[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
EVENING, EVERYONE.I AM CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.
I CALLED THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER IT IS MARCH 10TH, 2021 AT 6:05 PM.
COMMISSIONERS ARE ATTENDING THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY BE A WEBEX, AND THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED DUE TO LIMITED APX AND CAPACITY.
THIS MEETING IS NOT BEING BROADCAST LIVE ON ATX THEN I'LL CALL THE ROLL.
SO COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOUR COMPUTERS OR DEVICES AND ANSWER OUT LOUD WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED AND THEN YOU YOUR DEVICE.
UM, MY, MY AGENDA IS IN MY BAG.
UH, SO I'M GOING TO CALL MEMBERS AS I SEE THEM.
AND THEN I'LL CALL THOSE THAT I DON'T SEE, UM, FOR PURPOSES OF THE ROLE.
SO STARTING WITH MYSELF CHAIR.
SO BLAND PRESENT SECRETARY GOBER COMMISSIONER, LAURIE COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG COMMISSIONER DANBURG PRESENT COMMISSIONER LEARNER, COMMISSIONERS, THINK VICE-CHAIR OR HURRY, UH, IS NOT YET HERE.
UM, SIMILARLY COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS IS NOT HERE AT THE MOMENT.
UM, AND I BELIEVE, UH, COMMISSIONER RYAN WILL NOT BE ATTENDING THIS MEETING.
DID I GET EVERYONE LYNN? I'M SORRY, THE CHAIR, UH, UM, FORMER CHAIR, KALE, ARE YOU PRESENT? RIGHT? I APOLOGIZE.
BUT ON MY PART, UM, WITH THAT, WE HAVE A CORE, UM, UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
SO NEXT WE HAVE CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS.
WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS THAT ARE REGISTERED, UH, MS. DONNA DAVIDSON AND MR. MARK LITTLEFIELD.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SPEAK WHEN WE CALL ITEM TWO ON OUR AGENDA.
SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO OUR AGENDA.
[1. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
ITEM ONE, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION.UM, SO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN UP IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER.
WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS ITEM TWO B IN TWO-SEAM FIRST WITH ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY LYNN CARTER WILL ATTEND.
AND THEN THE LAST ITEM TWO IS GOING TO BE STEVE SHEETS, OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THAT MATTER, WHO WILL BE ATTENDING AT THAT TIME? UM, LET ME, UH, GET THE MAGIC WORDS FOR MY CLOSEST SESSION IN FRONT OF ME.
SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP THREE ITEMS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION FIVE, FIVE, 1.071.
WE'LL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING ITEM.
GIVE ME A MOMENT TO PULL THOSE.
LET'S SEE, I'LL CALL THEM OUT ON THE AGENDA.
THEY ARE ITEMS TO A, TO B IN TUSI AND I WILL READ THEM, FORGIVE ME A MILLION TABS OPEN AT THE MOMENT, READS THEM IN SHORTER.
IT'S ACTUALLY, UM, LYNN CARTER FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN ITEMS, ONE A, UM, B AND C.
UM, DO YOU NEED ASSISTANCE WITH READING THOSE? UM, BECAUSE, UH, MY I'M THERE'S SEEMS LIKE MY COMPUTER IN OPEN REVOLT, AND TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT TAB OPEN.
UM, LET ME, IF YOU GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT, I AM SORRY, COMMISSIONERS AND PARTIES.
IT WAS ONE, A ONE B ONE C CORRECTLY.
[00:05:01]
YES.SO WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ITEM ONE, A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST STEVE AUSTIN.
NOW, WHICH COMPLAINT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTIONS TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO THREE POLITICAL COMMITTEES, AND TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO SIX VIOLIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, DATA OF CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO DISCOVERIES CAMPAIGN FINANCE ALSO ITEM ONE B COMPLAINTS FILED BY MARK BELLFIELD AGAINST BACK YOUNG VOICES OF AUSTIN, WHICH COMPLAINTS ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE THREE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED.
ALSO WE WILL BE GOING INTO SESSION UNDER ITEM ONCE FEE, WHETHER CITY CODE CAN BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE AUTHORITY FOR CIVIL FINES AS A SANCTION FOR VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.
SO, UH, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ADAM'S ANNOUNCE AND HEARING NONE THEN NESTLE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS SIX, 10:00 PM COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO, BUT YOU WILL FIND THE LINK TO THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, MEETING IN YOUR INBOX.
AND AFTER THAT WE'LL JOIN BACK IN HER OWN COMMUNITY.
AND WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ THE EXITING THE CLOSED SESSION SPEECH.
SO WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THREE ITEMS. THEY WERE, UM, ITEMS, ONE, A ONE B AND ONE C, WHICH RELATES TO A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLE FUEL AGAINST PECK YOUNG BOYS, THE BOSTON, THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST STEVE AUSTIN NOW, AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CITY COMMISSIONS, UM, CAN UNDER LAW, UH, ISSUE MONETARY CIVIL FINES OR PENALTIES.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I
[2. PENDING COMPLAINT – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS]
THINK WE ARE ALL CLEAR TO MOVE INTO AGENDA ITEM TWO.I'M AGAIN WITH MY SCRIPTS BEING ALL OUT OF WORK.
UM, WE FIRST ASK IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION IS, IS TO CONSIDERING AGENDA ITEM TWO, AT LEAST THIS IS THE EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATED TO COMPLAINTS BY MARK WHITFIELD AGAINST STEVE AUSTIN NOW.
I SEE NONE, UM, IN THAT CASE, UM, OKAY.
I APOLOGIZE, BUT I HAD THIS OPEN.
YOU'RE DOING GREAT LOUISE BANKS.
UM, LET ME JUST READ FROM THIS.
SO ITEM TWO IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TO THE FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING REQUESTS FOR RECORDS AND OR WITNESSES IN REGARD TO THE COMPLAINTS FILED ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2020 BY MARK BATTLEFIELD AGAINST STEVE AUSTIN.
NOW, WHICH COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTIONS TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO, THREE POLITICAL COMMITTEES, AND TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO SIX FILING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, DATA OF CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, WHICH RELATES TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE.
STEVE SHEETS IS APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM IS PRESENT.
AND FIRST I'M GOING TO CALL ON THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
SO WE HAVE COUNSEL FOR SAVE AUSTIN OUT.
MS. DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON WAS THE FIRST SPEAKER TO REGISTER.
AND THEN WE HAD MR. LITTLEFIELD, THE COMPLAINANT WHO WAS ALSO REGISTERED TO SPEAK, UH, THE PARTIES HAVE PROVIDED WRITTEN REQUESTS FOR EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, THE PARTIES.
UM, IT SEEMS WERE UNABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT ON NARROWING DOWN THOSE REQUESTS.
UM, SO, UH, I'M GOING TO FIRST, UH, I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE, UM, OUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THREE MINUTES.
LYNN IT'S IN MY, IN MY DOING THAT RIGHT SINCE THEY WERE REGISTERED FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS.
THEN MS. DAVIDSON, SINCE YOU WERE REGISTERED FIRST, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
UM, AND YOU MAY BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR STANDING ON THAT LAST MINUTE CONTINUANCE THAT I REQUESTED LAST MONTH.
I HAD SOME PERSONAL ISSUES TO ATTEND TO, AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR GRACIOUSNESS AND ALLOWING US THIS EXTENSION.
[00:10:01]
UM, WANT TO THANK MR. LITTLEFIELD.WE DID TRY TO COMMUNICATE AND, UM, COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT.
UM, WE WERE GOING TO, UH, NARROW OUR TIME PERIOD TO THE TIME PERIOD THAT HE REQUESTED IN, UM, OF THE EVIDENCE OF OUR REQUEST.
AND, UH, WE ALSO, UM, LET HIM KNOW THAT WE DON'T EVEN BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYTHING RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST HE MADE.
IF YOU'VE GOT IT IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, HE ASKED FOR THE TOTAL, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS IN DONOR LIST.
UM, WE DID A QUICK LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE HAD GOTTEN AND HOW MUCH WE HAD SPENT.
AND IT WAS WELL BELOW THE 25% THRESHOLD THAT I'VE MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE IS WHAT CONSTITUTES A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE FOR PURPOSES OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION? UM, IT WAS ONLY, IT WAS LESS THAN 10%, UH, OUR EXPENDITURES FROM THAT TIME PERIOD.
SO WE OFFERED TO GIVE HIM TOTAL AMOUNTS INSTEAD OF THE DONATION AMOUNTS.
UM, WE ALSO OFFERED TO LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD TO THE, AS I SAID, THE TIME PERIOD, HE REFERENCED FROM JANUARY ONE, THROUGH JUNE 30TH FOR THE REQUEST WE MADE OF HIM.
UM, WE ALSO LET THEM KNOW WE DID NOT HAVE ANY CONTRACTS THAT WERE RESPONSIVE TO THAT EVIDENCE REQUEST.
SO IF YOU WERE TO REQUEST THAT OF US, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTRACTS, UH, WITH ANYONE TO PROVIDE, UM, THOSE SERVICES.
AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE OTHER ITEM.
UM, HE REQUESTED THAT WE SAID WE DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE AT ALL.
AND THAT WAS ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANY TRAVIS COUNTY CANDIDATES.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE YOU ALL AWARE OF THAT AS YOU LOOK OVER OUR, UM, INFORMATION, IF REQUEST IT, THERE PROBABLY IS NOTHING RESPONSIVE TO EITHER OF THOSE TWO ITEMS AND WE WERE MORE THAN WILLING TO GIVE HIM TOTAL AMOUNTS SO THAT WE COULD SHOW WHAT OUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN ALL ALONG IS THAT IT IS NOT A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE.
UH, THE POLITICAL ACTIVITY WAS NOT A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE FOR SAVE AUSTIN.
NOW, AS YOU ALL ARE PROBABLY AWARE, UM, SAVE AUSTIN NOW, PAC EXISTS.
AT THIS POINT, THERE IS A PETITION, UM, UH, BALLOT LANGUAGE.
THAT'S A PROPOSITION NOW ON THE MAY 1ST BALLOT.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, GIVEN NOTICE TO THE CITY, WE HAVE A PACK AND WE ARE ENDEAVORING TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY ON THAT MATTER.
SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION, HOWEVER, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO TO ADDRESS THIS TO MR. CHAIRMAN.
SO I AM OF THE, UM, MINDSET THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO.
WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF MY CLIENT, UH, PROLONGING THIS, UH, THEM HAVING TO SPEND MONEY ON ME AS AN ATTORNEY TO DEFEND THEM IN THIS.
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE RESULTS.
AND SINCE YOU ALL JUST SPOKE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT CIVIL PENALTIES, ET CETERA, I AM CURIOUS, CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE RESOLVED WITHOUT A HEARING? UM, I'LL, I'M HAPPY TO, UH, ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I WANT TO GIVE MR. LITTLEFIELD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIS THREE MINUTES, AND THEN WHEN WE OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION AMONG COMMISSIONERS, I CAN JUMP IN FIRST TO, UH, TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS IF THAT'S OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, OF COURSE, MR. LITTLEFIELD, IF YOU WERE HERE, UM, I'M GOING TO, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
AND WHEN I START SPEAKING, YOU'LL GET THREE MINUTES AND YEAH, GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AGAIN THIS EVENING.
I'M SURE Y'ALL ARE, UH, ALWAYS EXCITED TO SEE ME AT YOUR MEETING.
UM, UH, AS REFERENCED TO MY ETHICS REVIEW COMPLAINT FROM OCTOBER 18TH, 2020, SAVE AUSTIN.
NOW THE ACTION BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST, 2020 AND JUNE 30, 2020, UNDERTAKEN WITH THE CLINICAL PURPOSE OF ASSESSING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND MAKING POLITICAL EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT ITS ITS PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE REPEALING THE CITY COUNCIL'S LEGISLATION TRIGGERED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS DUE BY JULY 15, 2020 UNDER CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO 54 OF THE TEXAS ETHICS CODE.
THE EVIDENCE I'M REQUESTING WILL DETERMINE A SAVE AUSTIN NOW TO ACTION TRIGGER THOSE ACTUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
I'M REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS SIX MONTHS OF ALL DONOR INFORMATION FROM JANUARY ONE TO JUNE 30TH, 2026 MONTHS OF EXPENDITURE INFORMATION, SIX MONTHS OF ALL EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION FROM SAVE OFTEN NOW OR THE REPRESENTATIVE, UM, UH, INCLUDING EMAILS, DIRECT MAIL TO PATIENTS, SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, UH, SIX MONTHS, UH, UH, INTERNAL
[00:15:01]
COMMUNICATIONS, UH, ANY CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SAY BOSTON NOW AND SERVICE PROVIDERS, UM, UH, AND ALL FIVE OH ONE C UH, PAPERWORK, UH, AND FILINGS FROM SAY BOSTON NOW.UH, AND I'M ALSO WILLING TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, UH, UH, IN ORDER FOR THIS INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED UNDER A CONTRACT, UH, CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
UM, WHAT SAVE AUSTIN NOW IS PROPOSING, UH, WHICH IS JUST THE AGGREGATE INFORMATION, UH, WILL NOT HELP THE COMMISSIONER TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF THIS COMPLAINT.
THE COMPLAINT IS NOT THAT THEY RAISED OR SPENT, UH, MORE THAN THE DOLLAR THRESHOLD.
UH, THE COMPLAINT IS THAT THEY RAISED AND SPENT MONEY AS THE PACK WOULD DO SO.
THE AGGREGATE INFORMATION I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD, UH, BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSION.
UM, AND FINALLY, UH, ON THE SAVE AUSTIN NOW, UH, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE FROM ME, UH, I'M GOING TO, UM, IF THE, IF THE COMMISSION THANKS FOR SOME REASON THAT IS GOING TO BE, UH, UH, HELPFUL IN OUR DETERMINATION FOR THIS COMPLAINT.
UM, I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AND, AND THEN I WOULD PROVIDE, UH, BUT I DO NOT SAY THAT, UM, UH, IT'D BE APPROPRIATE, THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I, ONE OF MY COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. LITTLEFIELD.
UM, SO, UH, CIRCLING BACK, UM, MS. DAVIDSON TO YOUR QUESTIONS, UM, AND I'M JUST GOING TO RESTATE THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT I, UH, HAVE THEM CORRECTLY.
YOUR QUESTIONS WERE, UH, WHAT ARE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES, UH, IN THIS CASE AND, UM, UH, THAT, THAT WAS THE GIST OF YOUR QUESTION, WASN'T IT? UM, COULD AVOID PEOPLE.
YES, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SUMMATION MR. CHAIR.
SO ASSUMING, UM, NO SCHEDULING, UH, HICCUPS AND YOU'LL HAVE TO EXCUSE MY DOG IN THE BACKGROUND.
UM, IT ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS IN SCHEDULING, A FINAL HEARING, UM, UH, WE, WE VOTED IN OUR LAST MEETING TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING.
UM, AND WE ALSO DETERMINED THAT WE WANTED TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT THESE EVIDENTIARY MATTERS IN A SEPARATE MEETING.
UM, THIS WAS, THIS MIGHT'VE BEEN IN JANUARY IF I'M GETTING MY MONTHS WRONG, EXCUSE ME.
BUT, UM, SO, UH, IF FINAL HEARING, UM, IS, IS GOING TO HAPPEN, UM, AGAIN, LYNN JUMP IN, IF I'M RUNNING MYSELF OFF A CLIFF, UM, AS FAR AS THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES AT THE FINAL HEARING, UM, THERE, WE COULD, UH, THE CAN EITHER MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OR THAT THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION IN WHICH CASE THE, UM, ISSUES DISMISSED FUNCTIONALLY.
UM, AND IF THE COMMISSION DOES FIND THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, UM, THEN THERE IS, UH, THERE ARE THINGS OUTLINED IN CITY CODE, UM, AND I CAN, UH, BRIEFLY RUN THROUGH THOSE.
THEY, UH, I BELIEVE, UM, FOR THIS KIND OF VIOLATION, UM, IT AMOUNTS TO LETTERS, UM, BUT THERE ARE ALSO, UH, CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS, UM, THAT CARRY DISTINCT, UH, A COUPLE OF DISTINCT SANCTIONS.
UM, SO, UH, LET ME KNOW IF THAT WAS A SUFFICIENT ANSWER.
I CAN GIVE YOU THE CODE PROVISIONS AS WELL.
SO THERE'S TWO DASH TWO, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR NINE LAYS OUT SPECIFICALLY THE CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS, UM, AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR EIGHT EIGHT GENERAL SANCTIONS THAT WE CAN APPLY IN CASES.
UH, LYNN, DID I GET ANYTHING WRONG IN THIS DAVIDSON? WAS THAT, IS THAT A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION? UM, IT, IT DOES HELP ME KNOW THAT THERE IS A, UH, FULL HEARING GOING TO BE CONDUCTED EITHER WAY, REGARDLESS OF HOW WE MIGHT WANT TO RESOLVE IT.
SO YES, THAT DOES ANSWER MY QUESTION.
SO THE FIRE'S VIOLATION DOES IN FACT EXIST.
UH, WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH SANCTIONED COURT.
WE FIND THIS VIOLATION DOES NOT EXIST.
THEN WE WOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, UM, IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AT THAT
[00:20:01]
HEARING.IT WOULD BE ANY EVIDENCE THAT WAS PUT FORTH BY THE PARTIES.
AND OBVIOUSLY IF, UH, THERE'S EVIDENCE AN ADMISSION, ESSENTIALLY, IF THERE IS AN ADMISSION THAT WOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, UH, IN TERMS OF RESOLVING IT AND THEN WHATEVER EVIDENCE BAYLOR WANT IN FRONT OF US, THAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE, UH, HOW WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
SO IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WE RECEIVE AS ANY EVIDENCE THAT'S, THAT'S MADE AVAILABLE, THAT WE REQUEST THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE.
AND OF COURSE, SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE OFFERED AND WE'VE SEEN THIS IN THE PAST IS JUST AN ADMISSION ON ONE OF THE PARTIES ACCOUNTS.
AND I'LL, UH, THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
AND I'LL JUST PIGGYBACK, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, THERE, UH, THE, THE POINT OF THIS MEETING, UM, AND THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO HOPEFULLY FIND A CONSENSUS ON THINGS THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY EVIDENCE THAT ONE PARTY OR ANOTHER DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO CURRENTLY, OTHERWISE YOU ALL COULD JUST BRING WHATEVER EVIDENCE YOU WANTED, UM, AT A FINAL HEARING, UH, THAT YOU HAD AT YOUR DISPOSAL.
UM, SO, UH, THAT, THAT IS THE GOAL.
AND WITH THAT IN MIND, UH, COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION AS HIS SECRETARY GOLDBERG GO FOR IT.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A POTENTIAL OF THE RESPONDENT, MAYBE MAKING AN ADMISSION IN WHICH POINT THE HEARING THE FINAL HEARING WOULD REALLY JUST TURN ON WHAT WAS THE MEN'S RAYA OF THE, OF THE RESPONDENT.
AND, AND SO FOR IF, IF THAT'S THE INTENTION THAT WOULD DEFINITELY COLOR TO ME, WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AND PROBABLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
AND SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THE PARTIES COULD BASICALLY COME TO SOME LATER AGREEMENT ON IS A WE'LL AGREE TO THIS IF, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE AGREE TO BASICALLY LIABILITY, UH, BUT WE'VE OPENED THE DETERMINATION ON THEM.
ANDREA WILL, WILL YOU AGREE TO ACCEPT THIS LESSER AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE? JUST, JUST MY THOUGHT SINCE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STARTING TONIGHT.
ANY, ANY, UM, OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A DISCUSSION PERIOD WHERE WE'RE TECHNICALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ASKING THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS, DIRECT QUESTIONS.
UM, UH, WE CAN MOVE ON TO WHEN WE CAN.
WELL, UH, THE, THE PROPER WAY FOR US TO, I MEAN, WE CAN, LET ME CLARIFY, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
WE JUST DON'T WANT TO KIND OF INVITE OPEN SOLILOQUIES.
AND SO ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE THANK YOU AS WELL, JERRY, THANK YOU.
ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE FOR RESPONDENT IS TO WHAT EXTENT WILL IT BE PROVOCATIVE IN ANY WAY, RATHER THAN IN A TERMINATING WHETHER OR NOT SAVE AUSTIN NOW HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION? TO WHAT EXTENT WILL IT BE PROBATIVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT AND THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS, CRAIG, BRAD COSAR, ET CETERA, DOWN A HOME BY HANDCUFFS.
HOW IS THAT RELEVANT IN RESPONDENT'S VIEWPOINT? THAT'S RELEVANT IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS CONSIDERED A POLITICAL ACTIVITY AS OPPOSED TO EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND, UH, IF WE VIEW SOMETHING AS EDUCATIONAL WITH A MENTION OF THE PETITION OR, OR THE NEED FOR THAT WHILE WE'RE ALSO INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE STATUS IS ON THINGS, UH, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, THE COMPLAINANT IS REFERRING TO, UH, IN SO FAR AS MEN'S RAYA.
UM, OBVIOUSLY FOR US, WE NEVER INTENTIONALLY DID ANYTHING TO VIOLATE THE LAW.
SO THERE WAS NEVER ANY INTENTION TO, WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT LOOKS LIKE WE DID TO Y'ALL.
UM, SO THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONVERSATIONS WERE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, WAS ATTRIBUTED TO US THAT MAY HAVE COME FROM SOMEONE ELSE THAT WAS SUPPORTING OUR, UH, ENDEAVOR THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
AND THAT COMMUNICATION, I GUESS I COULD MAKE A PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT INVOLVED, UH, CITY OFFICIALS, WHICH WOULD STILL BE HELPFUL.
UM, BUT THAT WOULD HELP US THEN PREPARE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE VIEW THIS AS EDUCATIONAL
[00:25:01]
OR, AND, AND A MENTION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.WHEREAS WE DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS TO BE TOTALLY POLITICAL.
WE WOULD JUST NEED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS THAT COMPLAINANT BASED HIS OPINIONS ON, AND FORGIVE ME FOR NOT BEGGING FULLY UP ON THE ENTIRE POLITICAL SCENE IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT WHAT BASIS IS THERE TO, UH, CONNECT MR. LITTLEFIELD AND THEN THESE OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS, AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPLAINT ITSELF, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF ANY, UH, ANYTHING DOES EXIST, BUT IF ANYTHING DID, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
UH, WE KNOW WHAT WE PRODUCED AND WE KNOW WHAT OUR POSITION IS ON WHAT WAS PRODUCED.
AND SO ANY INFORMATION THAT WE CAN HAVE TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON, UH, COMPLAINANTS POSITION ON THIS, WHICH WE STILL THINK WE WERE DOING EVERYTHING IN A PERFECTLY LEGAL WAY.
UM, SO OBVIOUSLY WE DISAGREE ON THAT, BUT, UM, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND INSIGHTFUL FOR ME AND HELP ME TO PRESENT OUR DEFENSE AND I'M MUCH MORE, UM, EDUCATED AND INFORMED MANNER.
THANKS FOR THAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
SO A SIMILAR QUESTION FOR MR. LITTLEFIELD, UM, COULD YOU EXPLAIN, UM, IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS ARE BELOW THE THRESHOLDS THAT MS. DAVIDSON STATED, HOW WOULD THE INDIVIDUAL VALUES INSTEAD OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS MATTER? SO IN THE, UH, IT IS, IT IS R IT IS MY OPINION THAT SAME AUSTIN NOW WAS, UM, UH, NOT CREATED FOR EDUCATION, THAT IT WAS NOT CREATED TO, UH, EDUCATE THE PUBLIC THAT IT WAS CREATED TO, UM, UH, TO, TO DELIVER, TO COLLECT THESE PETITIONS.
AND SO I THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR DONOR INFORMATION, I THINK THEY LOOK AT THEIR EXPENDITURES, YOU WILL SEE THAT, UM, UH, I THINK, I THINK WILL, THE COMMISSION WILL LOSE OR SEE OR NOT SEE THAT, UM, UH, THAT OBVIOUSLY THE MONEY RAISED AND THE MONEY SPENT, WENT TO THE PETITION.
THAT, SO BASICALLY YOU'RE JUST NOT ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS THAT IT WAS BELOW THOSE THRESHOLDS.
THE ORGANIZATION SAID THAT AGAIN, THAT'S ABOUT THE, THE COMMUNICATION, AND THAT'S ALL I ASKED ABOUT ANY CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SAVE AUSTIN NOW AND ANY SERVICE PROVIDERS, BECAUSE THEY SAID THAT THEY WORKED WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS AS A, WHETHER IT WAS WITH VOLUNTEER EFFORTS OR, OR, OR OTHER ACTIONS I SAID, WELL, PLEASE SEND ME ANY, ANY, ANY SUPPLEMENTATION OR PAPERWORK YOU HAVE ABOUT THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY, UH, SHOW US EVIDENCE OF THAT AND I'LL GO, MAN.
SO THIS QUESTION IS TO BOTH PARTIES, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THAT.
COULD YOU JUST EXPAND ON THE DISTINCTION WITH THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT IS SIGNIFICANT OR NOT SIGNIFICANT? AND, UH, MS. DAVIDSON, DO YOU GO FIRST? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UH, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE'S A TEXAS ETHICS CONVENTION ROLE THAT SAYS THAT, AND IT WAS, UM, I BELIEVE NOT NECESSARILY ADDRESSED IN FIVE OH ONE C4, BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY TO, UM, TO SHOW THAT AS FIVE OH ONE C FOURS CAN PARTICIPATE THE FAKE TO A LIMITED EXTENT IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, BUT IF IT MEETS A CERTAIN THRESHOLD AND I BELIEVE IN THE RULE, IT'S 25%, UH, IN A CALENDAR YEAR OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THEN YOU HAVE TO REGISTER AS A PACK.
SO IN RELIANCE, UPON THAT LAW, ON THAT RULE, ON THAT INTERPRETATION FROM THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, AND WE JUST DID BALLPARK FIGURES FOR OUR REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES DURING THE PERIOD DONE, UH, RAISED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND WE SPENT LESS THAN $10,000.
SO WE DON'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO 25% ACTIVITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO HAVE REGISTERED A PACK.
AND, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SAY THAT WE STILL DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE NEEDED TO REGISTER AS BACK UNTIL WE MET THOSE THRESHOLDS.
[00:30:01]
THAT'S, WHAT'S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT.UM, THE MONEY BEING RAISED, UM, WAS TO GO TO ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW IT WAS SPENT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE'RE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AND THIS ISN'T EVEN TRYING TO PARSE OUT WHAT KIND OF EXPENDITURES, JUST LOOKING AT THE BANK STATEMENTS.
UH, WE ARE WELL BELOW 25% ON ALL EXPENDITURES.
SO EVEN IF YOU TRY TO COUCH THEM AS POLITICAL EXPENDITURES, WE'RE STILL BEING WE'RE WAY BELOW THE THRESHOLD AS PROVIDED FOR BY RULE INTERPRETING WHAT IS A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE, ET CETERA, FOR PURPOSES OF STATE LAW AND FEDERAL LAW.
THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS JUST BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT MAKES SENSE TO ASK FOR DONOR INFORMATION, DO WE NEED DONOR INFORMATION OR DO WE JUST NEED CONTRIBUTION INFORMATION OR DO WE NEED IT AT ALL, ET CETERA, OR DO WE NEED, HOW MUCH WAS EXPENDED OR DO WE NEED TO ACTUALLY KNOW HOW WAS EXPENDED? SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, NOT TO NECESSARILY TRY TO LITIGATE THIS HERE, BUT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PARTIES, UH, PERSPECTIVE IS, UM, WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE LORD IS SAYING, JUST TO KIND OF REPEAT BACK TO YOU.
WHAT I BELIEVE YOU SAID IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION BULLS ARE THAT, UH, AN ORGANIZATION DOES NOT NEED TO REGISTER AS A PACK IF NO, MORE THAN A CERTAIN THRESHOLD.
I THINK HE SAID 25%, UH, ALL 20, IF NO, MORE THAN 25% OF ALL EXPENDITURES ARE USED OR ARE USED, UH, FOR POLITICAL SPEECH OR FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.
AND DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE THE OPINION? I HAVE A SITE TO THE OPINION.
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT RULE NUMBER IT IS.
UH, IF YOU JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A, IT ACTUALLY CHANGED.
IT IS IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION RULES.
IT USED TO BE A SUB 20 AND IT IS NOW CHANGED.
SO I USED TO KNOW THE OLD SITE, BUT IF YOU CAN GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, I WILL GET ONLINE AND GET YOU THAT SPECIFIC CITATION SO THAT YOU WILL HAVE THAT FOR YOUR REFERENCE, SIR.
AND WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I WILL, UH, GO OVER TO THE COMPLAINANT.
AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT THRESHOLD, ASSUMING IT EXISTS AND I HAVE GOOD REASON TO LEAVE.
IT DOES, BUT ONCE WE GET MORE DETAILS ON THAT, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IS INSIGNIFICANT OR INSIGNIFICANT IN, IN, IN, UH, CONSIDERING YOUR REQUEST? BECAUSE I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT, UH, THIS IS THE SECOND WITH THE, UH, THE SECOND INSTANCE THAT I'M AWARE OF WHERE A PETITION EFFORT WAS UNDERTAKEN THROUGH A NONPROFIT SO THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT KNOW THE DONORS OR THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURES, UH, LIKE WHO WAS BEHIND, UH, UH, GATHERING PETITIONS.
UM, UH, AND SO THIS, THIS ORGANIZATION, UH, THEY, THEY DIDN'T UNDERTAKE ONE, SANDRA TOOK TWO TO TWO SEPARATE, UH, PETITION EFFORTS.
UM, AND SO IT IS PERHAPS TO BE POSSIBLE THAT IN THE TIMEFRAME THAT THIS COMPLAINT COVERS THAT, UH, THAT THEY RAISED A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THEY ONLY SPENT 10, UM, UH, AND THAT IT'S IN THE SECOND, SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR WHERE, UH, WHERE, WHERE, WHERE, WHERE MORE MONEY WAS SPENT.
UM, UH, AND, UH, MAYBE THAT'S, MAYBE THAT'S, WHAT'S A CURVATURE HERE WHO KNOWS.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT, UH, IF THE, WE HAVE THESE RULES ABOUT, UH, ABOUT, UH, ABOUT THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF DONORS AND EXPENDITURES IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY.
UM, AND SO I, UH, I AM HOPEFUL THAT THE COMMISSION WILL REQUEST THIS INFORMATION, EVEN IF IT'S UNDER A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
UM, UH, SO THAT, SO THAT WE WILL KNOW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT, I THINK TO THIS COMMISSION, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE TO REQUEST.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS, ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT THAT THERE IS A THRESHOLD? AND IF THAT THRESHOLD HAS NOT BEEN MET, THEN THE ORGANIZATION DOES NOT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE GAMING THE SYSTEM OR USING THE RULES, THERE ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT THAT THE RULES
[00:35:01]
EXIST AND THAT IF A RELIGION DOESN'T MEET THE THRESHOLD, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER AS A PAC, ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION RULES.I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT RULE, SO I'M NOT GOING TO, UH, I AM FAMILIAR.
I AM MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY OF BOSTON RULES, AND I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT OUR RULES SAY ABOUT ELECTIONEERING AND CAMPAIGNS.
UM, UH, SO ON THAT ONE I'M COMMISSIONER, I CAN'T, I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT QUESTIONS AND THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH.
AND THAT'S A VERY, UH, STRAIGHTFORWARD RESPONSE.
DO YOU, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE INTERPLAY OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION RULES, TO THE EXTENT YOU'RE AWARE OF THEM AND THEN HOW THEY WOULD IMPACT, UH, THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE? WELL, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN CO EVEN SAYS, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BUT AT THE SUPREMACY, WHEN I SAID THAT'S THE RIGHT TERM, BUT EVEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE, YOU KNOW, REFLECT BACK AS TO WHAT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, ELECTRONIC WAY.
UM, BUT ADOPT THAT THE SAME OFTEN, BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT ON THE OTHER PRODUCTS THAT WERE, UH, IF IT DOESN'T,
AND I THINK THAT OUR CODE APPLY HERE.
ALL RIGHT, RESPONDENT, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOCATE THAT SITE? YES, THEY HAVE.
AND I'VE ACTUALLY SENT IT TO, UH, YOUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND I'VE COPIED MR. LITTLEFIELD ON IT.
UH, IT IS, AND RULE 20.1 SUB 17, WHERE IT HAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE IS, HOW A GROUP, AND YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPLE PURPOSE.
WHAT CONSTITUTES, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES? IT'S A VERY DETAILED RULE THAT WE ABIDE PLAY TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FOUR.
AND SO YOU SAID A RULE 20.1 SUBSECTION 17.
THAT IS CORRECT ON THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION WEBSITE.
AND I DID FORWARD IT TO MR. SHEETS AND MS. CARTER AND MR. LITTLEFIELD.
I BET I'VE GOT IT IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, SO JUST TO, IF YOU'LL HUMOR ME FOR A MOMENT, I'M GOING TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT I, SO CITY OF AUSTIN CODE, UH, DEFINES A POLITICAL COMMITTEE AS IT'S DEFINED IN TEXAS LAW, RIGHT.
THAT IS RIGHT IN TEXAS LAW, DEFINES A POLITICAL MINUTE COMMITTEE AS TWO OR MORE PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE, ACCEPTING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OR MAKING POLITICAL EXPENDITURES WITH SOME OTHER THINGS.
SO THEN WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT ALL THIS CLEAR PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT, UH, DO PRINCIPLE PURPOSES, IT'S DEFINED BY TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION RULE RULE 20.1 SUB 17, UM, IS THAT, UH, THE, UH, GROUP WOULD BE, UH, HAVE A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE OF, UM, MAKING POLITICAL EXPENDITURES, INDUSTRIALLY A PAC.
UM, IF THE GROUP SPENDS MORE THAN 25% OF ITS ANNUAL EXPENSES TO MAKE EXPENDITURES WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR, UM, TO POLITICAL EXPENDITURES, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLE PURPOSE ISN'T NECESSARILY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'RE A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE IS A FACT YOU FALL UNDER THAT, BUT IF YOU'RE A FIVE OH ONE C4, YOUR PRINCIPAL'S PURPOSE IS NOT TO BE A PAC.
SO I JUST, I KIND OF WANT TO WALK THROUGH THIS RULE AND MAKE SURE THAT I, UM, I KIND OF UNDERSTAND NOT BEING AN EXPERT ON TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION RULES.
UM, LIKE I ASSUME THAT YOU MAY BE MORE OF AN EXPERT THAN I AM.
UM, SO THERE'S UNDER SUBSECTION 17, SUBDIVISION B UM, SAYS A GROUP AS A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
IF THE PROPORTION OF THE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GROUP IS MORE THAN 45% WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR.
UM, SO I WANTED TO JUST SEE IF IT'S PART OF THIS EVIDENTIARY DISCUSSION.
UM, SAVE AUSTIN NOW WAS ABLE TO DELINEATE THE KINDS OF CONTRIBUTIONS THAT IT HAD RECEIVED, UH, IN THE
[00:40:01]
CALENDAR YEAR IN QUESTIONS, UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND, UH, MOST OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS AS FAR AS ON A, UH, WERE NOT DESIGNATED AS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, UH, THEY WERE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIVE OH ONE C4, WHICH ARE NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE, BUT, UH, THEY WERE JUST GENERALLY DONATED TO SAVE AUSTIN NOW FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.UM, DO, DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD BE, UM, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE A WAY WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO KNOW NO.
THAT, UM, TO KNOW KIND OF WHERE, WHAT KINDS OF CONTRIBUTIONS, UM, AMOUNT OF, TO WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE, UM, GIVEN, GIVEN THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE MULTIPLE, UM, WAYS A GROUP MAY HAVE A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE, THE KIND OF PRINCIPLE PURPOSE THAT WOULD MAKE IT A PACK.
AND I JUST KIND OF WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE SORT OF GOT OUR, GOT OUR BASIS COVERED SINCE, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE PART OF THE EVIDENCE YOU WANT TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE OR, UM, RELATES TO THIS JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.
UM, MR. LITTLEFIELD, LET'S SEE, I SEE YOUR HAND RAISED.
SO I'M GOING TO POSE IT TO YOU, UM, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT.
SO, SO I HAVE AN INCOMPLETE LIST, UH, FACEBOOK AND MESSAGES WHERE SAME AUSTIN NOW IS ASKING FOR CONTRIBUTION IN ORDER TO HELP WITH THE PETITION DRAW.
MOST OF THOSE THAT I HAVE THOUGH ARE FROM AFTER JUNE 30TH, 2020, UM, UH, AND, UM, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING FOR SOME OF THEIR COMMUNICATIONS, UH, THAT WENT OUT TO PEOPLE.
DID THEY ASK FOR MONEY TO FURTHER EDUCATION OR TO HELP PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, UH, OR WAS IT, OR WAS ALMOST ALL OF THEM OR WAS ALL OF THEIR COMMUNICATION? UH, SHE WOULD HEAL DONORS ABOUT THE PETITION FOR ONE.
THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I TRIED TO ASK FOR THAT.
THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT IF, IF WE KNOW THAT IN THE PERIOD COVERED UNDER THIS COMPLIANT, THAT THEY RAISED A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THAT THEY ONLY SPENT $10,000.
AND MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER $90,000? AND PERHAPS LATER ON, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN AMENDED OR A, OR A NEW COMPLAINT FILE.
BUT IF, UM, UH, UM, WHEN, WHEN THE RESPONDENT SAYS THAT THEY ONLY SPENT 10% OF THE MONEY, IS THAT FOR THE WHOLE CALENDAR YEAR OR, OR, OR JUST THIS COMPLAINT, BECAUSE WHAT ELSE DID THEY SPEND THE MONEY ON BESIDES THIS PETITION EFFORT? MAYBE THE PROBLEM IS, ARE THE DATES OF THE COMPLAINT.
UM, SECRETARY OF PROGRAMS IT'S OKAY, GOOD.
GOING BACK TO THAT DEFINITION, I HAVEN'T PULLED UP AS WELL.
THE 20.1 17, UH, I SEE THE SECTION D AND THAT RELATES TO THE TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE 10%, EVEN IF ALL POLITICAL WOULDN'T COME TO 25% FOR EXPENDITURES, BUT I'M INTERESTED IN B BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER CLASSIFICATION.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S VERY, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THIS ONE, BUT I WANTED TO KEEP READING THAT DEFINITION.
IT SAYS A GROUP HAS A POLITICAL PURPOSE EXCEPT IN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
IF THE PORTION OF THE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GROUP IS MORE THAN 25% WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR, A CONTRIBUTOR INTENDS TO MAKE A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION.
IF THE SOLICITATIONS THAT PROMPTED THE CONTRIBUTION OR THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE CONTRIBUTOR ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION WOULD LEAD TO NO REASONABLE, NO OTHER REASONABLE CONCLUSION, THEN THAT THE CONTRIBUTION WAS INTENDED TO BE A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION.
SO NOW THAT I'VE READ THE DEFINITION, WHEN I GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, BECAUSE HONESTLY, WHEN I STARTED THIS WHOLE THING, I THOUGHT, WHY DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHO THE DONORS WERE, UH, ON THAT MR. LITTLEFIELD ASKED FOR FOR THESE DAYS? AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD MAKE A FACT DETERMINATION OF CON CONTRIBUTOR AND TENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHO THEY WERE AND WHAT SOLICITATIONS WERE BEING SENT TO THOSE PEOPLE.
AND SO THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT.
HOW COULD, HOW, HOW COULD JUST THE INFORMATION IN THE AGGREGATE HELP US DECIDE WHAT THE CONTRIBUTOR INTENT WAS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE, UH, 17, THE, UH, COMPLIANCE, SINCE THAT'S A QUESTION DIRECTED TO US, UM, I WOULD ANSWER THAT, UM,
[00:45:01]
IT, AGAIN IS IN THE, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO ASK IF, UM, THE SOLICITATIONS THAT PROMPTED THE CONTRIBUTION WOULD LEAD TO NO OTHER REASONABLE CONCLUSION, BUT IF THERE IS A REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THEY WEREN'T NECESSARILY INTENDED AS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT TO AID IN EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS ABOUT, UM, HOW THE CITY'S RESCISSION OF THE CAMPING BAN AND ORDINANCE HAD AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS, HOW IT AFFECTED THE HOMELESS, HOW IT HAD ENDANGERED FOLKS, IF THAT'S THE, THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS, AND THEN A MENTION OF THE PETITION AND THE CONTRACT CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MADE, COULD REASONABLY LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE MADE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS AND MANIFESTATIONS WERE OF THE CITY COUNCILS RESCISSION.AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS NOT NECESSARILY TO GET THOSE PETITION, UH, SIGNATURES, BUT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A PETITION SIGNATURE EFFORT THAT THEY COULD THEN BE A PART OF, THEY COULD GO VOLUNTEER, THEY COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO, AGAIN, TO GET THE WORD OUT, TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT.
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION, BUT WOULD THAT BE THE ONLY, UH, LEAD TO NO OTHER REASONABLE CONCLUSION, IF THERE MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE CONCLUSION, THEN BASED ON THE SOLICITATION, THEN THAT FAILS TO MEET THE CRITERIA, THAT PARTICULAR DEFINITION.
AND I THINK, UH, UH, VICE CHAIR THEN COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS WHAT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES, CAUSE I DEFINITELY, I MEAN, I'M ACTUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT RELEASING PEOPLE'S INFORMATION OR OBTAINING PEOPLE'S INFORMATION.
I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WE COULD DO A CONFIDENTIALLY, BUT, UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT IF WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.
AND SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT ONE WAY TO ANSWER ALL OF THIS IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW WAS THE MONEY SOLICITED.
AND OBVIOUSLY THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE SOLICITED IN ONE OR TWO WAYS, ONE THROUGH A TRAIL THAT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED EITHER BY EMAIL OR SOCIAL MEDIA OR IN PERSON, AND OBVIOUSLY GETTING STUFF IN PERSON, UNDERSTANDING THAT IN PERSON COMMUNICATIONS, I'M GOING TO BE LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT, BUT THE TH ANY EMAILS THAT WERE SENT OUT, UM, AS WELL AS ANY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT TO TRACK DOWN.
AND THE COMMISSION REALLY COULDN'T MAKE A DECISION BASED OFF OF THAT ON, ON WHETHER IT NEEDS TO SEE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
UM, DOES THE RESPONDENT HAVE THAT AVAILABLE OR, I MEAN, YEAH, WHERE HE'S RESPONDED.
WITH TELLING US WHAT WAS THE PROCESS IN OBTAINING, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS? I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT WAS MADE, UM, BY THE COMPLAINANT WAS FOR OUR EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS AND OUR SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AND OUR DIRECT MAIL.
UM, AND WE WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE THAT AGAIN, IT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.
WHAT WE MIGHT SAY IS PROVIDING EDUCATION, LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE'S A PETITION DRIVE UNDERWAY, ET CETERA, YOU MAY INTERPRET DIFFERENTLY, BUT WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO WHAT WE SENT.
UM, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF, IF IT'S FOR THE NEXT MEETING, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT'S RIGHT AFTER EASTER.
AND, UH, I KNOW I WILL BE GONE TO ACTUALLY SEE MY DAUGHTER IN COLLEGE, UM, AT A GOLF TOURNAMENT.
SO I'LL BE GONE THAT EASTER WEEKEND IN ARIZONA, AND I WON'T BE ABLE TO REVIEW EVERYTHING.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT IF WE COULD BE READY FOR MAY AND TRY TO GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER, YOU GIVE US A SCOPE.
WE WERE MORE THAN WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT TO YOU.
AND, UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, BRIEFLY I THINK THE NEXT HEARING, THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSIONER MEETING, I BELIEVE IS THE WEEK AFTER EASTER WEEKEND.
SO I THINK THE SECOND WEEK OF APRIL, UM, BUT POINT CAN, UM, IN ANY EVENT, COMMISSIONER DENVER, GO AHEAD, MS. DAVIDSON, CERTAINLY YOU'RE NOT UNDER OBLIGATION TO ANSWER THIS, BUT I'M CURIOUS.
AND IF YOU CAN, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
UH, I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE MOVING FORWARD DOING, UH, A PACK.
IS THERE, CAN YOU, CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN US IN ANY WAY ABOUT HOW IT WAS DECIDED THAT AT A POINT IN TIME
[00:50:01]
CHANGE TO BE MADE TO YES.COMMISSIONER DANBURG EXCELLENT QUESTION.
UM, AS SOON AS THE CITY CERTIFIED THAT IT WAS A BALLOT MEASURE, WE CREATED THE PAC AND WE STARTED RAISING FUNDS AS A PACK, AND WE STARTED SOLICITING FUNDS AS A PACK, AND WE STARTED EXPRESS ADVOCACY FOR THE ACTUAL PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION B.
SO, NO, THAT WAS EXACTLY WHEN, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DID IT EXACTLY THE DAY-TO-DAY WE WERE CERTIFIED, BUT IT WAS WITHIN PROBABLY 24 TO 48 HOURS, OR AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD GET, UM, PEOPLE TOGETHER TO SAY, HEY, WE THINK IT'S TIME.
UM, WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO INFORM PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW ABOUT A PETITION.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A SPECIFIC, UM, POSITION ON THIS.
AND SO THE PAC IS WHAT'S DOING THE POLITICAL ACTIVITY NOW FOR SAVE AUSTIN NOW.
UH, TOTALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A PACK, UH, SECRETARY GO, I THINK I SEE YOUR HANDS AND GO FOR IT.
I THINK THERE MIGHT'VE BEEN A MISCOMMUNICATION OR MISUNDERSTANDING WITH WHAT VICE-CHAIR OR HURRY WAS, WAS ASKING FOR FOR AT LEAST WHAT I THOUGHT HE WAS ASKING FOR.
I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND ASKING ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DONORS, SOLICITING CONTRIBUTIONS, AND I THINK YOUR RESPONSE WAS ABOUT THE EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATION OUT INTO THE PUBLIC.
AND THAT'S NOT AS FAR AS THE DEFINITION UNDER 17 V THAT'S NOT WHAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN AS MUCH FOR QUALIFICATION OR THAT QUESTION.
WHAT I WOULD REALLY BE INTERESTED IN IS THE SOLICITATIONS TO, TO THE DONORS.
HEY, WILL YOU GIVE MONEY? WE NEED, WE NEED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC VERSUS, HEY, WILL YOU GIVE MONEY? WE'VE GOT TO DEFEAT THIS, THIS MEASURE.
WE'VE GOT TO, WE'VE GOT TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THIS ACTION.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTRIBUTORS INTENT, NOT WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE MONEY, NOT THE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC, BUT WHAT WAS SENT TO SOLICITED, UH, FOR CONTRIBUTIONS.
I, I THINK THOSE ARE ONE IN THE SAME, UH, WHEN ANY EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION WAS SENT OUT, THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE FOR MONEY, UH, TO SUPPORT SAVE AUSTIN NOW AND ITS EFFORTS TO EDUCATE.
AND OF COURSE, IF THERE WAS A MENTION OF THE PETITION WITHIN THAT, AGAIN, IT, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT ONLY SAID, YOU KNOW, AND I OF COURSE HAVE TO GO, UH, THEY HAVE TO START COLLECTING EVERYTHING.
I NEED TO REVIEW EVERYTHING, BUT I KNOW THAT I WAS ON THE RECIPIENT AND, UH, MANY EMAILS THAT WOULD TALK ABOUT, UM, SOME OF THE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE, UH, SAYING, YOU KNOW, GOVERNOR ABBOTT HAD OPENED A SHELTER INFORMATIONAL, AND AT THE SAME TIME SAYING THAT THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE OUT PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING AND PUTTING THE PETITION OUT AND, AND, UH, ALWAYS ASKING FOR MONEY AS A C4 IS, IS WANTED YOU IN ALMOST EVERY EMAIL ASKING FOR MONEY.
SO AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE SOLICITATIONS, I WOULD SAY IS, IS SUFFICIENT INSTEAD OF HAVING EACH DONOR LISTED, UM, BECAUSE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE INTENT FROM THE SOLICITATION.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS I'VE GOT ONE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TAKERS.
UM, SO I, I HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT.
UM, I WAS, UH, JUST REVIEWING AGAIN, THE, UH, LETTER MS. DAVIDSON THAT YOU WOULD SENT, UM, ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT SENT VIA EMAIL TO MS. GLADSER MS. CARTER, MS. PALMER AT THE CITY AND OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
UM, ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT YOU INCLUDED IN THE LETTER WAS A REQUEST FOR ANY, AND ALL COMMUNICATIONS REFLECTING THE BASIS FOR YOUR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER.
AND I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF CLARIFY IF THIS WAS, UH, IF THE U WAS DIRECTED AT THE COMMISSION AT THE CHAIR AT OUTSET COUNCIL OR TO THE COMMISSION JUST WANTED TO SEE WHO IS KIND OF SEEPING INTO THAT ONE.
IT WAS FOR THE ENTIRE COMMISSION.
UH, JUST TO LIKE, IF YOU HAVE YOUR, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE JURISDICTION.
I THINK THEIR ARGUMENTS WERE, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE JURISDICTION, BUT, UH, IF YOU DO, WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR IT? AND THEN, UH, WE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE
[00:55:01]
THIS AS A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE AND I PROVIDED, I BELIEVE OUR SECRETARY OF SLEEP FILING.SO IT WAS JUST, UH, IT WAS A YOU, THE GENERIC USE, NOT, NOT YOU NECESSARILY IN YOUR CAPACITY AS CHAIR, OF COURSE.
NO KNOW, I DIDN'T READ THAT AS A KIND OF PERSONAL YOU TELL HIM AT ALL.
I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY KIND OF HEARD THAT REQUEST AND COULD, UM, SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING RESPONSIVE TO IT.
UM, OF COURSE, UM, I DID NOT READ IT AS AN INDICTMENT.
SO, UM, ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONERS FOR EITHER THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT? UM, UM, YEAH.
UM, WOULD THE PARTIES, AND TH THE COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO DELIBERATE AND MAKE A DECISION ON THIS, BUT IF THE COMMISSION DID DECIDE THAT IT WANTED TO, UH, EXTEND THIS DISCOVERY PROCESS A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, WHAT THE PARTIES BE OPEN TO, UH, DELAYING THE HEARINGS.
AND I THINK ULTIMATELY THE COMMISSION, WELL, LET ME NOT, THAT'S AN ODD QUESTION, BUT THE PARTIES WOULD BE TO DELAY THE FINAL HEARING JUST TO FLUSH OUT SOME OF THESE DISCOVERY ISSUES ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
I CAN SAY YES, WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.
UM, AS I MENTIONED, I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN FROM ALMOST THE WEEK OR RIGHT BEFORE THE NEXT HEARING.
PLUS I DO HAVE, UM, UH, FORT WORTH CANDIDATE, MUNICIPAL CANNABIS IS REPORTS.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO REVIEW WHILE I'M AWAY.
SO, UH, IT WOULD BE, UH, TO OUR INTEREST FOR ME TO BE FULLY ENGAGED AND BE ABLE TO PROVIDE WHAT YOU NEED, UH, IF WE DO DELAY IT UNTIL, UH, MAY, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE THE MAIN MEETING RIGHT AFTER EASTER, WHEN I'LL BE GONE FOR A WEEK.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THAT.
AND I APPRECIATE THE, THE, UH, SUGGESTION, SIR.
AND JUST TO JUMP IN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE TRY OUR BEST, THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE VERY ACCOMMODATING TO PARTIES, RESPONDENTS, AND COMPLAINANTS, UM, FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES FOR CONVENIENCE PURPOSES.
UM, WE DID, WE DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS.
UM, SO, UH, LAST, SO I HAVE ONE LAST THING I WANTED TO RUN THROUGH, UM, BEFORE KIND OF HOPEFULLY WRAPPING UP THIS ITEM COMMISSIONERS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I WANTED TO PRETTY ALL FIRST? NO.
SO WHAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE USEFUL IS IF IN, IN THIS MEETING ON THIS ITEM, IF I JUST READ THROUGH THE BULLET POINT REQUESTS, UM, DIRECTED AT EACH PARTY, AND THEN YES OR NO, TO SEE IF THERE WAS AGREEMENT, AND THEN HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD RESULT IN A MOTION WHERE ON THOSE ITEMS THAT THERE, OUR AGREEMENT WE CAN JUST HAVE KIND OF ON THE RECORDS.
THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT WE'LL DO PRESENTED.
AND THEN, UH, WE'LL ASSUME, UH, THAT THE PARTIES ARE GOING TO TRY THEIR BEST TO WORK OUT DISAGREEMENTS.
IN THE MEANTIME, IS THAT SOUND, I'M JUST GONNA ASK HER HEAD NODS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
IF THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE, ARE YOU ASKING US TO SAY YES OR NO? OR YOU'RE ASKING, ASKING, SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE TWO LISTS, THE RESPONDENTS LIST, THE COMPLAINANTS LIST.
AND I'M GOING TO SAY, UM, DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AT A FINAL HEARING? YES OR NO.
AND ASK EACH SIDE AND THEN HOPEFULLY GET A MUTUAL LIST FROM THAT.
BECAUSE FOR ME PERSONALLY HEARING THE DISCUSSION THUS FAR, I'VE NOT KIND OF GOTTEN THAT SENSE OF WHAT IS THE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON STUFF I COULD HAVE MISSED IT.
UM, AND IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO THAT OR HAS BEEN TAKING BETTER NOTES THAN ME, THEN BY ALL MEANS, TELL ME, BUT I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE THE SIMPLEST WAY TO DO IT.
CAUSE I'M ABOUT TO PULL UP THOSE REQUESTS.
UM, MY ASSESSMENT WAS IT, THEY DON'T AGREE ON ANY OF THE ITEMS, BUT WE CAN GO THROUGH THE LESSON, FIND THAT OUT.
SOME OF THE ITEMS, UM, THEY SIMPLY DON'T HAVE CONTRACTS.
THERE ARE NO CONTRACTS, SO WE'LL AGREE TO GIVE YOU ALL OUR CONTRACTS WELL, RIGHT.
[01:00:01]
REQUIRED.IF THERE'S A SENTENCE TO EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER, THAT IS FINE.
HOW TO QUIZ? UM, NOT A TRUE FALSE.
SO I'M GOING TO START WITH, UM, COMPLAINANTS ITEMS. AND I'M GOING TO ASK RESPONDENT IF YOU AGREE, AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO EXPLAIN IT A SENTENCE OR TWO, WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE.
SO FIRST REQUESTING SIX MONTHS OF ALL DONOR INFORMATION FROM JANUARY 1ST THROUGH JUNE 30TH POINT LINE, UH, WE COUNTERED WITH AN AGGREGATE TOTAL, UH, INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL DONOR LIST, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT, UH, FOR THAT TIME PERIOD IN THE AGGREGATE.
SO NEXT TO SIX MONTHS OF EXPENDITURES OF EXPENDITURE INFORMATION FROM JANUARY 1ST TO JUNE 30TH, 2020.
AND WE SAY IT AGAIN THAT WE BELIEVE THAT IN THE AGGREGATE, WE AIM TO SHOW THAT IT DIDN'T MEET THE THRESHOLD.
SO WE WERE WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT AS WELL.
SIX MONTHS OF ALL EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM SAY BOSTON NOW, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, INCLUDING EMAILS, DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATION, AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS FROM JANUARY 1ST TO JUNE 30TH, WE WERE, UH, WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT.
THEN SIX MONTHS OF INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM SAVE AUSTIN.
NOW WE'RE THE REPRESENTATIVES TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR ELECTED OFFICE IN KRATOS COUNTY.
YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING RESPONSIVE TO THAT REQUEST.
WE HAVEN'T LOOKED THOROUGHLY, BUT THERE'S NO RECOLLECTION OF ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEN I HAVE, LET'S SEE, UH, ANY CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SAY BOSTON NOW AND SERVICE PROVIDERS OR AGENCIES TO PEOPLE EXPERIENCING ALMOST MISS BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE 30TH OF 2020.
AND THERE ARE NO CONTRACTS AND THEY EXIST.
NO, NO CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS IN EXISTENCE.
SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE.
UM, AND THEN LAST, UM, ALL FIVE OH ONE C PAPERWORK AND FILINGS FROM SAY BOSTON NOW.
ANY PUBLIC IRS DOCUMENTS AND FILINGS, WE WERE PERFECTLY WILLING TO PROVIDE.
NOW FOR A COMPLAINANT, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, SO, UH, THERE'S A REQUEST FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONS PERFECTED IN DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONIC MAIL OR OTHER RECORDS BY IN BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT, MARK LITTLEFIELD AS PERTAINS TO SAVE OFF NOW, COELIAC CLEANUP, UH, PETRO SACK, EXCUSE MY PRONUNCIATION, OR THE TOPIC OF THE HOMELESS POPULATION AND THE PERSON'S ENTITY NAME BELOW GREG SAR, STEVE ADLER, CHRIS HARRIS, KIM WICK.
IT'S NOT CAM THEN THE COMMUNICATION RESPONSIVE, DATED, OR WHATEVER OCCURRED BETWEEN THE LIFE POST 2019 AND THE DATE, THE COMPLAINT.
SO TO, TO YOU, UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, WOULD YOU AGREE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER THAT REQUEST? UH, I WOULD NOT ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WOULD THE CONDITION IN DETERMINING WHETHER A VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED OR NOT.
AND IF THE CONDITION OBVIOUSLY ASKED ME TO, OR PROBABLY THEN OF COURSE I WOULD, OKAY.
THEN THE NEXT REQUEST, UM, I BELIEVE WAS DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, AND FOR THAT REQUEST, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO OUR CITY LIAISON, UM, AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL, THEY HAVE ANY SUCH COMMUNICATIONS AND, AND I WILL ASK THEM TO ADVISE US ON HOW WE WOULD, HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH THAT SPECIFIC REQUEST.
I, I FIND IT A LITTLE BIT, UM, UNUSUAL, UM, WHICH IS FINE.
UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING OUT OF ORDER ASKING FOR THAT INFORMATION, UNLESS MAYBE IT'S MORE PROPER FOR IT TO BE A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.
I THINK I'M GOING TO JUST DEFER TO OUR OUTSIDE COUNCIL OR CITY LIAISON, UH, FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THAT QUESTION, IF THAT'S OKAY.
UH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, UH, YEAH, AHEAD.
AND THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, IF THAT'S OKAY.
YES, THAT IS, THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE.
AND JUST SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WILLING TO REDUCE OUR REQUESTS TO THE TIME PERIOD THAT MR. LITTLEFIELD HAD.
IF YOU WANT SOME CONSISTENCY THERE, WE HAD CHOSEN JULY 1ST, I THINK BECAUSE OF TWO MONTHS AGO, YOU KNOW, ANYWAY, WE'RE FINE WITH LIMITING IT TO THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD AS WELL.
[01:05:01]
OKAY.AND THEN NONETHELESS, JUST WANT TO, THEN I'LL KIND OF GO BACK, UH, COMPLAINANT, UM, WITH THIS SORT OF, UH, UPDATED REQUEST, UH, FOR THOSE COMMUNICATIONS IN THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD.
UM, ARE YOU STILL OPPOSED TO PRODUCING THOSE COMMUNICATIONS? IF OKAY.
THEN I THINK LET'S SEE THEN I THINK THAT COVERS IT ALL RIGHT.
WHAT I HAVE AS KIND OF A, AN AGREED LIST THUS FAR, UM, AN AGREEMENT FOR LET'S SEE, UM, ALL EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS, UM, THE THIRD BULLET POINT IN THE COMPLAINANTS REQUEST, UM, THEN THE LAST ONE, UH, ALL PUBLIC, ALL FIVE OH ONE C PAPERWORK AND FILINGS.
UM, AND THEN I'VE GOT ADMISSIONS THAT THERE IS NOTHING BY WAY OF CONTRACTS AND NOTHING BY WAY OF INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS, UH, TO CANDIDATES.
UM, THAT, THAT IS THE AGREED LIST THAT I'VE HAD THAT SOUND RIGHT.
SO, UM, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE QUESTIONS YOU SECRETARY GOBER.
I JUST WANT TO, FOR PURPOSES OF CLARITY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE WERE SAYING WE HAVE AN ADMISSION THAT THERE'S NOT ANY INFORMATION OR RESPONSIVE TO THE BULLET POINTS REGARDING THE INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS AND THE CONTRACTS, BUT I MEAN, NO, ONE'S UNDER OATH ON THIS RIGHT NOW.
AND SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO JUST REQUIRE ALL OF IT THAT BASICALLY THERE'S NOT A DISAGREEMENT TO PROVIDE IT.
AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE A RESPONSE, WE'LL JUST LEARN, THERE'S NO FORMALLY WE WILL LEARN.
THERE WAS NOTHING RESPONSIVE, UH, VERSUS TAKING IT OFF THE LIST BECAUSE WE INFORMALLY HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING.
NOT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NOTHING I'LL JUST PROCEDURALLY, HOW WOULD WE, HOW WOULD WE ENSURE THAT THERE IS NOTHING, IF WE'RE THE RESPONSE HASN'T BEEN THERE? SURE.
UM, SO JUST TO, JUST TO KIND OF CIRCLE BACK ON THAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR SUGGESTION SECRETARY GOPHERS FOR HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH THOSE TWO ITEMS? YES.
THERE, THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO PROVIDING THE INFORMATION.
I WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE ALL AGREED AND THEY'RE ALL REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED.
AND THEN THE RESPONDENT IN THEIR RESPONSE AND PRODUCTION CAN JUST SAY, THERE ARE NO RESPONSIVE ITEMS TO THIS ITEM.
THERE ARE NO RESPONSIVE ITEMS TO THIS BULLET.
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT TO HAVE QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER GOBER YOU JUST MEANT THE TWO THAT I MADE THE REPRESENTATION OF, NOT THE FIRST TEETH, CORRECT.
SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BULLET POINTS, UH, I BELIEVE YOU ALL AGREE HE HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO, UH, EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE FIRST TWO.
AND THE LAST ONE, JUST ALL PUBLIC IRS FILINGS.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAD SECRETARY GOBER STARTED? ONE OTHER THING.
SO ON THE SIX MONTHS EXPENDITURES, WHAT, WHAT WOULD AGGREGATE EXPENDITURES LOOK LIKE VERSUS SIX MONTHS EXPENDITURE INFORMATION? LIKE W WHAT DOES AN AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE REPORT LOOK LIKE? WELL, OKAY.
SO, UM, YEAH, I KNOW THAT I HAVEN'T RESPONDED FORMALLY, BUT WHEN I WAS CONSULTING WITH OUR CLIENT AND MY CLIENT, I ASKED, CAN YOU GO TO OUR BANK STATEMENTS AND GO AND FIND, YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS? AND THEN OUR TOTAL EXPENDITURES, DON'T EVEN TRY TO SAY THESE ARE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES, OR THESE ARE WHATEVER, JUST WHAT'S THE TOTAL OF EVERYTHING.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A TOTAL AMOUNT AND I'M SAYING OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, IT MAY HAVE BEEN 130,000, WHATEVER IT WAS, IT WAS OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND AND THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES, IT COULD HAVE GONE FOR REFRESHMENTS, FOR VOLUNTEERS.
IT COULD HAVE GONE FOR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EXPENDITURES WAS ONLY ABOUT 8,000 SOMETHING.
SO AGAIN, WE THOUGHT THE TOTAL AGGREGATE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT TRYING
[01:10:01]
TO, YOU KNOW, WAS THIS A POLITICAL EXPENDITURE? EVEN IT MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT WAS WAY UNDER THE 25% THRESHOLD FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME.SO, UM, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE MEANT BY THE AGGREGATE.
JUST IF WE NEED TO TRY TO PULL OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES SPECIFICALLY, WE CAN DO THAT.
IT WILL LESSEN THE NUMBER, BUT, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE MEANT.
JUST THE AGGREGATE OF EXPENDITURES.
I, UM, I'M GONNA, ACTUALLY, BEFORE I JUMP INTO MOTION, MAKING ACTUALLY HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION MYSELF, UM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM UNDERSTANDING THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION RULE THAT YOU'RE CITING RULE 20.1 SUB 17 D SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE KIND OF, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REPRESENTING TO US RIGHT NOW THAT THE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'VE MISSED, HEARD THIS, THAT, UH, THAT, BECAUSE, UH, THERE WERE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED ONLY $10,000 IN EXPENDITURES THAT YOU'RE UNDER THIS 25% THRESHOLD.
DID I MISSTATE SOMETHING THERE? UM, YOU DID NOT MISTAKE.
WE, WE ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT NONE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND WE'RE SAYING THAT EVEN IF THERE WERE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES, UH, OR A PROPORTIONATE SHARE, UH, OR SOME SORT OF EXPENDITURE WHERE, UM, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PLEASE BE ACTIVE AND TRY TO FIND A PETITION TO SIGN THAT.
EVEN THAT EVEN IF WE TRIED TO PULL OUT THE PROPORTIONAL SHARE, IT WILL BE MUCH LESS THAN 25% SURE.
UH, W WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY IS THAT THE, THE RULE, AS I READ IT IS THAT 25% OF ALL EXPENDITURES, UM, ARE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE RULE, NOT 25% OF CONTRIBUTIONS, AMOUNT OF POLITICAL EXPENDITURES.
OKAY, WELL, THERE'S A CONTRACT, THERE'S A CONTRIBUTION PORTION AND B, AND THEN THERE'S AN EXPENDITURE PORTION IN D THAT ALSO SAYS, YOU KNOW, OFFICE EXPENSES, OCCUPANTS TRAVEL EXPENSES, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A POLITICAL EXPENSE, THAT OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES THAT ARE NOT POLITICAL EXPENDITURES.
SO I'M SAYING IN A TOTAL THAT WE HAD, WE DIDN'T HAVE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
THEY WERE INTENDED FOR THE FIVE OH ONE C4.
AND, UM, THEN EVEN IF WE HAD ANY POLITICAL EXPENDITURES, IT DIDN'T EVEN RISE TO THE 25% BECAUSE YOU, YOU TAKE THE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES FROM THE REGULAR EXPENDITURES, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
AND I'M GIVING YOU BALLPARK OF ENTIRE EXPENDITURES MADE FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
I THINK I MIGHT'VE MISHEARD SOMETHING, UM, ALONG THE WAY.
UM, I, I SEE A HAND FROM MR. LITTLEFIELD, SO I'M GOING TO ASK BRIEFLY, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY MR. LITTLE? YEAH.
SO I'M WONDERING IF THE COMMISSION COULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSION SINCE THE RESPONDENT HAS REFERRED TO THIS TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, UH, RULING THAT DISCUSSES, UM, UH, CONTRIBUTION SENATORS, UH, APICAL TO A CALENDAR YEAR.
UH, I BELIEVE THE RESPONDENT IS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN CONTRIBUTIONS AND LESS THAN 25%.
I MEAN, SHE'S TALKING ABOUT IN THIS SIX MONTHS WINDOW, BUT, UM, UH, SINCE SHE'S REFERRING TO THIS RULE, I WAS WONDERING IF SHE HAD THAT AGGREGATE INFORMATION FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR, BECAUSE I ASSUME THAT, WELL, MAYBE IF THEY SPENT MORE MONEY, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR, WOULD THAT TRIGGER THEM HAVING TO GO BACK AND THEN FILE AS A BACK.
SO WOULD THAT INFORMATION BE HELPFUL TO THE COMMISSION IF I EXPLAINED MYSELF CORRECTLY? YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, SO, UH, AND THEN IN THAT CASE, I'LL JUST PHRASE IT AS A QUESTION TO COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, UH, WHEN YOU'VE BEEN DESCRIBING KIND OF THESE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURES, UM, AND, UH, HOW WE'LL LEAVE ASIDE THE CONTRIBUTION QUESTION, BECAUSE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT IN DESCRIBING THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTS, ARE YOU REPRESENTING THAT THIS IS FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD OR FOR THE CALENDAR? UH, SINCE COMPLAINANT ONLY MENTIONED THE SIX MONTH PERIOD, WE DID NOT LOOK AT THE ENTIRE CALENDAR YEAR.
WE ONLY LOOK AT THE SIX MONTH PERIOD.
SO, UM, SO AS NOT TO KIND OF BELABOR THE AGENDA ITEM TOO MUCH COMMISSIONERS, I THINK, UM, I'M, I'VE GOT A MOTION
[01:15:02]
I THINK IS READY UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER, UNLESS SOMEONE'S GOT A QUESTION OR COMMENT, UH, I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF DISCUSSION PREMATURELY.THEN IN THAT CASE, UH, I'VE GOT EMOTION.
I'M GOING TO, UM, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE IT AND THEN SAY THE MAGIC WORDS.
I MAKE A MOTION AND WE'LL TAKE A SECOND.
SO THE MOTION THAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO MAKE IS THAT, UH, WE HAVE PRODUCED AT A FINAL HEARING, THE FOLLOWING THE THIRD ITEM IN RESPONSE IN COMPLAINANTS REQUEST BEING SIX MONTH OF ALL EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS, UH, FROM CITY OF AUSTIN.
NOW THAT WE REQUEST THE SIX MONTHS OF INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM STATE BOSTON NOW TO ANY CANDIDATE OR ELECTED OFFICE IN TRAVIS COUNTY AND THAT PERIOD, AND THEN THE FIFTH POINT IN THE SIX POINT IN THE REQUEST THAT BEING CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SAY BOSTON NOW, AND SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR AGENCIES THAT DO HOMELESSNESS WORK IN THAT PERIOD.
AND THEN THE SIX ONE FIVE OH ONE C PAPERWORK AND FILINGS FROM SAVE AUSTIN NOW.
AND I WOULD ALSO, UH, INCLUDE IN THAT MOTION, ANOTHER POINT THAT IS, UM, PENDING THE PENDING, THE DETERMINATION BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE.
ANYTHING RESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINANTS REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, FOR COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMUNICATION.
SO PENDING, PENDING THAT DETERMINATION.
YEAH, GO AHEAD, SECRETARY GOBER I STARTED JUST BEFORE YOU MAKE THE MOTION, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO TRY TO DO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ON BULLET 0.6 REGARDING THE FIVE OH ONE C UH, INFORMATION.
I, I WOULD PREFER THAT THE ONLY PUBLIC FILINGS PUBLIC INFORMATION, OTHERWISE I THINK IT WOULD INCLUDE POTENTIALLY EVEN COMMUNICATIONS WITH COUNSEL.
I DON'T THINK WE WILL, THAT WE'RE NOT SURE.
I CAN BE SURE TO SPECIFY PUBLIC.
UH, ANY, ANY QUICK DISCUSSION BEFORE I START SAYING THAT? SO AGAIN, THEY ENDING WHAT, WHAT, WHAT YEAR? OKAY.
SO PART OF, PART OF RESPONDENT'S REQUEST WAS DIRECTED AT THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE REQUESTING ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATIONS, REFLECTING THE BASIS FOR YOUR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER.
UM, BECAUSE THIS IS UNIQUE AND UNCHARTED TERRITORY, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, UH, IN MY LIMITED EXPERIENCE IN, UH, GETTING REQUESTS AS A MEMBER OF A COMMISSION LIKE THIS, UM, I WANTED, I DIDN'T WANT TO PROMISE ANYTHING, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS AVAILABLE TO IT.
BUT, UH, WHAT I, IT WOULD BE PENDING A DETERMINATION BY OUR COUNCILS, BOTH THE CITY ATTORNEY, HIS OFFICE, UM, AND OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST.
AND THEN IF IT IS TO PROVIDE COMMUNICATIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY, DID THAT MAKE SENSE OR WAS THAT GARBLED OKAY.
AND THEN NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE, UM, RESPONDENT ASKED FOR.
UM, THERE WASN'T, UH, THERE WASN'T AN AGREEMENT TOO, ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT TO PRODUCE THOSE THINGS.
SIMILARLY, THERE WASN'T AN AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE THE DONOR INFORMATION.
UM, AND THE EXPENDITURE INFORMATION AS REQUESTED, SUGGESTS THE THINGS THEY'VE AGREED TO YES.
SO MY CONCERN IN TERMS OF THIS, ANSWERING THIS QUESTION, WERE THEY POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OR NOT? IS THAT, UM, KNOWING BEING BOUNCED AT EACH SPECIFIC DONOR GAY, ISN'T GOING TO BE THAT IMPORTANT IF THE SOLICITATIONS WEREN'T POLITICAL SOLICITATIONS AND THE ONLY WAY, THE ONLY WAY ANY OF THE PARTY WOULD KNOW THAT CERTAINLY THE CLAIM THAT WE KNOW THAT IS IF THE COMPLAINANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT BEFOREHAND, AND MAYBE I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD, I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO GO, BUT MY MIND, I HAD ALMOST ENVISIONED JUST TO THE ITEM THAT THEY AGREED UPON REQUESTING THAT, AND THEN JUST RESETTING THIS DISCOVERY ISSUE.
AND IF THE COMPLAINANT SAYS, OH, I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THROUGH IT.
AND I THINK THIS AND THE RESPONDENT RESPOND WELL, NO, YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THIS REALLY ISN'T A POLITICAL SOLICE SOLICITATION AND THE COMMISSIONER SIDE.
WE DON'T THINK IT'S A POLITICAL SOLICITATION AS FAR AS THE DISCOVERY REQUEST IS CONCERNED.
SO LET'S JUST MOVE FORWARD TO THE FINAL HEARING.
[01:20:01]
I GUESS THIS IS WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY.SO LET'S SAY WE REQUEST THESE ITEMS, WE GET THESE ITEMS, AND THEN WE GET TO THE HEARING AND LET'S SAY, WE'RE A, WE DECIDE THAT, UH, THESE WEREN'T REALLY POLITICAL SOLICITATIONS, THEN ALL WE HAVE IS THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SOLICITATIONS.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THOSE SOLICITATIONS WERE POLITICAL SOLICITATIONS OR NON POLITICAL SOLICITATIONS.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE WONDERING, WELL, WHAT WAS THE POINT OF IN DOING ALL THAT? UM, IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS A THRESHOLD THAT WILL EITHER SUPPORT GOING FURTHER OR KIND OF NIP IT IN THE BUD.
SO JUST TO, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, AS FAR AS WHERE WE ARE PROCEDURALLY THERE.
SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A FINAL HEARING THAT WAS ABOUT THAT.
WE TOOK, UM, AT OUR LAST MEETING WHERE WE TOOK UP THIS ITEM, UM, AND, UM, LESS, UH, I'M MISSING SOMETHING, UH, OUTSIDE COUNCIL OR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT'S LISTENING.
UH THERE'S NO, I'M NOT DISCOURAGING A FINAL THING.
THAT'S NOT BORN IN FRONT OF MAKE IT MORE, A DUTY MOVE, BE PREPARED FOR THE NEXT FINAL HEARING.
I JUST WANTED, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF LEVEL THAT FOR EVERYONE THERE THERE'VE BEEN QUESTIONS, UM, IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS ABOUT LIKE WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO, LIKE AT THE SECONDARY HEARING, WHETHER I CAN POSTPONE IT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE WILL BE A FINAL HEARING.
UM, UH, BUT NO THAT'S WELL TAKEN.
AND I THINK, UM, UH, THAT IT IS MY HOPE.
UM, AND I DON'T THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE AN EMOTION OR ANYTHING, BUT IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE PARTIES WOULD CONTINUE TO, UH, TRY TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES AND COMMUNICATE WITH OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THIS MATTER.
UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT GOOD, UM, UH, EMOTION SAYING, FIGURE THIS OUT THIS WAY OR DO IT THAT WAY WOULD DO.
UM, UNLESS THERE'S A SUGGESTION, UH, FOR THAT.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT TOO, BUT I SAW COMMISSIONER GREENBERGS AND SO I WANTED TO KICK IT TO YOU.
WHAT DO YOU GOT? UM, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT WE, UNLESS EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO DONATES MONEY, WROTE A CHECK AND PUT IT ON THE MEMO, THIS IS FOR POLITICAL, AND THIS IS FOR EDUCATIONAL.
WE'RE NEVER GONNA KNOW, AND KNOWING THE INDIVIDUALS WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
UM, OH, SO-AND-SO THOUGH IT'S ALWAYS POLITICAL OR SO-AND-SO, THAT'S ALWAYS EDUCATIONAL.
THERE'S NO WAY WE'RE GONNA KNOW THAT.
UM, I THINK WE SHOULD STILL RECEIVE THE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS THAT WERE OFFERED.
UM, SO I WOULD SUGGEST YOU ADD THAT TO THE MOTION.
UM, AND AS FAR AS MS. DAVIDSON, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DO A PIO GET THE EMAILS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE AND SEE IF THE CITY IS RESPONSIVE ON THAT.
THAT'S I THINK, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL, I THINK, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CATCH THAT MAYBE THE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS WHILE THEY MAY NOT BE KIND OF DISPOSITIVE, COULD NONETHELESS BE INFORMATIVE IN HOW WE, UH, HOW WE DO THINGS AT THE FINAL HEARING, IF WE DON'T GET A KIND OF A COMMITTEE ON.
UM, IF WE DON'T GET AN AGREEMENT ON THE INFORMATION AS REQUESTED THAT, UH, MAYBE THIS WILL BE NONETHELESS HELPFUL.
UM, ANY OTHER HANDS, UH, FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION IN THAT CASE? SO THIS IS LYNN CARTER, SORRY.
UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT LAST ITEM THAT YOU ARE INCLUDING.
AND, UM, I AM, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE COUNSEL IS ADVISING THE COMMISSION, BUT I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT.
I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN SEPARATE THAT OUT WITH TWO SEPARATE VOTES.
OR WOULD IT BE MORE HELPFUL IF IN EMOTION IT WAS A, IT WAS A DIRECTION, UH, TO OUTSIDE COUNCIL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO REVIEW THE QUESTION AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF SETTING UP SOMETHING WHERE YOU REVIEW IT AND IF YOU THINK IT'S OKAY, YOU SEND IT, WOULD IT BE MORE HELPFUL JUST TO HAVE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION TO DIRECTION TO REVIEW THAT REQUEST THAT WOULD HELP ME CAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE REPORT NEXT.
UH, I SEE SECRETARY GO SAYING, GO FOR IT.
AND AS I SEE THAT REQUEST, I THINK THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT WOULD EVEN POTENTIALLY BE RESPONSIVE WOULD BE COMMUNICATION
[01:25:01]
BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND OUR, OUR COUNCIL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS GOING TO BE PROTECTED.WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE IT.
AND SO I, I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST PREFER WE NOT INCLUDED.
UM, BUT IF, IF MY IMAGINATION IS TOO LIMITED AT THIS MOMENT AND THERE WOULD BE OTHER INFORMATION, THAT'S NOT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS OTHERWISE, NO, THAT'S A FAIR POINT TOO.
I REALLY, THIS IS, THIS IS ME PLAYING IT SAFE.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND OUR PROCESS AND OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT IS TO THE CHAIR TO MAKE AN INITIAL JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.
AND SO I MADE THAT DETERMINATION AT A POINT, UM, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT LED TO THAT DECISION, IF THERE ARE ANY, UM, AND I'M SAYING THAT VERY HONESTLY, IF THERE ARE ANY, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS PRIVILEGED, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, AND WHAT, UH, WHAT OTHER COMMUNICATIONS THERE MAY BE THAT MAYBE WERE NOT DIRECTED AT THE, UM, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO A PRIVILEGE? UM, I DON'T KNOW.
SO I THINK, I THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO JUST INCLUDE IN THE MOTION IS JUST FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO REVIEW THE REQUEST.
UM, AND THEN HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO IGNORE IT OR DISMISS IT.
SO WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT AND TALK? WELL, MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR ME TO JUMP IN HERE.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, FIRST OFF I THANK PEOPLE, UH, UH, SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE, HAVE CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THE ISSUE THAT MOST OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THAT I'M AWARE OF REGARDING THE, UM, JURISDICTION HAVE COME FROM EITHER THE CITY ATTORNEY OR MYSELF, AND THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY OF PRIVILEGED AND NOT SUBJECT TO, UM, DISCLOSURE.
UM, IN ADDITION, I DON'T THINK IT'S A, I DON'T THINK IT'S A PROPER REQUEST ANYWAY, TO BASICALLY TO BE SORT OF LIKE ASKING A JUDGE TO SAY WHY, WHY HE, OR SHE MADE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A, UH, A PROPER REQUEST.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M PERFECTLY OKAY.
PARKER WITH, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSING IT WITH LYNN, UH, AFTER, YOU KNOW, AFTER, YOU KNOW, TOMORROW OR NEXT DAY, AND JUST KIND OF COMING UP WITH WHAT OUR, UM, RESPECTIVE, UH, UM, DO YOU HAVE IT IS, BUT, UM, I FRANKLY DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDED THAT REFLECTED ANY WAY, THE BASIS OF, OF YOUR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION.
IT'S EITHER, UH, PRIVILEGED AS ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, OR IT'S JUST NOT, NOT A PROPER, UH, REQUEST.
AND FINALLY, I WOULD SAY, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT AT ALL TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A VIOLATION OCCURRED, HOW THE DECISION YOU MADE TO, TO ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT JURISDICTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIOLATION IF THERE WAS ONE.
UH, MR. SEATS, I THINK, I THINK IN THIS MOTION, I'M SIMPLY GOING TO ASK BECAUSE I, I READ THAT IT COULD BE COMPLICATED, UM, AND RAISE 30 ISSUES EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE ATTORNEY, CLIENT PRIVILEGE CONTEXT ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF MAKING A REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION LIKE THAT.
UM, BUT I AM NOT IN A POSITION AT THE MOMENT TO KIND OF MAKE THAT CALL AND WANTING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE FACT THAT A REQUEST WAS MADE OF THE COMMISSION AND JUST WANT TO, UH, HAVE, UH, LAWYERS AT LEAST, UH, DEDICATED TO HELPING THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER.
UM, AND, UH, GUYS APPROPRIATELY, I THINK IT'D BE APPROPRIATE FOR, FOR LYNN AND I LOOK AT IT AND THEN TO SUBMIT A MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
AGAIN, IT WOULD BE PRIVILEGED AS ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY, CLIENT COMMUNICATION.
IT'LL LET YOU KNOW OFFICIALLY HOW WE VIEW THAT REQUEST.
AND I WILL SAY, I AM NOT EVEN SURE THAT THERE IS ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ON THE MATTER.
UM, SO THAT, THAT ISN'T, THAT IS A POSSIBLE OUTCOME AS WELL.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, UH, THEN YOU KNOW, THERE, THAT MAY BE A SUFFICIENT WAY TO RESOLVE IT, JUST TO LOOK FOR THE COMMUNICATION, IF ANY COMMUNICATION EVEN EXISTS AND, UH, PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
[01:30:01]
OKAY.SO I THINK I'VE GOT A MOTION READY AND LOOKING AROUND TO SEE IF ANYONE'S GOT FINAL WORDS, THOUGHTS.
THEN I'M GOING TO START THE MAGIC WORDS.
I MOVE THAT AT A FINAL HEARING ON THIS COMPLAINT THAT THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED ONE, THE AGGREGATE TOTALS.
NOW I NEED TO PULL THIS UP ONE, THE AGGREGATE TOTALS OF, UH, OF DONATIONS IN THE PERIOD CONTEMPLATED IN MR. LITTLEFIELD LETTER TO AGGREGATE TOTALS FOR EXPENDITURES IN THE PERIOD COVERED BY MR. LITTLEFIELDS LETTER THREE, ALL EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM SAVE AUSTIN.
NOW ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, INCLUDING EMAILS, DIRECT MAIL AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS IN THE TIME PERIOD AS REQUESTED IN MR. LOCAL'S LETTER.
AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS OF INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM SAVE AUSTIN NOW ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTED OFFICE IN TRAVIS COUNTY IN THAT PERIOD, FIVE, THE CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SAVE AUSTIN NOW AND SERVICE PROVIDERS OR AGENCIES OR GROUPS THAT PROVIDE SERVICES TO PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BETWEEN THAT PERIOD DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER.
AND THEN LASTLY, ALL PUBLIC FIVE OH ONE C PAPERWORK AND FILINGS FROM STATE BOSTON NOW, AND SEPARATELY THAT WE ASK OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO REVIEW THE QUESTION OF RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, KALE SECONDS.
I KNOW WE JUST SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
SEEING NONE, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE, BUT I AM GOING TO DO IS READ THROUGH THE NAMES AS THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
UM, WHEN I READ THROUGH THOSE NAMES, IF YOU COULD SEE VERY SIMPLY CLEARLY STATE I MAY OR ABSTAIN, UM, AND I WILL CONFIRM THAT VOTE IS THAT SOUND GOOD? LYNN, IF THERE'S A MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO A ROLL CALL, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR IT, BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE EFFICIENT WAY TO DO IT.
I'VE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY IN THE PAST, BUT OKAY.
SO CALLING THE VOTE ON THIS MOTION CHAIR SOBER ON I VOTE.
HI, SECRETARY GOBER SECRETARY GOBER VOTES.
COMMISSIONER DANBURG COMMISSIONER DAN BERG VOTES.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG VOTES.
COMMISSIONER KALE COMMISSIONER, KALE VOTES.
COMMISSIONER LAURIE COMMISSIONER, LAURIE VOTES.
COMMISSIONER LERNER COMMISSIONER LERNER VOTES.
COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK VOTES.
COMMISSIONER RYAN AND COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS ARE NOT PRESENT AT THIS MEETING.
I BELIEVE THAT LEAVES THE TOTAL IN TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE SIX, SEVEN EIGHT, NINE NINE IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED, ZERO ABSTAINING INTO ABSENT.
I WANT TO THANK THE RESPONDENT AND THE COMPLAINANT FOR TAKING, TAKING TIME TO BE WITH US AND TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH THESE ISSUES.
UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT YOUR FRUITFUL CONVERSATIONS BEFORE I FINAL HEARINGS AND FURTHER AGREEMENTS THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT REACH.
UH, AND, UH, I HOPE YOU WILL WORK WITH OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THAT AS WELL, BUT THANK YOU AGAIN.
WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, MR. CHAD, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSION WITH YOU AND THE OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS, I WILL EXCUSE MYSELF AT THIS TIME, PLEASE, BY ALL MEANS, MR. SHEETS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP.
HAVE A GOOD REST OF YOUR EVENING.
[3(a) Complaint filed by Mark Littlefield against Peck Young, Voices of Austin, which complaints allege violation of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Section 2-2-33 (Disclosure Statement Required).]
ITEM THREE FOR US FINAL HEARING.[01:35:02]
WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE CAN MOVE INTO GENDER ITEM THREE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COMPLAINTS FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST PECK, YOUNG VOICES OF AUSTIN, WHICH COMPLAINTS ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SPECIFICALLY SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE, THREE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED.UM, SO I AM HAPPY TO, UH, READ THROUGH THE RULES OF THE FINAL HEARING.
I CAN ALSO PARAPHRASE THEM, UM, AND I CAN SIMPLY PASS IT TO THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE STATEMENT, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDENT AND THAT NEITHER THE RESPONDENT OR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HAS APPEARED.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, UH, LET, LET ME JUST KIND OF, OKAY, SO USUALLY EACH SIDE, THERE'S A LOT OF THE OPEN AND CLOSE BEFORE PRESENTING EVIDENCE.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE RESPONDENT'S NOT APPEARING, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR AN OPENING FOLLOWED BY 30 MINUTES PER PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
YOU MAY SKIP YOUR OPENING AND MOVE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
IF YOU WISH, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE, MR. LITTLEFIELD? NO PREFERENCE.
THEN THE WAY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE, THEN THE WAY IT WILL WORK IS THAT THERE WILL BE, I'LL HAVE SECRETARY GOBER OR, UH, ESTEEMED TIMEKEEPER, UH, SET A TIMER FOR 10 MINUTES.
UM, AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF 10 MINUTES, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IN MORE INFORMATION, WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE.
UM, DOES THAT, DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? YEAH.
UM, SO AS CHAIR, I HAVE THE OPTION OF ASKING FOR CLOSING STATEMENTS AS WELL, OR DISPENSING WITH CLOSINGS.
UM, I, UH, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE MAY NOT BE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, IN FACT, INSTEAD OF MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION, WE'RE CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET THERE, I'D LIKE TO BUILD YOUR OPINIONS ON, ON THAT.
SO WITH THAT, MR. LITTLEFIELD, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY TO START SPEAKING FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT SLASH PRESENTATION, SECRETARY OR SECRETARY GOBER, WE'LL START THE TIME AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN GO, I BELIEVE THAT THERE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT I SUBMITTED FOR THIS MEETING Y'ALL HAVE THAT.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING AND YOU GOT, AND YOUR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND NOT OFFICIALLY TO, UH, TO, TO THIS COMMISSION.
UM, UH, UH, MY FIRST REQUEST FOR GETTING MY PRESENTATION IS THAT, UM, UH, LYNN CARTER AND STAFF SENT A LETTER ASKING FOR ALL EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED, UH, AND SUBMITTED, UH, UH, I BELIEVE ON MARCH 3RD AND I SUBMITTED MINE, UH, I THINK A WEEK LATE.
AND, UH, SO IN ORDER FOR YOU GUYS TO, I THINK, SEE IT, I'LL HAVE TO ASK THE CHAIR TO GRANT THE LEAD FOR MISSING THAT DEADLINE.
AND, UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR MISSING THE DEADLINE.
I'M NOT SURE GOING TO PICK THAT UP NOW.
I'LL TAKE THAT BACK INTO MY PRESENTATION.
LET ME KNOW, LIKE WHEN WE NEED TO START RIGHT NOW OR WHEN YOU CAN START AND START YOUR PRESENTATION, WE CAN, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT ISSUE THERE.
SO, UH, I JUST, THIS IS BASICALLY JUST TO KIND OF REVIEW WHERE WE WERE, UH, LAST MONTH.
UH, AND THIS WAS ABOUT GREAT, WHICH WAS FROM THE CITY CODE, THE, THE, UH, THE DEFINITIONS ABOUT ELECTIONARY COMMUNICATION, UM, UH, AND THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALL, ALL FIVE OF THESE THINGS HERE.
UM, UH, I MEAN THE COMMUNICATION THAT, UH, COST $5 OR MORE, UH, UH, UH, OUT REFERS TO A CANDIDATE OR IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THE BALLOT MEASURE, UH, THREE THAT IS DISSEMINATED, UH, UH, BY PUBLICATION, BROADCAST CONTENT, ET CETERA, FOR THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, MADE WITHIN A WINDOW, UH, UH, OF, OF THE ELECTION AND FIVE IS CAPABLE OF REACHING, AT LEAST IN THIS CASE, WE'RE GONNA ASSUME 5,000 PEOPLE.
UH, AND THEN WE GOT INTO EXPRESS ADVOCACY, UH, WHICH IS, I MEAN, THE COMMUNICATION, UH, OR THINGS VALUE THAT REFERS TO A CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE, OR THIS IS A BALLOT MEASURE.
UH, AND THE NUMBER ONE, IT SAYS THE MAGIC WORDS, YOU KNOW, UH, REALIZED VOTE FOR VOTE AGAINST CACHE OR BALLOT FOR, OR NUMBER TWO, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE HERE.
[01:40:01]
TO NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OTHER THAN AS AN APPEAL TO VOTE FOR, OR AGAINST A SPECIFIC MS. CASE BALLOT MEASURE.SO HERE, THE HERE'S THE MAILER THAT, UH, THAT CAUSED THE COMPLAINT TO BE FILED.
UH, IS THERE ANY PRESENTATION AND, UH, THAT ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU AND YOUR EVIDENCE PACKET, BUT AS YOU SEE, ON THE SECOND SIDE, UH, ON THE, UH, THE SIDE LIST IS TIRED OF BEING IGNORED.
IT SAYS ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY STAFF, THE COUNCIL WANTS YOU TO APPROVE PROPOSITION X.
IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS PROPOSITION EIGHT.
UM, AND THEN AT THE END OF THAT PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS IF THE CITY STAFF, WHEN YOU LOSE THAT IS EXHIBIT, UH, C1, UH, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE IT LATER ON, UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, MOST OF THE BOSTON, UH, TWITTER ACCOUNT, THEY TWEETED, UH, 213 TIMES FROM THE DAY THAT THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON JUNE 4TH, 2020 UNTIL NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020, THEIR, UH, THEIR ELECTION DAY.
THE ACCOUNT IS NOT POSTED ANY INFORMATION SINCE NOVEMBER 4TH, UH, INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT C TWO ARE, I JUST GAVE YOU THE 28 TWEETS DURING THE LAST SEVEN DAYS OF THE CAMPAIGN, UH, TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A SENSE THAT, THAT THIS WAS NOT, UH, EDUCATIONAL, BUT THIS WAS CAMPAIGNING.
UM, NEXT LINE, UH, HERE TO TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THEY MENTIONED PROCESS, UH, VOTE DOWN THE BALLOT PROP, A VALID INITIATIVE OR PROJECT CONNECT, UH, IT, THE PASS, YOU KNOW, THE PACKAGE HOMEOWNERS LEFT TO PAY HIGHER.
UM, UH, THE NEXT ONE CITY HALL LEADERS ARE LINED OFF TO THOSE IN THE MEDIA ABOUT FINANCING, ABOUT THE FINANCING FOR PROJECT CONNECT.
UM, UH, AND AGAIN, THOSE, THOSE ARE IN YOUR EVIDENCE PACKET.
UH, AGAIN, THIS IS, I DID IT THREE, UH, THIS IS THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE.
UM, UH, AND, AND THE POSTS FROM, UH, FROM THE FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS CLOSELY MIRROR, THE TWEETS FROM THE TWITTER ACCOUNT.
SO I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, LIST ALL OF THOSE.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, UH, BUT AGAIN, NO POSTS SINCE NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020, UH, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH, UH, YOU KNOW, VOICES OF AUSTIN SAYS THAT THEY ARE AN EDUCATIONAL PACK ABOUT MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES, NOT JUST PROJECT CONNECT, SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, A CODE NEXT OR BUDGETS, UH, PROPERTY TAXES, BUT AGAIN, OUR EDUCATION EFFORTS ENDED ON ON NOVEMBER 4TH.
THIS IS JUST ONE PART OF THE, UH, OTHER EXHIBIT C3.
UH, THIS IS, UM, UH, THIS IS A FACEBOOK ALGORITHM THAT ON THE, UH, UH, VOICE OF THE BOSTON CAMPAIGN FACEBOOK PAGE THAT SAYS HERE, HERE, OTHER RELATED PAGE AND THE OTHER RELATED PAGES HAPPEN TO BE ALL INMATES.
UM, THEY'VE OFTEN NOW JUSTIN BARRETT PROTECTS HIS HOUSE.
UH, THIS IS PART OF EXHIBIT C5, WHICH IS A PRESS RELEASE.
THIS IS THE LAST WORD WE GOT FROM VOICES OF BOSTON.
UH, LAST THING THEY SAID, UH, WHERE THEY RECAP THEIR EFFORTS, AND THEY SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT IN THE DISTRICT FOR VOICE, THE BOSTON CONCENTRATED ITS EFFORT TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON PROPHASE, UH, PROJECT CONNECT THROUGH MAIL, NEWSPAPER, AND SOCIAL MEDIA, THE PROPOSITION DID NOT PASS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROVING THAT VOTER EDUCATION SO EFFECTIVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
I MEAN, THIS, THIS IS, TO ME, THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN.
UH, THIS, THIS IS WHERE THEY JUST FLAT OUT ADMIT TO WITH WHAT THEY DID, THAT, WHERE THAT, WHERE THEY CONCENTRATED THEIR EFFORTS, THEY GOT THE OUTCOME THEY WANT, UH, WHICH WAS THE COMPETITION DID NOT PASS.
UM, IS THIS ACTIVITY TO ME, THIS IS WHAT THE, I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS TO DETERMINE THIS IS ACTIVITY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, ACCORDING TO TWO DASH TWO DASH 31.
AND IF THE TREX HAS ALL THESE BOXES, UM, IS IT COMMUNICATION THAT COSTS MORE THAN 500 BUCKS AGGREGATE? WELL, YES, THERE IS A MAIL.
THERE WAS A WEBSITE, THEY HAD SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS, THEY HAD PAID POLITICAL OPERATIVES.
UM, UH, UH, I, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT AS WELL, OVER $500, UH, IS IT IS A COMMUNICATION THAT FIRST TO CLEAR IDENTIFIED BALLOT MEASURE BY CONTAINING THE BALLOT MEASURES NUMBER? YES.
THEY SAY PROPOSITION EIGHT SEVERAL TIMES.
[01:45:01]
IS IT COMMUNICATION THEN SOMEBODY IN THE, BY PUBLICATION BROADCAST, INTERNET, MAC MAILING, OR TELEPHONE BANK OR BILLBOARD? YES.WE JUST WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.
THEY CHECKED THAT BOX, UH, IS THE COMMUNICATION IS MADE LATER THAN THE 61ST DAY BEFORE THE DATE OF ELECTION IN WHICH THE CANDIDATE, THE BALLOT MEASURE CARES ABOUT.
UH, THE MAILERS SPECIFICALLY WAS OUT 32 DAYS, UH, UH, BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
UH, AND I JUST SHOWED YOU SEVERAL, UH, TWITTER ACCOUNTS THAT WERE JUST IN THE LAST SEVEN DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
UH, AND AS A COMMUNICATION THAT'S CAPABLE OF REACHING AT LEAST 5,000 PEOPLE ELIGIBLE WAS A LITTLE BIT YES.
IN THE, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A MAILER THAT WAS ANNOUNCED, UH, AND THEY REFERENCED THE AREAS WHERE THEY CAN PAINT, WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY WAY MORE THAN 5,000 VOTERS IN THOSE, IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
UM, UH, LET'S GO, THE NEXT ONE.
IS IT THE FESTIVAL OR TO, UH, IT'S SUSCEPTIBLE TO NO REASONABLE PERSON INTERPRETATION OTHER THAN AS AN APPEAL TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST A SPECIFIC CANDIDATE OR MEASURE YET THIS IS EXPRESS ADVOCACY, UM, UH, CHECKED THAT BOX.
THEY EVEN ADMIT YOU IN THEIR FINAL PRESS RELEASE.
UM, AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, BIG VOICE VOICE OF THE BOSTON CAMPAIGN VIOLATE TWO DASH TWO DASH 33.
UM, THEY, IT'S A PERSON MAKING EXPENDITURE FOR POLITICAL ADVERTISING ALEXION'S PATIENT OR EXPRESS ADVOCACY.
UM, AND, UH, IF THEY DID SO THEN THEY NEED TO LIFT THEIR LARGEST FIVE CONTRIBUTORS, UH, TO THE POUNDS, UM, UH, UH, UH, UH, MAKING THE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE.
AND I BELIEVE, AND I, THAT THE COMMISSION WILL AGREE THAT VOICE OF THE BOSTON DID VIOLATE THIS, UH, AND, UH, AND THEY SHOULD BE, I DON'T THINK I KNOW THAT WE'RE LIMITED IN WHAT THE CONDITION CAN DO HERE, BUT I WAS HOPEFUL THAT THE COMMISSION COULD COMPEL THEM, UH, TO LIFT, UH, UH, THEIR TOP FIVE CONTRIBUTORS.
UM, THAT'S PROBABLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE COMMISSION CAN DO.
UH, BUT IF, IF WE DON'T, AND THIS MAY NOT BE THE VENUE FOR THAT REMEDY, BUT IF WE DON'T, THEN THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, WHERE PEOPLE USE NONPROFITS TO HIDE THEIR DONORS, UH, AND THEIR EXPENDITURES AND THEIR ACTIVITY.
UH, AND IT'LL MAKE OUR DEMOCRACY, UH, THAT MUCH MORE WEAKER HERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, I KINDA RAN THROUGH THAT, BUT I FELT LIKE WE'D ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
UM, AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, SO COMMISSIONERS I'M, I'M HAPPY TO OPEN IT TO QUESTIONS.
UM, ONE THING THAT I WILL SAY IS THAT I'VE GOT, I HAVE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY BEFORE WE, UH, KIND OF DISPENSE WITH, UH, THE ITEM VIA EMOTION, UM, BUT DO WANT TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM CONDITIONERS, HOWEVER MANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU HAVE.
SO FLOOR IS OPEN AND I SEE COMMISSIONER GREEN FOR EXPANDS TO GO AHEAD.
SO, MR. LITTLEFIELD, YOU SAID, YOU ASSUME IT'S MORE THAN $500.
ARE YOU OFFERING US ANY PROOF THAT IT'S MORE THAN $500? UM, BESIDES LOGICALLY IT SHOULD BE, I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF? UH, NO.
MA'AM THEY, THEY SAID THAT THEY DISTRIBUTED THEIR MAILER WIDER.
UH, AND THEN LATER ON IN THE CAMPAIGN, THEY TALKED ABOUT PLACES WHERE THEY CAMPAIGN THE PRECINCTS, WHERE THEY CAMPAIGN.
WHEN I WORKED ON A CAMPAIGN WHERE VOLUNTEERS PRINTED THE FLYERS AND WE WALKED THEM, UH, THEY CALLED IT A DIRECT MAIL.
UH, TH THEY CALLED THIS A DIRECT MAIL, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOMES OR WHO PRINTED IT OR ANYTHING BECAUSE ALL OF THAT IS KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.
SO I FEEL LIKE THE PROOF IS MISSING SECRETARY GOPRO, MR. LITTLEFIELD, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR EXHIBIT C FOUR.
IT SEEMS TO BE A NEWS ARTICLE.
UM, PAGE THREE OF THAT REFERENCES KIND OF MIDDLE OF THE PAGE.
THERE'S A PHOTO OF GERALD, DALTREY THE NEXT FULL PARAGRAPH AFTER THAT? IT SAYS THE PAC SPENT $5,000 ON THE WAR CHEST WITH VOICES OF AUSTIN.
ANOTHER GROUP, OPPOSED TO THE REAL PROPOSITION.
IS, IS THAT PART OF WHERE YOU WERE GETTING YOUR INFORMATION,
[01:50:01]
THAT THERE WAS MORE THAN $500 SPENT? UH, YES.SO, UH, I SAID THAT IN THERE, BUT, BUT, UH, AND THAT WAS ABOUT TWO THINGS.
ONE IS, IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN THE BOSTON'S, YOU KNOW, DID COORDINATE WITH ANOTHER, UH, WITH ANOTHER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.
UH, THEY RECEIVED A $5,000 CONTRIBUTION TO HELP PAY FOR THEIR ACTIVITY.
UM, AND THEN, UM, UH, AND THEN, UH, IF YOU WERE AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE AND THEN IT GETS REPORTED AT THE END OF THAT LETTER, UH, THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY MEMBERS OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST PROPOSITION X.
I WOULD SAY THAT I'VE ALSO BEEN INVOLVED IN MANY CAMPAIGNS.
UM, UH, AND I'VE ALSO, UH, HAD VOLUNTEERS, UH, YOU KNOW, PUT STAMPS ON POSTCARDS THAT ARE PRINTED IN HOUSE.
UM, AND, UM, NOW THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY A BLACK, THIS IS A FULL COLOR SLICK MEGLER, UM, UH, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOUSES THAT IT WENT TO.
UM, BUT IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A SMALL RUN, UM, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN 20,000 HOUSEHOLDS THEN PRINTING AND POSTAGE, EVEN IF IT'S A NON-UNION SHOP, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, IS, IS GOING TO COST YOU, YOU KNOW, WELL OVER 60 CENTS PER PIECE, UM, YOU KNOW, AND IF YOU GET OVER 20,000, THEN YEAH, YOU CAN GET INTO THE, IN THE 50 CENTS OR MAYBE EVEN CLOSE BY THAT 50 CENTS, IF YOU'RE LUCKY.
SO I'M THINKING IS THAT IF THEY SENT IT TO MORE THAN A THOUSAND HOUSEHOLDS, THEY WENT OVER $500.
SO WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE WAS.
AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS I NEVER HEARD OF THEM.
SO WHAT THEY SAID IS, AND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, WAS THAT A QUESTION DIRECTLY TO ME, UH, UH, UH, IN THERE, UH, AND, AND THEIR FINAL PRESS RELEASE, UH, WHICH I INCLUDED, UM, UH, EXHIBIT C5, UH, THEY LISTED PRECINCTS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE MASS AND THEY LISTED A PRE, UH, PRECINCTS WHERE PROPOSITION A SALE.
AND, UH, ALL OF THOSE PRECINCTS WERE MOSTLY WEST OF MOPAC.
UM, UH, AND THAT'S PROBABLY, I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHY YOU NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING FUNDS FROM THEM BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT IN, I GUESS, THAT AREA THAT THEY PARKED AT AN HOUR TEAM, AN ALLOCATION, ANITA.
IT'S JUST, I JUST THINK HE DID, IT'S KIND OF WEIRD THAT THEY DIDN'T TARGET, UM, VOTERS TOO ALL THE TIME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR TARGET WAS, SO YEAH, TARGETED ME.
I VOTE ALL THE TIME AND THEY TARGETED ME VERY HEAVILY.
BECAUSE I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEM.
YOU LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MOPAC TOO.
COMMISSIONERS OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS.
OH, WE PUT HER UP IN FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO DRAG IT OUT IF THERE REALLY ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, SO NOT CASE, UH, SO IT'S AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW FOR A CLOSING STATEMENT.
UM, UH, I'M GOING TO JUST ASK MR. LITTLEFIELD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT? OKAY.
UM, UH, SO AT THIS POINT, I THINK I JUST WANT TO KIND OF OFFER A FEW WORDS FOR PURPOSES OF THE DISCUSSION.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR, EVEN THOUGH THE CODE REQUIRES A RESPONDENT TO A COMPLAINT TO APPEAR BEFORE A FINAL HEARING LEAVES ME A LITTLE DUMBFOUNDED IF I'M GOING TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST.
UM, THIS WAS A COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED IN OCTOBER.
[01:55:01]
UM, WE HAD A HEARING, WE TRIED TO HAVE A HEARING IN NOVEMBER.UM, WE TRIED TO HAVE THE HEARING IN DECEMBER.
UH, WE ALMOST HAD A FULL HEARING IN JANUARY.
UM, AND THEN TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES PREVENTED US FROM COMPLETING IT.
UH, WE GAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED, WE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE SCHEDULES FOR THE PARTIES, PARTICULARLY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
UM, AND WE FINALLY WERE ABLE TO HAVE OUR FULL, THE REST OF OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING LAST MONTH, WHERE, YOU KNOW, I MADE A POINT TO, UH, ALLOW BOTH PARTIES ADDITIONAL TIME TO PRESENT THEIR CASE, THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY.
UM, BEFORE WE PROCEEDED WITH MORE QUESTIONS ON THE PART OF COMMISSIONERS, UM, AT EVERY POINT, UH, FEELING AS THOUGH I THINK THE COMMISSION GENERALLY HAS BEEN PATIENT TOWARDS BOTH PARTIES, UM, AND, UH, WHERE, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS THAT I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY DISRESPECTFUL, UM, FOR THE RESPONDENT TO NOT APPEAR.
AND I, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT WILL BE RECORDED, UM, SO THAT THEY CAN HEAR HIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND ANYONE WHO HAPPENS TO BE LISTENING TO THIS ONCE IT'S POSTED ONLINE, SINCE IT'S TOPPING BROADCAST, IT IS, IT IS ONE THING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THE JURISDICTION THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM AS AN ENTITY AT THE LEAST WHAT THEY COULD DO IS APPEAR HERE AND MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.
BECAUSE AS FAR AS I RECALL, I TRIED MY BEST TO REVIEW, UM, EACH MEETING WHERE WE HAD BROUGHT THIS UP, AS BEST AS I CAN RECALL, THEY AT NO POINT SAID, BY THE WAY, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER US AS AN ENTITY.
AND WE DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE, WE DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS AT NO POINT, DID THEY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT? AS FAR AS I COULD REMEMBER, I COULD BE WRONG.
UM, SO I, AS WE KIND OF DISCUSS A WAY FORWARD AND RESOLVING THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINT, AS WE DISCUSS A POSSIBLE MOTION TO DISPOSE OF IT, I JUST WANT US TO KIND OF KEEP IN MIND, KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS NOT OKAY.
UM, AND THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IN, UH, UH, WITHIN THE PAST SIX MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD, THAT A PARTY HAS SHOWN, UM, SOME AMOUNT OF DISRESPECT, UH, TO THE COMMISSION EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A WHOLE.
AND, UM, AND I PLAN ON DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF THERE'S A MOTION THAT ANYONE HERE HAS, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN IT.
I'LL WAIT FOR, UH, NEWT AND PEOPLE CHIME AGAIN, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, JUST IN RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I BELIEVE THE LETTER WAS MAKING THE EXACT POINT THAT THEY MADE AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THEY SAW THE WAY THE COMMISSION LISTENED TO IT.
SO I CAN TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, NOT COMING TO MAKE THE SAME POINT AGAIN WITH THE SAME COMMISSION.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S TIME CONSUMING HAVING THE LAWYERS EXPENSIVE.
IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM IT, I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS DISRESPECT.
I TOOK IT AS THEY FELT LIKE IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT.
WHAT I'LL SAY IS THAT, UH, THE, THE DETERMINATION THAT THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME, UM, UH, VINCENT'S DISRESPECT, UM, IN MY MIND AND ALMOST IT'S ALMOST ENOUGH JUST TO READ WORD FOR WORD, THE CITY CODE PROVISION THAT SAYS COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT ARE REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE A PRELIMINARY, BEFORE A FINAL HEARING.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, BOTH PARTIES KNOW THE RULES AT THIS POINT.
UM, AND UP UNTIL THIS POINT, RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING AND WE HAVE BEEN DEFERRING TO RESPONDENT.
WE'VE BEEN ACCOMMODATING RESPONDENT'S SCHEDULE.
WE'VE BEEN ACCOMMODATING, UM, YOU KNOW, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES SO THAT THE RESPONDENT CAN GET UP HERE HEARING AND PARTICIPATE IN FOR THEM TO DECIDE AT THIS POINT THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER EVEN RESPONDENTS OR WHATEVER THEY MIGHT KIND OF PERCEIVE.
HOWEVER, THEY MIGHT WRAP THEIR HEADS AROUND THAT PROVISION CITY CODE.
I THINK OF VINCE IS A LEVEL OF DISRESPECT.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO CAPITALIZE THE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, DAN, RICK, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND.
I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
[02:00:01]
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS UNCONTROVERTED IN THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THAT EXPRESS ADVOCATE ADVOCACY DID OCCUR AND THE LECTIONARY AND DID OCCUR.AND I'LL, I'LL JUST REMIND COMMISSIONERS THE, THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE, UH, THAT WE HAVE, UM, IS A PREPONDERANCE.
SO I WILL REFER EVERYONE TO, UH, TWO SEVEN, FOUR OR FIVE D UM, WHERE IT SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE ITS DETERMINATION BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
UM, SECRETARY GOPRO, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP, I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE WAS 500 OR MORE SPENT.
OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE A RECEIPT FOR THE MONEY THAT WAS SPENT, UH, BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO APPEAR.
WE DON'T GET TO ASK A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION UNDER OATH OR THE RESPONDENT OF DID YOU SPEND MORE THAN $500 AND TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO A RESPONDENT WHO HAS VIOLATED THE LAW, UH, IN, IN REFUSING TO COME HERE TODAY WOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE FURTHER AND FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF LAW.
SO I THINK, I THINK WE SHOULD READ INTO THE RE THE WRITTEN RESPONSE WE RECEIVED FOR THE RESPONDENT AT NO POINT, AS I LOOKED THROUGH THE RECORDS, AS I'VE LOOKED THROUGH ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE RESPONDENT, AT NO POINT AS THE RESPONDENT SAID, WE NEVER SPENT MORE THAN $500.
AND IF THEY NEVER SPENT MORE THAN $500, IT TAKES SENTENCE.
IT IS SO EASY TO PROVE INNOCENCE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A DUTY OR A BURDEN TO PROVE INNOCENCE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO EASY TO SAY, WE NEVER SPENT MORE THAN $500 CASE CLOSED WE'RE DONE, BUT THEY NEVER CLAIMED THAT.
AND THE ONE TIME WHERE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEM UNDER, DID YOU SPEND MORE THAN $500? AND THERE'S NO WAY A COMPLAINANT COULD EVER KNOW THAT OR PROVE THAT WITHOUT GOING INTO THEIR BOOKS.
AND SO IF WE HAVE A RULING TODAY THAT WE CAN'T FIND THAT EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT WASN'T PRESENTED BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT DIDN'T SHOW UP, THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL GO HOME AND DISBAND THE COMMISSION ENTIRETY FOR THE, FOR THE FUTURE ON THESE TYPES OF CLAIMS, BECAUSE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE RESPONDENTS SHOW UP TO THESE IN THE FUTURE EVER AGAIN.
AND I, I, I'D ALSO JUST LIKE TO REMIND COMMISSIONERS THAT AT OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING, UM, THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT DID SAY THAT THERE, UH, I BELIEVE IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE EXPRESS ADVOCACY PROVISION, BUT THE, UM, UH, THE, THE SECOND, UH, PART OF THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT IS EITHER, UM, IT'S EITHER ELECTIONEERING OR, UM, ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION OR EXPRESS ADVOCACY.
AND I THINK THERE WAS, UH, THE, THE WORDS THAT WERE USED WERE, UM, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A TECHNICAL VIOLATION.
THAT WAS, THOSE WORDS WERE SAID BY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
UM, JUST WANTED TO REMIND COMMISSIONERS THAT, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER DANFORD, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE A MOTION IF EVERYBODY'S FINISHED DISCUSSING.
UM, I, I KIND OF, I THINK I'VE SAID MY PIECE, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF, UH, UH, JUST TO MAKE THINGS HOPEFULLY A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE MOTION IS, UM, WHAT THE MOTION IS ABOUT, UH, WHAT MY MOTION WILL BE IF EVERYONE'S FINISHED DISCUSSING PRIOR, UM, WOULD BE THAT WE FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND SECTION TWO, TWO 33 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED.
I JUST CORRECT THAT THAT'S, THAT IS WHY, UM, NEITHER THE RESPONDENT, UH, THEMSELVES OR A COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT APPEARED BECAUSE, WELL, THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP.
I RECALL, I RECALL ONE CASE INVOLVING, UH, UM, AN ICE CREAM TACO TRUCK IN WHICH THE, UH, RESPONDENT DID NOT SHOW UP, DID NOT SHOW UP FOR, UM, PRELIMINARY OR FOR A FINAL HEARING.
UM, AND WE FOUND AGAINST THAT INDIVIDUAL, UM, BUT THERE WAS A VIOLATION.
UH, SO THERE'S, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR FINDING VIOLATIONS ON US.
UM, SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER DAN BERGER, YOU'RE INTERESTED IN EMOTION THAT WOULD JUST MAKE THE DETERMINATION
[02:05:01]
THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.IF I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE IT, I MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FIND THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, UH, BY VOICES OF AUSTIN VIOLATING CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND SECTION TWO DASH TWO, THREE, THREE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED.
I SECOND, THE I SECOND THE MOTION.
DANBURG SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KALE.
IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? YES.
I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE LACK OF PROOF.
IT REALLY WASN'T FOR THE RESPONDENT TO, TO PROVE THAT IT WASN'T, THEY DIDN'T SPEND 500, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE COMPLAINANT.
IF I CAN JUST RESPOND TO THAT, I WOULD, I MEAN, CERTAINLY THIS IS, WERE A CRIMINAL TRIAL, THEN THERE IS AN, UH, PERHAPS THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE, EVEN IF IT WERE A CRIMINAL TRIAL, BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD.
I MEAN, THE STANDARD REALLY IS JUST PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.
AND SO THEN WE CAN ONE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND THEN BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, WE CAN CERTAINLY INFER, UH, SOME WE CAN MAKE INFERENCES BASED OFF OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND THAT LIST HAD IT NOT BEEN PRESENTED.
AND SO WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED KINDA TO, UH, SECRETARY GOLDBERG'S POINT IS THAT WE, WE DO HAVE A STATEMENT FROM, UM, FROM THE RESPONDENT AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT, THAT SIMPLE LANGUAGE.
SO THAT'S AN INFERENCE THAT WE CAN DRAW.
WE, WE ALSO DO UNDERSTAND REASONABLY SO, UH, HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO PRINT SOMETHING AT ANY OF THE LOCAL PRINT SHOPS AND WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO SEND OUT MAILERS ON A WIDE SCALE.
UH, WE ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WOULD COST TO PAY FOR ADS ON FACEBOOK, EVEN, EVEN IF OUR UNDERSTANDING IS MINIMUM, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COSTS IN THE AGGREGATE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT PROBABLY CAME OUT TO $500.
AND SO WE'LL MAKE DECISION ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO BOND ON ALL THESE ISSUES, BUT ON THAT ELEMENT, I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS, HAS BEEN SUFFICIENT.
UM, AND JUST TO OFFER THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS SPECIFIC PART OF CITY CODE THAT'S AT ISSUE HERE, UM, IT, IT CONTEMPLATES EITHER ELECTIONARY COMMUNICATION, WHICH HAS THAT $500 THRESHOLD, THAT $500 REQUIREMENT FOR EXPRESS ADVOCACY AND PART OF EXPRESS ADVOCACY IS THAT IT'S A COMMUNICATION, UM, ACTIVITY, GOOD SERVICES OR ANYTHING OF VALUE THAT REFERS TO CLEARLY CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE OR BALLOT MEASURE.
YOU HAVE A CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THOUSAND MEASURE THAT STUFF TO IT'S UPSETTABLE TO NO REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OTHER THAN AS AN APPEAL TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THE SPECIFIC CANDIDATE OR BALLOT MEASURE.
THERE'S NO DOLLAR REQUIREMENT THERE.
IT'S JUST, THERE IS NO OTHER REASONABLE INTERPRETATION THAT ONE CAN GROW.
UM, AS I REVIEW SOME OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS, I THINK IT IS VERY HARD, VERY HARD TO HAVE A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, REASONABLE, THE KEYWORD INTERPRETATION THAT THIS IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN APPEAL TO OPPOSE A BALLOT MEASURE, EVEN IF THEY, THIS, THIS MAGIC WORDS, UM, DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD AT OUR LAST, AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, HEARING THIS PLURAL, UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT HOW MAGIC WORDS WORK, WHAT WAS DESCRIBED, UM, IN PART, BECAUSE THE, UH, AT LEAST STARTED UNDER HER CITY CODE ELECTIONEERING.
AND WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE MAGIC WORDS, UM, SAYS, WHERE DID IT GO? I JUST HAD IT UP.
UM, IT SAYS, INCLUDING SUCH AS THESE WORDS, IT DOESN'T SAY IT HAS TO BE VOTES, POOR VOTE AGAINST, UM, I STRUGGLED TO FIND A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IF SOMEONE WERE TO RECEIVE THIS AS BEING LIKE, OH, I'M JUST BEING INFORMED ABOUT AN ELECTION.
AND I'M JUST BEING INFORMED ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT THE ELECTION IS ABOUT.
UM, IT, IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE CENTER OF THIS THE MOST, I DON'T SEE A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION ON THE PART OF A READER
[02:10:01]
THAT THIS IS TELLING ME ANYTHING OTHER THAN VOTE AGAINST PROFITS.THAT'S, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT.
UM, AND, UH, I, I LIKEWISE AGREED THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS, UH, ALMOST CERTAINLY A LARGE NUMBER OF HOUSES TARGETED WITH MAILERS, OTHER KINDS OF PAID PROMOTION AND COMMUNICATION, ALMOST CERTAINLY IT EXCEEDED $500.
UM, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED A RECEIPT AND DOLLAR TO CONFIRM THAT, BUT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, UM, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, WE PASS THE THRESHOLDS UNDER ELECTIONEERING, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT EXPRESS ADVOCACY, UH, WE WE'VE MET THAT AND GONE PAST IT TOO.
UM, BUT THAT IS, THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT.
HAPPY TO TAKE OTHER DISCUSSION COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS.
WELL THERE NO OTHER DISCUSSION.
THEN WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS GO THROUGH, UM, THE NAMES OF COMMISSIONERS AS IT APPEARS ON THE AGENDA.
JUST LIKE I DID EARLIER IN THE MEETING.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YOUR VOTE I'LL FROM YOUR VOTE.
UM, AND I WILL GO IN THAT ORDER.
VICE-CHAIR OR HURRY, UH, VICE CHAIR OR HEARD VOTES.
SECRETARY GOBER BY SECRETARY GOBER VOTES.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG VOTES.
COMMISSIONER KALE, COMMISSIONER, KALE VOTES.
COMMISSIONER LARRY COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER LEARNER, COMMISSIONER LEARNER, VOTES SIDES.
UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK VOTES.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, RYAN AND COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER, RYAN AND COMMISSIONER BULOVA'S ARE NOT PRESENT.
THEN I'VE COUNTED NINE EYES, ZERO NAYS, UM, ZERO ABSTENTIONS AND TWO ABSENCES.
UM, IS THAT CORRECT LYNN FROM MY TALLY? YES.
WE CAN PROCEED TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT SANCTIONS POSSIBLE SANCTIONS.
UM, I THINK, UH, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK WE COULD JUST AS EASILY START WITH MOTIONS, IF ANYONE HAS THEM.
UM, AS A REMINDER, IF YOU NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT, WHAT SANCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE, UM, IT IS C CODE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR EIGHT.
THAT IS OUR NORMAL SANCTIONS, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR NINE.
THAT HAS SOME CAMPAIGNS CAMPAIGN VIOLATION, SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, THE FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
YOU KNOW WHAT, ACTUALLY, THAT IS A FINE IDEA.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ARE YOU TAKING, UM, JUST A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
I ACTUALLY NEED TO GET SOME WATER AND TALKING A LOT.
SO FIVE MINUTES, UH, COMMISSIONERS WILL RECESS.
UM, IT'S NINE, 12 ACTUALLY ON MY COMPUTER.
SO I'M GOING TO SAY AT NINE 17 EXPERTS CALL BACK.
SO IT'S NINE 17, AND WE'RE OUT OF RECESS.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, WHERE WE LEFT OFF, UH, WE WERE ABOUT TO DISCUSS SANCTIONS OR ENTERTAIN MOTIONS.
CAN WE JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE ALL BACK? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN PROCEED UNTIL WE HAVE EVERYONE THAT'S GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN A THOUGH.
OTHERWISE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO VOTE IF THEY'RE NOT PRESENT FOR THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION.
SO THEN I AM GOING TO, UM, I'M JUST GONNA, UH, ASK FOR A VERBAL CONFIRMATION THAT YOU'RE HEARING READY TO GO.
UM, SO BY SERIAL HURRY, ARE YOU BACK COMMISSIONER LEARNER? ARE YOU BACK WHILE WE WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER LEARNER? UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE, UM, ARE YOU,
[02:15:01]
ARE YOU WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PART OF THE HEARING? IF IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO GO, I'M NOT FEELING WELL, BUT IF YOU ALL NEED ME TO STICK AROUND, I CAN THREE, FOUR, SIX, SEVEN, I THINK WE'RE FINE.UH, LEN, I'M JUST GOING TO CONFIRM THAT, UM, THAT THE SANCTIONS DOES THAT, IS THAT A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT OR MAJORITY READ THE COMMISSION THAT'S REQUIRED? GIVE ME JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
I CAN STAY FOR IT, BUT THEN IF IT'S OKAY, I'LL LEAVE RIGHT AFTER.
SO WITH THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, SINCE, UH, I THINK MOST OF US ARE BACK, I'LL SEE COMMISSIONED LEARNER AS WELL.
UM, SO DISCUSSION OR EMOTION, THE FLOOR IS OPEN COMMISSIONER KALE.
WELL, JUST GOING THROUGH THE CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO UNDER CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS, WHICH REDIRECTS US BACK TO SANCTIONS, IT LOOKS AT APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR THIS IS TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 48 THREE.
A REPRIMAND IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
WHEN WE FIND THAT A VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH DISREGARD OF THE CHAPTER, IT MAY REPRIMAND AN OFFICIAL OR WELL OR AN EMPLOYEE.
SO, SO THE WAY, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS THAT A TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR NINE CAMPAIGN VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY SUBSECTION, UM, G OR NOPE, SORRY.
UH, SUBSECTION F UM, UH, REDIRECTS US BACK AND I WOULD READ INTO IT, UH, UH, INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND RULES.
SO REPLACE OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE WITH A RESPONDENT IN A CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE.
IT SEEMS TO FIT THE DEFINITION OF A REPRIMAND TO ME, UM, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY KNEW, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID THIS INTENTIONALLY, BUT CERTAINLY THROUGH DISREGARD OF WHAT OUR CITY CODE IS AND SAYS THAT THEY SHOULD DO.
AND, UM, SO, UH, THAT'S WHERE I THINK SO.
UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG, SO I'LL SURE IT'S NOT QUITE READY FOR EMOTION, BUT THAT WAS JUST ME THROWING OUT WHAT I, YOU KNOW, AFTER REVIEWING THE CODE.
UH, SECRETARY GOLDBERG, UH, I JUST ALWAYS START FROM THE TOP AND MOVE DOWN.
SO I'M STARTING, I'M LOOKING AT SENSOR AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WOULDN'T APPLY IN THIS INSTANCE KIND OF READING THE SAME, SAME LANGUAGE, UM, AND IT'S WHETHER INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH CULPABLE DISREGARD A VIOLATION HAS BEEN BEEN COMMITTED.
I THINK IT SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT WE DON'T HAVE A DEFENDANT HERE TODAY THAT JUST COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE PROCESS DOESN'T CARE.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S AN INNOCENT INFERENCE FROM THAT, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND EXPLAIN, OH, THIS WAS JUST AN INNOCENT MISTAKE, BUT THEY'VE NOT DONE THAT.
AND ACTUALLY I AGREE WITH, YEAH.
UM, ONE, SO I'LL THE ONE THING THAT I'LL OFFER, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED IS THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION? UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE COMMISSIONERS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DRAW INFERENCES AS YOU'D LIKE IN RESPONDENT'S NON-APPEARANCE.
UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY AM, UH, ON THE FENCE BETWEEN THREE AND FIVE, UM, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO CALL IT A SERIOUS VIOLATION, UM, BECAUSE I, I, YOU KNOW, NOT SURE IF I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION EITHER TO SAY IT WAS A REPEATED VIOLATION.
UH, CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT NUMBER FIVE CALLS FOR, UM, I'M HAPPY TO BE PERSUADED.
OTHERWISE I SAW SECRETARY GOPHER'S HAND.
EVEN OUR OWN COMMISSIONER SAID THAT SHE RECEIVED MULTIPLE MAILERS.
UH, I MEAN THAT THAT'S A REPEATED VIOLATION.
UM, AND SO IN SO FAR AS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION AT THE CITY LEVEL CAN EVER BE SERIOUS.
I, I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME THINKING OF THEM BEING MORE SERIOUS THAN THIS IN TERMS OF THE DEGREE OF VIOLATION, BUT IN MAYBE, PERHAPS IN TERMS OF EXPEDIENCY, IF WE
[02:20:01]
BOTH FOR FIVE, AND THEN IF WE DON'T PICK UP SIX, THEN WE DROPPED DOWN TO THE THREE WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION, MULTIPLE.YOU WERE TALKING THAT YOU HAD DONE AN EMAILS AS WELL.
I GOT A LOT OF STUFF AND I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF I COULD BETTER MAKE THE TRANSLATION BETWEEN SECTION TWO, SEVEN 49 AND TWO SEVEN 48, I WOULD, IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT BETTER AND HAD MORE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL EASE, I WOULD GO WITH THE STRIPPED OR THE NUMBER FIVE, FRANKLY.
UH, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO RESTATE THAT RELATIONSHIP AS I BELIEVE IT'S INTENDED TO BE UNDERSTOOD, WHICH IS THAT THE, THE SANCTIONS IN TWO, SEVEN 48 SPECIFICALLY LETTER OF NOTIFICATION ADMONITION, REPRIMAND, AND CENTURY.
SO LEAVING OUT RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, SINCE THAT DOESN'T APPLY IN THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SPACE THAT YOU APPLY THE SAME CRITERIA, AS FAR AS WHO THE OBJECT OF THE SANCTION IS, YOU SIMPLY REPLACE THAT WITH THE RESPONDENT IN A CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE.
AND THAT MAKES IT DEFINITELY, I WOULD SUPPORT NUMBER FIVE.
UM, AND LET'S SEE, COMMISSIONER LEARNER, GO AHEAD.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT BASING, UH, THE LEVEL OF THINGS ON PUSHING OUR KALE'S SORT OF, UH, TOTAL, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS THAT SHE RECEIVED THINGS IN THE MAIL OR THAT THAT'S THE, IT WAS BROUGHT IN TO SHOW UP HERE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S RELEVANT FOR THE LEVEL OF VIOLATION NEEDS TO BE IN MY OPINION, UH, RELATED TO THE ACTION, NOT TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOWED UP AT THE COMMISSION HEARING.
UM, APPRECIATE THAT COMMON COMMISSION OR LEARNER, I THINK, UM, I'M HAPPY TO FIELD OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE THEM RELATED TO THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION.
UM, I THINK, UH, THINGS THAT, UM, INDICATE A REPEATED VIOLATION POTENTIALLY, UM, UH, INCLUDE, UH, LET ME SEE IF THERE, IF I COULD FIND THE WELL FOUR AND FIVE SAY SERIOUS OR REPEATED AND UNLESS, I MEAN, MR. LITTLEFIELD ONLY HAD THE ONE MALE, SO I MEAN, OF COURSE THERE'S TWITTER AND FACEBOOK, BUT, UM, EVERY DAY IT'S ON TWITTER.
UH, AND, AND TO CLARIFY, WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, WE'RE CURRENTLY TALKING TO YOU ABOUT EITHER THREE OR FIVE, FOUR, OR IS IT ON THE TABLE, UH, IN THIS CASE? SO THREES OF VIOLATIONS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH DISREGARD FIVE IS, UH, A SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH PALPABLE DISREGARD.
UH, COMMISSIONERS OTHER MIKE, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
I, I DIDN'T PRESENT MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE AS, UH, OR MY ANECDOTE AS FIVE PROOF OF WHAT THE SANCTION SHOULD BE.
THAT WAS JUST, IT HAD COME UP IN THE CONVERSATION.
SO I KIND OF THREW THAT OUT THERE.
I STILL BELIEVE THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY MR. LITTLEFIELD IS WHAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT.
AND CERTAINLY WHAT I AM LOOKING AT IN THIS SITUATION.
AND MY COMMENT JUST SAY WAS NOT ABOUT YOU, KAYLA WAS THAT I WAS HEARING WHAT I WAS HEARING.
I JUST WANTED TO SET THE RECORD THAT WE WERE RELYING ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NICE.
AND FOR INTENTIONAL OR DISREGARD OF THE CHAPTER, I MEAN, I THINK THEY'RE CLEAR THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE CHAPTER, BUT THEY FILED THE, UM, TAX EXEMPT STATUS SEEMINGLY WITH THE INTENT OF BEING AN EDUCATIONAL ADVOCATE, BUT IT'S EASY TO CROSS THE LINE.
SO I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH INTENTIONAL OR DISREGARD SURE.
UH, SORRY, COMMISSIONER LORD'S HAND.
AND I, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M MISTAKING THIS FOR ANOTHER PARTY, BUT THE LAST TIME WHEN THE RESPONDENTS DID APPEAR AND WERE ARGUING TO ME, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THEY WERE VERY AWARE OF WHERE THE LINES MIGHT BE.
AND VERY CONSCIOUSLY WERE TRYING TO FRAME THEIR ACTIONS IS NOT ENCROACHING ON THOSE.
AND SO FOR ME, THAT GOES TOWARDS THE SERIOUSNESS AND THE INTENTIONALITY
[02:25:01]
OF THEIR CONDUCT.SECRETARY GOPRO ON THAT LINE, I WISH I HAD MY NOTES, BUT I REMEMBER THE DEFENDANT OR THE RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY USING SOME WORD.
UH, WE, UH, CAREFULLY CRAFTED.
I, THEY WERE, THEY WERE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AND THEY WERE TRYING TO LIVE ON THE LINE.
UH, AND, AND, AND AT LEAST IN THE GRAY AREA.
UH, UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, I DO SEE YOUR HAND, UH, AT THIS TIME IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO TALK, UM, KIND OF ASK QUESTIONS TO PARTIES.
I KNOW, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER DAN BERG, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK MR. LITTLEFIELD WHAT'S GOING THROUGH HIS HEAD? YEAH, NO, AT TH SO WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF PAST THE POINT OF, UH, LETTING, LETTING THE PARTIES TALK.
UM, WE ARE IN THE SANCTION DELIBERATION STAGE.
UM, I THINK, I THINK IN THE PAST WE HAVE ASKED, UM, UH, FOR OPINIONS ABOUT SANCTIONS.
UM, BUT COMMISSIONER DANBURY, GO AHEAD.
I, I THINK THAT WE HAD LOTS OF, UH, DISCUSSION IT WASN'T EVIDENCE CAUSE IT WASN'T SCORN, BUT WE HAD ENOUGH DISCUSSION WITH THE RESPONDENT TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO WALK A LINE.
AND I THINK THAT AS A GROUP, WE HAVE DECIDED WITH OUR CONVICTION A VIOLATION THAT THEY FAILED TO WALK THAT LINE ON THE CORRECT SIDE.
I THINK, I THINK OUR PREVIOUS VOTE FINDING THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THEY FAILED TO WALK THE LINE.
UM, AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT WAS AN INTENTIONAL CROSSING OF THE LINE OR IF IT WAS A CULPABLE DISREGARD OF THE CITY CODE THAT LED TO THEIR CROSSING.
UM, COMMISSIONER'S OTHER, OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER DAMPER, PLEASE STATE YOUR MOTION.
MY MOTION IS THAT THE SANCTION SHOULD BE, UH, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR NINE FIVE, THE R L THE THE SERIOUS OR REPEATED ONE.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS, UM, CARTER CARTER FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
DO YOU MEAN TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR? WELL, I THINK FOUR NINE IS THE, IS THE POLITICAL ONES.
SO, SO, UM, LET ME, LET ME KIND OF PUT A PAUSE ON, ON THE MOTION, UH, AND JUST CLARIFY, UM, SO TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR EIGHT C FIVE, CAUSE THEY LET HER HAVE CENTER.
UM, AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR EIGHT C THREE IS A LETTER OF REPRIMAND.
UM, AND THESE ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONTEXT, AS WE KIND OF DISCUSSED UNDER TWO SEVEN FOUR, NINE F.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE THE MOTION IN TERMS OF THE, UH, THE NAME OF THE SANCTION NOTIFICATION GOING FROM LEAST SEVERE TO MOST SEVERE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US RIGHT NOW? NOTIFICATION ADMONITION REPRIMAND CENTER.
SO THE MOTION IS THAT THE SANCTION WE APPLY IS A LETTER OF CENSURE.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANBURG.
IS THERE A SECOND? SEE A SECOND FROM SECRETARY GOBER.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS.
VICE-CHAIR OVARY THINK YOU'RE MUTED.
I HAVE NOT YET FORMED AN OPINION.
AND I WAS JUST SITTING HERE AND LISTENING
[02:30:01]
TO EVERYTHING AND REALLY TRYING TO DEBATE WHAT IS FAIR AND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE AND WHAT, UH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO INSTILL TRUST IN CITY ELECTIONS.AND ONE THING THAT I ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH IS I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD ONLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE BLACK LETTER LAW AND, UH, EVERY PERSON SHOULD MAKE HONEST ATTEMPTS TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND OBVIOUSLY, AND I, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH POSITION THAT THE, AT THIS COMMISSION HAS TAKEN, BUT IT DOES SEEM THAT THE RESPONDENT, UH, AT LEAST TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY AND APPLY IT TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY.
AND THEY JUST WERE WRONG AS FAR AS THE COMMISSION IS CONCERNED, BUT IN SOME, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DON'T HAVE A ROLODEX OF EVERY CASE IN EVERY OPINION THAT WE HAD OR EVERY RESULT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS SPECIFICALLY.
AND SO MAYBE THERE ISN'T AS MUCH PRECEDENT FOR THIS ISSUE IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH,
AND AGAIN, MAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT WHERE THEY BEING AS TRUE TO THE LAW AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
CERTAINLY THERE IS THAT ARGUMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THESE TYPES OF CASES INVOLVING FIVE OH ONE C FOURS THAT JUST GOT IT WRONG.
UM, AND WE WOULD EXPECT THAT ANY SOPHISTICATED ATTORNEY ORGANIZATION THAT ATTEMPTED THIS IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE AWARE OF THE COMMISSION'S POSITION NOW.
AND SO, UM, WITHOUT SPECULATING OR JUST OFFERING THE PARENTS, SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE IN FRONT OF US, I WOULD SAY IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY THAT IT'S, IT'S A REPEATED VIOLATION BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW TIMES, THE FIRST TIME, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WERE TAKING US SOMETHING, THIS SPECIFIC IT'S, IT DEFINITELY IS A VIOLATION.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD GO AS FAR AS, UH, ASKING FOR A CENTURY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMISSIONER.
AND WE'VE ALWAYS HAD TROUBLE WITH INTENTIONALITY, UM, WHETHER IT WAS THIS TYPE OF VIOLATION OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF VIOLATION, INTENTIONALITY IS PRETTY DIFFICULT FOR US TO KNOW, UM, WHICH IS HOW WE OFTEN END UP WITH A LETTER OF ADMONITION BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT INTENTIONALITY.
THEY SEEM TO INTEND TO EDUCATE, AND WE'VE SORT OF TALKED ABOUT THEM WALKING THE LINE AND FALLING ON THE WRONG SIDE, BUT THAT'S NOT INTENTIONALITY COMMISSIONER LAURIE, AND THEN COME SECRETARY COPER.
UM, AND MAYBE SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN ON THE COMMISSION LONGER CAN SPEAK TO THIS BETTER, BUT, YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS INTENTIONAL.
AND JUST FROM OTHER AREAS OF LAW, UM, INTENTIONALITY REFERS TO WHETHER THE CONDUCT ITSELF WAS INTENTIONAL, NOT WHETHER THERE WAS AN INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.
UM, AND I DON'T READ THIS AS ANY DIFFERENT FROM THAT.
SO JUST TO, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S POINT, IT'S WELL TAKEN.
BUT FOR ME, IT'S EVALUATING WHETHER THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION, WHICH WE AGREE IS A VIOLATION, WHETHER THE CONDUCT ITSELF WAS DONE IN CONTENTLY RATHER THAN RECKLESSLY OR MISTAKENLY.
AND THEN MAYBE, UH, KIND OF SIMPLIFY THE DISTINCTION IT'S WHETHER OR NOT, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THEY MADE THESE COMMUNICATIONS INTENTIONALLY, NOT WHETHER OR NOT THEY INTENTIONALLY SAID, THIS IS THE LAW AND I'M GOING TO VIOLATE IT BY MAKING THESE COMMUNICATIONS.
IS THAT THE DISTINCTION YOU'RE DRAWING.
SECRETARY GOBER I SAW YOUR HAND AND THEN I'LL GO COMMISSIONER KALE.
THE REASON I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR CENSURE IS WHILE I AGREE THAT THE ENTITY IS SOPHISTICATED, OR I BELIEVE THE ENTITY IS SOPHISTICATED AND HIRED PRIOR TO AN ATTORNEY, I DON'T THINK IT WAS TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
I THINK IT WAS TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE AS FAR AS IT POSSIBLY COULD, UH, TO TRY TO SKIRT THE LAW, TO TRY TO AVOID THE, UH, RE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE LAW.
AND, AND I THINK THAT WAS ALL DONE WITH PURPOSE.
I THINK IT WAS ALL DONE WITHIN 10 AND, AND I THINK THEY'RE JUST TESTING THE FENCES AND SEEING HOW FAR THEY CAN GO.
UH, AND THAT'S WHY I'LL GO FOR ESSENTIALLY THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER KALE.
AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT SOMETHING
[02:35:01]
IN THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE WORDING, IN THE NUMBER FIVE.SO IT SAYS A LETTER OF CENTER, UM, IS APPROPRIATE WHEN THE COMMISSION FINDS IT A SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH CULPABLE DISREGARD.
SO IF WE FIND THAT THEY CULPABLY DISREGARDED THIS, WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY, I MEAN, IT'S EITHER INTENTIONAL OR IT'S THROUGH CULPABLE DISREGARD.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THE INTENTIONAL INTENTIONALITY OF IT.
UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG IF I MAY SUGGEST LET'S GO WITH MY MOTION, WHICH IS CENTER AND IF WE DON'T YEAH.
THE ADEQUATE BOATS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT ANOTHER.
UM, APPRECIATE THAT, UH, OF MY, ALL MY COMMENTS, UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, THE ONE KIND OF WEIGH IN, UM, MY THOUGHTS ON THIS MOTION, I AM INCLINED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT.
AND I THINK IT'S PRECISELY BECAUSE OF WHAT COMMISSIONER KALE SAID THAT CULPABLE DISREGARD.
UM, AND I THINK WHAT, UH, SECRETARY GOLDBERG IS DESCRIBING IN, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THEY HAD, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD PROFESSIONAL HELP IN MANAGING THE OPERATION.
UM, AND TO ME, UH, WORKING VERY HARD TO, UH, DO EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO OPPOSE PROP A WITHOUT USING MAGIC WORDS.
UM, TO ME SEEMS LIKE A COUPLE DISREGARD OF OUR RULES.
UM, I, THAT, THAT THOSE ARE MY 2 CENTS.
I THINK WE'VE KIND OF TALKED THROUGH THIS ENOUGH, UM, OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WE GO TO VOTE.
UH, YOU HAD A SECOND TO HAVE A SECRETARY GO APPROVING SECOND TODAY.
SO THERE WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER LEARNER.
I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE MY COMMENTS FALLS TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BUT I WASN'T HERE FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I'M NOT RESPONDING TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE SAME WAY THE REST OF YOU ARE.
UM, I JUST DON'T, I'M NOT FEELING IT IN THE SAME WAY AS I WAS HERE FOR THE FIRST PART.
SO I, I'M STRUGGLING TO KIND OF KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THE VOTE, JUST BEING HONEST.
SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.
UM, DO YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT, UH, WHAT I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND COMMISSIONER LEARNER? UH, THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW IS THE MOST THAT WE'VE HAD IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE, UM, IN TERMS OF SUBMISSIONS BY EITHER SIDE, UM, DISCUSSIONS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE AND TALKING ABOUT ISSUES SURROUNDING, UH, WHAT, UH, FIVE OH ONE C4 CAN AND CAN'T DO WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.
UM, UH, SO I WOULD, UH, JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE EVIDENCE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, UH, THE, THE STATEMENTS THAT PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ARE INFORMATIVE, BUT I THINK THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US IS SUFFICIENT AS WELL.
COMMISSIONERS OTHER OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? JUST THAT IF YOU MISS, IF YOU MISS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, YOU CAN ALWAYS LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, RIGHT? YEAH.
I SAW, UH, WAS IT, UH, COMMISSIONER KALE'S HAND OR COMMISSIONER? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE AT SOME POINT AS TO WHETHER WE CAN GO PAST 10:00 PM LEWIS? WE, UH, AT SOME POINT, UH, YES, I DON'T EXPECT THIS TO TAKE MORE THAN, UH, 18 MINUTES IN DISPOSING OF THE SANCTIONS, UH, ELEMENT OF THIS.
AND THEN IF WE, UH, NEED TO FOR REMAINING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, I THINK WE CAN THAT TIME.
I DON'T EXPECT US TO HAVE A HARD CRASH LIKE WE DID IN JANUARY.
THAT IS FROM TAKING THAT BOAT.
NO OTHER DISCUSSION, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
THEN IN THAT CASE, I'M GOING TO START THE VOTE AND I'LL DO IT THE SAME WAY THAT I HAVE IN PRIOR VOTES.
SO WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF, CLEARLY STATE YOUR VOTE.
I WILL REPEAT THE VOTE BACK TO YOU.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL TALLY AT THE END.
SO THIS IS ON A MOTION TO SEND A LETTER OF CENSURE AND I WILL START CHAIR SOBER ON VOTES.
[02:40:01]
SECRETARY BICESTER HEARD ABOUT TODAY, SECRETARY GOBER BY SECRETARY GOBER VOTES.COMMISSIONER DANBURG COMMISSIONER DANBURG VOTES.
COMMISSIONER GREENBURG, NO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S VOTES.
NAY COMMISSIONER KALE, COMMISSIONER, CALE VOTES.
NOVARI BOATS, HIGH COMMISSIONER LEARNER.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO? IS THAT AN ABSTENTION? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER LERNER, ABSTAINS COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK VOTES.
COMMISSIONERS, RYAN AND VIA LOBOS ARE NOT PRESENT CHAIR SOBER WRONG.
I LIKE THE, AND I BOUGHT AS WELL TOO TO AN ABSTAIN.
SO WITH THAT, I COUNT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, VOTING IN FAVOR, TWO ABSTENTIONS, ONE NOTE AND TWO ABSENT LYNN.
IS THAT, IS THAT A CORRECT COUNT? CORRECT.
AND I BELIEVE WITH THAT, THE MOTION PASSES, CORRECT.
I SEE NODS AND I ALWAYS WAIT ON LYNN FOR THE, YEAH.
I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY MOUSE.
THE MOTION PASSES, UM, COMMISSIONERS.
UM, THIS HAS TAKEN MONTHS, UM, TO GET TO THIS POINT, UH, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE OVER THE COURSE OF THE MONTHS AND PARTICULARLY THIS EVENING, UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE.
UM, YOU ARE WELCOME TO LEAVE IF YOU LIKE.
UH, THANK YOU FOR STICKING AROUND FOR THIS AS WELL.
THANK YOU, MR. LITTLEFIELD AS WELL FOR BEING HERE AND FOR PRESENTING REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND WE'LL SEE YOU SOON.
UM, SO THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM FOUR, FOUR B, GET THERE.
UM, HOW ABOUT THIS? I'M JUST GOING TO ASK AN OPEN QUESTION, AGENDA
[4. OLD BUSINESS]
ITEM FOR OLD BUSINESS, AND WE HAVE WORKING GROUP STATUS REPORTS AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.UM, LET ME JUST ASK AN OPEN QUESTION ON AGENDA ITEM FOUR.
DOES ANYONE HAVE UPDATES FROM THE WORKING GROUPS? I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WE MIGHT HAVE AN UPDATE ON IS JUST, UH, COMMISSIONER KALE.
WE HAD DISCUSSED AN OP-ED, UH, POTENTIALLY TO BE WRITTEN.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT HASN'T BEEN WRITTEN YET, BUT THAT IT WILL BE SOME POINT.
THIS THE STORM THREW ME BEHIND.
WE LOST POWER FOR FOUR DAYS AND WALK HOME.
IT WAS A MESS AROUND HERE, WATER AND EVERYTHING.
SO, UM, I, I HOPE TO HAVE IT BY THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, COMMISSIONER'S OTHER WORKING GROUP RELATED UPDATES, SECRETARY GOBER.
I WANT TO SAY AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I'M CURRENTLY IN A HOLDOVER STATUS.
UH, SO I'M PRETTY MUCH GONE AT, AT LONGEST IN TERMS OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
I'LL BE HERE NEXT TIME, UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE IS APPOINTED BEFORE THEN A WORKING GROUP ONLY CONSISTS OF MYSELF AND CHAIR SOBER ON.
SO, UM, MAYBE AT SOME POINT A CONVERSATION ABOUT AN INSTEAD OF JUST A WORKING GROUP OF ONE ONCE I'M GONE.
THANKS FOR THE REMINDER SECRETARY COBRA.
I WOULD LOVE TO TOUCH BASE ON SOME FINAL THOUGHTS BEFORE YOU DEPART AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT WORKING GROUP.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER, UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER, UH, UPDATES ON WORKING GROUPS? JUST A QUESTION, IS THAT EDITORIAL OR OP-ED FROM THE COMMISSION OR FROM AUTHORS? THE, THE PLAN IS TO HAVE IT BE FROM THE WHOLE COMMISSION.
SO OUR WORKING GROUP WAS GOING TO COME UP WITH A DRAFT AND THEN PRESENT IT TO THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, SEND IT TO YOU ALL AHEAD OF TIME SO YOU CAN REVIEW AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IT WOULD, UM, BASED ON MY CONVERSATION WITH, UM, WITH LYNN, IT WOULD BE, UM, APPROPRIATE TO HAVE IT FROM THE WHOLE COMMISSION.
AND OBVIOUSLY IF SOMEONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT OR WANTS TO MAKE EDITS OR, OR DOESN'T LIKE IT, THEN, YOU KNOW, UH, IT HAS TO BE A UNANIMOUS THING AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
SO LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FUTURE
[6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS]
AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.UM, SO SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, UM, HOPEFULLY IF NOT MULTIPLE IN MAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FINAL HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT AGAINST STEVE AUSTIN.
[02:45:01]
UM, ANOTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, JUST TO KEEP ON THE RADAR IS OPTION OF OFFICERS, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? THEY WOULD LIKE TO RAISE COMMISSIONER DAMPER? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE NUMBER FIVE, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WHEN WE GET TO THEM.I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE MINUTES TO APPROVE.
UM, AND WE'RE TECHNICALLY NOT ON THAT AGENDA ITEM YET.
UM, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPEDIENCY COMMISSIONER AMBERG UM, THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, NOT ANYTHING SPECIFIC, JUST THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, THE WORKING GROUPS KIND OF RESUME DO WORK ON BOTH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CODE THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER AND OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EARNEST.
I THINK OUR DOCKETS KIND OF CLEARING UP AT THIS POINT.
UM, IN DECEMBER, NOVEMBER, JANUARY, THOSE HEARINGS, WE HAD MULTIPLE, WE HAD MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS THAT WE WERE JUGGLING AND IT KIND OF TOOK, TOOK THE OXYGEN OUT OF OUR, UH, TANK, SO TO SPEAK.
UM, WELL, PLUS THE INFORMATION ABOUT POSSIBLE CIVIL FINES WAS VERY HELPFUL.
SO, UM, JUST, UH, NOTHING CONCRETE JUST TO A REMINDER AND AN EXPECTATION THAT WE'LL RESUME THAT WORK IN EARNEST AND HOPEFULLY GET BACK TO REGULAR UPDATES ON THE WORK WITH THOSE WORKING GROUPS.
UH, THAT IS THAT COMMISSIONERS.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, MINUTES MS. CARTER APOLOGIZES, BUT THEY ARE NOT COMPLETED AS OF YET.
SHE HAS BEEN VERY BUSY DOING BOTH SUE'S JOB AND HER JOB SINCE SUE PALMER HAS LEFT FOR GREENER PASTURES.
UM, SO WHEN WE THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK THIS EVENING AND FOR THE PAST MONTH OF YOU'VE BEEN, UH, DEALING WITH THE DEPARTURE OF OUR GOOD FRIEND, SUE, UM, OKAY.
THEN, UH, WITH 10 MINUTES TO SPARE THAT OUR COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION.
UM, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.