Nov 15, 2022 Regular Commission Meeting

MAYBE HE REALIZED. GOOD MORNING.

[1. Opening Items]

[00:00:04]

SO MANY HAPPY FACES.

WE'RE REALLY ENJOYING THIS LITTLE COLD SNAP.

HOPEFULLY JUST DOESN'T GET A WHOLE LOT COLDER.

BUT OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS A CALL TO ORDER.

THE TIME IS 1035 ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15TH, 2022.

AND WE HAVE A QUORUM AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MORENO.

GREETINGS. HOW'S EVERYTHING IN SAN ANTONIO? VERY GOOD. AND SO WE HAVE A QUORUM.

A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL, THANK EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE.

I ALSO I HAVE TO GO ON RECORD OFFICIALLY CONGRATULATING THE JIM CRANE AND THE HOUSTON ASTROS FOR WINNING THE WORLD SERIES.

HOPEFULLY, ALL TEXANS CAN BE PROUD OF THAT ACHIEVEMENT AND MAYBE SOME LESS THAN OTHERS.

IF YOU LIVE IN DALLAS.

BUT SO WE WE'RE WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR EVERYONE BEING HERE.

AND ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS FOR MANY CALLED THE HOLIDAY SLOWDOWN.

BUT FOR US, IT'S THE HOLIDAY RAMP UP.

SO OUR INDUSTRY ACTUALLY, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT REVENUE GENERATION IN OUR INDUSTRY, THE NEXT 45 DAYS, 60 DAYS IS WHEN EVERYTHING HAPPENS.

IT'S THE MAKE OR BREAK TIME FOR OUR INDUSTRY.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE HERE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE WORKLOAD INCREASES, LAW ENFORCEMENT INCREASES, LICENSING, EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR INDUSTRY RAMPS UP.

AND SO I AM GRATEFUL FOR EVERYONE IN THE ROOM FOR KIND OF THE FRENETIC PACE THAT WE WILL EXPERIENCE GOING THROUGH THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE BUSINESS SEASON, SO IT'S A TOUGH, BUSY THREE MONTHS, BUT WE ARE UP TO THE CHALLENGE.

SO I JUST APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S ASSISTANCE AND I ALSO OFFICIALLY WOULD LIKE TO WISH EVERYONE A VERY SAFE HOLIDAY SEASON.

AND. WE ALSO HAVE THE 88TH LEGISLATURE COMING ON.

SOON. AND SO OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS, OUR STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO WORK DILIGENTLY ON OUR OBJECTIVES AND OUR APPLICATIONS CONTINUE OUR OUR, OUR, OUR WORK THAT WE ARE SO DILIGENTLY DOING.

AS FAR AS TODAY.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW INDIVIDUALS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MEET, OUR NEW CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, OFFICER AS WELL AS OUR NEW GENERAL COUNSEL.

AND SO WE ALSO HEAR ABOUT OUR NEW ABC RECRUITMENT PLAN.

I ALSO WANT TO WELCOME THOSE WHO ARE GUESTS HERE TODAY.

I THINK THAT WHAT WE ALL RECOGNIZE IS THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND I, WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS, AS ARE THE PEOPLE IN THIS AGENCY.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE HERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, NOT THE PUBLIC TO SERVE US.

AND I BELIEVE HOPEFULLY WITHIN OUR DEMOCRACY, OUR REPUBLIC AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, THAT WE AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS WILL NEVER FORGET THAT RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE SERVE YOU, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

SO WE APPRECIATE THE TRANSPARENCY, WE APPRECIATE FEEDBACK, AND WE APPRECIATE INPUT.

SOMETIMES IT CAN BE CRITICAL, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET BETTER.

AS I LIKE TO SAY, IRON SHARPENS IRON AND THAT CAN BE A CHALLENGE, BUT IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO ACCEPT.

SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU AGAIN.

AND OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

TO THE PUBLIC, THAT IS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS APPROVAL OF COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2022.

I SO MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? COMMISSIONER ATKINS.

THANK YOU, SIR. WE WILL NOW VOTE.

ALL OF THAT IN MOTION CARRIES.

THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS THE INTRODUCTION OF OUR NEW GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

[2. Reports]

GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.

GOOD MORNING. FOR THE RECORD, AMANDA FLETCHER, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES.

THE PLEASURE OF INTRODUCING TWO OF OUR NEW NEWEST MEMBERS OF OUR LEADERSHIP TEAM, MR. JAMES PEARSON, OUR GENERAL COUNSEL.

[00:05:01]

JAMES PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, WHERE HE LED A TEAM OF ALMOST 50 LAWYERS AND SUPPORT STAFF.

HE ALSO SERVED AS AN ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL TO GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT AND ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND AN ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION.

JAMES HAS A LAW DEGREE FROM THE SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND A BACHELOR'S DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ANY PHOTO OPPORTUNITIES OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANY WORDS? JUST EXCITED TO BE HERE.

CAN YOU IMPROVE OUR OFFENSE A LITTLE BIT? I'M SORRY. I JUST I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND, SIR.

WELCOME. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO CONRAD'S ONE JOINED AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER IN THE BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION ON NOVEMBER 7TH.

CONRAD'S CAREER IN TEXAS GOVERNMENT IS SPANNED TEN YEARS FROM THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE AND THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

DURING HIS 17 YEARS WORKING FOR THE STATE, HE SERVED IN ROLES RANGING FROM THE BUDGET MANAGER TO DEPUTY BUDGET DIRECTOR.

CONRAD HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT BUDGETARY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.

CONRAD IS A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF CENTRAL TEXAS.

HE GRADUATED FROM TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND LATER ATTENDED UT'S UNIVERSITY OF AUSTIN, WHERE HE EARNED HIS BACHELOR BUSINESS MASTER'S IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

EAT. KNOW MY CATS? WELCOME TO THE TEAM.

I'M GOING TO TAKE JAMES TO SLEEP.

I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU. GLAD YOU'RE HERE. WELL, WELCOME.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THE MOMENT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S. NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS RECRUITMENT PLAN.

CHIEF NORRIS AND DIRECTOR FLETCHER.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN.

COMMISSIONERS. BRANDY NORRIS.

CHIEF OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

I WANTED TO COME IN AND VISIT A LITTLE BIT TODAY ABOUT THE RECRUITMENT PLAN AND WHAT WE ARE DOING TO TRY TO ADDRESS A LESSENING WORKFORCE, IF YOU WILL.

IT'S GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO RECRUIT GOOD, QUALIFIED AGENTS.

AND SO WITH OUR HELP, WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER A PLAN TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO LOOKS LIKE THIS.

SO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES NATIONWIDE ARE STRUGGLING TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.

THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT POSITIONS ARE LESSENING.

AND BY DOING THAT, WE ARE COMPOUNDING AN EVEN GREATER PROBLEM, WHICH IS CREATING IT'S GETTING HARDER TO CREATE A DIVERSE WORKFORCE.

NEXT SLIDE. ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS DEMOGRAPHICS AS FAR AS THE AREAS THAT WE SERVE.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF OUR AGENCY.

WE REALIZE THAT WHILE WE STRAINED TO TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN FEMALES AND ENFORCEMENT RANKS, OUR FEMALES MAKE UP ABOUT 15% OF OUR NATIONAL AND THE NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT FEMALES ARE ABOUT 12%.

SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THE CURVE ON THAT.

HOWEVER, THERE IS A CURRENT INITIATIVE, WHICH IS THE 30 BY 30 INITIATIVE, WHICH IS STRIVING TO HAVE 30% OF FEMALES BY THE YEAR 2030.

AND SO WE ARE HOPING TO BE ABLE TO ALSO JOIN THAT INITIATIVE.

NEXT SLIDE. BASED ON DATA FROM THE US CENSUS BUREAU AND THE TEXAS STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AGENCY WIDE, THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF ABC EMPLOYEES IS CLOSE TO THE STATE'S DEMOGRAPHIC MAKEUP AS IT RELATES TO WHITE AND BLACK POPULATIONS.

HISPANIC EMPLOYEES EXCEED STATE DEMOGRAPHICS, AND ASIAN AND OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE BELOW THE STATE DEMOGRAPHIC.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS AGENCY WIDE TO ITS CIVILIAN AND SWORN.

NOW, WHEN WE LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT OUR CIVILIANS I'M SORRY, SPECIFICALLY AT OUR SWORN DATA, WE REALIZE THAT THERE ARE HIGHER DISPARITIES AS IT RELATES TO THE STATE.

DEMOGRAPHICS ARE HIGHER.

OUR HISPANIC AND WHITE AGENTS EXCEED THE STATE DEMOGRAPHIC, WHILE OUR BLACK AND ASIAN AND OTHER AGENTS ARE BELOW.

SO WHAT DO WE DO? SO IN RESPONSE, WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN ATTENDING CAREER FAIRS AT STUDENT AND GOVERNMENT AND FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS, PARTICULARLY AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO A DIVERSIFIED WORKFORCE SUCH AS HBCUS IN TEXAS AND WHO OFFER AGENCY RELATED DEGREE PLANS SUCH AS CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING. WE'LL COORDINATE WITH COUNSELORS AT GOVERNMENT AND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO CERTIFIED CANDIDATES, WHILE CAREER FAIRS WILL LIKELY PROVIDE ACCESS TO NON CERTIFIED CANDIDATES. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH HR TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR NON CERTIFIED APPLICANTS WHO ARE IDENTIFIED THROUGH THESE CAREER FAIRS, BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE ONLY TAKE APPLICANTS FROM CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS.

WE'LL EVALUATE THE SUCCESS OF POSTING AGENT POSITIONS REGIONALLY RATHER THAN STATEWIDE.

OUR LAST AGENT POSTING, WHICH IS ACTUALLY STILL OPEN, WAS POSTED REGIONALLY FOR ARLINGTON, HOUSTON AND EL PASO SPECIFICALLY RATHER THAN STATEWIDE.

[00:10:02]

BUT WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT REGIONAL POSTINGS WILL QUICKEN THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND IMPROVE RETENTION AS THOSE APPLICANTS WILL KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHAT AREA OF THE STATE FOR WHICH THEY'RE APPLYING.

AND IN ADDITION, IT SPEEDS UP THE TESTING OF CANDIDATES AND BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE THE APPLICANTS ARE MORE CONDENSED.

AND THEY WILL HIRE DIRECTLY INTO THE FIELD TRAINING OFFICER PROGRAM OR THE ACADEMY.

SO HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE HIRED GROUPS OF AGENTS AT ONE TIME, AND WE'RE GOING TO STILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

BUT WE WILL ALSO RETAIN AN ELIGIBLE APPLICANT LIST AND HIRE FROM THE LIST AS ATTRITION OCCURS.

THESE NEW AGENTS WILL GO THROUGH ORIENTATION AND WILL REPORT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE REGIONS FOR FIELD TRAINING UNTIL THEY'RE ABLE TO ATTEND THE NEXT SCHEDULED ACADEMY.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE WILL FINALIZE AND FULLY IMPLEMENT OUR RECRUITING PLANS.

WE ARE SHOOTING FOR HAVING THIS PLAN IN PLACE AND ACTIVE ABOUT THE FIRST OF THE YEAR.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE A FULL COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN HR AND ENFORCEMENT WORKING TOGETHER.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF A DIVERSE CANDIDATE, WORK FOR OUR POOL AND WORKFORCE IN ORDER TO BETTER SERVE THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS.

AND WE WILL SEEK TO BE INVOLVED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORKING GROUPS SUCH AS NOBLE OR THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES, NAMELY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN, LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES, THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE AND THE TEXAS POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY APPRIZED OF THE MOST UP TO DATE RECRUITING AND RETENTION PRACTICES.

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECENTLY ATTEND THE ICP INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE CONFERENCE IN DALLAS A FEW WEEKS AGO, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER, BUT WE ARE NOT UNIQUE.

THERE WERE MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS ON RECRUITING AND AND RETENTION.

THE VERY FIRST ONE I WENT TO ON THE FIRST DAY I ARRIVED ABOUT 20 MINUTES EARLY IN THE DOORS WERE ALREADY SHUT BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY FULL, SO THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN RECRUITING AND RETENTION BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING NATIONWIDE WE ARE FEELING AND SEEN.

AND FINALLY, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE AND CONTINUALLY UPDATE THE ABC RECRUITING PLAN AND BEST PRACTICES TO FURTHER EXPLORE IDEAS AND STRATEGIES FOR ATTRACTING AND RETAINING THE BEST POSSIBLE CANDIDATES, WHILE SPECIFICALLY TARGETING CANDIDATES WHO ARE SPECIALIZED AND OR ARE IN AREAS WHERE VACANCIES AND ADDRESSING THE UNDERREPRESENTED DEMOGRAPHIC. ANY QUESTIONS, RIGHT? NO. MR. MARINO, ANY QUESTIONS? NOW I JUST WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR DILIGENT WORK AND THE WAY THEY'VE STRATEGICALLY LOOKED AT HOW WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

AND I KNOW THAT WASN'T EASY, SO I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE THE EXTRA TIME AND EFFORT.

SO GREAT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO HISTORICALLY, THE MAJORITY OF OUR AGENTS COME OUT OF ESTABLISHED DEPARTMENTS AND ARE ALREADY CBOS.

CORRECT. WAS THAT A POLICY OR WAS IT JUST SORT OF TRADITION? IT'S NOT A POLICY.

WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HIRE NON CERTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, BUT IT'S BEEN THE PRACTICE.

SO ON A GO FORWARD BASIS, THAT WILL BE LESS WILL BE LESS RELIANT UPON ESTABLISHED SPOTS OR IN ORDER TO ENHANCE OUR NUMBERS, I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WORK WITH HR TO ESTABLISH NUMBER ONE, HOW DO WE BRING IN NON CERTIFIED INDIVIDUALS.

IT'S CHALLENGING BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PUT THEM THROUGH AN ACADEMY AND THE ACADEMIES ARE USUALLY ABOUT 16 WEEKS LONG.

SO WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THEM EITHER LIVING WHERE THERE IS AN ACADEMY TO SAVE US THE PER DIEM, OR WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO PAY PER DIEM FOR THEM TO BE FOUR MONTHS IN AN ACADEMY SOMEWHERE.

SO WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH HR TO ESTABLISH THAT PROCESS, WHICH IS ALSO WHY WE'VE HISTORICALLY GONE IN AND HIRED SWORN SWORN OFFICERS OR SWORN AGENTS. RIGHT? SO WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH HR AND FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD INTERNS WHO'VE EXPRESSED INTEREST.

WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM AT AN INTERNSHIP ROLE AND THEN WE'VE HAD A FEW OF THEM THAT WE PUT TRY TO PUT THROUGH THE PROGRAM.

NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL, BUT WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE ONE SUCCESS STORY THIS THIS COMING SEMESTER WHERE WE PUT SOMEBODY THROUGH A BASIC PEACE OFFICER COURSE.

AND THAT'S A UNIQUE CHALLENGE WITH THE RECRUITING PLAN AND THE STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD, RECRUITING AT THE COLLEGES, THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE THAT WE RUN INTO QUITE FREQUENTLY BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE STILL IN SCHOOL.

AND SO THEY'RE SENIORS IN COLLEGE AND THEY'RE GETTING READY TO GRADUATE AND GO INTO THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT CAREERS.

AND SO WE NEED A PLAN AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER TO GET A PLAN ESTABLISHED SO THAT WE CAN OPEN UP THE WET THE NET A LITTLE BIT WIDER AND START LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE YOUNGER INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE JUST GRADUATING COLLEGE AND JUST BEGINNING THEIR CAREER.

[00:15:04]

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY CAN HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE, NO LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE WITH WITH THEIR BACK.

THEY'RE QUALIFIED OR THEY HAVE FOUR YEARS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE WITH THEIR BEING TO BE QUALIFIED FOR A POSITION OR MILITARY COMMISSION.

YOU HAVE SOME YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE READY TO.

YEAH, WE REQUIRE A FOUR YEAR DEGREE BECAUSE YOU CAN EXCHANGE EXPERIENCE.

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. BY THE WAY, JUST THE RECRUITING CHALLENGE IS, AGAIN, AS YOU SAID, NOT JUST I MEAN, I WAS WITH CHIEF FENNER, HPD.

I MEAN, EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME ISSUE STATEWIDE, PROBABLY NATIONWIDE.

IT'S NOT ONLY JUST LAW ENFORCEMENT.

IN FACT, THE NUMBER I GOT, I DIDN'T VERIFY IT, BUT IT SOUNDS RIGHT IS THAT MILITARY RECRUITMENT IS DOWN 15 TO 20% AND SOMETIMES SOME AS HIGH AS 35%.

SO WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE IN IN OUR COUNTRY WITH RESPECT TO FIRST RESPONDERS, ETC..

AND OBVIOUSLY, WE ALL KNOW THERE'S A HUGE NURSING SHORTAGE.

SO THANK YOU.

WE'RE GOING TO CALL UP THE NEXT TWO AGENDA ITEMS TOGETHER BORDER IMPORTATION, OPERATIONAL INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT AND FY 22 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT.

DARLENE BROWN AND LIZ MYERS FROM MCDONALD JONES LLP ARE JOINING US TO PROVIDE THE UPDATE.

THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN.

COMMISSIONERS. I AM DARLENE BROWN AND I'M THE INTERNAL AUDIT PARTNER FOR MCCONNELL JONES.

AND I HAVE LIZ MYERS WITH ME AND SHE'S OUR I.T.

AUDIT DIRECTOR FOR MCCONNELL JONES.

AND WE BOTH LEAD YOUR ENGAGEMENT.

SO IN YOUR PACKET TODAY ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. THE FIRST ITEM WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE PEO NOW BIO AUDIT REPORT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THEN GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

SO WHEN AT THE TIME WE COMPLETED THIS AUDIT WAS THE MAY THROUGH JUNE PERIOD, IT WAS KNOWN AS PORT OF ENTRY.

AND SINCE IT'S BEEN CHANGED TO BOARD IMPORTED BORDER IMPORTATION OPERATIONS OR BIO, THE FOCUS AREAS FOR THIS AUDIT INCLUDED, WE LOOKED AT THE REVENUE COLLECTION AND RECORDING PROCESSES.

WE LOOKED AT STAFFING LEVELS AT EACH PORT OF ENTRY.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT THIS PHYSICAL SECURITY IN PLACE AND THE DEPOSIT PROCESS.

WE LOOKED AT HOW REVENUE IS REPORTED.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE NEW SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AND THE ROLLOUT PLAN AND THEN ANY COMPLIANCE.

WE LOOKED AT PROCESSES TO MAKE SURE THE DEPARTMENT WAS IN COMPLIANCE.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT ANY APPLICABLE SUNSET RECOMMENDATIONS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO WE DID HAVE SIX RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT AND THOSE WERE THREE.

SO IN THE WAY WE APPROACH OUR AUDITS IS IF IT'S A FINDING THAT MEANS IT'S EITHER A WEAKNESS IN INTERNAL CONTROLS OR THERE WAS A NON COMPLIANCE AREA. AND IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT, THAT MEANS THAT THE INTERNAL CONTROLS ARE WORKING.

THEY COULD JUST BE TWEAKED TO BE A LITTLE BETTER.

WE ASSIGN THE OVERALL OPERATIONS AS MAJOR IMPROVEMENT NEEDED.

AT THE AT THAT TIME THERE WERE WE HAD FOUR HIGH RISK FINDINGS, TWO MEDIUM RISK, AND THAT TOTAL THE SIX. OUR FIRST RECOMMENDATION WAS TO PERFORM A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS TO ADDRESS LOST EFFICIENCIES AND REVENUES AS A RESULT OF THE CUTBACKS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE PANDEMIC.

THE BORDERS HAVE OPENED, BUT THE STAFFING HAVE NOT INCREASED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT'S COMING THROUGH.

SO THEREFORE LOSING REVENUE.

BUT THEN YOU'RE ALSO SAVING BY NOT HAVING THE STAFF THERE.

SO WHICH COINCIDES WITH THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION WAS TO LOOK AT THE STAFFING LEVELS ACROSS THE PORTS AND ASSIGN THEM YOUR RESOURCES TO WHERE YOU HAVE THE MOST TRAFFIC AND THE MOST DURING THE PEAK PERIODS OF TIME.

AND OUR REPORT INCLUDES SOME OF THE ANALYSIS ACROSS EACH OF THE DIFFERENT PORTS.

WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT A PANIC SYSTEM BE INSTALLED INTO THE BOOTHS.

[00:20:04]

WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BETTER WAY OR MORE EFFORT PUSH TOWARDS ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS INSTEAD OF CASH, IF POSSIBLE. UNDERSTANDING THAT A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS THAT DO CROSS THE BORDER HAVE CASH RATHER THAN A DEBIT CARD.

BUT LET'S TRY AND ENHANCE THAT IF WE POSSIBLY CAN PUSH PUSH TOWARDS THAT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THAT WAS A SUMMARY OF THE PORT OF ENTRY AUDIT REPORT.

I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS NOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR WE CAN TAKE THEM AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, WHATEVER YOUR PREFERENCE IS.

SO WITH RESPECT THAT YOU SAID ENHANCING OUR CASH ALTERNATIVE PROCESS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT VENMO, FOR EXAMPLE, DOES WE'RE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THOSE TYPES OF. RIGHT NOW IT'S PRIMARILY A CASH AND DEBIT CARD, RIGHT? THE MAJORITY IS CASH.

SO IF WE COULD MAYBE INSTALL A DEVICE AT THE PORT OF ENTRY BOOTHS WHERE INDIVIDUALS COULD PUT THEIR DEBIT CARD IN OR A CREDIT CARD OR DO CASH APP PAYMENT, THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN SOMETHING OR SIMILAR TO LIKE WHAT WE DO AT A PARKING GARAGE NOWADAYS WHERE YOU PREPAY AT THE PARKING GARAGE.

IT COULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS WELL.

SO YOU'RE SAYING CURRENTLY WE'RE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING THAT, BUT THAT'S ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO DO THAT, CORRECT? IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY MAKE THINGS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT.

RIGHT. I THOUGHT I'D ONE POINT PART OF THE AIMS ROLLOUT WAS A MODULE FOR THE PORTS OF ENTRY THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO ALREADY DECLARE THAT AHEAD OF TIME AND PAY AHEAD OF TIME.

IS THAT STILL ON THE HORIZON TO BE ROLLED OUT AS PART OF AIMS? IS THAT PART OF A FUTURE FUNDING PHASE OR PORT PASS, I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING AND WE'RE LOOKING AT ROLLING THAT OUT OVER THERE WITH THE CRUISE SHIPS FIRST AND KIND OF GETTING IT SET UP AND LOOKING AT IT THERE.

BUT THAT'LL EXPAND DIFFERENT PAYMENT PROCESSES.

AND IT IS THE SOFTWARE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT GOING OUT FIRST.

I THINK THAT WOULD IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS THIS NUMBER SIX ITEM.

YES, SIR. GIVE YOU THOSE OPTIONS AND JUST MAKE IT A SMOOTHER PROCESS COMING BACK THROUGH.

SO FOREVER. ABSOLUTELY.

HAVE WE DONE ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO AIRPORTS? I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

WE DID A STUDY A WHILE BACK.

AND I'LL LET YOU FOR ANY TALK IF I MISSED ANY STEPS HERE.

BUT WE DID A STUDY SEVERAL YEARS BACK AND AWESOME.

AND WHAT WE COLLECTED WAS VERY LITTLE.

I THINK IT WAS MAYBE 6000 OVER A SEVERAL MONTH PERIOD WHERE AUSTIN OC BUT THE PRIMARY HUBS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL.

AND THEN WE WENT TO HOUSTON AND WE HAD WE SLOWED THE PROCESS DOWN WHERE WE COULD HAVE I THINK CUSTOMS WAS CONCERNED WITH US BEING IN THE PROCESS FOR THOSE REASONS SINCE THEY'RE TURNING THOSE PLANES SO FAST OUT THERE.

RIGHT. BUT WE CAN GET YOU SOME MORE DETAILS ON WHAT WE FOUND OUT THERE, IF YOU PREFER.

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS.

THE LAST QUESTION. I HAVE A QUICK COMMENT.

SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE STAFF AND IT'S NOT A FORMAT, BUT THE SIX ITEMS THAT WE NEED THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED, THAT NEED A PLAN OF ACTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STAFF COME BACK AND BRIEF THE COMMISSION ON WHAT IS THE PLAN OF ACTION TO ADDRESS EACH OF THESE SIX AREAS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL ARE READY TO DISCUSS TODAY, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO.

COMMISSIONER MARINO, WE CAN COME BACK AND PRESENT.

WHAT WE FOUND IS SOLUTIONS FOR THESE WHAT WE'VE WORKED WITH THE AUDITORS ON AND WHAT WE'RE DOING INTERNALLY, AND I THINK MOVING FORWARD WOULD BE HELPFUL IS WHEN WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION LIKE THIS THAT THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE OF SEVERAL OTHER INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE.

THAT STAFF IS IS AVAILABLE TO OR READY TO PRESENT THAT THIS IS THE AUDIT REPORT AND THIS IS OUR PLAN OF ACTION TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS.

UNDERSTOOD. YES, MA'AM.

WE WILL DO THAT NEXT TIME.

THANK YOU. ON ON THIS STAFFING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE HAVE ALREADY PROPOSED IN OUR NEW BUDGET TO BRING BACK THAT

[00:25:04]

WE'RE WE'RE ABOUT 15 SHORT OF THAT RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'RE LOOKING TO PULL THEM BACK INTO THAT.

SO JUST IN LOOKING AT THIS, THE GOOD NEWS AND TO COMMISSIONER MORENO'S REPORT, WE WANT TO SEE THIS, BUT I THINK WE'VE ALREADY GOT PLANS OF ACTIONS TO ADDRESS MOST OF THESE.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF THIS IS A SURPRISE.

I THINK WE'VE ALREADY BEEN AWARE OF THESE ISSUES AND WE'VE GOT ITEMS IN PLACE TO HELP ADDRESS THIS, BUT IT'D BE GREAT TO GET CONFIRMATION OF THOSE.

ABSOLUTELY. WE DO.

WE HAVE THOSE SOLUTIONS IN PLACE, SO WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PRESENT THOSE NEXT TIME AROUND.

GREAT. THANK YOU. PLEASE PROCEED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT ITEM IN YOUR PACKET IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 ANNUAL AUDIT INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT.

IF YOU COULD GO BACK, PLEASE.

AND THIS IS A REPORT THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATUTE AND IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, THE LEGISLATIVE VILLAGE BOARD AND STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE BY NOVEMBER 1ST. SO I HAVE SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ALREADY.

IT DID GO IN ON TIME.

THE COMPONENTS OF THE REPORT ARE ALSO MANDATED BY THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, AND THE CONTENTS ARE BASED UPON THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS OF THIS AGENCY. SO THE COMPONENTS INCLUDE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUBLISH AUDIT REPORTS ON YOUR WEBSITE THAT THE STATUS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 22 INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN, WHICH I WILL GO OVER NEXT, ARE OUR PEER REVIEW OUTCOMES.

SO THERE WAS A COPY OF OUR PEER REVIEW MCCONNELL JONES OUTCOME IN THAT REPORT.

THE 2023 PROPOSED ANNUAL INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN AND ANY SERVICES THAT YOU ACQUIRED BESIDES INTERNAL AUDIT INTERN 22 AND THEN YOUR POLICIES FOR REPORTING SUSPECTED FRAUD AND ABUSE.

THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN ANY REPORT.

SO THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM FOR YOU.

NO ACTION IS REQUIRED, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BE HAPPY TO.

WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO REAL QUICKLY, THE STATUS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN IS WE DID COMPLETE THE AUDIT AS SCHEDULED.

WE EXECUTED THE ENTIRE AUDIT PLAN WE CAME IN AT AS OF JULY 31ST.

WE WERE AT 87% OF THE BUDGET.

AND SO WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP NOT USING THE ENTIRE BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022.

WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE AUDITS PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023.

THESE WERE APPROVED IN THE BI ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN THAT GOT APPROVED LAST FISCAL YEAR.

IT'S THE FIRST AUDIT IS THE DATA SECURITY, AND WE ARE ACTUALLY IN THE MIDST OF THAT, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT YOUR CYBERSECURITY PROTECTION, WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW DATA IS HANDLED AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT COMPLIANCE WITH ANY TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 202, WHICH IS CYBERSECURITY RELATED.

THE NEXT AUDIT FOR THIS YEAR IS LICENSING, WHERE WE WILL LOOK AT THE OEM'S IMPLEMENTATION.

WE'LL LOOK AT THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THAT SYSTEM AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S WORKING AS YOU HAD INTENDED.

WE'LL ALSO LOOK AT COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY STATUTES AND RULES, AND THEN IF THERE WERE ANY SUNSET RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE OPEN, WE WILL LOOK AT THOSE REGARDING LICENSING.

AND THAT IS THE STATUS OF OUR 23 AUDIT PLANS.

I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

AND SO I'VE GONE OVER THIS.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE IN PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE DATA SECURITY.

COMMISSIONER MORENO IS CHAIR OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? WELL, THANK YOU FOR ELEVATING ME TO CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT, WELL, I GOT TO TELL YOU, SIR.

I'M HAPPY TO SERVE.

I'M HAPPY TO SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY.

I. I JUST WANT TO.

I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THE AUDIT PROCESS IS I HAVE TO GIVE CREDIT TO MCCONNELL.

I THINK I'VE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB.

I'VE APPRECIATED THE TRANSPARENCY AND THE CONTINUED COMMUNICATION.

I KNOW WORKING ALONGSIDE THOMAS AND STAFF, WE DO WANT TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE THERE'S MORE OF A CADENCE OF INFORMATION.

SO COMMISSIONER MACK AND MYSELF HAVE THE ABILITY TO KIND OF REVIEW SO WE CAN GET THOSE WORKING COMMITTEES TO BE THE TRANSPARENT

[00:30:09]

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT I HAVE ENJOYED OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH MCCONNELL JONES THUS FAR AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE WORKED WITH US ON. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND I DO WANT TO THANK YOU AND COMMISSIONER MACK FOR YOUR SERVICE IN THAT REGARD.

COMMITTEES ARE A RELATIVELY NEW BEING IN THIS AGENCY, SO WE'RE DELIGHTED THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT KIND OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS AND YOURSELVES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I SHOW PUBLIC INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT.

OH, RIGHT. THE CONFIRMATION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE MORE AUDIT STUFF.

YES. OH, I WAS SO EXCITED.

I'M KIDDING. COME ON.

GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ASHLEY HEALY.

I'M THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, AND I AM HERE TO PRESENT AN ACTION ITEM FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THE INTERNAL AUDIT CONTRACT.

SO AS YOU KNOW, UNDER THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 31 ONE, THE COMMISSION RETAINS THE DUTY AND AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY OR APPOINT OR TERMINATE OR REMOVE THE INTERNAL AUDITOR. WE SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH THE INTERNAL AUDITOR LAST FALL.

YOU GUYS APPROVED THAT AND YOUR OPEN MEETING AND THAT CONTRACT EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 15TH, 2022.

SO WE ARE HERE TO RECOMMEND THAT YOU GUYS APPROVE THAT CONTRACT TO BE EXTENDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEAR.

I SAID FISCAL YEAR. I MEAN, FOR ADDITIONAL CALENDAR YEAR TO BE EFFECTIVE ON DECEMBER 15, 2022, AND EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 15TH OF 2023.

COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

SO IS THIS FOR THE FIVE YEARS REMAINS? IF WE APPROVED TODAY, THEN THIS IS AN APPROVAL THAT WE HAVE TO DO EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS? OR IS THERE AN OPTION WHERE YOU HAVE WE HAVE AN OPTION TO RENEW THE REMAINING 24 MONTHS OR WHATEVER WE ULTIMATELY DECIDE.

DOES THIS HAVE TO BE DONE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS? IT IS NOT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IN THE RFP STATED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL 2023 AND THAT TBC AT ITS SOLE OPTION, MAY EXTEND THE CONTRACT AWARDED PURSUANT TO THE SOLICITATION FOR UP TO FOUR ADDITIONAL YEARS AFTER THAT.

SO YOU'VE GOT FIVE YEARS REMAINING AND YOU CAN DO THAT YEAR BY YEAR.

LAST YEAR YOU GUYS HAD ASKED ME TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU AFTER ONE YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS A NEW AUDITOR AND WE HADN'T WORKED WITH THEM BEFORE.

AND SO I BROUGHT IT BACK AFTER ONE FISCAL YEAR.

BUT YOU CAN DO THAT IN ANY KIND OF COMBINATION, OBVIOUSLY, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE INTERNAL AUDITOR, SINCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO SIGN THE CONTRACT AS WELL.

SO IF YOU GUYS WANTED TO DO THEY DO THE AUDIT PLAN INTO YOUR CHUNKS? SO IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO DO IT BY THE BIENNIAL AUDIT PLAN.

AND SINCE YOU GUYS WOULD BE PART OF THAT CONTRACT NEGOTIATION, IS THAT WOULD.

YES. BIANNUALLY.

SO, YEAH, USUALLY DOING IT BY THE ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN IS HOW MOST AGENCIES WOULD DO IT AND WOULD BE THE REGULAR RECOMMENDATION.

SO THIS ONE YEAR EXTENSION WOULD FINISH OUT THAT CURRENT AUDIT PLAN THAT THEY'RE UNDER, BUT THEN WE COULD BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS TO RENEW.

WE CAN EVEN PUT IT ON A FISCAL YEAR BASIS AND YOU COULD RENEW IT IN TWO YEAR SEGMENTS AT THAT TIME BASED ON THE BIENNIUM.

YEAH, I JUST SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT IN PLACE FOR THE NEXT.

I JUST THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR US TO ALIGN OURSELVES WITH THE BIENNIUM AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IT WITH A NEW RELATIONSHIP WHERE WE'RE ALL NEW AND WE WANT TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS FOR THE RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE AGENCY.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT OPPORTUNITY FORWARD, AND I WOULD OBVIOUSLY LIKE MY COMMISSIONERS TO CHIME IN AND MAKE THEM FEEL COMFORTABLE AS WELL.

SO, COMMISSIONER MARINO, THE LANGUAGE ON THE APPROVAL IS SIMPLY TO RENEW THE INTERNAL AUDITOR CONTRACT FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THAT LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR INTENT OR DO YOU.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

[00:35:02]

YES. OKAY. VERY GOOD.

AND YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE ME TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU AT THE SUMMER MEETING SO THAT WE COULD THEN START THAT RENEWAL PROCESS AND DO A FISCAL RENEWAL FOR TWO FISCAL YEARS STARTING SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 2023.

WE COULD DO THAT AS WELL.

IT'S NOT FAIR. ARE WE GOOD? AND THERE AREN'T ANY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT.

THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THE CONTRACT WE WISH.

WE'RE DIFFERENT. THERE'S NOTHING WE'D LIKE TO UPDATE GIVEN THE KNOW OUR EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST YEAR.

NO, THEY HAVEN'T. NOT TO EXCEED 50,000 PER YEAR.

AND AS I STATED EARLIER, THEY DID NOT QUITE MEET THAT.

AND SO I THINK WE'RE PRETTY GOOD ON TARGET FOR BUDGET WITH THAT 50,000 SINCE THEY WERE ALMOST THERE, BUT NOT QUITE.

SO I DON'T RECOMMEND ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MS..

HEALEY. ALL RIGHT.

SO I MOVED TO APPROVE RENEWAL, THE INTERNAL AUDITOR CONTRACT FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MARINO.

SECOND, WE WILL NOW VOTE.

THE VOTES HAVE BEEN RECORDED.

THE MOTION IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

NOW THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC CONTENT.

[3. Public Comment]

GENERAL COUNSEL, YOU HAVE ANY? YES, SIR, WE DO.

BUT DO WE HAVE ANY ON ZOOM, JOE? YES, WE DO. HE HAS TO ACCEPT MY INVITATION.

HE HASN'T DONE THAT YET.

OKAY. DO WE KNOW WHO IT IS? IT'S LUKE. LUKE FROM THE ROOM.

SO PERHAPS BY THE TIME WE HAVE TO HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT, HE WILL BE ABLE TO RESPOND.

I DO HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION WITH THIS PARTICULAR COMMENTER THAT DO, BUT WE DO HAVE ANOTHER COMMENTER THAT CAN COME UP RIGHT NOW, AND WE'LL ADDRESS THAT ONE.

SECOND IS WE ACTUALLY, WITH THE COMMISSION'S PERMISSION, I'M GOING TO I WOULD ASK THAT HE HIS COMMENTS BE DELAYED.

HE WANTS TO COMMENT ON ONE OF THE CONTESTED CASES THAT MARTIN IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING TO YOU ALL.

AND I WOULD ASK THAT MARTIN BE ALLOWED TO TALK FIRST AND THEN LUKE LEROUX COULD COME UP, IF THAT'S IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.

THAT'S FINE WITH ME. OKAY.

SO IF WE CAN START WITH RYAN HUGHES, HE'S IN PERSON.

THANK YOU, MR. HUGHES. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A I APPRECIATE ALL PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PROCESS BECAUSE WE AS PUBLIC SERVANTS NEED TO HEAR WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS AND WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF ALL AGENCY MEETINGS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND FRANKLY, PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST UNDERUTILIZED, TO BE HONEST. SO WE WELCOME YOU HERE.

YOU HAVE 2 MINUTES TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH US.

SO PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR TABLING MAKING A DECISION ON PROPOSED RULE 35.1 AS IT RELATES TO REPORTING BREACHES SO THAT WE COULD PROVIDE COMMENTS.

ALSO, SINCE THE LAST TIME I SPOKE, THE CHANGE OF OFFICER FEATURE HAS BECOME AVAILABLE IN AMES, WHICH IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT.

SO I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON OUR PROPOSED FAST RULES.

WE SUBMITTED THIS BASICALLY AS A LAST RESORT.

WE'VE BEEN HAVING TROUBLE GETTING CASES SET FOR HEARING WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

CASES WILL GO OVER A YEAR WITHOUT BEING SET FOR HEARING AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS.

IT ULTIMATELY CREATES A DUE PROCESS ISSUE FOR OUR CLIENTS BECAUSE BUSINESSES ARE UNABLE TO DISPUTE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AND ONLY THE ABC CAN SUBMIT A REQUEST TO DOCKET WITH. SO. SO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT'S POSITION IS THAT THEY'RE STILL BACKED UP FROM HANDLING COVID EMERGENCY ORDER CASES AND ARE BUSY SETTLING CASES.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO HAVE THE ABC PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NUMBER OF CASES FILED WITH SO FAR IN 2017, 2018, 2019, AND THIS YEAR 2022. SO 2020 AND 2021, THE DATA SKEWED BECAUSE THEY WERE HANDLING EMERGENCY ORDER CASES FOR COVID.

ONE CASE IN PARTICULAR, CHARRO ENTITIES LLC.

SO A DOCKET NUMBER OF 458185252.

THE BUSINESS WAS ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR A CELL TO MINOR FOR THAT ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED ON JUNE 17, 2017.

[00:40:09]

SO RIGHT AROUND FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGATION OCCURRED, WE'RE EXCITED WITH THE NEW ADMINISTRATION, THE FRESH START.

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN IMPROVEMENTS ON MAKING DECISIONS IN NEW LICENSE APPLICATIONS.

HOWEVER, WE THINK THAT THESE PROPOSED RULES WOULD HELP GET THINGS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I THINK WE CAN'T ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE OF THE RULES, CORRECT.

AS YOU KNOW.

SO WHEN IT DOES COME UP, I'LL TRY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT I THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

AND I HOPE THAT THE ANSWERS ARE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

IN ADDITION TO THE ZOOM COMMENTER, WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONTESTED CASE THAT MARTIN IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING.

SO WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WE'LL DELAY BOTH OF THEIR COMMENTS UNTIL AFTER MARTIN HAS HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS YOU ALL.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE NEXT NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

MR. MIRANDA WILL GET WITH THAT.

YES, WE ARE. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON ORDER PROPOSAL FOR DECISION REGARDING THE 35TH STREET BAR AND GRILL LLC.

[4. Orders on Proposals for Decision]

SO A DOCKET NUMBER 458.

DASH TWO ONE. DASH 1787.

SENIOR COMMISSION COUNSEL WILSON.

IF YOU PLEASE, SIR. THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD, MARTIN WILSON, SENIOR COMMISSION COUNSEL.

AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PRELIMINARY ISSUES ON THIS FIRST CASE, THE 35 CLUB DEALING WITH PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST.

ONE WAS THIS THEY BOTH AROSE THIS MORNING.

SO THEY BOTH AROSE THIS MORNING.

BOTH OF THESE ISSUES THERE WAS THIS MORNING WHEN ACTING IN A CONTESTED CASE AND MAKING A DECISION TO CONTEST THE CASE.

IT'S. YOU'RE ACTING AS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER.

IS IT A CONTESTED CASE PROCESS? IN THE CONTESTED CASE PROCESS, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON THE RECORD OF THE CASE AND AT LEAST FOR THE FOR THE EXAMPLE OF MR. LAURO, WHO IS THE ZOOM COMMENTER WHO WANTS TO COMMENT, HE IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE.

SO IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD BE AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION FROM AN OUTSIDE PARTY ABOUT A PENDING MATTER BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT YOU SHOULD NOT RELY ON AND KNOW THAT A LETTER WAS RECEIVED AS WELL AS HIS REQUEST TO MAKE AN ORAL COMMENT.

THE LETTER, I THINK, WAS ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED TO YOU, AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER NOT RECEIVING THAT INTO THE RECORD, WHICH I THINK WAS PART OF THE REQUEST IN THE LETTER.

WAS THAT MADE PART OF THE RECORD? I WOULD REQUEST I THINK IT'S AS AN EX PARTE CONTACT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE RECORD AND THAT YOU SHOULD NOT RELY ON IT IN MAKING YOUR DECISION IN THE CASE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S AS TO MR. ROSE ISSUE, MR. KORZENIOWSKI, WHO IS THE PERSON WHO WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT IN PERSON? IS THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENT IN THE CASE.

AND THE ISSUE THERE IS AGAIN, AS A MEMBER, AS A PARTY, HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE X PARTY RESTRICTIONS, OF COURSE, BUT THE THE PETITIONER WHO IS THE STAFF OF THE CASE, IS NOT HERE TO RESPOND TO HIS COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW.

THE DECISION IS REALLY UP TO YOU AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO HEAR MR. KORZENIOWSKI. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT SINCE THERE IS THE OPPOSING PARTY IS NOT HERE TO RESPOND, THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE.

BUT THAT IS HIS DECISION.

SO THAT'S SORT OF THE PRELIMINARY MATTER THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD ADDRESS.

YOU COULD ADDRESS NOW YOUR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT OR YOUR INTEREST? I THINK THAT UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIFIC EX-PARTE PROHIBITION ON SOMEONE SPEAKING DURING PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT ONE OF THESE, I THINK THE ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK, WHETHER WE ALLOW WHAT'S DISCUSSED

[00:45:04]

IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE'S A LEGAL REASON NOT TO ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK, I'M ALL EARS.

IF IT'S JUST A MATTER IF IT'S JUST A PRUDENTIAL CONSIDERATION, YOU CAN LET THEM SPEAK, BUT YOU CAN'T LET IT INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION.

BECAUSE IT'S EX PARTE.

THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT SO OR AND OR BEFORE THAT.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A DIFFERENT MATTER TO ME.

BUT I'M ADDRESSING THIS JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

I HAVEN'T GIVEN IT ANY THOUGHT AND I DON'T HAVE A CITATION FOR YOU, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE.

THE ACTUAL EX PARTE CONTACT IS ITSELF NOT ALLOWED.

BUT I WOULD AGREE THAT SIGNED UP DURING PUBLIC COMMENT THEY SHOULD GET THEIR 2 MINUTES VERY PUBLIC.

OKAY. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK IF BUT BUT MARTIN, IF THAT'S JUST NOT IF THAT'S NOT LEGAL, THEN WE THEN WE NEED TO KNOW.

AND I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

YOU'RE BRINGING A REAL ISSUE TO US THAT THAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT JUST IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO RESOLVE IT.

WE NEED TO KNOW WHETHER IT'S WHETHER THIS IS A QUESTION OF GOOD GOVERNMENT AND PRUDENCE AND GOOD PRACTICE ON THE ONE HAND, OR A LEGAL MATTER THAT COULD.

AFFECT THE CASE IN VERY CONSEQUENTIAL WAYS.

CORRECT. SO RECOMMENDATION IS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE NOT.

I NOTICED. SO MR. LARUE ISN'T ISN'T A LAWYER? NO, HE IS. HE IS A LAWYER.

HE IS A LAWYER, BUT NOT A PARTY OF THE CASE.

NOT A PARTY IN THE CASE. HE'S A LAWYER FROM FLORIDA.

HE DIDN'T REPRESENT HE WAS LICENSED IN TEXAS.

SO IF THIS WOULD BE ANALOGOUS TO AN AMICUS OR PRIVATE OR SOMETHING.

OF IF THERE IS A LEGAL PROHIBITION AGAINST THAT COMMUNICATION, WHAT'S THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE FOR THE CASE? I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOUR INDULGENCE TO MAYBE MOVE THIS DOWN THE RULEMAKING AFTER THE RULEMAKING OR AT SOME POINT LATER.

GIVE ME A FEW MINUTES TO DO THE RESEARCH TO GET THE ANSWER TO THAT.

THAT'S GREAT. AS LONG AS WE CAN CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

NO PROBLEM. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION TO.

SO, COMMISSIONER MORENO, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW COUNSEL A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DIG INTO THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS AND OR CONSEQUENCES OF RECOMMENDED ACTION. YES, WE CAN DO THAT.

OKAY. YES.

THANK YOU. YOU MAY EXCUSE.

THANKS. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, SIR. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO LEFT.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK EVERYONE WILL AGREE THAT FORBEARANCE AND PRUDENCE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT IN THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO HASTILY JUMP INTO SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES, EITHER DAMAGING TO THE AGENCY OR TO THE PARTIES.

SO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ACTION ON ORDER.

PROPOSE FOR DECISION REGARDING BOOK EATERS, COCKTAIL BAR INC DBA BOOK EATERS COCKTAIL BAR SO A DOCKET 458-217 1044 WE GET A TABLE.

WE MIGHT GET TO THE RULES FIRST.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE. OKAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO PASS ALL THOSE INSTANCES AND MOVE INTO THE RULES.

AND WE'RE GOOD. OKAY.

SO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF NEW RULE 33.81 FOR PURCHASE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR A TEMPORARY

[5. Rules]

GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, GENERAL COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

WE HAVE NO ADOPTIONS TODAY.

WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED DRAFT RULES FOR NEW RULE 33.81 AFTER SOME RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES. WELL, NOT SO RECENT NOW, BUT CHANGING ALL OF OUR STATUTORY MENU OF LICENSES AND PERMITS.

[00:50:03]

THEY WEREN'T SURE IF THEY HAD TO PURCHASE THOSE IN THE COUNTY WHERE THEIR PRIMARY PERMIT IS OR IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO PURCHASE IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE EVENT IS BEING HELD.

AND SO THIS RULE IS PROPOSED TO JUST CLARIFY THAT THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE EVENT IS HELD WITH SOME PROPER RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS. SUBJECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

THIS IS BEFORE YOU NOW FOR YOUR VOTE ON PROPOSAL.

ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

I MOVE TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF NEW RULE 33.81 PURCHASE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR A TEMPORARY EVENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AS THEIR SECOND TO THE MOTION.

SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ATKINS.

SECOND, WE WILL NOW VOTE.

THE VOTES ARE RECORDED, MOTION IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU. NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION FOR PUBLICATION OF NEW AND AMENDED CHAPTER 31 ADMINISTRATION.

MS.. HORTON, PLEASE.

THE PROPOSED NEW AND AMENDED RULES RESULT FROM THE FOUR YEAR REVIEW OF CHAPTER 31 PRESCRIBED BY GOVERNMENT CODE 2139.

ADDITIONALLY, NEW SECTION 31.11 FAMILY LEAVE POOL IS PROPOSED AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH ACTUALLY REQUIRES US TO ADOPT A RULE REGARDING THE FAMILY LEAVE POOL.

THIS IS NOW BEFORE YOU FOR DELIBERATION DECISION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. I MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF NEW AND AMENDED CHAPTER 31 ADMINISTRATION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AS THEIR SECOND.

SECOND. MR. BOATRIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE A SECOND.

WE WILL NOW VOTE.

VOTES ARE BEING RECORDED. THE MOTION IS APPROVED.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF AMENDED CHAPTER 50 SELLERS SERVER TRAINING.

SHORTEN, PLEASE.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AGAIN RESULT FROM THE FOUR YEAR REVIEW CYCLE PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WILL ADD DEFINITIONS OF TERMS FOR CLARIFICATION, A PROVISIONS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY CAUSED SOME CONFUSION AMONG SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS.

REMOVE A PROVISION FOR UNIT BASED INSTRUCTION THAT NO SCHOOL HAS OPTED TO USE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE PROGRAM.

REMOVE OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY REFERENCES AND ORDERING AND ISSUING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES.

EXPAND THE CATEGORIES OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER TO SUPPORT A DECISION NOT TO PROCESS A SCHOOL'S APPLICATION OR A TRAINER'S APPLICATION FOR A NEW OR RENEWAL PERMIT. UPDATE A REFERENCE TO COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A RENEWAL CERTIFICATE TO SCHOOL OR TRAINER AND PROVIDE A 30 DAY LIMIT FOR LATE APPLICATION RENEWALS JUST LIKE OTHER LICENSES AND PERMITS.

MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS CHAPTER WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE INDISPUTABLE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON THE PROGRAM, ASHLEY JOHNS.

BASED ON HER EXPERIENCE MANAGING THIS PROGRAM FOR THE AGENCY, OTHER CHANGES WERE NECESSARY BECAUSE THE AGENCY WILL NO LONGER BE USING THE LEGACY SOFTWARE.

VERSA. WITH VERSA GONE, AN OUTSIDE VENDOR WILL ASSUME THE FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING SELLING CERTIFICATE NUMBERS TO SCHOOLS AND GIVING SELLERS AND SERVERS ONLINE ACCESS TO THEIR CERTIFICATES. SO THERE IS NO DELAY IN GETTING THEM TO WORK.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

IS THIS THE RULE THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE DOLLARS 25 SERVICE CHARGE? YES, SIR. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.

AND THIS COULD GET PRETTY, PRETTY DETAILED AND I MIGHT HAVE TO START OVER OR JUST READ SOMETHING THAT I GOT TO MY PHONE.

BUT I'LL TRY TO BE AS SMOOTH AS I'VE NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE.

SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE'RE NOT IMPOSING THE DOLLAR 25 SERVICE CHARGE, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO THE VENDOR THE VENDOR HAS SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WILL COST FOR THEM TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.

OKAY. WE'RE AUTHORIZED UNDER, WHAT IS IT, SECTION 5.55 OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE TO IMPOSE THE SERVICE CHARGE RELATED TO ELECTRONIC STUFF LIKE THIS.

SO WE WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE BY RULE A I THINK IT'S THEY CALL IT A SERVICE FEE IN THE

[00:55:09]

BUT IF WE WERE IMPOSING IT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE BY RULE THAT A VENDOR IMPOSE IT OR WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE A VENDOR TO IMPOSE IT.

IT'S JUST A PRESUMABLY IT'S A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT THAT THAT THE VENDOR HAS.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, TO CHARGE THE DOLLAR 25 FEE, WE'RE NOT THE ONES DOING IT.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY A MATTER OF OUR AUTHORITY AND IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE PROVIDE BY BY RULE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE VENDOR DOES.

IF I GO GET A HUNTING LICENSE OR OR I PAY A TOLL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THERE'S A SERVICE FEE AND I JUST JUST PAY IT.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.

TO BE QUITE FRANK WITH YOU AND MAYBE ACTUALLY JOHN'S ARE ACTUALLY HE CAN HELP ME.

I'M NOT CERTAIN AT WHAT POINT IN THE PROCESS THAT DOLLAR 25 WILL BE, WILL BE REQUESTED.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN THE SOFTWARE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT YET.

WE'RE ADOPTING THE RULE FIRST. SO IT MAY BE ENOUGH.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT MY I DON'T IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR ME TO SAY I DON'T CARE WHEN IT'S WHEN IT'S CHARGED.

I CARE THAT IT'S CHARGED. I HOPE IT'S NEVER CHARGED.

I HOPE WE NEGOTIATE A NEW CONTRACT NEXT YEAR THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING THIS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT TODAY ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND TODAY AND THEN MAYBE MAKE A PROPOSAL, SOME SOME CONFORMING CHANGES, IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE'RE NOT IMPOSING THE CHARGE.

SO OUR SOURCES OF OUR AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A CHARGE AREN'T AREN'T RELEVANT HERE.

AND WE WOULDN'T BE AUTHORIZING A VENDOR.

WE WOULDN'T WE CAN'T AUTHORIZE A VENDOR TO IMPOSE A CHARGE BY ONE OF OUR RULES.

AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS MAKE A COUPLE OF CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED RULE AND THEN MAKE SOME CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE PREAMBLE TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, THAT WE'RE NOT IMPOSING THE SERVICE CHARGE.

WE'RE NOT DOING DOING IT UNDER 5.31 OR 5.50 OR 5.55.

IT'S JUST PART VENDOR DOES IT SOME AND I HAVE SOME PROPOSED CHANGES.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? YEAH, WE CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT THAT.

I THINK IF THE WORDING IS THE ISSUE, THEN THAT WORKS.

THE WAY THAT IT ACTUALLY WILL WORK IS WHEN THE SCHOOLS GO TO PURCHASE THE CERTIFICATES, THEY WOULD NORMALLY PURCHASE THOSE DIRECTLY FROM THE ABC THROUGH KIND OF A PAPER PROCESS.

AND THOSE CERTIFICATES, I BELIEVE, COST $2.

I THINK IT'S $2 CURRENTLY.

AND SO THEN INSTEAD THEY'RE GOING TO BE PURCHASING THEM THROUGH THIS ELECTRONIC PORTAL THAT IS, I THINK, GOING TO BE, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE ELECTRONIC WORDS FOR IT, BUT IT'LL BE KIND OF EMBEDDED IN OUR WEBSITE.

SO THEY'LL GO TO OUR WEBSITE AND CLICK ON THE BUTTON AND THEY'LL PURCHASE THEIR CERTIFICATES MUCH IN THE WAY THEY USED TO FROM US.

BUT IT ALL GOES THROUGH THIS VENDOR WHO WILL THEN BE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SERVICES OUT TO THOSE SCHOOLS AND TO THE INDIVIDUAL SERVERS THAT ARE GETTING THAT TRAINING AND THAT DOLLAR 25 IS GOING TO BE A SERVICE CHARGE.

LIKE MUCH LIKE WHEN YOU CHECK OUT WITH ANYTHING ONLINE, IT WILL SAY COST FOR CERTIFICATES OR THIS MUCH AND THEN SERVICE FEE FOR USING THE ONLINE SYSTEM IS THIS MUCH AND THEN YOUR TOTAL WILL BE THERE. SO IT WILL BE THROUGH OUR PORTAL AND OUR SYSTEM AND THE VENDORS CHARGE.

YES, IT'S THE BUT IT IS THE CHARGE.

AND THAT VENDOR, THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE A CONTRACT AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY OUR CURRENT VENDOR FOR OUR CONSUMER DELIVERY DRIVER TRAINING.

SO WE'VE BEEN USING THEM FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS FOR THAT.

AND SO THIS IS MODELED AFTER THAT AND IT ALLOWS US TO GET OFF OF SOME OLDER.

UM, MORE DYING TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY ON.

SO TO GET OFF US ON THOSE SYSTEMS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO GET OFF OF THIS SUMMER THAT HAS ALL THAT DATA.

AND SO THIS VENDOR WILL THEN HOUSE ALL THAT DATA AND ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL SELLER SERVERS TO GET THEIR INFORMATION THROUGH THERE.

BUT YES, IT IS A VENDOR CHARGE.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO SO AS I AS I SEE IT, THE PROBLEM WITH WITH THE RULE IS THE FIRST STEP.

THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT, RIGHT? SO THE PROBLEM, AS I SEE IT WITH THE RULE IS THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THERE AND IN THE PREAMBLE MAKES IT SOUND LIKE MAYBE THIS IS JUST TO ME, BUT I DON'T THINK SO.

IT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE WE'RE IMPOSING THE FEE AND WE'RE NOT.

OR THE SERVICE CHARGE.

WE ARE IMPOSING $2 FEE, BUT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE THAT AND WE HAVE SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DO IT SEPARATE FROM THE LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES, STUFF THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR TWO YEARS. SO I THINK I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS AMEND THE PROPOSED RULE

[01:00:03]

SO HERE ARE MY ARE MY PROPOSED CHANGES.

I'LL START WITH THE PREAMBLE AND THEN I'LL GO TO THE RULE AND THEN I'LL I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UNLESS THIS IS A TRAIN WRECK AND HAVE TO START OVER.

SO UNDER IN THE PREAMBLE, UNDER THE SECTION TITLED SMALL BUSINESS AND MICRO BUSINESS ASSESSMENT FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS, I WOULD DELETE THE THE I SUPPOSE IT'S THE THIRD SENTENCE.

I WOULD DELETE THE SENTENCE A MINIMAL ONE $21 AND 25 CENT FEE IS ADDED FOR ONLINE PROCESSING, WHICH BUSINESSES ARE EXPECTED TO PASS THROUGH TO THE STUDENTS.

DELETE THAT AND I WOULD ADD A SERVICE CHARGE CURRENTLY ESTIMATED TO BE $1.25 MAY BE ADDED BY THE ENTITY PERFORMING THE ONLINE PROCESSING SERVICE TO COVER THE COSTS OF THAT SERVICE.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT BUSINESSES WILL PASS THIS SERVICE CHARGE THROUGH TO THEIR STUDENTS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

THE COMMISSION DOES NOT SET THE AMOUNT OF THE SERVICE CHARGE AND DOES NOT RECEIVE THE MONEY PAID TO COVER THAT CHARGE.

IS A SIMILAR CONFORMING CHANGE TO THE SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE TITLED PUBLIC BENEFITS AND COSTS.

SO TWO THIRDS, THREE FOURTHS OF THE WAY DOWN IN THAT PARAGRAPH, THERE'S A SENTENCE THAT I WOULD DELETE SAYS THERE'S A MINIMUM $1.25 CENT INCREASE IN COST TO THE PUBLIC TO COVER THE COST OF ONLINE PROCESSING.

THAT'S TRUE.

IT'S NOT INACCURATE.

IT DOES, HOWEVER, PERMIT THE INFERENCE THAT WE'RE DOING WHEN WE'RE NOT.

SO I WOULD ADD, AS NOTED IN THESE SMALL BUSINESS AND MICRO BUSINESS ASSESSMENT FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS AND ESTIMATED ONE DOLLARS AND $0.25 SERVICE CHARGE MAY BE ADDED BY THE ENTITY PERFORMING THE ONLINE PROCESSING SERVICE TO COVER COVER THE COSTS OF THAT SERVICE.

I THINK THAT'S UNOBJECTIONABLE.

AND THEN TO THE TO THE RULE ITSELF UNDER SUBCHAPTER C OF THE RULE MAKING, NOT IN THE RULE, SUBCHAPTER C SELLER SERVER, SCHOOL CERTIFICATES AND REQUIREMENTS.

ACTUALLY THAT IS IN THE RULE SUBSECTION A OF 50.9.

I WOULD DELETE THE SENTENCE.

AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE CHARGE OF $1.25 PER CERTIFICATE NUMBER WILL BE ADDED FOR USE OF THE ONLINE ORDERING AND PAYMENT SYSTEM. THE ONLY REASON THAT I AGAIN, THAT I SUGGEST DELETING THAT IS JUST THAT WE'RE NOT THE ONES DOING IT.

SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN PROVIDE BY RULE THAT WE ARE.

I'M FULLY IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS TRANSPARENTLY THROUGH A RULE MAKING.

AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF CLARIFYING THESE THINGS IN THE PREAMBLE.

BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO BY RULE.

IS THAT FOR THE RECORD, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

GREAT. I THINK THOSE ARE EXCELLENT CHANGES AND I DO HAVE TO SIGN MY NAME TO THAT PREAMBLE, BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM ENDORSING THE CHANGES THAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED.

OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO VOTE ON ON THAT? VERY, VERY GOOD. YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? YES. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WILL REQUIRE ME TO REPEAT SOME OF WHAT I JUST SAID.

BUT BEFORE I PRESENTED IT AS A MOTION, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SHAYNA THOUGHT IT WAS OKAY.

I FIGURED SHE WOULD. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS MY LONG MOTION.

I CAN TAKE A NAP WHEN I WAKE YOU UP.

THAT'S A JOKE. YES. ALL RIGHT.

I MOVE THAT WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THIS.

TO THIS RULEMAKING.

IT'S 5.3 ON OUR AGENDA.

IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE RULE MAKING, I PROPOSE THAT WE DELETE THIS SENTENCE IN THE SMALL BUSINESS AND MICRO BUSINESS ASSESSMENT FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.

THE SENTENCE THAT I PROPOSE THAT WE DELETE IS A MINIMUM OF $1.

25 CENT FEE IS ADDED FOR ONLINE PROCESSING, WHICH BUSINESSES ARE EXPECTED TO PASS THROUGH TO THE STUDENT.

IN THE SAME SECTION, I WOULD ADD THE FOLLOWING A SERVICE CHARGE CURRENTLY ESTIMATED TO BE $1.25 MAY BE ADDED TO THE ENTITY PERFORMING THE ONLINE PROCESSING SERVICE TO COVER THE COSTS OF THAT SERVICE.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT BUSINESSES WILL PASS THE SERVICE CHARGE THROUGH TO THEIR STUDENTS.

THE COMMISSION DOES NOT SET THE AMOUNT OF THE SERVICE CHARGE AND DOES NOT RECEIVE THE MONEY PAID TO COVER THAT CHARGE.

NEXT CHANGED. NEXT CHANGE UNDER THE SECTION TITLED PUBLIC BENEFITS AND COSTS.

I PROPOSE THAT WE DELETE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE.

THERE IS A MINIMAL $1.25 CENT INCREASE IN COSTS TO THE PUBLIC TO COVER THE COST OF ONLINE PROCESSING.

[01:05:01]

AS NOTED IN THE SMALL BUSINESS AND MICRO-BUSINESS ASSESSMENT FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS, AN ESTIMATED $1.25 SERVICE CHARGE MAY BE ADDED BY THE ENTITY PERFORMING THE ONLINE PROCESSING SERVICE TO COVER THE COSTS OF THAT SERVICE.

I PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE TO THE TEXT OF THE RULEMAKING ITSELF UNDER SUBCHAPTER C SELLER SERVER, SCHOOL CERTIFICATES AND REQUIREMENTS.

THIS IS SECTION 50.9.

ISSUANCE OF SELLER SERVICE CERTIFICATE SUBSECTION A.

I PROPOSE THAT WE DELETE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE AND ADDITIONAL SERVICE CHARGE OF $1.25 PER CERTIFICATE NUMBER WILL BE ADDED FOR USE OF THE ONLINE ORDERING AND PAYMENT SYSTEM.

I WILL REPEAT THAT THIS ISN'T A NEW THING.

I'LL REPEAT IT BECAUSE I STUMBLED.

AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE CHARGE OF $1.25 PER CERTIFICATE NUMBER WILL BE ADDED FOR USE THE ONLINE ORDERING AND PAYMENT SYSTEM.

YOU'RE INTO THE MOTION, THEREFORE.

RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET THIS ONE RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF AMENDED CHAPTER 15 SELLER SERVER TRAINING AS RECOMMENDED BY AS AS NEW LANGUAGE RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT AND CONSISTENT WITH BROADER RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF.

MAKES SENSE. I'M NOT EVEN A LAWYER.

YEAH, WELL, WE'LL MAKE A VERBAL BET.

YEAH. A SECOND.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, FINE.

NO OPPOSITION.

ALL RIGHT. DO I TAKE THE BAR EXAM NOW? I DON'T KNOW. TERRIBLE THOUGHT.

THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE FOR MAKING THAT MOTION AS APPROVED.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT I DO WANT TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS FEE.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IN MEETING WITH STAFF AS WELL AS OUR CLIENTS, THAT THAT WILL USE THIS, THAT THE FEE IS ALSO GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADD ADDITIONAL VALUE TO OUR CUSTOMERS.

AND THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S JUST NOT A PASSTHROUGH FEE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ADDING VALUE AND THINGS THAT OUR CLIENTS NEED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO TO BE MORE PRODUCTIVE. SO I JUST REALLY WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THAT'S THE DISCUSSION I HAD WITH STAFF ON QUESTIONING THIS FEE. AND SO WITH AN INCREASED VALUE, I THINK HOPEFULLY THAT WILL WILL TAKE OUT THE STING A LITTLE BIT THAT YOU MIGHT BE PAYING MORE, BUT YOU'RE ALSO GETTING BETTER, A BETTER PRODUCT.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

WHETHER INDIRECTLY OR DIRECTLY, EVERYTHING WE DO AFFECTS PUBLIC SAFETY AND.

THAT IS A BENEFIT TO ALL.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF REPEAL OF RULES 31.10 AND 31.11. THIS IS RELATED TO AN EARLIER ITEM ON CHAPTER 31.

WE HAVE PROPOSED REPEALING THESE TWO RULES AND CONSOLIDATING THEM INTO A SINGLE RULE AT 3110 931 TEN COMPLAINTS WAS PROPOSED EARLIER AND NEW 3111 IS GOING TO BE THE LEAVE POOL.

SO WE HAVE TO REPEAL THE TWO THAT ARE THERE NOW TO REPLACE THEM WITH THE TWO THAT YOU ALL VOTED TO PROPOSE EARLIER.

THANK YOU. I MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICATION AND REPEAL OF RULES 31.10 AND 31.11 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? MR. MARINO. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

SECOND, WE'LL NOW VOTE.

MOTION IS APPROVED.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF AMENDED RULE AMENDED 33.55 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

THIS RULE IS PROPOSED AS RULE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A VERY, VERY LIMITED SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE ARISEN SINCE THE ADVENT OF AMES.

ESSENTIALLY, WHAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED IS FOR A FEW APPLICANTS, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN SO FAST TO GET THEIR APPLICATIONS APPROVED THAT THE CHECK WHICH GOES THROUGH THE

[01:10:01]

AND IN THAT CASE, ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF THAT LICENSE OR PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN MET.

IT WAS NEVER MET IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW IT. WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THE TIMING OF THAT HERE AT THE AGENCY.

SO OUR STAFF HAS THIS SMALL GROUP OF FOLKS WHO THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH AND SAY, HEY, YOU NEED TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.

AND THEY'VE TRIED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

MOST MOST OF THE FOLKS THAT HAVE HAD THIS PROBLEM SUBMITTED ANOTHER FORM OF PAYMENT.

SOME HAVE NOT.

AND THEY ARE CONTINUING TO OPERATE OSTENSIBLY UNDER THE LICENSE OR PERMIT, FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THE FEES.

AND SO THIS THIS PROPOSAL IS JUST TO ADDRESS THAT SMALL GROUP AND GIVE A VERY TRANSPARENT PROCEDURE AND MAKE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT REVOKING ANYTHING THAT HAS REALLY BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE IT'S CONDITIONAL UPON MEETING ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE.

AND THIS WILL JUST MAKE OUR LICENSING STAFF BETTER ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THOSE VERY SMALL SET OF FOLKS THAT ARE UNRESPONSIVE AND DON'T DON'T CARE THAT DEFECT IN A TIMELY MANNER.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF AMENDMENT 33.55 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? MR. ATKINS. THANK YOU, SIR.

WE'LL NOW VOTE.

MOTION IS APPROVED.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVIEW CHAPTER 31 ADMINISTRATION.

MS.. HORTON THIS ITEM IS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO SYNC UP THE FOUR YEAR REVIEW CYCLE FOR CHAPTER 31.

SO EARLIER.

YOU VOTED TO PROPOSE SOME AMENDMENTS.

WHAT THIS DOES IS OPEN UP THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THAT CHAPTER THAT WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES, BUT IT OPENS THEM UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND SUGGESTIONS.

AND THAT WAY, WHEN ANOTHER FOUR YEARS IS UP, ALL OF THOSE SECTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.

ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVIEW CHAPTER 31 ADMINISTRATION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THERE A SECOND? SO YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR. WE WILL NOW VOTE.

AND. MOTION IS APPROVED. THANK YOU.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING.

GENERAL COUNSEL PERSON, PLEASE.

THE FIRST OFFICIAL TIME AT THE DESK.

YES, SIR. SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, MY NAME IS JAMES PEARSON, THE AGENCY'S NEW GENERAL COUNSEL.

UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, INTERESTED PERSONS ARE ALLOWED TO PETITION STATE AGENCIES TO ADOPT RULES, AND WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE SUBMISSION OF SUCH A PETITION, THE AGENCY MUST EITHER DENY THE PETITION OR INITIATE RULEMAKING ON IT.

AND THESE RULES OUTLINE THE CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE PETITIONS.

THE AGENCY RECEIVED A RULEMAKING PETITION FROM GRIFFITH AND HUGHES, WHICH IS A LAW FIRM OUT OF ARLINGTON.

THE PETITION WAS RECEIVED ON OCTOBER 17TH, MEANING THE 60 DAY DEADLINE FOR THE PETITION IS DECEMBER 16TH, AND HENCE THE NEED TO PRESENT THIS PETITION TO YOU TODAY AT THIS MEETING. THE PETITION REQUESTS THAT THE AGENCY PROPOSED THREE NEW RULES, AND I'M GOING TO DO WHAT THEY DO QUITE A FEW THINGS.

SO BUT I'M GOING TO LISTEN NOW.

SO FOR THE RECORD, THE FIRST RULE WOULD ESSENTIALLY DO SEVEN THINGS.

FIRST, IT REQUIRES THE AGENCY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON AN ORIGINAL LICENSE OR PERMIT APPLICATION WITH NINE WITHIN 90 DAYS OR 180 DAYS.

IF IT'S A RENEWAL APPLICATION, IF THE DEADLINE IS NOT MET, THE APPLICATION WOULD BE DEEMED APPROVED.

SECOND, WITH SOME LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, THE RULE WOULD PROHIBIT THE AGENCY FROM INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT.

IF MORE THAN TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.

THE RULE WOULD ALSO PROHIBIT, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR AN OFFENSE.

IF MORE THAN TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE DATE OF THE OFFENSE.

THIRD, IT WOULD REQUIRE A HEARING TO BE HELD WITHIN 120 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

OTHERWISE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WOULD BE DISMISSED WITHOUT THE ABILITY FOR ABC TO REFILE THE CASE.

FOURTH, IT WOULD REQUIRE A HEARING ON A PROTESTED APPLICATION FOR AN ORIGINAL LICENSE OR PERMIT WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE REQUEST FOR HEARING OR THE AGENCY'S FINDING THAT THERE ARE

[01:15:01]

THE DEADLINE WOULD BE 120 DAYS FOR A RENEWAL APPLICATION.

IF THE HEARING WAS HELD WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME, THE APPLICATION WOULD BE DEEMED APPROVED.

FIFTH, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO AGENCY TO MAKE DOCKET REQUESTS WITH SO FAR AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AND REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO TURN OVER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN A CONTESTED CASE BEFORE OR AT THE SAME TIME A DOCKET REQUEST IS MADE.

SIX. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL COMMISSION ORDER ON A CONTESTED CASE WITHIN 120 DAYS AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO A PROPOSAL FOR DECISION.

IF THE DEADLINE IS NOT MET, THE PROPOSAL FOR A DECISION WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BECOME FINAL.

AND SEVENTH, THE RULE WOULD EXEMPT THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSIONS OF LICENSES AND PERMITS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS THAT I JUST DISCUSSED.

THE SECOND PROPOSED RULE WOULD EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE THE AGENCY TO INFORMALLY DISPOSE OF AN ENFORCEMENT MATTER, SUCH AS BY SETTLEMENT.

AND THE THIRD RULE WOULD MANDATE THAT THE AGENCY PUBLISH ALL POLICIES, RULES, PROPOSALS FOR DECISIONS AND ORDERS ON OUR WEBSITE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ISSUANCE.

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PETITIONER HIGHLIGHTS GOALS THAT WILL GENERALLY RESONATE WITH EVERYONE.

PROMPT ACTION BY THE AGENCY ON APPLICATIONS AND TRANSPARENCY.

THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS MORE WHAT IS THE PROPER VEHICLE TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE GOALS? AND IN STAFF'S OPINION, THIS PETITION FOR RULEMAKING IS NOT THE WAY TO GO, AND WE RECOMMEND YOU DENY THE PETITION.

OVERALL, WE BELIEVE THE PETITION IS UNNECESSARY AND PARTS OF IT RAISE SOME PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS.

WHILE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE OUTLIERS, THE AGENCY HAS IMPROVED ON THE TIME IT TAKES TO ACT ON APPLICATIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, OUR DATA INDICATES THAT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AMES, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS NEEDED TO ACT ON ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS FOR IN-STATE BUSINESSES HAS DECREASED FROM 52 DAYS IN 2018 TO 31 DAYS IN FISCAL YEAR 22 2022.

FOR THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT DO TAKE LONGER, THERE IS OFTEN A VALID REASON, SUCH AS INVESTIGATION TO ENSURE THE APPLICANT MEETS NECESSARY STANDARDS.

AND ULTIMATELY I DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE AGENCY TIE ITS HANDS IN THE MANNER OUTLINED IN THIS RULE.

THE PROPOSAL TO AUTHORIZE THE INFORMAL DISPOSITION OF ENFORCEMENT MATTERS IS ALSO UNNECESSARY BECAUSE STAFF ARE ALREADY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO INFORMALLY DISPOSE OF CASES. THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH RULES, ORDERS, POLICIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ON THE AGENCY'S WEBSITE ALSO APPEARS TO BE UNNECESSARY TO B.C.

RULES AND ADVISORIES ARE ALREADY POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND THERE ARE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS AMONG STAFF ABOUT THE PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND PROPOSALS FOR DECISIONS ON THE REVAMPED WEBSITE.

AND ULTIMATELY, IF IT'S THE BOARD'S WISH TO FOR STAFF TO EXPAND ON THAT, YOU DON'T NEED A RULE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

AND FINALLY, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT TO HOLD ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME IS REALLY BEYOND TABCORP'S PURVIEW.

THOSE HEARINGS ARE HELD BY SO AND SO ARE RULES, AND ORDERS GOVERN THE TIMELINES FOR HEARINGS, SO IT WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY OUR RULES ON THAT.

SO I KNOW THAT'S A LOT TO TAKE IN, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

YEAH, I'VE, I'VE HEARD FROM FROM A FEW PEOPLE, INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE AN AX TO GRIND AND DON'T REALLY HAVE A REASON TO TO MESS WITH US. NO REASON TO LIE TO US THAT THERE ARE SOME APPLICATIONS THAT STICK AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AND NOT JUST BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO DOT EVERY IRON CROSS EVERY T IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

I HAVE HEARD FROM PEOPLE.

I HAVE NO REASON NOT TO TRUST THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE OUTLIERS, THAT THERE ARE OUTLIERS THAT MAYBE THEY'RE NOT VERY COMMON.

MAYBE THEY ARE, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THAT THERE ARE SOME UNACCEPTABLY LONG DELAYS FOR AT LEAST SOME APPLICATIONS.

AND AND I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME APPLICANTS MAY TRY TO GAME THE SYSTEM IN VARIOUS WAYS.

I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, OR AT LEAST I THINK I DO.

BUT BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS A THAT THERE IS A CATEGORY OF THESE APPLICATIONS THAT THAT ARE TAKING A REALLY LONG TIME FOR REASONS THAT DON'T HAVE TO DO WITH GAMESMANSHIP OR OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST GARDEN VARIETY BUREAUCRATIC NONSENSE.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHETHER THAT'S WRONG, WHETHER WHAT I JUST SAID IS WRONG.

IF IT'S RIGHT, HOW MANY OF THESE OUTLIERS THAT THAT WE CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR ON ANY FOR ANY GOOD REASON.

WE WE CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR LATENESS FOR, FOR ANY GOOD REASON.

HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE THERE.

IS THE NUMBER GROWING OR SHRINKING? WITH AMES OR POST PANDEMIC.

I WOULD LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT BEFORE WE SAY THIS ISN'T NECESSARY AND THIS WOULD UNNECESSARILY TIE OUR HANDS, I'D LIKE TO KNOW

[01:20:08]

AND ANYWAY, A LOT OF THESE DELAYS ARE THE FAULTS OF THE APPLICANTS THEMSELVES THROUGH INTENTIONAL CONDUCT AND ALL THIS STUFF, AND THEN COME TO FIND OUT A YEAR LATER THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY TRUE AND THAT WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM ON OUR HANDS.

AND WE WERE GIVEN A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THIS PETITION TO TAKE A GOOD, LONG, HARD LOOK AT IT.

AND WE JUST SAID NO.

SO TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY APPLICATIONS ARE LATE, HOW LATE ARE THEY? WHY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE LATE? LATE. HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH PRIOR YEARS? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? YES, SIR.

AND CERTAINLY WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU, HONESTLY.

BUT OBVIOUSLY, THE CONCERN WITH THIS PETITION IS THE 60 DAY TIMELINE.

I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU TODAY.

AND WE NEED TO ACT ON THIS PETITION WITHIN THE 60 DAYS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T PROHIBIT IF WE DENY THIS PETITION, IF THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT YOU WANT TO PURSUE IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULDN'T YOU WOULDN'T BE PROHIBITED FROM PURSUING THAT.

SO I THINK I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THING.

I THINK THAT THAT IS A SLOW THING AND NOT US.

THE REST OF THE PETITION ACTUALLY DOES MAKE SENSE.

AND MAYBE I'M WRONG ABOUT THE HEARINGS THING.

I DON'T KNOW. THIS THIS DOES SEEM TO ME TO BE WORTHY OF OF MORE OF MORE THOUGHT IF IF BECAUSE OF THE 60 DAY DEADLINE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEET NEXT MONTH TO DO THIS ONE PETITION IS CHRISTMAS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

OKAY. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS IF I IF I CAN.

AND IT'S A PRETTY BIG ASK.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE GOVERNMENT.

BUT IF IF IF THIS PETITION GETS SHOT DOWN THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE.

ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS SO THAT IF IT'S REFILED, WE KNOW WHETHER THERE REALLY IS A PROBLEM.

AND IF THERE IS, HOW BIG IS IT? WE CAN DO OUR BEST TO FIND THAT INFORMATION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO I HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION IN THE NEW PETITION.

SO IT SAID IF IT'S SORT OF DE FACTO APPROVAL.

SO IF WE DON'T APPROVE SOMETHING WITHIN TWO YEARS, IT'S AUTOMATIC.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO IS THAT SOMEBODY COULD GAIN THE SYSTEM AND INTENTIONALLY NOT PROVIDE US THE DATA THAT THEY KNOW WOULD BE REJECTED.

AND THEREFORE IT GOES TO TWO YEARS.

THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY GET THEIR LICENSE APPROVED.

SO, YES, FOR THE APPLICATIONS, I BELIEVE THE DEADLINES WERE, WHAT, 90 DAYS FOR FOR ORIGINALS AND 180 DAYS FOR RENEWALS.

SO, YEAH, SOMEBODY COULD CONCEIVABLY FAIL TO SUBMIT INFORMATION DESPITE STAFF REQUESTS.

AND THERE'S NOTHING BUILT IN TO THE THE PETITIONS PROPOSED RULE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW EXCEPTIONS FOR THAT.

IF IT'S IF IT'S ACTIONS BY BY THE APPLICANT THAT'S PREVENTING STAFF FROM ACTING ON IT.

SAME THING WITH THE CONTESTED CASES THE THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE HAVE THE HEARING WITHIN OF THE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.

OFTENTIMES RESPONDENTS WILL MAKE MOTIONS TO DELAY CASES AND WHATNOT.

AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS RULE PETITION THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THAT IF SOBUT JUDGES WERE WERE GRANTING MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE AND WHATNOT, WHICH THEY'RE PRONE TO DO QUITE OFTEN.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS RULE PETITION THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THAT AND STAFF THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THAT DELAY.

THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.

SO THE DENIAL DOES NOT PROHIBIT THEM FROM RESUBMITTING AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE.

POTENTIALLY THEY COULD RESUBMIT.

I DO KNOW AND I'M VERY NEW I DO KNOW THESE RULES DO MENTION PETITIONS THAT ARE REFILED OFTEN, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION.

I THINK SOMEBODY COULD COULD REFILE IT.

AND CERTAINLY IF WE'RE ABLE TO GET COMMISSIONER TO WRITE THE INFORMATION YOU WANT AND IT DOESN'T SATISFY.

BUT WHAT YOU'RE HOPING TO SEE, THEN WE CAN REVISIT THIS ISSUE.

AND BY THE WAY, I HOPE I SEE THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT.

PROBABLY NOT. THIS IS A GIANT UNIVERSE OF APPLICATIONS.

BUT I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW BIG OF A PROBLEM IT IS AND IF IT'S A BIG PROBLEM.

[01:25:03]

YOU KNOW, I HAVE ZERO IF THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM AND I THINK IT MIGHT WELL BE, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO QUALMS SAYING WE HAVE TO DO X, Y, Z BY A CERTAIN DATE OR OR THESE ARE DEEMED APPROVED.

THERE ARE A FEW REASONS WHY I THINK THAT, NUMBER ONE, IT WOULD MOTIVATE US.

NUMBER TWO, WHAT'S EASY FOR US IS A SECOND ORDER CONCERN.

SERVING THE PUBLIC IS A BIGGER CONCERN.

NOBODY DISAGREES WITH ME ABOUT THAT.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE I'M ARGUING WITH ANYONE ON THAT POINT.

BUT LIKE, WHAT MAKES LIFE EASIER FOR US IS IMPORTANT.

WE WANT TO SUPPORT THE AGENCY, BUT IT'S NOT AS IMPORTANT.

IT'S GETTING THE STUFF DONE ON TIME, GETTING PEOPLE INTO BUSINESS WHO DESERVE TO BE IN BUSINESS.

ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE TWO YEARS AND SOME OF THE OTHER SOME OF THE OTHER TIME LIMITS GAMESMANSHIP I KNOW IS A IS A PROBLEM.

SO DRAINING, CONTINUANCES AND ALL THAT IS COULD THEORETICALLY COULD BE A PROBLEM.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ON CRIME CRIMES, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT PUBLIC SAFETY.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO GET AWAY WITH A LOT OF STUFF.

IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PROSECUTE IN TIME, IF THE IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T TAKE A CERTAIN LEGALLY DEFINED STEP IN TIME, THAT PERSON.

CAN'T BE PROSECUTED. THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

SO I'M NOT EVEN ALL THAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY.

I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH A UNIQUE PUBLIC SAFETY CHALLENGE POSED BY A TWO YEAR STATUTE, BUT A22 YEAR REGULATORY LIMITATION HERE.

SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I, I THINK SOME GREAT POINTS ARE RAISED HERE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO.

I'D LOVE TO SEE THE INFORMATION THAT COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT HAS REQUESTED.

I'M NOT AT ALL CONVINCED THAT A RULE IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ADDRESS IT.

IT MAY VERY WELL BE ONCE WE SEE THE DATA, BUT I THINK I THINK WE NEED TO GET WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR AND SEE HOW BIG THE PROBLEM IS AND WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON AND THEN FIGURE OUT HOW TO ACT. I'VE GOT CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS PETITION IS WRITTEN TODAY, BUT I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE ISN'T AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED PRETTY GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON OUR MOVE TO DENY THE PETITION AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER MARINO, ANYONE ELSE? WE VOTE. NO, I MOVED TO DENY THE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ATKINS.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL NEVER.

ALL RIGHT, MOTION IS APPROVED.

THE NEXT ITEM IS, ARE WE GOING TO GO BACK? DO WE HAVE WE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME OR SHOULD WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION THEN RETURN? PLEASE PROCEED. WHERE WE WERE.

WHEN I WAS IN PUBLIC.

I DO APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION, ALLOWING ME TO DO THE RESEARCH AND RECEIVE SOME HELP ON THIS, BY THE WAY.

I THINK THE FIRST STEP, THE FIRST CONSIDERATION WAS EX PARTE LAW, WHICH IS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2,001.061, WHICH PROVIDES AND LET ME READ IT FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

UNLESS REQUIRED FOR THE DISPOSITION OF AN EX PARTE MATTER AUTHORIZED BY LAW, WHICH THIS WOULD NOT BE A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF A STATE AGENCY ASSIGNED TO RENDER A DECISION OR MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN A CONTESTED CASE MAY NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY COMMUNICATE IN CONNECTION WITH AN ISSUE OF FACT OR LAW WITH A STATE AGENCY, PERSON, PARTY OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THOSE ENTITIES, EXCEPT ON NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH PARTY TO PARTICIPATE.

I CERTAINLY THINK THAT INDICATES TO ME THAT WITHOUT THE STAFF BEING PRESENT AND BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, THAT THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ITSELF IS NOT ALLOWED.

SO THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. LIKE I'VE HAD KNOCKDOWN, DRAG OUT FIGHTS IN AT THE PUC ABOUT APPLICATIONS, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTICE AHEAD OF TIME AND BOTH SIDES GOT TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

AND THE PUC COMMISSIONERS, I'M SURE WE'RE BRIEFED AHEAD OF TIME AND AND THAT SORT OF THING.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T NOTICE.

[01:30:03]

BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE I GUESS THE DISTINCTION THAT YOU'RE MAKING IS THAT THERE WOULD BE COMMUNICATION ABOUT ABOUT THIS WASN'T THERE WASN'T NOTICE OF THAT.

CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THEREFORE, YOU ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE NOT HEAR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF EITHER OF THESE GENTLEMEN? THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION.

ALL RIGHT. AND IF WE HAVE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN WE WILL NOW MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WELL, THERE ARE STILL THE TWO CASES DECISIONS ON JUMPING THE GUN.

EXCUSE ME. ALL RIGHT.

THESE ARE PLENARY MATTERS, WHICH ARE A LONG TIME COMING.

YEAH, ACTUALLY, THIS IS PROBABLY GOOD.

LET'S THINK ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD ALLOW WHETHER WE SHOULD PROVIDE NOTICE AND A NOTICE GOING FORWARD THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OR AGAINST A PHD GOING FORWARD.

MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT. MAYBE THE WAY WE DO IT IS RIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW. BUT I KNOW THAT AT LEAST SOME AGENCIES DO ALLOW THAT.

AND IT WOULD AT THE VERY LEAST IT WOULD GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FEEL LIKE THEY'VE HAD THEIR SAY.

THEY WOULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE HAD IT RIGHT.

I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE SOME RULES IN PLACE.

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS IN MY EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH COMMISSIONERS THAT.

WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A RULEMAKING IN PLACE TO JUST DECIDE SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP OR MAY COME UP IN THE FUTURE.

AND LIKE YOU SAY, THAT THIS COULD VERY WELL BE ONE OF THEM EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THESE THINGS IN THE FUTURE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT GOING FORWARD.

OKAY. MAYBE. WOULD YOU MIND HAVING THAT ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT MEETING OR THE NEXT MEETING AFTER THAT? WE DISCUSSED THE RELATIVE MERITS OF HAVING BASICALLY A MINI HEARING, AS LONG AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ANY DECISION THAT WE MAY MAKE.

THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. LIKE WE WOULD HAVE WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE MERITS AND DEMERITS IN PUBLIC.

THIS IS THIS IS NEW FOR US AND FACING NEW CHALLENGES.

AND WE NEED TO HASH THIS OUT AND GET IT RIGHT.

SO I AGREE. AND I WOULD ANTICIPATE IN THIS RULEMAKING, UNLIKE MOST, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE WOULD WANT TO CONSULT WITH YOU.

AND CONSIDERING WHAT RULE TO PROPOSE TO YOU, IS THAT WHAT YOU PROPOSE AND THE PUBLIC WILL GET A STAKE ONCE IT'S BEEN PUBLISHED IN DEVELOPING THE RULE ITSELF.

WE'LL WANT YOUR INPUT, OBVIOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS A LOT. ALL RIGHT, MARTIN, WHAT'S NEXT? FIRST ONE IS AN ITEM 4.1, WHICH IS 35 BAR GRILL LLC, DOING BUSINESS TO SAN ANTONIO MEN'S CLUB.

THE LEAGUE CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MIXED BEVERAGE AND MIXED BEVERAGE LATE HOURS PERMITS BE CANCELED.

THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS, WHICH WERE PROVEN, ACCORDING TO THE ALJS WEIGHING OF THE EVIDENCE, WAS THAT THE CLUB COMMITTED FOUR TYPES OF VIOLATIONS ENGAGING IN PROSTITUTION, ENGAGING IN DRINK, SOLICITATION, OPERATING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS WITHOUT A LOCAL PERMIT, AND EMPLOYING A MINOR IN A SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS. THE L J CONCLUDED THAT STAFF PROVED ITS ALLEGATIONS AND RECOMMENDED THE CLUB'S PERMITS BE CANCELED.

THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION AS WELL, AND I HAVE DRAFTED IN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT.

EXCELLENT. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I SUBMITTED A A DISSENT BASED PURELY ON THE CITATION TO CITY OF DALLAS V STUART 2012 TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASE THAT SAID THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES CAN ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.

I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WRONG.

I THINK THAT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO COME BEFORE US DESERVE TO HAVE US HERE.

THEY'RE PROBABLY THEIR MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS, WHICH ARE PROBABLY CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 16, SECTION ONE OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION TO TO MAKE CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS IF WE'RE WRONG.

TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CAN CAN CAN FIX IT IN THE THIRD COURT CAN CAN CAN DO WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO AND GO TEX CAN CAN LOOK AT IT AFTER THAT.

BUT I THINK CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION IS VERY MUCH IN OUR BAILIWICK.

AND AND SO DESCENDING FROM APPROVAL OF THE T BASED ON ITS.

BASED ON ITS I THINK IT'S A CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN'T ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.

[01:35:06]

WE'LL ALSO HAVE THE DISSENT ATTACHED.

UNDERSTOOD. SO TO BE PART OF THE RECORD, IT'S FAIR ENOUGH.

ALL RIGHT. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION THAT WE AUTHORIZE MYSELF TO SIGN THE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ATKINS.

WE WILL NOW VOTE.

ALL RIGHT, MOTION IS APPROVED.

THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION.

EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND.

SO WHERE ARE WE? MARTIN. SORRY TO.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? THIS IS ORDERS ON PROPOSAL FOR DECISION FOR MUSKETEERS.

COCKTAIL BAR. DOING BUSINESS AS LOCATORS.

COCKTAIL BAR. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDS THAT THE RESPONDENTS MIXED BEVERAGE AND RELATED PERMITS BE CANCELED.

MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PROPOSED BY THE ALJ.

THE VIOLATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEING SOLD AND DELIVERED TO PEOPLE AT THE PERMITTED PREMISES WHILE THE PERMIT WAS SUSPENDED FOR VIOLATION OF THE GOVERNOR'S COVID CLOSURE ORDERS.

THOSE VIOLATIONS OCCUR OCCURRED ON ONLY FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

THESE SALES, WHILE THE PERMIT WAS SUSPENDED, ALSO VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF THE CODE THAT BUSINESSES BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER THAT BUSINESS CANNOT BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL WELFARE AND HEALTH SAFETY PUBLIC.

ALSO, ANOTHER ALLEGATION THAT WAS PROVEN WAS AN ASSAULT ON THE OWNER OF THE BAR BY A PATRON OF THE BAR OCCURRED ON THE PREMISES WHILE IT WAS OPEN IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS, AND THAT VIOLATED A VERSION OF THE CODE THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR CANCELLATION.

FINALLY, THAT BREACH OF THE PEACE WAS NOT TIMELY REPORTED, WHICH IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

AGAIN, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THE PHD.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SOMETHING THAT SAYS WE CAN'T REACH CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION COMMISSION.

BUT RIGHTS TO STEP.

I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION.

WE AUTHORIZE MYSELF TO SIGN THE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION.

THERE. A SECOND. SECOND.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ATKINS.

WE'LL NOW VOTE.

ALSO. MOTION IS APPROVED.

THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT FOR ME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE NOW WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO. COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[6. Executive Session]

REGULAR OPEN SESSION OF THE ABC WILL BE IN RECESS.

TIME IS NOW 1214.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2022.

ALL RIGHT. READY TO GO? THE ABC HAS CONCLUDED ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOW IN REGULAR OPEN SESSION DATE IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15.

THE TIME IS WELL.

NEXT POTENTIAL ITEM IS ON ITEMS DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[7. Closing Items]

NEXT SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING DATE IS PLANNED FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 24TH, 2023 COMMISSIONERS.

HOW ARE WE DOING ON THAT DATE WHEN THE ISSUES VISIBLE ARE OUT? WE KNOW YOU'RE GOOD.

OH. YOU SAY NO BUENO? NO, IT SOUNDS IT'S NOT SAID SOMETHING.

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I SAY THAT SOUNDS PRETTY BUENO.

[01:40:03]

I'LL BE BACK. I'M GOING SOMEWHERE THAT WEEKEND BEFORE THAT.

OKAY. HOW ABOUT YOU? YEAH. PRETTY BUENO.

COMMISSIONER, YOU CAN'T PULL IT OFF.

ABSOLUTELY. NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.

LET'S SEE. JANUARY 24TH.

YEAH, I ALREADY GOT THEM.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED MEET ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24TH, 2023.

NEXT IS A GERMAN.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A SAFE, HEALTHY, HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS HOLIDAY SEASON THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS, HANUKKAH, ETC..

YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL NEW YEAR.

AND WE'LL SEE YOU ALL IN 2023.

IT IS NOW 1224.

WE'RE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.