* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:05]
          THEN, WHAT I WILL DO IS UNLIKELY SINCE IT'S SIX OH SIX ALREADY. 
          I THINK I'M JUST GOING TO START THE MEETING. 
          UM, IF WE ARE GOOD TO GO. 
          OKAY. 
          READY WHEN YOU ARE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO GOOD 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS LUIS, SO BROWN CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. 
          I AM GOING TO, UH, CALL ATTENDANCE IN THE ORDER THAT I SEE YOU ON THE SCREEN. 
          AND I WILL ANNOUNCE, UM, ABSENCES. 
          SO FIRST HERE, SO BRAUN IS PRESENT BEN, UM, VICE CHAIR. 
          OH, HURRY UP. 
          PRESENT, RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER KALE COMMISSIONER. 
          MCCORMICK'S RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER HERE, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HERE, COMMISSIONER LAURIE HERE. 
          THEN I BELIEVE COMMISSIONERS LEARNER AND VIA LOBOS ARE ABSENT. 
          UM, AND I AM ACTUALLY MISSING MY AGENDA THAT I HAD IN FRONT OF ME. 
          UM, I THINK IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT A QUORUM IS PRESENT. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA JUST SAY A QUORUM IS PRESENT. 
          UM, SO, UH, FIRST, BEFORE WE GET INTO INTERRUPT YOU, SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS IS NO LONGER ON THE PERMISSION, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON, COMMISSIONER WINS, STANTON. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I DO NOT SEE A COMMISSIONER WHEN STANTON, UM, YET JOINED. 
          UM, SO WHEN MARTIN IS ABSENT AND IF THEY, UH, APPEAR LATER, WE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE AND KIND OF NOTE THEIR PRESENCE. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT ABSENT THAT I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          WE HAVE ONE MORE NAME NAKEY, KENNY YUCA. 
          YES. 
          I DO NOT SEE, DO NOT SEE THEM EITHER. 
          UH, UM, MS. TINNY, UH, COMMISSIONER TINNY, YUCA CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION OR BOTH BECAUSE SHE STILL NEEDS TO ATTEND REQUIRED TRAINING. 
          SO SHE IS JUST OBSERVING. 
          UM, AND YOU DO NOT NEED, COUNT HER PRESENT FOR RIGHT. 
          GOT IT. 
          THEN I'M GOING TO PROCEED WITH NOTING THAT WE DO HAVE A QUORUMS, UH, FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING BUSINESS. 
          UM, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AT THAT POINT IS MOVE ON TO CITIZEN 
          [CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
COMMUNICATION. 
          UM, SO I THINK WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS WHO ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK FIRST. 
          WE HAVE MS. TIFFANY WASHINGTON REGISTERED, REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM ONE C, WHICH IS THE SAME AS ITEM TWO B UM, IS MS. WASHINGTON WITH US? HELLO? YES, I AM WITH YOU. 
          HI, MS. WASHINGTON. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU WANT TO SPEAK NOW OR, UM, YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION OF SPEAKING WHEN AGENDA ITEM TWO B IS CALLED UP. 
          UM, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE? UM, I CAN SPEAK THEN. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU WHENEVER WE GET TO AGENDA ITEM TWO B. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN WE WARN HER THOUGH THAT WE GOT AN EXECUTOR AND BEFORE THAT AND A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF WHEN I READ THAT IT, NO, THAT'S VERY FAIR. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DANBURY. 
          SO MS. WASHINGTON, JUST FOR YOUR AWARENESS, UM, UH, SHORTLY AFTER WE'VE WE FINISHED WITH THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, WE'LL BE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THAT CAN TAKE ANYWHERE FROM 15 MINUTES TO AT TIMES IT'S GONE TO AN HOUR. 
          UM, WOULD YOU STILL BE COMFORTABLE, UH, WAITING UNTIL AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? OKAY. 
          THEN, UH, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. 
          UM, AND I WILL, UM, I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP, BUT WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME IS TIFFANY WASHINGTON. 
          I'M AN AUSTIN RESIDENT AND BUSINESS OWNER. 
          I, I AM ALSO A US NAVY VETERAN AND I'M THE GRANDDAUGHTER OF RENOUNCED CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER, DORKY PENNER. 
          I'M HERE TODAY 
          [00:05:01]
AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN OF, AND FOR THE COMMUNITIES, THE LACK OF ETHICAL HONOR, COURAGE AND COMMITMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY IS LOST. 
          PERIOD. 
          NOT ONLY DOES OUR COMMUNITY FIGHT DAILY TO SURVIVE, BUT WE FIGHT DAILY FOR RESPECT, TRUTH, HONESTY, AND TRANSPARENCY. 
          WE ARE TIRED OF BEING BRUSHED ASIDE UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF IGNORANCE OR TO BE FACED WITH RETALIATION FOR USING OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK TO THOSE OFFICIALS. 
          WE ARE MADE TO REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS. 
          I REMAIN I'LL TALK AT THE EASE WITH WHICH LOCAL LEADERS PLACE THEMSELVES ABOVE THE PEOPLE WITH VIOLATIONS OF CODES OF CONDUCT ARE RAMPANT AND BLATANT, NOT ONLY WITH OUR CITY LEADERSHIP, BUT LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS WHO THE EXPERIENCE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES AND IDEAS FROM RESIDENTS POSITIONING THEMSELVES AS GATEKEEPERS AND REMOVING THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE FROM GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING AND SIMPLE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 
          AS A VETERAN, OUR USE THE RIGHTS ARE FOUGHT FOR AND DEMAND, RESPECT WHILE DOING SO NO ONE SHALL MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE OR SET PRECEDENT FOR BROKEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE PEOPLE ON MY WATCH, AS I SAID WITH HONORS. 
          SO SHALL YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU GUYS TODAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. WASHINGTON. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG. 
          I DO SEE YOUR HAND. 
          I WANT TO, UM, REMIND YOU THAT, UH, WE'RE WE DON'T USUALLY, UM, KIND OF OPEN THE DOOR TO QUESTIONS FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, BUT I'M HAPPY IF YOU'VE GOT A COMMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE. 
          WELL, I, I JUST WANTED TO THANK MS. WASHINGTON FOR SERVICE AND ASK HER AGAIN, WHO HER RELATIVE, WHO WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST WISE. 
          I, I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR HER. 
          SURE. 
          MS. WASHINGTON AND CHRISTO. 
          UM, YEAH, YEAH. 
          YES. 
          MA'AM MY GRANDMOTHER'S NAME WAS DOROTHY TURNER. 
          GOT IT. 
          WELL, WELL, THANK YOU AGAIN, MS. WASHINGTON FOR BEING HERE FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR, FOR PARTICIPATING, WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL NEXT ON CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS, WE HAVE MS. UH, CHIVAS WATSON, UM, OR MR. CHIVAS, WATSON. 
          I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCED THAT. 
          UM, ARE YOU WITH US, UH, ON THE LINE? THEY'RE NOT ON THE ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY'RE NOT ON THE LINE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          UH, LYNN, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU IF AT SOME POINT, UH, HE DOES COME ON THE LINE. 
          UM, WE BE ABLE TO SAY BETWEEN AGENDA ITEMS, UH, HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, UH, THAT IS UP TO THE CHAIR. 
          WE WOULD NOT BE GOOD TO INTERRUPT A HEARING FOR THAT. 
          AND TECHNICALLY THE SPEAKERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE LINE WHEN WE GET TO CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, BUT THE, IF THE CHAIR WANTS TO ACCOMMODATE IN THAT MANNER, THEN WE WILL JUST NEED TO ASK HIM TO WAIT UNTIL A HEARING IS OVER BEFORE. 
          UM, WE RECOGNIZE HIM. 
          OKAY, WELL, LET'S DO THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO, UH, IF HE, IF HE TIMED THE COLLIN, UH, UH, A LITTLE, A LITTLE OFF, THEN I DON'T WANT TO KIND OF PENALIZE THAT. 
          SO IF, IF HE DOES JOIN US, UM, IF YOU CAN JUST LET US KNOW AND LET HIM KNOW THAT, UM, UH, IF WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF ONE OF OUR HEARINGS, THAT WE WILL, UH, WE'LL TAKE HIS THREE-MINUTE COMMENT, UM, AT THAT TIME. 
          WE'D APPRECIATE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UM, SO COMMISSIONERS, UM, IF THERE ISN'T ANY OBJECTION I WANTED TO KIND OF JUST, UH, ROADMAP THAT EVENING. 
          UM, WHAT I WOULD INTEND TO DO IS TAKE UP ITEM TWO B, WHICH IS MS. OVERTURES COMPLAINT AGAINST, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM HARPER, MADISON, UM, FIRST AND THEN PROCEED TO THE OTHER TWO HEARINGS. 
          UM, I AM, UH, I AM NOT SURE THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO PRESIDE OVER ALL THREE HEARINGS, GIVEN MY, UH, WORK OBLIGATIONS AT THE MOMENT. 
          UM, AND SINCE THE VICE CHAIR, UH, IS RECUSING FROM THAT ITEM SPECIFICALLY, UM, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO PRESIDE OVER THAT HEARING. 
          AND THEN IF THE NEED BE, UH, TURN THE REIGNS OVER TO THE VICE CHAIR TO PRESIDE OVER THE OTHER TWO HEARINGS. 
          UM, SO THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE THEN WE'LL PROCEED ACCORDINGLY. 
          UM, AND WITH THAT, UH, WANTED TO JUST, UH, THINK OF ALREADY MADE THAT RECUSAL ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          UM, SO THE FIRST 
          [1. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
AGENDA ITEM IS TO GO IN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          LET ME GET THAT SCRIPT READY. 
          SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP ONE ITEM, 
          [00:10:01]
EXCUSE ME, THREE ITEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION FIVE, FIVE, 1.07. 
          ONE OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION MAY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A COMPLAINT FILED BY JOE CASINO WHO COMES OUT OF SWINGER, WHICH COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTIONS TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO THREE AND TWO, TWO, TWO SIX B COMPLAINTS FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD. 
          WE CAN SAY BOSTON NOW ITS WORDS, VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CITY CODE SECTIONS TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO THREE AND TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO SIX, AND THEN SEE A COMPLAINT FILED BY OLIVIA OVERTOOK MAYOR PRO TEM, NATASHA HARPER, MADISON, WHICH LETS US VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SPECIFICALLY SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO B. 
          IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS? JUST ANNOUNCED? NO OBJECTION, BUT I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF, WHICH MEANS I WILL BE OUT OF THE ROOM FOR THE PORTION OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION DEALING WITH I BELIEVE AGENDA ITEM TO BE GREAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND WE'LL, WE'LL BE SURE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU ONCE WE'VE COMPLETED THAT DISCUSSION SO YOU CAN REJOIN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, UM, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          THE TIME IT'S SIX, 17:00 PM. 
          COMMISSIONERS WILL JOIN THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION WEBEX LINK. 
          UM, AND THEN ONCE WE'RE DONE, WE'LL COME BACK HERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I'LL SEE Y'ALL ON THE OTHER SIDE. 
          THANKS. 
          SO WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION. 
          THE TIME IS 7:11 PM IN CLOSED SESSION. 
          WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO A COMPLAINT FILED BY JUST CASINO AGAINST OTTO SWINDLER, WHICH COMPLAINT ALLEGED OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, SECTIONS TWO TO 23 AND TWO TO 26 B COMPLAINTS FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST STATE BOSTON NOW, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODES AFTER CITY CODE SECTIONS TWO TO 23 AND TWO TO 26 C COMPLAINT FILED BY OLIVIA OVER TURF AGAINST MAYOR PRO TEM, NATASHA HARPER, MADISON, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO SEVEN, UH, SECTION TWO SEVEN 62 B. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW THAT WE'RE BACK IN OPEN SESSION, WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED ON THE AGENDA TO OUR, I BELIEVE IT IS OUR NEW BUSINESS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AGENDA ITEM TWO IS OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          AND THEN AGENDA ITEM THREE IS GOING TO BE YOUR FINAL HEARING. 
          BEFORE WE WENT INTO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE ATTENDEES, UM, AWARE THAT GIVEN THE, UM, GIVEN THE ATTENDANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, AND THE FACT THAT IT TAKES SIX AFFIRMATIVE VOTES TO DO A THING, UM, AND THAT ON ANY GIVEN COMPLAINT, WE ARE LIKELY ONLY GOING TO HAVE SIX COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, AT, AT EACH POINT, ONCE WE GET TO EACH AGENDA ITEM, WE'RE LIKELY GOING TO HAVE A KIND OF FRANK DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS HEARING SHOULD BE POSTPONED. 
          I WANTED TO SAY THAT UPFRONT FOR EVERYONE WHO'S LISTENING, UM, JUST TO KIND OF BE READY FOR THAT DISCUSSION, UH, IN ANY KIND OF INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY SO THAT WE'RE NOT SURPRISED ONCE WE GET TO EACH AGENDA ITEM. 
          SO JUST COMMISSIONERS OUT, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A COMMENT, UH, ON THAT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, BUT OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO FIND THE RIGHT SCRIPT TO MOVE US INTO THE NEXT ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN IN THAT CASE, UM, WE'LL PROCEED 
          [2.(b) A complaint filed by Olivia Overturf against Mayor Pro Tem Natasha Harper-Madison, which complaint alleges violation of City Code Chapter 2-7 (Ethics and Financial Disclosure) Section 2-7-62 (Standards of Conduct) subsection (B).]
TO ITEM TWO B AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, UM, UH, BEFORE WE WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION VICE-CHAIR OR HARRY WILL BE RECUSING HIMSELF FROM THIS ITEM, AND THEN HE'LL BE REJOINING US AFTER THE FACT FOR THE OTHER ITEMS IN OUR MEETING TODAY. 
          SO WE WILL SEE YOU SOON, VICE CARE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE'RE TAKING OUT OF ORDER IS ITEM TO BE A COMPLAINT FILED BY OLIVIA OVER TURF AGAINST MAYOR PRO TEM, NATASHA HARPER, MADISON, WHICH COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, SECTION TWO SEVEN 62, SUBSECTION B. 
          SO, UM, I AM GOING TO PARAPHRASE THE PROCEDURES THAT WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW IN OUR PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. 
          UM, UH, THE PARTIES, BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THESE PROCEDURES BEFOREHAND. 
          SO THEY SHOULD BE AWARE, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY TO REITERATE THEM AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER, UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          SO FIRST THE COMPLAINANT'S GOING TO STATE 
          [00:15:01]
THE ALLEGED VIOLATION AND THEN TESTIMONY AND THE KIND OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT'S GOING TO BE OFFERED AT THE FINAL HEARING. 
          UM, SO THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS CASE IS OLIVIA OVER TURF. 
          FIRST, MS. OVERTOOK, ARE YOU HERE WITH US? FEEL FREE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU ASKED ME TO INTERRUPT PLEASE. 
          UM, CHAIR. 
          SO BROWN, YOU ASK US TO LET YOU KNOW WHEN THE PUBLIC SPEAKER WAS HERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF MR. WATSON IS SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM. 
          HE NEEDS TO SPEAK BEFORE WE START THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN IN THAT CASE, UH, LET'S UH, BACK UP A LITTLE BIT, UM, WE'LL BE ON IF, IF HE'S AVAILABLE AND ON THE LINE, THEN WE CAN GO TO CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, UM, FOR THREE MINUTES TO HEAR WHAT MR. WATSON HAS TO SAY. 
          UM, MR. WATSON, CAN YOU TELL ON THE LINE? HI, MR. WATSON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 
          UM, HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? I'M DOING AS WELL AS CAN BE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, STILL IN NEED. 
          MANY PEOPLE ARE STILL IN NEED BECAUSE OF MAYOR PRO TEMPS DECISIONS. 
          SO YEAH, I AM SPEAKING TO THAT ITEM. 
          THAT WAS JUST, YEAH. 
          GREAT. 
          GREAT. 
          WELL, MR. WATSON, THEN, UM, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU, UM, YOUR, A LOT OF THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM. 
          UM, I WILL GIVE YOU, UM, A HEADS UP WHEN YOU'VE HIT THAT THREE MINUTES, UH, TO KIND OF FINISH THE THOUGHT, UM, OR THE SENTENCE. 
          UM, BUT WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR. WATSON, WE'RE HAPPY TO, UH, LET YOU GET STARTED. 
          I AM WALKING OUT OF WHERE I AM. 
          GIVE ME LIKE 10 SECONDS. 
          YOU'RE TOTALLY FINE. 
          WHENEVER YOU'RE AT A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN START, LET ME KNOW AND, UH, JUST START SPEAKING AND THEN I'LL HIT THE START ON THE TIMER. 
          TAKE YOUR TIME. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO SORRY. 
          AGAIN, MY NAME'S CHEVYS WATSON. 
          I AM THE, UH, LEAD ORGANIZER AND ADMINISTRATOR FOR WORKING GROUP FIVE, ONE TWO. 
          THAT IS A MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE. 
          AND I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE WE ARE INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE WAR OUTSIDE BECAUSE WE ARE, WE DO KNOW THE MAYOR PRO TEMP IN A UNIQUE WAY SINCE BEFORE HER CAMPAIGN, BEFORE HER CAMPAIGN, WE WITH WORKING GROUP FIVE, ONE, TWO HAVE HAD TO ENDURE THE NATASHA THAT YOU ALL, OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW THE ONE WITH AN UNETHICAL APPROACH TO JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. 
          JUST LIKE IN OCTOBER OF 2018, WHEN HER AND HER POLICE, UH, HER FIRE MEN, HUSBAND PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED ME AT FULL CIRCLE BAR ON 12TH. 
          AND TACOME AGAINST PENAL CODE ARTICLES, PENAL CODE 22.01, TITLE ASSAULT BY OCCLUSION SHORTLY THEREAFTER, SHE RECEIVED A REPRIMAND FOR COMP CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS, WHICH I HELPED CULTIVATE MEANINGFUL REPORTING. 
          SO NOW THAT WE'RE TWO YEARS LATER, THREE YEARS LATER, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING DIFFERENT, NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN IS THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES. 
          BECAUSE DURING THAT TIME IN 2018, I KNEW ONE THING ABOUT NATASHA. 
          AND THAT WAS ONE THING CLEAR THAT SHE WAS A STAKEHOLDER WITH THE 12TH STREET MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT TO CALL IT. 
          SHE COULD BE TINA MARIE, RICK, JAMES, WHATEVER PERSONALITY SHE WANTS TO BE TODAY. 
          SHE WAS A STAKEHOLDER YEARS LATER AS THE RECENTLY NAMED MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          HOWEVER THAT HAPPENED AGAINST SUCH UNETHICAL NATURE, IT'S COME TO WHERE MY EGO AND IDENTITY AND WHOEVER SHE IS, DOESN'T MATTER WHEN IT PERTAINS TO REAL PEOPLE, NEEDING REAL SOLUTIONS, GOING THROUGH REAL BARRIERS. 
          IT REAL DISASTER. 
          IT IS COMPLETE NEGLIGENCE. 
          OTHER NEGLIGENCE THAT THE MOUNT CARMEL VILLAGE IN EAST AUSTIN HAS ENDURED THE PESTILENCE IN THE NEAR MAMMON THAT THEY HAVE. 
          I DO NOT KNOW HOW ONE COULD BE A CITY COUNCIL, WOMAN, AND RISE ABOVE THE RANKS 
          [00:20:01]
TO MAYOR PRO TEM AND NOT OBSERVE TALKER REPORTS, GENERAL MAINTENANCE REPORTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING IN HER DISTRICT. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S ONE OF YOU THAT YOU TELL ME THAT, THAT DOESN'T COME ACROSS HER DESK. 
          SO WHEN IT COMES TO MOUNT CARMEL, HAVING THEIR GAS MANUALLY CUT OFF AND GOING, NATASHA POPS UP, UH, 25 IN THE 25TH HOUR TALKING ABOUT SHE'S GOING TO DISPATCH SUPPORT THAT ONLY STARTED HER, UM, CREATED THE DISPARAGING, UH, FACTOR IN MOUNT CARMEL TO THE RESIDENCE. 
          IT WAS PRETTY, IT WAS PRETTY, EVERYBODY WAS PRETTY MUCH A LOOP ON WHO WAS THE OWNERSHIP, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE NAMES AND ENTITY. 
          AND I LIKE TO SAY FOR EVERY INTENT OF PURPOSE, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH ETHICS, IT SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT THIS WOMAN, THIS ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS KNOWN ABOUT THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX FOR YEARS, SHE'S BEEN ON THE NEGLIGENCE AND THE DISSIDENTS, NO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, NO ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SUCH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN DOING BUSINESS. 
          HI, MR. WATSON, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UM, I WAS GOING TO LET YOU THERE, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. 
          I WAS GONNA LET YOU FINISH YOUR THOUGHTS. 
          THE THREE MINUTES ARE EXPIRED, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO COMPLETE THE SENTENCE. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO GO AHEAD. 
          BUT SHE HAD, THANK YOU. 
          SO HER KNOWING THIS OBVIOUSLY OFFENDING IN THIS YEAR, I DO NOT SEE HOW SHE COULD BE SO REACTIVE. 
          SO THE MOUNT CARMEL VILLAGE, I DON'T SEE HOW SHE COULD BE SO UNAWARE AS TO WHAT THE NEEDS TRULY ARE. 
          WHEN SHE'S HAD REPORTS, SHE'S HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO GO SPEAK TO THESE PEOPLE. 
          I LET SOME OTHERS SPEAK ABOUT HER VIOLATIONS AS IT PERTAINS TO ETHICS IN CERTAIN MEETINGS LATELY. 
          BUT I WANT TO STAND ON THE ETHICAL, THE UNETHICAL NATURE OF HER ENTIRE EXISTENCE AS MAYOR PRO TEM, AS ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL WITH HER, KNOWING THE INFORMATION THAT SHE KNEW ABOUT MOUNT CARMEL OR OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN DISTRICT ONE. 
          AND SHE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE. 
          I THANK YOU ALL FOR THE TIME AND THE SPACE. 
          THANK YOU, LYNN. 
          THANK YOU, MR. WATSON. 
          UM, OKAY, WELL COMMISSIONERS, UH, WITH THAT, UM, WE WILL PROCEED INTO ITEM TWO B. 
          UM, AND I'M GONNA LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT, UH, OUR, ONE OF OUR NEWEST COMMISSIONERS, UH, COMMISSIONER WINTER STANTON IS JOINING US. 
          UM, PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU, UM, THANK YOU. 
          MY APOLOGIES FOR JOINING LATE. 
          I'M JUST HAVING ALL KINDS OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THIS EVENING. 
          APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND NOT A PROBLEM. 
          WE ON THE COMMISSIONER, WELL ACQUAINTED WITH TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. 
          UM, SO, UH, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU, UM, OF COURSE. 
          SO, UM, WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, GO BACK TO ITEM TWO B AND AGAIN, THIS IS A COMPLAINT FILED BY OLIVIA OVERTURNED BECAUSE MAYOR PRO TEM, NATASHA HARPER, MADISON, WHICH COMPLAINT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO SEVEN, SECTION TWO SEVEN SIX TWO B SPECIFICALLY. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY GO OVER THE, UM, PROCEDURES AGAIN. 
          I BELIEVE WE HAVE MS. UH, OLIVIA OVERTURN HERE. 
          UM, IF YOU WANT TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND JUST CONFIRM THAT YOU'RE HERE, SO PITCHER GREAT. 
          SO THE COMPLAINANTS GOING TO STATE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION, AND THEN DESCRIBE THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE OFFERED AT A FINAL HEARING. 
          THE RESPONDENT'S GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AT A P AT THE PRELIMINARY, BUT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND OR MAKE A STATEMENT AT THE HEARING. 
          UM, BUT THEY CAN DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM THE KIND OF TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO DISPROVE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RESPONDENT. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE IS PRESENT AT THIS HEARING. 
          UM, SO ALL STATEMENTS BY THE PARTIES AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ARE UNDER OATH AND EACH SIDE, IN THIS CASE, THE COMPLAINANT WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES PER PRESENTATION, UNLESS THE CHAIR DECIDES TO EXTEND THE TIME. 
          UM, NOT THAT IT IS APPLICABLE HERE, BUT FOR, FOR REFERENCE, THERE'S NO CROSS EXAMINATION. 
          AND THEN ONCE THE PRESENTATION IS OVER, THE COMMISSIONERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PARTIES. 
          SO COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE GO INTO THE PRESENTATION BY THE COMPLAINANT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          SEEING NONE, MS. OVERTOOK, YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES. 
          I AM GOING TO HAVE A TIMER WITH ME. 
          UH, AND WHEN YOU GET TO 10 MINUTES, I WILL LET YOU KNOW, AND I'LL LET YOU FINISH YOUR THOUGHT OR YOUR SENTENCE, UM, AT THAT TIME. 
          SO WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, YOU CAN BEGIN AND I'LL START THE TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS OLIVIA OVER TURF AND I BROUGHT FORTH THIS ETHICS COMPLAINT. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, UM, 
          [00:25:01]
I BROUGHT FORTH THIS ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST MAYOR PRO TEM, THE TASHA HARPER MEDICINE. 
          I'VE SUBMITTED A PDF FILE. 
          THE EVIDENCE I'LL BE CORRELATING. 
          MY STATEMENT WITH, I HOPE THAT, UM, YOU GUYS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE PACKET. 
          UM, THAT BEING SAID, LET ME SPEAK IN, UM, MY COMPLAINT, AS THE CHAIR SAID WAS, UM, IN VIOLATION OF THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, UH, CITY CODE ORDINANCE TWO SEVEN DASH 62 B, WHICH STATES NO CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL FORMALLY APPEAR BEFORE THE BODY OF WHICH THE OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE IS A MEMBER WHILE ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON, GROUP OR ENTITY. 
          I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ MY STATEMENT. 
          NOW ON MARCH 25TH, 2021, I SPOKE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DURING THE NON-AGENDA CITIZEN COMMUNICATION PORTION OF THE MEETING ABOUT THE SITUATION OF THE MOUNT CARAMEL APARTMENTS LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE, WHICH IS MAYOR PRO TEM MADISON'S DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING, THIS SPECIFIC APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHICH IS ALSO A HUD PROPERTY LOCATED IN A DEDICATED BLACK HISTORICAL DISTRICT OF EAST BOSTON HAD BEEN WITHOUT GAS FOR OVER 30 DAYS. 
          I'VE SUPPLIED THE TRANSCRIPT OF MY CITIZEN COMMUNICATION LISTED AS EXHIBIT A OF A MEETING FOUND ON HEX N IMMEDIATELY AFTER I SPOKE FOR AN ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES, MAYOR PRO TEM, MADISON ASKED MAYOR ADLER, IF SHE MAY SPEAK TO WHICH THE MAYOR GRANTED LISTED HERE AS EXHIBIT B, MAYOR PRO TEM, MADISON PROCEEDED TO DEFEND HERSELF IN HER ACTIONS FOR OVER TWO MINUTES, A CITIZEN COMMUNICATION TIME DURING THE MEETING WHILE MAKING DISPARAGING MARK'S REMARKS ABOUT MY OWN CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT I WAS LYING ABOUT CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF MY STATEMENTS. 
          I WAS DISCONNECTED FROM THE PHONE CALL AND UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THESE ATTACKS. 
          IN THE LAST YEARS THAT I PARTICIPATED IN CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND CITY MEETINGS, I'VE NEVER HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER MAKE A PERSONAL ATTACK, DEFEND THEMSELVES WHILE ON THE DIET OR MAKE ANY TYPE OF DISPARAGING COMMENTS TOWARDS ANY CITIZEN COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATOR, NOR HAVE I SEEN THIS. 
          A LOT OF ANY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO OTHER CITIZEN COMMUNICATORS THAT DAY WHO ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUES OF MOUNT CARAMEL AND THEY WERE NOT RETALIATED AGAINST IN THIS MANNER. 
          I ATTACHED AT LEAST ONE OTHER EXAMPLE OF CITIZEN COMMUNICATION THAT DAY REGARDING MOUNT CARAMEL AS EXHIBIT C AND REVIEWING THE CITY'S OWN ETHICS POLICIES, INCLUDING CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION TWO SEVEN, SIX, TO BE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, WHICH I HAVE HERE AS EXHIBIT D AND PROCEDURES FOR THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND APPEALS UNDER RULE OF ORDER LISTED AS EXHIBIT E. 
          I WOULD LIKE THIS COMMISSION TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TONE AND MESSAGE MAYOR PRO TEM MADISON'S UNNECESSARY AND UNSOLICITED RESPONSE. 
          SHE DIRECTED TOWARDS ME. 
          AND WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE IS THE EFFECTIVELY SENT TO THE RESIDENTS AT THE MOUNT CARMEL APARTMENTS? NOT ONLY IS THIS TYPE OF VERBAL ATTACK HARMFUL TO THE INSTITUTION OF DEMOCRACY. 
          IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS ADVOCATING, SORRY, I LOST HER PLACE, UM, WAS ADVOCATING ONLY FOR HERSELF AS A COUNCIL MEMBER DURING CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. 
          I ONLY HAD TWO MINUTES TO PUBLICLY SPEAK ON THE MATTER, BUT THE MAYOR PRO TIM'S REBUTTAL LASTED WELL OVER TWO MINUTES. 
          AND WHAT SEEMED TO BE AN EFFORT TO PUBLICLY DISCREDIT MY COMMENTARY, MOST OF WHICH WAS THE EXACT SENTIMENT OF THE RESIDENTS I HAD BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH DURING THIS DISASTER, IF ANY PORTION OF MY CITIZEN COMMUNICATION WERE NOT TRUE, THE MAYOR PRO TIM WOULD HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO CONTINUE TO CLEAR HER NAME BY SENDING AN UNSOLICITED EMAIL TO A MOUNT CARAMEL RESIDENT DISCLOSING HER PREVIOUS CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS, WHICH I HAVE INCLUDED HERE AS EXHIBIT F RESONANCE OF MOUNT CARAMEL MAY PUBLIC VIDEOS AND SOCIAL MEDIA POST DESCRIBING HOW THEY HAD NOT HEARD FROM THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER AND HOW VERY LITTLE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SUPPORT THEY HAD FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM, WHICH I'VE SUBMITTED HERE AS EXHIBIT G AND EXHIBIT H JERRY MPT, MADISON'S UNSOLICITED REBUTTAL DIRECTED TOWARDS ME. 
          SHE MENTIONED THE EXACT DATE. 
          SHE KNEW ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF MOUNT CARMEL LISTED HERE AS EXHIBIT I, BUT STATED IN A PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN FULL CITY MAGAZINE ON APRIL, 2021, THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW OF AN OUTAGE UNTIL LATER ON, WHICH I HAVE HERE AS EXHIBIT J. 
          THE MPT ALSO STATED DURING HER REBUTTAL DIRECTED TOWARDS ME THAT I SHOULD FILE A PIR REQUEST, WHICH I HAVE HERE AS EXHIBIT K TO GET MORE DETAILS OF HER EFFORTS. 
          I DID IN FACT FILE A PIR ON MARCH 16TH, AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY DENIED, WHICH I HAVE HERE AS EXHIBIT L A FOLLOWUP EMAIL FROM THE CITY'S PR DEPARTMENTS DATA. 
          WE RECEIVED MY PIR BY APRIL 30TH, EXHIBIT M. 
          AT THE TIME I SUBMITTED THIS EVIDENTIARY PACKET TO THIS COMMISSION, I RECEIVED ONE MORE EMAIL FROM THE CITY THAT MY PR REQUESTS WOULD BE COMPLETED BY MAY 7TH EXHIBIT IN TO DATE. 
          I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PORTION OF THAT. 
          MY PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS, DESPITE THE MPT HERSELF DICTATING TO ME FROM THE DIET THAT I COULD DO. 
          SO I AM NOT SURE WHY HAS IT BECOME SO DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS OF PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SITUATIONS AT MOUNT CARMEL, AS OF YESTERDAY, A FORMAL COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO FURTHER REVIEW MY CLAIM TO OBTAIN MY PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS. 
          THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY HAS SURROUNDED THAT HAS SURROUNDED THIS ISSUE AS AKIN 
          [00:30:01]
TO THE VERY TOXIC CULTURE ENVIRONMENT. 
          THE CITY SHOULD BE AVOIDING. 
          AND THE CITY'S LEADERSHIP NOW MORE THAN EVER, SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR FURTHERMORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS RULES AND GUIDELINES PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS LIKE HB 28, 40, WHICH IS EXHIBIT O AND EXHIBIT P FOR THIS REASON, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ITS OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, EXHIBIT Q R AS AUNTIE, WHICH EVEN FURTHER SUPPORT THIS SPECIFIC ETHICS COMPLAINT. 
          I'VE ALSO SUBMITTED IN MY EVIDENCE, A PUBLICATION TITLED CITY MEETINGS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY WEATHERED IN SNYDER, EXHIBIT YOU FURTHER SUPPORTING MY CLAIMS ABOUT THIS TYPE OF BREACH AND DECORUM AND NEGATIVE IMPACT. 
          IT HAS ON THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND AS A MEXICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN DISPLACED NUMEROUS TIMES AS THIS CITY DUE TO GENTRIFICATION AND SLIGHT OF HAND MEASURES BY PROPERTY OWNERS, SIMILAR TO EUREKA HOLDINGS, I CAN ASSURE YOU THIS WILL ABSOLUTELY HAPPEN AGAIN, UNLESS SANCTIONS ARE NOT ACTED AND THIS COMPLAINT IS TAKEN SERIOUSLY. 
          WE CAN NOT CONTINUE TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT IF WE SPEAK AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THAT CONTINUES TO DISENFRANCHISE, MARGINALIZE AND DISRESPECT, WHAT IS LEFT OF OUR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT WE, THE PEOPLE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO BEING PUBLICLY DISCREDITED AND ATTACK FOR FIGHTING FOR PARENTS, SAVE HOUSING AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS IN DISTRICT ONE, THE MPTS UNSOLICITED COMMENTS WERE NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A FRESHMAN COUNCIL MEMBER WHO DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE CORMAN PROCEDURE. 
          THIS CLEARLY WAS A CALCULATED TIM TO BUY A NEWLY APPOINTED MAYOR PRO TEM TO CHANGE AND CONTROL THE NARRATIVE OF WHAT WAS ACTIVELY HAPPENING AT THE MOUNT CARAMEL APARTMENT, HER EXACT WORD, AFRAID CHOICES, OR THAT I, THAT I WAS MISINFORMED. 
          SPEAKING OF THINGS THAT WERE CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE AND THAT SHE ABSOLUTELY TAKES OFFENSE TO ANY IMPLICATION THAT SHE HAS DONE EVERYTHING THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE WITHIN HER POWER, HER STATEMENTS, NOT ONLY OVERSHADOWED MY PUBLIC OUTCRIES FOR THE RESONANCE OF MOUNT CARAMEL, BUT OFFERED NO ANSWERS OR SOLUTIONS FOR THE RESIDENT. 
          HER COMMENTS WERE MADE AS A FORM OF SELF-PRESERVATION. 
          IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUALLY HELPING THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE SUFFERING AT THE HANDS OF PROPERTY MISMANAGEMENT. 
          I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD IN MY CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. 
          I DID NOT USE CELL LANGUAGE, RIGHT, AND SALT ATTACK DEMEAN, OR DEGRADE THE MPT AND PART OF THE MPTS, UH, OWN WORDS IN THE SAME APRIL, 2021 FULL CITY ARTICLE TITLED COMMUNITY SIDE EYES PROMISES FROM MOUNT CAMERA APARTMENTS. 
          SHE STATED THE FOLLOWING. 
          AND I QUOTE. 
          SO JUST TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION AT ALL TIMES TO MAINTAIN DIVERSITY AND HOW THE, ANY QUOTE, IF THIS IS EXHIBIT B, THAT WAS SIMPLY ALL I WAS DOING THAT DAY ON MARCH 25TH, 2021. 
          I DO HOPE THIS COMMISSION TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION MY TESTIMONY HERE TODAY, ALONG WITH THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE I PROVIDED, I DO ANTICIPATE THAT IF THIS PROCEEDS TO A SECONDARY HEARING, I WILL BE CALLING WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. 
          AND I HOPE BY AT THIS TIME, I WILL HAVE MY PIR REQUESTS FULFILLED AND USE THAT AS MORE EVIDENCE TO FURTHER PROVE HOW DIRE THE SITUATION AT MOUNT CARAMEL HAS BECOME. 
          THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW REGARDING THE NUMEROUS CODE VIOLATIONS AT THE HANDS OF EUREKA AND THIS PROPERTY, MANY OF THE RESIDENTS WHO STILL REMAIN DISPLACED WERE NOT INFORMED ABOUT THIS PUBLIC HEARING TOMORROW. 
          IN CLOSING, I'M ASKING THAT THIS COMMISSION REQUIRE ACCOUNTABILITY OF ANY ACTIONS THAT ARE FOUND TO VIOLATED CITY POLICY ORDINANCES AND PROCEDURES, AND THAT THE CITY AUDITOR ALSO ASSIST IN FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE I'VE SUBMITTED TODAY, AS THEY SEE FIT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS ARE PROTECTED DURING OUR VERY LIMITED TIME, WE WERE ALLOWED TO SPEAK PUBLICLY AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT IS ALL I HAVE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS.  REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION AND YOU'RE COMING BEFORE US. 
          UM, SO AT THIS TIME COMMISSIONERS, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO QUESTIONS. 
          UM, IF YOU HAVE THEM FOR THE COMPLAINANT MISS OVER TO HER, I SEE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          UH, YOU MAY, YOU MIGHT STILL BE MUTED. 
          UM, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          WHY DIDN'T WE, OR DID OTHER PEOPLE GET THAT PACKET? UH, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE EVIDENCE PACKET? YEAH, WE DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE THAT PACKET. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EMAILED TO COMMISSIONERS, I BELIEVE. 
          UM, AND THEN THERE WAS, UH, OFFERED TO HAVE A PAPER COPIES, UM, I BELIEVE AS WELL OF THE EXHIBITS. 
          UM, OH, OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I'LL PULL IT UP THEN. 
          SURE. 
          ONE THING. 
          WAS IT NANCE? UM, YEAH. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER IS OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COMPLAINANT? WHAT DATE WAS IT MAILED TO US? OR WHAT DATE WAS IT MAILED? UM, EMAIL I'VE I PERSONALLY SUBMITTED IT LAST WEDNESDAY TO MAKE SURE. 
          OR I'M SORRY, LAST TUESDAY. 
          I CONFIRM WEDNESDAY THAT IT WAS SENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, VIA 
          [00:35:01]
LYNN CARTER. 
          YEAH. 
          YES. 
          AND, UM, I, I'M CURRENTLY LOOKING THROUGH, UM, MY INBOX TO TRY TO FIND THE DATE, BUT IF SOMEONE HAS MINE'S SHOWING MAY 11TH AT 10:26 AM IS, IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IT THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN SPECIFICALLY FOR ME BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THE NEWER COMMISSIONER COLORS. 
          YES. 
          I THINK LEN IS A RE UM, THE EMAIL THAT HAS THE ATTACHMENTS, I BELIEVE. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          CAN I SHARE HIS OTHER QUESTIONS, UM, FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE COMPLAINANT? OKAY. 
          UM, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. 
          UM, MS. OVERTURN, I WAS HOPING YOU COULD KIND OF POINT US IN THE EXHIBITS, UM, TO THE EXCHANGE OR THE COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR PROTON THAT YOU, UM, THAT YOU ARE ALLEGING SPECIFICALLY VIOLATE THE, UH, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX. 
          UM, YES. 
          YOU MEAN IN THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF? OKAY. 
          YES. 
          UH, THE TRANSCRIPT HAS COPIED IN THE EXHIBITS THAT YOU PRESENTED. 
          UM, WELL, UH, SHE DID ASK THE MAYOR FOR PERMISSION TO SPEAK, UM, AND I'VE, I'VE SPOKEN MANY TIMES AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND COMMISSION MEETINGS AND, UM, I'M NOT SURE, UH, I'VE NEVER HEARD A RETORT OR REBUTTAL BACK TO A CITIZEN DURING CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, BUT I DO HAVE, UM, EXHIBIT B, UH, WAS THE ACTUAL EXCHANGE SHE HAD AFTER MY CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. 
          UM, AND IT STARTS BY HER SAYING, I'D LIKE TO JUST START BY SAYING A LOT OF WHAT THE PREVIOUS CALLER SAID IS ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON. 
          AND I SHARED THE SENTIMENT, BUT SO MUCH OF IT IS EITHER MISINFORMED OR CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE. 
          UM, SHE PROCEEDS TO SELF-ADVOCATE, WHICH IS THE VIOLATION THAT, UM, I AM HIGHLIGHTING FOR THIS SPECIFIC CLAIM. 
          THERE ARE OTHER, UM, RULES THAT IT APPEARS THAT ARE VIOLATED, UM, IN TERMS OF HB 2040, UH, UH, WHICH IS A, UH, MOSTLY AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT RULE. 
          UM, THAT IS, UH, NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THE HOUSE THOUGH, UM, STATE LEGISLATURE, UM, SHE DID SAY THAT SHE, UH, THIS INFORMATION WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A PIR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT. 
          SHE ALSO SAYS SHE RESPONDS, SHE SAYS, UH, I ONLY RESPOND TO THIS BECAUSE I ABSOLUTELY TAKE OFFENSE TO ANY IMPLICATION THAT I HAVEN'T DONE EVERYTHING THAT IS POSSIBLE WITHIN MY POWER. 
          UM, HER, UH, I'M NOT SURE. 
          I'VE NEVER PERSONALLY, UH, HAVE WITNESSED IN ALL OF THE MEETINGS. 
          I'VE SAT IN, IT'S PROBABLY OVER A HUNDRED COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          I'VE NEVER HEARD A COUNCIL MEMBER OR A MAYOR PRO TEM, UM, SORTA DEFEND THEMSELVES. 
          I WAS TAKEN ABACK, UM, OBVIOUSLY AS A CITIZEN COMMUNICATOR, I WAS CUT FROM THE CALL. 
          UM, AND I WAS ALSO NOT PREPARED. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING BACK. 
          WE ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES AND, UM, HER DEFENSE WAS WELL OVER TWO MINUTES, INCLUDING, UM, THE MAYOR ALSO CHIMED IN AS WELL AS A MAYOR PRO TEM, OR I'M SORRY, CA UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO. 
          UM, SO THE ENTIRE, THE ENTITLED TIME THAT THE ENTIRE TIME THAT THEY SPENT, UM, SORT OF DIMINISHING WHAT I HAD JUST SPOKEN ABOUT WAS OVER FOUR MINUTES. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, SINCE THE COMMUNICATION, I ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES AS A CITIZEN COMMUNICATOR. 
          UM, I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, UM, IN LOOKING AT THE, UH, CITY'S POLICY DIRECTLY AND HB 28 40 IN TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, UM, UH, AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS DO NOT PREVAIL OVER MINE DURING, UH, CITIZEN COMMUNICATION WHILE SHE'S ON THE DIET. 
          AND SHE WAS DEFENDING HERSELF, UH, FORMERLY DEFENDING HERSELF WHILE ON THE DIET AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR KIND OF POINTING ME IN THAT DIRECTION, THIS OVER TURF COMMISSIONERS. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, UH, MS. OVER TURF? YES, I, THIS IS WHEN YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, MS. , THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. 
          UM, I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN, IN, UM, YOUR, UH, POTENTIALLY CALLING 
          [00:40:01]
OUT SPECIFIC PASSAGES OR COMMENT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT THAT YOU, THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER, UM, AS DISPARAGING COMMENTS. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT YOU POINTED OUT THE BEGINNING, UH, IF YOU COULD POINT OUT SOME OTHER, UH, COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER DISPARAGING. 
          AND THEN ALSO I'D LIKE TO ASK, UM, WITH THAT, UH, I GUESS CAUSE B AND MY APOLOGIES. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW TO REFERENCE THE ORDINANCES ACCURATELY HERE, BUT THE STATEMENT A PERSON OR COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD NOT SPEAK OUT OF TURN, USE THE SPARES IN YOUR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE OR MAKE THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND YOUR CONTENTION, MS. OVERTURN IS THAT OF THOSE THREE, UH, OF THOSE THREE SCENARIOS LISTED SPECIFICALLY, YOU ARE, YOU ARE CONTENDING OR ALLEGING THAT IT IS JUST THE SECOND ONE, CORRECT. 
          DISPARAGING GETS DOWN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO SHE DID NOT SPEAK OUT OF TERM, SO THAT'S NOT, THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. 
          IT'S THE DISPARAGING LANGUAGE I JUST WANT TO, YEAH, CORRECT. 
          UM, I THINK THE OUT OF TERM, AS A MATTER OF DECORUM, WHICH GOES TO THE RULES OF ORDER OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, UM, AND THAT IS POTENTIALLY DEPENDENT ON HOW THE MAYOR HANDLED THE SITUATION SHE WAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK. 
          SHE DID ASK TO SPEAK. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT FOLLOWS THE RULES OF DECORUM FOR A COUNCIL MEETING. 
          UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE REMARKS MADE DIRECTED AT ME WERE DISPARAGING, UH, AGAINST MY CHARACTER. 
          UH, ESSENTIALLY IN THE BEGINNING OF HER STATEMENT, SHE SAID THAT I WAS MISINFORMED AND THE STATEMENTS I MADE WERE CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE. 
          UM, I MEAN, IF YOU BOIL THAT DOWN, THAT'S BASICALLY SAYING THAT I LIED. 
          UM, I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, BUT SHE DID REACH OUT TO A PRIVATE CITIZEN, UM, SORT OF COVERING HER TRACKS AND WITH UNSOLICITED. 
          AND THAT, THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE EVIDENCE PACKAGE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AND THE FACT THAT SHE TOOK OFFENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, I IMPLIED SOMETHING, I DIDN'T IMPLY ANYTHING I DIRECTLY SAID IT, UH, AND THIS WAS BASED OFF DEALING WITH RESIDENTS AND WITNESSING DAY AND DAY TO DAY ACTIVITY THAT WAS NOT HAPPENING AT MOUNT CARAMEL AND THE RESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY ULTIMATELY WERE DISPLACED AND ARE STILL IN LIMBO AT THIS TIME. 
          MANY OF THEM WERE CHILDREN, OF COURSE, ANYBODY, UH, ANY CITIZEN ADVOCATE OR ACTIVIST IS GOING TO SPEAK WITH PASSION. 
          WE WERE UPSET. 
          WE WERE CONCERNED. 
          I FIND ON EARLY ON TO DO CITIZEN COMMUNICATION BECAUSE I KNEW THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF PROBLEM GOING ON. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          SO THE FACT THAT SHE EVEN FELT THE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE ANY TYPE OF STATEMENT AND THE STATEMENT TO BEGIN WITH ACCUSING ME OF LYING. 
          UH, I, I THINK SET THE TONE, UM, FOR A DISPARAGING STATEMENT IN GENERAL. 
          UNDERSTOOD MS. TURF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UM, SENTENCES OR PASSAGES IN THAT EXHIBIT B THAT YOU WOULD, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU CONSIDER DISPARAGING? YES, THERE IS, UH, ONE MORE, UM, SHE STATED IN THIS PASSAGE, SO I JUST, AND THIS IS A QUOTE, SO I JUST NEEDED TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT ANYBODY LISTENING, WHO BELIEVES THAT I'VE NEGLECTED NOW CARAMEL, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU EVER, WE'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO REACH OUT TO MY OFFICE. 
          UM, THESE, I FEEL LIKE THESE ARE SORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WORDPLAY. 
          UM, SHE'S TRYING TO RECOUNT WHAT I WAS SAYING BY, UM, ACCUSING ME OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS AND, AND INSINUATING OR IMPLYING THAT NO ONE BELIEVED WHAT I SAY. 
          UM, AND TO REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, MANY RESIDENTS DID REACH OUT MYSELF INCLUDED, UM, AND YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD NEVER GET TO THE POINT WHERE CITIZEN COMES TO CITIZEN COMMUNICATION TO SIMPLY ASK WHAT'S GOING ON WITH AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY. 
          UM, AND, UH, I MEAN, IT, YOU KNOW, THE BEGINNING STATEMENT, I THINK SETS THE TONE, BUT YOU KNOW, ALSO THIS INSINUATION THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE WHO'S LISTENING SHOULD TAKE INTO OR TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. 
          WHAT I'VE SAID IS TRUE. 
          UNDERSTOOD MS. OVERTURN, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          AND ONE MORE QUESTION, I SEE THAT IN EXHIBIT E, UM, CLAUSE C IS ALSO CALLED OUT WITH THE, UM, THESE ARE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND MY APOLOGIES IF THIS IS IN YOUR COMPLAINT AND I, AND I MISSED IT, ARE YOU ALSO ALLEGING THEN THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER DID NOT DO HIS OR HER DUTIES AS, AS LISTED HERE OF MAINTAINING ORDER AND EXERCISING THE OFFICER'S AUTHORITY IMPARTIALLY AND, UM, BASICALLY SHORTENING THE SPEAKER'S TIME OR BANNING THAT PERSON FROM SPEAKING FOR A VIOLATION OF DECORUM? UM, YES. 
          AND NOT THE LATTER HALF OF THAT STATEMENT, OR THE BEGINNING 
          [00:45:01]
OF THAT STATEMENT IS PRESIDING OFFICERS SHOULD ROLL OUT OF ORDER. 
          ANY COUNCIL MEMBER, BREACHING DECORUM. 
          I DO FEEL THAT THIS WAS A BREACH IN DECORUM. 
          HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO ASSUME ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION THAT THE MAYOR HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER WAS ABOUT TO SAY. 
          OFTENTIMES THE COUNCIL MEMBER WILL ASK TO RELAY THEIR CITY EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT NOT TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DISPARAGING STATEMENT THAT LASTS OVER TWO MINUTES. 
          SO THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE MAYOR WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER, MAYOR PRO TEM WAS GOING TO SPEAK AT LENGTH AGAINST WHAT I WAS SAYING, UM, WHICH I DO BELIEVE IS A VIOLATION OF DECORUM. 
          UM, AND, UH, TO SORT OF BACK INTO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF HAD TO PICK MY BATTLES. 
          I I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST ERR, ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND ASSUME THAT THE MAYOR ASSUMED THIS WAS JUST GOING TO BE A DIRECT COMMENT ABOUT PROVIDING AN EMAIL ADDRESS. 
          AND, UM, AT WHAT POINT HE SHOULD HAVE CUT HER OFF. 
          I'M NOT SURE I'VE LIKE I'VE SAID IN THE EIGHT YEARS, I'VE SAT THROUGH MEETINGS. 
          I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN AND I WAS CUT OFF FROM THE CALL. 
          SO I REALLY DIDN'T HEAR WHAT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL, UM, I WATCHED THE REVIEW TAPES, UH, LATER ON THAT MORNING. 
          SO I HAD NO IDEA THAT THIS WAS GOING ON BECAUSE YOU ARE DISCONNECTED AFTER YOUR CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. 
          SO AGAIN, IT WAS A BIT OF A SHOCK AND TRYING TO UNRAVEL WHO DO I FILE A COMPLAINT WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, JUST SORT OF GET CONFOUNDED. 
          THAT IS SO, SO IT'S A MATTER OF POLICY THAT A CITIZEN IS CUT OFF RELEASED FROM THE CALL AFTER THEIR TWO MINUTES IS UP. 
          I BELIEVE. 
          SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SPOKEN AT A COUNCIL MEETING DURING CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, UH, SINCE COVID, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE, THE RULE IS THAT YOU ARE ON HOLD MUCH. 
          LIKE WE ARE HERE TODAY. 
          YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON HOLD SINCE 6:00 PM OR WHATEVER. 
          UM, YOU'RE ON HOLD UNTIL IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK. 
          AND THEN ONCE YOU'VE SPOKEN, YOU'RE CUT FROM THE CALL. 
          SO UNLESS YOU HAVE YOUR COMPUTER LAPTOP ON OR SOMETHING ELSE TO LISTEN INTO AC, WHICH AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO KEEP ON MUTE BECAUSE THE REVERBERATION NOISE, UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I HAD NO IDEA IT WAS HAPPENING. 
          I, UH, SORT OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE GOT UP, GOT WATER, YOU KNOW, GATHERED MYSELF AND TURNED ON ATX N AND, UM, SAW THAT SHE WAS STILL SPEAKING AND YOU KNOW, THAT IT HAD GONE ON AFTER MICHAEL. 
          I SEE. 
          SO YOU WEREN'T ON THE, WHEN SHE, WHEN SHE, WHEN SHE SPOKE AT, YOU ONLY FOUND YOU ONLY HEARD WHAT SHE WAS SAYING WHEN YOU, UM, WHEN YOU TURNED ON THE, OR THE, THE CHANNEL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          AND, AND SO THEREFORE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WELL, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, ONCE YOU JOIN, ONCE YOU JOINED IT ON TV OR SAW IT ON TV, YOU, WOULD YOU SAY THAT, OR ARE YOU ALLEGING THAT THE BREACH OF DECORUM CONTINUED DURING THAT TIME FROM WHAT YOU COULD SEE? OH, YES. 
          IMMEDIATELY. 
          UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF HER ACTUAL STATEMENTS. 
          UM, AND I, AS I WAS WATCHING IT UNFOLD, I ASSUMED THE MAYOR WOULD CUT HER OFF. 
          I, I HAD SEEN THE MAYOR CUT OFF A COUNCIL MEMBER A FEW YEARS AGO FOR SPEAKING, OUT OF TURN, UM, DIRECTED TOWARDS THE AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT, OR TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GATHER THE QUORUM BACK AND RALLY EVERYBODY BACK IN. 
          I HAD ASSUMED THAT HE WAS GOING TO STEP IN AND REGAIN CONTROL OF THE SITUATION. 
          UM, BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WAS HAPPENING AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, SO THEN CLAUSE D ALSO APPLIES AS PART OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER DID NOT RULE OUT OF ORDER ANY COUNCIL MEMBER BREACHING DECORUM, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          AND I DID, UM, LIST THE MAYOR AS, UM, A WITNESS AS WELL AS KATHY TOVO. 
          AND SHOULD THIS PROCEED TO A SECONDARY HEARING? I DO INTEND ON CALLING, UH, BOTH THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER TILL THOSE WITNESSES, UM, TO POSSIBLY CROSS EXAMINE, UH, THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED THAT EVENING OR THAT I'M SORRY, THAT COUNCIL MEETING, THANK YOU FOR YOUR DETAILED WORK AND PROVIDING, UM, UM, EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE WITH THIS. 
          THANK YOU, RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER'S OTHER QUESTIONS I SAW, UM, A WHILE AGO I SAW COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOUR HAND. 
          DO YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION AND I WANT TO STUFF. 
          OKAY. 
          NO COMMISSIONER STANTON DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB COVERING GOOD QUESTIONS. 
          WELL, ALL RIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          [00:50:01]
COMMISSIONERS OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, I MAY HAVE ONE MYSELF, BUT I WANNA LEAVE THE FLOOR OPEN IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ONE FIRST. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO, UH, A QUESTION THAT I HAD, UH, MS. OVERTURN, SO THE, THE COMPLAINT IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO B OF THE CITY CODE. 
          AND AS I LOOK AT TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO B, UM, IT SAYS THAT NO CITY, AND I'LL JUST KIND OF JUMP TO THE PARTS THAT ARE RELEVANT HERE THAT NO CITY OFFICIAL SHALL FORMALLY APPEAR BEFORE THE BODY OF WHICH THE OFFICIAL IS A MEMBER WHILE ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, GROUP OR ENTITY. 
          SO I THINK THAT THE WORDS THAT I'D LIKE TO HONE IN OUR, ON OUR FORMERLY APPEAR AND SPECIFICALLY KIND OF WHAT YOU WOULD, WHAT YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND IT TO MEAN, UM, FOR A CITY OFFICIAL TO FORMALLY APPEAR BEFORE THE BODY THAT THEY'RE SERVING ON. 
          UM, YES. 
          AND, UM, I DID A BIT OF RESEARCH ON THIS, UM, SORTA THE SEMANTICS OF THE WORD FORMALLY AND IN TERMS OF, UM, LEGAL, UH, I GUESS, DESCRIPTORS AND FROM, YOU KNOW, AND IT DOES BOIL DOWN TO SEMANTICS, I BELIEVE. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING AND UNFORTUNATELY THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S POLICIES AND ORDINANCES ARE VERY, UM, LOOSELY WRITTEN. 
          UH, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER GUIDING PRECEDENTS IS LIKE THE EVIDENCE I PROVIDED ABOUT THE, UH, FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 
          UM, THE IT'S A GUIDEBOOK THAT, UH, I DID PROVIDE QUITE A BIT OF DOCUMENTATION FROM THAT BOOK. 
          UM, FORMALLY IS, UH, THE TIME THAT THE MEETING STARTS OFFICIALLY ON RECORD, UM, WHEN A COUNCIL MEMBER, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, UM, IS OFFICIALLY WORKING IN THEIR CAPACITY, UM, THAT WOULD BE A FORMAL POSITION. 
          UM, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, SHOULD A COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, CHOOSE THERE'S A SECTION IN THE, IN, I HAVE TO DIG THROUGH HERE REAL QUICK, UH, IN, UM, I HAVE EXHIBIT U PAGE ONE CITY MEETINGS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 
          THERE'S A SECTION WITHIN THAT STACK OF, UH, NOTES, UM, FROM THAT GUIDEBOOK, THAT STATE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, ALWAYS A COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, THE COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER MADISON DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS LONG AS SHE PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE MAYOR. 
          AND IT WAS PUT PLACED ON THE AGENDA THAT SHE WOULD SPEAK AS A CITIZEN. 
          THAT IS A LEGAL RULE, UM, WITHIN THIS GUIDEBOOK, THAT IS A RULE THAT WAS MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND A SUPREME COURT DECISION. 
          UM, BACK IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS LIKE SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, IT'S IN THE, UH, EVIDENCE PACKET THAT I SENT UNDER, UH, EXHIBIT. 
          UM, THERE'S LIKE MAYBE FIVE SECTIONS OF THAT BOOK. 
          I DIDN'T WANT TO CHOP THE COPY, YOU KNOW, THE ENTIRE BOOK, I JUST TAKE, UM, THE PORTIONS THAT PERTAIN TO, UM, OR LEGAL RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT. 
          UM, UH, THE COUNCIL MEMBER, MAYOR PRO TEM NOTIFIED, UH, MAYOR ADLER AHEAD OF TIME. 
          AND IT WAS ABLE TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA. 
          IT DOES APPEAR THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK, UM, DURING CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. 
          UM, LIKE I SAID, I REGISTERED FOR CITIZEN COMMUNICATION WELL BEFORE THE ACTUAL MEETING, UM, AS WE ARE, YOU KNOW, SUPPOSED TO DO I REGISTERED AS SPEAKING ON THE TOPIC OF MOUNT CARAMEL APARTMENTS, IT'S CLEAR IT'S WRITTEN ON THE AGENDA, IT'S DOCUMENTED. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, IT IS HER JOB TO DETERMINE WHO READS, WHAT ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE TALKED ABOUT ON THE AGENDA, WHAT CITIZEN COMMUNICATION YOU HAVE TO, WHEN YOU REGISTER AS A CITIZEN COMMUNICATOR, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT DOWN WHAT TOPICS, UM, IF IT'S A NON AGENDA ITEM, YOU HAVE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE A TITLE FOR WHAT YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT. 
          AND MINE WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MOUNT CARAMEL AND THAT WAS DOCUMENTED, UM, AHEAD OF TIME. 
          SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IF SHE WERE TO SPEAK ON THAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, UM, LEGALLY MANDATED THAT SHE PRESENT THAT INFORMATION TO THE MAYOR, UM, WELL, AHEAD OF TIME AND THAT THE MAYOR, UM, DO YOU POST THAT PUBLICLY? UM, SO IT WOULDN'T BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IN THIS MANNER. 
          UM, UNFORTUNATELY SHE DIDN'T DO THAT AND THAT'S WHAT UNFOLDED HERE TODAY. 
          UH, IT, YOU KNOW, THE WORD FORMALLY, IT BEGINS WHEN YOU CLOCK IN AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING, UH, SHE DIDN'T RECUSE HERSELF, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MAY HAVE MY STATEMENT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I FELT LIKE SHE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF FROM DEALING 
          [00:55:01]
WITH THE MOUNT CARMEL APARTMENTS BECAUSE OF HER, UH, UM, TIES WITH THE EUREKA HOLDINGS PROPERTY, UM, BOTH BEFORE SHE BECAME CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND AFTER, UM, SO THAT I FELT THAT SHE SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF, SHE COULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF, UM, AND SHE COULD HAVE MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE MAYOR WELL, AHEAD OF TIME. 
          SO HE COULD HAVE POSTED THAT SHE WAS GOING TO SPEAK, UM, ABOUT THE TOPIC I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WITHOUT HAVING IT FORMALLY PLACED ON THE AGENDA. 
          THAT IS THE LEGAL GUIDE, UM, BY THE SUPREME COURT. 
          UH, IT'S JUST NOT, IT'S NOT, UM, VERY WELL WRITTEN WITHIN THE CITY ORDINANCE, BUT IT GOES BACK TO DECORUM. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG GO AHEAD. 
          MS. HOPPER CHAIR, CAN YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC PLEASE ABOUT HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HOLDING COMPANY? UM, THAT'S NOT MY INTENT TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THAT TODAY. 
          UM, UH, LIKE THE, UM, PUBLIC SPEAKER BEFORE ME SHASTA SWATSON STATED, UM, THERE IS A VERY CLEAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM, UM, DID HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR RICO HOLDING, UM, PRIOR TO HER ELECTION. 
          UH, SHE PACKED THAT HELPED PAY FOR HER ELECTION WAS A REAL ESTATE, UM, BASED PACK, UM, WITH MANY, UH, EUREKA EMPLOYEES DONATING TO HER CAMPAIGN. 
          UM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HERE TO PROVE A FINANCIAL CAMPAIGN ISSUE OR A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT. 
          I BELIEVE SHE'S ALREADY BEEN THROUGH AN ETHICS COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT SOMETHING SIMILAR. 
          UM, I DO, UH, I DID FIND OUT AND I HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THAT. 
          SHE ALSO RENTED A PROPERTY AFTER HER ELECTION FROM YREKA HOLDINGS, WHICH I DO BELIEVE IS AN INCIDENTAL, UM, RELATIONSHIP, UH, OR INCIDENTAL INTEREST, UH, NOT SUBSTANTIAL ACCORDING TO CITY ORDINANCE. 
          UM, SO THAT WOULD BE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO PROVE, UH, UH, THOSE OF US, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SEVERAL ARTICLES THAT ARE EASILY GOOGLE SEARCHED WITH, UM, FOR, UH, SORT OF POSITIVE, UH, TRYING TO BRING EUREKA INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE 12TH STREET AREA BEFORE HER, UM, UH, RUN OR BID FOR HER, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP. 
          UM, AND THOSE ARE PUBLIC ARTICLES. 
          ANYBODY COULD RESOURCE THOSE, UH, I BELIEVE SOME ARE FROM THE CHRONICLE. 
          UH, THERE'S AN ARTICLE TITLE BUYING UP THE BLOCK, UM, WHERE SHE PROMOTES EUREKA PURCHASING PROPERTIES. 
          SO IT DOES SEEM, UM, SUSPICIOUS. 
          THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, UH, MORALLY, I, IT JUST, IT'S SOMETHING SEEMS REALLY OFF. 
          AND THE FACT THAT I NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN TWO WEEKS OF BASIC COMMUNICATION, UM, ABOUT HOW THE, EVERYTHING UNFOLDED, HOW THE, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS COULDN'T GET ANYTHING, IT WAS JUST A DISASTER. 
          THEY WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOT HAVING GAS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS STILL FREEZING OUTSIDE AND WE JUST WANTED TO KNOW LIKE WHAT, WHAT COULD WE DO TO HELP THEM? UM, AND SO, I MEAN, I THINK ANYBODY CAN SEARCH AND DO A PUBLIC SEARCH. 
          IT'S A LOT HARDER, YOU KNOW, FOR US AS PUBLIC CITIZENS TO SEARCH WITHIN THE CITY COUNCIL RECORDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          IT'S VERY CONFUSING. 
          UM, BUT THERE IS A FINANCIAL AND INCIDENTAL, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, BUT INCIDENTAL INTEREST, UH, THAT GOES ALONG WITH EUREKA, WHICH IS A PROPERTY OWNER OF MOUNT CARAMEL APARTMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          UM, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS NOT SEEING KENNY A REMINDER TO ME YOURSELF, IF YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, I'M HEARING A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK. 
          UM, BUT I DO NOT SEE COMMISSIONER DAN BERG EITHER. 
          THERE SHE IS, UH, GRABBING A PLATE, UH, FILL IN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS HERE. 
          ARE YOU GOOD? OKAY. 
          I SEE THAT SHE'S NODDING GUESSED THAT SHE'S GOOD TO GO. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, UM, AT THIS POINT, BEN COMMISSIONERS, UM, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COMPLAINANT, I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BEGIN ENTERTAINING MOTIONS. 
          UM, SO I AM HAPPY TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH WHAT NEXT STEPS CAN BE, UM, IF, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMPLAINANT. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          I WILL DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THAT. 
          SO AT THE CONCLUSION OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE ERC DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD. 
          SO IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS, THAT THERE EXISTS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION, UM, OF 
          [01:00:01]
RELEVANT CITY CODES OCCURRED, THEN BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP THAT YEAR C CAN SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING. 
          UM, AND THEN IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, THEN, UH, BEFORE THE COMPLAINTS DISMISSED, UM, YOUR SHALL BE PERMITTED, AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE THE COMPLAINANT CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT. 
          UM, AND THAT TIME PERIOD IS GOING TO BE SPECIFIED IN A LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COMPLAINANT. 
          SO I'M GOING TO RESTATE THAT IF WE, IF WE DECIDE AND VOTE THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION, THEN THE COMPLAINANT HAS A TIME PERIOD BY WHICH THEY CAN REVISE AND RESUBMIT A COMPLAINT. 
          UM, SO THEN THE LAST ONE, UM, IF THE RESPONDENT AGREED ON THE RECORD THAT A VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED, THEN WE CAN CONSIDER INAPPROPRIATE SANCTION KIND OF FEAR IN NOW. 
          UM, AND THEN LASTLY, UM, IF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT CAN AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED. 
          UM, SO THOSE, THOSE ARE OUR OPTIONS, UM, AT THE MOMENT SEPARATELY, UH, I MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY NUMBER OF MOTIONS, BUT IT'S IN TERMS OF HOW WE RESOLVE THIS COMPLAINT BEFORE AS THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS. 
          SO I'M GOING TO PITCH IT BACK. 
          YES. 
          YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          UH, I HAVE A QUESTION, PROCEDURAL QUESTION. 
          WOULD WE HAVE TO, IF WE HAVE A, UM, A SUGGESTION FOR, UH, FOR MS OVER TURF ON CLARIFYING, OR JUST SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP, UH, REVIEW OF THIS, OF THIS CASE OF THIS COMPLAINT, WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE STATED IN THE MOTION OR IS IT JUST STRAIGHT CAN, COULD, I'M SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PROCEED WITH A FINAL HEARING OF THIS COMPLAINT. 
          AND THEN AFTER THAT WE OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION. 
          IN WHICH CASE I WOULD MAKE A FRIENDLY SUGGESTION TO MS. OVERTURN TO, FOR EXAMPLE, CALL OUT SPECIFICALLY THE, THE STATEMENTS OR THE, IN THE, UM, UH, THAT SHE WOULD CONSIDER DISPARAGING. 
          DOES THAT MAKE MY QUESTION MAKE SENSE? I THINK IT DID SO THERE, SO, UM, I THINK IT IS THAT ALL SOUNDS, UH, UH, APPROPRIATE PARLIAMENTARY REALLY, UM, FIND THE RIGHT ADVERB THERE, BUT, UH, THE, UH, YES, I THINK ONCE THERE'S A MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED, THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          WE CAN, UH, TALK ABOUT THE MOTION AND AS LONG AS THOSE KINDS OF THOSE KINDS OF COMMENTS ARE GERMANE TO THE MOTION, SO TO SPEAK, UM, THEN THOSE COMMENTS WOULD BE FINE. 
          SO COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE. 
          YES. 
          I'M NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME, ALTHOUGH IT SOUNDS LIKE PERHAPS A COMMISSIONER WHEN WELCOME, I MEAN, COMMISSIONER STANTON WELCOME ABOARD. 
          UM, WE HAVE RARELY GOTTEN THIS MUCH RESEARCH AND SUBSTANCE AND EVIDENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY HEARING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UM, I'M HAVING TROUBLE CONNECTING IT TO A VIOLATION THAT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF OUR GROUP OF OUR COMMISSION. 
          I, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT AND I, I, I HAVE A SIMILAR STRUGGLE, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, ON THE SCALE OF VARIOUS COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION. 
          I AGREE, RARELY HAVE I SEEN A COMPLAINANT, A CITIZEN COMPLAINANT, A NON-LAWYER COMPLAINANT COME WITH THIS MUCH, UH, MATERIAL PREPARED AND WELL THOUGHT OUT AND WELL PRESENTED. 
          THAT IS, I MEAN, EVEN SOME LAWYERS THAT COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION LEAVE IS ONE THING IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR THE SNAPS COMMISSIONER, LARRY. 
          UM, SO, BUT I AGREE THAT, UM, THERE'S, I DON'T KNOW IF IT, FOR ME, IT'S CROSSING THE FINISH LINE SPECIFICALLY OF THE CITY CODE THAT IS REFERENCED IN THE COMPLAINT. 
          UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M I AM HAVING. 
          SO, 
          [01:05:01]
YOU KNOW, ONE, ONE OPTION, ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IS IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE'S A FAILURE TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION, THEN THERE'S KIND OF A, A TIME PERIOD BY WHICH A COMPLAINANT CAN REVISE AND RESUBMIT A COMPLAINT, UM, TO CORRECT ERRORS OR TO MAYBE PROVE UP, UH, THE FACT THAT THERE WOULD BE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION DID OCCUR. 
          UM, SO THAT THAT'S ONE OPTION TO POTENTIALLY EXPLORE. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, UH, COMMISSIONERS I'VE, I TRY TO BE, AS I PRESIDE OVER THESE HEARINGS, I'D REALLY TRY TO BE HANDS-OFF AND LETTING YOU LET Y'ALL MAKE THE MOTIONS. 
          UM, UH, IF Y'ALL WANT TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING, WE CAN HAVE THAT MOTION AND DISCUSS IT. 
          WE CAN ALSO HAVE OTHER MOTIONS, BUT I SAW SHOULDN'T REQUIREMENT STAND. 
          SO I'M GOING TO KICK IT TO YOU. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER STATEMENT. 
          WE HAVE HAD A SIMILAR WHEN WE HAD THE HR DIRECTOR, UM, QUITE SOME TIME AGO. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER YOU WERE ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME OR NOT. 
          YOU MET, I DON'T THINK YOU WERE, BUT WE DID HAVE, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF STUFF THIS TIME THAT WE NEED TO PROCEED. 
          AND, UH, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY BACK WHEN WITH SOME OTHER CASES THAT WE NEED TO PROCEED. 
          SURE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER KALE, AND THEN COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO, UM, I'M STILL STRUGGLING, UH, LIFE, UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG AND COMMISSIONER SOBER WITH WHETHER IT'S A SPECIFIC WHETHER OR NOT IT SPECIFICALLY VIOLATES THE CITY ORDINANCE THAT IT IS FILED UNDER. 
          AND SO I'M SORT OF SECOND WHAT Y'ALL SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AND IF THE COMPLAINANT IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS, UM, TO, TO FIND THE OTHER AVENUES TO DO SO, UM, THAT, THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON THIS. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS, IS COMPELLING AND IMPRESSIVE. 
          UM, AND, UM, BUT THAT SAID, I'M STILL HAVING TROUBLE FINDING A SPACE, THIS SPECIFIC VIOLATION, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          I LIKE TO TALK TO MYSELF. 
          UM, ANYWAY, THE VIOLATION IS THAT NO CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEES, SHELL FORMALLY APPEAR BEFORE THE BODY OF WHICH THE OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE IS A MEMBER WHILE ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON, GROUP OR ENTITY. 
          AND THAT'S THE VIOLATION THAT'S BEING ALLEGED. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT WHENEVER A COUNCIL MEMBER IS ON THE DAYAS OR WHATEVER, WE WANT TO CALL THAT IN THESE VIRTUAL TIMES, THEY ARE ACTING APPEARING BEFORE THE BODY AND ACTING WITHIN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. 
          AND IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE WAY SHE SPOKE WAS ADVOCATING FOR HERSELF, THE OTHER IS CONCERNING THESE ADDITIONAL POINTS. 
          FOR MOST PARTICULARLY THE, UM, OBSERVING DECORUM AND CALLING A CITIZEN, BASICALLY A LIAR. 
          UM, CAN THIS BE AMENDED IF WE GO FORWARD OR DOES IT NEED TO BE AMENDED? AND THEN WE GO FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S MORE ALLEGED HERE THAN JUST, UM, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 B, WHICH I DO THINK IS A VIOLATION. 
          IT'S JUST, SHOULD THIS BE EXPANDED? AND THEN WE PROCEED. 
          SO MAYBE, UM, IF MS. CARTER COULD GIVE US A SORT OF PROCEDURE ABOUT EXPANDING SO THAT THE COMPLAINT ISN'T AS NARROW AS THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, SINCE THERE ARE CLEARLY OTHER ALLEGATIONS. 
          SO, UM, 
          [01:10:01]
I CANNOT ADVISE THE COMMISSION ON THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. 
          I CAN'T GIVE ANY OF THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS SHEETZ COMPLIANT. 
          MR. STEEL. 
          UH, SURE. 
          UH, LET ME, I'M GOING TO JUST TRY TO REPHRASE THE PROCEDURAL QUESTION IF THAT'S OKAY AND POSE IT TO MR. SHEETS, MR. SHEETS, IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UM, OR IN CITY CODE THAT GOVERNS THE COMMISSION. 
          IS THERE ANY MECHANISM BY WHICH THERE CAN BE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT? WELL, YOU'VE ALREADY DESCRIBED THE OCCASION WHERE IF, IF, IF THE, UH, COMMISSIONING DETERMINES THAT THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A VIOLATION, YOU CAN ALWAYS, YOU CAN ALLOW THE COMPLAINANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT AND, AND, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING AMEND AMENDED SO THAT THEY DO ALLEGE A VIOLATION ADULT, LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION ITSELF TO A MANDARIN ARE, ARE COMING FORWARD WITH A, WITH A, WITH A COMPLAINT AT YOUR, YOUR JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT IS A VIOLATION OR NOT, NOT, NOT TO, UM, BRING YOUR OWN COMPLAINT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, IT'S OUR COMMISSIONER STANTON AND THEN COMMISSIONER DANBURG, UH, YEAH. 
          S MR. SHEETS THAT, UM, I THINK THAT THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT AND IT SEEMS ACCURATE TO, TO MY UNDERSTANDING A QUESTION I HAVE AND, UH, PARDON ME. 
          I, UH, JOHN DALE, I'M VERY NEW, THIS BEING MY FIRST MEETING, UH, WITH Y'ALL THE, THE JURISDICTION OF OUR COMMISSION. 
          I SEE THAT IT'S STATED ON THE FORM. 
          SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THAT ACCURATE, WHAT'S LISTED ON THE FORM. 
          IS THAT ALSO IN THE CHARTER FOR THIS COMMISSION, THAT THESE ARE THE SPECIFICALLY, THE CITY CODES THAT THIS COMMISSION HEARS COMPLAINTS ABOUT? I BELIEVE IT IS ACCURATE. 
          I DIDN'T PREPARE THE FORM, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT IS IT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMISSION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO IT SHOWS CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN. 
          IS THAT THE ONLY BECAUSE THE OTHER CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS DO NOT APPLY CORRECT TO THIS COMPLAINT? THIS COMPLAINT IS SPECIFICALLY TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 THAT'S. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND OUR JURISDICTION SHOWS THAT WE DO TWO DASH SEVEN. 
          THEN MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT A ROLL-UP CHAPTER NUMBER SO THAT ANYTHING UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN WOULD APPLY INCLUDING THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT THAT IS IN THIS COMPLAINT? OR IS THAT EXCLUSIVELY ONLY TWO DASH SEVEN AS ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I'M NOT, I'M NOT CERTAIN, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT EXACTLY YOU'RE REFERRING TO. 
          UH, I'LL, I'M HAPPY TO JUMP IN. 
          UM, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 
          UM, SO THE QUESTION BEFORE, SO THE THIRD SECTION OF THE COMMISSION, IT'S GENERALLY VIOLATIONS OF TWO DASH SEVEN, UM, WHICH ARE THE KIND OF SPECIFIC RULES THAT APPLY TO CITY OFFICIALS AND CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES. 
          AND THEN TWO DASH TWO, WHICH IS THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE. 
          UM, THOSE ARE, THAT'S THE KIND OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND ETHICS RULES UNDER TWO DASH TWO OR TWO DESKS. 
          SEVEN, GENERALLY SPEAKING ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. 
          WHENEVER THERE IS A COMPLAINT BROUGHT, UM, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS THE ALLEGED VIOLATION THAT IS IN THE, THE SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT'S BEING, UM, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. 
          AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S TWO SEVEN, SIX, TWO B. 
          UM, IS THAT, DID THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION OF CODE GET VIOLATED? UM, AND I THINK WHAT MR SHEETS WAS SAYING IS THAT IT'S NOT, UH, APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADD OTHER CODE PROVISIONS INTO THE COMPLAINT AS POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS. 
          UM, AT LEAST IN THE DIRT, IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEARING. 
          LET ME KIND OF CLARIFY THAT. 
          I SEE, UH, HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO, IF YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, COMMISSIONER STANTON, I KNOW THAT MY FIRST COMMISSION MEETING, I FELT LIKE I WAS SWIMMING IN A LOT OF, AND THEN I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER DANVER, BUT ANY, ANY KIND OF CLARIFYING QUESTION COMMISSIONER STANDING, YOU ANSWERED IT. 
          SO 
          [01:15:01]
MAY I, MAY I RESTATE WHAT I UNDERSTOOD TO MAKE SURE THAT I ENTERED WHAT YOU SAID? SO IN GENERAL, TWO DASH SEVEN IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION, NOT JUST ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, BUT INCLUDING STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF TWO DASH SEVEN. 
          AND YOU HAD MENTIONED CONDUCT FOR CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, WHICH THIS IS EXACTLY TWO DASH SEVEN, SIX C2. 
          DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? SO THAT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ITS COMMISSION, WHEREAS THAT IS NOT LISTED EXPLICITLY ON THE FORM. 
          AND THIS IS WHY I ASKED FOR A CONFIRMATION AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE, BUT SEPARATELY IT WOULD BE FOOD BUS TO PUT EXACTLY ON THE FORM, WHAT IS IN THE CHARTER. 
          SO THAT THERE'S NO, BECAUSE TO ME, RIGHT THERE, THERE IS A DIFFERENT, THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THEN THIS, THIS COMPLAINT, IT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMISSION. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          AND, AND JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND, UM, EVERY TIME THERE IS A COMPLAINT THAT'S FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UM, THERE'S A PERIOD OF TIME BY WHICH THE CHAIR I, UM, AS TO MAKE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS THE COMPLAINT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. 
          AND SO THAT WAS A CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THE MATTER AND MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IN FACT, IT WAS A VIOLATION THAT THIS CODE SPECIFICALLY WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. 
          SO THEN WHY ARE WE QUESTIONING TO WHY ARE WE QUESTIONING? WHETHER, WHETHER WE CAN HEAR THIS COMPLAINT, BECAUSE IF IT'S IN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER, THERE ARE OTHER, UH, CITY CODES REFERENCED, BUT THE COMPLAINT OFFICIALLY IS REFERENCING A CODE THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          CORRECT? SO THERE, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION IS, UH, HERE TO CONSIDER. 
          SO FIRST, UM, IF THE COMMISSION THINKS I GOT A WRONG, THE COMMISSION IS ENTITLED TO OVERRULE MY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, AND KIND OF TO THE, TO THE PRESENT MATTER IS THAT THE, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND A PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED. 
          AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT A VIOLATION MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED IS IF THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATCH THE COAT. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THIS EVIDENCE, THESE FACTS AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THIS CODE. 
          SO THE DETERMINATION I MADE WAS JUST THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A COMPLAINT AND IT ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF A CODE THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          AND SO NOW A Y'ALL CAN DISAGREE AND SAY, NOPE, NOT IN THE JURISDICTION. 
          AND B Y'ALL CAN, UH, SPECIFICALLY, UH, DISCUSS AND ACT ON WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THIS COMPLAINT, GIVE RISE TO A REASONABLE OR THAT THEY ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED WARRANTING. 
          GOOD, NEXT HEARING. 
          UM, AND I SEE I'M GOING TO LIKE COMMISSIONER DANBURY HAS BEEN VERY PATIENT WITH HER HAND UP, SO I'M GOING TO LET HER GO. 
          I'D BE GLAD TO DISCUSS MY MOTION IF ANYONE'S SECONDS IT, BUT MY MOTION IS THAT WE POSTPONE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THERE'S A MOTION. 
          I'M GOING TO GO STRICT ROBERT'S RULES HERE. 
          THERE'S A MOTION BEFORE US TO POSTPONE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          UM, IS THERE A SECOND? YOU SURE YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY Y SURE. 
          I'LL I'LL GRANT. 
          I ABSOLUTELY DO, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF WE POSTPONE IT, WE CAN GET MUCH BETTER CONNECTION TO OUR DUTIES, COMMISSIONER AMBERG IF YOU'RE WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION OR, UH, UH, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION, I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE CAN, WE CAN DISCUSS THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE, UM, BECAUSE I'M NOT. 
          YEAH, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          I WANT TO DISCUSS WHAT IT IS THAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEFORE US. 
          I JUST THOUGHT THERE WASN'T 
          [01:20:01]
REALLY MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT MAKING A MOTION, BUT I I'M SURE YOU CAN, THAT LET'S DISCUSS. 
          YEP. 
          NO, THIS IS THIS. 
          WE CAN DISCUSS THIS ITEM. 
          UM, IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE A MOTION, BUT THIS IS THE, UH, MY EARLIER ANNOUNCEMENT WAS THAT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TIME. 
          IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE ONE. 
          UM, BUT DISCUSSION IS OPEN ON THE AGENDA ITEM AND I SEE COMMISSIONER KALE. 
          SO GO AHEAD. 
          WELL, I DON'T HAVE EMOTION RIGHT NOW, BUT I WAS GOING TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          SOMETHING LIKE THIS CAME UP ONCE BEFORE. 
          I DO NOT REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC SITUATION OR CASE, BUT WHAT I REMEMBER IS THAT SOMEBODY FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER A VERY SPECIFIC PART OF CITY CODE AND THEIR, THEIR EVIDENCE AND, AND WHAT, WHAT SEEMED TO BE THE VIOLATION DID NOT MATCH THE CODE THEY FILED UNDER. 
          AND SO I THINK WHAT WE CONCLUDED AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THE COMPLAINANT NEEDED TO REFILE. 
          WE DIDN'T SAY, OH, THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANY MERIT, OR, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAPPENED. 
          WE SAID IT DOESN'T MATCH WHAT YOU FILED UNDER THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY, AND I LEARNED THIS, UM, A FEW WEEKS AGO, SPEAKING TO MS. CARTER IS THAT WE AS A COMMISSION, IF WE DON'T THINK THE FORM IS A GOOD FORM, OR AS CLEAR TO WHAT COMPLAINANTS WANT TO FILE, WE CAN CHANGE THE FORM. 
          UM, SO, SO THAT WE AVOID THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY HAS WHAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY, UM, WELL-REASONED COMPLAINT. 
          AND YET IT, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T MATCH IN THE WAY IT SHOULD. 
          AND SO WE HAVE THAT WITHIN OUR PAL. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT, UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER STANTON. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A DUMB QUESTION, BUT ARE WE NOT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING? IS THIS NOT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING? WE ARE IN A PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          YES, WE DON'T HAVE TO FINISH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO THE MOTION IS TO, OH, OKAY. 
          TO, FOR DELAY IT TO, TO TABLE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I WENT JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          AND I'D LIKE TO OFFER THIS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE COMPLAINT IS ACCURATE. 
          IT CITES CITY CODE TWO, SEVEN 62, AND THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          NOW THAT IS A SEPARATE THING FROM THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER VIOLATIONS OR POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS, I SHOULD SAY, OF OTHER CITY CODES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD RULE OUT OR NULLIFY THIS COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT IS A COMPLAINT THAT, THAT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A CODE THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          NOW, PROCEDURALLY, HERE'S WHAT I'M THINKING. 
          AND LET ME KNOW IF I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK, WE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO PROCEED TO PROGRESS THIS TO A FINAL HEARING. 
          AND ED AT THE FINAL HEARING, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE WILL NOT HEAR EVIDENCE OR ADDRESS POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF ADDITIONAL OF THE OTHER CITY CODES THAT ARE NAMED IN THIS COMPLAINT. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? COULD WE DO THAT WITHOUT, WITHOUT REQUIRING THIS OVERTURE TO RESUBMIT BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE COMPLAINT, IT JUST ADDS ADDITIONAL CODE THAT THAT IS NOT IN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF I QUITE FOLLOW THAT. 
          UM, THE, SO IF I'M GONNA, YOU KNOW, HOLD UP THE COMPLAINT TO THE SCREENING AND, UH, CAUSE I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME SLIGHT CONFUSION AS TO WHAT'S ON THE FORM AND WHAT'S ACTUALLY THE COMPLAINT ITSELF. 
          SO WHAT WE HAVE, SO THIS IS THE FORM THAT KIND OF LIFTS FOR THE SAKE OF WHOEVER'S FILING THE COMPLAINT, THOSE, UH, PROVISIONS IN THOSE SECTIONS OF CITY CODE THAT ARE WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION AND THEN SEPARATELY, THIS IS WHERE A COMPLAINANT WILL ALLEGE WHICH PART OF CODE IS BEING VIOLATED. 
          AND SO IN THIS, IN, IN SUBSEQUENT PAGES, THIS IS LIKE THE, UH, COMPLAINANT CAN KIND OF WRITE ON MULTIPLE PAGES IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE CODE VIOLATIONS. 
          SO THEY COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, A COMPLAINANT CAN SAY, THIS IS A VIOLATION UNDER THIS CODE TWO DASH SEVEN, SIX A TO B, AND THEN ALSO THEY VIOLATED C AND THAT'S A SEPARATE PAGE AND THEY VIOLATED, UM, F AND SO STILL FOR 
          [01:25:01]
PURPOSES OF THIS COMPLAINT, THE ONLY, THE ONLY CODE PROVISION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, UM, THE, UH, QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX, TWO B WAS FIRE RELATED, WHERE THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THAT CODE WAS VIOLATED. 
          UM, SO COMMISSIONER JENNER'S OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          UM, I THINK I'VE GOT A MOTION. 
          UH, WE DO HAVE TWO OTHER HEARINGS TONIGHT THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS. 
          UM, AND IN THE INTEREST OF YEAH. 
          KUKA COMMISSIONER, LAURIE. 
          YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK. 
          IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD, UM, COMPLAINANTS, WE HAVE FILED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS, UM, ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CODE, AND WE ENDED UP HEARING THEM TOGETHER. 
          SO I WONDER IF WE DO A POSTPONEMENT, UM, AND GIVE THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE ADDITIONAL COMPLAINTS, CITING TO CODES THAT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE OR, YOU KNOW, MIGHT GIVE, UH, A GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDRESSING CONDUCT IN QUESTION, UM, THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT EVEN, OR RULING ON THIS PARTICULAR VIOLATION, THE POSTPONE NET PLUS SPACE OR RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT FILE ADDITIONAL COMPLAINTS, IF THEY FEEL LIKE OTHER CODES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. 
          UM, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY TO GO. 
          UM, THE OTHER THING IS, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT, BUT IF COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE MORE FAMILIAR AND HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHAT SECTIONS OF THE CODE MIGHT BE RELEVANT, UM, IT COULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMPLAINANT TO HEAR THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE'D BE ALLOWED TO DO. 
          SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, I, I AM, I'M CONFLICTED ON THAT POINT, UH, SPECIFICALLY, UM, BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THERE IS, I DON'T, IT'S NEVER BEEN USED IN THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, BUT THERE'S A WAY FOR THE COMMISSION, ITS SELF TO LIKE INITIATE A COMPLAINT. 
          UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THE COMMISSION HAS EVER DONE THAT IN THE THINK ABOUT CLOSE TO FOUR YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, BUT ABSENT THAT WHERE THE COMMISSION ITSELF IS KIND OF A COMPLAINANT. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I FEEL COMFORTABLE KIND OF, UH, ADVISING, GIVING, GIVING OPINIONS AND ADVICE TO A COMPLAINANT AS TO WHAT COMPLAINTS TO FILE SUBSEQUENTLY. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          I THINK, I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE TO KIND OF ADVISE COMPLAINANTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE HERE'S HOW YOU MIGHT WANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, UM, IN THIS COMPLAINT. 
          UH, HERE'S HOW OUR RULES WORK SO THAT YOU CAN BEST KIND OF MAKE YOUR CASE DURING THIS COMPLAINT, BUT I DON'T THINK I'D FEEL COMFORTABLE ADVISING OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THEIR COMPLAINT. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, GO AHEAD. 
          UM, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING COMMISSIONER LORI'S COMMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND COMMISSIONER DAN BURT'S MOTION. 
          UH, UH, SO THAT WAS, SO THAT MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. 
          UH, IT WAS WITHDRAWN, UH, BECAUSE WE DECIDED IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, SO THE MOTION THAT WE POST WITH THAT WE POSTPONE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SECOND BY SECOND COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SURE. 
          SO THERE'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE, THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, UM, COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, I, SO, UH, GO AHEAD. 
          I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER STAND IN YOUR HAND ALMOST COME UP. 
          SO GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH. 
          QUICK QUESTION. 
          10 MORE, MORE THAN ONE MOTION BE MADE. 
          NO, NO, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF, UH, I HAVE TO BE, IF YOU CAN AMEND THE MOTION, YOU CAN LIKE MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION, UH, WHERE IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THIS MOTION TO POSTPONE SLIGHTLY. 
          UM, BUT, UH, WE COULDN'T HAVE LIKE KIND OF DIFFERENT MOTIONS STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? UM, I DO HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS MOTION, UH, UNLESS ANOTHER COMMISSIONER HAS GOT REALLY STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT IT. 
          UM, I WAS JUST GOING TO KIND OF JUMP IN, UM, SO WE'RE, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO POSTPONE THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          UM, I, I DO, UH, I, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EMPHASIZE HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE COMPLAINANT PUT INTO THIS COMPLAINT AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WENT INTO COMPILING. 
          UM, IT W IT CLOSE TO 20 EXHIBITS, I THINK, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, UH, I W I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A COMPLAINT WHERE EXHIBITS THAT ARE LETTERED HAVE GONE THAT 
          [01:30:01]
FAR UP THE ALPHABET WHEN WE PUT IT THAT WAY. 
          UM, AND I KNOW THAT TAKES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND WORK AND DEDICATION TO THE CAUSE THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING. 
          UM, THAT SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY TO POSTPONE THIS HEARING, UM, BECAUSE I, AS I UNDERSTAND THE CITY CODE PROVISION, UM, THIS TWO DASH SEVEN SIX TWO B, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE KIND OF CONDUCT THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT EVIDENCE, UH, THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM RISE. 
          THEY DON'T QUITE MATCH WHAT I UNDERSTAND FORMULATING FORMALLY APPEARING TO MEAN OR ADVOCATING FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, GROUP OR ENTITY. 
          UM, I, THAT, THAT'S NOT HOW I UNDERSTAND THAT PROVISION OF CODE TO OPERATE. 
          SO I'M, I'M PREPARED TO, UH, INSTEAD OF POSTPONING THE HEARING, UM, I'M PREPARED INSTEAD TO, AND I THINK I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF MOTION TO FIND THAT A VIOLATION DID NOT OCCUR IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE GET THE COMPLAINANT A CHANCE TO REVISE THE COMPLAINT, UM, TO POTENTIALLY IDENTIFY ANOTHER PART OF OUR CITY CODE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT THAT MAY BE MORE APPLICABLE, UM, AND TO FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY TO PURSUE THIS COMPLAINT, UM, TO PURSUE THE COMPLAINT MIGHT INCREASE THE GRIEVANCE, RIGHT? THE UNDERLYING CONCERNS THAT SHE HAS. 
          UM, SO THAT, THAT IS WHY I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE, BUT I'M HAPPY. 
          GOOD COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          OKAY. 
          IF WE POSTPONE, DO WE SET A DATE OR WHEN IT COMES BEFORE US AGAIN,  IT, WASN'T AN EMOTION, BUT, UM, I THINK WE, I THINK THE NEXT DATE IS DATE. 
          UM, SO YES, THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH I THINK IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JUNE, UM, WHERE'S MY CALENDAR. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK WOULD BE YOUR, YEAH. 
          IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WORK RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S COMING UP AT THE NEXT MEETING, NOT GOING TO WORK. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          UM, LET'S START COMMISSIONER LARRY'S HAND. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YEAH, I MEAN, JUST RESPONDING TO YOUR COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          MY CONCERN WOULD BE, YOU SAID THAT THERE'S SORT OF A CLOCK, RIGHT? THERE'S A TIME BY WHICH THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE AN AMENDMENT COMPLAINT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? AND WHAT IS THAT TIME FRAME? GREAT QUESTION. 
          I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO, UM, LET'S SEE. 
          THAT IS, UH, THAT IS UP TO US. 
          WE SPECIFY A PERIOD OF TIME, UH, TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT. 
          AND FOR THOSE CODE JUNKIES THAT ARE FOLLOWING ALONG, I'M LOOKING AT TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR FOUR E, WHICH SAYS THE COMMISSION AT ANY TIME DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING MAY ALSO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 
          THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGED CONDUCT, WHICH WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO ELECT A VIOLATION, THE COMPLAINANT OR THEIR COUNSEL. 
          SO BE PERMITTED ONE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN A PERIOD TO BE SPECIFIED, TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT, UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON, UM, CHAIR, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO MEET IN ORDER TO PROGRESS TO A FINAL HEARING? I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT EXACTLY THE CRITERIA. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          UM, SO UNDER SUBSECTION A THAT SAME SECTION TWO, SEVEN, FOUR, FOUR IS THE ISSUE AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING SHALL BE THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED. 
          SO THAT IS THE QUESTION. 
          ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION HAS OCCURRED? THANK YOU. 
          OF COURSE. 
          AND, UM, I'M CONFUSED NOW, HAS THERE BEEN A MOTION? THERE'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED? UM, SO WE'RE DISCUSSING THE MERITS 
          [01:35:01]
OF POSTPONING. 
          UM, THE MERITS OF THE MOTION, I GUESS, UM, COMMISSIONER KALE. 
          UM, I WOULD, UH, PROCEDURALLY, LET ME KNOW HOW TO DO THIS CHAIR, SO I RUN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND IT. 
          SO THAT SET A TIMEFRAME THAT THEY HAVE UNTIL THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING TO THIS AMENDED COMPLAINT. 
          SURE. 
          THAT WOULD, I THINK THAT WOULD OPERATE UNDER A SEPARATE MOTION, UM, BECAUSE THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW ISN'T TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, BUT IT'S TO POSTPONE IT TO A FURTHER DATE AS OPPOSED TO RIGHT. 
          TO, TO JUNE PRESUMABLY. 
          UM, SO, OKAY, SO COMMISSIONER DANBURG YES. 
          I THINK IT MIGHT BE MY MOTION THAT WAS SECONDED. 
          AND WHAT MAKES THIS YOUR IDEA? YEAH. 
          WHAT MAKES THIS WORK FOR EVERYBODY IS A O K WITH ME EITHER WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THAT OR I CAN WITHDRAW IT. 
          I'M FINE. 
          I JUST DON'T WANT TO . 
          YEAH, BUT TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT COMMISSION, IT BELONGS TO THE COMMISSION. 
          THAT'S VERY ACCURATE. 
          THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          IT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IT DESIRES TO DO WITH WHAT WE WISH. 
          UM, YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER STANDARD. 
          SORRY. 
          I AM HUGGING UP SO MUCH TIME. 
          I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S PATIENCE. 
          RIGHT? UM, I'D LIKE TO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS, UM, AND I DON'T FEEL GOOD KNOWING THAT MY FIRST VOTE ON THIS COMMISSION WOULD BE A NO, BUT I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS IS THAT COMMISSIONER. 
          IT IS NOT OUR CHARGE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S IS AN APPROPRIATE VIOLATION, WHETHER THE CODE THAT'S BEING CITED IN THIS COMPLAINT IS THE BEST FIT FOR THE COMPLAINT. 
          THAT'S NOT OUR CHARGE. 
          OUR CHARGE IS TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE IS REASONABLE INFORMATION OR WHETHER WE BELIEVE THAT THERE THAT IS REASONABLE, THAT A VIOLATION COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE OCCURRED RIGHT. 
          TO A CODE THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          SO WE'RE NOT HERE TO SAY, HEY, THIS ISN'T THE BEST. 
          THIS ISN'T THE BEST CODE THAT YOU SHOULD CITE HERE. 
          WHY DON'T YOU TAKE IT BACK AND FIND A CODE THAT BETTER FITS YOUR COMPLAINT? THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE CHARGED HERE TO DO. 
          IT IS A LOT MORE BLACK OR FOR ME, RIGHT? IT'S THIS CODE. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT I DID. 
          IS THIS THE CODE THAT'S BEING CITED HERE IN THE COMPLAINT, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          YES, IT IS. 
          WE'VE, WE'VE DETERMINED THAT, AND THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TO MOVE IT TO A FINAL HEARING IS, IS THERE A REASONABLE, WHAT WAS THAT EXACT WORD, REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING, OR I GUESS, GROUNDS TO BELIEVE REASONABLE GROUNDS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE A GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THIS CODE? NOT, NOT, IS IT OBVIOUS OR IS IT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, RIGHT? IS THERE A REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THIS CODE THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHY IT'S NOT CLEAR BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE IS A RE REASONABLE GROUND THAT THIS CODE COULD BE IN VIOLATION. 
          THIS CODE, PARTICULARLY THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE SO PASSIONATE. 
          NO, I AM SO GLAD THAT WE'VE MANAGED TO RECRUIT, RECRUIT A PASSIONATE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION. 
          SO WE WERE SO WELCOMED, UM, AND PASSIONATE DISAGREEMENT IS MY FAVORITE KIND OF DISAGREEMENT, UM, RESPECTFULLY PASSIONATE DISAGREEMENT. 
          UH, SO, UM, I SAW ANOTHER HAND, BUT I'M NOW, UH, UH, MISSING WHO IT MIGHT'VE BEEN. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          WELL THE COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN, UM, WE CAN HAVE A VOTE ON THE MOTION. 
          OH, YEP. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          ARE WE GOING TO PUT THE DATE AND THAT IT'S THE NEXT MEETING? THE JUNE MEETING IN THE MOTION THAT YOU KNOW, THAT I ACTUALLY, 
          [01:40:01]
SO IT'S NOT IN THE MOTION CURRENTLY. 
          UM, WE COULD AMEND THE MOTION TO DO THAT. 
          I'M ACTUALLY, I WOULD NOT PREFER THAT WE WOULD NOT. 
          UM, I MEAN, IF WE DO, WE CAN, UH, THE, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE, ANYTIME WE SET HARD DATES FOR THINGS HERE IN THE COMMISSION IS THAT, UH, IT, IT MAKES IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH SCHEDULING IN A WAY THAT COMPORTS WITH THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, IT WAS, IT'S AN ISSUE THAT I'VE RUN INTO IN THE PAST, UH, AS I TRY TO WORK WITH PARTIES, UM, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO APPEAR. 
          AND IF THEY'VE GOT COUNCIL, WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL IS AVAILABLE. 
          UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK POSTPONING, UH, TO THE, I MEAN, WE COULD SAY POSTPONED TO THE NEXT MEETING, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE. 
          MAYBE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO AMEND THE, TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING, AS OPPOSED TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY, WE'LL SEE COMMISSION AT AMBER'S SIX MONTHS. 
          SOME OF THIS STUFF, I WOULD PREFER THAT IT WOULDN'T TAKE SIX MONTHS MYSELF AS WELL. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE. 
          I SEE YOUR HAND. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S NO LONGER MINE MOTION. 
          IT'S IT'S COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND DONNA BETH, BUT I THINK WHAT I'M MISSING MOTION, WHAT, WHAT I'M HEARING FROM EVERYONE IS WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO GO AWAY. 
          WE ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY AND WE NEED SOME GUIDANCE MAYBE FROM ANNE ABOUT EXACTLY HOW TO, OKAY. 
          BETSY IS CONFLICTED. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THAT'S THE DOWNSELL. 
          YES. 
          THAT, THAT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          BUT MY POINT IS, I THINK THAT ALL OF US ARE BRINGING, WE DON'T WANT THIS TO EVAPORATE AND WE WANT TO KNOW THE BEST WAY TO TAKE THIS FORWARD SO THAT THE COMPLAINANT WHO WALKS, SHE'S NOT A LAWYER PROBABLY COULD HAVE PASSED ANY BAR EXAM IN THE WORLD, UM, CAN MAKE THIS FIT WITHIN WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO RULE ON. 
          SURE. 
          WELL, SO HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO OFFER QUICKLY ON THIS MOTION. 
          I WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO, UH, THE TIMES THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS, UH, AFFORDED TO BE HERE IN PRESENT. 
          UM, IT WAS ALMOST NINE O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. 
          UH, WE'D HAVE TO VOTE TO GO PAST 10 O'CLOCK. 
          I WILL HAVE TO PASS IT OFF TO JAY MICHAEL FOR TWO OTHER HEARINGS, UM, THAT WE HAVE ON TODAY TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA, WHAT, WHAT I'M GONNA PROPOSE. 
          I SEE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER AGREEMENT. 
          NO, YOU CAN FINISH TALKING NOW. 
          I DIDN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I NEEDED MYSELF. 
          I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE IT TO A VOTE ON THIS MOTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE POST PONES, UH, UH, AND PRESUMABLY TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          UM, AND THEN KIND OF TAKE IT FROM THERE. 
          UM, SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON, MOVE ALONG TO YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON, AND THEN COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON. 
          ARE YOU STILL WITH US? SHE DID. 
          NO. 
          OH, WHILE WE WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER STANTON, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD. 
          WELL, SINCE COMMISSIONER STANTON, MISS THE EARLIER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SIX VOTES AND THE LOW ATTENDANCE TODAY, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO CONSIDER THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          UM, BUT SHE'S NOT HERE TO HEAR THAT MAYBE SHE NEEDS TO UNMUTE BROKEN OH, YELLOW TRIANGLE. 
          OH, SEE THAT. 
          SO WE NEEDED TO COME BACK TO EVEN VOTE. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S TRUE. 
          UM, AND ALSO THIS IS LYNN CARTER. 
          UM, SO WE DO NEED TO WAIT FOR HER, AND THIS IS A CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR MOTION TO POSTPONE. 
          THE MEMBERS ARE SUPPOSED TO ATTEND THE BEGINNING THROUGH THE END OF A MEETING. 
          SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME MEMBERS AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT YOU'RE POSTPONING IT TOO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 
          [01:45:01]
PROBLEMS WITH A QUORUM. 
          OKAY. 
          BACK. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS WON'T HELP BECAUSE THEY MISSED THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, CORRECT? OH, BECAUSE, BECAUSE WE STARTED THE HEARING. 
          UM, SO, UH, SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND OR THE NEXT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, I WOULD ACTUALLY RECOMMEND, UM, SINCE I AM GOING TO PASS THE PROVERBIAL GAVEL TO JAY MICHAEL, THAT, UM, ONCE WE KIND OF MAKE THAT TRANSITION, WE KIND OF MAKE THAT PRETTY CLEAR THAT IF WE THINK WE WANT TO POSTPONE SOMETHING, WE SHOULD DO IT BEFORE WE START THE HEARING ITSELF. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO I'M GOING TO, SO IF THE MOTION IS STILL BEFORE US, UM, SO I SAY WE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO I'M GOING TO START CALLING OUT NAMES AS THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA. 
          UH, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR VOTE EITHER. 
          YES. 
          I MAY KNOW. 
          OR ABSTAINED. 
          UM, AND WE WILL RECORD IT ACCORDINGLY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO SOBRANTE VOTES, NAY VICE CHAIR. 
          OH, HURRY HAS ACCUSED, UM, COMMISSIONER LEARNERS TAB SINCE COMMISSIONER DANBURG, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND SAY THAT IT'S PAST. 
          DOES THAT MEAN? NO, I SEE THE TWO AND I THINK I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, BUT YEAH. 
          OH, PASS MEANS, I DON'T KNOW. 
          CAUSE I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          SURE. 
          SO I'LL CALL THAT IN ABSTENTION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, NO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG VOTING, NO COMMISSIONER KALE. 
          SO WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTEND POSTPONES FOR A FUTURE MEETING. 
          UM, I VOTE NAME COMMISSIONER, KALE VOTES. 
          NAY. 
          COMMISSIONER LAURIE, PRESENT YOURSELF. 
          SORRY. 
          MISSIONER LAURIE VOTES. 
          NAY COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, EVERYBODY ELSE'S MCCORMICK VOTES. 
          NO. 
          MR. STANTON. 
          YEAH. 
          SO SHE GAINED DEAR NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU MIGHT SEE HOW ABOUT THIS? NO,  CONFIRM WITH ALL THE COMMISSIONERS WATCHING THAT COMMISSIONER STANTON GAVE A UNIVERSAL SIGN FOR NO, AND I WILL TAKE THAT TO THE NO VOTE. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S BEEN CONFIRMED. 
          GOT IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, MISSIONARY IN THE UK IS NOT PRESENT AND THERE'S A VACANCY IN DISTRICT SIX, SO WELL THEN ABSENT AND A, UM, VACANCIES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE MOTION FAILS. 
          I SEE COMMISSIONER DAN BERG'S HAND. 
          OH, I, I JUST HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHERE WE'RE GOING, BUT I'LL GO ALONG WITH NOW AND LOAD ON THE FINAL. 
          SO SORRY. 
          INCLUDED THE ROLL CALL. 
          UH, ROLL CALL WAS, UH, UH, NE UH, THERE WAS A RECUSAL, AN ABSENCE. 
          AND THEN OF COMMISSIONER DAN BERG HAS AN EXTENSION THAT NO, NO, NO, NO, NO ABSENT. 
          VACANT. 
          UM, SO THE MOTION SALES, UM, OKAY. 
          UH, AT THIS TIME, UM, WE CAN ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION OR I CAN JUST JUMP IN AND DO THE MOTION MAKING. 
          IF COMMISSIONERS ARE AMENABLE TO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN COMMISSIONERS, I'M GOING TO MOVE. 
          LET ME GET THE RIGHT CODE IN FRONT OF ME. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GOING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE CONDUCT IS NOT FULL. 
          IT'S A VIOLATION, UM, OF THE PROVISION ALLEGED. 
          UM, AND AS PART OF THIS MOTION, I'M GOING TO, UH, RECOMMEND TO THE COMPLAINANT THAT THEY HAVE A PERIOD OF TIME. 
          THAT'S GOING TO BE SPECIFIED AS LET'S SAY TWO MONTHS. 
          SO 
          [01:50:01]
FROM THIS DATE, THE TIME OF NOT THE JUNE MEETING, BUT THE JULY MEETING TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT. 
          YES. 
          SO THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER TINDER, KALE. 
          SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS I'M GOING TO VOTE. 
          NO, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, GO AHEAD. 
          BUT WE ARE GIVING THEM TOO MUCH TO RESUBMIT, RIGHT? CAN ALWAYS RESUBMIT. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          SO THE, UM, HOLD ON REAL QUICK. 
          UH, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          MY WORK IS BECKONING ME. 
          UM, UH, SO, UH, WE'RE GIVING THEM, SO IN THIS MOTION, WE'RE GIVING THEM TWO MONTHS TO RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT. 
          UM, IT'S THE FIRST THING, THE SECOND THING IS THAT WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS NOT THAT NOTHING WRONG HAPPENED, UH, WHAT THIS MOTION IS SAYING IS NOT THAT THERE'S NOT SOME OTHER POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF CITY CODE THAT OCCURRED WHAT THE MOTION IS SAYING IS THAT THE CONDUCT THAT HAS BEEN ALLEGED DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX, TWO B SPECIFICALLY, BUT THAT THE COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE A TWO MONTH PERIOD, UM, FOR THE NEXT HYDRO, BY THE NEXT MEETING, IF, UH, THAT'S FEASIBLE OR EVEN BY THE MEETING, AFTER THAT, TO TAKE THIS COMPLAINT ITSELF AND RESUBMIT IT TO TAKE THE FACTS ALLEGED AND RESUBMIT THEM ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF POTENTIALLY A SEPARATE SECTION OF CITY CODE. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO KIND OF JUSTIFY WHY I BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE AND WHY I DON'T THINK THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED TO MEET THE SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT WAS CITED IN THE COMPLAINT, IF THAT MAKES COMMISSIONERS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, I'M HAPPY TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH MY THINKING. 
          UM, AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE LISTENING, I'LL, I'LL DO THAT REAL QUICK. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO B IS VERY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A CITY OFFICIAL, FORMALLY APPEARING. 
          AND I THINK THOSE ARE KEY WORDS BEFORE THE BODY ON WHICH THEY'RE SERVING, UM, AND ON THAT AND DOING SO ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON, GROUP OR ENTITY. 
          SO THIS SPECIFICALLY APPEARING BEFORE THE BODY, UM, THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT IN THE PUBLIC BODIES I HAVE SERVED ON AND, UH, HAD STAFFED FOURS, UM, AS A SPECIFIC MEANING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BODY, UM, IT MEANS TO COME OFF OF THE DYESS, SO TO SPEAK, IT MEANS TO, UH, SORT OF LEAVE IT, IT MEANS TO KIND OF, YOU'RE NO LONGER ASSUMING THE ROLE OF A COUNCIL MEMBER, RIGHT? NO LONGER ASSUMING A ROLE AS A MEMBER OF THE BODY WHEN YOU APPEAR BEFORE THE BODY. 
          UM, SO THAT'S THE FIRST HURDLE IS THAT WHATEVER WE THINK OF THE CONDUCT OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM ON THE DAYAS, SHE DIDN'T STOP ACTING AS THE MAYOR PRO TEM WHEN SHE WAS MAKING THOSE COMMENTS, HOWEVER, INAPPROPRIATE THOSE COMMENTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE. 
          SO THE SECOND THING, UM, ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON GROUP OR ENTITY I, THAT I, I THINK IS A LITTLE LESS CLEAR TO ME PRECISELY WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN, BUT WHAT I KIND OF UNDERSTAND THEM TO MEAN IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS A, IF THERE WAS A ITEM UP FOR DISCUSSION OR THE BOUNTY, UM, THAT THE, UH, MEMBER OF THE BODY HAD A VERY SPECIFIC INTEREST IN, AND AGAIN, LEFT, UH, STOPPED ACTING AS A MEMBER OF THE BODY APPEARED BEFORE THE BODY AND SAID, I'VE GOT A STAKE IN THIS. 
          LET ME TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT. 
          OR MY BROTHER'S GOT A STAKE IN THIS. 
          LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT IT OR THIS COMPANY THAT I REPRESENT SEPARATE. 
          AND APART FROM MY MEMBERSHIP ON THE BODY AS A STAKE IN THIS, LET ME TALK ABOUT IT. 
          THAT IS HOW I UNDERSTAND ADVOCATING FOR HIMSELF FOR ANY OF THE PERSON OR GROUP OR ENTITY. 
          UM, SO, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, THAT IS HOW I READ THE CODE. 
          I, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT IS AN OVERLY STRICT OR NARROW READING OF THIS PROVISION. 
          UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE 
          [01:55:01]
FORMERLY APPEARED BEFORE THE BODY ITSELF IMPLIES THAT YOU STOPPED ACTING AS A MEMBER OF THAT BODY. 
          AND I DON'T THINK WHATEVER WE THINK OF THE COMMENTS OR WHATEVER WE THINK OF THE EXCHANGE, UH, BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THAT EVER HAPPENED FOR THIS PROVISION OF THE CODE TO APPLY, WHICH IS WHY I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THOSE GROUNDS, THAT THE CONDUCT DOESN'T AMOUNT TO THE VIOLATION OF THIS CODE, BUT THROUGH OUR, FOR TWO MONTHS, UH, TWO MEETINGS WORTH OF TIME. 
          SO TO SPEAK THE COMPLAINANT, TO RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT TOOL THAT POTENTIALLY A VIOLATION, UM, THERE, THAT POTENTIALLY SHOWS HOW THIS CONDUCT VIOLATES ANOTHER PROVISION OF CODE. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T WANT THE COMMISSION TO DO IS TO KIND OF REINTERPRET THIS PROVISION, UM, LIKE TO, TO TWIST THIS PROVISION IN A WAY THAT MATCHES THIS COMPLAINT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR JOB TO DO THAT EITHER. 
          SO YES, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, OKAY. 
          IF THIS MOTION FAILS, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ON THE MOTION? WELL, IF THE, IF THE MOTION FAILS, THEN, UM, THEN WE'RE IN A POSITION TO ENTERTAIN OTHER MOTIONS UNTIL WE DISPOSE OF THIS COMPLAINT. 
          UM, AND THAT COULD INCLUDE, UH, A MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, UM, THAT FAILS, UM, OR TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 
          THAT FEELS ONE WAY, I THINK THERE WILL BE A MOTION AT SOME POINT THAT KIND OF ITS FAILURE WILL DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THIS HEARING. 
          UM, IF WE CAN NOT GET TO SIX TO AGREE TO A THING, UM, I, I WOULD, UH, TH THIS, THIS IS A PERSONAL PLEA, UH, FOR COMMISSIONERS TO KIND OF COME WITH ME ON THIS MOTION, UM, SO THAT WE DON'T RUN INTO THAT, UH, PROBLEM WHERE WE HAVE SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS THAT FAILED TO GET SIX VOTES. 
          UM, THEY GO WITH YOU, SO IT WILL NOT GO AWAY IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          GO WITH ME. 
          SO THAT, SO THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS AN AMPLE, UM, AN AMPLE PERIOD OF TIME TO WORK ON THIS AND TO RESUBMIT IT. 
          SO YES, CONDITION GRIPPER. 
          IS THERE ANY REASON THE COMPLAINANT COULDN'T RESUBMIT WITHOUT US SAYING THAT WITHOUT US SAYING, WHAT BANK ANYBODY TO YOU SUBMIT BY 60 DAYS OR RESUBMIT BY JULY MEETING? WELL, ALWAYS YEAH. 
          COMPLAINT. 
          SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS, UM, THEY, THEY VERY WELL COULD I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S LIKE A REAL RES JUDICATA PROVISION, UM, UH, THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE THE RIGHT TERM, BUT, UH, THE, THE KIND OF, THERE'S NO REAL REASON THAT I KNOW OF IN OUR RULES OR IN OUR CITY CODE THAT THEY COULDN'T, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE SAME FACTS OR SIMILAR FACTS AND ALLEGED NEW VIOLATION UNDER A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF CODE. 
          THE IDEA BEHIND THE, LIKE THIS PROVISION THAT LETS THEM RESUBMIT IS TO KIND OF TAKE WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY PREPARED AND WORK ON IT AND SEND IT BACK TO US. 
          UM, AS OPPOSED TO SAY FROM LIKE STARTING FROM SCRATCH, THAT'S FINE. 
          AND THE ONLY REASON I WOULD VOTE NO IS BECAUSE I DO THINK THE VIAL OTHER REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED BASED ON WHAT SHE HAS IN HER COMPLAINT. 
          SO I WOULD GO AND WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES. 
          YES. 
          I NEED TO GO AWAY. 
          IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO AWAY, EVEN IF WE DON'T GO TO FINAL HEARING BECAUSE SHE BACK. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO IF I STRUGGLED WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT, UM, BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T GO AWAY, UM, THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS DOESN'T GO AWAY, QUOTE UNQUOTE, IS IF IT PROCEEDS TO A FINAL HEARING TO PROCEED TO A FINAL PAPER, REQUIRES SIX AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. 
          I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT GO COMFORTABLE VOTING TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING, BECAUSE AS I STATED, THE CONDUCT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION. 
          THAT'S THE WAY THAT THIS COMPLAINT DOES NOT GO AWAY, OR WE POSTPONE IT. 
          IN WHICH CASE WE NEED EVERYONE ON THIS MEETING 
          [02:00:02]
TO APPEAR AGAIN FOR THE NEXT MEETING, RIGHT? SO THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT'S THE COMPLAINT THAT HAS BEEN FILED IN IS BEFORE US DOES NOT GO AWAY. 
          WHERE WHAT I'M PROPOSING I THINK IS, IS, UH, IS A REALLY MODEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          IT DOESN'T OUTRIGHT SLAP DOWN THE COMPLAINT. 
          UM, IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE CONDUCT ALLEGED DOES NOT AMOUNT FOR VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION AND THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS ADVISED THAT TWO MONTHS, THEY'VE GOT TWO MONTHS TO FIX THIS COMPLAINT, OR IN, AS YOU CORRECTLY NOTED COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AT ANY TIME, THEY CAN RESUBMIT A SEPARATE COMPLAINT, UM, ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE CODE. 
          BUT, BUT AS, AS OUR RULES STAND, WE ARE STUCK WITH THIS COMPLAINT UNTIL WE DO SOMETHING WITH IT. 
          THERE'S NO WAY TO REALLY PUNT THIS ONCE THE HEARING IS STARTED AND WE'VE CONCLUDED IT, COMMISSIONERS, UH, APOLOGIES CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I'M BEEN HAVING CONNECTION PROBLEMS. AND SO I DIALED IN ON MY MOBILE PHONE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE Y'ALL, COULDN'T HEAR ME. 
          DO I NEED TO BE ADMITTED SOME WAY OR, OR SOMEHOW ON MY MOBILE PHONE IN ORDER FOR Y'ALL TO HEAR ME, WE CAN HEAR YOU, BUT I'M NOT ON, I KNOW I'M NOT ON MY MOBILE PHONE AND I'M JUST AFRAID THAT I'M GOING TO GET CUT OFF. 
          Y'ALL WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAR ME. 
          AND THEN IF I GET ON MY MOBILE PHONE, BUT YEAH, COULD I DO A QUICK TEST AND I SWITCHED TO MY MOBILE AND SEE IF Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME. 
          LET'S SEE. 
          HAULING COMMISSIONER. 
          CAN I CONFIRM SOMETHING REAL QUICK? SURE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          CITY HALL. 
          ARE YOU FIVE ONE, TWO FOUR, TWO, THREE? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL TRY IT. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, SO YOU HAD TO DO SOMETHING. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M GOING TO STAY ON MY MOBILE BECAUSE IT'S MORE STABLE RIGHT NOW. 
          SURE. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, UH, ASK THAT WE PROCEED. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER, UH, DAN BURKE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS A CLUSTER OR, YOU KNOW WHAT, BUT I TRUST OUR CHAIR TO LEAD US OUT OF THIS MORASS TO JUSTICE SO THAT IT CAN CONTINUE, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT AGAIN. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT FOR CLARITY, UM, THAT I APPLAUD THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE TIME AND THE DEDICATION THAT WAS PUT INTO PREPARING THIS COMPLAINT. 
          WHAT I AM CONFLICTED ABOUT IS POTENTIALLY TWISTING OUR CITY CODE SPECIFICALLY TWISTING TWO SEVEN, SIX, TWO B, TO MATCH THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND TO AVOID TWISTING THE CLOTHES AND TO GIVE RESPECT IN ACCORD, THAT CONSIDERATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT DESERVES GIVEN THE WORK THAT SHE HAS PUT INTO HER COMPLAINT. 
          I WANT TO RESPECTFULLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CONDUCT DOES NOT MEET A VIOLATION OF THIS CODE AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST ALMOST, BUT SUGGEST THAT A REVISION REVISEMENT OF THAT COMPLAINT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO PUT BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY NO MEANS, IS THIS, IS THIS, UH, TELLING THE COMPLAINANT THAT'S, IT'S NOT THAT, YOU KNOW, WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME, WRONG, EVERYTHING EFFICIENT TELLING THE COMPLAINANT THAT WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT SHE'S DONE. 
          UM, AND THAT WE HOPE TO SEE HER AGAIN. 
          WE WILL SEE HER. 
          OKAY. 
          I I'M I'M IT'S IN FOR VOTE COMMISSIONERS. 
          IT IS ALMOST IT'S PAST NINE O'CLOCK AND BEFORE WE GET TO 10, WE'D HAVE TO VOTE TO EXTEND FURTHER, AND I NEED TO GIVE IT TO COMMISSIONER. 
          HURRY. 
          IS THERE ANY LAST QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE THE VOTE COMMISSIONER STANDS? AND GO AHEAD. 
          UH, THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE WITH US AND, UH, JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, MY BOAT IS AND DOES NOT REFLECT UPON MY, UM, WE'RE SPECT OR, OR, OR LACK OF RESPECT FOR YOU. 
          IT'S UH, I, I AM, I AM CONFLICTED BECAUSE FROM MY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS REASONABLE GROUNDS AND WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, REASONABLY, BUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE THE INDIVIDUALS READING THE CITY CODES, AND THIS WAS ANOTHER 
          [02:05:01]
TOPIC THAT I'LL BRING UP FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION, BUT WHO THE INDIVIDUALS READING THE CITY CODES AND TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE'S VIOLATION IT'S THE, IT'S THE CITIZENS, RIGHT? AND SO IF WE MEASURE, WE CAN GO GROUND BY, YOU KNOW, UM, BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE READING THE CITY CODE, THEY'RE NOT LAWYERS NECESSARILY, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT IS REASONABLE TO INTERPRET THIS FORMALLY APPEAR BEFORE THE BODY, AS LITERALLY YOU ARE APPEARING BEFORE THE BODY YOU ARE THERE. 
          SO THAT'S MY POINT IS, AND I HOPE THAT YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN, WHEN YOU HEAR MY BOAT, THAT IT HAS NO SIGN OF DISRESPECT TO YOU OR YOUR ANALYSIS. 
          AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMING UP WITH A WAY THAT WOULD, UM, UH, THAT ACKNOWLEDGES MS. UH, RETURN, UM, TREMENDOUS WORK. 
          UM, BUT I HAVE TO VOTE ACCORDING TO WHAT I BELIEVE MY, THE CRITERIA IS. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          UH, I WOULD EXPECT NOTHING LESS THAN YOU VOTE YOUR CONVICTION. 
          UM, SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT AND NO DISRESPECT TAKEN, UM, COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION, I'M GOING TO START CALLING A ROLL CALL. 
          SO ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUGGEST A TWO MONTH PERIOD TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT CHAIR SOBER ON VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          HURRY HAS RECUSED COMMISSIONER LERNER IS ABSENT COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER DANFORD VOTES. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          NO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, NO COMMISSIONER KALE COMMISSIONER. 
          CALEB VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER LA SORRY. 
          AYE. 
          MISSION LRE BOATS, SUPPLIED COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER STANTON, NO COMMISSIONER STANTON VOTES. 
          NO COMMISSIONER TO NET THAN A YUCA IS ABSENCE. 
          AND THERE'S A VACANCY IN DISTRICT SIX WITH ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE EYES, TWO NAYS. 
          AND THE REMAINING ABSENT TO RECUSE THAT MOTION, I BELIEVE DOES NOT SUCCEED IN MY CORRECT. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO GET LYNN TO JUST CONFIRM THAT THAT IS THE BOAT THRESHOLD. 
          THAT IS MY COUNT FIVE VOTING AYE, OR YES. 
          OKAY. 
          GOT IT. 
          UM, SO WE'RE OPEN TO OTHER MOTIONS. 
          I SEE. 
          COMMISSIONER LAURIE STAND. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON IT. 
          I BELIEVE WE CAN VOTE AGAIN, BUT I DO THINK A POSTPONEMENT IS REALLY GOING TO BE THE ONLY OPTION THAT GETS THE TWO BUCKETS OF PEOPLE THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE. 
          I THINK WE HAVE ONE BUCKET WHO BELIEVES THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE, A REASONABLE BOX BULL GROUND, OR MULTIPLE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE THAT, BUT FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND OR ADD ON ADDITIONAL COMPLAINTS THAT WE CAN, WE CAN HEAR TOGETHER. 
          AND SO, I DON'T KNOW. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WE HAVE TODAY, UM, TO GET THROUGH THE IMPASSE, WE, YOU KNOW, A POSTPONED SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, MY, UH, I'VE THOUGHTS IN THE POSTPONEMENT, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I, I WOULD'VE THOUGHT THAT REASONABLE UNTIL, UM, WE GOT THE EXPLANATION THAT THE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE PART OF THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T HERE FROM THE BEGINNING. 
          UM, AND THEN AT A FUTURE MEETING, WE COULD HAVE SOME ABSENCES AMONGST THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE. 
          SO WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BE WORSE OFF IF WE POSTPONE THEM. 
          SO I'M MOVE THAT. 
          WE GO TO A FINAL HEARING THAT, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVE. 
          WE GO TO A FINAL HEARING JUST BECAUSE PROCEDURALLY, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          UM, IF WE VOTE AND WE IN THE MOTION TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING SCALES, IT'S LIKE, I'M WORSE. 
          WE'RE STUCK IN LIMBO. 
          NO, IF IT FAILS THEN IT'S, UM, IT'S LIKE WE IT'S, 
          [02:10:01]
THE CASE GETS DISMISSED. 
          AND THE, UM, MS. SILVER TURF CAN FILE AGAIN DIFFERENTLY, BUT I HAVE TO VOTE. 
          SURE. 
          I'M GONNA REAL QUICK. 
          I'M GOING TO JUST DEFER TO EITHER LYNN OR STEVE, WHICHEVER LAWYER THAT'S ON THE CALL WANTS TO TYPE UP FIRST, THE EFFECTIVE OF KILLING MOTION TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING. 
          DOES THAT DISMISS THE CASE? I WOULD PREFER TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, YES. 
          UM, OUR REFER YOU TO A CITY CODE SECTION TWO SEVEN FOUR, FOUR D. 
          IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          GOT IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THERE WAS A MOTION, UM, TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING. 
          AND I THINK THAT MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. 
          THEN PROCEDURALLY, IF THERE'S A MOTION BEFORE US, THE MOTION BY GREENBERG SECONDED BY MCCORMICK DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING COMMISSIONER DAMPER. 
          SO BEFORE YOU PROCEED TO THE FINAL HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR CODE, ALLEGED VIOLATION, WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO AMEND THAT? COULD YOU, COULD YOU RESTATE THAT QUESTION? I'M SORRY THAT SOME OF US BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE VIOLATIONS AND SOME OF THOSE BELIEVE THAT THE VIOLATIONS HAVE MAPPING TO DO WITH WHAT WAS ON THE COMPLIANT SET UP. 
          IF WE GO TO A FINAL HEARING ON THIS COMPLAINT WITH THIS STATED CODE VIOLATION AS AN EDGE, WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE THERE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO AMEND IT, TO INCLUDE SOME THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 
          I AM NOT ADVISE TO ANY WAY TO AMEND THE, THE, THE COMPLAINT ITSELF IN THIS SENSE. 
          I'M NOT ADVISED THAT THERE'S A WAY TO KIND OF EXPAND THE CODES THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN A COMPLAINT. 
          I MEAN, THE REASON WE HAVE A FINAL HEARINGS TO DISCUSS MORE EVIDENCE, RIGHT. 
          SO TO HAVE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, MORE ROBUST EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S. 
          YES. 
          SO FOR US TO GET MORE EVIDENCE ON THE ONE ALLEGATION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO, SO IF THEY WANTED TO GET MORE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX TWO B. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ASKING PERMISSION TO DAN MCCORMICK START, GO AHEAD. 
          UH, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          OKAY. 
          THOSE WHO ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT WOULD BE HERE FOR THE FILE HERE. 
          YOU COULD CLICK VOTE. 
          YES. 
          THEY COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE FINAL HEARING. 
          YES, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. 
          LET'S GO. 
          OKAY. 
          GOT IT. 
          UM, I HOPE COMMISSIONER DANBURY COMES BACK BECAUSE, UH, IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS, UM, OR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I'M GOING TO PROCEED TO A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS IN THE INTEREST OF EVERYONE WHO IS SORT OF ON THE BACK END OF THIS AGENDA. 
          UM, YEAH, BUT I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO STIFLE ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENT. 
          I KNOW THAT I'M SOUNDING, UH, UH, ANXIOUS, BUT IT'S ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE STAYING UP LATE WITH US AND SPECIFICALLY THE TWO OTHER HEARINGS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH. 
          UM, SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING? OKAY. 
          AND I'M GOING TO PROCEED TO A VOTE IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IT. 
          I'M GOING TO GO IN THE ORDER THAT IT APPEARS ON THE AGENDA. 
          PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR VOTE. 
          [02:15:01]
AND I WILL REPEAT IT BACK. 
          SO ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING CHAIR. 
          SO BROWN VOTES, NO VICE CHAIR. 
          OH, HURRY. 
          RECUSED. 
          COMMISSIONER LERNER IS ABSENT. 
          COMMISSIONER DAN BERG PASS AS FAST. 
          ME AND ABSTAIN PASS MEANS I'M GOING TO WAIT AND SEE HOW I TEND TO. 
          I THOUGHT IT WAS OVER THEN. 
          I WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT THE END OF THIS COMMISSIONER, DAN BURKE. 
          THIS IS NOT MY FAVORITE WAY TO DO ROLL CALLS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? YES. 
          WAIT, WHAT ARE WE GOING? WE'RE VOTING TO GO TO YES. 
          SO COMMISSIONER GREENBURG VOTES. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER KALE. 
          NO COMMISSIONER CARROLL VOTES. 
          NO COMMISSIONER. 
          LARRY. 
          NO MISSION. 
          DELORE VOTES. 
          NO COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          YES. 
          MISSION MCCORMICK VOTES. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER STANTON. 
          YES. 
          MISUNDERSTANDS AND VOTES. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER TONIGHT. 
          THEN A YUCA IS ABSENT AND THERE'S A VACANCY IN DISTRICT SIX. 
          SO THERE'LL BE UP COMMISSIONER. 
          DANBURG TELL ME WHETHER MY VOTE WILL BEND IT OVER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          IT WILL NOT, THEN I WILL CONTINUE. 
          AND I'M STAYING. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER DAN BERG ABSTAINS THERE BEING THREE EYES, THREE NAYS, AND TENSION. 
          IT RECUSAL TWO ABSENCES IN A VACANCY. 
          THE MOTION FAILS. 
          SO NOW AS THE MOTION HAS FAILED, SEEMS LIKE AN OUTCOME IS UNDER TWO SEVEN, FOUR 40. 
          SINCE WE DID NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AT THIS TIME SPECIFICALLY IS TO FIRST THANK THE COMPLAINANT FOR HER PATIENTS. 
          UM, TWO NIGHTS, UH, BECAUSE IT IS, UH, HAVING BEING A SORT OF RETURN CUSTOMER TO FREQUENT FLYER AT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC BODIES. 
          UM, I THINK YOU MIGHT BE USED TO DEBATE AND DISCUSSION AND TRYING TO FIND AGREEMENT. 
          UM, BUT, UH, TONIGHT'S HEARING WAS, WAS ON THE LONG SIDE ON A WEDNESDAY NIGHT. 
          AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND, UH, SITTING WITH US AS WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT WENT TO COMPILING THOSE EXHIBITS. 
          AGAIN, YOU DID A BETTER JOB COMPILING EXHIBITS THAN WELL-PAID ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AND THAT COME BACK SOMETIMES. 
          UM, AND, AND AGAIN, UM, BY NO MEANS, IS THIS, UH, ANY KIND OF INDICATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WAS APPROPRIATE OR INAPPROPRIATE. 
          UM, AND BY NO MEANS, IS THIS, UH, CLOSING THE DOOR ON TEACHER COMPLAINTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONS? AGAIN, THIS IS JUST, UH, UH, THIS IS A FUNCTION OF THE ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETINGS AND OF, UM, THE WAY, THE WAY SOME OF US MYSELF INCLUDED, UM, INTERPRET THE CITY CODE PROVISION THAT WAS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. 
          SO AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MS.  FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BE WITH US AND FOR BEING HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONERS WITH THAT. 
          I'M GONNA CALL UP, UH, JAY MICHAEL AND ASK HIM TO REJOIN US. 
          CAN WE HAVE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? WE CAN LET US RECONVENE AT 9:24 PM. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, THE TIME IS 9:19 PM IN COMMISSION STANDS IN RECESS UNTIL NINE 24. 
          UM, I'M ENABLED TO KIND OF FINISH OUT THE HEARING IS MY INTENTION TO PRESIDE OVER THAT FIRST ONE, UH, SINCE VICE-CHAIR WHERE HE HAD TO RECUSE. 
          UM, AND I WILL BE TURNING IT OVER TO HIM. 
          AND BEFORE I DO THAT, SINCE HE WASN'T HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION, UM, WANTED TO JUST KIND OF MAKE CLEAR AND REEMPHASIZE TO COMMISSIONERS THAT IF YOU WANT TO POSTPONE, UH, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WANTS, THAT YOU THINK IS PREFERABLE, I ENCOURAGE THAT THAT DISCUSSION HAPPENED BEFORE THE START OF THE HEARING. 
          SO PROCEDURALLY WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE DONE ON THESE NEXT TWO ITEMS, IF YOU WANT TO POSTPONE IT IS YOU BRING UP THE ITEM, YOU 
          [02:20:01]
HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ITEM AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO POSTPONE IT. 
          AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO POSTPONE IT, YOU PROCEED TO THE HEARING BECAUSE ONCE THE HEARING IS STARTED, IT MAKES POSTPONING A LOT MORE TRICKY FOR REASONS THAT LYNN CAN EXPLAIN. 
          SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR, HERBIE, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR PATIENCE ON THAT LAST HEARING. 
          AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU AGAIN NEXT MONTH AND I'LL SEE Y'ALL SOON. 
          BYE. 
          SAY, MICHAEL, I THINK YOU MADE IT TELLING A JOKE TWICE IS NOT FUN, BUT I'LL DO IT. 
          I SAID, MY PLOT HAS WORKED. 
          THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE HAS, IS HOLDING A LADY HEARING. 
          AND I FINALLY ASCENDED TO CHAIR, I JUST ALL IN DUE TIME. 
          UM, BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, TAKING A LOOK AT THE AGENDA, 
          [2.(a) A complaint filed by Joseph Cascino against Otto Swingler, which complaint alleges violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Sections 2-2-23 (Political Committees) and 2-2-26 (Filing Campaign Finance Report Data) of Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance).]
I BELIEVE IN NEXT ITEM THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IS TWO A. 
          AND SO JUST SELL THE PARTIES ARE AWARE OF, UM, HOW THIS WORKS. 
          THERE ARE A FEW THINGS TO CONSIDER. 
          UM, ONE IS THAT AT 10 O'CLOCK, THE BODY WILL HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE AS TO WHETHER IT WILL CONTINUE, UH, HAVING A HEARING, UH, ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS IS THAT WE CAN, THE BODY CAN MAKE A CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD POSTPONE, UH, RIGHT NOW, BUT BEFORE GETTING INTO THAT, I THINK IT'S JUST APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE PARTY THAT THEY WANT. 
          THEIR VEIL ARE BOTH IN FAVOR OF REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I KNOW I SAW YOUR HAND RAISED, OH, SORRY. 
          I WAS GOING TO MOVE THAT WE PROCEED AND FINISH. 
          YOU SUGGESTED WE HEAR FROM THE PARTIES. 
          MAYBE THEY WANT A POSTPONEMENT. 
          YES. 
          AND, UM, LET ME JUST GO AHEAD AND ASK, WHO ARE THE, WHO ARE THE PARTIES THAT ARE REPRESENTED? SO I SEE MR. CASINO, MRS. CASINO, YOU REPRESENTING YOURSELF? UH, YES, SIR. 
          I'M THE COMPLAINANT AND, UM, I MEAN, WHATEVER IS AMENABLE TO THIS BODY, WE CAN DO, UM, THE POSTPONEMENT IS AMENABLE, THEN THAT'S FINE WITH ME. 
          IF NOT, I MEAN, I'VE BEEN HERE AND, YOU KNOW, READY TO GO, SO THAT'S OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          INSPIRES ME. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          AND THEN AUTOS WINKLER, UH, IS THAT PARTY HERE BEING REPRESENTED HERE? CHAIRMAN ERICA. 
          HELLO, ON BEHALF OF MR. SWINGER AND I BELIEVE MR. SHINGLER IS HERE BY TELEPHONE AS WELL. 
          UH, WE'VE BEEN WAITING THREE AND A HALF HOURS IF POSSIBLE. 
          WE WOULD BE HAPPY. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          I THINK THAT SETTLES THAT ISSUE. 
          UM, SO LET'S SEE. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          UM, YES. 
          YOU MENTIONED GREENBERG, SO LET'S SPELL RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WE DON'T FORGET TO EXTEND THE MEETING. 
          UM, AND JUST IN ORDER TO FINISH A, SO YOU ASKED HIM TO TAKE A VOTE TO EXTEND THE MEETING JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF TWO WAY, THEN WE MAKE SURE WE FINISHED TO A. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND DO I HAVE A MOTION? THAT'S THE MOTION? UH, IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. 
          UH, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. 
          I'LL REPEAT THE MOTION, TARA. 
          THIS IS, UH, YOUR VIEW COMMISSIONER STANCE IN HERE. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          UM, WOULD WE BE ASKING, IS THERE IS ALSO ON THE AGENDA, THE, UM, LITTLE FIELD COMPLAINT AS WELL. 
          WOULD WE TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK IF, UH, REPRESENTATION IS AMENABLE TO POSTPONING THAT, OR THAT'S ANOTHER CASE, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A, A HANDLE ON THE TIMING BEFORE I VOTE ON THE MOTION. 
          LET ME ASK THIS THEN. 
          UH, UH, LYNN CARTER 
          [02:25:01]
WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, LAW DEPARTMENT. 
          ARE YOU STILL ON, WAS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW MY APOLOGIES BECAUSE I GET FAXED AND MIXED UP. 
          AND SO, UH, I'LL ADMIT MY IGNORANCE ON THIS RIGHT NOW. 
          AND SO COMMISSIONER STANDING, IT'S VERY GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE. 
          UH, JUST SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST SO I'M AWARE OF COMMISSIONER STANDING DOES HAVE VOTING, UH, POWER AT THIS TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO YES, I THINK JUST FOR EVERYONE'S CONVENIENCE, UH, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE PARTIES PULLED UP FOR THE FINAL HEARING? WHAT YOU MEAN TO BRING THEM INTO THE MEETING TO GET THERE, TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO AGREE TO A POSTPONEMENT OR PROCEED TONIGHT? CORRECT. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THAT, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          IS THAT POSSIBLE? OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE BOTH PARTIES HERE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, THANK YOU. 
          UH, MS. DAVIDSON, MR. DAVIDSON, ISRAEL'S MR. LITTLEFIELD. 
          UH, I'M SURE YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO HEAR THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSED TO MR. CASINO, UH, AS WELL AS THE RESPONDENT, ESSENTIALLY, THERE ARE TWO THINGS TO CONSIDER HERE. 
          ONE IS THAT THE COMMISSION COULD JUST TAKE A BOAT AND, UM, MOVE TO POSTPONE. 
          THE OTHER ASPECT OF THIS IS THAT AT 10 O'CLOCK, UM, OR AROUND 10 O'CLOCK, THE COMMISSION WILL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE A BOAT ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WANTS TO CONTINUE. 
          WE ALREADY FILLED ON THAT. 
          OH NO, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THAT. 
          RIGHT? HE WANTS TO CONTINUE, UH, DISCUSSING THE FINAL HEARING RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE'S A PENDING MOTION AS TO WHETHER WE WILL CONTINUE TO PASS 10. 
          O'CLOCK JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGENDA. 
          ITEM TWO, A, UH, LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION AND I SEE COMMISSIONER DANBURG YES. 
          COMMISSIONER BAMBERG. 
          THE MOTION IS TO GO PAST OUR DEADLINE. 
          IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE CASINO WIGLER CONTROVERSY IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE OTHER ONE, WHICH WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO TONIGHT. 
          AND SO THEREFORE I, THE MOTION TO POSTPONE WAS NOT SECONDED, BUT I WILL VOTE. 
          NO, I'M SORRY. 
          THE MOTION TO EXTEND PAST OUR TIME DEADLINE WAS NOT SECONDED, BUT I WILL BE VOTING. 
          NO. 
          AND I THINK I DO BELIEVE THE SECOND IT WAS IT SECONDED. 
          AND THE MOTION WAS TO EXTEND THE MEETING TIME SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS ITEM TWO A, WHICH IS THE CASINO COMPLAINT. 
          AND SO WHEN WE OPENED IT UP FOR DISCUSSION, I WAS ASKING TOO, IF WE COULD GET FEEDBACK FROM THE OTHER, UM, COMPLAINANT TO SEE, SO THAT, SO THAT I UNDERSTOOD, I HAD ALL MY FACTS SO THAT I KNOW HOW TO VOTE, HOW I WANT TO VOTE. 
          I JUST WANT TO GET IT. 
          I JUST WANT TO ACCORD THE LITTLE FIELD, UM, CASE AND OPPORTUNITY TO STATE, WHETHER THEY WILL BE AMENABLE TO POSTPONING DISCUSSION OF OUR CASE. 
          BUT CHAIR, I THOUGHT THE MOTION WAS SECONDED. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS SECOND DAY. 
          AND I APOLOGIZE. 
          I'VE BEEN, THERE'S JUST A LOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE IS AN OPEN MOTION THAT BIG AND CENTER RIGHT NOW. 
          WE'RE JUST AS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, WE'RE JUST ASKING THE PARTIES FOR THE FINAL HEARING. 
          ARE YOU, UH, DO YOU AGREE TO A POSTPONEMENT? SO LET'S JUST KNOCK IT OUT. 
          UM, PETITIONER LITTLEFIELD, DO YOU AGREE TO A POSTPONEMENT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          RESPONDED DAVIDSON. 
          DO YOU AGREE TO A POSTPONEMENT? SO THIS IS, THIS IS CHRIS STOVER. 
          I AM, UH, ALSO, UH, MS. DAVIDSON'S CO-COUNSEL FOR SAVE AUSTIN NOW. 
          UM, ORDINARILY I THINK WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO TONING THIS. 
          I DID WANT TO RAISE JUST ONE ISSUE FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION, UH, 
          [02:30:01]
FOR, FOR LAND. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, BASED OFF OF, YOU KNOW, MY LOOKING AT THIS MATTER AND UNDER THE STATUTES ARE, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR FIVE, WHICH IS ENTITLED FINAL, FINAL HEARING, THE FINAL HEARING HAS TO BE HELD NOT LATER THAN THE 60TH DAY AFTER THE DETERMINATION, BY THE COMMISSION, THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT DETERMINATION THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED ON JANUARY 13TH. 
          SO THAT WAS 119 DAYS AGO. 
          AND I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, MY CO-COUNSEL HAS BEGINNING GOT TWO CONTINUANCES BY THIS BODY ONE FOR 28 DAYS AND A SECOND ONE AGAIN FOR 28 DAYS FOR A TOTAL OF 56 DAYS. 
          BUT BY MY CALCULATION, I MEAN, EVEN ASSUMING THE 60 DAY DEADLINE TO HOLD, THE FINAL HEARING WAS EXTENDED FOR THOSE, UM, THOSE 56 DAYS OF THE CONTINUANCES. 
          THIS FINAL HEARING HAD TO HAVE OCCURRED NO LATER THAN MAY NOT. 
          SO WE'RE ALREADY THREE DAYS PAST DUE ON THE STATUTE OF, AND I DON'T EVEN THINK WE'RE AT A POSITION WHERE IT'S THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK AND ACTUALLY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THIS MAP. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IT REALLY A CONTINUANCE TO THE NEXT, I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS EITHER WAY, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE BEYOND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO TAKE UP THIS MATTER. 
          OKAY, LET'S DO THIS THEN. 
          LET'S CAUSE THIS IS GOING TO, I, I'M GOING TO TABLE THIS ISSUE TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER. 
          THAT'S GOING TO GET INTO A DIFFERENT ISSUE. 
          LET'S FOCUS RIGHT NOW, JUST ON TWO EIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND HOW ABOUT THIS? LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          AND THEN AT NINE 58, WE'LL MAKE A DECISION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S JUST GET STARTED. 
          UM, LED, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M DOING THIS CORRECTLY. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING I NEED TO SAY IN ORDER TO BEGIN THE HEARING? WELL, THERE'S A MOTION WITH THE SECOND SHOULDN'T WE VOTE ON IT TO EXTEND THE MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S WE CAN DO THAT. 
          LET'S VOTE ON THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          MOST MANAGEMENT SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, BUT YOU LIKE TO YES. 
          IF SOMEONE'S SPEAKING. 
          YEAH. 
          SOMEONE ELSE HAD HER HAND BEFORE ME AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AFTER THIS IS COMMISSIONER STANTON. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE MOTION AND WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION. 
          UM, OR I WILL ADD DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER STAND. 
          UH, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE EXACT MOTION? CAUSE IT'S NOT JUST TO EXTEND THE TIME, CORRECT? NO. 
          IT'S TO EXTEND THE TIME SPECIFICALLY SO THAT WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH TO A CORRECT. 
          AND SO I THINK PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE DICTATES THAT WE WOULD VOTE ON THIS MOTION AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT FIRST AND THEN, AND THEN DISCUSS IT. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, NO COMMISSIONER AND WE'D HAVE DISCUSSION AND THEN WE WOULD VOTE. 
          AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A RULE THAT THE MEETING ENDS AT 10 O'CLOCK, UNLESS WE EXTEND IT AND TICK, TICK, TICK, WE NOW HAVE 18 MINUTES TO DO THAT. 
          SO JUST DO IT SO THAT WE DON'T ONE TIME WE ACTUALLY LOST OUR VIDEO FEED OR AUDIO, WHATEVER, AND WE COULDN'T EXTEND THE MEETING BECAUSE WE MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU MENTIONED THE DANBURG. 
          I WANT TO MENTION THAT DONNA CO-COUNSEL MR. GERBER IS A REALLY, REALLY GOOD ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK THAT, UM, THEY HAVE WAIVED JUDGE, JUST LIKE IN CRIMINAL CASES, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRIAL, BUT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR SO MANY EXTENSIONS THAT HIM RELYING ON THAT DOES NOT WORK FOR ME. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO THE MEASURE OF DANBURY ON THAT ISSUE, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PARSE IT OUT FROM DEALING WITH, UH, ITEM TWO, A WE CAN ADDRESS THAT 
          [02:35:01]
AT THAT TIME. 
          SO LET'S JUST FOCUS ON, ON TWO-WAY RIGHT NOW. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR MOTION? BOTH. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER, UH, MORE DISCUSSION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF THE COMMISSION, CONTINUING TO MEET PAST 10:00 PM FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGENDA ITEM TWO, A, UH, WE'LL GO FOR, WITH JUST THE INDIVIDUAL. 
          SEE ON SCREEN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          DANBURG IN FAVOR. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S A NO, NO, THIS IS OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CARROLL. 
          YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          YES. 
          NO, NO. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE, CAN I ABSTAIN? IT'S A MATTER OF FAILED IF THAT'S BETTER. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND, UH, THE CHAIR OF BOTH IN FAVOR OF THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, THOSE ARE THE PARAMETERS. 
          UH, THIS MEETING WILL NOT EXTEND PAST 10 O'CLOCK FOR THE PURPOSE OF TWO-WAY. 
          UM, AND WE CAN, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER RAINBIRD. 
          SO WE, I SUPPOSE, SHOULD VOTE TO POSTPONE IT. 
          YES. 
          AND WE SHOULD POSTPONE 
          [3. FINAL HEARING Discussion and possible action regarding the following: The complaint(s) filed on October 13, 2020 by Mark Littlefield against Save Austin Now, which allege violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Sections 2-2-23 (Political Committees) and 2-2-26 (Filing Campaign Finance Report Data) of Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance).]
THE FINAL HEARING, BUT BEFORE WE VOTE ON POSTPONING, THE FINAL HEARING, I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO, UM, FOR THE LITTLEFIELD COMPLAINT VOTE ON REQUESTING THE EXPENDITURES FROM THE, UM, UH, THERE'S NOT DIFF THEY'RE NOT THE DEFENDANT, WHERE ARE THEY FONDANT? YES. 
          FROM THE RESPONDENT THAT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD PROVIDE US WITH THEIR EXPENDITURES. 
          WE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT. 
          AND NOW IS OUR CHANCE TO ASK FOR THAT. 
          AND SO PERMISSION AT GREENBERG, UH, DEFINITELY, UH, HURTS. 
          AND I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, BUT, UH, GIVEN THAT WE'VE JUST VOTED NOT TO MOVE PAST 10 O'CLOCK. 
          HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT JUST FOCUSING RIGHT NOW ON AGENDA ITEM TWO A AND ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE. 
          DO YOU HAVE EMOTION, UM, TO PAUL PAUL AGENDA ITEM TWO A NO. 
          I HAVE A MOTION TO REQUEST THE, UM, EXPENDITURES FOR THE RESPONDENT IN THE LITTLE FIELD COMPLAINT. 
          IT WON'T TAKE MORE THAN A MINUTE OR TWO TO ASK FOR THOSE POSTPONEMENTS, BUT LET'S GET THAT EVIDENCE THAT WE REALLY DO NEED. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER STAN, I SEE YOUR HAND RAISED. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FIRST. 
          I WANT TO THANK, UM, MR. UM, CASINO FOR BEING AMENABLE TO POSTPONING. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, AND THIS IS WHY I, AND PART OF MY BEING VERY OCD AND VERY PRECISE, BUT THE MOTION WAS TO EXTEND THE TIME TO ADDRESS TO A SALE. 
          THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS CORRECT. 
          THAT FAILED. 
          THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS TO EXTEND THE TIME. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS, I'LL JUST BE VERY CANDID. 
          I AM IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING THE TIME 10 O'CLOCK. 
          I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING THE TIME PAST 10. 
          O'CLOCK JUST TO ADDRESS TO A, I WOULD RATHER, AND I OFFER TO THE COMMISSION THAT WE CONSIDER THE OPTION OF, UH, HEARING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE CONSTRAINTS, THE TIME CONSTRAINTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN AT PLAY FOR THE LITTLE FIELD CASE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          AND I WOULD, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE EXTENDED A BIT, BUT TO DECIDE ON WHETHER WE ABSOLUTELY NEED IT. 
          CAN WE FURTHER POSTPONE THE LITTLE FIELD CASE, OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS TODAY CONSIDERING, UH, THE TIME DEADLINE THAT WE'VE ALREADY MISSED THAT, UH, I FORGET THE MR. AS GOOD AS SAYING WHO, WHO MENTIONED ABOUT THE TIME CONSTRAINTS, I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT THAT. 
          THIS IS LYNN CARTER. 
          UM, JUST A POINT OF ORDER. 
          THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. 
          YOU NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION. 
          AND IF NOT, YOU CAN MOVE 
          [02:40:01]
ON TO ANOTHER SUBJECT AND COMPUTER GREENBERG. 
          WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING YOUR MOTION? MY MOTION IS THAT WE, THAT THE RESPONDENT IN THE LITTLE FIELD COMPLAINT PROVIDE A LIST OF THE EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION. 
          I SECOND THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY DISCUSSION ON THE PENDING MOTION? OKAY. 
          I'M GOING TO TAKE A VOTE, UH, IN ORDER THAT I SEE IT ON MY SCREEN. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          UH, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES, COMMISSIONER STAND. 
          AND HOW DO YOU VOTE? MY APOLOGIES. 
          I'M NOT CLEAR ON THE MOTION IS TO REQUIRE REQUESTS, REQUEST THE COMPLAINANT TO PROVIDE NO, THE RESPONDENT, THE RESPONDENT. 
          OKAY. 
          TO PROVIDE EXPENDITURES OR EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURES FIRST. 
          YES. 
          THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YEP. 
          JUST ON THAT MCCORMICK. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER KALE. 
          I SECONDED IT. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER DANBURG. 
          YEAH. 
          COMMISSIONER LAURIE AND COMMISSIONER OR COREY BY SARAH ORI WE'LL VOTE. 
          UH, WE'LL LIKELY ABSTAIN WILL ABSTAIN FROM THAT QUESTION. 
          UH, THAT IS HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX. 
          THAT SHOULD BE SIX. 
          YEAH. 
          ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR PLASTICS. 
          YES. 
          SO THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO NOW WE HAVE ABOUT 10 MINUTES LEFT. 
          I DO THINK WE NEED TO, UH, POSTPONE BOTH. 
          IF, IF THERE'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE BOTH, WE CAN, UH, HAVE THAT MOTION. 
          AND THEN IF IT'S SECOND AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT. 
          YES. 
          A GREEN MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE BOTH BECAUSE IT'S NINE 51. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? IS THERE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER DAN BERG, IS THAT YOU SECONDING THAT OR ARE YOU THE BIRD CAUCUS? SO NOW IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, LYNN CARTER, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION IS WITH, OR ACTUALLY NOT THINK THIS WOULD GO TO STEVE SHEETS AS I'M LEGAL COUNSEL, UH, STEVE SHEETS. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AT ALL ABOUT WHETHER, UH, THE FINAL HEARING IS WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS ALLOWED BY STATUTE? WELL, UM, I, I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN SO MANY REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES AND POSTPONE LIFTS AND SO FORTH. 
          THE FED, UH, PROVISION HAS BEEN WAIVED BY THE RESPONDENT. 
          WE SCHEDULED IT FOR LAST. 
          CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT, SIR? MR. SHEETS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BOTTOM LINE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID. 
          I THINK THIS COMMISSION CAN GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE CASE NEXT MONTH. 
          GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT TODAY OR AT A LATER DATE, EITHER ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          I HAVE, UH, ONE MORE QUESTION CARE IF I MAY, TO THE THANK YOU, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE LITTLE FIELD COMPLAINTS, I SEE 
          [02:45:01]
THAT THERE WERE SIX ITEMS REQUESTED UNDER EVIDENCE REQUESTED MY QUESTION TO US AS A COMMISSION IS WHY DID WE SINGLE OUT EVIDENCE? UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH SPEAKS TO THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF EXPENDITURES, IS IT BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE, UH, ITEMS REQUESTED HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR WE DON'T, OR THAT'S NOT AS URGENT FOR US. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK IN THE MATERIALS THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED BY, UM, BY MS. CARTER, THERE WAS A LETTER THAT STATES EVIDENCE REQUESTED UNDER OUR SIX ITEMS. THE EXPENDITURES IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, AND I'M WONDERING WHY WE MADE IT A POINT TO MAKE A MOTION, TO VOTE, TO REQUEST THAT THEY PROVIDE NUMBER TWO AND NOT ADDRESS THE OTHER FOUR. 
          I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAS HER HAND RAISED. 
          UM, I MOVE TO EXTEND THE MEETING BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS, WE NEED TO EXTEND THE MEETING. 
          I SECOND THE MOTION ALL IN FAVOR, OR RATHER, EXCUSE ME, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S CONSIDER THE MOTION. 
          DID WE VOTE ON THE FIRST MOTION? WE JUST, NO, WE DIDN'T. 
          WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THE PART OF MOTION YET. 
          Y'ALL WE HAVE TO SEND THE MEETING WHAT'S TO POSTPONE THOSE ITEMS AND WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT YET. 
          IT WAS SECONDED. 
          AND THEN WE OPENED IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          AND THEN THIS IS WHERE I PRESENTED THIS QUESTION. 
          YOU ARE CORRECT. 
          NOW COMMISSIONER STATON. 
          LET'S TAKE THE BOAT RIGHT NOW. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          UH, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES, YES. 
          TO RESPOND. 
          OKAY. 
          AND ACTUALLY THIS MOTION IS ON WHETHER WE SHOULD END, THE COMMISSIONER CAN BREAK ME IF I'M WRONG. 
          THIS BELIEVE THIS MOTION THAT'S OPEN RIGHT NOW IS ON WHETHER OTHER RESPONDENT NEEDS TO PROVIDE. 
          YEAH, IT'S OKAY. 
          CHAIR. 
          THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO KEEP UP THE MOTION THAT WE ARE VOTING ON. 
          IF I RECALL CORRECTLY IS TO POSTPONE DISCUSSION, TO POSTPONE BOTH ITEMS TWO AND THREE, WHICH IS THE PRE, UH, PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR THE CASINO COMPLAINTS AND THE FINAL HEARINGS FOR THE LITTLE FIELD COMPLAINT POINT. 
          THIS IS LYNN CARTER WITH THE COMMISSION. 
          YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES LEFT. 
          MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU TABLE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE AND THAT YOU VOTE ON WHETHER TO EXTEND THE MEETING PAST 10:00 PM OR YOU'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, SO MOOD, AND CAN I JUST TABLE THAT LAND CARTER? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO EMOTIONS TABLE. 
          NOW I'VE TAKEN UP THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG TO EXTEND THE MEETING PAST 10. 
          O'CLOCK ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ISSUE? ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSION OR STAN, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. 
          YES. 
          HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. 
          EXTEND, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER DANBURG. 
          HOW DO YOU VOTE? OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE, HOW DO YOU VOTE? ALL RIGHT. 
          AND, UH, VICE CHAIR OR WHO WERE BOTH IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THE MOTION HAS PASSED. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO LET'S DO THIS. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA MUDDLE THE ISSUES ANYMORE. 
          UH, I STARTED ON ABOUT NINE 30. 
          WE ARE MOVING INTO AGENDA ITEM TWO EIGHT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON. 
          AND AGENDA ITEM TWO, A, WE WILL FOCUS ON THE FINAL HEARING, RIGHT? TAKE MOTION TO TABLE OFF THE TABLE OR WHATEVER, AND VOTE ON THAT, THOSE POSTPONEMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I THINK WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING. 
          WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN HOUR LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE OR NOT. 
          WE GOT TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND MOVE FORWARD. 
          RIGHT. 
          EITHER WE'RE HAVING THE HEARING TODAY OR, UM, WE'RE POSTPONING, EVERYTHING, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE LIVE, UH, THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN TAPED. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          [02:50:01]
AND THAT MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WHOM THEY PERMISSION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO LET'S DISCUSS THE MOTION. 
          ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? RESTATE THE MOTION, PLEASE. 
          WE'LL POSTPONE TO A THREE TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          I WILL BE VOTING  CHAIR. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          ARE WE DISCUSSING IF THERE'S OKAY. 
          UM, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, WHICH IS WITH RESPECT TO THE LITTLE FIELD COMPLAINT, THERE WERE SIX ITEMS LISTED IN THE EVIDENCE REQUESTED, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE CALLED DOWN ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS RELATED TO EXPENDITURES AND NOT MENTIONED THE OTHER FOUR? AND IT COULD BE, I DON'T NEED LIKE A LONG, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO IN DETAIL. 
          YOU COULD JUST SAY, UM, TH THOSE ARE TAKEN CARE OF, OR I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE SINGLED OUT NUMBER TWO AND NOT THE OTHER FOUR. 
          I COULD ANSWER. 
          UM, THE DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE PERTINENT TO THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WE ALREADY PASSED THAT MOTION. 
          WHAT'S THE MOTION. 
          AND SO COMMISSIONER STAND, I THINK JUST WHAT WAS RELAYED AS ESSENTIALLY THAT, UM, THAT QUESTION IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE MOTION AT HAND, WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE ITEM TWO, A OR TWO B. 
          AND SO THE QUESTIONS HAVE TO BE FOCUSED AND GEARED TOWARDS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION AT HAND, WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THE HEALINGS, COMMISSIONING PLAIN BURGER. 
          DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO SAY, WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT REALLY ALLOWED TO SAY ANYTHING MORE BECAUSE IT'S NOT PERTINENT TO THE MOTION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, WHICH IS JUSTIN. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER DAN BERG FROM WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED. 
          IT APPEARS THAT THOSE TWO ITEMS ARE SOMEWHAT INTERTWINED AND POSTPONING THEM BOTH MAKES SENSE TO ME, GIVE ME A MOMENT. 
          I'M JUST READING A PART OF THE CODE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND SO, UH, ON AN ISSUE THAT, UH, MR. GOLDBERG HAD BROUGHT UP, WHICH WAS THE, THE NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE A DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE GROUNDS HAD BEEN FOUND, UM, AND WE HEARD FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, JUST TO RECAP, WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT BASED ON THE REQUEST BY THE RESPONDENT, UM, THAT THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN WAIVED FAVORABLY WAIVED AS WELL AS HAS BEEN. 
          THIS HEARING HAS BEEN GOING ON DURING, UH, THE, AND THEN MAKE AS WELL. 
          UH, AND SO NOW WE HAVE A MOTION THAT IS CURRENTLY LIVE. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CONSIDER A VOTE ON THIS COMMISSION, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER? I CAN TELL YOU THAT WAIVING SPEEDY TRIAL IS REALLY LIKE EASY. 
          SEE, THE RESPONDENT HAS WAIVED 
          [02:55:01]
BAJA ASKING FOR PROSE POEM. 
          SO MANY TIMES THAT WE'RE BEING ABLE TO DISMISS THIS BASED ON ANY KIND OF SPEEDY TRIAL COMPLIANT AIN'T GONNA WORK. 
          I SECOND, THAT HAVING WATCHED OUR COMMISSION ACCOMMODATE THEIR SCHEDULE AND TRY TO MAKE IT WORK, AND THEN TO FIND OUT THAT, OH, YOU'VE MISSED THIS BY THREE DAYS IS NOT WORKING FOR ME AS WELL. 
          AND THAT WON'T AFFECT HOW I VOTE ON THE OUTCOME OF THE HEARING, BUT I CERTAINLY, UM, UM, I'M NOT SWAYED BY THAT ARGUMENT. 
          YES. 
          UM, MAY I GO, OKAY. 
          I TEND TO AGREE AS WELL. 
          I THINK WHAT ALSO IS IMPORTANT IS THAT, UH, THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY OBJECTION. 
          UM, PRIOR TO THIS POINT ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF, UH, AMY OF THE DATES THAT HAVE BEEN SET SPECIFICALLY, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN REQUESTS MADE AND REQUEST AGREED UPON BY THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF DATES TO HAVE EVIDENCE PROVIDED, UH, THE PARTIES THAT THE COMMUNICATING WITH ONE ANOTHER AS WELL, WOULD'VE COUNSELED SHEETS, UH, TO DETERMINE DATES, TO HAVE EVIDENCE PROVIDED AS WELL AS REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES, UM, FOR PERSONAL MATTERS. 
          SO THERE HAVE BEEN REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AMONG BOTH PARTIES, AS WELL AS WITH THIS COMMISSION, UH, GIVEN THE OUTSTANDING CONCERNS AND DISCOVERY ISSUES. 
          I AM AT TEND TO AGREE THAT, UM, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO POSTPONE AND RIGHT, IF I'M CORRECT, UH, WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF EMOTION AT THIS TIME THAT THAT'S THE CASE. 
          WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD ON A BOATING ON THAT LAW OF MOTION, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS FOR DISCUSSION, RIGHT. 
          UH, HEARING NONE, UH, COMMISSIONER KALE. 
          I WOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING. 
          I JUST HAD MY HAND LIKE HERE. 
          OH, UM, POSTPONE, POSTPONE UP. 
          YES. 
          IN FAVOR. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER DANNENBERG. 
          HOW DO YOU BUILD AN EMOTION? THE COMMISSIONER STAFF. 
          HOW DO YOU BUILD AN EMOTION? YES. 
          POSTPONED BOTH A COMMISSIONER REPORT. 
          MICK, HOW DO YOU VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER MARK? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LAURIE, HOW DO YOU GO TO THE MOTION? OKAY. 
          AND VICE CHAIR VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. 
          THE MOTION HAS PASSED AND ITEMS TO AA AS WELL AS THREE B ARE POSTPONED UNTIL THE NEXT, UH, ETHICS MEETING. 
          CAN I, I'M SORRY. 
          THIS IS, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY. 
          I DID NOT HEAR COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S VOTE OR COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK'S VOTE. 
          THE PRESIDENT ASKED TO VOTE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. 
          AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, BUT I WAS MUTED. 
          YEAH. 
          I HAD MY HAND UP, YOU CAN SEE. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SEVEN UNANIMOUS VOTES IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING TWO ITEMS. OKAY. 
          SO NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEMS, UH, THAT WE HAVE, THAT 
          [4.(a) Draft Op-Ed by the Working Group on Race, Identity, and Equity]
WOULD BE AGENDA ITEM FOUR. 
          WHAT IS IT? I'LL JUST SPEAK TO IT REAL QUICKLY. 
          UM, UH, CHIP PERRY. 
          [03:00:01]
UM, I UNDERSTAND TO DRAFT OP-ED THAT WE ARE SORT OF DISCUSSING, UM, PUTTING IN SOME LOCAL NEWSPAPERS AND, AND MS. CARTER SENT IT OUT TO YOU ALL. 
          SO WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, PLEASE DO THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NOW, MOVING ON TO, UH, AGENDA I'M FIVE OLD BUSINESS WORKING GROUPS, STATUS REPORTS AND OR RECOMMENDATION ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, A, UH, A SECTION AI, UH, ITEM 
          [5.a. Working group status reports and/or recommendations on the following.]
NUMBER FIVE, WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS PROCEDURES, AND OTHER ISSUES, UH, THAT INCLUDES CHAIR SILVER ON VICE-CHAIR OF HORIAN COMMISSIONERS, BLOOMBERG, AND LEARNER THAT ANY UPDATES ON THAT ITEM, WE DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE. 
          GOOD. 
          MOVING ON. 
          SO YOU BELIEVE IT IT'S LISTED AS ITEM, UH, TRIPLE R AND I BELIEVE IT'S JUST DOUBLE, I WORK IN GROUP ON RACE IDENTITY AND EQUITY COMMISSIONERS, KEL, LAURIE, AND LONG, ANY UPDATES ON THAT AGENDA. 
          UH, WE'RE WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE OFFHAND AND AN ALSO, UM, AN OPINION PIECE THAT COMMISSIONER LAURIE WROTE THAT WAS ALSO SENT OUT TO Y'ALL. 
          SO THAT'S BEEN OUR FOCUS, BUT WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN THAT WE BILL LIKE SOME, SOME LONG-TERM TO DO SOME SORT OF TRAINING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, PIECES THAT WE SHOULD BE REVIEWING. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO ONE IS BASICALLY A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION. 
          OF COURSE, WE WANT YOU TO REVIEW THE FINAL VERSION AND WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT, BUT I'VE CIRCULATED A DRAFT FOR YOU TO LOOK AT AND WEIGH IN ON, UM, BASICALLY EXPLAINING WHY WE'RE CREATING THIS WORKING GROUP AND WHAT OUR OBJECTIVES ARE AND OUR COMMITMENT TO EQUITY AND INCLUSION. 
          AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER KALE IS, UM, CREATING SOMETHING TO, YOU KNOW, TO DISSEMINATE THAT HELPS PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, UNDERSTAND HOW TO ACCESS, UM, AND USE OUR COMMISSION. 
          THEY BLAMED HIM FOR THAT WORK PERMISSION. 
          LAURA, WHAT I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND FOR ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS IS PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS TO EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION. 
          I THINK THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH THAT IS THAT IF YOU ARE TO JUST MARK UP THE DOCUMENT AND YOURSELF, SAVE YOUR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, AND THEN WE WILL ALL ADDRESS THEM TOGETHER, UH, IN A MEETING. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          IS THERE ANOTHER HAND RAISED? YES. 
          YEAH, BECAUSE I'M SO NEW. 
          COULD, COULD, Y'ALL SEND, WE SEND THAT TO ME. 
          I DON'T THINK I GOT IT. 
          IF IT WAS ALREADY SENT OUT SOMETHING PRETTY SURE MY APPOINTMENT WAS AFTER Y'ALL MAY HAVE SENT IT OUT. 
          ONE WAS SENT LIKE MOMENTS BEFORE OUR MEETING STARTED. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          THEY WERE BOTH SENT OUT TODAY, SO THEY'RE PRETTY RECENT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GOT THEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, A POOL OF THE MINUTES. 
          [6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 14, 2020 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING.]
ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M MOVING. 
          WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 14, 2020 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING. 
          UM, CHAIR. 
          I DID NOT GET THOSE COMPLETED BEFORE TODAY'S MEETING. 
          I WAS GOING TO ADMIT, I HADN'T READ THEM. 
          WE'LL MOVE ON FROM AGENDA ITEM, NUMBER SIX, 
          [7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS]
UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          UM, IF I COULD JUST MAKE A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          UM, LYNN CARTER COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION IS THAT WE, WE HAVE THREE NEW MEMBERS, UM, COMMISSIONER STANTON, WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN THIS MEETING, UH, COMMISSIONER TENANT YET YUCA HAS BEEN LISTENING TO THE MEETING AND I BELIEVE ALSO COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEVIN'S, UM, WHO WE DID NOT GET ON THE AGENDA WAS ACTUALLY A LIGHT BACKUP WAS ALSO PROVED BY COUNCIL ON MAY 6TH. 
          SO WE DO HAVE FULL MEMBERSHIP, UM, MS. UH, COMMISSIONER  AND COMMISSIONER LEVIN'S DID NOT HAVE THE TRAINING NEEDED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, BUT HOPEFULLY THEY WERE ABLE TO OBSERVE AND STILL WILLING TO SERVE. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERS. 
          [03:05:02]
THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, SO, UH, SO THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14TH MEETING THAT WILL BE TABLED BEFORE THE NEXT OR POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          GOTCHA. 
          AND THEN I DO HAVE AN ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO REQUEST WE PUT ON AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM AND Y'ALL WILL HAVE TO LET ME KNOW IF THIS TOPIC HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AND DISCUSSED, BUT I WOULD LIKE, LIKE, UH, THE TOPIC IS, UM, HELP FOR THE COMPLAINANT, UM, AND THAT COULD INCLUDE REVISING THE FORM, UM, AND THEN ALSO, UM, RESOURCES OR HELP FOR COMPLAINANTS TO INTERPRET OR UNDERSTAND THE CITY CODE. 
          I JUST WANT TO OPEN THAT. 
          I WANT TO OPEN THAT DIALOGUE, OPEN THAT CONVERSATION UP WITH, DO WE HAVE IDEAS? WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP THE COMPLAINANTS? THAT'S REALLY, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA. 
          YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M BIG ON MAKING THINGS EASY FOR THE PEOPLE WHOM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WANT FEEDBACK, RIGHT? WE WANT THIS AS A PROCESS AND IT SHOULD NOT BE SO DIFFICULT AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE YOU WANT TO PULL YOUR HAIR OUT AND YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE A LAWYER OR HAVE LEGAL TRAINING TO UNDERSTAND CITY CODE. 
          THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. 
          UH, WE CAN'T ADDRESS THAT, RIGHT. 
          CAUSE IT'S THE WAY CITY CODE IS WRITTEN, BUT IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE CODES THAT ARE IN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          I REALLY WOULD LOVE TO FOCUS ON HOW WE CAN HELP, UH, OUR CITIZENS, OUR COMMUNITY, UH, THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF FILING A COMPLAINT. 
          SO POINT OF ORDER THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM THAT'S BEEN STATED, BUT NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER RAINBIRD I SEE YOUR HAND RAISED, SO NOT A GENDA ITEM, BUT WE CANNOT CHANGE THE CITY CODE, BUT WE CERTAINLY CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE, WHICH IS WHAT THAT FIRST WORKING GROUP THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. 
          UM, ONE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER AS WELL, UH, AND REQUESTING THAT IT BE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. 
          I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ADDITIONAL HEARINGS COMING UP AND WE HAVE QUITE A FEW, UH, THAT WILL BE ON, ON OUR PLATE PRETTY SOON. 
          UH, REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, UNLESS WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE MEETINGS WELL PAST 10 O'CLOCK I DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT WOULD RECEIVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION, UM, IN THE FUTURE, UH, COMMISSIONER DAN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO BE ON THE NEXT MEETING OR JUST SOMETHING WE CAN PUT A PIN IN AND HAVE IT IN THE BACK OF OUR MIND AND BRING IT UP, UH, WHEN THE DOCKET CLEARS UP A LITTLE BIT, DEFINITELY THE LATTER. 
          UM, I DON'T WANT US TO FORGET IT. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE IT ACTUALLY APPEARING ON AN AGENDA AS A FUTURE TOPIC, BUT NO, NO REQUESTS OR, OR REQUIREMENT OR EXPECTATION THAT IT BE ADDRESSED AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          IT IS WHEN OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, OUR FIRST PRIORITY IS TO CONDUCT THESE HEARINGS. 
          SO MY FOCUS WILL BE ON THOSE, BUT I DON'T WANT US TO FORGET THAT. 
          SO IF WE COULD ACTUALLY HAVE IT APPEAR AS A FUTURE ITEM ON AN AGENDA WITH NO EXPECTATION THAT IT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED IN A PARTICULAR REGULAR MEETING, I AM FINE WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          AND IF IT TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS, WE PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. 
          I'M HAPPY TO BE THAT SECOND COMMISSIONER. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND ARE Y'ALL OKAY WITH THAT? JUST BEING A BULLET POINT UNDER AGENDA ITEM SEVEN OR WHICHEVER AGENDA ITEM IS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE UNDERSTAND WE WILL SPEAK ABOUT IT IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY PRINTED ON THE AGENDA. 
          YEAH. 
          I HAD A COMMENT. 
          SO THE, THE DRAFT, UM, MS. GARNER SENT OUT TODAY, IT'S CALLED, UM, HOW TO ACCESS THE ERC. 
          AND IT'S KIND OF A START ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION DON'T WANT TO DUPLICATE WORK, BUT THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM MIGHT BE ABLE TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SORT OF STARTED TALKING 
          [03:10:01]
ABOUT IN TERMS OF, UM, HOW THE PUBLIC CAN UTILIZE OUR COMMISSION AND HOW BEST TO DO THAT. 
          SO ANYWAY, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. 
          UM, TH TH THAT THEY'RE VERY CLOSELY LINKED. 
          OKAY, COOL. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMISSIONER CARROLL, UH, COMMISSIONER  YEAH, I JUST HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER KALEY, THE VEGETABLE KALE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, MR. KALE. 
          THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION. 
          I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING, UM, INSTEAD OF IT BEING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COMMISSION, IS THIS SOMETHING, IS THIS A TOPIC THAT MORE APPROPRIATELY BELONGS TO THE WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS PROCEDURES AND OTHER ISSUES? I DON'T KNOW. 
          SO I'M, I'M ASKING, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S PROCEDURES, RIGHT. 
          CAUSE THAT'S WHAT, RIGHT. 
          YEAH, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. 
          I'M LIKE, IS THAT, AND Y'ALL TELL ME, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS WORK GROUPS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF IT WOULD BE A PROCEDURE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE END OF THAT WORK GROUP. 
          UM, WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THAT AND COMMISSIONER, BEFORE YOU CONTINUE? I JUST HERE, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL AND LINCOLN CARTER. 
          YEAH. 
          THE COMMISSION IN THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES, THE WORKING GROUPS. 
          IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT ITEM, THAT'S FINE. 
          BUT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE ON THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION THEY'RE JUST SUBJECT MATTERS THAT CAN BE LISTED FOR FUTURE DENIED. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          AND SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS JUST PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, OR IF YOU'D LIKE WE CAN GO BACK AND DISCUSS, UM, OLD BUSINESS AGENDA, ITEM FIVE A WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT COMMISSIONER STANTON? I WILL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THAT THE END? AND I SEE THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS TOPIC UP AND ASK IF THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE AS A WORK GROUP ITEM, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING CHAIR? BECAUSE HERE'S, HERE'S, HERE'S MY CONCERN. 
          I LOVE THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE BRINGING LIGHT TO IT AND WE'RE AGREEING TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEARINGS, I'M JUST AFRAID WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TO IT BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY BUSY DOCKET, RIGHT? WE'LL NEVER GET TO YOU, BUT IF IT APPROPRIATELY BELONGS IN THE WORK GROUP, WE WOULD PROBABLY GET TO THAT TOPIC A LOT FASTER VIA THE WORK GROUP ROUTE, RIGHT. 
          THE WORKLOADS MEET SEPARATELY. 
          AND SO IT WOULDN'T BE TIED TO THE FULL COMMISSION AND THE WORK GROUP COULD ADDRESS OR DISCUSS THIS TOPIC AND BRING FORTH THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL OR TO THE FULL BODY OF FULL COMMISSION, KIND OF WHAT I'M THINKING. 
          AND BEFORE WE RESPOND TO THAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG COMMISSIONER GREENBRIER FOR YOUR HAND RAISED, I CAN'T HEAR YOU THAT'S CAUSE I WAS MUTED AGAIN. 
          UM, BUT ANYWAY, UM, I THINK WE COULD DO THAT. 
          AND THE WORKING GROUP HAS FOUR MEMBERS WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO FIVE IN A WORKING GROUP. 
          UM, SO PERHAPS COMMISSIONER STANTON WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THAT WORKING GROUP. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, UH, WITHOUT A CITY ATTORNEY, UH, CARTER DOING THAT AT ALL. 
          UM, I THINK CHAIR'S SOBER OWN IS OPEN TO ANYONE JOINING THE GROUP AS LONG AS THE NUMBER IS FIVE OR LESS. 
          UM, SO YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          YOU WERE ENTERED TO THE WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS PROCEDURES AND OTHER ISSUES, COMMISSIONER STANTON. 
          UH, CONGRATULATIONS. 
          UH, AND SO I'LL ALSO TAKE THAT AS A REQUEST THAT WE DON'T NEED A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. 
          UH, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. 
          YEP. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? NO NEED FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN. 
           CHAIR CAN JUST ADJOURN IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          [03:15:01]
UH, THE MEETING IS, UH, JARED, JARED, IF YOU CAN GET THE TIME.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.