Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body - Regular Meeting

everyone welcome to the Board of Ethics meeting for July 2nd and I call this meeting to order So let's go ahead and move on to public comment. Item number one, public comment. Can we play the recording, please?

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Callers on. And then item number 2 is to prove the consent calendar. Do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Mister chair. Point of order. Number two is actually a presentation. Oh, I'm sorry. By the city attorney's office.

Sorry. Skipping ahead.

Presentation on prohibited conduct. As we discussed before, Chapter 2.78, Code of Ethics and Conduct, was established by City Council. They had a Board of Ethics and Conduct that applied to the mayor, members of the City Council, and all members of appointed boards, commissions, and committees. The purpose of the Code of Ethics is to achieve fair, ethical, and accountable local government for the City of Riverside. To submit a complaint, a party must either live, work, including vendors and contractors, or attend school in the city of Riverside, unless the alleged violation took place outside the boundaries of the city of Riverside and the complaining party personally witnessed or observed the alleged violation. Elected officials shall refrain from appearing on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the city council. In addition, appointed members of boards, commissions, or committees shall refrain from appearing before their own board on behalf of the private interests of third parties. Examples of advocating for the private interests of a third party include a planning commission member speaking during public comment before their fellow board members advocating for the approval of a housing project being developed by a close friend. Another example would be a council member speaking during city council public comment advocating for an eminent domain project that will affect a relative's commercial building. A third example would be a board of ethics member speaking during public comment advocating for a council member who is being investigated for committing a prohibited conduct. And there are some exceptions. Exceptions to the prohibited use of city resources by public officials include routine or ministerial inquiries on behalf of constituents, such as asking about a municipal service. Another example is speaking on behalf of an organization that they are a part of, such as a homeowner's association or nonprofit, as long as they don't cross the line into being compensated and lobbying or explicitly leveraging their official title for private gain. If a third party's interest is part of a broader community-wide policy decision rather than a specific localized private benefit, officials can advocate for the overarching measure. And does anyone have any questions?

Yes.

Can I? Yeah, I can hear you. Yes. I have a question on the, hold on, let me go back. the advocating and advocating on the third party interests, um, If that could be explained a little bit further, another example of that, what would that consist of?

It's usually being done for either financial gain or for someone you know. So you're advocating and you're using usually your position where you're familiar with the board because you're on the board, and you're using that position to sway other members of the board to make a decision. on behalf of someone either maybe paying you or it's generally not going to be done for just randomly. It's going to be done for some kind of personal gain or it's because there's some kind of maybe family or friend. There's usually some other connection is the reason why you're advocating for this third party.

Does it always have to be financially? It doesn't have to be financial.

But generally there is a connection between the party you're advocating for and the position you're taking.

Okay. And then one more on the aspect of the complaint qualification. Let's see the violation. I'm personally witnessing some... In other words, it could be outside of Riverside, but the person is connected to Riverside as a resident or worker, what have you, and they witness something that will affect Riverside?

It's an exception where that person isn't. That person doesn't live, that person doesn't work in the city of Riverside. However... the action took place out of the city of riverside and they personally witnessed it and and that will be an exception to them following that complaint in reference to prohibited conduct that you mean the same person who doesn't live in the river so that can correct can put correct that's an exception to that requirement there you know because they actually actually saw they have to actually see actually see it no hearsay or anything okay

I think that's it.

How do you turn this on? Oh, okay. So I think the language on that second part is rather vague and maybe moving forward ought to be changed. Alleged violation took place outside the boundaries of the city of Riverside. I think that could be written a little bit better so that it's easier to understand. And I would like to better understand these exceptions. I don't know what a ministerial inquiry is, and that whole section about who are the exceptions. Can you give some examples on that?

Ministerial is more so you have a member who is based on their, maybe their title, this is something that they are supposed to do. As far as someone has, applied for a permit and they're not really, if the person has checked off all the boxes, it's a ministerial duty to approve that permit. There's no real thought as far as I'm going to deny it based on these other reasons. If that person checked off the, say there's three requirements and that person checked off those three requirements, it would be a ministerial duty for that person to approve it.

Could you give an example of the third party interest as a broader community-wide policy decision rather than a specific localized private benefit? Officials can advocate for the overarching measure.

Trying to think of something that's not political though. Say, for example, the policy regarding whether to allow marijuana dispensaries in the city of riverside because that's already taking place and they're not necessarily speaking on behalf of a particular marijuana applicant they're speaking on whether it should be allowed in general in the city of riverside so that's more of a broader community base but if they were speaking on a particular applicant that on their behalf, that would be more of an issue. But they can speak on, well, I think it should be allowed for whatever reason.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so now we move on to the consent calendar which includes recording the minutes of the June 4th 2026 meeting the excused absence of chair Newman and the excused absence of member fanning was there a motion to approve the consent calendar I Is there a second?

I second.

Let's vote.

Motion carries unanimous.

Now we move on to the discussion calendar and request to play the recording for public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Public comment on this item.

Is there a deputy or interim IG right now?

There is no. They have not appointed an inspector general as of yet.

But what about is there a deputy or interim? I guess not. No. Okay. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Point of clarification. So while there is not a deputy, excuse me, an inspector general, the city is in an active recruitment right now, recruiting for an inspector general, and there is a department already stood up for the inspector general, and that department is known as the internal audit department. Initially, that department was under the... Direction of the city manager now will be under the direction of the incoming inspector general. So there's already a department stood up for that. For that concentration, if you will, for lack of a better term. But once the inspector general come on board, there will be a department already in progress for that charter officer.

So is there someone acting in the process? There is not, no. Is it just the office itself?

It's the office and the employees.

Okay.

I guess, yes, that's the best way to describe that right now. Yes.

Can anything be brought to them at this point, or are they still pending?

They are a fully functional department producing audits as we speak. They have a website. Their audits that they have already concluded are also available on that webpage for your review. So I guess one could argue, yeah, they are fully functional and operating.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Oh, that's why you switched seats with me. Oh, okay.

Let me find my question again now.

So if we had the IG appointing Board of Ethics members, how would we ensure that the IG fairly has representation from throughout the city of Riverside?

so we can still use um the ward system where you know there's at least one individual from each ward um you know given that there's up to nine members obviously um you know we could look at you know just additional applicants you know to see you know how how we would go about that but or how the inspector general would go about that but I'm always open to ideas because right now the way it works is obviously you know there's the City Council appoints members or there's mayoral appointments as well the like the overall city appointments so you know there's obviously there's obviously it happens where there's more than one individual from one ward based on that system already so so chair if i may um

so that the board is following along. You're on page 13 of the packet, and the report prepared by Chair Hernandez identified six areas, six topics for discussion. Perhaps you may want to take those topics one at a time. and make a determination as a board that way? Are you okay with that cadence, Chair Hernandez?

Okay. So the first one, the first topic was the placement of the Board of Ethics on the city charter. Obviously that would move it from just being on the municipal code to the city charter. It would be more difficult. Obviously there's already, there would be a process to, removing the board or dismantling the board of ethics if the city council wanted to go that route because obviously there's already been that discussion uh based on a previous uh you know complaint that we had and so having the board of ethics on the city charter would basically cement the Board of Ethics as part of the City of Riverside. It would just make sure that unless it was deemed by the voters, the Board of Ethics would exist. Is there any thoughts on that? Is there any questions?

I have a question. So if we do that, then if we're in the charter, would we fall under the umbrella of the inspector general? Or how does that work if we get put in there?

So the way we've worked this is, the way we've put this together is the inspector general would work more as like an in-between or a mediator. In a sense, what we're looking for is the inspector general. Obviously, that's one of the points to discuss here is to appoint the Board of Ethics members. But, you know, like the Community Police Review Commission, they're in the city charter. They exist. They're kind of an independent body in the sense that because they're in the city charter. Obviously, you know, the city council appoints them as well. But, you know, when it comes, our situation is a little different because we deal with violations of prohibited conduct by public officials. So for the City Council, I think, to appoint members and then for them to, you know, vote on what the penalties should be based on the violation of the prohibited conduct, just doesn't really inspire confidence in the residents that we truly are a body that holds the city council accountable for their actions.

It's an independence type thing.

Right. Yes.

What I said when our group met was it's kind of like the fox guarding the hen house. Exactly. And, you know, these complaints may not involve council people. Yeah. But they could. And then they have to approve any sort of action that the Board of Ethics may take. And that doesn't actually make sense either.

Well, the majority of the complaints usually, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Denisha, but usually the complaints usually deal with city council. They have dealt with other public officials as well, but for the majority, I believe it's complaints against city council.

So I only have a reference point dating back to 2021 when I assumed office as a city clerk. And I can say that majority of the claims filed since 2021 have been directed toward the city council. I believe one or two were directed at board members or commissioners. Mm-hmm.

I HAD I HAD THE A COPY OF I THINK IT WENT DATED BACK TO 2018 AND IT SHOWS A LISTING OF UM PRE-HEARINGS AND HEARINGS YOU KNOW AND THEIR OUTCOMES AND IT DIDN'T MATTER YOU KNOW BUT UH FROM WHAT I HAD RESEARCHED A BIT THERE WERE SOME BECAUSE THERE WERE EVEN SOME PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS who are no longer there now and they were subject to some of the complaints. And we just kind of thought this process through to really, Facilitate transparency. That's basically what's happening here. I'm not, you know, I don't know if anybody's aware of and I mentioned it before to some of our members here when we meet. Look at the newspaper. Look at, you know, the media. And we're starting to see some problems going on. And even the mayor has a mention of some cases that were going on for years. And I said, for years? Why wasn't it dealt with before? And I think by us kind of reorganizing and having a board of ethics independent of the whole process and working with the inspector general, I think it could bring about more clarity to the public as well as confidence in what we're doing. This is – these steps that we're taking right now are – developmental in in itself these are some ideas that we that I think is really important and and it's based on some of the research that we've already done and some of the you know not to say that we're kind of copying other cities but you know, let's take advantage of that opportunity to see, you know, what they do, how they handle things and how we can work our and, you know, we have it in our own way. And this is the beginnings of that whole process. Oh, go ahead. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, I was just saying I like the way we have it right now, per se. It is more like the foxes guarding the chicken house. And there has been, you know, I've been out there in the field, and I think you all have been out there. and exposed to the public. And some people have been making complaints about the fact that, especially Board of Ethics, do we have any real, you know, teeth in this? And not to say that we're, you know, trying to be an omnipotent entity, but I think the people do deserve some strong representation there. and to feel that confidence that their interest is protected strongly.

The whole point of this is to make it fair for, you know, to level the playing field, not just for the Board of Ethics, but for city council members as well. If, you know, as we go through the report, you'll be able to see where we make certain changes to be able to, so that people don't weaponize the Board of Ethics against city council members, but that there is accountability and more transparency when it comes to public office and you know the the violation of the prohibited conduct. If you know. Let's say we go down to number two is appointment of board appointment of board members. So the points of consideration is independent appointment may reduce Perception of bias or influence could improve impartiality when matters involve elected officials may reduce the need for recusals and improve efficiency. could enhance public confidence in board decisions, may support a more standardized selection process. So those are the main ideas that we had behind having the inspector general appoint the board of ethics members rather than the city council members appointing the board members because we've had those issues in the past where there's certain complaints that are brought and those individuals want or encourage the board members to recuse themselves but as you can see we're not a full body so if certain members have to recuse themselves it's going to be difficult to move forward with a pre-hearing hearing And this eliminates that, as well as any bias that may come from the city council members appointing board members. And it would inspire just more confidence in the board by residents if, again, if the city council members aren't the ones who appoint them. But, you know, if you guys have any other ideas or you're opposed to it or you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to discuss it and bring it forward.

And feel free, you know, if you have any questions at all that, you know, any confusion in this whole process, too, because it is kind of intricate. But at the same time, it does allow for some clarity and allows for some clarity. you know, recourse for the public and, you know, or the citizens that we represent. You know, whatever they have, they have the right, you know, if they have a complaint, they have a right to cite it and, you know, file for it and go through this process that we're trying to introduce. And then they feel confident that there's no bias in their complaints. Nothing?

I have a question, but it's back to number one. What exactly would the process be to have this be included into the charter? So I know these are recommendations that go to the charter review committee, but that committee has to be

rearranged and re put together right that's the first step and then like there's the charter review and then what's what's the next step like how would we become put into the charter so the charter review commission is uh appointed you know it won't the charter review commission appointments won't begin until the beginning of next year so they're appointed by uh you know the individuals apply they're appointed by the city council members And, you know, they review recommendations that are brought to them by city council. And so, you know, once those recommendations are brought to the charter committee, they discuss them, they kind of review them, they hammer out the details. They bring it before a city council. City council approves it. It moves on to the voters in the next election cycle, which I believe is 2028. So it's a process.

So I'm sorry, it was a city council, and who else appoints this charter review commission?

Just the city council members.

So that's an issue right there.

It can be, yes. But, you know, usually the Inspector General came about because of the Charter Review Committee. So that's important to remember as well. So, you know, they, you know, years ago when they put, when the Charter Review Commission came about, they were the ones that were behind getting the Inspector General position before the voters. So, given the other changes that we're proposing, it will helpfully encourage the city council members to understand how important this can be. how it will communicate to the residents that they're trying to be more transparent, they're trying to make sure that the residents have an outlet and a way to be able to bring complaints about public officials who violate the prohibited conduct without weaponizing the Board of Ethics. So that's why we're looking for that balance and any ideas that other members may have to balance it out so that, you know, again, the Board of Ethics serves its purpose to the residents but also is fair to public officials. Any other questions on any of those two points?

No?

Are there any other boards or commissions that are currently under the Inspector General?

Yes. Oh, under the Inspector General? No, I'm sorry. No, there is none.

So we're the only one that would be under the Inspector General? Or we already are under the Inspector General?

I wouldn't say under the Inspector General. More like... I would say it's more of working with the Inspector General so that... Think of the... If we move forward with this and it gets proposed to the Charter and they move forward with it and it goes before the voters, think of... the board of ethics being its own independent body that works with the inspector general yes the inspector general does would in this with these recommendations the inspector general would appoint the board of ethics members but it would be um the majority vote from the board that decides, you know, whether to move forward with a hearing, whether to move forward with certain items. And then, you know, obviously maybe, you know, some penalties, things like that. But the inspector general and the board of ethics would work hand in hand, you know, to, to again, just, carry out what the Board of Ethics, what I believe was created for.

Sorry, I have another follow-up question. So, in theory, it would be, like, let's say, for example, after we get an inspector general and the position is filled, They would be sitting, like, there. So we'd have, like, a third person with us. Mm-hmm. Right? Yes. But that's whether or not we become a part of the charter or no.

Yes.

So if we don't become a part of the charter, then Inspector General's not sitting there, third chair? Or is them sitting there with us a part of their, like, scope? Like, are we giving them... Like, let's say if we become part of the... Like, giving them the option to... instead of city council appointing the board members then the inspector general appoints the board members then they would be there because we're like enveloping ourselves into it or am i making it more complicated i think i'm over complicated i'm sorry don't be sorry no don't be sorry and that's that's why we bring these items for discussion because it's important

To, you know, we may not think of everything right. And those are the questions that we need to be able to think things through more thoroughly because those questions may come up and we may not have thought of them. And that's that's important for people to ask those questions. So I appreciate it.

I get the feeling that we're kind of working alongside the IG, not for, and he, she is assisting us in any investigations that must happen.

Exactly. Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that point, and I'm glad you, you know, it shows that, yes, you're thinking about what we're, you know, considering here. We looked upon, like, for instance, the IG as a, working with them in terms of like where let's say for instance subpoena power and we're also looking at investigative processes to to we were accused of it you know in the past to that the Board of Ethics just took the words of the of the complainants you know at heart and we do but the here here's an opportunity where the the uh the ig office gets a chance to investigate further well let's wait till we get to those items yeah

May I just clarify, because I'd like to clarify for the record, because we want to make sure that the information we provide is accurate. So there was a question by Board Member De Herrera inquiring about the Inspector General's role with the Board of Ethics. And right now you are established by an ordinance, which is in our municipal code, far different than our charter. But the job description that was prepared and approved by city council and included in the recruitment documents for the inspector general one of those tasks is to provide policy investigative and audit support to the board of ethics so irrespective of where you are placed or how you are established as a board the inspector general will still provide supportive services to this board

Any other questions about those items? please don't be afraid to ask questions because that's what this is for and you know obviously it helps provide clarity authority for the inspector general to investigate evidence here we this is where your that whole discussion can come into play and the item number four number three and four so you know that the concept is You know, the inspector general could support more complete and reliable fact-finding, may improve the quality of pre-hearing decisions aligned with the investigative function typically associated with oversight roles. Majority approval would provide a safeguard against unilateral action. could reduce the risk of decisions based on incomplete information. So that's the whole point of putting the authority for the Inspector General to investigate evidence. Again, the Inspector General should be authorized to investigate evidence and present it to the Board subject to approval by majority vote. the board so our idea was you know during the pre-hearing conference was to is if there is evidence presented to the Board of Ethics And we want more information through a majority vote. We can decide what we want more information on if the Inspector General could investigate further and provide more information, and then we would extend through the process of all of this. Obviously, we would, you know... write it out more thoroughly but you know an extension of the pre-hearing conference to come back and and get more information about the you know about what the inspector general was able to investigate and find out because a lot of times We're presented with information or evidence, and in situations, obviously, we weren't there. We don't know for a fact. And it would be nice if we could – to put that onus on members would be incredibly difficult. to try to investigate and go through the process of finding out more information about certain facts, the inspector general already has that ability through a majority of vote. The board of ethics could request that the inspector general do some more fact-finding information and present it to the board so that we can make more, just, you know, just a more complete decision when it comes to, okay, we've been presented with this evidence. And I already know some members here already can go back to a complaint that was brought against some city council members. And it would have been nice if we were able to gather more information before we made a decision to move forward with hearing it would also be nice if it you know these things don't turn into a circus where people use the complaints to you know to make accusations or to politicize the complaints. So, but we'll touch on that later, but the whole process of being able to get more information about the evidence being brought forward, I think is really important. And instead of putting that responsibility on the board, we can, you know, request that body that already has that ability to do that.

So this sentence that says majority approval would provide safeguard against unilateral action, that means I believe the majority of the Board of Ethics approves that, hey, we need more information. Sir IG, Madam IG, please help us out before we move from a pre-hearing stage to a hearing stage.

Right. Any thoughts, ideas?

You know, I think that case that happened when I think it was last year is an important lesson for the members of this board and perhaps a teaching point in terms of why some of these changes might be fair to the city council.

Right, and this is, I mean, the process of this goes back before that, but obviously that complaint brought to light some flaws in the system that we're trying to correct with some of these recommendations. So you're right, it is, you know, obviously, you know, there was... We just believed that there was a better process that could have helped the board make a decision to move forward without having the board question that they didn't have enough evidence, that this or that. So if we're able to gather more information, we could make a better decision when it comes to moving forward with a hearing. Any questions, comments, concerns? No? Okay. So we'll move on to number four, which is use of Inspector General for subpoena power, which kind of goes with the third one. whether the inspector general should be able to exercise subpoena authority with approval from a majority of the board. Points of concession may be necessary to obtain documents or testimony not voluntarily provided could promote accountability and equitable access to relevant information, supports fairness by ensuring all parties are subject to similar evidentiary expectations, majority vote requirement would provide a check on use of this authority common feature in some municipal ethics systems and that comes from the research that we've done as far as you know speaking with other boards and commissions from other cities Any questions, comments, concerns?

No?

If you think of anything, we can always come back to them. Private pre-hearings. whether pre-hearing proceedings should be conducted in private could help prevent misuse of unverified complaints may better protect due to process of early stage at early stages might encourage individuals to file good faith complaints could reduce reputational harm prior to factual findings, allows the board to deliberate preliminary matters without external pressure, transparency would remain at the formal hearing stage.

How does this square with the Brown Act?

That's a good question. I don't think it's an issue because San Diego has this process in place. Do you guys have any information? Because I know San Diego has this process where they have private pre-hearings.

And it works very well because of the fact that It eliminates the possibilities of politicizing and weaponizing any information as though they're putting it into public view. And it allows the entities to still discuss and especially with the board of ethics, uh, still look into the matters and have the, uh, uh, have the privacy to cover that until, you know, we find that there is, you know, there is, you know, merit to the complaint, then that is a public thing. But, you know, there, there've been cases where people just bring up things and it's all in the public and it, um, um, It really puts especially the respondent or the public official in the spot without any real merit to the complaint.

I'm going to have to research that matter. Because most of the time, everything has to be done in public. And I'm trying to think of, there's only a few instances where I know that there may be a choice between having it in public or maybe arbitrations. I've seen that. Sometimes somebody wants to have their discipline held in public or private. Um, but generally this is everything has to be done in public. There's only, there's very few reasons why, uh, matters are allowed to be, uh, done in private, such as like closed session. Um, and they're very limited to even for the council. There's very few instances where they can have a matter that they may want to discuss. And it may be issues regarding somebody might be embarrassed that it can be held in and, um, IN LIKE A CLOSED SESSION TYPE OF INSTANCE, BUT LET ME DO SOME RESEARCH AND I'LL RESPOND BACK.

WOULD IT BE CONSIDERED A PERSONNEL ISSUE? SAY SOMEBODY IS DISCIPLINED, AN EMPLOYEE IS DISCIPLINED, AND... WHAT I'M ASKING IS THE PREHEARING, COULD IT BE CONSIDERED A PERSONNEL ISSUE?

CAN I, IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST ONE CLARIFICATION. THE BROWN ACT IS VERY SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHAT ITEMS ARE IDENTIFIED OR WHAT MATTERS are identified as going into closed session, like potential litigation, anticipated litigation, if there's a court hearing. In this case, it's a quasi-judicial process. I'm thinking about other bodies aside from the city council that goes into closed session. That would be the Citizens Police Review Commission, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN COMPARE OURSELVES OR, EXCUSE ME, COMPARE THIS BOARD TO THAT BOARD BECAUSE THEY DO, THEY ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CHARTER AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THEIR GOVERNANCE IS EXACTLY. And I'm not really sure under what government co-section they go in a closed session. So we're kind of taking a shot in the dark. But what I understand this to be is recommendations. And when you make those recommendations, at any point, if these recommendations are then referred to the Charter Review Committee, staff will do the due diligence in terms of looking at what's legally required. what is legally possible, what's feasible, and make that information available to the Charter Review Committee at that point. So if you're just making a recommendation, not barring the feasibility of it all, but the concept, you can certainly do that. Or you can direct the city attorney to do the research and come back later. That's your prerogative to do so as the board. But I don't think we're prepared to give you an answer today. But not having that answer today should not preclude you from making the recommendation if that's so your pleasure to do so.

And that is exactly what we're doing pretty much is, you know, we're recommending. I was looking at if you can look into the possibility, is there a situation whereby, let's say, for instance, I have a complaint against you, and rather than it go all out, um, public because the fact that I, you know, have the complaint, um, we like to have a, uh, an avenue where it could be looked at. And then if the complaint does merit, you know, it's, uh, you know, it, it is a formal, uh, viable complaint, then it's, then it's handled in the public sense. But in the meantime, you know, in the initial phase, that's what we're looking at. Instead of just making an accusation and then it goes public and then all of a sudden it's nothing at all, it ruins the person's reputation out there. And that's what we're looking at. And some of the city council people were concerned about that, too. And if we can look into that to see where we can viably work with, you know, like that, that would, you know, that would help a lot.

I agree. I'd like to see this research done in advance, not wait for it to get to the Charter Review Commission.

Oh, no. Oh, no. Yeah, we like to, because we're working on it. That's why.

Mm-hmm. Any other questions? No? So number six is just an extension of the pre-hearing period. You know, this one's pretty simple, whether the pre-hearing period should be extended when the board authorizes an investigation or evidence gathering. In this instance, it would be, you know, if the Board of Ethics, through a majority vote, requests that the inspector general gather more evidence or information, subpoenas, things like that, the pre-hearing could be extended until that information is brought back to the board. Just one more meeting to be able to, once all the information has been gathered that the board through a majority vote has requested, then we would have another meeting to decide whether to move forward with an actual hearing.

so we wait till the process is complete or at least that process to um to continue is that what we're looking at right so

whether through that or another process, whether having it another, um, whether we have, whether we have another, um, whether we have another process and name it something else or an extension of the pre-hearing, it would be difficult to have the information brought toward, the evidence brought to the Board of Ethics and say, hey, you know, the Inspector General can, you know, through majority vote, can you investigate further or, you know, subpoena this information and then to move forward with a hearing and then have that evidence brought to the hearing would kind of, would make it difficult to, you know, let's say all that information finds that, you know, we shouldn't move forward with a pre-hearing while now we're in the hearing stage and, you know, it is just kind of, waste of time to have a hearing to get to get to get the findings from all that information so to have you know an extension of the pre-hearing or another process in place as you know as part of the pre-hearing to be able to gather any information that was requested by the Board of Ethics to the majority vote

So just to do the work up front before hearing.

Right. You're right.

Questions?

So, again, the point of this report is to bring it forward to the Board of Ethics members to, again, discuss, to ask questions, to hammer out. Again, these aren't like details at this point. They're just kind of like concepts and recommendations that we're planning on moving forward with. Given that this will be my last meeting, it would be up to the board to hammer out the details, discuss what to move forward with, what not to move forward with. But at least here's an outline of a plan to start out with.

And just keep in mind that this is all, again, we're in the developmental stages. And this is something that based on our experiences, you know, from the past, This would be something viable hopefully to work with. It doesn't have to be all the particulars there, but, you know, that's what we just brought out. And again, it was brought out because of the fact that we need something different here. And we need really some latitude of independence especially to make this process happen. The particulars in terms of how we work things, how we're selected as, you know, a board of ethics, if it's going to be done in conjunction with the inspector and inspecting general, those things we could work out later on. But it's just how the whole process will be. And then if we get that solid, then we can protect it with what we need to have to make sure the effect is what we desire.

Do we have an ad hoc committee for this?

We were at right here.

Is it still happening?

Yes.

May I join it?

At the end of the meeting, close to the end of the meeting, we could talk about adding individuals to the Ad Hoc Committee, or is it... I think you can have up to four, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, we'll bring it up later.

Just remind us.

Any other questions about the report? Any ideas? Criticisms?

My concern in this is it sounds like we are doing an organizational change, which since we are already in an organizational structure that has been outlined, we have certain opportunities because of that and because there's already established processes. So by taking ourselves under that umbrella and putting ourselves into a new umbrella, it brings up the concerns of Is there anything that, and this might not be the right word, but are there any protections that we would lose by coming under a new umbrella that we currently have that we need to think about?

I think that's a good point, and also not just protections, but what else might we lose by changing teams?

And I was looking at the Boarding Commission's handbook where it has a lovely diagram. And how we are, the Board Commissions are technically under the Mayor and City Council. And we're putting ourselves under the Inspector General, which is an additional layer. And so there are the, hey, what are, what would the procedures be because of that change? So our board member brought up a great point. Does that mean that there needs to be another city employee here? Do we still get the full use of the city clerk? Do we still get the full use of other opportunities that we have because of the established procedures?

My recommendation would be to attend, you know, again, it's two totally different bodies, but the Riverside Community Police Review Commission is in the city charter. And to my knowledge, they didn't lose anything, right? Like there's nothing negative that came about being in the charter that was Would, for example, including the Board of Ethics in the charter, there wouldn't be any negative impact on the board itself?

I think that we should understand the difference between the charter and the ordinance, right? Okay, so a charter is established by the electorate of the city. So if a charter, excuse me, if the Board of Ethics is a charter-sanctioned MEETING BODY THEN THAT MEANS IT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE VOTERS DECIDE OTHERWISE WHEREAS HOW YOU'RE CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE WHICH IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CODIFY INTO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AT ANY TIME COUNCIL CAN DECIDE IS THERE A PREROGATIVE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISBAND THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND THEY CAN DO SO BY AN ORDINANCE SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ONE IS mandated by the electorate of the city versus the city council who was elected by the city if you will so but in terms of your oversight in terms of where you land in the org chart that will not change the only difference though i don't want to conflate two of your talking points or two of your discussion points one is to establish this committee by charter and then the other is to have oversight by the inspector general. Those are two different discussion points, not the same at all. If that makes sense.

Because I think there's the idea that because the... Inspector General would appoint members that that automatically puts us under the the the think oversight of the inspector general and the reality is is that by adding by it by if the voters decide to add the port of ethics to the city charter he would exist and it would be its own independent party because it was it comes it stays in existence because of the voters and again the way these concepts are written is to kind of work hand-in-hand with the inspector general not necessarily to be under the inspector the direction of the inspector general so so why wouldn't we be holding right now one of the concerns is that

we are potentially beholden to whomever appointed us as Board of Ethics members. Why is it that we would not be beholden to the IG if he, she were the one to appoint us? Why would we not feel that we need to play ball with the Inspector General?

That's a good question. And we come back to how the inspector general is, is obviously, you know, came to exist is, is through the city charter, through the voters. It's, it's going to be an appointed position rather than an elected position. Right. Again, The Board of Ethics, again, being on the city charter, wouldn't put the Board of Ethics under the direction of the Inspector General. It wouldn't. It would merely allow the inspector general to appoint board members rather than the city council members. But it does bring up a good point if the inspector general is accused of bringing forth one of those prohibited conducts, if there's a complaint against him. But as is... That happens with City Council right now. And while there is a chance that the Inspector General could be accused of violating one of those prohibited conducts, there is a greater chance of seven individuals being accused of violating those prohibited conducts rather than just one individual. So it would lessen the issue of having that bias and the idea of us being beholden to a body rather than just having that independent... thought process when it comes to the process of the complaint the pre hearing and the hearing so I understand where you're coming from and it's a good question again it's it's you know the in my opinion the better option then what we currently have at the moment is given the bias that can happen with individuals being appointed to a body that has a high percentage of, you know, dealing with complaints against those individuals who they were appointed by.

Go ahead.

long-winded hypothetical question okay so we have the two things inspector general and we're underneath that umbrella and then the other main one number one is do we become a part of the charter because we're saying hey charter um we want to take this to the voters to make us be a part of the charter right okay super long-winded hypothetical question That's all decided by city council, correct, on what we prop proposed to be put to the voters on whether or not we're a part of the charter? Or no? I'm not understanding the connection of how we get to the voters from that. So the charter review decides how we bring it to the voters on putting us on the charter? Is that what it is? And then also, too, other really hypothetical question. what if city council's like we're the charter review we're deciding what to put out there we don't need a board of ethics which they've already said before in the past like it's a whole nother can of worms of like questions of like can they just decide that like instead of putting us on the charter they can possibly vote just to disband us since now we have an inspector general Is that an option to you? Sorry, I know, very long-winded. No, not at all. Weird question. It was like seven questions.

So, again, you know, these recommendations, the process have to be brought to the Charter Review Commission. The Charter Review Commission, if they decide to take on these recommendations, you know, they discuss it. They hammer out the details. You see, you know, they can even change recommendations. Some of it before they bring it to city council, city council approves it, and then it moves on to the ballot where the voters can decide whether to approve it or not approve it. That's that process when it comes to the Charter Review Commission. Possibly the Charter Review Commission would be like, nah, right? Right. Yeah. And that's always a possibility. Again, when the Inspector General was initially proposed, the idea was proposed, it was an elected position. And it got changed to an appointed position because, you know, the Charter Review Commission and the City Council kind of like, well, if, you know, they worked it out, right? And The hope is that with some of the changes that city council understands that this isn't to again create this uneven balance of power. It's again for the board of ethics to be able to efficiently carry out what it was created for. The Board of Ethics has changed over the years through the municipal code, but adding it to the city charter would give it that protection where, unless the voters decide they no longer want a Board of Ethics, it would exist. So that's the benefit to adding, if the voters approve it, the Board of Ethics to the city charter. And then the second question, can you kind of go over that one again? Yeah, yeah. Okay.

Yeah, because if we don't go on the board, so they can, we're doing the recommendation, and they can decide not to move forward with the recommendation, and then if they do, then it goes to city council, and then city council takes it to the vote.

Well, they approve it for it to be approved on the ballot, yes. Yeah. Yeah. They're the ones that approve the Charter Review Committee's recommendations. And yes, so they're the ones who approve whether it goes on the ballot. And again, no, I don't. Is it the Charter Review Committee or is it another body that writes how it ends up on the ballot?

Okay, so the charter establishes a process for the charter review committee and how items are brought forth to them. The charter states that the charter review committee has the power to recommend to the city council which, if any, charter amendments should be placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election. where the mayor is on the ballot and it also says that they have the duty to present a final report of his recommendations to the city council but then it also states that ANY PROPOSALS FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS, THE CITY COUNCIL MUST PROPOSE THOSE CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FIRST. SO JUST, I MEAN, I MAY NEED SOME LEGAL BACKING ON THIS ONE, BUT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. And at that time, the city council can, in their discretion, modify the recommendation as long as it's been discussed and vetted by the Charter Review Committee. They can't come with a new topic and decide to add that without it first being under the advisement of the Charter Review Committee. So at first, so let's just use these examples. recommendations as an example. So you as a body approve these recommendations to move forward. Once the Charter Review Committee is established, these recommendations will go to the Charter Review Committee to be heard. The Charter Review Committee then will decide along with others and some possible, um, recommendations that were submitted by the city council at some point at the code determines may preceding the next regular meeting to provide the city council with its recommendations for ballot measures. Now that doesn't mean it has to be fleshed out. They just have to submit their recommendations. Um, they could decide at that level the recommendations that they're going to bring forth. It could include your recommendations for all of these changes or it could not. That's the discretion of the Charter Review Committee. So that would be the process. But let's just say they approve your recommendations to move forward and then city council then hear the matter. They can decide whether or not those matters are then proceed to a ballot measure. So the charter just requires that it be vetted by the Charter Review Committee. It doesn't necessarily say because the Charter Review Committee vetted these matters that it matriculate down to a ballot measure on the ballot.

But I think one of the questions you had was if it does get to the ballots, who writes the ballot statement for the amendment if it's proposed?

Well, that can all depend on the process, right? It could be written by the Charter Review Committee if they have the wherewithal to do that, and that's part of their recommendation. If it isn't part of their recommendation... Oftentimes, the city attorney's office would write the ballot question based on the summary that was provided to the city council and what they adopt. There has been instances where the ballot question was drafted by the city attorney. So it just really depends on what the city council approved at the time that's before them. There's so many variables that can go into play with a ballot question.

So the city council, does it have line item veto power over anything that the Charter Review Commission may recommend? So if there are five things, could they strike out one of them, like the Ethics Committee, and say, no, we don't do that?

If it's the pleasure of the board, so excuse me, if it's the pleasure of the city council, so not one council member can do that. It would have to act as a body.

Who consists of the Charter Review Committee?

There isn't anyone appointed to it yet, not until the beginning of next year.

But who do they look for?

The people, individuals who apply for the Charter Review Committee, and then they're interviewed and then appointed.

So they're outside of the city council and all that?

Yeah.

They're appointed in the same manner in which you are appointed, through the same process. Each council member and the mayor will, depending on how they establish, they can establish a charter review committee of nine members, 12 excuse me 13 members any odd number but they can determine the the composition of the trial review committee and then based on that composition is how they will divvy up the appointments but it will be equal parts between them all except for the mayor oftentimes the mayor has a few additional appointments above the city council members

So these members could be any, like, we could apply for it?

The charter requires that they be on an electorate of the city, which means a registered voter. And if it's ward-based, excuse me. if when they establish the process, if it's established that the appointments be ward-based, then you must live in the ward by the respective council member that appoints you. So the same process as being appointed to the Board of Ethics. So essentially it would be made up of residents of the city.

And their gathering and decisions is a recommendation to the city council, and it's them that approves whatever. Yes. Or they'll line out whatever they want, the city council.

Any other questions? Thoughts?

I'm not really certain about that answer. THE CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD AND ALSO POSSIBLY BE ON THE CHARTER REVIEW BECAUSE IT GETS APPOINTED, NOT SCRATCH.

RIGHT. SO EVERY EIGHT YEARS THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS ESTABLISHED. PERHAPS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT PROCESS COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WILL DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. So to your point, they could direct that it be comprised of members of boards and commissions that are already existing, right? That's a hypothetical. And in that case, they will determine which board members are selected from those different or various boards and commissions. That could be an avenue that they take, perhaps.

It's every eight years?

More or less. Yes, or as often as the city council deem appropriate. But it has to take place every eight years when the mayor's on the ballot.

Any other questions? No? So, again, This report and these recommendations were brought forth to the board today to just go over some of the concepts, the recommendations. That way, you know, obviously the ad hoc committee meeting will probably keep meeting to discuss it further. You know, I encourage, you know, more discussion about these recommendations, if you guys decide to make changes to them, whatever you guys feel is best in the best interest of what the board was initially created for. That's the whole intent of all of this. But again, to have a balance where the Board of Ethics serves its purpose, but at the same time isn't weaponized against public officials. That's the importance here of trying to put forward these recommendations. But obviously, again, just initial thoughts and based on our research and what we've been able to gather from other cities so far. And I appreciate the questions that members have asked and, you know, thoughts that have been put forward because obviously the allows the ad hoc community to hammer out better details. That way, if the board decides to actually move forward in making these recommendations, there's more thought put into the process of all this information.

So could you just be clear to us what the next steps in this are?

Well, that would be up to the ad hoc committee to my, you know, as of today, as me being a part of the ad hoc committee, I would recommend that take all the questions that were presented today and go through the information and find out more as far as like, you know, making the pre-hearings private. You know, that's an important one, right? So, you know, going through some of the questions that were asked, some of the thoughts that were presented, and then hammering out the details a little bit more before voting to move forward with these recommendations. But that's merely a recommendation. So, any other questions? it would at the end of the meeting when you know there's the discussion of what to put forward for the next meetings we can add it there and then yeah this would be under the discussion calendar Any other questions before we move forward?

Okay.

Well, with that being said, now we move on to the communications. portion of the meeting number seven the ad hoc committee updates a method of public education I can tell you right now that we didn't meet so there's nothing to report their standing rules review we didn't get the chance to meet there either Annual Review of the Code of Ethics and Conduct. There's only two of us, so we didn't get to meet there either. Are we the only two on most of these committees? Let's see. And then annual report is report to city council. I've got some.

Okay. We met and we're looking at some of the proposed changes from our report that we did. And as far as the... You know, there's really nothing more, you know, nothing new that we can add on or to, you know, to modify or what have you with our current, what we have currently in the report there. A lot of the changes were done last year, which was really pretty much sufficient for the time being. But, you know, since we're considering some changes there with, you know, the Board of Ethics going into a charter situation, what have you, and we're working on that. we sort of like kind of combine or, you know, emerge into what we're going to probably be working on together. And I think it will be easier for the time being. But it was pretty much informative of what we did so that we, you know, they know that we're trying to work out some sort of a change in our effort to work as a board of ethics, effective board of ethics. Okay. Yeah.

so moving on to number eight do we have any board member updates okay So as far as board member updates, I'm pretty sure all of you got the email that Chair Newman has resigned. So that would be a point to move forward on with the next meeting to appoint a new chair. The other one is that this is my last meeting as vice chair. or as a board member um because i was running for public office and made it so this is my final meeting and um i thank all of you who have you know i've served on the board with for years or have just started to serve i've really enjoyed being here on the board and working with everyone who has been here is new here and So yeah, I like to give a little applause there congratulations So you guys are gonna have to vote on a new chair and vice chair Any other board member updates No and the staff updates I

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to remind the board that next month in August, you will do your official review of the Code of Ethics and Conduct to establish its effectiveness and make any recommendations, not just that you receive from other boards and commissions, but also your own recommendations to forward to the Governmental Processes Committee. So as you do your review this month, just be prepared to make any recommendations.

next month during your August meeting I'm I'm complete and then the last item is to have any items for future discussion so here I believe you wanted to keep the ad hoc committee on the charter review recommendation is going Are there any other items for future discussion that anyone would like to add to next month's calendar?

I would like to be added to the ad hoc committee for the, what is the official name of this?

Charter review.

For the charter review.

Recommendations. anything else no all right then with that the last time I get one in the meeting