Jan 10, 2024 City Council B Session

[00:00:11]

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. WE GOOD? GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. TIME IS 12:06 P.M. ON THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024.

WE'LL CALL OUR SPECIAL MEETING TO ORDER. MADAME CLERK, COULD YOU READ THE ROLL?

>> CLERK: MAYOR, WE HAVE A QUORUM. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL

[EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, the City Council may recess into executive session in the Presidio Conference Room to consult with the City Attorney's Office (Texas Government Code Section 551.071) and deliberate or discuss any of the following:  ]

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 AND TO DELIBERATE OR DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.087. PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.072. LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ALL PURSUANT TO 551.071 AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO COUNCILMEMBER PROVISIONS UNDER THE CITY CHARTER PURSUANT TO SECTION

[ ITEMS  ]

>> PROVENCIO: APOLOGIZE FOR THE DAY. CITY COUNCIL HAS RECONVENED FROM ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION. NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN FNLGT WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT IS THE BRIEFING ON THE ETHICS RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO OUR ETHICS AND FINANCE CODE.

TO START US, I'LL KICK IT OVER TO CITY MANAGER ERIK WALLCH.

>> WALSH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. KEVIN BARTH HOLD WILL DO THE INTRODUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S ITEM. AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO

KEVIN. >> BARTHOLD: THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

JUST REAL BRIEFLY, THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE UNDERGONE, THIS IS RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD ON THEIR RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO BOTH THE ETHICS CODE AS WELL AS THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE.

MY OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, WE'VE KIND OF SUPPORTED, SHEPHERDED THE ERB THROUGH THIS PROCESS. JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, THE ERB EVERY FEW YEARS WILL TAKE A SOMEWHAT STRUCTURE AND FORMAL PROCESS TO GO THROUGH AND REVIEW THE ETHICS CODE, REVIEW THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE WITH THE INTENT OF BRINGING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THIS GROUP. THIS CURRENT PROCESS WAS LED BY THE CHAIR OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD AS WELL AS THE VICE CHAIR.

THEY LED US THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THE MEETING TODAY IS REALLY A CULMINATION OR JUST ONE STEP IN THAT PROCESS, TO BRING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FORTH TO THE COUNCIL. I WILL SAY IN WORKING WITH THIS GROUP, THIS IS A GROUP THAT IS VERY -- IT'S BEEN VERY STABLE IN MEMBERSHIP DURING THIS PROCESS. IT IS A VERY PROFESSIONAL GROUP, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, A VERY ENGAGED GROUP.

THERE WERE REALLY GOOD DISCUSSIONS AND REALLY GOOD PARTICIPATION THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND THESE ARE MEMBERS -- COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE APPOINTED THESE MEMBERS, SO IT'S BEEN A GREAT BOARD TO WORK WITH. AN EASY BOIRD TO WORK WITH THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE PATRICK LANE, THE CHAIR OF THE REVIEW BOARD AND HE'LL WALK US THROUGH THIS

DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON. >> THANK YOU, KEVIN.

GUYS AND GALS, BEFORE I BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO PREFACE THIS BY SAYING THAT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I DON'T KNOW, I WILL GET THOSE BACK TO YOU AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO PHONE A FRIEND, SO I SEE A LOT OF FRIENDS BACK HERE AND A COUPLE SITTING AT THIS TABLE, SO I WILL FOLLOW-UP WITH THAT. NOW, TO GET STARTED, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS PATRICK LANGE.

I AM DISTRICT TWO REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD AND I CHAIR THE BOARD. BEFORE WE DELVE ANY DEEPER, I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD.

IT'S A TALENTED BUNCH, DEDICATED, WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND WE HAVE A GOOD TIME, EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE, SO VERY -- VERY PLEASED TO CHAIR SUCH A

[00:05:01]

WE HAVE A FEW THAT ARE JOINED HERE WITH ME. WE HAVE, OF COURSE, MY VICE CHAIR, PLEASE STAND UP. CHRISTY WOODARD, WE HAVE MRS. VARGAS, WE HAVE MR. READY AND WE HAVE MR. CAMPBELL HERE, SO THANK YOU, GUYS FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO. NOW, LET'S GET GOING. ETHICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE, AS YOU ALL KNOW... OKAY. ETHICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE AS Y YOU ALL KNOW IS BASED ON INTEGRITY, INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIALITY, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

I'M NOTE GOING TO DEALT F DEEP INTO THESE. WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU CAN READ AND WE'VE SENT OUT THOSE WHITE PAPERS, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP ME. ARE WE GOOD TO CONTINUE? TO BEGIN THIS PROCESS, WE DEVELOPED -- WE STARTED WITH TWO REVIEW PANELS.

REVIEWED THE CODE FROM SIMILAR SITUATED STATES AND OBTAINED FEEDBACK FROM KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVED BY THE ENTIRE BOARD, NOT JUST EACH PANEL. SO THE CITIES THAT WE LOOKED AT ARE HERE FOR YOU, AUSTIN, DALLAS, EL PASO, FORT WORTH.

WHAT WE DID, WE TRIED TO FIND CITIES THAT WERE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO US AND KIND OF SOMEWHAT HAD THE SAME LAYOUT THAT WE HAD. AND SO WE LOOKED AT THESE CITIES BECAUSE THEY WERE SIMILAR TO US IN SIZE, LOCATION AND, OF COURSE, IN THE STATE AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT PHOENIX AS AN OUTLIER TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T FARFETCHED OR OUT OF LINE OR OUT OF SCOPE WHEN WE DID THIS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT OUR BENCHMARKS WERE AND THAT'S WHERE WE WERE.

SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS, APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE.

THIS COVERS EVERYONE. THIS ISN'T JUST A ONE-OFF CERTAIN MEMBERS OR THIS BOARD. THIS COVERS EVERY ONE. THE ERB IS A CHARTERED-BASED BOARD AND DURING THE SERVICE THEY MAY NOT SERVE ON ANY OTHER BOARD AND MUST BE INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY. YOU GUYS ALREADY KNOW THAT. THAT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE. IF YOU SIT ON THIS BOARD, YOU CANNOT BE A MEMBER OR AFFILIATED WITH ANOTHER BOARD WITHIN THE CITY.

RECOMMENDATIONS, AGAIN, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN SENT THESE SO I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THEM FOR YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE STOP ME ALONG THE WAY. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES, HIS/HER, HE/SHE, WE'RE ADDING THEY AND THEIR. CITY COUNCIL PERSONNEL, EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNCIL AIDES AND CORPORATIONS, SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS, MOVED DEFINITIONS TO THE BEGINNING OF EACH SECTION AS APPLICABLE.

WE THOUGHT THIS WAS IMPORTANT JUST BECAUSE WE WANT TO SPELL THINGS OUT BEFORE YOU DELVED INTO THE CODE. BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU READ THE CODE -- OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE READING. SO WE WANT TO DO THAT AND MOVE THAT -- PROVIDE THOSE DEFINITIONS UP FRONT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR AND CONCISE AND YOU CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. ETHICS CODE, SECTION 2.41, STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT LISTED HERE, CLARIFY OTHERS WHOSE ACTIONS AFFECTED PUBLIC FAITH AND CITY GOVERNMENT, INCLUDES ACTION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, VOLUNTEERS, CONTRACT, TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, YOUR COUSIN, YOUR MOM, YOUR DOG, I'M LOOKING FOR SMILES HERE. YOU GUYS LOOK VERY SERIOUS. SO STAY WITH ME. WE JUST -- THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS IS IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE ACTIONS OF ANY AND EVERYONE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, SHOULD ACT IN GOOD FAITH. NEXT SLIDE, HERE WE GO. CONTINUING WITH -- EXCUSE ME, MOVING TO SECTION 2.43 -- 2-43, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, WE WANT TO CLARIFY REFUSAL RELATED TO BOARDS, AN EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL SERVICES, ANY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE CITY WANT TO CLARIFY THAT PART OF THE CODE. SO, AGAIN, JUSTIFICATION HERE, PROVIDES FURTHER GUIDANCE IN RELATION TO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WHEN AN EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL SERVES ON A BOARD OR IN A DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY.

THIS IS JUST KIND OF COMMON SENSE. WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE THAT ARE INFLUENCED BY OUTSIDE ENTITIES BEING ABLE TO AFFECT THINGS BASED ON THEIR POSITION ON A CERTAIN BOARD WITH THE CITY.

[00:10:07]

IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, IF YOU LEAVE -- IF YOU LEAVE AN EMPLOYEE, COME TO A BOARD, THEN YOU'RE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON CONTRACTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME UNDUE INFLUENCE BASED ON YOUR PREVIOUS EMPLOYEE OR YOUR PREVIOUS STATUS WITH THAT ENTITY.

JUSTIFICATION IS SUGGESTED TO NEGATE ANY REAL OR PERCEIVED BIAS BECAUSE OF A PRIOR RELATIONSHIP. NOW, MOVING TO 2-45, GIFTS. GIFTS. INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO HONORARY YAMS THAT FALL UNDER TEXAS PENAL CODE 36.7. ADDING THIS LANGUAGE JUST MAINTAINS CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE CODE, SO WE WANT TO KIND OF MIRROR THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COVERING ALL ASPECTS OF GIFTS.

NOW TO SECTION 2-58, PROHIBITED INTEREST IN DISCRETIONARY CONTRACTS.

WE WANT TO CLARIFY THE TIME FRAME IS RELATED TO AWARDING OF CONTRACT VERSUS SEEKING OR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS. ADDS CLARIFICATION BASED ON PRIOR QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK THERE.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME UP HERE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THERE'S A BET GOING ON. I'M A BIG SPORTS GUY, SO I ALWAYS MAKE SPORTS REFERENCES. THERE'S OVER AND UNDER HOW MANY I'M GOING TO USE. KEEP TABS FOR ME, AS WE CONTINUE RIGHT ALONG.

SECTION 2.259, DISCLOSURE OF PARTIES, OWNERS AND CLOSELY RELATED PERSONS.

JUST CLARIFYING DISCLOSURE SHOULD BE MADE AT THE TIME THE REQUEST IS SUBMITTED, BUT NO LONGER THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY ACTION, AND THIS J JUSTIFICATION ADDS CLARIFICATION ON PRIOR QUESTIONS TO REVIEW POTENTIAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THE PROHIBITED PERIOD.

DISCLOSURES ARE NEEDED AT THE TIME THE PROPOSALS ARE SUBMITTED.

MOVE K RIGHT ALONG, 2-82, JUSTIFICATION OF POWER. PROPOSED AMENDMENT, ALLOW THE ERB TO ACCEPT/DECLINE CONSIDERATION OF ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED THROUGH OTHER MEANS. JUSTIFICATION, INCREASES THE DISCRETION OF THE ERB, ACCEPTANCE OF ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION IF THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND SUFFICIENT SUPPORT IS PROVIDED.

2-92, OTHER OBLIGATIONS. NOTICE OF THE DUTY TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF THE ETHICS CODE INSTEAD OF AT THE END. AGAIN, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE PUTTING THE DEFINITIONS IN FRONT OF THE PARAGRAPH.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE VERY TRANSPARENT AND WE PROVIDE CLARITY ON EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE CODE. MOVING THIS SECTION TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CODE WILL INCREASE THE CHANCE OF NOTICE BY THE READER.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WON'T READ THE CODE UNTIL THE LAST PAGE, SO PICK WHAT THEY THINK THEY NEED AND READ THAT, AND THEN THINGS CAN GET CONVOLUTED, SO IT'S ONE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS THERE.

AS WE STEP INTO MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE, LET'S FIRST START OFF WITH ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES. AGAIN, WE'RE ADDING THEY AND THEIR, REFERENCE TO CANDIDATES TO UPDATE TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH CANDIDATES AND OFFICE HOLDERS. CLARIFY WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ALL SPACS VERSUS THOSE SPACS FORM TO SUPPORT OPPOSED CANDIDATES OF STAKEHOLDERS. SECTION 2-306, CAMPAIGN BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.

WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT WAS THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE LOCAL FILING AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN COPIES OF CAMPAIGN BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.

THESE RECORDS MAY CONTAIN SENSITIVE INFORMATION AS FULL BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, SO WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF RELIEVE THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THAT BURDEN AND MOVE THAT -- MOVE THAT POTENTIAL -- THAT POTENTIAL FINDING OR AUDIT ISSUE AWAY FROM THEM, MAKE IT EASIER.

2-307, ELECTRONIC FILING OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.

THIS CHANGE IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS SEMIANNUALLY AND PREELECTION. AND, AGAIN, THAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION, CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE RULES.

[00:15:02]

THREE MONTHS, YOU FILE SOMETHING AND 45 DAYS LATER, YOU'RE GETTING READY TO DO IT AGAIN. SO JUST KIND OF -- 2308, PROPOSED AMOUNT, REQUIRE THE SPAC TO FILE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, PROVIDE OFFICE FOR GPACS TO PROVIDE A GENERAL NOTICE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE VERSUS A FULL -- TRANSACTIONS. AGAIN, IF YOU SEE THE NOTE HERE, GPACS MAY CONTINUE -- MAY CONTRIBUTE TO MULTIPLE CANDIDATES OFFICE HOLDERS AND MEASURES AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. 2309, CONTRIBUTION PRO PROHIBITIONS. AS WE ALL KNOW, HIGH CONTRACT -- HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS HAS KIND OF JUMPED ON US BEFORE, SO WE WANTED TO KIND OF NIP THAT IN THE BUD KIND OF HERE WITH THIS. SO JUSTIFICATION, DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPECIFIC ENTITY GIVING CONTRIBUTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE BUSINESS ITSELF, NOT THAT INDIVIDUAL. CONTINUING 2309, PROHIBIT ALL COMPANY BOARD MEMBERS FROM CONTRIBUTING DURING HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT PERIODS.

WE DON'T WANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BOARD OFFERS AND GENERAL -- AGAIN, 2309, PROHIBIT NONPROFIT BOARD MEMBERS FROM CONTRIBUTING DURING HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT PROVISION PERIODS. JUSTIFICATION, STANDARDIZED REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL ENTITIES, WHETHER NONPROFIT OR FOR PROFIT.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE ANY UNDUE BENEFIT TO A NONPROFIT VERSUS A FOR PROFIT. NEXT STEPS, CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL.

FINAL REVISIONS WILL BE ADOPTED WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE OUTREACH CAMPAIGN AND AMPLE TIME FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH THE CHANGES. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY A FAIR SHAKE AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS, LEARN IT BEFORE HOLDING THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN LANGE. IS THAT THE END OF THE

PRESENTATION? >> YES, SIR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE QUESTIONS, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND THERE UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED UP. I WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD FOR YOUR GREAT WORK. I KNOW THESE AREN'T THE EASIEST TOPICS TO DELIBERATE ON, BUT VERY IMPORTANT, BOTH THE FINANCE CODE AND THE OVERALL ETHICS CODE. AND, OF COURSE, KEVIN BARTHOLD OUR CITY AUDITOR HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB FOR US.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOU AND YOUR TEAM, KEVIN.

I'LL START WITH COUNCILMEMBER ROCHA GARCIA?

>> GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU, CHAIR, AS WELL TO ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD AND MIE DR. ESTER GERKIN IS NOT HERE TODAY, BUT SHE KEEPS ME REGULARLY UPDATED AND GIVES ME PHONE CALLS AND HAD TOLD ME WHAT YOU ALL WERE DISCUSSING, SO I FEEL LIKE I WAS ON TOP OF YOUR ACTION ALL THE TIME. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH MOST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. I HAVE A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, AND SO THANK YOU, KEVIN. I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND THEN ALSO TO CAM, BECAUSE CAM STAFFS THE ERB AND I THINK SHE DOES A GREAT JOB SPECIFICALLY WITH THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF IT. ON E C-2 ON YOUR DOCUMENT, KEVIN, IT TALKS ABOUT THE CLARIFICATION REGARDING RECUSALS.

AND THAT JUST -- JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THAT'S LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, COUNCILMEMBERS LIKE TWO OF US SIT ON THE VISIT SAN ANTONIO BOARD, ET CETERA. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S IN REFERENCE TO?

>> YES, EXACTLY.

COUNCILMEMBER OR CITY STAFF. >> GARCIA: GOT IT.

ON EC3, YOU HAVE CITY OFFICIALS MAY NOT ACCEPT GIFTS, ET CETERA.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING INFORMATION IN DEFINITION REGARDING RESTRICTIONS. THAT IS STATE, THOUGH, RIGHT? WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE LEFT COLUMN -- THE 2018, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING REGISTERED LOBBYIST WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, WHAT DOES THAT -- LIKE SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND OR MAYBE REMIND ME THE DEFINITION OF A LOBBYIST, IS IT THE LOBBYIST THAT'S REGISTERED OR IS IT

[00:20:03]

EXCEPTIONS MEAN? >> THIS ONE HERE, RIGHT NOW THE ETHICS REVIEW IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE, THEY COVER GIFTS, THEY COVER GIFTS OF CASH, TRIPS, WHATEVER. WHAT IS NOT COVERED IN THE ETHICS CODE IS HONORARY RUMS BECAUSE THAT IS A STATE CODE ISSUE SO WE'RE JUST BRINGING THAT INTO THIS CODE SO PEOPLE READ THIS, OH, IT DOESN'T KUN HONORARIUMS AND THEY MOVE ON. NO, IT'S MORE SERIOUS, IT'S PART OF THE PEEN PENAL CODE. THE LOBBYISTS, THE DEFINITIONS, THEY'RE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS, THIS INCLUDES HONORARIUM FROM LOBBYISTS OR AN ASSOCIATION YOU GO MAKE A SPEECH AT OR ANYTHING.

THIS APPLIES TO EVERYBODY. >> GARCIA: GOT IT.

I WAS WONDERING WHAT THAT DEFINITION WAS. AND THEN COUNCIL AIDES CORPORATION REFERENCED AND THAT'S JUST THE LGC, RIGHT?

>> BARTHOLD: THAT'S JUST CLARIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE.

THE CORRECT -- >> GARCIA: GOT IT. THANK YOU.

AND MOVING ON TO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE, SO PROHIBIT BUSINESS PACS FROM CONTRIBUTING. THE DEFINITION OF BUSINESS PAC, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BUSINESS PAC AND A NONBUSINESS PAC.

>> BARTHOLD: WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO HERE IS A BUSINESS PAC THAT IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE BUSINESS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S ABC ENGINEERING FIRM AND THERE'S ABC ENGINEERING FIRM PAC, THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME. NOW, THERE'S ALSO THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRM PAC. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THEM. IF IT'S A SPECIFIC PAC CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE BUSINESS BIDDING ON A CONTRACT, THEY WOULD THEN BE DISALLOWED FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THE BLACKOUT PERIOD FOR HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS.

>> GARCIA: GOT IT. SO THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE, FOR INSTANCE -- JUST LIKE

THE FIREFIGHTERS? >> BARTHOLD: EXACTLY. THOSE THAT ARE INDUSTRY SPECIFIC AND PACS, BUT WE HAVE NOTICED THERE'S MORE BUSINESS -- INDIVIDUAL

BUSINESS PACS. >> GARCIA: OKAY. GOOD.

>> BARTHOLD: THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW, SO WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT.

>> GARCIA: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.

AND THEN CAN YOU HELP ME -- THE ONLY THING THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND AND FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE NEW TO COUNCIL, I WAS CHAIR OF THE CITY'S ETHICS REVIEW BOARD LAST TIME WE BROUGHT ALL OF THESE CHANGES, AND SO LAST TIME WE RECOMMENDED THE THREE-MONTH REPORTING.

SO IT TALKS ABOUT NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THE THREE-MONTH REPORTING. I DO MY OWN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT AND SO LIKE -- I JUST -- HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT.

JUST LIKE HELP ME UFNS UNDERSTAND, LIKE TAKING THAT INTO

CONSIDERATION. >> BARTHOLD: THE PROS AND CONS, IF YOU'RE REPORTING EVERY THREE MONTHS AND EVERY SIX MONTHS. THE TRANSPARENCY, THAT COULD BE A PRO OF IT. HOWEVER WE HAVE FOUND DURING THIS PROCESS IT HAS CAUSED MORE CONFUSION IN THE RESPECTIVE, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE FILING A QUARTERLY AND THEN A SIX MONTH AND SOMETIMES THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE COUNTED TWICE. IT'S CREATED POTENTIAL ETHICS COMPLAINT UNTIL WE HAD TO EXPLAIN TA TO SOMEONE.

THE OTHER THING WE'RE CONSIDERING THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IS LOOKING AT BRINGING IN ANOTHER SYSTEM FOR Y'ALL TO USE TO REPORT YOUR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. AND BECAUSE THE THREE-MONTH REPORTING IS A ONE-OFF. THAT IS NOT THE STATE REQUIREMENT.

MOST OF THESE SYSTEMS IS GEARED TOWARDS STATE WHICH IS SIX MONTHS.

IF WE STICK WITH THE THREE MONTHS AND WE BRING THE SYSTEM IN, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE CUSTOM CODED OR WHETHER OR NOT THAT CAN BE DONE SUCCESSFULLY. IT'S GOING TO BE A MORE DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE

PROCESS. >> GARCIA: GOT IT -- CLARIFICATION OF THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WITHIN, LIKE, THE -- I THINK IT -- I CAN'T FIND NOW WHERE IT IS, BUT SPECIFICALLY WITHIN, LIKE, SEVEN DAYS, I THINK I SAW THAT, 72 HOURS PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL

ACTION, EC5. >> BARTHOLD: OKAY. THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS FOR HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS. WHENEVER THE PROPOSER, WHENEVER THEY'RE MAKING THEIR PROPOSAL, WE ASK THAT THEY PROVIDE A LISTING OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THEY'VE MADE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. THERE'S ALSO -- BECAUSE OF THIS CODE, IT SAYS IF THEY CHANGE OR IF NEW CONTRIBUTIONS COME UP, YOU MUST NOTIFY PURCHASING OR THE PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT WITHIN 72 HOURS -- OR BEFORE 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COUNCIL ACTION. THERE HAS BEEN SOME INTERPRETATION OF THAT WHERE SOME COMPANIES SAID, WELL, NO, I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE IT UNTIL 72 HOURS PRIOR, THREE DAYS PRIOR.

AND WE'RE SAYING, NO, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE IT AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION SO WE HAVE TIME TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN THE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION VIOLATIONS. SO IT'S CLARIFYING A

WRONG INTERPRETATION. >> GARCIA: SURE. OKAY.

WONDERFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THOSE ARE MY ONLY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ROCHA GARCIA.

I REALIZE I TOTALLY BLEW IT AND DIDN'T THANK CAM KANOW AND HER TEAM AS WELL. I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THIS PROCESS AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR GREAT WORK.

[00:25:05]

COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO. >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU MAYOR.

THANK YOU TO ALL WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH SECTION 2.43 FOR CONTICKETS OF INTEREST, BUT CAN YOU -- CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BUT CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH WHAT THE PROCESS IS, AS WELL AS WHAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY LOOKS LIKE.

DOES IT REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL TO SUBMIT A REPORT THAT THAT'S IN VIOLATION OR IS THERE AN AUDIT DONE? HOW -- HOW DO WE IDENTIFY OR INITIATE THE PROCESS, IF THERE'S A VIOLATION WITH THAT PROPOSAL?

>> BARTHOLD: I'M SORRY. >> CASTILLO: FOR SECTION 2.43, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO INCLUDE A RESTRICTION DURING THE FIRST 12 MONTHS OF

SERVICE. >> BARTHOLD: THAT'S SOMEWHAT GOING TO BE THE HONOR SYSTEM. THIS IS WITH AN EMPLOYEE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY NOW COMING TO THE CITY. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE IT GOING THE OTHER WAY.

THIS IS YOU'RE COMING INTO. SO REALLY IT'S THE HONOR SYSTEM. EVERY -- WITHIN 60 DAYS OR WITHIN 30 DAYS OF A NEW EMPLOYEE JOINING, THEY ARE TRAINED AND BRIEFED ON THE ETHICS CODE. BUT REALLY TO ENFORCE IT OR TO GET -- AUDIO] -- IT WOULD BASICALLY REQUIRE SOMEONE KNOWING THAT AND TELLING US, EITHER THROUGH A FORMAL ETHIC COMPLAINT OR JUST A PHONE CALL TO MY

COMPLIANCE AUDITOR TO CORRECT THAT SITUATION. >> CASTILLO: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AND LASTLY, WITH MCFC FOR SECTION 2308 TO REQUIRE SPACS TO FILE A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT WITH THETHE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, WITH THE DEFINITIONS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GENERAL NOTICE AND A LIMITED STATEMENT, AND ALSO WHAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT?

>> BARTHOLD: I'M GOING TO TRY. SOMEONE WILL HELP ME IF I FAIL. THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE PAC IS GEARED FOR A VERY SPECIFIC PERSON, GENERALLY FOR OR AGAINST A PROPOSITION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. GPAC, A GENERAL PURPOSE PAC IS GENERALLY ONE WHICH GENERALLY OFTENTIMES NATIONWIDE, AND THEY PARTICIPATE -- AND THEY'RE LOBBYING FOR A LOT OF STUFF, AND THEY MAY TOUCH ON A CITY ISSUE, THEY MAY NOT. BUT IF THEY DO TOUCH ON A CITY ISSUE, THEN THIS WOULD REQUIRE THEM AND THE NEED TO REPORT ONLY ON THAT CITY ISSUE.

>> HI, COUNCIL, MARIA PEREZ, COMPLIANCE OFFER, THIS IS REALLY TO HELP OUR CONSTIT WENTS WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.

RIGHT NOW IF YOU'RE A GENERAL PAC, YOU COULD BE CONTRIBUTING TO STATE, FEDERAL, MULTIPLE CITIES. AND FOR THE G PACS, THEY COULD STILL POTENTIALLY PROVIDE THAT, BUT WE WANT TO OFFER THEM LIMITED REPORTING WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO SAN ANTONIO TO TRY TO HELP OUR CONSTITUENTS KNOW WHAT IS COMING INTO SAN ANTONIO, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S GOING ON OUTSIDE. THEY ARE STILL REQUIRED TO REPORT AT A STATE

LEVEL, THOUGH. >> CASTILLO: AND THAT INFORMATION WILL BE ACCESSIBLE ON THE CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE SITE AS WELL?

>> YES. THAT'S THE -- >> CASTILLO: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THE NEXT CAMPAIGN CYCLE, 46.

FOR EXAMPLE. >> IT WOULD NOT AFFECT YOU NECESSARILY, IT WOULD BE THE REPORTING ENTITIES. ONCE WE GIVE THEM NOTICE AND THAT THEY UNDERSTAND, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FORMAT WOULD BE FOR THAT, SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT IS APPLICABLE TO THEM, THEY'RE ABLE TO LOG INTO THE SYSTEM AND REPORT THOSE ITEM TION.

ITEMS. IF THEY CHOOSE, THEY CAN STILL UPLOAD EVERYTHING AND FOLLOW THEIR CURRENT PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S ONE'S GOING TO BE KIND OF A DOWN THE ROAD IF WE AGREE TO THE CHANGE , FIGURING OUT HOW WE FORMAT IT TO PUT IT IN AND MAKE IT THE EASIEST POSSIBLE.

>> CASTILLO: AND THE AMENDMENT WITH THE GENERAL NOTICE OR UNLIMITED STATEMENT VERSUS THE FULL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, WHAT INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED WITH THE -- WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED?

>> THE ONLY THING WITH THE LIMITED ONE WOULD BE THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO REPORT THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCES THAT ARE RELATED TO -- IF THEY CONTRIBUTED TO A STATE REPRESENTATIVE, AGOV NOR'S RACE, A FEDERAL MEASURE, THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SAN ANTONIO, IF IT'S NOT SUPPORT OF A COUNCILMEMBER, A MEASURE, A CHARTER ITEM, WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE THEM TO REPORT INTO OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM, BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO REPORT AS THEY NORMALLY DO, EITHER AT

THE STATE LEVEL OR FEDERAL LEVEL. >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFY IMAITION. THAT'S HELPFUL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO. COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ.

>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANK YOU, ALL FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE.

I WON'T GET TOO -- I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH ALL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND I WON'T WEIGH IN TOO HEAVILY ON ANY OF THEM.

I'LL JUST SAY THAT WHEN -- THANK YOU TO PATRICK, MY APPOINTEE.

I'M PROUD THAT YOU SERVED AS CHAIR AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING AN ELEVATED VOICE FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS.

SO THANK YOU. I'LL SAY THAT WHEN WE HAVE STRONG EXPECTATIONS OF ETHICS AND TRANCE PARENTSSY AND STANDARDS THAT ARE ROOTED IN

[00:30:05]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCI COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ.

COUNCILMEMBER CABELLO HAVRDA? >> HAVRDA: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU TO THE PRESENTATION AND THE COMMITTEE AND MY APPOINTEE WHO'S NOT HERE TODAY, BUT THANKFUL TO EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THEIR WORK. THE MAIN QUESTION I HAVE -- I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT HAVE YOU ALL SPOKEN AT ALL TO THE BAN ON CITY EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATING IN POLITICAL --

>> BARTHOLD: THAT WAS NOT -- THAT SPECIFIC ITEM WAS NOT ADDRESSED DURING

THIS PROCESS. >> HAVRDA: OKAY. CAN IT STILL BE

ADDRESSED? >> BARTHOLD: IT COULD BE.

I MEAN, WE'RE HERE TO SEEK GUIDANCE, AND IF THE COUNCIL OR ANYBODY WANTS THE ERB TO GO BACK SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THAT ITEM AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.

>> HAVRDA: OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, JUST -- I KNOW AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHARTER, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'D -- I'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE CHARTER COMMISSION, AT LEAST WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE AN OPINION FROM YOU GUYS, OR JUST A THOUGHT.

>> BARTHOLD: CITY EMPLOYEES CAN BEEN GAINLED.

>> HAVRDA: WHAT BARS THEM, IF ANYTHING. I THINK IT IS THE CHARTER, BUT I WOULD LIKE MAYBE THE COMMITTEE'S EVALUATION ON THEM

PARTICIPATING IN POLITICAL ENDEAVORS. >> BARTHOLD: OKAY.

>> HAVRDA: THE LAST THING IS A VERY SMALL THING, BUT I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER THE SLIDE, BUT YOU MENTIONED EMPLOYEES -- THE 12 MONTHS. THE 12-MONTH BAN AFTER YOU'VE BEEN EMPLOYED BY AN ENTITY. IS THAT LIKE THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE OR DOES IT INCLUDE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS? I JUST WONDER IF MAYBE PEOPLE ARE GETTING AROUND THAT BY NOT HIRING PEOPLE OUTRIGHT.

>> BARTHOLD: THAT'S POSSIBLE BECAUSE AS -- I WOULD -- THAT'S SOMETHING

WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH. >>

>> HAVRDA: INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS SPECIFICALLY.

>> WE DIDN'T REALLY DISCUSS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, BUT I THINK THAT WE WOULD -- DEPEND ON, I GUESS, THE ROLL THEY'RE PLAYING FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

>> BARTHOLD: WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT AND MAY BRING SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE. THEY'RE REPRESENTING THE CITY SIDE AND THEY JUST WERE EMPLOYED BY THAT CONTRACTOR, THAT'S AN ISSUE.

>> HAVRDA: RIGHT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER CABELLO HAVRDA.

COUNCILMEMBER ALDARETE GAVITO? >> GAVITO: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I ALSO DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE DISTRICT 7 APPOINTEE, MRS. VARGAS WHO'S HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK YOU, PATRICK, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I DIDN'T SEE YOU EARLIER, SO SORRY I DIDN'T GET TO SAY HI.

REALLY QUICK FOR THE BLACKOUT PERIOD, OUR NONPROFIT BOARD MEMBERS

ARE INCLUDED IN THE BLACKOUT -- >> BARTHOLD: THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW AS THE CURRENT CODE SAYS IF YOU ARE A BOARD NEB OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT IS ON THAT BOARD WITH NO COMPENSATION, TOTAL AS A VOLUNTEER, YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE. YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM THE BLACKOUT PROHIBITION. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE AND GO BACK -- GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL WAY THAT WAS -- THAT WAS CHANGED IN 2018, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOARD MEMBERS OF A FOR PROFIT OR A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.

THEREFORE, IF THESE CHANGES WERE TO BE ACCEPTED, NONPROFIT BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE

BLACKOUT PERIOD FOR A HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT. >> GAVITO: OKAY.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE ELLA AUSTIN COMMUNITY CENTER, VOLUNTEER, NOT PAID, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW BLACKOUT PERIOD RULES?

>> BARTHOLD: CORRECT. >> GAVITO: GOT IT. >> BARTHOLD: AGAIN, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS WHICH IS A LIMITED

NUMBER, BUT, NO, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. >> GAVITO: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ALDARETE GAVITO.

COUNCILMEMBER KAUR? >> KAUR: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. I KNOW SOME OF US THAT WENT OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, THIS WAS SOMETIMES TRAUMATIZING FOR US WITH CONTRACT BLACKOUTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THIS WORK IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL WANT TO STAY REALLY TRANSPARENT WITH THE FOLKS THAT ARE GIVING CONTRIBUTIONS TO US AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SHOWING THAT WE'RE BEING INFLUENCED IN ANY WAY.

I JUST WANTED TO ECHO ALSO FOR THE NONPROFIT BOARD MEMBER, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. SO FOR COMING UP ON 2025, ANYBODY THAT IS GOING TO BE A DELEGATE AGENCY FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF FUNDING THAT WE GET WILL NOT -- IF THEY'RE ON THE BOARD OF ANY OF THE DELEGATE AGENCIES THAT WE'RE FUNDING, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THEM?

[00:35:08]

>> SEGOVIA: THAT'S CORRECT, IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THIS CHANGE,

COUNCILWOMAN. >> THAT'S ASSUMING -- THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS A HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT OR IS THAT A SEPARATE PROCESS? BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS GOES TO HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS.

>> KAUR: SO I GUESS AS A FOLLOW-UP REQUEST THEN, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO GET A LIST OF ANY OF -- LIKE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY OF COMMUNICATION, BECAUSE SOMETIMES I WILL GO ASK BOARD MEMBERS FOR FUNDING AND THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE, AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY WE CAN GET INFORMATION, THESE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS OR THESE ARE THE ORGANIZATIONS OR COMPANIES THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SOLICIT

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM? >> BARTHOLD: YES. SPECIFICALLY THE HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT, FOR THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE DELEGATE AGENCY PROCESS, THAT IS -- THAT INFORMATION IS CURRENT AND ACTIVE ON THE FINANCE WEBSITE, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT TO YOU, AND WE PROVIDE IT TO SOME COUNCILMEMBERS IN THE PAST. SO YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT. I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS.

I'M SORRY, ON THE DELEGATE AGENCY AND WHAT'S AVAILABLE ON THEIR

WEBSITE. >> WALSH: AND I THINK JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, AND KEVIN, YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE PROPOSED PROHIBITION IS DURING THE SOLICITATION PROCESS. SO WHEN WE DO THE HIGH-PROFILE SOLICITATION FORECAST TWICE A YEAR AT B SESSION, AS WE -- AS YOU SEE WHAT'S COMING, THEN MAYBE AT THAT POINT IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THIS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE CAN SHARE WITH YOU, BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, DELEGATE AGENCIES THE COUNCIL APPROVED ARE TWO-YEAR FUNDING WITH THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AGAIN FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS. AND IT'S ONLY THOSE HIGH-PROFILE, SO IF YOU MAKE -- IF THE COUNCIL MAKES THAT CHANGE, WE'LL HAVE TO BUILD THAT IN ON THE FRONT END. THAT DOES NOT IMPACT INTERIM PERIODS OF JUST

NORMALCY. >> KAUR: YEAH, SO FOR SOLICITATIONS, THEY'RE

ALWAYS 90 DAYS, IS IT USUALLY. >> WALSH: 30 TO 60,

DEPENDS ON THE SOLICITATION. >> KAUR: OKAY.

YEAH, I GUESS IT WOULD JUST BE -- IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO JUST COMMUNICATE THAT SO WE WOULD -- WE ARE IN THE GOOD, THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL.

>> WALSH: YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE -- YOU KNOW, PERIODICALLY KEVIN'S STAFF FINDS -- FINDS THOSE ISSUES NOW ON PRIVATE SECTOR. AND SO RAISING THE AWARENESS ACROSS THE BOARD, FRANKLY IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE COUNCIL MAY OR MAY NOT CHANGE, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT, BECAUSE IT KEEPS THE COUNCIL BETTER INFORMED AND THE POTENTIAL BIDDER AWARE.

>> KAUR: AND WE WON'T HAVE SITUATIONS WITH THE LAST ARPA ROUND WHERE ORGANIZATIONS DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS GOING TO BE ANOTHER ROUND WHICH IS WHY I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. THAT WAS AN ANOMALY

RIGHT? >> WALSH: THAT WAS THE ANOMALY OTHERWISE KNOWN

AS ARPA. >> BARTHOLD: WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN AS FINANCE DOES EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO EDUCATE, FRONT PAGE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. IT STATES WHAT THE RULES ARE.

IT'S WITHIN THE RO POSE L. THEY ACKNOWLEDGE AND SIGN OFF ON, SO THAT WOULD THEN GO INTO PLAY, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THAT FOR THE TWO-YEAR DELEGATE AGENCY PROCESS.

>> KAUR: I HEAR THAT, WE'RE PLACING A LOT OF PRESSURE ONION PROFITS THAT ARE REALLY SMALL AND A LOT OF TIME STAFFERS AREN'T COMMUNICATING TO BOARD MEMBERS THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION.

YES, THAT SHOULD BE ON THEM, BUT ALSO I'M TRYING TO HELP OUR NONPROFITS THAT JUST WANT THE SUPPORT. IT'S THE NONPROFITS THAT WIN MY HEART ALWAYS. BUT I APPRECIATE THIS, I APPRECIATE THE WORK Y'ALL HAVE PUT IN. WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU'RE

MAKING. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK

YOU, CUSTOMER KAUR. COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE? >> WHYTE: THANKS.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, ON THE COMMITTEE FOR ALL THE WORK.

ADRIAN AND I ACTUALLY SERVED ON ETHICS REVIEW BOARD TOGETHER BACK ON THE DAY, SO I KNOW WHAT SOMETIMES TOUGH WORK IT IS AND APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT Y'ALL DID. MY ONLY QUESTION IS ON THE JURISDICTION IN POWERS, IT LOOKS LIKE EXPANDING THE ERB'S DISCRETION A BIT ON WHAT SORT OF MATTERS THEY LOOK AT.

CAN -- HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT? >> BARTHOLD: OKAY.

YEAH, WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN -- CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN, IF WE GET -- THE ERB GETS AN ETHIC COMPLAINT HOWEVER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BY THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE OR THROUGH THE HR PROCESS, IT'S -- THE ERB DOES NOT HAVE TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. THERE'S A LITTLE NUANCE IN THERE IF THE PERSON WHO THE ETHICS COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST, IF THEY SELF-REPORTED, THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN NOW, THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD STILL HAS TO TAKE UP THAT ISSUE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN SELF-REPORTED.

WE KNOW WHAT THE RESULT WAS AND WE'VE HAD TO DO THAT IN THE LAST COUPLE

[00:40:01]

>> WHYTE: YEAH. >> BARTHOLD: BEFORE IT GOT TO US.

BUT THE WAY THE CODE'S WRITTEN, THEY HAD TO BE ADDRESSED.

>> WHYTE: GOT IT. OKAY. THANKS, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE.

COUNCILMEMBER COURAGE? >> COURAGE: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WANT TO SAY I'VE READ THE RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THEY'RE GOOD.

I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING I DISAGREED WITH. I WANTED TO THANK THE COCHAIR, CHRISTY WOODARD FOR REPRESENTING DISTRICT 9 AND WORKING WITH THAT COMMITTEE. I DIDN'T HEAR ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AS FAR AS ANY LIMITATION ON THOSE. WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT

WAS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE? >> BARTHOLD: PROVIDED BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS A WHITE PAPER ON WHAT WAS -- WE DID NOT DISCUSS IN THIS PRESENTATION THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED BUT NOT RECOMMENDED CHANGES. IT WAS DISCUSSED, QUITE A BIT, AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ERB IS THAT THAT NOT CHANGE. THEY STAY AT THE CURRENT

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. >> COURAGE: OKAY.

I AGREE WITH THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER COURAGE.

COUNCILMEMBER PELAEZ? >> PELAEZ: I'M -- CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BECAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING NUMBER 22, PAGE 22, THE PROHIBITING BUSINESS PACS FROM CONTRIBUTING TO CANDIDATES AND OFFICE HOLDERS DURING HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACT PROHIBITIONS.

SO IF THE PAC IS DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH A SPECIFIC BUSINESS, THEN GIVING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE PAC SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE BUSINESS ITSELF. AND I GET THAT, BUT SO -- SO LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. I THINK EACH OF US -- OR MOST OF US, YOU KNOW, GET THE MINIMAL AMOUNT FROM LIKE THE ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS PAC. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S RUN BY SOME OF THE BIGGEST GENERAL CONTRACTORS IN DOWN, GORDON FOSTER, SOMEBODY LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED A CONTRIBUTION FROM THOSE GENERAL CONTRACTORS IF THE AGC WERE TO, YOU KNOW, WRITE COUNCILWOMAN GAVITO A --

>> BARTHOLD: IF IT'S AN ASSOCIATION-TYPE PAC. SO IT'S A GROUP OF ENGINEERS, CONTRACTORS, WHATEVER, ARCHITECTS. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS APPLYING TO. IT IS APPLYING TO IF THERE IS ABC ENGINEERING

FIRM AND THERE'S ABC ENGINEERING FIRM'S PAC. >> PELAEZ: GOT IT.

>> BARTHOLD: THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME. AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S

PROHIBITED. >> PELAEZ: AND THE OTHER ONE, TOO, IS HAVING REPRESENTED A LOT OF NOON PROFITS IN THE PAST, I'LL TELL YOU JUST BOARD MANAGEMENT IS HARD ENOUGH AND MANY OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, CONSTANTLY BE REPORTING TO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE, AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE STAFF WHO IS -- I MEAN, THEY'RE ON -- YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ON VERY, VERY TIGHT BUDGETS OVER THERE, RIGHT? AND SO THE -- I DON'T KNOW, THIS SEEMS TO ME LIKE AN IMPOSITION ON THE NONPROFIT, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK IT WILL MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS' CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS, RIGHT? ALL IT WILL DO IS IT JUST MAKES IT MORE OF A HASSLE FOR THE ACTUAL NONPROFIT BOARDS. AND I'M NOT SURE WE'RE SOLVING A PROBLEM HERE. THIS LOOKS LIKE A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A

PROBLEM, YOU KNOW? >> BARTHOLD: THE DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED -- AGAIN, LET ME JUST PUT THIS IN CONTEXT.

YOU KNOW, THE NONPROFITS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS -- OR IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY FEW NONPROFITS. IT'S THOSE NONPROFITS THAT ARE BIG ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN BID ON CITY CONTRACTS, AND SPECIFICALLY BID ON HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, SO THE REALLY BIG. AND THE TWO NAMES THAT COME TO MIND IS FOOD BANK AND GOODWILL. THEY ARE NONPROFITS, BUT, YOU KNOW, FOOD BANK HAS BID AND HAS CITY CONTRACTS, SO IT WOULD BE THEIR BOARDS. THE TYPICAL NONPROFIT, THE SMALL NONPROFIT THAT'S OUT THERE WORKING EVERY DAY, THEY'RE NOT THE ONE BIDDING ON DISCRETIONARY CONTRACTS, SO THEY WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED.

NOW, THERE WOULD BE SOME IMPACT DURING THE DELEGATE AGENCY TWO-YEAR FUNDING PROCESS, THAT'S A 30-TO 90-DAY PROCESS, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT, WE'LL TRY TO EDUCATE BUT THE TRUE IMPACT PRACTICALLY IS ON

A VERY, VERY SMALL NUMBER OF NONPROFITS. >> PELAEZ: I AGREE, IT WOULD PROBABLY IMPACT VERY FEW OF THEM DURING HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, BUT IF IT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR FRIENDS, THE NONPROFIT ECOSYSTEM OUT THERE DURING DELEGATE AGENCY -- I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF THEM, RIGHT? AND IF ONE BOARD MEMBER WRITES $100 CHECK AND THAT IMPEARLS BIG SISTERS BIG BROTHERS OR THE RAPE CRISIS CENTER, WHATEVER I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A PROBLEM ANY OF US WANT TO CREATE JUST SO WE CAN BE ON THE SAME PAGE OF HOUSTON, AUSTIN, PORTLAND, WHEREVER.

HAVE WE HAD THAT PROBLEM, ANDY? HAS IT COME UP IN THE

[00:45:03]

THIS? I HAVEN'T HEARD IT. >> SEGOVIA: SINCE KEIVE'S GROUP DIRECTLY IS THE GROUP THAT MONITORS THAT, I THINK YOU'RE IN A

BETTER POSITION TO ANSWER THAT, KEVIN. >> BARTHOLD: INSTANCE THAT HAS IMPACTED BECAUSE THERE'S SO FEW NONPROFITS WHO BID ON DISCRETIONARY CONTRACTS. THE PREMISE BEHIND THIS WAS JUST THE FAIRNESS WHEN WE HAVE A NONPROFIT COMPANY BIDDING AGAINST A FOR PROFIT COMPANY, WHICH HAPPENS ON THOSE BIG ONES.

PROCESS, HAVE WE EVER HAD A PROBLEM ARISE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S GUMMED UP

THE WORKS? >> DELEGATE AGENCIES THAT DID NOT -- THEY WERE DISQUALIFIED FOR IT.

ONE THING WE CAN CONSIDER IS SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE GET TO THE DELEGATE AGENCY PROCESS, HIGH-PROFILE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT BASED IN THE CODE. THEY ARE BASED AT PURCHASING.

WE HAVE SOME RULES THAT WE TEND TO FOLLOW WITH IT, BUT COUNCIL COULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO SAY, WE DON'T WANT THIS RESTRICTION ON THE DELEGATE AGENCY PROCESS. WHAT THIS RULE REALLY WAS LOOKING AT WAS IN THE CASES WHERE IT'S THE NONPROFIT AND THE FOR PROFIT LOOKING AT THE SAME CONTRACT. SO THE EXAMPLE OF THE FOOD BANK.

FOOD BANK MAY BE COMPETING AGAINST SERICO SERVICES FOR THE PRE-K FOUR SA FOOD SERVICES. A NONPROFIT THEN HAS A POTENTIAL ADVANTAGE, YOU WOULD SAY, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT SAME RESTRICTION, BUT WHEN WE GET TO DELEGATE AGENCIES WHERE THEY'RE ALL NONPROFITS, YOU WOULD

POSSIBLY HAVE THAT DISCRETION TO MAKE THAT. >> PELAEZ: I MEAN, JUST SO IT'S CLEAR, I -- I APPRECIATE AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THAT IN PLACE FOR THE HIGH PROFILE CONTRACTS, LIKE SELRICO AND FOOD BANK. I'M SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON THE DELEGATE AGENCY ISSUE AND MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE NOT INCLUDE THIS -- YOU KNOW, THIS THING -- IT'S JUST GOING TO COMPLICATE THEIR LIVES, RIGHT? AND, AGAIN, IF THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE RESULT OF WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, GIVE -- OR WHEN WE ALLOCATE TO THE YWC A-1 HUNDRED THOUSAND HERE OR , YOU KNOW, PICK YOUR NONPROFIT. BASICALLY WE'D BE PUNISHING THEM FOR, YOU KNOW, MAKING AN OVERSIGHT, FOR NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW, AND THEN CREATING EXTRA WORK FOR US. AND I'M NOT SURE WE'RE SOLVING A PROBLEM THERE. AND SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE EXCLUDE THAT. AND RBL MINDS CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT

THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. >> SEGOVIA: AND COUNCILMAN, WE CAN DO THAT IN A NUMBER OF WAYS, EITHER THROUGH THE CHAIN HIRE OR AS KEVIN POINTED OUT AFTERWARDS THE COUNCIL -- THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY IN A NUMBER OF WAYS TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPLY

THIS TO THE DELEGATE AGENCY PROCESS. >> BARTHOLD: SO THE OTHER THING WE CAN ALSO DO, WHENEVER WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, WE'RE NOT DISTIPPING WISHING BETWEEN THE DELEGATE AGENCY PROCESS VERSUS HIGH PROFILE. WE CAN TAKE THIS BACK TO THE ERB TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITHIN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT. AND SEE IF ANYTHING -- ANY RECOMMENDATION WOULD CHANGE, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY AND EASILY DO

THAT. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER

PELAEZ. COUNCILMEMBER VIAGRAN? >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU.

I WANT TOO THANK MY BOARD MEMBER GEORGE HINOJOSA FOR SERVING, THANK YOU FOR DOING ALL THE HARD WORK, AND HE'LL BE MOVING ON TO ANOTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION, SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT THAT. I AGREE WITH THE CHANGES. A LOT OF MY ANSWERS -- MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED BY MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES. I DO WANT TO JUST CHIME IN ON THE LAST BID OF THE CONVERSATION, KEVIN AND ERIK, THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DISCUSS AS A COUNCIL REGARDING DELEGATE AGENCIES, SO I'M OKAY WITH MOVING IT FORWARD, IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE AS THE COUNCIL TALK ABOUT DELEGATE AGENCIES AND WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE OF DELEGATE AGENCIES. BECAUSE I KNOW FOR US -- FOR ME IN PARTICULAR, AND MY RESIDENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHENEVER WE TALK DELEGATE AGENCIES, WE TALK HOW ARE THEY SERVICING THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, SO IF WE CAN PUT THAT IN. AND THEN TALK ABOUT HOW WE REMOVE THAT AS WE LOOK AT THE TWO-YEAR AWARDS. I DO NOT WANT TO HINDER THE SMALLER GROUPS, BUT THERE IS CONVERSATION THAT THERE ARE GROUPS THAT CONSISTENTLY -- DELEGATE AGENCIES THAT CONSISTENTLY GET FUND TION THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CERTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS AND DO NOT SERVICE CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN, SO I THINK THAT -- I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND THAT'S WHY I DO THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THIS IN AND THEN DISCUSS LATER HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT DELEGATE AGENCIES AND HOW THEY SERVE.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBEAYRG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER VIAGRAN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? I'LL JUST MAKE A FEW COMMENTS, MORE PHILOSOPHICAL IN NATURE,

[00:50:04]

THROUGH? >> BARTHOLD: WE TRY TO -- YOU KNOW, WE USED TO SAY TWO TO THREE YEARS. YOU KNOW, THE LAST REVISIONS WERE IN 2018, SO WE'RE SIX YEARS -- OR FIVE AND A HALF YEARS PAST THAT.

SO THERE IS A REGULAR PROCESS, COVID MESSED IT UP THIS LAST GO-ROUND FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THREE YEAR, PLUS

OR MINUS WOULD BE THE REVIEW CYCLE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL.

>> BARTHOLD: OH, NO, NOT AT ALL. IT'S ON OUR -- THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S HELPFUL. I ACCEPT A ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THAT IS THE DIFFICULT DISSONANCE I HAVE WHENEVER WE HAVE RECOMME RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REVIEW BOARD, IN MY OPINION THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE POUT OF THE DISCUSSION -- OUT OF THE DISCUSSION, MORE OF INDEPENDENCE FOR THE ERB TO BEGIN WITH. WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT, THAT'S A CHARTER ISSUE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING TO THE PUBLIC, BUT REALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CODE ITSELF OR FINANCE CODE, WE'RE DEALING IN APPEARANCES. AND TRYING TO PREVENT THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCE PEDALING IN CITY HALL,, WHETHER OR NOT IT STOPS IT IS UP FOR DEBATE, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN REDUCE THE APPEARANCE. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, NO AMOUNT OF MONEY IS TOO LARGE OR TOO SMALL TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BEING FLEUB INFLUENCED BY IT IF THEY LACK THE INTEGRITY TO SERVE. SO IN MY OPINION WHEN IT COMES TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NONPROFITS, WHAT CATEGORIES OR PROCESSES PEOPLE ARE IN, WHETHER COMPANIES ARE HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTING OR NOT, I WOULD HOPE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH FUTURE ITERATIONS OF THE CODE, THAT WE COULD FOCUS ON TRANSPARENCY AND SIMPLICITY, THAT WE MAKE IT EASIER FOR FOLKS TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES. BECAUSE I DO KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE VERY WELL-INTENDED ORGANIZATIONS HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES IN TROUBLE BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A, YOU KNOW,.

>A, YOU KNOW, MAZE TO GET THROUGH SOME OF THIS STUFF.

I WOULD HOPE WE TAKE A STEP BACK IN FUTURE ITERATIONS AND THINK MORE PHILOSOPHICALLY ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THE CODE.

AND REALLY WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY, IT'S LESS ABOUT THE ENTRY RAS RASSYS -- INTRICACIES AND THE DETAILS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CODE AS IT IS THE AUTONOMY AND THE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO THE ERB TO BE OUR PROPER POLICING AUTHORITY FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

SO THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION FOR THE FUTURE, BUT HOPEFULLY IT CAN GUIDE DISCUSSIONS IN THE NEXT ITERATION.

SO -- BUT OTHER THAN THAT, GREAT WORK. I KNOW IT'S ALL PAINSTAKING AND WE APPRECIATE THE SERVICE OF THE ERB IMMENSELY OVER THE YEARS, AND I KNOW THERE ARE FOLKS THAT ARE GOING TO BE STEPPING OFF INTO NEW ROLES AND NEW PEOPLE COMING ON, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THE VITAL ROLE THAT YOU PLAY FOR PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THIS BODY, BUT ALSO GIVING CONFIDENCE TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN

THEIR BEST INTEREST, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> BARTHOLD: AND IF I MAY, MAYOR, JUST TO CLARIFY THE NEXT STEPS, WE WILL GO BACK TO THE ERB SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP REGARDING EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS, AND ALSO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NONPROFIT BOARDS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DELEGATE AGENCIES.

AND THEN BRING THAT BACK. AND I WOULD ANTICIPATE BRINGING THAT -- THOSE ARE MINOR CHANGES, IF THEY'RE CHANGES AT ALL, IN THE NEXT ITERATION WOULD BE COMING BACK TO AN A SESSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL WITH ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES FROM THIS ONE.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GREAT. ANDY, YOU WANTED TO. >> SEGOVIA: MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO ADD, IN TERMS OF THE EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION, I'M SURE THE CITY MANAGER WILL HAVE A FEW O VIEW ON THAT AS WELL.

>> BARTHOLD: AND WE'LL COORDINATE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GREAT DISCUSSION. THAT IS THE END OF IT. THE TIME IS 3:08 P.M. ON THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024. OUR B SESSION IS ADJOURNED. WE WILL HAVE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT AT 5:00 P.M. ACROSS THE STREET. IS THAT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.