►
From YouTube: Ethics Commission Meeting 060921
Description
Ethics Commission Meeting 060921
A
A
B
A
C
A
Motion
passes
and
limits
our
approved
next
item.
We
have
one
item
on
to
discuss
considered
today.
It's
a
report
pursuant
to
section
2.11
of
the
city
of
the
widow's
court
of
ethics
pertaining
to
a
complaint
as
against
mr
hector,
lee
patina
and
regarding
his
representation
of
north
america,
industrial
park
potential
violations
of
the
identified
sections
of
the
ethics.
D
E
E
E
E
The
possible
violations
of
the
city
of
laredo
code
of
ethics,
as
allegedly
committed
by
mr
hector,
lee
patino
in
relation
to
his
failure
to
register
as
a
lobbyist.
There
is
an
entity
known
as
the
north
america
industrial
park,
who
submitted
a
petition
to
the
city
to
create
a
public
improvement
district.
E
E
F
F
Officials
should
not
be
lobbying,
but
in
fact,
if
they
engage
in
the
act
of
lobbying,
whether
they're
city
officials,
because
the
fact
that
they're
participating
in
this
particular
act
that
is
protected
where
they're
engaging
with
either
city
officials
or
elected
officials
who
are
also
city
officials,
then
they
must
comply
with
this
rule
of
registering.
And
so
if
the
ethics
code
does
apply
in
this
particular
instance
to
someone
who's,
not
a
city
employee.
If,
in
fact,
the
commission
were
to
find
that
there's
evidence
that
there
was
lobbying.
D
E
E
It
was
brought
to
the
city
attorney's
office,
attention
that
mr
patino
may
have
been
acting
in
the
capacity
of
a
lobbyist
in
his
representations
of
this
entity
as
a
representative
of
them
to
advocate
for
this
particular
project,
that
being
the
public
improvement
district
petition
because
it
had
been
brought
to
our
attention,
we
did
send
him
a
letter
saying
in
the
event
you
are
engaging
in
lobbyist
activities.
Please
refer
to
the
code
of
ethics
and,
if
applicable,
please
register,
because
at
that
point
there
had
been
no
registration
by
mr
patino.
E
That
letter
was
sent
to
him.
It
was
acknowledged
as
received
by
him
in
an
email
which
I
believe
you
all
have
that
was
submitted
to
you
on
the
report.
Additionally,
mr
patino,
well,
I'm
not
sure.
Let
me
backtrack.
He
had
in
his
in
his
representations,
two
different
city
officials.
He
had
advocated
for
this
particular
company
asking
for
the
public
improvement
district
and
from
what
I
understand
to
be
approved
and
some
other
favorable
action
to
be
done
for
this
particular
entity.
E
E
Mr
benavidez
did
caution
him
that
there
was
some
evidence
that
he
was
lobbying
for
this
particular
item
is
not
registered
as
a
lobbyist,
and
that
raised
a
concern
that
he
could
possibly
be
in
violation
of
the
ethics
code.
By
providing
a
comment
and
lobbying
before
council,
mr
patino
did
confirm
that
he
heard
mr
benavidez's
comments
and
stated
that
accordingly,
he
wanted
his
comments
regarding
the
entity
and
he
expressed
by
his
friend
mr
frank
shirafa,
to
speak
on
his
behalf.
E
At
that
point,
council
member
vanessa
perez
questioned
mr
shirafa's
relation
to
this
project,
to
which
mr
patino
advised
that
he
requested
mr
shirafa's
assistance
to
speak
on
his
behalf.
Due
to
the
letter
he
had
received
from
the
city
attorney's
office,
although
mr
patino
did
not
confirm
whether
he
was
acting
as
a
community
activist
or
as
a
representative
on
behalf
of
patino,
consulting
firm
to
which
it's
believed
that
is
his
consulting
firm.
He
stated
that
he
is
not
lobbying
but
rather
advocating
for
this
project.
However,
what
what
is
important
in
that
exchange?
E
The
applicable
sections
of
the
ethics
code
that
are
potential
violations
are
section
501
definitions
which
are
section
b,
that
defined
client
define
compensation,
defined
expenditure,
lobbyist
lobby
or
lobbying
and
also
city
question.
I
believe
that
section
city
question
was
not
included
in
your
in
your
report.
However,
it
is
applicable
to
define
what
a
city
question
actually
is.
Additionally,
section
502
persons
required
to
register,
as
lobbyists
section
504,
the
registration,
which
includes
a
and
b
separate
registrations.
E
Initial
registration,
section
e,
the
required
disclosures
section
g,
the
fee
also
section
5.05,
the
quarterly
activity
reports,
which
section
a
talks
about
the
required
disclosures
and,
most
importantly,
section
e,
which
talks
about
the
contingent
fees
which
specifically
the
contingent
fees
state
that
a
person
which
are
part
of
the
required
quarterly
activity.
Reports
that
need
to
be
filed
with
the
city
secretary.
E
So
in
applying
these
facts
to
the
specific
sections
of
the
code
that
are
applicable,
the
representations
that
mr
patino
made
to
city
officials
that
he
was
a
representative
of
north
america
industrial
park
to
advocate
for
favorable
action
as
well
as
actually
placing
the
item
on
the
agenda
for
favorable
action
to
occur.
At
the
at
the
council
meeting.
It
reveals
that
he
was
a
representative
of
this
entity,
also
the
fact
that
he
made
statements
that
he
could
be
compensated
in
the
future
depending
on
whether
the
item
was
passed.
E
E
You
would
also
be
able
to
hear
evidence
from
likely
councilwoman
vanessa
perez
to
her
knowledge
on
the
on
the
facts
of
what
happened
in
this
particular
case
and
any
other
witnesses
that
may
be
relevant
at
that
time,
but
essentially
that
that
is
what
your
role
is
here
today
to
make
a
determination.
Whether
you
all
would
like
to
proceed
on
an
evidentiary
hearing.
A
E
Dude
there
it.
This
is
a
this
was
211
report,
so
it
wasn't
an
actual
complaint.
It
wasn't
sworn
by
anyone
based
on
section
211
of
the
ethics
code.
We
have
a
duty
to
report
to
you
all
any
violations
that
may
have
occurred
being
that
this
was
done
publicly,
that
we
were
made
aware
of
it.
We
wanted
to
bring
it
to
your
attention
via
211
report,
for
you
all
to
make
a
determination
on
whether
you
believe
a
violation
could
exist
or
does
exist
and
proceed
to
an
evidence,
you're
hearing.
A
D
E
Well,
the
fact
that
he
had
actually
had
meetings
with
city
staff
on
this
particular
project.
I
understand
that
there
had
actually
been
text
messages
with
city
officials
that
he
was
a
representative
of
this
entity
and
specifically
the
fact
that
he
did
communicate
with
council
member
rodriguez
to
place
the
item
on
the
agenda,
which
was
ultimately
placed
on
the
agenda.
All
of
that
led
to
us,
knowing
that
he
was
representing
the
entity.
D
Going
okay,
so
the
the
point
right
now
that
we're
at
is
that
there
is.
There
is
evidence
that
he
was
representing
the
firm.
We
see
that
through
through
the
text,
messages
and
everything
else,
but
what
we
don't
know
is
whether
he's
triggered
the
compensation
portion
of
it.
Correct
is,
if
you
were
not
to
be
compensated
with
that
change
changes,
the
substance
of
the
violation
or
the
potential
complaint
well,.
B
B
E
G
F
But
it
is,
I
think,
the
you
know,
myriad
of
reasons
that
we
would
want
lobbyists
to
be
registered
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we
are
following
all
rules
and
that
the
city
officials
are
following
all
rules,
so
there's
not
any
undue
influence,
that's
not
regulated
or
protected,
and
when
you
lobby,
you
know
you
have
to
have
certain
things
that
you
have
to
follow
and
we
can
regulate
that
a
little
bit
better.
And
so
I
think
that's
pretty
much.
I
don't
know
you
know
if
there's
something
else,
you
want
to
add.
E
H
H
I
I
understand
that
you
know:
there's
no
sword,
complaints,
no
sworn
statements,
things
like
that
and
preliminary,
but
I
mean
there
there
are
various
public
statements
right
now.
Is
there
any
statement
right
now
that
north
american
industrial
park
themselves
have
said
I
mean
on
the
subject
matter
I
mean,
wouldn't
there
be
some
compensation
through
them,
I
mean
have
they
discussed?
Have
they
put
out
any
statement?
Anything
like
that.
I
just
didn't
see
it
in
the
at.
E
F
Indication-
and
I
guess
in
the
evidence
that
you
all
have
some
indication
that
maybe
shows
that
that
that
there
could
seemingly
was
compensation,
including
what
happened
at
the
city
council
meeting.
It's
just.
Obviously,
you
know
that
finding
has
to
be
made-
obviously
not
now
right,
not
by
us
but
by
you
all
and
and
on
another
day,
right
now.
You're
just
trying
to
see
is,
do
I
think,
there's
enough
to
even
move
it
forward,
or
am
I
just
going
to
dispose
of
this?
That's
what
we're
here
today
or
yeah.
F
E
C
E
C
E
I
don't
know
that
he
actually
specifically
said
the
words
lobbyist,
that
he
was
acting
as
a
lobbyist
I'd
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
attest
to
that.
What
I
do
know
is
that
he
did
make
contact
with
city
officials
and
did
say
that
he
was
essentially
reaching
out
on
behalf
of
that
particular
project
of
that
particular
entity.
F
And
if
I
may
answer,
I
think
part
of
that
is
so
there
was
a
process
like
if
someone
maybe
was
approached
if
he
approached
an
official
about
north
or
the
northwood
or
this
company.
It
wasn't
like
I'm
here
as
a
lobbyist
and
I'm
not
registered
something.
That's
open
like
that.
It's
more!
I
want
to
talk
to
you
about
this.
The
city
officials
not
really
sure
what's
going
on
and
they
approached
city,
attorney's
office
or
city
management.
F
Then
that's
when
the
letter
was
triggered,
we
sent
a
letter
out,
saying:
hey,
there's
a
possibility,
maybe
that
you
might
be
considered
lobbying
or,
if
you're
paying.
If
you
are
lobbying,
you
need
to
register,
and
so
so
I
think
that's
how
the
process
necessarily
played
out,
because
it's
not
quite
as
obvious
and
then
that's.
Why
we're
here
also
with
you.
C
C
E
Well,
something
also
just
for
additional
information.
Mr
patino
did
sit
on
this
commission,
I'm
not
sure
when
he
was
removed
due
to
the
qualifications,
but
he
did
sit
on
this
commission
for
some
time
and
and
based
on
the
fact
that
he
did
sit
on
this
commission.
He
was
likely
extremely
aware
of
the
requirements
of
the
code
of
ethics.
E
G
D
So
it's
hard
to
hold
the
council
member
accountable
for
that
when,
when
the
individual
may
not
disclose
whether
he's
advocating
as
a
citizen
or
or
a
lobbyist
or
a
consultant
or
or
just
someone
who
has
a
general
interest
in
the
project
correct,
so
it's
really
difficult
again,
having
seen
hundreds
of
people
walk
in
and
advocate
for
everything
from
street
craving
projects
to
you
know
secondary
water,
it's
hard
to
tell
unless
they
tell
you
I
I
represent
so
and
so
right.
They
may
just
have
an
interest.
D
D
That's
when
that
trigger,
if
they're
getting
compensated
is,
is
done
correct,
okay,
fair
enough!
So
at
this
point
from
what
we
know
from
what
we've
seen
at
the
council
meeting
what
we
have
before
us,
we
do
know
that
he
is
has
made
statements
himself
that
he
represents
the
firm
whether
or
not
he's
been
compensated.
We
don't
know
that,
but
there
is
a
possibility
that
he
has
a
contingency
contract
with
them,
which
he
himself
said
I
have
whatever
the
case
may
be,
might
or
might
not
get
paid
depending.
D
E
Well,
at
this
point,
that's
why
it
was
presented
as
a
211
report
and
essentially,
if
you
all
decide
to
go
forward
with
an
evidentiary
hearing,
it
would
it.
It
would
be
like
you
all
ordering
the
investigation
not
that
it's
an
official
complaint
by
you
all,
but
that
you
all
feel
that
it
warrants
an
investigation
and
that's
pursuant
to.
E
I
believe,
it's
section,
803
c,
which
gives
you
all
the
power
to
conduct
your
your
own
investigations.
So
it
doesn't
need
an
official
complainant
or
an
official
complaint.
It's
just.
We
have
a
duty
to
present
to
you
possible
ethical
violations
and
and
they
and
they
need
to
proceed
according
to
how
you
all
would
like.
D
D
G
E
E
B
C
B
A
E
Wouldn't
be,
I
would
just
caution
you
all
that
these
wouldn't
be
it
wouldn't
be
testimony
under
oath.
It
would
just
be
for
informational
purposes
that
should
y'all
choose
to
go
to
an
evidentiary
hearing.
That
would
be
the
opportunity
and
really
the
best
opportunity
for
mr
padilla
to
to
essentially
cross-examine
and.