* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:03] GOOD EVENING. I'M ROSS PORE, CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS AUGUST 27TH, 2025, AND IT IS 6:06 PM WE ARE AT AUSTIN CITY HALL IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. ROOM NUMBER 1, 1 0 1 AT 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS, SEVEN EIGHT SEVEN ZERO ONE. I WILL NOW CALL THE ROLE COMMISSIONER PRETI PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LOWE I KNOW IS ABSENT. UH, COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN. HE WILL BE HERE. UP. YOU'RE PRESENT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER KING HERE. COMMISSIONER KEEL IS ABSENT. WE KNOW. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CASTOW NOT HERE. COMMISSIONER MAT TURN HERE. VICE CHAIR SHARKEY. HERE. CHAIR EY HERE. OKAY. WE HAVE A QUORUM. UH, NO ONE IS ATTENDING. VIRTUALLY I NEED TO ANNOUNCE A CORRECTION TO THE AGENDA. ITEM THREE AND FIVE. CONCERN, A COMPLAINT FILED BY ANDREW, FILED BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST MEGAN HILBURN HERNDON. THE AGENDA STATES THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON AUGUST 18TH, 2025. HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2025. LET THE AGENDA REFLECT THAT THE COMPLAINT FILED BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST MEGAN HILBURN. HERNDON WAS FILED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2025. [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL] UH, NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS. I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE ONE PERSON WHO SIGNED UP. YOU'RE MR. RIVERA. OKAY. IF YOU COULD SIT AND, UH, INTRODUCE YOURSELF. UH, PUSH THE LITTLE BUTTON SO IT COMES ON GREEN , THEN INTRODUCE YOURSELF. AND, UH, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I'M ANDREW RIVER VERA. BORN, RAISED, STAYING ON TOPLESS DISTRICT THREE. I AM ALSO A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF CITY, OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS. I COME BEFORE YOU BECAUSE I FEEL THAT I NEED TO CONVEY TO YOU THE REASONS I'M BRINGING THESE COMPLAINTS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. I FEEL I'M BEING RETALIATED ALSO AGAINST BY CITY MANAGEMENT FOR DOING SO, INCLUDING MY TERMINATION. THE, I WAS A LIAISON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR EIGHT YEARS. CITY MANAGEMENT, UTILIZING WRITTEN REPRIMANDS REMOVED ME FROM THAT POSITION FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF, OF MAKING ME CHOOSE BETWEEN A RETIREMENT AGREEMENT TO RELEASE, WHICH WOULD MAKE ME DROP MY COMPLAINTS AGAINST CITY EMPLOYEES IN EXCHANGE FOR ALMOST A YEAR'S OF SALARY. ALONG WITH MY BENEFITS, MY, AGAIN, HERE IS MS. UH, SIN STATING I WOULD HAVE TO RELEASE ALL MY CLAIMS. I OPTED TO CHOOSE FOR THE AUSTIN ENERGY POSITION, WHICH WAS THE OTHER OPTION, A DEMOTION AND A TRANSFER. IN DOING SO, I TOOK FMLA AND SHORT-TERM DISABILITY DUE TO THE TRAUMA I EXPERIENCED PRIOR TO STARTING THE ROLE. UM, I, UM, EXPERIENCED ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION DURING THAT TIME. I WAS TOLD BY CITY MANAGEMENT THAT THEY ARE NOT GONNA REVIEW MY COMPLAINTS. THEY'RE NOT GONNA ASSIGN AN INVESTIGATOR. MR. JOHN FORTUNE WENT ON TO SAY THAT I CAN TAKE IT UP WITH ANY OTHER ENTITY. WHEN I WENT, STARTED MY ROLE FOR AUSTIN ENERGY, I WAS TOLD THAT I WOULD BE DISCHARGED FROM THE DEPARTMENT. WHEN I ASKED TO MEET OR WHEN THERE WAS A MEETING WITH MR. KHAN, HE SAID HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT MY RETURNING TO WORK AND I WOULD HAVE TO UNDERGO HIS PSYCHE EVAL WITH A DOCTOR. THEIR CHOOSING, ALTHOUGH I HAD ALREADY PROVIDED THE APPROPRIATE DOCTOR'S, UH, PAPERWORK, THE DOCTOR THEY SELECTED SAID I WAS FIT FOR DUTY AND RETURNED TO WORK. THERE IT IS. THERE'S HIS, UH, VER YET THE DEPARTMENT WENT FORWARD WITH DISCHARGING. I WENT AND SPOKE WITH, OR I SPOKE WITH DR. REGEL AND THE, THE, THIS IS OUR CONVERSATION, RIGHT? YOU'RE RIGHT. THE DETERMINATION WAS FIT FOR DUTY. YEAH. FIT FOR DUTY. UM, SO THIS IS, UH, SOME OF THE VERBIAGE THAT WAS IN THE DOCUMENT, AND IT SAYS THE GENERAL MANAGER REVIEWED THE ACCOMMODATIONS IDENTIFIED IN YOUR FITNESS OR DUTY ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUDED THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO RETURN TO WORK WITH OR WITHOUT [00:05:01] REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS. UH, AND, UH, STEWART, MR. ENA, THOSE ARE YOUR THREE MINUTES. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE'D NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS FROM A BEFORE. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WOULD GO TO BAT FOR ME. COMMISSIONERS, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO GO BAT FOR ME. I'M ASKING YOU TO GO BACK FOR THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. WE NOW HAVE MR. RIVERA SPEAKING ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR FOR THREE MINUTES. SO THIS IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU HAVE JURISDICTION. UH, NO, NO. UM, OVER, UM, DIRECTORY LAUREN MIDDLETON PRATT, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE THAT, UH, THEY CONCURRED THAT YOU DO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER LAUREN MIDDLETON PRATT, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I ALSO, AGAIN, INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT YOUR FEBRUARY 13TH, 2019 AGENDA WHERE THIS BODY TOOK ACTION OR, OR, UH, HEARD A HEARING AGAINST THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES ON THE MERITS AND DISPOSED OF THE MATTER ON THE MERITS. IT WAS ALSO HEARING THE, UH, ABUSE OF POWER OR ABUSE OF OFFICE. SO YOU CERTAINLY DO HAVE JURISDICTION, UM, AND I, I, AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE CITY MANAGEMENT, UH, TEASER, BROAD MAX IS WILLING TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL MALFEASANCE, THEN WE HAVE A SERIOUS CREVICE IN THE FOUNDATION OF THE OVERSIGHT OF OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. AND LASTLY, WE HAVE MR. RIVERA SPEAKING ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ANDREW RABORN, RAISED IN STAYING ON TOP OF DISTRICT THREE. THIS MATTER, UH, IS IN REGARDS TO A ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WHO IS ACTING AND ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WHO YOU ALSO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER. UM, THERE'S NO QUESTION. IT'S PRIMA FOSSE AGAIN. YOU'VE, THIS BODY HAS TAKEN, UM, UH, THEY'VE HEARD MERITS ON A SIMILAR CASE. AGAIN, THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AGREES. AND SO IT, THERE'S REALLY NO QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU HAVE JURISDICTION. UM, IF YOU THERE, IF YOU, AGAIN, IF THIS BODY IS NOT THE AVENUE TO BE THE CHECKS AND BALANCE, THEN THIS BODY AND COUNSEL NEED TO TAKE POST HASTE REMEDY TO CORRECT THAT. AND YOU THANK YOU, SIR. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OCCURS. THAT IS THE END OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. THANK YOU. UH, ITEM ONE ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING. UH, WE'LL PUT THAT OFF TILL LATER IN THE MEETING. ITEMS TWO AND THREE [EXECUTIVE SESSION] ON THE AGENDA REGARD THE COMMISSION GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION. THE COMMISSION WILL ENTER CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEMS TWO AND THREE 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 THE FOLLOWING, A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, EXCUSE ME, REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH THREE DASH FIVE POWERS AND DUTIES AND LAST LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT BY A CITY EMPLOYEE IN THE POSITION HELD BY THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 6TH, 2025 BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST LAUREN ELIZABETH MIDDLETON PRATT, AND A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH THREE DASH FIVE POWERS AND DUTIES AND LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 63 PROHIBITION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY A CITY EMPLOYEE IN THE POSITION HELD BY THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2025 BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST MEGAN HILBURN. HERNDON. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GLOWING GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? HEARING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION. THE TIME IS 6:16 PM [00:10:08] WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION. THE TIME IS 7:07 PM ENCLOS SESSION. WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH THREE DASH FIVE POWERS AND DUTIES AND LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT BY A CITY EMPLOYEE IN THE POSITION HELD BY THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 6TH, 2025 BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST LAUREN ELIZABETH MIDDLETON PRATT, AND A JURISDICTIONAL TERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH THREE DASH FIVE POWERS AND DUTIES AND LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 63 PROHIBITION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY A CITY EMPLOYEE IN THE POSITION HELD BY THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2025 BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST MEGAN HILBURN HERNDON. WE'LL NOW MOVE [4. Discussion and possible action on a jurisdictional determination regarding the Chair’s initial decision that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over City Code Section 2-3-5 (Powers and Duties) and lacks jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a violation of Section 2-7-62 (Standards of Conduct), by a City employee in the position held by the Respondent, as alleged in the complaint filed on June 6, 2025, by Andrew Rivera against Lauren Elisabeth Middleton-Pratt.] ON TO ITEM FOUR AND TODAY'S AGENDA. ITEM FOUR, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH THREE DASH FIVE POWERS AND DUTIES AND LECTURE JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT BY A CITY EMPLOYEE IN THE POSITION HELD BY THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 6TH, 2025 BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST LAUREN ELIZABETH MIDDLETON PRATT. SO IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION CHAIR VICE, UH, VICE CHAIR EY. I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE CHAIR'S INITIAL, UH, JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ON ITEM FOUR. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. THERE'S A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PERTTI. UH, DISCUSSION. CAN I ASK, UH, MR. RIVERA A QUESTION? MM-HMM . GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER ANDREW RIVERA. THANK YOU FOR THE RECORDING. UH, MR. RIVERA, YOU BROUGHT UP SOME CONVERSATION WITH THE, THE AUDITOR RELATED TO, UH, A STATEMENT THAT YOU BELIEVE INDICATED THAT WE DO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THIS. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? DID YOU FILE SOME TYPE OF, COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE ON HOW THAT CONVERSATION WENT, WHAT YOU BELIEVE THE TAKEAWAY WAS, COMMISSIONER? YES. UM, THE EMAIL, UH, THAT I RECEIVED WAS AN INQUIRY. I POST TO THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, DOES THIS BODY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A DIRECTOR? AND THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE WROTE OR EMAILED ME BACK. IN PART, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CURRENT AND FORMER CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD INCLUDE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR LEVEL EMPLOYEES. I RECEIVED THAT E EMAIL AT 1:49 PM TODAY FROM MR. MICHAEL ECKERT AND THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? UH, JUST A A DISCUSSION POINT, UH, I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE DECISION. I, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE, MR. RIVERA HAS STATED THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY, THEN THERE IS A CLEAR, UH, DISCONNECT BECAUSE NOBODY MAY HAVE AUTHORITY. UH, I BELIEVE THAT MY READING OF THE CODE, THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE CLEARLY HAS, UH, AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OVER THESE MATTERS. AND SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A MISS A MISSING LINKAGE THERE FOR THESE EMPLOYEES IN IN PARTICULAR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU FEEL HEARD. THANK YOU. CHAIR, UH, POPERY. UM, I ALSO RECEIVED A EMAIL FROM A CHIEF INVESTIGATION, UM, OFFICER IN THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, UH, MR. MALLOY STATING THAT WHEN I FILE [00:15:01] THIS COMPLAINT TO THE AUDITOR OFFICE OR TO YOU ALL DIRECTLY, AND THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE COMPLAINT CAN BE SIMULTANEOUS, THEIR INVESTIGATION IS INDEPENDENT FROM MY COMPLAINT TO THIS BODY BECAUSE BY CODE I AM A COMPLAINANT WHO CAN FILE DIRECTLY TO THIS BODY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD JUST QUICKLY LIKE TO ADDRESS, UH, THAT COMMENT. I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE WE CAN CONCURRENTLY RUN AN INVESTIGATION, I WAS SIMPLY SPEAKING TO, IF WE DON'T, THERE MUST BE A LACK OF OVERSIGHT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. IF WE DON'T, THE AUDITORS ARE STILL ABLE TO RUN THEIR INVESTIGATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GIMME ONE MINUTE HERE. UH, MS. RIVERA, I HAVE A QUESTION. SORRY. MAKE YOU KEEP MOVING BACK AND FORTH. UH, NO, I APPRECIATE THE INQUIRIES. THANK YOU. WAS THE AUDITOR'S ANSWER TO YOU SPECIFIC TO COMPLAINT OF VIOL? WHAT IS IT? I'M SORRY. ALL FOUR? YES. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. I'M SORRY, CHAIR. MAY I HAVE YOUR PERMISSION TO ASK MR. MR? YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MS. WEB, UM, WAS THE, UH, QUESTION THAT YOU POSED TO THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AND THEIR RESPONSE, UH, SPECIFIC TO A COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS? CORRECT. OKAY. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND, UM, CORRECT. YEAH. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. SO, I'M SORRY, DO YOU MEAN SECTION 2, 3 5 OR ARTICLE FOUR, THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS? MY APOLOGIES. I'M TRYING TO FIND THE EXACT VERBIAGE THAT I SENT THE AUDITOR. THAT'S FINE. UM, MR. ECKARD, THANK YOU FOR, OR EXCUSE ME, I WON'T, UH, TOUCH UPON THAT. UH, MY INQUIRY WAS WHETHER THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS DIRECTION DUR JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ALLEGATION OF VIOLATION SECTION 2 7 6 2 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR ANY QUESTIONS? I'D JUST LIKE TO, UM, POINT FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS, UH, MENTIONED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A PREVIOUS CASE WITHIN THE, UH, ERC, UM, AND THAT THE, UH, 2, 3 5 HAS BEEN AMENDED, UM, IN 2019, WHICH, UH, AFFECTED OUR JURISDICTION THERE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS IN THE RECORD THAT, UM, THERE WAS THAT AMENDMENT, UM, WHICH AFFECTED OUR JURISDICTION. MS. RIVERA CHAIR, ANDREW RIVERA. UM, SO THAT, UM, COUNSEL ACTION WAS DIRECTIVE TO THE AUDITOR. IT WAS IN REGARDS TO THEIR REPORT ONLY, THAT THEIR REPORT MUST FIRST GO TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR COMMENT. IT DIDN'T AFFECT ANYTHING ELSE. IT DIDN'T AFFECT COMPLAINTS DIRECTLY TO THIS BODY. IT WAS ONLY DIRECTIVE TO THE AUDITOR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR ANY MORE QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN. SO MY UNDERSTANDING, LOOKING AT A PORTION OF THE CITY CODE ABOUT WHAT DISCUSSES THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, SECTION 2 7 27 IMPOSES LIMITS ON THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. THE PRIOR SECTION 26 PROVIDES SOME JURISDICTION, AND THEN 2 7 27 PROVIDES A CARVEOUT. THE CARVEOUT, UH, INCLUDES ANY EMPLOYEE DESCRIBED IN WHAT IT SAYS HERE IN THIS SECTION. THE LITERAL VERBIAGE IS SECTION 2 3 5 L TWO. THAT WAS ADDED IN IN 2019. UM, YES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SECTION AS IT STANDS TODAY, 2 3 5 L TWO, THAT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. 'CAUSE L TWO DOESN'T IDENTIFY ANY PARTIES. HOWEVER, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE IN, IN, IN ANY INTERPRETATION OF A BODY OF LAW. I MEAN, [00:20:01] THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THESE CANONS AND THEY ARE BAKED EXPLICITLY INTO TEXAS STATUTE, WHICH I DON'T THINK THAT THAT APPLIES DIRECTLY HERE. BUT I THINK THE SPIRIT CANON SHOULD BE APPLIED TO INTERPRETATION OF ANY BODY OF LAW IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD ASSUME THAT SECTIONS OF CODE ARE, ARE MEANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT NONE OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR APPENDIX, NONE OF NONE OF IT'S NON-FUNCTIONAL. AND IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A SITUATION WHERE IT APPEARS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S WRITTEN IN THE CODE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING, YOU TRY TO SORT THAT OUT BY LOOKING TO THINGS INCLUDING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PRIOR TO 2024, CONSIDERING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, TWO DASH THREE DASH FIVE L TWO DID SAY, DID LIST SOME EMPLOYEES, BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE. WELL, AND IT'S, IT'S STILL IN THERE. IT'S JUST BEEN RE CODIFIED, UM, OR RE ENUMERATED IN A CODIFICATION. UM, BUT FUNCTIONALLY, ANYONE WHO IS NOT A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR A DIRECT APPOINTEE OR A DIRECT EMPLOYEE THAT'S COUNCIL MEMBER. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WITHIN, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES SENSE TO LOOK AT THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSTRUE THIS SECTION TO CONTINUE TO MEAN THE PEOPLE THAT IT WAS POINTING TO PRIOR TO THIS REMUNERATION IN 2024. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I THINK IT IS REASONABLE TO INTERPRET OUR SCOPE AS BE AS NOT INCLUDING JUST RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES. I MEAN, I'M CURIOUS ON YOUR TAKE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. GOOD MCGOVERN. SO THAT SECTION IS A REFERENCE TO WHEN THE MCS, UM, RULES WERE ADOPTED BY, UH, THE VOTERS AND CITY CHARTER AND IMPLEMENT. AND THE RULES ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. ONLY CERTAIN EMPLOYEES ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE MCS RULES. DIRECTORS ARE NOT, UM, EMPLOYEES, UM, GOVERNED BY THE MCS RULES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. ANYTHING ABOVE, UM, DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS, UM, BUT ANYTHING BASICALLY ABOVE A MANAGER, UM, AN EXECUTIVE LEVEL, UM, IS PURVIEW OF THIS BODY. WELL, I, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE 'CAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS TO WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING, AND CERTAINLY WITHIN THE OLD L TWO, ANYONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL, UH, EXCUSE ME. COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN, DO YOU MIND SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? THANK YOU. SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE OLD L TWO DOES EXCLUDE ANYONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM OR THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM. I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PANTOMIME TO ME, BUT GIMME JUST A MOMENT. UM, IT DOES EXCLUDE PEOPLE WHO ARE PARTS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES ANYONE EXCLUDES ANYONE NOT LISTED IN THE SECTION ABOVE IT SECTION ONE. AND SO, I MEAN, LITERALLY WHAT THAT SAYS IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S THAT SECTION WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT THE AUDITOR'S JURISDICTION, AND THEN IT'S LEVERAGED HERE IN 2 7 27. AND SO IT IS LEVERAGING THAT LIST HERE. I MEAN, IT BASICALLY SAYS, IT BASICALLY LIMITS OUR JURISDICTION TO THE PEOPLE LISTED IN WHAT WAS L ONE. AND SO I, I, UNFORTUNATELY, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THAT IS THE SCOPE OF OUR JURISDICTION COMMISSIONER RETURN? YES, I THINK I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO QUICKLY ADDRESS, UH, MR. RIVERA STATED THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DIRECT THE AUDITOR TO, UH, CHANGE THEIR PRACTICE. IT WAS NOT DIRECTED TO THE ERC. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THAT LAST, UH, NOTE FROM COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN THAT OUR RULES LEVERAGE THE AUDITOR'S RULES IS THE WHAT CONTROLS OUR JURISDICTION. OUR RULES LEVERAGE THE AUDITOR'S RULES, WHICH LEVERAGE THESE ORDINANCES TO AFFECT THE WILL OF CITY COUNCIL. SO I, I THINK THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT WE DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION HERE BECAUSE THE AUDITOR HAS JURISDICTION AND THERE WAS SOME ATTEMPT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THROUGH THESE MULTIPLE ORDINANCES. THANK YOU. ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? [00:25:01] UH, THEN I WILL CALL A VOTE COMMISSIONER FREDDY AYE. COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN? AYE. COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN? AYE. COMMISSIONER KING? AYE. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? AYE. COMMISSIONER MCC TURN. AYE. COMMISSIONER SHARKEY? AYE. COMMISSIONER CHAIR, POEY AYE. UM, 3 4 5 6. UH, IT IS UNANIMOUS AMONG THE COMMISSIONER PRESENT. EIGHT TO ZERO. SO THE MOTION PASSES. UH, ITEM [5. Discussion and possible action on a jurisdictional determination regarding the Chair’s initial decision that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over City Code Section 2-3-5 (Powers and Duties) and lacks jurisdiction over a complaint alleging violations of Section 2-7-62 (Standards of Conduct) and 2-7-63 (Prohibition on Conflict of Interest), by a City employee in the position held by the Respondent, as alleged in the complaint filed on August 18, 2025, by Andrew Rivera against Meagan Hilburn-Herndon.] FIVE, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE CHAIR'S INITIAL DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION OVER CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH THREE DASH FIVE POWERS AND DUTIES AND LACKS JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 63 PROHIBITION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY A CITY EMPLOYEE IN THE POSITION HELD BY THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2025 BY ANDREW RIVERA AGAINST MEGAN HILBURN HERNDON. SO WE'RE OPEN FOR, UH, A MOTION CHAIR. COMMISSIONER MCC. COMMISSIONER PRETY, PLEASE DO. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR THAT WE LACK JURISDICTION. AND IS THERE A SECOND ON THIS COMPLAINT FOR SIMILAR REASONS AS WE JUST DISCUSSED? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? CAN I CONFIRM WHO SECONDED? THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD. THAT'S COMMISSIONER MATER. THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH A, UM, WITH A VOTE. COMMISSIONER FREDDY AYE. COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN AYE. COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN. AYE. COMMISSIONER KING? AYE. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? AYE. COMMISSIONER MCC TURN. AYE. COMMISSIONER SHARKEY. AYE. COMMISSIONER, ER RIGHT AGAIN, WE HAVE UNANIMOUS VOTE EIGHT TO NOTHING, UH, AMONG ALL THE MEMBERS PRESENT. AND SO THE MOTION PASSES. UH, WE COULD TAKE UP [1. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Special meeting on July 30, 2025.] THE MINUTES NOW, I GUESS. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY MOTION ON THE MINUTES? I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PRETI AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR SHARKEY. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? OKAY. UH, THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. COMMISSIONER PRETI AYE. COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN? AYE. COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN? AYE. COMMISSIONER KING? AYE. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? AYE. COMMISSIONER MAT TURN. AYE. COMMISSIONER SHARKEY? AYE. COMMISSIONER, EY I AGAIN, I HAVE EIGHT TO ZERO UNANIMOUS VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. UH, NOW ITEM SIX, [6. Discussion on Commission authority to bring forth complaints: Review of relevant bylaws and open discussion on whether the ERC wants to initiate this practice in future meetings] DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO BRING FORTH COMPLAINTS, REVIEW OF, UH, RELEVANT BYLAWS AND OPEN DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE ERC WANTS TO INITIATE THIS PRACTICE IN FUTURE MEANS. THIS IS SORT OF A WORKING, UH, A REPORT IN PROGRESS ON A WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER RETURN. YEAH. SO COMMISSIONER PRETY AND I ARE ON THIS WORKING GROUP. UH, COMMISSIONER LOW IS AS WELL, BUT IT'S NOT PRESENT. SO I'LL TALK FOR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE SEE THE, UH, THE WORKING GROUP PROGRESSING TO, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE, WE MET AND WE DISCUSSED, UH, POTENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT SOME OTHER COMPLAINT PROCESSING, UH, CHANGES THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT TO THE RULES. SO I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND THEN I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE CAME DOWN ON AS A DRAFT FORM OF WHAT A COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINT LOOKS LIKE. OKAY. SO, UH, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, I WANT TO SAY WE LOOKED [00:30:01] AT THE, THE COMPLAINT PROCESSING AND, UH, AT OUR REMIT AS, UH, AS A WORKING GROUP TO ADDRESS COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS. AND WE DID ARTICULATE TO OURSELVES AND POTENTIALLY NEED TO ARTICULATE TO THE COMMISSION THAT, UH, THERE ARE OTHER CHANGES TO THESE RULES THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT. WHILE WE'RE ALREADY IN THE WEEDS OF CORRECTING THIS, SPECIFICALLY, HOW WE CAN HANDLE, UH, COMPLAINTS BASED ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, UH, WHERE THERE IS AN ADMISSION, UH, BEFORE A PRELIMINARY HEARING AND POTENTIALLY A WAIVER OF THE NEED TO DO A PRELIMINARY HEARING. WE ARE, WE TALKED AMONG OURSELVES ABOUT THIS IDEA THAT WE OFTEN GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AROUND ELECTION SEASON THAT ARE ALL THE SAME TYPE OF COMPLAINT. AND WHEN YOU TALK TO THE COMPLAINANTS, THEY ALL AGREE GENERALLY THAT THESE CLERICAL ERRORS POTENTIALLY HAPPENED. UH, AND NOBODY IS PARTICULARLY ARGUING THAT THINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN. THEY'RE ARGUING THAT THEY WANT A SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR THAT THEY MAY NEED SOME AVENUE TO SPEAK TO US AND AND BE HEARD. SO WE LOOKED AT THE ERC RULES AND TRIED TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A WAY WHERE WE COULD STAY WITHIN THE CITY CODE AND THE RULES AS WRITTEN AND GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADMIT THAT THEY HAVE DONE SOMETHING, POTENTIALLY TELL US WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE THEIR OUTCOME TO BE, AND WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY HEARING. THAT WAY WE COULD COME RIGHT INTO A FINAL HEARING WITHOUT HAVING TO DRAG PEOPLE IN. AND WITH THAT WAIVER, GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO NOT ATTEND, UH, AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE IT, IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANT TO ATTEND, THEIR COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. UH, UH, WELL, THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT HAVE TO, BUT IT GIVES, WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND THAT TO THE, UH, COMPLAINANT. IF YOU JUST WANT TO GIVE US A COMPLAINT AND HAVE US HEAR IT AND NOT SPEAK, AND YOUR RESPONDENT DOES NOT ARGUE WITH YOU THAT THEY VIOLATED CITY CODE, THEN IT IS POTENTIALLY EXPEDIENT OF US TO NOT REQUIRE SOMEONE TO COME IN AND SPEAK ON THE ISSUE IF NO ONE DISAGREES THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE WRITTEN UP. WE'LL PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE, UM, COMMISSION IF THIS COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT OUR WORKING GROUP HAS THAT ABILITY. I DO THINK CURRENTLY OUR WORKING GROUP IS COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS. AND SO, SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO ASK THAT QUESTION. CAN WE MAKE THIS SUGGESTION ANY DISCUSSION? AND LET ME ASK AN UM, INNOCENT QUESTION. IF I FOLLOWED YOU CORRECTLY, MY MEMORY IS THAT WHAT WE ALSO WANTED TO LOOK INTO WAS CASES WHERE, FOR INSTANCE, LET'S SAY THERE ARE 18 CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, I'M MAKING A NUMBER UP AND WE GET COMPLAINTS ON THREE OF THEM, BUT THE OTHER 15 MADE THE SAME MISTAKE. IT'S JUST NO ONE FILED A COMPLAINT. WE COULD SORT OF BRING THEM ALL TOGETHER, RIGHT? YES. SO THAT ISSUE IS COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS, RIGHT? AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE SQUARELY WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP'S PER REMIT TO ADDRESS THAT. AND I'LL ADDRESS THAT AFTER WE DISCUSS THIS OTHER ITEM THAT I THINK IS RELEVANT OF DO WE HAVE THE COMMISSION'S PERMISSION? DO WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WILL BE DOING THIS, AND CAN WE PROCEED WITH ISSUING THAT TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION? AND I DO NOT BELIEVE WE AS A WORKING GROUP KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. UH, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION ON PART OF ANY COMMISSIONER, THE WORKING GROUP GOING AHEAD ON THAT? MS. WEBSTER? THANK YOU, UH, CHAIR. UM, CAROLINE WEBSTER LAW DEPARTMENT. SO A WORKING GROUP UNDER CHAPTER TWO. ONE IS A GROUP THAT IS CREATED BY A BORDER COMMISSION, UH, BASICALLY TO, AND IT'S TASKED WITH A SPECIFIC SORT OF PROJECT OR ISSUE. AND WHEN THEY, THEY GO AND THEY DO THEIR WORK, AND WHEN THEY COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE WITH THEIR FINAL REPORT, THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY DISSOLVED. BUT THE, THE, WHEN THE GROUP IS CREATED, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TASKED WITH SOMETHING SPECIFIC. IN THIS CASE, THE GROUP WAS CREATED TO TALK ABOUT THAT PORTION OF THE RULES OR DEVELOPING RULES FOR COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS. UM, SO I WOULD SAY YOU ARE LIMITED TO THAT. UH, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION COULDN'T, UM, CREATE ANOTHER WORKING GROUP OR VOTE TO EXPAND, UM, YOUR PURVIEW. BUT UNTIL SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENS, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO JUST THOSE RULES RELATIVE TO COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS. THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR OUR KNOWLEDGE, IF WE DID NOT TAKE THE STEP OF PUTTING [00:35:01] AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO IN THE FUTURE VOTE ON EXPANDING THE REMIT OR THE, THE PURVIEW, UM, IS IT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE WORKING GROUP TO WHEN WE MAKE OUR FINAL REPORT, SAY, HEY, SAY WE ALSO THINK THIS OTHER ISSUE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED WITHOUT GIVING A RECOMMENDATION ON THE LANGUAGE? YES. YOU, YOU COULD DO THAT. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION CAN DISCUSS CHANGES TO ITS RULES REGARDLESS, EVEN IF THERE'S NO WORKING GROUP, CERTAINLY SPECIFICALLY. SO UNDER THE AUSPICES OF, OF YOUR SPECIFIC WORKING GROUP RIGHT NOW, YOU COULD STILL HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW ELSE TO, UM, AMEND OR CHANGE THE RULES. SO THAT, THAT'S FINE AS LONG AS WE'RE POSTED FOR THAT. OKAY. UM, BUT YES, TO ANSWER YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION, IF YOU AS A WORKING GROUP THROUGH YOUR WORK KIND OF IDENTIFY OR WE, WE FEEL LIKE OTHER CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE AND THEN HAVE A, YOU KNOW, AND THEN EITHER YOU FORM ANOTHER WORKING GROUP OR WHATEVER YOU DO. BUT YES, YOU, THAT WOULD, YOU COULD CERTAINLY MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION OR SUGGESTION. OKAY. SO I, I JUST WANNA SAY TO THE GROUP, UH, ON THAT POINT, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE NOW IDENTIFIED THAT THIS ITEM IS NOT RELATED TO THE ITEM THAT IS ITEM SIX. UH, THIS IS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, WHICH WE MAY WANT TO HAVE, BUT ON ITEM SIX, I CAN GO INTO COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS IF WE WOULD LIKE. PLEASE. OKAY. SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS, WE WERE, WE WERE TRYING TO SQUARE THE IDEA OF A COMPLAINANT THAT IS NOT SOMEONE WHO CAN COME SIT IN FRONT OF US, UH, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF RULES THAT SPECIFICALLY REFER TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMPLAINANT. UH, NOW WE WILL SOCIALIZE A DOCUMENT THAT WE'VE ALL, WE'VE BEEN PUTTING OUR OR IN AND PUTTING LANGUAGE ON THE PAGE. BUT I, I THINK AS AN OVERVIEW, UH, I'D LIKE TO COME BACK NEXT, UH, NEXT MEETING WITH A FLOW CHART. BUT AS AN OVERVIEW, I WOULD SAY WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROCESS WHERE, IN THE SAME WAY THAT TWO COMMISSIONERS CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. TWO COMMISSIONERS. SO ONE, ONE MOVING COMMISSIONER AND A SECONDING COMMISSIONER CAN INITIATE A COMPLAINT. AT THAT POINT, WE REALLY JUST PLUG RIGHT INTO THE PROCESS, SAME TIMELINES, SAME DEADLINES, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF TWO OF US HAVE PUT IT UP TO A VOTE AND THE REST OF THE, OF THE, UH, COMMISSION HAVE VOTED ON IT, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION. WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT, THAT WE DO NOT NEED A PRELIMINARY HEARING BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL, AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF US AGREED TO PURSUE THIS. AND SO I'LL, I WILL COME BACK WITH A FLOW CHART, BUT THAT'S THE GENERAL IDEA. WE AS A BODY CAN, THROUGH MOTIONS PRACTICE, SIMPLY PUT AN ITEM ON AND ACCEPT THAT ITEM AS A COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINT AND FOLLOW THE SAME DEADLINES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN CITY CODE. THANK YOU. ANY MORE? UH, ANY DISCUSSION? SO YOU'RE, UH, YOU'RE FREE TO GO AHEAD WITH YOUR DELIBERATIONS. UM, AND I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY MY, MY RECOMMENDATION IS WHEN WE GET TO, TO FUTURE ITEMS THAT WE SIMPLY PUT THIS ITEM BACK ON FOR NEXT, UH, MEETING. AND I WILL COME WITH A FLOW CHART. GREAT, THANK YOU. UH, ITEM SEVEN ON THE [7. Discussion and possible action regarding the necessity of continuing the Working Group to Prepare Calendar of Commission Duties and Responsibilities.] AGENDA DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE NECESSITY OF CONTINUING THE WORKING GROUP TO PREPARE CALENDAR OF COMMISSION DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. UH, WE BROUGHT THIS UP BRIEFLY A FEW, FEW MEETINGS AGO, AND COMMISSIONER TURN WANTED TO LOOK INTO THE, UH, SORT OF ENABLING MOTION THAT WE MADE WHEN WE ESTABLISHED THAT WORKING GROUP, UH, WHICH WAS I THINK BEFORE I WAS ON. SO I DON'T KNOW. UH, SO COMMISSIONER TURN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT? YES. SO I WANT TO START BY SAYING THERE IS CURRENTLY A WORKING GROUP. UM, I CANNOT FIND ANY INSTANCE WHERE WE HAVE DISBANDED WORKING GROUP TWO, WHICH WAS THE WORKING GROUP THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019. UH, BY, IT APPEARS BY THE MINUTES, UH, TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM. UH, I CANNOT FIND A RESOLUTION FOR IT. UH, BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THAT IN AUGUST OF 20, UH, 2024, WE VOTED AGAIN TO STAND UP A COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY ON LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS, HAS QUITE A BIT OF OVERLAP. AND THE ONLY COMMISSIONER REMAINING ON THAT COM, THAT WORKING GROUP IS COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY. UH, STANTON ADAMS WAS ALSO ON THE WORKING GROUP, AND SHE'S NO LONGER WITH US. SO, UH, I WILL SAY THAT THAT APPEARS TO BE THE HISTORY OF THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT CAN WE LOOK AT THE BYLAWS, LARGER WRITTEN, WRITTEN LARGE FOR ISSUES? IT, IT APPEARS THAT WE HAVE TWO WORKING GROUPS. ONE OF THEM HAS NO, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND ONE OF THEM HAS ONE COMMISSIONER. UH, THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS FOR US. [00:40:01] MY UNDERSTANDING, EXCUSE ME, MY UNDERSTANDING DEEP INTO MY MEMORY BANK HERE, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, UM, WE WERE BRIEFLY TALKING IN A COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT THE WORKING GROUPS, AND THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS GONNA LOOK INTO WHAT OUR PERIODIC DUTIES WERE TO DO THINGS DURING A CALENDAR YEAR. UM, AND THE ONLY PERSON ON THE COMMISSION AT , THE WORKING GROUP AT THE TIME, WAS FORMER COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS. I VOLUNTEERED TO HELP HER. UH, WE BEGAN TO LOOK INTO IT. AND OUR UNDERSTANDING, UH, FORMER COMMISSIONER STANTON ADAMS AND I WAS, WE WERE SIMPLY LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, UM, EVERY YEAR WE NEED TO APPROVE CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT CITY COUNCIL CAMPAIGNS AND FORUMS. THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THAT WE HAD TO DO AND, AND, AND HER UNDERSTANDING, AND MINE WAS THAT'S ALL WE WERE LOOKING AT. AND THEN I, I THEN LEARNED THROUGH ANOTHER COMMISSIONER AT THE TIME THAT, UM, A STAFF DOES A GOOD JOB OF KEEPING ON TOP OF THAT AND THAT THOSE THINGS COME UP ANYWAY WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. AND SO WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED A FEW MEETINGS AGO THAT MAYBE WE NO LONGER NEEDED THE, IT WAS NOT CONNECTED TO THE BYLAWS. OH, OKAY. EXCUSE ME. SO I DO WANNA SAY IN JULY OF, OF 2022, CHAIR SORAN MADE A MOTION FOR, UH, THAT WORKING GROUP, THE, THE WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS PROCEDURES AND OTHER ISSUES, WHICH INCLUDED, UH, THE CALENDAR AS ONE OF ITS TASKS. WHAT WAS THE NAME AGAIN, OF I'M SORRY. THAT, THAT WERE YOU UP? UH, SO AT THE TIME, THEY WERE JUST TO ADDRESSED AS WORKING GROUP ONE AND TWO, OH, UH, WORKING GROUP TWO HAD THE TASKING FOR SCOPE OF WORK OF COMMISSIONS INCLUDING EFFECTIVENESS, PAST CASES, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE CALENDAR. AND, BUT IN JULY OF 2022, CHAIR SOBER ON MADE A MOTION TO RENAME AND RETASK THE WORKING GROUP ON SANCTIONS, PROCEDURES AND OTHER ISSUES TO BE LIMITED BY SUBJECT MATTER TO POTENTIALLY TO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO SEVEN AND COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES. SO I BELIEVE THAT IN JULY OF 2022, YOU GUYS WROTE OUT THAT CALENDAR, UH, PART, UH, OH OF THE, BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, NINE ZERO AND AFFIRMED TO JETTISON ABOUT HALF OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT WORKING GROUP. THANK YOU. YOU'VE DONE SOME GOOD HISTORICAL RESEARCH. I WAS NOT THE COMMISSION ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT POINT. UH, I, UM, I VERY SIMPLY OFFERED TO HELP FORMER COMMISSIONER STAMP ADAMS LOOK AT THE CALENDAR PART THINKING THAT THAT YES. SO I, I, AND I MAY BE WRONG. THIS IS, I HAVE READ AT THIS 0.8 YEARS OF MINUTES, UH, AND IT, IT IS A LITTLE MURKY, BUT I, IN THE TWO YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT. UM, IT APPEARS THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A WORKING GROUP THAT WAS ADDRESSING IT, BUT THAT THEY VOTED TO GET RID OF THAT ITEM. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A WORKING GROUP TO DO THAT. SO IF WE'RE, I BELIEVE IF YOUR SUGGESTION IS THAT WE GET RID OF IT, I THINK WE MAY HAVE ALREADY DONE SO, UM, IF THE, IF THE STAFF IS GOOD ABOUT IT AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT SEEING A, A NEED FOR IT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A WORKING GROUP CURRENTLY THAT I CAN FIND ADDRESSING IT. ANY COMMENTS, THEN WE CAN PROCEED MAYBE WITH THE, ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WORKING GROUP ON CALENDARS NO LONGER EXISTS. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. WOULD IT BE CLEANER FOR THE RECORD TO HAVE A MOTION TO FORMALLY FORMERLY IN THAT COMMISSION? I WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION. UM, YOU'RE NOT POSTED FOR THAT. A MOTION TO DO WHAT? SO THAT WOULD'VE TO BE, TO AFFIRM THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE A WORKING GROUP ON CALENDARS OF COMMISSION DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. OH, OKAY. HOLD ON. SORRY. YES. AND SO I WILL SAY IF I'M, I DO WANNA SAY IF I'M CORRECT, THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION. IF I'M NOT CORRECT, THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HURTS TO SAY NO ONE HERE FEELS LIKE THEY ARE ON A, ON A WORKING GROUP. UH, SO THERE MAY NOT BE ONE. BUT, UH, I DO THINK THAT IF, IF, IF WE LOOK INTO IT AND I'M CORRECT, THEN THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY DISCHARGED THAT FUNCTION. OKAY. AND, AND, AND MY APOLOGIES, YOU THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE POSTING, WHICH PEOPLE WANTED TO HAVE SUCH A VOTE OR A MOTION THAT WOULD BE CONTINUATION. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE JUST CLEANER IF WE JUST WRAP THIS UP. IF WE JUST, WHAT IF WE JUST WRAPPED THIS UP AND MADE A MOTION TO, UH, IN THE WORKING THAT THAT MIGHT BE CLEAN, JUST TO CONFIRM THAT. SO YOU, I, I'LL ENTERTAIN A [00:45:01] FORMAL MOTION SINCE THAT'S MY IDEA. UH, , I, I MOVE THAT, UM, THE ERC FORMALLY DIS UM, DISCONTINUE THE WORKING GROUP TO PREPARE A CALENDAR OF COMMISSION DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA AND A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR SHARKEY. ANY DISCUSSION? WE WILL TAKE A VOTE. COMMISSIONER FREDDY AYE. COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN? AYE. COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN? AYE. COMMISSIONER KING? AYE. COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA. AYE. COMMISSIONER, UH, SECRETARY? AYE. VICE CHAIR CHEROKEE. AYE. AND MYSELF. AYE. UNANIMOUS. THAT WORKING GROUP IS OFFICIALLY ALL GONE. OKAY. UH, THERE ANY [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS? AND I'LL MAKE NOTE THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT ON THE AGENDA NEXT TIME. ANOTHER PRESENTATION BY YOU OR BY COMMISSIONER LOWE, RIGHT? YES. I, I BELIEVE ITEM SIX SHOULD BE REPLICATED, UH, TO BE ON THE FUTURE AGENDA. AND THEN I DO HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR ANOTHER ONE. UH, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO DO A MOTION TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE FUTURE AGENDA. NOW, ITEM SIX, UM, WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP ON BYLAWS THAT WAS SET UP A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO. YES. SORRY. UH, ITEM SIX IS DISCUSSION ON COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO BRING FORTH COMPLAINTS. SO THAT'S THE COMMISSION INITIATED COMPLAINTS. I JUST WANT TO, OH, I'M SORRY. I WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE WHEN I'M LOOKING HERE, ITEM SIX ALSO TALKS ABOUT BYLAWS YES. BYLAWS. AND SO I APOLOGIZE. YES. YES. COMMISSIONER MAT TURN. WOULD YOU, I SHOULD WE PHRASE THAT TO DIFFERENTIATE IT AS, UM, TO DISCUSS COMMISSION COMPLAINT PROCESS RATHER THAN RIGHT. JUST TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT THE WORKING GROUP'S PURVIEW VERSUS THIS NEW TOPIC? YES. SO I, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD STILL HAVE SIX OR, OR WHAT THE, THE TEXT OF SIX SHOULD STILL BE THERE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE WHAT, HOW WE DISCUSS A FLOW CHART OF THE SUGGESTION FOR THE, THAT IS DEFINITELY UNDER OUR PURVIEW. UH, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE AN ITEM TO DISCUSS OTHER ASPECTS OF COMPLAINT PROCESSING. UH, AND THEN I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A THIRD ITEM WHEN WE'RE DONE TALKING ABOUT THAT. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY DISCUSSION? WANNA TALK ABOUT ANOTHER ITEM? YES. I, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY APPETITE TO ASK THE AUDITORS TO COME IN AND GIVE LIKE A STAFF BRIEF ON WHAT THEY THINK OUR JURISDICTION ON THIS ITEM IS. UH, APPARENTLY THEY'VE GIVEN SOME AMOUNT OF, POTENTIALLY GIVEN SOME AMOUNT OF DIRECTION THAT CONFLICTS WITH OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING. SO I THINK THAT POTENTIALLY WE SHOULD HAVE AN ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA TO, TO MAYBE HAVE A VOTE OR, OR JUST HAVE THEM IN TO DISCUSS WHAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR JURISDICTION AND OUR JURISDICTION IS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, UH, MS. WEBSTER OR YOU AND MS. BEEZ COULD PURSUE OR DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UH, UH, YOU CAN CERTAINLY REQUEST, YOU CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO COME. RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE CERTAINLY FREE TO MAKE A REQUEST THAT THEY DO SO. BUT WE DO THAT THROUGH A FORMAL MOTION, UM, OR IS SUFFICIENT JUST TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION. YOU CAN'T MAKE A MOTION ON RIGHT NOW. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT FUTURE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. SO WHEN WE ARE WORKING ON THE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER, UM, WE CAN ADD SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AND THEN SEND IT TO YOU FOR, FOR YOUR APPROVAL OR RESHAPING OF WHATEVER. AND, AND THEN IT WOULD JUST BE A QUESTION OF US REACHING OUT TO THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AND SEEING THEIR AVAILABILITY AND, AND OPENNESS TO THAT IDEA. THANK YOU. YEAH, SO, SO THAT'S JUST MY SUGGESTION. I, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE, SOMETHING LIKE A STAFF BRIEF OR SOME INFORMATIONAL EXCHANGE, BUT I, BUT I THINK THAT CORRECT, UH, THE NEXT STEP IS JUST TO HAVE AN ITEM TO DISCUSS IT. UH, NEXT I UNDERSTAND. NEXT, NEXT ONE. OKAY. WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. TURN. ANY OTHER, UH, MS. BEEZ SECRETARY MAT TURN? CAN I JUST GET A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, CLARITY FOR POSTING FOR THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S AS DETAILED. UM, WE COULD LIST IT AS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COMMISSION COMPLAINTS PROCESS, OR IS THERE MORE YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT? UH, NO. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY A, A REQUEST THAT THIS, THE, THE CITY STAFF SPECIFICALLY SOMEONE FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE COME AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY BELIEVED THAT THESE TWO COMPLAINTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY FELL WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. OH, I'M SORRY, NOT THAT ITEM, BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER ITEM BEFORE. UM, SO YOU WANTED TO, [00:50:01] I BELIEVE, DUPLICATE ITEM SIX THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE AGENDA AND THEN THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL ITEM AFTER. YES. I WOULD SAY THAT THAT SECOND ITEM WOULD BE TO DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES THE WORKING GROUP HAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE COMPLAINTS PROCESSING UNDER THE RULES AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENT. UH, AND THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE ME MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THE TIME IS 7:48 PM THANK YOU EVERYONE. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.