►
From YouTube: Ethics Commission Meeting - Sept. 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
Okay,
this
is
the
time
and
place
set
forward:
September
14
2023,
meeting
of
the
city
of
Boise
ethics
commission
pursuant
to
notice
I'll
ask
the
roll
call:
ask
the
clerk
for
roll
call.
Please
church.
C
F
B
Yes,
commissioner,
Howard
removed
himself
mm-hmm,
considering
where
he
lived,
the
jurisdiction,
understood.
F
G
Mr
chairman,
that
is
correct.
The
motion
did
pass
and
if
that
was
not
corrected,
I
I
think
I
asked
for
that
to
be
corrected
on
the
draft
minutes
that
it
may
have
not
gotten
corrected
on
the
draft
in
the
final
version,
I
apologize.
If
that
did
not
happen,.
A
H
Moved
to
accept
the
minutes
with
the
change,
removing
the
defeated
language.
A
C
E
B
B
The
agenda
notes
that
we
don't
have
anything
scheduled
in
the
matter
scheduled
for
this
item
either
unless
there's
something
that
came
up
so
I'll
ask
the
staff
again:
commission
staff,
if
there's
anything
since
the
publication
of
the
agenda.
B
Next
is
excuse
me
next
is
request
for
inquiry.
The
next
three
items
on
the
agenda
item
five
request
for
inquiry.
The
agenda
knows
that
we
don't
have
there's
there,
isn't
any
matters
to
be
schedules
scheduled
for
this
I'll
ask
the
commission
staff
again.
Is
there
anything
changed
since
the
last
publication
of
the
agenda?
B
B
B
H
Mr
chair
and
to
Legal
I
just
had
a
question
on
the
fourth
page
of
the
dismissal,
the
inclusion
of
the
term
comma,
even
if
true
I
suppose
it's
not
evident
what
might
be
true
in
that
statement.
G
Mr
chairman
Mr
Church,
if
you
could
tell
me
again
the
it's
in
respect
to
question
number
three.
H
Yeah
question
number
three:
the
the
draft
inquiry
restates
what
the
complaintant
wrote
about
the
public
works
and
the
possibility
of
of
having
a
conflict
of
interest,
but
then
the
draft
says
based
on
this.
The
commission
concludes
that
the
allegations
in
the
inquiry,
even
if
true
well,
there's
quite
a
few
allegations
in
that
paragraph
above
from
the
the
complainant.
Some
you
know
that
were
pertinent.
Some
that
that
weren't
is
it
that
even
if
true
that
the
commissioner,
you
know
word
to
do
this,
it
wouldn't
be
or
yeah.
What
is
the
even.
G
It
is
inclusive
of
the
allegations
that
are
set
forth
in
the
draft
opinion
and
if,
even
if
those
allegations
that
set
forth
were
true,
they
would
not
constitute
a
violation
of
the
ethics
code.
It
is
certainly
permissible
for
you
to
suggest
that
we
delete
that
phrase,
even
if
true
does
not
change,
probably
the
substance
of
the
decision,
and
so
if
that
is
your
preference
and
that's
a
change
you
would
like
to
suggest.
We
can
certainly
that
could
be
part
of
the
motion.
H
Yes,
I
I
mean
I,
would
and
I
would
take
any
other
opportunities
to
discuss
it,
but
the
way
that
it's
set
out
by
the
complainant
is
a
theoretical
situation
that
could
possibly
end
up
in
a
in
a
a
violation
of
the
code
of
ethics.
You
know
if
certain
things
were
added.
I
just
fear
that
adding
even
if
true,
could
be
construed
and
in
the
future
and
doesn't,
as
you
mentioned,
change
anything
about
the
decisions
that
were
made
if
removed.
F
Mr,
chairman
I,
wonder
I,
think
I
understand
the
thrust
of
your.
Your
question
suggestion
commissioner
church,
but
is
it?
Is
it
not
the
case
that
this
rehearses
the
language
in
the
code
in
terms
of
our
rules
or
procedure,
that
one
of
the
one
of
the
bases
for
dismissing
an
inquiry
is
that
the
allegations,
even
if
true,
would
not
be
a
violation
of
the
code
of
ethics
or.
F
So
I'm
so
I'm
asking
or
wondering
whether
that
language
is
included
either
in
part
or
entirely
because
it's
drawing
on
the
language
from
our
rules
or
procedure
which
lay
out
the
basis
for
the
different
bases
for
dismissing
an
inquiry.
H
So
I
thank
you
for
saying
that
I
guess.
My
point
is
that
if
you
add,
even
if
true
that
the
you
know,
commissioner,
is
adamantly
opposed
to
the
CID
as
a
you
know,
private
citizen-
that's
not
sufficient
to
support,
but
without
it
could
be.
Even
if
true,
that
the
commissioner
has
a
potential
conflict
of
interest,
which
is
what
they
are
implying,
the
the
complainant,
and
so
that
that
was
my
my
point
that
it's
it's
not
specific.
Even
if
true
that
this
person
is
opposed,
which
is
what
I
think
the
legal
jargon.
H
D
Does
it
does
it
make
sense,
potentially
to
qualify
it
with
we're
declining
to
make
a
determination
on
the
on
the
facts,
because,
as
stated,
even
if
true,
it
wouldn't
rise
to
the
level
of
a
conflict
of
interest,
I
feel
like
that's
kind
of
the
distinction
that
reading
through
this
that's
trying
to
be
made
that
we're
not.
This
doesn't
even
get
to
the
point
where
we
need
to
dive
into
the
facts
and
make
a
determination
there
or
to
bring
It
Forward
for
a
factual
hearing.
D
I,
don't
know
but
again,
I.
Don't
think
that
this
single
paragraph
is
going
to
be
something
where.
D
G
If
I
can
offer
the.
G
Preceding
that
line
in
the
draft
opinion
talks
about
the
fact
that
the
the
possibility
of
a
conflict
of
interest
arising
under
the
hypothetical
scenario,
but
because
it
is
it,
it
then
goes
on
to
say
this
inquiry
is
not
identified
any
facts
with
respect
to
any
specific
matter
and
so
I.
G
If
you
read
them
together,
I,
perhaps
that
helps
to
explain
the
the
next
sentence
and
that
even
if
true
peace
I
do
I
I
would
respect
the
commissioner
Works
view
that
the
rules
do
use
that
language,
yet
the
alleged
violation,
comma,
if
true,
would
not
consider
a
violation
of
the
code
of
ethics,
so
that
is
the
basis
for
dismissal,
wouldn't
be
inclusive
of
that
language.
G
If
true,
but
if
you
would
like
us
to
revise
that
portion
of
the
opinion
to
be
more
specific
to
address
the
the
fact
that
those
that
is
a
hypothetical
that
is
posed
and-
and
that
is
not
specific
enough
in
the
opinion
already,
then
we
certainly
can
revise
the
opinion
to
reflect
that.
We
are
not
opining
that
the
hypothetical
might
not,
but
but
again,
I
would
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
at
that
preceding
paragraph
and
decide
whether
that
is
sufficient
for
your
purposes.
H
Thank
you
for
that
that
clarification,
you
know,
and
I
and
I
agree
now
in
an
open
meeting
on
record
that
having
that
clarification
is
and
looking
at
both
together
as
long
as
one
were
to
do
that
in
any
situation,
it
would
align
with
the
language
and
the
code
of
ethics,
so
I'm,
okay,
with
leaving
it
I,
just
wanted
to
to
make
sure
that
we
all
understood
that
it
could
be
construed
differently.
B
That
satisfies
commissioner
church
I
will
entertain
the
motion
to
have
that
edited
and
changed
I'm
going
to
leave
it.
Okay,.
F
Mr,
chairman
I
I,
didn't
participate
in
the
in
the
review
in
the
discussion,
so
my
comments
are
really
just
about
the
form
of
of
the
opinion
that
we
have
here.
The
first
is
is
simply
I.
Think
typographic.
If
we
look
at
page
two
question
number
two
has
a
numeral
one
before
it,
which
I
think
is
probably
that
was
probably
supplied
by
word
in
the
numbering
function.
F
F
The
second
is,
I,
think,
still
a
question
of
form,
but
it
does
have
some
substance
behind
it,
and
that
is
that
the
subject
of
the
inquiry
is
referred
to
as
the
commissioner
and
is
not
named
in
this
inquiry,
and
I
would
like
maybe
to
have
a
discussion
about
what
past
practice
has
been
and
whether
there
was
discussion
about
this
at
the
meeting
and
I
apologize
that
I
that
I
wasn't
able
to
participate
and
haven't.
Haven't
reviewed
the
the
tape
on
that.
B
It's
okay:
there
was
no
discussion
on
that,
particularly,
but
what
did
the
other
Commissioners
think
about
that?
Vice
chair?
You
have
anything
to
say.
D
Sorry
I
couldn't
remember
if
I,
muted,
myself,
no
I,
don't
I,
don't
remember
any
specific
direction
to
create
anonymity
with
this,
and
it
is
tied
to
the
like
the
the
correspondence
afterward
I
guess
isn't
gonna
be
redacted
in
any
way.
So
it's
it
doesn't
seem
as
if
it
necessarily
serves
a
particular
important
purpose,
but
it
might
have
just
been
drafters.
Choice
and
I
didn't
participate
in
the
decision
as
well.
So
I'm
kind
of
anecdotally
offering.
A
H
I'm
I'm,
remembering
you
know
two
instances
in
which
I
think
we
did
not
use
names,
Fire,
Chief
and
a
councilwoman.
H
F
I
yeah
that
does
jog
my
memory.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Church
I
was
thinking
back
to
previous
inquiries,
where
names
were
included,
so
it
seems
as
though
we
have
not,
as
a
body
anyway
been
entirely
consistent
in
in
the
user
admission
of
names
of
subjects.
F
I,
don't
know
that
this
is
the
right
Forum
to
discuss
the
merits
of
including
the
name
or
not,
but
I
guess
that
I'm
I'm
of
the
mind
that,
just
in
the
interest
of
transparency
and
public
interest,
it
might
be
good
to
include
the
name,
particularly
perhaps
in
a
case
where
the
finding
is,
as
we
have
in
front
of
us
today
but
again,
I
said:
I
would
limit
myself
to
the
form
of
someone's
opinion
and
I.
Think
I've
gone
beyond
that.
So
I'll
stop
now.
D
Is
there
any
dis,
important
distinction
with
this
being
an
inquiry
rather
than
a
request
for
advisory
opinion
and
the
advisory
opinions
are
kind
of
all-encompassing
and
serve
as
a
future
guide?
This
is
a
determination
of
a
specific
set
of
facts,
and
it
almost
seems
as
if
it'd
be
more
appropriate,
to
include
names
in
inquiry.
Decisions
versus
requests
for
advisory
opinions.
G
Mr
chairman
commissioner
Church
I'm
not
aware
of
any
determination
that
there
is
a
reason
not
to
the
legal
reason
not
to
include
names
in
this.
So
that
would
be
my
answer.
B
In
that
case,
do
you
have
any
thing?
Are
you,
okay,
with
moving
into
the
next
meeting,
commissioner.
B
Okay,
so
if
there's
I'll
entertain
a
motion
except
minutes
as
it
is
and
we'll
just
table
this
discussion
to
the
next
meeting.
F
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
mean
suggested.
I
was
entering
a
motion
to
table
the
the
opinion
on
the
inquiry
of
just
the
discussion
of
the
inclusion
of
names.
I,
don't
know
whether
there
was
did
someone
else
suggest
a
table.
The
vote
on
the
inquiry,
foreign.
H
I
think
that's
for
your
commissioner
motion
to
approve
the
draft
or
the
draft
opinion
with
the
changes
made
regarding
the
numbers
being
removed.
I
Yes,
thank
you
Mr
chair.
Thank
you,
commissioners.
Just
a
brief
report.
As
usual
out
of
the
ethics
inbox,
nothing
really
substantive
to
report.
I
We
did
receive
a
handful
of
travel
requests,
which
is
pretty
pretty
typical
that
do
not
implicate
the
ethics
code.
We
also
received
an
email
correspondence
out
of
a
resident
of
the
city
of
Lewiston
and
it
was
pertaining
to
a
question
about
essentially
a
blueprint
for
a
process
to
create
an
Ethics
commission
if
it
isn't
something
that
requires
action
by
the
commission.
So
this
is
just
for
information
and
then
similarly,
we
we
did
receive.
We
were
cc'd
on
an
email
which
raised
a
concern
about
a
zoning
issue.
I
But
again
we
didn't
didn't
see
anything
in
the
email
that
would
warrant
action
to
pass
it
along
to
the
commission
and
then,
as
far
as
hotline
activity,
there's
no
activity
to
report
for
that.
So
that
concludes
those
information
items.
Unless
there's
any
questions
from
the
commission
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
Patrick.
I
Thank
you,
commissioner
Roark
it
was.
It
was
a
private
citizen
that
wrote
in
and
it
appeared
to
be
some
sort
of
dispute
that
the
citizen
had
with
the
city
of
Lewiston,
and
it
seemed
that
the
individual
was
wondering
kind
of
looking
to
our
ethics
commission
as
a
as
an
example
and
wondering
how
it
came
about,
and
so
essentially
we
responded
to
the
individual
just
to
say
that
this
isn't
some.
I
This
isn't
an
issue
that
our
commission
can
really
involve
itself
in
and
and
encourage
that
individual
to
you
know,
ask
questions
of
legal
counsel
and
continue
to
seek
answers,
but
just
essentially
we're
not
the
right
place
to
ask
and
outside
of
that
I.
Don't
think
there
was
really
any
other
correspondence.
D
I
have
a
question
for
everyone
in
the
room.
Does
Patrick's
mustache
look
as
fantastic
as
it
does
on
camera.
D
B
With
that
being
said,
we're
in
the
German
so
I
asked
the
commission
is
that
is
there
any
other
further
business
to
discuss
before
we
adjourn.