[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.
SO IT'S, UH, IT, IT'S NOT REALITY TODAY.
SO WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD MAKE IT ACCURATE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE PERSPECTIVE NONPROFIT WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE? BECAUSE IT, IT, IT HASN'T FORMED YET.
IS YOUR, IS YOUR POINT? IT, IT, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S FORMED OR NOT.
IT HAS NOT BEEN DEEMED TO BE THE PARTNER.
MS. ADAMS, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PRODUCE AT EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THIS TERM WAS USED IN FOR, IN THE VISION PLAN? ABSOLUTELY.
AND FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING, WHAT, OH, I'M SORRY.
THEY, THEY CHANGE IT CONSTANTLY.
SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SCREENSHOT OR, YOU KNOW, ARCHIVED SURE.
YOU'RE SAYING AT SOME POINT THE, THE TERM UMBRELLA WAS RIGHT EARLIER TODAY? YEAH.
AND FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING, WHAT WAS MS. CORA'S ROLE IN, UH, DEVELOPING OR CREATING THIS VISION PLAN? WHAT WAS HER ROLE WITH THIS VISION PLAN? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
SHE WAS COPIED ON THE EMAILS THAT WERE, UM, INTERNAL TO THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP, AND SHE WORKS FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS, WAS PART OF THE, SO THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF WAS PART OF THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP.
AND IS THAT WORKING GROUP, THE GROUP THAT CAME UP WITH THE VISION PLAN, THAT IS THE GROUP THAT WHOSE PROJECTS ENDED UP IN THE VISION PLAN.
SO MANY GROUPS HAD AN AUDIENCE WITH THE DESIGN TEAM.
BUT THE, WHEN THE VISION PLAN WAS REVEALED, IT WAS THE PROJECTS THAT THE COLLECTIVE HAD ADVOCATED FOR.
BUT IT WAS THE DESIGN TEAM OR FIRM CONSULTANCY THAT CAME UP WITH THE VISION PLAN.
UH, COMMISSIONER? OH, COMMISSIONER LOWE.
MS. ADAMS, I THINK YOU HEARD MR. FISHER SAY THAT YOU DID NOT ALLEGE OR PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING BEING AFFECTED OR OF, UH, MS. COFER BEING AFFECTED.
AND THEN YOU ALSO SAID YOU WOULD WANT TO SUBPOENA FINANCIAL RECORDS.
SO I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU COULD FIND SOME FINANCIAL RECORDS, YOU COULD SHOW HOW MS. COFER WAS AFFECTED.
SO, UM, IF THAT IS THE CASE, UM, HAVE YOU NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THE, OF THE TYPE THAT MR. FISHER MENTIONED? I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S SOME DISPUTE OVER WHETHER THE NINE 90 S ARE AVAILABLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE KINDS OF DOCUMENTS, FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS MM-HMM.
SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT, THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OR SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE THE AFFECTED, UM, THAT WOULD ALLEGE SOMETHING THAT WOULD SHOW IT WAS AFFECTED.
UM, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO RESTATE THE FACT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
SO IF THERE IS A BENEFIT THAT IS CONFERRED TO YOUR ORGANIZATION,
[01:10:01]
I FEEL THAT THAT IS, THAT IS SOME LEVEL OF INTEREST THAT YOU HAVE.UM, I FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE GOING FORWARD WITH NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS HAVING PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE CITY THAT DEAL IN MONEY, THAT DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, UH, REALIZED REVENUE, UM, TO PIN PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAINS TO INDIVIDUALS IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS.
AND I FEEL LIKE IT HAS TO BE EXPANDED.
THE DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INTEREST.
DOES IT HAVE TO BE PERSONAL WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT, UM, FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOT THEIR FOREMOST AND PRIMARY PURSUIT? UM, I, I FEEL LIKE, UM, IT IS SPECULATIVE AND DIFFICULT TO PROVE BECAUSE, UM, IT'S SO MUCH EASY.
IT'S SO MUCH, IT'S, IT'S EASIER TO HIDE THESE, UM, RELATIONSHIPS.
SO I'M NOT, I'M JUST A PRIVATE CITIZEN.
I, IF I WANT TO LOOK AND SEE THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES OF A NONPROFIT, I EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THEIR WEBSITE AND LOOK THEM UP.
AND THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY DOES HAVE LISTINGS OF FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS NINE 90 S AND AUDITED BOOKS.
HOWEVER, THEY'RE OUT OF, THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
THEIR LATEST ONES ARE FROM, I BELIEVE, 2021.
AND WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE LINK, IT TAKES YOU TO A 4 0 4 ERROR ME ERROR MESSAGE.
SO, UM, IF I HAVE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY TO GO AND LOOK AT THEIR BOOKS, IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
I WORK FULL-TIME, LIKE I HAVE, YOU KNOW, I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN.
I SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THEIR WEBSITE.
THEY SHOULD BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TO ME.
THAT'S WHAT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MEANS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH A BUNCH OF HOOPS AND BE A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR.
I HAVE, UH, ONE QUESTION AND THEN SECRETARY STANTON.
UM, MR. FISHER, UM, UH, THERE WAS, THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAVING CURRENT CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN OR A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND EARLIER YOU SAID THAT IT WAS, UH, NOT A CONTRACT FOR FUNDING, BUT A CONTRACT TO, UH, GIVE PERMISSION TO THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY TO DO, UM, WHAT SEEMED LIKE, UH, PUBLIC SERVICE, UM, MAINTENANCE OF TRAILS OR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY.
UH, I, I JUST WONDER WHAT DETAIL WE HAVE ON THE CONTRACTS.
I KNOW IT MIGHT NOT HAVE THE FULL CONTRACT, BUT CURIOUS ABOUT ANYTHING? SO MY, I'VE NOT SEEN THE CONTRACT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY RAISES PRIVATE FUNDS TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE CERTAIN TRAILS FOR THE CITY, AND THAT THE CITY DOES NOT COMPENSATE THEM FOR DOING THAT.
UH, THAT THEY MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE FUNDS FROM THE CITY FOR, IN OTHER INSTANCES, BUT THAT, THAT CONTRACT DOES NOT, UM, FUND, IT DOES NOT ROUTE CITY MONEY TO THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, BUT THEY RAISE OUTSIDE FUNDS IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
UM, ANY OTHER, OH, SECRETARY OF STAN, GO AHEAD.
GOING BACK, UM, MS. ADAMS ON YOUR, UM, COMMENT AND TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, UH, CITIZEN AND THAT'S, THIS IS NOT YOUR FULL-TIME JOB TO, TO SCOUR, UM, EVIDENCE.
UH, YOU ARE MAINTAINING THAT, THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DISCLOSURES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEBSITE.
MR. FISHER, CAN YOU REMIND ME, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY ARE NOT, I KNOW YOU SAID THEY SHOULD BE.
UH, I JUST WANNA ASK YOU, UH, DIRECTLY, UM, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, THAT THEY, THEY ARE, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DISCLOSURES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY'S WEBSITE OR DISAGREE? I, I DON'T KNOW.
I, I DON'T REPRESENT THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THEIR WEBSITE.
AND WHAT'S A QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU, UH, DEFINITIONS WISE, ARE YOU BOTH AWARE THAT, AND I'M READING FROM THE DEFINITIONS OF AFFECTED HERE, THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON, ENTITY, OR PROPERTY IS OR WAS AFFECTED BY A VOTER DECISION, IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE OF AN ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE IF SUCH EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST
[01:15:01]
OR OCCUR? JUST WONDER, GO AHEAD.CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT CODE YOU'RE QUOTING? UM, IT IS, HOW, HOW DO I READ THAT? TWO DASH TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO.
CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO, THE DEFINITIONS FOR ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
AND IT'S SUBSECTION ONE, THE DEFINITION FOR AFFECTED, AND I BELIEVE IT IS THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT AND MAKE, MAKE SURE THAT Y'ALL WERE AWARE.
MY, MY RESPONSE WOULD BE THAT IS NOT REASONABLE.
WILL YOU READ THE LAST SECTION TO ME, PLEASE? CERTAINLY.
UM, IF SUCH EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR, IS THAT WHAT YOU, SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO EXPECT THE FACT THAT MY CLIENT WORKS FOR AN ORGANIZATION WHOSE, UH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IS ON A NONPROFIT THAT DOES NOT YET HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EFFECT.
NOW, YOU YEAH, I, I WANT TO GIVE, UH, THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPINE ON THAT SAME LANGUAGE FROM THE CITY CODE, AND THEN I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER 10 YUKO.
BUT, UH, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, UM, THE, UH, WHETHER OR NOT, UH, UH, OR IN WHAT WAY IS AN EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR? SO IF THE QUESTION IN MY, IN MY OPINION IS THE ZOLA PARK VISION PLAN ITSELF AS A DOCUMENT, WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT FOR THESE NONPROFITS THAT HAVE JOINED TOGETHER? WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO ADVANCE THIS DOCUMENT? IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZUCKER 3 51 WEBSITE, YOU WILL SEE THAT THAT IS THEIR MAIN PURPOSE, IS TO ADVANCE THE ZUCKER PARK VISION PLAN.
SO THIS IS THEIR FIRST STEP IN BECOMING A LEVEL A PARTNER WITH PART, YOU HAVE TO BE A LEVEL A PARTNER TO REALIZE REVENUE.
UM, AND I, JUST TO REPHRASE WHAT I THINK I HEARD, IT'S THAT, UH, GETTING THE VISION PLAN PASSED IS A NECESSARY CONDITION TO GETTING THE PARTNERSHIP, WHICH IS A NECESSARY CONDITION TO REVENUE GENERATION.
WITHOUT THE VISION PLAN, THEY CANNOT BEGIN THE REVIEW PROCESS TO BECOME A PARTNER, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH, UM, I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES, THEY WOULD'VE TO GO THROUGH A COLLABORATION PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS, UM, AND AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF PROVEN FINANCIAL OR FUNDRAISING, UM, ABILITY.
AND I DON'T KNOW, LIKE THAT'S THE THING.
IT, IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME, UM, IF THE CONSTITUENT MEMBERS OF ZILKER 3 51 WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING THEIR RESPECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH PAR TO BEAR ON THE QUESTION, LIKE, HOW QUICKLY COULD THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT, UM, BECOME A LEVEL A PARTNER IF IT REQUIRES SEVEN YEARS OF COLLABORATION AND THEY HAVE CONSTITUENT MEMBERS LIKE THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY THAT HAVE WAY MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS.
CAN I SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK? UM, I, I WANT TO, UH, GO TO COMMISSIONER YUKOS QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS FOR THE RESPONDENT, UM, I'VE HEARD YOU SAY SEVERAL TIMES TODAY THAT IT IS NOT YET, OR THEY'RE NOT UNDER A CONTRACT YET, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OR THAT THEY MAY BE IN THE FUTURE? I, I DON'T, I MEAN, I, I HAVE A COPY OF THE, UH, WELL, THE PART PARTNERSHIP, A CRITERIA THAT COMPLAINANTS REFERRED TO, AND IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE, THAT THEY HAVE TO BE, AND YOU HEARD SOME OF THESE IN THE OPENING, THAT THERE HAS TO BE A SEVEN YEAR HISTORY OF COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY OR THE PARTS DEPARTMENT, A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS PROVEN PHILANTHROPIC FUNDRAISING WITH SUSTAINED OR, YOU KNOW, YEAR OVER YEAR GROWTH, CERTAIN LEVELS OF LIABILITY INSURANCE, UH, USE.
AND SO IF YOU GO BY THESE, THIS NONPROFIT, THIS NEWLY
[01:20:01]
FORMED NONPROFIT, LIKELY WON'T BE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY FOR FIVE OR SEVEN YEARS, IS MY, IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.SO I THINK THIS, AGAIN, IT SHOWS HOW ATTENUATED AND SPECULATIVE THIS IS.
AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? NO, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE THESE PROJECTS THAT THE COLLECTIVE HAS GOTTEN INTO THE VISION PLAN, THEY REQUIRE A LOT OF MONEY.
SO THERE WOULD BE A BOND ELECTION TO PAY FOR AS MUCH AS THEY COULD GET FOR THAT, THEN THEY WOULD, SO POSSIBLY BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE MEMBER, UH, ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNIFIED UMBRELLA NONPROFIT, POSSIBLY THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO FAST TRACK THAT THE PARKS DIRECTOR IS NOT ENFORCING THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE STATED ALREADY FOR THESE PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.
SO, UM, I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF SHE WOULD, UM, BE STRICT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OH, THIS IS A NEW NONPROFIT.
THIS IS A TOTALLY NEW NONPROFIT.
YOU CAN'T COUNT ANY OF THE WORK THAT ANY OF THE, YOU KNOW, MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE, HAVE DONE.
UM, SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE COLLECTIVE IS PUSHING FOR, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, THINGS TO GENERATE MONEY FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS LIKE, UM, THEY, YOU KNOW, CAN HAVE BIGGER AND LARGER EVENTS, UM, WITH THIS INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHY THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY HAS CONTRIBUTED THREE MEMBERS TO THIS VISION PLANNING PROCESS? THE CEO IS THE, ON THE BOARD OF ZKO 3 51, THE COO IS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
THE INCOMING CHAIR IS THE DESIGN PRINCIPLE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR AMBITIONS ARE.
I MEAN, IT COULD JUST BE PRESTIGE.
AND IT'S NOT REALLY FAIR TO SAY THAT I'M SPECULATING WHEN I'M FORCED TO SPECULATE.
ALL I KNOW IS THAT THE Z PARK VISION PLAN IS THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY NEED TO BEGIN THIS PROCESS.
I ALSO JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT, AND THANK YOU FOR, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I KNOW IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT EASY TO DO AND SIFT THROUGH ALL OF THESE THINGS.
AND SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING, UM, BEING A NATIVE AUSTINITE, UM, AND JUST SPEAKING UP ON BEHALF OF EVERYBODY.
UM, AND I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION, UM, FOR YOU, JOK, IS THIS POSSIBLE FOR US TO RE AS A ETHICS REVIEW BOARD, TO REQUEST THOSE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS? THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION DOES HAVE POWER TO, UH, AT FIRST MAKE WRITTEN REQUESTS AND THEN IF NEEDED, UH, ALSO HAS SUBPOENA POWER AS WELL.
SO, UM, IF THERE IS A VOTE, UH, TO MOVE ON TO A FINAL HEARING, AT THAT POINT, THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE, UH, COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES HAVE THE ABILITY TO STATE THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE AND POTENTIAL WITNESSES, UM, AT THAT TIME.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE CAN DISCUSS LATER IF IT GETS TO THAT POINT IN THE HEARING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, SECRETARY STANTON, AND THEN I'LL MAKE ONE LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, I'D LIKE TO GET BOTH OF YOUR PERSPECTIVES ON, ON THE, UM, THE CRITERION OR THE, THE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.
SO I'LL, I'LL READ THE PART THAT I THINK MIGHT APPLY IN THIS, UM, SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, UM, MEANS AN INTEREST IN ANOTHER PERSON OR AN ENTITY IF, OR FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE PERSON FROM THE OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, EITHER DURING THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS OR THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR, EQUALED OR EXCEEDED $5,000 IN SALARY, BONUSES, COMMISSIONS, OR PROFESSIONAL FEES, OR $20,000 IN PAYMENT FOR GOODS, PRODUCTS, OR NON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.
UM, I'LL START WITH YOU, MS. ADAMS. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT, THAT THERE, THAT, UM, MS. COFER WOULD MEET THAT CRITERION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST CONSIDERING SHE'S IS THE COO OF THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY AND HER HUSBAND IS ALSO DERIVING INCOME FROM, UH, ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE PART OF ZILKER 3 51 AND HER FATHER IS, AND STAFF ON STAFF.
UM, AND BY THE WAY, I'M GETTING ALL OF THIS FROM THEIR WEBSITES.
LIKE I HAVE NOT DONE A DEEP DIVE INVESTIGATION.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD BE FOR A FULL HEARING.
UM, WHETHER OR NOT JAMES RUSSELL IS THE
[01:25:01]
CHAIR OF THE UMWA RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS THAT ON THEIR WEBSITE.SO, UM, AGAIN, THAT'S PROBABLY A VOLUNTEER, BUT BEING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TRAIL OF LIGHTS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, UM, BEING THE PRESENTER OF THE KITE FESTIVAL, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK THAT THERE COULD POSSIBLY BE, IN THIS CASE, LIKE AN ACTUAL FINANCIAL, UM, IT, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY MEET THE THRESHOLD, BUT I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THEIR INCOME SOURCES.
UM, I HAVE FILED A PUBLIC, UM, RECORD, LIKE AN INFORMATION REQUEST MM-HMM.
UM, BUT I HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT.
THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ALLEGATION THAT I'M MAKING.
WH WHERE DO YOU STAND OUT? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, THAT PART THAT I READ ABOUT, UH, THE FUNDS, $5,000 IN SALARY, BONUSES, COMMISSIONS, OR PROFESSIONAL FEES, UH, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MS UH, COFER MEETS THAT DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST WITH REGARD TO THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY ONLY? YES.
COMMISSIONER'S, LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE AT THIS MOMENT, UH, I'LL CLOSE THAT PERIOD OF OUR HEARING AND MOVE ON TO MOTIONS IF, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE SO INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION.
UM, GOSH, I'M TRYING, I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT IS THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO, UH, PHRASE THIS.
WE CAN, WE CAN CONSULT WITH, UH, MS. RBY AS WELL, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO FORMULATE THE MOTION BEFORE YOU MAKE IT.
SO, UH, HOW ABOUT I MOVE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED? IS THAT I'M TRYING TO STICK WITH THE EXACT DEFINITION.
I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, IS THAT IT? I THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT.
SO NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER'S, UM, FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY.
GER, MAY I ASK A PROCEDURAL QUESTION? GO AHEAD.
FOR THIS MOTION, IF IT PASSES, AND THERE, THERE, THERE ARE FOUNDRY REGIONAL GROUNDS.
IS IT A SEPARATE MOTION TO MOVE IT TO A, UM, HEARING, OR IS IT ALL WRAPPED UP TOGETHER? IT'S IMPLIED.
UH, IT'S IMPLIED IF, IF THERE IS A VOTE FOR REASONABLE GROUNDS, BY DEFAULT, THERE IS A FINAL HEARING UNLESS, WELL, I SAY THAT, BUT UNLESS AN ADMISSION IS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT, IN WHICH CASE YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO, UH, SANCTIONS AND, AND IMPLICATIONS FROM THAT.
BUT I DON'T, DON'T THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN ISSUE HERE.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I WILL, UH, I WILL SAY FOR MY PART, UM, I, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A PARTICULARLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.
UM, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE COMMUNITY SURROUNDING THE UNDERLYING PROJECT AND PLAN.
UM, AND I PERSONALLY, WHATEVER I BELIEVE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO ZILKER PARK, UM, IS IN MY MIND, COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE AT THIS COMPLAINT.
AND, UH, WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT IT, WHAT MY JOB IS ON THE COMMISSION, FIRST, IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, UH, POLITE MEETINGS AND TO MAINTAIN DECORUM.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE THAT WE ARE ASKED TO, UH, TO ADJUDICATE COMPLAINTS OVER.
UH, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS, UM, HOW OUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES REQUIRE THAT THERE BE, UH, THAT THE PERSON THAT'S SERVING ON A BORDER COMMISSION BE, HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST THAT IS AFFECTED.
AND WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE WORD AFFECTED.
AND, UH, IT, I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY MET THE THRESHOLD THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, I'LL READ THE FULL SENTENCE AND RELEVANT
[01:30:01]
PART FROM THE DEFINITION IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON, ENTITY, OR PROPERTY, UH, IS OR WAS AFFECTED BY A VOTE OR DECISION.IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE OF AN ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE.
AND I'LL PAUSE THERE TO SAY, SO THAT MEANS THAT THE, THE Z REVISION PLAN DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ACTUAL ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE TODAY, BUT IT GOES ON TO SAY, IF SUCH AN EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR, UH, AND THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE FOUND, UM, UH, FACTS OR ALLEGATIONS THAT, UH, SPECIFICALLY AN ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR.
IN THIS CASE, WE HEARD, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW CITY CODE MAY NEED TO BE CHANGED, UH, TO BE MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN NON-PROFIT CASES.
UM, THERE WERE, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, ADMISSIONS THAT WE CAN'T NECESSARILY SPECULATE ON FINANCIAL BENEFITS.
UM, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS POTENTIALLY AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
UH, AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE WE INDIVIDUALLY AS BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE TO POLICE OURSELVES ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE MAY BE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ANYTHING WE DO, AND WE EXPECT AND HOPE THE SAME FOR OTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS ACROSS CITY GOVERNMENT FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEIR ACTIONS HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY ARE CITY CODE.
WHAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DOES NOT GOVERN APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY, BUT ACTUAL CONFLICTS AS THEY ARE DEFINED IN CODE.
SO I PERSONALLY OPPOSE THE MOTION, UM, BUT I AM OPEN TO DISCUSSION AND PERSUASION BY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, AND I'M HAPPY TO KEEP THE FLOOR OPEN IF ANYONE ELSE HAS COMMENTS.
ISN'T THAT WHAT THE HEARING IS FOR THE, THE FINAL HEARING OR THE, THE PRELIM? YEAH, I, I, SO THAT WE COULD HEAR THOSE THINGS.
I, I THINK THE, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN MY VIEW IS TO SEE, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, IN A CASE THAT'S SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND WHETHER OR NOT, UH, A BOARD COMMISSION MEMBER HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST THAT, UH, IS AFFECTED BY THE VOTER DECISION, THE QUESTION IMMEDIATELY IN MY MIND AS I'M READING THE CODE IS WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE, UH, ECONOMIC EFFECT, UM, WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR.
UM, AND WHETHER WE HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT AN ECONOMIC EFFECT WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO OCCUR.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE TODAY AMOUNTS TO THOSE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING COULD REASONABLY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING'S FOR IN MY MIND.
I FEEL LIKE THERE HAS BEEN REASONABLE DOUBT PROVEN TODAY, UM, AND I FEEL LIKE COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE FELT THE SAME, AND THEY'RE COMING TO US TO LIST, TO AT LEAST INVESTIGATE.
AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS HERE TO DO.
AND SO I FEEL REALLY STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD DO THAT AND FULFILL OUR DUTY.
GO AHEAD, SECRETARY STANTON AND THEN COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. YES.
UH, CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR BEING, UH, VERY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH WHERE YOU'RE, UM, YOU'RE FEELING THE CHALLENGE IN, UM, INTERPRETING, UM, THE DEFINITION OF AFFECTED.
WHAT WOULD MAKE IT REASONABLY EXPECTED TO OCCUR FOR YOU? WHAT CRITERION WHAT? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
UH, I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, EVIDENCE OF HOW THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY MATERIALLY BENEFITS, UH, FROM THE PASSAGE OF THE ZILKER VISION PLAN, UM, THAT WOULD BE THE, UH, A KIND OF CONCRETE, A MORE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VOTES, UH, RELATED TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ZILKER VISION PLAN FROM THAT COMMISSION.
AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY'S BOTTOM LINE? UM, BECAUSE THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IS THERE INSOFAR AS IT IS, UH, IT IS THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
[01:35:01]
CONSERVANCY, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAME FINANCIALLY INSOLVENT, UM, THEN THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE AT STAKE.UM, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT THERE'S, UH, EVEN A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THERE COULD BE A KIND OF FINANCIAL IMPACT, BENEFIT OR CONSEQUENCE, NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE AS A RESULT OF THE VOTES AND DECISIONS MADE AT THAT MEETING.
UM, I MEAN, NO DISRESPECT CHAIR, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT, IT SEEMS VERY OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IT COULD OCCUR THAT, AND THAT'S HOW I'M INTERPRETING THIS AS, UM, THE UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP AND, AND THE, THE KIND OF NEXT STEPS IN, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE, THE ANALOGY THAT I'M COMING THAT'S COMING TO MY MIND NOW IS GROOMING.
SO IT DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT THERE DEFINITIVELY.
YOU KNOW, I THINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE, I'M THINKING IT'S RELATED TO THIS PERSPECTIVE OR UMBRELLA NONPROFIT, RIGHT? UM, BUT THERE'S STEPS THERE.
AND I THINK MS. UM, MS. ADAMS HAD TALKED ABOUT, WELL, THE PLAN IS KIND OF THAT FIRST STEP, AND FROM THAT IT GROWS, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THE PREREQUISITE TO OBTAINING THE BENEFIT, RIGHT? THE, THE FINANCIAL AND, AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT FOR, UH, FOR GROUPS THAT ARE PART OF THAT CONSORTIUM.
SO TO ME, IT'S KIND OF OBVIOUS THAT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS VERY REASONABLE.
I WOULD, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME BENEFIT THAT IT IS AFFECTED IF, IF WE CAN'T PROVE IT TODAY, WHICH WE'RE NOT EXPECTED TO PROVE THAT.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD OCCUR.
UM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP? UH, UH, YES.
THIS, THIS REMINDS ME OF THE SAYING THAT IT'S CHESS, NOT CHECKERS.
UM, IT'S ABOUT FIVE STEPS DEEP OR MORE.
UM, BUT I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS THE CONSERVANCY.
THE CONSERVANCY IS A MEMBER OF THIS COLLECTIVE, THE ZILKER PARK COLLECTIVE, AND THEY HAVE VIBE TOGETHER AND CREATED A PLAN THAT HAS A VARIETY OF, I GUESS, ITEMS WITHIN IT THAT THEY'RE HOPING WILL MANIFEST.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEIR PLAN HAS SOMEHOW COME THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE VISION PLAN THAT IS NECESSARY FOR AN AGENCY TO MOVE FORWARD AND BECOME A, I GUESS, A LEVEL A PARTNER WITH THE CITY, WHICH THEN GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROFIT.
AND I THINK THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS SIMPLY, THAT'S TOO FAR ATTENUATED TO BE ABLE TO SAY, THIS CREATES AN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CONSERVANCY AT THIS POINT.
SO I THINK HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT IT'S A BIT PREMATURE.
AND SO I THINK THAT THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER, BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THESE AGENCIES ARE ALL KIND OF VYING AROUND TO HAVE INFLUENCE OVER WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE IN ZILKER PARK, AND THEY'RE STAFFING THE BOARDS OR COMMITTEES WITH THEIR FOLKS TO ENSURE THE LONGEVITY OF THEIR ORGANIZATION.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS, IS THAT A CONFLICT OF, OF INTEREST OR NOT? SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UM, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? GO AHEAD, SECRETARY CHAIR.
UH, DID I MISS YOUR RESPONSE TO WHAT WOULD MAKE IT, UH, REASONABLY EXPECTED FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? YEAH, OR WELL, TO RESTATE IT, UM, IT WAS, UH, A DEMONSTRATION OF A CLEAR CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VOTES AND DECISIONS MADE AT THAT MEETING IN APRIL.
AND, UH, A FINANCIAL BENEFIT OR A FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCE, ECONOMIC EFFECT, I SHOULD BE MORE CLEAR, AN ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE FOR THE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.
UM, AND, AND I THINK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS WAS SAYING, THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHAT
[01:40:01]
WE THINK IS REASONABLY EXPECTED.UM, AND I TAKE THE WORD REASONABLY, UH, KIND OF SERIOUSLY.
I DON'T WANT TO, UH, I DON'T WANT TO HYPOTHESIZE TOO MUCH ABOUT, UM, WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO ANOTHER ORGANIZATION THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN THAT IS BEFORE COUNCIL AT SOME FUTURE MEETING, UM, THAT WILL TAKE TIME TO IMPLEMENT.
UH, FOR ME, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SAY I REASONABLY EXPECT BENEFITS OR CONSEQUENCES TO, UH, TO OCCUR FOR THE RESPONDENT.
UM, AGAIN, I WANT TO BE, I WANT TO BE COMPLETELY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ABOUT MY THINKING.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M SITTING.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? GO AHEAD.
SO, SO AGAIN, I THINK I'LL ALWAYS HAVE THIS, THIS ISSUE THAT, THAT I HAVE TO BRING TO THE FOREFRONT, AND THAT'S THE STANDARD AT THIS PARTICULAR HEARING IS ONLY REASONABLE GROUNDS.
UH, AND I THINK THE REASON THAT THE STANDARD IS SO LOW IS BECAUSE THE COMPLAINANT DOESN'T HAVE, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY REAL INVESTIGATORY POWER, AND SO THEY COME TO THE COMMISSION SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE AND USE WHAT POWER WE HAVE TO UNVEIL THOSE FACTS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET TO THE TRUTH OR THE HEART OF THE MATTER.
AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE DENY THE COMPLAINANT ANY RELIEF, WE WON'T KNOW IF THAT CONNECTION ACTUALLY EXISTS.
AND I THINK THE STANDARD HERE IS JUST WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THIS BELIEF SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE FURTHER COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER, UM, COMMENTS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CASTO, THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MENTION IT TOTALLY.
UM, APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PERSPECTIVE.
UM, I JUST HEARD SEVERAL WORDS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE EVENING, A LOT OF USE OF THE WORD SPECULATE, POTENTIAL PROSPECTIVE.
AND SO WHILE I AGREE THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THAT THE REST OF THAT IS REASONABLE GROUNDS AS WE ARE TODAY IN THE PRESENT MOMENT, NOT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN AT SOME POINT, SOME UNKNOWN POINT IN THE FUTURE.
I APPRECIATE THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, UM, IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I, I BELIEVE WHEN WE'RE REFERRING TO WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, THERE'S A STATUTORY DEFINITION THAT DESCRIBES WHAT EFFECT IT MEANS, AND THAT EFFECT IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO OCCUR, WHICH I, FROM THE PLAIN MEETING SUGGESTS AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE.
ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER TEK, I JUST REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THAT AS AN ETHICS COM REVIEW COMMITTEE BOARD, WE REALLY HAVE A STRONG RESPONSIBILITY TO AUSTIN AND THE COMMUNITY TO INVESTIGATE WHAT CLEARLY IN MY EYES, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR A VIOLATION HERE.
UM, IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME, UM, TO NOT REALLY HEAR OUR COMMUNITY, AND I SAY THIS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO TO A FINAL HEARING THAT, UM, IT'S WORK, I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND MR. FISHER, THAT, UM, I CAN APPRECIATE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE THAT THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S MORE WORK FOR YOU.
UM, BUT I'M REALLY ONE, JUST DEFINITION WISE, UH, I THINK I HAVE EXPRESSED IT CLEARLY THAT I FEEL THAT WE, THAT THIS CASE MEETS THE DEFINITIONS AT LEAST.
AND, AND, UM, SUPPORTING WHAT COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SAID, THAT AT THIS POINT, OUR STANDARD IS REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT IT COULD OCCUR, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THE AFFECTED TO OCCUR.
BUT ASIDE FROM FULFILLING OR MEETING THE CRITERIA IN HERE, THE PART THAT'S TUGGING AT ME IS
[01:45:03]
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE, UM, ASIDE FROM MR. FISHER'S, UM, EXTRA WORK, BUT WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE WHEN THE COMPLAINANT WANTS TO DO THE WORK? AND IF IT TURNS OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE EVIDENCE AND, AND, AND WHATNOT, UM, IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FINAL TERMINATION, AS IN LIKE, THE FINAL OUTCOME.BUT I, I FEEL STRONGLY WITH COMMISSIONER, ATTORNEY YUCCA, THAT WE, ASIDE FROM MEETING THE DEFINITION, WE OWE IT TO OUR COMMUNITY.
AND PEOPLE HAVE COME HERE, TAKEN THEIR TIME TO COME HERE AND EXPRESS.
AND I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT AWARE OF, UH, THAT MEETING.
I DON'T HAVE OPINION WITH THAT.
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE ARE MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO SHOWED UP AND WHO MADE IT KNOWN.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS, UH, SIEMEN FROM OUR COMMUNITY IS PLEASE JUST LOOK INTO IT.
THEY'RE NOT, I DIDN'T HEAR, PLEASE FIND THEM GUILTY OF THIS.
PLEASE AT LEAST LOOK INTO IT AND NOT DISMISS IT RIGHT OFF.
SO I COULD NOT, IT WOULD, IF THIS MOTION FEELS, I FEEL, I, I FEEL PERSONALLY DISAPPOINTED.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UM, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
THEN WE CAN PROCEED TO A VOTE.
I'LL GO IN THE ORDER THAT IT IS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
UM, AND THIS IS ON A MOTION BY SECRETARY STANTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER 10 YU TO FIND THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST, UH, TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, I SUPPORT THE MOTION.
IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER 10 YUCA? YES.
THERE BEING FOUR AYES AND TWO NAYS.
UH, IT IS NOT A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION, UM, AND SO THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
UM, SO I BELIEVE THAT MEANS THAT, UH, THE COMPLAINT'S DISMISSED BY OPERATION OF THAT VOTE.
UM, UH, BEFORE WE TRANSITION IMMEDIATELY TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, I WANT TO THANK, UH, EVERYONE FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
WE COULD HAVE GONE STRAIGHT INTO THAT VOTE, BUT I THOUGHT IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY, IT WAS WORTHWHILE TO TALK AMONG COMMISSION MEMBERS ABOUT HOW WE THINK THIS, UH, SPECIFIC COMPLAINT WORKS AND WHAT OUR JOB IS IN RELATION TO THAT COMPLAINT.
I WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR BEING HERE.
UM, THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT THAT I WILL MAKE BEFORE WE TRANSITION IS THAT I WOULD ASK COMMISSIONERS TO KIND OF, AT, AT, AS BEST AS THEY CAN, TRY TO WIPE THE SLATE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW COMPLAINT WITH A NEW SET OF FACTS, A NEW RESPONDENT, UM, AND TO THINK WITH FRESH EYES ABOUT THE PRESENTATIONS THAT ARE MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINT, AND JUST TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN NEXT.
I'M GONNA ASK FOR, UH, JUST A BRIEF FOUR MINUTE RECESS, UH, TO STRETCH LEGS.
USE THE BATHROOM IF COMMISSION MEMBERS NEED TO, IF THE PARTIES NEED TO.
UM, AND THEN WHEN WE COME BACK, I'LL MAKE A VERY BRIEF MOTION TO EXTEND OUR OPERATION PAST 10:00 PM UH, SO THAT WE DON'T GET INTERRUPTED BY THAT FUNCTION OF OUR BYLAWS.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
THE TIME IS 9:24 PM AND WE WILL RECONVENE, LET'S SAY NO LATER THAN 9:30 PM OKAY.
THE TIME IS 9:33 PM AND I'M GONNA MAKE A QUICK PROCEDURAL MOTION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET INTERRUPTED MIDAR.
UM, AND SINCE IT IS ABOUT, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE 10 O'CLOCK MARK, SO PURSUANT TO ARTICLE SEVEN, SUBSECTION N I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE E R C PERMISSION TO MEET AFTER 10:00 PM OR TO MEET PAST 10:00 PM BE
[01:50:01]
EXPLICIT.UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, OTHERWISE WE'D HAVE A TOUGH TIME FINISHING THIS
[4. A complaint filed by Teri Adams against Evan Taniguchi, raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-1 (City Boards), Section 2-1-24 (Conflict of Interest and Recusal).]
HEARING.UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, WE ARE GONNA MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
UM, AND, UH, BEFORE WE DIVE INTO IT, WE DO HAVE ONE, UH, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SIGNED UP FOR AGENDA ITEM FOUR SPECIFICALLY.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YES, YOU CAN COME ON UP AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
UM, I KNOW IT'S A LATE NIGHT, AND I APPRECIATE YOU STICKING GEAR FOR IT.
UH, JUST A REMINDER, IT'S THREE MINUTES AND WE'LL GIVE YOU A WARNING WHEN YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE.
UM, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT, THAT THIS MEETING WOULD BE TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY KIND OF PERCEPTION THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING GOING ON.
MOVE IT ON TO THE, UM, OFFICIAL HEARING WHERE INVESTIGATIONS CAN BE DONE.
IF YOU STOP IT AT THIS POINT, THEN NO FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS CAN BE DONE.
AND I THINK THAT'S REAL TRAVESTY.
I'VE ALREADY SPOKEN TO YOU REGARDING BACKGROUND OF THESE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING HANNAH COFER.
IF THIS COMPLAINT WERE BROUGHT TO FULL HEARING, I WOULD BE WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH ABOUT MY CONVERSATIONS WITH EVAN TANA GUCCI AT A ZILKER 3 51 GARDEN PARTY REGARDING HIS CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH A PRIMARY DESIGNER OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN, WHO IS COMMISSIONER CLAIRE HEMPLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I WILL ALSO TESTIFY UNDER OATH MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM AFTER THE DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING WHERE HE REFUSED TO RECUSE HIMSELF AND VOTED ON THE PASSAGE OF, OF THE ZILKER VISION PLAN.
IT WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE, A CALLOUS COMMENT ABOUT ZER 3 51 NONPROFITS INTENT TO TAKE OUR CONCESSION AND RUN IT.
THAT GAVE ME FURTHER CONCERN ABOUT HIS ACTIVE COLLABORATION WITH THIS GROUP TO PLACE THEMSELVES AS THE PRIMARY CONCESSIONS MANAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT OR TRANSPARENCY.
PLEASE HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS PART IN THE SCHEME.
THE SCHEME INCLUDES DEPARTMENT HEADS, BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO BY OBS OBFUSCATION, GASLIGHTING, AND INFLUENCE ARE STEERING THIS PLAN FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.
SOME OVER 160 PEOPLE SPOKE AGAINST THE VISION PLAN AT THE PARKS BOARD LAST MONDAY.
THEIR COMMENTS WERE IGNORED AND IT WAS PASSED THROUGH TO SIT TO THE COUNCIL FOR VOTE ON JULY 20TH.
DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU? PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. MASSENGALE.
UM, WITH THAT, WE'LL, WE'LL PROCEED INTO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
UM, I CAN, I CAN GO THROUGH THE INSTRUCTIONS AGAIN, UH, AND ALL THE RULES.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, MR. UH, TAN GUCCI, YOU'RE HERE PRESENT.
UH, IF YOU COULD JUST SAY, MAKE SURE THAT THE AUDIO'S WORKING, UM, INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
YES, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROCEDURES ARE, AND I THINK IT'S GONNA BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE, UH, TO THE, UH, UH, EVENT THAT WE HAD EARLIER.
SO I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY, BUT I, I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON BOARD JUST TO, I WANT TO WANT TO CUT YOU OFF, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT INTO OUR PRESENTATIONS YET.
AND I ALSO WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE HEARING THAT WE JUST HAD, UM, BECAUSE WHILE IT WAS, WHILE THE UNDERLYING FACTS AND UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS, UH, MAY BE RELATED, UM, THIS COMPLAINT IS A DIFFERENT COMPLAINT AND IT'S ALLEGING DIFFERENT FACTS.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IN ONE COMPLAINT SHOULDN'T IMPACT OUR DECISION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN ANOTHER COMPLAINT.
SO ALL, I WAS REALLY JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AUDIO WORKED, MRAG GUCCI, SO THAT, UH, WE HAD A GOOD LIVE FEED OF YOU WHEN IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE YOUR 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION.
SO I'M GLAD WE DO, AND I UNDERSTAND.
UM, AND, AND ALSO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE HERE WHEN I LAID OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS THE LAST TIME, THE KIND OF RULES OF THE HEARING, SO I'M GLAD YOU WERE HERE FOR IT.
UM, THE VERY, THE VERY BRIEF VERSION OF THOSE RULES IS THAT THE COMPLAINANT, UM, AND RESPONDENT WILL BOTH HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE 10 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS, STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT FOLLOWED BY THE RESPONDENT.
UM, IF EITHER COMPLAINANT OR RESPONDENT BELIEVES THAT MORE THAN 10 MINUTES IS NECESSARY, WE'RE HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
SO VERY BRIEFLY, COMPLAINANT, WOULD
[01:55:01]
YOU NEED, UH, MORE THAN 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION? I THINK I MIGHT NEED 11.WE CAN, I THINK LOOKING AROUND, I THINK WE CAN ACCOMMODATE 11.
UM, MR. UCCI, UH, IS 10 MINUTES SUFFICIENT FOR YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, I MIGHT NEED MORE THAN THAT AFTER I HEAR THE 11.
UH, HAPPY TO GIVE YOU AN EVEN 11 AS WELL, OR AN ODD 11 AS THE CASE MAY BE.
UM, ALRIGHT THEN, UH, FOLLOWING THE 10 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT.
THERE'S NO CROSS-EXAMINATION OR QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
UM, THERE'S NO, UH, INTERJECTING, UM, AND TRYING TO JUMP IN AFTER ONE PARTY ANSWERS.
UM, THIS IS AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS.
IT IS, IS THE COMMISSIONERS WHO INITIATE THE QUESTIONS.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED FROM THERE, UH, AFTER WHICH WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MOTIONS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED, WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.
I SEE COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HAND UP AND I'LL YES, GO AHEAD.
I JUST WANT TO THANK MS. INGAL FOR HER STATEMENT AND REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT THOSE STATEMENTS LIKE MS. MASSEN INGALS, IS NOT CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS HEARING.
SO THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE SHARING WITH US IN THOSE STATEMENTS IS NOT SUBSTANTIVELY PART OF THIS HEARING AND IS NOT CONSIDERED.
SO JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO BE AWARE OF THAT SO THAT YOU CAN FIND A WAY TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD IN THESE HEARINGS.
SECRETARY STATE, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THEY EACH, THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT EACH HAVE 11 MINUTES, IS THAT CORRECT? 11 MINUTES EACH? YES.
UH, ANY OTHER GO, COMMISSIONER TENA? I'M ALSO JUST WONDERING IF IT'S GOOD TRANSPARENCY TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHO ALL IS FRIENDS WITH MR. FISHER ON THE COMMITTEE? UH, I WILL.
UM, I AM AN ATTORNEY HERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
UH, MR. FISHER IS AN ETHICS ATTORNEY.
UM, AND HE HAS CONDUCTED CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSES IN THE PAST ON THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN STATE LAWS THAT I KNOW I HAVE ATTENDED.
HE HAS REPRESENTED, UH, PARTIES BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THE PAST.
THAT IS THE EXTENT OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH MR. FISHER.
UM, I KNOW THAT, UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD, UM, ASSOCIATIONS AS WELL.
I WILL LET THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AS TO THE EXTENT OF, UH, THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH MR. FISHER, UM, IF THEY WANT TO.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS DECIDE ON WHETHER THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY CAN IMPARTIALLY PARTICIPATE IN PROCEEDINGS.
IT'S NOT MY JOB TO TELL COMMISSIONERS WHAT RELATIONSHIPS THEY MIGHT HAVE WITH PARTIES, BUT IF THOSE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO DISCLOSE FOR THEMSELVES ANY POTENTIAL, UH, RELATIONSHIPS OR INTERACTIONS OR ACQUAINTANCES WITH THE RESPONDENT IN THE LAST CASE THEY CAN, UH, I'M GONNA SAY THIS IS EXCEPTIONAL BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO START A HEARING ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPLAINT, BUT I WILL GIVE THOSE COMMISSIONERS THE OPPORTUNITY.
NOW, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO, UH, COMMISSIONER LOW? GO AHEAD.
YES, I'M ACQUAINTED WITH MR. FISHER.
HE WORKS, UM, HE WAS APPOINTED BY RICK PERRY TO THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, AND HE WAS THE CHAIR FOR SOME PART OF THAT TIME.
I WORKED FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION FROM 2007, NOVEMBER OF 2017 THROUGH AUGUST, 2021.
HE WAS NOT STILL ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, BUT HE OFTEN APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION REPRESENTING PARTIES, AND ALSO HE MADE MANY REQUESTS FOR ADVISORY OPINIONS AND RULE MAKING.
UM, I ALSO KNOW HIM THROUGH, UM, CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS. HE IS CURRENTLY THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
UM, THAT IS NOT A FULL-TIME STAFF POSITION.
I, IT IS A POSITION FOR WHICH HE, UM, ASSISTS BOARD THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
I AM EMPLOYED AS THE DISCIPLINARY RULES AND REFERENDA ATTORNEY AT THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS.
I HAVE ALSO KNOWN MR. FISHER FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN A PROFESSIONAL, PERSONAL, AND LEGAL CAPACITY.
UH, WE'RE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE SAME SECTION.
WE'RE BOTH ATTORNEYS PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU ALL SAID.
[02:00:01]
WE, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? GO AHEAD.I AM AN ATTORNEY AND I DO NOT NOTE
UM, UH, I WILL CLOSE DISCUSSION OF THAT LAST COMPLAINT.
UM, AND, UH, I WANT EVERYONE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT AN INDULGENCE THAT IS, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE DO NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE REASONS FOR OUR PARTICIPATION OR OUR RECUSAL DECISIONS, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY, HAPPY TO DO IT.
MOVING ON TO OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR THIS COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER.
UM, MRAG GUCCI, I SEE YOUR HAND.
UH, WE'RE ABOUT TO START PRESENTATIONS IF THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT MATTER THAT CANNOT WAIT BEFORE THE COMPLAINANT BEGINS HER 10 MINUTES OR 11 MINUTES.
WELL, WELL, WELL, IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT, UH, HE'S NOT MY LEGAL COUNSEL.
I HAVE SOME FRIENDS THAT HAD BEEN ADVISING ME, SO THAT SHOULD NOT BE A DECISION IN, IN WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH.
I, I HEAR YOU, MR. TANA GUCCI, WHICH IS WHY I WAS SO WARY OF EVEN ENTERTAINING DISCUSSION OF WHAT MR. FISHER'S RELATIONSHIPS WERE TO MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.
UH, MS. ADAMS, UH, I THINK WE'RE ABOUT TO START, AND WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOUR 11 MINUTES CAN START.
CAN YOU TELL ME TWO MINUTES AND ONE MINUTE.
I'M TERRY ADAMS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
IN DEALING WITH NONPROFITS WHOSE FOREMOST STATED GOALS AND MISSIONS ARE NOT FINANCIAL, FEW CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE DIRECT.
AN INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTING A NONPROFIT CAN ACHIEVE A BENEFIT THAT IS NOT PERSONAL VIA ANY BENEFIT THAT COULD BE CONFERRED UPON A NONPROFIT.
THEY REPRESENT IF A PERSON'S VOTE CONFERS A BENEFIT TO THEIR NONPROFIT THAT PRESENTS THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN IS AN EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO GUIDE THE RESTORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ZILKER PARK FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.
AN OVERT PLANNING PROCESS INVOLVING THE CITY OF AUSTIN PARKS DEPARTMENT, OR PAR AND A VENDOR DESIGN WORKSHOP.
AS LEAD CONSULTANT BEGAN IN FEBRUARY, 2021, THE CITY AND THE CONSULTANT WERE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
HOWEVER, THIS OUTREACH FAILED TO CONNECT WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF AUSTIN KNIGHTS.
DURING THE TWO YEAR VISION PLANNING PROCESS, A GROUP OF NONPROFIT STAKEHOLDERS WITH AN INTEREST IN ZILKER PARK CAME TOGETHER.
THIS GROUP OF 16 STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED PARK CONCESSION OPERATORS.
THEY CALLED THEMSELVES THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP, WHICH I WILL REFER TO AS THE COLLECTIVE FOR SHORT.
COLLECTIVE MEMBERS BANDED TOGETHER TO ADVOCATE FOR ITEMS IN THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN, BENEFITING THEIR INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS.
THESE PROJECTS COMPRISE THE BULK OF THE PROPOSALS WE SEE IN THE VISION PLAN, SPECIFICALLY THE PARKING GARAGES, THE LAMB BRIDGE, THE NEW HILLSIDE THEATER, NEW BRIDGES OVER LADYBIRD LAKE AND BARTON CREEK, AND A NEW WELCOME CENTER.
ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS IN THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN IS THE INCLUSION OF A NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP TO STEWARD ZUCKER PARK.
THIS ASPECT OF THE VISION PLAN WAS NEVER REVEALED DURING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
IT APPEARED WITHOUT PUBLIC VETTING IN THE DELIVERABLE AFTER TWO YEARS OF PLANNING.
I AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROJECTS IN THE VISION PLAN AND THE INCLUSION OF A NONPROFIT PARTNER FOR ZER PARK.
I WENT TO THE DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 27TH, 2023, EXPECTING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.
BUT THE CHAIR OF THE DESIGN COMMISSION CALLED FOR A SPECIAL MEETING BECAUSE TWO COMMISSIONERS WERE GOING TO RECUSE THEMSELVES.
AND WITH THOSE RECUSALS, THE COMMISSION LOST QUORUM.
THE, THE CHAIR ANNOUNCED THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE DESIGN COMMISSION CALLED FOR THE ZUCKER PARK VISION PLAN.
ONE OF THE RECUSING COMMISSIONERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONSULTANT DESIGN WORKSHOP.
THE OTHER WAS EVAN TANA GUCCI.
AT THE TIME, THE NATURE OF HIS NEED TO RECUSE WAS NOT CLEAR.
A FEW DAYS LATE, MR. TANA GUCCI WAS ANNOUNCED AS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
SO IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN I WALKED INTO THIS SPECIAL CALLED DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 13TH TO FIND MR. TANA GUCCI SEATED.
THE CHAIR WAS ALSO SURPRISED WHEN HE ARRIVED.
SHE SAID, MR. TANA GUCCI, ARE YOU RECUSED ON THIS MATTER? TO WHICH HE REPLIED, NO, I AM NOT.
MR. TANA GUCCI PROCEEDED TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION AND VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE ZUCKER PARK VISION PLAN FOR ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTIONS TWO DASH 1 24 AND TWO DASH 7 64.
MR. TANA GCI INDICATED ON THE ATTENDANCE SIGN-IN SHEET THAT HE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON MARCH 27TH AND RECUSED HIMSELF.
BUT ON APRIL 13TH, HIS ATTENDANCE SHEET DECLARES NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE SAME ISSUE, AND HE PUBLICLY STATED HE DID NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO DISCLOSE
[02:05:01]
THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS, IS MR. TANA GUCCI'S INTEREST AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND A BOARD MEMBER OF ZILKER 3 51 REMOTE AND INCIDENTAL, OR COULD IT BE SUBSTANTIAL CITY CODE TWO DASH 7 63 A STATES, A CITY OFFICIAL MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE ON A MATTER AFFECTING A NATURAL PERSON, ENTITY, OR PROPERTY IN WHICH THAT OFFICIAL HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST ACCORDING TO PAR GUIDELINES.ON PARTNERSHIP CONFIGURATIONS PARTNERSHIP, A APPLIES TO NON-PROFIT PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS THAT COMBINE THE ASSETS OF THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS TO BUILD, RENOVATE, MAINTAIN, AND PROGRAM PARKS PARTNERSHIP.
A CRITERIA REQUIRES AN ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW THAT INCLUDES AN ALIGNMENT WITH CITY, WITH COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2 0 2 0 1, 2 0 4 0 5 DASH OH FIVE TWO PARK MASTER PLANNING RESOLUTION, THE EXISTENCE OF A MASTER PLAN, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN, VISIONING PLAN, INTERPRETIVE PLAN, OR SIMILAR PLANNING DOCUMENT.
THE DOCUMENT MUST EXIST IN ORDER TO BEGIN THE FORMAL PARTNERSHIP REVIEW PROCESS.
IN THE CASE AT HAND, THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN IS THE DOCUMENT THAT MUST EXIST FOR THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT ZILKER 3 51 TO EMBARK ON A REVIEW PROCESS TO ACHIEVE PARTNERSHIP, A STATUS CRITERIA FOR A PARTNERSHIP A SUCH AS ZILKER 3 51 IS PURSUING INCLUDES A MINIMUM SEVEN YEAR HISTORY OF COLLABORATION WITH PAR OR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS OF PROVEN PHILANTHROPIC FUNDRAISING RELATED TO SPECIFIC MASTER PLAN PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ITEMS, MAINTENANCE AND OR PROGRAM ACTIVATION.
IF PARTNERSHIP A STATUS IS ACHIEVED, NONPROFIT PARTNERS ARE GIVEN EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO FUNDRAISE FOR NAMED PARK SPACE, INCLUDING ONSITE SIGNAGE RECOGNITION AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PROMOTE THE PARK.
THEY MAY INDEPENDENTLY LEAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
THEY HAVE SIGNAGE, BRANDING OPPORTUNITIES, AND ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE EARNED REVENUE THROUGH OPERATING AND ADMINISTERING CONCESSIONS, PROGRAMMING, SPECIAL EVENTS, AND OTHER R AND OTHER REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES.
CITY CODE TWO DASH 7 63, SUBSECTION B STATES A CITY OFFICIAL WHO SERVES AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A NONPROFIT ENTITY MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE OR DECISION REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY FOR, FOR THE ENTITY.
THE VISION, THE VISION PLAN DOCUMENT MR. MRAG GUCCI VOTED TO RECOMMEND MUST EXIST IN ORDER FOR THE NONPROFIT MRAG.
GUCCI REPRESENTS TO BE ALLOWED TO EMBARK ON THE PATH TOWARDS FUNDRAISING, LEADING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND, AND GENERATING REVENUE THROUGH PROGRAMMING AND SPECIAL EVENTS.
THIS IS WHY MR. TANA GUCCI RECUSED HIMSELF WHEN THIS FIRST CAME TO THE DESIGN COMMISSION ON MARCH 27TH, HIS INTEREST IN THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN AND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS IT CONTAINS IS INDEED CONFLICTED.
AS A BOARD MEMBER OF ZILKER 3 51 STATE STATUTES REGULATING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR OFFICERS OF MUNICIPALITIES AND CITIES.
SECTION 1 71 0 0 9 STATES, IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR A LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS WHEN SUCH OFFICIALS RECEIVE NO COMPENSATION OR OTHER REMUNERATION FROM THE NONPROFIT CORPORATION OR OTHER NONPROFIT ENTITY.
THUS, BEING ON THE BOARD OF A NONPROFIT WOULD NOT.
HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS AND BOOKS OF ZILKER 3 51, WHAT MONEY IS COMING IN AND WHERE IT'S GOING.
THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
I BELIEVE THAT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF ZILKER 3 51, MR. TANA GUCCI SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE DESIGN COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF THE VISION PLAN TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
HE DECLINED TO DO SO AND THEN WENT EVEN FURTHER SENDING LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF THE PARKS BOARD PRIOR TO THEIR VOTE ON MAY 20TH THAT READ.
IN PART, ASIDE FROM BEING A BOARD MEMBER OF ZILKER 3 51, A NEW NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION CREATED TO HELP STEWARD ZILKER ZILKER PARK, I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE ZILKER METROPOLITAN PARK VISION PLAN ON SEVERAL OTHER FRONTS.
HE GOES ON TO ADVANCE THE PROJECTS FAVORED BY THE COLLECTIVE MEMBER ORGANIZATION, ZILKER BOTANICAL GARDEN CONSERVANCY, OF WHICH HE IS A FOUNDING MEMBER, AND GOES ON AT LENGTH ABOUT THE VIRTUES OF PARKING GARAGES, STATING, AS AN ARCHITECT URBAN PLANNER, I HAPPEN TO HAVE EXPERTISE IN PARKING FACILITIES, WHICH I SHARED AT THE RECENT DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING.
HE ENDS BY SAYING, PLEASE JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING THE ZILKER METROPOLITAN PARK VISION PLAN.
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST MRAG GUCCI HAS IN THIS MATTER, RELATE TO THE PROSPECTIVE BENEFIT TO THE ORGANIZATION.
HE REPRESENTS ZILKER 3 51, WHICH REQUIRES THE EXISTENCE OF A VISION PLANNING DOCUMENT.
WITHOUT THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN, THEY HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE EARNED REVENUE THROUGH CITY CONTRACTS.
THIS MAKES MR. TANA GUCCI'S INTEREST IN THE ZOLA PARK VISION PLAN DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THIS MATTER SHOULD GO TO A FULL HEARING SO THAT WITNESSES MAY BE CALLED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH TO MR. TANA GUCCI'S
[02:10:01]
PARTICIPATION IN THE COLLECTIVE, SPECIFICALLY LAURA MASSEL AND THE PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT CLAIRE HEMPLE SHOULD TESTIFY UNDER OATH TO MR. TANA GUCCI'S LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN ADVOCATING FOR ASPECTS OF THE VISION PLAN DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD.I AM PREPARED TO ENTER INTO EVIDENCE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9TH, 2023 ZILKER 3 51 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FOR WHICH MR. TANIGUCHI IS LISTED AS AN IN ATTENDANCE, WHICH STATES, IN GENERAL TERMS, THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE LIKELY FUNCTIONS OF ZILKER 3 51, SUCH AS CREATING COMMUNITY AMONG ZILKER PARK GROUPS AND PARK USERS, FUNDRAISING FOR VISION PLAN ELEMENTS AND CENTRALIZING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE ZOLA PARK COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP ORGANIZATIONS, AND PART.
FOR NOW, THERE IS NO PLAN OR INTENTION TO ASSUME PARK MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.
THIS FOR NOW, IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT LATER THEY DO INTEND TO ASSUME PARK MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.
MR. TANA GUCCI SHOULD NOT HAVE USED HIS POSITION ON THE DESIGN COMMISSION TO ARGUE FOR ELEMENTS IN THE ZUCKER PARK VISION PLAN, NOR SHOULD HE HAVE VOTED TO RECOMMEND IT.
HIS INTEREST IN THE PASSAGE OF THE VISION PLAN FOR ZUCKER PARK IS OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST TO THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION HE RE REPRESENTS.
AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH 7 63, SUBSECTION B AND SEC SECTION TWO DASH 7 64 SUBSECTIONS A AND B MAY HAVE OCCURRED FURTHER.
AS THERE ARE ONLY ONE MINUTE SIX MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS COMMITTEE PRESENT TONIGHT, I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU VOTE AND ALLOW THIS MATTER TO HEAR, RECEIVE A FULL HEARING BEFORE A FULLY SEATED BOARD.
UM, WE WILL PROCEED NEXT TO RESPONDENT AND YOU HAVE AN 11 MINUTE STATEMENT.
UM, MR. UH, TANA GUCCI, WE WILL, UH, PROVIDE, SINCE YOU ARE NOT HERE IN PERSON, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE US TO PROVIDE THE SAME KIND OF VERBAL WARNINGS ABOUT TWO MINUTES, ONE MINUTE? UH, NO.
THE TIMELINES, TIMELINE'S DONE.
IT'S ONLY GONNA TAKE ME ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MINUTES.
FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
WE'RE ADDRESSING THE COMPLAINT, RIGHT? THE COMPLAINT WAS VERY VAGUE.
IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY DETAIL AT ALL.
ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE COMING OUT WITH ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF THAT'S, THAT'S ACCUSING ME OF MY CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IF THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, YES, WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT DID NOT CONTAIN THAT INFORMATION.
SO WE ARE GOING ON WHAT THAT COMPLAINT ACTUALLY, UH, ACTUALLY SAID.
AND WHAT THAT COMPLAINT ACTUALLY SAID WAS THAT, YES, I AM A MEMBER OF ZUCKER 3 51.
AND IT'S TOTALLY FALSE WHEN THEY'RE SAYING IT'S, IT'S A, UM, PROSPECTIVE UNIFIED NONPROFIT BECAUSE IT IS NOT.
SO WE CANNOT TAKE THIS ANY FURTHER WHEN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT EVEN LEGITIMATE, YOU KNOW? AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND PEOPLE GETTING, UH, FIRED UP, YOU KNOW, EMOTIONALLY AND ALL, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY WHAT IT IS, UH, UH, JUST AS IT IS, LIKE OBJECTIVELY.
AND, AND YOU KNOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, I'VE BEEN SERVING ON THE DESIGN COMMISSION FOR 14 YEARS.
I'VE NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT BROUGHT ABOUT ME ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR ANY ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO STEP DOWN, UH, TWO WEEKS AGO BECAUSE MY, MY TERM LIMIT HAD EXPIRED.
SO I JUST WANNA PUT THAT OUT THERE, THAT I'M NOT OUT THERE AS SOME KIND OF AN EVIL PERSON THAT SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO MAKE ME OUT TO BE.
AND, AND I, I JUST WANT TO GO BY THE FACTS AND, AND BY THE LETTER THAT I SENT YOU ALL THE, THE, THE, THE, UH, THE NOTICE, SO THE, UM, THE, THE, UM, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING STATEMENT THAT I SENT TO Y'ALL, YOU KNOW, IF Y'ALL READ THAT, THAT'S KIND OF LIKE WHERE I AM.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
NOW WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT, UH, OR THE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER 10 YU THE COMPLAINANT IS ASKING, OR SHE MADE A STATEMENT TO REQUEST MAYBE POSSIBLY WAITING FOR AN EIGHT PERSON.
IS THAT POSSIBLE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO? UH, I'LL LET MS. RBY SPEAK TO IT.
I HAVE A THOUGHT, BUT I'LL LET HER PROVIDE.
SO CURRENTLY, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT, THERE ARE THREE VACANCIES.
IT'S AN 11 MEMBER BOARD, AND THERE ARE THREE VACANCIES ON THE BOARD.
UM, I AM NOT AWARE OF THE TIMING THAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE BOARD TO BE FULLY POPULATED, UM, BECAUSE THAT COMES FROM APPOINTMENTS FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
[02:15:02]
UM, THERE IS CURRENTLY, IN TERMS OF WHO'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOARD, THERE ARE EIGHT MEMBERS, SIX PRESENT HERE.ONE WHO HAS RECUSED FROM THIS MATTER, UH, AND ONE WHO IS ABSENT.
SO AT, AT BEST IN THE NEAR TERM, YOU'D BE ABLE TO GET A SEVEN MEMBER.
UM, SO YEAH, JUST TO TRY AND GIVE YOU THAT CONTEXT THERE.
UM, BUT I WILL NOTE THAT IN TERMS OF TIMING UNDER THE CODE UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN OF THE CODE, ONCE A COMPLAINT IS FILED, THEN THERE'S A CERTAIN SET OF DEADLINES THAT THE, UH, COMMISSION HAS TO MEET IN TERMS OF WHEN, UH, THE CHAIR HAS TO MAKE A JURISDICTIONAL DEADLINE.
UH, AND WHEN THE, UH, PRELIMINARY HEARING IS SCHEDULED, THERE'S A 60 DAY DEADLINE FOR THAT.
UM, YOU CAN HAVE PARTY AGREEMENT TO GO BEYOND OR A COMMISSION VOTE TO GO BEYOND THOSE DEADLINES.
SO I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THOSE DEADLINES ARE SET IN STONE, BUT AGAIN, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT AROUND THE MOVEMENT OF, UM, AND TIMING AROUND SOME OF THESE, THESE DEADLINES.
HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
UH, AND I WILL, UH, TO THAT POINT, UM, NOT SPEAKING ON WHY ANOTHER COMMISSIONER DECIDED TO RECUSE, UM, BUT, UH, I DO HAVE PLANS TO DISCUSS IN A VERY STRONGLY WORDED LETTER TO COUNSEL, THE NEED TO HAVE A FULLY STAFFED ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ISSUES OF POTENTIAL QUORUM LOSS, AND SO THAT WE HAVE AS MANY VOICES AT THE TABLE AS POSSIBLE.
UH, IT IS A TIME FOR US TO HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE PARTIES.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. GO AHEAD.
MR. UCCI, IN YOUR RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S COMPLAINT, UM, YOU SAID THAT YOU ARE A BOARD MEMBER OF ZHU 3 51, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS.
BUT THAT ZILKER 3 51 IS NOT THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE VISION PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS.
AND THAT IS BECAUSE THAT NONPROFIT DOES NOT EXIST YET, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, AS I STATED IN MY STATEMENT, YES, IT IS.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHETHER OR NOT ZILKER 3 51 INTENDS TO APPLY TO BE ONE OF THOSE INDIV, ONE OF THOSE NONPROFITS THAT DOES VIE FOR THAT, THAT OPPORTUNITY? I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S, UH, PERTINENT TO OUR DISCUSSION TODAY, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE IS, BUT WHEN I SIGNED ON AS A BOARD MEMBER, AND, UH, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I SIGNED ON AS A BOARD MEMBER IN JANUARY.
THEY INCORPORATED IN JUNE IN THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, WHATEVER IT IS, THE ORGANIZATION STARTED MAKING DECISIONS BACK THEN WHEN I CA WHEN I CAME ON BOARD IN JANUARY 12TH, I SIGNED UP THERE, I WAS A MEMBER.
AND THEN WHEN I WAS A DESIGN COMMISSIONER, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I HELD OFF ON MY RECUSAL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PUBLIC IN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED AT THE FIRST, UH, AT THE FIRST, UH, DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING, WHEN THE SEAL PROVISION WAS GONNA BE, UH, DISCUSSED.
MR. TUCCI, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF CLEAR IN MY LETTER IF I'M, I'M ACTUALLY READING YOUR, YOUR RESPONSE, AND AGAIN, MR. TANA GUCCI, IN YOUR RESPONSE IT SAYS, ZILKER 3 51 WILL LIKELY APPLY THROUGH THE CITY'S PARTNERSHIP PROCESS TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY AT ZER PARK.
BUT AGAIN, ZILKER 3 51 IS NOT THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT REFERENCED IN THE VISION PLAN.
AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE AWARE OF YOUR NONPROFIT'S ATTEMPTS TO PROFIT FROM THE VISION PLAN? OH,
WELL, I HAVE TO JUST SAY THAT I WOULD NEVER BE INVOLVED IN AN ORGANIZATION THAT WAS GONNA PROFIT FROM ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN ON THE DESIGN COMMISSION FOR 14 YEARS.
I ONLY HOPE TO OFFER MY EXPERTISE IN MY LONGTIME, UH, CITIZEN RE CITIZENRY HERE IN AUSTIN.
UH, THAT, THAT WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.
CAN WE REPLACE PROFIT WITH BENEFIT FROM THE VISION PLAN? DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION PLAN TO BENEFIT FROM THE VISION PLAN? NO, I DON'T THINK IT IS.
IT'S, IT'S ONLY GONNA BENEFIT FROM WHAT WE CAN ADD TO OUR PLANNING EXPERTISE AND OUR CARE AND LOVE FOR US.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I QUALIFIED THAT WELL ENOUGH.
LET ME, LET ME ASK A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS.
DOES YOUR, DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION PLAN TO GROW FROM THE VISION PLANT? WELL, APPARENTLY, YOU KNOW, ZILKER 3 51, WE WANT TO PROMOTE THE GROWTH OF THE ZILKER PARK FOR THE, FOR THE COMMUNITY
[02:20:01]
AS A METROPOLITAN PARK, AND NOT JUST KIND OF SOMETHING, A BACKYARD DEAL FOR WHOEVER ELSE WANTS TO HAVE THEIR OWN PLAN.BUT YET, YEAH, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA HOPEFULLY BENEFIT FROM THAT FOR THE BEST, FOR THE BEST OF AUSTIN, THOUGH.
I MEAN, NOT JUST, NOT FINANCIALLY OR, OR, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR OWN SELF, BUT IT'S FOR THE BEST OF THE CITY.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CHAIR.
UH, COMMISSIONERS OTHER QUESTION, COMMISSIONER LOGO AHEAD, MR. CHEUNG.
GUCCI, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, IN THE SECOND FULL PARAGRAPH, UM, OF YOUR, OF YOUR LETTER, REMEMBER TO US, UM, YOU TALK ABOUT THE OPINION OR THE MM-HMM.
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU STATED IN THIS SECOND FULL PARAGRAPH THAT, UM, AS THE FACTS YOU DESCRIBE THEM, RIGHT? UM, SO ARE THERE, I MEAN, DID MS. ADAMS STATE FACTS THAT SOMEHOW CHANGE WHAT YOU WOULD'VE ASKED HERE? CUZ I, I, PARDON ME IF I MISHEARD YOU AT THE VERY BEGINNING NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SHE STATED SOME FACTS HERE TODAY AT THE HEARING MM-HMM.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
THE COMPLAINT THAT SHE, SHE, SHE DISTRIBUTED FOR EVERYBODY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASSESSING ALL OF THIS HEARING ABOUT.
SO ANYTHING THAT COMES AFTER THAT TO ME IS NOT REALLY MM-HMM.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, DID YOU FEEL AT THAT, WELL, AT ONE POINT IN TIME YOU FELT MAYBE YOU DID NEED TO ACCUSE, RIGHT? AND THEN AFTER THAT YOU MADE A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL LEGAL OPINION, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WAS THE ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS DONE.
AND THEN AT THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING, YOU CHOSE NOT TO RECUSE.
IS IS THAT THE CORRECT TIMELINE? YES.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU KNEW AT THE TIME, AS WELL AS BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN MS. ADAMS COMPLAINT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE STILL TAKING THIS POSITION THAT, UM, YOU, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY BASIS TO RECUSE, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD, I MEAN, AFTER HAVING RUN IT, AFTER RUNNING IT BY WHOEVER YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD ASK ABOUT IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? CINDY VO LEGAL? YES.
THAT'S WHO, UH, THAT'S THE FIRST PERSON I WOULD GO ASK FIRST.
SECRETARY STAN, GO AHEAD AND THEN COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. GOOD EVENING.
MY QUESTION TO YOU, UM, SIR, IS CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CHOSE TO RECUSE THE FIRST TIME BUT NOT THE SECOND TIME? OH, IS THAT THE QUESTION? WELL, YES.
THE FIRST TIME I THINK IT'S STATED IN MY STATEMENT IS THAT THE FIRST TIME, UH, I WASN'T SURE IF, UH, SILK 3 51 WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED YET, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO PEOPLE THINK THAT I WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT I WAS TRYING TO HIDE IT, HIDE SOMETHING THAT I WAS ACTUALLY A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I, I FELT UNCOMFORTABLE THAT I MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE, FOR THAT, THAT THE BOARD WAS NOT FULLY ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY, AND I WAS KNOWN AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS.
WELL, AFTER, BETWEEN THE TIME THAT I, THAT, THAT I RECUSED MYSELF IN THE NEXT MEETING, WELL, IT WAS PUBLIC ANNOUNCED, AND THEN I FELT MORE COMFORTABLE THAT, HEY, PEOPLE KNOW THAT I'M INVOLVED WITH Z 3 51.
IT'S PUBLICLY UNKNOWN, AND THAT I DON'T MIND GOING OUT THERE, AND I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I HAD TO REFUSE MYSELF.
JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, MR. TAGUCHI.
SO, SO THE FIRST TIME, UM, UH, I THINK IT WAS VERY NOBLE.
[02:25:01]
THE FIRST TIME YOU, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE THE WRONG IMPRESSION OR YOU, UH, APPRECIATED THAT PERHAPS IT COULD, UM, COULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF IMPRO.WHY WOULD YOU NOT APPLY THE SAME LOGIC OR CARE THE SECOND TIME? WELL, WELL, BECAUSE I'VE GOT THE RESPONSE FROM C UH, CITY OF AUSTIN LEGAL, I ASKED THEM FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR, UH, WHATEVER IT WAS, THEIR, THEIR, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
SO I FIGURED AFTER C SO FOR 3 51 WAS ANNOUNCED AS A PUBLIC ENTITY, I FELT MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT DOING THAT, AND THAT WAS LIKE TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER, AND THAT'S WHY I WENT AHEAD AND, AND VOTED ON THAT SUBJECT AS A DESIGN COMMISSION MEMBER.
I, I HAVE A QUESTION AND THEN, UH, I SAW COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HAND, AND, UM, SO I WANT TO, UH, POINT TO HOW YOU QUOTED THE EMAIL RESPONSE YOU GOT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MM-HMM.
DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE FACTS WERE THAT YOU DESCRIBED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHEN YOU WERE ASKING FOR THAT OPINION? UH, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M LOOKING AT THAT MYSELF, AND I THINK HERE I'M LOOKING AT THE QUESTION ITSELF, AND IT WAS, UM, I AGREE THAT, WELL, I REQUESTED GUIDANCE FROM THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY, AND I WAS JUST ASKING, I, I DON'T SEE THE QUESTION I ACTUALLY PUT BEFORE THEM, BUT I, THE RESPONSE IS, I AGREE FROM ANNE ANNE, FROM THE ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE TEAM SAID, I AGREE THAT UNDER THE FACTS, YOU ARE, YOU DESCRIBED THEM, AND PER THE CITY CODE, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM ACTION ON THE ITEM.
HOWEVER, NOTE THAT EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO ACTUAL CONFLICT, IT SOMETIMES ADVISABLE TO RECUSE WHEN THE PUBLIC MAY PERCEIVE THERE IS OR COULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND THAT'S THE DECISION I HAD TO MAKE.
YOU KNOW, I, THEY, THEY DID ADVISE ME ON THAT, AND I HAD, THAT WAS THE DECISION I HAD TO MAKE, AND I FELT LIKE I WAS TOTALLY INNOCENT IN, IN DOING WHAT I WANTED TO DO AT THAT TIME.
AND I DID NOT RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE SECOND MEETING.
AND, AND I THINK, I THINK FOLLOWING COMMISSIONER LOWE'S QUESTION, WE KIND OF GOT THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS CLEAR AND, YOU KNOW, UH, SURE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, UM, DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE.
BUT WHAT I'M SPECIFICALLY ASKING IS WHAT FACTS DID YOU DESCRIBE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, UM, THAT LED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO THE CONCLUSION THEY GAVE YOU IN THAT EMAIL? BECAUSE, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY RESPONDED WITH WOULD DEPEND ON THE FACTS THAT YOU PRESENTED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY DID.
SO THE, SO THE QUESTION AGAIN IS, UH, DO YOU RECALL, DO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN FRONT OF YOU THE FACTS THAT YOU DESCRIBED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT LED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RENDER THAT OPINION? I AM LOOKING FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
AND WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT, UM, UH, I, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
UH, THE QUESTION FOR THE COMPLAINANT, UH, IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH, UH, AN EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A BOARD MEETING, UM, AND I WANTED YOU TO READ THAT AGAIN BECAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH IT THE FIRST TIME, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS IN THE COMPLAINT IF IT WAS, FEEL FREE TO POINT ME TO IT.
THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ZUCKER 3 51 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FROM FEBRUARY 9TH, 2023.
I'M JUST GONNA READ THE, UM, LAST PARAGRAPH.
IN GENERAL TERMS, THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE LIKELY FUNCTIONS OF ZILKER 3 51, SUCH AS CREATING COMMUNITY AMONG THE ZILKER PARK GROUPS AND PARK USERS, FUNDRAISING FOR VISION PLAN ELEMENTS AND CENTRALIZING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP ORGANIZATIONS AND THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT.
FOR NOW, THERE IS NO PLAN OR INTENTION TO ASSUME PARK MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.
[02:30:01]
I'M SORRY, MR. TANA GUCCI, UM, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND, OR YES, I DID.UH, MY REQUEST WAS I AM WRITING TO REQUEST GUIDANCE ON WHETHER THERE COULD BE A RECUSAL CONFLICT.
I CURRENTLY SERVE ON THE DESIGN COMMISSION, WHICH WILL BE REVIEWING THE DRAFT ZER PARK PROVISION PLAN AS PART OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION'S REVIEW THIS COMING MONDAY, MARCH THE 27TH.
THE REVIEW BY THE DESIGN COMMISSION WILL BE ON THE TECHNICAL MERITS OF THIS VISION PLAN, AND IT IS NOT CONSIDERING OR APPROVING RECOMMENDING FUNDING FOR THE VISION PLAN.
I ALSO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF A NONPROFIT, WHICH HAS A MISSION TO HONOR, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL TREASURES OF THE 3 51 ACRE ZILKER METROPOLITAN PARK FOR ALL THIS NONPROFIT IS NOT TAKING A POSITION ON THE MERITS OF THE VISION PLAN.
WHILE I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM OR CONFLICT UNDER THE CITY ETHICS RULES, SINCE THE REAL STATE THAT'S SERVING ON A BOARD OF A NONPROFIT DOES NOT CREATE A CONFLICT FOR A BOARD MEMBER, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR GUIDANCE ON THIS ISSUE, AND THEY WERE VERY HELPFUL.
I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, PULLING THAT UP JUST SO THAT WE HAD THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS ARE THERE, UH, OTHER, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, MS. ADAMS, YOU WERE READING, UH, SOME PROVISIONS FROM THE MEETING THAT YOU ATTENDED, AND I DIDN'T CATCH THEM ALL.
COULD YOU REREAD, YOU READ THEM FOR CHAIR SILVER ON, AND I WAS, SO I WAS NOT, I'M NOT A BOARD OF DIRECT, UH, A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ZILKER 3 51.
THIS, UM, HAS COME INTO MY POSSESSION, SO THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT I WOULD BE PRESENTING AT A FULL HEARING.
UM, SO IT SAYS, SO THE MINUTES OF THE ZILKER 3 51 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FROM FEBRUARY 9TH, 2023, IN WHICH EVAN TANA GUCCI IS LISTED AS PRESENT SAYS IN GENERAL TERMS. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT ALL IT SAYS, BUT THIS IS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH.
IN GENERAL TERMS, THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE LIKELY FUNCTIONS OF ZILKER 3 51, SUCH AS CREATING COMMUNITY AMONG THE ZILKER PARK GROUPS AND PARK USERS, FUNDRAISING FOR VISION PLAN ELEMENTS, AND CENTRALIZING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE ZILKER COLLECTIVE IMPACT WORKING GROUP ORGANIZATIONS AND THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT.
FOR NOW, THERE IS NO PLAN OR INTENTION TO ASSUME PARK MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS COMMISSIONERS.
UH, OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CASTO, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IN, IN YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENTS, WHEN YOU READ FOR NOW, YOU MEAN TO STATE THAT INCLUDING THE WORDS FOR NOW NECESSARILY INDICATES THAT IN THE FUTURE THEY DO INTEND TO DO THAT? YES, MA'AM.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMSON, THEN.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? SECRETARY? OKAY.
WILLIAMS STANTON, MRAG GCI, DOES ZUKI 3 51 SEAT TO INFLUENCE WHO THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT IN THE VISION PLAN WILL BE? NO, NOT AT ALL.
I THINK MY, UH, I THINK MY NOTICE, MY STATEMENT MADE THAT VERY CLEAR, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ME IS TOTALLY FALSE.
THERE'S, THERE'S NO PLANS OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT THEY'RE INSINUATED IN THAT COMPLAINT.
I JUST WANNA REPEAT THE QUESTION.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ATTEMPTS BY ZILKER 3 51 TO INFLUENCE WHO THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT THAT IS PART OF THE VISION PLAN WILL BE? NO, THERE ARE NONE.
SECRETARY STANTON, GO AHEAD, MR. TENCHI.
UM, I'M TRYING TO, HE, COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR STANCE ON THE TERM UMBRELLA, SINCE IT SEEMS TO POP UP AS A POINT OF PERHAPS DISAGREEMENT? UM, IN ONE STATEMENT, YOU SAY, WHILE THE VISION PLAN INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY TO PARTNER WITH A UNIFIED, UH, AND IT'S, THIS IS IN QUOTES, UNIFIED OR UMBRELLA, ZILKER PARK NONPROFIT IN THE FUTURE,
[02:35:02]
SUCH A NONPROFIT ENTITY HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED OR SELECTED BY THE CITY AT THIS TIME.AND THEN IN ANOTHER SENTENCE LATER ON, UM, SEEMS THAT YOU'RE CONTESTING THE, THE USE OF THE WORD UMBRELLA.
ON THIS POINT, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, ZILKER 3 51, BUT ZILKER 3 51 IS NOT NONPROFIT THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE VISION PLAN.
UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR, IS DID THE TERM UMBRELLA NONPROFIT COME FROM THE VISION PLAN ITSELF? UH, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UH, LIKE I SAID, THE, UH, ZIPPER 3 51 WAS ORGANIZED AS A NONPROFIT BACK IN JUNE.
I BECAME A MEMBER IN, IN JANUARY ON, ON JANUARY THE 12TH.
I WASN'T SURE ABOUT THE PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION UNTIL BEFORE OUR, OUR DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING.
SO I CAN'T TELL YOU A LOT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THAT.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY HISTORY OF NONPROFITS AND P THREE ORGANIZATIONS, YOU KNOW, I WAS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE ZILKER BOTANICAL GARDEN STUFF.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME KIND OF, UH, PUBLIC PARTNER, UH, RELATIONSHIP.
YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW, IF, IF ANY, ANYBODY ELSE AGREES WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S, I'M A PROPONENT AND KIND OF AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW WE CAN GET THAT TOGETHER, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THE CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CANNOT AFFORD TO KINDA LIKE RUN THE OP OPERA EVERYDAY OPERATIONS OF ZILKER, BOTANICAL OF ZILKER PARK.
AND I'M JUST HOPING TO DO WHATEVER I CAN TO HELP MAKE THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE, UH, UH, EFFORT THAT WE CAN.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION,
BUT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THE, ON THE COMMISSION AND, AND YOUR PASSION, UM, FOR, FOR OUR CITY.
I, I'M TRYING, I'M TRYING TO, TO RECONCILE BECAUSE YOU THE INTENT OF THE TWO SENTENCES, WHICH SEEM TO CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU STAND ON THAT.
I, IS IT THAT, DO YOU DISAGREE? IT SEEMS LIKE YOU DISAGREE THAT Z 3 51 IS THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT, BUT STATE THAT THAT IS, BUT YOU QUOTE FROM, FROM THE VISION PLAN, AND IN THAT QUOTE, IT USES THE TERM UMBRELLA.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M BEING VERY NITPICKY WITH THE TERMIN TERMINOLOGY.
SO, ARE YOU DISAGREEING THAT 3 51 ZK 3 51 IS THE UMBRELLA NON, UH, PROFIT? ARE YOU DISAGREEING WITH THAT TERMINOLOGY EVEN THOUGH IT'S, IT WAS USED IN THE PLAN ITSELF? YES.
YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT GETTING INTO THE, INTO THE WEEDS.
YOU KNOW, I, I, I FEEL LIKE WE DO NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF AN UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION, WHETHER THERE'S ZER 3 51, I'M NOT REALLY, UH, VERSED IN THE VISION PLAN TO THAT RESPECT.
UH, ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS WHEN I JOINED ZER 3 51, I WAS JUST OUT THERE TO GIVE THEM MY COM, KIND OF GIVE THEM MY EXPERTISE OF WHERE WE SHOULD GO FORWARD.
I'M NOT A REAL THREE, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AN EXPERT, EXCEPT I ACTUALLY HELPED THE ZER BOTANICAL GARDENS.
SO I FELT LIKE I HAVE SOME EXPERTISE THERE, BUT I'VE ONLY BEEN ON THIS BOARD SINCE JANUARY 12TH, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, AND NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STUCK IN ALL THIS KIND OF THIS, ALL THIS POLITICAL STUFF.
SO, YEAH, I COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION LATER.
RU RIGHT NOW, I, THERE'S NO SELFISH REASON THAT, UH, I AM TRYING TO PROMOTE Z 3 51.
ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAVE? UM, I HAVE A, I I HAVE, I GUESS ONE QUESTION, UH, WHICH IS TO KIND OF GO BACK TO THE DEFINITIONS, UM, UPON WHICH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST VIOLATION RELY, UM, AND NAMELY AFFECTED.
UM, AND, UH, I WANT TO GO BACK TO, UH, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 21 WHERE
[02:40:01]
THE DEFINITION SAYS THE FOLLOWING, IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON, ENTITY, OR PROPERTY IS, OR WAS AFFECTED BY A VOTE OR DECISION, IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE, ACTUAL EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE OF AN ECONOMIC EFFECTOR CONSEQUENCE IF SUCH EFFECTOR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR.AND I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THEN THE RESPONDENT ABOUT, UH, WHAT, UH, WHAT ECONOMIC OR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION OR VOTE THAT THE RESPONDENT TOOK.
THE RESPONDENT, UM, SPOKE ON BEHALF OF ELEMENTS OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN THAT WERE ADVANCED BY THE COLLECTIVE.
SO, UM, MR. TANA GUCCI INFORMALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE COLLECTIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ZILKER, UM, BOTANICAL GARDENS.
THEY DESPERATELY WANT PARKING GARAGES.
UM, AND SO THEN HE VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE VISION PLAN.
SO HE ARGUED ON THE BOARD, ON THE COMMISSION, FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE ZILKER PARK, YOU KNOW, VISION PLAN, AND THEN HE VOTED TO RECOMMEND IT TO COUNCIL.
SO, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT IF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN IS NOT ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, THEN THERE WILL BE NO UMBRELLA NONPROFIT, BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT MUST EXIST IN ORDER FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR A NONPROFIT TO BEGIN.
SO THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN HAS TO PASS COUNCIL, IT HAS TO PASS THROUGH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE NONPROFIT THAT WANTS TO BE THE PARK PARTNER FOR THAT PARK, WE CAN'T HAVE THEM SITTING ON COMMISSIONS VOTING TO RECOMMEND THE PASSAGE OF THE PLANS THAT ENABLE THEM TO DO THAT.
SO IF THE VISION PLAN DOES NOT EXIST, THEN AN UNMODIFIED UNPRO NON-PROFIT FOR ZILKER PARK CANNOT EXIST.
THE DOCUMENT MUST EXIST FOR THE REV REVIEW REVIEW PROCESS TO BEGIN.
SO IF THE ZER PARK VISION PLAN IS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, THEN THEY WILL BEGIN A REVIEW PROCESS FOR A UNIFIED NONPROFIT.
SO, ZILKER 3 51 HAS MADE ABSOLUTELY NO, UH, NO BONES ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY WANNA BE THAT NONPROFIT LIKE IT'S THEM.
OKAY? LIKE THEY'RE THE ONES, UM, THEY HAVE PUSHED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL BE INCENTIVIZED FOR COMMERCIALIZATION IN THE PARK.
SO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN TO WATERLOO PARK, BUT THEY HAVE A UNIFIED NONPROFIT.
THEY HAD A VISION PLANNING PROCESS.
SO ONCE THEY, THEY HAD A VISION PLAN, THEN THIS NONPROFIT WAS ABLE TO BEGIN THE REVIEW PROCESS.
SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT IN WATERLOO PARK IS NOW MAINTAINED, OPERATED BY THE WATERLOO GREENWAY, AND THEY ARE ALLOWED TO REALIZE THE REVENUE FROM OPERATING THOSE FACILITIES, THE, THE, THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO THIS IS THE SAME THING, OKAY? THIS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS ADVOCATED FOR BY THESE COLLECTIVE MEMBERS IS IF IT IS BUILT IN ZER PARK AND THIS UNIFIED NONPROFIT BECOMES THE LEVEL A PARTNER, THEN THEY WILL BE ABLE TO, IT WILL BE A VAST MONEY MAKING OPERATION.
CAN, UH, BEFORE, BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO RESPONDENT, TO SORT OF ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION, I GUESS, UH, IN THE INVERSE, SINCE YOU ARE THE RESPONDENT, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON WITH ONE QUESTION FOR THE COMPLAINANT, WHICH IS, COULD YOU, UH, TELL ME WHAT KINDS OF ACTIONS ARE TAKEN BY THE CITY IN THE PROCESS TO BECOME, UH, THE, THE PARTNERSHIP? SO, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD IT GO AGAIN BEFORE A BOARD OR COMMISSION? WOULD IT GO THROUGH COUNCIL TO DESIGNATE THIS IS THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT THAT WILL BE THE PARTNER FOR THIS PART? SO THE VISION PLAN SAYS THIS IS A ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, ACTUALLY, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDING, BUT TO INSTALL A UNIFIED NONPROFIT FOR ZER PARK.
SO WE REALLY DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD GO UP FOR AN RFP, LIKE WHERE IT COULD BE BID OUT.
IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT'S NOT STATED IN THE VISION PLAN.
IT JUST SAYS THIS IS A, AN IDENTIFIED NEED THAT WE ARE ASKING
[02:45:01]
COUNSEL TO APPROVE THAT THERE WILL BE A UNIFIED NONPROFIT FOR ZILKER PARK.SO, UM, IT'S TRUE THAT ZILKER 3 51 IS NOT THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT FOR ZILKER PARK, AND THEY, THEY COULDN'T BE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A VISION PLAN FOR PARK.
UH, MR. UH, TANA GUCCI, A SIMILAR QUESTION IS, UH, TO SIMPLY, I'M GOING BACK ON THE DEFINITION OF AFFECTED FOR PURPOSES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
UM, AND THE QUESTION IS ON THE, UH, UH, POTENTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE THAT COULD BE EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SUCH ECONOMIC EFFECT COULD EXIST OR OCCUR? FOR ME, PERSONALLY, I MEAN, THAT'S WHY WE'RE SITTING HERE.
I MEAN, I, I, I ARGUE THE, I I ARGUED THAT THE, UH, ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS NOT LEGITIMATE.
AND I THINK SHE JUST ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS ABOUT ME, THAT'S ONE THING.
IF IT'S ONE THING ABOUT ZER 3 51, IT'S ANOTHER THING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I, I SERVE ON ALL THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
I'M A SUCCESSFUL ARCHITECT, OR I, I DON'T NEED TO GET ANYTHING FROM ANY OF THIS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO DO WHAT THE BEST FOR AUSTIN IS.
BUT I THINK SHE ANSWERED THE QUESTION RIGHT THERE IS, THIS COMPLAINT IS NOT AGAINST ME NECESSARILY, OR ANYTHING ETHICAL.
IT'S KIND OF LIKE AGAINST THE WHOLE MOVEMENT OF, UH, ZER 3 51.
AND I KIND OF LIKE RESENT THAT.
AND I'M HERE TO DEFEND MYSELF, AND I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG.
I'M NOT GETTING ANY FINANCIAL BENEFIT OUT OUT OF THIS.
I HAVE NOT, I HAVE NOT, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY RULES OR CODE OF ETHICS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I RAN IT BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN LEGAL DEPARTMENT BEFORE I MADE MY DECISION.
SO I'M VERY COMFORTABLE OF WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CASTO, JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THE ZILKER THREE 50 ONE'S INTEREST IN BECOMING THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT, YOU SAID IT'S, IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE AN R F P OR SOME OTHER SELECTION PROCESS.
SO IF THE VISION PLAN IS ADOPTED, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE WILL BE A UNIFIED NONPROFIT THAT IS NOT ZILKER 3 51? I DO NOT KNOW.
THAT, OH, WHO, WHO'S THAT QUESTION NAME TOWARDS ME? UH, IF YOU WANT IT.
UH, LET'S, LET'S JUST GO ONE AT A TIME.
COMPLAINANT FIRST, THEN RESPONDENT.
THE VISION PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFY RESPONDENT.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T, UH, IT DOESN'T, UH, SPECIFY ANYTHING IN ALL.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE, UH, THAT'S PART OF THE ARGUMENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET OVER RESOLVED TONIGHT.
SO IT COULD BE ANYBODY, OR IT COULD BE ZILKER 3 51, WE JUST DON'T KNOW, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT FOR ME? BOTH.
I WOULD SAY, I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT THE CITY OF BOSTON, YOU KNOW, THIS IS IMY.
WE, WE JUST CAN'T, UH, SO SOURCE A, UH, A, A DISTRIBUTOR OR A SUPPORTER, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.
SO WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO, IF THREE Z OR 3 51 WANTS TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT RACE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO AFTER EVERYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO BE INTERESTED, THAT'S INTERESTED IN THIS.
ALSO, WE DON'T THINK IT'S A SLAM DUNK, AND WE NOT, WE'RE NOT EVEN, WE DIDN'T EVEN ORGANIZE OUR, OUR NON-PROFIT FOR THAT, UH, FOR THAT GOAL.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE BEST FOR ZIL PARK.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
MAY I ALSO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OH, YES.
UM, SO IF THE VISION PLAN IS ADOPTED, THEN IT WOULD BE AN OPEN QUESTION.
IF THERE, IF THE CONTRACT TO BE THE STEWARD OF ZUCKER PARK, UM, WOULD GO, YOU KNOW, WOULD IT BE A CONTRACT OR WOULD IT, COULD IT JUST BE GIVEN OR APPOINTED? UM, THAT IS NOT KNOWN, THAT IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE VISION PLAN.
BUT ZILKER 3 51 IS POSITIONING ITSELF TO BE THAT ORGANIZATION.
THEY ARE A UMBRELLA NONPROFIT OF THE NONPROFITS THAT OPERATE IN ZER PARK.
[02:50:02]
IN MR. TANA GUCCI'S LETTER THAT HE SENT TO THE PARKS BOARD, HE BEGINS BY SAYING, ASIDE FROM BEING A BOARD MEMBER OF ZILKER 3 51, A NEW NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION CREATED TO HELP STEWARD ZILKER PARK.SO THEY WERE CREATED TO BE THAT, UM, THAT IS, THAT IS WHY I DON'T LIKE IT, THAT HE'S SITTING ON A BOARD, UM, APPROVE, YOU KNOW, ARGUING FOR THE VISION PLAN.
CAN I RESPOND? UH, NOT AT THIS TIME.
UM, I'LL LET, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS ASK HIS QUESTION.
UM, MR. TANNER, GUCCI, YOU USE THE TERM SLAM DUNK FIVE, MAYBE FIVE SECONDS AGO WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT ZAR 3 51 THOUGHT THAT THERE WOULD BE THIS UNIFIED NONPROFIT REFERENCED IN THE VISION PLAN, CORRECT? WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF I MEANT SLAM DUNK AS FAR AS GET GETTING, UH, SELECTED AS THE UNIFIED GROUP, BUT I, I'M SAYING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH SOMEBODY.
BUT MY, MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT ZILKER 3 51 WOULD LIKE TO BE THAT UNIFIED NONPROFIT OH, ABS, ABSOLUTELY.
BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF SO MANY GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN, IN THESE EFFORTS UP TO NOW.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR STAKEHOLDER GROUP IS AWESOME, AND I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF, UH, MOMENTUM MOVING FORWARD.
AND I THINK IT'S IN THE POSITIVE WAY, AND I HOPE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THAT WAY.
BUT I, IF I SAID SLAM DUNK, I, I DID I HAVE TO RETRACT THAT STATEMENT.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, COMMISSIONER LOW.
YEAH, THIS QUESTION'S FROM MS. ADAMS. UM, YOU HAD JUST ANALOGIZED TO THE WATERLOO GREENWAY.
SO THERE WAS A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR THAT, RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING THAT ANYONE WHO HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THAT, OR ANYONE WHO WOULD'VE BEEN, I, I, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT TERM YOU USED, BUT YOU WERE SAYING THERE WAS A GREAT FINANCIAL BENEFIT IN THE VERY END FOR WHOEVER GOT, UM, THAT THAT POSITION.
SO ARE YOU SAYING ANYONE WHO WOULD'VE HAD ANY, UM, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL BENEFIT FROM THAT WATERLOO GREENWAY WOULD, WOULD BE THEN CONNECTED TO, UM, WHATEVER GROUP WAS, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE SAYING A GROUP, SOME KIND OF NON-PROFIT WAS INVOLVED IN THAT WATERLOO GREENWAY, WHICH IS NOW A COMPLETED PROJECT, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
SO ARE YOU TRACING BACK ALL OF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST? I MEAN, WHO, WHO ARE YOU SUGGESTING ARE THE PEOPLE WITHIN THAT NONPROFIT WHO HAVE THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT? I'M TRYING TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS HAS HAPPENED.
SO THERE WAS A VISION PLAN FOR WATERLOO PARK MM-HMM.
AND THEY UNIFIED, OR THEY BECAME A NONPROFIT THAT IS OVER WATERLOO PARK.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR WEBSITE, THEY HAVE A VERY LARGE PROFESSIONAL STAFF.
THEY DO FUNDRAISING, UM, CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
UM, BUT THEY ARE ALSO THE HOME OF THE MOODY AMPHITHEATER.
AND THAT IS A VENUE THAT HAS PRIVATE EVENTS ALL THE TIME.
THEY ARE, WELL, THEY SELL OTHER BEVERAGES TOO, BUT THEY'RE, THEY SELL CONCESSIONS.
SO BECAUSE THEY'RE, UM, THE LEVEL OF PARTNERSHIP THAT THEY ARE, THE LEVEL A, UM, THEY'RE ABLE TO HAVE THIS REALIZED REVENUE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN EXISTING NONPROFIT THAT, UH, I HAVE NO IDEA.
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY'RE MAKING OFF OF THAT.
SO ARE YOU SAYING ALL BOARD MEMBERS, BY VIRTUE OF BEING BOARD MEMBERS,
[02:55:01]
ARE THEREBY DERIVING SOME FINANCIAL BENEFIT? I'M SAYING THAT ORGANIZATION WOULD CAUSE A CONFLICT ORGANIZATION MM-HMM.AND WHETHER OR NOT MR. TANA GUCCI EVER PERSONALLY ENRICHES HIM WITHOUT, EXCUSE ME, IS IMMATERIAL THIS WE HAVE, WE HAVE PEOPLE SITTING ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHO ARE REPRESENTING ORGANIZATIONS THAT STAND TO GAIN FINANCIALLY FROM THEIR VOTES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? THIS IS LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS GOING ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES.
ALRIGHT, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS COMMISSIONERS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
COMMISSIONER LOWE, I MOVE TO FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS.
UH, IT WAS A MOTION TO FIND THAT REASONABLE.
I'M GONNA RESTATE IT, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE IT CORRECT.
IT'S A MOTION TO FIND THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
UM, WE'LL TAKE SECONDS IF ANYONE HAS THEM.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER 10, YUCA.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
I ASK FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES CAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS SURE.
COULD YOU PUT YOUR MICROPHONE ON AND JUST SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? SO I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR TO CONSIDER A COUPLE OF MINUTES FOR SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO SEEM TO BE MID-THOUGHT BEFORE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION.
UH, I'M GOING TO, I'M GONNA ASK PROCEDURALLY, UM, IF IT IS OKAY TO BRIEFLY RECESS IN THE MIDDLE OF A MOTION.
I WOULD HATE TO DO THAT IF THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
OR WE CAN SIMPLY PAUSE FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES, JUST PAUSE FOR A FEW MINUTES TO REFLECT AND LOOK AT OUR NOTES.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT? THAT'S CORRECT HERE.
UM, THEN WE CAN PAUSE AND HOLD THAT PAUSE FOR ABOUT, UH, TWO MINUTES.
IN THE MEANTIME, COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION, FEEL FREE TO INTERRUPT THAT PAUSE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GIVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION, UH, ABOUT DEFINITION OR WAS THAT TIME, SHOULD WE HAVE CONSULT THAT DURING THE EXECUTIVE? WELL, WE CAN, UH, UH, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE CODE.
THE DEFINITION AS IT APPLIES TO NONPROFIT.
I'M SURE BECAUSE OF THE TIMING, MY BRAIN IS JUST KIND OF GETTING FRIED AND I WANT TO, I WANT TO MAKE THE BEST DECISION, AND I'M JUST GETTING A LITTLE BIT SCRAMBLED ABOUT.
UM, NO, I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND, UH, THAT IS, UM, HOW DO I DO THAT? I, I DON'T, CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ASKING IT FOR TRANS.
I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT, UM, TO GET, TO GET THE TRANSPARENT LEGAL ADVICE FROM COUNSEL, WE WOULD HAVE TO BRIEFLY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DO THAT.
UM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK IT AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT IF YOU WANT.
COULD, COULD I, COULD I PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF ASKING OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND MAYBE THAT'S SURE.
AND OUR, OUR THOUGHTS, IT IS OUR JOB TO INTERPRET THE CODE.
SO IN THAT RESPECT, HAPPY TO, IF WE HAVE THOUGHTS TO SHARE, WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THEM.
UM, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I'M, I'M GETTING A LITTLE BIT, UH, BECOMING UNCLEAR ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AS IT PERTAINS TO BEING A, UM, BOARD MEMBER FOR A NONPROFIT.
AND I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A DISTINCTION HERE.
SO I'M LOOKING ON PAGE SIX, NUMBER
[03:00:01]
12, SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS, AND IT SAYS HERE, SECRETARY STANTON.WHILE YOU DO THAT, UM, YOU CONTINUE WITH YOUR QUESTION.
I'M GOING TO, UH, TURN THE MEETING TO YOU BRIEFLY WHILE I STEP OUT FOR JUST A MOMENT, IF THAT'S OKAY.
SO COMMISSIONERS, I'M READING THE CLAUSE THAT, UM, AFTER THE SEMI, THE PERSON SERVES AS A CORPORATE OFFICER OR MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR OTHER GOVERNING BOARD OF THE, OKAY.
THAT SAYS FOR PROFIT 3 51 IS A NONPROFIT.
AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS A NONPROFIT.
I'M HAPPY TO DIRECT YOU TO WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT, UH, THANK YOU.
THE COMPONENT THAT DEALS WITH NONPROFITS, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT IN THE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.
YOU HAVE TO GO TO 27 63 B FOR, UH, WHOOP, AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? 60 B FOR THE WHERE NONPROFIT, UH, BOARD MEMBERSHIP IS.
SO COMMISSIONERS IS THE OPERATIVE, UM, CRITERION HERE FOR B, IS IT THE DECISION VOTE OR DECISION REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY FOR THE ENTITY THAT IS PERTINENT OR RE RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINT? YEAH, I THINK SO.
BUT, UM, REGARDING FUNDING IS NOT QUITE THE SAME AS EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS SOMEWHERE MM-HMM.
AND I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I'M SO SORRY.
UH, OUR STAFF LIAISON VERY APTLY, UH, POINTED OUT THAT WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A COURTROOM RIGHT NOW, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAUSE DISCO.
TO MY NON GERMAINE POINT ABOUT TELLING COUNCIL HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THEY FILL THEIR VACANCIES, SPECIFICALLY TALKING TO, UM, MM-HMM.
I APOLOGIZE FOR TEMPORARILY BREAKING QUORUM.
UM, SO PROCEED WITH, UH, WHATEVER QUESTION DISCUSSION WAS HAPPENING AS IF I NEVER LEFT.
UM, LOOKING AT PAGE SEVEN, UH, B IT'S THE NOT, MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE OR DECISION REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY FOR THE ENTITY.
AND I THINK THIS IS WHERE, UM, I'M TRYING TO GET SOME CLARITY, WRAP MY BRAINS AROUND THE, REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY, RIGHT.
FOR THE ENTITY, BECAUSE I, I SEE THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY POTENTIAL BENEFIT, RIGHT? FINANCIAL OR, OR, UM, ECONOMIC BENEFIT.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, DO WE HAVE ANY GUIDELINES AROUND THIS REGARDING FUNDING? IT'S JUST SUCH A, I, UH, I SHARE YOUR FRUSTRATION WITH THAT SPECIFIC POINT MM-HMM.
UM, WHERE TO KNOW THAT, WHERE, WHERE I AM STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW IS, UH, BECAUSE IT'S, IT SEEMS, UM, I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED IF THERE WAS NO FURTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION ACTION ON THE ZER VISION PLAN.
UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS, THAT WHAT WE'VE HAD SO FAR IS ESSENTIALLY THE STAMP ON WHETHER OR NOT THE DOOR IS OPEN FOR FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIPS AND
[03:05:01]
CONTRACTS.UM, WHICH IS, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE REASONS I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ELSE GOES INTO ESTABLISHING A PARTNERSHIP WITH ONE OF THESE RECOGNIZED UNIFORM UMBRELLA NONPROFITS, WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING THEM MM-HMM.
UM, BECAUSE IF IT IS THE CASE THAT, UH, THE DECISIONS TAKEN THUS FAR IN THE DECISIONS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE MADE BY, UH, COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS ARE THE FINAL, UH, STAMPS THAT OPEN THE DOOR THEN TO FUNDING.
AND IT, IT SEEMS A LITTLE MORE CONNECTED TO WHAT HAS JUST HAPPENED IN THESE RECENT BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEETINGS.
UM, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK FUNDING SHOULD BE SO NARROWLY INTERPRETED AS TO MEAN, UH, THAT THIS DECISION IS ALLOCATING DOLLAR AMOUNTS.
BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT IT TO BE SO BROAD AS TO BE, UH, ANY DECISION THAT COULD POTENTIALLY, HYPOTHETICALLY IN THE FUTURE REALIZE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT, UM, IN THE FORM OF CITY DOLLARS OR OTHER ECONOMIC, UM, POSSIBLE BENEFITS.
BUT THAT'S WHERE TO DRAW THAT LINE IS WHERE I'M CURRENTLY STRUGGLING.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE PAUSE,
I SAW COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HAND SHOOT UP.
SO, SO GO AHEAD, CHAIR SILVER ON, I I JUST KIND OF WANNA POINT BACK TO SOME OF MR. TANA GUCCI'S COMMENTARY THAT WE HAD DURING THIS, DURING THE QUESTIONS, WHICH IS, ZIPPER 3 51 WANTS TO BE THIS NONPROFIT.
THEY WANT TO CONTROL MAINTENANCE, THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS AND GARAGES.
THESE THINGS MEAN MONEY FUNDING FROM THE CITY.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE, UM, SUCH A BROAD OPENING HERE IN OUR DEFINITION OF FUNDING, BUT THE REAL ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S FUNDING.
IT'S ABOUT THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT EXISTS.
AND I THINK WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AND THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN OUR RULES, BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE RULES IS TO PRE PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THESE PROCESSES AND ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HAVE FAITH AND TRUST IN HOW THESE PROCESSES UNFOLD.
AND SO THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS REALLY AT THE CORE OF WHAT, WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY TO RESOLVE, WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST CLOUT THIS PROCESS OR TAINT THIS PROCESS SO MUCH THAT WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HERE ARGUING TO US THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, THAT HEY, SOMETHING SMELLS, SOMETHING'S WRONG.
AND BY THE WAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REAL SUBPOENA POWER TO FORMULATE OUR OWN INVESTIGATION.
AND, AND, AND I, UH, I WANT TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR THAT I AM, LIKE THAT'S PRECISELY THE KIND OF CONCERN THAT I HAVE AND WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE, AND THE REASON THAT I AM THINKING REALLY HARD ABOUT THIS MOTION, UH, IS PRECISELY BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S ROOM TO EXPLORE WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE DECISIONS ARE, WHAT THE, WHAT ZILKER 3 51 IS DOING, WHAT THEY'RE, THERE'S THERE, THERE'S A, THERE, THERE POTENTIALLY, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M BEING CLEAR AND CONSISTENT ABOUT WHAT A FUNDING DECISION IS OR A VOTER DECISION REGARDING FUNDING MEANS.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK POTENTIALLY A FINAL HEARING MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN, IN FLESHING OUT THE ARGUMENTS FOR WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE AT THAT MEETING AMOUNTED TO FUNDING DECISIONS.
UM, THIS IS ME THINKING OUT LOUD IN THE MOMENT FOR THE RECORD.
I WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT YOU ONLY NEED A RATIONAL BASIS FROM WHICH TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION FROM WHICH TO DEMAND THIS INVESTIGATION MM-HMM.
SO YOU JUST NEED A RATIONAL BASIS.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO PROVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT IT IS TRUE OR CERTAIN.
I'M, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO PREJUDGE WHAT THE FACTS ARE OR WILL BE TRYING TO, UH, CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET THIS SPECIFIC CODE, PROVISION, THIS SPECIFIC RULE AND LAW.
UM, ARE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, IDEAS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS? GO AHEAD.
I, I'M LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE AND I THINK IT WAS, UM, MS. ADAMS, IT WAS SOMETHING YOU READ, AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE MINUTES OR THE PURPOSE, AND I WROTE DOWN THE WORD FUNDRAISING THAT WAS EXPLICITLY STATED, WAS IT NOT? YES.
I MEAN, WE HAVE RIGHT THERE, UH, JUST TO, JUST TO, I'M SO SORRY.
MY RECOLLECTION IS THE SAME THAT THE MINUTES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USING,
[03:10:01]
THAT THE ORGANIZATION WOULD ENGAGE IN FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES AS WELL BASED ON, UM, YES.UH, AND THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT ROUTES OR AVENUES FOR FUNDRAISING.
INCLUDING GRANT FROM THE CITY.
I FEEL, I FEEL, I THINK I'M AT A COMFORTABLE SPOT.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS MOTION
I GUESS I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE EXISTENCE OF STRUGGLE HERE BECAUSE I MEAN, I DO HEAR THE FRUSTRATION OF, UM, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR THE VISION PLAN AND FIRMLY BELIEVE THEY ALL HAVE THE VERY BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND THE PARK, UM, AND THE PUBLIC IN MIND.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE ONE SIDE OF MY BRAIN WOULD AGREE WITH SECRETARY STANTON.
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE? GOING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO LOOK FURTHER INTO IT, BUT I THINK EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THE SERVICE OF THE VOLUNTEER BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS AND, AND NOT ASSUMING INTENT THAT ISN'T THERE, OR PERHAPS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT DEFINITELY NOBODY WILL EVER IMPROPERLY BENEFIT FROM A VOTE OR A DECISION OR AN ACTION.
SO I GUESS I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS, IT IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND THE STRUGGLE IS REAL.
AND I'M, THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENT.
AND, UH, I SYMPATHIZE AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US JOINED, UH, AGREED TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD BE EASY.
UM, BUT I GREATLY SYMPATHIZE WITH THIS TRIAL.
UM, ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, UM, ON THIS MOTION SPECIFICALLY HEARING AND SEEING NONE WILL PROCEED TO A ROLL CALL VOTE IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WE DID THE FIRST TIME, WHERE I WILL GO IN THE ORDER THAT THE COMMISSIONERS APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
SO THIS IS ON THE MOTION TO, UH, FIND THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE HAS OCCURRED.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I SUPPORT THE MOTION.
IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER 10 YUCCA.
THERE BEING FIVE AYES, ONE NAY.
IT IS NOT A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION, AND SO THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
AND BY OPERATION OF THAT MOTION, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
UM, I WANT TO THANK THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
UM, I WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AND FOR BEING HERE SO LATE.
UM, I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONERS, UM, FOR A VERY THOUGHTFUL AND THOROUGH DISCUSSION ON BOTH OF THESE COMPLAINTS.
UM, I THINK THIS WAS ONE OF THE HEALTHIER DIALOGUES AND DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ON COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
UM, AND THESE COMPLAINTS ARE NOT EASY.
UM, BUT I REALLY CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S CONTRIBUTIONS.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT EACH OF US MAKE OUR DECISIONS, UH, BASED ON OUR OWN EXPERIENCES, BASED ON OUR OWN JUDGMENT.
UM, I WILL JUST, UH, RESTATE WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
UM, AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRAINED IS THAT, UH, EVEN IF THERE'S NOT A VIOLATION TECHNICALLY OF THE CODE, ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT RECUSAL IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW, THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY MATTERS.
[03:15:01]
COMMISSIONERS, THAT IS THE, UH, TOTALITY OF OUR[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA.UM, WE HAVE, UH, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TO DISCUSS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ANYONE WANTS TO PITCH.
UM, OTHER THAN, UH, ME ANNOUNCING THAT I WILL IN FACT BE WRITING A LETTER TO, UM, OUR CITY COUNCIL EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF FULFILLING THESE VACANCIES THAT HAVE BEEN VACANT FOR MONTHS NOW.
UM, AND HOW THE OPERATION OF OUR COMMISSION DEPENDS ON A FULL ROBUST PARTICIPATION, UH, FROM COUNCIL IN FULFILLING THEIR DUTIES.
UM, THAT'S THE ONLY ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I HAVE.
UH, WITH THAT I THINK WE CAN ADJOURN.
COMMISSIONERS, THE TIME IS 10:59 PM THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR PARTICIPATION.
THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR BEING HERE.
UM, AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME.