Bangor Ethics Board reviews procedural rules, discusses council dialogue

[8:06] John Eddy King III: And that's it we're going there's no start. Yes you are we are currently going. Yeah okay great good evening everyone. This is a meeting for the board of ethics. We are in city hall on July 28th 2026 and we are working on an agenda this evening just making sure everything there Mark Benthien, ECA- There is fine. First up, as always, is likely to be the introductions, it is good memorize this by now. Mark Benthien, ECA- present with me this evening members Mark Eastman number Stephen bro I'm remember Shane Leonard also the Chair leading counsel guiding counsel at old and no one on zoom this evening. Next up are the approval of our meeting minutes from June 30 2026. And oh sorry I'm spreading out everywhere I've got plenty of room if you've taken a look at those great if not you want to take a quick look to make sure that it looks right on [9:17] Stephen Brough: my phone [9:51] Shane Leonard: Yeah I'm good they look the same [9:53] John Eddy King III: Stephen you take you take as much time as you need or when. And when members are ready, if there's a motion to approve the minutes or the need to amend the minutes and then second it, we can proceed. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? [10:21] Shane Leonard: Yeah, that we approve the minutes. I second. [10:25] John Eddy King III: Second motion has been moved by Mark and seconded by Stephen. And that is all set. That. Next, the approval of the written findings of fact with respect to Council Order 26 dash 152. Councillor Mallers, March 31 2026 remarks captured on the live link. The same notion there. We need to take a look at it. We need to amend anything but a motion when people are ready to proceed as well. [11:02] Stephen Brough: Mark Warren, yeah [11:45] Shane Leonard: Unless somebody else catches something. Mark Warren, I am looks good to me I'll move to approve the written findings fact. [11:55] Stephen Brough: Mark Warren, I second Steven. [11:57] John Eddy King III: Mark Warren, motion has been moved to approve without amendment and seconded and. Mark Warren, We don't have to put on that there's no there's no we do have to put on that. Mark, you would vote. Yes, Steven. Yes, I would vote. Yes, 3 nothing to approve. Right. Thank you. How do we amend the agenda again? You have to make a motion, or is it just [12:32] Speaker D (unidentified): Robert's rules of order, which other rules are applicable, or nearly somebody would say, I would like to add an item to the agenda to discuss the following issue. [12:44] John Eddy King III: I would like to add an item to the agenda to discuss the following issue, which is any other business. Business, there may be some things that we want to bring up that aren't next because really the only thing left on our agenda is to receive review the procedural rules. So now that I've made that, it has to be seconded. Yes, is there a second? And then we vote, and then we vote to say do we [13:12] Shane Leonard: know something about what is being added to the agenda? No, I have to add something to the, I guess [13:18] John Eddy King III: I guess I, this is my oversight. I like to always include any other business, and right now if we just follow the agenda the way it is, it's just we talk about the procedural rules and I'm done. So if there is any other business, we can't talk about it because it's not on the agenda. So I just want to carve out. Does that make sense? Yeah, is that overthinking? No, that's okay, it's appropriate. So I would make that motion. Did you second that or did you not? I did, you did, and then we have to vote whether we allow the agenda to be amended, right? Would you, how would you be sure, Stephen? Yeah, I vote yes. Thank you. Before we get to four, is [14:05] Stephen Brough: there any other business that you wanted, that we wanted? Yeah, and this was just something that I got out of a BDN article where there, they may be doing some changes in how council conducts business and how they interact with the various boards. As of right now, all of the boards are an advisory opinion only. We could consume, we go through weeks worth of work, deliberation ourselves, and then particularly where it may or may not include an a council member, that the rest of the council can just say no committee, we're just gonna disregard you entirely. And with me being on this board, I'm even by, if I come to a council meeting and provide the obvious disclaimer that we need to, I'm not sure the appropriateness of me bringing that to the council's attention, that I would like to see the boards, not just ours, but multiples, be able to have a little bit of teeth with this, with [15:31] John Eddy King III: that I'll toss it up to you guys' opinions. This is, this is in relation to the amendment that they just passed where there are conditions for, and again, you're talking of all the advisory boards, but for this board specifically, that there's a time limit for us to turn our work around with conditions, and that when we do, they also, meaning the city council, has a time limit to turn their work around from our work, for our findings of fat, and they have six options that they currently can choose from, yes And they've, I just want to be clear what you're, what you're [16:19] Stephen Brough: saying, one of the options was that they can disregard the work of the board. Yeah, that's, you know that, right? It kind of nullifies everything that board would do, and I mean, I've seen the, of all things, the tree committee have a multiple meeting thing over something that was relatively small. They came up with an opinion, this was a few years ago, and down so busy now, we don't agree with that. Yeah, so that, I mean, that nullified all their discussions. What [17:01] John Eddy King III: I was, when I brought a version of that up with the city solicitor's office to cover the suggestion of what might be a consequence for our findings effect, and specifically just our board, the city solicitor explained to me that because we're an advisory body and because of the way that the procedural rules and the ordinances are set up currently, that in advising them hypothetically we found X person did Y thing in violation of the code. Yeah, they have the right to just look past it, like it's, it's in there. The way it was explained, and I'm paraphrasing on some level, that as part of an advisory board supplying advice, they don't have to take it. It appears that the contingency in that is if they decide not to do anything, now the council is responsible for defending that and writing up a reason why, not just saying no. Don't want them and we don't have to. Now there is not teeth and not gums either, but there's a bit of a consequence for them not taking the advice, which I think is, you know, it is transparent. I don't know if it's perfect, but it would sting to do a bunch of work and then to just have them hypothetically say no, we don't agree, and then not have to defend that at all. Am I, am I encompassing [18:47] Speaker D (unidentified): that enough? Yeah, and how would you like to, well, I mean, I think one of the issues is that all of these advisory boards are appointed by the city council and are not elected, so that technically, absent specific delegation of authority by the city council, which I've frankly never looked at that issue to know whether or not they can do that, you're a non-elected body and you don't have the authority under the ordinance to do anything other than make recommendations. I mean, everything that you said Makes sense because what the city council has delegated, and I'll just talk about this, yeah, what the city council has delegated to you is to investigate, make findings, and make recommendations to the board regarding compliance with the ethical ordinance. And you put a lot of time and effort and thought into it. And you know, for the board to just sort of sweep it away and say, well, we don't care about all the time you put in, we didn't even, you know, sit in and watch what you did, we just don't agree. with you we're not going to do anything you know that really sort of demeans the time effort and sacrifice that you guys make with your service yeah and i think what they're trying to do is and i haven't read any of the specifics but i think what the idea is that if the city council disagrees with you that they really need to justify that position so that they're the ones that can take any potential political heat for disregarding all the work that you did because ultimately they're the one Like I said, they're the ones that are elected. Yeah, and that, okay, and that, and I, and. [20:54] John Eddy King III: I totally get your point, because I, you know, I feel the way you would. I wouldn't want to have gone through anything that we had just done together to try to help the city council asking for an advisory opinion, and then to have them just be like, we don't have to say why, just okay, thanks, next, you know. And it just sort of feels like, I don't, we don't need merit badges, but we, there should be something there. And certainly that new provision that says they have to clarify why there would be no, I may. Have seen the news article about the fact that the meeting was coming. I did not realize that it already had. Just it was, it was yesterday, was last night, wasn't it? Today's Tuesday. It was the city council meeting last night. Okay, there was a, there was a notion when I looked at the best part, and I've also been told this, though, that has happened now, Stephen. It doesn't mean that we can't offer suggestions to them and say, you know, maybe this is better, or maybe that's unnecessary. There was a feeling I had of a small knee-jerk reaction, because one of the things that is in the provisions for them to do when we kick findings of fact back to them is they can run their own investigation. Investigation and I thought that also feels a bit diminishing and dismissive. I would have preferred if that was their option. I kind of want them to all sign off on having to have watched every bit of our videos. Like, if you don't think we did the work right, that's fine, you got to at least sign off that you watched us do the work and then you disagreed and have to say why. The idea behind that seems emotional rather than rational because it doesn't seem like that's going to happen, but at least There's a notion there that if they do want to act as if nothing happened, they do have to speak about it. [23:02] Stephen Brough: Right, and that's fair. [23:04] John Eddy King III: Yeah, okay. It's a good thing to bring up. It's a good thing to bring up because these things all sort of happened quick enough, but I was also reassured that all this is now in place to work from, not in place that can't be changed, and you know, one of the things that we can do if we have good suggestions is we can send it to them for them to consider and they can always amend what's already in the book now. So, and I not saying I can think of a [23:32] Stephen Brough: particular punishment, if you will, that we would recommend. I mean, even on this last issue, yeah, but to have the council say, okay, yeah, he violated the ethics code, oh well, yeah, I mean, any of the other issues that we have found ethics violations, there's flatly been nothing done about them other than a censure, which that really doesn't make sense. Yeah, and I also think they were, if I [24:07] John Eddy King III: understand the timing right, they've postponed doing some actions until the six options were available to them in past, and now they're gonna look back on, I think the, at the HPC meeting, I think, because that's the one that I think that they had in mind, and I think if there was any hesitancy, they were trying not to just be colloquial and just be like kicking it down the road. I think they were just postponing weighing on it until they actually had consequences in place, and maybe that's wrong, but that was the way I took it. [24:45] Stephen Brough: okay that 's fine that answered everything I had okay no of course is there is there any [24:51] Shane Leonard: other business that you had, Martin? Not like, you know, new random business. I guess I'll, I'll [24:58] John Eddy King III: Bring this up real quick then. It's the only other business that is here and in order. In order to proceed, I would want to talk to the board openly about what you were, your thoughts and your feelings were about the idea that the chair of the ethics board, which would be me, making themselves available to the city council is probably in a government ops meeting or maybe a workshop, definitely not a city council meeting, and the idea going before them to see if they had any questions, concerns. Criticisms. As it is right now, my feeling is the only communication that we have with the city council, if they send a referral to us, we are engaged. We look at the referral. We do what we can to give them an advisory opinion, and then we send that back to them. They take it. They don't, they proceed however they want. At the end of the year, the chair is supposed to sit with the city solicitor's office and write up a summation of sorts about what the board did and what they did throughout the year. It's basically just saying here's how we used our time, but there really isn't, there really isn't a conversation or a dialogue there, and I don't think, I'm not suggesting that there be a collaboration or anything like hand-holding, but as far as I know the city council hasn't met with the chair of the ethics board, and they haven't had to because we haven't had referrals for a long time, but when I watch the meetings, I see, when I watch the workshops and the council meetings, I sometimes hear. Counselors say things that, you know, they're not untrue, but they're not correct about the things that we've done, and it might be fine to be in front of them if they had any questions, and then they could just say yeah, do you do this, how did this work, did this, like I'm not there to defend any specific findings of fact, but mostly if they want to know how we work or what we do, there's no opportunity for them to converse with us. Maybe it's a bad idea. [27:17] Stephen Brough: Maybe it's a good idea, I don't know, but I can't have the ability to watch the meeting, yeah, and. [27:24] John Eddy King III: I wouldn't go before, I wouldn't go before, like say it's a government ops meeting, you know, where the city councilors are there, but it's a possibility for a dialogue, you know. I wouldn't do that if the board didn't think it was a good idea, so I'm putting it out there to see if there's any initial hesitancy or confirmation that it is or is not a good idea. And this isn't anything that is supposed to happen soon. This would be something that happens eventually, 2027, you know, or maybe later this year. But really just standing, excuse me, sitting in front of the counselors and just saying, you know, we don't ever really get to talk. This is mostly just checking in. You guys have any questions, any thoughts? Because you don't get a chance to ask and find out truly whether we talk for 30 seconds or 30 minutes, doesn't matter. We had an opportunity and that's that. So if there's any thoughts or feelings about that, I'm [28:29] Shane Leonard: not even 100 sure what you're asking, likely, but and then you know what does that mean, like you're going to do what, go to the city council and go do you want to have a meeting with me at some point, yeah, I [28:43] John Eddy King III: I see, I overshot it. All I'm asking is if the, cause I can't go before the city councilors, let's say it's a government operations meeting. I can't go there and present myself as the chair of the board without the board being okay with it. So I'm asking, and we don't have to decide it tonight. You can think about it and we can bring it up the next meeting too. It do you have any hesitancy in letting me go before the city councilors to say to them we don't ever talk and maybe you guys have questions about what we do and how we do it because we don't ever talk. This is a moment to have that conversation, and if they had questions whatever they would ask about, I could answer them, but I would be answering them for the board, but I can't go before them as the chair of the board unless the board says that's okay, then do that better, I guess, okay, sure, I expect you know I expect some of the questions that might happen, like one of the things that I've heard, I'm not going to name people, is there was a criticism of why we moved so slowly in January and February and March, and then it's it's pretty clear the city councilors don't know why we didn't do anything then, and that's because we didn't have a quorum. They don't know that. They have said this at different times in workshops and in council meetings, and it's not about like setting the record straight But it's also kind of about setting the record straight, like saying, look, I understand one of the provisions in the new procedural rules that came forward is they put a cap on us to do work in 120 days, partially because we took so long at the beginning of the year. But if they knew why it had taken so long in the beginning of the year, they wouldn't have thought that. So there are actions sort of happening sideways. We're working parallel to them. They send us something, we work, we send it back, but we're not really talking to each other. And I can't, we can't include that in the findings of fact, it's not permanent, we don't get to say, well, this is why this happened, or this is why that happened, and I don't think, you know, going before them any more than once a year or once every two years, maybe once every five years, would be necessary. I'm not trying to make it a thing, but we have been really busy lately, and there seems to be some misunderstanding or some misappropriation of what has happened, even though we've been broadcast, so the idea is just go before them, see if they had any questions, and if so, answer them, but again, I can't do it as the chair of the board if the board doesn't say that's an okay thing, right, so that, I mean, I [31:41] Shane Leonard: I guess I don't have any problem with you wanting to do that. You want to do that. [31:46] John Eddy King III: OK. Anything from you, Stephen, really? [31:49] Stephen Brough: It seems perfectly logical. I don't know if there'd be any difference of opinion if we had another board member and another associate here. I would like to give them the opportunity to weigh in on that, particularly because it's not [32:08] John Eddy King III: real pressing. Yeah, exactly. [32:10] Stephen Brough: can just get input from them, and we have two affirmative now, we just need, really, we would [32:15] John Eddy King III: just need one more yeah i would be the one more but your point is absolutely clear i would i would send a message to them or maybe just bring up the next meeting and see if they had any thoughts because if they watch this meeting now they know that 's a thing that is being talked about and all that is all that would be for your other question is the city manager's office would find a window of time in the next gov ops meeting it would never be a city council meeting because that's not the place For dialogue, you know, there's public speaking, but you're limited to three minutes and there's no back and forth, so it would be a government ops meeting or maybe a workshop. Workshop seems silly because that's usually when they really earlier they're cramming all the stuff in before their real meeting two hours later, right? So just go before government ops meeting and just come in and say, look, this is this is the whole point of this, just wanted to make this option available, and whether I'm really out of here in 30 seconds or 30 minutes, we at least have the option to talk to each other, so [33:26] Stephen Brough: I think for the few people that do watch government meetings. Yeah. The idea of having more transparency and having the look of better communications, that can't be a negative. Yeah, right. Whether it's seen truly as a positive, maybe something else, but at least we've gone through the effort of getting somewhere that we aren't present. Yeah,, okay. [33:55] John Eddy King III: I will absolutely, you know, I think you bring up a good point just because not everyone's here doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard from and hear from the other two members. Of course, that's it for me. Did you was anything new come up, any other business before we go to the next item? Stephen, nothing here, we're still good on zoom. Moving on to item four, which is to review the procedural rules. This in my mind is the first step in what might be a longer conversation. We don't have to, I skipped over you and I should have included you. Did you have anything? Oh no, about that idea? No, okay, apologize. This we don't have to hammer out everything tonight, but I think that at least for the next couple of meetings and unless anything comes up, our meetings at this point are now on our schedule, we don't have any open referrals, and I don't know that there are any in the pipeline. Our meetings will mostly be about our business now, and to review the procedural rules can begin tonight, or we can just open this up tonight to say we've gone through a handful of referrals from the city council. Now we I think if we had any referral right now we'd know what we were about to do, so the procedural rules are more familiar to us now than they were last year when we just started. Maybe we now see some holes that we wish were sort of fixed, maybe there are things that don't work that We wish we could amend this. Should be a discussion not only for tonight but going forward, you know, looking at the procedural rules again and seeing how they aided us or was there anything in there that was sort of like clumsy or awkward or etc. So the floor is open for tonight's meeting for any notes of review regarding the procedural rules, but also knowing that we're probably going to talk about this the next meeting too and maybe the meeting after that and keep talking about it. There's no reason to not continually revise those procedure rules if we need. So the floor is open for any discussion about that, about [36:30] Shane Leonard: any and all things that are in this page on, yeah, that. So I, you know, I have a question first and do I just click it? Did you break it? I'm moving it but it's [36:45] John Eddy King III: not doing it so I'm going to click something. Oh now you're in trouble. Click something but it's not doing it. So Ed any idea, not to put you on the spot, I'm moving on the top and I can see the mouse [37:02] Shane Leonard: and then you go but so if you don't, if I click this, would be cool if everyone can hear this well [37:08] John Eddy King III: they yeah they can hear it but we might be, we might be, oh wait at the bottom, no see I can mouse but I can't do anything, it's not letting me well [37:22] Speaker D (unidentified): how about the yeah you see so I'm on the bottom [37:26] John Eddy King III: like you can see the mouse sort of is moving, I can't, oh go touch it Ed, yeah I deputize you to touch this, look at that, keep it on, look at this, oh perfect, that was great, thank you, thank you, were the, you were the bravest man in the room to go up and start pounding on the television. Let's see so audio is still good, video still good right, sorry about that everyone [37:56] Shane Leonard: Mark you started to say, yeah so basically I just, my question is in you know section 5.4 public hearings and as you go down, This is where you get to see order of business at public hearings, and then to the chair acting chair shall open the floor to any individual who desires to speak on the issue. And why is that part of our procedural rule? Got it. [38:37] John Eddy King III: Ed, when you get there. [38:39] Shane Leonard: Is that a thing? Because if I look at the left side of this, where it just says our procedural rules will be whatever we want them to be, yeah then how did we get to this and do we for some reason have to have that and [39:02] John Eddy King III: You know what is the story there? I think it before I jump out, well before Ed jumps in rather, I think it has to do with the public meeting law for the state. I think that when the city solicitor office, when the city solicitor's office looked at the old procedural rules that didn't apply with the city ordinances that were on the books today, and they had to sort of line things up. I think that was the guide that they chose because of the nature of the meeting that there had to be public comment. [39:38] Speaker D (unidentified): Is that closer my off? You know I'm, I'm actually not sure what the statute actually says about acquiring public comment. It yep I mean I think at least the idea is to have some transparency to allow public input of course you know the problem with that is you know once you open the door you gotta let everybody through right no matter you know what they're gonna say some of which may be irrelevant which then falls upon the chair to stop it yeah right get it get it back on track [40:17] Shane Leonard: Did that answer your question? It doesn't because the question is do we have to have it right because I would like to not have it if that's a possibility. Well I think part of the [40:31] Speaker D (unidentified): problem with that is I mean I think there are some due process considerations here because if somebody who is a subject of a referral to the board, there's an allegation that they violated the ordinance, our procedural rules give him or her the opportunity to speak, but not much else in the way of presenting evidence. Evidence and so that public hearing part and I mean obviously we've seen it yeah you know family members have shown up to speak in defense of people and so that's a way for them to defend against the allegation. I think if you're going to take that out probably you need to give some consideration about how you address that need. Yeah I think that need is I'm you know perfectly [41:44] Shane Leonard: fine with right if somebody has an ethics referral and they are like okay I want you know whatever these people who were there or whatever that's different than anyone can show up for any reason and say more or less anything as long as it gets decided that it's somehow related to the topic but I think those are very different things and no problem at all with one of them and I would like to not have the other one if unless we have to right because there is a law that yeah I don't know if They're being wrong but that means nothing [42:31] John Eddy King III: I can always beyond the meaning I can always find out from the city solicitor's office asking either Dave or Grace what was the impetus to putting that in. And because if it, like you said, if it's to align with a law that the state of Maine has, then that's why. But if it was just something that was considered a thoughtful practice or a consideration of the public, then we've found that maybe that's not as effective to find these effects. [43:09] Shane Leonard: Fact and I mean I just would like to you know have the conversation of should we or shouldn't we but I mean obviously if there's a law then right then that doesn't mean you don't need to have that conversation but yeah but I would like to I guess no matter what gets decided I would like for the board to like affirmatively decide like this specific issue yeah no that makes sense what our story is for why it's going on yeah in [43:45] John Eddy King III: A way it sort of reminds me in you know because again I don't know the law and I know that's what you're you're doing it sort of is the funny it's the funny sort of dual way of looking at like a court case you know there's people who are named and things and they are able to speak in defense or otherwise but there are times where this sort of reads like that thing where at weddings where someone says if anyone shall have a reason yeah speak now or forever hold your peace yeah that's like yeah Right like that thing is if you're here and you're named in the order or you are directly a participant of the order not maybe a direct relation to the city or to the people named in the order because really it's it's literally like the wedding part in my mind when you're just opening up the statement and you're like anybody can speak now for three minutes whereas what we should perhaps if I'm hearing Mark right like we should just be listening to the person named or the parties involved Directly and the rest or even I think [45:03] Shane Leonard: It could be anyone when we have to do our first meeting yeah we say okay we want to request a statement from this person and whoever is the person on the other side of things could at that meeting or at some other time just whatever make a swear or something and say I want this person who is going to whatever be able to speak and right then there's a you know specific relevant reason for having them stem to have that person [45:38] Speaker D (unidentified): so i just took a quick look at the public records law yeah and i didn't see anything in there that specifically says you 're obligated to have a public comment portion okay Now, I haven't looked at the ordinance, but I don't think that I didn't see anything in, you know, my five minute review of state law that says you're going to have, I mean, it's [46:10] Shane Leonard: clearly like, you know, something that several meetings from now we will be discussing and things like that. So there's plenty of time to find out the actual things. [46:21] John Eddy King III: I just. What do you think, Stephen? [46:24] Stephen Brough: Well what's the title of five four public hearings, yeah, if we're not listening to the [46:31] Speaker D (unidentified): public we're not hearing. Well that's not the statute defines the public hearing just as being open to the public for observation, for example. I mean I can give you an example, you know, the professional licensing boards all of their meetings are open to the public, but when they consider licensure complaints they don't take any public [46:59] John Eddy King III: comment, right. Well even no that's a not to try to one-up you, I apologize because that might be what it sounds like, even this is a public meeting and if the public were here we don't have anything on the agenda to hear from them, but I get that it's under the section of public hearing, maybe we should just resection it, maybe we should just retitle the section too, but yeah one does not equate the other, right, like just because it's held transparently before others to see [47:31] Speaker D (unidentified): the workings it doesn't mean they have a right to speak, right, okay, public observation but not [47:40] Stephen Brough: necessarily participation, okay, and this may be splitting hairs a little bit, but there I see a difference between a public meeting and a public hearing, and to your point about the situation you just brought up, you know where there is no public input, no public input has a negative connotation to me right out of the gate, and just because somebody else is doing it doesn't mean that we should just automatically follow, up well I mean the statute doesn't require it, the statute [48:20] Speaker D (unidentified): specifically talks about essentially access and the ability to observe and other provisions regard regarding how public boards act, but that doesn't mean that you can't afford more than what the [48:40] John Eddy King III: Statute says which is what you're talking about, I guess, the quick and dirty rewrite. If the inclination was that it's not required by law, that 5 4 c 2 might say, instead of the chair shall open the floor to any individual who desires to speak on the issue, would probably be revised somewhat to say the chair may shall open the floor to any pertinent individual who decides to speak on this issue, which would be someone directly engaged with the referral itself and not the public at large, you know. Because again there are, you know, if we think back to, you know, not picking on anyone or picking any issue, whether or not we refer to the text messaging case where Dan Trumbull spoke before us and others did, Dan was a specific mention of the person, a specific mention of the parties there. When we had to hear from Steve Farren, excuse me, when we had to hear about the HPC, Steve Farren had submitted something and showed up to talk, but he wasn't just somebody who thought I want to speak about the historic preservation commission, you know, they had direct relevance to the issue we were supposed to look at. Maybe that's, maybe that's the barrier, I think, if we don't have to have it, because we would certainly want to hear from people that we asked to come, we invited people to speak that weren't just city councillors, and they wrote or declined to speak. But yeah, now I've got that wedding thing in my head, so if anyone here feels like this couple should not be wed, speak now, we're gonna hold your peace, and then the room stands up, like, you know, maybe the room is too many, not too many voices, there's never too many voices, but maybe they're just not pertinent to the issue that we're trying to work through. I don't know, this is a good conversation, and without knowing whether or not it's a law that required that to go in or not, probably changes law. If it is, like Mark said, well, that's that, and if it isn't, then we get to talk about maybe changing it if we want or removing it if we want, so I can I can always ask, I'll ask the solicitor's office, I'll ask Dave's, have checked and see what was the, what was the Genesis of putting that in, because you're on, not only are you on other committees and you're, you're the chair of right, board of appeals, support appeals, you would, you deal with things like that too. [51:32] Speaker D (unidentified): But every board runs differently. Well, yeah, I mean, the Board of Appeals, the way that we run those hearings, of course it's also, you know, in the setting of a formal appeal of like a code enforcement, yeah, decision. The way it works is first we hear from the applicant, the person who's filing appeal, and then ask for anybody speaking in favor of the appeal, and then we ask for opponents. We don't open it up to the public at large, public at large. I see now. I mean, having said that, when we open it up to somebody in favor or against [52:16] Stephen Brough: I mean, that could just be liberal. It's pretty liberal. Yeah, that could be the general public. [52:21] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, well, it's more than likely it is, generally it's not, I mean, generally somebody will show up who's either, you know, some supporting somebody's application for a variance, where somebody might show up that lives in the neighborhood, it's going to say I think this is going to be bad for the neighborhood, so they, I don't recall, I don't ever recall, it's not really like people who are utterly unrelated, right, the events, they've got some connection, right, to, yeah, the issue, but you're right, I mean they're still the public, they're still, well, they're still the public. [52:59] Stephen Brough: They're interested parties, yes, but they're still part of the public, but when we open it up for [53:04] Speaker D (unidentified): somebody in favor of the appeal it could be you know somebody that lives on the other side of town that just says i think that ordinance is stupid yeah you know i mean it's the way we i haven't looked at our procedures in a while but you know right yeah here we go i think maybe i should right here we go here we go but we'll take a look at it for you yeah i mean if i recall that 's just the way that it's phrased so i mean his chair i don't think i could even say that somebody was out of order today. Well, I mean, if somebody said it's a stupid ordinance, I think I'd probably wind up saying thank you, but that's not before us today, because we have an ordinance, if you have a problem talking to the city council, yeah, until [53:58] John Eddy King III: the changing, and it's weird to sort of look and fall back on things, because we're the ones that have handled a contemporary referral from the council. There hasn't been a referral for a long time, so it's not like we can look back to when you and I first got on the board and like say, for example, Michael Alpert was the chair, did he, definitely ran the board differently than I did, he was very thoughtful about what he did, but we didn't have any referrals to see how that worked then, how his process We're we're the test monkeys on this because this whole thing was restructured when we started getting the referrals last fall. So it's it's not even something that we could look back and if we did look historically back it would be unfair because then it would be so far back that it doesn't really apply to what we're doing and have done. And it would be under the old procedural rules which that's sort of silly to hold them accountable to. No I think that's that's a that's a fair and good question. And you know like you said if we have to have it then there's a rule there's a law that says so. If not well I can work backwards and find out how it got in there what was the thinking and keep discussing it here to see how we amend it or accept it or abolish it right. Anything more you had on five four. [55:29] Shane Leonard: No just like I wasn't sure if right if you know it was like oh look and now the law has changed and we have to have that or if however it got in and then however it got in if it's possible for us to change it I want to have the discussion of changing it. Okay right okay. [55:55] John Eddy King III: Is there any other thing that leaps out to either of you about any of them yeah. [56:01] Stephen Brough: Well are we done with five four I think so yeah I think so right four two I'm sure Board members may not discuss pending matters with each other outside of a board meeting. Is that to include 2? [56:24] John Eddy King III: Well, that's probably because more than 2 would qualify as me. [56:30] Shane Leonard: You know, I think there's like a superseding rule about that right? I want to say that there is something that the council has to follow. [56:42] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, the no, I mean it's it's state law that any you know more than 2 people. [56:53] Stephen Brough: There has to be public notice right so would that to also apply there? [57:00] Speaker D (unidentified): It's unclear isn't I mean it's a you know again state law, I think, sets a minimum, and it would not preclude the city or this board from having a provision that is more restrictive than state law. In other words you as a board could say well state law says that two of us can talk about it but I don't think two of us should talk about any pending matter so we want to prohibit this. So I mean I think there are two questions here number one would be to check with city solicitor's office and see you know if there is some legal requirement here and does this really mean I mean, you want to track state law and say, you know, two members over coffee can discuss a pending matter, or is the intent. Here to be more restrictive than state law? And then, if the response you get from solicitor's office is to say, Well, two of you can talk under this. [58:19] Stephen Brough: Then I think the discussion you want to have is are we comfortable with that or do we just want to say no discussion outside of the board meeting okay right yeah I can ask Steven and whichever it is I can get clarification for you about it because it makes and I was just looking to see if it's in the code of ethics because I think we made a decision on that a few years ago yeah I didn't mean to I do I remember I didn't mean to cut you off though I talked oh no I was just [58:49] Shane Leonard: I was just going to say, however, any of those things turn out, we should amend this, because it's not clear what it's trying to say. [59:00] John Eddy King III: We did, Stephen, and it was brought up a couple of times. I distinctly remember one time with the former solicitor, Josh Saucier, and I don't think I think it was the training we had this year because that was with Grace. Yes, but I remember the training we had last fall with Dave Center, and when he got to this part, and what he said was, you know, basically exactly what I'd said under no circumstances should 3 of you, meaning the entire board at that time be talking about anything away from a real meeting because of the meeting laws. Laws. I remember Dave specifically, it's weird how I remember this, but I remember him saying whether or not you talk one-on-one, you know, that sort of human nature, I'm paraphrasing a bit, that sort of human nature, you might do that, you know, should you, that's up to you. You know, he basically said that there isn't anything stopping people from talking one-on-one because it isn't against the rules it isn't against the law but the moment if you are talking one-on-one you know that's that's different than suddenly a third member showing up now you cannot talk about it right you know and I think what he was what the what I took from that personally that he did not specifically say was if I run into you at Hannaford and we're like man what a what a testimony that Was or what a letter that was we got you know we are speaking to each other but if we run into Mark around the corner while we're still talking we actually have to stop it [1:00:44] Stephen Brough: Yeah you know that would be the way I would interpret it yeah but that's not the way it's [1:00:51] Speaker D (unidentified): Spelled right we got clarified right yeah okay yeah there's nothing in the ordinance on it okay [1:00:56] Stephen Brough: Okay, and because like I can, you say Shane, you call me, you have to say, okay, yep, are you going to be able to make the meeting, or do, or are you going to have to come in by zoom? Yeah, right, I can't imagine that the intent of the law is to prevent that and to call that an ethical [1:01:18] Speaker D (unidentified): violation. Well, that's also not a pending matter either, that particular question. Oh, I see. [1:01:24] Stephen Brough: Okay, well, yeah, but yeah, but you know, as long, are you going to be able to make the meeting, and we have to stop there and not just not mention the topic of it. Yeah, you know, again, you guys imagine that's the intent. [1:01:39] John Eddy King III: 10 but well you guys should have clear events yeah even and even right that should just be clear even when the meeting started and we had begun I was texting member King real quick who couldn't be here unless it was absolutely like sort of necessary for him and technically I'm we're in a meeting like I had to say you know what I was doing so that it wasn't like a private thing you know not quite the same example as you but yeah just I guess see clarity see a clearer definition for it okay and Again, this isn't to push this off and it isn't to push you on, these are great, like it reminds me and I've read it a bunch, reread it again now, look for clear here, clarity in the other things and we can keep bringing this up at other meetings or if there's more that you guys want to bring up tonight that's fine too but these are these are good things to [1:02:44] Stephen Brough: kick back I [1:02:51] Shane Leonard: think I mean I don't have a different thing but just on the same one and not that it really matters but I think that given that it's unclear clear I feel like kind of the assumption would be that you're it was written to try and follow the law that exists and where there's doubt it seems like that's what you would like fall back if you were trying to do something different you would have to be more clear yeah but I but anyway, I don't think that I have any other things. Okay, and I am out of me. [1:03:35] John Eddy King III: Yeah, I agree as well. I think if it if it clearly was the law that said no 2 people can talk about a pending issue, that would be what was written. It's just written like you can't have a quorum you if you have a quorum. We can't be talking about these things. It's almost written to provide the exception, knowing that people are people and that we may run into each other at the gas station, and we're just gonna like, we're just gonna look at each other knowing we're not gonna say what we want to say, just be like you blink first, you know, that kind of thing. I think it understands two people can talk, and that's likely it doesn't have to happen, but if it does, that's fine, but you can't be right. [1:04:16] Stephen Brough: Is the state law? Oh, sorry. I would, I would hate to think that is actually codified in state law that two people cannot have a right conversation. Yeah, two people can't, yeah, okay, it's when you get [1:04:31] John Eddy King III: that third person is there. So for the city council, for example, who has a body, a membership of nine, their quorum is five, but it doesn't matter, the court is awesome, right, it's not about having a [1:04:44] Speaker D (unidentified): it's about the number, right, just blank, and just to add another, make sure to add another layer here, is principles of statutory interpretation basically say if it's not ambiguous, then you follow the words. If it is ambiguous, then you look to external circumstances. This really isn't ambiguous. Yes, board members may not discuss spending matters with each other outside of a board meeting. Yeah, the ambiguity comes in when you bring in the external factor of there's a state statute out here that says it's okay if two people can talk, right, okay, so you know the clarity, and this board, these procedural rules were enacted by this board, they were not enacted. So you as a board can change these. Yeah. So again, you know the real discussion is, do you, do you want to change this to track State law, and you're fully within your authority to do that, or change it so that it's not, and I'm not trying to say, you know, to be coy or clever trying to be, but to change it so that it's just not in violation of State law. [1:06:08] John Eddy King III: law because there's one thing to say to state it so that it is in state law and that would be well [1:06:15] Speaker D (unidentified): I mean all you got to do is say more than two board members may not discuss pending matters [1:06:24] John Eddy King III: outside of a board meeting, outside of the board, yeah, okay, yeah, and [1:06:30] Stephen Brough: then you guys all have clear guidance, yep, right, next would really, yeah, right, yeah, that's good to bring that up, is there, oh sorry, I certainly would not like to find out that a phone call resulted in an ethics [1:06:46] John Eddy King III: violation considering the committee that we're on, right, okay, so that's, that's another one [1:06:58] Stephen Brough: I am not seeing anything else. [1:07:06] Shane Leonard: Yeah, I don't think I have anything else. Okay. [1:07:12] John Eddy King III: Is there anything else that you can think of for that? No. All right. If there's no objection, then last call for that. We're going to be done in just a moment. Everybody good? I am good. Okay. We are adjourned. [1:07:31] Stephen Brough: And if I can end the meeting.