[00:00:01] >> GOOD EVENING. THE TIME IS NOW 6:30 PM. [A. CALL TO ORDER] IT'S NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025. I HEREBY CALL TO ORDER THE AD HOC COMMITTEE. TASKED WITH REVIEWING THE COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY RULES OF ORDER AND CODE OF ETHICS, COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE BY LAWS. WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ROLL CALL, JANOR WRIGHT AND I'M HERE, MS. CAMPBELL. >> HERE. >> MR. GARGUL, NOT HERE. MS. STANFORD. >> HERE. >> MR. WASHINGTON. >> MS. TODD. >> HERE. >> MISS JAMES IS NOT HERE. WE DO HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS HERE, SO WE'LL PROCEED. WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED AS IT RELATES TO INVOCATION BY MS. CAMPBELL HERE FOR US TODAY. >> THANK YOU. HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING OUR CITY. WE PRAY THAT AS WE DISCUSS OUR AGENDA AND DRAFT POLICIES FOR OUR CITY BYLAWS, WE WILL ALWAYS PUT THE PEOPLE'S INTERESTS FIRST AND FOREMOST. GIVE US THE WISDOM TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS. BE OUR LEADER DURING THIS MEETING AND BEYOND IN JESUS NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN. >> THANK YOU. WE ALREADY DID ROLL CALL, SO WE'LL PROCEED TO D, WHICH IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PROCEEDED BY THE PLEDGE TO THE TEXAS FLAG. WE'LL PROCEED TO ITEM F, WHICH IS PUBLIC APPEARANCE. TODAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE FOR PUBLIC APPEARANCE. WE'LL PROCEED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, [G. CONSENT AGENDA] WHICH IS ITEM G HERE CONSENT AGENDA, ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED OR CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE COMMITTEE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR REQUEST IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA. WITH THAT, WE HAVE CONSENT AGENDA G12025046, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, THESE MEETING MINUTES OR FROM OUR SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING. WITH THAT, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS IT RELATES TO THESE MEETING MINUTES. >> I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE SEPTEMBER 30TH 2025 AGENDA MINUTES. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. WE'LL PROCEED TO TAKE VOTE. PERFECT. MOTION CARRIES. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO REGULAR AGENDA ITEM H AND H12025047, [H.1 2025-047 Review and consider all proposed amendments to Articles 1 – 9 of the Council Relations Policy, Rules of Order, and Code of Ethics (Bylaws), as previously discussed, recommended, and approved by the Committee; and take appropriate action.] WHICH IS TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 1-9 OF THE COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY RULES OF ORDER AND CODE OF ETHICS BY LAWS AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, RECOMMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. WITH THAT, I KNOW WE DID SOME REVIEW FROM OUR LAST MEETING. WE HAD SOME CHANGES, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO SECTION 9. IF WE WANT TO LOOK THROUGH AND WITH A FOCUS ON SECTION 9 OR YOU CAN FOCUS ON OTHER SECTIONS AND PROCEED THEREBY. >> REAL QUICK. FIRST OF ALL, GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. JUST A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS, I GUESS. THERE'S ALL DIFFERENT COLORS THROUGHOUT THIS 40 PAGE DOCUMENT. I HAVE IT ON THE FIRST PAGE, JUST SO EVERYONE'S CLEAR THE BLUE LANGUAGE IS NEW PROPOSED BASED ON SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAD AT THE LAST MEETING. THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN RED AND CROSSED OUT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DELETED LANGUAGE, AND THEN THE LANGUAGE THAT'S GREEN AND UNDERLINED IS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, ADDED LANGUAGE. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS WE GO THROUGH. ALSO THROUGH I MADE A COUPLE OF NON SUBSTANTIVE GRAMMATICAL FORMATTING AND SPELLING CORRECTIONS. ALSO, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, MULTIPLE TIMES, I TRIED TO MAKE SOME OF THE DEFINED TERMS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT COUNCIL MEMBERS BEING ONE WORD VERSUS TWO OR JUST SO THERE'S SOME CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION. I THINK ANOTHER ITEM TOO, OBVIOUSLY, I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE VIDEO. THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THROUGHOUT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE BYLAWS WHERE IT REFERENCES THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL. JUST WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION THERE. I ADDED IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION 1.1, [00:05:01] SO I GUESS THE FIRST PAGE BEHIND THE COVER PAGE. I ADDED SOME LANGUAGE THERE JUST SO IT'S CLEAR RIGHT FROM THE GET GO WHEN YOU START READING REFERENCES SECTION 8.4. IN THERE, IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, MAYOR REFERS TO CHAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER REFERS TO MEMBER GOVERNING BODY, COUNCIL IT'S ALL SYNONYMOUS SO THAT WAY, IF YOU'RE READING AND IT SAYS MAYOR, AND THAT PROVISION APPLIES TO A BOARD COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION, YOU CAN CONSIDER TO APPLY TO THE CHAIR. I KNOW THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT. I TRIED TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND RIGHT FROM THE GET GO BECAUSE IT WAS BURIED ALL THE WAY TOWARDS THE END. THAT'S ALL THE HOUSEKEEPING STUFF. YOU GUYS TAKE YOUR TIME TO REVIEW. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> I MEAN SO THAT WE APPROACH THIS IN ORDER, DID YOU WANT US TO START FROM THE FRONT AND GO BACK TO THE END OR? >> YEAH. >> WE CAN START FROM THE BEGINNING HERE WITH THESE CHANGES, SECTION 1.1. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT REPORT AGENDA. WE DON'T REALLY SEE REPORT AGENDAS ON COUNCIL. I'VE SEEN, LIKE CDC AND EDC GET THEM FROM JIM, BUT OUR CITY MANAGER DOESN'T DO REPORT AGENDAS TO COUNCIL. IS THAT NORMAL? >> IT'S HARD TO SAY NORMAL. I MEAN, I CERTAINLY AM USED TO SEEING A REPORT AGENDA BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANTIVE THAN JUST UPCOMING MEETINGS, BUT IT'S A MIXED BAG. YOU BROUGHT THE EDC CDC UP AS AN EXAMPLE. I'M USED TO MAYBE SEEING A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANCE JUST SOME GENERAL UPDATES FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER, CITY MANAGER, WHATEVER THE CASE IS, BUT IT JUST DEPENDS SO YES AND NO. I [00:10:14] DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ALL ARE AT IN YOUR REVIEW, BUT A COUPLE OF SECTIONS JUST TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION THAT HAD THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES FROM LAST MEETING TO THIS MEETING. I POINT YOUR ATTENTION TO 2.3. SORRY, THE PAGES AREN'T NUMBERED, BUT IF YOU JUST FLIP TO 2.3A, I INCLUDED THE LANGUAGE IN BLUE RIGHT THERE AS YOU GUYS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, IN THE INSTANCE THAT ITEM IS CANCELED TABLE OR REMOVED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING AGENDA, AND IT'S SUBJECT TO A SOON TO EXPIRE STATUTORY DEADLINE SAYING THAT THE COUNCIL WILL DO WHAT THE. >> ON THAT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. WHY IS IT THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR MONDAY WHEN IT GOT MISSED WHEN WE HAD TO CANCEL THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING? I MEAN, THIS IS WHY WE NEED THIS STUFF ON THERE. >> YEAH, WE HAVE TO RE NOTICE IT BECAUSE WE NOTICE IT FOR THAT SPECIFIC DAY. WE HAVE TO RE NOTICE IT. SHOULD WE INCLUDE SOMETHING ON HERE ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAY GETTING THE STUFF ONTO THE AGENDA, BUT WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE ANY LANGUAGE ABOUT ENSURING THAT REQUIRED NOTICES ARE SENT OUT BECAUSE IS THERE A TIMELINE THAT BETWEEN HEARINGS THAT'S REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE AND IF SO, ARE WE AT RISK OF MISSING THAT WINDOW BECAUSE OF THIS? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT FOR THIS AREA IN CASE THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE ADDED TO ENSURE WE DON'T WALK INTO SITUATIONS LIKE THAT. >> I THINK WE HAD A SECTION HERE SOMEWHERE ABOUT CONTINUING HEARINGS. AS FAR AS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ITEM IS. TYPICALLY, YOU HAVE TO GIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NOTICE BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING. SOMETIMES, LIKE WITH THE CA COMMITTEE OR FOR MORATORIUMS MOVING FORWARD, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME IN BETWEEN HEARINGS, BUT IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ITEM IS UNDER CONSIDERATION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A NECESSARY ADD TO THE BYLAWS. THERE IS A PROCEDURE SOMEWHERE IN HERE ABOUT CONTINUING HEARINGS. >> WELL BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CONTINUED IN A SENSE, LIKE THE MEETING GOT CANCELED. I WOULD THOUGHT IMMEDIATELY THAT DAY OR DAY AFTER WE COULD HAVE BEEN SENDING OUT THE HEARING NOTICE SO WE COULD HAVE THE HEARING AT THE UPCOMING MEETING LIKE OVER A WEEK AGO, SO IT WOULD BE TWO WEEKS BETWEEN. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TIME TO ISSUE IT OUT. CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING THAT SITUATION BECAUSE NOW WE'RE DOING THE BUILDING PROCESS OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE THE ZONING AND NOW WE HAVE THESE ITEMS COMING UP ON THE AGENDA COMPLETELY OUT OF ORDER OF HOW IT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR BUILDING AND THAT'S THE SITUATION WE RUN INTO AND WE DON'T MOVE ITEMS TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AS QUICKLY AS WE NEED TO IS THERE IS THERE A POLICY WE NEED TO WRITE A ORDINANCE, OR A RESOLUTION? IS IT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GO IN HERE? WHAT CAN WE DO TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN? >> ALSO, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR OUT OF THE WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT BUT I THINK ALL THAT'S COVERED UNDER STATE LAW LIKE THE ONE EXAMPLE ABOUT THE HEARING REQUIRES 15 DAYS, BUT ALSO IT DEPENDS ON WHEN THE NEWSPAPER POSTS THEIR NOTICE, RIGHT? PRINCE AND HERALD ONLY POSTS ON A CERTAIN DAYS, SO YOU HAVE TO WAIT 15 DAYS THERE. THERE'S DURATIONS, BUT ALL THAT'S COVERED UNDER STATE LAW. >> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT CONFLICTS? WE NOW HAVE A PLAT THAT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THE ZONING FOR THAT PLAT YET AND WE'RE ABOUT TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. LITERALLY, BECAUSE A MEETING WAS CANCELED, THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS FOR A VERY IMPORTANT THING IS NOW OUT OF ORDER, AND WE'RE FIGHTING THE SHOT CLOCK WITH THE STATE FOR THE PLAT, WHILE ALSO HAVING THE HEARING THING, IT'S OUT OF ORDER. IT CAN PUT US IN A BIND. WHAT CAN WE DO? WHAT SHOULD WE DO TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS CAN'T HAPPEN? IS OBVIOUSLY IT JUST DID. >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WE COULD ADD TO THESE BY LAWS THAT'S NOT ALREADY COVERED TO STATE LAW, BUT I THINK WE CAN CHAT AFTER AND KIND OF TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU BROUGHT UP BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR OFF TOPIC FROM TONIGHT, BUT I THINK AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE COULD ADD TO THE BY LAWS THAT I'M AWARE OF [00:15:04] THAT WOULDN'T ALREADY BE COVERED UNDER STATE LAW AS FAR AS HEARINGS BECAUSE SOME OF THAT STUFF CHANGES. BUT WE CAN CHAT AFTER ON SOME OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS YOU BROUGHT UP. >> WITH THAT, ARE WE ALL ON 2.5 NOW, IS IT? >> YEAH, 2.3 WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF NEW LANGUAGE, AND THEN ALSO, 2.5 THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING, 2.5A. I TOOK A STAB AT THAT LANGUAGE AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS. >> ANY CHANGES TO 2.5 OR, SO WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO THE NEXT SECTION HERE. >> ACTUALLY, NO, THERE IS SOMETHING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. THERE IS THAT THING THAT MR. JOHNSON BROUGHT UP TO YOU REGARDING THE INFORMATION DISCUSSION BACK THERE? DOES IT ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE AN ORDINANCE WE PASS, OR SHOULD THAT GO HERE UNDER EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, CLARIFYING THAT IF IT'S NOT RELATED AND IT'S SAID BACK THERE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE STATE RULES ON THAT, AND IT'S JUST PUTTING IT IN. COULD WE ADD THAT TO 2.5 TO HAVE IT HERE WITHIN OUR BYLAWS? >> WE COULD. I THINK TO YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON BROUGHT IT UP AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM ABOUT A EXECUTIVE SESSION POLICY TO CLARIFY SOME OF THAT. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL COULD ADOPT SEPARATE FROM THIS. MAYBE IF THIS [OVERLAPPING]. >> COULD YOU READ IT TO EVERYONE HERE SO THAT THEY CAN ALSO MAYBE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT. >> YES. IT'S STILL IN THE WORKS, AND IT'S GOING TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME TONIGHT, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT WE COULD ALWAYS ADD IT TO THIS LATER. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. IT COULD BE A SEPARATE POLICY. >> I'LL JUST ADD, IF YOU GUYS ARE REFERRING TO SOMETHING THAT TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE COMMITTEE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT. I'M LOST, IF YOU GUYS IF THERE WAS A CONVERSATION PRIOR, I THINK YOU'LL BE HELPFUL SO THAT WE'RE ON COURSE WITH THE TASK TODAY. BUT FOR 2.5 AS IT STANDS, IS THAT WE CAN MOVE ALONG AND WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT SECTION, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, FOR 2.10, WHICH ARE THE MINUTES. IT'S JUST CLARIFICATION THERE. I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION. OTHER FOLKS HERE, IF YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO THAT SECTION. I THINK WE ALREADY AGREED AS IT PERTAINS TO 3.2 AND UP, 3.7 IS JUST A MINOR CHANGE JUST ADD IN TEXAS. THE OTHER SECTIONS HERE AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE BLUE SECTION. I MEAN, YOU CAN GLANCE AT THE GREEN, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD FOR THE LAST MEETING. I KNOW WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH 7.7, BUT I KNOW IT WAS A TOPIC OF A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS. IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT THAT ONE MORE TIME. I THINK LAST TIME MS. TODD VOTED ON IT, IT WAS OKAY, BUT IF WE WANT TO GLANCE AT IT TO MAKE SURE IT'S GOOD. THERE'S SOME MINOR CHANGES FOR SECTION 8.4 JUST THE WORDING THERE FOR MAYOR, CHAIR PERSON. YES, AND ONE MORE JUST COMMENT ON 8.4. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, I GUESS, THE SECOND SENTENCE, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE MAYOR AND MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM SHALL BE INTERCHANGEABLE, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE TO ADD A FOURTH BULLET POINT DOWN THERE, [00:20:03] JUST BASICALLY RESTATING THAT THE TERMS MAYOR PRO TEM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH VICE CHAIR. I KNOW IT SAYS IT EARLIER, BUT JUST TO ADD IT AGAIN. THAT'S I GUESS, IN MY OPINION, NOT A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION. I WAS REVIEWING IT AGAIN TODAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO ADD A FOURTH BULLET POINT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE THREE BULLET POINTS ABOVE. >> I LIKE THAT IDEA. >> THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO VOTE ON OR THAT'S JUST A MINOR CHANGE. >> IT'S A MINOR. I CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A MINOR LITTLE CLERICAL ONE ALSO THAT'S UNDER 5.1C IN THAT SECOND SENTENCE. WHENEVER WE HAVE THE OTHER NUMBERS WRITTEN OUT, THERE'S ALSO THE NUMBER IN PARENTHESES AND FIVE DOESN'T HAVE THE FIVE IN PARENTHESES. IT'S VERY MINOR, BUT CONSISTENTLY EVERYWHERE ELSE, WE HAVE THE WORD AND THE NUMBER. IT'S UNDER 5.1C. THAT SECOND SENTENCE, WHERE IT SAYS THE INITIAL COMMENTS AND PRESENTATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES AND THE REBUTTAL OR CONCLUDING COMMENTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO FIVE. >> YES. THANK YOU. >> IT'S ONE LITTLE THING. >> YOU ALWAYS CATCH THE LITTLE THING. THANK YOU. >> THAT'S ON. >> EVERY TIME I READ BACK THROUGH, I CATCH MORE, SO THANK YOU. JUST ANOTHER COMMENT ON ARTICLE 9, YOU'LL SEE I CHANGED THE TITLE FROM RULES OF ETHICS TO CODE OF ETHICS BECAUSE THROUGHOUT THE BYLAWS, IT'S EVEN IN THE TITLE, COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY, RULES OF ORDER AND CODE OF ETHICS. I CHANGED IT FROM RULES TO CODE OF ETHICS. YOU'LL SEE THAT LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT? >> MY QUESTION FOR SECTION 9.4 HERE. IN SECTION D WHERE IT STATES WRITTEN OPINION BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COUNCIL. THEN SECTION E STATES THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL ALSO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION. I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT IN SYNC OR MAYBE THE ORDER. HOW WILL THAT WORK IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN HERE. >> YOU TALKING ABOUT SUBSECTION D AND E? >> YES. >> YES. I WENT BACK AND YOU GUYS FEEL FREE TO MAKE ANY TWEAKS OF THIS. THIS WAS JUST MY STAB AT IT BASED ON SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD THE LAST MEETING. I THINK IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU GUYS WANTED THE TWO TO BE GOING CONTEMPORANEOUS AT THE SAME TIME SO WHERE SOMEONE SUBMITS A WRITTEN COMPLAINT IT HAS ALL THE DETAIL, IT MEETS THE ADMINISTRATIVE THRESHOLD. THEN AT THAT POINT, THEN THE ATTORNEY DOES THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION AND ISSUES A WRITTEN OPINION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT'S BUMPED OVER TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AS WELL. IT'S NOT LIKE A CITY ATTORNEY CHECK AND THEN ETHICS COMMITTEE THEY'RE GOING ALONG AT THE SAME TIME. THAT'S BASED ON THE DISCUSSION YOU GUYS HAD THE LAST MEETING, BUT WE CAN REVISE THAT ORDER OR PROCEDURE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO. >> YES, I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENTION. I'M JUST LIKE THE ORDER THAT I'M READING IT. I THINK IT COULD FLOW BETTER. >> DO YOU SAY IN THE FLIP D AND E IN THE ORDER HERE. >> NO, IT'S JUST THE FLOW. I'M NOT SURE. HERE, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL DETERMINE IF THE COMPLAINT HAS MERIT. THEN THE ETHICS REVIEW IS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS? >> CORRECT. >> THE ATTORNEY RECEIVED WELL. >> NECESSARILY HAS MET JUST, THAT THERE'S ENOUGH DETAIL THAT THERE'S CITING THAT IT. >>YES. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. >> YES. >> AGAINST THE MERITS. IT'S LIKE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION THAT TRIGGERS WHATEVER THEY'RE ALLEGING, OR THE CODE. THE ATTORNEY DETERMINES THAT AND THEN FORWARD THAT TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. ONCE IT'S DEEMED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, THEN BOTH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE HAVE 15 BUSINESS DAYS. [00:25:01] >> THE QUESTION I HAVE, ONCE THEY HAVE IT NOW. YOU FORWARD IT TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. ARE YOU GUYS REVIEWING IT SIDE BY SIDE OR? >> CORRECT. BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S NOT PROVIDING THE OPINION TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, JUST SO COUNSEL CAN GET A LEGAL OPINION, AND THEN ALSO A COMMITTEE OPINION. >> IT'S TWO OPINIONS, ONE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ONE FROM THE [INAUDIBLE]. >> A LEGAL OPINION, AND THEN ONE A RECOMMENDATION WITH POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS. >> THAT'S WHAT I DID MENTION, I BELIEVE IN THE LAST MEETING, WHICH ONE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADOPT. YOU'RE PROVIDING A LEGAL OPINION BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE SUBSTANTIVELY REVIEWED. THEN YOU HAVE THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE WHO IS PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION. MY ISSUE THERE WAS IF THERE'S A CONFLICT. POTENTIALLY OPEN TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS, POTENTIALLY DEPENDS. THERE'S A CONFLICT AND THE CITY DECIDES TO GO WITH THE ATTORNEY BECAUSE IT'S AN ATTORNEY. THEN COULD BE COMPLICATED, OR IF THE COUNSEL DECIDES TO GO WITH THE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEN DISREGARD AN OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY THAT POTENTIALLY SAY THERE'S NO MERIT, YOU NEED TO DISMISS AND GO OTHERWISE. THEN THERE COULD ALSO BE IMPLICATION FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, LIKE COUNSEL REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNSEL AND WENT OTHERWISE. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT AND TRYING TO AVOID AND TRYING TO SEE IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE POTENTIALLY ONE RECOMMENDATION FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTATION AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE RECOMMEND. YOU COULD DISAGREE IN THAT MEETING, BUT THEN THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE A VOTE, AND THEN THAT WILL BE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT PROCESS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT OTHERS THINK, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE A CONFLICT. THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. >> I THINK WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU SAYING IS THAT IT'S A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO MAKE A NON BIASED DECISION TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS. >> BECAUSE THE WAY HOW I'M LOOKING AT IT, IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE A CEO AT A COMPANY, YOU HAVE HR DOING AN INVESTIGATION, AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR GENERAL COUNSEL DOING AN INVESTIGATION. THEN YOUR GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE COMPANY SAYS, HEY, HERE'S OUR RECOMMENDATION. JUST AN EXAMPLE, YOU NEED TO FIRE THE PERSON, BUT HR SAYS NO. OUR HR SAYS YOU NEED TO A GENERAL COUNSEL SAYS NO. THEN NOW THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THOSE CONFLICTING RECOMMENDATION. IT CAN OPEN UP THE DOOR LIKE WHO SHOULD YOU FOLLOW? I THINK THERE SHOULD BE ONE RECOMMENDATION IN THE SENSE THAT AFTER THEN HR AND GENERAL COUNSEL SHOULD COME TOGETHER, MAKE A DECISION, AND IF THEY DO DISAGREE, VOTE ON THE MATTER, MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CEO. HERE'S OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. >> MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS IT CLOSES OFF THAT DIALOGUE. IF THE TWO PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, COUNCIL HEARING THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, AT THAT POINT, WILL BE BASICALLY OBLIGATED TO START ASKING QUESTIONS. WHY ARE YOU RECOMMENDING IT THIS WAY? EXPLAIN TO ME WHY AND TO BOTH SIDES TO HEAR BOTH SIDES. IF BOTH OF THEM COME TOGETHER AND THEY VOTE AND ONE OVERRULES THE OTHER AND ONLY ONE THING COMES BEFORE COUNSEL, LET'S BE REAL. NOT EVERYONE ASKS QUESTIONS. AT THAT POINT, THAT RECOMMENDATION MIGHT JUST GET RUBBER STAMPED. THE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE GETTING ASKED AREN'T BEING ASKED WHEN HAVING TWO DIFFERENT OPINIONS. IF THEY COME TOGETHER IT'S THE SAME OPINION THAT MAKES A STRONG CASE FOR LIKE, THIS IS THE DIRECTION TO GO BUT IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, THAT'S WHEN COUNSEL REALLY SHOULD BE ASKING QUESTIONS AND WEIGHING THE DIFFERENT SIDES AND BE INVESTED IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY. >> COUNCIL COULD, BUT THEN THEY SHOULD NOT SAY, I'M ADOPTING THIS. WELL, NOW THEY'RE A PART OF THE INVESTIGATION. THEY'LL SAY, BASED ON THESE RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE GOING TO FORM OUR OWN DECISION IN THAT CASE, THEN THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS HERE. IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS? THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FORM THEIR INDEPENDENT DECISION, ISN'T IT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION? IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. [OVERLAPPING] >> GO AHEAD. >> YES. I WAS GOING TO SAY I LIKE THAT IDEA OF CLARIFYING THAT COUNSEL IS MAKING THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT DECISION. IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN A CITY STAFF COMES AND THEY SAY, [00:30:04] WE RECOMMEND APPROVING THIS. COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT. WE GET TO MAKE OUR OWN DECISION ON THAT. I THINK MAKING SURE THAT VERBIAGE IS IN HERE TO CLARIFY A RECOMMENDATION MAY COME TO US. WE'RE NOT ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE MAKING AN INDEPENDENT DECISION BECAUSE WE MAY DISAGREE COMPLETELY. >> WELL, FOR SECTION F, IT MENTIONED THAT, BUT I WOULD CLARIFY VERY CLEAR THAT THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF IT. THEY'LL CONSIDER BOTH, AND THEN THEY'LL MAKE THE INDEPENDENT DECISION AND VOTE ON IT. IT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR IF THAT'S THE CASE AND NOT JUST ADOPT ONE BECAUSE IT WILL OPEN UP THE DOOR BASED ON WHAT I'M LOOKING AT VARIOUS RISKS. I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT. >> NO. I APPRECIATE THAT WAS THE DRAFTING INTENT, BUT IT NEVER HURTS TO ADD MORE CLARIFICATION, THE COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ATTORNEY'S REPORT, THE RECOMMENDATION AND THEN MAKE A, NOT NECESSARILY ADOPT ONE OR THE OTHER, BUT JUST KIND OF TOTALITY OF ALL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS AND THEN MAKE A DECISION. I THINK IT DOESN'T HURT TO ADD THAT CLARIFICATION IN THERE BECAUSE IT'LL BE ASKED, RIGHT? >> BUT IN REALITY, YOU HAVE COUNSEL MEMBERS WHO DON'T ASK QUESTIONS TO BEGIN WITH, PRESENTING BOTH SIDES IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY RUBBER STAMP AND GO ALONG TO GET ALONG, THAT'S STILL GOING TO EXIST NO MATTER WHAT'S PRESENTED. >> IF THEY'RE CONFLICTING REPORTS BROUGHT FORWARD, AND THEY JUST RUBBER STAMP SOMETHING, THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT. THAT'S HOW PEOPLE GET RECALLED. THAT'S HOW THEY DON'T GET RE ELECTED. IT PUTS COUNSEL ON NOTICE BASICALLY THAT IF YOU'RE GETTING THIS, YOU BETTER BE ASKING QUESTIONS, YOU BETTER BE DOING THE DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS HAVE COMPLAINT, I HAD COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME. WE DO NOT HAVE A PROCESS THAT REALLY FAIRLY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSES THESE THINGS. COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. COUNCIL NEEDS TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND DO THINGS APPROPRIATELY WITH RESPECT TO THE DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED AND HEAR ALL THE SIDES AND MAKE A DECISION. THEY SHOULD NEVER JUST BE GOING ON SOMETHING BLINDLY. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THEY NEED TO STEP DOWN. >> YES. >> DOES THE COMMITTEE LIKE THE WAY THIS PROCESS IS SPELLED OUT WITH HAVING THE ATTORNEY GIVE AN OPINION ALSO HAVE THE COMMITTEE REVIEW AT THE SAME TIME FORM TWO SEPARATE, OR DO YOU LIKE A PROCESS TO WHERE EITHER THE COMMITTEE OR THE ATTORNEY GOES FIRST, AND THEN THEY FORWARD IT TO THE NEXT AND THEN DOWN OR DO YOU LIKE HAVING TWO. [OVERLAPPING] I'M JUST ASKING, IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO ME. >> I LIKE THE FORMAT. I WOULD JUST CLARIFY F. THEN NEXT SUGGESTION HERE AS IT RELATES TO THE INITIAL REVIEW PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S SUFFICIENT INFORMATION. I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEES INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS AS WELL TO VIEW IT TOO. BECAUSE WHAT I MAY VIEW AS AN ATTORNEY OUTRIGHT, THEN AS THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHOEVER THEY MAY BE REASONABLE, PRUDENT PERSON MAY SAY, I THINK YOU MAY INVOKE THIS SECTION. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT PROCESS THERE, AND THAT'S A WAY TO HAVE THEM IN THE PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY NOT HAVING A SITUATION WHERE FOLKS SAY, WELL, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS JUST LOOKING AT THESE AND THROWING THEM OUT, THEY WILL NEVER GET TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE. >> WELL, I THINK YOU'RE BRINGING UP A VERY VALID POINT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE YOU BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE THAT WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY IS INTERVIEWING THE WITNESSES AND STUFF, THE ETHICS BOARD SHOULD BE THERE, THE ETHIC BOARD SHOULD BE HEARING THE RESPONSES. IT'S D, BUT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE ABOVE E IS WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY CONTACT THE COMPLAINANT AND THE AFFECTED OFFICER TO DO THOSE INTERVIEWS. IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ETHICS BOARD BEING A PART OF IT. I FEEL LIKE DEJA BUT I FEEL LIKE YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BEFORE THAT THEY SHOULD BE TOGETHER HEARING THAT. >> WE DID. I REMEMBER SAYING IF YOU ALL RECALL, I SAID, IT'S LIKE A RUMOR. YOU STARTED OFF BY THE TIME IT GETS TO ME, IT'S ALL TRANSFORMED TO SOMETHING THE ELEPHANT IS RED, AND THEN IT GETS TO ME THE PENGUIN WAS PURPLE. IF THEY'RE FRONT AND CENTER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION, [00:35:04] THAT'S WHAT WE AGREED ON, THEN NOTHING CAN BE MISCONSTRUED. HOWEVER, WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> I LIKE ALL THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. JUST A THOUGHT ON HAVING THE COMMITTEE INVOLVED WITH THE INITIAL REVIEW OF A COMPLAINT WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE MERITS OF IT, JUST WHETHER IT PASSES THE SMELL TEST, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A POST AND HOLD A MEETING TO DO THAT, WHICH ISN'T THE END OF THE WORLD. UNLESS THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED A SUB COMMITTEE THAT COULD REVIEW COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN AND JUST A CHECK LIST, DOES IT HAVE ABC, AND THEN ONE THING TO MIND. >> I HAVE A QUESTION TO AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPLAINT FORM. WE CURRENTLY HAVE ONE BECAUSE I THINK YOU REFERENCED HERE ABOUT A FORM. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A FORM? NO. WE DON'T HAVE A COMPLAINT FORM. NO, WE WOULD HAVE TO WE WOULD HAVE TO CREATE THAT. >> CREATE ONE. OKAY. >> ALSO, IS THERE ALREADY AN ETHICS COMMITTEE FORM? SO YOU THEN YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO GET A COMPLAINT FORM DEVELOPED, GET A COMPLAINT, AND THEN FORM A COMMITTEE. BY THAT TIME, 15 DAYS HAS CAME AND PASSED. >> [OVERLAPPING] SORRY. WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE FORM NOW. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING GRANT COULD EASILY PUT TOGETHER, HE HAS THE EXPERIENCE OF THIS LOOKING INTO THINGS, AND I THINK THAT COUNSEL CAN ADOPT THE FORM EASILY. I AGREE IT'S COMPLEX OF DETERMINING THE MERITS. I THINK WHAT WE COULD PUT IS THAT THE ATTORNEY CAN REVIEW FOR THE MERIT AND THAT THE COMPLAINANT OR THE AFFECTED PERSON CAN APPEAL TO THE ETHICS BOARD IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE DECISION MADE. THEN IT'S AT THE POINT OF WHEN ANY INTERVIEWS AND SUCH ARE HAPPENING BECAUSE IT'S DEEMED WE ARE DOING SOMETHING, THAT IS FOR SURE WHEN THE ETHICS BOARD IS 100% INVOLVED, AND THEY'RE THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE LISTENING TO THE TESTIMONY. BUT AT THAT INITIAL PART, IF IT'S THE ATTORNEY SAYING, YES, THIS IS OR NO, IT'S NOT, ALLOWING AN APPEAL PROCESS OR OPPORTUNITY COULD HELP WITH COUNTERING THAT. IF THE ATTORNEY SAYS ONE THING AND SOMEONE WANTS TO APPEAL IT, THEN IT DOES FOR SURE GO BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. >> SO THE APPEAL FROM THE PERSON WHO SUBMITS THE COMPLAINT? >> OR THE PERSON WHO THE COMPLAINT WAS AGAINST. I GUESS THEY WOULD BE COMING BEFORE THIS ANYWAY, REGARDLESS IF THAT HAPPENED. I GUESS, YES. IF THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED, THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE ETHICS COMMITTEE TO SAY MY COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE, AND THEY COULD REVIEW IT. >> THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED, IS THAT, THE CITY ATTORNEY REVIEWS IT AND THAT IF THEY DETERMINE THAT IT'S LACKING, IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THAT THEY GIVE THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A NEW, MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO PROVIDE SO IT'S LIKE, HEY, I GOT THIS COMPLAINT, BUT YOU DIDN'T CITE TO A SECTION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, GIVE IT BACK TO THEM, THEN THEY HAVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. COULD ADD LANGUAGE IN THERE, SOMETHING ALONGSIDE THAT, CITY ATTORNEY SHALL ERR ON THE SIDE OF COMPLETENESS. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO ANYWAYS, JUST IN ALL HONEST, OF COURSE, IT DEPENDS ON WHO'S REVIEWING IT, BUT I WOULD ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF, PASS IT FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS AND NOT KILL IT AT THE REVIEW INITIAL REVIEW STAGE, BUT YOU COULD ADD LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION AS TO COMPLETENESS, THE ATTORNEY SHALL ERR ON THE SIDE OF COMPLETE. BUT HAVING AN APPEAL PROCESS, IF YOU GET A COMPLAINT, THE ATTORNEY SAYS, NO, DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND DISMISSED FROM THE GET GO, YOU COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMPLAINANT TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO THE COMMITTEE. THERE'S MANY WAYS TO GO ABOUT IT. >> I'M LOOKING AT THIS TOO. EVEN THAT LANGUAGE WHERE THE ATTORNEY COULD SAY, "HEY, YOU DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE OR SUFFICIENT INFORMATION." QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK IF YOU DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND THE REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWED THAT INFORMATION, JUST OUTRIGHT, DISMISS IT. IF BOTH LOOK AT IT, INSTEAD OF ASKING FOR THEM, IT AT THAT POINT, IT'S LIKE THE COMMITTEES WANTING INFORMATION OR SO IS IT IN INFORMATION FROM WHO SUBMITS THE COMPLAINT. [00:40:04] I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE CITY OR CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD DO. THAT'S WHY I THINK YOU PROBABLY WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE REVIEW COMMITTEE THEN. BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU HAVE AN APPEALS PROCESS, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ME, AND I WANT TO FILE A COMPLAINT, 100% OF THE TIME, I WILL APPEAL, SO EITHER WAY, THE COMMITTEE WILL MEET WITH YOU AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO WHY NOT HAVE IT THEN AND THERE. YOU COULD REVIEW IT. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION, DISMISS IT. DO NOT PROVIDE THEM WITH DIRECTION AND HOW TO PROCEED BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE YOU'RE PULLING IN INFORMATION, AND IT POTENTIALLY COULD SAY LATER ON THAT THE CITY IT COULD BE A BOARD MEMBER. WELL, THE CITY'S REACHING OUT AND TRYING TO SOLICIT INFORMATION FOR A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. IT'S LIKE YOU'RE DIRECTING THE PERSON TO SUBMIT THAT INFORMATION. I THINK THE ONSET, THE ATTORNEY AND THE REVIEW COMMITTEE SHOULD REVIEW THAT COMPLAINT AND DECIDE IF IT HAS ENOUGH INFORMATION TO PROCEED. IF NOT, THERE SHOULD BE A FORM LETTER WHERE YOU CAN EITHER OUTRIGHT DISMISS AND SAY IT DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION OR PROCEED WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION WITH THE COMMITTEE SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE ATTORNEY. >> I THINK THAT THAT SCENARIO CAN BE MITIGATED WITH THE FORM. IF WE DO CREATE A FORM, IT SAYS, IF YOU FILL OUT THIS FORM, THEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE PROCESS, YOU'RE GIVING US ALL OF THE INFORMATION WE'RE ASKING. EVERYTHING WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW TO BE ABLE TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OR TO DETERMINE SOMETHING SHOULD BE ASKED ON THAT FORM BECAUSE I LIKE YOUR POINT ON IF WE COME BACK AND ASK, AND WHAT TIME WAS THAT? IT'S LIKE WITH THE POLICE, LEADING A WITNESS. IF WE HAVE A WELL MADE FORM, THAT'S THE COMPLETENESS. IF IT'S NOT FILLED OUT, IF IT'S NOT COMPLETE, THEN IT'S RETURNED AND THEY WILL SEE THEIR OWN BLANKS AND KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO FILL IT OUT, ALL THE WAY, AND SO IF THAT FORM COMES COMPLETE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY LOOKS AT IT IS LIKE, NOW, THIS IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING TO DO AN INVESTIGATION ON. THEN THEY SAY THAT, LIKE, NO. THEN THAT PERSON WHO MADE THE COMPLAINT CAN THEN GO TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND SAY, I DISAGREE ON THE ATTORNEY'S RULING ON THIS, PLEASE REVIEW IT. BUT THAT ENSURES THAT IT'S COMPLETE THE ENTIRE TIME WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND BACK AND FORTH, BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE THE FORM ASKING FOR EVERYTHING UP FRONT. >> HERE'S A THOUGHT. INSTEAD OF THE WORD SUFFICIENT, WHAT IF WE PUT SUPPORTING? I THINK YOU DON'T WANT TO, I GUESS, HAVE THE TRIAL BEFORE THE TRIAL, SO TO SPEAK, SO IF YOU HAVE A FORM THAT SAYS WHICH SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, ARE YOU SAYING YOU VIOLATED, AND THEN ATTACH SUPPORTING INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTATION. THE ATTORNEY REVIEWS IT, CHECKS ONE, TWO, DONE. IT'S SUFFICIENT. THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY'S REPORT IN THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL BE LOOKING AT IS WHETHER THERE'S SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE VIOLATION. BUT MAYBE MAYBE SUPPORTING TAKES OUT THE SUFFICIENCY OR THE ADEQUATENESS, I DON'T KNOW. JUST A THOUGHT CHANGING SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORTING. BECAUSE THAT COULD BE ONE E-MAIL, THAT COULD BE A BINDER OF INFORMATION. BECAUSE WHAT'S SUFFICIENT. JUST AN IDEA. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT'S THE COMPLAINT VOLUME CURRENTLY? >> HERE'S THE THING, THE CURRENT PROCESS IS NOT ROBUST LIKE THIS SO THERE'S NOT A FORM. THERE'S NOT A OFFICIAL PROCESS TO GO THROUGH. THERE'S VERBAL COMPLAINTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME. BUT I THINK WE DON'T HAD A FORM AND MINIMAL RIGHT NOW. >> YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT. BUT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT BECAUSE AS WE GROW AND ALL OF THAT, AND MORE THINGS HAPPEN, AND IT'S GOOD TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE. >> I KNOW, WE DO GET [OVERLAPPING] QUITE A BIT. IT'S JUST SAY GET MISMATCHED IN DIFFERENT PLACES. FOR EXAMPLE, MY ONE COMPLAINT THAT WAS ANONYMOUS WAS MISFILED UNDER SOMEONE ELSE'S FILE. WE DO GET THEM. WE JUST NEED A PROCESS LIKE THIS THAT HAS THE WHOLE THING CORRECT, [00:45:06] LIKE THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE. THIS IS HOW WE DO IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE MISMATCHED. >> MS. CAMPBELL, ANY SUGGESTION REGARDING? >> REGARDING THAT, I'M SEEING IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, DETERMINES THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED, CONTAINS SUFFICIENT DETAIL. MAYBE AS YOU SUGGESTED, JUST CONTAINS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND STUDY USING SUFFICIENT THERE. I DO LIKE, IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE FOLLOW UP WITH A COMPLAINT AND DECIDES THAT THIS IS NOT A VALID COMPLAINT. I'M HAVING AN APPEAL PROCESS WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS BOARD OF ETHICS, IF THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY DO IN CONJUNCTION DURING THIS THIRD PARAGRAPH REVIEW. I LIKE THE APPEAL PROCESS, I WANTED TO ADD THAT. >> WE CAN ADD THE APPEAL PROCESS. THAT WORKS TOO. I WAS JUST REFERENCING THAT, THE 100% OF THE TIME WHETHER IT'S ME OR IF IT'S JOY. WE WILL BE ME THEN. >> DO YOU GUYS LIKE CHANGING SUFFICIENT TO JUST SUPPORTING? THEN PROVIDING FOR AN APPEAL PRO SAY THE ATTORNEY REVIEWS IT. >> WHAT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR? WHAT IF IT'S, FOR EXAMPLE, A COUNCIL MEMBER, WE SAW THEM AT SOMEWHERE DOING SOMETHING. UNLESS YOU TAKE A VIDEO, WHAT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THEY SHOW. I WOULD JUST PROBABLY SAY SUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT'S LIKE SOME THINGS YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE OUTRIGHT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THEN AND THERE. SO IT'S LIKE, WHAT WILL I SUBMIT? IT COULD BE AN IMPRESSION. IT COULD BE ANOTHER EYEWITNESS. UNLESS YOU LIST THEIR NAMES, THAT'S WHY WE NEED A FORM. POTENTIALLY HAVE ON THEIR POTENTIAL WITNESSES OR SO FORTH. >> [OVERLAPPING] I'M SO SORRY. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY FOR THEIR INVESTIGATIONS, BECAUSE I HAD TO FILL OUT SOME FORMS. THEY HAVE A SECTION WHERE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, LIKE, DO YOU HAVE A WITNESS, THEY ASK THOSE SPECIFIC THINGS TO GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY TO THINK, OH, I MAY NOT HAVE A VIDEO, I MAY NOT HAVE A PICTURE, I MAY NOT HAVE A SCREENSHOT OR SOMETHING, BUT I DO HAVE THIS PERSON AS A WITNESS, AND IT GIVES YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY TO LIST THAT TYPE OF SUPPORTING INFORMATION. SO MAYBE INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, IT'S SUPPORTING INFORMATION. >> YEAH. WE CAN SUPPORT IN INFORMATION. >> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION, DOCUMENTATION OR INFORMATION. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OPTIONS TO, LIKE I SAID, I WOULD ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED AND ATTACH YOUR NAME TO IT AND YOU CITE TO A SECTION AND YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SUPPORT IT, PASS IT THROUGH THE PROCESS BECAUSE ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AT THE END OF THIS WHOLE THING IS JUST TO ISSUE A STATEMENT THAT THE COMPLAINTS WITHOUT MERIT. THEY COULD THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. BUT ERR ON THE SIDE OF LETTING IT GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK INFORMATION HELPS WITH THE DOCUMENTATION ISSUE. >> IN THAT SENTENCE, WOULD WE PUT IT DETERMINES THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED CONTAINS ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION OR INFO, WHERE THE WORD ANY JUST KIND OF LEAVES IT OPEN TO MAYBE IT'S NOT AVAILABLE, BUT IF YOU HAVE IT, PLEASE PROVIDE IT NOW. >> THEN SOMEWHERE THERE, WE PUT THE APPEALS PROCESS, AD THEN THAT'S IT. >> I JUST ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE GREEN SECTION WHICH STARTS WITH, HOWEVER, THE VAGUE COMPLAINT, IN THERE, IT ALSO IS TALKING ABOUT IF IT'S INSUFFICIENT, JUST MATCH THAT VERBIAGE ACROSS. >> I WOULD CARRY THAT VERBIAGE THROUGHOUT. >> THANK YOU. >> I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION SO OBVIOUSLY, IF SOMEONE HAS A COMPLAINT, THEY CAN APPEAL IT OR THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO COUNCIL IF THEY'RE PUT ON THE AGENDA. WE'RE WALKING INTO THIS AGAIN. WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO CAN'T COME BUT WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING, YOU HAVE THEIR THING. CAN WE HAVE IT WORDED IN HERE SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO SUBMIT A VIDEO OR GIVE SOME OPTION OF SAY, THEY GOT SICK, THEY CAN'T COME TO THE MEETING, [00:50:02] BUT THEY CAN MAKE A VIDEO AND SUBMIT IT SO THAT COUNCIL CAN REVIEW IT IN EXECUTIVE TO HEAR THEIR SIDE. JUST MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO SAY THEIR PIECE IF SOMETHING SHOULD HAPPEN AND THEY CAN'T COME TO THE MEETING. THAT WAY, AND IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE THAT OPTION, THAT'S FINE. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN COUNSEL IS REVIEWING STUFF, WE'VE GIVEN THE INDIVIDUALS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN OUTLET. >> TALK ABOUT A COUNCIL MEMBER OR A RESIDENT THAT HAS INFORMATION? >> NO, I'M SAYING LIKE SAY WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS REVIEW BUT WE ARE DOING INVESTIGATION OR THERE IS A COMPLAINT, COUNCIL'S GOT IT ON THE AGENDA. THE PERSON IN QUESTION, SOMETHING COMES UP, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. AGENDA IS ALREADY POSTED, THEY'RE ON THE AGENDA, BUT THEY CANNOT BE THERE THAT DAY. CAN WE HAVE IN HERE SOMETHING WHERE THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO SUBMIT A VIDEO OR SOMETHING TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE HEARD. THEY CAN HAVE OPTIONS TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TO COUNCIL AND THEN IF IT'S A VIDEO, COUNCIL GOES TO EXECUTIVE, THEY WATCH THE VIDEO, THEY HEAR THEIR PIECE, OR THEY PHONE IN. I KNOW THAT WE WERE AT A MEETING PREVIOUSLY WHERE WE'RE NOT DOING VIRTUAL STUFF, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY CAN ZOOM IN TO US LIKE AN EXECUTIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY OF IT. COULD THEY PHONE IN TO EXECUTIVE TO TALK TO US IF THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THAT OPTION. WHAT DO WE HAVE OUT THERE TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES? >> I THINK IT COULD BE A VIDEO OR A WITNESS STATEMENT OR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ALLEGED OFF. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO GET THEIR STATEMENT. CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE COME TO IT. >> IS THERE SOMETHING TO SAY THAT WE WILL HAVE OPTIONS AVAILABLE, OR DO YOU THINK THIS ALREADY BASICALLY SAYS IT'S THERE, IT'S COVERED. NO PROBLEM. >> I THINK WE COULD HAVE THAT AS A ONE OFF SITUATION YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM WITH THE OPTION TO SAY, YOU CAN'T SHOW UP, YOU CAN WRITE A LETTER, YOU CAN CALL IN OR JUST PROVIDE THEM WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO SPELL OUT. >> MY REASON I'M ASKING IS THAT HYPOTHETICALLY, BOB IS ON THE AGENDA, AND BOB CAN'T SHOW UP AND SO THEN THEY EMAIL AND THEY'RE LIKE, HEY, I CAN'T BE THERE, BUT I WANT TO BE THERE AND COME TALK TO YOU, CAN YOU MOVE ME OFF THE AGENDA? MY WORRY THERE IS THAT THAT OPENS IF WE WERE TO SAY YES, AND THE AGENDA IS POSTED, THIS HAPPENED, WE AGREED TO THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE THERE. MY CONCERN WOULD BE THE DAY THAT A DEVELOPER IS, I WASN'T THERE WHEN YOU WERE DOING THIS, AND I WANTED TO BE THERE AND START QUESTIONING THAT. ONCE IT'S ON THE AGENDA, IF THEY CAN'T COME, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPEL SOMEONE TO BE THERE. IF THE AGENDA IS POSTED, WE ARE COMPELLING YOU TO BE THERE. BUT WE DO WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AND SO I DON'T WANT TO WALK INTO A POSITION OR A SITUATION WHERE WE OPEN THE CAN OF WORMS THAT NOW A DEVELOPER CAN BE LIKE, REMEMBER THAT TIME THAT YOU TOOK SOMETHING OFF THE AGENDA, JUST BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T BE THERE. >> I THINK IT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN ETHICS COMPLAINT SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AFFECTED OFFICER HAS A RIGHT TO COMPLETE HEARING. THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION F, ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY DOWN. SAYS THE AFFECTED OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FULL AND COMPLETE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL AND PRESENT EVIDENCE. IF THE AFFECTED OFFICER COULDN'T BE THERE, I THINK THAT WOULD WARRANT MAYBE BRING IT TO ANOTHER MEETING. >> BUT IF THEY DON'T WANT PUBLIC HEARING, THEY JUST WANT TO TALK AN EXECUTIVE. THIS IS SAYING THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR PUBLIC HEARING. THIS ISN'T SAYING THAT THAT ALSO MEANS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP IT FROM BEING DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE. IF THEY WANT TO JUST COME TO EXECUTIVE AND NOT HAVE IT PUBLIC, BECAUSE I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. THEY SAY, PUBLIC HEARING ABSOLUTELY MOVE IT BECAUSE YOU GET YOUR PUBLIC HEARING. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU'RE ON THE AGENDA. >> I WOULD SAY THE WHOLE HEARING WOULD BE AN EXECUTIVE. UNLESS COUNCIL DIDN'T ALLOW IT TO BE AN EXECUTIVE, THEN THEY OR THE AFFECTED OFFICER WANTED IT TO BE OUT IN THE OPEN, BUT PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE OUT IN THE OPEN SO THIS ALLOWS FOR IT TO BE BACK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. [00:55:04] I THINK YOU JUST LOOK AT IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. >> BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE WOULD EITHER SUBMIT A STATEMENT OR WRITE SOMETHING TO BE READ. BECAUSE IF I'M MAKING THE COMPLAINT AND I WANT TO BE HEARD, AND I CAN'T BE THERE, THEN I WOULD JUST SAY, JUST MOVE IT TO ANOTHER MEETING. I WOULD JUST REQUEST IT TO BE MOVED IF I REALLY WANTED TO BE THERE. BUT IF I COULDN'T, HAD TO BE THERE AND I WOULD JUST SEND A STATEMENT OR SOMETHING OUTLINE WHAT I FELT OR WHATEVER. >> BECAUSE ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, OUR AGENDA IS POSTED SO WE HAVE STUFF ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS UPCOMING MONDAY. IF ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT TO COME TO THE MEETING BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO COME TO THE MEETING, ARE WE EMPOWERING THEM TO BASICALLY BE LIKE, IF I NEVER SHOW, YOU CAN'T DO IT, THAT THING, OR CAN WE STILL BE LIKE, SORRY, YOU CAN'T COME. IT'S ON THE AGENDA. YOU CAN SUBMIT A STATEMENT. HERE ARE YOUR OPTIONS. >> I DON'T THINK SO YOU CAN HAVE A MEETING ON THE CALENDAR AND SOMEBODY CAN SAY, I'M NOT SHOWING UP. JUST USE COURT FOR AN EXAMPLE. YOU HAVE A HEARING. YOU BETTER SHOW UP. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T SHOW UP, THE JUDGE IS GOING TO RULE, REGARDLESS. YOU CAN CALL AND ASK THEM IF THEY CAN RESET IT BASED ON WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE, AND THE COURT MAY CONSIDER IT. DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO CHANGE IT. >> NO AN OBLIGATION. >> I THINK WHAT'S HERE IS FINE. IT DIDN'T SAY PUBLIC HEARING IT SAID IT HAS A RIGHT TO A FULL HEARING. IF THEY SHOW UP, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WERE ACCUSED OF SOMETHING THAT'S MAJOR. YOU WOULD WANT TO BE HERE, WHETHER YOU'RE HERE PUBLIC OR YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SO I THINK IT'S FINE. WITH THE ONE OFF SITUATION, IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO SHOW UP, AND THEY WANT TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE, WHETHER THEY'RE BEING REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL, AND THEY HAVE SOMETHING DRAFTED BY COUNCIL, THEN THEY CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE SHOULD PUT SOMETHING IN WHERE THE MEETING IS MONDAY, AND THEY CALL FRIDAY AFTERNOON. I CAN'T MAKE IT, SO NO IT'S CANCELED, AND THEN YOU MOVE IT BACK AND MOVE IT BACK. I THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT. >> I LIKED WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THEY CAN MAKE THE REQUEST, BUT IT'S NOT GUARANTEED. COULD WE ADD THAT IN THAT SHOULD IT BE SCHEDULED AND THEY'RE UNABLE TO ATTEND, THEY CAN MAKE THE REQUEST, AND IT'S UP TO COUNCIL TO DECIDE TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST OR NOT. IT'S JUST A THOUGHT BECAUSE I LIKED WHAT YOU WERE SAYING AND THAT'S NOT HOW YOU WORDED IT MUCH BETTER. BUT HOW YOU WORDED IT OF THE GOING TO COURT, YOU CALL UP YOU CAN SAY, HEY, HERE ARE MY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE COURT TO DECIDE, THAT'S REASONABLE OR NOT. >> EVEN TO THAT, COURTS, I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY LOCAL RULES WHERE JUST CALL YOU DECIDE. IT'S JUST A ONE OFF SITUATION, YOU CAN CALL. FOLKS KNOW, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE IT WRITTEN ON YOUR WEBSITE. THAT'S A CALL AND WE CAN DECIDE SO IT'S JUST A ONE OFF SITUATION. I THINK FOLKS WILL UNDERSTAND AND BECAUSE I THINK IT THEN OPENS UP THE DOOR. THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER IT AND THEY'RE JUST BEING WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD KEEP IT AS IT IS TO NOT OPEN THOSE DOORS BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, ANY REASONABLE PERSON WHO HAS MASSIVE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THEM, THEY WILL POTENTIALLY THEY WANT TO SHOW UP, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE THEIR COUNCIL. PUBLIC OUT HERE, PROBABLY NOT. EXECUTIVE SESSION. THEY PROBABLY WOULD WANT TO SHOW UP. MY SUGGESTION IS TO KEEP IT AS IT IS WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF THOSE, JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE. >> WE'VE MENTIONED A FEW TIMES ABOUT AN ACTUAL SPECIFIC COMPLAINT FORM, DOES THAT NEED TO BE PART OF THE BYLAWS OR IS THAT JUST SEPARATELY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL? >> I THINK IT COULD BE ADOPTED BY COUNCIL. UNLESS YOU GUYS WANT IT TO BE PART OF THE BY LAWS. >> CAN WE REFERENCE IT SO THAT COUNCIL HAS TO ADOPT ONE TO ENSURE THERE IS ONE FOR SURE IN PLACE? SAYING JUST IN HERE REFERENCE THE FORM ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, [01:00:02] AND IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO CHANGE IT HERE AND THERE THEY CAN, BUT IT WOULD BIND COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THERE IS ONE IN PLACE IF WE PUT IT IN HERE AND REFERENCE IT. >> WITH THAT TOO, NO INVESTIGATION IS THE SAME. INVESTIGATION PROBABLY HAS THE SAME FRAMEWORK. BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S WORTH IT AS IT RELATES TO THE FORM, BUT TO HAVE SOMETHING WHERE THE COMMITTEE COULD CREATE THEIR PROCEDURE AS IT RELATES TO THE INVESTIGATION, AND POTENTIALLY, BASED ON THE TYPE OF INVESTIGATION, HERE'S WHAT WE WILL DO. CREATE THAT PROCEDURE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL OR WHOEVER IT MAY BE. BUT I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE A PROCEDURE BASED ON THE TYPE OF INVESTIGATION. >> I THINK THAT GETS COVERED AT THE BEGINNING UNDER THE 1.1 SO THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES CAN CREATE THEIR OWN PROVISIONS, AND THEN IT'S RATIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL. I DEFINITELY LIKE THE IDEA THAT THEY CREATE THEIR OWN POLICY THEIR PROCEDURES AND HOW THEY DO IT AND THEN COUNCIL JUST RATIFIES IT, AND THEN THEY FOLLOW THOSE THINGS, JUST LIKE THE OTHER BOARDS HAVE THEIR OWN BYLAWS AND STUFF. >> YES, SAY THE COMMITTEE IT WOULD BE SO COUNCILS GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE TO CREATE THE COMMITTEE VIA ORDINANCE AND SPELL OUT WHAT THE MAKEUP LOOKS THE TERM, ALL THOSE THINGS ESTABLISH IT AND CREATE IT VIA ORDINANCE. THEN THE COMMITTEE CAN ADOPT BY LAWS, SOME RULES OF PROCEDURE. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE FALLBACK, BUT IF THEY WANT TO HAVE SOME SPECIFIC PROCEDURES, THEY COULD DO THAT, ADOPT IT AND THEN SEND IT TO COUNSEL TO RATIFY. THAT'S THE PROCESS. THE CHARTER ALLOWS FOR COUNCIL TO CREATE ANY AND ALL OTHER BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS THAT THEY DEEM NECESSARY. THIS WOULD BE ONE THAT WE'RE REFERENCING IN THE BY LAWS, BUT IT'S NOT ESTABLISHED YET SO COUNCIL NEEDS TO CREATE THE COMMITTEE. THAT WAY, WE HAVE ONE IN PLACE ALONGSIDE THE BY LAWS BEING AMENDED FOR THE PROCESS. >> WOULD IT HURT IF WE INCLUDED IN SECTION 9? I FEEL LIKE IT'S ALL THE WAY UP THERE, BUT IT'S EITHER WAY. >> INCLUDE WHAT SPECIFICALLY? >> THAT THEY CAN CREATE A PROCEDURE WITHIN SECTION 9 BECAUSE AN INVESTIGATION IS A HUGE UNDERTAKEN. I THINK ESPECIALLY THAT COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE A PROCEDURE ON HOW THEY GO ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS. I THINK IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE SOMEWHERE IN SECTION 9 PRECISELY STATED OR RESTATED. >> I KNOW WE'RE NOT PUTTING IN HERE LIKE EVERY SINGLE BOARD. BUT MAYBE IN UNDER NINE, WE HAVE 9.1 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS. PERHAPS WE RE NUMBER IT A BIT IN SOME WAY. MAYBE IT'S AFTER 9.2, THE ACTUAL 9.3 BECOMES PUTS IN THIS IS THE BOARD AND PUT SOME BULLET POINTS OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOARD. THEN WE CAN PUT THAT VERBIAGE IN HERE, TYING IN THERE IS AN ETHICS BOARD WITH THIS AND THEY HAVE THEIR BYLAWS AND STUFF IT JUST I THINK THE PLACEMENT OF IT SHOULD BE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINE, SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO RENUMBER THEM. BUT A SECTION JUST TALKING ABOUT THE BOARD IN GENERAL TO REFERENCE IT. OTHERWISE, IT IS BURIED IN HERE THAT THERE'S AN ETHICS BOARD. >> WITH THAT ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATION TO SECTION 9? IF NOT, I GUESS WE HAVE A MASSIVE MOTION FOR THESE CHANGES, OR WE JUST MADE THOSE CHANGE. >> I'M GOING TO ASK SO I'M ASSUMING BECAUSE SOME OF THESE CHANGES ARE PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE, THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO BRING THESE BACK TO THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW ONE MORE TIME BEFORE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO SEND TO COUNCIL. >> THE INTENTION OF THE NEXT MEETING IS TO ADOPT THE CHANGES TO SECTION 9 AND THEN MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, AND RECOMMEND THE CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION. WITH THAT, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING THESE CHANGES HERE TODAY, [01:05:03] OR WE CAN JUST UPDATE THOSE CHANGES AND ONCE THEY RETURN, WE'LL MAKE A MOTION AND TO ACCEPT THEM AND THEN MAKE A NEXT MOTION TO RECOMMEND IT TO THE COUNCIL. >> I'D PREFER A MOTION TO MAKE THE CHANGES. >> I DO HAVE SOMETHING FOR 1.8 QUESTION, SO UNDER B, THE DUTIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE LIAISON, IT SAYS DOWN HERE THAT THEY ARE EXPECTED TO STAY CURRENT, AND THEN IT SAYS, REPORT TO THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE. ARE WE SAYING THAT LIAISON DOESN'T REPORT OR THEY SHOULD BE SHARING TO COUNSEL, HEY, THIS IS AN UPDATE ABOUT THE EDC, THIS UPDATE ABOUT CDC, SO ON AND SO FORTH. BECAUSE LIKE WE JUST DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE CITY MANAGER ISN'T DOING REPORTS, SO REPORTS AREN'T HAPPENING. WE ONLY HAVE THREE WE HAVE LIBRARY, CDC AND EDC. THEY'RE ONLY LIAISONS WE HAVE, SO WE'RE NOT HEARING FROM ANY OF THEM. WHEN I WHEN I WAS ON P&Z, I WAS ALWAYS TRYING TO GIVE A REPORT, BUT WE'RE NOT HEARING REPORTS. P&Z DOESN'T HAVE A AS ON ANYMORE, BUT THE OTHER THREE DO, AND WE'RE NOT GETTING REPORTS FROM THEM, AND WE'RE NOT GETTING A REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THOSE THINGS. SHOULD IT BE IN HERE SAYING THAT IT'S THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER OR SHOULD THE LAYS ON THEMSELVES BE EXPECTED DURING THE WORK SESSION, BE GIVING THEIR UPDATES ON THEIR BOARDS THAT THEY ARE OVERSEEING. >> THAT'S UP TO YOU. WE COULD TAKE OUT THE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER PORTION OF THAT SENTENCE AND JUST PROVIDE A REGULAR REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK I KNOW IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, BUT THERE WAS A MEETING A WHILE BACK WHERE I THINK ALL THE LIAISONS DID A BRIEF REPORT DURING A COUNCIL MEETING. IT'S BEEN A WHILE. I LOSE TRACK OF TIME, BUT WE CAN MAKE THAT MORE REGULAR. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE LANGUAGE, WE CAN TAKE THAT OUT. WHATEVER YOU ALL YOU WANT. >> FOR SECTION 9.4, I'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION. WE DON'T FORGET THE CHANGES HERE. FOR SECTION 9.4, A MOTION AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPLAINT SUBMISSION PROCESS TO INCLUDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION. THEN TO INCLUDE AN APPEALS PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO THAT, AND THEN TO AMEND SECTION F TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ATTORNEY, AS WELL AS THE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND MAKE ITS INDEPENDENT DECISION AND VOTE ON SUCH DECISION. >> INCLUDING THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE DURING THE INTERVIEW PROCESS? >> YES, AND TO ENSURE THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEES INCLUDED IN THE INTERVIEW PROCESS AND THE EVIDENCE GATHERING PROCESS. WITH THAT, ANYONE WILL SECOND THAT? >> I'LL SECOND. >> WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE VOTE AS IT RELATES TO THIS MOTION HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. FOR THIS SECTION YOU REFERENCED, WAS THAT ONE POINT? >> WAIT. >> YOU DIDN'T MENTION IN YOUR MOTION. ARE WE ADDING A SECTION TO OUTLINE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE? CAN WE MAKE A SECOND MOTION FOR THAT TO ADD? BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANTED TO ADD THAT THEY CAN HAVE THEIR BY LAWS AND STUFF. >> NOT TO INCLUDED. YES. I CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION. >> YES. MY THOUGHT WAS IN 9.4E AT THE BOTTOM OF DOING ANOTHER PARAGRAPH, JUST BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE COMMITTEE SHALL ADOPT A PROCEDURE FOR HEARING AND RESOLVING JUST TO KEEP IT SOMEWHAT VAGUE, JUST REQUIRING THEM TO ESTABLISH. >> YOU SAID SECTION E. >> 9.4E. UNDER WORDS, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE SECTION. >> THE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS? >> YEAH. >> IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE, BUT WHATEVER YOU GUYS DECIDE. [01:10:05] >> WHAT'S THE AT THERE? >> I CAN SEE WHAT HE'S SAYING. UNDER E INSTEAD OF SAYING THE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE ESTABLISH THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEN ONE, PUT THE BYLAWS OF THINGS TWO WOULD BE THEN THEY SHALL ENDEAVOR. THIS SECTION HERE WOULD BE LIKE BULLET 0.2. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU'LL MAKE IT LOOK NICER GRANT, I KNOW. >> I'LL TRY. >> FOR 9.1 UNDER THE TRAININGS. CAN WE INCLUDE THAT THE TRAININGS COMPLETED WILL BE A PUBLIC RECORD? BECAUSE I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THAT MAKING IT SO THAT UNDER OUR PROFILES, YOU CAN SEE A LINK, AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'VE DONE. THAT WAY, IT DOESN'T ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE, WHO'S ACTUALLY ATTENDING TRAININGS, WHO'S NOT, WHO'S UP TO DATE ON STUFF? >> WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOU LOOKING AT? I'M TRYING TO FIND IT? >> UNDER 9.1 GENERAL. GO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM. IT SAYS IT'S THE FIRST BULLET POINT. CONTINUE IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL ABILITY. THEN IN THE GREEN, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE TRAINS, WORKSHOP SEMINARS. PUTTING A BULLET POINT UNDER A BULLET POINT STATING THAT THESE TRAININGS THAT ARE COMPLETED OUR PUBLIC RECORD AVAILABLE ONLINE OR SOMETHING OR ON THE CITY PAGE SO THAT RESIDENTS CAN CAN SEE IT AND KNOW WHAT EVERYONE'S UP TO? >> JUST FOR CLARITY, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ALL TRAININGS OR JUST MANDATORY TRAININGS? >> ALL TRAININGS BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MANY THAT ARE MANDATORY. WASHINGTON, ESCOBAR AND I WENT TO THE ANNUAL TML TRAINING RECENTLY. IT'S LIKE TWO AND HALF, THREE DAYS OF ALL OF THESE THINGS AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE CAN ATTEND, IT'S OPTIONAL. BUT HAVING THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE SO THAT RESIDENTS ARE SEEING, WHO'S GOING TO THESE TRAININGS, WHO'S TAKING THE TIME TO DO THE WEBINARS AND THINGS TO LEARN THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS AND STAY UP TO DATE ON THE LAWS IS IMPACTFUL FOR A VOTER WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE. YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE REPRESENTING YOU ARE STAYING UP TO DATE ON THE LAWS THAT THEY ARE INVESTED IN THE CITY. >> BUT THAT ALSO CREATES A BIAS BECAUSE WHAT IF I AM A SINGLE PARENT AND I CAN'T AFFORD TO LEAVE MY CHILDREN WITH SOMEBODY IN GO WITH THREE-DAY TRAINING. DOES THAT MAKE DISQUALIFY ME OR DISCREDIT ME FROM BEING ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THE COUNCIL? THAT'S CREATING A BIAS. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. PUBLICIZING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'VE NEVER SEEN IT DONE ON WEB PAGE FOR ANY COUNCIL MEMBER OR BOARD MEMBER, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE THAT DOES CREATE. >> THAT'S TRUE. BUT CAN WE MAKE A REFERENCE THAT THE INFORMATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CAN BE MADE ON REQUEST? >> I MEAN, ALL ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THEIR OPEN MEETINGS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION TRAINING. THOSE CERTIFICATES ARE PUBLIC RECORDS, AND WE HAVE COPIES OF ALL THOSE. BUT WE CAN I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS WANT, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD A SENTENCE TO THAT PARAGRAPH, IF YOU WANT. JUST NEED A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. >> CAN WE JUST HAVE A THING THAT SAYS THAT RECORDS ARE MAINTAINED FOR THE TRAININGS. THEN IF THAT WAY, IT BASICALLY TELLS EVERYONE, IF YOU WANT IT, YOU CAN MAKE A REQUEST, AND THAT WAY, IT'S NOT ONLINE. BUT IT ALSO SHOWS THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THOSE RECORDS THAT IT HAS BEEN DONE. I WOULD MOTION THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE THE VERBIAGE THAT RECORDS WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR TRAININGS, WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, AND CONTINUING EDUCATION [01:15:01] COURSES COMPLETED BY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS. >> I'LL SAY. >> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE VOTE ON THAT MOTION. MOTION CARRIES. >> THAT GETS ANOTHER WAY TO BOAST OFF YOUR TRAININGS TO UPDATE YOUR BIO RIGHT ON THE WEBSITE. SAY, HEY, I NEED TO UPDATE MY BIO AND I WANT TO INCLUDE ALL OF THIS. THERE YOU GO. OR USE IT IN YOUR CAMPAIGN. I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO ATTENDED. >> I KNOW WE'VE BOUNCED AROUND A LITTLE BIT, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE TOUCHED ON 9.5 ADDED SUBSECTION 7 AND 8 THERE IN BLUE. BASED ON SOME OF THE DISCUSSION YOU GUYS HAD THE LAST MEETING. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE BEFORE. NOT GOING TO LET YOU GUYS LEAVE WITHOUT REVIEWING THAT. >> I THOUGHT I MADE THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE LAST MEETING. I THINK THAT'S FINE. CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE ANY OTHER ACTION PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. >> I ALSO ADDED COUNSEL APPOINTED INTRA GOVERNMENTAL OR INTER GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEES TO. >> WITHIN THE CITY ALSO, THAT ARE OTHER BODIES. I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, TOO. >> YES. >> I THINK MS. TODD HAD MENTIONED THOSE, AND THEN I HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE APPOINTED TO DIFFERENT COMMITTEES, THE APPOINTMENTS. >> ANY OTHER CHANGES TO SECTION 9 OR ANY OTHER SECTIONS? I THINK WE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS. >> IS THERE A WAY, SO UNDER 4.10 VOTING FOR ABSTENTION. IN A, IT'S TALKING BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL CONFLICT. THEY'RE NOT COUNTED AS PRESENT FOR THE QUORUM. IN D, IF THEY'RE ABSTAINING, BUT IT'S NOT FOR A LEGAL MATTER, THEN I THINK THEY SHOULD BE COUNTED. YES. NO. DOES THAT MAKE A NOT APPLICABLE? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? >> COUNTED FOR FOR QUORUM PURPOSES. >> SHALL WE VOTE COUNTED AS A NO, I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE QUORUM. INDEED, I UNDERSTAND A NOT, BECAUSE IT'S A LEGAL THING, BUT IT IS NOT LEGAL THEN. >> IF YOU ABSTAIN FOR A NON LEGAL CONFLICT, IT'S COUNTED TOWARDS THE QUORUM. BUT WE'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN A COUPLE OF TIMES AND IN OTHER CITIES WE REPRESENT, IF YOU ABSTAIN FOR A NON LEGAL CONFLICT, IT'S USUALLY COUNTED AS A NO, BECAUSE YOU NEED TO AFFIRMATIVELY SAY YES, FOR IT TO BE COUNTED AS A YES. BUT THERE'S INSTANCES WHERE A NUMBER, AND I'VE BEEN SITTING OVER HERE TELLING VOTES WHERE SOMEONE ABSTAINS FOR A NON LEGAL CONFLICT, AND WE NEED TO HAVE A RULE THAT CLARIFIES WHAT THAT MEANS. IT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE QUORUM. BUT IF YOU ABSTAINED FOR A NON LEGAL CONFLICT, IT WOULD BE A NO. IT GOES DOWN AS A NO. >> CAN THAT JUST BE NOTED IN D THAT IT DOES COUNT TOWARDS QUORUM, JUST SO IT'S IN THERE. WHEN YOU ARE MAKING THAT YOU'RE DOING YOUR TALLIES AND EVERYTHING, SOMEONE DOESN'T COME BACK AROUND TO EITHER OF YOU ABOUT IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR BECAUSE THE ONE SAYS NOT CORMAN. >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ADDITION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. >> DO YOU NEED A MOTION FOR THAT CHANGE? >> YES, PLEASE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND 4.10 SECTION D TO CLARIFY THAT AN ABSTENTION FOR NON LEGAL MATTERS COUNTS TOWARDS QUORUM AS A NO. >> SECOND. >> WE'LL PROCEED TO TAKE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES. ANY OTHER CHANGES HERE? MS. CAMPBELL, NO OTHER CHANGES. MR. WASHINGTON. MISS DANBURG. [01:20:01] MS. TODD. HE'S GOING TWICE. >> I JUST TRIED TO CATCH ON YOGA. >> WHILE YOU ARE FLIPPING THROUGH ONE LAST TIME, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ON 1.8 ABOUT THAT THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER THAT DIALOGUE ON THE REGULAR REPORTS. IF SOMEONE DOESN'T MIND MAKING A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND 1.8 PART B DUTIES AND EXPECTATIONS TO REMOVE THE VERBIAGE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNATE. >> THANK YOU. >> I SECOND MOTION. >> WE'LL PROCEED TO TAKE VOTE AS IT RELATES TO THAT MOTION. MOTION CARRIES. >> I KNOW WHAT I WANTED TO DO. YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. CAN I READ TO HIM MR. JOHNSON FRANK AS HE SAID, FRANKENSTEIN TOGETHER ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? >> I MEAN, YOU CAN. I THINK TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT ON THAT. COUNCIL JOHNSON WANTS TO HAVE A EXECUTIVE SESSION POLICY TO CLARIFY WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE SAID ABOUT EXECUTIVE SESSION PUBLICLY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL ON THE 17TH ALREADY TO ACT ON. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, MAYBE IF WE COULD HAVE INCORPORATED IN HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S OKAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE A STANDALONE POLICY ON EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT'S NOT IN HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE A COUPLE JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, LIKE VIDEO RECORDING POLICIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY IN HERE, BUT THEY'RE STILL ADOPTED POLICY. SOMETHING THAT FOR FUTURE REVIEWS, MAYBE WE COULD INCORPORATE IT IN HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A STANDALONE POLICY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. >> WHERE DID YOU PROPOSE THAT IN THAT SECTION? >> WHAT HE WAS ASKING FOR IS THAT WE CAN'T DISCLOSE THE CERTIFIED AGENDA RECORDINGS OR ANY LEGALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION FROM A CLOSED SESSION AS DEFINED UNDER THE TEXAS CODE. HOWEVER, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY COMMUNICATE THEIR INDIVIDUAL POLICY PERSPECTIVES, GENERAL REASONING OR OVERALL SENTIMENT REGARDING MATTERS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO LONG AS THE STATEMENTS DO NOT REVEAL THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS OF OTHER MEMBERS, ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED LEGAL ADVICE UNDER THE 551.071 OR ANY INFORMATION MADE CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW, INCLUDING PERSONNEL MATTERS, SECURITY ISSUES, OR DETAILS OF ACTIVE NEGOTIATIONS. THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE, WE GO BACK THERE, WE MAKE DECISIONS, AND THEN NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT. BUT WITH THIS, IT ALLOWS US TO SAY, LOOK, MY PERSONAL VIEW ON PAINTING ALL THE TREES PINK IS BECAUSE OF THIS. THIS IS WHY I VOTED TO DO THAT. IT ALLOWS US TO EXPRESS THAT TO THE PEOPLE. WHEREAS RIGHT NOW, IF IT'S IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IT STAYS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE CAN'T REALLY EXPLAIN OUR OWN VIEW AND REASONING FOR A DECISION OR VOTE THAT WE MADE, AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S WANTING IS TO ALLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SAY THEIR WHY SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO, BUT THEY CANNOT REVEAL COMMENTS OF SOMEONE ELSE. I COULDN'T GO AND BE LIKE, WELL, WASHINGTON SAID THEY SHOULD ALL BE PURPLE. I CAN'T SAY THAT, BUT I CAN EXPLAIN MY REASONING. THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMAN JOHNSON WAS WANTING TO INCREASE THE TRANSPARENCY. >> I THINK FOR THAT PURPOSE, BECAUSE THAT MAY REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE POLICY, THAT SEEMS AS IF YOU GUYS NEED A POLICY OR SOME PROCEDURE AROUND WHAT CAN BE SAID AND NOT. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ADJUSTED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEST. BECAUSE IF YOU STUCK IT HERE, I DON'T THINK IT'S ENOUGH SPACE TO FLESH OUT EVERYTHING. >> I KNOW IT MISSED THE 1.8. I ALSO HAD A NOTE, AND THIS MAY HAVE JUST BEEN A CLARICAL CHANGE UNDER 8.4 TO ADD THE DEFINITION OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM AS ALSO A VICE CHAIR. DOES THAT NEED A MOTION? [01:25:05] >> I'VE GOT A NOTE. I DON'T NEED A MOTION FOR THAT. THANK YOU. >> MAKING SURE. >> NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES WITH THAT. WE CAN MOVE ON TO H22025048, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER SELECTING THE DATES AND TIMES OF FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. THE INTENTION FOR THIS DATE IS TO REVIEW THE CHANGES IN THIS DOCUMENT, ESPECIALLY FOR SECTION 9, AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE OTHER SECTIONS, AND THEN TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL DURING THAT MEETING. HERE WE HAVE A CALENDAR WITH DATES AVAILABLE. I DO NOT RECOMMEND THE 24-25TH THAT'S REALLY [OVERLAPPING]. >> I HAVE ONE MORE PIECE. THIS COMES FROM HAVING TALKED TO A FEW PEOPLE. WHEN IT COMES TO 7.6 NOTICE OF THINGS. IF WE CAN PUT IN HERE BECAUSE IT SAYS IT'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS THAT CITY MANAGER OFFICE WILL COORDINATE THE NOTIFICATION. THERE ARE THINGS THAT WHERE THE POLICE MAY FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO DIRECTLY NOTIFY OR COMMUNICATE TO COUNCIL ON SOMETHING OR POSSIBLY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THIS MAKES IT THAT THEY'RE ANSWERING TO THE CITY MANAGER INSTEAD OF GOING TO COUNCIL. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THEY'RE ALREADY THE ONES WHO EMAIL US, WHERE WE GET UPDATES FROM CHIEF WATERS. IN HERE, IT'S SAYING BASICALLY TECHNICALLY, CHIEF WOULD SEND SOMETHING TO OUR CITY MANAGER AND THEN FILTER THROUGH AND THAT DELAYS THE INFORMATION GETTING OUT. IS THERE A WAY TO ADJUST THE VERBIAGE A BIT? BECAUSE THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT IS THE CHIEF IS THE ONE PUTTING OUT THE INFORMATION, NOT THE CITY MANAGER ON THAT. SOMETIMES THE CITY MANAGER, BUT MOSTLY IT COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CHIEF. >> I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT. THE START OF THAT PARAGRAPH SAYS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY'S PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS. MAYBE YOUR CONCERNS ARE ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THERE? >> I THINK THAT'S COVERED IN THAT, AS FAR AS GETTING THE INFORMATION OUT. I THINK IT'S COVERED IN WHAT WE HAVE. >> I THINK NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM GOING DIRECTLY. >> THERE IS STAFF THAT THEY CANNOT DIRECTLY. >> BUT I'M SAYING HERE. >> NO. BUT IN GENERAL, THERE IS STAFF ALREADY IN PLACE THAT DOES PREVENT THE DIRECT COMMUNICATION. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BYPASS THOSE THINGS THAT PREVENT THE DIRECT COMMUNICATION AND ALLOW THEM TO, IF THERE'S A SHOOTING OR SOMETHING AND THEY NEED TO TELL COUNCIL INSTEAD OF, LET ME CONTACT CITY MANAGER AND CHECK THIS AND GET PERMISSION, DO THAT, HE COULD IMMEDIATELY BE LIKE, COUNCIL, YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS IN PLACE THAT PREVENT THOSE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOR THIS SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT, THAT IS NOT HELD UP BY THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN PLACE PREVENTING THOSE IMMEDIATE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT, THEY CAN IMMEDIATELY HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION WITHOUT RESTRICTION. >> WILL THESE BY LAWS SUPERSEDE THOSE? CAN THE BY LAWS OVERRULE WHAT THEY CAN DO? >> THEY CAN IN A SENSE OF RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S LIKE THEIR JOB AND SUCH AND SUCH. THIS IS TAKING A VERY SPECIFIC PIECE AND SAYING IN THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO, THIS IS WHAT IT IS, AND I THINK IT CAN SEPARATE THAT. IT KEEPS IN PLACE THE PURPOSE OF THAT SEPARATION WITHOUT IMPACTING IT AND IS JUST FREEING UP THAT ABILITY OF IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT THING, THEY CAN. >> QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THE COUNCIL PROBABLY COULD COMPEL OR PERSUADE THE CITY MANAGER TO POTENTIALLY HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT EMPOWERS THEM TO SAY IF THESE SPECIFIC SITUATION OR SITUATION TAKE PLACE, [01:30:02] THEN THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. BUT I THINK IF YOU PUT SOMETHING HERE, IT'S LIKE YOU'RE CIRCUMVENTING, THE CHIEF, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, SHOULD REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER. I THINK THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND THEN PROBABLY TO PERSUADE THE CITY MANAGER TO DEVELOP SOMETHING WHERE IF WE HAVE THIS SITUATION, YOU DON'T NEED TO WAIT ON ME OR COME TO ME, YOU CAN PROCEED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND CC ME ON IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT FOR THEM TO CREATE THEIR OWN PROCEDURE AND NOT TO INCLUDE IT HERE. BECAUSE WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IS TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF THEY'RE REPORTING DIRECTLY TO CITY COUNCIL. BUT OF COURSE, CITY COUNCIL COULD INFLUENCE THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THESE THINGS HAPPEN, WHICH ARE IMPORTANT MATTERS, THEN THEY NEED TO COMMUNICATE THESE CERTAIN SITUATIONS, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY NEED TO SPELL OUT WHAT THESE EXAMPLES MAY BE. THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION. ANY OTHER CHANGES OR SUGGESTION? MS. STANFORD, LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE READY TO [LAUGHTER]. WE'LL GO BACK TO THE CALENDAR. AS I MENTIONED, 24, 25TH IS OFF. WE HAVE MEETINGS ON 19-20. THAT'S A FRIDAY. POTENTIALLY I'M NOT AVAILABLE ON THE 12TH, PROBABLY THE 13TH, WHEN FOLKS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS OR WE WANT TO PROCEED. >> WILL THE 27TH WORK FOR EVERYBODY? >> [OVERLAPPING] BUT THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING FROM SECTION 9. IN THIS STEP, ONE THING THAT I HAD BROUGHT UP WAS THE NAME CLEARING PROCESS. IT TALKS ABOUT THE DETERMINATION POSSIBLE ACTION, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT PART WHERE IT'S OUTLINING HOW THE NAME-CLEARING PROCESS IS FOR IF A COMPLAINT IS MADE AGAINST SOMEONE AND WE'RE SAYING THAT IT'S INVALID AND WHATNOT. THAT DOES HURT THEIR REPUTATION, THAT CAN HURT THEIR LIFE IN MANY WAYS. IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS FROM MCKINNEY'S ORDINANCE OR ETHICS ORDINANCE THAT I HAD BROUGHT UP, WAS ENSURING THAT WE HAD SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN PLACE HERE. >> TAKE A LOOK AT 9.51. I CAN ADD TO THAT. I CAN ELABORATE IF NEEDED. I THINK IT'S ADDRESSED. >> I THINK ALSO UNDER 9.4F, THE LAST PART, "UPON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REJECT THE COMPLAINT OR TAKE ANY ACTION AUTHORIZED. NO FINAL ACTION OR DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE MADE EXCEPT AT A MEETING WHICH IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC." IF THERE'S NO ACTION TAKEN OR THEY'RE EXONERATED, IT'S MENTIONED IN A PUBLIC MEETING THERE. AS YOU SAID, 9.5, NUMBER 1. I THINK THAT'S MAKING IT PUBLIC ENOUGH. >> I THINK WE HAVE IT COVERED IN HERE. >> I AGREE IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS. >> I'LL FIX THAT QUOTATION MARK IN THERE. I'LL BEAT YOU TO IT. [LAUGHTER]. >> MY LEGAL WRITING PROFESSOR WOULD HAVE A LOT OF FUN REVIEWING THIS. [LAUGHTER] [01:35:01] >> THE FIRST TIME I REVIEWED IT, I HAD A LOT OF FUN, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, EVERY TIME I HAVE. >> THIS HAS JOGGED MY MEMORY. THERE'S A NAME CLEARING PROCEDURE OR PROCEEDINGS THAT MCKINNEY HAS. A COMPLAINT IS FILED. NOW, SAY THEY'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. THIS COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED. PEOPLE HEAR ABOUT IT, PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT. IT ALLOWS THE PERSON WHO IT'S BEEN FILED AGAINST TO REQUEST A NAME CLEARING. "IT'S WHERE THE INFORMED ALLEGATION OF THE POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THIS CODE AND ETHICAL CONDUCT AND PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST OFFICIAL, AND THE RESPONDENT DESIRES AN INVESTIGATION OF SUCH ALLEGATIONS IN ORDER TO CLEAR THEIR NAME. THE ACCUSED PERSON MAY FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE NAME CLEARING PROCEEDING, WHICH MUST CONTAIN INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN THEIR SECTION 2291." THE PERSON GETS A WRITE-UP. BEFORE WE END UP GOING TO INVESTIGATIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THIS ALLOWS THAT PERSON TO SAY, "WELL, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THIS, I WANT MY NAME CLEARED BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT." IT ALLOWS THEM TO SAY THAT THEY DENY THE ALLEGATIONS AND THEY'RE MAKING REQUESTS FOR THE NAME CLEARING. THEY HAVE THEIR LITTLE PROCESS FOR THAT, ALLOWING SOMEONE WHO HAS HAD A COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM, THEY CAN CLEAR THEIR NAME BECAUSE IT'S BEEN MADE, OR IT GIVES THEM THE CHANCE THAT IF THEY GOT A WRITE-UP OR SOMETHING, THEY CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER IT AND SAY, NO, THIS IS NOT ACCURATE. WHEREAS THEY ONLY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY IF IT GOES TO AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING. OTHERWISE, YOU GET A WRITE-UP AND YOU CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. >> WHEN YOU SAY "WRITE-UP," ARE YOU REFERRING TO EMPLOYEES OR? >> NO. THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND BOARDS AND COMMITTEES, THEY CAN GET A WRITE-UP. YOU THINK SOMEONE'S DOING SOMETHING WRONG, YOU GO TO THE MAYOR OR WHATEVER, YOU GO TO THE CHAIR. YOU CAN GET A WRITE-UP FOR IT. THEN AFTER THIS WRITE-UP, IF YOU'RE CONTINUING TO DO THE THINGS, THEN THEY PUSH THE COMPLAINT AND AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHEN THE INVESTIGATION GETS THERE. BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO THIS PROCESS WE HAVE HERE, THERE IS AN UNDERLYING PART OF, THEY GET A WRITE-UP. >> THAT'S UNDER THE CURRENT PROCESS. THIS NEW PROCESS WOULD ELIMINATE. >> THROW THAT AWAY QUICKLY. I GUESS I'LL THINK ON IT FOR A WHILE, AND THEN. >> I'M HAPPY TO ADD TO IT. I THINK THAT SECTION 9.51 WAS ADDED IN THERE. I ADDED THAT IN THERE SPECIFICALLY. I THINK YOU'VE MENTIONED IT BEFORE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ADD TO IT BASED ON THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE. >> I THINK IT'S ADDRESS IN HERE IS LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE TO REACH OUT IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT THAT'S DULY INITIATED IN PROCESS. BASED ON 9.4, THEY CAN JUST SAY, HEY, WE'RE ISSUING A STATEMENT AND GET RID OF IT, AND THAT COULD BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY COULD CONSIDER. I THINK IT'S ADDRESSED, UNLESS YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE. ONLY THING I'LL CHANGE THERE AS YOU MENTIONED IS THE CLOSED QUOTATION. >> WE'RE SAYING THE FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER MAY BE A BETTER OPTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING? [H.2 2025-048 Consider selecting the dates and times of future Committee meetings; and take appropriate action.] >> PROBABLY THE FIRST WEEK ON THE 3RD. >> I AGREE. I ALSO FEEL REALLY BAD FOR Y'ALL ON THE 17TH, 18TH, 19TH AND 20TH. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS [LAUGHTER] IT'S OKAY. >> I PROPOSE THE DECEMBER 3RD, ARE FOLKS PRETTY MUCH AVAILABLE FOR THAT OR? THE 3RD AT 6:30 PM. [01:40:02] WE'LL BE BACK HERE TO CONSIDER THE FINAL CHANGES AND MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL FOR ALL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM ONE THROUGH TO NINE TO COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER. >> YOU GUYS ARE AWARE. COUNCIL ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER, AND THAT'S THE 8TH. THE COUNCIL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS UNTIL JANUARY. IT'S OKAY. I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT. >> LET'S PUT THEM ON FOR THE 20 SECONDS, JUST KIDDING. [LAUGHTER]. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO BE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3RD AT 6:30 PM. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> WE'LL TAKE A VOTE THERE. MOTION CARRIES. WITH THAT, ANYTHING ELSE WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD HERE TODAY BEFORE WE MOVE TO CONCLUDE TODAY'S MEETING. DO WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR THAT? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY HI TO CONCLUDE TODAY'S MEETING. THANK YOU ALL. WE'LL SEE YOU ON DECEMBER 3RD. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.