Jun 11, 2026 Special Ethics Review Commission

TAKES CARE OF ALL THE LOGISTICS WITH HER TEAM AND OUR TEAM.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, TRADITIONALLY IS, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE A NONPARTISAN ORGANIZATION AND WE NEVER SUPPORT CANDIDATES OR, UH, CAMPAIGNS, THE CITY HAS FOUND IT, UH, ADVANTAGEOUS TO HAVE US PREPARE QUESTIONS FOR THESE CANDIDATES AND TO DO THESE FORUMS IN A PUBLIC FORMAT.

AND THEY'RE RECORDED, THEY'RE TRANSLATED, THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN.

AND WE DO THIS, UH, HUMBLY, UH, WITH GREAT APPRECIATION FOR THE CITY'S EFFORTS TO EDUCATE, UH, THE VOTERS FOR POSITIONS OF, UH, THAT ARE COMING UP IN FORUMS. AND THE WAY WE DO THAT IS WE HAVE A PUBLIC, UH, EMAIL.

WE HAVE, UH, A PHONE NUMBER.

WE ACTUALLY ONE OF THE FEW LEAD, UH, ORGANIZATIONS THAT ACTUALLY STILL HAVE A TELEPHONE.

UH, AND WE TAKE QUESTIONS BY PHONE.

WE TAKE QUESTIONS BY EMAIL, BUT WE HAVE A PLETHORA OF QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CANDIDATES AND THE, UH, ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES FROM THESE PAST YEARS OF DOING THIS.

AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE OUR JOB IS NOT TO ASK GOTCHA QUESTIONS.

OUR JOB IS NOT TO FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH THIS PERSON HAS DONE FOR THE CITY OR, BUT IS TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE CANDIDATES AND THEIR OPINIONS AND THEIR VIEWS ON ISSUES THAT AFFECT AUSTIN CITIZENS.

AND SO THAT'S THE WAY WE FORM OUR QUESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE TRAINED IN, UH, WRITING NON-BIASED QUESTIONS.

WE DON'T HAVE AN AGENDA.

WE DON'T ALLOW QUESTIONS FROM THOSE THAT HAVE BIG AGENDAS.

IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION, UM, THERE'S BEEN EXAMPLES IN THE PAST, LET'S TALK, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT OR, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE SOMEONE DOES COME FORTH WITH, YOU KNOW, A GROUP COMES FORTH WITH THIS HUGE AGENDA, WE'RE VERY CAREFUL.

IF IT'S AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS THE CITY, WE MIGHT ASK IT AND WE PROBABLY WILL, BUT WE WON'T USUALLY ASK IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW, FROM THE PERSON OR THE GROUP OR THE ORGANIZATION THAT BROUGHT US TO US.

SO WE TRY TO MAKE IT A FAIR QUESTION AND WE DON'T ASK QUESTIONS OF THE INCUMBENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO.

WE TRY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT WOULD BE OPEN TO ALL THE, THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, I SHOULD SAY, TO ALL THE CANDIDATES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN INCUMBENT THAT HAS A HUGE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY WERE IN THAT ROOM FOR THAT DISCUSSION FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO WE JUST TRY TO, OUR JOB IS TO LET THE PUBLIC GET TO KNOW THESE CANDIDATES AND WE APPRECIATE THE, YOU KNOW, THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS WITH YOU GUYS.

AND, UH, YOU'RE GONNA GET A BRIEFING FROM AMIA AND SHE

[00:05:01]

WE PUT TOGETHER THOSE QUESTIONS AND SHOW UP.

UM, AND THE CANDIDATES ARE NOT GIVEN THE QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE.

THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

SOME OF 'EM ARE SPECIFIC TO THE DISTRICT, BUT MOST OF 'EM ARE SPECIFIC TO THE CITY.

AND SO WE TRY TO DO THE DIFFERENT AREAS, POLICE, HOUSING, YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENT, THINGS THAT AFFECT EVERYONE.

BUT THEN OFTEN, BECAUSE WE DO WORK WITH NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND THINGS, WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE COME TO US WITH A SPECIFIC QUESTION.

AND OUR MEMBERS LIVE IN THESE DISTRICTS, MANY OF US.

AND SO WE HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T GET CARRIED AWAY WITH THE QUESTIONS.

SO WE ARE OPEN, I AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE OR ANY CONCERNS FROM THE PAST.

REMIND ME, WHICH YOU SAID YOU TRANSLATE, YOU DO SPANISH, I ASSUME.

ARE THERE OTHER LANGUAGES, YOU, YOU GUYS, THAT THE CITY ACTUALLY HAS THE, UH, INTERPRETATION, UH, LIVE INTERPRETATION, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

VOTER GUIDE, THE VOTERS GUIDE THAT THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS DOES.

WE TRANSLATE THAT VOTER'S GUIDE, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THE LEAGUE DOES.

AND IT'S NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BUT THE CANDIDATES DO GET THE QUESTIONS AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ANSWER OR NOT ANSWER.

IT'S REALLY FUN BECAUSE MOST OF THE CITY CANDIDATES, UH, WILL ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AND WE TRY VERY HARD TO MAKE 'EM SPECIFIC.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK SOME OF US ARE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

UM, BUT I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOUR ANNUAL TREK OVER HERE TO, TO DESCRIBE THE PROGRAM TO US.

WELL, LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE JUST HONORED, UH, TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS WITH YOU GUYS, UH, WHEN IT COMES UP AND IT JUST, UH, PUTS FORTH OUR MISSION, UH, HELPS OUR MISSION TOO, TO EDUCATE AND EMPOWER VOTERS.

AND WE'VE BEEN DOING IT IN AUSTIN FOR 109 YEARS.

OUR ORGANIZATION IS 109 YEARS OLD.

WOW.

WE WERE FORMED IN 1919 BEFORE 1920.

SO WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THE AUSTIN ORGANIZATION AND TO BE ABLE TO STILL SERVE THE COMMUNITY.

TWO ON THE AGENDA, REGARDS A BRIEFING FROM STAFF REGARDING CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE FORUM PLANNING, INCLUDING SCHEDULE AND LOCATIONS.

ITEM

[2. Briefing from staff regarding City Council Candidate Forum planning, including schedule and locations. [Mia Warner, Strategic Communications Consultant, Austin Communications and Engagement] ]

UH, MIA WARNER, YOU MAY GO AHEAD.

HELLO.

UM, MY NAME'S MIA WARNER.

I AM THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL LIAISON WITH AUSTIN COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT, AND I AM HERE TO SUPPORT LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND CARRY ON THESE VERY IMPORTANT PANELS.

UM, THERE ARE SOME OTHER ASPECTS IN THE CITY CHARTER.

THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF FORUMS THAT CANDIDATES HAVE, COUNCIL CANDIDATES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE SOME FINANCING, SOME CAMPAIGN FINANCING, UM, IF THEY PARTICIPATE IN THOSE THREE THINGS.

SO ONE IS THE QUESTIONNAIRE, LIKE THEY MENTIONED.

UM, THERE ARE THESE PANELS THAT I'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT.

AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILM A CANDIDATE STATEMENT, WHICH IS DONE BY A TX THEN, AND THEY ARE, THEY HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME FOR EVERYONE.

THEY CAN SAY THINGS.

UM, WE'VE HAD SOME PEOPLE DO 'EM IN SPANISH.

UM, AND THEN THEY ARE POSTED ON ATX N'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

AND THOSE ARE IN, THERE'S ALSO, THEY TRANSLATE THOSE.

SO IT'S ALSO HAS THE CAPTIONS IN SPANISH FOR THOSE.

SO THEY'RE AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH.

UM, FOR THE PANELS, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT LEAVE ONE VOTERS FACILITATES.

UM, AND WE PROVIDE THE SUPPORT.

UM, THESE ARE THE LOCATIONS FOR THIS YEAR.

UM, IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTION CYCLE, WE HAVE DISTRICTS 1, 3, 5, 8, AND NINE OPEN FOR ELECTION.

UM, AND SO WE ALWAYS TRY TO FIND LOCATIONS WITHIN THOSE DISTRICTS.

AND ALL OF THESE ARE, SO, UM, YOU'LL SEE ON THIS SLIDE, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WE FOUND FOR EACH OF THE DISTRICTS.

UM, IF THERE NEEDS, IF THERE'S A RUNOFF FOR ANY OF THEM, THEN THAT THERE WILL BE A PANEL FOR THAT AS WELL.

THAT'LL TAKE PLACE AT CITY HALL.

UM, WE HAVE TWO DATES AVAILABLE.

WE HAVE NOVEMBER 18TH OR THE 23RD.

'CAUSE IT HAS TO CUT TAKE PLACE BEFORE EARLY VOTING STARTS FOR RUNOFFS AND OF COURSE AFTER THE ELECTIONS THEMSELVES.

UM, AND THEN BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

SO, UM, HERE ARE THE LOCATIONS.

DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN HELP ANSWER AND THEY'LL START AROUND SIX 30.

WE FOUND THAT TO BE A GOOD TIME IN THE PAST.

WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.

OH, I THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS AND THANK YOU TO THE LEAGUE FOR DOING THIS.

I JUST, UH, WAS WONDERING, IN TERMS OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ROLE, DO YOU NEED HELP PROMOTING

[00:10:01]

IT OR SUPPORTING IT OR IS IT JUST, ARE YOU JUST LAYING US KNOW SO THAT WE CAN ATTEND AND INFORM? IT'S JUST PART OF THE CITY CODE THAT WE LET YOU KNOW.

UM, GOTCHA.

WE WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO HELP PROMOTE.

WE'LL HAVE THESE AVAILABLE IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

WE'LL DO SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, WE'LL DO PRESS RELEASES.

UM, IF YOU GO, THE SITE IS LIVE RIGHT NOW, AUSTIN TEXAS.GOV/VOTER INFO, UM, WHICH HAS A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THERE.

BUT ONCE WE HAVE THESE SET, WE'LL ALSO HAVE THE CANDIDATE FORUMS ON THERE.

UM, SO YES, ABSOLUTELY.

IF YOU THAT'S GOOD.

WOULD LOVE TO SHARE WITH YOUR COMMUNITY.

WE THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

APPRECIATE IT.

ABSOLUTELY.

IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ON THE AGENDA, REGARDS THE COMMISSION GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ITEM THREE

[EXECUTIVE SESSION ]

THE COMMISSION WILL ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEM FOUR.

AND, UH, I AM RECUSING MYSELF FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING, SO I'LL GO HIDE IN A CLOSET AND RETURN WHEN THAT'S ALL OVER FOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 51 0 7 1 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON THE LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING, A COMPLAINT FILED BY KIMBERLY HAWKINS AGAINST PAGE ELLIS RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? HEARING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THE TIME IS 6:20 PM SESSION THE TIME IS 6:41 PM ENCLOSED SESSION.

WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO A COMPLAINT FILED BY KIMBERLY HAWKINS AGAINST PAIGE ELLIS RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA

[4. A complaint filed by Kimberly Hawkins against Paige Ellis raising claimed violations of City Charter, Article III, Section 8 (Limits on Campaign Contributions and Expenditures). ]

IS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY KIMBERLY HAWKINS AGAINST PAGE ELLIS RAISING THOSE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A BORQUE IS APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER.

AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UH, VICTORIA HASLETT IS AVAILABLE WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSION OR CHAIR HUMPHREY IS RECUSING FROM ALL DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, I AM NOW GOING TO READ THE PROCEDURES FOR AN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION PRELIMINARY HEARING.

SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME VICE MR. SHARKEY.

OH, SORRY.

COULD WE GET, UM, COMMISSIONER LAWSON'S CAMERA BACK ON, PLEASE? OH, YES.

SO WE WILL START WITH THE COMPLAINANT.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND IF YOU HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT, UH, PLEASE HAVE THEM INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS WELL.

AND THEN FOR THE RESPONDENT, WE'LL HAVE YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF ANY COUNSEL OF RECORD.

IF THERE IS COUNSEL.

UM, MY NAME IS KIMBERLY PATRICE HAWKINS.

MIGHT HAVE TO, YES.

THANKS.

MY NAME IS KIMBERLY PATRICE HAWKINS.

AND I'M SORRY, WHAT ELSE DID YOU ASK ME TO SAY? OH, UH, JUST IF YOU HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT, IF THEY COULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

I DO NOT HAVE COUNSEL.

UH, NOW FOR THE RESPONDENT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS.

HI, I'M AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PAIGE ELLI, REPRESENTING DISTRICT EIGHT.

I DO HAVE MY AD HOC CAMPAIGN MANAGER AT ESPINOZA WITH ME TODAY.

GREAT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

SO THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR FOUR OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.

THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2026.

THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

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 THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.

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

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

SO 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.

UH, DO THE PARTIES AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES IS SUFFICIENT OR DO THEY REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME? IT'S GONNA BE SUFFICIENT FOR ME.

GREAT.

AND I ALSO FIND IT TO BE SUFFICIENT.

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.

UH, THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE THE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM, THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE FINAL HEARING.

IN SUPPORT OF THOSE CLAIMS, UH, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT THIS HEARING.

THE RESPONDENT MAY PROVIDE A RESPONSE DISPUTING THE CLAIMS.

[00:15:01]

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

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

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, UH, 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.

UH, I WILL KEEP TIME AND GIVE YOU A THREE MINUTE WARNING WHEN YOUR PRESENTATION REACHES THAT POINT.

MS. HAWKINS, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE PROCEED.

ON DECEMBER 31ST, ANOTHER $450.

I HAVE A STATEMENT THAT I'M GONNA READ, AND IT PROBABLY WON'T EVEN TAKE THREE MINUTES, BUT WE'LL SEE THE CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT READS, NO CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL AND HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE SHALL ACCEPT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCESS OF $300 PER CONTRIBUTOR PER ELECTION FROM ANY PERSON EXCEPT FOR THE CANDIDATE AND SMALL DONOR POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS SHALL BE MODIFIED EACH YEAR.

THIS YEAR, THE LIMIT IS $500.

PAIGE ELLIS HAS ACCEPTED IN EXCESS OF $500 FROM INDIVIDUAL DONORS FOR THE 2026 CAMPAIGN CYCLE.

THIS IS A VERY CUT AND DRY VIOLATION OF THE CITY CHARTER.

FURTHERMORE, THIS AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THIS AND PAIGE'S RESPONSE WAS THAT SHE PERSONALLY KNOWS THE DONORS AND IS AWARE OF WHICH CONTRIBUTORS ARE MARRIED, EVEN IF BOTH SPOUSES NAMES ARE NOT LISTED ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE FORMS. SHE'S TRYING TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE CITY CHARTER, WHICH TO ME IS VERY CLEAR.

BUT SAYING THAT CAMPAIGNS DO NOT NEED TO LIST SPOUSES AND THAT WE SHOULD JUST ASSUME THAT THEY ARE MARRIED IS SEEMS TO BE THE MESSAGE.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CITY CHARTER THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS.

HER EXCUSE IS BAFFLING.

AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, INEXCUSABLE, I FEEL THAT IT SHOWS A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT AS WELL AS A LACK OF ATTENTION TO DETAIL.

THIS IS MS. ELLA'S THIRD CAMPAIGN.

SO IT IS EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS AS SHE IS HAS AMPLE EXPERIENCE AND SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

IN THE PREVIOUS ELECTION, SHE VIOLATED THE SAME PROVISION AND ISSUED REFUNDS AND CORRECTED HER FORM, BUT SHE HAS NOT DONE SO.

THIS TIME SHOWING THAT SHE HAS A DISREGARD FOR THE CITY CHARTER.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD BE HIGHER THIS TIME SINCE THIS IS HER SECOND INFRACTION.

AND I HAVE ASKED, I ASKED THE ES ETHICS COMMITTEE TO ALLOW HER TO CONTINUE TO THINK, NOT ALLOW HER TO CONTINUE TO THINK THAT THE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO HER.

AND I CAN, UM, WELL, I HAVE A LIST OF THE PEOPLE WHO DONATED TO HER.

I CAN FIND IT HERE QUICKLY.

UM, PAIGE ELLIS ACCEPTED MORE THAN $500 FROM INDIVIDUAL DONORS.

SHE ACCEPTED $513 AND 47 CENTS FROM HANK SMITH ON 6 27 OR SIX 20 ON THE JUNE 27TH, 2025 FOR $263 AND 47 CENTS.

AND ON NOVEMBER 7TH FOR $250, SHE ACCEPTED $900 FROM DAVE CLAUNCH ON JUNE 12TH.

HIS DONATION WAS $300.

ON NOVEMBER 19TH, THE DONATION WAS FOR $600.

SHE ACCEPTED $900 FROM GEORGE FER ON JUNE 25TH, 2025.

THE DONATION WAS FOR $263 AND 47 CENTS.

ON AUGUST 1ST, THE DONATION WAS FOR $52 AND 95 CENTS.

AND ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, HIS DONATION WAS FOR $263 AND 47 CENTS.

AND ON DECEMBER 7TH, HIS FINAL DONATION FOR THIS CAMPAIGN CYCLE WAS FOR $320 AND 11 CENTS.

SHE HAS ACCEPTED $513 AND 47 CENTS FROM JASON SMITH.

ON JUNE 27TH, MR. SMITH DONATED $250 ON DECEMBER 31ST, 31ST, HE DONATED $263 AND 47 CENTS.

SHE ACCEPTED $900 FROM GREG WOOLDRIDGE.

ON JUNE 30TH, MR. WOOLDRIDGE DONATED $450.

AND

[00:20:01]

SHE HAS ACCEPTED $900 FROM CHARLES ZELLER.

JUNE 10TH, HIS DONATION WAS FOR $450.

AND ON DECEMBER 8TH, HIS DONATION WAS $450 AS WELL.

AND THAT IS IT.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.

UH, HELLO COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ED ESPINOZA.

I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN BOTH OF PAIGE'S CAMPAIGNS.

SHE'S ALSO MY WIFE, UH, AS A FORMER MEMBER OF THIS, THIS COMMISSION.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I'VE SERVED WITH SOME OF YOU NOT, THOUGH NOT ALL OF YOU.

IT'S BEEN A BIT OF TIME.

BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

I WANNA OPEN BY SAYING THAT I HAVE PREPARED REMARKS THAT ARE DIVIDED INTO THREE SECTIONS.

FIRST IS A REVIEW OF THE LAST TIME THE ETHICS REVISION TOOK UP THIS ISSUE, WHICH MS. HAWKINS HAS MISCHARACTERIZED, AND I'LL ADDRESS THAT.

SECOND, I'LL REVIEW THE INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT.

AND THIRD, I'LL ADDRESS THE HURDLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY CODE THAT RELIES ON FORMS ISSUED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS.

SO LET'S GET STARTED.

NUMBER ONE IS THE ERC'S DECISION IN 2022.

THE ISSUE BEFORE US TONIGHT PERTAINS TO DONATIONS FROM MARRIED INDIVIDUALS IN MS. HAWKINS' COMPLAINT.

IT IS STATED THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS COME UP, AND THUS IT IS RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST TIME.

THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION TOOK THIS ISSUE UP IN 2022 WHEN THIS CLAIM WAS DISMISSED.

SHE HAS MISCHARACTERIZED THE LAST MEETING, WHICH DEALT WITH OVERAGES ON FEES THAT TOTALED ROUGHLY $7.

AND SHE'S CONFLATING THAT WITH AN ISSUE OF MARRIED COUPLES.

AT A MEETING OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 14TH, 2022.

ACCORDING TO VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPTS ON THE ERC WEBPAGE, THE COMMISSION ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION ON SEVERAL TOPICS, INCLUDING MARRIED COUPLES AND WHAT AND HOW THEY GIVE DONATIONS.

THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION DISCUSSED DONATIONS FROM MARRIED COUPLES, INCLUDING FAMILIAR NAMES LIKE STEVE ADLER AND DIANE LAND, WHO HAVE DIFFERENT LAST NAMES, BUT IN WHICH DONATIONS FROM EACH PERSON COME FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT, EVEN FOR PEOPLE WITH THE SAME LAST NAME.

AND THE ROUGHLY 440,000 OTHER MARRIED COUPLES IN AUSTIN, CAN THEY GIVE FROM AN ACCOUNT THAT HAS BOTH NAMES ON IT OR ONLY AN ACCOUNT THAT HAS ONLY THEIR NAME ON IT.

THE ERC CONDUCTED A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THIS TOPIC.

AND AT THE ONE HOUR AND 45 MINUTE MARK OF THE MEETING, THE COMMISSION CHOSE TO JETTISON THE TOPIC ON MARRIED COUPLES AND SIMPLY MOVED ON TO OTHER BUSINESS.

PART TWO, THE COMPLAINT AND THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

COMPLAINANT IDENTIFIES INDIVIDUALS FOLLOWED BY THE CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF AMOUNTS THEY GAVE LAST YEAR TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM.

SHE HAS GENEROUSLY PROVIDED A COPY OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, AND I HOPE YOU FOUND THIS EVIDENCE HELPFUL BECAUSE I FOUND IT HELPFUL.

FINANCE REPORTS ARE ORGANIZED BY NAME OF THE CONTRIBUTOR ON OUR REPORTS.

WE ALSO LIST THE NAMES OF SPOUSES WHEN THE DONATION COMES FROM A MARRIED COUPLE.

FOR INSTANCE, THE COMPLAINANT STATES THAT HANK SMITH GAVE OVER THE LIMIT, YET OUR REPORT THAT SHE PROVIDED SHOWS THAT DONATIONS CAME FROM HANK AND GEORGIA SMITH.

THE SAME GOES FOR THE COMPLAINT SETTING THAT DAVE CLAUNCH GAVE OVER THE LIMIT.

YET OUR REPORT SHOWS DONATIONS LISTED FROM DAVE AND SUSAN CLAU, THE SAME FOR JASON AND SARAH SMITH FOR CHARLES AND SYLVIA ZELLER, AND SO ON AND SO ON.

WE LISTED SPOUSES ON THE REPORT, BUT THE SPOUSAL NAMES WERE OMITTED FROM THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU.

COMPLAINING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL DONOR AMOUNTS WHILE OMITTING THE NAMES OF THE SPOUSES ON THE REPORT, IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING.

IT IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING.

THE COMPLAINT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE REASONING CHANGES PRECEDENT, BUT ANYONE WHO FOLLOWS PRECEDENT AT CITY HALL KNOWS THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

IN CITY OF AUSTIN ELECTIONS, THERE IS A LONG STANDING PRECEDENT IN WHICH CAMPAIGNS USE THE PHRASE $450 PER INDIVIDUAL $900 PER COUPLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT FACT.

A SCAN

[00:25:01]

OF WEBSITES FOR DECLARED CANDIDATES IN THE CURRENT 2026 ELECTION CYCLE SHOWS THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN CANDIDATES, INCUMBENTS AND CHALLENGERS ALIKE CURRENTLY USING THIS LANGUAGE ON THEIR WEBSITE, THOUGH THE DOLLAR FIGURES NOW REFLECT THE CURRENT LIMITS OF 500 AND A THOUSAND DOLLARS.

IN AN ARTICLE DATED DECEMBER, 2024, LONGTIME CITY HALL REPORTER JOE CLIFTON IN HER REPORTING ON A MEETING OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION REFERENCES CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS AS $450 OR $900 PER COUPLE.

PART THREE, CAMPAIGN FINANCE FORMS FOR CAMPAIGN COMPLIANCE.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN, LIKE MANY CITIES, USES FORMS PROVIDED BY THE TEEX TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION.

HOWEVER, AUSTIN LAYERS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS INTO ITS REPORTING.

THESE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING NOW, AS WELL AS OTHER TOPICS THIS COMMISSION HAS TAKEN UP SUCH AS LIMITS ON HOW MUCH CAN BE RAISED WITHIN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES.

BUT THERE IS A CONSTANT CHALLENGE ASSOCIATED WITH REPORTING THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

THE STATE FORM PROVIDES NO METHOD TO RE REPORT THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

AND AS SUCH, THERE IS NO UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND CAMPAIGNS ARE LEFT TO DETERMINE HOW TO REPORT THEM ON THEIR OWN.

AND WHILE WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN ISSUE ON A STATE OF TEXAS FORM, IT'S RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION HAS A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT FOR BEST EFFORTS IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE.

IN THE ABSENCE OF A WAY TO REPORT THESE CITY REQUIREMENTS ON A STATE FORM, WE HAVE EMPLOYED OUR BEST EFFORTS THAT, ALONG WITH THE PRECEDENCE THAT I HAVE PRESENTED HERE, AND BASED ON THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION PASSING ON THIS ISSUE IN 2022, THIS IS WHY WE HAVE NOT MADE CHANGES TO THE FORMS BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE COMPLAINT.

AND NOW BECAUSE WE ARE OPERATING ON PRECEDENTS THAT I HAVE JUST COVERED.

NOW, SHOULD THERE BE NEW GUIDANCE, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COMPLY.

BUT WITHOUT THAT GUIDANCE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE, WITH OUR BEST EFFORTS AND WITH ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT.

FINALLY, THIS CLAIM WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY MS. HAWKINS, WHO WAS A DISTRICT EIGHT'S COUNSEL CANDIDATE HERSELF IN 2022.

AND SHE REFERENCES A DISREGARD FOR THE THREE MINUTES AND SHE DIS REFERENCES A DISREGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW.

IN HER COMPLAINT, SHE USES VERY STRONG LANGUAGE, INCLUDING LAZY, INEXCUSABLE, AND A TOTAL LACK OF ATTENTION TO DETAIL.

THE AUSTIN BULLDOG PUBLISHED TWO RELEVANT POSTS ON THIS MATTER.

THE FIRST ENTITLED, WANT TO GET ELECTED BUT NOT BE ACCOUNTABLE.

AND A SECOND PIECE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.

IN EACH EACH WRITING IT COVERS TOPICS SUCH AS CANDIDATES WHO HAVE, QUOTE, NOT BOTHERED TO FILE A SINGLE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.

AND THOSE WHO HAVE FILED FAILED FAILED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST, WHICH CARRIES A PENALTY OF A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR.

IT IDENTIFIES KIMBERLY HAWKINS IN BOTH INSTANCES, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS IS INEXCUSABLE.

THE COMPLAINT WE ARE DEALING WITH TODAY, IN ADDITION TO BEING INTENTIONALLY, INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING, IS INTENTIONALLY DISINGENUOUS.

I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

AND I WILL JUST ADD, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS IN 2022 WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL.

AND I KNOW THAT THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE A LOT OF WORK ON THEIR PLATE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS ARE BEING FOLLOWED.

I HAVE IN NO WAY VIOLATED CAMPAIGN FINANCE EX UH, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

THERE'S BEEN NO COUPLES THAT HAVE EXCEEDED THE $900 MARK, OR NOW THAT IT'S BEEN RAISED TO A THOUSAND, UM, THERE HAS BEEN NO INDIVIDUAL THAT GAVE MORE THAN FOUR 50 UNLESS THEY WERE OPERATING ON BEHALF OF THEM AND THEIR SPOUSE.

UM, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED TODAY AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

UM, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, YOU SEE FIT TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, HAPPILY GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.

BUT, UM, WISH NOT TO BE REPRIMANDED RETROACTIVELY FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY WANT TO SEE DONE DIFFERENTLY MOVING FORWARD.

I'VE BEEN ABIDING BY EVERYTHING THAT WAS FOUND TO, TO BE OKAY IN 2022, AND THAT'S WHY I'VE CONTINUED MOVING THROUGH THAT IS IS BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND ACCEPTABLE FOUR YEARS AGO.

GREAT, THANK YOU.

NOW I'LL GIVE THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE REMAINING TIME FOR REBUTTAL, OR WE CAN MOVE ON TO COMMISSION.

UH, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

MS. HAWKINS, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES AND 16 SECONDS REMAINING.

UM, I WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME OUT.

[00:30:01]

UH, AS FOR THE INFRACTIONS THAT WERE DEEMED, UH, ON MY PLATE, I, I RAN IN, UH, 2022 KIND OF ON A WHIM BECAUSE I FRANKLY COULD NOT GET MS. ELLIS TO RESPOND TO ANY OF MY MESSAGES.

SO I WAS VERY INEXPERIENCED.

I HAD NO CAMPAIGN INFRASTRUCTURE.

UM, I HAD VERY LITTLE SUPPORT.

I WAS, I GUESS YOU COULD CALL IT QUICKSODIC.

UM, I WANTED TO GET MY MESSAGE OUT AND AGAIN, I DIDN'T RAISE ANY MONEY IN, UH, 2022.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'LL SAY ABOUT THAT.

UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY THIS IS NOW BEING EXPLAINED AS THESE ARE COUPLES AND WHY THE SPOUSE WASN'T LISTED.

THERE'S MAYBE A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION FOR THAT.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, BUT THAT'S, THAT COULD JUST BE ME, AND I IN NO WAY WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTED ANYTHING.

UM, I AM HERE AS A CITIZEN.

UM, I WANT THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO DO BETTER AS A WHOLE.

AND SO THIS IS JUST HOW I FELT I NEEDED TO SPEAK UP BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING SEEMED VERY MURKY TO ME.

AND, UM, I, AGAIN, I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THAT I IN NO WAY, UH, MISREPRESENTED OR THOUGHT I WAS MISREPRESENTING.

I DID NOT WILLFULLY DO IT.

I NOT AWARE OF HOW I DID IT IF I DID IT.

AND AGAIN, UM, CONSIDERING AS YOU WERE ASKED TO CONSIDER THE SOURCE, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO WHAT I JUST, UH, RESPONDED TO.

UM, MY 2022 CAMPAIGN WAS A, AGAIN, A, AN ATTEMPT TO GET MY MESSAGE OUT.

'CAUSE I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THINGS LIKE, UH, THE OVERGROWTH, THE OVERBUILDING, AND, UH, THE FACT THAT AUSTIN IS SINKING AND THAT OUR WATER IS DISAPPEARING AND NOTHING SEEMS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT.

SO I HAD A MESSAGE AND IT WASN'T ABOUT I, I WAS, I WAS NOT UNDER ANY ILLUSION THAT I WAS PROBABLY GOING TO WIN.

BUT, UM, I DIDN'T KNOW, UH, HOW TO FILE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS. AND I LEARNED A LOT FROM THAT EXPERIENCE.

UH, I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T DO IT AGAIN UNLESS I FELT BETTER PREPARED.

I WASN'T PREPARED IN A WAY I SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I CAN THINK TO SAY AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, MS. HAWKINS.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, IF YOU WISH TO, UH, RESPOND.

YOU HAVE A MINUTE AND FOUR, UH, SECONDS REMAINING ON YOUR TIME.

I'M SORRY.

HOW MUCH TIME? A MINUTE AND FOUR SECONDS.

A MINUTE AND FOUR SECONDS.

I, I WILL BE QUICK.

I AM AWARE THAT MS. HAWKINS DID HAVE SOME ISSUE WITH A FILING SYSTEM FOR COMMUNAL COMMUNITY COMMUNITY SPACE WITHIN THE PARKS RECREATION SYSTEM.

UM, MY TEAM DID CONNECT HER WITH THE SYSTEM THAT ACTUALLY HELPS WITH THOSE TICKETS TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE HAD ALL OF THE ANSWERS THAT SHE NEEDED.

UM, AGAIN, I'VE ACCEPTED NO CONTRIBUTIONS OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED LIMIT.

UM, I WILL AGREE THAT THE PAPERWORK IS DIFFICULT AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE EASIER FOR FIRST TIME CANDIDATES TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THAT.

UM, BUT I DO KNOW AS FAR AS FILING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR SOMEONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS VERY DILIGENT ABOUT REACHING OUT IF YOU'VE MISSED A DEADLINE AND MAKING SURE THAT YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.

UM, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT CAN HELP MAKE SURE THAT THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED.

UM, BUT AGAIN, I HAVE NOT EXCEEDED ANY MARRIED COUPLES EXCEEDING FINANCIAL LIMITS.

AND I CAN SAY THAT A FEW MORE TIMES IF I HAVE MORE SECONDS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARY.

AND WITH NINE SECONDS TO SPARE, SO OH GOOD.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? NOPE.

ALRIGHT.

UH, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE COMPLAINANT OR RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER? MCGIVEN.

ON PAGE 10 AND PAGE 17 OF THE INTERNAL DOCUMENT, WHICH IS 22 PAGES LONG, AND THEN ALSO KEN JONES ON PAGE 19.

UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT.

UM, I WILL PREFACE THIS BY SAYING I, I DON'T THINK MS. HAWKINS' HISTORY AS A CANDIDATE BEARS ANY RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER TO THIS PROCEEDING.

UM, I DID NOTE, UM, THAT THERE, THERE ARE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT NAMES THAT DO REFERENCE TWO PEOPLE.

UM, THERE'S SOME THAT DON'T APPEAR TO, AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING.

UM, FOR INSTANCE, UH, GEORGE FER

[00:35:01]

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT, ANY INSTANCES IN THIS RECORD THAT YOU KNOW OF WHERE THEY ARE LISTED ON HERE AS ALSO HAVE YOU MADE A CONTRIBUTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A, A SPOUSE OR ANOTHER PERSON? I'M NOT SURE THAT THOSE ARE, BUT I KNOW THAT MR. JONES DONATED FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE.

AND MAYBE I DIDN'T GO BACK IN AND UPDATE THE SPREADSHEET TO THE OTHER NAME 'CAUSE I TRY NOT TO MESS WITH THE SPREADSHEETS FROM THE ENTRY SYSTEM.

UM, BUT HE IS MARRIED TO ANNETTE.

THEY'RE A LOVELY COUPLE.

UM, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE MARRIED, I KNOW GEORGE FER IS MARRIED TO MARY ELIZABETH.

SOMETIMES IT'S A MATTER OF HOW THE CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM ACCEPTS THOSE.

SOME FOLKS WRITE A CHECK AND IT'S VERY EASY TO TELL, YOU KNOW, HEY, I'M MA I MANUALLY ENTER THOSE CHECKS.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DONATE WAY INPUT, THOSE DON'T HAVE FIELDS THAT I'M ABLE TO EDIT IN REAL TIME.

AND WE HAVE TO GO AND OPEN UP THAT SPREADSHEET LATER ON TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL DONE.

SO I KNOW WITH GREG WOOLRIDGE, HE HAD DONATED IN JUNE, UM, AND THEN HIM AND HIS WIFE LYNN DONATED LATER.

SO I DIDN'T GO BACK AND UPDATE JUNE, BUT HE IS MARRIED TO LYNN.

UM, SO I CAN, I CAN TELL YOU THE SPOUSAL NAMES OF, OF FOLKS, BUT SOMETIMES IT IS HARD TO CATCH IF YOU DON'T, DEPENDING ON HOW THEY UTILIZE THE CONTRIBU CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? SO YEAH, JUST GETTING TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.

I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD ILLUMINATE US AND, AND, AND I'M, I'M LOOKING TO YOUR EXPERTISE A LITTLE BIT HERE, UM, ON THE REPORTING DOCUMENTS.

UM, HOW IS IT THAT IT IS REPORTED AS TWO NAMES IN ONE CATEGORY, BUT, AND THEN WHEN SHE'S GOING THROUGH IT, SEEING ONLY ONE NAME, IS THERE TWO DIFFERENT REPORTED REPORTING SYSTEMS, THE STATE AND THE LOCAL THAT'S RESULTING IN SOME OF THIS CONFUSION? OR IS IT JUST THE WAY THAT IT'S INTERNALLY REPORTED VERSUS HOW IT'S PUBLICLY REPORTED IN THE, UH, IN THE STATE SYSTEM? OKAY, COUPLE THINGS THERE.

UM, WHEN A DONOR GIVES AN INITIAL CONTRIBUTION, IT'S LISTED AS THEMSELVES UP TO THE MAX.

WHEN THEY GIVE AGAIN, THEN THEIR SPOUSE NAME IS LISTED THERE AND WE ACTUALLY JUST WRITE IT IN, IN WHERE THE FIRST NAME IS.

I SEE.

SO IF IT WERE IT WERE LUIS FIGARO, IT WOULD BE LUIS AND SO-AND-SO, AND THEN FIGUEROA WOULD BE THE LAST NAME.

UM, AS TO WHY SHE DIDN'T SEE THAT, I, I CAN'T ANSWER WHY SHE DIDN'T SEE IT.

IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE REPORT.

THERE ARE NOT TWO DIFFERENT FORMS. UH, WE JUST KIND OF HAVE TO, TO DO OUR BEST TO TRY AND REPORT IT AS PLAINLY AS WE CAN.

NOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED WITH THE INSTANCE OF GEORGE COFER, KEN, KEN JONES, WHAT MAKES THAT DIFFICULT IS THAT IN ORDER TO MEET COMPLIANCE, WE HAVE TO CHANGE WHAT PEOPLE HAVE INPUT.

THAT IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE THING FOR A CAMPAIGN TO DO BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO AMEND ANYTHING.

YOU WANT IT THE RECORD TO, TO EXIST AS IT'S PRESENTED.

SO AS WE'RE GOING INTO UPDATE THE, THE INFORMATION, SOMETIMES WE CAN MISS SOME THINGS.

AND THAT MUST HAVE BEEN WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF TOPHER AND JONES.

AND BY THE WAY, THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO.

GOTCHA.

THAT'S, THAT'S HELPFUL.

YEAH, SURE.

AND I WILL JUST ADD BRIEFLY, UM, IN ORDER TO RUN THE REPORTS AND GET THEM LOADED INTO THE FILING SYSTEM, WE HAVE TO PULL AN ENTIRE SPREADSHEET OUT OF DONATE WAY.

AND THEN I WILL MANUALLY ENTER THE CHECKS THAT ARE DONE BECAUSE THAT ONLINE CREDIT CARD SYSTEM CANNOT REFLECT CHECKS THAT ARE RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED.

UM, BUT YES, I DO MY BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS ACCURATE.

EVERY SO OFTEN SOMEONE WILL MISSPELL A WORD.

I'VE HAD PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, PUT RETIRED CAT LADY, WHICH I LOVE, BUT I DON'T GO IN THERE AND TAKE THAT OUT.

IF THAT IS HOW THEY'RE REPRESENTING THEIR ADDRESS AND THEIR PROFESSION.

UM, I DO MY BEST UNLESS FOR SOME REASON IT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A EXCLAMATION POINT INSTEAD OF SOMETHING, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO GO BACK AND DO THAT.

BUT WE TRY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE NOT TO MESS WITH THE SELF-REPRESENTED DETAILS FROM THOSE FAMILIES.

THERE IS A DONOR WHO ROUTINELY LISTS AS PROFESSION IS AUSTIN'S BEST INFILL ARCHITECT.

GOTCHA.

AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DONATE WAY IS LIKE ACTBLUE, IT'S THE, UM, IT'S THE THIRD PARTY THAT SUBMITS.

THAT'S RIGHT.

OKAY, GOTCHA.

AND THEN SO IT'S THE CREDIT CARD AND UM, THEY CAN PULL OUT REPORTS, BUT IT IS, IT SENDS THOSE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE BANKS GOTCHA.

THE PROCESSING.

AND IS THAT WHY THERE'S LIKE THESE LITTLE ODD NUMBERS AND ABOVE $13 AND THE THEN THE CENTS OVER, IS THAT THE TRANSACTION FEE? THOSE ARE WHEN THEY CHECK THE BOX TO COVER THE FEES.

GOTCHA.

UM, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, UM, I, I THINK THERE'S SOME WORK HERE IF Y'ALL EVER FIND YOURSELF DOING SOME WORKSHOPPING, BUT WHEN YOU GO INTO DONATE WAY, YOU COULD SAY, I WANNA GIVE SOMEONE $25.

YOU CHECK THE BOX TO PAY THE FEES, IT CHARGES THE DONOR 26 63 TO DO THAT.

[00:40:01]

WOW.

THE CAMPAIGN ACTUALLY ONLY RECEIVES THE $25, BUT WE STILL REPORT THAT THEY MADE THAT DONATION BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA BE IN VIOLATION OF, LET'S SAY THEY'RE A LOBBYIST, THEY'RE CAPPED OUT AT $25.

SO WE HAVE TO GO IN BEFORE THE DEADLINE AND REFUND THE DOLLAR 63 SO THAT THE REPORT IS CLEAR AND WE'RE NOT WORRYING PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ACCEPTING MONEY, WE SHOULDN'T BE 'CAUSE YOU RETURN IT ON THE NEXT CYCLE.

SO I REALIZE THAT'S VERY CONVOLUTED, BUT THAT'S HOW THE, THE SYSTEMS ARE ALL TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LAWSON.

APPRECIATE THAT.

A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT, IS THERE AN OPTION IN THAT SYSTEM TO TURN OFF THE ABILITY TO, FOR THE, UM, CONTRIBUTOR TO NOT PAY THOSE SERVICE FEES? OR IS, IS THERE ANY OPTIONALITY THERE? YES, YOU CAN TURN IT OFF, BUT THE FEES FOR CREDIT CARD PROCESSING OVER THE LIFETIME OF ONE OR $200,000 IS QUITE A BIT OF MONEY.

UM, SO IF THE DONORS ARE WILLING TO DO THAT, WE ALLOW THEM TO.

UM, BUT YOU CAN PUT A CAP IN, LET'S SAY RIGHT NOW THE WEBSITE SAYS A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER COUPLE, AS DOES ABOUT FIVE OR SIX OR SEVEN OTHER CANDIDATES CURRENTLY CAMPAIGNING.

UM, I CAN SET THAT MAX TO A THOUSAND, BUT I CAN'T DO IT AT 500 IF COUPLES WANNA DONATE TOGETHER.

BUT I CAN HARD CAP AT A THOUSAND, BUT I CAN'T DO THAT FOR EVERY LEVEL.

OR THE MACHINE DOESN'T KNOW WHO HAS MAXED OUT AND HOW FAR THEY CAN GO.

IT CAN'T READ.

IT'S NOT THAT INTELLIGENT.

BUT MAYBE ONE DAY I HAVE A STATE I HAVE A QUESTION.

SORRY.

YEAH, SO WITH THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE SYSTEM AND THE NOT WANTING TO GO IN AND AMEND HANK SMITH AND HANK AND GEORGIA SMITH CAN DONATE AN EXTRA $750 AND THEN HANK CAN DONATE AN EXTRA 230 SOMETHING AND CHANGE BASED UPON THE REPORTING.

NO, THE COUPLE WOULD BE MAXED OUT AT THE PREVIOUS LIMIT WOULD'VE BEEN 900.

A COUPLE, HOWEVER, HOW, YOU KNOW, IF ONE DOES ONE DONATION AND THEN THEY DONATE TOGETHER AND THEN GEORGIA COMES AND DONATES ANOTHER TIME, THE THE ENTIRE COUPLE CAN ONLY HIT THAT.

NOW IT'S $1,000.

BUT LAST YEAR IT WAS $900 WAS THE CAP.

SO THEY COULD COME BACK AND DONATE AGAIN TO HIT 900 AS A COUPLE.

BUT THEY COULD NOT GO BEYOND THAT.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

WHAT, BUT WHAT I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE THE WAY, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE ENTRIES, ONE FOR HANK AND HIS WIFE, AND THEN ONE JUST FOR HIMSELF.

SO I'M ASKING CAN THEY BOTH HIT THAT $900 LIMIT AND HE CAN ALSO HIT THE $500 LIMIT ON HIS OWN? NO.

OR DOES HE GET THAT WASHED OUT BECAUSE HE IS DONATING WITH HIS WIFE? OR DOES IT BECOME ALL TOGETHER? IT'S, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IT'S, IT'S ALL COUNTED TOGETHER.

SO HE DONATED ALONE THE FIRST TIME AND THEN HIM AND HIS WIFE DONATED THE SECOND TIME.

BUT WE WILL ALWAYS COUNT THEM AT THIS POINT OF HANK AND GEORGIA CAN ONLY GIVE 1000 PERIOD, END OF STORY.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OH, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN.

SO IF I UNDERSTOOD THIS STATEMENT, AND THIS IS FOR RESPONDENT, UM, THE STATEMENT FROM MR. ESPINOZA, UM, NO AMENDMENT TO THESE, UH, REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER FOR, FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

DO, IS THERE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONER MCG GIVER, I MOVE TO FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE AND THAT, UH, FINAL HEARING BE SCHEDULED.

IS THERE A SECOND? COULD I URGE MY MOTION? I WAS LIKE, I THINK WE NEED A SECOND BEFORE WE CAN DISCUSS SECOND.

TO US AS STILL AVAILABLE ONLINE SOMEWHERE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? BE HAPPY TO SHARE MY RATIONALE IF ANYONE WOULD BE INTERESTED.

UM, I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE DIFFICULTIES OF RUNNING A CAMPAIGN, VERY SYMPATHETIC AND ALSO TO THE IDEA OF RELYING ON PRECEDENT.

AND I WILL SAY THAT THE CODE DOES PROVIDE FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ACTION THAT CAN BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A VIOLATION IF THERE ARE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE ACTING SOMEONE WHO WE BELIEVE WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, ALBEIT STILL IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

UM, AND I THINK ALTHOUGH I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE IDEA OF PRECEDENT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT OF COURSE EXISTS IN THE LEGAL FIELD.

UM, I THINK IT HAS NO BINDING EFFECT HERE.

I THINK THE FACT THAT PRECEDENT EXISTS IN THE LEGAL FIELD ONLY WORKS BECAUSE IT'S EXISTS IN WELL EASILY AVAILABLE, WELL REFERENCED, WELL INDEXED SOURCES THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN GET ACCESS TO.

AND I, I WILL GRANT YOU THAT THERE WAS A MEETING THAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED

[00:45:01]

UM, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S WELL INDEXED OR WELL UNDERSTOOD.

I'D SAY THAT'S INCREDIBLY OBSCURE.

UM, I THINK THAT AS A POLICY MATTER, IT MAKES SENSE TO RUN THINGS BASED ON THE BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW.

I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE EVIDENTLY HAVE BEEN OPERATING WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING THAT MARRIED COUPLES ARE AN EXCEPTION.

I DON'T LIKE VARIATIONS FROM BLACK LETTER OF THE BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW.

I DON'T THINK THAT A SYSTEM WORKS WELL IF IT RUNS IN PART BASED ON INSIDER KNOWLEDGE, BASED ON WHAT THE LAWS ARE AND HOW THEY'RE WRITTEN, HOW THEY'RE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

OR NOT INSIDER KNOWLEDGE, BUT OBSCURE KNOWLEDGE.

SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS OR HAVE HAD YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

UM, AND I DO THINK TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORTANT.

MAYBE, I MEAN, I'M PREPARED TO, TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE INDIVIDUALS, GEORGE FER, WHOMEVER WHO DONATED OR DOING THAT ON BEHALF OF THEM AND THEIR SPOUSE.

I THINK TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC IS A, A VALUE THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CODE.

I THINK THAT MANY PEOPLE, WELL, IT IS IN THE CODE.

I THINK IT'S REFLECTED IN THE CODE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACHIEVED.

IF WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT RELIES ON A PERSON SAYING, TRUST ME, I KNOW THAT THIS IS CORRECT.

I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT IN THESE REPORTS.

UM, I THINK I WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE SITUATION IF IN ALMOST FOUR MONTHS SINCE THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS FILED ON FEBRUARY THE 13TH.

IF THERE HAD BEEN AN AMENDMENT OR SOME MINOR MAYA CULPA.

I THINK MISTAKES HAPPEN.

I THINK STANDING FIRM AND SAYING WE ARE GOING TO STAND ON THIS MISTAKE TOLD, TOLD OTHERWISE IS A BIT BOLD.

UM, AND I DON'T TO THE EXTENT THAT PRECEDENT EXISTS, I DON'T WANNA ESTABLISH THAT PRECEDENT.

UM, SO I THINK THERE HAS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S BEEN, THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SEE A VIOLATION.

IF I LOOK AT THIS SHEET, I SEE ON ONE PAGE 10, PAGE TEN THREE LINES FROM GEORGE FER THAT ARE CLEARLY ABOVE $500 REASONABLE GROUNDS.

UH, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PRESENT AS EVIDENCE, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, PERHAPS HAVE HIM COME IN AND AND TESTIFY, THEN IN FACT HE GAVE ON BEHALF OF HIS, HIM HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE AND WANTED TO TALK MORE OR REITERATE THAT THERE HAS BEEN THIS PRECEDENT, THIS COMMON UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE FELT LIKE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON.

I WOULD BE HAPPY AND I THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REPRIMAND VERSUS A LETTER OF NOTICE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT I THINK, UM, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF WE DON'T PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING TO AT LEAST EVALUATE THIS EVIDENCE, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS COMMITTEE EXISTS.

THAT'S ALL.

COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YEAH, I'D JUST LIKE TO OFFER A LITTLE REBUTTAL, UM, TO THAT.

UM, SO FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT I THINK PRECEDENT IS ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND IS IMPORTANT NOT BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OR BECAUSE WE'RE A COMMISSION VERSUS A A COURT, BUT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS AS THEY MOVE FORWARD AND THAT THEY WILL BE TREATED THE SAME EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

AND THAT IF YOU SHOW UP IN 2022, YOU SHOW UP IN 2026, YOU SHOW UP IN 2028, THE LAW SHOULD BE THE SAME AND NOT CHANGED BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENT COMMISSION OR BECAUSE ONE PERSON, UH, DOESN'T WANNA FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT OF THE PREVIOUS PERSON.

THAT'S THE WHOLE BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.

UM, SECOND, I THINK THAT THERE'S NOT A FACTUAL DISPUTE HERE.

THE LETTER OF THE LAW IN MY OPINION, IS TWO PERSONS CAN PROVIDE UP TO A THOUSAND DOLLARS.

AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE IN DISPUTE HERE.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE FORM SAYS IT THE RIGHT WAY, BUT THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ACTUAL FACTUAL DISPUTE HERE.

AND THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS THAT TWO PEOPLE, A MARRIED COUPLE CAN PROVIDE UP TO $500.

AND SO IN MY OPINION, THE LETTER OF THE LAW GOES AGAINST THE OTHER WAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD.

'CAUSE THERE IS NO REAL POINT OF EVIDENCE OR DISPUTE HERE WHEN WE KNOW THAT THE QUESTION IN BEFORE US IS BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE AND THAT THE MARRIED COUPLE, UM, ARE WITHIN $500.

SO, UM, I THINK IN, IN RESPECT TO THAT, UM, WE, IT WOULD BE REALLY UNFORTUNATE TO GO ONTO A NEXT HEARING, UH, WHEN WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION IS.

AND IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU READ THE FORM AND WHETHER A QUESTION, IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

UH, I THINK THE QUESTION OF THE LAW HAS BEEN PRETTY ANSWERED AND, AND FIGURED OUT HERE.

SO THAT'S WHY I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION.

MAY I RESPOND? YES, OF COURSE.

UM, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO GET CLARITY FROM OUTSIDE COUNSEL ABOUT WHAT THE LETTER OF

[00:50:01]

THE LAW IS.

'CAUSE AS I LOOK AT THE LETTER OF THE LAW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN SECTION EIGHT OF CHAPTER ARTICLE THREE OF THE CHARTER, THE TERM MARRIED DOESN'T APPEAR, THE WORD SPOUSE DOESN'T APPEAR.

THE IDEA THAT ONE PERSON COULD GIVE ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ANOTHER PERSON.

I DON'T SEE THAT ARTICULATED IN HERE.

I SEE A STATEMENT THAT ONE PERSON MAY GIVE 300.

OF COURSE THAT NUMBER HAS BEEN ADJUSTED WITH TIME.

THIS IS, IT'S NOT THE LETTER OF THE LAW WITHIN MY UNDERSTANDING.

YEAH.

SEPARATELY ON THE STATEMENT WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS VALUE TO CONSISTENCY AND PRECEDENT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT PRECEDENT PRIMARILY, I MEAN PRIMARILY IS BINDING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF COURTS.

THE CONTEXT THERE IS DISTINCT HERE BECAUSE THERE ARE RULES ABOUT WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PRECEDENT, WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT BINDING.

UM, I WILL NOTE THAT FOR INSTANCE, THE ACTIONS OF ONE TRIAL COURT ARE NOT BINDING ON THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER TRIAL COURT.

NOR IS ONE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION BINDING ON ITSELF LATER NECESSARILY.

UH, COURTS ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

AND IF WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN UNDEFINED VERSION OF PRECEDENT THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED AT A MEETING BY A DIFFERENT GROUP OF PEOPLE AND MAYBE THEY CAME TO A CONCLUSION OR MAYBE THEY GOT TIRED AND LEFT, THAT I GUESS WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE EVIDENCE ON WHAT THE PRECEDENT IS AND WHAT THE PRACTICE IS.

'CAUSE IT'S NOT ESTABLISHED.

UM, BUT FORGIVE ME, I DID ASK THE BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW.

DOES IT, DOES IT TALK ABOUT MARRIED COUPLES AND DISTINGUISH THEM FROM INDIVIDUALS? AND, AND IF I MAY REFINE THAT QUESTION IN IS GUIDANCE PART OF THE LETTER OF THE LAW? 'CAUSE TO ME GUIDANCE, THE GUIDANCE PROVISIONS ARE ALSO PART OF THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

BUT IT MAYBE I'M MISINTERPRETING THAT IT COMMISSIONERS IN TERMS OF, OF THE CHARTER AND THE CODE FOR CITY OF AUSTIN, THEY SPEAK IN TERMS OF THE MAXIMUM DONATION AMOUNT PER PERSON OR PER CONTRIBUTOR.

THAT THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY USE.

I I, I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME CAMPAIGN GUIDANCE MATERIAL OUT THERE THAT ADDRESSES THE FAMILY ISSUE.

BUT I, I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

I CAN'T QUOTE IT.

YEAH.

SO TO ME, PER PERSON, JUST FROM MY VIEW, PER PERSON MEANS IF YOU'RE A MARRIED COUPLE, THAT'S TWO PEOPLE, IT'S $500 EACH.

SO IT'S CLEAR WITHIN THE PER PERSON.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY, MY INTERPRETATION.

I THINK THAT'S THE PRECEDENT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING.

RECALL THE QUESTION.

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED, UH, ON COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN'S MOTION, UH, TO FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS TO MOVE FORWARD TO A FINAL HEARING.

WE WILL DO THIS AS A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UH, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN? I VOTE YES.

COMMISSIONER KEEL? NO.

COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? NO.

COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL? NO.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON? YES.

UH, AND I VOTE NO WITH THAT WE HAVE, UH, FOUR, FOUR NOS TO YESES.

THE MOTION FAILS.

RIGHT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.

ALRIGHT, WE WILL GET CHAIR HUMPHREY BACK FROM EXILE AND WE CAN CARRY ON WITH THE MEETING.

IF I LEAVE, WILL YOU LOSE A QUORUM? UH, ONCE THE CHAIR IS BACK, YOU CAN THEN YOU SHOULD STAY BECAUSE I'M GONNA BACK.

OH, YOU HATE ME.

DO IT.

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH WHAT HAPPENED HERE TONIGHT AND I THINK THAT IT WAS AN ABSURD RESULT.

SO I'M GONNA CONSIDER RESIGNING, BUT WHAT I'M GONNA DO TONIGHT IS WALK OUT AS, AS CHAIR HUMP GETS BACK.

'CAUSE LITERALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE EXIST AS A COMMISSION.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME? I GET MR. HUMPHREY FROM THE BACK.

IS HE IN THE, UH, HE IS OUT IN THE LOBBY AND I'VE JUST TEXTED HIM, SO HE SHOULD BE ON HIS WAY BACK IN.

ARE WE HERE? WE, UH, APPROVAL OF SO KINLEY.

[00:55:33]

NEXT ITEM, THE AGENDA REGARDS ITEM FIVE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR CALL MEETING ON APRIL 22ND, 2026.

THE

[5. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission meeting on April 22, 2026.]

I THINK EVERYBODY HAS THAT IN THEIR PACKET.

UM, I LOOKED AT THEM A COUPLE DAYS AGO, MADE A COUPLE OF MINOR SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES, BUT, UH, I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE MINUTES TO LOOK AT THEM.

MOVE APPROVAL.

PARDON? MOVE APPROVAL.

OH, OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER KEEL AND A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR SHARKEY.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

IS REGARDING ITEM SIX, CONDUCT ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND SECRETARY.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON.

ALL OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR LEFT HAND .

ANY ABSTENTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

THIS PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THE NEXT ITEM OF AGENDA

[6. Conduct the annual election of officers (Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary). ]

SO I WILL, UH, WE'LL START WITH CHAIR.

I WAS GONNA NOMINATE COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, BUT HE LEFT.

PARDON? , I'M SORRY.

PARDON? YOU HAD TO BE IN HERE TO APPRECIATE MY ATTEMPT AT HEARING, UH, CHAIR HUMPHREY.

UM, UH, BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOTE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN HAS LEFT FROM THE MEETING AND IS NO LONGER BEING COUNTED TOWARDS THE QUORUM AND THE VOTE.

LET THE MINUTES READ THAT COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN HAS, UH, DEPARTED AND LEFT THE MEETING.

UM, SO DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR? I NOMINATE CHAIR PUMPHREY TO SERVE FOR A PROUD SECOND TERM.

SECOND PROUD.

UH, ARE THERE ANY SECONDS? SECOND.

THAT WAS, WOULD'VE BEEN EMBARRASSING IF IT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND .

UM, ANY DISCUSSION? KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK CHAIR HUMPHREY .

ALL IN FAVOR OF CHAIRMAN PUMPHREY BEING REELECTED.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL OPPOSED, ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

UH, NOW WE HAVE, UH, THE VICE CHAIR UP.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? I WOULD DO THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK THE CHAIR IS SUPPOSED TO DO THIS SORT OF THING.

DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? YES, I'D LIKE TO, UH, NOMINATE VICE CHAIR SHARKEY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO REELECT BY CHAIR SHARKEY FROM COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER KEEL.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

UH, ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL OPPOSED, ANY ABSTENTIONS THAT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

AND NOW WE HAVE THE SEC, THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.

WE HAVE NOT HAD A SECRETARY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

YOUR CHAIR HAS REVIEWED THE MINUTES EACH MONTH.

THAT'S THE SOLE JOB I BELIEVE, OF THE SECRETARY IS TO REVIEW THE MINUTES, UH, AFTER THEY'RE PREPARED BY MS. BEEZ.

UH, IT USUALLY IS A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING.

UH, SO WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO, UH, JUMP UP INTO A LEADERSHIP POSITION? UM, DO I HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY? YOU CAN NOMINATE YOURSELF.

THAT DIDN'T HELP HUH? ? I'M HAPPY TO DO IT IF NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT.

COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL .

ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT ALSO IS UNANIMOUS.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF ELECTING COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL AS OUR SECRETARY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL OPPOSED,

[01:00:01]

CONGRATULATIONS TO VICE CHAIR SHARKEY AND SECRETARY CAMPBELL.

UM, THE NEXT ITEM

[7. Review the need for the Working Group to Review and Revise ERC Rules and Regulations (Commissioners Sharkey and Figueroa). ]

OF THE AGENDA IS TO REVIEW THE NEED FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW ERC RULES AND REGULATIONS.

AND THE REASON I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA IS BECAUSE, UM, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT THIS MAY BE AN OVERLAP COMPLETELY WITH THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE ERC COMPLAINTS PROCESS.

UM, WE HAVE, WE HAVE RULES AND PROCEDURES RATHER THAN RULES AND REGULATIONS.

AND ALL THE RULES AND PROCEDURES ARE ABOUT COMPLAINTS AND THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE ERC COMPLAINTS PROCESS CAN TAKE CARE OF ANYTHING THAT THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW ERC RULES AND REGULATIONS WOULD'VE DONE.

ARE THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? GOOD PLAN.

SO DO WE NEED A MOTION? YES.

I MOVE TO DISBAND THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW AND REVISE THE ERC RULES AND REGULATIONS.

ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I BELIEVE YES, IS THE, UH, UPDATE ON THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THE ERC COMPLAINTS PROCESS.

THIS HAS BEEN MOVED BY VICE CHAIR SHARKEY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KEEL TO, UM, DISSOLVE.

WHAT WAS THE VERB YOU USED? DISSOLVE ANDAND DISBAND.

DISBAND DIS DISBAND THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW ERC RULES AND REGULATIONS.

UH, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL OPPOSED RAISE EITHER HAND AND, UH, ANY ABSTENTIONS THAT PASS UNANIMOUSLY.

THE FINAL

[8. Update from the Working Group to Review ERC Complaints Process (Commissioners Figueroa, Lawson, Low, McGiverin and Soliz)]

NOW, THE CHAIR OF THAT WORKING GROUP AS COMMISSIONER LOW, UH, SHE AND I HAD SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP TO ASK IN HER ABSENCE WHO COULD REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THAT WORKING GROUP, BUT WE DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER .

SO, IS ANYONE PREPARED? MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS TO THE NEXT, UH, MEETING? OKAY.