Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:09]

ARE

[CALL TO ORDER]

YOU OUTSIDE SEEING THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM? I'M GONNA CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

GOOD EVENING.

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

I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

IT IS MAY 24TH, 2023.

AND IT IS 6:07 PM WE ARE AT CITY HALL IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

ROOM NUMBER 1, 1 0 1 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS, 78,701.

UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ATTENDING VIRTUALLY TONIGHT.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

AND WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ANY RECUSALS, UH, UNLESS THERE'S ANY UPDATES TO THAT.

SO, AND, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, I ALSO DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TONIGHT SO FAR, SO THIS SHOULD BE A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD MEETING.

UM, LET'S SEE.

WE DO HAVE A NEW COMMISSIONER.

I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE COMMISSIONER AMY CASTO.

DID I SAY YOUR LAST NAME CORRECTLY? YOU ABSOLUTELY DID.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT'S NICE TO BE HERE.

WELCOME.

GREAT TO HAVE YOU.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, SEEING AS THERE'S NO, UM, PUBLIC DISCUSSION OR PUBLIC SPEAKERS TONIGHT, I'M JUST GONNA GO STRAIGHT TO THE AGENDA.

OH, WE DID NOT DO ROLL CALL.

EXCUSE ME.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE, UM, CHAIRED THE COMMISSION.

SO I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH, UM, VICE CHAIR MARY KALE, PRESENT.

SECRETARY WINN STANTON ADAMS. HERE.

COMMISSIONER CASTO.

PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER LOWE.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER SOBER ON HIS ABSENT.

COMMISSIONER 10 YUCCA.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY.

ALL RIGHT, NOW I WILL GO TO THE AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT.

[1. Review and approve potential amendments to City Code Chapter 4-8 (Regulation of Lobbyists), Sections 4-8-8 (Appearance) and 4-8-10 (Audit).]

SO, UM, FIRST ITEM, CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CITY CA.

CODE CHAPTER 48, REGULATION OF LOBBYISTS, SECTIONS FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT APPEARANCE, AND FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH 10 AUDIT.

SO HELP THE, THERE WE GO, JI RBE WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE, UH, COREY STOKES CITY AUDITOR HERE WITH US TO PRESENT ON THOSE REVISIONS.

EXCELLENT.

I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE TODAY.

I THINK ONLY ONE OF YOU WAS ON THE COMMISSION THE LAST TIME I HAD TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND MOSTLY WHEN I AM IN FRONT OF YOU, IT IS BECAUSE I AM PRESENTING ETHICS COMPLAINTS AGAINST HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS IN THE CITY.

SO I'M REALLY PLEASED TO BE HERE WITH A CODE AMENDMENT.

THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

UM, I'LL TALK YOU THROUGH IT.

IT'S, IT'S A WAY LESS STRESSFUL, UM, SITUATION THAN WE'RE USUALLY IN WHEN WE COME SEE YOU, BUT ALSO THAT'S PART OF THE FUNCTION THAT YOU SERVE.

AND WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING IN COMPLAINTS WHEN WE HAVE THEM, BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND I LOVE THAT.

UM, SO THESE CHANGES ARE REALLY BASED ON, SO IN 2017, THE CITY CODE WAS CHANGED TO, UM, REALLY REQUIRE MORE OF LOBBYISTS IN THE CITY.

SO REQUIRE MORE, UM, IN TERMS OF HOW THEY REGISTER FEES THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY TO MAKE IT A LOT CLEARER WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE.

UM, SHOULD YOU LOBBY THE CITY, BASICALLY.

AND, UM, PART OF THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT OUR OFFICE AUDIT, THAT LOBBYIST REGISTRATION PROGRAM.

AND SO WE STARTED DOING THAT.

I THINK OUR FIRST AUDIT WAS IN 2018.

WE DID THAT THREE TIMES SINCE THEN.

UM, AND NOW WE'RE COMING BACK LOOKING AT THE CODE AND THERE'S, THERE'S TWO ISSUES.

SO OUR LAST AUDIT IDENTIFIED THAT, UM, POST PANDEMIC, OR ACTUALLY IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC.

UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING REQUIRING, UM, CAPTURING OR REGISTRATION, NOT REGISTRATION, UM, KIND OF LOGGING OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS.

AND SINCE AT LEAST FOR 20 20, 20 21, 20 22, AND MOST OF 2023, A LOT OF THE MEETINGS BETWEEN LOBBYISTS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, LOBBYISTS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY, UM, THAT MIGHT HAVE INFLUENCED THAT HAS BEEN, UM, THOSE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN VIRTUAL.

AND SO WE IDENTIFIED THAT IN OUR LAST AUDIT, UM, THAT WE ISSUED.

AND WE SAID, OH, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO FIX THAT.

SO THE FIRST PROVISION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRACK CHANGES VERSION OF THE CODE, WHICH I THINK IS IN YOUR BOOKS, UM, WE'LL SHOW, WE'RE JUST ADDING IN THAT YES, IF YOU HAVE A MEETING VIRTUALLY, IT STILL COUNTS AS A MEETING.

I THINK THE LANGUAGE ORIGINALLY WAS LIKE IN PERSON MEETING.

NOW WE'RE CHANGING THAT TO CAPTURE VIRTUAL STUFF.

THE SECOND PART IS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THE AUDITS THAT WE DO.

SO WE WERE ANNUALLY, OR THE REQUIREMENT WAS THAT WE ANNUALLY AUDIT, UM, EVERYBODY WHO IS REGISTERED TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE COMPLIANT.

AND AS AN

[00:05:01]

AUDITOR, I THINK ABOUT THIS AND THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT RISK TO FOCUS ON.

SO AUDITING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE VOLUNTARILY COMPLIANT, WE IDENTIFIED A FEW ISSUES.

THEY WERE ALL VERY MINOR.

LIKE I THINK ONE PERSON OWED US $50.

UM, THAT'S WHAT WE CAME UP WITH THREE AUDITS IN.

AND THAT'S NOT WHERE I WANT TO BE FOCUSED.

.

UM, I WOULD RATHER FOCUS ON PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE REGISTERED AS LOBBYISTS AND AREN'T.

THAT'S A HARDER AUDIT AND A BIGGER AUDIT.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THIS WORK IS TO DO THAT PERIODICALLY, IS TO COME IN AND TAKE A LOOK AND DO THAT VERSUS, UH, I THINK THE CLERK'S OFFICE HAS A REALLY GOOD HANDLE AND A REALLY GOOD SYSTEM FOR THE REGISTRATION NOW.

AND SO THEY CAN DO THAT CHECKING, YOU KNOW, DOES ANYBODY OWE US $50? THEY CAN DO THAT WORK JUST AS PART OF THEIR REGULAR PROCESS.

WHAT WE WANNA DO FROM AN AUDIT PERSPECTIVE IS COME IN PERIODICALLY AND LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WE SAW THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS GROUP OR THIS PERSON TESTIFY THIS MANY TIMES IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL.

WE KNOW THEY'RE BEING PAID BY SO-AND-SO.

THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE REGISTERED AS LOBBYISTS AND DO THAT MORE.

UM, KIND OF, I DON'T WANNA SAY IT'S NOT HIGHER LEVEL, IT'S JUST TAKING A STEP BACK AND LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PROGRAM COMPREHENSIVELY VERSUS ZEROING IN ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE VOLUNTARILY COMPLIANT BUT MADE A MISTAKE.

SO THAT'S THE CHANGE BEFORE YOU, UM, MUCH MORE SUCCINCTLY IN THE CHANGE THEN.

I JUST SAID IT, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

GREAT.

HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LOWE? YES, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

UM, SO FOR FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT C, UM, LOOKS LIKE WE ARE ADDING BY TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.

UM, IS THERE A REASON THE LANGUAGE IS NOT PARALLEL TO THE DEFINITION SECTION SECTION FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH TWO SUB FOUR COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH, AND IS THERE A REASON IT'S NOT, UM, ALSO NOT PARALLEL TO THE, UM, GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 3 0 5? SO I'M REFERRING TO SECTION 3 0 5 DASH 0 0 2, SUB TWO COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH, UM, I, I KNOW THESE ARE NOT ALL EXACTLY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, BUT, UM, DO YOU NOT THINK IT CONFUSES PEOPLE? YES.

SO I, I THINK OUR, OUR LAWYER CAN SPEAK TO THAT MORE SPECIFICALLY.

I THINK ACTUALLY FOR ME, THIS IS SOMETHING ON, ON MY AGENDA IS THAT IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY CODE WE DEFINE THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

LIKE CITY OFFICIAL IS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY IN SOME SECTIONS OF CITY CODE MM-HMM.

.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING WHERE, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE IT INVOLVES MY OFFICE, WE'RE LOOKING AT WORKING WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO CLEAR THAT UP.

SO THIS ONE WOULD, WOULD FALL UNDER THAT TOO, BUT I BETTER ALLOW YOUR, HAS A BETTER ANSWER THAN ME.

SURE.

SO, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT FOUR DASH AND, AND FOR THIS I'M GONNA DIRECT YOU TO YOUR NOTEBOOKS TAB NINE.

IT INCLUDES THE ENTIRETY OF THE LOBBYING ORDINANCE.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THIS HANDOUT THAT WAS ALSO POSTED WITH THE AGENDA IS THE, UH, JUST THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS THAT WERE CHANGING.

SO THE WAY THAT THIS SECTION IS DESIGNED, FOUR DASH FOUR DASH, SORRY, FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT A IS ABOUT THOSE LOBBYISTS WHO ARE APPEARING TO SPEAK BEFORE COUNCIL OR A CITY BOARD.

UM, AND IT KIND OF TAKES CARE OF THE DISCLOSURES THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN THAT SENSE.

THEN YOU HAVE 4 84, 4 DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT B, WHICH COVERS LOBBYISTS HAVING COMMUNICATIONS, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH A, UM, A CITY OFFICIAL.

SO KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ENCAPSULATED IN THOSE PRIOR SECTIONS.

AND THEN YOU GET DOWN TO, UH, FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT C, WHICH IS WHERE, UH, THE SORT OF DEFICIT IS IN COVERING COMMUNICATIONS, RIGHT.

IT, IT SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS IN PERSON, WHEREAS THE OTHERS A WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT APPEARANCE BEFORE A BOARD OR COUNCIL, OR B WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ORAL COMMUNICATION, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, BROAD, BUT C ONLY TALKS ABOUT IN PERSON, WHICH IS WHY THAT DISTINCTION IS BEING MADE TO KIND OF EXPAND THAT TO OTHER SORTS OF MM-HMM.

SCHEDULED MEETINGS.

MM-HMM.

, WELL, I DON'T AGREE THAT A, B AND C SHOULD EACH BE DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF HOW NARROW OR HOW BROAD THEY ARE BECAUSE, OH, I'M SORRY.

YEAH, BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY COMPLIES WITH A AND B, THEN THE PERSON MAY ESCAPE THE REQUIREMENTS OF C WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF C IS, UH, NARROWER.

SO I REALIZE PEOPLE DO NOT COMMUNICATE BY TELEGRAPH OR FACSIMILE ANYMORE, BUT THOSE ARE ENUMERATED IN

[00:10:01]

THE GOVERNMENT CODE AND THEY'RE INCLUDED IN OTHER PARTS OF FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT AS WELL AS, UM, FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH TWO.

SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT THE SAME STANDARD TO APPLY TO EVERYONE WHO IS A LOBBYIST WHO IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY A LOBBYIST DOES? SO JUST TO QUICKLY CLARIFY, SO THEY, SUBSECTION A AND B MM-HMM.

TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

ONE WHERE YOU'RE APPEARING TO SAY, TESTIFY AT A COUNCIL MEETING OR, UH, APPEARING BEFORE A CITY BOARD.

SO IT, THEY CONTEMPLATE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT ONE PERSON WOULD FALL UNDER A AND THEN ESCAPE C BECAUSE IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT SCENARIO.

C ONLY SPEAKS TO SCHEDULED IN SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH A CITY OFFICIAL, AND IT TALKS ABOUT SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS MAKING, UH, REASONABLY PRACTICAL METHOD AVAILABLE FOR THOSE RECORDING, THOSE WRITTEN DISCLOSURES TO BE MADE.

UM, AND SO, BUT I, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE TELEGRAPH AND FACSIMILE MM-HMM.

AND, AND ALL OF THAT, UH, AS WELL THAT THAT, THAT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE, BUT JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

MM-HMM.

A AND B AND C ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FULLY MM-HMM.

CAPTURING ALL MODES OF COMMUNICATION.

YEAH.

I JUST THINK THOUGH THAT C THERE'S NO REASON FOR C TO BE NARROWER JUST BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO IS IN THE SITUATION OF, YOU KNOW, MEETING UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF THE LOBBYING IS THE SAME, RIGHT.

UNDER A, B, OR C, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT KINDS OF MEETINGS, THAT'S, ANYWAY, THAT'S THE POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON THAT.

UM, AND THEN ON THE, UH, FOUR, EIGHT POINT 10, UM, I KNOW IT WAS STATED THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERIODIC REVIEW, BUT I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT'S WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS.

IT'S SAYS AS NEEDED.

SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PERIODIC AND COULDN'T AS NEEDED ACTUALLY MEAN NEVER IN PRACTICE.

UM, I MEAN LEGALLY.

RIGHT.

THAT WOULD WHY I, WELL, YES.

IF WE LOOKED AT THE RISK LEVEL AND WE FELT LIKE THERE WAS NO RISK, THAT THERE WERE MM-HMM.

LOBBYISTS WHO WEREN'T REGISTERED WITH THE CITY, THEN YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE WOULDN'T AUDIT IT.

UM, RIGHT.

AND THEN ALSO IF THERE'S NO SPECIFIED, UH, PERCENTAGE OR NUMBER RIGHT.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DELETED.

CORRECT.

UM, YOU KNOW, THEN THERE'S ONE OR TWO OKAY.

IS ZERO.

OKAY.

THAT'S ACTUALLY TIED TO THE, WHAT WE WERE SAMPLING.

THE, THAT SAMPLE WAS OF PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTARILY REGISTERED MM-HMM.

, WE SAMPLED TO MAKE SURE THEIR REGISTRATIONS WERE COMPLIANT.

AND TO ME, THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S THE WRONG AUDIT.

MM-HMM.

, RIGHT.

TAKING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE VOLUNTARILY AGREEING TO COMPLY WITH THE PROGRAM AND SAMPLING TO SEE IF THEY COMPLIED WITH THE PROGRAM IS NOT THE AUDIT WE WANT OR MM-HMM.

, IT'S, I, YEAH.

YEAH.

NOT THE AUDIT THAT ADDS THE MOST VALUE, I GUESS IS A BETTER WAY TO SAY THAT.

MM-HMM.

, I AGREE.

I MEAN, PERIOD.

IT COULD SAY PERIODICALLY INSTEAD OF AS NEEDED.

MM-HMM.

CERTAINLY, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT EVERY THREE YEARS, EVERY FIVE YEARS, UHHUH, , IT'S JUST HARD TO PUT A CADENCE ON THAT.

MY PREFERENCE IS WE DO AN ANNUAL AUDIT PLANNING PROCESS.

MY PREFERENCE IS TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, IS THIS A RISK THIS YEAR? HAVE WE HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS? MM-HMM.

, DO WE HAVE OTHER INFORMATION TELLING US WE NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW MM-HMM.

AND THEN WE WOULD WORK IT INTO THE AUDIT PLAN.

YEAH.

I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE THAN I THINK WHAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE SAYS.

MM-HMM.

, UM, IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THAT, OH, WELL FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ASSESSING THE RISK OF NON-COMPLIANCE, I, I DO THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART TO PUT IN.

CUZ YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.

THE NON-COMPLIANCE, NOT THE COMPLIANCE.

UM, RIGHT.

BUT HOPEFULLY I JUST, I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE, UH, WE'RE SAYING WE NEVER NEED TO DO THIS AND WE GIVE OURSELVES THE OPTION OF NEVER DOING IT, YOU KNOW, SO ANYWAY, SO THOSE ARE MY TWO COMMENTS REALLY ABOUT, THERE.

THERE'S A PARALLEL, THERE'S A PARALLEL, SORRY, THERE'S A PARALLEL SECTION OF CITY CODE, UM, RELATED TO OUR AUDITS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, INCLUDING YOU GUYS, UM, THAT WE SHOULD PERIODICALLY LOOK AT YOUR ANNUAL REPORTS AND OTHER THINGS, THINGS IN THE NEWS, OTHER RISK FACTORS AND SEE DO WE NEED TO AUDIT THIS BOARD? ONE, WE CAN NEVER AUDIT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION CUZ WE AREN'T INDEPENDENT CUZ WE, UM, BRING STUFF TO, SO Y'ALL WON'T GET AUDITED.

BUT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PERIODICALLY LOOK AT THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MIRROR HERE IS THAT, UM, WE DON'T WANNA PUT IT ON A SCHEDULE LIKE EVERY YEAR GO AUDIT THESE PEOPLE.

BUT WE ALSO, WE WANTED TO HAVE IT BUILT IN THAT WE WERE GONNA DO THAT KIND OF RISK ASSESSMENT PIECE, UM, AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO AUDIT.

SO I'M COMFORTABLE MOVING AS NEEDED TO PERIODICALLY OR AS NEEDED TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT THE COMMITTEE LIKES.

I AGREE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION? YES.

SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES.

UH, THANK

[00:15:01]

YOU COMMISSIONER LOWE FOR BRINGING, UM, YOUR, UH, OBSERVATIONS UP ON, UH, I THINK IT'S A VERY ASTUTE OBSERVATION ABOUT, AND, UM, I'M ALSO BIG ON PARALLELISM AND CONSISTENCY.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, SUPPORT COMMISSIONER LOWE'S COMMENTS, UM, ON, ON C THE LANGUAGE OF, UM, THE DIFFERENT WAYS, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ALREADY, IF IT IS ALREADY DEFINED.

RIGHT.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION ON C IS, UM, WHAT ARE THE WAYS OF COMMUNICATION? IT SOUNDED LIKE COMMISSIONER LOWE YOU WERE READING FROM A GLOSSARY OR SOMETHING, OR A DIFFERENT, OKAY.

YEAH, I WAS REFERRING TO, UH, SECTION FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH TWO SUB FOUR, WHICH DEFINES THE WORDS COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH YES.

SO I, I, AND, AND I WAS ALSO NOTING, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW HOW RELEVANT IT IS OTHER THAN WE HAVE AN INTEREST IN MAKING THINGS PARALLEL AND UNCONFUSING, UM, IN STATE STATUTE, YOU KNOW, CHAPTER 3 0 5 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH REGULATES LOBBYISTS.

THERE IS ALSO A DEFINITION OF COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH, SO, YOU KNOW, IF ALL OF THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE DIFFERENT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMUNICATING WITH MM-HMM.

, UM, IT'S CONFUSING FOR THE PUBLIC AND IT'S CONFUSING FOR THE LOBBYISTS AND, YOU KNOW, I I'M NOT GOING TO, UH, IMPUTE ILL INTENT TO ANYONE, BUT THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE CAN ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNDERSTOOD.

YES.

YOU KNOW, TO BE, TO BE NON-COMPLIANT.

I'M, I'M ALL FOR THAT.

MM-HMM.

.

UM, SO ARE WE GOING TO BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THIS? OR IS JUST FEEDBACK AT THIS POINT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S JUST FEEDBACK AT THIS POINT.

WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? MS. RISBY? SIMILAR TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING, IT WOULD BE, UM, SO AT THAT MEETING WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS WERE MADE, FEEDBACK WAS GIVEN AND THERE WAS A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.

UM, THOSE COMMENTS WERE THEN AFTER THE MEETING FOLDED INTO THE DRAFT, AND THEN IT WAS SENT OVER TO CO COUNSEL.

SO IT WOULD FOLLOW A SIMILAR, A SIMILAR PATH.

OKAY.

GREAT.

UH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS HAD A COMMENT.

SO I'M ON THIS ISSUE OF COMMUNICATES WHETHER IT'S IN PERSON OR SOMETHING ELSE.

IT IS, IT'S LIKE COMMISSIONER LOWE POINTED OUT, IT IS DEFINED IN, UH, 4 82.

WOULD IT NOT BE SIMPLER TO IN 4 8 8 4 8 8 C JUST STRIKE OUT AND AND THIS MIGHT BE WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'VE ALREADY PROPOSED, COMMISSIONER LOW IS TO STRIKE OUT IN PERSON BY TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.

SO IT JUST SAYS A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES AND WE RELY ON THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNICATES OR DIRECTLY COMMUNICATES, AND MAYBE IT SHOULD BE DIRECTLY COMMUNICATES, WHICH I THINK THAT'S WHAT 4 8 80 C CONTEMPLATES.

WOULD THAT NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY AND, AND ALSO MAKE 4 88 C YOU KNOW, ALL ENCOMPASSING OF, UH, DIRECTLY COMMUNICATES BY TELEGRAM, IF ANYONE YES.

MIGHT BE DOING THAT NOW.

SHOULD, SHOULD WE STILL BE USING WESTERN UNION IN THAT WAY? YES.

COMMISSIONER CASTO.

THANK YOU.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW IS, IS THE FACT THAT 4 88 IS ABOUT APPEARANCE RATHER THAN JUST COMMUNICATE RELEVANT TO WHY THE DEFINITION IS DIFFERENT HERE? AND PERHAPS IF THAT'S TRUE, WOULD THAT JUST CLEAR UP ANY QUESTIONS? YES, SO THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.

I BELIEVE THE REASON WHY WE TALK ABOUT THAT IS BECAUSE 4 88 IS, IS REALLY DIRECTED AT PEOPLE WHO HAVE PEERED BEFORE COUNSEL.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THEM AS SOMEBODY WHO, I MEAN BY APPEARING BEFORE COUNSEL AND LOBBYING FOR A PARTICULAR ISSUE, YOU ARE NOW A LOBBYIST.

AND THE PROBLEM BEFORE, WAS IT JUST, IT, IT SAID ACTUALLY WHAT YOU JUST READ, WHICH IS A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES IN PERSON WITH A CITY OFFICIAL FOR COMPENSATION AND THE CHALLENGE THERE.

SO THAT'S WHO FALLS UNDER THE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER.

SO SEPARATE FROM SOME OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND, AND, UM, OTHER SECTIONS ABOVE APPEARANCE MEANS YOU SHOWED UP AND YOU TALKED TO A COUNCIL MEMBER AND YOU SAID, HEY, I WANT YOU, UM, TO, I WANT TO, UH, LOBBY YOU FOR THESE CHANGES IN THIS ZONING CASE OR IN THIS, UM, CODE CHANGE OR IN THIS WHATEVER IT IS.

THOSE ARE ALL, UM, AS LONG AS YOU RECEIVE COMPENSATION AS A LOBBYIST, THOSE ALL QUALIFY IN THIS AREA ONLY.

SO IN 4 88.

[00:20:01]

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ADDING JUST THE, THE BY TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.

I THINK IT'S ALSO FINE TO ADD BY FAX OR I FORGOT ALREADY TELEGRAM.

UM, THAT IS FINE TO ADD THERE, BUT IT, IT, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S DISCUSSED ABOVE FROM A, UH, FROM A REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

SO THESE PEOPLE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITH ALL OF THEIR KIND OF DETAILED INFORMATION, UH, THEIR NAME, WHO THEY MET WITH, UH, WHO THEY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF, ET CETERA, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. I'M, I STILL SEE COMMISSIONER LOWE'S POINT THAT I, AND, UM, COMMISSIONER LEVIN'S SUGGESTION, UM, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH BOTH OF THEIR, UM, PERSPECTIVES.

I, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT.

IN FACT, IF ANYTHING, I THINK IT CONFUSES THE POINT MORE THAT WE MAKE THAT DISTINCTION THAT, UH, UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SECTION C IS ABOUT APPEARANCE, BUT IN THE SECTION ABOUT APPEARANCE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY BECAUSE IN PERSON IS ONE OF THE METHODS OR ONE OF THE FORMS OF COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY, CORRECT, MM-HMM.

.

SO IT IS, I AM, UM, I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER LEVIN'S RECOMMENDATION OR SUGGESTION THAT WE JUST STRIKE OUT ALL THE BY TELEPHONE AND JUST SAY A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH, AND THAT BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN 4 8 2, THAT'S THERE NOW.

I THINK COMMISSIONER LOWE, YOU WERE SAYING THAT THAT DEFINI THIS DEFINITION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE STATE DEFINITION AND MAYBE WE CAN, MAYBE YOU CAN TACKLE THAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME, BUT FOR NOW MM-HMM.

, MAYBE THE SCOPE OF TODAY IS TO, UM, UM, ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITHIN THIS, WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT.

UH, IT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS AND THEN COMMISSIONER LOWE PLEASE.

SO I, I I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOUR PERSPECTIVE IF WE, IF WE WERE TO SAY NOT, AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T CHANGE IT, WE RECOMMEND CHANGING IT, BUT IF IT WERE CHANGED TO A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH THE CITY OFFICIAL AND THEN CARRIED ON, WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT SOMEHOW CHANGE WHAT THE INTENDED MEANING OF THIS SECTION IS? IT WOULD, NOT NECESSARILY IN A BAD WAY, BUT IT WOULD THEN PULL IN ANY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY ON THIS LIST.

SO, SO EMAILS, OTHER COMMUNICATION ARE NOT CURRENTLY CAPTURED.

I THINK THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE INTENTIONAL.

UM, I THINK THEY WERE REALLY TRYING TO CAPTURE TALKING TO A PERSON.

UM, BUT I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN SEE.

AND IT, IT LOOKS LIKE , THERE'S OTHER COMMENTS.

NO, I I, THAT'S RIGHT.

I THINK THE ADDITIONAL THING TO THINK ABOUT IS IF YOU ARE INCLUDING THINGS LIKE EMAILS, ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, UM, THERE IS UNDER 48 80 E THERE'S AN OBLIGATION FOR EACH CITY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICE TO PROVIDE A REASONABLY PRACTICAL METHOD TO CREATE, UM, EITHER A SIGN IN SHEET FOR, UH, THE PERSON MEETING WITH THE CITY OFFICIAL TO SAY, HERE'S MY NAME, HERE'S, UH, WHO I AM, UH, WHO I WORK FOR, HERE'S WHO I'M REPRESENTING, AND I EXPECT THAT I AM GOING TO BE COMPENSATED FOR PARENTING AT THIS MEETING.

BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S, IT HAS TO DO WITH SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH THE CITY OFFICIAL.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO THEN EXPAND THAT DEFINITION TO INCLUDE 4 8 2, I THINK IT WOULD THEN BECOME DIFFICULT FOR EACH DEPARTMENT, UH, OR CITY OFFICE TO THEN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DO A SIGN IN SHEET FOR THAT OR, OR I MEAN, YOU KNOW, FOR, SAY FOR A, A VIRTUAL MEETING, YOU COULD JUST HAVE, AND, AND WE CURRENTLY DO OFFER A TEMPLATE OF LANGUAGE FOR AN OUTLOOK INVITE THAT YOU INCLUDE SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOTTA MAKE THESE DISCLOSURES.

UH, WE'VE GOT A TEMPLATE FOR A SIGN IN SHEET AT RECEPTION.

UM, I THINK WHEN YOU EXPAND TO THINGS THAT GO BEYOND SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH A CITY OFFICIAL, UM, THAT'S WHEN YOU KIND OF GET INTO THOSE, UH, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH ARE TAKEN CARE OF IN FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT B.

UM, SO IT, IT JUST MAKES SUBSECTION E BECOME A LITTLE BIT UNWIELDY TO, FOR DEPARTMENTS AND, AND CITY OFFICES TO THEN COMPLY WITH.

SO JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE TO CONSIDER.

IF I COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

SO IS THERE A ANOTHER SECTION WHERE, UM, THAT SORT OF LIKE A, AN PERHAPS AN UNSOLICITED EMAIL COMMUNICATION BUT PAID, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M LOBBYING FOR SOMEBODY, I SEND AN

[00:25:01]

EMAIL TO A COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, AND I'M PA IS THERE ANY, IS THAT REGULATED IN A DIFFERENT SECTION? BECAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT THE CODE WANTS TO ADDRESS ALSO, BUT I ALSO GET YOUR POINT, YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE A SIGN IN SHEET FOR EVERY TIME SOMEBODY SENDS YOU AN EMAIL.

YOU KNOW, I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.

I'M, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING.

I DON'T KNOW IF, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THE EARLIER PARTS OF THE FOUR EIGHT WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE THAT.

THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO THE FACTS AND UM, TELEGRAM LANGUAGE.

I'M GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER LOWE AND THEN I WAS GONNA MAKE A COMMENT.

UH, YES.

I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE AND THAT IS A MUCH HIGHER DUTY THAN TO FIGURE OUT THE LOGISTICS FOR EVERY COMMISSION TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SIGN PEOPLE IN.

UM, AND I THINK THE NARROWER WE MAKE THE LANG THE NARROWER WE MAKE THE LANGUAGE, THE WORSE BECAUSE MODES OF COMMUNICATIONS CHANGE.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE CHANGING THE ORDINANCE EVERY FEW MONTHS OR EVERY YEAR.

UM, SO IT SHOULD BE AS BROAD AND AS FLEXIBLE AS POSSIBLE SO THAT IT WILL ENCOMPASS ALL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IF THEY ARE NOT COMMON RIGHT NOW, MAYBE COMMON IN TWO YEARS.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE USE THEIR PHONES AND I DON'T KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT SOCIAL MEDIA OR WHATEVER, BUT IT COULD BE THAT THE LOBBYIST IS COMMUNICATING THAT WAY.

UM, I I, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SIGN IN THAT PERSON OR, YOU KNOW, ACCOUNT FOR THAT PERSON'S PRESENCE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S SECONDARY.

WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE ORDINANCE FIRST AND THEN HOW WE GIVE EFFECT TO IT.

COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS, WELL, I WAS GONNA MAKE A COMMENT.

AND THAT IS, IF WE WERE TO STRIKE, SO THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE SAYS A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES IN PERSON BY TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.

IF WE WERE TO STRIKE THAT AND TRY TO MAKE IT PARALLEL WITH THE OTHER DEFINITIONS, SUCH AS IN FOUR, UM, 8, 2, 4.

I THINK SOMEWHERE I'M GETTING A SENSE THAT SOMEWHERE WE NEED TO PUT THE WORD VIDEO CONFERENCE IN THIS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SEE YOU TRYING TO ADDRESS.

SO IF WE WERE TO STRIKE IT FROM THERE, I THINK IT WOULD NEED TO SHOW UP IN, IN ANOTHER DEFINI IN THE OTHER DEFINITION.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD, I MEAN, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT DEFINITION.

WE COULD SAY HERE, WHO COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH, I THINK IS IF WE DO ALL THE STRIKING RIGHT, WHO COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH, AND THEN, AND THE DEFINITION MAKES SURE THE OTHER THINGS ARE CAPTURED.

AND I THINK THAT JUST REFERENCES COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY OR ANY, UH, PERSON AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4 82.

I THINK THAT'S THE DEFINITIONS.

YES, YES.

UM, YOU KNOW, WHO COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND THEN I, I DO THINK, I MEAN WE NEED, I DON'T NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

I THINK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY WANNA THINK ABOUT THAT AND WHO ALL IT MAKES IT BROADER TO, TO PULL IN, FOR EXAMPLE, EMAIL COMMUNICATION.

UM, PROBABLY NOT TELEGRAMS AND FAXES.

I BET THOSE ARE MINIMAL AT THIS POINT, BUT IT, IT WILL PULL IN, I THINK, ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION THAN WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

UH, I'M GONNA GO WITH COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS AND THEN COMMISSIONER CASTO, AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN GET TO SOME SORT OF, UM, PATH FORWARD ON IT.

I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT C ABOUT THIS SECTION THAT WE'RE, WE'RE STILL ON.

UM, ONE IS, IS VIDEO CONFERENCE NOT COVERED BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION? BECAUSE ELECTRONIC IS, IS PART OF THE CURRENT DEFINITION.

ANY VARIATION? OH, SORRY.

I THINK THE REASON WHY IT'S DIFFERENT IS BACK TO THIS APPEARANCE.

SO I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO NARROW IT DOWN.

SO IT'S NOT JUST ANYTIME YOU COMMUNICATE WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER, IT'S NOT RUNNING INTO THEM IN THE ATRIUM AND SAYING, HEY, HOW ARE YOUR KIDS? IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A BUNCH OF WAYS THAT PEOPLE COMMUNICATE LESS FORMALLY.

THIS IS FOR A SCHEDULED MEETING BETWEEN A LOBBYIST AND A COUNCIL MEMBER OR A LOBBYIST AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

IT, IT'S DESIGNED TO BE MORE NARROW THAN THE OVERALL DEFINITION FOR THE LOBBYIST RES OR LOBBYIST, UM, SECTION OF CITY CODE.

GOTCHA.

C IS, SO BETWEEN THE TWO, IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH INCLUDING VIDEO CONFERENCE IN THE DEFINITION? AND THEN THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO JUST, JUST A QUESTION.

RIGHT? JUST A THOUGHT.

NO, FOR ME, THAT'S A DEFERRED TO COUNSEL CUZ I THINK THEY INTENTIONALLY, WHEN THIS WAS PASSED IN 2017, I THINK THEY INTENTIONALLY SEPARATED

[00:30:01]

ALL COMMUNICATIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE REQUIRED TO LOG THEIR VISITS TO A COUNCIL OFFICE.

AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOG YOUR VISIT TO A COUNCIL.

I'M SAYING COUNCIL OFFICE, IT'S ALSO ANY CITY OFFICIAL WHO MIGHT MAKE A DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

SOMETHING I'M PARAPHRASING, BUT, SO I THINK IT WAS, THIS SECTION IS DESIGNED TO NARROW IT DOWN TO WHAT THEY'RE RECORDING IN TERMS OF MEETINGS.

BUT WHEN WE DID OUR WORK IN 2019, IT FELT, OR 20, SORRY, IN 2022 IT FELT WEIRD THAT MEETINGS DID NOT INCLUDE WHEN YOU MET ON TEAMS, WHEN YOU MET ON ZOOM, THEY ONLY INCLUDED A PERSON WALKING INTO YOUR OFFICE, WHICH DIDN'T HAPPEN FROM 2020 TO 2022.

UM, SO THAT'S, I GUESS MAYBE I COULD HAVE PROVIDED MORE CONTEXT UPFRONT, BUT THAT'S REALLY WHERE THIS CAME FROM WAS WE WERE CONCERNED THAT MEETING, AND, AND MAYBE THAT'S A DIFFERENT DEFINITION, BUT THAT MEETING ONLY INCLUDED FACE-TO-FACE MM-HMM.

.

AND SO SOME OFFICES, AND THIS WAS IN OUR 2022 REPORT, SOME OFFICES WERE DOING GREAT AT CAPTURING EVERY MEETING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS VIRTUAL OR IN PERSON.

AND OTHER OFFICES WERE LIKE, OH, WE, WE DID THAT IN PERSON, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT NOW.

AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE SOME CONSISTENCY AMONG THE COUNCIL OFFICES AND THE CITY DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE TO CAPTURE THAT.

YEAH.

SO YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.

PERHAPS, PERHAPS IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE, UH, A NEW TERM MEETING AND DEFINE THAT WHAT IS A MEETING AND THEN, AND THEN THIS, UM, SECTION HERE, CLAUSE C COULD BE COMMUNICATE OR PARTICIPATES OR, UM, ATTENDS A MEETING, RIGHT? AS DEFINED IN SECTION BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

EXACTLY.

4 22 I THINK.

AND THEN THE SECOND PART, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, I WAS JUST READING IT FURTHER AND I THINK THAT THE ADDITIONAL WORD OF CONTACT HERE, AND THERE ARE TWO INSTANCES OF IT IN NUMBER THREE AND FOUR ACTUALLY FURTHER CONFUSE THE POINT.

SO CUZ APPEARANCE AND CONTACT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AREN'T EXACTLY, AREN'T NECESSARILY THE SAME THING, RIGHT? YOU COULD SAY, AND SO CONTACT COULD BE, HEY, I SENT AN EMAIL, IT'S ELECTRONIC AND IT'S CONTACT.

BUT THE POINT OF THIS, THE POINT OF THIS SECTION WAS APPEARANCE.

SO I THINK I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE STICK WITH ONE TERM AND NOT USE INTERCHANGEABLY OR NOT SAY APPEARANCE OR CONTACT BECAUSE CONTACT IS BROADER.

RIGHT? AND IN THE DEFINITION, UM, OF COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY, IT IS DIRECT CONTACT, RIGHT? NOT NECESSARILY, UM, IN PERSON.

SO I DON'T KNOW, AM AM I MAKING SENSE? YES, NO, I GET THAT.

I COULD ACTUALLY SEE NOW WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THIS SECTION OF THE CODE CAUSE WE WERE ONLY TRYING TO FIX THE, UH, WHY AREN'T VIRTUAL MEETINGS COUNTED.

BUT I THINK YOU COULD CHANGE THAT, UM, TO MEETING AGAIN, IF YOU'RE DOING A DEFINITION EARLIER, YOU COULD CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE TO JUST SAY THE MEETING ON WHOSE BEHALF THE MEETING OCCURS OR ON WHOSE BEHALF OF THE MEETING, BLAH, BLAH BLAHS.

YES.

WE'VE ALREADY, WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT A MEETING MEANS.

UM, I THINK THE CONTACT WAS INTENDED TO CAPTURE TELEPHONE.

UM, SO THOSE ARE ALREADY PART OF, I MEAN CALL HAVING A, HAVING A PHONE CALL, A SCHEDULED MEETING AS A PHONE CALL MM.

IS TECHNICALLY SUPPOSED TO BE CAPTURED HERE.

I'M GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER CASTO AND THEN COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I THINK YOU HAVE ALREADY MOSTLY ADDRESSED MY QUESTION, BUT I I JUST WONDERED IF WE SHOULD JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE FINISH THE SENTENCE THAT IT IS DURING A SCHEDULED MEETING ON A MUNICIPAL QUESTION, DO WE NEED TO BRING IN LIKE THAT'S MORE OF AN OFFICIAL MEETING, RIGHT? RIGHT.

ON A MUNICIPAL QUESTION.

SO IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND ALL THE POINTS ABOUT, UH, CHANGING TECHNOLOGY, BUT THERE WILL ONLY BE CERTAIN TYPES OF APPEARANCE ON A MUNICIPAL QUESTION.

CORRECT.

THANKS COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS ON THE LIGHTS AT THE TOP.

UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT AND THAT YOUR EFFORTS ARE TO NARROW, UH, THIS ORDINANCE SO AS TO, UM, NOT HAVE TO CAPTURE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE INSIGNIFICANT CONTACTS OR COMMUNICATIONS SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, UNSOLICITED EMAILS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

RIGHT.

I WOULD SAY THAT IS NOT MY INTENT.

OKAY.

BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.

OKAY.

SO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PASSED BY COUNCIL IN 2017, I BELIEVE, DEVELOPED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM,

[00:35:01]

WAS TO NOT MAKE EVERYTHING, UH, CONTACT OR NOT MAKE EVERY CONTACT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAPTURED AND LOGGED.

UH, BUT TO RATHER TAKE THOSE MEETINGS ON MUNICIPAL ISSUES, KIND OF NARROW IT DOWN TO MEETINGS ON MUNICIPAL ISSUES AND CAPTURE THOSE AND LOG THOSE.

BUT SO CONTACT ON MUNICIPAL ISSUES THAT COME THROUGH VARIOUS OTHER MEDIUMS. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THEY CAN BE JUST AS SIGNIFICANT AS AN IN-PERSON? I THINK THEY CAN CONSTITUTE LOBBYING, BUT I WAS NOT PART OF THE DECISION MAKERS THAT THAT CAME UP WITH THOSE, THOSE, UM, KIND OF PARAMETERS, UH, WHEN THEY FIRST CAME UP WITH THIS CODE CHANGE.

SO JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT THERE.

SO, UH, THIS ACTUALLY, THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WAS A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES IN PERSON WITH A CITY OFFICIAL.

AND CITY OFFICIAL IS ACTUALLY DEFINED REALLY BROADLY IN FOUR DASH EIGHT IN THE LOBBYING ORDINANCE.

I THINK THAT'S BY DESIGN.

UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S DEFINED NARROWLY ELSEWHERE IN THE ETHICS RULES IN FOUR EIGHT.

IT'S ANYONE WHOSE DUTIES ARE NOT SOLELY CLERICAL.

SO WE'RE GOING BEYOND COUNCIL.

UM, REALLY ANYONE WHO'S NOT HA DOESN'T HAVE A SOLELY CLERICAL ROLE WOULD BE A CITY OFFICIAL.

UM, AND THE WAY THAT 4 88 C IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED IS IT ONLY INCLUDES HAVING TO HAVE WRITTEN DISCLOSURES ABOUT, HEY, HERE'S WHO I'M GETTING PAID BY, HERE'S WHO I'M SHOWING UP ON BEHALF OF FOR JUST IN-PERSON MEETINGS.

AND THIS UNDERLYING LANGUAGE IS THE SUGGESTED ADDITION OF ADDING PHONE AND VIDEO CONFERENCE.

DOES THAT HELP? IT DOES, BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER LOWE IS SAYING THAT IT SHOULD BE EVEN BROADER AND SIMPLY PARALLEL THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CHAPTER.

AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THE MANNER OF THE COMMUNICATION IS REALLY IMPORTANT OR IS IT THE SUBSTANTIVE VALUE OF THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON? UH, VICTORIA HASLET, I'M AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, AS WELL.

AND SO I THINK THAT IT IN THIS SECTION, AGAIN, BACK TO WHAT MR. SBY WAS SAYING EARLIER, IT, THIS IS ABOUT APPEARANCE, RIGHT? SO APPEARANCE IN FRONT OF LOBBY, IF YOU LOOK AT 48 8 4 82 DASH OR 40 82 PER EIGHT, IT DEFINES LOBBY AND THAT MEANS TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH, SO THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THESE OTHER TYPES OF COMMUNICATIONS, RIGHT? SO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH IS LIKE EMAIL, TEXT, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THIS 4 88 APPEARANCE IS SOLELY FOR, IT'S, IT'S BREAKING OUT THAT PART TO EX TO CLARIFY AND EXPAND ON COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF PEOPLE.

BUT YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW NOW IN FRONT OF IN PERSON, NO LONGER JUST MEANS WE'RE PHYSICALLY IN THE SAME ROOM.

WE CONSIDER IN PERSON TO MEAN BY TELEPHONE, BY VIDEOCONFERENCE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

TELECONFERENCE.

SO I THINK THAT WHAT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE WANTED TO DO WAS TO SORT OF EXPAND THAT.

NOW MAYBE A WAY TO SORT OF DISTINGUISH THAT IS IN, IN REVISING 4 8, 8 C I THINK WHAT IS GETTING SORT OF TIED UP AND CONFUSED MAYBE IS THIS COMMUNICATES RIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO TIE THAT DIRECTLY BACK TO COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH WHICH ENCOMPASSES THINGS THAT 4 88 AS APPEARANCE BEFORE IS NOT TRYING TO, TO TACKLE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S COVERED ELSEWHERE.

AND SO MAYBE IF WE SAY A PERSON WHO APPEARS IN PERSON BY TELEPHONE OR A VIDEO CONFERENCE, RIGHT? SO IT'S NO LONGER ABOUT COMMUNICATING, IT'S, IT'S KEEPING WITH THE TITLE OF THIS SUB-CHAPTER APPEARANCE.

AND SO A PERSON WHO APPEARS IN PERSON AND THEN GO ON FROM THERE.

SO THAT REMOVES THAT CONFUSION OF COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH WHICH ENCOMPASSES ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND STREAMLINES IT TO JUST APPEARANCES, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT THIS SUBSECTION WAS TRYING TO DO.

UM, COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS, YOU TAKE THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH.

THAT THAT WAS WHAT I WAS COMING TO REALIZE IS ANOTHER TERM TO DEFINE IS APPEARANCE.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY APPEARANCE? BECAUSE WE USE THAT AGAIN IN THREE AND FOUR.

AND I, I LIKE THAT SUGGESTION.

I THINK THAT MAKES IT CLEAR.

SO WE TAKE OUT THE COMMUNICATES IN PERSON CUZ YOU'RE RIGHT THAT, THAT WE SEE THAT AND WE'RE LIKE, WELL, THERE'S ALREADY A DEFINITION.

BUT IF IT'S A PERSON WHO APPEARS AND THEN DEFINE WHAT APPEARS

[00:40:01]

MEAN, APPEARS BY PERSON, BY TELEPHONE OR VIDEO CONFERENCE OR A PERSON WHO APPEARS.

BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO CLOSE IT OUT IN THREE AND FOUR.

AND I WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT WE STRIKE OUT OR CONTACT AND SO WE STAY CONSISTENT WITH THE TERM IS APPEARANCE.

THE PERSON WHO MAKES AN APPEARANCE WITH A CITY OFFICIAL FOR A COMPENSATION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

AND THEN THREE AND FOUR IS JUST ON WHOSE BEHALF THE APPEARANCE.

AND THEN FOUR IS FOR THE APPEARANCE AND THEN DEFINE APPEARANCE.

AND IN THAT DEFINITION OF APPEARANCE WE INCLUDE IN PERSON BY TELEPHONE OR VIDEO CONFERENCE COMMISSION.

I'M GOOD.

I'M SORT OF READING THE ROOM HERE.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ANY SORT OF LANGUAGE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO MS. STOKES OR, UM, OR IS THERE FURTHER COMMENT AND DISCUSSION? I'M, I'M HAPPY WITH EITHER, BUT AT SOME POINT, YES.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE SHOULD HANDLE 4 8 8 AND 4 8 10 SEPARATE BY SEPARATE MOTION SINCE I THINK THEY'RE SEPARATE THINGS.

YES.

UM, AND IN, IN SPITE OF MY EARLIER COMMENT ABOUT JUST STRIKING OUT IN PERSON BY TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE, I, THAT IS, I I'VE BEEN PERSUADED THAT THAT'S NOT, THAT, THAT DOESN'T ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE.

SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THAT WE, I GUESS IT WOULD BE RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL, THE AMENDMENT ON 4 88 AS DRAFTED, UH, IN THESE, IN THIS .

UM, SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION REGARDING 4 88.

UH, COMMISSIONER 10.

YUKO, WERE YOU GONNA YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SECOND THAT.

SO I'M GONNA JUMP IN.

DIDN'T I THINK THERE WAS SOME, UH, IMPETUS FOR SWAPPING OUT THE WORD COMMUNICATES FOR APPEARS? UM, SO I WANTED YEAH, I, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE FOR ONE, YOU DON'T APPEAR BY TELEPHONE.

UM, IF WE, IF WE WANT TO KIND OF NITPICK DEFINITIONS APPEAR, APPEAR IS, IMPLIES SOMETHING VISUAL.

THERE'S A BIT OF AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN APPEARANCE AND THEN SAYING BY TELEPHONE.

BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT CREATES AN AMBIGUITY THAT WE CAN'T LIVE WITH.

UM, IF ANYTHING, I THINK MAYBE IN, UH, SUB C THREE AND FOUR, INSTEAD OF SAYING APPEARANCE OR CONTACT, PERHAPS JUST SAY THE COMMUNICATION.

BUT IT'S, IT'S THE COMMUNICATION PART OF IT THAT, THAT SEEMS TO ME IMPORTANT.

OF COURSE, I'VE BEEN PERSUADED TO CHANGE MY OPINION ONCE TONIGHT.

MAYBE THAT'LL HAPPEN AGAIN.

.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION OUT THERE.

YES.

COMMISSIONER CASTO? NO, GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS AS IS LANGUAGE, AS IS THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

ALTHOUGH COMMISSIONER LEVINS JUST, UM, UH, MADE A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGING THREE AND FOUR.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDED, A MOTION MOTION.

NO, I'M, I'M, I DIDN'T MEAN TO AMEND MY AMO MY MOTION.

I, I WOULD GET THE POINT OF DOING THAT.

I, I WOULDN'T OPPOSE MAKING THOSE CHANGES.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NECESSARY.

UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER CASTO, I JUST WONDERED IF I COULD MAKE A REQUEST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT NEW PEOPLE SHOULD DO.

AND IF YOU WERE WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION, I BELIEVE IN THE APPEARANCE EDIT, UM, AND CHANGING IT TO APPEARANCE SO IT'S CONSISTENT SO WE DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN, ARE YOU COMMUNICATING THE WAY A LOBBYIST WOULD COMMUNICATE? I LIKE THE APPEARANCE LANGUAGE, AND I THINK YOU CAN, WE COULD SAY YOU CAN APPEAR BY TELEPHONE IF WE SAY YOU CAN APPEAR BY TELEPHONE.

SO I DON'T WANNA LOOK LIKE I'M VOTING AGAINST SOMETHING.

SO I WAS JUST SAYING IF WE COULD CHANGE IT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO FROM A PARLIAMENTARY STANDPOINT, WHAT DO WE DO AT THIS POINT? I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER CASTLE, YOU CAN EITHER MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR YOU CAN, UH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS, YOU CAN EITHER WITHDRAW OR AMEND YOUR MOTION.

BEFORE I DO THAT, CAN I ASK OUR SPEAKER AND, AND, AND OUR ATTORNEY STAFF, UM, IS THERE SOMETHING WE ARE NOT SEEING ABOUT AN, AN IMPLICATION OF THAT CHANGE

[00:45:03]

THAT MAYBE WE HAVEN'T, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY CON WE DIDN'T REALLY DISCUSS THAT UP UNTIL NOW.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE UNINTENDED CON I'M I'M OPEN TO THAT.

AS LONG AS YOU GUYS SAY NO, THERE'S NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

JUST SO SORRY.

NO, GO AHEAD.

JUST SO THAT I'M CLEAR THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING 4 88 C TO SAY A PERSON WHO APPEARS OR WHAT IS THE NO, I THINK I, I THINK WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT 48, 80 C THREE AND FOUR.

IN BOTH CASES THEY SAY, UH, THOSE SUBSECTIONS SAY APPEARANCE OR CONTACT.

AND WE WOULD CHANGE THAT TO COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD TRACK THE, THE LANGUAGE IN A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES IN PERSON.

AND THEN WE WOULD SAY IN THREE AND FOUR, THE NAME OF THE CLIENT OR PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF THE COMMUNICATION IS MADE.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY.

UH, THE ONLY THING I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF IS I THINK CONTACT WAS PROBABLY ADDED FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT APPROACH A CITY OFFICIAL FOR A MEETING WHO MIGHT NOT GET SAID MEETING.

RIGHT.

UM, BUT I THINK COMMUNICATE WOULD, UH, WOULD COVER THAT.

SO I THINK, I THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY IN TERMS OF, UH, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE RIGHT.

BUT IN C IT'S REGULATING A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES NOT WHO APPEARS OR CONTACTS.

I, I DON'T, AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS NOT A, THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S NOT GONNA RISE AND FALL ON THIS DECISION BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL, WHETHER WE, WHETHER WE RECOMMEND THAT CHANGE OR NOT, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT THE ORDINANCE MEANS.

SO I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT.

UM, BUT I'M NOT, IT, IT'S NOT A HILL.

I'M GONNA DIE ON .

I I I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD REMOVE ANYTHING BECAUSE CONTACT WOULD BE COVERED ELSEWHERE.

UNDER COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY WITH, RIGHT.

SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE EMAILS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IF IT WAS REMOVED TO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, STREAMLINE THIS AND NOT HAVE THAT CONFUSION, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE AN UNINTENDED CON CONSEQUENCE.

NOW, I MEAN, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT AND COULDN'T WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT NO, NO, I HEARD YOU GUARANTEE THAT THERE'S NOTHING MISSED NO GUARANTEES.

I'M GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER TANA YUCA AND THEN BACK TO COMMISSIONER LOWE.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND I WANNA CLARIFY.

UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, CASTO, OR I'M NOT SURE WHO MADE THE RECOMMENDATION.

RECOMMENDATION.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT OR RECOMMENDING THAT A PERSON WHO APPEARS IN PERSON OR YADA YADA, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT IT READ EXPLICITLY A PERSON WHO MAKES AN APPEARANCE SO THAT WE KEEP THE WORD AS A NOUN AND THEREFORE WE CONTINUE USING THE NOUN IN THREE AND FOUR.

AND THEN THE DEFINITION, IT JUST SOUNDS WEIRD TO ME TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE.

AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT COMMISSIONER LEVINS, UM, I, I CAN SEE THAT POINT, BUT I ALSO SEE COMMISSIONER, UH, CASTLE'S POINT THAT IF WE DEFINE THAT AS WHAT WE CONSIDER WHAT THIS ORDINANCE CONSIDERS AS AN APPEARANCE, THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS.

IT IS, IT IS THE DEFINITION.

NOW, MAYBE WE NEED TO THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT MORE BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

AND SO I I'D SAY THAT THAT'S, UM, YEAH, IT'S A GOOD CONSIDERATION.

I JUST, I, I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S FINE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

I DON'T SEE THE, UNLESS YOU WANNA ADD A DEFINITION TO THE DEFINITIONS TABLE OR SOMETHING TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR.

BUT I THINK IT'S FINE THE WAY IT READS A PERSON WHO COMMUNICATES IN PERSON BY TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.

I, I THINK THAT FOR THE APPEARANCE SECTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'LL WORK FOR ME.

BUT I'M GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER LOWE AND THEN I'M GONNA MAKE A COMMENT AS WELL.

I KNOW WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

SO ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE MOTION AS USING WHAT IS WRITTEN? WHAT HAS BEEN DRAFTED? BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT APPEARANCE AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT, OR DEFINITION OF APPEARANCE THAT IS NOT PART OF THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE RIGHT.

WE'RE TRYING.

OKAY.

SO MY COMMENT ON THAT THEN IS, UM, DO WE NEED, OR MY QUESTION, DO WE NEED A DIFFERENT MOTION LATER IF THIS ONE IS DEFEATED TO ADDRESS THE APPEARANCE DEFINITION IS THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT.

AND SO, UM-HUH , I'M GONNA,

[00:50:01]

I'M NOT, UM, I KNOW SOME PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

I'VE READ ABOUT IT.

UM, I KNOW THERE'S A, WELL EXTENSIVELY, I'M SORRY I'M UNDERCUTTING THAT, BUT, UM, COMMISSIONER LEVINS, YOU HAD A MOTION ON TO LEAVE IT AS IS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

YES.

AND I, AND I THINK I'M GOING TO STAND ON THAT MOTION.

UM, AND IF, IF THE COMMISSION DISAGREES THAT, THAT'S FINE, BUT I THINK, I THINK THAT'S THE BETTER WAY TO GO AS FAR AS DEFINING APPEARANCE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S NOT ON OUR AGENDA.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN, UM, ADDRESS THAT TONIGHT.

IF WE WANNA PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA, PERHAPS WE CAN, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GENDERIZED, IS THAT A WORD? THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD.

UM, AND COMMISSIONER 10 YUCA, YOU HAD SECONDED IT.

IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? SO THE MOTION IS STILL OUT THERE, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

I DON'T SEE COMMISSIONER LEVINS, UM, WITHDRAWING THE MOTION.

AND SO AT THIS TIME, UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THE MOTION AS IT STANDS TO MS. STOKES TO SEND BACK TO CITY COUNCIL, UM, WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, IT TAKES SIX OF US TO, UM, TO, UM, VOTE, VOTE FOR SOMETHING.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A A YES.

I JUST ALSO WANNA CLARIFY THAT WE'RE VOTING FOR FOUR DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT ONLY.

YES.

THANK YOU.

SO WE'RE ONLY AT THIS TIME VOTING FOR THE MOTION ON FOUR DASH FOUR DASH EIGHT.

DOES THERE NEED TO BE A MOTION TO CONSIDER THEM SEPARATELY? FIRST? FIRST? I DON'T THINK SO.

I THINK IF YOU DEFINE, DEFINE THE MOTION NARROWLY AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.

OKAY.

SO I'M GONNA TAKE THE VOTE ON THAT.

AND I'M JUST GONNA GO IN ORDER, UM, THAT'S ON MY SHEET.

SO, UH, VICE CHAIR KALE, I VOTE FOR THE MOTION.

UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? NO.

SECRETARY CASTO, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME.

COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES.

COMMISSIONER LOWE? NO.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS? YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER TANA YUKA.

YES.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. NO, I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T.

OKAY.

SO, UM, THAT RECOMMENDATION DID NOT PASS AND I'M WONDERING, UM, IF WE'RE WANTING TO DO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, MAKE A, A DIFFERENT MOTION, UM, OR WHAT YOU WANNA DO ON THIS, UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND THAT'S, I DON'T WANNA CUT OFF ANY KIND OF COMMUNICATION.

MY, MY ROLE IS TO HONOR EVERYBODY'S VOICES, BUT ALSO KEEP THE MEETING MOVING.

YES.

COMMISSIONER CASTO, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO INCORPORATE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS APPEARANCE LANGUAGE, UM, AS CUZ I WAS ACTUALLY FINE WITH EITHER WAY.

SO IF THAT IS IN ORDER AT THIS POINT, UM, AND WE KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL.

SO IF YOU COULD CLARIFY FOR ME, IF YOU COULD READ THAT OUT FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

A PERSON WHO MAKES AN APPEARANCE BY TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE, YADA, YADA, YADA ON A MUNICIPAL QUESTION.

AND THEN JUST MAKE IT CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THREE AND FOUR, THE APPEARANCE LANGUAGE AS DESCRIBED.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY.

COM I HAVE A QUESTION.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU WOULD APPEAR BY TELEPHONE, UH, A CONFERENCE CALL IF PERHAPS VIDEO IS DOWN AND THERE'S A COMMISSION OR A CITY HALL OR A, UM, CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND SOMEBODY WANTED TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND THEY COULD SET UP A CALL IN NUMBER FOR THAT.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE, I GUESS WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT A PEER MEANS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE CONFUSION'S COMING FROM.

CUZ TO ME A PEER MEANS TO APPEAR, BUT, SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, YES.

JUST TO CLARIFY.

SO IN 4 88, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAR, YOU KNOW, VIRTUALLY VIA PHONE, UH, FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT FOR CITY COUNCIL, UH, MEETINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IT, IT, IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK ENTERING THE APPEARANCE WHEN, WHEN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND, AND, UM, YOUR AFFILIATION, ALL OF THAT FOR THE RECORD IS, IS ESSENTIALLY AN APPEARANCE.

OKAY.

SO VERY, I I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE IS SOME KIND OF DEF DEFINITION SOMEWHERE THAT DEFINES APPEARANCE AS, AND THAT INCLUDES TELECONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE SOMEWHERE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A WRITTEN DEFINITION SOMEWHERE, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY A, A PRECEDENT AND A PRACTICE IN PLACE, IF THAT HELPS.

OKAY.

FIRST, BEFORE WE DISCUSS IT, I'M GONNA SEE

[00:55:01]

IF ANYBODY WANTED TO SECOND COMMISSIONER CASTRO'S MOTION AND THEN WE WOULD OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION.

I'LL SECOND IT.

OKAY.

UH, SECRETARY STANTON, ADAM SECOND IT NOW DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO CHANGE IT TO A PERSON WHO MAKES AN APPEARANCE IN PERSON, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO ANY DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER LOWE.

UM, I NEED A POINT OF CLARIFICATION AND ALSO I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING AS TO DISCUSSION.

UM, ARE WE ABLE TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT OR TO, I, I MEAN, CAN WE ASK THAT IT BE WORKED ON SOME MORE? IS THAT, UM, ONE OF THE OPTIONS OR IS THE ONLY OPTION THAT WE MAKE A DECISION ON IT NOW AND THEN SEND IT FORWARD? SO YES, THAT'S DEFINITELY AN OPTION, UH, TO SEND IT BACK TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT.

UH, AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE FEBRUARY MEETING, THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHAT SOME OF THOSE LANGUAGE CHANGES COULD BE SIMILAR TO THIS DISCUSSION HERE.

IT WAS SENT BACK TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT, THOSE CHANGES WERE MADE AND THEN IT WAS, UH, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT BACK TO THE ERC.

IT WAS THEN SENT FOR, UH, BEFORE COUNSEL WITH THOSE, WITH THOSE CHANGES INCORPORATED, THAT WAS BUILT INTO THE MOTION THAT THE ERC MADE FOR THOSE CHANGES.

OKAY.

BUT IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE FOR THE ERC TO MOVE TO, UM, HAVE THE LAW DEPARTMENT WORK ON IT MORE AND THEN PRESENT IT TO US ANOTHER TIME, A SECOND TIME.

IS THAT, IS THAT OPTION? SURE.

YEP, THAT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

OKAY.

THAT, THAT WAS MY POINT OF INFORMATION.

AND THEN, UH, MY GENERAL POINT IN THE DISCUSSION AND GOES BACK TO THE FIRST WORDS I UTTERED, WHICH IS THAT THESE STATUTE, I MEAN THESE ORDINANCES ARE JUST GETTING TOO CONFUSING AND IF THEY'RE CONFUSING US, THEY'RE GONNA BE VERY CONFUSING FOR THE PUBLIC.

SO I, I REALLY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN TINKER WITH A FEW WORDS AND, YOU KNOW, ADD THE WORD APPEARANCE INSTEAD OF COMMUNICATION AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA DO IT TONIGHT.

SO MY, MY STATEMENT FOR DISCUSSION IS JUST I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE VOTING ON IT.

I I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE VOTING TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE TONIGHT.

WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS A RECOMMENDATION.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT'S CLEAR.

WE'RE NOT VOTING TO SAY YOU NEED TO CHANGE THIS, IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

WE'RE JUST VOTING ON OUR SUGGESTION.

BUT I HEAR YOUR POINT.

SO I'M GONNA JUMP IN AND I THINK WE, UM, IF WE TRY TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT WE ALL AGREE ON, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA GET THERE AT THIS POINT, UM, WITHOUT, UM, HONORING AND RESPECTING WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD AS MOTIONS.

I'M STARTING TO SEE THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE BENEFICIAL IF WE SUGGEST THAT, THAT THE, THEY LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND COME BACK TO US.

BUT COMMISSIONER, CAST, I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER CASTO HAS WITHDRAWN HER MOTION.

UM, COMMISSIONER LOWE, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT TAKES ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS AND THEN BRINGS IT BACK TO US, OR HOWEVER YOU WANNA SAY IT? UH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SUCH A MOTION, BUT DO I NEED TO MAKE A DIFFERENT MOTION FOR 4 88 FROM 4 8 10? BECAUSE I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO DO THE SAME THING ON BOTH.

I THINK YOU CAN TAILOR YOUR MOTION UNLESS, SO LET ME, LET ME SEE IF I CAN READ THE ROOM A LITTLE BIT.

MM-HMM.

, UM, THAT WOULD ENTAIL US CLOSING OUT THIS ONE AND THEN STARTING A DISCUSSION ON THE SECOND PART IN WHICH WE MIGHT ALSO STRUGGLE TO COME TO SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION.

MM-HMM.

, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS, BUT IT'S, IT, THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA RECOMMEND AT THIS TIME IS THAT WE, WE, WE TAKE BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER IN A SINGLE MOTION.

OKAY.

UNLESS THERE'S, UNLESS THERE'S SOME DISPUTING THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR MOTION.

YES, YES, YES.

YEAH.

OKAY.

OKAY.

OKAY, THEN I WILL MOVE THAT, UM, THE E R C SEND BOTH SECTION 4 88 AND SECTION 48 10 BACK TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT BASED ON THE CONTENT OF OUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.

UM, AND, UM, RETURN IT TO US FOR FURTHER REVIEW.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? A SECOND THAT OKAY.

FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I, I, OH, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER.

NO, GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER LEVINS.

UM, MY DIFFICULTY WITH THIS MOTION IS I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE THE POWER NOT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

UM,

[01:00:01]

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE POWER TO GIVE THE LAW DEPARTMENT ORDERS.

UM, WE CAN SEND IT BACK TO THEM.

WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE THEY'LL DO SOMETHING AND MAYBE THEY WON'T.

UM, SO I, I GUESS, UH, I DON'T THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION JUST BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANY REAL EFFECT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT TAKING ANOTHER CRACK AT IT.

UM, I DON'T FIND IT REALLY NECESSARY MYSELF, BUT I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, UM, IF WE MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION, THE LAW DEPARTMENT CAN SAY, OKAY, WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER CRACK AT IT AND COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, GET IT ON THE AGENDA ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

UM, SO THAT, THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY COMMENT ON THE MOTION.

UM, I, I LIKE THE MOTION, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I MAKE A COMMENT THAT I, I REALLY FEEL LIKE IT IS VERY CONFUSING AND FOR LAYMAN, PEOPLE THAT REALLY DON'T REALLY SPEAK LEGAL NEEDS, UH, LIKE THINGS LIKE WHAT A APPEARANCE MEANS, UM, EVEN IF IT'S NOT WRITTEN, LIKE HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? SO I JUST THINK THAT I'D LIKE TO JUST GIVE A COMMENT OR SUGGESTION TO CLARIFY THAT SOMEHOW IN SOME WAY.

UM, JUST TO MAKE THIS CODE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR, CUZ IT IS, IT IS QUITE CONFUSING.

COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS AND THEN WE'LL GO AROUND AND DO A VOTE.

MY ONLY COMMENT WITH 48 10, UM, I, I, I WOULD BE VOTING IN SUPPORT OF, UM, RECOMMENDING, UM, THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, REFINE IT.

AND MY COMMENT ON 4 8 10 IS TO NOT USE AS NEEDED.

I THINK, I THINK YOU HAD SEATED TO THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, PERIODICALLY SEEMS BETTER, BUT TWO AGAIN, DEFINITIONS, RIGHT.

DEFINE PERIODICALLY AND MAYBE DEFINE A MINIMUM.

I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, PERIODICALLY BUT NO LONGER THAN THREE YEARS.

I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN.

AND SO I HESITATE TO EVEN RECOMMEND.

BUT, BUT, AND THEN I'M NOT SURE IF SAYING ANNUALLY WOULD JUST MAKE IT BURDENSOME ON THE STAFF, SO I WANNA BE MINDFUL OF THAT, BUT DEFINITELY NOT AS NEEDED.

I LIKED PERIODICALLY CUZ THAT GAVE ME A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY ABOUT EVERY TWO YEARS, EVERY THREE YEARS, EVERY FIVE YEARS.

WE ALSO HAD, AT ONE POINT WE HAD DRAFTED IT AS AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS OR AT LEAST ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FIVE, THAT'S A, A NUMBER PLUCKED FROM THE AIR.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO IT ANNUALLY.

SO WE CAN DO THE, WHO'S REGISTERED AND DID THEY DO EVERYTHING RIGHT ANNUALLY, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY EASY.

UH, WE HAVE ALL OF THEIR INFORMATION, THE FIGURING OUT WHO ALL HAS HAD A MEETING WITH A CITY OFFICIAL AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY ALSO REGISTERED AS A LOBBYIST IS WAY MORE COMPLICATED.

UM, SOME OF THOSE ARE HANDWRITTEN RECORDS, SOME OF THOSE ARE ELECTRONIC, FORTUNATELY.

BUT,