Open Session Minutes of the April 13, 2026, Board Meeting

Board of Ethics

Board of Ethics Meeting

Open Session Minutes

March 16, 2026, Monday-2:13 p.m.

740 North Sedgwick, Suite 500

Board Members Present

Ryan Cortazar, Vice Chair

Paul Berks (via Zoom videoconference)

Hon. Bernetta Bush (Ret.)

Bob Glaves

Sarah Jin

Esther Nieves (via Zoom videoconference)

Cindy L. Medina-Cervantes

Staff Present

Steven I. Berlin, Executive Director

Lauren Maniatis, Deputy Director

Karisa Flores, Senior Attorney

Paully Casillas, Staff Assistant

Ajay Chatha, Program Specialist

Guest Attending

Heather Cherone, WTTW News

Jane Kauffman, Office of Inspector General

Kate Roy, Office of Inspector General

The meeting was convened and conducted in person and through the use of the Zoom remote video and audio meeting platform.

• Approval of Minutes

The Board VOTED 7-0 to approve the Open Session Minutes of the March 16, 2026 Board meeting.

• Vice Chair's Report

The Vice Chair reported that he is happy to have Bob Glaves and Esther Nieves join the Board.

• Members' Reports

None

• Executive Director's Report

• Board Members

Today we welcome new Board members Bob Glaves and Esther Nieves and thank the Mayor and City Council for their appointment. The Mayor has not yet named a permanent Board Chair, and we urge him to do so. Vice Chair Ryan Cortazar has served on the Board for years and I urge the Mayor to appoint him as the Permanent Chair before his current term expires on July 31, 2026.

• Staff Hires

I'm pleased to welcome Ajay Chatha as our new Program Specialist and Karisa Flores as our new Senior Counsel. Unfortunately, Ann Peterson, who had accepted our offer to be Legal Counsel on March 5, withdrew her acceptance on March 24, a few days before she was scheduled to start with us on March 30. We are re-posting the position.

• Selection Committee for a New Inspector General

In December, I was asked by the Mayor's Office to serve as a stakeholder-advisor to the Executive Search firm and selection committee for a new Inspector General to succeed the current IG, who announced that she will leave her post later this month. I had an initial phone call with the Executive Search firm and presented my insights into what an ideal candidate would possess.

• Amended Personnel Rules

The Board continues to work with the Department of Human Resources to revise Personnel Rule XXIX, entitled "Conflict of Interest." The current version dates from 2014 and contains obsolete references that the Board has recommended be removed. We submitted updates to that Rule that coincide with the various provisions of the Governmental Ethics Ordinance to which the Personnel Rules refer.

• Amended Chicago Police Department Rules of Conduct

The Board has been consulting with the Police Board to revise the CPD Rule that covers political activity by CPD members.

• Amendments to the City's Ethics Laws

On January 24, 2024, more than two (2) years ago, the Board's proposals were submitted to the full City Council through the Chair of the City Council's Committee on Ethics and Government Oversight, 47th Ward Ald. Matt Martin. They were designated O2024-0007359, and are posted on the City Clerk's website here:https://occprodstoragev1.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/matter attachmentspublic/78f11f46-552f-4b49-b357-cdb7b2f130ec.pdf. We are informed by Ald. Martin's staff that there are no current plans to hold a committee hearing on these proposed amendments. We are unsure of the reasons. This is most disappointing; we believe these amendments are timely and important. We will continue to work toward their passage, and garner support among City Council members and the Administration. If enacted, they would: i) impose tighter regulations with respect to City Council independent contractors; ii) address the use of City property (such as Chicago Police or Fire Department insignia, badges, personnel uniforms, or equipment) in electioneering communications, and, among other things, subject political fundraising committees to the Ordinance's restrictions, thereby granting the Board and Inspector General ("IG") jurisdiction over such committees in this respect; iii) address electioneering communications sent to City employees or officials, and imposed a "stand by your ad" requirement such that candidates for City office must certify that they have reviewed all electioneering communications disseminated by their authorized political fundraising committees; iv) clarify the political activity prohibitions; and v) close a gap in the City's campaign contribution limitations law that allows officers, directors, shareholders, and employees of a person subject to the Ordinance's $1,500 annual contribution limit to elected officials and candidates to contribute on top of contributions made by the person unless they are reimbursed for that contribution. Our peer cities, New York and Los Angeles, have already closed an analogous gap in their political contribution laws. Please note that we made this same recommendation to the City Council in June 2019, just after Mayor Lightfoot took office.

Note that the Better Government Association drafted a bill closely based on our proposed amendments, which was introduced to the General Assembly on February 13, H.B. 5450. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Maurice West II and was referred to the Rules Committee last month. To read its full text, please see: https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18& DocNum=5450&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=167327&SessionID=114. We are grateful to the BGA for spearheading this effort.

• Statements of Financial Interests

There remains just one (1) individual who has not filed a Statement of Financial Interests as required. If and when that individual files, the Board will fine them $250 per day, and, if the matter cannot be settled, will refer it to the Law Department for collection.

Beginning on March 1, we notified all identified 2026 filers of their requirement to file before May 2, 2026. There are 3,977 filers. To date, approximately 2,700 have filed, and their forms posted on our website. We send out regular reminders to all filers.

All forms filed in 2019 and after are posted and viewable here, where they stay for seven (7) years after they are filed: https://webapps1.chicago.gov/efis/search.

• Education

Mandatory Online Training

We posted the names and fines of all employees and officials determined to have violated the Ordinance for failure to complete both online and in person ethics training. See: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/ethics/provdrs/reg/news/2026/january/employees-and-officials-who-violated-the-ethics-ordinance-for-fa.html.

The lobbyist training went live on March 30; to date, 137 have completed it. The other two (2) versions, for appointed officials, and for elected officials/employees, will go live this month.

Mandatory In-person Classes and other presentations

To date, 3,901 employees and officials have attended. We conducted classes here on March 26. Classes are scheduled for April 16 and 23 as well.

On March 25, we made a 45-minute presentation to new employees in the Mayor's Office.

• Advisory Opinions

Since the Board's December meeting, we have issued 303 informal advisory opinions. The leading categories for informal opinions were, in descending order: Travel; Gifts; Statements of Financial Interests; Political activity; City property; Outside employment; Conflicts of interests; and Confidential information.

The leading City departments from which requesters came in this period were, in descending order: Chicago Police Department/Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA)/Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability (CCPSA); City Council; Department of Cultural Affairs + Special Events; Department of Public Health; Department of Transportation; Mayor's Office; Office of Inspector General; Chicago Public Library; and Department of Technology and Innovation.

81% of all inquiries came from City employees or elected officials; the remainder came from lobbyists, attorneys, vendors, or potential lobbyists.

Please note also that we continue to receive complaints from members of the public: since the last Board meeting, we have received eight (8). These are all referred to the appropriate agency: typically, the IG, or a sister agency's IG.

Informal opinions are confidential and not made public, but are logged, kept, and used for training and future advisory purposes. This same practice occurs with our colleagues at the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, who issue roughly the same number of informal opinions. They form the basis for much of our annual and periodic educational programs. Formal opinions are made public, in full text, with names and other identifying information redacted out. In the past five (5) years, the Board has issued 70 formal opinions.

• Summary Index of Formal Advisory Opinions/Text of all Formal Advisory Opinions

The full text of every formal Board opinion issued since 1986 is posted on the Board's website (more than 926), redacted in accordance with the Ordinance's confidentiality provisions, here:

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/ethics/auto_generated/reg_archives.html.

Redacted formal opinions are posted once issued or approved by the Board. Summaries and keywords for each of these opinions-and a link to each opinion's text--are available on the Board's searchable index of opinions, here: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts /ethics/general/Publications/AOindex.docx. A few other ethics agencies have comparable research tools. We are unaware of jurisdictions that make their informal opinions public - though, like us, others issue them confidentially and enable requesters to rely on them in the event of an investigation or enforcement.

• Lobbyists Filings

As of March 11, there were 684 lobbyists registered with our office, and we had collected $283,605 in 2026 registration fees. The deadline for filing 4th Quarter activity and re-registering or terminating was before January 21. We found 12 lobbyists in violation of the law and fined them accordingly, and posted their names and fines on our website, as required by law: https:/ /https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/ethics/provdrs/reg/news/2026/march/board-finds-14-lobbyists-in-violation-of-law-for-failing-to-re-r.html.

We posted a current list of all lobbyists and their clients on April 9, here: https://www.chica go.gov/content/dam/city/depts/ethics/general/LobbyistStuff/LISTS/lobbyistlist.xls.

Lobbyists' filings dating back to 2014 can be examined here: https://webapps1.chicago.gov/ elf/pub lic_search.html.

Note that the Ordinance provides fines of $250 per day for late filings, and these are capped at $20,000. By contrast, fines are $1,000 per day for any individual who has reached either the quarterly hourly or compensation/expenditure threshold that triggers the requirement to register as a lobbyist but then fails to register as required within five (5) City business days of reaching that threshold. These fines begin on the sixth City business day until the person registers. These fines are not capped.

• Waivers

Since July 1, 2013, the Board has had authority to grant waivers from certain provisions in the Ethics Ordinance. The Board has granted 14 and denied four (4) waiver requests. In accordance with the law, all granted waivers are posted here: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en /depts/ethics/supp_info/Waivers.html . There is one (1) waiver request on today's agenda, from the Ordinance's prohibition on City employees having a financial interest in City contracts or business: §2-156-110.

• Summary Index of Board-Initiated Regulatory Actions/Adjudications/pre-2013 Investigations

There are currently nine (9) completed IG ethics investigations in various stages of the adjudicative process. More information on these cases is posted here: https://www.chicago.gov /city/en/depts/ethics/provdrs/reg/svcs/ongoing-summary-of-enforcement-matters.html.

In the first, 23045.IG, a confidential hearing concluded earlier this year, and Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Frank Lombardo issued his Confidential Final Report and Recommendations to the Board on May 15. The Board issued its final opinion on June 17, dismissing the matter. Then, on July 9, 2025, Respondent filed a Request for Attorney's Fees, pursuant to §2-156-392(c). That section provides:

"Upon a final determination by the board that the respondent did not commit a violation of this chapter, the respondent may submit a request to the board seeking reimbursement of reasonable legal expenses and costs incurred in defending the alleged violation. The request for reimbursement shall be granted if the board determines, using established legal principles, that the statement of charges was submitted and pursued in bad faith. If the board determines that the statement of charges was submitted and pursued in bad faith as provided in this section, such finding shall be made publicly available."

The Board voted at its July 2025 meeting to give the City until September 12, to respond to the Fee Request. Upon the City's motion, however, the Board voted at the September 15 meeting to stay any consideration and determination with respect to the Fee Request until it resolves Case No. 25014.C, filed on July 21, 2025. Resolution of that case will inform the Board's consideration and decision with respect to the Fee Request.

In the second, Case No. 25017.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on July 28, 2025, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves a City employee who, the IG found, used their City position, City title, and City emails and office equipment for their outside business which they own, including directly communicating with other City employees over City email to secure City permits, in violation of §§2-156-060 and -090(a) of the Ordinance. The Board found probable cause at its August 2025 meeting; the subject's counsel met with the Board at its December 2025 meeting to attempt to rebut the rebut the finding. After that meeting, the Board determined that the subject committed 16 violations of the Ordinance and fined the subject $16,000. The matter was referred to the Law Department and Department of Administrative Hearings for proceedings to collect the fine, pursuant to §§2-156-385 and -392. The Law Department has informed us that the matter is likely to be settled.

In the third, Case No. 25021.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on September 10, 2025, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves a City employee who, the IG found, failed to disclose income received from a business the employee owned on Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Board in 2022, 2023, and 2024, as well as gifts received with a value in excess of $250 on their 2022 Statement, as required. The Board found probable cause at its November 2025 meeting. The subject presented written materials for the Board to consider; at the Board's December 2025 meeting, the Board determined that the subject violated the Ordinance three (3) times and fined the subject a total of $6,000. The matter was referred to the Law Department and Department of Administrative Hearings for proceedings to collect the fine, pursuant to §§2-156-385 and -392.

In the fourth, Case No. 25028.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on November 24, 2025, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves a now-former City employee who, the IG's investigation found, used their City title and authority to solicit a job opportunity for their son, with a City contractor, and allowed the contractor to perform unauthorized work for the City while their son worked for the vendor, and that the contractor violated the Ordinance by hiring the employee's son. The Board found probable cause at its February meeting, and the subjects and their counsel intend to meet with the Board today.

In the fifth, Case No. 25030.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on December 4, 2025, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves 12 political contributions from persons (or their affiliated companies) that were doing business with the City at the time of they made their contributions to the authorized candidate committee for an unsuccessful candidate for elected City office in the 2023 campaign. The IG's investigation found that one (1) contributor did not request a refund from the committee, and that the committee accepted these contributions in violation of the Ordinance. The Board found probable cause at its February meeting. The contributor met with the Board at its March meeting; after that meeting the Board fined the contributor $1,000. The committee's counsel informed us earlier this week that the committee will be seeking a new attorney, and likely will meet with the Board at its May meeting to attempt to rebut the probable cause finding.

In the sixth, Case No. 25032.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on December 30, 2025, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves a City employee who, the IG found, accepted a "cash gift" from an unlicensed "ride share hustler" at O'Hare. The Board found probable cause at the February meeting. The subject and their union representative plan to meet with the Board at its May meeting to attempt to rebut the finding.

In the seventh, Case No. 26001.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on January 9, 2026, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves a former City employee who, the IG found, violated the Ordinance's post-employment restrictions, and prohibition on negotiating future employment with a person that had matters pending before them. The matter found probable cause at its February meeting. The subject and their counsel intend to meet with the Board at its May meeting to attempt to rebut the finding.

In the eighth, Case No. 26005.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on February 5, 2026, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves a sitting elected official who, the IG found, had a City employee removed from their employment in apparent violation of the official's fiduciary duty. The Board found probable cause at its March meeting. The subject and their counsel intend to meet with the Board at its May meeting to attempt to rebut that finding.

In the ninth, Case No. 26008.IG, the IG delivered a completed investigation to the Board on March 6, 2026, with a request that the Board find probable cause. It involves a sitting elected official who, the IG found, improperly advocated for their relative's employment in a department over which the official is alleged to have exercised authority, supervision, or control. The Board will consider a probable cause finding in this case at today's meeting.

More complete summaries of these and all IG cases are available on our website, subject to the Ordinance's confidentiality requirements. We post on our website and continually update an ongoing investigative record showing the status of every completed investigation brought to the Board by both the IG since July 1, 2013, and the former Office of the Legislative Inspector General ("LIG"), since January 1, 2012, and the status of all 50 petitions to commence investigations presented to the Board by the LIG. We update this record as appropriate, consistent with the Ordinance's confidentiality provisions. See https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/ethics/pr ovdrs/reg/svcs/ongoing-summary-of-enforcement-matters.html and https://www.chicago.gov /content/dam/city/depts/ethics/general/EnforcementMatters/PulbicScorecard.pdf

Whenever the IG presents the Board with a completed ethics investigation in which the IG believes there have been violations of the Governmental Ethics Ordinance, the procedure that follows is governed by §2-156-385 of the Ordinance: the Board reviews the IG's report, recommendations, and the entirety of the evidence submitted in its completed investigation, including a review to ensure that the IG conformed with the requirement that it complete ethics investigations within two (2) years of commencing them (unless there is evidence that the subject took affirmative action to conceal evidence or delay the investigation), and that the ethics investigation was commenced within five (5) years of the last alleged act of misconduct.

If the Board finds that the evidence presented warrants a finding of probable cause to believe the subject violated the Ordinance, it notifies the subject of the allegations and affords the subject the opportunity to present written submissions and meet with the Board, together with an attorney or other representative present. The Ordinance provides that this meeting is confidential and ex parte - no one from the City's Law Department or IG is present. Note that the Board may also request clarification from the IG as to any evidence found in its investigation before making a probable cause finding or refer the matter back to the IG for further investigation (and has done so). The Board cannot administer oaths at this meeting but can and does assess the subject's credibility and the validity and weight of any evidence the subject provides.

If the subject doesn't rebut the probable cause finding, the Board may enter into a public settlement agreement - or find there was a violation and proceed to a hearing on the merits that is not open to the public. That hearing is held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) appointed by the Department of Administrative Hearings. The City would be represented by the Law Department (or a specially hired Assistant Corporation Counsel for that purpose), and the subject by their attorney. At the conclusion of that hearing, the ALJ submits findings of fact and law to the Board, which can accept or reject them, based solely on the written record of the hearing. The Board will then publicly issue an opinion in which it may find violations of the Ethics Ordinance and impose appropriate fines or find no violation and dismiss the matter. These processes are based on specific recommendations of then-Mayor Emanuel's Ethics Reform Task Force in Part II of its 2012 Report-the primary purposes being to: (i) guarantee due process for all those investigated by the IG; (ii) ensure that only the Board of Ethics could make determinations as to whether a person investigated by the IG violated the Ordinance, given the Board's extensive jurisprudence and unique expertise in ethics matters; and (iii) balance due process for those investigated by the IG with an accurate adjudication by the Board and the public's right to know of ethics violations.

On our website, we have a publication describing this process in detail: https://www.chicago.gov /content/dam/city/depts/ethics/general/Publications/EnforceProcedures.pdf.

Note: fines range from $500-$2,000 per violation for non-lobbying or non-campaign financing violations that occurred before September 29, 2019, and $1,000-$5,000 per violation for such violations occurring between September 29, 2019, and September 30, 2022. For violations occurring on or after October 1, 2022, the fine range is between $500 and $20,000 per violation, and the Board may also assess a fine equal to any ill-gotten financial gains as a result of any Ordinance violation. Fines for unregistered lobbying violations remain at $1,000 per day beginning on the fifth day after the individual first engaged in lobbying and continuing until the individual registers as a lobbyist.

Please note, finally, that, in all matters adjudicated or settled on or after July 1, 2013, the Board makes public the names of all violators and penalties assessed, or a complete copy of the settlement agreement. All settlement agreements are posted here: https://www.chicago. gov/city/en/depts/ethics/provdrs/reg/svcs/SettlementAgreements.html.

• Disclosures of Past Violations

July 2013 amendments to the Ordinance provide that, when a person seeks advice from the Board about past conduct and discloses to the Board facts leading it to conclude that they committed a past violation of the Ordinance, the Board must determine whether that violation was minor or non-minor. If it is minor, the Board, by law, sends the person a confidential letter of admonition. If it was non-minor, then, under current law, the person is advised that they may self-report to the IG or, if he or she fails to do so within two (2) weeks, the Board must make that report. In 13 matters, the Board has determined that minor violations occurred, and the Board sent confidential letters of admonition, as required by the Ordinance. These letters are posted on the Board's website, with confidential information redacted.

• Open Meetings Act/FOIA Challenges

The Board is currently involved in four (4) challenges filed with the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor ("PAC"). (Note: two (2) challenges were resolved by the PAC on January 2, 2026.) As a result of these two (2) resolved challenges, the Board is making public parts of the Executive Session minutes from its September 11, 2023, and September 30, 2024 meetings and the audio recordings from those meetings upon request. They cover the following matters: (1) the Board's discussion in Executive Session of Case Nos. 20038.WB and 23051.C, each of which was a complaint against the City Treasurer (the first was a whistleblower complaint; the second was a complaint alleging improper use of City property and resources), which the Board had immediately referred to the Office of Inspector General; and (2) the Board's discussion in Executive Session of Case No. 24019.Q, at its September 30, 2024, meeting, which pertains to an advisory opinion the Board issued to a lobbyist regarding an event that constituting reasonable hosting, and advising the lobbyists how it should be reported on their quarterly activity reports.

The remaining challenges request:

(1) A review of the propriety of adjourning into executive session during the Board's August 14 and September 11, 2023, meetings under the OMA;

(2) A review of the Board not producing certain records pursuant to FOIA;

(3) A review of the propriety of the Board's method of taking final action at its April 15, 2024, and May 13, 2024, meetings; and

(4) A review of the Board's discussion in executive session of its advisory opinion in Case No. 25014.C at its November 17, 2025 meeting. A redacted copy of that opinion was posted on our website on November 18, 2025, here: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/ depts/ethics/general/AO-Attorneys/25014.C.pdf.

The Board has worked with the Law Department and responded to each.

• Freedom of Information Act

Since the March 16th Board meeting, the Board has received five (5) FOIA requests:  

The first was a request for copies of all documents, emails, text messages, reports, complaints made to the Board of Ethics, Steven Berlin, or any employee at the Board of Ethics concerning, pertaining, or related to a specific appointed official and an employee of a non-profit agency from March 1, 2026 through March 17, 2026.The Board responded that it had no responsive documents to the request.

The second was a request for all records underlying, referenced in, or used to compile the "2025 FIS Violations Posting Updated May 21, 2025" document, including but not limited to investigative files, case summaries, disciplinary records, findings, or determinations for each listed violation. Any records, including reports, personnel action forms, or disciplinary summaries, that identify the individuals associated with the violations reflected in that posting, including their names, employing department, and job titles. Any records or data fields contained within those files reflecting employee demographic or employment-related information (such as age or ZIP code), to the extent such information is maintained in the ordinary course of business. Any policies, data dictionaries, or record descriptions explaining the fields or categories of information included in the violations posting. In response, the Board provided links that contained requested items and determined that some documents are exempt from FOIA on the following bases: 5 ILCS 140/7(f), and 5 ILCS 140/7.5(h).

The third was a request for all Statements of Financial Interest filed by a sitting City Council member for the past twelve (12) years. The Board provided the link to the webpage that contained as many of the requested items that it has legally retained.

The fourth was a request for all documents and emails/messages referencing "Hilco" (as in, Hilco Real Estate or Hilco Global or any other similar orgs). The Board responded that it has no responsive documents.

The fifth request was for documents sufficient to show the ethical requirements surrounding a City Council member running a "Get Behind the Vest" type fundraiser ostensibly to purchase 'protective vests' to CPD members, but where '100% of proceeds fund the Chicago Memorial Foundation and new vests for Chicago Police Officers.'" The Board provided a link to the Governmental Ethics Ordinance.

• Public Comments

None

• Old Business

None

• New Business

None

• Prior Board Meeting's Executive Session Minutes

This matter shall be discussed in the Executive Session.

At 2:11 p.m., the Board VOTED 7-0 to adjourn into Executive Session under: (i) 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1) to discuss the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees, specific individuals who serve as independent contractors in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or specific volunteers of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee, a specific individual who serves as an independent contractor in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or a volunteer of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. However, a meeting to consider an increase in compensation to a specific employee of a public body that is subject to the Local Government Wage Increase Transparency Act may not be closed and shall be open to the public and posted and held in accordance with this Act; (ii) 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(4) to hear and discuss evidence or testimony in closed hearing as specifically authorized pursuant to Governmental Ethics Ordinance Sections 2-156-385 and -392, and the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended, effective January 5, 2017, presented to a quasi-adjudicative body, as defined in the Illinois Open Meetings Act, provided that the body prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning; and (iii) 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(21) to discuss minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section 2.06.

At 5:20, Board member Paul Berks left the meeting.

At 5:21 p.m. the Board VOTED 6-0 (Paul Berks, absent) to reconvene in Open Session.

• Matters Considered by the Board in Executive Session
• • Approval of the Executive Session Minutes

The Board VOTED 7-0 to approve the Executive Session Minutes for the March 16, 2026 Board meeting.

None

None

Meeting with Subject Following Finding of Probable Cause, Pursuant to §2-156-385

1. Case No. 25028.01.IG, Offering, receiving and soliciting of gifts or favors

The Board VOTED 6-0 (Paul Berks, absent) to find insufficient evidence to support a finding of a violation and dismissed the matter.

1. Case No. 25028.02.IG, Action on behalf of relatives or domestic partners; Fiduciary duty; Unauthorized use of City property

The Board VOTED 6-0 (Paul Berks, absent) to continue this case to the next Board meeting.

Consideration of Finding of Probable Cause Based on a Completed Investigation by the Office of Inspector General, pursuant to §2-156-385

1. Case No. 26008.IG, Action on behalf of relatives or domestic partners

The Board VOTED 6-0 (Paul Berks, absent) to determine that there was insufficient evidence in the record to warrant a probable cause finding in this matter, and to dismiss it.

Consideration of Complaint Independent of an Inspector General Investigation Pursuant to §2-156-390

1. Case 26011.C, Discussion of complaint alleging violations of §2-156-135(b) and -060, Prohibited political activity, Unauthorized use of City property

The Board VOTED 6-0 (Paul Berks, absent) to decline to find a factual basis to proceed with fact finding in this matter and dismissed it.

Consideration of Waiver Request

1. Case No. 26010.W, Financial Interest in City Business

The Board VOTED 6-0 (Paul Berks, absent) to grant this waiver request to an employee so that the employee can participate to the same degree as any member of the public in the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities' "HomeMod Program" ("Program") for home modifications for a disabled child.

• Other Business

At 5:26 p.m., the Board VOTED 7-0 to adjourn the meeting.

bd-minutes-os-4-13-26 for 5-11-26-f