[00:00:01]
[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 28, 2020, AT 5:17 TO ORDER.IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE ROLL CALL.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
VICE >> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ CEJA.
HOPEFULLY COMMISSIONER CEJA WILL BE JOINING US SOON.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO LOOKS LIKE STUDY SESSION, THE RALPH M.
[2. STUDY SESSION. RALPH M. BROWN ACT WORKSHOP AND COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION]
BROWN ACT WORKSHOP AND COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION, AND I THINK CITY ATTORNEY ZACH WILL BE RUNNING THIS, CORRECT?AND EVELYN, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN NOW, IF I CAN FIGURE THAT OUT ON MY END.
CAN EVERYONE SEE THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU? GREAT.
AS YOU KNOW, I AM THE ZACH HEINSELMAN, ATTORNEY IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I WILL BE PRESENTING THIS EVENING A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON SOME REALLY IMPORTANT LAWS THAT APPLY TO PUBLIC AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS SUCH AS YOURSELF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
THERE WILL BE A LOT OF MATERIAL THAT I'LL BE COVERING IN THE NEXT 40 MINUTES OR SO, SO BE I'LL BE GOING THROUGH THE SLIDES QUICKLY, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN, ASK THEM AT THE END OR, AS ALWAYS, YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO REACH OUT TO MYSELF OR CITY ATTORNEY ROXANNE DIAZ.
SO WHAT THE TOPIC OF THE PRESENTATION TODAY WILL BE PRIMARILY THE BROWN ACT, AND AT THE END IF THERE'S TIME WE'LL TOUCH ON CONFLICTS ISSUES AS WELL, SO PART 1 WE'LL START WITH THE BROWN ACT WHICH AS YOU MAY BE AWARE IS A VERY IMPORTANT LAW NOR PUBLICATIONS SEIZURE REGARDING OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SO THE BROWN ACT PROVIDES THAT ALL MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE LOCAL AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN AND PUBLIC TO ALL PERSONS -- AND ALL PERSONS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND ANY MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE LOCAL AGENCY EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED.
THIS POLICY UNDERSCORES TWO THEMES.
ONE, TRANSPARENCY IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS GOOD.
SECOND THE, PROCESS IS IMPORTANT.
SO WE'LL BRIEFLY COVER A COUPLE OF BASIC ELEMENTS OF BROWN ACT TODAY.
GENERALLY RANGING ON FOUR TOPICS, FIRST, WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.
SECOND, WHAT IS A MEETING UNDER THE ACT.
THIRD, WHAT RULES APPLY MEETINGS AND WHAT ARE REMEDIES FOR A VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT.
SO THE BROWN ACT APPLIES TO LEGISLATIVE BODIES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A LOCAL AGENCIES GOVERNMENT BODY LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUBORDINATE BODIES OF THAT AGENCY LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE BROWN ACT ALSO APPLIES TO STANDING COMMITTEES OF LESS THAN A QUORUM OF LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT HAVE CONTINUIN JURISDICTION OR REGULAR MEETINGS.
BUT THE BROWN ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO AD HOC OR ADVISORY COMMITTEES WHICH WOULD BE COMMITTEES COMPRISED OF LESS THAN A QUORUM USUALLY CREATED TO DEAL WITH A SINGLE ISSUE THAT'S THEREFORE DISSOLVED AFTER THAT WORK IS DONE.
THE BROWN ACT APPLIES TO MEETINGS, SO WHAT IS A MEETING UNDER THE BROWN ACT.
THERE'S FOUR ELEMENTS TO THAT.
FIRST WOULD BE A CONGREGATION OF A MAJORITY OF LEGISLATIVE BODY.
SECOND WOULD BE AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE.
THIRD, TO HEAR OR DISCUSS OR -- TO HEAR, DISCUSS, DELIBERATE ANY ITEM.
AND THEN WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.
SO MEETING IS BASICALLY A GATHERING OF THE A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DISCUSS CITY BUSINESS THAT THAT BODY HAS JURISDICTION OVER.
YOU MAY THINK THAT YOU CAN ONLY VIOLATE THE BROWN ACT IF YOU VOTE ON SOMETHING IN SECRET, BUT THAT ISN'T QUITE TRUE.
IF A MAJORITY OF THE BODY ANYWHERE BEYOND, FOR EXAMPLE, THREE COMMISSIONERS WERE TO GET TOGETHER TO HEAR, DISCUSS OR DELIBERATE AN ITEM, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF BROWN ACT UNLESS IT WAS AN OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETING.
SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TYPES OF MEETINGS THAT GENERALLY FALL UNDER THESE CATEGORIES ARE.
REGULAR MEETINGS AND SPECIAL MEETINGS.
YOU ARE PROBABLY MORE AWARE OF SINCE THOSE COME UP IN THE GUISE OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY CAN ALSO BE ADJOURNED IN EMERGENCY MEETINGS.
REGULAR MEETINGS ARE THE NORMAL SCHEDULED MEETINGS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN INDIO, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS TWICE A MONTH, SECOND AND FOURTH WEDNESDAYS AT 6:00
[00:05:05]
P.M.FOR REGULAR MEETINGS, AGENDAS ARE POSTED 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE AND ARE POSTED SO 4 ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THESE AGENDAS BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE BUSINESS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING.
AND DURING REGULAR MEETINGS THE PUBLIC IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BODY ON ANY ITEM THAT'S ON AGENDA AND MI NON-AGENDIZED ITEM THAT'S WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE BODY.
THERE ARE ALSO SPECIAL MEETINGS.
THESE ARE MEETINGS CALLED AT AT A TIME OR PLACE OTHER THAN THE REGULAR MEETING FOR UNANTICIPATED REASONS.
THEY REQUIRE 24-HOUR NOTICE RATHER THAN THE 72-HOUR NOTICE, AND THE PUBLIC IS ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY ON THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS BUT NOT NECESSARILY GENERAL ITEMS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION LIKE THEY WOULD AT A REGULAR MEETING.
UNDER THE BROWN ACT THERE ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING TELECONFERENCING WHICH PRE-MARCH LOOKED A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN IT DOES NOW.
UNDER THE BROWN ACT TEXT ITSELF, TO BE ABLE TO TELECONFERENCE, BASICALLY CALLING IN ORE VIDEOING IN TO A PUBLIC MEETING.
THE AGENDA WOULD NEED TO BE POSTED AT TELECONFERENCE LOCATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND VOTES ARE TAKEN BY ROLL CALL.
BUT SINCE MARCH SOME OF THOSE PROVISIONS HAVE CHANGED IN LIGHT OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN RESPONSE TOTE COVID PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.
IN PARTICULAR, UNDER THESE ORDERS TELECONFERENCING MEETINGS NO LONGER HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT THE TELECONFERENCE LOCATIONS BE PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE, THAT THE QUORUM OF THE BODY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION TO PARTICIPATE, AND THAT THE LOCATIONS OF THE TELECONFERENCING AGAIN ISN'T POSTED OR PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE.
SO WHAT THESE CHANGES HAVE DONE IS TO ALLOW THE VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT THAT THE CITY HAS PROVIDED, FOR EXAMPLE, TH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS WHILE STILL PROVIDERRING FOR PUBLIC OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE COMMENT AND TESTIMONY ARE ADHERING TO THE BROWN ACT REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME PERMISSIBLE MEETINGS.
WE WANT TO GO OVER SOME POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC MEETINGS.
ONE OF THESE VARIETIES WOULD BE SERIAL MEETINGS.
SO SERIAL MEETINGS ARE ILLEGAL.
IF THEY OCCUR, IT'S USUALLY UNINTENTIONAL OCCURRENCE OF THEM.
SO WHAT IS A SERIAL MEETING? IT WOULD BE A MEETING WHERE THERE'S DIRECT OR INDIRECT COMMUNICATION, EMPLOYED BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS TO DISCUSS, DLIB RETIRE TAKE ACTION ON AN ITEM OF BUSINESS -- DELIBERATE OR TAKE ACTION AN ITEM OF BUSINESS.
INDIRECT COMMUNICATION HERE WOULD BE COMMUNICATION INVOLVING INTERMEDIARY IS AND POTENTIALLY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES.
THERE ARE GENERALLY TWO WAYS THAT THESE SERIAL MEETINGS CAN BE CREATED, ONE APPROACH TO BE REFERRED TO AS HUB AND SPOKE, AND THAT'S WHERE A SINGLE PERSON SEPARATELY SHARES IDEAS WITH A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BODY THAT RESULTS IN A COLLECTIVE CONCURRENCE, THEN IT COULD BE AN ILLEGAL SERIAL MEETING.
IT'S CALLED HUB AND SPOKE AT TIMES BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL, WHICH COULD BE A STAFF MEMBER, PROJECT LIAISON, SOMEBODY WHO WAS BASICALLY IN THE MIDDLE ACTING AS A HUB ALLOWING THE MEETING TO BE HEARD, THAT PERSON IN THE MIL DOESN'T NEED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.
WHAT'S CENTRAL TO THIS IS THIS CONCERN ARISES ANY TIME THAT A MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY IS HEARING, DISCUSSING AND ACTING ON A PARTICULAR ITEM WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION.
THE SECOND WAY THAT THESE MEETINGS CAN ARISE WOULD BE REFERRED TO AS A TELEPHONE OR KIND OF EMAIL CHAIN POTENTIALLY.
THIS WOULD BE WHERE ONE MEMBER OF THE EMAILS, RELAYS TO ANOTHER, DISCUSSES AN ITEM WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION AND THEN MEMBER B DOES THE SAME TO MEMBER C, MEMBER C TO D, SO ON DOWN THE LINE UNTIL A MAJORITY OF THE BODY HAS REACHED A COLLECTIVE CONCURRENCE.
AS I MENTIONED, SOME OF THESE INSTANCES CAN COME UP IN THE CONTEXT OF NOT IN-PERSON MEETINGS.
FOR EXAMPLE, AN EMAIL DISCUSSING BODY BUSINESS, WARNING OF SOME OF THE POTENTIALS TO "REPLY ALL" COULD IMPLICATE THESE CONCERNS.
ALSO, TEXTING OR EMAILING DURING MEETINGS MAY RESULT IN COLLECTIVE CONCURRENCE.
[00:10:04]
SO I ASK THAT VERBAL COMMENTS ARE REFERRED DURING THE MEETING ON THE DAIS RATHER THAN COMMENTS ON EMAIL CHAINS OR TEXT MESSAGES.THESE CONCERNS CAN ALSO ARISE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AS WELL OUTSIDE OF REGULAR MEETINGS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF COMMISSIONER A POSTS SOMETHING, TWEETS SOMETHING ABOUT AN UPCOMING AGENDA ITEM, COMMISSIONERS B AND C WHO FOLLOW COMMISSIONER A TO TWITTER OR FACEBOOK OR INSTAGRAM OR WHATEVER SOCIAL MEDIUM ENGAGE IN THAT DISCUSSION COULD IMPLICATE SOME SERIAL MEETING CONCERNS, AND THIS WAS ADDRESSED IN NEW LEGISLATION RECENTLY SIGNED AB 992 WHICH CLARIFIES THAT A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS ON A LEGISLATIVE BODY CAN'T USE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM TO DISCUSS AMONGST THEMSELVES BUSINESS OF A SPECIFIC NATURE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.
AND ALSO THAT A MEMBER SHOULDN'T RESPOND DIRECTLY TO ANY COMMUNICATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA REGARDING A MATTER WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF A BODY THAT'S MADE, POSTED OR SHARED BY ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO AVOID SERIAL MEETING CONCERNS.
AND THIS ONLINE ENGAGEMENT COULD INCLUDE COMMUNICATIONS MADE, POSTED OR SHARED WHICH WOULD BE EVEN -- NOT JUST DISCUSSIONS WITH TEXTS BUT ALSO THE USE 7 OF POTENTIALLY DIGITAL ICONS LIKE "LIKE" BUTTONS.
SO THERE ARE A COUPLE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS SERIAL MEETING CONCEPT TO BE AWARE OF.
THE BROWN ACT DOES ALLOW FOR INDIVIDUAL BRIEFINGS AND INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS.
SO A COMMISSIONER COULD CONFER WITH APPROPRIATE STAFF WILL WITH ABOUT LOCAL AGENCY HUB BUSINESS.
AN EMPLOYEE -- AND THESE WOULD BE UNIDIRECTIONAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT ISN'T A WAY TO TRANSFER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS BETWEEN MULTIPLE MEMBERS BUT RATHER STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDE THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.
HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THESE ONE-TO-ONE MEETINGS AND THERE IS KIND OF RELAYING OF PEOPLE'S VIEWS AND RESULTING IN A COLLECTIVE CONCURRENCE, THERE COULD BE SERIAL MEETING CONCERNS.
THERE ARE ALSO SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEETING REQUIREMENT THAT WE DISCUSSED BEFORE IN ADDITION TO INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF MULTIPLE COMMISSIONERS WERE AT A CONFERENCE TOGETHER, LIKE A CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE, THAT WOULD NOT BE A BROWN ACT VIOLATION TO THE EXTENT THAT INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS AREN'T MEETING AT THAT MEETING AND DISCUSSING, PROVIDED THERE'S A MAJORITY OF THE BODY DISCUSSING MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE TO HIGHLIGHT WOULD BE SOCIAL OR CEREMONIAL EVENTS, SO A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS CAN ATTEND A SOCIAL OR CEREMONIAL EVENT SO LONG AS NO CITY BUSINESS WOULD BE DISCUSSED AT SUCH EVENT.
AGAIN, MEETINGS OF AD HOC COMMITTEES OR EXEMPT AS WELL AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OR MEMBERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE CAN ATTEND A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE, BUT AS OBSERVERS YOU'RE NOT -- IT'S GENERALLY NOT ADVISABLE FOR NON-PARTICIPATING MEMBERS TO SIT OR SPEAK AT THE DAIS DURING THESE MEETINGS TO AVOID ANY BROWN CONCERNS.
SO AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS HAVE SOME DIFFERENCES.
ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS HAVE TO HAVE AN AGENDA IN PACKETS MADE FREELY AND ACCESSIBLY POSTED AND AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE FOR REGULAR MEETINGS THE DEADLINE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN IS 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE.
FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS IT'S 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE.
AND THESE AGENDAS ARE MADE AVAILABLE AT A PHYSICAL LOCATION AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
THESE AGENDAS, WHAT THEY CONTAIN IS A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED AND POTENTIALLY ACTED ON DURING AN UPCOMING MEETING, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, CEQA, IF IT WAS APPLICABLE THE TO ITEM.
SO THERE'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT LIMITATION I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO BE AWARE OF, WHICH IS THAT THEY'RE IMPOSE GUIDE BROWN ACT WHICH IS ONLY THAT ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
[00:15:03]
SHOULD BE DISCUSSED.THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE RULE FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS.
AND FOR REGULAR MEETINGS THERE ARE SOME LIMITED EXEMPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED UNDER CERTAIN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT BECAUSE MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS, IT'S RARE THAT AN ITEM WOULD GET ADDED TO A REGULAR AGENDA UNDER SOME OF THESE EXCEPTIONS.
WE'LL NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR HOW DISCUSSION COULD START ON AN INAPPROPRIATE TOPIC AND STRAY INTO ANOTHER TOPIC OR ISSUE THAT ISN'T ON THE AGENDA.
SOME SOLUTIONS FOR THIS WOULD BE TO ASK FOR THAT ITEM TO COME BACK AT A FUTURE AGENDA.
OR BRING THE MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF COMMISSION STAFF AND AGAIN ASK THAT IT BE LISTED ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
SO SOME OF THE BRIEF EXCEPTIONS THAT I AT WOULD BE TO THE AGENDA DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT WOULD BE A BRIEF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, QUESTION SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON SOME ISSUES FOR STAFF, BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS OR REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES THAT THE MEMBERS JUST GENERALLY ON THE CITY'S AGENDAS, THEY PROVIDE THIS AT THE END AS WELL, REQUESTS FOR FUTURE REPORTS FROM STAFF OR DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO PLACE SOMETHING ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
THE BROWN ACT ALSO HAS CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AT MEETINGS.
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DISTRIBUTED AT A MEETING BY STAFF OR A MEMBER OF THE BODY MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT A MEETING, AND IF A DOCUMENT IS DISTRIBUTED BY SOMEONE ELSE, FOR EXAMPLE, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT OR AFTER THE MEETING.
SO IF YOU RECALL OR IN-PERSON MEETING DAYS, GENERALLY THESE ITEMS WOULD BE MADE PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
THEY'RE ALSO MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE SO THAT COMMISSIONERS, YOURSELVES AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS TO THESE MATERIALS AS THEY'RE SHARED.
BROWN ACT ALSO REQUIRES, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THAT THE PUBLIC BE ALLOWED TO COMMENT AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.
THIS IS BECAUSE THE FOCUS OF THE ACT IS ON PROMOTING THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS INVOLVING THE PUBLIC AND THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS.
BROWN ACT PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM BANNING PUBLIC CRITICISM OF ITS POLICIES, PROCEDURES OR OFFICIALS.
OTHER PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW MAKE STATEMENTS MADE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS PRIVILEGED, PRESUMABLY TO AVOID SHOWING SEE.
AND PROVIDING THE PUBLIC FORUM TO ENGAGE IN ISSUES BEFORE THE CITY AND ITS LEGISLATIVE BODIES.
CITIES CAN'T REQUIRE THAT I PERSON PROVIDE THEIR NAME OR ADDRESS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO SIGN UP AT 10 THE DOOR TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
CITIES CAN REQUEST THAT POTENTIAL SPEAKERS USE SPEAKER CARDS, BUT IF IT'S REFUSED TO SIGN, THE SPEAKER WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE.
A LEGISLATIVE BODY CAN ADOPT REASONABLE RULES OF DECORUM.
THIS WOULD INCLUDE THINGS SUCH AS TIME LIMITS ON SPEAKERS OR PRECLUDING SPEAKERS FROM BEING DISRUPTIVE, DISORDERLY OR CONDUCT AT MEETINGS.
THE PUBLIC IS ALLOWED TO RECORD MEETINGS SO LONG AS THAT RECORDING ISN'T DISRUPTIVE.
AND WHEN THESE ISSUES COME UP, COURTS BALANCE THE 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE SPEAKERS TO ADDRESS THE BODY WITH THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THEIR ACTIONS AREN'T OVERLY DISRUPTIVE TO THE MEETING.
SO IF THERE IS A DISRUPTIVE SPEAKER, THE APPROPRIATE COURSE ACTION WOULD BE A WARNING TO THAT SPEAKER AND THEN IN GENERAL WHILE THE CHAIR WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FORCE THE SPEAKER TO STOP, THEY CAN DO SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REASONABLE LIMIT ON TIME AND EXCEEDED OR THERE IS ACTUAL DISRUPTION OF A MEETING.
SO NOW THAT WE HAVE KIND OF GONE OVER A LOT OF THESE BROWN ACT REQUIREMENTS, I WANTED TO NOTE THE BACK END OF NOT COMPLYING WITH BROWN ACT WOULD BE THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT'S PROVISIONS PRUN ANYWHERE IF FULL GAMUT FROM CIVIL ACTION TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
SO VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT COULD RESULT IN INVALIDATION OF A DECISION
[00:20:01]
OR ACTION THAT HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMISSION TOOK.IF THE CITY GENERALLY PROVIDED NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.
THERE COULD ALSO BE A CIVIL ACTION FOR A DETERMINATION OF A PAST VIOLATION.
AND IN SOME SCENARIOS, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS AN OPTION.
THERE MUST HAVE BEEN AN ACTION TAKEN AT A MEETING FOR THIS TO HAPPEN IN VIOLATION OF BROWN ACT, AND A KEY COMPONENT OF THIS WOULD BE THAT THERE 11 HAS TO BE INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF INFORMATION.
SO 2 THAT WE'LL MOVE INTO THE SECOND PHASE OF THE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, ALSO ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE OPEN GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPARENCY ISSUES A LITTLE MORE FOCUSED ON CONFLICTS.
THIS ISN'T MEANT TO BE A FULL ETHICS TRAINING BY ANY MEANS BUT WE WANTED TO FLAG A COUPLE OF INITIAL ISSUES FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
AND AGAIN, IF ANY OF THESE ISSUES ARISE OR IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO MYSELF OR THE CITY ATTORNEY ROXANNE DIAZ.
A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ARE PRETTY FACT SPECIFIC, SO WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO DISCUSS THEM IF PEOPLE DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM.
SO ETHICS TRAINING ISN'T AIMED AT THE FEW INTENTIONAL LAWBREAKERS.
IT'S GENERALLY PROVIDED AS OUT THERE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS HOE ARE WANTING TO DO A GOOD IS HONEST JOB.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO LEARN THESE MATERIALS TO HELP YOU IN YOUR EFFORTS TO DO YOUR JOB CORRECTLY AND ETHICALLY IN PARTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC EXPECTS OF ALL OF US, PARTICULARLY PUBLIC SERVANTS LIKE YOURSELVES.
SO THIS SLIDE IS MEANT TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ETHICS AND THE LAW.
THE LAW IS A STARTING POINT FOR MOST OF THESE ETHICAL ANALYSES LAWS.
THE FLOOR, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN IT'S RIGHT.
AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS YOU NEED TO SATISFY THE LEGAL STANDARDS HERE BUT ALSO CONSIDER SOME ETHICAL STANDARDS THAT THE PUBLIC MAY HOLD YOU TO.
SO WHY TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE IMPORTANT.
THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR DEMOCRACY.
TRANSPARENCY IS A KEY ELEMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE, COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY DEMONSTRATES TO THE COMMUNITY THAT AN AGENCY AND ITS 12 OFFICIALS HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.
AND TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT HELPS MAKE INFORMED DEBATE AND DECISION MAKING.
IT ALSO HELPS WITH PREDICTABILITY.
BUSINESSES WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH PREDICTABLE ENTITIES.
EMPLOYEES AND STAKEHOLDERS WANT PREDICTABILITY.
ASK WE WANT TO AVOID ANY SORT OF INFORMATION GAPS.
SO JUST IN GENERAL TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE GOOD.
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
YOU LIKELY DO ALREADY, BUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER INCENTIVE OUT THERE, IT'S A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS CARE RANGING FROM THE PRESS TO THE PUBLIC TO YOUR COLLEAGUES, AND THERE'S ALSO THE POTENTIAL FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES IF THERE IS SOME SIDE STEPS OR IMPROPER ACTIONS ON CONFLICTS OF ETHICAL ISSUES.
SO IF ANYONE CAN GUESS WHAT BUILDING THIS IS, IT MIGHT GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHY THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT CAME ABOUT IN 1974, WHICH IS IN THE WAKE OF THE SCANDAL OF WATERGATE.
THE VOTERS APPROVED THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT BY A LARGE MAJORITY IN 1974 IN CALIFORNIA, AND WHAT THIS ACT DID IN PART WAS TO CREATE THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICE COMMISSION, KNOWN AS THE FPPC, AND THE ROLE OF FPPC IS TO ENFORCE THE ACT, IT ISSUES REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE ACT WHICH ARE REVISED RELATIVELY FREQUENTLY.
AND ONE OF THE MAIN ASPECTS OF THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT THAT YOU MAY BE AWARE OF AT THIS POINT IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS DISCLOSE PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTERESTS THAT COULD BE IMPACTED BY GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING.
SO THERE'S A BASIC RULE UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT, WHICH IS THAT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SUCH AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS A DISQUALIFYING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A GOVERNMENT DECISION IF IT'S REASONABLY FORESEEABLE 13 THAT THE DECISION WILL HAVE A MATERIAL FINANCIAL EFFECT ON ONE OR MORE OF THE
[00:25:04]
OFFICIAL'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS.SO BASICALLY THE FPPC'S TEST FOR THIS FOR EVERY GOVERNMENTAL DECISION YOU MAKE, YOU SHOULD DETERMINE IF IT REASONABLE FORESEEABLE THAT A GOVERNMENT DECISION WILL HAVE A MATERIAL FINANCIAL EFFECT ON ONE OF YOUR ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
IN THE INTERESTS OF TIME, WE'LL GO OVER SOME OF THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT A GOVERNMENT DECISION IS TODAY.
KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN YOU'RE -- WHEN YOU DO HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST POTENTIALLY IMPLICATED BUY A DECISION IN FRONT OF YOU, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IT'S A DISQUALIFYING INTEREST.
OUR OFFICE IS ABLE TO HELP YOU WALK THROUGH THOSE ISSUES.
THE FPPC HAS A PRETTY ROBUST EIGHT-STEP ANALYSIS FOR ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS.
IT'S A LITTLE DRY SO WE'LL GO OVER SOME OF THE HIGH POINTS TODAY AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR INTEREST WOULD BE MATERIAL, AND WE'LL LOOK AT IT IN THE REAL PROPERTY CONTEXT.
SO AS I MENTIONED, ONE OF THE KEY ASPECTS OF THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT WAS CREATING THIS REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO DISCLOSE THEIR ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT, IF YOU RUN FOR OFFICE OR IF YOU GET APPOINTED TO A PUBLIC OFFICE EVERY YEAR YOU FILL OUT A FORM 700, THE CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE FORMS THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, I BELIEVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THESE FORMS IS TO HELP PREVENT CONFLICTS BY LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW OF YOUR INTEREST.
THIS FORM YOU DISCLOSE YOUR ECONOMIC INTERESTS, WHICH WOULD BE ANYTHING FROM SOURCES OF INCOME, REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS YOU MIGHT HAVE, INVESTMENTS, BUSINESS POSITIONS, OR GIFTS.
AND AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO HELP PREVENT CONFLICTS BY LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT POTENTIAL INTEREST YOU 14 MIGHT HAVE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO FILL OUT THESE FORMS AND TO FILL THEM OUT TO TIME AND COMPLETELY.
THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE PENALTIES FOR FILING THEM LATE.
AND YOU WANT TO ALSO BE AWARE OF WHAT YOUR OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS ARE SO YOU CAN AVOID AND BE MINDFUL TO KIND OF LOOK OUT FOR CONFLICTS AS YOU SEE AGENDAS AND PROJECTS COME IN FRONT OF YOU SO THAT YOU KNOW TO REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SO AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ONE OF THE KEY COMPONENTS IN THIS POLITICAL REFORM ACT TEST IS WHETHER OR NOT A GOVERNMENT DECISION IS INVOLVED, SO IS THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL MAKING, PARTICIPATING IN, IN THE MAKING OF OR USING OR ATTEMPTING TO USE HIS OR HER OFFICE TO INFLUENCE A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION? SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION? FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PURPOSES HERE, A COUPLE -- THE MOST OBVIOUS ANSWER WOULD BE WHEN YOU'RE VOTING ON SOMETHING IN FRONT OF YOU.
BUT THE ACT WOULD ALSO PROHIBIT YOU FROM PARTICIPATING IN MAKING DECISIONS OR ATTEMPTING TO USE YOUR OFFICIAL POSITION TO INFLUENCE A DECISION.
PARTICIPATING IN A DECISION WOULD BE ACTING IN YOUR AUTHORITY OF YOUR OFFICE OR ADVISING OR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO A DECISION-MAKER ON ONE OF THESE ISSUES, ATTEMPTING TO USE AN OFFICIAL POSITION TO INFLUENCE A DECISION COULD BE CONTACTS OR APPEARS FOR OR OTHERWISE ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE ANY MEMBER OR OFFICER OF THE AGENCY OR ADVOCATING FOR A CERTAIN POSITION ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY.
SO WHAT ARE SOME OF THE INTERESTS THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED? REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE ONE CATEGORY THAT WOULD BE REAL PROPERTY WORTH AT LEAST $2,000, OWN BY YOU, OWNED BY YOU AND A SPOUSE TOGETHER, OWNED BY YOUR SPOUSE SEPARATELY, BY A DEPENDENT CHILD INCLUDE INTEREST AS A TENANT IN REAL PROPERTY, SO FOR EXAMPLE A LEASE, FINANCIAL INTEREST CAN ALSO INCLUDE SOURCES OF INCOME OF $500 OR MORE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.
THIS IS GENERALLY KIND OF HOW YOU'RE PAID BY YOUR EMPLOYER.
INVESTMENTS, ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT INVESTMENTS WORTH AT LEAST $2,000.
[00:30:01]
AND A BUSINESS ENTITY WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE FINANCIAL INTERESTS.AND BUSINESS INTERESTS IN WHICH A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS A DLERKT, OFFICER, PARTNER -- DIRECTOR, OFFICER, PARTNER OR HOLDS A POSITION OF MANAGEMENT IN COULD ALSO BE A FINANCIAL INTEREST.
SO ONCE YOU IDENTIFIED YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS, WHICH AGAIN YOU WILL HAVE NOTED SOME OF THOSE ON YOUR FORM 700, YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IF IT WOULD BE MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION, AND SO WE'LL LOOK AT REAL PROPERTY INTEREST AS AN EXAMPLE THERE.
THERE'S A MUCH GREATER CHANCE THAT THE EFFECT IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED MATERIAL IF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION.
WHAT "DIRECT" MEANS IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THIS APPLICABLE FPPC REGULATION, THE DECISION CONCERNS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OR A ZONE CHANGE TO YOUR PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU SOWN.
THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROJECT THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED.
OR IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS INTEREST IN THE COMPANY IS NAMED THE SUBJECT OF PRECEDING OR A NAMED PARTY IN THE PROCEEDING.
IN MOST CASES IF YOU HAVE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT, THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT DECISION WILL MATERIALLY AFFECT THAT INTEREST.
WHAT STAFF IS GENERALLY ABLE TO RUN A RADIUS AROUND SOME OF THESE POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO HELP YOU ALL IDENTIFY HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO PARTICULAR PROJECTS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE KIND TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIRECT INTERESTS OF SOMETHING WITHIN 500 FEET FOR TH MATERIALITY REGARDING REAL PROPERTY.
THERE ARE ALSO PRESUMPTIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO BE MINDFUL OF.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN INTEREST IS PRESUMED NOT TO BE MATERIAL IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED 1,000 FEET OR MORE FROM THE PROPERTY, THIS PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE IF THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT THE DECISION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE PROPERTY.
AND IF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN 500 AND 1,000 FEET FROM THE OFFICIAL'S PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED -- SORRY -- MATERIAL IF THAT WOULD CHANGE THE PARCEL'S DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR THE INCOME-PRODUCING POTENTIAL, HIGHEST AND BEST USE OR THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE CHARACTER WOULD BE THING LIKE CHANGING TRAFFIC LEVELS, INTENSITY OF USE, MARKET VALUE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO AS I NOTED, WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS REALAL PROPERTY EXAMPLE.
THERE ARE OTHER MATERIALITIY TESTS FOR OTHER INTERESTS LISTED SO IF YOU BELIEVE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME INTEREST IMPLICATED BY POTENTIAL PROJECT, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT OUR OFFICE AND WE CAN WALK THROUGH THEM OR THE FPPC HAS SOME ADVISORY PAMPHLETS AND MATERIALS ON MINE ONLINE AS WELL THAT ARE GENERALLY HELPFUL.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO IF ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HAPPEN, WHEN A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION WILL MATERIALLY AFFECT ONE OF YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS? THE SHORT ANSWER IS YOU WOULD ABSTAIN.
SO UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT, ABSTENTION AVOIDS THE VIOLATION OF CONFLICTS.
ABSTENTION ISN'T LIMITED TO THE VOTE, SO YOU ALSO CAN'T DISCUSS THE ISSUES WITH MEMBERS OF THE STAFF OR MEMBERS OF THE BODY OR ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE IN EITHER WAY ON BEHALF OF THE BODY.
SO WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, YOU WOULD IDENTIFY THE FINANCIAL INTEREST, ANNOUNCE THAT YOU WERE 17 RECUSING YOURSELF ON THE RECORD, AND TO LEAVE THE CHAMBERS UNTIL THE BODY IS FINISH FINISHED DISCUSSING THAT ITEM.
LEAVING THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED UNDER STATUTE.
NOW THAT WE'RE IN THIS VIRTUAL WORLD FOR THESE MEETINGS, WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE COMMISSIONERS LEAVE THE MEETING.
PARTICIPATING ON THE VIRTUAL DAIS.
BUT FOR HOPEFULLY SOON WHEN WE RETURN BACK TO MORE NORMAL TIMES, IT WOULD BE THE LEAVING OF THE ROOM THAT YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL PENALTIES, AS I MENTIONED, UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT.
THESE CAN BE INVALIDATION OF A DECISION, FINES, POTENTIAL CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, AND THEY'RE GENERALLY EMBARRASSING SITUATIONS TO DEAL WITH.
NOW, I'LL TOUCH ON GIFTS BRIEFLY.
[00:35:01]
SO THESE ARE AMONG THE REGULATIONS WE JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE OFTEN OVERLOOKED.THE BASIC PRINCIPLE BEHIND SOME OF THE REGULATIONS ON GIFTS ARE YOU SHOULDN'T USE YOUR OFFICE OR POINT OF POSITION FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR BENEFIT, SO WHY IS THIS RULE OUT THERE? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE BEHIND IT? IT'S BASICALLY GIFTS AND PERKS CAN CREATE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY OR AN APPEARANCE OF BIAS, AND SO YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE OFF THAT PERCEPTION THAT YOU'RE USING YOUR OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.
UNDER THE ACT, WHAT IS A GIFT, HOW IS IT DEFINED? IT'S BASICALLY SOMETHING THAT YOU GET WITHOUT GIVING ANYTHING IN RETURN.
SO A PAYMENT THAT CONFERS A PERSONAL BENEFIT ON THE RECIPIENT, ASSUMING THAT CONSIDERATION OF EQUAL OR GREATER VALUE IS NOT RECEIVED.
CURRENTLY THE FPPC HAS A $500 GIFT LIMIT THROUGH THE END OF THIS YEAR.
THEY'RE ADJUSTED IN EVERY OTHER ODD YEAR, I BELIEVE, AND SO THAT STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES THAT AR REGULATIONS ARE PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING A GIFT OR GIFTS TOTALING MORE THAN $500 IN A CALENDAR YEAR FROM CERTAIN SOURCES, SO GIFTS OVER $50 IN THE AGGREGATE WOULD NEED TO BE RECORDED ON FORM 700S.
AGAIN, THERE IS SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THIS WHICH WE'LL PROBE COVER MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE GIFTS THAT YOU ARE RECEIVING BUT NOTE THAT GIFTS DON'T HAVE BOUNDARIES.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE GETTING A GIFT FROM SOMEONE WHO LIVES OUTSIDE THE STATE OR NOT.
AND AGAIN, THERE'S SOME EXCEPTIONS THAT WE'LL DISCUSS IN A MINUTE.
BUT IF A GIFT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS, IT SHOULD BE REPORTED ON -- IT SHOULD BE REPORTED EVEN IF THE PERSON PROVIDES THE GIFT WITHOUT NECESSARILY KNOWING YOUR ROLE AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
SO WHAT ARE SOME OF THESE IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS TO THE GIFT REQUIREMENT? FOR EXAMPLE, GIFTS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS WOULD NOT BE REPORTABLE GIFTS HERE OR GIFTS UNDER PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP OR PERSONAL BENEFIT, PERSONAL BENEFIT EXCHANGED BETWEEN PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A DATE OR WITH A LONG-LASTING PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM HERE.
AND AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS HERE, RE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO VISIT THE FPPC WEBSITE OR CONTACT OUR OFFICE IF YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, AS WITH ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES I'VE DISCUSSED LEADING UP TO THIS.
SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT PREPARED FOR YOU DURING THIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE AROUND UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING STARTS MOMENTARILY, AND I HAVE PROVIDED MY EMAIL ON THIS SLIDE AS WELL.
SO IF ANY OF THESE ISSUES DO COME UP AND YOU WANT TO TALK THROUGH THEM OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO MYSELF OR, AS I MENTIONED, CITY ATTORNEY ROXANNE DIAZ.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ZACH AT THIS TIME? ANYONE? I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE.
WELL, I'M GOING TO END MY -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE A REFRESHER COURSE ON THESE ITEMS.
CHAIR, IF I COULD, IT LOOKS LIKE EVELYN NOTED THAT COMMISSIONER CEJA JOINED AT 5:25, SO JUST SO THAT'S ON THE RECORD.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING AND WE'VE GOT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES FOR A BREAK, SO WE CAN TAKE A BREAK AND THEN COME BACK, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT THIS TIME.
THANKS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.