26 City Council Ethics and Governance Committee.

Um I am Councilmember Joaquim Martinez and I'm the chair for the committee.

It's now uh 10 o'clock, and I'm pleased to call this meeting to order.

I'd like to start by recognizing my colleagues joining us today, beginning with Vice Chair Twilight Carter.

We also have Councilmember Peck, Councilor Castillo, Councilmember Pollard, and Councilmember Ramides.

And then we have staff from Councilmember Panzarella, Councilmember Mary Nan Huffman, Councilmember Tiffany Thomas, Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem, Martha Cassus Tatum staff, uh staff from Councilmember Kevin Evanshabazz.

And I think that's it.

Um with that, um, just want to make sure I didn't miss anybody.

Vice Chair Carter, would you like to offer a few opening remarks?

Thank you, Chair.

And and just I appreciate everybody being here today.

Um I think uh certainly we have um some topics that warrant discussion and look forward to that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we've been uh joined by Councilmember Sally Alcorn and Councilmember Fred Flickinger.

I want to remind council members uh please hold your questions until each of the presentations are over.

When you're recognized, please be sure to speak clearly into the microphone.

I will let you know when your three minutes uh for questions has ended.

And now I want to switch switching over to the meeting agenda today.

The committee will review two proposition A items.

Proposition A related to Chapter 18, enforcement authority.

It'll be presented by Vicemar Pro Tem Amy Peck and Proposition A related to Chapter 18 limitation on repayment of personal loans, and that'll be presented by Councilmember Ed Pollard.

Uh before I turn it over to Vice Mayor Pro Tempeck, I just want to acknowledge uh that I'm also a co-signer to this uh Prop A.

Um, and so with that said, I'll hold my comments uh to the end.

Want to make sure that we have a fair and biased conversation.

Um and with that, I want to turn it over now to Vice Mayor Pearl Tampeck to begin her presentation.

And if you can introduce yourself for the record.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm Amy Peck, Vice Mayor Pro Tem, um, and I'm pleased to present this to everyone today.

Um, like the chair said, this is um a prop A ordinance proposed um by Councilmember Martinez and Councilmember Carter and myself.

And instead of just taking it to council agenda for a vote, we wanted to come to this committee first to make sure that everyone had an opportunity to um ask any questions that you may have, and if there's any suggestions um to make this ordinance better, we welcome that as well.

So please feel free to offer any ideas that you have.

Um next slide, please.

Um next slide.

So first we'll talk about the policy impact.

Next slide.

Um so basically, um the proposal here is um talking about ethical violations and how we can have results that are meaningful and proportionate to um and for consequences.

Um right now the ethics commission um does not have any administrative authority to make any kind of decisions.

Um they only have very um small amounts of what they can actually do, and so not many things are actually going to the ethics commission at this point.

Next slide.

Um so here is a proposal.

Next slide.

Um so basically it would give the Houston Ethics Commission administrative enforcement on some of these matters that could be um given over to the commission.

So it's to increase accountability, transparency, and public confidence.

Um next slide.

And here are the key changes.

Next slide.

Um right now there are sanctions that are primarily fines and letters of reprimand, and this creates additional administrative remedies tailored to the severity of the misconduct.

Um the proposal addresses misuse of city time, facilities, resources, and campaign-related violations.

Next slide.

Um so here are some of the administrative sanctions that we came up with.

And again, if you have suggestions for other sanctions to add to this list, we would welcome any ideas.

Next slide, please.

So temporary suspension of city parking um privileges, suspension of direct deposit, temporary loss of access to non-essential city facilities and vehicles, mandatory public disclosure for certain violations involving campaigning on city time or in-city facilities, restitution for misuse of city resources, mandatory ethics training, ethics probation for up to one year, um, and referral for employment discipline where appropriate.

Next slide.

So the proposal also addresses campaign violations.

Next slide.

Which includes individual to reimburse the city for compensated time and also summary of violation and corrective actions posted publicly for 12 months.

Next slide.

There's also in this proposal due process and transparency.

Next slide, please.

So in the proposal, um there would be notice and an opportunity for a hearing before any sanctions are given.

So it would allow the individual to go before the ethics commission in case there are any issues that they want to appeal this.

Um and there's a 30-day appeals in this.

So that is a very quick summary of what this proposal does.

We did include a copy of the red line ordinance for everyone, and happy to take questions or comments.

We have Councilmember Alcorn and Q.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks, Vice Mayor Pro Tem for this.

Um we I remember talking with one of the members of the Ethics Commission uh, you know, some time back, and how they it really was kind of they never met.

Did we know when the last time the ethics commission met or if they've dealt with it?

I don't know if legal knows that.

And and the issues which they dealt with.

Good morning, I'm Rashad Gimbro with the uh City of Houston Legal Department.

I'm the section chief of the general counsel section.

So, yeah, the ethics commission doesn't meet with any frequency at all.

They really are reactive body.

They react to primarily complaints that would be filed with the ethics commission.

I think it's really important to understand, you know, really the current scope of what the ethics commission's responsibilities are.

It's complaints filed with them, um, alleging violations of section 18-3 of the city code, which are the ethical standards of conduct applicable to city officials.

It's financial disclosure statements.

I'll come back to that.

And they also have the ability to issue written opinions.

Um they can do so at the request of a city official who's asked for one, or they can do so on their own in response to any number of different issues that they think it's important for the ethics commission to opine on.

Um years ago, when I first got involved with the ethics commission, um, they were really mired in a process where they were reviewing financial disclosure statements.

And by that I don't mean they were reviewing the substance of them, but they were reviewing who has filed and who hasn't filed.

And the then chair came to me and said, we really don't want to be involved in this back and forth, the administrative minutiae.

And so at the time we had a meeting with Mayor Parker, and we came up with a construct where the legal department would really step forward and take charge.

And I'm happy to report that probably over the last 10 to 15 years, we've had virtually no issues with getting um financial disclosure statements from all city officials, their term to covered city officials under the city code filed timely.

So the ethics commission requested it, and the legal department took that on, and we do that all in-house now, and we really have no reason to go to the ethics commission about that issue.

Um so effectively we've removed something from their bailiwick of responsibilities, and we just take care of it.

Um as prior administrations, and I think this administration, they're not seeking to penalize people, they're seeking compliance.

And we've been great at doing that.

Um back to the So when's the last time they reacted to something?

Uh a violation of 18-1.

It's been a long time, Council.

I'd have to go back and find an exact date for you, but it has been quite some time.

There have been people who have filed complaints with the ethics commission, but one of the things the ethics commission does is that it does kind of a jurisdictional review.

You might imagine there's a lot of people that file documents with the ethics commission alleging any number of matters, but it really has to focus on an alleged violation of section 18-3 of the city code.

There have been things that have come in that have nothing to do with that whatsoever.

And so, in those circumstances, the complaint is forwarded to the ethics commission, they review it, and typically the legal department will provide a recommendation on the jurisdictional issue.

Does this fall within your jurisdiction or not?

And if it doesn't, they summarily dispose of the matter saying we we have no jurisdiction to take action here.

Perhaps they'll forward it on or give a recommendation that the individual might reach out to the Office of Inspector General or some other organization, but their hands are tied at that point.

It's just not within their jurisdiction.

So with these changes, Vice Mayor Potem, you're you're you're just going from more than just administrative kind of compliance stuff to more of a penal penalties, like it in you know, like putting together putting forth no putting forth like a punishment.

Yes, that is correct.

Um there are violations that I think that people are not sending over to the Ethics Commission with the knowledge that really nothing is going to happen right now.

And so if there um are more sanctions that the Ethics Commission could offer, it might increase that number that because things are happening for sure that people are just not reporting right now.

So and this is also for public transparency too, to make sure that everyone is being held accountable just for the public to know that we're really looking at this and that there is other um sanctions that could be offered.

And what what's the difference, Rashad, like between what the OIG takes up and what the Ethics Commission would take up?

So OIG has far broader authority to investigate matters.

Um let me But would do they also investigate things under 18-1?

18-3, yes, and they can.

Now, what we did years ago was we recognize that the Ethics Commission is just a city board.

It's a group of citizens, three of whom are nominated by representative um organizations and four which are appointed by City Council.

But they they have no ability to conduct an investigation, and so to that end, years ago uh Section 18-16 of the City Code was amended to provide the Office of Inspector General kind of as an investigatory body for the Ethics Commission.

So if someone files a complaint with the Commission, the Commission has jurisdiction, and they want to have someone investigate this matter, they can then turn to the Office of Inspector General to conduct that investigation.

Um another point going back to what what the council member has has recommended here by way of the proposal, um, it's really important to understand that the Ethics Commission is an advisory body.

At present, they don't have the authority to punish anyone.

What the Ethics Commission does is they receive a complaint, they review it, they could possibly have a hearing, and at the end of the day, if they have reasonable cause to believe, and no, that's not a defined term, um, what they can do is pin a letter to the administration saying, I think there's something here essentially, and you might want to review it and possibly take additional action.

I say all that to say that some of the proposals that you know the council members have have offered, there's nothing wrong with them, but there's some potential legal and practical implications with some of them.

And I think, for example, this notion of a penalty possibly being someone getting a paper check as opposed to direct deposit.

You know, I can't say that there's any legal problem with that, but I think we'd have to have a partnership with HR and ARA payroll to see how that would function.

Um in terms of the ethics commission punishing an individual, again, it's an advisory body currently.

So when it comes to punishing an individual with a sanction, um, you know, we have to think about things about what is the due process.

Um of the proposals include things like, you know, the city seeking restitution or restitution being paid to the city.

Um, the proposal says that, but there's a legal process to actually seeking a court order and you know, compelling someone to pay the city back.

That's not memorialized here, and that's something we need to think through.

Um the proposal speaks to things like, you know, potentially municipal courts or some other body having appellate jurisdiction.

Well, municipal courts has original jurisdiction over municipal ordinance violations and the jurisdiction conferred under state law.

Umicipal courts is not an appellate body.

So that's something else we would have to develop and discuss in order to ensure that due process, that meaning notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer, is in place if the ethics commission is going to be responsible for imposing these types of administrative sanctions.

So it really does need development.

I'm not saying it's bad or anything's wrong, but we would really need to take a step back in terms of what the proposal says, how it's then recast, recommunicated, and brought forward.

And that's why we wanted to take this to committee first to get everyone's like here's you know a broad idea that we had and get everyone's input and then really work through some of these issues going forward.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Council Ramitas?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you, uh Vice Mayor Pro Tem Peck for the proposal and Rashad for your uh insights.

Uh curious to know, and maybe you said it, Rashad, when was the last time the Ethics Commission actually met?

I I don't know the date, Councilmember.

We can get it for you, but it's been a while, I'll be an honest.

And when I say a while, honestly, years.

Okay.

And um I looked on the website last week and saw that um there are individuals listed as members of the commission, but all their terms have expired, I think at the end of 23 from the That is correct, but they all operate in a holdover capacity.

So these are individuals until they're reappointed or someone else is appointed to those positions are still considered active live members who could participate on the commission.

Okay, and and that reappointment, which sounds like it's automatic.

I mean, do we actually at every point in time, at any point in time, reach out to them and make sure they they still want to be a part of it, that they're still we would engage that process, and that would be the boards and commission's office with the administration and do that.

Understanding, as I said earlier, there's seven members on the ethics commission.

Three of them are appointed or nominated by by a different organization.

So you have a nominee from the AFL CIO, you have a nominee from the Houston Medical Society, and you have a nominee from the Houston Bar Association.

The balance of the members are nominated by counsel or nominated by the administration and confirmed by counsel.

Okay.

And regarding the status, I I take from your uh remarks, and correct me if I'm wrong, that unless the Commission gets a complaint, then there's no reason for it to meet.

So years ago, the Commission voted unanimously to say we're not interested in meeting to meet.

If there's something substantive that is brought to the Commission's attention that it needs to, you know, opine on or that it needs to act, that it's compelled to act, then they will meet.

Um so they haven't met from that posture because of how they voted unanimously previously.

Now, the Commission typically is reactive to complaints that are filed with the Commission.

The Commission does have the ability to issue opinions on its own.

The Commission has been reminded of that ability, and they just simply haven't exercised it.

And they've never done it, to be candid with you.

It's not some new phenomenon where the Commission has decided it's not going to issue opinions on its own.

All right.

Now I read through the code provisions last week as well, and if I read it correctly, there are certain sanctions that are in place now that the Commission could use.

Is that right or not?

I think, and and don't quote me on this, but the Commission does have the ability to go through and at the end of the day issue a public rebuke of an individual if they have engaged in certain unlawful conduct under Section 18-3.

But many of the provisions that the Council members have offered here, they they don't have the current authority to go out and agree.

Issue those types of sanctions.

Currently, no.

No, they are not.

They are not.

Okay.

All right.

Um let me ask uh about uh a term that's used I'm familiar with from practice of law, but uh under the proposal um in subsection well, subsection A of Section 2, uh it mentions the standard of preponderance of the evidence.

And in other places, maybe in the in the current uh statute, I've seen the term reasonable cause.

What's the difference between those two?

What what do they mean?

Well, to to address it, I'll I'll try to take it apart.

Um preponderance of the evidence is typically the standard in a civil matter.

Um it really deals with when you weigh all of the evidence, whether effectively you've got 50 percent plus evidence that makes you believe that at the end of the day there's been a violation of law or someone has done something not consistent with what they should be doing.

That's that's preponderance of an evidence.

It's really for a civil matter.

Um there is no definition of reasonable cause to believe in the City Code, but that's postured as the Ethics Commission's kind of standard, the BERT.

Um, at the end of the day, reasonable cause to believe from my perspective, it's kind of a pre-adjudicatory threshold standard where you're looking at it and saying, is this complaint nonfrivolous?

Is there potentially something there?

But at the end of the day, I do not think reasonable cause to believe rises to the level of preponderance of the evidence.

Um, you know, we have had internal discussions about this from my perspective.

Um the violations of Section 18-3 of the City Code, they're violations of criminal law.

These are now, you know, provisions of the City Code that are Class C misdemeanors.

So from my perspective, I think there is some concern with conflating a standard or burden that's typically involved in a civil matter.

Understanding that the ethics commission is administrative in nature versus the underlying true violation of law here is a Class C misdemeanor.

All right.

So if I am understanding this, um the higher standard of preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard in a civil case, would be required uh before sanctions are are applied.

Is that right?

I believe that's what the proposal that the council members have put together.

And the the concept of reasonable cause just gets at whether or not it's it's uh sufficient to get it to the commission for consideration.

No.

Reasonable cause is the standard that the commission would have to effectively find that there has been a potential violation, and then in doing so would forward on correspondence to the administration saying we found reasonable cause to believe that impropriety has occurred, a violation of Section 18-3, and then the administration would move forward with taking the appropriate action, which would include disciplining an individual, forwarding on to another uh investigatory body, but ultimately a violation of 18-3 would be prosecuted in municipal courts as a Class C misdemeanor.

That is the current construct.

And Councilmember, I put those that term in there specifically because it is not a court of law.

It's it's a commission.

And so that is why that specific term was used.

But if it's something that you would like to see changed, we can certainly work on that.

Yeah, no, you know, I've I have dealt with the concept of probable cause, you know, on the criminal side, which is less than a preponderance and basically just the evidence to get it, get it passed to grand jury and and into court.

Uh so it is a much lower burden than uh uh beyond reasonable doubt, certainly, and even preponderance.

And so um I guess what I am getting at is the standard of reasonable cause less than preponderance?

Yes.

Okay.

And is the standard of reasonable cause enough for some sort of sanctions to be applied to someone?

Um I think that is something we would have to look into a little bit more.

I'm I'm a little bit hesitant to say that it is.

Okay.

Um that is beyond the procedural due process issues that I am concerned with, that is kind of baked into some of the authority that the Ethics Commission would have here moving forward if this were adopted.

That is an important concept, obviously, is what is the standard of proof required before uh sanctions are going to be applied?

Agreed.

Um I had submitted some questions to uh Danny last week.

Um in the meantime had had found the rules of procedure uh that the Ethics Commission uses.

I don't know if other members of the Council are familiar with them, uh, but be happy to share.

And so that was that was helpful.

Um thanks to our City Secretary uh Troy Lemon for providing those.

Um those are all the questions I have at this point.

Thank you, Councilmember Domides.

Uh, just want to first uh welcome uh staff from Councilmember Davis's office and staff from Councilmember Salinas' office.

And also want to point out that um the ethics uh committee um is a council of all, so we need nine to actually um vote on any item.

We currently have only eight council members, so we won't be able to take any action.

But I think uh in the spirit of of meeting in the committee, we really want to make sure that this conversation does continue to evolve.

I want to thank uh uh Rashad for being here and providing his insight.

Um with that, I also want to, you know, just uh convey that the Ethics Commission um it's something that I am also looking into as well, uh, to what role do they have?

Um and then, of course, with OIG really wanted to make sure that we're we're um elevating transparency, we're elevating uh a sense of trust that we want to build with with the community.

And uh since being the ethics chair um this is again, and I and I say this a lot prior to me being the ethics chair, there were no meetings for at least 10 years.

So when the Ethics Commission last met, I could imagine it is probably more than 10 years ago.

Um with that said, uh this item that I'm also assigned uh a co-signer to the goal is to ultimately uh again shed some light into what we're trying to do here.

And I uh and I appreciate uh Councilmember Peck for taking uh Vicemor Protestant Peck for taking the lead on this.

And as we look at uh what are the the items that would ultimately um folks would would be uh charged with, whether it is suspension of parking, and again, all that uh to say is that we really are asking each other to hold each uh hold each other to a higher standard, right?

And it doesn't matter what what it is that that we're looking at punishable, what we want to do is shed light ultimately, and then from there uh make sure that folks are are building that trust with the community because at the end of the day uh we know that we are already um working uh against this this mistrust of you know government funding, what are we doing, how we uh more engage.

And so um I'm supportive of this.

I I definitely uh want to make sure that as you mentioned, Rashad, that we continue to uh dive into what can we do and taking in uh some of Councilmember Ramides' points as well.

Councilmember Flickinger.

Thank you, Chair.

This is kind of tangential to this conversation today.

And verifying residency at the time the candidate files rather than the candidate just certifying where they leave.

I mean, or live.

Obviously, it was reported in the media the last election that there was a number of people that didn't actually live in the city that were running for office.

So I I think you know, maybe right from the beginning, we ought to do a little better job with that.

I I agree, and I know there's folks around this horseshoe that have expressed that as well.

And so um over the last year and a half, uh what we have had uh ethics committee meetings has been really to uh inform, educate around the horseshoe, because quite frankly, there is no ethics committee meetings, and so there is uh sitting council members that uh had no understanding of of what Chapter 18 uh was asking of not just us but our our staff um and just quite frankly city employees in general.

And so uh the goal again is to shed light and hopefully we can address some of those things as well.

Uh so I would welcome uh that conversation, you know, with Chapter 18 revisions.

Uh Councilmember Carter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, you know, I I appreciate your comments.

When we look at the ethics commission, I find it hard to believe that there would not be a meeting in such a long time in that, you know, given the powers of you know, the description of the the duties and the powers, and you know, it's like, okay, when you've got on the front page of the Houston Chronicle that you've got all these candidates that don't live in the City of Houston, would that not be something that the Ethics Commission would then look into because it does state elected and candidates.

And so when you when you start to see that kind of, you know, what I'm hearing is it doesn't matter.

We're not going to look at it anyway.

And that's the that's kind of the attitude, and that's what brings people to the point where there's no integrity, there's there's no nothing.

I mean, throw it out the window because what we're saying is, um Councilmember Martinez, you know, this is we the uh ethics and governance committees just now started meetings since you're chair, but yet it seems like it's we're you know, we separated the cart from the horse.

There's there's no there's no connection.

And and I find it hard to imagine that we have members of a commission that we don't even know if they're still out there.

How does that how does that work?

I mean, it just seems like I helped me understand how that how that works, actually.

I mean, you know, the uh you look at the the list of the seven members, and anybody know them?

Anybody know if they're still alive, if they are still interested in serving.

I mean, just kind of what you said, like what is that?

Well, Councilman Brown, I would react to that by saying a couple of things.

One, the issue of residency, it's not before the body today.

Um, but at the end of the day, residency is something that one isn't within the ethics commission's jurisdiction currently.

But number two, when it comes to candidate residency, um, it's a question of sorry, it it's a question of when is that question ripe and who is the right individual or organization to pursue legal action concerning residency of a candidate or an individual who is running for office?

That's that's a completely different subject for another day about who can pursue that.

But I also want to say is that ethics happens every day in our group in general counsel.

Just because the ethics commission is not active doesn't mean that there are not questions about ethics and that there are not responses and legal guidance provided.

We interact with HR in any number of departments, from department directors all the way down to staff members who inquire about can I do X, can I do Y?

Is that a violation of 18-3, which is applicable to city officials?

Is it a violation of 14-183, which is kind of a mirror provision of the City Code dealing with individuals who are not city officials as the term is defined.

So ethics happens, it's alive, we provide guidance all the time.

So I don't want you know Council to walk away with the idea that because the ethics commission isn't active, that the issue of ethics doesn't happen daily because it does, and I'm sure people on my team are sick of it because I bring the issues to them, we talk about them, we workshop them, we look at how we handled something previously in the advice that we provided, and I take some pride, understanding that a lot of times we don't hear about some ethics-related matters, in part because we have addressed it, and we've given the legal guidance to employees to tell them, no, you can't do this, or yes, you can do this, and here's how and why.

Or yes, you can accept something, but you might have to report it through this vehicle.

Yeah.

And I appreciate that feedback, Rashad.

And I think uh what the conversation around the horseshoe is that how is that being more transparent to the general public.

Right.

It's not about whether the work is being done to the full extent.

It's more of how are we shedding light?

Because residency, we can talk about what's before us now.

We can we can speak to um issues that have happened in certain departments, like in public works.

Uh we're not having that full discussion afterwards, uh, or even you know, during the time that some of the, you know, I know we probably can speak to it during the investigation, but afterwards, what came of that of that dealing, right?

Um of my more recent conversations with uh Director Mack Eye was uh I really would like for him to share and shed some light on what happened with credit cards that were being used by public works employees.

That's the part that is missing, and I think that's part of what the conversation is from uh at least from my colleagues that I have spoken to on what we need from the ethics commission, and then of course, uh I submitted a budget amendment on OIG.

How do we streamline that?

How do we make it more efficient?

How do we make sure that uh there is there's actually um and we've been having conversations with city employees on how do we make sure that what OIG is doing is is also uh you know providing fruits to the labor that is being done.

Uh we did have OIG here, the last uh ethics committee, but quite frankly, I think we want to see more uh because at the end of the day, uh as elected officials, we're the ones that get questioned and ask uh what is happening.

Uh so uh again I I we appreciate the work that the legal department is doing, but I think more so is what is that transparency look like and how do we work with with the legal department to ensure that we're that we're shedding light?

Understood.

Thank you.

And Chair, if I can add to that, you know, if the Ethics Commission isn't meeting, but the legal department is doing work and OIG is doing work, is there even a need for the Ethics Commission?

Do we give them more to do or do we disband that and make sure that the work that the legal department is doing is more transparent to this committee and to the body?

So I think those are questions too that we really need to, you know, we put in more work for the ethics commission, but if it's not, you know, the will of this body to even give them more to do, maybe we just need to look at making a big change here and making the work from the legal department and OIG more transparent, which you know I would be open to that discussion as well.

Thank you.

Um we have uh staff from Councilmember Hopins.

Thank you, Chair.

Um just one quick question or two, rather.

Um is there any state law that governs the makeup of the ethics commission?

No.

Like the who is appointed to the board or anything like that.

That's completely dictated by by a city code.

Right.

And so my next question is for Vice Mayor Pro Tem.

Is there are there any intentions to change the makeup of who sits on the uh ethics commission given that the balance is appointed by this council?

Um that was not what we looked at for this proposal, but if that's something that everyone wants to take up, we can certainly look at that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Carter.

Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify, yes, thank you, legal department.

We ask questions all the time on the ethics side.

So again, to your point, uh Councilmember Peck, the Ethics Commission, the legal department.

I think really what we have here is the starting point, the ethics commission.

And is that necessary?

You all are doing the work.

I mean, our you know, we've had questions whether it's part-time jobs or someone's got you know soccer tickets that they are benefiting from.

These are simple questions that we do put forth to the legal department.

So I didn't want you to misunderstand.

I know you guys are doing you you have got a heavy lift, but then when you look at the kit commission and you say, well, they have not met, there's been no reason, and we're not talking about limited to residency or financial, you know, campaign finance reports, everything.

But it's kind of, like I said, it's very disjointed.

Um I think to your point, uh, Councilmember Peck, it really does maybe that is our starting point that we we look that way.

Council Ramidas.

Oh, I appreciate I appreciate the discussion and uh to the questions about residency that Councilmember Flickinger offered.

I I would be interested to know, you know, does the City Council have the authority to enforce you know the residency requirements that go along with running for uh you know a city office?

Any any comment on that, Rashad?

I think at the end of the day, what I recall of case law right now is that typically challenging someone's residency is you know not ripe until the individual is actually elected to office, and then at the end of the day, it's typically one of the individuals who was, you know, their opponent during the election that is probably best situated that has standing to bring that matter forward.

Um but we're happy to to talk to you about that and and try to give you more of a deep dive on on the residency issue.

Right.

And it would seem that it would make more sense to change, do whatever is necessary to change that process so that you know, after the filing deadline, perhaps, or or whenever, you know, it could be determined.

Does an individual actually live in the city or live in the district that that they are running for?

And you know, can the council do something about it?

I understand that, Councilmember, but I'm not sure that the law would accommodate that.

But we're happy to have that discussion.

Right.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Uh, there's no further questions.

Um, I do want to just acknowledge that, you know, sometimes we bring certain certain items to the agenda, and then we have this type of discussion at the council meeting.

I I appreciate you all coming today to have this conversation because I think we are finding that you know ultimately there might not be a need for that this commission, right?

And this is only happening through this dialogue that is outside of the council meeting, which is important to continue to have.

Uh, and so I appreciate everybody attending the committee meeting today.

Um so with no further questions, um, Councilmember Peck, thank you, Roshad, thank you.

And now we'll move now move on to our second presentation.

So we'll let uh some we'll turn it over now to Councilmember Pollard, and if you want to introduce yourself for the record.

Councilmember Edward Pollard here at the Ethics Commission on July 7th, 2026.

Um I didn't ask for my item to be here, so this is something that you all uh voted on to come to this body.

Um, but it's a pretty simple proposition A that was brought forth.

Um we currently have an ordinance that speaks to um campaign finance loan repayments by an office holder, um, and they put limits on that.

Uh the Supreme Court looked at similar language at the Federal level and deemed that uh this type of language uh is unconstitutional and violates uh First Amendment of free speech.

Um before this item came forth as a prop A, uh I spoke to the city attorney about this.

Uh he wrote a memo back in 2025.

I think you all have a copy of that memo.

Um it's in very plain language, uh kind of lays it out.

But if you flip to the second page and look at that first paragraph, um the last sentence reads the likelihood of the city prevailing against a constitutional challenge on its own provision is low, and a court tasked with determining the provisions constitutionality would likely hold that the city's campaign finance reimbursement limitations violate the First Amendment.

It goes on to read the administration will present an item on next week's council agenda to address this issue.

That was back in May of 2025, so over a year ago.

Uh I spoke to the administration.

The administration said just bring it as a prop A, it should be no deal, no big deal.

And that's what we did, and it became uh some type of question with this body.

Um I did approach many uh individuals uh on council with the uh language up front and asked if anyone had any questions.

Most people said I'll support it, but I just don't want to be an author uh and had no questions, even after we submitted the proposal uh as it was set to be on the agenda.

Again, I asked if anybody had any questions.

No one asked any questions.

And then on the day of the vote, uh there were questions.

Um, which I'm all for questions, and I think we should take the time to have those questions, and I think that's the reason for maybe a tag, so you can have those questions and bring it back in a week.

Um, but uh you all voted to bring it to this committee, and that's where we are today.

Um so we can lay out whatever questions you may have with the legal counsel that is here, and uh hopefully get your answers or your questions answered, and we can get it back to the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Pollard.

And um, although you didn't ask for it to be here, I'm glad that you are here.

Uh so it sounds like it's important to you.

Uh, and so thank you for being here to present.

Um, what I'll what I'll uh begin with is uh I just want to start off by saying that you know it's not an obligation to ask whether this is this uh can we change the ordinance?

It's whether we can change it today under the circumstances circumstances that we are that we're in right now.

Does it strengthen or weakens uh the public trust in City Hall?

And my question, you know, quite frankly, would why now?

Uh why has this ordinance become urgent?

Well, as I mentioned to you, um this item was actually posed, not the item, but the question a couple of years ago, actually.

Uh when this ruling came back from the Supreme Court in 2022, which is in the prior administration, we have spoke about it.

I talked to Arturo about it.

Um, and we didn't have proposition A at the time to bring anything forward.

The administration never did anything.

It was kind of a moot point because the Supreme Court had already ruled on it.

So the ordinance was just sitting there as just unconstitutional on this face, but no one really brought it up.

Um I got a memo, as you see here over a year ago.

It clearly states in this memo, the administration will present an item on next week's council agenda to address this issue.

They never did.

So with the availability of Proposition A now, uh just brought it forth myself.

I do have a loan.

Uh there are several people on council who have a loan, but it was more so that we had a um ordinance on the books with very similar similar language that has already been addressed at the Supreme Court level that has deemed it unconstitutional.

And so our um proposition A merely just repeals it.

It just strikes that language out completely because if anyone was to challenge it, this legal department has deemed it very likely to be unconstitutional uh in a violation of free speech.

And um that's where we are today.

So um kind of just a follow-up to that, um there isn't anybody right currently challenging 18-37 or any pending litigations.

Um and I question, you know, if there's no real imminent legal threat right now, what's the urgency?

The urgency actually becomes more of governance, right?

And then for me, it's uh uh really want to to the legal department.

Did uh did legal evaluate governance implicate implications of challenge of changing an ethics ordinance when a current office holder stands to receive substantial financial benefit.

No, we didn't look at it from that perspective.

I mean, whenever we receive a a Prop A proposal, we're looking at it purely from a lawfulness perspective.

So is it a conflict or a violation of the Texas Constitution, state law or other law?

Um on this one, we looked at it, and not only did we opine it's not a violation of any of those other bodies of law, but we gave the guidance in the council based on FEC versus Cruz that a very similar corollary under federal law was deemed you know a violation of of the Constitution and that it was a violation of the First Amendment ability of an individual to both finance their own campaign with their own funds and then reimburse themselves from campaign contributions.

The the crew's decision is a little bit nuanced from our current code provision in that it dealt with a time limit post-election in order to reimburse yourself a certain dollar amount.

And Senator Cruz missed the reimbursement by like a day or something like that.

But ultimately, the Supreme Court came back and said the actual prohibition um in and of itself was unconstitutional because it violated his ability um that being core political speech under the First Amendment to self-fund his campaign and then reimburse himself through the appropriate funds.

Um but no, we didn't look at it through the lens in which you asked.

We looked at it like we look at every other Prop A proposal of what's the law.

Do you think it's uh it's important to look at look at it through those lenses, especially since uh we're you know again, if if there is someone that is presenting it, and as Councilmember Potter mentioned, you know, it's it doesn't impact them personally.

Is it uh important to look at those lenses?

I think the law probably wouldn't look at it from the perspective of who stands to benefit personally or not, is whether or not the law believes that it is lawful under our current constitution, whether you know federal constitution or state constitution.

So, you know, it it I think it's a policy discussion about well, who's gonna benefit and how would it would it help them?

But I think the salient point from my perspective was if challenged, and our code provision has not been challenged, but I think my perspective, and I believe the city attorney represented as well, that our likelihood of success in defending that provision, given current case law is relatively low.

Correct.

Um and then I guess uh as as y'all looked at it, um, did y'all find uh any ways where y'all could amend it to make it a little bit more narrow uh instead of repealing repealing it altogether?

No, Councilmember.

At a local at a local level, uh because right now what is the uh the reimbursement?

Um I don't have it in front of me, but I think it's roughly 75,000 for mayor and maybe 50,000 for council members.

Um no, council member.

What what we do again is we look at the proposal as submitted.

We don't look at it and say, well, we recommend you do this to make it better or not.

Um and the reason for that, at least from my perspective, is we're trying to evaluate exactly what the nominating or or the sponsoring council members are trying to accomplish, and we look at it solely from the legal perspective.

If we begin to go down the road of identifying perhaps policy um directives or concepts, that's stepping outside of our role in the lawfulness review.

You know, we're happy to engage with council members, and I think that's what Danny's role is on the front end to say here's the concept, and then kind of workshop issues.

But once it comes to us in general counsel and it's been officially submitted to the agenda director and it's forwarded to the legal department, we're looking solely at whether or not it is lawful.

Um so what I'll I'll close with before I uh open it up to council members is that even though the legal department believes that there's litigation risk, I I feel like ethics laws should not be amended uh simply because it creates a hardship on the current elected official.

Uh with that uh uh Councilmember Peck.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Pollard.

Um, you know, I do think that if one of our ordinances is in violation of a Supreme Court case, we do need to take a look at that.

My concern with just getting rid of that ordinance altogether is does that create a system where only wealthy people with wealthy friends can win elections here at the city?

Um so I offered some suggestions to see if we can maybe instead of just getting rid of the ordinance altogether, can we just tweak it so that we can still comply with the Supreme Court case but make it make some more um steps towards transparency?

So um Councilmember Pollard, I offered three suggestions.

I don't know if the legal department had an opportunity to see if these items would come.

I I'm not sure if they would comply with the Supreme Court case or not, but the suggestions um and again this is just um for transparency purposes.

Um the first is to place a time limit on fundraising for um debt retirement.

So instead of limiting the repayment itself, um limit how long you can can you can campaign for funds to reimburse yourself.

Um the second one is to require loans to be documented before election day and don't allow um fundraising for repayment of loans after election day.

And the third is to escalate disclosure requirements after the elections to uh for enhanced disclosures after 36 or 90 days to identify contributions used specifically for reimbursement.

So again, I don't know if any of those would comply with the Supreme Court case, but if they do, I think that you know if we could add some of them into the ordinance just for transparency purposes.

And uh I'll defer to the legal department just off the top of my head.

I think the first two would be a violation of of free speech.

You're still limiting it uh based on time limits.

So uh I think that's you I think you will be in some very muddy water there.

When it comes to um reporting requirements, um I think we could put any reporting requirements we want on whatever.

Uh there's already reporting requirements on all of us right now.

Um every single one of us have to file campaign finance reports.

We'll be getting, you know, uh those out next week.

And anyone can challenge it, anyone can look into it, anyone can go to the Texas Ethics Commission and get an audit.

We see it happen with office holders all the time where they put something on paper and then someone challenges it and then uh they're able to either receive a penalty or there's litigation or whatever.

So all those safeguards are actually already in place.

Now, if we want to add additional guardrails to the city level with the I didn't even know we had an ethics commission here at the city, honestly.

But um everything I I go forth when it comes to our reporting requirements and the transparency of it is through the Texas Ethics Commission.

And they have their own lawyers, you can put forth any inquiry you want to them, and you will get a response.

Any one of us can get challenged on our campaign finance reports today.

Any one of us can get challenged on having to prove the dollar amount that's in our account, have to prove the date that we got the contributions, who they were from alone.

Everything that we put on that paper, and that's why we're so meticulous on whatever we put on this piece of paper, we know that it's uh a public document, and we can get challenged on it, right?

So all those safeguards are already there.

And yes, as a body, do I think we can create additional safeguards?

Yes.

But the question is, will it be redundant?

Will it will it strain resources and and and and personnel?

And is it really like necessary when we already have the safeguards that would get you the answer to the questions that you have?

And I would only add that Councilmember I can't really don't remember all three of your suggestions, but I I tend to agree with Councilmember Pollard that the first two would probably be legally problematic.

The time limits for campaign contribution acceptance has already been challenged and has been struck.

Something I believe many council members have brought up previously was this idea of, well, what about the wealthy versus those candidates who are not wealthy?

And you know, we we kind of looked at that from a conceptual perspective.

Um there's campaign finance jurisprudence out there going all the way back to Buckley versus Vallejo, which is like a 1976 Supreme Court case.

And it talks about literally wealth equalization is not a sufficient basis for violating the First Amendment dealing with core political speech, meaning using your own funds or being reimbursed from campaign funds to support yourself as a candidate.

So I understand the practical concerns of, well, this candidate, you know, doesn't have any you know financial resources, but they've got the support of whatever the community might happen to be, versus another candidate, maybe they don't have such support from the community, but they have these enormous financial resources.

But again, the court, the law looks at it and says, because we're dealing with core political speech, which has First Amendment protections, wealth equalization saying we're going to try to put you all on equal footing from a wealth perspective is not a sufficient basis to keep someone from spending their own funds for their own potential election to public office.

Let me jump in on that.

You get you make a good point that I think we should, you know, put out there on what the dynamics would present for individuals who have certain resources to be able to fund their campaign, right?

Uh I do think any limiting of that, as he said, would violate the free speech, but it is a conversation you can, you know, you can you can have on policy.

But when you look at the reverse, there's some scenarios where it is very difficult for a challenger to be able to have a viable campaign when an incumbent, whether it's in Congress or wherever, has been in office for so long, they have built up money for so long, and now a challenger tries to uh campaign against this person, that person is so powerful within their position, they're going to cut off all of the local money, all of the support money, all the stakeholder money, all the all of the PAC money, because no one wants to go against the incumbent.

So if a person wanted to challenge that incumbent who has influence and a bucket full of money, one of the only ways they may be able to be viable is if they say, hey, I will bet on myself and I will loan myself this money.

But for that, most people would not have a chance against many incumbents because the the scale is tilted so much based on influence and money that you continue to have the same people in office year after year after year, decade after decade that are stockpiling this money.

And so there's always going to be a counterview and a counterperspective, I think, to this issue.

But what we are presenting and what we brought to this council was that we had language that was very similar to what was challenged at the Supreme Court on our books.

And our city attorney deemed that it was very likely that it would be unconstitutional if challenged.

And so our proposition A was just to repeal that language.

Um if you all wanted to bring additional reporting requirements or additional whatever in your own proposition, um, you know, go for it.

But ours is doing something that that's very simple.

It is a repeal of what the City Legal Department has found to be unconstitu uh likely unconstitutional.

Councilman Damitas.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And uh thank you again, Rashad, for your insights.

Um I you know, I too am concerned about disclosure because typically, you know, candidates file their reports on contributions they receive, expenditures they've had, and and they're just words and numbers on a page.

No one ever really looks at them uh to see if uh if they are accurate.

Um, and especially when it comes to reimbursing out of campaign funds, right, that that others have contributed, you know, thinking they're supporting uh a good candidate or or what have you.

And so my suggestion would be that, especially as it relates to personal loans or contributions to a candidate's campaign funds, that at the front end there be some documentation to support the fact that that that loan or that contribution was actually made.

Otherwise, you know, it it raises the potential for uh a candidate to essentially launder money through the campaign account.

And so I have shared with Councilmember Pollard uh some language that would that would require that at the front end.

Um so we we have had a discussion about that.

And Councilmember Pollard uh suggests that already with the Ethics Commission, the State Ethics Commission, uh anyone can request an audit.

I'm not familiar with that process.

Uh you you may be.

Um but I think that the City can have its own requirement, and I think public trust could be enhanced if uh there were documentation requirements when candidates filed filed their reports.

Um do you have any any thoughts on that?

Um a couple.

I I I am not aware of anything that would prohibit the city from adopting additional documentation requirements.

Having said that, um there is a couple of issues.

One, the city is currently you know underway with trying to move everything online.

I think most of you know that, where it's going to be no longer filing on paper.

The city is engaged with the vendor, and we are in active conversations about that software.

And that deals with lobbying reports, it deals with campaign finance, and ultimately it will deal with financial disclosure statements.

Um but at the end of the day, what the city is currently procuring, at least as I understand it, is an off-the-shelf kind of program that is used by the Texas Ethics Commission for campaign finance reporting.

If we were to adopt some type of additional reporting requirements, that wouldn't be contemplated in the software that we are or purchasing now.

So that would either require a separate vendor to bring that into the realm of those documents coming in digitally or not, or the current vendor that the city is engaged with would probably have to write some additional software that would accommodate the receipt of that information.

So that's one.

Number two, I would only say to that that doing so would then create this repository of additional information that may be subject to public disclosure under TPIA request.

So understand there may be a completely separate side of this where people are submitting requests to the City for this information that the City is going to have to react to and respond to in terms of addressing it as a public information request.

I am not suggesting that's neither here or there is as far as you know whether or not it is legally permissible or not, but those are some of the the real world practical concerns with that proposal right now.

But I I can't say to you that it would be unlawful for the City to have some additional requirements.

I think some other jurisdictions do.

I believe Austin might.

But I'm saying practically speaking, to bring that within the ecosystem that the City is currently harvesting might be a little bit of a challenge at this time.

And I would like to add that we see routinely local office holders who are challenged on campaign finance reporting.

Um there has right now, just recently been a very public litigated matter over campaign finance and campaign finance loans.

And those disclosures when challenged had to be put forth.

I think it is more than just numbers on a piece of paper.

It may be numbers on a piece of paper until it is challenged.

But once it is challenged and an audit is either requested or a litig or someone believes they have standing based on damages and now it brings forth a suit through the discovery that comes out.

So any at any point in time that could be challenged.

I I don't have any issue with the city bringing additional reporting requirements, because I think we all should be on top of whatever uh disclosures we put forth.

But I don't think that it should be uh seen as if it's just numbers on a piece of paper because there are frequent occurrences where officeholder does get challenged on the accuracy of their reports and uh their penalties put in place uh if that is the case.

If I can just quickly, uh Councilmember Ramides, um if what I am hearing from you is a specific specific to personal loans, um not necessarily just in general, and I think the what you are offering is something to be more proactive.

And I think the what you are offering is something to be more proactive.

So that way there's again that that trust of where did the loan come from, you know, when was it made, and showing that up front rather than waiting to be challenging court?

Correct.

And and I mean, respectfully, uh Councilmember Pollard, when you know a candidate gets called and uh on it and and prosecuted, those things get a lot of attention.

But I think those are very rare.

I mean, I I've seen in my own experience cases where reports that should have been filed were never filed.

Nothing, nothing is ever done, right?

I have seen reports where the numbers couldn't possibly be accurate.

You know, nothing is ever done.

So maybe there is a mechanism to challenge, but I think in order to do that, there's probably a standard of of proof or standard of evidence that has to be submitted before you can even get to that stage.

You know, you know, out in Fort Bend County right now, there the specific question was on a campaign finance personal loan issue.

That matter was dealt with, that matter was addressed in a in a way in which whatever was sought to be um uh seen based on the reporting of a a candidate or office holder's report was made available.

Um I do think you open Pandora's box and you have to ask yourself, okay, if you're going to report on one thing, we need to ro we need to have the same guardrails and safeguards on every single thing, and it could go forever, uh which I have no problem with.

I don't want to be the one involved in all that you know, paperwork.

I'm not sure if the legal department or who are whatever software they are going to get is going to be able to do it.

But there also has to become a question over what type of authority this body has as a council member to challenge the legality of another person's report.

Um that be a question that the legal department has, but I think we we're giving ourselves authority and power that may not be legal or mandating that elected officeholders have to do certain things that neither State or Federal law require of them, and we're just doing them ourselves.

Um I think that would be a legal question.

But all of that really doesn't speak to my prop A.

And that's where I want to stay on.

My prop A is just repealing language that we have put forth that is in our our our ordinance to repeal that language based on our City Legal Department, deeming that it is likely unconstitutional.

If you all want to add things, I'm cool with that.

But do it on do it with your prop A.

My prop A is just to repeal.

That's all I'm asking to do.

Your prophecy can do reporting and disclosures.

I I'm fine with that.

And I'll maybe work with you on it, and maybe I'll be a signer.

But mine isn't asking for any of that.

So I would respectfully ask that mine be seen as what we as the authors have presented and not to convolute our very narrow Prop A on its face.

And if you all want to do something else, we we can you know have that discussion as well.

Okay, I I respect that.

Can I uh finish up with my time?

So um you you mentioned on the redaction question, um, in which I think filers can do their own redacting and and submit documents, uh that that shouldn't be too difficult.

But you mentioned TPIA, so uh the prospect that the city might have to produce documents in response to an open open records request.

And you know, I I think the whole reason behind campaign finance reporting is transparency, right?

So the public can know where is the money that people are running their campaigns coming from.

You know, that's the whole reason I think that we have these these laws.

And so um this is just a part of that requiring that certain documents be produced.

Uh and so even my I guess my response is even even if it results in some open records requests, I mean, that's that's what the law is for in my mind.

But let me let me ask you a couple questions about Councilmember Pollard's specific proposal, is his prop A.

Um is is the ordinance as it's or are ordinances as they are currently written, are they constitutional as they relate to uh personal loans or contributions to a candidate's campaign fund?

I am not sure I follow your question.

I mean, I think the lawfulness memo speaks to the proposal being lawful to repeal the ordinance, and it does speak to the fact that there's similar corollary, you know, opinions, FEC versus Cruz, where the court found almost identical language to be unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment.

So I'm not I'm not sure that I'm following your question.

Would you go so far as to say our current ordinance is unconstitutional in that respect?

No, because the lawyer in me says it hasn't been challenged directly.

But if it were challenged, you know, the opinion says the ability to defend it successfully is likely relatively low.

Okay.

Let me ask you another question.

So one way to to change this would be uh for counsel to to adopt this ordinance, let's say.

Is there another way for a candidate to go about getting uh full reimbursement, let's say, above the current limits?

Could the current ordinance be challenged in court?

I think a declaratory judgment action?

I think any if if I'm following you correctly, Councilmember, um, any ordinance that seeks to impose some limitation on what an elected official or an individual can spend on themselves from their own personal funds for their you know eventual or potential election to public office is constitutionally suspect.

And I think that's the heart of the discussion today, the the heart of what we're talking about.

Now, back to some of your other points.

I think courts are generally in favor of disclosure when it comes to campaign finance.

Um but when it comes to the TPIA, there's a difference between funds that the city is expending, which is generally public under 552022A of the government code versus someone's own funds that they are expending on their campaign and disclosing that information under the TPIA.

So I want to, you know, provide that nuance there.

But you know, I apologize, but I am not sure that I am following your question.

Well, you've you have said the ordinance is const constitutionally suspect, right?

So let's say I I have loaned my campaign more than I can be reimbursed for under our current ordinances.

Okay.

And I suspect that if I reimburse myself out of my campaign above what our current ordinance ordinance allows, I could be, in theory, subjected to prosecution in municipal court, perhaps.

Um, but I don't want to subject myself to that.

Can I go to court and get a court to say that ordinance is not constitutional and you can reimburse yourself uh above the amount without being uh subjecting yourself to prosecution?

Yes, I think someone who has standing in in the scenario that you presented could do that, yes.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

Isn't that exactly what Tea Cruz did at the Federal level?

Essentially, yes, yes.

Yes.

So as a as a current officeholder, he just did something that went up went outside of the bounds of what was the Federal law, just so there could be a court case, and then challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court for them to make a ruling.

That is exactly what your your uh proposing a office holder may do at the local level, which, in my opinion, is not only redundant and unnecessary, um, because the Supreme Court has already made its ruling.

But we have the ability now, based on this proposition A, just to repeal.

So you want to just put forth the steps where a person would have to go draft pleadings, file, maybe get lawyer fees, put a court through a litigation process, just to get a result that your legal, your own legal department has told you is extremely low and beating a certain burden to overturn it.

I don't know why we would do that when the steps have already been taken at the Federal level.

If the issue is does this person have the money in their account, or are they telling the truth, you can challenge that through the Ethics Commission?

Hell, if it's your colleague, just ask them to show it to you.

Right?

I mean, uh we're we're we're drawing something out that could be very much uh dealt with in a very I think streamlined fashion.

Um, but I don't see what the real issue is in this particular matter that that the legal department has already given instruction on what they feel.

Like we can have our own opinions on it, and that's okay, but the law is the law.

I want to welcome uh Councilmember Davis and staff from Councilmember Tarzan Jackson.

Uh Councilmember Carter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um certainly with respect to all comments and and uh Councilmember Pollard uh understand your position.

My question, and and maybe this this lies within the guardrails that you that we've talked about, Councilmember Peck, but you know, the State has the caps.

In 2016, Council, under the Turner administration capped at 50 and 75.

Clearly, I would think that legal would have weighed in.

There there were reasons.

And so understanding that your Prop A amendment doesn't address, you know, future limitations, we're just saying repeal what's already on there, but it's like I think again we need to look at it, but it really all goes back to, you know, uh Councilmember Ramirez just made a suggestion, and we're saying, well, if the Ethics Commission, well, we just clearly 20 minutes ago discussed the Ethics Commission is not active, and there's no, you know, well, we've we're talking about residency, we're talking about all ethical violations, and uh, you know, I I think that that we really need to look back at the core of this.

But my question is, in 2016, what necessitated the need, you know, what was why put the caps on in 2016?

Rashad, do you have an answer to that?

Um I don't think the caps were added in 2016.

I think the caps were tweaked because at that time we moved from the two-year terms to the four-year terms.

So I think that was the tweak to the caps, but they weren't added at that point in time.

They they had been there already.

They were just tweaked because of the same 75.

No, I think they were lower at the time.

I'm saying I think that the the dollar amount was changed at that time because the terms went from two years to four years through a charter amendment.

So the caps predated 2016.

Councilmember Alcorn.

Thank you, Chair.

Just looking at Councilmember Pollard's Prop A and listening to what uh Arturo Michelle said at the meeting and what you're saying, Rashad, on its face, I'm not a lawyer.

It sounds like these limits wouldn't fly.

These limits don't fly on on being paid back.

Um the reason I opted for a more thorough discussion was solely based on what councilmember uh Peck suggested on her guardrails on and having the and which apparently the first two really don't fly.

So remind me what the third one will is, if you don't mind, Vice Mayor Pro Tem Peck, and um and and if you could opine on her third guardrail.

Um the third one's was to escalate disclosure requirements after elections.

So instead of prohibiting repayment after a date, it would require enhanced disclosures after 30, 60 or 90 days to identify contributions used specifically for reimbursement.

I mean, we would have to do the research, Councilman Rue, but I'm not prepared to say that that would be wholly unlawful.

Okay.

Okay.

So I mean, I I am prepared to support this on its face.

It's we've been told by legal, it's not going it it wouldn't bear.

It sounds like Senator Cruz did this exact same thing.

The the limits, what I'm hearing from you uh wouldn't fly anymore on what you can pay yourself back.

They're a violation of the First Amendment.

I don't really see any gray area in that in and of itself.

So if there is an an additional, you know, reporting or or uh perhaps this looking into this they um item number three that council member Peck has, perhaps we could do it in tandem with um with this with this ordinance.

But doesn't make any sense to me to keep something on the books that is um in clear violation of what the Supreme Court has decided, based on our own legal department's advice.

Councilmember Ramidas thank you appreciate all the the comments um and when I referenced ethics commission and in my uh most recent comments I was referring to the State Ethics Commission.

The way I see it, we don't have a City Ethics Commission at the moment.

But hopefully that that will change.

And you know um when we when we adopted rules for the consideration of Prop A's I insisted on a provision that said nothing that the council could do in the Prop A committee or referring it to the Prop A committee could deprive councilmembers right to have a vote taken before the full council and still feel that way and I think that Councilmember Pollard's proposal deserves a vote by the full council.

And the question for the council is going to be you know do we want to make him do what Senator Cruz did and actually go to court on this or do we want to change what our legal department says is constitutionally suspect.

But I think that he deserves that vote.

I know we don't have enough uh members here to to really take an official vote.

What what would be your rationale for for office uh officeholder to have to go forth with their own litigation on a matter that has been addressed at the Federal level why why would you suggest that that is something that should even be considered yeah no the the question I'm posing is does does this council really want to make you have to go through those hoops let's let's call that to a vote.

I'm not saying that's what you should have to do, especially in view of what is our legal department uh says a constitutionally suspect ordinance.

Let's let's put it to a vote before the full council.

So a quick question uh so there hasn't been any other cities that have tried to repeal the similar ordinance not that I'm aware of Texas no not that I'm aware of right now.

And I ask only because and I think you know Council Ramidas brings up a good point rather whether it's going through the hoops or this body want to be seen as you know um g giving giving uh no leverage for self-financing you know uh and I again understanding the legal aspect of it but the ethical which is one of the things that I want to make sure that as a chair um you know is that we continue to build trust right and so uh it it's not just whether the the the going through the hoops but also do you want to be seen as opening up this you know this floodgate that Senator Cruz opened up as well.

And you know um on a personal level I'm I'm not for that uh but again uh you know I know you this is your prop A Councilmember Pollard but um face face value um I would be against it but if there's opportunities to put guardrails then I think that's where the conversation here is is uh is kind of evolving to I I think you know I think being against it is just being against the Constitution.

I mean it's been deemed a violation of the First Amendment you guys seem to uphold in all types of other issues when when state law says something or Federal law says something you know you you you take it you know whether you uh agree with it or not you don't have to agree with it.

There's a lot of things I disagree with but it's the law.

The second thing is if it's for transparency, then just ask the question on how you want it to be transparent like if if it's you know uh one of the things that was what what what date one of the things that was brought up was uh disclosing up up front right um how that how that loan what where that loan came from did it come you know date that it was something that as Councilmember Ramido was saying that more proactive rather than waiting for a a court order to to look into how that disclosure or how how is how is this closed I mean the other one is Councilmember Peck has mentioned right what what are those guardrails look like you know understanding you know especially if if it is uh there is opportunity to provide some of that trust and transparency um and being able to work with the legal department I think it's it's valid to have those conversations around it right now.

So we all have to report our our campaign finances I mean for for the most part anybody can challenge any of those reports at any time that they wanted to whenever someone gets a contribution there just aren't mechanisms in place for saying you know uh we need to know every time there's a contribution that is made.

Um whenever someone gets a contribution, uh there just aren't mechanisms in place for saying you know uh we need to know every time there's a contribution that is made.

Now, is if there wants to be added something, if you if you loan yourself, you know, X amount of dollars, you need to write a note or something.

I I just don't even know where we go with this.

Like I it's like we're creating something that uh, in my opinion, is is convoluted, is and ambiguous.

Uh I don't see the the point because if you wanted to challenge it once it was disclosed, that's why we have our disclosures that come out twice a year.

If you wanted to challenge it or audit it or get the information, you could just go request it right now.

Anyone could request anything on my report, your report, or anybody else's report right now.

All right.

You could either do it through the Texas Ethics Commission, you can do it through uh, you know, uh bring it before a court.

Hell, you can just maybe ask the person, like hey, I got some questions people have been asking, you know, can I see it on the low?

What however you want to do it, you can do that.

The press and the media could push on it and they could request it through various sources and put it out.

And it's already publicly disclosed.

And so I think there is a sense of like, oh, this person this person is able to do this, and we don't know why or how it could be utilized in a future pursuit, and now there's all these questions around it.

But at the end of the day, based on what we put forward, our city legal department says that they believe our current ordinance would be deemed unconstitutional.

And based on that, all we are doing in our proposition A is saying, based on that, then just repeal that so you don't have to even worry about any future litigation that the city is likely to lose.

Councilmember Davis.

Thank you, Brother Chair.

Um just wanted to address the fact uh what councilmember Pollard's uh prop A.

Um, from a council perspective, you have a right to vote for it, you have a right to vote against it.

I think that we find ourselves, some of us, our colleagues, we have these personal vendettas dealing on the finance side, you know, and then I heard it said that we really don't have an ethics process.

Just moments ago.

Well, when you you know, when you start talking about ethics, there are a lot of other ways to be unethical than just dollars and cents.

Some people's activities, the way that they, you know, who do we screen the con the way people conduct to conduct themselves?

Because if you look at this on the ethics, it also talks about employees.

You know, I think sometimes we better be careful what road we go down, and we draw in conclusions on ethical processes.

There's a lot of people who've assumed some things ethical, but come to find out it wasn't true, they don't come back and apologize or ever.

So these ethicals, I think we we gotta decide what are we going to talk about.

Councilman Pollard's property is up is up for discussion and brought to the council.

Uh some people have these personal vendettes and trying to screen the time.

I don't know if many people have time going around, look at what everybody else is doing in terms of raising money.

Some people take that, you know, make that their primary objective.

Um as council, I think we have a committee, we have a chair of ethical, um, you know, and and and I think we ought to use the process and and be very careful when we go down those roads, because we are gonna, you know, we're gonna raise uh uh sleeping bear.

And so uh that some violations people have committed that didn't get reported, but could have been.

And so I just want to be sure that when we addressing this that we that we stick with, you know, to me, bro, Chair, where with what we're talking about, because we could go down a whole rabbit hole too far from the question.

Appreciate your comments.

Uh, Councilmember Ramides?

Yeah, thank you.

So, in regards to uh the State Ethics Commission being able to investigate or audit uh campaign finance report whenever someone requests it, I I don't think that's the case.

I I don't think that's the case.

So I checked co-pilot here and and um uh I'm gonna assume this is accurate, but maybe check after the fact.

But it says anyone, including individuals or watchdog groups can file a sworn complaint alleging violations of Camaign's finance laws.

So if you are willing to swear that you believe or have reason to believe that someone has committed a specific violation, you can you can file a complaint with the ethics commission.

It also says if a complaint is accepted, the TEC initiates a compliance review, which can include an informal audit of the candidate's financial records, informal audit.

So you if you want to have a report audited, you need to have a basis for it, and you need to be willing to swear out a complaint that you believe uh some rule or law has been violated, and then they will determine whether or not it it merits an audit.

So just wanted to clarify.

So we don't have anyone in the queue, uh, Councilor Pollard.

Uh I don't know if you have any final comments or just I want to thank you all for your um interest in in this issue and and your diligence with with the questions that you have posed.

Um I think there's various ways in which we can reach transparency in not only this but other matters as well.

Um I do think it's important to have these meetings, and I do think the ethics uh committee um has an important function that we must uh put forth.

I think even me being here today, uh learning of some of the inactions uh inactivity of our local commission is is brings a lot of awareness to where we need to make some improvement.

Um but I don't want us to get lost in the proposition that I have brought forth.

And what I would ask of you all is if there are questions that you have, you know, the way I would like to go about it is the way I've always done it, is I come to you all directly and I ask you all face to face, do you have any questions?

Do you would you support this?

Do you want to sign on to this?

Like let me know up front.

Um, I don't like the committee uh process when it dictates to an author that they must come before the committee.

I think the author should have the ability to say I want it to be in the committee or not, because the whole intent of proposition A was to give it the same kind of power that the mayor's seat has.

And I would rather people just vote no on an item or just tag an item than go through this process of coming to this committee, which is been like two months in the making.

And so I would ask that when when I bring forth a proposition A, that as you all preach transparency in this body, that be transparent with me as the author, to let me know what you think about it up front.

Ask me all the questions up front.

Maybe we can work together up front, um, so that by the time it does get to the council table, we can already have many of those questions uh answered, and you are then free to vote yay or nay on that issue, and I respect your yay or nay on it.

But I do believe our proposition A's deserve votes, and I believe that they should be able to go forth in the same manner that the administration could put forth um any item as well.

And I'm hopeful that this will be put back on the agenda very soon to give myself and the other authors an opportunity uh to receive a vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Councillor Pollard, and and I just just to comment a little bit about the prop A.

I think I think it's known that we can always submit our prop A.

They will be on the agenda.

But I think as a body, um, you know, there's several items that come on the agenda that the mayor puts on also goes to a committee.

And I think uh as a body, we should, you know, I I differ from you or um I think we should have these conversations at a committee.

It allows for our colleagues to um do a bit more of uh their own personal research to uh identify ways where a ordinance can be uh better.

Um again, uh I think that happens currently even with the mayor's agenda.

So um just respectfully disagree.

I I would like to see more engagement with our colleagues on several items, even when we refer things back to a committee that's on the mayor's agenda.

Uh we do that, we've been doing that.

Folks have been doing that.

So with that, uh that concludes the presentation.

Um and questions from council.

Uh moving to public comment.

Uh there are there's no one that's signed up.

Uh and so I want to make sure that folks also know that anybody uh public watching, you may send questions or comments by emailing my office at district I at Houston TX.gov.

Um seeing no additional comments or questions from I know you had mentioned earlier something about a quorum with having nine people.

Was that for a particular reason to did you intend to have a vote on something today?

Because I think we have nine now.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

Okay.

I'd like to move to uh put this on the full council agenda with further um research on this is my personal motion.

I want further research on Vice Mayor Pro Tempex requirement number three, if any if in in whole or in part, if that can be adopted in together with this.

So a motion amendment to the to uh amend councilmember Pollard's prop A with a potential well it you can't really do the amendment to it because that's got to be researched.

I just move that we move that we put council member Pollard's prop A on the full city council agenda.

Second.

Okay, any questions, comments?

Okay.

So the the motion is to move forward with the amendment.

Um what uh no the motion is to let me move forward with the the actual item.

Uh what I would um prior to asking for a vote, uh I'd like to see if it for you know be further discussed with the amendment.

So um we'll do a roll call and my vote is uh no.

Councilmember uh Peck.

Oh Councilmember Davis.

Yes.

Councilmember Flickinger, no.

Councilmember Domitas?

Yes.

Martinez, no.

Peck?

Yes.

Pollard.

Yes.

Alcorn.

Yes.

Carter.

Yes.

Classillo?

Yes.

So the eyes have it.

It's one, two, three.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and two no's.

Thank you all for that.

And I do want to put on the record that the city charter states that any council member can put forth any item uh with three signatures that is deemed lawful on the city agenda.

So technically, I could put forth this every single week, and it will have to come back.

That's just my interpretation.

Um there's nothing within the city charter that says that you only get one bite at the apple.

Thank you.

So with that, that concludes our our committee.