Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

SO THEN I'M HAPPY

[00:00:01]

TO, UH, GET THE MEETING GOING.

AND I HAVE PAID THAT LYNN IS, UM, HELPING DON INVEST ACROSS CAN GIVE US A THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN IF YOU KNOW, WHEN VOTING AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

YEAH.

OKAY.

GOT IT.

SOUNDS GOOD.

OKAY.

THEN IN THAT CASE, I'LL GO, YOU CAN HIT START FOR RECORD OR WHATEVER IT IS AND I'LL GET GOING.

IS THAT WHAT YOU TELL ME WHEN I'M READY? WE'RE READY WHEN YOU ARE.

OKAY,

[CALL TO ORDER]

THEN.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE ALL OF Y'ALL.

I'LL BE VIRTUALLY.

MY NAME IS LOUIS SILBERMAN.

I'M CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

IT IS NOVEMBER 18TH, 2020, AND IT IS 6:11 PM.

WE ARE, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS ARE CONDUCTING THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY VIA A WEBEX AND THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED.

I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONERS, UM, UNMUTE YOUR COMPUTERS OR PHONES OR WAVE YOUR HANDS IF CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, UH, RESTRICTED.

UM, AND THEN WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, UH, LET ME KNOW YOU'RE HERE AND THEN MUTE YOURSELF AGAIN.

SO I WILL GO DOWN MY LIST.

UM, AS SOON AS I PULL IT UP, EXCUSE ME.

OKAY.

VICE CHAIR OR HURRY.

DON'T BELIEVE HE'S HERE.

SO HE'S HERE.

SORRY.

HATE TO HEAR HIS SAYING THAT HIS CAMERA AND HIS MIKE ARE NOT WORKING.

YEAH, I DO SEE, I SEE, UH, HIS NAME JUST POPPED UP.

UM, UH, THERE YOU ARE.

HEY, THERE YOU GO.

GOOD TO SEE YOU COMMISSIONER RYAN.

I BELIEVE HE'S NOT HERE.

UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

OKAY.

DONNA, BETH MCCORMICK, UH, GIVE ME A THUMBS UP.

DO SEE DONNA BETH, THE BETH.

CAN YOU GIVE ME A THUMBS UP? GOOD TO SEE A DONNA BETH.

UM, OKAY.

I AM PRESENT, UM, COMMISSIONER DAN BERG.

SEE YOUR HOOK.

HOOKEM THERE WE GO.

UM, OKAY.

SECRETARY GOBER AND I'M HERE, RIGHT? COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS, I BELIEVE IS NOT HERE CURRENTLY.

I FINALLY WAS ABLE TO CONNECT.

SORRY.

GREAT.

NO, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

OKAY.

LET'S SEE.

UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE AND, UM, ROBIN IS HAVING THE SAME ISSUE.

SHE'S SAYING THAT SOMEBODY NEEDS TO UNMUTE HER AND ALLOW HER VIDEO.

THAT'S WHY THEY, I JUST GOT OFF.

THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE? GET BACK TO BORDER COMMISSIONER LEARNER.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE HERE.

ALL RIGHT.

CANDIDATE IS PRESENT.

UM, LET'S SEE.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND COMMISSIONER KALE.

YEAH.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, UM, REAL QUICK, I'LL GO OVER SOME RECUSAL ANNOUNCEMENTS, UH, COMMISSIONER RYAN AND COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS ARE ACCUSING FROM ALL DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON ITEM TWO, A AND THE FIRST DESCRIBED COMPLAINT AND ITEM ONE OF THE AGENDA, SPECIFICALLY, THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BRIAN MALLOY, THE OPPOSITE, THE CITY AUDITOR AGAINST DELIA KARSA.

SO

[CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

NEXT WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.

UM, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE HAD SIGNED UP LYNN.

YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S, UM, SLATED TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYONE JUST CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOTTEN THAT IN DONE IN DAVIDSON.

OKAY.

RIGHT.

AND THIS IS LYNN CARTER.

UM, SO IT'S THE OPTION OF, UH, UH, MR. MACCABIA AND MS. DAVIDSON, WHETHER THEY WANT TO SPEAK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING OR WAIT UNTIL THAT ITEM IS CALLED ON THE AGENDA FOR JURISDICTIONAL ITEMS. UM, THE PARTIES DON'T PARTICIPATE, BUT THEY CAN SIGN UP, YOU KNOW, TO SPEAK JUST AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, ON AN AGENDA ITEM, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE.

SO SURE.

SO JUST GIVE THEM THE OPTION OF EITHER SPEAKING NOW OR WAITING UNTIL THAT ITEM IS OKAY.

THEN IN THAT CASE, UM, I DON'T KNOW.

WHO'S CONTROLLING THE MUTE UNMUTE LEVERS, BUT CITY HALL, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THEM.

UN-MUTED AND MR. MCCALLY AND MS. DAVIDSON, UM, WOULD YOU PREFER TO PRESENT NOW OR ONCE THE AGENDA ITEMS CALL?

[00:05:04]

IT WOULD BE ONCE THE AGENDA ITEM IS CALLED IF NECESSARY.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND MR. MCCOLL YAK HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU, SIR.

UM, I DON'T SEE THAT ON OUR LIST OF PARTICIPANTS YET, SO I DO SEE HIM IN MY LITTLE GALLERY SCREEN AND IT SAYS HE'S UN-MUTED, BUT I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING JUST YET.

UM, YEAH, SAME AS DONNA.

I'M SORRY.

THIS IS MATT.

SAME AS DONNA.

GREAT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

AND ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THEN WAS THAT, WAS THAT ALL FOR, UM, INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? YES.

OKAY.

GOT

[1. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

IT.

THEN IN CASE THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND I WILL READ MY EXECUTIVE SESSION SCRIPT.

SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP FOUR ITEMS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION FIVE 51.071.

THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING ITEM ONE AND TWO A COMPLAINT FILED BY BRIAN MALLOY OPPOSITE THE CITY AUDITOR AGAINST DELIA GARCIA, WHICH ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO I AND J ADAM ONE AND TWO B THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST H Y H O BAYLOR, OUR FACILITY, OUR FUTURE PAC, WHICH ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE TWO AND TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE.

ITEM ONE.

AND TO SEE A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK A. LITTLE BIT AGAINST PECK, YOUNG VOICES OF AUSTIN, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE THREE.

AND ITEM THREE, A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ON A COMPLAINT BY MARK BELLFIELD CAN SLOGAN CHENEY, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION GOING INTO A EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS? I JUST COVERED CALLING ONCE, TWICE HEARING NONE.

THE COMMISSIONER WILL NOW GIVE YOU AN OBJECTION, BUT I WONDER, OH, IT IS.

WE DO THAT TECHNICALLY.

SO, UH, BIOTECH, NUCLEAR, DO YOU MEAN VIRTUALLY? UM, YEAH.

SO IN THE, IN THE SAME EMAIL THAT HAD THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR JOINING THE MEETING, I BELIEVE WHAT WE DO, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

LYNN, MY ASSUMPTION, ACTUALLY, THIS IS GREAT.

WHEN IF YOU WANT TO WALK US THROUGH IT, DO WE LEAVE THE MEETING AND THEN JOIN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION LINK WHEN YOU'RE MUTED, IF YOU WERE TRYING TO TALK.

OKAY.

SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER TO SUE PALMER AND THE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FOLKS ON THIS.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, WE GO TO THE NEW LINK FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

OKAY.

UM, CAN YOU CHIME IN ON THAT? YEAH.

YOU GUYS WOULD JUST CLICK ON THE OTHER LINK FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, JOIN THAT SESSION.

YOU WILL HAVE TO BE ADMITTED THROUGH A LOT OF THE SYSTEM FOR THAT ONE BECAUSE OF PRIVACY.

AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU'LL JUST COME BACK TO THIS MEETING AND YOU'LL CLOSE IT OUT OR DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO HERE.

SO WE LEAVE THIS MEETING.

CORRECT.

AND WE DO WE JUST GO BACK TO OUR CITY, EMAIL AND CLICK ON THE OTHER ONE? CORRECT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTIONS.

UM, SO THE TIME IT IS 6:00 PM, WE WILL NOT GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I'LL SEE YOU GUYS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.

THE TIME IS 7:28 PM.

IN CLOSED SESSION.

WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO FOUR ITEMS, ONE ITEM ONE AND TWO, A COMPLAINT FILED BY BRIAN MULLOY AGAINST DELIA GARZA, TWO ITEM ONE AND TWO, BE A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST AHO, BAYLOR OUR MOBILITY, OUR FUTURE PACK THREE ITEM ONE, AND TO SEE A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD CAN PECK YOUNG VOICES OF AUSTIN.

AND FOR ITEM ONE AND TWO, SORRY, THAT SHOULD BE THREE A THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, UH, ON A COMPLAINT BY MARK LIDDELL, KILIAN SLOGAN CHAIN, WHICH LOOKS AT VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE.

WELCOME BACK COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR BEING PATIENT.

UM, ONE THING THAT I THINK WE'VE OPTED TO DO, UM, SINCE ITEMS THREE EIGHT, THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION MAY BE A SHORTER, UM, UH, ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TO DISCUSS, I THINK IT WOULD BE A WISE

[00:10:01]

AND I APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTION FROM MY COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE THAT UP FIRST, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS.

UM, SO WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO ITEM THREE

[3A. Jurisdictional Determination on Complaint by Mark Littlefield against Logan Cheney, which complaint alleges complaint alleges violation of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Section 2-2-3 (Conformity with Texas Election Code).]

A AND I BELIEVE WE HAD TWO INDIVIDUALS LINED UP TO SPEAK ON THREE A MR. MCOWEY ACT AND MS. DAVIDSON, UM, AS A REMINDER BRIEFLY FOR, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS, UM, SORRY, IF YOU HEAR BACKGROUND NOISE, UH, FOR, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS, THAT'LL HAPPEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA ITEM.

UM, ONCE WE KIND OF GET INTO IT, UH, OUR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RULES DON'T REALLY LET US, UM, KIND OF GO BACK AND, UH, INVITE COMMENTS.

SO WITH THAT, UM, MR. OR MS. DAVIDSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE EACH TO, UM, DISCUSS THE ISSUE OR, UM, OR NOT, BUT I WILL LET YOU UNMUTE YOURSELVES AND, UM, UH, LET US KNOW IF YOU WANT TO OFFER A STATEMENT.

UM, THANK YOU, MR. SOVEREIGN.

UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THIS PROCESS OF ACCEPTING JURISDICTION ENTAILS SO THAT I MAY BETTER TAILOR MY COMMENTS TO THIS? SURE.

UM, SO IN ESSENCE, UM, EVERY TIME THAT THERE IS A COMPLAINT THAT IS, UM, FILED, THAT COMES TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, THE CHAIR HAS THE PREROGATIVE TO MAKE AN INITIAL, UH, DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS JURISDICTION.

UM, I MADE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION.

UM, SO THE, THE CITY CODE SAYS THAT IF THE CHAIR DETERMINES THAT THERE IS NOT JURISDICTION ON A GIVEN COMPLAINT, THAT AT THE NEXT HEARING OR THE NEXT MEETING, ESSENTIALLY COMMISSIONERS HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT DECISION.

SO THAT IS, THAT IS THE PROCESS CURRENTLY I'VE MADE A DETERMINATION OF JURY OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS JURISDICTION AND COMMISSIONERS ARE GONNA SECOND.

GUESS ME IF NEED BE, CAN REFER YOU TO THE CITY DECODE IF YOU'D LIKE, I DO SEE A LITTLE, UH, WARNING TRIANGLE, UM, ABOUT, UH, BANDWIDTH FOR YOUR CONNECTION, MS. DAVIDSON.

UM, YOU CAN HEAR ME, UH, MS. DAVIDSON, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME AND IF YOU'VE GOT A CONNECTION, IF YOU CAN STAY HERE.

UM, SO I KNOW, OKAY, MS. DAVIDSON, ARE YOU THERE? OKAY.

UM, HERE WE GO.

YOU'RE BACK TO THE VIDEO MIGHT BE FROZEN, UH, MS. DAVIDSON, IF YOU'D LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A COMMENT, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

UM, BARRING TECHNICAL ISSUES.

SO, UM, THIS IS LYNN CARTER FROM THE LAW.

DEPARTMENT'S REALLY BEST FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS TO USE, SUPPOSED TO BE USING THE TELEPHONE CALL IN.

OKAY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND I WILL NOTE THAT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

UH, YES.

SINCE WE AGREE WITH YOUR ORIGINAL DETERMINATION, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD.

THANK YOU.

OF COURSE.

UM, MR. MCCOLL YAK I'VE I AM OBLIGATED TO GIVE YOU CHANCE AS WELL.

SAME.

OKAY, GREAT.

NO PROBLEM THEN, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE QUESTION, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, DO I GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK? I DIDN'T FIND OUT, I GUESS IN TIME, SO, YEAH.

SORRY, MR. LITTLEFIELD, UM, THE, THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION DOESN'T, UM, IT'S NOT A PROCESS IN WHICH PARTIES TYPICALLY CAN, UH, KIND OF PRESENT LIKE A PRELIMINARY HEARING, UM, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, UM, PARTIES, I GUESS, UH, COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT ARE ENTITLED TO SIGN UP, UH, TO SPEAK AND OFFER COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM, UM, BUT NOT THE KIND OF PARTICIPATE OR RESPOND.

UM, SO I, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

UM, UNDERSTOOD.

OKAY.

UM, SO WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, ANY, ANY DISCUSSION,

[00:15:01]

UM, COMMENTS I'M HAPPY TO, UH, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT, UH, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE, UM, THE DETERMINATION, BUT, UM, I DON'T SEE ANYONE CHAMPION AT THE BIT.

UM, SO I'LL JUST BRIEFLY SAY THAT, UH, WE, WE ARRIVED AT THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE, UM, THAT PROVISION ESSENTIALLY, UM, CALLS ON, UM, CALLS ON INDIVIDUALS TO COMPLY WITH RELEVANT TEXAS ETHICS, COMMISSION RULES AND DEADLINES, ESSENTIALLY STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING DEADLINES, ET CETERA.

AND, UM, UH, THE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, IT'S NOT REALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CITY ETHICS COMMISSION TO KIND OF MAKE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT VIOLATIONS OF STATE RULES.

UM, AND, UH, YEAH, IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN ANOTHER VIOLATION, BUT THAT IS A VERY, A VERY ROUGH OVERVIEW OF THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.

JUST FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, I GUESS.

UM, WELL, COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION, THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO OUR OTHER AGENDA ITEMS. UM, UM, THERE, LYNN, I'M GONNA DEFER TO LYNN ON THIS.

I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WE DON'T NEED A VOTE.

UM, IF THE DETERMINATION STANDS, IT'S REALLY A VOTE.

IF THE, IF THE COMMISSIONERS DISAGREE WITH THE DETERMINATION, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, BUT YOU NEED JUST GO AHEAD AND ASK, IS THERE A MOTION, IF THERE IS NO MOTION, THEN YOUR DETERMINATION WILL STAND.

GOT IT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SO COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A MOTION ON THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ON THE COMPLAINT OF, UH, BIOMARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST LOGAN CHENEY AS THE HEAD SHAKING AND HEARING NONE, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

OKAY.

SO, UM, I GUESS BACKING UP ON OUR AGENDA, WE

[2A. A complaint filed by Brian Molloy, Office of the City Auditor, against Delia Garza, which complaint alleges violations of City Code of Chapter 2-7 (Ethics and Financial Disclosure) Section 2-7-62 (Standards of Conduct), subsection (I) and subsection (J).]

HAVE ITEMS TO A, A COMPLAINT FILED BY BRIAN MULLOY OFFICE, THE CITY AUDITOR AGAINST DELIA GARCIA, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO I AND J UM, MR. STEVE SHEETS, I BELIEVE HE'S ON THE CALL.

HE'S APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.

UM, AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CAROLINE WEBSTER IS ALSO PRESENT AT THE OUTSET.

COUNCIL HAS A QUESTION FOR THE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT.

UM, SO, UM, I'M HAPPY TO, UM, UH, I BELIEVE BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT HAS, UM, AT LEAST RECEIVED OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.

AND, UM, I BELIEVE THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE IS PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THEM.

UM, SO I WON'T GO INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL.

UM, I WILL JUST NOTE THAT EACH SIDE HAS 10 MINUTES FOR A PRESENTATION, UM, UNLESS I DECIDED TO EXTEND THE TIME THERE'S NO CROSS EXAMINATION.

UM, AND THEN I, I THINK FOR THIS FORUM, UH, IT'S THAT THE COMMISSIONERS RESERVE QUESTIONS FOR THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.

UM, BUT COMMISSIONERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT WHERE THEIR COUNCILS, UM, AT THAT TIME.

UM, I AM HAPPY TO LEAVE IT THERE UNLESS COMMISSIONERS HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

I'M SEEING NONE IN THAT CASE.

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. MALLOY, THE COMPLAINANT FOR 10 MINUTES.

I WILL ASK SECRETARY GOGURT TO BE OUR THEME TIMEKEEPER.

THUMBS UP.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, MR. MALLOY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

CAN I, I'M SORRY.

CAN I INTERRUPT COMPLAINANTS THIS CAROLINE? SORRY.

DO WE HAVE ANY REFUSALS ON THIS ITEM? WE DID.

UH, I ANNOUNCED THEM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, BUT YEAH.

OKAY.

I APOLOGIZE.

I MUST HAVE JUST MISSED IT.

I WAS HAVING SOME, SOME ISSUES WITH MY, MY, UH, UH, VOLUME, SO, OKAY.

SORRY, I JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK.

WE CROSSED THAT OFF THE LIST.

NOT A PROBLEM.

I'M HAPPY TO HAPPY TO.

YES, APOLOGIZE.

AND MAYBE YOU'VE ALREADY GONE OVER THIS, BUT DO WE HAVE ALL OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HERE THAT HAVE NOT, UH, DECIDED TO ABSTAIN? DO WE HAVE ALL OF THEM HERE? FOR SOME REASON? I FEEL LIKE I'M MISSING ONE.

I MIGHT BE WRONG.

I JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK BEFORE WE GET STARTED.

NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WE DO HAVE EVERYONE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE,

[00:20:01]

UH, GO BACK TO MY COLD ROLL CALL.

UM, SO COMMISSIONERS RYAN AND VIA LOBOS HAD INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD BE RECUSING THEMSELVES, BUT OTHERWISE, UH, UNLESS ARE WE MISSING COMMISSIONER KALE HERE? I COULDN'T LOG IN.

I'M ON MY COMPUTER.

SO I LOGGED IN ON MY PHONE.

GOT IT.

OKAY.

YEAH.

OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK WE DO HAVE EVERYONE HERE.

YES.

DAN BERGER, MAN.

I AM MISSING PEOPLE.

UM, MISSIONARY JAN BERG.

SHE WAS, I DID SEE HER.

I'M NOT BACK IN.

UM, HMM.

I DO BELIEVE IT'S, YOU KNOW, UM, LYNN, IF IT'S, UM, I, YEAH, LYNN, IF YOU MIGHT, UM, TRY TO REACH OUT TO COMMISSIONER DANBURG, UM, UH, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP.

UM, VICE CHAIR, HURRY.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PROHIBITION ON, UH, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROHIBITION ON KIND OF VOTING ON AN ACTION, UM, WHEN SOMEONE'S NOT HERE FOR THE START OF THE HEARING, I BELIEVE THAT PROHIBITION ONLY APPLIES TO FINAL HEARINGS.

UM, BUT IT'S WELL TAKEN.

I THINK WE'LL TRY TO GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH COMMISSIONER DANBURG AND GET HER ON THE LINE.

HI, THIS IS CAROLINE WEBSTER.

AGAIN, WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL WE CAN GET COMMISSIONER DANBURG BACK ON THE LINE.

OKAY.

AND HE WAS CALLING COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE AT THE MOMENT.

ALL RIGHT.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

SURE.

WHILE WE'RE WAITING, CAN WE, UH, HAVE, UH, THE CITY, UM, PV PEOPLE BRING UP OUR PRESENTATION JUST SO WE'RE READY TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING WITH IT.

YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.

UM, YEAH.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MA'AM COMMISSIONER.

DAN BERG IS NOT ANSWERING OUR PHONE.

WE CALLED HER A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW.

UM, IT'S JUST GOING TO VOICEMAIL AFTER A FEW.

OKAY.

UM, UM, MS. WEBSTER, DO YOU THINK IT'S, UM, WE'RE IN THE CLEAR TO PROCEED? HOW MANY FOLKS DO WE HAVE HERE FROM THE COMMISSION OTHER THAN WHOEVER DO WE HAVE WE, SO WE DO HAVE, YEAH, SO WE DO HAVE, UH, MORE THAN QUORUM, UM, THAT ARE PRESENT.

I MEAN, UH, I'M JUST GOING TO DO A QUICK COUNT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT.

YEAH.

SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE EIGHT MEMBERS, UM, UH, ABSENT DANBURG AND THE RECUSALS, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THE SAKE OF, UM, YEAH, I'M STILL NOT SEEING YOUR, ON YOUR, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD PREFER IF WE COULD JUST WAIT, UH, JUST, UH, JUST A FEW MINUTES JUST TO SEE IF WE CAN GET HER BACK ON THERE.

AND IF WE CAN'T GET HER BACK ON IN A, IN SAY TWO OR THREE MINUTES, WE COULDN'T PROCEED.

SURE.

I'LL YOU KNOW, UM, LET'S, YOU'RE GOOD.

NO, NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FINE.

UH, NICER.

UM, NO, I, I DO APPRECIATE IT.

UH, SO LET'S SAY, UM, INFORMALLY, UH, RECESS UNTIL SEVEN 46, ABOUT THREE MINUTES FROM NOW.

JUST TRY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH COMMISSIONER DANBURG.

UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW RECESS HAS WORKED VIRTUALLY, BUT I PERSONALLY AM GOING TO PUT MYSELF ON MUTE AND KEEP MY HEADPHONE IN SO I CAN FEAR IF WE DO GET A CONNECTION.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO HAVING A BRIEF RECESS? SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.

OKAY, GREAT.

ALL RIGHT, THEN QUICK RECESS.

UM, I'LL HAVE MY HEADPHONE IN.

SO SOMEONE HOLLER, IF WE GET A CONNECTION WITH COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE.

OKAY.

SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

41 IS STILL AVAILABLE.

UH, DEBRA DANBURG IS CALLING

[00:25:09]

POINT OF ORDER.

WHAT? UH, LUIS CHAIR SILVERADO.

HI, THIS IS CAROLINE WEBSTER.

SINCE WE'RE OFFICIALLY IN RECESS, I WOULD PREFER THAT WE NOT PROCEED WITH ANYTHING UNTIL WE'RE.

WE ONLY HAVE A FEW MINUTES LEFT.

SO ONCE WE ARE OUT OF RECESS, I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PROCEED.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, TIME IS SEVEN 46.

I'M GOING TO JUST DO A QUICK VISUAL SURVEY OF COMMISSIONERS, UM, AND COMMISSIONER KALE, SINCE YOU'RE ON THE PHONE, YOU CAN GIVE ME A YEP.

OKAY.

I'M HERE.

GOT IT.

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

UH, LET'S SEE.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ARE YOU BACK AS WELL? UH, CHAIRMAN SUBROOM.

CAN WE GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER? YES.

LET ME JUST TAKE A QUORUM AND MAKE, AND THEN JUST PROCEED.

IS THAT POSSIBLE? UM, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO INVITE, UH, CAROLINE WEBSTER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TALK THROUGH THE PREFERENCE TO HAVE AS MANY COMMISSIONERS HERE AS POSSIBLE.

I THINK SOME OF IT MAY HAVE TO DO WITH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE VOTES REQUIRED TO KIND OF TAKE ACTIONS IF WE NEED TO.

UM, BUT HAPPY TO GET CLARITY ON THAT.

UM, YEAH.

HI, THIS IS CAROLYN WEBSTER.

I LEGALLY WE CAN PROCEED.

I MEAN, WE'RE JUST IN SOME DIFFICULT TIMES AS EVERYONE KNOWS RIGHT NOW.

AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO GIVE A COUPLE OF EXTRA MINUTES TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THE STANBURG COMMISSIONER DAMPER BACK ON, JUST BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO HANDLE THINGS VIRTUALLY LEGALLY, YOU CAN PROCEED IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

NOTED.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

UM, WELL THE TIME IS SEVEN 48.

WE ARE, I'M GOING TO MAKE IT FORMALLY THAT WE ARE OUT OF SESSION.

UM, ALL, IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE, AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE BRIAN MALLOY TO GET STARTED WITH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

SO REMINDER, YOU'VE GOT 10 MINUTES AND, UM, SECRETARY GILBERT WILL KEEP TIME CITY HALL.

WHAT'S THAT? OH, WELL, WE'LL BRING UP THE POWERPOINT.

AND ALSO DEBRA DANBURG IS IN THE MEETING NOW.

HALLELUJAH, DEBRA DANBURG.

UM, IT IS GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK.

WELCOME BACK.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

UH, SECRETARY GOLDBERG, WE'LL START THE TIME AS SOON AS YOU START TALKING, MR. MALLOY, UH, THANK YOU CHAIR, UM, QUICKLY BECAUSE OF, UH, WHO THE RESPONDENT IS IN THIS ALLEGATION.

THE CITY HOURS OFFICE IS ACTUALLY NOT INDEPENDENT.

SO BY CITY CODE, WE HAD TO HIRE OUTSIDE INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE, UH, JERRY JORDAN FROM WEAVER AND TRAVIS, KATHERINE FROM WEAVER AND, UH, OUTSIDE COUNSEL, RUSS FISHER, I'LL BE HANDING IT OFF TO THEM TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION.

SO, UM, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO YOUR TRAVIS KASTNER.

THANK YOU.

YEAH.

THANK YOU, BRIAN.

UH, CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME OKAY? YEAH.

OKAY.

SO, UH, AS AS BRIAN MENTIONED MYSELF, ALONG WITH JARED JORDAN FROM WEAVER, AS WELL AS ROSS FISHER, UH, SERVED AS OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL, UH, CONDUCTED THIS INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MAYOR PRO TEM

[00:30:01]

GARZA.

UM, IF YOU COULD PLEASE SKIP FORWARD TO, UH, AND ONE MORE SLIDE PLEASE.

SO I'M GOING TO START AND TALK ABOUT, UH, SOME OF THE KEY INFORMATION, THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE.

UM, AND THEN I'M GOING TO, UH, LET MR. FISHER TALK ABOUT, UM, W THE, UH, CITY CODE RELATED ISSUES, UM, YOU KNOW, AFTER WE'VE GONE THROUGH SOME OF THE EVIDENCE.

UM, SO TO START, UH, WE WANTED TO JUST PROVIDE A TIMELINE OF, UH, THE EVENTS FROM, UH, WHAT WE SAW IN OUR INVESTIGATION, WHICH, UH, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO MAY, 2011 WAS WHEN MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA, UH, IS LICENSED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS WITH HER WALL LICENSE, UH, AND APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF YEARS LATER, UH, SHE WAS ELECTED TO CITY COUNCIL AND APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AFTER BEING ELECTED TO CITY COUNCIL, SHE FILED A FORM, UH, WITH THE STATE BAR, WHICH WAS A REQUEST TO, UH, HAVE HER LAW LICENSE STATUS, BE DESIGNATED AS INACTIVE, AND, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE, THE FORM.

AND IT'S, UH, IN THE BACK OF THIS PRESENTATION IN SLIDE NINE.

AND WE CAN GO BACK TO IT LATER, BUT ESSENTIALLY, UH, THE IT'S A FORM WHERE, UH, MPT GARZA CHECKED A BOX THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, FOR WHY SHE WAS ELECTING TO, UH, HAVE HER STATUS BE DESIGNATED AS INACTIVE WAS BECAUSE WE HAD A POSITION OR HELD A POSITION THAT DID NOT REQUIRE A LAW LICENSE.

AND SO THAT WAS IN NOVEMBER, 2015.

AND SO FROM, FROM THAT POINT UNTIL ABOUT AUGUST, 2018, UH, NPT GARZA STATUS WAS INACTIVE.

SHE PAID A REDUCED DUES, UM, USING PERSONAL FUNDS AND DID NOT HAVE A CLE, UH, REQUIREMENTS WITH INACTIVE STATUS IN, UH, AUGUST OF 2018.

UH, THIS IS WHEN MPT GARZA REACTIVATED HER LAW LICENSE.

UH, THERE'S AN EMAIL EXCHANGE, UH, WITH, UH, NBC GARZA AND SOME OF HER STAFFERS ON, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S ON SLIDE 10 AND IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF WE CAN TO GO JUMP TO THAT SLIDE REAL QUICK, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

AND ONE MORE SLIDE, PLEASE.

OKAY.

SO TH TH THIS WAS THE EMAIL EXCHANGE IN AUGUST, 2018, WHERE, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA, UH, IN A EMAIL TO HER STAFF ASKED IF SHE COULD, UH, ASK WHAT SHE NEEDED TO PAY, STAY AN ACTIVE, AND THEN TO PAY WITH THE OFFICE BUDGET.

THE FOLLOWING DAY, THERE WAS AN EMAIL FROM THE SAME STAFFER TO, UH, MPT GARZA, HIS CHIEF OF STAFF, UH, INDICATING THAT, UH, MPT GARZA HAS DECIDED TO GO ACTIVE AND THAT THE FEE WOULD BE $300.

AND THEN, UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO BACK TO SLIDE FOUR FROM THE TIMELINE.

UM, AND SO ONCE, UH, MPT GARZA WAS, UM, ACTIVE STATUS, WE IDENTIFIED, UH, PAYMENTS, UH, FROM OUR OFFICE BUDGET THAT RELATED TO HER LAW LICENSE.

AND, UH, PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THE PAYMENTS WE IDENTIFIED, UM, ON, AND THIS IS ON SLIDE FOUR, THERE'S A, A TABLE.

UM, UH, SO THE $1,400, THESE WERE EXPENSES RELATING TO, UH, STATE BAR DUES, AUSTIN BARCENA STATION DUES, AS WELL AS, UH, CLE.

SO THIS WAS, UH, USING HER OFFICE BUDGET DURING THIS, UH, AUGUST, 2018 TO FEBRUARY, 2020 TIME PERIOD.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AS PART OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WE ALSO SPOKE WITH TWO CURRENT MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, UH, WHO HOLD LAW LICENSES.

AND, UH, WE DETERMINED THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS DID NOT USE THEIR OFFICE BUDGET TO PAY FOR THEIR ALL LICENSE.

WE ALSO SPOKE WITH SEVERAL FORMER MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL WHO HAD, UH, PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS AND LICENSES AND DETERMINED THAT THEY, UH, DID NOT, UH, USE THEIR OFFICE BUDGET TO PAY FOR THOSE EXPENSES.

AND, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF I SAID WE SPOKE TO THEM, WE ACTUALLY REVIEWED THEIR, THEIR OFFICE BUDGET EXPENDITURES TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

UM, AND SO, UH, IF YOU PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO, UH, TO ROSS FISHER TO TALK ABOUT, UM, HOW THE, UH, THE FACTS RELATE TO CITY CODE.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY.

I CAN.

AND I'LL ALSO JUST BRIEFLY POINT OUT THAT IF YOU GO TO, UH, SECRETARY GILBERT'S, UH, VIDEO, YOU'LL SEE A TIMER.

SO GO AHEAD, MR. FISHER, I'LL BE BRIEF.

THANK YOU.

I KNOW YOU HAVE OTHER HEARINGS COMING UP OUT WHEN, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, WHEN YOU APPLY THE FACTS THAT WE UNCOVERED IN OUR INVESTIGATION TO THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO FIND TWO VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY'S ETHICS.

OREGON'S.

UH, FIRST IS SECTION TWO

[00:35:01]

SEVEN TWO DASH SEVEN SIX TWO.

I SAYS, NO SALARY TO THE CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE HIS OFFICIAL POSITION TO SECURE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION FOR HIMSELF OR OTHERS, OR TO SECURE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR ANY PURPOSE, OTHER THAN THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY, UH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD.

I THINK THAT THE KEY PHRASE IS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO CONCLUDE THAT A MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA, UH, BY UTILIZING CITY FUNDS TO PAY FOR HER PERSONAL LAW LICENSE, A SECURE FOR HERSELF, A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT, UH, WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO OTHER PEOPLE.

THE SECOND STANDARD THAT WE THINK IS APPLICABLE IN THIS SITUATION IS SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO J WHO SAYS THAT NO CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE CITY FACILITIES, PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT, OR SUPPLIES FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH ARE LAWFULLY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

UM, THE KEY PHRASE HERE IS PRIVATE PURPOSES WILLING THAT THERE'S, THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO CONCLUDE THAT MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA USED HER STAFF, UM, AND CITY RESOURCES, AND ALSO CITY FUNDS, OBVIOUSLY TO PAY FOR HER BAR DUES, UH, WHICH SERVED A PRIVATE PURPOSE.

AND WEREN'T PRIMARILY FURTHERING ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE AND ALSO TO PAY FOR NOT ONLY STATE BAR DUES, AUSTIN BAR ASSOCIATION DUES, WHICH AREN'T REQUIRED AT ALL.

AND THEN FOR CLE, WHICH SHE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN HER LAW LICENSE.

UH, ONCE SHE REACT, WHEN WE THINK THIS IS BOLSTERED BY THE FACT THAT HE ORIGINALLY WENT INACTIVE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND SAID THAT SHE DIDN'T NEED HER LAW LICENSE TO BE A COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND THEN WHEN SHE DECIDED TO RE ACTIVATE HER LAW LICENSE TO CITY FUNDS TO PAY FOR THAT.

SO WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THOSE TWO STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WITHIN VIOLATED YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS THE BASIS FOR OUR OPINIONS.

THE CITY FUNDS SHOULD ONLY BE USED FOR CITY PURPOSES.

IN THIS CASE, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT DEEMED PAYING FOR ONE'S PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL DUES TO FURTHER A CITY PURPOSE.

UM, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER CONDITION CAN UNILATERALLY MAKE THE DECISION THAT A CITY PURPOSE IS SERVED WITH A CERTAIN EXPENDITURE MAYOR PRO TEM CARLA'S POSITION ON CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T REQUIRE A LAW LICENSE IF SOMETHING THAT SHE HERSELF WROTE TO THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS WHEN ORIGINALLY ELECTED, UM, SHE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OR FOR ANY CITY RESIDENTS THAT WE COULD TELL DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT SHE WAS UTILIZING PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY HER, IS WE TALKED TO CURRENT AND FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO USE THEIR PERSONAL FUNDS AND NOT CITY FUNDS TO PAY FOR MAINTENANCE OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS.

UM, FINALLY WE BELIEVE THAT, UH, HER HAVING HER LAW LICENSE PROVIDED A, UH, PRIMARILY A PERSONAL BENEFIT, AND WE DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PROGRAM WILL BENEFIT OR SERVE THE MUNICIPAL PURPOSE.

AND WE THINK THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT WAS UNAVAILABLE, WHICH GENERAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

UM, THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I POINT OUT IS I THINK THAT YOUR RULES, UH, EXPECT ME TO, UH, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS THAT WE WOULD OFFER AT A FORMAL HEARING, UH, WHERE WE WOULD UTILIZE THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN THAT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ATTACHED TO MR. COMPLAINT.

SPECIFICALLY, WE WOULD EXPECT A TESTIMONY FROM MS. GARZA, HER CHIEF OF STAFF AFTER NICELY AND FINANCIAL MANAGER, LAUREN HOMAN.

WE WOULD INTRODUCE IT AS DOCUMENTATION, HER CO MR. UH, SORRY.

MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA IS CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS FOR EMAILS WITH HER CHIEF OF STAFF AND OTHERS, OR CHANGE CHEETOS TASKS, EMAILS WITH THE FINANCIAL MANAGER, UM, FINANCIAL RECORDS SHOWING CITY PAYMENTS, UH, FOR THE VARIOUS TO THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS AND FOR THE CLS AND THEN THE RELATED EMAILS.

SO THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, UM, INTRODUCING IF THIS MOVES FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, UH, IF WE COULD, UM, IF IT'S OKAY WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS AS WELL, UM, CITY HALL, IF WE COULD, UH, GET OUT OF THE PRESENTATION TO SO I CAN SEE EVERYONE, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND I THINK COMMISSIONERS SHOULD HAVE, UM, WHAT I, WHAT, WHAT I WAS GONNA, UH, I'LL LET YOU GO.

COMMISSIONER DENVER AGAIN, JUST A MOMENT WHERE I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST FOR EVERYONE IS THAT WE, UH, LET THE RESPONDENT 10 MINUTES, UM, GO, UH, FOR THEIR PRESENTATION AND THEN, UH, ASK QUESTIONS IF I DID THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT AS NEEDED.

UM, OKAY, GREAT.

THUMBS UP AND, OKAY.

UM, ALL RIGHT, THEN WITH THAT, UM, UH, RESPONDENT OR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES

[00:40:01]

TO USE, UM, COLLECTIVELY, UM, AS SOON AS YOU START TALKING, UH, BELIEVE SECRETARY GOVE IS GOING TO START THE TIMER.

SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU HEAR? YES.

YES.

OKAY, GOOD.

UH, COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR.

MY NAME IS JIM COUSER.

I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE MAYOR PRO TEM ON THIS MATTER, UH, THE MAYOR PRO TIM IS ALSO AVAILABLE.

SHE'S MONITORING THE PROCEEDING.

UH, SHE HAS FILED A WRITTEN STATEMENT, WHICH I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO READ.

SHE DOESN'T PLAN TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THIS EVENING.

SHE'S GOING TO RELY ON HER WRITTEN STATEMENT.

IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS, IF THE MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, I THINK SHE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO THOSE.

UH, I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY RESPOND TO A NUMBER OF FACTUAL ISSUES IN THE CASE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NOT MANY FACTUAL, THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE MORE IMPORTANT, UH, LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED BY THIS COMPLAINT.

AND I'M GOING TO CONCLUDE BY ASKING THE COMMISSIONERS TO DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THESE TWO PARTICULAR SECTIONS OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE HAVE OCCURRED.

AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEY REPORT, WHICH BY THE WAY, WE THINK WAS, UH, WAS FAIR AND, AND WELL DONE.

UM, THE MAYOR PRO TIM'S WRITTEN RESPONSE AND THE TWO ATTACHMENTS TO THAT RESPONSE IN MY LEGAL MEMO.

OKAY.

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PACKET PROVIDED TO EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL.

WE FILED THAT TIMELY.

YEAH.

UM, SO DONNA, BETH, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO, UH, MUTE AT THE MOMENT, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE EMAIL THAT I SENT YOU, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF ATTACHMENTS AMONG THEM, THE MEMO, UH, FROM THAT THEIR COUNSEL.

OKAY.

UM, LET ME GO INTO THE, THE THREE FACTUAL POINTS THAT I THINK ARE SIGNIFICANT, IF NOT IN GREAT DISPUTE.

ONE OF THOSE IS WHETHER THE CITY FINANCIAL OFFICE DID OR DID NOT ADVISE THE MAYOR PRO TEM STAFF IN 2018 THAT USE OF THE DISTRICT OFFICE BUDGET WAS ACCEPTABLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE LEGAL EXPENSES.

UH, THE REPORT RECITED INTERVIEWS WITH BOTH THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND HER CHIEF OF STAFF RECITING THAT THAT INTERVIEW DID THAT CONVERSATION DIDN'T OCCUR AND THAT THEY GOT THE GO-AHEAD THE RESPONSE FROM THE CITY FINANCIAL OFFICE WAS WE DON'T MAKE THAT TYPE OF DETERMINATION.

WELL, WE KNOW, IN FACT, FROM ATTACHMENT A TO THE MAYOR PRO TIM'S STATEMENT FIT, SOMETIMES THE CITY FINANCIAL OFFICE DOES MAKE THAT DETERMINATION ATTACHMENT A IS A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT A PASSPORT FOR CITY RELATED TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND TRAVEL EXPENSES OF THAT KIND ARE PROPER FOR A DISTRICT OFFICE EXPENSE.

AND THE FINANCIAL OFFICE OF FINE, THE PASSPORT IS NOT, BUT DO NECESSARY TRAVEL EXPENSES ARE.

SO WE KNOW IN WRITING THAT AT TIMES, THEY DID MAKE THAT TYPE OF DETERMINATION.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT IN 2015, WHEN THE MAYOR PRO TEM FIRST TOOK OFFICE, THAT THERE WAS A DISTRICT OFFICE BUDGET TEMPLATE THAT THE CITY FINANCE OFFICE PROVIDED TO EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER.

TWO OF THE ITEMS ON THERE WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT WERE PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION AND MEMBERSHIPS.

NOW THE FACT THAT THOSE ITEMS EXIST ON A BUDGET TEMPLATE DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT ALL PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS ARE NECESSARILY PROPER EXPENSES, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN LINE ITEM AND THEY ARE ALSO NOT CATEGORICALLY AN IMPROPER EXPENSE.

SO BASED ON THOSE TWO ITEMS, I THINK THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT AS REFLECTED IN THE REPORT OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM, AND IN HER STATEMENT TO THIS COMMISSION THAT THEY DID GET THE GUIDANCE THAT THEY SAY THEY GOT FROM THE CITY FINANCE OFFICE.

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS TOLD, DO NOT CHARGE A PASSPORT.

AND SHE GOT THAT FROM THE FINANCE OFFICE.

SHE ELECTED NOT TO DO THAT.

SO I THINK THERE, THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SAY, WE CAN ACCEPT THE MAYOR PRO TIM'S STATEMENT AS TO WHAT GUIDANCE SHE GOT, THE LAST FACTUAL ITEM.

AND THIS ONE IS NOT AS IMPORTANT, BUT THE REPORT PROPERLY POINTS OUT.

AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR REPORT POINTS OUT THE BAR NOW HAS A PROGRAM CALLED THE NOVA PROGRAM UNDER WHICH ATTORNEYS WHO ONLY WANT TO PROVIDE PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES.

DON'T HAVE TO RENEW THEIR LAW LICENSE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTIVE STATUS.

WELL, THAT'S A GOOD POINT, EXCEPT THAT PROGRAM DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE SPRING OF 2018, THE SAME YEAR THAT MAYOR PRO TEM RENEWED HER LAW LICENSE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PRO BONO SERVICES TO THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY.

SO, AGAIN,

[00:45:01]

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT SHE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT RENEWING HER LAW LICENSE.

BUT WHEN SHE SAYS THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, AND MOST LAWYERS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT IN 2018, A BRAND NEW PROGRAM.

I THINK THERE'S REASONS TO GIVE HER CREDENCE ON THAT.

I WANT TO MAKE TWO LEGAL POINTS.

ONE ABOUT SUBSECTION J AND THAT'S THE EASY ONE.

SUBSECTION J IS THE SECTION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE UNDER WHICH THE, UH, THE REPORT, THE AUDITOR ALLEGES THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, USED CITY FACILITIES, PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT, OR SUPPLIES FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES.

LOOK AT THOSE FOUR TERMS, FACILITIES, PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, OR SUPPLIES.

THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT MAKE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT USE OF THOSE THINGS.

THE COMPLAINT IS THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM USED CITY FUNDS IN HER DISTRICT OFFICE BUDGET.

AND THAT THAT WAS DONE BY WAY OF A CREDIT CARD.

IF THERE WAS ANY INVOLVEMENT OF CITY PERSONNEL, IT WAS DIMINIMOUS IN SUBSECTION J HAS AN EXCEPTION OR DIMINIMOUS USE OF PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT OR SUPPLIES.

WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE IS DID THE MAYOR PRO TEM USE ANY OF THOSE FOUR ITEMS AND CAN FUNDS BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF FACILITIES, PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, OR SUPPLIES.

NOW, IF YOU'VE READ THE LEGAL MEMORANDUM I PROVIDED TO YOU, THERE'S A CLEAR RULE OF LAW.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S IN LATIN, BUT IT SAYS THAT IF A STATUTE OR AN ORDINANCE INCLUDES A LISTING OF THINGS OR PROHIBITED ACTS, YOU CANNOT JUST READ ANOTHER THING INTO IT.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE LATIN, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IS STILL A VERY GOOD RE RULE OF LAW.

THIS IS A CIVIL PROCEEDING, BUT THIS IS ON THE OTHER HAND OF PUNITIVE AND PENAL ORDINANCE.

IF THIS WERE PRESENTED IN AN INDICTMENT, IT WOULD NEVER GET PAST THE FIRST HEARING BECAUSE ANY ATTORNEY COULD GO TO A DISTRICT JUDGE OR A COURT OF LAW AND SAY, WHAT MY CLIENT IS ACCUSED OF DOING IS USING THENS.

AND THE LAW ONLY ADDRESSES USE OF FACILITIES, PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, OR SUPPLIES.

SO WE DON'T THINK THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT ONE.

THE SECOND POINT IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED, AND I WANT YOU TO BEAR WITH ME.

THAT IS SUBSECTION I, AND THAT IS THE ALLEGATION THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM OBTAINED OR SECURED A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN THIS CASE, BY HER USE OF THE FUNDS PRIVILEGE HAS A MEANING IN THE LAW.

AND THIS IS THE LEGAL DICTION DICTIONARY DEFINITION, PRIVILEGED AS A SPECIAL LEGAL RIGHT, AN EXEMPTION OR AN IMMUNITY GRANTED TO A PERSON OR A CLASS OF PERSONS AND EXCEPTION TO A DUTY OR PRIVILEGE GRANTS, SOMEONE THE LEGAL FREEDOM TO DO OR NOT DO A GIVEN ACT.

IT IMMUNIZES CONDUCT THAT UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SUBJECT CHARACTER TO A LIABILITY.

NOW, THERE ARE PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT NOBODY ON THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DO, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SECURING A PRIVILEGE.

IF SOMEBODY ON THE CITY COUNCIL TELLS THE CITY STAFF TO PAVE MY STREET OR BUILD A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, WHEN THAT'S NOT IN THE BUDGET, THAT'S SECURING A PRIVILEGE.

IF SOMEONE ON THE CITY COUNCIL TELLS THE AVIATION DIRECTOR, I WANT TO GET ADMITTED TO A VIP CLUB AT THE AIRLINE AT THE AIRPORT, GET ME IN THAT SECURING A PRIVILEGE.

IF THEY TELL THE PARD STAFF, I WANT YOU TO LET MY KIDS INTO THE POOL FOR FREE.

WHEN THE OTHER KIDS HAVE TO PAY THAT SECURING A PRIVILEGE, A DECISION ABOUT USE OF A DISCRETIONARY DISTRICT OFFICE BUDGET.

YOU CAN AGREE WITH IT, OR YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH IT, BUT IT IS NOT BY DEFINITION, SECURING A PRIVILEGE.

EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR HAS THAT DISTRICT OFFICE BUDGET.

IT'S THEIRS FOR DISCRETIONARY USE.

THEY MAY USE IT CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY, AND THEY MAY HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR IT.

BUT YOU CANNOT SAY THAT BECAUSE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER PAYS THE BAR DUES AND ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER DOES NOT PAY THE BAR DUES.

THAT IS A PRIVILEGE.

EACH ONE OF THEM MAKES THAT DECISION.

AND IT SIMPLY DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A PRIVILEGE IS A DISCRETIONARY USE.

AND IF THE, IF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE ADDRESSED IT JUST ANY IMPROPER USE FOR PERCEIVED PRIVATE PURPOSES, THEN WE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ETHICS ORDINANCE SAYS.

THE ETHICS ORDINANCE VERY SPECIFICALLY USES THE LEGAL TERM, A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS COMPLAINT ALLEGES.

SO IN CONCLUSION COMMISSIONERS, WE THINK THERE ARE FACTUAL BROWNS HERE TO ACCEPT WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND HER STAFF HAD SAID THAT THEY DID GET GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY FINANCE OFFICE,

[00:50:01]

AND THEY ACTED ON THAT GUIDANCE.

THEY DO.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE THAT THEY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.

I THINK THERE'S CREDIBLE REASON TO BELIEVE BASED ON ATTACHMENTS A AND B TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM STATEMENT THAT THE GUIDANCE WAS THERE ENDED THAT THE BUDGET TEMPLATE WAS THERE.

IT LED THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS AN ACCEPTABLE USE.

YOUR DECISION TONIGHT IS, ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO ACCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE OCCURRED, BUT IT'S TWO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.

ONE OF WHICH DID THE CITY MAYOR PRO TEM OBTAIN A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

AND THE SECOND ONE IS, DID SHE USE CITY FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES, OR PERSONNEL FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES? NEITHER ONE OF THOSE TYPES OF CONDUCT IS WHAT THIS COMPLAINT ALLEGES.

SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU FIND THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE HAS OCCURRED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

UM, APPRECIATE IT.

UM, SO AT THIS TIME, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS, UM, COMMISSIONER KALE, SINCE YOU'RE, UM, ON THE LINE, UM, I'LL ASK THAT WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU JUST SHOUT MY NAME AND I WILL CALL ON YOU THEN.

UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, UH, I, I DID SEE COMMISSIONER DAN BERG, UM, WHEN DID ASK THE QUESTION AFTER THE FIRST PRESENTATION.

SO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER NEIGHBORS.

THANK YOU.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SO ATTORNEY DOESN'T NEED TO ANSWER THIS BECAUSE, UH, RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, BUT IF THE, IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO ANSWER ME, UM, I AM WONDERING, OR, OR IF THE COMPLAINANT CHOOSES TO ANSWER ME, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT DURING HER TIME IN OFFICE THAT MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA PERSONALLY TOOK CASES FOR PERSONAL PROFIT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? THIS IS JIM COUSER.

ABSOLUTELY.

GO AHEAD.

UH, THE, THE REPORT MAKES AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING, WHICH I THINK THE AUDITOR'S TEAM WOULD BACK UP, THAT THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE.

EVERY MATTER THAT SHE HANDLED WAS A PRO BONO MATTER WITHOUT FEES OR REMUNERATION.

AND THE OTHER THING, I THINK YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ILLEGAL TO USE CITY DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR, UH, NOT PERSONAL LICENSURE, LIKE A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR A PASSPORT, BUT LICENSURE, TO BE ABLE TO GET MORE CONTINUING EDUCATION OR TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN SERVICES THAT YOU CAN'T AT LEAST BEFORE THE NO OF PROGRAMMING, BY THE WAY, MY, MY HUSBAND WAS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS LEGAL SERVICES CENTER.

AND I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE NOVA PROGRAM.

AND ALL HE KNEW ABOUT WAS THE AMERITAS LAWYER PROGRAM FROM 1985.

HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THAT NOVA PROGRAM EXISTED.

SO, UM, I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T CONSIDER THAT LIKE PERSONAL LICENSURE VERSUS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

OKAY.

APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, SECRETARY GOBER, UM, OH, THAT YOU HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL.

GO AHEAD.

IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION FOR EITHER OF THE PARTIES.

I JUST WANT TO HAVE A UNDERSTANDING.

I THINK THERE'S ONLY SEVEN OF US THAT ARE VOTING IN ORDER TO HAVE AN ACTION.

WE HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST SIX OF US, WHICH WOULD BE THE MAJORITY OF THE 11.

IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE.

UM, IT TAKES, UH, A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH AN ACTION.

NOT NONE, A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS PRESENT.

IS THAT RIGHT? MS. WEBSTER? YES.

THIS IS CAROLYN LETTER.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, OKAY.

AND THEN I BELIEVE, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO FORECAST BECAUSE I'M DOING SOME MATH HERE.

I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION TO MOVE FORWARD.

I'M NOT GOING TO RESTATE THE INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THE MEMORANDUM.

UM, AND SO IF SOMEBODY IS DOING THE MATH, IF THERE'S ONE OTHER PERSON THAT'S OF THE SAME OPINION, I, I WANT EVERYBODY TO ASK AIR ALL THE QUESTIONS THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASK TONIGHT, BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE EFFICIENT.

NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

UH, I'LL I'LL NOTE THAT I THINK THAT THERE ARE EIGHT OF US.

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE HAVE KALE OR HURRY.

GOBER UM, LERNER,

[00:55:01]

LAURIE MCCORMICK DANBURG, UM, GREENBURG.

VERY GOOD, EVERYONE.

UM, BUT POINT TAKEN.

UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

MY QUESTION IS TIMING AND AMOUNT.

THE AMOUNT WAS $1,400.

WAS THAT A PROBLEM PERSONALLY, NOT TO PAY THAT ARE FROM YOUR PERSONAL FUNDS? AND IF THERE WAS A QUESTION, WHY DIDN'T YOU CONSULT SOMEONE HIGHER UP IN THE CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT AS TO THE LEGALITY? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S EVER BEEN DONE BEFORE WITH PAYING AND THIS, WHEN YOU RENEW A LAW LICENSE, THAT IS FOR A LONG TIME, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

JUST HAPPEN OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

OH, OKAY.

I'LL RENEW IT FOR A FEW MONTHS.

THIS IS FOREVER AND WELL, YES, BUT IT WILL END UP CONTINUE AS A CONTINUATION.

IT WOULD BE LIKE ME GETTING SOMEBODY TO PAY MY NOTARY PUBLIC, WHICH IS A FOUR YEAR DEAL.

BUT BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH A JOB AND A LOT LESS THAN OUR CPA LICENSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE JOB.

I JUST THINK THAT A COUNSELOR, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ETHICS OF IT, AND THEN KNOWING WHAT SEMINARY DOWN THE ROAD AND THEN WHAT THE JOB IS NOW.

I JUST THINK THAT I JUST HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THAT.

AND I THINK WE DID GO ON.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.

I'LL UM, I'LL JUMP TO COMMISSIONER LERNER AND THEN COMMISSIONER DAMPER, COMMISSIONER LEARNER.

GO AHEAD.

SO AS CLARIFICATION, WHAT WE NEED TO THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CONFERRED UPON HER BASED ON HER POSITION, CORRECT? YEAH.

WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE FOR THAT.

OKAY.

SO, UM, TO, TO ME THAT, THAT HASN'T BEEN SUFFICIENTLY LAID OUT HERE TODAY.

IT MAY BE ONE THING TO QUESTION THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE, BUT THAT SHE, BY VIRTUE OF BEING A COUNCIL PERSON OR, OR MAYOR PRO TEM WAS GIVEN THAT ABILITY TO DO SO, THAT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME, IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY, THERE WAS A PERSPECTIVE ABOUT WHAT IS AN ASSOCIATION AND MEMBERSHIP, UM, AND A, AND AN OPINION MADE WITHIN HER OFFICE AND BY HERSELF THAT THIS WAS, UH, AN, A REASONABLE EXPENDITURE, BUT I I'M NOT, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I'VE ENOUGH YET ON THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

I'M NOT CONVINCED ABOUT THAT PART ABOUT, ABOUT THE DEFINITION AND THE FACTS PUTTING THAT DEFINITION.

AND, UM, IF I COULD JUST RESPOND TO THAT, UH, RELATING TO VIOLATIONS.

SO THE QUESTION ISN'T JUST ABOUT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THERE'S ALSO MISUSE OF CITY RESOURCES.

SURE.

UM, COMMISSIONER, OH, UM, I HAVE A FOLLOW UP, UH, COMMISSIONER LEARNER GO RIGHT AHEAD.

UM, THEN ON THAT NOTE, UM, I WONDER IF YOU, IF, UH, COUNSEL WOULD FIND IT, UM, RELEVANT IF BARR FEES WERE PAID, UH, AS A COURSE OF, AS A NORMAL COURSE OF ACTION IN OTHER PROFESSIONS.

I MEAN, I, I, I'M A LAWYER.

I'M NOT I'M INACTIVE AT THE MOMENT, BUT I, THERE, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, IF YOU'RE WORKING IN, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN OFFICES THEN THAT THAT'S PAID FOR, RIGHT, YOUR BOARD MEMBERSHIP IS PAID FOR.

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHEN, WHEN THAT IS NOT A MISAPPROPRIATION, BUT LIKE WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR THAT TO BE NOT A MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS? IS THAT DIRECTED TO ME AS COUNSEL FOR THE OTTOMAN? I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE A FINDING UNDER THE CASE LAW THAT DEALS WITH WHEN AN EXPENDITURE SERVES A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE, UM, WHAT THE COURTS AND THE ATTORNEYS, YOU KNOW, HAVE CONSISTENTLY REQUIRED IS A FINDING BY THE GOVERNING BODY.

SO I THINK THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A POLICY OR A FINDING BY A MAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL SAYING THE PAYMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DUES SERVE SOME PUBLIC PURPOSE.

RIGHT.

I AGREE.

I THINK THAT, I THINK THE CITY COUNCIL COULD ADOPT A POLICY THAT SAYS, WE BELIEVE THAT LAWYERS ON THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT THERE'S SOME PUBLIC PURPOSE SURVEY, YOU HAVE TO ARTICULATE WHAT IT WAS AND SHOW HOW IT BENEFITS THE CITY RATHER THAN THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER INDIVIDUALLY.

[01:00:01]

I THINK THAT'S THE FORMALITY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

SOME FINDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES, UH, IS CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC VIEWS.

AND I PROMISE IS MY LAST QUESTION, BUT YOU DON'T FIND THAT IN THE BUDGET LINE ITEM THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS, THAT, THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THAT QUESTION? NO, I DON'T.

I MEAN, SURE.

I MEAN, THAT COULD BE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, IT COULD BE IN A CITY OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION.

IT COULD BE SOMETHING RELATED TO THEIR ACTUAL SERVICE ON THE CITY COUNCIL AND NOT SOME OUTSIDE, UM, EMPLOYMENT ENDEAVOR.

OKAY.

UM, IT WAS COMMISSIONER DAMPER.

DID I SEE YOUR HAND? AND THEN I STOPPED COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, COMMISSIONER DAN BERG, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ASK HER ADD, CORRECT.

OH MY GOD, HIDE YOUR VIDEO.

YOUR AUDIO WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER.

WE DO HAVE THAT WE CAN SEE YOU TO CURRENT CLIENTS WHO SAYS THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM.

SO, YEAH.

UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURY, WE'RE HAVING A TOUGH TIME HEARING YOU.

UM, SO W WHAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND, UM, COMMISSIONER DAN BERGER.

I'M VERY SORRY, BUT, UH, MAYBE, MAYBE TRY TO TROUBLESHOOT YOUR INTERVIEW.

MAYBE TRY TO TROUBLESHOOT YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO ASK, LET ANOTHER COMMISSIONER ASK A QUESTION IN THE MEANTIME.

UM, IF THAT'S OKAY.

UH, I SAW COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND COMMISSIONER LAURIES, AND SO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

UM, SO THESE ARE QUESTIONS MR. FISHER.

UM, THE FIRST QUESTION IS ABOUT THOSE CORE THINGS, I GUESS, IN PARTICULAR, UM, FACILITIES, WHATEVER THAT LIST WAS, WHICH OF THOSE DO YOU THINK WAS USED IN APPROPRIATELY FROM THAT LIST OF FOLKS? WELL, I ADMIRE MR. KAO'S ARGUMENT, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE THE ONE ARGUING USE OF CITY MONEY IS OKAY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FACILITIES RESOURCES OR EMPLOYEES, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS ISN'T ON THE LIST IT'S PERSONNEL, WHICH OF COURSE SHE DID.

SHE IS PERSONNEL PERSONNEL USED TO THE EQUIPMENT TO EMAIL, UH, THE FINANCE MANAGER ABOUT PROCESSING AND SUPPLIES, BUT NOT FACILITIES.

WELL, IT WAS DONE AT CITY IN CITY OFFICES.

SO SHE'S USING HER CITY STAFF IS PERSONNEL WHO'S HOUSED IN CITY FACILITIES USING CITY COMPUTERS TO PROCESS.

WHAT I, WHAT I BELIEVE IS A TRAIN AND A PRIVATE TRANSACTION.

OKAY.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE I JUST WANT IS, I MEAN, I DIDN'T FIND THAT DEFINITION THAT WAS IN THE MEMO OR READ OUT WHEN I LOOKED UP IN THE LAW DICTIONARY, JUST ONLINE, WHICH I'M ON MY COMPUTER RIGHT NOW.

ANYWAY, IT SAYS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, NOT LEGAL, RIGHT, BUT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.

UM, THESE ARE RIGHTS, THE RIGHTS THAT ARE GRANTED TO A PERSON OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT BE GRANTED TO EVERYONE UNIVERSALLY IS, IS THAT THE DEFINITION OR A DEFINITION THAT, THAT SEEMS APPROPRIATE GIVEN YOUR, UM, FINDING A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SECTION J WAS VIOLATED? THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS, I MEAN, A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IS SOMETHING THAT SHE ENJOYS, RIGHT? SHE ENJOYS BY VIRTUE OF HER PUBLIC STATUS.

SO I'M A LAWYER.

I HAVE TO PAY MY DUES EVERY YEAR.

I PAY THEM.

I DON'T, I DON'T USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY THEM.

I HAVE TO PAY THEM MYSELF, BUT SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY THEM FOR HER PUBLIC STATUS.

SO THAT, THAT IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT SHE ENJOYS IS THE ABILITY TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY OR HER PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL DUTIES.

AND NORMALLY THE MEMBERS OF CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

UM, I GUESS WE HAVE SOME HERE, I WOULD THINK THAT'S REASONABLE FOR THEIR BAR DUES TO BE PAID.

UM, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, BUT THERE'S NO BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF THE

[01:05:01]

MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA HAVING A LICENSE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PRACTICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

THAT WAS OUR CONCLUSION.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, ASK WAS WHETHER SHE WAS NOT PERFORMING LEGAL WORK FOR THE CITY.

I THINK THAT WOULD A WHOLE OTHER SET OF ETHICAL AND CONFLICT ISSUES.

WHEN YOU REMEMBER THE GOVERNING BODY PERFORMING LEGAL WORK FOR THE CITY AND TO COMMISSIONER DANVERS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHE USED IT TO PROFIT BY REPRESENTING PRIVATE CLIENTS.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE WERE ABLE TO, TO DISCERN AS FAR AS PRO BONO WORK OR ANY CASE AT ALL, WAS IN KARNES COUNTY AT A JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY, WHICH DIDN'T HAVE ANY RELATION TO ANYONE IN AN AUSTIN RESIDENT.

SO, WELL, WE ALL KNOW SHE RAN FOR FURTHER OFFICE THAT DID REQUIRE A LAW LICENSE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

YES.

AND, UM, THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD HAVE IS AGAIN ABOUT THE LINE ITEMS. THE LINE ITEMS ARE VERY BROAD, AND AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE'S THE MUNICIPAL, WHATEVER MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OR THINGS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO PARTICIPATE IN AND GO TO CONFERENCES, OR, YOU KNOW, HAVE CONTINUED DOING EDUCATION FROM THAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATION.

THAT'S FOR PEOPLE DOING CITY GOVERNMENT, BUT THE LAW LICENSE IS DIFFERENT.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I THOUGHT I SAW HANDS FROM COMMISSIONER LAURIE AND, UH, VICE CHAIR.

OKAY.

UM, I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF.

SO I'M HAVING, I'M FINDING THIS TROUBLING FROM A FACTUAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, FACTUALLY IT DOES SEEM LIKE SOMETHING UNETHICAL WHEN THE ROLE DOES NOT REQUIRE A LAW LICENSE.

UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE TO ACT BASED ON THE CODE.

SO FOR MR. FISHER, UM, I GUESS I'M WONDERING, IS THERE NOT A PROVISION THAT SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND WHAT KIND OF CONSTRAINTS ARE THERE ON THE DISCRETION OF USING THE BUDGET? THERE IS A PANEL TITLE, EIGHT OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE.

THERE IS A PROVISION ABOUT THE MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS, UM, THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN ALIGNED TO THE CITIZEN COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED, BUT WE DIDN'T ADDRESS IT IN OUR COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE TUITION.

JUST FIND THAT SPECIFICALLY SOMETHING IN THE CODE THAT WE ADDRESSED THAT RELATES TO MISAPPROPRIATION.

YEAH.

WELL, YOU SAID IN THE AUDITOR'S COMPLAINT, THE TWO OTHER FACTS.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL LEAVE IT FOR NOW.

SOMEONE ELSE CAN ASK A QUESTION.

SURE.

GO AHEAD.

JUST TO CLARIFY, JUST TO MAKE SURE I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, WHEN ANSWERING QUESTION, YOU ARE GRADING THAT IN THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU'VE MADE, UH, NONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS WOULD FIT OR RATHER I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY.

YOU ARE AGREEING THAT THERE IS A STATUTE THAT YOU THINK