[00:00:04]
[CALL TO ORDER]
VICE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.I WILL BE CHAIRING THIS EVENING.
I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
IT IS DECEMBER 5TH, 2024, AND IT IS 6:11 PM WE ARE AT AUSTIN CITY HALL IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
ROOM NUMBER 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS, SEVEN EIGHT SEVEN ZERO ONE.
I WILL CALL THE ROLE CHAIR MICHAEL LEVINS.
SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. HERE.
UH, WE HAVE THREE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.
UM, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T SAY SO DURING ROLL CALL.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER KALE, UM, CHAIR LEVINS.
UM, WHO ELSE DO WE HAVE? I'M SORRY.
UM, OKAY, SO WE HAVE THREE, UM, REMOTE.
SO THAT'S, UH, LOVENS RETURN AND, UH, KALE.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.UH, TWO SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES EACH.
FIRST IS, UH, BETSY GREENBERG.
UM, WHO'S GONNA TIME, CAN YOU TIME? SURE.
IS THIS, UM, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO, I SIGNED UP ON THE ITEMS, NO ON THAT.
YOU SIGNED UP FOR, UM, AGENDA ITEMS TWO AND THREE, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT.
BUT FINE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG.
AT YOUR LAST MEETING, I DEMONSTRATED THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN VIOLATED CHARTER ARTICLE THREE SECTION 8 83 AND BOTH THE 2022 RUNOFF AND THE 2024 GENERAL ELECTION.
NO CANDIDATE SHALL ACCEPT MORE THAN THE SET AMOUNTS FROM THE SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THIS AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
THE CHARTER DOESN'T PROHIBIT ANYONE FROM DONATING TO A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL LIMITS AND THERE IS A LIMIT ON THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT THE CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT.
THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT DISPUTE THE CONTRIBUTIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO THAT WERE THIS MONDAY REPORTED AS RETURNED ON CORRECTED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
IN FACT, THE RESPONDENT HAS STIPULATED TO CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTS THAT NEARLY REACHED THE THRESHOLD OF THE CHARTER.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I PROVIDED SHOWS THAT AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS WERE EXCEEDED.
RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THEY HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE DONORS PROVIDE A HOME ZIP CODE FROM AN ACCEPTABLE LIST WHEN DONATING.
THE RESPONDENT'S ZIP CODE TEST WAS NOT CREATED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND DOES NOT SATISFY THE CHARTER REQUIREMENT.
THE CHARTER LIMIT APPLIES TO ALL SOURCES THAT ARE, ONE, NOT NATURAL PERSONS, TWO NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, AND THREE NOT FROM AN AUSTIN ZIP CODE.
THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT RESIDENCY IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY THE CHARTER LIMIT IS BASED ON CLEAR CRITERIA THAT CAN BE CHECKED WITH PUBLICLY AVAILABLE VOTER LISTS.
CITY CODE SAYS THE ISSUE AT A FINAL HEARING SHALL BE WHETHER A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.
SO THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHARTER LIMIT WAS VIOLATED, NOT WHETHER THE MAYOR DID HIS BEST OR WHETHER THE LAW IS FAIR.
THIS IS LIKE A SPEEDING TICKET.
AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT WENT OVER THE LIMIT.
[00:05:01]
AND UNLIKE IT WITH A SPEEDING TICKET, THERE ISN'T EVEN AN AUTOMATIC FINE FOR SANCTIONS.YOU MAY CONSIDER A 10 AND WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THE LAW IS FAIR, BUT IF YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE MAYOR'S CAMPAIGN WENT OVER THE CHARTER LIMIT, YOU ARE SETTING A DAMAGING PRECEDENT BY SHOWING CANDIDATES AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THIS COMMISSION WILL NOT ENFORCE AUSTIN'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES.
IF THE MAYOR DOESN'T LIKE THE WAY THE CHARTER IS WRITTEN, UNLIKE YOU OR I WHO MUST GATHER 20,000 SIGNATURES FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN AUSTIN, HE CAN FOLLOW OPEN MEETINGS REQUIREMENTS AND GET FIVE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE TO PUT THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT.
BUT FOR NOW, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE LIMIT ON THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT THAT CAMPAIGNS CAN ACCEPT FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS, THAT LIMIT WAS VIOLATED BY THE WATSON CAMPAIGN IN BOTH 2022 AND 2024.
MAY I MAKE A CORRECTION? WE DON'T HAVE THE AGENDA.
SO SHE WAS SPEAKING ON ITEMS THREE AND FOUR AND MR. KASR WILL BE SPEAKING ON ITEM THREE.
SO WHO WROTE TWO AND THREE AND WHO WROTE TWO? UH, MS. GREENBERG WROTE TWO AND THREE.
YES, BUT IT SHOULD BE THREE AND FOUR.
'CAUSE WE, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE AGENDA AND MR. COWER WILL BE SPEAKING ON ITEM THREE.
SO WAS THAT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION OR NOT? WAS THAT, I'M SORRY.
SO MR. COWER IS NEXT OKAY FOR THIS SUNDAY.
LEMME KNOW WHEN MY TIME BEGIN, SIR.
SO, UH, WE WILL COUNT CALLEN JAMES COWER.
AND BECAUSE MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HERE THIS EVENING WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN WE HAD THE FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING LAST MONTH.
I WANNA BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY STIPULATION ON THE PART OF MAYOR WATSON THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION.
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE, THE BASICALLY UNREFUTED EVIDENCE FROM MAYOR WATSON SHOWED THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION, THAT HE STAYED STRICTLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
COUPLE OF POINTS I WANNA MAKE THIS EVENING.
THE FIRST IS WE HAD A FOUR HOUR PUBLIC HEARING IN NOVEMBER.
WE HAD EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING OF THOSE WITNESSES.
YOU HAD TWO EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WITH YOUR ATTORNEY.
WE HAD HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF EXHIBITS.
WE HAD BACK AND FORTH QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE ATTORNEYS.
YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS AMONG YOURSELVES.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN A POSITION TO VOTE ON THIS MATTER THIS EVENING ARE THE SIX COMMISSIONERS WHO HEARD FOUR HOURS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND LEGAL ARGUMENT AND RECEIVED THE COUNSEL FROM THEIR OWN, UH, ATTORNEY.
UH, I'VE PRACTICED LAW IN TRAVIS COUNTY FOR 45 YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW A JUDGE IN THIS COUNTY WHO WOULD CONSIDER HERSELF QUALIFIED TO HEAR A CASE IF SHE HAD NOT HEARD THE EVIDENCE, SEEN THE EXHIBITS, AND LISTENED TO THE ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE.
SO I'M GOING FORWARD ON THE ASSUMPTION THIS EVENING, AND I HOPE THE COMMISSION WILL RESPECT THIS, THAT THE SIX COMMISSIONERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE FIRST HEARING ARE THE ONLY ONES IN A POSITION TO MAKE A FAIR AND INFORMED DECISION ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING.
THE SECOND POINT, AND THIS CAME UP WITH A QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER KAHLO, AND I WASN'T ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING, BUT COMMISSIONER KAHLO WAS CONCERNED THAT THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER, SPECIFICALLY THE PROVISION ON, UH, ZIP CODE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN LIGHT OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.
AND AS YOUR OWN ATTORNEY WILL TELL YOU, THE AUSTIN CITY CODE AND THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE CHARTER IS, IS ENACTED BY THE VOTERS.
IT'S LEGISLATION ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE.
THE CITY CODE IS LEGISLATION ACTED BY THE CITY.
THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CITY CODE THAT SAYS TERMS NOT DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER.
AND THAT'S THE CHAPTER OF THE CITY CODE, BUT DEFINED IN THE TEXT.
ELECTION CODE SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS ASSIGNED TO THEM IN THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE.
THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CHARTER.
THE CHARTER IS BASED ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CHARTER PROVISION.
IN THIS CASE, IT'S A PROVISION THAT WAS ENACTED IN 2006.
NOW, THE RESPONDENT HAS TOLD YOU THAT THE CHARTER MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT ALLOW CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS IN AN AUSTIN CITY ZIP CODE IF THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE.
THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS LANGUAGE SINCE 2006.
IT WASN'T THE INTERPRETATION IN 1997 WHEN IT WAS FIRST APPROVED, AND THE LANGUAGE THAT THE VOTERS VOTED ON, AND THIS IS FROM THE ACTUAL CITY ORDINANCE.
PUTTING THIS ON THE BALLOT BALLOT IN 1996, WAS SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS? SO
[00:10:01]
TO CLOSE, I THINK ONLY SIX OF YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO VOTE ON THIS, THIS EVENING.AND THE CITY CHARTER IS YOURS TO INTERPRET.
IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT BASED ON THE CITY CODE.
IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER WHO IS PRESENT TODAY WHO WISHES TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT RECUSAL VICE CHAIR LOW? I JUST WANNA ADD, MR. GRECO IS SIGNING UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION BEFORE YOU MOVE ON.
UH, ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
UH, I, MS. GREENBERG, DID YOU SIGN UP FOR FOUR ALSO? LET'S JUST SAY THREE.
FOR CLARIFICATION, IS IT MR. GRECO FOR NUMBER FOUR? AND, UH, MS. GREENBERG ALSO FOR NUMBER FOUR? OR IS JUST THREE? OH, WAS THAT FOUR? OKAY.
WAS IT FOUR OR IT WAS THREE? UH, WE, THAT'S WHAT I TALKED ABOUT.
DO YOU ALSO WANT TO SPEAK ON FOUR? SURE.
SO, MR. GRECO, AND THEN MS. GREENBERG ON NUMBER FOUR.
UM, AND, UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, REGARDS THE CASE THAT, UM, WAS, WAS FILED ON ME THIS TIME, BUT I PUT A QUESTION OUT, UM, THROUGH THE ATTORNEY, CITY ATTORNEY AND, AND, UH, ONCE, IF THERE'S A HEARING, ONCE IT STARTS, THEN I THINK THE QUESTION IS MOOT.
BUT THERE IS PRECEDENT WHEN A COMPLAINANT WITHDRAWS A COMPLAINT AND FORMALLY ASKS TO WITHDRAW A COMPLAINT THAT THE COMMITTEE THEN CAN, DOES NOT, DOES NOT HAVE THE HEARING.
AND MS. GREENBERG, AND I'M SURE SHE'LL SHARE THIS, UM, ON NOVEMBER 6TH, SUBMITTED A LETTER SAYING THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THIS COMPLAINT.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN THAT LETTER GOT TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I KNOW I SUBMITTED IT AS MY EVIDENCE, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE, THE CASE BE DISMISSED WITHOUT THE HEARING.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN 2001.
UM, THERE WAS A CASE BROUGHT BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST SAVE AUSTIN.
NOW, UM, THEY HAD DISCUSSED AND CAME TO SOME AGREEMENT, BUT REGARDLESS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE, THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE SAID QUOTE AT THE TIME, THE POINT OF THIS IS THAT WE HAVE LIMITED JURISDICTION.
AND IF MR. LITTLEFIELD DECIDES TO WITHDRAW HIS COMPLAINT FOR ANY REASON AT ALL, IT TAKES IT OUT OF OUR HANDS.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEVIN SAID, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SITTING HERE AS JUDGES AND WE CAN ONLY HEAR AND DECIDE ON LIVE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES.
AND IF MR. LITTLEFIELD WITHDRAWS HIS COMPLAINT, THERE IS NO LONGER A LIVE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE TWO.
WE HAVE NO POWER TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN OKAY.
SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO THE SAME.
AND I, I THINK MS. GREENBERG WILL SPEAK, BUT I BEGAN IN OCTOBER WHEN THE INITIAL HEARING WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN, FINAL HEARING, AND IT GOT DELAYED.
I STARTED RETURNING MONEY THAT I HAD SEQUESTERED WHEN I FILED THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT ABOUT THIS RULE.
I HAD ALWAYS SAID, WE'RE GONNA SEQUESTER IT, WE'RE NOT GONNA SPEND IT.
AND SURE ENOUGH, I'VE RETURNED OVER $8,000, OVER 90 GRASSROOTS DONATIONS.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE RULE.
WE'RE CHALLENGING IT IN, WE CHALLENGED IT IN COURT, BUT THAT, THAT CASE WAS DISMISSED.
UM, SO WE RE STARTED RETURNING THE MONEY.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ADMITTING A VIOLATION BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE VERY REASONS YOU HEARD IN THE MAYOR'S CASE A LOT OF GRAY AREA.
BUT I TOOK MS. GREENBERG'S COMPLAINT AND FOLLOWED HER LIST AND RETURNED THOSE DONATIONS ACCORDING TO HER CALCULATIONS.
UM, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, YOU KNOW, SHE ASKED FOR THE CASE TO BE DISMISSED.
SO I WOULD ASK YOU DO THAT, TO DO THAT WITHOUT, WITHOUT A HEARING.
[00:15:02]
THANK YOU, MR. GRECO.SO I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT MR. GRECO SAYS.
UM, SO I'M REITERATING WHAT MR. GRECO SAID.
UM, I DID ON NOVEMBER 6TH, SEND AN EMAIL TO THE CHAIR, UM, THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION AND MR. GRECO AND THE STAFF.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE COMMISSION.
UM, BUT IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, I THINK I'LL JUST SKIP CONSIDERING MR. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE VIOLATION, WHICH HE JUST SAID HE DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE, BUT HIS BEHAVIOR DOES ACKNOWLEDGE A VIOLATION BECAUSE HE SEQUESTERED THE MONEY.
HE DIDN'T COLLECT ANY FURTHER.
HE AVOIDED FURTHER VIOLATIONS, HE RETURNED CONTRIBUTIONS.
I AM SATISFIED THAT THE CHARTER PROVISION HAS BEEN ADHERED TO.
THEREFORE, I'M WITHDRAWING MY COMPLAINT AGAINST DOUG GRECO.
AND I ALSO HAD, UM, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THERE'S A, IT'S ACTUALLY 2021, NOT SO LONG AGO WHERE THE SETTLEMENT LED TO DISMISSAL OF ETHICS REVIEW CASE AGAINST SAVE AUSTIN.
NOW, AND IT WAS THE SIMILAR THING WHERE THE COMPLAINANT WITHDREW THE COMPLAINT.
UM, AND, UM, MR. MICHAEL LOVINS WAS NOT, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, HE WAS, HE WAS NOT THE CHAIR THEN.
BUT HE DID SAY EXACTLY THAT WE HAVE LIMITED JURISDICTION IF MR. LITTLEFIELD DECIDES TO WITHDRAW HIS COMPLAINT.
SO, SIMILARLY, I AM WITHDRAWING THE COMPLAINT.
I MEAN, I SKIPPED PART OF THE ARTICLE, AND IT IS A LITTLE BIT, THE IRONY IS NOT LOST ON ME THAT I OBJECTED TO THAT
UM, BUT IT WAS A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AT ALL OF THE VIOLATION IN THAT CASE.
WHEREAS I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE SITUATION HERE BECAUSE THE MONEY'S BEEN RETURNED AND THERE'S NO FURTHER VIOLATION.
SO I ALSO REQUEST THAT THIS BE WITHDRAWN OR DISMISSED.
SO WE'VE HAD THREE SPEAKERS ON NUMBER THREE AND NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA.
IS THAT, DOES THAT, UH, COVER ALL THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES.
UM, SO I, I BELIEVE I HAD ASKED YOU ABOUT RECUSAL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND, UH, NO COMMISSIONERS HAVE INDICATED RECUSAL.
UM, SO THEN, UM, IS IT, IS IT TIME FOR CLOSED SESSION? YEAH.
IF, IF NO ONE HAS, UH, INDICATED A DESIRE TO RECUSE, AT THIS POINT, WE WILL, UH, ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION AND, UM, WHEN WE RETURN, WE'LL, UH, TAKE UP AGAIN ON THE RECORD.
UH, YOU HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THE SECTIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT ARE ALLOWING YOU TO GO INTO CLOSE SECTION.
AND THE TIME DOES THAT, IS THAT NOT IN THE SCRIPT? ARE THEY, ARE THEY IN HERE SOMEWHERE? MM-HMM
DID YOU, DID YOU REQUEST, UM, SECTION NUMBER? I'M SORRY, WHAT? OKAY.
WHEN YOU GO INTO CLOSE SESSION, YOU HAVE TO STATE THE SECTIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT YOU ARE ALLOWING YOU TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION BECAUSE IT'S VERY LIMITED AND IT IS, I'M GONNA TELL YOU THEM RIGHT NOW.
SO, FOR, UH, BOTH CASES, SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO CLOSED SESSION ON THE WATSON CASE AND THE GRECO CASE, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM YOUR ATTORNEY MM-HMM
THEN THAT IS UNDER, OOPS, SORRY, I CLICKED
[00:20:01]
ON THE WRONG THING.THAT IS UNDER, IT'S 5 51 0.071.
AND THEN ALSO STATE THE TIME, AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE GOING, ONCE YOU'RE SORT OF RECESSING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
COMMISSION AT 6:31 PM WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL, UH, UNDER SECTION 5 5 1 0.07, ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.AND, UH, WE'LL BE OFF THE RECORD UNTIL WE RETURN, AT WHICH POINT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER NOTE IN THE ORDER CLOSED SESSION.
THE TIME IS 7:17 PM ENCLO SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO AGENDA ITEM TWO.
UM, AGENDA ITEM FOUR, RESOLUTION OF THE COMPLAINT BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST KIRK WATSON, UH, RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE.
SECTION EIGHT A THREE LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTION TO CANDIDATES.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE FINAL HEARING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024.
UH, AND THEREFORE NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN ON THIS ITEM.
[5. 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).]
UH, NOW TURN TO THE, UH, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS A COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO RAISING CLAIM TO VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE.SECTION EIGHT A THREE LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES.
WE HAVE HEARD PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, UM, IS THERE A MOTION FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? YES.
I'M, SO IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM AT ALL BEFORE A MOTION? I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE THE MOTION FIRST.
UH, COMMISSIONER POEY, RECOGNIZING THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS COMPLAINT.
SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS SECONDS.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION? I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER RETURN.
UH, I AM ARGUING AGAINST THE IDEA OF ONE, THAT THERE IS ANY SORT OF PRECEDENT FROM A, UH, SOVEREIGN COMMISSION, UH, RES RESOLVING ONE CASE.
UH, BUT ADDITIONALLY, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD DISMISS THIS, UH, COMPLAINT OR THIS INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLAINT.
UH, ON THE BASIS THAT MS. GREENBERG HAS, UH, REMOVE HAS WITHDRAWN THE COMPLAINT.
WE ARE A SOVEREIGN BOARD OF APPOINTEES, AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC TRUST.
UH, THE CLAIMANT IS NOT A CIVIL PLAINTIFF WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE SUIT.
SO THEM SAYING THEY NO LONGER HAVE AN ISSUE DOES NOT MAKE THIS A DEAD ISSUE.
UM, THEY'RE NOT A PROSECUTOR WHO HAS PUBLIC TRUST AND MANDATE TO SELECTIVELY BRING CASES.
THEY ARE SIMPLY A PERSON WHO BRINGS US ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT WE INVESTIGATE.
UM, ALSO AGAINST THE, THE CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENT, THERE IS NO ADMISSION OF GUILT.
BOTH MS. GREENBERG AND, UH, MR. GRECO DISAGREE ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS ADMISSION OF GUILT.
AND IF THAT IS THE BASIS FOR REMOVING THIS, THEN IT'S JUST SIMPLY DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
WE SHOULD RESOLVE THIS AS A, UH, AS AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC POLICY.
UH, THERE IS A PER SE, OR NOT A PER SE VIOLATION OF A CITY CODE, WE DO NOT NEED A COMPLAINANT TO PROCEED.
MAY I ADDRESS THAT? UM, UM, LET'S, THAT WAS CHAIR LEVINS.
UM, MAY INTERJECT REALLY QUICKLY, UM, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ACCURACY ON THE MINUTES.
UM, VICE CHAIR LOW, YOU STATED THAT THERE WAS NOT A QUORUM TO PROCEED ONTO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH WAS THE RESOLUTION OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST KIRK WATSON.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN YOU PROCEEDED TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
I'M, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER CHAIR LEVINS, DID YOU HAVE A YES, I JUST WANNA RESPOND TO WHAT COMMISSIONER RETURN SAID AND SAY
[00:25:01]
WITH DUE RESPECT.I, I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT.
UM, WE ONLY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER COMPLAINTS THAT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE US.
UH, THERE IS A STRANGE SORT OF PROVISION THAT DOES PERMIT US TO BRING OUR OWN COMPLAINTS, BUT NOBODY, WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT ON THE GRECO MATTER.
SO WHEN THE COMPLAINANT WITHDRAWS THE COMPLAINT, UH, THERE IS NO, THERE IS NOTHING FOR US TO ADJUDICATE.
UM, WE ARE NOT AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY.
WHEN SOMEBODY BRINGS SOMETHING TO US, WE ARE NOT EVEN, I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE EMPOWERED TO INVESTIGATE.
WE ARE, WE ARE EMPOWERED TO HEAR EVIDENCE THAT IS BROUGHT BEFORE US.
UM, I WOULD ACTUALLY, UH, I, I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, BUT I WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THE CONTENTION THAT, THAT THE MOTION IS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THERE, THERE IS NOTHING FOR US TO ACTUALLY DISMISS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
UM, THAT IS THE PRECEDENT THAT I, I WAS, I WAS QUOTED, UH, FROM MY EARLIER COMMENTS WHEN A SIMILAR MATTER CAME UP, UH, IN THE COMPLAINT AGAINST SAFE AUSTIN NOW, AND THAT MATTER WAS RESOLVED AND, UH, AND, AND THE COMPLAINANT WITHDREW THE COMPLAINT.
UM, THE, THE OTHER THING IS, UM, UH, SORRY, I, UM, I, I HAD ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER REASON.
UM, BUT I, I THINK THAT IT'S OUR RULES.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADJUDICATE AT THIS POINT.
SO IT, IT NOT ONLY SHOULD BE DISMISSED, I THINK AS A MATTER OF LAW AND OUR AUTHORITY AS A SOVEREIGN BOARD, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DISMISS IT.
CHAIR LEVINS WAS YOUR, I'M SORRY.
ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION, OR NEITHER? I'M SPEAKING IN, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
UM, AND OH, THE O THE, ACTUALLY THE OTHER POINT SINCE YOU, SINCE YOU BROUGHT ME MM-HMM
UH, AS TO WHETHER THERE'S BEEN AN ADMISSION OF GUILT THAT IS IMMATERIAL, UH, BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
UM, AND I THINK, I THINK THE MR. GRECO HAS SAID ESSENTIALLY, YES, I DID THE THING THAT IS SU SUPPOSEDLY PROHIBITED BY, UH, THE CODE, HOWEVER, THAT PROHIBITION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SO, UH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN QUIBBLE OVER WHETHER THAT'S AN ADMISSION OR NOT AN ADMISSION.
UM, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE COMPLAINANT HAS WITHDRAWN THE COMPLAINT.
AND SO WE HAVE NO POWER TO PROCEED.
SO ARE YOU SAYING IT DOES NOT EVEN NEED TO BE DISMISSED? UM, I AM SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, BUT I AM, I AM, I'M SO STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT I THINK THAT IT, IT IS ACTUALLY UNNECESSARY, BUT IT DOES KIND OF BUTTON THINGS UP TO DO IT, TO JUST MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE MINUTES THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A LIVE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AGAINST MR. GRECO.
COMMISSIONER, RETURN? UH, YEP.
I WOULD JUST OBJECT TO THE, UH, CHARACTERIZATION THAT WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY HERE.
I THINK IT'S AN UNSETTLED MATTER, AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US.
IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US.
THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY NOW DECIDES THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS OUTWEIGHED BY THEIR OWN VINDICATION DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN DROPPED BEFORE US.
I DISAGREE THAT WE HAVE SOME SORT OF JUDICIAL PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS A, UH, DEAD COMPLAINT HERE, A NON-LIVE COMPLAINT.
AND I, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S LIKELY AMBITIOUS TO SAY THAT OUR RULES ARE PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT THIS WHEN OUR RULES ARE NOT VERY PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT MANY THINGS.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE COMMISSION, I'M LOOKING, OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES CITE TO THE CITY CODE, SPECIFICALLY TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 41.
AND I'LL JUST NOTE SUBSECTION D.
IT SAYS, ON THE SWORN COMPLAINT OF ANY PERSON FILED WITH THE CITY'S CLERK'S OFFICE OR ON THE COMMISSION'S OWN INITIATIVE, THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISION PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.
SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE CODE DOES PROVIDE FOR THE COMMISSION TO ACT ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE INDEPENDENT OF A SWORN COMPLAINT.
UM, MAY I GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND? COMMISSIONER MCGON? UM, I'M SORRY, POINT OF ORDER.
UH, COMMISSIONER MATER, CAN YOU PLEASE MUTE YOUR MIC? THANK YOU.
UM, SO CHAIR LOVINS AND, UH, COMMISSIONER
[00:30:01]
MATER AND I ARE ON A WORKING GROUP ON THE, ON THE, UH, COMPLAINT PROCESS, THE OVERALL COMPLAINT PROCESS.AND IT INCLUDES, UM, THE COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINT FOR WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE NO WRITTEN PROCESS.
SO THAT IS JUST AN ONGOING THING THAT IS IN THE BACKGROUND.
WE HAVE NEVER USED IT AND WE HAVE NEVER DEFINED IT.
MAY I FURTHER ADDRESS THAT POINT? VICE CHAIR LOW? YES, OF COURSE.
UM, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY TO, UM, ASSERT A COMPLAINT AS A COMMISSION.
UM, IF, IF WE DISMISS THIS NOW, THERE'S UM, NO REASON THAT WE COULDN'T DO SO IN THE FUTURE.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF NOTICE TO THE ONE WHO IS BEING COMPLAINED AGAINST.
UM, AND FURTHER TO WHAT COMMISSIONER RETURN SAID REGARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND, AND SO FORTH.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER WE ARE SAYING, WELL, THE PUBLIC INTEREST DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE.
UM, WE CAN ONLY CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED TO US.
AND IF THE COMPLAINANT IS WITHDRAWING HER COMPLAINT AND IS NOT CON, NOT SUBMITTING ANY EVIDENCE TO US, THEN THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAN BE MET BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE IS BEING PRESENTED TO DO SO, AND NO PERSUASION IS BEING MADE TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION.
SO NO MATTER HOW YOU COME AT THIS, UM, THERE'S NOTHING TO PROCEED ON.
SO, AGAIN, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
DO ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENTS? I WILL COMMENT THEN.
UM, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF, UH, THINGS THAT, UH, I NOTICED IN THE WITHDRAWAL.
UM, MS. GREENBERG STATED THAT, UM, SHE WAS SATISFIED BASICALLY WITH THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE, UM, AS TO THE OCTOBER 28TH CAMPING FINANCE REPORT.
AND, UH, SHE FELT THAT SHE FELT SATISFIED THAT THE REST OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE RETURNED AND REPORTED.
AND SHE USED THE WORD FINAL REPORT.
BUT I, I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT AS MEANING THE NEXT REPORT OR THE REPORT THAT WOULD COME BEFORE THE END OF MR. GRECO'S CANDIDACY.
UM, SO I JUST, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT I CONSIDERED DECEMBER 31ST SOON.
UM, THAT WOULD BE THE PERIOD, THAT WOULD BE THE END OF THE PERIOD OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT NEED TO BE REPORTED JANUARY 15TH.
SO, UM, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS IF MR. GRECO INDEED WERE TO REPORT ALL OF THOSE THINGS ON THE JANUARY SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK THEN WE WOULD BE IN LINE WITH WHAT MS. GREENBERG HAS, UM, PRESENTED IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AS WELL AS, UM, IN HER SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS.
UM, SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, UM, WHETHER THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UM, HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THAT.
UM, I MEAN, JUST BASICALLY IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE'RE HERE.
UM, AND WHETHER IF WE WERE TO DISMISS AT THIS POINT, UM, WHETHER ACCORDING TO CHAIR LOVINS IT IS TRULY NECESSARY OR NOT.
UM, I, I THINK ANY OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE AS TO THE, AS TO ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, UM, ABOUT, UM, ABOUT ALL OF THE LISTS AND THE POWERPOINT AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS TO US EARLIER, UM, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE ALL OF THAT WOULD BE ANY OF THOSE CONTROVERSIES WOULD BE RESOLVED IF THERE WERE COMPLETE, UM, RETURN OF ALL OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS IN QUESTION AND IF IT WERE PROPERLY REPORTED.
UM, SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.
AND I FEEL IF ALL OF THAT IS DONE, I THINK THE PROPER THING FOR THIS COMMISSION TO DO WOULD BE TO DISMISS SECRETARY EMS. I WOULD LIKE TO
[00:35:01]
OFFER AND SAY THAT I, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE BEST WORD, BUT EMOTIONALLY, I, I STAND AND, AND I SEE COMMISSIONER MATER'S POINT, UM, YOU REMIND ME OF MYSELF, NOT THAT I'M SO MUCH OLDER, BUT, UM, IN OTHER, IN OTHER CASES WHERE I FELT A VERY PASSIONATE, UM, RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND TO SEND A MESSAGE.AND, AND, AND, AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR, FOR CHAMPIONING THAT.
SO I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, AND I SUPPORT THAT.
AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND, I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT, VICE CHAIR LOW ABOUT THE CONDITION OR SEEING FOLLOW UP.
MY INTEREST, MY PERSPECTIVE IS, I THINK IT'S, IT CAN BE CUMBERSOME TO MAKE A DECISION OR A RULE OR REGULATION OR POLICY THAT WE CAN'T REALLY, UM, HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR.
AND I'M AT A LOSS OF WORDS, BUT WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T REALLY MONITOR.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BEST WAY THAT I CAN THINK OF IT.
AND, AND APPRECIATE THE INTENT THOUGH.
AND THEN, UM, COMMISSIONER RETURN, I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT SAYING, SOMETIMES I'LL SAY, OH, YOU KNOW, JUST, UH, SILENCE IS, IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ADMISSION OF GUILT, OR, AND I JUST WANNA OFFER THAT TO PERHAPS NOT LOOK AT THIS DISMISSAL AS WE'RE SAYING NOTHING.
I DON'T LOOK AT IT AS WE WERE MAKING A RULING ON WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION OR NOT.
FOR ME, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR WORK, THE SCOPE OF OUR WORK FOR THE MOST PART IS CONTINGENT UPON WHAT'S BROUGHT BEFORE US.
AND THIS, THIS KIND OF IS ALIGNED WITH WHAT CHAIR LOVENS IS SAYING.
AND IF THE COMPLAINANT WITHDRAWS, THEN MY TAKE ON IT IS JUST KIND OF SIMPLER.
WELL, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COMPLAINT, IF YOU'RE NOT BRINGING FORTH, FORTH THAT COMPLAINT, THEN I WILL NOT THAT I'M, I'M RULING AND SAYING, OH, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO WRONGDOING OR THERE WAS WRONGDOING.
IT'S JUST SIMPLY THE MATTER HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
SO I JUST WANNA OFFER THAT TO, TO BOTH OF YOU.
SO IS IT, OH, I CAN'T, OH,
UH, YES, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON JUST THE, THE, YOUR INVITATION TO TALK ABOUT THE CONDITIONALITY OR THIS IDEA THAT THERE'S SOMETHING FORTHCOMING THAT, UH, ISN'T INFLUENCING US.
UH, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A, UH, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, UH, THE PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST TO RESOLVE THESE THINGS QUICKLY.
UH, WE HAVE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT MOTION, UH, IS A GOOD REASON TO DISMISS OR IS A PRESCRIPTIVE REASON TO DISMISS.
I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH REASONS TO DISMISS BECAUSE WE ARE CLEARLY OUTSIDE OF THE, UH, THE DATES THAT WERE PROVIDED FOR AN INITIAL AND FINAL HEARING.
UH, IF, IF WE WERE ONLY RULING ON THAT, THAT WOULD BE, UH, A TERRIFIC REASON.
UH, BUT IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR INPUT ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S EVEN MORE DISCUSSION TO BE HAD, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD RESOLVE THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY OUT OF THE PERIOD AS FAR AS, UH, THE 60 DAY AND SUBSEQUENT 60 DAY REQUIREMENTS.
ARE, ARE YOU SUGGESTING YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT MOTION IF WE VOTE ON THIS MOTION FIRST? UH, I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT, UH, I WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION FOR DISMISSING OVER THE TIMEFRAME.
UH, BUT WE ARE VOTING RIGHT NOW ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DISMISS FOR THIS REASON.
AND WHETHER'S A CONDITIONAL, UH, CONVERSATION THAT THERE'S A A POINT YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT CONDITIONALITY.
UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
I DON'T THINK IT'S CONCURRENT WITH OUR OBLIGATION TO THE COMPLAINT AGAINST PARTY.
WE SHOULD RESOLVE, IF WE'RE GONNA RESOLVE IT, WE SHOULD RESOLVE IT.
THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
UM, COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, AND YOU REPEAT YOUR MOTION? 'CAUSE I DON'T, I THINK IT WAS JUST A MOTION TO DISMISS.
THE MOTION WAS SIMPLY THAT RECOGNIZING UHHUH
[00:40:01]
OH, I'M SORRY.RECOGNIZING THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS WITHDRAWN THE COMPLAINT.
I MOVE AND THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE PROPOSED MOTION.
I MOVE THAT WE DISMISS THE CASE.
DID, DID YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING COMMISSIONER RETURN? WHAT? UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE USED THE RATIONALE FOR DISMISSAL LAST TIME AS AN ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S PRECEDENT.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE SAID ON RECORD THAT THERE'S A RATIONALE FOR THIS AND FOR THAT REASON, I BELIEVE IT'S THE WRONG MOTION TO PASS.
THIS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO.
IS, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.
THEN WE CAN CALL THE QUESTION, UM, SHALL I DO A ROLL CALL OR, THAT'S OKAY.
THIS IS ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS CHAIR LEVINS AYE.
COMMISSIONER, RETURN A COMMISSIONER FIGUERA AYE.
IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER KALE.
I THOUGHT PERHAPS IT WAS MOOT GIVEN THAT THE THRESHOLD HAD ALREADY BEEN MET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN.
OKAY, SO WE, IT'S, UH, SEVEN NEEDS TO VOTE AND I, I, I DO VOTE.
SO, UM, YES, WE HAVE SEVEN I AND, UH, ONE NAY.
DID WE GET COMMISSIONER KALE ON? YES, SHE SAID SHE DID.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER MOTION NOW? UH, COMMISSIONER MCC TURN.
I BELIEVE THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DISMISSED.
I BELIEVE THE, THE MOTION'S CARRIED.
I DUNNO WHERE WE'RE VICE CHAIR LOW MM-HMM
BEFORE THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION IN REGARDS TO GENERAL COMMUNICATION.
WHAT WAS LISTED ON THE GENERAL COMMUNICATION FORMS AS ITEMS THREE AND FOUR ARE ACTUALLY FOUR AND FIVE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
SO THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD FROM MS. GREENBERG WERE FOUR AND FIVE AND THE ONES WE HEARD FROM MR. GRECO, THAT'S FIVE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IS THERE I, WHERE'S MY, OKAY, SO THAT MATTER IS DISMISSED AND, UM, WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM FOR, UM, ACTION ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
AND UM, THE NEXT THING WOULD BE ADJOURNMENT.
SO WHAT DID THAT SANTA ADAMS? YES MA'AM.
SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE NEXT STEP FOR THE WATSON CASE? UNDERSTOOD THAT WE COULD NOT TAKE ACTION BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM FOR, FOR THAT CASE TODAY.
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? REPOST AND OBTAINING A QUORUM? MM-HMM
WELL, BECAUSE THERE IS NO QUORUM, UM, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A REPOSTING AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ANOTHER CONVENING IN WHICH THERE IS A QUORUM.
AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE QUORUM OF THE SIX WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THEN? YES.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
OKAY, IS THERE, UM, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE? OKAY.
[00:45:01]
AYE.