[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
I AM CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
THE TIME IS, I BELIEVE, 6:27 PM AND WE ARE IN THE AUSTIN PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, PD C, ROOM 1405 AT 6,310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR MAKING THE DRIVE TO BE HERE.
UM, I'M GONNA NOW CALL THE ROLE SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. HERE.
COMMISSIONER TENAYUCA PRESENT, AND COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HERE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEMBERS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
SO BEFORE WE DIVE INTO OUR AGENDA, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION THAT IS COMMUNICATION THAT IS NOT ON ANY AGENDA ITEMS SPECIFICALLY.
UM, AND, UH, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A KIND OF BRIEF OUTLINE TO WHAT TO EXPECT WITH OUR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.
UM, SO AS STATED ON OUR POSTED AGENDA, THERE IS A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS WHO CAN SPEAK ON NON AGENDA ITEMS AS PART OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
AND IT'S THE FIRST 10 SPEAKERS WHO HAVE REGISTERED, UH, BEFORE THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER THAT ARE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE ALLOTMENT TO ADDRESS THOSE NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THERE'S NOT A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS WHO CAN SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS. AND WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS WHO REGISTERED FOR AGENDA ITEMS SPECIFICALLY.
AND NOTE THAT TODAY'S AGENDA ITEMS ARE LIMITED TO SPECIFIC ETHICS VIOLATIONS RELATING TO ALLEGED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF TWO MEMBERS OF AUSTIN'S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
THEREFORE, THERE'S NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS WHO ARE DIRECTLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
AND THEN PUBLIC COMMENT RELATED TO THE GENERAL MERITS OF THE ZILKER VISION PLAN ARE NOT POSTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS COMMISSION.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHENEVER WE GET TO THOSE AGENDA ITEMS FOR THOSE, UH, INDIVIDUALS WHO REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THOSE AGENDA ITEMS, THE MERITS OF ANY PLAN BEFORE A DIFFERENT BORDER COMMISSION ARE NOT GERMANE TO THOSE AGENDA ITEMS. SO JUST TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS WHEN THEY COME UP.
SO I'M GONNA BEGIN CALLING UP THOSE WHO SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
SECRETARY STANTON HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO, UH, BE OUR TIMEKEEPER, AND AS I STATED BEFORE, IT'LL BE THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
UM, AND I'LL LET YOU, UH, TELL US HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TIME SIGNALS IF YOU WOULD LIKE ONE MINUTE WARNING OR 32ND WARNING.
SO FIRST, WE HAVE MS. LAURA MASSENGALE, AND PLEASE FORGIVE ANY MISPRONUNCIATION, AND FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME IMMEDIATELY IF I GET YOUR NAME WRONG.
HI, GOOD EVENING, MS. MASSENGILL.
I AM HERE, UM, TO TALK ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST REC RECUSAL ROLES AND, UM, A NON-PROFIT CALLED ZILKER 3 51.
UM, THAT WAS JUST FORMED, AND IT WILL HAVE, IF IT'S PASSED THROUGH COUNCIL, IT WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A PIECE OF REAL ESTATE WE CALL ZILKER PARK.
UM, HOW DO I KNOW THIS? BECAUSE I, MY, UM, FAMILY'S BUSINESS USED TO BE A MEMBER OF ZER 3 51, THE NONPROFIT.
AND, UM, WHEN I FOUND OUT THEIR AGENDA WAS TO COLLECTIVELY POSITION THEMSELVES IN THE PARK AS THE UNIFIED NON, UH, UMBRELLA NONPROFIT TO TAKE OVER MANAGEMENT OF CONCESSIONS AND START NEW CONCESSIONS AT THEIR DISCRETION WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT, I IMMEDIATELY DISASSOCIATED OUR COMPANY FROM THEM.
THEIR LACK OF TRANSPARENCY WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR MISSION RAISED SERIOUS FLAGS REGARDING THE INTEGRITY OF THIS GROUP.
SINCE THEN, THIS GROUP HAS ENLISTED THE MEDIA, BOTH TELEVISION AND PRINT, IN ORDER TO WRONGLY DISCREDIT ALL OPPOSITION.
SO PLEASE TAKE INTO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION WHAT OTHERS ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT LATER IN THIS MEETING.
UM, THERE ARE SERIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST HERE, WHICH, UH, THESE PEOPLE HAVE, UM, VEHEMENTLY REFUSED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES BEFORE VOTING ON THE VISION PLAN.
[00:05:01]
IS, THIS IS NOT OKAY.UM, I HAVE AN INSIDE, I HAVE AN INSIDE, UH, LOOK INTO WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND THEY HAVE PUT PEOPLE ON DIFFERENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UM, TO, TO MOVE THEIR AGENDA FORWARD.
AND, UM, I'M HOPING THAT YOU GUYS WILL HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT RIGHT.
UM, UP NEXT WE HAVE, UM, FORGIVE MY PRONUNCIATION.
DO, UH, MS. DOROTHY DOROTHY LOPEZ BARNETT.
UH, MY QUESTION IS, IF, IF A BOARD MEMBER IS ASKED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES, UH, AND THEY DON'T, AND THERE'S A VOTE TAKEN, SHOULD THAT BOARD MEMBER VOTE FOR THEMSELVES TO STAY ON THE BOARD? I THINK, I DON'T THINK SO.
I, I DID A SEARCH AS FAR AS I COULD, UH, ON THE INTERNET.
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER DOES NOT COVER THAT.
I LOOKED AT, UH, COMMISSION BOARD RULES AND, UH, ETHIC RULES, AND THE, THERE'S ONE, UH, FOR THE CITY THAT HAS THEIR RULES POSTED AND THEY SAY THE MEMBERS SHOULD NOT VOTE.
SO MY QUESTION IS, THE BOARD MEMBER STAYED ON THE BOARD VOTING FOR THEMSELVES AND VOTED ON ITEMS THAT WERE ON THE AGENDA.
AND I THINK THEIR VOTE SHOULD BE, UH, TOSSED OUT.
AND ALSO, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE EXPELLED FROM THE BOARD.
AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO TALK DETAILS IF YOU'D LIKE TO, BUT THAT'S ALL I KNOW RIGHT NOW.
LAST ON OUR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, WE HAVE MS. NINA MILLER.
IT'S NOT ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM YOU'RE ALLOWED TO, AND IF YOU WANT TO PRESS THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE, UH, HERE.
UM, I DO NOT FEEL LIKE THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH TRANSPARENCY IN THE ZER VISION PROCESS.
UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THE ORGANIZATIONS WORKING ON THIS INITIATIVE HAVE INVOLVED THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN ADEQUATELY.
UM, AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE PLANNING IS MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT REALLY HEARING THE VOICES OF AUSTINITES.
UM, A GOOD EXAMPLE IS A WEEK AGO IN CITY HALL WHEN OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE GOT UP AND SPOKE ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS ABOUT THE, THE VISION PLAN.
AND, UH, THE VAST MAJORITY WERE AGAINST IT AND GAVE VERY, UH, PASSIONATE, LOGICAL, REASONABLE AND VARIED ARGUMENTS.
AND THEIR VOICES SEEMED TO NOT BE LISTENED TO.
IN FACT, IT SEEMED LIKE, UH, THE, THE BOARD THERE HAD, UH, PREDETERMINED WHAT THEIR, UH, VOTES WOULD BE AND THAT IT WAS ALL RELIEF OR NOT.
SO I ASKED THE QUESTION, WHO REALLY MATTERS HERE? IS IT THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR INTERESTS AND THEIR FINANCIAL OR OTHER GAIN, GAIN OF CONTROL, POWER, UH, WHATEVER, OR IS IT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE? I LIVE IN BARTON HILLS, RIGHT BEHIND ZER PARK.
TRAFFIC HAS BECOME, UH, UNBEARABLE.
AND THE LAST STRAW IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DEVELOPMENT CONSTANTLY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE LAST SIX WEEKS I'VE WOKEN UP TO A JACKHAMMER EVERY SINGLE MORNING.
AND WHEN THAT HOUSE FINISHES THEIR SWIMMING POOL OR WHATEVER THEY'RE BUILDING, THE NEXT ONE'S GONNA START.
IT'S JUST, THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
AND EVERYTHING'S BEING DEVELOPED.
WHERE DO I GO? I JUMP ON MY BIKE TO ESCAPE TO THIS BEAUTIFUL, QUIET, GREEN OASIS DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE MORE POLLUTION, MORE FORMALDEHYDE AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.
UM, AND, AND MORE OF THE SAME.
IT'S LIKE CENTRAL PARK IN NEW YORK CITY, CENTRAL PARK.
NEW YORK CITY WOULD BE UNLIVABLE WITHOUT CENTRAL PARK.
AND DEVELOPERS ARE CONSTANTLY VYING FOR ONE INCH OF THE PARK.
AND THE PEOPLE IN NEW YORK CITY WILL NOT LET THEM TOUCH IT, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT LIVABLE.
A CITY THAT'S A GOOD CITY FOR, FOR THAT MAKES SENSE TO LIVE IN.
[00:10:01]
ASK YOU TO PLEASE LISTEN TO US, NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER, ALL OVER THE FOUR CORNERS OF BOSTON, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE RIGHT BY CENTRAL PARK.WHEN I, I MEAN, UH, UM, ZILKER PARK, WHEN I TOLD MY HUSBAND ABOUT THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE AMPHITHEATER, HE SAID, OH, IT'S TIME TO LEAVE AUSTIN.
SO I JUST ASK YOU, PLEASE LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE POLLS ARE CLEAR.
THE POLLS ARE LIKE 70 TO 80% AGAINST THE GARAGE IN THE AHEA AND THE ONE-WAY TRAFFIC.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, BEFORE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, BRIEFLY, UH, DESCRIBE KIND OF OUR PROCESS HERE AT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.
UM, BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE RULES ABOUT, UH, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ACTING IMPARTIALLY.
UM, THERE WERE COMMISSIONERS WHO WANTED TO DISCLOSE THAT, UH, THEY HAPPENED TO KNOW ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT, MR. FISHER, THROUGH A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS.
I KNOW HE'S BEEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEFORE.
I THINK I'VE TAKEN A CLE FROM MR. FISHER.
UM, WHAT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THOUGH IS THAT OUR BYLAWS, UH, IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL STANDARD ON US TO WEIGH WHETHER OR NOT OUR PARTICIPATION CAN BE DONE IMPARTIALLY, AND THAT EACH OF US AS COMMISSIONERS MAKE THAT JUDGMENT FOR OURSELVES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN PROCEED IMPARTIALLY.
AND EVERYONE WHO IS HERE TODAY HAS MADE THAT DETERMINATION.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY OR WHY WE LEAVE, UH, A DECISION ON THE TABLE TO STAY OUT OF, BUT I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THAT IN THE INTEREST OF FULL TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, GONNA PROCEED THROUGH TO OUR
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
AGENDA.THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP TWO ITEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 51 0.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING.
ONE, A COMPLAINT FILED BY TERRY ADAMS AGAINST TANA COFER RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE CITY BOARDS SECTION 2 1 24.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN RECUSAL TWO, A COMPLAINT FILED BY TERRY ADAMS AGAINST EVAN TOAG, GUCCI RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE, CITY BOARDS SECTION 2 1 24, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? HEARING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS 6:39 PM AND WE WILL FOLLOW OUR LIAISON TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
UM, WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
THE TIME IS NOW 7:48 PM IN CLOSED SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ONE, A COMPLAINT FILED BY TERRY ADAMS AGAINST HANNAH COFER RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE, CITY BOARDS SECTION, UH, 2 1 24, CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN RECUSAL.
AND TWO, A COMPLAINT FILED BY TERRY ADAMS AGAINST EVAN TOAG, GUCCI RAISED AND CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE, CITY BOARDS SECTION 2 1 24, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL.
THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US AS WE MADE SURE WE HAD THE LAW AND THE PROCESS AND THE RULES RIGHT BEFORE WE GOT INTO THESE COMPLAINTS.
UM, I AM GOING TO, UH, BEGIN TALKING ABOUT THE RULES RELATED TO OUR PRELIMINARY HEARINGS.
UM, AND I'M GONNA DO THEM FOR BOTH COMPLAINTS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I SEE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HERE FOR, UM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.
I SEE, UH, I BELIEVE THE COMPLAINANT HERE, UM, MS. ADAMS. AND IS MR. TOAG GCI HERE, UH, ON WEBEX? OKAY.
UM, CUZ IN, AS OPPOSED TO GOING THROUGH THE SAME, UH, RULES SCRIPT TWICE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I GET IT DOWN ONCE AND THAT EVERYONE HERE HEARS THEM.
[3. A complaint filed by Teri Adams against Hanna Cofer, raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-1 (City Boards), Section 2-1-24 (Conflict of Interest and Recusal).]
SO WITH THAT, THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY COMPLAINANT TERRY ADAMS AGAINST RESPONDENT HANNAH COFER RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE TWO DASH ONE CITY BOARD SECTION 24 2124.CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN RECUSAL ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WAJIHA RVI IS APPEARING AS COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION.
ON THIS ITEM, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THE PROCEDURES FOR OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING, STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND IF THERE'S COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT, THEY CAN INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS WELL.
[00:15:01]
THE RESPONDENT, YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF, UH, INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD, IF THERE'S ANOTHER COUNSEL PRESENT.UM, GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE.
IF YOU COULD, UH, PRESS THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE.
HOW'S THIS? IS THIS GOOD? YES.
HI, MY NAME'S ROSS FISHER AND I'M COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HANNAH COFER.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY AND IF YOU COULD TURN OFF, IF YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, UH, TO AVOID FEEDBACK IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
UM, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSU PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO DASH 7 44 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.
THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON APRIL 19TH, 2023 THAT COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THE VIOLATION ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED CITY CODE SECTION 2124 OF RELATING TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL.
THE ISSUE AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A CITY CODE PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD.
IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
A DECISION TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
SO THE COMMISSION'S REGULAR PRACTICE IS TO GIVE EACH OF THE PARTIES 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR POSITIONS AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT, UNLESS, UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY.
UM, I WANT TO CHECK WITH THE PAR PARTIES TO MAKE SURE THEY AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES IS SUFFICIENT OR IF THEY NEED ADDITIONAL TIME.
SO FIRST, UH, THE COMPLAINANT ON THAT POINT IS 10 MINUTES SUFFICIENT FOR YOU? 10, 10 MINUTES.
BUT IF I HAD KNOWN THAT I COULD HAVE HAD MORE, THEN I WOULD HAVE PERHAPS MADE A LONGER PRESENTATION.
UM, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO, UH, ASK YOU QUESTIONS, UH, WHEN THAT TIME COMES AND MAYBE ELICIT MORE INFORMATION IF YOU HAVE IT.
UM, RESPONDENT CHECKING IN WITH YOU IS 10 MINUTES SUFFICIENT FOR YOUR PRESENTATION? THAT'S PLENTY OF TIME.
I'M NOT KEEPING TIME FOR THAT.
UH, SECRETARY STANTON, WHEN THE TIME COMES, WILL BE YOUR, UH, HELPFUL TIMEKEEPER AND WE CAN CHECK IN ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THAT TIME TO BE CALLED OUT.
SO THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE THE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM, THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THOSE CLAIMS. THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND OR APPEAR OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT THIS HEARING, AND THE RESPONDENT MAY PROVIDE A RESPONSE DISPUTING THE CLAIMS. IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MAY SO STATE AND THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
WHILE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING ARE UNDER OATH, NO CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED AFTER THE PARTIES COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT.
NO WITNESS OTHER THAN THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL ARE PERMITTED TO MAKE STATEMENTS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES, THE COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO RETURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION OR RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENTATION.
FOLLOWING ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE.
AND IF SIX MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION VOTE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION WILL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
UM, UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WE CAN PROCEED IN A MOMENT TO THE COMPLAINANT'S PRESENTATION.
I AM REALIZING THAT WE HAD, UH, SOME PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BEFORE WE FORMALLY START THE HEARING.
UM, I AM GONNA CALL UP THE TWO THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THIS COMPLAINT.
SO FIRST, UH, I'M GONNA ASK MR. SCOTT COBB, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, UH, THAT MICROPHONE THERE.
UM, AND JUST AS WITH THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, UM, WE'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND SECRETARY STANTON WILL BE YOUR TIMEKEEPER.
SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND PROCEED.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THE GREEN LIGHT'S ON THEN.
LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A, THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE, ALL RIGHT.
SO GOOD AFTERNOON AND GOOD EVENING NOW.
[00:20:01]
UH, MY NAME IS SCOTT COBB AND I WORK AS A LIFEGUARD FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AT BARTON SPRINGS.AND, UH, SOME OTHER POOLS, WHICH I'VE DONE SINCE 2018.
AND, UH, A LOT OF US LIFEGUARDS WERE CONCERNED WHEN WE STARTED HEARING ABOUT THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
AND WE STARTED ORGANIZING, HOLDING, TABLING OUTSIDE THE SPRINGS, TALKING TO PEOPLE AS THEY WENT INTO THE WATER OR INTO THE POOL AREA.
AND WE ATTENDED A LOT OF MEETINGS.
WE ATTENDED VARIOUS COMMISSION MEETINGS, BOARD MEETINGS.
WE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO PERSUADING THE BOARD MEMBERS, UH, THAT WHAT OUR POSITION WAS ON THE VIZIER PARK VISION PLAN.
BUT NOW I COME TO, COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT, UH, IT WAS ALL REALLY ON THE PART OF SOME MEMBERS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, HOW THEY WERE GOING TO VOTE, BECAUSE THEY WERE, HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UH, BY SERVING ON ENTITIES SUCH AS THE ZILKER 3 51 ORGANIZATION, WHICH BOTH OF THE RESPONDENTS TODAY ARE SERVE ON OR ON THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, WHICH HANNAH COFER IS ON, BOTH OF WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF THE NONPROFIT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE ZER PARK VISION PLAN.
AND YET, WHEN WE GO TO SPEAK TO THESE BOARDS, THEY REFUSE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES.
WE DON'T HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM, WE'RE NOT ON BOARDS.
AND YET WE GO TO THESE BOARDS KNOWING THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS SHOULD WORK AND SHOULD NOT WORK AGAINST US.
AND PEOPLE ABUSE THEIR POSITION WHEN THEY SERVE ON THESE BOARDS AND THEN SERVE ON ANOTHER BOARD LIKE THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY OR THE ZILKER 3 51 IN DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THEIR SERVICE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OR THE DESIGN COMMISSION OF THE PARKS BOARD.
SO WE WANT YOU TO HOLD THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IT HURTS US, THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE PARK.
WE CLEAN UP THE TRASH, WE CLEAN THE TOILETS, WE SAVE LIVES, WE PERFORM CPR, AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN AND GET IT DEFEATED.
AND IT'S ALREADY PEOPLE ON THESE BOARDS WHO ARE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO BEFORE WE EVEN GO TALK TO THEM.
WE SPENT, THERE WERE A HUNDRED PEOPLE AT THE PARKS BOARD.
I WAS HERE IN THE DESIGN COMMISSION, AND MR. TUCCI REFUSED VERY EL UH, ARROGANTLY TO, UH, RECUSE THEMSELF.
SO WE COME TO YOU TO EXERCISE YOUR POWER TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
UM, AND THEN NEXT ON THE, UH, COMMUNICATIONS.
I BELIEVE IT'S MS. LAURA MASSENGALE, UM, TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ON THE AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO, UH, THE COMPLAINT.
I HAVE ALREADY, UH, SPOKEN TO YOU IN REGARDING THE BACKGROUND OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.
IF THIS COMPLAINT WERE BROUGHT TO FULL HEARING, I WOULD BE WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH ABOUT MY ENCOUNTER WITH HANNAH COFER.
ALTHOUGH THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN HER AND I WAS BRIEF, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE INTENT OF ZILKER 3 51 TO USE HANNAH COFER AS A PAWN IN THEIR PLAN AND HER COMPLICITY IN THE MA IN THE MATTER.
MY TESTIMONY WILL SHOW THE REASON SHE GAVE UP HER PAYING JOB ON THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY TO TAKE A VOLUNTEER POSITION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ON THE VERY DAY THEY WERE TO VOTE ON THE ZER PARK VISION PLAN, WHICH IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE ZER 3 51 NONPROFIT.
I WILL ALSO SHOW YOU CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HANNAH'S FATHER AND HUSBAND, WHO ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE ZER 3 51 NONPROFIT WHO, UM, WHICH IS THE GUIDING, WHICH IS GUIDING THE V ZER PARK VISION PLAN.
PLEASE HOLD HER ACCOUNTABLE AND SEND A MESSAGE THAT THIS BACKDOOR TACTIC IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT.
AND WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED TO THE HEARING ITSELF.
AND SO, UH, AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE 10 MINUTES, UH, FOR PRESENTATIONS.
UM, AND WE WILL GO COMPLAINANT 10 MINUTES, FOLLOWED BY RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 10 MINUTES, AND THEN THERE'LL BE A PERIOD OF TIME FOR COMMISSIONER
[00:25:01]
QUESTIONS.AND AFTER THAT TIME IS EXPIRED, THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT ON IT, BUT WE WON'T TAKE UP THE WHOLE NIGHT.
UM, IT'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE RELEVANT MOTIONS.
UH, WITH THAT, UH, COMPLAINANT, IF YOU'RE READY, UM, YOU CAN BEGIN SPEAKING AND WE'LL START THE TIME WHEN YOU START TALKING.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN THERE'S TWO MINUTES? CAN YOU JUST SAY TWO MINUTES AND THEN ONE MINUTE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
MY NAME IS TERRY ADAMS. I REPRESENT MYSELF AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.
THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN IS EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL.
ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PROPOSALS IS THE INCLUSION OF AN UMBRELLA NONPROFIT PARTNER FOR ZILKER PARK TO ACT AS THE SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND NONPROFITS AND PARK CONCESSIONS.
THIS FEATURE OF THE PLAN WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN PUBLIC OUTREACH AND WAS NOT INCLUDED IN PUBLIC MEETINGS OR INFORMATIONAL POP-UPS CONDUCTED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, CURRENTLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NONPROFITS WITH CITY CONTRACTS TO OPERATE IN PUBLIC PARKS.
FULL PARTNERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE EARNED REVENUE FROM OPERATING AND ADMINISTERING CONCESSIONS, CHARGING FEES FOR PROGRAMMING AND SPECIAL EVENTS, AND OTHER REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES.
THESE ARE CONSIDERED A LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS, NONPROFITS.
UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP, A DESIGNATION ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROBUST PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, INCLUDING ANNUALLY AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND AUDITS SUBMITTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
AN ORGANIZATION'S GOVERNANCE PRACTICES ARE TO BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY THE PARKS DIRECTOR.
A REVIEW IS TO INCLUDE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POLICY, AND DISCLOSURE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE THREE MOST RECENTLY FILED ANNUAL RETURNS WITH THE IRS.
THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS ONE SUCH A LEVEL PARKS PARTNER.
THEY NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY FOR THE OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND PROGRAMMING OF THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL AT TOWN LAKE METROPOLITAN PARK.
THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY RAISES FUNDS FOR THE TRAIL, AND THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN INCOME FROM THEIR OPERATIONS.
THEY MAY RECEIVE MONEY FROM THE CITY TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE TRAIL.
WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY FAILS TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNANCE PRACTICES THAT REQUIRE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO THE PUBLIC.
ON THE NIGHT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING, I WAS AWARE OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY'S PARTICIPATION IN A GROUP OF NON-PROFITS AND PART CONCESSIONAIRES THAT BANDED TOGETHER TO COLLECTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR FEATURES IN THE PLAN, WHICH WOULD BENEFIT THEIR INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS CALLED THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP, OR THE COLLECTIVE FOR SHORT.
ALTHOUGH THEY WEREN'T THE ONLY ORGANIZED ENTITY THAT RECEIVED AN AUDIENCE WITH THE DESIGN TEAM, THE COLLECTIVES WISHLIST WAS WHAT ENDED UP CODIFIED IN THE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY PARKING GARAGES, A LAND BRIDGE, A NEW HILLSIDE AMPHITHEATER, SEVERAL NEW BRIDGES OVER LADYBIRD LAKE IN BARTON CREEK, AND A NEW WELCOME CENTER.
A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING TO REVIEW THE OKRA PARK VISION PLAN, THE COLLECTIVE ANNOUNCED ITSELF AS A FORMALIZED UMBRELLA NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, ZUCKER 3 51.
THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WAS LISTED AMONG 15 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS FOUNDING MEMBERS OF ZUCKER 3 51.
AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, MS. COFER WAS ASKED WHAT HER DAY JOB WAS.
I WAS SHOCKED WHEN SHE RESPONDED THAT SHE WAS THE COO OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
WHY AREN'T YOU RECUSING YOURSELF? SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO RESPOND.
MY QUESTION WASN'T OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR, HOWEVER, SHE REPLIED.
ZUCKER PARK IS NOT IN OUR DOMAIN, THOUGH THE TRAIL RUNS THROUGH ZUCKER PARK.
THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL IS CONSIDERED PART OF TOWN LAKE METROPOLITAN PARK.
HOWEVER, AS THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, I WOULD ASSUME MS. COFER WOULD BE AWARE THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WAS A MEMBER OF THE COLLECTIVE AND A FOUNDING MEMBER OF ZUCKER 3 51, AND THAT THE CEO OF HER ORGANIZATION, HEIDI ANDERSON, IS ON THE ZILKER 3 51 BOARD OF DIRECTORS SINCE SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF GEORGE COFER, IT'S POSSIBLE SHE KNEW HER FATHER WAS A COLLABORATOR AND THE COLLECTIVE ON BEHALF OF THE HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY, A FOUNDING MEMBER OF ZILKER 3 51, AS THE SPOUSE OF JAMES RUSSELL.
MS. COFER WAS PROBABLY AWARE OF THE FACT HER HUSBAND IS THE EVENT MANAGER OF THE ABC KITE FESTIVAL AND REPRESENTED THEM IN THE COLLECTIVE AND THE ZER 3 51 ADVISORY BOARD, MR. RUSSELL IS ALSO LISTED ON THE ZER 3 51 WEBSITE AS HAVING REPRESENTED THE UMLA SCULPTURE GARDEN AND MUSEUM WHERE HE IS CHAIR.
THIS IS IN ADDITION TO HIS ROLE AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TRAIL OF LIGHTS FOUNDATION, WHICH HE ALSO REPRESENTED IN THE COLLECTIVE AND ON THE ZILKER 3 51 ADVISORY BOARD, ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED BY MR. RUSSELL ARE FOUNDING MEMBERS OF ZILKER 3 51.
NONE OF THEM HAVE PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES POSTED
[00:30:01]
ON THE RESPECTIVE WEBSITES.THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND BOROUGH PARK VISION PLAN NINE TO ONE, AND MS. COFER VOTED TO RECOMMEND IT BEFORE THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED.
A LONG SERIES OF AMENDMENTS WAS MOTIONED.
ONE WAS TO REMOVE THE EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR NEW AMPHITHEATER FROM THE GREAT LAWN.
THIS IS ONE OF THE LEAST DESIRED FEATURES OF THE VISION PLAN.
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC FEEDBACK, THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND REMOVING IT FROM THE PLAN FAILED AND MISS COFER CAST THE DECIDING VOTE ACCORDING TO THE AUSTIN TEXAS CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION TWO DASH ONE DASH 24, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL SECTION B.
AT EACH MEETING, A BOARD MEMBER SHALL SIGN AN ATTENDANCE SHEET AND SHALL INDICATE THAT THE BOARD MEMBER HAS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST RELATED TO ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA OR THE NUMBER OF AN AGENDA ITEM FOR WHICH THE BOARD MEMBER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SECTION E STATES FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN THAT MEMBER BEING COUNTED ABSENT IN ANY VOTE, CAST BY A MEMBER WHO FAILS TO COMPLY WILL NOT BE COUNTED AT THE BOARD MEETING AT ISSUE.
NO ATTENDANCE SHEET WAS SIGNED FOR THE APRIL 5TH MEETING BY MS. COFER OR ANY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONERS.
IF THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IS NO LONGER REQUIRING SIGN-IN SHEETS FOR ATTENDANCE AND RECUSALS, THE CITY CODE SHOULD BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THIS CHANGE.
HOWEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE CITY, REGARDLESS OF THE STATUS OF THIS CITY CODE STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 1 71, REGULATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF OFFICERS AND OF MUNICIPALITIES.
SECTION 1 71 DOT OH OH TWO STATES, A LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IF FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE PERSON FROM A BUSINESS ENTITY EXCEED 10% OF THE PERSON'S GROSS INCOME FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
A LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS ALSO CONSIDERED TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST UNDER THIS SECTION.
IF A PERSON RELATED TO THE OFFICIAL IN THE FIRST DEGREE BY CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.
UNDER THIS SECTION UNDER SECTION 1 71 0.04, IT SAYS, IN THE CASE OF A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A BUSINESS ENTITY, THE OFFICIAL SHALL FILE BEFORE A VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER INVOLVING THE BUSINESS ENTITY, AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE INTEREST, AND SHALL ABSTAIN FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THE MATTER.
IF THE CASE, IF THE CASE OF A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A BUSINESS ENTITY THAT IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC.
THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOUND AS WELL IN CITY OF AUSTIN.
CODE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 64 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY MS. COFER AND IN THE MEETING MINUTES, NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAS READ INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD.
THE QUESTION OF DIRECT FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS POSSIBLE.
IN THIS CASE, I NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF THE ETHICS COMMITTEE TO ACCESS FINANCIAL RECORDS FOR THE RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH MS. COFER HAS KNOWN RELATIONSHIPS, KNOWN RELATIONSHIPS, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, THE HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY, THE FRIENDS OF THE ABC KITE FEST, THE UMLA SCULPTURE GARDEN AND MUSEUM, AND THE TRAIL OF LIGHTS FOUNDATION.
I'M ASKING THIS BODY TO USE SUBPOENA POWER TO LOOK INTO THE FINANCIAL TIES MS. COFER HAS TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE REQUIRED PUBLIC STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR MS. COFER UNDER CITY CODE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 75.
AT A FULL HEARING, I'M PREPARED TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE THAT MS. COFER, HER HUSBAND JAMES RUSSELL, AND HER FATHER GEORGE COFER, WERE APPRISED OF THE INTERNAL WORKINGS AND ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE COLLECTIVE NOW ZER 3 51.
IN ADDITION, IN HER ROLE AS C O OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, MS. COFER IS A CORPORATE OFFICER OF A NON-PROFIT ENTITY THAT ENTERS INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND CONTRACTS WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A PARTY TO THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
THIS VIOLATES CITY CODE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 63, SECTION B MS. KO'S INTEREST IS NOT REMOTE NOR INCIDENTAL, SUCH AS A MEMBER OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WOULD HAVE, OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO PARTICIPATED IN AN EVENT SPONSORED BY THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
THE BENEFIT TO HER ORGANIZATION AND POTENTIALLY TO HER PERSONALLY, REQUIRED HER RECUSAL FROM PARTICIPATION ON THE ISSUE OF THE ZK PARK VISION PLAN.
THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED.
I HOPE YOU WILL AGREE AND MOVE THIS MATTER FORWARD TO A FULL HEARING.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. ADAMS. UM, WE WILL PROCEED TO, UH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT IF HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, I, I FAILED TO MENTION, UH, SO IT WASN'T A PART OF THIS, THAT IT'S A, IT'S A USER TO LOSE IT.
UM, SO, UH, WE'LL PROCEED TO QUESTIONS AFTER THE FACT, BUT, UM, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, WE'LL START OUR TIMER.
IF YOU COULD JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF AT THE FRONT AND WE CAN GO FROM THERE.
UM, ROSS FISHER, I'M COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HANNAH COFER.
UH, I'M AN ATTORNEY AND SHE'S ASKED ME TO BE HERE ON HER BEHALF TONIGHT.
UM, AND I ALSO WANNA THANK EVERYONE FOR CALLING THIS SPECIAL MEETING AND FOR ARRANGING YOUR SCHEDULES IN ORDER TO, UH, TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE PARTIES AVAILABILITY.
AND MY CLIENT APPRECIATES IT TOO.
UH, IF YOU COULD, UH, MOVE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
IT'S ON, IS THAT BETTER? THAT'S MY, SORRY.
DO I NEED TO SAY ALL THAT AGAIN?
[00:35:01]
NO, I THINK YOU'RE FINE.UM, SO THANKS FOR HAVING ME HERE TONIGHT AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT.
UM, I JUST WANT TO, BEFORE I GET, AND I THINK YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE A COPY OF THE RESPONSE THAT WE SUBMITTED, UH, THAT I SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, WHICH I THINK GOES BY, GOES THROUGH POINT BY POINT AND ADDRESSES EACH OF THESE.
IT ADDRESSES THE STAND, THE LOCAL STANDARD, UM, CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE STANDARDS AS THEY APPLY TO SPOUSES, THE STANDARD, THE CONFLICT STANDARDS AS IT APPLIES TO NON-SPOUSE RELATIVES, AND ALSO THE, THE, HOW THE FACTS APPLY TO CHAPTER 1 71 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH WAS MENTIONED IN THE, UH, COMPLAINANT'S OPENING STATEMENTS.
I'LL TOUCH ON THOSE BRIEFLY, BUT I THINK THAT WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING HOW NONE OF THOSE ARE ACTUALLY IMPLICATED BY THE COMPLAINT.
BUT I DO WANNA TAKE A MINUTE AND JUST, YOU KNOW, REFLECT ON THE FACT THAT THE TERM CONFLICT OF INTEREST GETS, IT MEANS, UH, DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, AND IT GETS THROWN AROUND A LOT, AND IT'S ESPECIALLY GETS THROWN AROUND, UH, WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE A PARTICULAR POLICY OR A PARTICULAR PERSON.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE TODAY.
BUT AS YOU ALL KNOW ON THIS BOARD, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS A DEFINED TERM, AND IT'S A LEGAL TERM.
AND I KNOW THAT THAT CAN FRUSTRATE PEOPLE, BUT IT, IT NEEDS TO BE THAT WAY, RIGHT? I'M SURE PEOPLE GET FRUSTRATED WHEN THEY WONDER, WELL, WHY IS 5% A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? BUT A 4% OWNERSHIP IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE BRIGHT LINES, RIGHT? MY CLIENT HAS TO HAVE BRIGHT LINES FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND YOU, AS THE ENFORCERS, THE ETHICS ENFORCERS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE BRIGHT LINES AS WELL.
AND THOSE ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO HAVE A PREDICTABLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WANNA FOCUS ON TONIGHT, IS THE DEFINED TERMS, BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL HAS GIVEN YOU AND HAS GIVEN ME, UH, BRIGHT LINES TO FOLLOW.
AND THEY'VE DECIDED THAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS WHEN SOMEONE HAS A QUOTE UNQUOTE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN AN ENTITY THAT IS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY A VOTE.
AND THOSE ARE ALL DEFINED TERMS, UH, AND THEY'RE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY GIVE MEANINGFUL GUIDANCE TO MY CLIENT AND TO, TO YOU AS THE BOARD AND TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE CLEAR STANDARDS, OR ELSE AS, AS I THINK, BECOMES EVIDENT, ANYBODY CAN JUST THROW OUT THE TERM OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UH, WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING OR THEY DON'T LIKE A PARTICULAR POLICY OR A PARTICULAR PERSON THAT'S INVOLVED.
AND SO THESE RULES HAVE TO BE CLEAR AND THAT OBJECTIVE IN ORDER TO BE PREDICTABLE AND MEANINGFUL, UM, HERE TO EFFECT MARIA SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST MEANS, UH, 5% INTEREST IF OWNERSHIP INTEREST.
AND IT WILL JUST CONCEDE, I MEAN, THERE'S THE COMPLAINT LISTS.
A LITANY OF DIFFERENT LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS WILL CONCEDE THAT MY CLIENT IS EMPLOYED BY THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, SO SHE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST UNDER, UNDER, IN THAT ENTITY, UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
THE ISSUE THEN IS WHETHER THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS AFFECTED BY THE ZILKER VISION PLAN, OR THE INCLUSION OF AMPHITHEATER AND THE ZILKER VISION PLAN.
AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WILL BE AFFECTED, MEANING WILL BE FINANCIALLY HARMED OR FINANCIALLY BENEFITED, FINANCIALLY IMPACTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BY THE ZER PARK VISION PLAN.
THERE'S JUST NO ALLEGATION, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, THERE'S NO ASSERTION OF HOW THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WILL BE, BE AFFECTED.
I THINK IN THE OPENING SLIDESHOW FROM COMPLAINANT, IT BASICALLY SAID, I CAN SHOW YOU HOW AT THE HEARING, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BURDEN IS ON HER TO SHOW THAT NOW.
AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT.
SO HERE, THE COMPLAINANT HAS, UM, IGNORED THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED, AND THE CRITERIA THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS CHOSEN TO, UH, IMPOSE UPON ITS, UH, CITY OFFICIALS AND VOLUNTEERS.
AND WE HAVE THESE KIND OF VAGUE CONCLUSORY UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATIONS THAT DON'T REALLY IDENTIFY ANY VIOLATION.
IT'S UP TO THE COMPLAINANT TO SAY, THIS IS THE ENTITY IN WHICH MS. COFER HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, AND THIS IS HOW THAT ENTITY IS AFFECTED BY HER VOTE.
AND THAT SIMPLY HASN'T HAPPENED.
UM, INSTEAD WHAT YOU'VE GOT IS A POLICY DISPUTE AND PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE A POTENTIAL POLICY RESORTING TO PERSONAL ATTACKS, EVEN IF YOU TAKE EVERYTHING THE COMPLAINANT SAYS IS TRUE, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS RECOGNIZED THAT A PERSON MAY HAVE A REMOTE INTEREST, IS THE TERM MEANING AN INTEREST THAT IS AFFECTED IN THE SAME WAY AS THE PUBLIC'S GENERAL INTEREST.
AND THE MOST, YOU COULD SAY THAT MY CLIENT OR HER HUSBAND OR HER FATHER HAVE A REMOTE INTEREST, MEANING THAT THEIR INTEREST IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT ZER PARK AND ITS FUTURE, THE, BECAUSE THE COMPLAINANT
[00:40:01]
HAS NOT STATED ANY REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.WE ASK THAT YOU DISMISS THIS COMPLAINT, AND I'LL GIVE UP THE REST OF MY TIME.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, NOW IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ASK COM QUESTIONS OF BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT.
UM, I, UH, UH, I'LL JUST BRIEFLY REMIND THE PARTIES AND EVERYONE WHO'S WATCHING FROM HOME AND EVERYONE WHO'S HERE, THAT OUR DECISION IS NOT ABOUT THE Z VISION PLAN AND DOES NOT HAVE AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON THE ZUL VISION PLAN.
IT'S ABOUT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE DECISIONS BY THE RESPONDENT.
UM, WITH THAT, I'LL START, UH, WITH A QUESTION THAT I HAVE, UH, FOR MS. ADAMS, THE COMPLAINANT.
AND I JUST WOULD, UH, LIKE YOU TO ELABORATE ON SOMETHING I SAW IN THE PRESENTATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS LISTED AT THE TOP OF ONE OF THE SLIDES WAS THAT, UH, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS, UH, PARTY TO THE ZILKER VISION PLAN, AND I WANTED YOU TO KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT BY A PARTY TO THE ZILKER VISION PLAN, UM, IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, IF YOU COULD.
IN THE VISION PLAN ITSELF, UM, THEY'RE LISTED AS A PARTNER ORGANIZATION, LIKE THEIR LOGO AND EVERYTHING IS, IS IN THE VISION PLAN.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAS THIS LEVEL OF PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY WHERE THEY CAN, UM, WHERE THEY CAN GENERATE REVENUE, WHERE THEY, THEY HAVE A CONTRACT.
SO, UM, THEY, THEY GENERATE FUNDING AND THEIR CONTRACTS ARE MADE THROUGH THE CITY FOR, TO GENERATE THIS REVENUE.
SO DURING THE VISION PLANNING PROCESS, THEY WERE PART OF A GROUP OF NONPROFITS THAT BANDED TOGETHER THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP, AND THEY COLLECTIVELY PUSHED FOR THEIR PROJECTS.
SO THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, UM, WAS A MEMBER OF THAT.
HANNAH COFER WAS IN THAT GROUP.
UM, SO SHE AND HER HUSBAND AND HER FATHER, AND, UM, THAT GROUP THEN FORMALIZED.
SO I HAVE, UM, I HAVE INTERNAL EMAILS THAT DESCRIBE THE FACT THAT THEY DIRECTLY SAY WE ARE NO LONGER KNOWN AS THE COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP.
SO IT'S THE SAME GROUP OF, OR OF NONPROFITS AND PART CONCESSIONAIRES, UM, THAT BECAME ZILKER 3 51.
SO IN ORDER FOR ZER 3 51 TO START THE REVIEW PROCESS, TO BECOME THE PARKS NONPROFIT THAT THEY WANT TO BE, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A VISION PLAN.
SO IN, IN THE PARKS, UM, LIKE PARTNERSHIP GUIDELINES, THERE'S A CRITERIA.
SO THERE'S LIKE A FOUR MONTH REVIEW PROCESS THAT A NONPROFIT LIKE ZILKER 3 51, UM, HAS POSITIONED ITSELF TO BE, UM, WOULD GO THROUGH BEFORE THEY COULD START TO LIKE COLLABORATE.
AND ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF PLAN, LIKE A VISION PLAN OR A MASTER PLAN, OR LIKE AN ECOLOGICAL, LIKE UPLIFT PLAN.
UM, THERE HAS TO BE A DOCUMENT.
SO, UM, BASICALLY THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY THAT HANNAH WORKS FOR, UM, MS. COFER WORKS FOR, UM, IS A PARTY TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAD AN INSIDE TRACK, BASICALLY WITH THE DESIGN CONSULTANT.
UM, AND I DIDN'T STATE THIS IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT THE PRINCIPAL OF THE VISION PLAN, THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CONSULT, UM, THE DESIGN WORKSHOP, THE CONSULTANT IS THE INCOMING CHAIR OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
SO THESE ARE, THESE PEOPLE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER.
HER CEO IS ON THE, IS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ZURA 3 51.
SHE'S INVOLVED IN, IN THE COLLECTIVE.
HER HUSBAND'S INVOLVED IN THE COLLECTIVE, HER FATHER IS INVOLVED IN THE COLLECTIVE.
IF THEY, IF THE VISION PLAN PASSES, THEN THEY CAN START THE PROCESS OF BECOMING THIS NONPROFIT THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE, WOULD BE ABLE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS.
BUT IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT, IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE VISION PLAN, THEN THEY CANNOT START THIS PROCESS.
THAT'S WHY THE VISION PLAN IS SO IMPORTANT TO THEM.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, IT'S, IT'S USUALLY MY PREFERENCE NOT TO DRIVE THE CONVERSATION, BUT TO LET COMMISSIONERS DRIVE IT.
GO AHEAD, MS. CASTO, I HAVE A CO A QUESTION FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
[00:45:01]
MS. ADAMS, YOU MENTIONED, UH, CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY MM-HMM.UM, AND SO LIKE HER, SO THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY ENTERS INTO CONTRACTS AND HAS THIS, UH, LEVEL OF PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE, WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, CONTROL CONCESSIONS.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT SINCE, SINCE THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS LIKE THE MAIN, UH, DEPARTMENT AT HAND.
SO SHE, HER, HER, UM, NONPROFIT HAS CONTRACTS WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS, UM, IS A PARTY TO THE VISION PLAN.
SO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE DESIGN WORKSHOP CONSULTANT, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO MADE THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN TOGETHER.
UM, AND YEAH, SO THERE'S THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS GENERATED.
I DON'T KNOW, LIKE, UM, I DO THINK THAT IT IS A PROBLEM THAT NONPROFITS ARE NOT PUBLISHING THEIR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES THE WAY THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE PARKS DIRECTOR IS NOT ENFORCING THAT.
IT'S IN THEIR, UM, IT'S IN THE, UH, GUIDELINES, UM, THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, YOU KNOW, ANNUALLY AUDITED, UM, AND HAVE THESE STATEMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
SO HONESTLY, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW THE LEVEL OF CONFLICTS THAT MAY EXIST BETWEEN, UM, UH, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
UM, MY QUESTIONS ARE GONNA BE NUMEROUS.
IS THAT OKAY? WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, AND, UH, JUST FOR FULL TRANSPARENCY, UM, IN MS. ADAMS EMAIL, WHICH WE HAVE A COPY HERE, UH, SHE ENUMERATES, UH, THE INTERESTS RIGHT, THAT MS. KO FIRST'S INTEREST IN THE ZILKER VISION PLAN ARE NUMEROUS, AND SHE ITEMIZES IT.
UH, THERE ARE SEVEN ITEMS, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS GO THROUGH EACH ONE AND ASK, UH, COUNSEL FOR MS. UH, RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR MS. COFER IF HE AGREES WITH THAT ASSERTION OR DISAGREES.
WOULD THAT BE OKAY? I THINK THAT'S FINE.
FOR THE FIRST ONE, SHE REFERRING TO MS. COFER.
MS. COFER IS THE COO O FOR THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, WHICH IS A MEMBER OF THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT GROUP.
MR. FISHER, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? UH, SHE IS THE C O OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS A MEMBER OF THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT GROUP.
I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT FOR, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT THAT YOUR QUESTION'S NOT RELEVANT, I JUST DON'T THINK IT FACTORS INTO THE ANALYSIS.
HOW ABOUT NUMBER TWO? THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE PROSPECTIVE UNIFIED NONPROFIT ZER 3 51.
WHAT PART OF THAT STATEMENT IS, IS INACCURATE? UH, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY ARE NOT A FOUNDING MEMBER OF ZILKER 3 51.
SO THERE IS NOT A FOUNDING MEMBER.
NUMBER THREE, HER BOSS, MS. KO'S BOSS, CEO OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
HEIDI ANDERSON IS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT GROUP FOR THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ACCURATE.
NUMBER FOUR, HER BOSS, CEO OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
HEIDI ANDERSON IS A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT, ZER 3 51.
I BELIEVE THAT SHE'S A BOARD MEMBER, BUT I, I DON'T, I KIND OF TAKE ISSUE WITH THE TERM UMBRELLA NONPROFIT CUZ I DON'T THINK THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS ANY AUTHORITY.
AND YES, I, I'VE SEEN THAT COME UP AS A, UH, POINT OF, UM,
[00:50:01]
DISAGREEMENT.UM, SO FOR THAT STATEMENT, YOU WERE DISAGREEING WITH THE TERM UMBRELLA NONPROFIT? CORRECT.
HOW WOULD YOU, WHAT WOULD MAKE THAT ACCURATE, UM, FROM YOUR, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, SIR? UH, I THINK IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MS. ANDERSON MAY BE A BOARD MEMBER OF THE, OF THE NONPROFIT.
HER HUSBAND, JAMES RUSSELL IS A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT GROUP FOR THREE ORGANIZATIONS, TRAIL OF LIGHTS, ABC KITE FESTIVAL, AND UMLA SCULPTURE GARDEN AND MUSEUM.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT HE USED TO BE THE CHAIR OF THE MLO SCULPTURE GARDEN MUSEUM, UM, PREVIOUS CHAIR, BUT NOT CURRENT CHAIR.
I THINK THE REST IS PROBABLY ACCURATE.
HER FATHER, GEORGE COFER IS A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT GROUP FOR HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY.
UH, I DON'T KNOW THE, I DON'T KNOW THAT.
UM, SEVEN, JUST TO FINISH IT OUT, SINCE THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS OUT OF DATE WITH THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DISCLOSURES REQUIRED OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEBSITE FOR OTHER CONFLICTS CANNOT BE RULED OUT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON THEIR WEBSITE OR NOT, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN PROBABLY GO GET THEIR TAX RETURNS, THEIR FORM NINE 90 S AT GUIDESTAR AND GET THOSE.
AND THEN ALSO UNDER TEXAS LAW, BECAUSE THEY'RE A NONPROFIT, PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO INSPECT THEIR FINANCIALS.
ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS ARRANGE A TIME TO GO IN THERE AND INSPECT THEIR BOOKS.
SO I, I THINK THAT, UM, THERE ARE MECHANISMS UNDER THE LAW FOR THE COMPLAINANT TO GO LOOK AT THE FINANCES OF THE, OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, UH, INSTEAD OF U TRYING TO UTILIZE THIS COMMISSION FOR HER FISHING EXPEDITION.
WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE, UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
FOR THE FIRST PART OF THAT STATEMENT, WHICH IS, UM, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IS OUT OF DATE WITH THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DISCLOSURES REQUIRED OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT ALL THEIR FINANCIAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEBSITE AND ON GUIDESTAR.
AND I DON'T KNOW, WITH REGARD TO THE CITY CONTRACT, I KNOW THERE'S AN ALLEGATION THAT THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CONTRACT.
I DO WANNA SAY THAT THE CITY CONTRACT, BASICALLY WHAT IT DOES IS IT ALLOWS THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY CONSERVANCY TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE CERTAIN TRAILS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID WITH CITY DOLLARS FOR PERFORMING THAT WORK.
THEY RAISE PRIVATE FUNDS IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THAT WORK FOR THE CITY.
THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS APPRECIATED.
COMMISSIONERS OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LOWE.
MS. ADAMS, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE VERY FIRST STATEMENT, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, AND I, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M MISCHARACTERIZING IT, YOU INDICATED THAT NONPROFITS DERIVE REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES FROM ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE ONES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, INCLUDING THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU WERE, WERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A GROUP OF THINGS CALLED A, UH, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T, YES, SO MM-HMM.
UM, I HAVE ONLY BECOME AWARE OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE MOVEON ZILKER, BUT THEY HAVE, UM, THEY HAVE A UNIFIED NONPROFIT OVER WATERLOO PARK, REPUBLIC SQUARE, PEACE PARK CONSERVANCY, UM, I MIGHT BE FORGETTING, BUT, UM, THIS IS A, THIS IS A PARKS MANAGEMENT MODEL THAT COMBINES THE ASSETS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SOURCES TO, UM, MANAGE PARKS.
SO, UM, THERE'S, UH, THE PARTNERSHIP, A, UM, THEY HAVE CERTAIN, LIKE ATTRIBUTES THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD, UM, LIKE MAINTAINING AMOL 99 90 S, HAVING A FAVORABLE CHARITY NAVIGATOR AND GUIDE STAR RATINGS, UM, COMMITMENT TO COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
AND, UM, IF THEY HAVE HAD A SEVEN YEAR HISTORY OF COLLABORATION
[00:55:01]
WITH PAR, THEN, UM, AND A FIVE YEAR PROVEN PHILANTHROPIC FUNDRAISING RELATIONSHIP THEN, AND, AND THERE'S SOME OTHER REQUIREMENTS TOO, LIKE MAINTAINING LIABILITY INSURANCE AND, AND THIS SORT OF THING.UM, THEN THEY ARE, UH, ABLE TO REALIZE, UM, EARNED REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES, INCLUDING OPERATING AND ADMINISTERING CONCESSIONS, PROGRAMMING SPECIAL EVENTS, AND OTHER REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES.
UM, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY GAIN THROUGH THIS.
THEY GAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO FUNDRAISE FOR THE PARK.
AND, UM, THAT INCLUDES ONSITE SIGNAGE RECOGNITION AND THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PROMOTE THE PARK.
SO THIS IS THE LEVEL THAT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY CURRENTLY HAS WITH THE PARK.
AND, UM, SO A UMBRELLA OR UNIFIED NONPROFIT WOULD BE A GROUP OF THOSE NONPROFITS COMING TOGETHER TO CREATE A NEW ENTITY THAT IS UNIFIED.
THAT IS, I MEAN, I, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A, UM, DEBATE OVER THE TERM UMBRELLA.
UM, THAT'S THE TERM THAT THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN USES.
UM, I USE IT INTERCHANGEABLY WITH UNIFIED, UM, BUT I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.
BUT WHAT I MEANT TO NARROW DOWN IS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NONPROFITS DERIVING REVENUE, OR ARE YOU JUST TALKING ABOUT SOME FUTURE POSSIBILITY? WHAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU'RE CONNECTING TO THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY? MM-HMM.
UM, WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S RIGHT THAT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAS CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, UM, AND THEN HAS A BOARD MEMBER WHO IS MAKING DECISIONS ON, UM, ON AN A DIFFERENT PLAN THAT IS THE MECHANISM.
SO, UM, THE PLAN ITSELF IS THE MECHANISM TO ALLOW A UNIFIED NONPROFIT TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF ATTAINING LEVEL A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PARK.
SO THE ORGANIZATION, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAS CONTRACTS WITH PAR.
IT, IT WOULD BE, THERE WOULD BE FUNDING, UM, COMING IN THROUGH THE Z PARK VISION PLAN.
UM, AND A LOT OF THE FUNDING WOULD BE, UH, RAISED BY THE, THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT.
THAT'S LIKE ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO.
THEY'RE REQUIRED TO FUNDRAISE FOR A MASTER PLAN MM-HMM.
SO MAYBE COULD I JUST READ THE, UM, IT SAYS IN ALIGNMENT WITH COUNCIL, COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2 0 1, 2 0 4 0 5 DASH OH FIVE TWO, PARK MASTER PLANNING RESOLUTION, A MASTER PLAN, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DESIGN PLAN, ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN, VISIONING PLAN, INTERPRETIVE PLAN, OR SIMILAR PLANNING DOCUMENT MUST EXIST FOR THE PARKLAND FACILITY, OR THE ORGANIZATION MUST HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PLANS.
SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BASIC LEVEL THAT, UM, CAN START A PROCESS OF REVIEW.
TO HAVE A NONPROFIT PARTNER FOR A PARK, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VISION PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THAT TRAIL CONSERVANCY AS PART OF THIS UMBRELLA OR UNIFIED OR WHATEVER IT IS MM-HMM.
UM, SO IT'S HARD TO SAY HOW MUCH MONEY COULD BE GENERATED FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS PROPOSED IN THE VISION PLAN.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENTIONS OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY ARE.
I BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTITUENT MEMBERS OF THE COLLECTIVE WERE PROBABLY MAINLY FOCUSED ON THEIR NARROW INTEREST, BUT SINCE THEY WERE A GROUP, THEY AGREED TO COLLECTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR THEIR COLLECTIVE DES, YOU KNOW, WANTS
[01:00:01]
IN THE VISION PLAN.SO YOU WOULD, I I CAN'T REALLY SPECULATE ABOUT HOW THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WOULD, UM, FINANCIALLY ENRICH ITSELF.
UM, I THINK THAT IT'S POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, THAT, UM, THEY COULD JUST INCREASE THEIR PROGRAMMING.
THEY ALREADY HAVE A VERY LARGE PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT THEY MAINTAIN.
UM, SO SOMETIMES WITH NONPROFITS, SINCE THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, FOCUSED ON PROFIT DRIVEN MISSIONS MM-HMM.
SO ARE YOU, BUT THAT IS SPECULATION.
YOU'RE ASKING ME TO SPECULATE? WELL, NO, I MEAN, IS IT, UH, BASICALLY YOUR SAME THEORY ABOUT, UM, GEORGE COFER AND JAMES RUSSELL, IT'S THAT SAME KIND OF BENEFIT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THAT THEIR ORGANIZATIONS COULD MM-HMM.
UM, BE ENRICHED IN SOME WAY AND DO MORE GOOD FOR PARKS.
BUT YOUR SAME THEORY FOR ALL THREE OF THEM THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING IN THIS, IN THIS COMPLAINT, I'M SAYING THAT THERE IS SUCH A, THERE'S
IN, UM, REFERRING TO THE SAME EMAIL WHERE MS. ADAMS, YOU STATE HERE THAT MS. COFER MISREPRESENTED THE ROLE OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY BY SAYING ZER PARK IS NOT IN OUR DOMAIN.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION HERE, MR. FISHER.
DO YOU, WHAT IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON WHETHER THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAS CONTRACTS WITH PART OR NOT? I THINK YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT IF YOU CAN MAYBE REPEAT WHAT THE ACTUAL, UH, ROLE OR THE CONNECTION WITH, UM, WITH MONIES OR, OR CONTRACTS.
BUT DO YOU, UH, DO YOU AGREE THAT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAS CONTRACTS WITH PART OR DO YOU DISAGREE? I AGREE.
AND DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT MS. COFER STATEMENT, WELL, I GUESS IF YOU WEREN'T THERE, YOU CAN'T REALLY SAY THAT SHE ACTUALLY SAID, MADE THAT STATEMENT, BUT, UM, UH, MS. ADAMS, YOU SAID THAT THIS, THIS WAS RECORDED.
WHAT, OKAY, SO HER STATEMENT OF ZUCKER PARK IS NOT IN OUR DOMAIN SHOULD BE ON IN THAT RECORDING.
MR. FISHER, HAVE YOU ACTUALLY SEEN THE RECORDING OR REVIEWED IT OR, OKAY, SO NO, I'VE NOT.
UM, MR. FISHER, FROM WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND THE FACT THAT IT DOES HAVE CONTRACTS WITH PAR, IF FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, IF MS. COFER DID ACTUALLY SAY THAT STATEMENT, OR, OR LET ME, LET ME TAKE, LET ME TAKE THAT OUT OF THE EQUATION, BUT THAT STATEMENT, ZILKER PARK IS NOT IN OUR DOMAIN.
WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THAT? UH, WOULD THAT BE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OR INACCURATE STATEMENT? I DON'T, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN, UH, THE, THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY IN THE CITY, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT COVERS.
BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THERE'S BEEN NO ALLEGATION OF HOW THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY WOULD FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM MY CLIENT'S VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AS IN THE WORDS OF THE COMPLAINANT, SPECULATIVE, SHE'S SPECULATING AND IT'S PERSPECTIVE.
AND SO IT'S PURELY, YOU KNOW, IMAGINARY AT THIS POINT.
UM, AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON THE TOPIC OF THE TERM OF UMBRELLA NONPROFIT, ZILKER 3 51, MS. ADAMS, YOU WERE ALLEGING THAT THAT TERM CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE VISION PLAN? YES.
[01:05:01]
MS. FISHER, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT, THAT NO.I'M NOT AWARE OF IT, BUT, BUT I AM AWARE OF THE FACT THAT MY CLIENT IS NOT A BOARD MEMBER OF THAT NONPROFIT, WHETHER IT'S, YOU CALL IT AN UMBRELLA, A NONPROFIT OR UNIFIED NONPROFIT, OR A WANT TO BE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT.
MY CLIENT'S NOT A BOARD MEMBER.
BECAUSE UNLESS I MISREMEMBERED, WHEN I HAD ASKED YOU WHAT PART OF THAT STATEMENT, WHAT WOULD MAKE IT CORRECT OR WHAT YOU HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT STATEMENT.
WITH THE STATEMENT, HER BOSS, CEO OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, HEIDI ANDERSON IS A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT, ZER 3 51.
AND YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE TERM UMBRELLA, RIGHT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK, I THINK THAT, THAT WE'RE, SHE'S GETTING AHEAD OF HERSELF, WHICH IS THERE'S A NONPROFIT THAT'S BEEN FORMED, AND SHE SPECULATES THAT IT WANTS TO BE THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT THAT'S REFERENCED SUPPOSEDLY IN THE VISION PLAN, BUT, BUT IT IS NOT THAT YET.
AND AS SHE POINTED OUT, BOTH IN HER COMMENTS AND HER SLIDESHOW, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT IT HAS TO MEET, TO EVEN BE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY'S PARKS DEPARTMENT.