1 MINUTES 2 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE - Denton, Texas€¦ · 1 MINUTES 2 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE 3 May 17, 2017 4 5 6 After determining that a quorum was present, the City of Denton

MINUTES 1

CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE 2

May 17, 2017 3

4

5

After determining that a quorum was present, the City of Denton Charter Review Committee of the City of 6

Denton, Texas convened in a meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Work 7

Session Room, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which time the following items were considered: 8

9

Present: Dr. Bob Bland, Sheryl English, Herbert Holl, Dr. Patrice Lyke, Joe Mulroy, Dr. Annetta 10

Ramsay, Prudence Sanchez, Steve Sullivan, Jorge Urbina, David Zoltner, Billy Cheek, Phil 11

Gallivan, Monica Glenn, Marty Rivers, Kyle Eaton. 12

13

Absent: Ron Johnson, Colletta Johnson, Jim Alexander, Michael Upshaw, Erin Clegg, Stu 14

Moorhead. 15

16

Staff: Aaron Leal, Bryan Langley, Sarah Kuechler, Kelly Campbell 17

18

19

Mulroy called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. A quorum is present. 20

21 22 Regular Meeting 23 24 1. Public Comment. (5 Minutes) (if anyone from the Public, Kelly to get their names and contact 25

information) None 26

27

2. Housekeeping. (5 Minutes) 28

29 Mulroy – I send apologies from Mike Upshaw and Jim Alexander who had other commitments so I knew 30

they would not be here. 31

32

A. Consider approval of the April 19, 2017 Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 33

34

Steve Sullivan made a motion, Patrice Lyke seconded to approve the minutes. All in favor, Motion passed. 35

36

B. Clarification of and take appropriate action concerning the February 1, 2017 Charter Review 37

Committee Meeting Minutes. 38

39

Mulroy – I received a letter from Mayor Watts and in those minutes, Page 20, lines 11 & 12, the text reads, 40

David Zoltner was speaking, “in town right now where a sitting Mayor and an ex-Mayor is contracting 41

with the City.” Mayor Watts says he is the City Mayor and has no contracts with the City. He would 42

like us to reconsider this statement. 43

44

Zoltner – Joe, I was prepared, after speaking with Chris, I am prepared to amend my own comments, if 45

that’s ok. There was some insinuation that sitting and ex-Mayor were two different people, they were 46

totally the same person, we all know who the mayor was prior to May of 2014, and there was no way 47

that I would insinuate that the current Mayor had any indication of contract, plans or whatever. I had 48

prepared a correction. 49

50

Mulroy – So you want to enter that? Would you mind reading it for the committee? 51

52

pg. 1

Zoltner – “By request, I’d like to clarify a comment I made during our Feb 15 meeting and minutes of the 1

Feb meeting on page 21, L 6. Reference was made to a “sitting and ex-mayor” violating typical ethical 2

codes by contracting with a city they serve. I want to make it clear that ‘sitting’ and ex-mayor are and 3

were one and the same person (Mark Burroughs 5/2014). I no way did I infer that our CURRENT 4

mayor Chris Watts would ever participate in such activity.” [Typed exactly as presented] 5

6

Mulroy – That sounds very acceptable to me. I will take a motion and a second to amend the minutes. 7

Sheryl English made a motion, Annetta Ramsay seconded on amendment. Thank you David, if you’ll 8

leave a copy with Kelly. 9

10

3. Receive a report from Ethics subcommittee, hold a discussion and take appropriate Committee action 11

concerning Ethics and other charges assigned to the Charter Review Committee by the City Council, 12

including review of a draft report. (Joe Mulroy, Chairman). (105 MINUTES) 13

14

Mulroy – We are going to receive a report from the Ethics subcommittee. Jim Alexander couldn’t be here 15

with us, but Patrice Lyke, the Co-Chairman is here and has it under control. 16

17

Lyke – We met one last time, the final time, last Friday. We had a couple of things we wanted to clear and 18

clean up after our whole committee meeting last time. One of the things was the addition of the words 19

“fiduciary” in the conflict of interests. As our subcommittee has been talking, getting immersed in 20

talking about the same thing, we thought and believed we were including fiduciary responsibility, 21

without specifically saying the words. So we want to change the recommendation made to the Council, 22

to include “fiduciary responsibility.” 23

24

Mulroy - On Page 61, slide 16, the 2nd paragraph, we added a sentence, and in your back up we provided 25

an email from Mike Upshaw with that added language. We wove it into that paragraph. As we 26

discussed at the last meeting, he was going to provide this and it was fine. 27

28

Gallivan – Were those the Urbina suggestions he made last meeting? 29

30

Mulroy – No, those edits that Jorge asked for were already added at the last meeting. This was an addition. 31

32

Lyke – Right, this is the last part of the sentence of “appointees who have fiduciary relationships with 33

parties with pecuniary interest in such matters.” A little bit more clear, how far conflicts of interests 34

can go. We additionally then added the last bullet on page 61, slide 16, that “Consideration may also 35

be undertaken to include all city employees under the Ethics Ordinance to promote employee ethics 36

education, compliance and ongoing training. Care should be exercised to fully interface existing 37

policies and procedures to avoid management conflicts.” So that is an addition to our recommendation 38

for the ethics board. We didn’t change anything with the recommended language for the Charter 39

because again, we are looking at something that is clean, short, we can expand easily that if called upon 40

by the voting public, it’s a recommendation to the elements of the Ethics Ordinance where we did some 41

retooling of some language. This is what we would like to move forward with. 42

43

Mulroy – Any questions? If not we’ll take a motion to approve the Ethics subcommittee’s final 44

recommendation. 45

46

Zoltner – If we’re at that point, I have a lot to say about that. What appears on page 19, these are 47

recommendations that citizens may or may not ever see, including what you just read Patrice, about the 48

city employees. The red lines are what the voters are going to see, if I understand this. 49

50

Mulroy – Are you talking about slide 19? 51

52

Zoltner – Page 18. 53 pg. 2

1

[Several comment] 2

3

Zoltner – What we are about here is the Charter. I agree with what’s at the top, we absolutely need to repeal 4

14.04, 14.05, they need to go. But I’m deeply troubled if the citizens of this town only see what is here 5

below, and we make no reference whatsoever to how an Ethics Ordinance is going to be embellished, 6

who will be included and I think, clean and simple troubles me, as I see this, my opinion, we have not 7

taken a big step on where we were before with our aspirational resolution because this leaves it wide 8

open to any Council in the future to decide who is included, shall it be staff, who shall it be… this even 9

leaves it open to the Council to regulate their own affairs. In our recommendations, yes, it says “ethics 10

complaints [may] be heard by a Council selected [by] three-person…” that’s ok and debatable. But the 11

citizens are not going to see this and they’re going to say, “Oh my goodness, here we go again.” My 12

recommendation, personal opinion, I want to see in the Charter language that goes to the citizens, that 13

elected, appointed and staff will be included in the Charter recommendation. Those are non-negotiable, 14

they go in stone, not out there for future Councils to play with and discuss. I also want an ethics review 15

board to be mentioned in that Charter resolution. Now, that’s my personal feeling. I’m just going to let 16

democracy play out here, and kind of tap on to Peggy’s St. Jude, patron saint of the hopeless. I actually 17

have a written replacement, this is going to be in the form of a motion. A replacement for what appears 18

at #4, I’m ok with the opening paragraph there and everything down to #4 is ok, but there is a problem 19

with #4 because it leaves so much for interpretation for future Councils. Now the following is not just 20

from David, it’s from the National Civic League, their model city charter and this is just for 21

consideration and debate. In a second we can talk about this. [David reading his recommendation] The 22

City Council shall by ordinance subscribe as an independent ethics review board to administer and 23

enforce conflicts of interests financial disclosure ordinances. No member of the ERB may hold elected 24

or appointed offices. That is left open. [not clear] ERB members shall be nominated by Council, 25

approved community organizations and be approved by Council majority vote. That essentially de-26

politicizes as much as possible who sits in review of ethics issues. In so far as possible through State 27

Law, the ERB shall be authorized to issue binding advisory opinions, conduct investigations on its own 28

initiative, upon referral or complaint from officials or citizens, subpoena as needed, refer cases for 29

prosecution, impose administration remedies and hire independent counsel. Finally, City Council shall 30

appropriate sufficient funds for ERB to enable it to perform assigned duties, including training and 31

education of preliminary officials and all city employees regarding this ethics code. That’s pretty much 32

from the National Civic League. I think we need to drill down and be much more specific with #4 33

before this ever gets out of this room. Thank you. 34

35

Ramsay – I would like to second it. 36

37

Bland – It’s on the floor, for discussion. 38

39

Mulroy – Let me back up and give you my reflection. At the end of last meeting, we had a consensus to 40

proceed with the exception to get the language from Mike and to take Jorge’s words and do a little 41

editing. That was twice that we had consensus. That’s what the Ethics subcommittee did. And we 42

came back to address the concerns that you voiced last meeting about having the employees included. 43

The difficulty in mandating that is you create the potential for conflict between the City Manager’s 44

management, and then what an ethics ordinance might be or a complaint. Now by the paragraph that 45

was added by the committee, it points the Council in that direction that they should consider including 46

the employees and they may do it in different ways. They may put them in the ordinance or they may 47

go back to employee handbooks or manuals and go back through there and weave ethics provisions in 48

there. But whatever they do, it has to be fully interfaced. The recommendations we’re making are on 49

the edge of our charge. We put forth these recommended elements of the ordinance because when we 50

had the round robin twice, the strength of conviction of what the community feels related through the 51

committee, I felt we could offer some suggestions. I would disagree with your assessment that we have 52

not gotten anywhere. I think as a community, it’s a quantum leap from having a Council that did not 53 pg. 3

make a decision because maybe they didn’t see the choices as being palatable, maybe they were too 1

strident. I hadn’t had any conversation, but I know though this group through deliberation and hearing 2

everyone; we put together reflection of everyone’s comments on the board, we went around twice, and 3

the committee, that’s the information that they distilled down to this. Now, what I would suggest, it’s 4

not all that you want personally, but it’s a quantum leap from what the City has right now. It’s a quantum 5

leap that is well supported by the whole committee and I think is easily discussed with the community 6

in simple straight forward language. I go back to Alan’s report which is keep it lean and mean. Just 7

make it enabling legislation. That’s his words. You just need in the Charter enough language to make 8

it enabling legislation. We went a little bit beyond that by saying here’s components that need to be in 9

there, but we’re not writing it and we’re not embedding that in the Charter. The Charter is a quantum 10

leap to say you shall have an ordinance. I disagree that we haven’t moved at all. I think we’ve moved 11

into a realm that is going to be easily understood, acceptable and would move forward, I would hope, 12

for the whole Council. What they do in the future is going to be a political decision to how finite a 13

given Council goes with an ordinance. 14

15

Zoltner – Joe, with all due respect, I’m not disrespecting this committee, but I am referring to every other 16

city in the State of Texas has passed a comprehensive ethics ordinance that is meaningful, employees 17

are always included. Our City Manager comes from Glenview, Illinois… 18

19

Mulroy – David, with the added language, we do not preclude that. The Council is able to do that if they 20

so choose. 21

22

Zoltner – You just made my point, the Council is able but not mandated. 23

24

Cheek – Excuse me, are we mandating anything for the Council from this committee? 25

26

Mulroy – Not in the ordinance, we are making suggestions. 27

28

Urbina – Advisory. 29

30

Sullivan – They could have long ago, done this, on their own but they haven’t. I thought that was the 31

purpose of the Charter Review is to put something down that is commanding them to do certain things? 32

So I think that if you don’t include employees, then you’ve got, I don’t know how many employees 33

there are with the city, including Utilities, Waste, Airport and all these other people, if they are not 34

bound by the same rules and regulations as the elected and direct hires, what is the point? 35

36

Mulroy – They do have rules and regulations. 37

38

Sullivan – I’m just trying to make a point. As I said last time, there’s been lots or rumors and stories about 39

employees have done things, have been let go, got paid, in executive council so it couldn’t be talked 40

about. All those things are going on out there and nobody knows why or what. 41

42

Mulroy – I don’t think that is what precipitated the change of the Charter language. What caused the want 43

to change the Charter language, Council was of a mind that before they undertook that, they needed to 44

take the existing language and modify or get it out of the way so they could be more stringent. That 45

was the barrier. But it’s up to Council when they write the ordinance. It’s not our charge to write the 46

ordinance. 47

48

Sullivan – If we recommend, shouldn’t we recommend? 49

50

Mulroy – We’re making a recommendation for what they could consider including in the ordinance. But 51

our Charter language, I just don’t think we should embed that into the Charter language. But it’s a 52

political thing, David, they’ll have to be accountable to the community if they don’t get it right, but the 53 pg. 4

last conversation, comments were made, well some things happened, there were lots of questions, and 1

it came back and David in your words, it was enforcement, things were not enforced. Now there’s a 2

new City Manager, new city management and it’s up to City Council to hold him accountable to enforce 3

this. We can’t embed in the Charter management accountability. He reports to the Council. 4

5

Zoltner – We’re not writing the ethics ordinance. There’s all kinds of stuff that is discretionary and the 6

Council will be able to discuss and decide on their own. The whole point of the Charter is what goes in 7

stone. What can these people not vary from in coming years. Three years from now, well we don’t 8

want to include the staff members anymore, so let’s just write them out. You can amend an ordinance, 9

you can’t do that. I want something the community is going to be proud of when they go to the polls. 10

We have an ordinance here that’s ever bit as strident and as well thought out as any of these other cities. 11

I’m not asking a whole lot here. Include the employees and mandate an ethics review board that’s 12

independent of the Council. That’s all I’m asking. That’s not a lot. There’s all kinds of stuff that will 13

still go into an ethics ordinance that we haven’t even discussed and I’m perfectly willing to leave it up 14

to the City Council to determine. This is not asking that much. I’d like to see #4 greatly expanded. I’d 15

like to call a vote on the motion and the second that says #4 needs more work. 16

17

Mulroy – I’m going to suggest to the committee and to yourself, you understand other than forming this 18

committee as far as ethics ordinance, what has happened to City Council the last two years? 19

20

Zoltner – It’s not been able to get on an agenda for reasons we haven’t discussed here. 21

22

Mulroy – You have to question those reasons, was it not wanting to have ethics? Was it stridency? 23

24

Zoltner – Because there was not a sufficient majority on the agenda committee or the council who wanted 25

to get into a conversation where they’d have to discuss it. 26

27

Mulroy – I’m going to suggest to you and the committee that what we recommend, you want it to be 28

palatable, acceptable, lean and allow them flexibility, and remember they’re always going to be 29

politically accountable, going forward. 30

31

Zoltner – Joe, what if I told you the City Manager right now is expecting for example all employees to be 32

included in any ordinance and a majority of the current Council that was just elected agree with what 33

I’m saying. 34

35

Mulroy – Would you say that again? 36

37

Zoltner – I’m telling you that the current City Manager, Todd Hileman, is expecting all employees to be 38

included in any ordinance that goes to Council. We have talked about it. 39

40

Mulroy – Are you sure? Do you have that in writing? I don’t want to let go of this, because I have it writing 41

that that is not what he is advocating. 42

43

Rivers – We have a motion and a second, I couldn’t tell you one thing other than you want those two things 44

in there, but you have a specific motion which is about three paragraphs that we’re about to vote on and 45

I couldn’t recall what it is to even think I could vote on it, because I can’t remember what’s in it. I think 46

what you mean by lean, is that whatever language we put out there the voters have to vote on so anything 47

that we’re talking about on any of these things, whether we like it or not, it’s got to be simple enough 48

for people to understand what it is out there to vote on and I would recommend that your motion is too 49

long to put in a ballot, with the potential of people to vote on, they have to read and understand, I would 50

at least simplify that. I can’t vote on what you just said because I can’t remember what you said five 51

minutes ago. 52

53 pg. 5

Zoltner – Marty, I agree with you. What I read was a fraction of what the San Marcos’ Charter of 1

Authorization for an Ethics Review Board. They specify who must be on the Ethics Review 2

Commission account, the ages, what their occupations can be, this is really compressed from what other 3

cities will put. 4

5

Rivers – And that’s their Charter? 6

7

Zoltner – Yes, in their Charter. Pull up the San Marcos’ Charter and go to Ethics, its two pages, just 8

authorizing their Ethics ordinance. This is compressed, it really isn’t much. This comes straight from 9

the National Civic League, I did not make this up. 10

11

Mulroy – Did you not read Alan’s report? What his recommendations were? 12

13

Zoltner – I know exactly what Alan said, I read his report and I agree and I’m glad he came here. But he 14

did not provide much resource information on how to build a Charter resolution. 15

16

Mulroy – He was very clear, we should be lean and mean, and our Charter should serve as the enabling 17

language and we should say to Council you shall have an ethics ordinance. And it’s up to Council to 18

write that ordinance. We’ve gone a step further by these bullet points we’ve added as suggestions. I 19

think that is of a service to Council because we’ve heard a strong conviction on this. 20

21

Sullivan – As to Marty’s point, how much more difficult can it be to simply say that the ordinance will 22

cover elected officials, direct hires and all employees. 23

24

Cheek – That’s pretty simple. 25

26

Mulroy – I think that’s what we said. 27

28

Sullivan – Doesn’t say all employees. 29

30

Mulroy – It says, “Consideration may also be undertaken to include all city employees under the Ethics 31

Ordinance to promote employee ethics education, compliance and ongoing training. Care should be 32

exercised to fully interface existing policies and procedures to avoid management conflicts.” 33

34

Rivers – That’s in the Ordinance, you’re talking about the Charter. 35

36

Sullivan – If you’re going to get it passed by the voters, if you’re going to have ethics, everybody has to be 37

included, including the guy driving around in the City of Denton truck that may speed or do something 38

he shouldn’t be doing. 39

40

Rivers – I don’t know enough about the City personnel policies, I know I have an ethics policy where I 41

work and we have to keep up with, and I would assume the City of Denton has one. But if they’re 42

getting followed all the time or not is a personnel matter and I don’t think a Charter can dive into a 43

personnel issue, that’s goes beyond my scope and I don’t think that’s something we can do. 44

45

Eaton – I agree, how would you police something at that level. 46

47

Ramsay – I would think that would be up to management. Under these recommendations, I don’t 48

understand why they’re saying this review would be done by three lawyers. Every profession has their 49

own code of ethics. I read a whole lot about this stuff since the last meeting and judicial ethics and local 50

city government ethics are not the same thing. So why only three lawyers? 51

52 pg. 6

Mulroy – The idea behind that is, an ethics complaint is going to be of a serious nature. It should be in the 1

initial complaint, be protected. It shouldn’t be just an allegation. My original language was retired 2

jurists. Mike suggested we just use the word attorneys. So, in that, if someone is accustom to 3

mediation/arbitration, and handling sensitive information and being able to adjudicate that, whether it’s 4

our ethics ordinance or any manner, this is what they are trained to do. 5

6

Ramsay – Other professions do that too. I think narrowing it to one field is a dangerous thing. I don’t have 7

a problem with specifying one person should be a lawyer, but I have a problem saying that all three 8

should. 9

10

Cheek – Wasn’t another issue that lawyers are considered officers of the Court and they’re also held 11

accountable by the State Bar Association and the State Legislature which was one inspiration for putting 12

attorneys on there. I’m not, I’m not held responsible to these associations. 13

14

Ramsay – But other citizens who live in this city are perfectly capable, and we should have a list of 15

organizations for Council to ask they send them their very best. I just don’t think it should be three 16

attorneys. If you indicate there should at least be one attorney, and he can help monitor. 17

18

Mulroy – Well, remember Alan when speaking with us, he said you have to be very careful with that because 19

around election time all of a sudden you’ve got a whole lot of ethics complaints and fewer citizens 20

committee, then it starts getting traction and maybe there’s no merit to it. That’s why my original 21

thought was retired judges, which may be hard to get. Part of my thought was seven on a rotating basis, 22

and always on a three person panel, but would always be a different panel. 23

24

Ramsay – Every profession here is capable of making good decisions. 25

26

Holl – I think we are getting away from the motion and this may bring it back a bit, my question is this, 27

these are recommendations. When the actual process of the City formulation of this ordinance occurs, 28

that will be an open, transparent process, is that correct? Anybody has the opportunity to come and 29

speak to these points again individually at that time. Is that a correct assumption? Or is this just going 30

to happen and here it is? I think that is informational, a guidance to move this forward. 31

32

Leal – Mr. Chair, do you want me to address that question? 33

34

Mulroy – Yes 35

36

Leal – When this comes before the City Council, of course they are going to have a presentation provided 37

by the Chair and/or members of this committee and attach it to their findings to the City Council and 38

how they got there. It will include all the information, staff findings and report and give to them. Then 39

it is the Council’s option to have some type of pubic hearing or place this on an individual consideration 40

to allow public comment. Something as important as this I would think and I’m going to speculate, but 41

Council would think that was important enough to have citizen comments before they adopt an 42

ordinance calling the election with the charges on November 7th. 43

44

Holl – My point is to suggest that we don’t worry about this, there’s time for it later, but on the other hand, 45

it is to say, were we not in complete agreement, people have the opportunity later to address the Council 46

on these points. 47

48

Mulroy – They have the opportunity to address, but turn this around, David, it’s not everything that you 49

would like, but it’s what is been presented is wholly acceptable to 80 percent of the people. Now 50

Council needs to take this and be of the mind to go forward with it. If it is something that becomes 51

untenable to them, it may not go anywhere or they may change a lot. So why would this not work as 52

presented? It’s just the floor. It just opens the door. I’m happy, as a committee, that we’re able to 53 pg. 7

communicate this to our elected officials. And say here is what you need to understand that the 1

community is expecting ethics wise. I just don’t think we should write the ordinance or micro-manage 2

this. 3

4

Zoltner – I completely agree. I just believe that this leaves too much open. And bad ideas turn to stone and 5

this is a bad idea if we don’t address an ethics review board and take this matter seriously as far as with 6

the voters. I’m not so concerned with the Council right now. I’m concerned about the voters and this 7

is what will build public trust, and the thing I sent to everyone, this is a clear example of window 8

dressing without ethics reform. Just another piece of paper, another ordinance without enforcement 9

mechanisms. I’d rather have nothing then what we have on paper right here in terms of ethics. That’s 10

just my opinion. 11

12

Mulroy – Is that a motion? 13

14

Zoltner [and several others} – No. Instead of taking this to the voters, I’d rather have nothing. Just forget 15

about it. 16

17

Cheek – I don’t believe this is what will go to the voters. This is not legal language we’ve put together. 18

19

Bland – Page 66, that’s the red letter edition. Well, we have a motion on the floor. 20

21

Zoltner – So let’s vote it down and move on. 22

23

Mulroy – We’ll finish the discussion. I would ask that you consider two approaches to this. First, what is 24

going to be reasonable, middle, understood and accepted easily by Council with no divisiveness, and 25

go forward. I think we’ve gone quantum leaps from where we began to what has been presented. And 26

the second part of this process is that subcommittees met multiple times, we’ve had input, brought it 27

back to the committee, took the tweaks the last meeting, some editing and then the phrase Mike wanted 28

to add and we incorporated it in there and then this bullet point on covering all the city employees came 29

about because of some comments made in the last meeting was to accommodate that and open that door. 30

So my suggestion is to go with the language that we have because I think we will be much more 31

politically successful. We have a motion and a second. 32

33

Zoltner – I’m not seeking clarity, but my question is, we have unanimous agreement on Stipend and Recall, 34

so what’s the process here, do we vote up or down on the entire report or do we take this as a vote on 35

what we have in front of us in terms of ethics. 36

37

Mulroy – You have a motion and a second on the floor… 38

39

Sullivan – Are we voting on page 61 or 66? I’d agree on 66. 40

41

Rivers – Neither, we’re voting on his motion. 42

43

Ramsay – What if I called a question… 44

45

Bland – The ordinance that is currently on the books applies to all city employees. The opening language 46

makes it very clear. I would guess knowing how governments solve complex problems, which this will 47

be a complex problem for the Council, but they look to precedent. So I’m not too worried that this 48

Charter and ordinance won’t be extended to all employees in one form or another. I’m not too worried 49

about the language at this point, I’m ok with the way you’ve captured this. But I think the precedent is 50

already there in existing ordinances that it implies to all City employees including appointed and elected. 51

I like simplicity and the cleanness of this. I appreciate that they “shall” about the ordinance. I appreciate 52

that and that the ordinance shall at a minimum include. I think that makes it clear. I think as a citizen 53 pg. 8

the people will understand what is being said in this proposed language. We count on Council to spend 1

some time thinking about this and crafting something that is really viable for the whole city. Thank 2

you. 3

4

Urbina – I have a comment too. Sometimes a little turn of phrasing is helpful. And if we are already making 5

ordinance recommendations that takes us slightly beyond the Charter Review charge, and if we are 6

making recommendations that tie into the actual changes that we are suggesting to the Charter, let’s 7

look at that because that might answer a little bit about whether or not how forceful we want to make 8

that part about employees being added. If we look at the last ordinance recommendation, it says 9

consideration, but who says we can’t say something stronger? And that won’t hurt us in any way except 10

simply the sensibility that we want to leave it flexible for the Council of the future. This has got to be 11

flexible, like any legal document or constitution. If we simply say we strongly recommend instead of 12

for your consideration. 13

14

Mulroy – How about instead of saying “may also be undertaken,” say “consideration shall be undertaken.” 15

16

Urbina – I like “shall” in there because it’s obviously something that should be discussed, since city 17

employees can potentially be a huge problem for us, right? Or for folks already at the upper 18

management they can already take it to bat and say no, we really want it in there because it will help us 19

in our administrative management issues. 20

21

Ramsay – Since we are making friendly amendments, could we go up to the “ethics complaints shall be 22

heard by a Council selected three-person panel…?” Can we make that more vague? 23

24

Bland – How about we just drop attorneys? How about “a three-person panel with …” 25

26

Rivers – We are getting into some dangerous ground here, because he has a motion on the table and it is 27

truly opposite from what y’all are trying to amend. 28

29

Mulroy – We’re extending a lot of latitude because a couple of edits may solve the dilemma. David, we 30

may not get everything that you want but this may solve it and we need to go forward. My second 31

comment was to be on process, because we covered in the last meeting with the instruction of what to 32

change and the tweaks to make and we are ready to go forward. 33

34

Bland – You took our advice. 35

36

Ramsay – I would be a lot happier if it said “Ethic complaints shall be heard by a three-person panel,” strike 37

Council selected and attorneys. 38

39

Rivers – If David’s amendment is approved, you won’t even have to worry about this. Only have to worry 40

about that if it doesn’t get approved. 41

42

Mulroy – So you want to strike “Council selected.” David, there are changes that have been offered. Are 43

you in a position to withdraw your motion? 44

45

Zoltner – I’m sorry, Joe, I’m looking for something. 46

47

Ramsay – We just made the selection to the panel board, strike the “Council select”. 48

49

Cheek – And we said “employees shall be.” 50

51

pg. 9

Mulroy – So on the fourth paragraph David, Dr. Ramsay, who was your second, she suggested we strike 1

“Council selected” and “of attorneys.” So it shall read, “Ethics complaint shall be heard by a three-2

person panel with mediation and arbitration experience.” 3

4

Bland – We could add the word “legal mediation and arbitration?” 5

6

Ramsay – No. 7

8

Bland – Ok, you don’t like lawyers. Ok. 9

10

Mulroy – In the last paragraph, it presently reads, “Consideration may also be undertaken” the suggested 11

change is “shall also be undertaken.” 12

13

Zoltner – I don’t want to be difficult, Joe, but I haven’t lost a lot of sleep over these recommendations on 14

the actual ordinance, because this City Council when they see this, they can rip this whole thing in half. 15

I’m not arguing what’s in the ordinance recommendations, I couldn’t care less about that. All I’m 16

talking about is what’s in red lettering here, is the citizens going to say yes or no when they go to the 17

polls in November. 18

19

Bland – Council can rip that up too. All this is just a recommendation. What we are trying to do is find a 20

way to have the Council do as little tweaking as possible. 21

22

Mulroy – The Council can change any of this. As little tweaking but also is broadly acceptable by seven 23

different Council personalities. 24

25

Zoltner – I want our Council to know we’ve given just a little bit of thought to what the enforcement and 26

provisions and training and opinions and all that other than just throwing out the word enforcement like 27

it is all going to take care of itself. 28

29

Holl – Wouldn’t we know if it wasn’t strong and meaningful? The language says strong and meaningful. 30

31

Zoltner – The Council can definitely massage this. They can say they want to know what the ethics review 32

board is going to consider, for example, even the process, how these complaints are handled. Usually 33

an Ethics Review Board will take a primary complaint, go into closed session decide if it is factual and 34

then decide to go from there. You can get as detailed as you want, I’m not trying to do that. I’m just 35

trying to set up the situation where we say that in the Charter provision we are going to have an Ethics 36

Review Board and again for all employees. But the Ethics Review Board says we take this seriously. 37

We’re not going to just leave it up…this right there if we leave it open to the Council, just doing it 38

themselves, kind of like we are now, was a three member council ethics commission, and that doesn’t 39

change anything. That just says leave it at status quo. 40

41

Mulroy – The Council will be politically accountable going forward, this is a statement from the 42

community, broad brush what we expect. 43

44

Zoltner – I’m thinking about ten Councils down the road. Not just this Council. 45

46

Mulroy – That’s ten elections. They have to be politically accountable. We cannot write all the fine print. 47

At some point Council has to answer to the community. We are providing/enabling legislation, which 48

is what Alan recommended, in broad brush direction and reflecting to them the disappointment of 49

community with the status quo. That’s very clear. 50

51

pg. 10

Zoltner – We’ll probably not agree. All I’m saying is I’m happy with everything in red letters here all the 1

way down to #4. That’s all I’m saying. I like everything I read until I get down to #4 and to me that 2

falls politically short of what it needs to be. 3

4

Mulroy – Do you want to withdraw your motion or repeat David for clarity? 5

6

Cheek – I could hear it again, but I need something in writing. I need to take it home and digest it. I’m 7

sorry, there’s no way I can support something from just hearing it for the first time. 8

9

Mulroy – Do you want to restate your motion? 10

11

Zoltner – My motion was to add an Ethics Review Board and all employees to the Charter revision. 12

13

Mulroy – It’s that simple? Is there a second? 14

15

Eaton – I have a question on that. On page 66, one thing I hadn’t noticed before, employees were included 16

prior? By doing this do we now exempt employees from two pieces of law that they were subject to 17

before? 18

19

Mulroy – Definitely not with regards to Nepotism because of the way they work for the City Manager, and 20

there is a whole set of rules. 21

22

Bland – So 171 applies to all city employees? That’s a question for Aaron. 23

24

Leal – If you recall from Alan’s presentation, one of the things he noticed that was different in our Charter 25

is that we include employees to follow Chapter 171 when the Chapter 171 they are not included. 26

27

Eaton – So we would be recommending that we exempt employees from that 171? 28

29

Rivers – They are already exempt. 30

31

Eaton – Can we subject them to 171? 32

33

Leal – If the voters approve the Charter amendment in that manner, yes. 34

35

Eaton – So as it is, right now, they are subject to 171? 36

37

Leal – According to the City Charter, yes. 38

39

Eaton – So, right now, employees are subject to conflict of interest. 40

41

English – Currently. 42

43

Eaton – Currently. As the Charter currently reads. If this was approved, we would be changing that. 44

45

Mulroy – David, will you repeat your motion, abbreviated? 46

47

Zoltner – My motion is, if we don’t go to the specific National Civic League’s language, this is just two 48

very short paragraphs, the key to my motion is that we establish an independent Ethics Review Board 49

in the Charter and two, it includes all employees. Now there are a few more specifics I mentioned the 50

first time, that it should be funded, no member of the ERB may hold elected or appointed office, two 51

very short paragraphs in addition to the one paragraph that’s there. I’m just not asking that much. So 52 pg. 11

all employees and an ethics review board that hopefully will not have any elected or appointed, and I’m 1

sorry this leaves it open for the Council to keep rolling with their ethics review committee. 2

3

Mulroy – So that’s your motion. I caution against voting for it because you shouldn’t embed that. Is there 4

a second? 5

6

Ramsay – We’ve already seconded it. I’d like to call the question. 7

8

Rivers – There’s been three different motions mentioned, a very lengthy one, then you had one that had two 9

things then you had one that had about four things. So I really don’t know what we are voting on. 10

11

Bland – That’s why it’s important to write them out. 12

13

Zoltner – Well I will read this out again, slowly if it would help, whatever you would like me to do. I just 14

want the voters to see that we are taking this seriously and an ethics review board in place or required 15

by Charter revision. That’s all I’m asking. 16

17

Mulroy – What you’re asking for is in what we are suggesting to Council. It’s just not embedded into the 18

Charter language. 19

20

Zoltner – That’s just not the same as going to the voters for a Charter amendment. 21

22

Mulroy – We got a motion, we got a second, and I would just tell you, the Ethics subcommittee met eight 23

times and through the process of many, many weeks, last meeting we were there with exception of 24

adding a phrase from Mike Upshaw. There was a consensus around the room, twice. There was 25

comments about the employees and it’s been addressed. I’m not saying it wrong, I’m saying we have 26

it covered. But anyway, there’s a motion on the floor, all in favor of David’s motion… 27

28

Holl – I’m sorry to be so difficult, could we read the motion one time coherently so we know exactly what 29

motion we’ll be voting on? 30

31

Gallivan – Withdraw all previous motions and make one plain motion. 32

33

English – Are we on page 61 or 66? 34

35

Eaton – 66 36

37

Bland – Just to clarify, David’s motion is to be read, we vote on it and upon the outcome we still haven’t 38

approved the proposed Lyke/Alexander committee recommendation. We haven’t approved that yet. 39

We could still make some amendments to that, especially based on David’s input. 40

41

Mulroy – So do you want to restate your motion, as briefly as possible? 42

43

Zoltner – Do we do this before we accept... no, my motion is that the Council shall establish an independent 44

ethics review board (ERB) to administer and enforce the conflict of interests and financial disclosure 45

ordinances. No member of the ERB may hold elected or appointed office. ERB members shall be 46

nominated by council-approved community organizations and be approved by council majority vote. 47

(We can discuss that after the second half, we haven’t gotten around to that yet.) In so far as possible 48

under state law, the ERB shall be authorized to issue binding advisory opinions, (this is about the 49

training again, puts it in writing there will be training) conduct investigations on its own initiative and 50

on referral or complaint from officials or citizens, subpoena as needed, refer cases for prosecution, 51

impose administrative remedies, and hire independent counsel. The city council shall appropriate 52

sufficient funds to the ERB to enable it to perform assigned duties including training, and education of 53 pg. 12

public officials and all city employees. It’s just two paragraphs, it’s not that complicated. That’s my 1

motion. 2

3

Mulroy – And that’s your motion? Is there a second? 4

5

Ramsay – I second it. 6

7

Mulroy – All in favor? Three, ok. All opposed? 12, ok, so be it. It’s a decision. 8

9

Eaton – With regards to what the recommended changes are and also the ordinance recommendations. I’m 10

looking at item #3, Avoidance of appearance of conflict of interest. I’m wondering if that needs to be 11

changed on the Ordinance Recommendations so that it also says appearance. 12

13

Bland – Where are you? 14

15

Eaton - On page 66, on the Charter Changes, item #3, Avoidance of appearance. But when you go to page 16

67, Exhibit 3, it says Elected and appointed officials shall recuse themselves from any discussion or 17

agenda item wherein a conflict of interest may exist. I don’t know if you want to expand that to include 18

the appearance of conflict of interest? 19

20

Bland – Oh, you want to add the words “may exist?” 21

22

Eaton – Yeah, “may exist,” but no, appearance of, to be uniform with what’s in the Charter. 23

24

Cheek – He’s taking what we are proposing in the Charter and putting in the recommendation for the 25

Ordinance. 26

27

Bland – Oh, I see, I see. You’re moving from left then to right. 28

29

Eaton – One of the concerns that we had was the appearance of impropriety. 30

31

Mulroy – So we’re going to leave it as number three, but want to repeat it. What paragraph were you 32

suggesting Kyle? 33

34

Eaton – The first paragraph to expand to include the appearance, conflict of interest or appearance. 35

36

Mulroy – All right, where any conflict or appearance of conflict of interest. I want to get this cause we are 37

going to vote on this tonight. So after conflict, it will say or appearance of conflict. Or appearance of 38

conflict of interest. Ok. 39

40

Eaton – Because I’ve had some personal experience looking at the recusal forms and those are the exact 41

words that I see, that have the appearance of conflict of interest. 42

43

Mulroy – Ok, very good. Now we had three other suggested changes. I’m looking at the chair of the 44

subcommittee because I want you to agree because if you don’t we will take it back to the subcommittee 45

and postpone the whole thing and revisit it. On the fourth paragraph, we are striking “Council selected” 46

and striking “of attorneys.” So it will read “Ethics complaints shall be heard by a three-person panel 47

with mediation and arbitration experience.” Ok? Is that good with you Patrice? 48

49

Lyke – My question will be then where will we get those people? 50

51

[Several talking] 52

53 pg. 13

Rivers – Council will decide who selects them, where to get them, their experience, and that can be changed 1

from one year to the next. 2

3

[Several discussions continue] 4

5

Ramsay – If they have to have mediation experience, then they will be lawyers. 6

7

[Several] – No, not necessarily. 8

9

Cheek – In Texas most of the time they are. 10

11

Mulroy – Council’s going to get the message, we’re just not going to micromanage. Ok, the last paragraph, 12

consideration shall be, instead of saying may also, we’ll say consideration shall be undertaken to include 13

all city employees under the ethics ordinance. So that’s our changes. This is… 14

15

Ramsay – Would this be like amended amendments? 16

17

Bland – We’re approving this as amended. 18

19

Mulroy – Right as amended, as we just went over. I’ll take a motion. 20

21

Bland – Well the committees’ report is on the floor, right? 22

23

Mulroy – Yes. 24

25

Eaton – Do you want to go back to the 171, leave that out there or pull that back in? 26

27

Mulroy – I’m not following you. 28

29

Eaton – In the Charter, right now, employees are subject to 171. Do you want to pull that back into that 30

last paragraph right there? 31

32

Cheek – Does it not say that? I’m just making sure, I think it may say that, that “…the minimum, the ethics 33

ordinance shall incorporate the conflict of interest standards that appear in chapter 171…”, then we 34

come over here and it says, “Consideration may also be undertaken to include all city employees…”. 35

So does our recommendation already say that? 36

37

Rivers – Our recommendation says that we are going to include all city employees in an ethics ordinance. 38

I don’t know how more clear that can be. 39

40

Lyke – Yes, we re-referenced it. 41

42

Bland – Kyle’s suggestion is that it be in the Charter. 43

44

Eaton – Well, the last paragraph is what I was thinking, but I guess that would be… 45

46

Bland – Well, this is interesting… We are questioning this too much, huh? 47

48

Mulroy – Yes, we’ve got the broad brush, we’ve got the message for the Council, we have it that I believe 49

80 percent of the people would be acceptable with what we are suggesting. It’s not micro, it’s enabling 50

legislation, we’re giving a little more ideas, and this is basically what we heard around the room. This 51

is your thoughts that we’ve incorporated. We’ve opened the door and set the floor, we could be here 52

for two years trying to get the perfect language and the perfect ordinance but I think this crystalizes 53 pg. 14

everybody’s thoughts and we need to move forward. We have the modified report on the floor and we 1

don’t really need a second, this is accepted by the committee. All in favor? It’s unanimous. Ok, we 2

are going to get this done tonight. And David, those are good comments, and it’s more of where and 3

stylistic, but we’ll go forward and thank you for your vote. So the other item I want to call your attention 4

to before we get into the report is the Auditor’s language, which we all looked at before, we passed it 5

out, you’ve had it for a couple of months. I got two comments back, some from Erin, which was the 6

use of A, B, C, D and I got some from Dr. Bland. I’ve incorporated most of those. I did change where 7

I had in the alternate, the City Council may engage external independent auditing services, and I changed 8

that to on an interim basis. That’s the material change. That brings it in tighter for Council. They have 9

to have the capability to outsource that on six months or a year if they are in between managers or 10

council elections, then they can get it done till they hire for a while on an interim basis. So that’s the 11

material change. We’ve never voted on this. I’ll take a motion and a second. 12

13

Cheek – I make a motion to approve language as is. 14

15

Mulroy – Seconded by Patrice Lyke. All in favor? It is Unanimous. 16

17

Bland – That’s a good statement. 18

19

Mulroy – Thank you, Bob. Let’s keep this unanimous going because that give weight to City Council when 20

they look at it. Now our next item is the draft report. I’m not going to let Bryan Langley take the credit 21

for it, Sarah did all the work; you can stand up and take a bow. She really put it together for us in a very 22

short period of time. You have seen everything in there. It was emailed to you yesterday, and you have 23

a hard copy today. 24

25

Cheek – Is page 49 where we are at? 26

27

Mulroy – Page 49 is the boiler plate, and page 51 just repeats the Council’s resolution. Page 54 starts 28

getting into the report. It’s very well done. You can step through it very quickly. I think Council will 29

grasp it, the information they need to know. And I appreciate it if you don’t word-smith it, if it gets us 30

there, let’s go with it. We will change the ethics as we discussed and voted on. And Kelly, you have 31

captured everything, correct? 32

33

Bland – I predict the fact that you have the right elements for an ethics ordinance. 34

35

Mulroy – We’ve gone a little beyond our charge, but my reflection is that Council needs to hear that without 36

being strident, they need to hear our communication from around this room how much conviction there 37

is in the community that there has been a failure of demonstrating good ethics, there’s been some holes. 38

So, take a look and when you’re satisfied and finished reading it we’ll entertain a motion to approve the 39

drafted report. 40

41

Lyke – Including the changes that was made to the ethics portion? 42

43

Mulroy – Yes, including that. 44

45

Glenn – I make a motion to approve the drafted report. 46

47

Mulroy – Thank you Monica. Seconded by Marty Rivers; David Zoltner abstains. Everyone else is in favor. 48

49

English – There is just one correction on page 52, on the Stipend committee, where the members are, there’s 50

one member that not included, that’s Ron Johnson. He was on Stipend. 51

52 pg. 15

Mulroy – Ron’s down there under Recall. There’s seven members per subcommittee. Ron may have been 1

in error in attending the committee. We will confirm the official assignments. If there’s any slight 2

clean-up language we may be permitted to take care of that. I want to move on to get you out of here 3

by 7:25. First of all, I want to thank you all. This committee after it met the first time became at ease 4

with each other, you all came forth with your ideas, different opinions, fully respectful of everybody 5

else’s opinions, got it in the mix and we came out really in the green with everything as unanimous with 6

one abstaining, but that’s real important to take this as a whole and we reflect what the community is 7

asking for. I won’t get on a long trail, but the Stipend was the item that I really got educated on. I think 8

that might be the hardest sell to the community. Because so many people are going to say “What do you 9

mean? We’re not going to pay those people.” I want to take a moment of your time, I was pretty 10

ambivalent when we started but I wanted to hear, and you are correct that to promote diversity, it’s real 11

important, a message for the community. And then for me personally, getting into the ethics, trying to 12

distill everyone’s comments and concerns down and from Alan’s report, its leadership. The other word 13

is enforcement. I relate to you, because this is the one item you are going to get the most questions on 14

is Stipend, it’s a new topic. Ethics is not a new topic. Being paid is brand new. I’m guessing you’ll get 15

the most questions. My personal evolution was, when we talk about promoting diversity, it was not just 16

racial diversity, that’s the first thing that rings in your mind. But the more I get into the ethics conflict, 17

I realize it’s a total socio economic complacency void that we have because our Council in the past was 18

a rather select group then they become complacent ethics-wise. So when we promote diversity, we’re 19

going to put some new faces in there that won’t be part of an old network, it’s already happened the last 20

two elections, that diversity is going to be socio economic and won’t be just the same old group but be 21

new people that will not allow their fellow council members to become complacent on ethics. So that’s 22

my evolution and when I’m asked, that’s going to be my response. Do you have any comments as well? 23

24

English – As the world evolves, so should Denton, Texas. We’ve been a little slow at it. I’m coming from 25

a bigger city, Los Angeles, and been here since 2002, so it is a whole new different world. There, the 26

Council, School Board, they are full time jobs with many staff. And here, on Council and School Board, 27

these are big jobs, especially as the city continues to grow and grow. And there should be some type of 28

compensation. I’m not saying we’re ready to be fully invested, but something. 29

30

Mulroy – We’ve got to open the door. That will be our biggest challenge is to explain to the community is 31

why, which is important to have the unanimous vote. 32

33

Gallivan – It will be a new shock to “Joe Voter.” If parenthetically, if we could put “per month” in there. 34

Include the numbers, but having per month in there would make it easier to take. 35

36

English – It’s in there. 37

38

Gallivan – I’m just looking at this Exhibit 3 on page 68. 39

40

Holl – On page 62 that’s actually what it says. 41

42

Sullivan – It actually has monthly Stipend and initial annual Stipend, so it goes back and forth. 43

44

Bland – Maybe the way to do this is the language that is put on the ballot would be the monthly amount 45

which would not be disingenuous to the language in the charter. Monthly amount articulated in the 46

language that’s on the ballot. 47

48

Mulroy – That’s a point well taken. On page 62 it’s emphasized monthly. Give me a minute to read that, 49

if a simple fix we could do that. 50

51

Cheek – It says in the form of a monthly stipend, but doesn’t bring it in. 52

53 pg. 16

Mulroy – And then it switches to annual Stipend. Now would it be helpful, and I want to honor what came 1

from the committee, but this is a good point. That’s why I want to talk about this. We have to sell this 2

to our friends and neighbors. Maybe we should, right after the first sentence, say the monthly stipend 3

will be such-n-such to total to $9,000 annually for council member and $12,000 for mayor? Or do we 4

just want to say here is the monthly stipend? 5

6

Bland – Initial and monthly stipend shall be $750 for each member of city council and district at large and 7

$1,000 for mayor. 8

9

Holl – One less thing for people to speculate. 10

11

English – They can do the math. 12

13

Bland – A good reporter will do the math and tell what the annual amount is. 14

15

Mulroy – So this language on your page 68, modify it to match the slide and be monthly? All in favor? 16

Unanimous. We’ll email you the final copy of the changes. But it doesn’t really change the principle 17

of the slide presentation or of the report what we’ve decided on. Anybody else have any other? I want 18

to thank y’all before we get out the door. It’s been a pleasure. 19

20

Bland – I have kind of a procedure question. So if we are called on to…what is the protocol at this point? 21

Shall all questions go to you? Shall inquiries go to you? What is our appropriate roll? 22

23

Mulroy – There’s nothing that has been defined or assigned. I will take this report, we’ll get scheduled with 24

the City Council, hopefully sometime in June, make a work session presentation. It’s on the website, 25

and we’ll make these changes as soon as we can so when people come into our website they can see our 26

exact language. Now if questions come, at this point, be personable and reflect and say this is what the 27

committee’s thinking was and why we decided, but I can get you all the information, and you can refer 28

them to me or Bryan and we’ll give them a formal response and record their questions and answer them. 29

Between now and the Council presentation, that would be helpful because we can reflect to the Council 30

this is our continuing public feedback. Now, after we make the presentation, then Council will have to 31

decide the protocol going forward. 32

33

Lyke – How is the presentation made? How does that work? 34

35

Mulory – It will be in a work session and we’ll let you know when it is going to be, and see if all the 36

members are welcome and the co-chairs for sure, that’s just not solidified yet. 37

38

Bland – So if I understand it, until the official presentation, channel information through you? 39

40

Mulroy – Right. Feel free to reflect, this has been a very deliberative process. 41

42

Cheek – You are still a voter, you can still tell them what you think about it. 43

44

Rivers – I know this a recommendation to Council, has there been any discussion on any individual items 45

to vote on or slate of amendments? 46

47

Mulroy – I think they are going to be individually presented to the voters. Correct? 48

49

Leal – Yes, each item. 50

51

Eaton – Remind me again, when this has to be in to make the November ballot? 52

53 pg. 17

Langley – August 21st 1

2

Mulroy – Again, I want to express it has been a real pleasure and a joy and to learn as we go along, to be 3

educated on the elements of what the community is missing, what we need to do to bridge some of the 4

divide and get better and be looking forward. Y’all were just a pleasure to work with. 5

6

Langley – Before you leave, on behalf of the staff, I just want to thank everyone for all your participation 7

and work, for all the number of times we got together and I really appreciate all your efforts. 8

9

Mulroy – I was joking with y’all, but serious recognition, Bryan, Aaron, Sarah – welcome to Denton. Y’all 10

made this very crisp, captured everything, verbatim minutes, it’s worked very well, but has taken a lot 11

of extra hours. All right, thank you, and good night, folks. 12

13

Bland – So we aren’t going to meet again, right? 14

15

Mulroy – This is it. 16

17

4. Concluding Items. (5 Minutes) 18

19

A. Scheduling of next meeting(s). 20

21

5. Adjourn. (Committee Chairperson) 7:28pm 22 23 24

pg. 18

Drafts(7) - [email protected] - Gmail https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#drafts?compose=15cl35d.,

New Message

ntM-Cc Bcc

Subject

Byrequest, I'dlike to clarify a commentI made during our Feb 15 meeting and minutesofttiat Feb meetingon page 21 L 6. !

Reference was made to a "sittingand ex- mayor"violating typicalethical codes by contracting witha cityttiey ;

Iwant to make it dear ttiat "sitting" and ex mayor are and were one and the same persor^^ark Burroughs^ 'fIno way did I inferthat our CURRENTmayor Chris V\^s would ever partidpate in sudi adivity.

pg. 19

1 Lyke-1 think it's difficult to write an ethicspolicy. What's legal is one thing, what's ethical can2 be another thing. I agree with everyone else, that ifwe can craft an ethics code that sends a message3 of what we tolerate. Sexual harassment has been filed, but not been prosecuted, people given4 second chances. I think that ifwe can institute a clean new feeling in city hall, that when you come5 work for us you fly right. You don't talk behind peoples back, you don't go make deals after 5:006 with other people that you work with, because we don't do that. So however we can build that in7 the language that gives the message "wejust don't act like that". Scrub the image.

Zoltner - The last couple of editors in the DRC made statements that ethics ordinances do notW create ethical people. Ethics ordinances just write the rules. This distrust I'm hearing is not just11 coming from people's imagination. We're in town ri^t nopiwhigre a sitting mayor and ex-mayor12 is contracting with the city. We've had city council members ^ipkei^g'-^al estate transactions in13 the city. We've had family members of council members behefiting^om th^ office. So this is14 not imaginary. I'm not naming people here, but it's a systemic problem and it's all about trust.15 It's not about the law, it's not about 10% conflict. It's about the appearance of impropriety; that's16 all it's about. I know for a fact, that this new city manager, in his resume, ethical leadership was17 the banner on his application and I know he is looking to us for a lot more than this ethics policy.18

19 Clegg -1 agree with David. I remember being 16 and my mom moving a business in Denton and20 us going in front ofa committee asking for grant money. Someone on the committee voted in favor21 of the grant going to a business when they worked for that company. $25,000 to benefit that22 business. We have some issues with what the conflict of interest is, but we need to have someone23 say "no, you're doing it wrong", or someone say, "Mr. Rivers, I understand that you think you're24 an ethical person, but you're not pursuant to this" and having an enforceable body come down on25 someone about that. We have to build the trust and confidence.

26 .

27 English - We need a culture change. People in positions need to be held accoimtable. As citizens,28 we have that right to want to hold diem accountable. Citizens feel they don't have a voice. Whether29 it's the former city manager, or this or that department, it's just business as usual and we'll make30 the decisions. So some people feel that even if they go to their council person, they really don't31 have much authority because it's at the discretion ofthe city manager as to what will and wont' be32 done.

33

34 Eaton -1 went to a presentation for Bucee's and I noticed there was another piece of land in the35 design, but wasn't part of the plan. I go talk to the city attorney and they said this person has36 recused themselves. How does the average citizen know that? It's in a closed session. There's37 no^ay thatis going tobem^e public. Theyrecused themselves three times. The person decided38 that they had no conflict ofinterest in a closed session. How does a citizen know that? One ofmy39 big concerns with ethics is that you as a citizen don't feel you are going to be represented40 adequately. How is a citizen any better off? And then to get the answer "well I didn't receive any41 benefit"; who's going to prove that?42

43 Moorhead - Once you have situation where it is widely believed that something is happening, the44 next layer is transparency. An example of that in my neighborhood is when DCTA was putting in45 the train. We were very supportive of that. We went to city council meetings and learned about46 the fences, the quiet zones; we participated. Near the end ofthe installation ofthe train, at the last

21pg. 20

Campbell, Kelly

From: David Zoltner <dzoltner70(a)gmail.com>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:36 PMTo: Campbell, KellySubject: Motion to replace #4

The city council shall, by ordinance, establish an independent ethics review board(ERB) to administer and enforce the conflict ofinterest andfinancial disclosureordinances. No member ofthe ERB may hold elected or appointed office. ERBmembers shall be nominated by council -approved community organizations and beapproved by council majority vote.

Insofar as possible under state law, the ERB shall be authorized to issue bindingadvisory opinions, conduct investigations on its own initiative and on referral orcomplaintfrom officials or citizens, subpoena as needed, refer casesforprosecution, impose administrative remedies, and hire independent counsel. Thecity council shall appropriate sufficientfunds to the ERB to enable it to performassigned duties including training, and education ofcity officials and employeesregarding the ethics code.

(Footnote as mentioned during mtg: Drafted from model city charter by NationalCivics League)

pg. 21