Okay, great.
Okay. All right, so I guess I will call this meeting to order? Yes. This is the 6 May 2020 6th meeting of the Seattle Ethics and elections commission.
I'm vice chair of Vivian vessel. I usually run these, which is why I acting like this. It's exciting to get an opportunity. Thank you and I appreciate the encouragement exciting to get an opportunity to run this meeting. So, yeah, I guess we'll get started, so I'm sure everyone has a copy of the agenda.
Meeting the order. So, yeah, the most important order of business I guess we will introduce the commissioners, the new commissioners, so Wayne I'll have you teed that up and then I guess I'll let them introduce themselves. Yes, the three new commissioners are Evan Smith who's here with us.
I need a canada wall and Andrea Lino. They are both from the mayor's office or mayor's appointees and Evan is a council appointees, so we need him to introduce themselves. Yeah I would love for y'all to introduce yourselves. So you're in the room so you're behalf. Sure, sure. My name's Evan Smith. I just joining.
With Kai, we've got Gary here and we're missing him in the middle, we had this road smith lined up. I yes, Council Pointy, I I was with Starbucks for a long time in a variety of roles there. I'm now currently doing startup thing in my parts of my background, I spent a lot of time working in the private sector or in the public sector, both in school districts as well as worked at.
Fema and post disaster New Orleans and so kind of 1st half of my life public sector primarily education roles, and then retail has been really the the last 20 years or so, so really honored to to be here with all of you. So thank you. Wonderful. Welcome. Let's see, so on your Webex, let's go to Andrea Leno.
Hi, yes. Hi. Yes, I am excited to be here. My name is Andrea Lino.
Let's see, my, my, I guess that my background is I am currently in this the same job that I have had since I releved from lawschool in 2015, so it's not as impressive as it's gonna be shorter than that but I have been working at the Northwest Immuneral Rights project as an immigration lawyer.
I was working mostly with individuals who are detained in the Tacoma facility who are facing the portation and now I am in a new unit in the Seattle office, so I'm just a few blocks from you guys currently and yeah, that's basically it and I'm excited to be here.
Welcome. It's good to have you got I need that handle all.
Hi, my name's Anita. I am currently a lawyer at Pacifica. I work with Kai, and prior to that, I ran public defense in King County for eight years and then worked as a public defender prior to that for most of my career. So I'm relatively new to the private sector. The public sector is sort of where I've spent most of my life, and I'm glad to be here.
Great, welcome. And part of my call to order was also to introduce the commissioners that are already here. So commissioner Robbie Forge is here as well as commissioner Kai Smith and we'll share, we'll share more about ourselves on another occasion, but I think we should probably jump.
Right into the meeting, but thank you to our new members for introducing yourselves and it's really good to have we were scared that we were gonna be a very, very scarse commission and it's just good to have you anyway, so glad you're here. So the next thing on our agenda is the discussion discussion of a written public comment that was submitted before. We didn't have a meeting last month that was canceled, so I think this was.
Submitted prior to that, I believe director of our next can I have you just briefly go over that? I think we only have one, right? Right. Okay. I believe. Yes. This is the only one. So we received a comment.
Back at the end of March from an individual who's in the ACP, which is the address confidentiality program, and she was encouraging us to find some way to keep their name out of the public record. Could that be possible? And I, if you saw I just basically said like.
Campaign finance disclosure, this whole system being forced is really rooted in transparency. So that is really, there's NO other goal more important to campaign finance regulation other than transparency. So I just pointed that out and just I said I would bring it to you and if you really wanted to take up her cause, their.
Plus you could do that, so.
Yeah I appreciate that summary and obviously I'm assuming this the person who submitted this comment is not present in this meeting. If they are, feel free to speak up Due to the nature of it, I.
Presume they wouldn't be here. Yeah, I don't know if others on the commission, had a chance to review that and had any just kind of thoughts on it. Normally, the commenter was here we would speak with them directly, but I'm not sure if anyone wanted to share anything on the record.
Okay. I personally thought it was it was a valid concern. I mean we're a unique jurisdiction in that we're viewing with a democracy after program 1st and it's wonderful that we have that and it's.
You know, it's a great opportunity for people to participate in the process who otherwise would be able to, so, I would presume that the democracy voucher program is possibly well now they've been made aware of it, if not before of this issue and maybe.
Some brainstorming could also occur on the program as to how this could possibly be not necessarily addressed directly but explained to people in such an eloquent way that you've explained it, Wayne and just, you know, maybe information like that put out to the public people to be aware.
It would take a change in the law to satisfy this person's issue. I mean it's built into the democracy voucher program. Again, because it's public money, there's even a heightened interest in transparency, so all of the names are out there and like I said, anything that would.
Shield this person's name from disclosure would require a change to the code, so I'm glad you were able to share that information with them. Thank you. I would probably also changed the state line, right? State laws for disclosure and state law are also going to trump the code, sorry.
I think the state law, I'm sorry, but it might actually be I think for contributions for a hundred dollars or less, you can just report those as anonymous contributions, they're not required to itemize those. So it's just democracy voucher program that requires to be itemized every cash region we get.
I think that person cc'd their representative information. So I guess we will go on to the next item unless anyone else has any questions or comments.
Great, I think if I see very quickly, I think on the record, you know, this person isn't here and they may read the transcript afterwards I just wanna reflect that there's a true sense of empathy in the room for this person and the situation the conversation because they're not here, I just want to make sure that's reflected in the in the minutes.
Appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, so we have some action items. The 1st is confirmation of new seven. So once again I will turn to director of to introduce. And I will Introduce.
He's our 1st new employee since Neelam Shaw joined us like five or six years ago now. So we don't do much hiring here. We're a very stable staff. So Momadu is the newest. He's a lawyer but the University of Wisconsin. He's worked in Seattle office of civil rights for quite a number of years and also with the public defender's office before that, and yeah, I'm just really happy to have. He survived a very rigorous.
Hiring process. See you. Well, 1st I just want to say thank you and I'm glad to be here. Yeah, one's basically tackled up all of my introductions for him so there's NO need to add more, but happy to talk with anyone if you have any questions about.
My me or my background, but excited to join the team. Hopefully I'll also be here for a long time. Yeah, that'd be good. That way you don't have to do more hiring. Do I understand that today is your 1st day? One exciting day.
And under I should say under 3.7 oh .1 hundred section G that's your that's your enabling ordinance, you have to confirm all the hires I think so we're not just bringing this to you out of for NO reason that's part of the losses you have to confirm my hires. Yeah, so on that, can I get a motion from any commissioner to confirm.
Staff member mom and job.
I moved to confirm. I said that.
And ask for a second. So we got a second. All in favor say I or raise your hand, but.
Hi. Hi.
2345 eyes, six eyes. So all of those same day. Now, so the motion passes. Okay, so at this point, ok, so we have a request of the F one annual modification exam from Erica Evans. I'm not sure if Erica's present.
If I see we do have a anonymous caller not someone else looks like maybe not. So, this is another one where maybe I'll have you run that just briefly. So this is under our coordinance you have the authority to just grant.
A modification request on the same grounds as it's granted by the PDC, and I think that's what we're hoping you're gonna do here. Erica Evans, she's the new city attorney, she has a protection order I believe, so and I believe there's just for obvious reasons she would not like her address to be in the public record. So I think we're just recommending you do what the PDC did and grant her this modification.
For the record while she was a candidate, she made this request and the commission approved it then. Yes. So, this is 2nd time she's been before the commissioner, so her appeals but before the commission. In your questions of learning.
Get this new role, the she is elected city wise. If someone were to ask for this, is there still level of vetting if they were running perhaps in a district that they are eligible for that district? I think we can always, we can always confirm that. Yes. So you, you would.
Okay, great. Yeah. So this is also something that the commission would have to confirm. So, can I get a motion?
To confirm the annual modification requests. I move to get a second.
Second, ok.
And all in favor saying I or raise your hand ok all opposed saying name and any extensions? Yeah. Commissioner Hi Smith and Commissioner condo well. I'm sorry I didn't see whether you voted or Dan.
I would have yeah.
Characterized mine as recusing statement.
Okay, that helps. Thank you. Alright, so with that one recusal. Okay, so we had 1234. So we had five days, we had zero naves and one recusal. So on that.
Okay Lost what I will go to next. So, we, the commission. Oh please for that.
So let's move on to the next item. So we have, there was an appeal of a, the director's dismissal of a specific case that I think we were all sent and hopefully had an opportunity to review in advance.
What I for this very briefly I'm going to have sir Gary Smith just give a quick overview. Sure. I'll keep this up for the for the commission. So mr. Chaplin, who was here remotely originally filed a complaint alleging that mr..
Marco mcntyre violated the elections code and he sent that he was director of the Office of the economic development city. And he sent an email to his fellow directors asking for their personal email addresses. And following that he sent an email from his.
Personal email to those directors implying that the request was for for some purposes for coordinating assistance with the election campaign in theously emailed the complaint with the BDC.
And the PDC initiated an investigation, mr. Barnette deferred further consideration of that complaint and told the PDC completed its investigation and determination. PDC ultimately concluded that the allegations and the evidence did not warrant while it appeared there might have been a minor.
Violation of the elections code that the the violation did not warrant further investigation or enforcement proceedings that did issue at the entire time. And then based on that Misternette executive Directors dismissed the complaint that had been submitted to the SEDC that dismissal has now been appealed by mr. Chapton to the SEDC under the code and the SEC rules.
So the commissions must now determine whether to affirm the dismissal, reverse the dismissal, and essentially three band to the executive director for further further proceedings or modified the decisions, those are three options.
And it also warns to mention that the commission's review of this matter is under the standard of a rational basis review for the SCC rules, which is a relatively differential standard to the executive director's decision.
So it's up to the commission to to decide and the commission would also be justified in convening in a closed session if it felt that was necessary for a full discussion Or also received legal. I expect that the chair would want the vice chair would want to.
Provide an opportunity for the appellant and the executive director to present their, their case. So I'll refer to you about how long you might want to provide and who would go 1st. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much for that.
Very in depth in depth on a high level description and hopefully we've all had the opportunity to read the materials. So yes, just to quickly talk about what's gonna happen next. So, the since the appoint is here.
Mr. Chapman will give him 10 min, you know, 10 min total to speak, to present this case, some of which can be reserved for rebuttal, and then we'll give Director Barnette 10 min to explain the decision that was made, and if time was reserved for rebuttal, we'll go back.
To that. Based on the information presented, the commission can either go straight to a vote or again can go to a closed session if it's determined was by a judicial matter or legal advice's thought. So we go off the record, have a closed session and we can discuss.
And then come back together. So on that yes. Are we're are we allowed to ask questions or to yes. Yeah, so we can ask commissioners can ask questions of the appellant and of the director.
The question is, is that included in the 10 min? I don't think so. That won't be included in the 10 min. So for timekeeping, I think I'll keep the time.
And alright. And I believe, so on this, let's just have mr. Chapman present his case and we have read your appeal mr. Chapman and please proceed with any information you would like to provide.
Alright, thank you again to the commission for hearing yet another appeal of these, these matters. So on 22 January director Barnett told me that my complaints were being investigated.
And confirm that the SEC administers Seattle elections code. The PDC has assured me that they investigate only violations of state law and that the SEC investigates violations of Seattle law.
On 26 February, Director Barnette dismissed the complaint without any providing any evidence of investigation beyond reading the pdc's letter concerning the case. Again, the PDC administers state law, not city law.
The PDC didn't investigate Seattle law. This is what Director Barnette is supposed to do. In his dismissal, 2nd reason he gave was that mr. mcntire is NO longer a city employee and Bruce Harold lost his bid.
So let's just summarize the complaint. One, Mark macintire used city resources to benefit Bruce harold's campaign, the PDC found that he did. Two mr. mcntre uses position for the private benefit of the Harold campaign.
This is a Seattle law. I do not believe that the PDC was investigating Seattle law. Three mr. mcntre asked the city to ask to put city employees in a mailing list used to solicit campaign contributions. Again, this is an issue of Seattle law.
Bruce Harold may have solicited contributions from employees who worked for him, which is count counter to SEC policy. Directors Barnet, Director barnet's dismissal addresses only the 1st complaint.
That mr. mccentury used city resources the benefit Bruce Harrows campaign, and again without doing any investigation beyond what the PDC did. His dismissal has NO rational basis because it's not rational to dismiss a case without investigation. It's not rational to dismiss a case without regard to.
The violations alleged in it. It's not a rational basis to dismiss a case beyond a lack of of employment as the law doesn't make a provision about continued employment. It is not a rational basis to dis dismiss a case based on the fact that the candidate lost.
As the laws make NO such provision, and in fact director Barnett has recommended enforcement actions against losing candidates in this very mirroral race. Most importantly, it's not a rational basis to agree that a violation has occurred.
But to dismiss the case. A functioning electrics and ethics department would have had minimum issue a letter to the employee and the candidate reminding them that any use of city resources for our campaign is against the law. It could also at minimum, send a reminder memo to city staff that city resources are not to be used for our campaign.
A healthy elections and ethics department would have investigated whether as the reporting showed, other city employees felt pressured to participate in the campaign. It would have investigated whether the Harold campaign illegally used the contact information gathered by mr. mccentire to solicit funds from city employees.
Director of Barnett didn't take any of these actions Included in my appeal of the dismissal of this case, I lodged an ethics complaint against Director Barnett, which has so far been ignored. By not investigating whether mr. macintire and Bruce Harrow violated seattle elect elections and ethics laws as are alleged in this case, Director Barnett has violated the very law he has he has been entrusted to administer. And I will reserve the rest of my time.
Okay, great. So we'll have 6 min just use four so we'll have 6 min are reserved. Thank you for your comments. Should we allow questions of mr. Chapman now if there are any?
Better question. Does anyone have any questions of mr. Chapman right now? Mr. Commissioners. Mr. Chapman, thank you for it is always say inspiring we see citizens who are serving in a rush will watch the role that you are. So let me 1st just thank you.
For being so dogged with your your concerns here. One one thing that, and you mentioned this as you spoke, it was the 1st time that I heard it I didn't I don't believe I read it in either your initial complaint or the appeal. What, what is the, what is your recommendation or where are you seeking that either seek or PVC or whatever body does? And what I heard you say in your your statement there is that you you are concerned that there hasn't been a warning an official warning that has given been given to mr. Mark.
Or, a reminder to all city employees that this behavior is not appropriate. Is, is that what you are seeking? I didn't read in your memo if there's further sort of what you believe in your interpretation should happen to this person just that your concerns that the the statute was not followed.
My concerns is that there has been NO investigation of the violation of Seattle law.
I, I am happy to provide an opinion about what I think should happen when the Seattle law is violated, but I also don't think that is my role. Fundamentally here.
There was NO investigation of the violations, including, I think most importantly an investigation into the reporting that city employees felt some pressure to participate.
Okay, thank you at this point, it's maybe a good opportunity for director Barnett to explain the decision that was made. Yes.
So I didn't practice this correct mr. Chapman. I didn't practice this year in about that mr. Chapman. And we did do some investigating, I will admit Mark Mark Mayo when he was here, we're gonna be today because he's our new investigator, but Mark did some investigating and Polly did some as well before he left.
So, but I think at the end of the day, why would I find mr. Markham and advise him of what he couldn't use city resources for when he was NO longer the director of the office of economic development? He NO longer had any possibility to use city funds for anything city resources. That's why I did it.
So yes, I don't really I to me like I said, BDC said this I'm saying it, this is not the case that warrants further republic resources. We're gonna see budget crisis, there's everybody's scrambling for money, so I think we gotta use our city resources wisely, and for me, investigating this complaint further.
When we just hired something new, it doesn't make much sense. So that's mine. Okay, thank you, Director Barnett. At this point, does anyone have any questions? Yes, looks like mr. Chapman has a question.
Yeah, and I suppose this will come from my, my 6 min that were reserved. The, the argument that the director is making here is that if you leave city employment, if you lose an election, you can get away with violating the law. I don't believe that as a rational basis for a healthy legal environment, that as long as you leave your employment or you lose, you can do whatever you want. You can violate the laws as long as you're a loser and not a winner.
Can I just answer that? It's you. I think he missing with fact that I think one of the reasons Bruce Harold lost was because of allegations like this one. So he didn't just lose independently of this. I think he lost.
Because of this kind of activity, so to me, I think in a healthy political system, we really let the voters decide, and I think the voters here made a choice that was not being mayor anymore with a lot of these activities, so please Mr., give me a minute.
So I think that, I think voters delivered the ultimate punishment here, so I don't feel there's a need for us. I think our role is to like we step in when political process is not working. We make sure there's transparency that people know what's happening. So we make sure the political process works and here it worked. So I don't think I don't see a role for me in getting.
Entering warnings to people who aren't in a position to even use public resources anymore or doing other kinds of like performative things. So yes, that's where I was. One question I have at director burnette. Are you able to explain it? It sounds like this letter of Referman did go to miss, to mr. mccenturyers. Are you able to.
Explain a little bit more about that. Well, the PDC they issued the dismissal, so that is the letter of record that's all in one document where they say like we're not gonna pursue this anymore, but please, you know, let, let, we're letting you know that what you did was wrong in our opinion, so the PDC did not make any decisions here. The DDC did nothing.
This is a letter from the deputy director as a DDC, endorsed by the director. So that's all this is. And they say, you know, if you violate the login, we're gonna keep this in mind, but that's always the case. I would not have to say that, I will do that. If we have another case involving Markham.
I'm gonna remember we did this so yeah before I let you ask your question commissioner Alino, did you hack your hand up earlier or did I just imagine that?
She's frozen. Oh NO. Commissioner Arino am I pronouncing that right? That's right. And Andrea, that's. Yeah, sorry. Yeah.
Yeah, I just had a question for the director. So would would you agree that or I guess that a question is did was after receiving the complaint, what steps were taken? What, because you did say that an investigation was made, and so can you please explain what what what steps you took after receiving the email?
Well, so it gets complicated because when the complaint came in, I was briefly not allowed to take part that matters related to the mayor's race because my wife.
Was interviewing for a job with Mayor Wilson so with then possible Mayor Wilson about taking a role to do administration. In the end she did but so that's why I gave it to Polly and I think she worked with Mark some and they did ask some questions, but I tried not to ask any questions about it.
Cause I couldn't beat brisping.
So other two individuals were the ones that were, were in charge of investigation they and they they made the conclusion and you were the one that just conveyed that to meet the chapman.
I don't think they made it a conclusion. I, I was one of the ones who reached the conclusion after my recusal ended.
Thank you.
Sorry. Yeah, and I know, and I do see your hand as mr. Chapman. I know Ollie is present at the beginning, it's certainly not required, but if she wants to add anything just in response to commissioner Lena's question, she's certainly welcome to.
Take that as a NO. So this point, oh, so mr. Chapman, you can.
Yeah, a question for the commission, does the Seattle elections and ethics laws state that continued employment and winning an election are pertinent to whether or not there is a finding and enforcement of elections and ethics law?
Let me ask that question one more time.
Does the Seattle Elections and ethics Law state that continued employment or winning an election is a condition for enforcement of the elections and ethics law?
I believe that, well, I off the top of my head at my paradige. I don't think there's anything specifically stating that. I know I believe 44B might be the law that's applicable here, but I'm not sure if you want to say that's correct. I don't think it's determinative whether the individual is employed still employed or not.
Under under thank you under what basis is the director then adding a criteria to the Seattle Ethics and election law that would allow him to dismiss investigation of a case?
Based upon the fact that an individual is NO longer employed or a candidate lost the election.
Will you ask a question again? And I think that mr. Barnett may have answered that, but keep in mind as well that.
According sorry let let me rephrase that. According to the Seattle elections and ethics law, under what basis is the director empowered to dismiss the investigation of an agreed violation of the law based upon the fact that or or enforcement of the law based upon the fact that the individual is NO longer employed or the candidate lost the election?
So just in terms of the commission's consideration with these questions, you don't, you don't need to answer them on the spot. You can consider them as part of your consideration related to this appeal, either in open session or in close session. So don't feel compelled too. Those are valid legitimate questions from mr. Chapman. You don't need to answer them right here on the spot at this moment.
My if I if if i if i may add on to this, this is there there's a couple of fundamental issues here. One, the director is creating, it would seem a new basis for interpreting the law. If not adding to the law. I am thus saying that his, this is at the heart of whether or not there's a rational basis to dismiss this case.
There is there is to my understanding, NO legal standing for the director to dismiss this case, given what he has stated unless there is NO rational basis. Second, just because a candidate has lost doesn't mean that an ethics violation has not happened or is not impactful. Employees who were impacted by these violations may still be working at the city.
Might say very few of them and also we placed your point, these were all peers. If mr. mccaits are been punching down, if he'd been asking his staff for their information, that would be very different from asking fellow directors. They all stood his peers.
So another question. Where in the Seattle Ethics and election law does it state that.
An employee cannot pressure peers or it is ok for an employee to pressure peers to participate in a candidate's election.
I don't think the code specifically fits that, but I do, I think that is a very good question. We can certainly consider it. I think that with, ok, so.
You do have a, is that 3 min left? So you do have three more minutes mr. Chapman, if you want to deliver a rebuttal, I think that after that unless there's questions on that, we may enter the flow session for the purpose of the discussion and deliberation but you do have three more minutes then you can choose to deliver a remotals.
Fundamentally here.
The the the issues.
Fundamentally here the issues are one. Bruce Harold and Mike Mark mccentire violated the law that the director has invented law stating that if somebody has is NO longer employed or has lost the election or is pressuring their peers, we don't need to worry about violations of law. This creates fundamentally.
A situation in which bad actors are embolden to take the risk. If they lose, there's NO, there's NO enforcement. If they win, well they've won.
Fundamentally, the director is stepping outside the bounds of what the ethics and election law have empowered him to do, which goes again to my.
Further allegation in here that I believe that there needs to be an investigation of the director himself and his application of Seattle Ethics and election law. We have heard him state right here that he is inventing.
Novel new ways of applying the law, which is outside the bounds of what he has been entrusted to do.
Thank you, mr. Chairman.
Just one last question and just wondering what would be your answer or if you already covered that right now that you have the 10 min, are you aware of the the principle that is the job train of waste that comes to like public office, like they basically.
Balancing how much resources should be put into an investigation that might not have like what is the like and that's I think that my my my fellow commissioner also asked that what would be the remedy? What are you looking? And I understand that it is the principle of like showing by example that this is something.
And that they shouldn't be allowed to other employ employees, but putting in mind that like this is would be time to take the to do the investigation what what would you perceive to be the remedies or how would you answer that this is not a waste of of of the of of the of time and and to put into the investigation? I don't know if my question makes sense.
If I can just restate the question to make sure I've I've understood you correctly. The, the question is, given the nature of the violation, given the nature of the case, how much resource should be put into an investigation?
And determining what the violations were and what the potential remedies should be. Is that, is that I lost.
I think that you yes, I think I'm taking into consideration that if if resources would not be an issue, probably the answer would be different, but like taking into consideration that resources are something that we also need to consider.
I think that what we have seen repeatedly in the case of Bruce Harold is somebody who has skirted around the edges of ethics violations for years and has never been materially held into account for that. And that had, that had embolded him time and again and much of this was under the director.
Directors watch. In a case like this, at minimum, the director could have issued himself a letter from the city of Seattle to.
Both macintire and Harold stating you have violated the law. This is a reminder that you have violated the law and that is not acceptable, as well as provided a a memo to city employees remind.
Finding them again of the law, and the requirements of the law so that city employees understand one that they are not to use city resources for campaigns. Two, they're not to pressure fellow city employees to participate in campaigns.
And most importantly, three, that the Seattle of Ethics and election Commission is a commission with teeth that will stand by and investigate cases in which employees feel that they are being pressured to participate in a campaign which they may not support.
Without these actions, it employees are left without feeling like they have backing from an ethics and election commission. Without this, the next bad actor who comes along is going to feel embolden to take action. And so yeah.
That's time that you can finish your sentence.
I, I I feel that there is a, I I feel that there is a path between doing nothing and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an investigation that the director were he so motivated, could have easily found. Thank you. Thank you.
At this point, the commission will enter a closed session. The purpose of discussion and deliberation matter.
We anticipate I'm not sure what we anticipate, but I'm going to I'm gonna anticipate the 1st session will last about I'm gonna say 10 min, we can always come back and ask for more time. So after 05:00 P.M. we'll come back and ask for time.
So this will just be the commissioners and legal advisors and the commission will return to an open session to announce any final decision related to this. All right. I am pausing recording at 04:51.
Yeah. So That's Okay so are we all back in? Okay, so we are, I will, I guess.
Three call this meeting back from from a break there at five oh 9pM. Let's see. So the sole question before the commission.
Oh yes yes, ok. So the question was whether there is a rational basis for the dismissal of this complaint. So at this point, I'll take a motion, I'll entertain a motion to either affirm, modify or reverse the.
The director's decision that dismissed this complaint. Is there a motion affirming, modifying or reversing this decision? I make a motion to affirm. Okay.
Second, second.
Okay.
Was that commissioner Kai Smith seconded?
It's correct.
Sorry, is there a way to move the screen so we're not blocking Kai's screen there? No. Just so you know, we can't see your face. You can make faces back.
That's your law.
All in favor of affirming the director's decision dismissing this complaint, say I or raise your hand.
Okay, I believe that's unanimous all have already mades. Were there any extensions? Okay, so the motion has passed. With that I'd like mr. Smith to just provide a couple of marks. Yes during this this proceeding mr. Chapman reference that made against actually the executive director related to this, this whole issue and I just wanted to mention that.
We I didn't discussed that with the commission chair and we had postponed further action on that until we had a potential person who could was in a position to to consider that and it wasn't put to obviously the person who was the subject. So wanted to just assure mr. Chapman that that wasn't being ignored.
And that that it is essentially a consideration. So to be determine how how that's resolved, then we'll be discussing city attorney's office for folks, the essence of that. Okay and will mr. Chapman be let knowing? Yes.
Okay. All right, thank you. Are there any questions anyone has at this point? So I think we're gonna move on to our next agenda item.
Which is oh adoption of the 4 March 2026 regular meeting minutes. All right, so I know that meeting, but I think we've all had the opportunity to review those.
Is there a motion to adopt the 4 March 2026 meeting minutes?
I'm going to move to adopt these meeting minutes. Actually I guess I should have asked if there were any corrections needed I think mr. Kai Smith.
Maybe the only one who was present? Oh, nope. Commissioner was there as well. Did either of you have anything that needed to be added or changed or commented on for those meeting minutes? I do not.
I do not. Okay.
So I've moved to adopt them. Is there a second?
Second. Okay.
All in favor say I or raise your hand. Looks like, looks unanimous. Oh yeah sorry I apologize. Commissioner Smith is obstaining.
So motion passes, so the meeting minutes have been adopted. Next item thank you all. So we do have three discussion items.
We will start with the democracy Voucher Program levy work group that be introduced by Renee or So this is a work group that was called for by the ordinance that renewed the levy last year for the next ten years.
And it's just assimply a measure to get.
Some thoughts from the community about what they think of the program and there are other ways to improve it. So what we've done so far is we've put together a list of all the people to be interviewed as part of this process. It's campaign professionals, it's winning candidates losing candidates.
Community good, good government advocates, so we're gonna be talking to all those people, not us, but our consultant. We'll be talking to those people and gathering their feedback and then preparing a report which they're gonna present to the city council and the mayor and and as well to the commission. So that work is ongoing. We have also hired a consultant. We're paying just $10000.
To uncommon bridges, which is noeld frames and.
Andre's Mantia's consulting firm. I'm not sure if you've heard of it, but they do a lot of government consulting here in this space in this area. So we're contracting with them for $10000, and that's really where things stand. So we did have a kickoff meeting yesterday with the uncommon bridges. I should point out my wife.
The one who's now working for the county. There was a while where she was an independent consultant, she did some consulting work along with the bridges. She was not employed by them, but she had to work hand in hand with them, so, so that's why Renee's done most of the contract work, all the contract works.
That's all I really have thought. Hey, can I ask you a quick question? I know Noel Frame does not elected in the city, but she is an elected person that be able to be.
At some level, even if it's just $10000, I don't know. What feels about it? Yeah, NO. The the city resources are paying an elected consulting practice, right? If her.
And I know she I think it would feel very different if she was actually a council member. Right exactly. But there, I don't know if there's something odd to me about an elected person having work.
That is paid directly by the city. I think if you're, I don't know if you're if you're running a nonprofit I know a number of electeds who who knew maybe they they apply for grants and there's a little bit more of a, I don't know a different process. So maybe I have maybe that's what I'm noodling because I'm hearing this is what was the process.
That's by which we help.
Frames versus another group could do this work. There's really how much they've done for the city. They do a lot of contracting for the city council already in the mayor's office. They did the mayor's transition, so they do a lot of that kind of work and so I think heard their name came up immediately from all the people in the room, so yeah. I really had anything.
Thank you for that question. Let's see, so I guess on that note, you will get the report to see the actual program.
I think commissioners have all seen it but so this would be updated during the election cycles on the activities. It's a small election year. We still only have that I'm aware of, three candidates have filed with the city.
To run, the three of them are in the voucher program. Two of them have qualified to receive funding and they have received at least a hundred and $6000 to date. I just updated that number today so sorry it's already grown. So vouchers are coming in. Candidates are out there collecting campaign replacement forms.
Our online portal is still up and running and being used. It's just still a little bit of a quieter year than we might expect to see.
In the coming year, then really upcoming dates, so this is filing week, so candidates to continue to be involved in the program must file to run for office this week.
At the end of this week, Polly in our office will look at all the reports and make sure that we've contacted anyone new who's shown up and hasn't been on our radar to let candidates know that they do have until 22 May to decide to use the democracy adoption program but at that point it would be close to them so.
We do do a little, looking around to make sure that everyone is aware that the program does have a deadline to enroll, does not have a deadline to qualify. The primary's coming up and also just a update, we have contracted in addition to our four outreach partners.
With the city's Department of Neighborhoods community liaison program and they've been out and about in a community they've been sending us photos and updates, so it's been exciting to watch the areas they've gone to. I think early on we talked about trying to get our feet on the ground in district five.
And the liaison then our outreach partners have already been able to do a significant amount of that and then Fed and Jennifer will be attending more events as they start popping up. Any questions about these activities?
So this is finally new week, do you anticipate there being at the last minute lots of candidates or is that something that historically has happened? I don't know. And it's special election at this trick, it's just.
It's just a little unicort of it of a year. Yeah. We've got good amount of funding available, so it's open. You have any questions, comments? All right, hearing them, we'll move on to the next item, which is leading.
Executive director of support.
All right, so the financial interest statement process is drawing to a close here, it's winding down today got the last city employee. So every city employee who's required to file all 2173 of them has filed. So that's great news. Happy to have all the employees cleaned up now I think we're just going after the boards and commission.
Just Making sure that we get the rest of the world. So that's great news. I'd like to thank Cliff Dugan who Cliff Dugan who managed to process for our office, did a great job. So yes. And I think the other thing we should mention is we're gonna next week next next commission meeting, we're gonna have some public records at OPMA.
Training for you all. I could be delivered by Gary and Joe. So let's look for that in your upcoming meetings during the meeting? Yes, yeah, that will be part of the meetings. Yes. And I can make you come down extra time but the public can join and taken in as well. Exactly.
Yeah, I think that's the, and I'd just like to thank you and as well as Anita, Andrea, and Evan. So yeah, it's great seeing all the new faces, new bloody. Great. Before we adjourn, did anyone else have any comments, questions, or.
Concerns.
Okay. Oh, well I guess just order of business the next scheduled commission meeting will be Wednesday 3 June, same place, same time, so we'll see you all there and then, and with that this meeting is attorney.
Okay Yes.