[00:00:06]
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? GREAT.
[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.
UM, I'M GONNA START WITH SECRETARY WYNN STANTON.
SIDNEY WILLIAMS. I UNDERSTAND HE'S ON HIS WAY.
SHE'S, OH, UH, DEBRA, COULD YOU PLEASE TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? OKAY.
DO WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THAT WATCHI, HUH? YEAH.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS, DANBURG AND L AND LORI ATTENDING REMOTELY.
[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.
SO, UH, WE HAVE TONIGHT JEFFREY BOWEN, HE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP MR. BOWEN.
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.
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.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BOWEN.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
[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 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.
THANK YOU FOR, FOR LEADING THAT AND WE'LL, WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
[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,
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
UM, SO I'M GONNA GO TO THE THIRD ITEM.
SORRY, THIS IS LOOKING LIKE MY DESK AT HOME.
[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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
AND SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HERE.
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.
THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS 6:40 PM
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.
UH, YES, THIS IS DOUG KEENAN, AND 10 MINUTES IS SUFFICIENT.
HOW ABOUT FROM THE RESPONDENT? YES, I'M CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PAGE ELLIS AND 10 MINUTES WILL BE SUFFICIENT.
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.
ARE YOU READY? WOULD YOU I'M READY.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 KNOW IF THAT SAYS THE DATE.
THEY DO HAVE THE DATE ON OUR SPREADSHEET.
IT'S, IT, IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO MINE.
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.
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.
UH, OTHER REFUNDS WERE ISSUED AT OTHER TIMES.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ONES FOR $2 ON THIS PARTICULAR SPREADSHEET.
AND THEN FOR EXAMPLE, ON SUSAN GOLDBERG, IT SAYS, NEED REFUND OF 402 95.
THE SEVERAL OF THESE SAY NEED REFUND.
HAVE THOSE BEEN REFUNDED? THESE WERE, THOSE HAVE BEEN, 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.
I THINK THAT WAS ME NEEDING TO VERIFY AND MATTER.
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.
COMMISSIONER STANTON? UH, YES, THANK YOU TO BOTH PARTIES FOR YOUR, UH, DILIGENCE IN PROVIDING GOOD DETAIL.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
[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.
AND IF WE DID A REFUND IN JULY, THAT WOULD ROLL ONTO THE NEXT, THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED REPORT.
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.
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.
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.
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.
YEAH, I WAS GONNA ASK, UH, MR. COWER YES.
IF HE COULD WEIGH IN ON THAT FOR US, PLEASE? OF COURSE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 WOULD BEHOOVE THE CAMPAIGN TO LIST IT AS, UH, OR THE INDIVIDUAL TO LIST AS UNEMPLOYED OR RETIRED.
SO IT'S KIND OF THE OPPOSITE OF, SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE BEST PRACTICES OUT THERE OR ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY BEST PRACTICES FOR THE OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYER FIELD, I GUESS, OR INFORMATION? I'M NOT AWARE OF THE LOCATION WHERE IT'S SPECIFICALLY LISTED WHICH ONES ARE ALLOWED AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT.
AND THEY ARE SELF-REPORTED, SO IT GETS DIFFICULT WHEN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SAY, OKAY, I'VE FILLED IT OUT, HERE'S MY INFORMATION, AND THEY FILL IT OUT, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
SO THESE ARE FULLY SELF-REPORTED AND WE MADE OUR BEST EFFORTS TO TRY TO FILL THEM IN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE, THERE MAY BE SOME DESIRE FOR MORE CLARITY OR FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO, UM, EXPLAIN WHAT THEIR PROFESSION IS OR WHETHER THEY HAVE ONE OR WHAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS WITH WITH PAID WORK.
UM, BUT THESE ARE SELF-REPORTED, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE ARE ANY THAT ARE DISALLOWED, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE, THE NEED FOR CLARITY.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM EITHER THE COMPLAINANT FOR EITHER THE COMPLAINANT OR THE
[01:10:01]
RESPONDENT? SO, UM, I'M WONDERING NEXT STEPS, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? UM, COMPLAINT, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.I'LL MAKE A MOTION, EITHER NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER TWO, UH, A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION OR A LETTER OF AUTOMATION, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN VERY CONFUSING AND THINGS HAVE COME UP THAT WE WEREN'T EVEN AWARE OF, OF THE CONTR OF THE 2 98 OR WHATEVER.
SO, UM, EITHER ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION FOR A MOTION.
UM, MY FIRST ONE WOULD BE PROBABLY NUMBER TWO, BECAUSE IT HAS, IT HAS GOTTEN JUST A LITTLE BIT DEEPER THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE.
WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND YET, DO WE? UH, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
WE HAVEN'T FOUND THAT A VALID VALIDATION HAS OCCURRED.
THAT MY, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
SO, UH, PARLIAMENT, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK'S MOTION? MAYBE LET IT DIE FOR WANT OF A SECOND AND SEE IF THERE WOULD BE A MOTION ABOUT, UM, WHETHER WE THINK THERE'S A, A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE GROUND, REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE.
THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
IS THERE A, WILL YOU ASK
UM, MAYBE SOME OF IT'S TECHNICAL, UM, BUT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED BY COM.
UM, THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
IT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STANTON.
SO NOW WE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, ARE WE GOING TO DO NUMBER ONE, A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION? THAT'S AFTER, THAT'S, SO I'M GONNA JUST JUMP IN JUST FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT.
THAT'LL BE OUR NEXT STA, BUT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS AND DEBATE THE MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER GREEN COMMISSIONERS GREENBERG AND STANTON MOVED.
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.
SO WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS THE NEXT STEP.
SO ANY DEBATE ON THE MOTION, UM, MADE BY YES.
COMMISSIONER EVENTS? UM, I GUESS I WANT TO CLARIFY.
I THINK TODAY WE ONLY DECIDE IF THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS, AND IF WE SAY YES, THEN NEXT MONTH WE COME BACK FOR A FINAL HEARING, AND THEN WE DECIDE WHETHER WE ACTUALLY THINK, WHETHER WE THINK THAT THE VIOLATION ACTUALLY DID OCCUR.
AND IF SO, THEN WE DECIDE ON THESE LEVELS OF PUNISHMENT.
BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE CAN DECIDE ON THAT TONIGHT.
UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE NORMAL PROCEDURE, BUT SOMETIMES, UM, WITH AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT, UM, WE CAN PROCEED RIGHT TO, TO THE, YEAH.
I DON'T THINK THE RESPONDENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE HAS WELL, WE COULD ASK AGAIN.
SOMEBODY ELSE HAD THEIR HAND RAISED.
YEAH, I, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, UH, WHAT WAS JUST SAID THAT TONIGHT THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN DO IS DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A REASON TO BELIEVE IT'S REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.
AND THEN AFTER WE SET UP FOR A FINAL HEARING, IF WE DO THAT, AND AT THE FINAL HEARING, WE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT PROCEEDS, IF WE HAD THAT, THE SIX VOTES TONIGHT, UH, IN FACT, UH, UH, WAS A VIOLATION, OR WAS WHETHER IT HAS BEEN CURED AND RECTIFIED OR WHATEVER, LET'S STICK WITH THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE, UM, OF WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
THAT'S WHAT, AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT TO DO NEXT.
Y'ALL ARE JUMPING OVER EACH OTHER.
UM, NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, THERE WAS THAT,
[01:15:01]
UH, CASE RECENTLY WHERE THERE WAS AN ADMISSION BY THE RESPONDENT MM-HMM.CONSEQUENCES, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
JUST TO CLARIFY, UNDER 2 7 44, IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MAY SO STATE AND THE COMMISSION MAY THEN GO DIRECTLY TO SANCTIONS.
GET IT UP WITH, AND, AND I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS, AND I JUST ASSUMED, BUT COULD WE, COULD WE KIND OF WAIT ON THIS AND ASK THE RESPONDENT, THAT'S BECAUSE I'M INTERPRETING THIS AS AN ADMISSION, BUT MAYBE OTHERS ARE NOT INTERPRETING IT AS SUCH AS, LET'S JUST COME, LET'S THINK WE CAN JUST COME OUT AND HAVE THE RESPONDENT ANSWER.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA DO.
UM, SO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF ACKNOWLEDGING, UM, WHAT'S THE WORD? I DON'T WANNA USE THE WRONG WORD.
UM, ACKNOWLEDGING A VIOLATION.
AND, AND THEN AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE THE OPTION, IF YOU DO SO, TO DECIDE WHATEVER THE SANCTION MIGHT BE.
UM, OR YOU CAN, UM, WE WOULD FINISH VOTING ON THIS MOTION AND SEE WHAT, WHAT TRANSPIRES AFTER THAT, WHETHER OR NOT TO TAKE IT TO A FINAL HEARING.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THE REASON I'M MAKING THE MOTION THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED IS BECAUSE BY STATE LAWS EXPLAINED BY OUR ATTORNEY, IF THE REFUND ISN'T BEFORE THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD, IT IS A VIOLATION.
OF COURSE, WE CAN DECIDE TO DO THE MOST MINIMAL LETTER WITH A NOTIFICATION, UM, WHICH, UM, WE'LL TALK ABOUT AFTER.
BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT, I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION.
I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
THAT IF THE FINDING IS, OR IF THE VOTE IS THAT IT, THAT'S A SEPARATE, UM, DECISION, THEN, THEN THE SANCTIONS AND THE SANCTIONS, UM, AS, UM, AS BEEN, HAS BEEN NOTED IS THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IT.
SO IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY JUMP TO THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR, FOR ME, THE PART WHERE I INTERPRETED AS, UM, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON THE RESPONDENT'S PART IS UNDER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
THE STATEMENT READS, UM, TOO MUCH ACCEPTANCE.
THROUGH OUR OWN RESEARCH, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT ONLY SEVEN MEET THIS CRITERIA, THE CRITERIA OF CRITERIA OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE OVER THE LIMIT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M BASING IT ON.
AND AGAIN, PLEASE, UM, THERE'S NO JUDGMENT EITHER WAY.
I'M JUST GOING BY WHAT, WHAT'S HERE.
SO I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION ON THAT, THAT THAT WHAT EXACTLY IS THE INTENTION OF THAT STATEMENT, THOSE LETTERS.
UH, I'M GONNA GET BACK TO, UM, ANY MORE QUESTIONS I WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, UH, TIME TO SORT OF PROCESS AND, AND THINK ABOUT THIS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, FURTHER QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE WAITING THAT, UM, AND I CAN READ THE SANCTIONS, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SHOULDN'T WE JUST WAIT ON THE SANCTIONS TILL AFTER WE VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A VIOLATION? YES.
I MEAN, BUT I'M JUST, YEAH, COMMISSIONER STANTON.
BUT BEFORE WE EVEN VOTE, SHOULDN'T WE HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT ON IF SHE WAS, LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR.
BECAUSE WE'RE ASSUMING A LOT HERE, AND I JUST DON'T WANT ASSUMPTIONS.
I WANNA HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.
AND I'M GIVING HER A MOMENT TO DO THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS, WE'VE SORT OF SPRUNG IT ON HER.
COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON, UH, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A VIOLATION? UM, YES, I, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF THESE REFUNDS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON, UH, NOVEMBER 8TH.
AND AS SUCH, THEY, THEY WERE NOT COMPLETED UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE.
SO I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WAS THE, THE TIMELINE.
AND JUST WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK, AS YOU GO ON TO FUTURE DELIBERATIONS AS A COMMISSION,
[01:20:01]
THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT NOT EVERYTHING LISTED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT BY MR. KEENAN, UM, WAS IN VIOLATION.THERE WERE A LOT THAT WERE NOT.
SO I WOULD JUST KINDLY ASK THAT, UM, JUST THE DETAILED INFORMATION WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE IS KIND OF WHERE, WHERE YOU START IN, IN YOUR FUTURE DELIBERATIONS ON THE ISSUE.
UH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS, SHOULDN'T WE VOTE? YEAH, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GET BACK TO THAT AND JUST HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY AND COME BACK.
WELL, I, YEAH, I THINK I'M HESITANT ABOUT THE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS'S STATEMENT.
I'M HESITANT ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH IT.
BUT I THINK IN ORDER FOR US TO ACT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC ANNO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A SPECIFIC THING THAT'S A VIOLATION.
I THINK, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
I THINK THAT THEY WOULD DENY THAT THE WHOLE EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION THING, I THINK THEY WOULD DENY THAT, AND THEY WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANY OF THAT'S A VIOLATION.
UM, AND I THINK THEY PROBABLY SAY THAT SOME OF THESE REFUNDS ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND SOME ARE NOT.
SO I, I THINK WITH WHAT WE JUST HEARD, WE'RE PROBABLY ON A TWO TRACK NEED TO GET BACK ONTO THE SAME PAGE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
AND YET, UM, WE HAVE A WHOLE NOTHER PIECE OF IT, WHICH IS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
AND SO I'M GONNA ASK, GET BACK TO OUR PARLIAMENTARIAN COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? THIS MAY BE CLARIFICATION OF THE MOTION, UM, WHICH IS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED IN THAT CONTRIBUTIONS WERE ACCEPTED OVER THE LIMITS, OVER THE LEGAL LIMITS, AND NOT REFUNDED IN THE SAME REPORTING PERIOD.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A CLARIFICATION OF YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION.
COMMISSIONER STANTON, UH, I'D LIKE TO, UM, UM, OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION THAT NOT THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO POINTS, AS YOU MENTIONED, OVER THE LIMIT AND, UH, TIMING OF THE REFUND.
WELL, THE OVER THE LIMIT OCCURS BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF THE REFUNDS.
COMMISSIONER, WAS THAT CLEAR? I'M SORRY.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, AGAIN, I JUST, I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
THIS IS PROBABLY FOR, UH, COUNSEL.
UM, I KNOW WE'RE, THE REQUIREMENT HERE IS A REASONABLE GROUND STANDARD, BUT MY CONCERN IS WITH REGARDS TO THE ACTUAL VIOLATION THAT WE MUST ESTABLISH REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR, WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF INTENT THAT IS NECESSARY TO GO ALONG WITH THE ACTION? IF YOU'LL GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE, I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT IF THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE, UH, DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNSEL THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH THAT WE GO INTO A SECOND EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I KNOW THAT'S NOT EXCITING
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I'D LIKE, LIKE TO OFFER A MOTION THAT WE GO INTO A SECOND EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, UM, FROM A PARLIAMENTARY STANDPOINT.
WE STILL HAVE THE OTHER MOTION ON THE TABLE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
UM, SO I'M WONDERING WHAT PROCEDURALLY WE DO TABLE THAT WE TABLE THAT, AND THEN MOTION, SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR GOING INTO THIS MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON, AND LET ME KNOW IF THIS IS NOT AN, AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK THIS QUESTION.
CUZ MY QUESTION IS NOT SO MUCH WHAT IS CODE, BUT WHAT IS PROCEDURE FOR THE COMMISSION? SO I THINK THAT IT'S BETTER TO ASK THAT QUESTION OPENLY.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF OUR CHARGE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE'S A REASONABLE GROUND, MY UNDERSTANDING ALL THIS TIME, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A CLAUSE THAT SPEAKS TO INTENT.
SO IN ASKING THAT QUESTION, IS THERE REASONABLE GROUND? ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED? THERE WAS NO MENTION OF
[01:25:01]
INTENT.ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDER OR THE INDIVIDUAL INTENDED TO VIOLATE? SO, SO THIS IS, THIS IS AN INTERESTING, I FEEL LIKE IT'S INTERJECTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS CASE.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT'S, UH, RELEVANCE.
LET, LET ME ADDRESS THAT, THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CHARTER PROVISION, YOU'VE GOTTA LOOK AT BOTH THE CHARTER PROVISION FOR WHAT IS THE ALLEGED VIOLATION, AND THEN YOU'VE GOTTA GO BACK TO THE CITY CODE TO LOOK AT WHETHER IT'S AN OFFENSE, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A MAXIMUM OF LAW THAT THE CHARTER DOES NOT CREATE AN OFFENSE.
THE CHARTER JUST ESTABLISHES, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE UNDERLYING, UH, RULES ARE.
THE CHARTER SAYS THIS, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE AN INTENT REQUIREMENT.
NO CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL, OR HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE SHALL ACCEPT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCESS OF $300.
WE ALL ALL KNOW THAT THAT'S INFLATION ADJUSTED PER CONTRIBUTOR, PER ELECTION FROM ANY PERSON EXCEPT FOR THE CANDIDATE AND SMALL DONOR COMMITTEES.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE LAW COMES FROM.
BUT CHARTERS ARE NOT SELF IMPLEMENTING.
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE SECTION 2.2 0.5 OF THE CITY CODE SAYS AS FOLLOWS, UM, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION B, WHICH IS IRRELEVANT HERE.
A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATES THIS CHAPTER OR A PROVISION OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT, COMMITS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1.1 0.99 OFFENSES GENERAL PENALTY.
NOW, WHAT YOU ARE DOING AS A COMMISSION IS A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT TRACK AS OPPOSED TO A REFERRAL TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR, UM, CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, WHICH HAS NOT COME UP HERE.
SO WHETHER OR NOT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED OF THE, THE CITY CODE REQUIRES A FINDING THAT A PERSON KNOWINGLY VIOLATES THIS CHAPTER OR A PROVISION OF THE CHARTER.
SO WHAT I'M CALLING INTENT MIGHT BETTER BE DESCRIBED AS KNOWINGLY VIOLATES.
NOW, YOU COULD WRITE A WHOLE CHAPTER ABOUT WHAT IS KNOWINGLY IN THE LAW.
AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME THINGS CLEARLY ARE, YOU KNOW, OVERSIGHTS.
AND, AND YOU AS A, THE FACT FINDER HERE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF IT WAS AN ARITHMETIC ERROR OR, YOU KNOW, A, A SMALL, UH, OVERSIGHT OF TWO OR $3, THAT WE DON'T FIND A KNOWING VIOLATION.
IT'S HARDER IN THE LAW TO FIND THAT THERE IS NO KNOWING VIOLATION WHEN THE CAMPAIGN ACCEPTS AND REPORTS, UH, TO $400 CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE THE LIMIT WOULD BE ONE $400 CONTRIBUTION.
AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S YOUR DISCRETION, YOU'RE THE FACT FINDERS.
BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT'S A KNOWING VIOLATION IN THE LAW, THE GENERAL RULE IS IF IT'S AN OVERSIGHT OR SOMETHING THAT IN DUE DILIGENCE NOBODY WOULD'VE CAUGHT, IT'S PROBABLY NOT KNOWING.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S OUT, WRITTEN DOWN CLEARLY, AND ANYBODY WHO ADDS UP THE NUMBERS GETS IT.
THE PRESUMPTION OF THE LAW IS TO BE THAT THAT'S KNOWING IT MAY BE A GOOD PRESUMPTION OR A BAD PRESUMPTION, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE PRESUMPTION OF THE LAW IS.
I, I WOULD JUST SAY TO, TO THAT LINE OF INFORMATION, I THINK IT'S PRETTY EVIDENT THAT OVER 631 CONTRIBUTIONS AND MULTIPLE REFUNDS WE CAUGHT BEFORE DEADLINES, THAT THIS WAS NOT KNOWINGLY TRYING TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THAT LIMIT.
SO I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT, THAT THOSE WORDS ARE, ARE TAKEN TO HEART IN REALLY ADDRESSING IS, IS THIS MALICE? IS THIS SOMEONE TRYING TO SKIRT THE RULES OR IS THIS JUST, YOU KNOW, THREE, THREE ERRORS OUT OF, UM, OUT OF 631 CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WE FAILED TO CATCH BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON, ON THAT DATE? I'M GONNA, YES, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, AND THEN I'M GONNA JUMP IN WITH SOMETHING.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN OPTION TO SIMPLY GIVE A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION WHERE WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY INTENT.
I MEAN, FRANKLY, I THINK IF WE WENT WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB OVER EVERY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, WE'D
[01:30:01]
THESE KIND OF SITUATIONS IN EVERY SINGLE ONE, NOBODY COMES TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE PERSON.UM, THEY COME BECAUSE OF POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS.
AND, AND THAT'S IRRELEVANT THAT WHAT WE'RE, OUR JOB IS TO DECIDE, ARE THE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED WHEN A COMPLAINT IS FILED.
UM, WHATEVER THE REASON THE COMPLAINT'S FILED IS, IS NOT RELEVANT TO US.
IT'S JUST ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED? AND IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS AND I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN THAT YOU HAD A MOTION ABOUT GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AGAIN, UM, I THINK COUNSEL JUST STATED THAT PART OF THE UNDERLYING VIOLATION IS THAT A PERSON HAS TO ACT WITH THE REQUISITE REQUISITE INTENT OR REC REQUISITE CULPABILITY OR MEN'S REA REQUIREMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.
COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT THAT DOES MEAN? SO WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT, SO I'M JUST A CRIMINAL PRACTITIONER, BUT EVERY CRIME REQUIRES BOTH A MEN'S RE AND AN ACT.
REZ KNOWLEDGE IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL.
MEN'S REIS, WHICH IS ABOVE NEGLIGENCE AND ABOVE RECKLESSNESS.
THE CRIMINAL DEFINITION FOR KNOWLEDGE, WHICH I'M NOT SURE IS APPLICABLE HERE.
RIGHT, IS THAT A PERSON ACTS KNOWINGLY OR WITH KNOWLEDGE, WITH RESPECT TO A RESULT OF HIS CONDUCT WHEN HE IS AWARE THAT HIS CONDUCT IS REASONABLY LIKELY OR REASONABLY CERTAIN TO CAUSE THE RESULT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT LEVEL HAS BEEN MET HERE, BUT I'M ALSO NOT SURE THAT THAT IS THE REQUISITE MENS REA, WHICH IS WHY I'VE ASKED THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS IT.
SO I'M GONNA FOLLOW UP, UH, YES, COMMISSIONER TE YUCCA.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT IT SEEMS I'M A LITTLE BIT, UM, CONFUSED ABOUT ESPECIALLY AFTER, UM, WHAT COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS IS SAYING.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING CORRECTLY, IS THAT EVEN IF THERE IS TECHNICALLY A VIOLATION, IF IT WASN'T INTENDED THAT YOU ARE, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT? IS THAT, IS, DOES THAT MEAN IT'S TECHNICALLY A VIOLATION IF IT WASN'T AN IN INTENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE MSS REYES COMPONENT OF THIS ACTION IS SATISFIED? CORRECT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STANTON.
AND THEN I'M GONNA SEE IF WE HAVE ANY SECONDS ON COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS MOTION.
COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS, UH, CLAUSE OF INTENT? HAS THAT BEEN PRESENT THROUGH ALL THE CASES WE'VE HEARD, UH, WITH RESPECT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE? OR WAS IT SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY THIS CASE? CUZ I HAVE NOT HEARD ABOUT THE CHARTER, ABOUT THE CHARTER VERSUS THE CITY CODE.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME MY UNDERSTANDING THAT INTENT IS EVEN COMING INTO PLAY AND MAKING THIS INITIAL DIS UH, DECISION ON WHETHER THEY'RE A REASONABLE GROUNDS.
YOU WOULD BE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HEAR THAT DISCUSSION IN A CRIMINAL SETTING, WHICH THIS IS NOT, UH, IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE WORLD, THE, IT'S A SYSTEM OF REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE.
YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'RE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL OR THE STATE LEVEL OR THE CITY LEVEL AND THE WAY IT, THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES GENERALLY WORK, WHETHER IT'S THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, THE, UH, TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, OR IN THE, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.
YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS REPORTED, AND THE QUESTION WOULD BE, WAS THERE A KNOWING VIOLATION? AGAIN, PUT IT ON THE BOARD.
IF THE REPORT ITSELF, WHICH IS SIGNED AND SWORN TO BY THE CANDIDATE REPORTS AMOUNTS OF MONEY THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW, YOU CAN MAKE THE PRESUMPTION BECAUSE THAT WAS REPORTED AND SWORN TO BY THE CANDIDATE THAT IT WAS KNOWING.
THE, THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT HAVE TO KNOW THAT ACCEPTING $800 WHEN 400 IS THE LIMIT, IS A VIOLATION.
BUT IF THE CANDIDATE KNOWS THAT THERE IS A $400 LIMIT, WHICH IS IN THE LAW AND IN THE CAMPAIGN PACKET, THEN YOU CAN MAKE THE PRESUMPTION THAT THAT'S A KNOWING VIOLATION.
NOW, THERE MAY BE REASONS WHY THE CANDIDATE DOESN'T KNOW IT, AND THAT'S WHAT CAN BE BROUGHT OUT.
BUT IN A SYSTEM OF REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE, WHEN IT'S ON, ON PAPER AND SWORN TO, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION OR THE F E C
[01:35:01]
OR THE T C CAN MAKE THE PRESUMPTION OF A VIOLATION CAUSE IT'S REPORTED AND SWORN TO.I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA JUMP IN HERE.
UM, I'M GONNA GET BACK TO COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WAS INTERESTED IN SECONDING THAT.
I DON'T SEE ANY, ANY, ANY RAISED HANDS TO SECOND THAT MOTION.
SO SEEING NONE, UM, I THINK WE, YES.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT, UM, ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS TO NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET CLARIFICATION.
I'LL DEFINITELY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION IN SEEING NONE.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF GOING INTO A SECOND EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I SEE COMMISSIONER DANBURG, COMMISSIONER STANTON AND COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. THAT'S THREE IN FAVOR.
UM, SO THAT MOTION DID NOT PASS.
SO DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT? YOU MIGHT AS WELL RECORD.
SO IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO GOING IN, OPPOSED TO THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, IF YOU ARE OPPOSED, OPPOSED TO THE MOTION, TO THE MOTION OF GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THAT'S COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS, VICE CHAIR KALE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER TINA YUCCA.
SO I'M GONNA RETURN TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE.
THAT'S THE MOTION MOTION WE TABLED, UM, FROM COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STANTON.
AND IN THE INTERIM, WE HAD COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, WHO WAS WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE VIOLATION.
AND I WANT TO GET BACK TO THAT DISCUSSION.
AND, UM, TECHNICALLY YOU AMENDED THE EMOTION, THE MOTION, UM, TO, TO ACCOUNT FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A VI.
UH, NO, I THINK SHE, SHE JUST AMENDED THE MOTION TO, UM, INCLUDE THE GROUNDS, IMPORTANT PHRASES, REASONABLE GROUNDS.
AND I THINK YOU DID SPECIFY THE ACTUAL PART THAT'S VIOLATION, WHICH IS THE OVER THE LIMIT BECAUSE OF THE REFUND, BUT I MEAN, LACK OF REFUND.
DO YOU MIND REST RESTATING IT, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? IT'S OKAY.
BUT THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE REFUND WAS AFTER THE REPORTING PERIOD.
COMMISSIONER STANTON, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT MOTION? YES.
DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT THE VIOLATION IS? ISN'T THE DECISION JUST WE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS? NO, WE'RE JUST GONNA GO TO A HEARING.
SO MY QUESTION IS, OH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS.
MY QUESTION IS, IF WE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, ARE WE THEN REQUIRED TO GO TO A HEARING? NO.
YEAH, I, I CAN'T CITE THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT, BUT IF WE FIND THAT THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION, I THINK WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A RIGHT.
I THINK YOU ALREADY READ WHEN THERE'S, UM, WHEN THERE'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WE COULD GO RIGHT TO SANCTIONS.
WHERE'S IT SAY, COULD YOU FIND THAT? YEAH.
IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MESA STATE AND THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION OR PROSECUTION.
AND I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE KIND GOT IN A LOOP, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHEN COMMISSIONER LOVEN SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF WANT MORE CLARITY IN THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
[01:40:01]
STATEMENT FROM COUNSEL, UM, MEMBER, BECAUSE IT SEEMED VAGUE.LIKE, OKAY, THERE'S, THERE'S ABOUT THERE, MAYBE.
BUT TAKE THIS IN MIND AND COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE, UM, I, I WOULD, I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE FACT THAT THE, MY PERCEPTION THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED ONCE WE GO TO A, A FINAL HEARING.
UH, JUST AS A MATTER OF DISCLOSURE, WHEN THAT, WHEN THE TERM ACCEPTANCE WAS FOUND AGAINST SPEAKER BILLY CLAYTON, I WAS A LAW CLERK ON THAT.
AND SO I'VE DEALT WITH THAT INTENT AND THE REASON THAT THAT ACCEPTANCE ON THAT DATE IS THE CASE.
BUT, BUT IN THE FINAL HEARING WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE HAVE, I CAN EASILY SEE HOW HAVING YOUR, HAVING YOUR SOFTWARE HONESTLY SAY THAT IT WAS $52 AND 95 CENTS, BECAUSE $2 AND 95 CENTS WAS A FEE.
UH, AND ONCE YOU SEE IT ON THE FORM, YEAH, YOU, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT, YOU SWEAR TO IT, AND YOU DO THE RIGHT THING AND MAKE THE REFUND IMMEDIATELY AS SOON AS YOU CAN GET IT DONE.
BUT THE DATE UPON WHICH YOU ACCEPT IT IS THE DATE UPON WHICH YOU ACCEPT IT, DOING THE RIGHT THING ABOUT IT, DOING A DISCLOSURE AND A REFUND AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING IS MITIGATION.
AND THAT'S ALL WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PROBABLY IN THE, IN THE FINAL HEARING.
COMMISSIONER STANTON, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF DIAL BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS, UH, PROCEDURALLY ACCORDING TO OUR PROCESS AND CLEANLY.
SO DO WE HAVE, UH, AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM RESPONDENT THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED? I'M GONNA JUMP IN IF, UM, IF COMMISSIONERS HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TOO, I WOULD, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SHARE IT
UM, SO I, TO YOUR POINT, UM, WE HAVE THAT RIGHT? YES, YES.
HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS THIS, WHAT WE DO.
IF WE VOTE AND WE SAY THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THEN BY DEFAULT DO WE HAVE TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING? AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET A BEAT ON.
UM, AND I THINK I HAVE, CAN I ADDRESS THAT? I MEAN, IT, IT, IT IS CLEAR IN THE DECIDED STATUTE, NOT, I THINK WE MAY WANT TO SHOW THIS TO THE RESPONDENT 27 44 BK IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO AGREE THAT EVERY VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
THEY CAN SPECIFY, I AGREE, THE FOLLOWING VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, BUT NOT OTHERS.
THE RESPONDENT, MESO STATE AND THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION OR PROSECUTION THAT'S AT THIS MEETING, YOU KNOW? OKAY.
AND, AND LET, LET ME, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I JUST WANT THEM TO KNOW WHAT THE PROVISION SAYS.
AND QUICKLY, WHILE HE'S COMING OVER HERE, I I DO APPRECIATE THAT CLARITY.
CAUSE I, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS NOT IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EVERYTHING THAT MR. KEENAN HAD ORIGINALLY LISTED.
UM, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA TAKE A, A FEW MORE QUESTIONS AND THEN TRY TO REACH SOME TYPE OF DECISION POINT ON THIS.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I THINK THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE, WHICH IS IRONIC,
[01:45:01]
HAVING MADE THE MOTION, IS WHETHER WE'RE IGNORING PART OF OUR JOB, WHICH IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S A SECOND VIOLATION CONCERNING THE LISTING OF, UM, EM, EM EMPLOYMENT.AND THEN I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IT MIGHT BE IN OUR, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VOTE, CONTINUE WITH THE VOTE AND MAKE THAT DECISION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, THERE IS A VIOLATION, BUT MAYBE GO TO A FINAL HEARING INSTEAD OF FOR TRYING TO FORCE, TRYING TO FORCE US TO JUST DO IT TONIGHT.
AND, AND I, IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S QUESTION, IF, IF THERE IS NO MENTION MADE IN THE, UH, REASONABLE GROUNDS MOTION OF THE SECOND ALLEGED VIOLATION, THEN BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND, IT GOES AWAY.
IT'S THE FINDING THE MOTION ON FINDING OF REASONABLE GROUNDS COVERS WHATEVER IS NAMED IN IT.
WHATEVER IS NOT NAMED IN IT, IS EFFECTIVELY DISMISSED FOR NOT HAVING BEEN APPROVED BY SIX VOTES.
UH, COMMI I SAW COMMISSIONER LEVINS, I WAS JUST, WE COULD, WE COULD HAVE SEPARATE MOTIONS.
ONE MOTION ON THE, THE EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS AND ONE ON THE, UH, REPORTING OF THE EMPLOYER, THE EMPLOYMENT ISSUE IN, IN INFO.
UH, COMMISSIONER STANTON, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION, AND THEN WE CAN VOTE OR TAKE SOME KIND OF ACTION ON THE EMPLOYER THING.
COULD WE GET A CLEAN STATEMENT FROM RESPONDENT REGARDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT? I'D LIKE TO OFFER THE RESPONDENT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND, AND THAT WAY WE RECORD IT ACCURATELY ACCORDING TO HOW THE RESPONDENT WISHES.
I THINK SHE'S ALREADY DONE THAT WELL, BUT SHE, BUT SHE ALSO EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO SPECIFY WHICH VIOLATION THAT SHE ACKNOWLEDGED.
I MEAN, WHICH CODE OR REGULATION, UM, WAS VIOLATED NOT ALL OF WHAT WAS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO I JUST WANTED TO OFFER HER THAT OPPORTUNITY.
I THINK WHAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW SHOULD BE THE SPREADSHEET THAT LISTS WHICH ONES WERE IN COMPLIANT THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING WITH.
WHICH ONES HAD REFUNDS? UM, THERE WERE THREE THAT WERE DONATIONS, AND THEN THE OTHERS WERE THE SMALLER AMOUNTS OF THE $2 AND THE PROCESSING FEES, $2 95 CENTS OR $5 AND 58 CENTS.
UM, THE ONLY ONES WHERE WE SAID THE RESULT WOULD BE NEEDING A REFUND THAT WE ESTABLISHED HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED.
THOSE WOULD BE THE ONES THAT WERE SAYING WE, UH, WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECOGNIZE, BUT NOT THE ENTIRE LIST THAT MR. KEENAN HAD PROVIDED.
SO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, BUT IT'S A SMALLER QUANTITY THAN WHAT'S ALLEGED.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION.
WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU A ALLEGED, UM, ACKNOWLEDGING, EXCUSE ME.
I WOULD SAY I'M ACKNOWLEDGING THESE PARTICULAR LINE ITEMS WHERE WE GAVE REFUNDS.
YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND YOU'RE CLARIFYING THAT VIOLATION.
WHICH DONATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THAT.
AND THAT WOULD BE, YOU SAY 3 7 7 3.
SO YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO SEVEN CONTRIBUTIONS? YES.
I'M GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
UM, I WON'T MAKE YOU RESTATE IT AGAIN, BUT IT IS, UM, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE OVER THE REPORTING OF LIMITS THAT AMOUNTS THAT WERE OVER THE LIMITS AND THEY WERE CONSIDERED OVER THE LIMITS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT REFUNDED WITHIN THE CORRECT TIME PERIOD.
SO, ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? UH, RAISE YOUR HANDS.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONER DANBURG, COMMISSIONER TE YUCCA.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS, COMMISSIONER MCCORMACK.
[01:50:01]
SO WE DID FIND, UH, ANY OPPOSED FOR THE RECORD? UM, DID I COUNT YOU COMMISSIONER? OH, OKAY.COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS IS ABSTAINING.
SO THAT MOTION PASSED AND, UM, SO BY DEFAULT WE WOULD BE HAVING A FINAL HEARING ON THAT ONE, UM, ON THAT ASPECT OF THE COMPLAINT.
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE EMPLOYER INFORMATION.
AND I WAS WONDERING THE EMPLOYER OCCUPATION? EXCUSE ME.
EMPLOYER OCCUPATION, COMMISSIONER LEVINS.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, I DID SOMEONE SECOND.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S MOTION? YES.
COMMISSIONER STANTON? DID OKAY? YES.
UM, SO LET'S TAKE UP THE TOPIC OF THE EMPLOYER INFORMATION AND WHETHER ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, PROPOSE A MOTION ON THAT.
I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FIND THAT THERE IS NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO FIND THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO REPORTING THE EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION INFORMATION.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. UH, DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? YES.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF IT'S OUTLINED ANYWHERE, UM, ON THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE OR IN THE PACKET THAT INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE UNIQUE SITUATIONS.
IS THERE ANY GUIDANCE AVAILABLE TO THE CANDIDATES ABOUT THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF, IF ANY OF Y'ALL ON THE COMMISSION WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD KNOW, CUZ I ASSUME I WILL JUST THROW THIS OUT THERE.
I ASSUME WHEN I'M MAKING A DONATION AND I JUST TYPE IN WHAT HAVE YOU AND THE EMPLOYER INFORMATION, EXCUSE MY EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION, IT'S JUST GONNA BE PLUGGED INTO A SPREADSHEET SOMEWHERE JUST LIKE THAT.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, WE'VE REALLY NEVER HAD THAT BEFORE.
UM, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE IN REALLY A NEW TERRITORY WITH A LOT OF THIS CAUSE IT'S GOTTEN, THE STATE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CITY, AND THEN THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING.
SO WE, THIS IS ALL NEW TERRITORY.
AND THEN WITH ALL OF THESE CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE THE YOU, IT'S A PERCENTAGE AND, AND SOMETIME YOU DON'T HAVE A A ANY AUTHORITY OVER IT.
IT'S JUST, IT GOES IN AUTOMATICALLY.
SO, NO, IN ALL THE 11 YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE REALLY HAD THIS, UH, COMMISSIONER TEKA.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE IS, WHAT, WHAT IS A PROCESS FOR US TO BRING THAT UP TO? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, BUT I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE NOTED SOMEWHERE THAT WE, SOME KIND OF GUIDANCE SHOULD BE MADE OR CREATED TO HELP GUIDE NOT JUST US, BUT THE PUBLIC AS WELL ON THIS SITUATION.
WELL, THAT'S WHERE WORKING GROUPS COME IN, IF THAT'S
BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING, UH, YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
AND THAT WOULD CLARIFY IT FOR CANDIDATES AND THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR NO, THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING TO SAY, BUT, UM, I THOUGHT THE STATE FORM HAS THE EXACT SAME INFORMATION IN TERMS OF THE, UM, EMPLOYER AND, AND, UM, IT'S, BUT OCCUPATION, IT DOES HAVE THE FORMS OF FORM, BUT IF YOU LIKE IDENTICAL, IF YOU READ THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE STATE FORM, IT SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILL IT IN EXCEPT IN A VERY LIMITED YEAH.
SO IT'S BASICALLY SURPLUS INFORMATION ON THE STATE FORM THAT YOU CAN FILL IN IF YOU WANT TO, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
AND I THINK, UH, ON THE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN REPORT, AND EVEN IN THE CITY, YOU ONLY HAVE TO FILL IT IN IF THE CONTRIBUTION IS 200 OR MORE.
AND YET YOU LOOK AT THE FORMS MM-HMM.
AND THERE'S THE QUESTION OF IS THERE ANY GUIDANCE ON THAT? UM, THE, THE STATE REGULATIONS AND THE, THE CITY ORDINANCE IS ALL THERE IS.
I MEAN, IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO DIG DEEP, YOU COULD FIND ISSUES, CONTESTED CASES AT THE FEDERAL OR STATE LEVEL, WHICH ARE NOT REALLY APPLICABLE HERE ABOUT HOW DETAILED YOU HAVE TO BE IN FILLING OUT THE FORM.
BUT THIS IS A CITY REQUIREMENT.
THE CITY DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY GUIDANCE ON IT.
THE CLERK WITH PROPER GUIDANCE COULD PUT THAT IN THE PACKET THAT CANDIDATES GET, WHICH TELLS THEM, YOU KNOW, WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED.
BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY GUIDANCE RIGHT NOW EXCEPT OVER $200,
[01:55:01]
$200 OR MORE.AND THE CLERK HAS THIS DISCLAIMER THAT THEY'RE NOT GIVING LEGAL ADVICE.
I, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THERE NEEDS CLARIFICATION, BUT IT'S NOT ONE WE CAN DO TONIGHT.
FOR EXAMPLE, UM, I MAKE IT CLEAR IF MY HUSBAND AND I ARE CONTRIBUTING THAT IT IS THE TWO OF US AND I PUT BOTH OF OUR OCCUPATIONS AND BOTH OF OUR RETIREMENT STATUS.
BUT WHEN I, WHEN I GET BACK, WHEN I SEE IT IN PRINT LATER, IT ALWAYS JUST SAYS RETIRED.
AND IT MAY HAVE BOTH OUR NAMES AND IT MAY ONLY HAVE ONE.
IT IT'S AN ONGOING PROBLEM, BUT IT'S NOT A LAW THAT IS, HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND CLARIFIED.
SO WE CAN'T ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THERE.
WE HAVE A, EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND.
I'M GONNA, SO LET'S, LET'S, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
DO WE HAVE TIME TO TAKE A QUICK VOTE? DO WE HAVE A MINUTE? OKAY, GREAT.
I'M GONNA SUGGEST WE TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION, UH, BY COMMISSIONER LEVINS THAT, UM, TO, IF YOU COULD REPEAT IT, PLEASE.
UH, MY MOTION IS, THE MOTION IS THAT THERE ARE, TO FIND THAT THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THE REPORTING OF EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION INFORMATION.
AND COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SECONDED IT.
SO I'M GONNA GO AROUND ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. COMMISSIONER LEVINS.
SO THAT PASS UNANIMOUSLY, UNLESS I MISSED, IS THERE ANYBODY OPPOSED THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED? OKAY.
AND, UM, I'M GONNA EXCUSE COMMISSIONER LEVINS TO, OR YEAH, JUST A SHORT RECESS.
I DON'T THINK I WELL, THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS.
YEAH, THERE IS THE, WHAT IS THERE? THE SANCTION WHETHER TO GO TO HEARING OR JUST HAVE A LETTER AND THEN SCHEDULING THE FINAL HEARING WOULD BE, I THINK I'LL BE GREAT IF IT GETS THERE, BUT, OKAY.
UM, SO LET'S TAKE A BRIEF RECESS.
THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE, EVERYONE.
WE'RE GOING TO RESUME THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING SINCE WE HAVE EVERYBODY BACK.
SO, UM, OUR NEXT STEP, WE, WE, UM, WE, UM, VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO FIND THAT A VI THAT A VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED ON THE, ON THE AMOUNTS.
AND SO THE NEXT STEP, UM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT SECTION 2 7 44 B, UM, THERE'S A SECTION, A SECTION THAT SAYS IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MAY SO STATE, WHICH, WHICH COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS HAS DONE.
AND WE AS A COMMISSION MAY AT THIS TIME CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION OR PROSECUTION.
SO, UM, TO FIND THOSE, UH, SANCTIONS THAT SECTION 2 7 48.
MAY I, MAY I INTERJECT THERE? IT'S ACTUALLY, YES, IT 2 7 48 A SAYS THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO VIOLATIONS OTHER THAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND SECTION EIGHT OF THE CITY CHARTER.
I THINK WE THEN MOVED TO 2 7 49.
COUNSEL WOULD BE, CAUSE I THINK THESE ARE ALLEGATIONS OF LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, AND THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT 2 7 49, JUST TO BE MORE CONFUSING, SENDS YOU BACK TO 2 7 48 FOR FOUR OF THE FIVE SANCTIONS.
SO
COMMISSIONER STANTON, UM, WE HAVE THE OPTION THAT IS AN OPTION, RIGHT? THAT IS NOT A IF SO, IF A
[02:00:01]
THEN B.RIGHT? SO WE HAVE THE OPTION OF DETERMINING THE SANCTIONS NOW OR PROCEEDING TO FINAL HEARING, CORRECT? YES.
WE ALSO HAVE THE OPTION IF COUNSELOR MEMBER ELLIS WERE INTERESTED IF SHE HAS ANY DESIRE TO TAKE IT TO A FINAL HEARING FOR ANY REASON.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO LAY THAT ON THE TABLE AS WELL.
SO COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, HAS THE OPTION TO STATE HER PREFERENCE OR HOW, WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD STATE IT AS STATING HER PREFERENCE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HER IN CASE SHE WERE INTERESTED IN TAKING IT TO A FINAL HEARING.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT INTERESTS YOU? COUNCIL MEMBER S I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH BOTH OF THESE OPTIONS.
SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DELIBERATION RIGHT.
BEFORE I KNOW WHAT IS IN MY BEST INTEREST.
AND THAT IS, AND THAT IS THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION IS I'M NOT SURE THAT ALL, UM, COMMISSIONERS ARE, ARE READY TO DETERMINE THE SANCTION.
WELL, THAT'S, AND I WOULD SAY, UM, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, YOU, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, GONNA SAY SOMETHING.
WELL, A FINAL HEARING IS, ARE WE GONNA HEAR ANYMORE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD TODAY? ARE WE GONNA GET ANY MORE DETAILS? I THINK WE PROBABLY HAD ALL THE DETAILS.
THAT'S WHAT A FINAL HEARING IS ABOUT.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, LET ME SUGGEST PROCEDURALLY, I THINK THE COMMISSION CAN GO FORWARD WITH A PROPOSED MOTION FOR ONE OF THE FOUR OPTIONAL SANCTIONS.
AND AT THAT POINT, IF THE RESPONDENT, UH, WOULD PREFER TO HAVE, UH, A FINAL HEARING.
I THINK THAT'S THE RESPONDENT'S, UH, OPTION.
SO I'M GONNA, THIS IS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS.
I'M GONNA QUICKLY, UH, READ THROUGH THE, UM, UNDER TRACK, UH, SECTION 27 48 C, WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE.
SO IF WE DETERMINE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, OR IN THIS CASE AS COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE OR RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING.
A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
WHEN THE VIOLATION IS CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL, OR WHEN THE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF WAS MADE IN RELIANCE ON A PUBLIC WRITTEN OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION MUST ADVISE THE RESPONDENT OF ANY STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO AVOID FUTURE VIOLATIONS.
THE COMMISSION MAY DIRECT A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION TO ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THIS CHAPTER TWO, A LETTER OF ADMONITION IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE VIOLATION IS MINOR OR MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL, BUT CALLS FOR MORE SUBSTANTIAL RESPONSE THAN A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, THE COMMISSION MAY ADMONISH ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THIS CHAPTER.
C3 A REPRIMAND IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION WHEN THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH DISREGARD OF THIS CHAPTER, COMMISSION MAY REPRIMAND ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THIS CHAPTER.
A REPRIMAND DIRECTED TO A CITY COUNCIL, EXCUSE ME, A CITY OFFICIAL SHALL ALSO BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
A REPRIMAND DIRECTED TO AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY MANAGER AND INCLUDED AND SAID EMPLOYEE'S PERSONNEL FILE.
UM, FOR, I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN, AND I DON'T, IT'S MOOT.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE FOR, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO VIOLATION.
SO, UM, HAVE SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS, I THINK THERE ARE, I DON'T, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS WE CAN DO THAT ARE IN 2 7 49 B UM, RECOMMENDING THE CITY ATTORNEY PROSECUTE THE VIOLATION, REQUEST THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
AND IF WE FIND THAT IT'S MINOR CLERICAL OR UNINTENTIONAL, WE CAN RECOMMEND THAT IT NOT BE PROSECUTED, UM, OR BE PROSECUTED ONLY IF THE VIOLATION'S CORRECTED.
SO I THINK THOSE ARE, OUR MENU OF OPTIONS IS A LITTLE BROADER BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATION, BECAUSE OF THE CODE SECTION AND THE CHARTER SECTION THAT ARE VIOLATED THAN JUST THE ONES THAT ARE IN 27, 48 C.
UM, WOULD YOU, UM, MS.
THAT THAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN WITH ANY OF THE FOUR, UH, 48, UM, OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE, THE LAST ONE YOU HADN'T READ YET, THE LETTER OF CENSURE.
I KNOW WE'RE IN DISCUSSION BEFORE, UH,
[02:05:01]
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, BUT WHAT I WOULD BE, WHAT MY MOTION WILL BE ONCE WE GET PAST THE DISCUSSION IS A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION.AND THE REASON THAT I WOULD CHOOSE THAT LIGHTEST OF, OF SANCTIONS, UH, IS SPECIFICALLY THAT I THINK THAT BECAUSE THE ACCEPTANCE DATE IS SO ARBITRARY, AND BECAUSE THE COUNCIL MEMBER DID IN FACT REPORT EVEN THINGS THAT WERE TECHNICALLY VIOLATIONS AS SOON AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE AFTER THAT, SHE DID RIGHT BY IT AND ALREADY DID THE REFUNDS, ET CETERA.
I THINK THAT UNTIL YOU SEE IT IN WRITING WHERE YOU'RE $2 AND 79 CENTS ABOVE BECAUSE OF A FEE OR WHERE SOMEBODY GAVE YOU AN EXTRA CHECK DURING THAT PERIOD, ONCE YOU SEE IT ON PAPER AND YOU ADD IT UP, YEAH, YOU SWEAR THAT IT'S TRUE, BUT THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND AS QUICKLY AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE, YOU CORRECT IT BY MAKING A REFUND.
AND I BELIEVE THAT, THAT WHAT SHE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED ARE SPECIFICALLY THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THEY SEEM TO BE BACKED UP BY DOCUMENTATION.
SO THAT IS FOR A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION ONLY.
UM, I'M GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK AND THEN I'M GONNA GET BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER DAN BERG AND SEE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN MAKING A MOTION.
NO, I'M WAITING FOR HER TO MAKE COMMISSION.
DON'T FORGET, WE'VE GOT ONE MORE CENTURE OPTION, WHICH IS FIVE NOW VERY BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.
UH, MR. COWER REMINDED ME THAT WE ALSO HAVE THE OPTION NUMBER FIVE UNDER SANCTIONS.
A LETTER OF CENSURE, OR A RECOMMENDATION OF RECALL IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION WHEN THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A REPEATED VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH CULPABLE DISREGARD OF THIS AND MY PAPER CUTS OFF ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL.
I, I DON'T EVEN, I DON'T, A LETTER SENT YOUR RECOMMENDATION, A RECALL DIRECTED TO AN ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL SHALL BE TRANSMITTED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE CITY CLERK, PUBLISHED BY THE CITY CLERK IN A LOCAL NEWSPAPER OF THE LARGEST SOMETHING CIRCULATION AND SHALL BE SENT BY THE COMMISSION'S CITY COUNCIL.
AND I, THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING THAT DIRECTION AT ALL.
SO I'M GONNA GET BACK TO COMMISSIONER DAN BERG AND SEE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN MAKING A MOTION.
UM, I RECOMMEND THAT WE, UH, SEND A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER REGARDING THOSE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND, UH, AND AFTER, AFTER THE ARBITRARY DATE.
UM, AND COUNSEL REMINDED ME THAT WE, UM, PART OF THAT IS WE NEED TO ADVISE THE RESPONDENT, UM, STEPS, ANY STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO AVOID FUTURE VIOLATIONS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT OR IF, UM, I THINK THAT'S, YEAH, I, I I BELIEVE THOSE WERE TAKEN AND IT'S UNDERSTOOD, BUT CERTAINLY INCLUDED IN, IN THE NOTIFICATION LETTER.
UM, SO I SAW COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK'S HAND UP, AND THEN I'LL GET TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
UM, I THINK THE CORRECTIONS WE EXPECT ARE THE REFUNDS THAT ARE ON THE SPREADSHEET.
THE ONLY QUESTION, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR JENNIFER STEVENSON, BOTH CONTRIBUTIONS WERE PRIOR TO THE INCREASED AMOUNT.
UM, SO THE ACTUAL LIMIT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUR, 400.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE ENTIRE SECOND 400 SHOULD BE, UM, REFUNDED.
SO IT, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE RESPONDENT TO
[02:10:01]
HONOR, TO HONOR THAT REFUND, TO HONOR THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS.UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU AS WELL? YES, I KNOW WE DID A $350 REFUND JUST BECAUSE SHE STILL WOULD'VE BEEN ELIGIBLE TO DONATE 50, BUT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, SHE WASN'T, SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO.
I'M, I'M HAPPY TO GO EVEN FURTHER AND CORRECT THAT.
SO WE HAD A SECOND TO THE EMO TO THE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE, UM, WHAT ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION DO WE HAVE? COMMISSIONER LEVINS? UM, MY OPPOSITION TO THE, TO THE MOTION IS THAT I THINK THE NEXT LEVEL UP IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION, THE LETTER OF ADMONITION.
UM, SO I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO VOTE NO ON THIS AND GIVE AN INDICATION THAT I THINK NO SANCTION SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT YOU CAN SUGGEST A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND THEN WE'LL GO B WE'LL SEE IF IT PASSES.
IF NOT, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
UM, SO I WOULD SUGGEST A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE, WHETHER WE SEND A LETTER OF ADMONITION, UM, UNDER 27 48 CUN
DID, I'LL OPPOSE THAT BECAUSE I REALLY DO THINK THIS, THESE MISTAKES ARE INADVERTENT.
IT'S SO EASY TO MAKE A MISTAKE.
I THE REASON THAT I THINK THAT A, SO THE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE, THE SANCTIONS OPTIONS WE HAVE UNDER, UH, UNDER NUMBER ONE, IT'S FOR WHEN THE VIOLATION IS CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL.
BUT UNDER NUMBER TWO, IT'S IF WE FIND THAT IT'S MINOR OR MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL.
AND THE REASON I THINK THAT THE, THE HIGHER LEVEL OF THE LETTER OF ADMONITION IS APPROPRIATE IS THAT WE HAVE TWO INSTANCES OF A PERSON GIVING DOUBLE CONTRIBUTIONS.
UM, THE, THE, THE TWO STEVENSON CONTRIBUTIONS, THEY'D ALREADY GIVEN 400, THEY GAVE AN ADDITIONAL 400.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE, THE PROCESSING FEES AND STUFF.
OKAY, I GET THE POINT, BUT I'M NOT WORKED UP ABOUT THAT.
UM, BUT TWO PEOPLE GIVING DOUBLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND NOTHING'S DONE ABOUT IT FOR, YOU KNOW, SIX-ISH MONTHS.
UM, I'M NOT READY TO TO SEND THEM TO ALCATRAZ
UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I THINK THE, A LETTER OF ADMONITION IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS IN RESPONSE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER LEVIN'S, UM, STATEMENTS, UM, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE, WE, WE'VE NOT REALLY HAD ANY REAL TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW, UM, THIS, HOW THE ACCOUNTS WERE RECONCILED, WHAT PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE IN PLACE, AND WHAT I THINK THE INDUSTRY STANDARD WOULD BE WITH REGARDS TO THAT.
UM, AND THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME BECAUSE IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NORMAL PRACTICE IS, BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT THINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT, LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFICULT ASSESSMENT TO MAKE WITHOUT KNOWING THOSE SPECIFICS.
COMMISSIONER MCCORMACK, HAVE Y'ALL EVER DONE ANY CAMPAIGNS IN HOW HECTIC IT IS? PLUS WE ALSO HAD, SOME YEARS AGO BEFORE Y'ALL WERE AROUND, WE HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAD TAKEN A DONATION, WHICH WAS ILLEGAL, CAME TO US WITH NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER, BUT SAID THAT SHE HAD RETURNED IT.
SHE HAD RETURNED IT, BUT WE HAD NO EVIDENCE AT THAT TIME.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF LOOK AT THE SITUATION ABOUT HOW SHE HAS ALREADY DONE THINGS AND HOW SHE IS GOING TO AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'M GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON COMMISSIONER LOVENS MOTION.
THAT WAS SEC SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STANTON.
[02:15:01]
SO IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION.
COMMISSIONER GREENBURG AND COMMISSIONER LEVINS IN FAVOR.
ALL OPPOSED, UH, RAISE YOUR HANDS.
THAT'S COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? COMMISSIONER KALE.
COMMISSIONER D DANBURG, DID YOU VOTE? I'M ABSTAINING ON THAT ONE.
OKAY, SO THAT ONE, SO THAT ONE WAS FOUR AND FOUR, IS THAT CORRECT? YOU NEED SIX, CORRECT? I KNOW.
SO I DON THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
FOUR AND THREE AND ONE ABSTENTION.
WE, LET'S GO THROUGH AND STATE THE NAMES AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHO WAS IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? COMMISSIONER STANTON.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
WHO WAS, WHO WAS OPPOSED TO THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. COMMISSIONER KALE WITH COMMISSIONER DANBURG ABSTAINING THAT THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION DID NOT PASS.
SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GONNA GET BACK TO COMMISSIONER DAN BERG'S MOTION.
IS THAT THE RIGHT PROCESS? BETSY.
SO COMMISSIONER DAN BERG'S MOTION, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, WAS FOR C ONE, A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? YES.
IT, IS THIS AN, UM, A TIME FOR ME TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION? AND, AND IT'S OKAY IF IT DOESN'T PASS, BUT I'D LIKE A THIRD OPTION, WHICH IS TO PROCEED WITH FINAL HEARING.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN DECIDED ON.
WHAT I'VE HEARD IS, AND, AND MYSELF TOO.
I THINK THERE ARE AREAS WHERE WE COULD GET MORE CLARIFICATION AND, UH, FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, YOU KNOW, HE HAS SOME QUESTIONS AND BRINGS UP SOME GOOD POINTS ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PROCESS IS AND, UM, WE DON'T KNOW.
AND I HEARD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE, HOW, HOW ARE THEY GONNA FIX IT? AND ALSO FROM MCCORMICK COMMISSION, MCCORMICK ON, YOU KNOW, DID THESE REFUNDS ACTUALLY HAPPEN? AND, UM, HOW ARE THEY GONNA FIX IT FOR THE FUTURE? SO I'D LIKE TO, IF, IF IT'S STILL ABSOLUTELY YOU CAN.
YOU CAN, UM, YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
IS THIS IS NOW THE TIME TO DO THAT, OR, UH, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT.
UH, I MOVE THAT WE PROCEED WITH A FINAL HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? SEEING? NO SECOND, I'M GOING TO TABLE THAT MOTION AND GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
COMMISSIONER TEKA, CAN'T WE JUST INCLUDE THE, UM, THINGS THAT COMMISSIONER STANTON JUST SAID IN THE LETTER? LIKE, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO RECTIFY? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, COMMISSIONER STANTON, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, IN LISTING THOSE FOR THE RECORD AT THIS TIME, THAT THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO DO THAT.
A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THAT'S FINE.
HOW DO WE ACTUALLY ENFORCE THAT? YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE SAYING THAT, ARE WE ASKING FOR PROOF THAT THESE REFUNDS ACTUALLY HAPPEN? ARE WE ASKING FOR THE REPORT THAT COMES OUT IN JANUARY AND, AND TO CHECK TO SEE THAT, TO VERIFY THAT IT'S HAPPENED? HOW DO WE, I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION A LONG TIME.
OUR ENFORCEMENT ABILITIES ARE LIMITED.
RIGHT? SO IT'S A, IT'S A MATTER OF, UM, PUBLIC FAITH.
UH, SO COMMISSIONER MCCORMACK, YOU WILL FIND OUT WHENEVER THE DAY IS COME THAT YOU CAN READ IT ONLINE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN FILE, GO AHEAD AND FILE IT NOW, BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT.
I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT.
BUT, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF PROCEEDING AND MOVING ALONG, YES.
AT THE VERY MINIMUM, LET'S INCLUDE THAT AS, UM, CONDITIONS OR ADDITIONAL CAUSES IN, IN THE LETTER WOULD BE TO, UH, COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC FOR ME? UH, YES.
[02:20:01]
UM, I'D LOVE TO PUT IN THE LETTER, PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THESE REFUNDS DID ACTUALLY OCCUR SINCE WE KNOW THAT THEY OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED TIMEFRAME.I'M, IS THAT, SO I'M GONNA INTERJECT.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S WITHIN OUR OKAY.
UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND THE, YOU HAVE TO, THE JANUARY 15TH REPORT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
SO AFTER THAT'S FILED YEAH, YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE.
SO IT'S, IT'S PUBLICLY, THE INFORMATION IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AS COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO FOLLOW UP ON.
AND IF WE SEE THAT IT HASN'T BEEN FOLLOWED UP ON, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE COMPLAINTS OURSELVES.
SO, UM, OTHER THAN THAT THOUGH, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF LIMITED IN OUR ENFORCEMENT OTHER THAN THAT THERE IS THIS MECHANISM THAT WE CAN, THROUGH WHICH WE CAN FILE COMPLAINTS.
NO, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SAVVY TO THIS, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO ONLINE AND PULL IT UP AND YOU CAN READ EVERYTHING, WHICH YOUR DANK YES, YES.
IN, IN, IN THE LETTER IT WILL BE SAYING, IT, IT'S ALREADY CONTEMPLATED IN HERE THAT WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW TO CORRECT THIS.
AND NOT ONLY CAN WE OF OUR OWN ACCORD FILE ANOTHER COMPLAINT IF THE COMPLIANCE HASN'T HAPPENED, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY, UH, ENCOURAGE MR. KEENAN TO COMPLAIN.
IF IN FACT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.
I, I AM PRETTY SURE IT'S ALL GONNA HAPPEN.
BUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WE WILL BE FOLLOWING UP.
SO WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE ADDITIONAL CLAUSES THAT WE'RE ADDING THAT, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER ATTENDEE UK YOU WERE SUGGESTING TO ADD TO THE LETTER? OH, YOU SAYING THAT INSTEAD OF GOING TO A FINAL HEARING, THAT WE, IF YOU WERE, HAD THOSE CONCERNS, THAT YOU COULD PLACE THEM IN THE LETTER IF THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO YOU.
IT IS IMPORTANT, BUT I'M, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.
WELL, I WOULD SAY THIS ENFORCEMENT IS NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW OTHER THAN A COMPLAINT MECHANISM.
BUT WHAT WE CAN DO, SO AT THE CULMINATION OF THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING, OUR COUNSEL DRAFTS A LETTER THAT, THAT SHE WILL SEND OUT TO THE RESPONDENT AND THE COMPLAINANT, UM, SUMMARIZING WHAT WE DECIDED TODAY.
AND THAT WILL INCLUDE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS GOING FORWARD IN TERMS OF REPORTING ALL THE REFUNDS AND, AND THAT WERE DONE ON A TIMELY FASHION.
MAKING THOSE REFUNDS THAT WE'VE REQUESTED TONIGHT WERE THE AMOUNTS WERE 400 AND 400 AND, AND GO GOING BACK AND REVISITING THOSE AND MAKING THE APPROPRIATE REFUNDS BASED ON THE EARLIER, UM, EXCUSE ME, CAMPAIGN LIMITS AND FULFILLING ALL THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL GO IN THE LETTER THAT WE SEND TO COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS.
I'M GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE'S MOTION TO GO WITH A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT.
UM, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
COMMISSIONER UCA, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER KALE, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER LEVINS, AND COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK.
DID I MISS ANYBODY WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO THAT MOVEMENT? I DID NOT.
SO THAT, UM, THAT MOTION PASSED, UH, WE WILL BE SENDING A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
THANK YOU TO THE RESPONDENT, THE COMPLAINANT, FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
UM, WE ALREADY TACKLED THE MINUTES, UM, AND THE OTHER ITEMS ON
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
THE AGENDA, UH, FUTURE, AGENDA, FUTURE, ARE THERE, UH, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? LET ME FIND THAT.DID, DID WE ALREADY DISCUSS NUMBER THREE? UH,
[02:25:01]
YES.AND, UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SAID SHE WOULD HAVE AN UPDATE FOR US AT THE NEXT MEETING.
SO SHOULD THIS HAVE BEEN UPDATE ON THAT? WELL, WE, INITIALLY IT WAS GOING TO BE A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, BUT BECAUSE, UM, WE DIDN'T, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION TONIGHT.
SHE SIMPLY GAVE US AN UPDATE AND SAID SHE WOULD REVIEW IT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
SO, UM, WE APPROVE THE MINUTES.
ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS? I DO HAVE ONE ANNOUNCEMENT.
UM, SO JUST FOR THOSE OF YOU WHOSE TERM IS ENDING, UH, FEBRUARY, 2023, I THINK I'VE TALKED TO MOST OF YOU SEPARATELY, BUT, UM, THERE IS A HOLDOVER PERIOD UNDER 2 1 27 OF THE CODE THAT ALLOWS SITTING MEMBERS TO CONTINUE SERVING UNTIL A NEW MEMBER IS APPOINTED OR UP TO 60 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE TERM.
SO THAT WOULD TAKE YOU THROUGH THE APRIL MEETING.
UH, THE 60TH DAY IS APRIL 29TH AND THE APRIL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 26TH.
SO THAT'S IF YOU CHOOSE TO STAY THROUGH THE HOLDOVER PERIOD, WHICH I VERY MUCH ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO CONSIDER, UH, THE FEBRUARY EXPIRATION DATE.
AND THE HOLDOVER PROVISIONS ARE REALLY JUST TO HELP US MAKE QUORUM AND TO ALLOW THE NEW APPOINTEES TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE ANY TO, TO KIND OF GET TRAINED UP AND, AND READY TO GO.
SO, UM, PLEASE JUST KIND OF KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHOSE TERMS ARE ENDING AND WHO ARE RE ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT.
I DON'T SEE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, SO I'M GOING TO J ADJOURN IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION.
THE TIME IS 9:45 PM YOU MIND IF I KEEP THIS? NO, ABSOLUTELY.