Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body - Regular Meeting

Vice Chair Hernandez, you may have to call the meeting to order.

I I would say

To order the meeting, and then can you play the recording, please?

Pursuant to the city council meeting rules adopted by resolution number two four two five five, members of all boards and commissions in the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of all boards and commissions in the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the city council or the presiding officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The city of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Okay. So

Can you play the public comment 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 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Do we have any public comment?

There are no public comment cards in this chamber and none online.

Okay. Alright. Let's go ahead and move on to the consent calendar. The time is minutes of May 1.

Okay. For clarification, mister vice chair, the consent calendar is items two and three. One is the minutes and one is the excusal of chair Newman from the June meeting.

You guys wanna make, do we make a motion to excuse the absence and accept the minutes?

I so move.

Not working. I so move. Second.

Motion carries unanimous. Mister chair, we're asking that you that we remove item number four from the agenda as there's a clerical error on there. And because it wasn't properly noticed on the agenda, we cannot take action on that item. So we ask that it be removed from the agenda. Motion carries unanimous.

Thank you, vice chair and board members. The item before you today is to conduct a review of the board of ethics membership structure, role, potential consolidation, conduct opportunities, and discuss the development of a citywide governance resolution. As you know, boards and commissions serve an important role as advisory bodies that provide recommendations to the mayor and city council on various matters affecting the community and give residents an additional outlet to engage in local government. The city council has expressed an ongoing interest in evaluating the structure and effectiveness of the city's boards and commissions. Over time, issues such as declining participation, difficulty achieving quorum, overlapping duties and outdated structures have prompted discussions about possible restructuring, consolidation or standardization efforts.

The intent is to align advisory functions with city priorities, improve efficiencies, and ensure meaningful community engagement. The Governmental Processes Committee, back in May to be exact, 05/07/2025, received their presentation on the review of boards and commissions on the membership, the consolidation opportunities and development of a citywide governance resolution. The committee requested feedback of each individual board and commission. Next slide please. Next slide please.

So in the recommendation by the governmental processes committee was that each board of commission consider the following and provide recommendations for them to consider The first is, is the membership size optimized for proper functionality? Are quorum or attendance issues affecting your performance? And are there opportunities to consolidate or streamline with another board? So those are the three questions that the committee, the governmental processes committee asked that you consider today. And as part of that next slide It also ask that you consider whether or not each board of commission should be each board of commission currently governed by their own unique set of standing rules So as it stands each commission is responsible for developing and reviewing its own standing rules and bylaws.

The adoption of a citywide resolution that sets clear and consistent rules for all boards and commissions could be considered this resolution could be similar to the council's adopted rules of procedure and would cover your framework how many members are appointed in the number of members what each group's role and responsibilities are how many meetings are conducted in quorum requirements what kind of training new members should receive and what is expected of members in terms of participation and engagement Next slide, please. So I kinda covered this already. I'm just going ahead. Sorry. I I normally would have to clicker myself, but this is the slide representing what I just said.

Next slide. So the recommendations today for the board is to review your membership structure, your role, and consolidation opportunities, discuss development of a citywide governance resolution, and for any recommendations to the governmental processes committee. Next slide. With that, I'm available for any questions that you may have. Can you please play the 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 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Yeah. This one's not working either. Hello? Alright. I'm just gonna have to use my

Hello, can you hear me? There are no comments in the chamber nor online.

I just lit up the thing. So I'll use my outside voice too. But, this might be the opportunity to to see what other members think about having this be a seven member board instead of nine. We have six now, and this is I mean, well, one person is late, and we know she's coming, but this is, like, the maximum we've had, six people. And seven if we had seven, it would be easier to get a quorum, and we wouldn't have to cancel meetings like we did in June. So I'm just wondering what other members think about having just seven.

The prehearing?

Yes.

Not not unless there's an issue with abstentions or recusals, then you may find yourself in the in the space of not having a quorum.

Alright. Because I know,

We haven't had

It's on.

Nine people It doesn't in forever. We haven't had nine people in forever. I mean, it's been Yeah. I don't even remember when we had nine people. And so seven would just be more realistic. So we've been operating with six five, sometimes, just five members, and that's our quorum. So we've been doing it with less than seven, most of these, for several years now. So it shouldn't affect the way we operate, I would think.

What about when it comes to voting a quorum and voting? How would it affect it in that sense?

So as long as you have a odd number, which is always the right way to vote instead of a even number. So seven being what I've heard, is a odd number, so that shouldn't affect voting or proceedings at all.

Okay. Any other?

Have to use outside voice. I was

just make sure your green light is on.

Yeah. I have the green light on. But do you hear me? Yeah. We can hear you. Good. Alright. I was just concerned also about, you know, we have nine, but there's a representation for each ward too. You know? So if we reduce the number, are we also cutting off any ward or member you know, members thereof?

And and and also citywide, you know, what's I was wondering what how do we deal with that if that's the case? I often thought it was mostly recruiting. You know? That it's a problem trying to recruit people, and that's one issue. But the other issue pretty much is if we do consider, you know, going from nine to seven, are we, you know, are we cutting off a ward or an award or two?

No. We only have seven wards in the city.

Right. Yeah.

There's Yeah.

Not the citywide. Yeah. Citywide is what would be eliminated.

Right. Oh, so the citywide

Yeah.

Complaints, two members had to be excused from it because one of them was married to the complainant. And then the other person was they had gone to the complainant's wedding and stuff. So that already broke us down even more. And then another person was, like, on the East Coast. I think that's when we had eight members. So already that, like, knocked us down

to

three. So that would put us even more of a conundrum if we go down to seven. That brings us down

to 24

if we

had one

of those.

So maybe we change we still keep nine ideally of potential board members, but in order to have a forum, we say that we only need, like, five. You know? Can we have that cushion where

only five people

have to be? I think we

do now. As is, we already have the five. Yeah. Yes.

We already

have the five. The problem lately has been membership. I I probably, you know, probably even way before me, there probably hasn't been nine members of the board in many, many years. I don't know if you guys have any recollection of how long it's been. But, you know, obviously, we're already struggling with membership.

Obviously, this is something that can change later on, and maybe we can think about, like, the structure as far as, like, when it comes to hearings and prehearings. But I don't know. I I think I still think that coming down to seven members would be better than nine for the moment, but I don't know what you

guys think.

Sorry. I forgot to use my

That's okay. Just go ahead.

Now I pressed it again. Yeah. I think another thing that would probably help people maybe wanna engage more is if we could possibly change the meeting time. That's what I was thinking. Maybe do 06:00 instead of five. Yeah. Because I'm gosh. I know that I personally had to miss a couple of meetings because I was trying to find my way from Dortion because I was at City of Hope. Mhmm. And it would take me, like, three hours to get here, and Now it is.

Okay. Sorry. Maybe that would help too if we were able to push back the meeting times. More people would be able to want to participate. I don't know if that's an option. Because gosh, I know some of the other boards, they meet in the mornings and everything.

What oh. Can I speak?

Yeah. Go ahead. Oh,

yeah. Go ahead. Go what has been the the efforts to recruit? You know? And we got her. And I remember there was, you know, it it was almost like hearsay that we have a new member or what have you. But what's been the effort so far? Because, you know, I like to to see if, you know, that's been really tried out and successful. And if we if we could bring one, we can bring a couple others, and then we could be to that nine. You know? And what's been the effort, really?

From my understanding before, it kinda the responsibility kinda fell upon each city council member to appoint someone, but I don't know if that process is still in place because a lot of our quite a few of our members seem to be, like, citywide appointed. Is that still the process?

So the process for recruiting is that, each member so whenever there's an application received on file, that application is forwarded to the council member for that respective ward. And if it's a resident who have identified that they are seeking a citywide appointment, those applications are forwarded to the mayor's office. Now there are some hard to recruit areas, for example, or six and seven, but that's not to say that we haven't received many applications for the board of ethics. I'm not really sure, how many number of applicants applications we have on file, because that's not part of the agenda, so I wouldn't have that in front of me. But I do know that, we do have a robust, recruitment process.

We go out into communities. We're, always doing infomercials and social media and things of that nature to recruit, members to apply for boards and commissions. There's a robust recruitment process, that we're actually gonna implement here shortly to start looking for, new members to come in with the new cohort this come March, for those that are terming out, this next year. So we we implement a robust recruitment process that that's all it's pretty much all I can say. Now in terms of it's at the city council member's discretion whether they wanna choose one of those applicants that have applied or if they want to, recommend someone else who hasn't applied and just encourage them to apply so that they can make that appointment.

That's a a different process altogether. I I hope I answered your question.

Very much. Okay. Thank you.

I was just wondering too on the on the application process. When they recruit, is it is it just for a specific, you know, the the does a person specifically apply for the board of ethics? Or in my case, actually, in the beginning, my first time, you know, applying, I went for the the city commission, you know, the police commission. And and they they came back to me saying, positions were full, but what about board of ethics? And I said, sure.

And that's how I wound up being here. But is everybody else given that same opportunity opportunity too? They may think that they want to be maybe in the museum board, but then offered the Board of Ethics, then they can have the opportunity to make decision at that point. Is is that part of the recruiting?

So during the application process, the applicant can can choose multiple boards and commissions that they're interested in. In the moment that they have conversations with their council members, they can then determine, well, there may not be a vacancy on the board or commission that they're interested in. However, there a vacancy in this area. Are you interested in similar to the case you you have? That happens all the time, but you can select them all and say you're just interested in in all boards and commissions wherever there's a vacancy regardless your application will be will be provided to the council member.

And the council member based on your experience and the information that you provided on your application, they will determine whether or not they believe there is a better fit someplace else or if there's an opportunity for you to serve on your first choice, second choice, or third choice. It's really at their discretion.

And I I I know I'm I'm pretty new to the board, but I also know that as this is the third time, and there was already one that was canceled, for lack of quorum. So with that, I thought it would be really nice to think about possibly reducing it to seven. So I appreciate all the considerations that you're discussing because I think that with the rules too, we can't consider a quorum based on how many seats are filled. It has to be how many seats are allocated for the whole board. So the only real way around that, I think, is to actually reduce it.

So again, making sure that there aren't any issues with the other operations of the board, I think I would definitely be in support of reducing it just to make sure we're able to meet that quorum and knowing that we can also move forward. So I think my question is, historically, have we had a lot of meetings where we had to cancel for lack of quorum? Or is it just my, right, one out of three that I've participated in so far? Because I don't have that historical knowledge either. But just curious if it's something that we're seeing on a regular basis that really is something we need to do.

And another piece, wanted to thank you so much for all of your recruitment efforts. I can't imagine it's easy. And I always encourage people now that I talk to to definitely explore different opportunities for them to get involved. And I don't know all of the efforts that you're doing, but my thought is since I volunteered to go around to do all the presentations to the other boards, I've had a really enjoyable time getting to know them and just hearing what they were talking about and what was on their agenda. And I thought, wow, maybe I should explore this in the future.

So my question is, is there an opportunity for recruitment as somebody and you may be doing this as somebody terms out to purposefully invite them to another place where there might be an opening where they would cover? So if I am in Ward 2 and I am terming out, would I then be invited personally to perhaps fill a seat on a different board that needs members for War II, for example? So I know that entails a lot of extra work, but I feel like if I was personally invited after I termed off, I might accept that. So, I didn't know if that might be something to consider for a way to help increase participation in applications for the board.

And I I wanted to, and thank you for supporting the number seven idea. But, also, I wanted to also piggyback on member, De Herrera's comment that, if we could change the meeting time, I thought of that too, if we could change it to six, that could make a big difference. Because I think people look at it and say, oh, they meet at five. Well, I don't get off work till five. You know, that kind of thing. Or I get off work at 04:30, but I'd have to drive for an hour to get here. I like that idea that she proposed of seeing if we could meet it later, six or so.

Any other comments about the reducing the membership? Because that's like I said, that's my only concern is the hearing, and, obviously, you heard her brought up that instance. Obviously, that may be an issue, but as is, we don't even have nine members or anywhere close to nine members. So

I think another reason why, and correct me if I'm wrong, the reason why we have the two extra spots, the cushion because we have the seven wards and the two are citywide, is in case someone wants to participate, but their ward is already filled. So that's why we have the citywide. Or if someone moves somewhere in Riverside and they still want to keep their spot, then they can become a citywide. So that's why we have that cushion where if someone moves from one ward to the other, they can still stay on and take the citywide spot. Is that correct, or am I wrong? What happens if that happens?

I'm sorry. I was

No. You're fine.

My so I'm so sorry. Can you repeat your question?

Oh, no. My question was the logic behind why we have the two citywide spots. Because I was under the assumption the reason why we have the cushion of the two citywide spots is in case either, a, someone wants to participate, but their ward's already filled so they can take citywide spot. Or b, if a member, like a current member, moves to a different ward, then they can be appointed to the citywide position. But I wasn't sure. Just that's what I assumed.

So that that is part of what can happen with the citywide seats. However, the citywide seats are allocated for the mayor so that the mayor has representation on all boards and commissions. So that's why you have, ward represent ward representatives that are appointed by each ward, and then you have citywide appointees that are appointed by the mayor.

Now following up with that is if we reduce the membership down to seven, we're under we're I think we're assuming that those two citywide appointments are the ones that are gonna be sacrificed. Does that necessarily mean that the other you know, that it has to be seven, each each individual on this board has to be appointed by a ward, or can it still be a citywide appointment?

So that will be a policy decision based, based on the committee the governmental processes committee recommendation. So all of your recommendations will be forwarded to them, and they will consider, your composition. And if they so decide to reduce your composition, then they will make that determination how individuals will be appointed. And it will happen through natural attrition. No one will be eliminated or removed by their action. You would have to, naturally term out, and then they will, proceed with the new composition that was adopted by them.

Could we discuss a little more of the, because the two of us have spoken about making a meeting later. I'm wondering what the other three members think of moving or pushing our time back to six.

But, I I think we kinda need to finish this one first before we move on to that one because I'm not opposed to the time. I don't think that's a big issue. I think the the composition and decreasing the membership is, the big one. But I think that maybe if we make the recommendation with reducing the membership and making the recommendation to the governmental process committee that if there is a certain amount of time that passes with an empty seat on the board that they'd be appointed with a citywide appointment. But I don't know what you guys think about that.

Well, I know that I'm a citywide appointment. So I don't know. I guess my question is which two kind of seats are open right now? Is it for a ward or is it citywide?

Think it's wards. And on a side note, Ward 6 is here.

Oh, because we thank you.

Would there be any issue?

So we're missing appointees from Ward 2 and Ward 4. Would

there be any issue with the mayor's office?

You

know, if we considered if we were considering, dropping two, it would be the citywide and what would the mayor's office say?

Look. The governmental processes committee could maybe come up with a way that instead of having it really rigid like there's seven more, each one is you know, each ward has to have somebody and then there's two citywide. If we reduce it to seven, maybe there's a way to make it sort of a rolling or shifting appointment. Like, instead of, like, know, instead of Ward 2, we'll we'll appoint you know, so we're we have seven people, but there's only, you know, six wards represented. There's nobody from Ward 2. But then they could so then they could fill that with a citywide seat. You know what I mean? So maybe governmental processes committee could come up with a way that is sort of a flexible kinda rolling membership in a way, if that makes sense.

Right. I I think maybe, you know, again, with the recommendation that maybe if a a seat goes vacant for maybe a year, that there could be a citywide appointment. Because if if if, you know, a council member hasn't appointed someone, they either haven't received applications for the appointment or there's something slowing down the process. And it would be nice if if there was something in place to kind of facilitate that. I think maybe like a timeline. I don't know what you guys think about a year with a if there's a vacant seat for a year on the board that they can come in with this the mayor can come in with a citywide appointment and appoint someone?

I have two questions. One's kind of really silly. Sorry. So currently, right now, it's nine seats. And then for the quorum, we have to have at least five, right? Okay, so if we went down to seven, how many people do we

have to have to have

a quorum? Like, how many people present? So that's question one.

That's funny.

That's

it. Question two is, Denise, I don't know if you have it, but what section eight zero two of the charter of City of Riverside? Can you read that? Because I I don't recall. Oh, you're amazing. Okay. Because I don't recall that. Because on our thing, it says the board of acts, like membership and term of service, part a, the board of ethics shall consist of nine members to be appointed in accordance to section eight zero two. I just

just Okay. Your first question was, what is the quorum for a member board membership of seven? A quorum will be four. So now you're required to have five as a quorum. It will be reduced to four.

And section eight zero two is appointments and terms, and it reads, the members of each board or commission shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor and city council and shall be nominated and appointed by the mayor and city council from the qualified electors of the city, none of whom shall hold any paid office or employment in the city government. Each such board or commission shall have at least one member from each council ward. They shall be subject to the removal by the mayor and council by motion adopted by five affirmative votes with the mayor entitled to vote. The members thereof shall serve for a term of four years and until their respective successors are appointed and qualified and may serve for not more than two consecutive terms? That is section eight zero two of the charter.

So that's a good question. So then if our quorum is four, then that would affect how we can vote. Correct? Because we need like an

An odd number.

Odd number.

So as long as you have four members present, you can have a quorum. The same with well, yeah, you you could essentially have a a tie vote Uh-huh. With but but you wanna operate from the function of you will all seven members will be present. So in the in the instance where there's four members present, you could have a tie vote, but then it would be at the chair's discretion to continue discussion to try to reach a consensus amongst those that are present.

That's a great point. I I think the question that I have too is, say for example we did reduce it and it wasn't working properly, like we couldn't have enough for a hearing, would it take another year? Would it be a really long process to kind of change that back? It sounds like it might be. And I guess kind of related to the question about moving the timing, do we think that that might kind of address some of those other issues of us meeting quorum right now.

So I think I have questions, and I can see both sides of the coin. But just wondering, if it was something that we chose to reduce, would it be something we could easily revert back to, or would that take a very long process? Like, going through the governmental process committee?

It would definitely take time, because it would be adopted by ordinance. Ordinances are, there's two waves of reading. So an ordinance is introduced, and it's read for a second time, and then it's effectuated thirty days after it's adopted. So that can take some time there. And then, again, to your point, chair Klitschenstein, it will first have to go to the governmental processes committee. They would have to make the recommendation to revert it back. And then because, again, it's a policy decision. Right now, the governmental processes committee is just asking for your recommendations, which you can submit that you are recommending as a board that it be reduced to seven. Now, how that play out, that will rest with the city council.

Understood. Thank you. I

I see the, the issue of the timing as well as reducing the number kinda intertwined because if we change the timing, we might be able to get more members, and then the needing to reduce the number would become a moot point. So I kind of see it as could we maybe try redo you know, not reducing the time. I'm sorry. That's the wrong word. Meeting later. If we could try meeting later at six, see if we then are able to get a couple more members, and then we don't then then we could come back to the idea of reducing the number of members. So to me, it's kinda like, could we try that, you know, going up to six, and would that be the magic thing that helps us get one or two more members?

Your point is well taken, board member Foreman, in terms of time, the time of your meeting. Do not believe that that will require a council action to change the meeting time. We just need to know that the real estate is available, which we do because we're here. So it it would just be a matter of us agendizing your agenda at a different time. And without, I don't wanna make any road commitments, but I'm saying I I don't think that would be an issue, changing your time your meeting time from five to six.

So could we and just because this is a simpler issue than the numb number of members, which is a little more complicated, I'm wondering if we could briefly discuss and maybe vote on that 6PM thing and then get get that out of the way and then talk go back to talking about number of members. Does anyone I mean, what do people think of that?

Well, I'm definitely open to the idea. I think, 06:00 would be fine. I don't know what everyone else thinks. I'm not against the idea. As far as trying that first instead of reducing the number of board members. That's a good question. What are you guys' opinions?

I I have no problem with, you know, with the time factor. But, you know, I I just, you know, wish I had a little bit more feedback in terms of is that what preventing people from volunteering. You know?

Right. At at this point, we're kinda just throwing darts at the board and hoping that it it just sticks and brings in more members. I think think Foreman is right as far as the five clock time. A lot of people work from eight to five and it can make it difficult to attract individuals who who may be stuck with that time constraint. It it may be something that's possible because there is a lot of what ifs with, bringing down our membership from nine to seven.

And this is why we have these discussions because, obviously, there was a lot of questions and, you know, there's you know, brought up the hearing where three people had to recuse themselves and that a seven a seven person membership, even if we had that many, would obviously affect our ability to to have a hearing.

Definitely, the the 06:00 would help, chair Newman who was planning to be here tonight, but she comes all the way from the LA area after work, and that's it it would make it so much, you know, more likely that she'd be able to come to the meetings. Like, I know she was planning to tonight. She hadn't she didn't say that she couldn't. Right? But I'm sure because of traffic and all that, getting from LA area to here by five, oh, man. But if it was six, our chair would be more likely to be here more often.

Are we so the other committees and boards that meet, like, at five ish two or just in general, are they having an issue with recruitment and members? Or is it just us? Nobody likes us.

It's not just us.

I'm not without having that in front of me, I'm not really sure how many others meet at five. I know that the planning commission meet during the day on Thursday, but I know some meet at 05:30, some meet at six at the Budget Engagement Commission. What time does CPRC meet? And what about human resources board?

Thought they were at six. I thought they were at six or 05:30.

The human resource I'm sorry. Don't have that in front of me. I'm sorry. But I don't know if we're the only one that meet at five, but again, that is just about finding real estate. And who knows? The chair at the time or the board at the time set their meeting time and they were okay with it. And like I said, it'll just be a matter of agendizing your meeting. So if you come to a consensus that you wanna change your meeting time to 6PM, that will not be a problem for staff.

Yeah. And I was just curious, like, if that was, like, an issue. It was, like, the 05:00. We could see, like, if the other boards had more members that were later or, you know, if the other boards that were at 05:00 still had more members. If it was an Us thing or like a time. I'm

trying to recall.

I I I thought I went when I went to the museum board. I think they met three fifteen, three 03:30. Yeah. And they had their full ward. They had everybody there.

Well, I think those are boards where people are already either retired or they work from home or they they absolutely know they can make it during the day. With this one, it's some people, you know, like our chair. And like others, they're like, well, if I can just leave work early that day, I can make it by five maybe. So I think we we kinda have members that do work during the day, but they 05:00 is kinda pushing it, but, okay, I can make it work sort of thing. Whereas, thirty, already know, I have to be available during the day. I

agree. I think it would help our current reaching quorum now for who we have sitting. Support as long as it isn't earlier in the day, as long as it's later, and our amazing support staff are available as well. Don't want to assume that you're all available. I know you mentioned the real estate, but is the staff and everyone available too? But I do I do like that idea. I think it would be easier for for all of us if we're available. So

I think, obviously, reducing the membership is is off the table right now. Right?

Just because it's sort of a complicated issue. Yeah. But to do this, are you saying we need to agendize a vote on this for next time, or can we vote on this now, the 06:00 recommendation?

So, that will be you know, I'm gonna defer to, to the attorney on this one only because we do have review your membership structure, your rowing and consolidation opportunities. I don't know if timing of your agenda will fall on that, but we hear you. So while I do see a consensus, you may not need a nest a vote per se. We can just agendize your next agenda for 6PM.

So we don't need to make that formal?

I wanna make it at six. That's all it takes. I think it the struck

I believe the structure, it could be encompassed. The best approach is to agenda it for the next meeting instead of I could see how that that can be encompassed in it, but the structure and the time is a little bit different.

So that would go under items for future discussions. And we

have specifically potential consolidation opportunity, But the time is not really or the day is not really it may be a stretch so the safest way is to agendize it for the next meeting.

And I like that too because we could have input from the chair hopefully as well.

Okay, we'll make sure that that item makes it on the agenda for September.

And as far as reducing the number of members, should we agendize that for next month as well? Or should we talk more about it tonight? What should we do with that piece of what we're discussing?

I think that's a good idea to agenda it for future discussions because there's a lot of unanswered questions that we need as far as what it affects. And I think there's a lot more thought that needs to be put into something like that. It sounds like a great idea at first, but again, there's a lot of questions. And we really have to look at the structure and how it'll affect the hearings, pre hearings, that stuff.

So we heard you talk about structure. What about your role and your opportunities for consolidation? I mean, is there a pleasure from the board to even have that discussion? If not, we can just move on.

I'm going to be real honest. I don't think that the Board of Ethics is something that lends itself well to consolidating itself with other boards or commissions just because of the hearings and everything else as far as the way our board works. But I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I agree.

I agree too. I really foresee that the nature of the board, the board of ethics. And so it's not it's not such that you can join another club like the museum board or whatever and just put it as membership membership there. Even with some of the research that we've done as an ad hoc committee, we discovered certain aspects of the Board of Ethics as one really specific and really special. It's going to take some convincing later on, especially when we as the city grows, the responsibilities and other aspects come into play.

So as far as the Board of Ethics itself, it's a I'm really let me put it out straight. I think eventually Board of Ethics is going to be an entity that is independent from other boards. And I'll keep it there.

Danielle, any thoughts?

Yeah.

I mean, I agree. I think I think it's definitely something I think it makes sense.

Yeah. Okay.

Alright. So,

Yeah.

I mean, the only thing I mean, I know I'm new, but like I feel like we're the only like, there's only so many boards or commissions that do, like, hearings. And I think the police review commission, if I'm correct, is the only other one that does And hearings, am I I'm not sure that makes sense to consolidate with them. So with that, I definitely agree with keeping us separate.

I just wanted to let Chair Newman know that we have just been discussing moving our meeting times to 6PM instead of five, and that would help a lot, would it not?

That would be a me.

We all agree we want to do that. So she's agendizing it for our next meeting to take an actual vote and make it official. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. That would be amazing.

Okay. So I so we've discussed the structure, the role, and and and there's no desire to discuss consolidation at all. And that's this is really every Board of Commission is going over this presentation. And so the structure really was more so for those that had more than nine members like the board like the Budget Engagement Commission, the the Human Resource, I mean, the Cultural Heritage Board but I'm glad that it was a very fruitful conversation. But the next piece was the governance piece. Was there a recommendation for a citywide governance for all boards and commissions?

So I have a question on that. I hope that's okay. Are the other bylaws from all the other boards and commissions wildly different? Are they like all, every single one is different, and that's why this discussion is pertinent right now, because they're so different? I just don't know the other bylaws, so I guess I just wanted to hear if there was any information you could share about how widely variation there

is Yes. Between there is a wide variety of structure to the different governing rules. We don't wanna call them bylaws. They're more governing rules for each board and commission, and it and they were established by each board and commission because your charter states that you must you can establish your own rules however there would be a process for establishing a citywide government rules that will be adopted by all the boards and commissions so that's how we would satisfy the provision of the charter And the governmental process committee is just just wondering if there's a desire to standardize that. So that way, to your point, board member Klitsch and Stein, if you're serving on the board of ethics today and then when you term out you go to another board those same rules would apply to the other board that you go to I mean there are some variations like for example with the planning commission they do have other rules that are that they must follow-up the municipal code the same with the public utilities board those are more the policy making bodies that will have a different set of rules to play with But in terms of the advisory the advisory bodies, a standardized rule could possibly work for everyone.

And so the council is just just interested in hearing your feedback on that and whether they don't want to just, you know, draconian type of and give you some rules. They want you to realize your your your provision in the charter that states that you establish your own rules. But is there a desire to standardize the rules is the question.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say I don't don't personally have a desire to standardize the rules. Does does anyone else have wildly different opinion? Seems like it it makes sense for each border commission to set their own rules of governance or what we would call bylaws. What do other people think?

I agree. I don't think that, hey, this mic works better. Alright. So I agree. I don't think there's any reason to standardize the rules, especially given our role. I don't think it's necessary.

Yeah, don't see a very large benefit to it, I guess, is where because that's really what would make a difference for my opinion is if there was some sort of greater benefit. If it's really just a matter of volunteers being more at ease going from one place to another. That seems pretty loose for a for a good reason to me. Member Klischtenstein?

Yeah. I was just wondering. I'm trying to visualize what they're what they mean by such a entity or or, you know, consolidation. So it's hard for me to kinda think of it that way. I you know, I'm thinking every board has its own their own there's their own way of doing things or what have you. And to standardize some, I I like a little bit more of a an exam to see what that looks like.

Go ahead. That's a good point. And I think what I heard for a standardized framework or a resolution would include like a framework, the training, the quorum requirements, expectations. So I think if all the boards have different quorum requirements, I'm just wondering how that might work feasibly if there's still variation in the number of people on the boards. And so that would be different numbers for quorums.

So I guess my question to kind of to Member Vega's point is how would you all envision, or how would the Governmental Processes Committee envision that working? Because just with the quorum requirement, if we all have different numbers and requirements for that, I'm not sure, how could we standardize that across all of them?

I would imagine at least that part would be percentages, right? So over half, three quarters would need to be present so that the numbers don't really matter. I mean I would be open to something, maybe like a standardization as far as like what you were saying our meeting process, like the the flow of the meeting and the the way that we we structure it. I think most of us start with minutes from the previous. You know, something that wouldn't change much of our governance as far as just the structure of how our meetings are laid out that if those were the same I don't think that would be much of an imposition as far as allowing something like that.

And then for quorum, I mean if it's a percentage, I don't know. Obviously elephant in the room, right, is us losing some of our autonomy and then nobody wants that because we wanna be able to govern ourselves and take care of what we think is priority and do it in the way that we think is the most efficient, right? So obviously those are things that we wouldn't wanna lose. But if it's something as far as just like I said, like process of like you start with minutes, you do a pledge, you move into your agenda items, you agendize things for future at the end. I mean that kind of structure I would not really have a problem with as long as it didn't affect us being able to make our own way with what we actually do as a board.

That's all I got.

So it

sounds like we all kind of agree that we don't really think it needs to be standardized. You're saying if if they did that amount of standardization, you'd be okay with it. But I don't think any of us are saying, yeah, we should really look at trying to standardize it across all the Yes. So I would say, let's no.

So do we need to make a motion in order for them to get that kind of feedback from us as far as us not recommending that we not change any of the government as far as how we're governed?

So the way the feedback from the board of ethics will go as of now without any motion would be there were no recommendations on this item. Because the timing of your meeting is not part of of a part of this, process, so it would just be no recommendation. You're not making any recommendations to the structure. You're not making any recommendations to the roles and consolidation, nor are you making any recommendations for a standardized citywide governance.

You said. That sound like good to me.

But okay. So but if we don't make any motions letting them know that we don't really want any changes as far as how we're governed, then are they just going to go on and decide some? Obviously, they can still do that anyway, but with a recommendation a recommendation from the board, letting them know, like, hey. We're kinda happy with the way things are. Would that make any type of difference, or would it just be like

I see where you're going with that. So I could, in in the minutes, express that there were no dis like, have here in my notes that there's no desire to, standardize governing rules. There's no desire expressed to consolidate or change the role of the board, which will be expressed in your minutes. So I would just take an excerpt from the minutes and provide that to the, report that will go to the governmental processes committee.

Okay. Okay. So, does that end that discussion?

Seems like to me. Okay.

Okay. So, we're on item number six, madam chair.

Thank you. Alrighty. So item number six on our discussion calendar is gonna be the annual review of code of ethics and conduct for its effectiveness by city clerk Denise DeGauss. We need to open up for public comment or after you're done?

After the meeting.

Yeah. Okay.

May we pull up the presentation for item number six, please? While they're doing that madam chair I'll get started. So the the matter before you today is to conduct your annual review of the code of ethics and conduct and forward any proposed recommendations for revisions to the City Council Governmental Processes Committee. The code requires that there be an annual review of your code and there's a process established in the ordinance for doing so. The municipal code provides for annual monitoring and oversight in the following cadence before the month of July every board and commission will review and discuss the code of ethics and conduct and submit recommendations.

Like you set forth, each of you went to visit, one of the boards and gave the presentation and solicited their recommendations for any, changes. And before August the board of ethics shall discuss and review the effectiveness of the code make any recommendations that you should have that you may have and also review the recommendations of all the boards and commissions Upon your review in the month of September, the governmental processes committee will receive your report, given by your chair, any recommendations that you may have along with the recommendations of the boards and commissions. Subsequently to that, the governmental processes committee before the end of the year will present a report to the city council, and it will take place at a public hearing. During that public hearing, the council will hear all of the recommendations for changes and any recommendations necessary that they deem appropriate will be voted upon and codified into a new code. Next slide please.

Next slide please. Okay. So now moving into the boards and commission recommendations. The first up is human resources board. Their recommendations are as follow.

They recommended three, recommendations. They they brought forth three recommendations. One, draft a section for digital conduct. I'm not really sure what that expressly means, but I believe, that to mean digital conduct in terms of, social media and things of that nature. Any conduct that take place there, that we include that as one of the violating factors on the code.

The nexus to clarify explicit protection for whistleblowers. And lastly, expand the complaint eligibility to vendors, contractors, and guests that directly interface with the public officials. So right now, your code limits your, the community member that can set that could bring forth a complaint to those that live, work, and, there's another live, work, and go to school. Thank you. Live work and go to school here.

And so they're just recommending that you expand that to vendors and contractors that do business. Basically, that could really mean someone who works here, but they thought that you want to expressly include vendors and contractors. Next slide, please. Moving on to the Community Police Review Commission, they recommended that the six months to a year timeline to file an ethics of complaint be explored by the Board of Ethics for appropriateness. So they ask that you review that to see if that's really appropriate.

And should it be extended for a longer period of time, given that sometimes it takes a little longer to really know if a violation have occurred. And so they're just asking that the Board of Ethics review that for appropriateness. Next slide. The Budget Engagement Commission recommend providing guidance to city staff for filing complaints and creating whistleblower protocols. So that's another this is the second time we're hearing about whistleblower, which is not really covered in the Code of Ethics and Conduct currently, but possibly something you want to consider or bring forth to the city council for consideration.

Next slide. So now moving on to your recommendations, things that we have codified throughout the year as we discussed the code that you wanted to visit or revisit. And there was some discussions about amending the municipal code, include including when the policy of the city of Riverside was established. That's part of the complaint process when complainant fill complete the form. They must include when the policy was established.

So that was something that was discussed by the board some time ago on May 5, to be exact. And we just brought it forth for you to consider as one of your recommendations. And a note is that in your pre conference procedures, it also includes the same language. Next slide, please. And then there's some administrative recommendations that staff have put together just because administratively there's some changes that needs to happen like for example we want to correct the clerical error in RMC section 2,780,785 in reference to the alleged violations of RMC section two point seven eight point zero seven zero ms it should actually be replaced with, it should be in section two point seven eight point zero six zero ms so they're just transposing the seven taking the replacing the seven with the six and then there's an opportunity next slide, to update the titles.

So the Governmental Processes Committee went to a new name, the Inclusiveness Community Engagement and Governmental Processes Committee some time ago. And then they reverted back to Governmental Processes Committee. So we have not updated the code with the new name, and so we just want to go back and change the name of the committee to the Governmental Processes committee and then lastly the next slide for clarity purposes consider revising section 2.7811 to remove language as reflected in attachment four on your report. In attachment four, it just reads that where it says and instruct the city manager to present a report to the city council for its discussion and consideration. Well, the rules in the municipal code state that the chair of the governmental processes committee will present the report.

So we just want to make that change because it's not consistent. And so for that, those are the recommendations that we have. Next slide. And then again, okay. So now, to the final slide, are the recommendations that you perform your annual review of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for its effectiveness, consider the amendment recommendations by the other boards and commissions, and submit its recommended recommendations for amendments to the governmental processes committee as required by the municipal code, and delegate a board member to present the recommendations to the governmental processes committee.

With that madam chair, I'm complete with my report.

Thank you.

Can we play the public comment, announcement 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 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Madam chair, there are no, comments in the chamber and not not all I.

Okay, thank you. So, for the recommendations from the other boards and then also the clerical issues and all that, remind me, do we discuss it during our meetings or did we have an ad hoc at one point?

So, you do have an ad hoc for this board's review of the code of ethics.

I thought so.

But you did not this is your first time hearing the recommendations from the boards and commissions, except for those that presented the code of ethics of conduct to that particular board of commission. For example, if you present it to the transportation board well, Ms. Klitsch's sign just presented to the transportation board. So, she heard their recommendations. Unfortunately, we had already published the agenda.

So, I'm sure she'll share what she learned yesterday with the transportation board with you today during discussion. But this is your opportunity to bring forth any recommendation that you may have that were not codified in your report, but you're going to review it today. And you can bring forth recommendations. And then consider the recommendations by the boards and commissions, and then submit a final report to the governmental processes committee.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So Member, if we can decide, do you wanna discuss the transportation really quickly and then we can kinda dive into some of the recommendations?

Sure, there's

not a lot

to discuss because unfortunately I might made their eyes glaze over yesterday, and so they didn't have any specific comments. And I think they actually made a motion to give comments, but they didn't provide the comments. So there wasn't a whole lot to share from yesterday's meeting. But I was part of the one that provided all of the other comments. So there were some that were very actively providing comments, and others that didn't have any. And yesterday that included the Transportation Board, so nothing else to report there.

Okay, no problem. So I think I'd like to start with the one about the whistleblower since we've gotten more than one comment on that. Has anyone had an opportunity, when you reviewed the schedule for today? Any thoughts on that item?

That seems like a very good idea. I concur that that's something should be codified in the code. Like it.

Okay. I mean, we as far as being able to bring that up as part of our recommendations when we do go up to counsel with what we have, Should we actually discuss what those are gonna look like or talk about it in an ad hoc and then get a couple recommendations from ad hoc to discuss? Because I think it needs to be spelled out very clearly what what those are and how those will work.

Is that something we we could get legal or somebody else's step, you know, so that we would just give generally, yeah, we whistleblower should be protected and then could you please write it up the way that covers all that and then we would look at that and go over it. Is that how it works?

It would be a good place to start.

Yeah. Just in general, yeah, we think they should be protected and it should be in the code that, you know, there can't be any retaliation. Then then the legal language would be developed by staff. Is that right?

So, I understand the desire to fully vet this, the whistleblower provision. However, your recommendations will go to GPC in September. So you can you can make the recommendation without it being fully vetted, and possibly they will then say, okay. What's the recommendation? Or they could tee it to staff to draft language for them to consider in December.

But you can during your presentation at GPC, just know that it it came up with two boards and that the board is, inclined to really vet that particular provision and would like to be a participant in the creation of that. So that way, they'll understand your desire. But in terms of the timeline and getting the board of ethics, excuse me, the code of ethics and conduct through its annual review, I'm not really sure you would have time to get it to the GPC by September.

Right. Yeah, unless we're gonna be here all night.

My only concern is that us presenting the idea that we want something as far as whistleblower protections. In the past when we've gone before the government process committee, they want examples or they want, you know, more details. And obviously, we wouldn't really be able to provide that in the fear that it might just get tabled or, you know, jot down because we didn't provide enough information. So I don't even know I I I totally support the idea, but I think like, agree with miss Newman is I think there's a lot of discussion that needs to be held around that because I don't know what what we could do as far as providing some protections as far as that or how any of that would work because there's a lot of research that has to go into that. Like I said, I'm totally on board and agree with the recommendations.

I just don't know, I think that's going before the governmental process committee and saying, hey, we like this, but we don't really have anything drawn up. I fear that they'll just be like, well, quit now.

That's my concern.

I'm sorry, wanna be an unpopular opinion here, but I got really, really excited about all of my presentations and the feedback. And with our ad hoc committee, we did get together, and I took it upon myself to draft some language to get us going. So again, not wanting to be here all night, I'm definitely not a lawyer and don't have that kind of speak, but wanting to definitely make sure we're considering, especially what other boards had been able to recommend, wanting to make sure that we have something specific to recommend and that it doesn't get missed past next month. So I don't know if you would all be willing to hear what I had kind of drafted now, and again, not knowing if that's even possible, But I just wanted to get us started with some language so that we didn't have to start from scratch. So I'm happy to defer.

Yeah, no, but I think if we at least get some more concrete recommendations when we do present and we're in agreement on what those could look like or or the the direction we'd like it to go and not be starting from zero, that we'd we'd probably be better off, at least getting some traction on it. So I I'm open to hearing those if anybody objects.

I'm definitely open to hearing it as well.

I'm open to it.

Thank you. Hang on one second. So for the whistleblower, I wasn't sure if you all had some specific for the city and other places. So I didn't know if we could kind of copy and paste some of that. But outside of that, what I drafted is to add into the written complaint procedures that complainants are covered by whistleblower policies and the city will not retaliate nor tolerate retaliation against those who in good faith report suspected fraud, waste, or abuse, or participate in an investigation of a suspected violation?

So again, not being just taking my first at getting us started, please help me wordsmith, or if you hate it we can abandon it as well. But again, just wanting to have the purpose to get us started on a discussion.

So I like the language, and I I don't know if that would be just added to like maybe the prohibited conduct is a way to enforce that a little bit?

You mean put in prohibited conduct a violation against a protection for a whistleblower? Mhmm.

Oh.

Because as of right now, where does it go? How does that get enforced besides obviously there's the California laws. But in order for there to be some sort of penalty, wouldn't that have to go under the prohibited conduct?

What I understand board member Klichtenstein's language should be, it would go under, maybe the core values or yeah, maybe under the core values and then you could add prohibited conduct that retaliation of of someone protected under the whistleblower clause or provision. That could be a prohibited conduct.

I like the sound of that.

I mean recommendation. No. Yeah. That could be a recommendation that you're making, that there be

Yeah. No.

A core value added for whistleblowers and that there be retaliation Prohibiting. Prohibiting conduct added to the the code.

Yeah. Sounds good.

I like it.

I like it.

I like it. Anyone do we make a motion?

Yeah. We have to make make a motion to adopt the language and to

Yes. But you can do that. You can take one recommendation at a time or you can take all of the recommendations at once and vote on them all together.

Yeah. Let's do them all at once.

Oh. You think so? Because I think some of them have to be separated, don't they? Because that would be one heck of a motion.

Would might.

At least some of them I think have to be separated. Not all of them necessarily, but I think

We don't have that many is what I'm saying. And if if there's any that we don't agree on

We can separate them?

Yeah.

Okay.

So it'd be like, oh. So, like, someone can

like, let's see.

Do you understand do you understand the code to mean that they review the board of board of commission? They still have to

They'd be violating prohibit conduct. Yeah.

Right. Right. Right. So it's gonna be

more K. It would be like, a, like, you know, abuse of official power.

Right. So

on the complaints, you can do one or more, or the person would be, like, abuse of power. That's their first complaint. And then they get their hours cut. Then would they do, like, another complaint because they got retaliated against? Can they do, like, two back to back complaints against the person?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. There's not a limit that I know, but I think it would have to be on its own merit. Yeah.

Awesome. I keep

forgetting to press it. I'm sorry.

I was just saying for the record, board member Klitsch and Stein, if you can forward that language to me so we can thank Absolutely.

I have a couple of them.

And thank you for drafting the language. We really appreciate. You.

Mhmm. Okay. So draft a section for digital conduct. So I don't know if this is somehow, you know, could be bullying via email. Like, I'm not sure exactly what that means as far as the digital conduct side of it.

I I mean, obviously, we have a lot more technology, but I don't know that any of the I don't know that any of the digital media that because I I remember that we had evidence provided on a violation with copies of Facebook posts in the past and so that's already accepted. Don't know that it needs a whole separate section I guess is what I'm saying. Because the evidence is what the evidence is, whether it's digital or paper, voicemail.

Yeah. I agree because we we did that point of discussion about that was it was specifically in all the training for city officials that, you know, you can't erase any Facebook posts and all that. So it's already it's already there. And somebody was complaining saying they did that, so it's already covered.

Yeah. So I'm not really sure what additional the recommendation is asking us to look at.

I think that it's just that there's questions whether the core values and the prohibited prohibited conduct also relates to digital footprint, right. And I think maybe just even just some language in the core values where it's not just implied just that covers that and makes it clear cut for everyone to understand. I think that's probably because if it's already some, if you take the prohibited conduct, then it also applies to digital conduct. I think maybe just adding a little because we kind of discussed this during one of the ad hoc committees reviewing the code of ethics and conduct is I think just maybe even adding something to the core values just a little bit, just even a couple like a sentence making sure that it's clear that that includes digital conduct as well. Think, Klingenstein, do you have the

Yeah, and I think, I mean for me, and I was doing the presentation when they provided the comments, and I think what struck out for me is I also remembered the training. It was trying to rack my brain and thinking all of that, because I know our wonderful city clerk specifically talked about social media, for example. But I thought it would be helpful to make it explicitly clear. Like if there's another way to make it explicit, clear, obvious, so somebody looks it up, I don't think it would hurt to reiterate it again, right? Some of us, myself, I'm just going to speak for myself, sometimes I need touch two or three times before I remember or think about it.

So if it was a recommendation from another board, I didn't think it would be completely out of line to make it explicitly clear. And again, because I got really excited about this process, I was thinking of it being a core value too. Something around digital communication must reflect the city's commitment to impartiality, fairness, and integrity. And online activity or messages should not create or appear to create bias, partisanship, or conflict of interest or predisposition of pending city matters. So again, I think that's just reiterating what was provided in our training.

And maybe we just take that language and add it in to just make it just another place to reference it was my opinion, thank you. This one I took a stab at. I took a first crack at, but it sounds like it was similar to what so I'm presuming our amazing staff can help us pull that language that you helped us with the training. Member Hernandez.

I know we kind of played around with the idea, and I don't know if just something a little simp just something a little simpler adding to like the core values with that digital activity and communication must reflect the city's commitment to impartiality and fairness integrity. There's obviously, we have, you know, options as far as the language, but I think it's important that we get something in there as far as the core values just that so it clears it up. Because we've had these questions come up quite often during our reviews. There wasn't a motion to make the recommendation, but there was a lot of questions given to me as far as digital conduct.

Could we do it a little broader and just say all Yeah. What's the

You're going where I was going. Yeah. Was gonna say I like

the conduct and the what's the other section that you just were mentioning? The core values. Core values and prohibited conduct also applies to any kind of digital content.

Well, what member Hernandez was saying, we need to find a place to put it. So if we put it in the core values, then I I like the wording that member Klickkenstein wrote. But I think it shouldn't just state, you know, via digital conduct. It should just it should also say by form of action, digital conduct, you know, decision making. I don't know.

Like, I mean, I think it's I think it needs to kind of expand a little bit where it where because I don't want people to say, well, you know, we it was just it was a conversation behind closed doors and it's not, you know, a digital content.

Yeah. I like broad. I like general.

Yeah.

So maybe we can tweak that a little bit. Mhmm. Just gonna take a look at it and see where we can Perfect.

And I forwarded it to the clerk.

Yes. They're gonna bring it down right now. Oh, thank you. Nice. So you can visually see. Well, you can see it.

Next time, I'll make sure I make copies. I wasn't sure.

Oh, no. That's okay. But it's oh, member.

No. If we were talking about the core values, I was just going to make the recommendation of either piggybacking the whole digital contact to either B, C, or D core values. Because I think those really say what our core values are. Because B is to strive to make decisions that are unbiased, fair, and honest. And then it also says that we should strive to avoid participation in all decisions, which create a real or perceived conflict of interest and to disclose any personal interests that could be perceived to be in conflict with fair and impartial exercises of their responsibilities.

That's B. C is to strive to ensure that everyone is treated with respect in an unjust, fair manner. And then it goes on to saying how we pretty much speak of people. And then D goes to strive to create a community that affirms the value of diversity. So I think if we were going to put it in there, it'd be like either just recommending like B, C, or D might be a good spot.

Yeah. So what I was thinking because I was looking at the mall too to see if there was a good fit and where that might be, but I think that it might be better even still to have another letter I and then have it say in the aforementioned core values we require them to be adhered to via digital content and action and you know, whatever. Because then it'll apply to b c d. Like, it'll that you know? Right.

Right.

I think that might be a better way to to try to make sure it covers everything.

Okay. I just need some more.

So, are we ready to move on to item C?

We're going to go over the actual wording.

Thanks.

Alright. Alright so yeah, so Member Klaseenstein had add section I already so it was already part of her recommendation to make it apply to everything. Okay. I think it should be maybe something and I'm just we're winging it. I think it should start off something like parties subject to this code must reflect the city's commitment to impartiality and conflict of interest, Peter's position in all in all digital communication, action, and anything else we can think of to make it more all encompassing.

So just put, yeah, all parties, and it's just a recommendation. All parties subject to the city's subject to this code must reflect the city's commitment to impartiality, fairness, integrity, online activity, or messages. Online oh, actually, so online activity.

I

Digital communication messages or actions should not create or appear to create bias blah blah blah blah. Something like that. We can we can tweak it. We can keep tweaking it. But somewhere somewhere in there, I have an idea.

And thank you for your brilliant help with wordsmithing. Because, again, this was just a starting point, and happy to defer to all of your brilliant historical knowledge.

Thank you, Nancy.

I don't know about all that. Okay.

Just one more? Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

But how do we feel about that? Like, all parties subject to this code must reflect the city's commitment to impartiality fairness, etcetera. Any online activity, digital communication, messages, or actions should not create or appear to create bias. And then leave leave it to think. What do we how do we feel about that? Sounds good to me.

I'm good with it. Thank you. I

wrote it I wrote it down. Okay. So we'll we'll make that part of the part of the motion for this piece. Okay.

So quick note for the digital misconduct. I originally broke it off into both prohibited conduct and core values just so that you'll see it twice on here. That's why.

Yeah.

Okay. So,

yeah, so the prohibited conduct is at the top. Do we wanna look over that real quick to see we need to tweak that a little bit?

I think it already pretty much captures what we all are agreed on, and I think the, governmental processes committee would do any final tweaking that makes it, you know, legal or whatever. But this kind of reflects what we want to say. I don't know if we have to get it completely nailed down. I think as long as this covers it, like it's it's included.

So my only thing here would be where it says, those subject to this code are prohibited from engaging in digital misconduct. Online activity, actions or messages that create or appear to create bias. So it kind of ties in. I don't know.

And I wasn't sure here if we put something like while you're speaking on behalf of the board. Like, didn't know if we had to differentiate that as well. I don't know if that's a given of, like, you know, you're representing as a member of your board or commission, this applies. Right? So not individually.

Right. Because we did have a complaint about member Clarissa Cervantes on her off hours and not being, you know, representing the city at the time of her DUI. Yeah. So I think we should be clear because we've had that issue before.

Yeah.

Sounds good. Yeah.

So I think we can put it at the end on the prohibited conduct. Any violation of prohibited conduct under this code shall encompass online activity while representing the city, while working and representing the city. I don't know how you wanna word When

representing a board or commission or when representing your position. That's a good one.

While representing.

Appointed or elected position.

Oh, that sounds good.

I like it.

Yeah. That's nice.

Appointed or elected. Yes. Yeah.

Or if if they're online saying like, hey. You know? As of

like, they're doing from,

like, their

official money. Uh-huh.

Right. Yeah. Right. Okay. TikTok.

Now we're getting into some dangerous territory.

He has no way. Alright. So I like that because then if we just it's still worded really great, then we just put that at the end to to fessify that that that's what what we're able to what's in our purview anyway. Okay. I think that's good for digital conduct. That was amazing. Thank you for Mhmm. We actually got something done during a meeting that didn't take fifty hours.

Thank you for indulging me. I wasn't sure if I was going the right way. No.

You told yeah. No. I appreciate that. That was awesome. Yep. Okay. The other one that we had, digital conduct. We talked about whistleblowers. I think we need to put something down so that when we make the motion we know exactly what we're saying. If I forgot already.

Told you it was gonna be a doozy.

Danica, do you Back when we decided on the whistleblower. What so hold on. Complaints about whistleblower policies. Okay. Okay. City will not retaliate. Okay. Okay.

So what I have is the recommendation will be the whistleblower language be added to the core values section as read as read into the record by board member Klichtenstein and that a retaliation provision be added to the prohibited conduct section of the code.

Okay. Then the next one is expand the complaint eligibility to vendors and contracts. Okay. So how do we feel about allowing the vendors and contractors to submit the complaint? I mean, it makes sense to me if if they're, you know, abusing their power, abusing their position, or taking in bribes or things like that, that the people that they do business with should probably be able to bring those things up and say, hey, I've had a bad run-in with a city official or whomever.

Yeah. I I agree. And I

think

you've already got it covered under section f where you add the words including vendors and contractors after work in Section F. So people who work in the city, including contractors and vendors Right. Will just cover it.

So Right. Yeah. I I think that's a good place for it as well. I'm I'm happy with the recommendation on that one too.

I agree.

Anyone have objections? No. Lovely. Member DeHarrar, do you need a minute? You're good? Okay perfect. Alright then also we had the one about adding a little bit more time to the six months to a year timeline on the ethics complaints. I don't wanna go crazy on something like this and do

Do you want me to

talk because about

we kinda already went through this the year before where I think you and I were in agreement that it should be two years was a happy medium.

Right.

And then it got turned into three. And obviously that was a no for the governmental process committee, I think two years is more than fair. I know individuals have expressed to me how long it takes to get some, documentation from the city, things And like sometimes it can take close to a year or if not longer. So I think two years is a reasonable amount of time to be able to bring a a complaint against a public official.

Okay. I I like that. If anyone has any any further discussion on that, that's also on member of Liechtenstein's recommendations. So, I'm happy with that as a happy medium that we should have gone with to begin with. Too. Okay.

Uh-oh. So that was the

Expanding the time frame to two years.

And you're okay with the way it's written?

Complaint shall be filed with city clerk no later than two years from the date of the alleged Yep. I don't anybody have differing views on there? Don't think so either. Budget engagement recommends providing guidance to city staff for filing complaints. I don't know what that means.

Who took that? Member Kiltenstein, was that you that took that? Did they explain what they meant?

Yeah. So my understanding, it was very similar, like related to the whistleblower. So my understanding was how to prevent someone from having anything happen. So like not necessarily making a complaint after you had been retaliated against, but is there a way to prevent it from being able to happen? Could we add that language where it's preventative versus adding a recourse? I don't know if

that makes sense, but

that's what I heard from them.

So I think that kind of from my point of view, we covered that because we're adding that to the core values. So I mean they've been told, right, especially when they receive their training, they've already been clearly explained that this is a core value. You will not do this action. And then we have the recourse after that. So I don't think there's unless there's something further anyone else can think of that we can

The only way you can prevent it is by putting it in the code. Say you can't do this. That's how you prevent it.

Right. Right. And if it's core value, then I I think we're good. Right. Yeah. Okay. So whistleblower already done. The year extension, whistleblower, vendors, contractors, digital conduct. Okay. Alright.

And then the ones from the staff. Oh, actually, I'm gonna come back to the one that we were talking about including when the policy of the city of Riverside was established because I think we had back and forth with that and that was gonna be a larger discussion. I kinda wanna knock out the low hanging fruit first if you guys don't mind. So the 2.7806 I think is correct. I looked at it when I was reviewing my packet and I don't have an issue with that typo change.

Our sections kind of vary as we update and change the code. It's no big surprise. There was an error there. Anyone dissent on the change for 60? Great.

Alright. And then this is the whole ICGC craziness. Does anybody have issue with taking off recommendations of the Board of Ethics and other boards of commissions? I don't know why, now that we're getting more boards and commissions to participate and help us, I don't know why we want to get rid of though that we're still the leading body to make these updates and recommendations. Does anybody else think?

By putting the burden on us?

Because the staff is recommending we cross out recommendations of the Board of Ethics and other boards and commissions. I think we should still be left in as far as who spearheads all that. Right? I don't like that part of the recommendation, but the other parts to get rid of the ICGC stuff, I'm fine with.

Where are you at?

We're on page five.

Page five.

The one on the top. Okay. So I would like to recommend to leave the board of ethics piece in, but then leave it. Anybody else have thoughts, differing views? Does it all matter?

So your recommendation is that we'll that they

We leave this piece.

Right. I think so too.

Oh, good. Yeah. Alright. Member DeHerrera, go

ahead. Sorry. No, I just have a question. It's kind of going to be like a little bit of backtracking for the boards and commission recommendations. So I see that we missed a recommendation from the committee police review because they had two recommendations. Because it said one recommendation they want is, one, receive and order file the report of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, and two, request a timeline. So What? Sorry. I'm backtracking because

What page is that?

I'm looking on the minutes from the police review commission. Oh. So it's page 23. So I was looking at the highlighted thing in our packet.

Okay. Yeah. Because there's only one. All right.

So did we miss one or maybe am I misreading? No. It's on page 23 of the big packet that

we have. Yeah, commission receive an order filed the report on the code of ethics and conduct. Don't know. So all that means is

that they received a report from the board member and they filed it. And then they made a recommendation. So the first recommendation is just receive the report. Gotcha. Sorry.

Because I I met him. I misread it as they also want a copy of all the complaints. So I was like, wait. What? Okay. No. No. Was misreading

it. Okay.

No, but that's a good point. It sparks my memory. They were asking us to consider any other recommendations from previous years from other boards that may have not been included by the Governmental Processes Committee. And I didn't know because I didn't have historical. I'm like, I don't know what was included and what wasn't.

And so, then I reached out and asked, for example, which ones weren't included from our recommendations and tried to go from there. But I think the point of that was just for us to consider if there was anything else in the past that someone else had provided a recommendation that we if it wasn't included, because part of the presentation was that it's at the pleasure of the city council to implement. So maybe we presented the recs, but they didn't take it. So could we reconsider kind of looking at those past ones too? So I tried to

I mean, I'm okay with looking at it again, but I think we're short on time for this year. We can kinda dig for stuff. And I tried to do

that, and it didn't seem like there it seemed like a lot of the things were covered from previous years that weren't necessarily included. And most of it came from this board compared to the others. So I did try to do some research on that to see.

Okay. Then I think we're okay with that.

We're still covering the

Yes. And then let's see. Perform manual. So we've got recommendations, consider amendment from other boards, submit the recommendation to government, and then delegate someone to go. Okay.

So we're gonna go back to the one about including when the policy of the city of Riverside was established on page three, board and commission recommendations. We've been talking about how to fix this, and I don't know if we can just remove it. The last thing that I remember recommending was changing it to say including when the policy of the city of Riverside was established if applicable to a new policy or a recent policy because that information isn't just widely available to people and it's gonna cause an issue with filing the complaint, trying to do it in good faith. The only reason that we would care when the policy was established is if the complaint was filed for conduct afterward, right? So it wasn't a policy when the action occurred and then it was changed or there was something added.

And now we need to know the timeline to make sure that that person is in violation, right?

I think it puts the onus on the complainant. And it shouldn't be on them. Should be able to just our whole goal is to simplify this whole thing to make it understandable for everyone. And if we put that in there, I think that's gonna throw people in. They might look at it and say, oh god, I can't do all that. Right. But I think if we can always, as a board, ask legal or someone else, say, we get a complaint, we have a pre conference, we can say, did this happen after the policy? We can figure Well, that

in all honesty, for me, I would imagine if I was the person being complained about and I had justification to say this happened before we changed the policy, it would be on me to say this is when the policy was established, this doesn't apply as part of my defense. I don't think that that's something that needs to be provided up front.

I agree. Should be, yeah. Yeah. Not the complainant, the respondent should, if that's part of their defense, bring that up. But yeah, the complainant should not have to have that kind of technical and do research and one thing, yeah.

So does anyone have issue with us just removing the bold section that's in the complaint?

I don't have any problem with it. I think it's I agree with both of you that it's it puts a lot of burden on the complainant to do a lot of research. And even then, if if the research they're doing, like where they're looking it up is outdated or it just it it prevents people from filing. I think it prevents people from filing complaints. Yep. And I I agree.

Okay. So any further discussion? Anyone have objection to us moving in that direction for that particular section and removing the bold? Speak now. Perfect. Okay. I think we plowed through all of that. And I think we can do Can

we come to consensus about this one? Because I think you heard her kinda brought something up in the middle of working on that one.

Oh yeah, no I think because it's no longer the ICGC for Member Hernandez was talking about item number nine on page five for administrative recommendations where it says we wanna remove the ICGC title from government process committee or just the IC part instead of the GC, the GC stays I guess. I don't know. All those acronyms were also confusing for everyone. Okay, but the inclusiveness community engagement part is no longer the official name of that committee anyway, so that should be stricken out. If anyone wants to have discussion on okay, perfect.

Then I see a lot of head shaking. So the only thing that was left for that slide was really to leave in the Board of Ethics piece, which we all agreed on. So I think we're okay on that slide too.

Just wanted to make sure.

Yeah, no, thank you. Okay. Think

So we're we're on a where it says Board of Ethics, the other boards and commissions, everything is just left the same.

No. Just that piece is left the same. Board of ethics and other is gonna stay in and then the ICE community Yeah. Is taken out.

Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm. Okay.

Alright. See if I can do this. I have motion. Okay. We would like to make I would like to make a motion that in regard to the whistleblower, we would like to leave in, the recommendations by member Klickpenstein, as far as actually, I'll just make a Yep.

I have it all.

Oh okay.

Yeah, do you want me to read it to you?

I was just gonna make it easy and say that in the recommended wording that we received we have a couple changes. And otherwise adopt the way that was presented by member of Clinton's son. But yeah, go ahead. I'll let you summarize. You're very good at it.

Okay. Was just looking for the last part. Seven one one zero to make sure that I have it right. It's back here. And that we just include okay. Here. We keep the board of ethics. So we're just striking out and instruct the city manager.

We're striking out inclusiveness community engagement and? Yes. We are. I think we do the motion for this first, and then we figure out who we want to send to do the presentation. And then I think we're done.

Okay. So for item number three, your recommendations, what we have so far, we have five eight recommendations. The first will be, amending two point seven eight zero five zero and two point seven eight zero six zero with the whistleblower language added to the core values section and the retaliation added to the prohibited conduct as read into the record by board member Klichtenstein. The next recommendation is 2.78

What?

Zero five zero point excuse me two seven two point seven eight zero five zero and two point seven eight zero six zero related to the digital conduct as written by chair Newman and recommendation 2.7804 adding language, including vendors and contractors and after work. And the Sorry. Recommend

Just really quick. City clerk, the the first one for the prohibited conduct on the digital communication?

Yes.

So for prohibited conduct at the end of what member Klicktenstein read, it was gonna be any violation of prohibited conduct under this code shall encompass online activity while representing your appointed or elected position.

Right, as you have it written.

Oh, as I have it written. Yes. Oh, I heard you say that on the core values part, not the prohibited

digital conduct. So the whistleblower was as written as read into the record Yep. By board member Klichtenstein, and the digital conduct is as written as you have it written. Okay? And then recommendation 2.7804 adding language in including vendors and contractors after work.

The recommendation amending two point seven eight point zero seven zero. The complaint shall be filed with the city clerk no later than two years from the date of the alleged violation recommendation two point seven eight point zero six zero as staff recommended the administrative change is okay recommendation, changing the name from ICGC to, governmental processes committee, another recommendation 2.78 amending 2.7807 striking the language, including when the policy of the city of Riverside was established. And the last recommendation amending 2.7811 striking the language, instruct the city manager to present a report to city clerk excuse me, to city council for its discussion and consideration.

Yes. And then did we have the one for Section D and leaving in the Board of Ethics piece?

So the only language that's being stricken from 2.7811 is striking out. Instruct the city manager to present to report to city clown to city council for its discussion and consideration. The name change will will occur with your other recommendation to make all references to ICGC go to governmental processes committee.

Okay.

So so the only the only change to that provision will be what is stricken out instructing the city the last sentence.

So before they did give the report?

No. Because the so you're it's it's The code contradicts itself in one section it says that the chair of the governmental processes committee will present the The report and in this section it says that the city manager will present the report so It's always the chair of the committee, so we we're asking that you strike that contradiction from the record.

Okay. Yeah. And that was fine. I think we were

Because the city manager has no part. He does not participate he or she does not participate in the annual report at all. So to insert them at the end wouldn't be appropriate.

Right. But that was for for section c and I I was talking about d, this

one? That's for Okay. I think that's I'm looking at the actual code.

Because Section D has to remove the

Okay. So it's not part of your recommendation, so it won't happen?

Well, it's fine for the inclusive community engagement to be removed because that's Right.

But that's part of your recommendation.

Yeah.

So if you're not recommending, it won't happen.

Right. But I think you're just making it clear that we're not recommending that the board of ethics be stricken.

This piece was taken out. We want to Right.

So the only thing that's moving forward are your recommendations. So if you're not recommending it, it will not move forward. Okay.

I guess I just was making sure I I heard that. This this specific one in your summary.

Because you you didn't make any changes to that one, so it wasn't in my summary.

Wait. We We did.

We did because we didn't want the board of ethics stricken from that.

That's a rec so it's a recommendation. It's in the code written right now. It says board of ethics. So that's the way it's written in the code. The recommendation was that the board of ethics be stricken out. But you're not moving that recommendation forward, so it was not identifying in your recommendations that you're moving forward. But

on the other part of the recommendation was to get rid of the ICE.

And that's one of your recommendations. Name change. That'll cover all the letters. So all the letters every every reference to ICEEGC in the code will now be stricken and replaced with governmental processes committee.

I gotcha. So now it's it's all it applies to all of them.

All of them.

Now now I'm with you. I I move that we move forward with the recommendations as read by by the city clerk. Second.

Aye. Yeah. Second.

Motion passes unanimous thank

you Okey dokey. Man we are moving along.

One more recommendation.

One more?

One more. Now you select

Oh yes yes yes yes yes yes. So recommendations on, do we only send one person, city clerk?

It's Volunteers Bureau say the quorum. Okay. It's at your discretion.

Okay. I I would like to go, but I also think member LinkedIn would like to attend. Obviously, the issue was I would. So actively involved.

Are you gonna present?

Yeah. I would. We'll do it together if Yeah. That's

Thank you.

I'd like to go to just open.

Yeah, as long as we don't have a quorum, she said, it's fine. Three. So then it would be the three of us. Do we need a motion for that too? Yes. Yes. Okay. I make a motion that myself, member Hernandez, and member sign.

I I move. I so move.

Attend the thing.

Attend the thing.

Motion carries unanimous. Okay.

Then, we would be moving on to the next one. Brief reports on meetings attended by board members.

Attended the California Race Equity Commission meeting. They have, it's a state, obviously a state body, and they go around different places throughout the year. And so I always try to attend when they come to Riverside County. Just So wanted to mention for the record and for any community members who may be listening and to our board to encourage us if you have interest to definitely check those out. They are available virtual as well, so if they're in a different area, you can still watch and participate. Thank you.

Okay. Do we need a report on the, well I guess we already got the report from her attendance at the the meetings with the other boards to show or to ask for recommendations. So, they're all here. So, that's good. Any other meetings? Anyone attended?

I did our brief presentations at for the human relations commission and two others that I can't remember. No, the planning commission and the cultural heritage board. So, those three. And they didn't have any comments to send back.

Okay.

And I I did the media museum board, and they didn't have any input either.

Did attend the town hall there at the Arlington Library for Ward 5. It was Sean Mill. They were discussing the hospital right there behind Lowe's, the one run by Riverside, RU HS. And, know, obviously, there is a lot of discussion about the homelessness and, you know, the lingering homelessness as a result of hospital. So it was interesting. I don't wanna go back any further than that or we'll be here a while. Okay.

Then moving on, ad hoc committee update. So, the subpoena power and authority to compel employee representative to appear as witness?

Okay. So as far as that committee, I think it's kind of reached its end. We've kind of already done the research. Obviously, what's happened in the past has happened. You know, we did as a result figure out that in my research, know, far as us having the subpoena power and as far as the breakdown and the research from what we've done, it should have fallen upon the city attorney to go to a judge to enforce that subpoena.

But obviously for her reason it was removed. We've talked to other cities. We've gotten ideas of what it should look like as far as us having subpoena power again. I don't think that I don't know if we need to make a motion to kind of terminate or end that ad hoc committee, but we do wanna create another one, another ad hoc committee as far as planning, getting that subpoena power through the voters going before the charter committee, which if I'm not mistaken is going to be they're getting applications and they're meeting soon, beginning sometime middle of next year, beginning of next year. So I don't know what you think about any of that.

Looking at because they were talking about February, March, or something like that to start getting the membership and everything else. And I think that would probably be a better time to get not only that subpoena part, but everything else that we are planning to look at as far as the board of ethics status and and it's, you know, again, my issue my issue pushing that they be the board of ethics be independent.

So, again, as far as the ad hoc committee for the researching of the subpoena power, that's pretty much the results. I don't know, like, what the process is as far as, like, ending that on how committee.

I think we just state that its purpose has been served and then we can remove it from future agenda.

Okay. And then obviously I believe we need to make a motion to create the other ad hoc committee.

Okay.

So I make the motion that we create an ad hoc committee that puts together a plan to put before the charter committee next year to put before the voters us acquiring the subpoena power and making the board of ethics more independent.

I second it.

Is that something we can do now or do we have to put it on agenda for next month? I know it's very picky about we can only act on things that are on the agenda.

It

needs to be put on the agenda.

Because it's a new activity that we it's not on here.

You know? This is just an update.

Alright. So

So we'll add it to items for future board considerations.

Yeah. Okay.

In a few moments.

I strike the strike the motion. Yeah.

To get it together too. Okay.

Creating method for public education and public outreach. So we don't have much of an update on that one. We need to schedule our next meeting to to happen soon. I think I have a little bit more time now with my schedule. So I will will send a request to to you guys about that. Oh, member Vega, you're on that? Mhmm. Did we change it? Was it? Were

you on this? Yeah. It's just us three.

It should be yeah. I thought it was just the three of us. When did you get added?

You know, I I'm even confused now because I did so many other committees and stuff though.

Yeah, think you're on some others. Right. Yeah.

You can take me on.

Okay. So Denise said I think that one for item 8B should be member foreman, not member Vega. Public education and public outreach.

Okay.

But I will send something to to the two of you so we can set up the next one pretty soon. In the next week. And we can get we can continue on that with the work that we've already done. Item number nine. Future items for future consideration for our agenda.

So, obviously, the formation of an ad hoc committee to discuss the subpoena power and independence of the Board of Ethics putting that before the charter committee next year.

Okay. Do we need to put the time change on future next month's agenda?

Okay. So time change as well. We have two items. Any others?

No. I think that's it.

Alright. I just would like to take a minute to before we close, to thank member Kligtenstein for for all of the dedicated work she did and all of the meetings she attended on our behalf. Mhmm. It was an awful lot to do and a lot to take on. And keeping us moving forward kind of on spur of a moment and getting so much accomplished tonight, think was just wanted to give a shout out to tell of your efforts.

Thank you.

And thanks for making the rest of us look bad.

Yeah. I appreciate you all indulging me in all of my questions. So appreciate being part of this amazing, brilliant group.

Alright. So that being said, I call to finish our meeting, 07:24. Alright.