* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. 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 MIGHT APPLY, WHICH IS THE ABUSE THAT YOU IN THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, BUT YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY STATUTE THAT WAS, UH, AS PRECISE AS THE TEXAS PENAL CODE WITHIN THE AUSTIN ETHICS CODE. I THINK THAT'S A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND SO THEN LOOKING AT THE AUSTIN ETHICS CODE SPECIFICALLY, AND I UNDERSTAND THE INTERPRETATION, BUT THERE'S NO PART OF THE CODE THAT VERBATIM PROHIBITS THE USE OF INDIA EXPENDITURE, UM, UH, BAR DUES OR, OR ANY PROFESSIONAL DUDES. OKAY. UH, YOU ALSO MENTIONED THE IMPACT OF PRIVATE PURPOSE IN YOUR EVALUATION. UH, ONE THING, PART OF FACTUAL DISPUTE IT'S SAYINGS IS WHETHER OR NOT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT DID IN FACT, UH, NOT ONLY PROCESS THE REQUEST, BUT PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND ADVICE APPROVING OF THE REQUEST. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN YOUR EVALUATION WHATSOEVER? UH, IF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT HAD, IN FACT, UH, NOT ONLY JUST PROCESS, BUT ADVISE AND APPROVE THE REQUEST, I THINK WE'RE ASSUMING THE FACTS OUT IN EVIDENCE, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, [01:10:01] NO, IT WOULDN'T. AND HERE'S WHY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT QUESTION REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF AN EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED IF ONE WAS INTERESTED IN GETTING A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. AND REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF THE EXPENDITURE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT, NOT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT WILL THEN ASK ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS A PROPER EXPENDITURE. ALL RIGHT, THEN. SO AT THE VERY LEAST, EVEN IF THERE WERE TRUE, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SOUGHT, UH, THE ADVICE OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, RIGHT? WE DID NOT, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR INVESTIGATION SHOWED THAT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SAW THE BIAS OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT. AND WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME, UH, BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT, OR RATHER, LET ME ASK YOU THIS WAY. UH, DID ANYONE IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OBJECT OR SHOW HESITATION SHOW PRONGS IN ANY RECORDED WAY ABOUT, UH, THE REQUEST FROM MAYOR PRO TEM DAY GUARDS IS OFF. I MAY ASK MR. KASMIN TO ANSWER THAT TAKE CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEW WITH THE FINANCE MANAGER. MY GENERAL SUMMARY OF THAT IS THAT THEY TOOK THE POSITION. WE DON'T QUESTION WHETHER IT'S LEGITIMATE IF WE PROCESS, BUT I THINK MR. CASNER, UH, BETTER TO THINGS, YOUR QUESTION, NOT RIGHT. WE, WE DID SPEAK WITH THE FINANCE MANAGER ON TWO OCCASIONS. UH, THE SECOND TIME WAS TO CONFIRMED THE INFORMATION FROM THE FIRST CONVERSATION, BUT IT WAS THE SAME MESSAGE THAT THE ONLY GUIDANCE, UM, WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS, YOU KNOW, USE YOUR DISCRETION AND, AND THE GUIDANCE WAS THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, THERE SERVES A PURPOSE FOR THE CITY. AND IF YOU WOULD NOT WANT YOUR OFFICE BUDGET BEING USED ON SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER, BUT WE DO NOT APPROVE THOSE EXPENSES. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, UH, THE FUNCTION IS MORE TO PROCESS, UH, THE EXPENSES AND, UH, SO THAT, THAT, THAT GETS THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT FROM BOTH OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH ON THIS WITH YOU, BUT I DO JUST KIND OF WANT TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND IT. UH, AND SO IN TERMS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, UNDERSTANDING THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION, I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THEY GAVE A SEEM LIKE JUST SOME GENERAL STATEMENTS, SOME GENERAL ADVICE, BUT, UH, YOUR INTERPRETATION OF YOUR COMMUNICATIONS, DID THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, EVEN AFTER SPEAKING WITH THEM, DID THEY STATE AN OBJECTION OR WERE THEY JUST NEUTRAL, UH, TO PROCESSING THE PAYMENT? I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'LL LET MR. KRASNER, I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN. I DON'T FEEL LIKE I DIDN'T GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY FEEL IT'S THEIR ROLE. AND SO YOU COULD CLARIFY ON THE BOARD AS BEING NEUTRAL, THAT ANYONE FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, EVEN UP TO THIS POINT HAS TAKEN A NEUTRAL POSITION. I THINK THAT THEY LEAVE IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE LOCAL OFFICIAL TO MAKE THE PROCESS THAT WAS ONE HOUR INTERVIEW. OKAY. AND SO THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK JUST ABOUT PRIVATE HERBALISTS, UM, ISN'T IT. YEAH. PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT MAYOR PRO TEM, CARLA, WHEN SHE RAN FOR OFFICE TO BE ON THE CITY COUNCIL AT ANY POINT, THEY UNDERSTOOD HER TO BE BASICALLY SOMEONE WHO'S GRADUATED LAW SCHOOL. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAD DONE ANY AMOUNT OF DUE DILIGENCE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT SHE HAD GRADUATED LAW SCHOOL? I THINK SO. I'M SURE IT WAS READILY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. AND THEN I GUESS WHAT I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND JUST A LITTLE BIT IS WHERE IS THE INTERPRETATION DRAWN ON WHAT THE PUBLIC, WHAT A CITIZEN IS ALLOWED TO PERCEIVE AS USEFUL OR BENEFICIAL, UH, TO THE COMMUNITY AS AN ASSET OF THE, OF THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER? UM, BECAUSE IT'S BARE TO SAY THAT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, IT IS HER JOB, AT LEAST PART OF HER JOB IS TO SOMETIMES APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF AMENDING CODE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? OKAY. UM, [01:15:01] AND IS IT A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY THAT AN ATTORNEY OFTENTIMES IS IN A BETTER POSITION TO INTERPRET AND UNDERSTAND CODE MORE SO THAN A NON ATTORNEY? I THINK THAT'S GENERALLY FAIR, BUT I'VE KNOWN A LOT OF DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS, SO I DON'T WANT TO START. I KNOW. OKAY. UH, AND THEN ALSO JUST SPEAKING ABOUT PAYMENT VOLUMES, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE PUBLIC OFFICES THAT DO PAY THE DUES OF ATTORNEYS THAT WORKED FOR THEIR OFFICE? YES. AND ALSO NO. SURE. CERTAIN PUBLIC ATTORNEYS, YOU KNOW, MAY HAVE DUES DISCOUNTED OR NOT. YEAH. I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THOSE ATTORNEYS ARE PERFORMING WORK FOR THE PUBLIC. OKAY. AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT PART, WHAT PART OF THE CODE IN YOUR MIND PREVENTS A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM BRINGING EVERY ASSET? THEY HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, EXPERIENCE WITH THE CITY. WHAT ASPECT OF THE CODE PREVENTS THAT PERSON FROM BRINGING ALL OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEN SERVE THE COMMUNITY, THE PHRASE, PRIVATE PURPOSE, AND THE PHRASE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY, BECAUSE YOU ASKED ABOUT A VOTER, THE VOTER, KNOWING THIS PERSON HAS A LAW, THIS PERSON IS A LAWYER AND THEY BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE, RIGHT? AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, THOSE, THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, BY THEIR DULY ELECTED COUNCILMEN, RIGHT? AND THEY'RE DULY ELECTED. SO IF IT'S THE PUBLIC BELIEVES THIS, THIS SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE, THEN TO HAVE A LAWYER ON THE CITY COUNCIL AND IT SERVES A PUBLIC TO PAY FOR THAT LAWYERS DO AND TO PAY FOR THAT LAWYERS CLE. THEN THE WAY THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF IS THE CITY COUNCIL CAN REMOTE DO THAT. AND THEY CAN SAY, AND THAT'S WHAT THE CASE LAW, THE AGE YOU'VE BEEN IN REQUIRE IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A VOTE BY THE GOVERNING BODY THAT YES, THIS EXPENDITURE SERVES A PURPOSE THAT IT, IN FACT, DEATHS ARE THE APPROVAL OF PUBLIC PURPOSE, MORE THAN A PRIVATE OPENNESS. AND THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE, THE PUBLIC IS, IS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT. SO COULD THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CLOSING OF AUSTIN, A, WE WANT ENGINEERS ON OUR CITY COUNCIL. WE WANT PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS AND WE THINK THEY BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE. SO WE'RE, WE FIND IT IN THE PUBLIC IN PRISON COULD PAY THEIR PROFESSIONAL, BUT MIGHT HAVE SOME INCIDENTAL PRIVATE BENEFIT. WE THINK IT SERVES THE PUBLIC. COULD THEY DO THAT? MAYBE? YEAH. THEY COULD DO IT. WOULD IT BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW? YES. UM, DID THAT HAPPEN HERE AND NO, I DON'T THINK EACH COUNCIL MEMBER AND DETERMINED, I THINK THIS SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND NOT A PRIVATE LEGALLY. AND SO I WILL SAY THIS, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO A LONG, LIKE, QUESTIONING ABOUT THE CASE LAW PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT SEEMS KIND OF OUTSIDE OF THIS SCOPE, THAT LIBRARY. OKAY. SO YOU REALLY, OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE, I DON'T THINK IT'S A DEFENSE TO A CODE VIOLATION. WELL, THEN THE NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE THEN ACCENT, SOME CASE LAW THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING THAT REALLY HASN'T REALLY BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED HERE, IF THAT ABSENT THAT CASE LAW. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CODIFIED JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR VIEWPOINT THAT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY A PRIVATE PURPOSE OR RATHER ACTUALLY, I I'LL JUST HOLD OFF ON ASKING THAT QUESTION. UM, THAT THAT'S FINE. OKAY. AND THIS IS REALLY ME JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT, BUT IT DOES SOUND LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU'RE BASING YOUR OPINION OR YOUR CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE IN A PRIVATE PURPOSE. YOU'RE BASING PART OF THAT ON SOME CASE LAW DEALING WITH AG OPINIONS. NO, I THINK IF YOU RATE I'M BASING ON MY CONCLUSION ON THE FACTS THAT ARE INVESTIGATION FIELD AND APPLYING THOSE TO THE TWO ETHICS ORDINANCES, I WOULD EXPECT SOMEONE TO COME BACK AND SAY, BUT IT SERVED A PURPOSE. AND THEN YOU GET INTO THE CASES AND THAT, BUT [01:20:01] I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO GET INTO THAT. I THINK THE FACT IS WHETHER SHE USED PUBLIC MONEY, PUBLIC FUNDS, PRIVATE PROFESSOR, JUST BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PRIVATE TOPPINGS, DOES IT MAKE THAT TRANSACTION LAWFUL? RIGHT. SO I DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET TO THE CASES LIKE THAT. OKAY. UM, AND THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE. OKAY. SO REMINDER, REMEMBER THAT IF YOU'RE NOT ASKING QUESTIONS OR SPEAKING TO MUTE YOURSELVES, I THINK JUST A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK AND I DON'T WANT TO GET UP AGAIN. UM, COMMISSIONER DANBURG I SEE YOUR HAND. I SEE COMMISSIONER NOVARI AND THEN I THINK I MIGHT HAVE, UM, I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS, BUT GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER. DANBURG CAN YOU HEAR ME? NO, DON'T KIND OF SCRAMBLED. UM, MIGHT, UH, OKAY. YEAH. SO THE COMMISSIONER DAN BERG, YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT TRY, UH, THE COLIN METHOD. UM, IF YOU'VE GOT A PHONE, UM, KEEP THE VIDEO UP SO THAT WE CAN SEE YOU. UM, OKAY. IT'S NOT WORKING. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND, UM, COMMISSIONER LEARNER, UH, FOR, UM, MR. FISHER, I, I ACTUALLY FOR, FOR BOTH, UH, COUNSEL, IS IT, IS IT RELEVANT FOR US TO CONSIDER THE USE OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THE RELATABILITY OF THE ACTIVITY, SO, OR TO WHAT YOU'RE CALLING THE BENEFIT? RIGHT. SO IF WE, IF WE SAY HER, SHE WAS, SHE WAS USING IN HER CALCULATION, HER BAR MEMBERSHIP WAS RELEVANT TO HER WORK. AND BECAUSE THERE IS A BUDGET LINE FOR ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS, YOU COULD PLAUSIBLY PUT THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER AND COME TO REASONABLE, DETERMINATION IT, IF IT, IF IT WAS A MEMBERSHIP FOR, I DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN HYPOTHETICAL'S, BUT SOMETHING THAT WAS CLEARLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF, OF HER WORK. WHEREAS I FEEL LIKE THIS ISN'T A GRAY AREA. UM, DO YOU, DO YOU NOT THINK IT'S RELEVANT THAT OR A REASONABLE THAT THERE SHOULD BE THE ABILITY FOR SOME ROOM OR, UM, INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION, WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD YOU SAY MR. FISHER, THAT, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL COULD HAVE PASSED AN ORDINANCE TO SAY, WE THINK THAT BAR MEMBERSHIPS ARE RELEVANT FOR CITY COUNCIL, BUT THERE COULD BE SO MANY THINGS, RIGHT. THEY COULD BE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE. THERE CAN BE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS. THERE CAN BE SO MANY THINGS THAT'S UNWIELDY AND UNREASONABLE. AND SO I THINK I MIGHT'VE SORT OF ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE, BUT I WANT TO GET BACK INTO YOUR POSITION ON THE RELEVANCE OF THE ACTION, RIGHT? LIKE THAT IT, HOW FAR, YOU KNOW, TH THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT IT'S RELATED. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE CONCEITED THAT IT'S AT ALL RELATED TO HER WORK OR YOU'RE CONCEDING THAT IT'S COMPLETELY UNRELATED BECAUSE I'M WONDERING THERE IS SOME GRAY AREA HERE WHERE SOMETHING THAT IS BOTH A PUBLIC BENEFIT CAN HAVE A PRIVATE BENEFIT, BUT IT DOES HAVE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT TO HER ROLE. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M, IF I'M MAKING A VERY CLEAR QUESTION HERE. UM, I, I'M JUST FINDING YOUR, YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS BEING MAYBE UNWIELDY AND I'M NOT AS, NOT AS NOT A REALISTIC SOLUTION. WELL THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, RIGHT? THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SUGGEST THAT, UM, I MEAN, SHE, SHE DIDN'T NEED THE LAW LICENSE FOR CITY WORK. I DON'T THINK IT WAS RELATED TO HER STATUS AS A MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T USE IT TO SERVE THE CITY. SHE DIDN'T USE IT TO SERVE CITY CONSTITUENTS. SHE DIDN'T DO ANY LEGAL WORK RELATED TO CITY OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS. FROM WHAT WE COULD TELL, SHE DID ONE CASE IN ANOTHER COUNTY FOR FREE. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT DIDN'T SERVE ANY. SO IN THAT SENSE, DOING ONE PRO BONO CASE IN KARNES COUNTY, UM, IN MY OPINION, IS ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO SERVICE ON CITY COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. MAY I SPEAK IF I TURN MY VIDEO ON IT? IT, UM, IT, IT SLIPS THE PROCESS DOWN. SO THIS IS DELEO CARS. SURE. UM, YEAH, SO TYPICALLY AT THIS POINT IT WOULD BE IF, UM, A COMMISSIONER HAS A QUESTION, BUT I WILL, UM, ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A MAYOR PRO TEM CARS. GO AHEAD. I JUST, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO NOT CHIME INTO MY [01:25:01] ATTORNEY IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY MAD AT ME RIGHT NOW. BUT, UM, TH THIS IDEA THAT HOLDING A LAW LICENSE WAS NOT A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE IS JUST SO ABSURD TO ME, FRANKLY. I WAS, I LITERALLY MADE LAW. WE LITERALLY MAKE LAW AS COUNCIL MEMBERS. UM, AND EVERY CLE I TOOK WAS RELATED SOMEHOW TO HELPING MY CONSTITUENTS. UM, AND SO THIS IDEA, THIS HARD LINE IDEA THAT IT, IT DID NOT, IT DID NOT, UM, BENEFIT MY CONSTITUENTS JUST REALLY SEEMS VERY ABSURD TO ME. UM, AND I JUST HAD TO ADD THAT NOW. UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, COMMISSIONER DANBURG I SEE YOU HOLDING UP A NOTE, UM, I WILL READ IT FOR THE RECORD DISCRETIONARY VERSUS PERSONAL PROFIT PARTIES, ANNUAL, UM, OH, WE'RE DOING NOTES NOW. UM, I COMMISSIONED BOOK, IF YOU WANT TO HOLD THAT A LITTLE CLOSER, MAYBE, UM, OR, OR HOW ABOUT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, I BELIEVE YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF. GO AHEAD. UM, YOU MADE, WHILE YOU WERE ACTIVE, YOU DID NOT NEED THE BAR LICENSE TO MAKE LAW. YOU'RE A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND BEING ON THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU SAID VERY SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT REQUIRE A LAW LICENSE, EVEN THOUGH YOU DO MAKE LAW. AND EVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW CAN BE HELPFUL, BUT THE LICENSE IS NOT HELPFUL. SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK FROM 2017, WHEN YOU PAID FOR THE INACTIVE STATUS WITH YOUR OWN FUNDS TO 2018, WHEN YOU DECIDED THE CITY SHOULD PAY, WHAT CHANGED, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT. UM, JUST LIKE MY OFFICE PAYS FOR EDUCATION ON LAND USE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ON EQUITY EDUCATION ON, ON RACIAL BIAS EDUCATION ON, FOR ME, THIS WAS A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE. AND IF I WAS GOING TO ACTIVATE MY LAW LICENSE, I, I BELIEVED IT WAS A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE CONSTANTLY TOLD BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY. WHEN, WHEN DETERMINED MAKING THESE DISCRETIONARY DETERMINATIONS, DOES IT SERVE A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE? AND EVEN ASIDE FROM THAT KIND OF ADVICE, WE WOULD ASK, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET INTO THE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER, WHAT THEY TOLD US. WE WOULD ASK. WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK. WE CAN JUST COUNSEL OFFICER GIVEN A CREDIT CARD. UM, WE ASKED THE BUDGET OFFICE EVERY SINGLE TIME, IS THIS AN EXPENSE THAT WE CAN MAKE WITH OUR OFFICE BUDGET? AND WE'RE TOLD YES, IT WAS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER EDUCATIONAL, UM, CONTINUING EDUCATION THING THAT MANY COUNCIL MEMBERS DO. AND I WILL ALSO SAY THERE WERE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT PAID FOR, UM, THEIR, THEIR, THEIR BAR DUES WITH THEIR OFFICE BUDGET. WHEN THAT DETERMINATION WAS FOUND, UH, THEY PAID BACK, THEY PAID IT BACK BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING FOR PRIVATE, UM, THROUGH OUTSIDE WORK. SO TH THIS DETERMINATION THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS DID NOT, THAT IS NOT TRUE. OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE USED THEIR OFFICE BUDGET TO PAY FOR THEIR BAR DUES. DID YOU CONSIDER PAYING IT BACK WHEN THIS WAS ISSUE WAS RAISED? I BELIEVE IT WAS A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, SO, UH, I WILL GIVE THE FLOOR TO, UM, VICE CHAIR OR HURRY, AND THEN I'LL HAVE SOME COMMENTS. CAUSE I THINK, UH, I THINK I CAN WRAP THIS UP FOR US AT LEAST FOR THE MOMENT. SO GO AHEAD AND, UH, THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST WANTED TO ASK MR. FISHER IN THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS SENT TO US AND THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS IS ABOUT 78 PAGES. AND THIS IS JUST FOR MY OWN, UH, REVIEW AND UNDERSTANDING WHICH PART OF IT REFERENCES, UH, SOME OF THE CASE LAW THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE CASE OFF THAT I MENTIONED HAS TO DO WITH THE MEANING WHAT CONSTITUTES PURPOSE THAT'S NOT IN, THAT'S NOT THE COMPLAINT. THE COMPLAINT WAS LIMITED TO THE APPLICATION OF THE FACTS TO THE AUSSIE CODE IS WRITTEN. OKAY. AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR THE CASE LAW THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THIS BODY? NO, NO, BECAUSE MAYOR PRO TEM DOORS, IT DIDN'T RAISE THE ISSUE, UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE [01:30:01] THAT THIS, THAT SHE WAS ASSERTING. I MEAN, AS FOR PURPOSE AS A DEFENSE TO, FOR AN ORDINANCE VIOLATION, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A MUNIS BASICALLY SAYING, I MEAN, THIS WHOLE PURPOSE IS NECESSARILY DEFENSE TO THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UM, COMMISSIONER LARRY, I'LL, I'LL ASK YOU IF YOU, IF YOU THINK, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD. NEVERMIND. IT'S A, IT'S GONNA BE QUICK. I'M I'M ACTUALLY, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM FOR SPEAKING UP. I KNOW AT THE RISK OF HAVING HER LAWYER BE ANGRY AT HER, AND I HAD SAID EARLIER, UM, I FIND IT TROUBLING FACTUALLY, CAUSE IT SEEMS CLEARLY UNETHICAL. AND I JUST WANT TO STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF AMBIGUITY'S AND HOW OUR CODE WORKS. SO I WANT TO STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT FROM THAT. I DO STILL FIND IT TROUBLING. UM, THE QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR THE MAYOR PRO TEM ATTORNEY WE'LL LET HER SPEAK TO IT WAS JUST, UM, I UNDERSTOOD THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN WITH REGARDS TO CLE AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL, UM, IN THE ROLE OF BEING A LAWMAKER. BUT I THINK ALONG WITH, UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAS ASKED, I'M WONDERING HOW, UM, SPECIFICALLY THE LICENSE THAT'S RELEVANT AND WHAT, WHAT I GUESS, UM, I GUESS IT'D BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS A SENSE OF OUR DISCRETION IS, UH, WHERE THAT COMES FROM AND WHAT YOU BELIEVE THE PARAMETERS ARE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT OFF, IF WE, YOU KNOW, TURN THIS INTO A SECONDARY DISCUSSION NEXT TIME, THAT'S FINE TOO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO FIRST SAY THANK YOU STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND BE, AND KIND OF GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TOWN SEES AS HER DISCRETION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LICENSURE AND EDUCATION. I'LL ASK MY LAWYER, IF HE THINKS I SHOULD RESPOND, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE RESPONDED TO THE FIRST TIME, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM. THAT'S YOUR CALL? I MEAN, NOW THAT YOU'VE SPOKEN TO THAT IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS, I THINK, UH, IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S FAIR FOR THEM TO GO BACK TO YOU WITH ANOTHER QUESTION AND IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER, I THINK THAT'S FINE. SURE. UM, SO AS FAR AS DISCRETION AGAIN, WHAT WAS INGRAINED IN MY HEAD FOR USING MY CITY BUDGET WAS A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE. UM, WITH THE, WITH THE QUESTION OF THE, I'M SORRY, SAY THE ASK THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION AGAIN, I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT THE, BASICALLY IN YOUR MIND, WHAT IS THE UTILITY OF GETTING THE LAW LICENSE? I TAKE YOUR POINT WITH REGARDS TO THE EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT, THE CLS, HOW THAT COULD BE HELPFUL IN LAWMAKING, BUT WITH REGARDS TO GETTING YOUR LAW, SEE, HOW DOES THAT HELP YOU IN YOUR ROLE? SO I, AS MY STATEMENT, UM, SAYS, AND, AND I I'M CONCERNED THAT IT, SOME, SOME PEOPLE MENTIONED THEY DIDN'T READ IT. SO IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER ONES, THE, THE PRIMARY REASON I REACTIVATED WAS TO PROVIDE PRO BONO SERVICES DURING WHAT HAPPENED TO BE ICE RAIDS IN MY DISTRICT. UM, RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ELECTED. UM, I, I REPRESENT A 70% LATINO DISTRICT. THERE WAS TREMENDOUS FEAR AT THAT TIME. I FELT HELPLESS A LOT THAT I HAD THIS TOOL THAT HELP PEOPLE. UM, I CONSULTED WITH MY STAFF BECAUSE THAT'S ON OUR PLATES AS COUNCIL MEMBERS. UH, IF I HAD TIME TO DO SOMETHING, THIS WAS ALL, THIS WAS ALL INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE INVESTIGATORS, TO MR. CASNER AND MR. FISHER, UM, DETERMINED AT, AT, AT A POINT THAT IT, THAT I COULD HAVE THAT TIME. I COULD MAKE THAT TIME TO DO THAT. UH, THAT'S THE PRIMARY REASON I REACTIVATED. UM, AFTER THAT, YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE CLS TO KEEP YOUR LICENSE ACTIVE. AND WHEN I WAS TAKING THOSE CLS, AS MY STATEMENT MENTIONS, I DID IT WITH, WITH MY CONSTITUENTS IN MIND, YOU KNOW, SINCE COVID IS HIT, I HAD TAKEN BANKRUPTCY, I HAD TAKEN LANDLORD TENANCY, ELISE. I HAVE TAKEN CLS STRICTLY THAT I BELIEVE MY CONSTITUENTS THAT SERVE MY CONSTITUENTS. WE WERE ASKED A VARIETY OF POLICY QUESTIONS OF HOW CAN, HOW CAN YOU HELP ME WITH WHERE, WHERE YOU'RE ASKED SO MANY QUESTIONS AND THE MORE YOU CAN LEARN AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TO SERVE YOUR CONSTITUENTS THE BETTER. SO INITIALLY THE ACTIVE STATUS WAS PURELY, I WANT IT TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OTHERS PRO BONO, AFTER THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE YOUR CLS. AND I BASED THAT ON BENEFIT FOR, UM, FOR MY CONSTITUENTS, [01:35:02] I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, SHIRT ON A PETCO HEAD. AND THEN, AND THEN I'M GOING TO TRY TO WRAP IT UP. IT'S A SHORT QUESTION FOR DAHLIA. GO AHEAD. DID YOU DO ANY PRO BONO FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS IN YOUR DISTRICT OR WAS IT JUST CON CITY? I WAS ABLE TO ATTEND SOME OF OUR CITIZENSHIP CLINICS THAT THE CITY SPONSORED. I WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE, UH, SERVICES, UH, JUST BECAUSE OF MY SCHEDULE EVERY, EVERY TIME I, I, AN OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF. UM, I WASN'T ABLE TO, I I'D ALSO, AS I STATED IN MY STATEMENT, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S A BENEFIT FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO SEE YOU OUT THERE, DOING THINGS, SHOWING UP, UH, BEING SOMEWHERE, TAKING AN ACTIVE STANCE AGAINST, YOU KNOW, HORRIBLE POLICIES. AND I THINK THAT REGARDLESS IF THEY WERE AT MY ACTUAL CONSTITUENTS, I HELPED SOMEONE. AND FRANKLY, MR. FISHER DOESN'T KNOW IF, IF THE WOMEN THAT I HELPED IN KARNES HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO AUSTIN THAT THAT COULD EASILY BE ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS FAMILY MEMBERS. SO, UM, I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST STOP THERE. OKAY. NO DOCUMENTATION. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO GIVEN THE TIME, UM, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE, UM, IT'S ONE, A CHAIR, I'LL BE SUPER QUICK. JUST ONE QUESTION. UH, COMMISSIONER GILBERT, ARE YOU ATTENDING THE HEARING ON YOUR PHONE OR JUST ON YOUR COMPUTER? UH, SORRY, IS THIS, IS THIS A QUESTION TO MAKE A POINT, BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I CAN ASK YOU TO, UM, ASK YOU IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT. UM, AND THAT WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO THIS. YEAH. I ASSUME YOU'RE TURNING TOWARDS A VOTE AND I WANTED TO GET TOWARDS THE FACT THAT COMMISSIONER GOPHER SPEND MOST OF THE LAST 30 MINUTES ON HIS PHONE. AND I WOULD THINK HE WOULD BE, UH, ILL SUITED TO VOTE RIGHT NOW IF HE HASN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THE HEARING FOR THE LAST 30 MINUTES. THANKS. OKAY. UM, NOW I'LL BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT. I HAVE LISTENED TO EVERY SINGLE WORD THAT'S BEEN SAID. I'M READY TO BE QUIZZED ON ANY OF IT. I, I PAID ATTENTION. UM, I, I FRANKLY HAVE ALREADY VOICED MY INTENTION OF HOW I INTEND TO VOTE. I HAVE THOROUGHLY PREPARED BY READING ALL THE MATERIALS THAT ARE PRESENTED. I AM HAPPY TO ALLOW ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTION THEY POSSIBLY WANT TO ASK. I'VE LISTENED TO THE QUESTIONS I'VE LISTENED TO THE ANSWERS, AND I'M PREPARED TO GO JUST REAL QUICK. I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY ADVISE THE, UM, UH, COMPLAINANT THAT IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO CREDIT IN THE, UM, INTEGRITY OF COMMISSIONER. UM, PARTICULARLY AT THIS STAGE AND VICE CHAIR, HER, IF HE'S GOT SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD, I WILL, AND I WON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME DOING IT BECAUSE CHAIRS. SO WE'RE ON, YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED IT, BUT THIS GETS TO THE ISSUE THAT I'VE HAD FOR AN EXTREMELY LONG TIME ON THIS COMMISSION. AND I FEEL LIKE PART OF MY ROLE ON THIS COMMISSION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF AUSTIN AND ANY MEMBER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER OR ANY COMMISSION MEMBER FEELS THAT THEY ARE BEING TREATED FAIRLY AND OBJECTIVELY. AND I SAID IT FROM THE BEGINNING, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. I FEEL THAT SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE US, UH, ARE BROUGHT WITH THAT THEY'RE TARGETED. THEY'RE BROUGHT WITH SOME MOTIVE IN MIND, UH, TARGETING INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE A SPECIFIC VIEWPOINT. AND I'VE SAID THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, UH, AND ANYTHING I'VE EVER ADVOCATED FOR WAS ALWAYS POOR TRANSPARENCY. AND TO MAKE SURE, UH, THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE. THE REALITY IS HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT A LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US, THIS COMMISSION HAS SAID THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MOVE FORWARD ON A COMPLAINT. AND I THINK TO COME IN HERE AFTER COMMISSIONER GOER, SECRETARY GOLDBERG HAS ALREADY MENTIONED AND FORETOLD WHAT HIS VIEWPOINT IS GOING TO BE, WHAT HIS POSITION IS GOING TO THEN SOMEHOW TRY TO QUESTION AND PREVENT HIM FROM VOTING, OR, UH, BRING DOUBT ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF HIS VOTE. IS IT RESPECTFUL? IT'S SHAMEFUL AND IT IS BENEATH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. UM, SO WHAT I WANT TO DO IS, [01:40:01] UM, I WANT TO SECOND, THE, THE COMMENTS, I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER APPROPRIATE FOR A PARTY RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT, UM, TO REALLY GO AFTER A COMMISSIONER IN, IN A PUBLIC SETTING LIKE THIS. I THINK IT, IT UNDERMINES, THERE'S SO MUCH TALK RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE PUBLIC FAITH IN SYSTEMS. UM, AND I THINK, I THINK WHEN A PARTY, UH, OPENLY QUESTIONED THE ABILITY OF A DECISION MAKER, SOMEONE IN A POSITION TO ADJUDICATE QUESTIONED THEIR ABILITY TO BE NEUTRAL OR IMPARTIAL, UM, AND TO WEIGH THINGS AND TO COME TO A GOOD DECISION, I THINK THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING. UM, SO I WANT TO THANK THE VICE CHAIR AND FOR OTHERS FOR, UM, POINT. SO, YOU KNOW, I, AS I'M REFLECTING ON THE CASE ITSELF AND KIND OF THE SUBSTANCE, THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT, UM, YOU KNOW, I STRUGGLE, I STRUGGLE WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS. I'M NOT, I'M NOT INCLINED TO QUICKLY SAY THAT THE ORDINANCES ARE SO, UH, SO AIR TIGHT AS TO EXCLUDE, UM, THIS KIND OF CONDUCT. UM, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK THERE'S A LIVE BACKED QUESTION PERSONALLY, AS TO WHAT IS A PRIVATE PURPOSE. UM, AND WE COULD POTENTIALLY GATHER EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT BECAUSE I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, LIKE SURE, THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SAVE USE OF CITY FUNDS FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES PROHIBITED, BUT I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT, UH, A CITY CITY PERSONNEL WAS USED CITY EQUIPMENT WAS USED. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY IN PRIOR CASES I COULD BE GETTING THIS WRONG, BUT I, MY MEMORY TELLS ME THAT IN PRIOR CASES, WE'VE CALLED CITY, LIKE THE TIME THAT A CITY EMPLOYEE USES, UM, WE'VE CALLED THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT FALLS UNDER THIS SUBSECTION. UM, SO I DO THINK I'M MUCH LESS CONVINCED ABOUT SUBSECTION I, WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A KIND OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT THE ORDINANCE REALLY CONTEMPLATES. UM, I READ THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO BE MUCH MORE LIKE, YOU KNOW, PUSHING A PROJECT, PUSHING A PET PROJECT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT CHANNEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS THE KIND OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO KIND OF EXCLUSIVE, UH, THING THAT WOULD ONLY BE ACCESSIBLE TO SOMEONE ON COUNCIL. SO I'M LESS CONVINCED THERE. I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A LIVE FAQ QUESTION ON JAY AND, AND FOR THAT, I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING. UM, AND YOU KNOW, I, I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS QUESTION, QUITE FRANKLY. UM, SO I'M GOING TO, I SAW COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK'S HAND FIRST. GO AHEAD. THERE'S STILL TOO MANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO ALLEGATIONS THAT WE SPECIFY THE SUSPENDED UP. WE CAN GO FORWARD ON BOTH ISSUES, BUT HAVE ONE MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD ON WHETHER THERE'S A VIOLATION UNDER SUBSECTION TWO 62, SEVEN 62. I, AND THEN ANOTHER MOTION UNDER TWO, SEVEN 62 J NO, I THINK THAT'S FAIR. UM, SO I THINK THE APPROPRIATE ROBERT'S RULES WAY TO DO THAT MIGHT BE TO, UM, MOVE, TO AMEND THEM MOVE TO AMEND MCCORMICK'S MOTION. UM, THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY GOING TO A FINAL HEARING ON SAY SUBSECTION. I, UM, OKAY. UM, LYNN AND SUE, I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS ARE TAKING GREAT NOTES. UM, OKAY. UM, IS THERE, YOU KNOW, IT I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION, UM, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GOOD WAY TO PROCEED. UM, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, SORRY. WOULD YOU MIND JUST STATING YEAH. SO W THIS IS SO WE'RE, UH, DISCUSSING A [01:45:01] MOTION TO AMEND THE PERSON THAT'S IN THE FIRST MOTION WAS JUST TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING PERIOD ON THE COMPLAINT. THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE JUST TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING ON I, AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SEPARATELY, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON MAYBE A MOTION TO GOODWILL FINAL HEARING ON J SO WE'RE, WE'RE DIVIDING THE COMPLAINT IN TWO ON THIS, SO, ALL RIGHT. SO ANY MORE DISCUSSION I'M SEEING NOTHING. SO I'M GOING TO ASK ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND, AND THEN I KNOW COMMISSIONER KALE'S ON THE LINE. SO LET ME, LET ME ASK COMMISSIONER KALE FIRST. UM, IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU HAVE A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, TO GO, TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL MOTION JUST ABOUT SUBSECTION I I'M IN FAVOR. OKAY. MR. KALE IS IN FAVOR. UM, THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND, AND I'LL SAY NAMES OUT LOUD. IF I SEE AN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO AMEND, RAISE YOUR HAND, AND THEN IF I DON'T SEE YOUR CAMERA ON, I'LL ASK YOU SEPARATELY. OKAY. WAIT, FIRST, IT'S JUST TWO MEN THE MOST, YES, EXACTLY. JUST TO AMEND THE MOTION. AND THEN LATER WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE MOTION AS AMENDED, WHICH IS GOING TO A FINAL HEARING. OKAY. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS. I'VE GOT ONE VOTE. YES. FROM THE COMMISSIONER KALE. I SEE COMMISSIONERS. GOBER COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER, LAURIE COMMISSIONER LEARNER. UM, I'LL LEAVE SOME TIME COMMISSIONER HURRY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND? GOT A YES FROM COMMISSIONER. HURRY. I SEE. NO HAND FROM COMES FROM THE GREENBERG. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN ALL OF THOSE, NO, I'M OPPOSING THE SPLITTING OF THEM. YEAH. OPPOSING THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. NO, THAT MOTION PASSES. UM, I BELIEVE EIGHT 21. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE ON A MOTION TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING ON SUBSECTION. I, UM, SO THIS IS THE MOTION BASICALLY SAYING THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED OF SUBSECTION. I HAVE TWO DASH SIX SEVEN TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62. UM, IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION SPECIFICALLY, THE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? I WOULD JUST TAKE THE PLAIN MEANING OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS AND NOT THINK IT'S SOME SPECIFIC TECHNICAL, LEGAL MEANING. AND TO ME USING THE CITY FUNDS FOR SOMETHING THAT WASN'T TO THE CITY BENEFIT IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER LERNER. I MEAN, I GUESS I WOULD JUST TAKE THE OTHER SIDE TO SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CONFERRED UPON HER AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO HAVE HER BAR MEMBERSHIP PAID BY HER EMPLOYER BASED ON WHAT SHE BELIEVED TO BE, UM, WITHIN THE REALM OF APPROPRIATENESS. I'M JUST, I, I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE DEFINITION. I, I WOULD JUST SAY I WOULD LOOK CLOSELY AT THAT DEFINITION. THAT'S MY POSITION. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, MR. . YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO CONTORT IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE. IF WE'RE, IF IT WAS MEANT TO BE MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. I THINK IT WOULD SAY THAT I'M WITH ROBIN ON THIS ONE, I USE USING YOUR DISCRETION IN A CERTAIN WAY. I DON'T THINK IT'S A FAILURE, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. WELL TAKEN, UM, COMMISSIONER. I SEE, I SEE A HAND FROM COMMISSIONER DANBURG. YEAH. UH, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER DAN BERGER. CAN I, CAN I MAKE YOUR, IT SHOULD CLOSE DOWN OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE COMPUTER, IT MIGHT HELP YOU BE ABLE TO BE HEARD. YEAH. THAT, YEAH, IT IS VERY HARD. VERY HARD TO INTERPRET THAT. UM, SORRY. UH, I CAN SEE, I CAN SEE MOVEMENT. I CAN SEE YOUR HAND WHEN I CALL ON YOU. UM, UH, WELL, I THINK WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM THERE. UM, [01:50:01] OKAY. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, UM, THEN I'LL KIND OF PROCEED IN THE SAME WAY. THIS IS ON A MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, UM, ON SUBSECTION I, THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT SUBJECT AND I WAS VIOLATED. SO FIRST I'LL ASK COMMISSIONER KALE SINCE YOU'RE ON THE PHONE. UM, DO YOU, I MADE A CALL FOR THE IBOTTA COMMISSIONER KLD VOTE. AYE. HI, KAY. NOW, UM, I WILL ASK FOR THE IBOTTA FROM MY COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE ON CAMERA AND I WILL CALL OUT NAMES AS I SEE THEM. OKAY. SEE COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. ALL RIGHT. UM, NOW ALL THOSE OPPOSED THE MOTION, RAISE YOUR HANDS. AND I WILL COUNT MYSELF EITHER THE VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LERNER COMMISSIONER DANBURG COMMISSIONER, LAURIE COMMISSIONER. GOBER. OKAY. AND THAT I BELIEVE IS PRETTY MUCH THE MOTION FAILING. SO AT THIS POINT, UM, I BELIEVE WE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SECOND MOTION, UM, TO, ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD, UH, GO TO A FINAL HEARING ON SUBSECTION J. UM, SO I AM WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION, ANYONE HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE THE JUMP, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG DECIDED. OKAY, SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA READ THE VITAL LANGUAGE STATE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, MOVING TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION OF STATISTICS AND JAY AND COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. SECOND, THE MOTION. OKAY. DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION SPECIFICALLY IS OPEN. I'M SEEING NO, UH, GO AHEAD PLEASE. CAROL. HURRY. THANK YOU, MUTED. SORRY. MY MOUSE IS HAVING A PROBLEM. I'M NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS. ONE IS REALLY GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON IS WHETHER OR THIS WAS A PRIVATE PURPOSE. AND I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS CONDITION AND FOR THIS BODY IS TO REMEMBER THAT WE REALLY DO FOCUS ON THE BLACK LETTER LAW AS IT EXISTS IN THE STATUTE. AND THE REASON THAT IS, IS SO THAT THERE IS CLARITY, UH, AND WE HAVE, UH, WORKING GROUPS THAT ARE WORKING ON ADDING CLARITY. AND THAT'S FINE. IF WE WANT TO ADD MORE CLARITY, WE CAN DO THAT. AND THE COMMITTEE, THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE ANY CHANGES THAT WE MAKE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'VE FOCUSED ON THE CLARITY AS IT EXISTS IN PERSONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE EXPENDITURES THEY VARY AMONG THIS BODY. BUT AS FAR AS THE LANGUAGE IS CONCERNED, UM, IT IS THINKING POSSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, THAT LEGISLATES LAWS, UH, IS SOMEHOW JUST PURSUING A PRIVATE PURPOSE BY HAVING A LAW LICENSE AND HAVING A LAW LICENSE PAID BY THE CITY. THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT SHE USED THIS FOR THE COMMUNITY OR A GAME. UM, AND FOR THE OTHER REASONS STATED BY THE ATTORNEY, BY HER ATTORNEY, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT REASON TO BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD AND JUST QUOTE THE LAW A LITTLE BIT. THINK MY MOUSE IS NOT WORKING WELL, BUT IT'S REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. AND SO IT'S YEAH, REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OR PROVISION WITHIN PRESERVATIVE HAS OCCURRED. AND SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE BELIEVE IT'S HAS OCCURRED. AND IF WE THINK THERE'S A PUBLIC PURPOSE, THEN WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAS OCCURRED. THAT'S JUST MY POSITION. I REALLY DON'T FIND THERE BEING ENOUGH PROOF, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE. NO, THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, I, I MIGHT TAKE, UM, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT, I'M INCLINED TO TAKE AN OPPOSITE POSITION AND, UM, I WELCOME DISCUSSION. UM, AND I WELCOME SOMEBODY TO CHANGE MY MIND MAYBE. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I I'M, I'M AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS [01:55:01] AND I, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF MY TRAINING, WHAT'S KIND OF DRILLED INTO ME IS THAT A, A PRIVATE PURPOSE IS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO MY JOB. LIKE WE DO HAVE LIKE A DIMINIMOUS STANDARD. LIKE I CAN CHECK MY BANK ACCOUNT ON MY STATE COMPUTER. UM, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO USE MY STATE, MY OFFICE PRINTER TO PRINT OUT, UM, ELISE FOR MY APARTMENT. UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT IS ALWAYS BEEN SOMEONE WHO'S WORKED FOR A WHILE, UH, FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. UM, AND I KNOW THAT'S IMPORTANT. THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING OF A PRIVATE PURPOSE IS SOMETHING UNRELATED TO YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN OFFICER OF A PUBLIC ENTITIES. SO I I'M INCLINED AND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF WE TAKE NOT CONSIDERING THIS, A QUOTE UNQUOTE PRIVATE PURPOSE MEANS THAT IN MY MIND, WHAT A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS, IS JUST A GOOD PURPOSE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT DOESN'T REALLY JIVE WITH MY UNDERSTANDING. SOME OF THEM IS GOOD. UM, I, THAT DOESN'T JIVE WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE PRIVATE PURPOSE SCHOOLS ARE. UM, SO, UH, I SAW A COUPLE OF HANDS LEARNER. I'LL LET YOU GO FIRST. OKAY. SO THIS THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I, I'M REALLY GLAD THAT WE DO HAVE THE ATMOSPHERE WITHIN THIS COMMISSION TO HAVE THIS KIND OF OPEN AND RESPECTFUL, UM, DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHAT, UM, WHAT, WHAT HAS THE CHARACTER OF THIS COMMISSION? SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS. UM, THIS MIGHT BE OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT. IF I THINK OF THE, THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY WASN'T THE WAS NOT THE FUNDS, BUT RATHER THE BAR LICENSE. SO FROM WHAT I CAN SEE FROM THE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT SHE ACTUALLY, THAT HER OFFICE ASKED FOR AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO USE FUNDS AND OTHER INSTANCES, AND WAS, I, I MIGHT BE GETTING THE FACTS WRONG THAT SHE WASN'T GIVEN AN OPINION ABOUT IT, UM, AND MADE A DECISION. AND SO ONCE PROCURED THE P THE, THE PROPERTY IS THE BAR, THE BAR MEMBERSHIP, NOT THE MONEY THAT'S BEING USED. CAUSE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, YOU CAN'T, IT'S IT'S IT'S IF YOU JUST LIKE A J IT'S, I'M USING NO CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE, I USE FACILITIES, PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT, OR SUPPLIES FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH ARE LAWFULLY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. UM, SO SHE USE THE FUNDS TO PROCURE, UH, A BAR, A BAR CERTIFICATION, AND THAT HELPED HER IN HER JOB. I THINK YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY, AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THE FUNDS THAT WERE USED. AND I GUESS ACTUALLY YES, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JAY, BUT, UM, I THINK IT'S REALLY HARD TO, I JUST THINK THE FACTS DO NOT SHOW A DRAW, A DIRECT LINE IN THE SAND THAT SAYS THIS WAS, THERE WAS NO PUBLIC BENEFIT TO HER HAVING A LOT DEGREE OR SORRY, A BAR, A BARGE CERTIFICATION. SO DEBRA SAYS SHE DID NOT MAKE MONEY. SHE DID GOOD FOR IMMIGRANTS CONSTITUENTS. UM, YEAH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER NUMBER, CALL TAKEN, AND THANK YOU FOR READING THAT I WAS HAVING TROUBLE. UM, NO, AND I, UM, I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU. I DO. I DO APPRECIATE BOTH OF THOSE PERSPECTIVES THAT, UM, AND, AND THE PERSPECTIVE THAT SHE WASN'T, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, SHE WASN'T USING IT TO, YOU KNOW, DO A SIDE HUSTLE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. UM, BUT INSTEAD THAT SHE WAS DOING INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT WORK ON BEHALF OF HER CONSTITUENTS OF GOOD, A GOOD PORTION OF THEM ARE, UH, UNDOCUMENTED OR ARE FAMILIES OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. UM, AND YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID IN A PRIOR HEARING AND IT ENDED UP IN, UH, IN THE AUSTIN MONITORS, SOMETHING ABOUT HOW, UM, YOU CAN HAVE GREAT INTENTIONS AND STILL BREAK A RULE. UM, I DID NOT SAY IT IN AN ARTFUL WAY AND IT ENDED UP IN THE PAPER. UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL WHO VERY STRONGLY ADVOCATE FOR THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO DO PRO BONO LEGAL WORK TO DO IT. SO I'LL LEAVE THAT ASIDE. I SAW THAT. I SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER LAURA, YOUR HAND, UM, GO AHEAD. UM, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SILVER ON THAT PUBLIC, [02:00:01] UH, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SERVICE OF DIFFERENT KINDS CAN STILL BE CONSIDERED LIKE A PRIVATE BENEFIT, A PRIVATE PURPOSE. UM, AND IF THIS, IF THIS GOES TO A FINAL HEARING, I WOULD ENCOURAGE BOTH SIDES MAYBE TO DO SOME BRIEFING ON THAT TERM, BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS ON THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S MEANT TO BE THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT'S DONE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD DOESN'T COUNT AS PRIVATE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD CHOOSE, I COULD CHOOSE TO GO WORK AT A CHURCH AND, YOU KNOW, WORK IN A SOUP KITCHEN, THAT KIND OF THING. I ALSO WORKED FOR THE STATE, I'M DOING THAT IN MY PRIVATE CAPACITY, RIGHT. SO IF IT'S NOT PART OF YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION, PART OF YOUR JOB DUTIES, EVEN IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING GOOD, UM, AND DOING SOMETHING FOR THE PUBLIC, THAT CAN BE A PRIVATE PURPOSE. AND I TAKE YOUR POINT ROBIN, THAT IT IS SORT OF HARD TO DRAW, UH, A LINE. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK FOR THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSES, I COULD SEE THE BENEFIT. I THINK FOR ME, THE LICENSE IS MORE OF AN ISSUE BECAUSE UNLESS, UNTIL YOU'RE APPEARING IN COURT ON BEHALF OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LEGAL OFFICES, THERE ARE LAWYERS THAT ARE EMPLOYED BY THE CITY TO APPEAR IN COURT. UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS WITHIN A CITY COUNCIL PERSON'S ROLE TO LEGALLY REPRESENT, UM, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, UM, WHETHER IT'S FOR A GOOD REASON OR NOT, UH, WHETHER IT'S TO SERVE THE PUBLIC OR NOT. SO, UH, EVEN IF IT'S DONE PRO BONO, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S WITHIN THEIR ROLE, BUT AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE, UM, BOTH PARTIES IF GOES TO FINAL HEARING TO MAYBE FOCUS SOME OF THEIR ARGUMENTATION OR BRIEFING OR EVIDENCE ON THIS POINT, UM, TO HELP US GO TO GO IN EITHER DIRECTION. SURE. THANK YOU. UM, SECRETARY, GO BESIDE YOUR HAND ON THE EMAIL, UM, FOR, UM, AIR PROTEIN GARS, UH, TO GO TO THE DETENTION FACILITY, SHE WAS TOLD THAT ONE OF THE REQUIRED ITEMS SHE HAD TO HAVE WITH HER WAS A BAR CARD. A BAR CARD IS NOT A NOVA PARTICIPATION CARD. I, I CAN ATTEST FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT IF YOU SHOW UP AT A DETENTION FACILITY, A JAIL AND YOU DON'T HAVE A BAR CARD, YOU AND YOU DON'T KNOW PERSONALLY WHO THAT JAILER IS, YOU ARE NOT GETTING IN THE DOOR. UH, AND SO IT'S CERTAINLY INFORMED THE, UH, GARZA HAS OPINIONS ABOUT RULES, ORDINANCES THAT SHE WAS DRAFTING, HOW SHE WOULD BENEFIT HER CONSTITUENTS TO GO THERE AND SEE IT IN PERSON. WE NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE NEWS OF THE DAY, WHERE WE HAD PEOPLE FROM THE LOWEST LEVELS TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT GOING AND TOURING THESE FACILITIES AND MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA WOULD NOT HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THIS FACILITY, BUT FOR HAVING A BAR CARD. UH, AND SO ABSOLUTELY HER BAR CARD GOT HER IN THE ROOM LOT HERE. SEE FOR HER OWN EYES, WHAT THE SITUATION WAS IN THIS DETENTION FACILITY. AND THEREFORE TAKE THAT EXPERIENCE BACK TO HER CONSTITUENTS HERE IN AUSTIN. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. THANK YOU, SECRETARY. GOBER. UM, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT I MIGHT'VE HEARD OF CHIRP. THAT COULD BE COMMISSIONER KALE. UM, PAUSE. OKAY. JUST A SECOND. UM, IF, IF, UH, IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR SOMETHING TO ADD, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN IT. UM, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT CHIRP WAS YOU TRYING TO CHIME IN IF SO, GO AHEAD. IF NOT, I WILL. SURE. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I, SO WE HAVE OUR MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND DID, UM, I, I THINK WE COULD KIND OF GO ON ABOUT THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WHAT, YEAH, I, I THINK I'M READY TO GO TO A VOTE. UM, YES, IF I'M GOING TO LEAVE ONE, I'M GOING TO DO LIKE A LAST CALL. DOES ANYONE HAVE COMMENTS? THOUGHTS. OKAY. SO LIKE WE DID THE LAST TIME, UH, FIRST I'M GOING TO RESTATE THE MOTION BRIEFLY. THIS IS A MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL AFTER DETERMINING THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXISTS, THAT A VIOLATION OF TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO J HAS OCCURRED. SO FIRST I WILL ASK COMMISSIONER KALE SINCE YOU'RE ON THE PHONE, UM, I'M GOING TO CALL THE I'S COMMISSIONER KILLS YOU, BUT I, HI. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN I WILL CALL THE EYES FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS [02:05:01] WHERE I'VE GOT VIDEO. UM, RAISE YOUR HAND. YOU VOTE AYE. ON THE MOTION. SO I SEE COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, MYSELF, AND COMMISSIONER LAURIE MAKE NOTES REAL QUICK. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW I WILL CALL THE NAYS. ALL THOSE WHO VOTE NAY ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. I COUNT, I'LL CALL YOUR NAMES WHEN I'VE CALLED. WHEN I SEE YOU, I SEE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER LERNER VICE-CHAIR OR HURRY COMMISSIONER DANBURG WITH THE LEGISLATIVE TWO AND A SECRETARY GOBER. SO WITH, BY MY ACCOUNT, THAT IS FIVE AND FAVOR AND FOUR OPPOSED. AND BECAUSE WE NEED IMMATURITY OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS SICK TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, THAT MOTION FAILS, UM, CITY ATTORNEY, OFFICE, CAROLINE WEBSTER. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? YES. THERESA WE'RE ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY. GREAT. OKAY. THEN I THINK THAT THAT'LL DO IT FOR AGENDA ITEM TWO, A I WANT TO THANK THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE. I WANT TO THANK THE, UM, OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE, WHO, UH, DID THE RESEARCH PUT IN THE WORK, UH, IN THE INVESTIGATION TO PUT TOGETHER THE MATERIALS. I APPRECIATE THAT. I WANT TO THANK, UM, MAYOR PRO TEM GARZA FOR BEING HERE AND TAKING TIME OUT OF THE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A BUSY SCHEDULE, UM, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. UM, I WANT TO THANK OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL, MR. SHEETS AND COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT AS WELL. MR. KOUSAR, UM, BEEN, UH, BEEN A HEARING. UM, BUT WITH THAT, UH, THERE'S NO OBJECTION. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR, UH, TWO OTHER PRELIMINARY THINGS TONIGHT. UM, YES, YOU'RE EXCUSED. THANK YOU AGAIN. OKAY. SURE. SILVER, SILVER ON THIS IS PEDRO. YES. PEDRO, WELCOME BACK. I HAVE THANK YOU. UM, FROM ENTRY INQUIRY, UH, YES. PLEASE STATE YOUR INQUIRY. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF JUST MOVING FORWARD? I'M NOT TOUCHING ON WHAT JUST HAPPENED, RIGHT? AND I WAS JUST GOING FORWARD. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A, OF THE PRO OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING, PRELIMINARY HEARING? IT IS, UM, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST THAT A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE HAS OCCURRED AS ANY, ANOTHER PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY IS REASONABLE GROUND TO FIND ANYWHERE IN OUR, UH, GUIDELINES OR CODE. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS DEFINED ANYWHERE IN OUR BYLAWS RULES OR CODE. NO, I THINK I WAS JUST WONDERING. THANK YOU. NO, IT'S, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. UM, UH, OKAY. UM, I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO, [2B. A complaint filed by Mark Littlefield against A. Jo Baylor, Our Mobility Our Future PAC, which complaint alleges violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Section 2-2-32 (Reporting of Direct Campaign Expenditures) and Section 2-2-33 (Disclosure Statement Required).] TO FEE. IS IT TO BE ON THE AGENDA? UM, YES. TO BE A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST AJO BAYLOR, OUR MOBILITY, OUR FUTURE PAC WITH DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO, THAT'S THREE, TWO AND TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE THREE. UM, I THINK, UM, IF YOU ALL HAVE BEEN ON THE LINE THAT Y'ALL HAVE HEARD OF THE PROCEDURE, UM, I WILL GIVE, UH, THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT EACH 10 MINUTES. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PRETTY STRICTLY ADHERE TO 10 MINUTES AND KEEP AN EYE ON SECRETARY GOLDBERGER'S CAMERA. WHO'S GOING TO HAVE A TIMER GOING, UM, BECAUSE, UH, IN ABOUT 32 MINUTES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT HOW LATE WE'RE GOING. SO I GUESS IT'S 20 MINUTES AND A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE TO GO THROUGH THIS HEARING. UM, SO I AM GOING TO LET EVERYONE GET SET UP. UM, I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU OUT FOR A WALK CAUSE I REFILL MY GLASS OF WATER. UM, BUT SECRETARY GILBERT, DO YOU HAVE A TIMER? READY? I SEE A THUMBS UP. UM, MR. LITTLEFIELD, COMPLAINANT, ARE YOU READY TO GO? I AM READY. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES. CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE. AND THEN, UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, MR. MR. , AM I PRONOUNCING YOUR NAME CORRECTLY? IF IT'S BOARD GUILT OR GUILT, EXCUSE ME. OKAY. MAKING SURE YOU'RE HERE AND MAKING SURE THAT I CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. IN THAT CASE, UM, MR. LITTLEFIELD, I WILL LET YOU GET STARTED. AND WHEN YOU START TALKING, THE TIMER'S GONNA START. SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS? MY NAME IS MAURICE LITTLEFIELD. IT'S NICE TO HEAR OR SEE ALL OF YOU AGAIN. UH, MR. BOARD Y'ALL ARE GOOD TO HEAR YOUR VOICE ALSO. UM, UH, I'M HERE THIS EVENING [02:10:01] TO, UH, DISCUSS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THE COMPLAINTS I FILED AGAINST THE, OUR MOBILITY, OUR FUTURE PACK. UM, UH, UH, I FILED 12 SEPARATE COMPLAINTS THAT THEY'RE ALL BEING ROLLED INTO. I THINK JUST ONE OR TWO DIFFERENT ONES COVERING, UH, COVERING TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS HERE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING. UH, I'LL RUN THROUGH THEM JUST REAL QUICK. UM, UH, ONE COMPLAINT WEBSITE NOT LIFTING THE LARGEST DONORS, UH, CLINTON FOR TWO IS ABOUT, UH, UH, AN AUTOMATED PHONE CALL THAT DID NOT HAVE A DISCLAIMER ON IT AND THEN COUNTS, UH, COMPLAINTS THREE THROUGH 12 OR ALL ABOUT FAILURE TO, TO FILE AN ATX ONE REPORT ON CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES. IF THE COMMISSION IN THEIR WISDOM, THE SAVING DECIDES THAT THERE IS A REASON TO MOVE ON TO A FINAL HEARING. UM, UH, I WILL BE PRESENTING EVIDENCE, UH, THAT WILL INCLUDE, UM, A PRESENTATION ON THE PAX WEBSITE THAT FAILED TO LIST YOUR TOP FIVE DONORS, A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THE AUTOMATED PHONE CALL THAT'S IN QUESTION, AND ALSO, UH, 10 LISTED EXPENDITURES FROM THE, OUR MOBILITY, OUR FUTURE 30 DAY REPORT, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT LIST EACH OF THESE EXPENDITURES AS ADVERTISING EXPENSES, WHICH WOULD THEN TRIGGER, UH, AND THEN ALSO IN AN AMOUNT THAT THAT WOULD TRIGGER AN ATX ONE REPORT. UM, UH, AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IN, IN PREVIOUS, UH, AT THIS COMMISSION HEARING AND HAVE SAID, UH, UH, OTHER STAKEHOLDERS I'VE SAID IN THE MEDIA IS THAT, IS THAT OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, UH, IN AUSTIN, WE GO FOR TRANSPARENCY. WE GO FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE, UM, YOU KNOW, COMPLYING WITH THESE RULES, BUT ALSO COMPLEX IF THIS WAS, IF THIS WAS JUST A ONE OR TWO VIOLATIONS. AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. TOTALLY GET IT. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO, YOU KNOW, FIGURE THIS OUT ALL THE TIME THEN. UM, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD LET IT GO, BUT THIS WAS, THIS WAS, THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, 12 DIFFERENT TIMES THAT THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, TO COMPLY IN MY OPINION, WITH THE, WITH THE RULES AND TRANSPARENCY AND THEY FAILED TO DO SO. THAT'S WHY I FILED A COMPLAINT. UM, AND, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I OBVIOUSLY, UH, I'M OPEN TO THOSE, BUT THAT'S KIND OF A BRIEF SUMMARY AND I HOPE THAT THIS WILL MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LITTLEFIELD. UM, I, I'M GOING TO DO THE SAME THING I DID IN THE PRIOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND I'M GOING TO LET THE RESPONDENT, UH, HAVE A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH THEIR PRESENTATION. UM, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES. I'M GOING TO LET SECRETARY COPER RESET. WE GOT IT. OKAY. UM, AND WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, AS YOU START TALKING TO THE TIME WE'LL GO, FLOOR'S YOURS. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. UH, ROGER, HERE FOR THE, OUR MOBILITY, OUR FUTURE PACK. UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IF IT WAS NOT CLEAR AND IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FROM THE, UH, AFFIDAVIT OF MS. BAYLOR. UH, WE ARE NOT CONTESTING THE VIOLATIONS. WE HAD, UH, AN MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE, THE APPLICABILITY, FRANKLY, OF, OF THIS, UH, PARTICULAR PROVISION, PROBABLY PRIMARILY BASED ON THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED MS. BAYLOR, UH, MS. MORELAND, OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, PERSON WHO WAS ACTUALLY DOING ALL OF THIS WORK, UH, HAD MORE EXPERIENCE WITH, UH, CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES, AND MAYBE WITH ISSUE. AND SO WE WERE LOOKING AT THE DIRECT EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT INITIALLY AS ONLY APPLYING TO EXPENDITURES THAT WERE NOT COORDINATED WITH THE COMMITTEE. AND OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THESE EXPENDITURES WERE COORDINATED WITH THE COMMITTEE. UH, THEY ASKED ME TO GO BACK AND, AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND I DID. AND I SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK THAT THIS REALLY DOES APPLY. SO, UH, AT MS BAYLOR'S DIRECTION, WE WENT AND, UH, FILED ALL OF THE REPORTS LATE, OBVIOUSLY YESTERDAY, YOU KNOW, AS, AS, AS MR. LITTLEFIELD SAYS, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE, THERE WERE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS HERE, BUT ONCE WE BECAME AWARE THAT WE HAD MISINTERPRETED THE PROVISION, IT WAS ALL CORRECTED AND, AND THE DISCLOSURES WERE MADE GOING FORWARD. SO I WOULD SIMPLY ASK THAT YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE WAS NOTHING INTENTIONAL HERE. IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW BASED ON FRANKLY, THE READING OF THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES YOU TO CERTIFY THAT YOU'RE NOT COORDINATING WITH THE CAMPAIGN, YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS JUST THE, THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE THAT THE PARTIES INVOLVED HAD WITH MEASURE A CAMPAIGN REPORTING, AS OPPOSED [02:15:01] TO CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN REPORTING. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN CONTESTING, THIS WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN GOING TO A FINAL HEARING. WE'VE, WE'VE, UH, WE'RE ADMITTING THAT, THAT WE, WE MADE A MISTAKE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT AN UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE OF ANY KIND. THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU, MR. BORGELT. UM, AND I WANT TO THANK BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT FOR IMMERSIVE POLICE, SHORT PRESENTATIONS. UM, SO, UM, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS, UM, I AM MORE THAN READY TO, UH, HEAR THEM AND START FIRING OFF. UM, SECRETARY, GOBER GO AHEAD. IT'S NOT A QUESTION. I JUST, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S AN ADMISSION, AND WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER OR NASTINESS OF THE BUTTER, UH, AS WE'VE PHRASED IT PREVIOUSLY, I, I WONDER IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT EITHER MR. LITTLEFIELD OR THE RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY HAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT WE COULD DO TONIGHT OR IN THE SAKE OF EXPEDIENCY, MAYBE THEY COULD GET TOGETHER AND TELL US WHICH ONE THEY THINK IS APPROPRIATE. AND IF THE TWO OF THEM AGREE, THEN WE GO FOR IT. I MEAN, ARE WE, ARE WE SHOOTING FOR INTENTIONAL OR ARE WE, IS THIS MORE THAN MIRROR MIRROR ACCIDENT? UM, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE TERMS OF ART FOR THE, THIS FRONT NASTINESS IS OF THE LETTERS, BUT, UH, THAT, THAT'S KINDA MY, MY FOCUS AT THIS POINT. SURE. UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'LL DO BRIEFLY JUST FOR, UM, FOR OUR COLLECTIVE EDIFICATION IS I'LL READ THROUGH THE DIFFERENT LETTERS AND BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT THEY ARE, BUT THEY ARE IN, UM, CITY CODE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR EIGHT, OR THE SANCTION. THERE'S A SEPARATE PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS, BUT I'LL GO THROUGH THESE SANCTIONS THAT THEY ARE VERSUS THE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE WHEN THE VIOLATION IS CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL OR WHEN THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF WAS MADE IN RELIANCE ON SOME PUBLIC WRITTEN OPINION OF A CITY ATTORNEY, THE SECOND LEVEL, MOVING UP IN QUOTE, UNQUOTE LEVELS OF NASTINESS. I LIKED THAT, UM, UH, IT WAS A LETTER OF ADMONITION, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE OF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE VIOLATION IS MINOR OR MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL, BUT CALLS FOR A MORE SUBSTANTIAL RESPONSE THAN JUST A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION IS STILL UNINTENTIONAL OR MINOR. UM, THIRD IS A LOVER IS A REPRIMAND RATHER, UH, REPRIMANDS APPROPRIATE WHEN THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH DISREGARD OF THE CHAPTER, THE COMMISSION MAY REPRIMAND ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE, ET CETERA. UH, NEXT UP AND LEVEL IS A RECOMMENDATION OF REMOVAL FOR OFFICE NOT APPLICABLE HERE. UM, SO WE'LL GO TO THE LAST ONE, WHICH IS A LETTER OF CENSOR OR A RECOMMENDATION OF A RECALL, UM, APPROPRIATE IF WE, IF THERE'S A SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATION OF THE CHAPTER THAT'S BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR TO CULPABLE DISREGARD OF THIS CHAPTER BY AN ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL AGAIN, NOT DIRECTLY CLICKABLE THE CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS. SO, UM, DESCRIBED THINGS TO CONSIDER, UM, UH, IN PUBLISHING A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION ADMONITION, A REPRIMAND, UNSURE. UM, SO WITH THAT, I WILL, I'LL OPEN IT BACK UP TO QUESTIONS. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS I SAW COMMISSIONER GREENBERG STAND, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I RAISE MY HAND, BUT I CAN SPEAK GET IN THE MOMENT. UM, SO I WOULD MOVE THAT. WE GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. AND I THINK WE USUALLY GO WITH A LETTER OF ADMONITION WHEN WE BELIEVE IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL. AND GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A CERTIFICATION OR SOMETHING AFFIDAVIT SAYING IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL, I'M WILLING TO GO WITH UNINTENTIONAL AND THE LETTER OF ADMONITION. SO THAT'S MY, MY SURE. WELL, UM, UH, I WILL, DO YOU WANT TO DO AN APPEAL THAT MOTION BACK A LITTLE BIT? SO I DON'T, UH, I WANT TO JUST GO WITH, DO YOU WANT TO JUST GO WITH WE, THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND VOTE ON THAT FIRST? THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN I WAS GOING TO ASK, UH, JUST TO HEAR FROM COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT ON THE MATTER, UM, SINCE THERE, SINCE WE'VE GOT THAT COVERED, SO I'LL, UH, TAKE A DIVE AND MAKE A MOTION, UM, THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. SO THAT'S THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I THINK I SAW A VICE CHAIR RAISE A HAND. SO I'LL SAY THAT VICE CHAIR OR HURRY. SECOND, THE MOTION. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER, [02:20:01] KALE. UM, LET ME ASK YOU FIRST. YES, YES. I HEAR YES FROM COMMISSIONER KALE. ALL RIGHT. NOW I WILL ASK FOR HANDS. IF YOU HAVE VIDEO, UM, COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS, YOU HAVE VIDEO? UM, NO, MY, UH, MY PHONE, I DROPPED IT IN THE CAMERA. DOESN'T WORK. NO PROBLEM. I'LL ASK. DO YOU HAVE, OR DO YOU VOTE? I AM CALLING THE VOTES RIGHT NOW. OKAY. COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS IS I, AND NOW FOR EVERYONE ELSE WITH VIDEO, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR HANDS. UM, AND THEN I KNOW I'M, I'M NOW I'M REALIZING THAT WE DROPPED THE VIDEO FOR COMMISSIONERS DANBURG AND LEARNER. UM, THIS WORKS SO WELL BEFORE. UM, OKAY. I SEE COMMISSIONER LEARNER'S VIDEO COMMISSIONER DAMPER. GIVE VIDEO. YES, SHE'S A, YES. I'M GOING TO SAY COMMISSIONER DANBURG IS AN I IS A YES. AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK FOR HANDS FOR EVERYONE ELSE. IF I CAN JUST CALL YOU OUT. I SEE LEARNER GOBER. OH, HURRY. MCCORMICK. LAURIE. I HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S OUT OF TURN WHILE YOU'RE TAKING AN ACCOUNT. IT IS A LITTLE OUT OF TURN. UM, I'M GOING TO TABLE IT IF THAT'S OKAY. UM, SO THIS IS ON A MOTION TO FIND A VIOLATION. THIS IS GETTING, I FEEL PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE THAT THIS HAS GOTTEN A LITTLE MESSY. IT'S A QUESTION ON THE MOTION ITSELF TO CLARIFY WHAT I'M BLAMING ON. SURE. I'M HAPPY TO CLARIFY IT. UM, IT IS A MOTION TO FIND THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. UM, JUST WE'RE GETTING THAT OUT OF OR, SORRY. UM, YOU'RE RIGHT. I NEED TO CLARIFY, THERE'S BEEN AN ADMISSION. THIS IS A VOTE TO SAY IF VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH OF THE VIOLET ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ARE. CAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE RIGHTS THAT AFFIDAVIT. YEAH. THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS THE AFFIDAVIT. UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IN READING THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE ADMISSION FROM COUNCIL WAS A, UM, AN ADMISSION TO, UH, UNINTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF BOTH TWO, TWO DASH TWO, THREE. I'VE BEEN AT THE COAST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD TO BOTH OF THE ELECTRICAL VIOLENCE. OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S ENCOMPASSING ALL. OKAY. TOTALLY FINE. JUST FOR PARLIAMENTARY CLEANLINESS, I'M GOING TO CALL THE VOTE AGAIN. UM, SO THIS IS A MOTION TO, UM, THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. UM, SO FIRST I'M GOING TO CALL ON COMMISSIONERS, KALE AND COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS, COMMISSIONER KALE. DO YOU VOTE AYE? YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS. DO YOU VOTE? AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. NOW FOR OUR CAMERA COMMISSIONERS, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A SHOW OF HANDS AND I'LL CALL YOUR NAMES AS I SEE THEM. OKAY. HANDS UP. THIS IS AN EYE ON THE MOTION. I SEE MYSELF HERE. SO BRIAN COMMISSIONER, LAURIE COMMISSIONER, GREENBERG COMMISSIONER, DANBURG COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, VICE CHAIR, OR HURRY, SECRETARY GILBERT AND COMMISSIONER LERNER. THAT'D BE UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEARING WITH MY PARLIAMENTARY OCD. OKAY. UM, NOW I'M GOING ASK, UM, THE COMPLAINANT FIRST. UM, WHAT, UM, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF SANCTION I READ THEM OUT FOR, BUT, UH, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE FLOOR OPEN QUESTION. YEAH. SO I THINK THAT, UH, ON THE TWO EXTREMES, I THINK THAT NOTIFICATION IS OFF THE TABLE. OBVIOUSLY. I THINK CENTURY'S OFF THE TABLE HERE, OBVIOUSLY. UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S IT'S TO THE COMMISSION, WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO HERE. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT NUMBER ONE IS THAT THIS ISN'T, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WASN'T A, UH, YOU KNOW, AN AMATEUR OPERATION WHERE THEY RAISED THE $2 AND IT WAS A VOLUNTEER EFFORT. UM, I DO HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR THOSE, UM, THIS ORGANIZATION RAISED, YOU KNOW, NEARLY $600,000. UM, UH, THEY, UH, HAD PEOPLE ON THEIR CAMPAIGN LIKE, LIKE TORI MORELAND, WHO, WHO DOES HAVE EXPERIENCE IN ISSUE CAMPAIGNS. UM, UH, UH, SO I THINK THAT, I THINK IT WASN'T OVERSIGHT. I THINK IT, I THINK IT PROBABLY WASN'T OVERSIGHT. UM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD TOTALLY OVERLOOK. THIS IS SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN AN ADMONITION AND A REPRIMAND, UM, UH, PROBABLY AN ADMONITION AND WHATEVER YOU GUYS DECIDE, I'M GOING TO SAY, WHAT IS THE RIGHT CALL TO MAKE HERE? I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THOSE TWO THINGS ABOUT THE RAISE, A LOT OF MONEY TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY. [02:25:01] THEY MISSED THAT THEY MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES, UM, AND THEY SHOULD'VE HAD THE EXPERIENCE TO KNOW BETTER. THAT'S IT? THANK YOU. NO, I APPRECIATE IT. AND I APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE EXPRESSION OF FAITH THAT YOU HAVE IN US. UM, ALL RIGHT, MR. UH, BORGELT, I'LL ASK THE SAME QUESTION OF YOU ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE LETTER OR A SANCTION. OH, YOU KNOW, AS, AS WAS STATED BY FIVE MINUTES, BAYLOR AND MYSELF, UH, IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL. IT WAS CORRECTED AS SOON AS IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. UH, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT FIGHTING ABOUT IT. UH, I THINK THAT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH MONEY WAS RAISED, SOMEBODY HAS TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE REGULATION CORRECTLY. AND, AND, UH, FRANKLY, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING AND I'M NOT MAKING EXCUSES HERE, PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT THAT WAY, BUT I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE CERTIFYING THAT YOUR COMMITTEE DID NOT COORDINATE WITH THE PERSON MAKING THE EXPENDITURE, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT BY ITSELF, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULDN'T APPLY. SO I THINK THERE WAS RE THERE WAS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO MISUNDERSTAND IT, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT CONTESTING IT, WE'RE ADMITTING IT. AND I WOULD JUST APPRECIATE THE, THE LOWEST LEVEL OF SANCTION THAT YOU ALL CAN CAN AGREE ON. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. . UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I AM HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'M ALSO HAPPY TO JUST GET SECRETARY GOLDBERG, GO AHEAD. THE PURPOSES OF MAKING THIS EASIER. I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO START JUST WITH THE HIGHEST ONES. IF WE HAVE THE VOTES FOR IT, IF WE DON'T PROCEED TO THE ONE BELOW IT. UM, AND SO I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE FIND, OR THE APPROPRIATE LETTER WOULD BE A LETTER OF REPRIMAND. UH, NOT, UH, WELL THAT, THAT'S THE MOTION. I CAN EXPLAIN IT, UH, MY REASONING BEHIND IT, BUT I, I THINK IT'S JUST A DISREGARD OF THE RULES. SURE. YEAH, NO. AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU STARTED AT REPRIMAND AS WELL. UM, SO I'M GOING TO, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, I'M GOING TO SECOND IT, UM, GOT A MOTION BY GOBER FOR A LETTER OF REPRIMAND A SECOND BY CHAIR STOBER ON FOR OUR, UH, INDEFATIGABLE NOTE-TAKERS LINEN SUE. OKAY. UM, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. UM, I SEE NO HANDS. I HEAR NO VOICES FROM COMMISSIONERS, KAYLOR, B A LOBEL'S. UM, ALL RIGHT. THEN WE CAN GO TO A VOTE ON THIS MOTION. UM, SO I'M GOING TO CALL THE EYES FIRST AND I WILL ASK COMMISSIONER KALE, UM, AND COMMISSIONER BE A LOPEZ IN THAT ORDER. COMMISSIONER KALE. UM, DO YOU VOTE AYE, ON A MOTION FOR A LETTER OF REPRIMAND. OKAY. COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS. ARE YOU AND I OKAY. FOR THE REST OF MY COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE ON VIDEO, I AM GOING TO ASK FOR HANDS. THIS IS THE MOTION IN FAVOR. THIS IS A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO ISSUE A LETTER OF REPRIMAND. OKAY. I SEE COMMISSIONERS. I SEE SECRETARY GOBER VICE CHAIR. OH, HURRY. UH, OKAY. LET'S KEEP OUR HANDS UP. I'M SORRY. UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE COMMISSIONER LERNER COMMISSIONER DANBURG AND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. I'M SORRY THAT I WAS OUT OF CAMERA, UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. WHAT WAS THAT? I THINK THIS IS TOO HARD. GO DOWN ONE, BUT IT MAY GET AN UNANIMOUS. OKAY. IF IT'S UNANIMOUS. SO I'M GOING TO COUNT THAT AS AN I, YEAH, GO AHEAD. OKAY THEN. SURE. ALL RIGHT, THEN THAT IS, I'M GOING TO JUST, I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE I WAS BAD AT MATH, CLEARLY EMBEDDED BASICALLY. UM, I COUNT, I COUNT NINE. IS THAT RIGHT? NINE EYES, ZERO NAYS FOR A LETTER OF REPRIMAND. OKAY. NO, ONE'S GOING TO CHECK MY MATH. WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THAT. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY THEN THAT IS THAT ITEM. I THINK WE'RE DONE THERE. SO, [02:30:01] UM, HANG ON. I'M SORRY. THIS IS LYNN CARTER. CAN YOU TAKE OH YEAH, SURE. UM, ARE THERE ANY, YES. THANK YOU. ON THE MOTION, UH, TO ISSUE A LETTER OF REPRIMAND. ARE THERE ANY THERE ANYONE VOTING? NO, THERE'S TWO. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE HERE. AND I HEAR NO VOICES, UM, FROM THE ETHER THAT REPRESENT COMMISSIONER KALE OR VIA LOBOS. SO IN THAT CASE, I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO SAY THERE ARE ZERO, NO VOTES. SHE ALREADY VOTED. SHE ALREADY VOTED. YES, RELUCTANTLY THOUGH, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE HIGH, BUT IF IT WASN'T GOING TO PASS ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, UH, EVERY, EVERY COMMISSIONER HAS THEIR REASONS FOR THEIR VOTES AND THOSE REASONS DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO, UM, ACCORD WITH, I DON'T DOUBT. I THINK RUBBER BAND WAS A LITTLE, MUCH, I'D GO DOWN ONE, BUT NOT PAY. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. FAIR ENOUGH. COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. UM, SO WITH THAT, I BELIEVE THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, I'M GONNA JUST, UM, UH, LIKE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE TIME IS 9:51 PM. UM, ASSUMING THAT MEAN, YEAH, ASSUMING THAT WE MAY GO PAST JUST LIKE A LITTLE BIT PAST 10 WITH THIS NEXT COMPLAINT. UM, I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO PAST 10 O'CLOCK WITH THE SCOUT'S HONOR. I SWEAR ON MY LIFE, UM, TO CITY HALL AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT'S BEEN HELPING COORDINATE THE STEERING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO PAST MINUTES LATER. UM, COMMISSIONER DANBURY, COMMISSIONER DAN BERG IS MOVING THAT WE'RE GOING PAST 10:00 PM. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I SECOND IT, I THINK WE HAVE TO SAY AN ENDING, A NEW ENDING TIME IN THE MOTION. UH, I DID GET A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER KALE. UM, YEAH, I DON'T BELIEVE, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE DO, UH, I MEAN, LYNN, YOU CAN CORRECT ME. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. UH, SO THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND WE CAN DISCUSS THE MOTION. LYNN, WE DON'T NEED, UH, NECESSARILY AN END TIME SPECIFIED DEWEY, CORRECT. JUST VOTE TO GO PAST 10 O'CLOCK. YEAH, SURE. OKAY. SO THIS IS WITH, I'M GOING TO, I'M LOOKING EVERYONE IN THE EYE. THAT'S GOT A VIDEO CAMERA ON AND I'M, UH, METAPHYSICALLY LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER'S CAITLIN VIA VILLALOBOS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK MUCH TOO MUCH LATER. SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION. WE'RE GOING PAST 10. O'CLOCK ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. UM, COMMISSIONER KALE. HI, MR. MCHALES AND I COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS. CAN THIS INTERVIEW A LITTLE BIT? I DIDN'T HEAR THAT WAS THAT NIGHT. NO, IT WAS A NO, NO, I OKAY. I'LL RESPOND LATER. SURE. I'M GONNA COUNT YOU AS AN A FOR THE SAKE OF THIS, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. UH, RATHER LET'S DO HANDS GREENBERG, DANBURY 10, COME ON. MCCORMICK LEARNER. UM, MY SELF. OKAY. THAT IS ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION. UM, COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS. I'M JUST GOING TO CALL YOU AGAIN. ARE YOU OPPOSED TO THE MOTION? YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S AN A, UM, COMMISSIONER KALE ALREADY VOTED SO HANDS, IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO GOING PAST 10 O'CLOCK SECRETARY GOBER ALL RIGHT. AND THEN ALL THOSE ABSTAINING. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER HURRY. I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR VOTE. DID YOU VOTE, UM, WHERE YOU ARE? AND I RATHER, OKAY. GOT IT. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT. SO THE MOTION CARRIES ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT. UH, I THINK I HAVE THAT RIGHT. I MAY HAVE THAT WRONG. THE MOTION CARRIES LYNN. YOU CAN ALWAYS CHECK MY MATH IF I AM WRONG, BUT WE'RE GOING PAST 10. SO I'M GOING [02:35:01] TO KIND OF SPEED RUN THIS. YOU ALL KNOW THE DRILL. UM, WE ARE ON AGENDA ITEMS [2C. complaint Littlefield filed by Mark Littlefield against Peck Young, Voices of Austin, which complaint alleges violation of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Section 2-2-33 (Disclosure Statement Required).] TO SEE A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST PECK, YOUNG VOICES OF BOSTON, WHICH LEGENDS VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE THREE. UM, YOU KNOW, THE RULES OF SECRETARY GOBER HAS THE TIMER SET. UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, COMPLAINANT, MR. LITTLEFIELD RESPONDENT, I'M ASSUMING THAT Y'ALL ARE READY AND I WILL GIVE MR. LITTLEFIELD THE FLOOR. SOON AS YOU START SPEAKING, SECRETARY GOPRO IS GOING TO HIT THE TIMERS. SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, COMMISSIONERS AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. I'LL BE VERY, VERY QUICK ON THIS, BUT THIS IS PROBABLY, UM, THE MOST IMPORTANT, UH, ITEM THAT I'LL EVER BRING TO THE COMMISSION. UM, THIS IS, UH, THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST VOICES OF AUSTIN, WHICH IS A, WHICH IS A NON-PROFIT. UH, I FILED A COMPLAINT, UH, ABOUT AN AUTOMATED CALL THAT SALE TO LISTED DISCLAIMER, AND ABOUT A MAILER, UH, THAT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE TOP FIVE DONORS. UH, IF YOU AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD GO TO A FINAL HEARING, UH, OBVIOUSLY I WILL INCLUDE, UH, THE DIGITAL RECORDING OF THE AUTOMATED PHONE CALL, THE PDF OF THE MAILER. AND I WILL ALSO INCLUDE BOTH CLIPPINGS AND OTHER, UH, EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM VOICES OF AUSTIN, UH, WHERE THEY VERY CLEARLY STATE THAT YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST POSITION X, UH, AND THE, IT MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT VENUE. I MEAN, IT MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT PLACE, BUT I'M STARTING AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, HYPOTHETICALLY AT THE FINAL HEARING ABOUT WHETHER WHAT VOICES OF OFTEN DID AND HIDING THEIR DONORS AND IN HIDING THEIR EXPENDITURES AND IN WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PROPOSITION, UH, BY USING A NONPROFIT AND, UH, UH, WITHIN THE RULES HERE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, I THINK THAT A FINAL ON THIS IS CRITICAL AND THAT WE HAVE A, ANOTHER COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS LEGAL AND WHETHER THIS IS ALLOWED OR NOT. AND, UM, EVEN IF YOU MAYBE FEEL LIKE YOU'RE LEANING AGAINST THAT, I, UH, I IMPLORE YOU THAT WE HAVE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FINAL HEARING ABOUT WHAT VOICES OF AUSTIN DID AND HOW THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES. UH, AND THIS LAST CAMPAIGN, THIS LAST ELECTION, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ADDRESS IT, THEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE GOING TO LOSE CONTROL OF, OF MONEY IN OUR LOCAL POLITICS. THIS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME AND BOTH TAKES US TO IT VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LITTLEFIELD, AND I DIDN'T, UM, I, I WANNA BACK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT TO SAY THAT I DON'T WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE I'M, I'M TRYING TO RUSH THE PARTIES, UH, AS MUCH AS I'M TRYING TO BE EXPEDITIOUS IN GETTING US THROUGH OUR ITEMS THIS EVENING. UM, SO, UH, I'LL I KNOW YOU JUST ENDED YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT YOU USED ABOUT THREE AND A HALF MINUTES OF IT, MAYBE. UM, YOU'RE GOOD. I SEE THAT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, UM, UH, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, MR. BORGELT, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES, UM, UH, WE'LL RESERVE, UH, MS. COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, IF IT'S OKAY. WE'LL RESERVE QUESTIONS TILL AFTER THE TWO PARTIES ARE PRESENTED. THANK YOU. UM, UH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. UM, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, THE TIMER IS READY AND BEFORE IS YOURS, UH, ROGER BORGELT AGAIN, UH, REPRESENTING VOICES OF AUSTIN. UH, I GUESS FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. THE ONLY COMPLAINT THAT I HAVE SEEN IS ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR FLYER. UH, IF THERE ARE COMPLAINTS ABOUT ROBO CALLS OR, OR OTHER EMAILS OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS THAT MR LITTLEFIELD MENTIONED, I HAVE NOT SEEN THOSE AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO RESPOND TO THOSE TONIGHT. I'VE GOT THE ONE, THE ONE FLYER THAT WAS PRESENTED IN HIS COMPLAINT TO YOU ALL. UH, WHAT'S THIS OF AUSTIN IS A FIVE OH ONE C4 ORGANIZATION. IT'S A NONPROFIT. UH, IT COULD HAVE BEEN SET UP AS A PACK. IF THE PEOPLE WHO SET IT UP HAD, HAD WANTED TO ENGAGE IN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS OR HAD WANTED TO ENGAGE IN, UH, ANY TYPE OF, OF, UH, ELECTION ADVOCACY, DIRECT ADVOCACY. IT, IT WAS INTENTIONALLY SET UP NOT TO BE THAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATION, UH, FROM THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, WHICH IS ON THEIR WEBSITE. UH, AND I'LL JUST READ [02:40:01] PORTIONS OF IT TO SAVE TIME, UH, VOICES OF AUSTIN COMMODE, NOT RUN CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL. UH, WE CANNOT TELL PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE, BUT WE WILL TELL THEM THE TRUTH. SO THE INTENTION OF THIS WAS NEVER TO ENGAGE IN ELECTIONEERING OR, OR EXPRESS, UH, ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF, UH, ANY PARTICULAR ELECTION. THE PARTICULAR COMMUNICATION IS BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT TALKS ABOUT, UH, IT'S AN EDUCATIONAL PIECE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ORGANIZATION. IT TALKS ABOUT LOBBYISTS AND CITY STAFF, UH, CONTROLLING CITY COUNCIL. AND IT TALKS ABOUT CODE NEXT TO PROJECT CONNECT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, THREE DIFFERENT DISCRETE ISSUES THAT IT'S EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT. UH, THERE IS ONE I WOULD CLASSIFY IT AS, YOU KNOW, INADVERTENT REFERENCE TO PROP A, WHICH I SUPPOSE IS THE BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT, BECAUSE IF IT HAD JUST REPEATED WHAT IT WAS TALKING ABOUT, I DON'T EVEN THINK WE'D BE HERE TONIGHT. SO I, I, YOU KNOW, I, THERE CERTAINLY WAS NOT ANY, UH, THERE'S CERTAINLY NO ADMISSION THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION. WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF AN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A HYPER-TECHNICAL READING OF THAT REGULATION TO SAY THAT IT IS, IT WAS NOT TO SAME OUT, UH, IN ANY WAY TO COMMUNICATE FOR OR AGAINST ANY MEASURE OR PROPOSITION OR CANDIDATE. AND IN FACT, THE INTENT OF THE ORGANIZATION AS A FIBROID C4 IS DELIBERATELY IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. IT DOES NOT ENGAGE IN THAT TYPE OF COMMUNICATION AS A MATTER OF ITS OF ITS PRINCIPLES AND ORGANIZE AN ORGANIZATION. SO, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A VIOLATION HERE AND THAT'S OUR POSITION. YEAH. SO THIS IS LYNN CARTER IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT. UM, I JUST HAVE A POINT OF ORDER AND A CONCERN ABOUT, SO THE PARTY, UM, PECK YOUNG SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF WHAT WAS SENT BY THE CITY CLERK THAT INCLUDED BOTH COMPLAINTS. AND SO IT CONCERNS ME, THE COUNSEL IS SAYING THAT HE ONLY RECEIVED A COPY OF ONE AND IS ONLY RESPONDING TO THE ONE TONIGHT, BECAUSE THERE WAS ALSO A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE, UM, ROBOCALL AS IT'S BEEN, IT WAS IT'S BEEN TERMED. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A DECISION MADE AT THIS POINT AS TO WHETHER MR. BOARD GAL WANTS TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, UM, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT FEEL LIKE HE'S PREPARED TO GO FORWARD ON BOTH COMPLAINTS. UM, AND IF HE'S NOT GOING TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT THAT, THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD PROCEED ON BOTH BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING STAGE. OKAY. APPROPRIATELY. THANK YOU. AND, UM, MR. , UH, UH, I'LL ASK YOU, UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, UH, SINCE THE PRESENTATIONS ARE DONE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? I WOULD, I WAS NOT PROVIDED A COPY OF ANY ROBOCALL BY EITHER MY CLIENTS OR ANYONE AT THE CITY. UH, YOU KNOW, I HAD HEARD THAT THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE WAS A ROBO CALL. MY CLIENT HAS TOLD ME THAT THEY DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY ROBO CALLS, BUT I'VE BEEN, I WOULD MEAN TO REVIEW THAT, TO DETERMINE IF THERE ACTUALLY IS, UH, A COPY OF A ROBOCALL I'VE NOT HEARD OR SEEN ANY OF THAT. SO, UH, IF WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED ON THAT, AND THEN YES, I DO NEED TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. OH, OKAY. WELL, MR. BORGO, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK, UM, WHAT, UM, OUR, UH, UH, LIAISON WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MS. CARTER WAS, WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. AND WHAT I THOUGHT I HAD HEARD TOO, IN YOUR PRESENTATION WAS THAT YOU HAD NOT RECEIVED THE COMPLAINTS, UM, AS THEY WERE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. AND THERE WERE TWO COMPLAINTS, ONE ALLEGED THE VIOLATION BASED ON A FLYER. AND THERE WAS A SEPARATE COMPLAINT THAT ALYSSA VIOLATION BASED ON AUTOMATED, I'D HAD THE COMPLAINT JUST A MOMENT AGO WITH AN AUTOMATED DIALER, I THINK, UM, WAS THE DESCRIPTION. UM, YES. SO IT WAS A VIOLATION, UM, THAT, UH, THAT THE FIVE OH ONE C4 ORGANIZATION, PAPER AND AUTOMATED PHONE CALL TO AUSTIN VOTERS. UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU REPRESENTING TO US THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THAT COMPLAINT? YES, I, I DID NOT RECEIVE THAT COMPLAINT. UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS ORGANIZATION VERSUS OF AUSTIN DID ANY ROBOT CRAWLING, BUT I DID NOT RECEIVE THAT COMPLAINT. [02:45:01] OKAY. OKAY. THEN, UM, MISS, UH, I SEEN MR. LITTLEFIELD, HE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, SO I'LL ASK YOU, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TOO, YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? I THINK THIS, MY, AND I THINK THIS MIGHT SAY SOME TIME AND, AND BE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS I FILED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST, UH, OUR MOBILITY AND VOICES OF BOSTON FOR THE EXACT SAME AUTO CALL, BECAUSE AT NO POINT IN THE AUDIT CALLS, DID THEY SAY WHO, WHO PAID FOR IT? AND I BELIEVE THAT IN THE PREVIOUS ITEM, UH, I DIDN'T TO BE OUR MOBILITY, OUR FUTURE, YOU KNOW, PLED GUILTY TO, TO ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS. AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE AUTO GUY. SO I THINK THAT I'M NOT SURE HOW WE CAN HANDLE THIS PROCEDURALLY, BUT, UM, IF THERE IS A WAY TO, UM, UH, ISN'T IT, UM, MR. BORDELL SAY THAT, THAT, UH, THAT WASN'T THERE. SO MR. BOGLE SAYS, AND IT WAS OUR ABILITY, OUR FUTURE, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH THEN IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH, AND I MADE MYSELF CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE. UM, WELL, UM, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO KIND OF A LARGER CONCERN THAT I THINK COUNCIL, UH, THAT MS. CARTER HAD RAISED. AND I THINK IT'S MORE OF A DUE PROCESS CONCERN THAT IF, UM, MR. BORGELT, IF MR. VAN GAIL'S CLIENT DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT THAT TALKED ABOUT, UM, AUTOMATED DIALERS, UM, THEN, THEN THE COUNSEL AND HIS CLIENT WOULDN'T BE PREPARED TO RESPOND TO AN ALLEGATION THAT THERE WERE VIOLATIONS BASED ON AUTOMATED DIALERS. UM, AND THAT, THAT RAISES, I MEAN, I, I KIND OF SHARE SIMILAR CONCERNS FOR DUE PROCESS PERSONALLY, BUT, UM, COMMISSIONERS, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM OTHERS ABOUT THEIR THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE. UM, AND THEN I HAVE A, I HAVE A THOUGHT, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. UM, THEY DENIED IT. I MEAN, THEY SAID THERE WERE NO ROBOCALLS, MR. LITTLEFIELD APPEARS WILLING TO DROP THAT COMPLAINT. I DON'T SEE WHY WE DON'T JUST DISMISS THAT COMPLAINT. TALK ABOUT THE OTHER ONE. UH, YEAH. SO MR. LITTLEFIELD, LET ME CLARIFY, UM, YOU YOU'RE, WHEN YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE PRIOR ITEM AND THE FACT THAT THE, UM, AUTO DIALING WAS KIND OF INCORPORATED AS PART OF THAT COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT ORGANIZATION. ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO, UH, THAT YOU, YOU DON'T SEE A NEED TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING ON THE AUTO DIALING ISSUE AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS ORGANIZATION? OKAY, GOT IT. SO NOW, OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. UM, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? I'M GOING TO KIND OF OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION? UM, I THINK BEFORE A MOTION. YES. SINCE WE HAVE NOT HEARD, UH, THE ROBO CALL AT ALL, AND ALSO THE BROCHURE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT. THE MAILER, YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO LOOK AT. OKAY. RIGHT. SO, YEAH, NO, I, I AGREE. I AGREE. UM, HERE'S, HERE'S WHERE I AM STRUGGLING. UM, I'M GOING TO LAY ALL MY CARDS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS, I THINK THAT WE'RE PERFECTLY EQUIPPED TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF THE MAILER, JUST TO SEE THE MAILER TO COLLECT EVIDENCE ON IT. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD ELECTION DURING CONVERSATIONS BEFORE IN THIS COMMISSION. I HAVEN'T BEEN PERFECTLY SATISFIED IN THOSE PRIOR HEARINGS WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WE WERE ABLE TO GET. AND I THINK, I THINK A FINAL HEARING WOULD BE USEFUL. UM, SO, UH, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS GOING FORWARD AT THE FINAL HEARING ON THE MAILER, BUT PURDUE PROCESS CONCERNS, NOT GOING TO A FINAL HEARING ON THE AUTODIALER QUESTION, BECAUSE COUNSEL IS REPRESENTING THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE AUTODIALER QUESTION. SO THAT'S MY, YEAH, GO AHEAD. MS. MCCURRY COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. WELL, THANKS. BOTH OF THEM WERE MENTIONED. WE NEED TO GO WITH BOTH OF THEM THOUGH. SOMEBODY HAS A COPY OF THE ROBO CALL AND YOU CAN PLAY THAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE ROBO CALL, IT HAD HAPPENED ON THAT. AND THEN THE MAILER, NO, NO VISUAL OF THE MAYOR. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANT. SURE. MS. MCCORMACK, I MIGHT HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF POINT OF ORDER. YES. UM, [02:50:01] MS. CARTER, SO, UM, LYNN CARTER CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, THE CITY CODE ONLY REQUIRES THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT THERE BE A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE FINAL HEARING TO SHOW A VIOLATION. THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE. UM, ALTHOUGH AS YOU KNOW, LOTS OF PARTIES, DO YOU PRESENT THAT EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS NOT REQUIRED, UM, AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING? SURE. WELL TAKEN. UM, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE HAD, UM, A DIFFERENT PRESENTATION. HAD THEY, UH, HAD ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE AUTODIALER. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE. UM, BUT, UM, I, YOU KNOW, UH, FIND THAT I AM RUNNING LOW ON STEAM AT 10, 10:00 PM, UM, ON INQUIRY OF THE COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS. YEAH. OTHER, THE COMPLAINANT MARK LITTLEFIELD HAS SAID THAT THEY WANT US, THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT. CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DISMISS THE COMPLAINT? WE'VE BEEN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, WE PUT DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE. IT'S NOT THAT, UH, UM, WE WOULDN'T WANT TO NECESSARILY, THE COMMISSIONER JUST HAS, UH, CURRENTLY IN A TOOL, SO PROCEDURE, NO REALLY GOOD WAY TO DO THAT. UM, UH, IT'S IT'S WEATHER. I MEAN, WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. UM, THAT'S HOW WE GET RID OF A COMPLAINT AT THIS STAGE. UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. UH, MS. CARTER, I DO HAVE A PROPOSED SOLUTION. I DO WANT TO GIVE LIKE, UM, VOICE TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS REAL. UM, IF ANYONE ELSE HAS THOUGHTS. OKAY. SO MY THOUGHT IS WE ALREADY HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING THAT, OH YEAH, GO AHEAD. LYNN CARTER. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I'M IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME, I'M GOING TO READ FROM YOU ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO, TO DISMISS. PLEASE DO. UM, SO THE COMMISSION AT ANY TIME DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING MAY ALSO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. IF THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE CONDUCT, WHICH WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THEY PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. UM, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. AND THE FOUR COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION. THE COMPLAINANT OR LEGAL COUNSEL SHALL BE PERMITTED ONE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN A PERIOD TO BE SPECIFIED TO REVISE OR RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT. IT'S KIND OF, YOU KIND OF HAVE THE OPTION OF EITHER POSTPONING TONIGHT OR, UM, TAKING A VOTE. RIGHT. THANK, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. UM, TO THAT END HERE, HERE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND THEN I'LL, UM, HAVE A MOTION. UM, SO MY FIRST THOUGHT IS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OR DECEMBER 2ND, UM, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, UH, SOME PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, UM, SINCE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK EVEN IF WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON THAT DAY, IF THE THINKING THERE AND CALLING THAT HAVING A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON THAT DAY WAS IF WE HAD TO GO TO MORE FINAL HEARINGS, WE HAVE ANOTHER DATE IN DECEMBER. UM, SO I'M COMFORTABLE, UH, WITH, UM, SEPARATING OUT THIS COMPLAINT INTO TWO DIFFERENT THINGS FOR THE TIME BEING, UM, WHERE, WHERE WE CAN DO THE WHOLE THING, BUT POSTPONING AT A MINIMUM, THE AUTODIALER QUESTION TO OUR DECEMBER 2ND SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO ENSURE THAT RESPONDENT HAS RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT. THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROPOSAL. I HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET, BUT I JUST WANT TO THROW IT OUT THERE. I SEE COMMISSIONER DAN BERG'S HAND AND GO FOR IT. YEP. I MOVED THAT. WE POSTPONED THE ENTIRE EARING UNTIL SPECIAL BOARD MEETING. SURE. THERE IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE ENTIRE PRELIMINARY HEARING. I SEE, SORRY. SECOND FROM SECRETARY GO-GURT. I ACCIDENTALLY MUTED MYSELF DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE SOME CHAIR PREROGATIVE AND DISCUSS AND SAY THAT I THINK IT HAS BEEN A LONG NIGHT FOR THIS COMMISSION. UM, AND GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A COMPLICATED SORT OF PROCEDURAL [02:55:01] QUESTION, A POTENTIAL DUE PROCESS QUESTION, UM, I AM COMFORTABLE, UH, VOTING TO POSTPONE THIS TO OUR SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON AT DECEMBER. UM, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, UH, MAYBE, UM, ASK THAT OUR, UH, JUST ROCKSTAR CITY ATTORNEYS CONSULT WITH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE FOR DECEMBER 2ND OR DECEMBER 18TH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS OUR REGULAR MEETING DATE. I MAY BE WRONG. UM, WE HAVE A REGULAR MEETING DATE DECEMBER AS WELL. UM, DECEMBER 9TH. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO EITHER DECEMBER 2ND OR DECEMBER 9TH TO SEE IF, UM, COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT HAVE AVAILABILITY THEN, UM, BUT THE MOTIONS WELL TAKEN, IT'S 10, 15. I FEEL LIKE I SWEAR, UH, UH, SACRED OATH TO THE PEOPLE AT CITY HALL THAT ARE RUNNING THE AP INTO OUR CITY ATTORNEYS THAT WE WOULDN'T GO TO MUCH LATER. AND WE HAVE ANOTHER THING TO TALK ABOUT. UM, SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO START, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER DAN BERGENSON SECRETARY TO BY SECRETARY GILBERT, I'M GOING TO CALL THE EYES. UM, SO FIRST I'M GOING TO, UH, GO TO OUR VOICES, UM, COMMISSIONER KALE ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. UM, DO YOU VOTE OKAY, COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS ON THE MOTION? DO YOU VOTE? AYE. HI. OKAY. UM, I SEE, I'M GOING TO ASK HER HANDS FOR OUR VIDEO COMMISSIONERS. UM, AND I WILL CALL OUT NAMES AS I SEE THEM. I SEE AN ACCOUNT MYSELF CHAIR, SO BROWN, I SEE COMMISSIONER DANBURG VICE-CHAIR OR HURRY, SECRETARY GOBER, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, UM, COMMISSIONER LAURIE COMMISSIONER LEARNER. UM, I THINK I'VE CALLED ALL THE NAMES OF THE EYES. UM, OKAY. I'M GOING TO CALL OUT THE NAYS, UM, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, THE, A LITTLE BIT AND KALE HAVE ALREADY VOTED. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR HANDS VOTING DAY ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A FUTURE DAY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, THE YOU VOTING. NO. ALL RIGHT. NOW ALL THOSE ABSTAINING VIDEO COMMISSIONERS AND START VOICES HAS ALREADY VOTED NO EXTENSION NONE. OKAY. OKAY. UM, LYNN, I BELIEVE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE PASSED. UM, I, I DID NOT KEEP A TICKER ON THAT. UM, YES. OKAY, GREAT. UM, SO I'M GOING TO THANK YOU, UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD AND MR. , I WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO TALK TO THE LIAISON FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FIGURE OUT A BETTER DATE TO DO THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING. THANK YOU FOR THE KISSES MR. LITTLEFIELD, THEY'RE GREATLY APPRECIATED AS WELL. UM, I HOPE, UH, UH, MR. BORDELL, MR. LITTLEFIELD, HAVE A GREAT NIGHT AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, OKAY. Y'ALL ARE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. UM, FAM WE GOT ONE MORE, UM, ITEM OF NEW BUSINESS TO DISCUSS, AND THEN THE OLD BUSINESS, I THINK I'M GOING TO, UH, JUST AS A POINT OF PRIVILEGE, UH, MR. BORGELT, YOUR CAMERA'S ON, I'M JUST GONNA LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT COURTESY CALL. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU AGAIN. UM, UH, JUST, I'M GONNA KIND OF TAKE SOME PREROGATIVE AND SAY THAT, UH, WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO GO OVER OUR OLD BUSINESS UNLESS ANYONE HAS SOMETHING VERY PRESSING TO TALK ABOUT IT. UM, BUT THE LAST ITEM OF NEW BUSINESS THAT WE [4A. Update on Nov. 30th council candidate forum for run-off elections in Council Districts 6 and 10.] HAVE IS, UM, CANDIDATE FORUMS FOR THE RUNOFF ELECTION. UH, SO THERE ARE, I BELIEVE TWO RUNOFF ELECTIONS, AND, UM, AS THE CITY BOARD CLASS COMMISSION, THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CANDIDATE FORUMS. WE ARE PUTTING THAT ON WITH THE HELP OF OUR, UM, AMAZING WORKING GROUP. LEN, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE CANDIDATE ONE? YES. UM, AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE WORKING GROUP FOR NOT INFORMING THEM ABOUT WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS IS DOING THE MODERATED FORUM THAT WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THE FORMAT. ALTHOUGH WE'VE NEVER SET THE FORMAT, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SET BY THE LEAGUE TO ALLOW REBUTTAL SO THAT IT'S MORE OF A DEBATE STYLE THEN HAS BEEN IN THE PAST, JUST IN THE PAST. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN QUESTIONED AN ANSWER, NO REBUTTAL, BUT BECAUSE THERE, THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES FOR, UH, THE TWO DISTRICTS FOR TOTAL. UM, THE LEAGUE IS INTERESTED IN ADDING, UH, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, [03:00:01] UH, BY THE CANDIDATES. IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT, YOU CAN TAKE AN ACTION. YOU CAN TAKE NO ACTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE UPDATE. WHEN, UM, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY THOUGHTS ON ALTERING THE FORMAT TO ALLOW FOR A REBUTTAL, UM, DURING THE FORUM? UM, YES. COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, GO AHEAD. THAT'S HAPPENING ON THIS COMMITTEE SINCE THE GET GO? I THINK THE HYBRID, THE LEAGUE WANTS TO DO IT. THEY DO A VERY GOOD JOB, AND THIS HAS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL YEAR BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HAD LIVE FORUM WITH EQUAL AND VIRTUAL. LET'S DO WHATEVER THEY FEEL IS SURE. COMMISSIONER DAN BERG. I'LL, UH, JUST A NOTE THAT YOU'RE NOT MUTED. UM, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE TOUR. UM, UM, OKAY. SO, UH, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, UM, I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO NECESSARILY TAKE ACTION AND I HAVE FAITH IN THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS. WHO'VE BEEN DOING THESE CANDIDATE FORUMS SINCE TIME AND MEMORIAL THAT THEY CAN, THAT ANY CHANGES TO THE FORMAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE. UM, OKAY. UM, WITH THAT, I THINK THAT COVERS IT, THE OLD BUSINESS, UM, SORRY TO INTERRUPT LYNN CARTER DEPARTMENT, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ON AUDIO AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY BE LISTENING TO IT. THE RUNOFF CANDIDATE FORUM WILL BE NOVEMBER 30TH AT 6:00 PM ON ATX IN, UM, CAUSE I RADIO AND, UM, THE CANDIDATE FORUM WEBSITE WILL HAVE THAT INFORMATION ON IT ON FOR CITY OF AUSTIN. THANK YOU SO MUCH, GLENN, JUST, I SO APPRECIATE THE, THE DESIRE THAT AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY WE'RE GOING TO PLUG WHERE THE CANDIDATE FORUMS ARE AND HOW TO FIND THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALWAYS INTERRUPT ME PLEASE. UM, SO, UM, JUST A QUICK REMINDER OF WHAT THE OLD BUSINESSES THAT WE'LL BE REVISITING DOWN THE LINE. WE'VE GOT OUR WORK IN GROUPS, UM, ON HOW TO ADDRESS THESE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN. WE HAVE AN EQUITY WORKING GROUP, UM, UH, THAT WILL, UM, UH, COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OR FUTURE ACTIONS POTENTIALLY FOR US TO CONSIDER ON EVALUATING RACIAL INJUSTICE AND HOW THE COMMISSION CAN OPERATE MORE FAIRLY. UM, THE, UH, MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING WERE NOT READY FOR THIS MEETING. SO I BELIEVE WE CAN TAKE THEM UP AT OUR FUTURE MEETING THROUGH THE SPECIAL CALLED OR THE DECEMBER REGULAR MEETING. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS BREAK FUTURE AGENDA COMMISSIONERS, ANY SUGGESTIONS FROM OUR AMAZING CITY LIAISON? NO. OKAY. THEN COMMISSIONERS, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR TIME. IT HAS BEEN A LONG NIGHT, UM, AND IT HAS NOT HAD IT'S UM, IT'S NOT, NOT BEEN, WE'VE BEEN HERE LONGER, BUT HAVE WE BEEN HERE LONGER VIRTUALLY THIS IS, I THINK MAYBE A RECORD. I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW IF A CITY BORDER COMMISSIONER HAS EVER GONE LONGER. UM, YEAH, WELL THAT DOESN'T NEED A MOTION ANYMORE. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL IT. I NEED MY SCRIPT. UM, BUT IF THERE WERE A MOTION, I WOULD BE THAN HAPPY TO LET YOU TAKE THE WHEEL ON THAT REPRESENTATIVE. DANBURG UM, ALL RIGHT, WELL THEN I'M JUST GOING TO MARK THAT THE TIME IS 10:23 PM. UM, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, CITY STAFF. UH, THANK YOU, AVI TTM TO INLAND DOLLAR THE BEST. HAVE A GOOD ONE. Y'ALL THANK YOU. THANKS. . * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.