Afternoon, everyone.
Welcome to the May seven,
2025 regular meeting of the Seattle
Ethics and Elections Commission.
I'm Zach and Kayla's, the chair of the Commission.
And with me in the room at Seattle
Municipal Tower is Commissioner Vivian Basile, the newest
member of the commission.
So I'll take a moment here to welcome Commissioner Basile
and the WebEx video platform.
Our commissioners Short
Hawes and Falk.
Welcome to you all.
Thank you for joining.
And we also have
commissioner designee Kai Smith,
who pending a confirmation vote by the Council,
will be the six voting member of the Commission.
And we hope that
that will happen before next month's meeting.
And also also the Vice-Chair
Jonathan Schirmer is joining by telephone.
I understand Commissioner Schirmer is in
Philadelphia traveling for work
and is joined in Despite the time difference
and his busy schedule to participate in a vote.
So we're going to jump right to that
matter, to let the vice chair
go about this evening in Philadelphia.
That's item number two and final action
items on the agenda, Seek one modification request
for a candidate for the city attorney's office, Erika Evans,
because I am work with Miss Evans
husband Christopher at my law firm
and because I have a personal friendship
from his efforts, I'm recusing myself
from this proceeding and I'll ask Commissioner Oz to
carry this discussion and action item forward.
This.
All right now that I'm getting myself
this chair with you was my understanding
is that this Evans, I believe, is
standing by with us today, is seeking
a lot of information
on the disclosure request consistent with the location
that you saw from the
Public Disclosure Commission
with respect to address information In her filings,
request is granted
by the Public Disclosure Commission in light of concerns
for safety associated with her prior employment.
As I understand it.
And so as is my as I understand it, this
this waiver or modification is sought from the CDC
to bring our requirements in line with the requirements
of the Public Disclosure Commission was I didn't
I don't know if you
have anything to add to that, but I wanted to give you
an opportunity to weigh in, given that you are here
at the meeting today.
No, that's everything.
Thank you so much.
And I don't know if folks
had an opportunity to review the materials
or if there is any if there are any questions
related to the modification.
My understanding is that this modification, as I said,
would just be a redaction and then no
commission going forward of Ms..
Evans Street address.
In light of the safety concerns the Church
included in her application.
So do you have any further comments
or questions on those points?
No. Okay.
I'm not hearing any.
Do I have a motion to approve Ms..
Evans request to modify the disclosure requirements
as outlined in her application?
So I'm going to
thank you and Commissioner Balcells.
I made the motion to Commissioner Short.
Was that a second from you?
I'm sorry.
After just a minute, I have 5 minutes.
Thank you.
All in favor, please say, Ah, raise your hand.
I read.
Any abstentions
and you know.
Okay, I believe that scoring a favor
with Commissioner McInnis having recused himself.
And my understanding of committee
review of the rules and said
that is sufficient to pass the motion.
So thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to go now.
I'm sorry.
Ahead. Sounds good.
Ms.. Evans, Commissioner.
Chairman yields it.
Turn it back over to you.
Thank you, Commissioner Ross.
We'll take care of the second action item now,
which is the adoption of the March 5th, 2025.
The regular meeting minutes.
We did not have a meeting in April.
Has any commissioner not had an opportunity
to review the minutes and would like to do so now
and you're a non.
Is there any discussion
of the meeting minutes, including any corrections
or modifications that anyone would like? Added
or not?
Is there a motion to approve the March meeting?
That's
so new?
Is there a second
session?
Any further discussion?
Okay.
We'll carry them all In favor of approving the March
meeting is to say I raise your hand.
I have all of those same or as
any abstentions.
The motion carries the meaning.
Minutes are approved on to discussion items on the agenda.
There are four of them.
The first involves a proposed amendment to the Ethics code.
The City Ethics Code Council Bill 120978.
Version one
When could you provide a kind of brief introduction
to this topic?
Kind of the background, how it came to the commission?
Yes, I'd be happy to.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The ethics code,
as it's written, says that public officials
and employees have to disqualify themselves
on any matters in which they have a financial interest.
If this commission, in its
constitutional capacity as a minister, that.
So your role, as you know, is not to let us know
what you think of anything or whether
you think it's a good idea or a bad idea,
or whether you like where the commission's going,
your role is just to interpret and advise know.
So that's your whole role is like,
what does the law say and how are we going to apply it here?
In June of last year, the Commission
upheld advice I provided to then Council member Woo
that she could not, under the ethics code,
participate to vote to change city
law establishing a minimum wage for gig workers.
Given her role as a restaurant owner,
which gave her a financial interest in that.
So again, your role there was and you upheld that saving link
that I've done.
I had correctly advised that she had a financial interest
and two advice had to recuse.
And also last summer I was engaged in conversation
with the council President, Nelson
and Councilmember Woo about legislation
which never went to a vote
to change the way the temps were treated
for the purpose of calculating the minimum wage.
In November of last year, I sent an email to the City
Council's legal counsel, sharing my kind of concerns,
if you will, with the way the ethics code was working.
It was just, you know, with some concerns
I had with the way it was working together.
I thought you have some kind of
potential conflicts with democratic principles.
It's like, should we be giving people away from discussions
when they have an interest to me that indicates
our kind of ideals of democracy?
So that's what I was writing about
before this year's March meeting.
Councilmember Moore, who's joined us on the call,
thank you.
Councilmember seventh Commission legislation
that would amend the ethics codes for elected officials
to disclose and participate in
had an interest in matters important in legislation.
The Commission first provided
feedback at its March meeting on this
and is back for discussion again today.
Okay.
And the only thing I'd add is that we,
I and Wayne
participated in a discussion
with Councilmember Moore and her staff
regarding the legislation providing feedback.
I understand.
I know that we've received
significant public comment and writing.
I understand
several members of the public would like to provide oral
comments in today's meeting, which we greatly welcome.
But before we turn to that comment,
I just want to make sure that the public has
a really clear understanding of the limited role
and limited jurisdiction of this commission.
We are not
a legislative body, meaning we have limited
authority to issue regulations under the ethics code.
We don't have the authority to amend the ethics code.
That may seem obvious to some, but it bears
mentioning expressly here
we do have subject matter expertise,
as does our executive director
and members of the Commission staff on City Ethics.
And in that capacity, we as individual commissioners
or as the executive director
from time to time advise council members and other
officials on on the ethics code and how it can be improved.
And we are happy to do so, and we will continue to do so
and a future.
I cannot overstate the importance
of the city ethics code,
which applies
not just to elected officials, but to all city employees
across our state, our city government.
And the overarching purpose of the ethics code is to ensure
that city government officials and employees act
always in the public interest, not for personal gain.
It's our duty to enforce the code,
but it's not our duty to revise it
and balancing the interests of the ethics code,
which are high and noble and deal
with other goals and objectives that may also be valuable,
such as democratic governance
and promoting.
Democratic representation
is a policy matter, and that's best entrusted
and is entrusted
to the legislative branch, to the City Council.
So I would encourage
all those who seek a revision to the code
to make sure their voices are known to the City Council.
I myself will be testifying for the Governance
and Accountability Committee of the Council tomorrow as well.
Our Executive Director and I will certainly share
what I learned these days, meeting both perspectives
of my fellow commissioners and members of the public.
So that will turn to the public comment period.
Look how many members of the public have registered.
I think there's one person that didn't get to sign off.
So let's add her name.
Sorry.
I know.
So there are some in person
and there
expressed an interest in an estimate
of how many people online expressed interest.
I, I saw I had a rate
officer others
please if you're online
you can just tell us once again if you intend to submit
a public comment
just so you can get a sense of how many.
Yeah.
Raise your hand.
Do you see the okay or a comment read?
SMITH Thank you.
And that's three or four.
Okay.
So looks do about 11 public comments.
So I think you have
the discretion to allow for one or 2 minutes per commenter.
I'm fine with this going to 30 minutes,
so let's do two men, 2 minutes of comment
and well, I'll give you a warning
when you have 15 seconds left in your comment
to have a sign up.
If you just pass over this on a few, you signed up
this one more.
Okay,
Well, why don't we start online
since I see that Hannah Online wants to offer a comment?
Hannah, we welcome your comment.
Just make sure you unmute yourself.
I mean, we can.
Thank you for having me.
Yeah.
So my name is Jones and I live in Crown Hill in Seattle.
I've lived here for a number of years.
I'm here today to express my concern
for the change to ethics code violated the requirement
that councilmembers member themselves from voting
on matters of infection
or appear to affect their personal interest.
I strongly believe that nearly discussing
conflicts of interest and still being able to vote on
them does not go far enough to preserve trust in our
local government processes and our democratic system.
We are
currently dealing with
unprecedented the self
self-serving of the rich at the federal level right now.
And I would hope that cities
like Seattle would stand against this.
So I think that this change to the ethics code
would make the city of Seattle unusual
with how it how in large cities such as Francisco
and Portland as examples that require similar recusals
and ethics codes.
And I would hope that city council would choose
to the press, amongst others, instead of eroding it.
So I would hope that
I guess I'm asking you to please do that for you.
The requirement for Google from the ethics code
has been to say thank you.
Thank you, Hannah Recluse, please.
I'm not sure if I said your name correctly.
Let's see.
You said it almost directly.
it's Ray.
Ray almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grains,
so Ray shows the public on it.
Thank you very much. Hi.
Good afternoon.
My name is Mary Clute, and I live in Miller
Dean's District two,
and I am another person who is speaking
against the proposed change in the ethics rules.
This is the first time
I've had the nerve to try a meeting like this.
And what mood this opposition to this proposed change
on disclosure is simply not enough.
In my
I have no problem with council members
who have an interest in our session
there.
I think there is much used
to be very knowledgeable in that discussion.
But no vote is the requirement
for recusal changes the outcome of the vote?
Isn't that something
I want to ask
myself on a very small scale?
And I do have some sympathy
for the challenges that landlords are facing.
But this is a terrible way to address those issues.
Weakening ethical protections
doesn't solve the policy problems.
It just undermines public trust.
It looks terrible and it is terrible.
I urge you to reject this.
Changes to their current ethics rules
and of course,
the name of the committee of their Andrea's at the bottom
right and see what it says on the screen
above.
So there are three
or read.
Would you do your comment next, please tell me about this
read if you can hear me.
Can you unmute and offer a kind of
technical assistance?
Okay. Let's go to Natalie then for your public comment.
You're any
Natalie online.
If you go there you are.
Please unmute.
Okay.
That should probably work better now. We can hear you.
Yeah, there it is.
I knew I was inside the room,
so my name is Natalie.
I am Seattle resident and also an organizer for a Democracy
Forward organization, Everett, Washington,
Everett, Washington, among other democracy
organizations that our coalition members
are coming out against.
This post tends to be on ethics
sometimes.
I really do sense for this change to the ethics code.
Excuse me.
you know, all of the things that have a sense of so true,
especially when it comes to, you know, the transparency
and public trust that we have at this time.
You know,
that's something that cannot be overstated
how important that is and how Seattle has really
been a leader in this area of
transparency and
democracy, strengthening all of these things.
I really just also want to add that I have yet to hear
any single constituent or voter say that they approve of this
measure, that they think that this is a good idea.
It's been mentioned, you know, coming yesterday,
it was mentioned several times it like that.
And that is really important.
And another point that was made that I just do
want to reiterate
that this current Seattle City Council was elected
under these specific ethics code.
And if this change was being made, it would be,
I think, a better idea to put that future of city councils.
That expectation is going to be different,
that they have a different ethics code
that they're elected under. So
that's why I just urge,
you know, folks to consider how this looks at
what this will do
in undermining the public trust in our democracy.
Yes, Thank you for your comment.
Natalie Reed.
Looks like you're ready now.
Yeah.
Thank you for your patience. Can you hear me?
We can, Yeah.
I also managed to beat up a resident of Ballard.
I have.
I've never made a public comment before,
but when I heard this list being considered,
I just think this is outrageous
that we would potentially even consider
allowing people to vote when there's a conflict of interest.
I think a conflict of interest
means that people are not being impartial.
I think a conflict of interest means
people are not going to be fair and
I think
a conflict of interest means it's not trustworthy.
And I think
this is outrageous
that we are even considering making this change.
And I just think it speaks to
where people's priorities are.
I think the priority is towards the public
and doing the right thing and doing a fair thing.
People should recuse themselves with conflict of interest
and they will not be allowed to vote on things.
Thank you.
I believe that's the specialty.
I think that's the end of the online public comment.
If I'm wrong, please on raise your hand or speak up online.
Otherwise we'll move to the in the room public comment.
I I'm sorry.
I wanted to share for the common version as well.
Go ahead. There
is a major
difference in the time today similar to resident.
This is my first time commenting
and I live in Seattle
and also I need to comment on preserving integrity
in our local government, as many folks are sharing today.
And I'm sure yesterday in the council meeting,
I think will deliver the point
that many others have made that I think the
changing this requirement
and not requiring
council members to recuse themselves
is certainly a mistake.
I think the most frustrating part about this,
from my perspective, is that this comes at a time
when I think trust in government
at every level is extremely low.
and I think, you know, loosening these rules in such a
way is only going to deepen the pervasive political doubt.
You know, I feel and I think many neighbors feel
within the current environment
and, you know, if the current rules are unclear or vague,
you know, I think the answer isn't
to abolish recusal entirely.
You know, there should be time spent to refine
or clarify these existing definitions.
I know this commission isn't the one
making the final decision, but I
urge the city council to vote no on this rollback
and instead just support amendments
that determine our conflict of interest rules,
ensure that settlements towards a more ethical
kind of governance.
Thank you.
Thank you, Clark, and all our online commenters,
and I commend you all for
confining your remarks to well, within 2 minutes.
Let's move to the in the Room commenters.
First of all, this is Rachel Snell.
Rachel, we welcome your comments.
But there appears
please come to the microphone
and forward trying to sit on the wires.
All right. And then origami.
All right.
Hello, my name is Rachel Snell.
As elected officials are elected by our constituents
through our votes, essentially we hire them with our votes
to do the job of working for us.
We are the people.
This is the heart of what our democracy
is supposed to look like, to function from probably
rolling back
ethics productions, whether it's one or this
and become a threat to our democracy.
Public officials are not entitled to our trust
and risk or respect
just because they hold public office.
They must earn our trust and respect.
It is their job as elected officials to go
to court to meet our needs.
It is our job to hold elected officials accountable,
and it's our job to demand transparency.
And it is their job.
Election official jobs
to ensure us that they don't work making decisions for us.
And it
is their job to uphold these values of transparency
and it is our job to hold them accountable.
We I and so many of us in this room
and in Seattle demand a no vote to this proposal.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Rachel.
Next up is Jordan Crawley.
And after joining the league, Valerie Jarrett,
the commissioner, has said she really can't see
the microphone either.
So could we maybe move it a little closer this way?
She just thinks
of if you if you move it exactly between collisions
and the commentator appears on the screen,
you got to know
which towards the camera there that my audience is here.
That isn't me.
All right. Hi, everyone. I'm Jordan Crawley.
Here is the chair of the 34th District Democrats.
Today, this commission will discuss
a bill lowering the bar for elected officials.
My family has owned and operated a small business
for over 11 years, and where I told the council
I would have no issue limiting my participation to discussion
and recusing myself from serving
as a lifelong Seattle
and as a leader in the Democratic Party.
I find it not only bizarre, frustrating
that in addition to the national fights
we face on a daily basis,
we apparently have to rehash basic civics.
Democratic governments have a moral duty
to serve the public interest, not private gain.
Democracy only works when people trust
that the public decisions are made for the common good
not to pound the pockets of politicians.
The purpose of our city's code of ethics
is to ensure the proper operation
of democratic representative government,
which the code clearly states, and I quote, requires
that public officers and employees, the independent,
impartial and responsible to the people,
if passed,
the proposed amendments will undermine the already
fragile integrity of our current city government.
It's for this reason
that I drafted a letter which was sent to this
commission and our Council
a letter cosigned by five
Democratic Party organizations representing 98% of the city,
a letter that clearly relays our opposition to this bill,
a bill that would give our council
permission to serve themselves over
the people they were elected to serve.
Something we cannot allow.
Seattle should set the standard, not fail to meet the
danger.
Next up is Valerie.
And then after Valerie K Rubin.
Hi, I'm can you hear me okay?
Yes, I know what I'm doing.
District to the
listen, I'm here today to comment on the proposed
change to how city council handles voting,
where there's clear financial conflicts of interest and
one thing I've learned over the years
is that when people in power seek to minimize or gloss over
accountability structures or structures for fairness,
they're not to be trusted, trustworthy people.
Then they have some degree of power or privilege once
accountability and transfer and seeing
because they have a sense of responsibility
and relationship to other people,
that sense of responsibility and honesty outweighs
some inconvenient views that one might encounter.
For example, not being able to be a landlord
and a council member and vote with issues of interest rates.
Disclosure of a conflict of interest is ephemeral
and much work
is weaker than not voting when there is such a conflict.
I've always assumed that the Ethics and Elections Office
existed to provide some protection
against abuse of power in this city.
At this time in history.
We need that kind of protection of rights and democracy
more than ever.
So please don't approve this legislative change.
Thank you, Valerie.
Next up is Kate Rubin and then our Gail.
Hi, my name is Kate Rubin.
I'm the co-executive director of the Seattle and
a Voter Living and just two.
I also serve as the interim co-chair
of the Seattle Renters Commission.
I'm here to strongly oppose the proposal
to change Seattle's ethics code.
For the past 45 years, elected officials in Seattle
have been required to recuse themselves from votes
involving financial conflicts of interest.
Voters elected this council with the understanding
that those rules would still apply.
Changing the midterm is a clear violation
of the public's trust.
Disclosure is not accountability.
Most voters don't have the time or access
to dig through financial statements
and figure out how a council members
personal finances might shape their votes.
Ethics rules exist
because personal integrity isn't a safeguard,
and public perception doesn't prevent corruption.
We need clear boundaries that prevent elected officials
from using public office for personal gain.
Recusal is not a loss of representation.
When a councilmember votes on legislation
that directly impacts their own bottom line,
their constituents aren't being represented.
Their private interests are.
You know, it is a loss of representation
When you vote for your council, your district council member
and the rest of
the council appoints her opponent
who lost the election to a vacant seat.
Then they throw a fit when that appointee
has to recuse herself on a votes.
And instead of learning from that,
when another vacancy opens,
they appoint another person that to voters
previously rejected
a landlord, knowing it would shift the landlord
to renter ratio on the council.
2 to 1 in Richmond majority city.
And now they're trying to rewrite the rules
to let that landlord vote on rental protections.
The Seattle Renters Commission,
which stands firmly against this proposal,
currently has ten out of 15 seats vacant
because Councilmember Moore
has refused to schedule appointments.
Renters are being systematically
shut out of City Hall,
excluded from the rooms where decisions get made.
And while those in and while those in power
with property debris can be headed more and more power,
I urge you to recommend against the passage of this bill.
This change doesn't serve the public.
It opens the door to elected officials
using public office for personal gain.
And it's unacceptable.
And again, Howard and then Karl.
Hi, Howard.
Gale, these seven and also a member
of three such district Democrats.
With all due respect to
this commission,
through director Barnett
hatched this plan to go around ethics.
What I am outraged by is the degree of naivete,
ignorance and gullibility
it takes to believe that the proposed ethics legislation
is designed to solve an actual problem.
That is, district voters being deprived
of representation as opposed to the reality
that this legislation is actually designed
to overcome ethics in the context
of undercutting protections for renters and for workers.
This is very test designed.
This commission chose your last meeting,
which I watched in March,
to view and discuss
this legislation with a focus on a wholly invented harm,
dispossessing voters
while ignoring the actual real harm.
This legislation will cause
district voters who are renters or workers
that is virtually every member of every district.
This is a created problem to get around actually engaging
in a conflict of interest and to try to do that.
I should have said,
if you want.
Okay. The last.
The thing that's most outrageous here,
which I think is formidable beneath the radar,
the legislative department at the behest of Council
President Nelson and Moore, wrote up a claim.
Every time there's legislation, it has to pass an analysis
of the issues
of race and social justice initiative last year.
They did that by saying, quote, Members who represent
districts include vulnerable
and historically disadvantaged communities
will be dispossessed.
That is twisted and outrageous.
So what they're saying is and
they don't have to do an IRS job analysis
because what they're trying to claim
is this legislation will actually
provide advantage for people in those districts in seconds.
And yet it's actually going to be harmful.
Again, if you're a renter or your worker, it will harm
you, cause this legislation is very task oriented.
Thank you.
Empowered.
Next up is Karl and then Elizabeth.
Hello.
Good afternoon, members of the commission.
My name is Karl Nelson.
I am a 15 year
old resident,
a renter
and a member of the Cedar Crossing tenants Association.
I'm also here today to express my disapproval
for the diminishment of ethical standards
for city Council votes.
I would like to point out that
even in this room, which is not a legislative body,
one member was found
voluntarily recuse himself
for ethical considerations earlier in this meeting.
Many city employees have to recuse themselves from
things that would result in personal interest.
And I find it interesting
that the actual legislative body of the city
council is now trying to change rules
which voters elected them under to suit their own needs.
I'd also like to point out that this occurs
in the context of a story that the executive director
of this commission recapped in the beginning.
It occurs in the context of attempts
to change the minimum wage, attempts recounted,
and it occurs in the
context of an upcoming vote about renter protections,
even in the most charitable
interpretation of this action.
This poses the appearance of corruption,
and I think the ethical boundaries,
the ethical concerns of this
commission should take that into account.
The appearance of a corruption is not, of course,
the same thing as corruption, but even public trust in things
like the City Council and Ethics Commission
need to be served by by the appearance.
With that in mind, I guess I yield
the rest of my time to the floor.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. Girl.
Elizabeth Stanton, Snacks and Class O'Connor, 38.
And Carol.
I apologize for being late.
And there's more to my attention.
Just a few days ago,
I am impressed with the eloquence
that everyone has spoken to this subject today.
And I don't I feel like I don't need to repeat.
I positions have been well shaped by others.
They'll decide this.
I will certainly be
communicating with my council member
about my position, about this and that.
I think that I, with these things come out.
My first question is who benefits from this?
Who benefits by removing this?
It's like it seems to me
we continue to drift toward
meeting the needs of the privileged
and not looking at the impact of what this is going to be.
See, I'll continue to treat the homeless problem
in the reverse problem
like a cosmetic.
So I think enough has been said by other people
and I will leave it at that.
And thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Elizabeth.
Final commentary eight and Carol,
thank you.
This commission,
I have never been to you, but I have been
read about in the news.
I remember, for example, when
I Councilmember once had something of a conflict
and while I respected her political goals,
I understood why this commission needed to
voice that, that there was a problem.
And the same applies here.
I'm sorry. My name is Aden Carol.
I'm secretary of the vote.
46 Democrats.
I live in District no.
And I and I want to emphasize
the importance of
respecting the voters
when they voted for district council members
in 2015 in
my first election with the understanding
that they would only have three council members,
they could vote for it instead of nine.
And that conflict of interest would obviously need to apply
that.
This is not something that came out of nowhere by surprise.
The Council right now,
it needs
to hold itself to the same standard as anyone else
and that
this is not only about tenants,
but that is an important part of this, the extent to
which everything is political and we try to be fair
to minimize the amount of that.
But the regulation of conflict
is inherent in in our society is is part of what
justice and three things neutral is about.
So thank you.
Thank you, Eden.
Thank you to all our public commenters today.
I'm really impressed and heartened by the degree
of civic participation in see those of you
who have come today to voice your views.
Is there anyone online or in the room who didn't
get an opportunity to offer public
comment, who still wants to
hearing none.
We'll move to.
I suppose now would be the best time
to give commissioners an opportunity to weigh in.
Well, I should also say
that Councilman Warnock, Councilmember Moore is present.
We don't really have anything on the agenda
for her to speak, but I know that she's
heard your comments as well.
And I
there's an opportunity
for public comment at the council meeting
and the committee meeting tomorrow.
But now I'd like to turn to the commissioners,
the members of this commission.
We've had an opportunity to review now
two different versions of this proposed legislation.
There are some of our
input has been accepted and.
I think certainly the new version of the bill
is much clearer than the earlier version, but
there's maybe four calls to be set about it.
So I'll open the floor
and you can jump in or raise your hand.
And I'd like to offer their views.
I Believe Commissioner Short has had to leave.
So we have Commissioner Hawes
online I think I saw Bobby fortunately
is well positioned Porch
so I think it would just be Commissioner Hawes
or Commissioner Basile who wishes to share this point.
I can certainly weigh in.
Chair McHale as I, I wanted to echo the Chair's
appreciation of all of the comments delivered today,
both in person and online, and so thoughtful.
The you're taking the time to make the appearance
that today's meeting is very much appreciated.
I also want to note
that my experience on the commission,
I think my fourth year
on the Commission, I have not seen this number
of public comments in response to an issue.
This is unprecedented in my experience.
So I think that that's important.
I appreciate your taking the time to deliver comments to
the Commission,
and I think it's important those comments also
because it's just your views
and it really appeared on the makers here
that those comments also be delivered
to the Council on the Hill
and I expect the Council member more
is taking that under advisement.
But I think it's important that folks express themselves,
that they have these concerns to their council members
as well, to ensure
that the ultimate decision makers hear their voices.
I do have a chance to review the profiles pool of.
I personally was
surprised by the revisions.
I thought they perhaps
represented a disconnect from the comments
that were delivered by the Commission
to the Council in our March meeting.
But again, we are not the decision makers, so
I look forward to the testimony which I believe kills us
tomorrow before the Legislative Commission.
Yes, yes.
And see what comes from that.
Thank you, Commissioner. Last
question about some thoughts.
I'll just add
that I too, appreciate all these public comments, both,
especially those of you who showed up today.
And I know that at least one of
you also submitted a contract, which I have here.
I have about 30 pages of public comments, which I did
read, and I believe they're all of the same spirit of the
the presentations that you all made today.
I made some notes
of some important points that each of you have made.
And again,
this isn't a legislative body, but we are subject
matter experts.
So I'm here to interpret this draft,
which I also have read and answer questions.
And I to encourage you all to submit
comments to the city council if you haven't yet.
And I look forward to
that meeting tomorrow. So,
you know,
my my views, I think I'm still so sorry.
Councilmember Moore, please put
your muted I think
you hear me now. Yes.
Okay.
Thank you for the opportunity.
I won't go into all the details,
but just wanted to just briefly address the point
the commissioner has made, which is the version that I
brought to the commission, was
quite different from what we have here today.
It was
a modified recusal approach which took the definition
of a community of interest or support.
And it was a very interesting discussion that we have.
And I attempted to go back and incorporate the comments,
and I'm sometimes
and what I I'll just say as an objective to do that,
I kind of came back to the same position
that motivated what I believe so far.
And that's an issue of concern, which is
how do you pass these very difficult questions,
Who gets to pass
and how do weren't sure that we are not casting the net.
So why the people who were elected to represent
those particular voices that are somewhat
sometimes a minority the are not disenfranchized.
So I to I just want to be clear that until we share
the concerns of the public office to not be,
we should not be there for personal gain.
But we also have to balance that with making sure
that all the voices are and people are not Disenfranchized.
So really I struggled to try to address that in the version
and so ultimately decided to go back to this
position of full disclosure in the hopes that the amount
of sunshine and transparency will actually increase
and that we thought that was very similar today.
We were
very proud to have two voices in the city
who have no compunction, nor should they, about holding
their elected
officials accountable
and demanding that they act in certain ways.
And so I certainly think that while not perfect,
that this would allow for, but certainly would allow,
she explained to me
the opportunities
that some somebody should be present themselves
to bring that to the
public pension.
And I also would just like to direct the commission
and make a decision today that I would like
to direct you to the Commission on Ethics
for the Health of the House that's going to vote on the 22
under when talked about policies underlying disclosure.
And I think it so succinctly captures
the attention and the struggle that of homeless
by these kinds of ethical rules
and the drafting of them and ultimately why
they landed on the full disclosure approach
rather than a disqualification approach, which is effectively
what the Council is effectively in this publication.
And one other thing
that I'd just like to bring to everyone's attention is
that we need to look at the changes in this,
the changes that they're
proposing this legislation
within the context of full context of the presidency
as well as within the context of the state ethics rules.
So there was nothing State or CW still continue to evolve,
and the Archie W's are quite strict
about governing, securing special privileges
or exemptions, receiving gifts, one or two of these
having a business or professional activity
that would require exposing confidential information
and disclosing confidential information
or using that for personal gain.
And as you all know and as often as an elected
well, can you see does a good job of enforcing
ethics, regulations and laws and nobody wants to
see additional or just more of that in the US.
You see, these things will continue to control
acceptance of things about this continues
to remain competitive interest in city contracts
very much an area of concern
about well, if you run the line pocket,
that's how you do it through the city.
Being involved in the creation and awarding of
city contracts. Yeah, we have
divided us in so much and we use
and also the improper use of official position.
So I just wanted to be clear that, yes, this is a
this is definitely a fundamental shift, but
please be mindful of both the
guardrails and constraints and limitations
that will continue to exist,
both in the associate and in the father of our CW.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
Councilmember Moore.
Chairman,
just a submission, but I appreciate Councilmember
Moore's perspective, but I guess I'm
a little bit troubled because it seems like,
as several people have raised the issue,
that good government governance excuse
me, is a particular concern right now.
That's what we've discussed in the public comments
and the feeling of of trust and faith
that elected officials are going to act
in the interests of their constituents
as opposed to their personal interests.
And I think a lot of the
enforcement mechanisms that you mentioned
are after the fact enforcement mechanisms.
They're mechanisms that would be deployed
once action has been taken, a complaint has been filed
or some sort of enforcement action has been instituted,
which I think is
folks, I feel is
know the forces look the part in those instances.
So I think my concern is against the good governance
perspective and the perception
of many of the voters
with this change that we're seeing a change,
especially in the current climate.
Councilmember, where I want to give you
an opportunity to respond if you if you want.
Yeah, no,
I definitely appreciate the concern and I appreciate
the idea that those are all prospective remedies.
But I think that problem is that, again,
when you get into the weeds in a way
that's always having to get into the weeds,
you know, we have the exemption for your member.
You share this interest
with a substantial segment of the population.
Well, that's where it gets tricky
when you look at the advisory opinion.
1001 How do you define a substantial segment
of the population?
Is it the entirety of the population themselves?
Is it the population of small business owners,
or is it even more narrow?
Is it small? Is it restaurants?
Is it's all restaurants, is it not for stores?
I mean,
that's where it is.
How do you define financial interests?
Financial interests is defined is a remote interest,
because we also include extended more than the nuclear
family.
So I very much agree
that we need to maintain trust in our public officials,
that we can't just rely on them to be trustworthy.
We have to have rules in place.
So we have to make sure that those rules don't
unnecessarily hamper people's ability to out.
People are left to be able to people who are going to be
adopted or buy
into shared interests with certain segments
of the population.
And they may not be broad segments of those segments
of the population.
Tell us as much as anybody else wants to be heard.
Additionally, when you are electing a representative,
you often are
aware of the problems and you choose to adopt them.
Even if you are not a
member of that group because they want to not vote
on issues they ultimately are.
Disenfranchized.
So I guess I would ask that I would just point out that
it's late to let go forth, just disclosure
or even to get into the weeds of how to define
a substantial segment of you.
Define financial interest.
Then who is doing the defining use of one individual
that's making that decision that's going to apply
to this one potentially affect a broad range of voters.
And on
and how do we best strike that balance?
That doesn't have to change public interest.
And I also think that we need to be careful of this
and how long all parts of this in terms of its own approach,
how many other sections
have done more of the approach that I was the first reading
of it and has worked very well for those two sections.
So there are many ways to address those
and that's important not to,
yeah,
we have to be aware of what's happening at the federal level,
but in some ways the greatest way
to continue to have trust in local
government is for local governments
or the effective
local government to be able to actually solve problems.
We don't always agree
on what's the best way to solve the problem,
but we have to be able to do so.
And the current
rule is and interpret it.
This has not it has not made that possible.
So these are the struggles, the tensions,
the discussions that needed to be had.
Thank you, Councilmember.
I think this does raise
a lot of really important and difficult questions
as the chair of the Ethics Commission,
As a member of the Ethics Commission,
we have to be focused on the obvious and difficult
ethical issues that this bill would present.
And I kind of distilled the problem as one,
the importance of ensuring
that our public officials are elected
officials who are guardians of the public trust,
are always acting
towards the public interest, not for their own pecuniary
private interests
there, and balancing that goal against
potential democratic deficits, of having a member
who doesn't have a true I mean, we're not talking about
someone who has a conflict of interest.
We're talking about the theoretical possibility
of someone who has really a de minimis financial interest
that wouldn't really motivate
a reasonable person to vote one way or another on the bill
and depriving their constituents of that vote.
It's a theoretical possibility, but that's what this Bill is.
We have to view
ethics reform through the lens of an ethical hypothetical,
not through the lens of actual or possible legislation
that might soon come before the council.
And that, I think, presents
the most difficult problem here, that
we're not ostriches sticking our heads in the sand.
We know that there are
important matters of public policy,
landlord and tenant issues and many others
that may or will come before this council
and who gets to vote on them really matters.
That's not what should drive
the council
or any legislative body in deciding
what the best ethics laws going forward are.
That should be driven by what the best principles
of governance are.
And I don't really know what those are.
I mean, there are three different ways
to kind of address this type of problem.
You could go with a very bright line, mandatory
recusal requirement.
That's basically what we have now.
You can have some sort
of adjudicated process or an independent body
or maybe the rest of the commission, the council
decides whether a financial interest rises
to the level of a conflict,
or you could impose a disclosure requirement.
And different jurisdictions
handle this issue in different ways.
I don't think there is one
gold standard from an ethics from a government
ethics standpoint.
And again, that raises
costs and benefits how you're going to go about it.
I'm still grappling with it.
I found the comments here extremely helpful
and illuminating, and I'm synthesizing them
and I will do my best
to accurately them in my testimony tomorrow.
There was a point that was raised as which comments are
in my notes
that perhaps
not making this any change effective
for visiting this council
and having an effective date several years from now.
Me and perspective, in fact, I think it was now said that
perhaps that is one way to mitigate against the appearance
that ethics rules are being changed
solely for the purpose of advancing
substantive policy goals or the opposite, that ethics
rules are being opposed solely for the purpose of advancing
substantive policy goals.
There was also a comment that
disclosure is an adequate because
the average citizen,
the average resident doesn't have time or expertise to sift
through financial records and determine
when a conflict of interest exists.
And if I understood that correctly,
I just want to push back that.
My understanding of the bill is that the council member who
discerns that there's a financial client of finance,
possibly ventures,
has to disclose publicly that there is a conflict of interest
when you're voting.
I was wondering way when you cast your votes
in advance and find out what might be
a conflict of interest or that don't disclose later.
Yeah, I mean, that's a fair point,
like when they're voting in the election, but
given the infinite variety of different legislation
that could come before the council,
even a council member or candidate and him or herself
might not know whether they're going to have
a financial interest on the day of the election.
So but I understand that it's a fair correction.
So you know, again,
I think these raise really important
issues of ethics,
and it's very challenging not to let our strongly held
views on policy matters kind of cloud how we think
the ethics code should look.
But as the Chair,
I'm trying to stay focused on the latter as much as I can,
and unless there are further comments from commissioners,
I think you can move on to the remaining items in the agenda.
And again, thank you to this.
I agree with Fisher has a
public tone and you're welcome to stick around
for the rest of our meeting, which includes very important
updates on our democracy voucher program
and other important things like the
financial interest statement summary name.
I think I'll turn out one over to you.
That was an excellent second chance to share
the financial statement.
Process is done.
We collected all of the forms this year.
We've got them off to all employees already.
We're just looking for some from boards
and commissions like yourselves.
We're trying to run those down now.
We focus our efforts on board and city employees.
We're at their desk,
part of the paycheck, making sure that they can file.
So that's coming down now.
So that's good news.
I don't think I've ever come to the main meeting. My
my zero.
That's I'm okay.
And Rene,
we turn to you for the democracy voucher program. Yes.
So just a quick update.
I've got a chart of candidate activity
that's important is
candidates are still on their way to qualifying.
I think several have already.
They've already issued
just over $900,000.
But we're very much in the swing of things for
getting the candidates ready.
It is filing late.
So Friday afternoon and Monday
we'll go and look and see if it was actually filed
to and make changes based on that.
So we also have a
on the vouchers today.
We've had about 55,000 have been returned
and that represents just over 14,000 people.
I've just heard a few days old circular manner program data.
It's already been updated.
If you turn the document over, there's our standard chart
which shows the number of vouchers coming from
what district they're coming from.
And then by type.
And something that's standing out this year
is that these number of vouchers being used, either
the blue paper vouchers
that come back to our office directly
and then our online portal vouchers being used,
the numbers of those are the same,
and we've never quite had such a close.
The usage between online and paper,
the campaign forms are starting to come
in, so we'll see what that looks like.
But I just want to point out
that there was a bit of a surprise this year.
Outreach and media activities are picking up.
There's a list of some of the hours activities
Ben and I have participated in
as well as Main, some upcoming activities.
One is going to be a big media launch,
which is really encouraging us,
encouraging the public to contact us
if they can't find their vouchers.
And we've also, which includes a bus ad.
So we're seeing the busses around still,
but we've got some new ones
coming up about replacements and there's an image down below
and that is the basics.
Any questions put?
This table is, as of today,
the candidates table
is a couple days ago. yes.
And I don't know that anyone's in here, so.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Bernie, this is a
and when
it closes out with your report
by state law, by email or end of this week,
I think that really sums up
and I do want to introduce Kai here.
He's our newest member will be before the council
on June 12th.
He's on the call.
Kai, do you want to introduce yourself or
why don't we wait until next?
All right, introduce time just in case,
you know, the council changed its mind.
All right.
We will unveil you yet through your camera teaser.
It's easier to bring people back.
The next step is. Yes.
Yeah.
Look, I make it.
Yes or no.
Stuck at these confirmation is like,
okay, well, I'll get well.
I come back to the gym again, we'll make you come back
and we'll do a formal introduction.
Sorry about that.
All right.
Well, yeah, I just want to thank you, Mr.
Chair, for running a very good meeting today.
I think everything seemed like helped Kurds.
I think that was very positive.
They certainly were.
And I'll see you tomorrow. Yes.
And I encourage anyone still there to tune in to the
governance and accountability
Committee meeting tomorrow.
And is it true?
Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
And unless there's any further, we stand
adjourned.
Thank you.