[00:00:06]
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET THE BALL ROLLING.
[CALL TO ORDER]
MY NAME IS LUIS SORAN.I AM CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
THE TIME IS 6:07 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.
UM, MICROPHONES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THEY WORK THE SAME WAY.
PLEASE UNMUTE AND THEN MUTE YOURSELF.
SO CHAIR SORAN, PRESENT VICE CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER NUNEZ IS ATTENDING, VIRTUALLY HAVE ONE ABSENCE AS WELL.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
COMMUNICATION AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.UM, IF YOU SIGNED UP AND YOU ARE NOT IN THE STACK, UH, PLEASE SEE SOMEONE ON CITY STAFF AND WE CAN HELP YOU.
UM, SO I'LL CALL YOU IN ORDER AND FEEL FREE TO COME UP TO ANY ONE OF THOSE MICROPHONES UP HERE.
UM, EACH PERSON WILL HAVE, UH, THREE MINUTES EACH.
AND AS STATED IN THE POSTED AGENDA, THERE'S NOT A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.
UM, AND I THINK DOROTHY, UH, BARNETT IS FIRST.
AND MS. BARNETT, I'LL HOLD UP A, A FINGER FOR ONE MORE MINUTE AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO TIME, I'LL LET YOU FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
UM, I WAS AT THE, UH, OH, IF YOU COULD, UH, UNMUTE THE, OR PRESS THE BUTTON FOR THE MICROPHONE.
I WAS AT THE PARKS BOARD MEETING IN QUESTION AND, UH, SAW THE, THE, ALL THE CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, UM, UH, BOARD MEMBER RINALDI SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF.
AND, UM, UH, IT, IT WAS REALLY CONFUSING AND IT WAS VERY, EVERYTHING WAS SEEMED TO BE IN DISARRAY.
THERE WAS A LOT OF, UH, ARGUING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE BOARD MEMBERS.
AND I DO THINK THAT THAT'S ILLEGAL, UM, TO VOTE WHETHER OR NOT YOU STAY ON A BOARD IF YOU VOTE FOR YOURSELF.
SO I, I, I DID SEE THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW, SHE MAY NOT BE, UH, LIABLE OR SHE MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATION, BUT THE APPEARANCE OF VIOLATION WAS THERE THAT NIGHT BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE ROOM AND SO MANY PEOPLE SAW THEM ARGUING ABOUT THIS.
AND JUST A POINT OF FACT, WOULD, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE THAT, UH, IT WAS ONE VOTE SHE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF UNLESS IT WAS SO DRESS, UH, DE SO ABSOLUTELY, UH, ESSENTIAL THAT SHE VOTE ON THAT.
AND SO THERE WAS AN, AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
SO, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. LOPEZ BARNETT.
UM, UP NEXT WE HAVE, UH, MS. TANYA PAYNE.
SIMILARLY, IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THE MICROPHONE IS ON, IT SHOULD BE GREEN AROUND THE BUTTON.
UH, HELLO, MY NAME IS TANYA PAYNE AND, UM, I'M PART OF REWILD ZILKER, AND I ALSO HAPPEN TO BE A PHD IN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, WHICH, UM, I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU FOR A MINUTE ABOUT, I MEAN, TO START OUT WITH ETHICS MATTER IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, IT'S PART OF HOW WE TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT.
IT'S HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES IS THROUGH THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTED IN A FAIR AND ETHICAL WAY, IT'S REALLY DEVASTATING.
THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT HUMANS ARE REALLY EASILY INFLUENCED.
FOR EXAMPLE, TODAY I READ AN ARTICLE FROM 2006 THAT SAID, A DOCTOR WHO CARRIES A PEN WITH THEM, WITH A CERTAIN DRUG LABEL ON IT,
[00:05:01]
IS WAY MORE LIKELY TO PRESCRIBE THAT DRUG THAN THEY ARE OTHERS, RIGHT? SO WHAT HAPPENED HERE TODAY IS A LETTER WAS SENT BY ONE BOARD MEMBER TO THE ENTIRE BOARD SUPPORTING AND ASKING FOR THEM TO VOTE FOR THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.NOW, WHAT INFLUENCE THAT HAD, NONE OF US WILL EVER KNOW.
BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THE BOARD WENT ON TO VOTE FOR A PLAN THAT WAS VERY FLAWED IN VERY MANY WAYS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WHATEVER YOU'RE ABLE TO DO TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT ETHICS AND, AND THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND BEING FAIR AND OPEN-MINDED AND ALLOWING THE PROCESS AND THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD IS IMPORTANT.
ALRIGHT, LAST UP FOR OUR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION IS MS. TERRY ADAMS. HI.
JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON, AND THEN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
UM, SHOULD BE GREEN AROUND THE BUTTON.
OVER THE PAST DECADE AND INCREASINGLY THE PAST FEW YEARS IN AUSTIN, WE'VE WITNESSED PARKS, NONPROFITS GETTING STRONGER AND BIGGER IN OUR PUBLIC PARKS DEPARTMENT, GETTING WEAKER AND HANDING OFF ITS DUTIES TO THOSE NONPROFITS.
UM, THAT IS A PROBLEM FOR ME BECAUSE THESE ARE JOBS.
THESE ARE JOBS THAT, UM, SHOULD BE DONE BY A PUBLIC PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT ARE BEING TAKEN OVER AND, UM, JOBS THAT ARE BEING CREATED BY NONPROFITS TO DO WORK IN OUR PUBLIC PARKS.
THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY THE PUBLIC PARKS DEPARTMENT.
UM, THIS PAST YEAR, I'VE ATTENDED THE MAJORITY OF THE PARKS BOARD MEETINGS BECAUSE OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
AND EACH TIME I WAS STRUCK BY THE INSULIN AND CONTRARIAN NATURE OF MS. RINALDI.
UM, AT THE TIME I JUST ASSUMED IT WAS A, UM, CHARACTER DISPOSITION, BUT, UM, ONCE I FOUND OUT THAT SHE WORKS FOR A PARKS NONPROFIT AND SHE REPRESENTS A DIFFERENT PARKS NONPROFIT, UM, AS A BOARD MEMBER, UM, IT MADE ME, UM, FEEL LIKE MAYBE THAT'S WHY SHE WAS GENERALLY RECEPTIVE AND ENCOURAGING OF NONPROFIT ACTIVITY IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, UM, AS A, AS A PARKS BOARD MEMBER.
UM, SO I FEEL LIKE THE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, NEEDED TO HAPPEN HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
UM, BUT I FEEL THAT, UM, WHERE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO WITH THESE COMPLAINTS IF WE CAN'T COME TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION? IF Y'ALL CAN'T DO ANYTHING, PLEASE HELP US TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO TAKE THESE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE I, UM, I FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO PICK A LANE.
YOU CAN'T BE DOUBLE DIPPING IF YOU'RE ON A BOARD OR COMMISSION AND ALSO BE REPRESENTING A, UM, A NONPROFIT OR BEYOND THE BOARD OF, YOU KNOW, OR BEING WORKING FOR ONE OF THE NONPROFITS THAT WOULD BE COMING BEFORE THE BODY THAT YOU, THAT YOU REPRESENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. ADAMS. I BELIEVE THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
UM, AND WITH THAT THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR AGENDA.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
THAT WE HAVE IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.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 SCOTT COBB AGAINST NINA RINALDI, RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE CITY BOARD'S SUBSECTION TWO DASH ONE DASH 24, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEM ANNOUNCED? HEARING AND SEEING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS 6:16 PM UH, COMMISSIONER NUNEZ, IF YOU COULD LOG OUT OF THIS WEBEX AND THEN JOIN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ONE.
SO I WILL BRING US BACK INTO OPEN SESSION.
THE TIME IS 7:02 PM AND ENCLO SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO A COMPLAINT FILED BY SCOTT COBB AGAINST NINA RINALDI, RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE, SUBSECTION TWO DASH ONE DASH 24, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL.
[2. A complaint filed by Scott Cobb against Nina Rinaldi, raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-1 (City Boards), Section 2-1-24 (Conflict of Interest and Recusal).]
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING.UM, I'M GONNA ASK THE PARTIES IF YOU'LL PLEASE, UH, COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT AT, UM, ANY OF THOSE MICROPHONES, UM, AT THE SAME TIME
[00:10:01]
OR, SURE.SO I'LL JUST KIND OF INTRODUCE THE ITEM AS YOU GET SETTLED IN.
UM, SO, UH, THIS IS OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SCOTT COBB AGAINST NINA RINALDI RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH ONE DASH 24, CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN RECUSAL.
UM, OUR, UH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, WAJIHA RISBY IS GOING TO BE APPEARING AS COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
YOU MAY SEE US, UH, LEAN OVER AND ASK HER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, AS THINGS GO ON, I'M GONNA READ THROUGH THE PROCEDURES FOR A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
UM, UH, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT TO EXPECT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS.
UM, IF YOU, AS THE PARTIES HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN WITH A QUICK, UM, HI.
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION AND YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF FOR THAT.
BEFORE WE GET INTO THE FORMAL PRESENTATIONS, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND, UH, ABOUT HOW WE DO THIS IS ANSWERED AT THE FRONT END.
SO, STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, UH, FIRST COULD YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME IF YOU COULD, UH, MAKE SURE THE MICROPHONE'S ON AND STATE YOUR NAME.
DO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE A SHORT BIO? NOT NECESSARY, BUT APPRECIATE IT.
UM, AND THEN, UH, RESPONDENT, IF YOU COULD DO THE SAME.
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 JUNE 27TH, 2023.
IN THE COMPLAINT, UH, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE, SUBSECTION TWO DASH ONE DASH 24, RELATING TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL.
THE ISSUE AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE, UH, 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 THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
A DECISION TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
SO THE COMMISSION'S REGULAR PRACTICE IS TO GIVE EACH OF THE PARTIES 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR POSITIONS AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY.
BRIEFLY, UM, DO BOTH OF YOU AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH TIME TO PRESENT? UM, WE CAN ALWAYS ACCOMMODATE AND ADJUST IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
UM, WE'LL, WE'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A WIGGLE ROOM IF YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE.
I WON'T BRING DOWN THE HAMMER FURTHER DOWN.
THE, UH, COMPLAINANT, WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBE IN A NARRATIVE FORM THE TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THOSE CLAIMS. AND THE RESPONDENT, WHILE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT THE HEARING, THEY CAN ALSO 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 FOUR EIGHT C WITHOUT GOING TO A FINAL HEARING.
WHILE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING ARE UNDER OATH, NO CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED.
THE TRANSLATION IS THAT, UM, WHILE THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF YOU, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH OTHER.
UM, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ADDRESS EACH OTHER.
UM, AND I WILL PLAY REFEREE IF THAT STARTS TO HAPPEN.
UM, AFTER THE PARTIES COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER PARTY, NO WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE PARTIES THEMSELVES OR COUNSEL OF THE PARTIES ARE PERMITTED TO MAKE STATEMENTS AT THIS 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.
AND FOLLOWING ANY SUCH 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 THE CITY CODE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION MAY SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
UM, GENERALLY WHAT WE ALSO DO IS AFTER WE HAVE OUR QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD WITH THE PARTIES, WE TRY TO TRANSITION TO A PERIOD OF DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS AMONG THE COMMISSION ITSELF, AND THAT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER MOTIONS AS
[00:15:01]
WELL.UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO INTO THE COMPLAINANT'S PRESENTATION? EITHER FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS OR FROM THE PARTIES? ALRIGHT.
HEARING AND SEEING NONE, THEN I'M GONNA ASK VICE CHAIR KALE TO HELP US OUT WITH TIMEKEEPING.
UM, SO YOU'LL START WITH 10 MINUTES, BUT I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT.
AND THEN WHEN YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT, I'LL LET YOU, I'LL HOLD UP ONE FINGER.
SOUND GOOD? DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.
SO KIND OF THREE MINUTE WARNING.
AND THEN WHEN TIME'S UP, IF YOU'RE STILL TALKING, I'LL LET YOU FINISH YOUR THOUGHT AND YOUR SENTENCE MAYBE KIND OF WRAP THINGS UP.
THEN WITH THAT, MR. COBB, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, UM, YOUR TIME WILL START WHEN YOU START TALKING AND MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON FOR IT.
UH, IF YOU COULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE LEANING IN CLOSE AS WELL.
SO, HI, MY NAME IS SCOTT COBB AND I AM A LIFEGUARD FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I'VE WORKED SINCE 2 20 18, UH, AT BARTON SPRINGS POOL.
AND SINCE 2011, FOR THE CITY AS A LIFEGUARD, GET PAID NOW $20 AN HOUR.
WE USED TO GET PAID 15, BUT LIFEGUARDS ORGANIZED AND ADVOCATED FOR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE LIVING WAGE.
OTHER THAN THAT, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SOCIAL PRIVILEGE AS LIFEGUARDS.
WE'RE NOT ON BOARDS, WE'RE NOT ON COMMISSIONS.
WHEN THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN CAME AROUND, WE ORGANIZED, WE HAD A TABLE OUTSIDE BARTON SPRINGS SINCE JANUARY.
UM, ASKING PEOPLE WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THE PLAN, TALKING TO THEM, GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE EITHER NEVER HAD HEARD ABOUT IT.
THEY HAD HEARD ABOUT IT THROUGH ONE NEWS ARTICLE IN NOVEMBER, UH, AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF IT, THE LIFEGUARDS.
I NEVER TALKED TO ANY LIFEGUARD WHO SUPPORTED THE Z PARK VISION PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY OR REALLY AT ALL.
THEY WERE ALL AGAINST THE PARKING GARAGES, THE AMPHITHEATER.
UM, THE OTHER ASPECTS, EVEN THOUGH PARKING IS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE STAFF, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO, WE DIDN'T WANNA SEE PARKING GARAGES OR AN AMPHITHEATER IN ZILKER PARK.
WE GO TO ZILKER PARK EVERY SINGLE DAY, MOST OF US, THOUSANDS OF HOURS A YEAR.
WE KNOW THE PARK, WE LOVE THE PARK.
WE SEE THE PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE PARK.
WHAT IRRITATED ME WAS WHEN I WENT TO THE PARKS BOARD MEETING, AFTER SPENDING MONTHS AND MONTHS ADVOCATING AND TALKING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC THAT MS. RINALDI SEEMED TO HAVE A PREDETERMINED POSITION THAT SHE WAS GONNA VOTE FOR BEFORE ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC SPOKE TO THE PARKS BOARD.
WE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO GO TO THAT PARKS BOARD MEETING.
THERE WERE OVER TWO, TWO OR 300 OR TWO OR 300, THEY COULD HAVE STAYED HOME.
AS FAR AS NINA ALDI'S VOTE WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE IT WAS A PRECONCEIVED, UH, RESULT.
AS INDICATED IN THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT BY ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE, SIGNED AT THE BOTTOM BY NINA RINALDI AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBER AS CO-CHAIRS ADVOCATING FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
AND THERE WERE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ON THE PARKS BOARD WHO SAW THAT LETTER AND HAD THE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THAT LETTER AND THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER, WHETHER IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED AND SENT TO ANOTHER CITY COMMISSION AND THEN SENT TO THE PARKS BOARD.
IF YOU READ THE LETTER SIGNED BY MS. ALDI, IT ADVOCATES FOR THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
THERE WERE AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE WHO ON THE BOARD WHO WERE VERY OFFENDED, BUT A BOARD MEMBER HAD ALREADY REACHED A CONCLUSION BEFORE ANY OF THE PUBLIC HAD THEIR INPUT.
CERTAINLY I WAS, I WAS THERE THAT DAY AND, UH, IT WAS PRETTY SHOCKING.
NOW, JUST AS I'M TRY TO GET THROUGH THE 10 MINUTES HERE ON
[00:20:01]
THE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE, UM, RULES IN THE CITY CODE, UH, THAT AFFECT THIS ISSUE.ONE OF THEM, UH, SAYS THAT THE CITY OFFICIAL SHALL DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.
UH, HE OR SHE MAY HAVING A NATURAL PERSON, ENTITY, OR PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE AFFECTED BY A VOTE OR DECISION OF THE BODY OF WHICH THE CITY OFFICIAL IS A MEMBER, INCLUDING BEING A MEMBER OF THE PARKS BOARD, OR THAT SERVES AS A CORPORATE OFFICER OR A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A NONPROFIT ENTITY SUCH AS AUSTIN, OUTSIDE OF WHICH A VOTE OR DECISION REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY IS BEING CONSIDERED.
NOW, MS. RENATA CLAIMS THAT THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE WAS NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE PASSAGE OF THE ZUKE PARK VISION PLAN, DESPITE CLEARLY ON PAGE TWO 10 OF THE ZUCKER PARK VISION PLAN.
AND MY QUESTION IS, HOW DID AUSTIN INSIDE OUTSIDE, GET INTO THE AUSTIN ZUKE PARK VISION PLAN? WHO ON THE BOARD OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE INTERACTED WITH WHO IN THE CITY WERE THE CONSULTANTS TO GET AUSTIN IN OUTSIDE INTO THE VISION PLAN? IF THEY'RE NOT AFFECTED BY IT, THEY WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED.
I CAN READ, BUT IT'S, THINK OF SOME OF MY TIME.
BUT IF YOU GO TO PAGE TWO 10, IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD BE, UH, IN WORK IN CON CONJUNCTION WITH THE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION.
AND THERE'S MONEY INVOLVED WORK WITH THE BROADER PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION KNOWN AS AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO CAMPAIGN FOR PUBLIC FUNDS BOND ELECTIONS.
ANNUAL BUDGET INCREASES ALLOCATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BOND FUNDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, RESTORATION, AND EXPANDED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR ZILKER IN THE ENTIRE AUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE HAS A CLEAR BENEFIT IF THE VISION PLAN HAD BEEN PASSED.
HOW DOES IT BENEFIT PRESTIGE? THEY SAY ON THE VERY FRONT PAGE OF THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE WEBSITE THAT ONE OF THEIR GOALS OF 2023 IS TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
THAT MEANS GET MORE INFLUENCE AND USE THAT INFLUENCE.
SO JUST BY BEING ADDED INTO THE PLAN, AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD BENEFIT AND INCREASE ITS VISIBILITY AND ABILITY TO BUILD ITS CAPACITY, AS I SAID, WHICH IS LISTED ON THE FRONT PAGE.
THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE WEBSITE IS ONE OF THEIR MAIN GOALS.
THE CITY CODE THREE MINUTES, THAT'S A SHAME.
THE CITY CODE SAYS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON, ENTITY, OR PROPERTY IS OR WAS AFFECTED BY A VOTE OR DECISION, IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE OF AN ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE IF SUCH EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR.
THREE BOARD MEMBERS ON THE PARKS REASONABLY EXPECTED THAT TO OCCUR AND ASKED MR. TY TO RECUSE.
MANY PEOPLE IN THE PARKS BOARD HAD THAT SAME THOUGHT THAT NIGHT.
YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE IT.
IT IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT YOU HAVE AND IT WAS THERE.
NOW I WANNA MENTION THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S WEBSITE SAYS THAT RE NINA RINALDI IS A BOARD MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
IT ALSO SAYS THAT NER NINA RINALDI IS A PROJECTS AND POLICY MANAGER AT SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY.
SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY IS A MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE NINA ALDA GETS 100% OF HER PAY, AS I ASSUME, UNLESS SHE WORKS AT UBER OR SOMETHING FROM SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY, A MEMBER OF AUSTIN, OUTSIDE OF WHICH SHE IS A BOARD MEMBER.
AND AUSTIN OUTSIDE WAS IN THE VISION PLAN AND SHE WROTE A LETTER ON AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UH, STATIONARY, SIGNED HER NAME, SENT IT TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
EVENTUALLY IT WAS SENT BY ANOTHER AUSTIN OUTSIDE BOARD MEMBER TO THE PARKS BOARD, OF WHICH SHE'S A MEMBER.
PARKS BOARD MEMBERS READ THAT AND SOME OF THE MASS SCRIPT ARE RECUSED, WHICH SHE DID NOT DO.
SO WORKING FOR GETTING A SALARY
[00:25:01]
FROM AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS A MEMBER OF AUSTIN, OUTSIDE BEING A BOARD MEMBER OF AUSTIN, OUTSIDE ADVOCATING TO ANOTHER BOARD, CITY BOARD, THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, AND BEING ON THE PARKS BOARD AND ADVOCATING STRENUOUSLY DURING THE DISCUSSION FOR PASSAGE OF THE ZUCKER PARK VISION PLAN.SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SHE GETS PAID BY THE SHOW CLERK SHOW CREEK CONSERVANCY A SALARY.
THEY ARE A MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER.
SHE IS ON THE BOARD, SHE'S ON THE PARKS BOARD.
SHE'S ADVOCATING FOR PASSAGE OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN THAT WOULD BENEFIT AUSTIN OUTSIDE AND INCREASE THEIR PRESTIGE AND THEIR ABILITY TO RAISE FUNDS AND TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE PARK.
BY THE WAY, WE DO NOT LIFEGUARDS A LOT OF US, WE WANT THE PARK SPORT TO PLAY THE ROLE IN THE PARK.
WE BELIEVE IN THE PARKS BOARD, IF YOU CAN FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
WE DO NOT TRUST THESE OUTSIDE NONPROFITS.
WE TRUST THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN WHO ELECT THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPOINT THE DIRECTOR AND APPOINT THE PARKS BOARD.
WE DO NOT TRUST AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
THAT IS WHY WE CONSIDER IT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO A FULL HEARING TO PASS THESE ISSUES OUT.
UM, SO AT THIS TIME WE'LL GO TO A PRESENTATION FROM THE RESPONDENT AND, UH, SIMILARLY, MR. RINALDI, UH, WILL HAVE VICE CHAIR KALE.
GIVE YOU A THREE MINUTE WARNING AND A ONE MINUTE WARNING.
UM, WE'LL HAVE, UH, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, THE TIME WILL START.
UM, I, UH, DON'T HAVE A POWERPOINT OR ANYTHING TO SHARE, BUT I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD JUST REHASH, UM, THE, UM, WRITTEN RESPONSE THAT I PREPARED, UM, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WAS, WAS SHARED WITH YOU ALL.
UM, I PROVIDED A TWO-PART RESPONSE TO MR. COBB'S COMPLAINT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A VIOLATION OF CITY OF AUSTIN CODE 2 1 24 DID NOT OCCUR.
I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE A LEGAL BACKGROUND.
BUT YOU GUYS GET THE PICTURE, UM, TO TWO DASH ONE DASH 24.
UM, SO, UH, PART ONE OF MY RESPONSE ADDRESSES THE PRECISE QUESTION THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION TONIGHT, WHICH IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO SHOW THAT, UM, I VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH ONE DASH 24.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONSE I PROVIDED IN PART ONE IS SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS, QUE THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT.
UM, HOWEVER, UM, FOR THE SAKE OF THOROUGHNESS, I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO ADDRESS EACH OF THE CONCERNS THAT MR. COBB RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT ITSELF.
UM, AND SO IF WE HAVE TIME, UM, I CAN ALSO GO INTO, UM, UH, THE POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE TEXT OF THE COMPLAINT THAT I PREPARED.
UM, SO THE, UM, THE CODE PROVISION THAT'S ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IS, UM, THE, UM, THE SECTION OF, UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OR THE SECTION OF CITY OF AUSTIN CODE, UM, THAT, UM, ADDRESSES ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
UM, UH, I, AS I COVERED IN MY WRITTEN RESPONSE, UM, THE RELEVANT, UM, STATE LAW THAT'S ENCOMPASSED BY CITY OF AUSTIN CODE TWO DASH ONE DASH 24, UM, DOES NOT APPLY, UM, BECAUSE THE, UM, THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD IS AN ADVISORY BOARD.
UM, SO THAT DOESN'T APPLY THERE.
UM, SO THAT LEAVES US TO, UM, TO DEAL WITH CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE.
UM, SO THE RELEVANT CITY CODE THAT'S ENCOMPASSED BY TWO DASH ONE DASH 24, UM, BASICALLY SAYS THAT A CITY OFFICIAL NEEDS TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, UM, THAT YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAVE IN AN ENTITY THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY A VOTE OR DECISION BY A BODY THAT YOU'RE A PART OF.
UM, AND THEN, UH, ALSO DEFINED IN, UM, IN, UM, CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, UM, IS WHAT, WHAT THE CODE ACTUALLY MEANS BY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.
[00:30:01]
MY NOTES ON THIS ARE BASICALLY THAT, UM, AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS A NONPROFIT ENTITY.UM, THE BOARD MEMBER POSITION IS, UM, A VOLUNTEER ROLE.
UM, I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY FUNDS OR FORM OF FINANCIAL REMUNERATION FROM AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
UM, AND THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE.
UM, SO THE CODE ALSO STATES THAT, UM, THE CITY OFFICIAL MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE OR DECISION ON A MATTER THAT AFFECTS AN ENTITY IN WHICH THE OFFICIAL HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.
UM, SO I THINK THAT SEPARATE FROM NOTING THAT I DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE, THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD VOTE REGARDING ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN DID NOT STAND TO AFFECT AUSTIN OUTSIDE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN.
UM, SO, UM, THERE ARE REALLY NO ECONOMIC EFFECTS OR CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE THAT COULD BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR FOR AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
AS A RESULT OF THIS, THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD VOTE ON THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
UM, THE, UM, THE ORGANIZATION'S STAFF CONSISTS OF A PART-TIME CONTRACT POSITION TO OVERSEE ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS AND MEMBERSHIP COMMUNICATIONS.
UM, SO THE MISSION AND ACTIVITIES OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE ARE ORIENTED AROUND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE.
AND THERE'S NO STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD FACILITATE THE GENERATION OF ECONOMIC VALUE FOR ITS LEADERSHIP.
UM, AND SO, UH, MR. COBB IS CORRECT THAT ON PAGE TWO 10 OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN, UM, AUSTIN OUTSIDE HAS MENTIONED AS A POTENTIAL PARTNER FOR THE PROPOSED, UM, QUOTE UNQUOTE UNIFIED NON-PROFIT, UM, THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE VISION PLAN, UM, IN THE CONTEXT OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S ONGOING CAMPAIGNS FOR PUBLIC FUNDING TO SUPPORT ALL OF AUSTIN'S PARKS AND TRAILS.
SO THIS IS WORK THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD CONTINUE IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY ADOPTED VISION PLAN FOR ANY PARTICULAR PARK.
UM, AND THERE WAS ALSO NO FUNDING, UM, BY OR THROUGH THE CITY THAT WAS AT STAKE FOR AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, IN THIS VOTE.
SO CITY CODE SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE A CITY OFFICIAL, UM, AND YOU'RE A CORPORATE OFFICER OR MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UM, OF A NONPROFIT ENTITY, UM, YOU MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE OR DECISION REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY FOR THAT ENTITY.
UM, AND, UM, THERE WAS NO, UM, FUNDING THAT WOULD FLOW FROM THE CITY TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, AS A RESULT OF THIS VOTE BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD.
UM, AND THERE WAS NO, THERE WOULD BE NO FUNDING AT STAKE, UM, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, FROM THE CITY REGARDLESS OF THE, UM, IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION WERE EVER TAKEN TO ADOPT THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
UM, SO, UM, UH, I THINK PART ONE SHOWS THAT MY ACTIONS WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF AUSTIN CODE TWO DASH ONE DASH 24.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT SOLELY BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN PART ONE, THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
UM, BUT IF WE, IF I HAVE TIME, I, I CAN ALSO GO INTO THE, YOU STILL HAVE THREE AND A HALF MINUTES.
SO, UM, I THINK I'LL JUST SPEND THIS TIME THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT I DIDN'T ADDRESS IN PART ONE IS BASICALLY THE, UM, THE CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER THAT WAS SIGNED BY ME AND GOT SENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD.
UM, SO THE, AND IN MY, IN MY WRITTEN RESPONSE, THERE'S ALSO, UM, I'VE INCLUDED A COPY OF THIS LETTER, UM, SO THAT YOU ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT.
AND THERE'S ALSO AFFIDAVITS FROM, UH, THREE OF THE, UM, FOLKS WHO ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, THAT, UM, RELEVANT TO THIS, UM, BOARD MEMBER KNOWLEDGE OF THIS LETTER.
UM, SO, UM, AT, UH, SO IN MARCH, 2023, I WAS SERVING AS CHAIR OF THE TRAILS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
UM, AND THESE ARE AUSTIN OUTSIDE MEMBERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES LIKE TRAILS, BIKEWAYS, SIDEWALKS.
UM, AND ON, UM, OUR MARCH 28TH, 2023 MEETING, OUR, UM, UH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS VOTED TO SEND A LETTER TO THE CITY'S URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EXPRESSING THE COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT FOR SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE DRAFT ZILKER VISION PLAN THAT
[00:35:01]
PERTAINED TO TRAILS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.UM, AND SO MYSELF AND VICE CHAIR DARREN URDA WERE EMPOWERED BY THE COMMITTEE VOTE TO SIGN THIS LETTER AND SUBMIT IT TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION, WHICH WE DID ON APRIL 4TH, UM, 2023.
UM, SO YOU CAN SEE I'VE ALSO INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT A, THIS ORIGINAL LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
UM, AND, UM, ON MAY 22ND, 2023, UM, AN ANOTHER AUSTIN OUTSIDE BOARD MEMBER MADE AN UNAUTHORIZED EDIT TO THE ORIGINAL LETTER THAT OUR COMMITTEE, UM, HAD WRITTEN AND SHARED IT WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD VIA EMAIL.
UM, AND SPECIFICALLY HE CHANGED THE TWO FIELD OF THE ORIGINAL LETTER SO THAT IT READ TO CITY OF AUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD INSTEAD OF TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
SO NEITHER MY VICE CHAIR AND I NOR THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UM, WERE CONSULTED ON THIS COURSE OF ACTION.
THE EDIT WAS MADE WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.
UM, AND THERE IS, UM, UH, THOSE, THE AFFIDAVITS ARE TESTIFYING TO THAT EFFECT.
UM, THE, UM, AND SO AT THE MAY 22ND PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING, I RECEIVED ONE MINUTE.
ANYWAYS, I RECEIVED A HEADS UP FROM THIS BOARD MEMBER THAT HE PLANNED TO SHARE THIS LETTER WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS.
AND, UM, I DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
UM, I FIGURED THAT THE LETTER WAS PUBLIC INFORMATION BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY EMAILED IT TO THE STAFF LIAISON FOR THE U T C.
UM, AND I, UM, I DID NOT KNOW THAT HE HAD, UM, HAD CHANGED THIS PORTION OF THE LETTER.
SO THEN CREATED A SITUATION WHERE IT LOOKED LIKE I HAD, UM, WRITTEN A LETTER TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE PARKS BOARD AND SIGNED IT.
UM, WHICH IS NOT, UM, UH, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AGAINST THE RULES, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE A WEIRD THING TO DO AND I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.
UM, SO IT WASN'T UNTIL I WAS PREPARING MY PRESENT RESPONSE TO THIS COMPLAINT AT THE END OF JULY THAT I DISCOVERED THAT THIS CHANGE HAD BEEN MADE TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE LETTER, UM, THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD.
SO BASICALLY IN, UM, TO SUMMARIZE, UM, I'VE ESTABLISHED THAT I DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
UM, AND EVEN IF I DID HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE THE PARK CENTER RECREATION BOARD VOTE REGARDING THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN DID NOT STAND TO AFFECT AUSTIN OUTSIDE AS AN ENTITY AS DEFINED BY CITY CODE.
UM, AND NO FUNDING WOULD HAVE FLOWED BY OR THROUGH THE CITY TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE AS A RESULT OF OUR VOTE OR VOTE OR AS A RESULT OF ANY ULTIMATE OUTCOME ON THE SILK OR PARK VISION PLAN.
SO AT THIS TIME, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER PARTY, UM, IF YOU HAVE THEM.
UH, I SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER LOWE, THEN COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY.
UM, AND I WILL KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR OUR WEBEX COMMISSIONER AS WELL.
SO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LOWE.
UH, MR. COBB, I DO HAVE A QUESTION JUST BECAUSE I NEED YOU TO CLARIFY THE FACTS AND THEN I WOULD LIKE MS. RINALDI TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
YOU MENTIONED AN ENTITY CALLED SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY.
AND, UH, YOU SAID THAT IS THE FULL-TIME EMPLOYER OF, UH, MS. RINALDI.
IS, IS THAT ACCORDING TO THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE WEBSITE? I ASK, YEAH.
NO, BUT IT WAS NOT AN ENTITY LINKEDIN MM-HMM.
BUT IT'S NOT AN ENTITY YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR COMPLAINT, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, I MEAN, I, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE CONNECTION AND HOW THAT FITS INTO WHAT YOU DID PLEAD IN THE COMPLAINT.
WELL, THE COMPLAINT MENTIONS THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND I THINK IT FURTHER CLARIFIES THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND WE SEE THAT THE ENTITY THAT PAYS HER SALARY MM-HMM.
SO I THINK THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES, UH, IT'S ONLY SOMETHING I DISCOVERED MM-HMM.
SO I DIDN'T KNOW, ARE YOU SAYING THE ACTION SHE TOOK IN HER VOTE ON THE BOARD WAS GOING TO ACCRUE SOME FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO HER THROUGH SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY THROUGH HER FULL-TIME EMPLOYER? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
[00:40:03]
CITY CODE SAYS THAT IF THERE IS AN EXPECTATION, A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT AN A BENEFIT WOULD ACCRUE, THEN THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE.AND YOU DO NOT, AS I MENTIONED, HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE MM-HMM.
IT IS THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT PEOPLE CONCLUDE AND WHEN THEY KNOW THAT MS. ALDI RECEIVES A SALARY FROM A MEMBER ORGANIZATION OF AUSTIN, OUTSIDE OF WHICH SHE IS A BOARD MEMBER, WHICH IS MENTIONED IN ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN, WHEN THE PUBLIC SEES THAT, THE PUBLIC KNOWS THAT THEY SEE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WOULD BE A BENEFIT PROFESSIONAL WISE.
SO THAT'S HOW YOU'RE CONNECTING IT, YOU'RE CONNECTING HER VOTE ON THE BOARD.
IS IT CORRECT TO, TO HER, UM, MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
AND IN THAT CAPACITY, SHE'S AN EMPLOYEE CORRECT.
OF SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY, WHICH PAYS HER FULL-TIME SALARY.
IS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S WHAT I'M ADDING TO THE INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN USE AS YOU WISH.
IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO RECUSE YOURSELF.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
I KNOW THAT PEOPLE WILL MM-HMM.
THAT'S ETHICS, THAT'S INTEGRITY, AND THAT IS WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
I'M SURE A LOT OF Y'ALL HAVE DONE IT.
I'VE SEEN IT DONE AT THE LAST SUMMER MEETING.
YOU DON'T NEED TO INJECT YOURSELF AND HAVE A VOTE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ETHICS RULES.
MS. RINALDI, WOULD YOU RESPOND AS TO YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH SHE CREEK CONSERVANCY? YES.
UM, I, UM, MY LINKEDIN, UM, NEEDS TO BE UPDATED AND ALSO THE AUSTIN ONSITE WEBPAGE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED, IT SOUNDS LIKE AS WELL.
UM, I'M, UM, I FOR MANY YEARS WAS EMPLOYED BY SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY.
UM, THEY'RE NO LONGER MY EMPLOYER.
UM, BUT WERE YOU EMPLOYED BY SHOAL CREEK AT THE TIME OF THIS VOTE? THAT YES.
UM, AND THE, UM, I WOULD, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT, UM, ZILKER PARK IS NOT WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY'S MISSION OR WORK.
UM, SO SHUL CREEK CONSERVANCY WORKS WITHIN THE 13 SQUARE MILE SHUL CREEK WATERSHED ON CREEK AND TRAIL ISSUES.
SO ZILKER PARK, UM, NEVER HAS BEEN, OR, OR A, A PART OF THAT WORK.
UM, SO, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE, THIS, UM, JUST AS THE VOTE ON, UM, THE ZUKI PARK VISION PLAN DID NOT STAND TO AFFECT AUSTIN OUTSIDE IN ANY WAY, UM, AS DEFINED BY CITY CODE.
IT, UM, CERTAINLY DID NOT STAND TO AFFECT SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY IN ANY WAY.
UH, VERY BRIEFLY BEFORE, UM, IF I CAN TAKE SOME LIBERTY, UH, MR. COBB, I JUST, UH, WOULD LIKE, YOU'VE REFERENCED A REASONABLE EXPECTATION STANDARD A COUPLE OF TIMES.
UM, IT MIGHT BE IN YOUR NOTES, BUT COULD YOU JUST, UH, CLARIFY WHERE, WHERE THAT COMES FROM? I'M SURE THE ATTORNEY CAN CLARIFY IT, BUT, UH, GIVE ME A COUPLE OF MINUTES I CAN FIND IT.
UH, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR TIME AND DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE FOOTNOTES OF WHERE IT WAS, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY IN THAT WHOLE SECTION, UH, SECTION TWO, WHATEVER IT WAS.
UH, AND IT MAY BE, OKAY, I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW.
[00:45:03]
AND SEARCH FOR, IT'S DEFINITELY SOMEWHERE IN PARAGRAPH, YOU KNOW, TWO SEVEN CODE OF ETHICS.AND SOMEONE ELSE WANTS, AND IF YOU, IF YOU NEED TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO, TO FIND IT, THAT'S FINE.
OR IF, IF IT MIGHT HELP, UM, IT MAY HAVE BEEN A REFERENCE TO THE STANDARD FOR THE HEARING WHERE IT'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED.
UM, AND IN THE MEANTIME IS, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT OR GO AHEAD, MR. EY QUESTION FOR MS. RINALDI.
UM, SO YOU STATED THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE HAD NO EXPECTATION OR THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD IN ANY WAY GET FUNDING FOR THIS TO GO AHEAD.
THEN MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION WOULD BE, DID A, DID ASAN OUTSIDE EVER HAVE A DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION THAT THERE WOULD BE A ROLE THEY COULD PLAY WHERE THE PLAN PASSED THAT WOULD BRING IN REVENUE? EITHER BECAUSE THE ROLE ITSELF WOULD BE DOING SOMETHING IN THE PARK THAT WOULD GENERATE REVENUE, OR THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE MIGHT THEN BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR A GRANT FROM SOMEONE IN ORDER TO PURSUE SOMETHING DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PLAN.
WAS, WAS THERE ANY ASPIRATION OR ANY HOPE OR THOUGHT THERE? SO, UM, PARDON ME, YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS, UM, THE, ABOUT, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT? OH, YEAH.
MONEY, YOU, I THINK YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T, THAT NO ONE EXPECTED MONEY TO GO FROM THE CITY TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE MM-HMM.
NO, THERE WAS NO, I MEAN, SO, UH, THERE NOTHING, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE PLAN THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN OUTSIDE WILL, YOU KNOW, GET THIS MONEY FOR DOING THIS THING FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, THAT PERTAINS TO ZILKER PARK.
UM, THERE WAS ALSO NO EXPECTATION ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN, UM, BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS, THE ZILKER VISION PLAN BEING ADOPTED OR NOT.
UM, AND, UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAD NO PLANS TO EVER BRING IN REVENUE FOR THE ORGANIZATION BY, UM, BY, I GUESS CONDUCTING, I GUESS, LIKE CONDUCTING BUSINESS AROUND ZILKER PARK OR GETTING A GRANT.
THERE WAS NO, AND WOULD THERE BE ANY ROLE WHERE MONEY MIGHT COME FROM SOMEWHERE BESIDES THE CITY IF THE PLAN WENT FORWARD? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
THERE, YEAH, I'M NOT, I'M STRUGGLING TO IMAGINE WHAT SCENARIO THAT WOULD BE, BUT NO.
I THINK, UH, MS. RINALDI, THIS IS REALLY JUST FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, BUT YOU HAVE SIX BULLET POINTS IN YOUR LETTER THAT, UH, ARE THE REASONS WHY AUSTIN OUTSIDE SUPPORTED ZUCKER VISION PLAN.
SO AUSTIN OUTSIDE DOESN'T PROVIDE SERVICES IN ANY OF THOSE SIX BULLETED AREAS.
I'M PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES, TRAIL DEVELOPMENT, TRANSIT, CONSOLIDATED PARKING.
UM, SO YEAH, AND JUST TO CLARIFY HERE, UM, THIS IS, UM, THIS LETTER WAS SENT ON BEHALF OF SPECIFICALLY THE MEMBERS OF THE TRAILS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, AND WE SPECIFICALLY WERE SUPPORTING THESE PARTICULAR ELEMENTS OF, TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
SO IT WAS NOT A, UM, IT WAS NOT A, YOU KNOW, A BLANKET, UM, ENCOURAGEMENT TO APPROVE THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
WE WERE SAYING WE SUPPORT THESE SIX ELEMENTS BEING INCLUDED IN A, IN A PLAN FOR ZILKER PARK.
SO, UM, BUT NO, THERE WAS NO, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERATING REVENUE FOR AUSTIN OUTSIDE THAT WAS ENVISIONED, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, AS EITHER FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN OR FROM OTHER SOURCES.
UM, AS A RESULT OF ANY OF THESE, UM, ANY OF THESE ELEMENTS BEING ADOPTED.
WELL, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, JUST A SECOND, MR. COBB.
I, I DIDN'T WANT TO, UH, PREOCCUPY TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME TO FIND THAT'S STANDARD.
UM, SO IF IT'S, IF IT'S NOT COMING UP, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
[00:50:01]
PULL YOUR ATTENTION INTO, UH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.UM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
UH, THIS IS FOR THE RESPONDENT, UH, THE SIX BULLET POINTS THAT WAS REFERENCED THERE.
THOSE ARE WRITTEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A SUBCOMMITTEE OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
IT REPRESENTS THE, UM, UH, THE VIEWS OF THE, THE, THE, THE MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE TRAILS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
UM, THESE WERE THE ELEMENTS THAT, UM, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS VOTED TO EXPRESS THEIR, UM, SUPPORT FORM.
BUT FOR THE ORGANIZATION, AUSTIN, OUTSIDE ITSELF, IT SUPPORTED THE VISION PLAN FOR VARIOUS REASONS THAT ARE BEYOND THESE SIX.
IS THAT CORRECT? NO, AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, AS AN ORGANIZATION, NEVER TOOK A POSITION ON THE ZILKER VISION PLAN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS A, AS A, UM, AS A PLAN.
DID AUSTIN OUTSIDE ENVISION ITSELF AS BEING ONE OF THE UNIFIED PARTNERS IN THE, IN THE VISION PLAN? IN THE VISION PLAN THAT'S LISTED AS A, I GUESS THEY WERE GONNA DO A UNIFIED PARTNERSHIP WITH A VARIETY OF NONPROFITS.
DID AUSTIN OUTSIDE ENVISION ITSELF BEING ONE OF THOSE NONPROFITS? UM, I MEAN, I, AGAIN, LIKE I STATED IN THE, UM, IN MY RESPONSE, UM, IT'S THE EXTENT OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S RELATIONSHIP TO THIS UNIFIED NONPROFIT THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE PLAN, UM, WAS JUST THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD CONTINUE ITS ONGOING WORK TO INCREASE FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR PARKS AND TRAILS THROUGHOUT AUSTIN.
SO THE EXTENT TO WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, UM, IT WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, INCREASE FUNDING OR CAPACITY FOR PARKS AND TRAILS ALSO WITHIN ZILKER PARK.
I SUPPOSE THAT WOULD BE, THAT'S KIND OF THE CONNECTION THERE.
UM, I, BUT NO, THE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE, UH, THE PROPOSAL IN THE VISION PLAN, UM, WAS THAT, UM, THERE WOULD BE THIS UNIFIED NONPROFIT THAT WOULD FORMALIZE A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY, UM, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL, I'M QUOTING FROM THE VISION PLAN HERE, ADDITIONAL UNIQUE FUNCTIONS ALONGSIDE PARD.
UM, AND, UM, ONE OF THE ROLES, UM, FOR THAT UNIFIED NONPROFIT, UM, ON PAGE TWO 10 OF THE VISION PLAN, UM, WOULD BE TO WORK WITH THE BROADER PARKS OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION COALITION KNOWN AS AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO CAMPAIGN FOR PUBLIC FUNDS, UM, FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, RESTORATION, AND EXPANDED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR ZILKER PARK.
SO IT WOULD BE, UM, SO IT, UM, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY HERE IS THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS OVER HERE DOING ITS, YOU KNOW, UM, PERHAPS, UM, I THINK MAYBE THE SITUATION THAT'S ENVISIONED IN THE, IN THE ZILKER VISION PLAN IS AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS OVER HERE, UM, CAMPAIGNING FOR MORE PUBLIC FUNDING FOR PARKS.
UM, THE ZILKER UNIFIED NONPROFIT IS OVER HERE HELPING TO COORDINATE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, OR, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE GOAL WAS FOR ZILKER PARK.
AND THEN, UM, MAYBE THE TWO OF THEM WOULD WORK TOGETHER IN, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S ROLE FOR RAISING, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR ALL OF THE PARKS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I DON'T KNOW IF I'M, IF I'M EXPLAINING THAT VERY WELL.
I'M SORRY IF, SO, I, I KINDA WANNA REDIRECT BACK TO YOU.
MY ORIGINAL QUESTION IS REALLY WHETHER OR NOT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WAS VYING TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNIFIED PARTNERSHIP? NO.
BUT THEY WERE LISTED AS A PROSPECTIVE MEMBER OF THE UNIFIED PARTNERSHIP IN THE VISION PLAN.
SO THERE'S A, UM, THE DISTINCTION HERE IS THAT, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY, I'M NOT SURE IF THE VISION PLAN LISTED ANY PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS OF THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT THAT WERE PROPOSED, BUT, UM, THE, THE CAPACITY THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE HAS MENTIONED IN THE VISION PLAN, UM, IS POTENTIALLY WORKING WITH, UM, THIS PROPOSED UNIFIED NONPROFIT, SO NOT AS A MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED UNIFIED NONPROFIT.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? RIGHT.
SO MY FOCUS IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE VY TO BE A PART OF THE CONTROLLING PARTNERSHIP NO, TO ALSO OUTSIDE WAS NOT, UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW THAT WE WERE NOT VYING TO BE A PART OF THIS, UM, THIS NONPROFIT.
IS AUSTIN OUTSIDE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE VISION PLAN? YES, IT IS.
AND THE ROLE FOR WHICH IT IS MENTIONED IN THE VISION PLAN, RIGHT,
[00:55:01]
IS TO INFLUENCE AND AFFECT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS AS AS THEY EXPAND THE PARTS, RIGHT? I MEAN, NOT EXACTLY.UM, IT'S MORE JUST THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD BE INVOLVED IN CAMPAIGNING FOR INCREASED PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ALL OF THE PARKS.
AND THE WAY THAT THAT MAY HAPPEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THROUGH, UM, LIKE A BOND CAMPAIGN.
AND SO CITY COUNCIL IS THE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THE BODY THAT'S TASKED WITH, UM, MAKING THE FINAL DECISIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT PROJECTS FOR PARKS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN A HYPOTHETICAL, UM, BOND CAMPAIGN FOR, FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE.
SO THAT DECISION WOULD REALLY BE, UM, UP TO THEM.
BUT THEN AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S ROLE HYPOTHETICALLY WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING WHATEVER KIND OF PARKS AND OPEN, YOU KNOW, THAT BOND CAMPAIGN FOR WHATEVER KIND OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PROJECTS COUNCIL WOULD DECIDE TO PUT IN THAT BOND LANGUAGE.
I THINK, I THINK THE CONFUSION FOR, FOR, FOR, I THINK THAT WE'RE MISSING EACH OTHER.
AND I THINK WE'RE MISSING EACH OTHER BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS AS IT RELATES TO EXPANDED ABILITY TO INFLUENCE UNDER THE ENVISION PLAN THAT IT, THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE DOES NOT HAVE, IF THE VISION PLAN WERE NOT PASSED.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION, WOULD AUSTIN OUTSIDE HAVE SORT OF, I GUESS, INDOCTRINATED, UM, INFLUENCE BY BEING NAMED IN THE VISION PLAN BY HAVING THE ABILITY TO ASSIST IN CAMPAIGNING FOR RAISING FUNDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? I MEAN, IS IT GIVING AUSTIN OUTSIDE AN EXPANDED ROLE? I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S GIVING AUSTIN OUTSIDE AN EXPANDED ROLE AS MUCH AS IT IS JUST STATING AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S EXISTING ROLE AND ILLUMINATING THE WAY IN WHICH THE ROLE THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE PLAYS IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, WOULD SERVE TO RAISE FUNDING FOR ZILKER PARK AMONG ALL OF THE OTHER PARKS AND OPEN SPACES IN AUSTIN.
SO IT DOESN'T PRIVILEGE AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, IN, IN ANY, IT'S NOT GIVING AUSTIN OUTSIDE A SPECIAL ROLE IN SORT OF IN, IN THE VISION PLAN OR IN, IN MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
WE'LL GO TO THE VICE CHAIR KALE IN JUST A MOMENT.
I WANTED, I SIGNED THE CITATION, UH, AND I WAS ABOUT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I, I HAD FOUND IT TOO, AND I WAS LOOKING IN THE WRONG SECTION OF CODE, THE DEFINITIONS OF AFFECTED AFFECTED, THAT'S RIGHT.
I WAS IN THE WRONG PART OF THIS BINDER.
UM, BUT VICE CHAIR KALE, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO I, I'M GONNA SORT OF PIGGYBACK OFF WHAT COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SAID, AND ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS HOW, UM, LANGUAGE SO SPECIFIC TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE, MADE ITS WAY INTO THE VISION PLAN WHEN THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE REGION.
AND AND WHETHER YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT SINCE YOU'RE A BOARD MEMBER.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MANY MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS, UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE OF THE BACKSTORY ON THAT.
COMMISSIONER LEVINSON, THEN ESPINOZA.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, MR. COBB, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
THE SPECIFIC VOTE THAT YOU CONTEND MS. RINALDI SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF FROM THAT WAS A VOTE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE KIN VIS VIS ZILKER VISION PLAN.
IS THAT, DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
THERE WERE ALSO OTHER VOTES REGARDING AMENDMENTS THAT SHE COULD HAVE ACCUSED HERSELF ON RELATED, BUT STILL RELATED TO RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL TO, I MEAN, THEY, LIKE, THEY CONSIDERED SOME, LEMME LEMME FINISH MY QUESTION.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THINGS RELATED TO RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY ADOPT THE ZILKER VISION PLAN? YES.
UM, WHAT FUNDING BUYER THROUGH THE CITY WAS AT ISSUE IN ANY OF THOSE VOTES? ZUCKER PARK VISION PLAN WAS VERY EXPENSIVE.
VARIOUS ENTITIES WOULD'VE BEEN FUNDED THROUGH IT, OR EACH PARKING GARAGE WAS GONNA COST $20 MILLION.
I THINK THE WHOLE THING WAS GONNA BE 200 MILLION.
BUT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD BE INVOLVED IN RAISING THOSE FUNDS.
[01:00:01]
TO RAISE THOSE FUNDS BY AUSTIN OUTSIDE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY RAISING THOSE FUNDS.THE, THE 200 MILLION WOULD BE RAISED IN PART BY AUSTIN OUTSIDE, NO, IN ORDER.
AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO RAISING PART OF THOSE, UH, CAPITAL UH, FUNDS.
IT'S, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE, UH, TWO 10, IT'LL TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY WOULD BE INVOLVED IN OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
YOU WANT ME TO READ IT TO YOU? I CAN FIND IT.
I, I I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE ZILKER VISION PLAN.
THE VISION PLAN RECOMMENDS THAT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FORMALLY REVIEW ITS CURRENT OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL PLANS TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MOST EFFICIENT AND ACCOUNTABLE MODEL FOR MANAGEMENT OF A COMPLICATED CAPITAL PLAN.
INCREASED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CAPABILITIES AND COORDINATION WITH NONPROFIT PARTNERS, CONCESSIONAIRES AND VOLUNTEER GROUPS.
IN ADDITION, A UNIFIED UMBRELLA NONPROFIT FORMALIZED AS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY PER CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION TO SOMETHING IN OTHER CITY AND DEPARTMENT GUIDANCE COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL UNIQUE FUNCTIONS ALONGSIDE PARD.
AMONG THE PROPOSED FEATURES THAT THIS NONPROFIT UMBRELLA WOULD DO.
THE FIRST BULLET POINT WOULD BE AMONG THE FEATURES PROPOSED FEATURES ARE ADVOCACY FOR ADVOCACY FOR THE PLAN IN BOTH THE FINAL APPROVED FORM EARLY 2023, AND AS IMPLEMENTATION PHASES AS DETERMINED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
AND BULLET NUMBER TWO IS WHERE THEY MENTION AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
THIS IS IN RELATION TO THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT.
AMONG THE PROPOSED FEATURES THAT THE UMBRELLA NONPROFIT ARE WORK WITH THE BROADER PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION KNOWN AS AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO CAMPAIGN FOR PUBLIC FUNDS BOND ELECTIONS.
ANNUAL BUDGET INCREASES ALLOCATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BOND FUNDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, RESTORATION AND EXPANDED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR ZILKER AND THE ENTIRE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM.
THE ZILKER VISION PLAN HAD NO FUNDING WHEN THEY WERE CONSIDERING IT.
THIS WAS THE PLAN TO GET THE FUNDING.
PART OF THAT PLAN INVOLVED THE PROPOSED UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION WORKING WITH THE BROADER PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION KNOWN AS AUSTIN, OUTSIDE AUSTIN, OUTSIDE, ACCORDING TO THEIR WEBSITE, NEEDS TO INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY.
IF THEIR GO DO GOAL, THEIR GOAL IS TO GO TO THE FUNDERS.
WE'VE BEEN, UH, DIRECTED BY THE VISION PLAN TO HELP WITH ALL THIS FUNDRAISING.
WE CAN'T DO IT UNLESS WE INCREASE OUR CAPACITY.
SO IF THE
I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. RINALDI ALSO IN YOUR RESPONSE, YOU SPEND A, UH, YOU GIVE US A DISCUSSION OF TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 64, WHICH IS DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND YOU TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST DEFINITION IN THERE.
THE COMPLAINT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ENCOMPASSES UH, TWO, ONE, THERE'S A SPECIFIC, IT'S UH, UH, 2 1 24, WHICH GETS US TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT I'M NOT, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU GOT TO 2 7 64? UM, I THINK SO, BUT I'M GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK AND, UM, REVIEW THIS A LITTLE BIT IN MY WRITTEN RESPONSE 'CAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
ALRIGHT, I SEE THE CONNECTION TO 2 7 63 BECAUSE 2 1 24 REFERS TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SO I BELIEVE I ADDRESSED CI LIKE THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE 2 7 64 BECAUSE IT'S RELEVANT CITY OF AUSTIN CODE THAT'S ENCOMPASSED BY 2 1 24.
SO I BELIEVE THAT 2 1 24 REFERENCES, UM, CHAPTER 1 71 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
[01:05:01]
THAT'S APPLICABLE TO THAT, UM, TO THAT CODE AND THEN AS WELL AS CHAPTER TWO SEVEN OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE.AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M WAS DRAWING THAT CONNECTION, BUT HONESTLY I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK THROUGH THE CODE AGAIN TO REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THAT.
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA AND THEN I SAW COMMISSIONER CAO'S HAND AS WELL.
YOU SAID THE ZILKER VISION PLAN HAD NO FUNDING.
IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT YOUR ASSERTION HAD NO FUNDING AS FAR AS I KNOW IT, UM, IT WAS THE PLAN AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA SEEK FUNDING THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AND THROUGH THESE FUNDRAISING ORGANIZATIONS LIKE, UH, THE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION AND AUSTIN OUTSIDE, WERE GONNA HELP WITH THE CAPITAL, UH, FUNDRAISING.
BUT YEAH, WHEN IT WAS CONSIDERED THERE WAS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, NO CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED FUNDS TO FUND ANY OF IT.
THE BASIS OF YOUR COMPLAINT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS IN PART THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO AFTER SOME OF THIS FUNDING, BUT A MOMENT AGO YOU TOLD MR. LEVINS IT HAD NO FUNDING.
CAN YOU HELP ME OUT HERE? I MEAN THE, THE PARKING GARAGE, NOTHING IN THERE HAD FUNDING BY CITY COUNCIL IN THE BUDGET OR ANYWHERE IN THE PLAN.
SOME OF THAT FUNDING WOULD BE ADVOCATING FOR, AS I MENTIONED WHEN I READ THE, THE ZILKER VISION PLAN TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, WHAT THEIR ROLE WOULD BE.
THE FUNDING WOULD NOT GO DIRECTLY TO THEM.
THE FUNDING WOULD BE, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA SPEND 20 MILLION ON THIS PARKING GARAGE, BUT THE ROLE OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD BE GOING FROM THIS SMALL NONPROFIT TO BEING A, A LARGER PLAYER.
AND THEIR ROLE WOULD INCREASE IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE ROLE THAT IS ASSIGNED TO THEM, UH, IN THE VISION PLAN.
SO THEY SAW IF WE WANT TO GROW IT, IT'S ON THEIR FIRST PAGE OF THEIR WEBSITE.
IF YOU GO TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE, GO TO SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM, WHAT ARE THEIR GOALS TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE? WHY DO THEY NEED TO CON INCREASE THE CAPACITY? WELL, THEY GOT IN THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN AND HOW ARE THEY GONNA PLAY THE ROLE THAT SOMEBODY IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE AB ADVOCATED? HOW DID IT GET IN THERE? WE DON'T KNOW.
WAS IT JUST, DID NOBODY IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UH, TALK TO ANYBODY IN THE VISION PLAN DRAFTING? I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONSULTATION.
SO IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO DO THAT IF THEY WEREN'T IN THE VISION PLAN BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG ROLE THAT IS BEING ASSIGNED TO THEM.
I, I THINK THAT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR ARE CONSISTENCIES AND I THINK THAT YOU'RE DRAWING SOME HYPOTHETICALS THAT I, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE SUPPORTED IN ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE OFFERED.
NOW THEY SAY THIS ON THEIR WEBSITE, I RAN A NONPROFIT FOR 10 YEARS.
YOU ALWAYS SAY YOU'RE EXPANDING CAPACITY.
ANY, ANY BUSINESS WOULD SAY THE SAME THING.
BUT TO ASSIGN AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE TO IT, I, I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR, AND, AND I DON'T SAY THIS TO BE CRITICAL, I, I, I SAY THIS 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING FOR CLARITY ON THIS.
I'M LOOKING FOR SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINITION OF AFFECTED BY IS NOT THAT WE REQUIRE PRESENT THE EVIDENCE.
AND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS SOMETHING REASONABLE, BUT IT CLEARLY SAYS YOU DON'T NEED TO PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE.
IT'S THE, IT'S THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IS THE, THE CONFLICT, AND THAT REDUCES THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE DECISIONS BEING MADE BY THE CITY.
UH, ACTUALLY, UM, I, I'M HAPPY TO READ THROUGH THAT DEFINITION ONE MORE TIME, JUST SO THAT EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
'CAUSE I, I KNOW THAT I GOT TRIPPED UP WHEN I WAS TRYING TO THINK THROUGH WHERE THINGS LAND.
SO THIS IS IN THE DEFINITION FOR THE WORD AFFECTED AS IT RELATES TO A POSSIBLE VOTE OR DECISION WHERE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST MAY BE AT PLAY, WHERE ITS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST MIGHT BE AFFECTED.
AND I THINK THE RELEVANT SENTENCES IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON OR ENTITY IS, OR WAS AFFECTED BY A VOTER DECISION, IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE OF AN ECONOMIC EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE IF SUCH EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO EXIST OR OCCUR.
UM, IT'S NOT, UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY AN EVIDENTIARY STANDARD, BUT IT'S HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE WORD AFFECTED.
[01:10:01]
SO, UH, WITH THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER CASTO, GO AHEAD, MR. COBB.I THINK I'M PROBABLY LOOKING FOR SIMILAR TYPE OF CLARITY, SO JUST CORRECT ME WHERE I'M WRONG OR, OR FILL IT IN THE EFFECT THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WERE TO REALIZE IF THE VISION PLAN MOVED FORWARD WOULD BE, IF THEY HAD THIS ADDITIONAL ROLE TO PLAY, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO TO THEIR MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS, THEIR DONORS, AND ASK FOR SUPPORT TO INCREASE THEIR CAPABILITIES IN ORDER TO PERFORM THIS ROLE.
THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT IS MY REASONABLE EXPECTATION FOR WHICH I'M NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF.
I JUST WANTED TO, AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD SUMMARY.
AND, UH, I WAS REMINDED, UM, THAT THERE ARE, UH, TWO KINDS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UH, ONE OF WHICH RELIES ON A DEFINITION OF AFFECTED AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN ANOTHER, IN WHICH, IF A, UH, INDIVIDUAL IS ON THE BOARD OF A NONPROFIT AND THE DECISION HAS TO DO WITH FUNDING, UM, THAT ACTUALLY DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WORD AFFECTED.
WE ARE GETTING INTO HYPER, HYPER-TECHNICAL TERRITORY HERE.
UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, UH, IF ANYONE NEEDS THAT CLARITY.
OH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CASTO, FOR THE CLARIFICATION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON FUNDING FOR THAT.
UM, COULD WE DEFINE SOURCES FUNDING FROM THE UNIVERSE, THE CITY, OTHER PLACES? SO, UM, I'LL GO TO LEGAL COUNSEL.
DIDN'T WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR.
UH, 2 7 63 B SAYS THAT IT IS FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY.
UM, VICE CHAIR, KALE, GO AHEAD.
YES, LUIS, I WAS GONNA SEE IF YOU COULD POINT US TO THE TEXT THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE BOARD OF SOMETHING YOU'RE VOTING ON.
UH, I THINK THAT WAS WHAT, UM, UH, MS. RIZVI WAS POINTING TO.
UM, SO IN TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX THREE MM-HMM.
UM, AND, BUT THAT IS A SPECIFIC TO A NONPROFIT ENTITY, RIGHT? OKAY.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WAS GONNA SAY TOO, IN TERMS OF CLARIFYING OR, OR DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS MONEY APPROVED AT THAT TIME, I THINK WITH ANY SORT OF BIG ENDEAVOR, THERE IS ALWAYS THE EXPECTATION THAT YOU MAKE THE PLAN FIRST, AND THEN YOU PROVIDE THE FUNDING LATER.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO A HIGHWAY PROJECT, PEOPLE DISCUSS IT, AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT IF THEY BUY PROPERTY ALONG WHERE A HIGHWAY'S GONNA BE, THEY'RE GONNA GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT.
AND SO I THINK THAT, UM, I'M NOT TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT THERE WASN'T EXPLICIT FUNDING FOR IT YET, BECAUSE I THINK THAT ONCE THAT OPINION HAD GONE TO CITY COUNCIL, THEN THEY, THEN THEY TAKE UP THE, THE TOPIC OF FUNDING.
AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON IS SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PARKS, THE ADVISORY ROLE OF THE PARKS BOARD.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, SOME OF THESE BOARDS THAT HAVE AN ADVISORY ROLE, THAT THAT OUTCOME THAT THEY VOTE ON AS APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS, UM, CAN HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ONCE IT MAKES ITS WAY TO CITY COUNCIL.
UM, I HAD, UH, A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT.
COULD YOU JUST, UM, AND YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS OR DISCUSSED THIS IN, UH, IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS, BUT JUST AGAIN, FOR MY CLARITY, UH, WHAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE DOES.
SO WE ARE A, UM, A COALITION OF OVER 60, UM, REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT CHAMPION VIBRANT AND THRIVING OUTDOOR PLACES FOR EVERYONE IN CENTRAL TEXAS.
UM, I'M SORRY IF I'M, I MAY NOT BE GETTING THE MISSION STATEMENT WORD FOR WORD, BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DO.
SO THAT, UM, THAT, UM, UH, CAN TAKE MANY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, FORMS OF WORK.
UH, WE CAN, WE KIND OF ACT AS AN INFORMATION SHARING HUB FOR, UM, DIFFERENT NONPROFITS THAT ARE WORKING ON DIFFERENT THINGS, UM, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT GREATER AUSTIN, THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, WE ALSO, UM, UH, SEE OURSELVES AS
[01:15:01]
CHAMPIONS FOR INCREASING PUBLIC FUNDING FOR, UM, PARKS AND TRAILS IN GREATER AUSTIN.SO THAT COULD BE THROUGH, UM, UH, UM, ADVOCATING FOR, UH, INCREASES TO THE PARKS BUDGET WHENEVER THE BUDGET SEASON COMES AROUND AT THE CITY.
THAT COULD BE THROUGH ADVOCATING FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE BONDS, UM, FOR PROMOTING BOND ELECTIONS, UM, THAT WOULD INCREASE BOND FUNDING FOR, FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE.
SO IT'S VERY MUCH FOCUSED ON, UM, UH, REALLY, UM, UH, COORDINATING THESE ACTIVITIES THAT, UM, THAT ENHANCE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY IN THE, IN THE GREATER AUSTIN AREA.
AND, UH, DO YOU, UM, YOU CAN DECLINE TO ANSWER THIS AND, UH, I WON'T READ IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT DO YOU, UM, ACCEPT MONEY AS PART OF YOUR ORGANIZATION FINANCE STRATEGY? DO YOU ACCEPT MONEY FROM THE CITY, UH, IN GRANTS OR EVEN STATE MONEY, FEDERAL MONEY IN TERMS OF GRANTS, UH, TO DO YOUR WORK? AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S WORK? YES.
UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE'VE NEVER ACCEPTED ANY MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC, FROM THE STATE OR THE CITY OR THE COUNTY.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE, UM, FUNDED PRIMARILY BY JUST INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS.
UH, DOES AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, ENGAGE IN CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS EVER? DO DO, IN OTHER WORDS, DO YOU PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND? UM, DO YOU RECRUIT VOLUNTEERS TO PUT BOOTS ON GROUND? UM, NO, WE'VE NEVER, WE'VE NEVER DONE THAT.
UM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
UM, DOES AUSTIN OUTSIDES MEMBERS ACCEPT GRANTS AND FUNDING FROM THE CITY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN VARIOUS OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES? UM, WE MAY HAVE MEMBERS THAT DO, UM, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANY PARTICULAR MEMBER.
I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT ALL THE, YOU KNOW, THE REVENUE STREAMS FOR ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT MEMBERS ARE.
AND DOES YOUR MEMBERSHIP, UM, DO ANY OF YOUR MEMBERS STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE OPERATIONS OF GARAGES OR THE EXPANSIONS PROPOSED IN THE VISION PLAN? UM, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
I DON'T, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN PROPOSED ANY SORT OF SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE GARAGES OR THESE OTHER, UM, FEATURES THAT WERE ENVISIONED AND INCLUDED IN THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
DO YOU THINK THAT ANY OF YOUR MEMBERS WOULD SUBMIT BIDS OR PROPOSALS SHOULD THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARISE? I MEAN, I, I REALLY CAN'T SAY.
I MEAN, I, OPERATING A PARKING GARAGE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SOMETHING ANY OF OUR MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS WOULD, UH, WOULD, THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SOMETHING THAT ANY OF THEM WOULD PURSUE AS A REVENUE SOURCE.
BUT I MEAN, AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA SPECULATE.
I MEAN, I, MY GUT SENSE IS LIKE, NO, BUT ALSO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERY SINGLE MEMBER ORGANIZATION FOR EVERY, YOU KNOW, AND TO EVERY SINGLE PROPOSED PIECE OF THE VISION PLAN.
AND SHO CREEK CONSERVANCY, WHICH PATRIOT SALARY AT THE TIME WAS A MISSION, WAS A MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SHO CREEK CONSERVANCY'S BEST INTERESTS ARE SERVED THROUGH AUSTIN OUTSIDE? I MEAN, UM, I GUESS I, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD PUT IT IN TERMS OF SERVING OUR INTERESTS AS MUCH AS, I MEAN, WE ARE A, UM, SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY AS A MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
BUT YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S, UM, I GUESS I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE, I GUESS, YEAH, I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU MAYBE, UM, CAN YOU REPHRASE THAT POSSIBLY? WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHY IS SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY A MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE? WHAT'S THE FOCUS THERE? UM, BECAUSE SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT, UM, CHAMPIONS, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, UM, WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND AUSTIN, OUTSIDE FURTHERS THOSE INTERESTS IN ITS ADVOCACY, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
AND SO THEIR INTEREST ALIGN, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I WOULD SAY SO.
AND AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE VISION PLAN? YES.
UM, HOWEVER, I WOULD MAKE A DISTINCTION HERE BETWEEN AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S KIND OF OVERARCHING ROLE IN INCREASING FUNDING AND PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR
[01:20:01]
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.AND SHUL CREEK CONSERVANCY'S SPECIFIC ROLE THAT'S CONFINED TO THE SHOAL CREEK WATERSHED, THE SHOAL CREEK, AND THE SHOAL CREEK TRAIL.
SO THE INTEREST FOR AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD BE BROADER THAN THE CONSERVANCY'S INTEREST, CORRECT? YES.
BUT AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S INTEREST WOULD BE ENCOMPASSING OF SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY'S INTEREST? YES, CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER, UH, ESPINOSA, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. ALDI.
DO, DO YOU KNOW HOW AUSTIN OUTSIDE CAME ABOUT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ZILKER VISION PLAN? UM, I, I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THAT HAPPENED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PARTIES? I, I, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UM, ARE COMMISSIONERS, SO I'M GETTING BACK TO TWO SEVEN DASH 63.
ARE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERED OFFICIALS? YES.
UH, MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE CONSIDERED OFFICIALS.
SO IF, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I HATE TO BEAT A DEAD BUSH, BUT, UM, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE VISION PLAN IF PASSED WOULD ASSURE AUSTINS OUTSIDE'S FUTURE ROLE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY'S PARKS AND WHATEVER BOARD? UM, IF IT WERE PASSED, IT WOULD ASSURE THAT ROLE WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE? I WOULD DISAGREE.
IT WOULD NOT ASSURE ANY KIND OF ROLE FOR AUSTIN OUTSIDE THE VISION PLAN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS AUSTIN OUTSIDE AS HAVING A ROLE RIGHT.
IN THE CAMPAIGNING AND FUNDRAISING FOR THE VISION? WELL, FOR THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE PRODUCED BY THE VISION PLAN? CORRECT.
UM, IT PROPOSES THAT ONE ROLE FOR THE PROPOSED UNIFIED NONPROFIT COULD BE WORKING WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND THE COURSE OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S ACTIVITIES TO CAMPAIGN FOR INCREASED PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ALL PARKS.
BUT IT DOESN'T, UM, IT DOESN'T ASSURE, UM, AUSTIN OUTSIDE ANY KIND OF ROLE, UM, IN THAT, UM, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SET UP AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO HAVE ANY KIND OF PARTICULAR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, OR, YEAH, THERE, IT'S A VISION PLAN.
THERE ARE NO, UM, THERE ARE NO ASSURANCES PROVIDED IN THIS, I GUESS I, I KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE, BECAUSE ANYTHING IN LIFE IS NOT A GUARANTEE.
BUT WOULD YOU AGREE THAT BY PASSING THE VISION PLAN, IT WOULD CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S EXISTENCE AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY WOULD CONTINUE? NO, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT IT CREATES THAT PRESUMPTION, UM, THAT, SO AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S EXISTENCE AND ONGOING WORK IN THE COMMUNITY IS NOT PREDICATED UPON THE ADOPTION OF, UM, ANY VISION PLAN FOR ANY PARK, WHETHER IT'S ZILKER PARK, WHETHER IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, NORTHWEST DISTRICT PARK.
IT DOESN'T, UM, AUSTIN OUTSIDES CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND CONTINUED WORK DOES NOT DEPEND ON, UM, ON, UM, THE ADOPTION OF ANY, ANY PARTICULAR VISION PLAN FOR ANY PARK.
SO YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE VISIONS PLAN, VISION PLANS SPECIFIC MENTIONING OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE JUST SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING IT IN THE, IN THE LITERATURE ITSELF, HAS NO VALUE? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY NO VALUE.
CAN YOU MAYBE CLARIFY? WELL, I, I GUESS, AGAIN, AS KIND OF PREVIOUSLY ASKED, OF ALL THE NONPROFITS THAT EXIST IN AUSTIN THAT WOULD VIE FOR A ROLE IN CAMPAIGNING AND FUNDING THE VISION PLAN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS ONE, AND THAT IS AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT BY NAMING AUSTIN OUTSIDE AS FULFILLING THAT ROLE, IT WOULD GIVE AUSTIN AND AUSTIN OUTSIDE AN ADVANTAGE OVER ANY OTHER NONPROFITS VYING FOR THAT ROLE? I MEAN, I AM, UM, I, I'M NOT SURE.
[01:25:01]
I AGREE THAT THERE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, A MULTIPLE COMPETING ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE TRYING ALL COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER TO RAISE FUNDING FOR, UM, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE.I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF THERE WERE.
UM, BUT, UM, I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S, UM, ANY KIND OF NEED TO SET, I GUESS.
YEAH, THERE'S NO NEED TO SET ANY ORGANIZATION APART FROM OTHERS THAT ARE, THAT ARE DOING THAT.
SO IT'S, UH, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS, UM, UH, SOMEWHAT UNIQUE IN PLAYING THAT ROLE, UM, IN THE COMMUNITY.
DO YOU, DOES THAT HELP? MY QUESTION IS, WHY WOULD THEY BE LISTED IN THE VISION PLAN IF IT DIDN'T HAVE A VALUE? UM, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, UM, I'M NOT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO ANSWER THAT.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT, THAT THE VISION PLAN, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T TAKE THE MENTION OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE IN THE VISION PLAN TO BE A COMPLETE PICTURE OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS MENTIONED AS A POTENTIAL PARTNER, UM, TO THIS PROPOSED UNIFIED NONPROFIT IN THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD EXPECT IT TO JUST CONTINUE TO BE ENGAGED IN THE ONGOING ADVOCACY TO INCREASE PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ALL PARKS.
SO MENTIONING THEM IN THE VISION PLAN GUARANTEES THAT THEY WOULD PLAY THAT ROLE.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE IT.
IT'S, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD CONTINUE DOING, UM, REGARDLESS OF, OF THIS PLAN OR ANY OTHER PLAN.
IT'S JUST KIND OF STATING THE ROLE THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE PLAYS ALREADY AND WOULD EXPECT TO CONTINUE TO PLAY.
I DON'T, COMMISSIONER LOWE, GO AHEAD.
COULD I FOLLOW UP ON THAT? MR. ALDI? UM, I READ THIS DOWN, SAID, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I DID NOT QUOTE YOU CORRECTLY.
I BELIEVE YOU SAID AUSTIN OUTSIDE HAS NO POSITION ON THE Z PROVISION PLAN, AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT WAS NOT VYING TO BE IN THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT.
AND I BELIEVE THE THIRD THING YOU SAID WAS IT HAS NO SPECIAL ROLE IN DECISIONS FOR THE ZIL PROVISION PLAN.
IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? DID I SUM THAT UP CORRECTLY? UM, I THINK SO.
UM, YOU'RE MAYBE LET'S JUST TAKE THIS ONE AT A TIME.
COME WELL, NO, I, I, I JUST, OKAY.
THAT'S THE PICTURE I'M GETTING.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IF THAT IS THE POSITION OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE, AND IF THAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WAS DOING AT THE TIME YOU VOTED AT THE MEETING IN QUESTION, UM, BECAUSE YOU CHOSE NOT TO RECUSE, UM, BECAUSE YOU DID NOT SEE A CONFLICT.
SO WHAT WERE YOU VOTING ON? I MEAN, WHAT WAS, WHAT WERE THE THINGS YOU WERE CONSIDERING THAT WANT THAT YOU WOULD, THAT YOU FELT YOU WANTED TO SEE THE ZILKER VISION PLAN APPROVED? UM, AND HOW WAS THAT, OR HOW WAS THAT RELATED TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE OR NOT RELATED TO YOUR ROLE IN AUSTIN OUTSIDE IN INCLUDING YOUR BEING A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE FOR SHILL CREEK CONSERVANCY? UM, SO YOU'RE ASKING WHY.
YEAH, JUST WHY DID YOU VOTE THAT WAY? WHAT WERE THE CONSIDERATIONS YOU MADE AND HOW WERE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT, YOUR BOARD MEMBERSHIP, ET CETERA? UM, YEAH.
SO LET ME, LET ME BREAK THIS DOWN IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE.
UM, I THINK THAT, LIKE, FIRST OF ALL, I, WERE EVER IN A SITUATION WHERE I FELT LIKE THE PARKS BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON, UM, AN ISSUE THAT, UM, HAD TO DO WITH MY EMPLOYMENT.
UM, I WOULD ABSTAIN OR RICK REFUSE FROM THAT DECISION.
SO I, UM, HAD DONE THAT A COUPLE TIMES IN THE PAST, UM, WHEN AN ISSUE, UM, WOULD COME UP BEFORE THE PARKS BOARD THAT HAD TO DO WITH A PARK ALONG SHOAL CREEK, FOR EXAMPLE, OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IN THE SHOAL CREEK WATERSHED, I, UM, ABSTAINED OR RECUSED, UM, IN THOSE SITUATIONS.
BECAUSE EVEN IF IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT, UM, WE WERE ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH AT SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY, I JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE, THE PURPOSE OF, UM, JUST AVOIDING AND, UM,
[01:30:01]
THE PERCEPTION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I CHOSE TO, TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THOSE VOTES.SO, UM, THAT ABSOLUTELY, UM, HAD, I FELT LIKE THERE WAS ANY IMPACT TO, UM, THAT THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ISSUES THAT WE WOULD BE ENGAGED WITH AT SHOUL CREEK, UM, SHOUL CREEK CONSERVANCY, I WOULD NOT HAVE, UM, PARTICIPATED IN THE VOTE.
UM, AND AS FAR AS WHAT ISSUES, UM, UH, CAUSED, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT CAUSED ME TO VOTE THE WAY THAT I DID ON THE ZUKI CARD VISION PLAN? UM, THAT'S A REALLY COMPLICATED QUESTION.
UM, IT WAS, UM, I MEAN, I WASN'T HAPPY BY ANY MEANS WITH ALL OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE VISION PLAN.
UM, I HAD MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT SOME OF IT, BUT, UM, ULTIMATELY I DECIDED THAT, UM, THE PLAN AS A WHOLE, UM, THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGHED THE NEGATIVES.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, ON A, ON A ADVISORY BOARD LIKE THE PARKS BOARD, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL A MATTER OF, UM, NEGOTIATING OVER DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS AND SEEING, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN GET PASSED.
AND I JUST ULTIMATELY, I FELT LIKE, UM, UH, WHERE WE, UM, WHERE THE PARKS BOARD ENDED UP WITH, UM, THE AMENDED RECOMMENDED VISION PLAN WAS SOMETHING THAT ON THE WHOLE WAS, UM, THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGHED THE, UM, THE, THE NEGATIVES THAT I SAW.
SO I KNOW THAT'S NOT REALLY GETTING INTO SPECIFICS, BUT IT'S, UM, UH, YEAH, THERE WERE, THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I LIKED AND DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT THE ZILKER VISION PLAN, BUT IT WAS A, IT WAS A, YEAH.
UM, THERE'S JUST A LOT GOING ON WITH THAT VISION PLAN.
SO, AND YOU WERE CONVINCED AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO CONFLICT, AND YOU EXPRESSED THAT TO, TO THE OTHERS.
I, THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTAND HAPPENED AT THIS MEETING? UM, YES.
SO, UM, AT THIS MEETING, UM, THERE WAS A BOARD MEMBER WHO, UM, SAID, UM, HEY, WE GOT THIS LETTER.
YOU SENT A LETTER TO THE PARKS BOARD, AND, UM, AND THE ZILKER VISION PLAN IS MENTIONED, OR THE AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS MENTIONED IN THE ZILKER VISION PLAN, THEREFORE, YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND, UM, YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF.
AND I RESPONDED THAT, UM, I, UM, HAD NOT SENT A LETTER, UM, TO THE PARKS BOARD.
UM, LIKE I STATED IN MY WRITTEN RESPONSE, I, UM, I, I THOUGHT THAT OUR AUSTIN OUTSIDE BOARD MEMBER, WHO I MENTIONED, CHANGED THE LETTER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.
I THOUGHT AT THAT TIME THAT HE HAD, UM, THAT HE HAD FORWARDED THE LETTER, THE EXACT LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE U T C.
AND, UM, SO I THOUGHT, WELL, SHE, YOU KNOW, SHE MUST HAVE READ THAT LETTER, THAT MESSAGE, AND MISUNDERSTOOD IT AS BEING ADDRESSED TO THE PARKS BOARD BECAUSE WE HAD RECEIVED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF EMAILS FROM THE PUBLIC, UM, LEADING UP TO THIS MEETING.
AND SO, UM, MY ASSUMPTION WAS JUST THAT SHE HAD, YOU KNOW, WAS READ THROUGH IT QUICKLY AND MISREAD IT AND MISUNDERSTOOD IT.
AND, UM, IT WAS NOT UNTIL, LIKE I SAID, THAT I WAS PREPARING FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING THROUGH KIND OF MY RECORDS AND PREPARING A RESPONSE, UM, TO THIS COMPLAINT THAT I DISCOVERED THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS A LETTER THAT, UM, WAS, THAT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE PARKS BOARD THAT HAD MY SIGNATURE ON IT, AND THE SIGNATURE OF OUR TRAILS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, VICE CHAIR, WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.
AND SO AT THE, AT THE MEETING, I EXPRESSED THAT, UM, I, UM, THAT BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF, UM, CITY CODE, THAT IT WAS, THERE WAS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
UM, AND I ALSO, UM, I, I, UM, I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT, UM, THAT A LETTER HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PARKS BOARD, UM, THAT WAS ADDRESSED TO THEM WITH MY SIGNATURE ON IT.
SO, UM, IF SHE HAD PRODUCED THAT LETTER IN THE COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION, THEN I WOULD'VE REALIZED MAYBE WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
UM, BUT AT THE TIME I JUST THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN GETTING THESE HUNDREDS OF EMAILS.
SHE PROBABLY JUST READ THIS LETTER TO THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND MISUNDERSTOOD IT.
SO TRYING TO GIVE HER THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT WHETHER THAT LETTER WAS PROPERLY PREPARED, IMPROPERLY SIGNED MM-HMM.
I KNOW YOU SENT US THE AFFIDAVITS AND SO FORTH MM-HMM.
DO YOU BELIEVE YOU ARTICULATED THAT IN SUCH A WAY THAT PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT AUSTIN OUTSIDE, AND IF YOU FELT THEY WERE, HOW, HOW DID YOU ADDRESS THAT? SO THAT, UM,
[01:35:01]
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING HERE IS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NUMBER OF FACTS THAT MAYBE PEOPLE WERE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, MAYBE THEY WEREN'T, RIGHT.THESE LETTERS AND THINGS, I, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT.
EVERYONE KNEW YOU WERE SOMEHOW ASSOCIATED WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANYONE KNEW ABOUT THIS SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY.
SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DID IN ORDER TO ASSERT THIS POSITION THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT? NO POSITION ON ZILKER VISION PLAN, NOT WANTING TO BE PART OF THE UNIFIED NONPROFIT AND NOT HAVING ANY KIND OF SPECIAL ROLE IN THE DECISIONS? UM, I MEAN, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT I, UM, WHAT I SAID TO THAT EFFECT, UM, ON THE D AT THE MEETING.
UM, BUT IN OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TRAINING, THEY, UM, EXPLAINED TO US THAT RECUSAL IS A PERSONAL DECISION.
RECUSAL OR ABSTENTION IS A PERSONAL DECISION THAT'S TAKEN ON THE PART OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS.
SO THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHY, YOU KNOW, YOU DO OR DO NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
UM, AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT I, UM, MADE A FEW REMARKS ABOUT IT AT THE, UM, AT THE MEETING WHEN ASKED BY, UM, MY COLLEAGUE ON THE BOARD TO DO SO.
BUT I DON'T RECALL, UM, EXACTLY, UM, EVERYTHING THAT I MAY HAVE EXPLAINED ABOUT THE, THAT DECISION TO NOT ABSTAIN OR RECUSE AND THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE, UM, MY RELATIONSHIP TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE OR WHATEVER ELSE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT REGARDING THE LETTER? I DON'T THINK THERE WAS CONFUSION, UH, BY THE PEOPLE WHO READ IT AND GOT OFFENDED BY ITS CONTENTS.
THE LETTER SALUTATION DID NOT CHANGE.
IT SAYS BREEDINGS, HONORABLE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMBERS.
THEY AT THE BOTTOM, IT ALSO HAS AUSTIN OUTSIDE LETTERHEAD AT THE TOP.
WHAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS CHANGED BY THE OTHER PERSON? THERE'S A TWO IN A, FROM FIELD, THE TWO FIELD WAS CHANGED TO CITY OF AUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FROM AUSTIN OUTSIDE TRAILS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REGARDING ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN READINGS, HONORABLE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMBERS AT THE BOTTOM IS SIGNED, NINA ALDI, CHAIR, DARREN JARI, VICE CHAIR.
SO THE THREE MEMBERS WHO ASKED MS. RE BERNARD TO ACCUSE HERSELF, READ THE LETTER, SAW HER OPINIONS, AND CONCLUDED THAT SHE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
BY THE WAY, THERE IS A VIDEO YOU CAN WATCH.
IT'S FOUR MINUTES LONG OF THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE PARKS BOARD MEMBER WHO ASKED HER TO ACCUSE HERSELF, AND WHO, IF YOU WANT TO WATCH IT, IT'S ON YOUTUBE, IT'S DIRECTLY CUT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WATCH A T X VIDEO COMMISSION MEMBERS.
ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. RINALDI.
UM, AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE, UM, WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE AND HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DID YOU HAVE THERE? UM, AT THE TIME OF MY VOTE, UM, ON THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN ON THE PARKS BOARD, UM, I WAS A BOARD MEMBER OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE, SO I WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
I, I'M NOT QUITE SURE, UM, I GUESS IF THERE'S A WAY TO QUANTIFY MY INFLUENCE, EXCEPT JUST TO SAY THAT I WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS ON THE BOARD? MM.
I MEAN, I SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I JUST DON'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
UM, WHAT KIND OF DECISIONS WERE YOU INVOLVED IN MAKING THERE, AND HOW, HOW BIG IS THE, UM, THE BOARD THERE AT AUSTIN OUTSIDE? YEAH, I, I, LIKE I JUST MENTIONED, I DON'T,
[01:40:01]
I, I SHOULD KNOW THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY, UM, THE NUMBER OF, UH, BOARD MEMBERS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.UM, AND YOU'RE ASKING WHAT KINDS OF DECISIONS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAKES.
UM, I MEAN, ALL KINDS OF DECISIONS, YOU KNOW, RELATING TO GOVERNANCE OF THE ORGANIZATION.
UM, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COULD VOTE ON, UM, A, UM, LIKE A, I'M TRYING TO THINK, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, I MEAN, JUST LIKE ANY, LIKE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION TYPICALLY IS TASKED WITH, YOU KNOW, GOVERNANCE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND DETERMINING STRATEGIC DIRECTION FOR THE ORGANIZATION.
UM, SO IT'S, I WOULD SAY IN, IN THAT, THAT SORT OF DOMAIN.
SO I, DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY IF I'M NOT GETTING QUITE AT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
THERE ARE NINE BOARD MEMBERS YEAH, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.
UH, AND YOU SAID NINE, UH, ON THEIR WEBSITE, THERE ARE NINE PEOPLE LISTED.
UM, THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER, UM, QUESTIONS FOR EITHER OF THE PARTIES? SO, UH, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION AMONGST US AS COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I, I'VE TRIED TO DEMARCATE THAT WE'RE DONE ASKING SORT OF EVIDENTIARY QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE A BURNING QUESTION THAT COMES UP OVER THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION, WE CAN OPEN THE DOOR TO THAT.
I'LL, UH, SAY WE KIND OF HAD A MOMENT IN OUR LAST MEETING WHERE, UH, SOMETHING CAME UP ONCE, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR SURE.
THE DOOR IS CLOSED TO, UH, TALK TO WITNESSES AT THAT POINT.
BUT OPEN DISCUSSION, UM, TIME TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT, UH, WHAT WE THINK SO FAR.
AND, UH, FOR OUR NEWER MEMBERS, I DO NOT LIKE LEADING THAT OFF.
UM, PREFER TO USE THE CHAIR'S PREROGATIVE JUDICIOUSLY, NO PUN INTENDED.
GO AHEAD, MR. LEVINS, SINCE NO ONE SEEMS TO BE CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO BE THE FIRST ONE UP, I'LL GO.
UM, I WANT, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM INTEND, I WANT TO VOTE THAT THERE IS A, THAT THERE'S ENOUGH TO MOVE THIS TO A FINAL HEARING, BECAUSE JUST FROM A SET ASIDE, THE, THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE CODE, SOMETHING'S UP HERE, AUSTIN, OUTSIDE REALLY, REALLY WANTS THIS THING TO PASS.
UM, WE DIDN'T HEAR WHY TONIGHT.
MAYBE WE WON'T FIND OUT EVEN IN A FINAL HEARING, BUT I'M NOT PERSUADED THAT, EH, THEY JUST WERE GONNA KIND OF KEEP DOING WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO AND DIDN'T REALLY EVEN HAVE MUCH OF A POSITION ON IT.
UM, WHO, WHO'S BEHIND THAT, WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR TO ME.
THE REASON I SAY THAT'S HOW I WANT TO VOTE, AND, AND I, I WANT TO BE PERSUADED FRANKLY, THAT THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO VOTE.
BUT I SEE THIS AT THIS POINT, KIND OF LIKE, UH, TO DIVE INTO THE LEGAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.
I THINK EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID IN THE COMPLAINT IS TRUE, I HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING TO WHERE IT CONSTITUTES A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CODE.
AND I WILL, I, I WILL DISAGREE WITH MR. COBB THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE, UM, OF AN ACTUAL CONFLICT.
UM, I, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PULLING A VERY SPECIFIC PART OF THE CODE, UM, OF THAT ONE PARTICULAR SECTION OUT OF CONTEXT.
AND IT, THERE DOES HAVE TO BE SOME EVIDENCE THAT IS SUPPLIED, BUT EVEN IF WE TAKE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IS SUPPLIED, SO WE HAVE THE COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO, ONE, UH, 24, AND, UM, THAT WOULD BE SUBSECTION B THAT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, EACH, EACH MILLION BOARDS HAS TO SIGN A ATTENDANCE SHEET SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UM, WHICH THEN SENDS US OVER TO 2 7 63, WHICH IT DOESN'T QUITE, WOULDN'T SAY IT DEFINES A
[01:45:01]
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A TYPICAL DEFINITIONAL WAY, BUT IT DOES SAY IN A AND B OF 2, 7 63 SPECIFIC INSTANCES IN WHICH A BOARD MEMBER HAS TO, UH, SAY THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.CITY OFFICIAL, UH, SERVES AS A CORPORATE OFFICER OR MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A NONPROFIT MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE OR DECISION REGARDING FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY FOR THE ENTITY.
THERE'S A ZILKER VISION PLAN THAT HAS APPARENTLY A $200 MILLION PRICE TAG.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY'S COMING FROM.
IT'S, I THINK NOT, IT'S KIND OF, YOU SEND IT TO THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL'S SUPPOSED TO FIGURE IT OUT.
AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS NOT GUARANTEED OR NECESSARILY, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME HOW THEY WOULD BE RECEIVING MONEY FROM THE FUNDING OF THE AUSTIN, OF THE ZILKER VISION PLAN.
MAYBE THEY GET, THEY GET A MORE PROMINENT ROLE IN ADVOCATING FOR THIS AND TRYING TO RAISE FUNDS.
AND MAYBE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MORE PROMINENT ROLE, THERE'S SOME SORT OF INDIRECT BENEFIT TO THEM, BUT THAT'S NOT FUNDING BY OR THROUGH THE CITY.
UM, SO I DON'T SEE HOW WE GET THERE JUST TAKING ALL OF THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED AS TRUE.
I DON'T SEE HOW WE GET THERE ON 2 7 63 B, AND THEN 2 7 63 A IS THE ONE THAT REFERS TO A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.
SO THEN BOUNCING AROUND IN ALL THESE DEFINITIONS, UM, A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IS DEFINED, UH, IN 2 7 2 SUB 12.
AND IF YOU READ THAT, I, I DON'T SEE HOW THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AS DEFINED HERE.
UM, SO I GUESS TO, TO KIND OF SUM IT ALL UP, I WANT TO BE PERSUADED TO VOTE TO MO MOVE THIS TO A FINAL HEARING BECAUSE THE SMELL TEST, I DON'T, I DON'T LIKE HOW IT, IT STANDS UP UNDER THE SMELL TEST.
UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT IT FITS INTO ANY OF THE, UH, PARTS OF THE CODE THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY.
UM, BUT I WANNA HEAR WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY AND SEE IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING.
UM, COMMISSIONER, ANYONE ELSE? UH, SEE, GO AHEAD.
I, I AGREE A LOT WITH A LOT OF WHAT MS. UM, COMMISSIONER LEVINS HAD TO SAY IN THAT, NOT ALL, BUT HE HAD TO SAY.
BUT, BUT I, I AGREE IN THAT THERE'S, I THINK THERE ARE COMPLAINTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COMPLAINTS TRANSLATE TO INFRACTIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOVERNED BY HERE IS DO THE FACTS, MEET THE CODE.
AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT, UH, TO DRAW A LINE FROM A TO B IS A VERY CLOUDY, CONVOLUTED LINE.
UM, THIS WAS A VERY PERSONAL ISSUE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
I, I TALLIED UP, I PUT 244 MILES AT LOOKER PARK THIS YEAR.
I KNOW IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT, BUT WORKING ON IT, UM, I CARE A LOT ABOUT THAT PARK AND I DIDN'T LIKE ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE IN THAT, UM, THAT IN THAT PLAN.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THINGS.
I KNOW THAT WE ARE GOVERNED TO BY A PROCESS FOR THINGS.
UM, THE CLAIM THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO MORE WORK TO ME TRANSLATES THAT THEY WOULD GET TO DO WHAT THEY ALREADY DO.
UM, I'M TROUBLED BY THAT, BUT I WANNA GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL CLAIMS, WHICH IS DO THE FACTS MEET THE CLAIM? WAS THERE A VIOLATION OF CON CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS.
WAS THERE PERSONAL ENRICHMENT? THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN, WAS THERE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT? I, I, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE REALLY REACHING TO SAY THERE IS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE CLAIM MENTIONS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
APPARENTLY AUSTIN OUTSIDE DOESN'T DO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
I, I JUST, I THINK THAT THERE ARE, IT IS OKAY TO HAVE COMPLAINTS AND IS OKAY TO HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, BUT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A BREACH OF THE CODE IS HARD TO GET TO.
UM,
COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA, UM, VICE CHAIR KALE, THEN COMMISSIONER POEY.
SO I WAS, UM, I, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT PROCESS.
I'M GONNA BRING UP A FEW THINGS, AND THAT IS THAT ALL WE NEED TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING IS REASONABLE GROUNDS.
SO THAT DOESN'T DICTATE WHAT WE FIND AT THE
[01:50:01]
FINAL HEARING.WE MIGHT GET MORE INFORMATION AND FIND OUT THAT AT THAT POINT, WE, UM, THERE'S NO, UM, SANCTION.
AND SO I, I JUST AM REMINDING MYSELF OF THAT.
UM, THE OTHER THING I WANNA REMIND Y'ALL IS THE ISSUE OF THE, THE LETTER WITH THE CONFUSED, UM, ADDRESSEE.
UM, I THINK, I THINK I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT CONFUSION COULD HAPPEN.
I SEE THAT AS SEPARATE FROM THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT, UM, MS. RINALDI SHOULD HAVE RECUSED.
UM, THE OTHER THING IS, UM, GETTING TO COMMISSIONER LEVIN'S COMMENT ABOUT THE SMELL TEST.
UM, UM, MS. RINALDI, YOU SAID AT ONE POINT, UM, THERE'S NO NEED TO SET APART ANY SET, ANY ORGANIZATION APART FROM OTHERS THAT ARE DOING THE SAME WORK.
WHY THEN WHEN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AROUND TOWN, UM, AND THERE ARE, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT ONES, AND THERE'RE NOT NECESSARILY ALL PART OF, UM, AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
UM, WHY THEN IS AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UM, SET APART WITHIN THE VISION PLAN? AND SO THAT TROUBLES ME.
UM, I HAVE, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND SO, UM, I THINK FOR ME ANYWAY, WE, WE MIGHT FIND IF, IF WE GET MORE INFORMATION THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A VIOLATION, AND, UM, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT BECAUSE I, I DON'T LIKE FINDING VIOLATIONS, BUT, UM, AT THIS POINT, I THINK THERE'S REASONABLE, I THINK THERE WOULD BE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO AT LEAST FIND OUT SOME MORE INFORMATION.
UM, I'LL JUST FOR A SECOND OR FOR A MINUTE, BROADEN THE DISCUSSION.
IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT ONE OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO, WHO TALKED THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION.
IN FACT, MAYBE BOTH OF YOU SAID THE SAME THING.
UM, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE SOME VERY STRONG FEELINGS AT THAT HEARING.
UM, I KNEW THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ZILKER PLAN.
I NEVER, WAS, NEVER WAS INVOLVED IN HAVING TO MAKE A DECISION.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE COULD HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY STRONG FEELINGS AT THAT MEETING.
AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT A, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING ME UNTIL A COUPLE YEARS AGO, WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GIVE A DEFINITION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN WHAT THAT MEANT.
SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IF I'M USING THE RIGHT TERM NOW HERE, HOW, TO THE LAYPERSON, MAYBE THERE WOULD BE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND THEY WOULD USE THAT TO PROCEED WITH THE COMPLAINT.
BUT I THINK OUR ROLE HERE IS TO READ WHAT THE DEFINITION IS, UM, WHAT IT WOULD, WHAT IT REQUIRES IN ORDER TO HAVE A RECUSAL OR FOR A PERSON TO CONSIDER RECUSAL.
AND IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL GAIN SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE.
AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED THAT MAKES ME THINK THERE WAS ANY EXPECTATION OF, UM, OF A ECONOMIC, UH, OF FUNDING FROM SOMEWHERE.
I UNDERSTAND AN ORGANIZATION COULD GET LARGER 'CAUSE THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB, A NONPROFIT.
I'VE RUN NATIONAL NONPROFITS, STATE NONPROFITS, LOCAL NONPROFITS.
IF YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU'LL GET MORE DONORS.
THAT'S ALL PART OF THE NORMAL PROCESS.
BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PROCEED WITH THE DEFINITION I'VE SEEN FOR CONFLICT.
UM, COMMISSIONER CASTRO, GO AHEAD.
I, I DON'T SEE, MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON IT'S GREEN.
UM, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T SEE THE, THE CONNECTION, UM, THAT, THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT THERE.
I THINK MAYBE IF THE VISION PLAN HAD BEEN ADOPTED AND MOVED FORWARD, THERE MAY HAVE COME A TIME AS WE GOT INTO SPECIFICITY AND SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE PLAN WERE TO MOVE FORWARD AND GET DETAILS.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN INSTANCE IN WHICH MS. RINALDI SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF.
MAYBE SHE WOULD, MAYBE SHE WOULDN'T.
BUT I THINK IT'S FROM THE 50,000 FOOT VIEW WHERE WE ARE, AND THE LACK OF DETAIL AND THE LACK OF CONNECTION.
AND IF, IF THE ONLY BENEFIT THAT, THAT WE CAN SEE TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO WORK HARDER AND GET BIGGER AND BRING IN MORE FUNDING, I JUST THINK THAT'S TOO REMOTE TO BE A CONNECTION THAT CAUSES A, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ME.
[01:55:02]
THANK YOU.UM, COMMISSIONER LOWE, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I'M JUST FOCUSED ON THE, UH, LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ALLEGATIONS ALLEGED TO BE A VIOLATION.
UM, IT SAYS RINALDI REFUSED TO RECUSE HERSELF DESPITE HER LOBBYING PARKS BOARD MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION.
I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE SEEN CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF THAT, IF ANY AT ALL.
UM, THE NEXT STATEMENT SAYS, NINA RINALDI HERSELF STANDS TO BENEFIT IN VARIOUS WAYS BY APPROVAL OF THE ZILKER PARK VISION PLAN.
I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE GIVEN, BEEN GIVEN A LIST OR A SET OF EXAMPLES OF HOW NINA RINALDI STANDS TO BENEFIT IN ANY SPECIFIC WAY OR HOW SHE ACCRUES A BENEFIT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN DESCRIBED, AND I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED CLEARLY HOW SHE MAY HAVE A POTENTIAL BENEFIT THAT SHE COULD ACCRUE IN THE FUTURE.
SO I, I JUST FEEL OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, UM, THERE IS NOT REALLY SUPPORT FOR THEM.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, UH, COMMISSIONER? SORRY, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. GO AHEAD.
UM, I THINK TODAY'S HEARING IS ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
AND I THINK I'VE HEARD CONTINUOUSLY FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THIS THING DOESN'T PASS THE SMELL TEST, BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT, THAT THE RESPONDENT STANDS TO GAIN FROM THE PASSING OR THE PARTICIPATION IN THE VOTE.
AND I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY THAT THIS IS THE, THE HEARING WHERE THAT HAS TO BE PROVEN TO SOME LEVEL OF CERTAINTY.
I THINK AT THIS HEARING, WE ARE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO FURTHER THIS INVESTIGATION AND FIND OUT WHETHER THOSE FINANCIAL INTERESTS TRULY EXIST OR NOT.
I THINK THAT THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A FULL-BLOWN HEARING.
I THINK THE STANDARD HERE IS EXTRAORDINARILY LOW REASONABLE GROUNDS.
AND WITH EVERY, WITH ALL OF THIS BACK AND FORTH ABOUT PASSING THE SMELL TEST, THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME.
I, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT STINKS.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT A FULL-BLOWN HEARING IS FOR.
UM, AS I MOVE INTO MORE SPECIFIC CONCERNS, UM, MY ISSUE, OR MY CONCERN SPECIFICALLY WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE, IS ITS ROLE IN FURTHERING THE INTEREST OF ITS MEMBERSHIPS AND THOSE MEMBERS.
I THINK THE RESPONDENT, I STATED THAT SOME OF THOSE MEMBERS COULD THEORETICALLY GAIN FROM DECISIONS THAT WOULD BE MADE IF THE VISION PLAN WERE PASSED FROM AUSTIN, AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S ROLE IN RAISING THOSE FUNDS.
I THINK, I THINK SHE WAS UNSURE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HER MEMBERSHIPS INTEREST WOULD BE FURTHERED BY THAT ROLE.
AND I THINK, AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A FINAL HEARING IS TO, TO REALLY DETERMINE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON THERE.
FROM WHAT I SEE, AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS SORT OF A STRAW AGENCY FROM WHICH VARIOUS OTHER NONPROFITS FOR-PROFITS ARE MEMBERS, AND THEY UTILIZE AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO FURTHER THEIR INTEREST.
AND IF AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS PARTNERING, PARTNERING WITH THE CITY IN FUNDRAISING FOR PROGRAMS OR PROJECTS THAT WOULD BENEFIT ITS MEMBERS, THEN ESSENTIALLY TO ME THAT THAT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN CREATE A STRAW TRANSACTION TO GET AROUND THE CONCERN OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE CREATING IS A FALSE SENSE THAT THIS NON-PROFIT'S INTEREST IS TRULY FOR THE, I I THINK WE'RE CREATING A FALSE SENSE THAT THIS NONPROFIT'S INTERESTS ARE IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK THAT THEY ARE REALLY JUST THE INTEREST OF ITS MEMBERSHIPS, UM, TOGETHER.
AND I THINK HAVING THEM ON BOARDS, MAKING THOSE DECISIONS TO FURTHER THE, THE INTEREST OF THE SAME FOLKS WHO FUND THE AGENCY.
[02:00:02]
I MEAN, IT, IT IS JUST A STRAW TRANSACTION.AND I, I THINK THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GONNA GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT IS AT A FULL BLOWN HEARING.
UM, AT THIS LEVEL, NO ONE HAS ANY INVESTIGATORY POWER.
I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT THEY CAN DO IS SUBMIT OPEN REQUEST RECORDS AND FIND WHAT THEY CAN ON THE INTERNET.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE THIS BOARD IS, IS ASKING FOR WHEN THE ABILITY TO, TO COMPILE THAT EVIDENCE SO LIMITED.
HOWEVER, AT A FULL HEARING, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SUBPOENA POWER AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEMAND THOSE RECORDS, AND WE CAN GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.
WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE STOOD TO BENEFIT FROM MS. ALDI'S VOTE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT'S BEING PRESENTED HERE.
AND I THINK WE OWE IT TO OUR COMMUNITY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT TO SEE IF THESE NONPROFITS ARE REALLY SELF-SERVING, TO SEE IF THEY'RE SERVING SIMPLY THE INTEREST OF FOR-PROFITS OR CONGLOMERATES WHO, WHO CAN AFFORD TO, TO CREATE THESE SORT OF NONPROFITS OR STRAW TRANSACTIONS.
I LIKE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS.
AND I THINK THE ONLY WAY THAT WE'RE GONNA GET THERE, THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GONNA GET TRANSPARENCY FOR THE COMMUNITY, IS TO FURTHER THIS TO A FULL BLOWN HEARING AND REQUEST THAT INFORMATION.
AND IF WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS BOARD IS FOR.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. UM, IF, UH, I'LL OFFER, SURE.
I'LL OFFER MY, MY THOUGHTS ON WHAT, WHAT THIS BOARD IS FOR, AND PARTICULARLY AT THIS HEARING.
UM, AS WE'VE STATED A COUPLE OF TIMES, AS I STATED BEFORE WE EVEN GOT THE SHOW ON THE ROAD, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FIND WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST, UH, TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
IN MY MIND, REASONABLE GROUNDS MEANS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THING SOMETHING.
UH, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER LEVINS PUT IT VERY WELL WHEN HE SAID, UH, IN, IN KIND OF YOU BORROWING AN ANALOGY FROM CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE CIVIL LAW, THAT IF YOU ASSUME EVERYTHING IS TRUE, THAT THE COMPLAINANT SAID, UH, EVEN FORGET THAT, THAT THE RESPONDENT EXISTS, AND FORGET THAT THE RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE EXISTS.
ASSUME EVERYTHING THAT THE COMPLAINANT LAID OUT WAS TRUE IN THE PRESENTATION, IN THE WRITTEN, UH, SUBMISSION.
DO THOSE FACTS, UH, COULD THOSE FACTS PROVIDE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED? AND I SIMPLY, I, I DON'T SEE IT EITHER.
AND, AND TO BORROW WORDS FROM COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA, IT'S, IT'S WHETHER THE FACTS AS ALLEGED MEET THE CODE, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THEY CAN MEET THE CODE.
UM, IN, IN, I THINK OUR JOB IS TO REALLY FIND THE REASONABLE GROUNDS HERE.
IF THERE ARE ANY, UM, IN MY MIND, REASONABLE GROUNDS WOULD LOOK SOMETHING LIKE, UH, THE ZORA VISION PLAN, UH, SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED SOME FUNDING STREAM TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE, AND THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE COULD HAVE STOOD TO FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM IT AS, UH, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 6 3 1 SPECIFICALLY STIPULATES AS A PROHIBITED CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR, UM, SOME OTHER KIND OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT PLAY THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OR VOTE.
UM, AGAIN, ASSUMING EVERYTHING THAT THE COMPLAINT SAID IS TRUE, ASSUMING THAT EVERYTHING THE COMPLAINANT SAID IS TRUE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE ARE EVEN REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT, THAT THOSE SPECIFIC CODES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
UM, WHETHER THINGS SEEM WEIRD IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
WHETHER THE APPEARANCE IS OFF IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
UM, BUT I I, I DON'T THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A BLOODHOUND
UM, AGAIN, I, I THINK, I THINK OUR JOB HERE AT THIS BOARD IS TO SEE IF THERE ARE FACTS THAT IF YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING IS TRUE, AND IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT WHAT COULD BE OUT THERE IS TRUE, UM, COULD THERE POSSIBLY BE A VIOLATION? AND I DON'T SEE WHERE THOSE FACTS ARE.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I SIT PERSONALLY.
UM, I'LL, SINCE I'M RESPONDING MOSTLY TO YOU, I'LL GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF GOING FIRST AND THEN I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER LOW.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THE CHAIR'S CONCERN THAT THE ABILITY FOR AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO UTILIZE ITS ROLE AS ONE OF THESE PREFERRED PARTNERS UNDER THE VISION PLAN, IS IT'S, IS, IS THE CHAIR'S CONCERNED THAT IT CANNOT
[02:05:01]
ENVISION HOW THERE WILL BE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE A ROLE IN FUNDRAISING FOR PROJECTS THAT COULD BENEFIT OR WOULD BENEFIT OR FOR WHICH ITS MEMBERS WOULD BENEFIT FROM? UH, YEAH.UH, AND WELL, TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, IT'S UH, TWO DASH 7 6 3 B ONE, UM, AND B, IT'S, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THIS, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE ZILK OR VISION PLAN, AND I ACTUALLY FOUND THAT PAGE SO THAT I COULD LOOK AT IT AGAIN ONE MORE TIME AND MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD MORE OR LESS WHAT PAGE 210 WAS SAYING WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY HAVE ALLOWED FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY OR THROUGH THE CITY TO GO THROUGH AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
UM, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CITY CODE CONTEMPLATES.
AND I DON'T SEE ANY WAY IN WHICH THE ZORA, LIKE, ASSUME THE ZORA VISION PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ASSUME THAT THE ZORA VISION PLAN DID WHAT IT SAID IT WAS GOING TO DO AS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS TO WORK WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO DO PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS ABOUT ALL THE GREAT THINGS YOU SHOULD, YOU COULD DO IF YOU RAISED THESE FUNDS.
UM, I, I DON'T SEE HOW AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS THE RECIPIENT OF ANY OF THOSE FUNDS, UM, EITHER FROM OR THROUGH THE CITY.
WHETHER OR NOT AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S PRESTIGE WOULD BE INCREASED, I DON'T THINK IS, UH, A QUESTION THAT WE CAN ANSWER OR IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION TO ANSWER.
UM, I MEAN, CERTAINLY LIKE AS COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY SAID, UH, IF AUSTIN OUTSIDE DOES A GOOD JOB, UM, THEN LIKE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, IT, YOU KNOW, SNOWBALLS INTO POTENTIALLY MORE FUNDING AND MORE REVENUE FROM OTHER SOURCES.
IF AUSTIN OUTSIDE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS MEMBERS BY PLACING THEM IN A POSITION TO WIN CITY CONTRACTS AND IN RETURN RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM ITS MEMBERS DONATIONS, SERVICE PRIVILEGES, WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? IF, IF ANYTHING APPROACHING THOSE FACTS WERE ALLEGED EDGED, THEN MAYBE, UM, BUT THOSE, THOSE, THAT HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION THAT YOU'VE JUST LAID OUT, UH, HASN'T EVEN BEEN POSTULATED BY THE COMPLAINANT.
UM, AND, AND I COULDN'T, I COULD NOT DRAW THAT MAP IN MY HEAD FOR YOU.
UM, IS THAT BECAUSE THE VISION PLAN ISN'T SPECIFIC ENOUGH AT THIS POINT? UH, IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE THOSE FACTS HAVEN'T BEEN ALLEGED IT PERIOD.
UM, IT'S THE, THE BEST I'VE GOT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, SORRY, COMMISSIONER LEVINS AND THEN ESPINOZA, AND THEN VICE CHAIR, OH, SORRY.
UM, I'M GETTING MY ORDERING WRONG.
UH, I'LL GO COMMISSIONER LOWE LEVINS ESPINOZA VICE CHAIR.
UM, I, I BASICALLY AGREE WITH THE, UH, CHAIR'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE FACTS, BUT I DO WANNA SAY, AND OF COURSE I HAVE TOTAL RESPECT FOR COMMISSIONER, UM, WILLIAMS. I, I, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO US, OR EVEN A CLAIM PRESENTED TO US THAT LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS WAS A STRAW TRANSACTION.
SO I THINK THAT'S GETTING US EVEN FURTHER AWAY, UM, FROM THE FACTS WE REALLY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE DECIDING WHETHER OR OR NOT TO MOVE TO A ANOTHER HEARING.
SO, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT ONLY DO I FEEL THE FACTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION, I I ALSO FEEL THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT FACTS OR CONCLUSIONS THAT SIMPLY AREN'T BEFORE US.
COMMISSIONER LEVINS, GO AHEAD.
SO I, I, I WASN'T INITIALLY GONNA ADDRESS THAT ISSUE 'CAUSE IT HADN'T BEEN RAISED.
UM, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH HERE TO MAKE US WONDER IF A STRAW TRANSACTION OCCURRED.
AND AS, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS HAS SAID, THE BAR FOR REASONABLE GROUNDS IS VERY, VERY LOW.
UM, AND WE CAN MAKE SOME INFERENCES HERE THAT SOMEBODY'S PULLING STRINGS TO GET AUSTIN OUTSIDE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN A $200 MILLION PLAN.
[02:10:01]
IS IT CROOKED? I DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER, BUT IT'S NOT, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUST ASSUME THAT IT'S JUST ABSOLUTE ALTRUISM.BUT WHEN THERE'S $200 MILLION AT STAKE, YOU GOTTA, YOU GOTTA TAKE A CLOSER LOOK.
SO I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH HERE TO, TO GET US TO SAY THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT SOME SORT OF STRAW TRANSAC TRANSACTION OCCURRED.
BUT THEN I'LL SHIFT BACK TO WHAT I WAS ORIGINALLY GONNA ASK.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, I WANT VERY MUCH FOR YOU TO PERSUADE ME BECAUSE WHILE I, I, AND I SAID IT DOESN'T REALLY PASS THE SMELL TEST, IT DOESN'T, BUT THE SMELL TEST IS TOO AMORPHOUS AND SUBJECTIVE TO BE GROUNDS FOR IT TO, FOR IT TO BE A VIOLATION.
SO LET'S SAY THAT THERE'S THIS STRAW, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, AND MS. RINALDI DON'T TAKE THIS AS AN ALLEGATION, BUT LET'S SAY SHE'S THE PUPPET OF A PARKING GARAGE DEVELOPER, LET'S SAY WE, WE FIND INFORMATION OF THAT.
WHAT SPECIFIC CONFLICT OF INTEREST DEFINITION IN OUR CODE DOES THAT VIOLATE? HMM, WELL, IF AUSTIN OUTSIDE EXISTS SIMPLY TO, UM, CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP AND IS, UH, AND SHE'S SERVING ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHE'S MAKING DECISIONS ON, ON ISSUES BEFORE OUR ISSUES EVOLVING, INVOLVING CITY GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD CREATE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES, I THINK THAT THAT'S SELF-SERVING.
I THINK IT'S, I MEAN, I, WHILE WE HAVE NOT HEARD EVIDENCE OF WHETHER OR NOT AUSTIN OUTSIDES MEMBERSHIPS MEMBERS FUND THE ORGANIZATION, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY DO.
AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF GOVERNMENT FUNDS WERE PUSHED THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE AWARDED CONTRACTS AND JOBS AND THINGS OF THAT VARIOUS NATURE, I THINK SOME OF THAT MONEY WOULD BE COMING BACK TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO EXPAND ITS ROLE.
SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU GUYS BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A DIRECT FUNDING THROUGH CITY GOVERNMENT, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION OF FACT FOR EACH BOARD MEMBER TO DECIDE FOR ME.
UH, I WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S A VIOLATION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMENTS? UH, QUESTIONS? NUNEZ? COMMISSIONER NUNEZ, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SINGLE YOU OUT AND ASK IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR A QUESTION.
UM, I FEEL THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT HOW AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UH, WORKS, UM, OR INFORMATION ABOUT THE ZILKER VISION PLAN, UM, TO NOT TAKE THIS TO A FINAL HEARING.
AND, AND JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, UM, THAT YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO TO A FINAL HEARING TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
JUST NO, JUST KIND OF BOUNCING OFF OF WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SAID.
UM, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE ORGANIZATION WORKS, UM, FOR US TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WAS A VALUE TO BE GAINED, UM, THAT MADE THIS UNETHICAL.
AND, AND THAT WAS TRULY JUST TO UNDERSTAND, UH, YOUR COMMENT.
AND IF, IF YOU DO HAVE A, THIS IS SORT OF LIKE A LAST CALL, IF YOU DO HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION, UH, THAT MIGHT CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU FOR ONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS, UM, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S HARD TO INTERJECT NATURALLY VIA WEBEX VERSUS BEING HERE IN THE ROOM.
SO IF, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TO THAT EFFECT, I WANT TO LEAVE THE FLOOR OPEN FOR YOU TO ASK THAT.
WELL, THANK YOU, UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS, QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? UM, AND THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR MOTIONS IF A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE AND IF A COMMISSIONER'S NOT READY, I'M HAPPY.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CASTOW,
[02:15:01]
I'LL MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.IS THERE A SECOND? I AM HAPPY TO, SECOND, SECOND WE'LL TAKE, WE'LL TAKE IT FROM COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY.
UM, SO THAT'S THE MOTION DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION IF THERE'S ANY, I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF TALKED A LOT AND I THINK WE'VE ALL KIND OF SET OUR PIECE, BUT GOING ONCE, TWICE.
THEN UM, I WILL PROCEED THROUGH A ROLL CALL THE SAME WAY THAT I DID OUR, UH, ATTENDANCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING.
SO THIS IS ON A MOTION TO DISMISS A VOTE.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS NAYYY, COMMISSIONER NUNEZ NAYYY, THERE BEING FIVE EYES AND FOUR NAYS.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT MEANS THAT THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
SO WE ARE NOW OPEN FOR MORE MOTIONS AND MORE DISCUSSION.
CAN I ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? ABSOLUTELY.
MS. RISBY, THIS IS PROBABLY TO YOU.
WE NEED SIX VOTES TO MOVE IT TO A FINAL HEARING, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
WE GOT FIVE VOTES TO NOT, I KNOW THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY THE MOTION, BUT WE GOT FIVE VOTES NOT TO MOVE IT TO A FINAL HEARING AND FOUR VOTES THAT AT LEAST BY IMPLICATION WOULD SAY WE SHOULD MOVE IT TO A FINAL HEARING.
PROCEDURALLY DOES THAT, DO WE JUST NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER VOTE ON, UM, SOME, SOME VERSION OF MOVE IT TO A FINAL HEARING, PRESUMABLY IT'S GONNA COME OUT THE SAME WAY AND IT WILL FAIL.
SO, AND THEN THAT'S OUR ANSWER FOR THIS HEARING, I THINK.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO IN ORDER FOR BOARD ACTION TO MOVE FORWARD OF ANY KIND, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO A FINAL HEARING OR, UH, DISMISSING THIS PROCEEDING, YOU NEED A MAJORITY OF OF THE COMMISSION TO ACT.
SO YOU WOULD NEED SIX VOTES FOR ANY KIND OF ACTION.
SO IF WE'RE AT FIVE FOUR, WE CAN, YOU GOTTA KEEP GOING.
AS I SAID, THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR MORE MOTIONS AND MORE DISCUSSION AS A RESULT OF THAT VOTE.
UM, UH, IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO, UH, THINK AGAIN THROUGH KIND OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
SO WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH ONE OPTION, WHICH WAS A MOTION TO DISMISS.
UM, THERE'S A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING.
UM, AND THEN THERE IS, UH, THE, THE OTHER OPTION OF, UH, IF A RESPONDENT ADMITTED THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT HAPPENING.
UH, AND THEN, UM, THE LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UM, I'M GONNA ASK, UH, MS. RIZVI TO KIND OF HELP REMIND US WHAT THAT FOURTH IS.
THE, THE FOURTH OPTION IS THAT, UH, THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT STATE A PROVISION WITHIN THE ERC'S JURISDICTION AS BEING VIOLATED AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE DISMISSED ESSENTIALLY, RIGHT? SO, UH, KIND OF A, A TECHNICAL JURISDICTIONAL DISMISSAL.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE COMPLAINT DIDN'T ALLEGE THE RIGHT KIND OF CODE WAS VIOLATED, BASICALLY OVERTURNING THE DETERMINATION THAT I MADE AT THE OUTSET, WHICH SAID THAT THERE THE CODE WAS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER LOWE, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. RISBY.
UM, IF WE TAKE NO ACTION AT ALL TODAY, WHETHER, WHETHER BY VOTE OR NOT VOTE BY
[02:20:01]
VOTE, IS THERE A TIME LIMIT? LIKE, IS THERE A TIME THAT LAPSES ANY, YOU KNOW, ACTION? LIKE IF, IF WE JUST DON'T DO ANYTHING OR CANNOT AGREE TO VOTE TO DO ANYTHING, AT, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT JUST LIKE END IF WE, IF WE HAVE AN IMPASSE? THAT IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION THAT I WOULD NEED TO CONSULT OUR CODE FORSO I MIGHT NEED SOME TIME TO, TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER, WELL, SO THERE, I MEAN THAT OBVIOUSLY IS AN OPTION BECAUSE PERHAPS WE CANNOT GET TO SIX VOTES ON ANY PARTICULAR MOTION.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING, DOES IT GET HELD OVER TO ANOTHER TIME OR IS THERE A TIME THAT EXPIRES FOR US TO TAKE ACTION? UH, I HAVE, I, I'LL LET YOU GO AFTER.
I, I, 'CAUSE I THINK WE'VE COME ACROSS THIS SCENARIO BEFORE, AND IN THE PAST WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THERE'S BEEN A VOTE TO GO TO A FINAL.
THERE HAVE BEEN A, THERE WAS A SERIES OF MOTIONS ON A SERIES OR SERIES OF VOTES ON MOTIONS.
AMONG THOSE MOTIONS WAS A MOTION TO MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING.
AND BY FUNCTION OF IT, FAILING TO REACH SIX, UM, IT WAS DISMISSED.
UH, IN OTHER WORDS, BY A FUNCTION OF THAT VOTE, FAILING THE HERE THE CASE WAS DISMISSED.
UM, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YES.
ON THE DATE THAT YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW IT WORKED OUT IN A PRIOR CASE.
BUT, UH, I, I WILL, I'LL LET YOU, UH, CHIME IN WHILE THEY CONTINUE LOOKING THROUGH CODE.
IF I, I HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, EXCEPT I REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST STARTED TWO OR THREE MEETINGS AGO.
I THINK I ASKED YOU AFTER THE MEETING, I, I SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE MINUTES.
REMEMBER WHEN YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS? AND I SAID, THERE WERE A WHOLE BUNCH OF VOTES FOR YOU.
MAYBE YOU JUST NEEDED ONE MORE.
AND I THOUGHT THE ANSWER WAS, IT'S DEAD.
BUT I, I DON'T, AND I'M NOT THE LAWYER FOR THIS.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT, I'M NOT GOING BACK TO SPECIFIC ACTIONS WHERE WE'RE NOT POSTED TO DISCUSS THOSE, UH, THOSE, THOSE SPECIFIC INSTANCES.
BUT, UM, WHAT I WILL SAY AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, UM, COMMISSIONER LOWE, IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT CONTEMPLATES A CONTINUATION INTO A LATER DATE OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
THE, UM, THE INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT IS HELD WITHIN, YOU KNOW, A ONE SPECIFIC DATE.
AND IF YOU NEED TO GO PAST 10 O'CLOCK, MAKE A VOTE TO GO PAST 10 O'CLOCK AND KEEP, KIND OF KEEP MOVING.
UM, SO I JUST, I'M TURNING TO MY, MY COLLEAGUE NOW TO SEE IF SHE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT.
BUT THAT'S, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, WE'LL KEEP, WE'LL KEEP LOOKING ON OUR END, BUT THAT'S, I HOPE THAT ADDS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY.
ANYWAY, TO YOUR QUESTION, COULDN'T THIS BE RESOLVED BY SOMEBODY MAKING A MOTION TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING? UM, THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
A MOTION TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING.
MOTION TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING BY COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR KALE.
UM, SO THAT'S THE MOTION, UH, POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
I'M GOING TO GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
MY, IT'S A PROCEDURE, NOT A SUBSTANTIVE, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE, UM, OUR PROCEDURAL RULES.
AND THIS IS, IT'S IN TAB TWO AND IT'S ON THE, STARTS ON THE PRELIM PRELIMINARY HEARING.
DISPOSITION STARTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SECOND PAGE, AND THEN IT'S ROMAN NUMERAL TWO, CAPITAL LETTER D.
UH, THEN ONE, A EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE GROUNDS.
AND I THINK THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHERE THIS MOTION WOULD BE, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY, UM, LIKE UNDER D DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT.
THAT'S A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH WOULD BE SIX, EVEN THOUGH WE ONLY HAVE NINE HERE.
A, UH, YEAH, A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE E R C, THAT'S US.
I, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS.
'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT A FIVE FOUR VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION ACTUALLY
[02:25:01]
GETS THIS TO A FINAL HEARING.IT, IT WOULD NOT, UM, TO DO, TO DO ANYTHING, UM, UNDERLINE, ITALICIZE, ANYTHING.
THE COMMISSION NEEDS SIX VOTES.
SO THEN IF, IF THE MOTION FAILS, THEN THE, THE COMPLAINT IS DEAD.
UH, THIS COMPLAINT AS ALLEGED FOR THIS CODE VIOLATION UNDER THESE FACTS.
SO JUST TO REITERATE, UNDER 2 1 16 QUORUM IN ACTION, A MAJORITY OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED BOARD NUMBERS CONSTITUTES A QUORUM.
THIS AN 11 MEMBER BOARD, A MAJORITY WOULD BE SIX.
UM, AND A BOARD ACTION MUST BE ADOPTED BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE, SORRY.
A BOARD ACTION MUST BE ADOPTED BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A QUORUM.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
UM, I'M, I'M UNCERTAIN AS TO WHERE, UM, IN THE CODE IT SAYS THAT BY SOME SORT OF OPERATION, A, UM, A VOTE THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOVING TO A FINAL HEARING IN A VOTE THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL SOMEHOW CONCLUDES THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITIES TODAY.
I THINK BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES CAN BE REVISITED AT ANY POINT IN TIME.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD HAVE DISCUSSION AND TAKE ANOTHER VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT A DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE, SO FORTH AND SO ON.
AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT THE BOARD'S ATTEMPTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION THAT DOESN'T, SEEMINGLY DOESN'T SEEM AS THOUGH IT WILL BE GRANTED, BUT A MOTION TO MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING THAT SOMEHOW THE FAILURE OF THAT MOTION CONCLUDES THIS HEARING.
I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT IS ENUMERATED IN OUR CODE.
I, THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
I'M SAYING YOU NEED SIX VOTES TO ACT TO GO EITHER WAY IN ANY WAY.
UH, THIS, THIS WAS, AND THAT WAS ME RELYING ON MY, UH, MY RECOLLECTION OF HOW THIS KIND OF SITUATION HAS BEEN HANDLED IN THE PAST.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY AGENDIZED TO GO INTO THE SPECIFIC CASE.
UM, BUT IT, THERE WAS A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE, UH, BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMISSION NOT BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE SIX VOTES TO AFFIRMATIVELY MOVE FORWARD, UM, THE COMPLAINT WAS FUNCTIONALLY DISMISSED.
UM, THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S, I, I CANNOT TO YOU RIGHT NOW, POINT TO A SPECIFIC CODE SITE OR A PROVISION OF OUR RULES, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S FUNCTIONALLY HOW THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
BECAUSE AS, UH, AS GIE HAD HAD SAID, THERE'S NOT REALLY A MECHANISM BY WHICH WE CAN CONTINUE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TO ANOTHER DATE.
UM, IN THEORY, UH, WE CAN DISCUSS THIS, UH, AS, AS LONG AS WE NEED TO, AS LONG AS WE TAKE A SEPARATE VOTE TO GO PAST 10:00 PM TONIGHT.
BUT, UH, IF, UH, I THINK IF AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING, NO ACTION IS TAKEN TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT MECHANISM THERE WOULD BE TO MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING.
SO MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE CHAIR IS SAYING IS THAT AT 10:00 PM WE DO NOT MOVE TO EXTEND THE HEARING OR EXTEND THIS MEETING.
THEN BY OPERATION OF OUR INABILITY OF OUR BY OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE, IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDE THIS MEETING AND THE COMPLAINANT WOULD BE DISMISSED.
UH, BUT, UH, I HAVE NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF, UH, MY TIME ON THE COMMISSION SEEN THE COMMISSION FAIL TO ADOPT A MOTION TO GO PAST 10:00 PM IF THERE'S AN ACTIVE WILL TO DISCUSS ISSUES.
UM, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD, IF, IF WE REALLY DO WANT TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING, UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT MOTION MYSELF TO GO PAST 10:00 PM IT'S, BUT AT SOME POINT, UM, I IMAGINE THAT WE WILL FALL OUT AND ADJOURN, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS THAT CAN'T GO ON TO INFINITY.
UM, SO IF WE ADJOURN AND NO ACTION IS TAKEN, IN OTHER WORDS, NO SIX VOTES ARE GARNERED TO DO A THING, THEN BY OPERATION OF ADJOURNMENT, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO, UH, HAVE ANOTHER, UH, HAVE A WAY TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING.
YEAH, SO I UNDERSTAND, UM, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S
[02:30:01]
MOTION IS STILL OUT THERE, SO I'M PROPOSING A WORKAROUND, UM, AND I MAKE THIS MOTION IF IT'S VALID TO DO SO, AND THAT IS MAKING A MOTION, UM, THAT, UM, WE VOTE TO MOVE IT TO A PRELIMINARY, UH, EXCUSE ME, TO A FINAL HEARING.AND IF THAT DOESN'T PASS, WE ACCEPT THE RESULTS AND GO FOR A DISMISSAL.
SO A KIND OF A TWOFER THAT, UM, THAT HELPS US PROCEDURALLY, UM, JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, IF, IF WE MOVE FORWARD ON THE PENDING MOTION, UH, HAVE THE VOTE, AND IT FAILS TO GET SIX AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, UM, THEN WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE BACK AT SQUARE ONE.
AND AS I SAID, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BY FUNCTION OF ADJOURNING AT THE END OF OUR MEETING, ONCE WE DEAL WITH THE OTHER THINGS ON OUR AGENDA, UM, THEN THE, THERE WOULDN'T BE A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING, AND THE CASE WOULD BE DISMISSED.
SO I THINK THIS IS DISCUSSION STILL ON THE MOTION.
AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OPEN TO, UM, ARGUMENT THAT MIGHT LEAD TO A CHANGE IN THEIR POSITION? UH, I, BY A SHOW OF HANDS, I, I, I MEAN, I KNOW IF, IF ANY COMMISSIONER WANTS TO ENGAGE IN FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS OF THE MOTION, UH, THAT THAT DOOR IS WIDE OPEN IN MY BOOK.
I MEAN, I, I'M NOT PERSONALLY CLOSED OFF, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANNA SPEAK ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE ELSE.
UM, IF ANYONE HAS ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS, ARGUMENTS FOR WHY WE SHOULD MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING, THIS IS CERTAINLY THE TIME AND PLACE TO MAKE THAT CASE.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, AND THEN LEVINS, IF THE CHAIR IS WILLING TO ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION
IS THAT CORRECT? IS, UH, FROM OR THROUGH THE CITY? YES.
UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING, I, WE ARE, WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF ABSTRACT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT, UH, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT HAPPEN TO CITY CODE.
I ALSO WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE, THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT.
UM, AND SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING IS THAT RESPONDENT, MS. ALDI'S POSITION ON THE BOARD OF THIS NONPROFIT, UM, THAT THIS VOTE OR DECISION WOULD HAVE LED TO FUNDING.
THIS WAS A VOTER DECISION ABOUT FUNDING FROM OR THROUGH THE CITY THAT WOULD HAVE GONE TO HER NONPROFIT.
UM, I THINK I, I HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY FACT OR, UH, EVEN SUGGESTION.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS REASONABLY EXPECTED THAT THAT'S REALLY EVEN, UH, UH, PROBABLY GOING TO HAPPEN.
LONG ANSWER, LONG WAY OF SAYING.
I GUESS TO YOUR CHARACTERIZATION, YES, I GUESS IT'S TOO ATTENUATED IN MY MIND.
WOULD THE CHAIR AGREE THAT IF THE VISION PLAN AS STATED WAS ADOPTED, THAT IT WOULD EXPAND AUSTINS OUTSIDE'S ROLE? I DON'T THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
UM, UH, IN PART BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE, THE VISION PLAN ITSELF, UH, IN ADDITION, SOME UNIFIED UMBRELLA NONPROFIT FORMALIZED AS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY PER THIS RESOLUTION AND OTHER CITY GUIDANCE COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL UNIQUE FUNCTIONS AMONG THE PROPOSED FEATURES ARE WAY DOWN, UH, WORK WITH, UH, THE COALITION KNOWN AS AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO CAMPAIGN FOR PUBLIC FUNDS, UM, TO DO ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS.
SO, UH, IN THE VISION PLAN ITSELF ARE TWO CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS BAKED IN TO A PO, LIKE WHAT IT COULD DO AS A PROPOSED FEATURE IN A POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDING TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE FROM OR THROUGH THE CITY.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU EXPAND ON THOSE CONDITIONS? SURE.
UH, WELL, I, VERBATIM, UH, THE, IN ADDITION, THE NONPROFIT
[02:35:01]
COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL UNIQUE FUNCTIONS ALONGSIDE PARD.AMONG THE PROPOSED FEATURES ARE WORK WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UH, I'M SKIPPING A WHOLE LOT, UM, WORK WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO CAMPAIGN FOR PUBLIC FUNDS.
SO MAYBE THEY COULD WORK WITH AUSTIN OUTSIDE TO DO SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIRECTING CITY FUNDS TO, UH, CITY FUNDS FUNDS FROM THE CITY OR THROUGH THE CITY TO AUSTIN OUTSIDE.
AND, AND THAT'S, AND AGAIN, THIS WAS A, A VOTE ON THE PLAN, LEAVING ASIDE THE MERITS OF THE PLAN, I IT, AS I SIT HERE RIGHT NOW, I, I AM NOT STATING ANY POSITION ON THE PLAN, WHETHER IT WAS A GOOD PLAN OR A BAD PLAN.
I THINK MORE THAN 200 PAGES IS EXCESSIVE FOR A PLAN, BUT IT'S, IT, I DO NOT SEE IN THAT SPECIFIC MENTION OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE, UH, WHERE AUSTIN OUTSIDE STANDS TO GAIN FUNDS THROUGH OR FROM THE CITY.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN PRESUPPOSES AUSTIN OUTSIDE'S FUTURE EXISTENCE? IF I, I'M NOT AWARE, I DIDN'T DO A CONTROL F SEARCH.
I'M NOT AWARE OF OTHER MENTIONS OF AUSTIN OUTSIDE IN THE ZILKER VISION PLAN.
UM, BUT ON THAT ALONE, THAT ALONE, I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK SO.
UM, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN, IN THE, HOW MANY PAGES ARE IN THIS WHOLE THING, UH, IN THE 254 PAGES OF THIS, MY ROUGH UNDERSTANDING NOT BEING AN EXPERT IN ALL THINGS REVISION PLAN IS THAT AUSTIN OUTSIDE IS NOT A NECESSARY FEATURE OF THIS PLAN.
COMMISSIONER CASTRO HAD HER HAND UP BEFORE ME.
I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE WE ARE PROCEDURALLY.
WAS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? YES.
VICE CHAIR HILL HAD HAD THE SECOND.
SO I'M GONNA CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TO TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 44 PRELIMINARY HEARING SECTION D.
SO THE PAGE IS SEVEN SLASH 26 AT THE VERY BOTTOM.
AND IT SAYS, UM, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, BLAH, 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 ITS JURISDICTION HAS OCCURRED, THEY SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
SO, ERGO, IF COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S MOTION FAILS, IT'S DISMISSED.
I THINK THAT'S VERY, THAT SEEMS TO ME PRETTY CLEAR THERE.
I THINK THAT'S A FAIR INTERPRETATION.
IF YOU'VE EVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOING TO LAW SCHOOL, UM,
THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE.
I WANTED TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CODE SO I'M NOT JUST SAYING STUFF.
BUT, UM, YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, DON'T, DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
JUST DROP THE MIC, DECLARE VICTORY AND MOVE ON
SO ANYWAY, SO SOME I SECONDED HIS MOTION.
UM, AND, AND WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING, DISCUSSING THE MOTION.
UM, AND SO IF, IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF GOING TO A FINAL HEARING, WE'RE NOT, WHICH IS THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE US.
WE, AGAIN, WE CAN CONTINUE THAT HOWEVER LONG COMMISSIONERS WANT TO CONTINUE THAT.
UM, BUT, UH, I GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU READING THE FINE PRINT, UM, COMMISSIONERS.
IS THERE, UH, ANY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, I'LL, SORRY, ONCE AGAIN, SINGLING OUT.
UH, ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, UM, NOT AT THIS TIME.
UH, IF, IF THERE ARE NO MORE, UH, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS OR COMMENTS,
[02:40:01]
UM, THEN I'M HAPPY TO PROCEED THROUGH THE SAME ROLL CALL VOTE.UM, OH, YES, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
SO, I THINK IF I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT PAGE, SEVEN SLASH 26, IT SAYS, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHICH IS A PREFERENCE PREFACE FOR BEING ABLE TO, I GUESS, TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED.
LIKE, I DON'T THINK THAT A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUND EXISTS CONCLUDES THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I THINK THAT THAT IS A CLAUSE THAT IS SEPARATE AND UNIQUE ITSELF.
IT SAYS AT THE CONCLUSION OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
SO I THINK THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME FORMAL ACTION TAKEN THAT SAYS, WE HAVE CONCLUDED THIS HEARING AND HAVE NOT REACHED A DECISION THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST IN ORDER TO SAY THAT IT IS DISMISSED BY OPERATION OF THE CODE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE VOTE AS PROPOSED WILL CONCLUDE THIS HEARING.
I THINK IT JUST MEANS THAT WE HAVEN'T FOUND REASONABLE GROUNDS, BUT THE, THE HEARING ITSELF WILL CONTINUE.
SO I RE VERY RESPECTFULLY, I, I THINK I DISAGREE THE WAY I UNDERSTAND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
IT'S WHEN WE ARE TAKING THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND CONS, THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
UM, WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING VOTING ON MOTIONS, CONSIDERING AND VOTING ON MOTIONS, THAT WOULD DISPOSE OF THE HEARING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
FOR EXAMPLE, A VOTE TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING IF IT WERE SUCCESSFUL, WOULD DISPOSE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WOULD BE DONE, AND THEN WE WOULD MOVE ON TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WE WANT AT THE FINAL HEARING.
BUT WE WOULD BE, NO, WE WOULD NO LONGER BE HAVING OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING.
UM, AND JUST TO KIND OF ZOOM IN ON THAT SENTENCE, THAT BEGINS AT THE VERY END OF THE PAGE AND GOES INTO THE NEXT ONE, IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
AND, UM, AND AGAIN, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT CAN HAPPEN, ASIDE FROM AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE BY SIX MEMBERS TO DISMISS IT OUTRIGHT, UM, IS, UH, A VOTE TO FIND THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT FAILS.
SO THE CHAIR'S POSITION IS THAT IF AT ANY TIME DURING THIS HEARING, THERE IS A MOTION TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST.
IF THAT MOTION FAILS, THEN AUTOMATICALLY THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED.
IS THAT THE CHAIR'S POSITION POINT OF ORDER, THE DISCUSSION HAS VEERED AWAY FROM THE TOPIC AND HAS MOVED INTO REASONABLE, UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SAID, IT'S LATE.
UH, UH, I, I WILL, I LOVE A GOOD POINT OF ORDER.
I'LL RESPECTFULLY OVERRULE THAT POINT OF ORDER, UM, BECAUSE I STILL THINK THAT THE DISCUSSION'S GERMANE ON, UH, THE MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE MOTION.
UH, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS TO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, BUT, UH, UH, I, AS CHAIR, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PREMATURE TO HAVE HAD THAT MOTION AT ANY OTHER TIME THIS EVENING.
UM, THAT IS WHY I THINK AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING, WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION NOW.
SO CHAIR, WOULDN'T THAT MEAN IF WE GOT A FIRST AND A SECOND AT ANY POINT IN TIME OF THIS HEARING TO MOVE, TO MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING AND A VOTE WAS TAKEN, THAT WOULD PREEMPTIVELY CONCLUDE THE HEARING? THAT WOULD BE A VER I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY IRRESPONSIBLE WAY FOR ME TO RUN THE HEARING.
IF, SAY, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PARTY'S PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND, I WOULD, I WOULD BRING MY CHAIR LEE PREROGATIVE TO BEAR ON GETTING RID OF THAT MOTION, UM, IN A WAY THAT DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE HEARING PREMATURELY, THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO VOTE OF THE REMAINING BOARD MEMBERS TO GET RID THAT MOTION.
NOT NECESSARILY WE COULD TABLE IT BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I COULD CONVINCE EVERYONE, RIGHT.
YOU NEED THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS' CONSENT.
SO AN IRRESPONSIBLE MOTION COULD CONCLUDE ANY OF THESE HEARINGS FIVE MINUTES AFTER WE COME BACK FROM DISCUSSIONS.
AN IRRESPONSIBLE COMMISSION COULD DO A LOT OF IRRESPONSIBLE THINGS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE AN IRRESPONSIBLE COMMISSION AT ALL.
I, I THINK I'M, I THINK I'M ANSWERING THE QUESTION A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[02:45:01]
MOTION AND YOU HAVE A SECOND, AND THEN YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION AND YOU HAVE A VOTE.SO THERE'D HAVE TO BE A MAJORITY VOTE.
AND I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'D BE A WAY AROUND THAT IF YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANTING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
AND ALSO, AS A POINT OF OF CLARIFICATION, MOTIONS HAVE TO BE RECOGNIZED, AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, MOTIONS HAVE TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR.
I DO NOT KNOW IF UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, A MOTION TO DISMISS A PRELIMINARY HEARING, LIKE THIS IS A PRIVILEGED MOTION OR ONE THAT THE CHAIR HAS TO RECOGNIZE.
UM, THERE ARE MOTIONS LIKE THAT MM-HMM.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER FACTOR TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER THE CHAIR WOULD EVEN RECOGNIZE THAT KIND OF MOTION PREMATURELY DURING A PRELIMINARY YEAR.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I'M CONCERNED THAT IF YOU HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND ON A MOTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST, THE CHAIR IS OBLIGATED TO RECOGNIZE THAT MOTION.
MAYBE, UM, UH, I, I DON'T HAVE ROBERT'S RULES IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.
UM, ASSUMING THAT THE CHAIR DIDN'T HAVE TO, I CAN GIVE YOU MY WORD THAT, UH, I WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE SUCH A MOTION BEFORE WE'VE HAD AMPLE DISCUSSION AND OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE PARTIES.
UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO OTHER CHAIRS IF I DID NOT HAVE THAT PREROGATIVE.
IF FOR SOME REASON, ROBERT'S RULES WERE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY TO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A MOTION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT THAT WAS SECONDED, DULY SECONDED, UM, HAD TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR, THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF PRIVILEGED MOTION IN THAT SENSE.
UH, THEN AGAIN, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, I WOULD WIELD MY TRULY PREROGATIVES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE PREMATURE CUTTING OFF OF DISCUSSION, UM, AND A FULL VETTING OF THE PARTIES.
UM, BUT, BUT AGAIN, I, I, I'VE GENERALLY HAVE A LOT OF FAITH IN EACH COMMISSIONER, UH, THAT I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF SERVING WITH, AND THEIR ABILITY TO RESTRAIN THEMSELVES FROM MAKING THOSE KINDS OF MOTIONS PREMATURELY.
UM, AND I REALLY ENJOY THE BENEFIT AND THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH YOU GUYS.
UM, SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT BEING A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.
UM, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE ARE STARTING TO STRAY A LITTLE BIT, UH, OFF TOPIC OF THE MOTION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO TAKE THIS COMPLAINT HERE TO A FINAL HEARING.
SO I, I'LL JUST WANT TO PUT A PIN IN THAT, UH, VICE CHAIR.
SO EVEN THOUGH I DON'T THINK THE VOTE IS GONNA GO THE WAY I WANT, I THINK, UM, ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR IN THAT PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH D THAT IF WE FIND, UM, REASONABLE GROUNDS TO, TO, UH, ASSUME THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED, THEN IT GOES TO THE FINAL HEARING.
AND IF WE DON'T FIND THAT, THEN THAT IS, THEN IT'S DISMISSED.
AND, UM, I THINK FROM THIS LANGUAGE, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
WE HAVE HAD THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND I THINK NOW WE DECIDE, UH, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS VOTE IS BASED ON COMMISSIONERS BELIEVING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS.
I THINK EVERYBODY'S GIVEN THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS.
WE'VE LISTENED TO WELL-PREPARED TESTIMONY FOR BOTH SIDES.
UM, BUT LOOK, I, I KNOW SOME OF US WANT IT TO GO A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT I, WE CAN FILIBUSTER IT AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA CHANGE.
AND WE'VE ALL GIVEN THIS A LOT OF THOUGHT.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, GO AHEAD.
I THINK MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE SETTING A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE HERE BY ALLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF A HEARING TO BE DICTATED BY A FIRST AND A SECOND FOR A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXISTS.
AND THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR ABOUT.
I DO AGREE THAT WE'VE ALL HAD VERY MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE I THINK MOST OF US ARE PRETTY RIGID IN OUR POSITIONING.
SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE VOTE MOVING FORWARD, BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT IF, BY OPERATION OF THE CHAIR'S INTERPRETATION, THAT BY OPERATION OF TAKING THIS VOTE, IT EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDES A HEARING THAT WILL ALLOW ANY TWO COMMISSIONERS TO COME IN HERE ON ANY GIVEN DAY AND PROPOSE THAT REASONABLE GROUND EXISTS WITHOUT ADEQUATE DISCUSSION AND WOULD EFFECTIVELY END THE HEARING.
THAT'S THE PRECEDENCE THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
[02:50:01]
UH, ASSUMING THE MOTION IS, UH, RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR AND ASSUMING THAT THERE'S NOT SOME PARLIAMENTARY TRICKERY THAT WOULD PREVENT THE CHAIR FROM EXERCISING THAT PREROGATIVE.COMMISSIONER LEVINS, GO AHEAD.
I, I WANNA ALLAY YOUR CONCERNS BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE NO LONGER IN A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
WE ARE ON, IN DELIBERATIONS ON A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING CONCLUDED WHEN YOU CONCLUDED THE QUESTIONING OF OUR, OUR COMPLAINANT AND OUR RESPONDENT.
UM, SO ONCE I, I THINK ANY, ANY MOTION TO DECIDE ON THE HEARING PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN IMPROPER ONCE IN THEORY.
I SUPPOSE ONCE THAT HEARING IS CUT OFF, THEN YEAH, WITHOUT DELIBERATION, SOMEONE COULD MAKE A MOTION, SOMEONE COULD SECOND IT.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE AT IN DANGER BY, BY, AND I, I SUSPECT I'M GONNA LOSE THIS MOTION.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT WHERE, UM, WE ARE IN DANGER OF CUTTING SHORT A HEARING WITH A MOTION IN A SECOND.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY, ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION SPECIFICALLY TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING? I'M SEEING AND HEARING NONE, AND I WILL CALL THE ROLE IN THE SAME WAY THAT I DID AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR MEETING.
AND AS A REMINDER, AN I IS A VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
A NAY IS NOT TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING.
UM, SO CHAIR SORAN VOTES NAYYY VICE CHAIR, KALE AYE.
COMMISSIONER CASTO NAYYY, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA NAY.
COMMISSIONER LOWE NAYYY, COMMISSIONER LEVINS AYE.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I SUPPORT THE MOTION COMMISSIONER NUNEZ AYE.
THERE BEING FOUR A'S AND FIVE NAYS.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 44 D, THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, AND AS A RESULT, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
SO WITH THAT, UM, PARTIES, YOU'RE DISMISSED.
MR. COBB, MR. RINALDI, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH US AND FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE, UH, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, MORE AGENDA THIS EVENING.
SO, UH, THE TWO REMAINING ITEMS, UM, AND I THINK WE CAN KNOCK THEM OUT FAIRLY QUICKLY, UM, IS ITEM NUMBER
[3. Adopt the regular meeting calendar for 2024.]
THREE, WHICH IS TO ADOPT THE REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2024.SO THAT IS HERE IN FRONT OF US.
UM, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, FOR CALENDAR YEAR, 2024, ALL OF THE MEETINGS, BUT THE VERY LAST TWO IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, THESE ARE OUR REGULAR MEETINGS WOULD OCCUR ON THE FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH, UH, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER.
THEY WOULD BE ON THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 6:00 PM WE DON'T HAVE THE ROOMS BECAUSE ROOM RESERVATIONS HAPPEN, UH, SORT OF ON A MONTH BY MONTH BASIS, UM, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
UH, BUT IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING, I'M HAPPY FOR CITY STAFF TO TAKE THE REINS.
IT'S, IT'S RATHER, UH, ENIGMATIC THE WAY IT HAPPENS.
BUT I BELIEVE THE SOONER THAT A CALENDAR'S APPROVED, THE SOONER YOU'RE PUT INTO A QUEUE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER TEND TO BE JUST VERY BUSY MONTHS IN TERMS OF, UH, EVENTS AT CITY HALL.
AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY THERE'S, IT'S, IT'S TENDS TO BE DIFFICULT TO GET SPOTS THERE.
UM, DOES THAT, DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
UM, AND, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN HAVE, UH, THESE MEETINGS AS REPRESENTED ON THIS CALENDAR HERE AT CITY HALL AS OPPOSED TO, UH, THE, UH, PLACE FORMALLY KNOWN AS HIGHLAND MALL, UM,
UM, UH, ANY, ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
[02:55:01]
CALENDAR BEFORE WE FORMALLY ADOPT OR NOT ADOPT? UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA? GO AHEAD.THE DECEMBER DATE IS THE DAY AFTER, LIKELY THE DAY AFTER A RUNOFF.
DOES THAT MATTER? UM, A GOOD QUESTION.
WOULD IT, IS, IS ONE WEEK AFTER A RUNOFF EVEN ENOUGH TIME TO CONSIDER SOMETHING ANYWAY? I DON'T WANNA BRING PEOPLE IN HERE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
UH, SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING, UH, THERE, THE, THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO.
UM, THAT IF, I MEAN, IN THEORY, I SUPPOSE IF, UH, SAY IF THAT IS THE WEEK THAT REALLY IS THE WEEK AFTER THE RUNOFF ELECTION DATE, UM, IN THEORY YOU COULD HAVE A COMPLAINT THAT IS FILED ON RUNOFF ELECTION DAY, AND THEN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO I MAKE A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND THEN WE SEND OUT NOTICE THAT DAY OR THE DAY AFTER.
UM, AND WE STILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE CITY CODE, UH, TIMELINES.
UM, IN THEORY WE COULD DO THAT, BUT IT'D BE VERY HARD TO DO THAT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED THAT SPECIFIC SITUATION, BUT IT, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT, UH, WE'D BE FORCED TO KIND OF CONSIDER THAT AND SCHEDULE IT LIKELY FOR THE JANUARY MEETING WITH THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
JANUARY WOULD PROBABLY OFFER COOLER HEADS ANYWAY.
UM, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION THOUGH.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMENTS? YES, COMMISSIONER LOWE, WHEN WILL WE KNOW WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE AT PERMITTING OR, UM, THERE WAS SOMEONE SOMEWHERE ELSE BY, UM, MUELLER BY THE HO.
AND ACTUALLY THAT THE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REMAINING MEETINGS THIS YEAR THAT WILL TAKE PLACE AT AUSTIN ENERGY'S BUILDING AT MUELLER AND, UM, AND ONE AT THE PERMITTING, UH, BUILDING, BUT, UH, SORT OF GETS PUT IN A QUEUE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
AND THEN THE CLERK'S OFFICE HAS A PROCESS BY WHERE THEY, WHEREBY THEY, YOU KNOW, SCHEDULE AND, AND ASSIGN ROOMS. BUT, UM, I'M TOLD THE EARLIER YOU DO IT, THE BETTER.
SO WE'RE IN REALLY GOOD SHAPE.
WE'RE DEFINITELY AT THE EARLIER MM-HMM.
UM, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE GOT AHEAD OF THE CLERK'S REMINDER TO DO THIS.
WOULD WE KNOW AT USUALLY EARLIER, AT LEAST ONE MEETING IN ADVANCE THOUGH, IF IT'S SURE, YES.
YOU WOULD KNOW IT USUALLY BY, UH, BY DECEMBER OR JANUARY, UM, YOU WOULD KNOW.
AND, AND WE, WE WILL DEFINITELY PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AS SOON AS WE'RE AWARE OF WHERE THE, THE MEETINGS WILL BE.
IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE SPECIAL MEETINGS, LIKE THE ONE WE HAD IN JUNE, UM, I TAKE IT, IT'S UNLIKELY WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE IT AT CITY HALL.
IT REALLY JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT'S AVAILABLE MM-HMM.
AND SO IT'S JUST, IT ENDS UP BEING A SCRAMBLE TO FIND ROOMS. MM-HMM.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION? UM, HEARING AND SEEING NONE, I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE 2024 MEETING CALENDAR.
SECOND, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY.
I WILL DO A VOICE ACCLIMATION VOTE.
ALL OPPOSED, NAYYY AND ALL ABSTAINING THEN I BELIEVE BY UNANIMOUS VOICE ACCLIMATION, UH, THAT MOTION PREVAILS.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
BUT NOT LEAST, WE HAVE OUR MINUTES AND I WILL, UH, NOTE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT EIGHT MINUTES UNTIL 10 O'CLOCKUM, SO, UH, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS, THOUGHTS ON THE MINUTES? IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE MINUTES, WE COULD ALSO CONSIDER THAT AT A FUTURE MEETING.
IT'S NOT IMPERATIVE THAT WE, UH, MEET OUT THE MINUTES AT THIS PRECISE MEETING.
UM, BUT ANY, UH, MY, MY SKIMM OF THE MINUTES, I'LL SAY TO MY END, WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING SECRETARY STANTON HERE, WHO IS USUALLY THE KEEPER OF THE MINUTES.
UM, BUT I, I DID SKIMM THE MINUTES.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING, UH, OVERTLY WRONG.
SO WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES? I'LL MOVE, ADOPT THE MINUTES.
MOVE BY COMMISSIONER CASTO AND I'LL SECOND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR KALE.
AGAIN, I'LL DO VOICE ACCLIMATION.
[03:00:01]
AYE.ANY ABSTENTIONS THEN? UNANIMOUSLY, WE'VE GOT MINUTES.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS? UM, UH, I, MY ONLY ANNOUNCEMENT, UH,UM, BUT I AM, I WILL BE ACTIVELY REACHING OUT TO MY COUNCIL MEMBER AND ASK THEM TO LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT.
I'LL CONTINUE SERVING UNTIL THEY FIND A REPLACEMENT.
UM, BUT I HAVE A THREE AND A HALF WEEK OLD, UH, BABY.
UM, AND A, UH, NEARLY TWO YEAR OLD BABY, UH, AND A SIX YEAR OLD, NOT SO MUCH A BABY.
UM, UH, UH, I THINK, I THINK I'VE BEEN TESTING, UH, MY PARTNER
UM, BUT, UH, IN, IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT THIS IS THE LAST TIME, I'LL JUST REITERATE AGAIN, IT'S AN HONOR TO SERVE WITH YOU.
UM, AND I, I LOVE THE DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE.
UH, THE, UM, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S, YEAH.
OH, I HAD ONE THING THAT I PUT ON THE LIST ABOUT THE, UH, WEBSITE YES.
AND THE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT NOW, BUT I DID JUST WANT IT EITHER AS A, AS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE FUTURE, OR IF WE HAVE A REPORT ON IT AND IT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF STATUS, THAT'S FINE TOO.
YEAH, WE'D BE HAPPY TO SEND OUT A STATUS UPDATE VIA EMAIL TO ALL THE MEMBERS, UH, AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL CONCERN OR QUESTIONS OR A DESIRE AT THAT POINT TO BRING IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA, UH, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ADD IT AT THAT POINT.
AND, AND WELL, I, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO RUSH ANYONE THROUGH OUR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
UM, I DO, UH, I HAVE A VERY OPEN DOOR POLICY.
UM, IF YOU DON'T HAVE MY CELL PHONE NUMBER, WE CAN HAVE ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATIONS IF YOU WANT SOMETHING BROUGHT UP ON AN AGENDA.
AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO, UH, FIELD EMAILS AS WELL.
AND IF, UH, TWO MEMBERS, UH, GET TOGETHER AND ASK FOR SOMETHING TO BE ON AN AGENDA AND SEND ME THAT, I AM FORCED TO PUT IT ON AN AGENDA.
SO BUDDY UP, GANG UP ON ME, PLEASE.
UH, ANY OTHER, UH, FUTURE ITEMS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS? OKAY, WELL, HEARING AND SEEING NONE THE TIME IS 9:55 PM AND THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED.