[CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL] [00:00:05] IT'S 4 P.M. AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ORDER. WITH US HERE TODAY, WE HAVE ROBERT OWEN, OUR SECRETARY, MARK DOUGLAS, JEN GRUNWALD, GENE HARRIS AND VICE CHAIR AND MYSELF, LINDA AIRD, ALSO IN ATTENDANCE. WE HAVE A CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, MR. JESS HALL, AND CITY MANAGER CHARLES WEST IS OUR OUR STAFF LIAISON, AND HE IS ALSO PRESENT. IT APPEARS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS, SO WE CAN GO RIGHT TO. [Additional Item] OH, WE DON'T HAVE ON OUR AGENDA, WE DON'T HAVE OUR COUNCIL OR CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS, BUT. WHAT WE CAN BUT WE CAN ADD THEM ON. MR. WEST, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE? NO. OUTSIDE. YOU ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB. AND THAT'S A COMMENT THAT WE ALWAYS LIKE TO HEAR. SO WE DON'T WANT WE DON'T WANT TO SKIP THAT. AND MR. HALL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I GUESS I'D [II. CONSENT AGENDA] BETTER SAY THE SAME THING. YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. OKAY. IS THAT IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE? IS. IS IT? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL TO RELATE? NO. OKAY. SO THEN LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. AND THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JANUARY 21ST, 2026 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 28TH, 2026 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF ARTICLE EIGHT AS POSTED ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE DISCUSSION BOARD AND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL COMPLETE DRAFT OF ARTICLE THREE ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DISCUSSION BOARD AS. IS. ANYONE GOT ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? MR. HARRIS? I PUT SOME THINGS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE. TO LOOK AT THEM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEMS THREE AND FOUR OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA SO WE CAN DISCUSS THEM. THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS. THE THE FOLLOW UP COMMENTS GET TO YOU. THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS MADE. THEY WEREN'T ALL FULLY ANSWERED. I'M READY TO APPROVE AS IS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS A DESIRE FOR DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT IT FURTHER. ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND LET'S DISPENSE WITH 1 OR 2. WILL REMOVE AGENDA CONSENT ITEMS THREE AND FOUR. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEMS ONE AND TWO? WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY THAT. UNANIMOUS. OKAY. THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL DRAFT [II.3. Approval of the final Draft of Article VIII as posted on the Charter Review Committee (CRC) discussion board.] OF ARTICLE EIGHT, AS POSTED IN THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE DISCUSSION BOARD. MR. HARRIS, YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. ON PAGE TEN OF OUR PACKET IF WE WANT TO. THANK YOU. I MADE A REMARK REGARDING SEE THE LINE 71 OR 73. I WROTE IT WRONG IN ONE PLACE. I THINK MY NOTES ARE INCORRECT, BUT WHERE IT REFERS TO HE SLASH SHE. AND SINCE THIS IS A FINAL AND I THOUGHT WE HAD DISCUSSED ADDING AN ARTICLE AT SOME POINT REGARDING WORDING THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO USE HE SLASH SHE. IT'S ON OUR MASTER REVIEW. THAT IS ITEM 30 ABOUT WORDING. WE DID DISCUSS [00:05:03] IT WHEN WE DID THE CHARTER REVIEWS AND THE FORMAL ADOPTION. I THINK THAT WAS MISCELLANEOUS. ARTICLE. SO JUST POINTING THAT OUT. I REALLY HAVEN'T CIRCLED BACK AND MADE THAT DECISION, ALTHOUGH WE DID DISCUSS IT THREE TIMES WHEN WE WERE AUBREY, SELENA AND ROBERT. YES, AND I RECALL THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I'M POINTING IT OUT. IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE A FINAL DRAFT WITH THAT IN IT AND THEN HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE IT, WE CAN EITHER NOT APPROVE IT NOW OR WE HAVE TO REVISIT IT. SO WHATEVER IS THE BEST PROCESS. BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF VOTING FOR SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO THEN CIRCLE RIGHT BACK IMMEDIATELY TO AMEND. I THINK THAT WE HAD A CONSENSUS THAT WE WERE GOING TO REMOVE THE PEAK AND NOT USE THAT TERMINOLOGY. IF WE HAVE NOT MADE A FORMAL MOTION ON THAT PREVIOUSLY, MAYBE NOW IS THE TIME THAT WE SHOULD MAKE ONE AND THEN HAVE IT APPLY TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, NOT JUST TO THE SECTION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT TOPIC? I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE THERE, UNLESS THERE'S STILL FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT PEOPLE WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN. I HAVE I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO CHANGING IT. I THINK WE I THINK WE DID DISCUSS THIS AND APPROVE IT AS A GROUP AS WELL, TO NOT USE GENDER SPECIFIC, WHETHER IT'S EITHER OR AND SLASH WHATEVER. SO JUST KEEP THAT. YEAH. I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD I THOUGHT WE HAD MADE THAT CONCLUSION, BUT IF WE HAD NOT HAD A FORMAL VOTE THEN THAT'S WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION AND CONFIRM WHAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ARRIVED AT BY CONSENSUS. BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, I THINK WE'D PROBABLY GO BACK AND LOOK AT ANOTHER TERM AND JUST DECIDE WHAT EXACTLY, AS OPPOSED TO A VAGUE MOTION THAT SAYS WE'RE NOT USING A SHEET BECAUSE IT WAS MORE TO IT THAN THAT, THAN THAT WE NOTED FOR FUTURE REFERENCE IN THE NOT SO I'M LOOKING AT ROCKPORT, I THINK IT'S 12.13 AND 12.16 IS WHAT I NOTED WE WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO. AND AUBRY SECTION 11.05. THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF WORDING INTERPRETATION STATES THE GENDER OF THE WORDING THROUGHOUT THIS CHARTER SHALL ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN EITHER SEX. AND THAT'S BASICALLY WORD FOR WORD OF ROCKPORT 12.3. AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING IS WORDS, THOSE EXACT WORDS OR WORDS VERY CLOSE TO THOSE. I THINK THAT'S PERFECT. AGREED. ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? I WOULD SAY IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, THERE'S MORE IN THE AUBRY 11.05 ABOUT WORD INTERPRETATION THAN BEYOND GENDER. IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT SINGULAR AND PLURAL. IT EXPANDS IT A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN ROCKPORT 12.13. AND WE ALSO NOTED THAT 11.06 SPEAKS TO THE POWER TO RENUMBER, REARRANGE CLERICAL, TYPOGRAPHICAL, AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. ALL THE ERRORS THAT WE SAW BEFORE, AND WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE A BALLOT TO CHANGE. ROCKPORT 11.06. WE ADDRESSED THAT FOR FUTURE PEOPLE, CITY FOLKS, TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT WITHOUT A BALLOT INITIATIVE, BECAUSE THE CHARTER WOULD GIVE THEM THE POWER TO RENUMBER, RENAME AND REARRANGE. SO IT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING, IF WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT A MOTION, I WOULD NOT RESTRICT IT TO JUST THE GENDER OF WORDING. I WOULD SAY THAT WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO INCORPORATE ALL OF AUBRY. 1105 AND 1106. ACTUALLY HAVE THAT HIGHLIGHTED THE FIRST FIRST GO [00:10:01] AROUND WITH THE CHARTER, I AGREE. DITTO. I HIGHLIGHTED MINE THE EXACT SAME WAY. 1105 AND 1106. THE. SO I THINK THE WORDING OF AUBRY 1105 IS IS GREAT. SAME FOR 1106. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD JUST POINT OUT GOING TO I'M LOOKING AT THE THE RED LINE CHARTER THAT Y'ALL PROPOSED LAST TIME. I ALWAYS PULL THAT OFF TO GO OFF OF AND WE HAVE A SECTION A RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING THE DEFINITIONS. AND I THINK WE AT LEAST HAVE CITY DEFINED THERE. SO THEN WE WOULD HAVE IT IN TWO PLACES. SO I DON'T KNOW. WOULD Y'ALL LOOK BETTER OR OH THAT'S A GOOD POINT. WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT A LIBERAL. AUBRY 1105 THEN WE SHOULD STRIKE THAT LAST SENTENCE. I'M OKAY WITH STRIKING THE LAST SENTENCE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE IT DEFINED. THE MAIN PART I'M INTERESTED IN IS THE FIRST SENTENCE. BUT I ALSO AM IN AGREEMENT THAT IT'S TAKE EVERYTHING ELSE ALONG WITH IT EXCEPT FOR THE LAST SENTENCE. SO WE'D BE ADDING IT TO ARTICLE 11 AT THIS POINT. SO I THINK MY MOTION WOULD BE LET'S TABLE THIS. I'LL PUT 1105 AND 1106 FROM AUBRY INTO ARTICLE 11, AND WE'LL REVIEW ARTICLE 11 AND WE'LL BE THERE. AND IN THE MEANTIME, I WILL ALSO DO A SEARCH FOR EACH SHEET THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CHARTER DRAFT PATTERN, IDENTIFYING ALL OF THOSE THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED. OKAY. SO WOULD WE DISCUSS ARTICLE 11 LATER ON TODAY? YEAH. IF WE GET TO 11 TODAY THEN WE CAN DO A FORMAL VOTE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE WE'RE STILL ON AGENDA SAYS WE'RE ON A WE'LL TALK A LOT ABOUT 11. I AGREE. BUT THE TWO ARE AND I'M NOT SAYING GO TO 11 NOW. I'M JUST I BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE THE TWO ARE INTERTWINED. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE EIGHT THEN I WOULD SUBMIT WE APPROVE IT WITH. OR AMEND IT TO JUST SAY HE INSTEAD OF HE SHE. IS THAT A MOTION TO. NO, IT WAS JUST A COMMENT AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. SO. TALKING ABOUT A FINANCIAL PROCEDURES AND YOU'RE REFERENCING CLEAN COPY LINE 194. NO, THAT'S RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE. WHERE IS THE. LINE 71. OKAY. YEAH I FOUND IT ON LINE 71. IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE YOU SAW IT, JEAN. I DIDN'T DO A THOROUGH SEARCH. IT'S JUST AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS SECTION, THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE THAT I. THAT I REMEMBER SEEING. I WOULD IN THIS CASE, I WOULD AMEND I IF BY REMOVING HE SHE AND JUST SAYING THE CITY MANAGER AGAIN SO IT IT'S A LITTLE BIT REDUNDANT BUT I THINK IT'S [00:15:02] READS FINE AND I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN JUST PUTTING IN. THERE. IS THIS A GOOD TIME TO JUMP OFF OF THAT AND ONTO ANOTHER SUBJECT WITHIN EIGHT? WE COULD AND THEN WE COULD JUST DO WE COULD DO ONE COMBINED MOTION, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO JUMP INTO, IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD LEND ITSELF TO A COMBINED ARTICLE EIGHT MOTION. YES, POSSIBLY. I YOU KNOW, AS I'M LOOKING AT EIGHT, PARTICULARLY AT SECTION 811, WHICH IS 130, LINE 130, IT REFERS TO CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. I THINK SOMEWHERE LATER IT GOES INTO GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE DEFINED CEOS AND GEOS, AND I'LL ADMIT, WITHIN THE PAST TWO YEARS I WAS ENLIGHTENED TO FIGURE OUT OR LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GEO AND A CO, AND IT'S HUGE. AND THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT BY READING THIS FINANCE SECTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS WOULD ACTUALLY REALIZE THAT CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION REQUIRES NO VOTE. IT'S JUST A CITY CITY COUNCIL DECISION WHERE THE GEO GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND REQUIRE THE RESIDENT. I THINK THAT YOUR SUGGESTION THAT YOU MADE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, WITH REFERENCE TO PUTTING THE CO AND GEO DEFINITION IN THE DEFINITION AND AND I HAD ALSO MADE A SUGGESTION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD ABOUT PUTTING RESOLUTION DEFINITION IN THE DEFINITIONS. SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AS A RESULT OF ARTICLE EIGHT, WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION MOTION TO INCLUDE THREE OTHER TERMS IN THE DEFINITION SECTION. YES. AND. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I SEE YOUR POINT ABOUT RESOLUTIONS. IF YOU WANT TO APPLY THE SPECIFICS THERE, I WOULD SAY CEOS AND CEOS ARE PRETTY WELL DEFINED IN TEXAS LAW. I'M NOT SURE IT ADDS MUCH FOR US TO REDEFINE THE SAME DEFINITION IN OUR CHARTER. TYPICALLY, SINCE THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, WELL DEFINED IN STATUTE. AND THE IMPLICATIONS I WILL POINT OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT. I JUST READ IT MYSELF RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING. BUT THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ON FACEBOOK THAT PERHAPS YOU SHOULD LOOK AT ELIMINATING THE USE OF CEOS ALTOGETHER AS. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THAT DISCUSSION ON EIGHT, AND WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THE MAYOR'S POST THAT INDICATES THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DO AWAY WITH CEOS ALTOGETHER. OR WE ADOPT EIGHT AS WE HAVE IT NOW. AND THE MAYOR CAN MAKE HIS CASE WHEN THE CHARTER GOES BEFORE THE WHOLE CITY COUNCIL. BUT TO MARK'S POINT, IT IS HUGE. CEOS DO NOT REQUIRE AN ELECTION. GOES DO. OF THE LAST $60 MILLION IN BONDS WE'VE ISSUED, WHICH I BELIEVE WENT BACK TO 2004. WHEN I LOOKED AT IT LAST YEAR, 79% WERE CEO, ONLY 21%. SO IT'S KIND OF OPENS UP A LARGER CONVERSATION THAT DOVETAILS THE MAYOR'S QUOTE. DO WE WANT TO TAKE THAT ON? I DON'T THINK THE DEFINITIONS IS AS IMPORTANT AS TO WHAT TO RESTRICT CEOS. OKAY. I THINK THAT I AGREE WITH MARK THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S DEFINED IN IN STATE STATUTE, I THINK THAT FOR THE TYPICAL RESIDENT READER OF THE CHARTER, BECAUSE THE, THE DIFFERENCE IN, IN CEOS AND GEO IS SO MAJOR THAT IT'S WORTH PUTTING IT IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CHARTER WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE MAYOR POSTED TODAY, I THINK HE'S POSTED SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT SUGGESTIONS AND SOME VERY WORTHWHILE ONES FOR US TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE CONCLUDE OUR WORK. SO I DO SUGGEST THAT WE PUT THEM ON THE NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA. AND SINCE THEY'RE ON FACEBOOK, THAT MEANS WE WILL BE GETTING SOME PUBLIC INPUT DURING THE UPCOMING WEEK AS WELL. AND SO NEXT WEEK WHEN WE HAVE OUR MEETING, WE CAN ADDRESS THE [00:20:01] ISSUES THAT HE RAISED. I DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THEM NOW BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST POSTED AND THEY'RE VERY FRESH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE OUT ARTICLE EIGHT AND NOT SAY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO HOLD IT IN, IN AND HOLD OFF BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LATER DISCUSSION ABOUT CEOS. I'D JUST LIKE TO CLOSE IT OUT. AND IF WE DO DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTION ABOUT GETTING RID OF CEOS, AND WE CAN COME BACK AND AND REDO OUR PLATE. BUT I THINK FOR THE TIME BEING, LET'S LET'S FINISH ARTICLE EIGHT. I SEE THE POINT OF HAVING A CONVENIENTLY DEFINED IN OUR CHARTER. THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH THAT IS, LIKE WE FOUND IN THE CHARTER THAT WE'RE WORKING ON NOW, IF YOU GET TOO SPECIFIC, YOU START DEFINING SOMETHING IN OUR CHARTER AND THEN THE STATE LAW CHANGES. THEN WE HAVE A DISCONNECT. SAME THING IS HAPPENING WITH OUR ORDINANCES. IF STUFF IN OUR ORDINANCES AND IN STATE LAW CHANGES AND OUR ORDINANCES ABOUT OUR STUFF, I WOULD STRONGLY URGE THAT WE NOT DEFINE A COMMON TERM. AND YES, THESE ARE NOT TERMS OF ART. THEY'RE FAIRLY COMMON TERMS THAT ARE ALREADY DEFINED BY STATUTE JUST FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF HAVING THEM IN OUR CHARTER AS THEY EXIST TODAY, WHEN THEY COULD CHANGE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN OUR CHARTERS. ABSOLUTELY. GENE. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE DONE THAT IN OTHER THINGS WHERE WE'VE PUT IN, PUT IN THE CHARTER, AS STATED IN STATE LAW OR AS YOU KNOW, DIRECTED WE'VE REFERENCED STATE LAW IN A NUMBER OF PLACES. SO TO BREAK THAT CONSISTENCY, AND ALSO FOR THE ADDED REASON THAT LAWS CHANGE AND OUR CHARTER DOESN'T CHANGE SO EASILY, WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T PUT ADD THE DEFINITIONS. I THINK MAYBE ADDING THE SIMPLE WORDING OF OR AS DEFINED AS CURRENT STATE LAW, PROBABLY FIXED IT. OKAY. IS IT REALLY IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO ADD THAT RIGHT THEN? HONESTLY, UNTIL I GOT INVOLVED WITH THIS AND REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO, YOU KNOW, HOW EXPENDITURES ARE DONE VIA COUNCIL, 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS BETWEEN THE CEO AND A GEO, BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS REFERRED TO AS A CEO OR GEO. IT'S NEVER REFERRED TO AS A. EXACT OR. YEAH, AND EVEN THEN, THERE'S NEVER A DEFINITION IN THE TERM WHEN IT'S BEING DISCUSSED. SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I THINK, I THINK THE, THE TIP OF LIKE YOU SAID, THE TYPICAL RESIDENT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A GRASP OR A FULL APPRECIATION FOR THAT. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN. I THINK YOU DO ACTUALLY. WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY THEY'RE NOT REALLY DEFINED IN STATE LAW, BUT THE PHRASE THAT THEY WILL BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW DOES APPEAR ON 106, AND IT DOES CALL OUT IN A LINE 111 AND NO GOES OTHER THAN REFUNDING SHALL BE ISSUED EXCEPT FOR THE ELECTION FOR THE RESIDENTS. SO YOU CAN READ INTO THAT. CEOS. BY EXCLUSION DON'T REQUIRE CONNECTION, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T SEEM. YEAH. THEY THEY, THEY, THEY WANT TO GROW. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT 810 SEE ALSO SAYS THAT GOES REQUIRE AN ELECTION. ANYTHING ELSE REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING TO TALK ABOUT. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THIS CAN BE DONE IN MUST BE DONE ON A PUBLIC. I CAN GO EITHER WAY. I THINK THAT MARK'S SUGGESTION GOES WITH WHAT WE'VE PIECED TOGETHER SO FAR, AND KIND OF FURTHERS THE PURPOSE THAT WE'VE DECIDED ON HAVING THOSE DEFINITIONS IN IN FRONT, RATHER THAN SOME OTHER CHARTERS THAT KIND OF START OFF WITH OR BLURBS FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THAT ARE ALWAYS KIND OF HAVE A MORE OF A PRACTICAL START TO OUR CHARTER JUMPING IN AFTER THE PREAMBLE SAYING, THIS IS X, THIS IS X, [00:25:04] THIS IS X, RATHER THAN KIND OF SOME FLOWERY LANGUAGE. SO. AGAIN, I WOULD I THINK I'M ON THE SIDE OF INCLUDING IT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IF IT GOES TOO FAR, BUT IF YOU WANT TO PUT INK, I WOULD THINK I WOULD SAY IF YOU COULD JUST MARK. YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS DEFINED AS STATE LAW. THAT'S JUST A QUICK GOOGLE, RIGHT. UNDER THIS CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION ACT, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. YOU COULD ALSO SAY, AND AS DEFINED UNDER STATE LAW, THAT WAY IT AUTOMATICALLY UPDATES EVERYTHING AND DOESN'T CAUSE THAT WONKY KIND OF THING. SHOULD IT BE CHANGED UNDER STATE LAW? I DON'T KNOW. WE COULD ALSO, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNORTHODOX, BUT I WOULDN'T BE AGAINST PUTTING IT IN QUOTES. QUOTE. SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT IS IN THERE. SHOULD THEY TAKE AN INTEREST OF THAT FAR? I DON'T THINK THAT DOES ANYTHING TO DIMINISH THAT. THAT SECTION. TO YOUR POINT, I THINK TO EVERYBODY'S POINT, REALLY, I THINK TO TO SAY THAT IT'S COVERED BY STATE LAW. YES. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY. BUT, YOU KNOW, DO OUR PEOPLE REALLY THAT IN TUNE? I THINK IT'S JUST THE RARE ANIMAL, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF RESIDENTS THAT IS REALLY IN TUNE TO TO KNOWING THAT UNTIL IT COMES UP FOR AN ELECTION OR THEY IT'S LIKE, OH, WOW, WE'RE SPENDING $4.5 MILLION ON AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? YOU KNOW, GET A CHANCE TO TO REALLY EXPRESS ANYTHING. YEAH. YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BUYER BEWARE. BUT I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THE MORE TRANSPARENT WE CAN BE WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THESE THINGS ARE. AND IF YOU DO PUT IT IN PARENTHESES, YOU CAN YOU CAN ELIMINATE ACTUALLY A LOT OF THE WORDING LATER. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION. YOU CAN JUST GO CO OR YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF GENERAL OBLIGATION C YOU KNOW OR GEO. SO SHORTENS UP SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW SOME OF THE OVERALL WORDS. GENE. YEAH. MARK, YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING THAT RESONATED WITH ME. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO WRITE THIS SO THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN ON THE STREET CAN UNDERSTAND WHICH I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER LINE THAT I'M I'M GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGING THE WORDING FOR THAT VERY REASON. SO I AGREE WE NEED TO KEEP IT SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED BY AN ATTORNEY. IS THE OTHER LINE YOU'RE GOING TO BRING UP IN ARTICLE EIGHT. YES IT IS. IT'S LINE 78 WHICH STATES, WELL, IT STARTS IN LINE 77, A LIST OF ALL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE FIVE YEARS NEXT ENSUING. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, BUT IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO SAY PROPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. ONLY THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY THAT POSSIBLY THE REASON FOR THIS WORDING IS THAT IF YOU SAY DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, IT COULD BE THE NEXT FIVE YEARS STARTING, NOT. NOT, NOT BUDGET YEARS, BUT THEY COULD. BUT IF YOU SAY NEXT FIVE YEARS, FIVE YEARS, NEXT ENSUING, IT COULD INTEND TO CONVEY THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SO OKAY, FIVE YEARS, NEXT ENSUING. ENSUING WHAT? THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE SAYING WHAT IT'S ENSUING TO. I THINK I FOUND IT I WAS LOOKING AT LINE 77. I COULDN'T FIND THE LANGUAGE UNDER THIS. 70. YEAH. 78 IS IS. YEAH. I'VE GOT IS IT, IS IT 808B ALL LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. 808 BE OKAY. THAT'S MY LINE. 80 IN THE PACKET. OKAY. SO WHAT WHAT IS [00:30:03] YOUR PROPOSAL GENE TO CHANGE TO ELIMINATE THE WORD ENSUING. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THAT CHANGED? I WOULD JUST MAKE IT READ WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING INFORMATION AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR EACH. YEAH. I'M FINE IF THAT. IF THAT'S NECESSARY. IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT BUDGET YEARS THERE NOW. SO I DON'T KNOW ON THAT ONE. IF IT'S DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE BUDGET IN A WAY. SO IT IS, I THINK, INTENDED TO REFER TO NOT THE YEAR WE'RE CURRENTLY IN, BUT THE FIVE YEARS STARTING WITH THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. YEAH, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. JUST THE 808 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THAT'S TALKING ABOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OPERATING BUDGET. THE CIP SHALL SPECIFY YEAR ONE. IT SAYS ON LINE 7374, YEAR TWO OF THE CIP WITH OR WITHOUT AMENDMENT BECOMES YEAR ONE, AND THE PLAN IS EXTENDED OUT ANOTHER YEAR TO MAINTAIN THE FIVE YEAR HORIZON, THE CIP SHALL INCLUDE A LIST OF ALL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING INFORMATION. ENSUING BECAUSE IT'S SPECIFIED. YEAR ONE. YEAH. SO IT APPEARS THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON CHANGING THE HE SHE IN LINE 71 TO THE CITY MANAGER AND TO CHANGE LINE 78 TO PROPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WITH APPROPRIATE ETC. AND THEN WE ALSO SEEM TO HAVE CONSENSUS ON. DOING ADDING THREE. MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS ON THIS. YOU DO HAVE UP FOR A VOTE, SOMEONE WOULD BE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION ON ADDING TO THE DEFINITIONS, CONTINUING OBLIGATION, GENERAL OBLIGATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS. CAN WE CLARIFY? WE CAN ADD A DEFINITION OF WHATEVER, BUT WE HAVE NOT DEFINED WHAT WE EXPECT THE DEFINITION TO SAY ALMOST. IT'S DEFINED IN STATE LAW. WE ARE ADDING A DEFINITION TO OUR LIST OF DEFINITIONS, BUT WE HAVE NOT SAID WHAT WE WANT THAT DEFINITION TO BE. SO I BELIEVE OUR MOTION IS INCOMPLETE. OKAY, THEN I ASKED FOR RESOLUTION TO BE DEFINED. I DID OFFER A DEFINITION FOR RESOLUTION. SO YEAH, I SAW MY MOTION WOULD BE TO INCLUDE THE RESOLUTION IN THE DEFINITION WITH THE DEFINITION THAT I POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AS THE DEFINITION OF A RESOLUTION, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF RESOLUTION ON THE CITY WEBSITE. WE STILL NEED A DEFINITION FOR CO AND GEO IF WE'RE GOING TO LUMP THAT TOGETHER WITH RESOLUTIONS PLUS LINE 71 AND LINE 78 CHANGES, WE CAN'T VOTE TO ADD A DEFINITION WHEN WE DON'T EVEN REALLY KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION IS. FOR GEO AND A CO NO TO HAVE SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION. WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION YET. IF WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT AT JUST AS PER STATE LAW, THEN WE'RE GOOD. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M AND I'M HAPPY WITH THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. SO THE DEFINITION WOULD BE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION PARENTHESES CO AS DEFINED IN STATE LAW. AND THEN THE GEO PARENTHESES GEO AS DEFINED IN STATE LAW. AND [00:35:03] THAT'S WHAT WE WANT IN OUR DEFINITIONS. IN OUR DEFINITIONS OR IN THE TEXT IN OUR DEFINITIONS. I WOULD ADD THIS JUST SO IT'S CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT. AND I'M NOT A WORDSMITH. SO FORGIVE ME A CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION CO DEFINED AS A CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION NOT REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL AS DEFINED BY STATE LAW, GENERAL OBLIGATION OR GEO GENERAL OBLIGATION. A AN OBLIGATION REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL AS DEFINED BY STATE LAW. OKAY. AND I LIKE THAT ADDITION BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GETTING TO THE KEY ASPECT OF THE OF THE DIFFERENTIATION. AND SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT DEFINING IT EXPLICITLY, WE ARE ADDRESSING THE KEY DIFFERENTIATION. SO I LIKE THAT. THAT WORKS UNTIL OUR GOVERNOR DECIDES THAT OUR CITIES HAVE TOO MUCH POWER. AND THEY PASS A STATE LAW THAT SAYS CEOS WILL NOW REQUIRE ELECTIONS, IN WHICH CASE, ONCE AGAIN, OUR DEFINITION OF CO IS NOW OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW BECAUSE WE SAID IT DOESN'T REQUIRE AN ELECTION. SO THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID US GOING DOWN. I SEE THAT AND I AND I APPRECIATE IT. BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THE GOVERNOR IS PRETTY ACTIVE IN CHANGING A LOT OF THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. AND SO IT'S PROBABLY RATHER LIKELY THAT THIS CHARTER WILL HAVE TO BE AMENDED IN TWO YEARS OR AFTER THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND SO THIS WOULD ONLY BE IF IT'S CHANGED. IT WOULD ONLY BE ONE OF A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT MAY HAVE TO BE CHANGED. YEAH. BY A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR A SILLY REASON. CHANGING A COMMON DEFINITION IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. AND I'M SORRY. I KNOW YOU DON'T SEE THIS SILLY, BUT I'M GOING TO THE EXTREME NOW. THERE'S NO REASON TO DEFINE THESE TERMS. ZERO IN OUR CHARTER. IT ADDS CLUTTER. IT DOES MAKE CLEAR THAT, HEY, BY THE WAY, YOU GOT TO VOTE ON THESE AND YOU DON'T VOTE ON THOSE, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR OUR DEFINITIONS TO BE DEFINED. IT COULD BE FLUID. AND NOT ONLY IS THE DEFINITION NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO CHANGE THE STIPULATION OF QUALIFICATION BETWEEN VOTING AND NON-VOTING IS REALLY THE THING THAT COULD CHANGE AT THE STATE. SO I GO BACK TO LESS IS MORE. LET'S TRY TO ANTICIPATE THINGS IN OUR CHARTER AND KEEP IT LIKE THE US CONSTITUTION. THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AMENDED. EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE OR THE LAW CHANGES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. GENERAL GUIDANCE. LET'S NOT GET TOO SPECIFIC, AND WE DO NOT NEED TO BE DEFINING COMMON TERMS. WHAT WOULD YOU OFFER AS A MOTION? ROBERT? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOMETHING PUT IN WORDS FOR EITHER SIDE, FOR THAT MATTER. I WOULD SAY LET'S APPROVE. ARTICLE EIGHT IS WRITTEN WITH TWO CORRECTIONS CHANGING HE SHE TO THE CITY MANAGER IN 8.08 AND CHANGING 8.08. BE TO READ DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, SCRATCHING NEXT AND ZOOM. AND SHOULD WE MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION ABOUT THE ADDING THE WORD RESOLUTION TO THE DEFINITION? OR SHOULD WE DO THAT NOW, SINCE IT CAME UP DURING THE ARTICLE EIGHT, I WOULD JUST ASSUME MAKE ONE MOTION FOR THAT. WELL, I MIGHT I MIGHT SAY KEEP THEM SEPARATE. WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFINITION OF A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND UNDER 810, SUBSECTION EIGHT. NO GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OTHER THAN REFUNDING BONDS SHALL BE ISSUED EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF RESIDENTS VOTING IN AN ELECTION HELD FOR SUCH PURPOSE. SO RIGHT THERE, IF THE DEFINITION OF A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND CHANGES AT THE STATE LEVEL, IT'S IN WRITING, YOU KNOW, SO NOW YOU'VE GOT TO [00:40:02] CHANGE IT ANYWAY. THAT'S REALLY NOT A DEFINITION THAT REFERS TO THE ITEM. IT DOESN'T REFER TO THE DEFINITION. IT DOESN'T LOCK IN ON THAT PAGE. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. IF THE GOVERNOR WENT THE OTHER WAY AND SAID, HEY, GUESS WHAT, GUYS? YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON GOES, THEN ONE OF TWO THINGS HAPPEN. LEAVE OUR CHARTER IN PLACE. IT GOES, WELL, MAYBE THE GOVERNOR SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON GOES, BUT OUR CHARTER SAYS YOU DO, AND THAT STILL STANDS BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO STATE LAW. IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE. OR SOMEBODY DOWN THE LINE CHANGES THE CHARTER TO ALIGN WITH WHATEVER THE NEW RULE IS. SO MY POINT IS IT'S NOT REALLY A DEFINITION. AND EVEN IF IT IS CHANGED, IT'S NOT CHANGING A DEFINITION. OKAY. SO JEAN, YOU DID HEAR ROBERT'S RECOMMENDATION AS A MOTION. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT? MY ONLY COMMENT IS. THE RESOLUTION PORTION. I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY IT IS DEFINED SOMEWHERE ALREADY. NO, HE SAID GENERAL OBLIGATION WAS DEFINED IT. I'M GOOD WITH ROBERT'S PROPOSED MOTION. YOU KNOW, I WOULD, I WOULD. VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT. JEAN, I THINK MARK DID POINT OUT THE RESOLUTION. OR MAYBE IT WAS LINDA POINTED OUT THAT RESOLUTION WAS DEFINED. IN CITY DOCUMENTS. AND YOU CALL IT AN ORDINANCE OR WEBSITE OR SOMETHING, THAT IT IS DEFINED SOMEWHERE. AND EVEN THAT TERM ITSELF, I BELIEVE, IS DEFINED IN STATE LAW. I CAN'T POINT TO IT, BUT FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THE RESOLUTIONS ARE RESOLUTIONS ARE DEFINED ON THE CITY WEBSITE, ON THE RESOLUTION PAGE. BUT BUT A RESIDENT READING ABOUT A RESOLUTION WITH A SMALL R IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO EQUATE THAT WITH RESOLUTIONS WITH CAPITAL R'S LISTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE UNDER RESOLUTIONS, I THINK RESOLUTION SHOULD BE IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CHARTER. IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO ME, THAT'S A COMMON DEFINITION. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE DEFINED. IT JUST IT REFERS TO A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT. RESOLUTION, SPECIFIC TYPE OF DOCUMENT, A SPECIFIC TYPE OF VOTE TAKEN FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ISSUES. IF WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE RESOLUTION. AND THAT IS SUCH A COMMON COMMON COMMENTER, THEN I GOTTA SIDE WITH MARK. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE WE OUGHT TO DEFINE CEOS AND JOBS BECAUSE THOSE ARE LESS COMMON IN THE WORD RESOLUTION. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN READ THAT STATEMENT ONLINE. 194 AND NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT RESOLUTION IS. AND IF THEY DON'T, THEN A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH WILL TELL YOU WHAT A RESOLUTION IS. I'M LOOKING AT THE RED LINE VERSION AGAIN. THIS IS THE ONE THAT Y'ALL PRESENTED AND IT HAS RESOLUTION CAPITALIZED. I MEAN I'M DOING JUST DOING CONTROL S BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE HOW OFTEN WE SAID RESOLUTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT I MEAN I DON'T REALLY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT IT EITHER WAY TO BE HONEST, THE DEFINITION OR NOT. I SEE THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE MIGHT HAVE TO GO BACK AND CAPITALIZE. LIKE IN AN EARLIER DRAFT, TRACY DID GO THROUGH A CAPITALIZING ON THINGS, AND MAYBE THE INTENTION WAS TO HAVE A DEFINITION OF RESOLUTION. IT'S NOT IN THERE GROUP. EARLIER ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, I FIRST PUT THAT WE SHOULD CAPITALIZE RESOLUTION IN LINE 194. THEN AFTER GIVING IT FURTHER CONSIDERATION, I THOUGHT NO ON LINE 194 THAT IN THAT SPOT IT SHOULDN'T BE CAPITALIZED. IT SHOULD ONLY BE CAPITALIZED WHEN IT'S REFERRING TO A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT, LIKE A SPECIFIC RESOLUTION. JUST LIKE [00:45:04] AN ORDINANCE, WE WOULDN'T CAPITALIZE UNLESS IT'S SPECIFIC ORDINANCE. SO I TOOK BACK MY SUGGESTION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. BUT THE WAY THE DEFINITIONS WORK, IF WE DEFINE A RESOLUTION UP FRONT, THAT THAT DOES MEAN THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT AND CAPITALIZE ON THE ONES THAT ARE CAPITAL, I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT. WE'RE NOT CAPITALIZING ORDINANCE. EVERY PLACE WHERE IT'S MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT. WELL, IT SHOULDN'T BE. IT WAS DEFINED UP FRONT. ANYTHING THAT'S DEFINED UP FRONT, THAT'S PART OF OUR FINAL CLEANUP, IS ANYTHING THAT'S DEFINED UP FRONT SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED AS THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT TO MAKE CLEAR, AS REFERRING TO SOMETHING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFINED. AND QUITE FRANKLY, A LOT OF THE DEFINITIONS WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED, I THINK, WERE OVERKILL AND OVER THE TOP. AND NOW WE'RE JUST STACKING ON. AND THAT'S MY LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION IS FOR. WE'RE GETTING TOO IN THE WEEDS HERE WITH DEFINING COMMON TERMS. I DON'T THINK IT'S IT'S STANDARD WRITING PROCEDURE TO CAPITALIZE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION IN, IN IN A DOCUMENT, UNLESS IT IS REFERRING TO A SPECIFIC ORDINANCE OR A SPECIFIC RESOLUTION, WHETHER IT'S IN OUR DEFINITIONS OR NOT, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO NEGATIVE. IF YOU IF YOU SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT SOMETHING AND DEFINE IT AND SAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE CAPITALIZING THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT LIKE WE DID IN SECTION EIGHT, THEN THOSE TERMS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AS DRAFTING MEASURE CAPITALIZED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MOVIE. ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE YOU'RE REFERRING TO A TERM THAT YOU HAVE DEFINED UP FRONT. NOT TO PUT THEM IN QUOTES, BUT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO CAPITALIZE THEM AS A MATTER OF FORM. WHEN WE DEFINE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION UP FRONT, WE'RE DEFINING THE ACTUAL WHAT THE DOCUMENT REPRESENTS. SPECIFIC THE MEANING OF THE DOCUMENT. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT DEFINING IT AS USED CASUALLY. THROUGHOUT. SO I. THINK WE WOULD NEED TO CAPITALIZE ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE ONLY HAVE TWO MEETINGS LEFT. AND SO WE REALLY CAN'T BE. GETTING TOO HUNG UP ON THIS. SO I'M GOING TO ASK GENE FOR HIS COMMENT. YEAH. RESOLUTION IS PRETTY HARD TO MISUNDERSTAND I THINK. SO I WOULD MOVE IF I REMEMBER THE MAN MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD MOVE IF I REMEMBER THE MOTION CORRECTLY, THAT WE ADOPT 808 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. LINE 71 SHALL BE REWORDED TO REPLACE HE SLASH SHE WITH CITY MANAGER LINE 78. DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS ENSUING WILL BE REPLACED WITH. DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. YES, YOU CAN TELL ME. NO. I'M JUST LOOKING THROUGH OUR DEFINITIONS AND IT REALLY IS. THERE ARE A LOT OF MUNDANE DEFINITIONS IN THERE, YOU KNOW, MEANING OR DEFINING A MEANING FRANCHISE I LIKE BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY WOULD LOOK AT THE WORD FRANCHISE IN THE CHARTER PETITION. THAT'S KIND OF MUNDANE AS WELL. CITY MEANS THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. SOME OF THIS IS FOR CONVENIENCE, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, DO THE WHOLE CITY OF LAGO VISTA. MADAM CHAIR, I'M NOT QUITE SURE THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE RULES OR WHATEVER, THE PARLIAMENTARIAN STUFF. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, LET'S MAKE THAT A SEPARATE TOPIC. INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT DEFINITIONS. NOW LET'S PRESS ON WITH WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA. I AGREE, BUT I THINK I ALSO WOULD NOTE THAT THIS MARKET IS LEANING TOWARD DEFINING RESOLUTION. WE TOOK WE TOOK UP A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, ARTICLE EIGHT. WE'VE NOW HAD A [II.4. Approval of the final, complete Draft of Article III as posted on the Charter Review Committee (CRC) discussion board.] [00:50:12] MOTION AND WE'RE READY TO GO ON TO THE NEXT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM THAT WE THAT WE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH WAS TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL COMPLETE DRAFT OF ARTICLE THREE AS POSTED ON THE CRC DISCUSSION BOARD. AND GENE, I THINK THAT YOU REQUESTED THAT BE TAKEN OFF. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? FOR ME? NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT YOU WOULD ASK, DO WE STILL NEED SECTION 307 IF WE HAVE A BOE? AND YES, WE STILL NEED A SECTION 307 BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ETHICS CANNOT TAKE ACTION ALONE, IT CAN ONLY RECOMMEND BRING THINGS OUT TO LIGHT. HAVE A DEBATE, HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENTARY. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION WOULD BE COUNCILORS UNDER 3.07. IF WE TAKE 3.07 OUT, THEN ANY ACCOUNTABILITY IS OUT THERE. AND THEN. YEAH, I WASN'T ADVOCATING FOR TAKING IT OUT. ALL I'M SAYING IS IF WE ADOPT IT AS WRITTEN AND THEN WE ADD A BOARD OF ETHICS. THEN WE'VE ADOPTED SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF ORDER WITH A BOARD OF ETHICS, POTENTIALLY, BOARD OF ETHICS WOULD ONLY AUGMENT THREE. IT WOULD ENCOUNTER THREE. I THINK WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT THE COUNCIL, IT'S MY LINE 364 AND THIS IS ON A RED LINE VERSION. SO ANYWAYS, I'LL JUST READ IT. IT JUST SECTION 308 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. COUNCIL MAY REMOVE ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL FROM OFFICE FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS. IF WE. IF WE END UP CREATING A BOARD OF ETHICS, THEN THAT DECISION FOR REMOVAL IS ACTUALLY GOING TO COME FROM THE BOARD OF ETHICS. I THEN IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT THE DECISION COMES FROM CANNOT INDEPENDENTLY TAKE THAT KIND OF ACTION. OKAY. THEY CAN ONLY RECOMMEND. THAT'S WHY I SAY YOU STILL NEED 307 AND I DIDN'T SEE WHAT YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO, BUT I DID HEAR YOU REFER TO SECTION 3.08 AND IN A RED LINE 3.08 SHOULD BE COMPLETELY DELETED. IT WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH 3.07. YEAH, THAT'S WHY I TRY TO GET THIS VERSION UP. SO WE'RE ALL LITERALLY ON THE SAME PAGE HERE, BUT PERHAPS HAVING A RED LINE AND A CLEAN COPY IS CONFUSING. WELL, BOTH. IF YOU LOOK IN THE PACKET, BOTH RED LINE, THE LATEST VERSION OF THE LATEST VERSION OF EACH IS IN THE PACKET THAT WAS PRINTED OUT FOR THE. FOR THIS HEARING. SO IN THE FINAL VERSION TO ADOPT, THERE IS NO 3.8. BECAUSE WE VOTED TO COLLAPSE 3.78 AND NINE AND JUST SIMPLY 3.08. I DIDN'T CHANGE THE NUMBERING OF EVERYTHING BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO CONFUSE. LIKE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 3.13, WHICH 3.13. SO I JUST PLUG THOSE IN AS RESERVED. THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN CLEAN UP OR REMEMBER WITH. BUT FOR NOW THERE IS NO THREE POINT. NEXT AND JUST ONE ONE NOTE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU DO CREATE A BOARD OF REVIEW OR A BOARD OF ETHICS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, IT DOESN'T JUST, YOU KNOW, APPLY TO COUNCIL. IT DOESN'T JUST HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, REMOVED. THAT'S THAT'S LIKE YOU SAY, IT'S THE NUCLEAR, YOU KNOW, OPTION, BUT IT COULD APPLY TO ANY, ANY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE CITY. SO THAT THAT'S I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REALLY ADDRESSED HERE IN THE CHARTER. BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK IF WE DO CHOOSE TO ESTABLISH A BOARD OF ETHICS, MAYBE THEY SHOULD SPECIFY THAT. YEAH, IT'D BE ALL ENCOMPASSING. AND THAT WAS ONE THING IN RESEARCHING. AND I PUT [00:55:01] A NOTE IN THE BOARD OF ETHICS THING WHEN I WAS DOING THE INITIAL ROUND OF RESEARCH THAT IT WAS CLEARLY STATED IN ONE OF THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DELEGATE THEIR AUTHORITY TO TO A BOARD OF ETHICS, THEY MUST RETAIN THAT RIGHT. SO IN ORDER FOR THEM TO RETAIN THAT, DO NEED TO INCLUDE AS WRITTEN .07. RIGHT. HAS THIS DISCUSSION ADDRESSED THE QUESTION AND THE REASON THAT YOU ASKED FOR THIS TO BE REMOVED OR CONSENT. GENE. I BELIEVE SO. IS THE CASE. IS THERE A MOTION PERTAINING TO THAT AGENDA ITEM? WELL, I WOULD APPROVE THAT. WE ACCEPT AGENDA ITEM 2.4, THE FINAL DRAFT OF ARTICLE THREE AS POSTED. I WILL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? DISCUSSION. THE ONE TIME I DIDN'T SAY DISCUSSION THE ONE TIME. ALRIGHT. YEAH. SO THIS THIS IS ALWAYS STUCK IN MY CRAW. TERM OR NOT. TERM LIMITS. TERM LENGTH IS IN ARTICLE THREE. SO. YOU KNOW I KNOW I WILL GET OUTVOTED ON THIS. BUT IF I, YOU KNOW, IF I VOTE FOR DRAFT, FOR APPROVING THE DRAFT OF ARTICLE THREE AS WRITTEN, I FEEL LIKE I'M VOTING FOR THREE YEAR TERM, WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH COMPLETELY. I AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE I ALSO DON'T. I ALSO DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF A THREE YEAR TERM, BUT WE WERE OUTVOTED AND SO SO THIS DOCUMENT I GET THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT THE COMMITTEE VOTED FOR. SO I DON'T THINK THAT, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, VOTING FOR WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE THE. THE FACT THAT THIS THAT THIS THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN REDRAWN TO REFLECT THE VOTES AND DESIRES OF THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE AGREE WITH EVERYTHING. IT JUST MEANS THAT WE ARE VOTING, THAT IT DOES REFLECT WHAT THE WORK PRODUCT OF THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE. I WOULD JUST ASK A QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT ON TERM LIMITS, A NO PERSON SHALL SERVE AS MAYOR AND OR COUNCIL MEMBER FOR MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE ELECTED TERMS, REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S ONE AS A MAYOR OR TWO AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. ONE IS A COUNCIL MEMBER, TWO IS MAYOR. WHATEVER. IT'S THREE YEARS AND OUT. THAT'S WHAT WE ADOPTED. YES. THAT'S WHAT. AND YES, I THINK JUST TO TACK ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY IS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL PARTICULARS. VOTING TODAY THAT THIS REPRESENTS OUR PREVIOUS VOTES ALL PULLED TOGETHER NOW IN ONE NIGHT. THAT'S IT. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE, POLITELY DISAGREE. BUT I STILL THINK THAT YEAH, IT'S SEMANTICS. I THINK IT'S SEMANTICS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU ACTUALLY VOTING FOR ARTICLE THREE AS WRITTEN OR ARE YOU SAYING, YEAH, THIS IS WHAT WE ALREADY DECIDED ON EVERY STEP OF THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD. SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST. BUT I KNOW I'M GOING TO BE OUTVOTED 4 TO 1 AND I'M OKAY WITH IT. BUT I DON'T WANT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE TAKEN AS A UNANIMOUS VOTE. SIMPLY, SIMPLY ON THAT ONE SUBJECT. I THINK, THOUGH, THAT WE SHOULD, SINCE THERE IS THIS CONFUSION, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ESTABLISH THAT VOTING FOR FINAL DRAFTS THAT REPRESENT THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT VOTING IN AFFIRMATION OF EVERY SINGLE THING THAT'S IN HERE. WE'RE VOTING ON THE DRAFT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORK THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE. AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN VOTING FOR THE WHAT THE COMMITTEE. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT ONCE AGAIN, VOTING ON THINGS THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY VOTED AND DECIDED ON. I WHAT I WANTED WAS ANOTHER SET OF EYES TO LOOK OVER, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I APPROPRIATELY AND ACCURATELY CAPTURED ALL OF OUR ACTIONS. AND THEN THE FINAL FORM, BECAUSE WE DID IT IN SO MANY PIECES. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS AN AFFIRMATION. YES, MY EDITING IS [01:00:06] CORRECT, REFLECTING THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEES. ALL. ROBERT, ON THE TITLE ON SECTION 3.06 AND M ON COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THEN I WOULD JUST THROW OUT THERE. I KNOW WE'RE GETTING SUPER NITTY GRITTY. SECTION 3.06 THE TITLE LINE NEAR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THEN I WOULD SAY TO JUST TO JUST EITHER DO A PERIOD AT THE END OF ALL THE SECTIONS OR NOT. OKAY, I SEE THAT. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE M. WELL ALL RIGHT. SO LINE 66 NEEDS M. WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE JIM? I WOULD SAY JUST ON THE SECTION TITLES THAT EITHER DO A PERIOD ON ALL OF THEM OR NOT DO. YES. CONSISTENCY. THE FINAL VERSION WE GOT TO GO THROUGH AND BASICALLY STANDARDIZE ALL OF THEM. SOME OF THEM ARE ALL CAPS. SOME OF THEM ARE THINGS THAT ARE COPIED IN. SOME OF THEM GO FROM SECTION NUMBER 3.03 TO LITTLE A, LITTLE B, SOME OF THEM GO TO LITTLE I DOUBLE I THREE, I, SOME OF THEM GO TO NUMBER. SO THAT KIND OF CONSISTENCY WE'LL SEE BECAUSE YES. WELL THE OTHER THING I GOT TO DO IS IN ORDER TO PRODUCE A TABLE OF CONTENTS, I'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH THE SECTION TITLE, EVERYTHING SO THAT I CAN, I CAN ELEGANTLY CREATE A TABLE OF CONTENTS, WHICH FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE NEW TO THE COMMITTEE, WAS ACTUALLY ADOPTED IN 2018, BUT NEVER PUT IN OUR ACTUAL CHARTER. WHAT WAS SOMETHING WE OBSERVED IN ROUND ONE? SO THAT KIND OF EDITING YOU SEE IN THE FINAL VERSION. BUT BUT IF YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE THE MISSING, LET ME KNOW. OKAY, I KNOW I'M LOST. I DO BELIEVE WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THEN DISCUSSION. SO ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE NOW? ALL. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, I. ONE. [III.1. Discussion and possible action on the final draft and numbering of the Ordinances Article.] SO WE ARE READY TO MOVE ON TO TO THE CORE PART OF OUR OUR MEETING TODAY, THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. AND TO OUR FIRST ONE IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FINAL DRAFT AND NUMBERING OF THE ORDINANCES ARTICLE IN THE MOST RECENT ORDINANCES ARTICLE THAT WAS POSTED TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD HAS BEEN PRINTED OUT AND IS ON THE TABLE HERE FOR EVERYBODY TO REFER TO. AND IT'S ALSO IN THE PACKET THERE, THE SAME. SHE GOT THE PACKET. OKAY. AND I WOULD NOTE THAT I MADE SOME I DON'T KNOW IF I MADE THESE COMMENTS LAST TIME OR IF I PUT THEM ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, BUT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES LINE 14, 15 AND 16. I HAD ASKED FOR A AN AMENDMENT TO READ THE PRESCRIPTIVE CAPTAIN OR TITLE OF EACH PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHALL BE PUBLISHED. THE COMPLETE THE COMPLETE TEXT, DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF EACH PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHALL BE PUBLISHED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL HEARING IN A COMPLETE TEXT, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE HEARING AGENDA PACKET POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE. I CAN'T EVEN READ MY OWN WRITING. BUT ANYWAY, I WANTED THAT. ADDED THAT THE COMPLETE TEXT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED AND THAT THE TEXT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE HEARING AGENDA PACKET, WHICH IS POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW OR THIS CHARTER. I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE WE'RE [01:05:02] USING CAPITALIZED PUBLISH. SO REFER BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF PUBLISH THAT WE ALREADY ADOPTED EARLIER. SO THAT WOULD APPLY TO BEING PUBLISHED ON THE CITY WEBSITE. BUT IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF HAVING IT THE COMPLETE TEXT RATHER THAN THE DESCRIPTIVE CAPTION OR TITLE. AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WE WANT THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT JUST THE DESCRIPTION, CAPTION, OR TITLE TO BE TO BE PUBLISHED. I WOULD AGREE, I THINK I HAD THAT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND NOT ON. I DON'T THINK IT'S LEFT OVER FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING. I THINK I PUT THAT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, BUT RIGHT NOW, LOOKING AT MY NOTES, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I. YEAH, I SEE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, COMPLETE TEXT OF EACH PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHALL BE PUBLISHED PRIOR TO COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING IN THE HEARING AGENDA PACKET POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW OR THIS CHARTER. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES, SIR. I ALSO HAVE A COUPLE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO CALL OUT ONCE WE ARE DONE WITH THIS ONE. OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT MY SUGGESTIONS? I'M GOOD WITH IT. ONE OF MY SUGGESTIONS ACTUALLY, YOU'VE GOT NUMBER THREE AND I HAVE A SUGGESTION ON THAT AS WELL. IT'S LINE 19 AND ONCE AGAIN IT'S JUST FUNKY WORDING. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CAUSE THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY. MY SUGGESTION IS THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO PRINT THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY IN CODE FORM, MUCH SIMPLER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND INSTEAD OF SHALL CAUSE. OKAY. YEAH. AND MY OTHER ONE IS KIND OF SIMILAR. THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS IN LINE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCIL SHALL EVIDENCE ITS OFFICIAL ACTIONS. WHY NOT SAY THE CITY COUNCIL? COUNCIL SHALL DOCUMENT ITS OFFICIAL ACTIONS. I WAS WRITING DURING THAT. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? WORD IN LINE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL EVIDENCE ITS OFFICIAL ACTIONS. I'M PROPOSING THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCIL SHALL DOCUMENT ITS OFFICIAL ACTIONS BY WRITTEN ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ON AND ON AND ON. I DON'T READ AWAY ON THAT. YEAH, IT'S JUST A FANCY WORD THAT WE JUST USE PLAIN ENGLISH. WE DON'T NEED TO EVIDENCE IT. WE JUST NEED TO DOCUMENT THESE THINGS. OKAY. I'D GO ALONG WITH THAT. NOW, THE OTHER CHANGE THAT I MADE, AND I THINK I PUT THIS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AS WELL, WAS ON LINE 20 AND 21. I ELIMINATED PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO PRINT THE ORDINANCES, AS HEREIN PROVIDED, SHALL NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE SAME. BECAUSE IN THE EVENT THAT WE FAIL TO, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY COULD EASILY OVERLOOK. PRINTING AN ORDINANCE AFTER IT'S BEEN PASSED. WE I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ELIMINATE PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO PRINT THE ORDINANCES HEREIN PROVIDED SHALL NOT AFFECT VALIDITY, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR ORDINANCES THAT NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT. BUT NOT HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE APPROACHED FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING THERE, THAT GOES TO ACCOUNTABILITY. I THINK. I THINK, I THINK THE FACT THAT MAYBE SOMETHING IS, WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS CREATE A CHARTER WHERE IT CREATES A TECHNICALITY, WHERE SOMEONE COULD SAY, WELL, IT WASN'T PUBLISHED ON A CERTAIN DATE OR WHATEVER ON THE WEBSITE, AND THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT ORDINANCE AT ALL. OKAY. OR EVEN WORSE, PUT YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EARS. CITY MANAGER. THE CITY EMPLOYEE DOESN'T LIKE AN ORDINANCE THAT COUNCIL PASSES. WHAT'S TO PREVENT THEM FROM JUST NOT PUBLISHING? AND NOW IT'S NOT NOT EFFECTIVE. SO I THINK THE [01:10:02] FACT THAT PROVIDED THE FAILURE TO PRINT NEEDS TO REMAIN IN THERE TO COVER ANY KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR AND NOT LET SOMEBODY OFF THE HOOK. NOW, GRANTED, PENALTY WISE, ACCOUNTABILITY WISE, YOU GOTTA HAUL BEFORE THE JUDGE AND YOUR DEFENSE IS, WELL, THIS WAS NEVER PUBLISHED. I'M SURE THE JUDGE WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT NECESSARILY APPLY ANY SPECIFIC PENALTY FOR YOU, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS, IN FACT, IMPORTANT, WHETHER IT'S PRINTED OR NOT. OKAY. I'M CONVINCED. AS I MENTIONED, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS ONE CLOSE, BECAUSE THIS WAS A MASHING TOGETHER OF OUR ORDINANCES. AND SELENA AND I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME REDUNDANCY THERE. LOOKING AT SECTION ONE AND SECTION FIVE OF THE ADOPTION CODE. SO I WAS REALLY HOPING TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ABOUT ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF REDUNDANCY AS WE MATCHED THESE TWO? WELL, I LOOKED AT IT REALLY CLOSELY. THE ONE THING I WASN'T CRAZY ABOUT THE WAY. GOING FROM LINE 31, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE MAY NOT. AND THEN WE HAD A, B AND C AND THEN A FOR LINE 38. WE'VE GOT EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IT REFERS TO. PRIOR TO PRIOR TO THE EMERGENCY. WHAT THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCES MAY NOT DO. I, I THINK IT'S CLUMSY, BUT I COULDN'T COME UP WITH A REALLY A BETTER WAY. IT'S IT'S CLUMSY, BUT IT'S BUT IT'S LEGIBLE AND IT'S CERTAINLY READABLE. BUT IT'S I KEPT GOING OVER IT AND LIKE BUT BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER. ISSUES HOWEVER. WELL, I'M GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT BECAUSE IT POINTED OUT AN ERROR INSERTED STUFF. WHAT WAS 8.06 IS NOT FOR. SO I GOTTA FIX THAT. THE THING I NOTED WAS IN LINE 50, WHERE IT SAYS SECTION 3.15 OF THIS CHARTER AND 3.15 IS RESERVED FOR CATS. YES. THAT'S WHY I DON'T LIKE GETTING REAL SPECIFIC. I SAID, THAT'S WHY I DON'T LIKE GETTING REAL SPECIFIC ABOUT CALLING OUT. WE COULD JUST SAY, AS PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, EVEN WITH THAT. THE .06 KIND OF HAS THE SAME, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF VISTA. AND THAT'S IN 1801 TWO. FOR RESOLUTION. YES. THIS RESOLUTION IS CAPITALIZED. IT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT, JIM? I GUESS WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT, TOO. I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT ONE PART THAT IT WAS REPETITIVE, BUT I THINK LOOKING AT IT AS YOU SUGGESTED TO ROBERT AND LINDA MAKES SENSE. WELL. THAT IN THIS SECTION IT'S GOT RESOLUTION AND THEN RESOLUTION IN QUOTES CLOSE PAREN. SO THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE WAY WE'VE WRITTEN RESOLUTION ELSEWHERE. AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE REST OF THAT SENTENCE. LINE. LINE 50 THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF EVERY SHALL BE. AND THEN IT SAYS BE IT RESOLVED. WE JUST STRIKING OUT THAT ENTIRE SENTENCE. IS THAT THE PROPOSAL? WELL, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, DO WE EVEN NEED THAT SECTION? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THAT SECTION WE'VE ALREADY COVERED. YEAH, THAT WAS SOMETHING WE [01:15:09] PULLED FROM OUR OUR CURRENT CHARTER. BUT I THINK THE SELENA COVERS IT BETTER. SECTION 801 SO WE AGREE TO SECTION SIX. YES. AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHERE DO WE INSERT THIS IN OUR CHARTER. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST SECTION IN THE ARTICLES A LOT NUMBER. AND I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS A CONSENSUS ON A LOGICAL PLACE BECAUSE ONCE WE INSERT IT IN THEN EVERYTHING AFTER IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE RENUMBERED. SO WE WANT TO GET CONSENSUS ON THAT BEFORE I DO IT. I SAID MARK TROTTER HAD A TABLE OF CONTENTS. WELL BEFORE TOO LONG. YEAH, THE CITY OF CELINA HAS IT. AS UNDER TERM LIMITS IN CHAPTER TEN PROCEDURE FOR THEY TALK ABOUT ORDINANCES IN CHAPTER TEN. WELL IT'S NOT FORGET I SAID TERM LIMITS BUT CHAPTER TEN IT'S A STANDALONE STANDALONE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT MOVING INTO A STANDALONE ARTICLE. SO THE QUESTION NOW IS WHERE. SHOULD IT BE FOR CLEARLY NEEDS TO BE AFTER CITY COUNCIL. ARTICLE FOUR IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY OPERATIONS, AND THEN FIVE IS NOMINATIONS AND ALL THAT. AND TO ME, THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE WOULD BE MAKING ORDINANCES. ARTICLE FOUR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CITY COUNCIL. AND WE DO THAT. THAT MEANS RENUMBERING 4 OR 5, SIX, SEVEN. SO BUT IT WOULD SEEM LIKE LOGICALLY THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD GO. AND TALK ABOUT COUNCIL, TALK ABOUT ORDINANCES. YOU TALK ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF THAT IMPLEMENTS THE ORDINANCES. AND THEN WE GET INTO THE ELECTIONS AND SO FORTH. SO IF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT STANDALONE, MAKING ITS OWN STANDALONE ARTICLE PRESERVE THAT, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT WOULD NEED TO BE ARTICLE FOUR TO ME. THE OTHER THING WOULD BE JUST TO PARSE IT BACK INTO THREE. BUT THEN WE'RE REALLY CONVOLUTING CITY COUNCIL AND ORDINANCES AND THE WHOLE REASON FOR PULLING IT OUT. SO THAT'S MY INITIAL THOUGHTS, EAGERLY AWAITING FEEDBACK. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK A NEW ARTICLE, SECTION OR ARTICLE FOUR ACCOMMODATING THIS RIGHT AFTER THREE MAKES THE MOST SENSE. YEAH, THE GENERAL POWERS OF THE CITY AND TO THE COUNCIL AND THREE AND THEN ORDINANCES AND FOUR. IT'S LIKE A LOGIC. SO WE'RE TAKING OUT EMERGENCY MEETINGS AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS ARTICLE 318 OUT OF SECTION THREE. OR DID WAS THAT DID THAT STAY IN ARTICLE ORDINANCES? ARTICLE WOULD BE ITS OWN ORDINANCE ARTICLE. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INSERTING IT ENTIRETY AS ARTICLE FOUR. AND THEN EVERYTHING AFTER ARTICLE FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12 JUST GETS SHIFTED BACK. HE IS HE IS. GENES RIGHT UNDER ORDINANCES. SECTION 9.04 IS ALMOST LITERALLY IDENTICAL TO SECTION 318. OOPS OF THE CURRENT CURRENT. OR DO WE TAKE THAT OUT? I'M HAPPY WITH THAT. ANYTHING [01:20:09] ELSE ON ORDINANCES? WHAT I HAVE IS I'M GOING TO CALL IT ARTICLE FOUR. I'M GOING TO CHANGE LINE FOUR TO SAY THE CITY SHALL DOCUMENT. AND CHANGE LINE 14 TO SAY THE COMPLETE TEXT OF EACH CORRESPONDENCE, AND A CHANGE LINE 18 TO SAY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO PRINT THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY IN CODE FORM. LINE 38, SECTION .806 BECOMES 8.44. LINE 47 TO 52 THAT'S STRICKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY. AND LINE 54, SECTION SEVEN NOW BECOMES SECTION SIX. YOU GOTTA BE READY. I'M SORRY, GENE, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS AS ARTICLE FOUR. AS WITH THE CHANGES JUST STATED BY COMMISSIONER OWENS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. UNANIMOUS. BUT JUST TO BE SURE. ANY NAMES? NEXT AGENDA ITEM. A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ARTICLES [III.2. Discussion and possible action on Articles X and XI.] TEN AND 11. MADAM CHAIR, I HAD MADE A SUGGESTION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD FOR ARTICLE 1010 .06 J. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT LINE IT'S ON AT THIS POINT. SO IF SOMEBODY CAN FIND IT AND I'LL READ MY SUGGESTION AS THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT WORDING. IT'S LINE 1381 AND. SO MY PROPOSED CHANGE IS AS FOLLOWS FOR THAT LINE. IN THE EVENT A FRANCHISEE DAMAGES OR DESTROYS ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY, COMMA, THE FRANCHISEE AT THEIR EXPENSE WILL RETURN THE DAMAGED PROPERTY TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THAT BEFORE BEING DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BASICALLY, JUST CHANGE THE PASSAGE TO CLEAN IT UP. YEAH, I AGREE, WHENEVER YOU USE ACTIVE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ARTICLE TEN? THERE ARE NONE. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT ARTICLE. ROBERT. MAYBE WE TALKED ABOUT [01:25:06] THIS OR NOT, BUT. IT GOES INTO ALL THE STUFF ABOUT RACETRACKS. AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE WE LANDED. I DON'T HAVE ANY NOTES, BUT I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY NOTES THAT I CAPTURED ON TEN TO DO SO. SO COULD WE LOOK AT ANOTHER CHARTER REAL QUICK? JUST CHECK THIS. I DON'T EVEN SEE IT IN. I'M SORRY. IT IS CHAPTER 12. IT'S. IN AUBRY. IT HAS. THERE'S A SECTION 10.01 AND IT'S JUST BASIC. IT SAYS AUTHORITY AND IT 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 AND GOES ON AND ON, DOESN'T ADDRESS RACETRACKS, SWIMMING POOLS, JUST SAYS PUBLIC SERVICES. 1101 THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO BUY AND SELL, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND REGULATE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, AND TO MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE AND SELL THE OUTPUT OF SUCH SERVICES AND UTILITY OPERATIONS, WHICH, I MEAN, I THINK THE OTHER ONE I KIND OF LIKE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NAME IT ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR, BUT WHAT IT DOES DO. I THINK THAT WHOLE ARTICLE 11 TALKS ABOUT FRANCHISING. SO. DO WE HAVE ROOM FOR A RACETRACK? WELL, WE DO HAVE BIKE RACES. OR SOME OF THE ETJ PROPERTY COULD BE ANNEXED SPECIFICALLY FOR RACETRACK. CAN WE SPREAD TYPE TWO ON A RACETRACK? I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT CLEANING IT UP, BUT I REALLY QUESTIONING WHETHER IT'S NECESSARY OR REALLY WARRANTED. THE SUBJECT SECTIONS A THROUGH E, WITH THE [01:30:46] EXCEPTION PERHAPS OF SWIMMING POOLS AND RACETRACKS. THEY ALL KIND OF SAY THE SAME THING, IT SEEMS LIKE, WHICH TAKES ME BACK TO SOME OF THE OTHER CHARTERS WHERE THEY JUST HAVE ONE PARAGRAPH INSTEAD OF A SECTION WITH FIVE SUBSECTIONS. I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE THIS BUILDING SOME OF THIS STUFF AND FRANCHISING IT OUT. AND WE HAVE A SWIMMING POOL. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF BUILDING ANOTHER ONE? I DON'T KNOW, SO I THINK JIM'S POINT IS RIGHT. 11.01 OUT OF ROCKFORD PLACE. OUR WHOLE 11 POINT. SAY THE SAME THING IN TWO SENTENCES. ONE SENTENCE. AND THEN YOU GET INTO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. IT TALKS ABOUT COUNCIL HAVING THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. SO THEY NEED THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW I'M NOT SURE I SEE THAT. PERHAPS. WOULD THAT BE A LITTLE BIT REDUNDANT. OVERLAYING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. MEANING THE EMINENT DOMAIN CLAUSE. WELL, WE DO HAVE EMINENT DOMAIN COVERING THE POWERS OF THE CITY. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S REDUNDANT. AND IT KIND OF GETS INTO OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW STATE LAW. WELL THAT'S NICE. WE KIND OF HAVE TO DO THAT. BUT. I, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IF WE WERE TO USE [01:35:18] 11 ROCKPORT 11.01, THAT ENTIRE SENTENCE AND MAYBE PUT A COMMA ON IT AND SAY. AND MAY EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN IF IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SERVICE FOR CARRYING OUT PROVIDING UTILITIES OR SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY. PERIOD. NO, I THAT WAS I THINK MY POINT EARLIER ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN. I WOULD HAVING IT HERE IS JUST REDUNDANT EXCEPT FOR CHAPTER TWO POWERS OF THE CITY. I'M PRETTY HAPPY I THINK WITH JUST 11.01 THE WAY IT'S WORDED, AND JUST GET RID OF EVERYTHING BELOW DOT TEN ZERO ONE AND PUT IN THE WORDING FROM ROCKPORT. ARE YOU SAYING GET RID OF A, B, C, D, AND E? AND THE LAST PARAGRAPH DO. EVERYTHING TALKED ABOUT IN A, B, E, AND D AND E ARE ALL COVERED? IN MY OPINION, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC SERVICES. THOSE ARE ALL PUBLIC SERVICES SWIMMING POOLS, RACETRACKS, CABLE CEMETERIES, GOLF COURSES, THOSE ARE ALL PUBLIC SERVICES. I THINK WE AT LEAST CLEANED UP 10.01. THE REST OF IT IS STILL QUITE WORDY. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT CONFLICTS, BUT IT SEEMS REDUNDANT. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT. IT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY STANDARD. THE IDEA OF SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 YEARS. GRANTING A FRANCHISEE. CHARLES, DO YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WOULD SAY LIKE SPECTRUM IS, IS THAT USES ALL THE LINES EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY? IS THAT A 20 YEAR AGREEMENT, OR IS THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH SPECTRUMS? I KNOW I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT PECS. PECS IS TEN YEARS OKAY? YEAH. I NOTICED IN IN ROCKPORT IT SAID NO FRANCHISE SHOULD BE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE AN EXCLUSIVE. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE CASE OF CABLE. UNDERSTAND? THAT'S A PHYSICAL LIMITATION OF ACTUALLY THE LINES THEMSELVES. THERE ARE OTHER, YOU KNOW, INTERNET PROVIDERS YOU CAN GO WITH, BUT IT MAY BE SUBPAR IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE. THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME RECENT LEGISLATION THAT HAS TO DEAL WITH THE COMMUNICATION LINES AND STUFF THAT'S CHANGED AS AS CHANGED OUR ABILITY ON SOME OF OUR FRANCHISE. IN WHAT WAY COULD YOU EXPOUND ON THAT? YOU BASICALLY CUT THEM OUT. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE FOR CERTAIN INTERNET PROVIDERS TELECOMMUNICATION LINES. IF I MAY. THAT WAS MY INDUSTRY. AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO CABLE TELEVISION OPERATORS, IN 2007, ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL CITY FRANCHISES WERE OVERTAKEN BY WHAT WAS THEN AN UMBRELLA STATE FRANCHISE, SAID THE STATE FRANCHISE. AND SO THE ABILITY TO REGULATE RATES, FOR EXAMPLE, WENT AWAY. THE FRANCHISE IS NONEXCLUSIVE. THE FISCAL AND BUSINESS CASE REALITIES OF OVERWHELMING. WHILE CHARLES TEAM AND COUNCIL GRANT GRANDE THE ABILITY TO COME IN AND [01:40:01] OVERBUILD BECAUSE THE SPECTRUM FRANCHISE CANNOT BE EXCLUSIVE BUSINESS CASE WOULD BE. SIMILAR TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONALITY PROBLEMS WITH THAT. ANYWAY, SO A LOT OF THIS TALKS ABOUT COVERING RATES. YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T REGULATE TELEVISION CABLE TV RATES ANYMORE BECAUSE STATEWIDE FRANCHISE AND ESTABLISHES THAT AND IT'S ALREADY NONEXCLUSIVE. ALTHOUGH I DON'T SEE IT MUCH COMPETITION IN THAT INDUSTRY JUST BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL INTENSITY, YOU KNOW. I AGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH BUSINESS IN LAGO VISTA TO GET GOOGLE CABLE OR GOOGLE, GOOGLE FIBER OR WHATEVER. WHATEVER IT IS, I GET IT. I WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH TAKING TOO MUCH OUT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE. I LIKE THE OTHER FRANCHISES THAT ARE A LITTLE MORE STREAMLINED, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO PULL SOMETHING OUT AS A BLIND SPOT. SO SIMPLIFYING 10.1 I CAN KIND OF SEE DOING THAT MADE SOME OTHER EDITS THROUGHOUT. GENES ADDED ON LINE 1381 MAKES SENSE. BEYOND THAT, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH FURTHER WE SHOULD DELVE INTO THIS. ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS IS IF 10.06. MAYBE I'M NOT READING THIS RIGHT. ALL GRANTS OF FRANCHISES AS AUTHORIZED IN THIS CHARTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE COUNCIL TO DETERMINE, FIX AND REGULATE THE CHARGES, RATES OR COMPENSATION TO BE CHARGED BY THE PERSON OR ENTITY GRANTED A FRANCHISE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, CHARLES? THAT THAT KIND OF GOES AWAY WITH THE NEW LAWS COMING. DOES TO AN EXTENT LIKE FOR PSC, WE CAN SET THE RATE IT LIKE RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE IT'S AT 4%. AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT WE WILL CONTINUE THE NEXT BECAUSE WE'RE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM RIGHT NOW. BUT EVERY TIME WE RAISE IT, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO PASS IT ON TO THE THROUGH. SO WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THERE IS THE ACTUAL FRANCHISE FEE. YES. THAT IS A PASS THROUGH JUST LIKE THE FRANCHISE FEE. OKAY. IT USED TO BE LOCAL AUTHORITIES COULD REGULATE THE COST OF TELEVISION, THE COST OF PHONE. AND THIS LANGUAGE IS ACTUALLY KIND OF OLD. I WOULD HATE TO TAKE IT OUT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOMETHING LIKE ELECTRIC. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE EVER DID FRANCHISE OUT OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT PRIVATIZED, THAT, GOT OUT OF THE WATER BUSINESS, AND STILL WANT TO RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THAT FRANCHISEES RATES. SO I HATE TO TAKE IT OUT JUST BECAUSE I KNOW YOU CAN'T ENFORCE IT ON CABLE AND PHONE, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A REASON TO HAVE IT IN THERE FOR SOME OTHER FRANCHISE DOWN THE LINE. IS THAT FAIR? YES, THERE IS, BECAUSE LIKE IF, SAY, WE HAD AN AREA OF LAGO VISTA, WE COULDN'T SUPPLY WATER AND WASTEWATER TO, BUT AN OUTSIDE FIRM COULD. THEY COULDN'T CHARGE MORE THAN WHAT OUR OTHER CUSTOMERS ARE CURRENTLY PAYING. WOULD THAT APPLY TO A MUD? UNFORTUNATELY, NO, BECAUSE THE MUD IS A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT ANIMAL. THAT'S A TAXING ENTITY IN ITSELF. WHAT DID YOU SAY, ROBERT? THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT THIS CODE AND I JUST POINTED IT OUT. THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY. HOWEVER, I RODE IN 407 COOPER ARE BOTH IN THE CITY AND THEY'RE BOTH IN THE MUD. AND ANOTHER FYI ON THAT, WE ACTUALLY SUPPLY THE WATER. SO [01:45:03] IS THAT REALLY ALL THE CHANGES FOR TEN SIMPLIFIED 10.01 IS AN BROCKPORT LANGUAGE. GENES CORRECTION TO J. YOU KNOW THAT WE DON'T TAKE READ THE LEASE TAMPERING WITH THIS SECTION FOR THE BETTER. I'LL MAKE THOSE EDITS AND POST UP FOR HOPEFULLY CONSENT AGENDA. THAT DOESN'T TAKE AN HOUR. I'M JUST GOING TO LOOK FOR ANOTHER PLACE WHERE RESOLUTION IS WRITTEN SO I CAN BRING THAT UP AGAIN. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ARTICLE TEN? LET ME READ DRAFT IT AND CAN BRING IT BACK ON CONSENT NEXT TIME. HOPEFULLY NOT HAVE TO DISCUSS IT. AND WE'LL MOVE ON AND TAKE COMMENTS ON ARTICLE 11 GENERAL PROVISIONS. I MADE A COMMENT ON 11.06. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY, BUT IT READS NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY SHALL ACCEPT DIRECTLY. OR I'M LOOKING AT LINE 1481. NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY SHALL ACCEPT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, ANY NON-CASH ITEM FROM ANY PERSON, ENTITY AND JUST STRIKING GIFT, FAVOR OR PRIVILEGE OR EMPLOYMENT. I THINK THOSE ARE DIFFERENT. I THINK THAT LISTENS TO. OKAY, SO LET ME JUST CHANGE THAT JUST TO SAY, DO WE NEED DO WE NEED TO ADD IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW? I AGREE WITH YOU, ROBERT, THAT THAT IS WHAT WE WHAT WE CONCLUDED WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS, THAT STATE LAW WAS MORE LENIENT OR ALLOWED FOR MORE THAN WHAT WE WERE. CHARLES, IS THAT A COMMON THING, LIKE, SAY, AROUND THE HOLIDAYS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT BRING IN LIKE A PLATTER FOR EMPLOYEES HERE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OH YEAH. FOOD. WELL, EXCEPT WE DON'T ACCEPT CASH, BUT FOOD WE TAKE ALL DAY LONG. [01:50:05] I MEAN, YOU KNOW, BEING A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, WE WERE GIFTED BY THE LIONS OR WHOEVER. THEY WOULD JUST DROP OFF STUFF FOR BRIEFINGS. YEAH. TRUTH BE KNOWN, OUR CHURCH WILL PROVIDE MEALS TO THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT CITY EMPLOYEES. YOU WANT TO BE REAL SPECIFIC? WE SHOULD SAY SO. ACCEPT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY NON-CASH ITEM EXCEPT EDIBLE ITEMS. OR EXCEPT EDIBLE ON THE PREMISES. YOU WERE KIND OF READING MY MIND, EXCEPT I WAS TRYING TO READ IT INTO THE LAST SENTENCE WHERE WE MAKE THE EXCEPTION FOR NOMINAL ITEMS. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE IN PENCIL, CALENDAR, CUP, CAP, OR SIMILARLY VALUED ITEM USED FOR ADVERTISING. CAN YOU CAN TACK ON THERE FOR FOOD FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION? YEAH, I HAD A CITY ATTORNEY AT ONE TIME TELL ME, HE SAID, IF Y'ALL GET FOOD, Y'ALL DON'T WANT IT, JUST SEND IT TO MY OFFICE. WE'LL TAKE IT. I THINK. ROBERT. VERY WELL. I AM BEGINNING TO READ YOUR MIND. IT IS DEFINITELY TIME FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO TO COME TO A CLOSE. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE ON 11 THEN? I THINK IT REALLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE SPECIFICALLY ADDED. I THINK IT'S SO, SO, SO, SO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AND KNOWN THAT EDIBLE FOOD ON THE PREMISES IS, IS ACCEPTED FROM THIS KIND OF A GRATUITY SITUATION THAT I WANT TO KNOW. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IN COMMON SENSE CALENDAR LINE THAT LAST LINE THAT PENCILS ARE ALLOWED. WELL THAT'S. YEAH, THE NOMINAL STUFF. THE ONLY REASON I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. LINDA, IS THAT YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S DISGRUNTLED AND LOOKING FOR A WAY TO CREATE PROCEDURAL LAWFARE. THEY COULD CLAIM, WELL, THAT FOOD WAS A GIFT. AND CHARTER SAYS, NO, I'M GOING TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH HR. SO TO AVOID THAT, THERE'S NO HARM IN ADDING MORE FOOD FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION. I AGREE WITH YOU. EXCEPT HUMAN BEHAVIOR. AS WE WITNESSED RECENTLY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING SOMEONE WOULD TRY TO HANG YOUR HAT ON JUST. AFTER YOU HAD ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ON 11. JUST TWO, TWO THINGS 11, TEN, WHICH IS MY COPY. IT'S LINE 1535 AND 1111. ONE. IS BRIBERY PROHIBITED? NO PERSON WHO SEEKS APPOINTMENT, APPOINTMENT OR MOTIONS WITH RESPECT TO ANY OFFICE OR APPOINTMENT SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY GIVE PAY OR ANY MONEY FOR ANYTHING OR ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE. ISN'T THAT ALREADY ILLEGAL? YOU? I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE I SEE THE SENSE OF INCLUDING THAT. AND THEN THE VERY NEXT ONE, POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. I'M NOT POSITIVE, BUT I THINK THAT IS A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS WELL, IF NOT DEFINITELY. OR PERHAPS. THE POINT BEING IS I'M NOT SURE THAT THOSE TWO ACTUALLY ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT ISN'T ALREADY ADDRESSED BY THE STATE LAW OR CODE OF ETHICS, AND I THINK YOU'RE SPOT ON. I THINK ON THE FIRST PASS, WE LOOKED AT IT AND BASICALLY SAID, WELL, DON'T BREAK THE LAW, BUT IS IT WORTH PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT TO TAKE OUT A SECTION THAT SAYS, DON'T BREAK THE LAW? BUT NOW WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT THAT. WE COULD PUT IN THE DEFINITIONS, THE DEFINITION OF. WE COULD PUT IN THE DEFINITIONS, THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, AND [01:55:02] THEN WE COULD JUST PUT IN HERE THE BRIBERY IS INHIBITED WITHOUT HAVING. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THIS, WE'RE GOING TO SAY, HEY, THEY PUT IN THIS ETHICS BOARD. BUT THEY TOOK OUT THE BRIBERY SECTION. I'M ALL FOR STREAMLINING IT. AND IF IT'S ALREADY COVERED BY STATE LAW, I THINK THAT PROBABLY SHOULD DO IT IN TERMS OF LIKE THE ELECTED BOARD OF ETHICS, I THINK IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S AMORAL, BUT NOT TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL, THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OR UNPROFESSIONAL ILLEGAL. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. A COUNCIL MEMBER. WON'T ADDRESS IT THEMSELVES. YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS ODD. ABOUT 1111 IS ONE OF THE FEW PLACES IN THE CHARTER THAT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR A FINE AND PENALTY, WHICH IS UNUSUAL. AGAIN, FIRST TIME THROUGH, WE KIND OF LIKE, WELL, TAKE IT OUT ON, EXCEPT THAT 500 $500 IS A PENALTY FOR SOMETHING IS REALLY KIND OF OUTDATED AS FAR AS BEING. WELL, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK A TEN AND 11 ARE BOTH ALREADY COVERED BY STATE. NO LESS THAN 11 IS ALSO COVERED BY OUR CODE OF ETHICS. I DON'T HAVE ANY HEARTBREAK TO. DOES THE CODE OF ETHICS COVER? YOU KNOW ANYTHING THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION, YOU WILL BE INELIGIBLE TO HOLD OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF SO MANY YEARS. NO. AND I THINK THAT WAS THE THING. IT'S IT'S ODD THAT OUR CHARTER WAS SPECIFIED. I THINK PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED TO SOMEONE LOOKED AT THIS, THE STATE LAW OUT, IT SAYS WHAT THE PENALTY WOULD BE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. I STUCK IT IN THE CHARTER. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE. THE STATE LAW ALREADY PRESCRIBES DEFENSE AND THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO IT. SO I, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TAKING EITHER OF THOSE OR BOTH OUT. I ALSO DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. SO THEN THE WE'RE IT TALKS ABOUT SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR OR CHARTER. NOW HAS BECOME PART OF OUR CODE, OF OUR PART OF OUR CRIMINAL CODE FOR THE CITY. I THINK IT JUST REFERS TO STATE LAW, WHICH CRIMINAL CODE, PENAL CODE PUT OUT BY THE STATE. AND WE JUST SAY THAT SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT EXCEPT TAKE THE WHOLE THING OUT TO. WELL, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO TAKE THE WHOLE THING OUT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT SAYS IT SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $500. IF NOTHING ELSE, [02:00:01] WE GOT TO MAKE THAT UP TO FUND, BECAUSE THE WAY YOU READ THAT NOW, THE JUDGES GOTTA EITHER GO DOWN TO 0 OR $500. SO. OKAY. AND I WAS THINKING THAT $500 WAS TOO LOW, THAT IF SOMEBODY WAS GUILTY OF THIS, THAT $500 IS IS INSUFFICIENT. AGAIN, THAT'S GOING TO PROBABLY BE A MISDEMEANOR UNDER PENAL CODE. AND THEY HAVE THEIR FINES SCHEDULE. SO AGAIN, IT GETS TO THE POINT WE DON'T REALLY NEED THAT. THEN LET'S JUST THEN NO MATTER WHAT, LET'S LEAVE THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT OUT OR TAKE THE WHOLE THING OFF. I WOULD AGREE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I COULD NOT TELL YOU WHAT THE YOU KNOW, THE FINE IS FOR THAT PARTICULAR MISDEMEANOR. I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. IT COULD BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. AND THIS KIND OF LOCKS US IN TO A SPECIFIC FINE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE. AND I TOO, I'M GOOD WITH GETTING RID OF BOTH OF THEM. AND AT LEAST AT LEAST TAKING OUT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. AT 6:00. AND SINCE BUILDING AND STANDARD IS COMING IN HERE AFTER TONIGHT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH THE REST OF OUR AGENDA TODAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO STOP. AND ON ARTICLE 11 RIGHT NOW AND TAKE IT UP NEXT WEEK. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS VERY BRIEFLY, [III.3. Discussion and possible action on Charter Review Committee Presentation to City Council.] BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WILL TAKE US TOO LONG, IS. THE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL? AND THE REASON THAT I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AS A COMMITTEE, WE DECIDED ON WHO WOULD BE THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL. AND WE WE AS A GROUP VOTED ON THAT. AND I WANT THAT WHOEVER THAT PERSON IS VOTED TO BE, TO HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO TO KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR RESPONSIBLE AND TO BE PREPARED. AND SO THAT'S WHY I PUT IT IN FOR DISCUSSION. AND AS I SAY, I DON'T THINK IT WILL TAKE US TOO LONG, TOO LONG TO COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION AND A VOTE ON THAT. BUT. I WAS PRESENT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WHERE ROBERT PRESENTED THE PRESENTATION. EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT JOB. SO IF IF ROBERT IS WILLING, I WOULD I WOULD CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN OR AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, PUT FORWARD A MOTION TO, TO NOMINATE HIM. WELL THANKS, MARK. IT SOUNDED LIKE I WAS BEING FIRED. AND SO AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO THAT BUT ADD ON TO IT, I'M CONTINUALLY AMAZED AT YOUR ABILITY, ROBERT, TO HAVE AT HAND SO MUCH INFORMATION IN YOUR MIND. AND I THINK YOU ARE AND I, I THINK I MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT BEFORE, BUT I THINK YOU ARE HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABOVE AS FAR AS THE CORRECT PERSON TO DO THIS. AND BECAUSE YOU DO AN AMAZING JOB. THANK YOU. I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE ROBERT. I MEAN JUST WITH THING TOGETHER, ALL OF THESE SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS, JUST THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE COMPARISON CHART. AND MY NOMINATION AS WELL. AND. YOU CAN GIVE ME A SECOND, I SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR. AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS. I, I WOULD JUST ALSO MAKE THE NOTE THAT ROBERT WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF COMMITTEE. ANYBODY DOES WANT TO STAND UP AND ADD TO IT OR WHATEVER THEY CAN, BUT DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANY OF US FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM ALSO ADDRESSING BUT OUR OUR SPOKESPERSON WHO IS GOING TO PRESENT OUR COMMITTEE. THIS DETERMINATION, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF OUR INDIVIDUAL ONES, THAT THE SPOKESPERSON WILL GIVE THE COMMITTEE. SO, ROBERT, I BELIEVE YOU'VE ACCEPTED. THANK YOU. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. AND I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING, THAT IT WOULD BE NICE AS A PANEL IF WE COULD ALL AS, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO IT'S JUST NOT IT'S INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS OR DISSENTING VIEWS. THE COUNSELORS CAN CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND THAT'S FINE. THE [02:05:01] LAST TIME I DID IT, THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT I VOTED AGAINST. BUT WHEN IT CAME TO THE PRESENTATION AND STUCK WITH THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S HOW I PHRASED IT. SO I'LL DO THE SAME. SO IN ADDITION TO TO ACCOMPLISHING THAT, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE [III.4. Discussion on research and feedback received to date regarding Article VII and committee assignment methodologies for possible action at the February 11th meeting.] THAT WITH RESPECT TO ITEM FOUR. ROBERT DID SOME GOOD RESEARCH, AND WE SHOULD BE SURE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. AND. THERE WAS MUCH DISCUSSION, AS WE CAN HAVE TO YOUR POINT, ONE SEVEN FOR THE NEXT MEETING. SEVEN SEVEN. YES. AND ALSO TO NOTE THAT ON THIS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA TOMORROW, THERE IS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR TO DISCUSS AN OMBUDSMAN AND AN OMBUDSMAN HAS BEEN COMING UP FROM TIME TO TIME. I KNOW THAT ROBERT DURBIN WAS BRINGING IT UP LIKE 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO. HE WAS BRINGING UP THE CONCEPT OF, OF AN OMBUDSMAN. SO I THINK THAT THE OMBUDSMAN TOPIC MAY BE, YOU KNOW, IN LIEU OF THE ETHICS BOARD, I DON'T KNOW, BUT SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT, TO THAT AGENDA ITEM TOMORROW. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT COUNCIL OF PRINCE FROM THE LAST MEETING DID POST AS WE REQUESTED THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION. YES WE DID. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT TODAY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER COUNCILORS HAVE WEIGHED IN, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO. WHAT? YES. THE ISSUES THAT THERE'S TWO ISSUES THAT YOU POSTED FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION. YES. AND HE DID MAKE THE POINT THAT I DON'T WANT TO MISQUOTE HIM, BUT HE DID MAKE THE POINT, WHICH I REALLY AGREE WITH IS KIND OF A CONUNDRUM FOR ALL OF US. THAT AND AND I'M JUST PARAPHRASING, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO LEGISLATE OR PUT IN THE CHARTER OR PUT IN A BOARD OF ETHICS APPROPRIATE, PROFESSIONAL, COURTEOUS BEHAVIOR. AND THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S COMING UP IN THE PROCEDURE, AND IT'S COMING UP IN THE CHARTER, ETC. SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY IDEAS ABOUT THAT, THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT NEXT WEEK TO AND. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.