* 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. [00:00:02] MY NAME IS MICHAEL [CALL TO ORDER] LEVINS. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. TODAY IS DECEMBER, I BELIEVE IT'S THE 11TH. UH, YEAH, I'M, IT'S THE 11TH. AND THE TIME IS 6:25 PM WE ARE AT THE AUSTIN ENERGY HEADQUARTERS IN THE MUELLER ASSEMBLY ROOM NUMBER 1111 A 48 15 MUELLER BOULEVARD, AUSTIN, TEXAS, SEVEN EIGHT SEVEN TWO THREE. UH, I WILL CALL THE ROLE CHAIR MICHAEL LEVINS. THAT'S ME. I AM HERE. UH, VICE CHAIR AXON. ANDREA LO. HERE. SECRETARY N NEN. SANTON ADAMS. HERE. COMMISSIONER CASTO? HERE. COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA. HERE. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? HERE. COMMISSIONER KALE? HERE. COMMISSIONER MCC TURN. I BELIEVE HE'S ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MCG GN. HERE. COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY HERE. AND COMMISSIONER SHARKEY HERE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. UM, OH, I'M SORRY. OH, I ALREADY CALLED MISS COMMISSIONER KALE. I JUST LOOKED UP AND SAW HER ON THE SCREEN. . UM, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. UM, COMMISSIONER KALE, ONE MEMBER IS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY. UM, I WILL NOTE BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE AGENDA THAT WE'RE GONNA BE BOUNCING AROUND ON THE, UH, CHAIRMANSHIP. THAT'S, UH, THAT'S CHAIRING THE MEETING TODAY. 'CAUSE WE HAVE ONE, WE HAVE TWO AGENDA ITEMS WHERE I WILL BE RECUSED. SO, UM, WE'LL, MAYBE ABSTAINING. I WON'T BE VOTING. PUT IT THAT WAY. . UM, SO JUST TO BE AWARE, THAT'S COMING. [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL] UH, THE FIRST THING ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. UM, THE CHAIR WILL RECOGNIZE THREE DIFFERENT SPEAKERS AND THE ORDER, I BELIEVE THAT THEY SIGNED UP. AND THAT WILL BE FOR THREE MINUTES. AND OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS, UH, MS. BETSY GREENBERG. HI, MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG. I SIGNED UP ON THREE ITEMS, BUT I'LL, I'LL SPEAK TO, I THINK IT'S FOUR AND THREE AND FOUR. FOUR AND FIVE. THE FIRST TWO. YEAH. I GUESS FIRST, I GUESS TECHNICALLY YOU DO GET THREE MINUTES PER AGENDA ITEM. HOWEVER, AREN'T YOU GOING TO BE, UH, ON A COUPLE OF THESE ITEMS? AREN'T YOU GONNA BE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION? I THOUGHT I'M ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION. OKAY. SO FIRST I'LL TALK ABOUT THE, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE. YEAH, FOUR AND FIVE. UM, SO ON SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2024, KEN MARTIN OF THE AUSTIN BULLDOG PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE TITLED THEY WANNA GET ELECTED BUT NOT BE ACCOUNTABLE. THE ARTICLE NOTED THAT A DOZEN CANDIDATES FAILED TO FILE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO, UM, SPOT POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THAT'S 12 OUT OF 19 CANDIDATES DIDN'T FILE. UM, AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 72 REQUIRES CANDIDATES TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION. AS A MEMBER OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION, I AM ALSO REQUIRED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION. COMMISSIONERS WHO DON'T FILE THE PAPERWORK ARE REMOVED. ALTHOUGH THE CITY COUNCIL SOMETIMES VOTES ON A WAIVER TO ALLOW EXTRA TIME. THE BULLDOG PREVIOUSLY REPORTED ON THIS SAME ISSUE PRIOR TO THE 2022 ELECTION. APPARENTLY, THE REPORTING SEEMS TO ENCOURAGE A HIGHER PROPORTION OF CANDIDATES TO IGNORE THE REQUIREMENT, POSSIBLY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY ENFORCEMENT. UM, WHEN I SAW THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO DIDN'T FILE THE REQUIRED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR 2024, I TEXTED KEN MARTIN THAT MAYBE I SHOULD MAKE A CAREER OUT OF FILING ETHICS COMPLAINTS. I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, I WAS JOKING. . INSTEAD, I BELIEVE THIS COMMISSION SHOULD USE THE POWER IT HAS AND FILE COMPLAINTS AGAINST ALL THE CANDIDATES WHO VI VIOLATE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 72. IT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE POLITICAL OPPONENTS TO FILE THE COMPLAINTS. SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN 40 1D SPECIFICALLY SAYS, ON THE SWORN COMPLAINT OF ANY PERSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR ON THE COMMISSION'S OWN INITIATIVE, THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF A PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. I ASK THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE THE INITIATIVE AND FILE COMPLAINTS AGAINST CANDIDATES WHO [00:05:01] DON'T FILE. TWO DASH 7 31 A SAYS THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION SHALL BE ASSIGNED STAFF BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ASSIST IN ITS DUTIES. I THINK THESE COMPLAINTS ARE SIMPLE, ALTHOUGH I'VE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THAT TOO. UM, ANYWAY, UM, THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT IS IF THE COMMISSION FILES THE COMPLAINTS WITH THE HELP OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. PLEASE DO NOT WAIT MONTHS AND MONTHS FOR A WORKING GROUP TO FIGURE THIS OUT. WHEN I WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, WE PASSED TWO RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST. THAT IS THE EXPIRATION OF, BUT THERE'S TWO OF THE ITEMS. SO I'M GONNA KEEP TALKING. OH, HANG ON ONE SECOND. ARE YOU GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION? IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, NO ONE WAS TO PUBLISH PROMPTLY ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. ALL PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK BY THE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REQUIRE THAT CITY OFFICIALS MORE FULLY DISCLOSE IN THE REQUIRED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST, THEIR SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE, INSTEAD OF JUST LISTING LLCS, PARTNERSHIPS AND THE LIKE. COMMISSIONER KALE AND I BOTH SPOKE IN FRONT OF THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE TO ASK THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS BE CONSIDERED, BUT NOTHING GOT DONE. I HOPE THE COMMISSION, PERHAPS WITH THE HELP OF THE INCOMING COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S HERE TONIGHT, WILL WORK TO GET THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL. IF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE, IT'LL BE MORE APPARENT TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH CANDIDATES CHOOSE NOT TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. THANK YOU. AND I TAKE IT YOU DON'T WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER RIGHT NOW? UM, I CAN WAIT ABOUT AGENDA ITEM SEVEN, I THINK SIX. UH, SIX. SEVEN. SIX. YEAH. SIX SIX. THE, YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST MAYOR WATSON. YEAH. UM, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND DO THREE MINUTES ON THAT NOW. OKAY. INSTEAD OF HAVING PEOPLE SHUFFLE UP AND MEN BACK. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T THINK I CAN FINISH IN THREE MINUTES. MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG AND I FILED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MAYOR WATSON FOR VIOLATING CHARTER THREE SECTION EIGHT AC. AT BOTH THE FINAL HEARING AND LAST WEEK'S MEETING, MR. SER READ FROM THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE 2006 CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHICH BEGAN, SHALL THE CHARTER COMMISSION BE AMENDED TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE CI CITY LIMITS? HE ARGUES THAT BECAUSE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE DID NOT INCLUDE THE WORDS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, THE REQUIREMENT IS MY INTERPRETATION, RATHER THAN JUST A PLAIN READING OF THE LAW. HE DOES NOT, HOWEVER, OBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL WORDS IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS, WHICH WERE ALSO NOT INCLUDED IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED, ORDERING THE MAY, 2006 CHARTER ELECTION, PROVIDED THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND SPECIFIED THAT IF APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS, ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT OF THE CHARTER WOULD BE REPEALED AND REPLACED WITH THE EXACT LANGUAGE PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE. VOTERS WOULD NOT KNOW THAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ALONE FROM THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ALONE, THAT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT WAS IN FACT CHANGING THE LIMITATION FROM SOURCES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN TO SOURCES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN SIM CITY LIMITS. SIMILARLY, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ALONE DIDN'T TELL VOTERS THAT THEY WOULD NOT KNOW HOW MUCH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT INCREASED BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND AGGREGATE LIMITS. THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED, ORDERING THE NOVEMBER, 1997 CHARTER ELECTION USED BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT WAS EVEN MORE VAGUE. SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REGULATE POLITICAL FUNDRAISING AND EXPENDITURES IN THE CITY ELECTIONS? PART TWO OF THE ORDINANCE PROVIDED THE EXACT LANGUAGE FOR THE NEW SECTION EIGHT, WHICH INCLUDED THE AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION TOTAL FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN. AND CHANGING FROM ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN TO ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. COUNCIL MEMBER DUNKERLEY EXPLAINED THAT IT WOULD MAKE ACCOUNTING FOR INSIDE THE CITY AND OUTSIDE THE CITY A LOT EASIER. SHE SAID, IF YOU'VE GOT A CHECK THAT HAD AN AUSTIN ADDRESS ON IT, YOU COULD LOOK AT THE CITY ZIP CODE AND IMMEDIATELY KNOW WHETHER TO PUT IT IN ONE COLUMN OR THE OTHER. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. WHEN I FILED THE COMPLAINT, I USED THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS AND THE ZIP CODES LISTED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. MR. KOZAR ARGUED THAT PEOPLE COULD LIVE AT ONE ADDRESS AND DONATE WITH ANOTHER. HE EXPLAINED THAT DONORS WERE TOLD THEY COULD ONLY ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN A LIST OF ZIP CODES, AND THEN ASKED FOR A [00:10:01] HOME ZIP CODE. HE PROVIDED A SPREADSHEET LISTING DONORS WHO REPORTED A HOME ZIP CODE THAT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS USED FOR DONATION. HE CALLS THAT UNREFUTED EVIDENCE WHEN HE IS JUST PROVIDING A LIST AND SAYING, TRUST US. MR. KSR CLAIMED THAT I MADE A SWEEP OF THE THOUSANDS OF WATS OF CONTRIBUTORS. MR. YOUR THREE MINUTES HAS EXPIRED. MR, DO YOU WANNA FINISH? UH, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU HAVE? ONE MORE MINUTE, MR. I'M, I'M SORRY. WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ON THIS. I DO APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. UM, OUR SECOND SPEAKER IS ON AGENDA ITEM SIX, MR. JIM ZER. YOU'RE RECOGNIZING COWER CHAIRMAN COWER. I'M SORRY. UH, WE, WE SHOULD ALL KNOW EACH OTHER BY NOW. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME WE'VE MET ON THIS, AND WELL, I I HOPE THAT WE CAN WRAP IT UP THIS EVENING. UM, THE STATE OF THE COMPLAINT, AS YOU ALL KNOW, UH, WE HAD A FOUR HOUR EXTENSIVE PUBLIC HEARING LAST MONTH. UH, THREE WITNESSES, LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF EXHIBITS, UM, MULTIPLE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS. UH, LONG QUESTION AND ANSWER ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES. YOU HAD MULTIPLE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WITH YOUR, UH, OUTSIDE COUNSEL. AND THE, THE BOTTOM LINE WAS WE, WE WRAPPED UP THAT THREE COMMISSIONERS VOTED TO DISMISS, AND THREE WANTED TO DISCUSS IT SOME MORE. AND IT'S CERTAINLY YOUR PREROGATIVE, UH, IS THE SIX COMMISSIONERS WHO REMAIN ELIGIBLE TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER, TO DISCUSS IT SOME MORE. BUT THERE HAS BEEN A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION. AND, AND THE END RESULT IS THE COMPLAINANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S BEEN ANY VIOLATION. WHAT THE RESPONDENT HAS ESTABLISHED IS THAT THE RESPONDENT IMPLEMENTED A VERY DETAILED, COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM TO TRACK WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE CONTRIBUTING TO HIM, WHERE THEIR HOME ZIP CODE WAS. AND THAT'S WHAT HE RELIED ON. AND THAT'S REALLY THE, THE STATE OF COMPLIANCE THAT WE, WE HAVE TODAY. THERE IS NO BETTER SYSTEM. THE CI CITY HAS NEVER ESTABLISHED ANY BETTER WAY TO DO THAT. NOW, RATHER THAN DRAG THIS OUT THIS EVENING, I THINK IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, TWO OF YOU SHOULD PUT IT ON AS AN AGENDA ITEM SAYING, HOW CAN THE ZIP CODE LIMIT BE MADE UNDERSTANDABLE AND ENFORCEABLE? 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S NEITHER UNDERSTANDABLE NOR ENFORCEABLE. AND THE ONE CANDIDATE WHO'S EVER REALLY TRIED TO DO IT HAS BEEN HAULED BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AND HIS CONTRIBUTORS HAVE BEEN BASICALLY STALKED ON THE INTERNET. NOW, WHAT I'D ASK YOU TO DO, IT WOULD TAKE SIX VOTES AT THIS POINT TO FIND A VIOLATION. IF THERE'S SOMEBODY HERE WHO STILL THINKS THERE'S A VIOLATION, PLEASE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS IT IF YOU NEED TO. BUT MAKE THE MOTION AND LET'S GET A VOTE AND LET'S MOVE ON WITH IT. I MEAN, THIS IS, IT'S NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE, BUT IT'S AN ISSUE YOU CAN ADDRESS IF YOU CONVENE A STUDY GROUP AND SAY, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT AND HOW CAN WE MAKE IT WORK? I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU, SIR. AND OUR THIRD SPEAKER, I'M GONNA TRY TO, IT'S, UH, MARK CHEN. I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING THAT ONE CORRECTLY. UH, AND HE WILL SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. AND YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. IT'S MARK UCHIN. UM, FIRST, LET ME THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE. AS COMMISSIONERS, I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY TO GIVE UP YOUR WEEKDAY EVENINGS TO ADJUDICATE THESE MATTERS, WHICH ARE PROBABLY NOT AT THE TOP OF YOUR FUND LIST, BUT IN MY CASE, I'M JUST MAKING A VERY SIMPLE REQUEST, WHICH IS THAT YOU TAKE SOME ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM FOUR. UH, I'LL FIRST ASK, HOW MANY OF Y'ALL, MAYBE A SHOW OF HANDS, HAVE YOU DEALT WITH THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION YOURSELVES VIA CAMPAIGN OR, OR SOME OTHER? OKAY. SO AT LEAST, AT LEAST ONE OF Y'ALL. I WORKED IN CAMPAIGNS FOR THE FIRST PART OF MY CAREER, AND I HAD TO DEAL WITH THE TEC ON A LOT OF ITEMS. AND I KNEW FIRSTHAND THAT IF YOU DIDN'T, IF YOU SCREWED SOMETHING UP, I MEAN, THERE WAS ONE CASE WHERE WE JUST HIT, FAILED TO HIT THE, THE SEND BUTTON FOR A REPORT AND BOOM, 500, FINE. MY POINT IS, THOSE ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND THEY DON'T WASTE TIME ON THAT. UH, THEY, AND THAT'S HOW THEY KEEP ENFORCEMENT. THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW THAT GOING FORWARD. YOU THINK I EVER MADE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN? BUT I, THAT I SKIPPED HITTING THE BUTTON TO FILE A REPORT I NEVER DID. UH, SO MY, AGAIN, THE, THE SINGLE POINT I REALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THE ONLY REASON THAT WE HAVE, UH, CONSEQUENCES IS BECAUSE THERE IS ENFORCEMENT AT THAT LEVEL. AND THE ONLY REASON I'M HOPING THAT PEOPLE WILL FILE REPORTS GOING FORWARD HERE AT THE CITY LEVEL IS BECAUSE YOU [00:15:01] ALL WILL TAKE ACTION ON THESE MATTERS. OTHERWISE, ALL WE'RE DOING IS SENDING A MESSAGE TO CAMPAIGNS AND FUTURE CANDIDATES THAT IT'S OKAY TO SEND IN LATE REPORTS. IT'S OKAY TO NOT SEND IN REPORTS. NOBODY'S GONNA BE LOOKING, NOBODY'S GONNA BE CHECKING. AND, UH, AND THAT'S BAD FOR TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC. THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WE HAVE THIS SYSTEM. WE RELY ON AN ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM, WHETHER AT THE STATE OR HERE, TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED ONLINE. AND I THINK OTHER FOLKS WILL TALK ABOUT THAT. THERE'S PROBABLY A BETTER WAY, A MORE TRANSPARENT WAY TO FILE THOSE REPORTS AND HAVE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. BUT I THINK A SIMPLE STEP Y'ALL COULD TAKE IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENFORCING THE RULES IN THE BOOKS. THEY'RE THERE, I BELIEVE, FOR A REASON, UH, FOR TRANSPARENCY REASONS. AND I'D LOVE TO SEE YOU ALL TAKE SOME ACTION ON THIS, BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE IF WE DON'T DO THAT, ALL WE'RE INVITING IS FUTURE CAMPAIGNS CANDIDATES. UH, AND FOLKS THAT WILL JUST LOOK AT THE RULES AND DISREGARD THEM. THEY'LL SAY, WELL, IT'S OKAY THAT I DIDN'T GET THIS IN, IN TIME, OR, IT'S OKAY. I DIDN'T GET IT IN AT ALL. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR CAMPAIGNS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC. I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S GOOD FOR OUR POLITICAL PROCESS. SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S SERVICE AND, UH, THAT'S MY SIMPLE REQUEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, AND WITH THAT IS OUR LAST PERSON SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. I DO NEED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE SOME RECUSALS. UM, DO YOU HAVE THAT RECUSAL SHEET? I GUESS I'M SUPPOSED TO READ THOSE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO COMMISSIONER SHARKEY IS RECUSING FROM RECUSING OR ABSTAINING. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE, BUT FROM NUMBERS 6, 8, 9, AND 10, I AM RECUSING OR ABSTAINING FROM AGENDA ITEM FIVE AND SIX. COMMISSIONER KALE IS RECUSING FROM NUMBER FOUR, AND COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA IS RECUSING FROM ITEM SIX. SORRY. UH, I SHOULD ALSO RECUSE FROM ITEM NUMBER 10. I WASN'T HERE FOR THAT MEETING SINCE I WAS, UH, IT ONLY DEALT WITH THE ITEM THAT I WAS RECUSED FROM, THAT I'M AL THE SAME ITEM THAT I'M RECUSED FROM FOR TONIGHT. SO I SHOULD, I GUESS, ABSTAIN FROM 10. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IF I MAY, UH, CHAIR, YES, THIS IS JIBE WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT. UM, I THINK IT JUST MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ALSO JUST ANNOUNCE THE FULL LIST OF RECUSALS FOR ITEM SIX SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RECUSALS. UM, IF I MAY, WHY DON'T I DO THE LIST? 'CAUSE I HAVE A LIST OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT RECUSING. UM, CUS OKAY, SO OUR RECUSAL LIST FOR ITEM SIX, UH, AND THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MAYOR, WHERE THERE WERE ONLY SIX HERE. AND SO ONLY THOSE SIX CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE CONTINUED DECISION. UH, SO THOSE COMMISSIONERS ABSTAINING ARE COMMISSIONER SHARKEY, VICE CHAIR LOWE, CHAIR LEVINS, ME, UH, COMMISSIONER TURN, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA AND COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA. UH, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. FIGUEROA IS NOT RECUSING. THAT'S RIGHT. ESP, UH, LOW . OH, OKAY. SO WE HAVE, I THINK WE HAD A COUPLE OF ABSENCES OR, UH, OPEN SPOTS AT THE TIME. OH, OKAY. GOT IT. I THINK THAT'S THE DISCREPANCY. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL GIVE YOU THAT. OKAY. SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. UH, YES SIR. SIR, WOULD, WOULD YOU FOR CLARITY'S SAKE EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A REVIEW, UH, RE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT BETWEEN RECUSAL AND ABSTAINING? UM, NO, I WON'T BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND IT. UM, I THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE FOR TONIGHT. UM, SO, UH, JUST I THINK THE BIGGEST IMPLICATION OF RECUSAL VERSUS ABSTENTION IS THAT IT'S A RECUSAL. IF, UM, THERE IS A, A CONFLICT, UM, THAT WOULD IMPEDE THAT PERSON FROM DELIBERATING OR PARTICIPATING IN THAT DISCUSSION, AN ABSTENTION IS, THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A CONFLICT, BUT SAY THEY, THEY'RE APPROVING MINUTES AND THEY JUST WERE NOT AT THAT MEETING, UM, THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE PULLING THEMSELVES OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION. THAT'S SORT OF THE BIGGEST, UM, KIND OF EFFECT [00:20:01] OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THOSE TERMS. YEAH, THAT SEEMS TO BE MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. BUT PART OF RECUSAL, IS THERE AN IMPLICATION OF A, AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL SEPARATION? LIKE YOU WERE ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY NOT ABLE TO HEAR OR PARTICIPATE IN IT, BUT ABSTENTION IS, YOU CAN SIT THERE PERHAPS EVEN PARTICIPATE, BUT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE, YOU WOULD NOT VOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO THE NITTY GRITTY OF EXACTLY WHAT THOSE ARE BECAUSE I'LL BE HONEST, I'VE, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK, GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT. I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO PARTICIPATION, THERE WOULD DEFINITELY BE, UM, THERE WOULDN'T BE NO PARTICIPATION WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE EXECUTIVE SESSION. UM, AND I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S JUST CLEANER TO, TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN CONVERSATION ON THAT ITEM. UM, NO MATTER WHETHER IT'S A ABSTENTION OR A RECUSAL, LET'S JUST KIND OF KEEP IT CLEAN FOR THE RECORD AND, AND GO THAT WAY. VICE CHAIR LOWE, UM, I HAD SPOKEN WITH LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, STAFF EARLIER. I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER MEETINGS. HOWEVER, I DID REVIEW ALL OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, I REVIEWED THE VIDEOS, I REVIEWED THE POWERPOINTS, ET CETERA. AND WHEN I SPOKE WITH LAW DEPARTMENT STAFF EARLIER, I WAS ADVISED THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION OF ALL OF THOSE MATERIALS. AND IF AFTER THAT I STILL FELT I COULD NOT VOTE PROPERLY OR IN AN INFORMED MANNER, THEN I WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE OF ABSTAINING, BUT THAT I COULD OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSING THE MINUTES IN, UM, YOU KNOW, BRINGING UP ANY ISSUES WITH THE MINUTES, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WERE MISSING AND SO FORTH. UM, SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE POSITION OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT, BUT IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE ANYMORE, I WOULD LIKE US TO COME TO A LANDING ON THAT ONE. SO, UH, AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT CAN SPEAK TO THIS PROBABLY BETTER THAN I, BUT I, AND I GUESS THIS, WE'RE COMING UNDER A POINT OF INFORMATION HERE OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW, THIS ISN'T REALLY AN AGENDA ITEM, BUT WE, IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT. UM, MR. FELDMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN? HI. UM, SO I KNOW THIS ISSUE PRETTY WELL, UH, 'CAUSE I DROVE FROM HOUSTON OVER THIS ISSUE, AGAIN, TO MAKE SURE WE HAD IT RIGHT. UH, AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT I, I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED TO ITEM SIX, UH, PERHAPS, WHICH IS WHAT I AM A SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR. AND FOR THOSE THAT WERE NOT HERE, WHEN THE HEARING BEGAN IN NOVEMBER, YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM DELIBERATING ON THIS MATTER. ITEM NUMBER SIX, DISQUALIFICATION IN THIS CASE EQUALS RECUSAL. AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE ORIGINAL SIX TO HEAR THE MATTER BECAUSE IT TAKES SIX TO HAVE A QUORUM. AND IT CAN ONLY BE THOSE SIX THAT HEAR THE EVIDENCE, OR, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, DELIBERATE. SO THAT IS THE ISSUE AS TO SIX. AND THEN GENERALLY SPEAKING, JUST TO HELP FILL IN THE LINES A LITTLE BIT, UH, RECUSAL, IT DOES ACT IN REDUCING THE QUORUM. YOU SHOULDN'T SIT AT THE DAIS WHEN YOU HAVE A RECUSAL. UH, WHEN YOU ABSTAIN, YOU SIMPLY ARE, UH, THAT DOESN'T AFFECT QUORUM, BUT YOU'RE OPTING NOT TO PARTICIPATE FOR WHATEVER REASON. UH, YOU MAY HAVE AN ETHICAL REASON OR YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ISSUE AT ALL, OR MR. PRYOR MEETING AND FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT, UH, I HOPE THAT PROVIDES SOME CLARITY. I HAVE A QUESTION, RIGHT? THAT'S SET TO ONE, UH, ONE PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA. SO IF IT'S A QUESTION OF APPROVING THE MINUTES, THAT WOULD BE ALL THE OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, WHICH WERE, WHICH WERE IN ADDITION TO THAT. OH, I'M SORRY. SO, UM, APPROVING THE MINUTES OF A PARTICULAR MEETING THAT I WASN'T PRESENT FOR, UM, INCLUDES MANY THINGS THAT ARE BASED ON PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND SO FORTH, NOT DELIBERATION AS TO THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM. SO, UM, WHAT I HAD ASKED OUR, UH, CITY LAW DEPARTMENT ABOUT WAS WHETHER I NEEDED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE TWO MEETINGS THAT I DID NOT ATTEND, WHICH IS OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IF I REVIEWED THE VIDEOS, THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, ALL THE POWERPOINTS THAT WERE PRESENTED AND SO FORTH, THAT I WAS NOT THEN REQUIRED TO, UM, RECUSE OR TO ABSTAIN. BUT IF I CHOSE AT THAT POINT TO DO SO, THAT THAT WAS AN OPTION. IS THAT NOT A CORRECT UNDERSTAND. SO, VICTOR LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, NO, THAT'S STILL CORRECT. IF YOU CAN [00:25:01] VOTE ON THE MINUTES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU WERE AT THAT MEETING OR NOT, UM, IF YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT AT THAT MEETING, YOU CAN RECUSE OR ABSTAIN YOURSELF FROM VOTING ON THAT. UM, THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE. AGAIN, UM, AS, AS MR. FELDMAN HAD EXPLAINED, YOU KNOW, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE, IT COULD BE A MORAL REASON FOR, FOR ABSTAINING OR AN ETHICAL REASON OR JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU FLAT DON'T WANNA VOTE FOR IT THAT DAY OR YOU WEREN'T THERE. RIGHT? AND SO YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT, BUT IT IS LAW DEPARTMENT'S POSITION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. IF YOU TO VOTE ON THE MINUTES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION LIKE WE'VE ADDRESSED IS A DIFFERENT THING ON THAT SPECIFIC ITEM, ITEM NUMBER SIX. BUT ON APPROVAL OF MINUTES, IT HAS LONG BEEN THE POSITION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. MR. CHAIR, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I HAD A, A QUESTION AND I HAVE CLARITY. I'M SO SORRY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS, AND I'M EVEN, SORRY, I'M GONNA ASK THIS BECAUSE IT'S GONNA FALL IN THE LINE OF, DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF IS, IS TYPE OF QUESTIONING. WHEN, WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD TO BE HERE, WHAT DOES HERE MEAN? DOES HERE MEAN A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION OR HERE AS IN PRESENT TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY? I, I BELIEVE IT'S PRESENT TO, AT, AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS BEING PUT ON, YOU HAVE TO BE THERE WHEN IT'S NOT NECESSARILY PHYSICALLY, IT COULD BE HERE BY WEBEX. RIGHT, BUT HERE, MEANING PARTICIPATING IN THE COMMISSION? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU . ALRIGHT, UM, LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. OUR NEXT, UH, [EXECUTIVE SESSION] AGENDA ITEM IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP, UH, UH, ADVICE FROM, TO RECEIVE A LI ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS, UH, THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK UCHIN AGAINST ASHIKA GLI. AND ALSO, UH, TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MCKENZIE KELLY AGAINST KRISTA LANE. AND THEN ALSO TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE ON, UH, THE RESOLUTION OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST KIRK WATSON. UM, PURSUANT TO 5 51 0.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL, I'M SORRY, I ALREADY READ, WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE ITEMS THAT I JUST MENTIONED. 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 6:53 PM OF THIS, THE CLOSED SESSION FOR THIS MEETING. UH, THE TIME IS 8:18 PM AND IN THE CLOSED SESSION WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX. SO AT THIS TIME, WE ARE GOING TO GO A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER ON OUR AGENDA, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM SIX [6. Resolution of the complaint filed by Betsy Greenberg against Kirk Watson raising claimed violations of the City Charter, Article III (Elections), Section 8 (A)(3) (Limits on Contributions to Candidates), following the conclusion of the final hearing held on November 13, 2024. ] NEXT, WHICH IS RESOLUTION OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST KIRK WATSON. AND BECAUSE I WAS NOT AT THE EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF THIS, AND SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS WAS, UH, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO HER TO CHAIR THIS PORTION OF OUR HEARING TODAY. THANK YOU CHAIR LEVINS, IS THERE A STANDARD STATEMENT THAT I NEED TO MAKE TO BEGIN THIS PORTION OR CAN I JUMP RIGHT INTO, OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION. IS THERE A, SORRY. OH, I HAVE TO LEAVE THIS HERE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX. IS THERE A MOTION TO FIND THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER ARTICLE THREE SECTION EIGHT A THREE OCCURRED. THANK YOU. SO MOVED. I MOVED THAT, UM, I, I MOVED THAT WE'VE, THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MOVE FORWARD [00:30:01] ON A VIOLATION. IS THERE, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MOTION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER FIGO FIGUEROA AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CASTO. ALRIGHT, I BELIEVE THIS IS, UM, AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, IT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. OH. UM, AND LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER KALE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T EXCLUDE YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING AND HEARING THAT THERE IS DESIRE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A VOTE. ALL RIGHT. UM, WHAT AM I DO BY COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN? SORRY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE DONE ONE OF THESE. YOU'RE ASKING ME WHAT MY VOTE IS? ? YES. THE MOTION? MM-HMM . SHALL I REPEAT IT? THE MOTION IS TO FIND FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX, THIS IS THE WATSON CASE, THE COMPLAINT AGAINST, UM, WATSON, THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE. UNDERSTOOD. MY VOTE IS NAY. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA. AYE. ALRIGHT. MYSELF AS SECRETARY, BUT ACTING AS CHAIR FOR THIS ITEM, MY VOTE IS NO, NOT IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER KALE? NO. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CASTO? NO. COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY. I ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRY. THIS MATTER IS CONCLUDED. THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY, AND THEREFORE THIS MATTER IS CONCLUDED. ALRIGHT, I SHALL HAND THIS BACK OVER TO CHAIR LEVINS TO RESUME, UM, PRESIDING OVER THE REST OF THIS MEETING. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. UH, THE NEXT [4. A complaint filed by Marc Duchen against Ashika Ganguly raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-7 (Ethics & Financial Disclosure), Section 2-7-74 (Financial Disclosure by Candidates).] ITEM ON OUR, WELL, THE, GOING BACK TO NUMBER FOUR, UM, THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK UCHIN AGAINST ASHIKA GLI RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN AND SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN FOUR. UM, STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, UH, IS THE COMPLAINANT STILL HERE? ALL RIGHT. I SEE MR. AHIRE, I ASSUME YOU'RE HERE AS COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT? I AM. OKAY. AND THE COMPLAINANT, HE MADE COMMENT IN PUBLIC COMMENT, RIGHT? HE DID. OKAY. UM, SO YOU'VE, I GUESS I, I'LL, I'LL FOLLOW THE SCRIPT, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF INCLUDING, UH, WHO YOU'RE COUNSEL FOR. MY NAME IS BILL AHIRE. I AM COUNSEL, UH, FOR MARK UCHIN ON THIS, UH, COMPLAINT, UM, UH, CONCERNING THE, UH, A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST INFORMATION. UM, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 44 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE. UH, I DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, THE DATE THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, UM, BUT THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED RESPONDENT VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS TWO DASH SEVEN AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 74. THE ISSUE AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A CITY CODE PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF [00:35:01] THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD. IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSIONS SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING. IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. A DECISION TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. UH, AND AT THIS TIME, MR. AHIRE, YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, ON, UH, THE, UH, COMPLAINT BY MR. UCHIN, UM, I EMAILED THAT COMPLAINT AT 10:44 PM ON SEPTEMBER THE 24TH, BEING AFTER HOURS. THE CITY CLERK INDICATED THAT IT WAS FILED THE NEXT DAY, THE 25TH. THAT SAME DAY, UH, UH, MS UM, GULLY FILED THE SFI OR THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST. UH, E UH, FILED IT ONLINE, UH, AND ALSO FILED THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT, UH, SFI WAS DUE ON AUGUST THE 26TH, FILED BASICALLY A MONTH LATE. BOTH OF THESE CASES, NUMBER FOUR AND NUMBER FIVE, ARE GONNA PRESENT THIS COMMISSION WITH A, A CHALLENGE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THE LAW REQUIRING PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BE FILED TIMELY, ESPECIALLY DURING AN ELECTION WHERE THE VOTERS GET TO SEE WHAT THAT INFORMATION IS ON A TIMELY BASIS, WELL IN ADVANCE, UH, OF THE ELECTION ITSELF. UM, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE FILED WELL AFTER THE DEADLINE. UM, THE, UH, RESPONDENT IS NOT HERE, UH, TO GIVE ANY OTHER EXPLANATION OTHER THAN I, I THINK FROM THE RECORD YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE. THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THE PFS TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AS WELL. BUT Y'ALL DON'T HAVE, UNDER YOUR ORDINANCE, YOU DON'T HAVE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OVER THAT. THAT STILL RESIDES WITH THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION. I, I, I WANNA, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THESE CANDIDATES WERE ON NOTICE OF THE NEED TO FILE A, PER A PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT IN THE CANDIDATE PACKAGE, WHICH I FORWARDED TO Y'ALL OR HAD FORWARDED TO Y'ALL YESTERDAY. UM, UH, TAB SIX OF THE, OF THE CANDIDATE PACKET THAT THEY CAN ALL GET, UM, ADDRESS THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION, BOTH THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND THE PERSONAL, UH, FINANCIAL, UH, UH, AND, AND THE, AND THE PERSONAL, UH, FINANCIAL, UH, REPORT. UM, IN, IN ADDITION, THE, THE CALENDAR, THE ELECTION CALENDAR THAT IS AVAILABLE, UH, CLEARLY SHOWED THAT AUGUST THE 26TH WITH THE DEADLINE FOR FILING THE PUBLIC STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION. AND THAT SEPTEMBER THE NINTH WAS THE DEADLINE FOR THE CANDIDATE TO FILE THE PERSONAL, UH, FINANCIAL STATEMENT REQUIRED BY, BY STATE LAW. SO THEY KNEW THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO IT. THEY DIDN'T FILE UNTIL AFTER A MEMBER OF THE NEWS MEDIA. KEN MARTIN HAD CONTACTED THEM, AND HIS STORY HAD COME OUT THAT THEY, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS, 10 OTHERS, HAD NOT FILED THEIR STATEMENTS ON TIME. YOUR CHALLENGE IS WHETHER YOU'RE GONNA DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I, I, IT'S A STRANGE SITUATION BECAUSE AS YOU LOOK AT THE CITY CODE AND WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO, AND THE SANCTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER, AND I REALIZE WE'RE NOT HERE TONIGHT TO DECIDE, THE SANCTIONS ARE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING, WHICH I'M ADVOCATING THAT YOU DO ON BOTH NUMBER FOUR AND NUMBER FIVE. UM, BUT YOU WILL SEE THAT YOUR NORMAL SANCTIONS OPTIONS, A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, A LETTER OF ADMONITION, A REPRIMAND ARE RECOMMENDATION REMOVAL FROM OFFICE DON'T APPLY TO FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT. THOSE SANCTIONS TECHNICALLY ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO [00:40:01] Y'ALL TO ADDRESS. SO WHAT, WHAT CAN BE DONE WELL UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 99? THE FAILURE TO FILE A, A FINANCIAL STATEMENT, A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. AND WHAT DO Y'ALL DO? IF YOU FIND AND YOU PROCEED FORWARD AND YOU FIND THAT HAVING NOT FILED IT IS IN FACT A VIOLATION OF THAT CODE TWO DASH 7 7 9 9, OR CAN BE SANCTIONED THAT WAY, ALL YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THEN IS UNDER TWO 7.47, IS IF YOU DETERMINE THAT A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL CRIMINAL PENALTY HAS OCCURRED. THE COMMISSION SHALL DELIVER A COPY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS TO THE COMPLAINANT, IF ANY, AND THE RESPONDENT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND MAY RECOMMEND PROSECUTION OR SET FORTH REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN ORDER THAT VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE MAY BE HAD IN FINAL DETERMINATION OBTAINED THE LACK OF COMPLIANCE OF TIMELY FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES. AND IN SOME CASES, ANY FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE EVER BY CANDIDATES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS HAS BECOME A PROBLEM THAT ONLY YOU ARE GONNA FIX. ONLY YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GONNA TAKE THESE VIOLATIONS SERIOUSLY. AND EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE FOR MEASURED RESPONSES, IT'S A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. IT IS TIME TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE SUCH THAT OTHER CANDIDATES IN THE FUTURE WILL KNOW, AND THAT SITTING OF OFFICIALS WITH THE CITY KNOW THAT THIS COMMISSION CONSIDERS THAT TO BE A SERIOUS VIOLATION AND ONE DESERVING OF FURTHER ACTION. I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU, THAT, THAT YOU HAVE. UH, YOU'VE GOT THE RECORD BEFORE YOU, I THINK IT'S UNCONTESTED THAT THE, THE STATEMENTS WERE FILED, BUT THEY WERE FILED BASICALLY A MONTH LATE. AND, UH, I, I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, MR. AHIRE. FIRST OF ALL, UH, UNDER NORMAL ORDER, THIS WOULD BE, BEFORE WE DO QUESTIONS, WE WOULD HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT. I DO WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE RESPONDENT IS IN FACT NOT HERE. UM, AND SINCE THAT IS THE CASE, UH, YES, WE WILL MOVE TO QUESTIONS. AND ON COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN, I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED YOU HAVE A QUESTION. YES. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD REPEAT THE FINAL CITATION THAT YOU GAVE US ABOUT THE CODE PROVISION WHERE THAT AUTHORIZES TO REFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY. UM, I MENTIONED THAT NORMALLY IF YOU ARE FINDING VIOLATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, YOU WOULD LOOK UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR EIGHT FOR THE SANCTIONS. BUT NOTICE THAT THAT SAYS THAT THAT, UH, ON ONLY APPLIES TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER STANDARDS ETHICAL STANDARDS, BUT NOT TWO DASH SEVEN, NOT ARTICLE FIVE, UH, RELATING TO PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE. SO, UH, IT DOESN'T, THE, THE, THE FAILURE TO FILE THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE DOES NOT FIT UNDER TWO SEVEN DASH TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR EIGHT, BUT IT IS INCLUDED UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH NINE NINE AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. IN TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 99 B, IT SAYS THE PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF THE PERSON VIOLATES AND IT'S GOT OTHER SECTIONS OR ARTICLE FIVE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE OF THIS CHAPTER, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SEVEN ONE. AND SO THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE OCCURRED, YOU WOULD GO TO TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR SEVEN, AND THAT'S WHERE IT INDICATES THAT IF YOU FIND THAT A VIOLATION DID OCCUR, YOU CAN REFER IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTION COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHAW? I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? [00:45:01] I MOVE THAT WE FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION. I MOVE THAT WE FIND REASONABLE VIOLATIONS OF, UH, CHAPTER TWO SEVEN AND SECTION 2 7 7 4 ON ITEM AGENDA ITEM FOUR. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND FROM THE SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. UM, WITH THAT THE MATTER IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NO DISCUSSION. UM, THEN LET'S MOVE TO A VOTE. I DON'T HAVE A PEN TO TRACK THIS. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO A ROLL. I'M JUST GONNA DO IT IN THE ORDER THAT IT IS LISTED ON MY AGENDA. UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA? YES. COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN? YES. UH, THE CHAIR. MICHAEL LEVINS. I ALSO VOTE YES. VICE CHAIR LOW? YES. UH, COMMISSIONER TURN IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YES. SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. COMMISSIONER KALE. I'M SORRY. SHE IS RECUSED. COMMISSIONER SHARKEY? YES. COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. AND COMMISSIONER POEY? YES. ALL RIGHT. THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS. SO THE MOTION PASSES. AND SO THE NEXT THING WE NEED TO DO IS SCHEDULE OUR FINAL HEARING. UM, GIVEN THAT WE FOUND REASONABLE GROUNDS THAT TO FIND THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. UM, MS. BENITEZ, ARE YOU THE ONE WHO CAN TELL US WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS? I, I THINK I'VE HEARD IT'S JANUARY 22ND. UM, I WOULD, DO I NEED A MOTION TO SET IT ON THE 22ND, OR DO I JUST AS THE CHAIR SET IT? I THINK JUST BE CLEANER TO MAKE IT A MOTION. ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION TO SET THIS ON THE 22ND MOTION TO SET THIS FOR JANUARY 22ND? SECOND. SECOND. COMMISSIONER CASTO HAS A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? UH, LET'S JUST VOTE BY A SHOWING OF HANDS. ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND. I SEE ALL HANDS RAISED. I'LL GIVE EVERYONE A CHANCE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE AND SAY, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR HAND. I SEE NONE. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND A HEARING IS SET FOR JANUARY 22ND. A FINAL HEARING. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM NUMBER FIVE FOUR. SO NOW WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM [5. A complaint filed by Mackenzie Kelly against Krista Laine raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-7 (Ethics & Financial Disclosure), Section 2-7-74 (Financial Disclosure by Candidates).] FIVE ON WHICH I AM RECUSED. AND SO VICE CHAIR LOW, I WILL TURN THE REINS OVER TO YOU AND WE WILL CONTINUE OUR MUSICAL CHAIRS FOR THE NIGHT. OH, YES. I'M SURE SHE, OKAY. SO WHILE SHE'S, WHILE SHE'S JOINING US, YOU WOULD JUST SAY, JUST READ FROM THERE. AND THEN, UM, YOU WOULD START HERE FOR THE PRESENTATION OF PARTIES. I CAN HEAR YOUR TIME. SO WHO'S RESPONDENT'S NOT PRESENT, RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. SO YOU WOULD JUST, BASICALLY, OUR COMPLAINANT'S ALREADY UP THERE. MM-HMM . AND THEN YOU WOULD JUST GO DOWN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. DO I HAVE TO STATE WHO'S PRESENT OR DOES IT NOT MATTER? PRESENT? YEAH, LET'S JUST, DO YOU WANT ME CALL HER OR JUST TEXTED HER? OH, THERE, SHE'S, [00:50:01] OH. NEXT IN THE AGENDA IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY, I'M SORRY, COMPLAINANT. UM, MACKENZIE KELLY, UM, AGAINST RESPONDENT CRYSTAL LANE ALLEGING VIOLATION OF CITY MICRO. START AGAIN. THEN NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY COMPLAINANT MACKENZIE KELLY AGAINST RESPONDENT KRISTA LANE, UM, ALLEGING VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION, UM, TWO DASH SEVEN, ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, SECTION 2 7 7 4 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE BY CANDIDATE. UM, WE, UM, LET'S SEE. DO WE HAVE, SO THE, UM, COMPLAINANT IS NOT PRESENT, BUT, UM, MR. YEAH, SHE'S PRESIDENT. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M READING THE WRONG THING. WHAT THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT OH, OKAY. HERE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AS WELL. UM, AND WE HAVE NO RESPONDENT RIGHT NOW. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, MY NAME IS MCKENZIE KELLY. MY ATTORNEY, BILL AHIRE IS REPRESENTING ME. AND WHEN HE'S FINISHED, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 44 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE. THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 25TH. UH, COMPLAINANT ALLEGED RESPONDENT VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 2 7 7 4. UM, AND THEN THE ISSUE AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A CITY CODE PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD. IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THERE VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING. IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. A DECISION TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. UM, THE COMMISSION'S REGULAR PRACTICE IS TO GIVE EACH OF THE PARTIES 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR POSITIONS AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT, UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY. UM, DO THE PARTIES AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES IS SUFFICIENT OR IS THERE A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME? YES. YES, IT'S SUFFICIENT OR YES. REQUEST. YES, IT'S SUFFICIENT. OKAY. SO LET'S HEAR FROM, UM, THE COMPLAINANT. UM, WHO HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THE, TO STATE THE CLAIM VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM FROM THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THOSE CLAIMS? THANK AGAIN, MY NAME IS BILL AHIRE, REP. I REPRESENT MCKENZIE KELLY, THE COMPLAINANT. UM, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO YOUR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. UH, IN THIS CASE, CRYSTAL LANE IS A CANDIDATE FOR COUNSEL, HAD NOTICE OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND THE DATES, THE DEADLINES FOR THAT IN THE CANDIDATE PACKET AND IN THE, UH, CALENDAR THAT THE CITY, CITY CLERK, UH, PUTS OUT. UH, AND THAT REPORT, THE FIRST REPORT WAS DUE AUGUST THE 26TH. UH, I HAVE PROVIDED YOU IN THE BACKUP, UH, SUBMITTED YESTERDAY A COPY OF THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT, UH, CRYSTAL LANE FILED ELECTRONICALLY ON 9 25 24. LET ME POINT OUT IN THIS CASE THAT MY EMAIL TO THE CITY CLERK FORWARDING MCKENZIE KELLY'S SWORN COMPLAINT WAS AT 4:03 PM ON THE 24TH. SO THIS COMPLAINT WAS ACTUALLY FILED ON THE 24TH BEFORE FIVE O'CLOCK. AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE 25TH THAT MS. LANE [00:55:01] FILED BOTH OF THE REPORTS THAT SHE HAD NOT FILED PREVIOUSLY. AGAIN, A MONTH LATE FILING. IT IS UP TO THIS COMMISSION IF YOU FIND GROUNDS, UH, FOR THE COMPLAINT TO, UH, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND SERVE AS A LESSON TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CANDIDATES THAT THIS COMMISSION WILL ENFORCE THAT PROVISION AND THAT THE, UH, FOR THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO BE TIMELY FILED, UM, UN UNDER THE, UH, JUST BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, UH, UNDER THE STATE ELECTIONS CODE, UH, CHAPTER 5 72, THAT REQUIRES THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK. IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE FINE FOR A LATE FILING IS $500 FLAT. UH, IF IT'S LATE, IT'S A $500 FINE. NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF AUTHORITY HERE, BUT WHAT YOUR AUTHORITY IS, JUST AS I EXPLAINED LAST TIME, BECAUSE THIS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR UNDER, UH, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 99 OF THE CITY CODE, YOU HAVE AUTHORITY UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR SEVEN TO REF TO IF YOU FIND THE VIOLATION AT THE FINAL HEARING LATER. UH, AND I HOPE THAT TODAY YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY, UH, GROUNDS TO PROCEED TO THE FINAL HEARING, THAT YOU CAN REFER THIS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND RECOMMEND PROSECUTION. UM, AND I, UH, ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON THESE ITEMS THAT THIS COMMISSION IS GOING TO ENFORCE 'EM, AND THAT CANDIDATES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO JUST IGNORE THIS. UH, AND NOW TURN IT OVER TO MY CLIENT, UH, MCKENZIE KELLY. I'LL COME BACK IF YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS FOR ME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MACKENZIE KELLY, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR HEARING THIS COMPLAINT TONIGHT. AS THE COMPLAINANT, I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS MATTER WAS NOT ADDRESSED BEFORE THE ELECTION. AS TIMELY RESOLUTION OF SUCH MATTERS IS CRUCIAL FOR ENSURING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY DURING A CAMPAIGN. THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY UNDERMINE THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED OF CANDIDATES AND DISRUPT THE ELECTORATE'S ABILITY TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. THE ROLE OF A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS ONE OF TRUST AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES SERVE AS A CRITICAL TOOL TO MAINTAIN THAT TRUST BY IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. FILING THESE DOCUMENTS ON TIME IS NOT MERELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT, BUT A CORNERSTONE OF ETHICAL CAMPAIGNING AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE CANDIDATES MUST ADHERE TO THESE RULES TO ENSURE A FAIR AND TRANSPARENT ELECTORATE PROCESS. THE MATERIALS THAT MY ATTORNEY AND I SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE 2024 ELECTION CALENDAR CANDIDATE HANDBOOK, AND THE LATE FILED FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, SUBSTANTIATE THIS COMPLAINT AND DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY. I AM STILL DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT THIS COMPLAINT WAS NOT RESOLVED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. AND BY DELAYING THE HEARING, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE VOTERS WITH COMPLETE INFORMATION ABOUT ALL CANDIDATES WAS MISSED. SUCH DELAYS COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS AND ERODE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO UPHOLD FAIRNESS. I URGE THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION TO TAKE THIS COMPLAINT SERIOUSLY AND CONSIDER A FINAL HEARING FOR THESE VIOLATIONS. THIS CASE UNDERSCORES A NECESSITY OF ADHERING TO THE ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES AND MAINTAINING THE TRANSPARENCY ESSENTIAL TO PUBLIC TRUST. I ALSO REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER MEASURES TO EXPEDITE FUTURE HEARINGS TO ENSURE TIMELY RESOLUTION OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS, ESPECIALLY IF BROUGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION TODAY. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH FOR THE PRESENTATIONS. UM, WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ON THE RECORD THAT THE RESPONDENT THERE IS NO RESPONDENT, A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RESPONDENT PRESENT. OKAY. SO DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR, UH, EITHER, UH, THE COMPLAINANT OR COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL? OKAY. THEN, UM, WE CAN PROCEED BEYOND THAT. DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? I, I DO, YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER KALE. UM, I MOVE THAT WE TAKE THIS, I, I MOVE THAT THERE ARE GROUNDS TO FIND THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND THAT WE TAKE IT TO A FINAL HEARING. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. SO MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER KALE AND THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHARKEY. [01:00:01] IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHO, IF I SHOULD DIRECT THIS TO THE CHAIR OR TO STAFF OR COUNSEL, BUT IT'S ABOUT THE TIMING OF THESE COMPLAINTS AND WHEN THE HEARINGS HAPPEN. IF THE COMPLAINTS WERE SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, THAT MEANS THE EARLIEST WE COULD HAVE HEARD IT PRIOR TO THE ELECTION WOULD'VE BEEN ON OCTOBER 23RD. I KNOW WE HAD OTHER BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA THAT DAY, BUT WOULD IT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO HEAR IT THAT DAY? BECAUSE I, I DO REMEMBER THIS COMING IN. I REMEMBER THERE WERE SOME DELAYS MM-HMM . BUT I'M CURIOUS. OKAY. THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER ESPINOSA SPEAKING. YEAH. AND IS THIS RELATED TO THE, IS THIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WELL, IT'S ABOUT THE TOPIC. I MEAN, THE MOTION IS ABOUT COMING FORWARD. RIGHT. AND SO, FOR ME, REASON REASONABLE, I THINK, I THINK THAT BOTH, BOTH THE FOLKS WHO SPOKE TONIGHT BROUGHT UP, BOTH BROUGHT UP THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD EARLIER. AND I, I, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. OKAY. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT TAKING THIS INTO NEXT YEAR, SO I I THINK THAT IT'S RELEVANT TO THE MOTION. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. THIS STATED AS, SO I'M SORRY, JUST STATE IT AS HOW IT IS RELEVANT TO THE GROUNDS TO, TO FINDING REASONABLE GROUNDS. OKAY. UM, AS WE, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS JEOPARDY, I FEEL STATE THIS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION AS WE LOOK TO MOVE FORWARD AND FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS. I'M CURIOUS IF THERE WAS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, DOES THAT SUFFICE MM-HMM . YES. YES. SO, AND THEN I, I DON'T KNOW. WHO ARE YOU ADDRESSING THE QUESTION TO? WELL, THAT'S MY QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE WHO I SHOULD ASK THAT TO. IF IT'S, IF IT'S MS. BENITEZ OR MS. HASLET OR, UM, POSSIBLY COUNSEL. WELL, IT WAS A, WE ADDRESS IT TO, UM, I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT. YEAH. SO I, YEAH, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. UM, BUT I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING THE DISCUSSION RELEVANT TO NOT SCHEDULING, BUT THE ACTUAL MERITS AND THE, THE MOTION. UM, I WILL, I WILL NOTE THAT SCHEDULING HEARINGS IS IN THE PREROGATIVE OF THE CHAIR AND THIS BODY. AND SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WENT INTO SCHEDULING THIS SPECIFIC HEARING, I CERTAINLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT. SURE. TO MY RECOLLECTION, UM, CAROLINE WEBSTER WAS THE EXECUTIVE LIAISON REGARDING THE SCHEDULING. AND, UM, I BELIEVE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT JUST WAS NOT DOABLE TO SCHEDULE AT THAT TIME OF THE HEARING ON SUCH SHORT NOTICE. YEP. AS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, PRELIMINARY HEARING NOTICES, UM, HAD BEEN SENT OUT SHORTLY BEFORE. RIGHT. IT WAS NOT PLAUSIBLE TO BE ABLE TO GET THE PARTIES IN ATTENDANCE AT THAT TIME, WITHIN THAT WEEK'S NOTICE. SURE. THANK YOU. DO THE COMPLAINANT AND COMPLAINANT'S ATTORNEY HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA'S QUESTION? OKAY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. THEN WE CAN CALL THE QUESTION, SHALL I? I'LL USE THE, UM, WE SHOULD DO A FULL CALL, RIGHT. COMMISSIONER, LAURA, CAN YOU JUST BRING MIC? OKAY. OKAY. I, I THINK, UM, WE CAN CALL THE QUESTION AND WE CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. SO AGAIN, I WILL GO ACCORDING TO OUR AGENDA. COMMISSIONER ESPINOSA? YES. COMMISSIONER MCG. GIBBON? YES. OKAY. LET'S SEE. LEVINS IS, OKAY. COMMISSIONER LEVINS IS RECUSED VICE CHAIR LOW? I SAY YES. UM, COMMISSIONER MCC TURN IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YES. SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES. COMMISSIONER KALE? YES. COMMISSIONER SHARKEY? YES. COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES. COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY? YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE, SO WE HAVE NINE VOTES, UM, TO REFER TO A FINAL HEARING, UM, AND NONE OPPOSED [01:05:01] OTHERS RECUSED OR ABSENT. UM, SO WE WOULD THEN NEED TO SCHEDULE THIS ONE AS WELL. UM, MOTION AGAIN? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR A DATE TO SCHEDULE THE FINAL HEARING? UH, MOTION TO SCHEDULE THIS DURING OUR JANUARY MEETING ON THE 22ND. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT? OKAY. UM, CAN WE JUST, UH, SHOW OF HANDS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. NINE AGAIN, ALL THOSE AGAINST, ANY ABSTENTIONS. OKAY. SO THAT, UH, MOTION CARRIES, AND THIS WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 22ND AS WELL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? OKAY. THEN, UH, WE WILL TURN THIS BACK OVER TO CHAIR LOVENS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR LOWE. WE HAVE THREE MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO KNOCK OUT PRETTY QUICK. UM, AGENDA ITEM. OH, THEY'RE ALL APPROVALS OF MINUTES. NO NUMBER. OH, I'M SORRY. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DID, OH, UH, UPDATE [7. Update from the Working Group to Review ERC Complaints Process.] FROM THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE ERC COMPLAINTS PROCESS. UM, I BELIEVE VICE CHAIR LOWE, YOU'RE PROBABLY THE ONE WITH THE MOST INFORMATION ON THAT. UH, RIGHT. SO IN THE, UM, PUBLIC, UH, IS THIS ON? OKAY. YEAH. SO IN THE, UM, MATERIALS THAT WERE SENT TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH, UM, AND I, AND I BELIEVE, UM, I BELIEVE CAROLINE WEBSTER ALSO ON NOVEMBER 5TH SENT SOME DOCUMENTS OUT ABOUT A LOBBYIST VIOLATION. AND WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THAT PARTICULAR LOBBYIST VIOLATION RIGHT NOW. BUT THE REASON IT WAS SENT OUT TO EVERYONE, UM, IN THIS CONTEXT, WE ARE TRYING TO SORT OF TAKE A TEMPERATURE CHECK OF THE COMMISSIONERS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING LIKE THE LOBBYIST VIOLATIONS, UM, WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THE WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF INITIATION OF COMPLAINTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT THE CLERK IS REQUIRED TO INFORM US ABOUT, BUT THERE IS NO PARTICULAR ACTION THIS COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO TAKE EITHER TO FIND A VIOLATION, NOT FIND A VIOLATION TO DO ANYTHING, OR NOT DO ANYTHING. AND WE WERE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IN A GLOBAL SENSE WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION FEELS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS WHOLE, UH, COMMISSION INITIATION SCHEME THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP. UM, A GRATUITOUS REMARK, IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD BE. BUT IF THAT IS NOT THE GROUP WISDOM, WHERE IT'S NOT GENERALLY TO THE DIRECTION THAT THE COMMISSION WANTS US TO GO, WE DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE IT. AND THE ONLY REASON I, YOU KNOW, WE HAD ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS SENT OUT WAS JUST SO PEOPLE COULD SEE A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF A VIOLATION THAT'S OUT THERE THAT'S ENTIRELY PUBLIC THAT YEAH. THAT ANYONE CAN GET FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE, RIGHT. ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING. BUT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PARTICULAR SANCTION, THERE IS NO PARTICULAR CONSEQUENCE. AND IN FACT, WE DON'T EVER EVEN HAVE TO LOOK AT IT OR CONSIDER IT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR PROCEDURE. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THERE'S A STRONG OBJECTION TO THE WORKING GROUP, INCLUDING THIS, YOU KNOW, IN OUR WORK GENERALLY, UM, THEN I THINK OUR INCLINATION IS TO DEVELOP A PROCESS WHICH INCLUDES THESE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO BRING IT BEFORE EVERYONE JUST TO SEE WHETHER OTHER PEOPLE HAD THOUGHTS ABOUT IT. SORRY. SO IT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, TER, AND, UM, CHAIR LOVENS AND I WHO ARE WORKING ON IT. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR LOWE, I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SINCE THAT IS AN UPDATE MM-HMM . WELL, IT IS A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM. MM-HMM . [01:10:02] I GUESS WE CAN DISCUSS. AND I, THERE'S NOT REALLY AN ACTION ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON, I, IT, IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE FOR VOTE. JUST OKAY. YEAH. MM-HMM . UM, ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE HAS TO, I GUESS WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION IF WE ARE SO INCLINED. MM-HMM . ANY COMMENTS ON WHAT VICE CHAIR LOW JUST PRESENTED TO US? YEAH, I, I MEAN, THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD IS WE HAVE HEARD PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TODAY AND FROM OUR COMPLAINANTS THAT, UH, ENFORCEMENT CAN BE DONE IN VARIOUS WAYS, BUT IF WE DON'T INITIATE IT AS A COMMISSION, IT IS GENERALLY GOING TO BE SLOWER THAN THE OTHER METHODS. UM, AND IT WILL ALWAYS LOOK MORE LAX THAN, THAN IF WE IN A TIMELY AND MORE AGGRESSIVE FASHION INITIATOR ON COMPLAINTS. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION. SO IT'S NOT JUST CAMPAIGN FINANCE, IT'S NOT JUST, UM, UH, ETHICS. IT'S ALSO LIKE THESE LOBBYIST VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE GOTTEN VERY LITTLE ATTENTION. SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. YES. THANK YOU. COULD YOU CLARIFY, SO WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING IS THE WORK, THE EXISTING WORKING GROUP TAKING ON THIS TOPIC OF LOBBYIST VIOLATIONS? IS THAT, DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH, NO, NOT SPECIFICALLY. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S MORE JUST A DISCUSSION OF HOW LARGE THE SCOPE SHOULD BE FOR THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF COMMISSION INITIATED ACTION. OH, RIGHT. SO RIGHT NOW, UM, EVERYTHING THAT, EVERYTHING FOR WHICH THERE'S A SPECIFIED PROCESS OR A SPECIFIED SANCTION IN THE CODE WE, WE COMPLY WITH, BUT THEN THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT FALL INTO THIS THING CALLED THE COMMISSION ZONE INITIATIVE. AND THEN THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE JUST THERE THAT DON'T EVEN FALL INTO THAT SO MUCH. WE JUST HAVE DIRECTION IN THE CODE. THE CLERK MUST SEND US, UM, VIOLATIONS, UM, THAT, THAT THEY, THAT THEY CALCULATE OR THAT THEY KEEP DATA ON, ON LOBBYISTS OR, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER ELSE NEEDS TO COMPLY. SO THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC THAT WE EVER NEED TO DO FOR THE LOBBYISTS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION. SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS WHOLE SCHEME THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING FOR COMMISSION INITIATED ACTIONS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THESE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS. 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO, THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC THAT WE EVER DO ABOUT IT. RIGHT. BUT THE SCOPE OF EVEN COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINT IS RESTRICTED TO, OR LET ME NOT SAY RESTRICTED, IS DEFINED EXPLICITLY AS CODE THAT IS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. CORRECT. AND WE, THAT IS CLEARLY DEFINED RIGHT NOW, WHETHER, WHETHER WE THINK IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED OR NOT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION. BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S CLEAR ON WHAT CURRENTLY IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. CORRECT. WHETHER WE INITIATE THE COMPLAINTS OR NOT. CORRECT. WELL, YES. I MEAN, MAYBE IT'S THE WORD COMPLAINT. THAT'S, UM, THAT'S NOT THAT, THAT EVERYTHING DOESN'T FALL INTO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE VIOLATIONS THAT NO ONE FILES A COMPLAINT ABOUT. AND UNLESS A COMPLAINT IS INITIATED, IT IS NOT ENFORCED. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ENFORCED AS SOME VIOLATION FOR WHICH THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT Y'ALL WANNA LOOK AT THIS WORK GROUP WANTS TO LOOK AT ADDING, FOR EXAMPLE, LOBBYISTS VIOLATIONS AS A, AN AREA WHERE THE COMMISSION COULD INITIATE, UH, INVESTIGATION OR, I MEAN, REALLY COMPLAINT BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S TERMINOLOGY THAT, THAT WE'RE USING IN OUR, IN THE WORK THAT WE DO. SO INITIATE COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS STILL RIGHT NOW HAS TO FALL WITHIN, UM, THE SCOPE, UH, THE SCOPE OF ITEMS, CODES THAT ARE IN JURISDICTION AND ARE, AND IS THE LOBBYIST NOT WITHIN JURISDICTION. OH, OKAY. IT'S JUST THAT THERE'S NO COMPLAINT PROCESS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PRO, THE CODE SAYS THIS IS A VIOLATION MM-HMM . AND THAT'S WHY THE CLERK SENDS IT TO THE COMMISSION BECAUSE THAT IS [01:15:01] REQUIRED IN THE CODE. RIGHT. FOR THE CLERK TO TELL US THIS EXISTS. BUT THERE IS NO PROCESS AFTER WE GET IT FOR US TO DO ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR. IT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION, AND THEREFORE WE, WE CAN INITIATE SOME ACTION. BUT IT'S VAGUE. RIGHT. THERE'S NO PARTICULAR ACTION THAT WE EVER HAVE INITIATED, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THERE IS ANYTHING WE WOULD, UNLESS WE HAD SOME PROCESS TO DO IT, YOU KNOW? GOTCHA. SO THE WORK GROUP JUST IS INFORMING OR SAYING, HEY, MM-HMM . REST OF THE COMMISSION DO. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY STRONG CONCERNS WITH THE WORK GROUP PURSUING, UM, CLARIFYING OR DEFINING IN DETAIL THE PROCESS FOR COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS? MM-HMM . OKAY. RIGHT. I MEAN, GOTCHA. IN THE SENSE THAT WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANNA BITE OFF MORE THAN WE CAN CHEW. RIGHT. WE DON'T WANNA, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANNA CREATE A VERY COMPLEX SCHEME AND THEN NEVER EXECUTE UPON IT OR, OR NEVER HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. AND, AND ALSO, I MEAN, IT MAY BE AND AREA THAT PEOPLE DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE FORCEFUL ON. I, I DON'T KNOW. SO THAT, THAT WAS THE OTHER REASON. I THINK WE JUST FELT WE SHOULD, UM, BRING IT FORTH. UM, I, I KNOW THIS WAS ALSO COMMISSIONER RETURNS. UM, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE DID DISCUSS IT AS A GROUP AND I, I THINK THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HE AS WELL, UM, WANTED TO RAISE. UH, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA, I THINK YOU HAD INDICATED EARLIER. YES. THANK YOU. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS A NEW MEMBER, I THINK THIS WAS KIND OF ASKED, UM, BY, UM, OUR, OUR SECRETARY STAN ADAMS, BUT I JUST, UH, WANTED TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. UM, SO CAN WE, UM, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLEANING UP CODE? CAN WE CREATE COMPLAINT PROCESSES? UM, AND CAN WE, UH, EXPEDITE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HEARD ABOUT AN ISSUE OF, OF EXPEDIENCY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THINGS ARE MOVING SLOWLY, UM, IS IT IN OUR PURVIEW TO EXPEDITE PROCESSES? UM, SO JUST TRYING TO GET A GENERAL SENSE OF WHAT IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. AND I KNOW IT'S KIND OF A, A BROAD QUESTION, UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS A NEW MEMBER, I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF SOMEONE CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF GUIDANCE ON THAT. UM, IN TERMS OF EXPEDITING THINGS, I DON'T WANNA GET TOO FAR OUT OF THE, UH, THIS IS PART OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS, I SUPPOSE. UM, WE HAVE A STANDING MONTHLY MEETING AND WE CAN SET SPECIAL MEETINGS, WHICH WE'VE DONE. I FORGET IF THIS IS THE SPECIAL ONE, OR LAST WEEK. I THINK LAST WEEK WAS THE SPECIAL ONE. THAT'S RIGHT. GENERALLY IN, IN ALL MY TIME ON THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY, ANY ISSUE GETTING THINGS HEARD VERY QUICKLY. UM, WE HAD KIND OF A, A SMALL DELUGE OF COMPLAINTS, SOME OF WHICH TOOK UP A LOT OF TIME IN THE HEARINGS. UM, AND SO WE, WE, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THINGS SET AND HEARD AS QUICKLY AS WE WOULD'VE LIKED TO, AND THEN WE HAD SCHEDULING CONFLICTS. WE WEREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH QUORUM, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. UM, SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON YEAH. I MEAN, THAT PART OF THE PROCESS. THAT PART, YEAH. AND THEN PROCESSES ARE KIND OF WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION OF CREATING NEW PROCESSES FOR COMPLAINTS. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT. I, I, I THINK WE CAN DO OUR BYLAWS. UM, THAT'S VAGUE. OH YEAH. LET ME TURN IT OVER TO MS. RISBY. I'M SORRY. UM, SO I WOULD JUST POINT YOU TO 2 7 41, WHICH SETS OUT, THAT'S THE, UH, SECTION OF CODE THAT SETS OUT THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS. AND THEN ALSO THERE'S A DOCUMENT ON THE ERC WEBSITE CALLED, UM, I THINK IT'S CALLED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, NO RULES AND PROCEDURES. A LOT OF THAT IS ROOTED IN TWO SEVEN. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, AS A WORKING GROUP, TAKING A LOOK AT THAT AND SUGGESTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES, OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE CODE CHANGE PROCESS. UM, WHICH WOULD GO BEYOND THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS BODY, BUT IT COULD START AS A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL TO CHANGE CODE. UM, AND THEN THERE ARE THE BYLAWS, UM, AS A POTENTIAL, UH, WAY TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE EXPEDITED, UM, PROCESSES. AND THAT WOULD, THOSE, UH, CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS WOULD GO THROUGH THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A SUBSET OF THE COUNCIL. SO, UM, VARIOUS PROCESSES FOR DIFFERENT PARTS THAT YOU MIGHT BE WANTING TO CHANGE AS A GROUP, BUT, UM, THOSE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE. AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL IS A PRETTY STANDARD PROCESS. RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . UH, COMMISSIONER KALE? UH, YEAH, I WANTED TO SAY, UM, GETTING BACK TO COMMISSIONER LOWE'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE WANTED TO LOOP, UM, UH, QUESTIONS ABOUT LOBBYIST [01:20:01] ACTIVITIES INTO OUR PROCESSES. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE ONE OF THE VERY FIRST, UM, CASES I WAS ON WHEN I JOINED THE COMMISSION, UM, I STARTED IN 2017, AND ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS WE DISCUSSED WAS A CASE REGARDING HOW OFTEN LOBBYISTS COULD APPROACH CITY OFFICIALS. AND SO THE LOBBYISTS ARE VERY MUCH TIED TO WHAT GOES ON IN CITY BUSINESS. AND I'VE OFTEN WONDERED OVER THE YEARS WHY WE DON'T HEAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST LOBBYISTS BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVEN THE NUMBER OF LOBBYISTS THAT, THAT ARE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY, I DON'T KNOW AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE QUITE A FEW. UM, I'M SURE THERE ARE THINGS THAT PROBABLY GO UNDER THE RADAR THAT WARRANTS SOME ATTENTION ON OUR PART. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KALE, SECRETARY SAN ADAMS. I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT Y'ALL WANT TO TAKE THAT ON. I, I'M GLAD AND, AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU'RE THINKING, ARE WE BITING OFF MORE THAN WE CAN CHEW? 'CAUSE IT'S A, BUT, BUT DEFINITELY I AGREE THAT PROCESS OF COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS NEEDS, UM, MORE REFINEMENT. UH, AS WELL. WE'VE ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT STUFF LIKE THE BYLAWS NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. SO I HAVE NO STRONG CONCERNS. I'M GLAD Y'ALL ARE TAKING THAT ON. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE UPDATE FROM THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE, OUR COMPLAINTS PROCESS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE MINUTES? ALRIGHT, SO THAT CLOSES AGENDA ITEM SEVEN, AND WE WILL NOW MOVE, UH, ONE MOMENT. BEFORE YOU START, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU AND GOODBYE. OH, OKAY. YEAH, YEAH. UM, I GUESS WE'LL CALL THIS A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UH, I WAS DONE WHEN WE FINISHED SIX . I, I GOT SOME STUFF I GOTTA GET TO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THEM. I, I DIDN'T HAVE THE CHANCE TO SAY THAT TO ANYBODY. UH, I DON'T THINK I'LL BE DRIVING BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING, BUT THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. FELDMAN. ALRIGHT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER [8. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Regular meeting on October 23, 2024.] EIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 23RD MEETING. UM, I BELIEVE THOSE HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED. I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THEM. OH, I DID HAVE SOME HERE, HERE, HERE. THEY'RE HERE. THEY'RE OKAY. UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 23RD, 2024 MEETING, AS IS SECRETARY. 10 ADAMS MAKES THE MOTION. ANYONE SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER CASTO WAS FIRST. THAT'S THEIR SECOND. UH, ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE. LET'S VOTE BY A RAISE OF HANDS. UH, ANYONE IN FAVOR? RAISE A HAND. UH, I SEE ALL EXCEPT COMMISSIONER SHARKEY. UH, ALL OPPOSED BY THE RAISING OF HAND. I SEE NONE. AND, UH, WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION, UH, COMMISSIONER SHARKEY ABSTAINS. UH, THE MOTION PASSES. SO WE MOVE TO [9. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Regular meeting on November 13, 2024.] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UH, YES. CHAIR. BEFORE I MAKE MY MOTION, MAY I JUST MAKE A, UH, REQUEST REGARDING REVIEW OF MINUTES? WOULD THAT BE OKAY? UH, SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, AS YOUR SECRETARY, I BESEECH YOU TO KEEP, AND, AND I THINK THAT I AM THE MOST GUILTY PARTY HERE OF, UM, BRINGING FORTH A LOT OF AMENDMENTS SOMETIMES. AND, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF BEING EFFICIENT AND MOVING FORWARD AND NOT TAKING UP SO MUCH TIME ON STUFF LIKE MINUTES, UH, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE BE SENSITIVE TO THE TIMELINESS AND KEEP OUR, UH, REVIEW AND COMMENT ON, UH, WHETHER IT IS, WHETHER THE MINUTES ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT HAPPENED. AND AGAIN, I WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY THAT I AM PRETTY SURE I HAVE MADE COMMENTS ABOUT GRAMMAR AND, AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. SO GUILTY HERE. UM, PROBABLY MORE REMINDER TO MYSELF, BUT I WANTED TO BRING THAT FORTH TO THE COMMISSION. AND DID YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT, HAVING SAID ALL THAT, AND THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 MEETING WITH ONE AMENDMENT AND THAT AMENDMENT BEING ON PAGE TWO, NUMBER THREE, [01:25:03] THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THE COMMISSION HEARD OPENING STATEMENTS FROM COMPLAINANT BETSY GREENBERG AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT JAMES COWER. UH, I WILL REQUEST THAT WE REMOVE THAT APO, UM, THAT COMMA. EXCUSE ME. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, IT SHOULD BE, DO YOU, DO YOU MEAN RESPONDENT COMMA JAMES? NO, COMMA COWER. SO IT SHOULD BE RESPONDENT COMMA, RIGHT? COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT. I'M WILLING TO TAKE THAT. THAT'S A, I DON'T THINK THAT A COMMA IS ACTUALLY THAT CRITICAL HERE, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT WHERE THERE WAS NO COMMA. THAT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF COMMON THROUGHOUT THERE. I, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T SEE IT AS AFFECTING COMPREHENSION, UH, LEAVING OUT THE COMMA, BUT IT DOES AFFECT COMPREHENSION WITH THE COMMA WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE, UH, COMMISSIONER POEY? HE SECONDING? UM, I'LL, I'LL SECOND. AND THEN I HAVE, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE, I HAVE ONE OTHER THING TO ADD TO THE, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE SPEAKING TO THE MICROPHONE? I'M SORRY. I HAVE A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SECTION. THEY'RE VERY SIMPLE. SHALL I GIVE THEM NOW? YEAH, I SUPPOSE IT'S PROBABLY EASIER IF WE GET EVERYTHING OUT AND WE DO ONE MOTION. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. UM, UH, OUTSIDE COUNSEL CHRIS FELDMAN. COUNSEL SPELLED WRONG, THAT'S ALL. UM, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT GOING DOWN SORT OF TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY DOWN THE PAGE. THE, THE PARAGRAPH THAT STARTS WITH COMMISSIONER CASTRO'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING PAST 10, UM, FAILED ON A FIVE TO ONE VOTE. AND AT FIRST I READ THIS, I THOUGHT, WELL, HOW DID IT, WAS IT ONE TO FIVE OR FIVE TO ONE OR DID WE, YOU KNOW, DID IT NEED SIX? I'M JUST WONDERING, WAS THAT THE POSITIVE VOTE THAT CAME FIRST OR THE NEGATIVE VOTE? IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. I DON'T MEAN TO TAKE EVERYONE'S TIME, BUT IT WAS FIVE VOTING IN FAVOR AND ONE AGAINST. OH. AND RIGHT AFTER THAT IT SAYS, VOTING IN FAVOR AND LISTS THE NAMES. SORRY. OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW I'D VOTED TO EXTEND THE MEETING PAST 10 . OKAY, SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE DIDN'T, UM, SO NO ONE SECONDED. SECRETARY STANTON ADAM'S MOTION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION THAT'S ALMOST THE SAME, BUT INCORPORATES THE YES TYPO? YES. I AMEND MY MOTION TO APPROVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 MEETING WITH TWO AMENDMENTS. ONE BEING REMOVING THE COMMA BETWEEN JAMES AND KAZAR, AND THEN TWO, TO CORRECT THE SPELLING OF COUNSEL. UM, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, CAN YOU DIRECT MY, I'S I AH, YES, YOU SEE IT THERE? THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THIRD LINE OF THE POLL? YES. OUTSIDE COUNSEL. CORRECT THAT SPELLING FROM AN I TO AN E. ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. UH, I'LL GIVE THIS ONE TO COMMISSIONER POEY. I KNOW IT'S A BIG COMPETITION. UM, ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. LET'S VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. UM, I SEE ALL, OKAY. UH, ALL OPPOSED? AND THEN ABSTENTIONS. OKAY. SO WE ARE ALL IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION AND THE MOTION PASSES. WE CAN NOW MOVE TO [10. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Special meeting on December 5, 2024.] AGENDA ITEM 10 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ETHICS REVIEWS REVIEW COMMISSION'S SPECIAL MEETING ON DECEMBER 5TH. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MAY I JUST MAKE A STATEMENT, UH, JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON, ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? YES. IT'S GONNA BE REGARDING THE, UM, MINUTES. YEAH. JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT SECRETARY STANTON WAS, UM, SAYING REGARDING THE MINUTES, I JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU ALL AND JUST GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE MINUTES. UM, AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S COMMITMENT TO ENSURING THAT THE MINUTES ARE ALWAYS ACCURATE AND THAT THEY REFLECT CORRECTLY ON WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT OCCURRED IN THE MEETING. UM, HOWEVER, THE PRIMARY GOAL IS TO REFLECT THE ACTIONS AND THE DECISIONS MADE DURING THE MEETING RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION. UM, THOSE I APPRECIATE CAN DEFINITELY BE SENT TO ME VIA EMAIL. UM, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE MINUTES IN THE MEETING, THE, THE MAIN FOCUS SHOULD BE ON THE ACTIONS AND THE DECISIONS. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON DECEMBER 5TH, 2024, [01:30:03] ALSO WITH ONE AMENDMENT. THAT AMENDMENT BEING ON PAGE TWO FOR NUMBER FOUR, DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS. AND I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE ADD SO THAT IT READS DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAD BEEN PRESENT AT THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 MEETING. I BELIEVE THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. ANY SECOND? SECOND, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA'S SECONDS. UH, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? CAN, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE? I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE THAT YOU'RE YES, COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE MAKING NO, IT'S A GOOD, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. MY CONCERN IS THAT LEFT AS IS DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT, UM, AT THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2020, 2024 MEETING IS A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING IN THAT WHEN YOU READ IT, YOU'RE THINKING, OH, NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM. AND THAT'S NOT EXACTLY PRECISE. THE PRECISE POINT IS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A LACK. WE HAD, WE DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAD BEEN. SO WE HAD TO HAVE THE SAME MEMBERS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING. OH, I UNDERSTAND NOW. RIGHT? THAT'S WHY WE COULD NOT TAKE ACTION. THIS IS TODAY IS ITEM SIX THE WATSON ISSUE? YES, SIR. THAT'S EXACTLY, THAT IS EXACTLY IT RIGHT THERE. GOOD POINT. SO AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE THE CHANGE THAT I'M RE RECOMMENDING THAT IT READ DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAD BEEN PRESENT YEAH. AT THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024 MEETING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE. UH, ALL IN FAVOR BY RAISING YOUR HAND, UM, ALL OPPOSED BY RAISING YOUR HAND. ALL ABSTAINING. UH, THE MOTION PASSES. WE HAVE EVERYONE IN FAVOR EXCEPT OUR ONE ABSTAINING MEMBER. OUR NEWEST MEMBER. COMMISSIONER SHARKEY, WHICH BY THE WAY, WELCOME TO THE COMMISSION, . UM, ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY FUTURE [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO QUICKLY GET ON THE TABLE SO WE CAN CONSIDER THEM AT A FUTURE MEETING? YES. OKAY. FUTURE, NO PARTICULAR MEETING, BUT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TIMING, IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO EXPEDITE, UM, UH, PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS. OKAY. I'M JUST SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPEN THAT FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. WE CAN LOOK AT GETTING THAT ON THE AGENDA AT A FUTURE MEETING. THANK YOU. UM, SEEING NO OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THE TIME IS 9:23 PM YOU ALL HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING. ALRIGHT, , WHAT'S THIS HERE? OH, MAGNIFYING GLASS. YES, I HAS. * 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.