Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:06]

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? GREAT.

OKAY.

UM,

[CALL TO ORDER]

THANKS FOR COMING TONIGHT.

I'M MARY KALE, VICE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

I WILL BE CHAIRING TODAY'S MEETING, UH, EXCUSE ME, IN CHAIR, SOBER ON'S ABSENCE.

I WILL CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

IT IS DECEMBER 14TH, 2022, AND IT IS 6:14 PM WE'RE AT THE AUSTIN PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, PD C, ROOM 14 0 5 6310, WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE, AUSTIN, TEXAS SEVENTY EIGHT SEVEN FIFTY TWO.

I WILL NOW CALL THE ROLL.

UM, I'M GONNA START WITH SECRETARY WYNN STANTON.

GOOD.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I'M HERE.

SECRETARY, UH, EXCUSE ME.

BETSY GREENBERG.

HERE.

RAPHAEL LAURIE? HERE.

MICHAEL LEVINS.

HERE.

DONNA BETH MCCORMICK.

PRESENT.

MICKEY TINK.

HERE.

SIDNEY WILLIAMS. I UNDERSTAND HE'S ON HIS WAY.

DEBORAH DANBURG.

SHE'S HERE.

SHE'S, OH, UH, DEBRA, COULD YOU PLEASE TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? OKAY.

DO WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THAT WATCHI, HUH? YEAH.

OKAY.

HERE WE GO.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UM, WE HAVE A QUORUM.

WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS, DANBURG AND L AND LORI ATTENDING REMOTELY.

UM, NEXT IS

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

WE HAVE ONE, UH, WE HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED UP TONIGHT FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

AND LET ME FIND THAT HE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

EXCUSE ME.

SORRY.

OKAY, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

OKAY.

SO, UH, WE HAVE TONIGHT JEFFREY BOWEN, HE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP MR. BOWEN.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU.

UH, GOOD EVENING.

UH, THE ISSUE THAT IS ON ACTUALLY, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

UM, SO THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE ETHICS VIOLATION.

UH, BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN LEGAL DEPARTMENT LETTER, UH, IN 2021, THERE WERE 11 CONTRIBUTORS IN WHICH THEIR OCCUPATION AND OR THE NAME OF THEIR EMPLOYERS ARE NOT LISTED.

UH, IN 2022, THERE WERE 26 SUCH CONTRIBUTORS WITH NO LISTINGS AS REQUIRED.

ALSO, UH, THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED UPON AUSTIN CITY CODE TWO DASH TWO CAMPAIGN FINANCING, EXCUSE ME, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS ITEM E.

EACH CONTRIBUTION OVER 200 OF $200 OR MORE.

THE OCCUPATION OF THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE NAME OF THE CONTRIBUTORS EMPLOYEES MUST BE LISTED PER THE CITY CODE.

THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THE CAMPAIGN.

THE CITY MANAGER THROUGH THE CITY CLERK RECEIVES THESE FINANCE REPORTS AND THE REPORTS REVIEWED AND POSTED TO THE CITY WEBSITE.

UH, IN THE SAME FINANCE, UH, DOCUMENTS OR THE FILING OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT DATA ITEM TWO DASH TWO DASH 26, ITEM C, THE FILER WHO PROVIDES A NON-COMPLIANT DATA FILE TO THE CITY CLERK SHALL RESUBMIT THE DATA IN THE REQUIRED FORMAT, THE DATA FILE THAT MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND TIMELY FILED IF RESUBMITTED, NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY, AFTER THE DATE THAT THE CITY CLERK NOTIFIES THE FILER THAT THE DATA FILE IS NON-COMPLIANT.

THIS WAS APPARENTLY NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT ONLY THE CAMPAIGN, BUT THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED IN THIS DEFICIENCY.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST CAMPAIGN FOR MS. ELLIS NOR THE FIRST CITY, NOR THE FIRST REPORT THAT WAS EVER GIVEN TO THE CITY CLERK.

THERE IS, THERE ARE CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE LAWS, AS WE ALL KNOW,

[00:05:01]

FEDERAL, STATE, AND AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL, THEY'RE IN PLACE FOR A REASON.

HOW DOES THE PUBLIC KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP OR POSSIBLE INFLUENCES ON PAST OR FUTURE VOTES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS OR THEIR APPOINTEES? FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IS VITAL FOR PUBLIC TRUST.

THERE'S AN ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC, AND COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY IS VITAL FOR THAT TRUST.

FIVE SECONDS.

IF THAT INFORMATION IS NOT RES, IS NOT REPORTED, IT MUST BE TAKEN FOR, IT MUST BE.

IT MUST IF NOT TAKEN, IT IS EASY FOR OFFICIALS TO NOT RECUSE THEMSELVES OF THE CRITICAL DECISIONS AFFECTING TAXPAYER FUNDING.

THAT'S TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BOWEN.

UH, WE'RE GONNA SHUFFLE

[6. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Regular Meeting on October 26, 2022.]

THE AGENDA AROUND A LITTLE BETTER.

ACTUALLY JUST GO TO THE END OF IT WHILE WE WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS TO SHOW WE UNDERSTAND HE'S ON THE WAY AND WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC IS REALLY BAD TONIGHT.

UM, SO WE'D LIKE TO GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ON OCTOBER 26TH, 2022.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THOSE MEETINGS? CAN EVERYBODY FIND THEM? I SEE IT.

YES.

VICE, UH, SECRETARY STANTON.

I JUST WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 26TH.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SECOND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SECONDS IT.

DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MEETING OF THE, EXCUSE ME, OF THIS MOTION? UH, SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA ASK THE PARLIAMENTARIAN DO WE NEED TO TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE ON THIS.

OKAY.

SO, ALL IN FAVOR OF, UM, PASSING THIS MOTION.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT LEAST IN THE ROOM.

THAT'S COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK LEVINS KALE GREENBERG, TINA YUKA STANTON.

VIRTUALLY WE HAVE COMMISSIONER LAURIE AND COMMISSIONER DEAN BERG.

THE MINUTES HAVE PASSED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SHOULD WE GO TO ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS OR, OKAY.

WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, AND I APOLOGIZE TO, UM, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT ON THE COMPLAINT, WE'RE GONNA GO TO SOME OF THE OTHER AGENDA ITEMS WHILE WE MAY WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, WE'LL TRY TO BE SPEEDY ON THESE.

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

IF YOU COULD GO TO,

[3. Review and evaluation of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) and creation of a potential working group on how to proceed on the topic.]

UM, IT'S THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR PACKET ITEM THREE, DISCUSSION, AND UNDER DISCUSSION AND ACTIVE ACTION ITEMS REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND CREATION OF A POTENTIAL WORKING GROUP ON HOW TO PROCEED ON THE TOPIC.

SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS, SORRY.

SO THIS WAS, WOULD YOU HEAR RBE WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT? UH, THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS RAISED AT THE LAST E R C MEETING BACK IN OCTOBER BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

UM, SO KICK IT OVER TO YOU IF YOU HAD ANY, UM, COMMENTS ON THAT, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO TABLE THAT FOR A FUTURE MEETING.

YEAH, I'D LIKE TO TABLE IT FOR UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS EASY.

THANK YOU FOR, FOR LEADING THAT AND WE'LL, WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

UM, I'M GONNA GO TO THE NEXT

[4. Review and evaluation of potential amendments to City Code 2-7-67 (Restrictions on Providing Representation of Others).]

ITEM, AND THAT IS REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL A AMEND AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 67, RESTRICTIONS ON PROVIDING REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING I BROUGHT FORWARD AND HAVE BROACHED WITH, UM,

[00:10:01]

UM, WITH JI WAJIHA AND, UM, WITH LYNN WHEN SHE WAS STILL HERE.

IF YOU COULD PULL OUT, IT'S IN YOUR PACKET.

THE SPEAKERS A LITTLE WEIRD AND I'M HAVING TO LEAN FORWARD FOR IT.

SO, UM, SO IT'S ONE OF THE HANDOUTS, RESTRICTIONS ON PROVIDING REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS.

AND, UM, WHAT I WANTED TO DO, UM, WAS TO REVISIT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE REFERRING TO WHEN, UM, PEOPLE WHO ARE, UM, FORMALLY WORK FOR THE CITY ARE REPRESENTING WITH RESPECT TO AN ISSUE IN FRONT OF, UM, OF, UM, ANY CITY BODY, WHETHER CITY COUNCIL OR CITY COMMISSION.

AND SO IF YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU, IF YOU, UM, IF YOU WANNA READ THROUGH THAT, UM, , I'LL JUST READ IT REAL QUICK.

UM, B A CITY EMPLOYEE IN A POSITION WHICH INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT DECISION MAKING ADVISORY OR SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY, OR A CITY OFFICIAL WHO LEAVES THE SERVICE OR EMPLOYMENT OF THE CITY SHALL NOT WITHIN 12 MONTHS AFTER LEAVING THAT EMPLOYMENT OR SERVICE, REPRESENT ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY IN ANY FORMAL OR INFORMAL APPEARANCE IF THE CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE HAS RECEIVED OR SHALL RECEIVE REMUNERATION FROM THE PERSON, ENTITY, OR MEMBERS OF THE ENTITY BEING REPRESENTED BEFORE THE CITY CONCERNING A CASE PROJECT OR MATTER OVER WHICH THE PERSON EXERCISED DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY AS THE CITY EMPLOYER OFFICIAL, OR BEFORE ANY OTHER AGENCY ON A CASE PROJECT OR MATTER OVER WHICH THE PERSON EXERCISED DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY AS A CITY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL.

SO, UM, I WENT DOWN TO SEE, AND I JUST, AND I, WHAT I'M VENTURING TO DO, AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR, UM, WHAT MS. RSK SAYS ON SAYS ON IT AND WHAT Y'ALL HAVE TO SAY ON IT.

UM, SO I STRUCK THE LANGUAGE THAT SAID, UM, THAT CONFINED THIS, UM, REQUIREMENT TO, UM, SUBSECTION B SO THAT IT'S BROADER.

A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL SHALL DURING THE 24 MONTHS AFTER LEAVING THE SERVICE OR EMPLOYMENT OF THE CITY, DISCLOSE HIS PREVIOUS POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITH THE CITY AND THE WORK PERFORMED IF, AS A CITY EMPLOYER OFFICIAL, REGARDING THE MATTER FOR WHICH HE IS APPEARING BEFORE THE CITY, WHENEVER HE REPRESENTS ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, AND ANY FORMAL OR INFORMAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CITY.

SO, UM, I THINK THAT, UM, WHAT I'VE, WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM ARE INSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO'VE WORKED FOR THE CITY WHO ARE, UM, WHO ARE WITHIN A MATTER OF WEEKS OR MONTHS COMING BEFORE CITY BODIES TO REPRESENT ON TOPICS.

AND I'M WANTING TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON HOW WE CAN ENSURE THAT THAT PERSON WHO POTENTIALLY IS PRIVY TO A LOT OF INFORMATION AS A RESULT OF THEIR CITY EMPLOYMENT IS, IS, UM, DISCLOSING THAT THIS IS ABOUT DISCLOSURE.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SAYING, UM, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

IT'S ABOUT REPORTING THAT YOU, UM, YOU HAVE TO, UM, PROVIDE, UH, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

SO I WOULD LOVE, I WOULD LOVE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE MIGHT BE SOME COMPLICATIONS WITH THIS.

SO I'LL JUST ADD BY WAY OF CONTEXT.

SO THE WAY THAT ARTICLE FOUR OF THE CITY CODES ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES WORKS IS THAT THERE ARE RULES PROHIBITING ALL CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEES AND CITY OFFICIALS FROM REPRESENTING ANOTHER PERSON OR ENTITY BEFORE THE CITY.

UM, SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT 2 7 67 DOES, THE, THE SECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, UM, IT KIND OF FOCUSES MORE ON FORMER CITY OFFICIALS AND CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES.

SO, UM, SUBSECTION B IS ESSENTIALLY A PROHIBITION FOR CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES, UH, AND ANY CITY OFFICIAL TO REPRESENT PEOPLE ON MATTERS WHERE THEY HAD DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY FOR ONE YEAR.

THAT NEXT SECTION, SUBSECTION C, WHICH IS WHERE VICE-CHAIR KALE'S, UH, REVISION IS LOCATED, IS JUST AS YOU WERE SAYING, A DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT THAT, UM, IS FOR TWO YEARS.

AND ESSENTIALLY THAT LANGUAGE BEING STRICKEN WOULD THEN OPEN IT TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES.

SO ESSENTIALLY WOULD KIND OF SYNC IT UP WITH THE, UM, THE OTHER AREAS OF, UH, THE ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE RULES THAT, UM, APPLY TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REPRESENTATION OF, UM, THEIR PROHIBITION ON REPRESENTATION.

UM, SO IT CERTAINLY ISN'T THE, UH, A NOVEL CHANGE, UM, BUT BE MINDFUL THAT IT DOES KIND OF OPEN UP THE POOL OF CITY EMPLOYEES THAT WE'RE

[00:15:01]

REFERRING TO.

UM, YOU KNOW, IN SUBSECTION B IT TALKS ABOUT CITY EMPLOYEES WITH SIGNIFICANT ADVISORY SUPERVISORY OR DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY, WHEREAS IN SUBSECTION C WITH THIS REVISION, IF IT GOES FORWARD, IT WOULD THEN OPEN IT UP TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES.

SO JUST A LITTLE FLAG THERE.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THIS WOULD EVEN HELP.

I MEAN, THERE IS SORT OF A, I GUESS, REVOLVING DOOR, UM, WHERE YOU OFTEN SEE FORMER, UM, CITY COUNCIL, UM, AIDS AND THEY LEAVE THE CITY COUNCIL OFFICES, AND THEN THE NEXT THING THEY'RE WORKING FOR THE LAND USE ATTORNEYS.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA BEING, I SUPPOSE THAT THEY, UM, KNOW HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE AT THE COUNCIL, SO THEY'RE USEFUL.

OR SOMETIMES PEOPLE SAY THEY KNOW WHERE THE BODIES ARE BURIED, UM, BUT JUST DISCLOSING, I'M A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, I'M NOT SURE.

SO THEY GO IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, THEY SAY, I'M HERE REPRESENTING A AND I'M DISCLOSING THAT I'M A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE.

LIKE I THINK OFTENTIMES EVERYONE ON THE COUNCIL KNOWS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN A COUNCIL OFFICE THAT THOSE PEOPLE, AND, BUT MAYBE YOU'RE HAVING MIND SOMETHING OTHER THAN THOSE COUNCIL AIDS.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I HAD IN MIND.

UM, BUT I WELCOME THIS DISCUSSION AND WAYS TO REFINE IT, OR IF IT'S TO CUMBERSOME OR DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, I'M PERFECTLY OPEN TO THAT FEEDBACK AS WELL.

YES.

IS THIS, IS THIS INTENDED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

UM, CAN YOU BE, ARE THERE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF WHERE SOMEBODY HAS BEEN APPEARING BEFORE SOME CITY BODY REPRESENTING SOMEONE ELSE AND HAS HIDDEN FROM THE BODY THAT THEY HA THAT THEY KNOW WHERE THE BODIES ARE BURIED? TO USE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S PHRASE, WHICH I LIKE, .

WELL, FIRST LET ME SAY I'M NOT GONNA, UM, I'M NOT GONNA PROVIDE THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS.

UM, I THINK PROBABLY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S, CORRECT.

MOST PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF WHO HAS WORKED FOR THE CITY.

UM, SO I, I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT, I'VE NEVER HEARD THE ALLEGATION THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHERE THE, THE BODIES ARE BURIED.

I, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, NOT, RIGHT? IT'S AN EXPRESSION AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS, AND, AND, AND I'M, YES, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, I THINK IT'S MORE FOR THE RECORD.

CAUSE EVEN THOUGH COUNSEL AND MAYBE OTHER PEOPLE LET THE MEETING KNOW, BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT LATER ON, NOT EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THE NAME OR WILL KNOW THE SITUATION.

SO IT'S EASY TO JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT IN A SENTENCE OR TWO THAT IT'S IDENTIFIABLE.

ACTUALLY, THAT'S, THAT'S, YOU SAID IT VERY WELL FOR ME, THAT WAS KIND OF MY THING.

AND UH, IT WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY 15 SECONDS YEAH.

TO JUST SAY, UM, I'VE WORKED FOR THE SUCH AND SUCH CITY OFFICE, UM, SIX MONTHS AGO OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO, BECAUSE YEARS DOWN THE WAY IT MAY COME UP AND THEN PEOPLE, OH, I DON'T KNOW, AND THEN HERE'S THIS PROBLEM.

OKAY.

YES.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS, I, I DON'T KNOW THE REST OF THE CODE.

WHAT, WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATING THIS SECTION? PENALTIES? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I MEAN, PERHAPS IT WOULD LEAD TO SOME KIND OF ETHICS COMPLAINT, BUT I DON'T WANNA SPECULATE.

I DON'T UNDERST YOU KNOW, OF WHAT THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ARE.

BUT IT WOULD GO INTO THE CODE THAT WE, WE LOOK AT WHEN WE EVALUATE THINGS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD GET INTO THE SA THE SANCTIONS SUBSECTION OF THE CODE FOR A VIOLATION, UH, OF THE, ESSENTIALLY THESE SPECIFIC SECTIONS.

UM, IT WOULD INVOKE, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO SEVEN, I'M FORGETTING.

I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT.

UM, BUT I THINK YOU RAISED A GOOD QUESTION ABOUT, UM, ENFORCEMENT AND, UM, I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR ANSWER AS TO HOW THAT IS ESSENTIALLY

[00:20:01]

ENFORCED.

THANKS.

YES, COMMISSIONER TENAYUCA, WOULD IT BE EASIER JUST TO ADD A FEW OF THE POSITIONS THAT YOU GUYS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, ARE WHERE THE CONCERN LIES AND JUST ADD A FEW NAMES OPPOSED TO OPENING IT UP TO THE ENTIRE EMPLOYEE WORKFORCE? THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE COULD, WE COULD CONSIDER.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE, UM, ABOUT SUGGESTING CODE CHANGES IS CONCERNS THE FACT THAT WE MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CODE CHANGES AND CITY COUNCIL HAS JUST DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT.

I'VE GONE TO AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE TWICE, UM, SPOKE AT, UM, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ASKING THEM TO CONSIDER THESE CODE CHANGES.

AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TIME TO LOOK AT FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, THEY APPARENTLY FORGOT WHATEVER WAS MENTIONED AT THE VERY FIRST PART OF THE MEETING, OR IGNORED.

I LIKE TO THINK FORGOT RATHER THAN IGNORED.

BUT, UM, IN ANY CASE, WE CAN SUGGEST CODE CHANGES, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ACTUALLY GET THESE IMPLEMENTED.

HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND.

IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENT ON THIS, JUST SO WE DON'T SPIN OUR WHEELS, I WILL REVISIT THE TYPES OF POSITIONS THAT THIS WOULD APPLY TO.

CUZ I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT, UM, ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AND JUST MAKING IT MORE SPECIFIC AND, UM, GET, GET MORE GRANULAR ON IT, IF YOU WILL, AND THEN REPORT BACK TO Y'ALL NEXT MONTH.

HOW DOES THAT SOUND? AND WE CAN ALSO SORT OF FLOAT IDEAS ABOUT, WELL, SUPPOSE WE WERE TO MAKE ANOTHER, ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CODE.

HOW DO WE MOVE THAT FORWARD? THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

SOUND GOOD? SO IS THAT, ARE WE TABLING THIS OR JUST DECIDING NOT TO TAKE ACTION? I'D SAY TABLE.

YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN ADD THIS TO THE AGENDA FOR THE JANUARY MEETING, UM, ASSUMING THAT'S PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME TO YOU VICE CHAIR KALE TO KIND OF, UM, REWORK ANY REVISIONS AND THEN PUT IT BACK ON FOR, FOR CONSIDERATION THERE.

THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TIME.

AND IF IT'S NOT, WELL, I'LL LET Y'ALL KNOW, BUT I WILL LOOK INTO IT IN THE MEANTIME.

SO THANKS EVERYBODY FOR YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT.

OKAY.

UM, SO I'M GONNA GO TO THE THIRD ITEM.

SORRY, THIS IS LOOKING LIKE MY DESK AT HOME.

OKAY.

OH, EXCUSE

[5. Approval of a final statement and/or video of what the Commission does & how the public can use the Commission and/or a Statement on Equity, Access, and the need for reform by the Working Group on Race, Identity and Equity.]

ME.

ITEM NUMBER NUMBER FIVE.

SO THIS IS GREAT.

YAY.

APPROVAL OF A FINAL STATEMENT AND OR VIDEO OF WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES AND HOW THE PUBLIC CAN COMU CAN USE THE COMMISSION AND OR A STATEMENT ON EQUITY ACCESS AND THE NEED FOR REFORM.

SO WHAT WE APPROVE LAST TIME WAS THE MEDIA STATEMENT AND THE LATEST ON THIS, AND THIS IS GREAT NEWS AND THANK YOU.

Y'ALL APPROVED IT LAST TIME.

WE CAN POST IT ON NEXT DOOR.

WE, WE DON'T, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE MEANS, UM, OR RESOURCES OR, UM, I GUESS, UM, WHATEVER, UM, NOT THE RIGHT WORD IS NOT ABILITY, BUT I MEAN, THEY DON'T HAVE THE, UM, IT'S NOT IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION OR WHAT HAVE YOU TO PUT IT IN, IN PRINT.

SO WE CAN PUT IT, WE'RE GOING TO POST IT ON NEXT DOOR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

AND IT WILL BE, UH, AVAILABLE ON NEXT DOOR IN ENGLISH, SPANISH, UH, CHINESE AND VIETNAMESE.

YEP.

SO DO WE HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT FROM Y'ALL? OKAY.

DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE OR WHEN IT WOULD START APPEARING? I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS WE, AFTER THIS MEETING, WE WILL, YOU KNOW, GET WORD TO THE COMMS FOLKS TO LET THEM KNOW AND THEN, UM, GET, WE CAN GET BACK TO THIS GROUP WITH CLARIFICATION ON TIMING.

GREAT.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE UPDATE.

YES.

COMMISSIONER STANTON? UH, YES, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WE DID APPROVE IT LAST TIME AND SO I'M WONDERING FOR CLARITY AND JUST TO BE ACCURATE WITH DOCUMENTATION ON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY MM-HMM.

, IT LISTS, UM, UNDER DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS NUMBER FIVE AS APPROVAL OF A FINAL STATEMENT.

AND I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE AMEND THAT SO THAT, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED IT, RIGHT? SO AMEND THAT TO, WHAT WAS IT? UM, WHAT, WHAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

I WOULD SAY DISSEMINATION DISTRIBUTION AND COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SAID UPDATE ON THE UPDATE APPROVED MEDIA STATEMENT AND NEXT STEP.

YES.

THANK YOU.

[00:25:01]

GREAT.

YES, WE CAN DEFINITELY, UM, MAKE THAT CHANGE IN, IN THE MINUTES FROM TODAY AND THAT'LL SHOW UP IN THE MINUTES AT NEXT MONTH'S MEETING.

SO GOOD POINT.

ANY OTHER FEEDBACK ON THAT? SO HOPEFULLY SOON IT'LL BE ON NEXT DOOR AND WE CAN SHARE WHAT WE DO AND INSPIRE MORE PEOPLE TO SERVE ON COMMISSIONS.

THAT WAS REALLY ONE OF THE GOALS IS TO GET THE WORD OUT THERE OF WAYS YOU CAN, EXCUSE ME, SERVE THE CITY.

UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HERE.

GREAT.

I HEAR THE TRAFFIC IS TERRIBLE.

UM, SO I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA.

UM, AGENDA ITEMS. WE DO HAVE A RECUSAL ANNOUNCEMENT.

COMMISSIONER LAURIE IS RECUSING HERSELF FROM ALL DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON ITEMS ONE AND TWO.

AND, UM, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP ONE ITEM PURSUANT TO 5 51 DASH OH 71 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING.

THE COMMISSION MAY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A COMPLAINT FILED BY DOUG KEENAN AGAINST PAGE ELLIS RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED WITH THE CITY, CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE SECTION EIGHT LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? NO.

RIGHT.

HEARING NONE.

THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THE TIME IS 6:40 PM , I THINK WE HAVE EVERYBODY HERE.

I SAW COMMISSIONER DAN BERG.

UM, WE'RE NOW BACK IN OPEN SESSION.

[2. A complaint filed by Doug Keenan against Paige Ellis, raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance), Section 2-2-21 (Additional Information Required on all Campaign Finance Reports Filed with the City), City Charter, Article III Section 8 (Limits on Campaign Contributions and Expenditures).]

NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY DOUG KEENAN AGAINST PAGE ELLIS RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED WITH THE CITY CITY CHARTER.

A ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

JAMES KSR IS APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION.

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WAJIHA REVE IS A AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.

SO, UM, HERE ARE THEIR PROCEDURES FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

UH, ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PARTIES PRESENT.

STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT WILL INTRODUCE YOURSELF AS WELL.

FOR THE RESPONDENT, YOU'LL IDENTIFY YOURSELF INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF COUNSEL OF RECORD, IF THERE IS COUNSEL PRESENT DESCRIPTION OF PROCEEDING.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 44 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 2022.

COMPLAINANT ALLEGED RESPONDENT VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED WITH THE CITY AND CITY CHARTER.

ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

THE ISSUE AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A CITY CODE PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD.

IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.

IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

DECISION CON TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.

COMMISSION'S REGULAR PRACTICE IS TO GIVE EACH OF THE PARTIES 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THE POSITIONS ON A COMPLAINT UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY.

UM, DO THE PARTIES AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES IS SUFFICIENT OR DO THEY REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME? UM, LET'S HEAR FROM THE COMPLAINANT ON THAT POINT.

MR. KEENAN.

UH, YES, THIS IS DOUG KEENAN, AND 10 MINUTES IS SUFFICIENT.

ALL RIGHT.

HOW ABOUT FROM THE RESPONDENT? YES, I'M CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PAGE ELLIS AND 10 MINUTES WILL BE SUFFICIENT.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY

[00:30:01]

TO STATE THE CLAIM VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE FORM THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE IS THAT SUPPORTS THOSE CLAIMS. THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT THIS HEARING.

THE RESPONDENT MAY PROVIDE A RESPONSE DISPUTING THE CLAIMS. WHILE STATEMENTS AT THIS HEARING ARE UNDER PRELIMINARY HEARING ARE UNDER OATH, NO CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED AFTER THE PARTIES COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT.

NO WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL ARE PERMITTED TO MAKE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKER WHOM WE HEARD FROM FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES.

THE COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO RETURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL ISSUES FOLLOWING ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE IF SIX MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.

THE COMMISSION WILL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.

UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN NOW PROCEED WITH THE COMPLAINANT'S PRESENTATION AND MS. RBY WILL BE OUR TIMER TONIGHT.

SO, UM, AND SHE WILL, UH, GIVE YOU A THREE MINUTE WARNING.

MR. KEENAN, WHEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT, UM, ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED? FAIR ENOUGH? YES, I AM.

OKAY, GREAT.

ALL RIGHT.

ARE YOU READY? WOULD YOU I'M READY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE UP, MR. KEENAN.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER PAGE ELLIS ACCEPT THE DONATIONS TO HER CAMPAIGN THAT WERE IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

THE AUSTIN FAIR CAMPAIGN CHAPTER IN THE AUSTIN CITY CODE STATES THAT THE FOLLOWING KEY POINTS WHICH ARE REFERENCED IN CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND I REFER TO ITEMS C AND D, WHICH READ THE CITY ELECTION PROCESS AND CITY GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM POTENTIAL AND EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF UNDUE INFLUENCE BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS MAKING LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN OF CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, AS WELL AS ITEM F, WHICH READS LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY BY INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS TO CANDIDATES FOR CITY OFFICE WILL PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV SHOW THAT NUMBER 1 37 INDIVIDUALS WHO DONATED TO COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS'S CAMPAIGN DID NOT HAVE RECORDED EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION INFORMATION DECLARED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS AND NUMBER TWO 19 INDIVIDUALS WHO DONATED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS CAMPAIGN IN EXCESS OF THE $450 LIMIT PER DONOR, INCLUDING MAYOR STEVE ADLER.

THIS PRESENTS GROUNDS FOR NUMEROUS AND FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND ALLOWED COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS TO RUN A CAMPAIGN WITH AN UNFAIR AND UNLAWFUL ADVANTAGE OVER OPPONENTS IN THE DISTRICT EIGHT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER RACE.

IT IS QUITE SURPRISING AND ALARMING THAT A TWICE ELECTED OFFICIAL REPRESENTING US IN DISTRICT EIGHT HAS ALLOWED THESE 56 COUNTS OF VIOLATIONS TO EXIST SHOWING SUCH DISREGARD FOR THE LAW.

THEREFORE, IT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS BOARD TURN THESE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY PROSECUTION TO THE MAXIMUM PENALTY ALLOWED BY THE LAW.

SO IN CONCLUSION, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT, UM, ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE A COPY OF MY COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE 56 VIOLATIONS ARE ITEMIZED IN DETAIL? I'M NOT GONNA READ THROUGH THESE ON THE LAST THREE PAGES.

THEY'RE ALL THERE BOTH BY EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION.

AND THEN THE SECOND LIST, WHICH IS, UH, THE DONORS THAT WERE OVER THE ALLOWED CONTRIBUTION LIMIT BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAWS.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.

UM, WE WILL ALSO GIVE YOU A THREE MINUTE WARNING WHEN YOUR PRESENTATION REACHES THAT POINT.

PLEASE PROCEED.

THANK YOU.

IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, MY, UH, HUSBAND SLASH MANAGER WOULD LIKE TO READ THE LETTER THAT HE HAD, UM, THAT HE HAD CIRCULATED EARLIER.

GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS EDWARD ESPINOZA.

I'M A POLITICAL PROFESSIONAL.

I'VE WORKED IN CAMPAIGNS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS

[00:35:01]

FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS.

I'M WRITING IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT FILED THE MORNING AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION BY MR. DOUG KEENAN.

MY REMARKS WILL ADDRESS THE INSTANCES OUTLINED IN HIS COMPLAINT CORRECTIONS TO SOME OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, AND ANY REMEDIES THAT MAY BE NECESSARY BY THE CAMPAIGN.

WE'LL START WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS'S CAMPAIGN ABIDES BY THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.

AND IN 2000 AND IN 2022, SHE RAN A VERY ROBUST CAMPAIGN, WHICH SAW 631 CONTRIBUTIONS.

MR. KEENAN'S COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT 19 OF THESE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE OVER THE LIMIT.

THROUGH OUR OWN RESEARCH, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT ONLY SEVEN MEET THIS CRITERIA, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE IN THE FORM OF INDIVIDUALS WHO PAID NOMINAL PROCESSING FEES, RANGING FROM $2 AND 95 CENTS TO $5 AND 58 CENTS.

IN ALL SEVEN OF THESE INSTANCES, REFUNDS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THOSE TRANSACTIONS WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT DUE IN JANUARY, MR. KEENAN CONDUCTED METICULOUS WORK IN PIECING TOGETHER HIS LETTER, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS SURPRISING THAT HE OVERLOOKED REFUNDS THAT WERE ISSUED TO THREE OF THE DONORS HE LISTS ON HIS COMPLAINT.

THOSE DONORS ARE DAVE KLATCH, PERRY LORENZ AND MARK WINKLEMAN REFUNDS WERE REPORTED TO THESE DONORS ON THE SAME PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FINANCE REPORTS A COMMON PRACTICE, AND THEIR TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN COMPLIANCE SUBSID CITY REGULATIONS.

THE REMAINING IDENTIFIED CONTRIBUTIONS, INCLUDING MAYOR ADLER, WERE MADE AFTER THE CITY OF AUSTIN, RAISED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FROM $400 TO $450 PER PERSON AND FROM $800 TO $900 FOR MARRIED COUPLES IN EACH INSTANCE.

THESE DONATIONS WERE FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MARRIED AND THUS ELIGIBLE TO GIVE UP TO $900.

WE HAVE INVESTIGATED ALL 19 OF MR. KEENAN'S CLAIMS, AND OUR FINDINGS ARE DETAILED IN THE SPREADSHEET THAT HAS BEEN HANDED OUT TO YOU EARLIER.

AS FOR EMPLOYER OCCUPATION OF THE ELLIS CAMPAIGN'S 631 CONTRIBUTIONS, EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION INFORMATION WAS LISTED FOR MORE THAN 600 ENTRIES, AMOUNTING TO 95% OF ALL DONATIONS WITH BEST EFFORTS MADE TO COMPLETE THE INFORMATION FOR THE REMAINING ENTRIES, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WHILE MR. KEENAN LISTS 37 INSTANCES, MANY OF THESE ENTRIES ARE NOT BLANK, BUT RATHER CONTAIN DATA THAT HE SIMPLY FINDS UNSATISFYING.

WHILE YET, WHILE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS HAS PRODUCED EMPLOYER OCCUPATION FOR NEARLY EVERY DONATION TO HER CAMPAIGN, THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION APPEARS TO BE LESS DEMANDING.

THE TE C'S CANDIDATE OFFICER, OFFICE HOLDER CAMPAIGN FINANCE INSTRUCTION GUIDE STATES THE FOLLOWING.

ON PAGE 18, PRINCIPLE OCCUPATION OR JOB TITLE CANDIDATES, FOUR AND HOLDERS OF STATEWIDE OFFICES AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND CANDIDATES FOR AND HOLDERS OF LEGISLATIVE OFFICE MUST DISCLOSE THE PRINCIPLE OCCUPATION OF JOB TITLE OF AN INDIVIDUAL FOR WHOM THE CANDIDATE OR OFFICE HOLDER HAS ACCEPTED CONTRIBUTIONS OF $900 OR MORE.

IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, FILERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT THIS INFORMATION, BUT MAY DO SO SEPARATE, BUT EQUALLY RELEVANT, THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION OFFERS ACCOMMODATION FOR BEST EFFORTS IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE.

THESE ARE NOT EXCUSES, THESE ARE NORMS. I'LL OFFER THAT.

MR. KEENAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO MS. ELLIS'S OPPONENT ON JANUARY 15TH, HE LISTS HIS OCCUPATION AS RETIRED EARLIER THIS EVENING.

WE HEARD FROM MR. BOWEN WHO MADE TWO CONTRIBUTIONS TO MS. ELLIS'S OPPONENT, AS DID HIS WIFE.

IN BOTH INSTANCES THAT MR. BOWEN'S WIFE MADE A CONTRIBUTION, SHE DID NOT LI NEITHER AN EMPLOYER OR AN OCCUPATION WERE LISTED FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS.

AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT LISTED AS, THESE ARE NOT EXPRESSED AS EXCUSES.

THESE ARE TO DEMONSTRATE NORMS AND BEST EFFORTS THAT CAMPAIGNS MAKE.

IT'S RELEVANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT SOME DONORS HAVE INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL MEANS AND DO NOT WORK.

YET IT WOULD BE INACCURATE TO IDENTIFY SUCH INDIVIDUALS AS UNEMPLOYED HOMEMAKER OR RETIRED COUNCIL MEMBER.

ELLIS HAS PROVIDED INFORMATION THAT IS COMPREHENSIVE AND PORTRAYS AN ACCURATE PROFILE OF HER DONOR BASE.

THE CAMPAIGN WAS THOROUGH IN ITS INITIAL COLLECTION OF THIS INFORMATION.

IN ITS ADDITIONAL IN, ITS IN ITS ADDITIONAL RESEARCH CONDUCTED AFTER MS. ELLIS WAS ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM AND HAS PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH EVEN THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION SEEKS.

AS FOR REMEDIES, A TOTAL OF $1,275 WAS CONTRIBUTED IN ERROR BY DONORS AND WITH REQUIRED, WITH REGARDS TO CLAIMS OF UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THAT AMOUNT IS MERELY 1%

[00:40:02]

OF THE $122,000 RAISED DURING THE 2022 CAMPAIGN FOR STANDARD PROCEDURE.

THE PAGE ELLIS CAMPAIGN HAS ISSUED REFUNDS TO ALL OF THESE DONORS, AND THOSE REMEDIES WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE NEXT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT DUE JANUARY 15TH, 2023.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND JUST SIMPLY IN, IN SUMMATION, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THE, UH, PROCESSING FEES, THE NOMINAL PROCESSING FEES THAT WERE OVER AND ABOVE, UM, HAVE BEEN REFUNDED AND WILL SHOW ON THE NEXT REPORT A NUMBER OF THE ITEMIZED LISTS THAT MR. KEENAN HAD PRESENTED.

OUR FOLKS WHO WERE NOT IN VIOLATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS BECAUSE THEY ARE A MARRIED COUPLE.

UM, THERE WERE THREE THAT WERE REFUNDED AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ABIDE BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND LOOK FORWARD TO, UH, SUBMITTING OUR NEXT FINANCE REPORT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN REMEDIED AND RECTIFIED.

GREAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYTHING, UH, HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT, MS. REVESBY? UH, ABOUT THREE AND A HALF MINUTES.

UH, YOU STILL HAVE THREE AND A HALF MINUTES IF YOU'D CARE TO USE YOUR TIME.

THE LAST THING I'LL OFFER IS THAT THE LAST THING I'LL OFFER IS THAT THE REFUNDS ARE ALSO DETAILED ON THE SPREADSHEET THAT YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED.

GREAT.

AND I APOLOGIZE, OUR PRINTOUTS ARE OUR BLACK AND WHITE.

THAT'S WHAT OUR HOME COMPUTER HAS.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINK THAT IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE EMAIL, YOU'LL SEE A COLOR CODED VERSION THAT SHOWS WHICH ONES DID NOT NEED TO BE RECTIFIED AND WHICH ONES HAVE SINCE BEEN REMEDIED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, SO AT THIS POINT WE OPEN IT TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.

SO, UM, IF ANYBODY, UH, WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS OR ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT, NOW IS THE TIME.

YES.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS, UM, FOR THE RESPONDENT, UM, AND I SUPPOSE MR. ESPINOZA, YOU'LL PROBABLY ADDRESS THIS ON THE, THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS UNDER THE HEADING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT REFERENCED THE REFUNDS THAT YOU MADE, WERE THOSE MADE BEFORE THE END OF THE CONTRIBUTION PERIOD? AT AT THE POINT AT WHICH THOSE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE DEEMED ACCEPTED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE REPORTING PERIOD.

WERE THEY REFUNDED PRIOR TO THAT DATE? I'LL ANSWER THAT ONE.

I'M THE, UH, MANAGER OF THE, THE FINANCE ACCOUNT.

THEY WERE NOT BEFORE THE END OF ELECTION NIGHT, WHICH IS WHEN CANDIDATES CAN NO LONGER FUNDRAISE.

I'M USUALLY VERY DETAILED BEFORE THE FUNDRAISING WINDOWS CLOSE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE REFUNDS ARE DONE PRIOR TO THE FINANCE REPORTING.

HOWEVER, THAT NIGHT I WAS NOT AT MY COMPUTER BEFORE THE FUNDRAISING DEADLINE, SO I, I MISSED THE MIDNIGHT DEADLINE, BUT CERTAINLY HAVE ACCEPTED NO CONTRIBUTIONS BEYOND THAT WINDOW AND HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY REFUNDED THE ONES THAT WERE LISTED.

I GUESS IF I CAN BE, DO YOU HAVE A D A DATE ON WHICH THOSE WERE MADE? AND I DON'T, THIS SEEMS HYPER-TECHNICAL, BUT I THINK THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF, CUZ YOU CAN REFUND THEM AT SOME POINT AND NOT BE IN VIOLATION.

BUT IT DEPENDS UPON WHEN IT WAS DONE, WHEN THAT REFUND WAS ISSUED.

DO YOU KNOW THE DATE? AND I, I DON'T, SOME, SOME OF US HAVE A SPREADSHEET.

I DON'T HAVE IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SAYS THE DATE.

THEY DO HAVE THE DATE ON OUR SPREADSHEET.

OKAY.

IT'S, IT, IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO MINE.

OH.

OH, NO, WE DOESN'T HAVE THE DATE.

IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE, THE SPREADSHEET THAT WE HAVE, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE DOES SHOW THE DATE OF THE REFUND.

OH, IT DOESN'T HAVE, OH, THE DATES OF THE REFUNDS ARE NOT LISTED ON HERE.

RIGHT.

SOME ARE REFUNDS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE TWO, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER PERRY LORENZ, YOU'LL SEE THAT HIS REFUND IS DENOTED ON OCTOBER 29TH.

OH, MM-HMM.

UNDER DAVE CLOCHE ALSO OCTOBER 29TH.

UH, OTHER REFUNDS WERE ISSUED AT OTHER TIMES.

UM, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ONES FOR $2 ON THIS PARTICULAR SPREADSHEET.

OKAY.

AND THEN FOR EXAMPLE, ON SUSAN GOLDBERG, IT SAYS, NEED REFUND OF 402 95.

THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.

THE SEVERAL OF THESE SAY NEED REFUND.

HAVE THOSE BEEN REFUNDED? THESE WERE, THOSE HAVE BEEN, YEAH.

YEAH.

THESE WERE NOTES THAT, UH, THAT I WAS BUILDING AS I WAS, THESE WERE NOTES THAT I INSERTED AS I WAS, WAS BUILDING THE LIST.

UM, MANY OF THOSE WERE TO, TO VERIFY WHEN THE, UH, IF THE REFUNDS WERE GIVING, THESE WERE NOTES TO MYSELF SAYING NEEDS REFUND, LET'S VERIFY IT.

AND IN FACT, I THINK FOR GOLDBERG IN PARTICULAR, I THINK IT JUST SAYS, UH, NEED REFUND.

NO, I THINK THAT'S, UH, THOSE HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN COMPLETED.

YEAH.

I THINK THAT WAS ME NEEDING TO VERIFY AND MATTER.

YEAH.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT ANDY PASTOR AT

[00:45:01]

THE VERY TOP OF THE LIST AND ANNA ROSE, THOSE ARE THE $2 AND 95 CENT ONES WHERE I LISTED NEED REFUND.

UH, BUT ALL THOSE REFUNDS HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER STANTON? UH, YES, THANK YOU TO BOTH PARTIES FOR YOUR, UH, DILIGENCE IN PROVIDING GOOD DETAIL.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT OF THE LIST THAT WE SEE HERE IN EVERY INSTANCE WHERE IT SAYS NEED REFUND, THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN REFUNDED? YES.

THEY, THEY'VE BEEN REFUNDED, THEY WERE REFUNDED BEFORE THIS HEARING, BUT NOT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE LAST, UH, FILING OR THE LAST NOVEMBER 8TH.

SO THEY HAVE BEEN DONE BETWEEN THE TIME OF MR. KEENAN FILING THE COMPLAINT AND TODAY.

OKAY.

AND, UH, THANK YOU.

AND THEN WHEN YOU SAY COMPLIANT, UM, OR I GUESS WERE THERE REFUNDS, DOES YOUR NOTATION OF COMPLIANT MEAN THAT THE REFUND WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD AS PER THE REQUIREMENT? YES.

THOSE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANT UP TO NOVEMBER 8TH.

AND A LOT OF WHICH IN THE CASE OF STEVEN, STEVE ADLER AND DIANE LAND, THEY DID NOT BREAK ANY COMPLIANCE NUMBERS.

SO THOSE DID NOT NEED ANY REFUNDS.

SORRY, ONE, ONE MORE QUESTION FOR NOW.

SO IN THE LAST STATEMENT, UNDER REMEDIES, WHEN YOU SAY PER STANDARD PROCEDURE, UH, THE CAMPAIGN HAS ISSUED REFUNDS TO ALL THESE DONORS, THOSE REMEDIES WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE NEXT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT DUE JANUARY 15TH, 2023.

IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME.

IT SEEMS LIKE THESE REFUNDS WERE NOT ISSUED IN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT, CORRECT.

BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT YOU, IT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE NEXT CAMPAIGN REPORT.

YES.

SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN COLLECTED OR REFUNDED PRIOR TO MIDNIGHT ON THE EIGHTH? UM, ACTUALLY I'M FORGETTING EXACTLY WHICH DATES EVERYTHING IS DUE, BUT ALL OF THE INFORMATION MOVING FORWARD WILL NOW BE SHOWING ON THE NEXT PERIOD THAT ENDS AT THE END OF DECEMBER AND GETS REPORTED JANUARY 15TH.

SO THAT WILL PICK UP ANY OF THE REFUNDS OR NUMBERS THAT NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT, THAT REPORT.

CAUSE I THINK THE LAST ONE WE FILED WAS THE EIGHT DAY PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO THE, THE, THE SEVEN, UH, REFUNDS IN QUESTION WILL APPEAR ON THE JANUARY REPORT.

THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN, THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN CONDUCTED, BUT THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD ISN'T, DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL JANUARY.

OKAY.

SO THEY, THEY WERE REFUNDED IN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD, BUT WE WON'T SEE THAT IN THE REPORT UNTIL THE NEXT REPORT.

WHEN YOU SAY THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD, WHAT, WHAT IS, WHICH ONE ARE YOU REFERRING TO? WELL, THE, I I'M ASSUMING THAT SAME REPORTING PERIOD MEANS THE SAME TIME REPORTING PERIOD IN WHICH THE CONTRIBUTION WAS GIVEN.

YOU MEAN LIKE THE SAME DAY? I, I DON'T KNOW.

I APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT.

I JUST HAVE BEEN, UM, COUNSEL THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT REFUNDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ISSUED IN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD OR ELSE IT IS A VIOLATION.

CORRECT.

SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN CONTRIBUTED OR REFUNDED WITHIN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD.

YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY SOMEONE GAVE A LITTLE OVER FOUR 50 AND WE GAVE THAT REFUND BEFORE THE CLOSING OF THE FINANCE DEADLINE, THAT WOULD JUST SHOW THE, THE NUMBER, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER CONTRIBUTED AND THE NUMBER REFUNDED.

WE WOULD JUST CONTRI, WE WOULD JUST LIST THAT AS ONE NUMBER.

BUT SINCE THE LAST EIGHT DAY REPORT WAS FILED, I THINK WE HAD A TWO DAY WINDOW TO BE ABLE TO FILE THAT REPORT.

THESE REFUNDS WERE CALCULATED OUTSIDE OF THAT.

SO THEY WILL JUST ROLL ON TO THE NEXT STANDARD REPORT.

SO I WON'T BE AMENDING THE EIGHT DAY SINCE THOSE, SINCE WE MISSED THOSE DATES AND THE MONEY WASN'T REFUNDED.

BUT IN THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED CYCLE, YOU WILL SEE THOSE REFUNDS LISTED.

SO TECHNICALLY SOME OF THE REFUNDS DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD PER REQUIREMENT.

IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND

[00:50:01]

THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN IF IT WERE A JUNE REPORT JUNE 30TH, AND WE HAD A CLOSED WINDOW DEADLINE FOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT NUMBERS CAME IN AND WHAT NUMBERS WENT OUT.

YOU STILL HAVE TO REPORT TWO WEEKS LATER EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SHOWING ON JUNE 30TH.

RIGHT.

AND IF WE DID A REFUND IN JULY, THAT WOULD ROLL ONTO THE NEXT, THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED REPORT.

RIGHT.

AND THAT WOULD NOT BE, SO IF IT WAS REFUNDED IN JULY, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD AS THE CON AS WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE.

CORRECT.

AND THEREFORE, TECHNICALLY, AND I'M NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENT, BUT TECHNICALLY THAT IS NOT PER CODE PER LAW, CORRECT? IT DE IT DEPENDS.

I MEAN, YES, BUT I KNOW THERE'S SOME FOLKS FOR INSTANCE, WHO UM, CAN ONLY DONATE $50 AS A COUPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS WITH THE CITY.

SOMETIMES THEY CHECK THE BOX FOR PROCESSING FEES AND WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND MANUALLY REFUND PROCESSING FEES EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER CAME TO US.

SO IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WOULD INTERPRET THAT.

IF SOMEONE PAYS PROCESSING FEES AND THEY, AND THEN WE REFUND THEM, HAVE WE FALLEN OUT OF GOOD FAITH WITH THE LETTER OF THE LAW? I, I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE WE ARE REFUNDING THE MONEY AND NOT SPENDING IT.

RIGHT.

UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT.

AND, AND, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO STEER IT ANOTHER WAY OR, OR, YOU KNOW, GIVE MY JUDGMENT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

TECHNICALLY, TECHNICALLY IT'S, AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT I DON'T KNOW, UM, AS WELL AS YOU DO.

I THINK YOU, YOU KNOW THAT, UH, BETTER THAN THAN I DO.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING HERE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE REGULATION IS THAT REFUNDS MUST BE ISSUED WITHIN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD AS THE CONTRIBUTION.

AND SO MY QUESTION IS TECHNICALLY DID THAT HAPPEN? THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN FOR SOME OF THE REFUNDS.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH SOFTWARE IN REAL TIME, IT CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SET THAT THRESHOLD.

SO WE HAD THE THRESHOLD AT $400, SO PEOPLE COULDN'T PAY THE FEES.

UM, THEN THE LIMIT GOT RAISED AGAIN.

SO IN, YOU KNOW, THE LETTER OF THE LAW, I'M NOT SURE HOW CLOSELY YOU WANNA CALCULATE THAT IT CAME IN, BUT IT GOT REFUNDED VERSUS ALL CANDIDATES HAVING TO USE THE SOFTWARE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS THAT I DIDN'T BUILD THE SOFTWARE AND I CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO THE INTENT IS TO BE IN COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW.

IF I, IF I MAY, I'M I'M STILL UNCLEAR ON THE SPECIFIC CODE THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING.

SO I'M, IF THERE IS, IF THERE IS A, A TIMELINE ENUMERATED THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, I'M, I'M UNAWARE OF WHAT THAT IS.

SO I'LL, I'LL JUST OFFER THAT, UH, TO ISSUE REFUNDS, TO ISSUE REFUNDS AND I, IN ALL MY YEARS, THAT'S ONE THING I MAY HAVE MISSED.

AND IF, IF THAT EXISTS AND I, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, I APOLOGIZE.

I'M GONNA JUMP IN HERE.

EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND.

YEAH, I WAS GONNA ASK, UH, MR. COWER YES.

IF HE COULD WEIGH IN ON THAT FOR US, PLEASE? OF COURSE.

YEP.

IT'S A QUESTION OF WHEN IS A CONTRIBUTION ACCEPTED UNDER THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE AND UNDER THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE UP UNTIL THE LAST DAY OF THE REPORTING PERIOD, A CANDIDATE CAN DECIDE TO ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT A CONTRIBUTION.

IF THE CONTRIBUTION IS, IS STILL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CANDIDATE, HAS NOT BEEN REFUNDED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE REPORTING PERIOD.

IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED.

DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T LATER BE REFUNDED, BUT IT IS ACCEPTED IF IT HASN'T BEEN REFUNDED AS OF THAT LAST DATE.

AND THAT'S JUST A GRACE PERIOD THAT CANDIDATES HAVE TO DECIDE I'VE ACCEPTED TOO MUCH AND SEND IT BACK AND NO HARM, NO FOUL.

BUT IS THERE A TIMELINE ENUMERATED FOR THE, WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COMMISSIONER IS THAT THERE'S A TIMELINE FOR THE REFUND.

IT'S THE LAST DAY OF THE REPORTING PERIOD IN WHICH THE CONTRIBUTION WAS ACCEPTED.

AFTER THAT IT CAN STILL BE REFUNDED, BUT IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED.

GOT IT.

UH, THERE'S ONE OTHER THING I'LL ADD THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, WHICH IS THAT IN BOTH 2018 AND 2022, THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS WERE RAISED FOR CAMPAIGNS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION CYCLE IN 2022.

THE CAMPAIGN LIMITS WERE RAISED MID-CYCLE.

UM, IT'S A PRODUCT OF OUR ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT RIGHT NOW.

BUT, UH, WHAT THAT DID DO WAS CREATED A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY MAXED OUT, LET'S USE THE MAYOR FOR EXAMPLE, PREVIOUSLY GIVEN $400 ON HIS NEXT CONTRIBUTION TO GIVE A HUNDRED DOLLARS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE.

UM, THIS HAPPENED WITH OTHER FOLKS WHO LATER CAME BACK AND GAVE WHEN THEY HAD, WHEN THEY WERE ELIGIBLE TO GIVE MORE IN THE PROCESS OF

[00:55:01]

THAT PAID TRANSACTION FEES.

NOW THIS IS WHERE WE END UP WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE PAID $2 AND 95 CENTS OVER THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT.

UM, PREVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T PAY TRANSACTION FEES BECAUSE THE, THE FI THE FINANCE SYSTEM WILL NOT LET THEM PAY OVER.

THE MAXIMAL WILL NOT LET THEM DONATE THE, THE BEYOND THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT.

BUT WHEN THEY'RE COMING BACK TO GIVE A NEW AMOUNT, UH, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T TRIGGER THE SAME STOP, WHICH IS HOW WE END UP IN SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS.

SO I WANT TO GO SPECIFICALLY TO THE JENNIFER STEVENSON TWO CONTRIBUTIONS.

IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR SPREADSHEET.

SHE GAVE TWO $400 CONTRIBUTIONS, THE SECOND ONE ON JUNE 29TH, 2022.

YOU WITH ME THERE? MM-HMM.

.

AND THEN YOUR NOTE SAYS THAT SHE NEEDS A REFUND OF $350.

I ASSUME THAT WAS DONE AFTER THE FILING OF THIS COMPLAINT.

IS THAT A FAIR, ASSUMING THAT IT'S BEEN DONE? IS THAT ACCURATE? YES, IT WAS.

AND THAT'S, UH, MR. KEENAN'S COMPLAINT CAME IN THE VERY MORNING AFTER THE ELECTION.

SO WE HAD NOT WOKEN UP AND HAD OUR COFFEE AND GOTTEN INTO OUR SPREADSHEET CRUNCHING QUITE YET.

BUT CLEARLY HE'S A EARLY BIRD AND, AND I'M JUST, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, THE TIMELINE SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT.

UM, AND THERE WAS A REPORTING PERIOD BETWEEN JUNE 29TH AND ELECTION DAY.

THERE'S ONE DUE LIKE WHAT, NOVEMBER 1ST OR SOMETHING? 10 DAYS BEFORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? RIGHT.

THERE ARE 30 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION AND 10 DAYS OR EIGHT DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

WITH, WITH VERY SHORT TURNAROUND AS WELL.

AND I WILL SAY, UH, WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS AT $450, UH, THIS IS EVEN WITH, OF THE CAMPAIGN OF EXCESS OF SIX FIGURES, STILL NOT REALLY THE KIND OF CAMPAIGN WHERE YOU CAN HAVE SOPHISTICATED SOFTWARE.

THAT MEANS THAT A LOT OF THIS IS DONE MANUALLY VIA SPREADSHEETS AND, UH, OCCASIONALLY ONE SUCH AS THE ENTHUSIASTIC DONORS OF THE STEVENSON'S, UH, WE'LL SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS.

AND IN THAT CASE WE HAVE CAUGHT IT AND WE HAVE REFUNDED THE, THE MONEY.

COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, I APPRECIATE THE, OR MAYBE ALREADY COMPLETION OF, UH, REFUNDS THAT WERE INADVERTENTLY SORT OF ACCEPTED OVER LIMITS CONCERNING THE DONOR REPORTED OCCUPATION AND THE DONOR RECO REPORTED EMPLOYER.

UM, I THINK NA YOU SAID IT'S CUZ THEY'RE NOT SELF-EMPLOYED OR, OR THEY'RE NOT RETIRED, THEY JUST DON'T WORK.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT INSTEAD OF NA, WHICH MEANS NORMALLY NOT APPLICABLE CUZ THE LAW IS THAT IT'S FOR EVERYBODY.

IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT SAYS NOT EMPLOYED, UM, FOR PEOPLE LIKE THAT.

AND THEN THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT IT SAYS, UM, EMPLOYEE, LIKE THEIR JOB IS EMPLOYEE AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER.

IT'S, IT'S, THE ONUS IS ON THE CAMPAIGN TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL, UM, OCCUPATION BECAUSE EMPLOYEE ISN'T REALLY AN OCCUPATION.

AND THE, THE OTHER IS, UM, I THINK WHAT WAS IT, INSTEAD OF EMPLOYEE THAT RETIRED OR NO RETIRED IS FINE.

UM, IT WAS, UH, IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES EMPLOYEE, UM, SELF.

YEAH, I THINK SELF, YES, THANK YOU.

SELF IS NOT AN OCCUPATION EITHER.

UM, EMPLOYER, IT COULD BE SELF, BUT EMPLOYEE OCCUPATION CAN'T BE SELF.

IT, IT IS.

UM, AND FURTHER I WOULD SAY ABOUT THESE MARRIED COUPLES, UM, YES, THE MARRIED COUPLES DID NOT GIVE OVER THE LIMIT IN MANY CASES, HOWEVER, IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR.

UM, A LOT OF TIMES DONOR, UM, NAME CAN BE, UM, FOR EXAMPLE ADLER AND LAND RATHER THAN JUST HAVING 400, HAVING 400 FROM ADLER, 400 FROM LAND AND THEN ANOTHER HUNDRED FROM ADLER.

UM, IT'S REALLY NOT FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO KNOW THAT ADLER AND LAND ARE MARRIED.

OKAY.

PROBABLY THEY DO KNOW THAT.

BUT UM, OTHER COUPLES, IT'S NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC, IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CAMPAIGN TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE AREN'T VIOLATIONS.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT FOR THOSE MARRIED COUPLES THAT GAVE THE $900, UM, OR IT, OR EVEN

[01:00:01]

THE, UM, ONES THAT ARE UM, LIMITED TO 50 AS A COUPLE, THAT IT BE MADE CLEAR THAT THIS IS A COUPLE AND NOT AN INDIVIDUAL.

UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE BESIDES THE REFUNDS IS A CLARIFICATION OF SOME OF THOSE, UM, TYPES OF, UM, SORRY, OCCUPATION CLARIFICATION OF THE OCCUPATIONS THAT ARE LISTED AS SELF.

YOU CAN ASK THOSE PEOPLE, UM, I UNDERSTAND THEY FILL IT OUT ON A SOFTWARE AND YOU JUST TRANSFER IT, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT GIVING THE INFORMATION THAT'S REALLY REQUIRED BY LAW, THEN THE CAMPAIGN SHOULD ASK FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ALSO TO CLARIFY WHEN IT IS A COUPLE, UM, RATHER THAN MAKING IT LOOK LIKE ADLER WENT OVER THE LIMIT.

UM, SO THAT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED IN YOUR CORRECTIONS.

ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS I OR CLARIFICATIONS? I WOULD SAY RATHER THAN CORRECTIONS? YES.

LET ME SAY I, I APPRECIATE THAT INPUT AND UM, WE'LL TRY TO BE MORE DILIGENT IN MAKING THAT PART CLEARER MOVING FORWARD.

UM, IT IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THEY SELF INPUT THAT INTO THE SOFTWARE IS VERY HARD FOR US TO KEEP TRACK OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT DATA GETS EXPORTED LATER ON.

UM, AS FAR AS CLARIFICATIONS, I KNOW THAT IF YOU ARE AMENDING INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED WITHIN A CERTAIN REPORTING PERIOD, YOU NEED TO FILE A, AN ACTUAL CORRECTION, UM, AFTER THE FACT YOU'RE JUST FILING A NEW REPORT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO GO BACK AND FILE A CORRECTION TO A REPORT ALREADY FILED SIMPLY FOR OCCUPATIONAL, YOU KNOW, AND LAST NAME TYPE OF INFORMATION.

I USUALLY IT'S THE DOLLARS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO GO SAY, WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, WE REFUNDED SOMETHING OR WE, WE, UH, DIDN'T LISTEN EXPENDITURE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.

SO I'M, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT AND SEE IF WE CAN BE A LITTLE MORE CLEAR MOVING FORWARD.

I'D LIKE TO OFFER, LIKE TO OFFER A COUPLE THINGS BEFORE WE WE MOVE ON.

UH, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, I, I KNOW THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT EMPLOYER OCCUPATION AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE, THERE WERE SOME SPECIFICALLY THAT MR. KEENAN MENTIONED, UH, EMPLOYEES AT THE ORGANIZATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS RIVERSIDE PARTNERS, NOW KNOWN AS RIVERSIDE, THAT IS THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THEIR TITLES ARE EMPLOYEE AND WE DID CHECK, I KNOW HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT, BUT THE REALITY IS, IS THAT IS THEIR TITLE AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WORK.

AND AS FAR AS RIVERSIDE CORRECT, THEY WORK AT THE STREET, THEY WORK AT, I MEAN AS NOW IT'S A, IT'S A COMPANY.

THEY USED TO GO BY RIVERSIDE RESOURCES, BUT THEY, THEY REBRANDED AND RENAMED THEIR BUSINESS AS SIMPLY RIVERSIDE.

SO THERE'S NOT ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE IN THAT LINE THAT'S, UM, THEIR LEGALLY THEIR LEGAL ENTITY NAME.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S, I'M GONNA JUMP IN REAL QUICK.

UM, MR. UH, MS. UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK HAD A QUESTION, BUT I'M GONNA LET MR. COWER JUST GO REAL QUICK AND THEN I'LL GET TO MS. COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK SUGGEST YOU CHECK WITH THE CITY CLERK ABOUT THE C R UH, UH, CANDIDATE, C O H REPORT.

I THINK YOU CAN FILE ONE, BUT CHECK WITH THE CITY CLERK, EVEN IF IT IS A, AN AMENDMENT OF SOMETHING LIKE OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYER BEFORE YOU DECIDE YOU CAN'T DO THAT, JUST CHECK WITH THE CLERK.

HAPPY TO.

THERE'S, I, THERE IS SOMETHING I THINK RELEVANT TO HER QUESTION AND, AND, UH, HIS COMMENT ABOUT THAT I WILL POINT OUT IN EVERY INSTANCE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TED SIF IN EVERY INSTANCE WHERE SOMEBODY WAS OVER THE LIMIT, IT WAS AFTER THE CAMPAIGN LIMITS WERE RAISED, THEREFORE YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE DONATING AND PAYING PROCESSING FEES THAT HAPPENS IN MID-CAMPAIGN THAT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, THEY OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.

THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, PERHAPS WE NEED TO MAKE A LIST BECAUSE IT HAS GOTTEN VERY CONFUSING WITH THE FEES AND THE NAMES BECAUSE IT'S VERY COMMON NOW FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE MARRIED WHO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT NAMES AND THEN EVEN ADDRESSES.

SOME PEOPLE JUST LIVE TOGETHER AND HAVE FOR 25 YEARS.

BUT, UM, WE PROBABLY NEED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE FEES IF YOU DO ANYTHING AND THEY, THEY ASK, DO YOU WANNA GIVE A 5% OR DO YOU

[01:05:01]

WANNA GIVE A 10%? AND PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT THIS IS GONNA BE A PROBLEM.

I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS GONNA BE A PROBLEM, BUT I DON'T CONTRIBUTE A LOT ONLINE.

I LIKE TO WRITE A CHECK, BUT IT CAN BE A BIG PROBLEM.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT WHERE WE CAN MAKE A LIST.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS, UM, REAL QUICKLY, I JUST, MR. ESPINOZA, YOU RAISED THE POINT THAT EVERY EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE AFTER THE INCREASE OF THE LIMITS.

AM I CORRECT THAT THE LIMITS WERE INCREASED IN AUGUST? UH, TO MY MEMORY? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO WE AT LEAST HAVE JENNIFER STEVENSON WHOSE EXCESSIVE HER, HER SECOND $400 WAS IN JUNE, WHICH IS BEFORE THE INCREASE IN THE LIMITS.

UH, YOU'RE RIGHT, I WAS LOOKING AT THE LAST CONTRIBUTION SHE MADE, WHICH WAS ON SEPTEMBER 29TH, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHEN THE OTHER PEOPLE GAVE.

SO YES, MS. STEVENSON ALSO GAVE AFTER, AFTER THAT TIME, WELL, SHE GAVE A ANOTHER EXCESSIVE MAYBE, I GUESS THERE'S, SHE'S LISTED, UH, ON WITH MARK AND JENNIFER FOR, UH, SEPTEMBER 29TH, BUT SHE MAY, SHE GAVE 400 IN DECEMBER OF 21 AND THEN 400 IN JUNE.

ARE THOSE, BECAUSE THEY'RE, I THOSE ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE $400 LIMIT, RIGHT? UH, WELL THEY ARE, BUT AT THE TIME WE WERE UNCLEAR IF MARK STEVENSON AND JENNIFER STEVENSON WERE ACTUALLY MARRIED.

IT'S A COMMON NAME.

HAVE WE LATER FOUND OUT THAT THEY WERE DONATION IN THE NAME OF MARK AND JENNIFER AT THE SAME TIME? KIND OF GIVES THAT AWAY.

I'M NOT, I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE ONE THAT'S IN THE NAME OF MARK AND JENNIFER.

NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND YOU, BUT I'M, I'M SAYING HANG ON, HANG ON.

YEAH, YOU HAVE BOTH OF THEM GAVE 400 ON DECEMBER 29TH OF 21.

MM-HMM.

, AND BOTH OF THEM GAVE 400 ON JUNE 29TH OF 22, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY, IF I UNDERSTAND THE LAW CORRECTLY, AND MAYBE SOMEONE CAN TELL ME, I DON'T, I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT POSSIBILITY.

MRS. STEVENSON, JENNIFER STEVENSON, SHE GAVE HER EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTION BEFORE THE LIMITS WERE RAISED.

AM I, AM, AM I MISSING SOMETHING ON THAT? I WOULD SAY THAT'S ACCURATE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON, UH, QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE EMPLOYMENT OR EMPLOYER INFORMATION.

UM, YOU STATE IN, IN THE LETTER THAT YET IT WOULD BE INACCURATE TO IDENTIFY SUCH INDIVIDUALS AS UNEMPLOYED, A HOMEMAKER OR RETIRED.

AND I BELIEVE I HEARD QUITE THE OPPOSITE FROM, FROM COUNSEL IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY.

THAT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS ACTUALLY A BEST PRACTICE AND UNDERSTAND THAT.

FIRST, LET ME SAY THIS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT'S VERY NEBULOUS ABOUT THIS OCCUPATION AND, AND YOU KNOW, THE, THE SOFTWARE, IT'S, UM, THERE AREN'T STANDARDS.

SO I CAN DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE COMPLEXITY, BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD EARLIER, WHICH IS THERE ARE BEST PRACTICES OUT THERE THAT FOR THOSE INSTANCES, INSTEAD OF NOT APPLICABLE, THAT IT