- Good evening everyone.
I hereby call this special meeting of the city commission
to order at exactly five o'clock.
The purpose of this special meeting is limited
to hearing the articles of impeachment presented
by the special prosecutor
and determining whether the city commission will
accept those articles.
The city clerk will now read the rules in the order
of the procedure for the special meeting.
- For purposes of this special meeting, the following rules
and order of procedure shall apply.
This special meeting is convened solely to hear the articles
of impeachment presented by the special prosecutor,
which have now been publicly filed,
and to allow the commission to determine whether
to accept the articles of impeachment.
The vice mayor shall serve as the presiding officer.
No public comment will be heard.
The special prosecutor shall be
provided 15 minutes to present the articles of impeachment.
Following the special prosecutor's presentation,
the defense shall be provided 15 minutes
to present its response to the articles of impeachment.
Following the presentations, the vice mayor shall call
for a vote of the commission
to accept the articles of impeachment.
A motion shall be made, followed by a second,
and a roll call vote will be taken.
Following the commission's vote,
the vice mayor shall adjourn the special meeting.
The special meeting has a firm end time of 5:50 PM.
This concludes the rule and order of procedure.
- We will not recognize the special prosecutor.
- I'm Mayanne Downs. I was appointed
by Judge Munyon at your request to serve
as the special prosecutor in this matter.
- Excuse me, Vice Mayor. Is this being live streamed
or this is just in here? I
- Believe,
I believe it is live streamed. Am I correct? It's
- Being streamed
to closed circuit TV out front out in the lobby for folks
who cannot make it inside here today.
- That it's not being live streamed?
- No. - Can we live stream it and we turn on the streaming?
- No. We would need to set up closed captioning,
so we can't do that right now.
- Okay. Just wanted to ask for the record. Thank you.
- Okay.
- You now have 15 minutes. All
- Right.
Thank you very much.
- Yes. - Good afternoon. Madam Vice Mayor, Mr.
Mayor, pro tem, commissioners.
As I said a moment ago,
after a vote of this body, pursuant to your code
of ethics under your court ordinances, Judge Lisa Munyon,
the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, appointed me
as special prosecutor pursuant to the process
that is set forth in your own code.
What I have done since I've been appointed was
what your code authorized me to do
and her order directed me to do.
I want to point out as we begin this process,
I have no client here today.
No client in this matter.
I represent no faction, no group, no political party.
I don't know anyone in this room, to my knowledge,
with the exception of Commissioner Martinez, who I met
with one time in my office, found her to be truthful
and helpful, and Mayor Espinoza, who I met
with one time in my office, I also found her to be truthful.
I have no ax to grind.
I have no interest other than discharging my
responsibilities as Judge Munyon
and your code directed that I do.
Just a moment about me only
because there have been accusations made about
me and my role.
I have been practicing law for 38 years.
I'm a Florida native.
I have no connection with Kissimmee at all except
for one very important one.
My mother was born here in 1930.
Shortly after she was born, the family moved to Orlando
and that's where I've always lived.
I have served as city attorney for the city
of Orlando since 2007.
I also serve as the city attorney for Key West.
I think I'm the only person in the state
to hold two city attorney positions.
In connection with investigations, I served
as president of the Florida Bar.
The Florida Bar disciplines and investigates lawyers.
And I served for 10 years on the Constitutional JQC,
the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
And in that role, I investigated
complaints against judges
and was involved in discipline of judges.
I mention those things only to say
I take my responsibilities and my obligations to each of you
and to this community very seriously.
And again, I have no dog
or cat in this fight.
None. So I am asking you here today
for one thing.
I'm asking you to do what your code says you should do.
I'm asking you to complete the process that you voted
to begin and that started with my appointment.
Let me tell you what today is and what it is not.
You may be told some things a little bit later about
what this is and isn't.
I'm going to ask you to very specially
and carefully consider what we're doing here.
All I have done so far is investigate sufficient
to determine whether there was probable cause
that your code of ethics was violated.
Each of you received a copy of my report
and my articles which were filed under oath.
I found that there was clear
probable cause not to establish the guilt
of Mayor Espinoza, but to establish sufficient evidence.
And all the evidence I relied upon is undisputed
and was told to me by her
that this matter should go to trial.
So I just want to remind us,
this is a little like when you get a ticket.
It doesn't mean you're guilty.
It doesn't mean anything other than you're being given
notice that you have to proceed with the legal process.
So you are not being asked today, members
of this commission, whether the mayor is guilty or innocent.
You are not being asked
to decide if in the future she is proven guilty
what the punishment or consequence should be.
You are not making the decision the commission on
ethics might make.
You are not involved in any
investigation by law enforcement.
Your job is simply to decide yes
or no to proceed with your codes
next step, which is a trial.
And we'll get back in a few moments
to the precise requests I am making of you.
Here is the conduct at issue.
And I say again, the conduct that was in my report
and in my articles is conduct that was proven
by your records.
It was substantiated by the things that the mayor told me,
but I don't rely on those things.
I rely on what your records establish.
Your records establish that the mayor initiated
and promoted the Boost 2.0 Small Business Program.
Your records establish that the City of Kissimmee qualified
for federal money under ARPA which was a
a federal American rescue plan program
that sent money down to the local level
to provide a wide range of benefits to the community.
Your records established that then
the mayor voted three times to keep
that BOOST program going.
On December 17th, 2024, she voted, along with others,
to reallocate $1 million to the BOOST program.
On April 15th, 2025, she voted
to approve the program framework.
You know, how it would work.
And on September 3rd, 2025, she voted
to reallocate another
$375,000 into the grant pool.
She did not disqualify herself from one
single one of those votes,
nor did she disclose at that time
or at any time a plan to receive those monies herself.
Three applications came in, along with others,
totaling $50,000 for businesses the mayor owns
or has an interest in.
How do we know that? The public
records of the state of Florida.
First, a Dan's LLC.
$20,000 of federally funded public money.
Mayor Espinoza is identified as the 100%
owner of that entity.
Kissimmee Diner Incorporated, $15,000.
Mayor Espinoza's own form one that each of you have
to fill out and file with the state of Florida says
that she owned in excess of 5% of that entity.
Real Estate Gallery, LLC, $15,000
owned indirectly by the mayor
and her husband through a trust.
And if we proceed to trial, you will see certified copies
of all of these records in the State
of Florida public records.
All three loans were approved. All checks were cashed.
At no point did the mayor disclose to this body
or to this community her interest in those loans
and in those businesses receiving those loans.
The minutes show no disclosure, the recorded records
of the meetings show no disclosure.
She never asked the city attorney or this commission.
Your code provides that any one
of you can ask this commission
for guidance if you need it.
Nor, and she was candid in answering this question when I
asked for it, nor did she call the commission on ethics,
which has a toll-free hotline available to any who call it
to find out if the behavior you're considering
is illegal or not.
As a lawyer, I have the benefit of that for the Florida Bar.
If I have any doubts, I can dial that number
and the Florida Bar will tell me if what I'm thinking
of doing is right or not.
On December 5th, 2025,
the city attorney at that time, who had learned
of the applications after the fact
and learned of the payments after the fact, wrote the mayor
and told her citing Florida Statutes Section 112,
Section 1123137, 313
and 1123143 Florida Statutes
and three opinions from the Florida Commission on Ethics
that you cannot be a public official
and derive contractual financial benefits
from the government you're a part of.
Cannot do it. And we know
that the mayor received that
because we have her emails saying she received the letter.
She asked for a meeting.
To date, she has never returned that money.
My only quibble with the former city attorney is
that there was a fourth, there were four
Commission on Ethics opinions that said you can't do this.
One involved a remarkably similar set of facts.
A city commissioner who took CRA money for a business
that he owned and operated.
That was eight months ago. As a result of that conduct, the,
the facts of which are, are undisputed.
I filed my report and I filed my articles
and I have charged through that process,
Mayor Espinoza, with a violation of your code section
30-23A that says no city commissioner shall engage in any
business or transaction or hold any financial
or other personal interest, direct
or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge
of duties in the public interest
or which would tend to impair independence of judgment.
Voting money into a program that you vote for, you initiate,
you push, and you say yes for
and then taking the money under it.
That's a textbook example of your code.
Two, article two.
Three violations of section 30-23B.
That section says a commission with a financial
or other private interest in legislation shall disclose the
nature and extent of
that interest on the records of the commission.
And it does not apply if the commissioner
disqualifies herself.
She did neither, not once,
but three separate times.
Finally, I have charged two violations
of section 30-24.
That section says, if you have any doubt
and anyone who doesn't have doubt, who raised their hand
and swore to follow the law of the state of Florida
and the United States
and to serve in the public interest about whether you could
be a public official and take money should have had doubt.
That code provision says you got to go to the city attorney.
And it separately says you've got
to be guided by the advice.
So let me conclude by saying this.
You are not going to hear, I believe in a few moments, that
what I've told you is not true.
You're not going to hear that she returned the money.
You're not going to hear that she disclosed her
interest on the record.
You're not going to hear any of that.
You're going to hear jurisdictional arguments.
You're going to hear let's delay some more.
We already had an appeal at the first part
of this investigation in which those arguments were made.
So here's what I am asking you to do.
Please do not be distracted by
anything you might hear about
what should happen next other than a trial.
What you should do and what I'm asking you to do
and saying that as you consider what to do
is follow your code.
Your code says you initiate an investigation, which you did.
Your code says the special prosecutor has
to find probable cause, which I did.
Then your code says you proceed to an impeachment trial.
Every defense you hear from mayor's team,
she will have every opportunity to present at trial.
There is no reason not to proceed with this matter.
I am asking you, I believe the community is watching
and expecting you to protect the public's interest,
to follow your own code,
to complete the process you initiated,
and to set this matter for trial.
Have your city attorney
and staff develop an order
that tells everybody when it'll be,
how the exhibits will work, all that process
so everybody knows.
And that that order gives every single bit
of procedural due process to the mayor
that she is absolutely entitled to
and that the matter proceed.
Thank you.
- Thank you. You now recognize the defense. Thank you.
- My name is Migdalia Perez
and I represent Jackie Espinosa, your city mayor, along
with my co-counsel, Michelle LeBron.
I don't have as much time to discuss my accolades
because I'm here to defend the mayor.
Tonight you're not, you are being asked
to decide whether the articles
of impeachment should move forward to trial.
The articles filed by the prosecutor, they are not evidence
and they are not findings of guilt.
We are not asking you to ignore ethics complaints
and we're not asking you to excuse any alleged misconduct,
but we are asking you to decide whether the law is clear,
whether the evidence is sufficient,
and whether this process is fair enough
to overturn the will of the people.
Before taking this extraordinary step,
you should be satisfied of two things.
Is this process fair?
And do the articles contain enough facts
to justify impeachment?
Let's talk about fairness.
The special prosecutor has offered her
interpretation of the law.
Her recommendation actually places an
extraordinary burden on you.
You are not elected.
I'm sorry, you are elected public officials.
You are not judges.
You are not experts on ethics laws
and you are being asked to resolve legal disputes.
Is that fair to the mayor? It is not.
What about fairness in the process?
We don't even have a process.
The process is being created as we play the game.
Is that fair to the mayor?
Some comm - some commissioners are being asked
to make a decision, may have a personal
or political interest in the outcome.
Is that fair to ask a commissioner
to decide the fate of the mayor?
I've been told numerous times through this process, Ms.
Perez, this is not a criminal case. And I agree, it's worse.
Because at least in a criminal case, due process has teeth.
It has meaning. I am speaking to you now,
and yet some commissioners are
so fixed already in their decisions
that maybe they are listening, but they are not hearing.
Is that fair to the mayor? Let's talk about the prosecutor.
The prosecutor also says, I have no dog or cat in the race.
But let's talk about that.
She made public comments
that also create a serious fairness concern.
The mayor exercised her lawful legal right
to challenge the appointment of the special prosecutor.
The prosecutor spinned that challenge
by claiming the mayor was attempting to stop the process.
She criticized the mayor. She blamed her for the delay.
She blamed her for the expense.
Her frustration had nothing to do
with determining the whether the mayor had
violated the code.
She tells you, "I have no dog in the race."
It should now actually beg the question, did she?
Did her frustration weigh in on her finding probable cause
and bringing us here today?
Now she wants you to consider her interpretation as facts.
These questions are important and they should be considered.
Fundamental fairness requires you
to reject this process completely.
So let's talk about the articles.
The articles contain serious legal and factual complaints.
I'm sorry, factual problems.
They rely on disputed legal conclusions.
They omit important facts and they,
and they attempt to turn conduct
that was never prohibited by the city code.
Are we here about the city code?
Are we here about the state code?
Article one charges the mayor
with having a general conflict of interest.
That conflict of interest includes applying
and accepting Boost funds.
The problem here is
that the articles do not allege that conflict.
The mayor, did she approve her own application?
It doesn't allege that.
They do not allege that she directed staff to approve them.
She ch - she did not change the eligibility requirements.
It doesn't say that she asked for preferential treatment.
The Boost 2.0 program used federal COVID relief funds.
The purposeful BOOST was
to mitigate historical financial losses of city businesses
during the COVID long before the mayor was a mayor.
City staff administered the program
under published requirements.
The amount of each grant was determined according
to established criteria.
All eligible applicants received funding.
Article one by the prosecutor assumes that
receiving funding from a public program automatically
establishes a con - a conflict.
Yet the prosecutor identifies no rule in the city code
that states an elected official
or business owned by an office of office, I'm sorry, owned
by an official can never participate in a generally
available relief program.
The prosecutor is arguing state law that belongs
with the commission on ethics.
We are here for the City of Kissimmee code.
Now, if the mayor had changed the rules,
pressured employees, approved her own application,
or caused another business to be denied,
this would be a totally different case.
But that's not the evidence before you.
The fact that a business connected to the mayor applied
for a public program may raise a question,
but a question is not proof of misconduct.
The city ordinance requires a connection
between the mayor's financial interest
and the performance of her duties.
The article fails to identify any official decision
by the mayor that was improperly influenced
by her private interest.
Article two, violation
concerning three commission voting meetings.
The prosecutor just laid it out.
One vote to allocate the program.
One vote approved the framework of the program
and one vote added the funds to the program.
None of those votes approved the mayor's application.
Those votes affected an entire class of eligible city
of Kissimmee businesses.
Votes to establish
or fund a general program is not the same as voting
for an award for yourself.
The, the special prosecutor is working backwards here.
Because the business leader received grants, she's assuming
that every earlier vote invited a no personal
financial interest.
But that's a conclusion.
And it's a conclusion that requires evidence about
what the mayor knew and intended at the time of the vote.
The articles don't tell you that.
At the time of the votes,
the mayor's business had not applied for a grant,
had not been approved or had not received money.
In fact, no one knew what the criteria was going
to be for the program.
Boost 2.0 was not legislation written only
for the mayor or her businesses.
The special prosecutor repeatedly refers to $50,000,
but that amount combines three separate grants involving
three separate businesses.
Each alleged interest must be considered separately.
Who legally owned those businesses?
What was the nature of the mayor's interest?
Did that interest exist when each boat occurred?
Did the mayor know
that the particular vote would directly
benefit the business?
Merely repeating $50,000 does not answer those questions.
The report. I'm sorry,
the articles also rely on the mayor's publicly filed form
one to establish one of the alleged businesses.
Now that form may not replace disclosure
during a commission meeting,
but it does demonstrate one thing,
that the interest was publicly reported
and it was not secretly con- concealed.
Even if a disclosure should have been,
should have been made, possible, possible disclosure errors
are not the same as corruption, as kickbacks
or abuse of your office.
This is insufficient to remove an elected mayor.
Article three concerns a,
concerns a former city attorney's letter.
Section 30-24
of the city code says a commissioner must have, must ask
for an opinion when the commissioner has doubts about
whether the city ethic code applies.
The articles do not claim that the mayor had such doubt
before the applications were filed
or even when they were approved.
The special prosecutor wants
to change the code from when the commission had doubt
to when the prosecutor later thinks the
commissioner should have had doubt.
That's not the code.
The special prosecutor further claims that the mayor failed
to follow the city attorney's letter.
Well, let's look at that letter.
The letter did not advise the mayor
that she violated the Kissimmee Ethics Code.
Rather, it advised
that accepting the boost may have constituted a prohibited
contractual relationship under Florida Statute Chapter 112.
Those words matter. The advisory opinion stated may have.
It did not say that she violated a code.
Yet the special prosecutor in Article three charges the
mayor with violating the city code
because she did not get, she did not follow that letter.
That just does not fit.
The special prosecutor, prosecutor claims
that the mayor failed to take corrective action.
She said it here today.
But section 30-24 does not use those words.
The special prosecutor wants to call. Sorry. It.
The code does not require special payment,
a payment that's required to go back.
The special prosecutor wants to call an advisory opinion,
an advisory opinion, but let's be clear.
The special prosecutor just told you
that the city attorney did not know about this
until after the fact.
You all know better. She signed the program along
with the city manager
and along with the economic department.
So when you say that she did not
know, you know that's not true.
She know and she failed to advise the,
the mayor as she was supposed to.
Her advice came after the applications, after the votes, and
after the mayor received money.
But the prosecutor has turned a letter raising a possible
state law concern into a claim
that the mayor definitely violated the Kissimmee code.
You have to understand there's a di- distinction.
She's here about the city code, not the state law.
That letter does not support a claim for,
for a separate article of impeachment.
When you look at all three articles
and you consider them together,
the most important questions are unanswered.
One, what rule did the mayor change for herself?
What city employee did she pressure?
What false statements did she make?
And what special exception did she receive?
The articles failed to answer those questions.
Now, rejecting those articles does not mean that the
ethic rules do not matter.
The mayor is not asking to be placed above the law.
She's asking that the law be applied correctly
through a fair process with the benefit
of the decision from the Florida Commission on Ethics.
Again, this commission does have independence,
but it should be exercised that.
I'm sorry, that authority should be exercised carefully.
There is no reason why the city must act first.
The question is properly
before the Florida Commission on Ethics.
If the commission finds that no prohibit-
prohibited conflict existed,
that decision would seriously weaken the claims presented
to you by the prosecutor.
If the commission on ethics finds a violation,
this commission will then have the benefit
of a decision from a state agency
with the experience Experience
and the authority on Florida ethics laws.
The mayor is fully prepared
to reimburse the city if the state
of the Florida commissioner ethics says it was a prohibited
contractual relationship.
Allowing the state agency
to act first does not surrender your authority.
It is a careful and responsible use of that authority.
And it also avoids inconsistent decisions
that we have already seen by these investigations.
The responsible decision is to vote no,
reject the proposed articles,
and permit the Florida Commission on Ethics
to complete its investigation.
Thank you for your time
and thank you for your consideration.
- The presentations haven't concluded.
I will now call for the commissioner's vote.
Do you have a comment, Commissioner Ortiz?
- I don't have any comment. - Commissioner -
- I have any, I have no comments.
- Commissioner Martinez?
- I have a question. Sure.
We're not trying to make a thing, but for the defense part.
So you're referring that the prosecutor is going off in
reference to the Commission on Ethics and State
and you don't want us to take that in consideration
because she has to do it per our charter.
I mean, sorry, per our code.
- Well, your code, we are here.
The prosecutor has alleged violations of your code.
Those codes are clearly listed in her
articles of impeachment.
The Florida, the Florida Statutes Chapter 112,
that is properly before the right agency,
which is the Florida Commission on Ethics.
As you all know, that hearing is to be, is to be, is going
to happen in a few days from now.
- Yeah. But you said that she's going off the commission on
ethics and that's not what she's here for.
She's under the code she should be speaking of.
But you're asking us to make a decision based on the state,
not based on our code. So I'm confused. I'm
- Sorry.
I'm asking to make a decision on the code.
I believe she made a reference
to the Florida Commission on Ethics and the co - I'm sorry.
She made a comment about the Florida Commission on Ethics.
I want to make clear that there is a distinction.
We are here on your code,
not the Florida Commission on Ethics
and the breakdown of the code, the conflict, the disclosure,
and the last -
- Yeah, I understood.
- I - Understood what you were saying, but
what I'm trying - So
- That's what I'm saying.
I'm saying follow the code, not the commission on ethics.
In addition to my argument
that you allow the commission on ethics to deal with
what the true question is,
was this a prohibited contractual relationship,
which is not part of your code?
- And commissioner, if I might add to that, what I said is,
I believe you'll hear an argument
that this matter should be decided
by the commission on ethics.
That's the same argument they already made to the
Sixth District Court of Appeal who bounced it.
I said that's not a valid argument.
The Commission on Ethics doesn't have your
authority to do with your code.
Your code is not before the Commission on Ethics.
You are the only ones who can apply your code.
So this is a, a little bit of
confusion being generated in the record.
The Commission on Ethics is going to do what it's going
to do about state law, no matter what you do.
Only you can follow your code of ethics.
- If, if I could jump in real quick.
Number one, there was no confusion.
Not on the part of the defense.
Number two, the Sixth DCA did not say that is not valid.
Okay? They made no, they made no rulings on the merit.
So that's improper for the prosecutor to say.
- They denied. They - Denied it without a ruling
- On the merits. There's no
- Requirement.
So it's improper that you would make that comment.
- And - My argument was based on - Thank you.
Oh, I appreciate you. Thank you.
- Mayor, I have a question for the city manager.
For grants. It would be city grants,
whatever grants we out there, nonprofits.
What is the process prior to them receiving the grants?
How do they get approved?
- It can vary with the grant,
but primarily the majority of our grants are dealt with
by the economic development department.
So they run the process for both receipt
of the applications, review of the applications,
and then the economic development director underwrites
basically is the underwriter that determines whether
or not they comply with the requirements
of the grant program and, and issues the approval.
- So the economic director actually approves any grants.
Deny them or approve them?
- Yes. - Right. So if grant comes over with
it, we didn't bring out a red flag.
Something will tell you why is it
she, she, that's a conflict.
That's just a conflict. Right. Right.
So it, at my point, my thing is, it could have stopped.
All this could have just been avoided at this point. Right.
So just moving forward, that's my opinion.
I would not be impeaching the mayor. Thank you.
- May as well. I'm not going to impeach the mayor.
Okay.
I call the motion. That's my comment.
- Thank you. Do I have a motion to accept -
- Madam May, Madam Vice Mayor,
before you make that motion, I had a question.
If you allow me to make my comment.
- Sure. - Thank you, Vice Mayor.
So I know that today is not supposed to be an open dialogue.
We're just supposed to accept or not.
Before this motion moves forward, I do want
to tell my fellow commissioners,
this is not determining whether there's guilt or no guilt.
- Object. She is not part of this hearing.
That is improper that she's making comments.
Everybody just made a comment right now. You,
- You should not allow any member
to interrupt any commission member.
That's improper.
- So may I proceed with my statement?
- Yes. - So
let me get back to where I was.
Does anybody remember where I was?
I was so brutally interrupted. Establishing guilt
- Or innocence.
- Yeah. So we're not establishing guilt or innocence.
Now, if, if the defense
and I, I completely agree with Commissioner Alvarez.
If there would've been a caught on this,
we wouldn't be where we are today.
But instead of just pushing this under the rug,
we have a duty to the people.
I believe that if we allow the defense to show us
that we are wrong, we will move forward
and help the mayor stay where she's supposed to be
because the people voted her in and it is the people's will.
But for us to make the determination,
were there funds given out?
Were all this happening and all of that?
I mean, is it factual or not?
Let's allow her to show everybody
that she is innocent and cleared.
So I think we should move forward
and allow the, the attorney to present the case so
that no doubt is out there for anyone.
And we can put a period and move forward.
We are literally looked at as a joke.
In Spanish, we call that. And it's enough.
I really, we are good commissioners.
We are a magnificent board and we do this for the people.
So it is time that we actually show them
that this is their seat.
Allow the process to move forward.
Allow the defense to do their part.
Allow the prosecutor to do her job.
We spent thousands of dollars
because we said, let's go forth.
So let's go forth. Why now?
Who's going to reimburse us for all the money
that we just spent to get the truth?
Let us get the truth. Give the people the truth.
That is what's fair. That is what's right. Thank you.
That's the end of my comment.
- Thank you. You want to make a comment?
- Yes. - You're recognized.
- Yes. Thank you.
I do believe like this process
we cannot judge our mayor
because never was a guideline here.
Just so you know, we don't have
the right orientation in part of the decision.
We made decisions.
When we approve this grant,
all of us disapprove about how
the money was approved.
That was something who was responsibility
of the city.
- Yeah, but it's the commissioner's responsibility to say,
like I do, Form 8B, I have a conflict of interest
because Lasandra Roman.
So we are responsible for also saying our part.
We, we don't know what's in everybody else's head,
but again, let the process happen.
I think we spent over $25,000.
A city attorney, am I correct?
- Over - $25,000 of taxpayer money has already been spent.
That's not even including the tab for today.
So let's just make our money be counted and heard for.
If it, if it's a no, I promise you, I promise this,
I promise everyone in front of God, if the proof
of the burden is accurate,
I promise you I'm going to do what's right.
Because it's not her fault that if it wasn't right
that somebody should have stopped it.
But it is my responsibility to tell people
or my board how I'm going
to act if I know I'm going to act on an item.
So I just say, allow us to move forward.
Let's make the motion to move forward
and let's just put a period to it.
Transparency.
That's what we said when we knocked on doors, when we went
to people and asked them for a vote of confidence.
Be transparent. This is our one time out of all of this mess
that's happened that we can open the door
and say, all right, let's do it.
Yes, there's not a clear process. Yes.
I was expecting that we were going to have at least a date
to know when we're going to move forward.
As I was looking through the, the, the code, it said
that there was three months.
It could be up to three months that this can take.
But allow it. Let them prepare, bring their evidence,
show their proof, bring their witnesses, whatever it is
that they have to do, and put the burden on the right
people that made the mistake.
- Thank you. How much more is that going to cause this?
- It's, it's - Dead.
- This improper right now. Object to the form.
This is what I'm talking about.
The fairness of the law says. Okay, can we.
Order. Order. It's out of order right now.
No, you're out of order.
- Right, right. Right - Now.
- Can we stay quiet? There's no public
- Comment.
Hold on just a minute. I'm recognizing
the city attorney right now.
- At this point in the process, can you ask for a motion?
Yes.
- I have a motion to accept the articles of impeachment
as presented by the special prosecutor. Don't a motion.
- Motion to accept. - Second. All those in favor?
- We need to vote. It's okay.
This is roll call to accept the articles
of impeachment presented by the special prosecutor.
Commissioner Alvarez. Commissioner Martinez.
- Aye. - Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Eady.
Two have voted in favor and two have voted opposed.
The motion fails for a lack of a majority.
- Now we will call for an adjournment to this meeting.
- Yes. - Second. All those in favor?