[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.UH, I'M FILLING IN, IN THE ABSENCE OF OUR CHAIR, I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
IT IS JANUARY 22ND, UH, 2025, AND IT IS 6:04 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.
UM, I WILL CALL THE ROLE CHAIR.
PRESENT, UH, SECRETARY WIND STANTON ADAMS PRESENT? MM-HMM
COMMISSIONER ADAM MAT TURN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER BRITTANY SHARKEY.
UH, WE UNDERSTAND NO ONE IS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.UH, THE FOLLOWING, THERE ARE TWO SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES EACH.
THE FIRST SPEAKER IS LELAND BICKERS, WHO WILL BE SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEMS SIX AND SEVEN.
DO YOU HAVE, UM, DO YOU NEED THREE MINUTES ON EACH AGENDA ITEM? NO.
WOULD, UH, WE BE ABLE TO GET STAFF LIAISON TO HELP WITH TIMEKEEPING? JUST BECAUSE SHE'S SITTING ACROSS FROM HIM.
YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE HER BETTER.
CAN WE DO THAT, MS. BEEZ? OKAY.
MR. BICKERS, UH, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
UM, THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH YOU.
MY NAME IS LELAND BICKERS, AND I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN FOR CLOSE TO A DECADE NOW.
UM, I ACTUALLY USED TO WORK ON, UH, CITY COUNCIL IN ONE OF THE OFFICES.
SO I KNOW A COUPLE THINGS, UH, ABOUT KEEPING THINGS RUNNING SMOOTHLY, AND THAT INCLUDES FILING, UM, UH, UH, FILLING OUT THE FILINGS FOR THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
UM, IT'S NOT A COMPLEX PROCESS.
UH, THE CITY PROVIDES EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS, UM, AND IT DOESN'T TAKE ALL THAT MUCH TIME TO COMPLETE.
UM, WHEN I WORKED ON THE COUNCIL STAFF, UM, THIS WAS SOMETHING WE DID REGULARLY.
UM, IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD AND NECESSARY, AND HONESTLY, THERE'S NOT A REAL GOOD REASON NOT TO DO IT.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON ITEM SIX AND SEVEN, UM, ON THE AGENDA.
UM, THESE COMPLAINTS ARE ESSENTIAL, UM, AND IT'S CRUCIAL TO ADDRESS THEM.
UH, THERE NEED TO BE REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T TAKEN THE TIME TO FILL OUT, UH, THEIR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
UM, IT'S A SIMPLE TASK, AND IT'S ALSO A CRITICAL ONE.
UM, FINALLY, THESE FORMS ISN'T JUST ABOUT CHECKING A BOX.
UM, IT'S ALSO ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, UM, AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
THESE STATEMENTS LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THEIR LEADERS ARE ABOVE BOARD FREE OF CONFLICTS AND ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.
UM, AND WHEN SOMEONE SKIPS THESE STEPS, IT, UH, IT OFTEN CAUSES PEOPLE TO WONDER WHY AND WHAT POSSIBLY ARE THEY AVOIDING.
IF THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCES FOR IGNORING THIS RESPONSIBILITY, IT SENDS A DANGEROUS MESSAGE.
UM, IT TELLS PEOPLE THE RULES DON'T MATTER, UH, WHICH CHIPS AWAY AT TRUST IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY THE WORK YOU DO AS A COMMISSION IS VERY IMPORTANT, UM, BY HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE.
IF YOU'RE HELPING RESTORE AND MAINTAIN THAT TRUST, UM, YOU'RE SHOWING THE PUBLIC THAT AUSTIN TAKES THE ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY SERIOUSLY.
SO I'M ASKING YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON THESE ITEMS TODAY.
UH, AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
NEXT WE HAVE ELAINE LEE SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
I, I LIVE NOT, UH, MY NAME IS LENE LEE.
I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN SINCE 2007.
I'M HERE TO OFFER MY SUPPORT TO CRYSTAL LANE, WHO I'VE KNOWN FOR OVER FIVE YEARS.
I KNOW HER THROUGH HER COMMUNITY
[00:05:01]
SERVICE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.SHE RAN THE MATH CLUB AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT MY KIDS ATTEND, AND LATER, LATER WAS A KEY PARENT CONTRIBUTOR FOR THE ROBOT ROBOTIC TEAM IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL.
AND THE SUMMER, UH, THE PAST SUMMER, I'VE LEARNED, UH, SHE'S RUNNING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND SHE ATTENDED CONFLICT, MEET THE VOTER MEETINGS.
AT ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, SHE ENGAGED ME IN ANOTHER, AND SHE WENT ON AND ON WITH A LOT OF EXCITING DISCUSSION HOW SHE CAN SERVE, UM, YOU KNOW, IMPROVE THE UTILITY SERVICE AND SERVE THE SENIORS IN OUR COMMUNITY BETTER.
AND WHEN I ASKED HER HOW YOU'RE MANAGING YOUR KIDS, SHE HAS KIDS IN HIGH SCHOOL, THAT'S A BUSY JOB.
SHE SAID, WELL, UH, THEY'RE EATING DONUTS FOR DINNER
SO I GUESS IF SOMEONE ASKING FOR A REASON WHY SHE MIGHT BE LATE FILING THE FORM, I'M HERE TO OFFER THE PERSPECTIVE FROM A BUSY MOM AND SOMEONE WHO'S SERVED MY COMMUNITY FOR, UH, A DECADE LONG.
SO I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SEE HER TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.
I URGE YOU TO PUT ASIDE PERSONAL GRIEVANCE FROM PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE LOST AN ELECTION AND LET HER TO DO HER WORK.
NEXT WE HAVE JEB BOYT SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM EIGHT.
UH, I'D BE HAPPY TO WAIT AND ACTUALLY SPEAK WHEN YOU TAKE UP THE AGENDA ITEM, BUT, UH, AS IT IS, UH, SO I FILED A COMPLAINT ON DECEMBER 8TH, UH, AGAINST MR. BLEDSO, MR. BLEDSOE AND HIS CAMPAIGN, UH, EXCEPT RECEIVED $61,000 FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S, UH, PUBLIC FINANCE CAMPAIGN FAIR, AUSTIN FAIR CAMPAIGN CHAPTER.
UM, HE THEN USED THAT MONEY TO, UH, IN PART, TO ERECT LARGE CAMPAIGN SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT AND ALSO DOWNTOWN.
AS I DISCOVERED, AS I WAS ON MY WAY TO FILE THE COMPLAINT, UM, IN MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS SAID THAT I DID NOT PLEAD MY, UH, COMPLAINT WITH, UH, THE REQUISITE SPECIFICITY.
UM, I SUBMIT A LETTER TODAY IN RESPONSE, UH, NOTING THAT, UH, CITY CODE 2 7 62, UM, PROHIBITS A CITY OFFICIAL FROM USING CITY FACILITIES FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES.
THAT CERTAINLY INCLUDES THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS, WHICH THE CITY CHARTER NOTES ARE, UH, UNDER THE CITY'S EXCLUSIVE DOMINION CONTROL AND JURISDICTION.
ALSO, UH, CITY CO CODE TWO TWO DASH FOUR REQUIRES THAT, UH, UH, THAT ALL OF CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO REPLY, UH, COMPLY IN ALL RESPECTS OF APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION, THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, AND THE CITY CHARTER.
AND AGAIN, AS I SAID, THE CITY CHARTER, UH, HAS PROVISION REGARDING EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE, UH, OF THE RIGHT OF WAYS.
SO, UH, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.
THIS IS JUST FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEMS, UM, THE NEXT, OKAY, SO, UM, WE WILL HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE WE, UM, TAKE UP THE HEARINGS.
UM, BUT I BELIEVE WE NEED TO FIRST, UH, INDICATE WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY REFUSALS FOR THE, UH, MATTERS THAT ARE COMING UP, UM, AS TO THE HEARINGS.
UM, SO IF THERE ARE ANY RECUSALS, THEY SHOULD BE ON OUR SIGNUP SHEET.
UM, DID WE HAVE ANY TO ANNOUNCE, UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER TURN WHO IS, I BELIEVE ABSTAINING.
IS THAT CORRECT? FROM ITEM SIX AND SEVEN? UH, I BELIEVE THE INSTRUCTION WAS TO RECUSE IF WE ARE NOT HERE FOR THE INITIAL MEETINGS OR HEARINGS.
UH, AND SO I, IF THAT IS THE CASE, I'LL BE RECUSING FROM ISSUE SIX AND SEVEN, OR ITEM SIX AND SEVEN.
AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER KILL AS WELL ON ITEM SIX.
AND IS THAT, UM, ABSTAINING OR RECUSING? RECUSING.
SO TO RECAP, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER RETURN RECUSING FROM AGENDA ITEM SIX AND SEVEN, AND COMMISSIONER KALE RECUSING FROM ITEM 7, 6 0 6.
UM, SO THEY'RE RECUSING FROM ALL DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THOSE ITEMS,
[00:10:01]
MADAM CHAIR? YES.CAN, CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT? MM-HMM
IS IT IN FACT NECESSARY TO RECUSE IF A MEMBER MISSES A PRELIMINARY HEARING? IS THERE SOMEBODY ON, ON STAFF OR COUNSEL THAT CAN ADVISE US ON THAT? SO IF I MAY, THIS IS CAROLINE WEBSTER WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
UH, RECUSALS REQUIRED, OR WHAT THE RULES, THE ETHICS COMMISSION RULES STATE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FINAL HEARING IF THEY ARRIVED AFTER TESTIMONY OF THE FIRST WITNESS BEGAN.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE RULE SAYS THAT REQUIRES RECUSAL.
SO IN ANOTHER CASE WHERE WE HAD, WHERE WE HAD THE FINAL HEARING, AND THEN NO DECISION WAS RENE RENDERED TILL A LATER HEARING, ONLY THOSE FOLKS WHO PARTI, WHO WERE PRESENT FOR THE, ALL THE TESTIMONY FROM THE WITNESSES IN THE FINAL HEARING WERE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE.
SINCE OUR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THERE'S NO ACTUAL TESTIMONY THAT'S TAKEN.
THAT'S KIND OF LIKE OPENING STATEMENTS WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO KIND OF SAY WHAT THEY WILL BE PRESENTING AS EVIDENCE IN THE FINAL HEARING.
UH, IN MY OPINION, UNDER THE, UNDER THE RULES AS THEY'RE WRITTEN, UH, YOU WOULD STILL BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE EVEN IF YOU MISSED THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, UM, UNDER, UNDER THE RULE BECAUSE NO TESTIMONY WAS ACTUALLY MISSED.
HOWEVER, IF ANYONE, YOU KNOW, FEELS THAT THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION OR FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE PROCEEDING, THEN CERTAINLY YOU ARE, YOU ARE, UH, IT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH PARTICIPATING.
SO IF, IF SOMEBODY COULD CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN, I THINK, AND I'M, I'M ASKING FOR ISSUES OF PRECEDENT AS TO WHAT STANDARDS WE'RE WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UH, MOVING FORWARD.
BUT, SO IT WOULDN'T BE DISQUALIFYING REQUIRING A RECUSAL, BUT IF SOMEONE SHOULD CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN, THEY CAN ALWAYS CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION, UH, WHEN, WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING.
I HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO KIND OF RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION YET.
SO, UM, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR, FOR THAT, ANY CONFUSION.
UM, BUT YEAH, I WOULD, I, UNDER THE WAY THE RULE IS WRITTEN, BECAUSE IT'S FOCUSED ON WHEN TESTIMONY BEGINS MM-HMM
AND TESTIMONY IS ONLY TAKEN IN THE FINAL HEARING, SOMEONE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE FOR MISSING THEIR PRELIMINARY HEARING.
UM, BUT CERTAINLY COULD CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN IF THEY, IF THEY FEEL THAT THAT AVOIDS ANY APPEARANCE OF, OF IRREGULARITY OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
BUT A RECUSAL REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES IS, UM, IS ONLY A FEW MISSED TESTIMONY IN THE FINAL HEARING.
CAN I ASK, I BELIEVE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOSA, IS THAT IT IS DISCRETIONARY, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO RECUSE, UH, AT ANY TIME ANY COMMISSIONER CAN CHOOSE TO RECUSE FROM ANY AGENDA ITEM.
UM, IF YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT ABSTAINING, AGAIN, ANY COMMISSIONER CAN CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN IN ANY VOTE.
RIGHT? UH, SO IS THAT, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR, UH, YES.
QUESTION THOROUGHLY? THANK YOU.
CAN I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER? UH, SO HAVING THOROUGHLY MISINTERPRETED, UH, OUR BACK AND FORTH OVER EMAILS, UH, IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR ME TO WITHDRAW RECUSAL, UH, OR BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY WRITTEN DOWN, BEST CASE, JUST MOVE FORWARD.
SO THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT ANYTHING, ANY, THE PAPERWORK TO SAY THAT YOU'RE ABSTAINING OR RECUSING HAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS, WHICH IT WAS.
AND AT THAT POINT, I HADN'T, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO KIND OF REVIEW WHAT THE REASONING WAS, UM, IN CASE SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE RECUSING OBVIOUSLY, 'CAUSE THEY, I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THEIR APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBER OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
UM, SO I THINK I, I WOULD SAY, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY THE RESULT IS THE SAME YEAH.
AS FAR AS IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE GONNA NOT GONNA PARTICIPATE IN THE DELIBERATION OR IN THE VOTE YEAH.
UM, THAT, THAT HAPPENS UNDER RECUSAL OR ABSTENTION.
AND I, I BELIEVE THAT MY QUESTION IS, UM, COULD I SAY, OH, I MISUNDERSTOOD, I'M ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE.
HOWEVER, I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN A QUORUM HERE, AND I THINK I'LL JUST LET IT SIT.
I THINK I THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
YOU'VE PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AS WELL AS THE REASONING AND SUCH BEHIND IT.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER RETURN, IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR YOU WOULD LIKE TO STATE YOU WANT TO DO AT THIS POINT? UH, I WILL LET THE RECUSAL STAND.
UM, SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, THE RECUSALS? UM, SO I BELIEVE ON OUR AGENDA, WE HAVE, UM, EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THEN WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, AND THEN WE HAVE THE FINAL HEARING.
UM, WITH THAT OBJECTION, CAN WE DO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES AFTER THE HEARING? IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? UM, SO,
[00:15:04]
OKAY, SO VICE CHAIR.UM, TRYING TO FORMULATE MY QUESTION.
UM, I'M GLAD WE GOT CLARITY ON, ON THE ACTUAL RULE FOR RECUSAL.
I'M WONDERING, COMMISSIONER RETURN IF, IF MIGHT BE BETTER FOR YOU TO DO WHAT YOU WISH, BECAUSE I'M AS FAR AS LIKE PARTICIPATING, BECAUSE ONE, I DON'T LIKE HEARING THAT THAT DECISION WAS BASED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING.
UM, TWO, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT OCCURRED AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS WHERE IT WAS, IF YOU WEREN'T PRESENT FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING, THEN YOU COULD NOT, IT, IT HAD, WE HAD TO HAVE A QUORUM OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PRESENT.
AND I'M JUST TRYING, TRYING TO THINK THIS THROUGH IF WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A HEADACHE LATER ON.
AND SO, BUT FIRST PARAMOUNT IS I BELIEVE YOU REALLY WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND DO YOUR DUTY AS A COMMISSIONER.
AND YOU MADE THAT DECISION TO RECUSE BECAUSE YOU HAD MISUNDERSTOOD THE RULE.
AND SO, I COMMISSIONER STAND NOW IF I CAN REPLY.
UH, WHILE I DO THINK THAT IF THERE'S A WAY TO EASILY MEMORIALIZE THAT THERE WAS SOME MISTAKE IN THE GENERATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, I'M HAPPY TO DO SO.
UH, I DO THINK THAT YOU ARE CORRECT.
UH, WE MAY BE GETTING INTO AN AREA WHERE I HAVE CATEGORICALLY RULED MYSELF OUT AS A VALID QUORUM MEMBER IN A, UH, IN A SITUATION WHERE THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REACH A DECISION.
SO, UH, I HAVE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH ANY OF THESE.
I HAVE NOTHING THAT REQUIRES ME TO RECUSE BY STATE OR CITY ORDINANCE.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS AN ERRONEOUS PUBLIC RECORD GENERATION.
UH, HOWEVER, IF THAT'S NOT EASILY MEMORIALIZED OR CORRECTED, UH, I'D HATE TO HOLD UP THE ENTIRE MEETING OVER THAT.
I SUPPOSE I SHOULD SAY, UH, AS A QUESTION TO STAFF, UH, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MEMORIALIZE THAT THERE WAS A, A MINISTERIAL ERROR AND WE COULD MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITHOUT, WITH MY RECUSAL BEING REMOVED? SORRY, I'M JUST REVIEWING, UH, THE, THE APPLICABLE SECTION OF CITY CODE AS FAR AS WHEN THE, UM, SO WHEN YOU'RE PARTICIPATING IN PERSON, IT SAYS, IT JUST SAYS, AT EACH MEETING OF A COMMITTEE TO WHICH A BOARD MEMBER IS APPOINTED.
A, A COMMITTEE MEMBER SHALL SIGN IN ON A SHEET PROVIDED AND SHALL INDICATE THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBER HAS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST RELATED TO ANY ITEM ON THE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA OR THE NUMBER OF AN AGENDA ITEM FOR WHICH THE COMMITTEE MEMBER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND SO, UNDER CHAPTER TWO, ONE, THE SECTION THERE DEALS SPECIFICALLY MORE WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS OPPOSED TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION RULE REQUIRING RECUSAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
THERE'S A, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE RECUSAL IS REQUIRED.
UH, AGAIN, IF YOU ARE, UM, ARRIVING AFTER TESTIMONY HAS BEGUN IN A HEARING, OR IF YOU ARE, IF YOU ARE APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBER, IS THE SUBJECT OF IS RESPONDED IN A COMPLAINT, THAT'S ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE REQUIRED TO RECUSE.
SO AS FAR AS THE FORM THAT YOU ALL JUST SIGNED, UM, THE, THE RECUSAL REQUIREMENT, I THINK SINCE YOU'VE PUT IT ON THE RECORD, YOU'VE CLEARLY STATED YOU HAVE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THE PART ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE TO SIGN THAT FORM, IT DOESN'T SAY NECESSARILY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, IT JUST SAYS YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO SIGN IT.
SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, IF YOU WANT TO, SINCE IT'S ON THE RECORD, UNDO YOUR RECUSAL, I WOULD ASK YOU TO CHANGE WHAT'S ON THE FORM.
AND, UH, AT THIS POINT, UH, UPON COUNT CITY ATTORNEY ADVICE, I'M LETTING YOU KNOW THAT I BELIEVE YOU CAN UNDO YOUR ACCRUAL GIVEN WHAT YOU'VE STATED ON THE RECORD, GIVEN THAT THERE WAS A MIS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION RULE AND CITY CODE.
AND SO IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND CHANGE WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR FORM, AND I WOULD SUGGEST YOU INITIAL IT, UM, AND THEN WE'VE OBVIOUSLY MEMORIALIZED IT TODAY IN THE RECORD AND IN, AND IN THE, UH, IN THE MINUTES, IF IT'S REFLECTED IN ANY WAY, UH, THAT WILL BE FINE AS WELL.
SO IF YOU, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU FEEL LIKE DOING NOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU GOING FORWARD AND DOING THAT.
FURTHER, WHY DON'T, WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE RECUSAL ANNOUNCEMENTS AGAIN THEN? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER KALE IS RECUSING.
YES, I'M SORRY, FROM ITEM SIX.
FROM ITEM SIX, ALL DISCUSSION AND ALL ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM SIX.
SO COMMISSIONER RETURN, WHAT, WHAT WILL YOU DO AS TO RECUSAL? BASED ON THE FOREGOING ADVICE FROM CITY STAFF, I WILL BE WITHDRAWING THE RECUSAL BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS A MINISTERIAL ISSUE.
[00:20:01]
UH, I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND WILL NOT BE RECUSING FROM ANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE JUST COMMISSIONER KALE RECUSING FROM AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER RECUSALS.
SO THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UM, ON THESE VARIOUS, UH, ITEMS, WHICH WOULD BE TWO THROUGH FOUR ON THE AGENDA.
UM, SO IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON AGENDA ITEMS TWO THROUGH FOUR? HEARING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
OKAY, THAT IS, THAT IS ON THE THIRD PARAGRAPH ON MY SCRIPT.
SO IS THERE AN OBJECTION? UH, UM, OKAY.
THE TIME IS NOW 6:24 PM AND, UM, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP, UM, CAN WE DO ALL THREE ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME? ITEMS TWO? YES, YOU MAY.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
EXECUTIVE SESSION TO ADDRESS AGENDA ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.UM, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 0.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO, UM, THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS, UM, UH, A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK UCHIN AGAINST ASHIKA GANGOLI RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, SECTION 2 7 7 4.
UH, ALSO TO TAKE UP A COMPLAINT FILED BY MACKENZIE KELLY AGAINST CRYSTAL LANE RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, SECTION 2 7 7 4.
AND IN ADDITION, A THIRD ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM FOUR, UM, TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE FROM COUNSEL TO DISCUSS A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION, UH, THIS WAS THE CHAIR.
I'M ACTING CHAIR NOW, SO NOT MY DECISION, UM, THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT FILED ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2024 BY JEB WHITE AGAINST GARY BLEDSOE, WHICH ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTERS 3 9 2 AND 3 9 3 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 39.02 AND SECTION FOUR OF THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? OKAY, HEARING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS 6:26 PM AND WE, YES, I'LL SIT OUT IN THE LOBBY FOR THAT FIRST PART.
THE TIME IS 7:57 PM ENCLOSED SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEMS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR ON THE AGENDA.
ITEM TWO WAS A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK UCHIN AGAINST ASHIKA GANGOLI RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN AND SECTION 2 7 7 4.
PLEASE NOTE COMMISSIONER MARY KALE RECUSED FROM THAT MATTER AND SHE IS, UH, NOT ON THE DAIS.
NOW WHILE WE DISCUSS IT, THE ENCLOSED SESSION.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED A COMPLAINT FILED BY MACKENZIE KELLY AGAINST CRYSTAL LANE, RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, SECTION TWO SEVEN DASH SEVEN FOUR.
AND WE DISCUSSED ITEM AGENDA ITEM FOUR, WHICH WAS, UM, A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT FILED ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2024 BY JEB BOY AGAINST GARY BLEDSOE, WHICH ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 3 9 2 AND 3 9 3 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 39.02 AND SECTION FOUR OF THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER.
[6. 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).]
AGENDA IS THE PRELIMINARY[00:25:01]
HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK UCHIN AGAINST COMPLAINANT MARK UCHIN AGAINST RESPONDENT ASHIA GANGLY ALLEGING VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION 2 7 7 4.UH, ATTORNEY ALLEN BOHO CLASS IS APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CAROLINE WEBSTER, IS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.
SO THESE ARE THE PROCEDURES FOR THE, UH, PRELIMINARY HEARING, STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT.
UM, THE PERSON WILL, UM, STATE HIS NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT WOULD INTRODUCE, UM, WOULD INTRODUCE HIMSELF AS WELL.
AND FOR RESPONDENT, WE NEED YOU TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF, INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF COUNSEL OF RECORD, IF THERE IS COUNSEL PRESENT.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT, I'M SORRY, HEARING.
UM, SO, UH, WE DO NEED TO ANNOUNCE THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES PRESENT.
SO STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AS WELL.
AND THEN FOR RESPONDENT, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF COUNSEL OF RECORD, IF THERE IS COUNSEL PRESENT.
SO LET ME DESCRIBE THE PROCEEDING.
THIS IS A FINAL HEARING HELD UNDER SECTION 2 7 4 5 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON, I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE THE DATE WITH ME.
UM, WAS FILED SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 7 4 1, A PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD WHERE THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLA VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION DID OCCUR AND TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING.
THE ISSUE AT THE FINAL HEARING SHALL BE WHETHER A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.
THE COMPLAINT CARRIES, THE COMPLAINANT, CARRIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION.
THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE ITS DETERMINATION BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES.
THE COMMISSION WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE ADMISSIONS, IF ANY OF THE RESPONDENT, IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MAY SO STATE AND THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION OR PROSECUTION.
COMPLAINANT HAS THE RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT.
THE RESPONDENT MAY BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.
AND AN ARGUMENT SUPPORTS AN ARGUMENT THAT SUPPORTS HIS DEFENSE.
THE COMPLAINANT MAY BE PERMITTED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE ON ANY DEFENSE RAISED IN THE RESPONDENT'S PRESENTATION.
THE CHAIR HAS THE OPTION OF ALLOWING PARTIES TO PRESENT A SHORT CLOSING STATEMENT SUMMARIZING THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT THE PARTIES BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE PROVES OR FAILS TO PROVE.
THE COMPLAINANT IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT POSITION ADDRESSING ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, INCLUDING A SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WITNESS TESTIMONY TO BE PRESENTED.
THE RE RESPONDENT WILL THEN BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES TO RESPOND.
YOU MAY RESERVE ANY REMAINING TIME AFTER YOUR STATEMENT FOR REBUTTAL.
ALL WITNESSES, THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT MUST MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS UNDER OATH.
THE COMMISSION MAY ALSO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT OR ANY OTHER WITNESS PRESENT.
THE PARTIES ARE INSTRUCTED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AND REFRAIN FROM INTERJECTING COMMENTS OR INTERRUPTING THE COMMISSIONERS OR OTHER PARTY'S PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
THE CHAIR REQUESTS THAT ANY QUESTIONS REFRAIN, UH, FROM LEADING A WITNESS UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHAIR OR PRESIDING MEMBER.
OPPOSING PARTIES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES.
AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION WILL DELIBERATE AND COME TO A DECISION.
IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE VIOLATIONS ALLEGED HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION WILL STATE ITS FINDINGS IN WRITING AND IDENTIFY EACH CODE, SECTION OR CHARTER PROVISION THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND PROCEED TO A DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS IN ACCORD IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 2 7 4 8 AND 2 7 4 9.
[00:30:02]
SO AT THIS TIME, WE WELCOME THE COMPLAINANT TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT.PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS WELL AS COUNSEL.
IF YOU HAVE COUNSEL, LET LET US KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY.
SO OUR TIMEKEEPER CAN, UH, DO THE 10 MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR, MY NAME IS BILL AHIRE.
I'M HERE AS AN ATTORNEY FOR MARK UCHIN ON THIS COMPLAINT.
UM, MARK WILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE AS WELL.
BUT, UH, I'LL START JUST BY AN OUTLINE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED.
UH, WE SUBMITTED A, A COPY OF THE, UH, CITY CLERKS, UH, UH, CANDIDATE PACKET NOTICE ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE, UM, PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT TO BE FILED.
WE FILED A COPY OF THE CALENDAR, THE CITY CLERK PUTS OUT ON THE ELECTION CALENDAR SHOWING THE DATES ON WHICH THE, UH, UH, STATEMENTS, UH, FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION WERE TO BE, UM, SUBMITTED.
WE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE, UH, FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED LATE SHOWING THE DATE THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED.
UM, THE, THIS IS NOT LIKE SOME OTHER, UM, UH, VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE THAT COME BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND THAT THE RANGE OF SANCTIONS OUTLINED AND THE CODE UNDER SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 48 ON SECTIONS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS VIOLATION.
UH, SINCE, UH, IT, IT IS, UH, AND IN ARTICLE FIVE, UH, OF THE CITY CODE UNDER FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, UM, THAT YOUR SANCTION ISSUE WOULD, YOU WOULD LOOK TO SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR SEVEN.
UH, FOR THE RECORD, JUST REAL QUICKLY, IT SAYS, IF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL PENALTY HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION SHALL DELIVER A COPY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS TO THE COMPLAINANT, IF ANY, 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 AND FINAL DETERMINATION OBTAINED.
UM, ON UNDER THANK YOU MR. EL SHIRE.
SO IT'S NOT 2 7 4 8 AND 2 7 4 9.
UH, AND THAT IS WHAT, THAT IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED WHEN WE WERE IN EXECUTIVE SECTION.
AND, AND SO ARTICLE AND A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE FIVE IS FOUND IN SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 99, WHICH, UH, SHOWS THIS IS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR.
UM, I THINK THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BASED ON THAT, BASED ON YOUR PRELIMINARY FINDING, THAT THERE'S REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION DID OCCUR, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE, THAT THE FILING OCCURRED ALMOST 30 DAYS AFTER THE DEADLINE, THAT IT, IT, THAT IT IS NOT ONLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THE LAW ON THIS CASE.
UM, I ALSO REPRESENT KEN, KEN MARTIN, UH, WITH THE AUSTIN BULLDOG ON OPEN RECORDS ISSUES.
AND HE'S WRITTEN ABOUT THIS AND POINTED OUT FOR YEARS, YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST VIOLATION OF THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
THERE IS A PROBLEM OUT THERE WITH CANDIDATES, EVEN TODAY, CANDIDATES WHO RAN FOR OFFICE AND STILL HAVEN'T FILED THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE THAT WAS REQUIRED.
AND THE REASON THAT IS OCCURRING IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED, YOU HAVE ONLY LIMITED AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING.
AS I READ TO YOU UNDER 2 7 47, UH, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION.
LET'S START MAKING IT CLEAR TO EVERY CANDIDATE THAT IF YOU DO NOT FILE YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT ON TIME, YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTION.
AND LET'S ENCOURAGE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENFORCE THIS AREA OF LAW.
[00:35:01]
IT IS INTENDED TO MAKE SURE VOTERS KNOW ABOUT THE CANDIDATES, KNOW THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE CANDIDATES BEFORE THE ELECTION.I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, AS YOU NOTED EARLIER, MADAM CHAIR, THAT THE, THIS, THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN SEPTEMBER.
IT WAS NOT FILED BECAUSE A CANDIDATE WON OR LOST.
UH, IT WAS, IT WAS FILED, UH, WELL IN ADVANCE, UH, OF THE ELECTION.
UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'LL TURN IT OVER NOW TO MY CLIENT.
MARK UCHIN, THANKS FOR HAVING ME AGAIN.
I WANNA BUILD ON JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I MENTIONED BACK IN DECEMBER WHEN I VISITED LAST WITH Y'ALL.
UM, I THINK MY GOAL HERE, AND I'D HOPE THE GOAL OF THE, UM, THE BODY HERE IS THAT WE CAN HAVE RULES THAT PEOPLE FOLLOW, AND THAT THERE'S ALSO LENDING TRANSPARENCY, THE PROCESS OF RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
UH, AND MY CONCERN REALLY IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS IS SELECTIVELY ENFORCED, IF YOU SAY, WELL, UM, THESE CANDIDATES DIDN'T DO THIS THIS TIME.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT PERSON IS ME NEXT TIME? WHAT IF HAPPENS IF I'M THE PERSON THAT DOESN'T FILE A REPORT? UH, SO MY QUESTION REALLY IS, UH, AND, AND THE THING I'D POST Y'ALL IS HOW DOES THIS WORK? IF I DON'T FILE MY REPORT, WOULD YOU ENFORCE THE RULES ON ME IF I KNEW OR DIDN'T KNOW OR WHAT, OR IF, IF I FORGOT? UH, BECAUSE I'LL CERTAINLY HAVE TO FILE MORE OF THESE REPORTS IN THE FUTURE, AND SO WILL OTHER CANDIDATES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, AT WHAT POINT DOES THE LAW, WHAT POINT IS THERE ENFORCEMENT? AND WHAT POINT IS THERE, UH, CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE DOING THAT? OTHERWISE, WE SHOULD GET RID OF THE, THE RULES.
AND I VISITED WITH, WITH, UH, KRISTA ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK SHE'S RIGHT IN A LOT OF POINTS IN THE SENSE THAT WE CAN MAKE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO SAY, HEY, THESE REPORTS SHOULD BE PUBLISHED BY THE CITY.
THEY SHOULD BE CLEAR TO CANDIDATES THAT, THAT THEY SHOULD NEED TO FILE 'EM.
UH, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS YOU CAN DO THAT ARE IN YOUR POWER TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS BETTER ENFORCEMENT.
BUT IN THE HERE AND NOW, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES IN THE HERE AND NOW.
I, I AM CONCERNED THAT NOTHING MAY HAPPEN, THAT THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATIONS AND THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT.
SO I WOULD JUST LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE THESE REPORTS ARE IMPORTANT TO BE FILED, AND I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO BE DISPLAYED TO THE PUBLIC SO PEOPLE CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES ABOUT WHO THEY ELECT.
SO MY ONLY ASK IS THAT YOU CHOOSE ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE OPTIONS, ENFORCEMENT OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHANGE HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS SO THAT THEY'RE DOWN THE LINE WOULD BE EITHER BETTER ENFORCEMENT OR BETTER UNDERSTANDING AROUND THE RULES.
I THINK EITHER WAY, THERE'D BE, UH, THAT WOULD IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY, AND MY HOPE WOULD BE FUTURE ENFORCEMENT OR FUTURE COMPLIANCE ON THINGS THAT INVOLVE TRANSPARENCY FOR PEOPLE RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
THANK YOU MR. CHERE, UM, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.
HELLO, COMMISSIONER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND NAME OF COUNSEL IF YOU HAVE COUNSEL.
I DO NOT HAVE JUST A MINUTE, PLEASE.
CAN WE GET JUST A SECOND TO SIGN ONE? NO, WE DID SIGN ONE.
I DO NOT HAVE COUNSEL WITH ME TONIGHT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I HEARD SOME VERY COMPELLING THINGS IN WHAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS SAYING.
UM, I DID NOT FILE THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25TH.
I FILED THOSE AS SOON AS I WAS MADE AWARE BY MY TEAM THAT THEY WERE LATE.
UM, AND AS SOON AS I KNEW THAT I NEEDED TO FILE THEM, AND WE GOT THAT DONE AS SOON AS WE REALIZED OUR MISTAKE, IT WAS AN INNOCENT OVERSIGHT.
THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT IN THE LACK OF FILING OF EITHER OF THOSE FORMS. AND I WILL ALSO STATE THAT WE FILED BOTH OF THOSE FORMS BEFORE WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT, UM, BY THE COMPLAINANT.
UM, SO THE, IT WAS ENTIRELY SELF-DIRECTED THAT WE LEARNED OF OUR MISTAKE AND CORRECTED THE MISTAKE.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FOUND COMPELLING FROM THE THINGS THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS SAYING IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS COMMISSION TO MAKING IT CLEARER TO FIRST TIME CANDIDATES, NEW CANDIDATES OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE, UH, WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE
[00:40:01]
COULD BE VERY HELPFUL.UM, YOU KNOW, I'M A FORMER CLASSROOM TEACHER, A POLICY MAKER.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT TYPES OF POLICIES ARE MORE HELPFUL FOR CERTAIN SITUATIONS.
UM, AND IN THIS CASE, I BELIEVE THAT A MANDATE, UM, OR SANCTION IS NOT GOING TO A SANCTION OF SOMEONE WHO RAN FOR OFFICE IN LOST, UM, IS NOT GOING TO TEACH FUTURE CANDIDATES NECESSARILY ABOUT HOW TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR FUTURE CAMPAIGNS.
INSTEAD, ENGAGING IN CAPACITY BUILDING STRATEGIES, ENGAGING IN, UH, WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE SYSTEM IN PLACE SO THAT FUTURE CANDIDATES UNDERSTAND WHEN THINGS ARE DUE, WHAT FORMS ARE PART OF THE PROCESS.
IT'S EASY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A HUGE PACKET OF MATERIALS THAT YOU WERE GIVEN.
UM, YOU SHOULD HAVE READ ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT IS COMPLETELY FAIR AND TRUE.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT AT THAT TIME, THOSE AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER MONTHS OF A CAMPAIGN AS A YOUNG FIRST TIME CANDIDATE, I WAS KNOCKING DOORS EIGHT, NINE HOURS A DAY EVERY SINGLE DAY.
WE, IT'S LIKE DRINKING OUT OF A FIRE HOSE.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A DIFFICULT TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING ON TIME AND CORRECTLY.
UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, O OWN MY MISTAKE.
I, MYSELF, AND MY TEAM FULLY AT FULLY WANTED TO CORRECT THAT MISTAKE AS SOON AS IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
UM, AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS COMMISSION SO THAT FUTURE CANDIDATES, UM, ARE MADE AWARE OF HOW TO DO THINGS PROPERLY AND CORRECTLY, UH, MOVING FORWARD.
UM, WE, UH, I WE WILL GIVE THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, TO USE REMAINING TIME OR REBUTTAL, UM, IF THERE IS A SHORT REBUTTAL.
JUST BRIEFLY, MR. SHAR, JUST BRIEFLY, BILL SHAR MM-HMM
UM, WE MUST BE CAREFUL THAT WE, IN OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS, THAT WE DON'T SAY THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE ONE STANDARD FOR FIRST TIME CLIENTS, UH, FIRST TIME, UH, UH, CANDIDATES VERSUS, UH, MORE EXPERIENCED CANDIDATES.
UM, THAT MAY GO TO THE ISSUE OF PUNISHMENT.
IT SHOULDN'T GO TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE VIOLATION IS FOUND.
UM, IT IS IMPORTANT THOUGH, UH, AND I'VE BEEN A FIRST TIME CANDIDATE AND I AM EMPATHETIC, UH, TO WHAT, UH, UH, WAS SAID.
BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA ENFORCE IT, YOU NEED TO SEND A SIGNAL.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE OFFICER WHO COULD DO MORE ABOUT IT THAN YOU WOULD BE THE CITY ATTORNEY.
IF THERE IS A MESSAGE TO COME OUT OF BOTH OF THESE HEARINGS, IT IS AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO USE HER AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE CRIMINAL STATUTES THAT RELATE TO THESE ELECTIONS.
AND THAT IS WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THIS ELECTION.
IT DIDN'T REQUIRE A COMPLAINT BE FILED WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION, BUT JUST ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENFORCE, UH, THE LAW IS NOT ENOUGH.
IT WOULD REALLY BE GOOD TO HAVE YOUR ENDORSEMENT OF THAT KIND OF AN ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FROM NOW ON AT LEAST.
AND WHAT PUNISHMENT OUGHT TO BE GIVEN, UH, TO THESE CANDIDATES WHO DID NOT HAVE EVIL INTENT OR WHATEVER AND DID FILE THE REPORTS.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DECIDED, UH, LATER IN A, IN A PRO, IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IF NECESSARY, ON SETTLING A CRIMINAL MATTER.
UM, SO I ENCOURAGE YOU THIS, HAVE THE RULE OF LAW.
THANK I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE AN OATH FORM FROM MR. UCHIN.
UH, MS. GANGLY, DO YOU HAVE A SHORT REBUTTAL? NO, I DO NOT.
UH, WE CAN MOVE TO COMMISSIONER.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE, COMMISSIONER MARY KALE IS RECUSED FROM THIS, UH, DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION FOR THE RECORD.
UM, SO DOES ANYONE FIRST HAVE A MOTION? UH, AND WHEN THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER RETURN? UH, YES.
I, I BELIEVE IN YOUR, I I HAVE A MOTION.
[00:45:01]
I BELIEVE IN YOUR, UH, SPIEL.EARLIER YOU INDICATED THAT THE CHAIR AND THIS, UH, COMMISSION CAN ACCEPT AN ADMISSION.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AN ADMISSION FROM THE RESPONDENT AND THAT WE HAVE, UH, ENOUGH INFORMATION TO, AS A MATTER OF LAW, SAY THAT THERE IS A PER SE VIOLATION.
UH, WHETHER I'M NOT MAKING ANY MOTION ON TO THE REDRESS FOR THAT, BUT I WOULD MOTION THAT WE FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION AS A MATTER OF LAW.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND.
SECRETARY STATUTE, ADAMS, UM, SECONDS.
UH, IS THERE A DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER, COMFORT? UM, I WOULD, UH, MOVE AN AMENDMENT TO, I, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, OUR COMMISSION ALSO HAS THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE, UH, A SANCTION.
SO I WOULD, UM, MOVE AN AMENDMENT THAT WE IMPOSE A FINE OF $300.
UM, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO FIND A VIOLATION.
WE ARE NOT, OH, THEY HAVE TO BE SEPARATE.
UH, WELL, IT'S NOT AMENDING THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE FLOOR.
'CAUSE THE MOTION IS TO FIND VIOLATION.
I MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THE WORD VERB.
I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION.
UM, AND WHAT IS THE AMEND TO IMPOSE A, A FINE OF $300.
SO YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO FIND A VIOLATION TO MOVE, TO AMEND THE VIOLATION AND IMPOSE A $300 FINE.
UM, IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT AMENDMENT? DO WE NEED A SECOND? YEAH, I DO WE NEED A SECOND ON AN AMENDMENT, OR IS IT UP TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TO ACCEPT? WELL, I BELIEVE IT'S ALREADY ON THE FLOOR, SO THE COMMITTEE OWNS IT.
SO, UM, YEAH, NOT, IT'S NOT UP TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION.
THERE HAS, THERE HAS TO BE A SECOND, I THINK.
UM, SECOND, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER, RETURN? I THINK THAT, UH, I'M LEERY TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD LINK THESE TWO THINGS TOGETHER, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY DISCUSSION ON THE DAIS ABOUT THE APPETITE FOR, UH, EITHER OF OUR TWO OPTIONS HERE.
UH, AND SO I WOULD SAY MY DISCUSSION ON ADDING THE REDRESS INSIDE OF THIS MOTION IS THAT I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATE.
WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION ON THE FINDING IN, IN LAW, AND THEN MAKE A MOTION ON, UH, THE REDRESS.
UH, AGAIN, ALSO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FINDING YET TO DISCUSS REDRESS.
BUT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON MY AMENDMENT, I THINK.
BUT YEAH, CHAIR, CHAIR THOUGH.
MAY I INTERRUPT QUICKLY? ARE YOU, HAS THE HEARING, YOU HAVE NOT CLOSED THE HEARING AT THIS POINT? CORRECT? HAVE YOU, DID YOU OFFICIALLY CLOSE THE HEARING? UM, IS THERE'S, I'M SORRY, WAS I, IS THIS NOT PART OF THE HEARING? THE DISCUSSION? WELL, I'M SORRY.
ARE YOU ASKING WHETHER WE'RE CLOSING? SO, OKAY, SO ANY, ANY, UH, TESTIMONY, RIGHT? SO THAT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE MAKING A MOVEMENT TO MAKE A DECISION.
THERE'S A, I MEAN, THERE'S A MOTION TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT YOU, THE HEARING IS NOT OVER YET.
I MEAN, IF YOU ALL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL WANNA ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PARTIES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANNA MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT.
OH, BUT THE HEARING HAS TO BE CLOSED BEFORE, SO YOU HAVE TO GATHER ALL YOUR EVIDENCE, AND ONCE THE HEARING IS CLOSED MM-HMM
SO, UM, DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE, UM, COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT OR COUNSEL? BECAUSE IF WE DO, THEN WE'LL GO BACK.
COMMISSIONS HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION, THE SECRETARY.
SO DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR WHEN IT WAS PARKED? YES.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMPLAINANT, AND STOP ME IF THIS IS NOT PROPER FOR ME TO ASK THIS QUESTION.
SO I'LL ASK IT, AND THEN I'LL WAIT TO GET THE KIND OF THE GREEN LIGHT.
[00:50:03]
OKAY.SIR, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION? WHAT ARE YOU SEEKING AS FAR AS CONSEQUENCES? SHOULD THE, IT'S CLEAR, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE SEEKING, YOU ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, AND THEN THE SECONDARY COMPONENT OF THAT IS SOME SORT OF CONSEQUENCE.
SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE, WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT ARE YOU SEEKING AS FAR AS THE CONSEQUENCE PIECE? LET, LET ME HAVE MR. UCHIN EXPLAIN WHAT HIS POSITION IS ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES.
LET ME ADDRESS THE LEGAL ISSUE.
UM, UNDER MOST OF THE OFFENSES, THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU HEAR, YOU HAVE A LIST OF SANCTIONS THAT YOU CAN IMPOSE, AND THAT'S IN 2 7 48.
THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE.
YOU'RE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, I BELIEVE YOUR OPTIONS AS A COMMISSION FOR WHAT TO DO.
WHEN YOU FIND THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THIS, UH, UH, PART OF THE CODE IS UNDER TWO 7.47 THAT I READ TO YOU, THAT IF YOU DETERMINE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION, THEN YOU CAN REFER THIS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTION.
IF THERE'S A FINE, IT IS BY THAT PROCESS, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED.
UM, BUT I, I, I, I, I HOPE THE COMMISSION, MOST OF ALL WILL APPLY THE LAW AND AT LEAST DO SOMETHING TO START SENDING THE SIGNAL TO ALL FUTURE CANDIDATES, ESPECIALLY AS, AS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER UCHIN SAID THAT THIS LAW'S GONNA GET ENFORCED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT THAT'S MY, MY VIEW OF THE LAW, UM, IS THAT THIS IS BEING, BEING THAT IT IS A DEFINED AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER THE CITY CODE, UM, UNDER SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 99, UNLIKE SOME OF THE OTHER OFFENSES THAT YOU WOULD DEAL WITH, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE COURSE THAT YOU CAN TAKE.
YOU REFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTION, AND THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL EXERCISE DISCRETION ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE IT AND HOW TO SETTLE THE CASE.
SO IN TERMS OF CONSEQUENCES, BACK IN DECEMBER, I SHARED A STORY WITH Y'ALL.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION ABOUT HOW I HAD MADE A MISTAKE, UH, MAYBE NOT UNLIKE THIS ONE.
I, IN THAT CASE, I JUST FORGOT TO PRESS A BUTTON ON A REPORT TO FILE IT.
AND AFTER THAT, I NEVER MADE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN.
SO MY HOPE IS THAT I THINK Y'ALL WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN I AM TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S A FINE AND WHAT THAT AMOUNT WOULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT THE REDRESS WOULD BE.
UH, BUT I WOULD JUST WANNA SEE SOMETHING THAT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO START FILING THE REPORTS.
AND WHETHER YOU ALL HAVE A DOLLAR VALUE ASSOCIATED OF THAT OR A LEGAL CONSEQUENCE, I COULDN'T SAY, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE END RESULT.
IT'S FUNNY, I WAS IN A MEETING EARLIER TODAY ABOUT FINES FOR DIFFERENT THINGS, AND THE POINT THAT THAT WAS EMPHASIZED WAS THE POINT OF THE FINE IS TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR.
SO I'D ASK YOU ALL WHAT'S GONNA CHANGE BEHAVIOR ON THIS.
SO PEOPLE START TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE CANDIDATE PACKET AND FILE REPORTS.
AND, AND, AND PLEASE, UH, AND PLEASE BE, UH, CAREFUL NOT TO BLAME THE CITY CLERK OR THE GOVERNMENT FOR A VIOLATION WHEN THE RULE, UNLESS YOU THINK THAT THE NOTICES THAT ARE SENT OUT ARE UNREASONABLE.
AND IN THAT SENSE, WE, WE, WE'VE GOTTA PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY ALONGS, AND THAT IS BY THOSE THAT VIOLATE THIS LAW.
WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING THAT WITH YOUR SPEAKER ON, I APOLOGIZE.
DO THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMPLAINANT OR COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL? THANK YOU, MR. DECHEN.
MR. CHERE, DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF RESPONDENT OR ANYTHING ELSE? MS. UH, COMMISSIONER RETURN? YES.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT.
[00:55:01]
MS. CONLEY, UH, YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU WERE A FIRST TIME, UH, CANDIDATE.UH, DID YOU, UH, NOTE ANY, UH, FINES, UH, THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAD RECEIVED? UH, DID, DID THE FACT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FINED FOR SIMILAR THINGS IN THE PAST CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR? THAT WAS NEVER EVEN A THOUGHT THAT HAD CROSSED MY MIND.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLEE? I THANK YOU.
I BELIEVE THAT IS THE END OF COMMISSIONER QUESTION AND ANSWER.
SO, TESTIMONY AND ALL EVIDENCE IS CLOSED.
OKAY, SECRETARY STAN? YES, MADAM.
UM, CHAIR, MAY I ASK ONE, ONE QUESTION OF RESPONDENT? OF COURSE.
I WANTED TO MAKE YOU EXERCISE
UM, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION THAT I ASK COMPLAINANT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IF, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CONSEQUENCE SHOULD BE? UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
AND I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT I DID FILE THOSE STATEMENTS LATE.
I REALIZED THAT MISTAKE OWNED UP TO IT AND FILED THEM AS SOON AS MYSELF AND MY TEAM WAS MADE AWARE OF THE MISTAKE.
UM, I THINK I KIND OF SPOKE TO THIS IN MY ORIGINAL TESTIMONY, BUT I THINK THE MOST PRODUCTIVE THING TO DO HERE WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE SYSTEM OF INFORMATION THAT IS GIVEN TO CANDIDATES BY THE CITY, UH, TO HELP AND MAKE SURE THAT RULES ARE FOLLOWED ACCORDINGLY.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS A CLASSROOM TEACHER, I LOOK IN, ONE OF MY STUDENTS BROKE THE RULES.
IT'S LIKE I, WHEN I WAS GETTING MY BACHELOR'S DEGREE, UH, IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AT UT, IT'S, IT WAS CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 1 0 1 THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PUNITIVE TACTICS ARE NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE THING TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR.
AND THINKING ABOUT CAPACITY BUILDING STRATEGIES ARE THE BEST WAY TO HELP FUTURE CANDIDATES.
UM, THE COMPLAINANT SAID IN HIS ANECDOTE THAT, UM, WHEN HE WAS FINED, HE'D NEVER MADE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN.
UM, TO ME THAT FELT LIKE A SOMEWHAT PERSONAL STATEMENT, UM, TO MYSELF AS THE RESPONDENT.
UM, AND I FEEL THAT THE ETHICS COMPLAINT WAS CREATED AND MADE AT A VERY CRITICAL TIME IN AN EXTREMELY CLOSE RACE AND COMPETITIVE CAMPAIGN.
UH, AND SO MY VIEW IS THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT A BENIGN, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
THINKING ABOUT FUTURE CANDIDATES, NEW CANDIDATES, FIRST TIME CANDIDATES, IT WAS A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BASED ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF THIS HEARING, I'M THINKING ABOUT FUTURE CANDIDATES, NEW CANDIDATES, PEOPLE THAT WILL BE NOT MYSELF BECAUSE I RAN AND LOST.
SO I AM NOT THINKING OF MYSELF.
I AM THINKING OF FUTURE CANDIDATES WHO NEED INFORMATION WHEN THEY'RE RUNNING FOR OFFICE FOR THE FIRST TIME.
SECRETARY STAN ADAMS, DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? NO.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE AS TO TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE, IF NOT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? UH, WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AFTER HAVING HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY.
UM, AND, UH, WE CAN MOVE TO COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DETERMINATION.
UH, I APOLOGIZE, I GOTTA STEP AHEAD OF MYSELF.
SO LET ME REITERATE THAT COMMISSIONER MARY KALE IS RECUSED AND IS NOT TAKING PART IN THE DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION FOR THIS COMPLAINT.
UM, I BELIEVE WE STILL HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR CONCERNING A FINDING OF, UM, A FINDING OF A VIOLATION.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, WERE YOU GOING TO WITHDRAW WHAT YOU WOULD PUT FORTH AS A SECOND? YES.
[01:00:01]
WITHDRAW.YOU THE VOTE ON IT, BUT I ACCEPT YOUR SUGGESTION OF SEPARATING.
YEAH, BUT WHAT IS ON THE FLOOR IS, UH, MOTION TO, UH, AM A MOTION TO FIND A VIOLATION AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR BECAUSE RECEIVED SECOND, SEE, I THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
I ACCEPT YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE VOTE NO ON.
SO THE SECOND THING ON THE FLOOR IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON NOW, WHICH IS THE MOTION ABOUT THE $300 FINE.
IS THAT CORRECT? DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? UM, I DUNNO IF I NEED TO TAKE A ROLL CALL, UM, I'LL, WHY DON'T I NOT TAKE A ROLL CALL FIRST AND I'LL IN FAVOR, UM, SAY AYE OR RAISES HAND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF, UM, NOT, NOT ACCEPTING THE $300.
MINE IS A MOTION, RIGHT? I'M SORRY? ALL OPPOSED TO THE, TO THE UNION, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? RIGHT.
ASKING FOR ALL ALL OR OPPOSED YES.
SO ALL OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT ABOUT THE $300.
SO WE ARE BACK TO THE MOTION PUT FORTH BY COMMISSIONER MATURING ABOUT, UH, FINDING A VIOLATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER RETURN.
CAN, IT'S BEEN A, IT'S BEEN A FEW MINUTES.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION AGAIN? YES.
MY MOTION IS THAT WE FIND THAT WE HAVE AN ADMISSION FROM MS. GANGLY THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, UH, AND THAT WE DISCUSS THE REDRESS AFTERWARDS.
SHOULD THE MOTION BE ABOUT THE CANDIDATE OR ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN? IN OTHER WORDS, THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE? THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE RESPONDENT.
AND SO I BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL BEARS THE RESPONSIBILITY AS A POINT OF LAW.
AND SO I THINK THAT WE ARE FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A VIOL, A PER SE VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
ARE YOU ASKING? YEAH, I, I DON'T SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM, I DON'T HAVE IT EITHER WAY.
I JUST THINK IT WAS SOMETHING WORTHY MM-HMM
FOR US TO CONSIDER IS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE? THIS IS A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST.
SO IT'S NOT A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.
IT IS HER, BUT IT'S REQUIRED BY THE CAMPAIGN.
I MEAN, IF SHE WASN'T A CANDIDATE, IT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED.
MR. ISN'T THE, THE OFFICIAL TERM CANDIDATE NOT CAMPAIGN? WELL, I THINK A CANDIDATE EXISTS LEGALLY IN THE FORM OF A COMMITTEE.
THE COMMITTEE IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO FILE THE PAPERWORK, THAT HAS TO FILE A TREASURER THAT HAS TO REPORT THE FINANCES.
AN INDIVIDUAL EXISTS OUTSIDE OF A CAMPAIGN, WAS THE ACTUAL REGULATION THAT THE CANDIDATE OR THE CAMPAIGN HAS TO FILE.
I, I THINK OUR COUNCIL WILL, UM, ENLIGHTEN US.
UH, THE LANGUAGE OF 2 7 7 4 IS REGARDING CANDIDATES.
IT'S THE CANDIDATE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE.
THE RESPONDENT IS HERE IN HER CAPACITY AS A FORMER CANDIDATE AT THE TIME.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A CAMPAIGN.
AND COUNSEL, COULD YOU ALSO, UM, GIVE US FURTHER EXPLANATION AS TO THE LEGAL SANCTIONS THAT, UH, MR. SCHERE REFERRED TO? CERTAINLY MADAM CHAIR.
WHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION IS THAT SECTION 2 7 47 SAYS A COUPLE THINGS THAT IF YOU FIND A VIOLATION OF AUSTIN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, IF YOU FIND THERE'S A VIOLATION, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO, UM, DELIVER YOUR FINDINGS TO THE COMPLAINANT, TO THE RESPONDENT, AND TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY YOU HAVE CHOICES.
IT SAYS THAT YOU MAY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR PROSECUTION, OR YOU MAY SET FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS TO FIND THAT THERE IS A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE AND TO CLOSE THE MATTER.
SO IF YOU WERE INCLINED TO ASSESS SOME SORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY, UM, AS PART OF CLOSING THIS, I THINK IT WOULD FALL UNDER THAT
[01:05:01]
LAST CATEGORY.DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL COMMISSIONER RETURN? UH, YOU DESCRIBED ONE POSSIBLE, UH, REQUIREMENT, UH, IN THE SENTENCE, UH, THIS COMMISSION MAY RECOMMEND PROSECUTION OR SET FORTH REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
IS IT THE OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT WE MAY SET FORTH OTHER NON-MONETARY REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND OR, UH, SAY PROVIDING A TESTIMONIAL TO THIS COMMISSION IN THE WRITTEN FORM THAT, UH, MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR OTHER CANDIDATES? WOULD THAT FALL UNDER SET FORTH REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LANGUAGE? Y YES.
COMMISSIONER RETURN? I, I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE AS PROVIDED GIVES THIS COMMISSION SOME DISCRETION ON WHAT THE VOLUNTARY REQUIREMENT CONDITIONS WOULD BE AT THIS POINT.
WE STILL HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, UM, TO FIND A VIOLATION.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? OKAY.
ARE WE READY TO, UM, VOTE ON THAT? I'M, I'M SORRY IF I WASN'T CLEAR WHEN I SAID THIS THE RIGHT TIME.
UM, COMMISSIONER MARY KALE IS RECUSED AND SHE IS NOT PARTICIPATING IN DELIBERATIONS OR DETERMINATION, AND SHE IS NOT VOTING ON THIS MOTION.
FOR CLARITY, WOULD YOU REPEAT WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ACTIVE MOTION? BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RETURN I DID SECOND, AND THEN WE HAD AN AMENDMENT WHICH FAILED, AND THEN COMMISSIONER RETURN HAD A CLARIFICATION, WHICH I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ACTUALLY A SEPARATE NEW MOTION THAT REQUIRES ANOTHER SECOND, OR ARE WE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL THAT NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION.
SO WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS TO FIND A VIOLATION.
AND SO WE ARE NOW UP FOR A VOTE.
UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
UM, I, I WILL TRY THIS FIRST WITHOUT A ROLL CALL.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO FIND A VIOLATION, SAY AYE, OR RAISE A HAND.
SO, UH, THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
UM, IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION COMMISSIONER RETURN? SORRY TO OCCUPY THE DI OF SO LONG, BUT, UH, I MOTION THAT WE DO NOT RECOMMEND PROSECUTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEYS AND INSTEAD SET FORTH REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH AN ORDER THAT VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE MAY BE HAD AND FINAL DETERMINATION OBTAINED IN THE FORM THAT THE RESPONDENT SUBMIT A TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD IN THE FORM OF A WRITTEN DOCUMENT EXPLAINING HER EXPERIENCE AND HER TAKEAWAYS FROM IT AND ANY SUGGESTIONS SHE HAS FOR THE PROCESS THAT SHE, UH, EXPERIENCED.
SO MORE SUCCINCTLY, IF I COULD PARAPHRASE, YOU MOVE TO, UH, NOT, UM, RECOMMEND PROSECUTION.
AND TO ASK THE RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT, UM, I BELIEVE THE ASK.
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT, TO PROVIDE WRITTEN T TESTIMONY ABOUT HER EXPERIENCE.
COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA SECONDS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST CHAIR? OH, YES.
I PERSONALLY AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF TAKING ANY FURTHER STEPS, UH, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OUR DISCRETION NOT TO ACT.
UM, MY VIEW IS THAT, I MEAN, I AGREE WE HAVE RULES AND THEN WE HAVE PUNISHMENT IN ORDER TO TRY TO COERCE PEOPLE AND TO FOLLOWING THE RULES.
AND HONESTLY, I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, THE REAL DETERRENT FOR A CANDIDATE TO NOT FILE, UH, THEIR DISCLOSURES ON TIME IS THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS DURING THE NEWS CYCLE IN THE MIDST OF THEIR CAMPAIGN OR NOW THAT IT'S PUBLIC RECORD.
I GUESS POTENTIALLY FUTURE CAMPAIGNS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE OPTICS, UH, THIS SMALL EXERCISE I ONE COULD LOOK AT AS A FORM OF PUBLIC SHAMING AND FRANKLY, JUST THE UNPLEASANTNESS OF HAVING TO SHOW UP AND RESPOND TO
[01:10:01]
ONE OF THESE COMPLAINTS.I THINK ALL OF THAT BY ITSELF IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO DETER A CANDIDATE FROM FA FROM VOLITIONALLY FAILING TO, UM, FILE ONE OF THESE DISCLOSURES.
SO I THINK HONESTLY, GOING ANY FURTHER, EVEN IF IT'S JUST TO ASK FOR, LIKE AN ESSAY IS SORT OF GRATUITOUS AND I'M JUST IN PRINCIPLE OPPOSED TO GRATUITOUS SANCTIONS OR, YOU KNOW, ENGAGEMENT IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
SO I, I THINK IT'S UNNECESSARY.
I THINK THE SIMPLE FACT THAT WE'RE HERE AND WE MADE THE VOTE WAS ADEQUATE.
AND SO I, I PERSONALLY AM OPPOSED TO THE MOTION OR ANY OTHER MOTION TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS FROM THE FOR DISCUSSION MR. GUERERO? UM, I JUST WANTED TO STATE, UH, FOR THE RECORD THAT, UM, I LIKE THE FIRST PART OF THE MOTION OF, UM, NOT RECOMMENDING FOR PROSECUTION.
I THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP THAT WE SHOULD TAKE AS A COMMISSION, UH, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME EQUITY COMPONENTS TO THIS OF, YOU KNOW, ARE WE, UM, ONLY PUNISHING, UM, SELECTIVE CANDIDATES BASED ON WHETHER A COMPLAINT IS FILED OR NOT.
UM, I THINK THERE'S DEMOCRACY CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE AND, UM, ARE GONNA BE SCARED TO RUN FOR OFFICE IF THEY FAIL TO FILE ONE DOCUMENT AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY FAIL IT, AND THEN ARE STILL FINED AND THEN SUBJECTED TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
UM, A MISDEMEANOR IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A LOWER CRIME, BUT IT'S STILL A CRIME.
UM, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE, UM, THE COMMISSION, UM, CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATION OF NO PROSECUTION.
UM, ONTO THE SECOND PART, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH, THE MOTION OF THE WRITTEN THING, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE A TEACHABLE MOMENT.
I THINK IT'S, UM, THERE'S SOME VALUE IN IT FROM COMING FROM A CANDIDATE WHO HAS RUN FOR THE FIRST DIME, UM, AND CAN PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT ONTO WHAT THAT EXPERIENCE WAS LIKE, THAT THE COMMISSION MAY FIND VALUABLE, CITY COUNCIL MAY FIND VALUABLE AND OTHER CANDIDATES MAY FIND VALUABLE.
SO I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE TO IT.
UM, BUT FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE FIRST PART IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE IN THE POSITION OF, OF SETTING A MONETARY FINE OR RECOMMENDING PROSECUTION WHEN THE CANDIDATE, UM, DID SUBSEQUENTLY, UM, SUBMIT THE REQUIRED FORMS. AND, UM, UM, AND WHEN WE HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A A LOT OF CANDIDATES WHO ARE, UH, LEARNING THE PROCESS, UM, IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO, TO SELECTIVELY PROSECUTE IN THOSE SITUATIONS.
WELL, I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE VIEWED AS A, THE, THE SECOND ITEM, THE TESTIMONIAL AS A, AN GRATUITOUSLY PUNITIVE, UH, MEASURE.
WHAT, WHAT I, I DO THINK IS BOTH THE CLAIMANT AND THE RESPONDENT HAVE ALLEGED THAT THERE IS SOMETHING HERE THAT WILL HELP OTHER PEOPLE.
THERE IS SOMETHING HERE THAT WILL HELP THE PROCESS.
THIS COMMISSION HAS A DIFFICULT TIME TAKING NOTICE OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN OUTSIDE OF ITS WALLS.
AND, AND WE'VE EVEN SAID, UH, IT'S HARD TO, TO PUNISH JUST THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A COMPLAINT BROUGHT AGAINST THEM.
THIS IS, IN MY OPINION, A WAY FOR US TO BEGIN TAKING CASE STUDIES OF WHAT HAPPENED TO PEOPLE, WHY THIS OCCURRED, AND IF WE ACCRUE ENOUGH OF THEM POTENTIALLY MAKE SOME OTHER RECOMMENDATION IN OUR REGULAR CAPACITY AS A COMMISSION, UH, TO THE CITY STAFF.
SO, I, I DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY ASKING SOMEONE TO CHARACTERIZE THEIR EXPERIENCE IS OVERLY PUNITIVE.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THE REST OF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THAT.
CHAIRMAN, UH, SECRETARY, SECRETARY, SENATOR ADAMS COMMISSIONER MAT TURN.
COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? I, I, I ALSO DON'T VIEW THAT SECOND PART OF THE TESTIMONY AS, UM, PUNITIVE.
I'M ACTUALLY WONDERING THE OPPOSITE.
IF IT'S GIVING THE RESPONDENT AND WELL, AND IF WE FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION GIVING THE PERSON WHO VIOLATED THAT ATTENTION OR, UM, KIND OF RECOGNITION.
AND I, AND I FEEL, I FEEL WEIRD ABOUT THAT.
UM, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE FOR ME BECAUSE I BELIEVE VERY MUCH IN FAIRNESS AND MAKING, AND, YOU KNOW, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE, RIGHT? THERE'S, THERE'S THAT, THERE'S THAT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE SYMPATHY FOR A FIRST TIME CANDIDATE,
[01:15:01]
AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT IT IS NOT A FUN AND EASY PROCESS.AND AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S, IT'S TOUGH BECAUSE, WELL, THERE ARE OTHER, THERE ARE OTHER CANDIDATES WHO MAY HAVE THAT SAME EXPERIENCE, BUT POSSIBLY FILED IT ON TIME.
AND THEN, UH, THERE ARE THOSE WHO, YOU KNOW, UM, THIS ISN'T THEIR FIRST RODEO AND THEY HAVEN'T, AND SO I'M TORN BETWEEN, I HEAR ALSO THE COMPLAINANT'S, YOU KNOW, PLEA, WHICH IS WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND TO UPHOLD THE LAW.
ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? AND ALSO, I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES, MAYBE PERHAPS MORE INSTANCES THAN NOT, THAT YOU MAKE A STATEMENT OR YOU A LESSON IS LEARNED.
AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T MEAN FOR THIS TO SOUND SO HARSH AND JUST RUDE, BUT YOU LEARN YOUR LESSON WHEN IT, WHEN IT HURTS YOUR POCKETBOOK.
RIGHT? WE'VE HEARD THAT SAID, AND, AND SO I'M REALLY, I'M REALLY TORN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I HEAR COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA'S POINT, AND I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU MADE THAT POINT ABOUT EQUITY.
SO THIS IS A VERY TOUGH ONE FOR ME.
I'M, I LIKE THE FIRST PART OF YOUR, OF THE, I GUESS THE CONSEQUENCES PART, WHICH IS NOT RECOMMENDING IT FOR PROSECUTION, BUT FOR ME, I'M NOT SURE THAT, THAT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD GET AWAY WITH NOT PAYING A FINE.
IT'S, FOR ME, IT'S MAYBE THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, TAKING TWO FACTORS SUCH AS A FIRST TIME, I THINK WE ALL CAN AGREE THAT IT IS A TOUGH PROCESS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I WANNA SPEAK TO, HEY, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOUR EXPERIENCE IS, THE, THE RULE, YOU, THE RULE APPLIES TO YOU JUST AS WELL AS A, A SEASONED CANDIDATE.
SO I'M, I'M REALLY, I'M REALLY TORN, BUT I AGREE WITH THE NO PROSECUTION.
I, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER CASTO HAD A COMMENT FIRST, AND THEN COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, AND THEN COMMISSIONER TURN.
UH, I THINK THAT MY, MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT, UM, TESTIMONIAL IS, UH, EXCUSE ME, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON IT? IS, UH, WOULD YOU MIND PULLING IT CLOSER? YEAH.
UM, IS, IS HOW RELEVANT IT IS TO COMPLIANCE.
I MEAN, SHE, SHE DID SHARE HER EXPERIENCE TONIGHT, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT OF A TESTIMONIAL, BUT THERE ARE HOWEVER MANY OTHER PEOPLE ALSO THAT FAILED TO FILE.
AND I THINK THIS COMMISSION DOES HAVE THE ABILITY IN LOOKING AT WAYS TO IMPROVE ENFORCEMENT.
WE COULD GET THOSE TESTIMONIALS FROM EVERYONE, UM, IF WE SO CHOOSE.
AND I, I DO THINK ENFORCEMENT DOES NEED TO BE IMPROVED.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S, UH, A MONETARY IMPACT IS REQUIRED FOR THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON.
UM, BUT PRIMARILY, I JUST DON'T KNOW, UH, THE, THE NEXUS BETWEEN A TESTIMONIAL AND ANY KIND OF PUNISHMENT OR, UM, DISINCENTIVE TO, TO DO THAT AGAIN.
SO I THINK THOSE SHOULD BE TREATED AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
THIS COMMISSION DOES NEED TO LOOK AT AT WAYS TO IMPROVE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE THINGS.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO DO IT? WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T? BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT STILL.
SO WE COULD IMPROVE THAT AND MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO PUNISH SOMEBODY WHO I I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT THIS HAS BEEN FUN EITHER.
SO THERE'S A DISINCENTIVE THERE AS WELL TO HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS WELL.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY COMMENT ON THE, ON THE SECOND PORTION, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, UM, EARLIER I MADE THE, UM, THE AMENDMENT, I PROPOSED THAT AMENDMENT FOR A FINE.
ONE, THE MATTER OF EQUITY IS IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO DISCUSS AND SEPARATE FROM THIS DISCUSSION, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF HAVING US BE PROACTIVE LOOKING BACK AT THIS PAST CAMPAIGN AND LOOKING AT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FILED LATE.
SO, I, I, I, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION OF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS VERY MUCH, BUT THAT'S FOR
[01:20:01]
A SEPARATE DISCUSSION.UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT FOR SOME CANDIDATES, UH, A FINE MAY NOT BE A DETERRENT, BUT A LITTLE, LIKE YOU SAID, I'M A LITTLE TORN.
I, I THINK MAYBE IF WE WERE TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD WITH ALL CANDIDATES AND INCLUDE A SOME FINE, THEN I THINK, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE WITH SOME PEOPLE.
UH, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER SIMPLY BEING FOUND IN VIOLATION, SIMPLY BEING FOUND IN VIOLATION IS SUFFICIENT.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE AMENDING THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A $300 FUND.
SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONIAL LESS THE FINE, BECAUSE THE, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, I, I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT THE TESTIMONIAL.
BUT THAT, THAT IS WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR INCLUDES THE TESTIMONIAL.
AND I'M, I'M PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE FINE OR TESTIMONIAL.
NO, I'M, I'M PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT.
SO IS THE AMENDMENT NOT FINE? A FINE OF $300 WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
TO THE CURRENT MOTION, THOUGH? YES.
I BELIEVE THE QUESTION IS, IS IT IN ADDITION TO THE TESTIMONIAL OR IN PLACE OF THE TESTIMONIAL? OH, I'M SORRY, YES.
IN ADDITION, I MEAN, IT'S IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING HE SAID, RIGHT? I'M NOT SUBSTITUTING IT FOR, FOR THE NOT PROSECUTE, NOT RECOMMENDING PROSECUTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE THINGS, NOT RECOMMEND PROSECUTION, TESTIMONIAL AND FINE.
I JUST WANNA SAY, AS A DISCUSSION POINT, I THINK WE'VE TALKED THIS OVER AND, AND WE HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT HOW DO WE IMPACT THIS SPECIFIC RESPONDENT AND HOW DO WE IMPACT OTHER RESPONDENTS? THIS SPECIFIC RESPONDENT HAS SPENT HOURS OF THEIR TIME RESPONDING TO THIS.
IF WE GO WITH THIS AMENDMENT, THEY'LL SPEND HOURS OF THEIR TIME POTENTIALLY, UH, WRITING A TESTIMONIAL, WHATEVER THEY THINK WILL BE USEFUL TO THE, UH, COMMISSION AND TO THE PUBLIC.
UH, ALL OF OUR TIME HAS A MONETARY VALUE.
UH, I THINK THAT JUST SAYING, OH, THERE MAY BE SOMEBODY SOME OTHER TIME WHO $300 WILL MATTER TO IT.
IT SEEMS A STRETCH TO SAY THAT THAT IS A VALUABLE THING TO PICK ON THIS ONE RESPONDENT FOR AND SAY, HEY, WE HAVEN'T FIND ANYBODY ELSE.
YOU'RE THE FIRST PERSON ACROSS THE LINE.
WE'RE GONNA FIND YOU AND HOPE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO, TO BE, UH, SAVVY ENOUGH TO FIND OUT THAT YOU WERE FINED.
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEIR JUDGMENT.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT $300 IS PERFECTLY FINE FOR NOT TELLING US ABOUT THEIR FINANCES.
IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE ALL GONNA FISH AROUND FOR A NUMBER THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IMPACTFUL TO ANYBODY WHO HAS $500 IN THEIR POCKET, BECAUSE THAT'S THE MAXIMUM.
AND $500 IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY.
IF NO ONE SECONDS MY MOTION, THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANY DISCUSSION.
SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS THE MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER RETURN INITIALLY MADE, IS THAT, IS, IS TO MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION NOT RECOMMEND PROSECUTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE A TESTIMONIAL TO THIS COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA, UM, I LIKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
I DO THINK REPORTING, NOT REPORTING IS A PROBLEM, BUT IT'S SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
AND I LIKE THAT THERE'S NO FINE HERE BECAUSE THE THING IS, THE, THE THING THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF ARE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS, FUNDRAISING REPORTS, AND IF YOU SUBMIT THOSE LATE, THERE'S NO FINE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT EITHER.
SO, ACROSS THE BOARD, I DON'T THINK FINES EXIST IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN UNIVERSE WHEN IT COMES TO CAMPAIGNS.
IT DOES AT THE STATE LEVEL, THE COUNTY LEVEL, THE CITY LEVEL.
SO CREATING SOMETHING NEW, I THINK WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT TROUBLES ME, AND THIS, THIS IS ALL, AS A CAMPAIGN PROFESSIONAL, THIS HAS BOTHERED ME FOR A LONG TIME.
SO I'M GONNA TAKE THIS MOMENT TO BRING IT UP, AND I THINK IT'S VERY PERTINENT HERE, BUT CANDIDATES WILL HAVE TO FILE TWO REPORTS, ONE STATE AND ONE CITY.
THE STATE REPORT IS CALLED THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
THE CITY REPORT IS CALLED THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION,
THEY'RE EACH THREE WORDS, AND THEY'RE SEPARATED BY ONE WORD,
[01:25:01]
AND THEY'RE DUE AROUND THE SAME TIME.WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE STATE REPORT, BUT WE CAN DIRECT THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE CITY REPORT.
AND I'VE, I'VE MADE THIS STATEMENT ABOUT OTHER THINGS BEFORE, BUT LIKE, WHAT'S THE POINT OF NAMING THINGS IF THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME NAME? WE DEALT WITH ANOTHER SITUATION HERE THAT I WAS AWAY FROM THE D ON, WHERE THERE WAS A PROVISION OF THE CAMPAIGN CODE ASKING CANDIDATES TO DO SOMETHING AND PROVIDING NO METHOD FOR THEM TO DO IT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT SECTION SETS CANDIDATES UP FOR FAILURE.
I THINK MAYBE UNINTENTIONALLY HAVING TWO FORMS THAT HAVE ALMOST THE SAME NAME ASKING FOR SIMILAR INFORMATION AROUND SIMILAR TIMES ON THE CALENDAR ALSO SETS CANDIDATES UP FOR FAILURE.
SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD EMPLOY CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND PERHAPS CHANGE IT TO CANDIDATE'S.
ECONOMIC DOSSIER IS A BAD WORD THESE DAYS.
UH, A CANDIDATE'S ECONOMIC PROFILE OR SOMETHING THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THE SAME THING, BUT USES MARKEDLY DIFFERENT VERBIAGE.
THAT'S ONE THING WE CAN RECOMMEND.
UH, ANOTHER THING WE CAN RECOMMEND IS WE MEET ONCE A MONTH, AND IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF AN ELECTION YEAR, THAT'S REALLY HARD FOR US TO TAKE THINGS ON.
MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE MORE MEETING IN THE FALL OF AN EBIT NUMBERED YEAR TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE THINGS.
IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE TIMELY.
UH, THE LAST THING I'LL MENTION IS I'M, I'M RECALLING THIS FROM MEMORY.
I, UM, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WHEN THE CANDIDATE PACKETS WERE PHYSICAL PACKETS, I THINK 2018 MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE LAST TIME OF THE YEAR, THAT THERE WERE JUST PHYSICAL PACKETS, THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A CANDIDATE ORIENTATION THAT ACCOMPANIED THOSE PACKETS.
I I, I TEXTED A FEW PEOPLE THEY COULDN'T REMEMBER EITHER.
UM, BUT MAYBE A CANDIDATE ORIENTATION WITH A TIMELINE IS ONE WAY TO JUST FLAG THIS ON THE FRONT END.
UM, SO I THINK I, I OFFER THOSE AS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO WHAT IS VERY MUCH A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
I THINK, LIKE I SAID, I THINK IT'S AN ISSUE BROUGHT ABOUT IN PART BY CONFUSION.
UH, WHEN MS. GREENBERG SPOKE DURING PUBLIC COMMENT AT OUR LAST MEETING, SHE SAID 12 OF 19 CANDIDATES DIDN'T FILE THIS INFORMATION.
THAT MEANS THERE'S, THERE'S 10 OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE OFF THE HOOK.
AND, AND I, FOR WHO KNOWS FOR WHAT REASON THEY DID IT, SOMETHING'S AN ISSUE.
SO I AGREE WITH MR. UCHIN IN THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS HE MADE LAST MEETING WAS THAT MOST CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ACCIDENTAL.
UM, I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT, AND I THINK THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, BUT WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE, UH, A ADHERENCE TO THE RULES.
I HAVE, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
UH, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PFS.
WHY, WHY DID YOU BRING THAT UP? BECAUSE I, I MEAN, BECAUSE IT BASICALLY HAS RELATION TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE IT BASICALLY HAS THE SAME NAME AS THE SFI.
AND SO, AS TO THIS PARTICULAR RESPONDENT, WHAT, WHAT RELEVANCE DOES IT HAVE? CONFUSION.
SO IF SHE WAS CONFUSED, SHE NEVER WOULD'VE HAD TO FILE THE PFS EITHER.
I MEAN, SHE'S NOT A STATE, SHE'S NOT ONE OF THE ENUMERATED PEOPLE IN NO, NO.
I THINK THEY HAVE TO FILE BOTH.
I THINK STATE LAW REQUIRES CITIES, CITY CANDIDATES TO FILE ONE, AND THEN THE CITY HAS AN ADDITIONAL LAYER THAT THEY REQUIRE.
CAN WE GET, I'M SORRY, WHAT? CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THIS COUNSEL? UH, THAT'S CORRECT.
THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO FILE BOTH.
SO, OH, YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE FILED WITH A DIFFERENT FILING AUTHORITY, WHICH IS THE TEXAS EXHIBITION.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING I, I'M SORRY, I'M, I'M JUST, I LOST YOU ON THOSE TWO COPIES.
SO FILED WITH TWO DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES, BUT THE SAME CANDIDATE WHO, LET'S FACE IT, IF YOU'RE RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL, YOU, YOU MAY NOT HAVE RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICE BEFORE MM-HMM
SO YOU'RE BOMBARDED WITH A LOT OF INFORMATION.
AND BELIEVE ME, THESE CANDIDATES, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, ABOUT THE FORUMS THAT THEY HAVE TO ATTEND, AND DON'T EVEN GIVE 'EM STARTED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRES, GET BOMBARDED BY THESE THINGS.
I THAT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LESS ABOUT THE AUTHORITIES AND MORE ABOUT WHAT THE CANDIDATE EXPERIENCES OKAY.
BECAUSE WELL, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION AS TO THE PFS AND EVEN IF THERE WERE, IT WOULDN'T BE WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION.
AND I WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE ONE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS, UH, IT WAS JUST, I WAS JUST DRAWING A, A, A PARALLELS TO THE NAMES OF THE FORMS THAT THEY
[01:30:01]
HAVE TO DO.UM, MS. WEBSTER OR OUTSIDE COUNSEL? COULD Y'ALL CLARIFY? I HEARD, I THINK, WAS IT, UM, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA OR ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SAID THAT THERE'S NO GUIDELINE, THERE'S NO ACTUAL MONETARY QUANTITY THAT IS EVEN MENTIONED IN, IN THE CODE FOR SUCH A VIOLATION.
IS THAT ACCURATE? WE HAVE NO GUIDANCE ON, ON THE FINE.
IF, IF THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT WE CHOOSE, COUNSEL, CERTAINLY, COMMISSIONERS THE FINE ESTABLISHED UNDER OUR ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BOUNDARY OF STATE LAW, WHICH IS A MAXIMUM OF $500 FOR THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE.
UH, I JUST WANNA SAY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY MOTIONS OR AMENDMENTS.
UH, I THINK WE'RE JUST IN DISCUSSION.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY, UH, ONE LAST THING ABOUT A MONETARY FINE.
I ASK, UH, THE RESPONDENT, IF THE CLAIMANT'S, UH, OR ANYBODY ELSE'S MONETARY FINES INFLUENCED THEIR ADHERENCE TO THIS LAW, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FINED UNDER THIS.
IT DID NOT INFLUENCE MS. G'S ACTIONS.
WHAT IS FINDING HER GOING TO DO THAT? FINDING OTHER PEOPLE IN THE PAST HAS NOT DONE? I THINK THAT, AS COMMISSIONER ESPINOSA HAS SAID, THIS IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE.
AND WHILE WE COULD, AS A COMMISSION START TRACKING DOWN EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT FILED AND ASKED FOR A TESTIMONY, WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE RIGHT NOW, AND THEY'VE BEEN CAUGHT IN IT, AND THEY'VE HAD TO SIT ON IT FOR WEEKS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.
I WOULD JUST LIKE THEM TO WRITE IT DOWN.
UM, I MEAN, THE DISCUSSION HAS SORT OF CARRIED BACK INTO, UM, NOT CARRIED BACK INTO PART OF THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN, HAS RETURNED TO THE IDEA OF, UH, THE DETERRENT VALUE FOR FUTURE CANDIDATES.
AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, AND I THINK THIS IS HELPFUL, I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON IT.
UM, SOME OF WHAT Y'ALL ARE REFERENCING, I THINK, ACTUALLY ECHOES WHAT PART OF WHAT THE RESPONDENT SAID, UM, OR AT LEAST AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF PURSUING CAPACITY BUILDING WITH FOLKS RATHER THAN PUNISHMENT.
UM, JUST AS A BRIEF ANECDOTE, UH, IN THE WORLD OF CRIMINAL COURTS FOR THE LONGEST TIME, IF YOU HAD A CRIMINAL CHARGE AND YOU HAD A HEARING THAT YOU HAD TO SHOW UP TO, AND YOU DIDN'T SHOW UP TO IT FOR SOME REASON BECAUSE YOU FORGOT, OR BECAUSE YOUR CAR BROKE DOWN, OR FOR SOME REASON, UM, EVEN IF YOU JUST HAD NO IDEA YOU MISSED IT, YOUR COUNSEL DIDN'T TELL YOU.
THE RESULT IS THAT, UM, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, A NEW CHARGE WOULD BE FILED AGAINST YOU FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR BRAND NEW MISDEMEANOR.
SOMETIMES COURTS WOULD EVEN ISSUE, UH, WHAT'S CALLED A-K-P-S-A FORM OF WARRANT TO DRAG YOU INTO COURT.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT EXISTED FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
DID IT RESULT IN PEOPLE AT ANY MEANINGFUL RATE NOT FAILING TO SHOW UP TO COURT? DID IT ENCOURAGE, DID IT GET RESULT IN PEOPLE SHOWING UP FOR COURT? NO, THEY WEREN'T SHOW.
MOST OF 'EM DON'T SHOW UP FOR COURT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THEY HAD COURT THAT DAY.
AND THEN, I THINK IT WAS MAYBE TWO YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW THE WAY TIME IS KIND OF BLURRING, BUT IN RECENT HISTORY, VERY RECENT HISTORY, THE STATE DID SOMETHING THAT ACCOMPLISHED WHAT NO AMOUNT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS HAD SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED IN GETTING PEOPLE TO SHOW UP FOR THEIR COURT DATES.
IT STARTED FUNDING PROGRAMS TO TEXT PEOPLE THE DAY BEFORE SAYING, HEY, YOU GOT A COURT DATE TOMORROW, BOOM.
ALL OF A SUDDEN, ATTENDANCE RATES AT COURT HEARINGS SKYROCKETED.
SO THAT'S A BRIEF ANECDOTE JUST TO SAY THAT THAT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM.
AND IN, UH, NOT TO SAY THE CLASSROOM'S, NOT THE REAL WORLD, A DIFFERENT PART OF THE WORLD, A MORE JUDICIAL PART OF THE WORLD, UM, WHERE CAPACITY BUILDING HAS BEEN THE RIGHT APPROACH.
AND I HEAR Y'ALL ECHOING THAT IN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, I THINK, AND FORGIVE ME, I AM NOT YET, AND PERHAPS WILL NEVER BE AN EXPERT IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
UM, I THINK AT THIS TIME, I CAN, UH, MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR OFFER AN AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE TO SIMPLY STRIKE THE SECOND PORTION OF THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.
AND IF ACCEPTED WOULD RESULT IN A MOTION SIMPLY TO, UM, NOT REFER, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I DO THINK THAT, UH, AS MUCH AS, UH, ANY CANDIDATE'S INSIGHT WOULD BE VALUABLE, AND I DO BELIEVE IT WOULD BE VALUABLE, AND I'VE WORKED IN CONTEXT WHERE WE'VE INVITED SUCH PEOPLE TO COME AND GIVE US TESTIMONY ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE SO THAT WE COULD BETTER UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I DO THINK THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE VERY WELL PLACED AND SHOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY TO HAVE A BETTER STRUCTURE IN PLACE TO AVOID, UM, UNKNOWING VIOLATIONS OF, UH, CAMPAIGNS, CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS.
[01:35:02]
UM, AS VALUABLE AS THAT IS, I DO THINK THAT REQUIRING IT IS SORT OF PUNITIVE.UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T GET ONE BACK? WHAT'S THE TIMEFRAME? WHAT IF WE DON'T THINK IT'S ADEQUATE? I MEAN, IT OPENS UP A WHOLE CAN OF WORMS. I THINK I WOULD PREFER TO SIMPLY SAY, AND PERHAPS THE COMMITTEE COULD SAY IN DICTUM, WE WOULD REALLY LOVE IT IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO COME BACK WHEN WE PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA IN TWO MONTHS.
TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE AND HOW YOU THINK OTHER PEOPLE COULD AVOID THIS PIT FALL.
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A BETTER APPROACH.
SO MY SUGGESTION IS AN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE SECOND PORTION OF THE MOTION, LEAVING SIMPLY, WE MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SECOND TO SECOND.
SO THE MOTION IS TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR SO THAT THE COMMISSION WILL, UH, NOT RECOMMEND PROSECUTION.
AND, UM, WE WILL, UH, DISPENSE WITH THAT SECOND HALF OF THE MOTION, WHICH IS ABOUT THE TESTIMONIAL THAT WE WOULD DIRECT THE, UH, RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE.
AND I BELIEVE IT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CASTOW.
UM, SO I GUESS WE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
IS IS THERE DISCUSSION? MM-HMM
UM, WHILE THIS HAS BEEN REALLY A GOOD DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, I, I CAME IN AT THE BEGINNING THINKING, OH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A FINE, BUT JUST A SMALL AMOUNT.
AND THEN FEELING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE SUGGESTION OF THE TESTIMONIAL WAS, UM, DIDN'T KNOW THAT WOULD DO THE JOB.
AND THEN MAYBE IT'S A CONVICTION ON MY PART, FEELING LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, WHEN WHAT IS FINE TO, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO HERE? ARE WE TRYING TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF THE RESPONDENT? OR ARE WE HOLDING HER ACCOUNTABLE? AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, WITH THE QUESTION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE, WHAT AMOUNT, YOU KNOW, WOULD, WOULD BE A HARDSHIP OR WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE, WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR ONE CANDIDATE, WOULD BE, WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE, MAY NOT BE EFFECTIVE FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE.
LIKE, I THINK THAT WE'RE STARTING TO GO DOWN, LIKE WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.
SO WHY ARE WE TRYING TO CONTROL THAT PIECE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S NOT REALLY, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW.
SO I'M BACK TO, I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF THE TESTIMONY, BUT I WANNA ASK COMMISSIONER, RETURN BY TESTIMONY.
DO YOU, I WOULD LIKE MORE LESSONS LEARNED.
IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU WERE THINKING? LIKE, JUST STRAIGHT OUT, JUST TELL US WHAT ARE YOUR, WHAT RESPONDENT, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS FOR HOW THE CITY COULD IMPROVE THE PROCESS? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? UH, NO.
I'M NOT TRYING TO PUNISH THE RESPONDENT IN ANY WAY.
UM, I THINK THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO GATHER INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS ABOUT PERFECTLY VALID WAYS FOR THE CITY TO GATHER INFORMATION.
I DO NOT THINK THAT PUNITIVE ACTIONS WILL AFFECT THE RESPONDENT'S, UH, ACTIVITY.
AND I DON'T THINK IT WILL AFFECT ANYBODY ELSE'S ACTIVITY.
I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A EFFORT IN USELESSNESS.
UH, SO I THINK I HAVE ALREADY, I SAID, SECONDED ON THE, THE THING.
I, I THINK WE NEED TO GATHER INFORMATION.
I DO NOT THINK THAT THE, THE RESPONDENT NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED AT ALL.
SO, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS WAS YOUR QUE DID YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN? NO.
SO WE FIRST VOTE ON THAT MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CASTO.
IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON THAT? OKAY.
WE'LL JUST DISTRACT AMENDMENT.
WE'RE VOTING ON HIS AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
SO THIS, THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT STRIKING THE SECOND HALF ABOUT THE TESTIMONIAL.
I AM GONNA TRY THIS WITHOUT ROLL CALL AGAIN.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, NOT TO, UM, REFER FOR PROSECUTION, AND THEN ALSO TO STRIKE THE PART ABOUT THE, UH, REQUIREMENT OR DIRECTION FOR THE TESTIMONIAL.
[01:40:01]
UNANIMOUSLY.UM, ARE WE READY TO CALL THE QUESTION AS TO MADAM CHAIR? YES.
YOU MIGHT WANNA RESTATE WHAT THE MOTION IS THAT PASSED.
THE MOTION THAT PASSED WAS TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAT WAS ON THE FLOOR, SO THAT THE NEW MOTION THAT WE JUST VOTED ON IS NOT TO RECOMMEND FOR PROSECUTION.
BUT I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE VOTE COUNT? COULD YOU YEAH.
I, I DIDN'T VOTE, SO I JUST ABSTAINED.
YES, IT WAS, UM, IT WAS, UH, NINE.
THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT TWO OF US HERE, RIGHT? OH, OKAY.
WE HAVE ONE REFUSAL, ONE ABSTENTION, AND EIGHT.
MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL A VOICE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT WAS ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS TO AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE RESPONDENT FOR PROSECUTION.
I THINK WE NEED TO ROLL, ROLL, ROLL.
COMMISSIONER LOVENS IS ABSENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER KALE IS RECUSED COMMISSIONER RETURN? YES.
ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE RECUSAL.
SO NOW ARE WE READY TO CALL THE QUESTION, UM, AS TO THE MOTION, NOT TO RECOMMEND THE RESPONDENT? UM, FOR PROSECUTION, THE MOTION THAT PASSED PREVIOUSLY WAS A MOTION TO FIND THE VIOLATION.
THIS IS THE SECOND MOTION ON AN ACTION THAT THE COMMISSION WILL TAKE.
IS THAT CLEAR? UM, WHY DON'T I DO A ROLL CALL AGAIN? YEAH.
SECRETARY STAN ADAMS. I'M SO SORRY.
WOULD YOU REPEAT, WHAT IS THE MOTION I'M VOTING ON? THE MOTION IS NOT TO RECOMMEND, UM, THE RESPONDENT FOR PROSECUTION.
I FIND THIS IS THE MOTION, SUBSEQUENT TO THE MOTION, FINDING A VIOLATION NOT TO RECOMMEND FOR, FOR PROSECUTION.
I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT WE VOTED ON THAT ALREADY, BUT, UM, NO, WE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENT.
TO STRIKE, TO STRIKE THE PART GOTCHA.
YES, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
AND, UH, CHAIR LEVIN'S ABSENT.
IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS HEARING PERMISSION TO RETURN? JUST ONE LAST THING.
I WOULD INVITE, UH, THE RESPONDENT TO COME
[01:45:01]
BACK AND SPEAK BEFORE US IF WE TAKE THIS UP ON ANOTHER ISSUE AND THE NORMAL COURSE OF, UH, OUR DELIBERATIONS.UM, UH, SO THE NEXT, IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT INVITATION.
UM, UH, MS. GANGLY, IF YOU WOULD, UH, CONSIDER JUST, UH, BULLET POINTS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT LESSONS LEARNED, WHAT ARE YOUR CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE PROCESS TO HELP OTHERS? THANK YOU.
[7. 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]
SO NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE FINAL HEARING ON A COMPLAINT FILED BY, UH, MACKENZIE KELLY AGAINST RESPONDENT KRISTA LANE, ALLEGING VIOLATION OF CITY CODE 2 7 7 4.AND, UH, WE INVITE COMMISSIONER KALE TO COME BACK AS SHE HAS NOT REFUSED ON THIS ONE.
MR. BOJORQUEZ IS CONTINUING TO APPEAR AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CAROLINE WEBSTER, IS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.
SO, UH, WE WILL GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS FOR THE LAST HEARING, AND I WON'T, UH, READ EVERYTHING AGAIN.
SO, UM, WE CAN PROCEED, UH, WITH THE COMPLAINANT'S OPENING STATEMENT.
SO, UH, WILL THE COMPLAINANT, UM, IDENTIFY SELF AND COUNSEL? AND THEN AFTER THAT, THE RESPONDENT WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT? MY NAME IS MCKENZIE KELLY.
I'M THE COMPLAINANT, AND I'M REPRESENTED BY MY ATTORNEY, BILL SCHERE.
BOTH OF THESE COMPLAINTS WERE MADE BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW'S GONNA BE ENFORCED.
UH, RECOGNIZING THE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM THAT THERE'S BEEN WITH COMPLIANCE.
NEITHER ONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS, AND CERTAINLY NOT MS. KELLY, ARE VENGEFUL, ARE LOOKING TO PUNISH JUST TO PUNISH.
UH, IT IS A SINCERE CONCERN THAT THERE'S A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
THESE TWO CASES WERE THE ONLY ONES BROUGHT TO YOU, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE ONLY ONES THAT COULD HAVE, BUT THEY, AT LEAST THEY GAVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO TO BEGIN TO FIX THE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
UM, I CAUTION AFTER HEARING THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU NOT FALL INTO A TRAP OF IMPLYING THAT YOUR VIEW IS THAT IT'S THE SYSTEM'S FAULT THAT SOMEHOW THE CITY CLERK DIDN'T DO EVERYTHING SHE SHOULD DO.
HAVING SAID THAT, I CAN RECOGNIZE THERE ARE THINGS THE CITY CLERK MIGHT DO.
THEY COULD SEND OUT, THEY'VE GOT A CALENDAR THEY COULD SEND, AND THEY KNOW ALL THE CANDIDATES.
THEY COULD SEND A NOTICE EACH TIME A DEADLINE IS COMING UP AND SAY, HEY, YOU'VE GOT A DEADLINE COMING UP.
UH, BUT YOU'RE GONNA FIND ONE DAY THAT IF SOMETHING IS NOT DONE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ALLOWED SOMEONE TO GET ELECTED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION BEING AVAILABLE.
AND YOU'RE GONNA FIND OUT THAT IT MIGHT HAVE REALLY MADE A DIFFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC HAD THEY KNOWN THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED.
SO PLEASE TAKE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LAW VERY SERIOUSLY.
UM, I KNOW YOU NEED TO MAKE A RECORD HERE, UH, FOR THIS HEARING.
UH, WE HAVE SUPPLIED THE INFORMATION THAT THE CITY CLERK GAVE THE CANDIDATES THE HANDBOOK AND THE SCHEDULE.
UH, THEY, THEY WERE SUPPLIED A COPY OF BOTH FORMS AND UNDER THE CODE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING TO THIS COMMISSION THE VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED BY NOT FILING THIS STATE MANDATED REPORT.
UM, I WOULD MENTION THAT THAT STATE MANDATED REPORT, UH, UNDER, UH, TITLE ONE, UH, UH, OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RULE 1813 FOR THIS TEXAS, UH, ETHICS COMMISSION, IT IS AN AUTOMATIC FINE OF $500 FOR A LATE REPORT OF THIS KIND THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S FILED WITH THE CITY,
[01:50:01]
YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT REPORT.UM, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, THAT, UM, IN 1813 B, IT SAYS, A FINE FOR REPORT DUE EIGHT DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION IS $500 FOR THE FIRST DAY THE REPORT IS LATE AND A HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THEREAFTER, THAT THE REPORT IS LATE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF $10,000.
UM, BUT THEY'VE ONLY DONE FINES.
YOU HAVE THE OPTION, AND I THINK, UH, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECTLY, AS I READ TO YOU, UH, LAST, UH, TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR SEVEN, YOU SHALL DELIVER A COPY OF YOUR FINDINGS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
I'M AFRAID WHAT I HEARD LAST TIME WAS THE MOTION WAS NOT TO REFER IT FOR PROSECUTION.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WON'T, HOPEFULLY, DOESN'T MEAN YOU WON'T AT LEAST SEND THE CITY ATTORNEY YOUR FILINGS THAT YOUR FINDINGS.
YOU MAY, I UNDERSTAND YOU MAY NOT WANNA RECOMMEND PROSECUTION.
YOU COULD ALSO RECOMMEND PROSECUTION AND RECOMMEND THE CITY ATTORNEY EXERCISE DISCRETION WITHOUT GOING OVERBOARD FOR THIS CASE.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, PLEASE SEND THE SIGNAL TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO START ENFORCING AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO ALL CANDIDATES THAT IF THEY DON'T FILE AND THEY DON'T FILE ON TIME IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S THE SIGNAL WE NEED TO HEAR.
THAT'S THE ATTITUDE THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS FROM THIS COMMISSION.
IT'S NOT PUNITIVE, IT'S A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE.
UM, WE, WE, THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT THIS, UH, REPORT WAS FILED LATE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THERE WAS E ANY EVIL INTENT, BUT NEITHER REPORT WAS FILED, UH, UN UNTIL, UH, IT WAS POINTED OUT.
UM, IF, IF YOU SEND THE WRONG SIGNAL, THEN IT WILL SAY, WELL, YEAH, IT'S A VIOLATION, BUT THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN THE CASE IN THE PAST.
WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF HOPING, UH, MAYBE, UH, THIS, THIS WILL, THIS WILL CHANGE.
UM, AND, UH, MS. KELLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE HER COMMENT.
I'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE LEGAL ISSUES.
AND MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK WITH YOU ONCE AGAIN REGARDING THE COMPLAINT I FILED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT.
I SPEAK TO YOU TODAY, NOT ONLY AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SERVED IN PUBLIC OFFICE, BUT SOMEONE WHO IS NOW A CONCERNED COMMUNITY MEMBER WHO BELIEVES IN THE VITAL ROLE.
THIS COMMISSION PLAYS IN UPHOLDING TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING A SPEAKER MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY, CLAIMING THAT I DID THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE I LOST THE ELECTION.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CATEGORICALLY FALSE.
THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND WE ARE JUST NOW COMING TO CONCLUSION ON IT.
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, WE ARE WITNESSING A DANGEROUS EROSION OF PUBLIC TRUST FROM FEDERALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES TO LOCAL BOARDS.
THE FAILURE TO CONSISTENTLY UPHOLD ETHICAL STANDARDS, ENFORCE LAWS, AND ADHERE TO POLICIES, HAS LEFT MANY FEELING DISILLUSIONED AND DISCONNECTED FROM THEIR LEADERS.
WE SEE IT DAILY IN THE HEADLINES, SCANDALS, ABUSES OF POWER, AND OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT GO UNCHECKED AND UNPUNISHED.
EACH TIME A STANDARD IS IGNORED OR ACCOUNTABILITY IS AVOIDED, THE PUBLIC GROWS MORE CYNICAL AND FAITH IN GOVERNMENT WITHERS.
THIS COMMISSION IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.
WHILE THE TRUST IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EVEN STATE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO DECLINE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMAINS THE CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE.
IT IS HERE AT THIS LEVEL THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS LOOK FOR PROOF THAT THEIR VOICES MATTER, AND THEIR LEADERS ARE HELD TO THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS THEY ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW.
IF THIS LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT CANNOT UPHOLD ETHICAL PRINCIPLES, HOW CAN WE EXPECT HIGHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT TO DO THE SAME? THE COMPLAINT THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD IS NOT JUST ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL.
IT IS ABOUT DEFENDING THE PRINCIPLES THAT MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK.
AND DESPITE WHAT THE RESPONDENT MAY SAY, IT WAS NOT A MINOR CLERICAL ERROR.
IT WAS OVER 30 DAYS LATE, A CLEAR VIOLATION AND A SNUB TO ELECTION TRANSPARENCY IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
AND JUST NOW, WE LAID OUT UNEQUIVOCALLY EVIDENCE THAT PROVED WHAT OCCURRED.
ETHICAL STANDARDS ARE NOT OPTIONAL GUIDELINES.
THEY ARE THE BACKBONE OF PUBLIC SERVICE.
WHEN THEY'RE IGNORED, IT UNDERMINES THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE IT SERVES.
IF A CLEAR VIOLATION CAN STAND WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE, IT SIGNALS THAT THE RULES AND THE LAWS ARE MERELY SUGGESTIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS CONDITIONAL.
THAT IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO SET, PARTICULARLY IN A CITY LIKE AUSTIN, WHERE PUBLIC TRUST SHOULD BE OUR MOST CHERISHED ASSET.
THIS COMMISSION HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
[01:55:01]
DEMONSTRATE ETHICAL GOVERNANCE.YOU'RE NOT JUST EVALUATING ONE COMPLAINT, YOU'RE SETTING THE TONE FOR HOW THE CITY'S POLITICAL PROCESS WILL BE PERCEIVED, NOT JUST BY CANDIDATES, BUT BY THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN.
WILL THIS GOVERNMENT BE A BEACON OF INTEGRITY SHOWING THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE RULES? OR WILL IT ADD TO THE GROWING PERCEPTION THAT ETHICS COMMISSIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SYMBOLIC GESTURES WITH NO REAL POWER TO AFFECT CHANGE? AUSTIN DESERVES BETTER.
THE PEOPLE WHO ELECT US, WHO PUT THEIR FAITH IN THE SYSTEM DESERVE BETTER.
THEY DESERVE TO KNOW THAT THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT ONLY THE MOST ACCESSIBLE, BUT ALSO THE MOST ACCOUNTABLE.
YOUR DECISION HERE CONCERNS MORE THAN ONE CASE.
IT IS NOT ABOUT SHOWING THAT THE CITY, IT IS ABOUT SHOWING THAT THE CITY VALUES, TRANSPARENCY, HONESTY, AND ETHICAL LEADERSHIP.
IT IS ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST AT A TIME WHEN TRUST IN GOVERNMENT IS IN SHORT SUPPLY.
SO I URGE YOU TO ACT BOLDLY, NOT JUST FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMISSION AND THE POSITIONS YOU HOLD, BUT FOR THE FUTURE OF POLITICS IN AUSTIN, WE CAN'T CONTROL THE DECISIONS MADE IN WASHINGTON OR EVEN AT THE STATE LEVEL, BUT WE CAN ENSURE THAT HERE IN OUR CITY, WE DEFEND THE TRUST OUR CONSTITUENTS PLACE IN US.
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD OPERATE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY, FAIRNESS, AND A STEADFAST COMMITMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY AND YOUR DEDICATION AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO PROTECT THE VALUES WE HOLD DEAR, I ASK YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS COMPLAINT AND SHOW THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN THIS COMMISSION STANCE AS A GUARDIAN OF INTEGRITY AND A DEFENDER OF PUBLIC TRUST.
LET ME JUST ALSO POINT OUT THAT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO REQUIRED WHILE THEY'RE HOLDING OFFICE TO FILE THESE VERY SAME REPORTS, THE SAME FORMAT.
AND SO IF YOU SEND THE SIGNAL THAT CANDIDATES DON'T HAVE TO FILE, WHAT ARE YOU TELLING THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, THAT IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT THEY DIDN'T KNOW AND THEY WON'T BE PROSECUTED THAT SEND THE SIGNAL THAT THIS IS THE END, THE LAST ONES THAT ARE THE LAST CAMPAIGN WE'RE GONNA HAVE WHERE THAT'S NOT GONNA GET ENFORCED.
UM, WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.
PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND IF YOU HAVE COUNSEL, I AM STILL LEARNING THIS
UM, I DO NOT HAVE COUNSEL, UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
I WISH THAT OUR FIRST MEETING, SINCE I HAVE BECOME THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBER REPRESENTING DISTRICT SIX, WERE UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THIS BODY AND ALSO FOR YOUR INTENTION THIS EVENING.
I WILL BEGIN BY FIRST STATING CLEARLY THAT I ACCEPT WHATEVER CONSEQUENCES THIS BODY DETERMINES ARE APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE RULES IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION, THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE VIOLATION AND PRECEDENT.
I FI I WILL ALSO STATE THAT I FILED ALL REQUIRED DISCLOSURES WELL BEFORE ELECTION DAY, AND I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.
THIS WAS SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
19 NON-INCUMBENT CANDIDATES RAN FOR CITY COUNCIL OR MAYOR.
12 OF THEM MISSED BOTH OF THE DEADLINES THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED DURING THIS HEARING.
THAT'S GREATER THAN 60% MISSING THE FAIL THAT'S GREATER THAN 60% FAILURE RATE INCUMBENTS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS SUCH AS THE COMPLAINANT HAD A 100% SUCCESS RATE.
A COUPLE THINGS ARE DIFFERENT FOR THEM.
ONE, THEY RECEIVED NOTIFICATIONS WHILE THEY'RE IN OFFICE ABOUT UPCOMING DEADLINES.
NO CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT IN OFFICE HAVE THAT BENEFIT.
ANOTHER, THEY ARE ON A DIFFERENT DEADLINE CYCLE, SO THEIR DEADLINES ARE, THEIR REPORTS ARE DUE MUCH EARLIER, UM, THAN WHEN OURS CAME UP.
AND, AND IT SEEMS TO HAVE MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE SUCCESS RATE.
ANOTHER THING I'LL STATE IS THAT EVERYBODY WHO ENDS UP ON CITY COUNCIL WAS ONCE A FIRST TIME CANDIDATE.
THE COMPLAINANT HERSELF WAS A FIRST TIME CANDIDATE BACK IN 2014 WHEN SHE WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED CAMPAIGN RELATED
AND SHE WAS BEFORE THIS BOARD ITSELF, THIS COMMISSION, AND I'M SORRY I DON'T HAVE ALL THE
[02:00:01]
A LETTER ASKING FOR CORRECTIONS AND SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.UM, NOW AT THIS POINT, SHE HAS FOUR YEARS OF, OF HAVING HELD OFFICE, UM, HAVING SET FUNDRAISING RECORDS AS THE RESOURCES AND THE KNOW-HOW TO BRING ETER REPRESENTATION.
UM, A LOT OF THINGS HAVE CHANGED, AND I THINK THAT THE INTENT OF, I, I THINK THAT WHAT DISTRICT SIX VOTERS ARE LOOKING FOR, WHAT OUR CITY'S VOTERS ARE LOOKING FOR IS PUTTING PROBLEM SOLVING BEFORE POLITICS, BEFORE SPEECHMAKING.
WHEN WE SEE THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM THAT IS CREATING A CHILLING EFFECT ON PARTICIPATION IN OUR SYSTEM, THAT WE TAKE ACTION TO MAKE POSITIVE CHANGE.
NOW, I AM FORTUNATE TO HAVE WON THE ELECTION, AND I DO WANT TO MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR POSITIVE CHANGE.
I'M ALSO GETTING PAID FOR MY TIME AND EFFORTS AT THIS POINT, AS IS THE PREVIOUS COMPLAINANT.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION IS A VERY APPROPRIATE PLACE TO, TO TAKE THE STEPS TO START MAKING CHANGES.
AND THOSE OF US WHO ARE ON COUNCIL ARE IN A VERY APPROPRIATE POSITION TO PROVIDE SOME SUGGESTIONS.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, BUT I DO THINK WE ALSO NEED TO NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING OUT FIELD IN, YOU KNOW, IT ISN'T.
THE INCUMBENTS WHO ARE SUCCEEDING ARE GETTING REMINDERS, SO IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
UM, THERE'S ANOTHER AREA IN WHICH THESE PARTICULAR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THESE DISCLOSURES DIFFER FROM THE OTHER ONES THAT CAME UP.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS WERE ALSO REQUIRED, AND THEY DID NOT HAVE NEARLY THE SAME FAILURE RATE EVEN AMONG CANDIDATES WHO WERE NOT INCUMBENTS.
UM, I KNOW I DIDN'T MISS ANY OF THOSE DEADLINES.
AND ONE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT IS MUCH EASIER, MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT TO SEE WHEN WAS THAT REPORT FILED FOR ALL OF THOSE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS IN REAL TIME, THERE ARE UPDATES ON A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WEBSITE THAT SAYS THIS IS THE DATE IT WAS FILED.
THE FIRST TIME THERE WAS PUBLIC REPORTING OF WHO HAD MISSED THE DEADLINES.
IT WAS BY THE AUSTIN BULLDOG, WHO IS OF COURSE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY WHO'S HERE TODAY FOR BOTH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS, WHO, UM, HAS A LOT OF BILLINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO SUING THE CITY.
UM, AND I WILL SAY THAT, LET'S SEE, LET ME PULL OUT MY KEY DATES HERE.
ON SEPTEMBER 22ND, THE AUSTIN BULLDOG PUBLISHED A TABLE OF WHO HAD FILED FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
I AM RELYING ON THAT TABLE IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU THE STATISTICS THAT I JUST GAVE YOU, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THAT I COULD GET THIS TABLE WOULD BE BY FILING A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST, WHICH IS ITSELF ITS OWN AMOUNT OF KNOWING HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS AND WORKING THROUGH IT, BUT ALSO NOT WHERE I WANT TO PUT MY EFFORTS.
I WANT TO PUT MY EFFORTS INTO IMPROVING OUR SYSTEM.
HOWEVER, THE AUSTIN BULLDOG PUBLISHED THAT TABLE ON SEPTEMBER 22ND, ON SEPTEMBER 25TH.
I FILED BOTH OF THE MISSING DOCUMENTS THREE DAYS LATER.
THAT IS A PRETTY RAPID TURNAROUND FROM THE POINT AT WHICH IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT IT HAD FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACKS.
SHOULD I HAVE KNOWN YES, SHOULD I HAVE PERFECTLY IMPLEMENTED IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT HE ABSOLUTELY.
I ACCEPT THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE.
I CALL ON YOU TO MAKE THE CORRECT ACTION BASED ON THE RULES IN PLACE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE VIOLATION AND PRECEDENT, BUT I WOULD ALSO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PRECEDENT THAT IS MOST RELEVANT TO US SITTING HERE TODAY.
THE COMPLAINANT WHO RECEIVED THIS MOST, UM, LEAST SEVERE CONSEQUENCE THAT COULD POSSIBLY OCCUR.
UM, THERE ARE MANY CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS THAT HAPPEN.
UM, WE KNOW THAT 19 NON-INCUMBENT CANDIDATES WERE ON THIS TABLE.
ONLY TWO OF US HAD COMPLAINTS FILED.
IT'S, IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT THEY ARE OUT OF DISTRICT SIX AND 10.
I, ALONG WITH THE OTHER RESPONDENT, HAVE ALREADY HAD HEADLINES CIRCULATE THAT CRIMINAL CHARGES MAY BE FILED.
THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT CREATE A REAL CHILLING EFFECT ON PARTICIPATION IN THIS SYSTEM.
IF WE WANT, NOT JUST FIRST TIME CANDIDATES, ALSO QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO CAN TAKE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND BRING IT TO BEAR ON THE PROBLEMS OF THE CITY TO BE WILLING TO RUN, ALLOWING THINGS TO CONTINUE WITH A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY THAT PERMITS THESE TYPES OF HEADLINES TO ABOUND ISN'T ACCOMPLISHING THE GOALS OF OUR VOTERS.
[02:05:01]
AND AS I SAID, DISTRICTS SIX AND 10, WHICH SET FUNDRAISING RECORDS ARE THE ONLY TWO DISTRICTS WHERE COMPLAINTS WERE FILED.I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT
AND THAT I WOULD POSIT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT TRANSPARENT, THAT ALLOWS SOMEONE, SOMEONE TO HA SEE, HOW SHALL I PUT THIS
WE HAVE ONE PART OF THESE DISCLOSURES THAT IS FAR LESS TRANSPARENT THAN ALL THE OTHERS, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BODY TO WORK WITH STAFF AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A SYSTEM THAT PERHAPS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS DONE IN THE OTHER, IN THE OTHER AREAS.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WILL DO.
UM, YOU DID USE YOUR 10 MINUTES, UH, MR. EL SHIRE, BUT IF YOU HAVE A SHORT REBUTTAL YES, REBUTTAL, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR IT ON CHILLING EFFECT.
UM, I, I, I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE.
IN FACT, I KNOW OF A FEW EXAMPLES WHERE CANDIDATES HAVE FELT A CHILLING EFFECT OF RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE THEIR PERSONAL FINANCIAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEN THAT WE SAY, WELL, IT'S OKAY, THEN YOU CAN GET AWAY WITHOUT FILING.
UM, THIS IS THE LAW AND THERE'S GOOD REASON AND GOOD POLICY BEHIND, UH, THOSE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
UM, IS IT A, IS IT GONNA BE A CHILLING EFFECT ON CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OFFICE IF YOU ACTUALLY ENFORCE THE LAW? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE GONNA SAY? SO I, LET'S DON'T CONDEMN THE LAW.
UM, IT'S NOT PROPER TO GET INTO A HEARING HERE ABOUT THE FINE FOR A CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION, A MINOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION, AND EQUATE THAT TO NOT FILING THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE CANDIDATE.
AS IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED, ONLY THE CANDIDATE HAS THAT INFORMATION.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS, FRANKLY, I THINK ARE MORE COMPLICATED.
UH, AND THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND CAN HELP MAKE THOSE REPORTS.
NO ONE, BUT THE CANDIDATE CAN MAKE THOSE REPORTS.
I KNOW IT'S COMPLICATED, BUT I HAD TO DO IT MYSELF.
BUT THE MESSAGE, OUR ASK OF YOU TAKE STEPS TO MAKE IT CLEAR.
THE LAWS, UH, FOR FINANCIAL DIS DISCLOSURE AND TIMELY FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ARE GOING TO BE ENFORCED, AND YOU WANT IT TO BE ENFORCED, AT LEAST IN THE FUTURE.
IF YOU AGREE THAT A, A A FINDING IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE, THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, AS I READ THE CODE, YOU WILL REPORT THAT FINDING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
I ENCOURAGE YOU, EVEN IF YOU DON'T SAY, WE WANT TO PROSECUTE MS. LANE TO AT LEAST SAY WE WANT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BEGIN ENFORCING THE LAW, MR. HAVE, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT MESSAGE.
HAVE MORE FOR REBUTTAL OR, OH, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE'VE HEARD THESE POINTS.
UM, I DID ASK, UM, MR. BORQUE TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE THAT MR. ACHER BROUGHT UP ABOUT, UH, SENDING THE INFORMATION, SENDING OUR FINDINGS TO THE CITY CLERK.
TH THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSION.
JUST, JUST TO RESTATE THAT THE COMMISSION IS AWARE THAT WHEN IT FINDS A VIOLATION OF THIS PARTICULAR RULE, IT HAS A DUTY TO REFER ITS FINDINGS TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE COMPLAINANT, AND THE RESPONDENT.
SO THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT, AND, AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE CONFIDENT THAT WILL OCCUR.
UH, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT OR COUNSEL? YES.
SANDRA ADAMS. YES, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, THIS QUESTION IS FOR, UM, MS. KELLY, IS IT TRUE THAT YOU CAME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION SOME YEARS AGO FOR A VIOLATION AND WAS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF A CODE? SO IN 2014, I CAME BEFORE THIS BODY.
[02:10:01]
ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS I WAS RUNNING AGAINST, UM, SAID THAT I HAD VIOLATED THE FAIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE AGREEMENT THAT I HAD SIGNED.AND WHAT I MISSED DOING WAS ATTENDING THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS FORUM.
I MISSED THAT BECAUSE I HAD GOTTEN A CONCUSSION THE DAY BEFORE, AND I SHOWED TO THE COMMISSION A DOCTOR'S NOTE AND RECEIVED A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES WHEN YOU FAIL TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION VERSUS BEING MEDICALLY UNABLE TO ATTEND A CAMPAIGN FORUM.
AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU PROVIDING ME WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT.
DID YOU HAVE FOLLOW UP SECRETARY? I DO, YES.
DO YOU REMEMBER, DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE COMMISSIONS JUSTIFICATION WAS AT THE TIME WHEN THEY MADE THE RULING TO FIND YOU IN VIOLATION? IS THAT CORRECT? THEY FOUND YOU IN VIOLATION? OBJECTION.
SO IT WAS A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE CODE BECAUSE I DID NOT GO TO A FORUM WHEN I SIGNED THE FAIR CAMPAIGN, UM, RULING, WHICH WOULD'VE REQUIRED ME TO PROVIDE, UM, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT REQUIRES ME TO ATTEND THE LEGAL WOMEN VOTERS FORUM.
IT REQUIRES ME TO ONLY ACCEPT SO MUCH IN DONATIONS AND, AND THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
UM, WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT AS A RESULT OF ME ATTENDING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ADMITTING THAT I DID MISS THAT FORUM, BUT PROVIDING PROOF WITH THE FORM OF A DOCTOR'S NOTE, THERE IS NOW A DIFFERENT PROVISION THAT, OR A, A SEPARATE WAY THAT THE COMMISSION CAN HAVE CANDIDATES INFORM IF THERE IS A MEDICAL EMERGENCY OR A MEDICAL INABILITY TO ATTEND.
IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, AND IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
UH, COMMISSIONER KALE? OH, NO, I'M JUST LISTENING.
COMMISSIONER RETURN, JUST HAVE A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION.
UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TESTIMONY HERE IS EV IT'S TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE COMPLAINT.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I'M JUST ASKING.
I FEEL LIKE WE'VE JUST SOLICITED EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT RELATED TO THIS COMPLAINT.
WELL, I THINK THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO ASK QUESTIONS BASED ON TESTIMONY THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUE OH, SECRETARY? YES.
ANOTHER QUESTION FOR MS. KELLY.
IS IT TRUE THAT AS INCUMBENT YOU GET REMINDERS OF UPCOMING DEADLINES? SO THAT IS IN ACCURATE STATEMENT.
HOWEVER, WHAT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IS THAT AS A CANDIDATE, WHEN I, BEFORE I WAS ELECTED, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID WAS TAKE THAT CANDIDATE HANDBOOK.
AND THERE IS A SECTION IN THE HANDBOOK, WHICH I BELIEVE MY ATTORNEY, BILL ELL SHIRES, POINTED OUT TO YOU ALL IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS.
AND I PLACED ALL OF THOSE CALENDAR, UM, DEADLINES THAT ARE CLEARLY LAID OUT IN THE HANDBOOK ONTO A CALENDAR.
I DID THE EXACT SAME THING THIS TIME, UM, WHEN I RAN AS AN INCUMBENT, SIMPLY BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT TO MESS UP.
I REMEMBERED WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO COME HERE IN 2014, AND I DID NOT WANT TO MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT, OR COUNSEL? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL.
UH, I'VE HEARD REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS AN ETHICAL QUESTION.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A, UH, MORAL, UH, FAILING THAT PEOPLE ARE COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
UM, IS, UH, THE COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL AWARE THAT, UH, MISDEMEANOR IS THE DEFINITION OF MISDEMEANOR IS A MINOR WRONGDOING, AND THAT A THIRD DEGREE MISDEMEANOR WOULD, BY DEFINITION BE THE MOST MINOR WRONGDOING POSSIBLE? UH, I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE SAID IT WAS A MORAL SIN AND DON'T BELIEVE THAT EITHER.
UH, IT IS NOT EVEN, EVEN IN WHICH I WOULD ARGUE ALL THE MORE REASON IT OUGHT TO BE PROSECUTED AND ENFORCED.
IT DID NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVE HUGE FINES, BUT YOU JUST GOTTA DO SOMETHING TO TELL CANDIDATES YOU WON'T GET AWAY WITH IGNORING THIS.
SOME OF THEM HAVE STILL, UH, THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS HEARING SUCH, BUT THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR Y'ALL BECAUSE THIS IS
[02:15:01]
THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH WE BRING THIS FOR YOU TO SAY, WE WANT THAT MINORSECRETARY SANTA ADAMS. UH, YES.
I'LL ASK THE SAME QUESTION THAT I ASKED, UM, PREVIOUSLY OF, OF THE OTHER PANEL, WHICH IS, UM, COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT.
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WERE SEEKING FROM THIS COMMISSION AS FAR AS, LET'S SAY THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, UM, COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT.
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE HOPING OR SEEKING FOR THIS COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER AS A CONSEQUENCE? UM, I AM SEEKING THAT THIS COMMISSION BEGIN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE PROCESS FOR THESE PARTICULAR DISCLOSURES.
IN PARTICULAR, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE IS A WAY TO HAVE ON THE CLERK'S WEBSITE REAL TIME REPORTING OF THE DATES THAT THESE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED SO THAT ANYONE CAN SEE, AND WE AREN'T DE DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST AND THEN IT COMING OUT THROUGH SELECTED MEDIA IN THAT WAY.
UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS IN RELATION TO, UM, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AND ALSO PRECEDENT, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY I HAD BROUGHT FORTH THE 2014 VIOLATION VIOLATION.
I THINK THAT MORE BROADLY SPEAKING, WE SEE THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, AND ANYTIME THERE'S A SYSTEM OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, IT IS RIGHT FOR BOTH ABUSE AND POLITICIZATION.
THIS SYSTEM HAS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR SOME TIME, AND, AND WE'RE SEEING THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT.
AND SO I THINK THAT THERE'S AN OBLIGATION TO ACT, UM, TO CREATE MORE TRANSPARENCY AND TO REMOVE SOME OF THOSE LEVERS, UM, THAT AREN'T BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSES THAT OUR VOTERS WANT OUR CITY RESOURCES TO BE USED FOR.
AND I, AND I'LL JUST SAY I THINK THAT THIS RELATES MORE BROADLY THAN, UM, THAN THE, THAN THE CAMPAIGN RELATED RELATED INFRACTION.
THERE ARE ALSO ISSUES OF MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS RELATING TO LOBBYIST MEETINGS.
TOMA, UM, SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS ARE IN THE COMPLAINANT'S BACKGROUND AS WELL.
WE'RE GOING WAY BEYOND WHAT THIS HEARING THE SCOPE OF THIS HEARING POINT OF ORDER, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR COMPLAINANTS AND OUR RESPONDENTS OBJECT TO EACH OTHER.
I THINK THAT WAS IN THE CORRECT.
YEAH, AND I'LL JUST SAY, I'M ASKING THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT FOR THE TYPES OF PENALTIES, THE WAY THAT THESE THINGS ARE HANDLED.
AND THEY, THEY ALSO LOOK AT, UM, IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD IN MANY OF THESE AREAS.
UM, I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT IT'S 9:51 PM AND WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE IF WE'RE GONNA PROCEED PAST 10:00 PM UM, SO CAN PERHAPS, UH, SECRETARY CAN ASK THE, UM, COMPLAINANT THAT QUESTION AND THEN WE CAN HOLD THE VOTE AS TO WHETHER WE CAN CONTINUE.
MS. KELLY'S REFERRED TO ME FOR THE ANSWER.
I, UH, I, WE WANT TO SEE A SIGNAL FROM THE COMMISSION THAT YOU ARE ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BEGIN UNIFORMLY, UH, ENFORCING THIS.
AND WE REALIZE THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES, ESPECIALLY IN THE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TODAY, THAT THE CITY CLERK MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO MORE AS WELL, BUT TO HOLD THE, UH, THE VIOLATORS ACCOUNTABLE TO SEND THAT SIGNAL THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR.
UH, IF YOU FIND THIS VIOLATION, WHICH I WOULD HOPE WAS PRETTY CLEAR, THEN YOU WOULD REFER IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO PROSECUTE, WOULD BE ONE OPTION, LEAVING IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DECIDE HOW LENIENT TO BE ABOUT THAT PROSECUTION.
BUT THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS FOR THIS KIND OF VIOLATION.
AND I'M NOT HEARING A LOT OF REMORSE.
AND I WAS KIND OF HOPING MAYBE WE'D SAY, LOOK, I MESSED UP.
AND I, I, I, AND I, I WOULD, I WOULD HOPE THAT EVEN THOSE WHO MADE THIS VIOLATION WOULD JOIN WITH THOSE WHO SAY, YES, THIS SHOULD BE ENFORCED.
AND FROM NOW ON, IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED.
THAT SHOULD BE THE MESSAGE FROM EVEN THE RESPONDENT.
UH, MS. WEBSTER, WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR GOING PAST 10:00 PM DO WE NEED A MOTION OR, YEAH.
SO IN ORDER TO CONTINUE PAST 10:00 PM YOU NEED A MOTION TO DO EXACTLY THAT TO CONTINUE THE, THE MEETING, UH, BEYOND 10:00 PM AND
[02:20:01]
THEN IF YOU SECOND, AND THEN TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.OTHERWISE, WE HAVE A HARD STOP AT 10:00 PM RIGHT.
AND, UH, FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS HEARING? SO RIGHT NOW THE HEARING HAS NOT CLOSED.
AND SO IF WE CAN'T CONCLUDE THE HEARING BY 10:00 PM THEN BASICALLY WE'D HAVE TO SET THE HEARING TO BE CONTINUED AT ANOTHER MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, I MOVE, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
OH, COMMISSIONER ESPOSA SECONDS.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION.
DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT TIME WE ARE GOING TO, OR JUST PAST 10? IT JUST PAST 10.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? UM, OKAY.
WE WILL CALL THE QUESTION AND I WILL, I WILL DO A ROLL CALL.
CHAIR LEVINS IS ABSENT VICE CHAIR LOW.
GO PAST 10:00 PM UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? YES.
I ASKED MY COMMISSIONERS TO TRY TO EXPEDITE THIS PROCESS FOR TIME PURPOSES.
SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UH, CHAIR LEVINS, WHO IS NOT PRESENT, IT IS UNANIMOUS.
UM, WE WILL GO PAST 10 O'CLOCK AND, UM, I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME, UM, MR. ISHARE OR MS. MCKENZIE CAN COMPLETE THE RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS IF, IF IT WAS NOT COMPLETED, THAT WAS FINISHED.
UM, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS? UM, OR COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT, OR COUNSEL? OKAY.
UM, I BELIEVE ALL, UH, EVIDENCE TESTIMONY, UM, HAS BEEN HEARD.
MAY, I'M SORRY, CHAIR, MAY I PLEASE INTERJECT? IF, IF YOU CAN JUST OFFICIALLY INQUIRE OF THE PARTIES OH.
WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY FURTHER PROOF TO OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL TEST WITNESSES TESTIFY.
IT'S JUST FROM YOUR RULES THAT THAT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY INQUIRED.
AND THEN, I'M SORRY, CLOSE THE HEARING.
IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, YOU CAN CLOSE THE HEARING.
SO DO THE PARTIES HAVE FURTHER EVIDENCE TO PROFFER, UM, OR ANYTHING FURTHER THEY WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER? I, I WOULD JUST BRIEFLY LIKE TO ASK THAT THIS SPECIFIC CASE THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD IS STANDING ON ITS OWN MERITS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, UM, FACT THAT I INDEED, IN THE PAST HAVE COMMITTED A VIOLATION.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS DOES STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS AND SHOULD BE, UM, LOOKED AT AS SUCH.
UM, I WOULD SIMPLY REITERATE THAT, UM, I BEGAN MY STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGING MY PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, HOPING ACCEPTING ANY CONSEQUENCES.
AND I CERTAINLY HOPE TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS TO HELP HELPING THINGS IMPROVE.
UM, AND I ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT BODY AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
UH, WE HAVE, WE HAVE NO FURTHER EVIDENCE, BUT A NOTE TO THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE FILE, UH, ABOUT THE, ABOUT THE COMPLAINT.
UM, SO IF THERE IS NO FURTHER TESTIMONY, NO FURTHER OTHER EVIDENCE, UH, THE HEARING IS CLOSED AND WE CAN, UM, PROCEED TO, UM, COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DETERMINATION.
UH, DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? UM, I MOVE.
UH, I MOVE THAT WE FIND IN VIOLATION OF THE, UM, OF THE COMPLAINT, UH, THAT WE FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, UM, THAT HAS BEEN ALLEGED.
SO FIND IN FAVOR OF THE VIOLATION AND THEN WE CAN DO THE SECOND PART WITH THE, SO, UM, SORRY.
IS UH, THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER POEY SECONDS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY.
UM, I THINK WE CAN DO THIS WITH OUR ROLL CALL.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO FIND A VIOLATION, UH, MR. HAN.
[02:25:05]
OKAY.SO IT IS, UH, UNANIMOUS WITH 10 VOTES OF THE COMMISSIONER'S PRESENT.
UM, AND THAT CARRIES, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER MOTION CONCERNING, UM, SANCTIONS COMMISSION RETURN? I MOTION THAT WE DO NOT RECOMMEND PROSECUTION FOR THIS WHEN WE PROVIDE OUR INFOR THE INFORMATION WE'VE GATHERED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
SECOND COMMISSIONER CASTA SECONDS IS THERE.
DISCUSSION SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? UM, I'M, I'M NOT SURE.
UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, WHAT AM I TRYING TO SAY? THAT EVEN THOUGH YES, I CAN TIE THIS IN, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING, UM, PROSECUTION, I HOPE THAT IT'S BEEN, OR AT LEAST I, I HOPE THAT I HAVE SHOWN THAT THE COMPLAINANT OR ANYBODY WHO BRINGS FORTH A COMPLAINT IS NOT THE BAD PERSON.
I THINK, UM, I THINK THE BURDEN OF PROOF YES, IS HEAVY ON THE COMPLAINANT, BUT YES, RECOGNIZING THAT THE SYSTEM THERE ARE SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS AND, UM, JUST SIMPLY PUT, THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT THE BAD GUY HERE FOR BRINGING UP A COMPLAINT.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT THERE IS, UM, VALUE AND THAT IS A NOBLE, COURAGEOUS THING TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS PERSON VIOLATED THIS CODE AND WE DO NEED TO UPHOLD AND WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD TRUST WITH OUR CONSTITUENCY.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT KNOWN AND THAT OUR, UH, DECISION TO NOT RECOMMEND PROSECUTION DOESN'T MEAN THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DON'T VALUE, UH, THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS PROCESS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FOR THE DISCUSSION? OKAY.
UM, I BELIEVE WE CAN CALL THE QUESTION THEN.
UM, I WILL TAKE A ROLL CALL FOR THIS.
UM, SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS NOT TO RECOMMEND THE RESPONDENT FOR PROSECUTION.
UH, SO, UH, THE MOTION CARRIES, UM, THE 10 VOTES OF ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT AND CHAIR LOVENS IS, UH, ABSENT.
SO I BELIEVE WE CAN NOW MOVE ON.
[8. Discussion and possible action by the Commission to make a jurisdictional determination regarding the Chair’s initial decision that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over a complaint filed on December 9, 2024, by Jeb Boyt against Gary Bledsoe, which alleges violations of Chapters 392 and 393 of the Texas Transportation Code, Texas Penal Code Section 39.02, and “Section 4” of the Austin City Charter.]
NEXT ITEM FOR, UM, DISCUSSION AND ACTION IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION BY THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT FILED ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2024 BY JEB BOYT AGAINST GARY BLEDSOE, WHICH ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTERS 3 9 2 AND 3 9 3 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 39.02 AND SECTION FOUR OF THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER.UM, I BELIEVE THIS IS A MATTER IN WHICH THE, UM, CHAIR MICHAEL LEVINS, WHO IS NOT PRESENT TODAY, UH, MADE A DECISION ABOUT, UM, UH, MADE A JURISDICTIONAL DECISION ABOUT THE, A COMPLAINT THAT WAS RECEIVED.
UM, UH, DO, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SUMMARIZE THAT
[02:30:01]
MS. WEBSTER? UH, WELL, IT WAS BASED ON THE READING OF THE COMPLAINT AND WHAT WAS WRITTEN, JUST WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE COMPLAINT AND THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE ALLEGED.AND BASED ON HIS READING OF THE COMPLAINT AND HIS EXAMINATION OF THE SECTIONS OF CITY CODE AND CITY CHARTER OVER WHICH THE ERC HAS JURISDICTION, UH, THE CHAIR CONCLUDED THAT THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF, OF, UH, WHAT LAWS OR SECTIONS OF CITY CODE MIGHT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED DID NOT FALL UNDER THE ER C'S JURISDICTION.
AND SO PROCEDURALLY, WHEN A DECISION IS MADE BY THE CHAIR THAT THERE IS NO JURISDICTION, IT AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE TO REVIEW THAT.
AND, UH, YOU ARE FREE TO OVERTURN THAT DECISION, IN WHICH CASE YOU WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH SCHEDULING A PRELIMINARY HEARING, OR YOU CAN BASICALLY LEAVE THAT JURISDICTIONAL DECISION AS IS.
DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER POEY? WELL, I DON'T HAVE A MOTION.
I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE FOUR SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE, ONE SECTION OF THE CITY CHARTER THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER, AND THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SPECIFY A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THOSE, BUT THAT THE COMPLAINANT CAN REFILE IF HE FINDS THAT HE WISHED HE'D APPROACHED IT DIFFERENTLY.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? MM-HMM
AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION RIGHT NOW.
YOU, YOU THINK WE SHOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTION? SO YOU DO NOT HAVE A MOTION? CORRECT.
SECRETARY SANTA ADAMS. I, I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN AND SAY THAT I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY IS CORRECT.
WE ARE THE, THE DECISION STANDS.
I, I THINK THAT ABSENT ONE OF US THINKING OF SOME WAY THAT THESE COMPLAINTS FIT IN ONE OF THOSE FIVE SECTIONS OF JURISDICTION, THAT WE SHOULD NOT, UH, NOT VALIDATE IT, BUT WE SHOULD SIMPLY NOT HAVE AN ACTION ON THIS ITEM.
THE CHAIR HAS MADE, UH, AN APPROPRIATE DECISION.
SECRETARY SANDON ADAMS, I THOUGHT WE DID HAVE TO TAKE ACTION AND ONE OF THE CHOICES WAS TO, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE MY MOTION, I WOULD MOVE TO UPHOLD THE CHAIR'S DETERMINATION THAT THIS DOES NOT, THIS COMPLAINT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN JURISDICTION, WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION.
UM, JUST BEFORE WE START, UH, DISCUSSION, UM, MS. WEBSTER, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHETHER, UM, UH, WE DO NEED TO TAKE AN ACTION IN ORDER TO CLOSE THIS MATTER? W WELL, TECHNICALLY THE DECISION BEFORE YOU IS, IS WHETHER IS, IF YOU WANTED TO OVERTURN MM-HMM
IN ORDER TO CHANGE THINGS, IF YOU WANTED, YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO OVERTURN THE CHAIR'S FINDING OF NO JURISDICTION, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MOTION TO OVERTURN.
THERE'S NO HARM IN HAVING A MOTION TO SORT OF VALIDATE IT OR, I, I'M SORRY.
I, UM, AND NOW THAT A SECOND HAS BEEN MADE, I THINK YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
WELL, IF WE, IF WE DO NOT TAKE A VOTE AND WE DO NOT COME TO SOME FINALITY ON IT, DOES IT JUST CONTINUE TO EXIST UNTIL IT'S, IF YOU DON'T VOTE TO OVERTURN IT TODAY, THEN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION FINDING STANCE, WHICH IS A FINDING YOUR JURISDICTION, NO JURISDICTION, BUT AT THIS POINT YOU DO HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED IN FRONT OF YOU.
YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
SO I MEAN, I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN IS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH A VOTE, EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE, BECAUSE IT WASN'T A DECISION WE HAD TO MAKE, UM, IS THERE A DEADLINE FOR WHEN THIS IS TO BE? I, I, I MEAN, DOES THE, IF WE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE COMPLAINT? IS THERE A PERIOD OF TIME? RIGHT.
SO IF YOU DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION MM-HMM
THE CHAIR'S FINDING OF NO JURISDICTION STANDS AND THE THE COMPLAINT IS, IS FINISHED MM-HMM
UH, WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT, UH, CHOOSES TO FILE A DIFFERENT OR NEW COMPLAINT THAT'S IN HIS HANDS.
UM, BUT AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE A MOTION, SO YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION
[02:35:01]
THAT'S BEEN MADE.IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION AFTER THE MOTION AND THE SECOND COMMISSIONER MCG VER I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION AT HAND IS THAT A PERSON FILING A COMPLAINT SUCH AS THIS BEARS THE BURDEN OF DOING IT WITH ADEQUATE SPECIFICITY AND IDENTIFYING TO, TO ESTABLISH WE HAVE JURISDICTION BY IDENTIFYING A SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE CODE THAT THEY ALLEGE HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
ABSENT, HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT WITH THE ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY IN THEIR PLEADINGS, WE CAN MAKE A FINDING THAT WE, WE HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION HERE GO FOR THIS TIME BEING DECIDED THAT WE DON'T SUBJECT TO A COMPLAINANT'S ABILITY TO FILE A NEW COMPLAINT.
UH, IT'S, IT'S A DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, AND ON THAT BASIS, I MEAN, I, I INTEND TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, WHICH IS TO, UM, AFFIRM THE, UH, DETERMINATION OF NO JURISDICTION THAT, UH, OUR CHAIR HAS PREVIOUSLY MADE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
IT, UH, LOOKS LIKE THAT ONE CARRIES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY.
THE 10 WHO ARE CURRENTLY PRESENT CHAIR IS ABSENT.
I SAID WE WOULD, UH, SO, UM, THAT MOTION CARRIES, AND I'M SORRY, WE SAID WE WOULD
[5. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Special meeting on December 11, 2024.]
DO THE MINUTES, UM, AFTER THAT ITEM, BUT DOES EVERYONE WANT TO DO THAT OR DO WE WANNA DEFER THE MINUTES TO LATER? NO, I MEAN, LET'S JUST DO IT NOW.DID, DID YOU WANNA PRESENT SOMETHING ON THE MINUTES SECRETARY? UH, YES.
MADAM CHAIR ON THIS ONE, THERE ARE, UM, SEVERAL AMENDMENTS.
UH, LET ME ENUMERATE THOSE AMENDMENTS FOR Y'ALL.
UH, FIRST I HAVE A QUESTION, WAS THIS A REGULAR CALLED MEETING OR WAS IT A SPECIAL MEETING? BECAUSE THE AGENDA FOR TODAY INDICATES THAT IT WAS A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT THE MINUTES, AND I COULDN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S A REGULAR MEETING OR OR DECEMBER 11TH, WAS THAT A REGULAR MEETING OR A SPECIAL MEETING? IT WAS A REGULAR MEETING.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, FIRST AMENDMENT FOLKS IS ON PAGE TWO.
THERE ARE TWO, UH, TWO SENTENCES IN THAT PARAGRAPH THAT I'M STRONGLY RECOMMENDING THAT WE ITEMIZE EXPLICITLY WHAT THOSE AGENDA ITEMS ARE.
THEREFORE, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT IT READ THE COMMISSION WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:53 PM TO ADDRESS ITEMS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX ON THE AGENDA.
SO I'LL PAUSE THERE, SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE THERE ARE ACTUALLY MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE, THAT GO BEYOND FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX.
AND SO AS A MATTER OF ACCURACY, IT'S, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
UM, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEYOND 10:00 PM THIS IS KIND OF, SHOULD BE AN EXTRAORDINARY THING.
I'D REALLY RA MUCH RATHER DEFER A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES UNTIL A FUTURE MEETING.
SO IF THE WE WANNA VOTE ON DEFERRING IT, I, I'M FINE WITH THAT TOO.
UM, I, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU WOULD POSTPONE IT POSTPONE AND YOU CAN REQUEST THAT IT COME UP ON THE NEXT, UM, NEXT MEETING.
SHOULD WE DO THAT THEN? AND, UM, CAN WE WRAP IT ALL TOGETHER WITH THE MOTION TO ADJOURN? ADJOURN.
AND WE HAVE TO MAKE, WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION.
TURN, UH, I MOVE THAT WE ASK STAFF TO INCLUDE ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES ON THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED, UH, MEETING OF THIS COMMISSION AND THAT WE ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
MR. IS, UH, STANTON ADAMS? ALRIGHT.
[02:40:01]
SO UNANIMOUS AGAIN, EXCEPT FOR CHAIR WHO IS ABSENT.