLICY, THIS, UH, COMMITTEE WILL DISCUSS THE FULL COUNCIL POLICY ON A YEARLY REVIEW.
AND WE WILL ALSO DISCUSS, UH, UH, TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR HOMESTEAD AND FOR SR.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THAT WILL BE PART OF THE JANUARY MEETING COUNCIL POLICY.
SO EXEMPTIONS, HOMESTEAD, AND SENIOR EXEMPTIONS THAT THAT'LL BE IN THE JANUARY MEETING AS WELL.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S AN ANNUAL THING THAT WE DO.
WE LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND TAKE A LOOK.
WE FRUSTRATE THE CRAP OUT OF MATT BECAUSE WE NEVER MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE IT'S NEVER TIME.
WE NEVER KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE TAXES WILL LOOK LIKE.
THAT'LL BE THE DISCUSSION FOR JANUARY EXEMPTIONS.
UH, THIS WILL BE THE, UH, TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR HOMESTEAD AND SR.
AND THAT'LL BE IN JANUARY ALONG WITH THE FULL COUNCIL POLICY IN JANUARY.
UM, I AM HOPING THAT WE'LL MEET IN NOVEMBER TO FINALIZE THIS.
SO WE'LL SET A, UH, WE'LL SET A DATE THAT ISN'T THANKSGIVING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
AND IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER ITEMS, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 3:52 PM.