Nov 19, 2025 Charter Review Committee

[00:00:01]

YOU TWO TRY IT AGAIN? TRY TALKING. SEE IF WE CAN HEAR YOU IN HERE. I'M CALLING THE

[CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[II.1. Routine reports from City Council Liaison(s).]

MR. OH, I'M SORRY, I FORGOT TO SAY PRESENT WAS COUNCIL COUNCILMAN PRINCE, OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, AND CHARLES WEST, OUR CITY STAFF LIAISON. I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY. WE'VE JUST PLUGGED THIS MIC IN. YOU FOLKS ONLINE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY, OKAY, OKAY, SO THE ONE THING THAT I HAVE, LINDA, IS GOING BACK A COUPLE OF SESSIONS. THERE WAS A QUESTION WHICH I THINK MARK DOUGLAS, YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ABOUT RANKED RANKED CHOICE VOTING. RIGHT.

AND IN A SUBSEQUENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I ASKED BOBBY ABOUT IT AND HE SAID, YEAH, I'M PRETTY SURE YOU CAN'T DO RANKED CHOICE VOTING, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO RESEARCH IT. AND THEN LINDA REMINDED ME A COUPLE DAYS AGO THAT WE HADN'T SEEN THE FINAL WORD BACK. AND SO CITY MANAGER MR. WEST ACTUALLY REPLIED QUITE A BIT AND TALKED ABOUT IT. AND THEN KOBE, WHO'S TRAVELING, FINALLY DID CHIME IN AT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE CAN'T DO RANKED CHOICE IN THE STATE OF BRAD. THANK YOU. I SAID COPY TWICE. I WAS TALKING ABOUT KOBE EARLIER, SO BRAD BULLOCK CHIMED IN AND SAID, SO. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR THAT RANKED CHOICE IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT. WHILE IT HASN'T BEEN EXPLICITLY NOT ALLOWED, BRAD'S ADVICE WAS IF WE TRY TO DO RANKED CHOICE VOTING, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD PROBABLY COME AFTER US AND TURN IT OVER, BECAUSE THE WAY I INTERPRETED HIS LANGUAGE AND FURTHERMORE, IF WE HAVE THREE YEAR TERMS, THEN MAJORITY IS REQUIRED FOR ELECTION, SO RANKED CHOICE WOULD NOT BE THERE. SO I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE, WITH ALL OF THE DATA THAT MR. WEST PROVIDED, ALONG WITH WHAT BRAD SAID, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT RANKED CHOICE IS REALLY NOT AN OPTION FOR US. THANK YOU FOR FOLLOWING UP ON GETTING THAT THAT INFORMATION. I THINK RIGHT NOW WE SHOULD REALLY HAVE IT

[III.1. Approval of Minutes of November 5, 2025, Charter Review Committee Meeting.]

SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN. OKAY. WE HAVE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THAT. AND THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA

[III. 2. Review Charter Review Committee members suggested language for possible Charter recommendation to include a Board of Ethics.]

[00:05:03]

AND THE ETHICS POLICY DOES INCORPORATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 171 AND 176. AND I DID HAVE THOSE PRINTED OUT. BUT YOU TWO ARE NOT HERE TO HAVE THEM. I DID HAVE THEM PRINTED OUT FOR REFERENCE. AND ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS RELEVANT IS THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ASSOCIATION HAS A TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICS POLICY FOR TEXAS MUNICIPALITIES, AND I PRINTED THAT OUT AS WELL FOR THE PEOPLE HERE. AND. WE'LL GET THAT. WE'LL GET THESE ITEMS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. HOWEVER, BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR INTO THE DISCUSSION, I HAVE LEARNED THAT THE THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSING ON THEIR ON THEIR DECEMBER 4TH OR FIFTH AGENDA, THE THEY WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ON ETHICS POLICY. AND SO I THINK THAT RATHER THAN US GET AHEAD OF THE COUNCIL, WE SHOULD DEFER THIS UNTIL WE HEAR WHAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO ADDRESS, WHY THEY'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT, WHAT, WHAT WHAT THEIR ISSUES ARE. AND WE SHOULD DEFER ANY OF OUR DISCUSSION ON FORMING AN ETHICS BOARD OR IF INCORPORATING MORE POLICY INTO THE CHARTER, UNTIL WE HEAR THE COUNCIL'S POSITION ON THAT. ANY ANY THOUGHTS ON, ON DOING THAT. YEAH. THE ONLY THE ONLY THOUGHT I HAVE ON IT IS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I THINK THAT THE ETHICS POLICY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT REVERTS BACK TO COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WAS A CONFLICT OR NOT. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. RIGHT. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE FOX HEN HEN HOUSE TYPE OF THING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF, IF THEY GO IN THIS DIRECTION, A MORE INDEPENDENT BODY. TO. ME THAT I HAD RAISED IT, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY IT WAS NOT DIRECTED OR FOCUSED ON THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. I THAT WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, WHERE I WAS KIND OF THINKING IT NEEDED TO BE AMPLIFIED. IT WAS IN IT WAS IN THE AREA OF STAFF WHO WERE FAMILIAR WITH ETHICS VIOLATIONS, POSSIBLE ETHICS VIOLATIONS OR MISREPRESENTATIONS OR MISSTATEMENTS BEING MADE BY APPLICANTS TO OTHER MEMBERS OF STAFF OR TO COUNCIL OR TO BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT

[00:10:06]

AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, I THINK IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR PURVIEW TO BRING THAT INFORMATION FORWARD.

AND SO. IT WAS NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW. I THINK IT SHOULD BE IN STAFF'S PURVIEW IF THEY IF IF WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY WHO SAYS, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE BEING MISREPRESENTATIONS BEING MADE IN APPLICATIONS, THAT I THINK THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO BRING OUT. AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ETHICS POLICY. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT. I WASN'T LOOKING AT BOLSTERING ITS EFFECT ON COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT EVEN COULD BE INCORPORATED. BUT THAT'S THAT WAS THE THOUGHT. BUT IN ANY EVENT, I CAN I JUST CLARIFYING. SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT BASED ON HISTORY, YOU'VE SEEN CASES WHERE SOMEONE THAT WAS FILING AN APPLICATION, FOR EXAMPLE, INTO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WAS MAKING INACCURATE STATEMENTS, AND I, I WOULD ASSERT THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME THERE'S AN APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING OR CITY COUNCIL STAFF HAS A PRESENTATION. AND SO IT SHOULD BE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS. AND CHARLES, CORRECT ME IF YOU DISAGREE. IT SHOULD BE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS. AND WHEN THE STAFF IS MAKING A PRESENTATION, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THIS, BUT WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. WE THINK THIS IS THE TRUE FACTS. I WOULD HOPE, I WOULD HOPE STAFF IF STAFF BELIEVES THAT SOMETHING IS BEING MISREPRESENTED IN A APPLICATION, THEY WOULD BRING IT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION AND NOT SAY IT'S NOT PART OF THEIR PURVIEW, BECAUSE TO ME, IT IS PART OF THEIR PURVIEW TO CALL THAT OUT. AND I AGREE, WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. SO SO MAYBE THAT'S RATHER THAN MAYBE IT'S A TRAINING ISSUE RATHER THAN SOMETHING SPECIFIC. I WOULD WONDER IN YOUR RESEARCH AND ROBERT, YOU HAD DONE THE MOST RESEARCH. I WONDER IF THE THE ETHICS BOARD OF ETHICS THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN OTHER CITIES LOOK LIKE THEY MAY BE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE OF SOMEONE WHO'S NEITHER A CITY EMPLOYEE OR A CITY OR A AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, BUT IN FACT A CITIZEN OR DEVELOPER THAT'S BRINGING THINGS IN. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY OFF THE TOP OF MY MIND THAT WOULD ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, A THIRD PARTY FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE NATIONAL CHARTER AND ALL THE TEXAS ONES, I LOOKED AT EITHER CHARTER OR ORDINANCE. IT WAS MORE AROUND A CITIZEN. THIRD CITIZENS WEIGHING IN ON ETHICS, PRIMARILY CONFLICT AND FINANCIAL OF THE CITY STAFF OR CITY COUNCIL AS AN INDEPENDENT THIRD BODY THAT COULD INVESTIGATE THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T HAVE COUNCIL INVESTIGATING ITSELF, YOU DON'T HAVE CITY STAFF INVESTIGATING ITSELF, THAT THERE'S CONFIDENCE IN THE PUBLIC THAT THERE'S AN OMBUDSMAN OR A THIRD PARTY BOARD THAT HAS SOME TEETH TO IT.

ULTIMATELY, IT COMES DOWN TO COUNCIL TO ACT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF WHATEVER THE BOARD OF ETHICS COMES UP WITH. BUT THERE'S A AN APPELLATE PARTY, A THIRD PARTY, AND JUST PROVIDES THE OPTICS TO THE PUBLIC THAT THEY HAVE ANOTHER AVENUE TO LAUNCH MISBEHAVIOR OR ETHICAL COMPLAINTS TOWARDS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR A MEMBER OF STAFF. WELL, I'M LOOKING I WAS LOOKING AT THE THE ONE THAT YOU POSTED, ROBERT SAN ANTONIO. AND I THINK THE FIRST LINE OF IT UNDER THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE MIGHT GET TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. LINDA. IT SAYS ALL CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO UPHOLD THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT, ENSURING THAT THEIR ACTIONS DO NOT LEAD TO IMPROPER PERSONAL GAIN OR AN ADVERSE EFFECT OF INTEREST, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I THINK MAYBE LIKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT COULD MAYBE THAT THEIR ACTIONS THAT LEAD THEIR ACTIONS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE

[00:15:02]

171 176 AND WE CAN TABLE AND CONTINUE TO DISCUSSION ONCE WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT CODE AND SEE WHAT IT COVERS, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT, TABLING IT FOR NOW SO WE CAN DO MORE RESEARCH ON WHAT YOU'VE CITED, AS OPPOSED TO SAYING WE'RE TABLING IT TO SEE WHAT COUNCIL DOES, BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, I'LL BE BLUNT. I DON'T CARE WHAT COUNCIL DOES.

WE'RE LOOKING LONGER TERM THAN THAT. SO AND EVEN THE ETHICS POLICY ITSELF THAT WE HAVE IS MALLEABLE IN THAT CURRENT COUNCIL OR FUTURE COUNCILS CAN CHANGE IT TO SOME DEGREE. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE BINDERS AND THE GUARDRAILS ARE IN. 171 AND 176. AND THEN WE CAN CIRCLE BACK AND DECIDE IS THAT SUFFICIENT OR DO WE NEED TO CODIFY IT FURTHER IN THE CHARTER TO HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS IN ADDITION TO THE 171 176, THE OTHER DOCUMENT THAT I MADE A COPY OF WAS THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ASSOCIATION'S TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICS POLICY FOR TEXAS MUNICIPALITIES. AND NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE THIS NINE PAGE DOCUMENT, THEY EVEN HAVE A SAMPLE ORDINANCE THAT CAN BE PASSED THAT WOULD INCORPORATE THE THE PROVISIONS IN THIS IN THIS DOCUMENT. SO POSSIBLY, ROBERT, IF YOU WERE GOING TO BE POSTING ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, 171 AND 176 POSSIBLY WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD POST THIS DOCUMENT AS WELL. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO EMAIL THAT TO ME, LINDA, I CAN POST WHATEVER. OKAY. THEN

[III.3. Discuss Articles II and III of the Lago Vista Charter.]

[00:20:13]

SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE DISCUSSION ON COMMENTS ON ARTICLE TWO? POWERS OF THE CITY.

IF YOU STILL HAVE YOUR CONSOLIDATED NOTES FROM THE DISCUSSIONS THAT ROBERT PUT TOGETHER, THERE ARE COMMENTS ON HERE ALREADY MAKING SUGGESTIONS ON ON ARTICLE TWO. SO IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY MADE COMMENTS ON, DOES ANYBODY HAVE NEW COMMENTS THAT THEY COME UP WITH? I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT AT LEAST IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE CHARTERS, THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD THE POWERS OF THE CITY WOULD BE A GOOD. AND THE GENERAL POWERS, THE EMINENT DOMAIN. IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THAT, OTHERS, OTHER CHARTERS THAT PEOPLE WERE PLEASED TO SEE MORE ABBREVIATED.

DEFINITIONS RATHER THAN LIKE SECTION 2.01. WE HAVE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, AND THEN THERE'S ALL THE THINGS THAT THE CITY MAY DO AND PEOPLE'S COMMENTS WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE OTHER CHARTERS WERE THAT, WELL, IT WASN'T REALLY NECESSARY TO TO ITEMIZE THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO. WE CAN JUST LEAVE IT AS A, AS A QUICK PARAGRAPH, AS AUBREY DOES, FOR EXAMPLE. AND, AND THERE WERE OTHER EXAMPLES OF MORE ABBREVIATED SECTIONS FOR POWERS OF THE CITY, FOR GENERAL POWERS AND EMINENT DOMAIN. THAT'S JUST KIND OF A RECAP OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.

AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THING TO ADD TO THAT OR ANY CHANGES HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE? YOU KNOW, THAT WAS OUR GENERAL DISCUSSION, BUT WHAT ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO INCORPORATE OUR GENERAL DISCUSSION INTO THE ACTUAL CHARTER? SO I, I AGREE WE SIMPLER IS BETTER. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO WITHHOLD ALL THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY THAT THE STATE GIVES THE HOME RULE CITY, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON TO HAVE A LIST THAT SAYS, OH, BY THE WAY, THESE ARE INCLUDED TO WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY INCLUDED. AUBREY, I THINK WE THAT 2.01 IS POSSIBLE LANGUAGE. WE WANT TO REPLACE OUR 2.01 WITH. AND I'M TRYING TO. I ALSO HAD ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE, BUT THAT IT'S IT'S AN ANALYSIS OF TEXAS HOME RULE CHARTERS. AND IT WAS A STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN 2008 THAT THAT WAS AN UPDATE OF A STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN 1994. AND THEY HAVE AN APPENDIX THAT LISTS. SO THEY USED BUDDHA AS AN EXAMPLE. AND THEY HAVE POWERS OF THE CITY, GENERAL POWERS OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

REALLY BRIEF PARAGRAPHS THAT I THINK ARE ARE KIND OF SUCCINCT IN WHAT WE WERE ADMIRING ABOUT OTHER CITY CHARTERS. SO I DIDN'T COPY THIS FOR EVERYONE. THERE'S A COUPLE HUNDRED PAGES LONG, BUT. I THINK THAT IF EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED TO ABBREVIATE THIS, THAT SOMEBODY WOULD WANT TO VOLUNTEER TO BE THE ONE TO PROVIDE THE ABBREVIATED.

SECTION 2.01, 2.022.03. FOR FOR OUR OUR CHARTER TO TO REVIEW. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO PUT THAT FORWARD. IF NOBODY DOES I WILL DO IT. BUT I CAN DO IT LINDA I CAN DO IT. LINDA I DON'T MIND. I WANTED TO ASK IN OUR SECTION 2.03 BECAUSE I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE SIMPLICITY, AND I DO LIKE I'M IN FAVOR OF SIMPLICITY TOO, IN ONE SECTION. BUT I WAS LOOKING I WAS LIKE,

[00:25:03]

THE HISTORY OF THAT, JEN, IS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE PO PARKS THAT ARE PRIVATE, EVEN THOUGH THEIR NAME IS LAGO VISTA. AND APPARENTLY AT SOME POINT PREDATING ME, MAYBE MARK WOULD RECALL OR PAUL, APPARENTLY THERE WAS AN INITIATIVE BY SOME OF THE CITY TO THREATEN TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN TO GRAB THE PO PARKS. AND SO AT SOME POINT WHEN THE CHARTER WAS REWRITTEN, THEY PUT THIS LINE IN. IT SAYS. THAT THE CITY CANNOT USE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THAT PURPOSE.

NOW, IN OUR FIRST TIME WE WENT THROUGH, WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, OKAY, YOU CAN'T USE EMINENT DOMAIN ON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT'S DEDICATED AND USED AS A PARK, LAND OR A CITY PARK. THE FIRST PASS, THERE WAS CONSENSUS TO DELETE THE LINE FOR A CITY PARK AND JUST SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT BASICALLY FOR ANY REASON. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY EDIT THAT WAS SUGGESTED LAST TIME THAT IT WASN'T PICKED UP IN THE CURRENT BLUE LINE. OKAY, A QUESTION DO WE WANT TO DELETE THE VERY LAST LINE OF THAT? I THINK I THINK IF WE TRY TO TAKE THE WHOLE THING OUT, YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A REVOLT AND IT TO THE POINT IT WOULD PROBABLY GET THE WHOLE CHARTER SHUT DOWN. I'M WITH YOU. I IF WORD GOT OUT THAT WE REMOVED THAT RESTRICTION ON EMINENT DOMAIN, THEN WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME BECAUSE THE CHARTER IS GOING TO GET VOTED DOWN. JUST. YEAH. AND ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING THAT AT ALL, I THINK THAT. YEAH, I'M ALIGNED ON KEEPING IT IN THERE. AND TOTALLY I WAS THINKING THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHY IT WAS EVEN SET OFF BECAUSE IT WAS SO IMPORTANT. SO I JUST WANTED TO OPEN I KNOW THAT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT SEMANTICS OR BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S SET OFF AGAINST THOSE OPINION ON THAT ONE. OR I COULD PUT IT IN THE BEGINNING MAYBE.

AND THEN ALSO TO YOUR POINT, ROBERT, I DIDN'T REMEMBER ABOUT THE FOR ANY USE. I THINK THOSE WOULD BE KIND OF USEFUL THINGS TO HEAR FROM DEPENDING ON. YEAH, YOU JUST SCRATCH THAT FINAL CLAUSE FOR ANY FOR USE AS A CITY PARK. THEN THE PROHIBITION IS ABSOLUTE. IF YOU DON'T MIND.

SO HISTORY WISE, THIS THIS OCCURRED BEFORE I WAS ON CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT WAS A PRETTY HOT TOPIC. AND THERE WAS A RUMOR THAT WAS ACTIVE ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT SOME MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WERE TRYING TO SNEAK AROUND AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO STEAL PARKS FROM THE POA TO BECOME CITY PARKS. RIGHT. AND MAYOR TIDWELL WAS HE WAS MAYOR AT THE TIME, AND HE WAS PRETTY ACTIVE IN SOCIAL MEDIA AND SAYING, NOBODY'S DOING THAT. THIS IS ALL NONSENSE KIND OF STUFF, RIGHT? NEVERTHELESS, THAT LANGUAGE DID GET PUT IN, AND AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY THE FEAR THAT THE CITY WOULD STEAL PRIVATE PARKLAND OWNED BY LAGO VISTA, POA AND TURN IT INTO PUBLIC PARKLAND OWNED BY THE CITY. AND SO THAT THAT SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS WAS WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS TO PUT IN HERE. I THINK THERE WAS NEVER ANY DISCUSSION THAT I RECALL OF. IS THERE A SCENARIO WHERE CITY NEEDS EMINENT DOMAIN TO RUN WATER PIPE OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH WOULD BE MORE TYPICAL USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN THROUGH POA PARKLAND. AND SO, SO YOUR LANGUAGE, YOUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE OF STRIKING THAT WOULD PREVENT THE MORE STANDARD USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. WHEREAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE HAD VOTERS APPROVED, YOU KNOW, 6 OR 8 YEARS AGO WAS SPECIFIC TO DON'T STEAL PRIVATE PARKS TO TURN THEM INTO PUBLIC PARKS. RIGHT. BUT YOU GUYS CAN RECOMMEND WHATEVER YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND, A VARIATION OF THAT RUMOR IS FLOATING AROUND AT THIS TIME, NOT NECESSARILY TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN, BUT TO TRY AND DO IT, TO TRY AND ACQUIRE POA PARKS BY THE CITY. YEAH. RUMORS FLY, I'M JUST SAYING. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT IT REALLY NEEDS TO STAY IN HERE. WELL, I, I DON'T

[00:30:06]

LONG DEBATED, WELL WELL THOUGHT OUT ISSUES IN OUR FIRST GO ROUND. IN THIS SUMMARY, THIS THIS STUDY THAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FOUND THAT WAS MOST INTERESTING WAS THAT AS OF 2008, WHEN THIS STUDY WAS DONE OF HOME RULE CITIES IN TEXAS, 77% OF THEM WERE STILL USING TWO YEAR TERMS. AND SO WE HAD RECOMMENDED THREE YEAR TERMS. AND I THOUGHT THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY REVISIT THAT, GIVEN THAT 77% OF MUNICIPALITIES CHOSE TWO YEAR TERMS. BUT MAYBE THERE WAS SOME MERIT TO IT AND THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT WITH OUR OUR NEW MEMBERS. BUT THAT'S JUST KIND OF AN INTRODUCTION TO ARTICLE THREE THAT THE SUMMARY HERE STUDY, I WOULD I WOULD ASK IT WITH THE COMMITTEE'S

[00:35:05]

AND YOU KNOW, WITH THAT SO SO BE IT. THAT'S THAT'S FINE. WELL I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. RIGHT. BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE SCIENTIFIC, BUT IT'S OUR COMMUNITY. AND SO WE'D LIKE TO FEEDBACK FROM OUR COMMUNITIES. AT LEAST I WOULD I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT WHAT COMMENTS PEOPLE MAKE WITH RESPECT TO 2 OR 3 YEARS AND WHY WHAT WHAT THEIR REASONING IS.

DO YOU, ROBERT AND JEN, DO YOU AGREE WITH WITH HAVING MARC DO THAT? YES, BUT THERE IS A DANGER THERE. UNLESS THE POLL QUESTION CLEARLY ARTICULATES THE PROS AND CONS OF TWO VERSUS THREE. AND AND LINDA, I KNOW YOU'VE REFERENCED THE STUDY. THAT MR. WEST POSTED, AND I DID I DID READ THROUGH IT. IN ALL CANDOR, IT WAS OVER 15 YEARS OLD, AND I KIND OF READ IT WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THIS IS STALE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT 77% WOULD HOLD UP TODAY OR NOT. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A POLL AND YOU SAY YOU SHOULD, CITY COUNCIL HAVE TWO YEAR TERMS OR THREE YEAR TERMS. I THINK A KNEE JERK REACTION OF A LOT OF PEOPLE IS GOING TO BE LIKE, HELL NO, KEEP THEM SHORT TWO YEARS, MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE. AND REMEMBER THE WHOLE RATIONALE FOR THREE YEAR TERMS IS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ELECTION CYCLES, TO ALLOW THE TENURE, TO ALLOW THE CONTINUITY IN GOVERNMENT TO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE COUNCILORS WHO ARE SERVING IN THEIR FIRST YEAR THIS YEAR, WHO NOW THIS ELECTION IS OVER FOR 2025. WE WILL SHORTLY BE INTO ELECTION SEASON FOR 2026. AND SO YOU HAVE COUNCILORS WHO HAVE ONE YEAR OF SERVICE, WHO ARE NOW GOING INTO REELECTION MODE. THEY'VE HAD ONE CYCLE OF LEARNING HOW TO RUN THE BUSINESS. THEY'VE HAD ONE BUDGET CYCLE, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE IN REELECTION MODE BEFORE THEY REALLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO MAKE A MARK FOR THEMSELVES AND GET THEIR FEET WET, SO TO SPEAK. SO UNLESS WE CAN CLEARLY ARTICULATE IN A POLL THE REASONS THE PROS AND CONS OF THREE AND MAKING THE CHANGE, I THINK YOUR KNEE JERK REACTION TO THE POLL IS GOING TO BE NO. SO MARK, AS THE CREATOR OF THE POLL WRITER, CAN YOU DO IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT PRESENTS PROS AND CONS IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE MEANINGFUL AND UNDERSTANDABLE, AND PREVENT US FROM GETTING 77% OF THE KNEE JERK REACTION OF NO, DON'T EXTEND THEM. SO, MARK, WILL YOU DRAFT YOUR POLL QUESTION AND CIRCULATE IT TO US, AND THEN WE'LL WE'LL BE ABLE TO TO MAKE OUR COMMENTS ON THAT BEFORE IT PUT OUT THERE.

ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE FOOTNOTES OR THE THE BACK PAGES. AND IT DOES GO INTO THAT, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS LIKE THE THREE YEAR DOES GIVE SOME SOME TIME FOR COUNCIL MEMBER TO, TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK, SO TO SPEAK. SO I'M GOING TO LOOK THROUGH THAT IN SOME GREATER DETAIL. AND THEN I'LL COME UP WITH THAT EVEN BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S OLD I MEAN, OKAY OH EIGHT IS OLD, BUT I, I THOUGHT IT WAS A REALLY GOOD STUDY AND I THOUGHT THAT IT. YEAH. NO, I DON'T MEAN TO BE TOO DISMISSIVE. I MEAN ALL DATA AND INFORMATION IS GOOD AND THOUGHTFUL. I JUST WAIT IT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S 15 YEARS OLD. A LOT OF COURT CASES AND LAWS AND EVERYTHING HAVE COME AND GONE IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME. OKAY, SO SO THAT'S ONE POLL QUESTION THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE THREE. AND THAT'S ON TERMS. I'M, I'M VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT MARK AND JEN HAVE TO SAY ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER TOPICS ON ARTICLE THREE, BECAUSE. ROBERT AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THEM PREVIOUSLY, AND WE'VE GOT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THAT OUR INITIAL GROUP MADE WITH RESPECT

[00:40:04]

YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT POP OUT I GOTTA FIND IN HERE BECAUSE I HAD I HAD SOME HIGHLIGHTS ON THESE. MAYBE WE SHOULD GO THROUGH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE FIRST COMMITTEE AND HAVE YOU TO ADDRESS WHETHER YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THEM OR NOT.

YEAH, IF YOU WANT. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. WOULD THAT BE A GOOD WAY OF GOING ABOUT IT? IF YOU DON'T HAVE COMMENTS ALREADY PREPARED THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS, THERE WAS RECOMMEND REVISING SECTION 3.01 TO EXTEND THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TERMS OF THREE YEARS AND REQUIRING A MAJORITY VOTE TO WIN ELECTIONS, AND SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE UPDATING THE SECTION 6.11 TO REFERENCE THREE YEAR TERMS. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO A I'LL DO A POLL ON THAT.

AND OBVIOUSLY, SINCE THE YOU KNOW, MY IDEA OF THE OF THE RANKED CHOICE, MY I'M A FAN OF THE RANKED CHOICE. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN FOR SURE. BUT I CAN I CAN I CAN DO THE THREE YEAR VERSUS TWO YEAR, GET SOME FEEDBACK. AND THEN WE HAD A RECOMMENDED, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE THREE YEAR TERMS, A TRANSITION PLAN TO HAVE COUNCIL PLACES STAGGERED TO PER ELECTION OVER THREE ELECTION CYCLES. SO A STAGGERED ELECTION.

I WOULD THINK THAT YOU ALL YOU WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. YOU'D HAVE TO DO THAT. YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. RIGHT. AND THE RECOMMEND RETITLING AND REPLACING SECTION 3.06 ENTIRELY TO CLARIFY MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER ROLE. THAT WAS A THAT WAS A PRETTY EXTENSIVELY DISCUSSED RECOMMENDATION. HAVE YOU HAVE YOU, LINDA, IF I MAY, BEFORE YOU GO TO 3.06, BECAUSE THAT ONE'S WEIGHTY AND MEATY BACK ON 3.0 2BI JUST WANT TO CALL OUT THAT WE WANTED TO CLEAN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT AND LIKE THE AUBRY LANGUAGE, THEY CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS A FILING DATE AND RESIDENCY IN THE CITY. SO I HAD A NOTE THERE BEFORE WE GO TO 3.06 THAT ARE WE STILL IN AGREEMENT WITH 3.02 B? AND WE LIKE IT TO SAY. SHALL HAVE RESIDED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OR RECENTLY ANNEXED TERRITORY FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING DATE. OUR OURS IS NOT CLEAR THAT IT'S FILING DATE, AND IT OPENS UP. AUBRY ALSO OPENS UP IF SOMEONE IS RECENTLY ANNEXED AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT 12 MONTHS. SOMEONE WHO'S RECENTLY PULLED INTO THE CITY COULD IMMEDIATELY, YOU KNOW, RUN FOR OFFICE. SO THAT WAS A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT WE HAD RECOMMENDED TO 3.02 B WHAT WHAT TOPIC ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOUR CONSOLIDATED NOTE LIST, ROBERT, IF I'M JUST REFERENCING 3.02 B QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE HAD CAPTURED THAT WE LIKE THE AUBRY 5.02 TO 4. SO IT'S NOT ON YOUR TOPIC LIST. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? DID I MISS THAT ONE ON THE LIST? YEAH, I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT ONE ON THE

[00:45:08]

WOULD YOU REPEAT AGAIN WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT 3.02? OKAY. AGAIN, I GUESS I LEFT IT OFF THE GRID ON OUR 3.02 B. IT SAYS YOU MUST BE A REGISTERED VOTER RESIDING IN THE CITY FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. WE LIKE THE AUBRY LANGUAGE.

THAT DID TWO THINGS ONE, IF SOMEONE IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THEY CAN BE IMMEDIATELY RUN FOR OFFICE, AND TWO, IT CHANGED THE ONE YEAR REQUIREMENT FROM THE ELECTION TO THE FILING DATE. OKAY. ANYWAY, SO I, I HAD CAPTURED THAT AS A CHANGE. SO AUBRY 5.0224 READS SHALL HAVE RESIDED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OR RECENTLY ANNEXED TERRITORY FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING DATE. OKAY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A STRONG. I'M SORRY, CAN I ASK CAN I ASK YOU, ROBERT, TO ADD THAT INTO YOUR CONSOLIDATED NOTES OF GRID? SO YES, ON. ON THIS DOCUMENT, I YES, I APOLOGIZE, I APPARENTLY MISSED THAT FIRST TIME THROUGH. SORRY. THAT'S MY FAULT. I, I, I HAVE A QUESTION AS FAR AS LIKE THE PROS AND CONS OF EITHER MOVE. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT AUBRY HAS THAT THAT FILING DATE AS THEIR THEIR DEADLINE OR THE BACK, YOU KNOW, FROM BACK DATED FROM THERE. IS THERE A BENEFIT TO THAT OR IS IT YOU KNOW, I HAS ANYBODY REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT? WHETHER DOES IT MATTER IF IT'S FROM THE GENERAL ELECTION OR IF IT'S FROM, YOU KNOW, THE FILING DEADLINE? WELL, I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE RECENTLY ANNEXED PART THAT THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME PERFECTLY. YEAH. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY WHY IT'S SO MUCH BETTER TO HAVE IT PRIOR TO THE FILING, A FEW FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT, I THINK IT WAS JUST AROUND CLARITY, SO THAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY SIGNED AND SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION. THEY'D BEEN A RESIDENT FOR A YEAR. OKAY. AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE WHO SO GENERAL ELECTIONS IN IN NOVEMBER THEY'RE FILING IN WHAT, AUGUST. SO SOMEONE WHO MOVES TO LAGOS IN OCTOBER. THEY DON'T HAVE A YEAR QUITE YET AT THE FILING DATE, BUT THEY WILL BY ELECTION IS KIND OF IN THAT GRAY ZONE. SO SHOULD WE REQUIRE THEM AT THE TIME THEY FILE TO HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESIDENT, OR JUST ASSUME THAT THEY WILL HAVE THEIR 12 MONTHS BY BY THE TIME ELECTION DAY ROLLS AROUND? AND I THINK IT KIND OF KIND OF CODIFIES THE FACT THAT A YEAR, A YEAR IS A RESIDENT. IT'S REALLY LIKE A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE YOU ARE REALLY. ELIGIBLE OR READY TO, TO, TO TO RUN FOR OFFICE. IT ALSO HELPS WHEN THE WHOEVER'S IN CHARGE OF THE ELECTION, SUCH AS CITY SECRETARY. IN THE CASE OF OUR CITY, IT MAKES IT EASIER ON THEM TO BE ABLE TO CALCULATE THAT OUT. THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO GO BACK AND GO, WELL, YEAH. WHAT IS IT, A DAY OR TWO? WHEN DID YOU MOVE HERE? BECAUSE IS IT A DAY OR TWO OF THAT DAY OF THE ELECTION DAY? IF IT'S BY THE FILING DATE, IT'S EASY TO SEE. OKAY. MAKES IT SIMPLER. THAT'S TRUE. AND I'M FAIRLY AGNOSTIC, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I JUST SAID CAPTURED IT IN SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND WANTED TO RECOMMEND, AND UNFORTUNATELY I LEFT IT OFF THE GRID. SO IF YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS AND MOVE ON, I'M NOT A HILL I'M GOING TO DIE ON. I DON'T HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ON IT, TO BE HONEST. SO. LINDA. MARK. OKAY, MARK, WE WERE GOING. I THINK YOU WERE MAKING COMMENTS BACK ON 3.06 AND 3.23 ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THE INTERACTION WITH THE STAFF.

[00:50:04]

BECAUSE I KNOW. WE'RE AT 3.06. IS THERE A LINE NUMBER ON THIS? THERE'S SO MUCH IN THERE AS FAR AS YOU KNOW I'M LOOKING FOR THE ACCESS. OH IT'S A IT'S THE FIRST ONE. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL HAVE THE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS, UNRESTRICTED RIGHTS TO MEET WITHIN OBTAIN INFORMATION. SO IT LOOKS LIKE UPDATED PER 521 RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO CITY EMPLOYEES BY COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ALREADY THERE. YOU, I THINK. OR WAS THE BLUE PART UNRESTRICTED? RIGHT. IS THAT. I'M SORRY, MARK, YOU'RE FADING OUT. CAN YOU PULL THE RIGHT, PLEASE? I LOOKED AT THE SIDEBAR AND IT SAYS UPDATED FOR 521 RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. SO THAT WAS THE PART THAT WAS ADDED.

CORRECT. THE WORDS, FOUR WORDS. THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO AM I. WELL THE FIRST PASS ORIGINALLY 3.06 IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CURRENT CHARTER JUST DEALS WITH THE MAYOR AND THERE'S ITEMS IN THERE AND THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING 3.06 FOR CITY COUNCIL. AND SO THE FIRST TAKE ON THIS WAS, YOU KNOW WHAT A LOT OF WHAT THIS LISTED HERE IS. MAYOR IS ALSO CITY COUNCIL'S RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND AUTHORITIES TO. SO THE FIRST TAKE WAS LET'S CHANGE IT FROM 3.06 MAYOR TO 3.06 COUNCIL MEMBER. SO WE CAN CLEARLY SHOW IN THE CHARTER THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BASICALLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE MAYOR, OTHER THAN A FEW CEREMONIAL AND EMERGENCY DUTIES. YEAH. SO THAT WAS THE FIRST TAKE. AND IN THAT TAKE, WE ALL SAID THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND ANY DIRECT REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER, PERIOD. AND THEN WE CAME BACK AROUND WHEN WE WERE DOING THE FINAL REVIEW IN MAY, AND IT WAS VOTED ON TO UPDATE THAT CLAUSE TO THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO MEET WITH ANY CITY EMPLOYEE.

THAT SAID THAT VOTE WAS NOT UNANIMOUS. AND THAT WHOLE CONCEPT THEN, WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL, WAS BASICALLY SHOT DOWN. SO WE CAN LEAVE IT IN OR WE CAN CHANGE IT BACK TO SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE, LESS OPEN, BUT STILL PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS, GATHER INFORMATION OF A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE CITY STAFF WITHOUT BOTTLENECKING EVERYTHING THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. OKAY, WHAT CONCERNS ME IS IS THE WORD UNRESTRICTED. SO CAN A COUNCIL MEMBER WALK THROUGH THE DOOR, GO TO THE DESK OF OF A CITY EMPLOYEE, PLOP DOWN IN FRONT OF THEIR DESK AND SAY, I NEED TO TALK TO YOU RIGHT NOW. THAT'S UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. THAT'S ALMOST BEING A SUPERVISOR. AND AND YES, AND I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN, MARK. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE IN MAY WAS TO USE THE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS LANGUAGE THAT EVEN COUNCIL BLOCKED THAT. I WILL NOTE THAT HAVING SOME TIME PASSED AND GIVING SOME THOUGHT TO IT, WHEN WE DID, THE NATIONAL CITY LEAGUE CHARTER THAT I DID LIKE THE WAY THEY ESTABLISHED THE THE LIMIT TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTERACTION, TO THE STAFF TO BE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO I THINK THAT MY POSITION HAS EVOLVED ON THAT. AND I DID LIKE THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE'S LANGUAGE ON THAT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM HAVING ACCESS TO IT. I HAVE THE MY PROBLEM IS WITH THE UNRESTRICTED PART OF IT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN TO ME THAT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE AN APPOINTMENT OR ANYTHING OR ANY NOTICE OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THEY CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, GO RIGHT UP TO AN EMPLOYEE AND THEY CAN DO IT OUT IN THE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD IF THEY NEED IT TO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO, BECAUSE THEY'RE CITY EMPLOYEES. AND I THINK THAT ALL ALONG MY MY CONCERN WAS THAT IT WOULD BE A

[00:55:04]

YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO SAY, CAN I ASK THIS? YOU KNOW, ONE REALLY, YOU KNOW, INNOCUOUS QUESTION. OKAY. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS WRITTEN WITH THOSE INNOCUOUS QUICK QUESTIONS IN MIND. RIGHT. IT'S NOT WRITTEN TO ADDRESS THAT. IS IT WRITTEN TO ADDRESS THE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? HEY, I WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING AND MAKE IT A BIG, LONG DISCUSSION. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF YOU'RE LIKE IF YOU'RE A COUNCIL MEMBER AND YOU'RE NEEDING A QUESTION ANSWERED ON AN ITEM THAT'S ON THE AGENDA, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASK WHOEVER THEY NEED TO ASK.

AND IF IT'S I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT HERE IS, OH, WELL, BEFORE I CAN GO ASK THIS QUESTION ON THIS ITEM, I'VE GOT TO GO TO THE CITY MANAGER. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT IS. THE INTENT IS JUST TO KEEP SOMEBODY FROM COMING IN HERE SAYING AND DIGGING FOR INFORMATION TO TRY TO CONTROL WHAT'S GOING ON OR. STUFF. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M A I'M A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF CITY MANAGERS BECAUSE A LOT OF CITY MANAGERS DON'T WANT ANYBODY TALKING TO THEIR STAFF. BUT I THINK IT'S A WASTE OF TIME IF YOU ASK ME A QUESTION.

AND THEN I GOT TO GO ASK THEM, I WOULD RATHER YOU GO TO THEM AND ASK THE QUESTION, JUST, HEY, BY THE WAY, I WENT AND ASKED A QUESTION OR THAT STAFF MEMBER COME SAY HEY SO AND SO CAME BY, ASKED THIS QUESTION JUST TO KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. TO ME, THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD WORK. I'M NOT A CONTROL FREAK. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IT'S REALLY KIND OF HARD TO LEGISLATE, YOU KNOW? YES IT IS. IT'S A IT'S A TOUGH. SO WE'RE TRYING TO LEGISLATE SOMETHING THAT REALLY SHOULD BE. SHOULD BE, SHOULD ALREADY BE DONE BY JUST BY GOOD MANNERS, COMMON COURTESY AND, AND PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO CODIFY THAT. AND IT'S HARD TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT. NO. SO WELL THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS SO TRICKY I THINK. I WOULD I WOULD SAY LOOK, THIS THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION BASICALLY AROSE OUT OF A FRUSTRATION WITH A CITY MANAGER WHO WAS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION, WHO WAS NOT A CHARLES. OKAY. AND SO. IT OPENS UP THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, OUR CITY COUNCILORS NEED TO BE ABLE TO GATHER INFORMATION, WHETHER IT'S ON THE AGENDA OR NOT. HOW IS THE CITY RUNNING? HOW IS THIS GOING ON? HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS KIND OF A SITUATION? DOES THERE NEED TO BE A POLICY OR A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE ON SOMETHING TO PUT ON THE AGENDA? SO YOU CAN'T JUST WAIT AND SEE ON THE AGENDA? AND I'M NOT SURE WE CAN LEGISLATE TO THIS POINT IN THE CHARTER FOR THE BAD SITUATION THAT WE HAD. NOR SHOULD WE JUST ALWAYS TRUST THAT WE DON'T NEED TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A GOOD SITUATION AND A REASONABLE CITY MANAGER LIKE WE HAVE WITH CHARLES. SO WE'RE NOT LEGISLATING IN WRITING THE CHARTER TO THE PERSONALITIES AND THE BODIES. WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHAT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT ARE, NO MATTER WHO THE PERSONALITY IS INVOLVED.

[01:00:05]

AND AND BASICALLY, I THINK WE PROBABLY AS, AS A CHARTER IN THE INITIAL DRAFT OVER SWUNG IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT ALSO JUST LEAVING IT UP TO, WELL, YOU RUN EVERYTHING THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, BUT WINK, WINK, WE'VE GOT A GOOD CITY MANAGER. IT'S GOING TO BE REASONABLE. THE COMMUNICATION. WE CAN'T ALWAYS TRUST THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE EITHER. SO WE DO NEED TO CODIFY TO SOME EXTENT. COUNCILORS HAVE THE ABILITY IN THE PURSUIT OF LEGISLATION TO ASK QUESTIONS AND GATHER INFORMATION. YEAH. NO ARGUMENTS. HOW DO YOU DO IT? I WOULD SUBMIT ONE OF OUR EARLIER DRAFTS THAT SAID, THE COUNCILORS CAN MEET WITH AND OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND ANY DIRECT REPORT. SHOULD SUFFICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISION THAT WE PUT IN. IT SAYS ANY CITY EMPLOYEE CAN REACH OUT TO A COUNCILOR AND THERE'S NO RETALIATION. SO I THINK OPENING UP ALL THE STAFF INFORMALLY, THAT IF YOU'RE A DIRECT REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER, A COUNCILOR CAN REACH OUT TO YOU FOR INFORMATION IS PROBABLY AS DEEP AS WE NEED TO GO, AND ALSO RESPECT THE FACT THAT WE PUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION IN. ANY CITY EMPLOYEE CAN REACH OUT TO A COUNCILOR WITHOUT FEAR OF RETRIBUTION. I THINK IT'S COVERED AND SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF. SO WHAT ARE WE? WHAT ARE WE KIND OF SAYING HERE? ARE WE ARE WE REMOVING THE CITY EMPLOYEES FROM THAT UNRESTRICTED ACCESS? NO, I'M SAYING THAT WE REWRITE 3.06 A TO REMOVE THE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS LANGUAGE AND REVERT IT BACK TO COUNCILORS CAN TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY, AND ANY DIRECT REPORT WITHOUT PRIOR CLEARANCES, SO TO SPEAK, TO THE CITY MANAGER. BUT ANY CITY EMPLOYEE, IF WE LOOK AT THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND REACH OUT TO A COUNCILOR TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS, AND I BELIEVE WE STUCK THAT IN AT 11.19. YEAH. IF YOU WEREN'T HERE THE FIRST TIME AROUND, SO THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHTS IS LET'S TONE DOWN 3.06 A AND MOVE ON. SO I'M ON BOARD WITH THAT. SO OKAY. YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE JUST REMOVE WHAT WE ADDED THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO. YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE JUST ELIMINATE THOSE WORDS. DO WE ELIMINATE THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO AND THAT WE SAY RATHER THAN ANY CITY EMPLOYEE, ANY DIRECT REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER ONLINE 302. OKAY. AND IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FUTURE COUNCILS WRITING RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT SAYS THOU SHALT NOT TALK TO, YOU KNOW, DEPARTMENT HEADS AND EVERYTHING SHALL FUNNEL THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THOSE RESTRICTIONS ON COUNCILORS IN THE FUTURE. IF WE GET STUCK WITH ANOTHER BAD CITY MANAGER, HOPEFULLY CHARLES RETIRES AND IT'S WE'LL BE REWRITING THE CHARTER AGAIN BEFORE HE LEAVES.

I LIKE THAT, ROBERT. OKAY. AND I'M I'M I'M I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT THAT WE HEARD FROM JEN. I THINK THAT THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. YEAH. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND THEIR DIRECT REPORTS. ARE PERMITTED, RATHER THAN THE RIGHT TO MARK'S POINT. YOU'VE MADE A NOTE OF THAT. ALL RIGHT. I'LL I'LL MAKE A REWRITE OF 3.06 A. IS IT EVER BENEFICIAL TO HAVE EVERYTHING GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER? I MEAN, WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE HISTORY, I DON'T WANT TO BEAT THE BEAT A DEAD HORSE OR

[01:05:01]

HE SAYS, YEAH, YOU COULD TALK TO BILL OR WHATEVER. WOULD THAT EVER BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE IT ALL GO THROUGH? THE CITY MANAGER? CAN I JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND YOU'LL SEE IF YOU WANT TO ADD IN. SO I'LL SAY BY PRACTICE. AND CHARLES ALLUDED TO THIS AS WELL BY PRACTICE, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY MOST CITY MANAGERS IN LAGO VISTA HISTORY. IT SOUNDS LIKE IN CHARLES EXPERIENCE, TEND TO WANT TO BE THE SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND THEIR STAFF, WHO THEY WORK FOR THEM. RIGHT. AND SO MOST OF THE CITY, THE CITY MANAGERS I'VE BEEN AWARE OF IN LAGO VISTA HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE ON STAFF COMMUNICATING WITH COUNCIL THAN CHARLES'S, FRANKLY. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT CAME UP AS WE WENT THROUGH A VERY RECENT FEEDBACK FROM STAFF, YOU KNOW, AND GATHERED SOME FEEDBACK THAT PREVIOUS CITY MANAGERS GOING BACK TO JOSH, RAY OR TRACY OR BEFORE JOSH, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T WANT STAFF TALKING TO CITY COUNCIL, RIGHT? SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE POINT. AND THEN YOU ALL CAN DECIDE WHAT YOU THINK IS THE BEST STRATEGY. BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THIS, AND I HAVE PUT IT IN MY COMMENTS WAY BACK WHEN COUNCIL WAS FIRST DISCUSSING THIS ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD. AND AND ROBERT ROBERT PLUGGED IT IN HERE. BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THAT ONE OF MY COMMENTS WAS 3.06, AS WE HAD IT IN LANGUAGE AND 3.23 AS WE HAD IT IN LANGUAGE SEEM TO CONFLICT. AND SO THE BIG ISSUE THAT WE HAD IN COUNCIL WAS THERE WERE SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WANTED TO INTERPRET THE MORE LIBERAL OF THE TWO, AND SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WANTED TO INTERPRET THE MORE RESTRICTIVE OF THE TWO. AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT WHAT CAN WE DO IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO CLEAR IT UP WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR A CHARTER REWRITE. SO WHEREVER YOU COME DOWN IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR RESTRICTIVE VERSUS PERMISSIVE, OPEN VERSUS CLOSED IS FINE. AND I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO GIVE YOU MY OPINION ON THAT. BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT CONFLICTING LANGUAGE AS THERE CURRENTLY IS, IN MY VIEW, WITHIN THE CHARTER.

YES. OKAY. YES. OKAY. AND JEN, YOU HAD YOU HAD KIND OF POSED A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF MY FIRST COMMENTS AROUND THE HISTORY HELPFUL, BUT I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOUR QUESTION.

IF YOU STILL WANT TO ADDRESS THAT BACK TO THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS. NO, I THINK YOU ADDRESSED IT, PAUL. I MEAN, I MEAN, IF ANYBODY HAD ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, THAT'S FINE TOO.

BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WOULD THINK. THAT'S KIND OF HOW MY MIND WAS GOING INITIALLY, IS JUST TO GIVE THAT DELEGATION AUTHORITY TO THE MANAGER THEMSELVES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE WAY WE'RE DECIDING TO GO AS A GROUP. IT JUST TO YOUR POINT, HOW. I SEE IT TYPICALLY FALL KIND OF. WE'RE MOVING BEYOND A YEAH. IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF 3.23, IT JUST SAYS COUNCILORS HAVE THE RIGHTS TO MEET WITH THE MAYOR AND. IT IT WAS SILENT ON EVEN THE CITY MANAGER OR DEPARTMENT HEADS. SO WE DID A SORT OF CLAUSE IN THERE TO TRY TO ALIGN AND CLEAN UP. 3.23. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY I WAS SHOT WITH 3.06 A.

306 B, WHICH IS LINE 304. YES. OKAY. I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD ADVISE. YOU KNOW, MAYBE CONSULT WITH AND ADVISE AND THEN BLAH BLAH BLAH. BASICALLY EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE CITY MANAGER OR REPORTS TO THE FROM THE HIGH, THE HIGHER END. EMPLOYEES. WHEN DOES WHEN DOES A COUNCILOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER OVERSTEP THE BOUND OF ADVISING AND DIRECTING? SAY AS AN INDIVIDUAL? YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT, MARK. I'M SORRY YOU SAID YOU DO

[01:10:13]

OKAY, SO YOU'RE CHARACTERIZING IT AS YOU ADVISE THEM THAT THEY WOULDN'T ADVISE YOU. OKAY. YOU WOULD. SHAKING OUT ADVICE FROM THE CITY WOULD. OKAY, OKAY. WELL, GIVEN THAT THE VERY FRESH EXAMPLE THAT JUST HAPPENED AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WENT DOWN, AND I THINK THAT THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. OKAY. SO IS THERE IS THERE A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT TO TAKE OUT THE WORD ADVISE.

YES, I THINK SO. I, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT. OKAY. SO ROBERT DID YOU GET THAT.

YEAH. GOT IT 3.06 WE REMOVE AND ADVISE OKAY. AND I, I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. IT'S GETTING TOO CLOSE TO PROVIDING DIRECTION. I MEAN I CAN SEE A CONVERSATION ALONG THE LINES OF, YOU KNOW, IF IT WERE ME I WOULD DO IT THIS WAY. IT'D BE PERCEIVED AS ADVICE. AND THEN THE CHARLES, HERE'S ANOTHER COUNCILOR GO, WELL, YOU KNOW, REALLY SHOULD DO IT THIS WAY.

[01:15:04]

THAT'S. WHAT I WANT TO GIVE THEIR THEIR $0.02 ON THE. I THINK IT IS GOING TO AT THIS POINT THEY CAN MAKE SUGGESTIONS BUT IT'S NOT QUITE AS STRONG AS ADVICE. AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T GIVING DIRECTION YOU KNOW, SANCTION. YOU DON'T HAVE THE BLESSING OF THE CHARTER TO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MAYBE I MISSED THIS WITH OUR THOUGHT PROCESS. SO WE NEED BOTH A AND B. OR CAN WE JUST HAVE ONE STATEMENT OR ONE SECTION THAT'S ACCESS TO CITY STAFF. SO I THINK 3.33 IS PROBLEMATIC WITH TWO SECONDS TO THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE BACK END OF THAT OF EACH, BECAUSE IT'S ANY CITY EMPLOYEE ON A AND IT'S YEAH, CITY CITY EMPLOYEE WHO DIRECTLY REPORTS TO THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU RECONCILE THAT. WELL IF, IF WE TAKE IF WE ALREADY I HAD IT IN MY NOTES TO CHANGE A FROM ANY CITY EMPLOYEE TO DIRECT REPORTS, IN WHICH CASE YOU ARE STARTING. WE DID SPLIT HAIRS ON THE FIRST PASS. I THINK WHAT JEN'S POINTING OUT IS BY REVERTING A TO LOOK LIKE B'S LIST, TAKING OUT THE CITY EMPLOYEE, THEN THEY ALMOST BECOME REDUNDANT, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. SO HOW ARE WE CHANGING IT NOW? ARE WE GOING TO CONSOLIDATE THE TWO? I THINK IT'S CLEARER TO LEAVE THEM AS TWO RATHER THAN TRYING TO PUT THEM INTO ONE. SO WE'RE SAYING THEY CAN MEET WITH AND THEY CAN CONSULT WITH WHAT'S DEFINITIONALLY DIFFERENT BETWEEN MEETING WITH AND CONSULTING WITH? MEET WITH AND OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM IS A CONSULT WITH. ADVISE WHAT? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? FUNCTIONALLY BETWEEN MEETING WITH AND OBTAINING INFORMATION VERSUS CONSULTING? OKAY, I LIKE I THINK IT'S LESS AMBIGUOUS. CONSULT YOU KNOW CONSULT CONSULTANTS WHAT THEY DO MEET AND OBTAIN INFORMATION SEEMS MORE. PLAIN. WELL I MEAN THE FIRST ONE REFERS TO MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING CITY BUSINESS. AND THE OTHER ONE IS WITH RESPECT TO ANY CITY BUSINESS OR ISSUE. SO PERHAPS. IF WE'RE GOING TO COMBINE THEM, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BROADER. TO MEET WITH THEM REGARDING ANY CITY, BUSINESS OR ISSUE, NOT NECESSARILY TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION, BUT JUST. I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING. YEAH. I'M I'M KIND OF CONFUSED WHY I AGREE. BECAUSE WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING THE CITY BUSINESS OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY CITY BUSINESS OR ISSUE. I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND THAT TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS.

BECAUSE THAT'S ALMOST LIKE INTENT FROM THE, THE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR WAS GOING TO A, A CITY EMPLOYEE. I'LL TAKE YOU BACK TO MR. WEST'S COMMENTS A MINUTE AGO.

RIGHT. HE SAID IN IN HIS VIEW. AND I'M QUOTING IN HERE, I GOT IT RIGHT. IN HIS VIEW, COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO TALK TO WHOMEVER THEY NEED TO IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS ON A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. RIGHT. AND THAT IS, I THINK, CLEARLY WHAT NUMBER A SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT. AND SO IN IN B, MAYBE

[01:20:06]

ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY I HAVE OKAY OKAY. SO MARK, MYSELF AND ROBERT ARE IN FAVOR. JEN, YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOR. JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING TO KEEP BOTH A AND B, CORRECT? YES. BUT WITH THE TWEAKS WE TALKED ABOUT. TAKING OUT WITH ADVICE AND AND MAKING THE EDITS TO A THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. RIGHT, RIGHT. THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY MADE. YEAH. HI HOW ARE YOU. SO WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE JUST VOTING. DO WE KEEP A AND B AS SEPARATE. RIGHT. SO DOES THAT HELP YOU THREE IN FAVOR JEN WHAT IS YOUR WHAT IS YOUR FAULT? I THINK MY VOTE IS NAY BECAUSE MY VOTE WOULD BE I JUST WANT TO HAVE I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF JUST HAVING ONE PROVISION. OKAY OKAY. SO THAT'S 3 TO 1. SO THAT PASSES. AND NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO 3.06 C. WELL I'LL TAKE A STAB AT MAKING THE EDITS. AND THEN WE CAN PUT IT OUT THERE FOR AND COME BACK TO VOTE ON THIS FINAL LANGUAGE. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'VE AGREED ON THE FINAL LANGUAGE. WHAT I, WHAT I'M SEE OR ON A AND B ON A AND B C. AND OKAY I THOUGHT WE DID. I THOUGHT WE DID AGREE ON THE LANGUAGE AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE TAKING OUT ON BOTH A AND B, I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR BOTH ONE I DON'T KNOW IF DOES IT NEED TO GO TO A VOTE.

MAYBE IF THERE'S ANY IF THERE IF THERE IS A YEAH, WE SHOULD MAKE A VOTE. IF THERE'S ANY CONFUSION, LET'S MAKE A VOTE ON IT. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT? I'LL MOVE IT WITH THE CHANGES. AS ROBERT HAS WRITTEN. SECTION 306 A. DO YOU APPROVE? OKAY. DO WE NEED TO DO WE NEED TO RESTATE WHAT ROBERT WROTE. THE ONLY REASON I SAID LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT REDRAFTING.

IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF CLARIFYING COUNCIL PRINCE AND MR. WILSON'S COMMENT ABOUT NARROWLY DEFINING A TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. I THOUGHT THAT HAD MERIT AND WE NEVER SETTLED ON LANGUAGE TO REALLY DIRECT A AT COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. AND B IS THE LARGER CATCHALL. SO I THOUGHT THERE WAS STILL SOME WORDSMITHING IN MY MIND THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN THERE, AND I WAS JUST OFFERING TO DO THAT FOR, FOR A OR FOR B OR BOTH. RIGHT. WELL, I THOUGHT THAT HE WAS I THOUGHT HE WAS SAYING THAT CITY BUSINESS WAS AGENDA ITEMS. I THOUGHT HE WAS SAYING THAT THEY WERE THE SAME. WERE YOU? I DID NOT SAY THAT. WHAT I SAID WAS INFORM DECISIONS. IF ONE ITEM TALKS ABOUT MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS, THE ONLY PLACE THAT COUNCIL CAN

[01:25:06]

OKAY. AND SO A BY THAT LOGIC, IS TALKING ABOUT GETTING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THINGS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. RIGHT? B, HOWEVER, DOES NOT TALK ABOUT MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS AND THEREFORE ONE COULD READ IT TO SAY THAT MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY CONSULT BASED ON ANYTHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT. RIGHT. AND AND SO IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, HAVE HAVE BOTH A, YOU KNOW, A SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL DECISIONS AND SUPPORT FOR JUST GATHERING INFORMATION BECAUSE A COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO GATHER INFORMATION. AND I KNOW SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE STRONGLY ARGUED THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE ROLE. AND SO I RESPECT THAT. BUT THAT'S THE DISTINCTION THAT I WAS SAYING. AND I THINK WHAT ROBERT WAS SAYING IS IT BECOMES COMPLEX ENOUGH THAT HE WAS OFFERING TO JUST GO OFF AND DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE TO ALIGN WITH THAT CONVERSATION AND THEN BRING THAT DRAFTED LANGUAGE BACK FOR YOU TO VOTE ON, RATHER THAN TRYING TO CREATE IT ON THE FLY HERE. EXACTLY. YES. OKAY.

THAT WORKS. OKAY. IF I MAY, JUST AT THE LAST, BECAUSE WE DON'T WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT TO THE INFERENCE THAT O INFORMED DECISION MEANS COUNCIL MEETING AS A BODY, ERGO A ONLY APPLIES TO COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. LET'S JUST SAY A APPLIES TO COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM IN SOME WAY.

OKAY? AND RATHER THAN LEAVING IT UP TO INFERENCES, THAT'S ALREADY GETS US INTO TROUBLE IN OTHER AREAS. PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT IS LIAISON I'M SUPPOSED TO DO AND NOT SUPPOSED TO DO AS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ENDED UP WITH THERE IN ITEM B IS A SUPERSET OF ITEM A, AND THEREFORE ITEM A BECOMES IRRELEVANT. BACK TO JEN'S POINT OF DO WE REALLY NEED BOTH OF THEM? YES, THAT IS WHAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN HERE. CAN WE CONSULT YOU ON THAT? SO I GUESS YOU'RE GOING TO DRAFT SOMETHING AND WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT ONCE AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING. AND NOW WITH THAT, ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO 3.06 C. YEAH I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I HAVE I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.

YOU KNOW HOW HOW C IS WORDED. WELL THE QUESTION WOULD BE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY RECOMMEND A POINT DATE, BUT IF THEY DON'T THEN WHO'S GOING TO RECOMMEND THEM? SO SHOULDN'T IT BE SHALL RECOMMEND. THAT'S THE ONLY. REASON FOR THE EDIT WAS TO BASICALLY BRING THE CHARTER INTO LINE WITH PRACTICE. THE CHARTER PREVIOUS CHARGES SAID THE MAYOR MAY RECOMMEND WHEN IN PRACTICE, IT'S THE MAYOR AND COUNCILORS THAT ARE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THAT WAS WHY WE ADDED IT AT THE FIRST THE WAY WE DID THE FIRST TIME AROUND. BUT IT'S A GOOD POINT ABOUT MAY VERSUS SHALL. AND WE DID HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH ABOUT SHALL AND MAY BECAUSE. THE PREVIOUS A PREVIOUS MEMBER SAID THAT THE DEFINITIONS OF SHALL AND MAY HAVE CHANGED OVER THE YEARS AND SHALL NO LONGER MEANS NOW, MAY MEANS SHALL. YEAH. WHICH OUT OF THE WORKFORCE FOR A WHILE. AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DIFFERENCE, EXCEPT I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN THE CITY CODE, IN THE CITY CODE SHALL AND MAY STILL RETAIN THE DEFINITIONS THAT THEY ALWAYS HAVE HISTORICALLY, AND THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED TO BE UPDATED TO THE WAY OUR PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS SAID THAT THEY ARE NOW USED. SO IF WE'RE USING SHALL AND MAY IN THE THE WAY THEY'VE BEEN USED HISTORICALLY, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS SAYS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL RECOMMEND APPOINTEES FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. AND IT IS JUST BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. IT'S NOT COMMITTEES. WELL, SOME BOARD COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

IT'S IT'S EVERYTHING I ARE WE ARE WE SURE ABOUT THAT. YEAH. THEY THEY RECOMMEND PAUL AS A COMMISSIONER. I'M SORRY. OUR NAMING CONVENTION HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT RANDOM, BUT THE CITY

[01:30:06]

WELL NO. SO I CAPTURED FOR SEA CHANGE MAY TO SHALL AND ADD COMMITTEES. OH YEAH. DID YOU DID BOARDS COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. THAT COVERS EVERY BASE. OKAY. GOOD GOOD. NEVER LET IT BE SAID THAT WE DON'T EVALUATE EVERYTHING. WE DON'T TAKE A WHILE TO PICK UP THE BALL RIGHT ABOUT. WHICH IS WHY I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MAYBE THIS. OUR GOAL OF GETTING THIS ON THE MAY BALLOT IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR AT THIS POINT. NOW, ONCE I GET THROUGH THREE, WE'RE GOING TO ROCK THE REST OF IT AND WE'RE DELIVERING FOR THE MAY ELECTION. OKAY. THE NEXT CHANGE THAT WAS MADE WAS ON E! DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO D OR SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE GO TO E AND EITHER AFFIRM OR REJECT OR CHANGE THE CHANGE THAT WE MADE WITH TO E.

I'M ASSUMING THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THE MAYOR SHALL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE CITY MANAGER. I THINK IT'S. BEHIND THE TWO OBTAINED LEGISLATION. IF THAT'S THE INTENT, I WOULD I WOULD WITH THE CITY MANAGER. BE AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER RIGHT BEHIND COUNCIL. I THINK THERE'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, MARK, THAT THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ARE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT. AND SO REALLY, AS IT'S WRITTEN THERE, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PORTION IS TALKING ABOUT LEGISLATION. THE CITY MANAGER PORTION OF THE SENTENCES TO ENSURE IT'S ENFORCED. THAT DOESN'T STRIKE ME. THAT DOESN'T POP OUT AT ME.

BUT OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, WOULD YOU. YEAH IT DOES. ROBERT, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE WAY I YEAH. I MEAN, THE WAY THAT WITH THE CITY MANAGER WAS AN INSERTION FOR THE CURRENT TERM. SO PULL THAT OUT OF YOUR MIND. THE CURRENT CHARTER BASICALLY SAYS THE MAYOR WORK WITH COUNCIL TO OBTAIN LEGISLATION AND TO ENSURE THE SAME IS ENFORCED. THE MAYOR DOESN'T ENSURE THE SAME IS ENFORCED. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE ADDED THE PHRASE WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO ENSURE THAT IT'S ENFORCED. JUST TO CLARIFY THE CITY MANAGER'S ROLE IN THAT.

AND THE MAYOR IS JUST THE CONDUIT BETWEEN COUNCIL AND AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, SO TO SPEAK. GOT IT. OKAY. NO ISSUE THEN. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE THE MAYOR MAY CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO THE COUNCIL AND ANY BOARD OR COMMISSION AND SET THE AGENDA. THEREFORE, THE MAYOR WILL CALL SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS UPON THE REQUEST OF THREE OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THERE IS A COMMENT THERE FROM MR. SULLIVAN AT THE END. I DID HIGHLIGHT THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH THREE OR MORE. HE CLAIMS IN HIS NOTE THAT THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY HAS RULED THAT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN CALL A SPECIAL CALL. AND SO I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. I HAD THAT KIND OF GOES TO A POINT THAT I WAS THINKING OF, MARK, IS DO WE

[01:35:04]

AND THEN F AND G I. I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOU, JIM. I'M SORRY. I'M THAT EITHER YOU SWITCH, REMOVE THE SECTION. THAT'S G AT 120. WE MOVE THAT TO BE UNDER THE CURRENT SECTION E. SO IT READS WITH THE MAYOR'S POWERS. AND THEN IT GOES INTO THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. AND THE AGENDA ITEMS ARE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE THEY'RE ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC. SO I THINK THEY SHOULD BE NEXT TO EACH OTHER CONSECUTIVELY. IN THIS MAKE G, F AND F AND G THE SWITCH THE PLACE IN THE LIST THAT. I. YEAH, THAT'S. RIGHT. KIND OF PUTS THE TWO TOPICS SIDE BY SIDE THOUGH, RIGHT? OKAY. OR REALLY JUST MOVE THE CURRENT F AND H TO THE BOTTOM BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS ABOUT THE MAYOR. AND THEN YOU DO THE AGENDA AND THE MEETING.

I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO GO THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE FIRST TIME AROUND, WE WERE TRYING TO SAY EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO THE COUNCIL, AND THE MAYOR IS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST. AND THEN, OH, BY THE WAY, THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT ARE MAYOR ONLY, BUT YEAH, I MAY HAVE GOTTEN DISORDERED. IS WHAT I'M HEARING THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A MOTION TO SWITCH F AND G. IS THAT THE. IS THAT THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT THIS COMMENT IS? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A ROBERT WAS GOING TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE REALLY NEED TO DISCUSS IT OR HAVE A I DON'T KNOW UNLESS YOU GUYS THINK WE DO. I'M FINE WITH THAT TOO. IS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT MORE WORK ON YOUR PLATE, ROBERT, ON IT SO THAT YOU'RE REDRAFTING THE WHOLE THING. WELL, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. IT'S IN SOME RESPECTS IT'S EASIER TO HAVE ONE COOK IN THE FILE. BUT THE STUFF THAT YOU DRAFT, IF YOU PLEASE, PUT IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD SO THAT I CAN JUST COPY PASTE AND THEN AND THEN IT'S VISIBLE TO EVERYBODY.

[01:40:06]

SO JEN IS GOING TO BE I DON'T REALLY HAVE A HEARTBREAK ABOUT SWITCHING F AND G AROUND. IF THAT'S A CONSENSUS. I'M NOT SURE IT REQUIRES A VOTE. IT'S JUST KIND OF WE STILL GOT TO VOTE ON THE FINAL LANGUAGE ANYWAY. YEAH. WHAT ARE YOU NOW, PAUL? YOU WERE STARTING TO SAY SOMETHING. WELL, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THIS IS JUST PROCEDURALLY. YOU SUGGESTED GOING UNDER THAT ARTICLE TWO AND VOLUNTEER TO KIND OF REWRITE THE WHOLE THING, AND THEN YOU WOULD GO REVISIT IT. AND IT SEEMS LIKE IN SECTION THREE, ROBERT HAS OFFERED TO REWRITE SOME PORTIONS AND, AND YET IT FEELS LIKE YOU'RE KIND OF GETTING BOGGED DOWN IN INDIVIDUAL LINE ITEMS AND INDIVIDUAL WORDING. AND, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE IT'S SEQUENCING OF F AND G. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A POSSIBLE TO, TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HAND SOME THINGS BACK TO ROBERT WITHOUT IT HAVING TO BE A VOTE. NOW. THEN WHEN HE BRINGS IT BACK IN, YOU CAN YOU CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION AGAIN THAT MEETS THE INTENT. OR YOU COULD HOLD A VOTE AND SAY, YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT IS OUR INTENT THAT F AND G BE REVERSED. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET. IF THAT WAS THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT JEN WAS LIKE, IF THAT WAS WHAT SHE WAS RECOMMENDING. OKAY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS JEN IS GOING TO REWRITE TWO AND ROBERT'S GOING TO REWRITE THREE, BUT I THOUGHT WE WERE READY TO MOVE ON. BUT THEN JEN SAID LET'S SWITCH F AND G. AND THEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION ON SWITCHING F AND G IS. TO ME. I'M FINE WITH THAT. IT DOESN'T. ME TOO, I DON'T IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S TO ME IF IT'S SWITCHED OR NOT. IT'S LIKE OKAY THAT'S THAT'S EASY. BUT BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW ROBERT IS DOING THREE. IS THAT CORRECT? ROBERT. YEAH. I'LL. YES 3.6.

THAT'S MY THAT'S. OKAY. THE ENTIRETY OF ARTICLE THREE OR JUST SECTION 3.06. WELL 3.06 IS, IS WE STILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVISIT TERM LIMITS AT SOME POINT. AND IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE INSERTED IN THREE SOMEWHERE. AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED THAT YET. YEAH, I THINK IT IS.

SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT YOU. YEAH YOUR VOLUME DROPPED ALL OF A SUDDEN. ROBERT. HELLO. THAT'S BETTER. YEAH. I THINK WE CAN HEAR YOU. SIDE. AND THE OTHER 1ST MAY BE GOING, SO HOLD ON.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEAH. THAT'S BETTER. IT JUST. WAS THAT ONE. JUST A MINUTE. YEAH.

NO. MY EARBUDS, MY EARBUDS DIED. NOW I'M ON THE LAPTOP, WHICH WILL PROBABLY GIVE US MORE BACKGROUND NOISE. SO I'LL TRY TO BE MINDFUL ABOUT MUTING. AN ITEM H TO BELIEVE ITEM H AS IS.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK A COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS OR THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. WELL, HERE'S THE THING. OH NO, IT'S TWO TO PUT AN AGENDA ITEM. I'M SORRY.

YEAH. IF THEY, YOU KNOW, IF HE DELETES SOMETHING THAT TWO PEOPLE OR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT, THEY CAN ALWAYS BRING IT UP FOR THE NEXT MEETING OR AT LEAST 30, 30 DAYS.

RIGHT? OH, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HOW THAT'S A BIG CHANGE. MARK WAS TO SET THE 30 DAY CALENDAR BLOCK SO ME OR WHOEVER IS WRITING THE AGENDA CAN'T JUST KEEP PUTTING IT OFF, PUTTING IT OFF, PUTTING IT OFF. JUST PUT A PUT A TIME CERTAIN 30 DAYS IT WILL BE IN THE MEETING. GOT IT. BUT THE POINT IS IF IT IF IT GETS DELETED, IT, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY TO TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO BRING IT BACK. YEAH. OKAY. SO THERE WERE NO THERE WERE NO CHANGES TO I FIRST TIME AROUND AND ON JAY, WE JUST ADDED MAYOR PRO TEM. I STILL DON'T LIKE THAT. YOU DON'T I DON'T LIKE IT. I DO NOT LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM TO SIGN ALL APPROVE ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE THAT THAT MAYOR SULLIVAN WOULDN'T SIGN SOMETHING. AND YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A KIND OF A CRISIS WITH THE WITH THE

[01:45:03]

AND I, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I GUESS MY FEAR IS, IS THAT THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM ARE TOGETHER IN OPINION ON SOMETHING THAT PASSED AND THEY DON'T LIKE IT. THEY CAN BOTH REFUSE TO SIGN IT. THEY CAN. BUT THE MAYOR REFUSING TO SIGN SOMETHING THAT WAS PASSED BY THE ENTIRE COUNCIL IS KIND OF A EXTREMELY UNIQUE SITUATION. SO TO HAVE A MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM BOTH IN AGREEMENT THAT SOMETHING PASSED BY THE ENTIRE COUNCIL THAT WOULD BE ALMOST STATISTICALLY, YOU THINK? YEAH. OKAY. I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR THREE VOTES AND FIVE TWO VOTES. SO IT'S JUST HAPPENS TO BE WHOEVER IS IN THAT MAYOR PRO TEM SEAT. IF THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH MAYOR SAM OR WHOEVER THE MAYOR IS AT THE TIME, YOU BACK YOU RIGHT BACK TO WHERE YOU STARTED. BUT GENERALLY IT GENERALLY THE PROCEDURE IS IN THE PROTOCOL IS IF IF YOUR COUNCIL PASSES SOMETHING, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT IS THAT IS YOUR ROLE TO SIGN IT. IT'S IT'S IT'S.

IT'S. EXTRAORDINARY TO NOT FULFILL YOUR ROLE. YES. SO BUT IT HAPPENED YOU KNOW AND AND IT COULD HAPPEN WITH THE TWO OF THEM. THAT'S WHY I KIND OF LIKE THE CHARTERS THAT HAD THE CITY SECRETARY SIGN AND YOU KNOW, BUT IN THOSE CHARTERS, SHE WAS NOT SIGNING. SHE WAS ONLY SIGNING AS, LIKE APPROVING OR OR ASSERTING THAT THE SIGNATURE OF THE MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM WAS AN AUTHENTIC SIGNATURE, BUT SHE WASN'T SIGNING AS AN AS A I DON'T REMEMBER THOSE CHARTERS REQUIRING A SIGNATURE FROM THE FROM THE MAYOR. I THOUGHT, I MEAN, I THOUGHT IT JUST WENT STRAIGHT TO THE CITY SECRETARY. NO CITY SECRETARY JUST ATTESTED THAT'S THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE.

OKAY. WHAT HE OR SHE DOES. ALL RIGHT. AND ON A GRANDER SCALE, YOU KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE TO SIGN, YOU KNOW, A LAW OR A BILL TO MAKE IT LAW. IT JUST HAPPENS AFTER TEN DAYS. AS LONG AS CONGRESS IS IN SESSION. AND THERE ARE SOME CHARTERS THAT DO THAT WITH ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, AUTOMATICALLY. YEAH, I GUESS THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM. IF THE MAYOR REFUSES TO SIGN IT. I THINK IF YOU COUNT MY PERSONAL OPINION IS IF A MAJORITY OF YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION ORDINANCE, THAT PERSON SHOULD SIGN. OH, I, I AGREE IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL. YEAH. WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SAM BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE ISSUE WITH THAT, IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN CERTAIN TYPES OF DOCUMENTS THAT LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AIRPORT ONE THAT WAS GOING TO BE GOING TO THE FAA, THAT THEY SEE THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE ON THE RESOLUTION. AND SO TO JUST TO HAVE IT JUST DEFAULT TO, WELL, IT'S IT'S IN EFFECT AFTER TEN DAYS IF NOBODY SIGNS IT, THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME IMPORT WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE A DOCUMENT TO A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. SO IN THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE THAT WE HAD, WHICH I THINK YOU ALL ARE TRYING TO FIND LANGUAGE TO RESOLVE, RIGHT WHERE THE MAYOR REFUSED TO SIGN SOMETHING THAT BY CHARTER HE WAS REQUIRED TO SIGN. RIGHT. THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WAS IT JUST GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN IN THE DOCUMENT TO LINE 266 AND 267, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE MAYOR PRO TEM, AND IT SAYS THE MAYOR PRO TEM SHALL ACT AS MAYOR DURING THE DISABILITY OR ABSENCE OF THE MAYOR, AND IN THIS CAPACITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES CONFERRED UPON THE MAYOR.

SO IN THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, THE MAYOR WAS NOT DISABLED OR ABSENT, AND THEREFORE THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS ADVISED BY CITY ATTORNEY THAT SHE COULD NOT SIGN IN PLACE OF THE MAYOR. SO THERE'S TWO PLACES POTENTIALLY THAT YOU COULD ADDRESS THIS. YOU COULD ADDRESS IT IN A MAYOR PRO TEM ABILITY TO ACT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE MAYOR FAILS TO ACT ON A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE, RIGHT, THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN IN THIS SECTION, OR YOU COULD ADDRESS IT UP IN THE WHO

[01:50:01]

SO ANYWAY, I'M JUST I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT ON THE GRID THAT WE HAD ALREADY MADE SOME THOUGHTS AS WE WERE GOING, AND WE MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THOSE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO MARK YOUR COMMENT ABOUT EVALUATING WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE THE MAYOR PRO TEM ELEVATED IF IT'S LESS THAN 12 MONTHS, THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS REALLY ELECTED, KIND OF ALMOST A PROTOCOL, KIND OF LIKE, OF COURSE, WHEN THEY'RE I GET IT.

YEAH. WHEN THEIR TIME IS UP AND I THINK MAYBE BECAUSE IF I WOULD THINK IF A MAYOR PRO TEM FILLS A VACANCY, THEN THERE WOULD BE A NEW MAYOR PRO TEM, CORRECT. OR THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

THIS IS, THIS IS TALKING ABOUT A COUNCIL MEMBER. SO. YEAH, I MEAN, THIS THIS JUST I THINK 307 JUST DEFINES. YOU KNOW, MAKING IT OFFICIAL THAT THIS OFFICE IS VACANT AND, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO REPLACE. I DON'T I DON'T THINK 3.07 REALLY HAS MUCH TO IT. OTHER THAN IT MAKES IT MAKES IT OFFICIAL THAT THEY DECLARE THE OFFICE VACANT. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING ON THE CONSOLIDATED NOTES OR ELSEWHERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION ON SECTION 3.07 VACANCIES. DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN IDEA OR DO WE LEAVE IT AS IS? WELL, YES. OUR. I'M SORRY. NO. WE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT COMPLETELY REPLACING THIS WHOLE SECTION WITH AUBREY 3.06. IF YOU CHANGE THIS TO THAT. SO I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO AUBREY 3.06 WITH THE EDITS THAT WERE ON THE GRID ON LINE.

TOPIC 12 AND BASICALLY THAT 3.06 WAS SOME EDITS WOULD ENTIRELY REPLACE 3.07, 3.08, AND 3.09. IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER DRAFT. YEAH, THAT'S IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE DID

[01:55:05]

LIKE EARBUDS DIED TO ROBERT. WHICH SECTION ARE WE LOOKING AT? WE HAD DISCUSSED WHEN WE REVIEWED AUBREY 3.06 THAT AUBREY 3.06, WITH A FEW EDITS ALONG THE WAY, COULD ENTIRELY REPLACE LAGO VISTA 3.07, 3.08 AND 3.09. AND IT WOULD BE LESS WORDY, MORE STREAMLINED, MORE DIRECT WAS OUR THINKING WHEN WE REVIEWED AUBREY. SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY SUGGESTING WE MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THAT. OKAY, ROBERT, WHEN YOU DO YOUR WHEN YOU DO YOUR DRAFT, DO YOU WANT TO ADD DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE FOR US TO CONSIDER AT THE NEXT MEETING? YEAH, I WILL I'LL GRAB THE AUBREY 3.06 THAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT AND REVISE IT WITH THE EDITS THAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, AND PRESENT A CLEAN SUGGESTION. I CAN DO THAT.

OKAY. I THINK AT THE NEXT MEETING WE WILL START WITH REVIEWING THE CHANGES THAT JEN MADE TO TO ARTICLE TWO AND THE CHANGES THAT ROBERT WILL BRING. THE BEGINNING OF THREE, ARTICLE THREE ALL THE WAY UP TO 3.1. AND AFTER WE REVIEW THOSE CHANGES, THEN WE WILL START.

WITH 3.10. OKAY, OKAY. AND BETWEEN NOW AND THEN I'LL, I'LL SEND YOU A PROPOSED POLL QUESTIONS. EXCUSE ME TO REVIEW. AS YOU, AS YOU GET YOUR DRAFT ON, ON ARTICLE TWO AND YOUR DRAFT AN ARTICLE THREE. FEEL FREE TO TO SEND THEM AROUND SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND MAYBE GET THOSE COMMENTS AND EVERYTHING DONE SO THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY KIND OF LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED BEFORE WE GET TO THE MEETING NEXT TIME, WELL, THEN WE CAN GET STARTED ON 3.10 PRETTY QUICKLY. OKAY, I'LL POST THEM TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD. YES. GREAT THEN THANK YOU EVERYONE. AT 6 P.M. I AM

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.