Dec 14, 2022 Ethics Review Commission

[00:00:06]

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? GREAT.

OKAY.

UM,

[CALL TO ORDER]

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

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

I WILL CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

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

I WILL NOW CALL THE ROLL.

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

GOOD.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I'M HERE.

SECRETARY, UH, EXCUSE ME.

BETSY GREENBERG.

HERE.

RAPHAEL LAURIE? HERE.

MICHAEL LEVINS.

HERE.

DONNA BETH MCCORMICK.

PRESENT.

MICKEY TINK.

HERE.

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

DEBORAH DANBURG.

SHE'S HERE.

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

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

OKAY.

HERE WE GO.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UM, WE HAVE A QUORUM.

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

UM, NEXT IS

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

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

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

EXCUSE ME.

SORRY.

OKAY, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

OKAY.

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

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU.

UH, GOOD EVENING.

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

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

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

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

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

EACH CONTRIBUTION OVER 200 OF $200 OR MORE.

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

THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THE CAMPAIGN.

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

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

THIS WAS APPARENTLY NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

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

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

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

[00:05:01]

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

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

FIVE SECONDS.

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

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

THAT'S TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BOWEN.

UH, WE'RE GONNA SHUFFLE

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

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

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

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

YES.

VICE, UH, SECRETARY STANTON.

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

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

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

OKAY.

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

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT LEAST IN THE ROOM.

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

VIRTUALLY WE HAVE COMMISSIONER LAURIE AND COMMISSIONER DEAN BERG.

THE MINUTES HAVE PASSED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

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

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

IF YOU COULD GO TO,

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

SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS, SORRY.

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

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

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

ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS EASY.

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

UM, I'M GONNA GO TO THE NEXT

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

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

[00:10:01]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO I'LL JUST ADD BY WAY OF CONTEXT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[00:15:01]

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

SO JUST A LITTLE FLAG THERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I HAD IN MIND.

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

YES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND UH, IT WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY 15 SECONDS YEAH.

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

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

OKAY.

YES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[00:20:01]

THANKS.

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

YES.

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

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

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

I LIKE TO THINK FORGOT RATHER THAN IGNORED.

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

HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND.

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

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

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

HOW DO WE MOVE THAT FORWARD? THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

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

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

THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TIME.

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

SO THANKS EVERYBODY FOR YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT.

OKAY.

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

SORRY, THIS IS LOOKING LIKE MY DESK AT HOME.

OKAY.

OH, EXCUSE

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

ITEM NUMBER NUMBER FIVE.

SO THIS IS GREAT.

YAY.

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

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

Y'ALL APPROVED IT LAST TIME.

WE CAN POST IT ON NEXT DOOR.

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

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

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

YEP.

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

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

OKAY.

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

GREAT.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE UPDATE.

YES.

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

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

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

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

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

YES.

THANK YOU.

[00:25:01]

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

SO GOOD POINT.

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

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

UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HERE.

GREAT.

I HEAR THE TRAFFIC IS TERRIBLE.

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

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

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

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

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

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

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

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

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

RIGHT.

HEARING NONE.

THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

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

I SAW COMMISSIONER DAN BERG.

UM, WE'RE NOW BACK IN OPEN SESSION.

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

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

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

JAMES KSR IS APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION.

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

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

UH, ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PARTIES PRESENT.

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

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

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

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KEENAN.

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

ALL RIGHT.

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

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY

[00:30:01]

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

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

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

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

THE COMMISSION WILL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.

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

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

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

OKAY, GREAT.

ALL RIGHT.

ARE YOU READY? WOULD YOU I'M READY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE UP, MR. KEENAN.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THEY'RE ALL THERE BOTH BY EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION.

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

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.

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

PLEASE PROCEED.

THANK YOU.

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

GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS EDWARD ESPINOZA.

I'M A POLITICAL PROFESSIONAL.

I'VE WORKED IN CAMPAIGNS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS

[00:35:01]

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]

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

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

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

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

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

GREAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

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

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

GREAT.

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

THAT'S WHAT OUR HOME COMPUTER HAS.

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

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

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

YES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I DON'T HAVE IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SAYS THE DATE.

THEY DO HAVE THE DATE ON OUR SPREADSHEET.

OKAY.

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

OH.

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

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

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

RIGHT.

SOME ARE REFUNDS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

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

OH, MM-HMM.

UNDER DAVE CLOCHE ALSO OCTOBER 29TH.

UH, OTHER REFUNDS WERE ISSUED AT OTHER TIMES.

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

OKAY.

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

THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.

THE SEVERAL OF THESE SAY NEED REFUND.

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

YEAH.

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

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

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

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

YEAH.

I THINK THAT WAS ME NEEDING TO VERIFY AND MATTER.

YEAH.

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

[00:45:01]

UH, BUT ALL THOSE REFUNDS HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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

I APPRECIATE THAT.

QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT.

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

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

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

OKAY.

AND, UH, THANK YOU.

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

THOSE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANT UP TO NOVEMBER 8TH.

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

SO THOSE DID NOT NEED ANY REFUNDS.

SORRY, ONE, ONE MORE QUESTION FOR NOW.

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

IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME.

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

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

YES.

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

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

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

THAT'S RIGHT.

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

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

OKAY.

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

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

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

I APOLOGIZE.

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

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

CORRECT.

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

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

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

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

THESE REFUNDS WERE CALCULATED OUTSIDE OF THAT.

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

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

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

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

IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND

[00:50:01]

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

RIGHT.

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

RIGHT.

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

CORRECT.

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

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

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

SO IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WOULD INTERPRET THAT.

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

RIGHT.

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

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

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UM, THEN THE LIMIT GOT RAISED AGAIN.

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

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