March thirtieth, twenty twenty six Board of Ethics meeting to what do I call it to?

Order.

Okay, although.

Um this meeting will be held both in person and also using an online video conferencing system.

You can join this meeting via video conference, um uh accessing that information from the City of Bozeman Board of Ethics web page or via phone call.

Um is there anyone online today?

Yeah, okay.

All right, today um item B on our agenda is a special presentation.

We will be doing an uh ethics mock hearing, and Jen Gatari will introduce that.

Yeah, I think before before Jen jumps off, I think what we're gonna do is just a few slides to sort of orient the board to your rules related to conducting a hearing that's based on a complaint.

Um and then once that happens, then it's all you right to treat this as if you have a real complaint in front of you.

Um so gaveling it in, uh introducing yourselves, running the process.

I we gave you a handout that has a suggested process for how the the hearing would run.

So I want to thank all these guys because they put a bunch of time in.

And I saw through one of the rehearsals, not a dress rehearsal, but now I'm impressed.

And so they're gonna have fun.

I hope you guys do too, but at the same time we want to make sure this is an experience that you can then draw on at some point in the future if when you have a real complaint that you have to hear.

So give it over, Jen.

And thanks to Jen, she kind of was the producer of orchestrated.

Director.

Director, director, stage hand.

Yeah, all the other stuff that comes with it.

Did you do wardrobe also?

No, that was left to the artist.

That was left to the artist.

Okay.

Yeah, who's the producer for this?

Executive producer, you know, you're the director.

I wore many hats.

Or or TRS.

I don't know.

Okay, are you ready, Greg?

Okay, um, so just to give you an overview of um the lay of the land before jumping into the ethics hearing, turning your attention to section two point zero three six hundred A three.

This section of our code delineates the board's duties and powers, and one of them explicitly states that uh you have the ability to conduct ethics hearings.

Six forty, um, which we'll go over in more detail is the section that governs procedures for hearing complaints.

And then finally, resolution twenty twenty-four oh one, which the board passed um in twenty twenty-four.

The appendix to that are the uh hearing rules of procedure.

So as a um recap, section two point zero three six forty sets forth all of the steps for the filing of a complaint.

Um the main steps are there needs to be a complaint, a response, and a preliminary analysis before the board ever steps in.

Uh the clerk is responsible for acknowledging receipt and forwarding all documents to all of the members of the board as well as to the parties and to the city attorney's office.

Looking at the complaint, any person can file a complaint and it must be filed with the city clerk.

The person does not have to live in city limits.

They do not have to live in the county, they just have to be a named person.

It cannot be anonymous.

And that person is identified in this procedure as the respondent, right?

So oftentimes in a criminal proceeding, you'll hear the word defendant, but this is not actually a criminal proceeding.

So we use the term respondent, which is what is typically used in civil proceedings in court.

So the complainant or the person who's filing the complaint has to specifically say what section of the code they think has been violated.

So they can't just throw out something randomly.

They have to make a specific point to something specifically in the complaint.

And then additionally, they have to include a statement of facts supporting their claim.

They can include in their statement of facts any physical evidence.

And the code defines physical evidence as documents, still removing images, audio or video.

So they're not obligated to include evidence.

And basically the complaint must be filed within one year that the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged violation.

So that's there's a little bit of distinguishing there where it's not from the date of when it may have occurred, but when the complainant basically knew or should have known that that it had occurred.

Once the complaint is filed, within five working days, the clerk must acknowledge receipt of the complaint and then forward that on to the board, the city attorney, and the respondent.

Once that's forwarded on, the time starts ticking for the respondent to submit an answer or a response.

So it must be filed 20 days from receiving the complaint, and likewise must contain an unsworn declaration.

And then again, the city clerk is responsible for forwarding the response on, so they'd forward it back to the complainant to all the members of the board and to the city attorney.

So at this point in the process, the city attorney has all of the information provided by the parties at that time, and will provide a preliminary analysis of the complaint response and any evidence that is submitted.

If for some reason, you know, there was an oversight, the preliminary analysis would also do this review to make sure that all of these requirements are met.

Once the board has received the city attorney's preliminary analysis, they must set an initial review meeting within 20 days of receiving the preliminary analysis.

So at that point, the board would have the complaint, the response, any evidence that was uh submitted, and the preliminary analysis from the city attorney's office.

So with all those documents in hand, the board would meet, and the purpose of that initial meeting is to review these documents and then decide what route they would like to proceed.

So three options are set out in the in the code.

Um they can dismiss the complaint with or without prejudice, they can make a decision on the merits without a hearing, or they can determine a formal ethics hearing is necessary.

So typically, if a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, that means you do not get another bite at the apple, cannot file again on the same violation or a same set of facts.

They they missed it, they missed their opportunity.

If the complaint is dismissed without prejudice, the board is essentially saying, okay, there for whatever reason we're saying we're not going to hear this now.

Maybe there's a deficiency that the preliminary analysis identified, so we're gonna kick this out, but you have an opportunity to come back and file again on the same alleged violation or the same set of facts or both.

Um they can you can make a decision on the merits without a hearing.

So you could say everything that we we think we have everything that we need to know in the complaint, the response, and the preliminary analysis.

We don't need any more information.

We're gonna go forward and make a decision, or you can determine a formal ethics hearing is necessary.

If you decide that a formal ethics hearing is necessary, you have the choice to choose between an evidentiary hearing or strictly oral argument.

Um then once the board makes a decision that they would like a hearing, uh, the ethics hearing rules of procedure apply.

And so I just pulled out a few um key points from the hearing rules of procedure, and these are really um it's think of them like your roadmap for governing um hearings, and I would think of them in conjunction with the decorum rules because the decorum rules will give you the authority to know you know what behavior is acceptable or not acceptable in a public forum, and then the hearing rules will give you the ability to understand what's acceptable or not acceptable within the container of the hearing.

So some of the um here, and we call them a hearing panel or an hearing officer.

Um their duties and powers can include administering oaths and swearing of witnesses.

You could also choose to defer that to the city clerk, right, or the chair could decide to do the swearing in of witnesses, um determining evidence, and we'll talk a little bit later on about what kind of evidence um the board would want to rely on.

Um so that would be ruling and receiving evidence.

So any evidence that would be presented at the hearing would need to be considered a part of the board's um contemplation and making their decision and be a part of the official hearing record.

Oversee pre-hearing and hearing procedures, uh, the examining of witnesses, issue any written factual findings and conclusions.

And I believe in the code, it says if the board has a hearing that they are to issue findings and conclusions.

I think the language is like as soon as possible, something there's not a time frame.

Um the hearing format also comes from our hearing rules, and that's found in section 3.06 of the hearing rules, and the hearing panel or the hearing officer has the discretion to establish the hearing format.

At a minimum, each party must get 10 minutes to provide its case and response.

So that gives the board some discretion depending on this the substance of the complaint and the response to decide what would be appropriate for each hearing.

But at a minimum, each party should have 10 minutes.

And then we have uh section 3.07 in our rules, which are the principles of evidence during an ethics hearing.

So the rules of evidence that apply in a um court of law don't necessarily apply here.

That gives the board or the hearing panel more leeway as to what they can hear.

And also I think there it's probably more likely that for ethics hearings, they're not people may not be represented by attorneys.

They're going to be pro se.

So they may not have that legal sophistication that one would have in court, right?

So and then thirdly, oftentimes in like administrative hearings, the rules of evidence don't apply.

So this is not an atypical requirement.

Only the complainant, the respondent, and the hearing panel or the hearing officer are permitted to present evidence.

Evidence can be physical evidence, evidence can be testimonial evidence.

So that means you cannot have a member of the public come up and present testimony or present you with documentary evidence.

It can only come from the people who are within the container of that hearing or the or the panel themselves.

The hearing panel has the ability to question the witnesses.

Typically, this is done, you know, once the line of questioning is completed from the party's attorney if they're represented by an attorney.

Or as opposed to interjecting in the middle of the testimony.

And then evidence that is admitted must be included in the official hearing record.

Additionally, objections may be made, and the hearing panel has the authority to decide on the admissibility of all the evidence.

Some important notes about evidence, only credible and relevant evidence must be admitted into the record.

And so the hearing panel has the ability to make that determination.

And then the evidence has to be at a certain level.

And this is the burden that the complainant must bear.

And that means that the evidence must be clear and convincing, or in other words, um, where there is no serious or substantial doubt as to the correctness or the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

So if you have just like a little bit of doubt, right?

Um that's not that's not going to be enough.

It has to be no serious or substantial doubt.

And all this is in the hearing rules laid out there.

Um yes, I think I misstated.

I had said that in the code, it said that the findings and conclusions must be issued as soon as possible, but it's actually in the hearing rules.

So as soon as possible after closing the record.

Um and that's it.

I don't know if Greg has anything he wants to add.

Can I ask one question?

Sure.

So I understand that there can't be like public comment or public testimony in the context of this case.

Maybe I could ask this later, but I'm just curious since we're talking about it.

Would Mick Jagger constitute like a member of the public, or because he's mentioned in the allegations, would he constitute uh I I think that's to be seen.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

I don't think I can give you an answer.

Right.

But it was a great question.

Okay.

I did my reading.

Any other questions?

No.

Okay, great.

Well, enjoy the show.

It's always a good way to do the questions.

Welcome.

My name is Sarah Rushing.

I am the chair of the City of Bozeman Board of Ethics, and I hereby call to order the hearing in the case of Taylor Swift's allegations that Beyonce has misused city resources.

The allegation is comes from Section 2.03.500 of the City of Bozeman Code of Ethics.

Today I'm going to explain the procedures for the hearing.

And then we will go through the various steps.

So we're going to start with an opening statement from the complainant's attorney.

In the hearing procedures.

Then the complainant will make their case, calling any witnesses, and taking any direct questions or cross-examination or redirect questions.

Following the complainant's case, the respondent will have an opportunity to make their case.

Similarly, calling witnesses, direct questions, cross-examination, then any redirect questions.

Following that, we will allow each uh party to make a closing statement first the complainant and then the respondent.

We will limit that to the evidence and record and limit it to approximately five minutes.

At that point, the board will close the hearing and we will discuss the facts of the case and the evidence provided and make a motion and vote on it.

I want to note again that if this is Taylor Swift as the complainant who has the burden of uh uh evidentiary proof against Beyoncé, who is being uh alleged to have missed us the resources according to the initial analysis provided to the board.

Um all of the processes so far have met the procedural requirements, so there's no um question about whether we should be here today to hear um the facts and um any witnesses brought.

Are there any questions about the procedures we're gonna be following today from either of the parties?

All right, then we will begin with an opening statement from the complainant's attorney.

Shall we do a roll call for the record?

Yes, the other board members in attendance today are Jim Drummond and Mark Bond.

All right, with that, we will proceed to the opening statement by the complainant's attorney.

Good evening, Chair, members of the board.

My name is Bruce Dickinson, and I'm the attorney for the complainant, Taylor Swift.

I uh had some concerns about the ethics of using generative AI in preparing this legal work today, and then I figured fake attorney, fake procedure, fake legal analysis, disclosure suffices.

This case is about a rule.

A simple one.

It protects public trust.

It ensures fairness, it draws a clear line between public duty and private benefit.

And on July 18th, that line was crossed.

My client, Taylor Swift is not here as a performer.

She's here as a neighbor, a homeowner, a taxpayer in the city of Bozeman.

And she saw something.

She paid attention and she reported it.

Because when it comes to accountability, she doesn't deal in blank spaces.

She deals in facts.

Here's what she observed.

Around midday, her neighbor Beyonce, a city employee, arrived home in a city vehicle during the workday.

Now I'll keep this simple.

This is this board enforces the code of ethics, not a who runs the world exception to it.

And so when Beyonce arrived home during the workday, she removed a chainsaw from that city vehicle.

And she used it to cut down a tree in her own yard.

Not a park, not a right-of-way.

Her yard.

And then came the moment that matters.

Ms.

Swift approached her and asked a simple question: could you help me with my tree?

And the answer was no.

Not just no.

I can't.

It would violate the rules.

That's the case.

Because at the exact moment that the rule was being explained, it was being broken.

This isn't complicated.

It's not subtle.

It doesn't require inference.

City truck, city chainsaw, private property, work day.

And a clear statement of the work what the rule is, followed immediately by conduct that ignores it.

A moment that should have been straightforward, but instead turned into a bit of a bad blood situation between what the rule says and what actually happened.

Now, you may hear this was minor.

One tree, one moment, no harm done.

But the code of ethics doesn't measure importance that way.

It measures consistency.

Because once the rules have become gray, once they apply to one neighbor, but not another, you don't have a standard anymore.

You have discretion.

An unchecked discretion is exactly what the code is designed to prevent.

You will hear testimony that confirms each of these facts, and you will hear no dispute about the rule itself.

Only what happened in relation to it.

And at the end of this hearing, the question will be straightforward.

Were public resources used for public purposes?

The evidence will show they were not.

And when that happens, the code requires a finding, not a remix, not a reinterpretation.

We don't need to begin again with a different version of events.

Just a decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now hear the opening statement from the respondent's attorney.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board.

I do declare that Mr.

Dickinson has painted an interesting picture.

I realize that he is from the law firm of Fine and Dandy and has presented his evidence well.

I am going to present an alternate picture.

A picture that paints the city of Bozeman in crisis on July 18th because of a Shiraco that happened on the 17th.

There were trees down.

Emergency vehicles were on the roads.

Northwestern Energy tried their best to cut down the trees and get the power back up.

But there was one person in this city with the skills, with the training, with the motivation to help out, and that was my client, Beyoncé Knowles.

The evidence will show that she encountered a public safety crisis on her own property, a tree leaning over a power line.

She went about her business that day, reporting for a duty, and she performed her duties admirably.

And when it was time for lunch, Beyoncé went to her boss, Mr.

Al Green, and said, Mr.

Al Green, will you give me permission to take the city vehicle to my home so that I may eliminate this public hazard, this limb that is threatening to disrupt the power of Bozeman Montana.

And Al Green said, yes.

We must recognize that in a city of crisis, that sometimes the rules must be bent so that the city is safe.

That Beyoncé did not, in fact, use a city chainsaw, but her personal pink chainsaw to render that one limb helpless.

Now, let's talk about the witnesses.

Taylor Swift.

In this case, she is not a witness.

She is an anti-hero.

She has personal reasons for bringing this charge against my client, and that is because my client said no.

I will not use my city vehicle, my chainsaw to deal with your tree that had no threat to public safety at all.

That there were ulterior motives for this.

And as for Mr.

McJagger, the evidence will show he woke up in a stupa.

He had been sleeping in his own lawn so long, long that Moss was almost growing on this rolling stone.

That he is a completely unreliable witness.

And the last thing that I will call your at call your attention to.

My goodness.

Except underline that word.

Except when such use is of benefit to the city.

My goodness.

Of course it wasn't benefit to the city.

Of course, Beyonce should not be brought up on ethics charges instead.

A statue should be created and placed in front of City Hall with her and her chainsaw saving the day for Bozeman.

Wow.

Madam Chair, I believe we never got that uh gentleman's name.

For the record.

That smooth talking gentleman.

Excuse me, for the record, and I do apologize.

My name is Clem Clementine.

Thank you, Mr.

Cometine.

Thank you for those impassioned opening statements.

We will now proceed to hearing the complainant's case.

Madam Chair.

Point of order.

I believe we had uh Bruce Dickinson previously testifying.

I'm not sure who David Fine is.

Uh I'm sorry.

Sometimes my alter ego comes out and I just don't know what to do.

Um I do a timeout for a second.

So at the end, I definitely want to have some time to talk about like every step.

Um I'm gonna sort of give a timeout where I think there's important procedural steps that you should take if you're not taking them.

So the first thing is have her sworn in.

Okay, we would like to swear in.

Taylor Swift as a witness, and we will have Mike Moss doing the swearing in.

Do you have an alter ego, Mike Moss, for the purpose of this hearing?

Mike Moss is the alter ego.

Intriguing.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Please tape your name for the record.

Taylor is this one?

Yes, the personal button.

Taylor Jean Swift.

And are you the person who filed this ethics complaint?

I most certainly am.

And where do you live in relation to Beyonce Beyoncé is my next door neighbor?

And I knew that she was troubled when she moved in.

And how long have you lived at your at your current address?

Since I believe 1989, I was a very small child.

And are you a taxpayer in the city of Bozeman?

Oh yes, I pay a great deal of taxes.

I can only imagine.

Try.

Ms.

Swift, uh, do you have a general understanding that city equipment is not to be used on private property?

Yes, yes, I'm very, very ethical.

And so when you saw uh Beyoncé come home on the day in question, why did that stand out to you?

It it stood out to me because first of all, I've never seen a city truck in our neighborhood before.

And it was loud.

I was trying to rehearse.

And I it just stood out.

I noticed it.

And Ms.

Swift, how did you know that it was a city truck?

Oh, because it has a great big logo on it, City of Bozeman, something or other.

So directing your attention to July 18th, 2025.

Do you recall that day?

Oh, yes.

And what around what time did you observe Beyoncé return home?

I believe it was around it had to be around 1130 because I had just taken my oz I I mean I had just had a smoothie.

And that's the time that I always have my health shake.

And and you recall and you said she was driving a city truck.

Yes.

So what what did you do after seeing her arriving?

Well, everything was fine until she took out that chainsaw and started taking the entire tree down.

And did she take that the chainsaw out of the vehicle?

Yes.

And based on your her taking it out of the vehicle, did you believe that it was a city chainsaw?

That's what I had to presume.

And and when she took the chainsaw, the city chainsaw out of that vehicle, what did she do with that chainsaw?

She she started the chainsaw.

It made a lot of noise.

It totally interrupted my rehearsal.

I see.

And was she trimming branches or removing the entire tree?

She did both.

So there's the tree is gone.

There is no tree.

No tree, just a stump.

Yes, in her yard.

All right.

And you you said it was in her work yard.

Is that where the work was playing taking place?

Yes.

So did you speak with Beyonce at that time?

Yes, I went right out and had a conversation.

Very polite and calm and quiet conversation.

I see.

And what did you ask her calmly and quietly?

I asked her uh what she was doing.

And then since her work seemed complete, I asked if she would please take care of my tree since I figured there must have been an ethics revision, and now she could help anyone with she's in the neighborhood.

It was lunchtime.

Objection.

It seems simple.

What did she say in a response?

You got an objection, Cole.

Um Do I deal with the objection?

What is your objection?

Mr.

Clementine?

She is making uh references to Oh, Mr.

Clementine, can you please approach the microphone?

I believe his name is Clementine.

Clementine.

Mr.

Clementine.

Clem Clementine.

My objection is that she is is making inferences about something, some ethics uh being changed or something of that nature, which she has no evidence of, and there's no evidence.

Um this is just hearsay.

Thank you for your objection.

Strike that from the record.

No, I don't know what I madam chair.

I do believe that we will get to the point if you allow my client to testify.

Thank you.

Mr.

Clementine, you will have time in questioning to uh pursue that line of inquiry.

Can I ask a quick question for that?

So in the direct questions cross-examine and redirect, is that the other attorney doing that?

Do we get a chance in there to ask questions?

Yeah, after they're all done with the witness, you guys will have an opportunity to ask the witness questions.

And is that indirect question, cross-examination or redirect or where?

At the end of that.

At the end of that.

So like step four would be.

Let it all play out, see what the parties do with presenting the evidence.

And then if there's anything additional that you guys think you need to know, that's germane to the complaint in the code section, then you can flush that out with your questions.

Got it.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um another suggestion is you hear the objection, right?

The proper thing is why, right?

He just said objection.

You need to know the basis for the objection.

As Jen had gone through the rules.

Um remember the Montana rules of evidence that apply in a court proceeding are not relevant here.

They can be a guide, but you do not have to follow them.

The attorney throws out the lovely word of hearsay.

Right.

Hearsay rules are complex.

To say the least.

Right.

Because the testimony was just given.

And the rule would be the standard rules of evidence do not hold for this forum.

You can turn to your the fellow board members and see if anybody has any thought on the objection.

You can always turn to the attorney who's helping you.

In this case, it's me in for an explanation, but I think you should address that immediately and deal with the objection immediately.

Okay.

Or you say what in this case, like she can say that.

Okay.

Right?

Well, I mean, if the if the standard rules of evidence do not apply in this forum, that just makes it.

That's right.

And then no matter what anybody says out there, it's up to you guys to determine what's relevant.

So okay, so if they start going down some avenue of defense that just doesn't make any sense, we can stop them.

Yep.

Okay.

Well, I let kind of give them a long rope to do their thing.

Okay.

You've already heard a number of things that have been said that matter absolutely not at all.

Okay.

But that's for you guys.

You're sitting up here to sort of wade through all of the craziness that they're going to give you and determine what actually has happened here.

What's the relevant stuff?

Okay.

Mr.

Dickerson, please continue.

So I think uh, Madam Chair, that we found ourselves.

Um Ms.

Swift had just testified that she'd seen Beyonce cut down a tree on private property in her neighbor's yard, and you'd asked her for help with true your tree, and what did you say in response?

Well, I'd like to clarify, it was not just a yard, it was in her own yard.

Well, thank you.

Uh and and you asked for help in your yard.

Is that correct?

Yes.

And what did she say in response?

She said no.

She explained why she couldn't help you?

She said because it's against the rules.

What exactly did she say about the rules and about using city equipment on private property?

She said she was not allowed to use city equipment on private property.

And at the time that she said that, what had you just observed her doing?

Taking down a city tree on private property with city equipment.

Her her own tree on private property.

Her own tree.

Did that seem consistent or inconsistent to you?

And why?

That seemed extremely inconsistent to me, like the definition of inconsistent.

And like if you looked in the dictionary, you'd see a picture of Beyoncé being inconsistent.

Objection.

What is the basis for your objection, Mr.

Clementine?

She is clearly trying to prejudice you all against Beyoncé by making uh extraneous allegations.

I can understand why that would be disturbing to you, sir, but the regular rules of evidence do not hold for this forum.

I'm going to allow it and let them continue.

I'd like the record to show that haters are gonna hate hate hate hate.

So Ms.

Swift.

Did you uh say to that?

So you should say something to that look.

I it didn't one more time with feeling.

That's awesome.

So this is what you're gonna face.

Right?

And so what I think you guys just need to keep your eye on as you're controlling and managing the hearing, is how much are you gonna let happen?

How much are you going to what is the point where when somebody says something from the witness stand that you're gonna say that's too much?

That's too far.

And what do I do with that?

Do I tell them to take it out of the record?

Do I just say move on, please?

I think you can remind people that what we're gonna rely on, like this is a forum where um we're trying to discover what really happened.

Um extraneous comments and personal attacks, there's no room for that right here.

So please just stay focused on the facts and presenting the facts, something like that, so that you can just continue to manage and control it without doing something more than that.

Madam Chair, I think you should let the players play play, play, play, play.

We're gonna avoid, much as we all love Ms.

Swift's uh music, we're gonna avoid lyricizing.

And we're gonna stick with the facts.

We've heard certain facts repeated a number of times.

If you have more to add, please continue.

Otherwise, wrap up your case.

So did did you observe anyone else nearby, Ms.

Swift?

Yes, my across the street neighbor, Mick Jagger.

And uh to your knowledge, could Mick Jagger see or hear what was happening?

He appeared to see and hear because he raised his head up off the lawn and looked across the street and and uh and was gesturing wildly but sort of stumbling a little as well, but I think that he'd just been tired because he's taking it now.

Okay.

So as a taxpayer, how did this situation affect you?

I felt it was an improper use of taxpayer funds to use uh, as we said, city resources.

And is that why you decided to file this complaint?

100%.

And just for the record, is the complaint you filed accurate to the best of your knowledge?

Yes.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Mr.

Clementine, would you like to direct any questions to the witness?

Oh, would I?

Ms.

Swift.

When was the last time you had your eyes examined?

I have perfect vision of what the record show that Ms.

Swift just put on corrective lenses to answer that question.

These are fashion lenses.

Thank you.

A couple of questions for you.

You uh you you said that I believe that my client took down the entire tree.

Is that correct?

Yes.

The entire tree leaving as you uh described it a mere stump behind.

Is that correct?

Yes.

I'd like you to look at this photo of the actual tree, the actual tree.

What is the basis for your objection, Mr.

Dickerson?

Basically, my objection is that this photo was not placed in evidence, uh and no one had the opportunity, including counsel, to review this file photo in advance.

I I ask uh Madam Chair that it be stricken for the record.

Um I agree at this moment that you should not be confronting Ms.

Swift with the picture that was not entered into evidence.

When you make your case, we can inquire as to why the picture was not entered into evidence, or we can ask uh Ms.

Swift when it's our turn for questions.

But currently I think you need to pursue your inquiry without bringing additional evidence.

Overrule that objection, madam true.

Person just because we're not subject to normal evidential rules.

And it helps this board make a decision.

I think given well, I don't care.

What do you think?

If I may, madam chair.

We were not able to prepare.

I don't believe they were addressing you, Mr.

Dickerson.

This is my epic score.

And I'm not gonna have you yelling at each other.

Like follow the rules of procedure.

Let me pause for a moment and hear the uh input of my fellow um panelists.

Mr.

Drummond.

I believe this photo, even though it's not been introduced under normal evidentiary rules, helps the score make a decision, and I believe that that objection should be a rule.

Mr.

Bond.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

I actually tend to disagree with Mr.

Drummond uh with respect, of course.

Um seeing as we do have very clear processes in place by which we submit evidence uh and ensure that both parties and all parties have a chance to review said evidence beforehand with clear timetables laid out that uh it is not fair to either party or to this body to uh to consider that evidence at this time.

Thank you.

I'm tired of having cameras in my face.

That said, I will say that uh well I won't say that actually because that's Larry said I I agree at this point.

I I would like to ask why the picture was not entered into evidence by the complainant, but I'm not gonna have you confronting complainant with the picture as part of your cross-examination.

Uh I had assumed that you all were interested in the facts, and so I brought the facts, including photographic evidence showing that the tree is still there, it's just missing the limb that endangered the public.

Okay, so what is your take on this?

Because clearly they have different allegations in the um in the supporting documents, and it's a clear obvious question for us to ask, but I don't know about this this situation.

So a couple things.

Um you just saw a dynamic where multiple people began talking at the same time.

That gavel that's sitting there is your friend.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Um you did a good job of like telling the witness stop.

Right.

And then you guys, when you're faced with that, like the better that you control what happens, the better the whole hearing will go.

Um obviously this photograph of the tree was not included in the response.

So that's why the respondents counsel is attempting to introduce it.

The way that he's trying to do that was simply showing the witness something without actually asking you if he could.

Okay.

Right.

And so that's a very different procedure.

So as you're in control, if in a real hearing you see somebody trying to do that, they need to talk to you and ask if they can use that.

But procedurally they could if we say they can.

Yes, absolutely.

Then the other thing that you would have to consider is what uh the respondents attorney had said, which is hey, wait a second, I've never seen this picture.

I don't know what this picture is about.

And so what the complaints attorney needs to be able to prove to you is that this is the picture of the tree that was cut down and not just some other random stump that they took wherever else in town in order for you guys to be able to determine that that's relevant.

So if you were to accept this, you need to run the complaint's attorney through a process that would have them demonstrate that this is the picture of that tree.

Now they can do that with the witness.

And then you guys have to then determine have they done that to our satisfaction before you would say that can come.

All right, so let's go back five steps to where you first pull out your phone with a picture of the tree.

Yes, ma'am.

You said, I believe, that when Beyoncé was done with the tree, all that was left was a stump.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So in other words, not one limb that was taken down, but the entire tree.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So if I were to show you physical evidence.

Mr.

Clementine, do you pause, please?

Since this was not entered into the case, can you show us the picture you're working with and let us make a determination about whether we want you to go ahead with this line of inquiry?

Certainly.

Now, in fairness, this is a Google search of a tree missing a limb.

So to clarify, this is not the actual tree from the yard.

I do not have time to go photograph the actual tree.

Yeah, so we're not going to allow that picture to be shown.

Please proceed with your direct questions beyond that line of inquiry.

So Google is not sufficient.

Okay.

Let me continue.

Now you you you said that Beyoncé showed up in a city truck, which you described as having a logo as big as Montana, is that correct?

Uh no, I did not.

Not specify the size.

And and you saw Beyoncé taking out a chainsaw, which you allege is city property.

Is that correct?

And starting said chainsaw.

Ah, starting said chainsaw as well.

It was very, very, very loud, and I was at my microphone trying to.

If you don't mind asking just answering my questions, very simple yes or no types of questions.

Please answer the question.

Please ask the question politely.

Proceed.

Certainly.

In my apologies.

What color was the chainsaw that you viewed Beyoncé using?

It was red.

It was red.

Thank you.

And so you're certain of that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Now, when you saw Beyonce taking down that tree, which was clearly posing a public hazard because the limb was over the objection.

What is the basis of your objection, Mr.

Dickerson?

Counsel is testifying.

He sounds like an elected official.

He just keeps monologuing and monologuing.

Thank you, thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Clementine, if you could stick to questions and not comments, that would be great.

Very well.

Mr.

Clementine, you're not an elected official, is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank goodness for the public, I might add.

Just a couple of more questions.

When Beyoncé said when you ask you asked Beyoncé to take down a tree in your yard, correct?

Yes.

And Beyoncé said no, correct?

Correct.

How did that make you feel?

Did that infuriate you?

I saw red.

You saw red.

And therefore you had to get back at Beyonce, did you not?

Some would call it getting back.

Yes, yes, and getting back could take the form of an ethics complaint.

Is that correct?

Is that the best way of doing it?

Is there a problem with that?

I have no further questions.

So to clarify, Greg, was that the direct question of the cross-examination?

Okay, no.

So those are the first.

Okay, so now we're uh would you have any read redirect as uh Mr.

Dickinson?

Would you have any follow-up questions?

Yes.

Uh Ms.

Swift.

Did you observe this conduct happen during the working day?

Oh yes.

And it was in a city truck?

Yes.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses to call?

Oh Mr.

Dickerson, do you have any additional?

Does the complainant have any additional witnesses to call?

I think to excuse her.

The complainant would like to call Mick Jagger to the stand.

Okay.

Miss Swift, you are excused.

Mr.

Jagger, please take the stand.

And would the county would the clerk please swear, Mr.

Jagger in?

Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Right, you want me?

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Do I need to?

Everyone knows me.

Please state your name for the record.

Make Jagger.

And Mr.

Jagger, where do you live?

Oh, right opposite my friend Taylor.

And her.

And so you live right across the street?

Yep.

Okay.

And I'd like to draw your attention to July 18th, 2025.

What did you see on that morning?

Well, first of all, I loud, loud, loud.

One of them lorries came down my streets.

Woke me up.

Ridiculous.

Uh then.

A chainsaw in the middle of the day.

Some of us are trying to sleep.

And could you could you tell me about the truck in question?

Well, it was it said city of Bozeman.

Never seen anything like that in my street.

And did that make you think that it was a city truck?

Well, uh, yeah.

And and who did you see get out of the city truck?

That one.

Should the Can you specify who you are gesturing towards, Mr.

Jagger, for the record?

Beyonce?

I think she's called.

And and what time did you see Beyonce return home?

Middle of the day!

Woke me up.

So rude.

And what what did and you said when Beyonce got home?

She removed a chainsaw from the truck?

Too right.

And what did she do with the chainsaw?

Well, I didn't see her start it, but I heard a loud roar.

And then this bang was chopping down the tree in her yard in the middle of the day.

Just a limb or the entire tree.

Oh, the whole thing.

And I would have done it myself.

I could have taken that down.

I could have used the wood.

So so while um Mr.

Clementine could have found any picture of a tree on the internet, this tree has been cut down completely.

Completely.

And would you think that uh when that chainsaw is removed from a city truck that it is a city chain chainsaw?

Absolutely.

Uh and so uh what did you see after that?

Well, as I was waking up, the noise finally ended, and then Miss Swift went over to see if she could have some work done in her yard, but the answer was no.

It's so rude.

So what did you hear, Miss Swift ask?

She just wanted to have her dead ugly tree chopped down.

Chainsaw's already there.

Truck lorry thing's already there.

So did did you hear what the response was?

Miss Beyonce said, no, it's against the rules.

And and what rule did she cite?

Oh, I can't remember.

Something.

And what happened after that?

Um I think I went back to sleep.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Clementine.

Do you have any cross-examination?

Why I do.

Mr.

Jagger.

How did you find yourself asleep in your own front yard in the middle of the day?

For instance, were you out the night before getting your yachts out?

Could you just ask that question in a direct way, please?

Had you been drinking the previous night?

Objection.

What is the basis for your objection?

Mr.

Jagger's conduct the night before is not under examination here.

Can you ask the question in terms of what you want to know about the moment that Mr.

Jagger was observing the events?

I would like to actually get some information about the witness and his state of mind.

His state of awareness, his state, quite frankly, of sobriety at that moment, which I believe.

Had you been drinking the night before?

Oh, you bet just around.

Then there was the storm kept me awake.

So I had a little kick in my front yard.

And is it true that you have your front yard sprinklers set for 10 a.m.?

That was my shower, the morning wash.

So that did not wake you up because you said the thing that woke you up was the sound of a chainsaw.

Is that correct?

That is right.

So your own sprinklers didn't even wake you up.

Just a little freshing in the morning.

And yet you are able, once you woke up to be able to hear a conversation across the street between Beyoncé and Taylor Swift.

Is that correct?

Are you calling me old and hard at the Mr.

Jagger?

Just answer the question, please.

I am Nate Jagger.

Of course I can hear now I'm a famous rock star.

Mr.

Jagger, please just stick to the response to the question.

And in your career, which you have identified, have you spent a lot of time around loud music and noises that could affect the long-term hearing of a witness?

Objection.

What is the basis of your objection?

I think Colonel Sanders here is um.

Can you please Mr.

Clementine?

I I think Mr.

Clementine is verging on infringing on the uh American with Disabilities Act and subjecting my clo the the witness to unfair questioning.

I'm gonna allow it.

It goes to whether the witness could see or hear the events in question.

That's not calling me blind.

This is not the who's Tommy, okay.

As a famous rock star.

Please dig yourself a little deeper.

Yes.

I have to be able to hear my bandmates, so I know when to sing with my amazing voice.

Okay, just answer the question.

I can hear.

All right.

I believe I've heard enough from this witness.

Thank you.

Uh is there any cross is there any redirect, Mr.

Dickerson?

No, no, I'm sure.

Okay.

Are there any additional witnesses that the complainant wishes to call no?

Okay.

At this point, I will see if my co-panelists have questions.

Yes, I should have allowed you like suggested question.

While she was on standstill.

But if you'd missed that, then yes, you guys can.

She still is on her oath.

Yes, we would like to call Miss Swift back to the stand.

Sorry, I thought you meant we were supposed to leave all our questions until they presented their whole case.

Okay.

Miss Swift, could you please return to the stand?

And Mr.

Jagger, you are released.

Do my fellow panelists have questions for Ms.

Swift?

I do.

You uh commented that your bunny was eaten.

I know that really bugs you.

How is that germane to this complaint?

Well it was a good bunny.

It was not a bad bunny.

I don't know how well that we need to go down that rabbit hole.

I was but oh boom.

Um I would like to ask why the picture of the tree was not entered into evidence.

So so much of your allegation hinges on uh Beyoncé having cut the this is a main factual discrepancy in your um in the materials you have provided.

So objection.

You can't object to me.

Really?

I'll be in charge of the objections here.

Um attorney introduced the photo.

Can I no?

I'm asking why this there was no, if there was a reason that no picture was entered.

I don't know, can I ask that?

I I think what you guys certainly, if what you're looking at is why the photograph of the tree wasn't attached to her original complaint.

Yeah.

Right?

If that is something that you think is important to determining whether Beyoncé conduct violated the code of ethics, then you can certainly open that door and start to inquire about it.

And again, like this is your time.

This is not their time.

Right?

You get to you get to figure out what is important to you and what's relevant to determining whether the complaint is valid.

Okay.

Yeah, Ms.

Swift.

So if you're saying that you think that Beyoncé should be saying that it's me, hi, I'm the problem is me.

Um then I I guess I'd like to follow up on the question from uh Madam Chair and understand why you didn't submit photographic evidence of the tree being chopped down in its entirety to the stump, as you alleged.

Mr.

Turney Man?

Why didn't we submit a photo of the tree?

Mr.

Fine slash Dickerson slash man with a suit.

My client was so distraught that they didn't even think to take a picture of the tree at the time.

Okay.

This is this is an important point about what just happened.

Yeah.

Is that we've had a hearing in the past where that evidence was presented by the attorneys.

Um that led to a significant back and forth discussion during the hearing between the board and the attorneys.

Um we made recommendations to you guys to reconfigure and adopt your current rules and then change the code.

One of the important aspects of that was to shift how the hearings were conducted to testimony similar to a court where the attorneys are not presenting evidence.

They have to have witnesses, the initial documents that they prepare, are their chance to do that.

So I would suggest that you be very careful about calling an attorney to answer a factual question.

The question was directed at the witness.

Okay, sit down.

Also, Greg, in your opinion, should we is this a line of inquiry we should be pursuing or not?

I I and like if we were in a real hearing, I would say that's up to you.

Okay.

So please sit down, Mr.

Dickerson.

And Ms.

Swift, can you briefly answer the question if you know the answer?

If you don't, that's fine.

But if you know an answer, if there's a reason that that picture was not submitted, could you let us know?

I did not think to take a photo.

Okay, thank you.

I have one other question.

When you looked at uh Ms.

Swift cutting down the tree, is it true that you didn't think that was ethical?

When I looked at Beyoncé cutting down the tree, I did not think it was ethical.

And then why did you, if you didn't think it was ethical, ask her to cut down your tree?

Well, I was understanding based on context clues that catch kept coming at me and coming at me with her being in a neighborhood, being in the truck.

I was surmising that maybe those things had changed.

And I didn't know that the rules had remained the same until I asked her to help me, and she declined.

But you did think it was unethical that she put your tree down.

And you had that knowledge when you asked for that same help?

I know.

What I'm saying is I understood that since she was there doing that thing that previously has always been unethical.

I understood that maybe those rules had changed because why else would she be doing it?

Thank you.

You're you do more?

Okay.

You are released.

So Sarah, I want to.

Yeah, I know I want to pay attention to time too.

So in the interest of time, can we please have the respondents case presented and let's keep it snappy?

Because some of us have to go somewhere.

If it pleases the court, I would call Beyoncé Knowles to the stand.

Ms.

Knowles, please take the stand and clerk, can you please swear Miss Knowles?

I would just like to apologize to this body for coming in a little late until you have a sweet.

I uh put my shafts on backwards.

Oh boy, that happens.

That happens.

Okay.

Thank you.

Clerk.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Please proceed.

Ms.

Knowles, your full name for the record?

Yes, my name is Queen B Queen B.

Cowboy Carter.

And how many years have you been employed by the city of Bozeman?

Oh a very long time.

I can't recall exactly.

And are you in the forestry department?

Why, yes, sir, I am.

And uh in the forestry department, do you have specialized training vis-a-vis power lines and trees?

I do indeed.

They call me the deliminator.

The deliminator, do you say?

That's correct.

And that uh specific uh training.

Uh, how many other people in the forestry department have that training?

Wait, let me count.

None.

Just yourself.

Just myself.

And that allows you to go and take down limbs that are above or below or threatening the public and and the and the power lines.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Uh some time ago I went through a training with Northwestern Energy where they showed me the ins and outs of dealing with dangerous branches, even when they are across power lines.

And um I have received the training, and I'm the only one who is able when Northwestern Energy.

Perfect.

Thank you for that.

That very concise answer there.

Um, could you describe on the morning of J of July 18th what you observed that that could be a potential public hazard?

Yes, uh, the evening before into the early hours in the morning, there had been a hullabaloo of a storm.

The Chiracko, would you say?

I would say so, yes, sir.

And um there was a there was a branch that had broken off of the tree in my yard and come down across the power line, and I was very concerned that it might come down and hit a car or a pedestrian or cause some other emergency with electricity involved.

So I uh I asked my boss if at lunchtime I could head to head home at my boss's Al Green and I could take the city truck there and cut that that tree limb down because I was working near the area earlier that day.

Thank you for that explanation.

Now I I just want to make sure that everyone here understands a couple of points about that.

You observed that clear public hazard yet?

You decided not to address it at that moment, you decided to report for work and uh and go about your business and report that to your boss Al Green, is that correct?

What is the basis for your rejection, Mr.

Dickerson?

Counsel is testifying.

Yes, uh Mr.

Clementine, can you keep this to questions?

I certainly will.

Thank you.

Do you have the Bozeman City Employee Handbook memorized word for word in your brain?

Uh no, not in so many words.

Do you have the Bozeman City employee handbook in your truck?

Uh no, I do not carry it with me.

When you have a situation where you need some clarification, what do you do?

Who do you go to to get that information?

I walk into my boss's office, I knock on the door, I say, Mr.

Green, um, I have this situation.

Could you help me out with it?

Very well.

Now, at lunchtime, I did I understand that you asked permission for two specific things from Al Green.

One to take the city of Bozeman truck to your home, is that correct?

That's correct.

Number two is to use a city chainsaw to eliminate the limb.

Is that is that correct?

And as the delimitator, that is something that you would do.

I would like to introduce into evidence something that is uh already, I believe, on the record.

And I would like to describe it to you so that uh you can understand what it is.

Is that okay, madam chair?

Uh yeah, we have reviewed the evidence, and that is a repair ticket for the chainsaw.

Is there more you need to say about it?

No, but I I would like to use it as the basis for questions from my client, if I may.

Sure.

No.

Beyonce.

Is that indeed a repair ticket for a chainsaw?

Yes, sir, it is.

And uh why did you did you uh uh what occasion caused you to uh have that ticket produced uh yes, uh when I was uh going to cut down the limb, I went to start the saw, and it it would not start.

I thought possibly it was a spark plug issue, so I wrote it up and and took it into the shops.

Thank you.

Now the uh identifying make and model is on the a repair ticket.

Is that the same make and model that you attempted to start the city chainsaw?

Is that correct?

And it is a ego power plus.

Ego power plus, and you as a forester know the color of an ego power plus.

Is that correct?

I do indeed.

Are all ego power pluses green in color?

They come in green, not red, not red, not red, but green.

Green.

Okay.

Now, uh that chainsaw did not start beside before uh despite your best efforts, and what did you do?

Well, it was a dangerous situation.

And so I uh because my saw wouldn't work, uh, that is the city saw, I went and grabbed my own.

As the delimitator, I am an expert with chainsaws, and I decided to dispense with the dangerous situation with my own spot saw.

And that is your own personal saw, and could you describe that saw?

Oh, yes, it's it's very it's very lovely.

It's got a gold uh handle and a gold blade, and it's pink and sparkly.

The two colors you have identified, if I might recap, are gold and pink.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Not red.

No red.

Not red.

Okay.

There is no red chainsaw that you use that day, is there?

There is no red chainsaw.

And uh what did you actually deliminate that day?

Uh I delimited the limb that was causing the dangerous situation.

And as you can see here in this tree, this picture of the tree.

Objection.

I mean, it's a picture of the tree from my yard.

Yeah, so um what is the basis for your objection?

This picture is not introduced in evidence.

It seems the council's been very lazy in preparing the record.

So okay.

What I really want to say here is is this actually a picture of the actual tree on the day of the events.

Well, it does say August 19th.

But it is in my yard.

Okay, so I'm not gonna allow it because I don't think it's uh uh whatever, whatever, uh, persuasive piece of evidence, whatever we're supposed to have for evidence rules.

As a committee member, I would like to see the photo because I think it's germane to the basis of this complaint.

All right.

If if he would like to show it to you and have it introduced both counsel would like to approach the bench and provide persuasive evidence one way or the other why it shouldn't be accepted by this board.

I believe it's a dais.

It's a one of the so can we have the I mean what do you think?

So if you're what with the dynamic that you see right now is the attorney is questioning uh the respondent and the respondent is showing a picture and trying to talk about a picture.

Yeah.

I think your concern is the validity of that picture, when it was taken, who took it, how do you the same kind of thing?

How do you know that is the tree in question?

Right.

The other aspect I think that was part of the objection was that was not part of what they had submitted in the in the packet for their response.

So you can allow things like that to happen.

But I think what you have to think about is a really simple streamlined system for having uh having that introduced to you into evidence and then to you, and also to make sure that the um that David has seen a copy of it.

Right.

So unless that can happen though, I'd be skeptical.

So what should happen, you can push the attorney on this is do they have a paper copy of it that they could give you right now?

Okay, and if they can't give you something, give David something that would allow them to begin questioning on that photograph, it'd be very hard to admit it.

Right.

You have to see it.

It's not just enough for uh Beyoncé to be looking at it and talking about it.

No, no, right.

Okay.

So I would say his evidence then show it to us.

And then you would make him give a copy.

Yep, you could go through that process.

Okay, but in the interest of proceeding today, when we're not going to get a paper copy of this and go down that road, I'm gonna say I don't think that's uh at this stage that has not been entered into evidence in as part of your response to the complaint, and that picture on your phone is not um uh verifiable, so we're gonna disallow it.

Please proceed without it.

I just have a couple of more questions.

Uh Ms.

Swift has testified that she approached you and asked you to cut down a tree in her yacht.

Is that correct?

That is great.

And you replied in what manner?

No, no, no.

Let the record show the witness was not only saying the word no no no, but wagging his finger.

Now, why did you say that?

Here's a woman clearly in need of uh did you see a public safety hazard associated with a tree?

I did see that America has a problem.

Uh yes, I saw that there was a a desperate wait, which tree are you referring to?

Taylor Swift's tree.

Ah, Taylor Swift's tree.

Uh that was on her private property.

Her own private property, I believe she has testified to.

That's correct.

Yeah, and did you see that as creating a public hazard?

No, I did not.

It was not over.

She she may create public hazards, but the tree was not.

We'll stick to the facts.

Yeah, did was it was a limb dangling in the breeze and it was gonna knock down a power line or anything like that?

No, sir.

And so what why did you say no?

Uh because it's unethical.

One final question about Mr.

Mick Jagger.

Um he has testified that he was across the street and understood you having a private conversation with uh Taylor Swift.

Do you believe that that is possible for Mick Jagger to have heard that conversation?

Uh uh in the state that he was in, I believe that that would not have been uh possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Now in this part, I like to take a minute as a public member of the please, nope.

There will be no public comment on anything happening in this courtroom today, or this ethics hearing room today.

Thank you for taking your seat and closing your mouth.

Would you like to cross-examine the window?

Yes, but I was going to say the previous question called for speculation and I object.

The previous question called for speculation and I object.

Well, I think that in your line.

Beyoncé is not a doctor.

I think there's been a fair amount of speculation about this data, Mr.

Daggers.

Uh, and and you'll have to leave that to us to I don't know what do we have.

I I mean I think you can continue to say the rules of evidence don't apply.

We're the judge of what can be admitted.

Okay.

And I'm gonna allow it.

Yeah.

Okay, the rules of evidence don't apply.

We're the judge of what can be submitted, and I'm going to allow it.

I would further add that if Mr.

Jagger would have been uh sufficient beast of burden and provided written testimony ahead of time, then perhaps we'd be able to uh consider some of the different course of action.

Um I have to stay with the devil, but Mr.

Dagger, please.

You work for the city of Bozeman, correct?

That is correct, Mr.

Dicklandson.

And in the answer, can you please be professional when you refer to the complainants counseling?

I've forgotten his name.

Mr.

Dickerson.

She's forgotten how to be professional.

In the forestry department, correct?

In the poetry department?

In the for I work for the forestry department, Mr.

Dickerson.

And that job involves the use of city equipment.

I think that's obvious.

Including chainsaws.

Why is it and you're tr trained on when and where that commute equipment can be used, correct?

As I have already stated.

And so you take the uh an annual ethics training as part of your city employment, is that correct?

I do indeed.

And as part of that ethics training, you understand that city equipment is not to be used on private property, correct?

I do indeed understand that.

So you've known that rule for some time.

Yeah, my whole career with the city, yes.

So on July 18th, you drove a city vehicle home around midday, correct?

I did.

And that was during working hours.

As I had informed my boss, yes.

I'd like to ask you to stick to yes or no questions.

Answers to your questions, please.

Uh that vehicle uh so you removed a chainsaw from that vehicle, correct?

Yes.

And what what kind of chainsaw was that?

I thought you wanted me to answer yes or no to your questions.

I wanted you to answer the question of what kind of chainsaw you removed from the city vehicle.

Uh a city chainsaw.

Was it an ego power plus chainsaw?

Green in color.

So I'm confused.

You removed an electric chainsaw and then it didn't work because it had a faulty start plug.

Is it possible that it was in fact a red chainsaw that you removed from the city vehicle?

Uh I'm sorry, electric chainsaw.

When did we start?

There's no electric chainsaws.

An ego power plus chainsaw that supposedly didn't work for which there is a ticket submitted into evidence.

And yet you said maybe the chainsaw you removed had a spark plug that didn't work.

It's not an electric chainsaw, sir.

It is it possible that on the day in question you don't actually remember what you really did or not.

Do you know about chainsaws?

Okay, pause.

This does seem to be irrelevant bit of information, but what do we do about that?

I think the dynamic right now that you're seeing is like them talking over each other.

Yeah.

The witness sort of being obstinate and not wanting to answer the questions.

I think you need to keep them in their roles, keep them answering questions that are relevant to the complaint.

Make sure the witness knows to not obfuscate and answer the questions that are directly posed to them.

Okay.

So I believe what you're trying to determine is whether the green city chainsaw for which there is a repair ticket because of a faulty spark plug, is the chainsaw in question.

That's correct.

Ms.

Knowles, can you answer that question?

Could you please rate restate the question, Mr.

Dicklinson?

When when you removed a chainsaw that required a spark plug, clearly not an electric ego chainsaw from your truck.

Was it a red chainsaw and was it a city chainsaw?

It was not a red chainsaw.

It was a city chainsaw.

Or I'm sorry, our gas-powered chainsaws.

So it was your intent to use a city chainsaw to cut down the tree, is that correct?

The tree uh I did not cut down a tree.

I delimbed it part of the tree.

It was the branch hanging over the road, which is part of the property.

So you would use where I use the project.

I am answering the question, and the answer is that I cut down the limb hanging over public property.

And attempted to do so with a city chainsaw before it malfunctioned.

And you had to resort to getting your pink and gold chainsaw.

Pink.

It's it's got gold accents.

And then you use that chainsaw on a tree in your own yard.

Which chainsaw are we referring to?

And I just want to be clear that this is your yard is private property, is that correct?

It indeed it is.

You spoke with Taylor Swift on that day.

I did speak with Taylor, Ms.

Taylor Swift, yes.

And she asked if you could help with her tree.

I think we've covered this territory, Mr.

Dickinson.

Anything you want to add to this?

So just so we're clear, you told her you can't use city equipment on private property while using city equipment on private property.

Let me think about this for a moment.

Sir, what would you have me do?

No, just answer the question public was in danger.

Yes, I used my saw.

Is there an exception to the city code of ethics that allows you to use city equipment for your own yard?

Are you suggesting that it was unethical to save people's lives?

No, no emergency that day.

Madam Chair, I would like to jump in here.

Thank you both so much for this circular line of questioning.

But I would just like to point out that the uh initial complaint uh alleges that the employee in question, Miss Knowles uses city resources.

Says nothing about attempting to use city resources.

I thought that might be helpful for the line of questioning you're attempting.

So can I just one more thing?

Um right there.

I totally get the temptation to fight.

I know.

But what you gotta do is let them put their case on.

Right.

As soon as they're done, and like if the line of questioning isn't going anywhere, and this dynamic is as it is, which is not helpful, you can shut that down.

Okay.

Right?

And then once they're done and you have the ability to question the witness, then you can bring up stuff like that.

But what you don't want to do, I would suggest you try to be very careful about go to the attorney, question direct question to the attorney, help the attorney, those kinds of things.

They have the case that they have to put on.

It is up to them to do that to meet the burden for the complaint to dispel all of the allegations for the respondent.

And then it's up to you guys to weigh through everything that's been presented in determines credit.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Dickerson.

Was it was there a was there a city work order for your property?

When I went in and spoke with my boss Al Green, we wrote up a city work order.

So is it your opinion that your supervisor can ask you to violate the city's code of ethics?

Objection.

What is the basis for your objection?

Implying that there's an ethics violation when there is no ethics violation.

Well, I think that's what we're here to determine.

Can you please let them finish their line of inquiry?

Certainly.

Ms.

Nolis, just to be clear.

The city ethics rule, it applied to your property?

Uh yes.

But not to yours.

Applies to mine also.

No third questions.

Thank you.

So in the interest of time, right?

We wanted to stop intento.

So I I will leave it up to you guys.

Like how much time do you want to have a discussion today about what's happened in relation to your role for potentially hearing a real case and just some things that you wanted to be able to discuss?

I don't think we need to go into like discussion, motion, and vote, but I have a feeling these guys would really want to know whose side you're gonna go with.

So can we can we can I make a proposal that we allow for an expedient cross-examination?

And then will you just uh as a side note, will you guys have if we asked if we had endless time and we asked if you had additional witnesses, were there other people you were gonna call?

Okay.

So let's have an expedient cross-examination, and then we can see if we have any questions.

And then I would propose that we skip the closing arguments, and then we have a few of the comments to discuss.

I know I'm so excited.

GPT is a great rider, we know.

I'm doing a weather check because if the visiting speaker I'm supposed to shuttle to campus by 515 is able to walk and it's not raining, then I have more time, but I'm trying to figure that out.

So I apologize.

I'm like double booked today, unfortunately.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Clementine, would you like to uh do you have any redirect?

Just uh one or two questions.

Uh the uh the uh the code in question says no city automobile shall be used by a city employee or official going to or from home except when uh such uses of benefit to the city.

Beyoncé, was the action that you took of benefit to the city?

Indeed it was.

No further questions.

Do any of my panelists have fellow panelists have any questions for Ms.

Knowles?

I do.

I'm still not clear whether you were on lunch hour or you were working with the city.

When you were removing that branch, were you on your lunch hour time in your mind, or were you doing city tasks at that time?

I came home to have lunch and removed the branch before lunch.

I guess maybe another way to put it if your chainsaw blade came off and hacked off F of your ear, and you go up to the emergency room with your half of your ear in your hand.

Are you going to put it on your private insurance card, or are you going to tell them this is a work comp claim?

I just shake it off.

Do you want an answer to that question?

Private insurance or worker comp.

Yeah, I want an answer too.

If you want to say, I want to be your bodyguard, I want to understand why.

As I stated, I I cut uh I already forgotten exactly what I stated, but I think I said that I cut down the branch before I had lunch.

So I was on, I was working.

Had I been injured, I would have taken workman's call.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I I wanna I have a question just um just to make sure that the um record you submitted didn't leave anything out.

Did you take the opportunity to explain that you had gotten permission from your boss to do the work on the tree in your yard because of the power line?

Explain to who, ma'am?

To Miss Swift.

Uh to that lady over there?

Yes.

Uh I did, but she couldn't hear me.

She just saw red.

Got it.

Okay.

Um there any other questions by my fellow panelists for Miss Knowles.

Am I missing something important?

You're giving me that you're missing something important.

Look, Greg.

I'm just having fun.

Okay.

I mean, I'm I'm feeling like I'm missing something, but okay.

Um, Miss Knowles, you were released.

I do want to say put a ring on it, girl.

All right, are the closing statements four minutes or less?

Yes, yes.

Three minutes or less?

Probably.

Okay, get up there.

Hit it.

Madam Chair, members of the board, let's not overcomplicate this.

This isn't a mystery.

It's not a puzzle.

It's not a matter of competing narratives where we're all just searching for the truth somewhere in the middle.

The truth walked in, parked at the curb, and unloaded a chainsaw.

You heard the complainant, Taylor Swift, clear, direct, observational, no embellishment needed.

A city truck, a work day, a chainsaw, a private yard.

You heard from the respondent, Beyonce, and here's where this stops being a factual dispute and starts being something else entirely.

Because she didn't deny the rule, she confirmed it.

She told you, and more importantly, she told Ms.

Swift that city equipment cannot be used on private property.

Not usually, not sometimes, not unless it's convenient.

Cannot.

That's not ambiguous language.

And that's not open to interpretation.

That's what we call in this room a standard.

And then while that standard was still echoing in the air, she applied it to her neighbor and not to herself.

Now, in some contexts, that might pass unnoticed.

In some places, maybe that's just how things go.

But this isn't some wildest dreams version of how government works.

This is the city of Bozeman, and the code of ethics doesn't deal in hypotheticals, it deals in conduct.

So let's walk through it one more time, slowly.

Because when you do, this case doesn't get weaker, it gets louder.

City vehicle, yes.

City equipment, yes.

Private property, yes.

During work hours, yes.

And when asked to do the same for someone else, no.

I can't.

That would violate the rules.

That's not just inconsistency.

That's what happens when rules become selective.

And the Crypt's code of ethics doesn't just prohibit actual mixed use.

It prohibits the appearance of misuse.

Because the public trust isn't built on technicalities.

It's built on consistency.

People don't need a legal memo to understand what they saw here, and they understand fairness.

They understand equal application, and they understand when something doesn't add up.

And this doesn't add up.

You don't have to have a love story with the rules when they're convenient and break up with them when they're not.

You don't get to decide what the code applies on one side of the proper line, but not on the other.

Because when that happens, you don't have a standard anymore.

You have a preference.

So today we'd like to ask you to decide whether a city employee used public resources for private benefit.

Decide whether that same employee acknowledged the rule and then ignored it.

Decide whether that kind of conduct strengthens public trust or quietly erodes it.

Because in the end, this case doesn't hinge on tone or personality or even intent.

It hinges on one question.

Do the rules mean what they say?

And if they do, this is a violation.

We ask that you find a violation occurred, and in doing so, affirm something simple but essential that the rules apply to everyone every time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Dickinson.

Thank you, Mr.

Dickinson.

Well written.

Madam Chair.

Members of the board.

I am not going to read some chat GPT synopsis of the case.

I'm gonna speak from the heart with the facts.

Ladies and gentlemen, if the Yellowstone caldera was about to erupt, and people were fleeing for their very lives.

Would we have our police officers ticket people at 56 miles an hour in a 55?

Common sense has to apply.

In this case, there was an emergency.

The power lines were threatened.

We had one employee who could come to the rescue and to the rescue Beyonce Knowles Road in her chaps.

It is indisputable what the code says.

The code says you may not use your blah blah.

Except when it's a city is of benefit.

And who is the city?

It's all citizens.

Did our citizens benefit from having that limb precariously perched above the parking, no, above the power line, eliminated.

Yes.

That's where this stops.

Common sense needs to apply.

The city chainsaw was never used.

You have the evidence of that.

Permission was granted by the person's boss.

And in uh in an emergency situation, you need to be flexible.

You need to be nimble, jack jump over the candlestick.

You need to be able to react to the situation on the ground, and that is exactly what Beyonce did.

That's all.

Thank you.

Okay, so with that, I will close our hearing and the board will discuss, make a motion and vote on it.

I mean, I do I bang to close it.

Okay, so now we have not tons of time, but what what do you guys?

Yeah.

I think they're and I guess if I were to summarize the testimony I've heard from both sides, is that there was a safety hazard to remove the branch.

The safety hazard was on the auntsi's personal property.

Um there was supervisory approval to remove the branch.

Um testimony has been offered that it was city business on city time before the normal lunch hour.

Um I don't think it makes any difference which chainsaw was used if I if my city box cutter is dull, I might reach for and use my own box cutter.

But I think I'm persuaded that it was city business.

It was considered the testimony that uh it would be a work comp claim uh persuaded me that it's city business.

I think with the supervisor's approval, um I don't feel there's a complaint or justification for a complaint here.

Yeah, so I I have a question for you.

Uh what would be the difference between dismissing the complaint and making decision that uh Beyoncé didn't do anything unethical.

So you are you you're referring to the slides that Jen put up.

Well, just in the three options we have, right?

So dismissing versus making a decision on the merits without hearing.

Would the decision only be for the complaint?

Yeah, go ahead, Jeff.

So that's the question.

Is that prior to the hearing and then this is the hearing?

So okay, gotcha, gotcha.

That that does it, got it.

Okay.

So this Yes, so this is the full hearing.

During your initial meeting, if you did not want to have a hearing, you could choose to dismiss the complaint.

And that's what we've done before.

We didn't have a full hearing.

Yes, right.

Okay.

Point point of order.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Chair rushing, point of order.

Yes.

Snowing currently.

I know.

Okay.

I know, I know.

I do have to pick up my, yeah, I have to pick up a speaker.

I've let him know I'm gonna be a tiny bit late.

But um, I guess I don't have a let me make a motion then to bring this out.

I would move that there's insufficient proof that Beyonce Well I did 2.03.500, use of city resources.

And I move that we make a motion to dismiss Ms.

Swift's complaint with prejudice.

With prejudice, yes, I actually agree with that outcome, although my question would be in our written um finding, because I do think the glaring gap in the facts that played out is that it would have been very easy to address this at the perception of unethical behavior if uh Beyoncé had explained that she'd been given the green life by her, you know.

So she is a representative of the city who's had the ethics training and understands the perception of misconduct or unethical behavior is really important too.

So I don't actually think there's any unethical behavior here, but I think the perception matters as David pointed out.

And so is that like is that something we can say like as like you know, not um, you know, not the finding, but the dictator or whatever you know.

So do you know what I mean?

I I want to make sure that you're not late for what you do.

I I think the way that Jim had initially started that motion to basically make the decision on the complaint, yeah, that there was no violation of the code.

Yeah, that's what you would do in the context of the hearing.

Yes, right.

So I second the motion and I I think you should be very careful about perceptions of misconduct.

Either it was or it wasn't in this kind of context.

So even in the write-up of it.

I'm not saying in the finding itself.

Yeah, yeah.

We shouldn't even introduce that basic like, hey, here's an opportunity for you to rethink.

So you have a two-step process here.

The first step is for you guys to place on the record, just like Jim did facts that you thought were relevant and credible, make the motion, make the decision.

The next step would be then for us, our office is your council to write it up and the the document that um that Jen prepared forms the basis for that.

And then we would add another section or two in there that basically said, here's what was presented, here's what the board determined, and we would give it back to you to make that final decision on that document.

Got it.

So nowhere in the process do we get to say to Beyonce, look, you really could have stepped staved this off by explaining that this was a good idea.

During the board discussion, I think you certainly could do things like that.

But I would just recommend you stay very focused on what the complaint alleges, the facts that were presented, make a decision on that, and then things like that are sort of a little bit extra.

Gotcha that you could weave in to your discussion and the findings that you make.

Okay.

So we have a motion.

I second the motion.

Do we need discussion?

There's no discussion.

We're the people, right?

Okay, and we can vote on the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Not guilty.

And if this ever comes up for real, would somebody please take and introduce a picture of the damn stone.

So you either side, please.

Yeah, you guys, thank you.

It was awesome.

Drunk McJer doesn't help.

Thank you for all the work.

A lot of work.

So I hope for you guys, and when we meet next time, we set another meeting.

We can we'll put something on the agenda that will give you guys some time to reflect.

Yeah.

And we can talk about some very specific things that that happened.

I will just say, as the chair of this and having chaired one of these before, this was so helpful.

And I wish we'd done it before we had to chair the ones where I said, what are we doing now?

What do we have to do now?

What's next?

What am I doing?

Um, because I think this helped a ton about thinking about how to manage the dynamics of this situation.

And you guys did such a good job like pushing us.

I mean, I know you prepared really hard, but you did such a good job.

Um adjournment meeting.

Motion to it.

I move to adjourn.

We'll still an official meeting.

Can we just ask the question if there's public comment?

Oh, is there any public comment?

Well, did we not do that?

You didn't do that.

Thank you, Mike.

Is there any public comment?

No.

Okay.

Second.

Yeah.

And all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, the meeting is adjourned.

Thanks.

Let's get a picture.

Sorry for you.

Okay.

Goodbye.

Where should we what should our questions?