Jul 30, 2025 Special Ethics Review Commission

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD.

MINUTES AS THE NEXT AGENDA CHAIR.

WE HAVE ONE MORE PERSON FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, BUT HE IS GOING TO BE REMOTE.

MR. ANDREW RIVERA, IF YOU CAN JUST GIVE US A COUPLE MINUTES FOR HIM TO JOIN IN.

TO MS. MS. NICHOLAS ABOUT DON'T FORGET YOU, MIKE.

[1. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Regular meeting on June 25, 2025.]

MINUTES.

UM, I REVIEWED THE SECRETARY TURN IS, UM, OUT MY BUSINESS MORE OR LESS.

UM, AND I REVIEWED THE MINUTES AND THEY ALL LOOKED FINE.

UH, I MADE TWO CORRECTIONS.

I'VE ALREADY SPOKEN

[00:05:01]

PARDON? DON'T FORGET.

UM, I MADE TWO CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES.

SO THEY WERE ON THE, NEAR THE LAST PAGE.

IT HAD TO DO WITH A MOTION THAT WAS BEING MADE AND THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO A SECTION OF THE CODE FOR WHICH THE MOTION WAS BEING MADE OF A VIOLATION.

AND THEN THE, UH, THE VOTE WAS ACCIDENTALLY WRITTEN AS ZERO TO ZERO.

SO I HAVE TOLD MS. MS. BENITEZ ABOUT THOSE AND SHE IS CORRECTING THOSE.

OTHERWISE, UH, I FOUND NO OTHER THINGS TO CORRECT.

IF ANYBODY ELSE SEES ANYTHING QUICKLY, LET US KNOW.

I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE MINUTES.

DO YOU KNOW ME TO MENTION THAT ONE? SO WHAT'S THE CORRECTION AGAIN? UM, I HAVE IT AT HAND.

THE FIRST CORRECTION ON PAGE.

YOU GO AHEAD, LIZ.

YES, I I HAVE IT HERE.

THE FIRST CORRECTION FROM CHAIR HUMPHREY IS ON PAGE FOUR, NEAR THE BOTTOM OF PAGE.

THE VERY LAST PARAGRAPH.

THE VOTE COUNT ISN'T CORRECT.

IT SHOULD BE FIVE DASH ONE DASH ONE DASH ONE.

AND THEN I JUST NEED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR THE VIOLATION ALLEGED WHERE IT SAYS ZERO ZERO.

YES, CORRECT.

IT'S FIVE DASH ONE DASH ONE.

CORRECT.

AND THEN WITHIN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH, IT STATES COMMISSIONER PRE'S MOTION TO FIND THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.

I JUST NEED TO ADD THE PROVISION.

THAT'S ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.

DOES ANYONE ELSE NEED MORE TIME TO LOOK OVER THE MINUTES? OKAY.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.

THERE HAS BEEN A MOVE TO APPROVE THE MISSIONS BY COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA.

IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND.

AND COMMISSIONER KEEL HAS SECONDED IT ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.

ALL OPPOSED? ALL ABSTAINING.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR ANOTHER, WE HAVE MR. RA ONLINE.

AND

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL (Part 2 of 2)]

OH, ONLINE.

I'M SORRY.

I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT PART.

PROCEED.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

THERE'S BEEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION.

CHAIR, VICE CHAIR.

MY NAME'S ANDREW RIVERA.

I'M BOY AND RAISED AND STAYING ON TOPLESS DISTRICT THREE.

AND I'M CALLING TO, UH, DISCUSS ITEM FIVE.

UM, ITEM FIVE WAS I IN REGARDS TO STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AGAINST THE CITY EMPLOYEE, WHICH THESE, THIS BODY, THE ERC DOES HAVE JURISDICTION OVER.

I WOULD INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT YOUR FEBRUARY 19TH, 2019 MEETING WHERE YOU ALL ENTERTAINED A MATTER CONCERNING THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES.

THAT WAS A MATTER CONCERNING STANDARD OF CONDUCT.

AND THAT INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINTED EMPLOYEE THAT IS A CITY EMPLOYEE.

SO I REQUEST THAT THIS BODY CONSIDER MOVING FOR TO FULL OR TO PRELIMINARY HEARING TO A DATE AT THE DISCRETION OF THIS BODY.

AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I THANK YOU.

UM, I'LL CALL ON OUR, UM, OUR STAFF ATTORNEY, MS. WEBSTER, TO IF SHE HAS ANY COMMENTS.

UH, MY ONLY COMMENT IS THAT YOU HAVE MADE A JURISDICTION DECISION.

NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT AS IT PER PERTAIN PERTAIN TO SECTION 2 7 62 BECAUSE OF CITY CODE 2 7 27.

AND, UM, SO THE INITIAL JURISDICTION, JURISDICTION WAS MADE THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT THAT ALLEGED A VIOLATION OF 2 3 5 2 DASH THREE DASH FIVE OF THE CITY CODE.

AND, UH, RECENTLY IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER JURISDICTION QUESTION, WHICH, UH, PERTAINS TO THE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 7 62 OF CITY CODE.

AND, UH, SO THE ITEM FIVE TODAY WAS INTENDED OR IS POSTED AS A REVIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE CHAIR THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER 2 3 5.

BUT THE CHAIR AS OF TODAY HAS MADE ANOTHER JURISDICTION DECISION, UM, ABOUT THAT THE COMMISSION DOES

[00:10:01]

I HAVE TO MAKE SURE I'M SAYING IT RIGHT, 2 7 27.

UM, NOW THAT THE CHAIR HAS MADE THATER DETERMINATION, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE.

HOWEVER, OUR POSTING LANGUAGE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT, UH, DISCUSSION TODAY.

UM, SO THE DECISION WAS MADE TO POST TO BASICALLY WITHDRAW ITEM FIVE TODAY AND THEN COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING, MOST LIKELY, YOU KNOW, AT THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE CHAIR TO THEN HAVE BOTH OF THOSE JURISDICTION QUESTIONS DISCUSSED.

THANK YOU MS. WEBSTER.

YES, THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS DISCOVERED VERY RECENTLY.

AND SO I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MS. WEBSTER AND DECIDED THAT IT WAS NOT UNDER HER JURISDICTION, BUT IT STILL CAN BE CHALLENGED.

BUT THAT WILL BE ON THE NEXT, ON NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA.

SO THANK YOU SIR.

ITEM ON THE AGENDA REGARDS THE COMMISSION GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THE FOLLOWING

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

THE COMMISSION WILL ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEM TWO ON THE AGENDA PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 0 7 1 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING, A COMPLAINT FILED BY TIFFANY WASHINGTON AGAINST NATASHA HARPER MADISON RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO, AND SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? HEARING NONE.

THE COMMISSIONER WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THE TIME IS 6:00 PM THE TIME IS 6:42 PM ENCLOSED SESSION.

WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO A COMPLAINT FILED BY TIFFANY WASHINGTON AGAINST NATASHA HARPER MADISON RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODES.

SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE DECLARATION OF POLICY, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO DEFINITIONS AND SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.

[4. A complaint filed by Tiffany Washington against Natasha Harper-Madison, raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-7-1 (Declaration of Policy), Section 2-7-2 (Definitions), and Section 2-7-62 (Standards of Conduct).]

WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

ITEM FOUR, PRELIMINARY HEARING.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY TIFFANY WASHINGTON AGAINST NATASHA HARPER MADISON RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO DASH SEVEN, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO AND SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62.

ALAN BOJORQUEZ IS APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CAROLINE WEBSTER IS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.

UH, THERE ARE NO RECUSALS.

I'M GONNA READ THE PROCEDURES FOR AN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION PRELIMINARY HEARING, UH, STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT.

THE COMPLAINANT WILL PLEASE STATE THEIR NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT.

IF THERE IS ONE, WE'LL INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS WELL.

FOR RESPONDENT, THEY WILL INTRODU INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF COUNSEL OF RECORD IF THERE IS COUNSEL.

PRESENT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEEDING.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 44 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.

THE FIRST PART OF THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON MARCH 7TH, 2025.

AND THE SECOND PART WAS FILED ON APRIL 16TH, 2025.

COMPLAINANT ALLEGED RESPONDENT VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE DECLARATION OF POLICY SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO DEFINITIONS AND SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.

THE ISSUE AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A CITY CODE PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD.

IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION WILL SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.

IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

[00:15:01]

A DECISION TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.

PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES, THE COMMISSION'S REGULAR PRACTICE IS TO GIVE EACH OF THE PARTIES 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR POSITIONS AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT.

UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY, WE WILL JUST GO WITH A 10 MINUTE RULE UNLESS YOU WANT TO, UH, OBJECT.

DO THE PARTIES AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES IS DIFFERENT? IT MAY IS.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

UM, LET US HEAR FROM COMPLAINANT ON THAT POINT.

I'M STILL READING THE PROCEDURE.

AND THEN WE ASK THE RESPONDENT, THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE THE CLAIM VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM, THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE FINAL HEARING.

IN SUPPORT OF THOSE CLAIMS, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT THIS HEARING, THE RESPONDENT MAY PROVIDE A RESPONSE DISPUTING THE CLAIMS. IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MAY SO STATE AND THE COMMISSION MAY THEN CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION OR PROSECUTION.

WHILE STATEMENTS OF THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING, HEARING ARE UNDER OATH, NO CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED.

AFTER THE PARTIES COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT.

AND I WILL, UH, AT LEAST PRELIMINARILY TRY TO LIMIT THAT TO ABOUT 20 MINUTES.

UH, NO WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL ARE PERMITTED TO MAKE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING.

FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES, THE COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO RETURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENTATION.

FOLLOWING ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE IF SIX MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION VOTE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.

THE COMMISSION WILL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.

UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN NOW PROCEED WITH THE COMPLAINANT'S PRESENTATION.

VICE PRESIDENT SHARKEY WILL KEEP TIME AND GIVE YOU A THREE MINUTE WARNING WHEN YOUR PRESENTATION REACHES THAT POINT.

SO PLEASE PROCEED, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED, I'M COMING OUT.

HELLO.

MY NAME IS TIFFANY WASHINGTON.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR HAVING ME.

IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING, SO I'M GLAD WE'VE FINALLY MADE IT HERE.

UM, I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT I DO FEEL LIKE MY DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN A VERY LONG TIME.

AND JUST ACCORDING TO THE ERC AND THE TIMES THAT IT TAKES TO SCHEDULE THESE MEETINGS, I SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN HERE AND OUT OF HERE.

UM, AND THEN JUST ALSO THE WAY IT WAS POSTED, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC WAS ABLE TO ACTUALLY BE MADE AWARE PROPERLY, UM, OF THIS MEETING TODAY, THE SPECIAL CALL MEETING, IT'S MISSING FROM THE MEETING.

UM, NOTES ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S WEBSITE.

I AM A UNITED STATES NAVY VETERAN.

I'M ALSO A LOCAL FARMER.

I'M THE ONLY BLACK FARMER IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, WHO HAS OWNED A FARM AND FARMED IT IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I STAND VERY FIRM WITH OUR LOCAL FOOD ACCESS, UM, ACTIVISTS.

AND IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I HAVE HAD A TREMENDOUS TIME IN JUST NAVIGATING CITY PROCESSES.

AND AS A VETERAN, I BELIEVE IT'S MY CITY CIVIC DUTY TO COME HERE AND, AND PRESENT ERRORS IN ETHICS, ESPECIALLY WHEN, WHEN I BELIEVE THAT, THAT SOMEONE HAS A LACK OF INTEGRITY OR IS JUST OUTRIGHT, BLATANTLY, UM, NOT PUTTING CITIZENS IN IN THE BEST INTEREST, NOT NOT HAVING THE CITIZEN'S BEST INTEREST.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER NATASHA HARPER MADISON HAS DONE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.

THE FIRST VIOLATION THAT I DID FILE WAS SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE, THE POLICY THAT SAID THE CITY.

UM, IT IS, IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY THAT THE PROPER OPERATION OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES BE INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL, AND REASONABLE TO THE PEOPLE THAT GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AND POLICY BE MADE IN PROPER CHANNELS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, THE PUB, THAT PUBLIC OFFICE NOT BE USED FOR PERSONAL GAIN, AND THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF ITS GOVERNMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER NATASHA HARPER MADISON HAS VIOLATED THIS PO POLICY BY USING HER OFFICIAL SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT, WHICH IS TIED TO HER ROLE AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO ENGAGE IN PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST CONSTITUENTS, INCLUDING MYSELF.

THESE ACTIONS FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE IMPARTIALITY AND RESPONSIBILITY AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION OF THE CITY CODE.

BY CONDUCTING PUBLIC DISCOURSE THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA AND ENGAGING IN DEFAMATORY BEHAVIOR, COUNCILWOMAN HARPER MADISON HAS BYPASSED PROPER GOVERNMENTAL CHANNELS AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF

[00:20:01]

HER OFFICE.

AND I SUBMITTED A 43 PAGE DOCUMENT, UM, OF EVIDENCE, WHICH INCLUDED THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE BETWEEN MYSELF, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, AS WELL AS MR. STEVEN BROWN, WHO IS ANOTHER VERY WELL KNOWN COMMUNITY ACTIVIST.

AND ON THE INSIDE OF THAT, IT IS EXHIBIT FOUR ON PAGE NINE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE THIS.

I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERYONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER GO THROUGH THIS 40 PAGE, 43 PAGES AND, AND REALLY READ IT.

I WOULD LOVE TO ASK SOME OF YOU TO READ SOME OF MY HIGHLIGHTED QUOTES FROM, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, AS SHE WROTE THESE QUOTES HERSELF.

UM, ONE, SHE SAYS THAT SHE IMPLORES ME TO BE A BETTER EXAMPLE, UM, FOR HOW TO HOLD ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE.

SO THAT IN ITSELF IS WHY I AM HERE.

UM, THIS, I'M SORRY YOU GUYS.

IT IS, IT IS.

I WAS BAFFLED BY A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT SHE MADE.

ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS THAT REALLY BOTHERED ME AND ANOTHER VIOLATION THAT SHE HAD WAS THE FACT THAT SHE WAS LOBBYING FOR EUREKA HOLDINGS.

UM, HOLD ON ONE SECOND, LEMME PULL UP MY STUFF.

AND I THINK THAT WAS VIOLATION.

FIVE, UM, TWO, THAT 7 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.

NO SALARIED CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL REPRESENT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ANY OTHER PERSON, GROUP, OR ENTITY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY.

UM, LIKE AGAIN, SHE REPEATEDLY USED HER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM TO PUBLICLY LOBBY CONSTITUENTS IN FAVOR OF EUREKA.

SHE SAID IN MR. UM, BROWN'S POST, I'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING BUT SAY THAT IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT CITIZENS WORK WITH EUREKA WHEN IT IS VERY WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THERE ARE SO MANY RESIDENTS IN DISTRICT ONE WHO HAVE OUTRIGHT CALLED OUT EUREKA FOR GENTRIFICATION OF THE COMMUNITY.

UM, AND, AND IT JUST HAS TO STOP WHEN YOU ASK, WHEN YOU ASK HER ABOUT THESE THINGS, SHE ACTS AS IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW THAT SHE SAYS THESE THINGS.

BUT IF YOU LISTEN TO WHAT SHE SAYS WHEN SHE'S DOING MEDIA OR WHEN SHE'S IN THE NEWS, IT'S THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

WE HAVE TO BE VERY DILIGENT WHEN WE DEAL WITH PEOPLE IN POSITIONS OF POWER OR, UM, LEADERS IN POSITIONS OF POWER WHO, WHO PSYCHOLOGICALLY COERCE THEIR CONSTITUENTS, WHO USE PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION TO MANIPULATE THEIR CONSTITUENTS INTO NOT SPEAKING UP AGAINST THEM.

AND I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE CONTINUES TO CALL OUT STUFF LIKE THIS.

UM, EVEN MORE SO, I EVEN MORE SO, I HAD TO LOOK UP THE HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY ON, ON EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO GOSSIPING OR JUST HORSEPLAY.

AND THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT SHE SAID.

UM, ONE THING THAT REALLY, REALLY BOTHERED ME WAS THE FACT THAT SHE SAID THAT FOR OVER A YEAR IN 2024, I ATTACKED PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

I DON'T KNOW HOW SHE WOULD KNOW THAT UNLESS SHE WAS STALKING ME, UM, BECAUSE SHE WAS ABSENT FOR THE DAAS FOR A LOT OF TIME DURING 2024.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY SHE WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THAT JUST GOES TO HER TRYING TO UNDERMINE MY CHARACTER AS A CITIZEN.

THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION, YOU GUYS, AND THIS IS JUST A PRELIMINARY HEARING, SO YOU HAVE TO FORGIVE ME 'CAUSE IT'S JUST A LOT.

UM, SHE SAID THINGS, SHE SAYS THINGS TO MR. STEVEN BROWN, SUCH AS WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AS WELL.

TO ME, THAT'S A THREAT.

WHERE I COME FROM, WHAT YOU MEAN? YOU KNOW WHERE I LIVE.

I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE TOO.

SO WHAT ARE WE DOING? SHE SAYS THINGS TO HIM LIKE, HOW IS THIS TYPE, HOW IS THIS TYPE OF UNDER INFORMED BLATANT BUCKET BEHAVIOR ON THE INTERNET? LIKE A TEEN AT ALL FORWARD BUILDING? I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER THAT IS ON SOCIAL MEDIA SAYING THESE THINGS TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

UM, SHE HAS EVEN GONE SO FAR AS TO SAY, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TRUST.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ORDER TO WORK WITH THEM.

AGAIN, MS. WASHINGTON, THREE MINUTES.

MANY OTHER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN THAT I CAN FILE MORE AT THIS COMPLAINT'S ABOUT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO WORK WITH THEM.

AGAIN, UNDERMINING OUR TRUST AND INTEGRITY BECAUSE WHY WOULD I VOTE FOR YOU IF I DON'T FEEL LIKE I CAN TRUST YOU? THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

SO FOR ME, I THINK THAT YOU GUYS REALLY NEED TO INVESTIGATE HER BEHAVIOR.

I I HOPE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO READ ENOUGH OF MY CONTENT AND MY EVIDENCE PACKET THAT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT I'M ABLE TO ANSWER.

LIKE I SAID, IT IS BEEN SO LONG SINCE I FILED THIS ETHICS COMPLAINT INITIALLY THAT SO

[00:25:01]

BUT I'M HERE SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THESE ONES.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR MY TIME.

CAN I RESERVE THE REST OF IT? OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

UM, IS THE RESPONDENT PRESENT OR ONLINE OR NO.

UH, AND MS. WASHINGTON, FIRST ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL MONTHS AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENED WAS IT WAS SORT OF A PERFECT STORM, BOTH FIGURATIVELY AND LITERALLY.

UM, WE HAD ONE CASE THAT WAS PUT OFF A COUPLE TIMES THAT WAS AHEAD OF YOURS BECAUSE AN ATTORNEY WASN'T AVAILABLE, AND THEN WE HAD AN ACTUAL STORM ONE NIGHT WHEN A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO WERE GONNA COME COULDN'T MAKE IT.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND, UH, AND WE'LL PROCEED NOW.

UH, WE CAN PROCEED RIGHT NOW WITH ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, AND I'D LIKE TO LIMIT THIS TO ABOUT 20 MINUTES UNLESS, UH, PEOPLE FEEL OTHERWISE AT THE END OF 20 MINUTES.

YOU WANT TO SPEAK COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN? I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO TO BE FIRST, BUT, OH, OKAY.

UM, OKAY.

MAY I? YES.

COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN.

GO AHEAD.

SO, MS. WASHINGTON, UM, MY NAME IS BRIAN MCGOVERN AND, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERY WORD IN, UM, THIS CODE OF ETHICS IS WELL DEFINED.

AND SO I WANTED TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON, UM, YOU KNOW, ZOOMING IN TO TWO DASH SEVEN DASH SIX 2D, WHICH YOU CITED IN YOUR COMPLAINT.

UM, THE BEHAVIOR THAT YOU'RE CITING TO IS, IS THE COUNCIL MEMBER SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THIS ENTITY, EUREKA HOLDINGS? YES.

FIRST, ARE YOU ALLEGING THAT SHE HAS ANY LIKE, DIRECT CONNECTION TO EUREKA HOLDINGS, LIKE MEMBERSHIP IN THEIR BUSINESS ENTITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? ACTUALLY, YES, I AM.

I THINK THAT IT IS VERY WELL KNOWN THAT SHE HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH EUREKA HOLDINGS, A FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP.

I, I MEAN, SHE RECEIVED, UM, A CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION BECAUSE OF THAT, I BELIEVE.

SO I'M OKAY.

I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THAT, UM, SOMEONE BESIDES ME DO RESEARCH ON THAT.

MAYBE WE CAN ASK THE INTEGRITY OFFICE.

WELL, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER.

UM, SO THE NEXT QUESTION, I'VE GOT TWO MORE.

I THINK ONE IS, IT SAYS, NO SALARIED CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL REPRESENT.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION HERE, WHERE IT SAYS THAT THEY SHALL NOT REPRESENT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, YADA YADA.

IT SAYS REPRESENT WHAT, IN YOUR MIND, I MEAN, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING OR HOW, HOW WOULD YOU INTERPRET THAT WORD? I WOULD INTERPRET IT AS SAYING YOUR INABILITY TO WORK COOPERATIVELY IS A COMMITTED PATH.

YOU'VE CHOSEN MR. BROWN.

I HAVE NEVER, NOT ONCE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ANYTHING BUT IMPERATIVE TO WORK WITH YOU, RICO.

I MEAN, TO REPRESENT ME, TO STAND IN FOR SOMEONE WHEN THEY'RE NOT THERE TO SPEAK FOR THEM.

SORRY.

NO, YOU'RE OKAY.

DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT? UH, DO YOU NEED TO THE WHOLE THING? ? I WAS ON A ROLL.

NO.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, I MEAN, JUST WHAT SHE SAYS.

UM, SHE'S, SHE'S NEVER NOT SAID THAT IT WAS ANYTHING BUT IMPERATIVE TO WORK WITH EUREKA, MEANING SHE'S, I I FEEL LIKE ONLY SOMEONE WHO WOULD WANT, WHO IS REPRESENTING SOMEONE WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

LIKE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA TELL ME YOU NEED TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY IF YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING THEM.

LIKE, IT'S LIKE THE SPECTRUM MAN AT THE WALMART, YOU KNOW, HE'S LIKE REPRESENTING THEM, BASICALLY WALKING BY.

NOW I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF.

NO, GO AHEAD.

YEAH.

A ACTIONABLE THING HAPPENING.

AND SO THAT, THAT WAS THE, THE SECOND OF THREE.

MY THIRD QUESTION WAS, IT SAYS AFTER THAT, AFTER REPRESENTED, IT SAYS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ANY PERSON, GROUP, OR ENTITY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY IN TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING WHERE IT SAYS THAT THEY SHALL NOT REPRESENT SOMEONE IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING.

WHAT, WHAT DOES ACTION OR PROCEEDING MEAN? ACTION OR PROCEEDING MEANS WHEN YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING OR THERE'S, THERE'S

[00:30:01]

SO IN THIS INSTANCE, MR. STEVEN BROWN WAS MAKING A STATEMENT AGAINST EUREKA.

HE WAS SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY ON HIS SOCIAL MEDIA, AND SHE CAME TO THAT ACTION, AND TOOK ACTION AND TOLD HIM THIS YOUR INABILITY.

SHE'S TOLD HIM THAT HE'S UNABLE TO WORK COOPERATIVELY, AND THAT'S A COMMITTED PATH.

HE'S CHOSEN.

WELL, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH EUREKA BECAUSE HE HAS A VERY STRONG BELIEF THAT EUREKA HAS DONE A THING TO THE CITIZENS IN HER DISTRICT.

AND SO WHEN SHE COMES AND SHE, SHE STEPS IN FOR EUREKA, EUREKA DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, BUT OUR COUNCIL MEMBER DID.

SO WHEN SHE STEPPED IN AND SHE SAID THAT TO ME, THAT IS HER TAKING ACTION.

AND WHAT DOES IT SAY RIGHT THERE? UM, ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING? THE PROCEEDING WAS THIS, THE SOCIAL MEDIA BACK AND FORTH, WHICH I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, SHE'S CREATING DISCOURSE.

SO, SO HYPOTHETICALLY IF SHE AND I, I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION IN FRONT OF ME MM-HMM .

OH, NO, IT IS, THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS THERE.

IT'S, UH, EXHIBIT C DASH FOUR.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE, THAT'S THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION FROM PAGE FOUR ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO PAGE 16.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT I SEE THINGS LABELED QUITE THAT WAY.

WAS THIS, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE ATTACHMENTS TO YOUR MARCH SUBMISSION OR YOUR APRIL SUBMISSION? UM, I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN AFTER THAT I SUBMITTED ANOTHER PACKET.

THAT IS ABOUT 40, IT'S ABOUT 44 PAGES.

I SUBMITTED THAT.

I CAN'T, I HAVE TO LOOK IN MY EMAIL AND SEE WHAT DATE I SUBMITTED THAT.

WELL, SO IF I, IF I, UNDER I, OF, OF THE PAPERS THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME MM-HMM .

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

SO LET ME JUST ASK, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONTEXT HERE WAS THAT THIS GENTLEMAN THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS COMMENTING ON, WAS IT, IT WAS, WAS ON, WAS ON FACEBOOK AND HAD A COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING WHO WAS SPEAKING NEGATIVELY OR SKEPTICALLY OR, OR WHATEVER ABOUT WELL, HE COMMENTED ON, HE COMMENTED ON A-K-X-A-N, UM, STORY DOCUMENTARY.

IT WAS A 20 MINUTE DOCUMENTARY.

A DEVELOPER BOUGHT UP 70 PROPERTIES ON A HISTORICALLY BLACK STREET.

THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S NEXT.

AND SO HE SHARED THAT POST AND HE, AND HE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT IT, UM, A RATHER LENGTHY AND VERY INFORMATIVE COMMENT, MIGHT I ADD? AND, UM, SHE RESPONDED, WHICH SHE SAID SHE DOESN'T NORMALLY DO.

SO IN MY MIND, AS A CONSTITUENT, I WOULD SUGGEST SHE NOT.

SO I GUESS I'M CURIOUS THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE QUESTION THAT POPS INTO MY MIND IS GOING BACK TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION D HERE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MM-HMM .

TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 DASH D IN YOUR MIND, IF SHE HAD WRITTEN A COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO HIM, BUT IT HAD, RATHER THAN BEING, YOU KNOW, AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT, IF IT HAD BEEN A COMPLIMENTARY VIEWPOINT, IF SHE HAD HAD A COMMENT, THIS SHE WOULDN'T, NO.

WOULDN'T IF SHE WOULD'VE, WHAT IF SHE HAD, WOULD THAT HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRESENTING SOMEONE, SOMEBODY IN AN ACTION OR A PROCEEDING? YEAH, BECAUSE SHE'S SPEAKING ABOUT EUREKA.

WE, I MEAN, SHE'S COME, SHE'S COMING IN TO THE CONVERSATION ON, ON THEIR BEHALF, SPEAKING ABOUT THEM.

AND I MEAN, TO TELL SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, I WANNA USE HER WORDS, NOT MINE.

UM, I HAVE NEVER, NOT ONCE, I HAVE NEVER NOT ONCE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ANYTHING BUT IMPERATIVE TO WORK WITH RIGA.

THAT'S THE ONLY PART OF YOUR MISLEADING COMMENTARY THAT'S ROOTED IN TRUTH TO NOT WORK WITH THE ORGANIZATION THAT LAWFULLY OWNS THE BLOCK, IS THE KIND OF BASIC LACK OF PLANNING AND FORESIGHT.

THEY GOT 12TH STREET TO THE POINT THAT IT IS, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEBODY COMING IN THE ROOM AND TELLING US WE NEED TO BE WORKING WITH EUREKA.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF HER DISTRICT, HER RESIDENCE.

I MEAN, AS A COUNCILWOMAN, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OFF.

I, I GUESS, UNDERSTOOD.

I, AND LET ME, LET ME TRY TO ASK, I I DON'T THINK I ASKED THE QUE MY LAST QUESTION AS CLEARLY AS I WANTED TO.

UM, I UNDERSTAND IN, IN THESE MESSAGES, YOU'RE SAYING THAT SHE CAME IN AND SHE SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE COMMENT SHE WAS RESPONDING TO AND IN, IN FAVOR OF

[00:35:01]

EUREKA, ESSENTIALLY.

HMM.

BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS IF SHE HAD COMMENTED ON, YOU KNOW, RESPONDED WITH THAT COMMENT, BUT IT HAD INSTEAD SPOKEN NEGATIVELY ABOUT EUREKA AND, YOU KNOW, AGREED WITH THIS GENTLEMAN, WHY WOULD SHE, SHE WOULDN'T HYPOTHE, I CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE SHE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, BECAUSE SHE NEVER HAVE.

SO, WELL, I MEAN, IS THERE ANY COMMENT THAT SHE COULD HAVE MADE ABOUT EUREKA HOLDINGS ON FACEBOOK THAT IN YOUR MIND, WOULDN'T HAVE VIOLATED THE SESSION? NO, I DON'T THINK SHE SHOULD EVER SPEAK ABOUT EUREKA HOLDINGS BECAUSE, OH, NO, I THINK THAT THAT IS SUCH A BIG DEAL WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, THE COMMUNITY IN, IN SUCH A MATTER TO INCITE THE PUBLIC.

NO, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT POST, UM, THOSE THINGS SHE SAID IN INTENTIONALLY, I DON'T THINK SHE SHOULD BE LOBBYING FOR EUREKA.

I DON'T KNOW.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH MY QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A QUESTION, AND I MAY BE GOING OVER SOME OF THE SAME TERRITORY.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING BECAUSE I, AND I THINK MAYBE MOST OR ALL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HERE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT EUREKA HOLDINGS MM-HMM .

AND SO MY, MY QUESTION IS THEN IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE IF YOU'RE ALLEGING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST MM-HMM .

AND YOU DON'T PRESENT EVIDENCE HERE, BUT YOU SAY SOMETHING IN NARRATIVE FORM.

SO I'LL JUST ASK YOU DO, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AT A FINAL HEARING THAT WILL SHOW, THAT WILL BE EVIDENCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? YES.

I, THIS WAS JUST THE 43 PAGES AND THIS WAS LIGHT.

I, I HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT I JUST STOPPED MYSELF.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, GO AHEAD.

SO FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR QUESTION, YOU WERE, YOU WERE MAKING REFERENCE TO SUBSECTION I OF TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62, WHICH WAS CITED, I THINK, I THINK ONLY IN THE MARCH SUBMISSION.

AND IT SAYS, UM, YOU KNOW, A SALARIED CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE DO MS. WASHINGTON.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M REFERRING TO? YES.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR RIGHT NOW.

YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

I'M LISTENING.

WELL, I, I WANT YOU TO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU.

UM, SUBSECTION, UH, SALARY CITY OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE MAY NOT USE THE OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES OFFICIAL POSITION.

GOT ONE.

TO SECURE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION FOR THEMSELVES.

ESSENTIALLY, IT SAYS, FOR THE OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE TO SECURE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO HARM ANOTHER PERSON OR TO SECURE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN RESPONSIBILITIES.

AND SO, IS IT YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE COMM, THE COUNCIL MEMBER, WAS SECURING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION FOR EUREKA HOLDINGS? I BELIEVE THAT SHE HAS, YES.

UM, BUT HERE, UM, SECURE HERE, I, I BELIEVE THAT SUBSECTION I WAS MORE FOR TO HARM ANOTHER PERSON OR TO SECURE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

UM, AND WHEN I TALKED ABOUT TO HARM ANOTHER PERSON, I WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT ME.

LIKE I SAID, SHE HAS, UM, DONE A LOT OF MANIPULATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION.

I SUBMITTED, UM, SOME TEXT MESSAGES THAT WE HAD BETWEEN EACH OTHER.

UM, SO I, I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE FULL CONVERSATION, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE, UM, THE EXHIBIT C ONE THROUGH C 21 THAT I SUBMITTED MAY, UH, FROM THE MAY 28TH MEETING, IT WAS LIKE A REALLY THICK PACKAGE.

SO, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, I, I, I THINK I CAN ASK YOU A SEPARATE QUESTION.

SO I, I UNDERSTAND.

AND I THINK PROCEDURALLY, WELL, LET ME TAKE A STEP BACK.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WERE MOVING FORWARD TO, TO HARM, BUT IN LOOKING AT THE, WELL, THIS MEMO, I GUESS THAT'S FORWARDING YOUR SUBMISSION.

THE MEMO IS DATED MARCH 7TH.

IT SAYS THAT YOU SIGNED IT.

YEAH.

SO THIS IS THE ONE THAT YOU SIGNED AS COMPLAINTANT ON MARCH THE SEVENTH? YES.

SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS, I THINK, YEAH, GO AHEAD.

NO, GO AHEAD.

NECESSARILY LIMITED TO WHAT'S IN THIS DOCUMENT.

UM, SO IN THIS ONE MM-HMM .

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU'RE

[00:40:01]

I'M OKAY.

HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT, I DON'T THINK, I MEAN, IN THIS ONE IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, VIOLATION, THE COUNCIL MEMBER USED HER OFFICIAL POSITION.

I MEAN, IT DOES SAY TO HARM CONSTITUENTS BY ENGAGING IN ENGAGING IN DEFAMATORY AND HARMFUL BEHAVIOR ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

UM, BUT IT ALSO SAYS, UH, PUBLIC LOBBYING FOR SUPPORT OF EUREKA HOLDINGS RAISES CONCERN THAT SHE MIGHT BE USING HER POSITION TO SECURE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR EXEMPTIONS FOR A PRIVATE ENTITY.

AND WHAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR EXEMPTIONS ARE YOU REFERRING TO HER VOTE ? I DON'T, I MEAN, WELL, I MEAN, SHE'S NOT SECURING HER VOTE BY WHAT SHE SAYS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

I MEAN, HER VOTE'S GONNA BE WHATEVER HER VOTE IS.

I MEAN, HER VOTES, I MEAN, ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT WHAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR EUREKA? OR ARE YOU ASKING YES.

ARE YOU ASKING YES, HER VOTE? LIKE SHE'S, SHE, THAT, THAT, TO ME, THAT TO ME, UM, IS THE BIGGEST SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT SHE HAS, THAT SHE CAN GIVE TO ANYONE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT SHE'S PUSHED THROUGH, OR THE THINGS THAT SHE'S VOTED ON, THE DIFFERENT ZONING THINGS THAT SHE'S VOTED ON, OR VOTED DOWN OR VOTED AGAINST, UM, THAT THE COMMUNITY CRIED OUT FOR.

SO, HOW, WELL, BECAUSE I MEAN, I'M NOT A, I, I PERSONALLY AM NOT A, UM, THAT TYPE OF A DICTIONARY.

SO FOR ME, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IS KICKBACKS HANGING OUT HOUSING.

UM, 'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, IT'S, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.

SURE.

WELL, I MEAN, IF IT WERE HER VOTE THOUGH, WOULDN'T ANY TIME A COUNCIL MEMBER VOTED IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT AFFECTED A, A, A, AN ENTITY LIKE VOTED IN FAVOR OF A CONTRACT OR A SETTLEMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, HOW WOULD THAT BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THIS? UM, ASK, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

ASK THAT AGAIN.

WELL, I MEAN, I, THERE ARE ACTIONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE GONNA TAKE FROM TIME TO TIME THAT BENEFIT OR DENY A BENEFIT TO SOMEONE IN THE COMMUNITY.

RIGHT.

IF I PUT MONEY INTO THIS PARK, THEN I'M NOT PUTTING THAT MONEY INTO THAT PARK.

RIGHT? AND SO THERE'S GONNA BE SOME, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS.

AND HERE IT SAYS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, WHICH MEANS SOMETHING ELSE.

YOU TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS.

I, I'M JUST IT'S NOT DEFINED HERE.

AND I THINK, RIGHT.

SO I CAN, I'M CAPABLE OF FORMING AN OPINION.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOURS WAS.

OH, WELL, MINE IS EXACTLY WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON.

A ABSOLUTELY HER IGNORING THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY'RE LETTING HER KNOW THAT THE 70, BECAUSE IT'S GONE FROM 30 PROPERTIES TO 50 PROPERTIES TO 70 PROPERTIES, WHATEVER SHE HAS GOING ON WITH EUREKA, THAT'S A, SOMETHING FOR ANOTHER INVESTIGATION.

I, I'M JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT AT EVERY TURN SHE GETS, AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY SHE HAS, SHE REPRESENTS LOBBIES FOR AND PUSHES EUREKA ONTO THE COMMUNITY.

UM, AND THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST HOW THAT GOES.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHEN YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GONNA BENEFIT SOME THINGS.

WELL, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH THESE QUESTIONS.

YEAH.

AND I'LL, I'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT TOO.

I HATE TO STICK ON THIS ONE POINT, BUT, UM, AS COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN SAID, IN A LOT OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY A, UM, A CITY COUNCIL, UM, SOME BUSINESSES WILL BENEFIT FROM IT, SOME WILL NOT.

RIGHT.

AND SO THE QUESTION IN MY MIND REGARDING, UH, CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS, IS THERE A, DOES SHE, WILL YOU BE PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT SOMEHOW SHE GETS COMPENSATED FOR THIS? THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S SOMETHING SHE GETS OUT OF IT THAT IS QUANTIFIABLE, BECAUSE I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE POLICY ISSUES.

RIGHT.

AND THEY COULD BE TERRIBLE POLICIES.

THEY COULD BE GOOD POLICIES.

I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND HOW TO DEFINE THAT.

SO AM I, THAT'S WHY I'M .

SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

UM, I MEAN, ARE, ARE, SO, ARE Y'ALL, ARE YOU ASKING ME DO I HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAYS EUREKA WROTE HER A CHECK AND IS LIKE, HERE, HERE'S THIS.

CAN YOU GUYS, CAN YOU DO THIS FOR US? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME? IF YOU'RE ASKING ME THAT, THEN I WOULD HAVE TO SAY NO BECAUSE TO, FOR, FOR ME, HER OVERALL REPRESENTATION OF EUREKA, I UNDERSTAND

[00:45:01]

IF YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU PUT THIS PART HERE, SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT NOT GET SOMETHING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT FOR, FOR WHAT I HAVE WITNESSED, RESEARCHED, AND OBSERVED AS A CITIZEN HERE IN THE PAST AND MOVE AND HAVING MOVED FORWARD, IT DOESN'T GO LIKE THAT.

WHEN SHE MAKES THESE DECISIONS THAT BENEFIT EUREKA EVERY TIME, EVERY SINGLE TIME IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO HER DISTRICT, TO THE RESIDENTS, TO THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR HER.

DISTRICT ONE IS HOLDING ON BY A THREAD.

UM, IT'S THE MOST MARGINALIZED DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE.

AND, AND SADLY , IT'S, IT GETS, IT GETS USED AND ABUSED.

LIKE IT JUST GETS USED AND ABUSED.

PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO COME THROUGH DISTRICT ONE BECAUSE OF NATASHA HARPER, MADISON EITHER NOT BEING AVAILABLE OR IF SHE IS AVAILABLE.

WE DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S COHERENT OR NOT.

UM, THAT'S A PART OF, OF THIS TOO.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.

I CAN'T, I CAN'T, I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU GUYS OVER THE CITY CODE 'CAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE IT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE.

ALL I CAN DO IS COME HERE, UM, LIKE I DID PRESENT A FULL BODY OF EVIDENCE.

I DON'T EVEN REALLY HAVE TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S PRELIMINARY HEARING.

I WOULD LOVE TO GET TO THAT PART, BUT I MEAN, I CAN'T, UM, REALLY SAY, I MEAN, TO THE, TO THE WORDING OF THE CODE.

I MEAN, JUST, I MEAN, AND I'M JUST A REGULAR PERSON.

I DON'T HAVE NO LAWYER.

SO I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR A LAWYER TO COME UP IN HERE AND BE LIKE, YEAH, MS. WASHINGTON, THIS, THIS, THIS, AND THIS MEANS THIS.

ALL I CAN DO IS FROM MY AS THE COUNCILWOMAN SAYS, MY REGULAR LAY PERSON, UM, STANDPOINT, OH MY GOD, THIS IS CRAZY.

UM, ALL I CAN DO IS JUST, JUST FILE A COMPLAINT AND COME HERE AND TALK TO YOU GUYS AS OPEN AND AS HONEST AS POSSIBLE ABOUT WHAT I KNOW TO, TO BE HAPPENING TO NOT JUST MYSELF, BUT TO OTHER CONSTITUENTS, YOU KNOW? THANK YOU.

AND DOES ANYBODY ELSE, UH, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, SIR.

UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE WISHES TO MOVE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PROCEED.

UM, I HEAR NO MOTION, UH, WITHOUT A MOTION.

UM, THE CASE IS ACTUALLY CLOSED.

I WILL JUST COMMENT, AND THIS IS JUST ME, MS. WASHINGTON.

THERE ARE P THERE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHOM I SEE MAKE A WHOLE SERIES OF DECISIONS THAT I THINK ARE TERRIBLE.

ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE.

UM, DO I KNOW IF THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? DO I RESENT HOW THEY SPEAK TO PEOPLE? UH, BUT IT, IT, NONE OF THOSE, IF, IF NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE REFLECTED IN THE CODES THAT WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER, THEN UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NO ACTION PEOPLE SEE TO TAKE MAYBE.

AND I, I, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE.

BUT WE GOT A LOT OF CODES HERE 'CAUSE THAT WASN'T THE ONLY ONE.

SO, OKAY.

BUT I DEFINITELY GET IT.

WELL, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN GOING THROUGH, AT LEAST THIS IS YOUR THIRD MEETING AT LEAST, RIGHT? YES.

I MIGHT BE BACK.

, COMMISSIONER PEGUERO, I JUST WANTED TO JUST MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CONCERNS AROUND SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND THE LACK OF DEFINITION IN THE CODE.

I REALLY HOPE ONE OF OUR SUBCOMMITTEES OR TASK FORCE WILL TAKE A LOOK, UM, AT THAT TO MAYBE OFFER SOME SUGGESTIONS ON A DEFINITION FOR THE CITY CODE.

'CAUSE AS WE CONTINUE TO GET THESE COMPLAINTS WITHOUT ANY DEFINITION, IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT AS A COMMISSION, AS FOR THE PUBLIC, AS FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BRING COMPLAINTS TO KNOW WHAT EVEN EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY.

UM, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION IN THE CODE, UM, AND IT'S INCREASINGLY BECOMING A PROBLEM, I THINK.

THAT ANY, ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S RIGHTS, UM, PREVAIL OVER MINE.

OH, ALSO, CAN I USE THE LAST OF MY TWO MINUTES? DON'T I STILL HAVE? SURE.

GO AHEAD.

ALRIGHT.

I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO BE MADE VERY WELL AWARE THAT I DON'T BELIEVE

[00:50:01]

SO WHEN I HAVE SOMEONE LIKE A NATASHA HARPER MADISON, OR ANYBODY WHO THINKS THAT THEY CAN JUST USE THEIR POWER OR ABUSE IT AND, UM, TREAD ALL OVER ME AS A VETERAN FOR THIS COUNTRY, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

SO I'LL BE BACK HERE ANYTIME I NEED TO BE BACK HERE.

FOR ANYBODY THAT NEEDS ME TO, UM, FALL AT THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM, I'LL CONTINUE TO FILE INTEGRITY REPORTS TO HELP CLEAN UP MY COMMUNITY BECAUSE I'M OVER IT.

I'M JUST SICK OF IT.

AND IF THIS ETHICS COMMISSION CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEFINE WHATEVER SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR WHATEVER OTHER WORDS WE HAVE TO USE, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOOD FOR, BUT I'M JUST TELLING Y'ALL LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHO PROTECTS THE CITIZENS IF WE AIN'T GONNA PROTECT OURSELVES.

SO THANK Y'ALL FOR MY TIME.

UH, THE FIRST, THE FIRST ITEM WOULD BE WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW AND REVISE ETHICS COMMISSION BYLAWS.

THE NEXT THREE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA REGARD, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS.

[Items 6 & 7]

UH, I HAD VOLUNTEERED FOR THAT, I GUESS LATE LAST YEAR.

AND SO HAD FORMER COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS. SO NOW I'M ALL ALONE 'CAUSE SHE'S GONE.

SO, UH, THAT, THAT WORKING GROUP DOES EXIST.

WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO BE PART OF IT? UH, CHAIR EY, I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN YOU IN THIS EFFORT.

VICE CHAIR SHARKEY.

UH, IS ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED? UH, OKAY.

YOU'RE A COURAGEOUS GENTLEMAN.

I I MAY, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A ODD NUMBER OF VOTES, RIGHT? YOU, YOU NEED THREE PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION, RIGHT? ON A WORKING GROUP.

SO, SO FOR WORKING GROUP, DON'T HAVE, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THREE.

YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, ONE, UH, VOTES.

SO, UH, SURE, I'LL DO THAT.

THERE'S NOTHING MORE FUN THAN LOOKING AT BYLAWS.

UH, SO, BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KING.

UM, MS. WEBSTER, I KNOW HAS THE NEST THING ON HERE, WORKING GOOD.

REVIEW AND REVISED ERC RULES.

YOU ARE LOOKING AT THOSE RIGHT NOW, AND YOU'LL BE COMING UP WITH SOME IDEAS.

YOU BELIEVE WE SHOULD ESTABLISH A SEPARATE WORKING GROUP TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT? SO IN MY ROLE AS ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSION, I CAN'T MAKE WORK FOR YOU , RIGHT? LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.

UM, BUT, UM, IF YOU ARE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU SOME SUGGESTIONS WHERE I FEEL LIKE THE RULES ARE OUTDATED OR WHERE I'VE NOTICED THERE ARE GAPS WHERE WE HAVE QUESTIONS THAT COME UP IN VARIOUS HEARINGS, THAT THE RULES DON'T GIVE US AN ANSWER OR MAYBE ARE NOT CLEAR ENOUGH.

SO I DO HAVE KIND OF A WORKING, UM, UNOFFICIAL DOCUMENT WHERE I'VE JUST KEPT NOTES TO THAT EFFECT, AND I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT TO YOU ALL, TO YOUR WORKING GROUP.

WELL, THANK YOU.

I I WANTED TO SORT OF MAKE THAT OPEN BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT.

IT'S LIKE REVISING BYLAWS, BUT IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

UM, AND AS CHAIR, I'D BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH MS. WEBSTER ON THAT.

IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ME AND MAKE IT INTO A WORKING GROUP.

COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA.

AGENDA ITEMS. UH, I KNOW THAT ONE THING WE WERE GOING TO DO AT THIS MEETING HAD IT OCCURRED LAST WEEK, WAS GET A REPORT FROM THE WORKING GROUP ON COMPLAINTS.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? I WILL JOIN YOU IN THAT EFFORT TOO.

OH, VICE CHAIR SHARKY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY, NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER WORKING GROUP.

UM, FUTURE

[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE EXACT TITLE, BUT I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

BUT ALL THREE MEMBERS OF THAT WORKING GROUP HAD, UH, SERIOUS CONFLICTS TONIGHT.

SO WE PUT THAT OFF TILL NEXT, THE NEXT, UM, MEETING.

UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER FUTURE, FUTURE AGENDA IF I MAY INTERJECT? JUST QUICKLY.

I JUST, SORRY, I WANNA CHECK.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CREATION OF THAT WORKING GROUP.

OH, FOR A WORKING GROUP.

I, LET ME JUST, LET ME JUST, I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING.

LEMME JUST VERY QUICKLY CHECK CITY CODE, UH, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US, YOU ALL NOT TO HAVE CREATED IT IF IT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HAVE CREATED.

SO LET ME JUST TAKE A QUICK LOOK.

AND WE ARE POSTED FOR YOU TO TAKE ACTION.

SO THAT WOULDN'T BE A VIOLATION IF, IF YOU DID HAVE A VOTE, WHICH WE ARE POSTED FOR THAT.

SO LET ME

[00:55:01]

JUST, OKAY.

SO A WORKING GROUP MEANS A BODY OF BOARD MEMBERS ESTABLISHED BY A VOTE OF THE BOARD CONSISTING OF LESS THAN A QUORUM OF THE BOARD TO WHICH THE BOARD DELEGATES A DEFINED MATTER OR MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO IF YOU WANT CREATE THAT WORKING GROUP, UH, THEN YOU, YOU NEED TO VOTE ON THAT.

ALRIGHT.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CREATE.

UH, I SO MOVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

SECOND.

WE HAVE, UH, A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KING, A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR SHARKEY TO PROCEED WITH ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP ON.

NOW REMIND ME AGAIN EXACTLY SAY RULES, RULES AND REGULATIONS.