[00:00:07]
SO I WILL BEGIN WITH THE MAGIC WORDS AND GET US STARTED.
[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.I'M THE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
THE TIME IS 6:06 PM WE ARE AT AUSTIN CITY HALL, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
ROOM NUMBER 1101 AT 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT SEVEN OH ONE.
I WILL NOW CALL THE ROLE CHAIR SOBER ON PRESENT VICE CHAIR KALE.
CHERRY ADAMS, NOT, UH, COMMISSIONER CASTO PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA PRESENT COM.
COMMISSIONER LOW PRESENT, COMMISSIONER LEVINS.
COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER NUNEZ PRESENT, COMMISSIONER TENNEY YUKOS.
AND COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PRESENT.
WE HAVE A QUORUM, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, ALYSSA NUNEZ, OR NUNEZ, FORGIVE ME IF I MISPRONOUNCED THAT, UM, IS JOINING US REMOTELY VIA WEBEX.
UM, I'LL BRIEFLY PAUSE JUST TO SAY THAT WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW MEMBERS AND I WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE AND WELCOME THEM TO THE COMMISSION.
WELCOME, UH, HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.
UH, FEEL FREE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND CORRECT ME IF I'M MISPRONOUNCING YOUR NAME.
I WILL MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A TILDA MOVING FORWARD.
UM, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S ATTENDANCE HERE TODAY.
WE HAVE ONE, UH, UH, YES, WITH ONE PERSON FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, UH, MS. CHRISTINA FLORES.
IF YOU'RE HERE, UH, FEEL FREE TO COME UP TO ANY OF THOSE CHAIRS.
UM, AND WE WILL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
UM, AS STATED IN THE POSTED AGENDA, THERE'S A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS WHO CAN SPEAK ON POSTED AGENDA ITEMS. WE'RE NOT RUNNING INTO THAT LIMIT TODAY.
UM, SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, UH, CHAIR SOBER.
UH, MS. NUNEZ, IF YOU COULD, UH, TURN YOUR CAMERA ON, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M COMING TO YOU TODAY TO ASK YOU, UH, TO PLEASE, UH, REVIEW THE, UM, CITY AND THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT'S ROLE IN LEASING PARK SPACE.
UM, THEIR RULES ARE POSTED ON THE, ON THE WEBSITE, HOWEVER, THEY MAY BE OLD OR THEY MAY NOT BE, UH, USED ANYMORE.
UM, IN, IN A CITY THAT'S GROWN AS LARGE AS WE HAVE, OUR EVENTS ARE NO LONGER A COUPLE HUNDRED PEOPLE IN A PARK.
WHILE EVERYBODY PLAYS SOCCER AROUND, THEY'RE HUGE EVENTS.
AND THE, THE POOL, THE, I MEAN, THE PARKS USERS, CITIZENS LIKE ME, UH, ARE PUT OUT OF THE PARKS NOW BECAUSE OF THESE EVENTS.
UM, AND I, I WOULD JUST ASK YOU AND YOUR PROFESSIONAL WISDOM TO JUST TAKE TIME AND REVIEW EXACTLY HOW IT IS THAT WE ARE LEASING OUT THESE SPACES.
UH, HOW DO PEOPLE COME IN? WHO DISCUSSES THE PRICE? HOW IS THE ETHICS ISSUE OF PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF THE PARK HANDLED? UM, OF COURSE, THAT HAS NO, NO PRICE, BUT IT, IT APPEARS TO BE THE CENTER OF SOME OF THE HUGE ARGUMENTS WE'RE HAVING WITHIN THE CITY, UM, ABOUT A C L AND OTHER THINGS.
MY FIRST, UM, BLUES ON THE GREEN WAS RUTHIE FOSTER IN A CHAIR WITH A GUITAR AND NOT EVEN 75 PEOPLE SITTING ON THE GRASS.
BUT IT'S EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING WAY LARGER.
UM, I SWIM AT BARTON SPRINGS AND, AND DE BETTY.
WE RECENTLY WERE OFFERED, UH, AS A NONPROFIT THAT SUPPORTS STEVE BETTY, UH, UH, THE OPTION TO LEASE THE POOL, UH, IN, IN RETURN FOR A GENEROUS DONATION TO OUR NONPROFIT.
AND, UH, WE, THE, THE COMPANY WHO WANTED THE DAY,
[00:05:01]
THE POOL FOR A DAY, WANTED A THREE YEAR COMMITMENT.THEY'RE CALLED ROGUE FITNESS, I GUESS THEY SELL DUMP, THEY DO EVENTS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
OUR, THE WEBSITE CLEARLY SAYS POOLS ARE OFF LIMITS.
BUT YET THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WAS NEGOTIATING WITH THEM, AND THEY APPROACHED US.
AND SO IT JUST MADE US WONDER, HOW, HOW DOES THIS WORK? WHO, WHO ARE WE IN THIS DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? IF WE'RE THE USERS AND THE CITIZENS, WHAT SAY DO WE HAVE? WHAT RIGHTS DO WE HAVE? AND IT'S CLEAR AS MUD.
AND SO I'M JUST ASKING YOUR, YOUR, YOUR GROUP TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DISPASSIONATELY AND PROFESSIONALLY AND SEE WHERE CAN WE START AGAIN ON IT.
WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING TO SHARE THAT WITH US.
UM, SO WITH THAT, COMMISSIONERS, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, SO WE CAN MOVE INTO OUR AGENDA.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, AGENDA ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
UM, GOT A RECUSAL ANNOUNCEMENT THAT COMMISSIONER ALYSSA NUNEZ WILL BE RECUSING FROM ALL DISCUSSION ON AND ACTION ON ITEMS ONE AND TWO UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR ONE J OF THE CITY CODE.
UM, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL GO INTO OUR AGENDA ITEMS. THE FIRST IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP ONE ITEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 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 DANIEL JANNIS AGAINST JOSE VELAZQUEZ, RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
SUBSECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN TWO E REPORTS.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? SEEING AND HEARING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS 6:12 PM UH, COMMISSIONER UH, NUNEZ WILL SEE YOU POTENTIALLY ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.
AND, UM, WE'LL SEE EVERYONE ELSE SHORTLY WHEN WE COME BACK.
THE TIME IS NOW 7:19 PM ENCLOSED SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO A COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. DANIEL ES AGAINST JOSE VELASQUEZ RECENT CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, SUBSECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN TWO E REPORTS.
SO THANK YOU FIRST, UH, FOR YOUR PATIENCE WHILE WE CONSULTED WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL.
UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ITSELF.
AND I'M GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME KIND OF READING THROUGH THE RULES, UM, JUST SO THAT EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AND HOW WE'LL PROCEED FROM HERE.
[2. A complaint filed by Daniel Llanes against José Velásquez raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-7 (Ethics and Financial Disclosures), Subsection 2-7-72(E) (Reports).]
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY DANIEL YIANNIS AGAINST JOSE VELASQUEZ RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.SUBSECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN TWO E REPORTS OUTSIDE COUNSEL ERIC NICHOLS IS APPEARING AS COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY VICTORIA HASLETT IS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.
SO FIRST, UH, I'M GONNA ASK THE PARTIES, UH, AND COUNSEL TO, UH, TAKE THEIR SEATS.
UH, BUTTONS ARE AT THE BASE OF THE MICROPHONE AND BEGINNING WITH THE COMPLAINANT.
UM, UH, RATHER, COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
I'M AN ATTORNEY, UH, FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
UH, AND I HAVE HERE THE STAND, UH, THE MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM, MR. DANIEL YIANNIS, FILED ON BEHALF OF THE, UH, CONTACT TEAM.
AND COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
SO, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR FOUR OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON JULY 14TH, 2023.
COMPLAINANT ALLEGED RESPONDENT VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN,
[00:10:01]
SUBSECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN TWO E.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 GET EACH OF THE PARTIES 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR POSITIONS AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY.
SO FIRST, DO THE PARTIES AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES EACH FOR THE PRESENTATION IS APPROPRIATE, OR WOULD YOU REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME BEYOND THAT? I, I THINK THAT'S OKAY.
UNLESS WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED ADDITIONAL TIME.
UH, AT THE, UH, FIRST IS 10 MINUTES FINE? THAT'S HOPEFULLY MORE THAN ENOUGH.
UM, SO AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE 10 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES, UM, IN WHICH CASE OBVIOUSLY PARTIES WILL BE, UH, INVITED TO PRODUCE ANSWERS RESPONSIVE TO THOSE QUESTIONS.
UH, THERE WILL BE NO CROSS-EXAMINATION OF BETWEEN THE PARTIES, NO QUESTIONS DIRECTED FROM COMPLAINANT TO RESPONDENT, OR VICE VERSA FROM RESPONDENT TO COMPLAINANT.
UM, SO THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE THAT THE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS TO STATE THE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM, THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THOSE CLAIMS. RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT THIS HEARING.
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 LISTED UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 48 C.
WHILE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING ARE UNDER OATH, NO CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED.
AND AFTER THE PARTIES COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER PARTY, NO WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL ARE PERMITTED TO MAKE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING.
FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES, THE COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO RETURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENTATION FOLLOWING ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE IF SIX MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION VOTE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION WILL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN NOW PROCEED TO THE COMPLAINANT'S PRESENTATION.
VICE CHAIR KALE HAS VOLUNTEERED TO BE OUR TIMEKEEPER.
UM, UH, NORMALLY WE GIVE A THREE MINUTE WARNING, BUT IF YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE ON HOW YOU'D LIKE YOUR TIME SIGNALS, WE CAN LET VICE CHAIR KALE KNOW.
UM, AND WITH THAT, IF WE'RE READY.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
UM, YOU ARE IN DOING A VERY IMPORTANT JOB.
UH, I, UH, WANNA REMIND US WHY WE'RE HERE.
UH, THE DECLARATION OF POLICY IN THE CITY CODE ON ETHICS SAYS IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY THAT THE PROPER OPERATION TO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES BE INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL, AND RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE THAT GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AND POLICY BE MADE IN PROPER CHANNELS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, THAT PUBLIC OFFICE NOT BE USED FOR PERSONAL GAIN, AND THAT PUBLIC OFFICE, AND THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF ITS GOVERNMENT IN RECOGNITION OF THESE GOALS.
A CODE OF ETHICS OF ALL CITY EMPLOYEE, UH, OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES IS ADOPTED.
AND IT SAYS THAT THE CODE, THIS IS IN 2 7, 1 OF THE CODE FOR PURPOSES TO ENCOURAGE HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY SUCH OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE FINANCIAL AND OTHER INTERESTS IN MATTERS OF AFFECTING THE CITY.
AND TO SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINING THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ABIDE BY ITS TERMS. YOU, YOU'RE IMPORTANT, YOU HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY.
BEFORE I BEGIN THOUGH, I, I RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER NUNEZ HAS, UH, RECUSED HERSELF BECAUSE SHE WAS APPOINTED BY THE RESPONDENT, UH, TO THE, UH, TO THIS COMMISSION.
UH, BUT WE HAD ALSO RAISED A QUESTION OF WHETHER MR. ESPINOZA, UH, SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH A FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBER AS A, AS A HUSBAND OF A FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBER.
[00:15:01]
I ASSUME I I WANTED TO JUST PUT THAT IN THE RECORD THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR THAT CONSIDERATION.WHEN I REVIEW THE STANDARDS FOR, UH, DISQUALIFICATION OF AN E R C MEMBER FROM A HEARING, EVEN THESE STANDARDS DO, WOULD NOT EVEN REQUIRE MS. NUNEZ TO RECUSE HERSELF, BUT IT LEAVES IT UP TO THE MEMBER.
UM, IT SAYS, AN E R C VOTING MEMBER SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HEARING THE CASE IF HE ARRIVES AT THE, UH, IF, IF, UH, THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVES THAT HE OR SHE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE AN IMPARTIAL DECISION.
SO, I'M GONNA TRUST THAT MR. ESPINOZA BELIEVES HE CAN MAKE AN IMPARTIAL DECISION.
THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO ADDRESS IS SOME GOOD LEGAL WORK, UM, UH, DONE, UH, BY MR. FISHER.
UM, I DON'T THINK HE'S RIGHT, BUT HE'S RAISED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
AND THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE SECTION AT WHICH WE COMPLY IS STILL GONNA BE VALID LAW AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, WHEN THE SO-CALLED DEATH STAR STATE STATUTE TAKES EFFECT.
UM, AND HE BELIEVES THAT THE VERY REQUIREMENT THAT WE ALLEGE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN A, AND WE CAN PROVE IN THIS CASE, HAS BEEN VIOLATED, WHICH IS A FAILURE TO REPORT SOURCES OF INCOME THAT CONSTITUTE MORE THAN 10% OF THE RESPONDENT'S GROSS NATIONAL INCOME OR ANNUAL INCOME, UH, WAS NOT REPORTED.
UM, MY, MY POSITION WITH YOU ON THAT IS, UH, WE, WE COULD DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW ACTUALLY DOES THAT, OR WHETHER A HOME RULE CITY HAS DEBATE.
I AM, UH, UH, UH, AND HAS A DEFENSE AGAINST THAT ALLEGATION THAT NOW THEY WOULD BE, YOU WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THAT STATE LAW BY TRYING TO ENFORCE THIS PROVISION.
MY POSITION HERE TONIGHT IS THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMISSION TO DECIDE.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROCEED AS IF THE CODE THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED, UM, WAS VIOLATED UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDS THAT CODE OR A COURT DETERMINES, UH, THAT YOU CANNOT PROCEED.
AND IF, AND, AND SO, UM, I I, I DON'T THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD GUIDE YOUR DECISION TONIGHT.
I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU SEE A VIOLATION.
DO YOU THINK THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THERE'S A VIOLATION? UH, MR. VELASQUEZ WANTS TO CHALLENGE THE ENFORCEMENT, UH, OF, OF THIS.
HE CAN DO EXACTLY WHAT ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE AND ANY OTHER CITY EMPLOYEE WOULD WOULD DO.
AND THAT IS TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE CITY.
I ALSO THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TONIGHT THAT YOU TREAT COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ THE SAME WAY YOU WOULD TREAT ANY CITY EMPLOYEE WHO COMMITS AN ETHICS VIOLATION.
UH, SO THE VIOLATIONS, UH, AS I, I WILL LIST THEM FOR YOU.
AND, AND I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THOUGH, THAT YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT WE SUBMITTED, WE SUBMITTED THE COMPLAINT AND THE, AND HAD EVIDENCE ATTACHED TO IT.
WE SUPPLEMENTED THAT ALSO WITH, UH, UPDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT WERE FILED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VELAZQUEZ, UH, ON JULY THE 19TH FOR BOTH 2021 AND 2022.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE PRESENT TO YOU AS OUR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
OKAY? UM, WELL, WHAT IF IT WAS INADVERTENT AND THAT WAS A DEFENSE RAISED? UM, SO YOU SHOULD DISMISS A COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE, THE RESPONDENT SAYS IT WAS INADVERTENT.
YOU WILL JUST DISMISS ALL THE COMPLAINTS THEN, UH, THAT CAN'T BE, SURELY THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY, WELL, I DIDN'T MEAN TO DO IT.
AND HERE YOU HAVE FOUR SEPARATE VIOLATIONS OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.
UM, BUT, UH, PERHAPS THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED IF IT WAS INADVERTENT.
YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THAT IF YOU GET TO A PUNISHMENT PHASE, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER THAT AS TO WHAT YOU RECOMMEND AS WHATEVER SANCTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS THAT, WELL, IT WAS CORRECTED.
WE FILED OUR COMPLAINT ON THE 14TH, ON THE 19TH.
HE SUBMITTED, UH, UPDATED REPORTS AND, AND, AND, AND, UH, DISCLOSED THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED ON THE REPORTS WHEN THEY WERE FILED.
UM, AND SO DO YOU DISMISS BECAUSE OF THAT? WELL, THEN YOU'RE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO, UH, VIOLATE THE LAW UNTIL THEY GET CAUGHT.
UM, AND IT'S LATE DISCLOSURE ON THESE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE FINANCIAL, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
UH, ALSO CHEAT THE VOTERS OUT OF INFORMATION THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD DURING THE ELECTION.
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE INFORMATION THAT IS FINALLY ONLY IN JULY OF THIS YEAR BROUGHT FORWARD.
SO THE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHETHER YOU SHOULD DISMISS THE CLAIM OUTRIGHT.
[00:20:01]
GOT THE, UH, THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THAT INCOME THAT WAS REPORTABLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REPORTS, THAT YOU SHOULD AT LEAST TAKE THE NEXT STEP, UH, AND GO TO A FORMAL HEARING.EXCUSE ME, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THE ALLEGATIONS ARE NUMBER ONE, COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ AS A COUNCIL CANDIDATE, FAILED TO REPORT ON THE REQUIRED S F I REPORT FOR 2021 THAT HE FILED ON AUGUST THE 29TH, 2022 DURING THE CAMPAIGN, SIGNIFICANT INCOME BETWEEN 50 AND $75,000 FROM A CLIENT THAT IS THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR, UH, CONSULTING SERVICES OF MARKETING.
NUMBER TWO, THE COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ ON A COUNCIL AS A COUNCIL CANDIDATE, FAILED TO REPORT ON THE REQUIRED SS F I REPORT IN 2021, FILED IN AUGUST OF 22 THAT HE RECEIVED A REPORTABLE INCOME FROM A CLIENT, THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY, AND THAT HE FAILED TO REPORT THAT IN ON THAT REPORT THAT HE SERVED ON THE BOARD OF THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY FOR 2021.
AND THEN FINALLY THAT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER WHEN HE, WHEN HE FILED HIS SS F I REPORT FOR 2022 ON, UH, APRIL THE THIRD, 2023 THAT HE HAD, HE FAILED TO REPORT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED REPORTABLE INCOME FROM A CLIENT, EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY.
BUT ON JUNE THE FIRST, HE FILED THE RECUSAL RECOGNIZING THAT HE HAD TO REPORT THAT TO THE CLERK AND RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE HE HAD RECEIVED THAT INCOME.
BUT HE DIDN'T CORRECT THAT UN UNTIL AUGUST THE 19TH, 2021.
UM, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN YOUR RULES THAT SAYS THAT IF SOMEONE CORRECTS, UH, A UH, VIOLATION AFTER THE COMPLAINT IS FILED, THAT YOU DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT TO ME, THAT DOESN'T PROVE INNOCENCE.
UH, AND, AND A FAILURE, UH, OR A LACK OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH YOU COULD REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION DID OCCUR IF A VIOLATION OCCURRED, UH, AS I BELIEVE THIS EVIDENCE INDICATES CLEARLY ON THE FACE OF IT.
UM, I ASK YOU TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND HOLD THE COUNCIL MEMBER ACCOUNTABLE JUST LIKE YOU WOULD ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU.
UH, WE'LL GO NOW TO THE STATEMENT FROM COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, UM, AFTER WHICH COMMISSIONERS WILL BE INVITED TO ASK QUESTIONS.
SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR. FISHER, I'LL START.
HOPEFULLY YOU'VE ALL SEEN OUR RESPONSE.
I DON'T WANT TO READ, READ IT TO YOU.
HOPEFULLY YOU ALL, YOU'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT.
UM, I'LL SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE IS THAT I REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE HERE BECAUSE NO GOOD DEEDED GOES UNPUNISHED.
AND WE'RE HERE BECAUSE MY CLIENT, THE COUNCIL MEMBER, FILED AS HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO.
AND HE, AS HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO DO BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE REGARDING A ZONING CHANGE.
HE DISCLOSED THAT HE ABSTAINED FROM PARTICIPATION IN IT AS HE'S REQUIRED TO DO.
AND THEN, UH, THE COMPLAINANT, FOR REASONS WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MOMENT, FILE COM BASICALLY CROSS-REFERENCED THAT AFFIDAVIT WITH THESE SFI, THESE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND DETERMINED THAT SPECIFIC, A SPECIFIC CALL, WELL, THEY'RE WRONG ABOUT THE BOARD MEMBERSHIP, BECAUSE ONE OF THOSE YEARS HE WAS NOT ON THE BOARD OF THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY.
WE INCLUDED THE RESIGNATION LETTER IN THERE.
SO THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED.
UM, BUT HE DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC CLIENT INFORMATION.
HE PUT ON ONE THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF, UH, I'M SORRY, BY SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH WAS TRUE UNTIL HE RESIGNED AND SET UP HIS OWN, UH, CONSULTING SHOP.
AT WHICH POINT, IN A SUBSEQUENT FILING, HE LISTED THAT CONSULTING BUSINESS AS HIS SOURCE OF INCOME.
IT IS TRUE THAT HE DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC CLIENTS UNDER THE STATE LAW CHAPTER 5 72 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH THE CITY SECRETARY'S REQUIRED TO USE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE SPECIFIC CLIENT INFORMATION, JUST THE SOURCE OF YOUR INCOME.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN GOES FARTHER WITH ITS SS F I REQUIREMENT THAT CERTAIN CLIENTS BE DISCLOSED.
WE'LL RESERVE ARGUMENTS FOR THAT LATER IN THE EVENT THAT WE FIND OURSELVES FACING ENFORCEMENT.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, I DISAGREE WITH MY, UH, COLLEAGUES' ANALYSIS OF THAT AND WHETHER THAT'S ALLOWED.
BUT REGARDLESS, UM, HIS FILINGS WERE COMPLIANT.
MY CLIENT'S FILINGS WERE COMPLIANT WITH THE STATE LAW, DISCLOSE EVERYTHING THAT HE WAS OBLIGATED TO DISCLOSE UNDER STATE LAW.
THESE OMISSIONS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXIST, WERE COMPLETELY
[00:25:01]
INADVERTENT.UH, WHEN HE WAS NOTIFIED OF THESE COMPLAINTS, HE RETAINED COUNSEL.
AND BEFORE THIS COMMISSION EVEN ACCEPTED JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPLAINTS, WE FIXED THOSE.
UH, AND THAT IS DONE IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, NOT BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT, BUT BECAUSE HE MADE AN INADVERTENT.
ONE WAS FILED AS A CANDIDATE WHEN HE DIDN'T HAVE, UH, ACCESS TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT, AND THE SECOND WAS FILED DURING HIS FIRST GENERAL CITY COUNCIL.
SO THESE ARE INADVERTENT OMISSIONS THAT WERE PROMPTLY REMEDIED, PROMPTLY CORRECTED.
FURTHER, THERE WAS NO, UM, TRANSPARENCY WAS NOT UNDERMINED BECAUSE IT WAS MY CLIENT.
IT WAS OBVIOUS ON HIS SOCIAL MEDIA PAGES, ON HIS CAMPAIGN COLLATERAL THAT HE HAD BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY.
THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE COULD ONLY LEARN FROM LOOKING AT THE SFI.
SO SORT OF, AND I HOPE I DID A GOOD JOB OF PUTTING THIS IN MY, MY LETTER OF, OF AUGUST 11TH.
UM, THE TAKEAWAY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, BESIDES THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL LEGAL ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE STATUTE NOW, OR THIS ORDINANCE, BUT THE CLIENT, ALL THIS STUFF WAS KNOWN.
THE CLIENT, UH, THE PUBLIC WAS WELL AWARE OF COUNSELING VELASQUEZ'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EAST CONSERVANCY.
WHEN THE COMPLAINANT POINTED OUT THESE, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TECHNICAL AND DI MINIMIS OMISSIONS, THEY WERE PROMPTLY CORRECTED BEFORE WE EVEN KNEW IF WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO COME HERE TO ANSWER TO THESE CHARGES.
AND, UM, THEY MET ALL THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS.
SO LEGALLY, I THINK THIS IS PRETTY FLIMSY.
PRACTICALLY, I THINK YOU NEED SOME CONTEXT BECAUSE MR. ELSS SHIRE STARTED BY TALKING ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE.
UM, AND HE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC BEING ON NOTICE OF CERTAIN INTERESTS THAT MY CLIENT HAS.
THE PUBLIC WAS ON NOTICE OF THOSE INTERESTS.
UM, WHY WE'RE REALLY HERE IS BECAUSE THERE IS A ZONING, THERE WAS A ZONE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE IN MY CLIENT'S COUNSEL DISTRICT.
THE COMPLAINANT, MR. YANES, IS OPPOSED TO THAT CHANGE, AND HE IS OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL STEM FROM THAT ZONING CHANGE ON MAY 25TH.
I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU A QUICK TIMELINE HERE.
ON MAY 25TH, MY CLIENT LEARNED THAT THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PARCEL WOULD BE NEGOTIATING WITH THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY.
AND BECAUSE THAT HAD BEEN A CLIENT OF HIS, HE'D BEEN A FORMER BOARD MEMBER.
AND THEN FOR A WHILE, HE HAD DONE CONSULTING WORK FOR THEM.
THE NEXT DAY, ON MAY 26TH, HE REACHED OUT TO THE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT TO HELP HIM DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND HE WAS ADVISED VERBALLY BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT THAT HE DID HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
HE WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE IT, AND HE WOULD NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM PARTICIPATION IN THOSE MATTERS.
ON MAY 31ST, THE LAW DEPARTMENT MEMORIALIZED THAT IN WRITING, SENDING MY CLIENT AN EMAIL.
THIS SAID THAT HIS AFFILIATION AND PREVIOUS WORK FOR THE, UH, EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY CONSTITUTED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HE DID AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HE WAS PAID.
AND THAT RECUSAL IS THE RECOMMENDED COURSE.
SO THIS IS ON MAY 31ST, THE DAY BEFORE WE RECUSED THAT SAME DAY.
I'M GONNA GIVE A COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL AND A COPY TO MS. BENITO'S FOR THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION'S FILE.
THESE ARE TEXT MESSAGES FROM THE COMPLAINANT, DANIEL YANES, TO MY CLIENT ON MAY 31ST.
AND HE SAYS, WE TALKED TO OUR ATTORNEY.
BUT, BUT I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT HEY, I DIDN'T INTERRUPT HIS TIME, BUT IS, DIDN'T INTERRUPT HIS TIME.
WE'LL, WE'LL ADDRESS IT AFTER HIS PRESENTATION, BUT IS HE GONNA INTRODUCE EVIDENCE IN THE HEARING? WE'LL, WE'LL ADDRESS IT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION.
WE DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT PRESENTATIONS.
WE CAN ASK YOUR CLIENT ABOUT 'EM.
UH, NO TALKING BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
SAYS WE TALKED TO YOUR, OUR ATTORNEY.
I DON'T KNOW IF OUR ATTORNEY MEANS MY COLLEAGUE OVER HERE, IF THEY'RE USING DIFFERENT COUNSEL, BUT WE MAYBE HE CAN ELUCIDATE THAT FACT FOR US.
WE TALKED TO OUR ATTORNEY, YOU ARE NOT IN CONFLICT.
THAT'S WHAT HE TELLS HIM LATER THAT DAY.
AND THEN THE SAME MESSAGE, HE SAYS, WE NEED YOU WITH US.
AND THEN LATER THAT DAY, HE SENDS ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE TO MY CLIENT THAT SAYS, LET FIND IT.
IT SAYS, FURTHER I COMMUNITY BENEFITS PACKAGE WE FORMALLY GAVE YOU, DOES NOT LIST E A C, EXCUSE ME, THREE MINUTE WARNING, NO CONFLICT.
HE WRITES, AND THEN ANOTHER BUBBLE LATER THAT SAME DAY, HE SAYS, CLEAR AS DAY, NO CONFLICT.
[00:30:01]
SO WHY ARE WE HERE? AND THEN WHAT DID MY CLIENT DO? HE RELIED ON THE LAW DEPARTMENT'S ADVICE.HE RECUSED HIMSELF, AND HE DID WHAT HE WAS ETHICALLY OBLIGATED TO DO.
HE TOOK THE HIGH ROAD DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS TRYING TO GET HIM TO VOTE IN VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE.
SO IF ANYONE SHOULD BE UNDER INVESTIGATION HERE, IT'S NOT MY CLIENT, IT'S HIS CLIENT.
HE WAS TRYING TO ELICIT AN IMPROPER VOTE KNOWING THAT MY CLIENT HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND WHEN MY CLIENT TOOK THE HIGH ROAD AND DID WHAT HE WAS ETHICALLY OBLIGATED TO DO, GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? A COMPLAINTS FILED.
AND YOU ALL OUGHT NOT BE A PARTY TO THAT SORT OF RETRIBUTION AND PETTY SCHEMING.
UH, BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO CLEAR UP.
UH, SO ONE, MOVING FORWARD, AS COMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PARTIES, THE PARTIES ARE NOT TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
UH, THE RULE AGAINST CROSS-EXAMINATION, I THINK REASONABLY EXTENDS TO INTERJECTING AND INTERRUPTING.
SO MOVING FORWARD, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT COMMITTEE.
UM, SECONDLY, UH, THE ISSUE OF RECUSALS WAS BROUGHT UP.
I JUST WANTED TO, UH, MAKE CLEAR THAT THE RECUSAL OF COMMISSIONER NUNEZ IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY CITY CODE.
UM, BUT AS YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH, OTHER RECUSAL DECISIONS ARE, THERE ARE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR COMMISSIONERS TO EXERCISE THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON WHEN TO STEP BACK.
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT EVERYONE ON THIS COMMISSION THOUGHT ABOUT THEIR OWN, UH, POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS, MADE INFORMED DECISION, A PRUDENTIAL ONE, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD PARTICIPATE TODAY.
UM, BUT THANK YOU FOR RAISING IT AND HAVING IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD.
AS TO, UH, THIS INFORMATION THAT WAS, UH, JUST PRESENTED, UM, IT'S, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, UH, THE, THE CAT'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE BAG.
IF, BEFORE WE DIVE STRAIGHT INTO QUESTIONS, UM, I WANT TO KIND OF OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION, UH, AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION AMONG COMMISSIONERS TO LETTING THAT TEXT MESSAGE EXCHANGE CIRCULATE IF THERE'S AN INTEREST EVEN IN SEEING IT, UM, BEFORE, I DON'T WANT TO KIND OF BE TOO PRESUMPTUOUS AND ASSUME THAT IT'S, IT WOULDN'T HURT MUCH TO JUST LET IT CIRCULATE SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN REFERENCED IN A STATEMENT, IT'S ALREADY BEEN SHARED WITH THE OPPOSING PARTY.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY, YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. YEAH, I, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THE COMPLAINANT ACTUALLY HAS AN OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF IT SINCE IT WAS SERVED UPON HIM SECONDS BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN.
UH, WE'LL, WE'LL GIVE THE COMPLAINANTS RE UH, COUNSEL AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT.
I'VE TRIED TO FOLLOW EXACTLY THE RULES WE WERE INSTRUCTED, AND WE GOT AN EMAIL FROM COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION TELLING US THAT IF WE HAD ANY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE THAT, WE HAD A DEADLINE TO DO THAT.
AND THAT'S WHEN I SUBMITTED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS, UH, MR. FISHER HAD THIS MM-HMM.
I TRIED TO OBJECT TO IT'S, AND I DO OBJECT TO IT, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW IT IN, I SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS BUSH WHACK TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. SO, FOR THE REMAINING BOARD MEMBERS, MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TEXT MESSAGES SAY, BUT THERE MAY BE SURPRISE TO THE COMPLAINANT, AND WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THOSE IN ANOTHER HEARING IF WE REACH THAT, THAT STAGE.
UM, I'LL, I'LL SAY FROM MY PART, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS HARD FOR ME TO EVEN JUDGE THE RELEVANCE OF THE TEXT MESSAGES BASED ON THE DESCRIPTION, UM, WITHOUT PUTTING SOME KIND OF EYES ON THEM, UH, WHICH IS WHY I WAS OPEN TO LETTING THEM AT LEAST PASS AROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.
UH, BUT IT'S, UH, THIS DOESN'T NORMALLY HAPPEN, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE TO PAUSE BEFORE WE EVEN GET INTO THE NORMAL QUESTIONING.
UH, VICE CHAIR KELLY, I SEE YOU'VE GOT YOUR HAND ON THE TRIGGER.
UM, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT ADDING THE TEXT MESSAGE INFORMATION IS SORT OF A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE'RE ASKED TO LOOK AT TONIGHT.
AND I WANT FULL TRANSPARENCY, AND I WOULD LOVE TO UNDERSTAND THEM BETTER.
BUT THE WAY I SEE IT, OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING TONIGHT IS BASED AROUND THE EVIDENCE WE'VE
[00:35:01]
HAD AMPLE TIME TO DIGEST.UH, COMMISSIONER CASTO, GO AHEAD.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AT ALL, BUT IT DOES STATE IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING PROCEDURES, RESPONDENT MAY DESCRIBE A NARRATIVE FORM TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH SHALL BE PRESENTED TO DISPROVE.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WANTS TO HEAR THE NARRATIVE FORM OF THOSE BUBBLES, BUT WHILE WRITTEN MAY NOT BE CUSTOMARY, THERE APPEARS TO BE OPPORTUNITY FOUR.
UM, I'LL, HERE, I'LL, I'LL, MAYBE WE CAN JUST KICK OFF THE QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES NOW, AND I'LL KICK IT OFF WITH THIS, UH, MR. FISHER, DO YOU THINK THAT YOU SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED WHAT THOSE TEXT MESSAGES SAID AND REPRESENT? UM, I DO, BUT I'M HAPPY TO READ THEM IN A NARRATIVE FORM.
I, I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT IT'S, THAT THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IT'S RICH, THAT THE COMPLAINANT DOESN'T WANT HIS OWN WORDS REFERENCED IN THIS HEARING.
IT'S, I THINK, I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF, UM, UH, SURPRISE.
AND, UH, I, I AM SOMEWHAT SYMPATHETIC TO THE, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THESE RULES IN PLACE.
THESE, UH, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY STRICT DEADLINES, BUT IT'S, UH, FOR THE COMMISSION'S SAKE AND FOR THE PARTY'S SAKE THAT WE TRY TO HAVE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, UH, IN ADVANCE OF A HEARING.
UM, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T HAVE THESE UNTIL, UH, LATE THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY, WELL, I, IN AN, I TURNED IN AN OATH, SO I'M TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.
I HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.
AND, UM, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY ARRIVED SO LATE.
UH, SO, UM, ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION? COMMISSIONERS, UH, IF, IF ANYONE WANTS TO GET UP AND LOOK AT THEM, I WILL NOT STOP YOU FROM DOING THAT.
BUT I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT FOR US TO KIND OF PROCEED TO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.
SO, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. AGAIN, I WOULD, I WOULD ARGUE THAT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DOES APPLY, AND I THINK IF, I MEAN, THERE'S PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO GET IT IN NARRATIVE FORM, BUT TO HAVE THEM ADMIT IT, I THINK DEVIATES FROM WHAT OUR PROCESS IS DESCRIBED.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, AND I THINK FURTHERMORE, JUST FROM THE DESCRIPTION, UH, THEY'RE UNTIMELY.
I, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S LAID OUT IN EXACTING DETAIL, BUT IT, THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF SURPRISE HERE THAT I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
BUT FURTHERMORE, EVEN BASED ON MR. FISHER'S DESCRIPTION OF THEM, THEY GO TO THE COMPLAINANT'S MOTIVATIONS.
WE DON'T CARE TONIGHT WHAT THE COMPLAINANT'S MOTIVATIONS ARE.
WE CARE, WE CARE WHETHER THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.
AND IF IT'S BROUGHT BECAUSE, UH, THE COMPLAINANT BELIEVES IN TRUTH JUSTICE IN THE AMERICAN WAY.
AND IF HE'S, AND IF IT'S BECAUSE HE HATES THIS COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S GUTS, THAT'S FINE TOO.
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER A VIOLATION OCCURRED.
UM, SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT THEM.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE PERMITTED TO, UM, UNDER THE, UNDER THE RULES OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I'M, I'M OPEN TO, UH, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA CONTEND THAT I'M IMMOVABLE ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S NEVER COME UP IN MY TIME HERE THAT THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED.
BUT THAT'S MY VIEW OF IT AS I UNDERSTAND IT NOW.
I THINK, I THINK WHERE THINGS STAND, UM, IT WAS DISCUSSED AND BROUGHT UP IN THE OPENING STATEMENT TO THE DEGREE THAT IT WAS, AND TO THE DEGREE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO.
UM, BUT I, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BELABOR THE POINT MUCH FURTHER ABOUT ITS TIMELINESS OR ITS RELEVANCE UNLESS WE'RE INTERESTED IN ASKING FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
UM, SO I THINK, UH, IF, IF WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, I, MY MODUS OPERANDI IS TO LET COMMISSIONERS DRIVE THE CONVERSATION.
I'VE GOT QUESTIONS, BUT I WANT TO GIVE OTHERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THEM FIRST.
MR. FISHER, MY QUESTION'S FOR YOU ON YOUR PREEMPTION ARGUMENT.
UH, WHEN I WAS READING YOUR SUBMISSION, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, YOU PREEMPTION IS ONLY FOR, THE PREEMPTION WILL ONLY OCCUR AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, BUT THERE'S NOT A CURRENT LAW THAT PREEMPTS, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS.
BUT THEN WHEN I HEARD YOU SPEAK, I I WAS QUESTIONING WHETHER I UNDERSTOOD
[00:40:01]
THAT.DO YOU BELIEVE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS NEW AS MR. SHAW REFERRED TO THE DEATH STAR LEGISLATION, EVEN IF THAT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED, DO YOU STILL CONTEND THAT THESE ARE PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW? YOU MEAN WITH REGARD TO THE NEW LEGISLATION? IT ASSUME THE NEW LEGISLATION, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT'S, IT'S JUST THE NEW LEGISLATION THAT YOU CONTEND MM-HMM.
BUT FROM WHAT YOU SAID, I, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU THINK THAT IT'S PREEMPTED EVEN IF, EVEN IF THIS NEW LEGISLATION HAD NOT BEEN PASSED, YOU THINK IT WAS PREEMPTED ANYWAY, DID I, NO, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
NO, I THINK THAT MY PREEMPTION ARGUMENT IS, IS LIMITED TO THE NEW LEGISLATION.
AND I BELIEVE THAT ANY, BECAUSE OF THE NEW LEGISLATION, ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT ANYONE TRIES TO UNDERTAKE AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE AND TO A LAWSUIT WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY THE NEW LEGISLATION.
UM, SO, UH, ONE, ONE THING THAT I SAW THROUGHOUT, UH, THE STATEMENT, UM, IN THE RESPONSE WAS, UH, A NUMBER OF KEYWORDS THAT I HONED IN ON ABOUT MISTAKEN MM-HMM.
UM, DOES THAT AMOUNT TO, UH, AN ADMISSION FROM THE RESPONDENT THAT THE SETTING ASIDE PREEMPTION, SETTING ASIDE WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT CITY CODE PROVISIONS WERE NOT FOLLOWED TO THE T? NO, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A KNOWING VIOLATION OR A KNOWING ADMISSION.
COMMISSIONERS, OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, MR. AHOW, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO WHAT MR. FISHER JUST SAID? THANK YOU.
I DON'T READ ANYTHING IN YOUR, IN THE CITY CODE THAT SAYS THAT THE VIOLATION HAS TO BE DELIBERATE.
UH, IT'S, IT, IT, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT REPORTING, UH, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT INFORMATION WAS ON THE REPORT AT THE TIME IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED.
AND IF IT WAS NOT, THEN THAT IS A VIOLATION.
NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE ISSUE IS DONE.
IT DOES MEAN THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU LOOK FOR IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE OCCURRED AND THAT IT REQUIRED INFORMATION TO BE DISCLOSED.
AND THAT'S OUR POSITION, THAT THE, THE DOCUMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
IT REQUIRED THAT INFORMATION TO BE ON THEM, AND IT WASN'T ON THEM.
NOW, WHAT YOU DO ABOUT THAT, OR WHAT SANCTION MIGHT OCCUR IF YOU FINALLY DETERMINED THAT THE CODE WAS VIOLATED, IT'S CERTAINLY THE CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER IT WAS INADVERTENT.
UH, BUT THIS IS NOT AN UNIMPORTANT ISSUE.
IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO STAND BY THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENT, THAT REQUIRES MORE DISCLOSURE THAN THE STATE LAW, UH, DOES.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ETHICS REFORM FOR COUNCIL OVER DECADES THAT PUSHED FOR THIS ADDITIONAL PIECE OF INFORMATION IS YOU GETTING MORE THAN 10% OF YOUR ANNUAL GROSS INCOME FROM SOMEBODY.
WE OUGHT TO KNOW WHO IT IS, NOT THE DETAILS, JUST WHO IS IT.
UM, AND THAT WASN'T DISCLOSED.
AND, UM, SO I, UH, I, I, I THINK THAT WE'VE GOTTA BE CAREFUL NOT TO BE DISTRACTED BY ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER THE CODE IS VALID.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE FORM IN WHICH THAT'S DECIDED.
UH, I THINK IT IS YOUR DUTY TO, UM, USE THE CODE AND FOLLOW THE CODE, UH, UNTIL THE COUNSEL OR A COURT TELLS YOU YOU CAN'T.
UM, AND THE, THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS JUST BASICALLY ONE A FACT.
DID THE CODE REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE OF THAT, OF THE SOURCE OF THOSE OUTSIDE INCOME OVER THOSE TWO YEARS? WAS IT ON THE FORM? IF IT WASN'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
UH, IT SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHT UP
[00:45:03]
COMMISSIONERS.ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, MR. ESPINOZA.
UH, BASED ON SOME OF THE MATERIALS YOU PROVIDED, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO, IS IT J M V A, THE NAME OF HIS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP? SORRY, THERE'S A LOT OF PAPERS IN FRONT OF ME HERE.
UH, YOU HAD MADE A REFERENCE THAT IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD LOCATE WITHIN THE TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK OR THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE.
WERE YOU LOOKING FOR AN L L C OR A D B A AND WOULD IT HAVE I I DID.
I I'M NOT CHALLENGING ANYTHING.
I, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF THE, OF THE DOCUMENTS.
WOULD IT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IF IT WERE AN L L C OR A D B A? IT MIGHT HAVE, BECAUSE THEN HE MIGHT NOT BE SELF-EMPLOYED.
UM, AND I AM EMPLOYED BY EL SHIRE LAW PC I'M AN EMPLOYEE OF MY LAW FIRM.
I SUSPECT MR. FISHER MAY BE IN THE SAME SITUATION.
I CANNOT CLAIM I'M SELF-EMPLOYED.
I MAY, I, I MAY OWN A CORPORATION.
I MAY OWN ALL THE STOCK IN IT.
BUT, UH, THAT'S NOT, SO THAT'S WHY I CHECKED FOR THE NAME OF THE CONSULTING COMPANY THAT COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ ASSERTS.
BUT IT'S NOT EVEN AN ASSUMED NAME.
HE HASN'T, THAT'S WHY I CHECKED THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
IS THAT PERHAPS IT, IT, I DON'T THINK IT, I THINK HE WOULD STILL BE SELF-EMPLOYED AND I STILL, I THINK HE WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF A SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON, BUT AT LEAST IT WOULD BE A FORMALLY RECOGNIZED, REGISTERED NAME OF A BUSINESS.
IT'S NOT EVEN AN ASSUMED NAME.
AND IT APPARENTLY HAS NO CORPORATE STRUCTURE, UH, THAT WOULD CAUSE, UH, MR. VELASQUEZ TO NOT BE SELF-EMPLOYED.
AND THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I CHECKED THAT.
I THINK HE'S SELF-EMPLOYED, AND I THINK HE GOES BY THE PSEUDONYM, UH, IN HIS CONSULTING BUSINESS OF THAT J M A V.
UH, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM NOT SELF-EMPLOYED.
AND THEREFORE, I THINK HE'S STILL SUBJECT TO THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS, GO AHEAD.
AND, AND MR. FISHER, I'D A COUPLE THINGS.
FIRST, UM, DO YOU AGREE THAT J M A V DOES NOT HAVE ANY SORT OF CORPORATE OR L L C ENTITY CREATED? I AGREE.
DOES THAT AFFECT WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S CANDIDATE AT ONE POINT, WHAT HIS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS WERE? I THINK THAT, AS MR. ELS SHIRE SAID, BECAUSE THERE'S NO CORPORATE STRUCTURE, HE IS SELF-EMPLOYED, AND SO HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO FILL IT OUT AS IF HE WERE SOMEONE WHO WAS SELF-EMPLOYED AND NOT WORKING, EMPLOYED BY ANOTHER ENTITY.
AND, AND I THINK THAT WHAT IT SAYS IS IF YOU'RE SELF-EMPLOYED RIGHT, THEN YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LIST CERTAIN CLIENT INFORMATION.
AND DO YOU AGREE THAT HE DID NOT ACTUALLY LIST THOSE THINGS THAT WERE REQUIRED? I BELIEVE THAT ON ONE OF THE REPORTS HE DID NOT DISCLOSE, THAT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE SOTON CONSERVANCY, UM, IT GENERATED ENOUGH INCOME THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LISTED.
AND SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS CORRECTED TO BE LISTED, AND THEREFORE THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU COULD CONTEND THAT THERE'S NOT A VIOLATION IS EITHER PREEMPTION OR IT WAS A MISTAKE AND NOT INTENTIONAL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PARTIES? UM, SO AT THIS TIME, THEN WE CAN MOVE INTO, UH, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE MOTIONS.
UM, I USUALLY, I REALLY LIKE TO TRY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE PERIOD IN WHICH WE'RE ASKING PARTIES FOR QUESTIONS AND WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING AMONGST OURSELVES AND DISCUSSING POSSIBLE MOTIONS.
UM, BUT, UH, IF, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE, IF THERE IS A BURNING NEED TO ASK A PARTY A QUESTION, UM, WE CAN ALLOW FOR IT.
BUT I THINK, UH, WE CAN TALK THROUGH POSSIBLE MOTIONS IF ANYONE HAS THEM, OR SIMPLE DISCUSSION OF THE PRESENTATIONS AND THE Q AND A THAT WE JUST HEARD.
[00:50:01]
I MEAN, I CAN GO OUT ON A LEMON AND START, BUT, UM,I GET THE LEAN IS THE, THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF RAISING MY HAND
UM, I, I THINK MR. FISHER JUST ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION.
HE HASN'T FORMALLY ADMITTED IT, BUT HE SAID THE ONLY, THE ONLY REASON THAT THESE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, OR AT LEAST ONE OF THESE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION WAS PREEMPTION.
UM, WHICH I DON'T, AT LEAST AS OF TODAY, IT'S NOT PREEMPTED AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF I DON'T THINK IS REALLY, I DON'T CARE FOR TODAY, MIGHT CARE LATER.
UM, AND AS FAR AS WHETHER IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT, AND WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS BEFORE, I THINK SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, UH, WE HAD ONE WHERE IT, IF I RECALL IT CORRECTLY, IT WAS, IT LOOKS PRETTY CLEAR THAT IT WAS A TYPO.
THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT TO ME.
UM, IT MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENT.
I, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT'S FOR US TO DETERMINE TONIGHT WHETHER IT WAS INADVERTENT OR ON PURPOSE.
I THINK THAT'S FOR A FINAL HEARING.
IF WE DECIDE THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, AT, AT THE FINAL HEARING, WE DECIDE THERE'S A VIOLATION, THEN WE DETERMINE WHAT THE SANCTION IS.
AND I THINK LIKE MR. A AHI SAID AT THAT POINT, WE CAN TRY TO LOOK INTO THE MIND OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
UM, BUT WE DON'T DO THAT TODAY.
UM, FROM WHAT I SEE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT VIOLATIONS OCCURRED.
ANY COMMISSIONERS, ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER LOWE, IF THAT WAS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOVENS, I WILL SECOND IT.
UM, IF NOT, I WILL JUST MAKE A FEW OTHER COMMENTS.
UM, I THINK ALL OF THE ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW PUBLIC, THE SOCIAL MEDIA WAS, WHETHER THIS WAS INADVERTENT, WHETHER IT WAS THIS WAS DE MINIMUS, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT RELEVANT AND IT'S A BIT OF A RED HERRING.
UH, I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS WE CAN CONSIDER MAYBE RECEIVE MORE EVIDENCE ON.
UM, IF WE MOVE TO, UH, TO ANOTHER HEARING.
SO AS I SAID, I AM EITHER SECONDING, UH, COMMISSIONER LOVENS IS, UH, MOTION, OR I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING.
UH, PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR MS. EG, WHERE ARE WE? I JUST HAVE A BIT OF PROCEDURAL ADVICE, UM, TO GIVE TO THE COMMISSION THAT IF YOU DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS AN ADMISSION, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROCEED TO FINAL HEARING.
UH, SANCTIONS CAN BE IMPOSED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 48 C.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING FOR YOU TO BE AWARE OF PROCEDURALLY THAT YOU CAN DO THAT.
AT THIS STAGE, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO FINAL HEARING UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO.
YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO DO THAT AS WELL.
UM, I WOULD PREFER IF THIS IS THE MOTION TO, UH, MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO FLESH OUT SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE PRESENTED.
UM, UH, WELL, I, I, I WANTED TO, UH, IT, IT SOUNDED, I'M GONNA JUST KIND OF CLARIFY MOTIONS, UH, FOR PROCEDURAL CLARITY.
IT'S ONE POINT, IT SOUNDED LIKE THE MOTION WAS TO FIND THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
THERE'S NO RULE NECESSARILY THAT WE HAVE TO KIND OF BUNDLE THE MOTION INTO SETTING THE HEARING OR, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING AN ADMISSION AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS IMMEDIATELY.
SO, UH, WE CAN PIECEMEAL IT IF WE PREFER MM-HMM.
UM, SO TO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LEVINS.
JUST FIRST TO CLARIFY, I, I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF DELIBERATIONS, AND IF SOMEBODY DISAGREES WITH ME, MAYBE YOU'LL PERSUADE ME OTHERWISE.
UM, SECOND, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, I DID MENTION I THINK THERE'S BEEN AN ADMISSION, UM, IN MY VIEW, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT AS ENOUGH TO GO TO SANCTIONS TONIGHT.
UM, I THINK, I DON'T THINK HE MADE A TECHNICAL ADMISSION.
I THINK THE, THE WAY THE, THE WAY I INTERPRET OUR RULES IS
[00:55:01]
THEY HAVE TO SAY, AND I THINK WE'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN BEFORE, YES, I COMMITTED A VIOLATION.AND I THINK MR. FISHER IS A, I DON'T MEAN THIS IN A PEJORATIVE WAY, KIND OF A LAWYERLY DANCING AROUND THE ISSUE.
IT'S THE ONLY WAY I DANCE, BUT I DANCE
LET ME CLARIFY MY MOTION THEN.
UM, THE FIRST MOTION WOULD BE TO, UH, FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS AND SET FOR HEARING.
AND MY JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION OF THAT IS THAT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE APPROPRIATE, WE HAVE APPROPRIATE QUANTITY OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT SANCTIONS.
SO, UH, I'M GONNA SAY THAT WAS THE MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
NOW WE CAN DISCUSS THE MOTION.
AND I SAW COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS WITH HIS HAND UP.
SO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. SO, MY CONCERN IS, UM, I JUST WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE REALLY CLEAR.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE RESPONDENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER ADMIT THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO, TO MOVE TO SANCTIONS OR REJECT THAT IDEA, MOVE TO A FULL HEARING, AND POSSIBLY RAISE WHAT I THINK IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS REPORTED WAS ACCURATE.
SO, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE ADMITTING VERSUS US FINDING THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT THE VIOLATION OCCURRED.
I, UM, YOU KNOW, I, ONE, ONE REASON THAT I ASKED THE QUESTION THAT I DID EARLIER IN THE Q AND A PERIOD WAS KIND OF PRECISELY TO DRAW THAT OUT AND SEE IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE THAT ADMISSION.
AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS ALSO HAD A QUESTION TO THAT EFFECT.
UM, THE, THE WAY, UH, I FEEL LIKE THE GHOST OF ROBERT IS BEHIND ME AND HIS RULES, UM,
UM, IF, IF YOU WANTED TO PROCEED THAT WAY, OR, OR PERHAPS THE COMMISSIONER CAN RESCIND OUR MOTION AT THIS MOMENT AND THEN OFFER IT ONCE WE'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION, UM, WHY WOULD THE MOTION NOT STILL BE ON THE FLOOR? AND WE'RE STILL HAVING CLARIFICATION WITH THE MOTION.
IT'S, SO, IT'S SIMPLY, IT'S SIMPLY A MATTER TRULY PROCEDURAL, UH, NICETIES IN, IN MY MIND.
UH, WHEN THERE IS A MOTION UP FOR DISCUSSION, IT IS EXCLUDED TO COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSING AMONGST THEMSELVES TO TEMPORARILY REMOVE THE MOTION, GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH THE PARTIES AGAIN, UM, AT WHICH POINT WE CAN REVISIT THE MOTION AND TAKE IT UP AGAIN.
I WILL, I'LL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT IF EITHER COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION OR OUR PROCEDURAL COUNSEL HAS THOUGHTS ON THAT IF I'M FAR AFIELD.
I, I THINK WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED IS THAT THERE IS A MOTION THAT'S PENDING TO, UM, TO GO BACK TO AN EARLIER STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND TO REOPEN THE QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION THAT RELATES TO THE, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CA OF THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT.
AND AT THAT POINT, UH, ALLOW ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED AND ANSWERED.
AND THEN I THINK THE CHAIR IS INDICATING THAT HE WOULD THEN LIKE TO, ONCE THAT'S COMPLETED, TO THEN GO BACK TO THE STAGE OF DELIBERATION AND ANY MOTIONS THAT, UH, THAT MIGHT BE MADE AT THAT TIME.
IT'S BEING SUGGESTED THAT I WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
WE HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONING OF RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINTS COUNSEL, AND THEN WE MOVE BACK INTO THE STAGE WHERE I WOULD EITHER MAKE ANOTHER MOTION OR SOMEONE ELSE WOULD MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.
IN THAT CASE, I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT WITH RESPECT TO ROBERT'S RULES, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND BEEN SECONDED, THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION CANNOT RETRACT IT.
IT BELONGS TO US AS A GROUP, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER MOTION SURE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TECHNICAL TERM IS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? RIGHT.
[01:00:01]
UH, WHICH IS, WHICH IS WHY I WAS, UH, GOING TO ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT.WELL, I WAS ALSO GONNA SAY CAN'T, I MEAN, YOU, YOU, YOU MAKE A MOTION, THEN THERE'S A SECOND AND THEN THERE'S A DISCUSSION.
COULDN'T THE DISCUSSION INCLUDE SOME QUESTIONS TO THE COMPLAINANT, THE RESPONDENT? MAYBE NOT.
IT'S, IT'S MY INTERPRETATION THAT IT CAN'T, THAT ONCE A MOTION IS ON THE TABLE, UM, IT IS, IT IS, WE ARE IN A BUBBLE PROCEDURALLY.
UM, AND THAT OTHER PARTIES CAN'T INTERJECT IN THAT DISCUSSION.
AND, AND I THINK THAT'S LEGAL THE LEGALLY CORRECT WAY TO PROCEED.
BUT I THINK OPERATING BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT OR BY MOTION TO MOVE BACK TO AN EARLIER STAGE IN THE PROCEEDING WOULD SATISFY THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE.
UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, OR, OR GO AHEAD.
UH, THERE'S A MOTION TO TABLE.
UH, IS THERE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO TABLE THE MOTION TEMPORARILY? I SEE UNANIMOUS CONSENT, SO THE MOTION IS TABLED.
UH, DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE A PARTICULAR QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT? UH, I WILL ASK THE QUESTION OUTRIGHT.
UH, UH, MR. FISHER, UM, IS THERE, UH, ANY ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN TWO? YES, I TALKED TO MY CORRESPONDENT WITH MY CLIENT.
HE'S AUTHORIZED ME TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS A TECHNICAL AND DI MINIMUS INADVERTENT OMISSION, WHICH WAS PROMPTLY CORRECTED.
SO PROCEED WITH DO YOUR WORST
I'M GOING TO SAY BACK WHAT I HEARD TO MAKE SURE WE'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR THAT YOU'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH YOUR CLIENT.
AND THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS RELAYED, UM, THAT YOU'RE AUTHORIZED AS HIS COUNSEL TO ADMIT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN TWO E THE SUBJECT OF THIS COMPLAINT, UH, ALBEIT TECHNICAL DI MINIMIS AS YOU WOULD JUST CHARACTERIZE IT JUST NOW THAT THAT'S CORRECT.
WILL I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE REGARDING SANCTIONS, OR DO I NEED TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW? WELL, SURE, THAT IS A FINE QUESTION.
UH, AND ONE, THIS ALL BELONGS TO THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT.
UH, SO WHAT WE CAN DO, UM, IS CONTINUE TO DISCUSS COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I THINK IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION, UM, IN LIGHT OF THAT.
BUT GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LEVINS, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'D MIND IF I FOLLOW UP WITH MR. FISHER A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CRYSTAL CLEAR.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT FOR ME? YEAH.
DO YOU MIND IF I FOLLOW UP? I, I'M NOT SURE.
PROCEDURALLY, I FIND WE KINDA OPENED IT UP QUESTIONS.
WE, WE'VE OP WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THIS.
SO, MR. FISHER, THERE ARE FOUR COUNTS HERE.
IT IS TO THE, UH, O INADVERTENT OMISSION OF OCCUPATIONAL INCOME, BUT NOT TO THE COUNTS REGARDING BOARD POSITION.
SO AS I'M LOOKING THROUGH THE COUNTS, THE BOARD POSITION IS COUNT THREE AND FOUR.
SO YOU ADMIT TO COUNTS ONE AND TWO, BUT NOT TO COUNTS THREE AND FOUR.
WHAT, WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? I'M LOOKING AT THE COMPLAINT ITSELF.
THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT COMPLAINT LISTS THE COUNTS.
I WOULD SAY THAT WE ADMIT TO COUNT ONE, WE ADMIT TO COUNT TWO.
UM, WE ADMIT TO FAILURE TO LIST THE BOARD POSITION AS IT RELATES TO THE EARLIER YEAR, WHICH I GUESS IS COUNT THREE, BUT NOT TO COUNT FOUR BECAUSE WE FEEL IT'S FACTUALLY UNSUPPORTED BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ON THE BOARD RIGHT.
COULD YOU JUST RATTLE OFF THOSE NUMBERS ONE MORE TIME SO I CAN TAKE THEM THE COUNT NUMBERS? UH, 1, 2, 3.
IT SAYS COUNT THREE WAS A DIRECT OF THE HOUSE INCUR CONSERVANCY TO AT LEAST MARCH 28TH, 2022.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH COUNT IS WHICH.
THE WAY THAT THIS IS WORDED, I'LL SAY THAT HE, THE, THAT THERE WAS
[01:05:01]
NO OMISSION, OMISSION OF HIS BOARD POSITION ON HIS 2022 FILING.UM, RIGHT, SO WE'LL, WE'LL CALL THAT JUST FOR PURPOSES OF ENUMERATING.
THIS COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND FOUR.
UM, COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION.
UM, WE HAVE A TABLED MOTION, UH, TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING.
WE HAVE AN ADMISSION, UH, ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
WE ARE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO PROCEED DIRECTLY TO CONSIDERATION OF SANCTIONS, AT WHICH POINT I WOULD OPEN IT UP AGAIN TO A Q AND A, UM, AND, UH, MAYBE EVEN, UH, UH, THREE MINUTES FOR EACH OF THE PARTIES TO HAVE A BRIEF, UH, DISCUSSION IF THEY SEE FIT, UM, ABOUT WHAT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF SANCTION IS AFTER I DESCRIBE WHAT THE SANCTIONS ARE.
GO AHEAD, MS. CASTO, AND THEN MR. LEVINS.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT OPERATIONALLY.
SO, IF WE WERE TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF SANCTIONS THIS EVENING, WHAT ARE WE LIMITED TO CONSIDERING, IF ANYTHING, AS FAR AS PERHAPS THE TOTALITY OF THE RULES VERSUS JUST THE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO, UH, BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED? THAT'S A, A, A GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK, UM, I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED IN ANY Q AND A THAT WE HAVE BEYOND THIS MOMENT, UM, IN EVALUATING WHAT LEVEL OF SANCTION IS APPROPRIATE.
UM, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE MY BEST ANSWER IN THIS MOMENT.
AND I'M GETTING, I'M GETTING A REASSURING NOD OR TWO.
UM, YES, I, I, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
UH, COMMISSIONER LEVINS, DID I SEE YOU INCH TOWARDS THE YES.
UM, SO I THINK AS A MATTER OF DOTTING I'S AND CROSSING T'S, WE HAVE AN ADMISSION AS TO THREE OF THE FOUR, BUT NOT THE FOURTH.
UM, SO WE COULD AT LEAST IN THEORY, PROCEED TO SANCTIONS ON THE THREE WHERE THERE'S AN ADMISSION, BUT WE STILL NEED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION ON THE ONE FOR WHICH THERE'S NOT AN ADMISSION AS TO WHETHER WE NEED TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING ON THAT ONE.
I, UH, I, I CAN ASK A QUESTION.
UH, MR. UH, MR. AHIRE, DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT MR. LEVINS ASKED? WHEN WE FILED THE COMPLAINT, WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THE REPORTS THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED.
UM, THEN WE SAW THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS, AND THEN AFTER SEEING THE RESPONSE THAT I GOT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, I SEE A LETTER OF RESIGNATION BY MR. VELAZQUEZ, UH, FROM E A C DATED IN THE FALL OF 2021.
AND I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED STRONGER EVIDENCE THAT THAT'S WHEN HE RESIGNED THAN THE MARCH, 2022 FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WHICH REALLY ONLY PROVES THAT E A C NOTIFIED THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN MARCH OF 2022, THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ON THE BOARD, BUT IT DID NOT GIVE A SPECIFIC DATE.
SO, UM, I, UM, UH, BELIEVE THAT, UM, THERE IS AT LEAST CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TONIGHT AS TO, UH, WHEN HE RESIGNED.
BUT THE STRONGER EVIDENCE, I ADMIT, UM, SINCE WE'RE DOING THE ADMISSIONS, UH, IS, IS STRONGER EVIDENCE THAN THE JUST THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S, UH, FILING THAT HE WAS NOT ON THE BOARD IN 2022.
UM, AND SO OUR COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT WAS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAD BEFORE US AT THE TIME, AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THAT IS NOT ONE THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE, UH, TO PURSUE.
THE OTHER THREE ARE SERIOUS VIOLATIONS, AND WE, I DO THINK THOSE NEED TO BE ACTED ON.
UM, YES, MR. WILLIAMS? I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, OR MY MOTION WOULD BE TO
[01:10:01]
MOVE THAT ADMISSION TO COUNCIL ONE, TWO, AND THREE HAS BEEN MADE, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, ONE, TWO, AND FOUR HAS BEEN MADE AND THAT NO REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST FOR COUNT NUMBER THREE.UH, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL RESTATE IT.
I THINK, UM, THAT, UH, IN LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION FROM RESPONDENT, THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED AS TO COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND FOUR, BUT TO DISMISS COUNT THREE, AS THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED OF COUNT THREE, IS THE MOTION.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT ACCURATELY STATES THE MOTION, UM, 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THE MOTION WAS JUST DEFINED THAT THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS ON ONE, TWO, AND FOUR, BUT THAT THERE'S BEEN AN ADMISSION OF A VIOLATION.
UH, SO, UH, TO CLEARLY RESTATE IT, UH, BASED ON THE ADMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT, THE COMMISSION FINDS THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF ONE, TWO AND FOUR OCCURRED.
UM, I, I, YOU KNOW WHAT, UH, MAYBE I WILL JUST LET, LET'S ASK THE MOVEMENT HIMSELF.
LET THE MAN HIMSELF SPEAK FOR HIMSELF.
UH, COMMISSIONER, MY, MY MOTION IS TO FIND THAT AN ADMISSION HAS BEEN MADE AS TO COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND FOUR, AND THAT NO REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO COUNT THREE.
SO TO DISMISS COUNT THREE, BECAUSE REASONABLE GROUNDS DO NOT EXIST, BUT AS TO COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND FOUR, AN ADMISSION HAS BEEN MADE, MADE BY THE RESPONDENT.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA.
IS IT TOO LATE FOR ME TO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION?
WE WERE DISCUSSING THE MOTION NOW, SO GO AHEAD.
UM, IS IT, UH, IMPLICIT IN THIS MOTION THAT WE WOULD MOVE TO THE SANCTION STAGE TONIGHT? UM, OR IS THAT LEFT FOR ANOTHER MOTION? UH, WE WOULD BE, UH, WITHIN OUR, WE'RE PERFECTLY AGENDIZED TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION.
UM, AND I THINK THAT ACTION INCLUDES, UH, SANCTIONS AFTER AN ADMISSION BY A PARTY.
SO IT, IT, AND THAT WOULD BE YES, AND THAT WOULD BE, IT COULD BE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT ACTION TONIGHT.
UH, MAYBE IT'S DISCUSSION NOT GERMANE TO THIS SPECIFIC MOTION, BUT IT IS FULLY MY INTENTION, UH, TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONERS ABOUT.
AND THAT I JUST WANT UNDERSTAND IF THIS MOTION MEANS THAT WE MOVE TO SANCTIONS TONIGHT, OR IF WE'RE NOT, IT, IT MEANS WE CAN, AND IT MEANS WE CAN.
AND, BUT NOT NECESSARILY WE WILL.
I INTEND TO OPEN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS AND CHAIR, CHAIR SORAN SUMMARIZES MY POSITION, I THINK PRETTY WELL.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY NOT BE READY TO MOVE TO SANCTIONS, UH, FROM AN ARGUMENT STANDPOINT.
HE MAY ASK FOR SOME TIME, BUT IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE, I THINK THAT WE WOULD ALL BE PREPARED TO, TO MOVE TO THAT STAGE.
UH, IT, IT'S MY INTENTION, UH, IMMEDIATELY AFTER WE DISPOSE OF THIS MOTION TO, UM, ALLOW BOTH PARTIES, UH, I THINK THREE MINUTES, ASSUMING THEY AGREE TO IT, UM, THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS WHETHER THEY ARE READY TO MAKE A CASE FOR THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF SANCTION AFTER I DO MY LITTLE SCRIPT READING OF WHAT THOSE SANCTION LEVELS ARE.
UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING NONE, THEN I'LL PROCEED TO A ROLL CALL VOTE IN THE SAME MANNER THAT I DID AT THE START OF OUR MEETING.
SO I'M GONNA ASK THAT YOU MAKE SURE TO, UH, UNMUTE AND THEN MUTE YOURSELF WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME TO CLEARLY STATE YOUR VOTE.
VICE CHAIR KALE ABSTAIN, BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED THERE COULD BE MORE INFORMATION WE COULD FIND OUT ON SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS AT A FINAL HEARING.
AN ABSTENTION COMMISSIONER CASTO AYE.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER KELL'S CONCERN IS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT AN ADMISSION HAS BEEN MADE, SO I SUPPORT MY MOTION.
THERE BEING 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AYES, ONE ABSTENTION ABSENCES, AND RECUSALS.
UM, SO NOW WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WE DO NEXT.
UM, I'M GONNA BRIEFLY READ THROUGH WHAT THE LEVELS OF
[01:15:01]
SANCTION ARE AVAILABLE TO US.I WILL THEN GIVE EACH OF THE PARTIES THREE MINUTES, UM, TO DISCUSS WHETHER THEY ARE PREPARED TO RECOMMEND A SANCTION TONIGHT.
IF THEY WANT TO DEVELOP THE EVIDENCE FURTHER, UM, I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF STATE THEIR CASE.
SO, UH, VERY BRIEFLY, UM, COUNSEL, I'LL JUST GO COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
IS THREE MINUTES FINE FOR YOU? ONCE I DESCRIBE THE SANCTIONS TO FURTHER DISCUSS, WERE YOU GONNA DESCRIBE THE OPTIONS FOR THE SANCTIONS? YES.
AND THEN, AND THEN AFTER THAT'S FINE, THREE MINUTES IS FINE.
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, IT'S FINE.
UM, THEN I AM GOING TO READ WHAT THOSE SANCTIONS ARE.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE IN MY HANDY SCRIPT, BUT THANK YOU, COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION.
UH, SO UNDER SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 48 OF CITY CODE, SPECIFICALLY SUBSECTION C, WE HAVE A FEW OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US.
THEY ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS.
THE FIRST IS A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION WHEN THE VIOLATION IS CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL, OR WHEN THE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF WAS MADE IN RELIANCE ON A PUBLIC WRITTEN OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION MUST ADVISE THE RESPONDENT OF ANY STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO AVOID FUTURE VIOLATIONS.
UH, AND THE COMMISSION MAY DIRECT A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION TO ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE CHAPTER.
THE SECOND OPTION IS A LETTER OF ADMONITION, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE WHEN THE SANCTION, UH, IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
EXCUSE ME, A LETTER OF ADMONITION IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE VIOLATION IS MINOR OR MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL, BUT CALLS FOR MORE SUBSTANTIAL RESPONSE THAN A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, THE COMMISSION MAY ADMONISH ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE CHAPTER.
A REPRIMAND IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
WHEN THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH DISREGARD OF THIS CHAPTER, COMMISSION MAY REPRIMAND ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE CHAPTER.
UM, A REPRIMAND DIRECTED AT A CITY OFFICIAL IS ALSO SENT TO COUNCIL.
UM, AND THEN, UH, LASTLY, A RECOMMENDATION OF REMOVAL FROM OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE, INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION FOR A LENGTH OF SUSPENSION IS APPROPRIATE.
UH, WHEN THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A SERIES OR REPEATED VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH CULPABLE DISREGARD OF THE CHAPTER.
UM, THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION THERE ABOUT HOW THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TRANSMITTED, UH, FOR, UH, UN SALARIED CITY OFFICIAL OR A SALARIED EMPLOYEE THAT I CAN READ IF ONE IS INTERESTED.
UM, LASTLY, A LETTER OF CENSURE OR A RECOMMENDATION OF RECALL IS APPROPRIATE WHEN THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER HAS BEEN COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH CULPABLE DISREGARD OF THIS CHAPTER BY ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL.
UM, THAT IS TRANSMITTED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE CITY CLERK PUBLISHED IN A PAPER.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, I WILL GO IN THE SAME ORDER THAT WE DID OUR OPENING PRESENTATIONS.
UM, UH, IF, UH, VICE CHAIR KALE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND BEING A TIMEKEEPER, AND WE'LL SAY, JUST GIVE A ONE MINUTE SHOUT OUT, UH, FOR THAT PURPOSE.
UH, AND I'LL START WITH THE COMPLAINANT AND THEN GO TO THE RESPONDENT.
I, UH, ACTUALLY THINK IT IN ALL FAIRNESS, THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ'S ADMISSION.
I THINK THAT IF HE TRIED TO CONTINUE TO EXCUSE IT, THAT PERHAPS THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE HARSHER.
AND SO I, I RECOGNIZE I'M NOT MAKING HIS ARGUMENT FOR HIM.
I'M JUST TO, TO BE CLEAR, HE'S NOT, UH, THAT, UH, THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THAT ADMISSION WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD CONSIDER.
NOW THAT YOU'RE IN PUNISHMENT PHASE, I DON'T THINK NOTIFICATION IS NEAR ENOUGH.
UM, YOU, YOU HAVE ADMISSION FOR THREE VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED, TWO OF WHICH RELATE TO INCOME THAT HE RECEIVED IN 2021 AND 2022 THAT HE DIDN'T DISCLOSE.
BUT THERE WERE NOT INCLUDED, INCLUDED IN OUR EVIDENCE, BUT NOT IN THE COMPLAINT IS THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE A I S D CONTRACT, WHICH APPARENTLY IS SUBSTANTIAL.
UM, SO YOU'VE ACTUALLY GOT EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S, THERE'S THREE VIOLATIONS OF NOT DISCLOSING INCOME, UH, THAT OUGHT TO BE SERIOUS AND AN ADMONITION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND BALANCED.
UM, I DON'T THINK MY CLIENTS EXPECT HIM TO BE SUSPENDED OR REMOVED OR CENSORED.
[01:20:01]
A A REPRIMAND WOULD REQUIRE EVIDENCE THAT WE DON'T HAVE BEFORE US.UH, I DON'T KNOW WHY, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ DID NOT, UH, DISCLOSE THIS FOR ANY ONE OF THOSE TWO YEARS, INCLUDING AFTER HE WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, AND HAD AVAILABLE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE REPORT HE FILED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
UM, BUT ALL THE FACTORS CONSIDERED, I THINK MY CLIENTS SIMPLY WANNA SEE ONE MINUTE, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ HELD ACCOUNTABLE, UH, FOR A VIOLATION THAT IF ANYONE ELSE DID IT, IF ANY OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES REQUIRED, UH, TREAT THEM, TREAT COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ LIKE YOU WOULD THOSE EMPLOYEES.
UM, AND, UH, I DON'T THINK JUST SAYING IT'S INADVERTENT WITHOUT ACTUALLY ANY EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH, BUT I, I RECOGNIZE I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO MORE THAN JUST NOTIFYING BECAUSE I DON'T, I THINK THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS AND AN ADMONITION AT THE MINIMUM WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
UH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
YOU GET THREE MINUTES AS WELL.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, WE APPRECIATE YOU ATTENDING TO THIS TONIGHT.
I APPRECIATE YOU HEARING US OUT.
UM, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS INCLUDED WITH THEIR COMPLAINT AND IN REBUTTAL IS A DOCUMENT SIGNED BY MY CLIENT, FILED BY MY CLIENT IN AN EFFORT TOWARDS FULL TRANSPARENCY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE.
ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY BROUGHT FORWARD IS, IS STUFF THAT WE HAVE FILED IN ORDER TO, UH, TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
UM, THESE ARE UNINTENTIONAL OMISSIONS TO UNINTENTIONAL OMISSIONS.
UM, THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY REMEDIED AS SOON AS HE WAS MADE AWARE OF THEM AND REALIZED THAT THEY WERE MISTAKES.
THE TRANSPARENCY WAS NOT HARMED OR NOT UNDERMINED IN ANY WAY.
UH, HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY WAS KNOWN FOR YEARS.
UM, THIS IS, AND I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS UNINTENTIONAL.
UM, IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF, AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE THAT HE WAS HIDING ANYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC.
WHEN THIS ZONING CASE CAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL, HE SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE.
HE RELIED ON THE LAW DEPARTMENT'S ADVICE.
HE DISCLOSED HIS RELATIONSHIP, AND THAT BOTHERED SOME PEOPLE, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT HE DISCLOSED HIS RELATIONSHIP AND HE ABSTAINED FROM PARTICIPATION AS A RESULT.
HERE WE ARE TONIGHT, BUT HE HAS TAKEN THE HIGH ROAD AT EVERY TURN.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE THINK HE'S IN, HE SHOULD RECEIVE A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION.
UH, SO COMMISSIONERS, UM, UH, I'VE EXPLAINED THE OPTIONS YOU'VE HEARD FROM COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT WITH THEIR PREFERRED LEVELS OF SANCTION ARE, UM, I FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING ON DISCUSSION OF WHAT THOSE POSSIBLE, WHAT WE DO NOW.
UH, SO THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR THAT PURPOSE.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS, GO AHEAD.
THE THING I'D LIKE TO KNOW FIRST IS WE ASKED THEM WHAT THEY THOUGHT THE SANCTION SHOULD BE, WHAT WE DIDN'T ASK THEM.
AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS, DO THEY WANT US, DO THEY PREFER THAT WE MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT? I THEIR PREFERENCE ISN'T BINDING ON US, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY THINK.
DO THEY WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT OR WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH? SURE.
I THINK THAT'S A, THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK OF BOTH.
UM, SO I'LL ASK, UH, YES OR NO IN TURN, UH, FOR COUNSEL FOR EACH, UM, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH US MAKING A DETERMINATION ON SANCTIONS TONIGHT? I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE THE DETERMINATION TONIGHT FOR ONE THING TO ERASE THE DEATH STAR ISSUE IF YOU, THE, THE STATUTE'S NOT IN EFFECT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1ST.
IF YOU'VE SANCTIONED TONIGHT, YOU'VE ENFORCED IT TONIGHT AND, AND YOU'RE DOING IT UNDER THE CURRENT LAW.
IF YOU WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE FIRST, NOW YOU'VE GOT THAT LEGAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER YOU CAN ENFORCE THE OBVIOUS VIOL THE VIOLATIONS.
AND IF YOU DO THAT TONIGHT, JUST BE FAIR TO THE PUBLIC AND TO COUNCIL MEMBER VELASQUEZ SHOW GOOD FAITH IN WHAT YOU DECIDE TO DO.
UH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH US MOVING TO SANCTIONS TONIGHT? YES, SIR.
UH, MR. HUMPHREY, UH, MAY I ASK A QUESTION TO MR. SHAR? SURE.
I MEAN, WHAT THIS APPEARS TO BE ABOUT IS TWO RELATED THINGS.
ONE, TRANSPARENCY AND TWO, WHETHER SOMETHING WAS INADVERTENT.
[01:25:02]
UM, MR. FISHER CLAIMED THAT DURING THE CAMPAIGN AND EVEN PREVIOUS TO THE CAMPAIGN, IT WAS CLEAR THAT MR. VELASQUEZ HAD RELATIONSHIPS OF SOME SORT WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS.DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO DOUBT IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THERE WAS THAT SORT OF TRANSPARENCY? OUR, I'VE DISCUSSED WITH MY CLIENTS, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THEY WERE CERTAINLY AWARE THAT MR. VELASQUEZ WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE E OF THE E A C.
IN FACT, THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS THE REASON THEY WERE ASSERTING FOR THE CONFLICT FOR HIM TO VOTE IS BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN ON THE BOARD.
IT WAS NOT UNTIL HE FILED THE RECUSAL STATEMENT THAT THEY REALIZED THAT HE HAD BEEN PAID BY THE E A C.
AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE CORRECTED FILING THAT THEY FOUND OUT HE WAS PAID NOT ONLY IN 2021, BUT IN 2022, IT DID NOT KNOW HE WAS BEING PAID BY E A C.
UH, BUT, BUT THEY KNEW HE HAD A STRONG RELATIONSHIP.
HE, THEY KNEW HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE E A C.
HE DID NOT KNOW THAT IT, THAT IT ACTUALLY MONEY HAD CHANGED HANDS AND HE HAD RECEIVED MONEY FROM E A C AND THAT THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CONFLICT WITH THE ENDEAVOR DEAL THAT ENDEAVOR DID WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE CONTACT TEAM WITH E A C.
NOW, WERE THEY UPSET ABOUT THAT AND THE BOARD AND TRACK? OF COURSE.
BUT HONESTLY, I CONTACTED ME ABOUT THE CONFLICT.
AND IF THERE IS NO CONFLICT, JUST BECAUSE YOU USED TO SERVE ON A BOARD, THE CONFLICT WAS NOT OBVIOUS UNTIL WE SAW THE RECUSAL STATEMENT AND HE HAD GOTTEN PAID.
AND NOW THAT INVOKES THE CA THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENT FOR DISCLOSURE.
THEY DID NOT KNOW, HE, THEY DID NOT GO DURING THE CAMPAIGN THAT HE WAS BEING PAID BY E A C COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER, UM, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE PARTIES? UM, THIS, I'M, I'M GONNA TREAT THIS AS A RELATIVELY FLUID TIME WHERE WE CAN DISCUSS AMONGST OURSELVES, UM, UH, IF THERE'S, UH, ANYONE'S EVEN, I'M SORRY, I, I JUST GOT CORRECTED.
PLEASE, COULD YOU TELL US WHAT WAS JUST, MR. GIANNIS TELL TOLD ME THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THAT, THAT HE WAS ON THE BOARD, UH, OF THE E A C, BUT WE CERTAINLY, ANY RELATIONSHIP OR HAD HAD ANY RELATIONSHIP, IT CERTAINLY DID NOT KNOW HE WAS BEING PAID.
MAYBE IT'S NOT RELEVANT GIVEN WHERE WE ARE, BUT IF THEY HAD NO IDEA OF ANY CONNECTION, THEN WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE ASSERTION THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER SHOULD NOT BELIEVE HE HAD A CONFLICT? BECAUSE HE, THEY, THEY, TWO THINGS WERE GOING ON THAT HE SHOULD RECUSE ON THE RECUSAL THE ADVICE THAT HE NEED, NOT RECUSE.
IT MAY NOT BE RELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT HOW YOU MAKE THIS DECISION ABOUT THE NOW ADMITTED VIOLATION AND WHAT IS APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
BUT THE, THERE WAS, UH, THE CONTACT TEAM WAS OPPOSED TO THE BORDEN DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY WERE OPPOSING IT WHEN THEY HEARD THAT VELASQUEZ WAS GONNA RECUSE HIMSELF, THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT ENDEAVOR HAD BEEN IN DIRECT CONTACT.
IN FACT, THEY HAD ACTUALLY GOTTEN MISLED ABOUT IT WITH E A C.
AND SO IT WAS THAT NEGOTIATION FOR THE CONTRACT THAT I'VE PUT IN THE RECORD THAT ENDED UP, UH, UH, BETWEEN ENDEAVOR AND E A C, THAT CONTRACT WAS NOT SIGNED UNTIL AFTER THE FIRST VOTE BY THE COUNCIL.
MY CLIENTS DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THAT.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT A DEAL LIKE THAT HAD BEEN DONE.
THEY WERE BEING TOLD THAT THE RECUSAL WAS BECAUSE, UH, UH, VAL, MR. VELASQUEZ HAD SERVED PREVIOUSLY IN PRIOR YEARS ON THE BOARD.
BUT WHEN THEY ASKED ME IS THAT A CONFLICT FOR RECUSAL SAID PRIOR SERVICE ON THE BOARD YOU'RE NO
[01:30:01]
LONGER ON IS NO REASON FOR RECUSAL.IT WAS ONLY AFTER WE SAW THE RECUSAL STATEMENT THAT WE REALIZED THAT SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS WAS GOING ON AND HE HAD ACTUALLY GOTTEN PAID.
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL WE GOT THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE HE GOT PAID IN 2021 AND IN 2022.
UM, AND SO THAT JUST A SEQUENCE.
I CAN ANSWER HER QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND ALLOWING.
UM, IT IS ONLY PARTIES IN THEIR COUNSEL THAT ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK, BUT, AND HE'S THE CLAIMANT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE A A A A A BRIEF SE THE, THE SEQUENCE.
WHEN THE CASE CAME UP, THE, THE BORDEN'S CASE, UH, OUR NEGOTIATIONS WITH ENDEAVOR DID NOT INCLUDE THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY.
WE, IN OUR NEGOTIATIONS, WE HAD A LIST OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT PARTNERS THAT WE DEAL, THAT THE CONTACT TEAM TEAM DIRECTS THINGS TO E A C EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY WAS NOT ON THAT LIST.
SO WHEN WE WENT TO THE COUNCIL, AND MR. VELASQUEZ RECUSED HIMSELF FOR, FOR BEING ASSOCIATED WITH, WITH EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY, WE HAD NO IDEA THAT HE HAD HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY UNTIL AFTERWARDS WHEN WE WERE INVESTIGATING ALL THIS.
AND WHEN I TALKED TO THE E A C, THAT'S WHEN THEY TOLD US THAT ACTUALLY HE WAS NOT ON THE BOARD FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BUT HE HAD BEEN HIRED AS A CONSULTANT.
SO WE DID NOT KNOW THAT, THAT HE HAD ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE E N C.
AND THAT'S WHY IN THE EMAILS, I MEAN, IN THE TEXTS, I WAS SAYING TO VELASQUEZ, YOU, YOU ARE NOT IN CONFLICT BECAUSE EEA IS E A C.
BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY HAD DONE A BACKDOOR DEAL BETWEEN ENDEAVOR.
MR. VELASQUEZ, I'M GONNA OBJECT TO, I'M GONNA, WELL, THAT'S, WELL, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
UM, SO, UH, MY, MY QUESTION IS, UH, FOR COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, UM, THE, FOR TO DO A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, IT'S WHERE THE VIOLATION IS CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL.
AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO MAKE THE CASE FOR WHAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO THIS BEING CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL AS OPPOSED TO POSSIBLY UNINTENTIONAL.
I, UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STEP IN FOR A SECOND SURE.
AND MAKE A PROCEDURAL NOTE THAT THE ISSUE OF RECUSAL ON THE BOARD AND TRACKED ISSUE IS NOT A PART OF THE COMPLAINT THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.
IT IS NOT ANY OF THE COUNTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND THAT WE ARE AT THE POINT OF DISCUSSING THE SANCTIONS PART OF IT AND NOT THE PARTIES AND, YOU KNOW, ANY SORT OF, UM, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THAT POINT UNLESS IT REGARDS THE SANCTIONS.
UM, SO WE, WE, WE'LL BE MINDFUL OF, UH, THE RELEVANCE OF WHAT'S PRESENTED, UH, AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF SANCTIONS.
UM, SO, UH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, UH, UH, JUST TO SPEAK TO WHAT CASE, UH, YOU HAVE FOR IT BEING CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL AS OPPOSED TO LIKELY UNINTENTIONAL OR, UH, POSSIBLY UNINTENTIONAL.
WITH REGARD TO THE 2021 SS F I, MY CLIENT WAS A, I BELIEVE A FIRST TIME CANDIDATE WAS NOT ON THE CITY COUNCIL, WAS RUNNING FROM CITY COUNCIL AND HAD NEVER FILLED OUT THE FORM BEFORE AND DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO HELP HIM FILL OUT THAT FORM.
AND INADVERTENTLY OMITTED THAT, UM, THAT INFORMATION.
I BELIEVE THAT HIS AFFILIATION WITH THOSE GROUPS WAS ON HIS CAMPAIGN COLLATERAL.
BUT, UM, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, BUT CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND TO ADMIT TO O ADMIT IT.
I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT IN THAT TIME PERIOD, HE DIDN'T, HE NEVER HAD A, I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE A I S D.
I BELIEVE HE WAS AN A I S D EMPLOYEE.
AND WHEN HE CEASED BEING AN EMPLOYEE, HE SET UP THIS SOLO CONSULTING SHOP.
UM, AND ONE OF HIS CLIENTS WAS THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY.
UM, WITH REGARD TO THE 2022, UM, HE LISTED J M A V, UH, CONSULTANTS, I BELIEVE IS THE TERMINOLOGY HE USED AS HIS SOURCE OF INCOME, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT DOING SO WAS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE OBLIGATION TO LIST THE SOURCES OF YOUR OCCUPATIONAL INCOME AND FOR A FILER FILING UNDER THE 5 72 IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
IF YOU'RE SELF-EMPLOYED, YOU JUST PUT THAT YOU'RE SELF EMPLOYED, AND IF YOU USE A D B A OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN YOU LIST
[01:35:01]
THAT AND THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.AND SO HE THOUGHT THAT HE, THAT LISTING J M A V CONSULTING WAS SUFFICIENT FOR MEETING HIS OBLIGATION TO LIST HIS OCCU, HIS SOURCE OF HIS OCCUPATIONAL INCOME WHEN HE LATER LEARNED LIKE LAST MONTH THAT IT WASN'T, HE MADE THOSE CORRECTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
SO IN THE INTEREST OF HEARING MITIGATING ARGUMENT AS OPPOSED TO EVIDENCE, I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY STEMMING FROM THE FAILURE TO REPORT, UM, RESULTED IN SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT OUTCOME, BECAUSE I THINK ULTIMATELY HE DID RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE VOTE.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SOME CULPABILITY THERE THAT HIS LACK OF TRANSPARENCY FROM FAILING TO REPORT, LIKE I'M NOT FINDING, I'M NOT SEEING, AND MAYBE I JUST MISUNDERSTAND, MISUNDERSTOOD THE, THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE HAD, BUT I'M NOT SEEING HOW THAT LACK OF TRANSPARENCY HAD ANY HARM IN THE FINAL OUTCOME BECAUSE HE DID ULTIMATELY RECUSE HIMSELF.
UM, WAS THAT DIRECTED TO BOTH, TO BOTH PARTIES? SURE.
WHEN I, IN MY REMARKS EARLIER, I SPOKE ABOUT THAT IT CHEATED VOTERS OUT OF INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO SEE WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO ON, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY, OUR, OUR LAW REQUIRES THAT DURING THE CAMPAIGN WITH A DEADLINE SET BEFORE THE ELECTION, IN THIS CASE IT WAS AUGUST OF 2022, THE FINANCIAL REPORTS HAVE TO BE FILED THAT THEN MAKES THOSE, THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO VOTERS, REPORTERS, AND OTHER, OTHER PEOPLE.
UM, AND THAT DIDN'T OCCUR BECAUSE HE DID NOT DISCLOSE THEN THAT HE HAD WAS BEING PAID BY THE E A C OR THAT HE WAS EVEN ON THE BOARD OF THE E A C.
UH, ONE THING MIGHT BE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LAW AND SAY, I HAVE TO REPORT MY INCOME, BUT IT'S ANOTHER TO SAY I DIDN'T, HE ALSO DID NOT FOR 2021 IN THE FILING HE MADE DURING THE CAMPAIGN, EVEN DISCLOSED THAT HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE E A C.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY THE ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY.
IT'S TRANSPARENCY WITH THE VOTERS BY GIVING TIMELY FILED INFORMATION, UH, AND THAT IT UNDERMINES THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THOSE REPORTS DONE AT THAT TIME.
AND THEN THE ISSUE IN THIS YEAR THAT HE FILED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR FOR THE 2022 PERIOD, UM, HE HAD THE CITY ATTORNEY AVAILABLE.
UH, AND IF, IF HE KNEW THAT IT, BY HAVING 10% OF HIS INCOME, UH, COME FROM E A C, IT CAUSED A RECUSAL, IT SEEMED LIKE, OH, YEAH.
I ALSO HAD TO REPORT THAT, BUT DIDN'T UNTIL AFTER THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY THE, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSPARENCY FOR VOTERS BY FILING A TIMELY AND ACCURATE INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT IN, IN THE WAY OUR ELECTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO OPERATE AS WELL.
BUT THEN YOU ALSO HAD THE, THE SAME ISSUES THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WASN'T CORRECTED WHEN HE DID THE RECUSAL.
AND RESPONDENT, I CAN'T GIVE YOU ANY INSIGHT AS TO WHAT THE COMPLAINANT KNEW OR DIDN'T KNOW, OR WHEN OR WHY NOT.
BUT I MEAN, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW IS MY CLIENT'S INTENT AND LOOKING AT THAT, UH, OR, OR LACK OF INTENT REALLY IN DETERMINING WHAT THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION IS.
AND THE FACTS ARE THAT MY CLIENT LEARNED ON MAY 25TH, THAT THE EAST AUSTIN CONSERVANCY, FOR WHOM HE HAD BEEN A CONSULTANT IN THE PAST, WAS GOING TO BE INVOLVED WITH THIS DEVE WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THIS TRACT.
THE NEXT DAY HE WENT TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND EXPLAINED HIS CONNECTION WITH THE E A C, AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT GAVE HIM VERBAL ADVICE.
THEY MEMORIALIZED THAT IN AN EMAIL ON MAY 31ST, AND ON JUNE 1ST, HE DISCLOSED HIS CONFLICT AND
[01:40:01]
ABSTAINED.SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT MY CLIENT'S INTENT, THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE OF OBFUSCATION.
THAT IS EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE WHO WAS MADE AWARE OF AN ISSUE, SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE, AND RELIED ON IT IN AN EFFORT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE SANCTION.
COMMISSIONER ESPINO, I WORKED OUT ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, HUNDREDS OF CAMPAIGNS.
MOST CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS ARE INADVERTENT.
THEY'RE MOSTLY PAPERWORK 95% OF THE TIME.
IT'S NOT HOUSE OF CARDS, IT'S MORE PARKS AND REC, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
UM, SO I CAN SEE WHY THEY WOULD, WHY THIS WOULD HAPPEN AND WHERE HIS EXPLANATION IS COMING FROM, THAT IT'S INADVERTENT.
BUT THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING TO BE SAID IF 95% OF THEM ARE INADVERTENT, I WOULD SAY A, A LOT LESS PROACTIVELY CORRECT THEM IN THIS CASE.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE'S, THEY'RE SAYING SOMETHING THAT AS SOON AS HE LEARNED ABOUT THESE ISSUES, HE DID SOMETHING ABOUT THEM.
UM, I THINK IT'S BELIEVABLE THAT SOMEBODY DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN AN L L C OR A D B A OR A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP.
I MEAN, I'VE DONE THIS FOR 25 YEARS.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT UNTIL A FEW MINUTES AGO.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, BY THE WAY.
UM, BUT I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS TO FACTOR IN HERE.
WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE INFRACTIONS, AND WHAT ACTIONS DID THEY TAKE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF CORRECTION? THANK YOU.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION, UH, CASTO THEN LOW.
UM, I COMPLETELY SEE COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S POINT ABOUT 95% OF ALL VIOLATIONS ARE MINOR.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? BUT, UH, THE OTHER THING THAT I'M STUCK ON IN ALL OF THIS IS, UM, IF IT, IF IT WERE INTENTIONAL, IF IT WERE NOT INADVERTENT, THEN I HAVE TO BELIEVE IF, IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAD THE TIME TO SEEK ADVICE FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND REACH OUT TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD RECUSE, HE COULD HAVE, IF HE KNEW HE WAS SUPPOSED TO, HE COULD HAVE AMENDED HIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRIOR TO THAT HEARING OR IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT HE HAD IN HIS MIND THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT HE DIDN'T DO.
SO I JUST THINK THAT THAT GOES TO, TO HIS INTENT AND, AND TO THE INADVERTENT NATURE OF THE VIOLATION.
UM, COMMISSIONER LOWE, GO AHEAD.
I WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH BOTH OF YOU ABOUT THIS, UH, CLAIM OF INADVERTENCE DE MINIMIS.
WAS THE PUBLIC AWARE, UM, SO MR. SCHERE, ARE YOU, IS YOUR POSITION THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT WHETHER IT WAS DI MINIMIS BECAUSE YOU WERE SAYING IT'S NOT THE MONEY, WHICH WAS THE BAD PART ABOUT THE, UM, FAILURE TO BE TRANSPARENT.
IT HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WHEN VOTERS GO TO THE, UH, POLLING PLACE, THEY DON'T HAVE COMPLETE INFORMATION WHEN THEY'RE VOTING.
WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS A MONETARY EFFECT ON THAT CANDIDATE OR NOT, IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR POSITION? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
YOU WERE SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS A BAD, OR, YOU KNOW, NOT A DE MINIMS VIOLATION, THAT THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED AND WAS NOT TRANSPARENT.
SO ARE YOU SAYING IT'S, BECAUSE, I MEAN, ARE YOU SAYING IT'S NOT DE MINIMUS BECAUSE, UM, IT KIND OF DECEIVED THE VOTERS WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THE RESPONDENT WAS A CANDIDATE? I, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
THE, IT'S NOT DE MINIMUS WHEN YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE GOING INTO OFFICE THAT IS RECEIVING MM-HMM.
AND THAT WASN'T DONE IN THE 2022 FILING FOR 2021, EITHER.
[01:45:01]
SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY FOUR THINGS THAT WEREN'T REPORTED BETWEEN THE 2021 AND 2022.AND I GUESS IT IS NOT ONLY IN YOUR FINDINGS OF WHETHER A VIOLATION OCCURRED, BUT IN WHAT YOU DO ABOUT IT.
AND I JUST, AS WE SAID BEFORE, WE, WE ARE HOPING THAT YOUR VIEW ON THIS IS THAT IT'S NOT DI MINIMUS.
WHAT IF WE FOUND OUT IT WAS ENDEAVOR THAT PAID HIM DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY MM-HMM.
THE FACT THAT HE'S ON THE EAC C BOARD OR GOT PAID A CONSULTING FEE BY E A C ON THE SURFACE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A BIG DEAL, BUT IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT IT WASN'T DISCLOSED TWO YEARS IN A ROW, THREE DIFFERENT CONTRACTS.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT'S NOT DE MINIMIS, BUT WHAT ARE YOU SAYING ABOUT THE INADVERTENCE AS TO THIS THING THAT IS NOT DI MINIMIS? I DON'T KNOW HOW, NOT DISCLOSING HIS MEMBERSHIP, UH, ON THE BOARD OF THE EAC C MM-HMM.
UH, THAT ABOUT WHAT KIND OF, UH, WHETHER YOU HAVE A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OR YOURSELF SELF-EMPLOYED DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO.
AND AS YOU HEARD, MY CLIENTS DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS ON THE BOARD MM-HMM.
AND SO, UM, I, I THINK THAT THERE COMES A POINT AT WHICH YOU SAY THAT'S ENOUGH MISTAKES OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.
THAT ADMONITION IS MORE APPROPRIATE, MATCHED IN THIS CASE.
BUT SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS INADVERTENT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN OBVIOUS TO HIM THAT HE SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC ABOUT E A C AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER HIS OTHER, ALL OTHER ASSOCIATIONS IN HIS LIFE, IT, IT WOULD NOT BE INADVERTENT? IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR POSITION? A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, AS A LAWYER, I GET CONCERNED ABOUT SAYING, WELL, HOW NEGLIGENT DO YOU HAVE TO BE MM-HMM.
IT AT LEAST ADMONISH AND SAY, BE MORE CAREFUL ON, MORE ALERT.
UM, AND SO IT IS, I, I DON'T KNOW I, WHO HE TALKED TO OR WHY HE MIGHT NOT HAVE WANTED TO, OR IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO.
I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF WHETHER THERE WAS SOME REASON HE DID NOT WANT IT DISCLOSED THAT HE WAS GETTING MONEY FROM E A C E A C GETS MONEY FROM DEVELOPERS MM-HMM.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE ENDEAVOR.
DID, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD A REASON WHY HE'D PREFER THAT, NOT BE FOUND OUT WHEN HE GOT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO VOTE ON ENDEAVOR, HE HAD TO RECUSE HIMSELF.
THE ATTORNEY, THE CITY ATTORNEY TOLD HIM HE DID BECAUSE OF HIS FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT HE DID IT ABSOLUTELY ON PURPOSE, AND HE WAS TRYING TO CONCEAL IT UNTIL THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
BUT I, I THINK IT'S SO NEGLIGENT THAT I'D HOPE YOU DON'T SET THAT AS THE STANDARD WHERE SOME EMPLOYEE FOR MULTIPLE YEARS FAILS TO DISCLOSE MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INCOME OR EVEN THEIR MEMBERSHIP ON A BOARD.
MR. COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. MR. ELCHER, I THINK YOU WERE SAYING THAT WHEN HE FILED HIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT, HE DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THAT HE WAS ON THE BOARD.
IS THAT REQUIRED BY THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS? YES, IT IS ON THE SS F I HE WAS, HE, HE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW ALL THE BOARDS THAT HE WAS ON.
HE DID NOT SHOW E A C, SO HE KNEW HE NEEDED TO REPORT BOARD, BOARD MEMBERSHIP,
[01:50:01]
BECAUSE IN HIS F IN HIS, UH, SS F I FOR 2021, HE LISTED ANOTHER, UH, ENTITY THAT HE SERVES ON THE BOARD FOR, BUT DID NOT LIST E A C MR. FISHER.IN RESPONSE TO THAT, HE SWORE THAT THE CONTENTS WERE ACCURATE, AND HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT IF HE KNEW THAT THEY WERE INACCURATE.
BUT, BUT HE TERMINATED BOARD MEMBERSHIP FOR THE E A C IN ONE YEAR AND NOT RIGHT.
DID, DID HE TERMINATE BOARD MEMBERSHIP FOR THE OTHER BOARD THAT HE, I THINK THAT THAT ALSO GOES TO THE, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.
THAT, THAT, THAT'S, I THINK THAT GOES TO INTENT, RIGHT? IS THAT HE RESIGNED IN NOVEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER OF 2021, AND IT WAS FILLING OUT HIS SS F I FOR, FOR IT TO THE YEAR, THE CALENDAR YEAR 2021.
IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, HE THOUGHT, WELL, I LEFT THAT BOARD.
SO I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT HE WAS THINKING, BUT I THINK THAT'S A VERY LOGICAL POSITION FOR PER, FOR A NOVICE TO TAKE WHEN FILLING OUT THE FIRST SS F I, MR. AHIRE, DO YOU KNOW IF HE HAD SERVED THE OTHER BOARD THAT HE DID REPORT? DO YOU KNOW IF HE SERVED ALL 12 MONTHS ON THAT BOARD? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I KNOW THAT YOUR LAW SAYS THAT THE, THE REPORTING PERIOD IS FROM JANUARY THE FIRST THROUGH THE 31ST OF THAT YEAR.
AND SO IF THAT BOARD MEMBERSHIP OR INCOME OCCURRED AND THEN STOPPED, STILL HAS TO BE REPORTED IF IT OCCURRED DURING THAT YEAR.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, YOU HAD A QUESTION? MR. CHAR? UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY.
UM, ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE COMPLAINTS WHEREIN THE COMPLAINANT FAILS TO DISCLOSE MONEY THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED UNDER LAW, CAN NEVER BE DE MINIMIS, CAN NEVER BE, IT IS JUST NOT IN THIS CASE, OR THERE'S FOUR, FOUR, THE THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES OF INCOME OVER TWO YEAR PERIOD OF TIME? I WOULD CONSIDER NOT TO BE DIMINISHED.
YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE SAID, I, I OR I GOT A $50 GIFT AND I DIDN'T REPORT IT.
AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN MAYBE THAT'S DE MINIMS. AND SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT BECAUSE IT OCCURRED THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES, THAT IT IS NOT DE MINIMIS THAT OUR E EXACTLY.
THAT IT'S OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.
UM, SOME OF US HAVE BEEN YOUNG POLITICIANS BEFORE TOO, AND DID NOT, DIDN'T, WASN'T USED TO FILLING OUT ALL THOSE FORMS. UH, AND, UH, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS ARE EVEN MORE TREACHEROUS THAN THESE PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES ARE
UM, BUT MULTIPLE YEARS AND MORE THAN JUST ONE CONTRACT AND THE OTHER, I THINK IT'S A FACTOR THAT NOT ONLY DID DISCOVER, DID DISCLOSE THE INCOME THAT HE HAD, EVEN AFTER HE HAD ACCESS AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN DISCLOSE HIS BOARD MEMBERSHIP FROM 2021 ON E A C, BUT HE DID ANOTHER ONE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S BEYOND THE MINIMUS.
AND IT JUST, IT DESERVES THE SANCTION THAT WOULD SAY, WE'D ADMONISH YOU NOT TO DO THAT AGAIN.
WE'VE DONE IT MULTIPLE TIMES OVER TWO YEARS.
WE'D, WE'D NOT ONLY ADMONISH YOU NOT TO DO THAT, WE WANNA SET AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS TO BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE FILLING OUT.
OH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY IT, IT APPEARED AS IF THE RESPONDENT WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING OR TO THAT.
UM, I, I, I'M NOT SURE THAT SENDING A MESSAGE TO OTHER EMPLOYEES IS WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS INTENDED TO DO.
I THINK THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE RESPONDENT, HIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT, UH, UNDERTAKE A PUNISHMENT THAT IS DESIGNED TO DETER SOME FUTURE PERSON'S.
I MEAN, THE EVIDENCE IS THAT MY CLIENT ACTED WITHOUT INTENT THAT THESE MISTAKES WERE UNINTENTIONAL AND THAT HE REMEDIED THEM.
AND SO I WOULD JUST, UH, YEAH, THAT'S IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, DISCUSSION? UM, I'M ALSO, UH, HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS IF COMMISSIONERS ARE READY FOR THEM.
UH, I CAN ROUGHLY DESCRIBE WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, IF IT'S HELPFUL, UM, WHEN
[01:55:01]
WE GET TO THE SANCTIONS LEVEL, OR IF SOMEONE'S JUST READY TO GO.KALE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
UM, I'D LIKE TO MOVE, WE GO WITH A LETTER OF ADMONITION, UM, FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
MAINLY IT'S THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY.
I DON'T SEE HOW A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY COULD BE CONSIDERED DE MINIMIS.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I CAN FIGURE OUT THAT THAT MEANS MINOR OR NOT VERY IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK TRANSPARENCY IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT IN THIS CITY.
UM, I ALSO, IT TROUBLES ME THE FACT THAT THESE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD AND THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS.
AND, UM, ALSO THE PARTICULAR OVERSIGHT OF NOT LISTING BOARD MEMBERSHIP SEEMS, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE AN UNLIKELY, INADVERTENT THING TO DO.
UM, THE OTHER THING I'VE HEARD, UM, IN MANY HEARINGS BEFORE IS THAT, UM, BY TAKING THESE KINDS OF ACTIONS, WE'RE GONNA DETER FUTURE CANDIDATES.
WELL, I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR MANY YEARS NOW.
I THINK THIS IS MY THIRD TERM.
AND WE HAVE LOTS AND LOTS OF CANDIDATES,
AND SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THAT, UM, DOING WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY HAS FACTORED INTO, OR WE SHOULD EVEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT MIGHT DETER FUTURE CANDIDATES.
SO I MOVE, UM, FOR A LETTER OF ADMONITION.
UH, WE CAN DISCUSS THE MOTION NOW IF, UM, COMMISSIONERS ARE SO INCLINED.
COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA, GO AHEAD.
I THINK A LETTER OF ADMONITION RELIES ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP LATER IN THIS HEARING CLAIMS SUCH AS TEXT MESSAGES OR WHETHER SOMEBODY KNEW ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE E A C, THINGS THAT AREN'T SUPPORTED, THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN.
AND I THINK FOR ME, AS A COMMISSIONER TO GO THAT FAR, I WOULD NOT BE PREPARED TO DO THAT IN THIS MEETING.
I'D PREFER ANOTHER MEETING TO VOTE ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE LATER HALF OF THIS MEETING.
BARRING THAT, I THINK IT'S HARD TO, TO GO THAT FAR.
I THINK IT'S, I'M NOT A LAWYER AGAIN, ALSO, BUT I THINK IT'S HEARSAY.
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING.
I HAD ABSOLUTELY, UM, NO INCLUSION OF THE TEXT MESSAGES IN THAT MOTION THAT DID, DIDN'T AFFECT ANYTHING, BECAUSE FRANKLY, I FOUND THAT SORT OF CONFUSING.
SO I WAS LIKE, OKAY, JUST PUT THAT ASIDE.
THAT DID NOT FACTOR INTO IT WHATSOEVER.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT YOU DID.
I, I JUST, UH, THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP TONIGHT, SUCH AS THE TEXT MESSAGES AND SUCH AS MR. HANS'S, UH, KNOWLEDGE OF THE E A C THAT I THINK IN ORDER TO GO AS FAR AS A LETTER OF ADMONITION, I'D WANNA KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THOSE THINGS.
UM, I, I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S STATEMENT THAT I'M NOT RUDDY TO VOTE ON THAT YET.
THE WAY I'M SEEING IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT THESE THINGS HAPPEN OFTEN INADVERTENTLY, AND THAT IF, IF WE FOR SOME REASON BELIEVES THAT IT WAS AN EFFORT TO HIDE HIS AFFILIATIONS WHEN THOSE AFFILIATIONS WERE IN THE CAMPAIGN LITERATURE, THEN I DON'T SEE, I DON'T SEE US NOT SAYING, OKAY, IT WAS INADVERTENT WHEN IT CAME TO AN ACTION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.
HE RECUSED HIMSELF, BUT THE INFORMATION HAD BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS.
SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO GO AS FAR AS A LETTER OF ADMONITION YET.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS, I SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, WE HAVE THREE VIOLATIONS, AND I THINK THEY'RE IN TWO SEPARATE CATEGORIES, AND THE ONE THAT, THE ONE WITH REGARD TO DISCLOSING HIS MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD.
IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A LAWYER.
AND, AND I'M SENSITIVE TO, UM, THE COMPLEXITY OF MAKING SURE THAT YOU DOT ALL YOUR I'S AND CROSS ALL YOUR T'S WHEN YOU'RE A FIRST TIME CANDIDATE.
UM, BUT I'M A LITTLE TROUBLED THAT SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO HAVE THIS MUCH INFLUENCE OVER OUR CITY CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT PROVISION MEANS JUST BY LOOKING AT IT.
UM, AND THERE'S BEEN A STATEMENT MADE THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO LOOK AT IT, FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE THERE'S NEVER EVIDENCE THAT IT'S INTENTIONAL EXCEPT THE FACT OF THE THING ITSELF.
IF I WALK UP TO SOMEBODY, MAKE A FIST, PULL BACK
[02:00:01]
MY HAND, SEND MY FIST, HURLING, HURDLING TOWARDS THEIR FACE AND PUNCH THEM, AND THEY SAY, OH, IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL.THERE'S NO EVIDENCE BY THE STATEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE HERE THAT I DID IT INTENTIONALLY.
BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU CAN WATCH IT AND SAY THAT'S INTENTIONAL.
WE CAN TELL, UM, THIS IS PUTTING THAT BOARD ON THERE, THAT'S LOW HANGING FRUIT.
MAYBE THERE'S SOME CONFUSION ON THE OTHER STUFF.
BUT THEN I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE, THE TEXT OF OUR SANCTION OPTIONS HERE, AND THE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION IS APPROPRIATE WHEN THE VIOLATION IS CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL.
I WOULD READ THAT AS SAYING THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE COUNCIL MEMBER HERE TO PROVE THAT IT'S UNINTENTIONAL, NOT SIMPLY SAY IT'S, IT'S NOT INTENTIONAL.
IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE THE COUNCIL MEMBER HERE.
IN ONE CASE, IN THE PAST, UM, WE HAVE HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER WITH A, I FORGET EXACTLY WHAT THE VIOLATION WAS, BUT IT WAS OF A SIMILAR SORT.
UM, AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER HERSELF SHOWED UP AND TOLD THIS COMMISSION KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED.
UM, WE HAVE MR. FISHER AND I, I DON'T, I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF BEING DISHONEST, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE ONE WHO'S HEAD WAS MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M NOT PREPARED TO GO TO A REPRIMAND WITHOUT FURTHER INFORMATION, BUT I THINK WE HAVE, I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY THIS IS CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL.
UM, AND THE LETTER OF AD ADMONITION IS APPROPRIATE IF WE FIND THAT IT'S, IT'S MINOR OR MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL.
I CAN SAY IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT LEAST, UH, SO I, I THINK THAT A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION IS, WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL AND A LETTER OF ADMONITION IS APPROPRIATE.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
SO I GET THE, THE LANGUAGE ABOUT CLEARLY UNINTENTIONAL AND, UM, MY CONCERN IS THAT HE CORRECTED IT AND ADMONISHED IT.
MY BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS A LEVEL OF DILIGENCE THAT WE EXPECT THAT ALL CANDIDATES WILL ADHERE TO MM-HMM.
AND I THINK THAT LEVEL OF DILIGENCE IS WHAT WE RELY ON TO ENSURE THAT THE, THAT WE'RE BEING TRANSPARENT, THAT THE PUBLIC IS INFORMED.
AND SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE FINAL PROPOSAL THERE, THAT, UM, THE TRANSPARENCY IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND, UH, THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT LIVE UP TO THAT LEVEL OF DILIGENCE IN REPORTING.
UM, ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? UM, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO OFFER MY 2 CENTS.
UH, WHICH IS SIMPLY TO SAY THAT I DO THINK, UM, I, I'M INCLINED TO FAVOR THE MOTION, UH, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UH, WHILE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL, UM, AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE IS HARD, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE, THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE ATTORNEYS HELP YOU WITH THESE THINGS.
UM, IT'S HARD TO GET IT 100% RIGHT.
SO WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE BEFORE US THAT SUGGESTS IT WAS, UH, EITHER INTENTIONAL OR THROUGH SOME KIND OF WANT AND DISREGARD FOR OUR LAWS AND HOW THEY WORK.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, UM, WITH OTHER REPORTING.
UH, SO NOT WANT AND DISREGARD.
UM, BUT I DO THINK THAT A LETTER OF ADMONITION IS, UH, AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION, UM, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR, BASED ON WHAT, OR RATHER BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT.
UM, IF, IF THERE'S HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION FURTHER IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS.
UM, BUT SEEING NONE, UH, I THINK, UH, WE CAN PROCEED TO A VOTE.
SO, UH, IN THE SAME MANNER THAT I CALL THE ROLL, I WILL ASK FOR YOUR VOTE, PLEASE UNMUTE AND THEN MUTE YOURSELF AFTER YOU'VE VOTED.
SO THIS IS ON THE MOTION FOR A LETTER OF ADMONITION.
THAT WAS BY VICE CHAIR KALE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOWE, I BELIEVE.
[02:05:02]
NO.COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I SUPPORT THE MOTION THERE BEING SIX AYES, TWO NAYS, UH, AND PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED ABSENCES AND RECUSALS.
UM, AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR HEARING FOR TONIGHT.
UM, PLEASE KEEP THE OUTBURSTS DOWN.
UM, I WANT TO THANK, UH, THE PUBLIC AND THE PARTIES FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION.
I WANT TO THANK MR. AHIRE AND MR. FISHER FOR BEING, UH, PATIENT WITH OUR QUESTIONS AND FOR PARTICIPATING FORTHRIGHTLY AND EARNESTLY IN THIS PROCESS.
AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE DISMISSED IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO.
AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR THAT.
UM, IT IS A PLEASURE TO SERVE WITH YOU GUYS.
I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT NOW BEFORE WE GO TO THE WEIGHTY BUSINESS OF APPROVING MINUTES.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.USUALLY, UH, WE HAVE, UH, SECRETARY STANTON AS OUR METICULOUS MINUTES KEEPER AND NOTE TAKER.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING HER HERE TONIGHT TO CONFIRM THAT THE MINUTES ARE ACCURATE.
I WILL SAY FROM MY PART THAT I HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO THOROUGHLY SCRUTINIZE THEM.
I LOOKED AT THEM, UH, AND THEY RECORDED WITH MY MEMORY, UM, BUT I DID NOT GO WATCH THE TAPES, SO TO SPEAK.
UM, SO COMMISSIONER LOWE, GO AHEAD.
IT SAYS SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AT THE TOP.
SHOULD SAY REGULAR FOR JUNE 28TH.
AND THEN UNDER VACANCY IT SAYS MA MAYOR'S NOMINEE.
BUT I BELIEVE THE DISTRICT THREE SEE IT WAS VACANT AS WELL.
SO, I MEAN, THOSE ARE TECHNICAL, BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS I SAW.
I THINK, UM, THAT IS RIGHT THERE.
THERE WAS A, WAS IT DIS? WELL, WE DID HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WE, BUT THAT WAS EARLIER IN JUNE.
THAT WAS, YEAH, THIS IS, THIS IS THE NEXT ONE THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
I'M TRYING TO, I'M, I AM BAD AT KEEPING THE DISTRICT NUMBERS IN ORDER TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST.
UM, DO YOU HAVE THE AGENDA? UH, I DO.
WELL, THERE WERE TWO VACANCIES.
IF, IF I HAVE THE DISTRICT WRONG.
THERE WERE TWO VACANCIES AT THAT MEETING.
ONE WAS THE MAYOR'S NOMINEE, I BELIEVE THE OTHER, ACTUALLY I HAVE TO PACK IT FOR THE JUNE 28TH MEETING.
I THINK, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT THAT IT WAS DISTRICT THREE.
UM, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER NUNEZ WAS A MEMBER FOR THAT MEETING, CORRECT? YES.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER IS DISTRICT THREE AND THAT WOULD BE IT.
IT'S DISTRICT THREE AND THE MAYOR'S.
OTHERWISE, THE MINUTES LOOK FINE TO ME.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LOOK AT THAT.
UM, I'M BETTER WITH NAMES THAN I AM WITH NUMBERS.
UH, JUST SO I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN OR AN ENGINEER.
THE, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENT, DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES? I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY APPROPRIATE CORRECTIONS.
UM, FOR MY PART, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDED ADDRESSING.
UM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, WE ADOPT THE MINUTES.
UH, I HEARD, UH, MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CASTO.
I'M AN ABSTAIN BECAUSE I WAS ABSENT.
YEAH, I'M AB SAYING SO I WASN'T ON COMMISSION.
UM, THAT IS SIX AYES TO ABSTENTIONS, AND I THINK THAT PREVAILS.
SO WE HAVE APPROVED THE MINUTES.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR TONIGHT.
I WANT TO GIVE SPECIAL THANKS TO MR. NICHOLS, OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR ADVISING US ON THE HEARING TONIGHT.
UM, REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.
UH, CITY STAFF, UH, MS. HAYLA, UH, AND MS. BENITEZ.
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELP, UH, IN SUPPORTING THE COMMISSION AS ALWAYS.
AND THANK YOU TO A T X N AND, UM, OUR FOLKS KEEPING US LIVE.
UH, APPRECIATE ALL THE CITY STAFF THAT HELP US DO OUR JOB.
UM, WITH THAT, THE TIME IS NOW 9:21 PM AND THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS NOW ADJOURNED.
I'M SO SORRY IF THERE'S FUTURE
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
BUSINESS.WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A HEARING
[02:10:01]
BE ADVISED WE SUPPOSED TO BRING COMMISSIONERUH, I THINK SHE LEFT TO LET HER KNOW, UM, BUT SHE WAS, SHE HAD EXCUSED HERSELF.