[00:00:02]
IT IS 9:00 AM.[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
IT IS FEBRUARY 19, 2025.I AM CALLING OFFICIALLY THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER THIS MORNING.
WE HAVE SOME OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE.
SOME WILL BE LEAVING HERE SHORTLY, BUT LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MA'AM.
>> COUNCILMEMBER BOB BROWN WON'T BE HERE TODAY.
>> VERY GOOD. I THINK, COUNCILMAN FINKLEA YOU'LL BE LEAVING SHORTLY, AND SHARON, I KNOW YOU'LL BE LEAVING ALSO.
>> HOW ABOUT 10:15? I HAVE TO PICK UP SOME SEASON SCENTS.
>> VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE FORWARD NOW, IF YOU'LL READ ITEM 3 (A), PLEASE, MA'AM.
[3.A. Receive a status report from the City Auditor related to the ongoing audit of the Park Board of Trustees and any observations the Auditor may have related to completion time. (Porretto/Rawlins)]
RECEIVE A STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY AUDITOR RELATED [NOISE] TO THE ONGOING AUDIT OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND ANY OBSERVATIONS THE AUDITOR MAY HAVE RELATED TO THE COMPLETION TIME.
>> VERY GOOD. LET'S INVITE OUR CITY AUDITOR, GLENN, HAVE A SEAT, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, SIR.
GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING, GLENN.
I KNOW COUNCILMAN FINKLEA HAS TO LEAVE QUICKLY, SO COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, I KNOW YOU WANTED TO SAY A FEW WORDS.
>> MAYOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND IRRESPECTIVE OF MY TIME.
MAYOR, NO COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL RELATED TO THIS MEETING, AND ADDITION INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE GALVESTON DAILY NEWS WAS NOT SHARED WITH COUNCIL.
WITHOUT A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS MEETING, THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE, PERFORM THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND DEVELOP THE NECESSARY QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO ENSURE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION.
FURTHERMORE, THE AUDIT OF THE PARK BOARD REMAINS INCOMPLETE.
YET CONCLUSIONS ARE BEING DRAWN BASED UPON A SINGULAR PERSPECTIVE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE PARK BOARD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
THERE ARE NO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDITOR ON THE TABLE, AND WITHOUT RECOMMENDATIONS, HOW CAN WE RESPONSIBLY IMPLEMENT ANY CHANGE? WE DO NOT YET KNOW THE FULL EXTENT OF THE ISSUES AT HAND.
TO TAKE ACTION ON INCOMPLETE DATA IS NOT ONLY PREMATURE, BUT IT'S ALSO RECKLESS AND SHORT SIGHTED.
OUR CITY AUDITOR GLENN BULGHERINI, WAS ALREADY SCHEDULED TO PRESENT THE AUDIT STATUS REPORT DURING NEXT WEEK'S REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. NEXT WEEK.
ONE WEEK, WHAT FINANCIAL RISK DOES THE CITY HAVE BY DEFERRING THIS EIGHT DAYS? GIVEN THIS URGE THE MEETING BE POSTPONED AND NO ACTION BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THE RESPONSES FROM THE PARK BOARD AND ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND AND CONTRIBUTE MEANINGFULLY, INCLUDING THIS COUNCIL'S APPOINTMENT TO THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COUNCILMEMBER BOB BROWN.
IN FACT, WE ALL DESERVE THAT RESPECT, IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF GOOD GOVERNANCE TO RESPECT THE TIME AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THOSE ELECTED TO SERVE.
COUNCIL DESERVES THE SAME PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT IS EXPECTED IN ANY SERIOUS DELIBERATIVE BODY.
LET US PROCEED WITH TRANSPARENCY, THOROUGHNESS, AND RESPECT FOR DUE PROCESS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN FINKLEA. YES.
>> WELL, ALL OF US HAVE MET WITH THE AUDITOR IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I KNOW THAT SHARON AND I DID YESTERDAY.
I THINK THE MATERIALS THAT WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO US, ALBEIT THAT THE AUDIT IS NOT COMPLETE.
JUSTIFIED HAVING THIS MEETING BECAUSE ANYTIME IT INVOLVES THE PUBLIC FUNDS TO EVEN DELAY IT A WEEK IS NOT THE WAY TO HANDLE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAIR TO OUR PUBLIC.
I WISH IT COULD HAVE BEEN A DATE AND I DID THE SEVENTH MEETING, BUT I CLEARED MY SCHEDULE THE MORNING TO MAKE THIS MEETING.
I DISAGREE WITH THE MEETING BEING POSTPONED.
I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING, I THINK THAT THE INPUT FROM THE AUDITOR WOULD BE VALUABLE.
I THINK WHAT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF YESTERDAY IS MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND I THINK WE NEED TO ALSO EXPAND THE AUDIT.
[00:05:05]
I SUGGEST WE CONTINUE WITH THE [INAUDIBLE]>> GLENN, SINCE YOU'RE HERE AT THE TABLE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MADE PUBLIC THAT YOU AFFORDED EACH OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU?
>> OVER THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF?
>> ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO EACH OF US WAS ALSO AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COUNCILMEMBER FINKLEA, AND COUNCILMEMBER BROWN?
>> EVERYONE HAS RECEIVED THE SAME INFORMATION.
SOMETIMES EVEN THOUGH THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED TO EVERYONE, I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ON THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE MEETING.
I UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO BE FAIR TO THOSE WHO WE REPRESENT, BUT IT'S FAIRNESS GIVING THEM A LITTLE SNIPPET OF 6% OF WHAT ARE, BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE CAN HEAR SOMETHING AND WE CAN JUST MOVE WITH IT, AND I'M STRANGE IN THE FACT THAT I LIKE TO LISTEN.
I LIKE TO TAKE MY TIME AND I LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THINGS.
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE HERE TODAY, I AM NOT CLEAR AS THE COUNCIL PERSON AS TO THE PURPOSE OF IT, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN IN THE NEWSPAPER.
PEOPLE HAVE HERITAGE, SO WHAT JUSTIFICATION ARE WE GOING TO BRING TO THIS?
>> THIS ORIGINAL AUDIT WAS I GUESS THE SPUR OF THE $13,000 THAT WE AUDITOR FOUND FROM THE PARK BOARD EMPLOYEE WHO HAD TAKEN PARK BOARD FUNDS.
FROM THAT, AS A COUNCIL, WE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.
AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING, AUDITOR TOLD US THAT IT WOULD BE READY IN JANUARY.
THAT WAS THE TIME WE WERE HAVING THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AUDIT TO DISCUSS IT WITH OUR BOARD MEMBERS.
THOSE REASONS ARE DOCUMENTED THROUGH OUR AUDITOR, AND I WAS CONCERNED AS TO WHY IT WAS NOT DONE IN THE MANNER AND TIME THAT WE WERE EXPECTING.
COME THE WEEK BEFORE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, COUNCILMAN RAWLINS AND I, WHO HAVE BEEN INSISTENT ON MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT OUR AUDITOR DOES IS FOLLOWED UP ON AND WE GET THE INFORMATION WORKED WITH.
ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, I MET WITH GLENN.
HE SAID, I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD COME IN.
SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE SAW BASED ON THE 6% SAMPLE SIZE WAS TROUBLING.
I THINK MARIE STATED IT CORRECTLY.
UPON FURTHER RESEARCH THEIR OWN PURCHASING POLICIES WERE BROKEN JUST ON THE FACE.
WE HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, FIRST AND FOREMOST, WHAT I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE UNDERSTANDING, AND YES, THAT ORIGINAL SPECIAL MEETING, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME INFORMATION HERE, GOT LEAKED TO THE PAPER, UNFORTUNATELY.
I DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT, AND I WAS EXPECTING THAT WE WOULD GET SOMETHING THAT LOOKED MORE LIKE WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT GOES THROUGH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
IT'S NOT AS TO BE TIED DOWN OR SENSATOUS.
NOW, SOME OF THE PURCHASES THAT WERE FOUND WERE TROUBLING THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS.
OUR AUDITOR SENT US AN UPDATE PRIOR TO CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING THAT HE WANTED TO BRING SOME OF THIS INFORMATION UP.
NOW, I BELIEVE SINCE WE ARE THE TAXING AUTHORITY, WE DO HAVE A FINANCIAL LIABILITY.
THE MOMENT WE HAVE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US THAT WE ARE MADE PRIVY TO AND AWARE OF.
THAT'S THE WAY I VIEW THE SEAT.
I THINK THE TAXPAYERS APPRECIATE THAT ABOUT BEING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.
QUINN TOLD ME AND VOWED THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHARE THIS WITH ALL THE COUNCIL, AND I SAID, PLEASE DO SO.
THAT'S THE POLICY WE DO AROUND HERE.
WE DO OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, COUNCIL SHARED WITH WHATEVER WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT WHICH I'M OKAY WITH.
NOW, SOME QUESTIONS CAME OUT OF THIS. POTENTIAL MISUSE.
DO WE WANT TO SPEND OUR HOT TAX ON THE THINGS THAT WE SAW? I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DIDN'T.
[00:10:02]
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT THE MONEY WAS GETTING SPENT ON.IF WE DON'T ACT QUICKLY, AND APPARENTLY, EVERYTHING LEAKS AROUND HERE, SO IF THE COMPTROLLER GOT A WHIFF OF THIS OR SOMETHING, WE WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.
COUNCIL WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND I FOUND IT PRUDENT TO DO IT.
NOW, THE GOAL IS TO PUT IN SOME GUARD RAILS, NOT TO ADVOCATE TO TAKE THE PARK BOARD'S FUNDS AWAY BUT TO PUT IN GUARD RAILS SO WE CAN ASSURE THAT WE DON'T SEE A CONTINUANCE OF THE SPENDING OF A SMALL AUDIT SIZE OF WHICH GLENN HAS ALREADY INFORMED COUNCIL, HE WAS GOING TO ASK US FOR AN INCREASE OF SCOPE TO DO THAT.
COMPTROLLER HAS A MEETING ON TUESDAY.
IF WE CAN GET JUST GUARDRAILS IN PLACE TO WHERE WE'RE MADE AWARE OF PURCHASING, WE CAN ENSURE THAT THIS SPENDING THAT IS APPARENT TO ME AND OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE, I WOULD HOPE THAT IT DOES NOT CONTINUE DOWN THE LINE.
TWO THINGS, I BELIEVE CAN BE TRUE AT ONCE.
GLENN DOES NEED TO FINISH HIS AUDIT.
BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WERE THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS THAT WE'RE PRIVY TO THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A STAND ON AND SAY, THAT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE AND WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE USE AT THE BOARD MEETING IN MARCH WITH OUR PARK BOARD.
BUT IF WE DON'T GET A HANDLE ON THIS, I THINK WE DO HAVE A FINANCIAL LIABILITY AS FIDUCIARIES OF THE CITY.
>> LET ME MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THIS, AND I'VE RESEARCHED THIS PRETTY THOROUGHLY SINCE THIS MEETING WAS CALLED, I THINK IT WAS A SURPRISE TO ALL OF US.
IT DIDN'T GIVE US COUNCIL MEMBERS REALLY TIME TO WORK INTO THEIR SCHEDULES OR EVEN CHECK WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS IF THEY COULD ATTEND.
COUNCIL'S MEETING OF JUNE 27TH, AN AUDIT WAS APPROVED TO FOCUS ON THE ACCUSATIONS OF FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETIES AT THE PARK BOARD.
THE AUDIT WAS TO ALSO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC FUNDS WERE INVOLVED.
THESE ACCUSATIONS WERE INVESTIGATED BY THE GALVESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARK BOARD AND THE CITY AUDITOR.
ON SEPTEMBER 19TH, THE CITY AUDITOR REPORTED THE FINDINGS TO COUNCIL AND MENTIONED THAT PUBLIC FUNDS WERE INVOLVED.
AT THAT TIME, THE COUNCIL REACTED THE NEXT MEETING ON OCTOBER 21ST TO 24TH, COUNCIL AMENDED THE AUDITOR'S PLAN TO ADD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT TO HIS AUDIT PLAN.
HE HAD THREE MONTHS, I THINK, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AUDIT AT COUNCIL'S NOVEMBER 14TH MEETING, THE CITY AUDITOR GAVE AN UPDATE OF THE FINDINGS OF HIS JUNE AUDIT.
COUNCIL APPROVED A LETTER FROM THE PARK BOARD AT THAT MEETING AND ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTED ON THAT.
THAT LETTER MENTIONED FROM THE PARK BOARD, THE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT CHANGES THAT THEY HAVE ENACTED TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER CONCERNS LIKE THOSE THAT WERE OUTLINED IN JUNE.
FINDINGS FROM THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THIS COUNCIL COMING UP IN THE FUTURE.
THIS IS AT THE REQUEST OF OUR CITY AUDITOR, AND OUR CITY AUDITOR HAS REQUESTED MARCH TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION TO COUNCIL.
WE CAN UPDATE THOUGH OURSELVES ON THIS FEBRUARY IF WE WOULD LIKE.
AT THAT TIME WHEN THE CITY AUDITOR BRINGS HIS FINDINGS BACK FINALLY ON THIS AUDIT, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THIS THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF THIS AUDIT.
THIS AUDIT HAS NOT [NOISE] DETERMINED EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE WITH ANY OF THESE ACCUSATIONS AT THIS POINT.
YOU MENTIONED THAT IF WE HAVE IMPROPRIETIES OR WE HEAR OF THOSE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE.
THAT'S WHAT THE ROLE OF THIS AUDIT IS AND COUNCIL HAS ACTED ON THAT.
THE ROLE OF AN AUDIT IS TO FOLLOW AN ORGANIZED APPROACH THAT IS TRANSPARENT, THAT IS FAIR TO BOTH PARTIES, AND THAT GIVES US THE OBJECTIVE DATA THAT WE NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS.
>> THE PURPOSE OF AN AUDIT IS TO TAKE THE ULTERIOR MOTIVES OUT OF CONCERNS THAT WE SEE, PUT THAT IN THE HANDS OF OUR AUDITOR TO BRING BACK OBJECTIVE DATA TO US.
[00:15:02]
THAT INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO US AND WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO US COMING UP SHORTLY.THIS STATEMENT I'M MAKING HAS NO BEARING ON IF THERE ARE CONCERNS OR NOT.
THIS STATEMENT HAS A BEARING ON THERE IS A PROCESS THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW, AND THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO FOLLOW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE EXACT DATA.
SOME OF THE ACCUSATIONS THAT ARE BEING SAID HAVE NOT BEEN RESEARCHED COMPLETELY, AND SOME OF THESE ACCUSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETELY, OBJECTIVELY VERIFIED BY OUR CITY AUDITOR.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE PLAN, BE FAIR TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, AND ONCE WE GET THESE FINDINGS, THEN WE NEED TO ACT AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES AT DISTRIBUTORS. YES, MA'AM.
>> IT IS BY OF THE CHARTER THAT TWO COUNCIL PEOPLE CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING IF THEY FIND IT NECESSARY.
THESE TWO COUNCIL PEOPLE WENT IN TO GET AN UPDATE ON AN AUDIT THAT SEEMS TO BE TAKING A LONG TIME, AND I KNOW GLENN DOES AN AMAZING JOB, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE HOT TAX AND SO FORTH, SO TO CARRY [INAUDIBLE], MY [INAUDIBLE], I'M SORRY.
IT IS NOT UNUSUAL BECAUSE GLENN, I REMEMBER THIS IN THE PAST GIVING EARLY RESULTS TO THINGS THAT ARE FOUND.
BUT THE THINGS THAT I SAW YESTERDAY TO JUST PUT MY HEAD IN THE SAND, DOES NOT MAKE ME FEEL COMFORTABLE.
I WAS HIRED BY THE PEOPLE TO REPRESENT THEM, SO WE'RE USED TO [INAUDIBLE] AND TO SAY THAT HOT TAX IS THE PEOPLE'S MONEY THAT IT COMES FROM TOURISTS, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
ALL MUNICIPAL FUNDS AND HOT TAX WOULD FALL IN, AND THE HOT TAX IS A TAX THAT IS ASSIGNED BY THE CITY, EVEN THOUGH IT IS COLLECTED BY THE PARK BOARD, AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A PARK BOARD.
BUT THAT DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO BE FRIVOLOUS WITH MONEY, AND FOR YOU TO SAY, IF YOU RECEIVED, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT CARRIE AND THAT OTHER BEAUTIFUL BLONDE THAT I'M GOING TO MISS THE SPEAKER NAME AGAIN, GAVE US DIFFERENT INFORMATION, I WOULD BE EXTREMELY SURPRISED, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S ON A WITCH-HUNT WHICH I THINK YOU JUST IMPLIED.
>> I THINK PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT APPEARS TO BE IMPROPER SPENDING.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT $10 HERE OR THERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN SOME CASES, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
I DON'T KNOW WHO LEAKED IT TO THE PAPER, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS ANYBODY AT THIS TABLE. I DON'T KNOW.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN BRIAN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS ANY COUNCIL MEMBER.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING I THINK TO SAY THAT TWO COUNCIL PEOPLE FELT THE NEED TO FOLLOW THE CHARTER, TO BRING FORWARD SO WE COULD EXPAND AN AUDIT, TO WAIT UNTIL MARCH, IN MY OPINION WOULD BE A PAUSE.
SHARON AND I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO EXPAND THE AUDIT.
I DO THINK IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED.
>> IT'S ALREADY ON THE AGENDA THAT WAS PLACED THERE BY REQUEST OF OUR CITY AUDITOR A WEEK AGO.
>> I THINK THAT'S GREAT, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T RECEIVE A COPY OF OUR AGENDA UNTIL TOMORROW, WE FELT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO GO ON, SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR IT CALLED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM GLENN, NOT YOU SPEAKING FOR GLENN.
>> I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR GLENN.
LET ME SAY ONE OTHER THING HERE.
WE'RE NOT QUESTIONING THIS MEETING BEING CALLED.
QUESTIONING THE ACTIVITIES THAT WERE RESPONSIBLE
[00:20:05]
FOR THIS MEETING AND EACH COUNCIL MEMBER HAS THE RIGHT TO STATE HIS OPINION. SHARON.>> I THANK YOU FOR THE TIMELINE BECAUSE I REMEMBER THE TIMELINE, AND I REMEMBER FLYNN COMING BACK WITH THE INFORMATION ON I THINK IT WAS THE 13,000 OR WHATEVER WAS MANIPULATED, MISUSED.
AGAIN, MY POINT, I KNOW WE NEED GUARD RAILS, SO I THINK THAT INSINUATION IS INCORRECT.
I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T NEED GUARD RAILS, WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT.
WHAT I'M SAYING AGAIN IS THAT I THINK IT'S EARLY TO BE CALLING THIS MEETING.
I AM SAYING THAT WITHIN MY HOUSEHOLD, I CAN CALL A MEETING WITH [INAUDIBLE] WITH MY SON OR, BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE NIPPED IN THE BUD TUESDAY WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR MEETING.
I THINK IT'S FAIR TO GIVE THEM THE GUARD RAILS THAT ARE NECESSARY AFTER THE COMPLETE AUDIT.
>> GLENN. LET'S START WITH THIS ITEM 3A THAT JANELLE HAS READ HERE.
I WANT TO MENTION THE WAY THIS IS OUTLINED ON OUR AGENDA THAT YOU'RE GIVING A STATUS REPORT ONLY ON THIS, GLENN, AND THAT THEN YOU COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT ON WHAT COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID. GO AHEAD, SIR.
>> WELL, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF PERFORMING A CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AUDIT. IT'S NOT COMPLETE.
I THINK THAT THE COMPLETE REPORT WILL BE DONE IN MARCH.
WITH THAT SAID, WHILE DOING THE AUDIT, WE HAVE TWO THINGS.
>> WE HAVE FOUND TWO THINGS THAT WE'D LIKE TO UPDATE, REQUEST OF COUNSEL.
WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A DISBURSEMENT THAT WAS MADE TO A SPOUSE, A PARK BOARD EMPLOYEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,200.
THE SECOND ISSUE THAT WE FOUND IS AN INDIVIDUAL PARK BOARD HAS GIVEN INFORMATION THAT A PARK BOARD EMPLOYEE SET UP THEIR OWN BUSINESS AT PARK BOARD RUN BEACHES.
THOSE ARE THE TWO ISSUES THAT WE FOUND AND WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT [INAUDIBLE].
YOU'VE OUTLINED TWO AREAS THERE.
HAVE YOU DONE AN INVESTIGATION TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE STATUS OF THESE ARE?
>> THAT THE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE FINDINGS WOULD BE AT THE END OF AN AUDIT?
>> WE'RE NOT FINISHED WITH THE AUDIT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. NUMBER 2, THESE ITEMS, THESE ARE NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF YOUR AUDIT THAT YOU'RE UNDER NOW, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE TWO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WOULD BE.
>> THE TWO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDITS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL TO [INAUDIBLE] THE AUDIT.
>> YOU DON'T NEED AN APPROVAL FOR AN EXPANDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT TO ADDRESS THESE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> CERTAINLY ASPECTS OF THIS AUDIT, WE NEED COUNCIL APPROVE.
>> THAT'S MY POINT. WE NEED TO EXPAND YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT SO THAT YOU CAN INVESTIGATE THESE THOROUGHLY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IN YOUR OFFICIAL OPINION REGARDING THE PAYMENTS THAT COUNCIL'S BEEN MADE AWARE OF, WOULD YOU ALSO BE REQUESTING EXPANSION ON HOT TAX PAYMENTS?
>> LET'S SAY THIS. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETED IN MARCH.
FEBRUARY COMES ALONG, WE EXPAND YOUR AUDIT.
YOUR MARCH COMPLETION DATE AND THAT GETS SET BACK, IS THAT FAIR TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ON?
>> NOT ON THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AUDIT, BUT ON ANY OTHER AUDITS, YES.
I'LL TRY TO FINISH THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AUDIT IN MARCH.
IF COUNCIL RECOMMENDS ANY OTHER TYPE OF EXPANSION, THE AUDIT THEN, IT MAY TAKE SOME LONGER TIME.
>> BASED ON JUST A 6% SAMPLE SIZE, YOU FOUND THOSE TWO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
>> WE NEED 100% ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
>> WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, JUST ONE SECOND.
WE GOT PEOPLE TALK. MASHA, COME ON UP, IF YOU WOULD.
[00:25:01]
>> TERRY, COULD YOU COME UP ALSO.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR SAYING HER NAME AND [INAUDIBLE], MASHA.
FOR THE CAMERA, LADIES FOR THE COMMUNITY, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR POSITIONS PLEASE?
>> MASHA LISAVA, I'M AN INTERNAL AUDITOR.
>> CARRIE SUMRALL, ASSISTANT CITY AUDITOR.
>> GO AHEAD NOW. MASHA, YOU WERE SAYING YOU MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
>> CONFLICT OF INTEREST WOULD IT 100%.
>> ALL OF THE DATA FROM CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAS BEEN COMPLETED?
>> [INAUDIBLE]. SHE IS CORRECT.
>> FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING, WHICH WAS THE EXPENDITURES THAT WE REVIEWED.
WHEN GLENN GAVE US AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THESE TWO ITEMS, AND HE SAID IN THE EMAIL THAT HE WAS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ASKING COUNCIL FOR AN EXPANSION.
WHAT WOULD BE A TIMELINE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE AUDIT BASED ON A 6% SAMPLING SIZE?
>> DEPENDS WHAT OUR SCOPE WILL BE, WHAT COUNCIL WILL DECIDE FOR HOW MANY YEARS BACK ARE WE GOING.
>> YOU'RE STILL SHIFTING THROUGH SOME OF THE 6%, IS THAT CORRECT, OR IS IT?
>> NOW, WE'RE LEFT WITH IF WE EXPAND IT, WE HAVE A TIMELINE, DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATION OF WHAT IT COULD BE? COULD BE SIX MONTHS, IT COULD BE A YEAR?
>> 100% OF HOT TAX PURCHASES PROBABLY TAKE SIX MONTHS AND THAT'S WITH ADDITIONAL HELP.
HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT WE COULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL HELP IN THE PAST COUNCIL MEETING.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WAS HOPING TO PROPOSE TODAY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TWO ADDITIONAL AUDITORS, IT WOULD TAKE US SIX MONTHS TO DO 100% [INAUDIBLE].
>> EVEN IF WE DID THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, IT'S DONE IN MARCH, WE WOULD NOT EVEN BE COMPLETE WITH AN EXPANDED AUDIT UNTIL SOME TIME IN DECEMBER?
>> COMPLETE. LET'S SAY YOU DON'T GET ANY HELP, SOMETIME IN DECEMBER.
>> YEAH, IF WE DIDN'T GET ANY HELP.
>> AGAIN, AUGUST, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY HELP, IF WE DON'T APPROVE TWO ADDITIONAL AUDITORS OR SO HAVE YOU.
>> I'M SORRY, I SAID SIX MONTHS WITH TWO ADDITIONAL?
>> REGARDLESS OF POLICIES NOT BEING FOLLOWED, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THIS MAY CONTINUE AND UNTIL THAT POINT WHEN THAT AUDIT IS COMPLETE, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT ANY GUARD RAILS UP OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE SAW UNTIL IT'S FINALLY DONE AND COMPLETE AND WE KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF THE DAMAGE, WHICH I DISAGREE WITH BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF THE PURCHASES, AND WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL AS A COUNCIL AND DECIDE WHAT THAT IS, EXECUTIVE OUT IN THE OPEN.
I THINK TRANSPARENT IS BETTER, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE KINDS OF EXPENDITURES CONTINUING FROM EVEN JUST TODAY SIX MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD WITHOUT PUTTING SOMETHING IN PLACE TO ELIMINATE A POTENTIAL.
THE PARK BOARD HAS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS LIABILITY IS NOT ON THEM, IT'S ON US BECAUSE WE'RE THE TAXING AUTHORITY.
THE STATE COMPTROLLER COMES IN WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS AND SAYS, GIVE ME YOUR BOOKS, THE COUNCIL'S GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THE IMPLICATIONS FROM THE STATE.
THAT'S MY CONCERN. IF WE'RE NOT, TIMELINE-WISE, THEY'RE GOING TO QUESTION US ABOUT WHEN WE KNEW ABOUT IT, WHAT DID WE DO? I'M NOT GOING TO DO THE OLD GALVESTON THING AND SIT THERE AND DO NOTHING. I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.
I TOOK A DAY TO CHEW ON IT, MET WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY, THE NEXT DAY, HE SAID YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL GLENN SAYS SOMETHING OR DOES SOMETHING.
GLENN SENT AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUT AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO ASK COUNCIL FOR AN EXPANDED AUDIT ON THE 27TH.
>> I SAID, WELL, THIS DOES REQUIRE BUY-IN FROM THE PARK BOARD FOR OVERSIGHT.
IF WE CAN PUT SOME OVER SIGHT IN PLACE QUICKLY, ON TUESDAY THEY HAVE A MEETING, THEY CAN ACCEPT IT OR NOT, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THERE.
IT'S JUST PERPLEXING TO ME THAT WHEN I'M EXERCISING MY FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE THAT IS THE NUMBER 1 DUTY OF AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE.
[00:30:04]
WE APPROVE THE BUDGET. WE APPROVE THE TAX RATE.>> WE APPROVE THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET.
WE DON'T APPROVE THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET AND SAY, DON'T TELL US HOW YOU SPEND IT.
I'M A LITTLE MIFFED THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT SIX MONTHS, EIGHT MONTHS TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO TELL HIM ABOUT A POLICY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY WE COULD PICK A SMALLER SAMPLE TO GIVE YOU GUYS MAYBE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, LIKE A YEAR WITH KIMBERLY, AND THEN A YEAR WITH THE PREVIOUS CEO.
WE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THAT WOULD SHORTEN THE TIME THAT WE WOULD NEED?
>> I WOULD FEEL WAY MORE COMFORTABLE WITH GOING WITH THE FOUR YEARS THAT WE ALREADY HAD AT THE VERY LEAST.
WE ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION AND THE DATA.
I'M A LITTLE MIFFED AS TO WHY WE SHOULDN'T ACT SWIFTLY, AND I'M NOT BEING HARSH, 12 INCHES IS 12 INCHES.
IT'S BEEN SAID IN THE PUBLIC TOO ABOUT THE PORT.
I THINK, WHETHER IT BE THE CITY, THE PORT, OR THE PARK BOARD, IF THERE'S CONCERN AND THERE'S SOMETHING THAT AS A COUNCIL PERSON, I SEE THAT IS BOTHERSOME, WE NEED TO HANDLE IT IN A QUICK, SWIFT MANNER THAT'S OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.
>> JUST SOMETHING YOU SAID AND SOMETHING YOU IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE TWO THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED, AND WE HEARD ABOUT OTHER THINGS BEYOND THAT.
WRITING THE CHECK, THAT'S BEEN 100% INVESTIGATED BECAUSE YOU HAD SAID THEY HAVEN'T BEEN THAT HIGH AS IT COULD.
IN THE SECOND CASE, THAT HAS BEEN 100%.
>> WE'RE STILL WAITING ON SOME ITEMS FROM THE PARK BOARD TO FINISH SETUP AND GETTING WITH LEGAL ON IT AS WELL.
>> BUT I KNOW ON THE CHECK, THAT WAS 100% INVESTIGATED.
>> WE ARE WAITING ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THAT ONE AS WELL.
>> WE DO NEED TO DO SOME MORE INTERVIEWING ON THAT.
>> BECAUSE OTHER THINGS DID COME UP ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL, COUNSEL [INAUDIBLE].
>> MY UNDERSTANDING FROM CARRIE AND MASHA, THAT HAD THEY INTERVIEWED EVERYONE THAT WAS INVOLVED.
WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE ON THIS ISSUE.
THE CHECK WAS CUT TO A PARK BOARD EMPLOYEE'S WIFE.
IT WAS FOR A TRAINING PROJECT.
DURING THAT INVESTIGATION, SOME INCONSISTENCIES CAME UP IN THE INTERVIEWS THAT WE NEED TO CHECK OUT.
>> WE WANT TO DO FINAL INTERVIEWS?
>> THAT IS ONE REASON WHY I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
BECAUSE YOU BRING UP TWO SPECIFIC, BUT I SAW MORE THAN TWO SPECIFIC.
THIS IS WHY IT'S UNFAIR BECAUSE UNLESS IT'S GOING TO BRING THEM ALL, THEN I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HEAR ANY OF THEM DURING COUNSEL.
I THINK WE COULD HEAR THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THERE WAS SOME CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT NOT TO SPECIFICS OF IT BEING A SPOUSE OR OF IT BEING A BUSINESS.
THAT IS WHY THIS IS UNFAIR BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PUTTING ALL OF THOSE HERE.
I WOULD RATHER HEAR IT GENERALIZED, THIS IS WHAT.
THAT'S JUST ME, THAT IS WHY THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT THING, NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT GUARD RAILS, NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO TELL THE PARK BOARD.
YOU CAN SUGGEST SOME THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO TO BETTER THEIR BUDGET.
I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS WITH SPECIAL PROJECT, THEY MIGHT HAVE TO RE-LABEL.
THIS ISN'T ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO TAKE OVERNIGHT.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT AND I'M SURE THEY'RE WILLING TO BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE WE'RE COLLABORATING.
WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TAKE MAYBE FOR THE SIX MONTHS, WAS THAT OVER THE FOUR YEARS FOR THE SIX MONTHS?
WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE A PART A YEAR OR WOULD YOU RATHER BE
[00:35:01]
PATIENT THE TIME TO SEE SO THAT WHEN YOU PUT GUARD RAILS IN PLACE, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY USE BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PICTURE.I JUST CAN'T SEE LOOKING AT PART OF THE PICTURE AND SAYING, DO A, B, C, AND D.
>> THE FIRST THING THAT WE KNOW GUARD RAILS BETWEEN DISCUSSION [INAUDIBLE].
THERE'S ALREADY GUARD RAILS IN PLACE.
THE PROBLEM IS WE ALL HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE GUARD RAILS ARE NOT EVEN BEING FOLLOWED WITH THE WAY THEY'RE WRITTEN NOW.
SECOND THING IS, IF WE LOOK BACK WITH WHAT WENT ON WITH OUR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, BETWEEN TWO OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE WORDS WERE MENTIONED, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE CREATION, AND LOTS OF HOURS WENT INTO THAT FOR THEM TO PUT THAT TOGETHER, BECAUSE AS THEY SAID, TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE, WHICH IS BASICALLY TO PROVIDE MORE OVERSIGHT, MORE RULES OVER THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN OUR OPERATION IN GALVESTON.
IN OTHER WORDS, HOLDING THEM MORE ACCOUNTABLE.
FORTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS WAS COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON IN 2024 FROM SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON US TO HAVE OVERSIGHT OF HOW THAT MONEY IS SPENT.
IF MISAPPROPRIATED DOLLAR IS SPENT, THAT'S ON US.
WHEN I HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT'S IN BLACK AND WHITE, FOR INSTANCE, HOW MANY PEOPLE SIGNED THE CHECK THAT'S IN QUESTION? HOW MANY PEOPLE'S SIGNATURE WAS ON THAT CHECK?
>> I BELIEVE THERE'S A DOUBLE SIGNATURE CHECKS.
>> ONE OF THOSE PERSONS WAS A SPOUSE?
>> WAS IT APPROVED BY THE SPOUSE?
>> LET ME BACK UP AND MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
>> I HAVE SEVERAL MORE. I HAVE MORE.
IT'S JUST THE ONE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
>> I'M JUST GOING BY THE AGENDA.
>> THE OTHER DAY THEY BROUGHT THAT UP.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT GLENN BROUGHT IT.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE A VALID POINT.
ARE WE HERE TO PICK OUT ONE THING OR ARE WE HERE TO HEAR THE EXPERT DO WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO, AND WITH ALL THE I USE GUARD RAILS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WORD THAT MY COLLEAGUE HERE USED.
YES. THEY'VE DONE SOME THINGS THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO DO.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T.
BUT I'M ALSO SAYING THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TWO INCIDENTS HERE THAT WE CAN PICK AND ASK, WELL, HOW MANY SIGNATURES? I SAW TWO SIGNATURES ON ALL THE CHECKS.
ON ALL OF THEM THAT WERE WRITTEN.
WE EVEN QUESTION WHOSE WAS THIS OR WHOSE WAS THAT, BUT THIS IS NOT THE MEETING FOR THAT.
>> I'M JUST GOING OFF OF WHAT OUR AGENDA SAYS, THAT'S ALL.
THERE'S SIX OR SEVEN OF THEM, BUT THERE WAS TWO ITEMS THAT HE JUST MENTIONED FIRST ITEM OF WHICH WAS THE CHECK, CORRECT?
>> CAN WE FIND SPECIFICS OF THAT IN THIS MEETING RIGHT NOW?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING A QUESTION OF.
>> BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
WHAT I SAW, AGAIN, PEOPLE ARE DEPENDENT OF US OVERSEEING THAT $47 MILLION.
WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO PROVIDE MORE ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT, MORE ACCOUNTABILITY.
BUT YET WHEN WE HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THINGS NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AND IT'S UP TO US.
THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING IT TO THE TABLE, WHETHER IT'S ONE INVOICE OR FOUR YEARS OF INVOICES.
IF I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ONE, I'M GOING TO BRING IT UP.
>> THERE'S A CERTAIN LIMIT THAT AN ORGANIZATIONAL DIRECTOR HAS TO OBSERVE.
IF IT GOES OVER A CERTAIN LIMIT, SAY IN THIS AMOUNT OF MAYBE $2,000, THAT BIDDING REQUIREMENT IS WHEN YOU STOP AND YOU SPLIT UP THE PURCHASE, THEN YOU EVADE THOSE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
THEY CALL THAT SEQUENTIAL PURCHASING WHEN YOU SPLIT THE PAYMENTS
[00:40:02]
UP TO EVADE GETTING BIDS ON THOSE.>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT, BOB, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SEQUENTIAL PURCHASE, IS THAT PART OF YOUR AUDIT FOR THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
>> YOU'RE WANTING TO COME BACK AND GET PERMISSION FROM THIS BOARD AT SOME POINT TO EXPAND THAT AUDIT TO GET INTO THAT?
>> WOULD NON-PROCURED EXPENSES BE PART OF THIS AUDIT AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
>> NON-PROCURED, LET ME MAKE SURE.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, IF A PROCUREMENT PROCESS WASN'T FOLLOWED, MEANING IT'S A NON-PROCURED EXPENSE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN PROCUREMENT POLICY OF WHAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE?
>> YES, SIR. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS IN PLACE, AND WE WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE CONTROLS WERE EVADED AND WHY THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWED, AND THEN ANY RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THOSE.
>> WE'VE MENTIONED INVESTIGATION A COUPLE OF TIMES.
ARE THERE ANY OF THESE SPECIFIC EXPENSES THAT WE ALL HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF, ARE THERE ANY OF THEM THAT THERE'S BEEN 100% INVESTIGATION DONE?
>> WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT INVESTIGATION.
YOU HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DO THE INVESTIGATION OR THE INVESTIGATION STILL ONGOING.
ARE THERE ANY OF THE ONES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US THAT YOU'VE HAD 100% FINALITY ON?
>> JUST ONE SECOND. GLENN ANSWERED NO.
>> BUT AREN'T YOU TWO DOING THE AUDIT?
>> CARRIE IS THE AUDITOR IN CHARGE.
>> THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE ANGELA BARTON AUDIT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS.
HE DIDN'T HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM COUNSEL TO DO IT.
HE HAD TO UPDATE US THAT HE WAS DOING IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. THAT'S IN THE CODES.
IF IT'S OVER $5,000, HE CAN GO AT WILL SPONTANEOUSLY.
WHEN HE'S SAYING, I'M GOING TO REQUEST IT, I THINK THAT HE'S BEING IN GOOD FAITH REQUESTING IT, BUT OUR JOB IS OVERSIGHT.
THAT IS THE ULTIMATE JOB FOR THE TAXPAYERS, FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS, IT'S OVERSIGHT. I'M SORRY.
WE CAN DO SMALL THINGS, BUT I DON'T BUY INTO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT SIX MONTHS.
AT THE TIME, IT'S ALL COLD AND THIS, THAT AND IT'S MINIMIZED, AND IF WE WAIT, WE'RE OPENING OURSELVES UP FOR LIABILITY TOO.
IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION, DO SOMETHING, AND I BELIEVE YES, I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR PARK BOARD.
I THINK THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD FROM THIS AND TALK ABOUT IT LIKE ADULTS AND ADDRESS IT AND STILL HAVE GLENN COME OUT AND GIVE US UPDATES AND GIVE EVERYBODY THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE NEED TOGETHER.
BUT OUR ULTIMATE JOB IS OVERSIGHT.
IF WE CAN'T PROVIDE THAT, IT'S VERY BOTHERSOME FOR ME THAT WE'RE AVOIDING OVERSIGHT. GO AHEAD.
>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHEN YOU SAID YOU ARE 100% COMPLETE WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.
>> WE MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION WHEN WE ANSWERED IT.
THERE ARE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE FIRST ISSUE THAT I MENTIONED THAT WILL NOT ALLOW US TO COMPLETE THAT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
THAT IS INCONSISTENCIES IN INTERVIEWS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PARK BOARD EMPLOYEES.
>> THAT IS INCONSISTENCIES FROM INTERVIEWS THAT WE PERFORMED AT THE PARK BOARD.
WE HAD DIFFERENT ANSWERS FROM PARK BOARD EMPLOYEES.
THAT IS WHY THE ISSUE NUMBER 1 THAT I MENTIONED IS NOT 100% COMPLETE.
>> IT REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL, AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT I CAN TELL.
I'M WALKING A THIN LINE HERE, BUT I DO WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC AND I DO WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> I'M TRYING TO BE AS GENERIC AND AS ARBITRARY AS POSSIBLE.
I DON'T WANT TO MENTION NAMES EITHER.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CARRIE SAID, BECAUSE NOW I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
THERE'S MULTIPLE PERSONAL CREDIT CARDS
[00:45:05]
ISSUED WITHIN THE PARKS BOARD ORGANIZATION, CORRECT?>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT 100% OF A REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THOSE PERSONAL CREDIT CARDS ISSUED OR HAS 100% OF THE SMALL SAMPLING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING OR ONGOING HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT.
>> IN LOOKING AT THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AUDIT, WE NOTICED OTHER THINGS WITH HOT TAX PURCHASES. APPROXIMATELY 6%.
WE LOOKED AT THAT, BUT WE NEED TO COME BACK AND WE NEED TO GET COUNSEL'S PERSPECTIVE ON HOW THEY WANT US TO PROCEED.
IF THEY DO WANT US TO DO 100% OF THESE HOT TAX PURCHASES, OR IF THEY WANT TO SPLIT IT UP AS CARRIE SUGGESTED, TWO YEARS IN A PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION AND TWO YEARS IN CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE GETTING WHAT COUNSEL WANTS, THEIR PERSPECTIVE IN THIS.
BUT YOU ALL HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WE UPDATED YOU ON WITH WHAT WE FOUND IN ADDITION TO THESE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AUDIT.
NOW IT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO DECIDE HOW WE PROCEED.
>> THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF PERSONAL CREDIT CARD EXPENSES THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED.
>> YES, SIR. IN JUST LOOKING AT THEM, WE DETERMINED ABOUT HOW MUCH HAD BEEN LOOKED AT AND ABOUT 6%, AND SO THAT WOULD LEAVE 94% OVER THE PAST.
>> WE'RE 100% OR NEAR 100% COMPLETE OF A SAMPLING OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.
>> NO, SIR. WE'RE CONFUSING THE TWO.
THOSE ARE HOT TAX PURCHASES [OVERLAPPING].
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE.
BUT WE'RE 100% OR AS CARRIE SAID, NEAR 100% COMPLETE ON A SAMPLING.
>> HERE I THINK WE'RE BOTH ASKING.
IF LET'S SAY WE REVIEW THE EXPENDITURES AND THERE IS MORE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOUND IN THAT 94%? WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? PROBABLY EXPAND IT.
>> YES, SIR. I WOULD EXPAND IT, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE NOTE AND IF THE AUDIT WAS FINALIZED, WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND IT JUST AS WE DID WITH THE PREVIOUS AUDIT THAT WE DID AT THE PARK BOARD FOR THE EMBEZZLEMENT.
>> IT'S KIND OF A WEB, MORE THINGS CAN BE DISCOVERED.
>> IT'S WHAT MAKES MY JOB A NIGHTMARE TO HAVE TO [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON US AS A COUNSEL.
TO SAY YOU HAVE OPEN REGS, YOU HAVE THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS, WHATEVER IT'S DECIDED.
YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE MORE UNITS OF HELP, AND WE CAN EXPECT A FINAL REPORT ON MORE OR LESS THIS DAY.
THAT'S WHAT WOULD BASICALLY LET YOU DO YOUR JOB?
>> YES, SIR. I WORKED FOR COUNSEL.
I TRUST THE OPINION OF COUNSEL AND GOING FORWARD ON THIS OF HOW WE NEED TO PROCEED FOR THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE PEOPLE OF GALVESTON.
>> AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT WILL BE DISCOVERED THAT PEOPLE ON THE PARKS BOARD, NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, NEW STAFF, OLD STAFF, IT'S NOT US AGAINST THEM.
IT'S US FOR THE TAXPAYER, MAKING SURE THAT THEIR MONEY IS SPENT CORRECTLY. TRANSPARENTLY?
I DON'T DOUBT THAT IT'S MOST OF THE GOALS OF EVERYONE ON THIS COUNCIL.
AGAIN, THOUGH, WHETHER IT'S $1 AND I'M AND I'VE BEEN GIVEN KNOWLEDGE OF IT OR IF IT'S IN THIS CASE, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT'S A MOVING TARGET.
IF THERE'S THINGS LIKE THIS THAT HAVE COME UP THAT ARE TO ME, VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK WE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF ALONG THE WAY.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS DO ALL END ALL.
CURRENTLY, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT THE FINDINGS OF YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST STARTED THAT WE ORDERED IN OCTOBER.
YOU'LL BE PRESENTING THAT IN MARCH.
>> IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN MOVE THAT UP?
>> I THINK THAT NEED PARTICIPATION FROM THE PARKS BOARD TO.
[00:50:01]
>> BUT IF WE GET PARTICIPATION FROM THE PARK BOARD, CAN WE MOVE THIS UP?
>> I WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY DO IT.
YES. ABSOLUTELY. IF WE GET PARTICIPATION FROM THE PARK BOARD ON THESE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE INTERVIEWS THAT WE PERFORM, THEN WE COULD POSSIBLY FINALIZE THE ISSUE 1.
ON THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT WE HAVE MENTIONED.
ISSUE 2, I THINK THAT AS LONG AS WE GET COOPERATION FROM BARBARA, WE WILL BE WORKING WITH LEGAL ON ISSUE 2.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS, GLENN.
IF YOU GET COOPERATION, WHEN COULD YOU BRING THIS?
>> I THINK WE COULD FINISH NEXT WEEK.
>> THE DOCUMENTATION WOULDN'T BE READY.
>> WE ALREADY HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA.
>> HE'S TALKING ABOUT FOR THE PARKS.
>> IT WAS GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THEIR REQUIREMENT TO PUT THAT COMPLETE AUDIT, LIKE WE GOT IN OCTOBER, WHICH WAS FINISHED, OCTOBER 8, IT WENT ON OUR OCTOBER MEETING.
COUNCILMAN FINKLEA WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT, AND I THINK THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO KNOW.
THAT'S INTERFERING. THAT'S RAMING RODING SOMETHING.
>> I'M SAYING THE TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING SUCH AUDIT ON THE AGENDA.
>> WE ALREADY HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA?
WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE COMPLETE AUDIT WHEN WE GET IT, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IN THE FINE.
>> HE IS GOING TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE ITEMS THAT ARE COMPLETE.
WE CAN UPDATE IT ON THE AGENDA THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT WOULD COVER IT UNDER THAT THAT HE COULD GIVE THE UPDATE AND IT'S ON THE AGENDA.
>> THE UPDATE IS FINE, BUT BEFORE THEY GIVE IT FOR US.
>> LET'S BE CLEARED SO THAT WE CAN SATISFY POSSIBLY COUNCILMAN PORRETTO'S CONCERNS HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, CAN YOU PRESENT A COMPLETED AUDIT OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT YOU'RE IN NOW? CAN YOU PRESENT A COMPLETE FINDINGS OF THAT FEBRUARY 27, IF YOU GET COOPERATION FROM THE PARK?
>> YOU COULD PRESENT ALL OF YOUR FINDINGS FROM THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT COMING UP EIGHT DAYS FROM NOW.
>> YOU NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
>> ON ISSUE 1. ON ISSUE 2, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO.
>> AND HAVE YOUR FINAL FINDINGS ON THAT AFTER YOU'VE DONE YOUR INTERVIEWS AND SO FORTH, FEBRUARY 27, AND POSSIBLY HAVE NUMBER 2 WRAPPED UP. ABSOLUTELY.
>> BECAUSE I'M WORKING WITH LEGAL ON ISSUE NUMBER 2, SO THEY MAY HAVE A WHOLE HOST OF ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT THEY WANT.
>> YOU WOULD PRESENT YOUR FINDINGS THEN IF YOU CAN GET THOSE DONE ON FEBRUARY 27, IT'S ALREADY ON THE AGENDA AT YOUR REQUEST WHEN WE TALKED EARLIER.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD THEN WEIGH IN ON AND KNOW THAT WE HAVE YOUR FINAL FINDINGS ON POSSIBLY EVERYTHING ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT, BUT AT LEAST ON THAT NUMBER 1 ITEM.
>> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST REPORT.
WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE? BESIDES ONE AND TWO, DOES IT INCLUDE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> WHEN DO WE BRING IN THE OTHER ONES?
>> THEN AT THE FEBRUARY 27 MEETING, WOULD YOU BE PREPARED TO THEN BRING TO COUNSEL YOUR REQUEST FOR EXPANDED AUDITS FOR BASED ON WHAT YOU FOUND?
>> YES, SIR, AS FAR AS HOW HOT TAX WAS BEING USED TO PURCHASE DIFFERENT MARKET EXPENSE.
>> YOU CAN BRING OUT AT THE 27.
>> HOW DO YOU SELECT WHICH ONES YOU'RE BRINGING? HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THESE TWO FOR YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST REPORT?
HOW DID YOU CHRONICLE WHICH ONE YOU WERE GOING TO BRING? WAS IT THE ONE THAT WAS THE BIGGEST AMOUNT OR?
>> THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND THEN THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE BECAME AWARE OF THAT WE WANTED
[00:55:03]
TO BRING TO COUNSEL AS FAR AS THE HOT TAX PURCHASES.TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. WE WERE WORKING ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.
WE ONLY DETERMINED IN OUR AUDIT THAT WE ONLY FOUND TWO.
NOW, THERE IS ADDITIONAL HOT TAX PURCHASES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COUNSEL AWARE OF AND TO SEEK COUNSEL'S ADVICE ON HOW TO PROCEED.
>> OF COURSE, I KNOW MASH I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
BUT I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE BRINGING AS MUCH FORWARD AS YOU CAN IN THE NEXT MEETING.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE A JUSTIFICATION.
>> NO, HOLD ON. CAN I FINISH WHAT I WAS SAYING?
>> I'M SORRY, I HAVE MY HAND UP. I'D LIKE TO SEE A JUSTIFICATION OF OUR AUDIT, OF WHY WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND.
I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD APPRECIATE WHY IT WAS SUCH A BIG DEAL THROUGH 6% THAT COUNCILMAN RAWLINS AND I DECIDED TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING SO THAT WE CAN EXPAND AN AUDIT TO 100% EXPENSES THROUGH HOT TAX THROUGH THE FOUR YEARS.
I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. I THINK COUNCIL WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
>> CAN I FINISH WHAT I WAS SAYING?
>> THANK YOU. BECAUSE IT WAS ALONG THE SAME LINES, BUT TO PUT IT SIMPLY TO NOT BRING FORWARD AT OUR MEETING NEXT WEEK, AT LEAST WHAT KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF WOULD BE UNFAIR TO OUR CITIZENS.
IT WOULD BE LIKE SAYING, WE KNOW MARIE TOOK TWO APPLES, AND WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY TOOK 10 APPLES, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL WE SEE THE APPLE, OF COURSE.
I THINK THAT AT NEXT WEEK'S MEETING, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED WITH US WAS PRETTY DEFINITIVE.
I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC AT THIS POINT, ESPECIALLY SINCE WHOMEVER SHARED IT WITH THE PAPER.
I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO COME OUT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> GLENN WAS GOING TO DO THAT.
THEN GLENN WHEN HE BRINGS HIS AUDIT PLAN TO US IN EIGHT DAYS, GLENN, YOU'LL BE BRINGING YOUR FINDINGS ON EITHER EVERYTHING AND THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT OR AT LEAST NUMBER 1.
SECONDLY, YOU'RE GOING TO REQUEST AN EXPANSION, AND HE WILL BE GOING OVER THE DETAILS OF WHY THAT EXPANSION IS NEEDED.
>> I KNOW. BUT I FIND YOU AND I THINK WHAT DAVID SAID, YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT THESE GUYS DID SOMETHING BAD BY DOING [OVERLAPPING].
>> USE THE WORD ULTERIOR MOTIVE.
MY MOTIVE IS STRICTLY BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE GIVEN ABOUT TAX MONEY.
>> IT IS PART OF THE CHARTER THAT TWO PEOPLE CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING.
>> THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.
>> WELL, IT IS UNDERSTOOD, BUT IT WAS IMPLIED AT THIS MEETING THAT THERE WAS AN ANTERIOR MOTIVE.
>> I'M JUST SAYING THERE WERE STATEMENTS MADE THAT WERE IMPLIED THAT COUNCIL PEOPLE WERE BEING LEFT OUT.
THERE WERE STATEMENTS THAT WERE APPLIED.
IF SOMEONE FINDS OUT THAT SOMETHING'S WRONG, AND THEY JUST WANT TO BRING THE TRUTH FORWARD.
>> EVERYONE SHOULD BE BASED ON WHAT'S TRUE AND WHAT'S RIGHT.
NOT TO BRING THAT FORWARD, IN MY MIND, IS THE CRIMINAL SIDE.
>> THAT'S NOT EVEN THE QUESTION HERE, MARIE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WAS STATED TODAY AT THIS MEETING.
>> IT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 27TH.
ALEX KNEW THAT WHEN HE CALLED.
[LAUGHTER] I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
>> I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ON THE 27TH IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
>> WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ON THE 27TH,
[01:00:02]
WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING FINDINGS FROM GLENN ON HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ON THE 27TH, GLENN IS GOING TO BRING BACK HIS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANDING HIS AUDITS AND THE REASONS WHY AND GO THROUGH THE DETAILS.
THAT'S WHICH WILL BE ON OUR AGENDA ON THE 27TH.
>> CAN I GET SOME GUIDANCE FROM YOU BECAUSE WHEN WE CALLED A SPECIAL MEETING, YOU GOT IT SENT OVER AND I SENT AN ADDITIONAL EMAIL ABOUT A MOTION THAT I POTENTIALLY WILL BE MAKING AND THE REASON WHY.
I WORDED THE WAY I DID AND YOU SENT AN EMAIL BACK WORDING THE AGENDA THE WAY YOU DID TO SAY, I BELIEVE THAT THIS COULD BE DISCUSSED AT THIS MEETING IS THAT TRUE TO YOU?
>> I GAVE, AS TO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS, A VERY WIDE RANGE.
IN TERMS OF ACTION ITEMS, THEY ARE FIVE MORE SPECIFIC.
>> IF WE WANTED TO, THE MOTION 4B, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD, AT THAT TIME DO, IS EXPAND THE AUDIT.
>> 4B BASICALLY SAYS, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO RIGHT NOW WHILE GLENN FINISHES HIS SIDE.
IS THERE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO DO RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE UNTIL GLENN FINISHES? THAT'S WHAT 4B IS ABOUT.
>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> YES. AGAIN, I THINK WE SHOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE MEETING.
IF SHARON'S GOING TO BE GONE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOUR, AND I JUST I DON'T SEE A POINT.
>> WE'RE IN WORKSHOP. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WE STILL HAVE THE PADDLEWHEEL.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO REPUT THIS ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA?
>> WE'RE GOING TO GET TO IT AT THAT POINT.
IT'S ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS.
NOW THE EXPANSION OF THE AUDIT, THAT'S GOING TO BE ON OUR 27TH AGENDA IN EIGHT DAYS, AND GLENN WILL BRING THE REASONS AND THE AREAS THAT NEED TO BE EXPANDED ON, AND THE REASONS FOR THAT.
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 4B. THANK YOU, GLENN.
[3.B. Discussion of the Park Board of Trustees request that the City acknowledge that it has no ownership interest in the Colonel Paddle wheeler. (Legal)]
>> 3B. STARTING WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REQUEST THAT THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAS NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN INTERNAL PADDLEWHEELER.
>> THE PUBLIC RECORD IS A WHEELER OR PUBLIC PADDLE?
>> MEMORIZED BARGE? [LAUGHTER]
>> I JUST WANT TO OBSERVE WHAT ODD TIME IT IS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO REQUESTS FROM THE PARK BOARD.
>> BUT I SIGNED THIS TO TREVOR, SO I'M GOING TO LET THEM ROLL WITH IT.
>> SOME ATTORNEYS FOR THE PARK BOARD REACHED OUT TO US BECAUSE THE MUSEUM IS TRYING TO SELL THE PADDLEWHEEL BOAT.
WHILE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THIS SALE, THEY GOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE FROM THE COAST GUARD, WHICH INDICATED THAT THE CITY WAS THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL.
THEY BELIEVE THIS IS A CLERICAL ERROR, AND THEY'VE EXPLAINED TO ME WHERE THEY ARRIVED AT THAT.
THEY SENT US AN AGREEMENT FROM 1989 BETWEEN THE MUSEUM AND THE PADDLEWHEEL AND THE PARK BOARD.
BASICALLY, TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP TO THE PARK BOARD.
IT ALSO REQUIRES IF THE PARK BOARD EVER WANTS TO DIVEST ITSELF OF THE VESSEL, IT HAS TO OFFER IT BACK TO THE MUSEUM.
THEY'RE AT THAT POINT RIGHT NOW.
THEY ALSO HAVE A DEED OF GIFT THAT THEY SENT.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS SENT OVER TO THE COAST GUARD AND THE COAST GUARD WHEN IT SAID PARK BOARD OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THEY JUST TOOK THAT BACK CAR AND PUT IT IN THEIR THING.
WE SEARCHED AS MANY PUBLIC RECORDS GOING BACK THE LAST 30 AND 40 YEARS TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER REASON WE COULD FIND, WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING.
IT'S PROBABLY A CLERICAL ERROR.
BUT GIVEN THAT THIS IS A LARGE ASSET AND THERE IS A PIECE OF PAPER SAYING THE CITY OWNS IT.
AFTER DISCUSSING WITH DON, WE NEED COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN ON THIS AND WE NEED TO ALSO ENSURE
[01:05:04]
THAT IF YOU ALL WANT TO JUST SAY THE CITY DOESN'T OWN THIS.BRIAN DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO TO HELP THIS GO THROUGH.
WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T COST THE CITY ANY MONEY, THAT THERE'S SOME TRANSFER FEE AND IF THERE IS THAT THE PARTIES REALLY INVOLVED IN THIS END UP PAYING THAT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WHEN THIS FIRST POPPED UP.
THEY WANTED ME OR BRIAN TO SIT SAY.
CITY HAD NO OWNERSHIP IN IN THIS.
NO. [LAUGHTER] THAT IS A COUNCIL DECISION.
BUT TRAVIS LOOKED AT ALL THE DOCUMENTS I'VE LOOKED AT.
I DON'T SEE ANY INDICIA OF CITY OWNERSHIP OF THIS.
I HAVE MORE FAITH IN FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS AND IT'S FASHIONABLE THESE DAYS.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO DISCOUNT A CLERICAL ERROR BY A COAST GUARD EMPLOYEE.
BUT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO CONCLUDE OTHERWISE, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN.
THE PARK BOARD PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS SEEM TO BE IN A HURRY.
IT HAS TO GO TO DRY DOCK OR SOME?
>> THAT'S WHEN THEY PUT IT ON THE DRY [OVERLAPPING]?
>> IS GOING TO COST THEM A LOT OF MONEY AND THEY WANT TO GET RID OF IT BEFORE THEY HAVE TO DO THAT.
THEY'RE HAVING KITTENS OVER THIS.
WE HAD TOLD THEM WE WOULD DO IT ON THE 27TH.
THEY ASKED FOR A SPECIAL MEETING, AND TREVOR SAID, NO, GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON THIS, BUT AT THIS POP UP. HERE WE ARE.
>> THE COLONEL. ACTUALLY, IT'S OWNED BY THE COLONEL MUSEUM. WHO KNEW?
>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO SENSOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK THE SURVEY HAD LIKE A HALF A MILLION IN REPAIRS?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBERS ON THAT.
I KNOW THEY TALKING TO THEIR ATTORNEYS.
>> I THINK I'VE SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> GARAGE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF IT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THANK YOU, DON. APPRECIATE IT.
>> YES. YOU HAVE IT'S ON YOUR AGENDA.
IT'S ON THE AGENDA. CORRECT. VERY GOOD.
[3.C. Executive Session]
WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM.PURSUANT TO IT IS 1008 PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.
0.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT OFFER OR ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES, PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR IN TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER RELATED TO THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE CITY RELATED TO ENSURE THE PROPER AND LAWFUL USE OF HOT FUNDS DELIVERED PARK BOARD TAXES OWED IN THE PRESENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PARK BOARD RELATED TO DELIVERY FUNDS TO THE PARK BOARD.
>> WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> I JUST NEEDED TO ASK YOU BEFORE WE STARTED.
EXECUTIVE SESSION CAN I LEAVE OR DO I NEED TO LEAVE?
WE ARE NOW OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND WE ARE NOW BACK INTO OUR OPEN MEETING TIME.
I'M GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 4A OF OUR AGENDA, JANELLE?
[4.A. Public Comment on Agenda Items Under Tex Gov't Code 551.007]
>> ITEM 4A. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.007.
>> THIS IS A TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OUR AGENDA ITEMS. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO STEP FORWARD AND MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS? HEARING NO RESPONSE.
WE ARE NOW MOVING TO ITEM 4B, PLEASE.
[4.B. Consider for action a motion to implement safeguards and or any additional procedures for the delivery of Hotel Occupancy Tax funds and their use by the Park Board pending completion of the audit being performed by the City Auditor and presentation of his report to the City Council and directing City staff to take the necessary action to put them into effect. (Porretto/Rawlins)]
>> ITEM 4B. CONSIDER FOR ACTION, A MOTION TO IMPLEMENT SAFEGUARDS OR ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR THE DELIVERY OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDS AND THEIR USE BY THE PARK BOARD, PENDING COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT BEING PERFORMED BY THE CITY AUDITOR, AND PRESENTATION OF HIS REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE THE NECESSARY ACTION TO PUT THEM INTO EFFECT.
[01:10:02]
>> THANK YOU, JANELLE. THIS IS COUNCILMEMBER PORRETTO, AND ROLLINS, PUT THIS ON, COUNCILMAN PORRETTO.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AFTER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
I THINK THIS REQUIRES BUY IN FROM THE PARK BOARD.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE GOOD ON THE TRANSPARENCY PROMISES AND OVERALL ACCOUNTABILITY.
THEREFORE, I MAKE A MOTION TO ASK THE PARK BOARD TO PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 25 MEETING FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE FOR CONSIDERATION, IMPLEMENTING A POLICY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE TO SUBMIT 30 DAY EXPENSE REPORTS, DETAILING EXPENDITURES, PARTIES INVOLVED, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURES VIA ELECTRONIC.
>> VIA ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTATION AT EACH REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE GALVESTON CITY COUNCIL.
>> VERY GOOD. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? YEAH, WE'RE USING ELECTRONICALLY AS A SECOND TO THAT.
THANK YOU. IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THIS.
THAT IS APPROVED BY THE FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE, ROBB, ROLLINS, PORRETTO, AND MAYOR BROWN.
THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 4C, PLEASE.
[4.C. Consider for action a motion to determine the extent of any ownership interest, if any, of the City related to the Colonel Paddle wheeler; and authorizing the City Manager to take any action consistent with the determination of the City Council upon approval of the City Attorney. (Legal)]
>> ITEM 4C. CONSIDER FOR ACTION, A MOTION TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST, IF ANY, OF THE CITY RELATED TO THE COLONEL PADDLEWHEEL AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ANY ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPON APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD MENTION THAT THE CITY IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE COLONEL PADDLEWHEEL.
>> IF I COULD GET A CLARIFICATION, THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE RECOGNIZING WE'RE MAKING A FINDING THAT THE CITY HAS NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PADDLE WHEELER, AND THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS TO REFLECT THAT.
I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WOULD BE BORNE NOT BY THE CITY, BUT BY THE PARK BOARD OR THE COLONEL MUSEUM.
IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO SAY?
>> I COULDN'T SAID IT BETTER MYSELF. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, DON. WE HAD A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN RAWLINS ON THAT. ANY DISCUSSION.
IT IS APPROVED BY THE FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE, COUNCILWOMAN ROBB, ROLLINS, PORRETTO AND MAYOR BROWN.
WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.
WE ARE NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.