►
From YouTube: City of Evanston Board of Ethics - 8/5/2020
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).
B
D
E
A
F
F
A
A
C
C
B
Going
to
go
ahead
and
call
us
to
order,
since
I
was
the
acting
chair
for
the
last
meeting,
so
we
are
called
to
order
and
to
ensure
that
we
have
quorum.
I'm
going
to
ask
the
other
members
of
the
board
of
ethics
to
identify
themselves.
My
name
is
carrie
von
hoff.
I've
been
the
acting
chair
and
I'm
sue.
C
B
C
C
B
B
I
could
have
a
second
second,
all
those
in
favor
aye,
aye,
aye
aye,
any
opposed
hearing,
none
the
motion
to
approve
the
open
session
minutes
will
pass
and
we
will
approve
those.
The
executive
session
minutes
have
been
distributed
to
the
members
of
the
board
of
ethics.
Could
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
executive
session
minutes
so
move
so
sounds
like
I
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
executive
session
minutes
aye
any
opposed
hearing
none.
Those
minutes
will
also
be
approved.
B
The
next
order
of
business
is
public
comment.
My
understanding
is
that
nobody
has
signed
up
for
public
comment
ahead
of
time,
so
we
will
dispense
with
this
portion
of
the
meeting,
but
I'll
just
reiterate
that
this
is
a
great
opportunity
to
make
your
voice
heard.
So
definitely
avail
yourself
this
opportunity
in
future.
B
Yes,
I
I'm
seeing
him
wave
and
give
me
a
thumbs
up.
So,
thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
that
the
respondent
is
alderman
and
rainey
alderman
rainey.
Are
you
present
this
evening
and
she
is
waving
to
me.
So
the
answer
is
yes.
Thank
you
very
much
just
to
have
it
on
the
record
that
everybody
is
present.
So
thank
you
board.
Members.
You've
received
a
draft
of
the
findings
in
order
in
this
matter
from
council
and
I'll
offer
the
opportunity
to
just
discuss
this
in
executive
session
before
we
vote
on
the
written
findings.
B
C
B
The
complaint
was
filed
by
mr
dan
coyne
against
alderman
rainey.
Pursuant
to
the
2019
code
of
ethics.
The
board
in
march
did
find
jurisdiction
over
this
matter
and
after
a
hiatus
during
the
the
march,
through
june
height
of
covet
19,
we
met
again
on
july
1st
2020
to
hold
the
hearing
to
consider
the
allegations
against
alderman
rainey
during
the
hearing,
both
mr
coyne
and
alderman
rainey,
provided
testimony
and
video
and
documentary
evidence,
and
on
conclusion
of
that
hearing.
B
On
july,
1st,
the
board
of
ethics
deliberated
on
the
pleadings
and
testimony
provided
and
are
now
prepared
to
issue
a
final
finding
in
order.
The
complaint
alleges
in
summary
that
alderman
rainey
engaged
in
prohibited
political
activities,
I.e
campaigning
at
the
april
1
2019
city
rules,
committee
meeting
and
at
the
april
1
2019
city
council.
Meeting
the
complaint
on
its
face
does
not
does
not
allege
that
comments
made
at
a
march,
14
2019
ridgeville
park
district
meeting
or
a
city
council
meeting
on
october.
14
2019
violated
the
code.
B
We
find
that
mr
coyne
was
president
present
at
the
april
first
rules,
committee
meeting
and
city
council
meeting
that
he
read
a
prepared
statement
during
the
public
comment
section
of
each
meeting
in
the
prepared
statement.
Mr
coyne
accused
alderman
rainey
of
making
racist
comments
at
a
ridgeville
park.
District
commission
meeting
on
march
14
2019.
B
B
She
explained
that
she
took
issue
with
the
park
district
commissioner's
performance
and
was
critical
of
mr
coyne.
The
board
finds
that,
during
her
statements,
alderman
reigning
did
not
mention
any
other
candidates
and
made
one
comment
regarding
the
election.
The
next
day
quote.
Maybe
he
got
a
vote
or
two?
I
don't
know,
but
good
luck
to
the
good
people
that
are
running
bad
luck
to
him.
End
quote
the
board
finds
that
alderman
reigns
comments
at
the
rules
committee
meeting
and
the
city
council
meeting
on
april,
1st
2019
may
have
been
intemperate
and
insensitive.
B
However,
those
comments
did
not
constitute
a
prohibited
political
activity
or
campaign
for
an
elected
office.
The
definition
of
a
campaign
for
an
elected
office
specifically
excludes
activities
that
are
otherwise
in
furtherance
of
official
duties.
Mr
coyne's
prepared
statement,
attacked
alderman,
rainey's
character
in
integrity
and
she
was
allowed
to
respond
to
this
attack
pursuant
to
city
council
rules.
Thus
the
statements
were
made
in
furtherance
of
the
official
duties
as
aldermen.
B
C
B
D
F
B
B
A
A
B
E
Well,
madame
chair
and
members
of
the
board,
thank
you
very
much
for
having
us
here
tonight.
I
just
was
retained
a
few
days
ago.
I
think
it's
a
very
important
matter
before
you
and
obviously
we
want
to
have
enough
time
to
present
a
defense
and
the
mayor
has
been
busy
dealing
with
the
matters
of
issues
of
people
of
evanston,
from
racial
unrest
to
gun,
violence
and
the
pandemic
itself,
and
so
we'd
appreciate
the
30-day
extension
thanks.
G
G
A
No,
the
the
case
was
the
complaint
was
filed
in
november
and
I
don't
remember
the
the
exact
date-
that's
just
dictionary,
but
it
was
it
was
filed
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
then
the
board.
You
know,
as
you
know,
there
was
a
change
in
in
the
board
members
some
delay
involved
in
that
and
then,
of
course,
with
the
pandemic,
there's
been
further
delays,
so
I
know
that
this
is.
This
has
been
we're
trying
to
get
this.
G
Yeah
until
a
couple
of
months
ago,
I
do
want
to
make
a
few
notes
here.
I
I
I
I
personally,
I
did
not
receive
any
notification
from
the
board
for
the
first
hearing,
the
jurisdictional
hearing
I
do
understand.
I
did
you
know
express
this
to
miss
to
attorney
wysaki
and
the
response
that
I
received
was
hey.
You
know
it
was
publicly
noticed,
and
so
you
could
have.
G
You
could
have
known
that
the
thing
was
coming
in
and
I
I
do
get
that
I
happen
to
be
the
city
clerk.
You
know
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
city's
website.
I
can
find
when
the
board
of
ethics
is
meeting,
but
I
do
want
to
note
that
just
because
it's
not
in
the
expressly
written
in
the
code,
I
hope
that
the
board
ensures
that
there
is
a
fair
process.
G
You
know
when
it's
not
the
city
clerk,
I
shouldn't
receive
any
special
treatment,
but
also
we
should
make
sure
that
there's
a
standard
of
treatment
for
all
residents,
so
they
can
be
aware
of
when
these
proceedings
are
taken
taking
place.
So
I
think
there
should
be
a
standard
that
we
clearly
communicate
to
all
parties
involved
when
these
hearings
are
being
moved
forward
and
how
exactly
to
get
into
the
zoom
and
what
the
password
is.
So
if
that
can
just
be
a
practice
moving
forward.
G
Two
mr
boykins
request
and
mayor
hagerty's
request
this
this
case
has
been
pending
for
since
november.
The
mayor
retained
legal
counsel
on
the
last
day
that
we
had
to
notify
the
board
of
whether
or
not
we
were
going
to
you
know
who
our
council
was
going
to
be.
I
you
know
I
I'm
willing
to
you
know
I
am
fine
with
this
extension.
A
If
I
can
respond
briefly
so
so,
and
I
wanted
to
just
clarify
that,
in
addition
to
the
is
you
know,
I
put
my
email
to
you
in
addition
to
the
agenda
being
posted,
you
received
an
email,
a
couple
like
a
week.
I
can't
remember
the
dates,
but
I
detailed
my
email
that
you
did
receive
notice
of
the
the
first
meeting.
A
A
G
Oh
so,
while
we
did,
you
know
file
this,
I
maybe
that's
something
that
we
should
clarify
from
the
board
we
filed
this
together.
So
did
we
get
a
joined?
Did
we
each
get
30
minutes
or
did
we
get
a
total
30
minute
period,
and
my
assumption
was
that
we
got
a
together
30
minutes
to
present
our
case,
and
so
I'm
just
asking
for
45
minutes
in
total.
A
A
D
D
B
G
D
B
C
A
B
Right,
yeah
yeah,
absolutely
so
we're.
So
what
has
passed
that
has
been
discussed
is
the
45
minutes
for
each
side
to
present
the
case
in
chief
and
then
a
10-minute
rebuttal
for
for
the
complainants
that
will
pass
on
a
roll-call
vote.
The
second
issue
is
related
to
continuing
the
hearing
until
september,
2nd
at
7,
00
pm
and
so
I'll.
Take
a
motion
at
that
time.
For
that
so
move.
B
C
B
G
The
next
you
know
kind
of
I
have
a
few
procedural
questions
before
I
get
to
any
other
motions.
So
in
the
leading
up
to
this
hearing,
there
was
a
request,
for
you
know
certain
information
for
documents
for
what
we're
going
to
be
presenting,
and
I
think
we
were
to
turn
that
in
by
you
know,
with
two
days
before
the
hearing.
A
A
B
G
B
A
A
Previously
we
we
held
off
on
posting
stuff
because
there
was
there
was
some
issues
of
whether
or
not
exhibits
would
be
entered
into
evidence
and
so
forth,
and
I
think
just
for
ease
of
everyone
involved.
I
think
we're
just
gonna
put
it
as
all
part
of
the
packet
and
then,
if
there's
you
know
so
anything
you
submit
to
me,
we're
gonna
put
it
in
the
packet
it'll
be
online.
A
If
there's
something
that
you
think
needs
to
be
redacted
for
whatever
reason,
let
me
know
because
I
because
I
may
not
have
a
chance
to
go
through
all
that.
You
know
and
I'm
thinking
in
terms
of,
if
there's
any
documents
that
contain
personal
information
or
something
that
shouldn't
be
online,
but
otherwise
we'll
we'll
post
it
and
then
both
sides.
Can
you
know,
go
to
the
website
and
look
it
up
so
then
it'll
be
disclosed
to
everyone.
G
Miss
von
hoffman
continue
so
okay
and
then
next
question
of
procedure
is
with
witnesses
with
calling
witnesses
at
mr
coyne's
and
alderman
rainey's
hearing
last
month
there
you
know
mr
coyne
called
alden
rainey
as
a
witness
we
are
seeking.
I
am
seeking
to
call
mayor
hagerty
as
a
witness.
What
is
the
procedure
for
compelling
testimony?
Does
this
board
have
subpoena
power
or
what?
What
are
the
remedies
and
options
there.
A
G
Certainly,
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
that
it
exists,
and
then
you
know
last
last
set
of
questions,
and
maybe
this
is
a
motion
at
the
last
hearing
like
I
did
mention.
I
was
not
you
know,
I
know
miss
wasaki,
you,
you
there's
maybe
some
contention
with
this
fact
here,
but
I
was
not
alerted
officially
by
the
board
that
there
was
a
hearing.
There
was
an
email
exchange
that
miss
wasaki
is
mentioning
where
I
believe
misty
cc'd
me
on
an
email
chain
that
included
information
about
the
hearing.
G
But
I
was
not
notified
by
the
board
of
the
last
hearing
and
when
it
came
to
the
jurisdictional
finding
that
one
that
attorney
mason
former
corporation
counsel
mason
cup,
is
not
subject
to
the
ethics
code.
I
I
have
contention
in
the
board's
findings.
It
does
not
list
any
reason
why
she,
you
know
why
jurisdictional
the
jurisdictional
threshold
was
not
met
because
she
was
subject
to
the
code
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
offense
and
she
subsequently
left
the
city.
G
A
Okay,
if
I
think
that
perhaps
this
is
something
that
would
be
better
handled
than
some
sort
of
motion
for
reconsideration,
you
know
I
I
I
mean.
I
understand
that
you
guys
that
you
and
and
miss
wittenberg,
as
was
evident
at
the
last
hearing-
disagree
with
the
board's
findings
on
this,
but
I
I
don't
know
that
the
board
needs
to
you
know,
take
a
step
backwards
and
and
go
through
the
jurisdictional
findings.
Again.
We
we
did
that
at
the
you
know
at
the
last
hearing.
Well,
then,.
G
Thank
you
for
that.
Well
then,
I
I
will,
I
guess,
make
a
motion
to
reek.
If
that's
something
I
can
do
or
if
that's
something
the
board
has
to
do,
but
I
will
request
a
motion
to
reconsider,
given
that
the
threshold
for
attorney
mason
cup
under
the
code
is,
you
know,
is
the
offense
alleged
offense
a
violation
of
the
ethics
code?
G
The
answer
to
that
is
certainly
yes
and
then
the
second
jurisdictional
threshold
question
is:
was
this
person
subject
to
the
code
at
the
time
of
the
offense
and
that's
very,
very
clear
in
the
code
and
the
answer
to
that
is
also?
Yes,
certainly,
you
know
miss
mason
cup
attorney
mason
cup.
Could
you
know
fight
the
case?
However?
She
wants,
you
know
you
know,
but
as
far
as
the
jurisdictional
threshold,
it
has
been
clearly
met
under
the
code.
A
Just
a
curiosity,
what
I
guess
my
my
first
question
is
is
is
a
little
bit
of.
Why
does
it
matter?
You
know
she's,
no
longer
an
employee
of
the
of
the
city.
It's
there's
not
there's
no
power
that
this
board
has
over
her.
As
a
former
employee,
the
subpoenaing
powers
of
the
board
have
to
do
with
testimony
and
witnesses.
A
So
if
I
mean
if,
if
it's,
if
you
want
to
call
her
as
a
witness,
then
you
know
we
can
determine
if
she,
if
you
know,
if
she's
willing
to
participate,
but
I
I'm
I'm,
I
don't
think
this
board
has
has
jurisdiction
over
a
a
former
employee.
Just
because
the
city
council
doesn't
have
jurisdiction
over
a
former
employee,
they
can't
discipline
her.
They
can't
fire
her.
I
mean
what
what
remedy
are
you
seeking.
G
Yes,
well,
thank
you
for
that
question.
The
well
the
the
jurisdiction
says
you
know
was
the
person
employed,
an
employee
when
the
offense
occurred
and
that
jurisdictional
threshold
has
been
met.
There
is
there's
nothing
in
the
code
that
says
you
know
whether
or
not
you
know
if
an
employee
left.
I
will
note
that
when
we
filed
this,
that
you
know
there
was
a
long
delay,
but
attorney
mason
cup
was
still
an
employee
of
the
city
from
understanding
at
the
beginning
of
this
process.
G
As
far
as
what
remedy
do
we
seek?
You
know
that
I
mean
that
that
question
could
be
said.
Why
would
you
bring
anything
against
an
alderman
or
an
elected
official
here
in
the
city,
because
there
really
is
no
discipline
or
a
remedy
other
than
you
know.
Potential
censure,
which
you
know
is
really
isn't
discipline.
You
know
necessarily
it's
just
a
public
disapproval
of
what
happened
in
and
a
finding
of
facts.
Hopefully,
and
so
in
the
same
case
here
it's
well.
G
Did
this
employee
violate
the
ethics
code,
while
this
employee
was
here
and
if
they
did,
this
should
be
a
you
know.
The
board
finds
that
this
person
did.
That
should
be
a
lesson
to
all
other
employees
that
that
should
not
be
done
here
in
the
city
and
it's
not
acceptable
here
in
our
city,
their
personnel
files.
If
you
know,
if
I
committed
a
crime,
you
know
in
california-
and
I
moved
to
illinois-
you
know
the
law
wouldn't
just
drop
it,
because
I
moved
away.
G
You
know
if
I
committed
a
crime
or
if
I
can
commit
an
offense,
you
know,
then
it
should
be,
should
be
followed
to
the
fullest
extent
and
and,
like
I
said,
the
jurisdictional
threshold
has
been
met
here.
The
the
very
clear
provision
of
the
code
is:
was
this
person
subject
to
the
code
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
defense?
And
the
answer
to
that
is
yes,.
G
Now
I
I
will
just
add
one
more
point
that
you
know
attorney
mason
cup
could
say:
well,
hey,
I'm
not
an
employee.
There
anymore,
I'm
not
going
to
participate
in
this
hearing,
and
I
guess
that
would
be
her
right
and
then
you
know
if
we
needed
to
need
a
testimony,
you
know
from
miss
mason
cup,
then
you
know,
potentially
the
board
at
that
point
could
grant
a
subpoena
for
her
testimony
if
they
saw
it
necessary.
A
Ms
kenhoff,
I
don't
know
if
this
is
something
that
you
want
to
today.
I
know
that
I
I
don't
know
if
there's
something
you
want
to
discuss
today
or
if
you
would
like,
if
the
board
wants
time
to
consider
this,
you
know
we
can
take
it
under
advisement
with
the
you
know,
next
meeting
I
it's
it's
you
guys.
If
it's
something
you
want
to
deliberate
on
now,
we
can.
You
know
we
can
do
that.
I
don't
know
how
freshman
is
on
it.
G
One
more
point
is
my
preference
would
be
you
know
again,
since
the
clear
threshold
of
the
code
has
been
met
in
that
case
that
we
that
the
board
hopefully
makes
the
decision
today
to
hear
the
case.
If
that
is
the
the
wishes
of
the
board.
So
we
can
hear
everything
on
september,
2nd
at
the
same
time
as
opposed
to
you
know
september
and
then
pushing
it
further
back,
but
I'm
I'm
open
to
whatever
the
board
wishes
to
do.
B
Yeah,
I
guess
just
a
couple
of
thoughts,
slash
questions
I
I
think,
maybe
for
ms
wysocki
or
my
fellows
on
the
board.
I
I
don't
know
if
we
were
prepared
to
rule
on
a
motion
to
reconsider.
It
was
just
it
was
just
not
something
we
had
thought
about.
I
think
before
the
meeting
started,
miss
wasaki,
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
appropriate
to
go
into
some
type
of
executive
session
to
discuss
such
emotion
or
it
could
I
mean
one
of
the
things
I'm
thinking
about
is.
B
A
B
A
G
G
Right,
okay,
thank
you
yeah!
Thank
you,
mr
psyche,
so
just
to
clean
up
the
record.
Yes,
those
that
is
my
argument
that
both
those
standards,
those
the
only
two
standards
for
moving
the
case
forward
as
far
as
jurisdiction,
those
two
standards
have
been
met.
Certainly
we
are
alleging
offenses
that
are
covered
by
the
code,
and
certainly
you
know
at
the
time
of
filing
the
complaint
and
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
offenses,
miss
mason
cup
was
an
employee
of
the
city
and
subject
to
the
code.
G
F
A
G
G
You
know
I
I
I
maybe
miss
wasaki
can
answer
that,
but
I
can't
answer
that,
but
really
what
we're
considering
here
is
the
four
corners
of
the
law,
which
is
you
know.
Did
she
meet
these
two
criteria
to
be?
You
know
to
have
the
case
move
forward?
The
answer
to
that
legally
is
yes,
and
so
you
know
those
questions
can
be
answered.
You
know
miss
mason
cup
and
her
attorney.
If
she
so
chooses
to
have
one
can
answer
those
questions.
G
Well,
my
understanding
of
the
I
do
understand
that
question.
You
know
my
you
know.
I
will
just
first
note
before
I
say
what
the
remedy
is.
The
remedy
is,
you
know
we
have
an
ethics
law,
it
is
we
hold.
You
know
everyone
who
works
for
the
city
to
this
ethical
standard,
and
you
know
the
code
says.
Are
you
subject
to
this?
You
know:
were
you
subject
to
the
code
when
you
committed
an
alleged
offense?
G
If
the
answer
is
yes
and
the
offense
is
something
that
is
covered
by
the
code,
then
that
person
can
be
heard.
The
code
is
silent
on
you
know.
If
that
person
decides
to
quit,
because
they
know
an
ethics
case
is
coming
for,
you
know
being
had
or
whatever
the
case
may
be.
You
know
the
remedy
I
I'm
seeking
is
to
to
uphold
the
law
here
in
our
city.
G
You
know,
and
there
are
fines
you
know
outside
of
you
know,
what's
listed
in
the
code
as
far
as
you
know,
disciplinary
actions
you
know
directly
to
the
employed
by
the
city
manager
who
or
their
supervisor
if
I'm
not
miss
wasaki.
Maybe
you
can
answer
this,
but
the
code
does
also
delineate
that
there's
potential
financial
penalties
and
fines
that
could
be
imposed
by
this
board.
So
you
know
she
could
be
fined
fifty
dollars
or
she'd
be
fined.
G
A
A
Well,
your
interpretation
that
there's
a
remedy
that
that's
viable
against
a
former
employee.
I
I
don't
interpret
that
the
ethics
code
in
that
fashion-
and
I
don't
interpret
the
ethics
code
as
allowing
this
board
twisted
jurisdiction
over
a
former
employee.
But
you
disagree
with
that.
I
I
I
heard
you
tonight.
G
A
A
G
Let
me
ask
a
quick
question
because
miss
mr
hoff
is
that
fine,
yes,
okay,
my
quick
question
here
is:
there
is
evidence
that
is
being
introduced
to
essentially
exonerate
miss
mason
cup
from
having
to
participate
in
this
process
and
and
that
evidence
is
that
she
is
no
longer
an
employee
of
the
city.
May
ask
you
know
who
presented
that
to
the
board.
Where
is
that
evidence
presented
to
the
board
that
she's
no
longer
employed?
G
G
So
well
see
I'm
a
bit
uncomfortable
with
that,
because
you
know
you
represent
the
board
and
to
present
evidence
essentially
on
behalf
of
miss
mason
cup.
That
says
you
know
you
can't
hear
this
case
because
she's
no
longer
an
employee
of
the
city
and
then
have
that
be
essentially
a
deciding
factor
for
why
the
board
doesn't
hear
it.
It
to
me
seems
as
though
you
were
presenting
evidence
on
behalf
of
miss
mason
cup,
and
I
know
that
certainly
wouldn't
be
your
intention,
and
I
know
the
board
wouldn't
want
to
give
off
that
impression.
G
D
G
Okay,
I
I
do
want
to
point
the
board
to
past
president
precedent.
So,
for
example,
alderman
alderman
holmes
was
an
alderman
when
she
committed
a
fence
which
was
using
her
city
email,
I
think,
to
send
out
campaign
solicitations,
whatever
the
case
may
be,
and
there
was
an
ethics
case
brought
against
her.
I
believe
she
was
found
to
have
committed
that
offense,
whatever
it
is,
but
either
way
she
was
already
unseated.
G
G
Ruling,
well,
I
I
you
know
the
outcome.
I
think
I
I
can't
tell
you
the
outcome,
maybe
miss
waisaki,
if
you
have
the
information,
but
the
thing
is
that
the
board
moved
forward
with
the
case
based
on
jurisdiction,
because
at
the
time
of
the
offense
alderman
holmes
was
alderman
holmes,
but
at
the
time
of
the
case
being
brought
forward,
she
no
longer
was
alderman,
and
so
she
couldn't,
you
know,
maybe
be
censured
or
she
couldn't
whatever
the
case
may
be.
There's
certainly
no
punishment.
That
could
be.
G
Now
she
was
an
employee
working
for
the
city
representing
the
values
of
the
city
of
evanston
in
her
conduct,
and
if
that
conduct
was
against
the
ethics
code,
I
think
it's
important
that
for
the
record,
whether
she's
an
employee
or
not,
it's
not
about
miss
mason
cup.
It
is
about
the
conduct
and
about
having
an
official
record
on
the
city
as
to
whether
that
conduct
is
acceptable
or
not.
D
B
B
G
B
I
hear
what
you
you're
saying
there.
There
are
some
things
that
are
you
know,
judges
still
read
the
paper
and
I
mean
I
think
there
are
some.
There
are
some
things
the
judge
would
just
take
judicial
notice
of
I
mean
frankly,
I
don't
even
remember
if
I
was
appointed
to
the
board
of
ethics
at
the
time
that
I
read
it.
So
I
guess
I
can't
comment
whether
I
was
taking
judicial
or
citizenry
notice
of
what
was
what
I
was
reading,
but
I
did
read
it
so.
A
A
A
G
I'm
gonna
choose
not
to
answer
that.
You
know
we
don't
the
board
essentially,
according
to
the
four
corners,
the
board
does
not
know
whether
she
is
an
employee
or
not
a
current
employee
or
not.
There
has
not
been
any
anything
presented
from
her
or
from
any
party
to
this
case.
That
would
allow
the
board
to
know
whether
or
not
she
is,
and
if
you
know,
if
anyone
read
that
outside
of
this,
you
know
that
wasn't
presented
here
and
you
shouldn't.
You
know.
G
I
would
think
it's
proper,
that
the
board
wouldn't
be
bringing
outside
information,
whether
it's
gleaned,
while
on
the
border
before
or
directly
from
you,
miss
waisaki
the
board
attorney,
which
would
be
you
know,
maybe
a
step
worse.
It
shouldn't
be
bringing
that
into
the
four
corners
of
this
particular
case.
Okay,.
G
Is
a
key
piece
to
whether
there's
jurisdiction
here
when
that
particular
question
of?
If
she
is
a
former
employee
or
not,
I
get
what
your
argument
is
you're
saying:
well,
she
is
a
former
employee,
but
the
four
corners
of
the
code
simply
say:
were
they
subject
to
the
code
at
the
time
that
the
alleged
offense
was
committed?
There's
nothing
about
you
know
it
specifically
says
at
the
time
it
doesn't
say:
are
they
currently
and
that
the
council
in
their
wisdom
could
have
said?
A
Is
that
correct?
No,
I
I
don't
think
it's
correct,
that's
why
I
want
to
okay.
I
want
to
clarify
so
this.
This
isn't
a
court
and
although
we
are
having
hearings
and
we're
ensuring
that
the
due
process,
rights
of
all
the
participants
and
parties
are
protected,
this
is
not
a
court
of
this
is
not
a
court
of
law.
There's
no
judge
in.
In
that
sense,
there
is
a
you
know:
the
board
acts
as
a
finder
of
fact,
but
the
rules
of
evidence
are
very
relaxed.
A
A
A
G
That's
the
substance
of
it.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
clearly
that
that's
not
I'm
not
nick
picking
about
how
the
evidence
about
her
not
being
an
employee.
What
I'm
really
saying
is
that
is
irrelevant,
whether
she's
an
employee
or
not.
Currently,
the
main
thing-
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that,
because
you're
focusing
on
the
nitpicking-
and
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
not
coming
off
the
main
thing
is
the
the
code
says:
was
she
subject
at
the
time
of
the
offense?
G
And
I
just
the
whole
thing
about
you
know
how
this
evidence
was
introduced
is
really
just
pointing
to
that
is
irrelevant.
So
I
do
agree
with
you
there.
This
whole
thing
about
whether
she
is
currently
employed
or
not
is
irrelevant
and
it's
kind
of
nitpicking.
The
big
thing
is
that
this
board
should
be
determining
and
this
board-
and
I
shouldn't
be
nitpicking
about
the
the
thing
is:
was
she
subject
to
the
code
at
the
time
of
the
offense
and
the
answer?
That
is
yes,
okay,.
A
I
think
I
I
think
at
this
point
we've
we've
heard
a
lot
of
argument
on
this
I
and
ms
von
hoff.
I
don't
know
what
you
want
to
do
at
this
point.
I
have
in
my
my
minutes
here
that
the
the
motion
that
that
mr
chipman
moved
to
take
the
motion
for
reconsideration
under
advisement.
We
currently
don't
have
a
second
on
it.
If
we
don't
have
a
second,
then
it
dies
for
a
lack
of
second.
C
G
A
The
administrative
review
act-
I
would
assume
so
that's
that's
typically
how
that
that
happens,
but
I
but
it
doesn't
happen
until
there's
a
final
decision
and
there's
no
first
of
all,
there's
I
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
administrative
review
law
right
now,
but
this
is
an
advisory
board.
So
there's
not
actually
a
final
decision
until
the
city
council
reviews
it.
G
But
actually,
I
think
the
final
decision
would
be
that
there,
so
I
just
so.
I
guess
my
what
I'm
just
as
a
citizen-
and
you
know
who's
going
before
aboard
pro
se.
You
know
with
with
several
attorneys.
What
I
do
understand
is
that
I
have
recourse
with
my
disagreeance
on
this
board.
Finding
that
miss
mason
cup,
according
to
the
four
corners
of
the
law
is
not
subject
to
this.
My
recourse
is
to
have
this
reviewed
by
this
record.
A
So
I
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is:
I'm
not
I'm
not
in
a
position
to,
but
first
of
all,
I
can't
advise
you
on
that,
because
I'm
not
your
attorney,
but
I'm
not
I'm
not
in
a
position
position
to
tell
you
how
to
exhaust
whatever
remedies
you
need
to
exhaust
here
before
the
city
council
be
before
you
can
take
it
to
court.
There's
the
administrative
review
act
has
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
steps
in
it,
and
I
personally
am
not
familiar
enough
with
it
to
comment
on
it.
A
G
Yeah
yeah.
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
understand
what
my
right,
not
not
advise
me
on
how
to
appeal,
but
just
an
understanding
of
my
right
do
I
have
the
right
to
appeal,
and
my
understanding
is
that
yes,
courts
can
review
these
decisions
based
on
the
four
corners
of
the
law
and
based
on
the
testimony
that
was
given
by
board
members
and
myself,
and
so
I
do
thank
you
for
taking
consideration
of
this
particular
item.
A
Well,
if,
if
there
is
a
motion
to
to
reconsider
the
july,
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
motion
to
recon
the
board
needs
to
make
the
motion.
So
if
there's
a
motion
to
reconsider
the
july
first
findings
in
jurisdiction,
then
then
we
need
a
second
and
a
vote
on
that.
That
doesn't
mean
that
it's
overturned.
It's
just
a
motion
to
reconsider
that
and
then
there
would
have
to
be
a
motion.
G
There's
a
motion:
if
I
could
make
a
final
plea
for
this
just.
I
would
hope
that
the
board
would
at
least
given
that
there
is
maybe
some
gray
area
that
has
been
exposed
today,
that
the
board
would
do
its
due
diligence
and
at
least
taking
the
time
to
reconsider
this
here
at
this
level
before
it
has
to
be
moved
to
another
level
to
to
check
the
work.
I
think
it'd
be
great
in
a
show
of
transparency,
especially
since
this
board.
G
B
B
G
And
so
did
you
all
apply
to
the
board
or,
were
you
just
hand
selected,
maybe
not
by
mayor
haggerty
but
you're
hand
selected?
It
seems
by
an
alderman
who
was
mayor
pro
tem
for
a
meeting
to
serve
on
this
board.
You
didn't
apply
you
just
someone
came
out
and
said:
hey,
miss
calder.
Can
you
serve
miss
von
hoff?
Can
you
serve
I'm
sorry,
mr
mitchell?
I'm
sorry
I
don't
see
your
name
there,
but
I
think
you
know
chipman.
G
G
G
G
Well,
I
just
want
to
also
well
I
I
guess
this
might
have
to
do
with
the
maybe
another
motion,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
the
fact
that
this
board
was
selected
for
these
three
cases.
No
one
applied
for
the
board
and
you
essentially
were
hand
selected
to
hear
these
cases
only
against
the
mayor
and
alderman
rainey.
I.
A
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
will.
I
will
do
that
follow-up,
but
I
I
just
guess
it
is
clear
for
the
record
that
you
know
these,
that
the
board
members
were
selected
did
not
apply,
but
were
selected
particularly
to
hear
just
these
three
cases,
two
of
them
involving
one
of
them
involving
the
mayor,
another
involving
the
former
city
attorney
and
then
an
alderman.
And
then
you
know
after
you
hear
these
three
cases,
then
a
permanent
board
will
be
appointed.
A
Mr
reed
you've
made
this
argument
15
times
today.
I
I've
heard
it
several
times
and
and
now
you're
kind
of
all
over
the
place.
There's
emotion
or
you've
made
a
motion
to
reconsider
the
board,
can't
even
get
to
the
point
of
determining
whether
or
not
that's
something
they
want
to
do,
because
you
keep
interrupting
them.
So
I
understand
that
you
have
all
these
theories
and
fine,
but
that's
not
really
something
that
we
have
to
answer
to
you.