* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:03]
          ALL RIGHT. 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
DO WE NEED TO GIVE, UH, ANY HEADS UP TO THE LIVE FEED? WE'RE GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS MICHAEL LOVENS. 
          I'M THE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. 
          TODAY IS SEPTEMBER THE 25TH. 
          THE TIME IS 6:17 PM WE ARE AT CITY HALL IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM. 
          ROOM NUMBER 1101 AT 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 0 1. 
          I WILL BEGIN BY CALLING THE ROLE, UH, THE CHAIR. 
          MICHAEL LOVENS. 
          THAT'S ME. 
          I AM HERE. 
          VICE CHAIR LOW HERE. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO? HERE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER KALE? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER TER I DO NOT BELIEVE IS WITH US IN PER IN PERSON OR REMOTELY. 
          COMMISSIONER MCC RETURN. 
          OKAY. 
          HE'S NOT HERE. 
          UH, AND COMMISSIONER POEY HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. 
          WE HAVE SEVEN WHO ARE IN, OR EIGHT WHO ARE IN ATTENDANCE. 
          DID I COUNT RIGHT? 1, 2, 3, 4. 
          YEAH. 
          EIGHT IN ATTENDANCE. 
          UM, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          MS. WEBSTER, DID WE, DID YOU GET TO CHECK IF WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO ONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 
          OKAY. 
          IN THAT CASE. 
          UM, 
          [EXECUTIVE SESSION]
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP, IT SAYS ONE ITEM. 
          IT SHOULD BE TWO ITEMS. IT SHOULD BE TWO ITEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 51 0.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING, AND WE MAY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS TWO COMPLAINTS FILED BY BETSY GREEN'S GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO AND KIRK WATSON, WHICH ALLEGE VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE, WHICH DEALS WITH ELECTIONS AND LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. 
          IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? HEARING NONE. 
          THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          THE TIME IS 6:19 PM WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION. 
          THE TIME IS 7:13 PM ENCLOSED SESSION. 
          WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSS, DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO TWO COMPLAINTS FILED BY BETSY GREEN GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO AND KIRK WATSON, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE. 
          NOW, HAVING READ US BACK INTO OUR OPEN SESSION, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR, UH, OUR NEXT 
          [3. A complaint filed by Betsy Greenberg against Douglas Greco raising claimed violations of  City Charter, Article III (Elections), Section 8 (A)(3) (Limits on Contributions to  Candidates).]
AGENDA ITEM. 
          SO WE HAVE TWO PRELIMINARY HEARINGS AND WE WILL HOLD THEM. 
          TECHNICALLY THEY WILL BE SEPARATE HEARINGS. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO. 
          UM, MS. GREENBERG, UH, YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE A STATEMENT, AND THEN IF, UH, EITHER MR. GRECO OR SOMEONE ON MR. GRECO'S BEHALF IS HERE, THEY MAY ALSO MAKE A STATEMENT FOR 10 MINUTES. 
          UM, VICE CHAIR LOWE HAS AGREED TO BE OUR TIMEKEEPER, AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT I VIEW THAT 10 MINUTES AS SACROSANCT. 
          AND SO WHEN THE TIME EXPIRES, UM, PLEASE, YOU CAN FINISH YOUR SENTENCE, BUT, UM, LET'S, AND AND COULD YOU GIVE LIKE A 3, 2, 1 30 SECOND WARNING? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THAT SOUND GOOD, MS. GREENBERG? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WITH THAT, UM, THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE COMPLAINANT, BETSY GREENBERG, REGARDING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO. 
          YOU MAY PROCEED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT I FILED AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO, A CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR. 
          I BELIEVE THAT MR. GRECO VIOLATED CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE, WHICH LIMITS THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS A CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT FROM OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN ZIP CODES. 
          THE CHARTER AMENDMENT WAS SPONSORED BY A POLITICAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE CALLED AUSTINITES FOR A LITTLE LESS CORRUPTION. 
          IT WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF 
          [00:05:01]
1997 BY 72% OF THE VOTER. 
          THE CHARTER READS NO CANDIDATE AND HIS OR HER COMMITTEE SHALL ACCEPT AN AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION TOTAL OF MORE THAN 30,000 PER ELECTION AND 20,000 IN THE CASE OF A RUNOFF ELECTION FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS. 
          THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE BASED, ARE UPDATED EACH YEAR BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. 
          WHEN THE BUDGET IS PASSED, THE CLERK PROVIDED A MEMO TO CANDIDATES ON MAY 1ST SPECIFYING THAT THE LIMIT AT THE TIME WAS $46,000 PER ELECTION AND $30,000 FOR THE RUNOFF. 
          THIS THE LIMIT THAT WAS IN EFFECT UNTIL LAST MONTH WHEN THE LIMITS WERE EACH RAISED BY $1,000. 
          MR. GRECO WROTE A LETTER TO THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE AND POSTED THE LETTER ON X, MAKING CLEAR THAT HE QUOTE, KNEW WHAT THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS WERE GOING IN. 
          THE CLERK'S MEMO PROVIDES A LIST OF ZIP CODES THAT ARE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS AS SPECIFIED BY THE CHARTER. 
          I HAVE HAD PEOPLE TELL ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK AT WHETHER ADDRESSES ARE REALLY WITHIN AUSTIN, IN PARTICULAR ZIP CODES LIKE 7, 8, 7, 4, 6, THAT ARE NOT COMPLETELY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS. 
          SO I LOOKED ONLY AT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENTITIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIST, WHO LISTED ADDRESSES WITH ZIP CODES THAT ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST. 
          BEFORE WE LOOK AT THE DATA, I WANNA COMMENT ABOUT THIS CHARTER PROVISION. 
          IN MY OPINION, THE PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE THAT THE VOICES OF AUSTINITES WHOSE LIVES ARE IMPACTED BY THE DECISIONS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS MAKE ARE NOT DROWNED OUT BY OUTSIDE INFLUENCES WHO DON'T HAVE TO LIVE WITH THOSE DECISIONS. 
          THE CHARTER IS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW FOR AUSTIN, WHICH WE CAN THINK OF AS OUR CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS PRESUME LEGAL UNTIL A COURT RULES. 
          OTHERWISE, THESE PAGES LIST THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MR. RECO WHERE DONORS LIST AND ADDRESS WITH A ZIP CODE THAT IS NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST. 
          I'M SORRY, THE PRINT IS SO SMALL, BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE COMPLAINT, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT INSTEAD. 
          UM, I PREPARED THE LIST USING THE CONTRIBUTIONS DATA SET AVAILABLE ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN OPEN DATA PORTAL. 
          I ALSO DOUBLE CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE LISTED ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT. 
          BY HIGHLIGHTING EACH CONTRIBUTION I THOUGHT ABOUT PROVIDING THE HIGHLIGHTED REPORT, BUT BETWEEN MR. GRECO AND MR. WATSON, THOSE REPORTS WOULD'VE AMOUNTED TO A REAM OF PAPER FOR EACH COMMISSIONER. 
          SO I JUST COULDN'T DO IT. 
          I WILL REALLY QUICKLY SHOW MR. GRECO'S REPORT AT THE END. 
          IF I HAVE TIME REMAINING, I SHOULD KEEP GOING. 
          SIX 19, NO, YOU AT OCCASIONALLY I CAN'T SEE THE PAGE NUMBER, BUT OCCASIONALLY DONORS ARE LISTED AS ENTITIES, WHICH ALSO DON'T QUALIFY AS NATURAL PERSONS LIVING IN THE RIGHT ZIP CODE. 
          AND THERE IS AN EXHIBIT B. 
          THE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL WERE LISTED IN DATE ORDER WITH A RUNNING TOTAL, SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHEN THE 46,000 THRESHOLD WAS REACHED WITH AN ASTERISK, I BELIEVE THERE WERE 314 DONATIONS ON WHAT I LABELED AS EXHIBIT A AND TWO LISTED ON WHAT I LABELED AS EXHIBIT B. 
          EXHIBIT B OOPS INCLUDES LIST TWO DONORS WHO PROVIDED AN ADDRESS THAT SAYS AUSTIN, TEXAS, BUT THE ZIP CODES ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST. 
          THE CLERK'S MEMO IS PART OF THE CANDIDATE PACKET, WHICH IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. 
          SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY, I DID NOT COUNT THE DONATIONS ON EXHIBIT B AS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, ONLY THE ONES ON EXHIBIT A. 
          SO CONSIDERING ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES NOT LISTED ON THE CLOCK CLERK'S MEMO AND NOT SPECIFYING AUSTIN, TEXAS, YOU CAN SEE THAT MR. GRECO EXCEEDED THE $46,000 THRESHOLD ON JUNE 28TH, JUST TWO DAYS BEFORE THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD. 
          AND THAT HIS TOTAL DONATIONS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE POSTAL CODE. 
          POSTAL CODES ON THE CLERK CLERK'S LIST WAS 52,221. 
          BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD, WHICH ENDED JUNE 30TH, OVERALL ABOUT $52,000, 
          [00:10:01]
THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MR. GRECO'S CAMPAIGN CAME FROM OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN COMPARED TO ABOUT $36,000 FROM INDIVIDUALS INSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          SO THE COMMISSION'S JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED. 
          I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT MR. GRECO VIOLATED CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE BY ACCEPTING MORE THAN $46,000 IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES DEFINED AS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          SINCE THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE CODE SPECIFIES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING. 
          I BELIEVE I STILL HAVE MORE TIME, SO I'M GOING TO JUST FLY THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTED. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN EVEN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTS. 
          I BARELY SEE THEM. 
          UM, SOME PAGES HAVE JUST A FEW HIGHLIGHTS. 
          SOME PAGES HAVE NONE. 
          SOME PAGES HAVE MANY. 
          UM, BUT I DEFINITELY CHECKED THE C AND E TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE THINGS LISTED IN THE CITY'S DATA SET WERE ACTUALLY ON THE, UM, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS LIST. 
          OH, HERE'S ONE MORE. 
          THREE MINUTES. 
          MS. GREENBERG. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'LL JUST KEEP SHOWING THESE UNTIL WE RUN OUTTA TIME. 
          MAYBE WE'LL RUN OUTTA TIME. 
          MAYBE WE'LL RUN OUT OF PAGES BEFORE WE RUN OUT OF TIME. 
          AND I AM APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR TIME AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, MS. GREENBERG. 
          UM, DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. GREENBERG BEFORE WE INVITE? UM, UH, MR. GRECO'S REPRESENTATIVE? SEEING NONE, THANK, THANK YOU, MS. GREENBERG. 
          I THINK UNLESS YOU WANNA SEE MORE OF THAT REPORT, UM, I CAN STOP . 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND SIR, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME? UH, YES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. 
          MY NAME IS HOLT LACKEY. 
          I'M AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING DOUGLAS GRECO AND HIS MAYORAL CAMPAIGN. 
          DOUG GRECO FOR AUSTIN. 
          MAYOR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HANG ON, HANG ON ONE SECOND. 
          I WANNA, UM, VICE CHAIR LOW. 
          CAN YOU BE OUR TIMEKEEPER AGAIN? ALRIGHT, IT'S 10 MINUTES AGAIN. 
          YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          YOU MAY PROCEED. 
          THE GRECO CAMPAIGN AND MR. GRECO UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE RULES GOVERNING THE COMMISSION, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND A PRELIMINARY HEARING OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT, BUT MR. GRECO WANTED ME TO ATTEND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND HIS CAMPAIGN. 
          WE THANK THIS COMMISSION FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN OUR POSITION AND FOR YOU, YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT BECAUSE OF THE PENDING LITIGATION, HE THOUGHT IT BEST TO MAKE HIS STATEMENT THROUGH AN ATTORNEY. 
          BECAUSE OF THAT PENDING LITIGATION AND CONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, UH, I WOULD PREFER TO DECLINE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING. 
          AS YOU LIKELY KNOW, MR. GRECO HAS FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SEEKING TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION EIGHT A THREE ONLY AS IT APPLIES TO DONATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN AN AUSTIN ZIP CODE. 
          BASICALLY, SECTION EIGHT A THREE SAYS THAT CANDIDATES CAN RAISE UNLIMITED MONEY FROM DONORS WHO LIVE IN AUSTIN, BUT CAN ONLY RAISE $47,000 TOTAL FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN AUSTIN ZIP CODES FOR THE REASON STATED IN THAT LAWSUIT, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS RULE IS ILLEGAL AND IT THAT IT UNJUSTLY FAVORS IN INCUMBENTS AND CANDIDATES WITH THE ABILITY TO SELF-FUND WITH NO LIMIT. 
          IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CANDIDATES LIKE MR. GRECO, A FORMER A ISD TEACHER AND LONGTIME COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WHO IS ORGAN RUNNING A GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN FROM FRIENDS, FAMILY, COLLEAGUES, AND SUPPORTERS BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          MR. GRECO BELIEVES IT IS UNFAIR THAT PEOPLE HE HAS WORKED WITH IN HIS DECADES AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN AUSTIN WHO HAVE BEEN DISPLACED TO SAN MARCUS OR BASTROP BY RISING HOUSING COSTS, CANNOT DONATE TO HIS CAMPAIGN WHILE SOMEONE WHO DISPLACED THEM REMAINS FREE TO DONATE. 
          [00:15:01]
MR. GRECO BELIEVES THAT IT IS UNFAIR THAT HIS NIECE, WHO LIVES IN VIRGINIA, WHO WILL BE A FIRST TIME VOTER THIS ELECTION, AND WHO IS JUST MADE HER FIRST DONATION TO THE HARRIS WAL CAMPAIGN, CANNOT DONATE EVEN 1 CENT TO HER UNCLE MR. GRECO, WHILE ANOTHER CANDIDATE'S, BECAUSE HE NOW STANDS ALLEGED TO BE AT THIS LIMIT. 
          WHILE ANOTHER CANDIDATE'S RELATIVE WHO MAY LIVE IN WESTLAKE OR WOOD IN THE 7, 8, 7 4, 5, AND 7 8, 7 4, 6 ZIP CODES THAT ARE LARGELY OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, BUT ALLOWED TO DONATE UNLIMITED FUNDS CAN MAKE A DONATION. 
          LIKE MOST AUSTINITES, MR. GRECO GREW UP SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          IN HIS CASE, THE WORKING CLASS COAL REGION OF PENNSYLVANIA GAVE MOST OF HIS ADULT LIFE TO PUBLIC SERVICE IN AUSTIN, AND HE IS NEITHER PERSONALLY WEALTHY, NOR DOES HE HAVE ACCESS TO GENERATIONAL WEALTH. 
          WHILE THIS MAKES HIM A TYPICAL AUSTINITE, IT MAKES HIM UNUSUAL AMONG THE CANDIDATES FOR AUSTIN MAYOR IN THE YEAR 2024. 
          SECTION EIGHT A THREE COMES FROM THE AT LARGE COUNCIL ERA OF AUSTIN'S HISTORY. 
          WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THAT A FEW WEALTHY ZIP CODES CONTROLLED EVERYTHING IN CITY GOVERNMENT, CONTROLLED EVERY SEAT ON THE CITY COUNCIL, AND IT STILL HAS THAT EFFECT UNDER SECTION EIGHT A THREE, A WEALTHY DONOR FROM WESTLAKE CAN DONATE $450 TO EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE. 
          AND, AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM YET WHEN MR. GRECO, WHO HAS LARGELY RAISED MONEY FROM FAMILY MEMBERS AND PEOPLE HE HAS WORKED FOR IN THE LGBTQ PLUS MOVEMENT AND THE MOVEMENT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND IN, IN AROUND TEXAS, BUT ALMOST ALWAYS BASED IN AUSTIN, UH, IS NOW IN A POSITION WHERE THOSE PEOPLE CAN'T GIVE EVEN THEIR FIRST DOLLAR. 
          SECTION EIGHT A THREE'S RESTRICTION LIMIT LIMITING DONATIONS BASED ON GEOGRAPHY IS RARE AND UNUSUAL. 
          WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY EXAMPLES OF A SIMILAR RULE THAT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
          SIMILARLY, NO OTHER OFFICE HERE IN AUSTIN AT THE A-I-S-D-A-C-C COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL ARE SUBJECT TO THIS TYPE OF GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTION. 
          THAT IS WHY MR. GRECO, HIS CAMPAIGN AND ONE OF HIS LONGTIME COMMUNITY ORGANIZER MENTORS WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO, BUT WHO WORKED WITH MR. GRECO FOR SEVERAL YEARS AS AN ORGANIZER IN AUSTIN, ARE CHALLENGING SECTION 8 83 AS IT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUAL DONORS WHO LIVE ELSEWHERE. 
          TO BE CLEAR, HE'S NOT CHALLENGING SECTION 8 83 AS A WHOLE AND IS NOT CHALLENGING THE $450 INDIVIDUAL DONATION CAP OR ANY LIMITS ON CORPORATE DONATIONS. 
          HE'S ONLY CHALLENGING THE $47,000 AGGREGATE LIMIT ON GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING FROM ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS WHO DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN. 
          FOR THE REASON STATED IN OUR LAWSUIT, WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THAT LIMIT CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH CLEAR FIRST AMENDMENT PRECEDENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 
          BRIEFING ON THAT ISSUE IS UNDERWAY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 
          WE HAVE ASKED THE COURT FOR AN EXPEDITED RULING BY OCTOBER 4TH, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WE ARE LIKELY TO HAVE AT LEAST A PRELIMINARY ANSWER ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE FAIRLY SOON. 
          IN THE MEANTIME, MR. GRECO WANTS TO REASSURE THIS COMMISSION OF HIS EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION EIGHT A THREE. 
          WHILE HIS LAWSUIT IS PENDING, MR. GRECO HAS NO INTEREST IN IGNORING OR FLOUTING OR KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY VIOLATING THE LAW. 
          TO THE CONTRARY, HE BROUGHT HIS LAWSUIT BECAUSE HE THINKS IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ABIDE BY THE LAW AND WANTS TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT HIS CAMPAIGN WHILE SEEKING CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT. 
          BUT UNTIL A COURT SAYS THAT SECTION EIGHT A THREE IS UNENFORCEABLE, MR. GRECO IS MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH SECTION EIGHT A THREE BECAUSE OF THE LITIGATION. 
          WE ARE NOT GOING TO DIVE INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE COMPLAINT TONIGHT, OTHER THAN TO SAY THIS, MR. GRECO'S JULY 15TH REPORT WAS FULLY TRANSPARENT AND COMPLETE AND REPORTED EVERY DONATION THAT HE RECEIVED. 
          NO ONE CAN TELL SIMPLY, SIMPLY FROM LOOKING AT THE MAILING OR CREDIT CARD ADDRESS THAT A DONOR LISTED WHEN MAKING A DONATION WHETHER OR NOT THAT VOTER IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN AUSTIN. 
          AND THIS IS IMPORTANT ON MS. GREENBERG'S LAST SLIDE OF HER POWERPOINT. 
          SHE SAID, THESE ARE DONATIONS NOT FROM AUSTIN'S ZIP CODES. 
          WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT SECTION EIGHT A THREE SAYS. 
          SECTION EIGHT A THREE SAYS IT 
          [00:20:01]
HAS TO BE FROM A PERSON WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN A ZIP CODE. 
          SO A PERSON WHO PERHAPS HAS A, A CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT IN A DIFFERENT CITY OR PERHAPS HAS TWO HOMES, UH, THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF REASONS THAT A DONOR'S DISCLOSED ADDRESS ON THE, ON THE CAMPAIGN REPORT WOULD SIMPLY NOT GIVE YOU ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KNOW WHETHER THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER THE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN. 
          NO. 
          ONE, TWO AND A HALF MINUTES. 
          COUNSEL, HOW MANY LEFT? TWO AND A HALF. 
          OKAY. 
          NO ONE CAN TELL SIMPLY FROM LOOKING AT THOSE ADDRESSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DONOR IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE AND THE LAW OF WHERE A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, REGISTER TO VOTE IS INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED AND DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF EACH PERSON'S LIVING SITUATION. 
          WE ARE AWARE OF AT LEAST SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LISTED IN THE COMPLAINT AS OUT OF AUSTIN, WHO MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN AUSTIN, PROVING A VIOLATION WOULD REQUIRE AN IN-DEPTH VOTER BY VOTER ANALYSIS THAT IS ENTIRELY MISSING FROM THE COMPLAINT FACED WITH THIS AMBIGUITY THAT IS INHERENT TO THE RULE, MR. GRECO CHOSE THE PATH OF TRANSPARENCY AND LISTED EVERY DONATION THAT HE'S RECEIVED, BUT WE AGREED THAT EVEN THOUGH NO ONE CAN TELL THE EXACT NUMBER, THE CAMPAIGN IS LIKELY VERY CLOSE TO HAVING RAISED $47,000 FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT VOTE HERE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. 
          SINCE RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT, THE CAMPAIGN HAS FELT THAT IT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONDUCT ITSELF AS IF IT WERE AT THE LIMIT. 
          ACCORDINGLY, MR. GRECO IS TAKING STEPS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW WHILE HIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING IT IS PENDING. 
          HE'S DIRECTING HIS ONGOING FUNDRAISING EFFORTS AT AUSTIN DONORS AS TO THE DONATIONS LISTED IN THE COMPLAINT AND ANY OTHERS LINKED TO ZIP CODES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          HE'S SEQUESTERING ANY MONEY THAT MAY POTENTIALLY BE IN EXCESS OF $47,000 WHILE THE CASE IS BEING LITIGATED. 
          IF AFTER THE LEGAL PROCESS PLAYS OUT, IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE $47,000 LIMIT IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. 
          HE WILL RETURN ANY SUCH DONATIONS. 
          MR. GRECO IS DETERMINED TO ABIDE BY THE LAW, INCLUDING THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
          HE'S SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF HIS AND HIS DONOR'S RIGHTS UNDER THOSE LAWS WHILE THAT LEGAL PROCESS IS PLAYING OUT. 
          HE'S TAKING EVERY STEP THAT HE CAN OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION TO ENSURE THAT HE IS IN COMPLIANCE AND CAN REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION EIGHT A THREE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS. 
          30 SECONDS. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, UH, MR. LACKEY, IF YOU WOULD REMAIN THERE, 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE QUESTIONS, BUT OUR RULES DO SAY THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT. 
          IT, IT'S INTERESTING, THEY ALSO SAY THAT THERE IS NO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, UH, I HOW THOSE TWO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE RECONCILED. 
          WELL, THIS WOULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          IF, IF THE COMMISSION HAS THEM, IF THE COMMISSION HAS THEM. 
          AND I DON'T, UH, , SORRY. 
          YOUR 10 MINUTES ARE UP, APPARENTLY . 
          UM, WITH THAT, UH, DID ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LACKEY? ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, MY POINT ABOUT QUESTIONS IS MOOT VERY WELL. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. LACK. 
          THANK YOU ALL. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          HAVING HEARD FROM BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RESPONDENT, MR. GRECO, UH, IS THERE DELIBERATION OR MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, COMMISSIONER. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          WERE YOU NO. 
           WE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT. 
          SORRY. 
          CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PERSON FILING THE COMPLAINT OR? YES. 
          UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, DO YOU WANT TO CALL HER BACK UP? YEAH, IF POSSIBLE. 
          UM, ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? THAT'S FINE WITH ME, MS. GREENBERG. 
          UM, THANKS FOR BEING HERE, MS. GREENBERG. 
          I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT, UM, SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL FOR MR. GRECO BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS THAT, UM, DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE VERSUS WHETHER OR NOT JUST RECONCILING THAT WITH THE ZIP CODE OF WHERE THE CONTRIBUTION CAME FROM. 
          AND I WAS GONNA SEE IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO THAT. 
          UM, SO THERE WERE TWO ADDRESSES THAT WERE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO RECONCILE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE, UM, ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE ZIP CODE LIST. 
          THE, UM, THOSE, I JUST COUNTED THEM AS INSIDE OF AUSTIN BECAUSE I COULDN'T BE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE OUTSIDE THE, 
          [00:25:01]
AND WHEN I SAY OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, I MEAN ALL THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE CHARTER . 
          UM, BUT THE OTHERS ARE DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT CLAIMING TO LIVE INSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          THEY REPORTED ADDRESSES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND THOSE REPORTED ADDRESSES WHEN THEY MADE THE CONTRIBUTION WERE ALSO, UM, PASSED ON TO THE CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIST. 
          SO I'M TAKING IT FROM THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY, UM, THE CAMPAIGN. 
          UM, I BELIEVE WHEN YOU DONATE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AT LEAST 18 OR THERE'S SOME CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO CHECK. 
          UM, SO THEY SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, BUT THEY'RE NOT CLAIMING TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE INSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          THEY GAVE OTHER ADDRESSES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          HELLO, MS. GREENBERG. 
          MY QUESTION IS, UM, UM, ALSO RELATED TO THE TWO THAT DONORS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AS EXHIBIT B? IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          AND YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THEM AS THE, AMONG THE DONORS, UM, FOR OUTSIDE. 
          AND WHAT, WHY WAS THAT? UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE IN ZIP CODES THAT AREN'T ON THE CLERK'S LIST, BUT THEIR ADDRESSES LISTED AS AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE KIND OF A MAYBE, AND I DON'T WANNA MAKE A COMPLAINT BASED ON A MAYBE, SO I DID NOT COUNT THEM AS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          ISN'T THERE A, THERE'S A, THERE DEFINITIVE LIST OF ZIP CODES, CORRECT? WELL, IT'S IN THE CANDIDATE PACKET AND THE CANDIDATE PACKET COULD HAVE MISTAKES. 
          I MEAN, I CAN'T BE SURE THAT THOSE TWO ADDRESSES AND IT WAS ONLY $125. 
          EITHER WAY THAT YOU COUNT THAT $125, UM, THE VIOLATION CLEARLY OCCURRED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE COMPLAINANT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. GREEN. 
          I THINK WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN IN A MINUTE. 
          WHAT WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN IN A MINUTE. 
          MAYBE I'LL JUST STAY . 
          ALRIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY, UH OH, NO, YOU MIGHT BE MORE THAN A MINUTE. 
          WELL, YES, I, I I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION. 
            COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY, ARE, ARE WE, I GUESS WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION BEFORE WE DELIBERATE ON A MOTION. 
          I THINK YOU NEED A MOTION TO EITHER HEARING WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION REGARDING WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS? LEMME MAKE SURE I GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT. 
          UH, REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. 
          I, COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          UM, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE IT FORWARD BASED ON REASONABLE GROUNDS. 
          SECOND, SECOND, COMMISSIONER, EY SECOND. 
          ANY DELIBERATION ON THAT MATTER? COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YES. 
          MY, MY ONLY DELIBERATION, UM, IS THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF VOTER. 
          IF A STUDENT IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN, BUT LIVES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE CAMPAIGN, WOULD THAT PERSON BE, UM, LISTED AS ELIGIBLE? WOULD THAT PERSON BE LISTED AS A PERSON OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN? SO THAT'S THE ONLY, UM, THING THAT'S GOING THROUGH MY HEAD IN TERMS OF ATIONS THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH IN THE, I ASSUME IN THE NEXT ROUND OF, UM, SOME FACT FINDING. 
          UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT NOW AS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I THINK IS WORTH EXPLORING. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, I, I THINK MY COMMENT ON THAT WOULD BE WE'RE HERE ONLY FOR REASONABLE GROUNDS NOW. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, HOW IT, IF WE MOVE IT ONTO A FINAL HEARING, HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN THE FINAL HEARING? WE DON'T KNOW. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS REASONABLE GROUNDS ONLY. 
          UH, AND I THINK, UH, THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION, 
          [00:30:01]
IF WE FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS, THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION ON THAT MATTER IS DOWN THE ROAD. 
          THAT'S MY VIEW. 
          I'M, I'M STATING THAT JUST AS ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, THAT'S NOT LIKE A CHAIR RULING OR ANYTHING. 
          UH, ANYONE ELSE? UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? UH, YES, CHAIR. 
          I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT WOULD AFFECT, UM, OUR DETERMINATION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS, ARE WE, DO WE KNOW IF, IF THERE IS A CAUSE OR PART OF THE PROCESS, IF FOR SOME REASON A DONOR CHANGES HIS OR HER MIND ON THE CONTRIBUTION AND IT'S REFUNDED THAT WOULD AFFECT THE AGGREGATE TOTAL, RIGHT? THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          BUT IS THIS BASED ON LIKE A FINAL REPORT? DO WE KNOW THAT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? AND WHAT IF IT DOESN'T? WHAT IF THE REFUND DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL AFTER BECAUSE OF, UH, TRANSACTIONAL LOGISTICS? CAN I, I, I, MR. CASTO, I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ACCEPTANCE AT, AT LEAST IN, LIKE, IF, WHEN WE'RE REFERENCING ELECTION CODE ACCEPTANCE IS THE DECISION TO ACCEPT IT, IF YOU'VE REPORTED IT, YOU'VE MADE THE DECISION TO ACCEPT IT, YOU MIGHT LATER MAKE A DECISION TO REFUND IT, BUT YOU HAVE ACCEPTED IT AS OF THAT REPORTING PERIOD. 
          IT'S, UH, WOULD BE HOW I, THAT THAT IS, THIS IS, UH, CHRIS FELDMAN, UH, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW, UH, STATE LAW APPLIES TO CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          UH, AND IT WOULD BE AFFIRMATIVE ON THE PART OF THE CANDIDATE OR, UH, THE, THE CANDIDATE TO ACTUALLY RETURN AND REPORT IT AS RETURNED. 
          ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, BUT I GOTTA GET THE ROLL FIRST. 
          HERE WE GO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE MOTION IS TO FIND THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS, UH, TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT WE MOVE ON TO A FINAL HEARING, PRESUMABLY AT OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING. 
          DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WITH MY STATEMENT OF THE MOTION? OKAY. 
          UM, VICE CHAIR LOWE. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UH, I VOTE IN FAVOR. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA HAS EITHER RECUSED OR ABSTAINED. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YES. 
          I IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER KALE? YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER TURN IS NOT HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY? YES. 
          AND THE CHAIR ALSO VOTES? YES. 
          WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS UNANIMOUS AND THE MOTION PASSES. 
          AND SO WE WILL NEED TO, UH, FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS OF SCHEDULING, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT AT THIS MOMENT. 
          DO WE SCHEDULING THE FINAL HEARING? I THINK IT HAS TO BE WITHIN 30 DAYS, CORRECT? IT NEEDS TO BE IN 30 DAYS. 
          AND THE NEXT SCHEDULE MEETING FOR THE COMMISSION IS OCTOBER 23RD. 
          SO, SO WE'RE WITHIN THAT, WE WOULD BE WITHIN THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ON OCTOBER 23RD? UM, PROCEDURALLY, I MEAN, I, THAT'S AN AGENDA ITEM. 
          MM-HMM. 
           DOES IT, I GUESS IT JUST HAS TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA. 
          WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A MOTION TO PUT IT ON THE THAT'S RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 23RD AND YOU WOULD DIRECT CITY STAFF TO CREATE AN AGENDA SHIP REFLECTING SUCH. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          ALL RIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. GRECO. 
          AND SO NOW WE'LL 
          [4. A complaint filed by Betsy Greenberg against Kirk Watson raising claimed violations of  City Charter, Article III (Elections), Section 8 (A)(3) (Limits on Contributions to  Candidates)]
PROCEED, PROCEED TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS A COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST KIRK WATSON RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE. 
          UH, MS. GREENBERG, ONCE AGAIN, UH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 10 MINUTES. 
          CAN'T I HAVE 20  ? THERE'S REALLY TWO COMPLAINTS HERE. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I'LL DO MY BEST, UM, BY SKIPPING SOME STUFF. 
          MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG STILL, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ETHICS COMPLAINT COMPLAINTS I FILED AGAINST MAYOR KIRK WATSON, WHO'S CURRENTLY RUNNING FOR REELECTION. 
          I BELIEVE THAT MAYOR WATSON HAS 
          [00:35:01]
VIOLATED SAME CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 8 8 3, WHICH LIMITS THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS A CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT FROM OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN ZIP CODES. 
          UM, IT'S THE SAME STORY. 
          UM, SO I THINK I CAN SKIP THESE SLIDES, WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE, EXCEPT TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN THIS PARTICULAR CHARTER AMENDMENT PASSED, MR. WATSON WAS THE MAYOR IN HIS FIRST TERM IN OFFICE. 
          OKAY, SAME MEMO, NO DIFFERENCE. 
          UM, AND SAME, ALL OF THAT IS THE SAME. 
          UM, MY OPINION ABOUT THE CHARTER PROVISION IS STILL THE SAME. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK FOR TIME'S SAKE, I CAN CERTAINLY SKIP THE REPEATED SLIDES. 
          OKAY, SO HERE IS THE DATA FOR, UM, MR. WATSON, AND I'VE LOST THE PAGE. 
          THERE WE ARE. 
          UM, AGAIN, THIS WAS PROVIDED OR, UM, GATHERED USING THE CONTRIBUTIONS DATA SET AVAILABLE ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN OPEN PORTAL. 
          AND I ALSO DOUBLE CHECKED, UM, MAYOR WATSON'S REPORT FOR THE 2024, UM, WAS 469 PAGES. 
          SO I'M NOT GONNA SHOW IT TO YOU, BUT I REALLY DO HAVE IT IF YOU WANNA SEE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I SEPARATED THE CONTRIBUTIONS AGAIN INTO EXHIBITS A AND B, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IN A MOMENT. 
          UM, BUT GOING THROUGH THIS, FIRST I'LL SUMMARIZE CONSIDERING ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES THAT ARE LISTED OUTSIDE OF THE CLERK'S ZIP CODE LIST, UM, MR. WATSON EXCEEDED THE $46,000 THRESHOLD ON MAY 20TH, 2024, AND HIS TOTAL DONATIONS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR VOTE IN POSTAL ZIP CODES ON THE CLERK'S LIST WAS 68,104 AND 77 CENTS FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD THAT ENDED ON JUNE 30TH. 
          EXHIBIT B IS LONGER IN THIS CASE. 
          IT INCLUDES CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES NOT LISTED ON THE CLERK'S MEMO. 
          EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SPECIFY A POST OFFICE BOX ADDRESS INSTEAD OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 
          THESE ADDRESSES DO NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE DONOR IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS. 
          SO TO BE CAUTIOUS AND NOT TO FILE A COMPLAINT WHERE I'M NOT SURE, I LOOKED ONLY AT THE CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A, WHICH ARE DEFINITELY CLAIMING ADDRESSES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE CLERK'S LIST. 
          SO CONSIDERING ONLY THE CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A, IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE THAT ARE NOT FROM ZIP CODES ON THE CLERK'S MEMO AND NOT LISTING AN AUSTIN, TEXAS ADDRESS, MAYOR WATSON STILL EXCEEDED THE $46,000 THRESHOLD FOR OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH A TOTAL OF 52,000 FIVE HUNDRED AND FOUR SEVENTY SEVEN BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD. 
          SO IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME HE VIOLATED THE, UM, PROVISION IN 2024. 
          AND 2024 IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT KIRK WATSON ACCEPTED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE. 
          THE 2022 RUNOFF ELECTION WAS LESS THAN TWO YEARS AGO. 
          SO WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AT THAT TIME, THE LIMIT FOR A RUNOFF WAS $30,000. 
          THESE LISTS ARE LABELED C AND D INSTEAD OF A AND B. 
          BUT AS BEFORE, I PREPARED THEM THE SAME WAY WITH THE CONTRIBUTIONS DATA SET FROM THE OPEN DATA PORTAL. 
          AND I CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. 
          HOWEVER, THERE WERE MULTIPLE REPORTS FILED FOR THE RUNOFF AND THERE WERE SOME DUPLICATES IN THE DATA SET. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, OH, THERE IT IS. 
          I FOUND A $450 ERROR ON MY WATSON RUNOFF CALCULATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE COMPLAINT. 
          MR. CASINO, HIS CAMPAIGN MANAGER, HAS CLAIMED THAT MY COMPLAINT IS WRONG AND THAT THEY WOULD PROVE IT AT THE HEARING. 
          OF COURSE, I'M HUMAN AND I CAN MAKE MISTAKES AND CORRECT MISTAKES. 
          I WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THE COMPLAINT IF THEY HAD TOLD ME WHAT I DID WRONG. 
          HOWEVER, I HAVE RECEIVED NO INFORMATION FROM THE RESPONDENT THAT WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY MR. CASINO MADE THIS CLAIM, 
          [00:40:01]
UM, GOING ON. 
          OH, THERE THEY ARE. 
          WELL, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. 
          EXHIBIT D INCLUDES THE CONTRIBUTIONS, LISTING ADDRESSES, WHICH ARE POST OFFICE BOXES WITH ZIP CODES THAT ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST. 
          PEOPLE DON'T LIVE IN A POST OFFICE BOX, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE. 
          SO I AGAIN CONSIDERED THE CONTRIBUTIONS BOTH WAYS, EITHER HERE, THIS IS THE TOTAL SUMMARY WHERE MR. WATSON EXCEEDED THE $30,000 THRESHOLD ALLOWED IN A RUNOFF ON NOVEMBER 11TH AND TOTALED 54,775 FOR THE RUNOFF. 
          BUT IF I ONLY LOOK AT THOSE, UM, CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE ON EXHIBIT C, WHICH AGAIN ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SAYING THEY DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN, THEY DON'T LIVE IN A ZIP CODE, WHICH IS ON THE CLERK'S LIST, SO ONLY LOOKING AT C, THOSE ARE THE ONES I CONSIDER TO BE AS. 
          DEFINITELY NO. 
          AND THE SUMMARY OF THE RUNOFF CONTRIBUTIONS TELLS THE SAME STORY CONSIDERING ONLY CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT C, MAYOR WATSON EXCEEDED THE $30,000 THRESHOLD ON NOVEMBER 27TH, 2022, AND TOTALED 40,000 SLIGHTLY MORE, UM, FOR THE RUNOFF. 
          UM, AGAIN, UM, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN YOU REGISTER TO VOTE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, YOU HAVE TO GIVE A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 
          IT SAYS REALLY SPECIFICALLY THAT DO NOT INCLUDE POST OFFICE BOX, RURAL ROUTE, OR BUSINESS ADDRESSES. 
          THERE ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DONOR LIST INDIVIDUALS OF EXAMPLES WHO PROVIDED A BUSINESS ADDRESS. 
          SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE, AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY THAT THEY LIVE IN A ZIP CODE WITHIN THE CLERK'S LIST. 
          OKAY, MS. GREENBERG, TWO MINUTES. 
          THE PROVIDED INFORMATION DOES NOT ALLOW VERIFICATION OF WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS A SAMPLE, NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, AND I NEVER DID ANYTHING WITH ANYBODY WHO PUT A BUSINESS ADDRESS IF IT WAS WITHIN THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO CONSIDERING ONLY THE ONES THAT WERE LISTED IN EXHIBIT C, HE WENT OVER THE THRESHOLD FOR A RUNOFF. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
          UM, SO YOUR JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED. 
          WATSON VIOLATED THE CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE BY EXCEEDING THE AGGREGATE LIMIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS IN BOTH 2024 AND THE 2022 RUNOFF. 
          IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS, THEN YOU GO TO A FINAL HEARING. 
          UM, IF THIS LAW IS TO BE ENFORCED GOING FORWARD, WHICH I THINK WE ALL KNOW IS UNCLEAR, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT CONTRIBUTORS NEED TO PROVIDE THEIR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND THAT CONTRIBUTORS CAN BE RESTRICTED TO NOT JUST GIVE A POST OFFICE BOX OR A BUSINESS ADDRESS SO THAT GOING FORWARD YOU CAN ACTUALLY TELL WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE LIVE IN THE ZIP CODES AND ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. 
          AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND MAYBE YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT, AND ACTUALLY, UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION, I THINK THAT IS THE, THE BETTER WAY TO PROCEED. 
          UM, SO IF YOU'LL STAND BY AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM MAYOR WATSONS. 
          I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE. 
          , SHE DOESN'T. 
          GOOD EVENING, SIR. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          UM, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER'S COUNSEL. 
          UH, MY NAME IS JAMES COWER. 
          I'M AN ATTORNEY IN AUSTIN. 
          I'VE PRACTICED, UH, CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND ELECTION LAW SINCE THE 1980S. 
          UM, THIS INCLUDES REPRESENTING, UM, MAYOR WATSON AND HIS EARLIER CAMPAIGNS, UH, IN 1990S AND SENATE AND CURRENT CAMPAIGNS. 
          UM, I'VE ALSO, IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I'VE ACTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THIS COMMISSION, UM, ON NUMEROUS 
          [00:45:01]
OCCASIONS. 
          AND I'VE REPRESENTED RESPONDENTS, UH, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS BEFORE THIS COMMISSION. 
          SO, UH, I'M, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH BOTH THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW AND TEXAS CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. 
          AND THE THING THAT IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND IS THE COMPLAINT IS BASED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CANDIDATE OFFICE HOLDER, COH REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY SCHEDULE A ONE. 
          UM, SCHEDULE A ONE IS WHERE A CANDIDATE, UH, OR CAMPAIGN REPORTS CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT HAS A BOX FOR ADDRESS CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE. 
          YOU CAN GO TO THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION GUIDANCE IF YOU WANT THAT FLESHED OUT. 
          AND FOR CONTRIBUTOR ADDRESS, IT SAYS, ENTER THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE CONTRIBUTOR. 
          THERE'S NOTHING IN TEXAS LAW OR IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES ANY CONTRIBUTOR TO TELL A CAMPAIGN THEIR HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 
          IT'S EXTREMELY COMMON IN TEXAS AND HAS BEEN FOR THE 40 SOME YEARS I PRACTICED LAW INDIVIDUALS USE PO BOXES. 
          INDIVIDUALS MAY USE SECOND HOMES, INDIVIDUALS MAY USE, UH, AN ADDRESS WHERE THEY RECEIVE MAIL, BUT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL DISCLOSE, UH, A HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 
          THIS IS NOT AT ALL LIKE REGISTERING TO VOTE. 
          NOW, THE WATSON CAMPAIGN, UNLIKE ANY OTHER CAMPAIGN I'M AWARE OF IN AUSTIN, AND BEFORE I GO INTO THIS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, DID ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION GET THE MAYOR'S STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS, WHICH WE FILED WITH THE COUNCIL ON SATURDAY? THE THERE WERE MATERIAL, MR. COWER WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD CHAIR, BUT IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE EVIDENCE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO IT WAS NOT CIRCULATED TO THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE FOR THIS HEARING. 
          UH, MAY, MAY I PROVIDE THAT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME, AND I AM SORRY YOU'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS. 
          DO YOU WANT ME TO CIRCULATE IT? LLOYD, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE? I GUESS THE CLOCK'S TICKING. 
          HOLD ON ONE SECOND THERE. 
          I DON'T, THERE SHOULD BE ENOUGH. 
          WILL YOU PAUSE HIS TIME JUST FOR A SECOND? I WANT TO SO, COURSE, I'M SORRY, START AGAIN. 
          NOW WHAT? MAYOR WATSON'S, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. 
          MR. COWER, THE QUESTION IS, RIGHT, I MEAN, I'M GONNA, SO RULE, UM, MR. COWER, THE, THE RULES GOVERNING OUR HEARING SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE CAN BE DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE FORM. 
          SO I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO LIMIT IT, LIMIT YOUR DESCRIPTION TO THE NARRATIVE FORM. 
          UM, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE PERMITTED TO ACCEPT EXHIBITS AT THIS TIME. 
          AND ALSO THIS IS ALL UNDER OATH. 
          UM, LOOK, THIS WAS ALL PRE-FILED, CHAIRMAN, WELL, THERE'S NOT REALLY, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A FILING SYSTEM HERE. 
          IT WAS, IT WAS EMAILED IN, UM, BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT'S NOT, UH, I, I DON'T, THE CHAIR IS RULING THAT IT'S NOT A, A PROPER EXHIBIT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE CHAIR'S RULING IT. 
          IT'S QUITE CONTRARY TO PREVIOUS PRACTICE IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE ADVISING THIS COMMISSION AND REPRESENTING. 
          BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR, AND I'LL RESPECT YOUR RULING. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THE MAYOR, MAYOR, THE WATSON CAMPAIGN CONTINUES TO, UH, WITH ITS, UH, CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONSULTANT SUSAN HARI, WHO HAS WORKED FOR THE WATSON CAMPAIGN SINCE THE 1990S, ASKS CONTRIBUTORS ON FOR THE INFORMATION ON SCHEDULE A ONE, WHICH IS THE ADDRESS, AND THEY GO BEYOND THAT AND THEY ASK THE CONTRIBUTOR, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS ON THIS PAGE OF THE EXHIBIT, THERE'S INFORMATION ON THE WATSON CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, AND ON EVERY CONTRIBUTION FORM SAYS, WE CAN ONLY ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS RESIDING IN THE FOLLOWING ZIP CODES. 
          AND THEN THERE IS A QUESTION THAT SAYS, 
          [00:50:01]
HOME ZIP CODE MUST LIVE IN A ZIP CODE LISTED ON TOP OF THIS FORM. 
          ATTACHMENT A TO THE WATSON, UH, STATEMENT IS A LIST OF THE CONTRIBUTORS IN 2024 THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN AGREES ARE FROM ZIP CODES OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          AND THE TOTAL OF THE CONTRIBUTION FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS IS 45,000. 
          WE VERIFIED THEIR HOME ADDRESS, THEIR HOME ADDRESS IS OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          ATTACHMENT B TO THE WATSON RESPONSE IS INDIVIDUALS WHOSE SCHEDULE A ONE HAD ZIP CODES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, BUT WHO RESPONDED TO THE CAMPAIGN WHEN ASKED WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? AND THEY PROVIDED A HOME ZIP CODE WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          THEY MIGHT HAVE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN A PO BOX OR A BUSINESS ADDRESS OR A VACATION HOME. 
          THE TOTAL FROM THOSE CONTRIBUTORS IS 23,000. 
          SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT FROM ZIP CODES NOT PERMITTED IN AUSTIN IS WITHIN THE ZIP CODE LIMIT. 
          IT'S BEFORE BELOW 46,000. 
          EXHIBIT C IS THE SAME DOCUMENT FOR 2022. 
          IT LISTS CONTRIBUTORS FROM OUTSIDE AUSTIN ZIP CODE. 
          THEY GAVE US THE INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULE A ONE. 
          WE AGREED THAT THEY'RE FROM THE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          AND THE TOTAL FROM THOSE CONTRIBUTORS IN 2022 WAS $27,725 ATTACHMENT D, WHEN WE ASK THE CONTRIBUTORS, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? AN ADDITIONAL 50, SOME CONTRIBUTORS IN 2022 RESPONDED, MY HOME ZIP CODE IS ONE OF THE HOME, ONE OF THE ZIP CODES, NETTE AUSTIN. 
          AND THE AMOUNT FROM THOSE CONTRIBUTORS IN 2022 WAS $27,050. 
          SO THE WATSON CAMPAIGN AND THE MAYOR RESPECT THIS RULE. 
          WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS RULE SINCE THE LATE 1990S. 
          I'M NOT AWARE OF ANOTHER CAMPAIGN THAT GOES TO THE SAME MEASURES. 
          NOT ONLY TO GATHER THE ADDRESS, TO LIST ON SCHEDULE A ONE, BUT TO ASK PEOPLE, TELL US YOUR HOME ZIP CODE AND TO ADVISE THEM ON ALL CAMPAIGN MATERIALS SAYING IF YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THESE ZIP CODES, YOU MAY CONTRIBUTE. 
          IF NOT, ONCE WE'VE REACHED THE MAX AND WE HAVE REACHED THE MAX, WE DO NOT ACCEPT THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          WE HAVE NOT ACCEPTED A CONTRIBUTION FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN BASIC ZIP CODES SINCE THAT WAS MAXED OUT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. 
          WE CONTINUE TO RESPECT THAT. 
          AND YOU KNOW, WITH ALL RESPECT, COMMISSIONERS, YOU CAN'T JUST LOOK AT A SCHEDULE A ONE BECAUSE SCHEDULE A ONE IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF A HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 
          THAT'S WHY WE WE GO BEYOND IT. 
          MR. TWO AND A HALF MINUTES. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          SO COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE PROVIDED THIS TO YOU IN SUMMARY FORM, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR YOU TO KNOW IS THIS CAMPAIGN IS DILIGENT IN TAKING STEPS TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES. 
          IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE RULES AND IT HAS THE DOCUMENTARY SUPPORT TO SHOW THAT IT'S COMPLYING WITH THE RULES. 
          I'M, I'M SORRY YOU'RE NOT EACH ABLE TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENTATION, BUT IT'S VERY CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED. 
          IF YOU GO TO THE WATSON WEBSITE TODAY AND TRY TO CONTRIBUTE FROM A, A ZIP CODE NOT ON THE LIST, IT'S NOT ACCEPTED. 
          IF A CHECK COMES IN WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VET IT ELECTRONICALLY, WE DON'T ACCEPT THAT CHECK BEFORE THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD. 
          IT'S MAILED BACK. 
          SO COMMISSIONERS, I THINK THE, BASED ON THIS RESPONSE, BASED ON THE WORK THIS CAMPAIGN HAS DONE, BASED ON THE CAMPAIGN'S OWN FORMS, THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN VIOLATED THE ZIP CODE LIMIT EITHER IN 2022 OR THIS YEAR. 
          AND IT IS NOT, IT IS NOT IN VIOLATION AND IT WILL NOT BE IN VIOLATION BECAUSE WE HAVE THE STEPS TO COMPLY. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU MR. COWER. 
          UH, MS. GREENBERG, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP TO THE TABLE, WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FOR, 
          [00:55:01]
UH, MR. COWER. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M SORRY I CAN'T GIVE IT TO YOU. 
          IT'S NOT IN EVIDENCE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE, AND AND ACTUALLY I, I BELIEVE YOU WERE DECLINING TO GIVE A COPY OF YOUR DOCUMENT TO MS. GREENBERG. 
          WELL, IF, IF THE COMMISSIONERS CAN RECEIVE IT. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE, UH, COMPLAINANT. 
          THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION, SIR. 
          DID YOU JUST DEC DECLINE? AND I'M NOT CRITICIZING IT. 
          I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. 
          WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE HER SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION CANNOT REVIEW IT. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE MY RULING ON THAT WAS CLEAR. 
          IT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM GIVING IT TO MS. GREENBERG. 
          IT DOESN'T COMPEL YOU TWO. 
          I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE UNCLEAR ON IT. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE COMMISSION. 
          CAN I ASK, I'M SORRY, WHO? OH, YOU AND MS. GREENBERG? YES, I GOTCHA, YOU. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          I'M GONNA, SO ALL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT FOR THE PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SEE THAT INFORMATION FROM MR. ER COWER. 
          COWER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, IT'S BECAUSE THE, THE RULES THAT GOVERN THIS HEARING SAY THAT THE RESPONDENT AND I'LL, I'M JUST READING IT FROM TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR FOUR B. 
          UH, THE SECOND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT MAY DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE PRESENTED TO DISPROVE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. 
          UH, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT MS. GREENBERG WAS SHOWING US IS THAT THOSE WERE PART OF THE COMPLAINT. 
          AND, UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF, THAT'S IN THE RECORD. 
          UM, AND SO THAT, THAT'S THE BASIS OF MY RULING. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE ONCE I'M LOOKING AT THE CODE. 
          SURE. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MR. COWER OR MS. GREENBERG FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. MS. GREENBERG, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DISTINCTION, UH, WITH THE CODE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL DONOR TYPE VERSUS ENTITY DONOR TYPE? YES. 
          UM, ENTITIES ARE NOT THE NATURAL PERSONS. 
          THERE WERE NO ENTITIES LISTED ON MAYOR WATSON'S 2024, UM, CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          AND THERE WERE ON THE RUNOFF, BUT ENTITIES ARE NOT CONSIDERED NATURAL PERSONS. 
          AND SO I WOULD TREAT THEM LIKE THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND IT'S CLEARLY LISTED WHAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL AND WHAT'S AN ENTITY ON THE LIST IN EXHIBITS SAY C AND D? YEAH, I DO SEE THAT IT'S CLEARLY LISTED. 
          I AM HAVING TROUBLE RECONCILING WHETHER THE, THE ENTITIES SHOULD BE ON A SEPARATE LIST OR REMOVED FROM THE LIST. 
          BECAUSE ARE, IS IT NOT A DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT IF IT'S A, AN ENTITY VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          I MEAN, IT SAYS NATURAL PERSONS ENTITIES DON'T QUALIFY AS NATURAL PERSONS. 
          SO I PUT THEM ON LIST C OR A BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT NATURAL PERSONS. 
          I THINK THERE WERE NONE ON THIS DAY THOUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FOR, FOR ZIP CODES THAT ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST, OR NO, EXCUSE ME, ZIP CODES THAT ARE DEEMED TO NOT BE, UH, WHAT IS THE TERM ENTIRELY IN AUSTIN OR PARTIALLY IN AUSTIN? YES. 
          SO THAT LIST COULD INCLUDE OR WOULD INCLUDE ENTITIES AS WELL. 
          ENTITIES CAN BE AT ANY ZIP CODE, BUT AN ENTITY IS NOT A NATURAL PERSON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET ME THINK THROUGH MORE WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          VICE CHAIR. 
          LOWE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES. 
          FOR MR. COWER FIRST, BUT POSSIBLY FOR BOTH? UM, WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE A ONE, UH, LET'S START WITH THE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH IS THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT MUCH OF THIS COMES FROM. 
          UM, YOU WERE DESCRIBING A PROCEDURE IN WHICH THERE'S A WEBSITE NOTIFICATION. 
          THERE'S ALSO SOME CONTACT FROM THE CAMPAIGN TO THE CONTRIBUTOR. 
          IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE ZIP CODE OR RESIDENCY OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD OTHERWISE THAT, THAT YOU WOULD AND WOULD HAVE TO LIST ON THE A ONE. 
          [01:00:01]
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S, IT'S ON, ON BOTH THE WEBSITE AND ALL, ALL PRINTED SOLICITATIONS. 
          AND AT ANY CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING EVENT, UH, THE PERSON'S ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSTRUCTED TO INQUIRE AS TO THE HOME ZIP CODE OF THE CONTRIBUTOR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT HAPPENS SOMETIME BETWEEN WHEN THE CAMPAIGN RECEIVES THE CONTRIBUTION MAIL ONLINE, WHATEVER, AND THE DATE IT IS REPORTED ON THE SEMI-ANNUAL, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THE CAMPAIGN KEEPS A RUNNING TOTAL. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND AS, AS WE APPROACH THE CUTOFF, WHICH WAS 46,000 AND IS NOW 47,000, THE CAMPAIGN STOPS ACCEPTING ELECTRONIC CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT, UH, THE, UNLESS IT HAS A HOME ZIP CODE DECLARED BY THE CONTRIBUTOR. 
          AND IF SOMETHING COMES IN BY MAIL UNDER TEXAS LAW, YOU HAVE UNTIL THE END OF A REPORTING PERIOD TO RETURN A CONTRIBUTION AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED ACCEPTED SO THAT THE CAMPAIGN KNOWS WHEN IT IS IT NEW IN 2022 WHEN IT HIT THE $30,000 LIMIT AND IT NO NEW IN 2024 WHEN IT HIT THE $46,000 LIMIT. 
          SO BEFORE FILLING OUT THE A ONE, YOU HAD ALREADY MADE THAT DETERMINATION YES. 
          FOR EVERY CONTRIBUTION THAT WAS ON THE A ONE. 
          IF THE CONTRIBUTION, UM, IF BOTH THE, THE CONTRIBUTOR'S ADDRESS WAS FROM AN ADDRESS WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE DECLARED HOME ADDRESS WAS WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THEN THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTION. 
          THE QUESTION ARISES WHEN THE CONTRIBUTOR STATES AND ADDRESS ON THAT GOES ON SCHEDULE A ONE THAT IS LIKE A PO BOX OR AN OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN ADDRESS. 
          BUT THEN THEY SAY, MY HOME ADDRESS, MY HOME ZIP CODE IS 7 8 7 0 3. 
          SO WE, WE KNOW BEFORE THE, THE FORM COH IS CONTRIBUTE IS COMPLETED WHETHER WE HAVE A ZIP CODE LIMIT CONTRIBUTOR OR AN OUTSIDE ZIP CODE LIMIT CONTRIBUTOR. 
          SO YOU KEEP A RUNNING TOTAL, YOU KNOW, EVERY SINGLE DAY WHERE YOU ARE TOWARD THAT TOTAL? I DON'T DO TOWARD THE, UH, AGGREGATE, YES, WE HAVE, YES, WE HAVE VERY CAPABLE PROFESSIONAL, UM, REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE STAFF THAT WE'RE, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME IT INDIVIDUAL AND HER COMPANY WHO HAS WORKED WITH MAYOR WATSON SINCE 1997, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. 
          AND SHE ALSO HANDLES A LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER CAMPAIGN. 
          AND BY THE WAY, THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT I DEAL WITH OR THAT MS. HARRI DEALS WITH WHERE WE HAVE TO DO THIS. 
          AND I, I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S VERY UNUSUAL IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE TO HAVE TO TRACK A HOMES, EXCUSE ME, A HOME ZIP CODE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTORS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR FEDERAL LAW. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR STATE RACES. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR COUNTY RACES. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR SCHOOL BOARD RACES. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IN WESTLAKE HILLS OR IN GEORGETOWN OR ROUND ROCK. 
          IT'S A CITY OF AUSTIN REQUIREMENT. 
          AND YOU KNOW, WE WORK TO COMPLY WITH IT, BUT IT'S AN EXTRA STEP THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO DO WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE AUSTIN LIMIT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT YOU'RE SAYING THIS WHOLE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT KEEPS A RUNNING TOTAL THAT NOTIFIES YOU THAT SOMETHING MAY AMISS AND THAT YOU VERIFY AND IT IS ONLY AFTER ALL OF THAT THEN IT GETS ON THE A ONE? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION? IT IS ONLY AFTER YOU'VE DONE ALL THAT VERIFICATION THAT IT IS THEN LISTED ON THE A ONE TO BE FILED ON ON JULY 15TH. 
          THE A ONE ADDRESS IS, IS GATHERED ON A RUNNING BASIS. 
          THE A ONE ADDRESS IS GONNA BE THE SAME REGARDLESS. 
          THE QUESTION IS WHERE IS THE INDIVIDUAL'S HOME ZIP CODE AND THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT'S GATHERED SEPARATELY FROM THE A ONE ADDRESS. 
          SO IF THE CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, THE A ONE, THE SCHEDULE A ONE IS GONNA BE FILLED OUT IN THE SAME WAY. 
          BUT IF THE CONTRIBUTION IS NOT ACCEPTED, THEN IT WILL NEVER APPEAR ON THE A ONE. 
          UM, MS. GREENBERG, COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT? NO, UM, NOT VERY EASILY. 
          I MEAN, I, I FEEL LIKE THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS LACKING IN TRANSPARENCY. 
          UM, AS I MENTIONED IN MY PRESENTATION, IF, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING 
          [01:05:01]
THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME IN ADVANCE. 
          I CANNOT LOOK AT THIS AT THE HEARING TO VERIFY WHAT'S WHAT. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S NO WAY, UM, TO VERIFY THIS IN THE MOMENT. 
          I, I WISH I WOULD'VE BEEN PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION AROUND THE TIME WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED BECAUSE THIS INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE AROUND THE TIME WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED. 
          THE COMMISSION ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT AS A BROADER ISSUE, THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OR THIS WHOLE MECHANISM FOR, UM, VERIFYING ADDRESSES, CAN YOU COMMENT ON HOW YOU THINK, THINK THE LAW APPLIES TO THAT? UH, AS PART OF YOUR COMPLAINT? I'M NOT A LAWYER. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          NO, WELL, I MEAN, BUT YOUR COMPLAINT IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT REGARDLESS OF THE I COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS, IT'S, IT'S, SORRY, I'M SORRY. 
          I, I'M, I'M JUST ASKING IF, IF YOUR VIEW IS THAT, UM, REGARDLESS OF ANY OF THESE COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE EXISTED, UM, THE DOCUMENTS AND THE DATA YOU HAVE PROVIDED TO US SHOWS, UM, IT IS A COMPLAINT THAT, THAT YOU FEEL SHOWS A VIOLATION REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY OF THE OTHER, UH, INFORMATION THAT MR. COWER GAVE US. 
          I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME, AS I DID THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE CAMPAIGN, UM, C AND E AND ON THE, THE CITY'S WEBSITE, WHICH MATCHES, UM, WHICH IS PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSPARENCY. 
          MM-HMM. 
           IS THE COMPLETE INFORMATION OR THE TRUTH. 
          MM-HMM, , I MEAN, THE ONES THAT WERE UNCLEAR, LIKE POST OFFICE BOXES, I DIDN'T COUNT AS BEING PART OF A VIOLATION. 
          THOSE PEOPLE ARE GIVING ADDRESSES THAT ARE NOT INSIDE THE ENVELOPE OF ZIP CODES. 
          AND STILL THEY'RE SAYING IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          SO I DON'T WANNA SAY THEY'RE NOT INSIDE OF AUSTIN. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, I, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S SUBMITTED FOR THE PUBLIC. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER POEY. 
          UM, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT YOUR PROCESS AND I APPRECIATE IT. 
          AND I THINK, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES FOR US RIGHT NOW, IT'S A PROCESS ISSUE. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE A CERTAIN COMPLAINT, WHICH I WILL SAY TENTATIVELY WOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR ANOTHER HEARING, NOT FOR A DECISION FOR, FOR ANOTHER HEARING. 
          AND WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED AS COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, FOR WHATEVER PROCESS REASON WHAT, WHAT YOU SUBMITTED FRIDAY OR SATURDAY, WHENEVER IT WAS. 
          UM, AND SO I WOULD TENTATIVELY SAY WE HAVE REASONS TO PROCEED TO ANOTHER HEARING IF YOU HAD PROVIDED MS. GREENBERG WITH THAT INFORMATION SOONER. 
          'CAUSE THE, THE, THE PROCESS YOU DESCRIBED SEEMED VERY DILIGENT OKAY. 
          AND VERY TIMELY. 
          BUT SINCE IT WASN'T PROVIDED TO MS. GREENBERG, THEN WE HAVE A CERTAIN COMPLAINT TO DEAL WITH. 
          SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? UH, COMMISSIONER, IF, IF I CAN REPLY, I, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING IT COMING AND GOING HERE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE, THE COMMISSION'S RULES, NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS THAT SUGGESTS THAT A RESPONDENT SHOULD DEAL DIRECTLY WITH A COMPLAINANT. 
          AND IN THE, THE 30 PLUS YEARS I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, I MEAN, REALLY GOING BACK TO 1985, SO IT'S CLOSER TO 40 YEARS. 
          I, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF AN INSTANCE IN WHICH RESPONDENTS AND COMPLAINANTS KIND OF PRIVATELY EXCHANGE ACCUSATIONS AND REFUTATIONS, THAT'S WHY THE COMMISSION IS HERE, BECAUSE YOU, THE COMMISSIONERS ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS. 
          SO, UM, WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT MS. GREENBERG IS SUGGESTING, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO WRITE THAT INTO THE RULES AND CREATE SOME KIND OF MEDIATION PROCESS OR EXCHANGE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, COMPLAINTS AND RESPONSES OUTSIDE THE COMMISSION PROCESS, THAT'S FINE. 
          WE'LL DO IT. 
          BUT I'M, I'M KIND OF HEARING, WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION TO THE COMPLAINANT, BUT YOU SHOULD, BUT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          NOW. 
          I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT 
          [01:10:01]
THE RULES ARE HERE. 
          I THINK WE HAVE MADE A PRIMA FACIA CASE THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO COLORABLE VIOLATION HERE. 
          THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ADOPTED FORM COH IN ITS CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE, AND THIS IS A STATE FORM, AND THIS IS THE ONE WE USE, AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL OR HOME ADDRESS. 
          NOW, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS OTHER FORMS YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF A CONTRIBUTOR. 
          I MEAN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS FORMS THAT POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES HAVE TO FILL OUT IF THEY MAKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES THAT ARE NOT STATE FORMS. I MEAN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAN COME UP WITH ITS OWN FORMS AND IT'S DONE, AND IT'S DONE IT IN THE PAST, BUT WE, WE FILE OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS ON A STATE CREATED REPORT, COH SCHEDULE A ONE, AND WE PUT ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION ON SCHEDULE A ONE, BUT WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT A CONTRIBUTOR'S RESIDENTIAL OR HOME ADDRESS IF THEY'VE GIVEN US A PO BOX OR A BUSINESS ADDRESS OR A SECOND HOME AD HOME ADDRESS. 
          AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S REASONABLE FOR THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT TO SAY WE CAN FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SAY THAT CONTRIBUTIONS WERE ACCEPTED FROM OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE LIMIT WHEN THIS DOCUMENT ITSELF PROVIDES NO CONFIRMATION OF THAT. 
          AND I'VE PROVIDED YOU IN NARRATIVE FORM THE PRECISE PROCEDURES AND THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE CAMPAIGN TAKES TO MAKE SURE WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, SO I, I, AGAIN, IF, IF YOU WANT RESPONDENTS TO DEAL DIRECTLY WITH COMPLAINANTS, WRITE THAT INTO THE RULES, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO DO IT. 
          IF YOU DON'T WANT US TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AHEAD OF A HEARING, WRITE THAT INTO THE RULES AND WE WON'T DO THAT. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE CAN DO TO SHOW YOU ON A PRELIMINARY BASIS THAT WE ARE DILIGENTLY COMPLYING WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMITS AND THAT WE'VE DOCUMENTED IT. 
          UM, I THINK MAYBE MY POINT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. 
          MM-HMM, , UM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'VE DONE AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE AS COMMISSIONERS HAVE IN OUR HANDS RIGHT NOW. 
          AND SO ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT SINCE WE DON'T, I, AND YOU MAY BE COMPLETELY RIGHT, YOU MAY HAVE THE MOST DILIGENT PROCESS IN THE WORLD, BUT AT THIS POINT IN OUR PROCEEDING, WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH A COMPLAINT, AND WE HAVE NOT SEEN, WE HAVE NOT SEEN AS COMMISSIONER YOUR RESPONSE. 
          AND I WASN'T SUGGESTING YOU HAD TO DEAL PRIVATELY WITH MS. GREENBERG. 
          WHEN WE GET A RESPONSE, I ASSUME THAT CAN BE PUBLIC. 
          WELL, THE COMMISSION , BUT IT HASN'T MADE PUBLIC YET. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IT RECEIVED THE RESPONSE FOUR DAYS, FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S, THERE'S NO DEADLINE TO, TO PROVIDE IT, YOU KNOW? I UNDERSTAND. 
          BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, AND MS. GREENBERG HASN'T SEEN IT, THEN ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON RIGHT NOW IS THE COMPLAINT. 
          AND WE MAY DECIDE IN THE SECOND HEARING THAT YOU'VE GOT THE MOST DILIGENT, ADMIRABLE PROCESS IN THE WORLD. 
          BUT I'M ASKING YOU TO BASE IT ON REASONABLE GROUNDS AND WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE REASONABLE GROUNDS I COULD PROVIDE YOU TO SHOW THAT WE HAVE COMPLIED. 
          I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE SHOWN YOU THAT THE STATE FORM DOES NOT REQUIRE A HOME ADDRESS AND IS NOT INDICATIVE OF A HOME ADDRESS. 
          I'VE, I'VE DESCRIBED FOR YOU THE DOCUMENTATION WE KEEP AND MAINTAIN TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE. 
          I TRIED TO GET YOU  SPREADSHEETS SHOWING ALL OF THE ADDRESSES WE AGREE ARE OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE, WHICH ARE WITHIN THE DOLLAR LIMITS, AND ALL OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE CLEARED AS HAVING HOME ADDRESSES OUTSIDE. 
          I MEAN, I'VE DESCRIBED IT TO YOU IN NARRATIVE FORM. 
          I APPARENTLY, I CANNOT GET IT TO YOU IN DOCUMENTARY FORM, BUT THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO GO TO ANOTHER HEARING AND AND DRAG THIS CAMPAIGN THROUGH, YOU KNOW, AN EVIDENTIARY PROCESS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW YOU THE HOME ADDRESSES OF THE 70, 60, 50 AND 65, UM, CONTRIBUTORS WHOM WE HAVE VERIFIED TO HAVE HOME ADDRESSES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          NOW, AGAIN, IF THE CITY OF AUSTIN WANTS TO CREATE A FORM THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM COH AND SCHEDULE A ONE AND SAY, SO WE CAN COMPLY WITH THE, WITH THE CHARTER, THE CAMPAIGN HAS TO REPORT A HOME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, WE WILL DO THAT. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT 
          [01:15:01]
REQUIREMENT. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS, MR. COWER, IS THAT CORRECT? DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY? MS. COW? MR. COW IS CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION ON, UM, THAT IT'S NOT A, AN APPROPRIATE EXPECTATION AND, UH, I DON'T THINK WE HAD THAT EXPECTATION THAT YOU WOULD, UH, COMMUNICATE PRIVATELY OR DIRECTLY WITH MS, UH, GREENBERG. 
          BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR STATING THAT. 
          UH, AGREED. 
          AND POINT WELL TAKEN. 
          MY QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU IS WHAT DO YOU EACH UNDERSTAND AS THE MASTER SOURCE OF TRUTH DATA WISE FOR ZIP CODES OF THE CONTRIBUTORS? I MEAN, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS ON FORM COH SCHEDULE A ONE, WE REPORT WHAT THE CONTRIBUTOR PROVIDES US IN WRITING WITH THE CONTRIBUTION, WHICH, AND IF THEY WANT TO GIVE US A PO BOX, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. 
          IF THEY WANT TO GIVE US A BUSINESS ADDRESS, THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEIR HOME ADDRESS RIGHT. 
          LISTED IN PUBLIC FORMS. THE, THE TRUE HOME ADDRESS CAN ONLY BE ASCERTAINED BY GOING BEYOND WHAT IS, WHAT IS FILLED OUT ELECTRONICALLY ON PAPER BY ASKING THE CONTRIBUTOR WHAT IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS. 
          AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE'RE THE ONLY CAMPAIGN THAT DOES THAT, AND WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK 30 YEARS. 
          THAT, TO ME IS THE, THE TRUE VERIFICATION. 
          NOW, AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND THAT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, ALL LEVELS EXCEPT AUSTIN, WHAT GOES ON THERE DOESN'T REALLY MATTER VERY MUCH. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO, THERE MIGHT BE JIM SMITH WHO LIVES ON ELM STREET AND JIM SMITH WHO LIVES ON MANCHAC ROAD, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A HOME ADDRESS. 
          AND THEN PEOPLE DO VARIOUS STATISTICAL STUDIES SAYING LIKE, WHERE, WHAT ZIP CODE DO CONTRIBUTIONS COME FROM? BUT THE HOME ADDRESS, YOU, THE, THE CONTRIBUTORS DON'T PROVIDE IT TO US UNDER OATH. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY JUST FILL OUT A FORM AND WE SPIT IT BACK ONTO FORM A ONE. 
          THAT'S WHY WE ASK THEM, WHAT'S YOUR HOME ADDRESS? NOT JUST WHAT'S YOUR REPORTING ADDRESS? GOTCHA. 
          AND, AND THANK YOU FOR GOING INTO MORE DETAIL. 
          I REALLY WAS INTERESTED IN, SO THE ADDRESS, THE ZIP CODE IS EXPLICITLY ASKED FOR IN THAT FORM? CORRECT. 
          IT IS WHAT, WHATEVER THE ADDRESS THEY WANNA REPORT, BECAUSE IT IS ACCORDING TO UNDERSTOOD, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE IN THE YEAH. 
          HAVE THAT OBLIGATION TO VERIFY THE ADDRESS OF THE CONTRIBUTOR. 
          IF IT'S ASKED ON FORM, IT'S WHAT THEY PUT ON THE FORM. 
          SO I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. 
          SO THE A THE ZIP CODE IS EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT ON THAT FORM. 
          THIS, THIS IS WHAT, IF I WAS ABLE TO SHOW YOU, YOU COULD READ IT, IT SAYS HOME ZIP CODE MUST LIVE IN A ZIP CODE LISTED AT THE TIME. 
          SO THIS IS WHAT THE CONTRIBUTOR SEES EITHER ON PAPER OR ELECTRONICALLY. 
          BUT WHEN WE'RE JUST GATHERING LIKE, WHAT'S YOUR NAME? WHAT'S THE AMOUNT OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION, WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS? MM-HMM. 
          , THAT'S THE STUFF THAT GOES ON. 
          SCHEDULE A ONE. 
          THIS, THIS GOES OVER AND ABOVE SCHEDULE A ONE SO WE CAN KNOW WHAT THEIR HOME ADDRESS IS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS INPUTTED INTO THE CITY? DO YOU KNOW? INTO THE CITY DATABASE. 
          YOU SEE THE CITY, THE CITY WILL GET SCHEDULE COH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THERE'S, AND I'M NOT AN ELECTRONICS GUY, BUT THERE'S A SEPARATE ELECTRONIC DATA FORMAT FOR SCHEDULE COH THAT MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH YOUR FORM, COH. 
          AND THE CITY CLERK, THE CITY CLERK HAS HARD COPIES OF THIS. 
          AND THEN THE CITY CLERK PLUGS THE DATABASE INTO THEIR COMPUTER, AND YOU CAN EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM THE CITY CLERK'S COMPUTER, OR YOU CAN GET PAPER COPIES OF THE FORM COH. 
          GOTCHA. 
          SO WE WOULD REASONABLY EXPECT, UM, MINUS HUMAN ERROR THAT THE CITY CLERK DATABASE SHOULD MATCH, SHOULD ALIGN WITH WHAT IS ON THE FORM FILLED OUT BY THE CONTRIBUTOR. 
          CORRECT. 
          EXCEPT, EXCEPT THERE'S, THE CITY CLERK DOESN'T GET THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE THAT IS, WE GO AND ASK THAT, AND THAT THAT'S NOT ON FORM H. 
          SO THAT'S NOT ON THE FORM. 
          SO THE ZIP CODE, THE ZIP CODE THAT 
          [01:20:01]
THE CONTRIBUTOR, UM, REPORTS SELF-REPORTS? YES. 
          THAT IS ON THE FORM, CORRECT? IT IS ON THIS. 
          THAT'S NOT THE COH. 
          THIS IS A CAMPAIGN FORM THAT THE CAMPAIGN ASKS A CONTRIBUTOR. 
          AH, OKAY. 
          THATS NOT THE OFFICIAL COH RULE. 
          IT'S NOT ON COH. 
          OH. 
          SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE ONLY GATHER INTERNALLY FOR COMPLIANCE PURPOSES, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T ASK US FOR THIS, AND IT DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THE ELECTRONIC DATABASE THAT, THAT WE TURN INTO THE CITY AND IT DOESN'T SHOW UP IN OUR PAPER COPY OF FORM COH THAT WE GIVE TO THE CITY. 
          GOODNESS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO EXACTLY WHERE DOES THE DATA COME FROM? UH, THAT, THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT THE CITY HAS? OKAY. 
          WHAT DOES THAT REALLY REFLECT? YEAH, IT'S, THAT REFLECTS THE ADDRESS THAT THE CONTRIBUTOR FILLS OUT EITHER ON A WEBSITE OR ON A PIECE OF PAPER. 
          AND IT'S LIKE, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR NAME? WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS? AND WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION? OKAY. 
          AND THEN, THEN THE CAMPAIGN TAKES ALL THAT PAPER OR ELECTRONIC INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE CONTRIBUTOR AND PUTS IT ONTO SCHEDULE A ONE FORM COH, AND IT ALL BECOMES PUBLIC RECORD. 
          AND FOR, I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE ASK THE, THE CONTRIBUTORS, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? THAT'S NOT PUBLIC RECORD. 
          I MEAN MM-HMM. 
          , WE'RE, WE'RE TELLING YOU ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW THAT WE ARE GATHERING THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO COMPLY, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T MAKE US GATHER THIS. 
          GOTCHA. 
          UH, WE DO IT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLY. 
          YES, SIR. 
          SO, SO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, SUCH AS MS. GREENBERG YES. 
          HAS ACCESS TO WHAT DATA, WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THAT DATA THAT GENERAL PUBLIC YEAH. 
          SHE, MS. GREENBERG DID WHAT A NORMAL PERSON WOULD DO LOOKING AT A STATE FORM AND SAID THERE'S AN ADDRESS. 
          MAYBE THAT'S THE HOME ADDRESS. 
          WHAT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS IN MANY CASES, THE, THE, THE ADDRESS GIVEN ON SCHEDULE A ONE IS NOT A HOME ADDRESS. 
          SO SHE GOT, SHE DID WHAT A PERSON WHO'S NOT, UM, REALLY TRYING TO DIG DEEPER INTO COMPLIANCE WOULD DO AND IS, AND BASICALLY MADE THE ASSUMPTION, WHICH IS A NORMAL ASSUMPTION THAT THIS ZIP CODE MUST BE WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. 
          WELL, IT'S JUST NOT, AND THE STATE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT, AND THE CITY DOESN'T REQUIRE IT. 
          SO I MEAN, I I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WANTING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE, WHICH MS. MS. GREENBERG HAS DONE. 
          BUT THIS DATA EITHER IN THE FORM OF THE PAPER REPORT FILED OR IN THE DATA THAT THE CLERK DIGESTS FROM THE FORM COH, IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. 
          IT DOESN'T TELL YOU THEIR HOME ADDRESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IT PROVIDES, IT IS A DATABASE OF ZIP CODE, AND THEN THERE IS A FINITE DEFINITIVE LIST OF ZIP CODES THAT THE CLERK PUBLISHES AS ACCEPTABLE. 
          CORRECT. 
          RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          SO, SO IF, IF Y'ALL AGREE THAT THE MASTER SOURCE OF, OF ZIP CODE INFORMATION MM-HMM. 
           FOR A CONTRIBUTOR IS WHAT IS PUT OUT BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE, CORRECT? MM-HMM, , AND THERE'S THE FINITE ZIP CODE LIST. 
          WHY IS THERE SUCH A BIG DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AS FAR AS THE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT VERSUS WHAT MS. GREENBERG IS SAYING? THE, THE REASON I BELIEVE IS BECAUSE WE, THE CITY USES A STATE FORM, AND, AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE STATE DOES, AND IT, IT SAYS ADDRESS STREET ZIP CODE. 
          RIGHT. 
          THEN THE CITY HAS A SEPARATE RULE ABOUT ZIP CODES, AND THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY WAY OF REQUIRING A CAMPAIGN TO REPORT A HOME ZIP CODE OR A RESIDENTIAL ZIP CODE. 
          THE CITY COULD DO THAT IF THEY WANTED TO. 
          I MEAN, THEY COULD COME UP WITH A, A SCHEDULE A ONE, ONE MM-HMM. 
           THAT'S JUST USED FOR CITY REPORTING. 
          IF ZIP CODE, IF, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW PEOPLE'S HOME ZIP CODE THEN REQUIRE A DISCLOSURE OF HOME ZIP CODE. 
          BUT RIGHT NOW, THE STATE FORM THE CITY USES DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT, AND THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE AS IT'S WRITTEN, IS IT NOT? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          [01:25:01]
BUT THE POINT IS, WHETHER IT'S A RESIDENTIAL ZIP CODE OR NOT, THERE IS A ZIP CODE REPORTED BY THE CONTRIBUTOR. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THERE IS A LIST OF ZIP CODES PUBLISHED BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AS TO WHAT'S CONSIDERED WITHIN AND OUT, AND THEN THERE'S AN AMOUNT CORRECT. 
          ASSOCIATED. 
          SO I'M JUST HAVING TROUBLE, AND THIS IS NOT A, THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM TOWARDS EITHER OF YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          IF ANYTHING, MAYBE JUST, I'M PUZZLED BY WHERE THE, WHERE THE, UM, WHERE THE DISCREPANCY OR WHERE THE PAIN POINT IS WITH THE PROCESS, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COULD HAVE, IF YOU HAVE ONE SOURCE OF THE, OF THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION. 
          SURE. 
          WHY ARE WE COMING UP WITH TWO VERY DISPARATE? IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A GAP BETWEEN WHAT'S REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED AND WHAT'S NEEDED TO KNOW FOR COMPLIANCE. 
          AND, AND IF, IF YOU, IF YOU FOLLOW ME, YOU HAVE TO REPORT AN ADDRESS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE YOUR HOME ADDRESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT REPORTED ADDRESSES AND SAY, THAT MUST BE A HOME ADDRESS FOR COMPLIANCE PURPOSES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG DATA, YOU KNOW? RIGHT. 
          THERE IS NO DATABASE THAT CAN BE, THAT'S CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED. 
          THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE. 
          YOU CAN ONLY GO THROUGH INDIVIDUAL BY INDIVIDUAL AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT IS THE ADDRESS YOU REPORTED ALSO WHERE YOU'RE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE YOUR HOME ADDRESS. 
          AH, THE REPORTING DATA DOESN'T GIVE YOU COMPLIANCE TOOLS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I THINK WE HAVE SEVERAL OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU DISAGREE THAT, UM, MS. GREENBERG, YOU USED SCHEDULE A IN YOUR CALCULATIONS, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT SHE CALCULATED IS INCORRECT? IT'S, IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE THRESHOLD. 
          CORRECT? IT WAS, IT WAS TWO THIRDS RIGHT. 
          AND ONE THIRD WRONG. 
          OKAY. 
          TWO THIRDS OF WHAT SHE REPORTED AND CONSIDERED TO BE OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE LIMITS ACTUALLY WERE OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE LIMITS, BUT ROUGHLY A THIRD EACH TIME WAS NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND SAY, THESE FOLKS OVER HERE ACTUALLY DO COMPLY, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION TO, TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE COMPLIANT? THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SHOW ANYTHING FOR COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THE CITY HAS, THE CITY SAYS, TURN IN YOUR FORM, COA. 
          RIGHT. 
          I GET IT. 
          THE STATE FORM. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          SO, SO ARE YOU BOTH THEN SAYING THAT THE MUST BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A VALID ZIP CODE? ARE YOU BOTH SAYING THERE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU, YOURSELF, AS A CANDIDATE OR A CANDIDATE THAT YOU'RE WATCHING? THERE'S NOT A GOOD WAY TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY HAVE EXCEEDED THAT? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          IT'S, IT IS UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL CAMPAIGN TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION IF THEY CAN. 
          AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU ALL DO OUTSIDE OF THE FORM KNOWING, HEY, GUESS WHAT? WE CAN'T ACCEPT MORE THAN 46,000 FROM OUT HERE. 
          THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU DO VOLUNTARILY TO SHOW COMPLIANCE NO. 
          OR TO PROVE IT WHEN YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE, THE ONE THIRD THAT SHE HAD WRONG. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          WHEN YOU FIND THEM AND YOU SAY THESE FOLKS ARE OKAY, YOU JUST KEEP THAT TO YOURSELF? OR DO YOU SHARE THAT WITH SOMEONE? WE GATHER THE INFORMATION FROM THE CONTRIBUTOR, AND THERE IS NO PLACE TO FILE IT. 
          I MEAN, IF WE SEND IT TO THE CITY, THE CITY HAS NO DATABASE FOR IT AND NO RECEPTACLE FOR IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT OTHER THAN, SO WE, WE ONLY USE IT INTERNALLY TO ENSURE THAT WE STAY WITHIN THE LIMITS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT SHE COULD EVER KNOW MS. GREENBERG, IF SHE'S RELYING ON, I'M SORRY, THE COMPLAINANT, IF SHE'S RELYING ON SCHEDULE A ONE, SHE WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WE'RE DOING INTERNALLY TO COMPLY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, MS. GREENBERG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? UM, WELL, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON TWO THINGS THAT ARE ON THIS PAGE. 
          UM, THE ONE SAYS, PLEASE NOTE WE CAN ONLY ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN THE FOLLOWING ZIP CODES. 
          I PRESUME THAT THAT WAS NOT ON THE WEBPAGE UNTIL SOME POINT IN TIME. 
          LIKE YOU WOULD ACCEPT THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS AT THE BEGINNING, BEFORE YOU HIT THE THRESHOLD OR BEFORE YOU GOT AN ETHICS COMPLAINT. 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT STATEMENT OF, PLEASE NOTE, WE CAN ONLY ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN THE FOLLOWING ZIP CODES. 
          THE OTHER THING IS CHAIR, I DIDN'T DONATE. 
          DO YOU HAVE A, I I FEEL NEED TO INTERRUPT HERE WITH A QUESTION ON PROCEDURALLY, DO YOU HAVE A POINT OF ORDER? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I BELIEVE IT IS. 
          I THOUGHT 
          [01:30:01]
WE COULD NOT DISCUSS THE SPECIFICS OF THE MATERIAL BECAUSE WE, WE TOLD MR. COWER THAT HE COULD ONLY DISCUSS IT IN SUMMARY. 
          AND I FEEL THAT THIS IS GOING INTO DETAIL SHE'S IN. 
          RIGHT. 
          I FEEL I'M GIVING NARRATIVE AND NOT EVIDENCE. 
          I ONE SECOND, WE CAN LET HER MAKE HER POINT MOVE ON. 
          UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ASK AND THE DOOR'S BEEN OPEN, LET HER FINISH HER ANSWER. 
          AND THEN, YEAH. 
          UM, I, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU KEEP IT IN NARRATIVE FORM AND TRY TO BE FAIRLY BRIEF, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BRING A OKAY. 
          UM, STATEMENTS ABOUT A DOCUMENT THAT I DON'T THINK WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FULLY CONSIDERING. 
          OKAY. 
          I DID NOT DONATE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SEE AFTER YOU DONATE. 
          UM, BUT THIS SAYS HOME ZIP CODE AND IN PARENTHESES MUST LIVE IN A ZIP CODE LISTED AT, AT THE TOP OF THE FORM. 
          SO YOU'RE BASICALLY TELLING THE CONTRIBUTORS WHAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER? I MEAN, THEY GAVE SOME OTHER ADDRESS THAT MADE YOU ASK. 
          AND THEN YOU'RE SAYING, SO WHAT'S YOUR REAL HOME ZIP CODE? IT'S GOTTA BE ON THIS LIST. 
          UH, DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES, SIR. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, IT'S ABOUT THE MUST LIVE IN QUESTION. 
          IS THAT OKAY TO ASK ABOUT THE MUST LIVE IN? YEAH, I, I'M GONNA GET TO EVERYBODY'S QUESTION. 
          SO WHETHER IT'S A FOLLOW UP OR A SEPARATE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T, I'M NOT GONNA QUIBBLE. 
          UM, YOUR FORM CONTRIBUTION FORM SAYS, MUST LIVE IN A DISTRICT, I MEAN, SORRY, A ZIP CODE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THAT ZIP CODE. 
          SO IS THAT RELIABLE INFORMATION WHAT YOU COLLECT FROM THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU CONTACT, THAT THEY'RE COMPLIANT, THAT THE CAMPAIGN IS COMPLIANT WITH EIGHT A THREE BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY LIVE THERE? I, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY CONFUSING IF YOU NOT ONLY ASK THE CONTRIBUTORS WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH ARE YOU CONTRIBUTING, WHAT IS YOUR NAME? BUT ALSO START ASKING THEM LIKE LEGAL QUESTIONS LIKE, ARE YOU ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE ZIP CODE? I MEAN, WE'RE ASKING THEM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S CONFUSING. 
          WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? I MEAN, BUT IT'S STILL THE REQUIREMENT AGAIN THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. 
          SO IT, I I'M NOT SAYING NONE OF THIS IS, UH, NOT CONFU, WHATEVER, DOUBLE NEGATIVES. 
          IT'S CONFUSING. 
          SEE? YEAH. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IT AND LIKE I SAID, IF, IF THE CITY WANTS US TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION AND REPORT IT, WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT. 
          WE ARE TRYING TO COMPLY BASED ON ASKING PEOPLE, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND, AND AS MS. GREENBERG, UH, SPECULATED, WE DON'T HAVE TO START ASKING THAT INFORMATION UNTIL WE'RE APPROACHING THE, THE CAP FOR OUT OF ZIP CODE CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          THE, THE LIST THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SEE, WHICH IS THE LIST OF ZIP CODES, ARE THE ONLY ONES WE'RE ALLOWED TO ACCEPT THAT GOES UP ON THE WEBSITE AS WE APPROACH THE $46,000 LIMIT. 
          SORRY, JUST ONE MORE. 
          SO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE RELIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE APPROACHING IT, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF THESE ZIP CODE PEOPLE ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THOSE ZIP CODES UNTIL YOU HIT THE $46,000 LIMIT. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, IT'S ONLY AS YOU'RE HITTING THAT LIMIT THAT YOU HAVE TO START WORRYING ABOUT THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT WAS MY QUESTION. 
          HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE AT THAT LIMIT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE? THAT WAS MY QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          WHAT DO YOU USE TO GET TO THAT LIMIT IF IT'S NOT VOTER ELIGIBILITY IN THE ZIP CODES? ZIP CODES. 
          JUST ZIP CODES, NOT VOTER ELIGIBILITY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YEAH. 
          UM, THANK YOU MS CA. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          UM, SO MS. GREENBERG POINTED OUT THAT WHEN EVEN YOU PULL OUT THE POST OFFICE AND THE BUSINESS ADDRESSES, YOU'RE STILL ABOVE THE THRESHOLD. 
          WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE, OF THE COMPLAINT AS WELL? THAT THAT'S IN, THAT'S INCORRECT BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT HOME ZIP CODES, NOT WHETHER SOMEBODY HAS REPORTED A A PO BOX OR A BUSINESS ADDRESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I MEAN NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHAT, BUT WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT IF YOU ASSUME THAT ALL THE PO BOXES AND ALL THE 
          [01:35:01]
BUSINESS ADDRESSES, UH, LIVE IN AUSTIN AND OR, OR LIVE IN THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE, ARE ELIGIBLE WITHIN THE ZIP CODES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE, THE REMAINING ONES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE LISTED ADDRESS ON THE SCHEDULE, UH, ONE OR SCHEDULE A, I'M SORRY, UH, SCHEDULE A ONE, SCHEDULE A ONE, UH, WOULD STILL BE ABOVE THE 46,000, UH, LIMIT. 
          IF, IF YOU JUST LOOKED AT THE ADDRESS THEY GAVE WITH THEIR CONTRIBUTION, NOT THEIR RESPONSE TO WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT'S WHY WE BROKE IT DOWN. 
          NO, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT CONTRIBUTIONS WE AGREE ARE FROM OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE AND CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE COMPLAINT, BUT THAT WE VERIFIED HAVE A HOME. 
          YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO ZERO ON THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN AS ASSUME WE CAN TAKE OUT THE PO BOXES AND WE CAN TAKE OUT THE BUSINESSES. 
          AND THEN THE ONLY DISCREPANCY THEN WE HAVE LEFT ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LISTED AN ADDRESS ON SCHEDULE ONE A OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE, AND THEN YOUR FORM, YOUR INTERNAL FORM THAT HAS PEOPLE, UM, VOLUNTARILY MARK THAT THEY ARE IN WITHIN THE ZIP CODES. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE DISCREPANCY THAT WE ARE LEFT WITH TO CONSIDER. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? THAT'S, THAT'S A GENERALLY CORRECT STATEMENT, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          WE, WE HAVE ASKED THEM, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? AND THEY'VE TOLD US. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO MY QUESTION IS ON THOSE PEOPLE WHO, UM, LISTED THEIR HOME, UH, SO ON YOUR FORM, UH, AND THEY, THEY DON'T LIST AN ADDRESS, THEY JUST MARK A YES NO, THAT THEY ARE IN THE, THE REQUIRED ZIP CODE? NO, THEY PUT A SEPARATE ADDRESS THAT THEY, THEY, THEY GIVE US AN ADDRESS, BUT THEN THEY WRITE IN THEIR HOME ZIP CODE, WHICH IS A FIVE DIGIT NUMBER. 
          AND SO WE HAVE BOTH AN ADDRESS OKAY. 
          AND A HOME ZIP CODE. 
          SO WE COULD COMPARE THE ADDRESSES IN A, IN A, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN DO THIS HERE IN THIS HEARING, BUT A SUBSEQUENT HEARING, WE COULD COMPARE THE ADDRESSES THAT WERE GIVEN ON YOUR FORM TO THE ADDRESS THAT WAS LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ONE A AND ACTUALLY HAVE SOME TYPE OF COMPARISON IN, IN THEORY, THAT'S WHAT I, I TRIED TO DO BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION FIVE DAYS GOTCHA. 
          BEFORE THE HEARING. 
          YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THAT COMPARISON AND SHOWED THAT MANY OF THEM ARE ALREADY IN AUSTIN. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, SO MY LAST QUESTION IS THE, WHEN THEY REPORT THEIR ADDRESS, UM, YOU ASK 'EM TO PUT THE ADDRESS THAT THEY LIVE IN OR THE ADDRESS THAT THEY'RE REGISTERED IN HOME ZIP CODE, YOU ASK 'EM TO PUT THEIR HOME ZIP CODE, HOME ZIP CODE. 
          AND, AND, BUT YOU SAID YOU ALSO HAVE AN ADDRESS FOR THEM, RIGHT? WE GET THEIR ADDRESS, WHICH WE HAVE TO DO TO FILL OUT SCHEDULE A ONE, BUT THE SEPARATE QUESTION IS WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? OH, I SEE. 
          SO THE ADDRESS THAT THEY LIST WILL BE THE SAME AS SCHEDULE ONE A. 
          SO THERE WILL NOT BE TWO SEPARATE ADDRESSES. 
          YEAH. 
          THERE WILL BE ONE ADDRESS WITH, UM, AND, AND THE ADDRESS WILL EITHER BE WITHIN THE ZIP CODE OR NOT THE ZIP. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE IF THEY, YEAH. 
          IF I CAN EXPLAIN, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER, WE DON'T ASK THEM, GIVE US YOUR FULL HOME ADDRESS. 
          UHHUH , IF THEY'RE SHOWING A ZIP CODE OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE LIMITS, WE JUST SAY, WHAT'S YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? OKAY. 
          AND AGAIN, I MEAN, IF, IF, IF SOMEONE WAS A CONTRIBUTOR AND THEY'RE IN AN ENGINEERING FIRM BASED IN DALLAS, BUT THEY LIVE IN 7 8 7 0 1 DOWNTOWN AUSTIN FOR PERSONAL REASONS, THEY MAY GIVE THE HOME, THEY MAY, THEY MAY GIVE THEIR ADDRESS AS BEING, YOU KNOW, THE ENGINEERING OFFICE IN, IN DALLAS OR IN, BUT, AND ROUND ROCK. 
          BUT WHEN WE ASK THEM THEIR HOME ZIP CODE, THEY'RE GONNA TELL US 7 8, 7 0 1. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MY, UH, I, I THINK I GET THAT. 
          SO THEY, MY LAST QUESTION IS WHAT DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE DISCREPANCY? IS IT, YOU'VE MENTIONED VACATION HOMES AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PO BOXES AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS ADDRESSES THAT THAT'S VERY CLEAR OR THAT'S TO ME A LESS OF AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL ABOVE THE THRESHOLD. 
          SURE. 
          EVEN WITHOUT THOSE. 
          SO FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LISTING ON THEIR SCHEDULE A ONE ADDRESS, BUT ARE LISTING A ZIP CODE THAT IS WITHIN, YOU KNOW, SO THEIR ADDRESS IS OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODES, BUT THEY THEN MARK ON YOUR INTERNAL FORM MM-HMM. 
           THAT THEY LIVE WITHIN AN ACCEPTABLE ZIP CODE. 
          WHAT DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THAT DISCREPANCY? I THINK IT'S BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO DISCLOSE THEIR HOME ADDRESS. 
          I MEAN, IT'S PEOPLE LIKE CONFIDENTIALITY, PEOPLE LIKE THEIR PRIVACY. 
          UM, BUT THEY PUT ONE ADDRESS ON THERE, RIGHT. 
          'CAUSE IN THIS CASE WE HAVEN'T, WE ALREADY HAVE AN ADDRESS, SO YEAH. 
          BUT, BUT IF IT'S A PO BOX OR IF IT'S A, A BUSINESS ADDRESS OR IF IT'S A VACATION HOME WHERE THEY ARE SELDOM PRESENT OR THEIR EX-WIFE'S HOME, I MEAN, THERE COULD JUST BE A LOT OF REASONS THAT PEOPLE DON'T 
          [01:40:01]
LIKE TO GIVE THEIR HOME ADDRESS ON A, ON A DOCUMENT THAT'S GONNA BE IMMEDIATELY PUBLIC RECORD. 
          OKAY. 
          AS SOON AS, AND, AND AGAIN, STATE LAW DOES NOT SAY YOU HAVE TO GIVE A HOME ADDRESS, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T. 
          I MEAN, I'M SPECULATING AS TO WHY. 
          I MEAN, I'VE BEEN HANDLING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS SINCE THE 1980S. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND IT'S NEVER BEEN A REQUIREMENT TO GIVE A HOME ADDRESS. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          I GET YOU. 
          AND ALL THIS IS ALL KIND OF VOLUNTARILY REPORTED ANYWAYS. 
          RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT, IT'S, IT IS VOLUNTARILY REPORTED. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS, YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. 
          I MEAN, THE, THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION DOESN'T DO MUCH ENFORCEMENT, BUT YOU KNOW, THE, THE ZIP CODE THING, THIS IS CUSTOM MADE FOR AUSTIN. 
          AND WE ARE TRYING OUR BEST TO BOTH ALLOW PEOPLE TO CONTRIBUTE AND NOT EXCEED THAT LIMIT. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NOT JOINED THE, THE FEDERAL COURT COMPLAINTS SAYING, THIS THING'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH IT. 
          YEAH. 
          CLEARLY SOME POLICY ISSUES WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH HERE, BUT FOR THE, FOR OUR PURPOSES, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A REASONABLE STANDARD. 
          SO I GOTCHA. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO REAL QUICK, BEFORE I GO TO COMMISSIONER POEY, I, I WANT TO, I WANT TO KIND OF STATE WHAT I THINK YOUR POSITION IS. 
          'CAUSE I THINK WE MIGHT BE STRUGGLING TO GET IT, BUT I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          SO I'M GONNA TRY TO JUST GIVE A SUCCINCT, SUCCINCT STATEMENT OF IT AND SEE IF YOU AGREE. 
          AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS TRUE OR FALSE. 
          I'M SAYING THAT THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION TO BE. 
          THE CITY CODE REQUIRES, UM, INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, WHICH YOU TAKE AS IT, THEIR HOME AD THEIR HOME ZIP CODE AS A, ESSENTIALLY A PROXY FOR THAT. 
          NO, I, I DISAGREE WITH THAT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. 
          ONE, IT'S, IT'S NOT IN THE CITY CODE, IT'S IN THE CHARTER. 
          THE CHARTER, JUST THE CITY CODE JUST MAKES THE CHARTER IN ENFORCEABLE. 
          AND THEN THE CITY CODE AT NO POINT REQUIRES THAT INFORMATION TO BE GATHERED. 
          IT'S JUST SOMETHING A CAMPAIGN WILL TRY TO DO IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I GUESS MAYBE, MAYBE, I'M NOT SAYING IT CLEARLY EITHER. 
          UM, IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE OR KNOW THAT YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE AS A CAMPAIGN, YOU NEED TO KNOW WHERE A PERSON'S ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. 
          SO YOU CAN DETERMINE WHETHER YOU HAVE EXCEEDED THE, THE AGGREGATE LIMITS OF WHAT I WOULD CALL NON-US ZIP CODES. 
          I THINK, I THINK THAT'S A PRUDENT THING FOR A CAMPAIGN TO DO. 
          AND, AND, UM, BUT THE, THE FORMS THAT THE CITY REQUIRES YOU TO FILL OUT DO NOT REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF A HOME ZIP CODE. 
          CORRECT. 
          UM, BUT YOU COLLECT THAT AND, AND KEEP IT INTERNAL TO THE CAMPAIGN IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE CAMPAIGN IS COMPLIANT WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION. 
          WE, WE'D REPORT IT TO THE CITY IF IT WAS REQUIRED, AND IF, IF THE CITY FELT LIKE THAT WAS IN THE, YOU KNOW, THE INTEREST OF MAKING THE CHARTER ENFORCEABLE, WE, WE'D DO THAT. 
          BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT WE MAKE IT PUBLIC. 
          AND THERE THERE'S NO REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 
          AND I THINK YOU SAID EARLIER, IF YOU WERE TO SEND IT TO THE CITY, THEY WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WITH THAT COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, UH, I THINK YOU VERY LEGITIMATELY POINTED OUT SOME PROCESS ISSUES. 
          I HAVE NO, NO DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT. 
          UM, THE CITY REQUIRES, I MEAN, THE REQUIREMENTS THE CITY HAVE TO DO WITH WHERE THE PERSON IS REGISTERED TO VOTE. 
          AND AS YOU WERE SAYING, SOME PEOPLE WILL, WHAT THEY GIVE YOU THE FIRST TIME IS NOT WHERE THEY LIVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND IT DOESN'T SAY REGISTERED ROSS, IT SAYS ELIGIBLE. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, YOU'RE ONLY ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IF YOU'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE. 
          WE, WE COULD, LET'S, LET'S PASS IT. 
          . 
          WELL, HAVING DONE THESE THINGS THOUSANDS OF TIMES YEAH, I KNOW THAT I CAN'T GET SOMEONE WHO HASN'T REGISTERED TO VOTE. 
          YEAH. 
          THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO WOULDN'T IT ALSO BE POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE GAVE YOU AN ADDRESS THAT YOU REPORTED ON THE FORM SINCE THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR HOME ADDRESS, THEY REPORTED MAYBE A BUSINESS ADDRESS. 
          IT WAS IN AUSTIN, BUT THEY REALLY LIVED IN ROUND ROCK. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THE OPPOSITE. 
          WELL, FOR ALL WE KNOW, THEY COULD GIVE US A FALSE NAME. 
          I MEAN, FOR ALL WE KNOW, THEY COULD GIVE US ALL KINDS OF FALSE INFORMATION. 
          AND, UH, SO IT'S, IT'S A, THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS BASED ON BASICALLY THE ASSUMPTION THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA GIVE YOU HONEST INFORMATION. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY NO POLICING OF IT. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO YEAH, I MEAN, IF, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO LIE ABOUT THEIR HOME ADDRESS, IF THEY WANNA LIE ABOUT 
          [01:45:01]
KNOW, UH, THEIR NAME, UH, WELL, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING A LIE. 
          THE SYSTEM DOESN'T, YOU WERE SAYING SOMEONE FOR A VERY GOOD REASON MAY HAVE HAD A REASON TO REPORT TO YOU THE FIRST TIME AN ADDRESS. 
          IT WAS NOT WHERE THEY LIVED. 
          AND SO SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T LIVE IN AUSTIN FOR A VERY GOOD REASON MAY HAVE GIVEN YOU AN ADDRESS IN AUSTIN. 
          BUT AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO REPORT AN AUSTIN ADDRESS IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER ADDRESS. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S NOT DISINGENUOUS. 
          THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT THE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO DO, LIKE REPORTING A BUSINESS ADDRESS. 
          SO I I, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING INTO REALMS OF REAL SPECULATION WHEN YOU START SAYING, IF THE CAMPAIGN IS GATHERING MORE INFORMATION THAN THE LAW REQUIRES, AND WE HAVE TO RELY ON OUR CONTRIBUTORS TO BE HONEST, THAT WE SHOULD START ASSUMING THAT THE CONTRIBUTORS ARE GONNA START LYING TO US. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S JUST WILDLY SPECULATIVE. 
          WELL, I'M NOT SAYING LYING, I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S A REVERSE SITUATION TO WHAT, WHAT YOU SAID. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          I'M NOT SAYING ANYONE'S LYING. 
          YOU'VE, YOU'VE LEGITIMATELY POINTED OUT A REAL SERIOUS PROCESS QUESTION PERHAPS, BUT WE AS A COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO ABANDON MAYBE ANY COMPLAINT AT THE BEGINNING IF WE THOUGHT, WELL, THE PROCESS DOESN'T WORK AT ALL. 
          ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON RIGHT NOW IS THE COMPLAINT. 
          AND YOUR ANSWER MAY IN A NEXT HEARING IF I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT PROVE TO BE COMPLETELY CORRECT. 
          BUT ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON IS THE COMPLAINT AND YOUR RESPONSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN YET. 
          MS. GREENBERG HASN'T SEEN IT YET. 
          SO WE HAVE NO WAY OF JUDGING IT. 
          I, YOU KNOW, I, I I DISAGREE. 
          YOUR, YOUR QUESTION IS, ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS? AND THE REASON YOU HAVE A PRELIMINARY HEARING IS TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO COME IN AND STATE WHY THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO GO FORWARD TO WHAT WOULD BE A, A VERY BURDENSOME, AND, AND I, I THINK ESSENTIALLY UNFAIR HEARING, THE, THE REASON THEY'RE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS IS I HAVE GIVEN YOU CHAPTER AND VERSE OF WHAT THE CAMPAIGN DOES OVER AND ABOVE WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES TO MAKE SURE WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND THIS IS IT. 
          THIS IS AS GOOD AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY DO TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO GO FORWARD. 
          NOW, THE OTHER QUICK QUESTION YOU POSITIVE, WELL, WHAT IF A CAMPAIGN CAME IN HERE AND SAID, YEAH, WE DON'T TRACK ANY OF THAT INFORMATION. 
          I MEAN, YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT, UH, MAYBE $50,000 THAT CAME FROM A ZIP CODE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THOSE PEOPLE LIVE, BUT THERE, THEIR ZIP CODE CERTAINLY IS NOT ELSE. 
          THAT'S A CAMPAIGN THAT HASN'T DONE ANYTHING TO COMP. 
          THEN IT, THEN IF YOU WANNA SAY WE'VE GOT REASONABLE GROUNDS, THEN THE NUMBERS ADD UP, YOU KNOW, FINE, GO FOR IT. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING IN, IN LAW AND ACCOUNTING AND PRUDENT CAMPAIGN WORK THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE TO COMPLY WITH THIS. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE, I'VE BEEN, BEEN EXPLAINING HERE, AND, AND, AND, AND IT IS, IT IS, IT'S A CATCH 22. 
          I MEAN, IF YOU, IF YOU CANNOT ACCEPT THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE TAKING MEASURES TO COMPLY AND GATHERING THE INFORMATION AND SEPARATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS WE AGREE ARE FROM OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE LIMIT, FROM THE ONES WE HAVE VERIFIED TO BE A HOME ADDRESS AND THE ZIP CODE LIMIT, THEN THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN COMPLY WITHOUT GOING TO A, A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 
          YOU KNOW, IT IS JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CREATING AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN TO COMPLY IF, IF YOU TAKE THIS TO A FULL HEARING. 
          CAN I, I FOLLOW UP WITH THAT REAL QUICK, JUST REAL QUICK. 
          NO, I WANT TO GET TO COMMISSIONER KALE. 
          OKAY. 
          SHE'S BEEN GOTCHA. 
          SO MY, HERE'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. 
          I THINK WE'RE SEEKING A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET TONIGHT. 
          AND WHILE I SYMPATHIZE WITH THE FACT THAT ANOTHER HEARING WOULD BE BURDENSOME, I THINK THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CAPTURE THINGS THAT WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE. 
          AND, UM, I THINK THAT WHATEVER COMES OUT OF A FINAL HEARING, UM, IS WILL, YOU KNOW, SHED SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE PROCESS AND ANY KIND OF PROCESS REFORMS WE NEED, WE NEED TO MAKE, UM, AS A CITY. 
          AND, UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STAND. 
          WE COULD GO ON FOR ANOTHER HOUR ASKING ABOUT THE, THE SYSTEMS ASPECT OF THIS AND, AND NOT GET THE CLARITY THAT WE, THE EXACTITUDE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S MY THINKING AT THIS POINT. 
          WELL, YEAH. 
          AND AGAIN, WITH 
          [01:50:01]
ALL RESPECT, COMMISSIONER, THAT IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE PROCESS, THIS COMMISSION HAS DONE THAT MANY TIMES IN THE PAST. 
          THEY'VE COME UP WITH NEW FORMS, THEY'VE COME UP WITH NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 
          YOU DON'T GET THAT BY HAULING THE ONE CAMPAIGN THAT'S MAKING A DILIGENT EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THIS RULE UP IN SAYING, YOU KNOW, PROVE TO US WHAT ZIP CODE SO AND SO LIVES IN YOU, YOU DO THAT ON A SYSTEMATIC BASIS, BASICALLY A RULEMAKING PROCESS. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU GATHER EVIDENCE, YOU GATHER LEGAL ADVICE, AND THEN YOU COME UP WITH A COMPLIANCE MEASURE. 
          BUT, UM, DON'T, DON'T PUT THIS CAMPAIGN THAT HAS WORKED SO HARD TO COMPLY WITH THIS RULE AND PROBABLY WE'RE THE ONLY CAMPAIGN OUT THERE DOING IT. 
          DON'T PUT US IN A POSITION TO COME IN AND HELP YOU MAKE RULES BECAUSE THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO MAKE RULES . 
          AND I RESPECT THAT. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF SOME SORT OR AS A SORT OF A TEST CASE, BUT I, I, I THINK MY MAIN POINT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND INFORMATION THAT WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO RIGHT NOW. 
          I, I TRIED TO GET IT TO YOU, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, UM, WHERE THIS RULE CAME FROM THAT YOU CAN'T LOOK AT IT, I JUST DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT THAT ISSUE'S BEEN DECIDED. 
          YOU CAN ARGUE IT ALL, ALL YOU WANT. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          BUT IT'S BEEN DECIDED FOR TONIGHT. 
          I UNDERSTAND, CHAIRMAN. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF VERY LIMITED STATEMENT I'VE DESCRIBED TO YOU WHAT'S IN HERE, WHICH IS DID WE ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CONTRIBUTORS OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE LIMIT? YES. 
          UP TO, UP TO 45,000. 
          DID WE ACCEPT IT AFTER THAT? NO, WE DID NOT. 
          AND, AND WE, WE CONTINUE NOT TO ACCEPT THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          WE'VE GOT THE, THE MEASURES IN PLACE TO COMPLY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I THINK ALL OF US HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS. 
          I THINK THERE ARE STILL SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BEFORE I GO TO THOSE. 
          I'M GONNA POINT OUT THAT WE'RE A LITTLE AFTER NINE O'CLOCK. 
          WE STILL HAVEN'T DELIBERATED. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, UH, IF WE NEED TO GO PAST 10, IT REQUIRES A VOTE. 
          UM, SO ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE MAKE THEM MORE OF A RIFLE SHOT THAN A SHOTGUN. 
          UM, AND, AND DIRECTED PRETTY SPECIFICALLY TO SOMETHING THAT WILL TELL US WHETHER THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS. 
          UM, SO WITH THAT, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA, YOU HAD REQUESTED TO ASK REAL, REAL QUICK QUESTION. 
          UM, YOU SAID THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, UH, AND JUST TO BE FAIR, EVERY OTHER CAMPAIGN CAN DO WHAT MS. GREENBERG DID, WHICH IS JUST USE THE SCHEDULE ONE A TO DETERMINE THE ADDRESS AND WHETHER THEY'RE APPROACHING THE LIMIT. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT HOW MOST OTHER CAMPAIGNS ARE GONNA, ARE GONNA COMPLY? THEY, THEY COULD. 
          I THINK YOU'RE GONNA FIND A LOT OF CAMPAIGNS DO NOT APPROACH THE $46,000 LIMIT, EVEN IF YOU COUNT EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTION FROM OUTSIDE OF A, THE ZIP CODE LIMITS. 
          SO IT'S MOOT IN A LOT OF CASES. 
          'CAUSE THE CAMPAIGNS ARE NOT BUTTONED UP AGAINST THAT LIMIT. 
          BUT MO BUT A CAMPAIGN COULD, IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL WEBSITE, THEY WOULD JUST USE THE SCHEDULE ONE A ADDRESS THAT EVERYONE ELSE, THAT, THAT IS PUBLIC AND GOES THROUGH THE STATE. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK IF, IF A CAMPAIGN DIDN'T WANT TO GO INTO ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE, THEY COULD JUST STOP AT THE A ONE. 
          YEAH. 
          THE SCHEDULE A ONE. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS, I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE THIS CLARIFICATION THAT THE CRITERIA, CRITERIA FOR US TO DECIDE WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING OR NOT IS EXPLICITLY AND VERY EXACTLY. 
          ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED? IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO, THERE'S NO JUDGMENT, AND IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO INTENT. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT, UM, WE ARE NOT JUDGING THE QUESTION ISN'T, DID THE CAMPAIGN MEAN TO DO IT? DID THEY KNOWINGLY DO IT? DID THEY WILLINGLY, WILLINGLY DO IT? SO I WANNA PUT THAT OUT THERE. 
          'CAUSE I I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE, UM, AT PLAY AND, AND I THINK IT, IT KIND OF, UM, TAINTS IT EMOTIONALLY. 
          AND SO WE ARE LOOKING AT IT AS WHETHER THE CAMPAIGN INTENDED TO, OR, OR KNOWINGLY OR WILLINGLY, ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION JUST, JUST VERY, UH, MATTER OF FACTLY? ARE THERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT 
          [01:55:01]
A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED? IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO WHETHER THE CAMPAIGN INTENDED TO OR MEANT TO. 
          UH, AND CERTAINLY, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT DISCOUNTING THAT THE CAMPAIGN, UH, IS, HAS BEEN TAKING MEASURES TO, UM, TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AND, AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMISSIONER. 
          BUT AGAIN, REASONABLE GROUNDS DOES NOT MEAN YOU JUST ACCEPT THE COMPLAINT. 
          REASONABLE GROUNDS MEANS YOU ALSO HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE. 
          AND AFTER HEARING THE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE, THE QUESTION IS, HAS THERE BEEN REBUTTAL TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT THAT THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS. 
          AND REASONABLE GROUNDS BASICALLY MEANS YOU'RE GONNA THINK MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, THAT YOU'VE GOT, UH, GROUNDS TO, TO, TO FIND A VIOLATION. 
          AND I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THOSE REASONABLE GROUNDS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION AT THIS TIME? A MOTION? DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? I DO. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. UH, UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? UH, YES, SIR. 
          I DO MOVE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, AND THEREFORE WE PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER KALE SECONDS. 
          THE MOTION, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO FIND THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS, WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE THAT WE MOVE TO A FINAL HEARING. 
          IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION? LOTS OF QUESTIONS, AND NOBODY'S JUMPING UP TO DELIBERATE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I, I WILL START THE DELIBERATION. 
          MAYBE I'M ENDING IT TOO. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          , I FIND THIS A TROUBLING AND DIFFICULT COMPLAINT BECAUSE, UM, I THINK THE COMPLAINANT DID WHAT ANY NORMAL REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DO. 
          AND IN FACT, WHAT I THINK MR. KUER COWER, I HAD THE FIRST LETTER, RIGHT, , UM, MR. COWER ACKNOWLEDGED SHE DID WHAT A NORMAL REASONABLE PERSON, MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD DO, AND LOOKED AT THE REPORTED ZIP CODES. 
          THE, THE, THIS PROVISION REQUIRES SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS IT RE IS REQUIRED THAN CAMPAIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT. 
          SO THEN THE CAMPAIGN HAS, ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENT AND I, I DON'T SAY THAT TO SAY IT'S, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU OR DO BELIEVE YOU, THAT'S NOT THE POINT AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, IS SAYING THAT THEY TAKE ADDITIONAL MEASURES NOT REQUIRED BY THE CITY CODE OR THE CITY CHARTER TO COLLECT INFORMATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE, BUT THEN THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THEM TO PUT THAT FOR MS. GREENBERG TO GO FIND IT AND SEE IF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE. 
          UM, AND WE'VE GOT THIS LITTLE ODD LITTLE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, WHICH ODD DOESN'T MEAN IT'S BAD, IT JUST, IT DOESN'T FIT ALL THE OTHER FORMS. UM, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS OF DEALING WITH THIS CAN BE DIFFICULT ON A CANDIDATE OR A CAMPAIGN. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN THAT THIS COMPLAINT WAS BROUGHT WITH THAT IN MIND. 
          UM, I, I AM INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT TO DO SO WITH SOME, UH, REGRET, UH, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S, THE RULES FOR A PRELIMINARY HEARING LIKE THIS ARE VERY LIMITED WITH REGARD TO EVIDENCE. 
          UM, THE, THE DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT RULING HAS BEEN CLEAR, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          UM, BUT IT IS AKIN TO AN INDICTMENT WHERE REALLY THE, THE DEFENDANT IN AN INDICTMENT SITUATION DOESN'T REALLY GET TO PUT ON ANY EVIDENCE. 
          SO THAT'S MY LEANING ON THIS, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT . 
          UM, SO THAT'S MY STATEMENT FOR DELIBERATION. 
          IF THERE'S NO MORE WE CAN GET TO A VOTE. 
          UH, BUT IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA, I'LL JUST SAY, UH, THIS BEING MY FIRST COMMISSIONER, UH, MEETING ON THE ETHICS BOARD, UH, IT WAS, IT WAS QUITE A , A DOOZY AND CONTROVERSIAL ONE. 
          SO THANKS FOR PUTTING ME ON THE FIRE RIGHT OFF THE BAT. 
          BUT, UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          UM, AND, UM, I LARGELY AGREE. 
          I THINK FOR ME, ON THE DELIBERATE PART, WHAT I JUST WANNA GET INTO THE RECORD IS 
          [02:00:01]
THAT THE COMPLAINT LISTS WHAT'S ON THE SCHEDULE ONE A, AND EVEN IF YOU TAKE OUT THE PO BOXES, EVEN IF YOU TAKE OUT ALL THE BUSINESS ADDRESSES, IT WOULD STILL BE ON ITS BASE OF POTENTIAL VIOLATION AND THE RESPONDENT'S NARRATIVE, WHICH WE CAN'T, AS WE'VE SAID, WE CAN'T LOOK AT THE DETAILED REPORT YET, BUT BASED ON JUST THE NARRATIVE, THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER THOSE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE IN AUSTIN, DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN, WHETHER THEY'RE VACATION HOMES, OR WHETHER THEY'RE STUDENTS, OR WHERE THEY ACTUALLY ARE ELIGIBLE. 
          AND ALL OF THAT LEANS ME TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A, A LEGITIMATE FACTUAL ISSUE TO KIND OF GET THROUGH AND WORK THROUGH AND WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF LANDED. 
          UM, AND, UM, I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND MR. CHAIRMAN AND YOUR, UM, I FEEL EVERYONE WAS TRYING THEIR, THEIR BEST TO GET TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER. 
          SO APPRECIATE YOU COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          UM, I AGREE THAT ATTEMPTING TO COMPLY WITH THIS RULE IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. 
          AND IT, IT IS VERY BURDENSOME AND THERE REALLY IS NOT A MECHANISM TO ENSURE IT. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK THAT A CAMPAIGN SHOULD BE BURDENED LESS THAN A VOTER CONSTITUENT WHO'S ALSO TRYING TO EXERCISE HER RIGHTS AND HAVE TRANSPARENCY TO THE PROCESS. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO REGRETFULLY VOTE MYSELF. 
          . 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CASTO. 
          ANY OTHER DELIBERATION BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. 
          UH, I HAVE A DIFFERENT LIST ON THAN THE LAST TIME I LOOKED AT IT, SO IT MIGHT SOUND A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA HAS RECUSED, UH, VICE CHAIR LOW. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER TURN IS NOT HERE. 
          UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. 
          IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER KALE? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY? YES. 
          AND THE CHAIR ALSO VOTES? YES. 
          SO ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE UNANIMOUS CHAIRMAN. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          HI, YOUR NAME. 
          IT STILL SAYS VACANCY ON HERE. 
          GOTCHA. 
          . 
          GOTCHA. 
          COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA. 
          AYE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST WANNA GET THE RECORD CLEAR. 
          . 
          YES. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          NOW IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          UM, SO THE MOTION PASSES, AND SO THERE WILL BE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 
          MEET, UH, THE AGENDA FOR THE OCTOBER MEETING FOR A FINAL HEARING REGARDING THIS COMPLAINT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR FINAL AGENDA. 
          WELL, FINAL NU ENUMERATED AGENDA ITEM. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UH, Y'ALL MAY BE EXCUSED IF YOU WERE WAITING FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, NUMBER FIVE IS 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ON AUGUST 28TH, 2024. 
          UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? NO ONE WANTS TO, MAY I MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? YOU HAVE TO WAIT TILL WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          OH, GOTCHA. 
          YEAH. 
          COMMISSIONER SECOND. 
          YOU WANT A SECOND BEFORE THERE'S A DISCUSSION? I, I THINK THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO DO IT UNDER THE ROBERT'S RULES. 
          NORMALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MINUTES ARE DIFFERENT, BUT NORMALLY DOES. 
          YES. 
          UM, I DON'T HAVE A SECOND YET. 
          I SECOND. 
          OKAY, NOW WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. SO MAY I RECOMMEND LIKE AN AMENDED MOTION? DOES I MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION? YOU, YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION. 
          I BELIEVE I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH, UM, WITH CHANGES IDENTIFIED, AND I SHALL ENUMERATE THOSE CHANGES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, LET ME GET TO THE MINUTE HERE AND BEAR WITH ME. 
          THERE ARE, UH, NUMEROUS EDITS HERE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE IMPORTANT EDITS. 
          FIRST ONE IS ON PAGE TWO, NUMBER ITEM NUMBER THREE, THIRD SENTENCE, WHICH BEGINS, JULIE WAS INFORMED SUGGESTING THAT WE EDIT THAT TO USE 
          [02:05:01]
MS. OLIVER'S LAST NAME AS I BELIEVE THAT IT IS, UH, MORE RESPECTFUL AND ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE FORMAT THAT WE'VE BEEN USING, UM, TO THIS, UH, THUS FAR. 
          SO CHANGING JULIE TO OLIVER. 
          OLIVER OR MS. OLIVER WOULD BE GREAT. 
          YES. 
          MS. OLIVER. 
          SO THAT'S ONE. 
          SECOND ONE IS THE NEXT SENTENCE, WHICH READS, THE OTHER TWO COMPLAINTS WERE FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST MAYOR CANDIDATES DOUGLAS GRECO AND KIRK WATSON FOR ALLEGEDLY EXCEEDING OR LEAVE OUT WHAT IT IS FOR ENTIRELY. 
          I'M OPEN TO CHAIR. 
          DO YOU HAVE A INPUT EITHER WAY? I, I'D RATHER LEAVE IT OUT UNLESS THAT IS PROCEDURALLY NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
          UM, WE CAN'T SAY, I THINK IF YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING ALLEGEDLY. 
          OKAY, THAT'S FINE. 
          I THINK, I THINK THE COMPLAINT WAS FOR EXCEEDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. 
          SO I DON'T THINK THE SENTENCE AS WRITTEN DRAWS ANY CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHETHER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS WERE ACTUALLY EXCEEDED, BUT INSERTING ALLEGEDLY, I DON'T THINK CAUSES ANY TROUBLE THERE IN, YEAH, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE INSERT THE WORD A ALLEGEDLY THEN. 
          OKAY. 
          NUMBER THREE. 
          IN NUMBER FOUR, ITEM NUMBER FOUR. 
          UH, VICE LO AND CHAIR LEVINS PROVIDED AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE WORKING GROUP. 
          AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO USE THE OFFICIAL COMPLETE NAME OF THAT WORKING GROUP STATUS OF THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW ERC COMPLAINTS PROCESS AS IT WAS STATED IN NUMBER FOUR AS IT WAS STATED THERE IN NUMBER FOUR, THE AGENDA ITEM RIGHT ABOVE IT STATES THAT YES, BUT YOU'LL SEE THAT LATER ON WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ANOTHER, OR WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT WORKING GROUP AND ANOTHER WORKING GROUP, WE SPELL OUT EXPLICITLY THE ENTIRE NAME OF THE WORKING GROUP. 
          SO JUST TO BE CONSISTENT AND JUST FOR THE MOST CLARITY, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE USE THE ENTIRE NAME OF THE WORKING GROUP THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT ELSE? ALRIGHT, THAT'S NUMBER THREE. 
          THEN NUMBER FOUR IS FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE. 
          SECOND SENTENCE. 
          THIS INCLUDES EDUCATING VOTERS BY MODERATING CANDIDATE FORUM EVENTS, LIVE DEBATES, ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY KEY ISSUES AND WELCOME FEEDBACK. 
          SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE AND, AND, UH, IT KIND OF, IT'S NOT THE MOST CLEAR AND CRAFTING QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND CANDIDATES VIEWS AND ENSURE FAIRNESS. 
          IS IT ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY KEY ISSUES AND SOLICIT FEEDBACK? IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT I TAKE IT TO MEAN. 
          OKAY. 
          LIKE ELICIT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY. 
          OKAY. 
          GOTCHA. 
          SO, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE REPLACE THE WORD WELCOME FEEDBACK TO IDENTIFY AND, OH, I GUESS WE, OKAY. 
          I GUESS. 
          OH YEAH, I'D STILL RECOMMEND THAT WE DO SOLICIT FEEDBACK OR ELICIT FEEDBACK. 
          NUMBER FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          NUMBER FIVE. 
          BEFORE WE MOVE TO NUMBER FIVE, WHAT YOU, YOU WANTED DEFINITIVE WHICH ONE IT IS, RIGHT? LET'S DO, LET'S DO, UH, SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE SOLICIT. 
          SO STRIKE WELCOME AND ADD SOLICIT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          WAS THAT CONSISTENT? I, I DON'T, FINE. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          SAME. 
          IS THAT THE IN IN INTENT OF THAT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          PRESERVES THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN NUMBER FIVE IS ON THE LAST PAGE, PAGE THREE. 
          UNDER ITEM SEVEN, THE B AND BYLAWS SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED. 
          IT IS PART OF THE NAME OF THE WORKING GROUP. 
          SO WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW AND REVISE THE ERC BYLAWS. 
          THE B BE CAPITALIZED OPEN THE TEXT HEADING. 
          MAY I ASK ABOUT THAT? UM, IS THAT RIGHT? I DON'T THINK BYLAWS IS NORMALLY CAPITALIZED. 
          IF, IF YOU WERE NAMING THE GROUP, THEN IT WOULD BE CAPITAL W, WORKING CAPITAL. 
          DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THIS IS JUST REFERRING TO THE BYLAWS, I THINK. 
          NO, I THINK AS IT'S WRITTEN, WE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MEETING AND THAT'S WHAT THE MINUTES ARE FOR, BUT, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT OUR PROGENY IS GONNA COME BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AND SEE THESE MINUTES AND WONDER WHAT ON EARTH HAPPENED IN THAT MEETING. 
          UM, THAT ONE IS NOT, I WOULD NOT CONSIDER A MUST HAVE. 
          SO IF, IF YOU'D RATHER LEAVE IT AS IS, I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          BUT IT 
          [02:10:01]
SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED 'CAUSE IT IS THE NAME OF THE WORKING GROUP. 
          I THINK YOU MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT THE BOLDED LANGUAGE AND HE'S TALKING ABOUT PLAIN TEXT LANGUAGE IN NUMBER SEVEN. 
          YES. 
          YOU'RE YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I AM TALKING ABOUT THE BOLDED LANGUAGE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. MOTION TO FORM OH OH. 
          WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW AND REVISE THE ERC BYLAWS. 
          YEAH, THE B AND BYLAWS THERE SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED. 
          I WAS LOOKING AT THE SENTENCE ABOVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          NUMBER SIX IS THE NEXT SENTENCE. 
          AGAIN, WE CAN, THIS ONE HERE, I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M SAYING TO REPEAT THE NAME, BUT IS THIS LIKE BEFORE IT ASHLEY IT SAYS COMMISSIONER TURN PROPOSED AN AMENDED MOTION. 
          AH, YES. 
          THEN I'M GONNA KEEP MY RECOMMENDATION TO USE THE OFFICIAL COMPLETE NAME OF THAT WORKING GROUP TO STAND UP THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW AND REVISE THE ERC BYLAWS, CAPITAL B IF THE RECOMMISSIONS JOIN THE WORKING GROUP. 
          SO THAT'S NUMBER SIX. 
          UM, LET'S SEE, NUMBER SEVEN AND EIGHT IS IN THE NEXT, UM, PARAGRAPH AFTER, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO MOTIONS THAT ARE REFERENCED. 
          I PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHICH, WHICH TEXT GOES WITH WHICH MOTION. 
          SO I'M RECOMMENDING THAT IT, UM, BE REWRITTEN TO READ AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE WORKING GROUP COMMISSIONER. 
          RETURN, UM, MADE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW, TO WITHDRAW THE AMENDED MOTION. 
          GOING BACK TO SECRETARY STANTON'S OR STANTON ADAM'S ORIGINAL MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY. 
          THEN NUMBER EIGHT WOULD BE THE MOTION TO FORM, OH, I'M SORRY, THE MOTION TO FORM THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW AND REVISE THE ERC BYLAWS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ON A SEVEN ZERO VOTE OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. 
          WAS I CLEAR ON THE, ON THOSE SEVEN AND EIGHT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN, UM, GOSH, 9, 9, 10 11 ARE, UM, RESPECTIVELY THE THREE BULLET POINTS UNDER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. FIRST BULLET, AGAIN, CAPITALIZE THE B AND BYLAWS AND ADD THE, THE YEAR FOR JANUARY, SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE YEARS HERE. 
          SO JANUARY 20, 25. 
          SECOND BULLET, ADD THE YEAR 2024 TO OCTOBER. 
          AND THE THIRD BULLET, ADD THE YEAR TO OCTOBER, ADD THE YEAR 2024 TO OCTOBER AS WELL AS TO SEPTEMBER. 
          ALRIGHT, DO IT, DO WE HAVE A, UH, SECOND TO THAT MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION. 
          I SECOND IT. 
          ARE WE READY TO VOTE ON IT? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, BY RAISING OF HANDS. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? I SEE ALL OF OUR HANDS RAISED, I SUPPOSE AS A FORMALITY. 
          I'LL SAY. 
          ALL OPPOSED, THERE ARE NO HANDS RAISED. 
          THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          UM, AND WITH THAT, ARE WE READY TO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED? I SO MOVE. 
          UH, WE ARE, WE ALREADY HAVE THE MOTION NOW WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON IT. 
          COME ON. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          POEY  SOY. 
          I SECOND. 
          I SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, AGAIN, ALL IN FAVOR BY A SHOW OF HANDS. 
          SEEING ALL HANDS RAISED, I WILL SAY ALL OPPOSED WILL SEE NONE THE MOTION TO ADOPT THOSE MINUTES AS AMENDED PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          UM, SO WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY FUTURE 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS? UH, I, AND I WOULD SAY THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE ALREADY ON OUR, THE MINUTES THAT WE JUST APPROVED, UH, I SORT OF SEE THOSE AS CARRYING OVER. 
          UM, WE KNEW WE WEREN'T GONNA GET TO THOSE TONIGHT. 
          UH, VICE CHAIR LOW. 
          UM, I BE, I BELIEVE I HAD ALSO PUT ON THE LIST A REPORT FROM THE WORKING GROUP, UH, FOR THE ERC UH, COMPLAINTS PROCESS. 
          AND I KNOW WE HAD TALKED 
          [02:15:01]
ABOUT IT LAST TIME SAYING THAT MAYBE TWO TIMES AGO, SAYING WE WOULD BE BUSY IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER AND COULD NOT TAKE IT UP. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO KEEP IT ON THE LIST FOR WHENEVER THE NEXT MEETING IS THAT WE CAN, UM, PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. 
          SO WE'LL ADD MM-HMM, , UH, HOW, HOW DO YOU WANNA PHRASE THAT? UH, POTENTIAL BRIEFING OR UPDATE FROM A WORKING GROUP ON, UH, WHAT IS IT CALLED? COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS OR HAS A NAME OBJECT UPDATE ON BRC REVIEW. 
          WORKING GROUP. 
          WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW E RRC WORKING RRC COMPLAINTS PROCESS. 
          AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT, UM, HALF OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TERMS THAT WILL END IN FEBRUARY. 
          SO I DID WANT TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA BEFORE THAT OCCURS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND LET'S TRY TO GET IT, UH, SOON AS I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN GET IT IN OCTOBER BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TWO FINAL HEARINGS AT LEAST, I PRESUME. 
          SO NOVEMBER, DECEMBER IS FINE. 
          JUST SO LONG AS WE MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT IT BEFORE. 
          DON'T FORGET IT. 
          YEAH. 
          BEFORE PEOPLE ROLL OFF THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION OR A VOTE ON THAT I THINK. 
          NO, JUST IT'S KEEP IN LINE  BY ANYONE ELSE WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? OKAY. 
          LET ME FIND OUR READING THIS OUT. 
          'CAUSE I THINK WE CAN ADJOURN NOW. 
          OH, DO YOU MIND IF I JUST MENTION SOMETHING QUICKLY? ABSOLUTELY. 
          MS. MITCHELL. 
          UM, JUST, JUST AS A GENERAL, UH, REMINDER, UM, AT SOME POINT BEFORE YOUR FINAL MEETING OF THE YEAR, YOU NEED TO SET YOUR SCHEDULE FOR NEXT YEAR. 
          UM, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OCTOBER, YOU KNOW, YOUR NOVEMBER MEETING IS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER OR THE DECEMBER MEETING. 
          I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT OUT THERE. 
          UH, THAT IT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO, TO REMEMBER THAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER BEFORE OR, YOU KNOW, AS OF YOUR LAST MEETING, IT NEEDS TO BE BEEN ADOPTED OF THE YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS LIZETTE GONNA PROVIDE A DRAFT? SHE USUALLY DOES. 
          UH, YEAH, WE CAN PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, USUALLY WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE'D PROVIDE YOU THE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'RE MEETING EVERY FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AND THEN YOU ALL COULD LOOK AT THAT YEAH. 
          AND MAKE YOUR DECISION AS FAR AS WHAT DATES DON'T WORK OR WHAT HAVE YOU. 
          BUT YES, WE, I'LL MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. 
          YEAH. 
          WHENEVER YOU'RE READY TO CONSIDER THAT ON THE, ON THE AGENDA, IS THAT CONSIDERED A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM AS WELL? THE CALENDAR PROBABLY. 
          'CAUSE I THINK THE ISSUE, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER BY THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO ADOPT THIS YEAR FOR NEXT YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YEAH, LET'S MAKE THAT A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. 
          AND, UH, COULD, COULD WE SEE IF LIZETTE COULD GET US A DRAFT, UM, OF DATES THAT SEEM TO MAKE SENSE? YEP. 
          I THINK WE HAVE A FAIRLY CONSISTENT, UH, LAST WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH, OR MAYBE IT'S FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHICH SOMETIMES THERE'S FIVE. 
          ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER FUTURE, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS? SEEING NONE, IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. 
          THE TIME IS 9:29 PM THANK YOU TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION. 
          MAY.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.