Jun 12, 2026 City Council Workshop

[00:00:01]

US A THUMBS UP. ALL RIGHT, MR. HALL, REGARDING THE YOU KNOW, HOW TO APPROACH THIS, WE HAD

[**This meeting is joined in progress]

[ II. WORK SESSION]

SO I THINK THAT JUST MAKES SENSE TO TO PURSUE THAT AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. MOST OF IT'S BEEN STATED ALREADY, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY MY TAKE ON THIS IS REALLY, UNLESS THERE'S JUST SOMETHING PRETTY SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE DEPART FROM THE CRC, I'M GOING TO TEND TO GO WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE DID. THE OTHER IS THAT I AGREE IN TERMS OF ANY WAY THAT WE CAN KEEP THINGS PRETTY SIMPLE. IF WE NEED FURTHER EXPLANATION.

ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I AM A PROPONENT OF IS IN TERMS OF GUIDES AND ADDITIONAL POLICIES OUTSIDE OF. SO AS LONG AS OUR CORE DOCUMENT IS GOOD AND STREAMLINED, THAT GETS ACROSS WHAT WE WANT, THEN ANY OTHER DETAIL? YOU KNOW, I'LL BE A PROPONENT OF MOVING THINGS THAT REQUIRE THAT INTO ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT AS NEEDING TO GO TO A VOTE EVERY TIME, BUT AT LEAST OUR CORE STRUCTURE OR FRAMEWORK WILL BE THERE. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR VENICE. YEAH, I I'M THROUGH IT TEND TO GO WITH THE CRC RECOMMENDATIONS. I DO HAVE CONCERNS MAYBE TOO STRONG A WORD, BUT I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AS WE GET INTO SOME SPECIFIC ITEMS AROUND THREE YEAR TERMS, THE TERM LIMITS. I'M JUST GOING BACK TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD THERE. AND ON ESTABLISHING AN ETHICS COMMITTEE IN PARTICULAR, BUT REALLY HAVING COMPARED TO THE CURRENT CHARTER, THE DRAFT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE DISCUSSION BOARD MATERIALS, SUPER HELPFUL. JUST SEEING WHAT SOME OF THE DELIBERATIONS WERE AMONGST THE CRC COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, I FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THE OVERALL DRAFT, BUT JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, IF YOU WILL, OR AREAS THAT I THINK ARE WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL START WITH SOME OF THE BIG TICKET ITEMS. THE CAVEAT I'LL MENTION IS THAT I DID START SOME OF THE THREADS ON THE CRC DISCUSSION BOARD. I GOT THROUGH THE PREAMBLE DEFINITIONS, ARTICLES ONE, TWO, AND THREE. MOSTLY WHAT I'VE DONE IS TOOK BRAD'S COMMENTS THAT WE ALL RECEIVED IN A WORD DOCUMENT. I COPY AND PASTED THEM IN BLUE, AND THEN I GAVE ANY OF MY RESPONSES IN RED. PLEASE VERIFY THAT I COPY AND PASTED WHAT BRAD PUT. BUT THAT'S. I DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING IN HIS. AND THEN FOR ARTICLE THREE, MY POST WAS TOO LONG, SO I CUT THE SECOND HALF AND POSTED IT AS A SECOND DISCUSSION AND FOR WHATEVER REASON IT PUT A LINE THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT I DID, BUT I'M NOT ACTUALLY STRIKING ANYTHING. SO IF YOU READ THAT WHAT'S WRITTEN IS ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS PROPOSING, I'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH STAN ON WHY IT PUT A STRIKETHROUGH ON ALL OF THAT, BUT I'M NOT STRIKING ANYTHING. SO JUST FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO KNOW, IT'S MY HOPE IS STILL, WHILE WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS TODAY THAT WE GO ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND FOLKS CAN PUT THEIR THOUGHTS AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS THERE, I THINK THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY. AND THEN BACK TO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID. I'M IN AGREEMENT OTHER THAN I DO AGREE WITH THE CRC HAS DONE IS GREAT, IS A VAST IMPROVEMENT OF OUR CURRENT CHARTER. BUT THAT BEING SAID, WE ALSO HAD RESTRICTIONS AS COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUR INFLUENCE ON WHAT THE CRC WAS WORKING ON. AND I THINK THERE ARE ITEMS THAT WE, AS COUNCIL MEMBERS INTERNALLY KNOW ARE EITHER OPERATING OR NOT OPERATING IN CITY HALL. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I THINK THERE ARE INSIGHTS AND CHANGES THAT WE HAVE THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT. AND SO I WOULD SAY THERE MIGHT BE SOME THINGS WHERE THEY EITHER DIDN'T TOUCH IT, OR THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF, OF THINGS THAT I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR US TO STILL HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS AND PUT OUT THERE. SO WITH THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE ARTICLE THREE IS WHERE FOLKS WANT TO START. AGAIN, I'LL SAY I HAVE SOME STUFF IN THE PREAMBLE DEFINITIONS ONE AND TWO, BUT NOT A LOT. AND A LOT OF THAT WAS DRIVEN BY BRAD'S LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT HE GAVE US.

SO I GUESS BEFORE WE REALLY JUMP IN, I MIGHT START BACK WITH YOU BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM YOU YET. HAS THERE BEEN ANYTHING NEW THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET? DID YOU GET ALL THE ANSWERS FROM THE LAST TIME YOU WENT THROUGH THAT DOCUMENT? AND ANY THOUGHTS ON PROCESS? SO I'LL I'LL CONFESS, I'VE TRIED TO GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION

[00:05:05]

WE HAVE 12 SEPARATE ARTICLES. AND I THINK I THINK THE ONLY THE ONLY I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT'S KIND OF THE MOST DIFFICULT TO DEFINE UNDER A SINGLE PROPOSITION MIGHT. HEY, GUYS. I'M SORRY, BRAD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TURNED YOUR MICROPHONE OFF. I SUDDENLY COULDN'T HEAR YOU ANYMORE. SORRY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I THINK I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT RENAMING ARTICLE 12 BECAUSE IT IS A BIT OF A MISH MASH OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. AND SO THAT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO, TO KIND OF PUT INTO ONE PROPOSITION. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO IT, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THAT ONE IS PROBABLY THE MOST VARIED IN TERMS OF TOPICS. THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DISCUSSED IT BEFORE, YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT FOR HAVING THEIR OWN PROPOSITIONS ARE TERM LIMITS. AND THE SWITCH TO THREE YEAR TERMS BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF ONE VERSUS THE OTHER ONE BEING ADOPTED, NOT, YOU KNOW, EITHER WAY. AND THEN OF COURSE, THE BIG ONE IS GOING TO THREE YEAR TERMS, THEN REQUIRES MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH THEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, THAT'S FINE. BUT, BUT JUST BEARING IN MIND THAT THAT DOES COME WITH CERTAIN COSTS BECAUSE YOU THEN, YOU KNOW, PUT RUNOFFS INTO PLAY AND, AND THAT TYPE OF THING. AND THOSE ARE DIRECT COSTS TO THE CITY THAT THE CITY HAS TO BEAR THOSE COSTS FOR. AND SO IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, THAT'S FINE. IT'S JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THERE ARE FISCAL IMPLICATIONS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, TO THAT DECISION. SO THAT THOSE ARE MY HIGH LEVEL THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT. I APPRECIATE YOU BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF MY NOTES TOO. I WAS TRYING TO LOOK UP WHAT IS THE COST. AND WHEN I SAW FOR MUNICIPALITY OUR SIZE, IT WOULD BE 10 TO 25,000 PER RUNOFF IF THAT'S A STANDALONE RUNOFF. SO I THAT'S THAT NUMBER IS RIGHT.

IN FACT, YOU KNOW, I REPRESENT LOCKHART LOCKHART JUST WENT THROUGH A RUNOFF. AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT COUNTY AND THERE IN CALDWELL AND EVERYTHING. BUT I THINK THEIR THEIR RUNOFF COST FOR, YOU KNOW, ONE COUNCIL SEAT, ONE COUNCIL SEAT RUNOFF WAS OVER $10,000.

AND THAT'S AT THE LOW END. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD COMPARE TO TRAVIS COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE. BUT YOU KNOW, CALDWELL AT THE LOW END IS WAS, WAS, WAS OVER TEN. SO IT IS A IT'S NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT COST. YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT WHEN THAT HAPPENS AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE SEAT, YOU KNOW, IN A RUNOFF AND EVERYTHING, IT JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. OKAY. WELL, YEAH, WHEN WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, I THINK WE SHOULD BRING THAT POINT UP AGAIN. MY OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU IS ON THE NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOU KNOW, THIS DESIRE TO KEEP THEM FEWER IS NOT A LEGAL RESTRICTION. IT'S JUST THAT THE DATA SHOWS US THAT THE PARTICIPATION BEYOND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS BECOMES AN ISSUE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO THAT'S PART OF IT. I MEAN, SO SO THE YOU KNOW,

[00:10:05]

YOU HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THAT RUBRIC. BUT THE OTHER COMPONENT OF PROPOSITIONS IS THAT VOTERS HAVE TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE THE TOPIC WITHOUT APPROVING ALL TOPICS. SO IF THERE ARE IF THERE ARE DISTINCT SUBTOPICS WITHIN A PARTICULAR PROPOSITION, THEY NEED TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE YES OR NO ON WHAT IS A DISTINCT SUBTOPIC THAT COULD STAND BY ITSELF. THAT'S WHY I THINK OF ALL OF THESE. AGAIN, THE THE TERM LENGTH AND TERM LIMITS, THOSE THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. AND THOSE PROBABLY MERIT THEIR OWN PROPOSITIONS. I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE WE CAN PROBABLY PACKAGE INTO, YOU KNOW, A SINGLE PROPOSITION PER ARTICLE. THE ONLY ONE THAT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT, LIKE I SAID, IS THAT ARTICLE 12, BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S KIND OF A CATCH ALL. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO THINK, PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT INTO THAT. BUT AT THIS POINT, I THINK THAT ONLY GETS US TO MAYBE 14 OR 15 PROPOSITIONS, WHICH I KNOW IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT ONE AND IT'S NOT 5 OR 6, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT, YOU KNOW, 27 OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. SO I THINK WE CAN, I THINK WE CAN KEEP IT AT LIKELY TO 15 OR LESS. AND I APOLOGIZE, COUNCIL, FOR MY EXTENDED COMMENTS HERE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT I JUST HAD A FEW QUESTIONS. AND HOW DOES IT FUNDAMENTALLY WORK IF WE PULL OUT, SAY, THE TERM LIMITS AND THE TERM LENGTHS AS ITS OWN PROPOSITION AND IT FAILS, HOW DO YOU CONSOLIDATE THAT THEN INTO THE NEW CHARTER? DO WE HAVE TO HAVE LIKE A SEPARATE CHARTER THAT'S WRITTEN WITH AND WITHOUT THOSE PROVISIONS, OR DOES THE WRITING HAPPEN AFTER THE ELECTION? SO YEAH, SO SO THOSE ARE ALL GOOD QUESTIONS. I'VE BEEN LOOKING INTO THIS. I MEAN, SO I THINK ONE THING THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE DEGREE THAT PROPOSITIONS OF A NEW ARTICLE ONE, THOSE WOULD STAND ALONE, RIGHT? THE QUESTION THAT I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS, IS WHAT WOULD REMAIN OF YOUR EXISTING CHARTER? AND DO YOU DO YOU JUST FALL BACK TO THE DEFAULT ON SOMETHING AS THAT FOR SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT GET PASSED BY THE VOTERS? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ALL, ALL, ALL THOSE PROPOSITIONS ARE DOING ARE ADOPTING THESE NEW PROVISIONS. THEY'RE NOT EXCUSE ME. THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY INVALIDATING OR REPEALING, YOU KNOW, A PRIOR PROVISION. SO I NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT AND SEE HOW THAT THAT INTERPLAYS. I DON'T QUITE HAVE MY ANSWER ON THAT YET, BUT I'M WORKING ON IT. AND THAT LEADS TO A NEW QUESTION FOR ME IS THAT AND THIS IS A ME PROBLEM CONCEPTUALLY, I VIEW THE CRCS DRAFT AS A TOTAL REWRITE OF THE CURRENT CHARTER SO THAT I'VE I'VE MENTALLY STRUGGLING TO PUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID TOGETHER WITH THAT, BECAUSE I WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT FALLING BACK ON THE CURRENT CHARTER BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE BASICALLY REWRITING THE WHOLE THING. WELL, I MEAN, YOU ARE, BUT, BUT YOUR, YOUR, THE ROLE THAT YOU PLAY IS THE COUNCIL, THE ROLE THAT THE CRC PLAYS IS HERE ARE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THE ROLE THAT YOU PLAY AS THE COUNCIL, THIS IS THE AUTHORITY THAT YOU HAVE IS YOU GET TO TELL THE VOTERS WHAT THEY GET TO VOTE ON. RIGHT. THAT'S IT. ULTIMATELY, THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF A CHARTER THAT COMES FROM THE VOTERS. AND SO IF THE VOTERS DO NOT APPROVE A PROVISION TO, YOU KNOW, REPLACE ENTIRELY, OR THE VOTERS DO NOT APPROVE A PARTICULAR PROPOSITION, RIGHT, THEN THE PROPOSITION DOESN'T PASS. AND SO THEN THAT LEAVES US WITH, WELL, WHAT'S LEFT? WELL, THAT IF IF IF THE PRIOR CHARTER HAS NOT BEEN, YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY REPEALED IN WHOLE, THEN THEN THOSE PROVISIONS ARE STILL OPERATIVE. THEY COULD STILL BE OPERATIVE. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M STILL TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, PIECE TOGETHER IN MY MIND AND LOOK AT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT IF YOU IF YOU APPROVE ONE, BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE FOR WHATEVER REASON DIDN'T GET APPROVED. BUT, BUT ULTIMATELY THE DECISION ON, ON WHAT GOES INTO THE CHARTER IS OF THE VOTERS. AND YOU JUST ARE THE ONES WHO DECIDE THESE ARE THE PROPOSITIONS YOU GET TO VOTE ON. SO, SO. AND COMING BACK TO AGAIN, TO THE QUESTION OF YOU, YES, THIS IS A REWRITE, BUT I'VE, I'VE, I'VE, I'VE READ THIS, THIS ONE I HAVE RESEARCHED AND I'VE CONFERRED WITH, YOU KNOW, ALL OF MY PARTNERS. AND WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT ONCE, ONCE A CHARTER HAS BEEN ADOPTED, THEN ANYTHING, ANY CHANGES TO IT ARE BY DEFINITION, AMENDMENTS. AND SO EVEN IF YOU ARE REPLACING IT ENTIRELY, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE

[00:15:04]

AND WHAT I LIKE ABOUT NASCAR IS YOU START WITH THE BIG BANG OF THE DAYTONA 500, START THE SEASON OUT WITH THE MOST INTERESTING RACE. AND SO I ASSUME THE THREE YEAR TERMS WILL BE THE FIRST THING THAT PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT, MR. PRINCE WELL, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, AND I THINK MR. HALL SAID THIS OR WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO IT. I POPPED UP THE LIST ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD THAT MR. OWEN SAID, YOU KNOW, SPLIT VOTES PER COUNCILOR PRINCE'S REQUEST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT. TO ME, AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO TO GET THINGS KICKED OFF MIGHT BE TO RUN THROUGH THAT LIST AND DISCUSS ALL OF THOSE TOPICS, BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE ONES WHERE THE CRC WAS NOT UNANIMOUS OR CLOSE TO IT, AND IT INCLUDES SOME OF THE OBVIOUS ONES, YOU KNOW, TWO YEAR TERMS AND THREE YEAR TERMS AND TERM LIMITS. BUT RATHER THAN JUST START DIVING INTO SECTION THREE AND WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH SECTION THREE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WORK OFF OF THIS LIST AND TRY TO KNOCK THESE OUT, BECAUSE THESE ARE SOME OF THE THORNIER ISSUES IN MY MIND. IF YOU GUYS ARE AMENABLE TO THAT APPROACH. SO TO ME, I PREPARED PREAMBLE TO ARTICLE FOUR. I DIDN'T SOME OF THESE JUMP INTO ARTICLE NINE SIX AND OTHERS. SO IT'S UP TO YOU ALL HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT. MR. BENNEFIELD JUST, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SET THIS MEETING, I THINK THE COMMENT WAS THAT WE WOULD ONE, TWO AND THREE. THAT'S WHAT I PREPARED FOR. I DO AGREE WITH THAT. I JUST NOT NECESSARILY TOTALLY PREPARED TO HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION ON THINGS THAT I HAVEN'T PREPARED FOR. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO MR. PRINCE'S IDEA. I LIKE THAT IDEA. I JUST WOULD BE FAIRLY QUIET AND MORE ON THE FLY. BUT I AM PREPARED FOR ANYTHING IN SECTION ONE, TWO AND THREE. OKAY. AND I'LL JUST COMMENT. I THINK OVER HALF OF THE ITEMS ON THIS LIST ARE FROM SECTION THREE. SO MAYBE IF I MODIFY MY SUGGESTION AND WE WORK THROUGH THE LIST THAT IS FROM ARTICLES THREE OR BEFORE, OKAY. AND, AND, AND THEN THAT FITS WITH THE OTHER COMMENTS I'VE HEARD HEAD NODDING. MR. HALL, MAYOR PRO TEM YES. OKAY, OKAY. WELL THANK YOU. YOU'RE ABLE TO PULL THAT UP. CHARLES. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO THE VERY FIRST ONE THAT COMES FROM ARTICLE THREE THAT'S ON THAT LIST IS EXTENDING THE THREE YEAR TERMS. SO IT SAYS EXTENDING THREE YEAR TERMS ON A MOTION BY SECRETARY OWENS, SECONDED BY MR. HARRIS. THE COMMITTEE VOTED 3 TO 2 TO KEEP PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED THREE YEAR TERMS AND TRANSITION PLAN, PER THE CURRENT CHARTER DRAFT. I'M OPEN TO COMMENTS, MR. HALL.

WELL, I SUPPORT THE. THE PROPOSED THREE YEAR TERM FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S COST IN ELECTIONS. BUT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND JUST SPEAKING VERY FRANKLY, REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE PRETTY MUCH RUNNING FOR OFFICE ALL THE TIME. AND AND THAT IT CAN AFFECT, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR WHAT WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING. IT CAN AFFECT OUR. YOU KNOW, OUR BEING OBJECTIVE ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO FACE BEING SWAYED BY, BY PERHAPS SMALLER GROUPS OF CITIZENS WHO ARE VERY STRONG ADVOCATES FOR DOING SOMETHING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. AND I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S THE TURNOVER THAT THE CITY COUNCIL POTENTIALLY HAS ALSO AFFECTS THE CONTINUITY OF

[00:20:03]

AND SO THAT WOULD BE ONE DOWNSIDE TO THREE YEAR TERMS. THE OTHER DOWNSIDE IS THE, THE FORCED MAJORITY AND POTENTIAL RUNOFF THING. SO, YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST, I'M KIND OF I'M KIND OF TORN ON THIS ONE. AND SINCE THE, THE CRC WAS ALSO TORN, IT'S IT'S A TOUGH CALL IN MY MIND. I CAN I CAN SEE I CAN SEE REASONS TO STAY WITH TWO YEAR TERMS. I CAN SEE REASONS TO MOVE TO THREE. I TEND TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE TWO YEAR TERM SIDE BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THIS FEEDBACK AND THE, THE DOWNSIDE OF THE, THE, THE REQUIREMENT TO GO TO RUNOFFS.

IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S NOT A MAJORITY ON THE FIRST PASS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. BENFIELD.

NOT BEING CRITICAL OF THE. I ACTUALLY THINK THE CRC DID A FANTASTIC JOB AT ILLUSTRATING THE COMPLEXITIES OF WHAT A TRANSITION TO A THREE YEAR TERM PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND EVEN THOUGH I THINK YOU DID THE ABSOLUTE MOST BEAUTIFUL. EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, IT'S UGLY, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A CLEAN PROCESS. I DON'T LIKE THE THREE YEAR TERM PERSONALLY, TO THE COMMENTS MADE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF PEOPLE KNEW THAT THEY WERE SERVING FOR THREE YEARS, MAYBE THEY'D TAKE OUR ELECTIONS A LITTLE MORE SERIOUS THAT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, BUT WHEN PEOPLE GET VOTED INTO AN OFFICE, WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM OR NOT, IT HAS A CONSEQUENCE. AND I THINK OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M ABOUT TO SAY, I THINK THE THREE YEAR TERM IS MY LEAST FAVORITE.

PERSONALLY, I THINK I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS A FOUR YEAR TERM, WHICH IS BECAUSE I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT MR. HALL SAID IS THAT IT TAKES A YEAR OR TWO JUST TO GET YOUR FEET IN THE WATER. AND I LIKE THE LENGTH OF THE THREE YEAR TERM. I JUST DON'T LIKE THE THE WAY IT HAS TO THE MESSINESS OF IT. WHEREAS THE FOUR YEAR TERM, EVEN THOUGH IT FEELS A LITTLE LONG TO ME, I LIKE THE CLEANNESS OF IT. IT'S JUST EVERY OTHER EVERY TWO YEARS WE HAVE AN ELECTION. AND THERE WOULD BE THIS CONTINUITY AMONG CITY COUNCIL. IF THERE WASN'T AN APPETITE FOR THE FOUR YEARS, I WOULD FULLY SUPPORT THE TWO YEARS. BUT I THINK FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE THREE YEAR IS MY LEAST LIKED OPTION. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. SO I THINK I AGREE. YOU KNOW, THE THREE YEAR IS A LITTLE COMPLEX AND MESSY IN TERMS OF ITS ROLLOUT. BUT THE BIGGER ITEM THAT I REALLY BECAME AWARE OF WAS HOW THE MAYOR WAS ELECTED. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE MAYOR, UNDER THE TWO YEAR TERMS, IS ON A NON-PRESIDENTIAL YEAR EVERY TIME. AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE

[00:25:02]

SESSIONS WHERE PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED. SO YOU HAVE GOT MULTIPLE CANDIDATES FOR EACH OF THOSE SEATS. RIGHT. AND SO A STRONGER VETTING PROCESS. SO OF COURSE FISCALLY I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE RUNOFFS. BUT I, YOU KNOW, THAT THE FEEDBACK WHERE I STAND ON THIS ONE IS THAT I THINK I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT CANDIDATES ARE INDEED GOT A MAJORITY VOTE AND BE ABLE TO BE SEATED SO THAT THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY REALLY FEEL LIKE, OKAY, THAT'S OUR PERSON.

THAT'S WHAT WE DID. THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF CONVERSATION IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT, AND I'LL JUST SAY, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD AND I, YOU KNOW, WE WE WERE UNOPPOSED. AND SO SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THERE HAVE BEEN WELL, YEAH, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY RUNNING AGAINST YOU, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND I WILL ALSO SAY THAT IT JUST WAS INTERESTING TO ME, FORGIVE ME FOR KIND OF JUMPING AROUND A LITTLE BIT, THAT IN SOME CASES, WE HAD THREE PEOPLE, I THINK AT ONE TIME GOING FOR SEATS, BUT THEN NOT FOR OTHERS, RIGHT? JUST THE WAY WE HAVE IT.

WHEREAS IF WE HAVE TWO SEATS RUNNING AT A TIME, LESS LIKELY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THAT DISPARITY GOING ON. LASTLY, I THINK THE WAY WE HAVE IT NOW, DO WE HAVE THREE SEATS RUNNING AT A TIME AND THEN FOUR ON ANOTHER? AND SO THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU BEGIN TO HAVE BLOCK VOTES. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL. SO MAJORITY WITH THE FOUR YEAR, FOUR PEOPLE VOTED IN AT A SINGLE TIME. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CONTROL OF KIND OF HOW THINGS ENDED UP FALLING ON, ON COUNCIL. IF YOU GET A BLOCK OF PEOPLE VOTED IN AT THE SAME TIME. SO ANYWAY, FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I AM A, AN ADVOCATE OF THE THREE YEAR. I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THE FOUR YEAR TERMS, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I AM PRETTY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE MAYOR NOT ALWAYS FALLING IN THAT LOW VOTING TIME PERIOD. HOWEVER, WE ACCOMPLISH THAT, THAT WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO TO OFFSET THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO KIND OF RUMBLE A LITTLE BIT. I DIDN'T HAVE ALL MY NOTES SET OUT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR VENICE. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO I'M OPEN TO THREE YEAR TERMS, BUT I AM CONFLICTED ABOUT IT. AND I THINK COUNCILOR PRINCE EXPRESSED MY CONFLICTION VERY WELL, SO I WON'T REPEAT THAT. AND IT'S INTERESTING TO ME TOO THAT AND AGAIN, I DON'T TRUST THE FACEBOOK POLLS THAT MUCH, BUT JUST FROM TALKING TO PEOPLE AS WELL, THERE'S SOME CONCERN AROUND GOING TO A THREE YEAR INTERIM BEFORE THEY GET A CHANCE TO VOTE VERSUS THE CURRENT TWO YEAR. AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL COST OF A RUNOFF. BUT I THINK THOSE, YOU KNOW, IF WE THINK THROUGH YOUR TERM, IS THE WAY TO GO FOR THIS STABILITY, THEN THE ADDITIONAL COST, I THINK, ARE A GOOD INVESTMENT IN THE PROCESS. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS ON THE TRANSITION PLAN, AS DEPICTED IN THE CURRENT DRAFT. AND IT MAY BE A QUESTION FOR BRAD, BUT AND I'M NOT, I SWEAR I'M NOT ASKING THIS BECAUSE PLACE FIVE IS THE ONE THAT PICKED ON IN THE TRANSITION PLAN. BUT IF IN THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, IN ORDER TO STAGGER THE TERMS APPROPRIATELY, YOU'VE GOT, I THINK, PLACE FIVE, MAYBE ONE OTHER THAT WOULD RUN FOR ELECTION AND FOR ONLY A ONE YEAR TERM. AND IS THAT ALLOWED BY LAW? IF PEOPLE ARE VOTING SOMEONE IN, AREN'T THEY SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO SERVE WHAT THE CURRENT TERM IS FOR THAT PARTICULAR POSITION? SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON PROCESS MORE THAN ANYTHING. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO I KNOW I'VE SEEN

[00:30:06]

BECAUSE AGAIN, TRANSITION PLAN, I THINK IT'S WELL, YOU GUYS THOUGHT OUT, PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO SECOND GUESS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO STAGGER SO THAT IF SOMEONE GETS REELECTED, THEY'RE SERVING THAT NEW FULL TERM OF THREE YEARS. AND SOMEHOW WE DO THE STAGGERING ON THE BACK END. SO SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS GO TO THREE YEAR TERMS. SO I KNOW IT TOOK A LOT OF WORK TO COME UP WITH THAT RUBRIC OR THAT MATRIX, BUT JUST MORE OF A PROCESS QUESTION THAN ANYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO COME IN AND WANT TO CAMPAIGN FOR A ONE YEAR TERM, OR VOTERS THINK, WELL, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. I LIKE THIS PERSON. I VOTE THEM SERVING ONE YEAR. SO JUST A QUESTION ON THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO YEAH, GREAT CONVERSATION. I LOVE THIS PROCESS. I WAS JEALOUS OF THE CRC THROUGHOUT BECAUSE IT'S LIKE YOU GET TO PUT YOUR FOUNDERS CAP ON AND TRY TO REDESIGN THIS IN A WAY THAT YOU THINK WOULD WORK WELL AND WHAT THE CITIZENS WOULD DO. SO MY FIRST TWO COMMENTS ARE PROCESS ALONE. THE FIRST ONE IS, IS I WOULD, I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY COULD, BUT I WOULD ASK COUNCIL, THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS OF THIS PROCESS. I WOULD ASK THAT WE AREN'T GOING TO COME TO A CONCLUSION TO IT TODAY. I SAY TALK ABOUT IT AS LONG AS WE WANT TO, BUT WE SHOULD GO HOME AND MARINATE ON WHAT WE HEAR FROM EACH OTHER AND CONSIDER THIS MORE DEEPLY, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST TALKED ABOUT PART OF THIS PROCESS, MOST LIKELY WITH THE VOTERS.

AND MY SECOND PROCESS CONSIDERATION IS THAT I VIEW THIS AS A DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN ANYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE OTHERWISE. YOU KNOW, WHEN I THINK OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DRAFTING 100% OF THE LANGUAGE FOR US, BY US. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT INVOLVES THE CITIZENS, AND I WANT THEM TO HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO FEEL LIKE THEY HELPED DRAFT THIS CHARTER. AND SO WE HAVE THAT CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CRC, AND CITIZENS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT. CITIZENS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PART, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM WILL PARTICIPATE AT THE BALLOT BOX. AND SO I VIEW EACH OF THESE QUESTIONS, SOMETIMES MORE SO, OF WHAT DO I THINK WOULD WORK MORE SO AS, DO I THINK THE CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS AND HAVE THEIR SAY IN IT, AND TO MAKE THEIR MARK ON OUR CHARTER? AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE THREE YEAR TERMS, I DON'T LOVE IT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THE CITIZENS DESERVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT. I THINK IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL TO GETTING PEOPLE INVOLVED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I THINK WHEN CITIZENS HEAR THAT THIS IS ON THE BALLOT, THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW UP AND PARTICIPATE. AND SO WHATEVER WE CHOOSE, I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT FROM THE MINDSET OF NOT NECESSARILY ARE WE 100% GUNG HO ABOUT THIS, BUT DO WE THINK WE SHOULD TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS? AND SO THAT IS THE PREFACE OF HOW I VIEW THIS. SO TO GET INTO THE POLICY ITSELF, CHIEF JOE AND I HAD THIS SIMILAR DISCUSSION, NOT ABOUT THIS TOPIC, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT UNDERSTANDING OUR OWN INTELLECTUAL BIASES. AND, YOU KNOW, MINE AND HIS WILL ALWAYS BE THAT WE WERE TRAINED IN STATE GOVERNMENT. AND SO I KIND OF THINK OF THINGS IN THE STRUCTURE OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU HAVE A HOUSE AND A SENATE. THE HOUSE ALWAYS HAS TWO YEAR TERMS. IT'S A LITTLE MORE CHAOTIC. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE. AND YOU DO END UP RUNNING CAMPAIGNS ALL THE TIME. AND THEN YOU HAVE A SENATE THAT GETS TO STICK AROUND A LITTLE BIT LONGER. THAT INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE REMAINS THERE. SO KIND OF SIMILAR FORMAT AS MR. BENNEFIELD. IF I WERE TO PUT OUT THREE OPTIONS AND RANK THEM, MY LAST PLACE OPTION WOULD BE THE THREE YEAR TERMS. I THINK IT'S A REALLY SLOPPY SYSTEM. I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW POPULAR THAT WOULD BE. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONLINE POLL IS LIMITED, BUT I WOULD ACTUALLY SUSPECT JUST THE PEOPLE I TALKED TO. I THINK THERE IS A GENERAL THOUGHT OUT THERE THAT'S SIMILAR TO THAT, BUT WE WOULDN'T KNOW UNTIL WE TOOK IT TO THE BALLOT. MY SECOND OPTION THAT I WOULD PUT FORWARD IS A MINORITY OF THE COUNCIL. YOU'D HAVE THREE PLACES THAT WOULD EITHER HAVE THAT 3 OR 4 YEAR TERM. THOSE WOULD BE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LOCKED IN AND KEEP YOUR INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. YOU PICK THREE OF THOSE PLACES THAT WOULD OPERATE SOMEWHAT LIKE A SENATE STRUCTURE, AND THEN THE OTHER POSITIONS WOULD REMAIN TWO YEAR TERMS AND STAY ON THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT THEY ARE. RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST THROWING OUT A POSSIBILITY OR THEORY. I'M NOT SURE THAT OTHER CITIES DO THAT. BUT AGAIN, FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE, I'M A LITTLE BIASED THAT THAT'S JUST A SYSTEM THAT I UNDERSTAND AND KNOW. AND I SEE THAT AS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPOSALS OF STAYING AT TWO YEARS OR MOVING TO 3 OR 4 YEARS, THAT'S A MIDDLE GROUND. IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT MIDDLE GROUND. AND THEN MY, MY TOP OPTION WOULD BE JUST TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS, WITH THE NEW CAVEAT THAT I HADN'T CONSIDERED BEFORE TO WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM JUST SAID, EVEN THOUGH I JUST BENEFITED FROM, YOU KNOW,

[00:35:04]

SO, SO TO ME, IT JUST IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SIMPLE THING. WE WANT TO PRESENT. WE WANT THE WORDING AND THE WAY THAT'S PRESENTED TO BE WHAT WE THINK WILL BE MOST EFFECTIVE AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND OUR CITIZENS. BUT THE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FREE TO VOTE IT UP OR DOWN. AND I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE. YEAH, I THINK YOU, YOU YOU BOTH RAISE A GOOD POINT OF, YOU KNOW, AND WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST NOT PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND, AND DECIDE AS A COUNCIL THAT TWO YEAR TERMS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE. OR WE COULD PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND LET CITIZENS DECIDE.

I WILL SAY MY UNSCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN. IT SEEMS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS PASS ON BALLOTS SO FAR MORE PASSED THAN GET REJECTED ON, ON, ON INITIATIVES. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, OPTIONS LIKE THIS. I AGAIN, NOT WITH A SCIENTIFIC BASIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED THIS. I DIDN'T EVEN DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON IT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF IT'S A BALLOT MEASURE ABOUT SPENDING MONEY, CITIZENS TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. AND, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR IT. A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL VOTE AGAINST IT.

BUT IT SEEMS MORE COMMON THAN NOT. IF IT'S NOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WILL THIS IMPACT MY WALLET? IT'S JUST A, YOU KNOW, CHANGE TO SOME POLICY EFFECTIVELY, RIGHT? LIKE THREE YEAR VERSUS TWO YEARS IS A POLICY CHANGE. IT'S NOT A WALLET IMPACT FOR MOST CITIZENS.

I THINK MOST CITIZENS TEND TO VOTE FOR NOW, IN THIS CASE, IF WE PUT A, YOU KNOW, WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO LET THE CITIZENS CHOOSE. WE PUT A THREE YEAR. I THINK THAT'S A PASSIONATE ENOUGH AND REAL ENOUGH TOPIC THAT PEOPLE WILL REALLY PAY ATTENTION AND WE MAY GET MAY ACTUALLY GET A NO ON THAT. WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE OTHER BALLOT MEASURES, I'M GOING TO GUESS AHEAD OF TIME THAT IF THEY'RE ON THEIR MOST, IF NOT ALL WILL PASS. THAT BEING SAID, IF WE IF WE AS A BODY DECIDE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT, I WOULD SUGGEST AND I HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THIS WHEN THE CRC WAS GOING THROUGH THEIR. THEIR PROPOSAL WAS TWO YEAR TERMS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THE MAYOR GETS THROWN IN ON ONE OF THOSE. I THINK ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, WHICH TO ME FEELS A LITTLE BETTER, IS TO HAVE THREE OF THE COUNCIL SEATS IN ONE YEAR, THREE OF THE COUNCIL SEATS IN THE NEXT YEAR, AND THE MAYOR AS A STAND ALONE ELECTION IN BETWEEN, TO PUT MORE EMPHASIS ON THE MAYOR MAYOR POSITION, AS OPPOSED TO JUST BURYING IT IN. SO AND I THINK JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT THAT MAY HELP WITH SOME OF

[00:40:05]

SO YOU HAVE TO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT. SO BOTTOM LINE, IF WE GO TO THREE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE THINK ABOUT THREE THREE AND ONE AS OPPOSED TO TWO, TWO AND THREE WHERE THE THE THE ONE AND ONLY THREE IS INCLUDING THE MAYOR. AND THEN. SECONDLY, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DO THIS FROM A BALLOT PERSPECTIVE, BUT IF WE PUT SOMETHING ON FOR THREE YEAR TERMS AND IT GETS REJECTED, I LIKE THE THOUGHT PROCESS WE'RE HAVING HERE OF SAYING MAYBE WE SHOULD. IF THE CITIZENS CHOOSE TO STAY WITH TWO YEAR TERMS, MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY, IF THIS BALLOT MEASURE FAILS, THEN THIS BALLOT MEASURE BECOMES A VALID QUESTION OF SHOULD THE MAYOR BE MOVED TO A LINE FROM ITS CURRENT ALIGNMENT WITH ODD NUMBERED SEATS ON ODD NUMBERED YEARS, TO EVEN NUMBERED ALIGNMENT ON EVEN NUMBERED YEARS TO GET THE HIGHER TURNOUT? I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. AND I KNOW WITH THE CAPMETRO VOTE WE DID A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, BRAD, THAT WE HAD THE THING OF, DO YOU WANT TO GET OUT OF CAPMETRO? AND IF THE CITIZENS VOTE TO GET OUT OF CAPMETRO, THEN THIS BALLOT MEASURE OF WHAT TO DO WITH THE SALES TAX BECOMES VALID. IF THEY VOTE TO STAY IN, THEN THAT IS INVALID. SO I PRESUME WE COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. LET ME JUST IN ANSWER TO MISS VANESSA'S EARLIER QUESTION. SO THE THE LENGTH OF TERMS IS GOVERNED BY ARTICLE TEN. I'M SORRY, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 11 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, AND TEXAS APPELLATE COURTS HAVE EXPRESSLY HELD THAT IF YOU'RE TRANSITIONING FROM TWO TO MORE THAN TWO YEAR TERMS, HAVING SHORT TERMS IN THAT TRANSITION PERIOD IS PERMISSIBLE. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE THAT'S THE, THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DOING THAT. THE BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE IS BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW IS THAT YOU'RE CHOOSING BASED ON. IT'S A POST CANVASING. CHOICE OF WHO GETS THE SHORT TERM, LIKE THE LOWEST VOTE GETTER. AND THAT'S NOT TYPICAL. AND THE PROBLEMS WITH THAT PROCESS ARE THAT IT DOESN'T TELL THE VOTERS LIKE WHICH PLACE THEY'RE VOTING FOR. SO WHAT IS TYPICAL IS TO SAY I PLACE ONE IS THE SHORT TERM AND PLACE TWO AND THREE ARE THE, YOU KNOW, THE LONGER TERMS, THAT IS WHAT'S TYPICAL IS TO ASSIGN IT TO A SPECIFIC PLACE. AND, AND YOU, YOU DO HAVE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE PERSON AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMEBODY DRAWS A, YOU KNOW, YOU DRAW LOTS FOR IT OR HOWEVER IT IS THAT YOU DETERMINE WHO'S, WHO'S GOING TO GET THAT SHORT TERM.

BUT THEN THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET OUT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, TO GET BACK INTO THAT LONGER PROCESS. SO I THINK I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE PROCESS FOR CHOOSING IT POST CANVASING IS, IS ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER, BUT IT DOES HAVE SOME NOTICE PROBLEMS TO THE VOTERS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW. THEY DON'T KNOW IN ADVANCE REALLY WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR AS TO WHO'S GETTING THE SHORT TERM RIGHT. AND SO YOU, I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE CLEANEST AND BEST THING TO DO IS TO TELL THE VOTERS PLACE ONE IS A ONE YEAR TERM OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER PLACE TWO IS THE, YOU KNOW, THREE YEAR TERM AND, AND SO FORTH. SO THAT YOU SET UP THE STAGGER INTENTIONALLY AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT'S COMMONLY DONE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN BEFORE. AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST PRACTICE. SO JUST FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH, LET ME ASK YOU A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO ONE THING THE MAYOR SAID A MINUTE AGO. DO YOU HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PRECEDENT OR YOU DO SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH PROPOSING TO THE VOTERS THAT HALF OF COUNCIL WOULD BE TWO YEAR TERMS AND HALF OF COUNCIL WOULD BE LONGER TERMS, WHETHER 3 OR 4. THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T PROHIBIT THAT. IT DOESN'T. IT JUST ALL THAT WOULD ALL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED WOULD BE THAT THOSE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN TWO YEAR TERMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE MAJORITY VOTE. AND THOSE THAT ARE TWO YEAR TERMS REMAIN, TWO YEAR TERMS ARE STILL PLURALITY. AND IN FACT. YOU KNOW, YOU YOU'VE YOU'VE SEEN. I HAVE NOT SEEN CHARTERS, I DON'T REMEMBER. AND MAYBE I HAVE I'LL HAVE TO ASK MY PARTNERS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN CHARTERS WITH DIFFERING TERM LENGTHS, BUT I HAVE SEEN CHARTERS THAT HAVE. MAYOR MUST BE ELECTED BY A MAJORITY, BUT PLACES CAN BE ELECTED BY A PLURALITY, SO THAT I HAVE SEEN. AND THAT'S. AND AS LONG AS IT'S

[00:45:01]

IT'S JUST THE MAJORITY VOTE KICKS IN IF IT IS MORE. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY CITY WITH THAT STRUCTURE? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVEN'T. I CAN DO SOME RESEARCH WHILE Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER TOPIC AND SEE IF I CAN FIND SOMETHING AND ASK SOME PARTNERS. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE, I JUST DON'T KNOW. I JUST WE COULD BE PIONEERS. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WE COULD BE A FIRST ONE ONLY OF A KIND. GUYS WOULD BE SETTING HISTORY HERE. YEAH. MY, MY ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT MR. PRINCE MADE ME THINK OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BALLOT LANGUAGE A FEW YEARS AGO, I GUESS IT'S ONLY TAX RELATED. A FEW YEARS AGO, THE LEGISLATURE STATED THAT IF YOU WERE PUTTING ANYTHING ON THE BALLOT THAT INCREASED YOUR TAXES, YOU HAD TO SPELL THAT OUT IN THE LANGUAGE. IF WE WERE SWITCHING TO A MAJORITY NEEDED ON AN ELECTION, WE KNOW THERE'S A COST WITH THAT. ARE WE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT THIS COMES WITH AN INCREASED COST OR. WELL, IT DOESN'T COME. YOU ADD IT IF YOU WANTED TO. THE PROBLEM, YOU KNOW THE PROBLEM. I MEAN, IT'S A POTENTIAL INCREASED COST, RIGHT? IT'S ONLY A POTENTIAL IN THE EVENT OF A RUNOFF. SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THE WHAT YOU COULD WHAT YOU COULD TELL THEM IS THAT IS THAT THE REALLY THE POTENTIAL IS THAT THE EFFECT OF CHANGING FROM TWO TO 3 OR 4 OR WHATEVER IT IS, ANYTHING MORE THAN TWO, IS THAT THE MAJORITY VOTE KICKS IN. I'D HAVE TO GO AND LOOK AND SEE IF YOU CAN ADD IN THAT ADDITIONAL. AND THIS MEANS THAT THERE COULD BE RUNOFF. AND THIS MEANS THAT THERE COULD BE COST WITH RUNOFF. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT STARTS TO GET A LITTLE SPECIFIC. I, I'VE NOT SEEN A BALLOT LIKE THAT BEFORE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S PROHIBITED EITHER. I'D HAVE TO JUST GO LOOK THAT UP. AND TO BE FAIR, I THINK IF I WAS ON THE PRO SIDE OF SWITCHING TO THAT SYSTEM, MY COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE COST WOULD BE IN LARGO. IT HASN'T HAD. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN THAT WE HAVE THREE CANDIDATES FOR A SEAT, SO THE FREQUENCY MAY NOT BE THAT BIG, BUT AS THE CITY GROWS, YOU COULD AND THEN MAYBE YOU'D MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE HAVING LESS ELECTIONS WITH THREE YEAR TERMS. AND SO THOSE COSTS ARE NOW SPREAD OUT OVER A LONGER TIME. JUST TO BE FAIR, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT ARGUMENT, AND I THINK I THINK I THINK THE WHETHER OR NOT THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU SUGGEST COULD BE ADDED TO IS, IS PART OF THE BALLOT OR SOMETHING. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, I, WE COULD ASK THE WE COULD ASK THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND WE'D GET AN ANSWER AND THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD BE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL US THAT. BUT WHAT, WHAT WHAT I DO BELIEVE, THOUGH, IS THAT THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF GOING TO THREE YEAR OR FOUR YEAR SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSED IN EVERY FORUM THAT YOU CAN AND, YOU KNOW, INFORMATIONAL SHEETS AND WHATEVER IT IS, INFORMATION THAT YOU PROVIDE TO VOTERS IN ADVANCE SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THAT. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO PUT THAT IN A PROPOSITION, PRIMER ON, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE WHAT THE PROPOSITIONS ARE, AND THIS IS THE IMPLICATIONS OF EACH ONE AND SO FORTH. MR. PRINCE, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, WITH TWO YEAR TERMS, THE STATE DOES NOT REQUIRE MAJORITY. BUT COULD WE PUT IT TO THE VOTERS TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER SO THAT EVEN TWO YEAR TERMS WOULD REQUIRE A MAJORITY? IF I MEAN, IF THAT'S I'M JUST TRYING TO DECIDE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER IN THIS DISCUSSION.

LET ME PULL UP THE THE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. I THINK 1111 SAYS IF THE CHARTER DECIDES THAT ITS MAJORITY, THEN THAT'S WHAT IT IS. YEAH. ROBERT RAISED HIS HAND THAT HE HAS A HOME RULE, HOME RULE CHARTER. A HOME RULE CITY MAY PROVIDE BY CHARTER. MAY PROVIDE BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS FOR AN OFFICE LONGER THAN TWO YEARS, NOT TO EXCEED FOUR YEARS. SO IT'S PERMISSIBLE. IT'S MAY. SO YEAH. MR. OWEN. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE CRC VOTED SEPARATELY IN THE FIRST PHASE ON SPECIFICALLY THE JORDAN WITHOUT RESPECT TO 2 OR 3 YEARS, AND IT WAS AGREED TO HIS DECISION ON THAT TO REQUIRE A MAJORITY ELECTION, WHETHER IT IS TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS, AND REALIZING THAT THERE IS A RUNOFF RISK BECAUSE. IT ENSURES THAT WHOEVER IS SEATED HAS MAJORITY SUPPORT. AND THE OTHER THING IS, WE WERE LOOKING BACK AT PREVIOUS THREE WAY RACE FOR MAYOR, WHERE YOU HAD PLURALITY OF CITY, AND THERE WAS NO ONE

[00:50:09]

RIGHT. THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO THAT PROBABLY THAT WOULD BE A I THINK, A PROPOSITION UNTO ITSELF, BECAUSE THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CHANGE TO YOUR COMPOSITION AND HOW PEOPLE GET VOTED IN THE OFFICE TO OFFICE THAT I THINK THE VOTERS WOULD NEED TO BE ALERTED TO THAT SPECIFIC CHANGE IN YOUR CHARTER, IRRESPECTIVE OF TERM LENGTH AND ANYTHING ELSE. YEAH, RIGHT. AND IF IT GOES, I MEAN, IT MAY GO HAND IN HAND IF YOU DECIDE, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT THREE YEARS TO THE VOTERS, WELL THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY, YOU KNOW, IS MAJORITY AND YOU CAN NOTIFY THEM OF THAT. SO IT MAY, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE FOLDED INTO SOMETHING IF YOU DECIDE TO GO THREE YEARS OR MORE. BUT BUT STANDING ALONE, EVEN IF YOU DECIDE TO DO TWO, THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE A STANDALONE BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE AND HOW YOU ALL GET SEATED. MR. BROWNFIELD, JUST A COUPLE NOTES THAT I'VE MADE HERE, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THE MONEY, IF WE DID ELECTIONS EVERY 3 OR 4 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE AN INCREASED COST FOR THE RUNOFF, OCCASIONALLY YOU'RE ALSO HAVING FEWER ELECTIONS. SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAVING BY HAVING ELECTIONS EVERY TWO YEARS. YOU COULD REALLOCATE THOSE MONIES TOWARDS THOSE OCCASIONAL RUNOFFS. I DON'T KNOW IF ACTUALLY YOU END UP SPENDING MORE MONEY OR NOT, DEPENDING, I GUESS, HOW OFTEN YOU HAVE A RUNOFF. I DO LIKE THE I DO LIKE THE MAJORITY. I THINK THAT I GROSSLY AWARE OF THE SCENARIO THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. I AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT 100%. AND I ALWAYS THINK MAJORITY IS THE IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.

JUST COMPLETELY SPITBALLING OUT HERE. IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE ADVOCATED FOR IT, AND IT'S NO REFLECTION OF HOW I BELIEVE OUR CURRENT MAYOR IS BEHAVING. BUT I THINK I WOULD ACTUALLY BE INTERESTED IN HAVING AN EIGHTH MEMBER OF COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR BE A NON-VOTING CEREMONIAL, STRICTLY A ADMINISTRATIVE RUN. THE MEETINGS AND CEREMONIAL TYPE POSITION, AND THAT YOU END UP WITH SEVEN VOTING COUNCIL MEMBERS. I FEEL LIKE SO MANY OF OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES AND SO MANY OF OUR CHARTERS AND SO MANY OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ARE CENTERED AROUND THIS, THIS ROLE THAT THE MAYOR PLAYS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE AN EQUAL TO CITY COUNCIL, IF THEY'RE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL, WHO CAN CALL THE SPECIAL MEETINGS, WHO CAN'T CALL THE SPECIAL MEETINGS. AND IF YOU JUST HAD A MAYOR THAT WAS JUST ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEREMONIAL AND YOU HAD SEVEN EQUAL VOTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO ME, THAT SOLVES MANY OF THE PROBLEMS. YOU END UP HAVING EIGHT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, YOU SEAT TWO AT A TIME OR FOUR AT A TIME OR WHATEVER YOU END UP DOING. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON THAT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE BELIEVES IN HERE REGARDING VOTING. I, I ALSO RAISED THE CONCERN ABOUT THE MAYOR ALWAYS BEING VOTED ON A NON PRESIDENTIAL OR GOVERNMENT BIG GOVERNMENT LEVEL ELECTION, AND I. AND I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT IT ALSO CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT MANY MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THEIR ELECTIONS HELD IN MAY, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S IN A VERY NON-BUSY TIME. YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY REFLECTS THE VOTERS WILL EVEN THOUGH I THINK PARTICIPATION IS MUCH LESS. SO THOSE ARE JUST A FEW OF MY THOUGHTS. I, I WOULD BE I DON'T THINK THERE'S A BIG SPEND AND I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING A MAYOR THAT WAS ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEREMONIAL RATHER THAN A. I THINK THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE TENSION COMES ON. COUNCIL IS. AGAIN, THIS ISN'T A REFLECTION OF SHANE, BUT ONE INDIVIDUAL FEELING OR ACTING OR THINKING THEY'RE SUPERIOR TO THE OTHERS AND TRYING TO GET SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS OR TRYING TO GET THINGS ON THE AGENDA OR WHO CAN DO THIS AND WHEN CAN DO THIS. IF THE MAYOR TRULY WAS A NEUTRAL POSITION, AS THEY'RE DESIGNED TO BE, THEN NEARLY EVERYTHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT WOULD BE ELIMINATED. MAYOR PRO TEM, SO YOU SEE ME COGITATING ON THAT IS A GOOD WAY TO SAY IT, BECAUSE SOME OF THE OTHER IMPLICATIONS, I THINK, BEGIN TO OCCUR IN TERMS OF OTHER DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'LL BE HAVING IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE

[00:55:03]

MARK'S POLL, IF HE HAD PUT IT OUT THERE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO FOR 2 OR 3? BUT NOTING THAT THERE IS A BOARD OF ETHICS, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT, THAT MAY BE LESS OF A ABILITY TO DO SO BEING I THINK THAT'S AN EIGHT IN THE IN THE NEW CHARTER. AND SO THAT WOULDN'T BE VOTED ON IN SECTION THREE OR WITH IT CONCURRENTLY. BUT. ANYWAY, THAT WAS ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAT I FOUND MYSELF. IF INDEED THERE'S THE CONCERN THAT IF WE VOTE SOMEBODY IN THERE A LONGER TERM AND WE HAVE LONGER, IT'S A LONGER TIMETABLE FOR US TO VOTE THEM OUT, IS THERE ANY KIND OF REPERCUSSION OR COUNTERBALANCE, YOU KNOW, TO THAT LONGER TERM, IF THE VOTERS ARE FEELING BUYER'S REMORSE, SO TO SPEAK, DUE TO WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COUNCILOR REFLECTS UP ON THE ON THE DAIS. SO. ANYWAY, I LIKE THE LONGER TERMS, MAINLY BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND THE TURNOVERS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT IS PRETTY EXTENSIVE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT IS TOUGH TO CONVEY. YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE THE CYCLE TURNING OVER EVERY TWO YEARS. I I'VE MADE A COMMENT TO COUNCILOR PRINCE THAT I'M CRINGING A LITTLE BIT IN SAYING THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, COUNCILOR PRINCE. AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT CONTINUING OR AT LEAST HAVE HAVE EXPRESSED THAT. THEN THERE'S A PIECE OF ME GOING, OH MY GOSH, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME THERE'S A LONGER TERM ISSUE THAT I'M TRYING TO LEARN ABOUT THE HISTORY OF SOMETHING, I'M I'M PICKING UP THE PHONE TO YOU. AND SO IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO BUILD SOME KIND OF WAY, A STABILIZING FACTOR. SO TO COUNCILOR HALL'S POINT, THAT WAS MY. REAL THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND. GRAVITATING TO THE LONGER TERMS. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. THANK YOU, MR. HALL. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON AS A NEW CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, THE AMOUNT OF LEARNING THAT IS INVOLVED IS ENORMOUS. AND I, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CONVEY THAT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR THEIR UNDERSTANDING, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE TO LEARN ALL ABOUT THE, THE EVERYTHING FROM OUR CHARTER TO OUR POLICIES TO OUR ORDINANCES, TO SOME OF THE HISTORY OF OF THAT OUR CITY GOVERNMENT, CITY EMPLOYEES, HOW ALL THAT FUNCTIONS. IT'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF LEARNING. AND, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS INTO THE PROCESS, I'M BEGINNING TO HAVE A FEEL FOR SOME OF THAT. BUT I STILL, AGAIN, AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF LEARNING. AND I DO APPRECIATE THE KNOWLEDGE. INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF

[01:00:05]

THE OTHER EXAMPLES I'M FINDING ARE ALL THE TRANSITION, RIGHT, WHERE LIKE WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IS, YOU KNOW, YOU DRAW LOTS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, WHICH PLACES ARE THE, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, THE SHORT TERM AND THE LONGER TERMS VERSUS POST CANVASING, YOU KNOW, AND THEN IT'S DETERMINED. BUT, BUT THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY OTHER THING I'M FINDING. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE YOU GO DALLAS. SO THAT'S IT. BUT WE PROCESS IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. SO AGAIN PIONEERS. YEAH. WELL I MEAN AGAIN THE, THE SYSTEM THAT I PROPOSE IS SORT OF A COMPROMISE BETWEEN WHAT I HEARD FROM PRINCE'S ISSUE, WHICH I THINK IS VALID, IS IF YOU GET COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THAT TURN OUT NOT TO BE GOOD COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO WAIT 3 OR 4 YEARS TO BE ABLE TO REPLACE THEM IS REALLY DIFFICULT FOR CITIZENS, AND IT WOULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT FOR CHANGE. NOW I DO GET ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, BUT HOW LONG SHOULD THOSE CONSEQUENCES BE? AND I THINK I'D MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT AS TO HOW LONG IT TAKES TO EDUCATE YOURSELF AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. THAT'S WHY YOU REALLY SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES BEFORE YOU COME ON COUNCIL, BECAUSE YOU'LL SPEED UP THAT EDUCATION PROCESS BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE BEEN A PART OF IT, SEEN IT. AND I THINK THAT IS THE NATURAL PATH IN LARGER CITIES. CERTAINLY PEOPLE COME OUT OF NOWHERE AND GET ELECTED, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S SORT OF A BALANCED ARGUMENT TO. BACK TO MR. BENFIELD'S PROPOSAL. HE ASKED US TO DISCUSS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE CITY ALREADY HAS A HARD TIME FILLING SEVEN SEATS. TO ADD AN EIGHTH IS DIFFICULT. AND I THINK WHAT I'VE SEEN SINCE MY SHORT TIME HERE AS MAYOR, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH YOU WATER DOWN THE MAYOR'S POSITION IN THE CITY CHARTER, WHAT A MAYOR IS IS ALREADY INGRAINED IN AMERICAN SOCIETY. PEOPLE HAVE THEIR VIEWS OF WHAT THE MAYOR IS, REGARDLESS OF HOW WEAK OR STRONG IT IS. AND SO IF YOU ARE AGREEING TO RUN FOR MAYOR, WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS YOU'RE AGREEING TO THE PERCEPTION THAT IF THE CITY GETS HIT BY DISASTER, IT'S YOU THAT'S GOING TO TAKE THE BRUNT OF OF THE RESPONSIBILITY, WHETHER YOU'RE JUST A CEREMONIAL FIGUREHEAD OR NOT, THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO VIEW IT AS THAT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE CHARTER, THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECOGNITION THAT THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT. AND KIND OF BACK TO MY INITIAL COMMENT, WE'RE JUST DECIDING WHAT THE CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON. SO IF WE WANT TO PUT THAT ON A BALLOT, I THINK THAT'S FINE. I FIND A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT THE CITIZENS WOULD TRULY WANT THAT. BUT THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT ON IT. I THINK BEING IN THE POSITION, I CAN TELL YOU, NO MATTER HOW WEAK THIS ROLE IS, THE PUBLIC HAS THEIR PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE MAYOR IS, AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I'LL JUST POINT OUT TO EVERYONE, IN CASE ANYONE LISTENING ONLINE. BUT TO REMIND EVERYONE ONE THING I DON'T KNOW IF THIS ALLAYS CONCERNS ABOUT TERM LENGTH OR NOT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE STUCK WITH SOMEONE FOR FOUR YEARS. YOUR CURRENT CHARTER AND YOUR PROPOSED NEW ONE ALSO HAVE RECALL PROVISIONS, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, THAT THAT THAT IS THE MECHANISM FOR REMOVAL OF AN OFFICER, AN ELECTED OFFICER WHO IF THE VOTERS DECIDE, YOU KNOW, DECIDE THAT THEY'RE DISPLEASED WITH SOMEONE'S SERVICE OR PERFORMANCE, THEY HAVE THAT OPTION NOW. AND THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE IN THE NEW CHARTER AS WELL. AND THOSE ARE COMMON PROVISIONS IN HOME RULE CHARTER. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE STUCK. I'VE HANDLED A LOT OF THAT LITIGATION. AND SO THEY DO POP UP WITH SOME FREQUENCY. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING. MR. SURE. YEAH. THE POSITION OF. FOR THE POSITION OF THE CRC, A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOES ALL TIE TOGETHER. SO ONE, YOU'VE GOT THREE YEAR TERMS, WHICH BASICALLY POLL SUGGESTED WAS 90%. PEOPLE WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. BUT THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS POSED AND THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T IN FULL CONTEXT CAN LEAD TO THAT. SO THE FEELING OF THE CRC WAS THE MAJORITY. YOU HAVE EXTENDED TERMS, THREE YEAR TERMS. YOU STAGGER THEM OUT. YES. YOU HAVE SOME STAGGERED STEPS ALONG THE WAY, WHICH KIND OF LOOKED UGLY

[01:05:03]

AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN STATE LAW. I DON'T KNOW, BUT BUT I'M DEFINITELY NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDING AN EIGHTH POSITION, WHICH IS NOT A NON-VOTING POSITION. COUNCIL.

JUST ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HEARD WITH TRANSITIONING TO THE THREE YEAR TERMS THAT MR. BENEFIELD AND MAYBE SOME OTHERS MENTIONED, WAS KIND OF THE MESSINESS OF IT OR THE CONCERNS REGARDING THAT. SO WHAT I'VE DONE WAS I ASKED THE ALL KNOWING AI TO CONSTRUCT A COUPLE OF, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS TO AVOID THAT OR TO CLEAN IT UP.

SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO CUT AND PASTE IT INTO AN EMAIL TO YOU SO YOU ALL CAN SEE IT AND IT GETS YOU TO THE SAME PLACE IN THE SAME TIME FRAME WITH SOME DIFFERENT

[01:10:02]

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ANY OF THOSE. BUT THE MORE WE TALK, THE MORE I BELIEVE THERE'S JUST TOO MANY GOODS AND BADS WITH ALL THE VARIETIES. AND SO I TYPICALLY TEND TO, IF I'M SPLIT 5050, I JUST KEEP THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE. IF THERE'S NOT A GREAT REASON TO BUY SOMETHING, I DON'T BUY IT. IF IT'S JUST NOT OVERWHELMING AND I DON'T. EVEN THOUGH I DO LOVE THE IDEA OF THIS DEMOCRACY, I DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING BEFORE THE CITIZENS THAT IS NOT JUST OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED AND NEEDED. BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. PRINCE, THAT FOR THE MOST PART, CITIZENS ARE JUST GOING TO TRUST THE CITY COUNCIL. AND I THINK THE I THINK THE STATISTIC THAT WAS SHARED WITH US IS THAT 100% OF ALL THE PROPOSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO LAGO VISTA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN APPROVED EXCEPT CAPMETRO, EXCEPT CAPMETRO. I FORGET WHAT IT WAS. IT WAS DURING THE PRESENTATION. BUT YEAH, NO, NO, PLEASE. YEAH. IN THE PRESENTATION, WE, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT. IN FACT, I PULLED IT UP AND ON MY COMPUTER.

SO IN 2021 THERE WERE 14 PROPOSITIONS, EIGHT THROUGH TEN. THEY ALL PASSED. AND FROM PROPOSITION A, THE FIRST ONE TO PROP IN THE LAST ONE, THE DROP OFF IN VOTES WAS ONLY 3.4%. SO PEOPLE WERE ENGAGED ALL THE WAY THROUGH ALL 14 OF THOSE PROPOSITIONS. SAME THING WITH 18. THERE WAS. A THROUGH G 6 OR 7, SEVEN AND THEY ALL THEY ALL PASSED IN A TWO IN IN A 15123456. NINE. AND THEY ALL, THEY ALL PASSED. SO SO THOSE ELECTIONS I PICKED OUT, OBVIOUSLY CAPMETRO IS NOT REFLECTED IN HIS REFUSAL BECAUSE THE ELECTIONS THAT WE PICKED OUT WERE SPECIFICALLY THE ONES THAT HAD VALID PROPOSITION ON THEM. CHART TO

[01:15:01]

THAT PARTY IS GOING TO PUT THE SAME PERSON BACK UP FOR REELECTION YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND NO OTHER PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO EVEN CONTEST THAT INDIVIDUAL. AND SO IF YOU'RE IN A IF YOU'RE IN AN AREA WHICH IS HEAVILY LEANING TOWARDS ONE POLITICAL PARTY, THEN THAT PERSON IS GOING TO GET REELECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, NO MATTER WHAT. THEY CAN'T EVER BE SERIOUSLY CONTESTED. THAT IS NOT THE CASE ON A ON A, ON A LOCAL ELECTION LIKE THIS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE ME, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IT IS. ANYBODY CAN RUN AGAINST ME ANY TIME, ANY PLACE, ANYWHERE. AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BEAT ME AND YOU GET ME OUT. IT'S NOT BASED ON PARTY. IF I JUST HATE THE FACT OF THINKING, YOU KNOW, WE GOT A GUY LIKE SHANE RUNNING FOR MAYOR AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, MAN, YOU'VE HIT YOUR NINTH YEAR AND NICE HAVING YOU AND HAVE A GREAT DAY AND THANKS A LOT AND WE'LL NEVER SEE YOU AGAIN IF WE IF WE GET A BELL RINGER IN HERE, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO NOT SERVE MORE WHEN THEY ALWAYS CAN BE CONTESTED? AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S EVER BEEN AN EXAMPLE WHERE ANYBODY HAS EVEN MET THE THRESHOLD WHERE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE MET THE TERM LIMIT. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYBODY GOING BACK IN HISTORY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BOOTED OUT OF TERM LIMIT AND WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE OVER ALL THE YEARS. SO WHY PUT SOMETHING BEFORE THE VOTERS? THAT'S NOT EVEN, IN MY OPINION, AN ISSUE. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR VENICE. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO MAYBE GOING BACK A FEW COMMENTS, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF WITH COUNCILOR BENEFIELD ON MY SENSE IS TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE ON SOMETHING LIKE THE CHARTER AND RECOMMENDING CHANGES WE THINK ARE REALLY, REALLY NEEDED, NOT JUST NICE TO HAVE. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY I'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH IN MY OWN MIND ON TWO YEARS VERSUS THREE YEARS. THE MAJORITY VOTING, ETC. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I, AS I SAID, I APPRECIATE WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HAVE PUT TOGETHER AND THE DELIBERATIONS THAT THEY WENT THROUGH. SO I THINK I'M VERY OPEN TO PUTTING THAT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS TERM LIMITS. I'M OKAY WITH YOU KNOW, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD SAID THEY'RE PROBABLY LESS NECESSARY IN LOCAL ELECTIONS NOW, WHERE WE'RE HOPEFULLY REMAIN NONPARTISAN. BUT I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOR OF THEM. AND THAT GIVES ANOTHER, I GUESS, BACKSTOP, IF YOU WILL. IF WE DO GO TO THE THREE YEAR TERMS, AS MR. OWEN STATED, I GUESS I DO HAVE A PROCESS PROCESS QUESTION, AND IF IT'S PREMATURE, WE CAN SHELVE THIS TILL MAYBE THE NEXT MEETING. BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING SOME OF THESE THINGS IN FRONT OF VOTERS. AND I GUESS A COUPLE CONCERNS. ONE IS THERE'S VERY LOW PERCENTAGE OF OUR FELLOW RESIDENTS AND VOTERS THAT ARE GOING TO READ THROUGH ALL THE DISCUSSION BOARDS AND THE DELIBERATIONS, AND UNDERSTANDING THE PROS AND CONS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS, THERE'S A SLIGHTLY HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAT MAY WATCH SOME OF THESE MEETINGS AND PAY ATTENTION. AND ALTHOUGH NOT TODAY AND THEN MAYBE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER PERCENTAGE, YOU MIGHT READ THE PRIMER THAT WE PUT TOGETHER ON THESE, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE REALLY, REALLY AGGRESSIVE TOWN HALL COMMUNICATION TYPE EFFORT TO PUT OUT HERE PRIOR TO THE ELECTION TO GIVE PEOPLE THE BACKGROUND ON THESE SO THEY HAVE A MORE FULSOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED VERSUS WHAT WE DO TODAY AND UNDERSTANDING THE PROS AND CONS. SO THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN BECAUSE WE'RE DEBATING WE'RE ON MAYBE THROUGH TWO ITEMS YET IN OVER AN HOUR OF TALKING. AND THERE'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT, RIGHT? SO I JUST, I MEAN, I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY GO IN TO VOTE AND IF THEY HAVEN'T REALLY STUDIED SOMETHING, THEY MAY JUST BE CHECKING THE BOX ON SOME OF THESE PROPOSITIONS WITHOUT REALLY KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE CHECKING. AND SO I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO A GREAT COMMUNICATION PLAN OUT AND TRY TO ENGAGE AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE CAN SO THEY REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILOR. I WAS THINKING OF THAT EARLIER. MORE SO IN THE SENSE OF WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST TO GET ALL THE PRIMERS OUT THERE. AND I THINK THE TOWN HALL BEFOREHAND IS A GREAT IDEA. AND SO I WAS KIND OF GOING TO KICK THAT TO CHARLES CHARLES, YOU KNOW, JUST IN PREPARING FOR GETTING THIS OUT HERE FOR THE ELECTION, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO COST US? AND WHAT IS THE TYPICAL EDUCATION AND MARKETING AND ADVERTISING OF, OF THIS THAT'S GOING TO VARY. IT'S GOING TO BE ON HOW EXTENSIVE YOU WANT TO GO INTO IT. IT CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS TO SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS. IT JUST ALL DEPENDS ON

[01:20:04]

BUT ONCE THAT IS DONE, ONCE THOSE PROPOSITIONS HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, SET YOU AND YOUR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES ON YOUR TIME, OF COURSE, HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SAY, I LIKE PROPOSITION ONE, DON'T VOTE FOR PROPOSITION TWO. YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT USING CITY RESOURCES, CITY TIME, CITY MONEY. THE CITY ITSELF CANNOT BECAUSE THAT'S ELECTIONEERING AND THAT'S ILLEGAL. SO AT THAT POINT, IT JUST HAS TO BE. IF IT'S CITY, YOU KNOW, THE EDUCATIONAL LIKE WHAT CHARLES MENTIONED, THESE ARE THE PROPOSITIONS AND THESE ARE WHAT THEY SAY. AND THAT'S IT. YOU CAN'T TAKE POSITION.

THE CITY USING CITY TIME AND RESOURCES CAN'T TAKE POSITIONS ON VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THESE THINGS. OR THIS IS GOOD OR THIS IS BAD. YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO IT ON YOUR OWN. JUST MAKE SURE YOU DO IT ON YOUR OWN, YOU KNOW. THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO THROW OUT AN IDEA FOR SPECIFICALLY THIS LIST THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH HERE THAT ROBERT PUT TOGETHER OF THE BIG ITEMS THAT THEY WERE SPLIT ON TO MR. BENFIELD'S POINT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S VALID ARGUMENTS FOR ALL OF THESE SIDES. DO WE WANT, AS A COUNCIL, COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS? UNLESS WE CAN GET TO A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, THEN WE AREN'T GOING TO PROPOSE IT OR PUT IT OUT THERE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WILL DEBATE IT FOR A LONG TIME. MR. LET ME SUGGEST, AND I'VE HAD THIS SAME THOUGHT AROUND A DIFFERENT TOPIC, WHERE WE WE RECENTLY PUT A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT ON IT. SUPERMAJORITY, TYPICALLY BEING 75% WITH SEVEN MEMBERS, MEANS SIX OUT OF 7 OR 5 OUT OF SIX IF SOMEONE'S MISSING FROM THE VOTE. AND I WONDER WHETHER FOR THIS, WE SHOULD MAYBE DROP THE THRESHOLD ONE MORE AND SAY, IF WE CAN'T GET TO A 5 TO 2 OR, YOU KNOW, FOUR TO 4 TO 6, FOUR, 4 TO 2, THEN THEN WE WOULDN'T WE WOULDN'T PUT IT ON. BUT I, I KIND OF HATE FOR US TO BE IN THE POSITION WHERE TWO OF THE SEVEN OF US HAVE KIND OF POCKET VETO AUTHORITY. IF WE GO TO SUPERMAJORITY LEVEL. BUT I CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SETTING THE THRESHOLD HIGHER THAN SIMPLE MAJORITY BY, BY ONE VOTE, BASICALLY. AND THAT'S WHAT MY THINKING WAS LIMITED TO JUST THIS LIST. YOU KNOW, WE WON'T PUT THAT HIGH THRESHOLD ON EVERYTHING BUT FOR THESE BIG ITEMS. BUT YEAH, I SEE THE CONCERN. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT? I'LL JUST SAY I LIKE WHAT COUNCILOR PRINCE SAID. YEAH, THAT PLUS ONE. OKAY. MR. BENNEFIELD NO, I AGREE WITH THAT. NOT 75%, 66%. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND YEAH, AND IT MAY BE 60%, WHICH IS A SMALLER NUMBER, BUT IF WE'RE ABOVE 60. YEAH. TO YOUR POINT ON THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS, LET'S GET A CONSENSUS. AND THEN WE CAN JUST START BUILDING THE FRAMEWORK AROUND IT. YOU KNOW, IF WE KEEP THE TWO YEAR TERMS, I WOULD STRONGLY ADVOCATE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TERM LIMITS. YOU KNOW, TO ME IT MAKES NO SENSE THERE. AND THE LAST THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS ON THAT VOTING THRESHOLD, I, I AM AGAINST THE VOTING THRESHOLD BEING LOWERED FROM 10% TO 5%. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REFERENDUM THRESHOLDS, IT'S GOING FROM 5% TO 10%. AND TO REMOVE A MEMBER FROM OFFICE IS GOING FROM 10% TO 5%. I LITERALLY COULD GO TO ONE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL REMOVED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES IF I WANTED TO. AND THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY. THE 5% IS DESIGNED TO BE 5% IN THE CITY. OUR SIZE IS JUST TOO SMALL. IT'S THE WHOLE POINT IS NOT TO WEAPONIZE OR TO ALLOW. IF SOMEBODY'S BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE, IT NEEDS TO BE. THIS PERSON IS EITHER THEY NEED TO BE GOING BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, OR THEY'RE DOING A REAL INJUSTICE. LIKE THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP, THEY'RE NOT DOING THEIR JOB. THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT IS GROSSLY. WE CAN'T MAKE THAT PROCESS TOO, TOO EASY. SO I'LL JUST TELL YOU WHERE I'M AT BASED ON THE DISCUSSION. MAJORITY VOTE, TWO

[01:25:04]

BECAUSE THE MAYOR COULDN'T SIGN IT, BECAUSE THE CHARTER REQUIRED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, THE MAYOR WAS RECALLED. AND THEN THERE'S HOLDOVER PROVISIONS. YOU SAY A HOLDOVER, BUT HOLDOVER DOESN'T APPLY UNDER CERTAIN. SO ANYWAY, IT CAN BECOME VERY MESSY BASED ON EXPERIENCE AND LARGE LEGAL BILLS THAT THEY INCURRED IN THAT PROCESS. SO THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS BACK TO THIS CONCEPT OF ON THIS LIST REQUIRING FIVE VOTES FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD. SORRY. I JUST WANT TO SEE IF WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON THAT. COUNCILOR VANESSA. YES. MY OTHER ITEM IS ON THE IDEA OF THE THE CONCEPT OF THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. I THINK THAT ONE'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND PROBABLY THAT HIGHER VOTE THRESHOLD FOR CONSENSUS. OKAY. BUT YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT CONCEPT THAT FOR THESE BIG TICKET ITEMS, ADDING THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO BE FIVE VOTES TO FOR US TO ACTUALLY CHANGE IT. OKAY. YES.

MR. HALL, MAYOR PRO TEM, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? REGARDING HAVING FIVE ON THESE? YES, YES. YEAH. MR. HALL? NO, I'M STILL I'M STILL THINKING ABOUT THAT ONE. AND I JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, REQUIRING FIVE VOTES IS DIFFERENT THAN SAYING 60%. SO FOR EXAMPLE, TONIGHT WE HAVE SIX OF THE SEVEN MEMBERS WOULD WE SAY REQUIRES FIVE IN THAT SCENARIO OR REQUIRES FOUR OF THE SIX. AND I YOU KNOW, I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH EITHER SAYING 60%, WHICH WOULD BE THREE OF FIVE, FOUR OF SIX, FIVE OF SEVEN, OR SAYING A MINIMUM OF OF FOUR WITH, YOU KNOW, 60% AND A MINIMUM OF FOUR SO THAT WE NEVER GET TO THE THREE OUT OF FIVE. BUT I JUST HATE FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, IF ONE PERSON IS MISSING THAT IT DEFAULT BACK TO SUPERMAJORITY.

YEAH. MR. HALL, I'LL AGREE, I AGREE. I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A GREAT, GREAT SUGGESTION AND REASONING. SO 60%. MINIMUM OF FOUR VOTES AND 60% OF THOSE VOTING. OKAY. CAN I SEE SOME HEAD NODDING? OKAY. BACK TO TERM LIMITS. YEAH. I MEAN I, I. I FAVOR TERM LIMITS IN GENERAL.

I SEE THE ISSUE AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL. I THINK IT WOULD IT WOULD GUARANTEE PASS IN LARGO. SO I'M ACTUALLY JUST NOT QUITE SURE WHAT TO DO WITH, WITH THAT ONE. THE ONLY THING I THOUGHT OF IF, IF CITIZENS REALLY WANTED THE CRC WAS STRONGER ABOUT IT, I WOULD INCREASE WHAT THE TERM LIMITS WERE PROPOSED. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE A TERM LIMIT THAT PUTS YOU IN THE 12 TO 15 YEAR RANGE, BUT I DON'T FEEL PARTICULARLY STRONG ABOUT. I THINK I SEE MR. BENFIELD'S POINT ON LOCALLY AS MUCH AS I WANT THEM AT THE

[01:30:02]

[01:35:04]

JUST AS A. COUNTERPOINT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT TO THE RESIDENTS, MAYBE TO COUNCIL BENEFITS CREDIT THERE. AS HE BROUGHT IT UP. THIS WOULD NOT COME UP THAT OFTEN. BUT I THINK IF WE DO DECIDE TO GO WITH LONGER TERMS, THAT TERM LIMITS BECOME A LARGER. THOUGHT IN RESIDENTS MINDS IS ALL. SO I'M CORRELATING THE TWO. I'M REALLY INTRIGUED WITH A COUPLE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID ON THE TERMS, RIGHT? DEFINITELY LIKE MOVING AT MINIMUM THE MAYOR TO EVEN NUMBERS RATHER THAN ODD. BUT THE, THE 331 IS ACTUALLY GOT MY ATTENTION AND I JUST WANTED MORE TIME TO KIND OF STUDY THAT THROUGH THE ONE COUNTER. I HAVE TO THAT IS, IF YOU'RE DOING THE MAYOR SEPARATELY, THAT MEANS YOU'RE DOING A MAY ELECTION FOR THE MAYOR. IS THAT YOUR PROPOSAL? NO, NO. I MEAN, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, ELECTED IN 2029 AND 2030 FOR THREE YEAR TERMS, AND THEN THE MAYOR WOULD BE ELECTED IN 2031 FOR A THREE YEAR TERM. SO ALL ALL ALIGNED WITH THE NOVEMBER ELECTION CYCLE. YEAH. I DON'T SEE AGAIN, TRYING TO ALIGN IT WITH A MORE POPULAR ELECTION YEAR WOULD BE GOOD. MR. HALL, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE LOGIC OF OF TERM LIMITS AND, AND WHY WHY TO HAVE THEM. THERE'S THAT, THAT SMALLER GROUP OF, OF 80 PEOPLE THAT THAT VOTED SEEM TO LIKE TERM LIMITS. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY LOGIC THAT I CAN THINK OF TO, TO HAVE A TERM LIMIT IS THAT I THINK IT'S A FACT THAT IF SOMEBODY SERVED AND BEEN ACTIVE, THE NAME RECOGNITION, PEOPLE WILL RECOGNIZE THAT NAME AND THERE'S KIND OF AUTOMATICALLY VOTE FOR THAT PERSON, EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, ABOUT THE, THAT PERSON'S PERFORMANCE. I, I THINK IT'S JUST REALISTIC THAT WHEN YOU HAVE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN ELECTIONS, A LOT OF THEM DON'T DON'T DO EXTENSIVE HOMEWORK OR HAVE EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CANDIDATES AND WILL VOTE SOMETIMES JUST BASED ON, ON A NAME THEY RECOGNIZE AND HAVE SEEN. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON. OTHERWISE, IT'S SORT OF LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, IF DON'T VOTE FOR THE PERSON, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE OUT. WELL, I WAS TRYING TO KNOCK ONE OFF THE LIST SEEING, DID IT SOUND LIKE YOU CAN GET TO FIVE ON TERM LIMITS? OR IS THIS ONE WHERE WE JUST NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT LONGER? MR. BENNEFIELD, FOR ME, TERM LIMITS ARE MORE RELEVANT. AS COUNCILOR IRWIN SAID, BASED ON THE LENGTH OF TERM. I MEAN, SO TO ME, THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE YOU START. YOU KNOW, YOU START AT, ARE WE GOING TO GO TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE MAYOR BASED ON THAT? THAT WOULD YOU KNOW, I COULD I CAN RESPECT A LOWER PERCENTAGE VOTING THRESHOLD.

RECALL IF SOMEONE WAS IN OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS. I DON'T RESPECT THAT ON A TWO YEAR. AND SO, YOU KNOW, MANY OF MY DECISIONS ARE BASED ON HOW LONG ARE PEOPLE GOING TO BE IN OFFICE FOR AT TWO YEARS? IT JUST I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE TERM LIMITS AT TWO YEARS. AT FOUR YEARS. I THINK IT PROBABLY HAS A BETTER ARGUMENT FOR IT. SO AND IF YOU DID GO TO THE MAYOR BEING EVERY FOUR YEARS, THEN EVERY OTHER ELECTION CYCLE WOULD BE ON A MAJOR ELECTION, RIGHT? SO YOUR

[01:40:05]

FULL DISCLOSURE, I HAVE FULL DISCLOSURE, I HAVE. A IS THAT'S NOT ME. THERE YOU GO. IT MORE THAN LIKELY MY WIFE, I WAS THINKING. OKAY, I'LL TEXT HER ANYWAY. THAT'S THAT'S IT. SOME OF MY DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THAT LENGTH OF TERM. IF WE'RE STAYING AT TWO YEARS, I HAVE ONE OPINION. IF WE'RE GOING TO FOUR YEARS, I HAVE ANOTHER OPINION. SO ON THE TERM LIMITS, ONE SOUNDS LIKE WE SORT OF NEED TO DO THAT TOGETHER WITH THE TERM LENGTHS. WHENEVER WE ARE ABLE TO GET TO A DECISION ON THAT ONE, WHICH I DIDN'T THINK WOULD BE TODAY. THE ONLY OTHER ARTICLE THREE ONE THAT'S ON THIS LIST FROM THE CRC OF THE CONTESTED VOTES WAS THE 3.17 PUBLICATION AND POSTING OF ORDINANCES ON A MOTION BY MR. HARRIS, SECONDED BY MISS PITTS.

THE COMMITTEE VOTED 3 TO 2 TO NOT RECOMMEND ANY REVISIONS TO SECTION 3.17 OTHER THAN NOTED SCRIVENER'S CORRECTIONS. HOWEVER, THE SECTION WAS MOVED AND EDITS WERE ACCEPTED WITHOUT CONTENTION IN THE REWRITE AS 4.02 AND I HAD A AN ASK TO MR. OWEN IF HE COULD ELABORATE ON WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE. LOOK IT UP TO ME. I READ THAT AS IT WAS CONTESTED, BUT THE. THE RESULT WAS THERE WAS NO CHANGE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THE CRC MADE NO CHANGES. THE DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS WERE PUBLICATIONS. LET ME FIND A REFRESH. MY. HEY, MR. OWEN, CAN YOU PUT YOUR MIC A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOU? I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. BETTER.

AGAIN, THE WAY I READ IT WAS YOU GUYS MADE NO CHANGES. SO IF YOU WERE WANTING A CHANGE TO HOW WE DO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES, THE WE WOULD STILL NEED TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

OTHERWISE YOU GUYS LEFT IT AS IS AND JUST MOVED TO 4.02. AND THE WAY I READ THIS AND FROM MY MEMORY, GENE NOT NOT GENE, MIKE SLAUGHTER AND LINDA WANTED TO PUT IN SOME MORE DETAILED OR, OR, OR I DON'T KNOW IF RESTRICTIVE IS THE RIGHT WORD, BUT THEY WANTED TO PUT IN A LOT MORE OR SOME MORE LANGUAGE AROUND PUBLICATION AND POSTING. AND, AND THOSE TWO WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO, WHO WANTED THAT CHANGE. SO CORRECT. OR, OR AMEND THAT AS APPROPRIATE. A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FULL TEXT OF ORDINANCES TO BE PUBLISHED, PUBLISHED, WHICH INCLUDES PUTTING IN NEWSPAPERS AND WEBSITES AND ALL OF THAT. AND THEN ULTIMATELY, THE COMMISSION JUST SAID FOR 4.02, THE COMPLETE TEXT OF EACH PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROPOSED PRIOR TO COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING WAS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW FOR THIS CHARTER. AND THEN WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF PUBLISHED AND.

THAT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE FULL NEWSPAPERS, ADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AS WE WENT IN AND DEFINED PUBLISHED. SO IT WOULD BE AS USED IN THIS CHARTER. THE TERM PUBLISHED MEANS TO PRINT AND CONTEMPORARY MEANS OF INFORMATION SHARING, WHICH INCLUDES AND NOT LIMITED TO ONE OR MORE NEWSPAPERS, WHICH MEANS IN THE CITY AND. SO AGAIN, IT WAS GOING TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY.

YOU POST THE FULL TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND EVERY ACTION YOU TAKE OR, OR NOT. AND SO THERE WAS DIFFERING VIEWS AS TO HOW DETAILED PUBLISHING SHOULD BE. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS DECIDED, WHICH I THINK, MAYOR, I WOULD GO WITH WHERE YOU WERE LEADING US THERE, WHICH IS THAT WHILE THIS WAS A SPLIT VOTE, THE, THE, THE SMALL MAJORITY SAID, LET'S NOT CHANGE IT. AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT ONE. SO I, I WOULD BE WILLING TO AT LEAST BE THE FIRST, MAYBE, MAYBE THE SECOND, IF YOU COUNT OF, OF, OF OUR 60% THRESHOLD TO, TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF NO CHANGE HERE BECAUSE I WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE WHEN I READ 4.02 IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN 3.17 IN THE CURRENT CHARTER. SO IT APPEARED TO BE A CHANGE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE YOU KIND OF YOU MADE A DEFINITION FOR PUBLICATION, SO SOME OF IT MUST BE CAPTURED THERE. AND IT WAS CHANGED TO 4.02. AND THE REWRITE WAS COMPLETELY

[01:45:03]

NOW THE DEFINITION OF PUBLISHED AND 4.02, WHAT IT'S DOING IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT MORE DETAIL WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLISHING ORDINANCES. AND YOUR DEFINITION OF PUBLISH MEANS IT'S PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER. SO THIS WOULD SAY A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT I JUST PUT UP FOR THE FIRST TIME ON A COUNCIL MEETING WOULD BE GETTING PUT INTO A NEWSPAPER. IT WOULD NEED TO BE NOTICED IN THE NEWSPAPER THE WAY THE COMMITTEE. DID IT. WE CAN BARELY POST THEM ON OUR WEBSITE. TRYING TO REPRESENT THE. YEAH, I DON'T THINK I COULD FAVOR THAT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE COULD DO IT. BUT. CHARLES. YEAH, YOU START TRYING TO PUBLISH A WHOLE ORDINANCE IN THE NEWSPAPER. Y'ALL BETTER RAISE THE TAXES BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO GET VERY EXPENSIVE, VERY FAST. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO RIGHT NOW. I WOULD LIKE THAT IT'S PUT IN THE AGENDA PACKET PRIOR TO COUNCIL THAT THAT SHOULD BE THE TRANSPARENCY. BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER LEVEL. PUTTING THE NEWSPAPER MAYOR, IF I MIGHT. YEAH, THAT'S GETTING MORE INTO A POLICY DEAL. AND ON SOME OF THOSE ITEMS, I'D RECOMMEND Y'ALL ADOPT ORDINANCES TO DEAL WITH THAT. SO IF STATE LAW CHANGES, YOU CAN GO BACK AND CHANGE THAT. YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO GO BACK AND HOLD AN ELECTION.

YOU YOUR CHARTER IS JUST IT'S YOUR CONSTITUTION. DON'T START GETTING INTO THE EVERYDAY THINGS AND STUFF THAT YOU CAN HANDLE THROUGH ORDINANCES. THAT'S MY SUGGESTION. THAT'S A GOOD REMINDER, I THINK, THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER, SO I WOULD PLACE MORE. 4.02 IN REALLY GOOD THOUGHTS TO THAT LIST. SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? I WOULD PUT MARK 4.02 AND REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT SAYS WHEN YOU GET TO THAT POINT. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM. YEAH, I DON'T THINK I WANT TO BE IN THE CARE AND FEEDING OF OUR NEWSPAPERS. ACTUALLY, I APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO ON THE FOR THE PUBLICATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED. BUT. I. I WOULD PREFER TO. ACTUALLY BE CLOSER TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. 3.17 AS IT READS INTO THAT SECTION OF. 4.02. I AGREE THAT THAT GOES TO MY SAME THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF KEEPING THE CHARTER HIGH LEVEL AND ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL GOING TO ORDINANCES OR GUIDES OR POLICIES. YEAH. THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL ADD IS, YOU KNOW, PUBLISHING NOTICES IN ADVANCE OF, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLICATION DEADLINES. WE'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH THAT ISSUE OF TRYING TO ALIGN STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS. AND, YOU KNOW, PA MEETINGS OR, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AND ALIGN THAT WITH YOUR, YOUR, YOUR NEWSPAPER, WHICH IS NOT A DAILY. AND TRYING TO ALIGN ALL OF THAT WITH A COUNCIL MEETING. YOU KNOW, JUST BECOMES I, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE YOUR PROPOSED ORDINANCES READY TO GO TWO WEEKS BEFORE YOU HAVE THEM READY TO GO NOW TO BE ON A MEETING SO THAT YOU CAN GET IT PUBLISHED AND SO THAT IT'S EFFECTIVE. SO IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PLANNING YOUR MEETINGS OUT A MONTH IN ADVANCE AND HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION TWO WEEKS OUT IN ADVANCE. AND THAT'S, I MEAN, JUST THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PRACTICAL REALITY OF ADOPTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MR. PRINCE.

LET ME JUST TAKE A STAB AT I WONDERING WHETHER WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THIS. I I'M HEARING KIND OF MAYBE CONSENSUS ON, ON NOT MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO PUBLISH THAN, THAN OUR CURRENT SITUATION. AND SO MAYBE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, AND HERE'S WHAT I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE EXISTING CHARTER LANGUAGE IS THE BEST WAY TO ACCOMPLISH.

NUMBER ONE, IS THAT WHAT WE WANT? AND NUMBER TWO IS IF SO, IS THE EXISTING CHARTER LANGUAGE THE BEST WAY TO ACCOMPLISH IT? OR DO WE NEED TO CLEAN UP THE EXISTING CHARTER

[01:50:04]

WELL WELL WRITTEN. SO SO THAT'S AT LEAST FOUR OF US. SO AT LEAST FOR IN TERMS OF THIS LIST THAT WE WERE GOING THROUGH OF CONTESTED ITEMS FROM THE CRC, WE SEEM TO BE IN AGREEMENT OF NOT FOR THE ONE THAT SAYS 3.17 NOT GOING WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE. THAT'S IN 4.02 WITH A NOTE THAT WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS CLEANED UP, AND I THINK THAT MAY INCLUDE ON THE NEW DRAFT THAT IS PROPOSED, YOU STILL MAYBE NEED TO GO BACK TO HOW THEY DEFINED PUBLICATION, OR BE VERY CAREFUL BASED ON THAT NEW DEFINITION OF WHEREVER WE USE PUBLICATION. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM. ARTICLE THREE ITEMS OF THIS LIST. IF THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THROUGH ARTICLE THREE THAT AREN'T LISTED ON HERE THAT WE STILL WANT TO GO THROUGH, WE COULD DO THAT. OR THERE WAS STILL THE. WAS THERE ONE OTHER ITEM ON THIS LIST THAT'S NOT IN ARTICLE THREE? YOU. MR. BROWNFIELD BROUGHT UP POWER OF REFERENDUM AND POWER OF INITIATIVE. THOSE WERE THE OTHER ONE. THE ONLY ONE THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED, I GUESS IS GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO ARTICLE 9.1 A ADDING TAXPAYER FUNDING OF NONPROFITS IS ALLOWED BY LAW AS AN OPTION IN THE CHARTER. ON A MOTION BY MR. OWEN, SECONDED BY MR. DOUGLAS, THE COMMITTEE VOTED 3 TO 2 TO ADD AUBRY SECTION 7.15 TO THE CHARTER. SECTION 8.17.

NOTE THIS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RENUMBERED AS SECTION 9.18 IN THE FINAL DRAFT. MY INITIAL THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, FUNDING NONPROFITS, I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD ASK CHARLES AGAIN, IS THIS FALLING INTO THE REALM OF SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD PREFER DOESN'T GET ADDRESSED IN THE CHARTER AND IS MORE OF AN ORDINANCE? YES, BECAUSE STATE LAW CHANGES ON ALL OF THAT. SO THAT COULD CHANGE AT ANY TIME. I ECHO CHARLES'S THOUGHTS, I MEAN, I. WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE AND THE MECHANISMS UNDER WHICH YOU DO THAT ARE I MEAN, YOU CAN'T YOU KNOW, YOU'RE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED FROM MAKING GRATUITOUS GRANT GRANTS ANYWAY.

NOW, THERE ARE MECHANISMS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MECHANISMS TO TO THAT ALLOW FOR IT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SO FORTH AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. BUT BUT THOSE ARE ALL ADOPTED BY, BY ORDINANCE TYPICALLY. I MEAN, I, I'M NOT I DON'T SEE CHARTER PROVISIONS RELATED TO THAT LEVEL OF GRANULARITY FOR, FOR, FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH. IS THERE AN AGREEMENT ON THAT? AT LEAST THE THREE OF US THAT I DON'T THINK THIS SECTION IS NEEDED IN THE CHARTER. IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS THROUGH ORDINANCE. I AGREE WITH IT. OKAY. MR. BENNEFIELD UP, COUNSELOR THEN. S SO THAT'S THREE RIGHT THERE. BUT MAYOR PRO TEM YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY I AGREE WITH THAT. AND PART OF WHAT I WAS GOING THROUGH AND LOOKING UP, ESPECIALLY NOW THERE'S JUST AN EVER INCREASING. CLARITY THAT THE STATE IS NOW REALLY KEEPING AN EYE ON CITIES AND THROUGH THEIR AUDITS, MAKING SURE THAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE USED WISELY. AND SO ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST TO SAY, I'M VERY KEENLY AWARE OF THAT. AND WORKING THROUGH THE HOT FUNDS.

AND SO YEAH, DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF HANDLING IF WE SHOULD CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT THE TIME, WHATEVER THE LEGALITIES ARE THAT WE DO, IT ENCOMPASSED WITHIN THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THAT TIME. OKAY. MR. HALL, I UNDERSTAND THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAD WITH THE HOT FUNDS AND, AND FUNDING THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT WE THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT TO THE CITY BECAUSE OF THE THOSE BEING SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE HOT

[01:55:01]

MISTER BENEFIELD BROUGHT UP HIS CONCERNS WITH THE POWER OF INITIATIVE AND POWER REFERENDUM, LOWERING THOSE THRESHOLDS. I KNOW THE CRC HAS CORRECTED THAT. THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO CREATE A UNIFORM PERCENTAGE ON SOME OF THIS. DO WE HAVE FURTHER THOUGHTS FROM COUNCIL ON LOWERING THESE NUMBERS TO GET TO A COMMON THRESHOLD, OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP IT AS IS MISTER HALL? WELL, I THINK 5% IS IS IS TOO LOW FOR FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED AND SHOULD SHOULD STAY, SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME. OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE TWO. I WOULD BE THREE. WELL AGREEMENT ON THAT. TWO I BELIEVE 5% IS TOO LOW AS WELL. OKAY. THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS RIGHT THERE IS THE PART OF. SECTION 6.02 REDUCED THE REQUIRED PETITION THRESHOLD FROM 15% TO 10%. MR. OWEN WAS ALLUDING TO THIS EARLIER. RIGHT. THERE'S SOME PLACES IN THE CURRENT CHARTER WHERE IT'S 15%, SOME PLACES WHERE IT'S TEN. AND SO THERE WAS TWO PARTS TO WHAT THEY SAID BRING THE 15 DOWN TO TEN. AND THEN THERE WERE A COUPLE PLACES WHERE THEY SAID, CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE SAID, BRING THE TEN DOWN TO FIVE. I'M HEARING CONSENSUS TO NOT BRING THE TEN DOWN TO FIVE. I WONDER WHETHER THIS MAYBE MR. OWEN CAN HELP WITH THE DETAILS. THIS.

SECTION 6.02 PETITION THRESHOLD DROPPING FROM 15 TO 10. CAN YOU CAN YOU HELP ME, MR. OWEN, ON SECTION 6.02? WHAT THE SUBJECT IS THAT'S BEING DROPPED FROM 15 TO 10 IN THAT ONE. I CAN PULL UP 6.02 JUST OFF OF MEMORY. WHEN YOU LOOK AT 6.02, THERE IS TALK ABOUT PETITION REFERENCE THRESHOLDS FOR REFERENDUMS, PETITION THRESHOLDS FOR INITIATIVES, PETITION THRESHOLDS FOR RECALL. AND THEN YOU CAN GET INTO THE FINANCING SECTION. THERE'S ONE ON PETITION. SO MY RECOLLECTION IS I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT 6.02 WAS TEN. PETITION. LET ME JUST PULL IT UP. SO YOU. 6.02 OF THE CURRENT CHARTER. I THINK ALL OF OUR REFERENDUMS REQUIRE 15% AND THAT WAS TOO HIGH TO FORCE A REFERENDUM. BROUGHT THAT TO TEN THE PETITION REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDINANCES. LET'S SEE, WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD? OH, NO. ORDINANCES IS ANY 5.5. THERE'S NOT A THRESHOLD MEANING THE INITIATIVES THE FOREST COUNCIL TAKE AN ACTION. THE INITIATIVE THRESHOLD IS. I BELIEVE IT'S ALSO. 15 AND IN REFERENDUMS. AND THE CURRENT CHARTER. YEAH. 14. 15 AND THEN THE BOND PETITIONS AND THE FINANCE SECTION, I BELIEVE WAS ANOTHER. TEN SO THE IDEA WAS YOU HAVE THESE DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS BETWEEN TEN AND WE JUST SAID, LET'S JUST STANDARDIZE ALL THIS AT TEN. SO IT'S SIMPLE EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE INITIATIVE WITHIN FIVE VOTERS COULD DO IT AND THEN PUSH IT FORWARD THAT WAY.

WITH THIS SIMPLIFIED AND SOMEWHAT REDUCED FROM 15 TO 10% ON THE REFERENDUM, ALL OF THOSE WERE WITH THE MIND OF ONE STANDARDIZATION AND TWO, ALLOWING DISCONTENT FROM THE VOTERS TO HAVE A LOWER THRESHOLD TO EXPRESS THAT. SO PLAYING IT BACK THE WAY I'M DOING IT IN MY HEAD HERE IS THERE'S KIND OF TWO MAJOR THINGS. ONE IS THE POWER OF INITIATIVE. THAT IS HOW MANY CITIZENS NEED TO SIGN A PETITION IN ORDER TO PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO INITIATE LEGISLATION. AND THAT IS IN A PROPOSAL FROM THE CRC. THAT

[02:00:04]

I'M SORRY, COUNCIL, I HEARD YOU SPEAKING FOR THE FIRST. AND SO I'M INITIATIVE IS 10% WAS ALREADY 10%. REFERENDUM WAS 15 AND RECOMMENDED. TOPIC RELATED TO CONSISTENT WITH THE MISSION.

I GOTCHA AND I JUST REALIZED I HAD MY MICROPHONE OFF. SO LET ME KIND OF REPLAY THAT SO COUNCILOR VENICE CAN HEAR MAYBE. SO THE POWER OF INITIATIVE TO CREATE SOMETHING NEW HAD BEEN 10%. THEY RECOMMENDED LEAVING IT AT TEN POWER REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL HAS DONE THAT CITIZENS DON'T LIKE REDUCE THAT FROM 15 TO 10. I ACTUALLY THINK THAT MAKES SENSE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE POWER OF INITIATIVE. AND THEN 6.03, AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS DRAFT, IS THE PETITION REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDINANCES. SO IN ORDER TO OH, I'M SORRY. SO THIS IS JUST ABOUT REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE ORDINANCES. ABOUT 6.04 IS COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS. SO THIS IS WHERE IT. YOU CAN'T HAVE A SINGLE CITIZEN HEARING THE PROCESS. IT TAKES AT LEAST FIVE CITIZENS TO START THE PROCESS. AND IS THAT AGAIN MR. OWEN, IS THAT A CHANGE? ANY FIVE REGISTERED VOTERS FROM WHAT IT HAD BEEN. THAT'S OUR CURRENT. SO THAT'S AN UNCHANGED. OKAY. OKAY. SO THEN THE ONE AND ONLY CHANGE THAT I WOULD ASK US TO CONSIDER IS REDUCING THE POWER OF REFERENDUM FROM 15% TO 10% TO MATCH THE POWER OF INITIATIVE, WHICH WAS ALREADY AT 10%. AND I GUESS IS THAT WORTH A BALLOT MEASURE AT THAT? IF IT'S BENEFICIAL, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY REGISTERED VOTERS THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY WE HAVE. I WANT TO SAY IT'S ON THE ORDER OF 8000. SO 10% WOULD BE ABOUT 800 PEOPLE ON TO SIGN IT OFF. YOU KNOW, MY FEELING IS I AGREE THAT THE REFERENDUM SHOULD BE EQUAL TO THE INITIATIVE. HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK A RECALL OF A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SHOULD BE EQUAL TO OR MORE DIFFICULT THAN A REFERENDUM. TO REMOVE SOMEONE FROM OFFICE SHOULD BE A HIGHER THRESHOLD THAN CHANGING AN ORDINANCE. WHICH IS CURRENTLY, IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, CURRENTLY IS 10%. AND WE ALREADY, I THINK, HAD CONSENSUS NOT TO REDUCE THAT TO 5%, WHICH WAS I WOULD SUPPORT GOING EITHER FROM KEEPING ANOTHER 10%. I'M FINE WITH THAT. EVEN HAVING A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT 15% SHOULD BE MORE A REFERENDUM IS 10%. I WOULD THINK TO REMOVE SOMEONE FROM OFFICE SHOULD BE EQUAL TO, BUT MORE THAN LIKELY MORE DIFFICULT JUST BECAUSE THAT'S A MUCH MORE SERIOUS ACTION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? MR. HALL? HOW OFTEN IN THE HISTORY OF OUR OF LAGO VISTA HAS THERE BEEN A A RECALL. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? NO. I WAS GOING TO JUST POINT OUT THAT THE PETITION IS 8.11. AND THE CURRENT CHARTER, WHICH IS FOR BONDS AND THAT SET OF. FIVE. SO WE WERE SAYING BONDS SHOULD GO UP TO TEN YEARS, BUT THEY'RE NOT. IT'S IN 8.968.11. DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS HOW OFTEN HAVE THERE BEEN ANY RECALL INITIATIVES? YOU SAID SPECIFICALLY RECALL INITIATIVES. YES. I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THERE A NEED TO CHANGE IT? HAS THAT BEEN A PROBLEM FROM WHAT IT'S BEEN SET AT BEFORE IN, I DON'T KNOW, MR. OWEN, IF ANYONE ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE LOOKED INTO THAT, WELL, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY PREVIOUS RECALLS, BUT THE THRESHOLD WAS 10% AND THERE WAS A STRONG OPINION OF A COUPLE MEMBERS, NOT NECESSARILY A MAJORITY, THAT A LOWER THRESHOLD MAY HAVE SEEMED ATTAINABLE IN SOME FORM WOULD HAVE BEEN PURSUED WITH A LOWER THRESHOLD. BUT NO, WE DIDN'T NOT AWARE OF IT. THE ONE ALMOST RECALL THAT I'M AWARE OF WAS 1 OR 2 YEARS BEFORE I WAS FIRST ELECTED. THERE WAS ONE MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO WAS VERY UPSET

[02:05:06]

MR. BENNEFIELD, I HAVE A HANDFUL. PAGE 16. SECTION 3.12. VOTING BASICALLY GOES THROUGH WHEN AND HOW SOMEBODY LET ME PULL IT UP HERE, WHEN AND HOW SOMEBODY CAN ABSTAIN FROM A VOTE. AND THE WORDING, THOUGH, SEEMS TO NEED TO BE REWRITTEN. IT SAYS ABSTENTIONS WILL BE TREATED AS A NO VOTE AND RECORDED AS NO BY ABSTENTION. I DON'T THINK IF SOMEBODY ABSTAINS FROM A VOTE FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR FOR SOME JUSTIFIABLE REASON, THEIR VOTE SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY RECORDED AS A NO. I AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT.

MY, MY, IF I UP LEVEL A MINUTE, I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS AROUND THIS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT GETTING INTO HIS LEGAL ADVICE, I THINK THAT THAT WHAT I'VE INTERNALIZED IS IT WOULD BE BEST IF THE CHARTER JUST SAID COUNCIL MEMBERS MUST VOTE, HAVE TO GO ON THE RECORD ON EVERYTHING UNLESS THEY HAVE A VALID REASON FOR ABSTAINING, IN WHICH CASE THAT REASON MUST BE VERBALIZED. AND, YOU KNOW, IF ACCEPTED, THEN THEY DON'T VOTE. AND IT'S IT'S NOT A VOTE. NOW WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS AROUND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN ASK FOR BRAD'S HELP ON. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD SAY.

SO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN NEVER ABSTAIN JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO VOTE. BUT IF THEY HAVE A VALID REASON FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR WHATEVER THE OTHER STATE VALID REASONS ARE, THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN'T, BUT IT SHOULDN'T TURN INTO A NO OR A YES OR MAJORITY. IT SHOULD JUST BE A NON VOTE. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. I AGREE WITH THAT. ALSO. I THINK GET THE LANGUAGE CORRECT IN IT. BUT ABSOLUTELY THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. I AGREE. TIME IS NODDING

[02:10:02]

WHAT THOSE REASONS ARE THAT THAT GETS INTO MORE FRANKLY, I THINK OF A POLITICAL QUESTION THAN A PURE LEGAL QUESTION. AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, CAN CAN YOU REQUIRE IT? I THINK YOU PROBABLY CAN. BUT I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION THAT YOU ARE DETERMINING THAT YOU'RE WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT OUR LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION TO ABSTAIN. AND SOMETIMES ABSTENTIONS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

THERE MAY BE NO. AND THAT'S A PERFECT. YOU KNOW, IN MY VIEW, THAT IS A PERFECTLY VALID AND SOMETIMES NECESSARY REASON TO ABSTAIN ON A ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, RIGHT? BECAUSE WHILE YOU WHILE, WHILE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT OR IT MAY NOT MEET THAT TECHNICAL DOLLAR THRESHOLD, YOU MAY FEEL THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF I'M FRIENDS WITH THIS PERSON OR I, WHATEVER, AND THAT THOSE ISSUES DO RAISE THEMSELVES MORE OFTEN IN SMALL COMMUNITIES, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT IN A DALLAS OR HOUSTON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE IN THIS GIANT METROPLEX, THESE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS AND YOU KNOW, EACH OTHER. AND SO SOMETIMES I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ABSTAIN JUST ON THE BASIS OF APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, I THINK YOU OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS IF YOU'RE GOING TO ITEMIZE THE BASES FOR ABSTENTION. I WOULD SUGGEST INCLUDING APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AS A PERMISSIBLE BASIS TO ALLOW THAT MEMBER TO GO. YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S MORALLY RIGHT FOR ME TO VOTE ON THIS. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU INCLUDE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT THEM. FOLLOW ON QUESTION, MAYOR. SO JUST GOING TO THE OTHER EXTREME, WOULD IT IS THERE ANY LEGAL PROBLEM WITH US SAYING GOING TO THE OTHER EXTREME AND SAYING ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY ABSTAIN FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO TELL US OR THE PUBLIC WHY THEY'RE ABSTAINING? THERE'S NO LEGAL PROBLEM WITH THAT, BECAUSE IF YOU GO THAT FAR IN THAT DIRECTION, YOU COULD YOU COULD GO THAT FAR IN THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE IN FACT, I MEAN, YOU ENJOY LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE, RIGHT? AND THE AND THE INTERNAL THOUGHT PROCESS IS FOR YOUR VOTES, YES OR NO ARE ACTUALLY PRIVILEGED IN THE LEGAL CONTEXT. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T BE CALLED ON TO A STAND AND ORDERED TO TESTIFY. WELL, I VOTED THIS WAY BECAUSE YOU WOULD I WOULD INVOKE LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE ON YOUR BEHALF AND A COURT WOULD UPHOLD THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU CAN YOU FOR CAN YOU AS A BODY DECIDE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE UP THAT LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE? YES, YOU CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THE LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE IS HELD BY THE INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATOR, AND THEY CAN WAIVE IT. SO YOU COULD PASS A POLICY THAT REQUIRES THE WAIVER OF THAT AND SAY, I VOTED THIS WAY BECAUSE

[02:15:03]

[02:20:02]

I'M NOT VOTING RIGHT. AND SO IT AND SO IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF AN ABSTENTION. AND AND IF AND AND THERE COULD BE INSTANCES IN WHICH I THINK MY, I THINK MY, MY TECHNICAL LEGAL CONCERN IS IF I'M ABSTAINING BECAUSE OF, OF IF I'M ABSTAINING BECAUSE OF A FINANCIAL CONFLICT, THEN THAT MEANS I CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE. AND YET IF IT'S BEING COUNTED AS A YES OR NO, IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S BEING COUNTED AS A VOTE, THEN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY PUT THE INDIVIDUAL IN SOME SORT OF JEOPARDY FOR BEING DEEMED TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN IN A VOTE. AND I JUST I THINK THAT'S AN AWKWARD POSITION TO ARGUE. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT IF I HAVE TO GO TO COURT AND DEFEND IT. RIGHT. SO I IT IS AN AWKWARD POSITION TO ARGUE. MR. BENFIELD. I WOULD EVEN ADVOCATE THAT IT EVEN PUTS AN UNDUE PRESSURE ON THE COUNCIL MEMBER TO MAYBE NOT ABSTAIN. IF THEY KNEW THAT THEIR VOTE WAS AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO BE COUNTED AS A NO. YOU KNOW, I WANT THIS TO PASS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ABSTAIN BECAUSE OF THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. BUT I KNOW BY DOING SO, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO BE A NO. IT JUST IT JUST CONVOLUTES. AND I ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME STEPPING UP THREE MINUTES BEFORE A VOTE TO USE THE RESTROOM. I MEAN, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE SEEN THAT HAPPEN WHERE SOMEBODY GOES UP TO USE THE RESTROOM, A VOTE OCCURS, IT GOES SIX ZERO, RIGHT? NOBODY BATTED AN EYE, BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE VOTERS THAT, OH, YOU KNOW, ADAM BENEFIELD WENT TO THE BATHROOM AND HE WAS A NO. YOU KNOW, SO I MUCH LIKE PRINCE, I, I, I ALWAYS WAS, I ALWAYS, I DIDN'T LIKE THE FACT THAT IT SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY A NO, BUT I HAVE DEFINITELY CHANGED MY OPINION THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER SHOULD BE ABLE TO ABSTAIN FOR WHATEVER REASON. AND THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GIVE THAT REASON. AND IF THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, THEN SO BE IT.

CHARLES. BRAD, WOULD IT BE LEGAL OR OR PERMISSIBLE THAT IF A COUNCIL MEMBER ABSTAINS, IT'S JUST THEY ABSTAIN AND THE MAJORITY OR WHATEVER IS JUST BASED OFF OF THOSE WHO VOTE? BASICALLY, THERE'S JUST A NON VOTE. NO IT'S NOT. I MEAN THERE'S THERE PRESENT RIGHT FOR THE QUORUM. SO FROM A SUPERMAJORITY STANDPOINT, IF YOU NEED SIX VOTES IT'S THE SAME. IT'S IT'S IT'S THE SAME THING, RIGHT? THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. YOU DON'T GET TO YOU DON'T YOUR ABSTENTION DOESN'T CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE REQUIRED OF A SUPERMAJORITY. IF IT'S 75% AND THAT EQUALS SIX VOTES, IT'S SIX VOTES. AND IF IT'S FIVE VOTES, YES, ONE VOTE NO AND ONE ABSTENTION. YOU DON'T HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY. SO, OR SIX VOTES? YES. AND ONE ABSTENTION. IT'S THE SAME. YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE SAME THING AS A SIX. YES AND ONE NO. CAN YOU CLARIFY. SO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S ABSTAINING. SO IF THERE'S SEVEN PEOPLE AND YOU NEED SIX TO PASS. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. WOULD THAT MEAN IF I ABSTAINED. ALL SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT. THAT'S. YES. I MEAN, IT'S A SUPER IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MAKEUP. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE THE SUPERMAJORITY MAKEUP, BECAUSE IF YOU'VE GOT A FULL COUNCIL OF SEVEN, THERE'S SEVEN PEOPLE PRESENT. AND SO FOR PURPOSES OF SUPERMAJORITY, THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR THRESHOLD.

BUT HOW DOES THAT CHANGE IF A COUNCIL MEMBER LEAVES THE DAIS? BECAUSE IN THEORY, SOMEONE WHO ABSTAINS, I GUESS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND TECHNICALLY GETS DOWN FROM THE DAIS, UNLESS I MEAN, THAT COULD BE IN YOUR PROCEDURE. SO IN THIS IN THIS SCENARIO WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL GOES AND USES THE BATHROOM, SO THERE'S SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE MEETING AND INDIVIDUAL GOES AND USES THE BATHROOM. RIGHT. AND DURING THAT TIME FRAME, A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OCCURRED EVEN THOUGH THAT INDIVIDUAL DID NOT VOTE BECAUSE THEY WERE IN THE BATHROOM, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SIX VOTES. I, I WOULD SAY THAT THE CHAIR NEEDS TO WAIT FOR THE MEMBER TO RETURN FROM THE BATHROOM. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? I MEAN, I MEAN, HONESTLY, IN THAT LISTEN,

[02:25:02]

AND SO AND SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AGAIN IT, IT THE THE BUT IF BUT LET'S SAY YOU HAVE TO LET'S SAY IT'S A REQUIRED ABSTENTION, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT OUT OF THE, YOU KNOW, I APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IF IT'S A REQUIRED ABSTENTION, BUT YOU'RE STILL PRESENT AND OTHERWISE VOTING IN THE MEETING. I MEAN WE HAVE A FULL COMPLEMENT OF SEVEN THAT THAT WHETHER YOU NEED TO ABSTAIN, WHETHER YOU'RE FINANCIALLY, YOU KNOW, RECUSED UNDER THE LAW, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE YOUR ORDINANCE, WHICH SAYS 75% YOUR, YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE PRESENT AND YOU'RE HERE AND SO THAT YOU JUST DON'T, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T YOU, YOU CANNOT VOTE. YES. BUT TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT 75% OF THE VOTING. IT'S 75% OF THE ATTENDANCE. WELL, I MEAN, YEAH, BUT I MEAN, IF YOU'RE YOU'RE PRESENT, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE PRESENT, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK THE I THINK THE MECHANISM OF PEOPLE KIND OF WANDERING OFF THE DAIS, I'VE SEEN IT. IT HAS HAPPENED. PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO USE THAT TO GAME THE SYSTEM, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. RIGHT. AND SO I'VE SEEN CHAIRS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HOLD UP THIS VOTE UNTIL, YOU KNOW, SO-AND-SO GETS BACK FROM THE BATHROOM AND YOU MAKE THEM SIT DOWN. AND IF THEY'RE NOT BACK IN A WHILE, SOMEBODY GO GET THEM. I'VE SEEN BAILIFF GO GET THEM OUT OF THE BATHROOM AND GET THEM UP HERE ON THE DAIS, MR. PRINCE. SO TO ME, THE THE CORE OF THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH WE NEED CLARITY ON IS WE I'VE SEEN LANGUAGE OF, YOU KNOW, A SIMPLE MAJORITY OR A SUPERMAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING OR OF THOSE VOTING AND PRESENT.

RIGHT. AND SO THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE ANY LOOPHOLE HERE THAT WE NEED TO CLEAN UP VOTING, VOTING AND PRESENT AND DOES ABSTENTION AFFECT THE PRESENT? THE NUMBER OF THOSE LEGISLATORS PRESENT, RIGHT. DOES ABSTENTION AFFECT THE DENOMINATOR OF THAT EQUATION OR NOT? AND DOES WALKING OFF THE DAIS TO GO TO THE BATHROOM AFFECT THE DENOMINATOR? I THINK YOU ANSWERED THAT SECOND ONE. AND SO IF THERE'S ANY PLACE IN OUR IN OUR CHARTER OR OUR ORDINANCES WHERE WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE VOTING AND PRESENT, THEN MAYBE THAT'S PROBLEMATIC.

WE OUGHT TO CLEAN IT UP. AND, AND, AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE CLARIFICATION, IF NOT SOMETHING DOCUMENTED IN THE CHARTER OR ORDINANCE OF WHAT THE MEANING OF PRESENT IS. YEAH.

SO, SO, SO I'M, I'LL GET, I'LL GET THE SPECIFICS OF IT BECAUSE IT DOES GET VERY TECHNICAL AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TO HAVE IN FRONT OF ME EVERY TIME I OPINE ON THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, A TEMPORARY, A TEMPORARY ABSENCE FROM THE DAIS BECAUSE YOU GO TAKE A PHONE CALL OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS. I MEAN, YOUR, YOUR PRESENCE HAS BEEN NOTED. AND SO UNLESS YOU HAVE SAID CHAIR, I'M I'M OFFICIALLY LEAVING THE MEETING. RIGHT. I'M OUT BECAUSE THAT YOU'RE STILL BECAUSE LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SET ASIDE THE SUPERMAJORITY QUESTION. LET'S JUST SAY YOU HAVE A BARE QUORUM, RIGHT? AND SOMEBODY LEAVES THE DAIS TO USE THE RESTROOM. THE MEETING DOESN'T STOP UNDER THOSE BECAUSE THE PERSON IS STILL PRESENT. THEY HAVEN'T INDICATED AN INTENT TO LEAVE THE MEETING AND REDUCE THE NUMBER BELOW A QUORUM. RIGHT.

THAT SO SO UNLESS THEY ANNOUNCE I'M LEAVING THE MEETING, I'M OUT. I'M GONE, YOU KNOW, AND THE SECRETARY NOTES IT AND SO FORTH. THEY'RE PRESENT AS PART OF THE MEETING. AND SO A MERE TEMPORARY. AND THERE ARE CASES ABOUT A MERE TEMPORARY ABSENCE FROM THE DAIS FOR A MOMENT FOR A BATHROOM BREAK, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, DOESN'T REDUCE YOU BELOW A QUORUM. IT IT IT MIGHT BE BEHOOVE THE CHAIR TO HOLD OFF ON MAKING ANY DECISIONS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO, BECAUSE THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK. SO IT'S IN THAT CONTEXT THAT I'VE RESEARCHED IT. IN THOSE CASES, I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. SO WITHIN THIS CONTEXT OF THE SUPERMAJORITY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T THINK A TEMPORARY ABSENCE CHANGES THOSE NUMBERS.

AND WHETHER OR NOT NOW, IF IT'S ONLY SIX PEOPLE ATTEND A MEETING, THEN THAT'S PRESENT AND VOTING. BUT, BUT THERE COULD BE SITUATIONS WHERE A SUPERMAJORITY OF IT, IT JUST DEPENDS ON, ON WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER A SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE. AND I GOT TO LOOK AT THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND IF I MAY, A CORNER CASE, WHICH YOU CAN HELP US WITH IS IF YOU BARELY HAVE QUORUM, RIGHT. THERE'S FOUR MEMBERS IN OUR CASE THAT ARE IN THE MEETING, AND ONE MEMBER ABSTAINS. CAN YOU STILL TAKE ACTION WHEN WHEN THE NUMBER THAT ARE VOTING IS

[02:30:04]

ABSTAIN, WHICH RARELY HAPPENS THERE. BUT THAT'S ONE OPTION PRESENT. NOT VOTING A PNV, THAT MEANS YOU WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF QUORUM. YOU'VE WALKED OFF THE FLOOR. THE VOTE GOES ON REGARDLESS WHETHER YOU'RE THERE OR NOT, BUT YOU'RE STILL PART OF THE QUORUM.

YOU'RE LISTED AS A P, N, V, AND THEN A IS ABSENT, WHICH YOU'RE NOT ALWAYS LISTED IN THE COLUMNS. BUT WHAT THEY DO IS, AND WHAT I WOULD SAY HERE, THE COUNCIL, ALL SEVEN OF US ARE ALWAYS COULD ALWAYS BE LISTED ON THE VOTE. SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT AT THE MEETING IS ABSENT. AND THEN IF YOU WALKED OFF THE DAIS, YOU'RE A PNV, BUT YOU WERE HERE FOR QUORUM, AND QUORUM EXISTED.

SO. SO TO ANSWER MR. PRINCE'S QUESTION, A TYPICAL ATTORNEY ANSWER IT DEPENDS. AND AND AND SO YEAH, IT'S RIGHT. EVERYBODY'S RIGHT. SO, SO. FOR EXAMPLE, AND I'M GOING TO GO DOUBLE CHECK THIS SITE, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS CORRECT. AND IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S AN OLD ALAMO HEIGHTS CITY OF ALAMO HEIGHTS CASE. AND IT WAS A. P AND Z ZONING STATUTE REQUIRING THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF THREE FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS. AND IT WAS MEASURED AGAINST ALL SEATS, EXCLUDING VACANCIES, BUT NOT EXCLUDING THE SEAT OF A MEMBER WHO IS SIMPLY ABSENT. RIGHT. SO IF A SEAT IS VACANT BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT FILLED MEMBER DIED, WHATEVER THAT THAT THAT ONE DIDN'T COUNT. BUT I DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THIS MEETING. YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE STILL BEING COUNTED FOR THE THREE FOURTHS CONSIDERATION. AND SO LEAVING THE DAIS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO USE THE BATHROOM DOESN'T CHANGE THAT THREE FOURTHS ANALYSIS. AND IF EVERYONE'S IF EVERYONE IS PRESENT AND YOU JUST DON'T, YOU HAVE FIVE PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP. WELL, THEN YOU GOT TO HAVE ALL. WELL, WAIT, NO, YOU NEED SIX. RIGHT. SO YOU MAY THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HUMAN BEINGS ON THE DAIS TO ACT, IT DEPENDS ON THE ITEM. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, HISTORICALLY, WE COMMONLY HAD THAT PROBLEM WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IF WE HAD, WE REQUIRED SUPERMAJORITY AND ONE ONE PERSON WAS ABSENT. THEN VOTES HAD TO BE UNANIMOUS. IF TWO PEOPLE WERE ABSENT, WE COULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER IT. IS IT SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS IN THE CHARTER OR SOMETHING THAT'S BETTER IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE? I THINK THAT'S RULE. I MEAN, I THINK I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY RULES OF PROCEDURE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S DETERMINED BY CASE LAW. YOUR CHARTER, YOUR CHARTER CAN'T CHANGE OVERRIDE STATE LAW, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS. MANY OF THESE ARE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS. AND ANYWAY, I MEAN, WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR CHARTER, I THINK, DON'T YOU? I MEAN, YOU HAVE SECTIONS IN THERE THAT SAY SUPERMAJORITY, BUT THE CALCULATION OF THAT IS GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. SO I WOULD NOT GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THAT, CHARLES, WOULD WOULD IT BE PRUDENT TO HAVE A RULE IN PLACE TO WHERE. BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S HEAVILY DISCUSSED AND EVERYTHING THAT SUPERMAJORITY VOTES TO ABSTAIN ON A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REASON. IT NEEDS TO BE A VALID REASON, SUCH AS THE WHATEVER IS LAID OUT THERE ON THE STATE DEALS LIKE MONETARY, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'RE REALLY IN THERE ON WHAT LAW, WHERE YOU'RE REQUIRED TO ABSTAIN BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, IF YOU ABSTAIN JUST BECAUSE IT TAKES A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE, YOU DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON THAT ITEM. I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE TO GIVE A REASON, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT REASON ON A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. THERE SHOULD BE A VALID REASON FOR YOU NOT TO VOTE ON AN ITEM THAT IS OF IMPORTANCE, BECAUSE ALL OF Y'ALL WERE ELECTED TO MAKE A DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS. THAT'S JUST MY $0.02. I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THAT. I THINK WE'RE SAYING YOU HAVE LEGISLATE. YOU HAVE YOUR OWN LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE TO SAY THAT OR NOT.

AND IF YOU CHOSE NOT TO, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL ANSWER TO THE CITIZENS. AND AND I MEAN, THAT'S A YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. AND I UNDERSTAND, CHARLES. I MEAN, I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, YOU GO WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT TO GO ON THAT YOU REALLY I MEAN, YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION ON THAT, YOU KNOW, ABSTENTIONS AND WHY AND WHETHER YOU HAVE SOME FAIR AMOUNT OF. BUT ULTIMATELY, IT'S A POLITICAL PROBLEM. IF SOMEONE IS ABSTAINING TOO MUCH, WELL, THEN THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO NOTICE IT. RIGHT. SO BUT BUT THAT GETS SOLVED POLITICALLY. YEAH. AND I THINK THE ABSTENTION IS EFFECTIVE. LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY. IT IS NOT VOTING YES. RIGHT. WHETHER IT'S

[02:35:03]

AND IAI JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S LEGALLY ACCURATE. AND B, NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE THE SITUATION TODAY WITH OUR CURRENT MAKEUP, BUT WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS A MAYOR AND A MAYOR PRO TEM THAT COULD NOT SAYING THEY WOULD COULD HIJACK AN AGENDA BY SIMPLY NOT SHOWING UP AND NOT ALLOWING A QUORUM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SO THAT NO VOTE COULD OCCUR. EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY HAVE FIVE OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO PASS SOMETHING. SO I, I THINK A QUORUM SHOULD SIMPLY BE FOUR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, REGARDLESS OF WHO THAT FOUR PEOPLE MAKE UP ARE. AND YOU MIGHT NEED A PRESIDING OFFICER IN THE EVENT THAT A MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM DON'T ATTEND. YOU KNOW, LIKE THE MOST SENIOR INDIVIDUAL BASICALLY MAKES UP THAT INDIVIDUAL. BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK YOU SAY ONLY THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM CAN HOST A MEETING. AND I THINK THAT BRAD HIGHLIGHTED THAT IN HIS LEGAL NOTES. YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOUR NO, NO, NO, NO, PLEASE DON'T APOLOGIZE. YOU AGREE WITH ME. SO I THINK WE'RE ON. NO, BUT I, I AGREE. I MEAN, I THINK I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

I THINK STATE LAW, IF FOUR OF YOU TOGETHER, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH FOUR AND YOU'RE TALKING CITY BUSINESS AND IT'S NOT A POSTED MEETING. I THINK STATE LAW WOULD SAY THAT'S A QUORUM AND YOU GUYS ARE BETTER HAVE POSTED IT PROPERLY. SO I, I THINK THAT YOUR CHARTER, I THINK YOUR CHARTER AS IS RIGHT NOW AS I READ IT, WHICH REQUIRES A MAYOR PLUS THREE OR MAYOR PRO TEM PLUS THREE, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW ANYWAY, BUT THERE'S NO. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIX IT, LET'S FIX IT. AND I DO THINK THAT ANY, ANY FOUR OF YOU CONSTITUTES A QUORUM AND CAN CONDUCT BUSINESS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE FOUR, WHOEVER YOU KNOW, YOU NOMINATE A CHAIR FOR THAT MEETING. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S A COMMON THING. BUT BUT YES, I, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LIMIT IT THAT WAY. AND, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU, IF YOU IF THAT LANGUAGE STAYED IN YOUR CHARTER AND YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS IT, AND YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE FOUR REGULAR COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO COME TO A MEETING, THEN YOU HAVE YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR INHERENT CONFLICT THERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE A MAYOR OR A PRO TEM SAYING, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, WE WEREN'T THERE. AND THE CHARTER SAYS THIS, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COURT DETERMINE, WAS THE ACTION LAWFUL? IT JUST, YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO AVOID THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONFLICT AND MISCHIEF. SO I THINK FIXING THAT IS IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. MY QUESTION FOR YOU WAS THERE'S A SIMPLE FIX. WE JUST NOT HAVE A QUORUM SECTION BECAUSE STATE LAW ALREADY DECIDES WHAT A QUORUM IS. OR DO WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING SIMPLE? AS FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS? I THINK IT I THINK IT BEHOOVES YOU TO HAVE THAT IN YOUR CHARTER. OKAY. JUST BECAUSE THAT'S A COMMON CHARTER PROVISION, IT'S SO COMMON. THAT WOULD BE NOTABLE TO NOT HAVE IT, BUT BUT I BUT I THINK IT'S A SIMPLE FIX. THAT'S WHAT I PROPOSE FOR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS. AND IF WE WANTED TO SPELL OUT THE CHAIN OF WHO LEADS THE MEETING, WE COULD.

BUT I THINK, AGAIN, I THINK THAT GETS HANDLED INTERNALLY. I THINK THAT THAT'S THE. I DON'T THINK THAT PART NEEDS TO BE IN YOUR CHARTER. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I HAD ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, MR. PRINCE. YEAH, THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. SO SO RIGHT NOW, THIS LANGUAGE IN HERE SAYS THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND THE MAYOR'S ABSENCE SHALL RUN THE MEETING. AND AND WE DON'T NEED TO DEFINE IN THE CHARTER IF BOTH OF THEM ARE ABSENT, HOW WE

[02:40:01]

I LEAN TOWARDS THE LATTER OF THOSE THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO A SPECIAL MEETING. THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO A SPECIAL MEETING OR TWO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M EVEN OKAY IF IT'S THE CITY MANAGER AND ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. I'M OKAY WITH ANY VARIATION OF THAT. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT SOMETHING GETS ON THE AGENDA, OR THE ONLY WAY A SPECIAL MEETING GETS CALLED IS BY OR THROUGH THE MAYOR. MR. PRINCE, I'M CLOSE NOW, SO WE ALREADY HAVE THE THE PROVISION IN THE CHARTER OF ANY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT JUST FOR THE REASON OF OF. OF MAYBE NOT GOING TOO FAR. AND YOU KNOW, THAT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN GO CRAZY, RIGHT? THAT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD PUT ON THE AGENDA. WE WANT TO DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON THIS TOPIC. THE WHOLE COUNCIL HAS TO VOTE ON IT AND APPROVE IT IN ORDER TO DO IT. SO I WOULD I WOULD PREFER IT TO TO BE. AND I DON'T THINK THIS REQUIRES ANY CHANGE TO THE CHARTER, TO BE HONEST. SO THE MAYOR CAN CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. AND I'M I'M CURRENTLY ON THE FENCE AS TO WHETHER THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, OR SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST A COUNCIL MEMBER SPONSORING THAT. I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON THAT.

BUT THEN I DON'T THINK I. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN CALL SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS BECAUSE IT'S JUST. THAT'S A LOT, RIGHT? A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING IS A IS A BIGGER DEAL. I THINK IT CAN BE ENACTED WITH WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, YOU AND I COULD SAY, HEY, WE WANT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON, ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. AND, AND SO THEN THE, THE, THE PROCEDURE WOULD BE, I SUPPOSE WE COULD GO TO THE MAYOR AND SAY, HEY, DO YOU WANT TO CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING? THE MAYOR SAYS, NO. THEN WE'LL SAY, WELL, THEN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND WE'LL GET THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON IT IN THE NEXT, NEXT SESSION. SO I THINK WITH OUR EXISTING PROCESSES, WE CAN DEAL IT. IT JUST IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REGULAR COUNCIL SESSION AND BE THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL RATHER THAN JUST THE TWO. AND MY REASON FOR SAYING THAT IS WHEN I LOOK BACK ON, THERE WAS A CASE WHERE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WANTED TO DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. AND.

AND I THINK THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA. AND IF THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT WAS IT FELT FELT PROBLEMATIC TO ME. DO YOU MIND IF I INTERACT THERE? PLEASE DO. SURE. ON THAT EXAMPLE THAT YOU PROPOSED OF THOSE TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I ACTUALLY AGREED WITH THOSE TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND I STILL DO TO THIS DAY. AND I AGREE THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT SUPPORT THOSE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THAT TIME TO HOST WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE AN IMPORTANT INFRASTRUCTURE CONVERSATION REGARDING OUR WATER. AND I THINK THE ONLY REASON THAT SPECIAL MEETING AT ALL GOT KIND OF DERAILED AFTER THE CITY ATTORNEY AGREED THAT THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CALL THAT SPECIAL MEETING WAS BECAUSE WE HAD A HUGE RAINSTORM, AND IT MADE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE LAKE AND THE NEED FOR THAT SPECIAL MEETING KIND OF DISSIPATED, IF YOU WILL. BUT I THINK THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC SUPPORT. I THINK THEY HAD THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVOCATING ON THEIR BEHALF, SAYING THEY HAD THAT AUTHORITY TO DO IT. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE IF IT HAD REQUIRED TO GO TO VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THOSE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO HOLD THAT SPECIAL MEETING. YEAH, ONE MORE THING. SO MY MEMORY OF IT,

[02:45:03]

RIGHT NOW THE, THE CURRENT CHARTER ONLY EXPLICITLY ALLOWS THE MAYOR TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING. I MEAN, THAT LANGUAGE IS CLEAR. IT'S IN THERE AND IT SAYS THE MAYOR. WHAT IT ALSO SAYS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY MANAGER SHALL WORK WITH THE MAYOR ON A ON A, ON A AGENDAS. BUT IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT CALLING SPECIAL MEETINGS. THE OTHER SECTION IN YOUR CHARTER CURRENTLY THAT TALKS ABOUT SPECIAL MEETINGS IS THAT IT SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY AND I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LANGUAGE UP IN FRONT OF ME, BUT BUT BUT MAY ESTABLISH RULES TO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS IS THE GIST OF WHAT IT SAYS. WELL, MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT IS THAT KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, MR. PRINCE, IS IN ORDER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT BUT IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE MAYOR TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING, THE CITY COUNCIL COULD PASS AN ORDINANCE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER. YOU COULD PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THIS INDIVIDUAL, THE MAYOR, MAY. IT'S IN THE CHARTER MAY OR MAY COUNCIL CALL A SPECIAL MEETING.

THE CITY MANAGER AND A COUNCIL MEMBER OR TWO COUNT. YOU COULD ASSIGN THAT AUTHORITY TO ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU WANTED TO DO BY ORDINANCE. YOUR CHARTER CONTEMPLATES THAT. SO FAR AS I KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW ESTABLISHING THAT. SO I THINK THE, THE, THE, THE, THE BETTER APPROACH IS SO AS NOT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS IS TO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE AS IS IS PROBABLY SUFFICIENT. YOU AS A BODY COULD PASS AN ORDINANCE AT THE NEXT MEETING ESTABLISHING. THIS IS WHO CAN CALL A CITY A SPECIAL MEETING. AND THESE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT CAN BE CALLED. YOU DON'T NEED TO CHANGE YOUR CHARTER FOR THAT.

YOU'VE GOT THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT BY ORDINANCE. RIGHT NOW, THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT. NO MATTER REMEMBER, NO MATTER WHO YOU GIVE THE AUTHORITY TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, YES, THERE'S STAFF TIME AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF ASSOCIATED WITH IT, BUT THAT DOESN'T GO FORWARD UNLESS A QUORUM OF YOU DECIDE TO SHOW UP AND MAKE IT A MEETING SO YOU CAN CALL ALL THE SPECIAL MEETINGS YOU WANT. AND YOU AS A, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALLY, YOU GO. I'M NOT GOING TO THIS THING. I, I WASN'T CONSULTED, I CAN'T, I'M NOT AVAILABLE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT TOPIC FOR A SPECIAL MEETING AND A QUORUM OF YOU DON'T SHOW UP. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO JUST, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT IS THE YOU STILL THE BODY STILL HAS THE POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT SPECIAL MEETING DOESN'T GO FORWARD. IF YOU INDIVIDUALLY DECIDE NOT TO SHOW UP. I BRAD, CAN I ASK THOUGH? YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE TRUE, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANT OUR CITY COUNCIL TO BECOME A CLOWN SHOW, WHICH I KNOW HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER CITIES WHERE TWO PEOPLE ARE COLLUDING TO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS AND THEN PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP. I MEAN, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME SOME RIGOR AND GUARDRAILS AROUND WHETHER WE'RE CALLING MEETINGS. IT IS A BIG DEAL, AND IT IS AN IMPOSITION ON STAFF IN MANY CASES. SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST PUTTING THAT COMMENT OUT THERE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THAT'S A GOOD PRACTICE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE PRACTICALITY OF IT IS THE MEETING DOESN'T GO FORWARD WITHOUT A QUORUM. BUT BUT I, I DO THINK AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE GUIDELINES, I DO THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT. AND YOU DON'T. MR. PRINCE, I'M I, I WOULD AGREE, BRAD. IT'S I MEAN, IT'S OBVIOUS. AND SO A MEETING WHERE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE CAN'T GO FORWARD WITHOUT A QUORUM. BUT IF, YOU KNOW, TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON WHATEVER THEIR FAVORITE TOPIC, AND THEY'RE THE ONLY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SHOW UP TO IT, THAT MEETING PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SHOW UP.

THOSE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL BE THERE, STAFF MEMBERS WILL BE THERE WHO HAVE SPENT TIME PREPARING FOR THE MEETING. STILL HAPPENS NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF, LEGALLY, THAT THAT MEETING HAS TO TERMINATE AND CAN HAVE CONVERSATIONS. AND I'LL USE THE EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, THERE

[02:50:05]

BUT YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE THE LEAP, BECAUSE YOUR CHARTER DOES NOT SAY SPECIAL MEETING. IT JUST SAYS AGENDA. AND SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE AN EXTRA STEP. AND SO I TEND TO TAKE A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH. I, I'M A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU KNOW, INTERPRETATION. AND SO, SO I DON'T TAKE THAT EXTRA STEP BECAUSE I DON'T THINK, I MEAN, YOU CAN, BUT I DON'T. AND SO THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL ADD, I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT ATTORNEYS DISAGREE ON, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE DO. AND SO THAT'S, THAT JUST HAPPENS. BUT I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT BUT AGAIN, YOUR WHAT YOUR CHARTER DOES HAVE, I'LL REITERATE YOUR CHARTER DOES HAVE A MECHANISM FOR YOU TO PASS AN ORDINANCE SAYING, THIS IS WHO CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING. THAT'S THE WAY I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT.

CAN I JUST ONE LAST QUESTION SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY GO THE OTHER DIRECTION. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS PROBLEMATIC. WE COULD SAY SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS MAY BE CALLED SPECIAL MEETINGS MAY BE CALLED BY THE COUNCIL. AND RATHER THAN SAYING THE MAYOR GETS TO DO IT, BUT NOBODY ELSE HAS TO DO IT, MAYBE WE JUST SAY THE COUNCIL DECIDES, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING? AND THEN IT ALL RUNS THROUGH A COUNCIL DISCUSSION. THE MAYOR COULD PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO DECIDE, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RULES AROUND E-BIKES OR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT SAME THING OR THE CITY MANAGER. YEAH. SO I MEAN, THAT MAY BE ANOTHER WAY.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE MAYOR IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DO IT, BUT ANY, ANY MAYOR OR ANY COUNCIL MEMBER CAN DO IT THROUGH THE STANDARD VOTE BASED PROCESS. AND THEN TO YOUR TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, IF WE LEAVE IT REALLY SIMPLIFIED IN THE CHARTER, THEN THEN WE AS A COUNCIL COULD MAKE THE DECISION TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW WE DO IT. I THINK THAT THAT YOU IT'S IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE TO WANT TO HAVE CLARITY BECAUSE WHAT IF WHAT IF YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF YOUR CHARTER, SAYS THE MAYOR. YEAH. THE IMPLICATION WOULD BE, WELL, IF THE MAYOR, THE OFFICE IS VACANT OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, YOU DISAPPEAR, SOMETHING HAPPENS. RIGHT? PRESUMABLY YOU COULD INTERPRET THE CHARTER AND SAY, WELL, THAT THAT DUTY WOULD THEN FALL TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IT'S NOT THERE EXPLICITLY, BUT YOU COULD IMPLY THAT. BUT WHAT IF THAT OFFICE IS ALSO VACANT? YEAH. RIGHT. WELL, JUST SOMETHING HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAPPEN AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN EITHER OF THOSE OFFICES, AND THEN NOBODY CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING EXCEPT THE COUNCIL COULD COULD PASS AN ORDINANCE OR DO IT AT A AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AND SO FORTH. YOU CAN DO THAT. SO THERE'S THAT MECHANISM IS THERE.

AND YOU YOU CAN EITHER DO IT ON AN AD HOC BASIS WHERE YOU SAY, WE'RE PUTTING THIS ON THE AGENDA AND WE'RE GOING TO THINK ABOUT A SPECIAL MEETING, OR YOU ESTABLISH A POLICY BY ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, THIS IS WHO CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION RIGHT NOW. AND SO I THINK IT CAN BE THAT PROBLEM CAN BE SOLVED WITH, YOU DON'T NEED A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO FIX THAT. MR. HALL, JUST A QUESTION. AND THIS WOULD BE PROBABLY A VERY REMOTE HAPPENSTANCE. BUT IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF URGENT NEED FOR A MEETING, AN EMERGENCY OF SOME SORT, OUR WATER SYSTEM BREAKS DOWN AND REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ACTION, AND THE MAYOR IS NOT AVAILABLE.

THEN. THEN WHAT HAPPENS? SO UNDER TOMA, YOU CAN, IN THE EVENT OF A TRUE EMERGENCY, YOU CAN HAVE AN EMERGENCY MEETING, RIGHT. AND THE PROCESS FOR CALLING THAT IS LAID OUT AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, A MATTER OF HOURS, YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT BUT IT HAS TO BE A TRUE EMERGENCY.

[02:55:04]

THEN WHAT IS THAT RELATIONSHIP? I AGREE WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID, SO FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE ON THIS. IN OUR CHARTER RIGHT NOW. CAN THE CITY MANAGER PUT ITEMS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, OR IS IT ONLY MAYOR AND TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO CAN PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A MAYOR AND TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO THEN SO THEN THE PROPOSAL THAT I SUGGEST IS THOSE WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT THINGS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, WHICH WOULD BE MAYOR OR ANY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN PUT ON THE AGENDA TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. AND THE CITY MANAGER THINKS A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING IS WARRANTED, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO GET THE BUY IN FROM THE MAYOR OR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ORDER TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA. I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE APPROACH JUST OUT HERE. MR. BENNEFIELD. IF THAT'S TRUE, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE CITY MANAGER HAD THE ABILITY TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA, BUT IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN I 100% SUPPORT THE FACT OF THE MAYOR AND TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. I JUST WAS I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE CITY MANAGER HAD THE ABILITY TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA AT THEIR FREE WILL.

BUT IF THAT'S NOT IF THAT'S NOT TRUE, THEN I, I STAND BESIDE YOU. I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION I ASKED BRAD. I DON'T KNOW THAT I GOT A DEFINITIVE ANSWER. SO UNDER UNDER YOUR SECTION, CURRENT SECTION 401, WHICH IS CITY MANAGER. OR AS I READ IT, PUT IT ON THERE, BUT THE MAYOR COULD PULL IT OFF. YEAH. I MEAN, WELL, IT'S I MEAN, IT SAYS JUST PREPARE ALL AGENDAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MAYOR AND ATTEND ALL MEETINGS EXCEPT WHEN EXCUSED AND HAS THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS. BUT, YOU KNOW, SHALL NOT VOTE, OBVIOUSLY. SO, I MEAN, WHAT, YOU KNOW, PREPARE ALL AGENDAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MAYOR IS KIND OF SQUISHY, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT DOES, BUT IT DOES NOT IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY GIVE THE CITY MANAGER TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT SOMETHING ON AN AGENDA. I'VE SEEN I'VE SEEN CHARTERS THAT THAT DO EXPLICITLY ALLOW THAT. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON BECAUSE THIS IS THE PERSON WHO'S IN OPERATING DAY TO DAY STUFF AND THEY, YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS IS SOMETHING YOU GUYS NEED TO CONSIDER. I'M HERE EVERY DAY. YOU DON'T KNOW THIS. I DO, YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS THING. SO, I MEAN, THERE'S,

[03:00:02]

RIGHT. AND THAT'S THE. AND SO, I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S THE OTHER PRACTICAL ISSUE IS IF THE CITY MANAGER HAS NO, NO ABILITY TO SAY, THIS HAS TO BE ON AN AGENDA ITEM, YOU GUYS HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS. WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO. WELL, TOO BAD. YOU KNOW, I RIGHT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IN AS MISTER PRINCE POINTED OUT, I MEAN, YOU'RE THEN FORCING YOUR CITY MANAGER TO, YOU KNOW, START GOING DOWN THE LIST OF CALLING PEOPLE. CAN I GET TWO PEOPLE? AND BY THAT, BY THE TIME HE GETS TO NUMBER TWO, HE MIGHT HAVE ALREADY HIT A QUORUM. YEAH. SO I MEAN, IT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A POSITION YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR CITY MANAGER IN. SO I AGAIN, IT, YOU KNOW, GIVE THEM THE GIVE THEM THE ABILITY, DON'T GIVE THEM THE ABILITY. THAT'S YOUR CALL. BUT JUST UNDERSTAND IT COULD HAVE IMPLICATIONS. COULD HE NOT GO ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND SAY, I WANT TO CALL SPECIAL CALL MEETING. I'M NOT ABLE TO GET ONE. REACH OUT TO ME IF YOU'RE AMENABLE TO HELPING ME GET A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, YOU CAN YOU CAN DO THAT. I MEAN, YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT, BUT BUT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU GET YOU GET THAT FOURTH EMAIL, I'LL DO IT, YOU KNOW, HEY, STOP, STOP, STOP. YOU KNOW, I IT JUST AGAIN, IT GETS IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT CAN GO SIDEWAYS. I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY'S POINTS. NOBODY'S MAKING BAD POINTS. BUT I JUST THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT IS ONE OF THE PERHAPS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF NOT GIVING A CITY MANAGER ANY ABILITY TO PUT SOMETHING ON, YOU KNOW, ON THEIR OWN. YOU KNOW, YOU DO IMPLICATE SOME, SOME POTENTIAL TUMOR ISSUES. WHAT'S THEIR ABILITY OF CALLING AN EMERGENCY MEETING UNDER AN EMERGENCY? LET ME PULL UP. TOMA. I AM I DON'T REMEMBER. I'VE GOT TO PULL UP. I THINK IT TAKES THE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO CALL THAT EMERGENCY. IT DOES. AND YOU GOT TO NOTIFY THE NEWSPAPER AND EVERYTHING. I'VE GOT TO GO READ IT, MAYOR. IT'S NOT A YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC PROCESS THAT'S LAID OUT IN TOMA. IT'S NOT THE CITY MANAGER CAN CAN DO THAT. IT IS THE THE BODY. IF THAT IS THE CASE. AGAIN, THAT'S PRETTY TELLING TO ME OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDS THAT THE CITY MANAGER, YOU'RE JUST NOT A PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS LIKE YOU ARE A STAFF.

YOU ARE THE HEAD OF THE STAFF, THE YOU TAKE THE ORDERS FROM COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL IS ULTIMATELY YOUR BOSS TO GIVE ANY OF THAT AUTHORITY AWAY TO THE CITY MANAGER. JUST IS JUST NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DESIGNED. I DON'T THINK I CAN'T I CAN'T CONSIDER A SCENARIO WHERE IT'S TRULY NEEDED. WE MEET EVERY TWO WEEKS AND THEY CAN TALK IN STAFF LIAISON REPORTS. THEY CAN WORK WITH THE MAYOR. JUST MY THOUGHTS ON IT, MR. PRINCE. YEAH, YEAH. WELL, YOUR STAFF, YOUR STAFF, STAFF REPORTS IS A REALLY GOOD POINT. RIGHT? SO IF, IF, IF, IF A THE CITY MANAGER SAYS, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUBJECT X AND, AND CAN'T GET IT ON THE AGENDA AS A STANDALONE ITEM DURING STAFF REPORTS, THEY CAN SAY, I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED A DEEPER DISCUSSION. ARE YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS INTERESTED IN GETTING IT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME? YOU KNOW, GIVE YOUR GIVE YOUR MAYOR THE THOUGHT. SO THAT IS THAT IS AN OUT TO WORK THROUGH IT. YOU CAN IT'S JUST A LIMITED DISCUSSION. YEAH. YEAH EXACTLY. BUT THAT'S A WAY TO GET IT ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA, IF YOU WILL. IT'S JUST YEAH, JUST, JUST AND THAT HAPPENS SORT OF ANALOGOUS TO USING THE DISCUSSION BOARD, IF YOU WILL.

CHARLES, I'LL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT. WE DID MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT ONE ITEM BE ADDED TO THE AGENDAS. IT'S THE VERY LAST ITEM IS REQUEST FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS OR STAFF FOR ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. SO BECAUSE I'M GONNA TELL YOU UP FRONT, I HAVE NO DESIRE TO BE PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PART OF THIS. I DID THAT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, SEVERAL YEARS AGO. NO DESIRE TO DO IT AGAIN. BUT BUT THAT SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT PROBLEM. YEAH, YEAH. SO WHEN I WAS FIRST ON COUNCIL, THAT WAS THE LAST AGENDA ITEM ON EVERY SINGLE AGENDA. AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD SAY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUBJECT X AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY. AND THEY WOULD START GOING INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT SUBJECT X. AND THE CITY

[03:05:03]

SO LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEXT ONE. WELL THANK YOU AND YEAH, HOPEFULLY WE'LL CONTINUE SOME OF THIS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. WELL THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND, EVERYONE. YOU TOO. ALL RIGHT TOM. SO PART OF WHERE I WENT ON THIS DISCUSSION WAS JUST IN TERMS OF NOT NECESSARILY COUNCIL, BUT THE COMMISSION STAFF DOES BRING FORWARD BASICALLY BUSINESS THAT NEEDS TO BE ATTENDED TO. RIGHT. PLANNING AND ZONING, ETC. THEY BRING ITEMS THAT GO ON THAT AGENDA. IN THIS CASE, THE ONE THAT I CAN THINK OF IS GRANTS.

WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION COMING UP. AND SO ON. THE GRANT CONVERSATION. SO THIS IS KIND OF A MAYBE AN WE'RE JUST GETTING INTO THIS AND THE GRANT CONVERSATION. YOU HAVE DEADLINES AND TIMELINES, AND MANY TIMES THEY SHOW UP AND POTENTIALLY BY THE TIME YOU GO THROUGH ASSESSING IT IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY SHOT AT IT. I'M TRYING TO THINK IF IT WOULD STILL BE FEASIBLE TO MAKE SURE THE MAYOR WAS LOOPED IN. SO I'M KIND OF JUST TALKING ABOUT ARE THERE CASE BIT CASES OF WHERE THE CITY NEEDS THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION ON A BUSINESS ITEM THAT. THE CITY MANAGER MAY NEED TO BRING FORWARD ONTO THE AGENDA? THAT'S THAT WAS AS I'M TALKING THINGS THROUGH AND TALKING ABOUT IT OUT LOUD, POTENTIALLY. NO, I GUESS HE COULD RUN THE ITEM BY THE MAYOR AND STILL GET IT ON THERE. ALL RIGHT. SO I'VE KIND OF TALKED MYSELF IN A CIRCLE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO DO THAT. THE OTHER WAS, I KNOW THE C OR C DID CONTEMPLATE SOME READING HERE. THE THE COMPILED DOCUMENT WHERE IT HAS BRAD'S COMMENTS AND THE CRC RESPONSE. I'VE NOTICED IN HERE IT HAD THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS CALLING A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. AND SO THERE WAS SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THAT DISCUSSION. AND THERE WAS A REASON FOR. THREE BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE FOUR, THEN FOUR PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT IT TO CALL, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, BUT POTENTIALLY A REASON WHY, IF IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE THREE. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF Y'ALL MAY WANT TO HEAR ANY OF THAT. MY $0.02, MR. OWEN. THAT'S EXACTLY IT. SITUATION THAT COUNCILMAN WAS SPEAKING TO EARLIER INFORMED OUR RECOMMENDATION, QUITE FRANKLY, IN TERMS OF HAVING TWO COUNCILORS WANTING A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, ATTEMPTING TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AND STYMIED BY THE MAYOR. SO CRC LOOKED INTO THAT AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? COUNCILORS SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO FORCE A SPECIAL MEETING, ONLY THE WISHES OF THE MAYOR. BUT TWO IS NOT ENOUGH. IT SHOULD BE. THREE SO CLEARLY IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH IF YOU HAVE. THREE TO GO AHEAD AND ALLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO FORCE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. THAT'S WHY WE SAID THE SPECIAL THREE, OUR FALLBACK POSITION COUNCIL, PRINCE SAID, IF YOU'VE ONLY GOT TWO, PUT IT ON A REGULAR AGENDA AND THEN HAVE COUNCIL ACT ON IT. SO THAT'S WHY WE LEFT THAT IN PLACE. THE OTHER TWO, THE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE ON THE G AND H THAT WE ADDED IS THE THE

[03:10:02]

AND THEN WE'RE ACTUALLY COME TO FRUITION. SO THOSE ARE I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED. AND THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT CHARTER. AND THEN JUST PROVIDE THE CONTEXT OF WHY WE SAID THREE PULLING BACK ON. DO WE DO IT AS AN ORDINANCE OR ON THE PREVIOUS ISSUE WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT RULES OF PROCEDURE? I WAS JUST SAYING IN GENERAL, NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO THIS TOPIC. OUR APPROACH WAS TO KEEP THE CHARTER SIMPLE, FLEXIBLE AND OPEN. THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE FELT NEEDED TO BE PUT IN UNDER WHAT CAME TO BE KNOWN AS THE DOUGLAS PRINCIPLE, AND THAT BASICALLY SAYS WHAT THE COUNCIL GIVETH, THE COUNCIL CAN TAKE IT AWAY. AND SO A LOT OF THE FLEXIBILITY WE WERE TRYING TO PUT IN THE CHARTER, SO IT COULD BE DONE BY ORDER, IT COULD BE DONE BY RULE OF PROCEDURE. BUT THINGS LIKE THIS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE VERY IMPORTANT, THAT WE DIDN'T WANT THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THE ABILITY AT SOME POINT DOWN THE LINE, TO TAKE THAT AWAY. WE WENT AHEAD AND FELT LIKE IT SHOULD BE CODIFIED IN THE TRUCK. THE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING WAS ONE OF THOSE TIMES. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. DID THAT JAR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THERE? ARE YOU ALL STILL SETTLED WITH ARE STILL FEELING LIKE JUST GOING AHEAD AND LEAVING IT AS THE MAYOR SHALL CALL SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS AND HAVING AN ORDINANCE THAT DRAFTS OUT ANY OTHER DETAIL. WHERE WHERE I THOUGHT, AT LEAST I KNOW MR. BENEFIELD AGREED WITH ME AND WHAT I, WHERE I THINK I WAS AND AM IS LET'S JUST USE REGULAR MEETINGS AND THE REGULAR PROCEDURES AROUND MEETINGS AND SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS WOULD COME OUT OF AN AGENDA ITEM OF A REGULAR, REGULAR MEETING. OKAY. I, I'M INCLINED TO STAY WITH THAT. THE ONE LITTLE TWEAK THAT I'M STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH ON MY MIND IS, IS AS DO WE, DO WE NEED ANY SPECIAL CALL OUT ON THE ON THE CITY MANAGER. AND ONE THAT BRAD SAID IN PASSING IS, YOU KNOW, HE SAID YOU COULD DO THIS OR YOU COULD DO THAT. ONE OF THE YOU COULD DO WAS CITY MANAGER. AND A SPONSORING COUNCIL MEMBER CAN PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA. AND I COULD SEE THAT MAKING SENSE, BUT I'M NOT.

THAT'S NOT A HILL TO DIE ON FOR ME. NO, I, I LOVE THE REASONING ON THE CRC WITH THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. I DO TRY TO PERSONALLY IN MY LIFE AVOID LIKE LITTLE EXCEPTIONS TO THESE RULES. SO I LIKE KIND OF STANDARDIZATION, STANDARDIZATION OF FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVING A SPECIAL CALL MEETING SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE. TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TO APPROVE IT. I LIKE THAT STANDARDIZATION. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO CONTEMPLATE A SCENARIO WHEN THE CITY MANAGER WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. I GUESS I WOULD DEFAULT TO BRAD'S OPINION. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE CITY MANAGER IT BEING EASY FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA WITH SUPPORT OF COUNCIL, WHETHER THAT'S 1 OR 2. IT'S NOT A HILL ALL DAY ON EITHER, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME LATITUDE ON BEING ABLE TO GET STUFF ON THERE. THEY HAVE THEY HAVE A PULSE OF THE CITY ALMOST BETTER THAN ANYBODY. AND.

I. WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN IN OTHER PLACES? I JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T LIKE USING THESE AS EXAMPLES, BUT THEY'RE KIND OF WHAT STAND OUT IN MY MEMORY. AND I WAS INVOLVED IN, IN LITIGATION FOR A CLIENT, WHICH WAS EXTREMELY CONTENTIOUS. YOU HAD A, YOU HAD A COUNCIL THAT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, SUING EACH OTHER, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT WAS IT WAS THAT LEVEL OF CONTENTIOUSNESS AND EXCUSE ME. A CITY MANAGER WHO. BECAUSE OF JUST SORT OF THE LEVEL OF DYSFUNCTION THERE WAS, WAS, WAS BEING THWARTED IN BEING ABLE TO PUT A BUSINESS NECESSARY BUSINESS ON AGENDAS. AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'VE ONLY ENCOUNTERED THAT LEVEL OF, OF DYSFUNCTION MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE IN MY CAREER, BUT IT WAS THERE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S UNUSUAL. I MEAN, PROBABLY IN LARGER CITIES, IT'S PROBABLY MORE COMMON. BUT I MEAN, THE, THE, THE CITY MANAGER AND THE MANAGER'S OFFICE LARGELY, YOU KNOW, CREATES AGENDAS, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE COUNCIL

[03:15:01]

WE TALK ABOUT IT. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING? THE COUNCIL CAN DECIDE WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. THE COUNCIL CAN DECIDE WHO RUNS THE MEETING. AND YOU KNOW, SO IT BECOMES A COUNCIL DECISION. YOU'RE DEALING WITH TWO SEPARATE ISSUES HERE. AND YOUR YOUR CHARTER TREATS THEM A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. IT'S THE ISSUE. ONE IS THE CALLING OF THE MEETING, WHO GETS TO DO IT AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND THEN ISSUE NUMBER TWO IS WHAT GOES ON THE MEETING. AND YOUR CHARTER ALREADY CURRENTLY DEALS WITH IT, RIGHT? THE MAYOR GETS TO MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER IN CONJUNCTION, GENERALLY FILL OUT THE AGENDA, BUT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN ALSO, YOU KNOW, FORCE THINGS TO BE ON AN AGENDA.

AND IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHETHER THAT'S REGULAR MEETINGS OR SPECIAL MEETINGS. IT'S JUST THE AGENDA. AND SO YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE ABILITY TO, TO, TO SET THE AGENDA. IF IT'S A MEETING, IT'S A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, SET IT, DETERMINE WHO CALLS IT. THAT'S FINE. BUT YOUR, YOUR AGENDA SETTING IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT I MEAN, YOU CHANGE IT IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO CHANGE. THAT PART IS FAIRLY CLEAR. YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO GET TO THE PROPOSAL. I MEAN, IF COUNCIL IS CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING, YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE DOING THAT AT A COUNCIL MEETING, SO THERE ARE NO MORE SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS BETWEEN COUNCIL MEETINGS? REALLY, YOU WOULD JUST BE WAITING FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING TO THEN DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO SCHEDULE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING. IN BETWEEN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS. YEAH. AND SO THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE A SPECIAL CALL TODAY.

THE MAYOR COULD SAY, I WANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING IN SEVEN DAYS. AND I'M, YOU KNOW, POSTING THE AGENDA FOR IT. AND, AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WHETHER IT'S THE MAYOR OR ANY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY COULD SAY, I CAN'T CALL A SPECIAL MEETING IN SEVEN DAYS.

BUT AS SOON AS WE GET PAST THE NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, IF COUNCIL APPROVES IT, THEN WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AFTER THAT. SO THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY DELAY SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS BY, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF WEEKS OVER WHAT CAN BE DONE JUST BY THE MAYOR AT THIS POINT. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO THREAD THE NEEDLE OF IS IT IS IT TOO MUCH

[03:20:01]

[03:25:09]

THE QUESTION IS WHO ELSE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE CALLED THAT TO ME? THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION HERE. YEAH, I DID STILL, I DIDN'T HATE THE IDEA OF 2 OR 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS BEING ABLE TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING AS WELL, AND I DIDN'T HATE THE TIME LIMIT. IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO PUT TIME LIMITS ON IT, YOU CAN YOU CAN DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. YOU CAN DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AND I, SO I, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, MY SUGGESTION IS NOT TO REMOVE THE POWER FROM THE MAYOR, BUT IT, IT IS TO SIMPLY. REMOVE ANY VAGUENESS OF WHO ELSE, IF ANYONE MAY, MAY ALSO DO IT. THAT'S. THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST. YES. I DIDN'T HATE THE CRCS THREE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CALL IT AND HAS TO BE CALLED WITHIN 30 DAYS. I EVEN THOUGHT 14 DAYS, BUT I MAYBE THERE'S SCHEDULING ISSUES WITH STAFF TO DO IT THAT QUICKLY OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW. JUST IF IT'S ALL RIGHT JUST TO THROW ANOTHER BAILIWICK. SO YOU SITTING HERE KIND OF GOING THROUGH A CHAT OR WHATEVER. AND INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT HAS A COUPLE THINGS.

ONE IS THAT MANY OF THE NEWER CHARTERS, BECAUSE OF THE MONEY STUFF, DON'T EVEN HAVE A, YOU'RE JUST CALLING MEETINGS RIGHT WITHIN THREE DAYS. BUT IN THIS ONE, IT HAS SPECIAL CALLED MEETING SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL MAY BE CALLED BY THE MAYOR BY. IN THIS CASE, THEY PUT IT BY A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT. OR IN OUR CASE, THREE OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW. IT DOES HAVE A THING IN HERE. NOTICE, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO TOMA.

BUT NO SUBJECT MAY BE CONSIDERED AT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING LIST. IT'S INCLUDED IN POSTED EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY STATE LAW. AND THEN IT SAYS THE COUNCIL MAY ADOPT RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE SCHEDULING, CONDUCT AND ADMINISTRATION OF SPECIAL MEETINGS. SO IN THIS ONE, IT ACTUALLY HAS A LITTLE THING THAT SAYS, OKAY, ANY OTHER DEFINITIONS ARE, YOU KNOW, IN RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHATEVER. SO. I LIKE THE IDEA JUST BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE OCCASIONS THAT WE CAN'T EVEN FATHOM OR CONTEMPLATE OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING VERY QUICKLY. BY HOOK OR CROOK. SO. IN THAT REGARD, AND THEN.

AS BRAD WAS SAYING, I THINK I PERSONALLY LIKE THE IDEA IF THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE COMING TOGETHER, THEN IT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT THEY ARE BRINGING IT UP LIKE THAT. BUT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, CAN BE CALLED BY THE MAYOR OR, OR AS OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED, YOU KNOW, THROUGH CITY ORDINANCE OR RULES OF PROCEDURE, RIGHT? STIPULATIONS, SOMETHING LIKE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. IS THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE CRC IS PROPOSED THEN? THE MAYOR? YEAH. SO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS. ANY BOARD, COMMITTEE, COMMISSION MUST CALL SPECIAL COMMITTEE WITHIN 30 DAYS UPON THE REQUEST OF THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AS BRAD SAID, IF WE WANT IF WE WANTED OTHER STIPULATIONS, THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE THEM WITHIN AN ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING. OKAY. WE CAN STILL TALK ON THIS ITEM, BUT IF WE WANTED TO DO ANOTHER ONE, ANOTHER ONE THAT BRAD HAD BROUGHT UP AND I WANTED A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION ON IS THE QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THE AGE BEING 21, YOU SAID THERE'S POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW. AND MY QUESTION WAS, SHOULD IT BE 18? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, SIR.

OKAY. YEAH. YES, SIR. THE THE GENERAL I MEAN, YOU CAN, YOU CAN. SO NO, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE YOUR YOU CAN MAKE THINGS MORE STRINGENT, NOT LESS STRINGENT THAN STATE LAW. IF YOU WANT IT TO BE. 21. YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE LAW PROHIBITS YOU FROM IT BEING. 21. BUT IN ANY EVENT, YEAH. 18 IS THE IS THE IS THE BASELINE FOR MOST OFFICES AND LESS ACCEPTED OUT.

I'D HAVE NO ISSUE WITH 18 BUT MR. BENFIELD NO I IT SHOULD BE. 18 YOU GOT A KID WHO CAN RUN AND WIN. GO FOR IT. YEAH. YOU CAN GO TO WAR. YOU CAN VOTE. I MEAN, WHY NOT? YEP. MEMBER IN HERE. I'VE GOT SOME REALLY GOOD ONES. YEAH. 18. IT IS MY MY LAST CHAIR. SHE COULD HAVE RUN

[03:30:07]

[03:35:06]

I I'D HAVE TO I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. I DO THINK YOU POTENTIALLY RUN THE RISK OF OF SOME CHALLENGES TO THAT. I MEAN, IN THE GENERAL RULE IS YOU CAN MAKE THESE THINGS. YOU CAN MAKE REGULATIONS MORE STRICT THAN THE STATE DOES. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL, LIKE RESIDENCY, FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR OFFICE, YOU START TO GET INTO SOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TYPE STUFF THAT YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TIGHTEN IN WAYS THAT THE STATE OR CERTAINLY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, YOU KNOW, WOULD WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN. AND I'D WANT TO DO SOME RESEARCH INTO THAT. WHAT I HAVING DONE A LOT OF OF ELECTION LAW LITIGATION IN MY CAREER, AND WHICH ALWAYS DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF RESIDENCY, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. RESIDENCY IS A FOR, FOR PURPOSES OF, OF, YOU KNOW, VOTING. AND WHAT THAT CONSTITUTES IS A VERY ELASTIC CONCEPT. THERE'S NOT PEOPLE THINK, OH, WELL, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO BE HERE SO MANY NIGHTS A MONTH OR WHATEVER. IT'S NOT REALLY TRUE. I MEAN, WHAT COURTS COME BACK TO IS THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME INDICIA OF, OF, OF, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL HABITATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WHERE YOU ARE IN THE CITY OR THAT COUNCIL DISTRICT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. BUT, BUT THE PRIMARY QUESTION THE COURTS ASK IS, WHAT IS YOUR INTENT? WELL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND SO IN ORDER TO PROVE SOMEBODY'S RESIDENCY IS NOT WHAT THEY CLAIM IT IS FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING, WHICH WOULD ALSO APPLY FOR PURPOSES OF CANDIDACY. YOU ALMOST HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE FRAUD, RIGHT? IT ALMOST HAS TO REALLY GET TO THAT LEVEL. OTHER THE EVIDENCE OF OTHER DOMICILES, EVIDENCE OF TRAVEL, EVIDENCE OF I SPEND MY NIGHTS OVER HERE. THAT'S BY STANDING ALONE. THOSE THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO CUT IT. IT REQUIRES SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE NOT EVEN HOMESTEAD STUFF. IT REQUIRES SOMETHING ELSE LIKE, OH, WELL, YOU VOTED OVER HERE, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, IT REALLY IS A DIFFICULT THING TO, TO, TO, TO SHOW AND COURTS DO STRUGGLE WITH IT. SO I THINK THE DEGREE TO WHICH YOU VARY FROM THE BASIC STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENCY, FOR ANY OTHER THAT APPLY TO ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, OFFICE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WOULD RUN FOR I, I THINK YOU, YOU, I THINK YOU RUN THE RISK OF CHALLENGES AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S WORTH IT BECAUSE YOUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE, GIVEN THAT ELASTICITY OF THE CONCEPT IS DIFFICULT. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. LIKE I SAID, I, I HAD A STRICTER DEFINITION OF IT IN MY HEAD AND I WAS PROVEN WRONG AND I ACCEPTED THAT. AND I THINK THAT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY VERY DIFFICULT. YEAH. AND ON THE PART OF NOT BEING ABLE TO SERVE ON ANY OTHER LIKE THE LIONS OR POS OR BOARDS, I, I DON'T ELECTED AS BEING ELECTED OFFICIALS BEING ELECTED. YEAH, I JUST, I DON'T WE'RE A SMALL TOWN. WE STRUGGLE TO GET PEOPLE INVOLVED ANYWAYS. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKELY DRAWN TO THIS ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE DRAWN TO THAT ANYWHERE. THOSE ENTITIES AREN'T MAKING TAX DECISIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T SEE I DID KIND OF WONDER ABOUT THE WORDING OF IT, BUT IT DOES SAY PUBLIC OFFICE. SO THOSE OTHER ONES WOULD BE PRIVATE. I AGREE WITH THE FINANCIAL ARREARS ONE AS WELL. YOU KNOW WHAT, IF YOU GOT A PARKING TICKET THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION, ARE YOU

[03:40:04]

WATER BILL. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. NO, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S THE QUESTION. RIGHT. BUT. RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT IS THE QUESTION. AND SO YOU COULD CERTAINLY TIGHTEN THAT LANGUAGE UP. YOU COULD TIGHTEN THAT UP TO MAKE IT CLEARER WHAT THAT MEANS. BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, READING IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A FINALLY ADJUDICATED AND UNPAID THING. AND TYPICALLY THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, JUDGMENTS, LIENS AND SO FORTH LATE ON A WATER BILL. WOULD WOULD NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT AN ENFORCEABLE JUDGMENT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF IT IS IN YOUR CREDIT REPORT OR SOMETHING, BUT BUT I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CASE LAW ON, ON WHEN IS THERE ANY HARM, THOUGH, FOR AND MAYBE I'M OVERTHINKING THIS, BUT WOULD IT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO SAY NOT IN BE FINANCIAL ARREARS VIA A JUDGMENT TO THE CITY FOR ANY FINANCIAL REASONS? I MEAN, DOES ADDING THE WORD JUDGMENT? I WOULD SAY I WOULD SAY INSTEAD OF JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S A PARTICULAR TIME. I WOULD SAY MAYBE I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT, BUT MAYBE LIKE A FINAL ADJUDICATION THAT WAY BECAUSE BECAUSE A TECHNICALLY A LIEN MAY NOT BE A LIEN MAY, MAY FLOW FROM A JUDGMENT, BUT A LIEN IS NOT A JUDGMENT. YEAH. AND SO IF YOU HAVE A LIEN, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO EXCLUDE THAT. RIGHT. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO SOMETHING LIKE FINAL ADJUDICATION OR SOMETHING, I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. THE CITY'S NOT GOING TO PURSUE A LIEN OVER $20 MORE THAN LIKELY. RIGHT. SO IF, IF A LIEN IS BEING EXERCISED, IT'S FOR SOMETHING MORE SIGNIFICANT THAT REQUIRES THE CITY'S ATTENTION. AND THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY BECOME A DISQUALIFIER. RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK I THINK TWEAKING THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE FINE. I, I AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, JUDGMENT MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WORD, BUT I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. BUT YES, SO I SAY WE TASK YOU WITH GIVING US SOME TIGHTER LANGUAGE. THAT'D BE GOOD. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION ON THE PUBLIC OFFICE WITH THE PRIVATE OFFICE. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, MAYOR, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A SMALL TOWN. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE ON CITY COUNCIL, YOU ARE MAKING DECISIONS AND THERE ARE PERCEPTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, US, YOU KNOW, GRANTS AND HOT FUNDS GOING TO THESE BUSINESSES. AND WE'RE HELPING THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT RANGE FROM THE WOMEN'S CLUB TO THE LIONS TO, YOU KNOW, WE WE VOTE ON THINGS WITH DIFFERENT. AND

[03:45:06]

SARAH JANE CANTWELL WAS ACTUALLY ASKED TO POTENTIALLY THINK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE RUNNING AS MAYOR, I THINK OF JONESTOWN. AND, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, SHE SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU CAN ONLY HOLD. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANOTHER STATE THING THAT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF JUST ELECTED POSITIONS. BUT SHE'S ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE WOMEN'S WOMEN'S CLUB. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I. MY OBSERVATION IN THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THE REASON I WILL STRAIGHT UP TELL YOU GUYS I SAID NO THREE TIMES BEFORE I SAID YES, BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GET ANYBODY TO STEP UP TO TAKE THE POSITION WITHIN THE THE LIONS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OUR HALF OF OUR MEMBERS HAD ALREADY SERVED IN THAT LEADERSHIP CAPACITY. AND THEY SAID, I'VE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, DONE MY PART REALLY, QUITE FRANKLY. SO ANYWAY, I, I DEFER TO YOU GUYS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT IS RUNNING IN BOTH POSITIONS. DOES IT HERE'S WHAT I WILL SAY. AND AS MY SPOUSE OVER THERE, WHERE THE CHALLENGE COMES IN, IS THAT EFFECTIVELY, FOR THE YEAR THAT I WAS AM ABOUT TO TERMINATE, GO OFF THE. IT'S ABOUT TO CHANGE. FOR THE YEAR THAT I WAS PRESIDENT ALLIANCE AND ON COUNCIL, IT WAS THAT THERE WAS. MY FAMILY REALLY DIDN'T SEE ME OR HAVE ME, I MEAN IN PARTICULAR. SO THAT WAS THE SACRIFICE. CAME TO MY FAMILY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SERVE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT HAMPERS THE ABILITY TO SERVE. WE ALREADY HAVE, AS I WAS STATING, YOU KNOW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU KNOW, IF WE FEEL WE NEED TO ABSTAIN, THERE IS THAT BEYOND THAT, I THINK IT IS A PERSONAL AGAIN, WE'RE STARTING TO REGULATE PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIVES AND PREFERENCES. SO FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT KIND OF. IS IN THE BACK OF MY MIND AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, I'LL JUST THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE.

YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE WHAT WE HAVE HERE FROM HOLD NO OTHER ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE. I MEAN, THE THE POOL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ON CITY COUNCIL OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, PROBABLY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM ARE 90% OF THEM AT LEAST, WOULD HAVE HAD TO RESIGN FROM SOME OTHER PRESIDENT OF THE WOMEN'S CLUB, OR IN MY CASE, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON MY CHURCH OR WHATEVER. SO I THINK THAT IT'S IT'S FOR OUR FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT HERE. IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE, ACTUALLY, FOR MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL TO HOLD OTHER NON ELECTED, MAYBE NON-ELECTED, BUT PRIVATE OFFICE. SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE

[03:50:03]

THERE ARE ANY ITEMS THAT YOU ALL FEEL WE CAN GET DONE WITH IN THREE MINUTES. THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS CONSIDERING IT COMPENSATION. I DID HAVE A NOTE ON THAT AND I THOUGHT, I AGREE WITH BRAD THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT THROUGH AN ORDINANCE YOU GOT. YOU FLAGGED AN ISSUE THAT IT BASICALLY MAKES IT SOUND LIKE WE COULD CHANGE OUR COMPENSATION THROUGH ORDINANCE. AND I THINK THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE REMOVED. SO YEAH. WELL, SO I THINK MY, MY CONCERN WITH THIS, WITH THIS SECTION WAS THAT IT SAYS THAT YOU SHALL SERVE WITHOUT PAY OR COMPENSATION. SO THE CHARTER SETS THIS. YOU DON'T, YOU SERVE FREELY. BUT THEN IT SAYS YOU MAY IN THE FUTURE DETERMINE BY ORDINANCE AND COMPENSATION PACKAGE. WELL, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS BY CHANGING THE CHARTER IN ORDINANCE CAN'T CHANGE THE CHARTER. SO YOU EITHER, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I WOULD JUST SAY YOU SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CHANGE THAT IS BY CHANGING THE CHARTER OR YOU SERVE WITH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. SO YOU JUST NEED TO PICK ONE. YOU GOTTA, YOU KNOW. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHY I SAID IN THE DISCUSSION BOARD, I SAY IT'S GOT TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER TO CHANGE THAT. YEAH, YEAH. YOU COULDN'T, YOU COULDN'T. I'M FINE WITH DELETING THE SECOND HALF OF THAT SENTENCE SO THAT THAT FIRST SENTENCE WOULD END WITH WITHOUT PAY OR COMPENSATION PERIOD AND GET RID OF THE REST OF THAT SENTENCE. AND I THINK IT'S FINE. THE ONE PART, I GUESS I DID ADD IN THERE IS THAT, BUT MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR REASONABLE AND NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, BECAUSE THAT SOMEWHAT OCCURS. NOW, IF YOU I SHOULD JUST BE POLICY. YEAH. I MEAN, SO SO WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS REIMBURSEMENT FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES REASONABLE AND NECESSARY. IT'S FINE. IT DOESN'T YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL FINE. I MEAN YOU CAN LEAVE THAT IN THERE. I MEAN THAT IT'S IF YOU LEAVE THAT IN THERE IT IS. IT IS EXPLICIT THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO TO REIMBURSEMENT.

IF UPON A PROPER SHOWING, IF YOU REMOVE IT, THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, WELL DID YOU INTEND TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO GET REIMBURSED? SO YOU JUST NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT. AND THAT WOULD BE THE WHATEVER YOU ALL WANT TO DO IS FINE. YOU CAN REIMBURSE OR NOT, BUT I THINK WHAT MR. PRINCE SAYS JUST DELETE. HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL MAY, AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE DETERMINE BY ORDINANCE A COMPENSATION PACKAGE. RIGHT. JUST REMOVE THAT EVERYTHING ELSE STAY THE SAME. I WOULD I WOULD YOU KNOW. SO SO THE ONLY OTHER THE ONLY OTHER EDIT THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IS COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR. MAY BE ENTITLED BECAUSE IF YOU KNOW A SHALL BE ENTITLED IS, IS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU STILL HAVE TO MAKE THE PROPER SHOWING. SO I, I JUST IT'S THAT MAY BE NITPICKY, BUT I THINK THAT'S GOOD. YEAH. IF WE'RE TOUCHING THIS PARAGRAPH ANYWAY, THAT CAN BE PART OF IT. RIGHT. ARE WE ALL GOOD WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT.

HEAD NODS OKAY, ONE THING BEFORE WE LEAVE. I WOULD LOVE IF THERE'S CONSENSUS FROM YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE TO LET'S MAKE A DECISION ON SOME OF THESE SECTION THREE ITEMS SO IT DOESN'T BECOME A LONG TERM ONGOING DISCUSSION. I THINK THE CRC HAS SAID WHAT THEY'VE SAID.

WE HAVE SAID WHAT WE HAVE SAID. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND SLEEP ON IT AND CONTEMPLATE IT AND READ IT. AND I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION IS YOU CALL THE VOTE AND SEE WHERE IT LIES. AND IF WE HAVE THE JUICE, THEN WE GOT IT. AND IF WE DON'T, THEN WE DON'T. AND BUT ALL FUTURE DISCUSSIONS AFTER THAT VOTE CAN BE HAD WITH THOSE UNDERSTANDINGS IN MIND. I AGREE, ESPECIALLY WE AGREE THAT YOU GOT TO GET TO FIVE VOTES. SO YOU GOT TO GET TO 60% OR FOUR OF THE MINIMUM TO MOVE FORWARD ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS. SO I'LL CALL THE VOTE. IF NONE OF THEM GET THERE, THEN IT'S OVER. OKAY. AND MY ASK IS JUST GET ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND HAVE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS ON THERE AS WELL. MR. PRINCE WELL, THE ONLY TWEAK I WOULD SAY ON THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE TERM LENGTH AND DURATION AND SEQUENCING. AND THERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PERMUTATIONS OF THAT. AND SO IT MAY COME DOWN TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME SOMEWHAT

[03:55:04]

Y'ALL HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT 26TH, RIGHT? YEAH. JUST, JUST AS A REMINDER, I'M IN, I'M OUT OF TOWN FOR THE FOR TEXAS CITY ATTORNEY ASSOCIATION CONTINUING EDUCATION. SO IF YOU DO IT AT THE SAME TIME FRAME ON LIKE A FRIDAY, NOON TO FOUR, I CAN PARTICIPATE, BUT IT WOULD BE REMOTELY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID THE 26 NOON TO FOUR. YEAH. AND I WILL HAVE THE BEACH IN THE BACKGROUND. THAT'S TOTALLY FINE. THAT'S WHAT I HAD ON MY CALENDAR. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I HAD DONE. I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK IT. OKAY. I SEE PEOPLE LOOKING AT PHONES THOUGH. WELL, DO WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 2ND? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE POLICY IS JUST BECAUSE CITY HALL IS CLOSED. UNLESS THERE'S A REASON COUNCIL WANTS THE MEETING MOVED, COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE ON THE SECOND, FIRST AND THIRD THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH. OKAY. AND WITH THAT,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.