►
From YouTube: Ethics Commission Meeting 021021
Description
Ethics Commission Meeting 021021
A
B
A
D
D
C
C
C
Second,
let's
look
at
the
board
of
commissions
for
the
ethics
commission
that
on
the
bottom,
it's
all
right
in
the
middle
of
state
that
a
commissioner,
no
member
of
the
commission
shall
serve
more
than
three
full
terms:
go
down
to
district
eight
elsa
galvan
was
termed
out
in
2020
and
according
to
the
holdover
clause,
there
is
no
holdover
clock
on
this.
That
is
only
reserved
for
the
board
of
adjustment
planning
and
zoning
and
the
municipal
civil
service
commission.
C
C
Nowhere
at
all,
so
I'm
asking
you
all
to
suspend
this
meeting
and
ask
your
lawyers
if
y'all
can
proceed
because
to
the
june
19th
2020
meeting
was
in
direct
violation
of
the
texas
opens
meeting
act
now
mr
patino
he's
a
very
intelligent
man,
but
all
those
motions
that
he
made
are
invalid
and
to
me,
in
my
opinion,
he
had
an
attorney
write
him.
So
mr
dr
martinez
could
get
off
the
hook.
Mr
martinez
is
not
off
the
hook,
because
that
meeting
violated
the
texas
open
meeting
that.
C
Up
here
that
are
biased,
mr
contrera,
mr
zapata
and
miss
alexander.
They
can't
hear
this
meeting
also
dr
martinez
and
mr
and
dr
and
mr
pettis
won't
be
able
to
hear
it.
So
you
have
five
members
that
are
out,
and
the
other
thing
I
can
see
is
that
the
city
manager
cannot
appoint
an
ad
hoc
committee
because
he
has
a
direct
conflict
of
interest
being
doctor-patient
relation
with
dr
martinez.
C
A
D
A
E
A
Okay
minutes
are
approved
at
this
time.
I
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
maybe
review
what
has
been
brought
to
light
to
make
sure
that
we
are
in
compliance
with
this
meeting.
So
I'd
like
to
see
if
we
could
go
into
if
we
have
any
members
that
would
like
to
motion
to
go
into
executive
session.
So
we
can
discuss
this
with
the
attorneys.
A
A
G
A
Perfect,
okay!
Well
with
that
being
said,
then
we'll
go
ahead
and
continue
with
item
number
four
4a,
which
is
a
presentation
of
supplemental
ethical
ethics
reports
and
findings
by
outside
legal
counsel,
acting
in
capacity
as
the
ethics
compliance
officer.
In
response
to
the
motion
made
by
the
ethics
commission
back
on
june,
19
2020
for
the
investigation
of
potential
ethics
violations
by
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
of
texas
or
any
other
parties
in
regards
to
possible
violations
of
the
ethics
code
to
include
possible
violations
in
section
4.01
and
4.02
and
any
other
matter
incident
there
too,.
I
J
A
H
H
I
Ruling
number
three
was
who
or
what
parties
disclose
council
member
martinez's
alleged
violations
to
the
public,
and
the
commissioner
will
recall
that
there
was
some
discussion
that
the
public
was
aware
about
the
disclosure
that
there
might
be
a
conflict
of
interest
before
the
commission
was
presented
with
that
report,
and
so
that
was
a
concern
that
was
voiced
by
the
commission
at
that
time.
So
that
was
ruling
number
three,
and
these
two
rulings
were
what
the
commission
asked
me
to
look
into.
I
Facts
which
reasonably
understood
would
have
raised
a
question
as
to
whether
council
member
would
violate
the
ethics
code.
Section
2.01
regarding
improper
conflicts
of
interest
by
participating
in
the
council
meeting
where
the
council
voted
on
the
contract
to
blue
cross
blue
shield.
So,
basically,
council
member
martinez
was
supposed
to
disclose
the
fact
that
he
may
have
a
contractual
relationship
with
blue
cross,
but
so
does
blue
cross
blue
cross
independently
has
to
disclose
the
fact
that
councilman
rodinez
was
an
int
network.
I
As
to
ruling
number
three
council
member,
al
gilt
was
identified
as
the
source
of
the
public
disclosure
and
there
are
laws
protecting
the
dissemination
information
regarding
protection
of
sources,
but
there
there
is
specifically
sections
of
the
code
that
require
the
disclosure
of
those
facts.
Just
some
background
facts.
If
we
look
back
at
the
procurement
process,
the
laredo
medical
plan
benefit
services
was
a
contract
that
was
put
out
for
bid
by
the
city
of
laredo.
I
The
procurement
process
of
the
laredo
medical
plan,
benefit
of
services,
included,
self-funded
medical
plan,
medical
provider
networks,
pharmacy
benefit
plan,
administration,
stop
loss,
insurance,
administration
of
cobra,
section,
125,
plan
administration
and
medicare
supplement
carrier.
So
when
the
city
put
out
this
to
bid,
it
was
a
very
large
contract
that
covered
these
areas
of
services
that
were
put
out
to
bid.
I
I
Five
companies
bid
for
various
parts
of
the
the
insurance
contract,
those
those
different
parts
that
I
showed
you,
but
only
two
companies
offered
what
we
call
bundle
packages
and
that
was
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
and
aetna.
The
city
staff
recommended
edna.
The
award
eventually
went
to
blue
cross
and
blue
shield.
I
So
the
the
question
that
arose
in
the
weather
in
ruling
number
two
was
whether
or
not
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
violated.
Section
.402
.402
reads
as
follows:
says
disclosures
during
appearances,
a
person
appearing
before
a
city
board
or
other
city
body
shall
disclose
to
it.
Any
known
facts
which
isn't
reasonably
understood,
raise
a
question
as
to
whether
any
member
of
the
board
or
body
would
violate
section
2.01,
the
conflicts
of
interest
section
by
participating
in
official
action
relating
to
a
matter
pending
before
the
border
body.
I
The
disclosure
is
also
required
to
be
in
in
proposals
any
individual
or
business
entity
seeking
a
discretionary
contract
or
purchase
order
with
the
city
shall
disclose
on
a
form
provided
by
the
city.
Any
known
facts
which
reasonably
understood
raise
a
question
as
to
whether
any
city
official
would
violate
the
conflict
of
intersection
by
participating
in
official
action
relating
to
any
contract,
and
as
we
you
recall,
we
went
over
section
2.01.
I
Economic
interest,
as
we
discussed
previously,
is
defined
pretty
broadly
it
is.
It
includes
intangibles
and
contractual
rights
having
more
than
a
diminished
minimum
value.
So
what
does
this
mean?
What
this
means
is
that,
if
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
would
have
to
disclose
any
relationship
that
it
had
with
any
official
that
had
a
an
economic
interest
in
the
contract
that
is,
is
being
considered.
I
I
Councilwoman
rafinus
is
also
an
in-network
physician
for
aetna,
so
the
the
same
would
apply
to
to
edna,
but
since
we
were
discussing
blue
cross
and
blue
shield,
this
is
what
I
focused
on
there's
another
provision.
That
is
very
important
and
the
reason
why
I
put
it
it's
not
because
it
is
in
our
ethics
code,
but
because
I
think
that
go.
I
This
goes
to
the
extent
at
which
some
of
these
large
companies,
especially
outside
vendors,
especially
somebody
as
of
the
level
of
sophistication
as
blue
cross,
should
know
better,
and
the
reason
I
I
put
this
section
of
the
local
government
code
is
because,
even
if
there
could
be
any
comment
by
blue
cross
and
blue
shield,
that
says
look.
We
were
not
familiarized
that
well
with
your
ethics
code,
something
which
they
should
chapter
176
of
the
texas
local
government
code,
which
is
a
state
statute,
has
a
very
similar
requirement.
I
It's
almost
a
verbatim
as
to
what
our
ethics
code
provides,
and
it
basically
says
that
a
vendor
has
to
file
a
complete,
completed
conflict
of
interest
questionnaire
if
the
vet,
if
the
vendor,
has
a
business
relationship
with
a
local
government
entity
and
an
employment
or
other
business
relationship
with
the
local
government
officers.
So
you
see
the
similarities
between
between
both
of
those.
I
And
so
in
in
reading
those
sections
you
know,
it
is
certainly
my
opinion
that
that
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
should
have
made
that
disclosure
known
in
in
the
presentation
of
its
bid
now
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
did
give
and
they
tell
us
that
they
give.
They
gave
a
list
of
the
in-network
physicians
in
a
directory
when
they
filed
their
bid
as
part
of
that
procurement
process.
I
The
other
thing
they
mentioned
was
that
the
information
about
their
in-network
physicians
is
available
online.
It
is
with
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
is
accessible
to
the
public
in
general,
and
I
was
able
to
find
that
information
back
when
we
did
the
the
initial
report,
and
so
here's
where
I
I
want
to
switch
over
and
show
you
a
couple
of
of
the
exhibits
that
I
think
get
into
what
blue
cross
was
supposed
to
show.
J
I
So
this
is
exhibit
one
of
the
report.
This
was
the
actual
response
that
was
provided
by
blue
cross
blue
shield
in
their
procurement
package,
part
of
their
their
package.
Okay-
and
this
is
a
form-
that's
used
by
the
city
of
laredo,
when
it's
given
to
outside
vendors,
to
provide
bids
for
contracts,
and
so
I've
highlighted
some
sections
that
are
significant.
I
The
contract
requirements
of
section
4
says
the
code
of
ethics
ordinance
is,
is
applicable
and
vendors
doing
business
with
the
city
of
laredo
shall
comply
with
all
provisions
of
the
city
of
laredo's
codes
of
ethics.
So
right
there
they're
telling
you,
even
if
you
don't
know
what
our
code
is.
All
of
your
bids
shall
be
subject
to
our
code
of
ethics
and
the
the
the
form
used
by
the
city
specifically
says
that
you
have
to
fill
out
a
non-collusive
affidavit
which
has
to
be
filled
out
and
submitted.
I
The
form
contract
by
the
city
of
laredo
goes
on
to
say
that
the
texas
ethics
commission
form
1295,
which
is
also
attached,
has
a
certificate
certificate
of
interest
at
parties,
and
it
goes
on
to
read
in
an
effort
to
comply
with
state
law.
The
certificate
of
interest
parties
must
be
filled
out
once
a
vendor
has
been
granted
a
contract
as
a
separate
requirement.
I
This
was
also
not
done
by
blue
cross
by
the
way
in
2015,
the
texas
legislature
adopted
house
bill
1295,
which
added
section
2252.908
of
the
government
code.
The
law
states
that
a
governmental
entity
or
state
agency
may
not
enter
into
certain
contracts
with
a
business
entity
unless
the
business
entity
submits
a
disclosure
of
interested
parties
to
the
governmental
entity
or
state
agency.
At
the
time,
the
business
entity
submits
the
signed
contract.
I
I
I
He
says
I
did
not
give
permission
for
my
name
to
be
on
this.
Oh
I'm
sorry
excuse
me.
This
was
a
response
to
council
members.
Al
gill's
posting
of
the
ethics
complaint
in
our
laredo
and
facebook
and
the
city
official
tells
council
member
al
guilt
that
she
did
not
give
permission
for
her
name
to
be
on
the
document,
and
this
was
the
ethics
violation
report
image
that
was
put
on
the
facebook
page
of
our
laredo.
I
This
was
not
the
one
that
was
actually
filed
because
in
this
particular
report,
you'll
see
that
this
says
reported
by
mayor
pete,
science,
council,
member
george,
alguilt,
council,
member
nelly,
vilma,
and
it
also
mentions
council,
city
manager,
rosario,
cabello
and
hr
director,
melina
bermudez,
and
so
what
the
city
official
is
telling
councilman
al
guilt
is
that
they
didn't
authorize
or
give
permission
for
their
name
to
be
used
on
the
report.
Much
less
to
have
it
published
in
social
media.
I
I
So
the
only
persons
that
were
reporting
the
ethics
violation
was
the
mayor
and
council
members
al
guilt
and
viewing,
and
so
I
look
into
whether
or
not
you
know
I
talked
to
some
folks
with
our
laredo
and
they
obviously
said
that
they
did
not
have
this
posted
that
they
we're
not
showing
this
to
the
public.
But
I
think
we
can
gather
from
it
that
that
the
original
pose
was
came
from
mr
album.
I
F
I
F
F
F
It
may
not
show
you
the
post
itself,
but
it
will
show
you
an
activity
log
that
something
that
that
facebook
does
have
the
ability
to
track
and
that
again
something
that
you
could
have
requested
or
may
be
able
to
request
from
algoredo
is
a
a
copy
of
their
activity.
Log
from
the
back
end
of
their
facebook
page.
A
I
Yes,
sir,
and
like
I
said,
the
the
evidence
that
we
had
that
it
had
been
is
because
that's
how
the
the
city
official
saw
the
report
and
so
she's
like
grabbing
this
from
the
facebook
page
and
saying
hey,
I
didn't
authorize
my
name
to
be
on
this
report,
that's
where
she
got
it
and
so
from
interviewing
her.
I
know
that
it
was
on
their
facebook
page,
that's
where
she
found
it,
and
so
that
led
to
this.
I
F
F
I
Yes,
and
and
in
the
course
of
the
investigation
you
know
I
talked
to,
I
did
talk
to
mr
al
guilt
and
but
no
I
know
that
he
went
to
to
kgns
at
some
point
subsequent
to
this
and
he
was
interviewed
there.
But
I
was
never
able
to
find
directly
that
or
indirectly
that
this
was
given
to
any
any
other
media.
I
I
I
I
do
want
to
mention
one
other
exhibit
and
let
me
see
if
I
can
reshare
here.
This
is
the.
Can
everybody
see
this?
Yes,
this
is,
and
we
can
discuss
sort
of
what
what
transpires
with
those
two
rulings
in
the
course
of
the
investigation.
But
this
is
what
causes
me
a
little
bit
of
concern
with
regard
to
the
law
of
agency
and
and
what
I
want
to
to
talk
to
you
about
is
in
in
law.
I
I
When
I
made
an
inquiry-
and
I
asked
him
several
questions
about
their
knowledge-
about
dr
martinez,
being
an
in-network
physician
and
their
obligations
to
notify
the
city,
and
these
were
five
questions
that
I
asked
of
blue
cross.
Did
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
know
that
council,
member
martin
martinez
was
an
inadequate
provider
for
you.
I
When
you
submitted
the
bid
proposal
to
the
city
of
laredo,
did
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
give
the
city
of
loreto
notice
that
council
member
martinez
was
a
network
provider
if
it
did,
how
did
it
provide
notice
and
to
whom
did
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
provide
notice?
Any
third
party
that
dr
martinez
was
a
network
provider
like,
for
example,
lavadale
insurance?
I
As
part
of
the
bidding
process
and
prior
to
reward
information
showing
dr
martinez's
status
as
an
in-network
provider
was
provided
to
the
city's
consultant,
randy
mcgraw
of
international,
a
review
of
the
file
provided
to
mcgraw
in
march
2019
by
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
at
the
request
of
the
city,
indicates
the
inclusion
of
dr
martinez
in
the
searchable
files
that
listed
all
network
providers.
So
they're
saying
we
did
provide
noticed
that
dr
martinez
wasn't
in
our
provider.
It
was
in
our
directory.
I
In
addition,
we
believe
that
dr
martinez's
status
as
a
network
provider
with
blue
cross,
edna,
cigna
and
other
administrator
administrators
is
also
public
information
readily
available.
That's
what
we're
saying,
they're
saying:
hey
it's
online,
you
city
of
laredo
are
under
a
duty
to
go.
Look
for
it.
Look
at
our
website.
Look
in
our
search
engines
to
see
if
your
council
member
is
in
a
network,
so
the
city's
procurement
team
could
easily
query
provider
finder
tools
if
its
members
had
concerns
or
questions
about
the
identity
of
a
network
provider
or
providers
in-network
or
out-of-network
status.
I
Finally,
as
a
well-known
local
physician,
it
was
reasonable
to
assume
that
dr
martinez's
provider
status
was
widely
available
to
city
procurement
staff,
especially
as
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
is
the
legacy
provider
of
administrative
services
for
the
city
of
laredo
self-funded
group
medical
benefit
plan.
So,
basically
you're
saying
you
should
have
known
it's
common
knowledge,
despite
the
fact
that
they
were
supposed
to
make
those
disclosures
in
the
form,
despite
the
fact
that
they
swore
in
those
disclosure
forms
that
there
was
no
conflict
of
interest.
I
I
I
wanted
to
kind
of
go
over
because
they
kind
of
go
on
to
the
discussion,
but
but
my
concern
was
more
with
their
response
as
to
laurel,
and
it's
here
in
this
in
this.
In
this
paragraph,
dr
martinez's
status
as
an
in-networker
out
of
network
provider
was
not
discussed
or
raised
by
any
person
involved
in
the
city
of
laredo
medical
benefit,
administrator
procurement
process,
again,
switching
the
burden,
putting
it
on
the
city
on
the
city
of
laredo.
I
Nor
was
it
raised
by
laudelle
agency
laurel
agency.
Is
the
agent
colloquially
referenced
as
a
broker
of
record
for
the
city
of
laredo,
as
the
city's
broker
of
record
laurel
is
recognized
as
the
city's
representative
in
negotiations
with
blue
cross
for
the
city's
employee
benefit
programs,
the
broker
is
authorized
by
the
city
to
perform
membership
transactions
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
laredo
employees
and
collaborate
with
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
account
management
team
in
relation
to
the
services
provided
to
the
city's
employees.
I
I
This
paragraph
is
very
important
and-
and
I
think
this
is
where,
for
future
reference,
the
city
should
be
careful
when
an
outside
person
believes
that
a
particular
individual
is
acting
as
someone's
agent
and
they're.
Not,
then,
the
city
needs
to
correct
that,
so
whether
they
have
a
misconception
of
the
relationship
between
the
city
and
laurel
insurance
is
one
thing,
but
I
think
it's
it's
incumbent
that
it
that
perception
be
corrected
because
they're
putting
once
they
think
or
once
they
tell
the
city
that
laurel
agency
is
acting
as
an
agent
for
the
city.
I
It's
incumbent
on
the
principle
in
in
this
regard
the
city
of
laredo,
to
correct
that
misconception,
and
so
I
was
a
little
bit
concerned
when
they
said
that,
because
this
surprised
me,
I
was
always
under
the
impression
that
laurel
agency
was
helping
various
insurance
companies
in
the
procurement
process,
but
they
were
representing
those
insurance
companies
or
acting
as
an
agent
of
the
insurance
companies.
In
the
procurement
process,
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
is
turning
this
around
and
saying
hey
laurel.
I
F
Mr
chairman,
if
I,
if
I
may,
then
the
question
becomes,
is
or
is
isla
an
agent
for
the
city,
or
was
it
not
an
agent
for
the
city?
What
does
the
I
mean
at
the
end
of
the
day,
what
was
the
actual
relationship
between
lauren
and
the
city
and
laurel
and
blue
cross
blue
shield,
who
were
they
acting
as
an
agent
on
behalf
of
exactly.
I
I
H
I
Know
laurel
was
helping
acting
as
an
agent
as
a
broker
for
these
insurance
companies
and
the
reason
it
helps
the
insurance
companies
is
because
having
a
local
broker,
then
that
broker
can
work
with
assisting
the
city,
if
there's
any
claims,
adjusting
those
claims
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
I
was
really
taken
aback
by
that
that
response
from
from
blue
cross.
I
was
really
surprised
that
they
would
then
turn
around
and
try
to
make
the
the
laurel
an
agent
of
the
city.
A
And
now
there
may
be
an
agent
but
they're
an
agent
for
blue
cross
and
bruce
blue
shield.
If
anything,
they're
just
they're
just
providing
an
option
for
the
city
as
a
broker
and
say
hey,
you
can
use
blue
cross
or
blue
shield,
or
you
can
use
this
other
company
or
this
other
company
or
this
other
company.
That
may
provide
a
bid
for
you
guys,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
procurement
department
is
the
one
that
makes
the
decision
based
off
of
the
bids
that
are
provided
to
them.
Is
that
correct?
That's
that's
correct!.
I
I
I
would
I
would
agree
with
that.
I
would
agree
with
that
assessment
that
there
was
they
were
acting
as
a
yeah
outside
yeah
outside
provider,
to
assist
the
city
in
the
procurement
process
in
one,
because
that
you
saw
the
scope
of
the
contract
right,
it's
a
massive
contract
and
it
gets
very
technical.
F
What
hub
international
had
any
responsibility
in
disclosing
a
potential
conflict?
Would
they
have
been
in
the
position
that
blue
cross
blue
shield
is
claiming
laurel
is
in?
In
other
words,
if
they
were
acting
as
an
agent
for
the
city,
they
should
have
known
that
dr
martinez.
As
a
was
an
in-network
provider,
yeah.
I
And
and
that's
what
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
is
saying,
obviously,
but
the
difference
is
that
hub
international
is
not
making
the
bid
right,
the
one
that's
making
the
bid
is
blue
cross.
When
I
did
talk
to
to
mr
mcgraw
about
that,
he
said
yeah
I
saw
that
his
name
was
in
the
directory.
But
again
it's
not
his
duty
right,
contractually.
The
one
that
has
the
duty
is
the
one
who's
bidding
and
so
yeah
interesting.
I
You
know
I
can
see
where
blue
cross.
This
is
kind
of
like
their
defense,
like
saying,
hey,
look
we
did
provide,
you
notice,
unfortunately,
doesn't
meet
the
the
specific
requirements
of
the
ethics
code
and
and
the
disclosure
forms
that
the
city
of
laredo
has
but,
like
I
said
in
all
fairness,
aetna
didn't
either.
You
know
we
went
back
and
looked
at
aetna's
bid
proposal
and,
and
they
didn't
either-
I
just
you
know
these
are
large
companies.
These
are
sophisticated
companies.
I
A
Is
it?
Is
it
the
responsibility
of
the
bidder,
in
this
case
being
aetna,
blue
costa,
blue
shield,
or
whichever
other
insurance
company
out
there
to
go
out
and
investigate?
Who
are
each
and
every
councilman
that
could
be
on
there?
Who
is
every
employee?
That's
out
there
that
works
for
the
city
and
you
know
be
able
to
figure
out
like
well?
Yes,
I
am
in
violation
or
no
I'm
not
in
violation.
A
I
mean
you
know,
like
you
say,
these
are
big
companies
that
are
that
are
going
after
a
bid,
but
at
the
same
time
you
know
I
mean
how
specific
do
they
have
to
get
or
what
is
the
proper
procedure,
because
I
mean
they're
following
the
guidelines
that
are
provided
to
them
on
the
bid
and
to
their
knowledge
as
it
states.
Here
we
are
not
in
violation
of
these
things,
but
again
you
know
I'm
not
sure
how
deep
in
detail
one
should
get
when
or
you
know
one
of
these
companies
should
get
when
they're
bidding
this.
H
I
A
I
It's
a
it's
a
direct
relationship
at
that
point.
It's
not
like
it's
a
city
employee
that
maybe
works
at
the
health
department.
That's
a
physician
but
doesn't
have
the
the
decision
on
on
on
whether
to
award
the
bid
or
not
right.
So
let's
say
we
have
a
doctor
that
works
with
the
health
department
as
a
consultant
and
that
doctor
is
an
in-network
physician
for
for
blue
cross.
But
that
physician
doesn't
have
the
the
vote.
It
can't
decide
whether
the
contract
is
awarded
to
blue
cross
or
to
edna.
I
I
I
I
believe
so
I
believe
so
that
that
would
have
been.
You
know
we
discussed
that
at
the
june
meeting
you
know
about
council
member
martinez
of
whether
or
not
he
had
done
it.
You
know
the
first
one
is
whether
or
not
he
should
have
recused
himself.
The
second
part
of
the
analysis
that
we
looked
into
was
whether
he
had
done
it
knowingly
and
that's
where
the
commission
found,
I
think
rightfully
so
that
there
really
was
the
fact
that
he
participated.
I
The
fact
that
he
disclosed
yeah,
I'm
a
doctor-
and
I
know
about
this-
I
think
he
freely
and
openly
was
trying
to
do
the
right
thing.
At
least
you
know
that's
the
way
I
viewed
it,
but
I
think
that
that
you
know
he
should
have
recused
him,
so
you
should
have
voted
on
it
and
I
think
that's
the
the
the
right
response
on
that.
I
I
So
that
you
know
I
I
think
that
was
the
the
issue
that
really
stuck
out
to
me
was
that
letter
from
blue
cross,
because
I
think
that
that
creates
potential
problems
for
the
city.
Ethically,
what
to
do?
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
something
that
the
commission
certainly
can
can
discuss.
You
know,
council,
member,
al
guilt
is
no
longer
a
board
member,
I'm
just
giving
a
council
member,
but
that's
that's.
I'm
sorry.
F
Mr
chairman,
regarding
the
second
item,
which
is
the
disclosure
issue,
were
there
any
policies
or
rules
laws
broken
with
that
disclosure?
Did
he
that
any
one
of
those
three
members
who
were
named
in
the
complaint
violate
any
section
of
the
ethics
code
or
government
code,
or
did
they
inadvertently
disclose?
You
know
potential
hipaa
information
by
making
those
disclosures
did
they
use
their
position
to
do
so?
What,
in
essence,
is,
is
the
the
complaint
and,
and
where
does
it
fall?
What
triggers
that
complaint.
H
I
So
section
2.02
and
section
2.04
come
into
play
when
it
when
it
discusses
or
in
discussion.
I
guess
it's.
It's
significant
for
our
purposes
of
our
discussion
right,
so
the
general
rule
is
that
a
city,
official
or
employee
shall
not
use
his
or
her
official
position
to
un
unfairly
advance
or
impede
private
interests
or
to
grant
or
secure
or
attempt
to
grant
or
secure
for
any
person,
including
himself
or
herself,
any
form
of
special
consideration,
treatment,
exemption
or
advantage
beyond
that
which
is
lawfully
available
to
other
persons.
I
Section
2.04,
improper
access,
a
city,
official
or
employee
shall
not
use
his
or
her
position
to
obtain
official
information
about
any
person
or
entity
for
any
purpose
other
than
the
performance
of
official
duties,
and
it
goes
on
to
go
discussing
proper
access
reviews,
a
city,
official
or
employee,
shall
not
intentionally
knowingly
or
recklessly
disclose
any
information
gained
by
reason
of
said,
official
or
employees.
Position
concerning
the
property
records,
operations,
policies
or
affairs
of
the
city,
including
those
items
disclosed
disclosed,
discussed
in
closed
or
executive
session.
I
And
was
he
using
the
fact
that,
as
a
city
official,
he
had
access
to
this
report
had
access
to
the
information
and
then
used
that
intentionally
or
knowingly
to
disclose
that
information?
So
you
know
he
would
have
had
dis
information
if
he
would
a
private.
If
you
were
a
private
citizen,
he
had
access
to
this
information
as
a
city
official.
So
those
are
the
two
sections
of
the
ethics
code
that
that
are
applicable.
F
I
That's
a
that's,
a
very
good
question
because
I
think
you're
making
a
very
fine
distinction,
and
yes,
I
think
I
think
that's
of
the
two.
I
think
that's
really
where
we
get
into
that.
He
obviously
had
access
to
information
as
a
city
official,
and
I
think
that
he,
he
obviously
intentionally
knowingly
disclosed
it
to
arloredo
the
first
section
2.02.
I
think
you
rightfully
make
a
distinction
in
showing
that
you
know
was
he
in
advancing
his
position
politically.
I
That
would
necessitate
further
an
in-depth
investigation
right
whether
he
was
getting
any
type
of
special
favors.
I
don't
know.
I
think
the
point
is
that
he
had
access
to
information
and
he
disclosed
that
information
and
the
access
that
he
had.
The
information
that
he
had
was
specifically
because
of
his
position.
So.
G
Let
me
just
interject
I
I
know
this
is
mr
tameza's
report
and
his
his
investigation.
I
just
just
as
part
of
the
ethics
issue.
This
is
not
going
to
be
an
evidence,
you're
hearing
for
you,
gentlemen,
it's
it's
only
a
report
and,
ultimately,
all
findings
of
and
conclusions
are
ultimately
ultimately
going
to
be
the
commissions
and,
and
mr
domes,
I
don't
mean
to
interject
at
that
point.
No.
F
I
A
I
Yes,
sir,
yes,
and-
and
I
think
that's
why
it's
fair-
also
to
mention
that
edna
didn't
disclose,
we
did
look
at
the
contract
that
edna
had
had
had
bid
their
package
and
they
didn't
disclose
that
that
doctor
excuse
me,
council,
member
martinez
was
an
in-network
physician
either.
So
it
seems
like
we
have.
You
know
it's
not
it's
not
just
blue
cross.
It
seems
like
this
is
a
problem.
That's
that's
transcending
these
insurance
providers.
I
I
will
point
out
that
I,
when
I
tried
to
look
at
aetna's
directory
online
it
wouldn't
let
me
that
one
is
not
open
to
the
public
and-
and
at
this
point
I
don't
recall
if
if
they
provided
a
directory
like
blue
cross,
but
we
do
know
from
talking
to
council
member
martinez
that
he
is
also
a
net
network
provider,
and
that
was
his
argument.
His
argument
was
look
basically
today,
doctors.
This
is
the
way
they
practice.
H
I
You
know
yeah,
I
agree,
I
I
think
that
they
do,
but
but
there
is
a
quit
pro
quo.
There
is
a
benefit
both
to
the
insurance
company
and
to
the
doctor
to
be
in
that
work
because
their
they're
benefiting
from
the
advertising
they're
getting
you
know
we're
talking
about
a
group
of
over
2000
potential
patients
and
and
they're
listed
in
their
directory.
They're
gonna
be
sent
directly
to
this
doctor
and
and
the
doctor
charges
a
lesser
amount
right.
B
I
B
I
I
Yes,
okay,
so
I
put
it
as
kind
of
like
a
footnote
because
it
does
in
the
general
rule
mention
the
term
economic
interest
and
economic
interest
is
defined
in
section
2.01.
A17.
Excuse
me,
1
8.
I
believe
economic
interest
is
defined
to
include
but
not
limited,
to
intangibles
and
contractual
rights
having
more
than
a
de
minimis
value.
I
So
it's
a
very
low
threshold
as
to
what
an
economic
interest
is
and
and
certainly
there's
a
contractual
right,
because
there's
an
agreement
between
a
blue
cross
and
the
physician
that
they're
going
to
be
a
network
and
there's
benefits
that
are
exchanged
between
the
parties
and
the
minimum
is
value.
I
think
it
doesn't.
You
know,
de
minimis.
Basically,
it's
a
very
low
threshold.
You
know
it
doesn't
mean
that
you
have
to
get
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
in
services
and
or
as
a
result
of
the
contract.
H
I
F
I
mean
I
I
I
submitted
bids
before
and
as
a
previous
council
member
have
reviewed
those
as
well
and
would
know
that
you
know
forms
1295
in
the
collusion.
The
affidavit
collusion
should
have
been
filled
out,
the
notice
of,
or
conflict
of
interest
disclosure
should
have
been
filled
out
and
that
there's
also
mechanisms
beyond
that
once
it
is
a
conflict,
is
discovered.
I
think
the
chairman
pointed
out
a
a
really
important
point
that
it's
really
hard
to
police.
When
you
have
thousands
of
employees
and
these
entities
don't
know
necessarily
know
who
has
what
role.
F
I
Yeah,
a
good
question-
I
you
know
certainly
we're
talking
with
mr
mcgraw.
You
know,
I
think
he
he
puts
the
the
that
duty,
that
obligation
on
the
on
the
outside
vendor
right
at
what
point
did
you
know?
Are
you
saying?
Did
mr
mcgraw
have
a
duty?
Well,
not
not,
pursuant
to
our
ethics
code,
you
know,
I
think
city
officials
later
on
knew
obviously
that
that
he
was
in
network.
I
I
think
the
communication
should
should
be
there
and
I
think
it
should
be
pointed
out
specifically
in
this
instance,
because
they're
kind
of
changing
that
that
agency
relationship
and
making
laurel
an
agent
of
the
city.
We
have
to
correct
that.
But
you
know-
and
I
don't
know
what
the
city
does-
mr
bilomatis,
with
regard
to
communications
with
bidders
in
in
telling
them
hey
guys.
Beware:
this
is
our
ethics
code.
These
are
the
forms
you
need
to
fill
out.
Please
be
careful.
I
You
know
certainly,
like
I
said
sophisticated
party,
this
blue
cross
has
a
in-house
lawyer
and
they
even
hired
a
local
lawyer.
So
in
this
matter
is
so
they
know
how
to
read.
They
certainly
know
the
rules
in
that
particular
instance.
I
think
there
really
isn't
a
lot
that
we
can
take
and
say
you
know
it
was
a
mistake.
It
was
a
it's
there.
I
don't
know
how
how
much
more
clear
it
can
be,
but
as
far
as
the
city
procedure-
and
you
know,
city
officials
were
dealing
with
smaller
companies.
I
You
bring
a
good
point,
because
a
smaller
company
may
not
have
access
to
that
that
this
may
not
be
something
they
do
on
on
a
frequent
basis.
So
you
know,
does
the
city
provide?
You
know
some
kind
of
training,
or
some
kind
of
you
know
process
that
I
I
am
not
aware
of,
I
I
I
must
admit,
but
that
would
that
would
not
be
a
bad
thing
to
do,
but
to
avoid
those
specific
instances
like
you
said,
you
know
smaller
companies
may
not
they
may
not
know.
I
mean
the
difference
between
an
economic
interest.
I
I
mean
you
saw
the
definition.
I
mean
it's
not
it's
not
an
easy
thing
to
to
sift
through
right,
so
an
individual
who
who's
never
had
any
legal
experience
in
their
in
their
lives,
may
unwittingly
not
make
a
disclosure,
and
in
that
case
I
think
you
need
to
treat
that
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
It's
different,
I
think,
when
you've
got
a
company
that
has
in-house
and
a
house
legal
department,
they
do
these
bids
on
a
regular
basis.
They
deal
with
these
issues
on
a
frequent
basis.
That's
a
little
bit
different
agree
agreed.
E
Just
real
quickly,
vidal
francisco,
you
mentioned
two
of
the
five
insurance
companies
had
that
same
situation
with
that
council
member,
we
don't
know
what
happened
with
the
other
three
right.
In
other
words,
we
just
know
that
we
we
know
in
aetna
and
blue
cross
blue
shield.
They
didn't
disclose
that
we
don't
know
if
the
other
insurance
companies
also
had
that
problem.
E
It's
because
I
see
what
gene
is
saying,
it
looks
like
we
might
have
a
a
problem
here
that
that's
going
broad
in
scope
that
maybe
we
do
have
to
address,
because
it
wasn't
just
one
making
a
mistake:
it's
independent
parties
here
both
make
it
well,
then,
maybe
there's
a
failure
to
communicate
or
somehow
we
need
to
tighten
that
that
string
a
little
bit
more.
Yes,
sir,.
I
Yeah
in
and
if
the
two
that
did
a
package
bundle
for
services
were
those
two
and
in
that
package
of
bundle
included
the
health
insurance
provision
for
the
city
employees.
So
that's
those
were
the
ones
that
specifically
fell
into
the
realm
of
of
of
council
member
martinez,
the
other
insurance
companies,
if
I
remember
correctly,
had
to
do
with
death
benefits,
there
was
a
death
benefit
provision.
I
There
was
there
were
several
other
insurances
that
were
independent,
and
so
he
may
have
not
obviously
been
an
network
provider,
for
you
know
a
health
company
that
that
deals
with
death
benefits
if
one
of
the
cn
employees
passes
away.
There's
death
benefits.
That
may
you
know,
so.
I
think
the
only
two
that
that
specifically
dealt
with
the
health
insurance
package
of
it
were
edna
and
blue
cross
blue
shield
got.
F
I
D
D
A
A
A
Are
we
gonna
propose
an
evidentiary
hearing
to
to
see
if,
in
fact,
blue
cross
and
blue
shield
was
in
violation
of
these
codes
and
also
if,
by
by
from
the
presentation,
if
ex-councilman
elliot,
was
in
violation
of
2.04
from
the
ethics
code,
or
is
that
something
we
can
discuss
right
now
I
mean
we
don't
even
have
to
go
out
there.
If
we
don't
have
yes,.
G
D
D
D
F
You
know
the
ethics
commission
serves
to
hear
complaints
about
violations
of
our
ethics,
regardless,
whether
it's
done
by
a
an
elected
official
or
a
former
elected
official
or
a
private
citizen
who
may
have
in
his
relationship
with
the
city,
violated
our
ethics.
So
yeah.
I
think,
if
we're
going
to
proceed
with
the
with
a
evidentiary
hearing,
for
both
a
and
b
for
blue
cross
blue
shield,
I
think
we
ought
to
proceed
with
the
one
for
for
b
as
well,
and
then
let
let
the
evidentiary
presentations.
H
H
F
D
F
F
A
G
No,
no,
you
were
correct
on
that
statement.
The
the
information
is,
it's
not
only
for
officials
but
but
at
the
time
you're.
Considering,
also,
though
the
issue
as
to
at
the
time
when
this
person
was
that's
when
the
complaint
was
made,
so
you
the
the
same,
I
guess
avenues
or
the
range
of
whatever
action
you're
going
to
take
applies
to
that
person
as
well.
F
E
Gene
yeah
I'll
just
go
go
I
I
I
see
what
mr
belmatt
has
brought
up
and
I
thought
the
purpose
of
the
ethics
commission
is
to
set
a
standard
of
conduit
and
the
conduct
applies
to
all
people,
employees,
people
doing
business.
So
even
if
it
goes
beyond-
and
it's
not
that's,
not
our
job.
Our
job
is
right
now
just
to
make
that
determination.
A
D
A
J
F
And
then
that
goes
back
to
what
commissioner
ornelas
mentioned.
This
should
set
a
standard
for
all
of
us
that
serve
on
a
board
and
if
he
still
serves
on
the
board,
then
there
are
consequences
to
that.
Obviously,
and
and
we
should
be
setting
that
standard,
so
I
don't
believe
that
that
we
should
exclude
him
from
an
evidentiary
hearing.
F
A
Well,
we
well,
since
we
have
this
particular
motion
on
the
table
now
it's
the
one
that
we
would
vote
on
and
if
you
would
like
to
bring
another
motion
to
the
table
afterwards,
when
we
can
do
that
as
well.
Okay,
so
at
this
point
again,
mr
zapata,
can
you
repeat
your
motion
just
to
verify
exactly
what
we
are
voting
on
and
what
mr
martinez
has
seconded
you.