Nov 10, 2021 Ethics Review Commission

NEW BUSINESS, WHICH IS ONE A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR LIMIT TO ESTABLISH IN TWO DASH TWO CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND TO CONSIDER MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO THOSE LIMITS AND ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE JOINED BY COMMISSIONER STANTON JUST IN TIME TO SEE.

NEXT UP WE HAVE THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION.

UM, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SO WE CAN MOVE RIGHT INTO OUR AGENDA.

AND THE FIRST ITEM IS

[1.a. Review and evaluation of the dollar limits established in Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) and consider making recommendations to the city council as to those limits.]

AND IF THE EXPENDITURES MADE ON THE NINTH DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION DATE OR AFTER THEN 5:00 PM BY THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.

SO, UH, IN THE LAST MEETING, JUST TO KIND OF BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED, WHO WASN'T HERE.

UM, THIS WAS ON OUR AGENDA AND WE HAD DISCUSSED KIND OF HOW WE WOULD WANT TO CONDUCT THIS REVIEW CITY CODE EMPOWERS AND SPECIFICALLY CALLS ON THE COMMISSION TO REGULARLY REVIEW THE DOLLAR LIMITS OUTLINED IN TWO DASH TWO, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE PART OF THE CITY CODE.

UM, AND SO WHAT WE HAD DECIDED AT THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS ONLY TWO WEEKS AGO, I'M REALIZING, UM, WAS THAT THE WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS PROCEDURES POWERS, THE, THE KITCHEN SINK WORKING GROUP IS I'M CALLING IT, UM, WOULD TAKE TIME AND WE NEED PRETTY REGULARLY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT PRESENT AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.

AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE FOR THAT WORKING GROUP TO SPEND TIME THINKING AND LOOKING AT THIS SPECIFICALLY, BUT THEN ALSO INVITED OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO, YOU KNOW, AS A COURTESY, MAYBE GIVEN ADVANCED NOTICE, IF THEY THOUGHT A SPECIFIC DOLLAR LIMIT WOULD BE CHANGED, SHOULD BE CHANGED.

SO THAT COMMUNICATING THAT TO LYNN, IT COULD GET CIRCULATED TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSION.

UM, DIDN'T GET ANY TAKERS, WHICH IS FINE.

UM, BUT I WANTED TO JUST OPEN THE FLOOR IF ANYONE HAS SPECIFIC COMMENTS, UM, SPECIFIC THOUGHTS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ITEM.

AND I SEE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S.

SO GO AHEAD.

UM, THE ONE I THINK IS EASY TO CHANGE OR EASY TO JUSTIFY CHANGING IS THE $500 EXPENDITURE TRIGGER IN SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 32.

UM, THE WHOLE TWO DASH TWO IS HIGHLIGHTED COURTESY OF WHEN, BUT I JUST MADE A ONE PAGER AND PASSED IT AROUND.

THAT'S JUST TWO DASH TWO DASH 32 IN CASE THAT MAKES IT EASIER.

AND I DIDN'T KNOW, THERE WOULD BE SO MUCH PAPER PRINTED BY THE CITY.

ANYWAY, UM, THE $500 TRIGGER, IT BASICALLY IS PRETTY LONG, TWO WHOLE PAGES ON TWO DASH TWO DASH 32, BUT A SAYS A PERSON WHO MAKES ONE OR MORE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES IN A CITY ELECTION THAT IN THE AGGREGATE MEET OR EXCEED $500 SHELL REPORT.

AND THERE'S ALL WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPORTED, LIKE NAME, ADDRESS, UM, DATE AMOUNT, PURPOSE, AND SO FORTH.

UM, BUT PART C SAYS THE REPORT REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION A SHALL BE MADE AND IT GIVES THE RULES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION IT IS.

SO IF IT'S 60 DAYS, THEN THEY HAVE TO DO NOT LATER THAN THE FIFTH BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE EXPENDITURE, IF IT'S AFTER THE 60 DAYS.

BUT BEFORE THE NINTH DAY OF BEFORE THE ELECTION, THEY HAVE TO NOT LATER THAN THE SECOND BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE.

[00:05:01]

SO THIS IS ALL REALLY ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT EXPENDITURES THAT ARE OCCURRING SORT OF SHORTLY BEFORE THE ELECTION GET REPORTED.

ANY EXPENDITURE IS GOING TO GET REPORTED ANYWAY, BUT THESE PARTICULAR ONES ARE RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION AND THE TRIGGER OF $500 TO ME JUST SEEMS UNNECESSARILY WELL.

UM, YOU CAN'T DO MUCH WITH $500 IN AN ELECTION.

I LOOKED UP THE COSTS FOR POSTAGE FOR PRE SORTED POSTS ARE JUST LIKE 33 CENTS FOR THE SMALLER POSTCARD.

SO YOU COULD DO 1500 POSTAGE FOR 1500 POSTCARDS, BUT THAT DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE PRINTING THE POSTCARDS.

SO I JUST THINK $500 IS, IS, IS LOW.

UM, IT'LL BE REPORTS OF EXPENDITURES THAT REALLY AREN'T GOING TO AFFECT THE ELECTION OR THAT PEOPLE WOULD CARE ABOUT.

SO I AM PROPOSING THAT WE CHANGE THAT $1 LIMIT, WHICH IS MENTIONED LIKE THREE TIMES, I THINK WITHIN TWO DASH TWO DASH 32, UM, FROM $500 TO $2,000, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT IN THE WORKING GROUP, AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT YOU COULD MAYBE DO A FACEBOOK AD FOR UNDER $500, BUT THEN AGAIN, A FACEBOOK AD THAT YOU SPEND LESS THAN FIVE OR AROUND $500, ISN'T GOING TO BE SO IMPACTFUL THAT PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT EXPENDITURE BEFORE THEY VOTE.

GREAT.

WELL, THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

I'M GOING TO KEEP THE FLOOR OPEN IF ANYONE HAS FOLLOW UP COMMENTS ON IT.

UM, I HAVE THOUGHTS, BUT, UH, FOR, FOR NEW COMMISSIONERS AND FOR ANYONE WHO'S NEW TO WATCHING, I LIKE TO LEAVE THE FLOOR OPEN AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BEFORE I JUMP IN.

UM, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION.

YEAH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE CONTEMPLATED, UM, THE AMOUNT TO WHICH YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE RAISED.

ARE WE TALKING A THOUSAND, 10,000? I THOUGHT 2000 SEEMS MORE REASONABLE.

I'M NOT WEDDED SPECIFICALLY TO THAT NUMBER, BUT, UM, EVEN 2000, I'M NOT SURE YOU COULD DO MUCH FOR AN ELECTION, BUT 500 REALLY TOO LOW BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

JUST THE QUESTION ACTUALLY.

SO IS YOUR CONCERN THAT IT'S UNDULY BURDENSOME ON CAMPAIGNS TO HAVE TO REPORT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HIT THAT EVERY EXPENDITURE IS LIKELY TO HIT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT THERE.

IT'S, IT'S A BURDEN TO MAKE SURE TO FOLLOW THESE SUITE OF TECHNICAL RULES ABOUT THIS MANY DAYS, YOU GET THIS MANY DAYS AND THIS MANY DAYS YOU GET THAT MANY DAYS, BUT ALSO THE BURDEN ON US WHEN PEOPLE FILE LATE THAT, AND THEY COME END UP IN FRONT OF US WITH A VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY SPENT $600 AND DIDN'T REPORT IT AT THE RIGHT TIME.

SO ONE, UH, I'LL JUMP IN UNLESS SOMEONE'S GOTTA.

UM, SO ONE THOUGHT IS, UH, JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY, WHO IS REPORTING A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE? UM, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CAMPAIGN, THE CAMPAIGN WOULD BE, UH, POTENTIALLY REQUIRED TO REPORT AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION FOR A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE DEPENDING ON WHAT IT WAS.

UM, BUT IT'S SOMEONE ELSE WHO MAKES A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE.

AND ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO KIND OF POINT TO YOU, IF YOU GO TO THE DEFINITION OF A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE IN TWO DASH TWO DASH 31, UM, IT IS AN EXPENDITURE FOR AN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION OR FOR EXPRESS ADVOCACY, AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED EARLIER IN THE ARTICLE.

UM, AND SPECIFICALLY IT'S INDEPENDENTLY OF A CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT COOPERATION, STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION OR CONSULTATION BETWEEN CANDIDATE OR CAMPAIGN OR THEIR COMMITTEE.

AND THEN THERE'S A DEFINITION OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION.

I SPECIFICALLY WANT IT TO HIGHLIGHT, WHICH IS A COMMUNICATION THAT COSTS, OR AS PART OF A SERIES OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT IN THE AGGREGATE COST $500 OR MORE.

AND IT GOES ON TO DEFINE THE REST OF THE CONDITIONS TO WHAT MEETS IN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION.

[00:10:01]

SO I BROUGHT THAT UP JUST TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT THAT IF WE CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE REPORT, IT MIGHT BE WORTH CONSIDERING AT THE SAME TIME IN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION TRIGGER LIMIT ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE, WE CREATE A BIT OF A, IT'S NOT A GLARING CONFLICT OR DISPARITY, I DON'T THINK, BUT WE WOULD HAVE THINGS QUALIFYING AS ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS THAT DO NOT TRIGGER REPORTS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, UM, REMINDER FOR THE MICROPHONE.

YEAH, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO FILE YOUR CAMPAIGN.

UM, UH, WHATEVER REPORTS SUBJECT TO THE STATE LAW, JUST NOT BUY THOSE CERTAIN DAYS THAT ARE IN THAT PARTICULAR TWO DASH TWO DASH 32 EVEN SAYS AT THE BOTTOM EDITORS OR AF INFORMATION REPORTED UNDER THIS SECTION BY A POLITICAL COMMITTEE OR PERSON SUBJECT TO SECTION 2 54 0.261 DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE EXCEEDING $100 OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE MUST ALSO BE REPORTED ON THE POLITICAL COMMITTEES, NEXT CAMPAIGN, FINANCE REPORT.

IT'S THIS TIMING THING.

THAT'S REALLY, UM, THE ISSUE IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE CODE THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

WELL, SO THE, THE, THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO RAISE WAS SIMPLY THAT IF A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE IS DEFINED POSSIBLY AS AN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION, THAT IS, UH, $500 OR MORE, UM, IF, IF AN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION THAT IS COST $500 OR MORE CAN QUALIFY AS A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE, THEN WE, IF WE CHANGE THE THRESHOLD FOR A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE REPORT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE POTENTIALLY ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS THAT DON'T TRIGGER THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT, RIGHT.

UH, BUT IN, IN THAT INSTANCE, THEN WE MIGHT CONSIDER CHANGING THE ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION ITSELF SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE LEGAL ELECTIONARY COMMUNICATION.

THAT IS LEGALLY SANCTIONED TO BE UNREPORTED.

IT'S STILL REPORTED IT'S ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.

IT'S JUST NOT SUBJECT TO THESE EXTRA DATE REQUIREMENTS.

SO THAT THAT'S, IF A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO THAT STATE LAW REQUIREMENT, I DON'T HAVE THAT STATE LAW REQUIREMENT IN FRONT OF ME.

UM, WHAT WAS THAT ONE AGAIN? RIGHT.

SECTION 2 54 0.26, ONE OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT'S SPECIFICALLY IF IT'S A POLITICAL COMMITTEE OR A PERSON SUBJECT TO THAT SECTION.

AND SO THESE, THESE EXTRA DATES THAT ARE IN THE CITY CODE, AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, UH, APPLY TO A PERSON, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A PERSON SUBJECT TO THAT PART OF STATE LAW, BUT A PERSON WHO MEETS THESE CRITERIA MAKES AN EXPENDITURE $500 OR MORE, THAT IS EITHER EXPRESS ADVOCACY OR AN ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION.

UM, WELL THEN WHY DON'T WE SEE WHETHER THERE'S INTEREST EVEN IN PURSUING THIS AND SEND THAT BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER THE RAMIFICATIONS? SURE.

UH, UH, FLOOR FLOOR IS OPEN THAT I SEE HANDS I'LL CALL ON YOU.

UM, IF ANYONE HAS THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, OPINIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DOLLAR LIMIT, HAPPY TO TAKE THEM.

ELEVEN'S AND THEN LARRY, I, I, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE POINT THAT YOU'RE RAISING AND NOT, AS OF NOW, I'M NOT SURE THAT I DO.

UM, SO IS YOUR POINT THAT RAISING THE $500 AMOUNT IN TWO DASH TWO DASH 32 A WOULD RESULT IN EXPENDITURES BETWEEN 500 AND WHATEVER THE NEW LIMIT THAT WOULD BE SET IS NOT BEING REPORTED AT ALL? UH, POTENTIALLY YES.

BETWEEN CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES OR LIKE, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN BEING UNDER STATE LAW WHAT'S TRIGGERED AND THEN WHAT'S TRIGGERED UNDER OUR CITY CODE.

AND THEN THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT INCONSISTENCY

[00:15:01]

SO NOT NECESSARILY A CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS AND CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, BUT MORE SO THAT WE ARE DEFINING ELECTION AND COMMUNICATION AS SPECIFIC KINDS OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE $500 OR MORE IN THERE, AND HOW MUCH IS SPENT ON IT.

AND THEN WE'RE SAYING THOSE DON'T HAVE TO BE REPORTED.

SO IF HYPOTHETICALLY, WE RAISED THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES UNDER TWO DASH TWO DASH 32 DO WITHOUT SIN.

THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IN OUR CITY CODE ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS THAT COSTS $500.

SO SOMEONE SPENDS $500.

IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR IN COMMUNICATION UNDER THE LAW, AND THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO REPORT IT TO ME.

IT'S, UH, AGAIN, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T WANT TO CALL IT A CRAZY CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENCY.

UM, JUST SOMETHING THAT SEEMS, UH, ODD AND DEPENDING ON THE OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY CODE THAT TALK ABOUT ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS, AND I KNOW THEY EXIST, I JUST COULDN'T CITE THEM OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

UH, ALL THAT TO SAY, I RAISED IT AS SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER AS WE THINK ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC DOLLAR LIMIT, BECAUSE THEY'RE DOLLAR LIMITS THAT ARE INTIMATELY LINKED, WHERE THE TRUE A DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE AND WHAT IS IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION DEPEND ON EACH OTHER A LITTLE BIT, OR AT LEAST DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES DEPEND ON ELECTIONARY COMMUNICATION DEFINITION.

THERE COULD BE SOME QUIRKS THAT ARISE FROM SORT OF THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND DIFFERENT CATEGORIES IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, SHARED UP EXPENDITURES AND THEN ELECTION AND HEARING COMMUNICATION RELATED EXPENDITURES.

IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE AMEND OUR LIMITS AND WE MIGHT WANT TO AMEND MULTIPLE SECTIONS AT THE SAME TIME TO AVOID THOSE KINDS OF QUIRKS OR POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCIES EVEN.

UM, AND, AND I THINK I'LL, UH, I'LL TAKE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S, UH, SUGGESTION AND KIND OF OPEN IT UP IF ANYONE HAS, UH, ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS, HAPPY TO KIND OF GET A READ OF THE ROOM, SO TO SPEAK.

UM, I THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT THE WORKING GROUP COULD SPEND MORE TIME LOOKING AT, UH, FINDING CROSS REFERENCES OF WHERE ELSE ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS SHOW UP DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES SHOW UP.

UM, BUT HAPPY TO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LAURIE.

SO I HESITATE TO SORT OF WEIGH IN JUST BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ABSENT FOR AWHILE.

UM, BUT JUST A THOUGHT FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO MAYBE, UM, ONE FIND OUT HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE $500.

YOU MIGHT ALREADY KNOW THIS, BUT WHAT THAT'S BASED ON, LIKE, IS IT TIED TO GDP OR LIKE, YOU KNOW, AVERAGE CAMPAIGN COSTS, THAT KIND OF THING, AND MAYBE USE SIMILAR, UM, YOU KNOW, CALCULATIONS.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO RECOMMEND IS TALKING TO THE EQUITY OFFICE BECAUSE I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO COST OF LIVING AND HOW IT AFFECTS, UM, ACCESS AND INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY IN AUSTIN, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESS TO OUR POLITICAL PROCESSES.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING, YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE $500.

DOESN'T GET YOU A LOT.

BUT IF YOU START INCREASING LIMITS, THEN YOU KNOW, ARE WE HELPING CONTRIBUTE TO THE POLITICAL ACCESS OF THE HAVES VERSUS THE HAVE-NOTS? SO JUST A THOUGHT THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE EQUITY OFFICE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER IN ADDRESSING THESE LIMITS FROM A SOCIOECONOMIC AND ACCESS PERSPECTIVE.

UM, SECRETARY LEARNER, YEAH, JUST GETTING BACK TO THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS IS THIS, ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY, IS YOUR, IS YOUR MOTIVATION TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCEDURE? SO PEOPLE, BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE SLIP UP BECAUSE THEY JUST, DON'T, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND LIMITS, AND IT'S ALMOST A MINIMUS YOU'RE IS YOU'RE WHAT I'M HEARING 500 AWAY.

SO IT IS, I MEAN, I THINK THE MOTIVATION OF THIS COMMISSION IS TO TRY TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T AS EXPERIENCED TO BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE THE ROLES.

IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING.

AND ALL OF THESE, ALL OF THESE, UM, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, LIKE ALL OF THE REGULATIONS HERE APPLY TO THE CAMPAIGN.

COMMISSIONER DANBURG, UH, TO SOME DEGREE IT APPLIES TO THE CAMPAIGN, BUT THIS IS WHEN PEOPLE CHOOSE TO NOT COLLABORATE WITH THE CAMPAIGN DIRECTLY.

[00:20:01]

NOW I JUST GIVE A CONTRIBUTION AND LET THE CAMPAIGN DECIDE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE USED.

UM, BUT CORRECT ME IF I WRITE THIS SOUNDS TO ME, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE LOOKED AT THE STATE ELECTION CODE, UM, IN THIS REGARD, BUT, UH, IT'S, IT'S WHAT WE USED TO CALL A TELEGRAM CONTRIBUTION, WHERE IF YOU WAITED UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE TO GIVE SOME SERIOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY, YOU LITERALLY, AT THAT POINT IN TIME HAD TO SEND A TELEGRAM, NOT JUST SEND BY LETTER.

IT WAS JUST IN THE FEW DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION.

SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK, WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN THE DATES, UM, FOR THINGS THAT JUST HAPPEN BEFORE, THERE'S AN, YOU KNOW, EARLY VOTING'S ALREADY STARTED IT'S BEFORE PEOPLE, IF IT IS OF SUCH A SIGNIFICANT NATURE THAT IT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE WAY SOMEONE VOTES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE JUST SICK AND TIRED OF THIS HUGE LOBBY GROUP OR THIS HUGE SPECIAL INTEREST OR WHATEVER.

UM, SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE SOURCE OF WHERE WE GOT THE DATES.

AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF THE SOURCE OF WHERE WE GOT THE $500.

I'M NOT SURE, BUT THAT'S KIND OF RINGING AROUND IN MY HEAD.

NO, I, THAT THAT'S INTERESTING HISTORY AND BACKGROUND.

AND I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, OFTENTIMES THE, JUST AS AN OBSERVER AND APPRECIATOR OF ELECTION AND ETHICS LAWS, THE, AS YOU GET CLOSER TO AN ELECTION, THAT'S WHERE YOU START TO SEE MORE, YOU SEE TIGHTER DEADLINES AND MORE STRICT DEADLINES IN REQUIREMENTS, PRECISELY BECAUSE AS THE CLOSER YOU GET TO AN ELECTION, THE MORE THE PUBLIC IS PAYING ATTENTION.

UH, THE MORE POTENTIALLY THERE, THERE MAY BE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT AT THE LAST MINUTE WITH, YOU KNOW, HUMONGOUS AD BY FIVE DIFFERENT BILLBOARDS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT.

WHEN EARLY VOTING STARTS.

AND IT'S GOOD TO KNOW WHERE THAT, WHERE ALL THAT COMES FROM.

UM, BUT RIGHT, RIGHT.

UH, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING THAT THE CANDIDATE BELIEVES IS UNTRUE ABOUT THEM, THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND GETS TOUGHER AND TOUGHER.

I MEAN, THEY'VE PROBABLY SPENT ALMOST ALL THEIR MONEY BY THE TIME THEY'RE WINDING UP THE CAMPAIGN AND THEN BANG, THEY'RE ACCUSED OF, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING OUT OF THE BLUE.

SO THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO'S PAYING FOR THAT, BUT IF IT'S ONLY $500, RIGHT.

SO YEAH.

UH, I SAW COMMISSIONER STANTON AND THEN I'LL GO, SECRETARY LEARNER, COULD YOU REMIND US OF THE TIMELINE OR THE URGENCY FOR THIS PARTICULAR TASK OF EVALUATING AND THEY CAN RECOMMENDATIONS GREAT QUESTION.

UH, THE TIMELINE DEPENDS IN PART ON WHICH PROVISION WE'RE LOOKING AT.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE 2022 ELECTION CYCLE HAS BEGUN IN A SENSE, UH, IT'S ONE YEAR, UH, PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY THAT I BELIEVE A CANDIDATE CAN START MAKING EXPENDITURES, RIGHT? SO, UH, IN A SENSE WE ARE, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF ELECTION SEASON.

AND SO WE WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE RULES WERE CHANGING AND HOW FAR IN A GAME WE ARE EVEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A GAME.

RIGHT? SO, UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION TRIGGERS ANY TIME SOON, UH, I'M GOING TO QUICKLY DEFER TO LYNN CARTER, OUR TRUSTED LEGAL COUNSEL, GO AHEAD.

WELL, AND I WILL DISAVOW ANY EXPERTISE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE, BUT JUST GOING BY THE THAT'S PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE CODE IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

SO THE ELECTION IN 2022 IS GOING TO BE, UM, NOVEMBER AROUND NOVEMBER 2ND.

AND, BUT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL COUNCIL HAS TO VOTE ON THIS.

UM, SO, AND, AND THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR A BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT COULD COME UP IN MAY, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, THERE,

[00:25:01]

WE'RE NOT LIMITED TO JUST THE NOVEMBER 20, 22 ELECTION.

GREAT POINT.

SO JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE TIMELINE FOR OUR PROCESS, IF THERE ARE CHANGES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THESE TWO DASH $2 LIMITS BASELINE RULE OF THUMB IS THE EARLIER THE BETTER, EVEN IF THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT DOESN'T TRIGGER IMMEDIATELY, OR WE'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF OPERATING UNDER A SPECIFIC PROVISION, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE RULES MID GAME, SO TO SPEAK, UH, EVEN FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T QUITE COME INTO PLAY YET FOR OUR 20, 22 CYCLE, THE SOONER THE BETTER IF WE WANT THEM TO APPLY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE ASAP DEADLINE TIMELINE.

UM, LET ME ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM KIND OF TIMEFRAME THAT WE SHOULD SHOOT FOR IN ADVANCE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, THE TIMELINE, BUT COUNCIL NEEDS, YOU KNOW, THE HAPPY PATH, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LIKE AT LEAST A MONTH TO GIVE COUNSEL TIME TO? SO THEN WE CAN WORK BACKWARDS BECAUSE I WANT, I'D LIKE, YOU KNOW, BEING ON THE WORK GROUP, I'D LIKE TO WORK WITH A, A REALISTIC TIMELINE RATHER THAN AS SOON AS YOU CAN.

AND I WILL, LET ME CLARIFY THAT AS SOON AS YOU CAN DEPENDS ON THE, THAT THIS COMMISSION FEELS WE, UH, ABSOLUTELY COULD TAKE A PROVISION, DECIDE IT NEEDS SOME WORK, DECIDE THAT MAYBE IT'S NOT FAIR OR RIGHT TO CHANGE IT.

NOW, IF WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OPERATIONAL TIME PERIOD, FOR EXAMPLE, AND WE GENERATE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO SAY THAT EFFECTIVE THIS DAY, YOU KNOW, PAST THE CURRENT ELECTION CYCLE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS CHANGE THAT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO THE, THE POINT I WAS MAKING ABOUT THE ASAP IS THAT IF THERE IS A GLARING PROBLEM WITH ONE OF THESE DOLLAR LIMITS, THAT ONE OF US ON THE COMMISSION FEELS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED SOONER, RATHER THAN LATER, GIVEN THE TIMEFRAME OF THE UPCOMING ELECTION PARENTHESES ELECTIONS, IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO HAVE IT DONE SOONER.

SO, OKAY.

SO THERE ISN'T AN URGENCY TODAY FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION AND MOVE IT FORWARD.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO.

IT IS A, IT IS A SELF-IMPOSED URGENCY IF THERE IS ANY.

OKAY, GREAT.

NO PROBLEM.

AND I'LL GO SECRETARY LEARNER AND THEN COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

I THINK MY ONLY POINT IS JUST THAT WE SHOULD BE CLEAR ABOUT, UM, THE AUDIENCE ISN'T REALLY THE RIGHT, THE TARGET, LIKE THE, WHOEVER WE FEEL WE HAVE KIND OF JURISDICTION OVER BECAUSE THERE IS, THERE IS A CONFLICT HERE, BUT NOT A COMMON, THERE'S AN, THERE'S A TENSION BETWEEN TRANSPARENCY AND ALMOST ACCESS, RIGHT? SO, UM, TO YOUR POINTS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING IN CAMPAIGNS SHOULD KNOW WHO IS FUNDING, UM, YOU KNOW, KEMP COMMUNICATIONS THAT AFFECT THEM.

SO IF WE, IF WE MAKE IT GO TOO HIGH, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT SOME TRANSPARENCY.

UM, I THINK THIS COMMISSION FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT THE ACCESS QUESTION.

I MEAN, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK OBVIOUSLY A MODEST INCREASE ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THE GAME TOO MUCH.

I WILL SAY THAT THINGS LIKE FACEBOOK, IT DOESN'T, IT HAS HUGE SCALE AND REACH AND IT'S NOT EXPENSIVE.

SO YOU CAN MAKE A BIG IMPACT WITH SMALL AMOUNTS OF MONEY ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

SO, UM, A THOUSAND DOLLARS CAN PROBABLY BUY MORE THAN WE THINK HE CAN, YOU KNOW, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE DROWNING IN THESE REPORTS WHERE SOMEBODY ACCIDENTALLY SLIPS UP AND IT'S A REALLY DIMINIMOUS.

AND SO I THINK IT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST THE TENSION BETWEEN US.

I WANT US TO BE KIND OF THINKING ABOUT WHO WE ARE, WHAT IS THE WORD I'M THINKING? WHO, WHO ARE OUR BENEFICIARIES? IT'S MORE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I DON'T KNOW THE WORD.

NO, NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, WHO WE'RE WORKING FOR.

WE THINK ABOUT NOT SAYING THIS IS A GOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA, BUT FLOATING IT, THINK ABOUT TREATING DIGITAL DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES DIFFERENTLY.

UH, AND ONE THOUGHT THAT OCCURRED TO ME BECAUSE IN OUR, IN OUR WORKING GROUP, WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS SPECIFIC LIMIT AND THAT'S WHERE WE BROUGHT UP INITIALLY, THE IDEA THAT, WELL, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO RUN A FACEBOOK AD? AND WHAT WOULD A FACEBOOK AD OF $500 GETS YOU POTENTIALLY, UH, NOT BEING A SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING GURU MYSELF.

I DON'T HAVE GOOD ANSWERS TO THAT.

AND I THINK IT'D BE WORTH, UH, SPENDING TIME TO GET A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT.

A THOUGHT THAT OCCURRED TO ME IS SORT OF LISTENING NOW WAS, UH, MAYBE

[00:30:01]

UH, GIVEN WHAT WE ROYAL WE KNOW ABOUT HOW INFORMATION SPREADS ONLINE AND GIVEN THAT WE KNOW THAT IT CAN, YOU CAN CHEAPLY REACH A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST AS A GENERAL OBSERVATION.

AGAIN, IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE SOME CONCRETE DATA JUST WANTED TO FLOAT THAT AS AN IDEA.

THAT'S NOT QUITE, UH, I RAISED THAT JUST AS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE COULD ACT ON OUR AGENDA ITEM.

IT'S ABOUT THE DOLLAR LIMITS AND THAT'S NOT A DOLLAR LIMIT, BUT JUST A THOUGHT SECOND SECRETARY RESEARCH ON THAT, BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS, YOU GUYS REMEMBER HOW THAT CASE WE'VE HAD A COMPLAINT WHERE FACEBOOK ADS HAD A, HAD A PROMINENT ROLE.

BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS MORE OF THE DATE THAN A DOLLAR LIMIT.

I FEEL LIKE WE DID SOME RESEARCH ON THAT.

AND I THINK COMMISSIONER RYAN HAD HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN FACEBOOK AND SAYS, MY JOB IS FACEBOOK ADS.

AND HE WAS, HE WAS KIND OF A RESOURCE WITNESS ON THE COMMISSION TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT ALL MEANT.

UM, SO COMMISSIONER STANTON'S HAND, GO AHEAD.

LET'S DO WE HAVE ANY CASES OR SITUATIONS IN THE PAST THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THAT THERE, WHERE THIS IS RELEVANT? I GUESS WHAT'S, WHAT'S PROMPTING THIS.

WE SHOULD CONSIDER CHANGING THIS 500, RIGHT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

IS IT JUST MORE, THIS CODE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SO LONG AND MAYBE IT'S OUTDATED.

IT'S ONE, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING MORE.

SO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I APOLOGIZE THAT I'M, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT PROMPTING WE DID HAVE COMPLAINTS THAT WERE RELEVANT TO THIS TIMING THING.

THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER ELECTION.

UM, YOU KNOW, WAS STUFF REPORTED SOON ENOUGH AND THAT'S FINE.

UM, THE TRANSPARENCY ISSUE WITH TIMING IS IMPORTANT.

IT'S JUST REALLY QUESTIONABLE ABOUT THE $500, BUT TAKE, GO BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S OUR TIMELINE.

SO WHENEVER WE DECIDE TO MAKE RECOMMEND THE CHANGES AND WHENEVER CITY COUNCIL, OR IF CITY COUNCIL ACTS ON THE RECOMMENDATION IS WHEN IT WILL BE.

AND THERE WAS ALWAYS BE ANOTHER ELECTION.

UH, I WAS ASKING MORE WHAT'S THE, IS THERE A PRECEDENT OR IS THERE SOMETHING HISTORICALLY ABOUT THE DOLLAR LIMIT WHAT'S PROMPTING OUR COMMISSIONER.

DAN DANBURG SEEM TO HAVE MORE, LET ME CLARIFY.

I DON'T MEAN WHY DID WE CHANGE? WHY DOES IT STATE 500? I'M ASKING WHY, WHY ARE YOU CONSIDERING CHANGING 500? I FEEL LIKE WE ENDED UP SEEING THESE CASES WHERE WE ALL FEEL SORT OF LIKE, WHY ARE WE SITTING HERE WASTING SOMEBODY'S TIME FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS GOT SMALL? I MEAN, THAT'S, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING WE OFTEN COLLECTIVELY STRUGGLE WITH AND IT, IT ALMOST FEELS DIMINIMOUS IS WHERE HE KEEPS SAYING DIMINIMUS, BUT FOR THE TIME OF THIS BODY, AND ALSO FOR PUTTING SOMEBODY THROUGH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IT COSTS TO GET REPRESENTATION FOR THIS, WHAT THEY ARE WORRIED IT'LL DO TO THEIR REPUTATION, THE PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF THEM FOR SOMETHING LIKE $500.

SORRY, DEBRA.

AND SO ALL THAT TO SAY, I THINK THAT THIS IS, THIS REALLY IS WORTH TAKING A CLOSE LOOK AT, AND I THINK, AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP PERMISSION TO GREENBERG SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A DUTY THAT WE IMPOSE ON A SOPHISTICATED CAMPAIGN OR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.

THIS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT ON ANYONE.

WE HAVE TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THOSE BECAUSE IF SOMEONE CAN RUN A FOUL OF EXCEEDING THAT LATER, THE BUNDLING LIMIT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A GOOD, IT'S A GOOD CATCH.

AND I THINK WE WOULD BE GOOD TO, SORRY.

I SAW SOME LIGHTS TURN OFF.

THE MOST INCENSE.

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO DO THAT THE WHOLE NIGHT LONG.

UM, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, YOUR DANFORD.

HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN, YOU KNOW, SAY THERE'S A $200 CAMPAIGN LIMIT, I GET AN ACT BLUE OR WHATEVER SOLICITATION FOR THESE CANDIDATES THAT I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT EVERY THREE DAYS.

YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT'S KIND OF AN ONGOING HARD THING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IS IF YOU'RE FILING FOR OFFICE OR IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH GETTING SOMETHING ON A PROPOSITION BALLOT, THERE'S PAPERWORK, YOU GOT TO FILL OUT.

AND PART OF THAT PAPERWORK IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE

[00:35:01]

AND I ANTICIPATE THROUGH IF I'M NOT REALLY KEEPING TRACK OF HOW MUCH I'VE GIVEN, BUT THERE IS A LIMIT I'M ANTICIPATING THAT THE CAMPAIGN WILL LET ME KNOW THAT, OOPS, WE NEED TO, I NEED TO REFUND THE LAST $15 BECAUSE YOU'RE OVER THE LIMIT.

BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST DECIDING TO GET INVOLVED IN A MONEYED WAY, VERY LATE IN THE CAMPAIGN, THEY HAVEN'T FILLED OUT ANY PAPERWORK, GIVING THEM ANY KIND OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE THESE OBLIGATIONS, EXCEPT THAT, OF COURSE YOU CAN'T BE IGNORANT OF THE LAW IN ANY KIND OF A SITUATION, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE SELF FREQUENTLY SEEING YOUNG FIRST TIME SECRETARIES IN SOMEONE'S OFFICE, WHO'S BEEN TOLD TO FILL OUT THESE PAPERS AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS AND THEY'RE DEPENDING ON THEIR SUPERIORS AND THE ACTUAL CONTENT CONTRIBUTORS TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET CALLED.

AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I, THE, THE CASE THAT KIND OF THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT RUNS THROUGH MY HEAD WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC, UH, EXAMPLE IS SAY THERE IS A STREET ARTIST WHO, WHO BUYS $500 WORTH OF PAINTS TO PAINT A MURAL SAYING, UH, SUPPORT OUR POLICE VOTE.

ON PROP A, UH, THAT STRAIGHT ARTISTS PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE LIABLE, UH, FOR A VIOLATION JUST BECAUSE THEY, THEY SPENT MONEY ON NICE PAINT.

AND CONVERSELY, IF SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, UH, DOES THE OPPOSITE SAYS THAT NO WAY PROP A, YOU KNOW, MURAL ON THE SIDE OF A STORE, ALL THAT TO SAY THAT STREET PAINTS CAN BE EXPENSIVE.

I DON'T KNOW THE GOING PRICE OF PAINT, BUT I SEEN THAT SOMEONE PAINTING A BIG MURAL COULD SPEND OVER $500.

UH, SO, YOU KNOW, ONE ANOTHER THOUGHT IS, UH, AGAIN, NOT QUITE THE DOLLAR LIMIT, BUT THINKING ABOUT MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN, UH, A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE WHO CAN CERTAINLY DO CAMPAIGN EXPENDED, DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, AND ANYONE ELSE THAT MIGHT BE A WORTHY DISTINCTION TO IN THINKING ABOUT THESE LIMITS.

UM, BUT SECRETARY LERNER, GO AHEAD.

WHOA.

IN YOUR HABITAT.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED EARLIER THAT THESE ARE ALL ABOUT EXPENDITURES BY CAMPAIGN AND YOU SAID, YES.

UH, SO, UH, QUESTION, UH, THESE ARE CAMPAIGN RELATED.

SO ELECTION, MAYBE CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN THE LECTURE, UNRELATED GENERALLY, UM, THESE DOLLAR LIMITS APPLY SOMETIMES TO CAMPAIGN SOMETIMES TO CONTRIBUTORS EXPENDITURES, CONGREGATION, THE GUY, HE JUST DID HIS GO FUND ME EVERYTHING.

UH, I'LL GO, LORI, AND, AND DANBURG GO AHEAD.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST, I APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION.

IT'S NICE NOT HAVING A HEARING AND TO BE ABLE TO LIKE ACTUALLY FLUSH THESE THINGS OUT.

SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT IT'S NICE TO BE ABLE TO REALLY HAVE THESE FULL CONVERSATIONS, NOT BEING EXHAUSTED AT MIDNIGHT AND JUST LIKE RUNNING THROUGH IT.

UM, AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO ECHO COMMISSIONER LERNER, I THINK HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, UH, AND SORT OF, UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG SENTIMENT AS WELL THAT I THINK NO MATTER WHERE WE GO, WHETHER WE GO, YOU KNOW, STAY AT THE SAME PLACE, GO UP DOWN WHATEVER THERE IS NECESSARILY A TENSION BETWEEN ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND SO LIKE, HOW DO WE GET AROUND THAT? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE EVEN THE THINGS THAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS RAISING THE CONCERNS THEY GO TO ACCESSIBILITY, THEY ALSO GO TO ACCOUNTABILITY.

UM, SO IT'S JUST, I THINK, AND I HEAR THAT IN A LOT OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HOW WE RESOLVE THAT IS I THINK A VERY DIFFICULT TASK, BUT YEAH.

NOT SHYING AWAY FROM THE HARD STUFF, UH, COMMISSIONER DENVER.

MEDIA, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I SURE, WITHOUT OPENING THE ENTIRE PANDORA'S BOX OF, UH, ELECTIONS AND SOCIAL MEDIA.

I HADN'T REALLY BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT MORE AND MORE AND MORE WE'RE SEEING TRENDS WHERE THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS, THE MOST UNTRUE, THE MOST, UM, CRAZY STUFF GOES VIRAL AND THAT'S LEFT AND RIGHT.

AND THAT DOESN'T COST ANYTHING, BUT BOYD CONNECT TAKE A CANDIDATE BY SURPRISE.

UM, YOU KNOW, I, THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE SOMETHING DONE DIFFERENTLY WITH SOCIAL

[00:40:01]

UH, I ONLY BROUGHT IT.

WE'VE ONLY BROUGHT UP THE SOCIAL MEDIA EXAMPLE OF THAT.

UH, IT'S, IT'S AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY CAN GO A LONG WAY FOR THESE PURPOSES.

UM, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH LOOKING AT, AND THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO, UH, I THINK, UH, I'M TELLING MYSELF THIS AS A MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP, BUT FOR THE WORKING GROUP AND FOR ANYONE ELSE'S, WE LOOK AT THIS SPECIFIC DOLLAR LIMIT MOVING FORWARD IS TO LOOK AT THESE ARE REPORTS THAT HAVE TO BE FILED.

SO PRESUMABLY REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED AND IT WOULD BE WORTH LOOKING HISTORICALLY AT THE DATA OF HOW MUCH ARE THESE CAMPAIGN DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES ARE USUALLY THE ONES THAT ARE REPORTED AT LEAST.

UH, AND WE CAN FIND A MEAN, WE CAN SEE TRENDS ON WHAT THESE, WHAT THE REPORTS ARE ACTUALLY BEING SPENT OR WHAT THE EXPENDITURES ARE BEING SPENT ON IN THESE REPORTS.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE WORTH STUDYING TO, UH, SECRETARY OF LEARNER.

SO SINCE WE ARE HERE TOGETHER AND HAVE A LITTLE TIME, MAYBE WE CAN BRAINSTORM A LITTLE BIT OR JUST PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON WHO DO WE THINK THAT WE ARE SERVING? WHAT, WHAT CAUSE SHOULD THIS COMMISSION BE? AND MAYBE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE THINK, BECAUSE THAT IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE, IF WE THINK THAT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IS THE CAUSE THAT WE'RE REALLY SERVING, THEN I THINK WE, IT STAYS RIGHT.

BUT IF WE THINK IT'S REALLY ABOUT MAKING THIS PROCESS, SIMPLIFYING THE PROCESS AND ALLOWING MORE PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED, THEN I THINK THAT THAT'S THEN WE'D HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION.

BUT I AGREE WITH YOU LOOKING AT THE DATA, CAUSE MAYBE IT JUST BE LIKE, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE.

UH, MY VERY BRIEF ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, WHICH I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT ONE FOR ALL OF US TO THINK ABOUT, UM, IS UNFORTUNATELY BOTH, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE CAN CHOOSE OR NECESSARILY PRIORITIZE, UH, IN EVERY INSTANCE, ONE OVER THE OTHER.

AND I THINK IT'S, UH, I THINK I'M, UH, I'M ALL ABOUT BALANCING.

I THINK THAT IS, UH, A BALANCE AND I WANT TO BE, UM, SENSITIVE TO THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ON OUR AGENDA THAT MAY HAVE MAY TAKE SOME TIME, BUT I DO, I DON'T WANT TO STIFLE ANYONE'S THOUGHTS ON THIS OR OTHER DOLLAR LIMITS.

SO GO AHEAD, MR. YOUR STANTON.

I THINK THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

AND, AND MORE CONCRETELY, I'D LIKE TO SEE US PARTICIPATE IN THAT EXERCISE TO ACTUALLY GET THAT.

I THINK THAT IT'S, UM, VERY RELEVANT TO ALL BUSINESS ITEM TWO, A WITH THE STATEMENT OF WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES AND HOW THE PUBLIC CAN USE THE COMMISSION.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT DISCUSSION OR THAT EXERCISE WRAPPED PERHAPS IN THAT DISCUSSION OF THAT ITEM.

ABSOLUTELY.

UM, AND I, I, I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE COMMISSIONERS FOR, YOU KNOW, EVERY EVERYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE IS TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES.

I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THEM A LOT IN COMMUNICATIONS AND LETTERS I'VE WRITTEN INTO THE CAPACITY I HAVE, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, GO AHEAD.

UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE INTERNET IS THE WAY TO GET THE ANSWER TO HOW MUCH DOES A FACEBOOK AD COST ONE PLACE, IT SAYS 97 CENTS PER CLICK, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO REACH 500 PEOPLE.

ANOTHER SAYS BETWEEN 50 CENTS AND THREE 50, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO REACH A THOUSAND PEOPLE.

IT'S I THINK IN YOUR, YOU KNOW, COMMENT ABOUT DIMINIMUS I STILL THINK THE $500 IS TOO LOW, BUT GIVEN THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS, DOES IT REALLY GET REPORTED ANYWAY, JUST NOT NECESSARILY BEFORE THE ELECTION.

UM, I THINK THE WORKING GROUP SHOULD LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND THEN MAYBE WE COULD MOVE ON.

GENERALLY GOING ONCE GOING TWICE, WE WILL MOVE ON IN OUR AGENDA.

AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND I, AND I, FOR THESE SPECIFIC LIMITS, THE DOLLAR LIMITS IN TWO DASH TWO, UH, I, I PREFER TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION BEFORE RUTTEN, YOU'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL AND THERE'S A FORM OF FORMAT.

APPARENTLY WE HAVE TO USE MAKING SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS AS I LEARNED THIS WEEK.

UH, BUT UH, I SAW THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION DEPLOYING THE BRAIN TRUST OF COMMISSIONERS ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM, BECAUSE I REALLY DO THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE ON THE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

UM, SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP.

UH, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? NOT JUST DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, BUT TWO DASH $2 LIMITS

[00:45:01]

WE HAVE SOME OLD BUSINESS.

UM, SO YES, GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER STANTON, THE DISPOSITION OF NEW BUSINESS ITEM ONE, A WHAT'S THE NAME? UH, SO NEXT STEP IS, UH, THE WORKING GROUP HAS HEARD THE FEEDBACK AND THE, UH, WE'VE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION AS A COMMISSION AND ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE WELCOME TO THINK, YOU KNOW, ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT DO WITH TWO SU DOLLAR LIMITS AND SPECIFICALLY THE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

UH, BUT WE, I THINK MY SENSE IS THAT WE ARE DONE DISCUSSING IT FOR NOW IN THE OPEN COMMISSION MEETING AND THAT THE WORKING GROUP IS LIKELY GOING TO BE CONTINUING TO LOOK AT IT, POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT PAST REPORTS.

SO NO PROBLEM.

SO MOVING INTO

[2.a. Statement of What the Commission Does & How the Public can use the Commission and Statement on Equity, Access, and the Need for Reform by the Working Group on Race, Identity, and Equity]

ITEM TWO OLD BUSINESS INTO A, UH, SO WE HAVE A STATEMENT OF WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES AND HOW THE PUBLIC CAN USE THE COMMISSION IN THE STATEMENT ON EQUITY ACCESS AND NEED FOR REFORM.

THIS HAS BECOME THE, UH, VICE CHAIR, KALE SHOW, UH, FOR DRAFTING THE, UH, WHAT WAS AN OP-ED BECAME A MEDIA STATEMENT, UH, IN, UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE WAS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP.

I WAS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP.

UH, I KNOW I, I SHOWED, I FEEL A LOT OF GUILT FOR NOT BEING INVOLVED AS MUCH AS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT MARY KAY HAS BEEN DRAFTING AND REDRAFTING TAKING OUR FEEDBACK AT EVERY MEETING.

SHE, UNFORTUNATELY, COULDN'T BE HERE THIS EVENING.

SO, UH, THAT IS WHERE THAT STANDS.

UM, I THINK THAT'S, UH, GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT AT THE NEXT ONE, SINCE SHE WAS, SHE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS GOING TO BRING THE ITEM AND PRESENT IT, BUT, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LIE AND HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH HER BEFORE THIS MEETING.

AND SO SHE IS WORKING ON, UH, I, I BELIEVE YOU ALL DISCUSSED COMBINING THE TWO STATEMENTS.

UM, SO SHE'S WORKING ON THAT NOW THAT I'M ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AGAIN.

UM, I THINK SHE AND I WILL DISCUSS EARLY NEXT WEEK ON HOW TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MOVE FORWARD IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN JOINING OUR WORKING GROUP.

I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF IDEAS THAT WE WANT TO START GAINING SOME MOMENTUM ON.

UM, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, LET THE CHAIR KNOW, UM, IF YOU'D BE INTERESTED.

SO I, I THINK I AM, I AM IN NETWORKING GROUP ALREADY.

UH, I AM IN BOTH OF OUR CURRENT OPERATING WORKING GROUPS AND IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO REPLACE ME ON A WORKING GROUP, WE'LL GET TO THAT WHEN WE GET THERE ON THE AGENDA.

SO I HATE TO BE, UNLESS WE

[2.b. Content of the agenda for future meetings, including description of Commission’s jurisdiction and/or functions.]

WANT TO DISCUSS THAT STATEMENT FURTHER TB IS THE CONTENT OF THE AGENDA FOR FUTURE MEETINGS, INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION AND OR FUNCTIONS.

AND THIS WAS RAISED BY COMMISSIONER STANTON.

I BELIEVE IF NOT OUR LAST MEETING, IT WAS OUR LAST MEETING, UH, OR THE MEETING BEFORE POTENTIALLY.

UM, BUT THE IDEA BEING THAT ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS KIND OF OUR PUBLIC FACING DOCUMENT FOR EVERY MEETING AND WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES, UH, THERE SHOULD BE JUST A SIMPLE PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT.

YOU HAVE TAX REVIEW COMMISSION DOES THIS, UM, TO DO THIS, LIKE OUR PURPOSE IS THIS, THIS IS WHAT WE TRY TO DO.

A SIMPLE PLAIN ENGLISH STATEMENT JUST ON THE AGENDA.

SINCE THAT IS WHEN THE PUBLIC LOOKS UP, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY SEE ON THE WEBSITE IS OUR AGENDAS AND OUR MEETINGS.

UM, AND WE DISCUSSED AS WELL, NOT JUST INCLUDING IT ON THE AGENDA, BUT POTENTIALLY THE WEBSITE ITSELF, AS ON THE LANDING PAGE FOR THE COMMISSION, THIS IS THE COMMISSION AND WHAT IT DOES.

UM, I KNOW I'VE RECEIVED EMAILS FROM PEOPLE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS COMPLETELY FAR AFIELD FROM WHAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION REALLY DOES.

THEY JUST ASSUME LIKE, OH, THE CHAIR OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, THERE IS AN ETHICAL MORAL COMPONENT TO THIS STORY.

LET ME ASK THIS GUY.

AND I HAVE TO EXPLAIN NO THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT, WHAT I DO IN SERVING ON THE COMMISSION.

SO I'LL, UH, I WAS GONNA PASS IT TO COMMISSIONER STANTON.

I KNOW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO, UM, COMMISSIONER STANCE AND TAKE A STAB AT THINKING ABOUT WHAT THAT STATEMENT WOULD BE.

I KNOW THERE WAS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, UH, COORDINATING WITH COMMISSIONER KALE AND THE STATEMENT OR THE WHAT KIND OF, I THINK THE MEDIA PIECE IS WHAT WE DECIDED TO CALL IT AFTER THE LAST MEETING, AS OPPOSED TO AN OP-ED, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T AN OPINION BEING EXPRESSED NECESSARILY.

UM, BUT THE MEDIA PIECE, UH, SO THAT THERE'S CONSISTENCY AND HARMONY AND THE LANGUAGE BEING USED, BUT HAPPY TO PASS IT TO YOU FOR AN UPDATE.

IF YOU HAVE ONE, MY GOSH, I APOLOGIZE.

I, I KNEW I HAD AN ACTION.

I COULDN'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT WAS.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, UM, COMMISSION NUMBERS, I HAVE NOT, UM, I HAVE NOT MADE ANY

[00:50:01]

FURTHER PROGRESS ON THAT, ON THAT ITEM, NOT A PROBLEM, JUST LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALWAYS HAVE ELECTIONS.

WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE MEETINGS AS LONG AS WE'RE A BODY, SO, AND MORE AGENDAS.

SO WITH THAT, UM, WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEXT MEETING ON THAT ITEM.

AND WE'LL MOVE TONIGHT TO TWO C,

[2.c. Working group status reports and/or recommendations on the following.]

WHICH IS WORKING GROUP STATUS REPORTS AND OR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING.

AND IT IS, UM, IT IS A DECENT LIST OF STUFF FOR THE, MY AFFECTIONATELY CALLED KITCHEN SINK, WORKING GROUP.

THAT'S THE WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS PROCEDURES AND OTHER ISSUES.

UM, WHAT I AM GOING TO DO HERE IS PASS IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

SHE CIRCULATED, UH, THIS NICE HANDOUT.

UM, WE WERE ANTICIPATING POTENTIALLY HAVING THE ABILITY TO SHOW A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, BUT, UH, THESE SLIDES ARE GOING TO DO JUST FINE.

SO WITH THAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG UPDATE FOR THE WORKING GROUP.

TO SAY WHAT THAT VIOLATION IS, SECRETARY LEARNER DANBURG.

SO THE FIRST THING WAS THE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE REPORTING.

WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT.

SO THE NEXT THING IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS, UM, THE COMPLAINTS THAT, UM, SO WE WROTE A RESOLUTION WHICH WAS RENAMED RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL.

UM, I THINK ALL OF THE WHEREAS IS, ARE STILL APPROPRIATE.

BASICALLY THE ISSUE IS THAT WE HAVE WAY PEOPLE FILING COMPLAINTS, THE LAWS THAT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED ARE COMPLICATED AND THESE COMPLAINTS OCCASIONALLY, OR MAYBE OFTEN, BUT IT STICKS IN MY MIND, UM, GET DISMISSED BASED ON TECHNICALITIES THAT, UM, ARE THE RESULT OF PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT SECTION OF CODE IS BEING VIOLATED.

SO, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION SAYS TO TAKE AWAY FROM SECTION TWO DASH 7 41 B THAT REQUIRES THAT THE, UM, SECTION OF CODE OR CHARTER PROVISION ACTUALLY BE LISTED IN TO REMOVE THAT.

UM, I HAD INITIALLY, AND WE KIND OF SEEM TO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE IDEA THAT THE WRITTEN NOTICE, UM, FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, INSTEAD WHAT'S SPECIFIED THE CODE SECTION OR CHARTER PROVISION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, BUT THE BIG ISSUE THAT'S RAISED WITH HAVING THAT WRITTEN NOTICE SPECIFY THE SECTION OF CODE OR CHARTER IS WHO'S SUPPOSED TO DO IT RIGHT.

AND I'M LIKE HIM, YOU KNOW WHAT MY THINKING BEING WELL, THE CHAIR ALREADY WAS DOING THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND THAT THE CHAIR ALWAYS HAD HELP FROM EITHER CITY LEGAL OR OUTSIDE COUNSEL IF LEGAL IS CONFLICTED.

BUT, UM, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK FROM LYNN, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S MAYBE NOT THE BEST IDEA.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT? DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? OR SHOULD I JUST GO ON WITH AN ALTERNATIVE IDEA? WELL, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, STANDARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE CHARTER SETS FORTH THE WHO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS CAN REPRESENT.

AND IT'S NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AND I CAN SAY THAT I CONTINUALLY GET REQUESTS THAT I HAVE TO TELL A COMPLAINANT OR RESPONDENT.

I CAN'T PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE.

HERE'S THE PROCEDURE, UM, CONSULT YOUR OWN ATTORNEY.

SO, UM, UNDERSTOOD.

SO AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT YOU WORK FOR ME, UM, IT SEEMS THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMISSION ITSELF TO FIGURE OUT THE SECTION OF CODE OR CHARTER PROVISION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IN THE TEENY, ANY PRINT ON THESE SLIDES INSTEAD, I THINK IT'S THE ALTERNATIVE IS IF AT THE END OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION DECIDES THAT A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD.

THE COMMISSION MUST ALSO SPECIFY THE CODE SECTION OR CHARTER PROVISION THAT'S BEEN VIOLATED.

THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE CODE.

I THINK IT COULD BE ADDED TO SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 44 D AND THEN IT DOESN'T FALL ALL ON THE CHAIR.

I MEAN, THE CHAIR CAN GET IT WRONG TOO.

JUST LIKE A LAY PERSON.

THE CHAIR COULD HYPOTHETICALLY EVEN BE A LAY PERSON.

UM, SO I THINK IF THE CHAIR, IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE

[00:55:01]

SO, UH, THAT'S CLEAR, ARE YOU SAYING THAT BASED ON THE FACTS THAT ARE ALLEGED THEN, SO WE WOULD BE ASSOCIATING.

WE WOULD BE BASICALLY ASSESSING THE FACTS, WHETHER THEY'RE TRUE AND ACCURATE AND THEN NO, NOT WHETHER THEY'RE TRUE AND ACCURATE, BUT WHETHER THERE'S REAL LEVEL GREEN GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, WE'VE REPEATEDLY SEEN VIOLATIONS WHERE, UM, BUT EITHER WHATEVER WAS DONE OR MONEY WAS RAISED AND THERE WAS NO PACK AND NO, UM, MAYBE NO FILING AT ALL OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OR EXPENDITURES, BECAUSE THERE WAS A CHOICE NOT TO FILE A PACK.

WHEN WE SEE THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE VIOLATION IS.

SO WE WENT ON, I'M NOT SAYING WHETHER IT'S REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS HAPPENS, WHETHER THE FACTS ALLEGED SOMETHING RELEVANT IN THE COAST, WE ALWAYS DO IN A PRELIMINARY HEARING, WE HEAR WHAT IS THE COMPLAINT AND WE, BUT YEAH, I JUST, THAT THAT STILL DOESN'T GET OVER.

WELL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TRUE.

THEY STILL MAY HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

UM, BUT WHAT THEY DESCRIBE IS IN OUR JURISDICTION AND WE BELIEVE THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED.

THAT'S THE STANDARD FOR A PRELIMINARY HEARING, PRELIMINARY HEARING REALLY ISN'T A BIG DEAL, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY JUST, WE JUST DECIDE WHETHER WE SHOULD GO FORWARD, BUT IF WE'RE GOING FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING, THEN WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO SAY WHAT THE CHARGES ARE.

AND EVEN THEN WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT.

EVEN IF, I MEAN, WE, WE WRITE GENERALLY THE WORST THING THAT CAN COME OUT OF CURRENT CODE RIGHT NOW FROM OUR COMMISSION IS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR, WHICH A FRIEND OF MINE DESCRIBES AS A BIG TRAFFIC TICKET.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A $500 FINE.

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THIS CONDITION.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF YOU RAISED COMMISSIONER LOVINS OR WAS RAISING PREVIOUSLY THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS, THE DUE PROCESS, AS LONG AS WE'RE SAYING WHAT THE CHARGE IS FOR THE FINAL HEARING, I THINK DUE PROCESS CONCERNS SHOULD BE SATISFIED AND IT DOES PUT MORE WORK ON THE COMMISSION THAT NOW WE HAVE TO CHOOSE THE SECTION OF CODE, BUT TO ME THAT'S SUPERIOR TO SEEING, UM, YOU KNOW, CLEAR EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS IN MY MIND, AND THEN WE HAVE TO DISMISS IT BECAUSE THEY CITE THE WRONG SECTION OF CODE.

IF ANYONE'S GOT, IF ANYONE IS GOING TO KNOW WHAT SECTION OF CODE IS POTENTIALLY BEING VIOLATED, IT'S A CITY AUDITOR.

UH, AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY OFFER, UM, AND INVITE ANY COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, AND OPINIONS ABOUT THIS.

UH, WE, WE THOUGHT WE HAD A, UH, RECOMMENDATION AND LANGUAGE THAT WAS GOING TO WORK.

AND THEN OVER THE PAST, THIS WAS A MONDAY NIGHT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WORKING GROUP, I THINK WAS, IT WAS MONDAY OR TUESDAY THAT WE WAS MONDAY THAT WE MET, UH, VIRTUALLY AND DISCUSSED AND KIND OF SHARED SCREEN HAMMERED OUT THIS RECOMMENDATION AND THEN OVER THE PAST DOING THIS WORK RIGHT.

UM, AND, UH, IT BECAME WITH SOME FEEDBACK, IT WAS KIND OF CLEAR THAT MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE WORK TO DO.

UH, AND THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO OFFER IS THAT WITHIN OUR OWN WORKING GROUP, IF YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE AGENDA, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO IS WE SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT PAST CASES AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, THIS IS A KIND OF LESSONS LEARNED WORKING GROUP.

AND AS WE DISCUSSED WITHIN OUR WORKING GROUP DISCOVERED, UH, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS ON HOW PAST CASES WERE HANDLED AND DECISIONS AND DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE.

AND NONETHELESS, WE STILL KIND OF CAME TO A CONSENSUS THAT THIS IS, THIS SPECIFICALLY IS AN ISSUE, HOW WE, HOW WE TREAT COMPLAINTS COMING IN AND HOW WE DON'T WANT TO BE OVERLY BURDENSOME ON THE COMPLAINANT WHEN THE COMPLAINANT IS OFTEN A LAY-PERSON.

UM, AND I'LL ALSO BRIEFLY MENTION THAT LYNN, UH, PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK WHEN WE ASKED HER FOR IT AND HAD A SUGGESTION ABOUT TREATING, PUT, PLACING A DIFFERENT BURDEN OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU SPECIFY THE CODE, TREATING THE COMPLAINANT DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT IS THE CITY AUDITOR OR CITY ATTORNEY SAYING THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE TO SPECIFY, BECAUSE

[01:00:01]

UM, AND, UH, NOT HAVING THAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR A LAYPERSON FILING A COMPLAINT.

UM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER I'LL I'LL LIKE YOU SAID, YOU RAISED YOUR HAND, UM, AND THEN I'LL GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

SO GO AHEAD.

UM, DID Y'ALL CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, ADDING LANGUAGE? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THIS WAS LIKE KIND OF LAST MINUTE CHANGE UP, I GUESS, BUT, UM, JUST SPECIFYING THAT, UM, IN AN ALLEGATION CITING THE WRONG CODE AS BEING VIOLATED SHALL NOT BE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL.

UM, AND THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO SELECT A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, SECTION OF THE CODE.

IF A VIOLATION IS FOUND, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT'S A, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

UH, IN SOMETHING THAT I HAD GRAPPLED WITH INITIALLY, UH, THE, THE EVOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE, UH, IT WAS, UH, TO OUR WORKING GROUP TO THINK ABOUT WITHIN OUR WORKING GROUP.

I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO COME UP WITH IDEAS.

I TRIED TO COME UP WITH IDEAS AND WAS MY OWN WORST ENEMY AND THINKING UP, WELL, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT WORKABLE.

THIS MIGHT BE A PROBLEM.

AND ON THAT FRONT, UH, I THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING A PROVISION IN CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT, UH, FOR LIKE A SIMPLE TECHNICAL, LIKE A SCRIBNER'S ERROR, SO TO SPEAK IN WRITING THE WRONG NUMBER ON THE COMPLAINT FORM THAT LIKE THE SECTION NUMBER WAS JUST WRONG.

MAYBE IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CODE, OR THEY DESCRIBE A CLEAR CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION, BUT THEY ACCIDENTALLY WROTE TWO DASH SEVEN INSTEAD OF TWO DASH TWO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UM, IT BECAME QUICKLY HARD TO DELINEATE WHAT WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO DESCRIBE THAT ERROR.

AND IT, AGAIN, SORT OF PUT POWER IN THE MORE POWER IN THE CHAIR TO DECIDE WHAT IS, AND ISN'T WHAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS TRYING TO DO SO TO SPEAK OR WHAT THE VIOLATION REALLY WAS.

UM, BUT YEAH, BUT I GUESS, I MEAN MORE EVEN SUBSTANTIVELY WHERE THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE CONDUCT ALLEGED IS IN FACT, A VIOLATION OF THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE OVER WHICH WE HAVE JURISDICTION, THE FACT OF THE COMPLAINANT NOT CITING THE RIGHT SECTION SHOULD NOT BE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.

SO KIND OF GOING BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, IF WE WANT TO HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE A FINDING THAT IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE LIKE TAKING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE, WHAT WOULD THE VIOLATION BE? IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF, YOU KNOW, AND WE'D FIND IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THESE THREE SECTIONS OR THIS ONE SECTION.

AND WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS THAT VIOLATION.

JUST IF THE FACTS ENDED UP BEING TRUE, IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF XYZ CODE.

SO WE CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION PRELIMINARILY.

UM, BUT I GUESS I JUST WANT TO, EVEN REGARDLESS OF WHICH SORT OF SPECIFIC DIRECTION WE GO IN, I THINK WE NEED TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE ABOUT WHAT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE COMPLAINANT, UM, AT EITHER, YOU KNOW, CAUSE EVEN RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T SAY NECESSARILY THAT IT'S A GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL, BUT MAKING IT CLEAR CAUSE THEY SHALL DO IT, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T SAY ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO AMEND THE US CAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO IT PROPERLY.

UH, APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.

I'M GOING TO, I SEE A NUMBER OF HANDS.

UM, I'M GOING TO GO COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS DANBURG LEARNER IN THAT ORDER.

SO COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD AND MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

PARDON ME ON, ON MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS, BUT IT SEEMS AS IF YOU'RE SAYING, THEY SAID THAT THIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE BOTH THE DRAFTER OF WHAT I SEE AS A CHARGING INSTRUMENT BASED ON JUST OBSCURE FACTS BROUGHT IN BY COMPLAINANT AND THEN PRESIDE AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THOSE FACTS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT, WHICH WE'VE KIND OF GIVEN A PRELIMINARY THUMBS UP TO AND CODE DOES ALLOW THAT WE ARE EVEN ALLOWED TO FILE COMPLAINTS.

SO CHANGING A DETAIL OF A COMPLAINT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A BIG STRETCH WHEN WE'RE ALREADY ALLOWED TO FILE COMPLAINTS.

BUT IT'S WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THAT WE'RE LIKE ACCUSER AND JURY.

WE'RE BOTH ADVOCATE AND JUDGE AND THERE IS, I MEAN IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE AND WE'VE NEVER DONE IT BECAUSE OF THAT.

I WOULD SAY REAL QUICK, I'M GOING TO, UH, I LOVE THE CONVERSATION, UH, BUT UH, KIND OF THE ONE AT A TIME, I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE EVERYONE ADDRESS THE CHAIR AND THE REALLY ROBERT'S RULE SORT OF WAY.

BUT UH, UH, ONE AT A TIME APPROACH TO MAKING COMMENTS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE'RE OVERSTEPPING IN DRAFTING A CHARGING INSTRUMENT FOR WHICH WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE THE FACT-FINDER FACT-FINDER AND INTERPRET OF THE LAW FOR JUST AS A, AS A CRIMINAL LAWYER.

SO IT, FOR ME, I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUES THERE

[01:05:01]

AND, UH, DECIDE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GIVE THE INITIAL FEEDBACK ON THE COMPLAINT.

SO SEC COMMISSIONER AND THEN SECRETARY LEARNER HAD HER HANDS, UM, YES.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SAID EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING ABOUT THIS.

I THINK, UM, EVEN MORE CLEARLY THAN I DID THEN I LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE IS THE ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE IN FACT THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

IF SOMEONE COMES IN WITH, IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS OF FIVE THINGS, WE HAVE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WE MAY SAY THERE IS A REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THESE TWO MAY HAVE OCCURRED, BUT NOT THESE THREE.

UH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE SPECIFYING BETWEEN THEM.

MY PROBLEM IS GIVING NOTICE, GIVING A CHANCE TO RESPOND EVEN TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ONE OF THE CASES COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS, IS TROUBLED ABOUT.

AND I REMEMBER IT VERY VIVIDLY.

THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT LIKE THE WAY THAT SHE WAS SPOKEN TO RESPECTED, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

BUT THOSE ARE CODE, YOU KNOW, THOSE AREN'T WITHIN THE CODE AS I WAS HEARING THEM AT THE TIME.

AND SO EVEN GOING TO A PRELIMINARY HEARING WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE, CAUSE IT, IT YOU'RE RIGHT.

UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, IT IS BASICALLY A CHARGING DOCUMENT.

UM, SO AS IT PROCEEDS, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SAYING THAT WE, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, NOT FIND ON SOME, BUT FIND ON OTHERS, BUT HOW DO YOU GET THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO GIVE FAIR NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED? I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND SECRETARY LERNER, GO AHEAD.

WELL, NOT LEADS TO, SO WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS THIS THAT WHEN SOMEONE COMES UP, SO THERE'S NO REASON WE ARE IN A CON IN SOME WAYS WE'RE IN A CONVERSATION WITH THE PEOPLE WHO COME BEFORE US.

SO IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, RATHER THAN US DECIDING WHAT IT SHOULD BE, WE CAN ENTER IT.

WE CAN ENGAGE IN A CONVERSATION AND SORT OF SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WE HEAR IS DOESN'T, THERE'S NOT A CAMPAIGN FINANCE ISSUE.

IT SOUNDS MORE AKIN TO THIS CHAPTER.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK AND RECONSIDER AND AMEND YOUR COMPLAINT, THEN YOU CAN COME BACK.

AND SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT JUST SHUTTING THE DOOR ON THEM AND WE CAN, BUT WE CAN GUIDE THEM, BUT NOT WRITE IT FOR THEM.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S UP TO THEM TO, TO DETERMINE WHAT, WHAT IT REALLY SHOULD BE.

BUT WE ARE AN EXPERT BODY AND CAN HELP.

AND WE, I DO WANT TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT SUBJECT TO, YOU KNOW, TRIAL PROCEDURE, CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE SAME WAY, A COURT OF LAWS THAT SAID, BECAUSE THERE'S THIS MISDEMEANOR PENALTY, WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND, AND, AND BE AS CAREFUL AS WE CAN.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THAT AS A, AS AN ALTERNATIVE.

I APPRECIATE THAT ONE.

UH, ONE NOTE THAT I'LL MAKE THE CLASS C MISDEMEANOR THAT IS SITS AS A SANCTION UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN THAT, UH, CAN BE DEPLOYED.

IT IS NOT, WE CANNOT LEVY THAT LIKE THAT IS NOT A SANCTION THAT WE, WE DO NOT SENTENCE SOMEONE UNDER A CLASS C, WE REFER IT FOR PROSECUTION.

THAT IS, AND THAT IS THE HARDEST SANCTION REFERRAL TO PROSECUTION.

UH, AND THEN AF UNDER REFERRAL TO PROSECUTION, IT'S VARYING LEVELS OF A LETTER, UM, WHICH WE'LL GET TO SANCTIONS IN A SECOND.

UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE IS TO WHAT DEGREE SHOULD WE BE ABLE TO ALLOW A COMPLAINT TO CHANGE OVER THE LIFE OF THE COMPLAINT? SO IN A NORMAL, UH, CIVIL PROCEEDING, YOU CAN AMEND COMPLAINTS.

UH, WE DON'T HAVE THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND IN THE CODE THAT GOVERNS COMPLAINTS.

UM, SO THE, THE CONFLICT THAT I SEE PERSONALLY IS THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS, BUT THEY EXTEND THE TIME THAT A COMPLAINT WOULD TAKE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD HAVE A, INSTEAD OF AN INITIAL JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE CHAIR MAKES WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME, MAYBE IT IS AN AUTOMATIC SET FOR THE NEXT FULL COMMISSION MEETING.

AND THEN THE COMMISSION CAN HERE

[01:10:01]

AND THEN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON WHAT THE FINAL ALLEGED CODE VIOLATIONS ARE THAT COULD PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, BUT THAT ADDS ANOTHER, UH, 30 DAYS OR MORE TO WHAT ALREADY SHOULD BE A VERY QUICK PROCESS.

UM, I'VE COMPLAINED ABOUT HOW LONG SOME OF OUR COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.

UH, SO, SO I THINK THAT THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

THE, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD COME UP WITH, UH, I THINK DOES NOT QUITE MEET, DOES NOT QUITE PASS.

UH, THE, UH, I'M TRYING TO THINK MY BRAIN IS FAILING ON BOARDS RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS ME.

I WILL CALL IT A SMELL, TEST THE SMELL, TEST ON, UH, WHAT THE CHAIRS SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO.

AND, AND I'LL LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT IN THE WORKING GROUP, I SPECIFICALLY SAID, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

UM, BUT, UH, I THINK, I THINK IT'S REALLY WORTH THINKING ABOUT WHAT DOES A LAY PERSON ENCOUNTER WHEN THEY SEE OUR COMMISSION? DO THEY SEE A SHEER BUREAUCRACY AND, UH, JUST A MINEFIELD OF TECHNICALITIES OR DO THEY SEE A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN HAVE A FAIR SHAKE AND ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR GRIEVANCES REDRESSED? UM, AND, AND THAT REALLY IS THE FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVATION, UNDERSTANDING THAT NOTICE IS A REALLY IMPORTANT FACTOR.

SOMEONE ON THE RECEIVING END, I MEAN, YES, THE WORST THAT HAPPENS, WE'VE NEVER EVEN REFERRED A COMPLAINT TO PROSECUTION.

I THINK THE ONLY THING WE'VE DONE ARE VARYING LEVELS OF ANGRY LETTER.

UM, BUT EVEN STILL, UM, I MEAN, WE WOULD BE BLIND IF WE SAID THAT THAT WAS, THAT WAS IT, THERE ARE SERIOUS REPUTATIONAL HARM AND DAMAGE THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME BEFORE US GET RUN IN THE STATESMEN AND IN OTHER PUBLICATIONS, UM, AND CAN HAVE CAREER IMPACTS IF SOMEONE'S JOB, UH, LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON THEM BEING A RELIABLE PERSON, LIKE AN EXPERT WITNESS.

UM, IF, YOU KNOW, I CAN IMAGINE SOMEONE WHO MAKES THEIR LIVING ON BEING AN EXPERT WITNESS, BEING IMPEACHED BY AN ATTORNEY SAYING, NOW HOW ETHICAL ARE YOU, UM, IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, I GUESS, BUT IN ANY EVENT.

SO I, I DON'T WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT SANCTIONS AT SOME POINT SOON.

AND OUR WORKING GROUP HAS DECIDED TO MAKE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR PRIORITIES COMING UP.

UM, BUT I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE BALANCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO STRIKE THUG, TALKING ABOUT BALANCE.

GOOD SECRETARY.

THE SECOND THING THAT I WANTED TO SAY WAS, I THINK THE HOUSE IS, THIS IS HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE, WHEN THEY INVOKE IT OR WHEN IT'S NEEDED.

I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT STILL 80% OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME HERE WILL HAVE A STATED VIOLATION BECAUSE THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROFESSIONALLY COMING IN FRONT OF OUR COMMISSION.

LIKE THEY'RE COMING HERE ALL THE TIME.

AND SO I THINK THAT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO NEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE.

LIKE THIS WILL BE A PART OF OUR PROCEDURE IN EVERY SINGLE CASE.

I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE PLENTY THAT MAKE THEIR, MAKE THEIR COMPLAINT AND THEY STICK WITH IT.

SO I TOLD HIM TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT HOW MANY, SO TO YOUR POINT ABOUT LENGTHENING THE TIMELINE, IT MAY NOT BE IN EVERY CASE.

NO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I'VE GOT, INSTEAD OF SPIT BALLING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I'M GETTING IDEAS AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEM.

SO I THINK I SAW YOUR HAND AND THEN STAMPED.

AND SO COMMISSIONER LARRY AND THEN COMMISSIONER STANTON.

YEAH, I THINK I MEANT TO SAY THIS EARLIER, BUT I, YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE SHALL SPECIFY ACTIONS ALLEGED TO BE A VIOLATION.

I JUST FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD STILL MAKE IT THE BASELINE THAT PEOPLE DO ALLEGED VIOLATION AND WHAT THE VIOLATION IS OF, AND THEN FIGURE OUT LIKE EITHER AN AMENDMENT PROCESS.

BUT I THINK, YEAH, KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING AROUND IS JUST, I THINK THIS GOES TOO FAR.

UM, I, I DO, UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER DANBURG MENTIONED NOTICE, AND I DO SEE THE NOTICE ISSUE AND JUST SORT OF LIKE LETTING PEOPLE COME WITH CONDUCT ALLEGATION, AND THEN WE SORT OF MAKE A DETERMINATION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, UM, OF WHAT THE VIOLATIONS MIGHT BE.

SO I TAKE YOUR POINT ON THAT.

UM, I AM LOSING MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT NOW I'M NOT USED TO THIS ANYMORE, BUT, UM, YEAH.

SO I THINK JUST HAVE FIGURING OUT SORT OF A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT PROCESS, EVEN IF IT EXTENDS OUT THE TIME AND, OH, SORRY.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO SAY TYING BACK TO SOME OF THE POINTS IN EARLIER AGENDA ITEMS OF SORT OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE FUNCTION, YOU KNOW, PROPHYLACTICALLY TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS, YOU KNOW, OUR EDUCATION

[01:15:01]

CAMPAIGN ON WHAT WE DO.

AND MAYBE WE COME UP WITH, TO THE EXTENT IT'S PERMISSIVE, PERMISSIBLE GUIDELINES ON VIOLATIONS THAT WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT EXAMPLES, LIKE, OKAY, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR, THIS WOULD BE THIS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF GENERAL GUIDANCE ON WHAT ARE SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, MOST REGULARLY VIOLATED AND WHAT THAT CONDUCT COULD LOOK LIKE.

UM, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO TALK TO LYNN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT KIND OF THE CONTOURS OF WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO.

UM, BUT YEAH, SO PROPHYLACTIC, THEY WOULD SAY LET'S DO SOME MORE EDUCATING AND MAYBE COME UP WITH SOME GUIDELINES.

GREAT SUGGESTIONS.

I'LL BRIEFLY SAY THAT AT OUR, AT OUR LAST MEETING, I THINK WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, UH, HAVING ON THE COMPLAINT FORM KIND OF AN APPENDIX, UH, FOR A POTENTIAL COMPLAINANT TO REFER, TO, TO SAVE EMT EXAMPLES.

UH, IF A, YOU KNOW, PLAIN LANGUAGE, IF A CITY OFFICIAL USES THEIR CITY RESOURCES FOR THEIR OWN PRIVATE GAME, THAT'S THIS CODE.

IF YOU SEE A CAMPAIGN DOING THIS OR THEY DIDN'T FILE THIS REPORT, THAT'S THIS CODE TO GIVE KIND OF GUIDING EXAMPLES ON THE COMPLAINT FORM ITSELF, UM, DEFINING, PICKING, PICKING, WHICH ONES WERE GOING TO BE, UH, POTENTIALLY INCLUDED IN THAT WAS A CHALLENGE AND OTHER IDEAS THAT WE CONSIDERED AS WELL WAS MAYBE HAVING A CHECKLIST.

UM, SO THAT THE, I MEAN, THAT WAS ITS OWN CAN OF WORMS. UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE CODE CITY CODE SAYS SPECIFIED THE SECTION THAT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, UM, THINKING, WELL, IF WE JUST LIST EVERY SINGLE SECTION ON THE COMPLAINT FORM AND LIKE HAVE A LITTLE CHECK BOX NEXT TO IT, UM, TWO PROBLEMS WITH THAT ONE WAS, UH, HOW DO WE DEFINE, YEAH, WELL, HOW DO WE DEFINE EVERY SINGLE VIOLATION? UM, WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION, THERE COULD BE CREATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF OUR CODE THAT ARE WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION AND THEN SEPARATELY, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE PERSON WHO CHECKS EVERY SINGLE BOX? UM, YEAH.

AND THEN I THINK JUST, UM, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, INSTEAD OF SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS, WE CAN TAKE OUR CASES, SUMMARIZE THEM AND SAY, IN THIS CASE, THIS WAS FOUND, THESE ARE THE F YOU KNOW, LIKE A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND WHAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE.

SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT TOWING THE LINE OF AN ADVISORY OPINION.

WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST HISTORICALLY SAYING, OKAY, IN THIS CASE WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WAS RUNNING A FOOD TRUCK AND USED HIS LAPTOP TO MAKE ADVERTISEMENTS, IT WAS FOUND TO BE A VIOLATION OF THIS.

SO JUST SUMMARIZING PAST CASES, THE FACTS AND WHAT THEY WERE FOUND TO BE VIOLATIONS OF.

SAME FACTS, UH, DOES THE COMMISSION ITSELF ON ITS OWN ACCORD, SAY, LIKE NOT COMPLAINANT, WE'VE GOT THIS AND AS WE'RE CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED TO DO INITIATE OUR OWN COMPLAINT AND THEN GO TO THAT FINAL HEARING.

UM, IT WAS, THERE WAS THE COOK, SORRY, COMMISSIONER STANTON AND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SUCH HERE.

I WAS THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES AS YOU AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

AND MY QUESTION WAS COURTNEY QUITTING, THE NOTICE CHANGE.

SO WE PROVIDE NOTICE.

I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

AND IN THAT NOTICE, WHETHER IT'S FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING OR THE FINAL HEARING, WHICHEVER HEARING IT IS WHEN YOU PROVIDE NOTICE STATE, WHAT CODE THE COMPLAINANT THINKS HAS BEEN VIOLATED, RIGHT.

AND THAT SHOULD COME FROM THE FORM THAT THEY FILL OUT THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL FILLS OUT.

BUT THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT MAY NOT BE THE SAME CODE, OR THAT MAY NOT BE THE DISPOSITION AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THAT WHEN THE FINAL HEARING COMES ABOUT MAYBE THE VIOLATIONS, THE CODES THAT ARE VIOLATED, YOU KNOW, USING, UM, COMMISSIONER DANVERS, UM, EXAMPLES OF THE FIVE HERE, IT'S ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, ONLY THESE TWO.

SO, AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T HAVE THAT, WHY THAT ISN'T BUILT IN, BECAUSE AS YOU HAD MENTIONED CHAIR, BUT IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, YOU, YOU CAN CHANGE THE CHARGE, RIGHT.

OR THE, THE NOTICE OR WITH NEW, UH, WITH NEW CAUSES OF ACTION OR INJURIES.

SO ONE, I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY ASK A QUESTION TO OUR COUNCIL REAL QUICK, AND THEN I'LL GET TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SCOTT, OR, SORRY, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE.

AND THEN WE'LL KNOW THE TWO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, SECRETARY LERNER SAID.

AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT.

I, I BELIEVE IN, I THINK THERE'S MORE VALUE IN EMPOWERING THE COMPLAINANT, RATHER THAN HERE.

YOU, YOU SUBMIT THIS COMPLAINT AND WE, WE FIX IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT RIGHT.

THAT TAKES AWAY THE COMPLAINANTS

[01:20:01]

POWER.

SO IN THAT, IN THIS DIALOGUE THAT WE HAVE IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WE CAN, AS A COMMISSION, SAY, HERE'S WHERE WE'VE WHERE WE ARE VOTING.

OR WE THINK THAT THE CODE'S BEEN VIOLATED, BUT PUT IT BACK ON THE COMPLAINANT TO EITHER AGREE, BECAUSE I CAN SEE THAT THERE MAY BE POTENTIALLY SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, I CAN FAIL AT NOT AGREEING WITH OUR DETERMINATION OF WHAT CODES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

AND DESPITE OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE THINK THAT THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH.

THE COMPLAINANT MAY SAY, WELL, I DON'T AGREE.

I WANT TO COMPLAIN.

AND I WANT TO MAKE MY COMPLAINT ON THIS CODE REGARDLESS OF A VERBAL STAND ON IT.

SO I'M THINKING WHAT ABOUT WE CAN SUGGEST IT, BUT THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE FINAL SAY, SO WITH YES.

PROCEED WITH THAT, THAT LIST OF CODE THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT I'M SAYING? I'M KIND OF, NO, I THINK IT DOES.

AND I THINK, UM, THE THERE'S, THERE'S ONE, UH, CAVEAT WHEN WE MAKE COMPARISONS, I THINK, TO THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

UM, AND THAT IS THAT IN THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT'S TYPICALLY TWO PARTIES.

UH, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SPEAK VERY IDEALIZED RIGHT NOW IN AN IDEAL WORLD, TWO PARTIES ON EQUAL FOOTING OVER A PRIVATE INJURY, UM, BE IT A CONTRACT, BE IT AN ACCIDENT, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE, THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT NECESSARILY SEEKING TO ENACT LIKE A BROADER ENFORCE SOME KIND OF PUBLIC FUNCTION THAT MAKES SENSE.

I'LL GET TO IT.

I PROMISE, UH, WE DON'T HAVE A CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROSECUTOR.

SO WE HAVE A CITY AUDITOR WHO IS LIKE THE CITY ETHICS, THE CITY OFFICIAL CITY EMPLOYEE PROSECUTOR.

IF SOMEONE HAS A COMPLAINT ABOUT A CITY EMPLOYEE USING THEIR RESOURCES INAPPROPRIATELY, DEPENDING ON THE EMPLOYEE AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION THAT THEY SEND A SUBMITTED TIP TO THE CITY AUDITOR, THE CITY AUDITOR INVESTIGATES, AND THEY ARE THE COMPLAINANT.

THEY BRING THE COMPLAINT TO ENFORCE, TO HELP ENFORCE THE CITY CODE IN SPECIFICALLY TWO DASH SEVEN.

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE, BUT IT IS, BUT HOW OUR CAMPAIGNS RUN HAVE A HUMONGOUS IMPACT.

IT'S A HUMONGOUS PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN.

UH, IT IS ENFORCED ALMOST, I THINK EXCLUSIVELY BY PRIVATE CITIZENS BY, UH, SOMETIMES THE, UH, VERY LATE PERSON, SOMETIMES A SOPHISTICATED CAMPAIGN OPERATIVE, RIGHT, OR A POLITICO WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT IN ANY EVENT THERE, THAT IS HOW THESE RULES ARE ENFORCED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

AND SO I THINK TO, UH, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GIVING THE COMPLAINANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, TAKE WHAT WE THINK THE VIOLATION SHOULD BE AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

THIS WAS A PROBLEM THAT I HAD IN, UH, A PRIOR CASE.

AND THIS KIND OF RELATES TO HOW WE ALLOWED A SETTLEMENT TO HAPPEN IN A CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE, UH, BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THIS IS FINE.

THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THIS.

IT SORT OF TOOK IT, THE CONVERSE OF EMPOWERING THE COMPLAINANT IS TO DISEMPOWER THE COMMISSION.

UH, IF THERE IS, FOR EXAMPLE, A VERY CLEAR VIOLATION, UH, OR SOMETHING WRONG HAPPENED, UM, TO, TO NOT BE ABLE TO ACT ON IT, I FEEL LIKE IS A PROBLEM.

UH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT POTENTIAL, RIGHT? SO WE, YOU COULD THINK OF IT THIS WAY.

UH, CURRENTLY THE WAY IT WORKS, SOMEONE FILES A COMPLAINT, HOPEFULLY AT THE NEXT SCHEDULED PRELIMINARY HEARING OR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE COMMISSION, THERE IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING.

AND THEN IN THE LIKE BEST CASES, UH, AT THE NEXT MONTH MEETING, THERE IS A FINAL HEARING THAT IS LIKE, BOOM, BOOM, IDEAL IN TERMS OF TIMING, UH, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A COURTROOM, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A VERY EFFICIENT AND SPEEDY PROCESS.

UM, SO YOU IMAGINE WHAT AN AMENDMENT PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

ONE POSSIBILITY IS THAT THERE IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

IT COMES, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT CODE, THIS THE COMPLAINT HAS A DEFECT.

UH, AND WHILE THERE ARE SOME DISTURBING FACTS, IF WE JUST GO, AND IF WE'RE IN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE COMPLAINT, WE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO DO YOU GIVE LEAVE FOR A COMPLAINANT TO AMEND IN, HAVE ANOTHER PRELIMINARY HEARING UNDER ANOTHER SECTION OF CODE, BUT THE

[01:25:01]

UM, SO I, IT STRETCHES OUT THE TIME FOR A COMPLAINT IS ONE ISSUE.

UM, AND THEN WHO, WHO WE'RE EMPOWERING TO MOVE FORWARD, I THINK IS ANOTHER THING REALLY WORTH CONSIDERING.

UM, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR ELECTIONS THAT HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WE COULD HAVE PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, UH, HAVING COMPLAINTS IN THEIR DISAGREEMENTS AND THEN SETTLING IT AMONGST THEMSELVES, NOT NECESSARILY TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ELECTIONS THAT, UH, MAY HAVE HAD VIOLATIONS IN THEM.

SO JUST WANTED TO RAISE IT.

I SEE, I SAW HANDS IN NOTE-TAKING, I'M GOING TO GO COMMISSIONER LEVIN'S, UH, SORRY, GREENBERG LEVIN'S, UH, AND THEN THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION GONE, VERY CIRCULAR WE'VE COME BACK TO IDEAS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TWO MEETINGS AGO AND, UM, SORT OF REJECTED AS BEING A DUE PROCESS ISSUE.

AND I THINK THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE.

I THINK AT LEAST NOT TONIGHT THAT WE SHOULD MOVE ON WITH THE REST OF THE REPORT FROM THE WORKING GROUP, UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION.

I MEAN, I JUST, THIS WHOLE THING, VERY FRUSTRATING, FRUSTRATING AS THE PEOPLE WHO FILE COMPLAINTS AND GET THEM DISMISSED ON A TECHNICALITY.

OR FOR THE NEXT MEETING, BUT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL.

I DO WANT TO AT LEAST, UH, LEAVE THE FLOOR OPEN FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE COMMENTS AND RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS IDEA SPECIFICALLY.

UM, BECAUSE I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, I FEEL, UH, MYSELF, UH, PERSONALLY, MAYBE A LITTLE FRUSTRATED THAT WE COULDN'T MAKE MORE PROGRESS.

I MEAN, I STAYED UP TILL 11 O'CLOCK ON MONDAY NIGHT, TYPING OUT THE RESOLUTION ONLY TO FIND THAT WE'VE GOT, UH, SOME CONSIDERATIONS NOT GREAT, UH, FOR MY SLEEP PATTERNS, BUT IN ANY EVENT, UM, TH THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS IN THE OPEN.

SO IF ANYONE DOES HAVE COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ON THE IDEA OF TWEAKING THESE SECTIONS OF CODE, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THEM.

AND THEN I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON.

SO GREAT.

UH, IN LIGHT OF THAT, I THINK IT'S THE FIRST THING I'LL SAY IS, UM, JUST AS, AS A GENERAL MATTER, I'M, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BEAT THE DEAD HORSE IF, AS A COMMISSION, WE KIND OF THINK WE'RE, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO MOVE FORWARD ON, ON THIS RECOMMENDATION.

UM, IF WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT MORE DELIBERATE, THEN WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR POINTS.

I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

UH, I DON'T, I DON'T MEAN THAT, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, NO APOLOGY NECESSARY TO ME.

IF WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES FOR THIS, AND I'M PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING.

AND THAT THAT'S PERFECTLY FAIR IF, AND SO IF, UM, I THINK ALREADY PUSHING BACK RATHER THAN ENCOURAGING YEAH, EXACTLY WHAT I SEE AND THAT'S FAIR, AND THAT'S HOW VOTES GO SOMETIMES OR HAVE MEETING IT GOES.

AND I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THE POINT FOR THE SAKE OF HEARING MYSELF.

I MEAN, I HAVE A LOVELY VOICE, BUT I DON'T NEED TO HEAR IT NECESSARILY.

NO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I TRY MY BEST TO KIND OF READ THE ROOM AS WELL, UM, IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

AND I THINK IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT ON THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE TYPED UP AND PREPARED THAT WE'RE NOT READY TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT, UM, EVEN TO KIND OF TWEAK THE LANGUAGE, UM, THAT WE HAVE TO ACCOMPLISH ONE GOAL OR ANOTHER, BUT I STILL, BECAUSE IT'S SO RARE THAT ALL OF OUR GREAT MINDS ARE IN ONE ROOM.

UM, I DO WANT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES UNDERLYING THESE, SAY THIS SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION OR THE ISSUE AT HAND, WHICH IS DISMISSING LAY PEOPLE, COMPLAINTS ON TECHNICALITIES AND HOW WE ADDRESS IT.

SO IN THAT SPIRIT, UM, I SAW A HAND I'M TRYING TO GO IN THE ORDER THAT IT'S OTHER HANDS, UM, SECRETARY LEARNER, LARRY MCCORMICK.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY WE DON'T HAVE VOTES UNTIL WE TAKE A VOTE.

I THINK I TRIED TO ADVANCE THE CONVERSATION BY SAYING MAYBE IT BUILDING ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

WE, WE THINK ABOUT THE PROCEDURE BEING ONE THAT, THAT ENGAGES WITH THE COMPLAINANT TO HELP THEM GO BACK AND AMEND, SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO DO SO, AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT AND COME BACK.

AND WHETHER THAT'S LONGER, THAT'S STILL BETTER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.

AND THEN MAYBE IT MAKES PEOPLE WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT DUE PROCESS FOR THE, THE DEFENDANT, UH, FEEL BETTER ABOUT THAT.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE TABLE EITHER NOW,

[01:30:01]

AND THEN SECRETARY OR COMMISSIONER LAURIE.

UM, YEAH, I WOULD ACTUALLY BE INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR COMMENTS, UM, COMMISSIONER LEVIN, UM, IN PART, BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, YES, IT SEEMS LIKE WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THE VOTES THAT YOU WANT FOR THIS PROPOSAL, BUT WE HAVE, THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED A SOLUTION FOR.

AND SO MAYBE TOGETHER, WE CAN COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, COMPREHENSIVELY, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO WITH THE LANGUAGE? WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE PROCESS? WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO WITH EDUCATING PEOPLE THROUGH THE WEBSITE? LIKE THIS IS THE TIME, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE SLOWER WITH THE HEARING.

SO, UH, BUT I ALSO DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU GUYS ON THE WORKING GROUP, BECAUSE YOU'VE CLEARLY PUT IN A LOT OF EFFORT AND I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY COMING UP WITH THINGS FOR US TO LOOK AT AND TO POTENTIALLY DO.

WE JUST HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE GO FORWARD.

UM, SO HOPEFULLY EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN A TEDIOUS PROCESS, SO WE MIGHT NOT PROVE IT AS IS, YOU GUYS ARE PUSHING US TO GET TO SOMETHING BETTER, YOU KNOW? UM, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

HERE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS, IF, IF PEOPLE COME THAT ARE FILING SOMETHING AND I FELL IT WRONG, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS OTHER, THAT WE CAN ADVISE THEM TO REFILE COME BACK OR WHATEVER THAT NEEDS TO BE IN HERE.

UM, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, WE'RE GETTING IN THE WEEDS AND WE'RE GOING IN CIRCLES AND WE ARE THE EXPERTS.

AND WHEN PEOPLE COME TO US AND HAVE FILED THE WRONG COMPLAINT, AND WE SAY NO DEATHS, OR HOW ABOUT THIS? THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT GIVES US ANY GUIDELINES ABOUT WHAT WE CAN SAY AND WHAT WE CAN RECOMMEND THAT THESE PEOPLE, UH, THAT COME AS NEOPHYTES AND DON'T REALLY KNOW, BUT IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

GET THE BULLET POINTS.

IT'S THIS ARE THIS, AND CUT OUT ALL THIS RAMBLING THAT WE'VE BEEN GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES, COME UP WITH A SENATOR TOO AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO WHEN PEOPLE COME TO THE WRONG THING, BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, AND WE CAN GIVE THEM ADVICE.

AND IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT OKAY.

IN THE STORY, MY 2 CENTS, I APPRECIATE YOUR 2 CENTS, UM, COMMISSIONER DANBURG AND STANTON, AND THEN I'LL HAVE SOME COMMENTS AND I THINK WE CAN ROUND IT OUT.

UH, GO AHEAD.

I THINK THAT WHAT COMMISSIONER LAURIE SAID EARLIER HAS SOME POTENTIAL TO REACH SOME AGREEMENT WHEN SHE SAID CITING THE WRONG CODE SHALL NOT BE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL.

I THINK THERE IS POTENTIAL TO ROUND THAT OUT TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE IT'S NOT GROUNDS SOLELY DOING THAT IS NOT GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL, BUT CAN BE GROUNDS TO POSTPONE AN AMEND.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ALREADY THE CASE THAT THEY CAN REFILE, BUT TO MAKE IT CLEARER THAT JUST DOING A WRONG CODE MIGHT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO GO AGAIN WITH NOTICE IN AN AMENDED FOR I, YOU KNOW, I I'M JUST RIGHT.

YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I THINK, UM, THE, THE FEEDBACK THAT I AM HEARING IS THAT, UH, DESPITE MY RESERVATIONS ABOUT EXTENDING THE PROCESS LONGER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE, MAYBE AMENDING IS KIND OF THE WAY TO GO BECAUSE CURRENTLY UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE, THE WAY IT WOULD WORK, UH, SOMEONE GETS IT WRONG, UH, AND IT IS DISMISSED.

UM, AND OUR CODE SAYS THAT THEY CAN FILE AGAIN, EVEN AT THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, IF, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COMPLAINT THAT'S FILED AND MAKE AN INITIAL JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.

AND I MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION, UH, THEY CAN COME BACK.

UH, THEY THERE'S A SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN OUR CODE TO THEM BEING ABLE TO FILE AGAIN, THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES WHAT IS MORE, TIME-CONSUMING FILING A COMPLAINT AGAIN, OR HAVING A PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR AN AMENDMENT, UH, WHERE MAYBE WE HAVE TWO PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT AT LEAST THERE'S PROPER NOTICE EACH TIME ON THE CODE VIOLATION.

SO SOMETHING WE HAVE SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL AS WELL.

SO IF THE COMMISSIONER, UH, MCCORMICK, YEAH, WRITE DOWN THE GUIDELINES SO THAT THEY WILL KNOW ARE WHATEVER THAT WE NEED TO DO AND GET ON WITH IT.

SO IF I CAN, I'M NOT A LAWYER, I'M SOMETHING ELSE.

I'M A POLITICIAN.

YOU'RE VALUED IS WHAT YOU ARE, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.

UM, SO TO CLARIFY WHAT, WHAT GUIDELINES AND

[01:35:01]

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ALTERNATIVE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE GUIDELINES.

THAT'S SO THAT'S 1, 2, 3 BULLET POINTS.

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE THE MISTAKE, WHEN YOU FILED THE WRONG THING, YOU'D GO BACK AND YOU DO IT 1, 2, 3, LIKE THIS, THAT'S IT.

SO SOMEONE WHO SITS ON THIS WORKING GROUP AND, UH, I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF MAKING PROGRESS AND, UH, CONCRETE, ACTIONABLE THINGS.

I SUPPORT CHAIR.

YOU WERE, UM, YOUR BELIEF AND, AND, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, THAT YOU'RE CHAMPIONING.

WE WANT TO DO THIS RIGHT.

AND I WILL FOREGO MY DESIRE FOR PROGRESS TO BE THOROUGH.

AND IN MY MIND, THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF DISCOURSE THAT WE NEED.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT DURING THIS MEETING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WE AS A WORKING GROUP HAVE CONSIDERED.

AND I THINK IT'S VERY GOOD FEEDBACK.

SO I'M, I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION.

AND I LOOK AT IT AS MORE INFORMATION FOR ME AS A MEMBER OF THIS WORKING GROUP TO TAKE BACK AND TO REFORMULATE AND WE CRAFT, UM, YOU KNOW, IDEAS AND SOME GOOD ONES HERE.

SO I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THIS.

AND I APPRECIATE ANY, ANY FEEDBACK.

ALL RIGHT.

NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS SPECIFIC IDEA? WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE REPORT FROM THIS WORKING GROUP BEFORE WE MOVE ON AND I THINK ROUND OUT OUR MEETING.

SO I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, COMMISSIONER LOWMAN SAID SOMETHING TO SAY THAT, OH, I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER.

LEVIN'S GO AHEAD.

I'LL KICK IT BACK TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, IF YOU WANNA JUST KIND OF ROUND OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND OUR WORKING GROUP.

UM, I THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT MAY NOT HAVE A SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.

THAT IS THE NATURE OF SOME PROBLEMS. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH AN IMPERFECT WORLD FILLED WITH IMPERFECT PEOPLE AND IMPERFECT PROCESSES.

UM, WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH THE WHOLE THING.

UM, I AM A LAWYER.

I HAVE BEEN A CANDIDATE.

I WASN'T A CITY CANDIDATE, BUT THERE WERE OTHER PROVISIONS.

AND OF MY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WORRIED ABOUT MOST WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO RUN IS IF I WAS GOING TO SCREW THIS THING UP, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT, UM, THE PROCESS OF COMING BEFORE THIS COMMISSION MAY HAVE ON PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S A LEGITIMATE CONCERN.

I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT THESE, UH, FINANCE CODES HAVE ON PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, NOT JUST AS A CANDIDATE, BUT AS SOMEONE WHO'S SPEAKING OUT AND EVEN PUTTING THEIR HEART ON MONEY INTO THAT, IF IT'S A GLARING VIOLATION, SOMETHING REALLY BAD, IT WILL BE FAIRLY EASY TO LOOK THROUGH THIS CODE AND SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE ONE YOU VIOLATED.

IF IT'S A HYPER-TECHNICAL ONE, IT'S GOING TO BE FAIRLY DIFFICULT, BUT IT WAS HARD TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COMPLY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IT SHOULDN'T BE EASIER TO BE IN THE POSITION OF GOING TO GET YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT BECAUSE POLITICAL ALLIES NEVER BRING THESE AGAINST EACH OTHER.

UM, IT SHOULD BE, I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE EASIER TO PULL A GOTCHA THAN IT WAS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE.

UM, SO I RECOGNIZE THE FRUSTRATION THAT THERE IS WITH PEOPLE COMING IN, IN GOOD FAITH AND TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE IN FILING A COMPLAINT.

UM, BUT EVERY, AND I'VE THOUGHT OF NO SOLUTIONS THAT ARE ANY BETTER THAN THE ONES HERE, BUT THE SOLUTIONS THAT I SEE HERE CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY SOLVE IN, IN MY VIEW.

UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, SO I SAW TWITCHES IN THE CORNER OF MY EYES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDS, BUT, UM, ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A LOT OF REALLY IMPORTANT FEEDBACK ON, UH, THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD DEVELOPED AND JUST THE IDEA GENERALLY OF THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS FOR COMPLAINANTS AND WHAT THOSE SOLUTIONS MIGHT DO.

SO, UH, I THINK WE'LL TAKE THAT IN THE WORKING GROUP MAY SEE A CEO WITH SOMETHING ELSE ON THIS SPECIFIC FRONT.

UM, BUT WITH THAT,

[01:40:01]

SO THE OTHER THING WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HAVE A SURVEY, UM, IN THIS TEENY TINY VERSION OF WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN HUGE ON THE SCREEN.

UM, THERE'S THE, THIS PAGE THAT SHOWS A VERY, VERY SHORT IT'S A SURVEY.

WHAT DO YOU THINK CAN BE IMPROVED? WHAT DO YOU THINK IS WORKING WELL? ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS? AND, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD HELP US COME UP WITH A MAILING LIST TO SEND OUT THIS.

UM, BUT THAT'LL TAKE TIME.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THE, UM, SURVEY.

UM, WHEN WE GET INFORMATION, THE SURVEY, WE WILL NOT FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO USE OR EVALUATE EVERY SINGLE THING THAT COMES IN.

IT'S REALLY TO SEE IF WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING SOME THINGS THAT REALLY SHOULD BE LOOKED AT, UM, IN TERMS OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THE VERY NEXT, UH, TEENY TINY SLIDE, UM, LOOKS AT SOME THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T YET TALKED ABOUT.

AND, UM, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANOTHER HOUR, UM, I KINDA LIKE TO KNOW FROM THE ONES, SO THE ONES THAT ARE SORT OF GRAYED OUT, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, MAYBE NOT RESOLVED, UM, THE EXPENDITURE REPORTING, THE COMPLAINT FORM REQUIREMENTS AND, UM, HAVING TRAINING FOR COMMISSIONERS.

BUT THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE DARKER ON THAT LIST IS THERE SORT OF A TOP ONE THAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS THINK WE SHOULD GET MOVING ON AS WE CIRCLE ROUND AROUND ON SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.

SO THOSE ARE PENALTIES, INCLUDING POSSIBLE FINES INSTEAD OF CLASS C MISDEMEANORS, UM, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE, I THINK MAINLY CONCERN COUNCIL MEMBERS, ALTHOUGH OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UM, DO HAVE TO GIVE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.

UM, I THINK ANNOUNCEMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS IS KIND OF MINOR THAT WE COULD, IF SOMETHING'S POSTPONED, WE, WE SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP WHEN THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A HEARING.

UM, BUT ALSO JUST THE HEARING PROCESS IN GENERAL, INCLUDING ISSUES OF SWEARING IN WHETHER WE ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION EXCLUDING WITNESSES.

SO THEY DON'T GET TO SORT OF COLLABORATE ON THEIR TESTIMONY AND WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO BE JUST FINE WITH SETTLEMENTS.

UM, I HAD PUT A BULLET FOR HIM FOR LIMITATIONS ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

CAUSE I JUST LIKE TO TALK TO MORE PEOPLE IF WE COULD LOOSEN THOSE RULES.

UM, AND THEN, UM, THE CHAIR WAS INTERESTED IN SOME OF OUR JURISDICTION HAD BEEN LIMITED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT MAYBE IT WAS OVERLY LIMITED.

SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SORT OF RISES TO THE TOP FROM THIS SECRETARY OF COMMISSIONER, LAURIE? SORRY.

UM, FOR ME, I MEAN, DEFINITELY PENALTIES.

I THINK ONE OF THE THEMES THAT WE HEAR ALMOST NONSTOP IS JUST KIND OF THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT WE PUT INTO THESE HEARINGS AND EVERYTHING.

AND THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, A MILD LETTER OR A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER.

AND SO I THINK, YEAH, I THINK JUST BECAUSE IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF, OR SHOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT WE CONSIDER AND HOW WE OPERATE, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE TRICKY, RIGHT.

UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO.

SO GETTING STARTED ON THAT AND SORT OF IN ALL OF THE WORK YOU'RE DOING, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO IS, YOU KNOW, A WHOLE COMMISSION VERSUS THE WORKING GROUP, BUT YOU KNOW, SIMILAR COMMISSIONS AND OTHER CITIES THAT MAY BE LONGER STANDING, IF SOMEONE CAN COME AND TALK TO US ABOUT SORT OF HOW THEY HANDLE ALL OF THESE ISSUES.

UM, I KNOW FOR ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE LOOKING AT, SOMEONE MENTIONED SAN ANTONIO HAS LIKE A DIFFERENT, UM, SORT OF SCHEME THAT THEY USE REGIMEN.

UM, BUT I PERSONALLY AM INTERESTED IN HEARING JUST SORT OF ON A LOT OF THESE TOPICS, HOW DO OUR COUNTERPARTS IN SIMILARLY SITUATED CITIES HANDLE IT? UM, JUST IN GENERAL, BUT YEAH.

PENALTIES FOR ME, I APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY, UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOU KIND OF ASKING AHEAD OF TIME, THAT'S SOMETHING I HADN'T THOUGHT TO DO.

JUST, WE HAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT TALKING ABOUT AS A WORKING GROUP AND FOCUSING ON, BUT SORT OF IF ANYONE HAS STRONG FEELINGS ON ONE OF THESE ITEMS AS SOMETHING WE SHOULD

[01:45:01]

SPEND MORE TIME AS A WORKING GROUP, LOOKING AT HAPPY TO HEAR IT, SECRETARY LEARNER, WELL, BEFORE HE STEPPED DOWN, UM, COMMISSIONER HURRY.

WE, WE, WHEN WE INITIATED THE WORKING GROUP, IT WAS REALLY ABOUT, WE REALLY WERE CONCERNED WITH THESE ALMOST FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN AND REALLY CUT UP THE TIME OF THIS COMMISSION.

AND I, I DON'T KNOW THE AVENUE TO GET AT THAT, BUT IT, I MEAN THE $500 IS MAYBE THAT'S YOUR WAY OF LIKE GETTING AT THAT, BUT IT'S EVEN MORE THAN THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

IT'S, IT'S THESE LITTLE TITS TIT FOR TAT THAT GO ON ALL THE TIME.

AND THEN WE ARE JUST LIKE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF PEOPLE'S PERSONAL VENDETTAS AGAINST EACH OTHER.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY OF APPROACHING THAT, BUT, UM, SO WE, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN ADD IT TO THE LIST.

I IT'S, UH, IT HAS BEEN A PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF, UH, HOW, HOW THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN USED BY CERTAIN PEOPLE.

AND I USE THAT TERM INTENTIONALLY.

UM, UH, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE HENCE SHARE? UM, SO I THINK, UH, IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS WORKING GROUP, UM, I'M GOING TO ASK LYNN BRIEFLY IF THERE IS, I VAGUELY RECALL YOU MENTIONING THAT THERE MIGHT BE ACTION THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO TAKE AS IT RELATES TO THE SURVEY.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.

IF YOU WANT THE SURVEY, YOU'VE GOT A VOTE TO REQUEST THAT THE SURVEY BE ISSUED, RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO, UH, JUST, UH, GOING THROUGH THE SURVEY VERY BRIEFLY, ONE MORE TIME, THIS IS THE IDEA AND WHO THIS WOULD GO TO.

THIS WOULD GO TO PAST MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

UM, SO PAST CHAIRS AND VICE-CHAIRS AND OTHERS AND PAST OUTSIDE COUNCIL THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH.

SO IMMEDIATELY COMES TO MIND, AUSTIN KAPLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO WAS A FORMER CHAIR AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL, UM, AFTER HE WAS DONE BEING CHAIR WOULD ALSO BE SENT TO, UH, PRIOR COMPLAINANTS, RESPONDENTS AND THEIR COUNCILS AS WELL.

UM, IMAGINING A WIDE VARIETY OF VERY DIVERSE FEEDBACK FROM THAT POPULATION.

BUT JUST TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AND HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THIS COMMISSION, WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT, AND THESE ARE THE THREE SIMPLE QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE IN THIS SURVEY TO THOSE PEOPLE.

UM, SO SECRETARY LEARNER, I AM SO CHATTING.

UM, SO YOU DO MEAN FOR NUMBER TWO TO SAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS WORKING WELL WITH THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AS OPPOSED TO THE CODE OR THE REGULATIONS? UH, YES, IT WAS, UH, WELL IT SIMPLY THESE QUESTIONS WERE INTENTIONALLY BROAD AND VAGUE TO INVITE AS, AS WIDE ARRAY OF ANSWERS AS WE CAN GET.

UH, COMMISSIONER STANDARD.

AND TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, SIMPLE AND BROAD WITH THE DESIGN OF THIS SURVEY SO THAT WE CAN SOLICIT AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE.

SO, GOOD, GOOD SPOT THOUGH.

AND SPECIFICALLY SECRETARY LERNER DID, UM, SUGGEST.

I REMEMBER THAT MY COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY WAS THAT ITEM QUESTION, NUMBER TWO ALSO INCLUDE THE SAMPLE ITEMS, RIGHT? SO IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, NUMBER ONE, WHAT DO YOU THINK CAN BE IMPROVED, FOR EXAMPLE, MEMBERSHIP OPERATIONS, COMPLAINT, PROCESS HEARINGS, PENALTIES, JURISDICTION, NUMBER TWO, WOULD REPEAT THAT SECOND CLAUSE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS WORKING WELL WITH THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE, MEMBERSHIP OPERATIONS, SO THAT EACH QUESTION CAN STAND ALONE.

AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO READ QUESTION NUMBER ONE TO GET, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT'S SUCH A BROAD QUESTION RIGHT ON THE INTENT OF A PUDDING FOR EXAMPLE, WAS TO KIND OF JOG THEIR THINKING LIKE, OH, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO I THINK ABOUT MEMBERSHIP? OR WHAT DO I THINK ABOUT, UH, PENALTIES OR JURISDICTION? SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE AMEND THE FORM IF WE'RE GOING, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO A VOTE ON IT RIGHT.

TO MONDAY AND JUST KIND OF MECHANICS THERE FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD, WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PARENT THEORETICAL PHRASE.

WHAT WE CAN DO, GO AHEAD.

SORRY.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO, SO ONE MORE COMMENT.

IT IS HARD TO THIS AND IT'S SO UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I KNOW THAT, UM, BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION EFFORT THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING

[01:50:01]

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS HEALTHY DISCOURSE ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE SURVEY AND THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING IT.

WHAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THAT INFORMATION.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CALL OUT AND IT CAN, CAN SOMEBODY READ THAT OUT LOUD? I MEAN, I COULD GET MY READERS ON AND WE'RE GOING TO THAT EVERYONE SHARES THAT STATEMENT.

GOT IT.

I WILL READ THAT RIGHT NOW.

I'M GOING TO HOLD THEM FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME AT ATX.

AND THIS IS, I'M GLAD THAT MY EYES ARE LOSING ME, BUT NOT THAT BAD IN AN F AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION PROCESS.

WE HAVE CREATED A SURVEY TO COLLECT YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE IMPROVED IN WHAT'S WORKING WELL, THE FEEDBACK COLLECTED IN THIS SURVEY WILL BE SPECIFICALLY USED TO GUIDE THE ERC ON WHAT AREAS TO FOCUS ON THE SURVEY RESULTS WILL BE ANONYMOUS AND WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS WILL BE SUBJECT THAT NOT SHOULD NOT BE THERE.

THE SURVEY RESULTS WILL BE ANONYMOUS AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE ERC VISIT, THE ERC WEBPAGE URL WEB ADDRESS.

UM, YEAH, THAT IS AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION.

SO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, UH, GET RID OF THE WORD NOT.

AND, UH, SO, BUT TO YOUR POINT, UM, UH, I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

UH, IF YOU KNOW, IN THE MOTION THAT WOULD APPROVE THIS SURVEY, UH, WE CAN MAKE SURE TO HAVE IN THAT MOTION INSTRUCTED THAT THE SAME CLAUSE BE ADDED UNDER NUMBER TWO.

AND, UH, YES, GO AHEAD.

SO WHEN WE GET THAT TO THAT POINT, JUST MAKE AMENDMENTS AS PART OF THE MOTION, CORRECT.

THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST, RIGHT? YEAH.

SO JUST ONE MOTION THAT SAYS, MAKE THE MOTION WITH THOSE CHANGES THAT WERE SUGGESTED TAKING OUT THE KNOT AND REPEATING THE LIST OF EXAMPLES, UM, WHERE REQUESTING PUT PUDDING, FOR EXAMPLE, IN PARENTHESES, AND THEN ALSO IN ADD THE ARTICLE IN FRONT OF EFFORT IN AN EFFORT.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M SENDING, LIKE, IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT MOTION, I'D LIKE TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT BULLET POINT, WHAT ARE THE AMENDMENTS TO WRITE? SO THAT EVERYBODY'S CLEAR.

UH, WE THOUGHT ABOUT LIKE, LET'S HAVE A, LIKE, FIELDS FOR THE NAME AND LIKE YOUR AFFILIATION WITH THE LIKE NONE OR NO, UM, ABOUT LIKE QUESTIONS ABOUT LIKE, UM, I THINK YOU MIGHT BE REFERRING TO LIKE THE METADATA, RIGHT? LIKE THE IP ADDRESS WHO ACCESSES THE SURVEY, UM, UNLESS THAT IS KEPT IN, UH, UH, EASY TO ACCESS A DATABASE, THERE'S A PART OF OPEN RECORDS LAWS WHEN YOU CAN JUMP IN AND CORRECT ME.

SO, SO HYPOTHETIC, I'M NOT MAKING THE MOTION RIGHT NOW, UH, AND PLEASE, UH, PLEASE MEET YOUR MICROPHONES WHEN YOU'RE DONE TALK AND WE CAN A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK.

SO IF YOU WANT ME TO GO FOR IT AND MAKE THE MOTION, UH, AT THE PERIL OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS, IF I GET IT WRONG, I CAN MAKE THE MOTION HAPPY TO DO IT.

I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION.

SO, UH, MOVING TO, THIS IS A MOTION TO, UH, REQUEST ASSISTANCE FROM CITY STAFF IN SENDING OUT THIS SURVEY, UM, AS IT APPEARS HERE IN THIS SUBMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ONE, INSERTING THE WORD AN BETWEEN IN AND EFFORT IN THE FIRST SENTENCE TO REMOVING THE WORD NOT BEFORE THE WORDS BE SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS AND THREE, INCLUDING THE SAME SECOND SENTENCE.

AND PARANTHETICALLY WILL THAT APPEARS IN QUESTION ONE UNDER QUESTION TWO.

THAT IS MY MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM DONNA BETH MCCORMICK.

HER HAND IS RAISED DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, JUST ON UNCERTAIN, IF IT'S TRULY ANONYMOUS.

UH, IF IT'S SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A NAME, I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO ACCESS SOME PORTAL SOMEWHERE.

THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME IP ADDRESS THERE.

AND IF SOMEONE JUST REALLY WANTS TO KNOW WHO THIS IS, LIKE, I THINK TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS YOU TO KIND OF GET THERE.

AND SO I'M WORRIED THAT JUST SAYING THAT IT'S ANONYMOUS, IT'S US MAKING A STATEMENT OR AN ASSERTION THAT IS NOT TRUE.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

SO THE HERE'S HERE'S OUR BASIS FOR SAYING THAT IT'S ANONYMOUS.

UM, NUMBER ONE, UNDER STATE OPEN RECORDS, LAWS, UH, PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES, UH, CANNOT BE DISCLOSED.

SO IF A GOV, SO WE WOULD HAVE THE EMAIL ADDRESSES, RIGHT? FOR PAST COMPLAINANTS, UM, THEIR ATTORNEYS AND PAST COMMISSION MEMBERS, THEIR, THEIR PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES.

UM, EVEN IF THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT, THAT IS THE RESULT OF THE SURVEY, UH, NOT SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS.

UM, THE SECOND THING I THINK THAT CAN RESOLVE THAT CONCERN, AND I THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE AND ONE THAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT,

[01:55:01]

UH, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN A PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, UM, WHERE THE PUBLIC ENTITY DOESN'T HAVE TO CREATE NEW INFORMATION.

SO, UH, IF THAT INFORMATION EXISTS POTENTIALLY, UM, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE CREATION OF A NEW DOCUMENT OR A NEW KIND OF RECORD, UH, THE CITY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO AND CREATE, HERE'S A SUMMARY OF THE METADATA RELATED TO THIS SURVEY.

HOLD UP IN COURT, IF WE WERE TO BE CALLED OUT ON, YOU KNOW, WELL, WE REASONABLY EXPECT THAT ANONYMOUS JUST MEANS YOU CAN'T TIE THE NAME OR YOUR IDENTITY, OR YOUR EMAIL IS NOT SHARED.

DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I'M JUST SUDDENLY CONCERNED THAT WE'RE ASSERTING THAT IT'S ANONYMOUS.

IF, IF THIS BOARD BELIEVES THAT IT TRULY IS, UM, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I JUST, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING, AGAIN, WE CHASE DOWN IP ADDRESSES AND EMAILS AND WE CAN ACCESS THAT INFORMATION.

SO SURE.

WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY, UM, UNDERSTOOD.

UH, UH, YES, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I, I HESITATE TO SAY, UH, TO TRY TO ADD TO THAT STATEMENT IN THIS LITTLE DISCLOSURE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS TO, UH, I MEAN, I THINK I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIKE, CHANGE THE SENTENCE TO SAY AS ANONYMOUS AS POSSIBLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UM, IT'S COMMISSIONER LEVIN'S AND THEN STANTON.

SO THE MOTION IS TO REQUEST THIS, THE POWERS THAT BE AT THE CITY COULD SAY EITHER YES OR NO, OR, WELL, I DON'T LYNN, MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US, MAYBE THEY'D TELL US, WELL, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE ANONYMITY.

UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I CERTAINLY AM NOT IN ANY POSITION TO EVALUATE HOW ANONYMOUS WE CAN ACTUALLY PROMISE THIS TO BE WITH THIS, THAT SORT OF FEEDBACK, OR DO WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? GREAT QUESTION THEN GO AHEAD.

SO LYNN CARTER LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, I THINK, AND I DON'T KNOW THE ABSOLUTE ANSWER, BUT I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE'S DIS-AGGREGATION THAT SOMEONE COULD FIND OUT WHO RESPONDED, BUT NOT BY OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS, COULD THEY FIGURE OUT WHO MATCH RESPONSES WITH THE PERSON WHO RESPONDED? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON OTHER SURVEYS DONE AT THE CITY, BUT I WILL VERIFY THIS BEFORE WE SEND OUT A SURVEY THAT WHOEVER RESPONDS CANNOT BE CONNECTED TO SPECIFIC RESPONSES, UM, BECAUSE YOU WON'T RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION THAT WAY.

IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A, UM, LIKE WE HAVE A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE AT THE CITY.

WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN IS NOT WHO SAID WHAT, BUT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE RESPONSES.

SO, UM, AND THE PURPOSE IS THAT YOU FEEL YOU'LL GET MORE RESPONSES IF PEOPLE DON'T FEEL LIKE THEIR IDENTITIES ARE GOING TO BE MATCHED TO THEIR RESPONSES.

SO I THINK IT'S DOABLE, BUT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT, IF YOU DO THAT MOTION WITH THAT REQUEST, THAT REQUEST, WE WOULD NOT SEND IT OUT WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS TO ANONYMIZE THAT DATA.

UM, I WOULD COME BACK TO YOU AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE CAN DO.

THIS IS WHAT WE CAN'T DO APPRECIATE THAT, UH, SECRETARY LEARNER AND THEN COMMISSIONER STANFORD, WHATEVER YOU HELP, WOULD IT HELP IF WE SAID YOUR NAMES WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED AND JUST NOT, BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU'RE GETTING INTO THE DEFINITION OF ANONYMOUS, LIKE YOU'RE GOING DEEP ON THAT DEFINITION.

SO MAYBE WE JUST USE A DIFFERENT TERM THAT GETS TO THE FACT THAT LIKE, YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED WITH YOUR ANSWERS OR YOUR NAME.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

APPRECIATE THAT.

THAT I'LL GO S UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON SAID, COMMISSIONER LARRY, AND THEN MCCORMICK.

I WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME THING IS, AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

UM, WHAT WAS THE REASONABLE DEFINITION OF ANONYMOUS? WHAT IS BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S REASONABLE? WHAT, WHAT WE WOULD ACCEPT AS ANONYMOUS AND THEN YES, WHERE THERE'S A WILL.

THERE'S A WAY, I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE ARE HACKERS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE DEFINITION THAT PEOPLE THAT WOULD

[02:00:01]

UM, BECAUSE YEAH, THERE ARE WAYS AS YOU, AS YOU STATED, THERE ARE WAYS TO GET TO AN IP ADDRESS, BUT IT'S THE, THE CLAUSE I'M THINKING THAT WHAT IS IT, THE PERIOD INTEREST, OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON UNDERSTAND AS ANONYMOUS? AND SO I THINK IT'S, IT'S, THERE'S A VALUE IN, IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT DOES WHEN WE SAY SOMETHING IS ANONYMOUS, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION? AND THEN I WAS ALSO THINKING, MAYBE JUST SKIP THAT WHOLE COMPLICATION AND STATE YOUR NAME AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WILL NOT BE SHARED WELL, BUT THEN NOT COLLECTED OR SHARED BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO NOT, UM, COLLECTED IN OPEN RECORDS, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT PROVIDED THROUGH OPEN RECORDS OR, OR IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS.

SO, SO IT'S SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS.

WHAT INFORMATION COULD WE GET FROM, FROM THE SURVEY, BUT WOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSON NOTHING, RIGHT.

WELL, SO IF SOMEONE FILED AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, WE SEND OUT THE SURVEY AND WE COLLECT RESPONSES, SOMEONE FILES AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, UH, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO SEE THE, UH, RESPONSES THEMSELVES, RIGHT.

UM, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE EMAILS ADDRESSES, UM, AND, UH, MAYBE, UH, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY REQUESTED, WHAT THE REQUESTER REQUESTED, UH, POTENTIALLY CORRESPONDENCE FROM CITY STAFF, OPERATIONALLY TALKING ABOUT IT.

UH, OBVIOUSLY ANY LEGAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, ADVICE WITH COUNCIL ABOUT THE OPEN RECORDS LAWS THEMSELVES, UH, WOULD PROBABLY BE PRIVILEGED AND THERE MIGHT BE OTHER PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY.

UM, BUT THAT WAS, THAT WAS KIND OF OUR INTENTION, RIGHT? IN DESIGNING THE SURVEY THIS WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, AS THE, WHAT WE'RE COLLECTING, HOPEFULLY IS JUST THE USEFUL FEEDBACK, UH, AND NOTHING, NOTHING THAT IS EASILY IDENTIFIABLE TO ANY ONE RESPONDING INDIVIDUAL.

UM, SO GOOD.

COULDN'T WE SAY THEN, INSTEAD OF SAYING, UH, THE FEEDBACK I CAN'T READ, THE SURVEY RESULTS WILL BE ANONYMOUS AND OPEN THAT CAN OF WORM OF ORAL.

YOU SAID IT WAS ANONYMOUS, BUT YOU CAN ACTUALLY JUST SAY YOUR, UM, CONTACT, YOUR IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WILL NOT BE SHARED BECAUSE THAT SPEAKS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.

IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO WHAT SOMEONE ELSE, A HACKER OR SOMEONE ELSE WHO REALLY WANTED TO GET THE INFORMATION CAN DO, BECAUSE THAT STILL EXISTS.

THEY CAN DO THAT WITH ANYTHING, BUT THE ONUS IS ON US TO SAY, IT'S ANONYMOUS.

WE WILL TELLING YOU, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHARE YOUR INFORMATION.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT ANONYMOUS.

IT'S NOT WHETHER SOMEBODY CAN TRACK IT DOWN, WHETHER THEY REALLY WANT TO NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T, THAT THAT HAPPENS WITH ANY INFORMATION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.

SO I THINK WHEN WE INCLUDED, UH, THAT THIS, THAT YOUR RESULTS ARE GOING TO BE ANONYMOUS, THE WAY THAT I ENVISIONED IT WAS THAT, UH, THE READERS OF THE SURVEY, LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A REPORT.

SO TO SPEAK THAT AS LIKE DIFFERENT, ALL THE ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTION, ALL THE ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTION, ALL THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION THAT WHEN THAT'S PRODUCED, IT WILL NOT BE TIED.

YOU CANNOT TELL THIS ANSWER WAS THIS PERSON, THIS PERSON SAID THIS, JUST LIKE, WHENEVER YOU GET CALLED FOR A POLL OR SOMETHING, AND THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A NON, THIS IS A NON-US, AM I SPEAKING TO LEWIS? OKAY, THIS IS ANONYMOUS.

UH, COULD YOU GIVE ME YOUR AGE RANGE AND ALL THAT STUFF? RIGHT.

UM, SO I, I DON'T, I DIDN'T ANTICIPATE IT BEING A GUARANTEE OF, UH, SECRECY, AND I DON'T THINK ANY INTERACTION WITH GOVERNMENT COMES WITH A GUARANTEE OF SECRECY AND EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC INTERACTIONS.

UM, BUT HAPPY TO TAKE, I'M GOING TO GET SECRETARY LEARNER'S FEEDBACK AND THEN, OR COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP AS WELL.

I APOLOGIZE.

GO AHEAD, SECRETARY.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE USING THE WORD ANONYMOUS, GIVEN WHAT I'M HEARING.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE ASKING FOR SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

WE'RE ASKING IF SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE FOR WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, THEN THEY JUST WANT TO ANSWER.

I MEAN, WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ABOUT OUR PROCESS.

SO IT'S NOT PII.

GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, AS THE PERSON WHO'S BEEN AROUND HERE LONGEST, LONGER THAN LAND EVEN, UM, IT'S A CHOICE.

[02:05:01]

AND IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.

IF THEY DON'T WANT TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.

AND IF THEY WANT TO BLAB TO THE PRESS, THEY'LL DO WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND IN THE PAST, IN THE PAST THAT WILL PROBABLY BLAB.

AND THEY WILL TALK ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THEY REPRIMANDED US IN THE PRESS IN-PERSON AND IN PERSON.

SO HOW MUCH CONTROL WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROL.

AND I GET SURVEYS A LOT THAT I DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN.

SO I JUST DELETE THEM.

THAT'S A CHOICE.

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT A CHOICE.

AND THERE'LL BE FEEDBACK FROM SOME OF THE PEOPLE MANY YEARS AGO.

UM, ANY, ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM? SO WE GOT THE MOTION, WE GOT IT SECONDED.

SO THIS IS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE PROCEED TO A VOTE, BUT GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER, STAND THERE.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD ONE MORE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT, UM, FOR QUESTION NUMBER ONE, LET THE OPEN PARENTHESES PROCEED, FOR EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF SO THAT THE ENTIRE CLOSET, FOR EXAMPLE, AND LISTING OUT, BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN THE PARENTHESES.

UH, SO THAT IS A MOTION TO AMEND.

UM, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION TO AMEND.

I'M GOING TO JUST GO AROUND ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY I FOR MOVING THE OPEN PARENTHETICAL.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED.

SAY NAY, THE AYES HAVE IT.

SO NOW WE ARE ON THE AMENDED MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED.

UH, CAN WE JUST MAKE SURE THERE WERE NO ABSTENTIONS? DOES ANYONE, SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

I'M RUSHING IT NOW.

UM, ARE THERE ANY EXTENSIONS ON THE MOTION TO AMEND SEEING NONE THEN IT IS UNANIMOUS MOTION TO AMEND CARRIES.

SO NOW WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION.

UM, SO THIS IS THE MOTION FOR THIS SURVEY.

UH, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT CITY STAFF HELP US IN SENDING OUT THE SURVEY WITH THE FOUR NOW CHANGES TO WHAT IS ON THE SHEET FOR DISCUSSION AND TO ENTER THE ENTITIES OR INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU HAD LISTED EARLIER, RIGHT PAST, WE'RE GOING TO BE, THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE MOTION, RIGHT.

THAT IT SENT TO.

SO, UH, SPECIFICALLY TO PAST COMPLAINANTS, AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED CITY STAFF HELP PASS COMPLAINANTS, RESPONDENTS, AND THEIR COUNCILS.

AND THEN, UH, WE, UH, HAD DISCUSSED IN THE WORKING GROUP ABOUT GETTING INTO FINDING THE PERSONAL EMAILS SINCE WE CITY STAFF PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE THE PERSONAL EMAILS OF SOME OF THE PAST COMMISSIONERS.

UH, AND YES.

SO THE AUDITOR, UH, THE AUDITOR AS WELL.

YEAH, WELL, THEY, THEY, AS, AS A FORMER COMPLAINANT, UH, THEY WILL BE GETTING IT, I THINK SO.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. UH, SO, UH, MICROPHONE, UH, BUT I HEARD YOU, SO YOU SAID, WHAT ABOUT FUTURE COMPLAINANTS AND PARTICIPANTS? UM, SO THIS IS GOING TO BE POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE AS WELL.

UM, THAT IS SOMETHING ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED, UH, AS YES, AS A PHASED APPROACH, BUT I THINK SO WE'LL HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR WITH THIS MOTION HERE.

SO THIS ONE IS MAILED OUT.

SO WE DISCUSSED A LOT OF IDEAS OF SERVICE.

WE'RE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS MOTION RIGHT NOW.

FROM THE FREQUENT FLYERS.

SO THIS, THIS SPECIFICALLY IS TARGETED AT PEOPLE WHO'VE HAD PRIOR INTERACTIONS WITH THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

UM, WE'VE DISCUSSED EXPANDING THE SURVEY TO INCLUDE JUST THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, UM, UH, AT A FUTURE DATE.

BUT FOR NOW THIS IS THE GENESIS OF THIS IDEA, JUST SO YOU KIND OF UNDERSTAND, UH, WHY, WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT SENDING A SURVEY TO PASS COMPLAINANTS AND RESPONDENTS AND ET CETERA, UM, IS THAT WE ARE A WORKING GROUP OF FOUR COMMISSIONERS, UM, THAT HAVE DAY JOBS AND OTHER THINGS TO DO.

UH, AND WE ONLY MEET ONCE A MONTH AS A COMMISSION.

SO THE THINKING WAS OUR, OUR WORKING GROUP IS A REAL KITCHEN SINK APPROACH TO HOW WE DO THINGS IN THE COMMISSION, LIKE BIG PICTURE, WHAT ARE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE SEEN? HOW CAN WE FIX THEM UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE A LIMITED BANDWIDTH IN TERMS OF OUR TIME AND IN TERMS OF OUR CAPACITY IN OUR IDEAS, THIS IS LIKE SOLICITING, UH,

[02:10:01]

WHO'VE COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UM, IN THE PAST, SO TO SPEAK, UH, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE MISSING? WHAT ARE WE NOT THINKING ABOUT? UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE IDEA.

AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST ABOUT PUTTING THIS ON THE WEBSITE, LIKE KIND OF A, UH, SUGGESTION BOX, LIKE IN PERPETUITY ON THE WEBSITE, SOMEONE CAN SAY, HERE'S WHAT I THINK THE IS WORKING WELL WITH THE COMMISSION HERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT I SEE WITH THE COMMISSION.

THE COMMISSION SHOULD THINK ABOUT DOING THIS.

UM, BUT FOR NOW, FOR PURPOSES OF OUR WORK IN GROUP, UH, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO GET SOLICIT FEEDBACK FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD OCCASION TO INTERACT WITH THE CONDITION.

SO COMMISSIONER STANTON, YES.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

WE FORGET AND ARE IN OUR HASTE OR IN OUR, YOU KNOW, DESIRE FOR PROGRESS.

WE FORGET THAT SOME COMMISSIONERS WEREN'T AT THAT MEETING WHERE WE DISCUSS IT.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

IT'S AN ASSURANCE TO COMMISSIONER TOBIN AFFAIR THAT THIS IS A, UH, OUR INTENTION IS TO ROLL THIS OUT IN A PHASED APPROACH.

SO THIS FIRST PHASE HERE IS A VERY FOCUSED PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH, UM, WORKING WITH THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE THAT INITIAL AND KIND OF, UM, FEEDBACK THAT IS GROUNDED ON EXPERIENCE, BUT WE DID TALK ABOUT OTHER PHASES.

AND, AND SO I JUST WANT TO ASSURE YOU ALL THAT THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, PUTTING, MAKING IT OPEN AND PUTTING IT ON A WEBSITE, THESE ARE IDEAS WE WILL CONTINUE DISCUSSING AND VETTING OUT THOSE IDEAS, BUT THIS IS JUST THE FIRST PHASE.

AND WE DEFINITELY, OUR INTENTION IS TO SEEK FEEDBACK FROM, FROM EVERYONE, UH, PAST OR FUTURE.

SORRY, SORRY.

THAT WAS A REALLY LONG ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

UM, BUT YES, ANY, ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ITSELF.

AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE WITH MY PARLIAMENTARY DUE DILIGENCE, UM, AND GETTING TO THE POINT, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO, I'M GOING TO GO AROUND WITH THE VOTE.

UM, AND I WILL, UH, JUST ASK, UH, CALL THE NAME, IF YOU COULD SAY I NE OR ABSTAINING.

UM, I KNOW IN THE PAST, WHEN WE WERE VIRTUAL, I DID A KIND OF, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR THE EYES AND WENT AROUND BECAUSE THERE WAS A HASSLE TO LIKE MUTE AND UNMUTE AND POINT PEOPLE OUT AND SEE YOU IS READY.

SO IN ANY EVENT, UH, SO I'LL CALL OUT YOUR NAME.

IF YOU COULD CLEARLY STATE YOUR VOTE AND UNMUTE YOUR MIC, STATE YOUR VOTE, AND THEN MUTE YOUR MIC AGAIN.

I'D APPRECIATE IT.

SECRETARY LEARNER, SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

SO THIS IS THE AMENDED MOTION SENT TO ASK FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY ON THE SURVEY.

AS I PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED IT, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN.

UM, AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLL CHAIR.

SO BRIAN, I WILL VOTE.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER LAURIE COMMISSIONER.

LEVIN'S AYE.

COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.

COMMISSIONER STANTON, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I SUPPORT THE MONEY.

GREAT.

WE'RE INTO MINUTES DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE OCTOBER MINUTES.

I'LL COUGH.

ANY NAYS OR ABSTENTIONS? I THINK SUPPOSED TO, SUPPOSED TO FORMERLY CALL FOR THAT I'M SEEING AND HEARING THAT IT'S UNANIMOUS AND IT PASSES.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S HELP IN GETTING THROUGH THAT ITEM.

I THINK THAT IS IT FOR THE WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS, UH, PROCEDURES AND THE KITCHEN SINK MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT THE OTHER WORKING GROUP, UM, YOU GOOD, UH, THE OTHER WORKING GROUP ON, UH, UH, THE EQUITY, I'M GOING TO CALL IT THE EQUITY WORKING GROUP.

WHERE DID MY AGENDA GO? UM, THAT WE KIND OF DISCUSSED WHAT WAS THE RELEVANT UPDATE THERE WITH COMMISSIONER KALE, CONTINUING TO WORK ON THE STATEMENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH HER ON COMBINING THE STATEMENT AND THE MEDIA PIECE.

SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD THERE.

UM, HERE'S MY AGENDA.

SO I THINK THEN, UM,

[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 27, 2021 SPECIAL-CALLED COMMISSION MEETING]

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THOSE MINUTES READY JUST YET.

SO GREAT.

THEN WE'LL BREEZE RIGHT ALONG, UH, PAST THAT ONE.

CAN YOU CHECK, UM, SO WHEN CARTER LAW DEPARTMENT, IF YOU HAD HAD THE MINUTES IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST MEETING THAT THE CALENDAR THAT WAS APPROVED FOR 2022 IS THE FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH, EXCEPT FOR NOVEMBER, DECEMBER.

UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUE

[02:15:01]

THAT WE HAVE WITH THE HOLIDAYS.

AND SO FOR 2021, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE, UM, SCHEDULED DATES TO MEET.

SO THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE DECEMBER 8TH AND, UH, FOR NEXT YEAR, 2022, IT'S THE FOURTH, WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH, EXCEPT NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER WILL BE THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS NOW AND, UH, AS A, AS A CLARIFICATION, UM, CAUSE WE DISCUSSED IT BRIEFLY LAST TIME WHEN WE GET TO THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FORCE SOMETHING ON THE NEXT AGENDA.

AND I, I NEED TO MAKE SURE TO GET THAT ON MY PERSONAL CALENDAR.

UM, OKAY.

ANY, UH,

[4. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS]

UM, NORMALLY IN CONSULTATION WITH LYNN AND WHEN PEOPLE REACH OUT INDIVIDUALLY, I SET THE AGENDA AS THE CHAIR, BUT WHEN TWO COMMISSIONERS, UH, SAY LET'S PUT THIS ON THE NEXT AGENDA OR A FUTURE AGENDA, IT HAS TO GO ON.

SO THAT IS WHAT THIS TIME IS FOR.

WELL, IT DOES SAY PRESCHOOLS TO PALMER THAT MIGHT LEAD TO AN AMENDMENT.

I IMAGINE WE'RE ON A BEACH SOMEWHERE.

UM, I THINK, UH, YES, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE TO CORRECT THAT IN FUTURE AGENDAS.

AH, YEP.

AS SOON AS YOU GET ME A REPLACEMENT FOR SUE PALMER, WE'LL BE ABLE TO FIX ALL THOSE ISSUES.

VERY GOOD.