[00:00:04]
S I'M THE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF
[CALL TO ORDER]
AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.IT IS OCTOBER 23RD, AND THE TIME IS 6:20 PM WE ARE AT CITY HALL IN THE BOARD'S AND COMMISSIONS.
ROOM NUMBER 11 0 1, 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT SEVEN OH ONE.
I WILL CALL THE ROLE CHAIR MICHAEL LEVINS.
I THINK SHE'S GOING TO BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY, BUT WE'RE WORKING OUT SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, SO WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO HER.
UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS HERE.
AND, UH, WE'LL NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER KALE IS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.
COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN MCGIVEN PRESENT.
DID I SAY YOUR NAME RIGHT? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY HERE.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE ONE MEMBER ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, AND IF WE GET OUR SECOND MEMBER VIRTUALLY, I GUESS WE'LL JUST ANNOUNCE THAT AT THAT TIME.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND HE WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.
AND SO AT THIS TIME, UH, THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. DOUG GRECO FOR THREE MINUTES.
I'M A CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR, UH, FORMER HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, LONGTIME COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.
WORKED IN THE L-G-B-T-Q MOVEMENT AND WAS CHIEF OF STAFF FOR A STATE REP HERE IN AUSTIN.
UH, I STEPPED DOWN FROM MY ROLE WITH CENTRAL TEXAS INTERFAITH ON, UH, LATE JANUARY AND ANNOUNCED MY RUN FOR MAYOR, UH, ON FEBRUARY 5TH.
I WAS PROUD THAT I WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT SIGNED THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN CONTRACT, VOLUNTARILY LIMITING MYSELF TO $120,000 FOR THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN.
UM, IN EXCHANGE FOR PUBLIC FUNDING IN A RUNOFF WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT SIGNED THAT.
I WAS ALSO PROUD TO HAVE BEEN THE TOP FUNDRAISER AMONG THE CHALLENGERS TO THE MAYOR IN THE FIRST JUNE 30TH FUNDRAISING REPORT.
AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN REGARDLESS OF THE CASE THAT THAT, THAT THAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
UM, WE DECIDED FOR SOME OF THE REASONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN BOTH CASES IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, THAT WE WOULD REPORT EVERYTHING THAT WE RAISED IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY.
UM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THERE WAS A COMPLAINT FILED, UM, THAT I WAS OVER, UM, A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THE CITY LIMIT OF $46,000.
UM, THE COMPLAINANT WAS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE IN ONE OF THE FIRST NEWS REPORTS, UM, BROUGHT UP THE PROSPECT OF JAIL TIME, BUT DID NOT RETURN THE MONEY.
AND AS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT IS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS RULE.
JAIL TIME IS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF VIOLATING THIS RULE, BUT THAT SET OFF ALARMS. AND I'VE BEEN TOLD, AND I'VE BEEN TOLD AFTER THAT POINT, THAT THIS RULE IS LIKELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT FAVORS WEALTH, WEALTHY, INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES THAT CAN LEND THEMSELF UNLIMITED MONEY AND, UH, INCUMBENTS.
AND THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE.
UH, SO I FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THIS RULE IN FEDERAL COURT.
UM, AND WE ASKED FOR A DELAY IN OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN SEPTEMBER.
WE THEN WENT TO THE, THE HEARING WAS HELD AND THEN THE CITY, THE CITY AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY WAS A TOP DONOR TO THE MAYOR.
THE CITY THEN USED THE FACT THAT THAT HEARING WAS HELD AGAINST ME AND FILED AN ADDITIONAL BRIEF IN MY CASE, USED IT AGAINST ME.
AND IT WAS CITED IN THE FEDERAL COURT DECISION WHEN THE COURT, WHEN THE JUDGE DECIDED NOT TO RULE ON CONSTITUTIONALITY, DISMISSED THE CASE AND SAID, IT'S FRONT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
THEY ALREADY HAD A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
WELL, I HAD ASKED FOR A DELAY AND THAT WAS DENIED.
UM, BUT WE MOVED FORWARD, UM, WE WERE PREPARING FOR THE HEARING TONIGHT.
UM, I COME TO LEARN THAT THE HEARING WAS DELAYED ON FRIDAY.
I HEARD IT'S BECAUSE THE MAYOR'S LAWYER IS OUT OF TOWN.
AND THEN THE COMPLAINANT ASKED FOR A DELAY OF MY HEARING.
AND I FEEL LIKE I'M THE ONLY ONE
AND IT WAS USED AGAINST ME BY THE CITY.
YOU THREE MINUTES HAS EXPIRED.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GIVING ANOTHER 30 SECONDS? NO OBJECTION, NO OBJECT.
YOU CAN, SO, SO, I, I JUST FEEL, I WANT TO
[00:05:01]
MAKE SURE, AND I HOPE THAT THE CITY DID NOT GIVE, IT'S AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ADVICE TO DELAY THE HEARING, TO STRENGTHEN THE HAND IN THE FEDERAL CASE.I ALSO WANNA MAKE CLEAR, I NEVER INTENDED TO SPEND THE MONEY.
UH, WE ALREADY HAD TURNED, DID, DID NOT ACCEPT NEW DONATIONS.
I RETURNED OVER 60 DONATIONS TODAY, OVER $6,000.
WE NEVER INTENDED TO SPEND THAT MONEY.
AND WE'RE GONNA, YOU KNOW, AND SO I WAS PREPARED FOR THE HEARING.
I THINK THIS WAS THE LAST DAY.
IT COULD HAVE FAIRLY HAPPENED BEFORE THE ELECTION.
SO I'M NOT ASKING TO, YOU KNOW, RUSH IT AT THIS POINT.
BUT I WAS PREPARED AND I HAVE TURNED BACK OVER, OVER $6,000.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE HEARING BECAUSE WHAT THE JUDGE HAS SAID, HE, HE DID NOT RULE IN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, BUT HE EMPOWERED THIS COMMITTEE AND SAID, THIS COMMITTEE IS A STATE BODY THAT IS, THAT IS HEARING THIS CASE AND CAN TAKE ACTION.
AND BASED ON THAT ACTION, I COULD ALWAYS GO BACK TO FEDERAL COURT OR CAN DECIDE IF, IF YOU BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ARGUMENTS AND THAT IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, YOU CAN DECIDE NOT TO TAKE ACTION BASED ON THAT.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN OVERTURN THE RULE, BUT THE JUDGE WROTE IN THE OPINION THAT YOU, SO I LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING THAT CASE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO EXPLAINING A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH.
THANK YOU CHAIR FOR GIVING ME ADDITIONAL TIME.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE AGENDA ITEMS. THE FIRST ITEM IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING LAST MONTH, SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024.I BELIEVE WE ALL HAVE A COPY OF THOSE MINUTES AS A DRAFT IN OUR PACKET.
UH, IS THERE ANY MOTION REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM? YES.
UH, SECRETARY STANTON, WHEN STANTON, EXCUSE ME.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 MEETING WITH, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF ONE CHANGE THAT CHANGE BEING IN THE COMMISSIONERS, IN ATTENDANCE IN PERSON FIELD, THAT THERE BE A COMMA BETWEEN FIG FI, FIGUERA, FIGUEROA, FIGUEROA, AND MARY TO, UH, CORRECTLY REFLECT THAT THESE ARE TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS.
ARE WE SURE THOUGH
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
COMMISSIONER KALE, WE HAVE A SECOND.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION? I, I HAVE A QUESTION ON CLARITY.
WERE THE, I SEE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES ARE AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
WERE THEY POSSIBLY AT THE BEGINNING BUT LISTED AT THE END? I'M LISTED AS ABSENT THERE.
AND I, I FEEL LIKE I MAY HAVE APPROVED THOSE MINUTES, BUT I ALSO MAY BE THINKING OF ANOTHER MEETING WHERE I HAVE APPROVED
I, MY RECOLLECTION IS YOU WERE NOT HERE AT ALL FOR, OKAY, SO IT WAS AT THE END FOR THE SEPTEMBER MEETING.
NO, NO, I WAS HERE, BUT I I HAD TO ABSTAIN OKAY.
I WAS HERE FOR, SO HE WAS HERE IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, WHICH IS NOTED IN THE FIRST FEW, UH, MOTIONS THAT HE ABSTAINED.
AND AS THE MEETING GOES ON, IT'S LATER CONSIDERED ABSENT BECAUSE HE WASN'T A PART OF THOSE ITEMS OF THE MEETING.
MAYBE I, I'VE LEARNED SOMETHING HERE.
IT SAYS, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE, UM, ABOUT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR DOUGLAS RACO, A FINAL HEARING WAS APPROVED SEVEN TO ONE, AND THEN IT LISTS SEVEN PEOPLE IN FAVOR.
AND THEN A RECUSAL AND AN ABSENCE IS A RECUSAL CONSIDERED A NO VOTE.
SEE WHAT I'M ASKING? I'VE NEVER ENCOUNTERED A RECUSAL BEFORE, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S HANDLED.
I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE A NO VOTE.
SO IT'S NOT SEVEN TO ONE, RIGHT? NO.
SO THE, THE, THE, THE NOTES SHOULD, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY, BUT THIS IS CAROLINE WEBSTER WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
UM, A RECUSAL IS NOT A NO VOTE.
IT'S, IT SHOULD NOTE, YOU KNOW, THE VOTE, THE VOTE WAS, YOU KNOW, SEVEN VOTED THIS WAY.
SO-AND-SO OFF THE DIOCESE, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT INDICATES THAT THEY WERE NOT EITHER A YES VOTE OR A NO VOTE.
SO THE SEVEN TO ONE IS A MISTAKE THEN ON, IS IT FOR THE MINUTES? YEAH.
IT SAYS, I BELIEVE VICES, THE VOTED ON THE MINUTES, THE SEVEN TO ONE VOTE, AND THEN IT LISTS THE SEVEN OF FAVOR.
AND THEN THERE'S NOBODY LISTED AGAINST IT.
NO, MS. WEBSTER, HE'S, SHE'S, HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE CLAIM AGAINST MR. GRECO.
OH, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT
[00:10:01]
ONE VOTE IS LEFT OVER.SEE, IT SAYS IT SEVEN ONE, AND THEN IT LISTS THE SEVEN PEOPLE IN FAVOR AND THEN IT LISTS THE RECUSAL IN ABSENCE.
AND I THOUGHT, HMM, WHERE'S THE ONE? YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? GOOD EYE.
I, YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD PREFER THAT BE LISTED MORE LIKE 7 0 0 1, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THEN NOTE THAT, UM, SEVEN VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE INDIVIDUAL OFF THE DA OR ONE ABSENT.
HOW WAS IT? IT'S THE SAME THING FOR THE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT PRELIMINARY HEARING DOWN BELOW.
SO THAT, THAT DOES BRING UP ANOTHER POINT.
IT TECHNICALLY ABSTAINED, UH, FROM THE CONVERSATION REGARDING MR. GRECO AND RECUSED FROM THE CONVERSATION REGARDING MAYOR WATSON.
UH, I DON'T, I I THINK IT MIGHT BE A, A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DI UH, WHAT IS IT? A DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION? DISTINCTION? I THINK DISTINCTION WITHOUT IT EITHER WAY.
I THINK, I THINK THE DISPUTE ITSELF, WHICH IT IS, IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT, RIGHT.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAKES, THE ONLY REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT IF RECUSING ON A MATTER THAT I SHOULD NOT, THAT, THAT I, I VOLUNTARILY ABSTAINED FROM, INDICATES A PRECEDENT LATER ON, WHICH IS THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I ASK IN THIS, IN THIS MATTER.
SO PERHAPS WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THOSE TO SEVEN TO ZERO OR MAYBE SEVEN, ZERO TO ONE AND TO CORRECT COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA TO, TO A ABSTENTION ON THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. GRECO.
DO, DO WE HAVE A SECOND RETURNED SECONDS? UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS, DID YOU HAVE A, A COMMENT? YES, GO AHEAD.
AND, AND I THINK THESE ARE GOOD CLARIFICATIONS.
SINCE WE ARE ADDING ADDITIONAL CHANGES, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE, UM, ADD A CLAR CLARIFICATION SO THAT IT, IT IS EXPLICITLY CLEAR THAT AT ONE POINT, SPECIFICALLY COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA WAS ABSENT BECAUSE REMEMBER LIZETTE, THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP.
I WAS LIKE, I THINK, AND WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE IN OTHER MINUTES, WHERE, UM, AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, AT WHATEVER TIME OR AT THIS POINT HERE, COMMISSIONER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, LEFT, LEFT THE MEETING JUST BECAUSE FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, AND WE ALREADY SAW THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION OF, UM, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S ATTENDANCE FOR THAT MEETING.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD COMMENT ON THAT IS BECAUSE I WAS NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT HERE, I DON'T HAVE A TIMESTAMP.
AND IN THE VIDEO ONLINE, IT'S NOT CLEARLY INDICATED AT WHAT TIME HE LEFT.
COULD WE MENTION WITHOUT A TIMESTAMP AND JUST SAY AT THIS POINT, UH, BETWEEN THESE AGENDA ITEMS OR AFTER AGENDA ITEM, SO AND SO COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA WAS NOT PRESENT FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS, UM, ITEM? YEAH, WE CAN ADD THAT IN.
I I HAVE A SUGGESTION THAT MAY ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO IS YOU MAY JUST SIMPLY WANNA LIST THE ATTENDANCE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION SINCE THAT'S, I LEFT.
WHEN, WHEN YOU ALL WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
'CAUSE IF I WAS ABSTAINING AND RECUSING, THEN I THOUGHT YOU LEFT AFTER LIKE THERE WAS DISCUSSION, YOU CAME, CAME BACK, DISCUSSED, AND THEN YOU HAD TO LEAVE EARLY FOR SOMETHING.
YEAH, BUT I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SO, OH, I, I WANT TO, I WANT TO INTERRUPT THIS BECAUSE IF WE WANT TO GET SUPER HYPER-TECHNICAL ROBERTS RULEY, THIS IS NOT ON THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION, BUT I THINK WE CAN VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION.
THEN HAVE ANOTHER MOTION TO AMEND
AND, UM, SO IS EVERYONE READY TO VOTE ON THE MOTION? TO AMEND THE MOTION? UM, SO THAT WE ARE CHANGING IT TO SEVEN TO ZERO TO ONE FOR ON THE, THE TWO VOTES.
AND WAS THE, THAT'S THE ORIGINAL MOTION ABSTENTION VERSUS A, A RECUSAL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RETURN.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION.
LET'S JUST DO IT BY SHOW OF HANDS.
UH, IT APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS.
I'LL SAY ALL OPPOSED, RAISE OF HANDS.
UH, THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION
[00:15:01]
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.UM, AND SO NOW WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE, UM, THE COMMA BETWEEN COMMISSIONER FI FIGUEROA AND KALE, CHANGING THE TWO VOTES TO SEVEN TO ZERO TO ONE, AND CHANGING COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA TO A ABSTENTION ON THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. GRECO.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THIS MOTION REGARDING NOTING COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S PRESENCE AND ABSENCE? YES.
I'M TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT SECOND? WELL, I I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION, I GUESS
WITH A MOTION, BECAUSE PART OF WHAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IS WHAT ARE WE GONNA SAY? YEAH.
AND CAN WE, DO WE NEED A MOTION TO HAVE DISCUSSION? YES.
WELL, WE HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ONLY AFTER THE MOTION RIGHT AFTER WE VOTE
BUT FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, LET'S SAY THERE'S A MOTION IN A SECOND.
SO, BUT, UH, SO THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I, I I MEAN JUST SAY THIS, THE MOTION.
I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, UM, TO REFLECT COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S ATTENDANCE AND THE COMMA.
OH, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT WE VOTED, WE VOTED ON THAT ALREADY.
NO, THE COMMA'S THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
AND WE HAD A MOTION TO AMEND THAT MOTION.
I MOVE THAT WE, UM, I MOVE THAT WE ADD TO THAT MOTION CONSIDERATION OF, UM, SPEAKING TO COMMISSIONERS ESP ESPINOZA ATTENDANCE.
SO ADDING THAT AS A CHANGE TO THE COMMA, THE VOTE STAT 7 0 1 AND THE ABSTENTION VERSUS RECUSAL.
THOSE WE ALREADY HAVE AS PART OF THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE TABLE.
SO I'M MOVING THAT WE ADD TO, WE AMEND THAT MOTION BY ADDING, UH, ATTENDANCE FOR, FOR ESPINOZA.
UM, AND WHERE, WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WE ADD THAT STATEMENT ABOUT HIS ATTENDANCE OR ABSENCE? THAT IS WHERE I AM OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE HAVE IT IN THE ITEM NUMBER FIVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, JUST SIMPLY STATING THAT COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA, AND, UM, LEMME SEE.
COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA, WHAT LEFT THE MEETING WAS ABSENT FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM? ARE YOU ADDING THAT TO YOUR MOTION? OKAY.
SO IT ALREADY SAYS ON THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES THAT COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA WAS ABSENT.
SO THE CLARIFICATION, I'M HOPING THAT JUST SAYING, JUST SAYING SPECIFICALLY COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA WAS ABSENT FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM WOULD CLARIFY WHY WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED, UM, TO LIZETTE WAS IN THE COMMISSIONER'S IN ATTENDANCE IN PERSON CATEGORY OR FIELD THAT AFTER.
AND THAT WAS A GOOD CATCH TO LIZETTE THAT I HAD PUT IT IN THE WRONG PLACE.
BUT I HAD, UM, I'M SUGGESTING PERHAPS A PARENTHESES AFTER EDWARD ESPINOZA TO IN PARENTHESES, UM, WHO, WHO WAS ABSENT TOWARDS THE END OR AT SOME POINT IN THE MEETING.
MAY I RECOMMEND ADDING? SO AS I STATED, I REMOVED IT FROM THAT FIELD BECAUSE THAT IS TO INDICATE ONLY THE ATTENDANCE COUNTED IN ROLL CALL.
I CAN ADD IN PARENTHESES WITHIN THAT STATEMENT WHERE HE WAS ABSENT, THAT HE WAS ABSENT DUE TO HAVING LEFT AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION.
YEAH, I, I WAS TRYING TO, TO WAIT FOR THE PROPER ORDERS OF PROCEDURE HERE, BUT WHAT I HAD SUGGESTED PREVIOUSLY ABOUT A ROLL CALL FOR
[00:20:01]
EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEARS TO BE ALREADY IN HERE BY VIRTUE OF NAMING THE VOTERS THAT WERE PRESENT AND HOW THEY VOTED.SO I THINK THAT THAT IN EFFECT TELLS US WHO WAS THERE AND WHO WASN'T.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE ADDED OTHER THAN WHAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED ABOUT CHANGING AN ABSTENTION AND RAISING IT TO ABSTAINED ABSENT FOR THAT PORTION.
I THINK THAT ONE WORD MAY RESOLVE ALL OUR TROUBLES.
MAYBE TROUBLES IS THE RIGHT WORD, BUT YOU, YOU CATCH MY DIRECT
I, I THINK THAT IS THE, THE TIGHTEST AND MOST, YES.
I THINK IT'S THE MOST CONCISE WAY TO, TO WRAP THIS ALL UP IN ITEM NUMBER THREE.
IN ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHERE THE ORIGINAL FIRST MOTION WAS MADE, THAT WAS INDICATED THAT HE ABSTAINED AND THEN TO INCLUDE THAT HE ABSTAINED AND THEN HE WAS NO LONGER PART OF THE MEETING AFTER OR BEFORE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WAS IT BEFORE OR AFTER? JUST SO I HAVE IT CLEAR.
I, I NEVER WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN YOU LEFT, WAS IT? UM, WELL, I MEAN, I HUNG OUT, I HUNG OUT IN THE ROOM FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT COUNTS FOR ANYTHING.
SO DOES SOMEONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT? AND THEN LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS THING, UH, WRAPPED.
WHAT EXACTLY WAS IT THAT I CAN MAKE A MOTION? SORRY, COMMISSIONER RETURN.
I MOVE THAT IN LINE WITH MS. BENNETT'S SUGGESTION.
WE ADD A NOTE TO ITEM THREE THAT INDICATES COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA ABSTAINED FROM ITEM THREE AND WAS ABSENT SUB FOR SUBSEQUENT ITEMS. SECOND, SECOND.
ARE WE READY TO VOTE? ANYBODY WANT TO DISCUSS THIS OR HAVE WE? ALRIGHT, LET'S VOTE.
I'LL GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE IF YOU WANNA CHANGE ANYONE OPPOSED.
SO THAT WAS THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION.
SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE MOTION TO ACTUALLY APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH ALL OF THESE CHANGES.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? COMMISSIONER RETURNED.
WE HAVE ONE OUTSTANDING COMMA
OH, WHAT'S UP? I'M SO CONFUSED.
I MOVE THAT WE ADD A COMMA BETWEEN, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT VOTED ON THIS YET.
WE HAD A COMM BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS, FIGUEROA AND MARY.
K THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WE AMENDED.
SO THAT'S ALREADY IN, THAT'S ALREADY IN, RIGHT? RIGHT.
THAT'S WE WERE TACKING ON WITH EACH AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE
OKAY, LET'S VOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSED.
IS THAT, UH, EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT OUR MOTION IS? OKAY.
I'LL GIVE ANYONE A CHANCE TO SAY THEY OPPOSE BY RAISING YOUR HANDS.
THE MINUTES ARE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE SEPTEMBER 25TH MEETING AND WE CAN NOW PROCEED
[2. Adopt the Ethics Review Commission regular meeting calendar for 2025.]
TO OUR DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. THE FIRST IS, WHICH, FIRST OF WHICH IS CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING OUR REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2025.AND, UM, MS. WEBSTER OR MS. BENITEZ, DID YOU HAVE SOME DATES THAT YOU WERE, OH, I THINK, I'M SORRY.
WE HAVE A DRAFT CALENDAR IN OUR PACKET HERE.
COMMISSIONER POEY MOVES TO APPROVE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, COMMISSIONER CASTO, ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.
OH, COMMISSIONER KALE, I'M GONNA JUMP IN REAL QUICK.
I'M REALIZING NOW I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE RECUSED FROM THIS ONE BECAUSE MY TERM ON THIS IS GONNA BE ENDING IN JANUARY.
SO I'M GONNA JUMP IN IF IT'S OKAY PROCEDURALLY AND RECUSE RIGHT NOW.
[00:25:01]
PROCEDURALLY IT'S PROBABLY FINE FOR YOU TO RECUSE OR YOU CAN JUST ABSTAIN WHEN THE, WHEN THE VOTE IS TAKEN.EITHER WAY I THINK IT ACHIEVES THE SAME END.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, LET'S VOTE.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE DRAFT CALENDAR FOR 2025.
UH, IT'S BY A SHOW OF HANDS, UM, WE ARE UNANIMOUS BUT FOR COMMISSIONER KALE, UH, COMMISSIONER KALE, I KNOW YOU'VE SAID IT, BUT ARE YOU, UH, ABSTAINING? UH, I'M ABSTAINING.
UH, ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION? I SEE NO HANDS OPPOSING THE MOTION.
SO THE MOTION APPROVES BY, WHAT IS THAT A VOTE OF NINE TO ZERO TO ONE THAT CONCLUDES THAT? NO, ACTUALLY THAT WOULD BE EIGHT TO ZERO TO ONE 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE CHAIR LOW.
UM, ANY UPDATE ON GETTING VICE CHAIR LOW OR IS THAT I THINK SHE'LL JUST BE
UM, WELL THAT PROBABLY IMPLICATES
[3. Update from the Working Group to Review ERC Complaints Process.]
WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO ON OUR NEXT AGENDA.ITEM, WHICH IS AN UP UPDATE FROM THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE ERC COMPLAINTS PROCESS.
I THINK VICE CHAIR LOWE WAS THE PRIMARY PERSON WHO WAS GOING TO UPDATE US ON THAT.
WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE PREPARED TO, I DON'T THINK I'M ON THE WORKING GROUP, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE.
IS ANY COMMISSIONER RETURN? I'M ON THE WORKING GROUP AS WELL, BUT I HAVE NO UPDATE.
UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
'CAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE MAIN PERSON WE NEED FOR ITEM THREE.
[Items 4 - 6]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF THE GREENBERG GRECO COMPLAINT AND THE GREENBERG WATSON COMPLAINT.
UM, SO THIS IS, I GUESS IT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM.
I'M NOT SURE THAT ACTION IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE, BUT IT IS WORTH DISCUSSING BECAUSE AS MR. GRECO MENTIONED, THE, THERE WAS A, A SOMEWHAT LAST MINUTE POSTPONEMENT OF THE FINAL HEARINGS ON BOTH OF THESE COMPLAINTS.
UM, I DIDN'T LOVE THAT FACT, BUT SOMETIMES THINGS ARE WHAT THEY ARE.
UM, THAT'S A, THAT'S A DECISION THAT THE CHAIR MAKES.
UM, SO NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT, WE'VE GOTTA SCHEDULE THOSE FINAL HEARINGS AND THEN IS IT OKAY TO MIX IN NUMBERS FIVE AND SIX WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM? 'CAUSE THEY ALL KIND OF RELATE.
SO I THINK YOU CAN TAKE BOTH OF THEM UP TOGETHER.
BUT IF YOU ARE GONNA TAKE ANY ACTION ON LIKE, TO VOTE ON A HEARING DATE, WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE YOU CAN SET THE HEARING DATE, BUT IF YOU, IF IF THEY'RE POSTED FOR ACTION, YOU WANT TO HAVE A VOTE, THEN I WOULD TAKE THEM UP SEPARATELY.
OR AT LEAST WHEN YOU GET TO THE POINT OF TAKING A VOTE, YOU'D SAY, OKAY, NOW WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON ITEM X, ITEM Y.
OKAY, SO LET'S WE'LL DISCUSS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX TOGETHER BECAUSE YOU KIND OF, YOU CAN'T DECIDE ABOUT ONE WITHOUT IMPLICATING OR MAKE HAVING IMPLICATIONS ON THE OTHER.
SO WE'RE GONNA NEED TO HAVE THE FINAL HEARING ON THE GREENBERG GRECO AND GREENBERG WATSON COMPLAINTS PROBABLY IN OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, NOVEMBER 13TH, 13TH.
UM, BUT WE HAVE DEADLINES FOR THESE OTHER TWO COMPLAINTS.
THE, I'M GONNA MANGLE THESE NAMES AND I APOLOGIZE IF THEY'RE WATCHING DUTCH AND GANGOLI.
UM, AND THEN THE KELLY LANE COMPLAINT, WE HAVE A DEADLINE TO HAVE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THOSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE US, WE'RE EITHER GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A MARATHON AND HAVE TWO FINAL HEARINGS AND TWO PRELIMINARY HEARINGS THE SAME NIGHT.
UM, OR WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIALLY SCHEDULED MEETING TO HANDLE EITHER THE FINAL HEARINGS OR THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS.
AND THEN AT THE, MORE THAN LIKELY AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED HEARING IS WHERE WE'D FIND, HEAR THE FINAL COMPLAINTS.
UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF THE LAY OF THE LAND.
COMMISSIONER POEY, WHAT'S THE DEADLINE FOR THE, FOR FIVE AND SIX, UH, FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON THOSE, MS. WEBSTER, WHAT IS OUR DEADLINE ON THAT? UH, I'LL LOOK IT UP AND I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU IN JUST A MOMENT.
AND DO WE HAVE A STATUTORY DEADLINE ON THE FINAL HEARINGS? I THINK WE DO.
[00:30:01]
I THINK IT WAS, SO I THINK THE, THE ORDINANCE SAYS WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT TONIGHT, BUT THERE CAN BE AN EXTENSION GRANTED FOR GOOD CAUSE, WHICH THAT OCCURRED.CITY CODE STATES THAT THE PRELIMINARY, THE FINAL HEARING HAS TO BE HELD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
SO I THINK IN THE LAST HEARING WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THAT AND SETTING IT, IT WAS SAID 30 DAYS, BUT ACTUALLY CITY CODE.
SO THERE, THERE'S A BIT OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN YOUR RULES, THE ERC RULES, RULES AND WHAT CITY CODE SAYS BECAUSE CITY CODE HAS BEEN CHANGED MORE RECENTLY THAN THE RULES.
AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I GO BY CITY CODE.
AND TO REITERATE WHAT YOUR COUNSEL SAID LAST TIME, HE SAID 30 DAYS.
SO YOU MAY WANNA REACH OUT TO YOUR COUNSEL, MR. FELDMAN.
BUT I, AS FAR AS WHAT CITY CODE JUST SAYS, IT SAYS 60 DAYS AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
AND I, WE'LL, OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING WILL BE PRETTY WELL WITHIN THAT.
I BELIEVE SO BECAUSE WE WERE AT SEPTEMBER 25, 20 FIFTH TO NOVEMBER 13TH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN 60 DAYS.
BUT IN, IN, IN MY VIEW, AND IT'S JUST ONE GUY'S OPINION, UM, I THINK THOSE ARE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR THAT.
IT JUST SEEMS, THAT JUST SEEMS RIGHT.
UH, COMMISSIONER CASTOR, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
DID, DOES CITY CODE, DOES THAT INCLUDE A GOOD CAUSE FOR PUSHING IT BEYOND THE 60 DAYS OR IS THAT A HARD AND FAST 60 DAYS? UH, SO THE WAY WHAT CITY CODE SAYS IS THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES CAN REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT, WHICH THE CHAIR CAN GRANT IF THE CHAIR FINDS GOOD.
CAUSE THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO POSTPONE IS BY A VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE OR IF BOTH PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT.
SO IN, IN EITHER WATSON AND GREENBERG OR GRECO AND GREENBERG CAN AGREE TO A POSTPONE.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE WAYS YOU CAN HAVE A POSTPONEMENT.
COMMISSIONER POMPEY, DID YOU, UM, JUST TO START OFF A SUGGESTION, WE COULD HAVE THE FINAL HEARINGS ON THE REGULAR SCHEDULED DATE AND THEN MAYBE A WEEK LATER, I'M SAYING A WEEK LATER, BECAUSE TWO WEEKS LATER MUST BE THANKSGIVING, RIGHT? IT IS.
SO A WEEK LATER, UM, HAVE THE, UH, UH, FIVE AND SIX, UH, I HESITATE TO MOVE INTO DECEMBER TOO MUCH.
DECEMBER IS AWKWARD FOR EVERYBODY, I THINK.
UM, WHAT WOULD THE, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO FIND A PLACE TO HOLD IT? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS ROOM'S AVAILABLE OR I WOULD NEED TO ASK AROUND, UM, CONSIDERING THAT IT'S VERY CLOSE IN TIME, I'D, I'D HAVE TO CONFIRM.
UM, JUST TO, TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION I WAS ASKED A MOMENT AGO OH YES.
ABOUT WHAT YOUR DEADLINES ARE FOR THE GANGULI CASE.
THE DEADLINE FOR THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING, UH, WITHOUT SOME SORT OF A DELAY, BUT THE 60 DAY DEADLINE WOULD BE NOVEMBER 25TH, WHICH IS A MONDAY.
AND THE DEADLINE FOR THE LANE CASE IS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 30TH.
I WOULD SAY THAT PUSHES TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY, WHICH IS DECEMBER 2ND.
SO IF YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE BOTH OF THOSE IN THE SAME MEETING, UM, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU SET THAT IF IT'S, IF YOU NEED A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU SET IT, UM, ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 25TH.
SO YEAH, WE'RE RUNNING INTO, WELL, I GUESS THAT'S THE WEEK AFTER THANKSGIVING.
OR THAT'S THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING, BUT WELL, RIGHT.
THAT'D BE THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING.
AND THEN THE SECOND WOULD BE THE MONDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING, RIGHT? COMM? YEAH.
I, UM, INITIALLY, UM, WROTE ON THE FORM THAT I'M RECUSING FROM DISCUSSION OF THE UCHIN GANGOLI COMPLAINT.
AND SO SINCE IT'S BEEN FOLDED INTO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE DIFFERENT, THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS AND THE, AND THE FINAL HEARINGS, I'M JUST GONNA RECUSE FROM THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.
THAT'S WHY I'M, I'LL JUST STAY OUT OF THIS WHOLE THING.
UM, NOT, THANK YOU FOR STAYING OUT.
AS WE'RE FIGURING OUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE AN ADDED MEETING AND LOOKING FOR SPACE, CAN A VIRTUAL MEETING SUFFICE? DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL SPACE? UH, SO THE, AT LEAST THE CHAIR OR WHOEVER IS HEADING THE MEETING.
SO THE CHAIR OF THE VICE CHAIR, WHOEVER'S HEADING THE MEETING, HAS TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN A MEETING PLACE.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN COME TO AND PARTICIPATE OR LISTEN OR, OR TESTIFY OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL LOCATION.
[00:35:01]
PHYSICAL LOCATION HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYONE ELSE'S FACES, ALL THE, ALL THE OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS' FACES.SO IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, ANYONE THAT'S IN, WELL, WHATEVER ROOM WE'RE IN, I WAS GONNA SAY THIS ROOM, BUT WHATEVER ROOM WE'RE HAVING THE MEETING IN THAT THE CHAIR IS IN, ANYONE SITTING IN THAT ROOM HAS TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYONE'S FACES WHEN THEY'RE PARTICIPATING.
SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY.
MAY I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION ON THE DATE? SO UNDERSTAND THAT THE, UM, 60 DAY DEADLINE FOR, UH, NUMBER FIVE AND NUMBER SIX FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, I GOT THOSE DATES.
BUT WHAT IS IT? THE 60 DAY DEADLINE FOR THE FINAL HEARING FOR, UH, GRECO AND WATSON COMPLAINTS? I BELIEVE THAT'S, THAT NOVEMBER 25TH, DID YOU SAY? YEAH.
THE, THE DEADLINE, THE 60 DAY FALLS ON NOVEMBER 24TH, WHICH IS A SUNDAY.
SO IT WOULD PUSH TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY, THE MONDAY THE 25TH OF NOVEMBER.
BUT I, SAME AS PRELIMINARY DEADLINE FOR PRELIM HEARING FOR, IS IT UCHIN? NO, THAT'S THAT.
WOULD THE PRELIMINARY HEARING DEADLINE IS DECEMBER 2ND? NO.
ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU SAID? SORRY.
FOR THE LANE CASE, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING DEADLINE IS DECEMBER 2ND.
FOR THE GANGOLI CASE IT'S NOVEMBER 25TH.
GRECO AND WATSON, IT'S NOVEMBER 24TH, BUT IT PUSHES TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
WHAT I CONTEMPLATE DOING, AND I I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE SCHEDULING OF THESE IS THE CHAIR'S RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I WANT, I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE INPUT ON IT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY REASONABLY HAVE A FORMAL ACTION ON A DATE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THAT THAT DATE WOULD PROVIDE US WITH A PHYSICAL LOCATION.
UM, SO THE, THE VOTE WOULD MAYBE BE, WOULDN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
UM, WHAT I'M INCLINED TO DO IS WHAT COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY JUST MENTIONED, WHICH IS HAVE OUR TWO FINAL HEARINGS ON THE GRECO AND WATSON MATTERS AT OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THE 13TH.
AND THEN THE TWO PRELIMINARY HEARINGS THE FOLLOWING WEEK, PREFERABLY WEDNESDAY.
'CAUSE WE ARE KIND OF A WEDNESDAY GROUP.
UM, BUT I THINK WE'D NEED TO SEE WHEN WE ACTUALLY CAN GET A ROOM.
DOES THAT, I'M JUST KIND OF THROWING THAT OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY, UM, COMMENTS IN FAVOR OPPOSED OR OTHERWISE TO THAT GENERAL NOTION? TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE TAKING ON ALL THE WORK ALONG WITH MS. BENNETT AND WE'LL JUST ALL GET AN UPDATE WITH A DATE.
IT'S REALLY MS. BEEZ WHO HAS ALL THE WORK.
UH, SO, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT? IS LIKE THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION AFTER THIS.
WE, WE ALL, IF, IF WE'RE ALL OKAY, THEN THAT DUTY FALLS TO YOU TO SEND US A NOTIFICATION OF MEETING TIMES.
THAT IS, UH, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
OUR COUNSEL SAYS THAT'S RIGHT.
SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THAT STRATEGY TO HANDLE THE, UH, FINAL HEARINGS FIRST AT A FULL COMMISSION MEETING.
SO THAT WOULD BE NOVEMBER 13TH.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT, TO GIVE US FLEXIBILITY AND TO HELP WITH SCHEDULING IT.
UH, IF YOU WANT, WE COULD, WE COULD ALL AGREE TO A, A COUPLE, AT LEAST TWO OR THREE OPTIONS ON THE DATE FOR NUMBER FIVE AND NUMBER SIX, IF THAT HELPS.
AND THEN OF COURSE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S ALL DEPENDENT UPON WHICH DATE WOULD YIELD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE A FACILITY.
UM, AND WE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
SET THE HEARING AND THEN ONLY THREE OF US CAN SHOW UP.
AND SO I HAVE A POINT OF MAYBE LAW QUESTION WHAT HAPPENS IF WE CANNOT GET A QUORUM WITHIN THE 60 DAYS IS THAT WE ALL GO TO JAIL
YEAH, I MEAN, JUST WHAT HAPPENS FROM OUR OBLIGATION.
I MEAN, THE CITY CODE DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR ANY PENALTY.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY AS LONG AS YOU'RE ALL ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND YOU TRY TO GET HERE, IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE DON'T QUITE KNOW ROOM AVAILABILITY YET.
SO, SO THERE IS A DIFFICULTY THERE.
BUT I THINK OUR HOPE WOULD BE TO, AS SOON AS YOU ALL HAVE, HAVE GIVEN SOME GUIDANCE TO ME AND LIZETTE ON, UM, ON WHAT DATES OR DATE YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WE CAN TRY TO CONFIRM THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE OKAY.
AND GET SOME INFORMATION OUT AND, AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW, IT, IT MAY BE THAT WORKING THROUGH LIZETTE THAT IF WE HEAR BACK, UM, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION OVER
[00:40:01]
EMAIL, BUT IF WE'RE ABLE TO KIND OF COORDINATE AND FIND OUT THAT THERE IS NOT GONNA BE A QUORUM FOR A PARTICULAR DATE, WE CAN MAYBE THEN QUICKLY TRY TO TURN AROUND AND FIND ANOTHER DATE.BUT THERE REALLY IS NOT A, A CONSEQUENCE.
I JUST WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF IT'S THE CASE THAT YOU SET A MEETING AND YOU DON'T HAVE A QUORUM AND IT'S UNAVOIDABLE, THEN MY ADVICE WOULD JUST BE TO HAVE THE HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THEREAFTER.
SO, AND THEN THAT, THAT IS MY QUESTION IS DO WE OWE SOME DUTY TO THE, UM, RESPONDENTS, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE WE DO TO HOLD A, A QUICK MEETING, BUT, UH, DO WE FULFILL THAT DUTY BY HAVING A MEETING EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM AND HAVE TO CALL THE MEETING? UH, I THINK IT'S A WEIGHING GAME AND WE'RE NOT DOING AN ACTION RIGHT NOW.
SO YEAH, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, YOU KNOW, WHICH I, YOU KNOW, 100% OF COURSE DO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF YOU ARE, AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF YOU HAPPEN, IF YOU SET A MEETING DATE AND WE THINK WE WOULD HAVE A QUORUM AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS AND YOU DON'T AND IT'S UNAVOIDABLE.
THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A LOT YOU CAN DO.
BUT, BUT AGAIN, AS LONG AS AS LONG AS YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD AND YOUR PEOPLE ARE PLANNING TO BE THERE AND YOU'VE SET A DATE WHERE WE THINK MOST PEOPLE CAN ATTEND, THEN I THINK YOU'RE ABIDING BY YOUR DUTY.
WOULD IT, THIS IS ANOTHER LEGAL QUESTION.
UM, WE'RE PUTTING YOU ON THE HOT SEAT A LOT TONIGHT,
UM, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT FOR EACH OF US TO SEPARATELY EMAIL YOU AND OR MS. BENITEZ WITH THE DATES THAT WE ARE AVAILABLE? UM, AND THEN YOU CAN LET ME KNOW WHICH ONES WORK WHERE WE WOULD BOTH HAVE A QUORUM AND A ROOM.
OPEN THE OPEN MEETINGS APP, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REALLY, IT'S NOT REALLY A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION OF THE ERC'S BUSINESS.
IT'S MORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE THING WHERE WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET A MEETING SET UP.
WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING ANYTHING THAT'S THE CONTENTS OR THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING.
SO YEAH, I WOULDN'T WANT US, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, FOR YOU ALL TO ENGAGE IN THAT CONVERSATION WITH EMAILS GOING BACK AND FORTH, BUT IF EACH OF YOU, UM, SEPARATELY SEND SOMETHING TO MYSELF OR LIZETTE AND THEN WE COULD HELP COORDINATE LOOKS LIKE WE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A QUORUM ON THESE TWO DATES OR WHATEVER.
AND THEN WE CAN LET YOU KNOW AND YOU CAN MAKE THAT DECISION AS LONG AS YOU ALL ARE NOT JUST DISCUSSING IT AMONGST YOURSELVES BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE, WE MAY HAVE LOTS OF SCHEDULING ISSUES.
UM, I KIND OF WONDER IF WE SHOULD GIVE THE DATES TO MS. BENITEZ THAT WOULD WORK FOR US DURING THE WEEKS OF THE FOURTH, 11TH AND 18TH.
UM, WHICH MONTH IS THIS IN? OF NOVEMBER.
JUST TO GIVE US THE MAXIMUM NUMBER AND TO MAKE MS. BENITEZ'S LIFE AS LIFE AS HARD AS I CAN
AND IF I MAY I AM SORRY, CHAIR TO JUMP IN AGAIN.
UM, THE ONLY THING TO KEEP IN MIND AS FAR AS THOSE DATES IS THAT THE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES HAS TO BE SENT OUT NO LATER THAN THE 10TH BUSINESS DAY BEFORE THE DATE OF THAT HEARING.
SO THAT'S, SO IF WE WERE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
IT BASICALLY WORKS OUT TO BE TWO WEEKS, IT'S TWO CALENDAR WEEKS IS USUALLY WHAT IT WORKS OUT, SO, OKAY.
SO WE REALLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT THE WEEK, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE WEEK OF THE FOURTH UNLESS WE HAD THE HEAR THE NOTICE SENT OUT TOMORROW AND THEN WE COULD HAVE IT THE SEVENTH OR EIGHTH.
THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT'S PRACTICAL.
SO LET'S DO THE WEEKS OF THE 11TH AND THE 18TH.
AND WE ALREADY HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 13TH.
IS, DO WE NOT WANNA DO A PRELIM THAT DAY BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A FINAL THAT DAY? WE HAVE TWO FINALS THAT DAY, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND I JUST DON'T THINK WE CAN GET ALL OF THAT DONE IN OUR, UH, RIGHT SCHEDULED TIME.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THE SCHEDULING ISSUES? AND THEN WE'LL KIND OF FIGURE IT OUT AS I'VE GENERALLY PROPOSED.
UH, WERE, WERE YOU GONNA SAY SOMETHING, SECRETARY? JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE ACTION ITEM FOR EACH OF US TO SEND TO MS. BENITEZ OR SEND TO YOU OR SENT TO, TO MS. BENITEZ.
UM, DO YOU WANNA BE ON IT, MS. WEBSTER? SURE.
UM, THE DATES THAT YOU ARE AVAILABLE FOR A HEARING STARTING AT 6:00 PM MM-HMM.
EXCLUDING NOVEMBER 13TH, WHICH WE KNOW IS A, IS A COMMISSION MEETING.
YOU CAN TELL HER YOU'RE AVAILABLE.
BUT WE'VE, YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY GOT ONE SET THAT, THAT DAY.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS.
[00:45:01]
SO, UH, NOW WE CAN, IF IF THERE'S, I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF DISCUSSION IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING FURTHER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THE POINT EITHER.[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY AGENDA ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS? UM, SO I THINK WE WILL, WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE UPDATE FROM THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW ERC COMPLAINTS PROCESS.THAT'LL, THAT'LL BE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, BUT PROBABLY NOT UNTIL DECEMBER.
MAYBE
THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? KALE? I DON'T WANNA OVERLOOK YOU NOW THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE BACK.
ALRIGHT, WELL I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA FOR THE EVENING THEN.
UM, AM I MISSING ANYTHING MS. WEBSTER? LEMME MAKE SURE I GET US ALL RIGHT.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
SO WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:06 PM WE WILL SEE YOU ALL NEXT MONTH.
YOU WANNA KNOW ABOUT YOUR TRUE ARRIVAL.
YOU WANNA MAKE REAL MUSIC MATCHES PART TIME.