[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
          [00:00:03]
          OKAY. OKAY. IT'S 415 ON DECEMBER 8TH, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ORDER. WE HAVE WITH US ROBERT OWEN, SECRETARY MARK DOUGLAS, JEN GRUNWALD AND MYSELF. GENE HARRIS IS RUNNING LATE, BUT HE IS EXPECTED TO BE HERE. BUT IF HE DOESN'T, HE'S COMING FROM AUSTIN. THEN WE WILL. WE'LL GO ON WITHOUT HIM. WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM THAT WE NEED. SO TO GET STARTED. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENT FORMS THAT WERE TURNED IN? NO. OKAY. AND THERE'S NO CITIZENS ONLINE THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS. ONE IN NEED. SO MAYBE IF IT'S OKAY. DO WE HAVE A REPORT FROM OUR COUNCIL LIAISON? I SHOULD MENTION THAT OUR COUNCIL LIAISON, JESS HALL, IS HERE, AND OUR CITY STAFF LIAISON, CHARLES WEST, IS ALSO PRESENT. AND SO, MR. HALL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FROM COUNCIL TO SAY? NO, I DO NOT. AND HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. WEST? NO, NO. OKAY, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO 
          [IV.1. Approval of Minutes of November 19, 2025, Charter Review Committee Meeting.]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. IS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. AND THEN OUR NEXT ITEM IS CONSIDER COMMUNITY INPUT FROM SOCIAL MEDIA. AND THAT'S MARK DOUGLAS IS GOING TO HANDLE THAT. OKAY. I THINK OUR CITIZENS HERE. ARE LATE. WE COULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD, OUR CITIZEN COMMENTER IS LATE. DID YOU WANT TO GO BACK? YES, WE WILL GO BACK. WE WILL GO BACK AND MAKE A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION BECAUSE WE SO RARELY GET CITIZEN COMMENTERS. SO? SO. MISTER, DID YOU FILL OUT YOUR. ACTUALLY. NO I DIDN'T. 
          DO YOU HAVE A FORM I CAN FILL OUT? YOU'RE GOOD. HE'S LAYING ON THE TABLE. HE'S LATE. HE DIDN'T FILL OUT A FORM AND. OKAY. YOU'RE ONLY GETTING THREE MINUTES, THOUGH. THAT'S FINE. 
          [II. CITIZEN COMMENTS]
WE HAVE A LITTLE TIME. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO START THE TIMER ON REPORT. I'M GOING TO SET MY TIMER HERE. SO I GOTTA LEAVE HERE AT 445. SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN. OKAY. SO. SO ON THE THE DISCUSSION ON THE ETHICS BOARD, BUT YOU ALSO HAD UNDER. IT'S ALSO AGENDIZED UNDER I THINK IT'S ARTICLE IS IT 3.10 OR ARTICLE 11.0 WHICH YOU HAVE A 5 TO 6. JUST WANTED TO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS WITH YOU GUYS ON THAT. 
          AND I DID EMAIL THIS TO YOU GUYS. I DIDN'T HAVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS, MR. DOUGLAS OR YOURS, MISS GREENWALD? I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. OH, I, I PULLED A LINDA AARON, AND I SENT IT 30 MINUTES BEFORE YOUR MEETING STARTED. OH, OKAY. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK IT OUT. OH, HERE IT IS. AND DEAR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS DOING, BUT I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PLACING AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMITTEE IN OUR CHARTER. 
          ONCE SOMETHING IS WRITTEN INTO THE CHARTER, IT BECOMES PERMANENT UNLESS THE VOTERS AMEND IT AGAIN. IF THE STRUCTURE TURNS OUT TO BE FLAWED, THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE LOCKED INTO IT. JUST LIKE OUR CURRENT ETHICS POLICY, WHICH HAS CREATED PROBLEMS. NONE OF US WANT TO REPEAT IT. TEXAS ALREADY HAS STRONG AND ENFORCEABLE ETHICS LAWS THAT APPLY TO EVERY CITY UNDER TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. CHAPTER 171. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE DEFINED BY STATUTE AND ENFORCED BY TRAINED LEGAL PROFESSIONALS. VIOLATIONS ARE CLASS A MISDEMEANORS HANDLED BY COUNTY OR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPARTIAL AND NOT INFLUENCED BY LOCAL POLITICS. CHAPTER 553 OF THE CODE ALSO REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS, AND FALSE STATEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES. THESE STATE LAWS PROVIDE CLEAR STANDARDS, UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT, AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS FOR EVERYONE. DUE PROCESS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. OUR CURRENT ETHICS POLICY IS FLAWED IN THAT 
          [00:05:02]
SPECIFIC REGARD FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH. IF THE CITY WANTS A LOCAL ETHICS STRUCTURE, IT IS. 
          IT IS FAR SAFER TO DO THAT THROUGH ORDINANCE OR POLICY, RATHER THAN LOCKING IT IN TO THE CHARTER. POLICIES CAN BE UPDATED WHEN GAPS APPEAR AND REVIEWED BY LEGAL COUNSEL. A CHARTER PROVISION, HOWEVER, CAN ONLY BE CHANGED BY ANOTHER ELECTION, WHICH IS SLOW AND RIGID. ONE ADDITIONAL CONCERN IS THAT AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS BOARD WOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE VERY COUNCIL IT IS SUPPOSED TO OVERSEE. IN PRACTICE, COUNCIL MEMBERS NATURALLY SELECT PEOPLE THEY KNOW OR TRUST. THAT IS HUMAN NATURE. BUT IT ALSO MEANS SUCH A BOARD IS UNLIKELY TO FUNCTION AS TRULY INDEPENDENT AS YOU MIGHT PHILOSOPHICALLY BELIEVE. IT CREATES A RISK THAT THE BOARD COULD BECOME POLITICAL, EITHER IN WHO GETS APPOINTED OR HOW COMPLAINTS ARE HANDLED. WHAT LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK THE SAME WAY IN A SMALL COMMUNITY, WHERE RELATIONSHIPS AND LOCAL DYNAMICS MATTER. IF THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE AN ETHICS POLICY AT ALL, I BELIEVE IT IS MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNCIL TO RETAIN THAT OVERSIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES OF THE ROLE, RECOGNIZE THAT HONEST MISTAKES HAPPENED, AND ARE FAR LESS LIKELY TO RUIN SOMEONE'S LIFE OR REPUTATION OVER A MINOR ISSUE. THEY ALSO HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHEN A COMPLAINT IS BEING WEAPONIZED OR USED FOR THE WRONG REASONS. 
          IN CONTRAST, OUTSIDE APPOINTEES MAY NOT HAVE THAT CONTEXT, WHICH INCREASES THE RISK OF UNFAIR OR INCONSISTENT OUTCOMES. BUT IF TRUE INDEPENDENCE IS THE GOAL, THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY PROVIDED A SYSTEM FOR THAT STATE LEVEL ENFORCEMENT HANDLED BY PROSECUTORS AND COURTS ENSURES PROFESSIONALISM, NEUTRALITY AND DUE PROCESS WITHOUT THE RISK OF LOCAL POLITICS DRIVING THE RESULT. MY GOAL IS NOT WEAKER ETHICS, BUT A STRONGER, MORE RELIABLE SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS EVERYONE. I BELIEVE OUR CITY IS BETTER SERVED BY RELYING ON THE STATE FRAMEWORK ALREADY IN PLACE, AND KEEPING ANY LOCAL ENHANCEMENTS FLEXIBLE THROUGH NORMAL POLICY MAKING, RATHER THAN EMBEDDING THEM PERMANENTLY IN THE CHARTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          THAT ACTUALLY WAS NOT A NON AGENDA. IT WAS AN AGENDA COMMENT. YES MA'AM. THANK YOU. 
          FORTUNATELY THANK YOU. GUYS AREN'T BOUND BY. I KNOW YOU EVEN GOT FOUR MINUTES AND 20S. 
          AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PULLING LINDA AIR, LET ME JUST COMMENT HERE THAT IF YOU WERE A LINDA AIR, YOU WOULD HAVE YOU WOULD HAVE TIME FOR YOURSELF AT HOME TO STAY TO YOUR YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN SPOT ON WITH THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. AND THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE AND SHARING THAT WITH US. AND WE, AS WE CANNOT DISCUSS THAT OR TALK ABOUT IT NOW AND WE WILL JUST THANK, THANK OH SINCE I DON'T HAVE EMAIL, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK YOUR BALLOT BOX. 
          I DON'T HAVE IT IN MY CITY OR PERSONAL. OH GOODNESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT ASSUMING 
          [IV.2. Consider Community input (social media).]
IT'S COMING? OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. SO LET'S LET'S MOVE ON NOW TO CONSIDER COMMUNITY INPUT SOCIAL MEDIA WITH MARK DOUGLAS WHO IS OUR COMMUNITY INPUT GATHERER AND REPORTER. THIS IS BRIEF. 
          WELL, RELATIVELY BRIEF. OVER THE LAST SINCE OUR LAST GATHERING, I WAS TASKED WITH POSTING POLLS BASICALLY FOR COMMUNITY INPUT, TERM LENGTHS, TERM LIMITS, YES OR NO. I APOLOGIZE, I FORGOT TO RESET MY PRINTER SETTINGS TO SINGLE PAGE, SO IT'S ON THE BACK. THE GENERAL CONCEPT, IRONICALLY, AS HE'S WALKING OUT THE DOOR OF CREATING AN INDEPENDENT BOARD OF ETHICS. THE THE OUTCOME OF EACH QUESTION REGARDING TERM LIMITS TWO YEARS VERSUS THREE YEARS. THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF HAVING TERM LIMITS INCLUDED IN THE I'M SORRY, I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN THERE TERM LENGTH, BUT THE GENERAL CONCEPT AND THAT'S ONE IS OF HAVING TERM LIMITS INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER, YES OR NO. AND THE CONCEPT OF CREATING AN INDEPENDENT BOARD OF ETHICS, YES OR NO? I WASN'T TERRIBLY SHOCKED AT THE RESULTS. TWO YEARS BEAT OUT THREE YEARS. 
          IN THE POPULAR OPINION, THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC POLL. IT IS A, YOU KNOW, A FAIRLY NARROW FACEBOOK GROUP OF ABOUT 10,000, MAYBE 11,000 RESIDENTS. AND THEY MAY NOT ALL BE FROM LA, THEY MAY NOT ALL BE ACTIVE, BUT IT IS A PRETTY BIG, PRETTY BIG GROUP. SO TWO YEARS WAS WAS VOTED ABOVE THREE YEARS TERM LIMITS WAS YES OR NO. AND A BOARD OF ETHICS. YES. OVER. NO. 
          [00:10:02]
I WASN'T SHOCKED AT THOSE RESULTS, BUT I WAS VERY SURPRISED AT IS THE LOPSIDEDNESS OF THE VOTES AND IT GENERATED A LOT. THE FIRST TWO GENERATED A FAIR AMOUNT OF CONFIDENCE AND HE HAD THEM THERE IN FRONT OF YOU. BE THAT AS A MAN POSTED THAT YESTERDAY ON OUR MESSAGE BOARD. SO THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE DIFFERING VIEWS OBVIOUSLY. AND IF YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THEM, WE CAN BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE THERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND THEY WERE ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. YES THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          IS THERE A WAY FOR YOU TO KNOW WHEN YOU POST THINGS AND YOU GET RESPONSES? IS THERE A WAY FOR YOU TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE SAW YOUR QUESTION? I BELIEVE SO, YOU KNOW, POLLS ARE A LITTLE MORE RESTRICTED. YOU CANNOT EDIT THEM. I GUESS THAT'S FOR AN INTEGRITY ISSUE. BUT SO WHEN YOU POST A POLL, IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHEN YOU JUST MAKE A POST? IT IS DIFFICULT. 
          IT IS. YEAH, IT IS DEFINITELY DIFFERENT. AND IF YOU WILL GIVE ME 20 OR 30S, I'LL TRY TO FIND THAT I WOULD BECAUSE I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN LEARNING, LIKE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY SAW IT AND, AND THEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT TOOK THE TIME TO RESPOND. RIGHT. 
          WELL, IT'S FUNNY, IN ALL OTHER POSTS THEY TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY REACHED, THEY DO IN, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE TO JUST SAY, HEY, I LIKE JANE SMITH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, PLEASE CONSIDER HER THE NEXT TIME THAT WOULD SHOW ME HOW MANY, HOW MANY POSTS WERE OR HOW MANY TIMES IT WAS READ. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF POLLS. THERE IS NOTHING SHOWING. SORRY. OKAY, OKAY. THERE'S NOTHING SHOWING. OKAY. HOW LONG WAS IT UP? THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS OR THE FIRST QUESTION WAS UP THE LONGEST, THE THREE VERSUS TWO YEARS. THAT'S BEEN UP FOR PROBABLY CLOSE TO TWO WEEKS NOW. THE SECOND QUESTION HAS BEEN UP FOR CLOSE TO A WEEK, AND THE LAST QUESTION HAS BEEN THE SHORTEST, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY GOES BACK TO LAST MAYBE WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY. SO THESE THINGS JUST STAY UP THERE UP RIGHT NOW. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEBODY LIKE ME WHO HAS NOT BEEN ON, I COULD SEE THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. IF NO ONE HAS 
          [IV.3. Revision of Article II.]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MARK, WE WILL GO ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS REVISION OF ARTICLE TWO. AND JEN, WERE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THAT? YES, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          THANK YOU LINDA. SO I KNOW I JUST NO FURTHER JOKES ABOUT PULLING A LINDA AIRED, BUT I SAID THAT ROUGHLY 30 MINUTES BEFORE THIS MEETING. SO I DON'T KNOW IF FOLKS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW MY REVISIONS OF SECTION TWO YET. I POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND ALSO EMAILED IT TO EVERYONE. I THINK SECTION TWO IS PRETTY. NON-CONTROVERSIAL. THE FEW TIMES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT I WANTED TO GO THROUGH AND HIGHLIGHT JUST THE MAJOR CHANGES THAT I MADE TO IT. JUST TO KIND OF SAVE TIME, REALLY. ONE OF, I GUESS PROBABLY, IN MY OPINION, NOT SO MUCH A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE OF CHANGING, YOU KNOW, MORE OF A STYLISTIC CHANGE IN ANY EVENT, BUT MIGHT LOOK MORE SALIENT WOULD BE SECTION 201 2.01 AT THE BEGINNING, AND AGAIN, OPEN TO FOLKS FEEDBACK ON THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, BECAUSE I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO DIGEST, BUT I WOULD IN FURTHERING OUR GOAL OF KIND OF STREAMLINING THINGS AND FOR THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF THE THE CHARTER. 
          I MADE THAT A BLURB RATHER THAN AN ITEMIZED LIST OF POWERS STATING THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVELY, BUT IT IS A BLURB RATHER THAN AN ITEMIZED LIST OF OF WHAT POWERS THE CITY HAS. SO OPEN TO FEEDBACK ON THAT. AGAIN, AS I STATED, SECTION 22.02, PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CHANGE THERE IS JUST THE THE TITLE OF THAT SECTION. 
          BUT AGAIN, SAYING THAT. THAT THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY RETAINS BOTH DIRECT AND AND 
          [00:15:05]
IMPLIED POWERS. THE ONE SECTION THAT WE DID TALK ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING WAS EMINENT DOMAIN. 
          SO I KEPT IN THE LAST LINE, SPECIFICALLY AS WE DISCUSSED, THAT THE CITY SHOULDN'T TAKE ANY EMINENT DOMAIN POWER TO TAKE ANYTHING OWNED BY A PO AND USE AS PARKLAND FOR A CITY PARK. 
          I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, AND I DID DECIDE TO PUT THAT TO NOTE THAT SEPARATELY AS A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE, AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING AND THEN THE PRIOR SECTION, I JUST I JUST WROTE IT DOWN BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. ZONING IS ALL EXCEPT THERE'S MAYBE A GRAMMATICAL CHANGE IN THAT. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME SECTION. ALSO THE SAME WITH STREETS AND PUBLIC PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE LAST SECTION. SECTION 2.05 WOULD BE OPEN TO THE FEEDBACK, I THINK KIND OF IN THE SAME VEIN AS SECTION 2.01. WE'RE REALLY IT'S MORE OF A STYLISTIC CHANGE. AND AGAIN, I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON IT. I DON'T HAVE STRONG FEELINGS NECESSARILY ABOUT HAVING A CHANGE OF TITLE FROM RIGHT TO RESERVE THE TRANSITION AND CONTINUITY. RIGHTS RESERVED. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT REALLY IS SO OBVIOUS WHAT THAT SECTION ENTAILS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I DID MUCH, AND I DON'T THINK I DID MUCH BETTER TO TRANSITION IN CONTINUITY, BUT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TO GIVE CONTINUITY OF HOW THE LAWS ARE ENFORCED IN A CONTINUOUS NATURE, BUT AGAIN, TRIMMED DOWN THAT SECTION TO TRY TO SAY WHAT IT SAYS IN THE CURRENT CHARTER IN A MORE SUCCINCT WAY. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS LIKE A RED LINE SO THAT WE HAVE WHAT IS ACTUALLY IT'S IN THE CHARTER AND THEN WHAT YOUR CHANGES ARE? I DID NOT SUPPLY THAT PUBLIC MEETING, BUT I CAN DO THAT. I CAN I CAN DO A RED LINE. OKAY. THEN I SUGGEST THAT YOU DO THAT AND THEN CIRCULATE THAT TO US. AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT WHEN WE HAVE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT TO READ ON OUR PHONE AND OUR DOCUMENT HERE WITHOUT HAVING OBVIOUS CHANGES. TOTALLY AGREE. I WOULD WANT THAT TO. I WASN'T SURE ABOUT PROCEDURALLY AND DIDN'T OVERWHELM WITH DOCUMENTS. I FEEL LIKE I'M OVERWHELMED WITH DOCUMENTS A LOT SO I CAN DO THAT. LINDA. OKAY THEN. THEN WE WILL DEFER THAT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING. IF I CAN OFFER JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I WAS ON BOARD FROM THE BEGINNING THAT I THOUGHT OUR SECTION TWO WAY TOO CLUTTERED. IT SPECIFIED THINGS THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER JUST LEFT IN A IN AN UMBRELLA OR A LARGE VIEW, AND DID A NICE JOB OF CLEANING UP, PARTICULARLY SECTION ONE IN MY OPINION. OOPS, SORRY, I'M MOVING ON ON THE FLY HERE. I THOUGHT EMINENT DOMAIN WAS CLUTTERED ON THE FIRST ONE. IT'S KIND OF A GIVEN BY BY RULES AND LAWS OF THE STATE. SO YEAH, I THOUGHT I THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT I KNOW OF, YOU KNOW, READING THROUGH THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE OR THE FINAL DRAFT WITH ALL THE RED LINES AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS AND COMMENTS, I'M ON BOARD WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING TO IT, AND I THINK THAT WE WILL TAKE THAT UP FURTHER WHEN WE HAVE IN ONE DOCUMENT, AND WE CAN REALLY COMPARE IT. I THINK WELL DONE, MUCH IMPROVED. A COUPLE THINGS THAT I WAS FROM MY NOTES THAT I JUST WANT TO BRING FORWARD. WE HAD SUGGESTED THAT WE MOVE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THE SECTION 1.02 FROM R 1.02 AND PUT IT IN SECTION TWO, AS WE OBSERVED, WAS DONE IN OTHER CHARTERS LIKE SELENIUM. SO IN MY REWRITE OF ARTICLE ONE, I KIND OF ASSUMED THAT ONE, NOT OH TWO FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS MOVING TO TWO. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE GET TO MY ONE. DID YOU DID YOU REFER TO THE CHART WHEN YOU WERE WHEN YOU WERE REDOING? SO I DID REFER LINDA. I DID REFER TO THE CHART. ROBERT. THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE AGAIN, TO MY POINT ABOUT I WAS A LITTLE OVERWHELMED WITH DOCUMENTS I DID, AND I KEPT GOING BACK TO I KNEW THAT WE LIKED SOMETHING FROM AUBRY AND KARINA AND I MISMATCH MATCHING THE SECTIONS UP ON THE FLY. I KEPT TRYING TO FIND WHAT SECTION WE LIKE, SO THAT'S 
          [00:20:03]
REALLY HELPFUL. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. YES. SO SECTION 102, MOVE IT FROM PART ONE OF ARTICLE ONE TO ARTICLE TWO POWERS. SO OUR ARTICLE ONE, INSTEAD OF BEING INCORPORATION FORMS OF GOVERNMENT AND BOUNDARY WILL BECOME INCORPORATION AND BOUNDARIES. 
          AND THEN ARTICLE TWO, WHICH WE CURRENTLY CALL POWERS OF THE CITY, WILL BE POWERS OF THE CITY AND FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND THEN I ALSO HAD A NOTE THAT FOR ARTICLE 2.01, AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE OBVIOUSLY, TO MATCH IT UP, BUT I HAD A NOTE TO USE AUBRY 2.01. IS THAT WHAT YOU USED? I DID, YEAH, WORD FOR WORD. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN FOR 2.02 GENERAL POWERS ADOPTED. I JUST HAD THAT SCRATCHED OUT AND SAID USE AUBRY 2.01. SO I NEED TO GO BACK AND SEE WHY WE DID THAT. BUT THE LAST ONE I HAD WAS ON. 2.06 STREETS AND PUBLIC PROPERTY. I HAD MADE NOTE THAT WE LIKE THE AUBRY SECTION 2.02, WHICH IS JUST CALLED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, AND IT'S JUST WRITTEN A LOT CLEANER. SO I KNOW YOU'VE MADE YOU SAID YOU MADE SOME EDITS TO. WE CLEANED IT UP AND STREAMLINED IT. SO I NEED TO GO DOWN AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE HERE VERSUS AUBRY 2.02 THAT WE TENDED TO LIKE ON THE FIRST PASS. AND THAT'S ALL THE COMMENTS I HAD. 
          OTHERWISE I THINK IT'S MUCH IMPROVED. OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN I WILL PROVIDE ALSO PROVIDE THE RED LINE AND ALSO ADD IN. I AM IN AGREEMENT. I WAS THINKING OF THAT WHEN DRAFTING THE SECTION FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND CHANGE THE TITLE OF. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE THIS CHART THAT YOU CAN REFER TO I DO, YES. OKAY. SO WE ARE GOING TO DEFER ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ARTICLE TWO UNTIL 
          [IV.4. Revision of Article III 3.01 through 3.09.]
OUR NEXT MEETING. AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE REVISION OF ARTICLE THREE. AND ROBERT WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. I'M SORRY I HAD THIS ONE. OKAY. WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING SHOULD WE. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE CAN HAVE MR. ROBERTS COME AND MAKE HIS PUBLIC COMMENTS WHILE YOU LOOK FOR THAT. IS THAT OKAY? YES. OKAY. PAUL. I WAS CRAMMING. MY 445 GOT CANCELED, SO I DIDN'T COME IN FULLY PREPARED ON THIS ITEM. SO JUST GOING THROUGH IT REAL QUICK. THE IN ARTICLE 33.01. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW, I WAS ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE BEFORE I WAS ON CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. EXCUSE ME, A BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION, ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE. FOR ON THE TERMS OF OFFICE. MR. DOUGLAS, I SAW YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA POST AS THE SOCIAL MEDIA, SHALL WE SAY, LIAISON. AND AND THEY DID A GREAT JOB. 
          AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT AS WELL. I KNOW IT'S A PRIOR AGENDA ITEM, BUT I THINK IT TIES IN HERE TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS POSED TO SOCIAL MEDIA THAT'S ENUMERATED IN SECTION 3.01, ARTICLE THREE OF THE CHARTER. AND THE QUESTION POSED WAS, HEY, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK, THREE YEARS, TWO YEARS? SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF SOCIAL MEDIA FEEDBACK? OVERALL, I JUST WANT TO CAUTION TO TAKE IT. I MEAN IT, YOU KNOW, TEN PEOPLE WHO SPEAK UP MAKE MORE NOISE THAN 10,000 WHO ARE SILENT. THERE'S A LOT OF TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF VALUE IN THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN WHEN WE'RE TASKED WITH REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER YOU'RE ELECTED OR NOT ELECTED, WE REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH SOCIAL MEDIA IS WHOEVER SPEAKS FIRST AND WHATEVER THOSE LOUDEST VOICES ARE INITIALLY, THAT STARTS THE WHOLE NARRATIVE. AND WHEN YOU HAVE FIVE PEOPLE IN A ROW SAYING, TURN RIGHT, TURN RIGHT, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO COME IN AFTER THAT, THEY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE FRAY, AND THEY MIGHT JUST REMAIN SILENT. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. 
          THERE'S OFTENTIMES THERE IS A LARGE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO MIGHT DISAGREE, BUT SINCE THE PREDOMINANT NARRATIVE OR ARGUMENTS BEING MADE ARE SAYING, GO THIS WAY, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE MESS OF IT. SO JUST FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH, BUT ON THE QUESTION OF TWO YEARS VERSUS THREE YEARS, I'M KIND OF TORN. I SEE GREAT VALUE. THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT I SAW FOR TWO YEARS WAS IF THEY'RE DOING A CRAPPY JOB, YOU VOTE THEM OUT. THEY'RE LIMITED TO TWO YEARS, RIGHT? BUT WHAT I'VE ALSO LEARNED IS THAT HAVING DONE TWO TERMS 
          [00:25:04]
UNOPPOSED, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE WRITE IN CANDIDATES, MY FIRST TERM IN UNOPPOSED, THE SECOND TERM, WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU SPEND YOUR WHOLE SECOND YEAR BASICALLY IN CAMPAIGN MODE, ALWAYS BE CLOSING ABCS, RIGHT? YOU'RE SITTING YOUR WHOLE SECOND YEAR TRYING TO EARN REELECTION. IF YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT RUNNING. YOU'RE NOT. YOU ALWAYS START, RIGHT? SO IT FORCES YOU INTO SPENDING YOUR SECOND YEAR FOCUSED ON THAT. AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE BEST. MAYBE THERE'S SOME PANDERING IN THAT. MAYBE THERE'S TOO MUCH POLITICKING IN THAT INSTEAD OF REALLY DOING WHAT YOU WANT, YOU'RE INSTEAD PERHAPS JUST SAYING WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR. ANOTHER BENEFIT TO THREE YEARS, ASIDE FROM THE IMPLIED THERE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO DO THAT. IS THAT YOUR FIRST YEAR IS A LOT OF RAMPING UP. THERE'S A LOT YOU DON'T KNOW. AND THERE IS A REALITY TO TWO YEARS IS THAT IF YOU HAVE AND THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE SUBTLE TOWARD OUR EXISTING STAFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT STAFF WILL OUTLAST YOU. YOU'RE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, YOU'RE TRANSIENT. YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO BE HERE FOR A SHORT WHILE. THEY CAN SLOPE ALL YOU. THEY CAN SLOW WALK YOUR ITEMS, AND YOU CAN HAVE ISSUES THAT JUST DON'T COME. BUT IF YOU'RE HERE LONGER, THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOU LONGER. AND THE INCLINATION TO BE MORE AGREEABLE AND LESS CONFRONTATIONAL IS THUS MORE LIKELY. ADDITIONALLY, YOU'RE NOT SPENDING THE FIRST OF YOUR TWO YEAR TERM LEARNING THE ROPES, LEARNING HOW TO MAKE MOTIONS. YOU'VE ONLY BEEN TO MAYBE ONE TML CONFERENCE. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ON MULTIPLE COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS. AT ONE POINT IN TIME, I WAS ADVOCATING FOR LIMITING LIAISON ROLES, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ONE YEAR MAX TO ANY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION LIKE IN A LARGE CORPORATION. MAKE THEM WORK IN OPERATIONS, THEN MAKE THEM GO OVER HERE AND WORK IN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT. MOVE THEM AROUND, MAKE THEM LEARN EVERYTHING GOING ON IN THE CORPORATION. A LITTLE DIFFERENT. BUT SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THE TWO YEAR VERSUS THREE YEAR TERM. I HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS ON OTHER ITEMS IN HERE, BUT I I'M SURE I'VE EXCEEDED THE THREE MINUTES BY NOW. DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE OR NOT? IF YOU HAVE IF YOU HAVE MORE ON, GO AHEAD. OKAY. JUST A FEW. THE MAYOR MAY CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND ANY BOARD OR COMMISSION AND SET THE AGENDA THERE FOR. OKAY. SO IN OUR CHARTER, REMEMBER WE HAVE A PROVISION THAT SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL SET UP, SHALL PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL DETERMINE, I'M PARAPHRASING HOW IT RUNS ITS MEETINGS. WELL, WE HAVE THAT. THAT'S CALLED THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. THAT'S A SEPARATE ORDINANCE IN THAT ORDINANCE. IT ALSO SAYS THAT JUST LIKE IT SAYS HERE IN THE CHARTER, TWO MEMBERS CAN REQUEST AN AGENDA ITEM. SIMILARLY, IT ALSO STATES THAT TWO MEMBERS CAN CALL A TOWN HALL MEETING OR A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. WE HAD AN INTERPRETATION OF THAT FROM THE I THINK I THINK IT'S OUR CURRENT CITY ATTORNEY. AND HE SAID, YEAH, THAT STANDS. THAT'S NOT A CONFLICT WITH THE CHARTER, BUT IT IS NOT REPRESENTED IN THE CHARTER. SO THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT MATCH EACH OTHER? SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. THE MAYOR SHALL SIGN APPROVED ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. I THINK EVERYONE HERE IS FAMILIAR WITH A SITUATION THAT AROSE OVER NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THAT. AND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT ASIDE, PERHAPS YOUR COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSIDER TIGHTENING THAT UP A LITTLE BIT, MAYBE ADDING A TIME FRAME. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S FOR YOU GUYS TO FIGURE OUT. BUT THE THOUGHT CAME TO MIND HOW CAN YOU AVOID A SITUATION LIKE THAT IN THE FUTURE AND MAKE SURE THAT ONCE IT IS PASSED, ONCE IT IS PREPARED BY STAFF FOR SIGNATURE, WHEN DOES IT HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY? THERE WAS CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY, THAT CAME OUT OF THAT, OUT OF THAT MATTER, WHERE THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE AND EVEN MYSELF, I THINK I CONTEMPLATED IT ALOUD ABOUT SHOULD WHEN IT COMES TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IN THIS SECTION, SHOULD IT REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY TO UNDO THE ELECTORAL WILL OF THE PEOPLE? I THINK THAT SOUNDS GOOD PHILOSOPHICALLY, BUT PRAGMATICALLY SPEAKING, IF NO COUNCIL MEMBER IS GOING TO WANT TO REMOVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, AND IF YOU SET THE BAR SO HIGH THAT IT TAKES SIX OUT OF SEVEN, ALL THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HAS TO HAVE IS ONE BUDDY UP THERE ON THE COUNCIL. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU FROM EXPERIENCE, THEY'LL HAVE AT LEAST ONE BUDDY WHO'S GOING TO SAY, NO, THAT WON'T HAPPEN. NOW, MIND YOU, THEY DO HAVE TO RECUSE. I GUESS IT WOULD BE THEY'D HAVE TO BE FIVE OUT OF SIX. BUT THE POINT IS, IS YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT PRACTICAL. THERE HAS TO BE A REALISTIC, PRAGMATIC MEANS TO REMOVING SOMEBODY FROM OFFICE. IF THE COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT THEY SHOULD NO LONGER BE THERE FOR THE REASONS ENUMERATED IN THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER, WHICH POINTS, OF COURSE, BACK 
          [00:30:01]
TO THE ETHICS POLICY, WHICH IS YOUR ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. SEVERAL POLICIES THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY DOESN'T HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN IT, BUT THE CHARTER DOES. I DIDN'T GET ANY FURTHER. I'M JUST LOOKING AT SUBJECT LINES, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SECTION 3.13 THAT'S IN HERE. I THINK ONE THING, JUST AN ANECDOTAL HERE ON THIS. I HAVEN'T READ THIS PRIOR TO NOW, BUT JUST ONE THING THAT DOES COME TO MIND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS YOU DON'T WANT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO GET SO OVERLY BROAD THAT IT'S JUST LIKE, OH MY GOSH, IT'S GONE WAY TOO FAR. THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE PRIMARILY SUPPOSED TO BE WE WILL FOLLOW THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER OR THE ROSENBERG RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE YOU KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO. IT'S ABOUT HOW THE MEETINGS ARE TO BE FOLLOWED. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, IN THERE WE SAY IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WHAT COMMITTEES ARE COMMISSIONS ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT AND SO FORTH AND SO ON. AND. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ARE THESE NOTES THAT YOU'VE PUT TOGETHER FOR US OR ARE YOU? NO, MA'AM. I JUST PRINTED IT OUT. 
          AND WHILE I WAS SITTING THERE, I JOTTED THESE THINGS DOWN. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YOU DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE? NO, I NEED ONE. OH, OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HI. 
          NICE TO MEET YOU. THIS IS MY WIFE, SANDY. AND I GUESS FOR THE RECORD, WE SHOULD NOTE THAT GENE HARRIS HAS JOINED US. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T. I NOTED FOR THE RECORD. WE DID TALK ABOUT YOU BEFORE YOU GOT HERE. OH, I'M SURE YOU DID. CAN I CAN I SAY JUST ONE COMMENT TO MR. ROBERTS? SURE. A LOT OF THE. YOU WERE YOU WERE OUT WHEN I WENT OVER. IN FACT, YOU CAN HAVE A COPY OF THIS IF YOU WISH. THANK YOU. THESE WERE THE RESULTS OF THE POLLS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, ALONG WITH SOME COMMENTS THAT PEOPLE MADE, AND THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH YOU ON ON POINTS YOU MADE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A ONE GIVEN. I MEAN, MAYBE THE VOTE, RIGHT? THE VOTES MAY BE OFFSIDE, BUT IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, DON'T DON'T BE DESPONDENT AS FAR AS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THINKING THIS IS THE WHAT IS IT MOB MOB RULE MENTALITY. I DIDN'T I DIDN'T INFER THAT. I MEAN, I DIDN'T I DIDN'T GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE WEIGHING HEAVILY ON YOU GUYS. IT'S ANECDOTAL. IT'S HERE'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, A SUGGESTION WHERE YOU PUT THE POLLS UP. ONE OF THE REASONS I NEVER PARTICIPATE IN THOSE POLLS IS BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE POLL. ABSOLUTELY. IF THERE'S A IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE WERE A FEW FORMER POLITICIANS OR CANDIDATES THAT OR I SHOULD SAY ELECTED OFFICIALS OR CANDIDATES THAT DID PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. YOU'RE RIGHT, I SAW THAT. BUT YEAH, IF THERE'S MAYBE A WAY TO DO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE THIRD PARTY LIKE SURVEY MONKEY STUFF. 
          YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THOSE CAN BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF AND PEOPLE CAN JUST KEEP GOING IN AND INCREASING THE VOTE. BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING OUT THERE WHERE PEOPLE CAN DO IT ANONYMOUSLY, LIKE, I THINK YOU GET MORE PARTICIPATION. HONESTLY, I'M COMING TO THIS. I DON'T KNOW, I'M REALLY TORN. 2 OR 3 YEARS. YEAH. IF I HAD TO PICK, I'D PROBABLY SAY TWO. BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. I THINK THAT JUST AS IMPORTANT AS ACTUALLY GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY IS THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT THEY WILL BE ASKED TO ADDRESS. SO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE BEING ASKED, I THINK, AND BEING INFORMED IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE ACTUAL FEEDBACK THAT WE GET TO CONSIDER. I THINK IT GOES I THINK YOU'RE PLANNING MORE SEATS THAN YOU RECOGNIZE. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAW ME DO WHEN I FIRST GOT ON COUNCIL IS CONTRARY TO ANY OF MY PREDECESSORS. I WAS SHARING THE CITY MANAGER'S WEEKLY REPORT THAT WE WERE GETTING. YOU REMEMBER THAT? AND I WAS TALKING AND ENGAGING AND JUST NOBODY EVER DID THAT. AND THE MORE YOU DO THAT, I THINK IT'S THE OLD ADAGE EXCITEMENT BREEDS EXCITEMENT AND YOU GET PEOPLE MORE INTERESTED. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO TAKE A VESTED INTEREST IN YOUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEN THEY PARTICIPATE, THEY CARE, THEY PUT THOUGHT INTO IT. AND SO THE QUESTIONS LIKE THIS AND THE POSTS THAT GO UP, HOPEFULLY IT CAN HELP GENERATE MORE APPLICATIONS FOR MORE COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS BECAUSE WE'RE ALWAYS LACKING IN THAT REGARD. SO I THINK KUDOS TO YOU GUYS FOR COMING UP WITH THAT IDEA AND YOU SPEARHEADING THAT. ON YOU BEING THE FRONT MAN FOR ALL THAT WELL, AND IT GENERATES COMMENTS. YOU'RE THE FIRST CITIZEN WHO'S EVER SHOWN UP THAT'S COME AND GIVE US FEEDBACK. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS PROMPTED BY THE SOCIAL MEDIA POST OR JUST YOUR INQUISITIVE NATURE IN GENERAL, BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING. YES. 
          ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE POLL WAS TO STIMULATE CONVERSATION, BOTH IN THE POLL, 
          [00:35:01]
EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC, ALTHOUGH WHEN IT'S 85, 15 OR 90, TEN, YOU KNOW, WHILE IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC, IT THAT GIVES YOU A PRETTY GOOD PULSE. SURE. BUT ALSO WE WANT TO HEAR EITHER VIA EMAIL OR IN PERSON, FEEDBACK FROM THE CITIZENS. AS TO WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS AS TO HOW THE CHARTER SHOULD GO. SO THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ROBERT, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS. WHAT YOU PREPARED? DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT NOW? DO WE HAVE ARTICLE ONE I HAD I WANT TO SEE AN ARTICLE. OKAY. SO ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS A REWRITE OF ARTICLE ONE THAT I GUESS WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT AGENDIZED. SO YES, WE CAN BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUBJECT TO ARTICLE ONE ON THE, ON THE BOARD. AND NOW WE HAVE ARTICLE TWO. MY INTENTION IS TO START NOW BUILDING FINAL LANGUAGE SECTION BY SECTION AS WE GO, SO THAT WE'RE NOT DOING A MIDNIGHT REWRITE OF THE ENTIRE CHARTER. IF TO DO SO, I'VE GOT A FINAL DRAFT ARTICLE ONE. WE'LL HAVE A FINAL DRAFT. ARTICLE TWO I PUT UP ARTICLE THREE AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN USE THAT AS THE VEHICLE GOING FORWARD. SO WE WON'T TALK ABOUT ONE TODAY. BUT. IT IT WAS IN THE PACKET I SEE. WHETHER I SO ARTICLE THREE. ALSO THE PREAMBLE IS UP. SO YOU GOT THE PREAMBLE ARTICLE ONE. AND ARTICLE THREE IS THAT HANDED OUT TODAY. THE PREAMBLE IS HERE I SEE I SEE PREAMBLE AND ARTICLE ONE, BUT I DON'T SEE ARTICLE THREE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL JUST DO IT ON ON THE FLY HERE. IT DEPENDS ROBERT, WHEN YOU POSTED IT, IF YOU POSTED IT AFTER THE PACKET WAS POSTED THEN IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE PACKET. YEAH, IT MAY HAVE BEEN, ALTHOUGH I DID TRY TO. I THINK I POSTED IT MAYBE OVER THE WEEKEND OR LAST WEEK. IT MAY HAVE BEEN AFTER THE. AND AS I THINK BACK ON IT NOW, IT WASN'T A FULL REWRITE OF ARTICLE THREE. 
          IT WAS A COUPLE OF SECTIONS. RIGHT. YOU WERE JUST GOING TO DO A COUPLE SECTIONS TO DISCUSS. 
          YOU WERE JUST GOING TO DO 3.01 TO 3.09. YEAH I REMEMBER. ACTUALLY IT WAS JUST TWO OUT OF 306306 AND 307306 BEING THE BIGGIE. WE GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS ON TONIGHT, AND ACTUALLY A LOT OF WHAT WAS COVERED ON TONIGHT. I THINK WE PROBABLY LEAVE IT ON DEALT WITH, BUT IN 306. WHERE WE WENT THROUGH AND ENUMERATED THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS DUTIES, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, I KIND OF JUST COMPLETELY REFORMATTED THAT. I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS I CAN'T REALLY SHOW IT IS EVERYBODY I HAVE IT, BUT GOT IT. 
          OKAY. IF YOU I DON'T HAVE YOU DIDN'T MAKE A LINE NUMBER. CORRECT. IT'S JUST I THOUGHT IT WAS A MEMBER BUT I DON'T SEE NO YOU KNOW WHAT? WHEN I COPIED JUST THAT SECTION OUT, ALL LINE WENT AWAY. THAT'S OKAY. IF YOU JUST CALL OUT AN OH SIX, A, B, C WHATEVER. RIGHT. SO REALLY WE WERE, WE WERE DISCUSSING. SO I RETITLED 306 MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER. AND THEN I LOOKED AT 3.23. AND WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S MISALIGNMENT MISCONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 3.23 AND 3.06. SO I WHAT I DID IS I DECIDED TO JUST PULL 3.23 INTO UNDER 306 AS B. 
          SO GOING BACK TO A. SO THAT MAKES AUTHORITIES DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE SUBPARAGRAPH A AND THAT READS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE CO-EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL UNLESS OTHERWISE ENUMERATED BELOW AND SUBJECT TO PROHIBITIONS, SHARE THE SAME AUTHORITIES DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW IN OTHER CHARTERS, IT 
          [00:40:04]
REALLY REINFORCED THE FACT THAT THE MAYOR IS ONE AMONG EQUALS, AND WE WANT IT. SO I ADDED THAT STATEMENT AT THE TOP, TITLED AUTHORITIES, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THEN IN I WE SAID THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY MEET WITH AND OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY AND ANY CITY EMPLOYEE WHO DIRECTLY REPORTS TO THE CITY MANAGER AS DEEMED NECESSARY TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. THAT WAS THE EDIT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, REALLY RESTRICTING I TO COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS, BUT OPENING UP THE CONVERSATION TO ANY DIRECT REPORTING. THE CITY MANAGER, BUT REELING BACK IN THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAID, UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO ANY CITY EMPLOYEE. SO I THINK WE CAPTURED OUR WISHES OR I ONE IN THAT. ROBERT WHEN DID YOU SEND THAT? SO I CAN SEE IF I CAN PULL IT UP ON MY COMPUTER BECAUSE IT'S IT'S ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD BECAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SENT IT. OKAY. IT IS IT WAS POSTED TUESDAY OKAY. SO IT'S UNDER 37 AND THE TITLE IS ARTICLES 3.06 AND 3.07. OKAY OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO GETTING BACK TO THE. ALL RIGHT SO WE TALKED ABOUT RESTRICTING I TO ACTUAL AGENDA ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL MEETING. AND THEN WE VOTED TO MAINTAIN ONE AND TWO AS SEPARATE ITEMS. BUT I EDITED TWO TO SAY THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY CONSULT WITH THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY AND ANY DIRECT, ANY CITY EMPLOYEE DIRECTLY REQUESTED CITY MANAGER WITH RESPECT TO ANY BUSINESS, CITY BUSINESS OR ISSUE. SO WE WANTED TO KEEP ONE AND TWO SEPARATE, ONE RESTRICTED TO AGENDA ITEMS. AND THE TWO KIND OF OPENS UP THE DISCUSSION TO ANY CITY BUSINESS AND GRANTS THE RIGHT OF A COUNCILOR TO REACH OUT TO ANY DIRECT REPORTS OF THE ACTION. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THREE, I THINK, IS STANDARD FROM BEFORE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL RECOMMEND APPOINTEES FOR CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. AND TRYING TO BE MINDFUL AS WE GO THROUGH THE CHARTER TO COUNCIL. PRINCE'S POINT LAST MEETING, WHEREVER WE HAVE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, IT SHOULD BE BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. SO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT IF I MISSED IT. RAISE THE FLAG FOR THE MAYOR SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AS THE HEAD OF THE CITY FOR LEGAL AND CEREMONIAL PURPOSES, AND BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, FOR ALL PURPOSES OF MILITARY LAW OR EMERGENCY POWERS. AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAD IN THERE. AND THEN THE MAYOR SHALL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO OBTAIN LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          AND THE CITY MANAGER ENSURE THE SAME IS ENFORCED, PRESIDE AT ALL MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL, AND PROVIDE LEADERSHIP NECESSARY TO ENSURE GOOD GOVERNANCE. I THINK WE JUST TWEAKED IT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HAVING A GOOD GOVERNANCE PHRASE, BUT THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH ALREADY THERE. THE MAYOR SHALL PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON ALL MATTERS COMING BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BUT SHALL HAVE NO VETO POWER. SO TWO THINGS THERE. ONE MAYOR SHALL PARTICIPATE AND VOTE, AND TWO SHALL HAVE NO VETO POWER. AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S ALREADY THE SAME AS WHAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. ALL RIGHT. SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS. I THINK THIS TOUCHES ON WHAT MR. ROBERTS IS SPEAKING TO, TO THE MAYOR SHALL CALL SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND ANY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION AND SET THE AGENDA. THEREFORE, THE MAYOR MUST CALL SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS UPON THE REQUEST OF THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO IF THREE COME TOGETHER AND NOT A MAJORITY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD ENTAIL A WALKING QUORUM. BUT A THREE MEMBERS WANT TO FORCE AN IMMEDIATE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WITHIN 30 DAYS. THAT POWER IS NOW LISTED IN THE CHARTER. THE MAYOR MAY REQUIRE ANY ITEM OR ITEMS TO BE ADDED OR DELETED FROM THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS, EXCEPT FOR ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY TWO OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAY NOT BE DELETED AND WILL BE PLACED ON A REGULAR OR SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF SUCH REQUEST. SO WE ALREADY HAVE A KIND OF IN THERE. WHAT WE ADDED WAS THE TIME VALUE. IT HAS TO HAPPEN WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS. SO THE WAY IT WORKS IS WITH REGARD TO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. WHY IS IT THREE AND SEVEN? WELL, IF YOU HAVE THREE COUNCILORS THAT COME TOGETHER ON A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, IT'S URGENT. DO IT IMMEDIATELY WITHIN 30 DAYS. 
          IF YOU ONLY HAVE TWO THAT ARE GOING TO SPONSOR THAT SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, THEY COULD FORCE IT TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE ENTIRE COUNCIL, THEN TO VOTE UPON AGAIN WITHIN 30 DAYS. 
          [00:45:02]
SO IF YOU HAVE THREE, MAYOR HAS TO CALL THE MEETING. IF YOU ONLY HAVE TWO, IT'S AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE ENTIRE COUNCIL TO SAY, YES, LET'S HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. SO THAT'S HOW THOSE TWO ARE INTENDED TO WORK TOGETHER. THEN AND THEN REGARDING THE SIGNING. WELL, WE SAID THE MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM SHALL HAVE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY FOR ALL LEGAL CONTRACTS AND COMMITMENTS OF THE CITY, BUT MAY NOT BIND OR OBLIGATE THE CITY IN ANY WAY WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. WE ADDED MAYOR PRO TEM IN THERE BECAUSE THAT SEEMED TO BE A GAP IN OUR CURRENT CALENDAR. THAT 3.06, IT JUST SAYS THE MAYOR. AND THEN FINALLY TEN THE MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM WILL SIGN ALL APPROVED ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SO AGAIN, TO GET AROUND THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE, WE ADDED MAYOR PRO TEM AS A LEGAL SIGNATORY ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. COUNCIL, MISTER ROBERTS, COUNCIL, ROBERTS, HE'S STILL COUNCILMAN HAS A TITLE POINT. WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY PUT A TIME FRAME IN THERE, AND MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT WE SHOULD TAKE BACK AND RETHINK THE 10TH. SO THAT WAS THE REWRITE OF 3.06. DO YOU HAVE THAT IN THE RED LINE ON THE ON THE BOARD? I WHAT I INTENDED TO POST WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A RED LINE. BUT IN LOOKING AT IT NOW, WHEN I CREATED THE PDF, THE RED LINE IS NOT THERE. I THINK WHEN I EXTRACTED JUST TWO PAGES FROM THE WORD DOCUMENT THAT HAD THE RED LINE, THAT HISTORY WAS LOST. 
          SO YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY PRINT OUT A RED LINE AT HOME. I CAN PRINT OUT A RED LINE BECAUSE I HAVE A RED LINE COPY, BUT JUST WHAT THE PDF DOESN'T HAVE IT. OKAY. NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY OF MY NOTES JUST BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT I DID READ ALL OF THAT AND I LIKED WHAT I READ. I JUST I WAS GOING TO BRING MY COMPUTER, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY. SO I DON'T HAVE IT TO LOOK AT RIGHT NOW. BUT I DID GO THROUGH IT. I DID MAKE SOME NOTES ON A COUPLE SMALL ITEMS, AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST SMALL THINGS LIKE SOME TYPO, JUST VERY MINOR STUFF. BUT WHAT I READ WAS LIKE, THIS IS THIS SOUNDS GOOD. I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN INTERESTING IDEA. ROBERT. I KIND OF LIKE THAT. I THINK ON THE SPECIAL SPECIAL CALLED TOWN HALL MEETINGS USING THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND I THINK YOU BUTTONED IT UP WELL WHEN YOU SAID IF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T WANT TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SOLICIT A THIRD, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SHOPPING AGENDA ITEMS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DILEMMA YOU YOU CAN FACE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER IS TRYING TO FIND THAT SECOND, YOU KNOW. 
          RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU GET A SECOND, YOU PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR CALLING IT. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT CAN HAPPEN WITHIN 30 DAYS. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT 3.23 IN THE CONTEXT OF 3.06. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. BECAUSE 3 IN 3 .23, DID YOU THE ACCESS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT HEADS BY COUNCIL MEMBER? YES. WHAT WERE THE WHAT WERE THE BOUNDARIES? YOU PUT THAT OUT, IF I MAY, LET ME GO AHEAD AND FINISH, BECAUSE I WAS ON PAGE TWO THAT I DIDN'T READ. SO EVERY SO OUR OLD .3.06 THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, I LIKE I SAID, I LABELED THAT A AND CALLED IT. AUTHORITIES DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. NOW THERE'S A SUBPARAGRAPH B WHERE I PULLED 3.23 AND EDITED AND TITLED IT PROHIBITIONS. I THINK IT'S ALREADY TITLED PROHIBITIONS, BUT I PULLED 3.23 FORWARD AND 3.06 B AND IT SAYS THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE POWERS ONLY AS A BODY MEETING WITH A QUORUM AND PRESENT. NO COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ACT INDIVIDUALLY, EXCEPT WHERE THAT POWER MAY BE CONFIRMED UPON SUCH COUNCIL MEMBER IN THIS CHARTER OR BY THE COUNCIL, SO COUNCIL CAN APPOINT A COUNSELOR TO GO DO WHATEVER. OR THEY CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY ENUMERATED UP IN 3.06, EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS AS PROVIDED BY THIS CHARTER OR OTHERWISE. BY LAW, EACH MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DEAL WITH CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE CITY MANAGER SOLELY THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, AND NO MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL GIVE ORDERS TO, OR ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE ANY SUBORDINATE OF THE CITY MANAGER, EITHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY. SO THAT'S WHERE WE CAME BACK TO. 
          IF YOU'RE DOING AN INVESTIGATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT NEEDS TO GO AT LEAST AS A COURTESY TO THE CITY MANAGER. IT'S NOT UNRESTRICTED TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, BUT IT IS OPENED UP TO THE DIRECT REPORTS. A COMMENT FOR YOU IS THAT THIS WAS ALL THINGS THAT 
          [00:50:07]
WE HAD DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING. AND SO THEN ROBERT PUT THEM INTO JUST REWROTE THEM. 
          SURE. SO THERE WAS THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. AND SO NOT THAT WE'RE NOT OPEN TO CHANGE, BUT I SURE, SURE, SURE KNOW THAT PERSPECTIVE AND THOUGHTS ON THAT LAST POINT. ROB, WE JUST AMENDED THE INTERACTIONS WITH COUNCIL INTERACTIONS WITH STAFF POLICY TO ALIGN WITH AN AG OPINION. I THINK I PUT THAT ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD. REMEMBER THE AG OPINION FROM THE TML THAT YOU SHARED WITH ME A WHILE BACK, BUT IT BASICALLY SAYS IS, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO ACCESS THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. AND THEY HAVE ACCESS TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT SOMETHING LIKE SOMEONE'S PERSONNEL FILE, BECAUSE THE JOB OF THE CITY COUNCIL IS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT. THAT MEANS OVERSIGHT AS A MAJORITY. BUT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN BRING AGENDA ITEMS. THAT MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A COUNCIL MEMBER HAS CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN OPERATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WANT TO REACH OUT AND TALK TO THAT DEPARTMENT HEAD OR TO THE CITY MANAGER. THEY MIGHT BE CONTEMPLATING A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, OR MAYBE THEY'RE CONTEMPLATING AN AGENDA ITEM REGARDING THE CITY MANAGER, SOME TYPE OF A OF A. THEY'VE GOT AN ISSUE THEY WANT TO ADDRESS. ON THAT LAST POINT, WE AMENDED THE INTERACTIONS WITH STAFF TO STATE THAT AS REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE COPIED ON, WE AMENDED IT THAT YES, TO COPY AND LOOP IN THE CITY MANAGER AS A PROFESSIONAL COURTESY, EXCEPT WHEN THE INQUIRY WITH THAT DEPARTMENT HEAD IS ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION. SURE. THAT'S IN THE RULES OF THAT'S THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. CORRECT? NO, IT'S A IT'S A POLICY CALLED THE I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED INTERACTIONS. CHARLES. YOU REMEMBER THE FULL NAME OF IT. IS IT JUST INTERACTIONS WITH STAFF. BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT CITY COUNCIL GIVEN CITY COUNCIL CAN TAKE IT AWAY. RIGHT. BUT WHAT YOU DON'T WANT ARE INHERENT CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CITY. 
          WHAT THE WHAT THE COUNCIL GAVE AND THEN CONFLICTING WITH THE CHARTER. AND SO WHAT I'M POINTING OUT IS JUST REALLY WHAT THE THINKING WAS, IS BECAUSE YOU GIVE THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY. BUT IF IT'S ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER, YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO COPY THE CITY MANAGER AND GIVE THEM A HEADS UP THAT YOU'RE LOOKING INTO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE WITH THEM ABOUT A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. TWO THINGS THAT CONCERN ME ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE AND THE ONE THING THAT I'M A LITTLE FUZZY, WHETHER IT'S IN OUR CHARTER, OUR EXISTING CHARTER, OR IN SOME OF THE ONES WE'RE CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, ONE IS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS INVESTIGATING. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONCERNS, THAT'S A PRETTY THAT'S A PRETTY WORD OR A EUPHEMISTIC WORD FOR INVESTIGATING. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE THEY SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT AS AN INDIVIDUAL. THAT SHOULD BE DONE AS A, YOU KNOW, AS A BODY. NO, I DISAGREE BECAUSE THEY DO. WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE RESEARCHING. THEY'RE LOOKING INTO A CONCERN THEY HAVE BEFORE THEY BRING THE ITEM, BEFORE THEY BRING THE ITEM AS AN AGENDA. YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS? NO, I DON'T I THINK THAT'S SEMANTICS. 
          YEAH, I THINK IT'S SEMANTICAL. AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A COUNCIL INVESTIGATION. THAT'S WHY THE CHARTER SPEAKS TO COUNCIL INVESTIGATIONS. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 3.23 VERSUS 4.01. AND THE CONFLICT IS THERE. AND WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD ADVISED IS THAT YEAH. YOU YOU YOU HAVE THE CODE CONSTRUCTION STATUTE ON THE STATE OF TEXAS. YOU CAN'T READ ONE OUT AND GIVE PREFERENCE TO THE OTHER. THE WAY THE CHARTER CURRENTLY READS IS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO GATHER INFORMATION AND MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY. SPECIFICALLY, IT SAYS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY MEET WITH THE MAYOR, THE CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT HEADS SO THAT THEY CAN GATHER INFORMATION TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY. WELL, YOUR OVERSIGHT ISN'T LIMITED TO JUST LEGISLATION. YOUR LEGISLATE, YOUR YOUR OVERSIGHT AS A BODY THROUGH ONE VOICE IS OVER THE ENTIRE CITY. THAT INCLUDES OPERATIONS. IF THE CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO PASS AN ORDINANCE OR A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO GO BUY A PRINTER, THEY COULD DO THAT. SO IN YOUR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, THE ACTION ITSELF IS COLLECTIVE. 
          THAT'S THE COLLECTIVE. BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON THAT YOU BECOME AWARE OF, YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THAT MINORITY COUNCIL MEMBER. THERE MIGHT BE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS OR SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO THINK THIS CITY MANAGER IS THE MOST WONDERFUL PERSON ON THE 
          [00:55:04]
PLANET, AND THEY'VE GOT BLINDERS ON. THEY'RE NOT AWARE, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEING TOLD TO THEM BY WHISTLEBLOWERS OR BY OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, OR WHAT THEY'VE HEARD FROM CITIZENS OR COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO YOU DON'T WANT TO LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO LOOK INTO SOMETHING, AND YOU CANNOT. IT'S UNWISE TO SUBJECT. YOU DON'T WANT TO SUBJUGATE THAT INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS OVERSIGHT ABILITY UNDER THE CHARTER TO THE WILL OF OTHERS. THAT OPPORTUNITY COMES IN THE FORM OF AN AGENDA ITEM WHEN THEY DECIDE, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE THIS, BUT TO STATE THAT, I THINK TO TO CONTEND THAT TO LOOK INTO SOMETHING, TO LOOK INTO PERSONNEL REQUIRES JUST TO LOOK INTO THAT OR TO INVESTIGATE IT REQUIRES A MAJORITY WILL. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. AND I THINK THAT THAT GOES AGAINST THE WHOLE ABILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE MINORITY REMAINS RELEVANT AND CAN STILL GET THINGS DONE. 
          ULTIMATELY, THEY COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE AND THEY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO DO SOMETHING. HERE'S THE THING. IT SOUNDS GOOD ON PAPER, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS IN THE REALITY OF THINGS IS, IS YOU LEARN THINGS AS A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING OR SHOULD BE HAPPENING, AND OTHER PEOPLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY JUST SHOW UP AND VOTE. THEY'RE NOT FIELDING A LOT OF CALLS. THEY'RE NOT ACTIVE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THEY'RE NOT COMING FORWARD AND BRINGING AGENDA ITEMS. THEY'RE JUST NOT THEY'RE NOT DOING THEIR DILIGENCE. 
          THEY'RE NOT SPENDING SIX HOURS ON THE PACKET. THEY'RE NOT SPENDING 30 MINUTES ON THE PACKET AND THEY'RE COMING IN. THEY'RE SHOWING UP AND THEY'RE JUST VOTING. AND OFTENTIMES WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THE ONES WHO ARE DOING ALL THAT DILIGENCE, PEOPLE SEE THAT. 
          THEY SEE IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THEY SEE YOUR INTERACTIONS. THEY START REACHING OUT TO YOU. 
          YOU START HEARING THINGS. SO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION. AND WHAT WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION HAS SAID IS THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT INFORMATION. 
          SIMPLE AS THAT. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO IT. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK FOR IT. THAT'S THAT. SO WE WE ADMITTED THAT ITEM. SO TAKE THAT FOR WHAT YOU WILL. OKAY. I'M SORRY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE FOUND TO BE CLEAR, I WAS NOT MAKING ANY SUBTLE REFERENCES TO OUR CITY MANAGER. I WANT TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. I HAVE MADE VERY CLEAR I SUPPORT CHARLES. I'M GLAD HE'S HERE. HE'S HERE. HE'S THE BEST CITY MANAGER WE'VE SEEN SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. AND I EXPECT HIM TO BE HERE FOR MANY MORE YEARS. SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. PLEASE DON'T INFER. READ BETWEEN THE LINES AS I WAS MAKING ANY REFERENCES TO CHARLES. I'M SPEAKING ON THE MACRO BECAUSE IT'S JUST SO IMPORTANT YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THAT MINORITY VOICE IN ALL MATTERS AND THIS REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. OTHERWISE, WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU GET A MAJORITY OF THE VOTING BODY THAT'LL SHUT THEM DOWN BECAUSE THERE IS HERD MENTALITY, THERE IS GROUPTHINK AND THERE IS BANDWAGON. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY'RE MORE INTERESTED IN BEING LIKED BY STAFF AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAN JUST DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          AND THAT MEANS ASKING TOUGH QUESTIONS AND RUFFLING FEATHERS. AND YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. IT'S AN IMPERATIVE IN MY OPINION. THANK YOU. AND IT'S SOMETHING WE WRESTLED WITH. AND I THINK PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS WENT TOO FAR. WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE. WE LOOK AT OTHER CHARTERS WE'VE SEEN. IT'S ABSOLUTELY FOR VOTING. 
          EVERYBODY GOES THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER CITY MANAGER PROGRAM AND THAT SEEMS UNREALISTIC. BUT THE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO EVERY CITY EMPLOYEE WAS NOT A GOOD SUGGESTION. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE IN THE MIDDLE WHERE YOU CAN HAVE THE ACCESS AS A COUNCILOR, WHICH I THINK WE'VE ENUMERATED IN TWO. BUT AT THE SAME TIME MAINTAIN THAT PROHIBITION AND NOT GIVING DIRECTION, AND YOU'RE NOT INFLUENCING AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL. AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT WE ADDED, NOT IN THIS SECTION, SO WE CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IT IT WAS AN ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION TO ADD A WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION. YOU KNOW, GENERAL PROVISIONS I THINK THAT'S NOT EXIST NOW. SO IN THAT RESPECT, IF THERE'S A CONCERN WITH THE CITY EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY HAVING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS, RIGHT, TO GO SPEAK TO A COUNSELOR WITHOUT FEAR OF RETRIBUTION, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A TWO WAY STREET. I AGREE WITH THAT POINT. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IN A SECOND. I'VE GOT TO GO SPEAK AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING NEXT. BUT THE THE MOST I THOUGHT IT WAS DONE IN JUST IN, I THINK IT WAS IN MID-OCTOBER, ONE OF OUR TWO MEETINGS IN OCTOBER WHERE WE UPDATED AND AMENDED THAT INTERACTIONS WITH STAFF POLICY. AND IT REALLY IS IN THE SAME SPIRIT OF THESE CONCERNS YOU'RE WRESTLING WITH RIGHT NOW. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THAT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW, MR. WEST, IF THERE'S A PUBLISHED, IS THERE A WAY TO SHARE WITH THEM THE THE FINAL VERSION, THE FINAL ITERATION OF THAT THAT CAME OUT OF THE COUNCIL MEETING? THAT WAS A RESOLUTION, WASN'T IT WASN'T AN ORDINANCE. IT WAS A RESOLUTION. YEAH. I DO 
          [01:00:02]
BELIEVE IT IS A RESOLUTION. YEAH. SO IT'S BUT YOU KNOW, STUFF IS TAKING LIKE ONCE A QUARTER TO GET THINGS UPLOADED TO THE WEBSITE YET SO. WELL. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I HAVEN'T SEEN OKAY. I MEAN IF, IF THERE'S A IT'S INTERESTING AND WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION, BUT LET'S REMEMBER THAT WE'RE WRITING THE CHARTER THAT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES AND THINGS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAN TOWARDS, AS OPPOSED TO US WRITING THE CHARTER AS SOMETHING THAT EXISTS. ALTHOUGH IT'S AN INTERESTING THING. WELL, AND ROBERT KIND OF TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH AS FAR AS, AS FAR AS IT IS THE CASE THAT IN ALL THE CHARTERS THAT WE LOOKED AT, IT'S REALLY VERY DEFINITE AND CONCLUSIVE THAT INVESTIGATIONS ARE THE RESULT OR ARE THE PURVIEW OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL. BUT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO TO COME UP WITH THIS FINE LINE ON HOW DO WE ARTICULATE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, AS OPPOSED TO SAYING IT'S THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNCIL, THE ENTIRE COUNCIL BODY TO DO INVESTIGATIONS? YEAH. 
          I'M JUST HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO HOW WE ARTICULATE THAT TO TWO THOUGHTS. ONE. MY MY VIEW, MY WORLDVIEW. PRISM IS ALWAYS ABOUT PROTECTING THE MINORITY VOICE. SO I LOOK AT IT THROUGH THAT AND I DON'T NOT HAVING LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME. I DON'T HAVE RECOMMENDED EDITS, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST WHAT I WOULD DO LITERALLY, IF I WAS IN YOUR SHOES, I WOULD GO FIND THAT INTERACTIONS WITH STAFF POLICY ITEM, WHICH WAS AMENDED BASED ON THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, WHICH CAME FROM PML, AND THEN I WOULD PLUG IN THE PROPOSED EDITS FROM MR. OWEN AND SAY, DO YOU SEE WHAT ARE THE CONFLICTS HERE, IF ANY, AND THEN SEE WHAT IT COMES UP WITH AND TRY TO IDENTIFY IT. THAT'S MY AD HOC SOLUTION, BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON. IT WAS IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BAD. I FEEL LIKE I'M THROWING A WRENCH IN THIS. NO, NO. OKAY, GOOD. BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO ACTUALLY DEFINE SO THAT IT'S, IT'S CLEAR AND MAYBE CONTIGUOUS AND IT'S MAYBE INVESTIGATE ISN'T THE RIGHT WORD BECAUSE I THINK WE GET HUNG UP ON THE WORD INVESTIGATE. I MEAN, WHILE THERE'S THE ABILITY OF A COUNCIL TO INVESTIGATE SOMETHING, THERE'S ALSO THE ABILITY OF A COUNCIL MEMBER TO INVESTIGATE WHAT IT COSTS TO PUT IRRIGATION IN AT A GOLF COURSE. THEY'RE INVESTIGATING SOMETHING. ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT BEFORE THEY GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE AND MEET WITH THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR OR PUBLIC WORKS, THAT SINCE THEY'RE INVESTIGATING IRRIGATION, THE WHOLE COUNCIL NEEDS TO CREATE A COMMITTEE NEEDS TO INVESTIGATE IT AS A WHOLE. I DISAGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S I GOT ON THE FLY. I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW. HEY, CHARLES, I WANT TO TALK WITH DAVID, YOU KNOW, ABOUT IRRIGATION AND JUST, YOU KNOW, SO THAT HE'S NOT BLINDSIDED LATER. HERE'S HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND IT'S BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS A LOT OF TIMES AND I MEAN, A LOT OF TIMES, WHAT YOU WANT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, AS A LEGISLATOR IS NOT WHAT THE CITY MANAGER WANTS. THEY DON'T WANT THE SAME THING. SO WHEN YOU GIVE THEM THE HEADS UP, THEY CAN CONTROL THE INFORMATION FLOW AND THEY CAN WORK BEHIND THE SCENES IN THEIR MEETINGS WITH OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LOBBY THOSE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE CYNICAL. AND ARE YOU SURE IT'S BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE? WELL, THAT'S THAT'S THE THING. AND YOU AMONGST MANY. ME WELL, I, I DON'T GO POLITICKING, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S YOUR YOUR WORLDVIEW IS GOING TO BE BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCES. AND IF YOU HAD BAD EXPERIENCES WITH A PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER. 
          YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT KIND OF IT'S WE'RE PARTIAL TO THE THINGS WE KNOW THE MOST ABOUT. 
          BUT I HAVE PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE AND GRASP UNDERSTANDINGS OF OF ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES AND CHARTERS, AND I WOULD ARGUE MORE SO THAN ANY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AT PRESENT OR IN RECENT YEARS. AND WHAT I'VE SEEN IS WHAT HAPPENS IS I'VE ALSO BEEN ONE OF THE MOST LEGISLATIVELY ACTIVE. I'VE BROUGHT FORWARD DOZENS AND DOZENS OF ORDINANCES, AND MANY OF THEM ARE EXTREMELY CONSEQUENTIAL, ESPECIALLY IN THE LAND USE SIDE. AND THEY DID END UP PASSING MANY OF MOST OF THEM UNANIMOUSLY. BUT WHEN YOU'RE LEGISLATIVELY ACTIVE LIKE THAT, MARK IT. IT UPSETS A LOT OF CITY MANAGERS. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE WORLDVIEW THAT YOU SPOKE OF. WHAT HAPPENS IS IN OTHER CITIES IN CHARLES, I WILL VOUCH FOR THIS, PROBABLY IS THAT MOST CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T WRITE ORDINANCES, AND THEY DON'T WRITE AMENDMENTS. THEY DON'T DO IT. THEY SHOW UP, THEY VOTE. STAFF DOES ALL THE WORK. 
          WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT'S THE CASE? SO WHEN YOU'RE OUT THERE DOING THAT, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA, NOT JUST OPERATIONS, BUT THEY HAVE THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO DO. SO WHEN YOU'RE OUT 
          [01:05:01]
THERE DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AS A LEGISLATOR, IT RUBS THEM, IT CAN RUB THE WRONG WAY, AND THEY WILL BLOCK YOU AND THEY WILL SLOW BALL AND THEY WILL TAKE ACTIONS. SO PROTECTING THE ABILITY OF THAT INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER TO MAKE THINGS BRING ABOUT CHANGE IS SO IMPORTANT. BECAUSE IF YOU STYMIE THAT, THAT SINGULAR OUTSPOKEN, IT'S LIKE THAT FAMOUS ROCKWELL PHOTO OF THE GUY STANDING UP RIGHT WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN HIS POCKET HOLDING AREA OF THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING. IT'S A IT'S HARD. IT'S HARD, BUT CYNICAL. YES, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WRONG. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE PUSHBACK AND I APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION, I TRULY DO. COME ON, ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR MEETING. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING. SERIOUSLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHARLES, FOR BEING HERE. YES. AND EVERYBODY, CAN YOU BE THE WARMEST PERSON HERE IN THE NEXT. OKAY. WELL, I AGAIN, I THINK THAT HE BRINGS UP A POINT THAT WE HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH AND AND GOING AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT ENDLESSLY THE FIRST TIME AROUND. AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT, OF COURSE, OUR GROUP AGAIN, IT'S A VERY HARD THING TO, TO GET RIGHT. I THINK. I THINK YOU DID A NICE JOB ON THE WHOLE COMMENDABLE, COMMENDABLE. AND I AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY, ROBERT, IT SOUNDED GOOD. BUT UNTIL I AM ABLE TO ACTUALLY SEE IT AND, AND AND HOLD IT, I REALLY CAN'T, I REALLY CAN'T. SO WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE NOTE THAT 3.06 IS OUT THERE? I THINK I CAPTURED ALL THE EDITS THAT WE WANTED, BUT MAYBE WE REVIEW IT AND DISCUSS IT FURTHER ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND ANY TYPOS OR EDITS OR LEAVING OUT THE WORD COMMITTEE, YOU GUYS. OR IF THERE'S A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, LET'S DISCUSS IT THERE. AND THEN MAYBE AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE COULD ACTUALLY VOTE AND SAY OUR 3.06 IS DONE. OKAY. YEAH. I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT. YES. LIKEWISE A SIMILAR VEIN WE HAD TALKED ABOUT. COMBINING STREAMLINING BASED ON THE CHARTERS THAT WE SAW. LAGO VISTA, 3.0733.09. AND SPECIFICALLY, WE KIND OF LIKE AUBREY 3.06. SO AGAIN, THIS IS OUT THERE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE. AND MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST DEFER UNTIL HAD A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH IT. I JUST WANT TO CALL OUT THOUGH, THE BASICALLY WHAT I WROTE WOULD REPLACE LAGO VISTA 3.078 AND NINE WITH A NEW SECTION 3.07 JUST CALLED VACANCIES, FORFEITURE AND FILLING VACANCIES. THE THING THAT GOT CONFUSING IS WE USE MOSTLY AUBREY 3.06, BUT IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL WHICH I WENT AHEAD AND PULLED IN TO THIS DRAFT. IT'S ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD ABOUT THE REMOVAL PROCEDURES AND HOW THERE ARE A COMPLAINT IS LODGED. AND THEN THERE'S A SUPER SECRET MEETING THAT'S HELD BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO DECIDE AND VOTE WHETHER OR NOT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INVESTIGATION. AND THEN THERE'S A SUPER SECRET INVESTIGATION THAT HAPPENS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. AND IF THE ACCUSED PARTY, SO TO SPEAK, WANTS TO BRING IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND THEY HAVE THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IT OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND TAKE IT OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT OUR CHARTER, UNLIKE OTHER CHARTERS, IT HAS THIS VERY DETAILED REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS, PROCEDURE AND ALL THAT, WHERE OTHER CHARTERS JUST SIMPLY SAY, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL WILL SHALL CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THIS PROVISION. AND IT'S ALL IN THE OPEN. SO THE ACCUSATIONS ARE IN THE OPEN. WHO MADE THE ACCUSATIONS OR IN THE OPENING? THE DETAILS OF THE ACCUSATION OR THE OPENING? AND IT'S NOT INCUMBENT UPON A COUNCILOR OR MAYOR TO SAY, I WANT TO BRING THIS OUT TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S ALL PUBLIC FROM THE GET GO. SO I ONLY BRING ALL THAT UP TO, SAY, THE DRAFT THAT'S ON THE BOARD IS THE ASSIGNMENT THAT I WAS GIVEN. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THIS, AND I THINK WE AS A COMMITTEE SHOULD TALK MORE ABOUT THIS WHOLE REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND WHETHER THAT SHOULD STAND, OR WE SHOULD JUST BRING IT ALL OUT INTO THE, INTO THE OPEN. SO I WOULD SAY READ 3.07. LET'S DISCUSS PROS AND CONS OF THAT AND HOW TO PROCEED. AND I THINK 
          [01:10:06]
WHEN WE WENT THROUGH IT, WE LIKED THE BRINGING IT OUT INTO THE OPEN ASPECT OF OTHER CHARTERS. I JUST AND I YOU KNOW, YEAH, WE NEED TO DEFINITELY DISSECT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          BUT I'M THE ONE THING THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, SCANNING THROUGH HERE IS 307 SECTION, SUBSECTION E, UPON A COUNCIL FINDING OF WILLFUL VIOLATION BY A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CHARTER OR ANY PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHARTER, THE MEMBER MAY FORFEIT HIS OR HER OFFICE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE. THE WORDING OF E SPECIFICALLY BEFORE GOES INTO THE PROCEDURE. 
          I WONDER IF MAYBE WE'RE PUTTING THE CART AHEAD OF THE HORSE WITH REGARDS TO CONSIDERING THIS BOARD OF ETHICS, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT A BOARD OF ETHICS SHOULD TAKE UNDER THEIR WING? IF YES, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, E CAME FROM OUR ANOTHER CHARTER THE WAY THEY PHRASED IT, BUT THE SPIRIT OF OUR EXISTING CHARTER AND THEN SOME IRON TWO BASICALLY CAME OUT OF OUR EXISTING CHARTER. OKAY. BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, IF WE GO A BOARD OF ETHICS DROUGHT, THEN THAT WOULD FEED BACK INTO AMENDING THIS. I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO KIND OF TAKE IT IN ORDER AND DETERMINE WHAT WE WANT NOW AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS, IF WE NEED TO GO BACK AND REWRITE THIS, WE CAN. BUT I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE TO TAKE IT IN ORDER. AND THAT'S VERY FAIR. BUT YOU'RE YOU'RE ON POINT. I MEAN, BUT I DO I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT WILL ACTUALLY GET THROUGH IT, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, I MEAN, WE MAY GET TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO. BUT TO GO BACK TO THE COMMENT BEFORE ABOUT, LET'S DEFER THIS UNTIL WE WHAT YOU'RE HOLDING, I FORGOT TO MENTION. YEAH. SO I DID INCLUDE SUBPARAGRAPH THREE, WHICH IS NOT IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE HAD ALREADY TALKED ABOUT AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT IF IF IT GOES TO WHAT COUNCILOR ROBERTSON TALKED ABOUT WITH REGARD TO SUPERMAJORITY AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S FEASIBLE, WE IN OUR LAST SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDED THAT IT TAKE A SUPERMAJORITY TO ACTUALLY REMOVE A ELECTED MEMBER THAT THE VOTERS PUT ON THE DAIS, AND IT FELT THAT IT SHOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY TO DO THAT, BECAUSE YOU'RE OVERTURNING THE VOTE, THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AT THAT POINT. BUT WE ALSO FELT LIKE THERE WAS A GAP, BECAUSE THE ONLY OPTIONS ON THE TABLE WERE CENSURE OR REMOVAL. AND SO WE HAD PUT FORTH THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY FOR REMOVAL, THEN YOU HAVE A MAJORITY OF FOUR, THEN THEY MAY INCLUDE A LESSER PENALTY OF CENSURE, SUSPENSION UP TO 30 DAYS AND LOSS OF VOTING RIGHTS UP TO 90 DAYS. SO THAT IS LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR CHARTER TODAY THAT WE HAD PULLED IN FROM ANOTHER PRIOR RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT AT SOME POINT THREE. AND IT KIND OF GOES TO A LITTLE MORE E AND MEAN JUMP TO REMOVAL OF THE COMMON HORSE. THERE IS A PROVISION TO DO A LESSER PENALTY. SO SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT IT. BUT I THINK THAT WE THROUGH EXPERIENCE HAVE MAYBE HAVE KIND OF OBSERVED THAT A CENSURE OR SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS IS REALLY KIND OF IT'S WHAT IS IS KIND OF INEFFECTIVE. IT CERTAINLY ISN'T SOMETHING, SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE SOMEBODY SAY, WELL, THEY IN ADVANCE BEFORE THEY DO OR DO NOT DO SOMETHING. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD FIND THAT A VERY ONEROUS OR CONCERNING OPTION. AND SO THEY MAY KIND OF LIKE WELL DIDN'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THAT. I THINK IT GIVES THE COUNCIL BODY AN OPTION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY, AND THEY WANT TO DO MORE THAN CENSURE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO CHOICES THAT THEY HAVE TO DO. I MEAN, IF YOU TAKE THE OTHER OPTIONS, LIKE I SAID, ARE TAKING AWAY THEIR VOTE AND TAKING AWAY THEIR VOICE, WE CAN SUSPEND THEM FROM THE DAIS FOR 30 DAYS. THEN THEY LOSE THEIR VOTE. VOICE. AND THEN IF THEY LOSE THEIR VOTING RIGHTS FOR UP TO 90 DAYS, THEN THEY STILL HAVE A VOICE. THEY CAN STILL PARTICIPATE. SO I THINK BY 
          [01:15:01]
WRITING IT THE WAY WE DID IS WE GIVE COUNCIL A LITTLE MORE MEAT THAN JUST A CENSURE TO SAY, OKAY, WE CAN'T REMOVE YOU FOR THIS PARTICULAR VIOLATION OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE YOU. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY, BUT THE CENSURE IS NOT ENOUGH. SO YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE YOUR VOICE AND OR YOUR VOTE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. AND WHAT WE RECOMMENDED WAS 30 DAYS FOR THE VOICE AND UP TO 90 DAYS FOR THE VOTING. SO IT HAS A LITTLE MORE MEAT. LINDA, I KNOW IT'S YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE. YOU VIOLATE THE CHARTER, YOU DON'T PASS JAIL. YOU KNOW, YOU GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL AND DON'T PASS GO. BUT WE'VE SEEN IN REAL PRACTICAL EXERCISE A REAL RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF COUNCILS TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE VOTERS BY REMOVING AN ELECTED MEMBER. SO LET'S GIVE THEM A LITTLE MORE MEAT THAN JUST CENSURE. AND I THINK THERE'S VALIDITY IN DOING THAT. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. I'M JUST JEAN. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID, THAT THE LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED RECENTLY, IT DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE MUCH EFFECT. CENSURE. BUT HAVING THE CENSURE AND OR HAVE YOUR CENSURE OR YOU LOSE YOUR VOICE OR YOU LOSE YOUR VOICE, THOSE THINGS. NOW, IF THERE'S SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS, NOW YOU'VE GOT A HISTORY. SO AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A STIFFER PENALTY THAN, SAY, DON'T DO THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE NOW YOU CAN POINT TO THAT SAYING, LOOK, WE GAVE THIS PERSON, WE TOLD THEM THEY COULDN'T SPEAK, THEY COULDN'T VOTE FOR 90 DAYS. AND THEY STILL PERSISTED IN DOING SOMETHING SILLY AGAINST THE CHARTER, WHATEVER IT IS. AND SO IT HELPS BUILD, I HATE TO PUT IT THIS WAY, BUT IT HELPS BUILD THE CASE FOR SUBSEQUENT REMOVAL. 
          MAYBE THE NEXT TIME. I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT ESTABLISHING A RECORD OR. THAT THAT IS A VERY. IT'S A GOOD POINT. AND THE LOSS OF VOTING AND WHAT HAVE YOU THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BEFORE WE EVEN GOT THE OTHER CHARTERS. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I PULLED THAT FORWARD FROM OUR PRIOR RECOMMENDATION. SO I HAVE A QUESTION, IF I MAY, BECAUSE I AGREE THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF EFFECT. I DON'T THINK IT HAD ANY. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT ANYBODY PAID ATTENTION? AND I SAY ANYBODY, I MEAN, THE RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA TO WHAT WAS GOING ON IN CITY COUNCIL AT THAT POINT? I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLUELESS. YEAH, THEY DIDN'T KNOW. SO I MEAN, THAT WAS EVEN PUBLISHED IN, I THINK, THE AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN. AND FOR THE INTENT TO MAKE IT A MORE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE. AND I STILL I DON'T THINK THAT EVEN HAD ANY EFFECT. SO I JUST WONDER IF THE WHOLE IDEA OF EVEN A CENSOR OR A, A RESTRICTION OF VOTING IF THE TYPICAL OR, YOU KNOW, TYPICAL VOTER OR TYPICAL RESIDENT IS EVEN GOING TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. OH, THEN AGAIN, MAYBE THAT'S WHY YOU DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, RUN FOR REELECTION, I DON'T KNOW. WELL, LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. THE ONLY OPTION ON THE TABLE IS DEATH PENALTY. AND NO COUNCIL HAS EVER NEED A SUPERMAJORITY TO EXECUTE THAT. SO WE HEARD FROM COUNCILORS THAT THEY WANTED THE LESSER PENALTIES SO THAT THE OPTIONS WEREN'T SLAP ON THE WRIST. DEATH. YEP. OKAY. AND I THINK THERE IS CONSEQUENCE TO HAVING LIMITS PUBLISHED THAT SAYS COUNSELOR SO AND SO IS PRESENT BUT UNABLE TO VOTE FOR SIX MEETINGS. YOU KNOW, AND IT GOES BEYOND JUST WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. MOST PEOPLE DON'T PAY ATTENTION. MOST PEOPLE DON'T READ THE CENSURES AS POSTED IN THE LEGAL NOTICES. AND EVEN WHEN IT'S PUT IN THE STATESMAN AND THE HILL COUNTRY RULES. BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION EVEN ON THE TABLE, THEN IN MY MIND IT WAS DEATH PENALTY ONLY. NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I DON'T MEAN TO SAY REMOVE THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY DISCUSSED, REALLY A LONG TIME, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST TIME AROUND. BUT THIS, THIS EXACT ISSUE. BUT I THINK THAT JEAN'S POINT ABOUT ESTABLISHING A RECORD IS VERY COMPELLING AS FAR AS HAVING THE THE LESSER, THE LESSER OPTION, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL REALLY ASKED FOR IT. 
          THEY ASKED THEY ASKED FOR THAT. THEY ASKED FOR THAT OPTION. SO CONSIDERING THAT THEY ASKED FOR THAT OPTION AND ESTABLISHING THE RECORD, I THINK KIND OF MAKES A CASE. THE OTHER THING 
          [01:20:03]
IS, GEE, THAT WE SAW IN OTHER CHARTERS WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, SETTING A SPECIAL ELECTION. AS OPPOSED TO JUST FILLING MY APPOINTMENT AT THE TIMELINES PERMITTED. SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S NOT IN OUR CHARTER. WE OBSERVE THAT IN AUBRY. I THINK IT WAS AUBRY IN. ANYWAY, I PULLED THAT IN. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. I MEAN, I REMEMBER WHEN I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH AN UNELECTED OFFICIAL JUST BEING APPOINTED, AND WHEN KEVIN WENT TO A COUNCIL MEMBER TO MAYOR, IT WAS AN APPOINTMENT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY HAD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT WAS THAT WAS IN THE CHARTER. RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO OPTION TO TO GO OUT AND GET THE. NO. HE WAS IN THE CHARTER. THAT WAS IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER. THERE'S A VACANCY THAT COUNCIL APPOINTS THAT. YEAH, I LIKE I LIKE THAT A LOT. I'M 100% BEHIND. BRUNET JUST LOST A COUNCIL PERSON. AND THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT POSITION VACANT UNTIL THE MAY ELECTION. OKAY. WHICH IS THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION. JUST LEAVING IT VACANT. NOT NOT APPOINTING OR, YOU KNOW, JUST WAITING. I'M JUST POINTING IT OUT BECAUSE WE MAY WANT TO REGROUP AND SAY, IS THAT THE RIGHT TIME FRAME? DO WE WANT TO KEEP IT IN OR NOT. AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AND TIGHTEN IT UP FROM THE DISCUSSION BOARD MEETING. OKAY. AND AND IT'S IT'S NOTED, ROBERT, THAT YOU ARE PUSHING THE USE OF THE DISCUSSION BOARD EVEN MORE THAN WE HAVE UP TO NOW. SO DULY NOTED THAT WE NEED TO THAT WE NEED TO START DOING THAT. OKAY. DOES THAT CONCLUDE WHAT YOU WANT TO COMMENT ABOUT? 3.07 YES OKAY. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO REVIEW OUR 
          [IV.5. Article III 3.10 through Article XI.]
MEMBERS SUGGESTIONS FOR POSSIBLE CHARTER RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCLUDE A BOARD OF ETHICS. THAT ITEM WAS ON OUR AGENDA ON NOVEMBER 19TH, AND WE DEFERRED IT AT THAT TIME. 
          WE WERE WE WERE. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS GOING TO BE HAVING AN ETHICS DISCUSSION ON DECEMBER 4TH. AND SO WE PUT IT OFF UNTIL AFTER THEIR DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS INDEPENDENT OF THE COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION OR NOT DISCUSSION OF IT. ROBERT, I WAS GOING TO SAY, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. WE HAVE THE 820 BREAK ON THE INFORMAL, UNSCIENTIFIC RECENT POLL THAT SUGGESTS THAT OUR CITIZENS DO WANT A BOARD OF ETHICS AND WATER REFORM, AND WE HAVE COMMENTARY TONIGHT FOR NO, DON'T DO THAT. ALTHOUGH I THINK SOME OF THAT COMMENTARY CAN BE MITIGATED BY THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, THOUGH, IS THIS MORE CLEANLY FALLS INTO SECTION SEVEN, AND IT'S REALLY NOT A SECTION THREE OR 4 OR 5 DISCUSSION. SO MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET TO SEVEN, WHICH CREATES ALL THE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONS. AND LET'S JUST DO IT AT THAT TIME. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE WE HAD BROUGHT IT UP AS IN FACT, I THINK I BROUGHT IT UP KIND OF OUT OF OUT OF SEQUENCE. AND THEN WE JUST TABLED IT AND PUT IT IN HERE. BUT I THINK IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO DISCUSS IT ALONG WITH, WITH ARTICLE SEVEN. AND SO I AM VERY MUCH IN AGREEMENT WITH, WITH ROBERT'S, THAT EMOTION THAT YOU MADE OR SUGGESTION. NO, I WAS DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE READY FOR MOTION. YOU WERE STILL DISCUSSING. OKAY. JUST THROWING IT OUT IN CASE ANY OF OUR OTHER MEMBERS WANT TO ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION, WE CAN. I'LL MOVE THAT. WE TABLE IT. FUTURE DISCUSSION TO DISCUSS IT WHEN WE DISCUSS ARTICLE SEVEN. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD SECOND OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OKAY. SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE WILL DISCUSS A BOARD OF ETHICS DURING OUR DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE SEVEN. SO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM JUST BRINGS US TO. OUR NEXT SECTION IN THE CHARTER, WHICH WAS ARTICLE 3.10. AND SO THE AGENDA ITEM WAS WRITTEN TO DISCUSS ARTICLE 33.10 THROUGH ARTICLE 11. THAT'S JUST THE AND THAT WAS JUST TO SEE HOW FAR WE COULD GET WITHOUT STIPULATING EXACTLY HOW MUCH WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE TODAY. NOT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT WE WERE GOING TO WRITE. SO DOES ANYBODY WANT 
          [01:25:09]
TO START OFF THE DISCUSSION WITH THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT SECTION 3.1 DUAL OFFICE HOLDING. 
          OKAY. OR DO I OKAY? ME NEITHER. NO, I DON'T EITHER. AND I THINK THAT WAS NOT REALLY MUCH DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. SECTION 3.11 COUNCIL MEETINGS. THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMENTS MADE. 
          PREVIOUSLY FROM FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND. THERE WAS THOSE WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE TODAY. AND THE ONLY REAL EDIT WE MADE THERE IS WE STRUCK OUT THE LINE ABOUT SPECIAL CALLED MEETING SHALL BE HELD, AS DETERMINED BY THE COUNCIL AND CALLED BY THE MAYOR BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO CONFLICT WITH 3.06. AND SO I THINK WE STRUCK THAT OUT. WE DEALT WITH IT IN 3.06. 
          OTHER THAN THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. THEN IF NO OTHER COMMENTS WILL GO TO SECTION 3.12 QUORUMS. AND THE FIRST TIME AROUND, WE DID MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THAT. WE WE'RE DOING NOW IS WE'RE REVISITING WHAT WE DID BEFORE AND WE HAVE SOME NEW EYES. DO THEY HAVE ANY NEW MEMBERS, HAVE ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES, OR ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THIS? NO, I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I DIDN'T REALLY HIGHLIGHT ANYTHING, BUT IT CAUGHT MY EYE THE FIRST TIME I READ THROUGH THIS. SO MOST OF THE CHANGES, WHILE THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF MARKUPS, THERE IS REALLY KIND OF REORDERING STUFF AND NOTHING REALLY SUBSTANTIAL. IT WAS JUST KIND OF CLEANING UP THE READING AND SO FORTH, AS I RECALL. AND WHEN YOU SEE COMMENTS ADDED BY ART RODRIGUEZ, BY THE WAY, I DON'T THINK THAT WE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE, BUT ART RODRIGUEZ IS A MEMBER OF THE FIRM THAT BRAD IS WITH. AND SO HE'S HE'S HE'S HIS COLLEGE. OH, I FIGURED HE WAS AN ATTORNEY. I DIDN'T DIDN'T MAKE THE CONNECTION THAT HE WAS WITH WITH BRAD. WE DID ASK AT ONE POINT FOR ATTORNEY COMMENTS ON SOME THINGS. AND THEN ART GOT VERY AMBITIOUS AND KIND OF MADE COMMENTS THROUGHOUT. GOT IT. SO THE SECTION 3.13 RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE REALLY JUST MADE GRAMMATICAL TYPO TYPE OF CHANGES TO THAT. 3.14 VOTING THE SAME THING. CHAIRPERSON, YOU DON'T MIND ON 3.13 TURNING BACK TO OUR GRID. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT REPLACING OUR 3.13 WITH AUBRY 3.13, EXCEPT KEEPING THE LAST LINE THAT SAYS THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL MAINTAIN, AND ADDING THAT TO HONOR 3.13. DID YOU KNOW THAT MY CHAIR DID YOU PRINT OUT THE UPDATED GRID? OH, THERE WERE TWO ITEMS THAT I HAD TO ADD TO THE GRID. NO, SIR, I DID NOT. I'M SORRY. AND THAT WAS ADDED AS ITEM 15 ON THE NEW AND IMPROVED GRID. OKAY. THAT'S WHY I DO. SO JUST I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THAT WHILE WE'RE. NO. OKAY I KNOW, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP. SO WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT? BECAUSE HERE I WAS LOOKING FOR IT. SO THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT WE REPLACE OUR 3.13 WITH AUBREY'S 3.13 AND ADD THE LAST LINE BEGINNING ON LINE 483. THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL MAINTAIN ALL MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND MAKE THESE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR A REPRODUCTION FEE. 
          SO TAKE AUBREY 3.13. TAKE THAT LAST SENTENCE ON IT AGAIN. OKAY, IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED WHEN WE LOOKED AT ALL OKAY. SO WHEN I PRINT THAT OUT IT'LL BE ON THE, ON THE, ON THE THE NEW ITEM 15 ON THE. YES. SO ALL 3.13 GOES AWAY. ALL 3.13 IS COMPLETELY REPLACED BY AUBREY 3.13. EXCEPT THAT LAST SENTENCE, IT'S TACKED ON TO AUBREY. OKAY. WOULD YOU BE SO KIND? WOULD YOU PUT THAT 
          [01:30:01]
ON THE MESSAGE BOARD? WITH THE NEW AND IMPROVED GRID? YES, I CAN DO THAT. WELL, THE NEW AND IMPROVED GRID IS ON THE MESSAGE. OH. IS IT? YEAH, IT THOUGHT I DID. SEE. IT'S UNDER THE SAMPLE CHARTER'S THREAD. AND LINDA YOU SAID THANK YOU. MUCH APPRECIATED. SO I KNOW YOU SAW IT. SO I SAW IT OKAY. MAYBE I SAW MAYBE I THANK YOU FOR SENDING IT WAS POSTED ON NOVEMBER 24TH OKAY. AND I ADDED TWO TOPICS. NUMBER NINE WAS THE SECTION 3.02 REPLACEMENT, AUBREY 5.02 TOPIC 15 TO 3.13 REPLACEMENT. THANK YOU. THE LAST SENTENCE. OKAY, REGARDING 3.14 THE VOTING, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED AND WAS IN THE FIRST WAS IN THE FIRST. GRID GRAPH, WHICH I THINK IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA, AND I THINK THAT I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF ADDING IT. AND THAT IS FROM AUBREY'S CHARTER, WHERE IT SAYS, CONSIDER ADDING WHERE, WHERE THERE ARE ABSTENTIONS, WHERE THERE IS NO CONFLICT THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS NO VOTES. AND I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE SAME NOTE. JUST TO CLARIFY, IF THERE IS AN EXTENSION, YES, THAT ADDS A LITTLE MORE. WE STILL LEAVE OUR CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YOU WILL VOTE AND YOU ARE WILLING OVER TIME, UNLESS YOU ARTICULATE FOR THE MINUTES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. YES. YEAH, JUST THAT ADDS A LITTLE MORE WEIGHT TO SOMEBODY. SAY, WELL, I'M JUST NOT GOING TO VOTE. WELL, OKAY, THAT'S FINE. BUT YOU JUST VOTED NO AGAINST SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT LIKE. EXACTLY, EXACTLY. AND SO WE HAD READ THAT IN AUBREY. WE MADE A NOTE AT THE TIME THAT WE LIKED IT. AND SO NOW WE ARE MERELY TAKING OUR COMMENT FROM PREVIOUS AUBREY CHARTER AND AFFIRMING THAT WE STILL LIKE IT. AND WE DEFINITELY WANT TO PUT IT INTO SECTION 3.14. I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. COMMENT ABOUT THAT. DO WE NEED TO ADD SOMETHING IN THERE? THAT THE MINUTES WILL RECORD THAT THERE WAS SO AND SO ABSTAINED WHICH AND AND THAT WAS RECORDED AS A NO VOTE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD JUST SHOW 6 TO 1. AND IT JUST IT LOOKS LIKE THEY JUST VOTED AGAINST IT. WELL NO, THEY ABSTAINED. AND SO THEIR VOTE WAS COUNTED. DO WE NEED TO PUT THAT IN THE CHARTER THAT THE MINUTES WOULD RECORD THAT THAT'S TYPICALLY THE CITY SECRETARY. WELL THAT'S NOT BUT IT'S GOT TO BE CAPTURED. THAT'S ALL. MY CONCERN IS THAT AN ABSTENTION WOULD BE CAPTURED WITHIN THE VOTE TOTAL WOULD BE STILL ADD UP TO SEVEN. OKAY. I THINK EUGENE'S POINT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT CITY SECRETARY WOULD KNOW TO DO. BUT DO YOU THINK DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD REMEMBER THE CHARTER DOES REQUIRE THAT IF A MEMBER ABSTAINS, THE REASONS FOR THE ABSTENTION SHALL BE NOTED IN THE MINUTES. THAT'S ONLY IF IT'S A IF YOU READ IN THERE. I BELIEVE THAT IT'S ONLY IF THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR IF IT'S ABOUT THEM. AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO TIMES A MEMBER IS ALLOWED TO. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO EXCEPTIONS. THE ONLY TWO TIMES A MEMBER IS ALLOWED TO ABSTAIN. IF THERE'S AN ARTICULABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR IT AFFECTS THE MEMBERS CONFLICT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A MEMBER VOTING FOR THEMSELVES FOR SOMETHING WOULD BE A GOOD REASON TO ABSTAIN OR IF THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, RIGHT. WHICH IS TYPICALLY DESIGNED AS A FINANCIAL INTEREST, DEFINED AS A FINANCIAL INTEREST. BUT OUR CHARTER PROHIBITS JUST SAYING, I DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, RIGHT. I DON'T LIKE IT. THE WAY THIS IS WORDED. AND IT SAYS THE REASONS FOR THE ABSTENTION SHALL BE NOTED IN THE MINUTES. IF SOMEONE ABSTAINED, THEN YOU'LL BE NOTED, IT WILL BE NOTED, AND THE REASON WILL BE SO, EVEN IF IT'S NOT FOR A. FOR AN ACCEPTABLE REASON, I'M NOT SURE IT SAYS THAT. THE REASONS FOR THE ABSTENTION SHALL BE NOTED IN THE MINUTES. ONLY IN THE EVENT THE VOTE INVOLVES A COUNCIL MEMBER'S CONDUCT OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST SHALL THAT MEMBER ABSTAIN, AND THE REASONS FOR THAT ABSTENTION SHALL BE. SO. 
          [01:35:02]
IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO THOSE TWO EXCEPTIONS. BUT IF YOU READ THE FIRST SENTENCE, IT SAYS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT SHALL VOTE AND HAVE THEIR VOTES RECORDED IN THE MINUTES UPON EVERY ACTION REQUIRING A VOTE. SO THE FIRST SENTENCE SAYS, YOU WILL VOTE EVERY TIME, NOT VOTING. THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER. THE SECOND SENTENCE SAYS, BUT YOU CAN ABSTAIN IN THESE TWO INSTANCES, AND ONLY IN THOSE TWO INSTANCES WILL THE MINUTES REFLECT WHY THE PERSON ONLY FOR THOSE TWO INSTANCES. OKAY, I THINK YOUR POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND A GOOD ONE. AND I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD WORDSMITH THIS AND REVIEW AND REVIEW ANY WORDSMITHING, ANY ABSTENTIONS WILL BE RECORDED. SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT IN THE MINUTES. IF IT'S IF IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR ABOUT THE COUNCIL MEMBER THEMSELF, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE. I SEE A NOD OF AGREEMENT. THERE SHOULD BE OTHER REASONS RECORDED WHY THEY ABSTAINED FOR ANY FOR ANY ABSTENTION, I AGREE. WELL, THEY CAN'T ABSTAIN EXCEPT FOR TWO REASONS. SO IF THEY ABSTAIN FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN THOSE TWO REASONS, WHO CARES? THE VIOLATED THE TRIAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I JUST SO IF I HAVE. LET'S LET'S PLAY IT OUT LOGICALLY. GINA. I'M SORRY. DON'T INTERRUPT. NO, NO. YOU'RE FINE, THANK YOU. SO I AM A COUNSELOR. I HAVE SOMETHING IN FRONT OF ME THAT SAYS I DON'T LIKE. IT'S NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I DON'T HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN IT, AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT MY CONTEXT, BUT I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. SO I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN. AND THEN YOU GO, OKAY, WELL, THE CHARTER SAYS YOU CAN'T ABSTAIN. WELL, I'M GOING TO VIOLATE THE CHARTER. ALRIGHT. WELL THEN THE CHARTER SAYS YOU GOTTA GIVE US A REASON FOR ABSTAINING. WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A REASON IF THEY'RE WILLING TO VIOLATE THE CHARTER BY ABSTAINING, HOW LIKELY ARE THEY GOING TO BE TO GIVE US A REASON FOR THAT? AND YOU CAN'T REALLY COMPEL THEM BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY VIOLATED THE CHARTER BY NOT VOTING. SHOULD WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE REASON FOR AN ABSTENTION MUST BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES? AND THAT WAY, IF THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ABSTENTION, THAT WOULD BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES, BECAUSE THE CHARTER WOULD REQUIRE IT TO BE, IF THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE, IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. SO I'M SAYING IF WE CAN'T COMPEL SOMEONE TO NOT VIOLATE THE CHARTER BY ABSTAINING INAPPROPRIATELY, THEN WHAT MAKES US THINK THAT WE CAN THEN COMPEL THEM TO GIVE US A REASON WHY THEY'RE VIOLATING THE CHARTER? BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE GIVING US A REASON. IT WOULD JUST BE LIKE THEY DIDN'T GIVE US A REASON. SO WE'RE PUTTING IT IN MINUTES THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO REASON GIVEN. WELL, WE WE JUST SAW THIS PLAY OUT WHERE A COUNCIL MEMBER ABSTAINED ON, I DON'T KNOW, 4 OR 5. HOWEVER MANY VOTES IT WAS AND NOTHING WAS SAID IN THAT COUNCIL MEETING ABOUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE NEEDS I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW IT WOULD WORK, BUT I JUST THINK MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED A LITTLE BIT SOMEHOW. YES. WE CAN'T COMPEL THEM TO GIVE A REASON, BUT THE THE MINUTES HAVE TO REFLECT SHOULD REFLECT MORE THAN JUST SO AND SO DECIDED NOT TO VOTE SO AND SO WAS INFORMED THEY ARE REQUIRED TO VOTE BY THE CHARTER AND THEY STILL REFUSE TO VOTE. NOW THAT'S IN THE MINUTES. SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? I DO, BUT I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME POINT THAT IT'S YEAH, IT'S KIND OF LIKE IF THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR ABSTAINING, THEN THEY HAVE TO SIGN IT. AND THAT IS, THERE'S ONLY TWO THINGS RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. THERE'S TWO LEGITIMATE REASONS TO ABSTAIN THAT'S CALLED OUT AND MUST BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. ANY OTHER EXTENSION IS INAPPROPRIATE, VIOLATES THE CHARTER. AT THAT POINT. IT WILL BE NOTED AS PART OF THE VOTE. BUT WHO CARES WHAT THE REASON WAS, WHY THEY VIOLATED THE CHARTER. I MEAN, ALL THAT'S GOING TO DO IS PROLONG ACTION ON THE DAIS THAT PROBABLY AT THAT POINT SHOULD BE HANDLED AS A CHARTER VIOLATION, OFF AND ON, YOU KNOW. SO IF I'M GOING TO VIOLATE THE CHARTER BY VOTING, NOT ABSTAINING INAPPROPRIATELY WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE, THEN I CAN ARTICULATE, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A REASON EITHER. AND SO AT THAT POINT, RECORD THE VOTE AS IT HAPPENED. ABSENT THE REASON AND AND DO WHAT IT OUGHT. 
          I THINK IS HOW THIS WOULD WORK. YEAH, I WANT TO TIGHTEN IT UP. I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO 
          [01:40:05]
TIGHTEN IT UP. I'M JUST TRYING TO LOGICALLY THINK HOW IT'S HOW IT WILL BE APPLIED IN THE REAL APPLICATION. YEAH. YES. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID THERE MOSTLY. BUT WHEN IT'S RECORDED IN THE VOTE, THE MINUTES SHOULD REFLECT THE VOTE WAS SIX ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION WITH NO LEGITIMATE EXCEPTION GIVEN FOR THE ABSTENTION. I WOULD YES, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO ADOPT THE AN ABSTENTION IS IS A NEGATIVE. WELL NO VOTE BUT STILL STILL THERE YOU NEED HOW DID THAT NO VOTE SHOW UP I DON'T KNOW THEY VOTED NO. NO THEY DIDN'T VOTE. NO. THEY ABSTAINED. AND IT WAS RECORDED AS A NO. THEY ABSTAINED WITH NO LEGITIMATE EXCEPTION GIVEN. AND THE VOTE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECORDED AS A NO. I THINK THIS WARRANTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER IT, WORDSMITH IT, AND AND MAKE A DECISION ON THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING. JANE, YOU WANT TO TAKE. YEAH, SURE. YEAH. IT WAS POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. OKAY. WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION THAT LIMITS HOW MANY TIMES HE CAN SAY POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD? NO. I WILL NOT. SOCIAL MEDIA GUY DISCUSSION BOARD. HARDCOPY. 
          WOMAN. EXACTLY. THAT'S FUNNY. THREE FOOT 15 I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO WARRANT SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT. AS YOU RECALL, WE'VE GOT 3.15. 3.16, 3.17. 3.15 AND 3.16. AND. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION. WE'VE GOT TWO PARAGRAPHS HERE THAT DEAL WITH ORDINANCES WHERE WE SAW SELENA HAD AN ENTIRE ARTICLE. THAT OUTLINED IS A SEPARATE STANDALONE. SO IT WASN'T BURIED IN SECTION THREE. IT STOOD ALONE AS ITS OWN ARTICLE TEN WITH REGARD TO ORDINANCES. AND SHOULD WE PULL SECTION THREE, 15 AND 16 OUT AND CREATE AN ORDINANCE SECTION AND HAVE IT STAND ALONE? ONE OF THE PROS AND CONS THERE? I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING MAYBE THAT I MIGHT HAVE NOTICED AT THE TIME AND, AND SAID, THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION FOR IT. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA. ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE MY STUFF IN FRONT OF ME, SO I'M OPERATING STRICTLY FROM TRYING TO REMEMBER. SOMEBODY DID, AND I THINK IT WAS YOU, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN ON THE GRAPH THAT SOMEBODY SPECIFICALLY SAID SHOULD, SHOULD THE LAW GO BREAK UP YOUR USERS. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SECTION THREE, WHICH OSTENSIBLY IS ABOUT COUNCIL, AND THAT'S YOU SUBJECT TO ME, IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. 
          YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS HAVING THAT LANGUAGE THAT. YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ARTICLE FOR THAT ARTICLE. OKAY. YEAH. HOW DID YOU FIND THAT? IT DOES SEEM ODD 
          [01:45:01]
THAT IT'S PLACED IN THREE, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT CITY COUNCIL THAT PASSES ORDINANCES. 
          OKAY. YEAH, YEAH. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST WEIRD. THE NOTE THAT I MADE ABOUT CHARTER COPY, WHICH WAS, APART FROM WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED OR COME UP WITH ON ANY OF OUR OUR CONSOLIDATED NOTES IN THE DRAFT WAS THAT WE SHOULD PUT IN THE CHARTER THAT THE ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ARE TO BE RECORDED IN. BY A CERTAIN DATE, SO THAT IT'S IN THE CHARTER THAT OUR ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SO THIS PERTAINS TO 316, THAT THERE IS A DATE CERTAIN BY WHICH ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS GET POSTED TO THE CITY WEBSITE. YEAH, I NEVER RECALL THAT. 
          SORRY, I DIDN'T CAPTURE THAT ONE. NO, I JUST I'M BRINGING IT UP NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN I REDID THIS. OVER THE PAST WEEK. WHEN I REREAD IT, THAT I, I'M ADDING THAT NOW. I DIDN'T BRING IT UP BEFORE. DOES SELENA DEAL WITH THAT? SELENA DOESN'T KNOW. NONE OF THE OTHER CHARTERS HAD DEALT WITH POSTING POSTING TO THE WEBSITE BY A PARTICULAR DATE, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD SAY NO LATER THAN ONE WEEK, OR NO LATER THAN THREE DAYS FROM THE PASSAGE. NO, I WOULD SAY NO LATER THAN THREE DAYS, BUT WE HAVE TO PUT IN IN THE CHARTER A DATE NO LATER THAN A CERTAIN DATE. THESE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES MUST BE POSTED TO THE CITY WEBSITE. 
          OKAY. I MADE A NOTE OF THAT, BUT I DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE LANGUAGE, SO I'LL PUT THAT IN THE LANGUAGE FOR THE FIRST. IS THAT AGREEABLE TO EVERYONE? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? NO, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. OKAY. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ON 316 AND 317 FOR TODAY. I'M GOING TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING AND WE WILL TAKE I'M NOT CLEAR. ARE WE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE 15 AND 16. NO, NO OKAY. NO WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO USE ITS OWN SECTION. WE'RE GOING TO REDO IT BASED ON WHAT WHAT OUR COMMENTS WERE ON THE ON THE CHART. BECAUSE OR MAYBE WE HIT AUBREY AND SELENA INPUT ON 315 AND 316. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, I THINK THE AUBREY ONE WAS JUST GRABBING A SENTENCE THAT WE LIKE ABOUT THE COPIES OF THE WEBSITE. MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THE THING ABOUT DATE CERTAIN WAS, BUT ANYWAY, OKAY, OKAY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THEN? JUST A QUESTION. DO WE KNOW HOW DEEP DO I DIG INTO OR JUMP INTO THE SOCIAL MEDIA THING? AS FAR AS FOR THE NEXT MEETING, SO ARE YOU SAYING LIKE WHAT? WHAT SHOULD BE YOUR TOPICS FOR THE NEXT MEETING? TOPICS? IF NOT, THAT'S FINE. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEAS FOR ANOTHER WHOLE. THOSE ARE THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF WHAT WE WERE DOING TONIGHT. SO AND MEETING IN THE FUTURE FOR THE ETHICS CODES, I THINK AT SOME POINT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION WHICH ASKS WHICH ASKS READERS ABOUT THEIR USE OF THE CITY WEBSITE, HOW OFTEN THEY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE QUESTIONS ARE YET. I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE, LIKE HOW OFTEN THEY USE IT, WHAT PART OF THEM IF THEY USE, DO THEY? WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT IS ON THERE? WHAT YOU LIKE I CAN DO? WELL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          LIKE IT WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT WOULDN'T BE ANY FEEDBACK OTHER THAN. YEAH. IS IT EFFECTIVE THAT EVERYTHING'S GETTING POSTED TO THE CITY WEBSITE? HOW OFTEN DO THEY LOOK AT IT? WHAT DO THEY LOOK AT IT FOR? YEAH, I CAN DO THAT. OR OR CONSIDER A QUESTION. YES. 
          CONSIDER A QUESTION. HAVE YOU READ THE CITY CHARTER? YEAH. THAT'S. YEAH. WE COULD PROBABLY KEEP IT. KEEP IT REAL SIMPLE. HAVE YOU READ THE CITY CHARTER? YES OR NO? YES OR NO? IT WOULD 
          [01:50:01]
BE MORE LIKE NOT HAVE YOU READ SECTION BLAH BLAH BLAH. HAVE YOU READ THE CITY CHARTER? OKAY. 
          THAT'S THAT'S WORTHWHILE QUESTION. I'LL PURSUE BOTH. OKAY. I'LL REPORT BACK. YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORDSMITH THAT. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CITY CHARTER IS? OKAY. AND I THINK I'LL MAKE IT A REAL POINT, A REAL EFFORT TO CHECK WITH EVERYBODY BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REDLINED, AND WE'LL GET THEM PRINTED OUT FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO HAVE A PRINTED OUT DOCUMENT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING OR POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS NEXT WEEK. 
          SO WE ONLY HAVE LIKE TEN DAYS TO THE NEXT MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY. OKAY. AND BEFORE YOU BANG THE GAVEL, I JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE, BUT I HAD AN IMPORTANT PRIORITY TO TAKE CARE OF, SO. UNDERSTOOD. NO APOLOGIES NECESSARY. WELL, I'M REALLY GRATEFUL THAT YOU. 
          I'VE MISSED. AND SO I WAS LIKE, I CAN'T MISS TONIGHT. SO THANK YOU FOR COMING. THANK YOU. AND NOW I'M ADJOURNING THE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.