Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body - Regular Meeting

I'm calling the meeting to order today at 05:02. Yes. It's got a green light. Yeah. It's on, but there must be a technical difficulty.

They're gonna check it. Understood. I was notified. Apologies for those oh, there we go. Testing

123. Okay.

Testing 123. Testing 123. Okay.

Alright. Well, calling meeting to order for second time, 504 here. We always start with our pledge of allegiance. So, who can I get to lead us on that today? Gil? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Alrighty. Thank you.

So first item on our agenda as usual is public comment. For a virtual, public comment, we have two options. We also may have some folks, in chamber that would like to speak but for those of you that are virtual, via telephone, you can call (951) 826-8688. Press 9 to be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be prompted to unmute by pressing 6 to speak.

Via Zoom, you will use the following link, h t t p s colon backslash backslash zoom.us/j/9269699126five. You'll select the raise hand function to speak. An on screen message will prompt you to unmute and speak. Public comments as a reminder are limited to three minutes. And okay.

No hands in the chamber, and we'll give it just a few moments for it. Yes. I don't wanna throw my voice over there. Oh is she gonna fill it out over there? Okay.

Miss? Go ahead and come forward and we'll get your card after.

Tonight, my name is doesn't work either.

There it goes.

Oh, it does. Lovely. My name is Dana Cisneros. I am legal counsel for TATRV LLC, OTC Riverside LLC and PACS LLC. The complainants this evening. And I'm here making a public comment because there are a few logistical issues

that I

would like to address before this hearing commences. One is

that to notify you that we have a public records request, specifically numerous public records requests pending. One such request which we think is highly relevant are the records of communications of mister Worsenski. And I was told by the clerk's office that they will not have those records available until September 12 at the earliest. We also have a pending subpoena out in our sister litigation for similar records because we have not received cooperation from the city in releasing the public records we're entitled to. And those subpoenas are due to come back on September 30.

Some logistical issues to address. There are four complaints before this board tonight. I was requested by the chair to separate them into the four complaints rather than bringing them as one unified complaint even though we believe that the council acted in concert with each other. With that said, we believe that it would be inappropriate for anyone from Wards 345, Or 6 to weigh in on this Board of Ethics meeting because those are indeed the council members who are implicated in the complaint. I've watched the past four years of this board's meetings, and I have never seen this board advance one single hearing.

Not one time has anybody been able to go forward on an ethics complaint. Each and every time this board has found that the complainant had insufficient evidence to move forward. That is highly concerning to me, especially when we are not given access to the information that the public is entitled to as a matter of law. With that said, I would just reiterate my request that members of this panel from Wards 345 And 6 be disqualified and removed from this hearing so that they are not to hear any of what takes place here since those council members presumably appointed those people. Next, I want to remind this board that you are to review the evidence in light most favorable to the complainants.

It is my understanding that council member Perry has submitted a declaration which contradicts the declaration that was submitted by my clients by a member of the California bar under penalty of perjury. And so the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to my clients, irrespective of any contradictory evidence. And I believe that's all. So I'll leave it to you all hopefully to discuss some of the logistics. One One question we do have is, since there are four complaints and three complainants on each of them, do we want to hear from just one person?

Do you want to hear from all three complainants? It's likely to be extremely duplicative. The facts that serve as the basis are indeed the same for each of the council members. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone online? Thank you. Okay. So the thank you for your comments. The next item on the discussion calendar is going to be determining absence of member de Herrera from 06/05/2025 meeting as excused or unexcused. Any discussion on that? I move

that we excuse the absence. I say find it as excused.

So what I was reading in the minutes, we did not get notification that you were not going to be here?

No. Yeah.

Okay. No, I didn't give advance notice. No.

Okay.

I still make that motion just, you know, it's that was an unusual occurrence. She's normally here. So, I would vote to count it as excused.

Good second.

Okay. We have a motion. Yes.

Motion carries. Four excuse me. Five affirmative votes. One abstention. Board member Dee Herrera.

Okay. Thank you. And then we have the discussion on the meeting time change. Do you need any public comment on this one? Yes, okay.

Alright so as a reminder if you would like to make any comments on this particular item please do call via phone (951) 826-8688. There's also the option via Zoom to call in for comment. Okay. Any objections to moving our time? People want to advocate for moving our time to fix?

At our last meeting, was nodding yes when I suggested 6PM. So, I think we can make quick work of that if everyone agrees. I move that we change our meeting time to 6PM.

All second.

We're dying to like make the motion.

Okay. Just making sure no other discussion before we No. Cool. Great.

Think we're on agreement.

For vote.

That motion carries unanimous. Madam chair, we have skipped the consent calendars if you want to go back to item number two.

Oh the minutes. Yes. I'm so sorry we did. I usually never get public comment in the beginning. Okay and sorry to jump out of order here folks. So we'll go back to item two for the minutes of last month, August 7. Any issues with the minutes as they were recorded by the clerk?

Yeah I have request. Could you add in my name under the consent calendar that voted yes to approve the minutes from the month before? I think my name is just omitted. Oh, okay. Perfect.

And then I think Vice Chair Hernandez, we had on here for the ad hoc updates that you had reported research was complete and that you were suggesting the committee be defended?

Right in the section for items to be discussed in future meetings.

Yeah, okay and then we still have the items to be considered which was the new ad hoc that you wanted

to form, right? Correct.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure you were okay with the way that was entered there.

That's fine as long as it gets on there.

Okay. Any motions to approve the minutes as submitted with the one correction?

Yes I make a motion.

Second. Okay so that'll be a motion to approve minutes from the August with the one correction for member clicking sign

motion carries unanimous as amended

okay thank you alright that was quick and efficient I hope we're here for everyone's why everyone is here. Okay. So we've arrived at item number five for pre conference. Can the complainant and respondent that is here for the item regarding council member Perry Please identify themselves and chamber if you're here.

Yes,

am. I'm here. I'm council member Jim Perry.

Okay, thank you. Alright. No, raising your hand is okay. Alright.

Okay.

Noted that we have and I'm sorry you were? Yes. CEO of PAX Riverside. Okay. Is in chamber, council member Perry in chamber and we have OTC on the phone.

Okay.

Thank you. Alright so as the board of ethics we need to review the complaint and determine if it complies with all of the procedural requirements for the Code of Ethics and Conduct. I will now ask the Board of Ethics to determine whether the complaint procedures of this chapter have been followed. Is the complaint against the public official? Does the complaint allege a violation of one or more of the provisions of the prohibited conduct section? Does the complaint not restate allegations of violations that were subject to a previous complaints? All of those should be affirmative if anyone has discussion or anything to say in that regard.

I believe the complaint meets all of those qualifications.

Okay, great. Alright so I will call for a motion. So can anyone go ahead and make a motion that we have determined that there is a compliance for procedural section of the complaint?

Could we I want to go back to the logistical issue. Do we need to discuss or get a legal opinion on whether we can treat this as one complaint instead of going through these steps for all four of the complaints. That's a good point. I mean, if we did each one individually, that could take us all night. But is it legal and okay to treat it as one complaint but then for each person against whom the complaint is filed treat them separately but go through all these steps as one complaint since it's the same for all four people.

Because there's four separate complaints we have to go through each complaint.

Okay. Okey dokey, let's talk.

I'm glad you asked and put that out there but yes I was aware that that means to move forward individually. That's just even though reviewing the packets information is submitted multiple times, a lot of the same information. They are each entitled to you know go through the process of

Okay.

Of the complaint. So I I'll make a motion stating that everything is in compliance as far as council member the complaint against council member Perry for us to move forward to the next step in the proceedings.

But I have one question. The legal side again. The point was brought up about recusing ourselves.

We're gonna

get to that, Gil.

Oh, we're gonna get to

Can we just, yes.

Oh, alright. I second.

I was just wondering.

There any other?

Trying to not derail as much as possible before we get I to where we need to second the motion. Thank you.

The motion carries unanimous.

Okay. Thank you. So The next item is gonna be Board of Ethic requires, our code requires that we attempt at least attempt to facilitate any kind of settlement discussions with both parties present and the ones on the phone as well. Is there any interest in taking time to talk this out before we move forward with the complaint process? Yeah.

Oh sorry yeah the complainant would need to.

Yes but I think all four of us should be here. We are still missing Lauren from the artistry. Okay. Council Member Perry.

Wait, wait.

I have no interest in having a settlement conversation. Okay. When I have an opportunity to address you as a group, it'll become evident as to to why I feel that way.

Okay, okay. Well with multiple parties engaged in this process and one dissenting, we'll have to move forward without taking the time to do that. Okay and then hopefully by the time we get to the next one your other party will be here and we might have a different outcome. Okay. Sorry I'm not really understanding that.

Okay. Alright. So the third matter that we need to discuss at this point is going to be whether any of the submitted evidence is irrelevant to the complainant and should be deemed inadmissible. Now before we do get to this step, I think that we you know we do want to take into account public comment and you know I'm sure that there are questions for all of us as well. I know from our training and then our our code as well and our processes that we have.

We've discussed recusion before and it's kind of up to the board whether or not we do that. I will say that I do have a concern if we dismiss four of the five of us. There's one person to listen to this complaint. I don't know at this point we can discuss with the attorney your opinions.

What is your question?

Well I know from you know from previous thoughts and I guess I'm just looking for confirmation from you. What our understanding is that in you know in fairness and transparency and you know us having to recuse ourselves because of you know complaints being against a council member in our area. That's something that's up to the board to decide whether it's something that we should look at or not. Correct. Okay. So I guess the discussion here on the floor is if anyone feels they can't be impartial or would like to explore recusing.

I I am absolutely impartial. I have no ties to my council person. I wasn't even appointed by that council person. It was before that. I there's no problem with me. Do not worry.

I was also not appointed by my council person. I moved in the middle of when after I was appointed I moved and was appointed by a different member. So I don't and again logistically would cause quite a bit of issue for one person Tina and then we wouldn't have a quorum anyway. We wouldn't be able to move forward with the complaint. I think that's as far as transparency goes. We can do the best that we can do but if anyone does you know please be honest and say if there's any issues with impartiality moving forward and hearing the complaints.

I'm gonna be transparent is that I am from Ward 6 and I was appointed by Mr. Jim Perry but that doesn't mean that I won't be impartial regarding this case. Obviously am on the board of ethics because I strongly believe in transparency and accountability and I will move forward as such.

Okay agreed I think and also perhaps it was more than four years ago but we have moved forward to trial. I personally have been on multiple complaints where we have gone through the full process and gone on to hearing with Placentia, with Cervantes, with there's been quite a few that we've moved forward with as well.

Me too, I've been on I haven't even been on the board for years and we've done at least three since I was on here. Yeah.

And I have been on the board for over forty years too and I feel that I can be very impartial to the court and I was selected pretty much by the city council several years ago. Yep. And again, I should you could do you could rely on me. She you could you could bet. Okay.

That being said, we do have the next matter at hand and I do like to try to move as quickly as we can. We have a long evening ahead of us so you know that's as best as we can do at this point. So we're asking the Board of Ethics to discuss whether any of the submitted evidences irrelevant to the complainants and we feel that it may be deemed inadmissible. Everyone had a chance tonight like to take a moment to acknowledge everybody had a chance to go through the 400 and plus pages of their packets Yes. Okay.

Any discussion on things deemed irrelevant? Nothing? Okay, me as well really. The one time I can say this has been kinda nice reviewing a complaint that has all the items and not just yeah. So okay, so not really much of any discussion on any kind of in admissibility does any member wish to make a motion to exclude any motion and if not we can make a do we make a motion to move forward just move forward okay okay

I make a motion to move forward

I don't think we need one, we just need one in case we need to stop. Alright, fourth matter on for the Board of Ethics to address is going to be we will now consider whether the complainant has shown that the evidence if taken as true more likely than not shows a potential violation of prohibited conduct for the code of ethics. So this is kind of the meat of our process at this point. I know I'm sure that many us have opinions and things that we would like to say. So would anyone oh and I also would like to oh I don't need to read RMC code 2.780.075D5.

Okay. No one has requested to speak yet so you've got buttons. Try to keep this a little organized if we can to some extent. Okay Member Forman go ahead.

I just had a question about some of the evidence if there's somebody that can speak to that. Like just a question of what were you talking about on this part and that kind of thing?

Is that the timeline? No, that would be the next step that we go into but just kind of general discussion on anything that you are comfortable with at this point. The next step that we have will be pursuant to sections three L, M and N for our hearing rules. The complainants have up to ten minutes to present and etcetera so at that point we can ask any questions but is there any discussion that we want to start on regarding whether the evidence would be taken as true more likely than it not shows a potential violation?

Without hearing from the complainant, I don't know if it seems kosher to say well just from reading all this stuff it does seem more likely than not but is that jumping the gun? But that's my first impression from reading that it's more likely than not that there's a case here.

Yeah, there's a lot to discuss but we will have an opportunity to talk to the complainant. Yes? Oh we do go through to the part where we call them up, perfect. That makes much more sense to me. Okay so pursuant then to sections three LM and N of the board of ethics hearing rules the complainants will have up to ten minutes total to present all tangible evidence summarizing any witness testimony that the complainant intends to use at the hearing, to prove a violation of prohibited conduct.

In the sections, marked for code of ethics any member of the board of ethics may ask questions of the parties during this pre conference then the Board of Ethics is to assume that all representations of evidence by the complainant are true for limited purpose of determining whether complainant has shown it is more likely not a violation of prohibited conduct section of code of ethics has occurred. So the first person up and again that would be a ten minute mark on the clock please and that would be the complainant coming forward to present tangible evidence summarizing witness testimony that intends to be included. No you cannot come forward as the attorney it would have to be the complainant. As

for a point of order, is that ten minutes combined for all three of them?

We're we're listening to everyone.

I mean all three of my clients.

Oh right. Sorry. Yes. That's a very good question. No. So it's actually gonna be ten minutes shared. Okay combined. Yeah because they're all so they're they're as a group of one. Yeah so you know if each person wants to take three minutes and then have someone summarize the last minute or if somebody wants to designate one person to speak for everyone. However you would like to or prefer to divide that up, that's perfectly fine. I know we have folks online and we are waiting on one more person. Any update on

She's parking.

She just said she was parking

at 528 which was five minutes ago.

Okay. So let me give you guys three minutes, four minutes to figure out how you wanna present in the ten minutes to figure out what how you're gonna split up your time. Yes recess for four minutes. Yes. Understood.

Okay. Yeah. I thought for some reason we were gonna talk about it before we did all. Alright and just a reminder to you I mean it is a courtesy the complainant doesn't have to be present for the proceeding to continue but we are here so.

Okay.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so we've decided to go three minutes each.

No, Lauren's gonna do the presentation.

Okay. Okay.

Good evening, thank you for your patience. My name's Lauren

Sorry, give me one second because I gotta put the time on here for you. Okay, go ahead.

Okay, my name's Lauren Fontaine, I'm one of the owners of TATRV LLC which is one of the complainants and I'm here to discuss the complaint we filed for four ethics violations within the city of Riverside. The objective of this presentation is to highlight these violations and request a thorough investigation. First, on 03/13/2025, four city council members were present together and discussed changes to the cannabis ordinance at a chamber of commerce state of the city event. And this is before the public city council meeting to consider these changes on March 25. During that chamber of commerce event, council member Mill stated that the number of cannabis permits would be reduced from 14 to seven with a maximum of one per ward.

This is a violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act as you know is designed to ensure that the actions and deliberations of public agencies are conducted openly. By discussing ordinance changes outside of a public hearing, these council members have undermined the transparency and accountability that the act seeks to uphold. We hope the board of ethics can subpoena the video of the chamber meeting to further investigate this matter. The declaration of Damian Martin, which was exhibit one to our complaint, and the twenty twenty four California Attorney General Opinion exhibit two provide critical context and legal grounding for this violation.

Second, there's a suspected Brown Act violation on 07/15/2025 regarding changes to the cannabis ordinance. Staff admitted during that hearing to sequential meetings with council members before the public discussion of pausing the process or changing the cannabis process on 01/07/2025. Sequential meetings where less than a quorum of the legislative body meets privately to discuss public business are a way circumvent the Brown Act. We have a Zoom transcript excerpt from the July 15 hearing which was exhibit three to our complaint and are awaiting further transcripts from the city clerk. The evidence will provide further insight into the extent of these violations.

Council member Mill along with three other council members, Robillard, Perry, and Condor discussed pending matters before the public hearing knowingly violating their ethics. It's crucial for elected officials to maintain the integrity of their positions by adhering to ethical standards and ensuring that their actions are transparent and to the public. Third, city staff violated the moratorium on communicating with cannabis applicants outside designated channels. There's several instances where we have evidence that one of the applicants, STISI, communicated directly with city staff in violation of that moratorium. Meanwhile, we located emails from Jennifer Lilly, community and economic development director instructing staff to cease email communications after there had been some on this matter which should be investigated.

The moratorium was put in place to ensure that all communications regarding the commercial cannabis business permitting process are conducted through proper channels and transparent to the public. Violating the moratorium undermines the integrity of the decision making process. The emails between SISI and city staff were provided as exhibit four to our complaint and show some of these communications. However, we need the opportunity to do additional discovery and are still waiting for materials per our PRA request so we can fully understand the extent of these communications. Fourth, on July 15, city staff admitted to sequential meetings and ex parte communications with the UFCW, STISI and STISI's lobbyists.

Ex parte communications, which are communications between a decision maker and an interested party outside the formal proceedings, can create an appearance of bias and undermine public trust in the decision making process. We have emails and are awaiting transcripts from the city clerk to provide further evidence. We have made numerous public records act requests to uncover behind the scenes activities. However, we have not received all the documents that exist. The public records act is designed to ensure transparency and accountability in government by guaranteeing the public's right to access information about the conduct of government operations.

Incomplete document disclosures hinder our ability to fully understand the extent of the violations and to hold those responsible accountable. We hope the ethics board takes this matter seriously and investigates thoroughly or enables us to conduct our own investigation with city cooperation. For example, it's fairly clear that Jennifer Lilly and Kyle Warzinski had conversations prior to the January 7 city council meeting. These sorts of serial meetings are exactly what the Brown Act was designed to protect from. Our next potential batch of records from the city per our PRA request is expected September 12 as Dana mentioned earlier per the clerk's office regarding emails from Mr.

Warzynski and we have pending follow-up requests on several other PRA issues as well. It is concerning that a majority of the council has drastically changed its position regarding cannabis stores in the city in the last six or so months. Council members Cervantes, Falcone, Robillard and Mill have made contradictory statements regarding cannabis businesses in the past, you know, being supportive of the ordinance that was enacted to allow cannabis in the city and then more recently changing course. Consistency in public statements is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that the decision making process is transparent and accountable. We have press articles and public statements to support this and articles included as exhibit six and seven to our complaint provide evidence of these contradictory positions.

We ask this board to do right by the public and uncover what is happening behind closed doors. In conclusion, we've presented evidence of ethics violations within the city of Riverside. These violations undermine the principles of transparency, accountability, and integrity that are essential for good governance. We request the Board of Ethics to investigate these matters thoroughly or enable an independent investigation. It is crucial for the public to have confidence in the integrity of their elected officials and the decision making process.

As we move forward, I urge the board to consider the long term implications of these violations. The trust of the public in their elected officials is paramount. By addressing these issues head on, we can restore faith in our governance and ensure that such violations do not occur in the future. The evidence presented today including the city council hearing Zoom transcript excerpts, the emails from Jennifer, Lily and Stizzy together with the pending video of the Chamber of Commerce meeting that we've subpoenaed and the pending transcripts from the city clerk all point to a pattern of behavior that must be addressed and that constitutes an ethical violation. Thank you for your attention and we're open to answer any questions. Questions.

Also, hi, I'm Kelly, CEO of PACS of Riverside. I just would like to add that city staff acted as intermediaries between applicants and council between council members.

Have and then now Alright, thank you for the presentation. I appreciate you taking the time to sum that up. And then let me just make sure here because we do have

could I ask a question of the complainant before we

Yeah. I'm just making sure that we don't yet call up. Okay. Yes. Complainant, inquire.

Alright. Alright. So then for the complainants that we have we need to make sure call up complaint. Okay. Oh, I see.

Okay. So as part of the ethics code in the complaint process, we are supposed to inquire whether the complainant lives, works, or attends school in the city of Riverside.

No, I do not.

Each applicant have local business owners

that we are

with, right?

Yeah. Okay. There are business owners that are part of your company? Yes. Okay. Alright. Any issues?

I I had a question. Because we are starting with council member Perry, and yes, we are required to take everything you present as true. And I know that we will be getting more information if we if we send this to a full hearing. There would be more things like the hopefully, the recording of the good morning Riverside thing. But regarding council member Perry, you know, he says he was not there at the chamber thing. But do you have any other evidence of him doing and any wrongdoing other than being at that chamber meeting? Any evidence specific to council member Perry other than saying he was at the count the chamber event?

So council member Perry would also be included in the second Brown Act violation that I mentioned which would be the sequential meetings that we had evidence from the hearing transcript, the July 15 city council hearing transcript where staff talked about meeting with each city council member individually before they were preparing the ordinance updates.

Okay, thank you.

Okay so just for clarification to you and you know we are requesting well maybe I'll talk about that after the fact. Folks have more questions that they want to ask or address for the complainant section of this hearing, free hearing? Just just one second

yeah I think miss form a nest

okay alright Okay. I know that we're requesting additional transcripts and information. We'll have to discuss with the city attorney whether any of that is even admissible. I know that we have rules as far as when a complaint is submitted bringing in additional evidence after the complaint is filed is not something that's allowed unless they think there may be a provision. Don't know. I don't remember. Yes.

The code doesn't provide for bringing in new evidence.

Right. It's whatever has been presented in, yeah. So the only thing that we would be able to hear is witness testimony if there is any witness testimony. Right. So tangible and verbal evidence.

Some of the evidence that we need to substantiate these claims is part of the Public Records Act's request and we made that a while ago and the city hasn't been timely providing responses so we feel that it's really important to note that evidence isn't within our control at this moment to obtain and we are still awaiting a lot of records. That would be pertinent to this.

Right, yeah, no I understand. With the way that the code of conduct complaint is written and the rules around it is that there's not additional evidence that can be provided. It's kind of what we have. And then again, any witness testimony that we have, tangible or intangible evidence we can discuss at the hearing. But as far as being able to admit anything additional that's not something that can be done after the fact.

Even so you're saying even if they brought additional witnesses if we had a hearing we could not hear them correct?

I don't see

Could we get a legal Mister attorney? Sorry.

Is a section in the Riverside Municipal Code that I believe actually Citi sent to us about late discovered evidence specifically at section 2.78.075 D. Four which says evidence may not be submitted with the complaint or that has not already been submitted with the complaint or reply may be introduced at the hearing if it was discovered after the filing or it was disclosed to the city clerk as soon as practicable. So that would apply to any materials that we didn't have at the moment but discovered after the fact because they weren't in our possession.

Yeah, okay. So thanks for reading that out. But as far as the pre hearing part of it, yeah, it's kind

of what we have. So I guess, so what we're saying is if we go to a hearing they could then present the evidence they have requested but has not yet come.

It's From what you read

it sounds like that describes that particular situation.

Yeah. Let me pull up that section of our

parts we have. If discovered after they filed a complaint That means if the stuff is handed to them in their hands, that's sort of discovering it. But I would like to hear the city attorney tell us about that so we'll be sure.

I'm looking for

So your question is?

So she was just reading something from the city code that sounds like they could admit something into if we have a hearing. If it's discovered between now and then, they could they could submit that even though they don't have it tonight. Does that include where they've made a request for it? They get the material handed to them before the hearing? Does that is that covered under that where it's newly discovered?

That would be on that would be up to the board. But the rule states that it's whatever information you have, whatever submitted, that's what

the board will rule on.

For tonight anyway.

Yeah, no I remember Not at a hearing. Correct. I remember the one that you're talking about but yes for for the purposes For of this the But pre hearing, either way what we were presented with we have to as everyone knows we have to assume that the allegations presented are true until we can you know, if we assume they're true, would do we think there would have been a violation? And at that point, we would move forward to actually have a hearing.

Alright. Sorry, I have a question. I think back to member Foreman's point is I just wanted to clarify. So if they had requested public records. And so because they verbally presented it here to us stating that that was their evidence, would that be acceptable if it does move to a hearing to where we include or consider that considering that it was presented verbally and that they don't physically have it?

Not for the pre conference but for the actual hearing.

If there's

other additional information, it will be up to the Board to make that decision as far as standards of when they received that information and the relevancy. But not for the pre conference.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

So then at this point, if there's not further questions for the attorney and then also for the complainant then we would be calling up our public official for their chance to present their evidence. Any other? Going once, going twice? Okay. All right, sir. It's down to you. Thanks for being here, Council Member Perry.

All right, thank you and thank you for the opportunity. Let me let me start off by saying I can honestly and definitively state with 100% certainty that I did not attend the Good Morning event Good Morning Riverside event that took place earlier this year in March. The last time I attended a Good Morning Riverside event was in May 2024, which is well over a year ago. Have no personal knowledge of who who or how many of my colleagues may have attended this event. Why? Because I did not attend or in any way participate in Good Morning Riverside, and we're getting some

Yeah. I'm I'm gonna pause your time right where we're at to see if we can get that addressed.

Somebody to buy?

They're working on it. Yeah.

Actually, can I just can

I just start over?

It be that that's that mic is on and you could turn it off? Or

You wanna try it again?

Is this better? Hopefully it will be better. 12345. Yeah.

We made to

five without

Okay.

All right. I can honestly and definitively state with 100% certainty that I did not attend the Good Morning Riverside event held earlier this year in March. The last time I attended a Good Morning Riverside event was in May 2024, which is well over one year ago. I have no personal knowledge of who or how many of my colleagues may have attended that event. Why?

Because I did not attend or any way participate in Good Morning Riverside. For those colleagues who did, I have no personal knowledge on who attended, where they were seated, what conversations may have taken place. Why? Because I did not attend or in any way participate in that event. If one of my colleagues provided a presentation to the audience, I have no personal knowledge on what was presented, said, or done.

Why? Because I did not attend or in any way participate in that event. At the time of that event, I was at my home approximately 10 miles away from the Mission Inn hotel. The complainant or complainant in the city are currently act actively involved in litigation regarding cannabis. Each of you have been provided with a copy of the declaration prepared on my behalf, filed with the Riverside Superior Court. It's my understanding the city prevailed in yesterday's hearing. It appears though that the court did not address the issue or the submitted declarations. Mine, and I believe mister Damian Martin. I know mister Martin has submitted a declaration. I don't know who he was looking at that day.

I know it was not me. And I noticed mister Martin is not present for this hearing. The burden of proof in this case squarely is on the complainants. No. No tangible evidence of any kind has been submitted connecting me to any of their allegations.

The complaints have attorneys who should fully understand the meaning of burden of proof and tangible evidence. This is also a potential fishing expedition. Anything said or presented in this hearing can potentially be used against the city. We will need to address this issue of pending litigation and ethics complaints at our annual ethics review. If by chance you decide to move forward with this matter, you may want to consider placing it on hold until the litigation is completely resolved.

Again, I have not participated in any serial meetings. Again, no. No tangible evidence has been submitted to prove otherwise. Again, the burden of proof is on the complainant. Within the complaint, there is a transcript from our recent council meeting where cannabis was discussed. According to the transcript, council member Mel made a motion and this item was approved. I was at the sending vote. So much for us being in cahoots with one another. There's been some comment about public records requests. They It's their responsibility to come here and be prepared.

And they talk about having to make these public records requests. Well, in their complaint, under exhibit five, it talks about we have made numerous record requests to learn how and what is happening behind the scenes, and they haven't received them yet. So they've known walking in the door tonight that this was taking place. Maybe they should have waited until they got all the evidence before they they brought these complaints forward. In closing, I will just say that I did not attend or anyone participate in the Good Morning Riverside event, and there is absolutely absolutely no tangible evidence connecting me to any of the allegations. If I had done something inappropriate, I would admit my actions and save everybody a great deal of time. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you so much. Give us just a moment, council member Perry, in case there's any questions from the board, if you don't mind. Alright things wanting to be addressed concerns questions comments clarifications

this is not for council member Perry but yes I actually I did have a question about this pending litigation. So for our city attorney, does this conflict with the ethics complaint? Are they duplicative? Can you tell us about that?

It's separate. But if the board has the ability to have a continuance, if that's their desire. But they're separate. The litigation, if something you guys want to consider at a later date, as far as if there's pending litigation, the complaint will automatically be told. That's something the board can decide. But also the board has the ability to continue this matter out if they believe to continue the the litigation and this matter conflict.

I was just wondering if somebody could give us a thumbnail summary of what the litigation is. What is it? We can Nutshell. In a nutshell, the litigation. What is what is that?

So the yeah.

Our litigation does not include any Brown Act violation claims. It is separate. It's separate causes of action that relate to the city's action in improperly pausing the cannabis process and making changes to the ordinance and promissory estoppel arguments related to us and the other two complainants who are also the plaintiffs to that lawsuit. We are not allowed to add the Brown Act violation as a cause of action in that lawsuit until we exhaust our administrative remedies. So we have to go through this board of ethics process first to be able to if we did feel like we wanted to pursue that in court, we're not even able to do that right now.

So that is, the lawsuit right now deals with completely separate issues to these matters here.

Thank you.

Okay. So I think that just to facilitate some discussion with with us as well. You know, we should definitely kinda have a discussion on council member Perry's, you know, presentation and then his allegation of lack of tangible evidence of him being there. I do you know, from from reading the complaint and how it was written out and all the things that there's two separate violations that are on here so it's not just a matter for for my opinion, it's not just a matter of him not attending that one meeting. There's communication.

There is the comments during the council the city council meeting where they said that people were asked individually by city staff. There's a whole other list of of things. If anyone has some discussion or things they they wanna talk about in regards to those things, I'm kind of trying to point us in that direction from from where I'm at. But I'm open to anyone else's opinions and comments on that.

I agree.

Oh, I'm sorry. Member Forman, I do have member Klicktenstein from from way before. Okay. Just making sure.

Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to barge in. No, no, So I agreed and I have to come back to we are required, council member Fehr, we are required to take everything the complainants complainant says as true. Personally, I do believe you but we are not allowed to do that at this point. At the full hearing, that's a different matter. And I also agree with what you said. This is not just the attendance of that one meeting. So my thing would I'm tending to saying it should go forward to a hearing for those reasons.

This is definitely a time for discussion. Would really like to hear from our other members too because unless somebody feels that they're ready to make a motion and we want to just move forward and have limited discussions here at this point but I feel that you know we owe it to not only the complainants who took all this time to file all of this paperwork emails and what they have available but also to our council member Perry who also presented his case as well. I think that we should really kind of give our thoughts and opinions on where we're at and what we're hearing so that there's a bit of transparency before we make any kind of motion.

I think this is a very unique case. Obviously as you can see from this packet we've gotten quite a bit of evidence and the way the rules are written for the board of ethics and the pre conference hearings and us taking what the evidence as truth as what we think is what we have to take as truth until proven otherwise. I understand I've heard both sides and I understand both sides and I think that with there being more than one violation on here, I think it would be good to move forward with a hearing to actually see the evidence and to make a final determination. I think that would be in the best interest of both parties.

Okay and then Member DeHira.

I just have a question. So from how I'm reading this, just taking it, the reason why we have a complaint against council member Perry is because allegedly he attended the Good Morning Riverside on March 13 and then not further into the Brown Act violation, which then happened again with other meetings on July 15. But my question is, if he wasn't why aren't other council members, like, involved with other things? Because, I mean, he voted against Mills on the fifteenth, you know, but if he wasn't there on the thirteenth, then would he not be included in the complaint at all? Like, that's my question.

So was that the catalyst of him attending Good Morning Riverside? Is that why he got picked versus, like, other council members that were in the meeting on the the July 15? Like, that's my question for this specific one. Why, like, all four of them were there? That's why they

have Member DeGerara you're asking the complainant?

No that's I'm like asking just in general like sorry I was trying to talk into the microphone.

Yeah no I just want to clarify because we're trying to get an answer you know. It's a good question.

So

I guess what she's asking is the probative conduct as the ex parte communication as a cause of him being at the meeting which Mr. Perry claims he was not at? Or does the ex parte communication take place prior to that meeting?

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. That's my question.

But

again, it's a good question. And hopefully we could get it answered maybe at a hearing. But again, to take everything this complainant says as true. So we are required to take it as true that Council Member Perry was at the meeting despite what, you know, he has told us and what we might believe. We are required to believe that he was there. So but it's it's a good question.

Well, not not to dissent completely and this is just you know part of discussing and and coming to land somewhere, right? You know, there there is a, you know, legal filing where this person has given testimony saying, you know, that they saw council member Perry at that meeting. Right? It's in there. But that's Yes, it's on a legal document but it's also him saying I don't want to just ignore what Council Member Perry was saying as far as having tangible evidence to show he was there.

Right. Because know hearsay is a thing. And I don't know and yes we do have to take everything as fact, right? That were presented but I think it's worth a discussion. Councilmember Vega you were up next.

Yes I was just really trying to wrap it up in some sense that we have enough to go for a hearing and based on what we have right here and based on what was said, I feel confident that if there's gonna be any other information that's coming out, we'll probably get it from the formal hearing itself. And we could just go ahead and move on to put this as you know in action.

I do want to say oh.

And I just wanted to explain real quick as far as ex parte communications that you might want to consider whether council member talking to staff is a violation. Because council members can talk to staff. Is in the meeting, they can't discuss different things that are coming up as far as legislation individually. Council member to staff. And that staff member can talk to they can't have a consensus.

That's when there's a violation when the assist called serial meetings when a staff member goes to each council member. To to discuss a particular issue. And maybe says, this council member believe is is viewpoint is this. But they can discuss something that's going to go before that that council member and answer their questions and discuss their viewpoints. But the the violation is when they're going from council member to council member and telling this council member is gonna vote this way or this council member. Right. Talk directly regarding just that particular issue is when you're discussing what other council members are going to do is when the violation occurs.

Right and it would

So I just want to make sure that that's clear.

And it would be from both sides right? Would be a city clerk saying oh you know I just spoke to a council member you know Bob Bobby Joe and they're doing this and it would also be from the other council member that's being talked to saying hey city clerk what did Bobby Joe tell you right it's it's on both sides neither neither can request information as far as how the other person Correct.

The main issue is whether when these communication, so from the documents you've received, that's the determination, that's what you guys are considering. Is whether that staff member conversation with that council member whether there were serial meetings where there was a consensus consensus or some other violation. But just the fact that that staff member was talking to the council member or talk to all the council members at some point regarding a particular issue is not a violation. I just want to make sure that was clear. It seems like there was some confusion.

Just to I I like, you know, what there's a lot more discussion to be had I'm sure but you know, council member Vega did mention really at the end of the day what we're trying to get down to at this point is do we do we think that we've heard enough that would warrant moving forward if if we take everything else true, is there enough to to say this should be this should be looked at further. Right? That's the goal of where we're trying to get to this evening. So I've got member Klichtenstein first and then member Hernandez.

Thank you. Yeah, I was just gonna agree and say that I think because of the declaration by Mr. Martin and us needing to take the evidence as true, I think that is enough tangible evidence for me to agree and recommend that we do move forward. So That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Alright, Member Hernandez?

Yeah, so that declaration is under oath, right? Again, given that it is under oath and it is evidence that was provided to us, I think that it is important for us to kind of follow through and move forward with the pre hearing conference. I understand that there's a lot of moving parts to this and this is just a discussion between us just because one council member stated something doesn't mean the other council members are necessarily guilty of anything. But I think that moving forward the pre hearing would give the opportunity to a hearing would give everyone the opportunity to provide that evidence. And just again I think it's in the best interest of both parties.

Again given the rules I think regardless we have to move forward. There's been a lot of evidence provided and I think again it'd be in the best interest of both parties to give them the chance to provide the evidence and see what really

Are you gonna make a motion to that effect?

Okay. I have something I wanted prior to to any motions getting made. So I do have a question I think kind of building off of what member DeHuero was saying. So from what I understand from reading complaints and I do appreciate that they were split separately just in case there's any technicality on one person. We don't want everything to be derailed because they're all lumped together and I know it's super duplicative and trust me I would not wanna do this more than one time if I didn't have to but just in fairness I think you know we do have to take each individually on their merit.

That being said so, from the evidence that I read it was saying that the four complaints that we have here, those particular council members were brought forward to be complained against because they were at that meeting. And kind of what Rico was saying like why if city staff, if we're talking about ex parte and city staff communicated with everyone and we're alleging there may have been a consensus prior to the city council meeting and what but like why these four specific council members? Is like Rica said because they were at allegedly were at the meeting prior for business owners or I guess I'm just confused.

No and you make a, I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt but I think you make a really good point is that you know during Mr. Perry's statement he made the comment that he was dissenting vote and that and I do agree because I was looking at that is because one city council member made a statement and I understand how that may be seen as a violation. That doesn't necessarily mean the other city council members were necessarily guilty of something just because that one council member made a statement prior to an official meeting, things like that. So this one's a tough one.

I'm thinking that's the kind of detail that can be gone to in a full hearing. Right now this is too early to really go through all of that. Could we I'm just saying we have enough to move forward with the hearing And is my that we can ask those questions at like why those four? Those are good questions. Can ask those at a full hearing.

Right.

In which case, you know, we'll get an answer and then we'll make a decision at that time. But I think just based on our rules and how we have to proceed, I would be for moving this forward to say there's go to a full hearing.

I think Ms. Foreman is correct. I think regardless of what our opinions are, we've been provided quite a bit of evidence and the way the rules are written, us taking it as true, I think that there's been enough evidence provided for us to move forward with a hearing regardless those are things that like Ms. Foreman stated that we can discuss during the hearing and come to a final decision during that hearing.

And I just wanna make sure we're using the right standard that it's based on all the information that we've received at this point. There's whether it's more likely than not that the two violations occurred. So if there's two violations that are alleged and we need to the consideration is whether not as far as what information we're trying to determine whether whether or not whether they is more likely than not we're that they occur. Not we're whether we're gonna get additional information in the future. Just wanna make to clarify before.

That's what I'm basing my thought on. It's just just what we have tonight, I think.

Correct. Correct.

That's enough to take

us And those particular two violations. Right.

So the ones that are checked off, so we're again we're doing this three more times. We wanna stick specifically right this minute to Council Member Perry and whether we feel there's enough that we've received if we take it as true that he knowingly assisted another public official in violating the code of ethics and conduct prohibited because that's the allegation. And then also that council member had ex parte contact in quasi judicial matters prohibited.

And I understand we have to do this three more times but I think this discussion will help lay the groundwork for the other three is as the city attorney mentioned is the communication between a city council member and city staff actually a prohibited conduct and is there evidence in there to the contrary?

Right, so I think we had talked about that they're able to have contact with city staff and they are able to discuss matters that are coming up on the agenda with city staff but they're not able to domino it where they're getting consensus and that would be the quasi judicial part. Was there evidence in here specific to Council Member Perry having or suspecting to have had those kind of communications with city staff. And then the other violation is knowingly assist another public official in violating the code of ethics. So everyone is in agreement that those two violations pertain specifically to Do we counsel vote on each

one separately, each violation separately or do we vote on the two together?

Well, I mean, if move forward, it's that we're accepting both. Okay. Because they're both on the complaint. It is all or none.

I would think that just the what the complainant has alleged is that there was ex parte communication that they had together beforehand and had some kind of discussion and agreement even though we have not seen written information on that other than the transcript from the city council meeting which I found a little bit vague. But yes, they do they do allege both of these things and have alleged, you know, that there is that this happened. So if we take it as true, then let's move forward with both. We can have more discussion, of course, but I I like to make a motion that we vote that these two, it's more likely than not, and that we move to a hearing. Then we could continue discussion on that.

I would just wanna clarify that two separate violations being alleged, and so they should be taken separately as far as

Then I move that we take the first one, the letter I that vote. We move that forward to a hearing.

So I think that we make a motion for moving one and then make another one for the other. It's having the discussion agreeing on one and then agreeing on the other and then motion to move forward because both of them were in agreement that yes both were violated.

We can have one motion and one vote for both?

Correct. You can have a I just wanted to make sure that you can find one violated, one should move forward and one not. So

I move that we both move forward with both of them.

I second. Okay. Okay.

Just give it a good whack.

There you go.

Oh, no. We everybody didn't know.

So do it again. Okay.

Motion carries unanimous.

Alright. Give me one moment because I lost my place.

Alright. So, ma'am madam chair, now this is the time that you determine whether you need legal okay. And then you'll select your hearing panel.

Alright. Alright. Thank you. Alright so we did go ahead and vote and determine that we were gonna move forward. We need to discuss whether board of ethics wants to set the time limit for presentation of evidence by each party at the hearing itself.

I will say in the past we've gone anywhere from twenty minutes to thirty minutes. I don't think we've ever gone over thirty minutes. I am not saying that's correct or not correct but just as a guideline from where we've what we've done. I I do want to set timelines because we are gonna this is gonna take a long time I

would move or not move I would say that maybe twenty minutes would be a good time because there's a lot here but you're right we can't just go on all night Now would that be for the complainant's thing or is it the same for both the respondent and the complainant?

So it definitely should be the same for both because that's just fair. We don't want to give anyone preferential and give more time to someone.

We would like to request more than thirty minutes and an hour ideally because

we We're do still discussing. Okay. Give me a moment. Okay so in the past, so when we talk about the time limits, it's usually there's a certain amount of time for an opening statement and then presentation of evidence, presentation of their case and then they also get time for summary at the end. So we've done it before where we've given one total amount of time for presentation of case from start to finish.

The opening, the presentation, and the closing and then the respondent is able to determine if they wanna use five minutes to open, know, twenty five minutes to present and five minutes to close. Like they can split it up themselves or we can set up this is how much for opening, this is how much for the case, is this how much for closing. So it's really up to our own discretion how we want to chunk apart that time or just give one step full amount and have them do it themselves. So that's definitely something we need to discuss.

I understand from the evidence that's being presented here today and the potential for more evidence coming in. I think I don't know if you guys wanna separate everything. I think the ten minutes that was given to present their case and it'd be twenty to thirty minutes to present evidence, ten minutes for the closing, things like that. I think that's more than enough time given what we're working with so far. I think that's fair but I don't know if you guys, what you guys' opinions are.

So I, for myself and having sat through I'm gonna say probably seven or eight complaints in my long because I'm the long long term member here. To me it's worked out always best to put a full amount and let the complainant and the defendant respondent figure out how much time they would prefer to use for these things because they do get an opening and if they can summarize what they have in five minutes and then they want to spend the large chunk of their time on evidence and presentation of taking us through the case step by step and then their own summary if they've got two minutes left at the end and then that's what they have. I don't want to let's just say give someone ten minutes in the beginning and they don't need it and then now one person gets to talk for ten minutes, then the other person gets to talk for or chooses to talk for three then it's still kind of, I don't know, I think it's just worked better in the past when we say okay this is the total amount of time you split it up how you prefer.

Seems more fair. That gives them a little bit more control of how Right. They do their

I think twenty minutes in total for that I think would be a little too short. Yes. I think maybe forty minutes would be fair but that's my opinion.

So and just to clarify for also the folks here that are new to our hearings and our process as well, kind of how it ran today as well. You were able to you know summarize something and then there's questions from the board. That doesn't take into account the amount of time that you just speak and present. It's just you speaking with no interruption from any of us. That's the full amount of time that you get and then as questions arise, obviously discussions tend to go on quite a bit longer obviously.

You know, so keep in mind when we're talking about amount of time for someone to just present, right? It usually, from my experience of course, I don't know what to tell you but from my experience, the presentation usually lasts however long it is and then the back and forth and discussion from us, questions from us and then our discussion in the end where we talk about everything we've heard, all the questions we've had answered, all of that usually takes at least as long as they present if not longer. So just for us to keep in mind when we're talking about how much time to give someone or just talk at us, we want to give them plenty of time to build something the way that they prefer but also we want to take into account There's that's not the end of it, right?

I agree with that and I like the idea of just the one chunk of time but the other consideration too is we likely will not have to have a full presentation for each of the four complaints, correct? I mean, would imagine there's one that kind of encompasses because they're all lumped together. So we're not looking at, you know, minutes here and then forty minutes and then forty minutes and then forty minutes. So I hope that's a correct assumption.

I do no. I do want to point out that we need to select who is going to be on the panel for each of these complaints and they're not going to all be the same all of us for all of it. So one or two of us may not be on the panel and will not have heard the presentation once before when we get to the part where we have to hear the one for the council member that the case that we've been assigned to. So some of us, well all of us will get repetitive at some point because there's not that many of us and we need to have five people on the panel and then typically one alternate as well in case someone is sick. So yes we're all gonna hear it more than once but there's a very high likelihood that one of us will not have heard it by the second or third time that comes around.

If we're

all here at the same time we'll hear it. If there's five people on the panel and one alternate, that's all of us.

Correct me if I'm wrong city attorney but if you're not on the panel to hear that complaint when the complaint hearing happens, you can't be here. I mean you can be here as a member of the public I Correct, guess

you won't be on the diocese but potentially all six will be there.

Because

there's gonna be five that'll be on the panel and then there'll be alternate. But the alternate still needs to attend so they're aware of what's going on but they won't be sitting up on the dice as a decision maker.

But they'll still be able to hear

Okay so we'll all hear all of it. Correct.

Please

don't tell

me we have to do it multiple times.

We're going to have to, memoformant. Everybody gets their day.

So with thirty minutes total, what do people think of that? And as you said, we'll have a lot of discussion, questions, questions and answers. They'll come up again to answer questions. So it seems like thirty minutes is a good time however they want to break it up. That's my opinion.

Okay. So we've got thirty minutes for Member Foreman and I think Member Herrera said forty, right?

Right.

I'm leaning more towards forty. I know it's gonna be really really lengthy for everybody but

it's I think it's fair.

The fun of being a volunteer y'all.

I think given the amount of evidence and everything I think forty minutes is pretty fair.

Yeah, I think so too.

Yeah, I agree too and I also like the idea of a chunk of time and then they can decide how they want to use it. So just in agreement.

So they have fifteen minutes by code to present their opening and closing arguments. Then you decide how much additional time to present evidence you want to give them. So they have fifteen minutes.

Sorry. That was really loud and it's not been working great up until now. I'm so sorry.

They have, each party has fifteen minutes however they wanted to allot it to make an opening and closing argument. And then so you'd make a decision as far as how much additional time you're gonna provide. So

thirty minutes additional time would give them, I mean a

twenty That would be a

total of forty five.

Technically forty five minutes if you

If include twenty fifty five minutes for at a and then fifteen so that gives them forty. Okay

so now we're back down to less amount. So twenty five minutes, thirty minutes, how are we feeling?

No he's saying fifteen, they've already got fifteen minutes.

Yeah yeah For the evidence grade.

Oh, just for the evidence then.

Yeah, so are we thinking 25, 30? I know 30 would put us now over the 40 bit originally but how are people feeling?

I think given that, I don't know, maybe 20 or 25.

Because I would think they would give some other evidence in the opening and closing. They're not gonna stand there for fifteen minutes and not give any evidence I don't think.

Okay. Who's leaning towards twenty minutes? Number four, who's leaning towards twenty five minutes? I think I'm leaning towards 25.

I like 30 just because I feel like people don't have to use that whole time, right? So if they're done presenting earlier they don't have to utilize the whole time but I feel like that's an important part of the discussion the discussion that we would have and I wouldn't want to rush, make people feel like they had to rush through something but also recognizing that they then won't have to utilize the whole time if they don't have anything else to say.

Right. Okay.

I'm with 30 also.

Okay.

And then I'll have a total of 45. Right there.

Yeah I

think that's fair. Thirty minutes. Okay.

Thirty minutes. Do we need to vote on

that? Madam?

Clerk? No? Just okay. So by consensus thirty minutes. Alright. We then will move on to, the city clerk drawing randomly the names of the ethics members that will be attending this particular hearing panel and the sixth name will be drawn as alternate. We need to talk about when the next date available for us to have the hearing as well. But first, oh that's actually down to the city clerk so nope just drawing names. I'll take it back. Why did it get so loud?

Don't we only have hearings? Don't we only have hearings on nights of our normal meetings? Isn't that what's Yes. So it would have to be a thirst the first Thursday of the month.

First Thursday of the month. There the call the code stipulate how much time frame we have. We have twenty days to set the public hearing after tonight, and it has to happen within forty five days from the meeting of tonight which and that's business days and that is I'm sorry thank you for the clarification it is business days and and so because we we we do know that we will have a member that will not be in attendance in your October meeting and so we are looking at the first that your meeting of November which is within the guidelines of the code. Do I proceed madam chair? Okay, thank you.

So the code requires that all members be selected randomly to sit on the conference on excuse me as the hearing panel and because there's only six of you five will be drawn first and then the last name will serve as the alternate for the hearing panel for the complaint against council member Perry.

Before we

before we get there I have a like a attendance issue coming up you know in October as well as right now that I was selected for the community.

I think we're looking at November, Gil.

Yeah. Still because it's eleven weeks. That Citizens Academy? Yeah. Academy that I and and I'm and that's on a every Thursday for eleven weeks at 6PM. So I'm just wondering.

Well, I don't I don't wanna put you on the spot, but I know that one is like you get three absences.

Yeah. Yeah. Something. So.

Okay.

I mean you use your time how you want Mr. We Gil don't wanna drag this. Don't want it. And then also we have forty five days honestly

Yeah.

To get it done.

Okay. So we're moving forward with the random draw. The first name for the hearing panel, will serve as the chair for that panel. Oh, it's Jessica Newman. The second name that I'm going to call which will serve as the vice chair for that panel will be Hernandez. I'm sure I shook it

up. The

third name that I'm going to call is Clinch's Tide. Sorry. This and the fourth name that I'm going to call is Dee Herrera. The last member of the panel will be Board Member Foreman. And then that leaves just to make sure that our documents that our number that everyone is here, Gil Vega will serve as the alternate for.

Alright. The hearing panel against the complaint. The for the complaint against Council Member Perry. So again, Jessica Newman, Lewis Hernandez, Daniel Klichenstein, Rica D Herrera Kimberly Foreman and Gil Vaca serving as the alternate

thank you so much okay that is going to be the last item for our pre hearing. We've made it through everyone. Good job. So next item on the agenda is going to be complaints for council member Robillard. Alright so first thing is going to be for the parties to identify themselves if I'm not wrong.

Yes, identify themselves so again, there you are, thank you.

Lauren Fontaine on behalf of TAT RV LLC.

Kelly on behalf of PAX Riverside.

Okay and we still have the third complainant online. Okay, great. So all three of you and Councilmember O'Brien, thank you for your patience. We will rock and roll through this as quickly as we can. Okay so that's that.

And then I will ask the board to determine whether the complaint procedures of this chapter have been followed. The complaint we received for Councilmember Robillard is against the public official. The complaint alleges violation of one or more of the provisions of the prohibited conduct section and the complaint does not restate allegations of violations that were subject to a previous complaint. Oh sorry forgot to call for public comment. Not on the pre hearing?

Okay. I forget do we make a motion on this or do we just

No we just buy a consensus. Any discussion

on Yeah.

Okay. All right so I actually do call for a motion to determine if the complaint does or does not comply with all of the requirements stated above.

I move that it does.

I could second. So

we have member Foreman in Clifton's been second. Alright. Yes, thank you. Everyone voting. We've got two voting. Oh, sorry. We're moving forward. Yes. Member Vega.

Motion carries unanimous

okay so second issue Again to facilitate any Provide the opportunity to facilitate any settlement discussions. Is there any interest in trying to find settlement discussions for city council member Robillard would you like to take any time to see if you can come to a consensus before we, no? Okay. Alright again one dissension and looks like we are not interested in engaging in settlement discussions. So the third matter for us to address.

I will now ask the Board of Ethics to discuss whether any of the submitted evidence is relevant to the complainants and should be deemed inadmissible. Any discussion here on that? Anything we want to see as potentially inadmissible? Okay. If there is no motion then we move on to the fourth matter for us to discuss.

We will now consider whether a complainant has shown that the evidence of taking is true more likely than not shows a potential violation of prohibited conduct for the code of ethics RMC two point seven eight point zero seven five D five pursuant to section three L, M and N of the Board of Ethics hearing rules. The complainants will have up to ten minutes to present all tangible evidence summarizing any witness testimony that the complainant intends to use at the hearing to prove a violation of prohibited conduct section of the code of ethics. Any member of the Board of Ethics may ask questions of the party during the pre conference and the Board of Ethics is to assume that all representations of evidence by the complainant are true for the limited purposes of determining whether the complaint has shown and is more likely than not that a violation of prohibited conduct section of the code of ethics has occurred. So at this point we will also call up the complainant.

Good evening again. I will summarize so you don't have to go through I the entire speech

do want to ask you because we don't want to get knocked away on a technicality so again I know I already asked but if, oh yeah, whether you live, work, or attend school in the city of Riverside.

I do not but some of the complainant companies are Riverside residents and or business owners.

Thank you. Alright, now please. Yeah,

well it's not for us. No, yeah. There's three complainants, our company and the two others. The two others have local Riverside residents who are owners of their businesses. Tat RV LLC does not have an owner of our company that is a Riverside resident or business owner.

Doesn't it? Or

school, attend school.

I thought at the beginning that all three had some people, three complainants had some members who were lived or worked here so now we're hearing that two do but one doesn't.

Correct.

Is that true?

That's So

are they Wouldn't that be true for

the previous complaint? Yeah.

So, apparently, the city attorney can weigh in, but I guess that means you cannot officially be a complainant. That you, your company. Is this true?

Under the code that's correct. So

your company? Yeah so the board needs to determine if there's bringing forth a complaint would need to be a resident, work or attend school in the city of Riverside. Think

Or witnessed.

Right and so that's RMC 2.780.04. 2.780.04.

Does this mean that something we just voted on for this first complaint is not valid or is there any issue with that Mr. Attorney.

If you find that the complainant is not a doesn't comply then correct. They can't bring complaint if they're not live reside or go to school.

But there are two other complainants that do meet those things. So would the previous thing still be valid do we is there some Correct.

For the other parties it would be.

So do we need to take this company off as a complainant going forward or

Per the cold, they can't be a complainant.

So do we need to do something about that? Do we need to take any action like take them off the complaint or is it okay to just move forward and say two of these complainants are okay and you're not? What do we do?

If we have, I mean we haven't talked to those complainants so it's up to the board to decide whether those complainants are you know we've heard information that they do.

Well just two of them do and she said that her company does not.

Correct. So you cannot be a complainant if

you're So if they can't be a complainant is there any action we as a board need to take moving forward?

I'm pretty sure that's at our discretion.

Okay so we can just say we'll count the other two companies as complainants but not them? Is that what we would do?

I mean I think that would mean that we would have to discuss what that means as far as presenting of evidence and who's able to speak.

Could we just say that this complainant your company is not allowed to participate as a complainant but we're not gonna change the paperwork or do anything like that right? Is that true?

Well yeah they wouldn't be a complainant any longer.

Right.

So they wouldn't be able to present if

they're Right, not so if we just say you can no longer present anything and moving forward we just have the other two companies present enough? Is that good enough?

Correct. You would ask that question if they're

So resident or we'll just moving forward should we just as a board agree two of the companies are complainants and this company is not so their company cannot present. I don't think it that.

No because the other presented the

last

question. That void our last?

Because she was the presenter

the last It would it would be up to the board to decide based on the information that was provided in the complaint whether they there's enough to determine more likely than not that the first two that the two violations allege took place. Based on all the information that was provided through not through the testimony if the board finds that she's unable to present but that already took place.

So the thing of, so okay. I think in the pre conference right you're not allowed to call witnesses. Here it's just the complainant presenting but for the hearing if they wanted to call her as a witness to that would be different. Yeah. Right right right right

Does it mitigate what we did? Does it invalidate our Mr. Attorney, does it validate our finding on the Mr.

Attorney? It depends on whether the board finds there was enough tangible evidence to move forward based on what was presented in the packet in the complaint. Would be Absent what was provided in the summary.

Right so we have to pretend that if we go back thinking about what we heard for the last one we pretend we didn't hear what was presented and just go off of what we did with

the people. I'm willing to do that because basically the presentation was a summary of the papers. There was nothing new or significant that she presented that would change our minds. I was going by what was on the paperwork. It does do over the others. I would say let's consider it okay because we got the evidence another way. Just moving forward we'll say okay only the other two complainants can present. Is everyone in agreement with that? I don't see any reason we need to trip all over everything because it's you know I think it's still there we still got the information that we needed not counting them.

Being completely transparent and just stating for myself as well I agree with member foreman I don't think anything that I heard in the presentation made really much difference in whether I thought it was enough given to move forward.

I agree.

But would she have to be taken out as a complaint

then? Right.

So then would it

have to be refiled? Refiled?

No saying that it's at the discretion of the board.

Attorney said we don't need to do that. Can just as a board decide it's okay to move forward. But we as a board can decide that's okay. The attorney has said we don't have to change anything or invalidate. We as a board can decide you know what it's okay we're just going forward now we have two complainants and it's okay that they were on that first one. We as a board say and me as a board member can say it doesn't make any difference to me because we had enough here not counting the presentation and people are kind of nodding. So it's up to us. We're not legally required that we have to invalidate anything or change, refile or any of that stuff according to the attorney. Yeah.

Yeah. There should be a consensus. So if there's a consensus based on what was submitted absent what was presented by the former complainant that's what the decision if you guys are still in agreement that's the main factor.

Well let's do it official so that we have a consensus and no one can question whether there's a consensus.

Can I a motion then? Can I make a motion that we accept the first I

think we just go on consensus right?

You're in a you're currently in a pre conference for for the complaint against Robillard so point of order you cannot go back into another pre conference once you're done with this conference if you want to revisit or what is it reconsider the the the pre conference for Perry then you would do it at that time but right now you're only here to discuss what is taking place or what's before you now and the the matter before you right now is the complaint against council member Roe Clark

understood so we just move on we'll just move on

okay we're gonna keep going through the hearing that we have the pre hearing we have

Nope, now it's on. Sorry about that. No, I understand that Perry is old news. You know what mean? Because now we're on this new one. But my question is still for this complaint in front of me, they don't have to refile the whole entire thing because they're taking away a complainant. That was my question because, like, she's you know, it's one of three different companies.

Correct.

But because now it's only two companies they don't have to refile. That was my question. Like I know it's pretty much almost like the same complaint for all four council members but I just didn't know if they had to refile because the question on like the pre hearing is like is this true is this person here then if the person's not here then we don't move forward. You know what I mean? Like that that was my question about the current complaint. Would still move procedural. You know what I mean?

You would still move forward even if the complainants don't show up. Would just still review the evidence. So regardless, but there's still going to be two, two complainants, three complainants left. Two. Two complainants.

Uh-huh.

So you would still move forward it's just that complainant can't

Present any evidence or

Correct.

Alright. It didn't have to

be like an amended. That's my question I was looking for the word amended.

The answer was no.

He did look

at it. Moving forward Rika. Alright so again I go back to where we were presenting the evidence in the case and the summary as requested. I don't know if we have voice ability by the person that's online or if the other complainant that's here, okay. Perfect. So we have ten minutes. Good

evening members of the board of ethics. My name is Kelly. I'm the CEO of PACS Riverside. I'm here to discuss the complaint we filed for four ethics violations within the city of Riverside. The objective of this presentation is to highlight these violations and request a thorough investigation.

First, on 03/13/2025, four city council members discussed changes to the cannabis ordinance at the Chamber of Commerce State of the City event before public city meeting to consider such changes on 03/25/2025. During the Chamber of Commerce event, Council Member Mills stated that the number of cannabis permits would be reduced from 14 to seven with a maximum of one permit per ward. This action violates the Ralph M. Brown Act as per California government code section four five nine five two a. The Brown Act is designed to ensure that the actions and deliberations of public agencies are conducted openly.

By discussing ordinance changes outside the public meeting, these council members have undermined the transparency and an accountability that the act seeks to uphold. We hope the Board of Ethics can subpoena the video of the chamber of the of the chamber meeting to further investigate this matter. The declaration of Damian Martin exhibit one and the 2024 California attorney general opinion exhibit two attached as exhibits to our complaint provide critical context and legal grounding for this violation one. Council member Mill along with three other council members, Robillard, Perry, and Condor discussed pending matters before the public hearing knowingly violating their ethics. It is crucial for elected officials to maintain the integrity of their positions by adhering to ethical standards and ensuring that the actions are transparent and accountable to the public.

Second, there is a suspected Brown Act violation confirmed on July 15 regarding the changes to the cannabis ordinance admitted to sequential meetings with council members before public discussion on 01/07/2025. Sequential meetings were less than a quorum of the legislative body meet privately to discuss business are a way to circumvent the Brown Act. We have a Zoom transcript exit exhibit three and are awaiting further transcripts from the city clerk. This evidence will provide further insight into the extent of violation two. Third, city staff violated the prohibition on communicating with applicants regarding the commercial cannabis business licensing process outside designated channels.

There are several instances of one of the applicant's DISI communicating directly with the city staff. Meanwhile, we located emails from Jennifer Lilly, community and economic develop development director, instructing staff to cease email communications on this matter which should be investigated. In turn, city staff then communicated with each of the council members as confirmed by Kyle from planning at the July 15 hearing, exhibit three. Thus, the staff acted as an intermediary between council and certain applicants. This prohibition was put in place to ensure that all communications regarding the commercial cannabis business permitting process are conducted through proper channels and are transparent to the public.

Violating this memoriam undermines the integrity of the decision making process. The emails between Sizzy and the city staff attached as exhibit four to our complaint show some of the show some of these communications. However, we need the opportunity to do additional discovery and we are still waiting on additional materials per our PRA request so that we can fully understand the extent of these communications. Fourth, on 07/15/2025, staff admitted to sequential meetings and ex parte communications with the UFCW and its lobbyists. Ex parte communications which are communications between a decision maker and an interested party outside of the formal proceedings can create an appearance of bias and undermine public trust in decision making process.

We have emails and are awaiting transcripts from the city clerk to provide further evidence. The emails from Jennifer Lilly exhibit five and the pending transcripts of the city council meeting on 07/15/2025 are essential in establishing the pattern of these communications. We have made numerous public records acts request to uncover the behind the scenes activities. However, we have not received all documents that exist. The public records act is designed to ensure transparency and accountability in government by guaranteeing the public right to access information about the conduct of government operations.

Incomplete documents disclosures hinder our ability to fully understand understand the extent of violations and hold these responsible responsible accountable. We hope that the the ethics board takes this matter seriously and investigates thoroughly or enables us to conduct our own investigation with city cooperation. In conclusion, we have presented evidence of ethics violations with the city of Riverside. These violations undermine the principle of transparency, accountability, and integrity that are essential for good governance. We request the Board of Ethics to investigate these matters thoroughly and enable an independent investigation.

It is crucial for our public to have the confidence and integrity there in their elected officials and decision making process. As we move forward, I urge the board to consider long term implications of these violations. The trust of the public and their elected officials is paramount. By addressing these issues head on, we can restore the faith in our governance and ensure that such violations do not occur in the future. The evidence presented today, including the city council's hearing Zoom transcript experts excerpts, these emails from Jennifer, Lily, and Sizzy together with the pending video of the chamber meeting that we have to be subpoenaed and the pending transcripts of the city clerk all point to a pattern of behavior that needs to be addressed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay does the Board of Ethics have any questions for this particular presentation?

My questions were all answered with the first presentation.

Okay. We have to take them individually but just making sure. So that's no, no questions. Excellent. Alright, go ahead and move on to call up our public official to present evidence. So Council Member Robillard. I see you're looking your way down.

Thank you. Yes. Good evening board and good evening Ms. Foreman. It is our first time meeting. We have never met before so I can attest to her independence in this issue. Colleagues, members of the board, they complete before you rest on a factual error. It claims that four council members, Mill, Conner, Perry, myself attended the Chamber of Commerce Good Morning Riverside event on 03/13/2025. That is simply not true. Councilmember Perry was not present and only three council members attended and we weren't even at the same table.

So, the first violation there is just has a factual error. The matter is because the Brown Act requires a quorum of four, with only three present, was no quorum, no Brown Act meeting, and no violation. The complaint also raises the idea of sequential meetings, but staff routinely briefs council members one on one, so that we can be prepared for complex agenda items. Explicitly allows that. And if those briefings are somehow improper, then every single council member would be implicated.

Yet the record shows council member Conder was not at the hearing, and Perry ultimately voted against me and council member Mill. So, the fact alone demonstrates there is no coordination or collective decision making. Finally, I was not involved in any outside communication with cannabis stakeholders and the evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise. The complaint, although repetitive, it implies some not others during its various evidence excerpts. As you can see that most of that evidence has nothing to do with me.

And so I think that the repeating the same complaint over and over for each of us is kind of a lazy way to do this since that evidence is not applicable to each of us. It should be evidence applicable to ourselves in the complaint not to the collective. In short, this complaint is built on a factual mistake. It misapplies the Brown Act, and it relies on speculation rather than evidence. I respectfully request that if it be dismissed at this preliminary stage.

Again, I think it will be evidence heard later tonight from my colleagues. It's very simple to verify if a council member was at the hearing, or sorry the Good Morning Riverside. You have to purchase a ticket to attend. Hopefully we'll have a list of people who were in attendance, and that should very easily justify whether or not Councilmember Perry was there. As far as video goes, anyone who's ever been to Good Morning Riverside also knows that there is no video of these events. So, despite the request of them saying that they're waiting for a video, there will never be a video. It just doesn't exist. But with that, thank you so much.

Thank you. And if you give us just a few moments in case we have some questions for you before you walk away sir. Okay perfect. Alright so are there any questions regarding what we just heard? I have a question if no one else has a question. So you did mention that to attend that event you have to purchase a ticket. The council members also are required

to purchase that

or not just the business owners?

Every single person attends unless you are one of the invited guests. Even if you're invited guests so Mill even though he's an invited speaker you still have to buy a ticket to attend.

Even if you're invited you have to purchase the ticket. Yes you do. Sure I heard that right. Okay, interesting. Okay anyone have

I have a question. Would you also do an affidavit that you did not see Council Member Perry there?

Yes yeah absolutely.

Perfect thank you.

This isn't a question for you so I guess if no one else has any questions you could probably

Okay, thank you.

But I was gonna make, you know, similar to what I said before but that's not, you know, that's done and gone. But looking at this, once again, we are required we are absolutely required to take everything the complainant says as true. So even though we've heard, you know, I wasn't there, we didn't do this, we are required to move forward as if this is all true, what they said. So again, I would say it, you know, I think this is something we should move forward with as required.

Anyone else have a hand any comment? No? Okay so you know we're hearing Obviously there's disagreement in things that happened but taking with what we were presented. Violation of Brown Act and then potential violation of Brown Act and prohibited. One sec. One sec. Sec. Alright. Let me see. Ex parte.

Yes. Thank you. Let me make sure I don't misspeak and then make a mistake knowingly assist other public official in violating this code you know something to be said about you know what councilmember Robillard was saying that it should be specific to the people on there I do agree with that. As far as that I did kind of see that as a little problematic but we are where we are. I don't personally feel that my reading of this and opinion has changed at this point.

Because there is you know we have to hear what actually happened and see if there's further evidence or anything that can be presented. All right. Sorry. Sorry.

I'm sorry. Yeah. I just had one just procedural question. So the affidavit from council member Perry, is it to be included with all of the complaints that we're hearing or was it just the first complaint?

He he sent a response to his complaint. Oh, okay. For my answer, if I'm wrong, please. Oh, yeah. It was a response to the complaint against him.

Yeah. Just him.

Got it. So if council member Roblox like okay. Got okay. Okay. Answered my questions.

Yeah. During So

it wasn't attached to the other complaints

It was the response that

he wasn't there. So it was just only his.

Right, response And to then each council member will get an opportunity to present factual evidence during a hearing. Let's see. Okay, all right so let's see. We do need to call for public comment. Right? That's what we have on here.

Then we don't have the pre

After presentation by complainant and public official call for public comment. Excellent. 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.

Okay, so Mrs. Nares, again, you'll fill the card out for me afterward. It's up there. Oh, it's already there.

So I

actually did write on my card for items five through eight. So if I made the comment at the beginning and wasn't supposed to, then I would just request that my comments made at the beginning of this meeting be applied to each of the hearings because we didn't accept the comment at the last one. But for the complaint against Council Member Rovalard, then that would be, my comments would be the same. We reserve our objections to anyone within his district as to hearing this just as a matter of law. And regarding the TAP RV's inability to proceed, I would just argue that they are actively applying for and have paid $30,000 to this city to operate in this city.

They have application fees in order to have a business license. So but for this process being altered unlawfully they would have a license. The owner of their property was issued a business, excuse me building permits already in order for them to proceed with their retail dispensary But if this board determines that TAT is not able to move forward that's fine, we still have the other two complainants that do have local applicants within their business. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Alright I will now ask the Board of Ethics to discuss whether the complainant has shown that the evidence I've taken is true. More likely than not shows that there may be a potential violation of prohibited conduct.

Seems like I'm always jumping in first but I did wait. I waited two and a half seconds if you notice. I do I move now? Can I make a motion now?

You can.

I move that we accept that for items I and K it's more likely than not that there was a violation of the behavior and that we move on to a hearing. I hope I said that correctly. That's my motion.

I can second. Okey doke.

We'll go ahead and go for a vote.

Motion here is unanimous.

Alright, do we want to set time limits on the presentation for this complaint?

Could we do the same as we've already discussed? Is that okay?

Can you specify for me?

That we have fifteen minutes for opening and closing and thirty minutes for presenting evidence.

So thirty minutes for set, yes.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, that by consensus anyone, dissent? Yes, voting, okay.

Alright,

and then so city clerk will go ahead and randomly draw the names of the members that will be in this hearing panel.

Thank you Madam Chair. For the hearing panel same process as before it is a random draw. There are six names in the pool. The first five that I call will be part of the hearing panel. The first name that I pull will be the chair and the second name will be the vice chair.

First name, Board Member Hernandez. Board member Foreman. Board member Klichtenstein. Board member Vega, the last name for the hearing panel. Board member D.

Herrera. And that means, make sure all the names are in the pool. Board Member Newman you are the alternate. Okay.

Alright thank you. So I am gonna just take privilege of being chair here and we're gonna move on and do the rest of them and then we'll go back and talk about Perry because he's gone and I see other council members here. So next on the agenda pre conference hearing for council member Condor. Let's go back to the beginning.

Can we take like five minutes before we do two more?

Yep. Perfect. Thank you. Sounds good to me.

Yeah I just can't sit anymore.

Sorry, thanks. Back at twenty three.

Uh-huh. We're a minute behind. Okay,

folks. I think we're a minute behind here, so gonna keep moving forward. So our next item is going to be complaint against council member Convore. Alright. So the first item I will now ask the board of ethics to determine whether the complaint procedures of this chapter have been followed.

The complaint is against a public official. Complaint alleges a violation of one or more of the provisions of prohibited conduct and that the complainant does not restate allegations of violations that were subject to a previous complaint. We need a motion.

I so move. Come on somebody jump in. Don't make a motion.

I make a motion.

Well you've a second now because I

like Yes that's right. That's all I need. You second.

Alright so who's second?

I'll second. Okay. Can take his.

Okay. You can take me in.

And that's if we're removing is it TAT? Or TAT? Sorry. Thank you.

Now we're asking whether the complaint procedures have been followed that the complaint is against public official. So one of the things that's not on here is the issue of whether the person lives resides in City Of Riverside because the things that we're reviewing in this it and then and what's stated in our in our process documentation of where we cross all our t's is not listed as far as you know whether someone lives, works or goes to school here in City Of Riverside. But since we're talking about the first part where we're viewing whether the complaint complies with all the procedural requirements for the code of ethics. We should probably discuss the point of having a complainant on the complainant that does not comply with being part of the working living or being in school in City Of Riverside. We should probably address the issue of not allowing the third party.

At what point do we do that and how do we do that?

I think it would be here because the thing that we're addressing is we're trying to determine if the complaint complies with all of the procedural requirements for the code of ethics and conduct?

I withdraw my second and we could maybe.

Amend.