Jan 21, 2026 Charter Review Committee

[CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:09]

CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ORDER. AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE, REVEREND OWEN, OUR SECRETARY, MARK DOUGLAS, JEN GRUNWALD, MYSELF, LINDA, ERIC, AND WE'RE MISSING OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY, GENE HARRIS. HE HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, REGISTRATION, COMMENT CARDS. ANYBODY GOING TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? I THINK SO, YES, MA'AM. OKAY. I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU WANT TO MAKE A IS IT A

[II. COUNCIL AND STAFF LIAISON REPORTS]

OKAY. SHOULD WE. WE DON'T HAVE A STAFF PERSON. OH, AND WHEN I INTRODUCE EVERYBODY, I DIDN'T INTRODUCE YOU. I'M SORRY. AND WITH US AS OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, PAUL PRINCE, WE JUST

[III.1. Approval of Minutes of January 7, 2026, Charter Review Committee Meeting.]

[III.2. Review and take action on revisions of Articles II and III. ]

THANKS. I WAS SAYING THAT I TOOK JEN'S DRAFT, MADE A FEW EDITS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND VOTED ON LAST TIME. AND YOU HAVE A RED LINE OF THAT AS WELL AS A CLEAN COPY. I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS WARRANTS MUCH MORE DISCUSSION. NO, BECAUSE THEY WERE POSTED AND THEY'VE BEEN POSTED. WE'VE ALL BEEN OUT THERE. I THINK I CAPTURED EVERYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

SO IT WASN'T A LOT, JUST A FEW WORDS AND THEN RENUMBERING IT. ONE OF THE SECTIONS. YEAH. SO IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION WE COULD TAKE A MOTION. LET'S TAKE A MOTION ON EACH ON THE

[00:05:06]

SO THAT IS A UNANIMOUS. SO THERE'S A FEW. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A PAGE THAT SAYS PCL XL ERROR. YEAH OKAY. SO I THINK THE OTHER STUFF THAT I POSTED ON THE BOARD AND EMAIL SEPARATELY DIDN'T GET PRINTED. THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE 3.01, WHICH WE SKIPPED LAST TIME. AND WE HAVE THAT AND WE HAVE THAT. WELL, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S PRINTED. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A PRINTER ERROR. I GOT A PAGE THAT SAYS PRINTER KERNEL ERROR. PAGE 11. OF THE PACKET.

UNLESS IT'S A PACKET I PRINTED OUT AT HOME. THAT MUST BE YOUR OWN PACKET. SO WHAT I WHAT I HAVE HERE HAS ARTICLE TWO AND THEN AN ERROR. OH BECAUSE I PRINTED OUT PACKET AT HOME. SO.

OKAY SO LAST TIME WE KIND OF WENT FROM ARTICLE 2 TO 3.06. AND WE NEVER WENT BACK AND REVISITED THE EDITS THAT WE REQUESTED FOR AT THE 1229 MEETING FOR 3.01. THAT WAS A SEPARATE CLEAN AND RED LINE THAT I SENT OUT MONDAY. YES. SO I GUESS EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T USE MY COMPUTER VERY WELL, I WAS ABLE TO PRINT THAT OUT AND ADD IT TO MY OWN PACKET TO TO END UP BEING THE ONLY ONE HERE THAT'S GOT IT. WELL, I MEAN, I HAVE ELECTRONIC. OH. I THOUGHT, OH WELL, WE HAVE THE HANDOUTS, BUT I CAN PULL IT UP ELECTRONICALLY. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE DOES EVERYBODY HAVE ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 3.01 I DON'T THINK I HAVE A THAT WAS POSTED AND IT JUST REFERENCES THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE AT THE LAST MEETING. MY I'M TRYING TO PULL IT UP HERE. I CAN GET IT. WELL I HAVE THE ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 3.01, THE CITY COUNCIL ON ON THE MESSAGE BOARD AND I. THE LAST ENTRY I SEE ON HERE IS JANUARY 7TH. YEAH. AND THAT WOULD BE THE LATEST OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS, THIS IS THE ONE WHICH WAS. YEAH THAT'S THE LATEST VERSION. THAT'S THE ONE I WANT TO SEE BECAUSE THAT WAS DECEMBER 29TH. YEAH. AND LIKE I SAID THE LAST MEETING WE SKIPPED OVER IT. RIGHT. WE WENT FROM 2 TO 306. WE NEVER RESOLVED THREE. I'M NOT SURE I'M IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND I CAN'T PULL IT UP. I DON'T KNOW, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMPUTERS? SO WI-FI. YOU'RE TRYING TO PULL UP THE MESSAGE BOARD? YEAH, BUT. AND THEN I TRY TO OPEN MY EMAIL TO GET THE ATTACHMENT OUT OF THE EMAILS.

BUT IT'S NOT WORKING. NO, I ACTUALLY GOT IT. IT'S HIS WI-FI IS ON IT. OH. DO YOU WANT ME TO DOWNLOAD AN EMAIL TO ARTICLE THREE, SECTION THREE? THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IF I COULD GET AN EMAIL ABOUT GETTING I'M NOT GETTING EMAIL AT ALL. DO YOU WANT TO READ MINE FOR REFERENCE? REV YEAH, IT IS BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY READ IT AND APPROVED IT AND GONE THROUGH IT. AND I'M SORRY. IT'S ON YOUR PHONE. I WOULD SAY UNLESS THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION ON IT THAT CHANGES.

I THINK WE CAPTURED EVERYTHING DECEMBER 29TH, LIKE ARTICLE TWO, I THINK IT'S READY FOR PRIME TIME. I AGREE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 3.01 OR 3.03 .013.01. THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD HAVE ABOUT 3.01 IS THAT SO? I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE. YEAH. RESTARTING HERE TO SEE WHAT. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT WHILE YOU'RE TALKING OKAY. THANKS. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT 3.01 IS IT DOES HAVE THE TRANSITION PLAN THAT IS IN THERE FROM THE LAST GO ROUND.

YES. AND THAT TRANSITION PLAN ASSUMED THAT THERE WOULD BE A CHARTER ELECTION. THIS, THIS COMING NOVEMBER. AND THE TIMELINE WAS BASED UPON, I'M SORRY, THIS PAST NOVEMBER. THE TIMELINE THEN WOULD START WITH TRANSITIONING TO THREE YEAR TERMS WITH THIS UPCOMING ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. YES. THEN WE SAID, OKAY, IF WE CAN MAKE MAY, THEN WE CAN STILL HAVE THE

[00:10:04]

IT WOULD JUST CHANGE THE TRANSITION EXHIBIT FOR THE TRANSITION POINT. YES I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IF WE HAVE ONE READY IN MAY, IS THAT SOMETHING WE'RE PRESENTING TO COUNCIL OR.

NO. THE WHAT WE HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS IF WE GOT OUR, OUR, OUR CHARTER REWRITE COMPLETE IN TIME FOR COUNCIL TO REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT AND GET IT ON A MAY BALLOT, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT AND WE HAD HOPED THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. I DO RECALL THAT. BUT SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE MAY IS. BUT WE'RE HOPING TO GET THIS REWRITE DONE BY THE END OF FEBRUARY. OKAY. AND AND POSSIBLY IF WE GET IT DONE BY THE END OF FEBRUARY, THEN THERE IS POTENTIALLY IT STILL COULD MAKE THEM A BALLOT. I'M STILL HOLDING OUT HOPE IT REALLY AT THAT POINT. IT DEPENDS ON COUNCIL IN ORDER TO DO THAT.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE KIND OF JUMPING AROUND TO THE NEXT AGENDA I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE.

YOU ALL ARE VERY INVOLVED CIVICALLY. YOU'RE ON A LOT OF COMMITTEES, AND I WOULD NOT BE AVERSE TO HAVING WEEKLY MEETINGS FROM NOW UNTIL WE GET THIS THING KNOCKED OUT FEBRUARY 18TH, AND THEN WE CAN PUT THIS TO BED AND GIVE IT TO COUNCIL. WELL, I WOULD AGREE, BECAUSE I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THIS DONE BY THE END OF FEBRUARY. SO I THAT WAS ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM I THINK. YEAH, I'M, I'M JUMPING AHEAD BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTION CYCLES. YES. AND SO I THINK DIDN'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS EVEN YOU AND I EXCHANGED AN EMAIL. I THINK WE DID. YEAH. SO WOULD YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT SO THAT WE GET TO THE AGENDA ITEM. YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER YOU THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA OR NOT. BUT ANYWAY I THINK 3.1 IS BAKED.

IT'S READY. THE ONLY THING IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED IS AN EXHIBIT THAT OUTLINES A 2027 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE THREE YEAR TERMS, AND I CAN PRODUCE ANOTHER EXHIBIT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE GIVE TO COUNCIL. OKAY. SO IS THAT YOUR MOTION? IS THAT ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? YES, I WAS IN DISCUSSION. WELL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR OUR NEW COMPATRIOTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH. OKAY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS A MOTION SECOND AND DISCUSSION. BUT IF WE'RE IN DISCUSSION I'M FINE. OKAY. WHAT WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE? WE'RE VOTING ON ADOPTING 3.01 AS WE VOTED LAST TIME TO ADOPT THE THREE YEAR TERMS, ALL THE CHANGES THAT WENT INTO 3.01 AT OUR 1229 MEETING THAT GOT POSTED TO THE BOARD. OKAY, BECAUSE I WILL VOTE AGAINST IT TODAY. I'M NOT CHANGING MY VOTE FROM FROM THE LAST TIME BECAUSE I WAS ONE THAT SAID NAY, OKAY.

AND YOU WERE AS WELL. OKAY. SO I JUST SO YOU KNOW, UP FRONT, I'M, I'M VOTING AGAINST IT. SO IF IT'S THREE 1 OR 2 TWO AND SO BE IT. I DON'T WANT TO CONFLICT MY EARLIER VOTE. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT I MEAN. WELL WITHOUT GENE HERE IT'S GOING TO MAKE BASICALLY WE'VE ALREADY SPOKEN AS TO WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE AS A COMMITTEE. AND THIS IS JUST THE FINAL. DOES THIS DRAFT MATCH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON PROCEDURALLY? MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT YOU CAN CAPTURE IN THE MINUTES. AND SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IT HAS NOT BEEN SECONDED. RIGHT. BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS SAY ON THIS PARTICULAR CHAPTER WE WERE NOT ABLE TO COME TO A DECISION AND THE COUNCIL WOULD BE FREE TO READ WHAT WAS POSTED ON THE SITE AND RECOGNIZE THAT, IN FACT, THAT WAS NOT APPROVED OR, YOU KNOW, NOTHING DIFFERENT WAS APPROVED. SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE WAY I WOULD SUGGEST YOU WE COULD DO THAT OR TABLE UNTIL WE HAVE AN ODD NUMBER. I THINK THE, THE. THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS WE KIND OF APPROVED IT WHEN WE HAD GENE, AND THEN THIS WAS JUST LIKE PUTTING IT INTO THE FINAL, THE FINAL FORM. LET ME LET ME RESTATE IT. OKAY. YOU CAN TODAY SAY WE TRIED TO GET AN AGREEMENT ON THIS AND WE DIDN'T

[00:15:06]

BUT BUT YOU YOU YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME TO A DECISION TODAY IF YOU CAN'T GET TO A DECISION TODAY. RIGHT. AND I THINK IN KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE OUGHT TO KEEP IT OPEN UNTIL THE NEXT NOT VOTE ON IT TODAY AND AND KEEP IT OPEN FOR THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE. WELL, THE OTHER THING WE COULD SAY IS WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON EVERYTHING. YES. I CAPTURED ALL THE CHANGES. YES. ARE THERE ANYTHING THAT I CAPTURED INACCURATELY? NO. IF THERE'S ANYTHING I CAPTURED, INACCURATELY. SPEAK NOW AND WE CAN FIX IT. IF I DIDN'T CAPTURE ANYTHING INACCURATELY, INACCURATELY, THEN IT ALREADY REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE. AND WE CAN MOVE ON PAST 3.01. OKAY. CAN WE DO THAT? I YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. REMEMBER THAT EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING IS RECOMMENDATIONS, AND YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE FOOTNOTES ON YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU KNOW, THIS WAS UNANIMOUS. THIS WAS A SPLIT VOTE 3 TO 2. THIS IS ONE WHERE WE COULD NEVER GET, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WHATEVER FOOTNOTES YOU WANT TO HAVE ON YOUR. BECAUSE THAT IS TRUE TO OUR ORIGINAL INTENT. YES. MAYBE IT WOULD BE BETTER TO JUST VOTE ON IT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT CONSISTENCY AND THEN HAVE THAT AS A FOOTNOTE. AND NOW IT'S SECOND MOTION. WELL, I ACTUALLY MADE A MOTION. I WAS JUST PROVIDING BACKGROUND. I WAS JUST PROVIDING BACKGROUND AS TO WHAT I THOUGHT WE COULD DO SO MANY TIMES. COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT AGAIN? BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE WE LAST VOTED ON THIS? NO. OKAY. THIS THIS WAS JUST VOTED IN DECEMBER 29TH AND THIS WAS JUST CAPTURING THOSE EDITS FOR FINAL APPROVAL. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE IF THE COMMITTEE AGREES THAT WHAT IS POSTED IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS VOTED ON, THEN I THINK I WOULD ASSERT THAT YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AND I DON'T WANT IT TO BE CONSTRUED THAT I'M CHANGING MY VOTE. ANNOYED WAY. YEAH, BUT WE CAN LET ME TAKE A STAB AT IT. WE CAN VOTE THAT THIS IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION AND REPRESENTS THE THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE AS WE VOTED BEFORE YOU FOLLOWED UP AND MADE THE TYPED CHANGES IS WHAT WE AGREED ON AS A COMMITTEE. AND THIS IS JUST A DOCUMENTATION OF IT. AND THEN WE CAN NOT HAVE TO PUT IT ON ANOTHER AGENDA. AND WOULD YOU PUT THAT FOOTNOTE THEN ON THE FINAL DRAFT, WE PRESENT TO COUNCIL THAT IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE ON THREE. WELL IT'S IN THE MINUTES. YES. YEAH, IT'S IN THE MINUTES. BUT ARE THEY GOING TO READ THE MINUTES OR WERE THEY JUST GOING TO READ THE DOCUMENT. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I MEAN SO PROBABLY REALISTICALLY I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED GOING THROUGH THE AS YOU KNOW, THE RED LINE IS ALREADY MESSY ENOUGH AS IT IS. I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED GOING BACK TO THE CHARTER AND FOOTNOTING EVERY VOTE ON EVERY CHANGE. SO THE ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE NO. WHAT I DO CONTEMPLATE GETTING TO COUNCIL.

PRINCE'S EARLIER QUESTION IS PRESENTING A CLEAN CHARTER AND AND A HIGHLIGHT OF THE CHANGES, BECAUSE THE RED LINE IS SO MESSY THAT A RED LINE IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. AND HOPEFULLY THAT'S WHAT WE AGREE TO DO. BUT WE'LL GET THERE. WILL WE HAVE A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL? YES. OKAY. YEAH. AND CAN THAT BE MENTIONED VERBALLY DURING THE PRESENTATION? WELL DURING THE PRESENTATION WE'LL HAVE ONE PERSON MAKE THE PRESENTATION.

AND THEN THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WHO ARE ON THE COMMITTEE WHO WANT TO STAND UP AND, AND PUT IN THEIR $0.02. THEY CAN DO THAT. THERE'S A DISSENTING VIEW OR SOMETHING. YEAH, THERE'D BE THAT OPPORTUNITY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE DRAFT 3.01 AS WRITTEN, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE THE VOTING THAT'S ALREADY TAKEN PLACE DECEMBER 29TH, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT I WILL ADD A SECOND TRANSITION PLAN THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR EFFECTIVENESS IN NOVEMBER OF 2027. ALL SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY, SO UNANIMOUS AND UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION THAT'S MADE AS WRITTEN OR AS STATED. AS STATED, YES. WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE GENE HERE TO OR YOU KNOW, NEXT TIME I'LL ASK GENE FOR HIS PROXY. OKAY. YEAH. I DON'T THINK YOU COULD DO PROXY VOTES. IS THAT NOT IS THAT NOT PERMITTED IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE? OKAY, SO NOW

[III.3. Review and take action on Articles III section 3.18 through Articles IV, V, VI.]

[00:20:05]

AND IT WASN'T AN ORDINANCE, IT WAS A RESOLUTION. I WAS WRONG WHEN I SAID IT WAS AN ORDINANCE WAS A RESOLUTION, AND THE RESOLUTION THE WAY IT WAS. THE LANGUAGE IN IT SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL CANCELED BY THE MAYOR. SO BECAUSE IT SAID THAT BECAUSE IT SAID UNTIL CANCELED BY THE MAYOR, THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO GO BACK AND DO A RESOLUTION TO CANCEL IT BY THE MAYOR. OKAY. SO THAT WAS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS DRAFTED.

EXACTLY. AND IT WAS VERY SO IT WOULD HAVE EXPIRED AFTER 61 DAYS ANYWAY. YES. EXCEPT THAT IT WASN'T AN ORDINANCE. IT WAS A RESOLUTION. OKAY. SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN COVERED BY THIS SECTION ANYWAY. NO. OKAY. REMEMBER THAT IT WAS THE ECLIPSE RESOLUTION. OKAY. SO OUR LINE 547 SAYS THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 60 CALENDAR DAYS FROM ENACTMENT, EXCEPT AS NOTED. AUBREY SAYS, EVERY EMERGENCY ORDINANCE SO ADOPTED EXCEPT AUTHORIZING. EXCEPT WHEN AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF MONEY, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, IS AUTOMATICALLY REPEALED AS OF THE 61ST DAY FILE. SO IS THAT REALLY SAYING THE SAME THING AUTOMATICALLY REPEALED VERSUS EFFECTIVE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS? I, I DON'T I'M KIND OF AGNOSTIC TO THE WHAT OKAY. SO WHAT I HAD, WHAT I HAD READ LAST TIME. I'LL READ IT AGAIN AND SEE IF YOU THINK THIS IS REDUNDANT. BUT I HAD THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 60 CALENDAR DAYS FROM ENACTMENT, AND SHALL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE ON THE 61ST DAY FOLLOWING ENACTMENT,

[00:25:01]

BUT ADDING AFTER CALENDAR DAYS FROM ENACTMENT, THE PHRASE AND SHALL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE ON THE 61ST DAY FOLLOWING ENACTMENT. YES. SO. FINE. YES. THERE A SECOND MOTION. OKAY.

SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR. ON 3.19. I HAVEN'T CROSSED OUT.

DID I JUST CROSS IT OUT OR DID WE ALL AGREE TO CROSS IT OUT? I'M SORRY. WHAT A RECONSIDERATION. SINCE THIS DOES DEAL WITH ORDINANCES. I THINK WE PROBABLY WANT TO MOVE IT INTO OUR NEW ORDINANCE ARTICLE AS WELL. OKAY. WITH THIS CHANGE. SO I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS MOTION AND MOVE 3.1 A TO OUR NEW ORDINANCES. ARTICLE SECOND.

YOU WANT TO MOVE 3.18 TO OUR NEW ARTICLE OR NEW ORDINANCES ARTICLE OKAY OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S IT'S I AGREE OKAY. YEAH. SO I MADE THAT MOTION. I SECOND AND MARK SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE OKAY. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY I HAD NOTHING ON 319 320 AND 321. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENT ON ANY OF THOSE THREE? I WOULD SAY THAT WE MOVE 3.19 AND 3.20, SINCE THEY DEAL WITH ORDINANCES AND ORDERS. TWO ARE NEW ARTICLE ENTITLED ORDINANCES. OKAY IS WRITTEN EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. YEP. OKAY I'LL SECOND. YOU. SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. ROBERT. CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? DO WE ACCEPT 3.19 AND 3.20 AS WRITTEN? BUT WE MOVED THEM TO OUR NEW ORDINANCES ARTICLE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. UNANIMOUS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON

[00:30:04]

RECALL THAT WE ALREADY VOTED TO MOVE 3.23 TO 3.0 6AB, SO WE'LL JUST WE'VE ALREADY STRUCK 3.23 AND MOVED IT TO 3.06. OH. THAT WAS GOOD. EDIT. OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE MOVING TO A WHOLE NEW ARTICLE. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. CONGRATULATIONS ON FINISHING OUR. OH THAT'S A LONG ARTICLE.

THERE'S A LOT. WE DID IT TWICE. YEAH. YOU TWO ARE HERE TWICE A YEAR. YOU GUYS ARE SO PATIENT.

I THINK IT'S THE ONLY ONE WHERE WE DIDN'T ALWAYS FIND CONSENSUS BUT. OR UNANIMITY. WE FOUND CONSENSUS, BUT NOT UNANIMITY. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW LOOKING AT ARTICLE FOUR. CITY MANAGER 4.01.

DID OUR NEWEST MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT? WE HAD A CHANGE I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS IT. I ON H DID DID I ADD THIS DURING OR A GROUP SESSION OR DID I ADD IT ON MY OWN? I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ADDED IN A GROUP DISCUSSION ON H TO CHANGE IT, TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT TO THE COUNCIL MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS, AND KEEP THE COUNCIL ADVISED VIA QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT AND THE FINANCIAL CONDITION AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE CITY. I WOULD, I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE BUDGET SECTION, BUT I'M NOT. I'M NOT RECOLLECTING FROM THE PAST.

IT'S IN THE BUDGET SECTION. I WELL BEFORE WE GO THERE, IN ESSENCE GOING IN ORDER. OKAY, I DID HAVE A NOTE WHERE. LINE 620. AND I DON'T I DON'T SEE IT ON THE GRID. BUT ANYWAY, IT SAYS THE COUNCIL SHALL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RAISE, LOWER OR CHANGE THE CITY MANAGER'S COMPENSATION PACKAGE AT ITS SOLE DISCRETION. I HAD A NOTE AFTER REVIEWING ONE OF THE OTHER CHARTERS THAT WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE, RAISE, LOWER OR CHANGE TO SIMPLY ALTER. OH, OKAY. OKAY. JUST KIND OF.

YEAH, STREAMLINES THAT WHOLE CLAUSE. SO ARE WE STILL GOOD WITH THAT? YEAH. OKAY. IS THAT A MOTION THAT I SECOND? WELL, MAYBE WE COULD GO THROUGH AND THEN JUST ACCEPT ALL OF ARTICLE FOUR CHANGES AT ONCE IN THE ESSENCE OF TIME. BECAUSE YEAH. BECAUSE FOR ARTICLE FOUR WE WON'T HAVE MONEY. YEAH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO SO LINE 306, WE'LL CHANGE THAT TO ALTER. ALL RIGHT. THE THE MONTHLY REPORTS I COULD HAVE SWORE THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET SECTION, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE A REDUNDANCY. RIGHT. BECAUSE I ADDED THIS IN PREPARATION FOR THE LAST MEETING. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT MADE ME ADD IT. I MEAN, AS SOON AS YOU SAID IT, LINDA, I VAGUELY REMEMBER, BUT I COULD BE MAKING IT UP THAT WE LOOKED AT ONE OF THE OTHER AUBRY OR ONE OF THE OTHER CHARTERS, AND IT HAD A DEFINITE AMOUNT THE REPORT. SO MAYBE THAT'S WHY WE ADDED IT. BUT ON 804 B, I HAVE A NOTE WHERE ADD URINE ESTIMATE OF CURRENT YEAR TREND. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT QUARTERLY. SO YOU'RE PROPOSING ADD QUARTERLY TO H EVEN THOUGH IT CALLS FOR MONTHLY. YES. BECAUSE THERE WAS A REASON I HAD THAT. I ADDED THAT ROBERT I MEAN AND KEEP THE COUNCIL ADVISED VIA QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT ON THE IT CAME FROM

[00:35:04]

I MEAN, LIKE, I'M NOT COMMITTED TO IT. I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH IF WE'RE GETTING MONTHLIES, THEN WHY DO WE NEED TO RESTATE. OH, AND BY THE WAY, QUARTERLY TOO. BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE IDEA WAS THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS ISSUED BY ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.

THE CITY MANAGER WAS GOING TO ACTUALLY MAKE A VERBAL REPORT AT A COUNCIL MEETING. AT LEAST THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN MY MIND THAT, YES, THERE'S GOING TO BE MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BUT OKAY, AS AS A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO PAYS ATTENTION TO THE FINANCES, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO TO NOT OVER SPECIFY THE DETAILS OF REPORTING, YOU KNOW, REGULAR AND CONSISTENT REPORTING TO ME IS WHAT I WOULD SEE AS A CHARTER, WHAT COUNCIL'S GOING FORWARD MAY SAY, OKAY, YES, YOU'RE DOING A MONTHLY REPORT FOR THE CHARTER, BUT EVERY QUARTER WE WANT THIS METHODOLOGY UNDER IT UNTIL THE REPORT. BUT TO ME THAT WOULD BE A, YOU KNOW, A COUNCIL STAFF NEGOTIATING THING. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS WANT TO GET REAL SPECIFIC IN THE CHARTER. YOU CAN CERTAINLY RECOMMEND IT. NOT THAT YOU'RE INFLUENCING US, BUT I THINK AS SOMEBODY WHO PAYS ATTENTION TO THE FINANCIAL ASPECT MORE THAN, MORE THAN SOME OTHERS, AND IF THAT'S YOUR FEELING, I WOULD GO WITH IT.

JUST LEAVE IT AS IS, NOT ADD ANYTHING. OKAY, SO I RETRACT MY MY SUGGESTION. OKAY. THE NEXT CHANGE I HAD WAS FOR SECTION 4.05, WHICH WE WERE GOING TO REPLACE WITH AUBRY 4.05. AND THAT'S WHAT I TYPED UP IN HANDED. EVERYBODY. AND I KNOW THAT JEANNE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING IT TO TO MATCH. AUBRY 4.05 JEANNE, WITH HIS BACKGROUND AS A IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, SAID HE WANTED US. AFTER APPROVED, ADDED INTO IT AND HE WANTED A LICENSED PEACE OFFICER ADDED TO IT. SO THIS IS AUBRY 4.05 WITH JEANNE'S EDITION OF AN EXPERIENCED LICENSED PEACE OFFICER ADDED. AND. APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER WITH THE APPROVAL OF COUNCIL. WELL, THIS IS AFTER APPROVAL. COUNCIL. SO AFTER APPROVAL, YES. WHAT'S THE ORDER? SO COUNCIL IS APPROVING THE HIRE IN THEORY. YEAH. THE CITY MANAGER CHOOSES THE THE. OKAY. AND THEN THE COUNCIL. APPROVES IT. APPROVED IT. YEAH.

YEAH I LIKE THAT THOUGH. IT'S KIND OF MORE HOW IT WORKS VERSUS IT'S MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO I THINK THE TAKE WAS THE AUBRY 4.05 WAS TIGHTER CLEANER. BUT WE DIDN'T LIKE THE FACT THAT AUBRY LEFT OUT THE WORD LICENSED. AND WE DIDN'T LIKE THE FACT THAT IT SAID AFTER CONSULTING WITH CITY COUNCIL. SO I THINK WHAT YOU DRAFTED IS AUBRY, WHICH IS TIGHTER WITH THE TWO CHANGES. RIGHT. AND I'M GOOD WITH THAT OKAY I AGREE. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO AUBRY. ALL RIGHT. IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR. YES. JUST TO BACK UP, YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE REPORTING TOPIC. 4.0 184H. IT WAS ACTUALLY MR. DOUGLAS THAT OBSERVED THAT THE CITY MANAGERS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A QUARTERLY FINANCIAL UPDATE IN THE ROCKPORT CHARTER. AND SO THE QUESTION WAS, SHOULD LAGO VISTA INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT FOR A FINANCIAL UPDATE AND WORK? SO YES, YOU WERE REMEMBERING IT WAS FROM THE ROCKPORT CHARTER.

IT WAS MR. DOUGLAS OBSERVATION. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO REVISIT THAT OR ARE WE GOOD WITH JUST MOVING ON? NO, I'M GOOD WITH MOVING ON. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. THE. EXCUSE ME. SO MR. DOUGLAS

[00:40:06]

WHICH IS WHY I MADE THIS GRID. BECAUSE I KNEW WE WOULD BE STRUGGLING WITH THIS AT SOME POINT MONTHS LATER. IN THE NCL CHARTER. MR. HARRIS IS NOT HERE, BUT SECTION 4.02 OF THE NCL CHARTER SPOKE TO A MERIT SYSTEM WHICH WOULD FIT INTO SECTION FOUR HERE SOMEWHERE. IT WAS 4.02 IN THE NCL CHARTER. I DON'T KNOW IF IT NEEDS TO GO INTO FOUR HERE, BUT IN THE HUMAN RESOURCES SECTION OR NOT, I'M JUST POINTING OUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. HARRIS THAT. HE DID EXPRESS THAT HE THOUGHT THE MERIT SYSTEM, AS IN THE NCL CHARTER, SHOULD BE CODIFIED IN OUR. NOW YOU'LL FIND THE NCL CHARTER. DO YOU HAVE A PAGE NUMBER FOR THAT NCL CHARTER? I'M GOING TO FIND IT NOW. I HAD MADE NOTE IT WAS 4.02. SO YES, IT IS ON PAGE 27. LINE ZERO 82.

THE NCL TALKS ABOUT 4.02 PERSONNEL SYSTEM, AND IT SAYS ALL APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL BE MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF MERIT AND FITNESS, AS DEMONSTRATED BY A VALID AND RELIABLE EXAMINATION OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF COMPETENCE, AND THEN B MERIT SYSTEM CONSISTENT WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAWS, YADA YADA YADA. SO Y'ALL CAN READ THAT. ANYWAY, I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS OBSERVED BY MR. HARRIS AND THE NCL CHARTER, AND WE MAY WANT TO INSERT IN OUR FOUR. PERHAPS IS A FOUR POINT. WELL ABOVE 4.01 CITY MANAGER. JEN MARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT INSERTING THAT? I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE WORDING, YOU KNOW, IF IT HAS TO BE WORDSMITH OR NOT. DO WE NEED TO DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS BOTH THE MERIT PRINCIPLE AND THE MERIT SYSTEM IN TERMS OF HOW THEY HOW THEY AWARDED THAT OR ONE OR THE OTHER. I'M AGNOSTIC ON ADDING IT AT ALL TO MEET WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT ADDS MUCH OTHER THAN MAKING THE DECLARATIVE STATEMENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROMOTE HIRE BASED UPON RELATIONSHIPS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE BASED UPON MERIT. AND I THINK MR. HARRIS MAY HAVE BEEN REACTING TO SOME HISTORY, I THINK. AND AND DOES THAT HISTORY IN AND OF ITSELF WARRANT PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER OR NOT? I'M AGNOSTIC. AND I THINK HE WAS REACTING ALSO TO THE PROLIFERATION OF THE D.E.I TYPE REQUIREMENTS. AND I THINK HE WAS REACTING TO THAT WHICH WHICH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A LEGITIMATE THING, BUT. I LOOK AT THAT AS KIND OF LIKE A PHASE THAT EVERYBODY WENT THROUGH. AND IT'S DOES IT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW. IT WILL IT WILL STAND THE TEST OF TIME OR IT WON'T. AND I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE CHARTER. THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE.

YEAH, I AGREE, I THINK ADDING IT WOULD BE FOR OPTICS RATHER THAN ANY REAL. YEAH. THAT'S THAT'S THE THIS IS FULL OF OPTICS, THE NCL MODEL. IT REALLY IS. YEAH IT IS. MY QUESTION IS, IS IS IT APPROPRIATE OR FAIR TO GENE, MR. HARRIS TO VOTE ON THIS WITHOUT HIM BEING PRESENT. WELL HE STATED HIS POSITION BEFORE WE DIDN'T REALLY TAKE A VOTE.

OKAY. I'M MAKING SURE THAT HIS POSITION IS RESURFACED AND THE APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME. IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THERE WERE A VOTE IN THE AND GENE WERE FOR IT, IT WOULD BE FOR ONE OR BEST THREE TWO. SO YEAH, I THINK BY CONSENSUS WE CAN SAY NO, I AGREE BECAUSE I'M GOOD WITH

[00:45:06]

4.04 WE MADE NOTE THAT THE ROCKPORT CHARTER, WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS GENERALLY BETTER, RATHER WELL WRITTEN WITH MORE SPECIFICITY THAN THE CHARTER. HOWEVER, THE COMMITTEE DID NOT AGREE WITH 4.041 WORDING, AS IT SEEMED TO PUT THE RECRUITING AND SELECTION PROCESS OF A CITY ATTORNEY ON THE CITY COUNCIL RATHER THAN THE CITY MANAGER.

SO AGAIN, THAT'S REFERRING TO ROCKPORT. 4.04. SO WE LIKE TO I THINK WE COULD FIX ROCKPORT 4.041 TO SATISFY US BY SIMPLY SAYING THE CITY MANAGER, WITH CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL SHALL APPOINT A COMPETENT, DULY LICENSED ATTORNEY. JUST FLIPPED THE FIRST. THE PHRASE AROUND STILL SAYING THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER, SAY THE CITY MANAGER, AFTER APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SHALL APPOINT. AND THAT SATISFIES OUR OBJECTION. AND THEN THE REST OF IT WE CAN JUST ADOPT IN ITS ENTIRETY, BECAUSE WE LIKED IT BETTER THAN OUR OWN. OKAY, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH 4.05. SO SAY AGAIN, NOW THAT I'M LOOKING AT OUR NEW 4.05, CAN YOU READ AGAIN HOW WE 4.04 WILL READ? YEAH. SO I'M LOOKING AT LINE 353 OF THE ROCKPORT CHARTER, SECTION 4.04, CITY ATTORNEY, SAME AS OUR 4.04. I WOULD CHANGE LINE 354 INSTEAD OF SAYING THE CITY COUNCIL, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER, I WOULD SAY THE CITY MANAGER, AFTER APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SHALL APPOINT. OKAY. AND THAT THAT READS NICELY WITH THE CHANGE TO FOUR POINT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR 4.05. YES. OKAY. YOU ALL AGREE? YEAH. AND THEN THE REST OF 4.04 FROM ROCKPORT. WE JUST LOOKED IN WORKPLACE FOUR POINT ITS ENTIRETY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT GOT US TO 4.05. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE BEFORE OKAY. WE ALREADY DISCUSSED 4.05. YES. SO OKAY SO WE SKIPPED OVER THOSE EARLIER ONES AND THAT WAS TAKING US BACK. AND NOW WE'RE UP TO 4.07. SO NOW WE'RE AT 4.06 AND DOES MACROGEN HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT 4.06 OR 4.07. I HAVE NO NOTES FROM MY, YOU KNOW, READ THROUGH THIS EARNEST. AND WE HAVE NOTHING ON THE. CHART. A CONSOLIDATED NOTE CHART. RIGHT.

OKAY. SO I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE FINISHED WITH ARTICLE FOUR. SO, ROBERT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE FOUR? WE CAN MAKE A MOTION OR I CAN TAKE THESE EDITS AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK FOR APPROVAL. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? LET ME TAKE A STAB AT A

[00:50:03]

I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER, YES, IF I GAVE YOU A. WELL, WE GOT EDITS TO FOUR. 4.04, 4.05. SO IT'S REALLY THREE AREAS. SO IT'S. WELL AND 4.01. YEAH. 4.01, 4.041.05. YEAH. ALL THE REST OF THEM KIND OF HASH BEFORE WE HAVE A PROCESS. JUST THE COUNCIL. BUT THE CITY COUNCIL TYPICALLY DOES IS IF THERE ARE SO MANY EDITS THAT THE MOTION BECOMES REALLY COMPLICATED. OUR HABIT HAS BEEN TO SAY, OKAY, CITY STAFF IN THIS CASE, MR. OWEN, GO MAKE THE EDITS THAT WE AGREED TO AND THEN BRING IT BACK. AND WE OFTEN DO IT ON CONSENT AGENDA AND WE'LL SAY, YEP, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE TOLD YOU TO DO. WE OKAY. PUTTING IT IN CONSENT. THAT'S A GREAT I MEAN, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO GO ON CONSENT, BUT YEAH. BECAUSE THESE ARE REALLY I MEAN YOU CAN CERTAINLY MAKE THE MOTION TODAY. YEAH. IF IT'S SO COMPLICATED THAT THE PREFERENCE IS TO GET IT ALL WRITTEN DOWN AND THEN LOOK AT IT CLEAN AND VOTE ON IT, AND THAT'S YOUR OPTION AS WELL. I WOULD RATHER DO THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE WE CAPTURE EVERYTHING CORRECTLY.

OKAY. BECAUSE WE GOT THREE EDITS IN OUR OWN CHARTER. AND THEN OH BY THE WAY, WE'RE GRABBING SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER CHARTER AND WE'RE MAKING EDITS TO THAT ONE TOO. SO IT'S ALREADY TYPED OUT. YEAH. WELL, BUT ALSO 4.04 THE CITY ATTORNEY'S THING. OKAY. SO WE'RE PULLING IN ROCKPORT AND WE'RE EDITING ROCKPORT, PULLING IN ROCKPORT. ROCKPORT. LET ME GIVE YOU A DEFINITELY I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS SOMETHING I CAN FULLY GET BEHIND. OKAY.

SOMETHING THAT OKAY. AND I'LL PUT IT ON THE DISCUSSION. VOLUNTEERING TO DO THAT. OKAY.

AND THEN WE START WITH ARTICLE FIVE NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS. AND I ASK THE QUESTION, COUNCILOR PRINCE. YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY HISTORICAL OR MAYBE. WELL, YOU DIDN'T MOVE HERE IN 2016 DID YOU? YEP. OKAY. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THE DECISION WAS MADE IN 2016 TO MOVE OFF THE MUNICIPAL CALENDAR IN MAY AND GO WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER FOR OUR ELECTIONS. NO RECOLLECTION WHAT I'VE HEARD ANECDOTALLY, ROBERT, FROM YOU KNOW, DALE MITCHELL IS ONE EXAMPLE IS THAT THE THINKING WAS IT MIGHT BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE FOR THE CITY TO MOVE TO NOVEMBER RATHER THAN MAY, AND IT ALSO SHOULD LEAD TO MORE VOTER PARTICIPATION IN NOVEMBER RATHER THAN MAY FOR ELECTIONS. BUT THAT'S ANECDOTAL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT DROVE THE DECISION OR THERE WAS OTHER THINGS INVOLVED. I CAN SEE THE TURNOUT BEING HIGHER, BUT. AND AND MAYBE IT IS. I DON'T KNOW IF THE PRICE IS CHEAPER IN MAY VERSUS NOVEMBER. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S MAYBE IT IS. I DON'T KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS WEIRD. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE MORE ATTENTION MUNICIPALLY, LOCALLY IF IT WEREN'T MIXED IN WITH THE OTHER. AND BY DOING IT THE WAY THEY DID IT, IT GETS BACK TO MY OTHER POINT OF CONTENTION THAT I'M REALLY NOT HAPPY WITH. AND THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR IN THREE PLACES, ARE ALWAYS IN AN OFF YEAR ELECTION. SO NOT ONLY IS IT BURIED IN NOVEMBER, FOUR OF THEM HAPPEN OFF YEAR WHEN THERE IS NO FEDERAL EXPOSURE ANYWAY. SO I REALLY THINK THAT THAT IS MUCH LOWER TURNOUT THAN PROBABLY IN MAY ELECTION. BUT ANYWAY, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU GUYS HAD ANY RECOLLECTION OF WHY THAT WAS DONE OBVIOUSLY IN 2016. BUT ROBERT, THE THING IS, EVEN IF IT ALTHOUGH IT'S DONE IN OFF YEAR, THE PEOPLE WHO JUST BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULD BE VOTING BECAUSE IT'S IN IT'S IT'S NOT AN OFF YEAR. IT'S AN HONOR. IF THEY WOULDN'T VOTE, IF IT'S AN OFF YEAR, THEN THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING AREN'T REALLY VERY INTERESTED. ANYWAY, I DISAGREE, I THINK PEOPLE PAY MORE ATTENTION WHEN THERE'S FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTIONS HAPPENING. THEY PAY MORE ATTENTION. BUT THAT'S KIND OF LIKE, WELL, WHY AREN'T THEY PAYING ATTENTION IN THE OFF YEAR? WELL, YEAH, WE CAN DEBATE THAT. THE POINT IS, THE TURNOUT IS ALWAYS LOWER IN AN OFF YEAR ELECTION. IT IS IT ISN'T ANY OTHER. AND I THINK BY ALLOWING A MAJORITY OF OUR COUNCIL TO TURN OVER IN A LOW TURNOUT, ODD NUMBERED YEAR MAKES NO SENSE.

BUT ANYWAY, HAVE YOU SEEN THE VOTER TURNOUT NUMBERS JUST ANECDOTALLY? LIKE, HAVE YOU

[00:55:03]

AND EVERYBODY ELSE HAS ALREADY LEFT THE OTHER CITIES IN THAT OTHER TIME. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S HELPFUL IN THIS TIME. INTERESTING DATA POINT. YEAH. SO WE WENT THROUGH IT THE FIRST TIME AND. BASICALLY BY CONSENSUS LEFT IT AS IT IS. BUT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING WORTH REVISITING. I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP. WELL, EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT FOND OF THE THREE YEAR TERMS, WOULDN'T THAT CYCLE EVERY COUNCIL SEE TO AN ODD OR ODD, EVEN ODD EVEN ODD EVEN? YEAH. IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSITION PLAN, THAT'S ONE THING I DO LIKE ABOUT THE TERMS IS RIGHT NOW ON YOUR ELECTIONS ARE FOUR PLACES A MAJORITY OF OUR COUNCIL CAN TURN OVER. SO YOU COULD HAVE A CABAL OR WHATEVER. IT'S BEEN ALLEGED TAKE OVER THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL IN AN ODD NUMBER OF LOW TURNOUT YEARS BY GOING TO THREE YEAR TERMS BY YOU WILL CYCLE THROUGH. SO YOU WILL HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE GETTING OFF YEAR, AND THEN THE NEXT TIME THEY'LL BE ON A FEDERAL ELECTION CYCLE, AND THEN THE NEXT TIME IT'LL BE AN ODD YEAR, AND THEN THOSE PLACES WILL BE ON A, ON A MIDTERM ELECTION CYCLE. AND SO I DID GRAPH THAT OUT IN THE TRANSITION PLAN. YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT WOULD WORK PLACE BY PLACE. AND THAT'S GOING TO THREE YEAR TERMS SOLVES THAT PROBLEM. AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE MAYOR YOU KNOW VARYING THE MAYOR ON AN ODD YEAR ELECTION I DON'T KNOW. DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME WHY THEY DID THAT. BUT YES, THREE YEAR TERMS DOES SOLVE THAT. WELL, THE MAYOR'S GOT TO HANG ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WHETHER IT'S THE ODD PLACES OR THE EVEN PLACES. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE PROBABLY STILL GOING TO HAVE HAVE THAT FOR THREE, FOUR, THREE, FOUR, THREE. NO, BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE TWO, TWO AND THREE. SO YOU'LL NEVER HAVE AN ELECTION CYCLE. IF WE STAGGER IT 2 TO 3, WE'LL NEVER HAVE ELECTION CYCLE WHERE A MAJORITY CAN BE TAKEN OVER. IN ONE ELECTION CYCLE, IT WOULD TAKE AT LEAST TWO. 5.025.02. WE WANTED TO REPLACE IT WITH AUBRY 5.03. YEAH. AND AUBRY 5.03 SAYS THAT OFFICIAL BALLOTS UTILIZED BY THE CITY FOR GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS WITHIN THE CITY SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, AS AMENDED, AND THAT THAT JUST ONE SENTENCE REPLACES ALL OF OUR. 5.02. YEAH. AND CURRENTLY OUR CITY SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT CITY SECRETARY ARE BOTH GETTING ELECTION LAW TRAINING TODAY THROUGH FRIDAY. SO THEY MAY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO ADD, BUT POSSIBLY NOT. BUT IN ANY EVENT, THAT'S WHAT WE HAD DECIDED PREVIOUSLY TO TO REPLACE 5.02 WITH THAT MUCH SHORTER 5.03. I AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION BEFORE. I STILL SUPPORT THAT. THE OBSERVATION OF WHAT? THAT WE REPLACE OUR 5.02 WITH THE 5.03. IT'S JUST CLEANER, TIGHTER AND LESS WORDY. AND IT'S JUST BETTER. AND THEN FOR 5.03, 5.04, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY. I LOOK UP FOR 5.03. I KNOW, I KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO BELABOR THE POINT. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID IN OUR CURRENT ONE. THIS JUST ALWAYS COMES UP. WE ALWAYS

[01:00:05]

RIGHT. THE ELECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE ORDER OF NAMES ON THE BALLOT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW AND SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LOT. OKAY. LOOKS LIKE IT IS IN TEXAS ELECTION CODE. SO WE'LL PROBABLY. OKAY. SO IT MAY BE MOOT. IS IT A LEGAL OPINION OR ANYTHING. IT'S GOOGLE PUT IT LIKE THAT IN THE CODE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS. IT IS OKAY. YEAH. SO. SO IF WE WANTED TO LEAVE IT OUT, WELL IF IT'S IN THE CODE THAT I SAY LET'S JUST LEAVE IT OUT. YEAH, IT'S IN THE CODE. LEAVE IT OUT. THE ONLY OTHER THING FROM AUBREY I HAD WAS IF WE GO TO THREE YEAR TERMS, YOU DO HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR RUNOFF. SO DO WE NEED TO PULL IN? AUBREY 5.05 FOR. AND REPLACE OUR CANVASING. WITH OFFICIAL RESULTS AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS IN AUBREY. BECAUSE AGAIN, WE GOT A BUNCH OF CANVASING STUFF THAT BASICALLY SAYS WE'LL FOLLOW THE LAW. BUT IT DIDN'T CONTEMPLATE RUNOFFS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE RUNOFFS. NOW WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR IT. OKAY, SO AUBREY 5.04 RESULTS RUNOFF IN ITS ENTIRETY. I THINK IF WE DELETE OUR 5.03. MOVE ELECTION UP TO 5.03 AND THEN DROP IN AUBREY 5.04 AS OUR 5.04. SO DELETE OUR CANVASING 5.03. WHAT IS OUR 5.04? ELECTION WILL BECOME 5.03 ELECTION. AND THEN WE DROP IN AUBREY 5.04, WHICH COVERS THE CANVASING AND RUNOFFS. THAT WOULD CHANGE OUR PROCEDURE BECAUSE NOW WE DON'T DO CANVASING IN A IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WELL, WELL YEAH WE DO, BUT IT'S A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. IT'S NOT LIKE A REGULAR IT'S ALWAYS A SPECIAL CALL MEETING, A SPECIAL MEETING. AND IT ONLY TAKES TWO TO HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY. OKAY. SO SO WE CAN LEAVE. OKAY. SO WE CAN LEAVE AUBREY AS IT IS. BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT CANVASING AND 5.042. OKAY. I WASN'T EVEN THINKING THAT WE CALL THOSE

[01:05:08]

YEAH. I WOULD JUST SAY, LET'S LEAVE IT OUT JUST BECAUSE. WE REALLY DON'T NEED IT AND LET'S NOT ADD THINGS THAT WE DON'T JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAW, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAW. SO LEAVE THAT OUT. ALL RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. SO. SO SO ROBERT, ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHAT YOU DO? THE SAME THING FOR UNCLE FOUR. I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A FINAL DRAFT OF ARTICLE FOUR. WE CAN APPROVE ON CONSENT. OKAY. SO ON TO ARTICLE SIX. I'M GOING TO BE QUIET BECAUSE MIKE AND I BEAT THE HELL OUT OF THIS ONE. BUT FIRST GO AROUND. SO. EXCEPT THAT. NO, I'M JUST GOING TO BE QUIET AND LISTEN FOR ANY ANYBODY ELSE'S OPINION, I DO. I DO WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS. I KNOW WE DID. AND AND THAT PERTAINS TO WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO RESIDED IN THE CITY. THAT I THINK IS A PROBLEM, BECAUSE WHO DETERMINES THAT THE REGISTER, WHICH REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDED IN THE CITY? BECAUSE WHEN YOU JUST GET A LIST OF REGISTERED VOTERS, IT DOESN'T INDICATE WHO IS RESIDING IN THE CITY AT THAT TIME. BUT AUBRY SAYS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS BETTER. AUBRY SAYS AT LEAST A PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMBER OF VOTERS VOTING IN THE LAST REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION, AS DETERMINED FROM THE LIST OF IDENTIFIED VOTERS MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, OR 150, WHICH WE COULD NAME WHATEVER NUMBER WE WANT, OR 150 OF SUCH VOTERS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

SO THAT DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T NECESSITATE ANYBODY DETERMINING WHICH REGISTERED VOTERS WERE RESIDING IN THE CITY AT THE TIME OF THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. WHAT SECTION ARE YOU REFERRING TO? SO I'M, I'M, I AM AT LIKE NINE 2925. OKAY. BUT IT'S IT'S WHEREVER THEY SAY, WHEREVER IT SAYS IN THE CHARTER, REGISTERED VOTERS WHO RESIDED IN THE CITY AT THE TIME OF THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE NOTES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WAS REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING IN THE CITY WAS REDUCING IT FROM 10 TO 5. BUT SINCE THAT TIME, IT'S COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE'S NO WAY OF DETERMINING WHICH REGISTERED VOTERS WERE RESIDING IN THE CITY AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION. OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING STRIKE OUT. OKAY, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IN MOST PLACES WE'D ALREADY CHANGED IT TO REGISTERED VOTERS. BUT I SEE WHERE YOU'RE SAYING, ELAINE 925.

YEAH, YEAH. NO, I LIKE WHAT AUBRY SAYS. DID YOU LIKE WHAT I READ THAT AUBRY SAID. WELL, I

[01:10:01]

96.0899 20 OF OUR CHARTER. OH, OUR CHARTER. I'M LOOKING AT ALL OUR CHARTER. 925 I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME WHAT YOU DO. SO WE'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW ALONG. BUT IT IS LOOKING. HAVE YOU BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE CHIEF? YES, I HAVE, THAT'S WHY I WALKED UP HERE. THANK YOU. AND IS LOOKING AT WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE REDUCTION FROM THE 10% TO 5% IN THE CHARTER. I REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION. BUT ISN'T THE THAT PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE TURNOUT FROM THE PRIOR ELECTION INSTEAD OF THE THE THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS? BUT IS THAT WHAT WE'RE OKAY. I WAS JUST I WAS JUST SAYING THAT WAS A COMMENT ON THIS SECTION AT THE LAST TIME, AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAN FIND WHERE THEY ARE REFERRING TO THIS REGISTERED VOTERS. I JUST JUST IN CASE THAT WAS RELEVANT, JUST JUST TO BE CLEAR, OUR CHARTER DOES NOT TIE THE NUMBER OF VOTERS IN THE LAST ELECTIONS, JUST THE REGISTERED REGISTERED VOTERS.

OH, OKAY. THANKS, MARK. YEAH, SURE. WHERE THE AUBRY I BELIEVE THE FINDING THAT THEY DO TIE IT, BUT THE PERCENTAGE IS HIGHER. YEAH. 30% OF THE NUMBER OF VOTERS IN THE LAST REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION. YEAH, 150, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. SO WE COULD SPECIFY JUST A FLAT NUMBER AND SAY WHICHEVER IS GREATER. I WOULD HESITATE ON THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH OF THE CITY. IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T REALLY ALLOW FOR FOR GROWTH. SO YOU WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE JUST A FLAT PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS WHO VOTED IN THE LAST ELECTION. I WOULD SAY, OKAY, IF YOU WANT TO PUT A, YOU KNOW, OR 150 AS A, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT? IS THAT A MINIMUM? WELL, JUST JUST 150, AUBRY SAID. SO I HAVE NO TIE TO THE 150 OR 150. YEAH. SO RATHER THAN REWRITING IT THE WAY AUBRY DID, BECAUSE THAT'S A PRETTY DRAMATIC CHANGE. WHAT IF WE JUST SAID TO AT LEAST 5% OF THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS SCRATCH WHO RESIDED, JUST SAY, REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY AT THE TIME OF THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION? OKAY, OKAY. AND JUST TAKE OUT THE WHOLE WHO WHO RESIDED AS A I AGREE WITH YOU IS A CONFUSING, UNDEFINABLE TERM. OKAY, SO SCRATCH THAT.

DOES IT APPEAR IN EVERY ONE OF THEM? LET ME GO BACK AND LOOK. POWER OF INITIATIVE. YES. SO IT'S IN 601 WHO RESIDED IS IN 601. WHO RESIDED IS IN 602. 608 IS THE NEXT ONE. ARE YOU USING THIS SEARCH FEATURE? I JUST DID A SEARCH WITHIN THE DOCUMENT. I DON'T SEE. I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND WE TALKED ABOUT. FEATURE 608 IS THE ONE THING AT AMAZON WHICH I BOUGHT AND. I CAN'T SEARCH ANY DOCUMENT. OKAY. SO SO YES, THAT'S 608 IS THE ONE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S YOUR LINE. 625 SO WE CAN REMOVE WHO RESIDED IN THOSE THREE PLACES.

YES. 925 925. SO THIS JUST GOES TO SHOW THAT EVEN THOUGH WE DID SPEND HOURS ON THIS THE FIRST TIME, WORTH DOING IT AGAIN. WELL, YOU KNOW, JUST LET'S NOT HAVE COUNCIL SAY IT'S SMOOTHER THIS TIME. LAST TIME WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. LAST TIME WE WERE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE CHANGES, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE REALLY THE BENEFIT OF THE IN-DEPTH STUDY OF OTHER CHARTERS. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S A GOOD POINT. YEAH. OKAY. I DID NOT HAVE ANY MORE FOR SIX. DOES ANYBODY ELSE? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. JUST A SECOND. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, MARK? WELL I'VE GOT SOME I'VE GOT SOME THINGS HIGHLIGHTED FROM MY IN-DEPTH.

OOPS. OH. READ OF THE CHARTER ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE. OKAY. SO WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE CONSOLIDATED NOTES AS FAR AS SIX GOES. THE THINGS THAT I

[01:15:04]

IT'S A SAFER ROUTE. SO SO I THINK THAT GIVEN THAT COUNCIL HAS SAID THE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ONLY APPLIES TO PLANNING, ZONING, BUILDING STANDARDS AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS BODY HAS THE US CHAIR OF THIS BODY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU FORGOT TO MENTION ON THERE. I THINK THE PROBABLY THE BEST PRACTICE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, NOT TO TAKE DRAMATIC ACTION ON SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA, BUT YOU YOU'RE NOT RESTRICTED FROM DOING SO. SO WE COULD DISCUSS ARTICLE SEVEN. I THINK YOU CAN DISCUSS ARTICLE SEVEN. AND KIND OF IMPLIED IN MR. ROBERTS THING, IT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR YOU TO DELAY ON VOTING JUST ALTHOUGH PROCEDURALLY YOU COULD TAKE A VOTE, IT MIGHT BE JUST, YOU KNOW, A SAFER PRACTICE TO DISCUSS AND DEFER YOUR VOTES TO THE NEXT MEETING. QUITE A FEW OF THE SECTIONS ARE BEING SET UP THAT WAY ANYWAY. WELL, I THINK I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE I THINK THAT ARTICLE SEVEN WAS GOING TO TAKE US SOME TIME. AND SO IF WE CAN GET STARTED ON ARTICLE SEVEN TOPICS RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD BE VERY WORTHWHILE. AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DELAY ANY VOTES TO THE NEXT TIME. BUT IF WE COULD GET OUR DISCUSSION UNDERWAY, THAT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT. SO NO, IF IF NO ONE HAS ANY OBJECTION, WE'LL DO THAT.

NO OBJECTION. OKAY, GREAT. JUST FOR. BEING FACTUAL, I AGREE. I WAS THINKING JUST A MOMENT AGO ABOUT CORRECTING MY FIRST STATEMENT. AND JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW WHERE I GET THAT FROM, I CAN I WAS MISTAKEN, I WAS THINKING OF WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A QUORUM FOR A CALLED MEETING, YOU CAN STILL DISCUSS THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. THE WEEKEND. THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS MY ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR SURE. I AGREE WITH THAT. SO ARTICLE SEVEN IS THE ONE THAT ADDRESSES THE

[01:20:02]

AND WE ADDED AT THE LAST TIME WE ADDED BUILDING AND STANDARDS TO THIS SECTION, WHICH WASN'T PREVIOUSLY IN IN HERE. RIGHT. IF NO ONE HAS ANY CHANGES TO THIS BOARD SECTION, THAT IS, THAT IS IN THE DOCUMENT, DO YOU MARK. WELL, NO, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE CONSOLIDATED NOTES AND THERE IS A NOTE OF 702. CONSIDER REPLACING LOGO 702 WITH AUBREY 802. SO SINCE WE SINCE SOMEBODY BROUGHT THAT UP. OH YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY WORTH A LITTLE. THAT GOES TO THE QUALIFICATIONS RIGHT? YEAH. I CAN SEE WHY THAT QUALIFICATIONS IS LIKE THREE SENTENCES. MAYBE TWO HOURS GOES ON AND ON AND ON AND ON. SO ONE OF THE BIG DIFFERENCES ONE IS.

WHAT I HAD A NOTE WHERE IT SAYS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO ADD THE WORD COMMITTEES. AND THAT'S HOW THEY DO IT IN AUBREY TOO. BUT SO RESIDENT FOR 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF 12 MONTHS. QUALIFIED VOTER. SHALL NOT WHOLLY COMPENSATED POSITION WITH THE CITY. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT OURS IS LONGER IS BECAUSE IT PERMITS APPOINTING PEOPLE TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT ARE LIKE ADVISORY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE AIRPORT BOARD AND THE PARK AND REC BOARD THAT ARE RESIDENTS, AND THAT PERMITS PEOPLE IN THE ETJ TO BE ON THE PARKS AND REC AND LIBRARY AND AIRPORT BOARD.

AND THAT WOULD THAT WOULDN'T BE IF WE IF WE JUST TOOK AUBREY, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

YEAH. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LINE 1027. YES, SIR. YEAH. SO I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT PARAGRAPH IN. ARE THERE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON OUR BOARDS THAT DON'T RESIDE ACTUALLY IN OUR CITY? YEAH, THERE'S PEOPLE I KNOW, LIKE ON THE PARK BOARD. THERE'S SOMEBODY OR GOLF GOLF BOARD THAT LIVES IN THE ETJ BECAUSE THEY LIVE ALONG. YEAH. AND PEOPLE LIKE IN RANCHO CIELO, THAT'S ETJ. SO YEAH, THERE ARE THERE EVEN EVEN EVEN IF THERE ARE NONE. EVEN IF THERE WERE NONE IN THE FUTURE, THERE MAY BE SOME THAT WOULD WANT TO. WELL, IS THAT A GOOD THING? I GUESS FUNDAMENTALLY. WELL, I THINK GIVEN THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF APPLICANTS TO ELIMINATE, SOME WOULD NOT BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST. NO, I HEAR YOU, BUT I JUST QUESTION THE WISDOM OF ALLOWING NONRESIDENTS OF THE CITY TO SERVE ON EARTH. BUT IT'S ONLY TO SERVE ON THE ADVISORY BOARDS. IT'S ONLY THE ADVISORY BOARDS. YEAH. NO, NO, THEY DON'T VOTE. THEY DON'T VOTE. NO. WELL, SO ADVISORY BOARDS DO VOTE. THEY VOTE ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE TO COUNCIL. WHAT VOTING ELECTION? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OH, I'M SORRY I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. NO, NO, NO ETJ RESIDENTS WOULD NOT VOTE ON CITY ELECTIONS. WELL, THEN I. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS NOT A CONFLICT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE COUNCIL FROM WAVING, WAVING THE BE REGISTERED. BE A REGISTERED VOTER IN THE CITY.

OKAY. LIKE WATERFORD IS ETJ. BUT YOU KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW. SO I MEAN I, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THAT IN. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. WELL, GIVEN THAT I'M WONDERING IF IT EVEN MAKES SENSE, I'M NOT REALLY IN FAVOR OF THE 90 DAY WITH OUR CHARTER REQUIRES 12 MONTHS. YOU KNOW, AUBREY IS TIGHTER, I GUESS, BUT THERE'S

[01:25:11]

YEAH. AND I THINK THAT IS IN OUR ORDINANCES TOO, LIKE THE, THE ORDINANCES THAT ESTABLISH LIKE PLANNING AND ZONING AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PROVIDE FOR. SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING OUR 702 AND JUST ADDING THE WORD COMMITTEES AFTER BOARDS. I AGREE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LINE 1020? YES. OH, OKAY. ACTUALLY, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T GO THROUGH THE WHOLE CHARTER AND EVERYWHERE WHERE IT SAYS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, ADD THE WORD COMMITTEES JUST FOR CONSISTENCY. AND CAN YOU DO THAT WITH THE SEARCH FEATURE? I CAN. CONTROL F AND THE MISSING OUT. YEAH THAT'S FUNNY. SO I'M GONNA THROW THIS OUT FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE CONTENTIOUS. WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS SECTION. BUT. I BELIEVE THAT ANY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO DIDN'T RESIGN OR WASN'T HONORED OFF COUNCIL DISHONORABLY SHOULD HAVE AUTOMATIC APPOINTMENT TO THE BOA UPON REQUEST. AND I KNOW LINDA DISAGREES WITH I COMPLETELY DISAGREE, BUT I THINK ANYBODY WHO SERVED ON CITY COUNCIL WHO WISHES TO CONSIDER SERVING SHOULD HAVE AN AUTOMATIC APPOINTMENT TO THE BOA OR APPELLATE BOARD, MAINTAIN THAT INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE AND ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO HONOR AND SERVE THE CITY AS LONG AS THEY WEREN'T THROWN OFF A COUNCIL OR RESIGNED. AND THE REASON I DISAGREE IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS HAS BEEN 99.9% HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS AND. ENCROACHMENTS INTO EASEMENT, SIDE YARD EASEMENTS, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS, ETC. IT'S NOT THE APPEAL THAT WE THERE'S ONLY BEEN TWO APPEALS IN THE LAST NINE YEARS, AND THOSE WERE BOTH WHEN CITY DENIED A SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING PERMIT INTO A SINGLE FAMILY. ZONED AREA FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME. THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO APPEALS THAT CAME BEFORE HIM, AND BOARD OF APPEALS. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IS IS BY LAW SUPPOSED TO BE A A BOARD OF DENIAL? THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VERY FEW APPROVALS ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND NOT EVERY CITY COUNCIL PERSON HAS THAT. DESIRE TO BE A. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EASY TO SIT IN FRONT OF AN APPLICANT AND SAY NO. AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE JUST TO SAY, JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE SERVED ON COUNCIL, YOU SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY GO ONTO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT'S IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF BOARD. IT'S A BOARD THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE. YOU KNOW, SOME COUNCIL PEOPLE. HAVE A REPUTATION FOR BEING REALLY EASYGOING AND, AND THEY WOULDN'T WANT TO DISRUPT THAT REPUTATION BY GOING ON TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I, THEY WOULDN'T BE FORCED. THAT WOULD BE. YEAH. IT WOULDN'T BE FORCED BY THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. I JUST DON'T SEE WHY THEY WOULD WHY WE WOULD LIKE I, I TEND TO AGREE AND I AND I KIND OF LIKE THE, THE THE GATEKEEPER ROLE OF COUNCIL WHEN IT COMES TO APPROVING A NEW MEMBER. RIGHT NOW IT'S OF ANY ANY COMMISSION. YEAH, IT COULD BE OR COMMITTEE.

YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE JUST A RUBBER STAMP TYPE THING. BUT I DON'T KNOW. IT'S THE CYNIC IN ME OR MAYBE THE CONTRARIAN, YOU KNOW, JUST TO GIVE THAT AUTOMATIC POSITION BOTHERS ME BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE AN AX TO GRUDGE OR GRUDGE, YOU KNOW, AN AX TO GRIND. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WOULD THEY WOULD THEY LOOK TO, TO GO ON A

[01:30:03]

YOU KNOW, NO. TO LINDA'S POINT, WHAT'S BEEN GETTING APPEALED HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING OF SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIVE SUBSTANTIAL IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. BUT THAT COULD CHANGE.

WANT TO KNOW WHAT MIGHT COME BEFORE? EITHER WAY IT'S NOT A LOT. AND WE HAVE TROUBLE FILLING THAT BOARD. REALLY. AND AND WELL, BECAUSE WE PASSED THE RULE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T SERVE ON MULTIPLE REGULATORY COMMITTEES. AND PNC IS KIND OF THE THE ONE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO GO TO. IF ALL OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS AND THE BOA IS KIND OF LIKE THE LAST CHOICE, IT SEEMS LIKE. AND I JUST THINK IF YOU HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO MAY NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS, YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER, DOESN'T WANT TO PUT HIS FATE AT THE HANDS OF THE COUNCIL. HE JUST DEPARTED. BUT THEY HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE TO JUST BE AUTOMATIC. THERE'S NO I SEE NO REASON TO TO OPPOSE THAT AS LONG AS THEY HONORABLY SERVE, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T GET KICKED OFF AND THEY DIDN'T RESIGN UNDER PROTEST. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED HERE AND HOW MANY COUNCILS HAVE YOU HAVE YOU WITNESSED? I, I REALLY THINK HAVING BEEN ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR. WELL, YOU'VE BEEN HERE LONG AND I, I'M JUST ON ABOUT 7 OR 8 YEARS. AND TO BE FRANK, I TOOK OFF TWO YEARS BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEING APPOINTED WERE ALL VERY MUCH TENDING TO, TO JUST GRANT APPROVALS. AND APPLICANTS ARE WHEN THEY COME TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO JUST BE GIVEN APPROVALS. AND SO IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDINANCES AND HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE ORDINANCES, THERE WAS NO POINT IN SERVING ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BECAUSE WE WERE ALWAYS GETTING OVERRULED BY THE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE, LIKE, PUT A MANUFACTURED HOME IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR EXAMPLE. I MEAN, THERE WAS THAT WAS ONE VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE THERE WAS A THREE FOR AND THREE AGAINST SITUATION. AND THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO PERMIT THAT WERE ACTUALLY SAYING TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, WELL, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO AGREE TO APPROVE THIS? THEY WERE SAYING THAT IN THE HEARING. THAT IS NOT THE TYPE OF PERSONALITY THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO HAVING GONE THROUGH THAT, I KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE MORE OF A YOU HAVE TO BE MORE COGNIZANT OF WHAT THE ORDINANCES REQUIRE, AND YOU HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO SHOW A REALLY GOOD REASON WHY THEY AREN'T GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE, A REALLY GOOD REASON. AND IT'S VERY RARE THAT THERE'S A REALLY GOOD REASON. AND, AND THAT'S IT'S DESIGNED THAT WAY. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY.

SO. I JUST, I JUST CAN'T AGREE TO. NOT HAVING. AN APPLICANT JUST AUTOMATICALLY BE PUT ON IT, EVEN IF THEY'RE A FORMER COUNCILMAN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAVE A AND PERSONALITY THAT WOULD STAND UP TO SAYING NO. WHEN YOU HAVE A CRYING APPLICANT IN FRONT OF YOU. BELIEVE ME. AND SO LENSES ARE HARD. NO, I TOLD YOU IT WAS GOING TO BE CONTENTIOUS. SOUNDS LIKE MARK IS A NEW. YOU HAVE NOT CHIMED IN YET. I MEAN, I'M NOT. I DON'T HAVE THE STRONGEST FEELINGS IN THE WORLD ABOUT IT. I LIKE TO POINT, ROBERT, YOUR IDEA OF HONORING SERVICE, BECAUSE ANYBODY WHO'S ON COUNCIL AND DOES ALL OF THAT, I MEAN, JUST DONATING THEIR TIME, THE SHEER AMOUNT OF TIME, LIKE I LIKE THE IDEA BEHIND IT, BUT WHEN IT HAD TO BE CONVINCED

[01:35:07]

I DON'T THINK SO. SORRY, ROBERT. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS LIKE I'M ON AN ISLAND ON THIS ONE. EVEN IF JEAN AGREES WITH ME, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE HAVE CONSENSUS TO PUT THAT ONE IN THE CHART. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. WE HAD A GOOD WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT OUT OF THE OUT OF THE WAY. OUT OF THE WAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY OUT IN THE OPEN. OUT OF THE WAY. I YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO TO CONTINUE SERVICE WITH THE, WITH THE CITY, EVEN AFTER LIFE AFTER COUNCIL AND MANY OTHER WAYS TO HONOR PEOPLE BESIDES PUTTING THEM ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH IS REALLY A PICNIC. IT ALSO. THERE HAVE BEEN VARYING PERSPECTIVES ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD ESTABLISH A BOARD OF ETHICS OR ETHICS COMMISSION OR SOME SIMILAR TYPE THING. I YOU KNOW, I WAS PRETTY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS, I STILL AM. I'M NOT NECESSARILY THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE CALLED A BOARD ETHICS, ALTHOUGH I DO KNOW THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE HAVE THAT SPECIFIED IN THEIR BECAUSE TEXAS ALREADY HAS A CODE OF ETHICS, BUT IT'S MAINLY A CRIMINAL TYPE THING.

WE DON'T HAVE MUCH IN OUR CHARTER TO. TO. I DON'T EVEN WANT TO SAY ENFORCE, BUT TO TO YOU KNOW, GIVE COUNSEL OR YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME TEETH TO IT FOR SOMETIMES OUTLANDISH BEHAVIOR IN CITY COUNCIL OR A CHARTER VIOLATION. I MEAN, IN THE LAST YEAR, WE'VE HAD TWO CHARTER VIOLATIONS, ONE BY A MAYOR THAT WOULDN'T SIGN. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M GIVING UP ON THAT. AND THAT'S THAT'S NOT MY NOT MY WELL, THAT WAS CENTRAL IN THAT ONE, BUT IT WAS CENTRAL ON THAT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT WAS CENSURE WAS THE ACTION. YEAH. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME TO US IN THE CHARTER WAS STRICTLY CENSURE OR KICK THEM OFF. OH, THERE WAS NO MIDDLE GROUND. IT WAS DEATH PENALTY OR SLAP ON THE WRIST. OKAY. THAT'S WHY WE WROTE INTO THE REWRITE HERE. IT WAS KIND OF LESSER INCLUDED PENALTIES OF LOSS OF VOICE AND LOSS OF VOTE. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE SPEAKING OF VOTE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO REFUSED TO TO, YOU KNOW, WAS WAS HERE, PHYSICALLY HERE AND ABSTAINED WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR ANY OTHER REASON. I'M NOT A VALID, VALID REASON, JUST BASICALLY. SO THERE'S AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THAT. UNTIL A SO THERE HAS BEEN A FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED ACTUALLY BY MR. OWEN AND THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO TAKE ACTIONS ON THAT AS DESCRIBED IN OUR CHARTER. SO NOTHING HAS COME. IT HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED. IT'S STILL WORKING. IT'S. I, I KIND OF AM LEERY AGAIN CONTRARIAN IN ME.

BUT YOU'RE LETTING COUNCIL YOU KNOW, JUDGE ONE OF THEIR OWN. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE AN INDEPENDENT BOARD CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WISH THAT ISN'T, YOU KNOW, GOING TO GO CRIMINAL IN TERMS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, BUT AT LEAST HAS SOME TEETH TO IT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR AT LEAST A PUBLIC RESOLUTION. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER XYZ, WE THINK SHOULD BE CENSORED FOR FIVE MINUTE, FIVE MEETINGS OR SIX MEETINGS OR WHATEVER. AND THAT'S A THAT'S HARSH, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, BUT IT JUST DEPENDS ON ON THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE.

THE LEVEL. YEAH, EXACTLY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE PUT IN THERE WITH THAT COULD BE

[01:40:05]

OKAY, IT'S BEEN A MONTH. WE ALL SAW THIS VIOLATION. IF YOU DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT. NO. OKAY.

WELL THEN I HAVE TO BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE. YOU GUYS DIDN'T POLICE YOURSELVES. THANK YOU.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IN SOME RESPECTS, WE NEED A BOARD OF ETHICS OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, SOME BONDSMAN. SOMETHING FOR THE CITIZENS TO GO TO. SHORT OF HAVING TO FILE A SWORN COMPLAINT. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS NOT FOND OF CREATING A BOARD OF ETHICS. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S TRUE. BUT, YOU KNOW, AND I, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S BECAUSE OF THE, THE ASPECT THAT IT'S MORE OF A CRIMINAL TYPE THING, IT MAY MAYBE LOOK AT SOME MIDDLE GROUND. I TAKE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, MAYBE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF YOURS. WHAT I HEARD THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYING IS REMOVING A COUNCILOR IS A SERIOUS MATTER, AND YOU'RE OVERTURNING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. SO IT ALMOST NEEDS TO BE CRIMINAL TO REMOVE SOMEONE. HE THEY MENTIONED THAT HE DROPPED IN AND PARTICIPATES OR WHATEVER ON ONE ON ONE CITY'S BOARD OF ETHICS. SO I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS OPPOSITION TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS. MAYBE I MISREAD HIM. IT WAS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF YOU CAN'T REMOVE THEM, BASICALLY, UNLESS IT'S CRIMINAL, BECAUSE YOU'RE OVERTURNING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. AND AGAIN, THAT KIND OF DOVETAILS WITH OUR LOOKING AT THIS GOING, OKAY, WE NEED SOMETHING BETWEEN CENSURE, SLAP ON THE WRIST AND REMOVAL. AND IF OUR CHARTER GOES THROUGH AND WE'VE GOT IT WRITTEN NOW, THERE ARE SOME OF THOSE LESSER INCLUDED PENALTIES NOW THAT COULD BE APPLIED. WHO DECIDES YOU STILL. WELL IT'S STILL THE CHARTER. AND WELL, EVEN IF WE CREATE A BOARD OF ETHICS, WE GOT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT.

AND CONFIRM. WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THAT RESEARCH THAT I POSTED ON THE BOARD, THERE WAS A LINE THAT I HIGHLIGHTED AND SAID THAT THE CITY CAN'T REALLY DELEGATE THE DECISION TO A BOARD OF ETHICS. SO EVEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAD A BOARD OF ETHICS. IT COULDN'T TAKE INDEPENDENT ACTION TO REMOVE A COUNCIL. IT COULD ONLY RECOMMEND THAT. RIGHT.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. SO IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY MORE AUTHORITY THAN THE COUNCIL. AND IT'S IT'S THE WHOLE. I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS LIKE I SAID, DO WE HAVE ONE. DO WE NOT HAVE ONE? WE HAVE ONE. HOW DO WE CONSTITUTED AND WHAT AUTHORITY DO THEY HAVE? WELL, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS. ARE YOU YAY OR NAY LUKEWARM OR. I'M, I'M. NO I'M I'M SOLIDLY YAY ON A BODY THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF COUNCIL THAT YOU KNOW DISCUSSES IT. DOES THE FACT FINDING AND MAKES A RECOMMENDATION. SO THAT WAY YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T ANY I THINK THE OPTICS ARE BETTER THAN HAVING COUNCIL POLICE THEMSELVES, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR EXPERIENCE FROM THE PAST, WHAT MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF? IF IT'S NOT GOOD, IT'S JUST NOT GOOD. WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT, I MEAN, THERE'S SOMETHING TO SAY THAT THEY'RE ALL COMPETITIVE EGOS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY TEND TO WANT TO GET ALONG TOO, RIGHT? SO I AM IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT ACTUALLY ONLY IF IT WAS APPLICABLE TO STAFF AND MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. I WOULDN'T WANT A BOARD OF ETHICS THAT JUST APPLIED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR AND STAFF AND BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS. SO ARE YOU SAYING EXCLUDE COUNCIL MEMBERS OR STAFF IN ADDITION TO. OKAY, I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE OH, I AGREE REQUIREMENT FOR. YEAH, A BROAD ARRAY OF PEOPLE WHO I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THAT I'VE BEEN DUMBFOUNDED BY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN GOTTEN AWAY WITH OVER THE PAST YEAR. YEAH, AND PROBABLY PRIOR TO THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT I SEE WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S IN THAT CHARTER AND I KNOW IT BETTER, YOU KNOW, I TOTALLY AM DUMBFOUNDED THAT VERY LITTLE HAPPENS. I THINK NOT THAT THIS SHOULD REALLY GUIDE US, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND

[01:45:02]

[01:50:01]

AND I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME UP WITH ANY CONCLUSIONS TODAY ABOUT THIS, WHAT WE CAN WE KIND OF HAVE A FEEL FOR REMARKS THAT, OH YEAH. SO LET ME TELL YOU WHERE I'M AT.

YEAH, THAT'LL PROBABLY BE HELPFUL. SO YEAH, I WAS LIKE, I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS THIS, BUT I KNOW IT'S GOING TO COME UP. I BETTER BE READY, I BETTER DECIDE. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS, TOO. YEAH, I MEAN, I, I MEAN, I GET THAT IT'S MORE WORK AND EVERYTHING, BUT I THINK KIND OF WITH HOW THINGS ARE NOW, LIKE, EVEN IF THIS IS A TEST BALLOON, I THINK LIKE HAVE IT BE A TEST BALLOON AND I GUESS KIND OF GOING FURTHER THAT WOULD THINK PUT IT IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE I THINK TO YOUR POINT, MARK, THAT IT WOULD NEVER GET DONE OTHERWISE. I MEAN, YOU REALLY WOULD WANT TO TOUCH THAT, YOU KNOW. YEAH. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY REALLY WANTING TO PRIORITIZE OR TOUCH THAT THROUGH. YEAH. SO IT CUTS BOTH WAYS THOUGH, BECAUSE DO KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU DO PUT IT IN, WE'RE STUCK WITH IT FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY CHANGE THE CHARTER EVERY TWO YEARS. NOT THAT I'M SAYING WE DON'T. I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT. IF COUNCIL APPROVES IT, A TEST BALLOONS, RIGHT? IT'S GOT TO GET A TEST.

BALLOONS GOING TO FLOAT AT LEAST TWO YEARS. I THINK THAT'S PART THOUGH. IT'S TWO YEARS. SO YOU JUST TAKE IT RIGHT BACK OUT. SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT I'M MORE IN FAVOR OF IT TOO, IS BECAUSE OF THAT ASPECT. I ALSO LIKE THE I SAW THAT IN WHAT YOU POSTED. THE EXAMPLES ARE PRETTY GOOD, I THOUGHT, AND HAVING EACH COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINT SOMEONE I AGREE WITH THE MORE WORK AND COORDINATION AND EVERYTHING, AND THAT WOULD KIND OF PROBABLY BE NOT FUN FOR FOLKS, BUT SOMETIMES I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO DO THAT. COOL.

OKAY, SO WITH THAT. 552 MEETING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.