Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:01]

ALRIGHT.

IT

[Administrative Services Committee on December 2, 2021]

IS 2 0 1 ON DECEMBER 2ND, 2021.

AND THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF GARLAND AND CHAIRMAN ROBERT JONES SMITH.

TODAY WITH ME, OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, DEBRA MORRIS OUT OF DISTRICT TO ADD MORE OUT OF DISTRICT THREE, WE HAVE STAFF MEMBERS, MATT WATSON, BRIAN, ENGLAND, AND KARMA POTTER.

AND THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UH, MEMBERS.

THIS IS, THIS IS ON ME.

UH, WE DO NOT HAVE MINUTES TO APPROVE THIS TIME.

UH, THE NEXT MEETING WILL APPROVE, UH, TWO SETS.

AND SO W WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I'D LIKE TO SKIP THIS ITEM FOR NOW.

OKAY.

NOTHING HEARD.

OKAY.

MOVING TO ITEM, NUMBER TWO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, UH, ITEM TWO, A PUBLIC COMMENTS, UH, PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO DRESS COMMITTED IN ANY ITEM IN THE AGENDA ARE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK TESTIMONY MAY BE HELD UNTIL THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED OR GIVEN AT THE BEGINNING OF ANY ADMIN SERVICES MEETING, INVITED TESTIMONY MAY ALSO OCCUR AT ANYTIME SUBJECT TO REQUEST OF THE MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE AND APPROVAL OF THE CHAIR.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY? WE HAVE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

SO, UH, IF ANYBODY SHOWS UP, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PAUSE.

GIVE THEM SOME TIME ON THE MIC ITEM TO BE COUNCIL ETHICS POLICY.

UH, SO IT WAS BROUGHT TO US, UH, I WANT TO SAY BY THE MAYOR AND, UH, WE HEARD THIS LAST MEETING ON OCTOBER 28TH.

UH, WE LOOKED AT THE INITIAL RED LINE COPY FROM LEGAL, UH, HAD A BUNCH OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, UH, MADE SOME CHANGES AND WE'RE BACK ADDRESSING THIS ITEM AGAIN TODAY.

UH, BRIAN, I'LL YOU SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UM, TODAY THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7 ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IN TERMS OF DIRECTION ON POLICY.

UM, THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR COFFEE AND IT'S THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

THIS WAS AN IDEA THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH MEMBER, UM, UM, ASKED FOR ME TO DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE, UM, CONCERNING IF SOMEONE OR AN ENTITY DONATES MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ANY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT AND COMES BEFORE COUNCIL, UM, ON AN ITEM THAT THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD PUBLICLY DISCLOSE IN THAT MEETING, UM, UM, THE CAMPAIGN, UM, CONTRIBUTION AND IT FELT CAN LOOK, I CAN LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THERE AND SEE IF I CAPTURE THE IDEA THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME SUFFICIENTLY.

OKAY.

AND THIS IS SECTION 10, 5 3.

YES, I'M SORRY.

10.53.

AND I THINK DEBORAH THAT, I THINK THIS WAS YOUR, UH, YOURS.

SO WE'LL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO MAY I ASK A QUESTION? OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE LIMITING THIS TO, UM, BENEFIT BENEFITING A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR OR BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.

UM, HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT, UM, CONTRIBUTIONS FROM, FROM NONPROFITS, FOR INSTANCE, THE GARLAND FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, THE GARLAND POLICE ASSOCIATION? IT WOULD, UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

AND I ACTUALLY STRUGGLED WITH ON HOW TO CAPTURE THAT VERY SCENARIO WHEN THEY'RE COMING.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATION CAME BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND WAS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS IS THE ASSOCIATION ITSELF.

UM, UM, MAYBE I SHOULD PUT THE, UM, THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST TO THE PERSON APPEARING OR THE ORGANIZATION OR THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION IN WHICH THEY REPRESENT THAT WAY, BECAUSE I SEE THE POINT, CAUSE YOU'RE NOT REALLY BENEFITING THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION.

UH, IF YOU'RE GIVING THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION, CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, UM, IT'S THE MEMBERS OF BEING BENEFITED, NOT THE ASSOCIATION ITSELF.

SO MAYBE IF I INCLUDE MEMBERS IN THERE OF ANY ASSOCIATION OR NONPROFIT, I COULD CAPTURE IT THAT WAY.

IF THAT'S, WHAT, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU'RE WANTING TO GO.

UM, UM, I'M S I'M STILL EXPLORING THIS.

UM, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS THAT THE PROBLEMS THAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE SEE ARE NOT WITH NON-PROFITS THEY'RE WITH COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, THEY'RE WITH DEVELOPERS, THEY'RE WITH, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS PLACES.

UM, SO I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A SITUATION.

WELL, I'M THINKING OF GOOD SAM, UM, WHO CAME BEFORE US WITH

[00:05:01]

A REQUEST NOW I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED MONEY FROM GOOD SAM.

I'VE GIVEN MONEY TO GOOD SAM, BUT LET'S SAY FOR SOME REASON, AT SOME POINT I'D HAD A BENEFIT FROM THEM.

UM, WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE AT THAT POINT TO DISCLOSE NOW THE DAY THAT THEY WOULD EVER BE GIVING A THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ANY OF US WOULD BE A JOKE, BUT JUST PRETENDING, IS THAT REALLY WHAT IT, I LIKED THE IDEA OF THIS.

UM, I LIKED THE IDEA OF JUST FULL DISCLOSURE.

IF, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMEBODY THAT SAID WEARING SPONSOR PATCHES ON YOUR, ON YOUR JACKET TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M SITTING HERE AND I WOULD LIKE A TIME LIMIT ON THIS TO WHICH, UM, I WOULD SAY TWO YEARS WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

SO NOT THROUGHOUT ALL OF HIS, CAN WE SAY IN THE MOST RECENT CAMPAIGN, OR I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU, BECAUSE IF YOU KNOW, LET'S TAKE A, OH GOODNESS, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF AN EXAMPLE FROM MY PAST FIREFIGHTERS, PUTTING MONEY ON MY FIRST CAMPAIGN, THERE'S BEEN NO NEED FOR A SECOND OR THIRD, DO I STILL NEED TO SAY, HEY, THEY HAVE SPONSORED ME AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS LATER.

YEAH.

AND I THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IF, IF WE LIMIT IT TO TWO YEARS, THAT'S THE MOST RECENT 24 MONTHS.

IF SOMEBODY HAS GIVEN YOU MONEY BEYOND THAT, YOU KNOW, FURTHER BACK THAN THAT, THEN THEY'RE EITHER REALLY PATIENT IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE YOU OR, UM, OR IT REALLY ISN'T TERRIBLY RELEVANT.

YEAH.

SO SINCE WE HAVE TWO YEAR TERMS, WHEREVER IT FALLS IN THERE, IT WOULD, I, I WOULD PROBABLY JUST RECOMMEND MAKING IT TWO YEARS AND THAT KEEPS IT CLEAN INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EACH OF US ARE OUR ELECTION CYCLE.

BUT I MEAN, IT'S UP TO THE COMMITTEE MIGHT THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT WOULD BE TWO YEARS, BUT THE I'M JUST TRYING TO WHAT PROBLEMS, YOU KNOW, TRYING NOT TO CAUSE NEW PROBLEMS, I'M TRYING TO SOLVE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. WHAT PROBLEMS AS WRITTEN, UM, COULD THIS CAUSE IN THE, IN THE LANGUAGE.

SO, UM, THAT WOULD MATERIALLY BENEFIT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR OR ANY BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH SAID CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.

I, I LIKED THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS SHALL INCLUDE LOANS, OFFSETS TO EXPENDITURES AND KIND DONATIONS THAT, THAT THAT'S ALL LEGIT.

UM, I'M JUST GOING BACK TO THE, THE FIREFIGHTERS.

I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE GARLAND POLICE ASSOCIATION EVER ACTUALLY DOES MONEY THINGS, BUT WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS WHO ARE ROUTINELY CAMPAIGN DONORS, UM, HOW TANGLED UP IS THIS GOING TO, TO GET US WITH THEM? AND IS THERE A WAY TO, WHAT WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU WERE JUST, I WAS SUGGESTING THAT WITHOUT KNOWING THE INTENT OF YOUR QUESTION, IF YOU'RE WANTING TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THIS TYPE OF DISCLOSURE, I CAN DRAFT IT THAT WAY.

IF YOU'RE WANTING TO INCLUDE THEM IN THIS TYPE OF DISCLOSURE, THEN WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO DRAFT SOMETHING LIKE, UM, LET ME SEE HERE, WHERE ARE WE? OKAY.

MAY CREATE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY WITH REGARD TO ANY MATTER THAT WOULD MATERIALLY BENEFIT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR OR BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH SAD CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.

AND SO I WOULD ADD IN THERE A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION HERE, OR BUSINESS ENTITY, OR, UM, I WOULDN'T REALLY NECESSARILY, I THINK IT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIREFIGHTERS OR THE POLICE ASSOCIATION, OR WHAT OTHER ASSOCIATION, NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION YOU WANT TO PUT IN THERE.

I THINK IT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A BUSINESS ENTITY, BUT WE COULD, WE COULD ACTUALLY EXPRESSLY STATE THAT AND CALL THEM OUT AND CALL THAT OUT AND PUT ANY MEMBER OF THAT.

UM, NON-PROFIT ENTITY, IF WE WANTED TO, IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DESIRE OF THE COMMITTEE IS ON THAT.

IF WHICH DIRECTION YOU ALL WANT TO GO ON THE, LET ME, LET ME PASS THIS DOWN.

MY, MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THAT WOULD BE TOO SLOPPY BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE COMING BEFORE US, THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH HAVE ROUTINELY GONE BACK FOR DECADES, HAVEN'T BEEN RELATED TO SPECIFIC ISSUES OR SPECIFIC AGENDAS.

SO THAT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE VERY CONFUSING, BUT LET ME, LET ME HEAR FROM THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE AND SEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.

NO PRESSURE CLARIFICATION.

WHAT I'M GETTING IS WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO,

[00:10:06]

WELL, LET'S PUT IT ANOTHER WAY.

THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL WHOM LET'S LET'S STAY WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS, BECAUSE I KNOW I'VE BEEN SUPPORTED BY A FIREFIGHTER YOU'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE.

THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ANYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT DEALT WITH THE FIREFIGHTING ASSOCIATION BY WAY OF WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM THE DISCUSSION AND THE VOTE THAT WHAT'S YOUR, OKAY, HELP ME.

THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO STATE ON THE MIC THAT THEY'VE BEEN A BENEFICIARY OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE ORGANIZATION.

THAT'S IT PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL IT BE SAYING, AND OF COURSE THE QUESTION IS, AND I THINK YOU RAISED IT WELL, WHAT, WHAT IS IT THAT BENEFITS THE ASSOCIATION? BECAUSE WE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING STEP INCREASES OR WE'RE DOING BENEFITS OR RSB ARE WE DOING, IS THAT A BENEFIT TO THE MEMBERS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE ASSOCIATES.

RIGHT.

AND SO WHAT EXACTLY IS IT THAT WE DO THAT BENEFITS ASSOCIATION? I THINK YOU COULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE, HEY, IF WE WERE GOING TO EXERCISE THE NONPROFIT USE POLICY AND GIVE THEM A BUILDING, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE A TIME WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO ANNOUNCE, HEY, WE'VE RECEIVED FUNDS FROM THEM IN THE PAST.

AND SO I OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, UH, UH, COUNCILWOMAN, BUT I THINK YOUR INTENT HERE IS JUST TO SHINE THE LIGHT ON IF THERE'S ANY, UH, IF THERE'S ANY CHANCE THAT ANYBODY IS, IS BEING PAID FOR THEIR DECISION, THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

AND THIS IS A MECHANISM TO TRIGGER THAT TYPE OF DISCLOSURE.

HAVE WE HAD THIS TYPE OF THING TOO? DO WE HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF THIS HAPPENING IN THE PAST? OH, DO WE, MAYBE WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT HERE.

IT'S A, IT'S A POLITICAL BODY.

UM, I'M 99.9% CERTAIN THAT THAT'S HAPPENED.

OKAY.

BUT ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE, UH, HASN'T BEEN POSTED HAS NOT BEEN EXACTLY.

WE CAN.

OKAY.

THAT AMONGST OUR CURRENT COUNCIL, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY.

OKAY.

OUR MAYOR HAD ASKED FOR THIS, IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND, AND YOU, UH, OKAY, WELL THAT LANGUAGE THEN WOULD INDEED CAPTURE EVERYTHING.

AND IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO, UH, SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR, DO WE WANT TO, DO WE WANT TO, UM, SHINE A LIGHT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATIONS WHERE THAT BENEFIT THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATION ITSELF? I GUESS THAT'S THE CLARITY CLARIFICATION I NEED AND MY MIND, IN MY OPINION.

YES, YOU WOULD.

I MEAN, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE, THAT'S THE INTENT, THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

YES.

YOU WOULD CERTAINLY TRY TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING YOU COULD AND KEEP IT AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE.

YES, I WOULD SAY SO.

BUT THROWING IN THE METROTEX REALTORS, CAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER GROUP THAT ROUTINELY WRITE DISTRIBUTES TO CHECK EVERYBODY.

RIGHT.

RIGHT.

DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYEES, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEMBERS BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE VOTE ON A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, IF THOSE PEOPLE HAPPEN TO BE MEMBERS OF METRO TECHS, I DON'T THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO GO AND SAY, WELL, SOMEBODY OUT THERE IN THE WORLD GAVE ME MONEY.

IT WAS FROM A MULTIFAMILY ASSOCIATION.

SO I NEED TO DISCLOSE IT ON EVERY MULTI-FAMILY ZONING CASE.

THAT THAT'D BE WEIRD BECAUSE IT'S NOT FOR THAT PROPERTY, BUT IT'S FOR AN ASSOCIATION WE'VE RECEIVED MONEY FROM AN ASSOCIATION THAT THAT GROUP MAY BELONG TO.

AND SO NOW I'M WONDERING IF WE APPLY THAT TO PEOPLE THAT ARE MEMBERS OF A FIRE ASSOCIATION AND THAT ASSOCIATION GAVE US MONEY, OR DOES THAT PUT US IN, IS D DOES THAT, DOES THAT JIVE WITH ITSELF? OR AM I, AM I OVERTHINKING? THAT'S A GOOD RATIONAL ARGUMENT OF WHY YOU MAY NOT WANT TO GO THAT DIRECTION.

I HADN'T THOUGHT OF THAT EXAMPLE.

THAT'S A GOOD EXAM.

UH, EVERYTHING ECONOMICALLY.

WE KNOW EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY CONNECTS TO EVERYTHING ELSE.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T GO TOO FAR ON THIS TO MAKE IT TOTALLY IMPRACTICAL TO, TO MEET THE GOAL THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MEET, BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD GOAL.

YEAH.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE CONTINUE TO ROCK, WE'RE GOING EVERYTHING THAT WE VOTE ON OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

UH, RIGHT.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO, UH, DO A DISCLOSURE AND THAT WILL GET OLD COMMERCIAL COUNT.

CAN THIS BE LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL ENTITIES? WOULD THAT TAKE CARE OF, UM, FIREFIGHTERS? WOULD THAT TAKE CARE OF, WOULD THAT TAKE CARE OF THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER? I THINK METROTEX IS A PACK, BUT I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO CALL THE HOLY EXCLUDE PACKS.

RIGHT.

[00:15:02]

OR DO WE, UH, IT'S UH, JUMP IN PLEASE.

WHY WOULD IT HELP IF YOU ADD IT ALSO IN THE WORD DIRECT MATERIAL DIRECT BENEFIT, BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT REALLY, IT'S MY INDIRECT BENEFIT TO THE ASSOCIATION THIS SO FAR THAT IT'S BETTER, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY BENEFITING THE ASSOCIATION IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

YOU'RE REALLY SAYING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE EVERY TIME FIREFIGHTERS COME UP OR SOMETHING TO THE ASSOCIATION, LIKE YOU SAID.

YEAH.

THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

AND AS FAR AS THE, I CAN'T THINK, AND MAYBE I'M, MAYBE I'M NOT THINKING CLEARLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, BUT I CAN'T THINK OF AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION CAME UP AND MAYBE THEY HAVE HE'LL YOU'LL KNOW, REMIND ME OF LOBBIED FOR BENEFITS THEY HAVE AT THE MC 2017 WAS THE RSB.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT.

YEAH.

OKAY.

DEFINITELY 2017.

GOD BLESS YOU.

DAVID RIGS WHERE HIS BLUEPRINT OF MY WRITERS LOVE THAT GUY.

IT WAS A BIG ISSUE.

YEAH.

I GUESS YOU, IT, IT MADE WAVES.

I DIDN'T GET THE SUPPORT.

SO I KNEW THE BIG ISSUE.

IF WE SAY, IF WE INCLUDE DIRECT, THEN DEPENDS ON THE ISSUE.

WE WOULDN'T BE EXCLUDING WHOLE BODY'S WHOLE ASSOCIATIONS, BUT IT WOULD JUST, UM, AND IF IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE THIS IS, UH, THAT THERE'S NOT A NUANCED WAY TO GET THROUGH THIS, TO CATCH THE FISH WE WANT AND NOT CREATE A MIGRAINE FOR ALL OF US AND FOR THE PUBLIC, THEN, UM, LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE.

BUT THIS IS, UM, DID YOU LOOK AT PLANOS ORDINANCE AND HOW WAS THAT WORDED? WAS THAT SIMILAR TO THIS? NO, NOT EXACTLY BECAUSE I'VE, IF YOU RECALL, I BELIEVE THAT ORDINANCE DIDN'T DO EXACTLY WHAT WE THOUGHT IT DID.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I TOLD YOU WHEN I, CAUSE I THINK I CALLED IT, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED, BUT THEY HADN'T POSTED IT YET, SO THEY PASSED IT, BUT THEY DIDN'T POST IT YET.

SO THEY, THEY WERE CHANGING IT TO A TWO YEAR LOOK BACK BECAUSE INITIALLY THEY DID NOT HAVE A TIME LIMIT ON IT.

RIGHT.

UM, IT WAS A THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING, CAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE, THE LANGUAGE, I JUST SAW THE REPORT OF IT.

UM, I HADN'T POSTED IT.

YEAH, YEAH.

YEAH.

SO LET ME LOOK AT THAT.

LET ME LOOK AT THAT POSTING AGAIN TO SEE IF THEY'VE POSTED IT.

THIS IS PROBABLY NOT HIM.

I NEED TO CONTINUE TO TINKER WITH.

THAT'S FINE.

UM, TO GET THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT.

THERE'S NO HURRY.

AND WE JUST WANT TO GET IT RIGHT.

YOU SAID THAT CAME OUT OF PLAINTIFF AND FOR ME, NO TALKING ABOUT GETTING OLD, UH, WE MAY WANT TO PUT IT ON A COMPUTER.

WELL, I'M HAVING A HECK OF A TIME.

PUT IT UP HERE.

OKAY.

I CAN DO THAT.

OKAY.

THIS IS LIGHT GRAY COLOR HERE.

UH, YEAH.

AND, AND FINE GOT BIONIC GUYS NOW SO I CAN READ IT, BUT I, COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I COULDN'T HAVE HAD MY CATARACT SURGERY.

YEAH.

I WISH THERE WAS A WAY TO, TO JUST CLARIFY THAT, YOU KNOW, W WHAT WE WANT IS A REPORTING OF ANY CONTRIBUTION THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE, BUT THAT'S SO SUBJECTIVE.

AND I KNOW WE HAVE TO LEGALIZE IT OR LEGALIZE IS IT? AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT, BUT, BUT HOW DO WE EXPRESS THAT IN A WAY THAT ISN'T TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE AND FULL OF LOOPHOLES? AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

PRESENTLY.

IT WAS SAYING TO ME THAT WE DON'T REALLY.

YEAH, NOPE.

THEY, THEY CONVENIENTLY LIFT THAT ONE OUT.

OKAY.

IT SEEMS SENSIBLE BECAUSE I, I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW.

UM, I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW THINGS.

LIKE, THAT'S WHY I PUT MY CAMPAIGN FINANCE FORMS ON MY WEBSITE UNDER THEIR OWN TAB.

IT'S CAUSE I, I NOTICED THAT THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH.

OKAY.

OR, OR, OR MAYBE WHY DON'T WE COULD TAKE THAT APPROACH.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

WE COULD SCRAP THIS AND SAY, THE CITY SHALL BE, MAKE AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE.

A COPY OF OUR CAMPAIGN, FINANCE FORMS. I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

KEEPS THE MEETINGS TRIM AND QUICK, BUT IT GIVES THE CITIZENS THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO SEE WHO'S Y'ALL OKAY WITH THAT, COME UP WITH THAT LANGUAGE AND TINKER WITH THIS LANGUAGE FOR NEXT TIME.

AND THEY GIVE YOU ALL AN OPTION.

THE OTHER FACTOR THAT'S GOING TO BE GETTING THAT PAST THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.

IT HAS TO BE THE CASE.

SO YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE STATE'S GOT TO LOOK UP TOOL FOR STATE FILED STUFF.

WE DON'T

[00:20:01]

HAVE ONE LOCALLY.

YEAH.

THEY DO HAVE A TUBE.

WE JUST, COULD WE JUST DO THAT HERE AND BE DONE WITH IT? I WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.

SO MY ONLY OTHER TRAILER TRAILING THOUGHT IS THAT THAT HOW MANY OF OUR CITIZENS EVER GO TO OUR WEBSITE? HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD EVER BOTHER TO LOOK THAT UP TO EVEN THINK TO CONNECT THAT TO, THEY SEE AN, A MEETING AGENDA AND THEY SEE SOMEBODY COMING TO HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD EVEN THINK TO GO AND TRY TO LOOK THAT UP 18 UTMOST.

NOW THAT'S THE NUMBER OF HITS THAT PAGE HAS GOTTEN ON MY WEBSITE 18 IN FIVE YEARS, IF WE'RE ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF IP ADDRESSES TOO.

SO IF WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GO MAXIMUM TRANSPARENCY YEAH.

UM, KEEPING IT LINKED TO, UM, TO RELEVANT TO, IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO DO IT, UM, I AM FINE WITH EITHER I AM FINE WITH POSTING IT.

I'M ALSO FINE WITH DOING THAT AND THIS.

UM, BUT UM, ONLY IF WE CAN FIND A CLEAN WAY TO MAKE THIS HIT THE TARGET AND NOT JUST EXTEND OUR MEETINGS INTO CRAZY LAND.

RIGHT.

THAT NOBODY CARES ABOUT.

SO WHAT DO WE WANT TO USE THE POSTING AS A BACKUP POSITION? OR WOULD YOU WANT TO ATTEMPT TO DO BOTH? CAN WE LET HIM COME UP WITH BOTH? I'LL COME UP WITH BOTH AND THEN Y'ALL DECIDE THAT YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT ED.

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY, COOL.

THAT WAS EASY AND NOT AT ALL, BUT YEAH, I WAS GOING TO, UM, MR. CHAIR, I WAS GOING TO COMMENT THAT, UM, BASED ON YOUR QUESTION, HIM GETTING THIS PAST COUNCIL, WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, THE REST OF THE COUNCIL WAS GOING TO HAVE ANY HARD PRESSED TO SAY.

YEAH.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO, I WANT TO BE MORE SECRETIVE AT NIGHT.

SO THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER ALSO IS WHAT Y'ALL DELIBERATE.

THIS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT ON THE FRONT SIDE.

SO YEAH.

AS LONG AS IT'S TECHNICALLY SOUND RIGHT.

AYE.

Y'ALL KNOW OUR COUNCIL IT'S, THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE EASIEST GROUPS I'VE EVER WORKED WITH ON THAT SORT OF THING.

SO I HAVE FULL FAITH IN THE REST OF THE BODY ON THAT.

GREAT.

UH, THE NEXT, UM, THE NEXT ITEM IS EMPLOYMENT FOR PAST AND CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THAT'S ON PAGE 10.

OH YEAH.

THE NO REVOLVING DOOR IS WHAT I'M ON ITEM E AT THE BOTTOM.

AND CURRENTLY AS IT'S WRITTEN IT'S WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL DUTIES AND POLICY DECISION IS, DO WE WANT TO KEEP THAT IN PLACE? YOU EXPLAINED A LITTLE FURTHER HOW SECTION E INVOLVES EMPLOYMENT.

CAUSE I'M NOT SURE.

YEAH.

IT DOESN'T, UM, YOU'LL SEE THE NOTE THERE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THIS MIGHT BE THE PLACE WHERE IF WE WANT TO ADDRESS THE EMPLOYMENT, THIS WOULD BE THE, THIS MIGHT BE THE PLACE TO DO THAT.

I'M SORRY.

I SKIPPED OVER THAT WHOLE IT'S IN THE VERY LIGHT, UM, FONT THERE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

AND THAT WHOLE EMPLOYMENT THING WITHIN THAT ONE YEAR HAS ACTUALLY COME UP.

IT HAS YES.

SEVERAL TIMES.

YEAH.

SO THE DISCUSSION OR THE SUGGESTION THAT CAME TO ME, UH, FROM SOME OTHER MEMBERS WAS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A RESIGNED TO RUN POLICY WHERE IF YOU'RE GOING TO RUN FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAYOR, UH, FOR ANY OUTSIDE OFFICE, YOU HAVE TO RESIGN YOUR, YOUR POSITION AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

UH, WE KNOW THAT DUE TO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, YOU'RE HELD OVER IN YOUR POSITION, EVEN AFTER YOU RESIGN, UH, UNTIL YOUR POSITION CAN BE LAWFULLY FILLED OR, OR YOU'RE DISQUALIFIED FROM OFFICE, I THINK IS THE OTHER PIECE.

UM, THE SUGGESTION HAD COME UP, UH, THAT WE APPLY A SIMILAR, UH, RULE SET TO ATTEMPTING EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE CITY.

AND HERE'S THE REASON FOR THAT.

IF I GO AND I APPLY FOR, UH, APPLY FOR A POSITION, LET'S SAY, I WANT TO WORK FOR MATT.

AND I WANT TO BE AN ACCOUNTANT.

I AM ESSENTIALLY REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER, HIRE ME TO BE AN ACCOUNTANT, BUT THE CITY MANAGER IS MY EMPLOYEE.

AND SO I HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE AN EMPLOYMENT DECISION, WHICH VIOLATES CHARTER.

[00:25:01]

UH, BUT IT ALSO PUTS THE CITY MANAGER IN A BAD POSITION WHERE THEY HAVE TO TELL ME NO, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE MY APPOINTEE, VERY CONVOLUTED.

UM, AND SO THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A RESIGN TO APPLY A RULE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS GETS IN THE WAY OF ANY EMPLOYMENT LAW AT YOUR ABILITY TO APPLY FOR A JOB, BUT IT DOES SAY WE, WE ASSUME THAT IT VIOLATES CHARTER JUST THE APPLICATION ITSELF.

AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT AUTOMATICALLY WOULD DISQUALIFY YOU FROM OFFICE THAT'S WE DON'T REALLY WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.

WE WOULD JUST PREFER THAT THERE IS A, THERE'S A TRIGGER THAT IF YOU, YOU MAKE THAT CONSCIOUS CHOICE AND LEGAL CAN ADVISE THE COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO APPLY FOR THAT POSITION, THAT'S FINE.

BUT YOU CAN'T DO BOTH.

BUT WITH THE HOLDOVER THAT STILL RIGHT, THAT'S REALLY AWKWARD.

WE CAN VOTE ON THINGS, IT'D BE A POLITICAL MATTER AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD BE, AND THAT WOULD BE UGLY.

IT WOULD BE HIM, THE, THE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

SO IF, UH, IF A COUNCIL MEMBER DECIDED THEY WANTED TO APPLY FOR A JOB AND THEY SAY, OKAY, I HEAR BY RESIGN, I'M GOING TO SUBMIT MY APPLICATION.

WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE STILL UNDER TEXAS LAW.

THEY'RE STILL TECHNICALLY A COUNCIL MEMBER UNTIL WE CAN FILL THAT POSITION AND THAT PERSON SWORN IN.

UM, UM, AND SO IF THAT PERSON DIDN'T GET THE JOB AND DECIDED, NEVERMIND, UM, BACK THEN, UM, THAT'S, UH, IT'LL BE A MATTER FOR THE POLITICAL PROCESS TO REMEDY.

NOW, WOULD WE, AS A COUNCIL HAVE TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW THEM TO RESEND THEIR RESIGNATION, OR IS THERE ANY RETENTION POLICY AT ALL? I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ONCE YOU'VE RESIGNED, IT'S DONE.

RIGHT.

RIGHT.

BUT THAT STILL PUTS YOU IN THAT INTERIM ACTING, VOTING, RIGHT.

STILL BEING IN A POSITION, UM, THAT PUTS YOU AT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THE PEOPLE YOU'RE APPLYING TO.

YES.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.

I AGREE.

AND THERE'S NO WAY TO CAUSE THIS TO DISQUALIFY FROM SOMEBODY FROM OFFICE, UH, THAT'S STATE LAW ONLY CONTROLS THAT AND OUR CHARTER WOULDN'T EVEN CONTROL IT.

SO WE COULDN'T ADD THAT INTO THE NEXT, I CAN LOOK AT THAT ISSUE IF WE COULD ADD IT BY CHARTER.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE.

I SUPPOSE I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT STATE LAW TO SEE.

SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, DO WE WANT TO LEAVE NO RULE IN PLACE TODAY, WHICH STILL HAS THE SAME ISSUES, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU CAN STILL APPLY.

DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE A RESIGN TO APPLY? UH, AND WHAT, W WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE TEMPERATURE HERE? Y'ALL JUMP IN ANYTIME, BECAUSE YOU CAN BE IN, UH, I BELIEVE YOU CAN BE AN EMPLOYEE AND RUN FOR OFFICE, BUT YOU CAN'T BE AN OFFICE HOLDER.

WHAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH.

SO CAN WE, CAN WE SAY YOU CAN'T, YOU REALLY CAN'T APPLY WHILE YOU'RE, WHILE YOU'RE SERVING IT'S THAT HAVE RESIGNED TO APPLY WHAT WOULD FIX IT? IT WOULDN'T BECAUSE YOU, THE STATE LAW SAYS YOU STILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO SIT IN YOUR SEAT AND SERVE UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION OR SOMEBODY REPLACES YOU, OR DID YOU ONLY GET 180 DAY WINDOW FOR THAT? BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'D HAVE TO CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE NEXT STANDARD ELECTION, A UNIFORM ELECTION DATE BAN.

I REMEMBER THIS RIGHT.

2017.

IT'S MESSY.

THE OTHER OPTION IS YOU CAN HAVE IT AS A MATTER OF EMPLOYMENT.

YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE AS TO BEING AN EMPLOYEE HERE, AS LONG AS YOU'RE SITTING ON COUNCIL.

AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD TAKE THIS FROM AN EMPLOYMENT STANDPOINT IS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, OR UNTIL A CERTAIN TIME OFF AND COUNCIL, WHICH WOULD BE, I THINK, NO, IT COULD BE A YEAR, A YEAR.

MAYBE WE COULD, WE COULD MAKE THAT POLICY DECISION AND MAKE IT EASIER A LOT EASIER.

YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

YEAH.

GOOD WITH THAT.

OKAY.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AND TREAT IT AS AN EMPLOYMENT DECISION, AS OPPOSED TO AN OFFICE HOLDER.

DON'T GET IT FOR RACKETEERING.

IF ATTACK THE VA.

THERE YOU GO.

YEAH.

OR MAIL FRAUD.

THAT'S EASY ENOUGH.

OKAY.

OKAY.

UH, THE NEXT ONE IS ALSO ON PAGE 10.

UM, IF YOU GO UP TO, UM, THE TIME FOR LOBBYING, UM, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S CURRENTLY, DO WE WANT THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO ADJUST THAT TIME PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, UM, TO LOBBY IN FRONT OF COUNSELOR OR TO ANOTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION? I MEAN, WE'RE DOING ONE YEAR ON THE EMPLOYMENT.

WE'RE DOING ONE YEAR ON THE, UM, IN SECTION EIGHT ON EVERYTHING.

I THINK IT'S NOT LIKE THE CONSISTENCY YEAR OF A LONG TIME.

IT REALLY IS.

YEAH.

[00:30:03]

THERE'S JUST SO MUCH CARE.

SHE WAS CERTAINLY DON'T SEE REDUCING IT.

OH NO.

A YEAR.

SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.

YEAH.

YEAH.

AND MAKING IT ANY LONGER SEEMS UM, WELL, UM, I'M TRYING TO LET SUPPLY DAVID GIBBONS TO THIS REAL QUICK BECAUSE HE'S, HE'S MOVED OVER, OVER TO GHF HFC.

AND THAT GROUP HAS, HAS A VERY, VERY TIGHTLY KNIT WITH THE CITY.

AND I THINK IF WE APPLIED THIS TO HIM, HE WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM COMING BEFORE COUNCIL FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE.

AND SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

IT'S I WOULDN'T CALL WHAT HE'S DOING LOBBYING, BUT HE IS TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, EXECUTE HIS PARTNERSHIP, HIS GROUP'S PARTNERSHIP WITH US AND ACCOMPLISH CERTAIN THINGS.

SO DOES THIS PREVENT HIM FROM DOING WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE GOOD WORK? JUST FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING THAT ONE, ONE YEAR SHOT CLOCK, THE DEFINITIONS OF LOBBYING THERE, AND THEN HERE IT'S NOT A DEFINED TERM.

OKAY.

UM, YEAH, CAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT HE'S DOING IS AS LOBBYING, BUT IF IT'S NOT DEFINED, THEN THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM.

A SECTION AT A BEACH.

I DON'T SEE.

I DON'T SEE HIS, WHAT HE'S DOING IS LOBBYING AT ALL.

UH, HE'S COMING BEFORE US, AS THE DIRECTOR, AS THE HEAD OF AN ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING, UH, LOBBYING, I'M THINKING OF SOMEONE WHO'S PAID TO, UH, COME BEFORE A BOARD OR ANYONE ELSE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THEIR MIND OR DIRECTOR OF MINE IN ANY PARTICULAR DIRECTION.

I JUST DON'T SEE THAT WHAT HE'S DOING AT ALL.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS DAVID'S SITUATION WAS VERY UNIQUE ANYWAY.

SURE.

THE MAN ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT'LL HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT IF IT DOES, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, UH, RESIGNING BEFORE YOU CAN BECOME EMPLOYED AND ALL OF THOSE BEING CONSISTENT, ONE WITH THE OTHER, I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THE LOBBYING ASPECT OF IT BEING APPLICABLE.

AND WHEN I, I HAVE MY FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS, WHETHER WE CAN LIMIT POLITICAL SPEECH BY ANYBODY, WHETHER THEY WERE A MEMBER OF ASPIRE OR NOT.

AND I DON'T WANT TO KEEP ANYBODY FROM GOING TO THE PODIUM IF THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY.

SURE.

SO THAT THAT'S A CONCERN AND LET'S JUST HOPE THAT COUNCIL IS ABREAST AND AWARE ENOUGH TO KNOW WHEN THAT'S TAKEN PLACE.

ANYWAY, YOU GOT TO HOPE.

SHOULD WE I'LL MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE JUST COMPLETELY NUKE ITEM B.

IT'S ALREADY FAIRLY GUTTED AS IT IS.

AND I THINK THERE'S A VERY, VERY STRONG FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT, BUT THE INTENT BEHIND IT IS YOU ROLL OFF OF COUNCIL AND IMMEDIATELY GET PAID TO BE A LOBBYIST FOR SOME LOCAL ORGANIZATION.

NO, SAM NOT EVEN PAID.

THEY'RE NOT EVEN PAYING.

NO, LET'S JUST SAY I GO, I GO BECOME A BOARD MEMBER AT, UM, I USE GOOD SAM CAUSE THAT'S AN EASY ONE.

RIGHT? SO I GO BECOME A BOARD MEMBER OF GOOD SAM AND UH, WE WANT TO DO SOME COMMUNITY GARDEN STUFF.

AND I COME BEFORE COUNCIL AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME PARKLAND OVER HERE.

THAT'S UNUSED.

WE'D REALLY LIKE TO DO SOME COMMUNITY GARDEN WORK WITH THEM.

UH, IT WOULD BE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN GOOD SAM AND, AND UH, CITY OF GARLAND.

AND THIS ETHICS POLICY IS WRITTEN WOULD SAY, NO, I CAN'T DO THAT.

I CAN'T HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

IT'S A LOT ON THE FLIP SIDE, LOBBYING IS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE ISSUE WITH THAT EXAMPLE THEN.

UH, AND, AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PRODUCT COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF LOBBYING.

BECAUSE AGAIN, WHAT YOU JUST EXPLAINED, I DON'T SEE HE'S ON A BOARD.

NOW THAT PERSON IS ON A BOARD.

NOW THEY ARE IN A POSITION THEY'RE COMING TO REPRESENT THAT PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION FROM THE POSITION IN WHICH THEY HOLD.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO MAYBE FOCUS MORE SO ON.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY LOBBY? SO, SO, AND DO YOU GET BACK INTO SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION? SHOULD IT BE SOMETHING LIKE A REGISTERED LOBBYIST OR SOMEBODY WORKING FOR A COMMERCIAL ENTITY OR, UH, WHERE DO YOU WANT TO, WHERE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE IT? OKAY, THAT'S GOOD.

BECAUSE NOW WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD A FRAMEWORK WHERE IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD AND IT'S KIND OF ALLUDING TO ALL OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

MAYBE WE DO WANT TO GO BACK AND COME UP WITH THAT DEFINITION.

MAYBE WE DO WANT, BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT LOBBYING IS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH IT.

WE COULD THROW OUT I'M A FORMER OFFICIAL MAY NOT REPRESENT

[00:35:01]

ANY FOR-PROFIT ENTITY THAT THAT GETS RID OF ALL THE NONPROFIT QUESTIONS, UM, COVERS GFC, WHICH ARE ANY, ANY, ANY FOR-PROFIT NON-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR ENTITY OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE BEST LEGAL TERM IS.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT ADDRESSES YOUR IMMEDIATE POINT, THAT WE SHOULD DEFINE WHAT A LOBBYIST IS.

AND, AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE WRONG THERE AT ALL.

LET'S GO BACK AND MAKE THAT DEFINITION.

BECAUSE AGAIN, I SOUNDED LIKE WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO STOP A PERSON WHO WAS IN A POSITION OF INFLUENCE THE CITY COUNCIL FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT IMMEDIATELY COMING OFF THE COUNCIL AND COMING BEFORE US BECAUSE THEY HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION OR THEY KNOW PEOPLE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH FROM TAKING ADVERSE ADVANTAGE.

THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO DO WELL.

YEAH, LET'S SAY I GO TO WORK FOR KIMBERLY HORN AND I USE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE A MAJOR ENGINEERING CORPORATION THAT DOES A LOT OF WORK FOR US.

AND I USE THAT INSIDE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE THEM A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL.

AND THAT, THAT, AS YOU JUST SAID, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD APPLY TO, WELL, IT MIGHT NOT APPLY TO A NONPROFIT IF THERE WERE COMPETING NONPROFITS IN A SPACE AND YOU'RE HEARING IT THIS WHEN OUR DISCUSSION YOU'RE HEARING WELL, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON, HAVE WE STARTED IT THE ROOM? HAVE WE STARTED AT THE WRONG POSITION? MAYBE DO WE NEED TO BACK UP AND JUST LOOK AT THIS ENTIRE SCENARIO OF THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SO THAT IT IS CONSISTENT ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE LANGUAGE SO MUCH IN ONE AREA THAT, YOU KNOW, CAUSE THE NEXT THING GOING TO HAPPEN TO GO GET MESSY BECOMES CONVOLUTED.

AND SO WHAT ARE YOU THINKING WE'RE, IF WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE DAVID GIBBONS ISSUE, I THINK THAT WE CAN DO THAT FAIRLY EASILY EASY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARENTS' MEDICAL AND, UM, SUBSECTION B, THERE HERE'S A PARENT THAT ETHICAL THAT SAYS OTHER THAN HIMSELF, HERSELF, OR HIS, OR HER RELATIVE, I COULD ADD IN THERE, OR A NONPROFIT ENTITY CREATED TO BENEFIT OR ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GARLAND.

AND THAT WOULD COVER ALL OF OUR NONPROFIT ENTITIES THAT WE'VE, WE'VE CREATED TO BENEFIT OR ACT ON OUR BEHALF, INCLUDING.

UM, SO YEAH, BUT THE LITTLE LEAGUES AND THE BOY SCOUTS AND THE GOOD SAMS AND THE, YEAH, TO YOUR QUESTION THOUGH, IF WE NARROWLY DEFINE THE LOBBYING CASE IN THIS SECTION, IS THERE, WHAT DO WE WANT TO GO BACK AND GLOBALLY DEFINE THE LOBBYIST SO THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF THE SAME THING IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS? AND IF THAT'S THAT, I HEAR THAT RIGHT.

GOT IT.

GOT IT.

YOU KNOW, IS THERE, IS THERE A PLACE HERE FOR SOME GLOBAL DEFINITIONS THAT WOULD, I THINK I, I JUST REMOVED THE TERM LOBBYING OUT OF THE SECTION.

GOTCHA.

I THINKING, YOU KNOW, JUST THE OPENING PARAGRAPH THERE, NUMBER ONE, THE SECTION TITLE IN, UM, IN ANY STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, THE TITLE OF THE SECTION DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

UM, IT'S JUST THERE AS A, AS A PLACEHOLDER AND THERE IS TO CATCH THE ATTENTION OF WHERE YOU LOOK FOR SOMETHING, IF YOU DON'T USE THE ACTUAL TITLE TO INTERPRET WHAT THIS SECTION MEANS.

AND SO I CAN GET RID OF THE LOBBYING AND JUST TALK ABOUT REPRESENTING OUTSIDE ENTITIES.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

IT SOUNDS, I MEAN, YEAH.

UM, I I'M, I'M STILL THINKING MY WAY THROUGH YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT OBJECTION TO THIS AND THE POTENTIAL OF JUST NUKING IT.

AND THE, AND THE REASON IS, AND THIS GOES BACK TO SOMETHING TOTALLY UNRELATED, WHICH IS THE PANHANDLING, UH, DISCUSSION THAT SUPREME SCOTUS RULED ON WHERE COMMERCIAL SPEECH IS TREATED THE SAME AS OTHER FORMS OF SPEECH.

AND SO THIS IS LITERALLY COMMERCIAL SPEECH.

UH, THE SPEECH ITSELF MAY NOT BE AS IMPORTANT, MAYBE NUKING, IT'S NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT HERE IS INFLUENCE AND THE ETHICS BEHIND IT, AS OPPOSED TO THE SPEECH ITSELF.

AND SO WE'RE TACKLING THAT, THAT UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

WE'RE NOT TACKLING THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T WANT YOU NOT TO SPEAK.

WE'RE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WHEN YOU DO SPEAK.

AND SO I COULD, I COULD SEE IT JUSTIFIED THAT WAY, GUYS.

THIS IS WAY TOO DEEP FOR 2:00 PM ON A THURSDAY, BUT I LOVE YOU ALL FOR, FOR HANGING IN THERE WITH US AND BRIAN FIX IT.

I THINK, UM, ENLARGING, UM, THE PARENTS PHRASE PROBABLY WOULD SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS. OKAY.

AND I WOULD EXPECT YOU BRIAN TO, TO SLEEP ON THIS AND ALL OF US AS WELL, AND JUST TRY TO DREAM UP.

OKAY, WHAT MONSTER DID WE ACCIDENTALLY CREATE AND WHAT POSSIBLE HARM COULD THIS DO BEFORE

[00:40:01]

WE BAKE IT? YES.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I AM AT THIS POINT.

WE HADN'T FIGURED IT OUT RIGHT BY NOW.

WE, WE REALLY LIKE IT WHEN Y'ALL EDITORIALIZE, BECAUSE WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET.

SO IF YOU'RE SEEING SOMETHING WE'RE MISSING, PLEASE SAVE US FROM OURSELVES.

WELL, AS, UM, AS WE LIKE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, OUR ROLE IN THIS IS TO BE THE GRAND MARSHAL OF THE PARADE OF HORRIBLES AND TELL YOU ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS THAT CAN GO WRONG WITH WHAT Y'ALL ARE JUST WANTING TO DO, JUST DECIDED.

SO, UM, WE DEFINITELY HAVE PRACTICE IN DOING THAT, SO I CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT HERE.

OKAY.

UH, THE NEXT ONE IS IT WAS OKAY TO MOVE THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE ON PAGE 12.

AND IT IS RELATED TO, AS YOU'LL SEE, IT'S BEEN MARKED OUT AS SUBSECTION B, IT'S IN LIGHT GRAY AND IT'S MARKED OUT, AND THIS IS THE STEPPING OUT POLICY AND WE MARKED IT OUT HERE.

THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT Y'ALL NOT BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT DURING OUR, DURING ITEMS THAT Y'ALL HAVE RECUSED HERSELF.

WE'VE JUST HAVE ALWAYS DONE THAT.

UM, AND SO THE QUESTION BEFORE Y'ALL IS DO Y'ALL WANT TO CONTINUE THAT PRACTICE AS A TRADITION OR DO Y'ALL WANT TO GO AHEAD AND FORMULATE, REMOVE THAT.

AND, UM, FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, OR FROM THE POINT OF PASSAGE OF THIS, BE ALLOWED TO SIT AND LISTEN IN THE SAME ROOM AND NOT MOVE, JUST NOT CON TRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION.

I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS ONE.

UH, AND, AND COURSE I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY OF THIS EASIER, CAUSE THAT'D BE WAY TOO WAY, TOO MUCH FUN.

UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T CARE IF ANYBODY STEPS OUT AND THE HARD PART HERE IS, UH, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IF I'M A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON SOMETHING AND I'M INVOLVED IN IT, UH, LET'S SAY IT'S AN IT SECURITY THING, BUT I'M A MEMBER OF THE IT SECURITY COMPANY THAT WE'RE, WE'RE DELIBERATING, UH, GETTING IN CONTRACT WITH.

I SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AS A RESOURCE FOR THE COUNCIL, BUT IT SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE PART OF THE DELIBERATION.

AND SO I WAS THINKING IN THE INSECTION B ONE, WE COULD CHANGE IT TO SHELL, NOT DELIBERATE ON THE MATTER THAT WAY OF COUNCIL HAD A QUESTION FOR ME, THEY COULD ASK ME, I COULD GO DOWN TO THE FRONT AND SPEAK ON IT, BUT I WOULDN'T BE PART OF THE DELIBERATION.

DOES THAT, IS THAT TOO FINAL LINE? WELL, YOU'RE SPLITTING A REAL FONT HERE FOR ME.

THAT'S THE REAL MISSY.

OKAY.

THEN SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION, BROUGHT OUT.

OKAY.

UM, I'M THINKING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS FOR ONE THING FOR APPEARANCE SAKE.

AND ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE ON A CAMERA ARE BECAUSE OF RELATIONSHIPS.

IF YOU RECLUSE YOURSELF FROM THAT ISSUE, THAT SITUATION, THE MATTER OF YOU'RE LEADING IN THE ROOM REALLY FREES UP, IT JUST REALLY FREES UP EVERYONE.

THEN I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK OVER AS I'M TALKING.

AND I'M SAYING THINGS THAT I DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR.

I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK OVER AND SEE YOUR FAITH AS YOUR CON, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, IT SEEMED LIKE IT'S A MUCH CLEANER SITUATION WHEN THAT PERSON UPS AND MOVES OUT OF THE ROOM.

THAT'S PROBABLY WHY IT WAS WRITTEN IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME.

WELL, PRAGMATICALLY IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS STRUCK ME AS SOMEWHAT INSANE THAT WE LEAVE THE ROOM AND GO IN AND SIT AND WATCH AND LISTEN ON THE GIANT TV.

UM, SO I GUESS I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THE NEED TO LEAVE THE ROOM.

AND HONESTLY, I HAD NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THE OPTICS.

I'VE NEVER HEARD A CITIZEN, UM, COMMENT ON THAT.

I'VE NEVER HEARD COUNCIL COMMENT ON THAT.

AND YOU KNOW, I HAVE RECUSED MYSELF WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS, INCLUDING SOMETHING THAT MAY IMPACT MY BACKYARD.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M SITTING THERE PICTURING IF IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IF, WHILE I'M ON COUNCIL, THAT DECISION COMES UP.

UM, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF A POKER FACE DO I HAVE AND, UH, AND ALL OF YOU IN HERE PROBABLY EXCEPT FOR YOU, ED, UM, ARE AWARE I HAVE NO POKER FACE.

RIGHT.

SO, UH, ZERO.

SO I THINK YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT ON THAT.

AND, UM, SO YEAH, I, I WOULD COME DOWN ON FAVOR OF SAYING LEAVE IT THE WAY IS, UM, TO NOT BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT AND WE'LL STEP OUT AS AWKWARD AND STUPID AS THAT SEEMS FOR THAT VERY GOOD REASON.

AND I'M APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP.

YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE WRITING.

UM, BECAUSE I KNOW IF THE MAYOR HAS TO RECUSE THEMSELVES, THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL SHUFFLING AS A MAYOR PRO TEM STEPS IN PHYSICALLY INTO THE SEAT, HAS THE CONTROL PANEL IN FRONT OF THEM IS ENABLED TO RUN THE CONVERSATION.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

LET'S KEEP IT AS IS.

OKAY.

[00:45:02]

WHEN YOU DO THAT, I'M HERE, HERE.

LET ME BE RATIONAL AND WRITE ABOUT THINGS, BUT THE NEXT ONE MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF ART OF YOUR TIME AND THAT'S ON PAGE 14 AND IT'S THE ETHICS HEARING BOARD AND ETHICS REVIEW PANEL.

SO CURRENTLY WE HAVE THIS WEIRD SYSTEM IN PLACE WHERE WE HAVE AN ETHICS REVIEW OR AN ETHICS HEARING BOARD THAT, UM, IS A SITTING BOARD THAT NEVER DOES ANYTHING EVER, EVER.

AND IF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT IS FILED, THEN, THEN IT'S REALLY A TWO-STEP PROCESS.

THE ETHICS BOARD DOESN'T ACTUALLY HEAR THE COMPLAINT.

THERE'S MEMBERS FROM THE ETHICS BOARD THAT GETS PULLED FROM IT.

AND WE CREATE AN ETHICS REVIEW PANEL FROM THAT.

AND, UM, INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, IT MIGHT BE EASIER JUST TO CREATE AN AD HOC ETHICS, HEARING, HEARING BOARD, UH, FOR CASES AS THEY COME UP.

AND I PUT IN THERE, UM, THE COMPOSITION THAT Y'ALL NEED TO LOOK AT AND DECIDE, QUITE FRANKLY, THIS IS A PLACE HOLDER.

I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS.

WHAT I DO REALIZE IS THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE AN APPOINTEE OF COUNCIL.

UM, IT SHOULDN'T BE, AND THAT INCLUDES MUNICIPAL JUDGES.

I INITIALLY THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, AND I, WHY NOW HE'S APPOINTING THEIR APPOINTEES.

DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

UM, IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE AN EMPLOYEE AT ALL.

UM, AND SO WHO DO WE DRAW FROM, FOR WHEN THERE'S AN ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST A COUNCIL MEMBER? AND IN MY IDEA WAS, WELL, WE HAVE ALL THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, PRESUMABLY THE CHAIRS OF THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE WELL-QUALIFIED TO SIT ON A BOARD AND LISTEN, UNLESS THAT CHAIR IS, OR THAT PERSON LISTED IT AS AN APPOINTEE OF THE PERSON THAT IS THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST.

AND THEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT.

SO IF YOU READ OVER THAT PARAGRAPH, YOU'LL SEE HOW I TRIED TO RESOLVE THIS.

AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S THAT SATISFACTORY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU'LL EVEN THINK I'M GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AT ALL.

IT WAS JUST SOMETHING I HAD TO PUT ON PAPER.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I CAME UP WITH.

AND HERE'S WHAT I SAID.

IT SHALL BE COMPOSED OF THE CHAIR OF THE PLAN COMMISSION, CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CHAIR OF THE PROPERTY STANDARDS BOARD.

AND TWO OTHER MEMBERS SELECTED BY LOT BY THE CITY SECRETARY FROM A POOL OF MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

HOWEVER, AN APPOINTEE MAY NOT BE A MEMBER OF AN ETHICS HEARING BOARD.

IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT APPOINTED HIM OR HER IS THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE EVENT, THE COMPLAINT IS FILED AGAINST A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT APPOINTED THE CHAIR OF THE PLAN COMMISSION BOARD ADJUSTMENT OR PROPERTY STANDARDS BOARD.

THE POSITION SHALL BE FILLED BY LOT BY THE SECRETARY FROM A POOL OF MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

OKAY.

UH, LET'S, Y'ALL'S NOT JUST OVER THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

YOU'VE PRESENTED THIS BEFORE.

IT SEEMS, UH, AT A, AT ANOTHER VENUE AND IT DID MAKE SENSE THAT THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, THEY JUST NEVER MEET, BUT I MEAN, IT'S JUST, AND IT ALSO MAKES SENSE THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE, UH, COMPOSED OF COUNCIL MEMBERS PER SE.

SO THAT WAS ALL GOOD.

BUT, UH, FROM MY EELC DAYS, I WAS THINKING, OKAY, I LIKE THE IDEA OF THESE DIFFERENT CHAIR.

THAT'S GOOD, BUT WHAT IS THE APPEALS PROCESS? I DON'T HEAR A PROCESS BY WHICH ONCE A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, THE PERSON HAD A, AN APPEALS PROCESS AS A MATTER OF LAW, YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED, CAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY PROPERTY RIGHTS FROM THIS PERSON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

CAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE COME TO PENALTIES.

AND, UM, UH, IN FACT, THAT'S THE LAST THING ON MY LIST IS PENALTIES.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, HAS BEEN FOUND TO VIOLATE THE ETHICS POLICY.

AND SO WE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT PENALTIES.

AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IS F A PENALTY IS ACTUALLY ACTUALLY TAKE SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY, RIGHT FROM THEM.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU REMOVE SOMEBODY'S SALARY THAT THEY'RE GETTING FOR SITTING ON, YOU KNOW, THE $75, THEN WE'RE GOING TO DEFINITELY HAVE TO HAVE AN APPEAL WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE DUE PROCESS, RIGHT.

UH, BECAUSE IT'S A PROPERTY, RIGHT.

UM, BUT IF, UM, IF YOU'RE JUST SANCTIONING THEM, THAT'S A POLITICAL, UM, UM, REMEDY AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN APPEAL ON.

OKAY.

SO WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING PRESENTLY IS THIS ENTITY, THIS BODY, THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT OF THE HEARING AND THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT OF THE SANCTION.

NO, I MAKE SURE THAT'S RIGHT.

LET ME GO BACK THROUGH HERE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE SANCTION ITSELF IS THE F THAT'S FOR THE BODY OR FOR THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE FOR SANCTIONS.

I THINK SANCTIONS, THE COUNCIL IS HOW IT'S LISTED CURRENTLY.

THIS COUNCIL

[00:50:01]

WOULD ACTUALLY DECIDE THE SANCTIONS, SO THEY WOULD BRING FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL, RIGHT? YEAH.

YES.

IT'S A COUNCIL THAT ACTUALLY SIDE DECIDES THE SANCTIONS.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

DID WE HAVE A, UH, A LEGAL LIAISON FOR THE ETHICS BOARD, UH, ETHICS PANEL BECAUSE, UM, I DIDN'T SEE A STAFF LIAISON IN HERE.

I KNOW IT'S TOUGH FOR Y'ALL BECAUSE WE COULD DO THAT.

YES.

WOULD YOU HIRE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL? WOULD YOU HIRE, YOU KNOW, CAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE STILL OUR APPOINTEE.

YEAH.

UM, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

YEAH.

WE'D PROBABLY NEED TO HIRE A OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO DO THAT.

OKAY.

THIS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SOME SELF-INTEREST IN THAT DECISION, RIGHT? YES.

I CAN.

I CAN ACTUALLY PUT THAT IN THEIR HEADS.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT, DEBORAH.

UM, I WAS JUST LOOKING, SORRY.

I WAS READ AWAY PAGE 15.

I'M ON C.

AND I WAS THINKING THAT THIS WHERE IT SAYS THE BOARD MAY NOT CONSIDER ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION THAT OCCURRED MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT.

I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD, UM, MODIFIED THAT TO SAY, UM, THE, THE DATE OF THAT THE COMPLAINT CAME TO LIGHT OR THAT THERE WAS WHAT A DISCOVERY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH.

OKAY.

UM, SO I, I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO PUT THAT IN THERE.

CAUSE THAT MADE SENSE IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING DOESN'T COME TO LIGHT UNTIL SIX MONTHS LATER AND IT'S BURNED SIX MONTHS OF THE 12 MONTHS OR IT COMES TO LIGHT 12 MONTHS LATER, I, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE LIMITED IN THAT WAY.

SO, UM, THIS SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE THING, HAVING IT BE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE JUST INSTEAD OF NAMING A COMMITTEE AND LETTING THEM SIT AND MOLDER, YOU KNOW, AND NOT EVER MEET THAT, DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

SO THIS, YOUR, YOUR SELECTION SEEMED TO, UH, MAKE GOOD SENSE AND I'M FINE WITH IT.

IT'S YOUR, YOUR SELECTION PROCESS IS AS GOOD AND AS RANDOM AS ANY OTHER.

AND AT LEAST THESE FOLKS ARE USED TO MAKING QUASI JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

THEY'RE USED TO AT LEAST PLAN AS USED TO GOING THROUGH HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION AND MAKING SENSE OF IT.

HEY, THEY'RE PROBABLY THE BEST.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE A PANEL THAT UNDERSTANDS THE CULTURE OF CITY GOVERNANCE AND THIS CITY IN PARTICULAR.

YEAH.

AND WHAT STANDARDS THAT THIS COMMUNITY EXPECTS.

YEAH.

I'D SAY IT'S ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE CIVIL SERVICE OR ESSENTIALLY SO, YEP.

OKAY.

I THOUGHT ABOUT USING THEM TOO, BUT YEAH, THAT'S IT.

UM, I HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THEM TO BE HONEST, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE BAD? IT'S HARD TO, BUT WHAT WE GET WITH CIVIL COMMISSION OFTEN THOUGH, IS SOMETIMES IT'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT AREN'T REALLY THAT INTERESTED IN, IN SOMETHING THAT'S THAT INVOLVED.

RIGHT.

THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ON THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS THAT YOU GET TO YOU, YOU, YOU PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE, BUT IT'S NOT TIME CONSUMING.

AND, UM, UM, IT'S NOT DIFFERENT SET OF RULES TO IT IS THIS IS, THIS IS QUITE A BIT MORE SUBJECTIVE.

YES.

YEP.

OKAY.

AND THEN, UM, AND I WILL, UM, UM, PUT IN WITHIN THE ONE YEAR DATE OF DISCOVERY AND I'LL PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE FOR NEXT TIME.

UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW I MISSED THAT, BUT Y'ALL DO REMEMBER THAT NOW THAT YOU SAY THAT, AND THEN PENALTIES ON PAGE 19, THERE HAD BEEN SOME DISCUSSION IN THE PAST.

SOMEBODY WAS EVEN, UH, THROUGH BRAD, UM, ABOUT, DOES COUNCIL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE PAY? THE PAYMENT OF Y'ALL'S VERY, UM, LARGE SALARIES FOR SHOWING UP AT MEETINGS.

AND AS I THOUGHT, THIS THREE RECENTLY, AS I WAS THINKING THIS THROUGH NUMBER ONE, WE'RE TAKING AWAY A PROPERTY RIGHTS.

SO IT GETS CONVOLUTED WHERE IN WE NEED DUE PROCESS IF WE GO THAT ROUTE.

BUT NUMBER TWO MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK IS, I'M NOT SURE IF COUNCIL COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO TO TAKE AWAY SOMETHING THAT'S GRANTED BY CHARTER THROUGH AN ORDINANCE.

AND SO THAT'S THE BIGGER PROBLEM TO ME.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY AND I PROBABLY, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, THAT THIS COMMITTEE NOT DO THAT.

UM, UH, JUST BASED ON THAT, BUT YOU DO HAVE THE OTHER SANCTIONS, OF COURSE

[00:55:01]

YOU KNEW, CAN YOU REMOVE, UM, LOSS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS? YOU KNOW, YOU CAN TAKE THEM OFF COMMITTEES, OFTEN NEED LEADERSHIP ROLES.

UM, UM, YOU CAN REMOVE THEM FROM INVITATIONS TO FORMAL EVENTS AS FAR AS PARTICIPATING IN GROUNDBREAKING AND THAT KIND OF THING.

UM, AND QUITE FRANKLY, IF, DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF THE, UM, UM, BREACH OF ETHIC ROLE, YOU COULD REMOVE THEM FROM THE, FROM APPEARING ON PLAQUE, CITY, PLAQUES, DEDICATION, PLAQUES, AND THAT KIND OF THING.

YOU COULD, YOU COULD DO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO DO.

AND SO IT'S, Y'ALL'S DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW Y'ALL WANT TO SEND SURE OR SANCTIONED PEOPLE.

IT SEEMS THAT AI ELECTIONS DO GIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PROTECTION IN ITSELF.

UH, BUT THESE, UH, THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE JUST IDENTIFIED THOUGH, THOSE ARE PRIVILEGES AND PLEASURES AND POSITIONS THAT ARE AFFORDED BY COUNSEL ABOUT THE, THE BODY ITSELF, AS LONG AS WE DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT, UH, VIOLATES THE CITIZEN'S ELECTION, ELECTING A PERSON TO THE OFFICE.

I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AS I STATED, I THINK, I THINK BEFORE, UH, JUST SEEING THAT WE'VE GOT TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING HERE, THOUGH THAT TRULY WILL STOP A PERSON FROM, YOU KNOW, TYPE A STRONG PERSONALITIES.

THE TYPE OF THING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE WAY OF SANCTIONS HAVE A BIRTH THAT JUST REALLY WANTS TO GO OFF AND DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO STOP THEM.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO THAT WITH.

UH, DID YOU HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY, I KNOW THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CONGRESS, WE JUST HAD A, AND WE ALL DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY.

YOU KNOW, YOU ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY THAT DOES THAT.

WE'RE LIMITED.

UM, UM, LIKE Y'ALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REMOVING ONE FROM OFFICE.

THERE'S NO IMPEACHMENT PROCESS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND SO, UM, SO IT MAY BE AN EFFORT IN FUTILITY, BUT AT LEAST WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING HERE.

THE EMBARRASSMENT, IF NOTHING IS THE EMBARRASSMENT OF BEING HIT ON THE HAND OR PUBLICLY YOU DID WRONG, THAT IN ITSELF CAN HURT THE ELECTION OPPORTUNITIES OF A PERSON IN THAT NEXT ELECTION MAY BE OKAY, BUT THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT, UH, WE JUST DON'T HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF POWER.

IS IT YOUR RECOMMENDATION? THAT, THAT THEN NUMBER FIVE, JUST BE DELETED SINCE WE REALLY CAN'T DO THAT.

YES.

NOT ANY OFFICIAL OTHER, NOW WE CAN DO, WE CAN REMOVE OFFICIALS THAT SAYS ANY OFFICIAL, OTHER THAN A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER READING THAT WRONG, WE CAN REMOVE OTHER OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE.

YOU PROBABLY WANT TO LEAVE IT THERE.

OKAY.

AND OTHER THAN BY THE WAY, INCLUDING, UM, JUDGES, WE CAN'T REMOVE JUDGES LIKE THAT.

THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT AS WELL.

CAUSE IT'S A TWO YEAR APPOINTMENT.

DO THEY NEED TO BE INCLUDED? DOES THAT NEED TO SAY OTHER THAN A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR YES, THAT'S ACTUALLY, I JUST THOUGHT OF THAT AS I WAS SITTING HERE.

YEAH.

AND THEN NUMBER SIX, DO WE NEED TO STRIKE LOSS OF PAY? YES.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT'S Y'ALL'S CALL, IF YOU WANT TO DO LOTS OF PAY, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL.

THERE'LL BE AN ARGUMENT THAT WE CAN'T, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THE CHARTERS, THE WET SETS THE PAY, UH, AND THIS IS AN ORDINANCE AND IT'S HARD TO OVERRIDE A CHARTER PROVISION WITH AN ORDINANCE.

AND SO THE COST OF THE PROCESS WAYS MITIGATE FAR, FAR OUTWEIGHS DEFINITELY THE, THE MONETARY.

AND OF COURSE, BECAUSE WE KNOW OUR $75 A PAYCHECK IS WORTH SO MUCH.

IT'S PROBABLY NOT WORTH DOING TWICE A MONTH.

WHEN I GET MY EMAIL WITH THE PAY STUB, I ACTUALLY LIKED THE LIST YOU GAVE.

OKAY.

A MOMENT AGO.

UM, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO'S WILDLY UNETHICAL, YOU KNOW, THAT THE WAY YOU TACKLE THAT IS THROUGH DAMAGING THEIR LEGACY AND THEIR EGO AND THEIR, THEIR PERSONA AND THE PUBLIC SPACE.

AND WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE GIVEN THE POWER TO OUR VOTERS TO EXERCISE A RECALL.

AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ALERTING THE VOTERS IN THIS VERY PUBLIC WAY THAT, HEY, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM HERE AND YOU GUYS NEED TO MAKE A DECISION.

SO I THINK IT'S THE WAY TO GO.

OKAY.

I LIKE IT.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

THIS DESIGN FOR CITY COUNCIL, ALL

[01:00:03]

COUNCIL COUNCIL, I'M GOING BECAUSE PERSONAL NAIL STAFF AND ALL THAT, I PRETTY MUCH COVERED WITH A LOT OF THIS.

YEAH.

THE SANCTIONS PART DISCUSSION IS JUST DESIGNED FOR COUNCIL.

I MEAN, IF WE HAVE ANOTHER OFFICIAL AND IT'S LIKE AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S DOING THIS, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO MOST LIKELY REMOVE THEM FROM, FROM THEIR POSITION.

AND IF IT'S A BOARD MEMBER OR COMMISSION MEMBER, THEN WE WOULD JUST REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE AS WELL.

SO YEAH, THIS IS, IT'S TOTALLY GEARED TOWARDS PUBLIC OFFICIALS THOUGH.

WE GET TO SIT AROUND AND DECIDE HOW WE'RE PUNISHED.

IT'S NOW THE SANCTIONS ARE JUST DESIGNED FOR THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

YEAH.

OKAY.

ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THE, UH, THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS HERE? NOPE.

OKAY.

OKAY.

REMIND ME IF YOU GO TO THIS FOUND THE SAME PAGE IN THE DECK LATORI RULING, THIS IS A VERY WEIRD SECTION AND I THOUGHT WE DISCUSSED, Y'ALL DISCUSSED THIS LAST TIME AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE Y'ALL LANDED.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO KEEP IN PLACE WHERE ONE OF Y'ALL, IF THERE'S BEEN PUBLIC ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST YOU AND IN SOME FORMAT, UM, THEN YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO, UM, UM, FILE A STATEMENT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AFFIRMING YOUR INNOCENCE AND THEN REQUEST THE ETHICS HEARING BOARD TO REVIEW THE ALLEGATIONS AND MAKE KNOWN FINDINGS TO THE PUBLIC.

SO IT'S A NAME CLEARING PROCESS.

BASICALLY.

IT SEEMS PRETTY BROAD THERE.

UM, AND THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT WE CAN KEEP IT THERE.

I COULDN'T REMEMBER WHAT Y'ALL DISCUSSED LAST TIME.

I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR IT NOT TO BE THERE.

I HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT, THE TARGET, SO I CAN SEE THE VALUE IN THIS.

OKAY.

AND I COULD SEE, I COULD SEE THE NEED FOR THAT.

I WOULD HAVE, I COULD HAVE TRIGGERED THAT.

YEAH.

IF AN, IF AN ETHICS HEARING BOARD </