[00:00:08]
          CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ORDER. WE HAVE ROBERT OWEN, SECRETARY MARK DOUGLAS, GENE HARRIS, VICE CHAIR, MYSELF, LINDA AIR. WE ALSO HAVE PAUL PRINCE, OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, AND CHARLES WEST, STAFF COUNCIL LIAISON. AND CITY MANAGER. JEN GRUNWALD WILL BE JOINING US. SHE'S TIED UP WITH A WORK COMMITMENT, AND SHE WILL BE HERE EVENTUALLY. WELCOME, EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE. AMIDST THE SNOW AND ICE AND. STILL BEING HAPPY TO BE HERE. I ASSUME WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS, MR. WEST. 
          THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO YOU AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. SO THEN WE CAN GO ON TO OUR STAFF. 
          OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. THERE'S NOT BEEN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING SINCE YOU ALL MET LAST WEEK AGO, AND I WAS HERE FOR THAT. SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NEW FOR YOU AND MR. WEST. YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR OUR LAST MEETING, SO YOU PROBABLY HAVE THINGS BACKED UP THAT YOU'RE DYING TO TELL US. YOU'RE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB. OKAY, WELL, THAT WAS WORTH 
          [IV. CONSENT AGENDA]
HEARING. OKAY, THEN LET'S MOVE ON. WE HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA. I ALREADY HAVE INKLINGS THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA WON'T BE CONSENT, BUT THE CONSENT AGENDA IS TO APPROVE THE REVISION OF ARTICLES THAT WE CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING ON JANUARY 21ST, WHICH WAS LAST WEEK. AND WE HAVE THOSE ARTICLES, THOSE REVISIONS IN OUR PACKAGE. AND THE. IS ANYONE CALLING FOR THE CONSENT ITEMS TO BE REMOVED, OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT ITEMS? DISCUSSION FIRST? I WOULD REQUEST THE AGENDA ITEM. IS REVISION OF ARTICLES CONSIDERED? I WOULD REQUEST THAT ANY MOTION SPECIFY ITS ARTICLES FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX FOR CLARITY. OKAY. OKAY. 
          AND ARTICLE 4.01 THERE WAS A CHANGE SUGGESTION POSTED TO THE DISCUSSION. POINT OF ORDER. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE IT ON CONSENT, WE NEED TO PULL OUR FOUR OFF AND LET'S VOTE ON FIVE AND SIX. OR ARE WE GOING TO PULL THEM OFF? OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST PULL THEM ALL OFF BECAUSE I MADE A COUPLE SUGGESTIONS AND I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE NOW WITHOUT GOING TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD OR, OR WE CAN JUST. OH YEAH. I MADE A COUPLE SUGGESTIONS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE. I BROUGHT MY COMPUTER AND WHAT WAS ON FOR ONE WAS ON FOR I KNOW THAT ONE WAS ON THE MERIT BASED AND ANOTHER ONE WAS ON CHANGING THE LANGUAGE ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WE ALREADY ADOPTED. OH, OKAY. YEAH, I THINK I SAW THAT AFTER THAT. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THANKS FOR KEEPING US IN ORDER, MR. OWEN. SO, SO IN ARTICLE FOUR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO LINE 34. ADDING WEEKLY REPORTS. LINE 36. LINE 36. NO. IT WAS TO TO LINE 34 REQUIRING OPERATIONS OF THE CITY DEPARTMENT TO SUBJECT TO THE CITY MANAGER. IT WAS TO SUBMIT WEEKLY REPORTS ON MATTERS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE THE PRIOR WEEK, AND ON A LIST OF ITEMS TO BE TO TO COME IN THE IN THE WEEK AHEAD. MY MY OPINION ON THAT IS IT'S GETTING TOO SPECIFIC FROM THE CHARTER TO GET THAT DETAIL IN TERMS OF MANDATING WEEKLY REPORTS OR WHATEVER. I THINK IT'S UP TO EACH COUNCIL IN THEIR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY TO ASK, REQUIRE AND REQUEST WHAT THEY WANTED. THE CITY MANAGER, WITHOUT GETTING TOO DETAILED IN THE CHARTER. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. WELL, THE CHARTER REFERS TO AND REQUIRES MONTHLY REPORTS. SO WHY IS WEEKLY REPORTS TO TO IN THE WEEDS WHEN WE WHEN IT ALREADY REQUIRES MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS? WELL, YOU SAID TWO DIFFERENT THINGS I THOUGHT I HEARD BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OPERATIONS THINGS A WEEKLY REPORT AS OPPOSED TO A MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT. RIGHT. SO BUT I THINK THAT ROBERT IS 
          [00:05:02]
SAYING THAT REQUIRING REPORTS ON A REGULAR BASIS IS GETTING TO GO AHEAD. YOU CAN SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. ROBERT, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? JUST TO CLARIFY. MAKE REPORTS ITEM G ON LINE 34 THAT YOU REFERENCED IS MAKE REPORTS AS IN GENERAL OPERATIONAL KINDS OF REPORTS. THE WORD MONTHLY DOES NOT APPEAR IN G. NO, NO, IT APPEARS IN H WHICH IS MONTHLY FINANCIALS. IT'S VERY SPECIFIC A DIFFERENT ANIMAL ALTOGETHER. YOU HAVE TO HAVE MONTHLY FINANCIALS, OPERATIONAL REPORTS. DO YOU NEED A WEEKLY OR NOT. THAT'S UP TO CHARTER COUNCIL AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE BY APPOINTMENT. OKAY. WE FORMERLY HAD WEEKLY REPORTS AND NOW WE DON'T. SO IF WE PUT WEEKLY REPORTS AS A REQUIREMENT IN THE CHARTER, THEN WE WILL BE GETTING WEEKLY REPORTS. TO CLARIFY, WE HAD WEEKLY REPORTS AS AN OPERATIONAL PRACTICE. IT WASN'T IN THE PRIOR CHARTER. 
          RIGHT. IT'S NOT ANYTHING WE TOOK OUT OF THE CHARTER. RIGHT. WE DIDN'T TAKE IT OUT. BUT BUT I JUST I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T THINK OUR CHARTER NEEDS TO MANDATE THAT KIND OF SPECIFICITY ON WEEKLY OPERATIONAL REPORTS THAT THAT, THAT THEY MAY WANT TO SEE BIWEEKLY, THEY MAY WANT TO SEE MONTHLY, THEY MAY WANT TO SEE QUARTERLY. IT'S UP TO EACH CHARTER AND THEIR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY TO MAKE THAT CALL. EACH COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL WHEN THEY GET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD THAT WOULD SEE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A WEEKLY REPORT. THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF SAYING NO. WE'D LIKE TO SEE BIWEEKLY REPORTS, OR WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MONTHLY OPERATIONAL REPORTS, BUT IF WE DON'T GIVE THEM THE RECOMMENDATION, THEY WON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT. JAMES, I WOULD SAY THAT FALLS INTO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN BE CHANGED AS NEEDED AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE WE SAY WEEKLY AND THEN MAYBE THEY NEED EVERY FIVE DAYS OR SOMETHING. I JUST DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE IN THERE. I JUST AGREE WITH ROBERT ON THAT. LET THEM DECIDE HOW OFTEN THEY WANT THOSE THEY HAVE TO GIVE THEM. YES, THEY HAVE TO MAKE REPORTS AS STATED AS OFTEN AS THEY'RE NEEDED. OKAY. NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT? FOLLOWING ON IN LINE WITH THESE TWO RIGHT NOW IT SAYS MAKE REPORTS AS COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE AS THEY MAY REQUIRE CONCERNING THE OPERATIONS OF CITY DEPARTMENTS. SO IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH AN EMERGENCY LIKE SAY, YOU KNOW, THE ICE STORMS OR THE WATER GOING, YOU KNOW, GOING DOWN, THEY MAY NEED A REPORT EVERY DAY OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES, ACTUALLY. OKAY, OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANY TAKERS FOR THAT SUGGESTION. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE OTHER CHANGES TO 4.01 THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. I WOULD DEFER TO MR. HARRIS. I THINK HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS. OH YEAH. THANK YOU. 
          I'M STILL I'M STILL KIND OF FRAZZLED Y'ALL. SO FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, MADAM CHAIR, I'M READY TO VOTE FOR AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET. YEAH. I WANT TO MAKE SURE MR. HARRIS HAS AN OPPORTUNITY. YEAH. AND THIS THIS. I JUST WANT TO THROW THIS OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TO ME AS MAYBE BECAUSE OF WHAT I USED TO DO. BUT ONLINE. 124 IT SAYS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE DIRECTED BY AN EXPERIENCED LICENSED PEACE OFFICER. EXPERIENCED IS A PRETTY BROAD, AMBIGUOUS STATEMENT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT SAY SOMETHING. BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE DIRECTED BY AN EXPERIENCED LICENSED PEACE OFFICER WITH QUALIFICATIONS TO SHOW THAT APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD IN, I WROTE DOWN SOME EXACT WORDING ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, BUT I TOOK IT OUT OF THE EXISTING CHARTER. THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY. GENE IF IT'S HELPFUL. I'M LOOKING AT THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND YOUR WORDING, WAS THAT WHAT YOU INSERTED OR PROPOSED FOR INSERTING WAS WITH VERIFIABLE EXPERIENCE, WHICH QUALIFIES THEM FOR THE POSITION? YES. AND I THINK MR. OWEN HAD SOME REPLIES ON THAT. YES. TO WHICH I DON'T THINK IT ADDS ANYTHING. 
          I'M NOT VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO ADDING IT. I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANYTHING TO CHARTER EXCEPT A LITTLE MORE CLUTTER THAT'S UNNECESSARY. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD OPEN UP 
          [00:10:07]
INTERPRETATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES EXPERIENCE. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEFINED. AND I WOULD TRUST THAT ANY CITY MANAGER WOULD HIRE AN EXPERIENCED, QUALIFIED POLICE CHIEF. AND IF THE CITY MANAGER MAKES A BAD CALL, THEN WE STILL HAVE COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE IT. 
          SO EXPERIENCE THEN WOULD BE HAVE TO BE DEFINED IN REAL TIME BY EIGHT INDIVIDUALS, NOT US TRYING TO DEFINE THE WORD EXPERIENCE IN THE CHARTER. THEN WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH, WELL, IT ALREADY SAYS SHALL BE DIRECTED BY AN EXPERIENCE. THE WORD EXPERIENCE IS IN THERE. AND I DON'T LIKE THE WORD EXPERIENCE BECAUSE THAT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO VERIFIABLE. 
          WHATEVER IT WAS I SAID TO, TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. THAT'S A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC THAN JUST SAYING THEY GOT TO BE EXPERIENCED. YOU CAN BE EXPERIENCED WITH TWO YEARS ON THE JOB AND BE LICENSED AND BE CHIEF OF POLICE. NO, YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME VERIFIABLE EXPERIENCE WHERE THEY'VE WORKED IN A COMMAND STAFF POSITION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THEY ARE MORE QUALIFIED THAN ARE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY OFF THE ROAD PATROL TO BE CHIEF. THAT WAS MY MY THINKING. WELL, AGAIN, WE BOTH USE THE WORD EXPERIENCE. SO MAYBE I ERRED IN THAT REGARD. I THINK THEN WE'D HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT WHAT CONSTITUTES VERIFIABLE. WELL, WE COULD TAKE OUT EXPERIENCE. I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT. VERIFIABLE? WHAT VERIFIABLE? WHAT QUALIFIES THEM FOR THE POSITION? WHAT? I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE WITH VERIFIABLE EXPERIENCE, WHICH QUALIFIES THEM FOR THE POSITION APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER AFTER APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I DON'T THINK THE WITH THE WORD VERIFIABLE WHICH QUALIFIES THEM WHEN YOU EITHER NEED TO BE DEFINED OR WE LEAVE IT UP TO THE JUDGMENT OF SEVEN COUNCILORS AND THE CITY MANAGER IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE THE RIGHT CALL. I'M NOT. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING I'M WILLING TO DIE FOR. I JUST THOUGHT THAT I WOULD PREFER SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE THAN JUST EXPERIENCED AND LICENSED. RECALL LICENSE WAS MISSING, AND WE ADDED THAT BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY WANTED THAT. THAT WAS A GOOD CATCH. I DO RECALL THAT, YES. SO LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT MARRIED TO IT. IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT OF AND PUT IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. SO I'M. WHATEVER I ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S IT'S A NICE STATEMENT. I THINK IT'S, IT'S EXTRANEOUS AND THE VERIFIABLE. 
          I THINK TYPICALLY WE USE SEARCH FIRMS AND I THINK THEY VERIFY WHOEVER THEY VERIFY THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ANYBODY THAT THEY BRING TO US. SO I THINK THAT YEAH, IT'S YEAH, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT MARRIED TO IT. I, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO DUE DILIGENCE AND, BUT JUST. LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT THIS IS NOT A HILL I'M GOING TO DIE ON. OKAY. I HAD MY DISCUSSION. I'M GOOD. ANY OTHER ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON FOR. AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR. 
          MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE NEW SECTION 405 CITY POLICE? WELL THE WHOLE ARTICLE FOR TO BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. OKAY. SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. CHAIR. 
          NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. YES. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PULL 4 OR 6 OFF TO TALK ABOUT THOSE, OR ARE WE READY TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR 5 OR 6, FIVE OR 5 OR 6. SORRY. 
          I'M NOT ASKING FOR THOSE TO BE PULLED OFF IF ANYBODY ELSE. THOSE HAVE BEEN ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND WE WE REVIEW THEM LAST WEEK. SO I THINK IT'S ONLY JEAN, IF YOU HAD ANY CHANGES TO THEM BECAUSE OR IF I MISSED SOMETHING, I REALLY WAS ASKING TO CHECK FOR ACCURACY OF WHAT WE ALREADY COUNT. YEAH, I DID SIT AND READ THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF SO I CAN TRY TO BE PREPARED FOR TODAY EVEN THOUGH IT WAS GONE. SO NO, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT. 
          [00:15:04]
OKAY, WELL, WHEN IT WAS, WHEN MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA PERTAINING TO ARTICLES FIVE AND SIX THAT WE REVIEWED AT THE LAST MEETING. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND NOW WE CAN GO TO OUR DISCUSSION AND ACTION 
          [V.1. Discussion and possible action on Charter Articles IV through XI.]
ITEM, WHICH IS POSSIBLE ACTION ON. THIS SHOULD BE A SEVEN THROUGH 11. SO LET'S START WITH SECTION THREE. DID WE APPROVE FIVE AND SIX. WE JUST DID CONSENT AGENDA. OH OKAY. I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST MOVING IT FROM DISCUSSION TO CONSENT. THAT'S FINE OKAY. SO SO NOW WE'RE ON SEVEN. SO NOW WE ARE ON ON SEVEN. WHICH WE KIND OF LAUNCHED INTO INFORMALLY UNOFFICIALLY LAST MEETING AND NOTED THAT IN 702 BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE ON THE FIRST PASS WE ADDED 7.05. THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS WOULD ACTUALLY BE NAMED IN THE CHARTER. BEFORE, IT WAS NOT REALLY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. IF WE WERE GOING TO CREATE A CHARTER MANDATED BOARD OF ETHICS, SECTION SEVEN IS WHERE IT WOULD GO. SO I WOULD FOCUS OUR DISCUSSION AND THOUGHTS, DELIBERATIONS ON ON THAT. 
          UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING ELSE. SO. AFTER. A LOT OF CONSIDERATION TO THIS, AND I KNOW I WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP, I THINK MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO, I'M ACTUALLY LEANING TOWARD RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL, APART FROM THE CHARTER, THAT THEY CONSIDER ESTABLISHING AN ETHICS COMMISSION, BUT NOT BUT NOT RECOMMENDING AT THIS TIME THAT WE INCLUDE IT IN OUR OFFICIAL CHARTER RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY. AND INCLUDING ANY OF THE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT I PRINTED OUT LIKE 50 PAGES OF PERTAINING TO CHARTER ESTABLISHMENT JUST TODAY ALONE. BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON THIS. AND MARK, DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS SHE SHE INVITES ME FIRST. WELL YEAH. I, I WOULD DISAGREE I THINK, YOU KNOW LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES COUNCIL WILL NEVER DO THAT. I LOOK AT THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE'VE HAD A MAYOR WHO REFUSED TO SIGN AN ORDINANCE, AND YOU HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER, THE LEADER, AND BECOME BELLIGERENT WITH A RESIDENT FOR DARING TO OPPOSE, YOU KNOW, OPPOSE HIS VIEW ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE. WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER OPENLY ON THIS DAIS CALL A PROBABLY THE BIGGEST DEVELOPER WE HAVE IN TOWN A LIAR REPRESENTATIVE THERE. WE HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER REFUSE TO VOTE WITH, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT A REASON AND NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT THEIRSELVES. WE'VE HAD A COMMISSION LIAISON BASICALLY ABANDONED THEIR ROLE, WHICH FORCED A REPLACEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF AT LEAST 1 OR 2 NEW MEMBERS. I WAS ONE OF THEM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKS AND REC, AND WE'VE ALSO HAD PLANNING AND ZONING LIAISON. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS AN EFFECTIVE FIRE DISMISSAL. 
          PLEASE LEAVE US ALONE BECAUSE THERE WAS ANGST CREATED IN THAT. SO AND THAT JUST GOES, YOU KNOW, 
          [00:20:06]
THAT'S JUST COUNCIL. I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE TO ENCOMPASS CITY EMPLOYEES. BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH DONE ABOUT ANY OF THAT. SO I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF COUNCIL WILL GO ALONG TO GET ALONG. AND UNLESS THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, ONE OF THE AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY BOARD OF ETHICS. POLICY THAT YOU KNOW WAS PROPOSED, INCLUDING THE NCL, IS THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES IS TO CREATE TRANSPARENCY AND FAITH IN RESONANCE. AND, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH FAITH DO YOU HAVE IN A, IN AN INACTIVE OR UNWILLING COUNCIL TO ADDRESS UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR AND BLATANT CHARTER VIOLATIONS? I, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'VE SAID AND I ALSO I AND I DID PASS OUT. THE THE ETHICS COMMISSION FROM THE FROM GEORGETOWN'S ORDINANCE WHERE THEY WHERE THEY ESTABLISHED THEIR ETHICS COMMISSION AND THAT THEY ESTABLISHED IT INVOLVING CITY OFFICIALS AND THEIR DEFINITION OF CITY OFFICIALS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF IF OUR CITY COUNCIL WERE TO ESTABLISH A BOARD OF ETHICS OR ETHICS COMMISSION, OR WHATEVER, THAT IT SHOULD BE. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY STAFF, DEPARTMENT HEADS, THOSE WHO REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER AS WELL AS. SO THAT WOULD BE THE POLICE CHIEF AND ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. AND IT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO ANY APPOINTED PERSON. SO THAT WOULD APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ON ALL OF THE BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. SO IF, IF A IF THE COUNCIL DID DECIDE TO ESTABLISH A COMMISSION, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT IT SHOULD APPLY TO A BROAD GROUP OF PEOPLE AND NOT JUST COUNCIL PEOPLE. AND I AGREE. YEAH, IT'S EASY TO POINT OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE SO VISIBLE, THE THE THINGS THAT MAY HAVE GONE A LITTLE AWRY ON COUNCIL, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD IF WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE SHOULD. 
          YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S, THERE'S A, A LINE OF THINKING THAT WELL THE TEXAS RANGERS HAVE THIS COVERED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE ETHICS PER STATE LAW IS COVERED. WELL THAT'S FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IS IT CALLED CODE OF CONDUCT? RULES OF CONDUCT? THE RULES OF PROCEDURE HAVE SOME SOME CONTACT LANGUAGE IN THERE. GOT IT. AND THAT'S BASICALLY BEEN IGNORED THROUGHOUT AT LEAST THE LAST COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT I'M AWARE OF. I KNOW I DON'T THINK IT EXISTED BEFORE THE MAYOR REFUSED TO SIGN, BUT I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY PASSED SHORTLY AFTER THAT. WE'VE HAD RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR A LONG TIME. THE, THE, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, I THINK HAS BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 2 TO 2 AND A HALF YEARS. OKAY. SO WHAT IT ACTUALLY ACTUALLY COVERED THAT NOTHING HAPPENED. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. THERE'S NO REAL PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THAT. YOU'D HAVE TO BE REALLY, REALLY, REALLY TUNED IN TO THE CITY'S GOINGS ON TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, KNOW ABOUT THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S REALLY BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS OR THE CITY STAFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I'M JUST KIND OF USING THE THE COUNCIL AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THINGS HAVE REALLY GONE AWRY AND UNNOTICED AND, YOU KNOW, JUST INACTIVE. AND I THINK THE RULES OF PROCEDURE COVERS COMMISSIONS. YEAH. SO YEAH, IT'S IN THERE AND I AGREE. YEAH. IT SHOULD BE ACROSS THE BOARD IF YOU IF THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD. BUT IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING. NO I AGREE. BUT YEAH IT'S GOT TO BE EVERYBODY. IT CAN'T JUST BE COUNCIL AND IT'S GOT TO HAVE SOME TEETH WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY ENFORCE SOMETHING AGAINST OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR OR BLATANT CHARTER VIOLATION. WELL I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID, AND GIVEN THAT I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS ACTUALLY SINCE 2020, BACK IN 2020 IS WHEN I FIRST STARTED LOOKING INTO THIS. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO ME. THE ONLY REASON THAT I'M SUGGESTING AT THIS TIME THAT WE DON'T PUT IT IN THE CHARTER IS BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN WHAT WE CAN DO AT THIS POINT TO, TO ESTABLISH IT AND KIND OF FLESH IT OUT AND MAKE A, A, A MEANINGFUL RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE THE 
          [00:25:05]
TIME TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHY I SUGGESTED THAT, NOT THAT WE NOT THAT WE COMPLETELY OVERLOOK IT, BUT THAT WE MAKE KIND OF A EX OFFICIO RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE I DON'T KNOW IF I TEND TO THINK THAT IF WE DID DO THAT, THE COUNCIL WOULD TAKE IT AS SERIOUSLY AS IF WE PUT IT IN HERE. BUT I THINK IF WE PUT SOMETHING IN HERE THAT'S NOT REALLY WELL DEVELOPED, THEN THAT WOULD BE VERY EASY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SAY, OH, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS WON'T WORK. 
          THAT WON'T WORK. I DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN HERE THAT'S NOT LIKE, REALLY, I GET IT, I GET IT, I GET A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, YOU KNOW, TO TO USE THE TIME DEADLINE AS AN ARBITRARY POINT IN TIME WHERE WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS DONE. I KNOW WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT DONE FOR ME. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A COUPLE GIVEN, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT THIS DOES GET PASSED THROUGH BOTH COUNCIL AND VOTERS, IT'S GOING TO BE TWO MORE YEARS. SO WE HAVE TWO MORE YEARS OF, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY INACTION BY GO ALONG TO GET ALONG COUNCIL. 
          YEAH, I WAS JUST I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OUT THERE FOR BOARD, FOR BOARD OF ETHICS, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD TAKE US THAT LONG, BECAUSE IF WE LOOKED AT ALL THE BOARD OF ETHICS, AUBREY ROCKPORT, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEM DO THE SAME THING, WE JUST EACH WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE THE COMMITMENT TO BE HERE, MAKE THE COMMITMENT TO READ THROUGH THEM, PULL STUFF THAT WE LIKE, PUT IT TOGETHER, AND THEN WE DISCUSS IT AND THEN WE'RE DONE. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD REALLY TAKE TOO LONG BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT TO WORK WITH. YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT. AND WE DO HAVE A LOT TO WORK WITH. AND AND IN FACT, I THINK I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT BEFORE THAT I WAS I REALLY LIKED GEORGETOWN. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN GEORGETOWN. CITY THAT THE WAY THEY HAVE DONE, THINGS THAT I REALLY LIKE AND THEY I LIKE THE WAY THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED THEIR ETHICS COMMISSION. AND SO WE DO HAVE WE DO HAVE A LOT TO WORK WITH. BUT, MADAM CHAIR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS WILL NOT BE ON THE BALLOT. THAT DEADLINE HAS ALREADY PASSED. YEAH, PERFECT. WE GOT ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD. WE STILL HAVE DEADLINES THAT HAVE TO BE MET. WE JUST WANT TO GET DONE IN FEBRUARY. BUT WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT MAYBE. MAYBE. YES. SORRY. WELL, IT'S GOOD THAT WE FINALLY KNOW FOR SURE THAT THE MAY IS OFF THE TABLE. MAY MAY IS OFF THE TABLE OFFICIALLY AS OF YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE. OKAY. YEAH, BUT I WE'VE GOT MORE TIME. THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO DO IT IN MY OPINION. I, I HAD VERY MIXED EMOTIONS ABOUT THIS INITIALLY AND. YEA AND NAY AND I FINALLY HAVE COME DOWN ON I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE IN PLACE. FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS THAT MARK BROUGHT UP AND. THERE IT TAKES. LET'S FACE IT, EVEN CITIZENS FROM THE LAGO VISTA WHO MIGHT BE APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD, THEY STILL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE HERE AND BE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER MAY COME ABOUT IT, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. BUT THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO HAVING TO GET REELECTED. AND AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT COUNCIL SHOULD GET A BUY ON THIS, BUT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE A. IT'S A I THINK WE WOULD HAVE A BETTER RESULT, A BETTER PRODUCT IF WE HAD A BOARD OF ETHICS. BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY AND I WAS JUST READING THROUGH HERE, CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED, TO GET ON THAT BOARD OF ETHICS. WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, IN GEORGETOWN, THAT EACH COUNCIL MEMBER IS ALLOWED TO APPOINT A PERSON AND THOSE PEOPLE CANNOT BE ON ANY OTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION OR ANY THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY OTHER INVOLVEMENT IN CITY ACTIVITIES. YEAH. AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE OPEN TO OTHERS THAN PERHAPS COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MAKE TO MAKE NOMINATIONS UNLESS YOU. BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S THE IDEA IS TO GET IT OUT OF COUNCIL. YEAH. ROBERT THANK YOU. SEVERAL THINGS I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BUT I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE MAYOR WHO REFUSED TO SIGN, 
          [00:30:07]
NOT NOTHING WAS DONE. THERE WAS A CENTURY, I WILL CONCEDE THAT THAT WAS A PUBLIC CENSURE. AND IF YOU GO AND GOOGLE MAYOR KELVIN SULLIVAN, OF THE FIRST FIVE ARTICLES THAT COME UP, THREE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIS CENSURE. SO IT'S PUBLIC. IT IS OUT THERE AND IT'S NOT, I CALL IT A SLAP ON THE WRIST, BUT IT'S REALLY, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT FOR ME. SO THERE WAS SOME ACTION TAKEN WAS A REMOVAL. NO. IN THE REWRITE THAT WE DID ON 3.07, WE'VE KIND OF ALREADY ADDRESSED WITH SOME OF THIS. IT SAID IF THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION AND IT GETS PULLED OUT OF THE SECRET SQUIRREL EXECUTIVE SESSION ONLY, UNLESS THE COMPLAINT WANTS TO PULL IT OUT INTO THE LIGHT OF DAY AND SAID, HEY, NONSENSE, THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION ON LAW, ETHICS OR CHARTER. IT'S GOING TO COME OUT AND BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC AND IN PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. SO THAT SHEDS SOME SUNSHINE WHEN THERE IS A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT THAT IS RECEIVED. AND IT I THINK THAT BRINGS OUT IN THE PUBLIC VENUE A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, WE OBSERVED IT WAS IN THE CHARTER. 
          WE THOUGHT, OKAY, THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO AND IT'S CONSIDERING FOR US. 
          AND AT THAT TIME, WAY BACK IN DECEMBER, BEFORE WE TABLED IT, UNTIL WE GOT TO SECTION SEVEN, WE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH. I POSTED SOME THINGS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD TO INCLUDE SOME COMPARISONS OF OTHER CHARTERS ON DECEMBER 8TH, AND ACTUALLY STARTING POINT FOR A LANGUAGE. IF WE WANTED TO CREATE A 7.06 AND HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS AND IT IT'S I THINK IT'S A LITTLE MORE DETAIL THAN JUST SIMPLY THERE WILL BE A BOARD OF ETHICS AND CITY COUNCIL WILL CREATE IT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A FULL BLOWN ORDINANCE CREATED COMMISSION. 
          LIKE, YOU SEE WHERE THEY GO INTO ALL THE ORDINANCES. IT'S JUST SIX BULLET POINTS THAT BASICALLY SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE. HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE QUALIFIED, AND THE MEMBERS WILL BE APPOINTED EACH UNLIKE OUR CURRENT APPOINTMENT OF BOARDS, WHICH YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED, THE DEFICIENCIES IN THAT WHERE BASICALLY THE LIAISON AND PANELS, THE BOARD THAT THEY WANT AND GETS RUBBER STAMPED 99.9% OF THE TIME. PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR BOARD OF ETHICS AND LAGO VISTA. EACH COUNCILOR WHO IS REPRESENTING THE VOTERS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THEY WERE ELECTED, PUT SOMEBODY ON THE BOARD OF ETHICS. NOW, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT, OKAY, ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO POLICE THEIR OWN? BUT I THINK YOU'D HAVE A DIVERSITY OF PEOPLE ON A BOARD OF ETHICS, ONE APPOINTED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNSELOR, WHICH COULD WORK TO MINIMIZE, YOU KNOW, THE GOOD OLD BOY SYSTEM, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. SO THOSE ARE MY THREE OBSERVATIONS. I'M MUCH LIKE MR. HARRIS IN TERMS OF DOING REALLY NEEDED IN THE CHARTER. OR DO WE RECOMMEND IT NOT BE IN THE CHARTER AND THAT THE CITY GO AHEAD AND CREATE ONE BY ORDINANCE? MR. DOUGLAS IS PRETTY PERSUASIVE IN THAT REGARD, AND YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER. AND I SUBMIT THE INITIAL DRAFTS FROM DECEMBER 8TH. POST MIGHT BE A STARTING POINT THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT. I THINK WHEN I WHEN I WAS REFERENCING MY RELUCTANCE AT THIS POINT, IT WAS BECAUSE IF WE PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER THAT HAS TOO MUCH SPECIFIC INFORMATION, IT WILL GIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS A REASON TO REJECT IT. AND IF WE DON'T PUT THINGS IN THE CHARTER THAT ARE VERY SPECIFIC, AND IT'S SO BROAD THAT A CHARTER COMMISSION MAY BE ESTABLISHED, THAT IS REALLY KIND OF. JUST, YOU KNOW, KABUKI THEATER TYPE OF COMMISSION. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS AMBIVALENT ABOUT IT. I JUST EXPAND ON THAT THOUGHT. YOU CAN HARDLY WAIT TO. YEAH. YES. BECAUSE BUILDING UPON MR. DOUGLAS, THIS IS HOW I LOOK AT IT. IF WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE ONE, PUT IT IN THE DRAFT CHARTER AND MAKE CITY COUNCIL PUBLICLY AND IN PUBLIC HEARING GO. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PULL THAT OUT OKAY. SO NOW THEY HAVE TO PUBLICLY EXPRESS THEIR OPINION THAT YES, WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT THIS OR NO PUBLICLY WE ARE GOING TO TAKE IT OUT. 
          WHEREAS IF WE DON'T PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, WE JUST SAY, CAN YOU DO ONE BY ORDINANCE? MR. DOUGLAS POINTS OUT, IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN. AND GUESS WHAT? THAT DECISION WILL BE NEVER PUBLIC. 
          IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN. SO IF WE ARE FEELING STRONGLY THAT THERE SHOULD BE ONE, PUT IT IN THE 
          [00:35:03]
CHARTER AND EITHER LET THE COUNCIL ENDORSE IT OR PUBLICLY PULL IT OUT, OKAY. THAT'S A THAT'S A THAT'S A STRONG ARGUMENT, GENE. YEAH. AND I WOULD JUST I PERHAPS MAYBE I'M NOT CORRECT ON THIS, BUT THE CHARTER DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EVERY JOT AND TITTLE A TO Z ON THOU SHALT DO. AND AND THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN YADA YADA YADA. IT SEEMS LIKE THE DETAILS OF THE SANCTIONS AND THAT'S THAT, THAT SORT OF THING COULD BE CONTAINED IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. OR PERHAPS IN THE ACTUAL BOARD OF ETHICS POLICY. OKAY, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT, BECAUSE I THINK I'VE READ SO MANY OF THESE IN ONE OF THESE. CODE OF ETHICS DESCRIPTIONS IN THE CHARTER. IT DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. IT WOULD ACTUALLY REFER BACK TO SANCTIONS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, A RULES AND PROCEDURE. EXISTING LAW OR WHAT HAVE YOU. WE HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT WORK LIKE THAT. THE CHARTER SPEAKS TO IT, BUT THE DETAILS ARE IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. CAN WE? AND AGAIN, GOING BACK TO 3.07, REMEMBER BEFORE THE CHARTER SAID CENSURE OR REMOVAL. AND WE DID INCLUDE SOME LESSER PENALTIES IN THE NEW CHARTER RECOMMENDATION. AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT'S THAT'S FINE TOO. I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANT IT SO DETAILED. WELL, THERE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DETAIL, BUT IT FINE DETAIL MAYBE THAT COULD BE FLESHED OUT IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. LIKE I SAID, MAYBE. MAYBE NOT. CAN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THOUGH BE USED TO. TO AFFECT DEPARTMENT HEADS? YEAH. OKAY. THEY COVER ALL CITY STAFF. I BELIEVE WHAT WE HAVE IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE NOW, SORT OF THIS LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ANY PLACE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COUNCIL, IT ALSO MEANS THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IT ALSO APPLIES TO ALL CITY STAFF. BUT IT COULD BE IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE. OKAY. IT'S NOT. AT PRESENT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ETHICS POLICY FOR CITY STAFF, BUT I DON'T THINK THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TALK TO CITY STAFF. IT TALKS ABOUT. AND REALLY THE POINT OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS HOW TO CONDUCT MEETINGS AND HOW TO MAKE DECISIONS. BUT THAT'S NOT A STAFF FUNCTION. YEAH. SO THAT'S I'M WONDERING HOW WE COULD PUT THAT IN. WELL, I MEAN I BELONG THERE. MAYBE IT'S IN SOME OTHER DOCUMENT ETHICS POLICY OR SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. WE'VE GOT A BOARD OF ETHICS POLICY THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IF IN FACT, YOU KNOW, AT YOUR RECOMMENDATION, FOLLOWING COUNCIL DISCUSSION, COUNCIL DECIDED THAT. YOU SHOW. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONSENSUS. I DON'T KNOW, IT COULD BE. WHAT DO YOU THINK? THAT'S SO COOL. COLD. THE OPPOSITE. I THINK THE OPPOSITE. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ESTABLISHMENT OR NOT, OF A BOARD OF ETHICS IN THE IN SECTION SEVEN. AND SO SECRET BALLOT WE WE'VE BEEN PRETTY MUCH TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS OF THAT FOR THE LAST HALF HOUR. 
          PROS AND CONS. SO WHAT. YEAH. SO WHAT WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THAT. I THINK. I WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ABOUT THE SECTION OR NOT, BUT I KNOW WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING AND I COULD BE PERSUADED BY OTHERS VIEWS TO. BUT I HAVEN'T CHANGED FROM WHAT I THOUGHT AT THE LAST MEETING AT THIS TIME THAT I THINK WE SHOULD CREATE ONE AND GIVE IT A GIVE IT A GO. RIGHT. AND HOW WE TALK ABOUT THE TEST BALLOON, ROBERT, AT THE LAST MEETING. SO AND WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE TEST IS GOING TO LIVE FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS, BECAUSE IF WE DO IT AND IT STAYS FOR TWO. YEAH. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, CHARLES INFORMED US THAT WE ARE ALREADY PAST THE WINDOW FOR ME. SO THERE'S NOT THERE'S NOT AN URGENCY TO RAM IT THROUGH. WE 
          [00:40:03]
HAVE SOME TIME, A LITTLE LESS URGENCY. YEAH, THERE'S STILL URGENCY. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S NOW FOR NOVEMBER. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DATE, THE DEADLINE IS FOR THE NOVEMBER. 
          JUST GOTTA KEEP IN MIND. I GOTTA HAVE A THERE HAS TO BE A LOT OF TIME BEFORE THAT DEADLINE. YEAH, I, OUR ATTORNEY NEEDS TO REVIEW THE DRAFT. AND ANY LANGUAGE THAT GOES ON THE BALLOT HAS TO NOW BE APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE DONE THE CHARTER DEAL, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO KNOW A HARD COPY OF THE CHARTER TO REVISIT IT IN THE NEW CHARTER. YES. YEAH. I DON'T THINK ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF ETHICS SHOULD HAVE IN ANY WAY IMPEDE OUR CURRENT DEADLINE OF BEING DONE NEXT MONTH. OKAY. WELL, IT APPEARS THAT THE CONSENSUS IS THAT WE PUT A BOARD OF ETHICS IN THE CHARTER. SO TO MY POINT, IF IF I MAY. SO GOING BACK TO THE ATTACHMENT ON THE DECEMBER 8TH POST AND THEN MARK, YOU HAD SOME COMMENTARY AFTERWARDS, BUT. LAKEWOOD, LAKEWOOD, SAN ANTONIO LANGUAGE AND THE NCL LANGUAGE IS ON THERE. AND ALONG WITH KIND OF MY TAKING ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES AND PUTTING TOGETHER A PROPOSED DRAFT FOR US, WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THAT. AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, THERE WAS SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION AFTER DECEMBER 8TH. MARK POINTS. AND YOU SUGGESTED ADDING. A QUALIFICATION THAT NOT ONLY PERSONS WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. JANE, YOU HAD A COMMENT ABOUT THE WORD COTERMINOUS. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO REFRESH OUR MEMORIES. WE DID TABLE THIS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW, AND RATHER THAN RELITIGATE AND RE DELIBERATE THE WHOLE THING, MAYBE WE REVIEW WHAT WE'D ALREADY LOOKED AT AND DECIDE WHERE TO START. AND I THINK I ALSO ADDED SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE WILLINGNESS TO PREPARE FOR MEETINGS. AND I WHEN I ADDED THAT ABOUT CIVIC INTEREST, I ALSO ADDED THE THE REQUIREMENT THAT. I VAGUELY RECALL THAT AND THAT I TAKE AT THE TIME WAS WELL INTENTIONED. BUT HOW DO YOU MEASURE IT? YEAH, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS THINKING. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT? IT IS IN THE CITY CODE FOR SOME BOARDS THAT THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE APPOINTED UNLESS THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO AND WILLINGNESS TO PREPARE TO COME PREPARED. SO I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL FACTOR. I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE GO BACK AND ALREADY DONE THE COMMENTS WE'VE ALREADY MADE AND AND SEE IF WE'RE STILL LEANING TOWARDS INCLUDING IT IN SEVEN. AND I'M SORRY, BUT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025 POST. I'M GUESSING, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS SAN ANTONIO, BROWNSVILLE, LAKEWOOD. THAT WAS THE FIRST. 
          THE OCTOBER 16TH IS WHEN THE THREAD ACTUALLY STARTED. RIGHT. AND THE TITLE IS BOARD OF ETHICS. RIGHT. AND THEN THERE WAS SOME RESEARCH THAT WE PULLED TOGETHER AND SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON NOVEMBER 12TH, WHERE WE PULLED TOGETHER HUTTO LAKEWAY IN SAN ANTONIO, WHO CREATE THEIR BOARD OF ETHICS BY CHARTER, AND THEN BROWNSVILLE AND CORINTH, WHO DO IT BY ORDINANCE. BUT I'M REALLY REFERRING TO THE DECEMBER 8TH POST. YEAH, I KIND OF PULLED ALL THE SNIPPETS OF THE CHARTER, CREATED BOARDS, AND THEN DRAFTED SOME VERY PRELIMINARY PROPOSED STARTING POINT FOR US. GOT IT. OKAY. GOT IT WRITTEN DOWN. SO DID YOU JUST MAKE A A VOLUNTARY SUGGESTION? DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE WILLING TO DO THIS OR. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS ALREADY DONE, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO. I ALREADY 
          [00:45:02]
DID. IT'S ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. YEAH, PDF IS A PDF THERE. SO I MY RECOMMENDATION IS START WITH THAT DECEMBER 8TH OKAY. AND IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE OTHER HISTORICAL STUFF OR INTEREST THAT'S FINE. BUT IF WE START WITH DECEMBER 8TH AND LOOK AT OUR SHARED COMMENTS AFTER THAT, YEAH, YOU'LL HAVE TO SCROLL DOWN TO LAGO VISTA FOR PARK LANGUAGE. THERE'S A LOT TO LOOK AT. OKAY, OKAY. IT'S GOT THE SNIPPETS ABOVE IT, BUT IT'S THE LAST. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. NOT THIS. NO NOT THAT. THE OTHER THING. THE OTHER ONE. 
          THE OTHER THING. YOU'RE NOT SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT. 
          YOU WANT US TO REVIEW THAT AGAIN AND DISCUSS IT AT THE NEXT. YEAH. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO INCLUDE IN THE CHARTER. SO WITH THAT CONSENSUS, I'M SUGGESTING WE LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE AND START THERE. OKAY, THEN DO WE NEED A MOTION TO TO DO THAT AND TO PUT IT ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA? MADAM CHAIR, I THINK YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. AND WE'RE NOT REALLY TAKING ANY ACTION AT THIS POINT. I MEAN, WE COULD PULL IT UP. WE WE HAVE A DECISION THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADD IT. WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO TALK ABOUT IT NEXT WEEK. YEAH, THAT SHOULD DO IT. YEAH OKAY. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD CALL OUT IN SEVEN. 
          LINDA, YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO IS. HOW THE PEOPLE ARE APPOINTED TO THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, PARTICULARLY THE REGULATORY ONES. DO I THINK YOU AND I BOTH HATE THE FACT THAT IT'S DONE BY THE LIAISON IN MASS? YEAH. IS THERE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO HOW, GIVEN THE FACT WE HAVE TROUBLE GETTING VOLUNTEERS SOMETIMES, AND THE LOGISTICS OF ACTUALLY FILLING THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OUT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO WE RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY, I.E. EACH COUNCIL SELECTS ONE OR SOMETHING THAT I HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT OF. THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ALSO FOR OUR. YOU KNOW. WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE TO PUT IN THE CHARTER OR IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE? PROBABLY MORE PROPERLY RESIDES IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, BUT USING THE DOUGLAS ARGUMENT, WOULD IT EVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED? IF WE DON'T MANDATE IT THAT DOUGLAS. YEAH. WELL, AS YOU SAY, I AM IN AGREEMENT. WE DISCUSSED THIS AND I, I SEE THE SAME ISSUE. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. MY QUESTION, THOUGH, IS WHETHER IT BELONGS IN THE CHARTER OR THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. I GUESS WE CAN MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT IT GO IN THE CHARTER, AND THE COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS THE OPTION OF REMOVING IT, BUT IT MAY IT MAY TRIGGER SOME DISCUSSION. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT YOU AND I HAVE NOTICED. I THINK THAT SOME, SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE NOTICED IT TOO, AND MAY IT MAY BE WORTH PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO TRIGGER CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I THINK I JUST FEEL LIKE IT PROBABLY DOES BELONG IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. BUT IF WE PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, THEN IT WOULD BE ON THE TABLE AS A RECOMMENDATION TO BE DISCUSSED. RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IF I MAY, I ACTUALLY THINK THE DOUGLAS ARGUMENT DOESN'T APPLY NEARLY AS MUCH TO THE DEBT. YOU KNOW THIS AS IT DOES TO A BOARD OF ETHICS OR A BOARD OF REVIEW OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THAT, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, POLICING THEIR OWN, TAKING THAT AWAY AND POLICE, YOU KNOW, HAVING AN INDEPENDENT BODY TO ASK THEM, OKAY. SO BUT YOU KNOW, FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, I'M KIND OF IN ON IT. SO I, I THINK THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU DON'T THINK IT APPLIES AS MUCH ONLY BECAUSE MAYBE YOU AREN'T AS HYPER AWARE OF THE ISSUE AS YOU ARE ON THE, THE ISSUE THAT YOU THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THIS ACTUAL CASES THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO CITE. AS FAR AS I DON'T DISAGREE WITH, THAT. I'VE NEVER HAD REASON TO GO IN FRONT OF, YOU KNOW, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ANY OF THAT. SO YOU'RE INTIMATELY INVOLVED, YOU KNOW, IN THAT OR HAVE BEEN SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE FOLKS THAT GO IN FRONT OF THOSE BOARDS MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE. WELL, IT'S NOT AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THOSE WHO GO IN FRONT OF IT. IT'S JUST THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT A PARTICULAR COUNCIL PERSON WHO IS THE 
          [00:50:02]
COUNCIL LIAISON, SINCE THEY DO NOMINATE FOR APPOINTMENT ALL OF THE PEOPLE TO COMPRISE THEIR BOARD, THAT THEY HAVE THE POSSIBILITY. NOT SAYING THAT THEY DO, BUT THEY HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF CHOOSING PEOPLE WHO COULD. IT COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME FOR THE WHOLE YEAR OF, YOU KNOW, BASED ON HIS APPOINTMENT, ONE YEAR OR 2.1 YEAR. WELL, THEY MAKE A THEY THE APPOINTMENTS ARE FOR TWO YEARS, BUT THEY MAKE APPOINTMENTS EVERY YEAR. SO IT'S LIKE ROTATING. IT'S ROTATING. BUT BUT IF YOU HAVE A YEAR WHERE THERE ARE RESIGNATIONS AND OTHER OPENINGS, RIGHT, THEN IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. AND I THINK IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THIS YEAR THAT COUNCILOR PRINCE GOT TO APPOINT THE MAJORITY OF THE. 
          YES. THAT'S RIGHT. YES. BECAUSE YOU APPOINTED MORE THAN FOUR. YES. YOU DO. THE OPENINGS AND FOUR SEATS HAD EXPIRED AND THERE HAD BEEN ONE RESIGNATION. SO FIVE OF THE SEVEN APPOINTED, FIVE OF THE SEVEN. YEAH. RIGHT. AND I'M NOT BESMIRCHING COUNCIL PRINCE IN ANY WAY. I MEAN, IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT, I'D RATHER THAT POWER BE COUNCILOR. BUT COUNCIL, COUNCIL, COUNCIL PRINCE ISN'T GOING TO BE HERE FOREVER. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M NOT BESMIRCHING COUNCILOR PRINCE BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF OUR CURRENT SETUP. YEAH. AND SHOULD WE MITIGATE THAT IN THE FUTURE? IF I MAY JUST POINT OUT FOR THIS BOARD, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, I FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT I WAS CONCERNED WITH THAT EXACT PROCESS. AND SO I PUSHED HARD TO HAVE DUAL LIAISONS AND SPLIT THE THE APPOINTMENTS THAT WAY. SO THAT THAT IS A CASE HISTORY WHERE WE'VE, WE'VE DONE FOR THIS PARTICULAR BOARD BECAUSE I FELT IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO GET BALANCE THAT THAT COUNCIL ACTUALLY HAD MY RECOMMENDATION APPOINTED TO LIAISONS. AND, AND THE MAIN REASON WAS NOT TO SIT IN THESE MEETINGS, BUT TO APPOINT A HOPEFULLY A BETTER, BETTER MIX. 
          AND THAT'S A REALLY GOOD THAT'S A GOOD POINT, THAT EVEN JUST HAVING TWO COUNCIL PEOPLE IS RIGHT. SO I WOULD SAY, YEAH, IN LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS CHARTERS AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES THAT APPOINT VIA THE EACH COUNCILOR APPOINTS A REPRESENTATIVE. AND SO. THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THAT. BUT I, I WOULD ALSO OBSERVE THAT MOST OF THOSE ARE LARGER COMMUNITIES TOO, THAT WE HAVE A LARGER POOL OF VOLUNTEERS TO PULL FROM, WHERE WE'RE FREQUENTLY OCCASIONALLY FOR CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, HAVING TO RECRUIT BEHIND THE SCENES TO, TO FILL THE ROLES. SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE READY TO GO THAT ROUTE OR NOT. I JUST DO NOT LIKE OUR CURRENT ARRANGEMENT. DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY IN THE CHARTER? I DO FULLY BELIEVE THAT IF WE DO HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS, AND THAT'S GOT TO BE MANDATED, THAT IT WILL NOT BE CONSTITUTED BY A SINGLE COUNCILOR, EACH COUNCILOR MAKES A NOMINATION. 
          BUT BEYOND THAT, THE OTHER REGULATORY BOARDS, I COULD BE PERSUADED. EITHER WAY, I DON'T LIKE THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT NOW AS FAR AS THE ADVISORY BOARDS GO, I'M LESS CONCERNED. YOU KNOW, THOSE MAY BE EMPANELED BY A SINGLE LIAISON, NO HARM, NO FOUL. BUT THE REGULATORY BOARDS AND CERTAINLY THE BOARD OF ETHICS, I BELIEVE WE NEED A BETTER METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION. ONE OF THE. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED IN HAVING A MULTIPLE COUNCIL PEOPLE MAKE APPOINTMENTS AND MAYBE CONSIDERING DOING IT BY COMMITTEE, BECAUSE WHEN ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS ARE CONSIDERED AS A BODY, AND CONSIDERING THAT THE COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT TO APPOINT PEOPLE TO TWO COMMITTEES, IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE BODY OF APPLICANTS AND SAY, WHO WOULD BE? SINCE THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO BE ON ONE COMMITTEE, WHO WOULD BEST SERVE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE. SO OTHERWISE WHAT HAPPENS, I THINK, IS THIS THIS COUNCIL PERSON WILL SAY, WELL, I THINK THIS PERSON WOULD BE GOOD ON THIS COMMITTEE, AND THIS PERSON SAYS THEY WANT THE SAME PERSON ON THAT COMMITTEE. AND, AND THEN IT'S NOT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS DISCUSSED. GLOBALLY. 
          LIKE WHO ALL IS GOING TO BE THE BEST FIT OUT OF, OUT OF THIS POOL OF CANDIDATES. SO IF THERE WAS A COMMITTEE, IF THERE WAS SOME WAY OF DOING IT BY COMMITTEE, THAT COULD ALL BE KIND OF DISCUSSED WITH ALL OF THE POSITIONS COULD BE FILLED AT ONCE. AND DEPENDING UPON WHAT'S IN THE CHARTER, IF WE DO MANDATE SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND IT DOES GET ACCEPTED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THEIR PRACTICE TO WHATEVER FITS THE CHARTER. I THINK WHAT WE'RE 
          [00:55:02]
DOING NOW IS WHAT'S MOST EXPEDITIOUS, QUITE FRANKLY, IN TERMS OF GETTING THE POSITIONS FILLED AND MAKING THE LIAISON RESPONSIBLE WITH VERY LITTLE DISCUSSION OR PUSHBACK. I THINK THAT'S, AGAIN, JUST MOST EXPEDITIOUS PROCESS, AND IT HASN'T BEEN A CHALLENGE TO OTHER THAN OUR COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S BEEN, COUNCIL GETS SEATED AND THE LIAISON'S ARE APPOINTED AT THE VERY NEXT MEETING THEY APPOINT THERE. AND SO A LOT OF SOME COUNCIL PEOPLE DON'T REALLY HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THE WITH THE APPLICANT POOL OF APPLICANTS AND DON'T NECESSARILY DON'T REALLY HAVE TIME TO DO A LOT OF EVALUATION AND BACKGROUND. SO I THINK THAT IS A FUNCTION OF. MAKING MAYBE BETTER DECISIONS, GIVING THEM MORE TIME THAN, OKAY, THE VERY NEXT MEETING, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE YOUR APPOINTMENT LINED UP. 
          BUT AGAIN, TO ME THAT'S KIND OF A RULES OF PROCEDURE THING RATHER THAN A CHARTER THING. 
          YEAH, I'VE COME AROUND. I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF PUTTING IT OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION FOR SURE. 
          SO YOU'RE SO YOU'RE THINKING YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO, YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ON THE DOUGLAS RULE. YES. OH. OKAY. SO IF WE WERE TO PUT IT, IF WE WERE TO PUT A CHANGE IN THE CHARTER, WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS? WHAT DO YOU WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD PUT IN THERE. THIS ISN'T I'M NOT NECESSARILY IN FAVOR OF THIS, BUT I WAS JUST LOOKING AT DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES FOR IT. AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS. I'M JUST COMING UP ON GOOGLE. RIGHT. BUT THIS IS HOW I'M INTERPRETING IT IS GEORGETOWN. IT SAYS THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDED BY THE MAYOR AND THEN CONFIRMED BY COUNCIL. SO THAT COULD BE A WAY OF GIVING THE MAYOR KIND OF A LITTLE BIT MORE SAY, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AS THE POSITION OF MAYOR. I JUST THOUGHT I'D THROW THAT OUT THERE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT REALLY CHANGES ANYTHING OR, YOU KNOW, IN PRACTICE OR NOT. BUT THEN I THINK IT'S APPARENT WHAT THAT MEANS, EVEN IF WE LEFT IT THE WAY IT IS. BUT JUST ANOTHER POSSIBILITY, MAYBE THE WAY IT IS. WE'RE THE LIAISON WOULD NOMINATE THE BLANKET AND MASS, BUT THE ACTUAL VOTING WOULD BE INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THE WAY IT IS NOW, IF YOU'RE A COUNCILOR AND YOU DON'T LIKE SOMEBODY AND YOU GOTTA VOTE NO TO THE WHOLE PANEL. WHEREAS IF YOU YES, THEY NOMINATE A PANEL AND VOTE IS UP OR DOWN FROM THE PANEL. MAYBE EACH MEMBER SHOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY VOTED UP, WOULD TAKE LONGER, WOULD BE MORE VOTES. IT'S NOT AS EXPEDITIOUS. BUT WOULD THAT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCILS TO ELIMINATE ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL DOESN'T SUPPORT, VERSUS VOTING DOWN THE WHOLE BOARD? I DON'T KNOW, IT'S I THINK THEY TEND TO HASH THIS OUT BEHIND THE SCENES AND THEN RUBBERSTAMP THE PANEL. YEAH, I THINK WELL, IF IT WAS DONE BY A COMMITTEE, THEN THE COMMITTEE COULD MAKE A A. RECOMMENDED APPOINTMENT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING AND THEN THEY COULD GO PERSON BY OR POSITION BY POSITION BY POSITION AND SAY IT'S COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM. COULD YOU DEFINE COMMITTEE. IS THAT A COMMITTEE OF CITIZENS OR COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL PEOPLE, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. 
          EXACTLY. YEAH. LIKE THREE COUNCIL PEOPLE. IT COULDN'T ALL GET TOGETHER AND. OR I GUESS THEY ALL COULD GET TOGETHER. BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE UNWIELDY HERE. PRETTY MUCH AT THE COUNCIL MEETINGS. RIGHT. SO I WAS THINKING MORE LIKE A SUBCOMMITTEE. YEAH. LIKE THREE PEOPLE. YEAH. YEAH. WHAT DO YOU THINK, JIM? THINKING? YEAH, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT WHAT IT SAYS NOW. IT SAYS THE COUNCIL SHALL MAKE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S VERY BROAD TERM. I, I LIKE WHAT ROBERT SAID AS FAR AS. NOT APPROVING A PANEL OF, OF NOMINEES, I THINK EACH MEMBER KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE THAT COUNCILOR PRINCE PUT ON GETTING THE MEMBERS FOR THIS GROUP, NOT HAVING ONE PERSON HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THAT PROCESS. I LIKE THE IDEA OF OF EACH 
          [01:00:09]
NOMINEE HAVING TO STAND ON THEIR OWN. IT'S THE SAME THING AS PASSING BILLS IN CONGRESS. 
          WELL, IF YOU PUT MY BILL IN YOUR STUFF, I'LL VOTE FOR YOU. IT'S LIKE, IF IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO STAND ALONE, THEN IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH. YEAH. SO YEAH, IT WOULD TAKE LONGER. BUT I THINK I LIKE THAT IDEA. SO I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN OUR PRODUCT THAT WE BREAK THAT OUT. I DON'T CARE FOR THE IDEA OF THE MAYOR MAKING THE NOMINATIONS. KIND OF FOR THE SAME REASON. IT'S YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET AS BROAD A SPECTRUM OF POTENTIAL CANDIDATES. I DON'T THINK IF YOU JUST HAVE ONE PERSON CREATING A POOL. YEAH, I AGREE, AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT TYPE OF STRONG MAYORAL GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD WOULD POINT US IN THAT DIRECTION. HOW ABOUT IF WE. SO WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS PRETTY MUCH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THE TABLE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BY APPOINTMENTS BY SUBCOMMITTEE. AND WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT APPOINTMENTS MADE ONE BY ONE AND NOT VIA A PANEL. SO WHICH WHICH WAY ARE ARE IS EVERYBODY LEANING? ARE THEY LEANING MORE TOWARD CHANGING IT TO VIA SUBCOMMITTEE OR VIA JUST HAVING APPOINTMENTS BEING MADE INDIVIDUALLY? I THINK YOU KIND OF MUSH TWO THINGS TOGETHER INITIALLY TO GET YOUR YOUR NOMINEES MAKE THAT BROAD RIGHT. BUT WHEN YOU'RE COMING DOWN TO ACTUALLY SAYING, MR. SMITH, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION, THEN MR. SMITH STANDS FOR A VOTE ON HIS OWN. 
          MRS. SMITH STANDS FOR A VOTE ON HER OWN. MR. JONES STANDS FOR A VOTE ON THEIR OWN. ACTUALLY, PUTTING THE PERSON ON THE COMMISSION IS AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE. BUT TO GET YOUR POOL OF PEOPLE. THAT'S DIFFERENT. OKAY, THE OTHER OPTION, MADAM CHAIR, IS TO DO NOTHING AND LEAVE IT UP TO COUNCIL. KNEW THERE WAS A PROCEDURE TO COME UP, WHICH MAY MEAN CONTINUES EXACTLY AS IT IS. 
          YEAH. THERE'S ALWAYS OPTION IS THERE. AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS IN THIS IS JUST HISTORY I THINK I, I'M AWARE OF TWO INSTANCES IN MY FIVE YEARS ON COUNCIL WHERE THE SLATE OF CANDIDATES THAT WAS RECOMMENDED WAS NOT UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. I CAN REMEMBER TWO. ONE WAS A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAD JUST RESIGNED FROM COUNCIL, WAS BEING APPOINTED TO PLANNING AND ZONING, AND HE WAS PART OF THAT SLATE. AND THAT WAS REJECTED ON A CLOSE VOTE, AS I RECALL. I THINK IT WAS AFFORDED, YOU KNOW, 3 TO 4. SO THE APPROVAL WAS RECOMMENDED, THREE FOR FOUR AGAINST. BUT IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT THERE WAS ONE CANDIDATE THAT WAS THE ISSUE WITH THE FOUR WHO VOTED AGAINST IT. SO A DIFFERENT SLATE WAS PROPOSED. WITHOUT THAT CANDIDATE ON IT. IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. SIMILARLY TO THAT, AS MR. OWEN WAS POINTING OUT, I RECOMMENDED FIVE APPOINTEES TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING A FEW WEEKS BACK, AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS OF ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. MY RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVED ON A 5 TO 2 VOTE. SO THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO BASICALLY VOTED AGAINST THAT. 
          I'LL POINT OUT THAT WE COUNCIL TYPICALLY DOES. I THINK IT'S LIKE 8 OR 9 COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, AND THERE COULD BE 3 TO 4 APPOINTEES ON AVERAGE FOR EACH OF THOSE. SO, YOU KNOW, I'D BE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT TURNING SOMETHING THAT'S CURRENTLY A 30 MINUTE DISCUSSION INTO A FOUR HOUR, FIVE HOUR DISCUSSION. I WILL CLOSE WITH THIS THAT I HAVE SOME SPECIFIC THOUGHTS THAT YOU'VE TRIGGERED, SOME THOUGHTS WITH ME, A GOOD WAYS TO HANDLE IT, WHETHER IT'S IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OR THE CHARTER, BUT KIND OF BY OUR PROCEDURES. 
          I CAN'T SHARE THAT WITH YOU, BUT I WANT TO I WANT TO INITIATE SOME DISCUSSION ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD ON THIS SUBJECT. SO YOU MAY YOU MAY CONSIDER TABLING THIS FOR NOW, COMING BACK TO IT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL. OKAY, ONE THING THAT COULD BE DONE, INSTEAD OF DOING ALL OF THEM, ALL OF THE APPOINTMENT IN ONE NIGHT IS TO DO THE REGULATORY APPOINTMENTS IN ONE NIGHT AND ADVISORY BOARD ON A DIFFERENT ONE. THAT WOULD BREAK IT UP A 
          [01:05:02]
LITTLE BIT. OKAY, SO. I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU KNOW, FOR WHATEVER REASON, I WAS THINKING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL APPOINTEES OR RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE QUASI APPROVAL BOARDS AND DIDN'T REALLY APPLY TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES. DO WE DO WE LEAVE THAT? WELL, THAT'S I SAID, THAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE. WE COULD MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS. ONLY. WE COULD MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND ALL THE REGULATORY, AND WE CAN MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE TO ALL, I THINK, PROBABLY MAKING IT APPLICABLE TO THE ADVISORY BOARDS WOULD BE OVERKILL AND PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY IN MY OPINION. I DEFINITELY THINK THE BOARD, IF WE ESTABLISH A BOARD OF ETHICS AND SURVIVES THE CHARTER, THAT ONE DEFINITELY SHOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL AS INDIVIDUAL AND THE OTHER REGULATORY IS IN THE MIDDLE. I CAN GO EITHER WAY. WELL, I THINK THAT. WE COULD, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, TABLE THIS UNTIL POSSIBLY THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION AMONGST COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THIS AND MAYBE THERE WILL BE SOME IDEAS GENERATED ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD THAT MIGHT LEAD US TO MAKING A DECISION AT THE FUTURE CHARTER MEETING. OKAY. SO I WOULD SAY LET'S PUT OFF THE THE APPROVAL FOR SECTION SEVEN FOR NOT NEXT WEEK, BUT TWO WEEKS. GIVE US GIVE EVERYBODY ADEQUATE TIME FOR. SO WE WOULD BRING BACK THE BOARD OF ETHICS DISCUSSION AND THE METHODOLOGY DISCUSSION IN TWO WEEKS. YES. IF THAT'S IF THAT'S SOMETHING EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT WITH. YEAH. OKAY. FOR COUNCILOR PRINCE'S. BENEFIT, I WOULD JUST SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO LINK, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE COUNCIL BOARD, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LINK TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS DISCUSSION. THAT'S ON THE CRC JUST FOR BACKGROUND. OKAY. YEAH. 
          GOOD IDEA. SO ANYTHING REGARDING NOMINATION APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS IS GOING TO FALL INSIDE THE BOARD OF ETHICS ON OUR DISCUSSION. NO, IT WOULD FALL UNDER ARTICLE SEVEN. NO, NO I'M SAYING ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD LIKE IF WE IF I HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON ON HOW TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS TO A BOARD, ARE WE GOING TO START A NEW THREAD OR ARE WE GOING TO USE THE BOARD OF ETHICS THREAD? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE A NEW THREAD BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT GETS. SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS DISCUSSION UP BEYOND AND IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE STANDALONE. YEAH. YEAH. IF I'M UNLESS I'M MISSING IT, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY A THREAD POSTED ON YOUR BOARD FOR ARTICLE SEVEN. THERE IS THERE IS A BOARD OF ETHICS. THERE IS A BOARD OF ETHICS DISCUSSION SUBTOPIC UNDER SEVEN. WE HAVEN'T YEAH. 
          WE HAVEN'T CREATED A SEVEN YET BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GETTING TO THAT. BUT THE BOARD OF ETHICS THAT WAS CREATED A WHILE BACK AND THEN WE TABLED IT UNTIL WE GOT TO SEVEN. OKAY. SO THERE'S CONSENSUS ON THAT. WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS OFF FOR TWO WEEKS TWO WEEKS. SO LET'S MOVE ON TO ARTICLE EIGHT FINANCIAL PROCEDURES. SO MAYBE COUNCIL WOULDN'T YOU WRITE TO BOARD OF ETHICS. YEAH I MEAN I'M WRITING MYSELF A NOTE. THERE'S REALLY TWO POSTS THAT I SEE. ONE IS ABOUT THE ETHICS COMMISSION WITH A LINK TO WHAT ALL THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY DONE. AND THERE'S A SEPARATE TOPIC REALLY IN THIS PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. THERE YOU GO. ON ARTICLE EIGHT. THERE ARE I HAVE NO COMMENT OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY INCORPORATED. PREVIOUSLY FOR OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THAT. MARK OR JEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ARTICLE EIGHT? JUST LOOKING AT THE CONSOLIDATED NOTES AND AT. I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING YOU KNOW, TO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING REPLACING 702 WITH ALL THE LEGAL TWO, THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, BUT ARTICLE 806. CONSIDER REVISING LAGO VISTA 806, WITH THE LAST SENTENCE COMMENCING ON LINE 12 912 UNUSED APPROPRIATIONS. THAT'S AUBREY 7707 AND AUBREY. THAT'S 
          [01:10:08]
WHAT THAT'S REFERRING TO. DID YOU PRINT THIS OUT? NO I DIDN'T, OH, BUT YOU, BUT YOU BUT YOU HAVE IT. YOU HAVE IT. YEAH. ISN'T IT NICE? IT'S GREAT. GREAT. IT'S GREAT, IT'S GREAT. 
          HIGHLIGHTED COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT. THIS IS ON LINE 1091. I BELIEVE COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT THE BUDGET BY ORDINANCE THAT FAILS TO ADOPT THE BUDGET BY SEPTEMBER 30TH. THE BUDGET PROPOSED BY THE CITY MANAGER SHALL GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS COUNCIL ADOPTS THE BUDGET WE DID. WE AGREE TO PUT THAT THROUGH. A LITTLE FUZZY ON HOW WE DISCUSSED THAT THOROUGHLY. 
          JUST A LANGUAGE. YEAH, EXACTLY. IT'S JUST A FAIL SAFE. IF COUNCIL CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT. SO WE WE THERE'S A FAIL SAFE THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET GOES FORWARD. 
          WE AGREED TO DO THAT. IT WAS NOT TAKEN. TAKE THE EXISTING BUDGET AND NO, NO, THIS IS WHAT THE CITY MANAGER DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS. NO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS AND LAGO. THAT'S FINE. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT. AND YOU SAID LINE 1091 IS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTER? IT'S IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTER WITH THE RED LINES. OKAY, I GUESS I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE A WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU SAY NO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS. WE HAD WHAT I KNOW WAS OUR FIRST PROTEST. DID YOU AND I JUST CAME ACROSS IT QUITE ACCIDENTALLY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. DID ANYBODY ELSE SEE IT? THERE WAS A PROTEST ON AT 1431. OH YEAH. LAST WEEK. YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH. AND I WAS, I WAS LIKE AND I WAS LIKE, OKAY. OUR VERSION OF A PROTEST, THERE WERE LIKE SIX PEOPLE THERE, BUT SO WHO KNOWS, WE MAY HAVE A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN NOW THAT WE HAVE A IT WAS A IT WAS A EXERCISE OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, FIRST AMENDMENT. IT WAS KIND OF LIKE AN ALL ENCOMPASSING. IT WAS KIND OF LIKE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PROTESTED ALL YEAR, EVERYWHERE, EVERYBODY. THERE WERE PEOPLE PROTESTING. ONE PERSON HAD ONE OF EACH PUT IN THERE. LET'S COME BACK TO WHERE WE'RE. YEAH. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON SECTION EIGHT THAT I. OKAY. SO WHAT WE HAD NOTED ON 806. WAS THE AUBRY CHARTER JUST SAYS UNUSED APPROPRIATIONS MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY ITEM AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO PAY CITY EXPENSES. 
          WHEREAS OUR CHARTER IN 806 SAYS THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY AT. NO. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT. LINE 11 09I THINK, IS WHERE. WOULDN'T THAT BE? KIND OF ALONG THOSE LINES, CITY MANAGER, WHAT I HAD FOR 806, THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY. I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT REDUNDANT WITH EIGHT, TEN, EIGHT, TEN TALKS ABOUT BONDS AND FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AND JUST SEEMS LIKE. 806 IS TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE BUDGET, AMENDING THE BUDGET. AND THEN JUST THIS WHOLE LINE ABOUT BORROWING MONEY IS THROWN IN THERE, WHEREAS WE HAVE A WHOLE SECTION ON BONDS AND OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS WHERE YOU BORROW MONEY. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY. OKAY. 
          WE'VE ALREADY SAID THE COUNCIL HAS THE POWER TO DO ANYTHING THAT FALLS WITHIN THE STATE LAW, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BORROWING MONEY. AND WE ALSO HAVE A WHOLE ARTICLE ON BONDS AND OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AND HOW TO ISSUE. SO TO ME, THE SENTENCE ON THAT BEGINS ON 1099. 
          THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY, ISSUE CERTIFICATES, OBLIGATION, TIME, WARRANTS, NOTES, AND OTHER EVIDENCE OF DEBT OR RECOVERING EMERGENCY IS REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY, BUT I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. WELL. 1146 AND 810 BASICALLY SAYS THE SAME THING. YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH. SO IT JUST SEEMS AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE'VE GOT SOME ALSO REDUNDANCY. THAT'S UNNECESSARY LANGUAGE. AND AS LONG AS WE'RE CLEANING IT UP IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. DOES ANYBODY SEE A REASON FOR THAT SENTENCE IN 806. 
          IT'S ON LINE 1099. NO, NO. WE ALL THINK IT'S REDUNDANT AS WELL. SO SHOULD WE CUT THAT OUT? YES, YES. OKAY. THEN THAT GETS US TO 1110 WHERE I HAD THE NOTE ABOUT AUBRY 707 SAYS THE CITY 
          [01:15:17]
MANAGER MAY TRANSFER ALL OR ANY UNENCUMBERED BALANCES AND LOAN PROGRAMS WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT, AND SHALL REPORT SUCH TRANSFERS TO THE COUNCIL IN A TIMELY MANNER. WRITING IN A TIMELY MANNER, AUBRY JUST SAYS UNUSED APPROPRIATIONS MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY ITEM AS DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO PAY EXPENSES. SO IN MY MIND, THAT DOES TWO THINGS. ONE, COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE THE UNUSED APPROPRIATION DECISION, NOT THE CITY MANAGER, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW TRANSFERRING ACROSS DEPARTMENTS, NOT JUST WITHIN A DEPARTMENT. SO RIGHT NOW CITY MANAGER CAN MOVE MONEY AROUND, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND MOVES IT FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER. THEN YOU GOT TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT. SO ONE SHOULD THE CITY MANAGER MAKE THE CALL ON ON UNUSED APPROPRIATIONS. AND TWO, DOES IT NEED TO BE LIMITED TO WITHIN DEPARTMENT, OR SHOULD THE CHARTER ALLOW COUNCIL TO MOVE IT ACROSS DEPARTMENT. SO THAT'S THE TWO ISSUES I SEE. THAT'S HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE HAS IT BEEN WITH MOVING FUNDS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS? WELL, I'M ASSUMING THE FINANCIALS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT SEEMS LIKE UNNECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS COME FORWARD BECAUSE AND MAYBE OUR CITY MANAGER COULD LET US KNOW IF THAT'S A CONSTRAINT OR IF IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE TO KEEP IT WITHIN DEPARTMENT. THAT'S ACTUALLY A CONVERSATION OUR FINANCE COMMITTEE IS HAVING NOW, TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN IT OUT, TO KEEP FROM HAVING SO MANY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. SO. SO PERMITTING TRANSFERS AMONG AMONG DEPARTMENTS WOULD BE EFFICIENT, I BELIEVE. SO, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGEST THING IS YOU DON'T WANT IT TO WHERE THE CITY MANAGER CAN CHANGE THE BOTTOM LINE AND YOUR BUDGET HAS TO REMAIN BALANCED. MADAM CHAIR. THE AUBREY CHARTER SAYS UNUSED APPROPRIATIONS MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY ITEM AS DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO PAY CITY EXPENSES. WELL, CITY COUNCIL IS NOT GOING TO BE COMING UP WITH THAT ON THEIR OWN. THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO COME TO THEM AND SAY, I WOULD LIKE TO DO X, Y, Z. AND THEN NOW THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO SAY YAY OR NAY. SO I THINK THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT KIND OF STOPS A CITY MANAGER FROM JUST ARBITRARILY MAKING DECISIONS THAT HAVE WOULD HAVE A BAD IMPACT ON THE BUDGET AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS. IS THAT, YEAH. A LITTLE COLOR COMMENTARY. SINCE I'M ON THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE THAT MR. WEST REFERRED TO. SO I THINK AT ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM. YOU CAN TRY TO BE EFFICIENT AND ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO HAVE DISCRETION TO MOVE MONEY AROUND. AS LONG AS AS MR. WEST SAID HE DOESN'T, HE OR SHE DOESN'T CHANGE THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THE CITY. AT THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, YOU CAN TRY TO HAVE CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, MAKING THOSE DECISIONS ABOUT MOVING THINGS AROUND AND IT BECOMES MORE CUMBERSOME, BUT MAYBE MORE TRANSPARENT BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL IS MAKING THE DECISIONS. THERE MAY BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND IN BETWEEN, WHICH I THINK IS SORT OF THE ATTEMPT OF THE CURRENT CHARTER LANGUAGE OF ALLOWING CITY MANAGER TO MOVE DOLLARS WITHIN A DEPARTMENT, BUT NOT CROSS DEPARTMENTS. WHETHER THAT'S A RIGHT ANSWER OR NOT, YOU ALL CAN, CAN, CAN DEBATE. CITY COUNCIL ALSO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE TOTAL SPENDING FOR THE CITY. NOW, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE BUDGET IS SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED, AND SO PRESUMABLY CITY COUNCIL WOULD NOT SAY WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE MONEY, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THAT MONEY IS COMING FROM TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE MONEY AND WE'RE GOING TO USE THESE RESERVES OR WE'RE GOING TO ISSUE THIS BOND OR WHATEVER. SO TO SPEND MORE MONEY, IT DEFINITELY IS A COUNCIL COUNCIL JOB, AS PER OUR CHARTER RIGHT NOW. BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, MOVING, MOVING MONEY AROUND WITHIN A DEPARTMENT WHICH IS PRETTY CONSTRAINED IS IS THE LIMITS THAT OUR CURRENT CHARTER ALLOWS. SO DO YOU RELAX THOSE LIMITS TO MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT OR DO YOU KEEP, YOU KNOW, LIMITS FAIRLY TIGHT. SO THAT CITY MANAGER DOESN'T MAKE DECISIONS IN A BLACK BOX? THAT'S JUST KIND OF I THINK THAT TRYING TO TEE UP WHAT THE WHAT THE QUESTIONS ARE. MADAM CHAIR. I BELIEVE THIS WAS YOUR SUGGESTION. WELL, SOMETHING WE NOTED. YEAH. WELL, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH AUBREY. YEAH. AS A 
          [01:20:06]
DISCUSSION POINT AND THEN AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT, YOU KNOW, I'VE KIND OF COME TO THE OPINION PERSONALLY THAT I THINK OUR CHARTER SHOULD STAY AS IT IS. OKAY. WELL, AS A MEASURE OF FLEXIBILITY TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR CONSTRAINTS THAT THE DEPARTMENTS OR WE JUST TAKE OUT THE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND SAY, ONCE THE BUDGET IS APPROVED BY CITY, THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE LATITUDE. THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WE QUARANTINE AS WELL. WOULD THERE BE ANY. SO THAT WOULD I WOULD SAY, DON'T ADOPT AUBREY UNLESS DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WITHIN A DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO REMAIN IN OUR CHARTER. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT. OKAY. 
          WELL, WHAT I, WHAT I'M HEADED TOWARDS IS I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HAS ANY MERIT, BUT TO COUNCILOR PRINCE'S POINT, YOU KNOW, OUR CHARTER SAYS THE CITY MANAGER CAN MOVE MONEY WITHIN A DEPARTMENT. COULD YOU JUST ADD ON THE NEXT SENTENCE UNUSED APPROPRIATIONS MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY ITEM AS DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO PAY CITY EXPENSES. COULD COULD THAT JUST GO ON AS AS AN ADDENDUM TO 806 THE LAST SENTENCE AND AND HAVE AND THERE THEREBY GIVING THE ABILITY TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE DEPARTMENTS? YEAH. I DON'T THINK IT REALLY ADDS ANYTHING. AS JONATHAN POINTED OUT, COUNCIL ALREADY HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, WHETHER IT'S AN UNUSED APPROPRIATION OR ANOTHER APPROPRIATION. THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. WHAT AUBREY DOES IS RESTRICT IT TO COUNCIL. AND TO ME, IN READING IT THROUGH, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S TOO RESTRICTIVE. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ARGUE IS IF YOU USE THAT PHRASING, IT ACTUALLY EMPOWERS CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE. RIGHT NOW, IT IS TOTALLY UP TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS REPORT SUCH TRANSFERS TO THE COUNCIL IN WRITING IN A TIMELY MANNER. I THINK. I THINK YOU SAID AS DETERMINED BY COUNCIL. I'M NOT SURE THE EXACT WORDS YOU USED, BUT THAT IMPLIES OR ACTUALLY EXPLICITLY DESCRIBES THAT. NOW YOU FROM COUNCIL TO APPROVE THAT. SO THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN NOW WITHIN WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY MANAGER HAS CARTE BLANCHE. BUT YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, THEY CAN BE EFFICIENT. GET IT DONE, GIVE A REPORT TO COUNCIL AND IT'S DONE. BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. YEAH. CAN THE CITY MANAGER. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S ALREADY WE ALREADY DO THAT. THE COUNCIL. SAYS YAY OR NAY TO TAKE MONEY FROM THIS DEPARTMENT TO GIVE IT TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT. IF IT'S ACROSS DEPARTMENTS. YES. THE QUESTION I'M POSING IS, DO WE WANT TO CONSTRAIN THE CITY MANAGER TO KEEPING IT WITHIN DEPARTMENTS, OR DO WE WANT TO TAKE THE PHRASE WITHIN A DEPARTMENT OUT AND THE CITY MANAGER HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO MOVE FUNDS ACROSS DEPARTMENTS? OKAY, MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD SAY LET THE CITY MANAGER MOVE IT AMONG DEPARTMENTS, BUT IT CANNOT CROSS FUNDS BECAUSE LIKE CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS ARE FUNDED OUT OF A DIFFERENT FUND THAN OTHER DEPARTMENTS. BECAUSE YOU GIVE ME I'M NOT SAYING NAME, BUT LIKE YOU GIVE THE CITY MANAGER SAYING HE CAN MOVE MONEY FROM ANY DEPARTMENT TO ANY DEPARTMENT. HE CAN TAKE MONEY OUT OF UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, MOVE IT OVER HERE TO ADMINISTRATION AND STUFF. AND BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN THE GENERAL FUNDS. SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. RATHER THAN STRIKE THE PHRASE WITHIN DEPARTMENT, JUST CHANGE WITHIN A DEPARTMENT TO WITHIN A FUND. YES. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD GIVE THE MANAGER A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL. YEAH. YEAH OKAY. OKAY. IS A CONSENSUS ON THAT CHANGING IT TO LOAN PROGRAMS WITHIN A FUND? DO YOU THAT. AND IS FUND IS THAT WELL DEFINED. THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ON THIS. 
          BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE I WOULD TAKE MONEY OUT OF RESTRICTED FUNDS AND PUT IT INTO GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS YOUR RESTRICTED FUND IS LIKE HOTEL MOTEL CERTAIN FUNDS, RESTRICTED FUNDS. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, ALL OF OUR STRATEGIC OBLIGATION RESTRICTED COMPONENTS. OKAY. SO THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SHOULD IT SAY WITHIN A. NON RESTRICTED FUND. WELL, I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE 
          [01:25:05]
MR. WEST HAD ALREADY SUGGESTED IS NO, NO, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO MOVE MONEY ACROSS FUNDS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, I'M JUST INTERPRETING WHAT HE SAID. THE CITY MANAGER COULD MOVE EXPENSES FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND. BUT THE THE CITY MANAGER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE FUNDS FROM THE FROM WATER UTILITIES INTO PARKS, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CROSSING FROM THE UTILITY FUND INTO THE GENERAL FUND. AND SIMILARLY, THE RESTRICTED FUNDS SUCH AS THE, YOU KNOW, STREET IMPACT FEE, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT FEES AND AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HOTEL TAX, THOSE THOSE ARE INDIVIDUAL FUNDS. SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE COVERS THAT. YEAH. SO YOU SAY WITHIN WITHIN AN UNRESTRICTED FUND, THEN THE CITY MANAGER NOW HAS A POWER. THEY CAN MOVE RESOURCES, PERSONNEL, PEOPLE WITHIN A FUND THAT'S NOT RESTRICTED AND HAVE THE LATITUDE TO RESTRUCTURE AND OPTIMIZE THE CITY WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR THAT. NOW, SMART CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO TALK TO COUNCIL AHEAD OF TIME. BUT IF SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE QUICKLY, YOU HAVE THE LATITUDE TO DO IT. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. NO, I DON'T EITHER. I THINK THAT JUST CHANGING THAT IS JUST WILL MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT AND. WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. SO SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT. SO WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE LAST SENTENCE ON 1109 1110 1110. 
          RIGHT. BUT STARTING AT 1109. SO IT'S JUST GOING TO SAY IF I UNDERSTAND. SO WHAT'S THE FINAL SUGGESTED AMENDMENT WITHIN A FUND AND SHALL REPORT, OR IS IT WITHIN A TRANSFER PART OR ALL OF THE UNENCUMBERED BALANCES AMONG PROGRAMS WITHIN A NON RESTRICTED FUND? OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. 1809I HAD. WE DEFINE THE WORD PUBLISH IN OUR DEFINITIONS. SO I THINK WE COULD SIMPLIFY 809 TO JUST SAY COPIES OF THE BUDGET CIP AND APPROPRIATION. APPROPRIATION AND REVENUE ORDINANCES SHALL BE PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL BE PUBLISHED. OKAY. PERIOD. PERIOD DEFINED PUBLISHES AND ALL THAT. OKAY. SO PUBLISHED CAPITAL P AND PUBLISHED. WITH QUOTATION MARK. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR. OKAY. NO OTHER COMMENTS ANY. OKAY. GIVE ME TWO. ARTICLE NINE TAXATION. 
          WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ON OUR NOTES ON ARTICLE NINE. AND WE DIDN'T REALLY MAKE MUCH OF. 
          YEAH WE JUST VERY STRANGE IN ARTICLE NINE LAST TIME. VERY FEW CHANGES. YEAH. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER? EITHER ONE. I HAD A NOTE HERE THAT OUR CHARTER IS 7.15. ALLOWS FOR THE FUNDING OF NONPROFITS. AND I KNOW THAT OUR LAST BUDGET CYCLE, THIS BECAME A POINT OF CONTENTION. AUBREY 7.15 SAYS TAXPAYER FUNDS TO NONPROFITS AS ALLOWED BY LAW, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT A PROGRAM PROVIDING THE CITY FUNDS DERIVED FROM AD VALOREM TAX OR SALES TAX MAY BE USED TO FUND THE PUBLIC PURPOSES OF A 
          [01:30:07]
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. SUCH PROGRAMS SHALL ONLY BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT SETS FORTH CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE FUNDING WILL BE PROVIDED, AS WELL AS REQUIREMENTS THAT THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION SHALL PROVIDE REPORTS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION AS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE BY THE COUNCIL, IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO VERIFY THE APPROPRIATE AND LAWFUL USE OF FUNDS. IF THIS WAS IN OUR CHARTER LAST BUDGET CYCLE, WOULD THAT HAVE SOLVED THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF FUNDING OUR NONPROFITS, WHERE THIS BUDGET CYCLE BASICALLY WOUND UP CUTTING IT ALL? OR IS THAT JUST RESTATING LEGALLY HOW TO DO IT? I DON'T KNOW, YEAH. I DON'T THINK THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU READ WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE DISCUSSION OR THE RESULT IN COUNCIL THIS LAST BUDGET CYCLE. SO MY MY SUMMARY OF WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY OUR LAWYER WAS THAT CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES CAN ONLY USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY FOR THINGS THAT THEY WOULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE AS A SERVICE TO CITIZENS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WHEN WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, WHEN WHEN IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WERE SOME FUNDS THAT WERE GOING TO KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL AND THAT WAS BEING USED FOR, YOU KNOW, PURPOSES BEING DESCRIBED, AND THE CONCLUSION WAS THOSE WERE THINGS THAT THE CITY WOULD NORMALLY BE EXPECTED TO DO, YOU KNOW, CUT THE GRASS, KEEP THE STREETS CLEAN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE AN EFFICIENT USE OF CITIZENS DOLLARS TO, TO PROVIDE THAT MONEY TO A NONPROFIT AND HAVE THAT WORK DONE. ON THE OTHER HAND, FOOD BANK IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF VISTA HAS, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO TO PROVIDE FOR ITS CITIZENS. AND AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO RECOUNT FOR YOU WHAT I HEARD OUR CITY ATTORNEY SAYING AND THEREFORE USING PUBLIC TAX MONEY FOR THAT PURPOSE. SO WHERE YOU STARTED WAS, AS STATE LAW ALLOWS. AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM OUR ATTORNEY WAS THE THINGS WE HAD BEEN DOING WERE NOT THINGS THAT THE STATE LAW APPLIES. SO IT WOULDN'T HELP. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE HELPED OR MADE IT MADE A DIFFERENCE. SO IS THERE ANY UPSIDE TO GO AHEAD AND PUTTING THIS LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER SO THAT YOU DO HAVE THE POWER, IF SOMETHING DOES COME UP THAT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA WOULD LEGALLY BE ALLOWED. IT'S IN OUR CHARTER TO PERMIT. I BECAUSE AUBREY OBVIOUSLY FOUND VALUE IN PUTTING IT IN THEIR CHARTER. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. YEAH, AUBREY FOUND VALUE IN PUTTING IT IN THEIR CHARTER. AND AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, CITY OF ROUND ROCK DOES SOME FUNDING OF ARTS. RIGHT. AND SO THEY'VE FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO IT. SO I DON'T I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION OUT OF THAT LAST BUDGET CYCLE THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE A WAY TO, TO DO SOME THINGS THAT THE CITY THINKS ARE FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF ITS CITIZENS, WHETHER IT'S ARTS OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, BECAUSE SOME OTHER CITIES ARE DOING IT NOW, WHETHER THEY'RE BREAKING THE LAW OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE OUR CITY ATTORNEY WOULD SAY THAT WAS BREAKING THE LAW BY FUNDING AN ARTS CENTER. I YOU KNOW, I KIND OF KIND OF DOUBT THAT, BUT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF IN ADDITION TO THE CHARTER WOULD HELP ON THIS FRONT OR IT'S JUST A MATTER OF FIGURING OUT HOW TO PARSE THE STATE LAW AND DO IT. I DON'T KNOW, MR. WEST, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, ARTS CAN BE FUNDED. HOTEL, MOTEL TAX. THERE IS THERE IS A WAY TO DO THAT. ME PERSONALLY, I LIKE IT BEING IN THERE BECAUSE IT DOES GIVE THE IT LETS EVERYBODY KNOW IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO IT, BUT IT'S GOT TO MEET THE STATE GUIDELINES. SO IT'S NOT A HARD NO, BUT IT'S NOT A DEFINITE YES. WHEN THEY COME AND REQUEST BY US. MADAM CHAIR, I MIGHT BE REMEMBERING INCORRECTLY, BUT I BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF PUBLIC MONIES CAN BE USED AS LONG AS IT'S FOR SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO DO ON THEIR OWN. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CONTRACTUAL WITH SOME GROUP TO PROVIDE VERY SPECIFIC SERVICE. CUTTING THE GRASS, RAISING AND LOWERING THE FLAG, WHATEVER, AND ARTS, FOR EXAMPLE, I, I WOULD I WOULDN'T GO FOR THAT. I THINK IT WAS DANIEL BOONE WHO GOT BERATED BY A, A PERSON WAY BACK WHEN FOR SPENDING PUBLIC MONEY ON WHATEVER IT WAS. AND THAT THAT HAS STUCK WITH ME. YEAH. AND THAT'S A REAL SLIPPERY SLOPE. SO TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE REAL 
          [01:35:07]
SPECIFIC, REAL GOOD. BEFORE I WOULD VOTE FOR IT, I GUESS IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT. 
          WHAT I WOULD SAY THAT AUBREY'S LANGUAGE HAS A LOT OF QUALIFIERS IN THERE, YOU KNOW, AS ALLOWED BY LAW AS IT STARTS WITH AS ALLOWED BY LAW TO FUND A PUBLIC PURPOSE. SO IT'S GOT TO BE LEGAL AND IT'S GOT SOME KIND OF SERVE, SOME KIND OF PUBLIC PURPOSE. YOU GOTTA BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, YADA, YADA, YADA. I, I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO TAKE AUBREY 7.16, TACK IT ON TO THE END OF OUR ARTICLE. EIGHT IS 8.17, AND THEN IT BECOMES A DISCUSSION POINT. IF IT SURVIVES THE CHARTER, THEN AT LEAST IF SOMETHING DOES COME UP IN THE FUTURE THAT CHECKS ALL OF THE BOXES, THEN CLEARLY OUR CITY HAS THE POWER TO ALLOCATE FUNDS, WHEREAS NOW OUR CHARTER IS SILENT AND THE ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT EVEN IF IT CHECKS ALL THE BOXES, OUR CHARTER DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THAT USE OF FUNDS. AND SO OUR CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE THE COVER THAT THEY NEED. IF THEY FIND A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE THAT'S ALLOWED BY LAW, AN ARGUMENT STILL CAN BE MADE THAT OUR CHARTER DOESN'T ALLOW IT. SO I JUST DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN TACKING 7.15 FROM AUBREY ONTO THE END OF OUR ARTICLE. IF WE WERE GOING TO USE THE WORD PUBLIC, I WOULD WANT TO SEE A 500 1C3 QUALIFIED AS A PUBLIC PURPOSE BECAUSE PUBLIC IS. THAT'S TOO BROAD SUBJECTIVE. 
          IT'S PUBLIC PURPOSES OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. I THINK NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WELL-DEFINED NOT NONPROFITS ARE NOT ALWAYS 500 1C3. NO, BUT THEY ARE WELL DEFINED IN THE TAX CODE. WHAT A NONPROFIT IS. WELL, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS PRETTY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID IT HAD TO BE A 500 1C3, AS OPPOSED TO A 501. FOR EXAMPLE, AN HOA IS A 500 1C4. IT'S A NONPROFIT, BUT IT'S A 500 1C4. BUT IT WOULDN'T MEET THE PUBLIC PURPOSE, AND IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY MEET AS ALLOWED BY LAW. SO MY ARGUMENT IS I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS IN THE LANGUAGE THAT IF SOMETHING THAT MEETS A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS DONE BY A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AND IT'S ALLOWED BY LAW, TAX MONEY CAN FLOW TO IT BY COUNCIL ACTION. 
          YEAH, I AGREE, THE I'VE HEARD SOME CHATTER OR PUSHBACK ONLINE, OF COURSE, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, KEEP LAGO VISTA BEAUTIFUL AND YOU KNOW, QUESTIONING WHY ARE THEY GETTING FUNDS OR TAXPAYER FUNDS TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO OUT AND DO THIS STUFF. AND IT'S EASY TO JUSTIFY AND TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE DOING WORK THAT THE CITY NOW WOULD HAVE TO DO, BUT DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. AND I THINK EXACTLY FOR THE COVER, AS CHARLES INDICATED, HE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IN THERE IN THE SAFEGUARDS I THINK ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO INCLUDING IN THE NEW CHARTER. I WOULD NOT I WOULD NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT UNLESS IT SPECIFICALLY SAID A 500 1C3 PUBLIC. WHY WOULD YOU WANT IT TO BE THAT INSTEAD OF BECAUSE OF LIKE AN HOA? NOT ONLY DOES AN HOA, BUT THERE ARE THERE ARE STATUTES THAT TALK ABOUT PUBLIC FOUNDATIONS THAT DON'T DEFINE WHAT A PUBLIC FOUNDATION IS. AND I SO I DON'T THINK PUBLIC IS AS WELL DEFINED AS I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. I MEAN, IT'S IT'S PUBLIC PURPOSE BY A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION I'M NOT FOLLOWING. YOU WANTED TO SAY 500 1C3, THEN AN HOA COULD QUALIFY AS A 500 1C3. I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO READ THE WHOLE PHRASE IN TANDEM. IT'S GOT TO BE USED TO FUND A PUBLIC PURPOSE BY A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. SO THAT MEANS IT MUST SERVE A NEED OF THE CITY OR THE CITIZENS. NUMBER ONE, PUBLIC PURPOSE. AND NUMBER TWO, IT'S GOT TO BE DONE BY A VALID NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. WELL, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH LBV IS THERE ARE FANTASTIC ORGANIZATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT A LEGAL, ORGANIZED ENTITY. OKAY. THAT'S THE TO MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          AND THIS IS ALL HEARSAY. THEY ARE NOT ORGANIZED WITH ANY KIND OF BYLAWS OR IS A IS A PUBLIC ENTITY. IT'S MORE OF AN INFORMAL GATHERING OF VOLUNTEERS, I THINK. AND I MAY 
          [01:40:05]
BE WRONG ON THAT. THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M HEARING. BUT IT BECOMES A PROBLEMATIC FUNDING LEVEL, APPARENTLY BECAUSE OF THEIR STRUCTURE. I THINK THE STICKING POINT FOR MADAM CHAIR IS JUST THE NONPROFIT, BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF NONPROFITS AS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC PURPOSES OF A 500 1C3 NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. SO JUST NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. AND I WOULD SIDE WITH THAT VIEW. ARE THERE OTHER, MORE INFORMAL PUBLIC GOOD ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY 500 1C3? I DON'T KNOW THE TAX CODE WELL ENOUGH. 
          I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE MAJORITY OF CHURCHES IN THE CITY OF VISTA ARE NOT REGISTERED 500 1C3. THEY'RE NON-PROFITS, BUT THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED NON-PROFITS. THERE'S ONLY TWO CHURCHES THAT I KNOW OF THAT ARE REGISTERED 500 1C3. YOU CAN LOOK IT UP ON 501. C THREE IS A VERY SPECIFIC TAX DESIGNATION OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT I THINK WOULD BE TOO RESTRICTIVE. AND WE PUT IT IN THE CHARTER AS WELL. WELL LEAVE IT OUT. I THINK READING THE WHOLE PHRASE, THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, YOU READ ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, IT MEETS YOUR NEED, I THINK. AND TRYING TO SAY IT'S GOTTA BE A 500 1C3. 
          NOW WE'RE GETTING TOO RESTRICTIVE, AS COUNCIL POINTS OUT. AND I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THERE'S I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO FORM THEMSELVES LEGALLY AS A NONPROFIT WITHOUT NECESSARILY BEING A 5 OR 6. I DON'T WANT TO GO ASIDE, BUT TO KIND OF SOMEWHAT RELEVANT TO YOUR POINT, LINDA, I WAS KIND OF LOOKING AT DIFFERENT. I DO I'M ON THE SIDE OF PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER AGAIN FOR CLARITY, BUT I DO THINK THERE COULD BE MAYBE LIKE, LET'S TWEAK THE WORDING, SOME TWEAKS IN THE WORDING. I FOUND ONE THAT KIND OF SAID IN SUCH FUNDS SHOULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH A FORMAL CONTRACT OR GRANT AGREEMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THROWS A WRENCH IN IT THAT ENSURES ACCOUNTABILITY, DEFINES THE DELIVERABLE, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S AN ELEMENT OF STATE LAW THAT WE'VE DISCOVERED OR OUR CITY HAS DISCOVERED AS THEY WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING, OKAY, THAT THEY GOT TO HAVE A CONTRACT, RIGHT? IN ORDER TO HAVE A CONTRACT, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A LEGAL ENTITY, A CONTRACT WITH OR AN INDIVIDUAL. OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T WANT TO CONTRACT WITH INDIVIDUALS. SO THAT'S WHY IT SAYS NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. SO I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS ALREADY COVERED BY STATE LAW OKAY. IT REQUIRES A CONTRACT HAS GOT TO BE VALUABLE SERVICES RENDERED. IT'S GOT TO BE THE PUBLIC PURPOSE ALL OVER THE STATE. I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE, AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY. WELL, NO, THAT'S I WON'T SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE FOR SOME SORT OF AVENUE. TO FUND THESE ORGANIZATIONS, BUT I'M JUST VERY LEERY OF. 
          STARTING DOWN THAT ROAD. BECAUSE AS IT KIND OF BECAME EVIDENT DURING THAT ONE COUNCIL MEETING, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF MONEY THAT WAS JUST KIND OF LIKE, WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, IN OUR FEDERAL MONEY GOING OUT THERE AND NO IDEA WHAT BECAME OF IT. AND I DON'T LIKE PAYING TAXES. I AGREE, I DON'T SEE THE HARM OF PUTTING IN A CHARTER. MAYBE IT NEVER GETS STRICKEN. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? WELL, I WOULD MOVE THAT. WE HAD SECTION 7.15 TAXPAYER FUNDS TO NONPROFITS TO ARTICLE EIGHT, SECTION EIGHT, WHAT WILL BE SECTION 8.17. AND ALONG WITH MR. CHARTER SECOND ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. SO WE HAVE 3 TO 2. I DIDN'T HEAR A VOTE OR FOR NAYS OR OR OH ALL IN FAVOR OF ROBERT. MARK AND JEN VOTED IN FAVOR. 
          BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY ALL OPPOSED. OH, WE NEED TO GET THIS ON RECORD. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. WELL, I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT. RIGHT, MARK, I BELIEVE. IF I GET TAKEN OUT. BUT WE CAN JUST PUT IT IN 
          [01:45:02]
AND SEE WHAT IT IS. OKAY. WATCH OUT FOR THE TEST FOR THE. CAN BE COME CRASHING DOWN OR TAKE FLIGHT AT THE END OF THE DAY. COUNCIL'S GOT TO GO ON RECORD. YEAH. NO, IT'S X NUMBER OF DOLLARS WITH WHATEVER ORGANIZATION. MORE ACCOUNTABILITY. YEAH. IT'S REALLY JUST GIVES THEM COVER TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY DOING IT IN SOME RESPECTS. SO WILL IT WORK? YES. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, I THINK THAT'S THE LAST I HAD ON THIS. THE LAST ON ON ARTICLE EIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. SO WE CAN GO ON TO ARTICLE NINE TAXATION. 
          IT'S A SHORT ONE. YOU DIDN'T MAKE ANY COMMENTS LAST TIME. THERE'S NOTHING ON THE CONSOLIDATED NOTES. NO. THE ONLY THING WE DID WERE SOME ERRORS LAST TIME. CLEANING UP STANDARDIZATION AND CAPITALIZATION. THAT. OKAY. GOING ONCE. OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON TO ARTICLE TEN FRANCHISES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON OUR CONSOLIDATED NOTES ON THAT ONE EITHER. WE DID MAKE A CHANGE IN THE. LAST TIME, BUT WE DIDN'T CHANGE IT FOR REALLY ANY ANY ANYTHING MATERIAL. WE JUST REWORDED IT FOR CLARITY. I REALLY WISH WE COULD SIMPLIFY A. A IN 10.06 OR A AND 10.01. YOU WANT TO TAKE OUT THE GAS, ELECTRICITY AND SAY SYSTEMS OF ANY PUBLIC SERVICE OR UTILITY. THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH. MY OWN. LET'S SEE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE RACE TRACKS. AND WHY DON'T WE HAVE DOG PARKS. WHY DON'T WE HAVE SKATEBOARD PARKS. WHAT DO WE HAVE? YOU KNOW, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO MANAGE WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF THE CITY. ALL SYSTEMS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES. SEE, THAT MAY GO TOO FAR THE OTHER WAY. JUST ONE CAN ARGUE. WATER AND SEWER. 
          WELL, IF I SAY UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES, AIRPORTS, SWIMMING POOLS, RACETRACKS, TRANSPORTATION. BUT MAYBE THAT'S JUST ME. QUESTION WHETHER A RACETRACK IS A PUBLIC SERVICE I YEAH, I KNOW SOMEONE'S GOING TO TRY TO FIND A WAY AROUND EVERYTHING. SOME YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT EVEN BUT THAT WOULD SIMPLIFY I DON'T KNOW I HATED IT THE FIRST TIME WE WENT THROUGH IT. I WAS LOOKING FOR A WAY TO SIMPLIFY IT THE FIRST GO ROUND. YEAH, IT'S VERY WORDY. MOUTH ON THE WHEEL. JUST LIKE HE ALSO SAYS YOU CAN ESTABLISH ENFORCE RATES TO BE PAID BY CONSUMERS OF ANY UTILITY OR SERVICE PROVIDED WITHIN THE CITY. WELL, NO YOU CAN'T. STATE LAW SAYS YOU CAN'T REGULATE. GENERAL ELECTRIC IS HANDLED BY NUTRITION COMMISSIONS. PUC LANDLINE PHONES MUST DO THEIR OWN WATER LOTS DO THEIR OWN WATER. YEAH. 
          SO E E IS KIND OF A. UNENFORCEABLE PROVISION AS WELL. BUT A IS REALLY I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE IT. I JUST DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. I DEFINITELY LIKE RACETRACKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IS IT EVEN LEGAL IN TEXAS? RIGHT. I THOUGHT IT WASN'T I DIDN'T ADD CASINO WHILE WE'RE AT IT. RIGHT. YOU CAN'T BUILD ONE. BUT YOU KNOW, RIGHT. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S. 
          [01:50:06]
IS IT? I'M LOOKING AT AUBREY TO MESS WITH AUBREY. TEN ONE JUST SAYS. THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO BUY, OWN, SELL, CONSTRUCT, LEASE, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND REGULATE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES AND TO MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE, SELL OUTPUT OF SUCH SERVICES AND UTILITY OPERATIONS, ONE THAT CLEANS IT UP AND TWO, IT ADDS THE WORD REGULATE. SO EVEN IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY DOES, IF IT'S A RACETRACK OR SWIMMING POOL OR CITY DOES POOLS. BUT COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE AS MUCH AS THEY CAN WITHIN STATE LAW. THEY SHALL NOT SUPPLY ANY UTILITY SERVICE OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, EXCEPT BY A WRITTEN CONTRACT AND OR BY THE ORDINANCE SHALL HAVE THE REGULATORY AND OTHER POWER, AS MAY OR HEREAFTER BE GRANTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. 
          MENTIONED STATE LAW. AN ENTIRE SECTION, OR AT LEAST YOU KNOW THE FIRST FIVE SUBSECTIONS. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S MENTIONED ONCE AS FAR AS AS ALLOWED BY LAW. AND THEN YOU GO INTO THE NEXT CHAPTER. LINE 1305 STARTS TALKING ABOUT A POWER AGAIN. NEXT CHAPTER MEANING CHAPTER. 
          PARAGRAPH 1301 THESE POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEETINGS, ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE ALL OF OUR. WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT DOMAIN EARLIER. YEAH. IT'S, YOU KNOW, ALREADY LONG ESTABLISHED. SO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN IN THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH IS REDUNDANT TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN. POWER THAT WE LEARNED EARLY HOURS OF THE CITY. 
          IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE. STRIKE IT OUT. PRETTY MUCH THERE. THEY ACTUALLY DO DEFAULT TO AS FAR AS ESTABLISHING THE VALUE AS PROVIDED BY STATE LAW. BUT THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD. YEAH OKAY. ALL TIMES THE CITY USED EMINENT DOMAIN. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY EXAMPLE OF THE CITY USING EMINENT DOMAIN. YEAH. CERTAINLY HASN'T HAPPENED WHILE I'VE BEEN BEFORE I WAS ELECTED PAYING ATTENTION OR WHILE I WAS ELECTED, I CAN'T EVER RECALL. I CAN'T I CAN'T RECALL IT EITHER. 
          AND AGAIN, IT'S IT'S ALREADY DEFINED BY CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S EVEN NECESSARY TO BE THERE. I IT LOOKS LIKE. AUBREY AND A PAGE AND A HALF COVERS EVERYTHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT IN. TO TWO PAGES, TWO AND A HALF. OH NO. TIM GOES ALL THE WAY. SO THOSE THINGS ABOUT CONTRACTS, CONSERVANCY PROPERTY. COLLECTION REQUIRED TO SELL SOMETHING. SO OUR 10.11, IF THERE'S SOME UTILITY THAT THE CITY WANTS TO SELL WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION GOING TO VOTE ON EVERYTHING. OKAY. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE. TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT WEEK AND LOOK AT AUBREY AND COME UP WITH SOME ACTUAL SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THIS IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT. AND NEXT, I THINK THE FURTHER WE DIG INTO TEN, WE SEE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO STREAMLINE. YEAH. AND I JUST MENTIONED AUBREY BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ON TOP. IT'S PROBABLY WORTH US GOING 
          [01:55:01]
BACK. LOOKING AT THE UTILITY PUBLIC SERVICE FRANCHISE SECTIONS OF THE OTHER CHARTERS AND SEE WHAT WE WANT. IF WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THIS WHOLE EMINENT DOMAIN SECTION, IF IT TRULY IS REDUNDANT. SO I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DURING THE UPCOMING WEEK, COME UP WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS. AND SO NEXT WEEK WE WILL WE WILL WORK ON TEN AND 11. SOUNDS GOOD. 
          MEETING ADJOURNED
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.