Bangor Ethics Board hears public comment on Councilor Mallar's ethics complaint

[0:11] John Eddy King III: Good evening everyone. This is a meeting for the Board of Ethics. We are in Council Chambers on June 30th, 2026. It's 5 [0:24] Speaker B (unidentified): 31 p.m. I can't see because of the glare. [0:32] John Eddy King III: First up on the agenda. Hi Stephen, come on. I'm barely doing the introductions. You're not late for anything except when you're saying hello. Yeah, my apologies. No, not at all. Sometimes trying to get out on the route too, to make a left-hand turn requires an act of Congress. Tricky, yeah. Let me just in case matters when you're going to be James. We just began. Are you 're good to keep going? Absolutely. Great, as always. We're working from an agenda this evening, and first up on the agenda, excuse me, are the introductions. We do not have Courtney. You can hear me? Yeah, thank you. That's that's the view I would prefer, please. Thank you. With me in Council Chambers tonight, members Mark Eastman, John King, Stephen Broh, Cody Silknetter, guiding attorney Ed Gould, legal advisement. I'm member Shane Leonard, and I'm also the chair. First up beyond that, first up was introductions. Next up, the approval of our minutes from the June 3rd, 2026 meeting, and hopefully everything in your packets is chronological. [2:07] Speaker B (unidentified): Should be the next item right up. You've [2:11] John Eddy King III: had a chance to look at that. Great, if not, you wanna do it now, that's fine too. When everyone is ready, accept the minutes or amend them, and then hopefully accept the amended minutes. I will accept the evidence. John moved, Steven seconded. We have a vote. Yes, John. Cool. Even yes, Cody. Yes, I 'm also yes. Next item. [3:00] John Eddy King III: unfinished business of a request for an advisory opinion on the city council referral co 26-152 excuse me councillor mallers march 31st 2026 remarks captured on a live mic Mike. We are first up to review all of the voluntary statements from any persons. I did not, I remember this time to say it at the right stage, I did not receive any additional information where this meeting started. Did you? No. Nothing. Yep. So everything that we have is what we're supposed to have. Ask for any voluntary statements except for those goes from Councilor Maurer, so we can we did this last time, we're feeling sort of strangely rusty. That should come at the public hearing portion, yes, for that. Okay, yes. As we have no voluntary statements to review, all records that we requested from the city and other public agencies next, there's no thing that we asked for. The body was the home from the bank. Anybody had any questions or comments about the records that you requested before as well? there's also the video right and that's also part of the record do we have the ability to enter that actually into the public record as an edited segment or do we just merely discuss it you can discuss it 's it's in the meeting packet with the link to the YouTube site. Okay. Does the public have, yes, easily accessible access through this meeting? If they wanted to review what we're discussing right now, would they have that ability? You mean to review it right now? Yes. Or if I mean, we can discuss the video. Yeah, it's still in other words, can we play the video now so the public can see? Is that the question? No, but is it available as a link? I think I've never seen it in our agenda. [5:54] Wayne Mallar: I wanted to see it. [5:55] John Eddy King III: I understand. I don't know the answer to that question. It's still available on the YouTube site, so you can go to the YouTube and look for that meeting date and watch it there. When I looked last on the city's website for each meeting, there's a calendar and a schedule and there's also a link to the agenda. Agenda, it would have our agenda on it. And if I believe from looking at that same link, it has the link to the information that we have as well. So I think if I'm understanding that correctly, they could have the specific link instead of having to go hunt it down and find it. And it would be right there. And the timestamp is part of our agenda item. I think that's there. Is that what you were? Yeah, just as a procedural. Yeah, no, I appreciate it. Yeah, because yeah, maybe someone looks back at this evolved later homework and listen to that [6:51] Speaker B (unidentified): multiple times, right? The [7:02] John Eddy King III: floor is the floor is still open until the board decides that there is no necessary further review of the records that we request. [7:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Oh, good. Stephen. All right. You're fine with that? Moving on [7:45] John Eddy King III: to the public hearing portion of the meeting. In a minute, the public hearing portion of this meeting will begin. And anyone who wishes to step forward and speak to this board, please address your comments to the chair, which is again, is me. When you stand up, please make sure we hear your full name and your residents. And if there is, there's an agency or body that you're speaking on behalf of these, you know, say that as well. We're trying to adopt the best that we can the city council's public hearing requirements. As such, speakers would have no more than three minutes as long as they remain on topic to the topic at hand this evening, and aren't engaging in any personal attacks or litigation that has no business before the board. If you aren't on topic, you may be paused. Your time will be frozen to correct or clarify. And moving forward, that may forfeit the rest of your time, but hopefully not. The public hearing portion of this meeting is now in effect. If anyone would like to come forth, please do so one at a time. Yeah. Thank you and of course there. [9:24] Mike Burrow: We go. Yeah, make it green. Thank you. My name is Mike Burrow, resident of Vanguard. I do not represent any group nor do I have anything to gain by speaking for Mr. Mallor. Mr. Mallor is being accused of not using a disclaimer. Mr. Mallor has First Amendment rights on the Constitution United States for free speech whether you agree with him or not. He was speaking to an individual and was overheard by a very sensitive microphone. No disclaimer is required when an individual is expressing his own opinion. Mr. Maller was not addressing an audience or individuals. Therefore, because of this particular scenario, he was just expressing his own individual opinion. This claim is not well grounded and should be dismissed in its entirety. I was witness to an individual on the DEI Advisory committee who did not use the disclaimer. This was during public comment. She called three city councilors white Christian neo-Nazis. Our person spoke about this at least twice and this violation did not make it to the Ethics Board. Another individual in the Historic Preservation Commission speaking at the Bangor City Council meeting during public comment and did not use the disclaimer and stated hoped more homeless came to Bangor and individual property values get devaluated and thus more affordable. These individuals knew they were being recorded and in a public meeting, but did not use the disclaimer. No action was taken against them. Question is why? Whereas Mr. Maller has did not know that his voice was being picked up by again a very sensitive microphone. The chair of this committee has gone on social media in the past and made political comments and he does not provide a disclaimer. However, this is his First Amendment right as a citizen of the United States. We may not like what other individuals post, write, or say, but they do have a First Amendment right under the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Mallard also has these same rights. It seems because Mr. Mallard does not vote a certain way and share a certain ideology, he is constantly under the microscope, whereas others can say and do as they please because they share the same etiologies with no repercussion. Again, I want to restate, this claim is not well-grounded and should be dismissed in [11:47] John Eddy King III: its entirety thank you very much I should I should also have said and I apologize to everyone that I did not include it another part of our public speaking is if there are any questions from the board to a speaker we ask of course you 're not obligated to do anything because this is just a public portion of speaking but if we did have a question we always ask that if you would handle that thank you did I and I apologize sir did I maybe I was trying to form that in my head I was listening to you I promise. Did you say the chair of this committee? Yes, that would be me. Yes, I made public political statements. Yes. [12:33] Mike Burrow: When was that, sir? Oh, my wife has that all written down. So she can provide it to you if you want, she can show it to you, but that's your First Amendment right. I mean, you can do it, but you didn't, my point was you didn't make a disclaimer, which you don't have to, because that is your First Amendment right. I just want to make an analogy between what Mr. Mallard said at the time was picked up on a hot mic, which we all know political candidates on occasion, it all happens to, I mean it does, it's just one of those things, but they don't attend for it to get out in the public, thought this is the way it is, but we're covered on the First Amendment like your protect on the first man. I may not like what you said, but that's okay, I mean you have that right, so I just want to make that, I want to make kind of a correlation, you know, people saying do a lot of things and people got to understand all these things are absolutely recorded. There is nothing in these days that you can say or do that isn't recorded or stored somewhere. I.e., you know, the AI data centers. I mean, it is, it is all there, so. [13:39] John Eddy King III: Doesn't that go against your idea that, you know, in your statement you said that Mr. Mallet was speaking privately, but we all understand. Right. He was [13:50] Mike Burrow: speaking privately, but he's also protected on the First Amendment. [13:53] John Eddy King III: You speech. So it doesn't matter that he was speaking privately. It just matters that he has the First Amendment right to say what he wants. Yes, sir. That's correct. Absolutely. Regarding me, just again, out of curiosity, and again, if your wife, who I don't know— [14:07] Mike Burrow: She can provide it to you. [14:08] John Eddy King III: I believe you, but was it during an ethics board meeting? [14:13] Mike Burrow: This was your private email, stuff you said about—again, I want to make the correlation. You didn't have to disclose that, hey, I'm part of this board or anything like that. That was my intent. hat just to disclose that you did not have to personally disclose that on your [14:27] John Eddy King III: private email I understand your point and I'm not arguing that point I'm just [14:31] Speaker B (unidentified): curious what private email you read social media so it's just it's just a [14:41] Mike Burrow: point I just want to compare and contrast so just so everybody knows sure [14:45] John Eddy King III: I thought I heard you correctly yeah you did does anybody else have any questions have you had a chance to read chapter 33 code of ethics we did we did [14:58] Mike Burrow: go through it yeah as a matter of fact we got it right there when you're looking at [15:01] John Eddy King III: chapter 33-13.1 i don't have it in front of me so i see okay it clearly states that any we read it for you here disclaimers are required when they're being when there could be ambiguity regarding the capacity in which you elected or appointed official is communicating a typical disclaimer a speaker or writer speaking for myself or speaking as an individual or although I hold the office of blank I'm speaking as a private individual okay that's part of the ethics right because he's an elected official in a in a official city board meeting knowing that he had the mics were [Speaker K (unidentified): on should] have been you think he should have just did the disclaimer based on what that board of ethics chapter says so here's here's the thing a lot of times people don't realize [16:11] Mike Burrow: how sensitive these mics are i mean i could be speaking to the attorney just saying boy i really don't agree with that and it just picks it up and it's like the intent was not for anybody else to hear it was just for his ears only and that's how i look at it certain things are meant for one person's ears only and because there's something so sensitive that it can pick everything up that wasn't the intent so you got to look at intent as a city council member [16:40] John Eddy King III: speaking in this room on a regular by some basis would he not be aware that [16:49] Mike Burrow: His that these mics are sensitive. It's so sensitive. I mean, I could only be speculative on my part to assume that it's that sense. I mean, I don't, I don't know the sensitivity, and I'm sure it can be cranked up or cranked down, the sensitivity of it. I mean, who knows? I know I can't say one thing. I'm a former retired military officer pilot, and my hearing is getting pretty bad, so a lot of times I tend to speak a little louder, and I don't even realize it. So this mouse, she is getting a little older and he's probably, his hearing is probably a little worse than mine. He's a little bit older man, so a lot of times you don't, you don't realize, you know, you're when you accentuate stuff, if it's, if it's loud not being picked up. So my assumption would be he didn't know, but it's purely speculative because I love him on my part, and I wouldn't even want to get into that. [17:40] John Eddy King III: That's the reason why we're here is for that section. And that's why I wanted to make sure we all understood that 's the reason why. [17:46] Mike Burrow: He does have free speech. That goes under First Amendment. [17:49] John Eddy King III: And it does state that in Section A, but it has the disclaimers down at the bottom that are there for a reason. And that's what we're here for, so. [17:57] Mike Burrow: But then again, I just want to say this. If he was outside, would he use a disclaimer? If he was in here talking to me, would he use a disclaimer? I mean, it's... It's a situation where you really have to be careful, you know, because people, like I just give you two instances where they did not and they were publicly speaking. I mean, it just, people just forget, they get excited, and they're not called out on it by the chair for whatever reason. People, they just sometimes forget when you're having a private conversation. If I was having a private conversation with you and I was a city council member, I wouldn't say, oh, by the way, if you're, you're a city employee you'd probably know I already was, but I just wouldn't, I wouldn't use, I would just like I make an assumption that it wasn't going to be picked up and be public on the hot mic. I would make that assumption. Now whether it's right or right or wrong, I don't know, but I would make that assumption. [18:53] John Eddy King III: Is there any other questions? Thank you. So my name [19:10] Suzette Furrow: Is Suzette Furrow, I'm a resident of Bangor. The opinions I express are my own and do not reflect those of any committee I am on. The statements Councillor Mallar made during the break and the ethics board meeting on March 31st of this year were not meant to be public comments. There were comments he made while talking to a city employee. They were not intended to be heard by the public. This was his opinion. He did not have to state a disclaimer since he did not know the sensitivity of the microphone in the room. Whether anyone agrees with Councillor Mallar's statements or not, he has the First Amendment right under the United States Constitution to freedom of speech, which includes his opinion. We live in a surveillance state in which we can be recorded by someone at any time. We cannot be expected to state a disclaimer regarding our personal opinions at all times. Counselors state their opinions during discussions at committee meetings and council meetings. Councillor Joe Leonard has stated a couple of times that he does not care if it costs a million dollars to keep one homeless person off the street. Is it worth it? Yeah, he's able to vote on a budget. Councillor Leonard also has stated during committee meetings [20:27] John Eddy King III: that... Ma'am, please, this is... it feels like it's... I paused your time and please mark your spot. It feels like we're starting to talk about other councillors and I preface this beforehand I said matter only at hand. [20:42] Suzette Furrow: Okay. I'm just saying that the people, other councillors, I guess I could say general, generally other councillors state their opinion during discussions and they don't say this is my own opinion. And I heard the first [20:57] John Eddy King III: sentence about a different city councillor and then when you continue the second sentence it seems like now it's okay I won't talk about you I'm asking you please to okay I won't say the [21:06] Suzette Furrow: name anymore I'm just generally saying counselors say their opinions okay we correct and recenter [21:12] John Eddy King III: so that this is about the parameters of this meeting okay all right so it's a very slippery [21:17] Suzette Furrow: Slippery slope we're on here. If you find Councillor Myler in violation of ethical code, you're setting the city up for more of these violations. If someone's caught on a hot mic out on the street or anywhere, on someone's phone, you could just, if a year's counselor saying something you don't like, you turn on your mic and record them and then bring it to the ethics board. Also, I noticed that the chair of this committee and vice chair work together on a podcast. If that's okay, if I mention this. According to the Board of Ethics procedural rules, article 4 or due process and ethics, subsection 4.2 public meetings, board members may not discuss pending matters with each other outside of a board meeting. No decision may be made by the board outside of regular or special meeting of the board. Board members may discuss pending matters with city staff or their representatives. So I think there's a little bit of a conflict there that the fact that you both work together. And I just, I would like to ask you Mr. Leonard, I don't know, are you related to Joe Leonard? I'm just, yeah, I don't know if you've ever stated that or not. I'm [22:27] John Eddy King III: Just because I want to give you the rest of your time. Okay, that's it, thank you. The easiest one, of course, is the commonality of the name. I am not known to be related to Joe Leonard at all. Okay, and to be fair, if you have more time than I and you dive deep into ancestry, for example, and you discover that we share a common lineage, that'd be news to me. I don't know that I'm related to him at all. It's just a common last name. The second point is there is no vice chair. Mark Leesman is a member of the board, but he has no title other than. Okay, have you listened to the podcast that we've talked about [23:13] Suzette Furrow: No, I just saw that you're on a podcast together. [23:16] John Eddy King III: Well, you specifically brought it up as what seems like a central point to your argument that the board might be acting improperly. And if you've heard Mr. Eastman and I talking about this matter or any matter regarding the Ethics Board on our podcast, I would very much like to know what episode that was. [23:42] Suzette Furrow: I've never listened to the podcast. I just saw that you both have one. [23:46] John Eddy King III: We share an action, but you don't know that we talk about city government, municipalities. Do you know what our podcast is about? [23:56] Suzette Furrow: It's about movies, I think. It is about movies. Screening movies, yes. [24:00] John Eddy King III: Have you ever listened to that podcast? [24:05] Suzette Furrow: No, I have not. [24:06] John Eddy King III: Do you understand why I think it's a strange inclusion in your statement to suggest that [24:12] Suzette Furrow: A movie... Well, at the last meeting I attended, you mentioned, you two mentioned something about that you had looked at. I don't remember what the paper was, some kind of paperwork. I don't remember exactly what the statement was, but that's why I thought you two... [24:27] John Eddy King III: We mentioned that we looked at paperwork at the last ethics board meeting. Yes. Ma'am, this table is full of paperwork and he's sitting right next to me. We are looking at similar papers, but none of that has to do with movies. [24:42] Suzette Furrow: Do you understand the difference? Do you understand what it says in the article here that I just read? Yeah, because so we'll be talking away from this committee or these meetings. Well, I have no proof that you do or do not. And neither do you. I don't know how you could prove that. You don't. [24:58] John Eddy King III: I do have proof that we've never talked about this on a podcast. [25:01] Suzette Furrow: But I mean, do you always talk on the mic? Is the mic always hot? I don't know. [25:08] John Eddy King III: No, we turn it off when the podcast is on. Are you asking me something other than the insinuation that we podcast about? [25:15] Suzette Furrow: I'm saying you two work together. I'm just, I'm just a resident voicing my concerns. [25:21] John Eddy King III: Shannon, I'm not trying to, there's no effort to attack you on this. I'm trying to be very clear about an insinuation that you brought to this committee, regarding me specifically and another member, but it doesn't seem like you did due diligence to look at the podcasts you're referring to and what they talk about. Of course they're not on all of them, because... [25:41] Suzette Furrow: The podcast is irrelevant. I'm just stating that you work together. It doesn't matter where you work or if you are the podcast or if I go to your workplace that you work together. I'm just saying you work together. [John Eddy King III: Who employs us?] I have no idea. What is that? How is it? I don't know if that's relevant. [25:58] John Eddy King III: We don't work together. I'm trying to clarify something that you're presenting as a friend and I'm just trying to help you or maybe opinion and you're actually sort of by the implication suggesting that there's something improper happening on this board. I'm taking measures to try to clarify that for you so that we can all move forward with transparency and understanding. I'm not trying to argue with you. If I'm raising my voice and I'm not aware of it, I apologize. And I'm not trying to talk over you, but you've levied some interesting sort of ideas here that we work together. We do not. That we podcast together. We have. But it's not about politics, and it's certainly not about any issue before the city of Vancouver's ethics boards. In fact, we never talked about this at all, on that podcast, even remotely. So for you to include it, at best seems like some sort of leverage to make a point bigger than what it is. But at worst, it feels like it might potentially be designed to undermine the process and the people on this board. I don't know, because I'm not in your head. That's why I'm asking. [27:09] Suzette Furrow: Since the statement, I found it interesting that you're both on a podcast together. And it says, and then when I read through the article. I just think it's a point that maybe should be made. [27:19] John Eddy King III: We're in that reference to the Code of Ethics, Jean, and I are in violation of that. [27:24] Suzette Furrow: I didn't say, I just say it's interesting that you two do work together on a podcast. [27:29] John Eddy King III: And we don't, okay. You're choosing a different verb than I. We, okay. [27:33] Suzette Furrow: I just said I noticed that you two work on a podcast together. And then this due process at an ethics public meeting, board members may not discuss pending matters with each other outside. I don't know if you are. I'm just saying I'm just making a statement. [27:48] John Eddy King III: You are making a statement. [27:50] Suzette Furrow: Yeah, I'm just reading, this. [27:53] John Eddy King III: A podcast that we do on our own free time about movies. The Board of Ethics doesn't come up. And that you would include it as potential leverage that something is going on here that might not be proper. I think it's pretty clear. But if I'm, I'm not misunderstanding you, I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify it, and you just doubled down by saying we work together and we do this podcast that you've never heard of, that you've never listened to. I have all the patience in the world for your position, but it's okay. You're making statements when you should be asking questions. Chair Leonard, do you have a complicated relationship with another person on this board? Do you talk about the board of ethics on this podcast that we've learned? Those are questions. And you would have gotten the same answer. [28:42] Suzette Furrow: Do you? I didn't say that you do. I'm just saying that you work together. So, do you? [28:46] John Eddy King III: Well, when I began asking you, asserted that we did. And I've already told you, no, and I can do it again. We don't talk about the Board of Ethics on our podcast. It's not a political podcast. [28:59] Suzette Furrow: I just read, all I said was that I noticed that you work together on a podcast. Past and then I stated the I didn't say I just stated what the rules are that's it and do you see a conflict of interest I'm just saying I noticed that do you I don't I didn't say there is I said just that I noticed that I noticed that you weren't going to plug [29:24] John Eddy King III: in maybe I can better walk away from this part I didn't say that you did do that I just [29:29] Suzette Furrow: said this is the rules this is the rules okay I'm going to ask you a question now yes I [29:36] John Eddy King III: If another member of this board and I, in our private time, have a podcast about entertainment and movies specifically, do you see a violation in what you've read? [29:48] Wayne Mallar: I didn't say that. [29:49] Suzette Furrow: I didn't say there was a violation. [29:51] John Eddy King III: I'm asking you if you see a violation. [29:53] Suzette Furrow: No, because I did. I'm just saying that you work together. [29:57] John Eddy King III: I think it's, you know, I'm not going to answer any questions you have about our podcasts at any time, except maybe this time, it's just not the right time. You know I understand but there were several things that you had questions about of course Joe Leonard and Shane look at that makes sense because I find out I didn't know if you'd ever said that so I just figured I'd ask no of course that's incredible I figured it out yeah and so would the others if they were asked as questions instead of data statements does anybody else have any questions for us who said the last part of before he had stopped you the first time in regards to other people by the ethics if you as a citizen of Bangor found something that another councilman had said that was worthy of an ethical ethics board review you know the process of how to bring that to the board violent [31:05] Suzette Furrow: ethics complaint you mean to how to [31:08] John Eddy King III: do that or has that right nobody here nobody here made the ethics complaint that was made by a private citizen so I do want to say this right now from now on let's focus on the at hand situation if it has to be deal with another councilman or another board member of another board they need to you they need to have this complaint filed against them we are focused on what Mr. Millard said yes on 331, nobody else yes. So I would like it to be said that anybody else is speaking, if you're gonna bring up another council member or a board member and you think it's unethical, you can, you can go right down to the solicitor's office Monday through Friday and file an ethics complaint. We're not here for that, we're here for one situation. And it's this, the back and forth is taking way too much time. And we just need to focus on what we are here for rather than attacking and making accusations, whether meant to or not, against somebody on this board. So we need to move forward because it's the second time that the chair has been it out as something that's considered unethical, whether it was said blatantly or not, so I just want to move forward with that and move on. Okay, is there any questions? Yeah, is there anybody, else? Thank you, thank you, Hillary. [32:59] Simmons: Simmons, resident of Bangor. I would like to ask for chair Leonard to recuse himself from this process. And I'm going to explain why. [33:14] John Eddy King III: Yes, can you say if you go to the public office [33:19] Simmons: and if you're speaking? I cannot, because when I come to this council for anything, I am speaking as a resident. My employer is not involved with my ability to speak as a resident. [33:32] John Eddy King III: Here, that's what we want to say. [33:33] Simmons: So I should never have to say that, because again, it's freedom of speech. I've never brought my employer into a political or any meeting here in the city. So it's nobody's business unless I tell you where I work. Do we ask everyone that speaks at public comment where they work? [33:55] John Eddy King III: We ask them to notify us if they have any business, this is if you're speaking any by behalf of any government property in this city, that's what I'm [34:06] Simmons: that's what we started off with, that's going to verify. Okay, so I would like to request chair Leonard to be removed a moment, if you don't mind. That's not part of the public hearing for the issue at hand, or is it? 's not. Yeah, if you let me explain, I'll tell you 're not allowed to [34:26] John Eddy King III: explain for the moment, there's a process in the ordinance for raising a conflict of interest, and this is not the way that the conflict issue is raised. Conflict issue can be raised by a board member and then the board votes to determine whether or not there is a conflict, click whether or not the board member should continue to serve. If you, if you had another statement that you wanted to make an issue at hand, yeah, I would like to put it on the [35:08] Simmons: Record for April 16, the meeting of the ethics board in discussion with this hearing. There was a comment between Chair Leonard and another member in this room stating that they had discussed this matter prior to that meeting. It had been discussed outside of that meeting. And I believe that is not appropriate. [35:34] John Eddy King III: These. I have to stop you for the moment. [35:37] Simmons: I think we're talking procedurally. If we want fairness across the board procedurally. [35:45] John Eddy King III: We are not talking about that specific at the moment. Right now, a portion of the public hearing that is open [35:50] Simmons: is to speak about the matter at hand only but what I'm speaking about is I don't believe that mr. Maller can get a fair and impartial decision from the Board of Ethics due to numerous conflicts that is what I'm stating that [36:13] John Eddy King III: That still has to be maybe you're entitled to that, but that's not the way to raise the conflict issue before this board. So, again, freedom of speech for those comments are out of order. Right and I'm not, I'm not saying you can't bring this up to the right body. It's just, this is not a time for that to be brought up here. If you had something that you wanted to say. a matter at hand directly, but if you're going to continue to reference things that don't matter to this specific issue. [36:48] Simmons: I think it matters as a chair to the board, but I'm going to set it aside. I will finish. How's that? Do I still have my time? Sure. Yeah. Are you ready? I'm perfectly ready. Go ahead. I don't think it's a question of Mr. Malheur stating what he stated. stated, he acknowledged to the BDN that comment was stated, correct? The question is of the matter of was he representing the City at the time of that comment? So anyone that walks into this chamber, if you're part of the City Council, is that what they're representing at that time? Does anyone else walk into this chamber in any other meeting and put a disclaimer out that I am representing myself as a citizen of Bangor, I believe that the city of Bangor has taken away his ability to be a resident. And that's not fair. He also is a resident of the city of Bangor, even though he sits on the council. So he still has the right to his opinion. Is that not correct? And does anyone, when you all have a conversation, say I can't talk because I'm I'm on the ethics board, when you're having a conversation with somebody else, just do you all make that disclaimer? And the hot mic situation, I'm just going to put it on record, that was a setup. Because I've been to numerous meetings here and there's never been hot mics, so that was a setup by the city of Bangor. So thank you. [38:31] John Eddy King III: I have a question. At the beginning of the executive session, did or did not the chair state that the recordings were going to be live, video is going to be live, and state that be careful what you say as it is live and the mics are on? The comment was made that [38:55] Simmons: there were mics on but and that's not where I don't think that is in [39:01] John Eddy King III: disagreement. Okay, but you're saying it is a set up because there was a hot mic that he was aware of. Like think the thing is, it is up to the board itself to decide whether or not we keep the cameras and the mics on if we have to go into a recess. This was not a setup. At no time did we know that discussion was going to happen. At no time did we work with the city at any way to set him up. We do recognize the freedom of speech. But there is the power of 3313.1. If you read it in full, it makes it very clear exactly what we're talking about. And all I want to do is focus on that, and that alone, rather than throwing out accusations and trying to take this board because we're here to do just this one job. Let's focus to stay on that rather than, and I'm saying it again, rather than going off on tangents about other board members here. [40:23] Simmons: I think it's procedural. I spoke to David Warren that same evening. Did I speak as a citizen or supposedly in my official capacity? Oh we don't know what your official capacity is. So I mean that's similar mr. Lars [40:39] John Eddy King III: this Mallor sorry thank you but it's if you just read 33-13-1 section a curly States what I'm trying to say that's all I've got. I just wish we would continue focusing on the issue at hand rather than moving towards you know side trails and rabbit holes that's going to build make this meeting longer and that's your personal opinion [41:11] Simmons: mine is procedural and procedures have not been followed with this board so that's my again freedom of speech right to say so thank you please do follow the procedures that the city has set [41:24] John Eddy King III: board if you do have an issue with our chair are there are there any other questions so It's the procedural inconsistency. Would you mind, would you mind coming forward, please? The procedural inconsistency that you're claiming that's happening with the board, can you be more [41:44] Simmons: specific? I can. So there was a meeting here that you and attorneys, it's not a circumventing way [41:52] John Eddy King III: to bring up the issue that the, that Mr. Gold has said isn't appropriate, and that's not okay. [41:57] Simmons: So you're asking why, what I'm talking in regards to procedural, I'm telling you why I feel procedure has not been followed by this board. The procedure you're referring to is a conversation not in a meeting. Are you not allowed to have, you're not allowed to have conversation outside of the [42:22] John Eddy King III: meeting? Please, I haven't asked you a question, and your time for public speaking is over. Okay, thank you. No, you're, you're still having a question before you. I guess I'll plead the [42:33] Simmons: fifth on my questions due to the fact you won't let me answer them appropriately. Okay, thank you [42:38] John Eddy King III: for your statement. Is there anyone else who wishes to step forward? My [42:51] Sonya Maller: name is Sonya Maller. I'm a resident of the city of Angler. I also spoke to David Warren that night on an issue related to the city. Was I picked up on the hot mic? I guess not, because I am a regular citizen. Mr. Maller spoke as a regular citizen to David Warren. Does he have to wear a placket on him? I'm speaking as a regular citizen now. It's funny that there were three of us that admit we spoke to David Warren when that hot mic was on. Thank you. [43:40] John Eddy King III: Is there any question for the speaker? I have one, if you don't mind. And I think I'm starting to parse something between all of the public statements. You haven't said this, but when you and your daughter and your husband say that you spoke to Mr. Warren that night here in Council Chambers, I'm trying not to do the hard work for you. Are you suggesting that the focus was only on your husband's speech and that you and your daughter was somehow muted or not focused on? We weren't focused on. Nothing [44:31] Sonya Maller: was brought up on what Mrs. Simmons or I spoke about with Mr. Warren, was it? The only person that was commented on was Mr. Maller. And we didn't speak as a group. We went up individually. I don't know if Mr. Maller even knew what I was gonna ask Mr. Warren. I'm not sure that Mrs. Simmons knew what I spoke to Mr. Warren about, because I didn't know what she spoke to Mr. Warren about. I didn't know what Mr. Maller spoke to Mr. Warren about. So it wasn't that we talked about the same [45:21] Speaker B (unidentified): thing. I understand. Mr. Brown? Yes. [45:28] John Eddy King III: You're not an elected official, are you? No. I am a [45:34] Sonya Maller: resident of the city of Bangla. Mr. Maller is also a resident of the city of Bangla. We reside in the same property, we pay taxes there, we are ordinary citizens. He shouldn't have to wear a placket. I am not a counselor today, or I am a regular citizen today. That is, in my opinion, infringing on the rights he has as a ordinary citizen for the city of Bangla. [46:14] John Eddy King III: However, because you are not an elected official, you are not beholden to the same standards that a city councilor is beholden to that day. [46:30] Sonya Maller: I would hope that I was speaking correctly. I will repeat it again. Mr. Maller is a regular citizen of the city of Vancouver. He pays taxes just like I pay taxes, and he does not always wear his councilor hat. [John Eddy King III: I'm] sorry, he does not, and regardless of how you want to put it, he still has a right as an independent citizen of the city of Bangor. So one last question, do [47:16] John Eddy King III: you or do you not, it's a yes or no question, do you believe that our elected officials should be held to a higher standard if that elected, no, okay, I don't [47:34] Sonya Maller: want to answer it because I cannot state why I am saying yes or no. You don't have to. Thank you. [47:44] John Eddy King III: Ma'am, these are volunteer questions, of course, it's just part of those. You don't mind, that's fine. I completely agree that he is a private citizen. He's also elected official. Do you believe that because he's an elected official speaking behind the diocese to a city employee while there is cameras and mics on that some of the comments he may have made could have been interpreted by the citizens who were watching it and the ones who were watching it the next day or read the article as unethical, so yes or no, I mean, is it, could it be perceived by anybody in the city? [48:36] Sonya Maller: I don't know, that's my answer, I don't know, he is a regular citizen of the city of Bangla, yes ma'am. Right. And sometimes when you people are speaking up here, it is very difficult for the people that are sitting back here. I can sit up front here, closer to where you are speaking, and I sometimes can't hear what you're saying. saying. I don't wear hearing aids. Now if I choose sometimes to sit where the gentleman is over in the corner, I can hear better. This room, the acoustics are very poor. City Council meetings, I can't hear what they're saying when they do the workshops. Your voices have a tendency to be muffled. So I don't think Mr. Maller needs to wear a placket and he is not always representing as a city council member. He has not denied that he didn't say it, but he didn't say it as a city councilor. Is [50:13] John Eddy King III: there anyone else who would like to speak? That's a, I remember we had a certain section for you, Mr. Mallow. It wasn't quite in the public hearing part, but it was adjacent to it. Yeah. Under the procedural rules, you do have a right to speak, but it comes at the end of the public hearing. You do have a right to speak and the procedural rules indicate that it comes at the end of the public hearing. It gives you the opportunity to address any statements anyone else this way but that's okay what you said has to be so that's okay is there I've looked up as frequently as I could while also trying to give the respect and attention to the speakers. I didn't see anybody so there's one attendee but I didn't I didn't see anything that anyone was raising their hand for so public comment online doesn't seem to be a thing either. I'm saying that out loud sort of to myself to see if there's something that I'm missing and I don't see that I'm missing anything. I didn't miss anything from anyone else right okay last call for any public statements and the public hearing portion of this meeting before it's closed okay moving on now with the part of the meeting which is the discussion of the board oh councilman oh excuse me I was thinking the end like after that discussion of course not [52:08] Speaker B (unidentified): excuse me councilman well [52:19] Wayne Mallar: you talk excuse me you talked about policy what is the policy on the chair assuming the authority to during an executive session which you were in leave the mics and camera on is there a policy is [52:37] John Eddy King III: there a policy that is for either for or against is that the chair's discussion the conduct of the meeting is within the discretion of the chair [52:47] Wayne Mallar: that's part of the policy is that written somewhere or is that just a general assumption [52:54] John Eddy King III: By virtue of his position as the chair, he has the authority over the conduct of the meeting. [53:00] Wayne Mallar: As I said, is that written somewhere? Or is it that we have we adopted that as rules of the city? Or is that just your opinion? [53:07] John Eddy King III: That's Robert's Rules of Order. [53:09] Wayne Mallar: It is by Robert's Rules. Okay. So I want to know. [53:16] John Eddy King III: And to that point, did we have the ability? Yes or no? Because I don't know. Did we have the ability during that executive session, or the option, I guess, would be the better way, to shut the mics and the cameras off? And do we know what past precedents would be? I've listened to numerous council meetings, historic preservation. I honestly, I don't know that I've ever seen that happen, and it may well have, but I cannot say one way or the other. I don't know any precedent one way or the other. There is no precedent set. Then there would be no inconsistency with a non-existent policy, correct? It would be within the general authority of the chair to govern the conduct of the meeting. [54:25] Wayne Mallar: Okay, my next question would be, why did the chair ask for the mics to be left on? What was your justification for it? [54:34] John Eddy King III: And if you don't mind one second, Mr. Maller, if I remember this right, I'm not timing Mr. Maller's comments at all. He has, he doesn't, the three-minute rule does not apply to him. Right. Okay. Okay. At that meeting, Mr. Maller, we were, we were processing the council order regarding your behavior at the Historic Preservation Society. Excuse me, the Historic Preservation Committee. And one of the things that had been discussed and deliberated upon was, and one of the things that this board asked for evidence, I guess, was, is there any footage of what happened during the recess with you specifically? Is there footage of you getting up and approaching someone? Is there any audio of the meeting? And at that point, it wasn't clear to the board how the city operated the Zoom and the YouTube channel side of things. It was my curiosity to ask the city manager's office if footage remained but wasn't broadcast, meaning that before I knew what the control room behind me looked like, perhaps there was footage, and that we could ask for it to better help figure out how to assist the council order regarding you. I had come to learn that when the recess is in effect, that the microphones in the video is turned off. It was my suggestion over time, and it remains still, that would have helped this board in that issue there, and could have helped in any other issues like that. I understand if the if the and for the lack with better terms there, because I actually don't know what to call, whether it's Dave or Courtney or whoever's running the service back there, but the control room is what I'm going to refer to it as, if that's okay. It's my, it's my assertion that for meetings, it would have been so helpful for us to have addressed that council order if microphones could have been turned off, but if the video had been on, we would have been able to see clearly and not had to rely on your memory or the memories of anyone else in that meeting, because it was months ago, if you did, in fact, get up. And did you approach someone? And if you did, maybe we could have asked them for a voluntary statement. It would have helped us as a board to work through the issue that the council had put forward. forward. So when it was the meeting that I was chairing, and we were going to pause for a moment to confer with council, I made the decision to basically and previously to that, excuse me, I had told Dave Warren, that I thought my recommendation, if I could find a way to do it and the findings of fact to help the city council going forward, or in and instances like this, to leave the video on for any meeting, there's no reason not to. It doesn't have to be a black screen. And if there is a problem, the video, which would be very helpful, would be very helpful. So when we took that break, I stood up and I told Mr. Warren that I was gonna practice what I'm preaching. I want the monitors on, I want the video running and might as well leave the mics on. on. And I left. And if memory serves, member Bro was actually calling in on zoom at that point. And we were trying to make sure that there was a way to have a conversation with him that accidentally wasn't being broadcast to people that aren't hearing it while we were conferring with the lawyer. And I reentered this room, and pointed to all of you and said, I want to remind you that the mics are on. The video was on when I left again. [58:42] Wayne Mallar: So does that show in the video? You're coming back? Yes, sir. I don't know. I don't watch the [58:48] John Eddy King III: video. I had to watch it twice because I anticipated your question. It's a very reasonable question, and in a very strange way, no one's ever asked me it. Why did you do that? It's because my suggestion for the city council and for all boards doing business, just leave the video on, because for you, for us to have helped figure out exactly whether or not anything was reasonably brought against you or there was reason to ask someone, we could have found out if we had just had the video. [59:19] Wayne Mallar: I agreed with you that I had approached and talked to a lady that was on there and talked to, I talked to two people, I think. Yeah. [59:31] John Eddy King III: That's fine. But if your memory hadn't been clear, or if there had been a disagreement, if there was video of it, we wouldn't know. And we could have just simply said, for example, it turned out you talked to Ann Quinn, and [59:46] Wayne Mallar: you admitted as such. Yes, I talked to Ann Quinn, and I also talked to, I can't think of his name from the university. [59:52] John Eddy King III: But if we had seen on the video during that recess that you had approached Ms. Quinn, we wouldn't have had to have guessed, we could have just said, Ms. Quinn, would you like to give us a voluntary statement about the actions. All it does is help offer a level of transparency that I think the city isn't quite operating on, and I was trying to back that up by saying I want transparency when I'm running this meeting. That's the answer to your question. [1:00:16] Wayne Mallar: Sir, that's part of the answer, but the thing that I find interesting is that you never brought this to the council to talk to us about the fact that you thought it would be appropriate to leave the mic on and the video when we were having a hearing, whether it be a hearing before the ethics committee or whatever, HPC or anything. So you didn't think it was important enough to bring to the council, but you felt it was important enough to do it yourself for the ethics committee. [1:00:51] John Eddy King III: Is that correct? I didn't have a chance to speak to the council yet because the night that I chose to have the video and the audio still running, we hadn't finished any deliberations or made [1:01:05] Wayne Mallar: any findings of fact. Okay, stop there. Have you brought it to the council since then? You think it's such a good idea, did you discuss it with anyone at the city level? Yeah, you're not a witness. [1:01:17] John Eddy King III: It's here. I understand. I mean, the purpose of the hearing is to take evidence on which This board can make a decision, and I appreciate it. It's a level of transparency I'm happy to provide. The strange answer to your question, though, before we continue, Mr. Mallory, is I did. I told Dave Warren that was what I intended, and that is what I wanted. And he is an assistant to the city manager, is he not? [1:01:46] Wayne Mallar: I believe he was at the time. I don't know if he is now. Oh, okay. All right. Now, the third question I had was, would an attendee of the meeting that came in while you were in executive session realize that it was your procedure to allow the video and audio to be running? [1:02:07] John Eddy King III: So in order to help answer this, again, I'm not sure. Or no, please go ahead. I was just going to say, I mean, this line of inquiry by Councillor Mallar, yeah, that's got really nothing to do with the charge to this board from the city council. Right, but like I'm, I want to be helpful and transparent with you about it, but again, I don't think that this is the moment to have that conversation. It's okay to the issue that we're [1:02:42] Wayne Mallar: dealing, that's fine. All right. Now I guess the other question which other people have asked is, where does the loss of freedom of speech come into play in this case? It doesn't, is what we're saying. Now do you as a board think that every time I speak, whether it be in public, in private, or before the council, that I have to say, I'm saying this as a councilor or as a public, as a citizen. And you know, do I need to wear a shirt that says I'm speaking as a councilor? I mean, it's getting to the point that, and I'm not, I don't really care one way or the other, but I think it's important to let the public know that when we're not sitting on the board, we're not sitting in a meeting, we're not generally speaking as counselors. If I'm going to speak as a counselor, I specifically say. We've had many counselors go in front of television and say, I'm not speaking as a counselor, or they usually say I'm speaking as a counselor, and sometimes they don't say anything. I realize it's a difficult thing to determine, but I think it's it's important. And I think we need to do something. All right. I'm not speaking tonight as a councillor, period. I'm here as a citizen. Just because you call me in as a councillor, [1:04:14] John Eddy King III: I'm still a citizen. Rick Archer, May I interrupt you there, Mr. Malley, just for clarity? That doesn't seem fitting He is here to answer the council order as his actions as a city councilor and to represent himself in a public capacity only. Doesn't seem to meet the moment that we are currently trying to address. Not that you can't be one and then the other, but in this specific issue, we didn't ask for Wayne Mallar to come and make a personal statement. We asked for Councilor Malheur to deliver the clarification just on it as all the work from the city council was for this board to determine whether Councilor Malheur in his capacity as a city councilor violated various provisions of the ethics. However, I think it's a factual determination for the members of this board to make regarding whether or not the comments that are subject to the council order were made by Councillor Mallar in his capacity as a city councillor or as a private citizen, and or whether or not there should have been any disclaimer attached to it. So the issue of whether those statements were made in his official capacity or his private capacity is a factual determination that you as board members will have to make. Okay. I guess going forward then sir instead of answering to a list of questions that you might have, I guess is there just is [1:06:02] Wayne Mallar: there a public statement that you wish to make? The only public statement I wish to make is the fact that I was talking having a private conversation with someone. Not, you know, I didn't realize the mics were on there. I thought it was the mic here. I don't know. And I didn't feel the necessity to say I'm speaking as a city council when I talked to him probably three or four times a week. And what I said, I don't take back. And I never have. I've always said yes, that's what I said. That's what I said. And but I didn't say it as a city councillor. I said it as a private individual to someone I talk with frequently. And a question came up and maybe you can clarify it for me. You said that you follow Robert's rules. Procedural rules say the democratic rules of order. What's the difference? The [1:07:01] John Eddy King III: Way I understand it from the city solicitor Dave Sebchik is that the board of ethics follows the democratic rules of order. If there is any discrepancy or question if the democratic rules of order as it was, and this is almost verbatim as it was explained to me, if the democratic rules of order do not address it, then the next safety net, if you will, is robert's role support. If for some strange reason an issue or a dilemma, a situation should arise, eyes that don't meet either of those, now this is the part that i'm guessing it solicitor subject had a third fallback, and i feel like it was just the main state law that we would fall back on if it needed to be applied. That is the only part of that conversation with dave subject that i am not 100 sure on, just that last part. The first two parts, where this board would be operating under the democratic rules of order and then robert's rules, i remember having with him at [1:08:10] Wayne Mallar: one point. Well, the procedural rule statement for administrative provisions doesn't say anything about robert's rules. It just says democratic rules of order or state law, city ordinances, is are any rules adopted by the board, and the rule for having open mics and video during recess had not been adopted by the board at that time, had it? We had spoken about it again. Regardless, the chair has the inherent authority. Well, does that, does the democratic rule state that? I mean, i'm asking a question, i don't know. I'm not a lawyer, i don't know if they say that either. Well, you didn't say they did, you referred to robert's rules of order, that's why i was confused. Well, what i'm [1:08:57] John Eddy King III: referring to is the general authority of the chair to govern the conduct of the meeting and [1:09:04] Wayne Mallar: the general rules. Robert's rules are, for example, yes, if someone at a meeting is making [1:09:12] John Eddy King III: statements that are out of order, the chair doesn't need an ordinance, a rule, or a statute to say that [1:09:20] Wayne Mallar: No, he doesn't. But we follow Robert's rules, which that is stated in. That's why I was asking, because I'm not familiar with the Democratic rules, which I will become familiar with, because it doesn't list Robert's rules in the procedure. [1:09:38] John Eddy King III: Robert's rules is the basis for all, pretty much, meetings. I mean, you're looking at the Democratic rule that just enhances because of what we are doing. But also I remember a few years ago when I first joined the board, the solicitor had said that we follow the Roberts rules Democratic, and then we fall back on the state of Maine, the state of Maine's ethics laws. So those are the three things that we do follow. But as it has been said, the chair does have this discrepancy to make changes or to have something done. So it'd be the same way if the city chair of the council wanted to have somebody removed, the same process they have, that they have the full right to be able to do that. If it's because they're running the meeting, they are in charge of the meeting, so they have, they have that, you know, I can say this and this as long as it's not violating an ordinance, a law or provision, then he has that full right and for just a point of clarity Mr. Maller, the and I'm, it would be hard to remember off the top of my head which of the two that would have been Norm Heightman who was the former city solicitor before Josh Saucier right replaced him after he retired, when I when I started to start, excuse me, when I started talking with the current city solicitor Dave Sevchik, that was the change that I had been made aware of and I don't know [1:11:28] Wayne Mallar: if that's, it's not, it's not in the procedures for your committee, all right [1:11:36] John Eddy King III: unless they don't bother to update anything, we have to remember that we updated our ethics rules this past year for the first time in what, decades, so we are still working on that [1:11:58] Wayne Mallar: So the rules I read don't say that, they say just the democratic rules, the state and city ordinances and rules adopted by the board, and we don't know where we stand on that, right, I think we do, I just think we have a disagreement, well you have a formal adoption of rules by [1:12:18] John Eddy King III: the board, no, what I'm, what I'm suggesting is at least what I've heard from the from Mr Gould, which is that the chair runs the meeting and as long as it's not in violation relation of those the democratic rules and Robert's rules that it's individual to the chair, sort of like as arbitrarily silly as it sounds, if I wanted us to stand at the dais now I could call for a brief moment while we all go back there and turn the mics on, but with all due respect Mr Bro can't do that as a member of this board because he's not chairing the board, he's not in control of this meeting, that's not in our procedural rules either, but I think you understand, I couldn't do that if I wanted to get everybody up and set everybody back there right [1:13:05] Wayne Mallar: Well I don't know because I haven't read the democratic rules of order yet it's not on our [1:13:10] John Eddy King III: procedural rules that I can change the seats but as the person running this meeting I can change [1:13:14] Wayne Mallar: the seats I don't understand that I would question I think maybe you're overstating your balance but that's fine I won't say any more until I read the rules it would be inappropriate to make a comment on something I haven't read. Okay. I believe. Do you have any questions for me? [1:13:31] John Eddy King III: I would like to bring up a aggressive comment that you made about how someone would know that the microphones and the video are on. I draw your attention to that screen right there which was on during that meeting and it was closed captioned and it was broadcast on the meeting. When you see [1:13:54] Wayne Mallar: No, I don't. I don't look at the screen. I'm not watching the screen constantly. [1:13:59] John Eddy King III: The meeting, that when you see that, when you see comments coming up live, that would be... [1:14:05] Wayne Mallar: If I'm not watching it, I can't see it, can I? And I wouldn't know. [1:14:09] John Eddy King III: You were right here in the meeting. [1:14:12] Wayne Mallar: None of us are. That's fine. I don't want to argue about it. Wait,. No, it's over. over. [1:14:20] John Eddy King III: You asked a question and I'm giving you an answer. It's [1:14:23] Wayne Mallar: over. I didn't see it and that's the answer. It's fine. If you want me to lie and say I saw it, I'm not going to. I've never lied to this group once. Do you think I have? I'd be glad to see you try to prove it. And I've been more than agreeable with you. I've let you do whatever you wanted and now I'm I'm tired of it I understand are there any other questions for Mr Malin when you [1:14:53] John Eddy King III: talked about bringing it up to the city council I had all the intentions of doing that myself but with regard because of the current ethics complaint that was being brought up I felt that it was not appropriate for me to come to the meeting and talk about that because I wanted to separate the two. After this is all over and done, I'll be more than happy to go right up there and take counsel over and do that. Now, my question is, as a elected official and knowing that the mics were hot, do you think that the comments that you've made not only just because we didn't not I'm not talking about the declaration of you being a city council member everybody in there everybody in the city knows who you are would you would you still feel that no comments you made did not violate section 33 -5-1 unbiased conduct your [1:16:11] Wayne Mallar: Question is very confusing. Okay, say it again and be more specific. You're saying if I had made the comment that I was a city councillor and I was speaking as a city councillor, or not made it or not. Okay, all right, so we're assuming then that I had, I did not make it and I didn't say it. Okay, so was the comment appropriate? Was the comment appropriate? Would it have followed? Would it have, in a private conversation, as long as it's not being rude, I don't think there's anything that isn't appropriate, but it's an opinion, but as a citizen, as a citizen, I had a right to say what I did as a citizen watching the video. I didn't watch [1:16:52] John Eddy King III: the video. I'm sorry, I'm not talking about you. So as a citizen of Bangor, if they were watching the video and they saw that, or they read the article that VDN did, would they take that statement that you said and believe that would be a violation of the unbiased conduct? [1:17:10] Wayne Mallar: I don't see how, but if they're, if they don't understand the fact that I, you don't, I didn't state that I was speaking for the council. Okay, so what you're saying, what you're inferring is that anytime I'm walking the street and see someone and stop and talk with them, I should say I can talk to you, but I'm not talking for the council, if we're talking about something [1:17:32] John Eddy King III: that's going on in the city. I'm not saying that. I'm saying at a city event, the statement that you had said, would it have violated, if it was anybody else, would it have violated the unbiased conduct in regards to section B, where themselves in a manner that does not discriminate unlawfully against any person because of race, color, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, genetic information, gender, identity, sexual orientation, social economic status, cultural group, and political status. That's the, that is what I see as the core question is, would somebody watch that video knowing who you are, think that would be the counselor's [1:18:26] Wayne Mallar: opinion? You're saying I lead the council, when I speak I speak for the council. I think that's stretching it a bit. I think I'm entitled to my own opinion, right or wrong. You're right, you are, [1:18:41] John Eddy King III: but the problem, the issue was it was alive, but it's, it the problem is that you're [1:18:48] Wayne Mallar: assuming that the public doesn't recognize the fact that we as elected officials have private lives. Is that what you're saying? I'm always a counselor no matter where I am. I tend to disagree with that. Well [1:19:06] John Eddy King III: We're a private citizen, you are, you have the right of first, the First Amendment, but my question mainly is, somebody just watched that one little clip or read the article, would they, would they make the assumption that you were being discriminatory against them, against [1:19:28] Wayne Mallar: If they did, they had the option to call me out on it and ask me, and I would have probably told them I did say it. It was nothing, you know, I can't, I don't deny that I said it, but I think you're getting into an area that we don't want to get into right now. [1:19:48] John Eddy King III: That's one of the main issues that we're here to talk about. That's going to hit clarification. If you thought that any ordinary citizen out there that would just saw a clip of it would think that would be discrimination, that's, that was one of the issues on the ethics complaint [1:20:04] Wayne Mallar: that I wanted to address. Well, I stand by what I said, and unfortunately, if that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel, but an ordinary citizen watching something that they didn't see the beginning or the end of made a choice. I don't, I can't determine what he's going to say or what he's going to do or how he's going to think. Okay, no matter what we say, everyone interprets things, you know, if you've got five people sitting the table or six and they hear one thing, they're all going to interpret it differently, and I have a right to my opinion, dude. I completely agree with that, whether I represent the city or not, and I wasn't representing the city at the time. Any other questions? Any other questions for Mr. Mallon? I have a question, I guess, pretty much [1:21:00] John Eddy King III: everything, we have four questions basically before us, pretty much everything has been about the third one, you know, use of titles and disclaimers and all that stuff, but others, two of the other things we have to decide as they're spelled out here are, did your statements fail to meet the standard of being fair and partial and responsive, or fail to maintain a standard of conduct that inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city's government, and did the statements violate the requirements treat all persons equitably and without unlawful discrimination, and you said you stand by [1:21:46] Wayne Mallar: Your statement, do you have like any response to my statement? Was made to a private citizen, it was not made to a member of the board, or it was not made in general public comment. So I don't think I have to justify what I said. I've admitted that I said it. I mean, I think you're asking for, well, I don't know what you're asking for, but I think you're on the line. So what you're basically saying is any statement made by an elected official that influences other people, whether it's right or wrong, is wrong, right? [1:22:29] John Eddy King III: No, I'm asking you if you have a response to these two things. [1:22:34] Wayne Mallar: And what I said was I made the statement, I stand by making the statement, it was done as an individual. I don't know what you want me to say. What else can I say? I didn't say I didn't make it, I didn't say I made it as a as a member of the city council. So what would you like to have me say? I don't know what you're saying, but you must, because you keep asking the question. I mean, I can't do it any differently. I said I made the statement, I made it as a private citizen, didn't naked as a member of any board. I was not sitting on any board at the time. Mr. [1:23:15] John Eddy King III: Malheur. Yes. If a reporter came upon you and your family at Haniford, you guys were buying bread. I can't hear [1:23:29] Wayne Mallar: you. What did you say? Your voice gets weaker as you speak. No, it's not a problem. Thank you. [1:23:37] John Eddy King III: If a reporter overheard you, they weren't there to cover you, but they just came upon you and your family at Haniford and you were buying bread or eggs or to pretend anything. And you were speaking the way you were speaking in the council chambers. And that reporter cut a story about that. You're probably reasonably right to think that you were in your private capacity. I understand that. When you made the statements that you made and don't apologize for, you're saying that you were in that moment a private citizen. correct? Yes. You were here in council chambers, not as a private citizen, but you were brought here as a city councilor because of an issue that the city council had addressed this board to look at. So why would you think that you had the ability to just invisibly change the roles when you were only here in your capacity as a city councillor? So what you're saying is [1:24:48] Wayne Mallar: when I step into the building I automatically everything I said is referred to as being a city council. That's not what I'm saying. Yes it is, it's exactly what you said. You said you come into the [1:24:59] John Eddy King III: Chamber, Mr. Male, I didn't say that at all. I asked you a question when you were, when you were invited here to speak as Councillor Mallar, addressing the council. Order. Okay, but I did [1:25:13] Wayne Mallar: not speak at that point in time about why I was asked to be here, did I? Okay, so it's irrelevant. I understand that's what you feel, sir. Well, of course, I wasn't standing before you saying anything, was I? Okay. [1:25:31] John Eddy King III: I want to follow up on our meeting packets and stuff. It does not say go into what Shane's saying. It does not say Mr. Mallor or anything different. It says counselor. I understand. So what I think he's getting at is that you're, you're here as pulled in here because of a council order. Yes, I understand that, but remember this, you weren't [1:26:02] Wayne Mallar: here, so therefore I was not speaking to the group as a counselor. I was talking to someone as a private citizen. So what you're saying basically is when I come through the door because I was invited, everything I said was being represented as a counselor, and I just, I just tend to disagree. If you're not here in session, I'm not speaking as a councillor when you asked me to be here. If I'm talking to someone in the audience, I believe I still have a right to be a private citizen. But you're inferring that by coming through the door being asked to be here, I can only speak as a councillor. [1:26:46] John Eddy King III: I was just asking the question. I was just asking if you saw there was a difference, sir. But no, I'm not just asking. No, I'm not going to know that you're a member. [1:26:56] Sonya Maller: Turn the air conditioner up a little bit so we're not freezing. I mean, it's freezing cold in here. I just returned from Washington where I attended a 13-hour meeting where they tried to freeze us up with the air conditioning. No one's going to freeze about them. Please ask them if they will make it not so cold in the air. Sure, thank you. And that has nothing to do with your proceedings, it's just [1:27:33] John Eddy King III: I understand that it's possible. Thank you, Courtney. Two degrees, three degrees. Thanks. [1:27:40] Sonya Maller: Not that we don't freeze. It's always freezing in this room. [1:27:49] John Eddy King III: One last chat with everybody on the board. Is there any other questions for Councillor Malin? Okay. We are out of the public hearing portion and now in the board discussion part of the meeting is there as [1:28:15] Speaker B (unidentified): as you see fit [1:28:18] John Eddy King III: in your capacity is there any reason to not just proceed here is there no i think you need there Are council order asks the lord to determine if there was a violation of section 33-1, 33-5.1, section 33-13.1, or generally any other provisions of the end scope. And if you remember correctly, I think on prior occasions the council order has sort of had that catch-all. Yeah, and I think you declined to do anything other than address the specific of sections cited. You're typically leaning more on the direct questions in them. [1:29:14] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, or that catch all of things, right? We would still have discussion before we jump. Yeah, right. [1:29:25] John Eddy King III: Now I'm about to open the floor for all discussion with the board members. Formally, what you want to do is declare the public hearing close. Right, yeah, thank you. As of right now, the public hearing is now closed. As we've moved on to the board discussion part of the agenda, the floor is open for any and all discussion from board members regarding all this before us. You need to be called on. Just on the run of the law, does it matter in helping you shape whatever findings of fact that we go one at a time, or is it better? I feel like we there was some ask of this last time because they were all somewhat regarding the same fact, the same situation. It doesn't matter if we don't know how it matters. So then in [1:30:39] Speaker B (unidentified): our council order is [1:30:45] John Eddy King III: there a violation of 33-1, the declaration of policy? Did councillor Mather's statement and conduct, including advocating for the denial, excuse me, excuse me, just suddenly became aware of how low I was talking. First up, the first part is what we are tasked to address is the violation of 33-1, declaration of policy. Did councillor Maller's statements and conduct, including advocating for the denial of legally mandated educational services, fail to meet the standard of being fair, impartial, and responsive, or fail to maintain standard of continent that inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city government and i suppose we should just go one at a time through these if there's a discussion to be had before we move into the motions right is that 's amenable however you want is that amenable by the rest of the board discussion particularly not even we'll go the four questions that are posed was posed to us take them one at a time or just have an open discussion about them all and then come to our motions regarding them after the fact. What do you do, you have a preference? I'm not sure if I necessarily have a preference, but I think that, I guess, as a sort of preamble, what I want to say is, as I just said in that one joke, all the focus has really been on three and whether or not the disclaimer was used or there was some official, this is who I'm talking as or whatever, and did that happen? And I don't think that is like remotely relevant to his pan. I don't think it matters about making a disclaimer. And the reason that I want to say that, though, is that I think what's kind of happening in the discussion of other things is that there's been this sort of implication and you have to be speaking as the city councillor for it to matter on these other two, like unless it's determined that you're speaking as a city councillor, then you can't have violated these other ones or they've just become irrelevant, as long as I was talking as a, you know, normal person and not a counselor, right, then these are irrelevant and I mean [Wayne Mallar: well section] 33-13.1 explicitly acknowledges the First Amendment rights of counselors and other city officials to have their own opinion, and frankly the government doesn't have the authority or the right to regulate thought or speech, so that even under the terms of 3313.1, a counselor acting in their own private capacity has their right to whatever opinion they might have, and this board, either this, well, of course this board only can provide advisory opinion, but neither the board or probably the city council would have any authority to regulate private thought or private speech, so I think what you're suggesting, which makes sense, is the threshold question is whether or not counselor Maller's statements were in a context number one, whether or not he was acting in his either his capacity as city councilor or if it was, would be ambiguous for a third party to understand the capacity that he was speaking in, because the disclaimer requirements of 33-13.1 begin when there's any potential for ambiguity regarding the rule of the speaker, so I think that's a threshold issue that you have to address first, so with that being said, can we kind of take this piece, why starting with question three, discussion on question three, and then moving on to questions one and two after we reached a determination on question three? Is that okay with you four members Sorry, yeah, okay, yeah, no, I'm just, I'm sorry, no, it's totally fine, it's procedural. I'm just wondering if we should address question three from the council order before we discuss questions one or two, yeah, because determining whether or not we think that he was acting privately or under the municipality dictates the others. Right. That's my interpretation. Correct. Yep. Well, then let me ask about whether or not we're talking as city councilor or as a regular person would not necessarily just be the circumstances of what you're saying, but could just be what you're saying. In other words, if you are, whatever the circumstances or who you're talking to or whatever it could be, if you're talking about how you're going to vote, [1:37:22] Speaker B (unidentified): would that not be as [1:37:26] John Eddy King III: a city councilor? It would be, so you only can vote as a city councillor, right, whatever the opinions behind the vote are. I mean, just as an example, I would disagree with that because I can make, and anyone in this room can make that exact same statement, quote, as far as I am concerned they get nothing. Any one of us, whether we're on a city board or we're Joe's citizen, we can make that statement. That is not unto itself, that does not meet the definition of advocating for, I think the difference in my question, yeah, I think the difference is he's trying to say is that because he is a counselor on the city board and he is going to in his set to vote on said school budget, I think that's where we, the issue is, I think Mark is trying to bring up, is that he's saying that, you know, he's not for that budget because of this, so he's speaking, he's speaking on his own personal belief of how he's going to vote as a city councilman, I believe you had it right initially, but I don't think the issue when you're looking at 33-13, use of titles and making written or oral statements, elected by appointing or appointed city officials may use their titles upon and only upon the following circumstances. Obviously one is when it so doing does not violate any other vision, the code of ethics or any provision, the code of ordinance, state law or federal law, and then, and when you know specific, doesn't involve this situation at all, but when you look at c, when it's made clear and unambiguous that the official is speaking in their individual capacity and not on behalf of the entire city or a board, commission or committee, I think the issue at hand [Speaker K (unidentified): is when] You're looking at the other issues we're talking about, like violation one. They'll fail to maintain a standard conduct that inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city's government. To see them, they, that provision that c directly ties into violation one, because he's speaking about an issue that the city council is going on, and then the statement said does not, does it, does it or does it not fail to inspire public confidence in the city, integrity of the city of city government. That's I think that's where the tie-in is that we need to focus on, because without that one, without, you know, 33-13.1 b and c 2c, I think, I think that's what we're hearing. That's the hinge point of all the other issues we have at hand. Let's go down one more sentence. C. Disclaimers are only required when there could be ambiguity regarding the capacity. We're forgetting the word only. During the break, while the meeting was at rest, unless nobody in this room or during a break in any other meeting is speaking in addressing a board or the public in their official capacity, I listened to that audio multiple times trying to determine whether or not Mr. Millar, Counselor Millar, identified himself one way or the other, because that was part of what I was trying to do to make the determination, and I could not find one way or the other. He did not appear to identify himself one way or the other. So if he did not identify himself as a counselor, there's no cameras, there is no audio, how would we assume then that this is a counselor when he was not identified throughout the entire 26, 27 minutes when we were in the executive session? Well, I hear that, I guess, you know, on it and parsing the sentence is one way, but because he was invited here, not tonight, because he was invited to that meeting as Councillor Mallar to address the issue that the Council Order named him as a conflict. I hear you, Stephen. I guess the pushback I have is the Council Order said Councillor Mallar. We asked him to give a voluntary statement as Councillor Mallar. He appeared before us, not saying, I don't know what you're talking about. He said, I was there, I did this, in his capacity as a counselor, in reference to the situation that was named. Every single thing that points to what role, what ambiguity could be on your common citizen, if we said he was invited as a counselor, he spoke as a counselor, he referenced actions as a counselor, to respond to an order from the city council naming him as a city counselor. Do you think he was here as a private citizen? I don't think most people, unless they're looking for an argument, would say, well, maybe. Everything points to him being there that evening in his role as a city councillor. And it's named in such in the documents when we addressed him. And I think that's where people are forgetting. You know, there's no disagreement that if you sign up for a position with, excuse me, if you were elected, as you pointed out, you're elected to this position. There's some disagreement among the Mallors who can have disagreements amongst themselves. In the past, they've said, you're always a city councilor. And tonight we've heard that they're not always. And I understand, you know, if I'm going to Jimmy's as a city councilor, am I there to cut a ribbon or am I there to get a bowl of ice cream like one is perhaps one is perhaps cut better with the ambiguity. But the very first line here in what you just claimed, disclaimers are only required when there could be ambiguity. So if you're invited here to speak on behalf of your official elected position, I don't think that's ambiguous. I think you're here as a city councilor and I think it's pretty clear in the paperwork and in the addressing and in the testimony that one gives regarding that. But that's where I'm coming from in watching these breaks. That's where the problem in turn came up. Correct? Yes, there was no council order. Yes, I would agree. And during that break, the ethics committee is in session. We're not in recess. We were not at recess. We were on executive or just in an executive session and we had not broken. I understand that there's a window there that possibly is, you know, moving in my mind. Again, he was invited as a, and I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to beat the point, I'm just trying to reiterate the point. He was invited as a counselor to speak about his actions as a counselor, when as a counselor, he was alleged to have acted against a code of the ethics. He wasn't named as Wayne Mallar. He was here as Counselor Maller. And when I came in, now in this part, you may not know because again, you were on Zoom. Like this part of that meeting, when I left to make sure we were all gonna be okay in the executive session, and then I came back in and told everyone yes. At some point in that meeting, I also told everyone, I don't want you to approach this table or leave that half of the room. I would like you to just please stay where you are, and we'll be back as quick as possible. Counselor Mallor got up and others got up, and I learned later what they did was they went in to get their mail. I didn't know there was mail back there. I don't know if you did. I didn't. What it looked to me when I first saw the meeting was that Counselor Mallor and his family didn't listen to the chair's discretion and say please stay on that half of the room. They got up and they approached and started talking. Now later I learned from speaking with Dave Warren that the mail room is back there, and it's pretty customary to go back in it. He came and when you what when I watched it again, Stephen, I watched Councillor Mallar come out with any more sense to me, but before I knew there was mail back there, it was pretty clear to me that he was not listening to the chair, not following instructions, not respecting this committee's parameters. Please stay where you are. It was not clear to me what he was doing. I had questions. That's ambiguity. I couldn't tell what was happening in his official capacity. I later learned more, but there is no ambiguity there when he's here representing X, Y, and Z to answer for A, B, and C, which all names him as Counselor Maurer. And that's a part of the meeting that I just realized, because you were on Zoom, you may not have known. I came in and specifically told them, everybody stay put, please don't move around. We'll be right back. Because it's interesting. Did you see Councilor Mulroney go out through that door? Because I never saw anyone appear on camera. Yeah, I did. When I watched the meeting back, there is there is because again the video was live, the mics were you know on. You can see Councilman Mallor and you can briefly see his daughter, and if I vaguely remember, I think you can see the top of his wife's head. Sorry, but yeah, you can see them in that, you can see them milling about and moving around. When we came back in, there was a moment where a other member of the galley was very adamant about interrupting the meeting to tell us new information it had happened i didn't know what was happening i felt my phone vibrating all the time while we were discussing everything together but i didn't look at it didn't matter we were in the meeting and i told him you can't tell us anything i 've heard that he was just trying to sort of say, Councilman Butler was all over the room. You said not to. Would a normal person who was here in a personal capacity, like get up and just go check out what's in the control room? No. City Councilor would. They might go get their mail. That tells me he knows he wasn't here. Or maybe he might believe for five seconds I'm a regular person and for 35 and while I get my mail, on this I get it, but I don't think it's, I don't think there's a question here because a normal person in the galley wouldn't get up and go through that door to go see what was there they wouldn't because they would have, it's none of their business, and they wouldn't even know if it was open, but a city councilor would, a city council would know they could, if the city councilor in question decided to not listen to the chair when he asked them to stay put. This matter wouldn't have come up if he had listened to that request. That's the weird irony of all of this. And he went through that door as a city council, make no bones about it. During the times where he was on hot Mike, he would be behind that though, would he not know that he was approaching days he was approaching again, there's some argument about approaching this table, which is what I specifically said, but I'd love for someone to explain how you can approach the day as well coming in the direction of the table. It was clear what I meant. Dave Horn was over here, and when Counselor Maller had gone in to get his mail, there were two times he went into that back room, and I believe, though I don't know for sure, it looks like in one of them, because the door is open, it looks like he's just throwing something away like I did at the start of this meeting and will at the end with my cough wrappers. There's a garbage came right through that door, seven feet in front, eight feet in front, it's right there. But as he was coming back around where he's not supposed to be, unless he's a city councilor and feels he can be wherever he wants in this room that he does the majority of his business, that conversation happened over there. That mic wasn't, that wasn't where that conversation happened, it Was right there at the dais where nobody should be unless they're doing see like again, I'm trying to hammer it. Yeah, it's not seeing. No, I know, and that's why I'm hearing it. Yeah, so I have, and knowing how the microphones are fed up, yeah, I would make the ostensibly correct decision that okay, he's behind right the table where the public is, and he was. I did not see him. That's right, he was in the corner, so it was, yeah, I mean, Dave Horn, usually when he's out here, they all run the meetings different. The, if Dave is here, he's usually in council, counselor Walker's chair, or sometimes he's over there, but that's where that conversation took place, and again, that's why I'm not trying to browbeat anybody with it or force an opinion. I'm just saying no member of the public, when we're having a meeting or when we're just waiting for the meeting, they don't get up and they don't walk back there. Counselors do, and it's pretty clear to me he was here as a counselor, so and another thing was that when you look, watch the video, that first mic was green, and that's because that's where Dave was, you know, and I was communicating with Dave about things, so but yeah, no, that I understand now why you would think that is possible if that's the mic in question, but it wasn't that one. Yeah, it was like, likes all over the place, but it was, it was back here behind the, behind the table. Would a Joe citizen watching that meeting, would they know that, no one, where anybody was positioned or where the microphone was? Wrong to just pull up the video here and scrub to the part, I don't know about that part, and of course we all have phones and things. When I watched the video, I could tell where he was. You can, you can see he's at the dais, and you can see he's having a conversation with, you can't tell, it's, you can't tell that it's Mr. Warren, but because we were here in the room, we knew who was there and who was running the operations for the city. If you watch the video, you see him coming out of that door and see him walking this way, so as long as you follow him this way, you'll see exactly where he went. Yeah, there's no dissent, there's no ambiguity about who else might have been back There and it was, it was constantly high. I will admit that I watched two or three minutes after we went into executive session, and then I looked at the notes, and yeah, and so I said, okay, there is, that's the important part to watch, or that would have been directed to watch the entire thing, right? So I skipped forward to like to 16 and I caught on or caught up with it a few moments, you know i'll need to blame for that 's you know if there's blame to be had that's probably not being clear with the timestamp systems and I, well, I don't think that it's necessarily something if you watch that four minutes, I mean, it's dark and you're like, do I have to watch 17 minutes of this? Like I probably, you know, going forward I'll be more clear about it. That was, that's the screenshot shot of it, that's be Counselor Mauler right there. You just, you just say what you're referring to, it's the obedient article. Oh yeah, it's got, they show it, they have a picture of it now. Unless you didn't see him speak or see him walk around, you would know that was him, but it's an issue of the screenshot doesn't do justice for what the actual video shows, but it does show him behind the dais. I wish it would show the mic, but it's cut off right there. It seems like there's a video and we're able to see Councilor Mallar. I just, I wanted to ask again, if we're able to put the video up just for, just so we're all on the same page and skip to the timestamp listed in our agenda of, you know, 218.35 when he approaches the dais. Are we able to do that? I don't know. Is it a matter of, is it a matter of any procedural thing that we can't? Because I think we can. No, I mean, there's no procedural reason why [1:55:58] Speaker B (unidentified): you couldn't. That's just a matter of me. Let me double check with Courtney. Thank you. Yeah. [1:56:04] John Eddy King III: May we, I guess, recess for a couple of minutes while you deck the park? You need a break? We're not in a recess, but feel free to stand up and go do what you need and then come back when you're capable. And I'll be right back? As I've done before, I'm going to do it again. We're not in a recess. We're not on a break. The mics are live, the footage is still running, and this meeting is still happening in this moment. Yeah, I think she's trying to, she can, she can hear me. Let me just see it, Cordy. I'm coming back there for a second. Give me a second. Let me, don't work tomorrow. Let me find what the thing that's on that's for you. Yeah, everybody should feel free to stretch their legs if that's what they want or get a drink of water real quick. Cody, I think, yeah, I think we can do what you're asking for. And I don't think it's going to be that hard as soon as I can get a tight stance. Yeah. Very, yeah, straight figure. Not about this. Talk about the good sides. They suck. It is not warm in here, that's for sure. And oddly enough, before she turned that up, it said it was upset at 73. That's not happening. Air conditioner works way too well or the air dryer does, yeah. If we were in 73 degrees in February, we would not, we would all be happy, sir. I think we're still like the part where couldn't you train, yeah, the training, yeah, oh proof for god, it's always difficult to do our videos to get it precise. That feels like that loss now, thank you everybody, thank you Mr. Chair. [Speaker K (unidentified): Just gotta] share the screen. Yeah, I've got, I've got like you forget there's a screen behind me. Yeah, okay. Thank you. I'm probably a few minutes, a few seconds off. Been a while since I was a DJ. Give me, please bear with me. This is a few, this is a few seconds. There's a timestamp 216 if I remember right, it's 230 or 240. Because you asked for this, of course, and Steven, you'll see at the top right is where Mr. Warren is. And in, and the second, even though you're not gonna be able to hear it, there's a conversation there. And it sounds like Mr. Warren is like, you know, go back and get it. Meaning the mail or whatever is waiting for Mr. Maller, for Councilor Mallar. Courtney, I don't have control anymore. Okay. Panjacket is going back and takes a bit. I'm gonna increase the speed just for speed sake. It's not, I'm just going to go one and a half times for a moment, Mr. Maller comes out with mail. Are we back in session? We've always been, we've always been in session. We never stopped, we just everyone walked away for a moment. We're an executive now two. This was, you know, a few seconds. I'm going to go forward again because that's not the time that the issue for the council order is regarding. Neither there's a conversation and the mic is picking up parts of it. Yes, consular Mallor and Mr. Moore just out there. He goes again back to the control room and it was, he's gone so quick. I actually, that's why I think he just went to throw something away. At this point he stops in clear view of the dais and he's talking to the city employee. And this is where what the paper is calling and what others have called the hot mic moment. This is just when Councillor Mallar is having a conversation about the budget. And my point beforehand was to simply say that is clearly not where your average person goes. That's only where a council would feel comfortable. You're saying this to a person that sat in the dais in the Yasta. I am right. Yeah, I don't, and you know, mostly just a visual description of what I was trying to describe to you verbally, but and to me watching this on video, I have no idea who that person is. Yeah, that's, I could not be here for the meeting, but what I am seeing right now, yeah, I see a tan jacket. I see nothing. I'm sorry to go back to when Councillor Mallar made a statement at that meeting. I think it's about to come up actually. I think it's coming forward at the time stamp. It's right, it's 2 20. What you'll see, you know, boy that was a good pause, right? That's that's Councillor Mallar's face and also when he's speaking in the podium he's wearing the exact same jacket. I mean it's like the room was full of people that dressed like Slim Shady, you know, it was it was him. And as I was at that meeting, not that my, you don't have to take me for it, but that 's him look There's no more public comment. I'm just saying it should be everybody's [2:07:58] Simmons: individual interpretation. There's no more public comment. There's no more, Steven, to a certain [2:08:03] John Eddy King III: thank you. There's no more public comment. I feel like I've been very patient with you over the last few meetings. I'm not going to continue to do this. The public comment is over. I need you to be quiet in the galley or you're going to be asked to leave. Is there any more of this? I mean, we don't, I'm, I'm content with what we've seen. Steven, do you want to, we can fast forward to where you see what he's wearing when he's speaking to the board, but that was that was him. Yeah. I'm good. Everyone else is still on some level discussing if we think that Councillor Mallar was here as a private citizen or was here as a counselor, or I admit kind of just trying to navigate all that. I might have lost the threat if I didn't feel free to catch me up. I think I still need an answer to my question that I asked before, I guess, which is I think the first two that we're supposed to look at that say, you know, did the statements including advocating for the denial, you know, they failed to meet the standard of being prayer and impartial. Both of these seem me to kind of imply that you don't have to first determine who he's acting as because there would be cases where the thing that you say would determine it itself and like I said before if you say I'm going to vote this way and this is why? I mean, you don't have to then separately determine whether or not you're in your role as city councillor, because it's just inherent in saying that. Is that not right? Like an officer saying, I'm going to arrest them. Like your average person wouldn't, they couldn't say that. I mean I guess but it just seems like it's built into these questions that we're supposed to decide that it's a possible thing is that the wording of the council order or is that just well I'm looking at the I'm looking at the words of the ordinance and I mean obviously it's in within all of your discretion book number one client facts and number two to interpret the ordinance so I'm going to give you my reading which you're free to accept or reject okay yeah as I read it and it goes back to one of the questions you initially had whether or not you need to take the context into account or are the statements in and of themselves potentially actual and in my opinion I think you do have to take context into account because for example if a counselor is having a telephone conversation from his or her family room with their cousin in New Hampshire saying there's a vote coming up on Monday and I'm going to vote no and then you know providing whatever reason because of that context being private and not expected to be subject to general knowledge then the context of that statement doesn't put it in the position of being something that could let me look at the language of 33 one that counselors and city appointees maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the city's government you know I mean if the statements made entirely behind closed doors with no expectation it's going to be made public, it's hard for me to see how I can run afoul of that. The open meeting, cameras and mics rolling, that changes the context. Well, that's the context. And then you have to decide as a board, the factual situation of whether or not taking everything into account, whether or not that is, at a minimum, an ambiguous situation that would require, number one, require a disclaimer, and number two, could potentially run afoul of 33-1 because the statement could be seen to not inspire public confidence in integrity of the government and I suppose both questions one and question particularly question one inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city's government. It would depend on the individual public member. It might reinforce their opinion and reinforce confidence. It could go either way. Did that answer your question? Yeah, you know, not really, especially with the way these things are, like, I mean, you know, we've had so many examples like thrown out so far tonight, but I mean, it's like, you know, if somebody, if somebody is a city councilor and, you know, is at Hannaford and there's a reporter who is not there, you know, whatever, but happens to overhear you say, just as an example, and not because I'm trying to say that anything that this is what was said, but overheard you say, I'm gonna vote this way on this because I'm racist, and then a reporter said, I'm gonna write a story about this and all this stuff. Is the idea supposed to be that it is possible for that statement to be looked at in this way where it's, you know, along the lines of these things that we're apparently supposed to decide that just the fact that you said the thing, he doesn't, we don't have to decide if he was saying that as a city councilor, well, whatever. Yeah, here's the problem that I have with that is that if you're just looking at the statement and what you're doing is you're regulating speech, which you can't do under the First Amendment. I think the big difference what you're saying is if he's at Hanniford's shopping, he's a private citizen, but when he's here in response to a council order as a councilman, that changes the, I would say, context of it, so that if, yes, he still has his First Amendment rights, but he is here as a councilman. I think that's the general idea of what I think Shane is going for. I'm gonna navigate it with you guys too to make it make sense. Not, yeah, I understand. Yeah. You know, I mean, I'm not, I'm not sure that necessarily makes sense because if we decide that he was acting as a city councillor, then we can regulate his speech because it's his official position, but we can't decide that there are certain things that you would say that really the saying of them dictates that you were saying that as a city council. Like, this is how I'm going to vote on something, this is why, that you can't do because it seems like that would, that would dictate that you are saying it as a city council because you can only do that well you're a city council. The example that you're using is a little more complicated because if a counselor says I'm going to vote in a certain way at the council meeting on Monday, expressing the intention of how they're going to act in the future, I mean, that's, I mean, that's what I'm trying to say is if a counselor says I'm going to vote in a certain way and this is why, you know, that's, that's their opinion that they have the right to have, and all they're doing is expressing how they are going to cast their individual vote. So that's different from saying, this is the position of the city of Banquo. I mean, a councillor could say, I'm going to vote against this particular ordinance and every other councillor is going to vote for it. And all they're doing is expressing their individual opinion on that particular council vote, and by saying I'm going to do this, you know, by virtue of that statement, it's by virtue, it's an individual position as opposed to the position of the city because it's a matter of governance, right, a person can and say, I don't think there should be any money in the school board for people who don't speak English. You come to this country, you learn the language. That's one thing. But when someone in referring to the upcoming school budget says, I'm not going to do it because of this belief, you're now concerning a matter of governance versus a matter of personal opinion. Right. People have personal opinions everywhere. I encountered five of them at the, you know, intersection when I was coming here. But none of them hold the keys to the city budget, you know, or one part of that. And for me, that's how I'm looking at this when he was here. The Code of Ethics says it clearly. It says that you are the Councillor Mallar. It says Bangor public officials, but let's substitute, let's play Mad Libs for a second. Councillor Mallar retains their full constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights as a private individual. The Code of Ethics respects and protects these rights. One of the responsibilities of elected or appointed individuals is to separate protected personal discourse from matters of governance. Councillor Mallar was speaking about matters of governance here when he said they're not going to get his vote because they're illegals i'm paraphrasing to someone no one's especially the code of ethics that we're leaning on doesn't say he can't have that opinion it's just saying he can't have that opinion when he's in a position of governance and when he was here speaking about a budget that the average person on the street can't vote on he was representing a matter of governance he has said tonight that he doesn't see it that way but that's what we're being asked to look at if i'd caught him saying that at the little wayne concert tonight or at hannaford or jimmy's web or anywhere except city hall when he was being called before the body to answer to actions as a city councilor maybe i would find the ambiguity there but he wasn't he was here, responding to councilor activities, speaking about a budget that he's part of and control of. It's a matter of governance. You know, I think the context for that is just that. But I'm convincable if people see it otherwise, and I don't know that your answer is still God. I mean, is there another way to ask it or I guess I'm not sure I'm not. I feel like you were saying more or less the same thing I was saying except you said governments and that you didn't have a problem with that anymore as long as I don't know if I said it better or worse or if it was just different it's just the just looking at the way that this is laid out it just says you have the first amendment right as an elected official always but you have to be separate when you are dealing with matters of governance because maybe you do feel a certain way personally, but when you're acting in governance, you can't have that bias or you should check it or you should do something other than what seems to have been done. Excuse me. I mean, just to... Sorry, excuse me. If you want to talk, you can, but you can't do it in this room anymore. I keep hearing whispers and conversations again. And please, if you're going to have a conversation, you can do it outside, or you can do it in the hall, but you cannot do it in this room. It's distracting. Thank you. Sorry. So just to like try and be like super specific and pick a super specific thing where you know it, the code of ethics says you can't act in a biased way or whatever, right? You know, so if you said that, if you're a city council and you said I'm going to vote this way because I'm biased and I'm going to vote in a biased way, that wouldn't, that wouldn't count either. That would, that would that somehow avoid violating your bias if your bias is wide open, like if you came in or that, we're really reaching for examples, but if you came in wearing like enough and you're just like, that's it, so I'm voting like, because you're clear about it, I still think it's, I think you're reading too much into it, doesn't it, right? It's just your personal opinion and it doesn't count as violating the code of ethics. Well, I think you've already figured out that it's all great here. There are a lot of bright lines. Yeah, benefit counselor, I think makes a public statement he's going to act in a certain way and is clearly contrary to established law, I think that's actionable. Does that help? It depends on what you mean by actionable. I mean, I can vote in a certain way. I think that what he's trying to say is because the statement that he had made and the way he was going to vote on the budget would have correlated to violating a certain educational federal education, state education law requiring the city to have ELA. So I think that's what, I think that's where he was going with it. Maybe this is a little, you're You're right. I think what might be a little bit clearer is if somebody was going to say, I'm going to vote against the school board budget because there are funds in there to provide educational services to disabled children, and I don't believe that's right. So I'm going to vote against, that's clearly illegal, that the city is obligated to provide those services, obligated, the city is obligated to fund that. I think that can be subject to discipline. Okay, so that, so I mean that's, that's basically the question, that is, does what he said, you know, reach that level? But, and that's where the gray comes in. But then there is still this question of was he saying it as a city councillor, or was he not saying it as a city councillor? And I think my question is, do you actually have to determine that? Or, well, like I said, I mean, if it's, if it's in the context of a clearly private conversation, I think you have to take that into account, because somebody could hold the opinion I don't think it's right that we pay for those services, and they're entitled to that opinion, even though the law says otherwise, right? and now we're just like going back about the same thing over and over but a person could hold that view right and any city councilor could hold that view that 's not how it should be but once you say and that's why i'm going to vote against the school budget then that is something different than just any regular person having an opinion. Well, okay, so the difference is that he's a councilman. That's the difference, because when he states that, in itself is him saying as a councilman, I, you know, quote-unquote just, you know, probably everything that he doesn't believe that the, they should be getting funding, right, there is where it's the big difference is, because he's a councilman talking about a vote that is upcoming and the reasons why he's not voting for him. So let me, okay, let me muddy it up even more, okay? So same factual situation, the counselor says I'm going to vote against this as a matter of principle because I don't think we should be paying for it. I realize that federal law requires us to provide these services, but I am writing to every single member of our congressional delegation, and I'm urging them to take steps in congress to repeal that provision of federal law. I think that's protected now. Saying it or doing it, either? Because he's making an assertive effort to change, right, now if I mean, if it's in the context of, if it's in the, if it's in the context of they say something like because these people don't deserve our support, because they're less than human or something like that, you know, then where's the line? The line's not clear. Well, I so I think if you did it and didn't just say you were going to do it in the future or something, it just didn't didn't tell anybody why you just no, let's say you did it and then you say why you did it or whatever, and then that as you know said before would be to have done something that's actionable, whether or not you're writing to your congressman or whatever you're doing, that you're still voting in a way that is against the law and declaring that you did so. If you voted so, that wouldn't be gray. The doing of it is. Is it actually right you have broken the law well if he hadn't said anything at all theoretically well if I if I voted for something like that I said I didn't say anything at all about why I did it I didn't break the law because I didn't verbally or and that was the reason why I did it you know I could have voted no for it because of another provision in the budget that I didn't think like a new freaking goal post at the football field you know but I think the differences is when you say it's Something that violates that violates laws I think that's where the difference is verbal is the verbal saying hey I'm going to be voting against this because of blah now puts you into another threshold that now you're gonna to fight that why you're doing it so it doesn't look so bad I think it's a big difference [2:33:21] Speaker K (unidentified): It's that makes sense jungle [2:33:26] John Eddy King III: Well I mean you know I mean there are other lines I mean Frank go ahead sorry counselor just out of respect but again we're past the point of [2:33:38] Wayne Mallar: Public comment I just wanted to say something that may help you make a decision before you do he can't right I mean I'm sorry it's not about this it's not in general school budget can't be done you can't specify where you make the cut but we're just no I understand but it seems not on that I appreciate it we're just waiting through the hypotheticals no that's fine [2:34:14] John Eddy King III: You know I'm sorry I realize I'm not giving you a lot of guidance here and I'm sorry and like I said I think because there is so much gray and you know there's there's a long history in this country of civil disobedience so that even when the line gets crossed and somebody has done something that doesn't comply apply with the law you know does that then run afoul of you know ethical provisions in an ordinance you know if that is a counselor going to go and stage a sit-in at Bangor High School Because they object to a federally funded program and they don't think tax dollars should be going to support it, and they're doing it because they're on the city council and they know they have a microphone. I know I didn't answer your question. Yeah, I mean, I basically Ultimately, I think I need, I need to know if one and two here are just moot questions because it can't really be something that we can decide in one way, right? Because if we have to know if he was acting as a counselor in saying these things, and there's, there's basically no, there's no version of just the fact that you say something, no matter what it is, counts as speaking as a counselor. I mean, then I think these just don't even make any sense as questions. I think one's a little easier because one says regarding the maintenance of public confidence in impartial conduct, so that if the statement is not made in public, then it doesn't run a file a 33-1 because there's no issue of the maintenance of public confidence because it's said privately. So the first question I think is a little easier, at least that distinction there, whereas the next one is different because if a counselor were to make a statement even in private, okay, that somehow gets overheard the hannaford comment that says I hate you, I hate them. I think that it certainly could run afoul of the wording of the statute, I mean of the ordinance. But then the question is, what do you do about the individual's First Amendment right to have that odious opinion? I mean you're, you're [2:37:57] Speaker K (unidentified): allowed to have the opinion, but saying [2:38:02] John Eddy King III: that you're going to do something because of that opinion is different than just having an opinion, isn't it? Yeah. I think that the main issue in regards to one and two should not be dependent on whether or not we agree or disagree on three because they're separate codes of ethics and they deal with separate issues that in my opinion don't have any dependency on if we vote for three or not because of this different ordinances. One is working with public confidence and integrity and the other one is with a lot more discrimination. I don't think we can depend on three to decide one or two. I think we can decide one and two separately, individually, for the character that's in the in the order and as well as the code of ethics. And if this makes your deliberations easier, I think that not only are you required under the ordinance to make the factual findings that are going to support your decision you're also the board that's been entrusted by the city council to interpret these ordinances too so if that's your interpretation i mean you're as long as it's not clearly contrary to the language of the ordinance, which none of what you've discussed tonight is, that 's part of your jurisdiction to interpret the ordinance itself. I think I'm comfortable with where I'm at right now. The discussions that we've had so far, yeah, frankly, I'm all set to vote. Well, I've got a couple of things, scribbles, a lot of scribbles. We were speaking earlier about whether or not there's a law violation, a law is passed. Well, governments do that all the time. That does not automatically mean it's an ethical violation. violation. Hawaii had a law that said you could not have a handgun in public. The United States Supreme Court just struck that law down. Does that mean that the Hawaiian lawmakers committed an ethical violation by passing that law? No. We have a lot of other examples here in state where that has happened. Those were not considered ethical violations simply because it was later found to run afoul of the law. We're not here to judge whether or not Mr. Millar, Counselor Millar, should have said it. Was it a smart thing? And with all due respect, Counselor, was it even an intelligent thing to say, knowing that mics were on? We're not here to base judgment on whether or not we agree with the actual statement we cannot let that be clouded i don't particularly agree with it but i am looking at it as we all are or all are supposed to be as whether or not this was an ethical violation and question one in question two have the word advocating for i did not hear him advocate for anything. He did not attempt to influence anybody else's opinion. He was not speaking to anyone other than stating his opinions. And to listen to others, but I am basically ready to vote on this. I think what you had last said is, yeah, he was speaking to Mr. Warren. He was here as a councilman, but [2:43:12] Speaker K (unidentified): then he, as I said before, [2:43:17] John Eddy King III: he doubled down and he's admitted to it that on record on the interview, yes, that's what I said and I believe it. Does that, does that confirm his way of, he's going to vote it's a no, but the problem, issue is that he had said it behind the dice during a city meeting requested by city council as a city councilman invited here, as Shane said, there's a lot of gray area, but the fact of what we're answering for is there is in section one, including advocating for the denial of illegally mandated educators fail to meet the standard of fair and partial irresponsiveness or fail to maintain the standard of conduct That inspires public confidence. I think when you look at this like that, you can take out, you know, I could say the advocating, he may not have advocated, but did he fail to meet the standard of being fair, impartial and responsive, or fail to maintain stairs conduct inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city council. So we were looking at this, we're not looking at just one thing, there's three topics in that one, you know, request, so you can take out that advocating for the denial of legal Mandated educational services. If you don't feel the advocated, but do you feel that he failed to meet the standard of being fair and impartial, yes, no, and responsive, or fail to maintain standard conduct, yes or no. If he viol, if you feel he violated any one of these three, then he violated that code of ethics, because those are three items that were presented to us from the city council to respond. You can vote no on two of them, but if you vote one on one of them, if you, if one of them you agree with Then it's a, then you were agreeing that he violated that violation, because that is part of the, as part of the violation that at hand, does that make sense? Yes, although as I pointed out earlier, which part of the public it doesn't matter, no, if it rather than fail to inspire confidence, if it reinforces, then there is no ethical violation, correct? Can't make that determination, we're not that, exactly, that's not Our job. You're trying to say that if there's a certain part of the public that heard the statement and like, let's say it's a racist statement and they're racist, so then it inspires confidence in them, then it somehow doesn't violate the ethical statement, is irrelevant, does it inspire or fail to inspire it doesn't it doesn't matter because you're going to have no matter what you say you're going to have a group of people that are going to agree with you have a group of people you're not going to agree with you the issue is did it cause a public confidence in the integrity of the city's government when a city councilman says something that disparages you know people who don't speak english or immigrants stuff like that you have this group of people you're you're actually showing that you do, they don't have, you doesn't have the confidence of the people who are advocating, hey, we need these things that's required by law, to the, maybe the few or equal amount who say, yeah, go for it. 's, it's, it's either, you know, there's not a real way to do this, but when you, I think the issue is when you call out [2:48:01] Speaker K (unidentified): actual people and things, [2:48:10] John Eddy King III: you're targeting that group of people and you're not inspiring the confidence that you have their support, their backing for these, for their children to be able to learn English, and then much, you know, too much time with the homeless and the Eagles, you know, or you know, [Speaker K (unidentified): it's just you] have to look at the statement itself, just decide, are you targeting somebody or are you not targeting somebody? And I think that's the issue with the, at this complaint originally is, you know, the school, the children, the people who are needing these fundings in the school thought that this was very unethical, and the people who heard the, that this complaint felt that way, they can't be the only ones. So I think when you're looking at that, you have to look at, you can't, you know, you can't go off and say, well, you know, one thing, just because you inspire those, that group of people, you just ignore the other and vice versa. A, well, it's, it's kind of a catch-22 and it's kind of a slippery slope to go down, because I want you to take on question one, I want you to take out Counselor Ballard, I want you to put in the city council in general. Did city council statements and conducts, including for denial or failed to meet the standard of being fair, impartial, and responsive, or fail to maintain a standard of conduct that inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city government? Now we have recently had numerous meetings with city council where the public at large has come in and been furious about the city council's lack of response to the needle littering epidemic shell we'll use that term would that mean that because they were they weren't being fair impartial responsive or fail to maintain a standard of conduct that inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city government would that also automatically mean that we have a that there would be an ethics complaint or a finding of guilt against the council at large because the public doesn't they're not being responsive to the overwhelming needs of the government of the citizens that have been here testifying to their government i realize that's [2:51:14] Speaker B (unidentified): kind of a jumbled way of saying i know if [2:51:19] John Eddy King III: they're being they're failing to maintain a standard of conduct that inspires public confidence no because that's not what that means that's not what's happening in your example i think the big issue is that in the court and city councils and city of healthies may attain a standard of conduct that will inspire confidence and integrity of Sadie's government. Yes, he's a councilman, okay, but people look at that as the way it was worded, when it was said, they look at it as him saying this is why we're not doing this and that's the issue at hand. It's not whether or not you inspire confidence in 70 percent of them or don't inspire confidence in 70 percent of the group it's not a majority rule when it comes to inspiring confidence it's i think the issue i think what i'm looking at is inspire confidence integrity in the city government it's a standard of conduct i think that is the issue there is that the target it was a targeted [Speaker K (unidentified): stated statements, thus] the standard of conduct was violated. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think it would have been different if we had said it differently. That's the standard of conduct. I think there's a real thing that hits me on that one. The standard of conduct would have not have inspired confidence in those groups that he clearly stated and clearly had a bias to if You, if you work for or you represent the municipality, you're obligated to try to uphold the public confidence at every opportunity. And when you don't, whether you're a city councilor, or a police officer, or your public works officer, like you in taking that job, that role, or that appointment, you're obligated to maintain a standard of conduct that inspires public confidence. And people are people, they're going to mess up. It doesn't mean X is an absolutely horrid person. It just means in this instance, they did not continue to inspire public confidence in their actions. You know, I'm not trying to corral anything. It's just that, you know, I probably started it by making one weird example at Hannaford and, on and on. But it, in regards to what you were commenting on Stephen, my feeling about that is if you work for the municipality or you're elected, you're trying to maintain that standard of conduct. You have a personal private life. No one's going to be bugging your living room. But if you're at a ribbon cutting or if you're in city hall and you're there on your duty, you should inspire public confidence to the best of your ability. Unless you don't believe in that, in which case now we've circled back to a conversation that Mark and I were having, which is Councillor Mallar has said he feels this way. He hasn't changed his mind. He'd say it again. So to me, that reasonably means whether he was speaking as a public individual or he was a city councillor, he feels that way and he's going to stand on it. So if he was at a city council meeting and someone asked him, he's already said he's going to stand on that. He does not feel any different. different. That doesn't inspire the public confidence in that regard. Maybe in other regards, and not to blow smoke up anyone's back or waste time, I watched Councilor Mallar take to task the Bangor Water District for 15 minutes once in a workshop meeting, and I agreed with every single thing he said. I was cheering him on. It was awesome because he was saying everything in my head. In this specific instance, Councilor Mallar didn't say anything that was in my head and didn't inspire the public confidence let Me tell you like an example, the police officer is known to be very biased against African Americans. That confidence the city has in that officer, you're not going to see any African Americans going up to that officer asking for help because they know his history. And you know, it's one time it still hits you. So inspiring confidence is, you know, doing the right thing, and the standard of conduct was just not there. I'm not gonna corral or hurt anything, I'm just going to remind myself that I'm supposed to run a good meeting. The conversation is great. I just don't want you guys to feel like you have to keep having it if you know how you feel, because sometimes getting into a discussion is just for the discussion's sake. I'm happy to keep the floor open and continue if there were other things to bring up. And Stephen, if you had others, and Mark, if you had others. I have one more question. Yeah, absolutely. I just want to try to absolutely- I'm not trying to step on anybody's things. I'm just trying to refocus it. So draw a circle into certain things. So on point three about the disclaimers and all that. So what I want to try and figure out in my own mind, I guess, could you vote no on that theoretically, that he did not violate, and still vote yes on other things, right, because he said things as a city councilor theoretically of Glade, right, but this whole disclaiming thing is not relevant really to that. Does that actually make sense? Because it seems like it makes it, well, it does, and we've now come full circle to where we started. And so I mean, I told you the way I read the ordinance that I think you do need to look at the context, but I think that you can interpret it differently. You don't have to accept what I'm saying, and that is not an unreasonable way to look at these ordinances under this factual situation. Okay. I believe because, could you, could you find that he was speaking as city councillor? Whatever, whether you're looking at context or you're not looking at context or whatever, but also think that whatever he was doing to not necessarily need him to say a disclaimer of how he was speaking. Yeah, I mean, what if this conversation took place in a private office and off a mic? Do you need a disclaimer there? There I don't think so, but it's the same statements, right? So it keeps coming back to that circumstance, which is Hannaford or Council Chambers, you know. I'm Not mistaken, it may have been the last time we were debating Oxlade-Malara, or it may have been Council of Leonard. I do believe we had a split [2:59:48] Speaker B (unidentified): split vote on some of those issues. Yeah, just [2:59:55] John Eddy King III: because you vote no and one doesn't, doesn't negate the other two, right? You know, this is how a person would see this. I would like [3:00:04] Speaker K (unidentified): to make a motion to start the vote. I like to make a motion regarding each question. [3:00:13] John Eddy King III: You know, I just want to say before we vote, but I just want to say that in both the first and the second one, what we're talking about as the things that are staged here is the denial of legally mandated services and the unlawful withholding of legally mandated educational services and on the third I'm just not convinced that even if you show up somewhere and it's like I am showing up here as a counselor ribbon cutting that absolutely everything you say afterwards this disclaimer thing but as I as I said I think that I think I think that you could vote no on three and I think you could still vote either way to your point I think that if you show up to an event as a councilman from the start at the start of time of that event to the end of the time of that event it is inherent that you are here as a councilman unless you make a statement saying but nothing else from here is being counseled on the prior citizen leave me alone. I think that's the difference, like kind of like clocking on clocking off because I mean if you're here for one event I would disagree with that the no that's all I don't think that just because you show up to the ribbon cutting or whatever and then you are doing something as a counselor that necessarily everything you say is as a counselor you have to because you'll be you'll step away and you might talk with your neighbor and you're talking about something else or you step away and you're talking to a constituent and you're actually talking about something else privately right and I think in this case it doesn't matter anyway because I think that what questions one and two are neither are inherently you're acting at the city council or they're not I guess he's officially acting as a councilman from the start of the meeting would say until he finishes his he had not spoken to the board yet so he's still acting as a councilman so I think that aspect of it he was invited to be here as a councilman he fulfilled his duty as a councilman when he finished his statement and answering any questions I guess the last thing I'll say about the third part, because the literally the verbiage is in this instance, because it regards Counselor Mallor, she's just in the she's just in the entryway. Yeah, she's tagged. I know, I saw you looking, and I meant to, I meant to just try to say, I meant to ask. Well, I keep turning this up, Counselor, and I'm sure you do. They had issues. No, I know, and I actually, when I saw her shiver just before she left, I was going to ask, even though it would probably not come across the way I mean it to, but are you guys under event? Like, would it help if you moved like to maybe the reason she's over here? I understand. Yeah, I see. I see. She's right there. You know, she's fine. And the last thing I guess I'll say about the third part, which is the verb that I see here, and I understand what the counselor was saying, but if I address this by speaking about official business, the school budget, to a staff member inside the municipal building without a clear disclaimer, did Counselor Maler fail in his duty to remove ambiguity regarding how he was communicating? I understand in his head he might have and might not have thought that he was just talking, but the circumstances put the onus of this on him. And the circumstances are overwhelming that he was in council chambers as a city councilor, requested to be as a councilor, addressing a council order regarding a councilor's behavior, not a public citizen, but a councilor. So the onus of this, the verb is on him? Did he fail in his duty to remove ambiguity? That's a that's a hard word, fail. You know, we the connotation there is he failed at something that maybe he didn't realize was a hoop he had to jump through in that moment. But it is ambiguous, based on the circumstances of where he was, did he fail the way that this question is asking it, almost means, I don't know if that's the right way to have worded this. And because it's worded in such a way, maybe the right answer is oh he didn't fail on that, but the circumstances, if that word is different, did he inspire public confidence by his ambiguity, etc. Like I just think parsing the sentence for the verbiage of predicates and nouns and whatnot is one thing, but the context is city council chambers, he was here to do council business, he was here as account like that all just reinforces for me what's there, but I understand that you could have an answer to One question differently than the others, I get it. So yeah, there was a, there was a motion to, I'm gonna, I'm gonna amend it a bit, and we're not proceeding unless it's seconded, but there was a motion to end the board discussion and move to making motions regarding these questions, and that's still on the table. Do we still have discussion to make, or is there a second for that? I may know that motion made by John and seconded by Mark. We now move to the last part of this unfinished business, which are the motions regarding each question referred to the board in the council order. Best again to go one by one around and take a vote. Some of these are worded strangely, so if you want to make sure I'm asking it in the right way, I'll try to make it so that they're all, last time we did this it was somewhere in the affirmative, somewhere in the negative, but they affirmed the negative, just trying to get them all so that it makes sense in one direction. So in regards to whether or not Councillor Mallar and the board's councillors, right, the first one, it's violation of section 33.1, the declaration of policy. Did Councillor Mallar's statements and conduct, including advocating for the denial of legally mandated educational services, fail to meet the standard of being fair, impartial, and responsive, or fail to maintain a standard of conduct that inspires public confidence in the integrity of the city's government. So if you say yes, you are saying Councillor Mallar failed to meet the public confidence. If you say no, you're saying the opposite. Do I have that right? Yes. Mark? Yes. Somebody's going to make a motion which needs to be seconded and then the vote, that can't be me I'm just reading it, I beg your pardon, thank you. Does anybody catch that? No, we have to move to vote on this. Yeah, well somebody has to make it, somebody has to make a motion either that Councillor Mallar, oh yeah, violated right section 33-1, but by failing, or did not violate section 33-1, and then that motion needs to be seconded, right? I have a motion that Councillor Mallar did violate section 33-1 of the board of ethics or the code of ethics Motion made by John, is there a second? That he did. Second. Now we can vote. Thank you, Ed. [3:09:00] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm, I apologize. That's okay, that's [3:09:05] John Eddy King III: what motion is the most way to regrow ritual? Oh, that's it. That's it, definitely, and I need to, I need to vote. Motion has been made that council did violate the code of ethics regarding violation of 33-1. Mark? Yes. John? Yes. Stephen? Yes. Cody? Yes. The chair says yes, is There a motion to be made for the next, please, like. In school read about the next kid to read. I don't know that counseling Malar violated section 33-5.1 on unbiased contact, and I don't know, I don't know. No right for the code of ethics. No, that's it. Second, seconded by Cody after motion by Mark. This is to say that Councillor Mallar, excuse me, Council Millar did violate the code of ethics. Mark yes, John yes, Stephen no, yes. Yes. Yes, same request for motion and the praising, and then a second, please. I motion to find that Councillor Mallar violated section 33-13.1, the use of titles and disclaimers. Is there a second? Motion by Cody and seconded by Mark Beecher that Councillor Mallar in violation of 33-13.1. No one says dot, oh god, 33-13.1. Mark no, John yeah, Steven no. Kobe yes. So. Let me just make sure I've got this right. The motion fails because there are only two affirmative votes. That's right, negative. Okay, sorry. If anybody had no, excuse me. A motion for the fourth, which we never even discussed. So what? Right? Yeah, no, actually. Right, of course. So okay, so I guess as the chair, we can pause things here, right? That's what I would recommend that you do, which is, I think what we did in the panel, excuse, what you did, that's yeah, is that you decline to or somebody make a motion to decline to make a finding on that, make that motion to decline finding five. So second motion made by John and seconded by Stephen. So now we vote on whether or not the declaration of that motion is accepted. Mark yes, don't yes, Stephen yes, I will guess. Good catch, Stephen, like I did. Well, we were so hung up on one, two, and three that board just never I think we mentioned it like in the beginning, but then we got like, yeah, that concludes the unfinished business. Is there any other business before the board tonight? I have a question. So there are things that I'm not sure how they happen, and I just want to, I don't feel funny enough to talk about it or find out or whatever, but you're supposed to do things like forward suggestions to change the code of ethics, actually like change our particular rule and things like that, like how does, how did that happen actually if I'm right, it is, it could have been on a meeting like this, it could have actually just been one of the parts of our agenda. If I'm correct in this, it is that when I get in touch with the city solicitors office and making the agenda with them for that meeting, I just have to tell them that's one of the things that if we all agree, I can't just tell them now, I can't say this is what I want, you know, the board has to agree. If we all agree that should be on the next meeting, that would do it, is that right? Do we have the authority to change that or does that have to come from council? Well, the ordinance has to come from the council, but you can make recommendations to the council. Which, okay, those are as non-binding actually as can, I guess, yeah, well, for changes to the code. Like our own, your procedural rules, yes, we have, you have the authority to change, and so like, but so like what happens, like does somebody have a suggestion of changing something, thing, and then they tell you and then you try to get it on the agenda, and I mean, yeah, in our meeting, so hypothetically if we, and we probably go over because it's finally meeting, yeah, if we knew when our next meeting was going to be asking, I'll ask the board right now too because we're still in other business, if it's all right, on our behalf I'll bring that up as the agenda item for the next meeting, one of the things that we take care of, or one of the things you could even do is like the city council is, you could, we could make them skip, you could schedule a workshop, we in that in that meeting what we would do is come in or we would just workshop it well no pun intended we would come in with preconceived stuff we want to talk to each other about like did you like the public speaking do you want to do this should we abandon that should we include more of this and we can discuss it and as long as the board unanimous not unanimously as long as the majority of the board thinks that 's a fine idea then we put it to the solicitor's office now there's a there's an Argument that, for example, you know, public comment should or should not be part of the board's activity when they're, when they're doing Council orders. I vaguely, I'm not going to say it, I'm going to say it in a way that I have a big vague memory that the solicitor's office's opinion was that because of the public meeting laws there has to be a public comment in that meeting, in that public meeting. So if we have a referral of council order, I don't think we can skip having like a public comment part. Because it's in the state law, something like that would prohibit us from changing our own procedures, but only something like that. If we really wanted to do something and it wasn't against an existing ordinance for a law, we just have to agree or we have to vote and, right, get. It passed. So you actually close, well fairly recently close, I mean these are reasonably new. These are brand procedural. Yeah, we did these procedural orders last fall before we began any of the recent council. That's right, because there were no existing, no, there were, but they. Were updated. Yeah, okay, yeah. And I, Mark, I would say shoot me an email, tell me what you're thinking about, but we can't do that, can we? No, even, well, between two people can, yeah, but once somebody. Else gets on that email. I did actually clarify that just because of the things that happened during this meeting early. Well, since we're here, we can talk about things, but sure, because I remember I was on the school board and I was under the impression that City Council just had something about telephone calls, there's only two people talking at any given time and yada, and it's all the same rule. Like actually two of us could talk about stuff that is not prohibited by right. The rules of freedom of access, right, well because we don't mean the only time it is when you have, it's more than two. Well, it's more than two, right, three is our, well really I'll just. Just say yeah to throw it out, but I mean there would be nothing illegal about two of you having. A conversation, right, although that was subject of one of our meetings within the last year about a chain of counselors discussions. That's a road I frankly, considering the job title that we hold, let's just, wrote that it's not willing to go down. Don't mark that's the respect. Don't call me, yes, right. And I do have, are we done with that? Are we did? Yeah, do we have to make it. and they can also we have to make what's that make a motion to adjourn wait do i have the permission of the board to do we have to actually have a vote like can i try to get that on the agenda for the next meeting everyone's good with that yeah all right sure procedure rules review [3:19:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, yes, okay, I [3:19:08] John Eddy King III: mean, I also, I like the workshop I did. Yeah, we just had a workshop, sure, yeah, we can do that. It still falls under FOIA, but yep, it'll be rewarded and everything's, if there is nothing else, just one question. Yeah, go ahead. Do we have anything else potentially eventually coming up for this committee? I have been wanting to discuss things with council members that are irrelevant to here or tonight, like other issues within city hall, and I've kind of put them on the back burner considering that, right, we may have that same person being discussed here within a few weeks. I have not heard one way or another. I am not aware, strangely, I'm not, I mean, I guess I'm the only one here that can officially answer. I'm not aware of any additional upcoming council orders for a review from the Board of Ethics. I thought this, I thought the last one was it. And then it just happened to be, we had this by proxy, you know, just because it happened during the meeting, I'm not aware of anything. Yeah, next meeting that we have should be just be where it's been ten days or so since the last fire alert here in chambers, the fact that neither of you have heard anything or Mark or John about anything. All right, and I would, I would officially just encourage, you know, you do what you want, of course. But I would officially encourage you, if you have, if you want to talk to the city councilors as a body or individually, you know, because you have something that isn't board related, you know, if you have something about something in the city or something that's bugging you with your property or what, anything like that. You don't have to, you don't have to be, as far as I know, you don't have to be clear from us to do that. No. And if you thought that if you had a conversation, and then later some issue came before the board that you felt might have some overlap with your discussion, you could always recuse yourself. It's more the appearance of that. If I have a meeting or a conversation with one or perhaps two counselors, and then somebody sees us together the next day, A, oh, counselor X is being referred to the ethics committee, that now puts me in a rather uncomfortable looking situation, understood. And I can tell you that the conflict of interest standard in the ordinances is a lot looser than I view a conflict of interest because I 'm, I'm the chair of the appeals board and there have been instances where for example there's been a witness who's been a client and you know I've flagged that as a potential conflict and I've been told I asked on a conflict under the ordinance but I mean it made it made me uncomfortable comfortable probably less so in my position as a board member and more so in my position as an attorney, and I said I'm not going to, they're not going to go nearly recused. Yeah, okay, on to your yeah motion to adjourn second