* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [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, UM, TRYING TO DO THAT ANALYSIS IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. 
          SO I COULDN'T COMMIT TO DOING THAT ANNUALLY. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T MIND, UH, ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS OR SOME SORT OF, OR I LIKE THE, BECAUSE WE MIGHT DO IT MORE OFTEN, I LIKE THE NO MORE, OR I FORGOT HOW I SAID IT, BUT BASICALLY AT LEAST ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AND YES. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I'LL MAKE IT VERY QUICK. 
          UM, I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE POINT COMMISSIONER LOVENS MADE, UM, AND CLARIFY MY MOTION IN THAT SENSE. 
          UM, I REALIZE WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ORDER ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING. 
          I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE THAT LEGAL AUTHORITY, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL HERE TO WORK TOGETHER. 
          SO , UM, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING WE HAVE SAID HAS BEEN IN GOOD FAITH AND I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY, UH, SERIOUS ABOUT THIS CONFUSION CONCEPT. 
          SO, UM, WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORTH THE SAME. 
          I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I WILL NOT AMEND THE MOTION. 
          IT WILL BE THE SAME. 
          AND I JUST HOPE WE CAN ALL LIKE, UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER ON THIS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. 
          SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          SO, UM, I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH, UH, VICE CHAIR KALE. 
          I'M A YES. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          UH, SEC. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LOWE? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVINS? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER TANA YUCCA? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. OKAY. 
          SO THAT WAS 1, 2, 3, 4. 
          SO THAT WAS SIX OUT OF SEVEN, AND SO IT DID PASS. 
          [01:05:01]
GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          THANKS EVERYBODY FOR YOUR INPUT ON THAT ITEM. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          OH, IT'S ALSO MY SHORTEST ITEM BEFORE YOU GUYS. 
          OH, OKAY. 
           TODAY SO FAR. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M GONNA GO ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, AND THAT IS DISCUSSION 
          [2. Discussion of membership of Working Group to Review ERC Complaint Process.]
OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW E R C COMPLAINT PROCESS. 
          UM, I'M GONNA HAND THAT OVER TO MS. RBE. 
          SURE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER LOWE OR COMMISSIONER LEVINS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT THIS, UH, IS JUST A, UH, VOTE TO ADD COMMISSIONER LOWE TO THE WORKING GROUP. 
          UM, SO JUST SOME BACKGROUND ON UNDER TWO DASH ONE DASH TWO OF THE CITY CODE WORKING GROUPS ARE VOTED ON BY, UH, A VOTE OF THE FULL COMMISSION. 
          AND SO, UM, IN ORDER TO ADD COMMISSIONER LOWE, UH, TO BRING THAT TO A VOTE, COULD YOU CLARIFY WHO ELSE IS ON THE WORKING GROUP AT THIS TIME? CHAIR. 
          IT'S CURRENTLY MADE UP OF CHAIR SOONE AND COMMISSIONER LEVINS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GONNA NEED A VOTE ON THAT OR AN, OR A MOTION. 
          WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT ITEM? OKAY. 
          I SAW COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          I MOVE SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVIN SECOND. 
          DO WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT? I, A QUESTION I DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAD TO VOTE ON WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP. 
          IS THAT WHAT WE'RE YES. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
           USUALLY IT'S DONE IN, IN, WHEN THE WORKING GROUP IS CREATED MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND SO IT KIND OF SEEMS A LITTLE SEAMLESS BECAUSE IT'S OFTEN YOU VOTE TO CREATE THE WORKING GROUP AND YOU ALSO VOTE TO ADD THE SPECIFIC MEMBERS. 
          THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT SITUATION BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S ADDING A NEW MEMBER TO AN EXISTING WORKING GROUP. 
          HENCE THE, HENCE THE VOTE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. 
          SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE GOING DOWN MY LIST AGAIN. 
          UM, LET'S SEE, VICE CHAIR KALE? YES. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LOWE? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVINS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER 10 YUCCA? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING THAT WORKING GROUP. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          I'M GONNA GO ON TO 
          [3. Discussion regarding rescheduling the July ERC meeting.]
THE NEXT ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING RESCHEDULING THE JULY E R C MEETING. 
          I'LL TURN IT OVER, MS. RISBY. 
          SO, UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ON THE COMMISSION AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, YOU APPROVED A CALENDAR OF, UH, 2023 HEARING DATES. 
          UM, AT THAT POINT, THERE'S A WINDOW THAT OPENS WHERE THE CLERK, UH, CLERK'S OFFICE ALLOWS, UH, RESERVING ROOMS AND, UM, UH, THE STAFF LIAISON DID A GREAT JOB OF FINDING SPOTS FOR ALL OF THE MEETINGS. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THE JULY MEETING, UH, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PACKET, UH, JULY 26TH, WHICH IS A WEDNESDAY, THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, UM, FOR ANY OF THE, THE POSSIBLE VENUES. 
          SO, UH, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY, UH, JULY 19TH IS THE DATE THAT IT WAS AVAILABLE. 
          IT'S BASICALLY THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE. 
          SO, UH, THIS IS AN OPTION TO, UH, HOLD THE MEET MEETING ON JULY 19TH TO ESSENTIALLY AMEND THE AGREED UPON SCHEDULE, UH, FOR THE JULY MEETING OR TO CANCEL THE MEETING IF THAT'S, IF THIS STATE IS NOT WORKABLE, UH, THE LOCATION WOULD BE THE PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WHICH WE'VE BEEN TO, UH, I THINK MOST RECENTLY THE, THE DECEMBER MEETING OF LAST YEAR. 
          SO WE NEED, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOVEMENT ON THIS? UM, AND EXCUSE ME, A MOTION ON THIS, MS. SMI. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER TENA. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR ARM UP. 
          NO, YOUR HAND UP. 
          OKAY. 
          IS IT, WELL, I DO HAVE A QUESTION, BUT SO ARE YOU, YEAH, SURE. 
          YOU'RE WANTING TO SIT, UH, CHANGE THE DATE TO THE 19TH. 
          THAT IS THE DATE THAT IT'S AVAILABLE. 
          THE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE MEETING ON THE 19TH. 
          THE OTHER OPTION IS ALSO TO CANCEL THE JULY MEETING. 
          UM, THAT'S ALSO YOUR PREROGATIVE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE AGREED UPON DATE, THE JULY 26TH DATE, THERE ARE NO ROOMS AVAILABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE MOVE THE, UM, THE MEETING DATE FOR JULY FROM JULY 26TH TO JULY 19, NOTING, AND I WOULD THROW IN THERE THAT IT IS AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION. 
          IT'S AT THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS OVER IN THE MUELLER AREA. 
          DISCUSSION? YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER LOWE, I'M SORRY. 
          WAS THERE A MOTION SECOND? 
          [01:10:01]
NOR WE THERE THERE WAS, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS SECONDED THAT, WAIT, NO, NO. 
          I, I MADE, I MADE THE MOTION. 
          OH, EXCUSE ME. 
          I THOUGHT SOMEBODY SECONDED THAT. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER CASTO SECOND. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS, UM, WHETHER ANY OF THE DATES WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A JUNE 5TH SPECIAL MEETING FOR HEARINGS TWO HEARINGS. 
          SO DOES IT MATTER WHAT HAPPENS ON JUNE 5TH AND THEN THE REGULAR MEETING IN JUNE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN CANCEL THE JULY MEETING? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION IS, UH, SURE. 
          THE, I THINK THE OUTCOME OF THE JUNE 5TH MEETING COULD INFORM WHETHER THERE'S A NEED TO HAVE A, A MEETING LATER IN JUNE. 
          THERE'S AN ALREADY AN AGREED UPON, UH, AND DATE FOR A JUNE 28TH MEETING. 
          UH, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT, THERE'S NO REQUIRED SORT OF CADENCE OF MEETINGS THAT'S AGREED UPON. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE HAVING A MEETING IN ON JUNE 5TH PUSHES THE CALENDAR OUT OR PUSHES OTHER DATES OUT. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW IF, AM I ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION? IS THAT YEAH, THAT, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ASKING IF, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THINGS CAN HAPPEN AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, SO SURE. 
          IF IN ANY OF THOSE POSSIBILITIES, IS ANYTHING GOING TO, I MEAN, ANY, IF WE CANCEL ANY MEETING WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH OF THAT SPECIAL MEETING, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO CANCEL, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THE, WELL, PRIOR TO THE POSTING DEADLINE OF THE AGENDA. 
          SO MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, I RECOMMEND JUST VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE OR, YOU KNOW, VOTING ON HAVING THIS JULY 19TH MOVE FROM THE 26TH TO THE 19TH, AND THEN IF THERE'S NO NEED LATER DOWN THE LINE, THEN THAT THAT MEETING CAN BE CANCELED FOR, FOR LACK OF PRESSING AGENDA ITEMS. YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I WILL JUMP IN THERE THAT, THAT FREQUENTLY COMES UP IF THERE ISN'T ANYTHING PRESSING ON THE AGENDA, UM, TYPICALLY CHAIR SOONE, UH, IS ASKED TO WEIGH IN ON THAT, AND, AND I WEIGH IN ON THAT AS WELL, WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE MEETING, WHETHER IT'S WORTH, YOU KNOW, WORTH GETTING EVERYBODY TOGETHER, OR IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE PUT OFF. 
          AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL, UM, THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE NEXT WEEK'S MEETING, SO, SO THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE, WAS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. 
          AND IT WAS A MOTION TO HAVE THE MEETING ON JULY 19TH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND IT WAS SECONDED BY, UM, COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          VICE CHAIR KALE? YES. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LOWE? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVINS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER TANA YUCCA? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? YES. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THAT PASS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          I'M GONNA GO ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA 
          [4. Approval of a revised 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. 
          UM, THIS IS ONE THAT'S BEEN HOPPING IN AND OUT OF THIS COMMISSION FOR A COUPLE YEARS NOW. 
          APPROVAL OF A REVISED FINAL STATEMENT AND OR VIDEO OF WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES AND 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. 
          I'M GONNA PUT A LITTLE CONTEXT. 
          THAT'S A, THAT'S A MOUTHFUL FOR THAT WORKING GROUP. 
          AND WHAT IT WENT THROUGH A LOT OF ITERATIONS. 
          I WAS ON THE WORKING GROUP WITH COMMISSIONER LAURIE AND COMMISSIONER SOBER ON, AND, UM, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK OFF AND ON. 
          AND, UM, WE CAME UP WITH A STATEMENT. 
          THE GOAL WAS TO SHARE WHAT WE DO WITH THE PUBLIC SO THEY CAN, SO THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE AND THEY KNOW WE'RE HERE AND THEY USE US. 
          AND ALSO THAT THEY'RE MAYBE INSPIRED TO, UM, PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC SERVICES. 
          WELL, IT, IT, IT SCALED BACK FROM BEING A STATEMENT ON EQUITY ACCESS AND THE NEED FOR REFORM TO JUST BEING AN INFO STATEMENT ON HERE'S WHAT WE DO, HERE'S WHEN WE MEET. 
          AND SO, UM, IT HAS BEEN PAIRED DOWN. 
          UM, WE APPROVED SOMETHING, I THINK IT WAS IN THE FALL OR MAYBE IN THE WINTER WE APPROVED SOMETHING. 
          AND THAT, UM, EXPLAIN, UM, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN, MS. RISBY, WHY WE NEEDED TO PAIR IT DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER. 
          I THINK IT WAS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA PURPOSES, RIGHT? I BELIEVE THE, THE AGREEMENT WAS TO PUT THIS SOMEWHERE, YOU KNOW, ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. 
          LIKE NEXT DOOR. 
          NEXT DOOR HAS CERTAIN, I DON'T KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY CHARACTER REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? BUT, UM, BUT YEAH, IT, BY AND LARGE IT WAS, IT WAS TO ACCOMMODATE SORT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND MAKING IT, UH, DIGESTIBLE IN THAT SORT OF BITE SIZE PIECE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S A GOOD EXPLANATION. 
          SO THE BITE SIZE PIECE THAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW IS IN YOUR PACKET. 
          AND, UM, THAT IS WHAT I'M GOING TO, 
          [01:15:01]
UM, I MOVE THAT WE PASS THIS AND HAVE THE CITY GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS OUT THERE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE OTHER VENUES, UM, WHERE WE RECOMMEND IT. 
          AND, UM, UM, IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO SECOND MY MOTION AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT OR ASK QUESTIONS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          IS THERE DISCUSSION? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LOWE. 
          UM, IS THERE AN EDITOR FOR THE CITY THAT PUTS EVERYTHING IN THAT SORT OF A STANDARDIZED FORM AS TO ALL COMMUNICATIONS? UM, I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT GOES TO THAT PERSON AND YEAH. 
          SO I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE LOOKED AT A TEMPLATE USED BY THE CITY THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN OUR OWN PACKETS. 
          IT WAS SOME INFORMATION FOR US, AND WE BASED IT OFF OF THAT TEMPLATE, AND IT'S BEEN THROUGH, UM, DIFFERENT CITY STAFF AND DIFFERENT EDITING PROCESSES TO GET TO THIS POINT. 
          I DO KNOW THAT. 
          AND THERE'S A MARKETING TEAM AND A, AND A PR TEAM WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST TO ADD TO THAT, THESE WERE BASED ON, THIS IS RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE FROM THE COMMS TEAM. 
          SO THEY'VE, THEY'VE LOOKED AT, AT ALL OF THOSE SORTS OF CONSISTENCY THINGS. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, COMMISSION, UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          JUST, UM, I NOTE THAT, UH, GRAMMATICALLY, I THINK IT SHOULD BE IMPOSES SANCTIONS TO WRITE THE ERC REVIEWS COMPLAINTS AND IMPOSES, YES. 
          IMPOSES, YOU'RE, THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          SURE. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW, I, AT SOME POINT I THOUGHT, I WAS TOLD THAT THIS COMMISSION DOESN'T HEAR EMPLOYEE ETHICAL THAT THAT MOVE TO HR AT SOME POINT. 
          AM I, IS THAT INCORRECT IN MY THINKING? BECAUSE I I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT. 
          UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD DEFER TO MS. RSV ON THAT ONE. 
          NO, I MEAN, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION INCLUDES, UH, ETHICAL, ALLEGED ETHICAL VIOLATIONS BY CITY OFFICIALS WHO ARE EMPLOYEES, UH, DEPARTMENT HEADS, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO, I DON'T KNOW WHY I THOUGHT THAT, BUT THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? YES. 
          WOULD YOU CONSIDER, UM, USING SIMPLER TERMS THAN IMPOSED SANCTIONS AND INFRACTIONS? UM, I, I LIKE LOOKING AT THINGS, COMMUNICATIONS FROM, AND I THINK A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT THIS UP THIS EVENING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, RIGHT? THE LEGALESE AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO TRY TO STAY MINDFUL OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. 
          I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY KIND OF, UH, A NICHE OR VERY SPECIFIC WHAT WE DO, RIGHT? MM-HMM. 
          , AND PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, A FRIEND OF MINE WHO IS, UM, VERY INTELLIGENT. 
          AND WHEN PEOPLE HEAR ETHICS, THEY THINK WRONGDOING BY ANYBODY. 
          AND IN ANY CONTEXT, AND PARTICULARLY AS AN EXAMPLE, I, I SAY THIS AS AN ANECDOTAL E EXAMPLE. 
          THIS FRIEND THOUGHT THAT I COULD HELP WITH, UM, UH, POLICE, UM, WRONGDOING, RIGHT? AND I SAID, I, I KNOW WHEN YOU THINK OF ETHICS, YOU, YOU THINK ANYTHING THAT'S WRONG, AND IT'S NOT, IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WHICH IS ALSO KIND OF A COMPLEX ORDINANCE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT YOUR, YOUR USUAL. 
          SO, UM, I JUST WANNA BE MINDFUL OF JUST MAKING THIS AS SIMPLY WORDED AS POSSIBLE AND DIRECT, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT, LEMME SEE THE ERC REVIEWS COMPLAINTS AND IMPOSES SANCTIONS IF NECESSARY OF A CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE REGARDING ETHICAL CONDUCT, INFRACTIONS CAMPAIGN SPENDING AND REPORTING. 
          I FEEL KIND OF LIKE LOST ALREADY, RIGHT? IN READING THAT SENTENCE. 
          UM, HOW COULD WE, WHAT'S OUR ELEVATOR PITCH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WILL, IN LIKE TWO SECONDS. 
          WHAT DO WE DO? WHAT DO WE, WHAT DO WE DO WHERE ANYONE, UM, REGARDLESS OF THEIR EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT LEVEL CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION DOES? I WOULD SAY THAT THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF DIFFERENT ITERATIONS TRYING 
          [01:20:01]
TO BOIL THE LANGUAGE DOWN AND MAKE IT DIGESTIBLE AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT'S AS ACCURATE AND PRECISE AS POSSIBLE. 
          ANN MEETS THE WORD LIMITS THAT ARE, THAT ARE REQUIRED BY SOCIAL MEDIA. 
          SO THAT'S NOT TO SAY, UM, I'M NOT OPEN TO FEEDBACK, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE TO THIS STATEMENT AFTER, UM, HAVING IT GO THROUGH SO MANY DIFFERENT, UM, PERMUTATIONS. 
          SO YEAH, COMMISSIONER TCCA, I, I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          I JUST, I HAVE HAD PEOPLE COME UP TO ME TOO YEAH. 
          AND ASK ME SIMILAR QUESTIONS AND I'M LIKE, I DON'T THINK WE COVER THAT. 
          RIGHT? AND SO IT, IT'S KIND OF ETHICAL CONDUCT BY ANY CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE SEEMS A LITTLE BIT TOO BROAD WHEN I FEEL LIKE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTION IN THAT. 
          SO IF IT IS ONLY ON FINANCE OR WHATEVER IT IS, CAN WE JUST SPECIFY? EXACTLY. 
          EXACTLY. 
          CUZ WE DON'T, WE CAN'T, LIKE IF AN A MANAGER IS DOING SOMETHING UNETHICAL, IT DOESN'T COME HERE, RIGHT? SO I'M JUST SAYING, CAN WE JUST SPECIFY EX MORE, PINPOINT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE, WHAT THOSE CASES ARE THAT WE DO HERE? UM, SO I'M OPEN TO ANY LANGUAGE TO MAKE THAT, UM, MORE PRECISE. 
          AND MS. RSV, IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO ADD TO CLARIFY THAT WE DON'T HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY, I'VE, I'VE BEEN ASKED THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, OR SOME OF THE OTHER CRIMINAL TYPE OF THINGS. 
          UM, SO I'M, I'M JUST SORT OF THINKING IN MY HEAD WHAT WE COULD SAY THERE TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC, UM, SINCE THOSE ARE HOT BUTTON ISSUES, ESPECIALLY THE POLICE OVERSIGHT. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVINS, I'M SORRY. 
          I, I THINK THIS STATEMENT AS DRAFTED, FINDS THE RIGHT BALANCE. 
          I MEAN, COULD WE BE MORE CLEAR IN THIS STATEMENT ABOUT PRECISELY WHAT WE DO? YES, BUT THAT'S GONNA MAKE IT LONGER. 
          UM, COULD WE, COULD WE MAYBE USE A WORD SIMPLER THAN INFRACTIONS OR THINGS LIKE THAT? MAYBE, BUT THAT'S GONNA MAKE IT MORE VAGUE. 
          UM, I THINK THIS STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE. 
          PRETTY MUCH ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. 
          UM, IT DOESN'T ANSWER EVERY QUESTION, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE IN A STATEMENT OF THIS SORT. 
          SO, UH, AGAIN, I, I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT BALANCE. 
          I, I JUST WANNA SAY I THINK IT'S GREAT AS IT IS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS STILL SOME CONFUSION ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF CASES THAT WE HEAR, BUT I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH IT AT IS YEAH, I, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH IT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS A LITTLE BIT, UH, UM, AND ONE WAY WE COULD, I MEAN, I'M THINKING IF WE COULD, I DON'T, HONESTLY, I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN. 
          UM, BECAUSE WE, WE HAD IT BROAD, THEN WE NARROWED IT, AND WHEN IT WAS BROAD, IT WAS THREE PAGES. 
          UM, IT'S VERY, UM, SO I, I MEAN, MAYBE THERE IS A WAY TO SAY EXCEPT, EXCEPT FOR POLICE OVERSIGHT OR, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO, WHAT ARE THE OTHER, ALL THE OTHER CATEGORIES THAT WE, THAT ARE EXCEPTIONS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO, I JUST, I, I, WE CAN'T ANSWER EVERYBODY'S QUESTION, BUT IT'S OKAY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE QUESTIONS AND ASK US. 
          AND SO SINCE WE CAN'T ADDRESS EVERY POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT MAY COME UP, I WONDER IF WE COULD DISPENSE WITH THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND THEN IF THAT DOESN'T SUCCEED, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER WE NEED TO EXAMINE FURTHER OPTIONS. 
          SO IS IT, IS IT SPELLED OUT ANYWHERE ELSE? LIKE EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF CASES THAT WE HEAR IT IS. 
          SO YOU CAN IT ON THE CITY WEBSITE, WHEN YOU CLICK ON OUR WEBSITE, IT TAKES YOU TO THE CODE THAT IT TAKES YOU TO CITY CODE. 
          NOW, ADMITTEDLY, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN AUSTIN DON'T HAVE INTERNET ACCESS. 
          AND SO THIS WAS DESIGNED AS SOMETHING, I MEAN, MY, MY INITIAL GOAL WAS TO PUT IT IN ALL THE LITTLE WEEKLYS, THE LITTLE HARD COPY WEEKLYS THAT ARE AT GROCERY STORES AND OTHER VENUES AROUND TOWN. 
          UM, HARD COPIES FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE INTERNET MM-HMM. 
          . 
          BUT, UM, SO IT'S, IT'S, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S IN THE CARDS FOR IT RIGHT NOW, BUT YES, IT IS SPELLED OUT ON OUR, ON OUR WEBSITE. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I THINK IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS THEN. 
          AND THEN JUST FOR ME, I WOULD LIKE TO, I'LL JUST DO SOME RESEARCH TO FIND OUT. 
          THAT WAY WHEN I DO GET THOSE 
          [01:25:01]
QUESTIONS, YEAH. 
          I CAN JUST KNOW WHERE TO POINT THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          RIGHT. 
          IN THAT SENSE, HONESTLY, MAYBE THIS IS A SILVER LINING. 
          IF PEOPLE SEE THIS AND THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN SAY, HERE'S THE CODE, HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE DO. 
          UM, MAYBE THE GOAL, ONE OF MY GOALS WAS TO TELL PEOPLE THAT WE EXIST AND THIS IS WHAT WE DO. 
          BEFORE I WAS APPOINTED TO THIS COMMISSION, I HAD NEVER HEARD OF COMMISSIONS. 
          AND SO ONE OF MY GOALS WAS TO SHARE WITH OTHER PEOPLE. 
          THE CITY HAS THESE COMMISSIONS. 
          YOU TWO CAN FILL OUT AN APPLICATION. 
          IT'S OPEN TO EVERYBODY. 
          AND SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY. 
          UM, ANY OTHER, YEAH, COMMISSIONER, UM, EXCUSE ME, SECRETARY STAN ADAMS. WOULD IT JUST BE TWO SIMPLISTIC TO JUST SAY THAT ERC REVIEWS COMPLAINTS DEALING WITH POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SPENDING OR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN? IT, IT'S, IT'S SPECIFICALLY THAT, RIGHT? WHERE AM I? WELL, IT'S, OR IS IT OTHER, IT IS ETHICAL CONDUCT TOO. 
          IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. 
          SO IT IS THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, BUT IT'S A NU A NUMBER OF, UM, YOU KNOW, SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION STARTING IN 2017, WE'VE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM SOMEBODY DOING OUTSIDE BUSINESS USING A CITY COMPUTER TO, I MEAN, EVERYTHING, THERE'S A WIDE RANGE. 
          AND SO CAPTURING THAT WIDE RANGE IN A SHORT NUMBER OF WORDS, WAS, HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE. 
          OH, SO IT IS LIKE ETHICAL CONDUCT BY A CITY IN GENERAL, BY A CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          SO THAT, SO THAT, THAT IS, SO CAN WE JUST, HOW ABOUT JUST THE ERC REVIEWS COMPLAINTS, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS IF NECESSARY. 
          I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF GETTING KIND OF INTO THE WEEDS OR DETAILS, BUT BOTTOM LINE IS THE ERC REVIEWS COMPLAINTS ABOUT UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY A CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE AND, UH, UH, AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SPENDING, OR POLITICAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. 
          SO, UM, I THINK THE, THE POLITICAL ASPECT OF IT IS CAPTURED IN THE CAMPAIGN SPENDING REQUIREMENT AND THEN IN THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE A NUMBER OF THE THINGS WE'VE SEEN HAVE BEEN CAMPAIGNS NOT REPORTING THE WAY THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, OR EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR NON INTENTIONALLY OR, OR, UM, SO I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THIS SUCCINCTLY CAPTURES WHAT WE DO WITH, UM, IT'S SPECIFIC ENOUGH SO THAT PEOPLE, UM, UNDERSTAND THE TYPES OF COMPLAINTS WE'RE GO, WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          UM, BUT IT'S NOT TOO BROAD WHERE EVERYBODY, UM, THINKS ANYTHING IS SORT OF OPEN SEASON FOR COMPLAINTS. 
          COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD A COMMENT. 
          I DO. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE THIS, THIS POSTED SOMEWHERE IN SOME FASHION? DO WE HAVE OUR SOUND BITE ALREADY OUT THERE? AND SINCE WE DON'T, ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD PUBLISH THIS IN THE INTERIM? AND SHOULD THE WORKING GROUP OR FOLKS WHO WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT WORKING GROUP DEVELOP SOMETHING BETTER THAT WE COULD VOTE ON THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THIS? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE BEST THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. 
          AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP TWO OR THREE TIMES. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          SO IT'S GOING ON YEARS, RIGHT? SO FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME, PEOPLE, IT'S GOING LEFT IN THE DARK, SO MAYBE GETTING SOMETHING OUT IS BETTER THAN NOT HAVING ANYTHING AT ALL. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I WILL SAY THIS, AT ONE POINT WE DISCUSSED, UM, PUTTING THIS ON OUR WEBSITE AS SORT OF OUR ELEVATOR PITCH. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE DO, FOLKS. 
          THIS IS, AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE GOALS. 
          UM, SO WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY, UM, TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER. 
          I WILL SAY PERSONALLY, I'M SORT OF RUNNING OUT OF GAS ON THIS. 
          IT'S BEEN LONG, IT'S BEEN SHORT, IT'S BEEN FORMAL, IT'S BEEN INFORMAL. 
          UM, I'M, YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS AND I REALLY DO THINK IT'S GOOD THE WAY IT IS. 
          I THINK FOR MY COMMENT WAS JUST ME. 
          YEAH. 
          SPECIFICALLY TRAINING THAT I NEED TO KNOW, LIKE WHERE TO SEND PEOPLE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, BUT I DO THINK IT'S GREAT THE 
          [01:30:01]
WAY IT IS. 
          I FEEL LIKE I WOULD BE OKAY WITH PASSING THIS, AND I DON'T, I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO JUST BE SORT OF, THIS IS, THIS IS ENOUGH. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UM, I WANT IT TO BE PASSED, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH A LEVEL OF ENTHUSIASM THAT HEY, WE CAN GET THE WORD OUT. 
          AND IF, IF THAT'S NOT IT, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. 
          BUT I WILL SAY I'M OUTTA GAS ON THIS . 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. CAN WE JUST AMEND THE MOTION TO ENSURE THAT THE WORKING GROUP IS NOT DISSOLVED BY THE FACT THAT WE SIMPLY PASS THIS PARTICULAR, UH, FORM? ABSO I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YEAH. 
          I, I THINK THAT WE CAN KEEP THE WORKING GROUP GOING AND DO THAT FURTHER OUTREACH. 
          I THINK ABSOLUTELY. 
          IT WOULD BE GREAT IF CITIZENS COULD GO ONLINE AND, UM, BEFORE THEIR HEAD EXPLODES BY LOOKING AT CITI CODE, THEY HAVE SOMETHING SHORT THEY CAN LOOK AT. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA AND SOMETHING WE'VE, WE'VE FLOATED OUT HERE. 
          SO FURTHER DISCUSSION. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. 
          YOU WON'T HURT MY FEELINGS IF YOU VOTE NO, BUT I, BUT, UM, THAT'S, IT IS WHAT IT IS. 
          SO I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE, UM, MY LIST AND, OKAY. 
          VICE CHAIR KALE. 
          I'M A YES. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          PASSIONATE? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER LOWE? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVINS? YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER TENAYUCA? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? YES. 
          YAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WOW. 
          MOTION. 
          THAT WAS UNANIMOUS. 
          THIS, IT WAS UNANIMOUS. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          I APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN ON THIS. 
          THANKS FOR YOUR WORK ON. 
          YES, ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND, UM, I, I THINK THE WORKING GROUP STILL HAS THINGS WE WANNA DO, SO I DON'T NEED KNOW THAT. 
          WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT. 
          WE JUST DON'T DISSOLVE IT AT THIS POINT. 
          I THINK ADDING A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM MIGHT BE WISE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST YOU NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          ON THE WORKING GROUP. 
          SO, UH, WE CAN ADD AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO ADD ADDITIONAL FOLKS ON THE WORKING GROUP TO HELP YOU OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S ADD THAT AS AN AGENDA ITEM. 
          AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY TOO, THAT COM, UM, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS SAID IMPOSE Z WITH AN S, SO IT'S UNDERSTOOD, IMPLIED THAT THAT WOULD BE IN THE MOTION WE PASSED. 
          OKAY. 
          TO MAKE IT GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M GONNA GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ON 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE AGENDA. 
          THE FINAL ITEM. 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. 
          SO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 26TH, THE MEETING. 
          I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IT, UH, THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION? A SECOND ON THAT MOTION. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVIN SECONDS IT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA TAKE A VOTE. 
          VICE CHAIR KALE? YES. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LOWE? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER LEVINS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER TENNE YUCCA? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THE MINUTES, UM, WERE APPROVED FROM LAST MEETING, SO, UM, ARE THERE ANY, 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
SO WE TALKED ABOUT A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM WOULD BE TO PUT THE WORKING GROUP THAT I'M ON, ON THE NEXT, UH, THING. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FOR NEXT MONTH? ALL RIGHT. 
          SEEING NONE, I HAVE ONE ANNOUNCE ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          I WAS TRYING TO GET NO, NO, NO, THAT'S OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER'S A CHANCE, UH, IF THEY HAD ANYTHING. 
          JUST, UH, AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING HAS BEEN, UH, ANNOUNCED IN THE AGENDA HAS BEEN POSTED. 
          IT'S FOR JUNE 5TH, UH, AND IT IS LOCATED, IT'S GONNA BE LOCATED AT THE AUSTIN PERMITTING, PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WHICH IS ON 63 10 WILL AMINA DELCO DRIVE. 
          UM, UH, GIVEN THE CURRENT NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS, UH, QUORUM IS, IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE THINKING OF. 
          SO WE, I I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE IT. 
          UH, PLEASE REACH OUT IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO MAKE THE JUNE 5TH, UM, SPECIAL CALL HEARING. 
          YES. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK? I, I'M SORRY. 
          I THINK I'M JUST NOT REALLY GOOD ON MY EMAIL. 
          UM, THIS JUNE 5TH SPECIAL MEETING, WHAT IS IT FOR? UH, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STICKING TO JUST THE ITEMS THAT WERE AGENDAS TO TALK ABOUT. 
          UM, BUT IT IS A, IT'S A FUTURE AGENDA. 
          I MEAN, THE AGENDA FOR THIS HAS BEEN POSTED. 
          [01:35:01]
IT IS ON THE WEBSITE. 
          UM, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO, TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. 
          OKAY? OKAY. 
          IF ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. 
          THE TIME IS 7:42 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOU GUYS. 
          THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.