[00:00:01]
          WE WERE THERE. WE TRAVERSED. OH, GOSH. ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS 1203. I'LL CALL TO ORDER THIS 
          [I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
WORKSHOP OF THE CITY COUNCIL. NOTE THAT I HAVE COUNCILOR VAN S WITH AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. AND COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA IS GOING TO BE HERE MOMENTARILY. AND I HAVE THE REST OF OUR COUNCILORS HERE IN PERSON. AS THIS IS A WORKSHOP, WE'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT IN. FIRST ITEM IS CITIZEN COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING? SEEING NONE, WE'LL 
          [III. WORK SESSION]
COME BACK TO COUNCIL TO BEGIN THE WORKSHOP. SO WE LEFT OFF A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. WE WERE JUST KIND OF I THINK WE MADE IT UP INTO ARTICLE THREE. WE MAYBE REACHED AROUND A LITTLE BIT. WE HAD MAYBE ONLY A COUPLE THINGS WE HAD CONSENSUS ON. SO MY QUESTION TO START THE MEETING IS, IS THERE ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE PREVIOUS WORK SESSION THAT YOU FEEL WERE READY TO GO FORWARD AND TRY TO GET A CONSENSUS ON TO MOVE FORWARD, OR DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE GOING THROUGH INTO THE NEXT ARTICLES? MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH, WHEN MISS CHAVARRIA GETS HERE, I'D LIKE TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH DETERMINING LENGTH OF OFFICE, WHETHER OR NOT THERE NEEDS TO BE A MAJORITY VOTE. TERM LIMITS. I'D LIKE TO GET THAT BUTTONED UP, BECAUSE I THINK THAT KIND OF DIRECTS SOME OF THE OTHER ARTICLES. SO IF WE CAN GET CONSENSUS THERE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT? I SEE HEAD NODDING. ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, I'VE NOW OPENED UP A DISCUSSION FORUM FOR EVERY ARTICLE EXCEPT FOR 12 ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD FOR FOLKS. I CAN GO IN AFTER THE MEETING AND FILL IN WHAT WE'VE HAD CONSENSUS ON. WHEN I WAS PUTTING IT IN TODAY, I WAS JUST MAKING SURE I WAS REMEMBERING CORRECTLY. WE HAD CONSENSUS ON GOING FROM 21 YEARS OLD AS A QUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR OFFICE TO 18. IS THAT CORRECT? WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING THE PERCENTAGES OF THE REFERENDUM AND OTHERS, WE AGREED NOT TO CHANGE ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAKE THE REFERENDUM AND THE OTHER ONE EQUAL AT 10%. IS THAT HOW YOU ALL REMEMBER THAT AS WELL? THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAD. I HAD ANOTHER NOTE, SOMETHING ABOUT IN ONE OF THE LATER ARTICLES ABOUT FUNDING NONPROFITS. I THINK THERE WAS A DISCUSSION THAT THAT'S MAYBE NOT NEEDED IN THE CHARTER. THAT'S MORE OF AN ORDINANCE AND POLICY. DO YOU ALL REMEMBER THAT AS WELL? YES, BUT I HAVE A COMMENT. OKAY. 
          THOSE ARE ITEMS THAT I FELT LIKE WE HAD CONSENSUS ON. WE HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON THE TERM LIMITS, TERM LENGTHS. AS MR. BENEFIELD SAID, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TOPIC FOR US TO HOPEFULLY FINALIZE TODAY. DID ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER OPENING COMMENTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO DISCUSS, MR. PRINCE? SO JUST I'LL NOTE THAT MR. OWEN, WHO HAS BEEN DILIGENTLY TAKING GREAT NOTES FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW FOR, I DON'T KNOW, A YEAR OR MORE NOW, MAYBE DID A SUMMARY OF OUR LAST MEETING AS WELL. AND SO IN HIS POST, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WERE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THERE. AND HE CAPTURED THE CONSENSUS TAXPAYER FUNDS TO NONPROFITS AND HIS NOTES, WHICH AGREES WITH MY MEMORIES CONSENSUS TO DELETE THAT PROPOSAL. IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS SOME COMMENTS ON THAT. AND THEN THE 10% NUMBER, AS YOU MENTIONED. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER ONE I DON'T THINK YOU MENTIONED, IS THAT I DO BELIEVE WE HAD, AS HE CAPTURED A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO VOTE, ALLOWING ABSTENTIONS WITHOUT HAVING TO JUSTIFY THE REASON. YEP. SOUNDS RIGHT TO ME. AND. LET'S SEE THE QUORUM. SO REMOVING THAT THE QUORUM REQUIRED MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM. WE SAID ANY FOUR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. SO I THINK WE HAD CONSENSUS ON THAT. I WOULD SUGGEST WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER LANGUAGE TO TO ALLOW A QUORUM TO BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THOSE SERVING IN OFFICE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD TWO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT WERE NOT IN, THEN QUORUM WOULD BE THREE RATHER THAN REQUIRING FOUR. SO A HARD NUMBER OF FOUR WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE FULL COUNCIL OF 7 OR 6 FOR THAT MATTER. BUT, BUT IT SHOULD BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY RATHER THAN A HARD NUMBER WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT LAST TIME. OKAY, SO, MR. PRINCE, YES. YEAH, I JUST SO THIS IS DEFINED BY STATE LAW AND IT CANNOT GO BELOW THE MAJORITY OF THE NUMBER OF OFFICES. OKAY. FOR PURPOSES OF A MEETING. SO THAT 
          [00:05:01]
THAT'S JUST STATE LAW. SO IF WE HAD TWO MEMBERS WHO WERE DISQUALIFIED OR PASSED AWAY OR WHATEVER, IT WOULD STILL NEED TO BE FOUR OF THE SEVEN OFFICES, EVEN THOUGH WE ONLY HAD FIVE SERVING. YES, SIR. AND THEN IN THE SCENARIO, I WANT TO SAY THERE'S SOMETHING IN OUR CHARTER THAT DEALS WITH THIS ODDBALL STUFF, OUR CURRENT CHARTER. BUT IN THE SCENARIO WHERE COUNCIL DIMINISHES TO LESS THAN FOUR PEOPLE. AND I'M NOT SAYING WE NEED TO SOLVE IT TODAY, BUT BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A A METHOD AND MAYBE STATE LAW DEFINES WHAT TO DO IN THAT CASE. MR. BULLOCK, IF YOU CAN HELP ME THERE. YES, SIR. SO SO IF AND THIS IS THIS HAPPENS OCCASIONALLY, AND IT HAS HAPPENED MOST MOST COMMONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF RESIGNATIONS. 
          AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A QUORUM OF, OF, OF HUMAN BEINGS IN OFFICE, WHO WON'T AND THEY WON'T SHOW UP TO A MEETING, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY RESIGNATIONS, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONSIDERED A CONSTITUTIONAL HOLDOVER. BUT, BUT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE. IT GETS VERY TECHNICAL, BUT BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THAT THE CITY CANNOT CONDUCT BUSINESS. ALL YOU CAN DO IN LESS THAN A QUORUM IS CANVAS ELECTION RESULTS AND CALL. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONE OTHER THING, CANVAS ELECTION RESULTS AND SOMETHING ELSE THAT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO I MEAN, YOU MAY, YOU KNOW, IT HAS HAPPENED TO CITIES WHERE YOU CAN'T ADOPT A BUDGET, RIGHT? AND SO, AND THAT'S JUST STATE LAW IN THAT KIND OF A SCENARIO, YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE IN AN EMERGENCY TYPE OF SETTING, THE GOVERNOR CAN CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION UPON REQUEST. 
          BUT IT, IT THOSE ARE VERY RARE. BUT BUT THAT'S ALL GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. OKAY. ANYWAY, THAT'S, I THINK THE, THE, THE NOTES THAT MR. OWEN HAD THAT WERE THINGS WE ALREADY HAD CONSENSUS ON. OKAY. THANK YOU. I WAS DELAYING A LITTLE BIT. SO COUNCILOR CHAVARRIA GOT HERE. THANK YOU. YEAH. NO WORRIES. WE WE HAD DISCUSSED JUST BRIEFLY BEFORE YOU GOT HERE THAT WHAT WE WOULD TRY TO DO IS GO BACK AND CONCLUDE SOME OF THE BIGGER TOPICS MR. BENEFIELD SUGGESTED. LET'S GET TO THE TERM LENGTHS AND LIMITS AND SEE IF WE CAN REACH A CONSENSUS ON THAT ONE, AS THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST TOPICS LOOMING OVER US. 
          ARE WE READY TO JUMP INTO THAT CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW? OKAY. WHO'D LIKE TO KICK THAT OFF? AS IT'S IN THE CHARTER PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW, IT'S THREE YEAR TERMS IS A CHANGE FROM TWO YEARS TO THREE YEARS. DO WE WANT TO START THERE? I, I AM INCLINED TO GET SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT TO LET CITIZENS VOTE ON THREE YEAR TERMS. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS. BOTH, YOU KNOW, THE INTERNET FEEDBACK AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE THEMSELVES. SO I THINK WE OWE IT TO CITIZENS TO AT LEAST PRESENT THAT TO THEM. AND SO AT THAT LEVEL, I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          THE, THE, THE LIMITS AND THE TRANSITION PLAN. I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME SOME MORE DISCUSSION ON, BUT IN TERMS OF WHETHER WE SHOULD PUT A THREE YEAR TERM LENGTH ON THE BALLOT, I, I THINK WE SHOULD I AGREE WITH PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT AS WELL. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. I SEE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. I SEE FIVE HEADS SHAKING. YES. FOR THAT, MR. BENEFIELD, OR I'M AGAINST THREE YEARS. I, I DON'T LIKE THAT TRANSITION. I WOULD PREFER FOUR YEARS OR KEEPING IT. 
          TWO I DON'T THINK THAT WE OWE IT TO THE CITIZENS TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT JUST TO VOTE. I THINK WE PUT. WHAT'S THE VERY BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE ON THE BALLOT TO VOTE. AND IF THAT'S THE THREE YEARS, THAT'S FINE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, MR. HALL SAID LAST MEETING THAT TWO YEARS JUST ISN'T ENOUGH. AND I AND I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME YOU'RE IN, YOU'RE AT THE END OF YOUR SECOND YEAR, YOU'RE JUST KIND OF HITTING STRIDE. BUT THE WAY THE THREE YEARS IS ALWAYS ON ODD YEARS, AND IT'S NEVER PERFECTLY ALIGNING THAT FOUR YEARS TO ME, ALWAYS MAKES SURE THAT THE ELECTION IS ON AN IMPORTANT DATE. LIKE YOU'RE NEVER JUST HOLDING OFF YOUR ELECTIONS, YOU'RE ALWAYS HOLDING IT ON A GOVERNOR'S ELECTION. YOU'RE ALWAYS HOLDING IT ON MAJOR SENATE ELECTION. YOU'RE ALWAYS HOLDING ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. SO I TEND TO THINK THAT THAT'S THE BEST OPTION. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GOT SOMEONE THAT'S NOT DOING A GOOD JOB FOR FOUR YEARS. WELL, THERE'S MECHANISMS FOR THAT. THERE'S THERE'S PROCEDURES IN PLACE THAT IF SOMEBODY IS NOT NOT DOING A GOOD JOB. SO I, I TEND TO I'M NOT AGAINST THREE YEARS. I JUST THINK THE TWO YEAR, THE FOUR YEAR IS BETTER. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE THAT NODDED THEIR HEAD ON THE THREE YEARS THAT WANTS TO CHANGE THEIR IDEA ON THAT? MR. MY ONLY 
          [00:10:03]
CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE TRANSITION. I KNOW THAT'S GOING TO BE CONVOLUTED AND CAUSE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM. BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE DO NEED TO GIVE THE VOTERS AN OPTION. I, TOO, AM IN FAVOR OF FOUR YEARS. I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN DO A RECALL OR WE CAN DO OTHER THINGS. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS REALLY AN OPTION AT THIS POINT, BUT NOW THAT I'M HEARING COUNCIL BENNEFIELD MAKE THAT AWARE OR MAKE MAKE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT HE'S INTERESTED IN, THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE AS WELL. ME BEING FIRST TIME ELECTED IT, I FEEL LIKE I'M JUST NOW GETTING MY BEARINGS, AND NOW IN SIX MONTHS, I'M GOING TO BE HAVING TO FIGHT FOR A SEAT IF I WANT TO BE REELECTED. AND I KNOW THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF POLITICS, BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR FOCUS TENDS TO SHIFT. SO REALLY, YOU ONLY GET ABOUT 18 MONTHS ON THE ON THE JOB BEFORE YOU'RE FIGHTING FOR YOUR SPOT AGAIN. 
          NOW I, I KNOW IT'S ALL VOLUNTEER, BUT I WANT, I WOULD LIKE OUR VOTERS TO, TO BE MORE ACTIVE AND, AND HAVING IT IN THOSE OFF YEAR CYCLES, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE AN OFF YEAR CYCLE ANYWAY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE GO. I MEAN, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ELECTION GOING ON. BUT I DO AGREE WITH HAVING IT ON, YOU KNOW, THE MAJOR YEARS FOR PRESIDENTIAL AND AS AS AS IN NOT HAVING IT ON OFF YEARS, ARE WE STILL IN AGREEMENT THAT IF WE GET TO FIVE ON ANY ITEM, THAT THAT IS THE THRESHOLD FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD ON A ON THAT ITEM? OKAY. 
          I SEE THAT'S NOT IN MAYOR. IF I CAN MAKE ONE COMMENT. YES. MR. STAFF ASKED ME TO ASK YOU ALL TO CONSIDER FOUR YEAR TERMS AND TAKE AND IN THE ELECTION CYCLE, TAKE A YEAR OFF FROM ELECTIONS. 
          YOU ONLY HOLD THE ELECTIONS THEN ALL THAT THEY SAID IT WOULD JUST MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR STAFF. SO I TOLD THEM I WOULD BRING THAT UP TO Y'ALL. SO I BROUGHT IT UP. THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO THEN LET'S CONSIDER. I'M TRYING TO MOVE AS QUICK AS WE CAN TODAY. SO I CAN START WITH, DO I HAVE ENOUGH HEAD NODS TO MOVE FORWARD BEFORE. AND IF I DON'T, WE CAN MOVE BACK TO THREE. AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS ON IT, PLEASE DO SO. 
          I'M JUST INITIALLY ASKING, DO I HAVE HEAD NODS ON? DO YOU WANT FOUR YEAR TERMS? I SEE TWO, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, MAYOR, THAT. I THOUGHT WE WERE KIND OF LEANING TOWARD THREE YEAR TERM. 
          SO I REALLY DIDN'T STUDY THE OPTION OF A FOUR YEAR. SO SIMILAR. AND SO A BIG REASON, WHETHER IT'S 3 OR 4, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ONE ON THE UP TO THE VOTERS. I LIKE THE EXTENDED TERM. I NOTICED THE TRENDS ARE NORMALLY ABOUT THREE YEARS FOR A CITY OF OUR SIZE, ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS. SO IT WOULD JUST BE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION. SO I AM NOT READY TO SAY FOUR YEARS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. I THINK FOUR YEARS IS FRANKLY TOO LONG FOR OUR LITTLE CITY AND, AND CITIZENS THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE NO EXPERIENCE JUMPING IN FOR FOUR YEARS IS A, IS A REALLY BIG COMMITMENT, TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST. AND SO I, I, I THINK MOVING FROM 2 TO 4 WOULD BE TOO BIG OF A CHANGE FOR OUR, OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE HISTORY WE HAVE WITH OUR GOVERNMENT HERE IN THE CITY. SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE. FOUR I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE. 
          EITHER STAY WITH THE TWO WE HAVE. IF CITIZENS REJECT OR GIVE THEM THE OPTION OF, YOU KNOW, THREE IF THEY PREFER THAT. I AGREE WITH MR. PRINCE. MR. HALL. I, YOU KNOW, I. FOUR WOULD BE GREAT, BUT THAT IS A BIG THAT IS A BIG LEAP FOR, FOR OUR CITY. AND SO THAT I HAVE THAT CONCERN ABOUT THAT CHANGE CHANGING TO THAT AS A PROPOSAL. OKAY. SO I THINK THAT PUTS US BACK AT THREE. IF THAT'S THE OPTION. DO WE HAVE. I WAS GOING TO I'M SORRY. I WAS GOING TO ASK DID WE HAVE DID THE CHARTER REVIEW ACTUALLY LIKE TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION? BECAUSE THE MORE I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS, I DO WANT TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH ON IT BECAUSE NOW I'M NOT REALLY, IF FOUR IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY, I THINK THAT A FOUR YEAR OR A TWO YEAR WOULD ACTUALLY BE A BETTER OPTION, NOT A NOT A THREE YEAR, JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE TRANSITION LAYS OUT. I'VE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST MY MY PERSONAL OPINION. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW HAD TO SAY. I WOULD SAY, IF YOU WANT TO KILL IT, PUT FOUR YEARS ON THE BALLOT. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WAS SPLIT ON THIS. 
          THIS IS ONE OF THE TOPICS WE WERE SPLITTING ON, AND IT'S ONE OF THE TOPICS. I THINK IT'S THE 
          [00:15:03]
ONLY TOPIC WHERE WE DEPARTED FROM THE STATED PUBLIC OPINION POLLS THAT MR. DOUGLAS. I ALSO POINT OUT MR. DOUGLAS AND MR. HARRIS ARE HERE FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TODAY. 
          SO THIS IS ONE AREA THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WAS SPLIT ON THE PUBLIC WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS PHRASED WAS OVERWHELMINGLY IT WASN'T 90%, 82, YOU KNOW, 72 OUT OF 80, BUT IT WAS AT 85, AS I RECALL, OPPOSED TO EXTENDING TERMS. SO YOU'RE SWIMMING UPHILL. YOU'RE SWIMMING UPSTREAM AGAINST THE WILL OF THE CITIZENS, EXPRESSED MR. OWEN. IF I IF I MAY. THE QUESTION WAS, STAY WITH TWO YEARS OR GO WITH THREE IN THE POLL. AND THE OVERWHELMING PUBLIC FEEDBACK WAS TO STAY WITH TWO YEARS. RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE ACCOUNTABILITY MORE FREQUENTLY. AND THAT'S WHY I STARTED. MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS IF YOU WANT TO KILL IT, PUT FOUR ON THE BALLOT. IT WILL DEFINITELY DIE. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE OTHER THING, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. POINT OF ORDER. I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I HAD THE FLOOR. I'M TRYING TO ASK YOU ARE YOU STATING OPINION OR ARE YOU STATING WHAT THE CHARTER VOTED ON? SO WHEN YOU SAY IT WILL SURELY DIE, IS THAT THE OPINION OF THE CHARTER COMMITTEE OR IS THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION? THAT IS MY OPINION. THANK YOU. YES. BASED UPON THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED, BASED ON THE. BASED UPON WHAT INFORMATION WAS THAT? A VOTE THAT YOU HAD. IT WAS A FACEBOOK POLL. RIGHT NOW YOU'RE SPEAKING AS A REPRESENTATIVE. ARE YOU ARE YOU ARE YOU SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR ARE YOU SPEAKING AS A MEMBER OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE? I'M SPEAKING AS THE DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. OKAY. SO AS A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBER, ALL I CARE ABOUT IS THINGS THAT YOU DISCUSSED AND HAD CONSENSUS ON AND VOTED ON. I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND A RANDOM FACEBOOK POLL, UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY SAY I'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL. SO WHEN YOU SAY IT WILL SURELY DIE OR NOT PASS, I'D LIKE YOU TO SPECIFICALLY STATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A CHARTER REVIEW ASSESSMENT OR IF THAT'S YOUR PERSONAL. YEAH, THAT'S FAIR, THAT'S FAIR. I WAS JUST BRINGING UP THE FACEBOOK POLL BECAUSE IT ENTERED INTO OUR DELIBERATIONS. AND THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF THAT POLL IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. THE OTHER THE OTHER CONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO FOUR YEARS VERSUS THREE IS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TOOK THE POSITION THAT HAVING ELECTION CYCLES, WHERE YOU HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL POTENTIALLY TURNING OVER IN A SINGLE ELECTION CYCLE WAS NOT IDEAL. AND IF YOU GO TO A FOUR YEAR CYCLE, PRESUMABLY WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS THREE COUNCILORS ON A CALL, A CONGRESSIONAL YEARS, THREE COUNCILORS ON THE PRESIDENTIAL YEAR, PLUS THE MAYOR ON ONE OF THOSE. SO YOU'RE STILL IN A SITUATION WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, ALTHOUGH THERE'LL BE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL COULD TURN OVER IN A SINGLE ELECTION CYCLE. AND ONE OF THE DRIVERS FOR RECOMMENDING THREE WAS TO ELIMINATE THAT POSSIBILITY. THANK YOU, MR. BENFIELD. THE DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL, AS I RECALL, AND THE INFORMATION THAT I'VE RECEIVED AS FEEDBACK, IS TWOFOLD. NUMBER ONE, THE TWO YEAR ELECTIONS CAUSE A LOT OF I DON'T WANT TO SAY TURNOVER ON COUNCIL, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS AN ELECTION. SOMEBODY IS ALWAYS IN ELECTION MODE. RIGHT? THREE THE 3 OR 4 YEAR TERMS ALLOW A LITTLE. HEY GUYS, WE'RE ALL GOING TO WORK TOGETHER. WE'RE WE'RE TOGETHER IN THIS. LET'S JUST FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK. AND I LIKE THAT. I DO LIKE THE LONGER TERMS, THE WHAT 3 OR 4 YEAR OFFERS. THERE'S ALSO THIS, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING ELECTIONS ON THESE ODD YEARS WHERE PARTICIPATION IS INCREDIBLY LOW. I NO MATTER HOW YOU KNOW, NO MATTER HOW THE TRANSITION LOOKS ON A THREE YEAR ELECTION, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE ELECTIONS ON THESE ODD YEARS, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE ELECTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE VERY BAD PARTICIPATION FROM THE PUBLIC. SO, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. PRINCE. I THINK FOUR YEARS IS LONG AS WELL. I JUST REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF ALLOWING THE MOST VOTERS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE DURING THESE CONGRESSIONAL OR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE JUICE TO GET TO FOUR YEARS, THEN I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN STICKING WITH THE TWO YEARS. BUT AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, MR. MR. PRINCE IS CONSIDERING FOUR YEARS FOR THE MAYOR. MR. PRINCE SO IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION, WHAT HAPPENS IS THE MAYOR AND THREE COUNCIL SEATS GET ELECTED IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS. AND THE NUMBER 
          [00:20:03]
OF VOTES. I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE DETAILS OF THIS A YEAR OR MORE AGO. SO I CAN'T CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT ROUGHLY, I WANT TO SAY THERE WERE ABOUT 2000 PEOPLE THAT VOTED ON THOSE ODD NUMBERED YEARS. AND THEN THE THE PLACE TWO, FOUR AND SIX ARE ARE CURRENTLY ELECTED ON EVEN NUMBERED YEARS. AND THOSE ARE ABOUT 4000 PEOPLE THAT HAVE VOTED IN THOSE EVEN NUMBERED YEARS. SO IT'S IT IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. IT'S A, YOU KNOW, 2 TO 1 RATIO, BUT STILL THERE'S, YOU KNOW, 2000 PEOPLE THAT CARE TO SHOW UP AND VOTE. SO I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT REPRESENTATION. IF WE WERE TO GO TO FOUR YEAR TERMS AND. AND IF WE IF WE KEEP ANYTHING AT TWO YEARS, WE STILL HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE SOME ONE SEAT OR SOME SEATS ARE ALWAYS IN THE LOWER POPULATION VOTE AND OTHER SEATS ARE ALWAYS IN THE HIGHER POPULATION VOTE. ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE ACTUALLY ABOUT THE THREE YEAR TERMS IS THERE'S A CONSTANT ROTATION. SO, YOU KNOW, IF A SEAT, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, IS ELECTED EVERY THREE YEARS, IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE EVERY OTHER ELECTION CYCLE THAT THAT SEAT WILL BE IN AN EVEN NUMBERED YEAR. RIGHT. AND, AND THERE WOULD BE SYMMETRY ACROSS ALL OF COUNCIL THAT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN I COULDN'T SAY I'M JUST GOING TO I'M GOING TO RUN FOR PLACE THREE BECAUSE PLACE THREE ALWAYS HAS THE LOWER VOTE. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK I CAN WORK MY. 
          YOU COULDN'T DO THAT. SO I THINK THERE'S A THERE'S A REASONABLE, A REASONABLE BALANCE OF, OF GETTING IN IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS AND ODD NUMBERED YEARS WITH THREE. 
          WHEREAS IF IT'S TWO OR IF IT'S FOUR, SOME SEATS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE LOCKED INTO THE LOWER VOTE. SO, SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THAT'S MY OPINION IS ON THAT FACTOR THREE IS ACTUALLY BETTER. ODD NUMBER IS BETTER, NOT WORSE. AND THEN AS FAR AS TRANSITION PLAN AND THE DOCUMENT I HANDED OUT TO YOU, I THINK THERE'S A MUCH EASIER TRANSITION PLAN THAN, THAN THE ONES WE'VE, WE'VE LOOKED AT. AND SO IF I CAN INDULGE YOU TO LOOK AT THAT FOR A MINUTE, SO ON, THERE'S TWO PAGES HERE. SO THE, YOU KNOW, THE PAGE THAT STARTS WITH NUMBER ONE IS THE FRONT SIDE. SO IF THE MAYOR. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MAYOR AND ODD NUMBERED POSITIONS BEING ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO THE, YOU KNOW, THE CHARTER ELECTION WOULD BE AT LATE 26. 
          AND IF IT IF IT PASSED TO CHANGE, THEN NOVEMBER OF 27 WOULD BE OUR FIRST CHANCE TO HAVE A CHANGE. AND WE COULD WE COULD SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE MAYOR'S SEAT AT THAT POINT WILL HAVE ANOTHER TWO YEAR TERM WOULD BE A YEAR FOR TWO YEAR ELECTION. SO NOVEMBER 27TH THROUGH NOVEMBER OF 29, COUNCIL PLACE ONE, THREE AND FIVE WOULD HAVE THE FIRST THREE YEAR ELECTION. AND THEN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, COUNCIL PLACE TWO, FOUR AND SIX WOULD HAVE THE FIRST THREE YEAR ELECTION. THE FOLLOWING YEAR, THE MAYOR WOULD HAVE A THREE YEAR ELECTION AND YOU'RE OFF TO THE RACES. SO THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS YOU HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL CYCLE OF THE MAYOR DOING ONE ADDITIONAL CYCLE OF TWO YEARS. THERE'S NO ONE YEAR SHORT TERM. YOU KNOW, THIS IS, I THINK IS A MUCH CLEANER WAY TO DO IT. SO THAT'S THE PICTURE TRANSITIONING THE MAYOR LAST. AND IF YOU FLIP TO THE OTHER THE BACKSIDE, I JUST REDREW IT FOR THE TRANSITION OF THE MAYOR FIRST. RIGHT? SO THE MAYOR GOES FIRST AND YOU HAVE A ONE ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR CYCLE FOR PLACE ONE, THREE AND FIVE TO GET THEM OFFSET FROM THE MAYOR. 
          BUT I THINK TO ME, THAT'S A MUCH CLEANER WAY TO GO. AND I LIKE HAVING THE MAYOR AS A STANDALONE ELECTION RATHER THAN BUNDLED IN WITH OTHER PLACE SEATS. AND ONE OF MY REASONS FOR THAT IS THE SITUATION WE'RE IN NOW. WHERE, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN BEFORE MAYOR, WHEN MAYOR SULLIVAN DECIDED HE WAS GOING TO RUN FOR MAYOR, HE ANNOUNCED PRETTY LATE IN THE CYCLE, HIS SEAT WAS NOT UP FOR ELECTION THAT CYCLE. AND SO WHAT HAPPENED? COUNCIL HAD TO APPOINT SOMEBODY TO REPLACE HIM. WHEREAS MAYOR TOMS POSITION WAS UP. NATURALLY, IT JUST HAPPENED TO ALIGN BECAUSE IT'S AN ODD NUMBER. BUT HE ALSO GAVE MONTHS OF NOTICE AHEAD. RIGHT? SO KIND OF AS A COURTESY TO EVERYBODY, I THINK, TO THE CITIZENS. SO THERE WAS PLENTY OF TIME FOR PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT VOTING IN HIS POSITION. SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THE MAYOR AS A STANDALONE SO THAT IF, IF ONE OF THE COUNCIL SITTING COUNCIL MEMBERS DECIDES TO RUN FOR MAYOR, THEN THAT SEAT IS, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, 5 OR 6, THAT SEAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THE MAYOR'S ELECTION AS AN ADDITIONAL. AND I, I THINK AND, YOU KNOW, BRAD WILL HAVE TO HELP US IF I'M WRONG HERE, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT IF A COUNCIL MEMBER DECIDES TO RUN FOR MAYOR, THEY NEED TO DECLARE THAT EARLY ENOUGH SO THAT WE CAN ADD THAT SEAT ONTO THAT COMING ELECTION. 
          I'D LIKE US TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW, MR. BULLOCK, IF THAT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY MY QUESTION THERE I, I THINK SO. I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I, I'M NOT I'M NOT SEEING A KIND 
          [00:25:08]
OF A SPECIALIZED OR SINGLE OFFICE FILING DEADLINE AS OPPOSED, YOU KNOW, USUALLY YOU SEE, YOU SEE UNIFORM FILING DEADLINES. RIGHT. SO I'D HAVE TO THINK I DON'T I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT IT. I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THAT BEFORE. BUT NO, I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT THAT I WOULD HAVE ABOUT, ABOUT MR. PRINCE'S SUGGESTION IS THAT ONE OF THE ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD ABOUT IT, WHAT IF IN THE EARLIER ITERATION, IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, WITH THE SHORT TERM, SOMEBODY GETS A ONE YEAR OR IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL END UP DOING, I DO THINK THAT YOU NEED TO DECLARE THAT IN ADVANCE SO THAT THE VOTERS KNOW, HOWEVER YOU DO IT, SOMEBODY'S GETTING THIS. YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S A TWO YEAR TERM, SOMEBODY'S GETTING THIS TERM AS OPPOSED TO DECIDING THAT AFTER THE FACT BASED ON VOTE TOTALS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S ILLEGAL OR, YOU KNOW, PROHIBITED BY LAW. BUT I THINK IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE VOTERS WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED IN ADVANCE TO KNOW WHICH PLACE, YOU KNOW, IS WHICH AND WHAT IS WHAT IS THE TERM OF EACH. AND IT ALSO DOESN'T PROVIDE THE CANDIDATE RIGHT WITH THAT INFORMATION IN ADVANCE SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT ARE THEY COMMITTING TO. SO I DO THINK THAT WHATEVER WAY YOU GO, ASSIGNING THE LENGTH OF TERM IN ADVANCE IS THE BETTER, CLEANER WAY TO GO. AND, AND CERTAINLY NOT SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE, WHEREAS THE OTHER WAY I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL, BUT I DON'T IT ALSO IS UNUSUAL, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU IT COULDN'T BE CHALLENGED. SO FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH, BRETT, TO YOUR POINT, IF IT'S SPELLED OUT AT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, IS THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN? IT. YES. I MEAN, IN THE WELL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, BUT IN THE I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ITSELF CAN BE A SHORTER SUMMARY, BUT IN THE IN THE IN THE CHARTER PROVISION ITSELF, IT WILL LAY IT OUT. RIGHT. AND SO IT'LL TELL YOU IN ADVANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE SWITCHING CYCLES, YOU'RE GOING FROM TWO YEARS TO MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN THE CHARTER. IT WILL HAVE A PROVISION IN THERE THAT WILL TELL YOU, THIS IS THE, THE TRANSITION, THE METHOD OF CHANGING THE TRANSITION, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'LL BE A CHARTER PROVISION. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS FROM NOW, THAT'LL BE A, YOU KNOW, A DAY CHARTER PROVISION BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE ALREADY PASSED, BUT IT'S THERE IN THE CHARTER AND IT TELLS THE VOTERS. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, BUT IT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER LANGUAGE. OKAY. WELL, AGAIN, MY ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO KEEP MOVING IT FORWARD, I DIDN'T SEE THE VOTES THERE YET ON FOUR YEAR TERMS. WE HAD ORIGINALLY ASKED THREE YEAR TERMS. DO I NEED TO ASK ABOUT TWO YEAR TERMS? OR CAN I GO DOWN THE LINE AGAIN AND ASK ABOUT THREE YEAR TERMS? IF WE GOT FOUR HEAD NODS ON FOR THREE YEAR TERMS, THEN WE CAN JUMP INTO THE TRANSITION CONVERSATION. OKAY, I SEE, I SEE ENOUGH TO STAY WITH THREE AND WE'RE ON MR. PRINCE'S TRANSITION DISCUSSION. YEAH, AND I'LL RESTATE AND APOLOGIZE. BRAD, I DIDN'T I PRINTED HARD COPIES OF MY NOTES WITH THE PICTURE ON IT HERE. SO YOU DON'T YOU DON'T HAVE IT YET. I'LL TRY TO GET YOU A COPY EMAILED IN A BIT. OKAY? YES, SIR. NO PROBLEM. YES, I COULD IF SOMEBODY CAN. I, CAN I JUST I DO THINK THAT THE CHART THAT YOU GAVE IS MAKES IT EASIER TO FOLLOW. SO MAYBE BRAD AND THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THE CHART. YEAH. NO, I'LL BE GLAD TO SHARE. I LOGGED IN JUST KIND OF. IT WILL BE UP. HE HASN'T DONE IT YET, BUT HE WILL PUT IT ON DISCUSSION. YEAH, YEAH. OH ACTUALLY I HAVE TO TURN MY CAMERA ON. PROBABLY CAMERA ON. AND NOW. I DON'T SEE I DON'T SEE AN OPTION TO SHARE YET. BRAD. I MEAN. CHARLES WANTED TO MAKE YOUR PRISONER. PICTURE AND 
          [00:30:05]
PICTURE ENHANCE. DID YOU GET THE RIGHT. PAUL. THERE'S ANOTHER PAUL ON THERE. YEAH. I DIDN'T SAY THAT OUT LOUD, DID I? KNOW YOU'RE A PRISONER? OKAY. OH, OKAY, I SEE, I SEE, I SEE IT, OKAY. IT'S AT THE BOTTOM. MIDDLE BUTTON. BOTTOM, MIDDLE. WINDOW. THAT'S WHAT I WANT. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS. OH, THAT'S POWERPOINT, BUT THAT'LL WORK. ALL RIGHT. SO, BRAD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT NOW, BUT THE SITUATION WE HAVE IS MAYOR AND THE THREE ODD NUMBERED PLACES ARE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO IF WE OFFSET ONE OF THOSE TWO IN IN THIS CASE, I'M SUGGESTING THIS PICTURE. I'M SUGGESTING COUNCIL PLACE ONE, THREE AND FIVE WOULD DO ALL. ALL THREE OF THEM WOULD WOULD DO ONE ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR TERM. THE MAYOR IN NOVEMBER 27TH WOULD TRANSITION TO THREE YEARS. EVEN NUMBERED PLACES WOULD TRANSITION TO THREE YEARS IN 28. AND THEN THE FINAL TRANSITION WOULD BE THREE PLACE CYCLES IN 29. ALTERNATELY, INSTEAD OF THE MAYOR TRANSITIONING FIRST, YOU COULD HAVE THE MAYOR TRANSITION LAST. 
          AND IN THAT CASE, THEN THE MAYOR WOULD DO ONE ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR TERM AND ODD NUMBERED PLACES. WOULD ALL THREE BE THREE YEAR TERMS IN NOVEMBER 27TH EVEN NUMBERED TERMS? ALL THREE ALL MOVE TO THREE YEAR TERMS IN 28. AND THEN THE MAYOR MOVED TO A THREE YEAR TERM IN 29. SO IN ANY CASE, THERE'S THERE'S NOBODY REALLY GETTING A SHORT, SHORT SHIFT. IT'S, YOU KNOW, THREE COUNCIL PLACES ARE ALL TREATED THE SAME TWO YEARS AS THEY HAVE BEEN BEFORE, OR THE MAYOR'S TREATED THE SAME AS HE HAD BEEN THE CYCLE BEFORE. I THINK EITHER FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, EITHER IS FINE. YEAH. YOU WOULD JUST NEED A A NARRATIVE, YOU KNOW, EXPLANATION AS A, AS A, YOU KNOW, SUBSECTION IN THAT CHAPTER OF THE CHARTER, YOU KNOW, EXPLAINING THAT PROCESS IN A NARRATIVE FORM. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S FINE. SO YOU JUST, I THINK AS A BODY, YOU NEED TO PICK Y'ALL, Y'ALL NEED TO PICK ONE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DRAFT THAT IN THE NARRATIVE FORM, WHICH, WHETHER IT'S MAYOR FIRST OR THE OTHER. 
          FIRST DOESN'T MATTER. Y'ALL PICK ONE. AND THEN THAT LANGUAGE GETS DRAFTED AS A SUBSECTION. MR. BENNEFIELD. SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF THREE, THREE, ONE. I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING MAYBE THE THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF IT. I GUESS LINGERING IS THE ONLY, THE ONLY ISSUE, I GUESS I HAVE INTERNALLY. COME ON. YEAH. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I HAVE INTERNALLY IS, IS WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR. YEAH. YOU MIGHT WANT TO MOVE YOUR MIC THIS WAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE FACING THIS WAY. SO THE ONLY ISSUE I HAVE IS THAT WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR, ALBEIT IT'D BE OBVIOUSLY A LOT. ANYWAY. THAT'S IT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. WHAT, WHAT BENEFITS ARE WE GAINING BY THIS VERSUS WHAT ARE WE LOSING BY HAVING AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR? RIGHT. AND I WOULD SAY FROM A BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE, I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT IT WAS IT WAS UNUSUAL THAT THE MAYOR AND SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME, WHEREAS OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH THE MAYOR ELECTION. THIS MAKES IT SYMMETRIC ACROSS THAT. AND SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, THERE WAS DEFINITELY I THINK THEY HAD THE OPINION THAT CHANGING THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THE SAME TIME IS TOO BIG OF A CHANGE OVER. SO THAT WAS WHY THEY HAD THE TWO, TWO, THREE, I'LL CALL IT RIGHT, WHERE TWO, TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE BEING ELECTED EVERY YEAR. AND THE MAYOR ALIGNS WITH ONE OF THOSE CYCLES. SO THEY HAD A TWO, TWO, THREE WITH WITH ELECTIONS EVERY YEAR. BUT THAT LED ONE OF THE DOWNSIDES OF THAT WAS THE TRANSITION WAS A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO COME UP WITH, BUT IT'S DOABLE AS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED. SO FOR ME, THIS IDEA OF ASYMMETRY IN OUR ELECTIONS WHERE IF A COUNCIL MEMBER MOVES 
          [00:35:03]
FROM BEING ON A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO RUNNING FOR MAYOR, WHETHER THEY'RE AN ODD NUMBERED PLACE MAYOR ALIGNED OR AN EVEN NUMBER PLACE, MAYOR NOT ALIGNED HAS A PRETTY BIG IMPACT ON HOW THE ELECTION PLAYS OUT. AND SO I WAS I WAS TRYING TO TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL WITH THIS APPROACH. MR. BENFIELD DEFINITELY CONCEDE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, I WAS SHOCKED BY HOW MUCH COUNCIL CHANGED EVEN JUST THIS LAST ELECTION, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD ONLY THREE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS. WHEN WHEN, YOU KNOW, WITH A NEW MAYOR AND THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS, IT'S IT DEFINITELY IS A CHANGE. SO I COMPLETELY SEE YOUR YOUR POINT THERE IS THERE IS ONE OF THESE TRANSITIONS. ARE YOU LEANING TOWARDS ONE VERSUS THE OTHER OR ARE YOU IMPARTIAL TO EITHER. 
          I'M REALLY IMPARTIAL. YOU KNOW, I, I'LL LET ME SAY ONE MORE THING THAT MY MY BRAIN WAS STILL CLICKING THERE. I THINK HAVING THE MAYOR, BECAUSE THE MAYOR IS POTENTIALLY THE BIGGEST CHANGE FOR HOW THINGS OPERATE ON COUNCIL, HAVING THE MAYOR ELECTION NOT ALIGN WITH ANY COUNCIL MEMBER CHANGES, I THINK MAY HAVE SOME SOME BENEFIT AS WELL AS THE OTHERS THAT I MENTIONED. BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER THE THE MAYOR SHOULD TRANSITION FIRST OR THE MAYOR SHOULD TRANSITION LAST, I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A COIN TOSS TO ME. I DON'T FUNDAMENTALLY SEE THE DIFFERENCE EITHER. JUST SO WE JUST PICK ONE. AND THEN JUST FOR BRAD'S PURPOSES, THE WAY THE CURRENT DRAFT IS WRITTEN, 3.01 SECTION, SUBSECTION FOUR ALREADY HAS A TITLE OF TRANSITION TO THREE YEAR TERMS. THAT'S WHERE WE CAN WRITE WHICHEVER ONE WE CHOOSE. MR. ROWAN, WE OBSERVE THIS IN THE LAST CHARTER, WHERE YOU'VE GOT ORPHAN LANGUAGE. AND SO WE RECOMMENDED THAT WE TO THE FULL TRANSITION PLAN AS A SEPARATE EXHIBIT AT THE END OF THE CHARTER. THAT WAY, WHEN IT'S NO LONGER RELEVANT, IT'S AN EXHIBIT AT THE END OF THE CHARTER. SO JUST WANT TO CALL THAT OUT. YOU'VE GOT THAT IN 3.01 THAT REFERENCES THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS THE DETAIL PLAN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT, OR ATTORNEY COULD TELL US, BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE DRAFTED IT. RIGHT. IS THAT FINE TO HAVE AN EXHIBIT AT THE END OF THE CHARTER? YEAH, IT IT'S A PART OF YOUR CHARTER. 
          SO IT'S JUST THAT'S A MATTER OF PLACEMENT. IT DOESN'T I MEAN, THAT'S AGAIN, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU WANT IT TO LOOK IS FINE. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY LEGAL EFFECT. OKAY. I'M FINE WITH PUTTING IT AT THE END BECAUSE HERE THEN YOU KEEP THIS LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE, AND THEN YOU JUST CHANGE THE EXHIBIT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE ODD, BUT WE COULD EVEN INCLUDE MR. PRINCE'S GRAPH. MAY I JUST. THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE. NO PROBLEM. JUST ONE OTHER CHARTER REVIEW OBSERVATION. WHEN IT CAME TO THE TRANSITION, THE THREE. 
          THREE ONE WAS NOT RECOMMENDED. WE WENT WITH THE TWO, TWO, 2 OR 2 231, THE TURNOVER THREE. BUT THE OTHER THING WE FELT LIKE WAS HAVING TWO COUNCIL CANDIDATES IN ANY ELECTION CYCLE. THAT REDUCES THE POTENTIAL FOR UNCONTESTED RACES. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE DRIVERS FOR US, STAGGERING IT TO TWO AND TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WAS TO HOPEFULLY REDUCE THE NUMBER UNCONTESTED RELEASES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYFIELD. CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? SO THE CONCERN IS WITH THREE AND 4 OR 3 THREE AND ONE IS THAT THERE MIGHT BE YEARS THAT THERE'S JUST NOT THAT MANY CANDIDATES. CORRECT. AND YOU WIND UP WITH UNCONTESTED RACES. SO IF YOU HAVE TWO RACES IN ANY GIVEN YEAR, YOU NEED A MINIMUM OF FOUR CANDIDATES. IF YOU HAVE THREE RACES, THEN YOU NEED A MINIMUM OF SIX. OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE UNCONTESTED. SO IT'S NOT A HUGE THING, BUT IT IS THE CONSIDERATION OF WHY CRC ULTIMATELY LANDED ON TWO, TWO, TWO COUNCIL MEMBER RACES, AS OPPOSED TO THE EASIER TRANSITION, CLEANER TRANSITION OF JUST GO TO THREE AND THEN DO THE MAYOR SEPARATELY. MR. AVERILL, I'M WONDERING WHERE. WHO IS. IS THAT BETTER? OKAY, APPARENTLY, APPARENTLY IT'S MIKE. OKAY. I WAS WONDERING WHERE I THINK THAT LAW GOES AT A POINT WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING TO THAT ARE VERY INTERESTED IN RUNNING. THAT HAS NOT BEEN THAT FEELING IN THE PAST. THERE'S ACTUALLY PEOPLE THAT ARE WANTING TO RUN, BUT AS SOON AS THEY FOUND OUT WHO WAS GOING TO RUN, THEY WERE LIKE, OH, ABSOLUTELY. I CAN'T RUN AGAINST THEM. YOU KNOW, I LIKE THEM TOO MUCH OR I'LL NEVER WIN BECAUSE I JUST DON'T HAVE THE BACKING 
          [00:40:02]
FOR IT. YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ELSE HAS GOT SO MUCH OTHER BACKING. SO I'M WONDERING IF IF THIS OPINION IS IS BASED ON CURRENT CURRENT PUBLIC SENTIMENT, OR IS THIS MORE OF A HISTORICAL FEELING OF VOTERS IN GENERAL? OR IF YOU MAY NOT HAVE THAT DATA EITHER WAY? WELL, I CAN'T SAY WHAT WAS IN THE MIND OF EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT THERE WAS STRONG CONSENSUS THAT UNCONTESTED RACES ARE A BAD THING AND WE HAVE FEWER RACES. THEY'RE LESS LIKELY TO OCCUR. 
          MR. DOUGLAS, JUST COME TO THE MIC. THIS IS IN CONCERT WITH WHETHER IT'S AN OPINION OR WHETHER TALKING ABOUT HISTORY. LOOK ACROSS THE SEVEN OF YOU. FOUR RAN UNCONTESTED. SO I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT YOU'RE SITTING HERE WITH A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, THAT RAN UNCONTESTED. SO THAT THAT WAS DEFINITELY A CONCERN OF OURS BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENED. IT'S NOT AN OPINION. IT'S HAPPENED. IT'S FACT. SO THANK YOU. KIND OF FOLLOW UP. I DON'T THINK IT'S THE STRUCTURE. THAT'S THE REASON THAT THERE WERE UNCONTESTED RACES. I THINK IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHO'S IN THOSE PLACES, WHAT YEAR IT HAPPENS TO BE, WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          I WOULDN'T GET HUNG UP TOO MUCH BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S DATA TO PROVE IT. WE HAVE OPINION, BUT OTHERWISE, YEAH, I THINK WE JUST PICK ONE OF THESE TRANSITION ONES AND GO WITH IT. MR. WEST, I HAVE BEEN IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT FOR 30 YEARS, CLOSE TO IT, AND I CAN TELL YOU I'VE SEEN AND I'VE WORKED WITH 4 OR 5 DIFFERENT CITIES, AND I CAN TELL YOU THEY'VE HAD TWO YEAR TERMS, THREE YEAR TERMS AND CONTESTED RACES, ONE YEAR, NON CONTESTED RACES THE NEXT YEAR. IT ALL IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          IF YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF TURMOIL WITHIN YOUR COUNCIL, YOU'RE USUALLY GOING TO HAVE CONTESTED RACES. BUT IF EVERYTHING IS RUNNING SMOOTH AND EVERYBODY'S HAPPY, SO TO SPEAK, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, BUT IT'S JUST HIT OR MISS. THERE'S NO RHYME OR REASON TO. WHEN YOU HAVE CONTESTED AND UNCONTESTED RACES, THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC DEAL TO THAT. MR. MITCHELL, I AGREE WITH MISS CIAVARELLA'S COMMENT AS WELL. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE DIDN'T RUN FOR THE MAYOR POSITION BECAUSE THERE'S NOT INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK PEOPLE DIDN'T RUN FOR MAYOR BECAUSE THE BEST PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY RAN FOR THAT POSITION. AND I THINK PEOPLE DID THE MATH AND SAID, HE'S THE RIGHT PERSON AND HE WAS GOING TO WIN. AND WHY CONTEST THAT? AND I LOOK AT THE WAY WITH MISS OWENS, I THINK WHEN SHE SAID, HEY, I'M GOING TO RUN FOR COUNCIL, I THINK THERE WERE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT SAID, HEY, I'D LOVE TO BE IN HER SPOT, BUT SHE'S A REALLY GOOD CANDIDATE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T RUN AGAINST HER. SO I LIKE CONTESTED ELECTIONS AS WELL. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY THE REASON WHY. BUT IF I HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE TWO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. I LIKE THE TRANSITION. THEY'RE LAST A LITTLE BIT BETTER. IT PUTS ONE PERSON VERSUS THREE PEOPLE IN IN AN ADDITIONAL ELECTION. I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT I'LL VOTE YES EITHER WAY ON IT, I LIKE THAT. I LIKE THE 331, BUT I PROBABLY LEAN TOWARDS THE MAYOR LAST A LITTLE BIT MORE. MR. HALL, I ALSO LIKE THE 331 WITH THE WITH THE MAYOR LAST. I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAN AND WELL THOUGHT OUT. AND THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE. YEAH, I AGREE THAT'S THE ONE THAT I WAS ACTUALLY POINTING TO AND KIND OF GOING, HEY, YOU LIKE THIS ONE? I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE THIS TRANSITION A LOT BETTER. YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT AS WELL. SELFISHLY, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO RUN AGAIN, BUT RUNNING FOR THREE YEAR TERM WAS NOT HIGH ON MY PRIORITY. SO I WOULDN'T MIND ANOTHER JUST TWO YEAR TERM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          CAN WE AGREE THAT THAT WILL BE THE ONE THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT IN AS THE EXHIBIT. AND DO WE WANT TO TRY TO INCORPORATE THE THE GRAPH AS WELL? IF WE THINK THAT THAT SEE HEADS NODDING. OKAY. SO NOW THAT TAKES US TO TERM LIMITS. CAN I, SINCE I CAN MICROPHONE SINCE I HANDED EACH OF YOU THESE NOTES, MAYBE I CAN JUST WORK THROUGH SOME OF THIS. SO I, IF I GOT IT RIGHT IN THE DRAFT THAT MR. OWEN POSTED FOR US LAST IN 3.01.2, THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT REQUIRING MAJORITY VOTES AS OPPOSED TO PLURALITY, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW IF WE GO TO THREE YEAR TERMS, MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF IF THE CITIZENS REJECT THE THREE YEAR TERMS, WE DON'T PUT IN LANGUAGE TO FORCE MAJORITY BECAUSE OF FRANKLY, BECAUSE OF THE COST OF DOING IT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IT'S WORTH THE COST TO THE CITIZENS TO FORCE MAJORITY. AND MY 
          [00:45:06]
MEMORY OF THE CRC WAS, WAS THERE WAS KIND OF SPLIT DECISION ON THIS. THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION TO MAJORITY FOR TWO YEARS BECAUSE OF THE COST, PRIMARILY IF I REMEMBER. RIGHT. 
          AND BUT THERE WERE SOME MEMBERS AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE FIRST ROUND OF CRC. THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE WHO FELT STRONGLY IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE A MAJORITY VOTE. SO I GUESS MY MY QUESTION AND THIS WOULD BE A CONSENSUS. DO YOU ALL THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROPOSE A CHANGE TO THE CHARTER FOR CITIZENS TO VOTE ON TO REQUIRE MAJORITY VOTE, INDEPENDENT OF THE CHANGE TO THREE YEAR TERM? MR. I THINK A 50% PLUS THRESHOLD SHOULD BE REQUIRED. I THINK IT WAS. MR. OWEN'S LAST MEETING NOTED OTHER ANOTHER ELECTION WHERE THAT EXACT SCENARIO PLAYED OUT. 
          THREE INDIVIDUALS RAN ARGUABLY, AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS JUST. YOU KNOW, JUST A GUESS. BUT MANY WOULD CONCLUDE THAT HAD ONE PERSON NOT RAN THE VOTES THAT THAT PERSON GARNERED WOULD HAVE WENT TO ANOTHER CANDIDATE, AND THAT ONE CANDIDATE WOULD HAVE THEN HAD WON THAT ELECTION. 
          SO HAD IT GONE TO A RUNOFF, THEN, YOU KNOW, SO I KNOW, I KNOW ELECTIONS ARE EXPENSIVE, BUT THE VOTES IN WHICH CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAST ALSO HAVE CONSEQUENCES. AND THOSE ARE EXPENSIVE. AND SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND $20,000 TO GET THE RIGHT INDIVIDUAL ON THE DAIS, I THINK THAT'S MONEY WELL SPENT. AND AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHO WON THAT PREVIOUS ELECTION. IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME HAD WE REQUIRED THE MAJORITY. SO I LIKE THE MAJORITY. I WOULD LIKE BRAD TO OPINE ON HOW THAT WOULD WORK, WHERE WE WE DO THIS OFFERING OF THREE YEARS. IF THAT GETS REJECTED, CAN THERE BE AN AMENDMENT IN THERE SAYING, HEY, IF THREE YEAR GETS DENIED, CAN WE ADD THIS MAJORITY REQUIREMENT IN THERE? OKAY, WELL, SO, SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO OFFER UP ANYWAY, BEFORE YOU ASK THE QUESTION, WAS THE ISSUE OF, OF EXTENDING THE LENGTH OF TERM IS WOULD BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE WOULD BE A BALLOT MEASURE, RIGHT. THE ISSUE OF GOING TO MAJORITY VOTE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE TERM BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE, OUGHT TO BE ITS OWN BALLOT MEASURE. AND THEN I'VE ALSO THE NEXT ONE YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO IS TERM LIMITS. OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ITS OWN BALLOT MEASURE. SO I'M JUST ON THAT RIGHT THERE. YOU'VE GOT THREE BALLOT MEASURES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THEIR OWN UNDER STATE LAW, RIGHT? SO BEAR IN MIND, I MEAN, I'M FROM A I DON'T I DON'T CARE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PERSONAL PREFERENCE. THOSE ARE ALL POLICY DECISIONS THAT THE THAT THE VOTERS COULD MAKE. 
          THEY'RE ALL LEGAL. BUT THOSE ARE THREE BALLOT MEASURES. AND YOU STILL NEED YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE NUMBER OF BALLOT MEASURES. SO JUST BEAR THAT IN MIND. BALLOT MEASURE, NO MATTER WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, IT'D BE ITS OWN BALLOT MEASURE. SO IT ALMOST READ ESSENTIALLY LIKE IF THIS IF IF I CAN. YEAH. SO WE COULD HAVE A BALLOT MEASURE TO REQUIRE MAJORITY VOTE. AND IT REALLY, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER IT'S TWO YEAR TERM OR THREE YEAR TERM. RIGHT. AND THAT MAKES SENSE. RIGHT? SO AND RIGHT NOW, THE LANGUAGE THAT MR. OWEN HAS CAPTURED IN, IN 3.01, ITEM TWO, AND HE'S HIGHLIGHTED IN, IN RED OR PINK IN THE COVENANT. SO THERE IS A SENTENCE IN THERE RIGHT NOW WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE A BALLOT MEASURE, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONTINGENT ON ANYTHING. IT WOULD BE A BALLOT. YEAH. SO, SO SO GOING, GOING FROM PLURALITY VOTE TO MAJORITY VOTE TO BE ELECTED. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONTINGENT. IT I MEAN, IN FACT, YOU DON'T YOU DON'T NEED IT. IF, IF, IF, IF, IF THE TERMS ARE LINKED AND BEYOND TWO YEARS, IT'S AUTOMATIC, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU DON'T NEED A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THAT BECAUSE THAT'S STATE THAT'S BEEN THE CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW. THE ONLY THING YOU WOULD NEED A BALLOT MEASURE FOR IS IF, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU GO TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU LENGTHEN THE TERMS, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO MAJORITY VOTE, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ITS OWN BALLOT MEASURE. SO IT'S NOT CONTINGENT. IT'S IT IS ITS OWN STANDALONE. 
          AMENDMENT. OR ANOTHER PROPOSITION ABOUT MAJORITY VOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. 
          YEAH, I THINK MR. PRINCE SAID NO. MR. BENFIELD SAID YES. DO I HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS ON IT? MR. IT'S MY OPINION THAT THAT MAJORITY IS IS ALWAYS THE BEST FOR THE FOR THE VOTERS. IT. AND 
          [00:50:03]
I THINK THAT IF WE ACTUALLY PUT THAT IN THERE, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF. 
          OR MAYBE IT WOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TURNOUT. BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THREE RUNNING FOR A POSITION AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO GET THE MAJORITY, THEY'RE REALLY GOING TO PUSH THEIR ISSUES AND REALLY WORK WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS. AND IT MAY NOT BE AS MUCH OF A BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYERS AS WE THINK, BECAUSE THEN THERE MAY ACTUALLY BE A HARDER SWAY. THE PLURALITY THING, I THINK, IS, HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE, BUT FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES LIKE THIS, I THINK THAT IF WE WENT TO MAJORITY, I THINK YOU WOULD YOU WOULD SEE PEOPLE LEANING MORE TOWARDS ONE PERSON THAN THE OTHER. WE WOULD HAVE VERY FEW RUNOFFS. I'M GOOD WITH GOING TO A MAJORITY VOTE AS WELL. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS? MAYOR, I DON'T THINK YOUR MICS ON. IT DID STOP. OH, STOPPED HEARING IT. OKAY, MR. HALL, I, I BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY IS THE BEST WAY TO GO. IT'S IT ASSURES THAT WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTED THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY AND NOT SIMPLY AN ANOMALY OF HOW HOW THE VOTES ENDED UP BEING CAST. SO, SO YEAH, I THINK IT I THINK IT IS IT'S IT'S WORTH DOING. OKAY. DOES THIS MAKE ANY BETTER? YES, SIR. I CAN USE TRIALS AS WELL. SO THAT'S FOUR OUT OF SIX THAT SAYS LET'S DO A PROPOSITION ON A MAJORITY VOTE SO WE CAN MOVE BACK ON TO TERM LIMITS. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START THAT DISCUSSION? MISS OWEN? YES, ON THIS ONE, I THINK BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT POTENTIALLY. WE COULD END UP HAVING VOTERS DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP US AT TWO YEAR TERMS AND THEN HAVE THE TERM LIMITS. I THINK IT'S A LOT CLEANER. I THINK IT'S A LOT CLEANER. IF WE GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER PLACING TERM LIMITS ON A DIFFERENT ELECTION THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH WITH THE PUTTING THE THREE, I GUESS, WAS IT THREE, THREE, ONE ONTO THE BALLOT? HAVE THE MAJORITY ON THE BALLOT, BUT GO AHEAD AND PUT THE TERM LIMITS ON A SEPARATE ELECTION CYCLE SO THAT IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO, IF THE ELECTORATE OR THE RESIDENTS DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO STAY AT TWO YEAR TERMS INSTEAD OF THREE YEAR TERMS, IT'S JUST CLEANER. SO, MR. BENFIELD, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE IN TERM LIMITS ON A STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. AND I THINK IF YOU WERE TO ASK MOST RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA, DO YOU SUPPORT TERM LIMITS? I THINK IN MY OPINION, THE MAJORITY WOULD SAY YES. HOWEVER, THE AMBIGUITY OF THAT IS THAT CITY ELECTIONS ARE JUST SIMPLY RAN DIFFERENT THAN STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS, BECAUSE ANYBODY CAN RUN AGAINST ANYBODY AT ANY TIME. THEY'RE NOT POLITICALLY BASED. IT'S NOT A REPUBLICAN AGAINST A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT AGAINST A DEMOCRAT. AND ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL CAN REPRESENT THAT PARTY IF JUST USE MR. PRINCE AS AN EXAMPLE. IF HE WAS DOING A GREAT JOB AND HE JUST KEPT GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE A MECHANISM IN THERE TO STOP HIM FROM CONTINUING TO DO GREAT THINGS. IF HE STOPPED DOING GREAT THINGS. THERE'S NO MECHANISM THAT PREVENTS SOMEBODY FROM SAYING, I'M GOING TO CONTEST HIM, AND IF HE'S DOING A BAD JOB, I COULD EASILY WIN THAT ELECTION. BUT THAT DOES PLAY OUT IN THE STATE LEVEL, AND THAT DOES PLAY OUT THAT WAY IN THE FEDERAL LEVEL. 
          THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT TERM LIMITS. BUT ON A LOCAL ELECTION, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. THERE'S NEVER BEEN EXAMPLES IN LAGO VISTA WHERE THAT CAME INTO PLAY, AND I THINK ANYBODY CAN RUN AGAINST ANYBODY IF THEY'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB. SO I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR OWENS. I THINK WE LEAVE IT FOR ANOTHER ANOTHER DAY AND ANOTHER TIME. OKAY. MR. O'BRIEN, I'M IN AGREEMENT, I. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT AS WELL. GIVEN OUR POPULATION, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, PUTTING TERM LIMITS ON SOMEBODY THAT'S DOING A PHENOMENAL JOB ISN'T REALLY RELEVANT HERE. I DO AGREE OBAMA STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, BUT FOR LAGO VISTA, WE'RE WELL UNDER 2000 THAT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THEY'RE JUST NOT INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY ALWAYS BEING ON THE DAIS. SO IF YOU'RE DOING LIKE A PHENOMENAL JOB AND YOU CAN DO IT FOR TEN, 15 YEARS, ALL THE MORE POWER TO YOU. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD REALLY LEAVE THAT UP TO THE VOTER INSTEAD OF IMPOSING SOMETHING NOW THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HARM SOMEONE, SAY LIKE ME, I'M IN MY 40S. IF YOU IF YOU I MEAN, I GUESS YOU COULD ALWAYS RE STOP AND THEN WAIT TWO YEARS AND TRY TO RERUN IF WE PUT THAT OPTION IN THERE, 
          [00:55:05]
BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED A CONSECUTIVE TERM. BUT I LIKE, I LIKE GIVING THE VOTERS THE OPTION AND NOT IMPOSING TERM LIMITS AT THIS POINT. I THINK ALSO IT WOULD PUT WE'RE TRYING TO LIKE NARROW DOWN WHAT WE'RE PUTTING ON THIS ELECTION. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ADDED ITEM ON THERE THAT COULD PROBABLY BE, IF WE WANTED TO OMIT IT IN THE FUTURE OR PUT IT ON THE BALLOT FOR, SAY, NEXT YEAR OR YEAR AFTER. I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BOG THIS THIS BALLOT DOWN SO MUCH. OKAY, WELL, THAT WOULD BE THREE THAT DIDN'T SUPPORT THE TERM LIMITS. SO YOU CAN'T GET TO THE FOUR HERE TODAY. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THAT TOPIC. WE AGREE. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN EITHER STAY IN ARTICLE THREE AND KIND OF METICULOUSLY GO THROUGH IT. OR I THINK ANOTHER ONE OF THE BIG ITEMS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY COUNCILOR VAN NESS WAS THE ETHICS BOARD. DO WE WANT TO JUMP TO THAT CONVERSATION, OR DO YOU WANT TO STAY IN ARTICLE THREE? MR. PRINCE, ON THE SECOND PAGE OF WHAT I HANDED YOU ALL, I HAVE SOME OTHER ARTICLE, THREE COMMENTS WHICH I CAN WORK THROUGH THOSE. SO ARE WE IN AGREEMENT? WE'LL JUST STAY ON ARTICLE THREE. NODS OKAY, SO I DON'T THINK WE GOT TO CONSENSUS ON THE INTERACTION MODEL AND THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS, AND THAT'S SOME OF MY NOTES HERE. SO. I, I THINK WE COULD GREATLY SIMPLIFY THIS KIND OF CONVOLUTED A AND B, AND THEY CAN MEET WITH AND THEY CAN GET DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF WITH A PARAGRAPH LIKE WHAT I PUT HERE ON IN ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY MEET WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AS DEEMED NECESSARY TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ON ANY CITY POLICY OR ISSUE, AND MAY REQUEST THE CM INCLUDE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS NECESSARY TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE SUBJECT. IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RESULTING DISCUSSION, THEY MAY BRING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR RESOLUTION AND DIRECTION. SO SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD ALWAYS BE THE CITY MANAGER, WE WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO BRING IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR WHATEVER, SO THAT THAT I CAN ASK THE NEXT, NEXT LEVEL QUESTIONS, RIGHT? THAT WOULD THIS LANGUAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT WOULD PREVENT THIS. ANY CITY MANAGER FROM SAYING, YOU DON'T GET TO TALK TO ANY OF MY STAFF. YOU CAN ONLY TALK TO ME. RIGHT? THIS GIVES SOME ADDITIONAL ACCESS, IF YOU WILL. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IT WOULD NOT ALLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS OR MAYOR TO GO DIRECTLY TO STAFF WITHOUT INCLUDING THE CITY MANAGER IN DISCUSSION. AND I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE GIST OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF RULES OF PROCEDURE. I THINK THIS IS SIMPLER, CLEANER WAY TO TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER. AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY MY SUGGESTION. MR. BENNEFIELD SO COUNCILOR PRINCE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE THE, THE PROPOSAL, WHAT YOU'RE SIMPLY SAYING IS THAT IF AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS INFORMED DECISIONS, THEY WOULD GO TO THE CITY MANAGER AND AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER, INCLUDE STAFF MEMBERS AS NECESSARY. IS THAT WELL, I. YES, THAT'S THE WAY THIS LANGUAGE READS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT SAYS AND MAY REQUEST THE CM INCLUDE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS. I DEBATED WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE. MAY REQUIRE THE CM TO INCLUDE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, BUT I CAME DOWN ON THE MAY REQUEST BECAUSE I THEN ADDED THE SENTENCE IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RESULTING DISCUSSION, BRING IT INTO COUNCIL AND AND HAVE THE FULL COUNCIL DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. BUT YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S NOT STRONG ENOUGH AND YOU ALL WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE CITY MANAGER, YOU'VE GOT TO BRING IN THIS ONE, 2 OR 6 PEOPLE IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE SATISFIED, I CAN I CAN BE WILLING, WILLING TO DISCUSS THAT. MR. BENNEFIELD NO, I REALLY LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT FROM A IF I WAS THE CITY MANAGER, I WOULD APPRECIATE BEING IN CONTROL OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. I WOULD NEVER STOP THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT I WOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BE MORE IN CONTROL OF HOW THEY HAPPEN WHEN THEY HAPPEN. DO I WANT TO PARTICIPATE? DO I NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE? SO I DO LIKE THAT. I COULD SEE HOW A CITY MANAGER COULD DELAY OR TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SITUATION. CERTAINLY NOT IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION. I'M JUST THINKING LONG TERM. BUT YOU DO HAVE THE SAFEGUARD IN THERE. 
          THAT SAID, AT THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, WHAT THAT COULD DO IS IT COULD DELAY CERTAIN VOTES. 
          IF I WAS TRYING TO LOOK FOR INFORMATION AND I COULDN'T GET THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, I WOULD THEN HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL THE NEXT MEETING AND SAY I WASN'T ABLE TO GET THE 
          [01:00:02]
NECESSARY INFORMATION. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL THIS IS REQUESTED. BUT I DO LIKE THE DIRECTION THAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED HERE. I THINK THAT PUTS MORE CONTROL IN THE CITY MANAGER WITHOUT OBSTRUCTING COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION. I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT MR. WES'S OPINION ON THIS IS. MR. WEST. I ACTUALLY LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT COUNCILOR PRINCE CAME UP WITH THERE. I. FROM CITY MANAGER'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT FOLLOWS ALONG WITH THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. MISS. SO AS I'M THINKING THROUGH THIS, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, MAYOR. I REALLY I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. COUNCILOR PRINCE I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD. 
          GOOD PERSPECTIVE AS WELL. MY THOUGHTS ARE GOING TO. IF WHEN WE GET INTO SOME PRETTY COMPLEX ISSUES TO COUNCILOR BENFIELD'S POINT AND EVERYONE IS NEEDING TIME, THERE CAN BE AN OVERWHELM TO ME, NOT SO MUCH THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULDN'T WANT TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYBODY, BUT IF ALL SEVEN WERE TO MEET WITH SOMEBODY AT THE SAME TIME CONTEMPLATING THAT AGAIN, IT MAY BE A RARE CIRCUMSTANCE. SO POTENTIALLY BETWEEN THESE TWO, WE COULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM BECAUSE I THINK THE ONE THE MAYOR PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT ALLEVIATES THE PROBLEM. BUT IT DOES GO BEYOND, YOU KNOW, MORE THE COUNCIL MANAGER OR THE INFORMATION YOU'VE PLACED HERE. COUNCILOR PRINCE, IF YOU CAN HELP ME, I'M I'M TRYING TO FIND WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS WHAT THE MAYOR PUT OUT THERE. I'M SORRY HOW THAT IS UNDER CITY UNDER THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FORUM, THE CITY COUNCIL, ARTICLE THREE DISCUSSION AND THEN GO DOWN IT. IT'S IN THE SECOND. IT'S IN THE ONE THAT'S THERE ALL CROSSED OUT. BUT THOSE WEREN'T REALLY CROSS-OUTS. THAT WAS COPY AND PASTE. YEAH. SO GOING THROUGH AND READING IT. I'M JUST EXPRESSING THAT I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO MAKE THOSE INFORMATION CALLS JUST IN TIME WHEN IT'S COMPLEX. AND, AND QUITE A FEW MEMBERS ARE SEEKING THAT INFORMATION. MAYBE AGAIN, I'LL GO. CHARLES, MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON NAVIGATING THAT. WELL, JUST SINCE YOU'RE USING MY LANGUAGE, I'LL ELABORATE. HALF OF MY LANGUAGE IS ABOUT THIS SECTION BEING WEAPONIZED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF I'M JUST HAVING TO BE WALKING AROUND THE CITY HALL AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR COMES UP AND TALKS TO ME AND ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER SEES IT, OH, CHARTER VIOLATION. SO I HAD A WHOLE SECTION IN HERE OF ONE THAT PROTECTS THE EMPLOYEES, SAYS THAT EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE DIRECTED, THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE TAKING DIRECTION FROM INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS OR THE MAYOR. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE STATES THAT VIOLATION OF SECTION OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE OF OFFICE UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW. AND THERE'S MORE TO IT, BUT THAT'S THE GIST OF IT. SO I THINK IT IS IN THE SAME SPIRIT AS YOUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE, MR. PRINCE, BUT IT GOES A LITTLE FURTHER TO SAY THIS IS NOT TO BE WEAPONIZED AND USED TO GET COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE MAYOR IN A GOTCHA MOMENT. YEAH. MR. WEST, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LANGUAGE TO THAT IDEA. YOU KNOW, I CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THIS. IT'S JUST THAT SAYING, WELL, WE MAY HAVE TO DELAY A VOTE, I DON'T THINK IS A VALID EXCUSE BECAUSE WE'RE BASICALLY HAVING A MEETING EVERY OTHER WEEK BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING THERE'S 12 MONTHS IN A YEAR. WE'RE SCHEDULED TWO MEETINGS A MONTH, 20, 24 MEETINGS A YEAR. THERE'S ONLY 52 WEEKS IN A YEAR. SO BASICALLY EVERY OTHER WEEK WE'RE HAVING A CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH IS REALLY TOUGH ON STAFF. NOW, IF YOU WERE DOING IT ONCE A MONTH, WHAT THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED WOULD WORK PERFECT, IN MY OPINION. AND I THINK WHAT, MR. PRINCE, I THINK SOMEWHERE IN THERE Y'ALL COULD COME TO A CONSENSUS AND MAKE ALL OF IT WORK. BUT I'M NOT ONE TO, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT CITY MANAGERS. THEY'LL TELL YOU, NO, NO COUNCIL MEMBERS OR ELECTED OFFICIALS TALK TO ANY OF MY STAFF, INCLUDING DEPARTMENT HEADS. I'M A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TO THAT. I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. SO I DON'T CARE IF YOU TALK TO MY STAFF, TALK TO THEM, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET YOU ALL INTO A POSITION WHERE IT IS BEING WEAPONIZED ON THE ETHICS VIOLATIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THAT, TO ME, THAT JUST GETS TO BE A IT CREATES TOO MUCH TURMOIL AND GOTCHA MOMENTS. SO THAT'S MY $0.02. I THINK THERE'S A MERGING OF THE TWO THAT COULD WORK. YES. MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH, NO, I AGREE, THERE IS A THAT'S EXACTLY MY COMMENT. THERE HAS 
          [01:05:03]
TO BE A MERGING OF THE TWO. I AGREE. I, I DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE NEFARIOUS ETHICS COMPLAINTS FOR, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT JUST SHOULD NOT BE ETHICS COMPLAINTS. 
          I AGREE WITH 100%. I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HERE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPOSALS IS IN ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. IT SAYS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM CITY EMPLOYEES NECESSARY TO PERFORM THEIR LEGISLATIVE DUTIES. I AGREE WITH THAT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER FIRST, OR CAN I GO DIRECTLY TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD TO OBTAIN THAT INFORMATION? MY NATURAL PERSONALITY PERSONALLY SAYS I WOULD LIKE TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE, NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. I DON'T LIKE THE YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE. BUT WE'VE HEARD FROM MULTIPLE CITY MANAGERS OVER A LOT OF YEARS THAT SAYS THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM I HAVE IS COUNCIL MEMBERS GOING DIRECTLY TO STAFF. AND IF THAT PREDOMINANTLY IS THE PROBLEM ONE WAY SHAPE OR ANOTHER, THEN YOU KNOW, MR. PRINCE'S VERSION SEEMS TO ADDRESS THAT SAYING, YOU CAN STILL HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION. YOU JUST HAVE TO COORDINATE IT WITH THE CITY MANAGER. DOES THAT TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL EFFORT OR TIME? IT MIGHT, BUT WE MEET OFTEN ENOUGH AND REGULARLY ENOUGH, AND HOPEFULLY WE GET THESE AGENDA PACKETS OUT A LITTLE EARLIER AND THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE REGULAR THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MORE TIME TO MEET AS NECESSARY. SO I AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU. YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. WELL, THEN TO YOUR POINT, I THINK, I THINK IF WE HAVE TO COMPROMISE, RIGHT, I THINK YOU JUST TAKE THAT ONE SENTENCE LINE AT THE TOP OF MIND, YOU REPLACE IT WITH COUNCILOR PRINCE'S AND THEN YOU KEEP THE KEEP THE REST OF THAT. THAT PROTECTS THE EMPLOYEES AND PROTECTS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AGAINST ACCUSATIONS. MR. HALL, I'LL JUST COMMENT THAT PERSONALLY, IF I WANT INFORMATION, THE IDEAL IS THAT I'M GETTING IT FROM BOTH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE STAFF PERSON, SO THAT I CAN BE ASSURED THAT WHAT I'M HEARING, THE CITY MANAGER IS PREPARED TO STAND BEHIND THAT AND. AND SO I DON'T SEE ANY ANY PROBLEM WITH COUNCILOR PRINCE'S PROPOSAL. I THINK THERE ARE SOME ADVANTAGES TO THAT. AND SO I I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. MR. BENNEFIELD, THE ONLY ONE MORE THING IS, IS I WONDER IF DEPARTMENT HEADS OR EMPLOYEES WOULD BE MORE APT TO SPEAK FREELY IF THEY KNEW PUBLICLY THE POSITION OF THE CITY MANAGER. YOU KNOW, IF THIS EMPLOYER DIRECTOR HAD TO SPEAK TO A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IN FRONT OF THEIR CITY MANAGER, WHICH MAY BE AN OPINION CONTRARY TO THE CITY MANAGER, THERE MAY BE SOME A DIFFERENT FORM OF DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE. YEAH, I KIND OF THAT'S WHERE I GOT STUCK, WHERE IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER MAY INCLUDE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS. 
          BUT IS THAT YEAH. IS THAT SAYING THAT THEY GOT TO BE SITTING THERE WITH YOU, OR DOES IT GIVE THE CITY MANAGER THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, GO AHEAD AND GO TALK TO SO AND SO OVER THERE? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A POTENTIAL GOOD CLARIFICATION THAT COULD BE ADDED, RIGHT? THE CITY MANAGER MAY INCLUDE OR DEFER TO. RIGHT. OTHERS ON HIS STAFF. DOES THAT HELP THAT AT ALL? MR. SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THE PROPOSAL IS YOU TAKE COUNCILOR PRINCE'S PARAGRAPH HERE, YOU REPLACE THE TOP TWO OF MINE AND IT GOES AND YOU HAVE THAT DEFER LANGUAGE ADDED, AND THEN YOU GO INTO ANY REQUEST, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTIVE ISSUED BY AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER. AND THAT STILL STAYS IN. IS THAT. OKAY? SO I SEE FOUR HEAD NODS. 
          SO THAT'S GOOD. THAT COVERS US FOR THAT'S 3.06 A AND B, AND THEN IF I CAN JUST CONTINUE ON TO SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS, WE KIND OF HAGGLED THAT AND I'VE HAD SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT. 
          MY THOUGHT IS WE'RE TREATING SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS IN A WAY THAT'S TOO SPECIAL. TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO DO. THE MAYOR CAN PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA. ANY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA. 
          SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DECIDE, SHOULD WE PUT THAT AGENDA ITEM ON A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OR DO IT IN REGULAR AGENDA? AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT ALL SEVEN OF US NEED TO BE MAKING THAT DECISION OF IS, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A DEDICATED MEETING OR IS IT, YOU KNOW, DOES IT JUST SHOW UP ON THE REGULAR AGENDA? SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SOMETHING LIKE, FIRST OF ALL, THE LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW SAYS THE MAYOR SHALL CALL A SPECIAL. AND I THINK IT'D BE BETTER TO SAY THE MAYOR MAY. NO, I'M SORRY. IT CURRENTLY SAYS THE MAYOR MAY CALL A SPECIAL CALLED ME. IT DOESN'T SAY THE MAYOR SHALL CALL. RIGHT. SO WE'RE NOT SAYING THE MAYOR HAS TO DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING FOR ANY TOPIC. BUT THE MAYOR HAS THE ABILITY TO CALL THAT IF IT'S 
          [01:10:03]
IT'S SUCH A BIG DISCUSSION, FOR EXAMPLE, SUCH A BIG DISCUSSION THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE US GO TO 2:00 IN THE MORNING. IF WE DO IT ON A REGULAR MEETING, WE NEED TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, DEDICATED SESSION. I THINK SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BETTER IS, YOU KNOW, MAYOR OR ANY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN CHOOSE AGENDA ITEMS THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. LET THE MAYOR. AND HERE'S THE QUESTION SHOULD THE MAYOR CONSULT WITH THE CM? I THINK SO, BUT LET THE MAYOR ULTIMATELY MAKE THE DECISION. IS THIS TOPIC WHICH I AM REQUIRED TO PUT ON HERE BECAUSE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WANTED? IS THIS TOPIC SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A DEDICATED SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, OR ARE WE GOING TO GET IT DONE WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS OF REGULAR MEETINGS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ALREADY A REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN THERE? I LEAN TOWARDS THAT. SO LET'S NOT COME UP WITH THIS LANGUAGE OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO, TO FORCE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE AGENDA ITEM. LET'S LET'S NOT MAKE THIS HARDER THAN IT SHOULD BE. WOULD BE, WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. AND JUST THIS IS FOR THOSE THIS IS 3.06 G. THAT'S 3.06 G IN THE CR PROPOSED CHARTER. AND OUR CURRENT CHARTER IT'S 306 C. AND MR. PRINCE IS YOUR PROPOSAL INCLUDING BECAUSE THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT CHARTER AND THE PROPOSED CHARTER SAY BOARD OR COMMISSIONS AS WELL. DOES IT APPLY TO THOSE. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH I WOULD I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS. IN IN ITEM G. AND I'M LOOKING AT THE VERSION THAT MR. OWEN POSTED. SO IT'S ITEM G. AND WHAT I'M READING HERE SAYS THE MAYOR SHALL CALL SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL ON ANY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION AND SET THE AGENDA. THEREFORE, AND I THINK THAT SENTENCE SHOULD SAY THE MAYOR MAY INSTEAD OF SHALL. AND THEN THE REST OF THAT SENTENCE STANDS, AND THEN JUST DELETE THE NEXT. THE NEXT PART OF THAT ITEM G. SO THE SECOND PART, WHICH I WOULD PROPOSE DELETING THE MAYOR, MUST CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS. UPON THE REQUEST OF THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE DID HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I THINK MR. OWEN ACCURATELY CAPTURED THAT IN THE NOTES HERE, BUT I, I, I THINK THAT IS JUST NOT NECESSARY. IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S JUST WE ALREADY HAVE THE THE ABILITY FOR ANY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO FORCE AN AGENDA ITEM ONTO SOME MEETING AND THEN LET JUST THE MAYOR IN, YOU KNOW, CONSULTING WITH THE SPECIAL WITH THE CITY MANAGER MAKE THE DECISION. IS THAT DOES THAT HAVE TO BE A SPECIAL CALL, OR CAN WE JUST FIT IT INTO A REGULAR EXISTING MEETING? MAYOR. IN YOUR PROPOSAL ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER SHALL PREPARE AGENDA ITEMS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE MAYOR. ANY ITEM REQUESTED BY THE MAYOR OR ANY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL BE PLACED ON A REGULAR OR SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AGENDA WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS. WHAT WAS YOUR AND LIKE? WHAT WAS THE MEANING? LIKE WHAT DID YOU PLAN ON? WHAT WAS YOUR IDEA BEHIND THAT STATEMENT? I WAS TRYING TO READ THE ROOM AND COMPROMISE WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE PROPOSAL THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS WANTED. 
          THERE WAS A PUSH, I THINK, TO HAVE THE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS OPTION TO CALL SPECIAL CALLED AND TO INCLUDE THE CITY MANAGER. SO I WAS TRYING TO COMPROMISE, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE WAY MR. PRINCE HAS PUT IT OUT THERE, BECAUSE TO MR. WEST POINT A COUPLE MINUTES AGO, WE DO MEET EVERY OTHER WEEK. IT'S NOT LIKE WE GO A LONG TIME WITHOUT MEETING. THANK YOU MAYOR. AS I RECALL. ON THE DISCUSSION ON THIS, WHAT CAME TO MIND WAS A PRESSING ISSUE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE CARED ABOUT. AND SO I THINK IT WAS THE A SPECIAL CALL THAT GOT DELAYED SIGNIFICANTLY. AND SO HENCE WHY I BELIEVE THE CRC WENT AHEAD AND PUT IN THERE. IF THERE WERE THREE. IF IT WAS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH OF AN ISSUE THAT RESIDENTS CARED ABOUT AND THERE WERE THREE COUNCILORS THAT FELT IT WAS ALSO SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH ABOUT THAT IT WOULD. GO AHEAD AND BE CALLED ON A SPECIAL CALL. AND SO THAT IS A RARE, A RARE ITEM, 
          [01:15:02]
YOU KNOW, THAT HAPPENS IN TERMS OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. SO. I'M LISTENING TO WHAT THE CRC SAID. I'M A LITTLE I'M I APOLOGIZE. I AM PROCESSING THIS THROUGH IMPLICATIONS. THANK YOU. 
          MR. BANFIELD. I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR PRINCE ON THIS. I, I THINK IF WE'RE MEETING AS OFTEN AS WE ARE, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE KEY IS, IS THAT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING THINGS FORWARD. AND WHETHER THAT'S IN A SPECIAL CALL MEETING OR IN A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT MAKES A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING SPECIAL OTHER THAN IT'S FORCING SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. AND AS LONG AS THAT CAN HAPPEN DURING A REGULAR MEETING OR A SPECIAL MEETING, IF THE MAYOR WANTS TO DEVOTE SPECIAL TIME AND ATTENTION TO THAT PARTICULAR MATTER OR NOT THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NECESSARILY IS RELEVANT. I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT THINGS ARE HEARD AND HAVING ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ABOUT A THIRD MEMBER COMING IN. I THINK THAT JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVOLUTED. AND SO I, I LIKE THE SIMPLICITY TO TWO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL CAN BRING SOMETHING FORWARD OR THE MAYOR, IF THE MAYOR WANTS TO MAKE THAT A SPECIAL CALL MEETING, SO BE IT. 
          IF NOT, IT'LL BE ON THE NEXT REGULAR AGENDA MEETING. AND TO CONFIRM, H DOES PRESERVE THAT THE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN PUT SOMETHING ON AN AGENDA. YEAH. YEAH. AND IT ALREADY HAS THE KIND OF THE DEADLINE IT NEEDS TO BE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE REQUEST. RIGHT. SO IT CAN'T BE DEFERRED TO YOUR TO YOUR POINT. SO IT CAN'T THE MAYOR WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFER IT INDEFINITELY. ESSENTIALLY POCKET VETO. RIGHT. IT HAS TO GET ON SOME MEETING WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS. WITH THAT, I'M GOOD. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE FOR OKAY. SO WE WILL GO WITH PRINCE'S DEFINITION FOR THE SPECIAL CALL MEETING. YEAH. SO NEXT SUBJECT, MY ITEM SIX ON THE PAGE I HANDED OUT. AND MAYOR, YOU PROPOSED KIND OF A NEW MODEL WHERE THE CITY MANAGER WORKS WITH THE MAYOR IN YOUR 3.0, 6.1 POINT K IS WHAT YOU I THINK LABELED IT. I WOULD SUGGEST A SIMPLE VARIANT OF THAT. THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A COMMITTEE, SHALL WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A FUNCTIONING FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT. WHO SHOULD DO THAT RATHER THAN JUST THE MAYOR. BUT IF IF IN FUTURE COUNCIL DOESN'T SET UP A FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE, THEN SOMEBODY SHOULD DO IT. YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T OPPOSE THAT EITHER. I THINK THE GOAL IS JUST TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A LITTLE MORE INVOLVEMENT WITH US INTO IN THAT WORK, SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THINGS MOVING AND EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. OKAY. I'M GOOD WITH THAT LANGUAGE. THE WHEELS ARE TURNING. OUT. JUST FOR TO DO THE PLAY BY PLAY. YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE CRC'S PROPOSED CHARTER. THEN YOU KIND OF LOOK AT OUR CHARTER. THEN YOU LOOK AT THE DISCUSSION BOARD OF SOME OF THE PROPOSALS. AND THEN YOU HAVE MR. PRINCE'S HERE. SO YOU'RE IN BETWEEN? YEAH. JUST TRYING TO GIVE THE NARRATIVE FOR THE CITIZENS. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF DOCUMENTS YOU GOT TO GO BETWEEN. AND THEN YOU GO AND READ THE BULLET POINTS AROUND THAT ONE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT HITS ON THAT AS WELL. MR. YEAH. TO THAT END, IF OUR PUBLIC IS WATCHING OR IS GOING TO REVIEW THIS, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT WE ARE PUTTING IN A LOT OF WORK ON THIS. AND SO DID THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. 
          SO IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH THE WHEELS SPINNING OR THE STEAM ROLLING OUT OF OUR EARS, IF YOU SEE THAT. IF I WANT TO KILL SOME MORE TIME, YOU KNOW, I'LL SAY I DID MY BEST TO FOLLOW THE RULES THAT WHEN THE CRC WAS MEETING, I'M NOT TRYING TO HAVE ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THEM. SO I DIDN'T REALLY GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT ANY OF MY SUGGESTIONS OUT THERE OTHER THAN I POSTED ONE ONE TIME, AND THAT WAS A BIT LATE FOR THEM. SO THAT'S WHY YOU MAY SEE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS FROM ME ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I JUST WAS TRYING NOT TO INFLUENCE THE PROCESS UNTIL IT CAME TO COUNCIL. WE'RE WAITING FOR CLOSURE ON THIS. OR 3 OR 3.0, 3.06, WHICH WOULD BE A NEW SUBSECTION. NEW SUBSECTION. AND I CAN READ WHAT IT. I'LL READ IT AS IF PRINCE'S ADDITION WAS ADDED TO IT. IT SAYS THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR, AND THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A COMMITTEE SHALL WORK WITH THE CITY 
          [01:20:02]
MANAGER DURING PREPARATION OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO COMMUNICATE COUNCIL PRIORITIES, STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND COMMUNITY NEEDS. PRIOR TO PRESENTATION, THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO COUNCIL, THE COMMITTEE OR THE COUNCIL. THE CITY MANAGER SHALL CONSULT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR THE MAYOR REGARDING THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND ANY SIGNIFICANT POLICY, STAFFING, ORGANIZATIONAL OR FINANCIAL CHANGES CONTAINED THEREIN. ARE THERE TWO OTHERS THAT HAVE FORMED AN OPINION ON THIS ONE YET? I'M GOOD. MR. BENFIELD'S GOOD. IS THERE ANOTHER MR. TAVARES? OKAY, SO WE'RE GOOD TO MERGE THOSE TWO. 
          ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO MY NUMBER SEVEN. AND THIS IS A MUCH HARDER DISCUSSION. I, I SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME READING THROUGH THIS LANGUAGE AND THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, VACANCIES, FORFEITURE AND FILLING OF VACANCIES. AND THE MORE I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THE MORE, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF AGREE WITH AND I'M INTERNALIZING SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. I TEND TO BE MORE ALIGNED WITH MR. SOM THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, WHICH IS TO SAY, WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS. YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T BE COUNTING ABSENCES AND DECIDING WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO KICK SOMEBODY OFF A COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY WERE THEY WERE VOTED IN. IF IF THERE'S AN ETHICS VIOLATION, IT'S A STATE LEVEL ISSUE. YES. RIGHT. BUT THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT COUNCIL. THAT'S A STATE LEVEL THING. SO IN ESSENCE, I THINK. IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH SOMEONE NOT SHOWING UP AND NOT VOTING AT THE END OF THEIR TERM, CITIZENS VOTE THEM OUT. YOU KNOW, IF THEY RESIGN. SO THERE'S KIND OF TWO PIECES. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE THE JUDGES TO DECIDE IF SOMEBODY GETS KICKED OFF A COUNCIL. AND IF THERE'S IF THERE'S A LEGAL ISSUE, THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE OUR LANGUAGE NEEDS TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE MAKING THAT DECISION, NOT THE THE COUNCIL. BUT BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A ROLE OF COUNCIL TO ADJUDICATE AGAINST OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          AND THEN, FRANKLY, THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THE MORE I DISLIKED THE IDEA OF US FILLING VACANCIES BY, YOU KNOW, NON-CITIZEN VOTE. SO IF THERE'S A VACANCY, JUST PUT IT ON THE NEXT BALLOT, YOU KNOW, AND AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE A NOVEMBER BALLOT. IT COULD BE A MAY BALLOT. SO VACANCIES DON'T HAVE TO LAST THAT LONG. COUNCIL CAN CERTAINLY OPERATE WITH SIX POSITIONS RATHER THAN 7 OR 5, RATHER THAN SEVEN FOR A 6 OR 9 MONTH PERIOD WAITING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION. SO WE I LIVED THROUGH ONE CYCLE WHERE. WE HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO RAN FOR MAYOR. THAT SEAT WAS FILLED BY A VOTE. OF THE OTHER SIX PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE. AND I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT WAS A GOOD, GOOD PROCESS. I THINK IT'D BE BETTER FOR US TO JUST REALLY SIMPLIFY THIS THING. SO MY TAKE WOULD BE THERE'S A SECTION 307 .1.3 AND DOT FOUR. 
          I THINK THAT RELATES TO KIND OF THE, THE LEGAL STUFF THAT IS MORE STATE LEVEL. WE MAY OR MAY NOT NEED ALL THAT LANGUAGE, BUT THE REST OF THIS STUFF I THINK WE SHOULD GET RID OF, GET RID OF ALL THE WHOLE APPOINTMENT LANGUAGE AND EVERYTHING. AND IT'S, WE WOULD FILL OPEN POSITIONS AT THE, YOU KNOW, GET IT ON THE BALLOT AT THE NEXT POSSIBLE ELECTION. I, I ACTUALLY REALLY AGREE WITH THIS. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CASES WHERE, DEPENDING ON THE 
          [01:25:02]
LENGTH OF TERM LEFT IN THAT VACANCY, IT MAY REQUIRE A SPECIAL ELECTION. I LOOKED THIS UP ON THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S WEBSITE, AND SO SOMETIMES IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WAIT UNTIL MAY, SAY, IF THEY HAD LIKE 18 MONTHS LEFT OR EVEN MORE THAN THAT. SO OR AND SOMETIMES IT GOES TO LESS. I THINK I'LL HAVE TO GO OVER THAT LANGUAGE, BUT I THINK STATE LAW ACTUALLY DICTATES HOW THAT IS TO BE FILLED. SO I THINK US APPOINTING SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY BIAS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A VERY GOOD REPRESENTATION OF WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS WOULD WANT US TO DO. I THINK THEY WOULD REALLY WANT TO WEIGH IN A LOT HEAVIER ON THAT, SO I AGREE. AND I KNOW BRAD DID HAVE TWO COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION. IF HE WANTED TO CHIME IN. YEAH. WELL. SO SO MISS TREVOR IS RIGHT. IF THERE IS. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S 12 MONTHS OR 18 MONTHS, BUT IF THERE'S MORE THAN THAT LEFT IN A TERM, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION. IF THERE'S LESS THAN THAT IN A TERM YOU CAN APPOINT, IT'S COMMON TO APPOINT IN THAT IN WHAT WHAT CITIES DO. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, THEN THEN YOU'RE ALWAYS HAVING SPECIAL ELECTIONS. AND THAT CAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO SOME IF SOMEONE CAN BE A HOLDOVER, THEN I MEAN, THERE IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR THEM TO BE A HOLDOVER, RIGHT? IF FOR SOME REASON THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE YOU KNOW, PASSES AWAY, RIGHT? THEN YOU HAVE A SIX MEMBER BODY, RIGHT? AND YOU CAN STILL CONDUCT BUSINESS IN THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, ON SOME LEVEL, THAT'S A POLICY DECISION. YOU CAN'T IF YOU DECIDE TO REMOVE THE POWER OF FILLING A VACANCY BY APPOINTMENT, THAT IS WITHIN YOUR POWER, BECAUSE IT'S THE SHORT DURATION, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT. 
          BUT IF YOU I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF IF YOU DON'T GIVE YOURSELVES THAT POWER AND SOME ODDITY HAPPENS THROUGH RESIGNATION, THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. AND THE REMAINING BODY CAN'T APPOINT SOMEONE TO FILL IT, THEN YOU MIGHT BE IN THAT SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN'T FILL THE FORM. SO JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A POWER DOESN'T MEAN YOU USE IT. BUT IF YOU REMOVE THAT POWER FROM YOUR CHARTER, THEN IF YOU NEED IT, YOU CAN'T. 
          SO THOSE ARE JUST THINGS TO THINK ABOUT. I DO FAVOR OBVIOUSLY SHORTENING THIS A LOT AND RELYING ON STATE LAW. THE ONE QUESTION TO YOUR POINT, I GUESS, IS IF THERE ARE OTHER VOTES THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY OR ANYTHING THAT IF TWO MEMBERS HAD RESIGNED OR THREE MEMBERS HAD RESIGNED OR WERE DISQUALIFIED, THAT THAT WOULD PUT US IN A DIFFICULT SPOT WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO FILL THAT UNTIL NOVEMBER. IT BECOMES VERY IT BECOMES VERY CASE. SO. SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE. THOSE PRESENT. THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT REQUIRE SUPERMAJORITY OF THE ELECTED OFFICERS. AND IF IT'S THAT NARROW, IF IT'S THAT TINY SUBSET OF THINGS THAT REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY OF ELECTED OFFICES, AND YOU ONLY HAVE FOUR PEOPLE OR FIVE PEOPLE THERE, IT DOESN'T PASS. SO BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE HAVING TO FILL MULTIPLE APPOINTMENTS FOR SOME WEIRD REASON, THEN YOU CAN DO THAT. AND YOU, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN TAKE THAT ACTION. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SCENARIOS THAT ARE VERY UNCOMMON. BUT, BUT IF IT'S NOT IN YOUR CHARTER, THE ABILITY TO DO IT, THEN IF THAT WEIRD CONFLUENCE OF EVENTS HAPPENS, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE KIND OF STUCK. SO, BUT AGAIN, IT'S THERE, IT'S A, THAT'S A POLICY DECISION. AND ULTIMATELY UP TO THE VOTERS TO, I DON'T KNOW THAT. I MEAN, THAT BECOMES VERY COMPLEX, THOUGH. AND HONESTLY, THAT'S GOING TO BE A HARD THING FOR. THAT CAN BE A HARD THING FOR VOTERS TO KIND OF REALLY WRAP THEIR ARMS AROUND BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SUCH LEGALLY COMPLEX SCENARIOS THAT. AND THAT'S JUST A, THAT'S DIFFICULT FOR, FOR ME TO WRAP MY ARMS AROUND. AND THIS IS WHAT I DO. SO JUST BEAR THAT IN MIND. LET ME ASK A QUESTION. SO THIS I'M LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW. AND THIS IS 3.07. ITEMS. 3.07.5. 
          AND I KNOW I'M NOT SORRY, NOT DOT FIVE. IT'S DOT SIX AND DOT SEVEN RIGHT IN, IN THE VERSION 
          [01:30:05]
OF THE CHARTER THAT MR. OWEN POSTED. SO THE FIRST OF THOSE SAYS IF THERE'S A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR NEW MAYOR SHALL BE ELECTED BY SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN 120 DAYS. AND. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. AND THEN DOT SEVEN SAYS A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF A COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL BE FILLED BY SPECIAL ELECTION HELD WITHIN 120 DAYS. AND THEN IT GOES ON TO HAVE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT POTENTIALLY THE CITY COUNCIL MAY FILL SUCH VACANCY BY MAJORITY VOTE APPROVAL. THE QUESTION THAT I HAD WHEN THE WHEN THIS WAS UNDER DISCUSSION AT CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND LIKE YOU, MAYOR, I DIDN'T I DIDN'T POSE MY QUESTIONS IN THE MEETING. I WAS STAYING OUT OF IT. BUT I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW THAT IT SHALL BE FILLED BY SPECIAL ELECTION HELD WITHIN 120 DAYS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT 120 DAYS IS AND WHETHER IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE. SO, YOU KNOW, IF IF THERE IS NOT AN ELECTION SLOT SUPPORTED BY THE COUNTY WITHIN 120 DAYS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS 120 DAYS IS AND WHETHER WE SHOULD WE SHOULD LOOK AT FIXING THAT SO THAT WE DON'T GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE IT IS IT IS ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE CHARTER OF HOLDING AN ELECTION SO QUICKLY. MR. YEAH. SO I'M GOING TO JUMP IN ON THAT ONE, BECAUSE I'VE I'VE LITIGATED THIS ISSUE SEVERAL TIMES, AND IT IS IT IS NOT UNCOMMON, ESPECIALLY FOR OLDER CHARTERS, YOU KNOW, TO TO HAVE THESE SHORT DEADLINES WHERE THESE ELECTIONS MUST HAPPEN. MEANWHILE, TEXAS STATE LAW HAS EVOLVED. AND TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE YOUR UNIFORM ELECTION DAYS, AND THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FOR HOLDING ELECTIONS OUTSIDE OF UNIFORM ELECTION DAYS. BUT BUT THERE ARE THERE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR THE KIND OF SCENARIO THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IF IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE, YOU MAY BE PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR CHARTER SAYS, IF IT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN A VERY SPECIALIZED KIND OF EXCEPTION UNDER THE ELECTION CODE. SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS FOLLOW THE UNIFORM ELECTION DATES, BECAUSE THERE'S MAY AND THERE'S NOVEMBER, AND THAT'S WHAT SOLVES YOUR PROBLEMS. SO THIS IS THIS IS ANOTHER VERY COMPLEX AREA OF ELECTION LAW AND PREEMPTION AND EVERYTHING. AND IT, IT JUST GETS VERY DENSE AND THERE'S NO EXCEPTIONS. SO I WON'T GO TOO FAR INTO THAT. BUT IT YOU'RE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED THAT IT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW BECAUSE AS A GENERAL RULE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO COMPLY WITH UNIFORM ELECTION DATES. AND MAYBE IF I JUST MAY SUGGEST WE MIGHT WANT SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE OR SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE OFFICE SHALL BE FILLED OR BE PLACED ON ELECTION AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT. RIGHT. WHICH WHICH IT MAY BE. YOU KNOW, THIS COULD HAPPEN IN APRIL, BUT IT'S TOO LATE TO GET ON THE MAY, RIGHT? SO THE NEXT AVAILABLE WOULD BE NOVEMBER. SO SOME LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T PUT A NUMBER ON IT, BUT IT'S THE NEXT ONE THAT CAN BE DONE. YES, SIR. THAT'S THE WAY YOU DO IT. BECAUSE FOR A MAY ELECTION, YOUR DEADLINE TO CALL IT TYPICALLY, UNLESS IT'S COURT ORDERED, IS GOING TO BE BY FEBRUARY. MR. APRIL, THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY WAS GOING TO BE MY POINT WAS THE YOU CAN CALL AN ELECTION, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THE THE BALLOT AND THEN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY APPLYING FOR OFFICE AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM TIME. SO, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT THE FILING DEADLINES IN PLACE FOR THOSE AS WELL. SO PUTTING THAT 120 DAY ON THERE IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND COULD DEFINITELY BE CHALLENGED. I THINK IF WE WENT JUST TO THE UNIFORM ELECTION CYCLE, MAY, NOVEMBER, THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE AS WELL. I THINK THAT WOULD ACTUALLY ALIGN WITH STATE LAW AS WELL. SO. SO FIRST I'M JUST GOING TO SAY LIKE, WHERE ARE YOU GOING, COUNSELOR PRINCE? AND OF COURSE, MAYOR, I'M JUST WONDERING, THOUGH, IN THE, IN THE CASE OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, A MULTIPLE, I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT IT WOULD BE REALLY RARE. BUT COULD WE STATE SOMETHING, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, IN THE EVENT THAT A MULTIPLE VACANCY OCCURS ON THE CITY COUNCIL, WERE THE REMAINDER. 
          WHATEVER. THEN THERE'S. APPOINTMENTS CAN HAPPEN. JUST PUT THE WORD MULTIPLE IN THERE RATHER THAN JUST A SINGULAR. AND THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW IN THE CASE THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE ABSENCES, NOT JUST A SINGULAR, BUT I WOULD NEED TO KNOW. BRAD, WOULD THAT BE CLEAR ENOUGH OR WOULD THAT REALLY MUCK IT UP? THAT THAT'S A I, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANOTHER CHARTER PROVISION 
          [01:35:05]
QUITE LIKE IT. SO I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR SURE WHAT I CAN. WHAT HERE'S WHAT I'LL TELL YOU IS THAT IT IS COMMON FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS IS COMMON IN CHARTERS AND. 
          AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT, THAT'S FINE, BUT IT IS COMMON. HOWEVER, IF YOU. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT, THEN. THEN YOU. YOU MAY BE HAVING. YOU MAY BE HAVING SPECIAL ELECTIONS. THAT YOU KNOW, THAT ARE COSTLY, RIGHT. AND SO, SO IT'S JUST THERE'S A FISCAL LIKE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A FISCAL IMPACT TO IT AS WELL. IF YOU CHOOSE TO REMOVE YOUR ABILITY TO APPOINT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN THEN THERE'S A FISCAL IMPACT TO IT. 
          AND AGAIN, THAT CAN BE, YOU KNOW, MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. I DON'T AND AGAIN, THAT'S A PERFECTLY FINE CHOICE TO MAKE. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT, BUT THERE IS THAT IMPACT. YOU CAN I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE. IT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNUSUAL. I MEAN, I THINK I THINK YOU'RE GETTING INTO SOME SOME YOU CAN PUT THAT IN YOUR CHARTER, BUT THE ODDS OF THAT HAPPENING ARE REMOTE. BUT IF THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO APPOINT IS IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, YOU CAN DO THAT, IT WOULD JUST BE AN ODD CHARTER PROVISION. BUT THAT'S OKAY. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. MISS. SORRY. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION, AS WELL AS IF WE HAD SOME SORT OF PROVISION IN THERE THAT SAID, IF WE EVER DROPPED FIVE OR BELOW AND WE COULDN'T COME TO A SUPERMAJORITY, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL APPOINTMENT, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT COUNCIL WOULD, BEFORE MAKING ANY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT, WOULD HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL CANDIDATES OR PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE WOULD BE APPOINTED FOR THAT TERM. SHOULD WE HAVE TO COME TO THAT OPTION? MY OTHER JOKING, HALF JOKING PART IS CAN WE ALL JUST AGREE NOT TO RIDE IN THE SAME VEHICLE OR GET ON THE SAME PLANES? SO WE DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM WHERE WE'RE ALL DISAPPEARING AT ONE TIME? MR. PRINCE, I'LL JUST JUST NOTE THAT SUPERMAJORITY IS SIX OUT OF SEVEN. AND SO IT. I GUESS WHERE I'M BASED ON WHAT, WHAT I HEARD FROM FROM BRAD, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M THINKING IS THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST KEEP IT. AND IN THE SECOND HALF OF THIS DOT SEVEN, IT SAYS. 
          NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, IN THE EVENT THAT A VACANCY OCCURS ON THE CITY COUNCIL, WHERE THE REMAINDER OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM FOR SUCH OFFICE IS 12 MONTHS OR LESS, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY FILL SUCH VACANCY BY MAJORITY VOTE APPROVAL OF A PERSON WHO MEETS ALL QUALIFICATIONS. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. I'M INCLINED TO JUST KEEP THAT. BUT. FIX THIS LANGUAGE OF THE 120 DAYS SO THAT WE ALIGN WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION CYCLE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. I'M GOOD WITH THAT MISS ON. YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT THE CRC DID HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LAW AND INTENT ALLOWED YOU TO APPOINT UNEXPIRED TERMS OVER 12 MONTHS. THEY SPECIFICALLY LIMITED IT TO UNDER 12 MONTHS, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WE'VE NOW BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THANKS. SO ANYWAY, WITH THAT I AGREE. ARE YOU SAYING THAT MAKES ME ACTUALLY LET ME THROW THIS COMMENT OUT THERE SO THE SCENARIO COULD HAPPEN WHERE THERE'S 1 OR 2 PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, PASS AWAY OR, OR IN A PLANE CRASH OR WHATEVER, OR THEY JUST RESIGN. AND SO WE DON'T HAVE SUPERMAJORITY. BUT THOSE TWO PEOPLE, IF THEY HAD MORE THAN 12 MONTHS LEFT ON THEIR TERM, COULD NOT WE COULD NOT FILL IT BY AN APPOINTMENT. SO A ANOTHER POSSIBILITY. WE'LL SEE IF BRAD LIKES THIS OR HATES IT IS WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO FILL THE SEAT UNTIL THE NEXT AVAILABLE ELECTION CYCLE IS IS AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE IS THERE. 
          SO SO COUNCIL COULDN'T APPOINT SOMEBODY FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, BUT THEY COULD APPOINT SOMEONE FOR 6 OR 9 MONTHS UNTIL THE CITIZENS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILL THAT SEAT. PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. OKAY, TO HAVE HEAD NODS ON THAT. OKAY. WE DO. BACK TO THE FIRST HALF OF YOUR QUESTION. THAT WAS ALL ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO REMOVE PEOPLE. I AM STILL IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THAT ENTIRELY AND JUST LEAVE IT TO WHAT STATE LAW ALREADY SAYS. THAT WAS MY QUESTION FOR BRAD ON THE 3.071, TWO AND THREE. ARE THESE IS THIS JUST STATE LAW REWRITTEN? SO WELL? SO HOME 
          [01:40:09]
RULE CITIES HAVE AND THERE'S THERE ARE CASES ON THIS ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR CHARTERS TO HAVE REMOVAL PROVISIONS. IF THE THE THE THE COUNCIL IS THE THE JUDGE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. AND SO AND THAT'S AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE THE SENATE AND THE CONGRESS HAVE HAVE SIMILAR POWERS RARELY USED, BUT BUT THEY HAVE SIMILAR POWERS. THERE. COURTS HAVE UPHELD THE AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS TO REMOVE MEMBERS WHO, YOU KNOW, FAIL TO MEET CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS OR WHO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN CONDUCT AND SO FORTH AND BEYOND. BUT, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT BEYOND WHAT STATE LAW HOLDS. OR THAT PROCESS IS INVOKED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CHARTER AS OPPOSED TO STATE. AND SO THOSE HAVE BEEN UPHELD AS LONG AS THERE'S ADEQUATE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, YOU HAVE TO HAVE BASICALLY A MINI TRIAL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO EXERCISE THAT POWER OR HAVE THAT IN YOUR CHARTER, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO. YOU MAY REMOVE IT, BUT IT'S PURELY A CALL FOR, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL AND YOUR VOTERS, I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. YEAH. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT HAVE THAT IN OUR CHARTER. THERE'S NO REASON WE HAVE TO HAVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT. YEAH, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT HAVE THAT IN THE CHARTER. AND IF AND IF THE ONLY MECHANISM YOU WANT TO HAVE IN THERE IS RECALL BY THE VOTERS. YEAH, YOU CAN DO THAT. 
          YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE RECALL. I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. AND IF SOMEBODY LEGALLY BECAME UNQUALIFIED TO BE IN OFFICE PER STATE LAW, THEY WOULD ALREADY BE REMOVED. 
          NOT, NOT AUTOMATICALLY. THERE'S NOT A MECHANISM THAT THAT REALLY THAT AUTOMATICALLY REMOVES SOMEONE IN THAT REGARD. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER TO CARRY THAT OUT? IT TURNS OUT THEY'RE NOT THE APPROPRIATE AGE. THEY'RE NOT THEY THEY DON'T LIVE HERE OR THEY DON'T THEY'RE NOT A US CITIZEN. I MEAN, YOU. I GUESS THE ONLY ONE THAT REALLY GETS ME IS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING HERE SAYS IF THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OF A FELONY. YEAH. I MEAN, SO THAT'S THE THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THE THOSE ARE COMMON. THOSE ARE COMMON THINGS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT IN YOUR CHARTER. BUT IF AGAIN, IT'S ONE OF THOSE POWERS THAT IF YOU IF YOU REMOVE IT AND THAT ODD, YOU KNOW, UNIQUE SITUATION AROSE WHERE YOU DECIDED YOU WANTED TO AND IT'S NOT THERE, THEN YOU'RE STUCK. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, BUT IT'S THAT'S A, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IN THERE OR NOT IS, IS A, IS REALLY A CALL FOR, FOR YOU ALL AND YOUR, YOUR VOTERS THERE. 
          THOSE ARE COMMON PROVISIONS IN CHARTERS, BUT IT, THE LAW DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, A HOME RULE CHARTER IS I MEAN, IT'S NOT IN CONFLICT. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THE THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IT IS NOT LIKE A PREEMPTION ISSUE, RIGHT? SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO. BUT IF IT'S NOT THERE, THEN YOU CAN NEVER USE IT, EVEN IF YOU REALLY, REALLY NEEDED TO FOR SOME REASON. SO. 
          AGAIN, POLICY CALL. WELL, I WAS TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THIS BASED OFF OF YOUR CONCERNS OVER THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GAP. SO THE EASIEST WAY TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN, I THOUGHT, WAS TO JUST REMOVE THE, OUR OPTION TO DO ALL THIS. AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE THIS PROCEDURAL GAP THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. WELL, SO YOUR CHARTER, YOUR CHARTER, YOU'RE CHARTER DOESN'T THE CHARTER ITSELF DOES NOT HAVE TO LAY OUT THE PROCEDURE PER SE IN TERMS OF REMOVAL. YOU CAN PASS ORDINANCES THAT THAT THAT CREATE THE PROCEDURE. SO THE CHARTER JUST HAS TO HAVE AUTHORIZED THE POWER. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO. BUT BUT THE CHARTER MAY JUST AUTHORIZE THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER. AND THEN BY ORDINANCE, KIND OF LIKE IT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDES FOR YOUR ETHICS. IT AUTHORIZES YOU TO HAVE AN ETHICS ORDINANCE. AND THEN YOU GO PASS THE ETHICS ORDINANCE, WHICH YOU CAN AMEND EASILY. YOU CAN'T AMEND YOUR CHARTER EASILY. SO IF YOU HAVE THE POWER IN THE CHARTER, THEN YOUR ORDINANCE CAN SET FORTH THE THE SPECIFICS UNDER WHICH THAT POWER MAY BE EXERCISED. BUT IF THE POWER IS NOT THERE, THEN IT'S JUST NOT THERE. I THINK WE COULD REALLY SHORTEN THIS UP AND STILL TIGHTEN IT UP WHERE WE WE KIND OF MENTIONED IT BY SAYING, ANY PERSON IN THE CITY COUNCIL WHO CEASES TO POSSESS THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE UNDER THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, AND THEN PROBABLY REDLINE THE REST OF THIS. SHALL FORFEIT HIS OR HER OFFICE. I MEAN, THAT REALLY SHORTENS IT, BUT IT ALSO 
          [01:45:05]
GETS RID OF THE OTHER TWO THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. MR. BENNEFIELD, I SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS. I, I, I THINK IT'S YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT HOMEROOM HOME RULE CITIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK IT SHOULD BE USED VERY SPARINGLY. 
          I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PERHAPS LANGUAGE THAT PRESERVES THAT RIGHT. HOWEVER, ONLY AFTER THE RECOMMENDATION OF A STATE ETHICS COMMITTEE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEBODY DID GET A FELONY, IT WAS REFERRED TO A STATE ETHICS BOARD. THEY SAID, YES, WE RECOMMEND BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN, REMOVAL. THEN THAT COMES BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND SAYS, HEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REMOVE THIS PERSON BASED ON THE STATE'S ETHICS BOARD RECOMMENDATION? I, I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT KIND OF AUTHORITY. SO IT DOES IT DOES PRESERVE COUNCIL'S RIGHTS TO REMOVE SOMEBODY, BUT ONLY BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF. THE THE STATE'S. THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION OR I WOULD I WOULD GET BEHIND NOT HAVING THAT AUTHORITY AND JUST ALLOWING THE RECALL. BUT, YOU KNOW, TO, TO, TO, FOR, FOR, FOR, FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IT'S PROVEN THAT LAVA WILL WEAPONIZE THIS. WE HEARD SOME KIDS IN THE BACKGROUND. BRAD IS ALL. MAYOR, IF I MAY, I'LL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT. I, I, WHAT DO YOU SPELL OUT ALL THE REGULATIONS ON HOW TO, TO REMOVE SOMEBODY? I THINK COUNCIL NEEDS TO RETAIN THE ABILITY TO REMOVE SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE IF YOU WATCHED ALL THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL INTERACTIONS I'VE WATCHED HERE LATELY, IT'S. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO COME UP WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER TO WHERE THEY MIGHT NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT PROBLEM NOW, BUT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, YOU MAY HAVE SOMEBODY THAT GETS ELECTED THAT'S AN ALCOHOLIC OR AN ABUSER OR SOMETHING UP HERE, AND THEY COMMIT A FELONY. ALL THEY NEED TO IT TAKES A WHILE TO GO THROUGH THE RECALL PROCESS. Y'ALL MIGHT NEED TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE THEM IF THEY VIOLATED SOMETHING. I THINK I THINK THAT WAS HITTING ON IT IS KEEP THE PROVISION, BUT COME UP WITH A STRONG ORDINANCE AND MAKE IT HARD TO CHANGE THAT ORDINANCE. ONCE YOU GET IT ADOPTED. ON THE PROCEDURES. YEAH. MR. BULLOCK, COULD YOU MUTE REAL QUICK? SAY THAT AGAIN. COULD YOU MUTE YOUR MIC? I'M SORRY. WE'RE HEARING A LOT OF BACKGROUND NOISE. THANK YOU. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I THINK YOU NEED TO KEEP THAT ABILITY TO REMOVE SOMEBODY IF YOU NEEDED TO. I'M NOT SAYING MAKE IT EASY, BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU CREATE A POLICY OR ORDINANCE THAT GIVES YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO DO INSTEAD OF JUST TYING YOUR HANDS. AND, HEY, I CAN'T REMOVE THEM BECAUSE ON AN ELECTION RECALL, WHICH I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO REMOVE ANYBODY, THERE'S A PROCESS THERE. Y'ALL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PETITION PROCESS. Y'ALL HAVE TO APPROVE THE PETITION. THEN YOU HAVE TO CALL FOR AN ELECTION FOR THAT RECALL ELECTION. AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO DO. AND YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEBODY SITTING UP HERE IN OFFICE THAT YOU DON'T NEED. MR. BENFIELD, I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. WEST, BUT BY DEFINITION, I WOULD GUESS HALF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE ALCOHOLICS. AND IF I WAS GOING TO GO OFF OF NATIONAL STATISTICS AND SAY, HEY, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE DRINK A WEEK, YOU'RE AN ALCOHOLIC, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I'M GOING TO BRING IT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL SAYING, HEY, THIS PERSON'S AN ALCOHOLIC. THAT'S WHY I RECOMMEND ANY ANY COMPLAINTS SERIOUS ENOUGH THAT WARRANTS A REMOVAL SHOULD GO TO THE STATE, AND IT SHOULD BE NOT MADE UP BY LAGO VISTA RESIDENTS THAT HAVE AGENDAS THAT SHOULD NOT BE MADE UP BY A SUBCOMMITTEE OR COMMITTEE OR EVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT SHOULD GO TO A STATE AGENCY. AND WHETHER. AND THAT STATE AGENCY SHOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL, OR HEARING OF THE FACTS THAT ARE HEARD BY BOTH PARTIES. NOW, FROM THERE, IF THAT COUNCIL, IF THAT ETHICS BOARD MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL, AND THEN COUNCIL THEN WANTS TO HAVE A HEARING TO. 
          EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM, THAT'S FINE. BUT IT WAS ONLY DONE AFTER THE 
          [01:50:03]
RECOMMENDATION WAS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. AND THAT REALLY CLEARS UP EVERYTHING. SO ALL OF THIS STUFF REALLY GETS DELETED. IT JUST SIMPLY SAYS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL GETS CAN A MEMBER OF COUNCIL CAN BE REMOVED ONCE A STATE AGENCY COMES BACK IN AN AFFIRMATIVE WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. AND I WOULD ADD WHAT MR. CHAVARRIA SAID, THAT YOU HAVE THIS LINE IN HERE ABOUT THE MUNICIPAL OFFICER SHALL FORFEIT HIS OR HER OFFICE. SO PART OF IT IS TAKEN OUT OF THE REST OF OUR HANDS IN THE STATE'S HANDS. IF THEY BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THESE THINGS OCCURRED, THEN THEY FORFEIT THEIR SEAT, AND THAT KIND OF TAKES IT OFF THE TABLE FOR ALL OF US. MISS ELLEN, THE ONLY THING IN WATCHING SOME OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, THERE IS AN INCREASING. TREND OF ACTUAL OUTAND OUT BRAWLS UP ON THE ON THE DAIS. AND SO THAT WAS PLAYING THROUGH MY MIND. IF YOU GET AN OUTAND OUT BRAWL ON THE DAIS, I MEAN, WE DISAGREE AND WE MAY HAVE SOME STERN WORDS FOR EACH OTHER, BUT WE DON'T GET INTO OUTAND OUT BRAWLS. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IN THE FUTURE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS. AND SO WOULD SHORTENING THAT PROVISION. I'M WILLING TO SHORTEN AND MAKE THIS TIGHTER OR WHATEVER, AS LONG AS IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THAT THAT SITUATION CAN BE DEALT WITH. SO I THINK THAT IN THAT CASE, THE CHAIR NEEDS TO HAVE A BETTER CONTROL OF THE ROOM AND THE RULES OF DECORUM OF THAT. SO I STILL LEAN TOWARDS THE COMBINATION OF WHAT MR. PRINCE, MR. BENFIELD AND SAVORY ARE SAYING. AND I THINK THAT GOING OFF THE EXPERIENCES THAT WE HAVE HAD, WHAT I HAVE FOUND MOST DISRUPTIVE TO THE CITY AND US WORKING TOGETHER, IS ANYBODY BEING ABLE TO GET OUT THERE AND THREATEN THAT I'M GOING TO GET YOU REMOVED FROM OFFICE OR ETC. LIKE LEAVE IT AT THE BALLOT, LEAVE IT AS A RECALL. I THINK WE CAN SIMPLIFY THIS A LOT AND ENSURE THAT IT ALL MEETS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. MR. TO MAYOR PRO TEM OWENS POINT ALL OUT BRAWLS WOULD PROBABLY FALL UNDER ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR FOR CITY OF STATE LAW, SO WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO REALLY WORRY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE EVEN VERBAL ASSAULT IS CONSIDERED ASSAULT. AND IT WOULD BE, DEPENDING ON THE LANGUAGE, CAN BE CONSIDERED MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY. SO AND THEN OF COURSE, IF HANDS GET INVOLVED THAT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, UPS THE UPS THE ANTE ON THAT. SO I'M NOT SUPER CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT NARROWING THIS LANGUAGE DOWN THE SCOPE AND AS WELL AS INVOLVING THE STATE ETHICS BOARD IS, IS VERY GOOD MOVEMENT FORWARD. SO IN THE EFFORT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD ON THE ENTIRETY OF 3.07, DO WE HAVE FOUR MEMBERS OF CONSENSUS THAT ONE, WE WOULD SHORTEN THIS REMOVAL LANGUAGE TO IT TAKES SOME SORT OF STATE ACTION, MAINTAIN THE FORFEITURE LANGUAGE, AND THEN WHEN IT DOES COME TO THE POSITION OF HAVING TO REPLACE POSITIONS, WE FOLLOW WHAT MR. PRINCE WAS SAYING AND THAT WE CORRECT THIS 120 DAY LANGUAGE, AND THAT WE STILL PRESERVE THE SECOND HALF OF ITEM SEVEN OR NO. 307307 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, IN THE EVENT THAT A VACANCY OCCURS, THAT LANGUAGE. WOULD, IF I MAY, MAYOR, ONE MODIFICATION WAS. I ADDED ON TO MY OWN LANGUAGE THAT THE COUNCIL MAY APPOINT, BUT I. I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER GETTING RID OF THIS. IF IT'S 12 MONTHS OR LESS, THAT MAY. SO. SO THE COUNCIL MAY APPOINT. BUT IF IT'S UNTIL THE NEXT ELIGIBLE ELECTION, THEN IT MUST BE, YOU KNOW, PUT ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE BALLOT. MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH, SO I AGREE WITH I THINK, THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF MR. PRINCE'S COMMENTS, WHICH IS PEOPLE ON COUNCIL, AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, SHOULD BE ELECTED TO THIS POSITION. AND AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY WE SHOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TIME SOMEONE IS APPOINTED. IF SOMEONE HAS TO BE APPOINTED BECAUSE OF THE WAY ELECTIONS ARE OCCURRING, THAT'S FINE, BUT WE SHOULD DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, WE CAN GET THAT FILLED AGAIN WITH A BALLOT. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. AND THEN SO I, SO I SUPPORT THAT COMPLETELY. AND THEN THE, THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU MADE, I ALSO SUPPORT. MISS OWEN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE IN THE CURRENT PROCESS, IT DOES ALLOW THE CITIZEN COMPLAINTS TO INITIATE ACTION VIA SWORN STATEMENT. JUST MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS RETAINED. I THINK WE DID IN HERE IS WHAT YOU DID, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAY RECALL. 
          I THINK THAT'S RECALL. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECALL. SO YEAH. YEAH. SO. MR. BANFIELD SO 
          [01:55:03]
YEAH, SO THEY COULD EITHER RECALL OR IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, IF THERE'S A BIG ENOUGH CONCERN, TAKE IT TO THE STATE AND GET THE STATE TO MAKE A RULING SAYING, WE RECOMMEND THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. WELL, LET ME LET ME JUMP IN HERE. THE LIKE THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION DOESN'T MAKE THAT KIND OF A RECOMMENDATION. THEY THEY CAN ASSESS PENALTIES AND FINES. THEY CAN MAKE CRIMINAL REFERRALS IF THEY FIND THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL CONDUCT, ELECTION FINANCE CAMPAIGN, YOU KNOW, STUFF OR, OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE CONVICTED OF A FELONY, IT'S AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION. I GOTTA GO LOOK THAT UP. I DON'T, BUT I GOTTA READ THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SEE SEE WHAT WHAT IT COVERS. IF IT'S NARROWLY DEFINED AS FELONIES OR CERTAIN KINDS, I THINK IT'S CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE. BUT BUT THE ETHICS COMMISSION ITSELF IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. THEY'LL JUST MAKE A RECORD. I MEAN, THEY THEY THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THEY DO. THEY WOULD SEND YOU TO THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, SAY, OKAY, THIS PERSON STOLE CAMPAIGN FINANCES, A YOU WE RECOMMEND YOU PROSECUTE THEM. SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE BEFORE WE PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER THAT THAT FOR A PROCESS, AT LEAST IN THE ETHICS COMMISSION, IT DOESN'T EXIST TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. CAN WE MEET IN THE MIDDLE AND SAY, IF YOU'RE FOUND, I DON'T KNOW IF THE ETHICS COMMISSION FINDS PEOPLE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, GUILTY, BUT IF YOU ARE FOUND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE OF A OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION BY THE STATE, THEN THAT IS AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITURE FROM OUR COUNCIL, IS THAT COMPROMISE THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I, I, I, I DON'T WANT TO GO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF FINE TUNE THE LANGUAGE, BUT I THINK THAT'S FINE. IF THEY MAKE A, IF THEY MAKE A REFERRAL IN THE POSITIVE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, IF I THINK I'M GONNA HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH ON THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A, IT'S KIND OF LIKE BEING INDICTED, RIGHT. AND SO IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IF I DON'T KNOW THAT Y'ALL WANT TO ENACT BECAUSE IT COULD BE CHALLENGED, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ENACT THE CHARTER PROVISION THAT THE EQUIVALENT OF JUST GETTING INDICTED IS A FORFEITURE FROM OFFICE. RIGHT. AND SO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, THEY DON'T MAKE A FINDING OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT. THEY JUST MAKE A REFERRAL. AND THAT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, A, B, A LOOK AT THIS AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT GET INDICTED. IT MAY OR MAY NOT GO ANYWHERE. I'D HAVE TO DIG INTO KIND OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY DO. PERHAPS IF THEY ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT WE'D HAVE TO FINE TUNE THAT LANGUAGE. SO BECAUSE BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REFERRAL, SOMETHING THAT'S JUST A REFERRAL TO A D, A FOR CRIMINAL REVIEW THAT MAY NOT PASS MUSTER BECAUSE THERE IS A RIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE OFFICEHOLDER HAS A RIGHT. AND SO YOU DON'T WANT TO FORFEIT AN OFFICE JUST BASED ON WHAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN INDICTMENT. 
          THEN CAN WE JUST RELY ON IF YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW WITH THESE PROVISIONS THAT THE STATE ALREADY SPELLS OUT THAT, SIR? YEAH. THAT YOU COULD DO. MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH, I, I YEAH, SO I LIKE THAT 100%. IF YOU'RE FOUND GUILTY, THEN IT'S JUST AN AUTOMATIC, YOU KNOW, DONE. IF IT WAS A REFERRAL OF AN INDICTMENT, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC REMOVAL FROM A. BUT THAT CERTAINLY COULD BE COULD LEAD TO IT COULD LEAD TO. EXACTLY. BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE INDICTED, IF YOU I THINK IF YOU'RE FOUND GUILTY, THAT'S IT. AND AND AT THAT POINT, CITY COUNCIL RETAINS ITS RIGHT TO REMOVE THAT INDIVIDUAL FROM OFFICE. ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT? I SEE ENOUGH HEAD NODS. OKAY. AND THEN BRAD, THAT'LL BE A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR YOU. 
          OKAY, MR. PRINCE, SO ON ON MY LIST, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT. AND SO YES, IT NEEDS TO BE FOR CITY ATTORNEY ALREADY. SO STRIKE THAT ONE FROM MY LIST ESSENTIALLY. AND THEN ITEM NUMBER NINE, THE VOTING, WHICH I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING COMMENTS WHEN YOU NEED TO CAPTURE THAT, THAT ABSTAIN WITHOUT A STATED REASON. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY LANGUAGE THAT I WOULD PROPOSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. ABSTAINING WITHOUT A STATED REASON IS ALLOWED. ABSTAINING REQUIREMENTS DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST SHALL BE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. AND BRAD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN IT, BUT ACTUALLY FINALLY SENT YOU A LINK TO THIS DOCUMENT. SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ WHAT I'M READING FROM AT THIS POINT. MR. PRINCE, I CAN BARELY HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. I'M RIGHT ON MY MICROPHONE. I DID SEND YOU A LINK TO THE DOCUMENT THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING OFF OF. AND SO. OKAY, YOU CAN, YOU CAN 
          [02:00:02]
ACTUALLY SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT I'M READING. SO LET ME, LET ME I'M SORRY. LET ME THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS OF THE LAW WHERE I HAVE TO GO BACK AND READ, CONSULT THE CONSTITUTION. SO THIS, THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE COMPLEX. IF THE VOTERS WERE TO ADOPT THE COMING BACK TO THE FILLING OF VACANCIES, IF THE VOTERS WERE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE YOUR, YOU KNOW, THREE YEAR TERM, THEN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION DEALS WITH VACANCIES IN THAT SCENARIO. SO THAT SO HOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN APPOINT AND WHEN YOU MUST HOLD THAT ELECTION IS DEPENDENT UPON. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE TWO YEARS. BUT IF YOU BECOME THREE YEARS, THEN IT DOES APPLY. AND IN THAT SITUATION, IT HAS TO BE FILLED BY A BY A SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN 120 DAYS IF A VACANCY OCCURS. SO THE CONSTITUTION OVERRIDES THE ELECTION CODE IN THAT REGARD. BUT. THEN YOU ALSO COME IN TO THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF 12 MONTHS OR LESS. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WHEN YOU GUYS CHOOSE THE FINAL LANGUAGE AND THAT YOU WANT, THEN I'LL HAVE TO COMPARE THAT TO WHAT IS IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. SO. AND WHAT IT REQUIRES. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE JENGA MOVING THESE PARTS AROUND AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, AND SO, MR. PRINCE, TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, I'LL WHEN, WHEN Y'ALL CAN PROVIDE ME WITH FINALIZED LANGUAGE OF THE THING THAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE EASIEST THING FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO THEN REVIEW IT AND TELL YOU, YEAH, WE LEGALLY, WE'RE REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I THINK THIS IS ONE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOUR HELP TO WRITE THAT. I THINK BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WE'VE BEEN HAVING, IF YOU COULD PROVIDE, WELL, THAT'S FINE. BUT SO WHAT I'LL NEED TO KNOW THEN IS THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF, YOU KNOW, AND I CAN WE CAN FOLLOW UP OFFLINE. I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION RIGHT NOW. WE CAN DO IT. YOU KNOW, WE CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT AFTER THE MEETING WITH MR. OR YOU, YOU, WHOEVER OR BUT I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M CAPTURING WHAT THE WILL OF THE BODY IS. 
          YEAH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY, BRAD, I'M TRYING TO SPEAK RIGHT ON THE MICROPHONE. YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. SO I, I THINK MR. BENFIELD SUMMED IT UP PRETTY NICELY EARLIER, WHICH IS TO SAY THE INTENT OF COUNCIL IS THAT WE WANT TO WE WANT TO RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS WHEN WE HAVE TO, BUT WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT ALL SEATS AFTER BEING VACATED ARE FILLED BY ELECTION TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. SO, YOU KNOW, WILL APPOINT IF WE HAVE TO, IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY THAT TO RUN, RUN THE CITY. BUT WE WE WANT THE LANGUAGE TO BE THAT OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR DEFAULT IS TO GO GET AN ELECTION DONE WHENEVER, WHENEVER POSSIBLE. AND THEN YOU BROUGHT IN WHAT TO ME IS THE COMPLICATING FACTOR THAT THERE IS SOME STATE LAW THAT APPLIES. YOU KNOW, IF WE BECOME A THREE YEAR TERM CITY. SO I THINK THAT WAS THE GIST OF IT. AND THEN YOU IF YOU CAN HELP US WITH THE LANGUAGE OF HOW WE ENACT THAT, THAT, YES, RETAIN AUTHORITY TO APPOINT WHEN WE NEED TO, BUT THE LANGUAGE SHOULD HELP US TO GET TO ELECTIONS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND WHENEVER, WHENEVER POSSIBLE. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. I, I UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION I'LL HAVE TO, I'LL HAVE TO KIND OF PERUSE SOME CHARTERS BECAUSE IT'S A. YEAH, I'LL JUST HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH AND PUT SOME, PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO THAT. IT'S A LITTLE NONSTANDARD, WHICH IS FINE, BUT IT'S JUST I'LL HAVE TO, I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. AND SO I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, APPOINT FOR A VACANCY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE OR FOR SHORTER TERM, YOU KNOW, SHORTER TERMS THAN HAVE. I MEAN, THOSE ARE TYPICALLY. WELL, IT'S GOVERNED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. IF YOU GO TO THREE YEARS OR MORE, IF IF THE VOTERS DIDN'T APPROVE IT, THEN I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT AT THE THE LEGAL 
          [02:05:04]
REQUIREMENTS FOR APPOINTMENTS VERSUS. BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE SOMETHING MORE STRICT, RIGHT, THAN STATE LAW. SO ARE THERE IS THERE A IS THERE A CUT OFF? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT THAT WE WANT TO HAVE A VACANT, I MEAN, AN ELECTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          BUT APPOINT IF IT'S A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, I NEED A, I NEED A, I NEED A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THE CHARTER. I, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I, I CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION. AND SO Y'ALL TELL ME. THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL APPOINTMENTS WOULD END AT THE NEXT MAYOR NOVEMBER ELECTION. ANY APPOINTMENT WE MAKE WOULD BE OVER AT THE NEXT MAY OR NOVEMBER ELECTION. SO WE CAN MAKE APPOINTMENTS. BUT IF WHENEVER YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NEXT MAYOR OR NOVEMBER ELECTION, THAT'S THE END OF THAT APPOINTMENT. AND THEN THE ELECT, THEN THE VOTERS WILL ELECT THAT PERSON OR THAT POSITION. WELL, I HAVE TO END FOR RIGHT HAS TO MEET THE DEADLINES. SO IT'S GOING TO. 
          YEAH. WELL, THAT JUST BECOMES, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE REALLY IT'S NOT JUST THE APPOINTMENT ITSELF WOULD END THAT THE MAYOR AT THE AT THE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE. BUT KNOWING. YEAH, I CAN YOU CALL THE ELECTION IN TIME IS REALLY I THINK I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, I'M JUST GONNA I'M GONNA HAVE TO I'M GONNA HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT AND THINK ABOUT THAT. HOW TO, HOW TO WORD THAT BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS NOT WHEN DOES THE VACANCY, I MEAN, WHEN DOES THE APPOINTMENT END? BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION TO FILL IT, IT NEEDS TO BE IN SUCH A TIME SO THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY CALL THE ELECTION. AND THIS IS ASSUMING YOU'RE STUCK AT THE TWO YEARS, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE THREE YEARS, THEN THE CONSTITUTION IS, YOU KNOW, HAS THAT 120 DAY PROVISION. BUT IF YOU'RE STUCK AT TWO YEARS, THAT PROVISION DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU AND YOU'RE STUCK WITH A UNIFORM ELECTION DATES. SO. I MEAN, I'LL JUST HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT AND GIVE YOU SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE. AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ALL LIKE IT, THEN IF I CAPTURED IT CORRECTLY, PEOPLE, YOU'LL YOU'LL LET ME KNOW IF I HAVEN'T. I'M SURE THAT SOUNDS GOOD. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. I THINK THAT WAS THE END OF YOUR LIST. YEAH. 
          ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS ON ARTICLE THREE? MR. OWEN? JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION. ON 3.12 VOTING. COUNCILOR PRINCE, ARE YOU SAYING SUGGEST SUGGESTING COMPLETELY CHANGING THAT SECTION IN JUST THOSE TWO SENTENCES OR TACKING THAT ON AT SOME PLACE, JUST FOR NOTE TAKING PURPOSES ON THE ABSTAINING ON THE VOTING PART, BECAUSE WE SAID CURRENTLY IT'S ALREADY BEEN REDLINED ONCE AND TAKING OUT THE PART ABOUT DESIGNATING THE REASON FOR VOTING AND ALL THAT. SO THE WAY IT READS NOW IS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT MUST VOTE AND HAVE THEIR VOTES RECORDED IN THE MINUTES UPON EVERY ACTION REQUIRING A VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER MAY ABSTAIN, PERIOD. THAT'S WHERE IT'LL START CHANGING. OKAY. SO THEN WE ADD AFTER COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY ABSTAIN, ADD THE ABSTAINING WITHOUT A STATED REASON IS ALLOWED. ABSTAINING REQUIREMENTS DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST SHALL BE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. AND THEN JUST STRIKE THE LAST SENTENCE THAT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE ETHICS POLICY. I CAN'T RECALL ANYTHING IN THE ETHICS POLICY THAT WOULD REQUIRE ABSTAINING OTHER THAN. YEAH, WELL, CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND YEAH, THOSE ARE COVERED BY STATE LAW AS WELL. RIGHT. I THINK THAT LAST SENTENCE CAN BE CAN BE REPLACED. 
          SO YEAH, I THINK AND MAYBE YOU'LL HELP ME WITH THIS. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT MUST VOTE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SHALL VOTE OR MUST VOTE, BUT SHALL VOTE AND HAVE THEIR VOTES RECORDED IN THE MINUTES UPON EVERY ACTION REQUIRING A VOTE. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER MAY ABSTAIN AND THEN CONTINUE WITH THE REST OF MY LIFE, AND THEN TAKE OUT THE LAST SENTENCE. 
          TAKE OUT THE LAST SENTENCE. GOT IT. THANK YOU. THAT WOULD BE MY PROPOSAL. YEP. CAN CAN I HOP IN AND ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK, MR. MAYOR? WHOEVER. SO JUST TO GO BACK FOR ONE SECOND TO THE VACANCY PART. I DON'T HAVE MY FULL COMPLIMENT OF SCREENS WITH ME, SO I CAN'T LOOK AT EVERYTHING ALL AT THE SAME TIME. I'M SORT OF THAT CONFERENCE. WHAT SECTION? WHAT CURRENTLY? 
          [02:10:04]
WHAT SECTION WAS THAT FOR? 3.07. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU WERE USING THE THIRD FORMATTED DRAFT TOO, THERE'S A BIT OF A NUMBERING ISSUE. AFTER YOU GET AFTER FIVE IT GOES BACK TO ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. SO IT'S SPECIFICALLY NOT IN WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SEVEN. BUT. OKAY, SO. 
          IS IT WHERE DO I'M SORRY, WHERE DO I FIND THAT THEN? DEPENDS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. ARE YOU ON THE THIRD FORMATTED DRAFT OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED CHARTER? NO, SIR, I'M NOT ON ANY. I'M JUST ON THE. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. I'M. I DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE SCREENS, SO I CAN'T REALLY LOOK AT. I'VE GOT THIS ZOOM HERE. SO. I'LL SEND YOU THIS DOCUMENT AS PAGE 14 AND 15. OKAY. SECTION 3.07. YEAH. I MEAN, YEAH, SO ULTIMATE. YEAH. I MEAN, IF I CAN GET, I GUESS THE LATEST VERSION OF EDITS OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL ARE WORKING ON AS WE GO ALONG EMAILED TO ME AS WE GO, THAT WOULD BE. USEFUL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE FOLLOWING WHAT VERSION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YEAH, WE'LL GET THAT TO YOU AND MR. OWENS. BEEN PUTTING OUR UPDATES ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AND I'LL PUT THEM AS WELL. I WAS GOING TO SAY, BRAD, IF YOU GO TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD CRC AND THEN THERE'S A THREAD LABELED COMMENTS FOR REVIEW THAT MR. WEST STARTED WITH YOUR COMMENTS. I JUST BEEN TACKING ON UPDATED DRAFTS IN THAT COMMENTS FOR REVIEW THREAD. I GUESS WHAT I'M ULTIMATELY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS OUR, OUR AS COMPLETED AS POSSIBLE. ULTIMATELY A DOCUMENT. BUT BUT WHOLE SECTIONS, YOU KNOW, OR ARTICLES OR CHAPTERS, WHATEVER YOU GO TO THE COMMENTS FOR REVIEW THREAD POST NUMBER FOUR IN THAT THREAD FROM JUNE 17TH HAS THE WORD DOCUMENT AS AMENDED THROUGH THE SIX WHATEVER 17 MEETING. NO. 614 MEETING. SO I'VE JUST BEEN UPDATING OUR WORKING COPY AND POSTING IT TO THAT THREAD. SO IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY AT ANY TIME. THE LIMITATION OF THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS THE FILE SIZE OF A PDF. THE PDF HAS BEEN TOO LARGE TO POST ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, SO I'VE BEEN SEPARATELY EMAILING THAT TO COUNCIL. CAN YOU INCLUDE ME IN THOSE? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT IF I HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE MAYOR, I WILL CERTAINLY DO THAT. YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE IN ARTICLE THREE? I THINK WE'VE COVERED ALMOST EVERY SECTION OF ARTICLE THREE. OKAY. WE CAN MOVE INTO ARTICLE FOUR OR WE CAN SKIP DOWN, LIKE I SAID TO THE ETHICS BOARD, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT COUNCILOR BEN S INCLUDED ON THE RULE, THAT WE HAD TO HAVE AT LEAST FOUR OF 6 OR 5 OF SEVEN FOR. WE'LL JUST GO TO THAT ONE. THAT'S AN ARTICLE. I REMEMBER IT BEING LIKE 9 OR 10. SCROLLING. BOARD OF ETHICS IS 8.28. OKAY, SO ARTICLE EIGHT. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT BRAD ACTUALLY HAD COMMENTS ON AS WELL. I CAN READ BRAD'S. BRAD WROTE, MEMBER SHALL IN QUOTATIONS MEMBER SHALL SERVE TERMS CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF NOMINATING CITY COUNCIL MEMBER END QUOTE. THIS MEANS AN ETHICS COMPLAINT PENDING AGAINST A COUNCIL MEMBER CAN BE HEARD BY AN ETHICS BOARD APPOINTED BY THAT VERY MEMBER. THIS IS A STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT THE CONSTITUTIVE LEVEL. 
          [02:15:04]
INDEPENDENT ETHICS BOARDS TYPICALLY HAVE STAGGERED NON CONCURRENT TERMS SPECIFICALLY TO BREAK THIS LINKAGE. AND THEN IN BRACKETS, HE SAYS, DOES THE CITY EVEN WANT AN ETHICS BOARD? MR. HALL? I REALLY QUESTION THE ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING SUCH A BOARD. IT'S ADDS A LOT TO A LOT OF POLITICS TO TO THINGS THAT POLITICS MAYBE SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED WITH. BUT ANYWAY, I JUST I REALLY QUESTION WHETHER IT'S ADVISABLE. THANK YOU. MR. BENNEFIELD. I JUST THINK IF THERE'S A IF THERE'S AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, THEN SEND THE ETHICS TO THE STATE. AND IF IT'S SERIOUS ENOUGH, IT WILL BE DEALT WITH. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT CITIZENS SHOULD BE CHARGING OTHER CITIZENS AND CITIZENS SHOULDN'T BE CHARGING COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULDN'T BE CHARGING COUNCIL MEMBERS. LET'S MAKE THIS AS. 
          NONPOLITICAL AS POSSIBLE, AND I THINK IT'LL HELP WITH THE UNITY OF COUNCIL. SO I, I DON'T SUPPORT HAVING A ETHICS COMMITTEE. OKAY. I WOULD ADD THAT I DON'T EITHER. SO THAT WOULD BE. THREE IF YOU COULDN'T GET TO THE. FOUR THRESHOLD TO KEEP IT IN SO WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM UNLESS OTHERS HAVE SOMETHING THEY WANT TO SAY ON THE TOPIC. MISS ELLEN. THANK YOU. GOING BACK THROUGH NOTES AND RECALLING SOME OF THE CONVERSATION ON THE CRC, I THINK THAT, AND THIS IS MY OPINION, SIR, THAT VOTERS IN GOING TO A LENGTHIER TERM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THIS POTENTIALLY WOULD GIVE THEM A FEELING THAT THEY COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL RECOURSE. IT SOUNDS LIKE BASICALLY WE TAKE THIS OUT, THEN THE POWER OF RECALL WOULD BE THE THE POINT IN TERMS OF THEIR ABILITY TO. THEIR ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION. SO, I MEAN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT THAT I THINK THAT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE PEOPLE THINK TWICE ABOUT THE LONGER TERMS BECAUSE OF THAT. AGAIN, MY OPINION, I DON'T HAVE. BUT IT WAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH THE CRC. I THINK THAT THEY FELT PRETTY STRONGLY ABOUT IT. IN FACT, I WOULDN'T MIND KIND OF HEARING BEFORE WE TOTALLY DISMISS, IF WE GO ON THE ROLE OF RECALL AND THAT IS, WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED, SIR, TO KIND OF HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CRC COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THIS OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS? YEAH. 
          EVEN IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH IT, I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP THE MEETING MOVING. MADE MY STATEMENT, SIR. I THINK THAT IT WILL. I THINK THAT IT WILL BE. I JUST THINK THERE'LL BE A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN FROM IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BENNEFIELD. WELL, JUST TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN, I, I THINK THE CITIZENS HAVE THE EXACT SAME COURSE THAT THEY HAVE TODAY. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS INSTEAD OF GOING TO AN ETHICS BOARD HERE IN LAGO VISTA, THEY WOULD GO TO THE ETHICS BOARD AT A STATE LEVEL, MAKING IT THE MOST POWERFUL AND MOST NONPOLITICAL PROCESS. SO THEY YES, THEY STILL HAVE THE RECALL, THEY STILL HAVE THE RECALL OPTION, AND THEY STILL HAVE A ETHICS BOARD. THE DIFFERENCE IS THE ETHICS BOARD IS NOT LOCATED IN LAGO VISTA. IT'S LOCATED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS BY MEMBERS THAT ARE NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED FOR FOR ANY REASON. AND SO I THINK THEY STILL HAVE THE EXACT SAME OPTIONS. IT'S JUST A GRANDER OPTION RIGHT NOW. THE, THE, THE REALITY IS, I WOULD GUESS THAT FEWER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MAKE ETHICS COMPLAINTS TO THE STATE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO FEEL LIKE THE PROCESS IS MORE DIFFICULT OR WHATEVER, BUT THAT THRESHOLD SHOULD BE HIGH. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST SOMEBODY, THERE SHOULD BE A HIGH STANDARD TO ACHIEVE TO GET THERE. AND JUST LIKE IF THEY'RE GOING TO RECALL SOMEBODY, THERE SHOULD BE A HIGH STANDARD TO TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. SO I THINK THE SAME OPTIONS ARE THERE. IT'S JUST WE'VE PROBABLY ALLOWED, WE'VE PROBABLY BEEN TOO LENIENT IN THE PAST, AND WE'RE JUST BRINGING IT TO A THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. MR. PRINCE, JUST SO I THINK THAT. TRYING TO. 
          [02:20:14]
VOCALIZE THE, THE SPIRIT OF THE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE DISCUSSION, I WOULD SAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AN ETHICS VIOLATION, THERE'S TWO REALLY. QUICK POINT OF ORDER, MR. PRINCE. MR. BULLOCK, COULD YOU MUTE YOUR MIC AGAIN? SORRY. YEAH, I THINK THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ETHICS DISCUSSIONS GOING ON. ONE IS A STATE LAW ETHICS VIOLATION. BUT THEN ALSO WE HAVE IN THE CITY, WE HAVE SOME THINGS IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER. WE HAVE SOME THINGS IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. WE HAVE OUR OWN ETHICS CODE OF ETHICS. AND THERE WERE CASES WHERE SOME CITIZENS FELT LIKE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD VIOLATED SOME OF THOSE INTERNAL RULES. AND AND SO WHAT I THINK I HEARD THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE SAYING IS BEHAVIOR MATTERS. CLEARLY, THE COUNCIL IS NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE RULES THAT WE HAVE. THEREFORE, WE NEED AN ETHICS COMMITTEE WHICH CAN BE INDEPENDENT. I THINK WHAT WE'VE ENDED UP DOING ON COUNCIL OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS IS SAYING, OKAY, LET'S NOT GET INTO THESE SQUABBLES, ALL OF ALL THESE RULES. LET'S CLEAN UP AND SIMPLIFY, REMOVE ALL OF THESE RULES. FRANKLY, REMOVE THE RULES FROM OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVEN OUR CHARTER AS WE'RE DISCUSSING IT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF ENFORCING RULES ON OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. QUESTION IS, IS THERE IS THERE ANY KIND OF MISBEHAVIOR ON COUNCIL THAT IS NOT A STATE LAW VIOLATION THAT IS APPROPRIATE OR WOULD COOPERATE FOR AN ETHICS COMMITTEE OR SOMEONE TO ADDRESS? AND I THINK THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE SAID WE THINK THERE COULD BE. AND SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE SOME SORT OF AN INDEPENDENT BODY THAT'S NOT ELECTED. AND THEY TRIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW CAN THEY MAKE THAT A, YOU KNOW, A FAIR REPRESENTATION SO IT DOESN'T GET PADDED BY, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S IN FAVOR OF SOME SUBSET OF COUNCIL. I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, FOR ME, FINDING A WAY TO MAKE AN ETHICS ETHICS BOARD EFFECTIVE AND HAVE RULES THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW AND ENFORCE AND IS SO PROBLEMATIC THAT I'M KIND OF INCLINED TO NOT GO DOWN THAT PATH AT ALL. IN THEORY, IF WE HAD CLEAN AND SIMPLE RULES, AND IF SOMEONE ON COUNCIL VIOLATED IT. YEAH, LET'S HAVE AN ETHICS BOARD THAT CAN SAY, YEP, THEY VIOLATED IT. AND SO HERE'S OUR RECOMMENDATION BACK TO COUNCIL. BUT THE REALITY OF ALL THE HISTORY I'VE SEEN, IT'S NEVER THAT SIMPLE. AND SO I THINK IT PROBABLY CREATES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES. SO I'M THAT THAT'D BE MY TAKE. BUT I, I WANTED TO TRY TO REPRESENT WHY THE CRC FELT LIKE THIS WAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE SPENT TOO MUCH TIME SLINGING MUD UP HERE AT EACH OTHER AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AT CITIZENS. AND SO STOP IT, YOU GUYS. RIGHT. THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. AND IF WE NEED TO HAVE AN ETHICS COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO ENFORCE BETTER BEHAVIOR ON COUNCIL, THAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO ENFORCE BETTER BEHAVIOR. BUT THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET TO. THANK YOU. MR. I'LL AGREE. I WAS AT THE POINT AT WHEN I FIRST GOT ON COUNCIL THAT I WAS ADAMANT ABOUT US HAVING AN ETHICS BOARD. I WAS LIKE, ABSOLUTELY BAD BEHAVIOR AND REPRESENTATION OF THE, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS OFFICE OR THIS POSITION THAT YOU'RE ELECTED TO IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. YOU KNOW, YOUR YOUR BEHAVIOR, THE WAY THAT YOU INTERACT WITH PEOPLE, THE WAY THAT YOU DISCUSS WITH PEOPLE, IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. AND WHILE I STILL FEEL THAT SENTIMENT, I ALSO REALIZE THAT WE AREN'T THE BEHAVIOR POLICE, BUT OUR CONSTITUENTS WILL HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE. AND IF IT GETS TO A POINT WHERE OUR BEHAVIOR OR SOMETHING THAT THEY FEEL IS UNETHICAL, THAT GIVES THEM THE RECALL OPTION, AND THEN ALSO THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE. SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF A BOARD OF ETHICS. I'VE SEEN OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED IT, AND THEY ARE VERY EFFECTIVE AND HOW IT OPERATES. I WON'T SAY THAT IT'S NOT AS I MEAN, I WON'T SAY THAT IT'S NOT POLITICAL BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE BIT. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE THERE YET. I THINK WE'RE JUST A LITTLE TOO SMALL TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE THIS EFFECTIVELY. SO I THINK THAT OUR BEST, BEST METHOD GOING FORWARD WOULD NOT TO HAVE ONE OF THESE JUST YET AND JUST KEEP THAT POWER TO OUR VOTERS TO IF THERE'S REALLY AN ISSUE TO KEEP IT ON A RECALL OR THE NEXT VOTING CYCLE. THANK YOU. NEXT, I WAS GOING TO GO BACK TO ARTICLE FOUR, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT, FOLKS. THE FIRST ONE IN ARTICLE FOUR JUST I THINK SHOULD BE A QUICK ONE. BRAD, 
          [02:25:02]
YOU BROUGHT UP THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH ORAL MOTIONS AS OFFICIAL ACTIONS. YOU SAID THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DOCUMENTS OFFICIAL ACTIONS BY WRITTEN ORDINANCE RESOLUTIONS OR ORAL MOTIONS. YOU SAID THAT SHOULD ACTUALLY READ AS READ MINUTES, WHICH REFLECT ALL ACTIONS AND ALL MOTIONS ARE ORAL. ANYWAY, I THINK IT FIXES. YEAH, I DON'T YEAH, I MEAN, I JUST. AN ORAL MOTION, I MEAN BY DEFINITION SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES. AND SO THOSE ARE CALLED I MEAN THE TERM OF ART IS CALLED MINUTE ORDERS. AND SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS JUST A LANGUAGE THING. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF IT. IT'S JUST THAT WAS SEMANTICS TYPE THING. 
          OKAY. YOUR NEXT COMMENT WAS 4.01 EFFECTIVE DATE. AND I SAID, CAN WE JUST SIMPLIFY IT TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BECOME EFFECTIVE AS PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW? YES. OKAY. THIS IS THE LAST ONE THAT YOU HAD SOMETHING ON THAT I THINK WE KIND OF BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON IN THE FIRST WORKSHOP. IT'S THE 4.02 ABOUT PUBLICATION, THE WAY THAT WE DEFINE PUBLICATION BACK IN THE DEFINITIONS IS THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN A NEWSPAPER. AND I THINK WE HAD A DISCUSSION AT THE LAST WORKSHOP THAT THAT WOULD BE TOO ONEROUS AND EXPENSIVE. AND SO THE TWO WAYS THAT YOU CAN FIX THAT IS, ONE, WE COULD GO BACK AND UPDATE THE DEFINITION OF PUBLICATION OR BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT NOT USING THE WORD PUBLISH WHEN WE REALLY MEAN POST TO THE WEBSITE. SO IT'S JUST UP TO COUNCIL. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THAT? I THOUGHT YOU CAN KEEP THE DEFINITION OF PUBLISH, BUT JUST BE. DILIGENT IN THE REST OF THE CHARTER. WHEN YOU ACTUALLY MEAN POST ON THE WEBSITE, YOU MEAN POST, NOT PUBLISH. MR. CHAVARRIA YEAH, MY, MY, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO JUST ALTER THE LANGUAGE SLIGHTLY TO, SAY ELECTRONICALLY PUBLISH, WHICH MEANS BASICALLY POSTING, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THE POSTING IN A POST OR A NEWSPAPER IS, IS VERY COST PROHIBITIVE. AND ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, EVEN IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPER SIGNIFICANT, WE COULD PUT IT ON OUR BOARD OR EVEN PUT IT IN OUR WATER, OUR WATER BILL MAILER. 
          OKAY. MR. RON, CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO THE TEXT OF 4.02 IS FINE. REALLY WHAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE IS THE DEFINITION OF PUBLISH, RIGHT IN THE DEFINITIONS. WELL, THERE'S TWO, TWO WAYS YOU COULD KEEP YOUR DEFINITION THAT WAY, BUT THEN JUST DON'T USE THE WORD PUBLISH WHEN YOU ACTUALLY MEAN PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE. RIGHT. SO IT WOULD SEEM LIKE TO ME, THE CLEANER WAY WOULD BE TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PUBLISH. OKAY, COUNCIL, IS THAT OUR PREFERRED METHOD TO UPDATE THE DEFINITION OF PUBLICATION TO INCLUDE ELECTRONIC POSTING? I SEE FOUR HEAD NODS, FIVE HEAD NODS. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAD IN ARTICLE FOUR. ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE IN AN ARTICLE FOUR? I WILL MISS ON. OKAY, WELL, NO. IF WE GO AHEAD AND GO WITH ELECTRONIC POSTING THEN THE COMPLETE TEXT MAKES SENSE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID NOT PUBLISH THE COMPLETE TEXT OF EVERY ORDINANCE IN THE NEWSPAPER, SO TO SPEAK. OKAY, SO BY DOING ELECTRONIC, THEN WE'VE WE'VE DONE THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, MOVING ON TO ARTICLE FIVE. THE FIRST ONE THAT BRAD HAD MENTIONED IN HERE WAS THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. 
          THE COMMENT TOUCHES ON THE FLOOR MOUNT, BUT THE BIGGER ISSUE IS UNADDRESSED. EXEMPTION AMOUNT ITSELF IS IT SAYS TBD IN THE LANGUAGE. INSTEAD OF PUTTING IN THERE, HE SAID THAT MUST BE FIXED BEFORE SUBMISSION. AND THEN WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT THIS IS BASED OFF OF MY PUBLIC POSTING IDEA ABOUT SOMETHING TO PUT IN THE CHARTER. CHARLES AND STAFF WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO FIND THAT WE ALREADY DO PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THAT YOU CAN IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND SO MY AMENDED PROPOSAL WAS THAT WE GO AHEAD AND PUT IN THE CHARTER THAT THE CITY WILL MAINTAIN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY STATE LAW, AND WHETHER THAT GOES UP OR DOWN BASED ON STATE LAW, THEN IT WILL BE THAT. AND THEN THE COUNCIL STILL HAS TO OFFICIALLY PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT MAKES IT THAT. BUT YOU NOW HAVE GUIDANCE FROM THE CHARTER OF WHAT THAT ORDINANCE WILL SAY. SO THE CITIZENS WILL ALWAYS ENJOY THE CURRENT MAXIMUM THAT THEY HAVE. 
          MR. OWEN, I'M JUST LOST. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMESTEAD, BUT YOU SAID FIVE. YOU'RE NOT IN 
          [02:30:02]
ARTICLE FIVE, THEN I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I JUMPED TO TEN. OKAY. MY BAD, MY BAD. I'M IN ARTICLE TEN. OKAY, I WAS, I WAS, I WAS SEQUENCING I'M GOING. THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT HOMESTEAD IN FIVE TRYING TO JUMP TO WHAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE ANOTHER LONGER DISCUSSION OR NOT. OKAY, MAYBE I HAD JUST FINALLY SUCCUMBED. NO. AND THEN I THINK IF WE WENT WITH WHAT I JUST PROPOSED THAT FIXES BRAD'S SECOND COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF MODIFICATION, BECAUSE HE SAYS HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION MAY BE REDUCED ONLY BY CHARTER AMENDMENT IS WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAID. HE SAID LOCAL EXEMPTIONS ARE TYPICALLY SET BY COUNCIL ORDINANCE UNDER STATE LAW, SO THAT WOULD STILL BE PRESERVED IF WE WENT THE ROUTE THAT I PROPOSED. I LIKE THAT, MAYOR. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY. MR. RECOGNIZE, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED TO BE TO BE CLEAR, I AM CONFUSED. SO SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN STATE LAW AROUND HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. I DON'T THERE'S NO MINIMUM. IS THAT RIGHT? THERE'S NO MINIMUM STATE LAW AROUND HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. AND THERE ARE MAXIMUMS. CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. 20%. WHEN YOU RAISED THIS, I, I ACTUALLY DID SOME RESEARCH AND SENT YOU AND CHARLES SAID THAT INFORMATION. 
          SO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS THE IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT. SO WE CAN'T GO BEYOND THAT. SO THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, YOU KNOW, IF THE STATE SAYS, OH, THE MAXIMUM, WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THE MAXIMUM TO SOME SUPER HIGH LEVEL. AND WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THE STATE LOVES TO DO THIS THING WHERE THEY CHANGE THE RULES AND SAY, OH, LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ARE STUPID. 
          WE'RE GOING TO TELL THEM HOW TO DO EVERYTHING. SO DO WE WANT TO FORCE OURSELVES TO MEET THE STATE MAXIMUM? IF THE STATE WERE TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA, OR IT WAS TOO AGGRESSIVE OR IT HAPPENED TOO FAST, I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS ABOUT LOCKING THAT IN, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE STATE'S GOING TO DO AT ANY POINT IN TIME, AND THAT THAT IS WHAT I WAS PROPOSING. MR. ABRAHAM, THAT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO D, THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF MODIFICATION THAT ON UNDER THERE, IT BASICALLY STATES THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION MAY BE REDUCED ONLY BY CHARTER AMENDMENT, BUT WE WE WOULD STILL RETAIN THAT RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO. UNDER MY PROPOSAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE MUCH. YOU WOULD ALWAYS BE AT THE MAXIMUM. BUT YOU DO HAVE TO DO IT. ENACTING ORDINANCE. 
          MAYOR. MR. BENFIELD, I LIKE YOUR PROPOSAL. I, I GO FOR THAT. THANK YOU. MR. WEST. I'M GONNA PUT MY $0.02 IN. AS A TAXPAYER. I LIKE YOUR PROPOSAL AS A CITY MANAGER. I'M A LITTLE SKEPTICAL BECAUSE OF HOW HARD THAT COULD BE ON A BUDGET YEAR, BECAUSE, SAY, THE STATE COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, IT'S GOING TO BE 50% INSTEAD OF 20%. YOU'RE LOOKING AT STAFF LAYOFFS AT THAT POINT. 
          THERE'S NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO GENERATE THAT REVENUE BACK. 
          I'M NOT IN DISAGREEMENT. THAT'S DEFINITELY WHAT I'M ADVOCATING. I'M GOING FOR THE TAXPAYER SIDE OF IT. MR. I'LL AGREE WITH WITH OUR CITY MANAGER ON THIS ONE. I'M ABSOLUTELY, AS A TAXPAYER, WANT THE THE BIGGEST BREAKS ALWAYS. BUT I ALSO REALIZE THAT THAT PUTS US UP AGAINST A WALL IF WE ARE GIVEN THE BIGGEST BREAK. YOU CAN'T HEAR ME. SO YOU CAN EITHER HEAR ME OR YOU'RE GOING TO, OR IT'S GOING TO SQUEAL AT ME. OKAY, AS A TAXPAYER, I ALWAYS WANT TO SEE THE BIGGEST BREAKS. BUT AS REALIZING THAT, I ALSO KNOW THAT EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS WE'LL GET SOME OVERLY ZEALOUS SITUATION HAPPEN AND WE'LL SEE A HUGE CUT. AND THEN THE 
          [02:35:06]
RESULTING FALLOUT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CITY PERFORMANCE AND MEASUREMENTS. 
          SO I LIKE THIS, THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT THE MAYOR IS PROPOSING, BUT I'M ALSO KIND OF LEERY THAT IT MAY NOT GIVE US ENOUGH. I MEAN, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO A CHARTER AMENDMENT EVERY TWO YEARS OR TWO YEARS, BUT SOMETIMES THAT WOULD I MEAN, TWO YEARS IS A LONG TIME WITHOUT STAFF. IF WE WIND UP GETTING STUCK LIKE THAT. BUT THEN THIS DOESN'T APPLY IF THEY DO MANAGE TO DO AWAY WITH PROPERTY TAXES. THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT THEY ONLY MEET ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. YOU'D HAVE OPPORTUNITY. I DON'T SEE THEM GOING TO A 50% TAX EXEMPTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THEY'RE NOT EVEN DISCUSSING CHANGING OTHER THAN REMOVING THE PROPERTY TAXES. THAT'S WHAT SOME ARE LOOKING FOR. YEAH. BUT IT WOULD ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WOULDN'T BE SOME COUNCIL BETWEEN THEN AND NOW THAT BY JUST ORDINANCE ALONE WOULD REDUCE THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX. 
          THIS WOULD BE LOCKED IN THE CHARTER. ONLY THE ONLY THE VOTERS WOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND SAY THAT. SO I WENT BACK AND FOUND MY EMAIL EXCHANGE ON THIS. AND AND SO I DID FIND THAT WE DO HAVE A 20% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, RIGHT. AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE. AND THEN CHARLES, OR MAYBE YOU ADDED TO IT. YEAH, THIS WAS YOU, MARY, YOU SAID WE DO HAVE A TRANSPARENCY ISSUE. OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES ONLY MENTIONS THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, AND IT DOES NOT REFERENCE THE CURRENT 20%. SO WE, WE, THE, THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER AND I HAD SOME EMAIL EXCHANGE AND THIS WAS BACK IN FEBRUARY. SO IT'S BEEN MONTHS AGO. WE COULD NOT FIND AN ORDINANCE WHERE THAT OUR CURRENT 20% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WAS ENACTED. IT'S IN THERE. YOU KNOW, TRAVIS COUNTY IS DOING IT. SO SOME COUNCIL IN THE PAST APPARENTLY DID AN ORDINANCE, BUT THE CITY HAS NO RECORDS OF THAT ORDINANCE. WE CAN'T FIND IT. YEAH. RIGHT. SO SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE, LET'S ACTUALLY TAKE THE ACTION AS COUNCIL TO DO AN ORDINANCE TO FORMALIZE THE 20% THAT IS ALREADY ON OUR BOOKS AND LEAVE IT AT THE ORDINANCE LEVEL, BECAUSE I DO THINK I THINK IT'S BETTER, RATHER THAN LOCK IT INTO THE CHARTER AND HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE THE STATE COULD DO SOMETHING THAT REALLY GETS US THE CITY IN HOT WATER AND WOULD REQUIRE A CHARTER AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION. I THINK IT'S BETTER TO LEAVE THAT POWER WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL IS ELECTED, RIGHT. AND IF THE IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOES SOMETHING ON HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS, THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE KICKED OUT OF OFFICE AT THE NEXT ELECTION OR RECALLED. 
          AND SO I, I, I, BECAUSE OF THE TENDENCY OF THE STATE TO DO THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, I'M I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF LOCKING US IN HERE ON THIS. I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT BY ORDINANCE AND LET COUNCIL STILL HAVE THAT. SO NO CHANGE TO THE CHARTER, I THINK, WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. MR. HALL, MISS SEWING ANYTHING AGAIN, I SAY, I THINK IT'D BE. YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY. MR. HALL'S GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S FOUR TO. THEN THEY'RE GOOD WITH THE THE LANGUAGE IN THE. THAT I WAS PROPOSING. OKAY. 
          SO MR. OWEN, THAT WOULD REPLACE A LOT OF THAT 10.01. RIGHT. SO AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE TBD WAS INTENTIONAL BECAUSE EVEN AMONGST THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, WE COULDN'T DECIDE IF THAT SHOULD BE A PERCENTAGE OR A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. SO WE DELIBERATELY VOTED TO MAKE IT TBD TO PUT IT ON YOU GUYS TO DECIDE. AND NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NEITHER. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE THE MAXIMUM THE STATE ALLOWS. IF I GOT THAT RIGHT. OKAY, OKAY, NOW WE CAN ACTUALLY GO TO ARTICLE FIVE, I APOLOGIZE. I'LL JUST KICK IT OFF THEN IF THAT HELPS, I'LL READ. BRAD HAD A FEW COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION. BRAD'S FIRST ONE WAS 501 B THE BULLET DEPARTMENT HEADS, WHICH REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR EMPLOYMENT OF REMOVAL. BRAD WROTE. THIS MAY BE AT ODDS WITH THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT COUNCIL MANAGER CHARTERS EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN PERSONNEL DECISIONS BELOW THE CITY MANAGER LEVEL. THIS MAY ALSO CONFLICT WITH ARTICLE 3.06 PROHIBITION ON COUNCIL MEMBERS GIVING ORDERS OR ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE ANY SUBORDINATE. THE CITY MANAGER. THE COUNCIL CAN'T SIMULTANEOUSLY BE BARRED FROM 
          [02:40:04]
INFLUENCING EMPLOYEES AND REQUIRED TO APPROVE THEIR HIRING. WE OBVIOUSLY ALREADY ADDRESSED THE 3.06 PART SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. I DID TRY TO COMPROMISE ON THIS ONE. I SAID, I'M OKAY IF IT'S A CITY MANAGER THAT'S APPOINTING REMOVING DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, BUT TO BRING SOME TRANSPARENCY, HE JUST NEEDS TO CONSULT WITH THE MAYOR AND INFORM THE COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. EXCEPT WHERE CONFIDENTIALITY OR APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRES OTHERWISE. AND I DID ASK, BUT ARE THERE POSITIONS LIKE THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR SOMEONE MENTIONED THE CITY SECRETARY, WHERE WE MAY WANT TO HAVE MORE INVOLVEMENT? SO HOP IN HERE REAL QUICK AND SAY, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER FOR. GENERAL LAW CITIES, YOU KNOW IT, IT'S COMMON. AND THIS IS THE WAY THEY DO IT FOR THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR APPOINT OR CONFIRM. 
          MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, CITY MANAGER, POLICE CHIEF, CITY SECRETARY. CITY ATTORNEY, AND EVERYBODY BELOW THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE CITY MANAGER. CITY ADMINISTRATOR, SO THAT WE ALL DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. BUT THERE DID SEEM TO BE THAT CONFLICT THAT I MENTIONED IN THAT EARLIER ITERATION OF THAT CHAPTER THREE LANGUAGE. BUT THOSE ARE ALL POSITIONS THAT ARE COMMONLY APPOINTED BY OR APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. AND HOPEFULLY NOW YOU'LL HEAR FEWER CHILDREN, BUT MAYBE MORE SEAGULLS. SO WE'LL SEE. AND YOU LOOK BETTER. I'LL TAKE WHAT I CAN GET. MY MY ONLY COMMENT IS THAT THAT THAT MAKES THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME. WHAT BRAD WAS SAYING ABOUT APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS CITY COUNCIL DOING THAT. AND, AND THE CITY MANAGER. 
          HE'S HE'S HIRING HIS DEPARTMENT HEADS AND STAFF AND INFORMING INFORMING CITY COUNCIL OF OF OF THOSE OF WHAT HE'S WHAT HE'S DOING THOSE THOSE ACTIONS. YEAH. I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS. I DO AGREE THAT THE, THE LANGUAGE WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE, EXCEPT FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS, WHICH REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL, I THINK THAT'S FAR TOO BROAD. AND I'M TRYING TO DECIDE, TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S STILL APPROPRIATE FOR US TO SAY, YOU KNOW, ACCEPT FOR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE MR. BULLOCK JUST USED WAS. SORRY. WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT EXCEPT FOR THE POLICE CHIEF, THE CITY SECRETARY, AND WHAT WAS THE THIRD ONE? THAT ATTORNEY. 
          ATTORNEY. YEAH. THANK YOU. PLEASE, CHIEF. ME IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO RETAIN THE APPROVAL TO HIRE AND TO FIRE OF THOSE POSITIONS? BUT I THINK THE REST OF DEPARTMENT HEADS SHOULD BE SHOULD, SHOULD JUST BE THE CITY MANAGER'S PURVIEW. MAYOR PRO TEM SO, BRAD, I JUST WANTED TO TO ASK AND JUST CLARIFY. SO IF WE WERE TO UTILIZE WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR, BUT ALSO ADD, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WE WOULD. OVERSEE THE THE OFFICERS, AS YOU SUGGESTED, THAT'S NOT IN CONFLICT. WELL, I'M NOT SURE, I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION, I APOLOGIZE, FORGIVE ME. LET ME JUST SAY SO. THE MAYOR STATED THE CITY MANAGER SHALL APPOINT AND REMOVE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS BASED ON MERIT AND QUALIFICATIONS BEFORE APPOINTING OR REMOVING A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, THE CITY MANAGER SHALL CONSULT WITH THE MAYOR AND INFORM THE COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, EXCEPT 
          [02:45:04]
WHERE CONFIDENTIALITY OR APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRES OTHERWISE, THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT AND REMOVE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS REMAINS VESTED IN THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH WE HAD CONSENSUS OF HERE, UP HERE THAT THAT WAS OKAY. BUT I HEARD COUNCILOR HALL, I'LL SAY MYSELF, COUNCILOR PRINCE SAYING. BUT RETAINING THE ABILITY TO OVERSEE THE THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THAT COULD BE IN ONE AND NOT HAVE A CONFLICT. 
          YEAH. YES. YEAH. SO. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE SECTION ON GENERAL LAW CITIES THAT ESTABLISHES THOSE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. BUT CHARTERS TYPICALLY DO BECAUSE IT'S A COMMON FORMAT. SO AND THOSE ARE THE OFFICIAL THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THE THOSE POSITIONS ARE OFTEN, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS, BUT OFTEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL JUST DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE OFFICE. 
          YOU KNOW, THOSE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. SO GIVEN THE THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THOSE OFFICERS AND THEN ALLOWING THE CITY MANAGER TO HAVE THAT HIGHER FIRE AUTHORITY FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE IN GENERAL LAW CITIES. CAN YOU SAY THAT LAST SENTENCE ONE MORE TIME? THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE IN GENERAL LAW CITIES TYPE A OR B, CITIES THAT ARE GOVERNED BY STATE STATUTE AND THAT ARE NOT HOME RULE. THEY THE STATE LAW SAYS, OKAY, CITY COUNCIL, YOU HAVE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT AND APPROVE. YOU KNOW, THESE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. AND THEN IT'S SILENT ON THE OTHER PART OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAVING THE AUTHORITY. BUT BUT THAT'S THE WAY IN PRACTICE. 
          THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS THAT IT MEANS THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE FIRE AUTHORITY OVER DEPARTMENT HEADS OTHER THAN THESE PARTICULAR NAMED MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. LET ME SEE. YOU'RE THINKING I'M JUST SEEING IF YOU STILL ARE HOLDING THE FLOOR. NO, I, I AM STILL THINKING, BUT I WANT TO THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE. OKAY. MR. RON, THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE CRC THAT FOR THE KEY POSITIONS OF THE CITY SECRETARY, THE COURT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE POLICE CHIEF, THAT THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMEND AND HAVE THE APPROVAL, BASICALLY ADVISE AND CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THOSE KEY POSITIONS. NOT NOT GOING ANY DEEPER THAN THAT. THE ONE ANOMALY THAT WE NOTICED THAT TRIED TO FIX IN THE CHARTER, AND THAT PART THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED ABOUT REMOVAL IS WE NOTED THAT IT TOOK APPROVAL OF COUNCIL TO, SAY, HIRE A CITY SECRETARY, BUT IT DIDN'T REQUIRE APPROVAL OF COUNCIL TO REMOVE IT. SO ONE OF THE EDITS WE PUT IN THERE WAS TO BRING PARITY TO THAT. SO IF THE CITY MANAGER NEEDS APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL TO HIRE SECRETARY, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVAL OF COUNCIL TO REMOVE THAT KEY POSITION. BUT IT'S ONLY THOSE KEY POSITIONS AND IT DOESN'T GO THAT DEEP. AND WE TRY TO STANDARDIZE. IN FACT, I THINK ONE DIDN'T EVEN REQUIRE APPROVAL OF COUNCIL. AND AND WE FELT LIKE THE COMMITTEE FELT LIKE THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT BUT LIMITED TO JUST THOSE KEY POSITIONS. AND IF IT'S NOT WRITTEN CLEARLY THAT WAY, THEN THAT WAS OUR INTENT AS A COMMITTEE. MR. CHHABRIA. JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON INTENT, WOULD THIS ALSO APPLY TO INTERIM POSITIONS OR ACTING POSITIONS? JUST SAY WE'RE WE'VE WE'VE RAN ACROSS THIS WITH AN INTERIM POLICE CHIEF OR ACTING POLICE CHIEF THAT WAS APPOINTED THAT REMOVAL. WOULD THAT ALSO NEED THE. WOULD THAT JUST BE SOLELY UP TO THE CITY MANAGER, OR WOULD THAT ACTUALLY NEED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL? BECAUSE THAT WOULD. I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT ANY, EVEN ANY INTERIM POSITION THAT IS, THEY'RE STILL HOLDING THAT TITLE. I THINK WE SHOULD ADD THE CLARIFICATION. INTERIM OR PERMANENT MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. SO I DO THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED FROM WHAT THE CHARTERS WITH THE CURRENT CHARTER DRAFT IS, BECAUSE IT ISN'T AS CLEAR. SO I THINK ADDING THE LANGUAGE THAT I PROPOSE AND THEN ENSURING THAT INTERIM AND PERMANENT MUNICIPAL OFFICERS ARE STILL APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. BUT NOT DIRECTORS. CORRECT. I'M SORRY, THERE IS A TRANSPARENCY, BUT HE DOES HAVE 
          [02:50:10]
TWO DIRECTORS. I THOUGHT THIS WAS ONLY REALLY. NO, NO, NO, I'M SORRY. YOU'RE RIGHT. NOT DIRECTORS. NEVER MIND. THAT'S WHY THE LANGUAGE THAT HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE CITY MANAGER SHALL CONSULT WITH THE MAYOR AND INFORM THE COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. MY ONLY RESERVATION TO THAT IS. INFORMING IS DIFFERENT THAN APPROVAL. AND. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE LITIGATION OVER AN EMPLOYMENT MATTER, IT TYPICALLY IS GOING TO BE ON THESE DIRECTORS OR. SO. I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT COUNCIL WOULD FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER, AND THAT IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN AN INFORM, MORE THAN JUST INFORMING THEM. IT SHOULD BE IN THEORY, WE SHOULD KNOW WELL IN ADVANCE WHAT'S HAPPENING, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T JUST WAKE UP ONE DAY AND SAY, I'M GOING TO FIRE A DIRECTOR. 
          YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AND IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY BY THE TIME IT ACTUALLY OCCURS. AND A VOTE OF COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE CITY MANAGER, I THINK, IS RELEVANT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WE'RE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHEN A LAWSUIT DOES COME IN. AND I THINK I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE OUR I'S ARE DOTTED AND T'S ARE CROSSED FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THAT IF WE ARE TERMINATING A DIRECTOR, THAT, YES, IT ULTIMATELY SHOULD BE THE CITY MANAGER'S DECISION. I DO AGREE WITH THAT. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY HAVE BLESSED THE ACTION, THAT WE FOLLOWED ALL THE CORRECT PROTOCOLS SO THAT IF THERE IS REPERCUSSIONS, THAT WE CAN'T JUST SAY, OH, THAT'S OUR CITY MANAGER FOR YOU. YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE ALL HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RAMIFICATIONS OF A DECISION. PRINCE. I YOU'VE GOT TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. SO, YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS 120 EMPLOYEES OR WHATEVER, AND A DIRECTOR OR A, YOU KNOW, A FIRST LINE MANAGER OR THE CITY MANAGER COULD FIRE SOMEBODY, THAT PERSON CAN TURN AROUND AND SUE THE CITY. AND SO I THINK FOR ME, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO LET THE CITY MANAGER RUN THE CITY. AND THAT INCLUDES DECIDING WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO BE LET GO. NOW, THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING AN HR DIRECTOR AND HAVING A CITY ATTORNEY IS SO THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS SOMEBODY TO CHECK WITH AND SAY, HEY, I GOT TO MAKE SURE I GET ALL MY PAPERWORK IN ORDER AND DID EVERYTHING I NEED TO SO THAT IF OR WHEN WE LET THIS PERSON GO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE SUCCESS IN SUING US. THEY CAN STILL SUE US, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE SUCCESS. RIGHT. SO I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE THE HR COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY, WHICH IS KIND OF I'M TURNING UP THE CONTRAST. BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING. RIGHT. IS CONCERN. DOES THE CITY COUNCIL NEED TO BE THE THE HR COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HR PERSON AND THE CITY MANAGER ARE TAKING ACTIONS APPROPRIATELY? SO. SO I'D BE INCLINED TO SAY, YES, THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD LET THE COUNCIL KNOW, HEY, I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THIS PERSON IN THIS DEPARTMENT, AND HERE'S THE ACTIONS I'M TAKING. AND YOU KNOW, FRIDAY'S GOING TO BE THEIR LAST DAY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. BEFORE YOU CAN LET THAT PERSON GO, YOU GOT TO PROVE TO ME THAT YOU FOLLOWED ALL THE APPROPRIATE STEPS. I DO THINK THAT ON THE FOR THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL. AND I WILL NOTE THAT SOMEBODY A MINUTE AGO SAID MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. SOMEBODY MENTIONED THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, THAT WAS NOT ON OUR LIST. BUT MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE ON THE LIST OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AS WELL. I NEGLECTED THAT ONE. MR. PRINCE, THAT MR. MUNICIPAL JUDGE IS ONE OF THOSE THAT IS IN THE GENERAL IN FOR GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND I JUST I FORGOT TO MENTION IT. SO THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS WELL. SO TO ME, THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE FOR THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, THE. FOR NOW THAT WE'VE GOT LISTED, CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDS APPOINTMENT COUNCIL APPROVES OR DOESN'T, AND THEN CITY MANAGER CAN RECOMMEND LETTING THAT PERSON GO. COUNCIL APPROVES OR DOESN'T. BUT FOR THE REST OF STAFF, LET THE CITY MANAGER DO IT WITH THEIR HR PROCESS. MR. HALL I AGREE WITH MR. PRINCE. I'M GOOD WITH THAT AS WELL. DO WE HAVE 
          [02:55:01]
TO DEFINE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS? THEN YOU SHOULD INCLUDE THAT LIST. YES, SIR. OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S JUST THAT, YOU KNOW THAT SENTENCE THAT SAYS THEY SHALL INCLUDE OR SHALL CONSTITUTE CITY MANAGER, CITY SECRETARY, CITY ATTORNEY. MUNICIPAL JUDGE. OKAY. CHIEF OF POLICE CHIEF, CHIEF CHIEF. AND IF IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE CHIEF OF POLICE AS WELL. SOME DO, SOME DON'T. 
          THERE'S A FAIRLY EVEN SPLIT ON WHETHER OR NOT CHIEF OF POLICE IS INCLUDED IN THAT LIST. SOME LIKE THAT'S A PURE POLICY CALL. MR. O'BRIEN. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT I WANT THE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THAT MY. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO INCLUDE TEMPORARY INTERIM OF THESE POSITIONS. I THINK IT'S A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PORTION OF THAT. MR. BARFIELD, WHAT ABOUT THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER? WELL, FROM A. ASSISTANCE AND DOWN ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF. 
          MUNICIPAL OFFICERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED. THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. NOW, AGAIN, WHERE YOU ALL DRAW THE LINE IS IS THAT'S A POLICY MATTER. IT'S NOT A LEGAL MATTER. SO THAT'S UP THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL. BUT BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF OF GENERAL LAW CITIES, IT'S JUST THE OFFICER. I'LL ADD TWO THINGS TO THAT, TO THE COMMENT ABOUT INTERIMS AND, AND THE ABILITY TO HIRE FIRE. AND FROM A, FROM A, ALTHOUGH RARE, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOUR, YOUR CITY MANAGER MUST BE INVESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO AT LEAST REMOVE SOMEONE FROM THEIR OFFICE PENDING COUNCIL APPROVAL BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF CONDUCT AND THE. THE REASON FOR A TERMINATION. RIGHT. AND SO IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR THAT YOUR CITY MANAGER HAS THAT AUTHORITY, AND YOU MAY NEED TO COME BACK AND RATIFY IT. THAT THAT'S THAT'S FINE. BUT IF THERE'S SOME I MEAN, IF THERE'S A REGIONAL EGREGIOUS ENOUGH CONDUCT, THEY MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. AND UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN. SO THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT, THAT THAT WHERE HOWEVER THIS IS WRITTEN, THAT THAT IS NOT CALLED INTO QUESTION. MISS ARIA YEAH, I DON'T, I THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT FOR SUSPENSION PENDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION. IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE AT THE BEHEST OF THE CITY MANAGER. BUT ULTIMATELY THAT DECISION SHOULD BE AGREED UPON BY COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, FOR THE MUNICIPAL POSITIONS. AND I'LL I'LL DEFER TO CHARLES ON THIS. THE ONLY I THINK MY ONLY MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT. INCLUDING THE. AN INTERIM POLICE CHIEF IN THAT LIST FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCIL IS. 
          YOUR YOUR THE THE CHIEF WHO ACTS AS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT. THERE ARE. RULES ABOUT KIND OF CONTINUITY OF OFFICE. AND I, I, I DON'T KNOW THOSE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          CHARLES MAY KNOW MORE OFF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD GIVEN YOUR BACKGROUND, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY. I MEAN, YOU MAY NEED SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO STEP IN IMMEDIATELY AND MAY NOT BE ABLE TO WAIT, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR LICENSING PURPOSES. AND I I'D HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP, CHARLES. 
          MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MORE OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD THAN I RECALL, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE. YES. IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THERE HAS TO BE A DEPARTMENT HEAD THAT IS AN AGENCY HEAD IN THAT DEPARTMENT AT ALL TIMES DUE TO T CODE REQUIREMENTS. WHETHER IT BE INTERIM OR THE PERMANENT. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE INTERIM SHOULD BE TREATED JUST LIKE THE PERMANENT POSITION. THAT'S THAT'S NO BIGGIE THERE. BUT YOU DO NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY OR I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY. EVEN ONE OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, IF THEY NEED TO GO TO THE HOUSE, THEY NEED TO GO TO THE HOUSE. IF THEY NEED TO GO TO THE HOUSE, THEY NEED TO GO TO THE HOUSE. IF THEY NEED TO BE IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED WITH PAY OR WITHOUT PAY OR SOMETHING, I NEED TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SEND THEM TO THE HOUSE UNTIL WE CAN PROPERLY CALL THE MEETING AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, 
          [03:00:04]
PERSONALLY, I THINK BEFORE IT GOT TO THAT POINT, THERE'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE INVESTIGATION GOING ON, AND Y'ALL WOULD BE INFORMED OF THE NOTICES IF IT'S OF ONE OF THESE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, BECAUSE WHETHER THEY'RE MY EQUAL OR ABOVE, THEY'RE GOING TO GET TREATED THE SAME, WHETHER THEY'RE AT THE TOP OF THE TOTEM POLE OR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOTEM POLE, THERE'S A PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED WITH, EVEN THOUGH TEXAS IS AN AT WILL STATE, THERE'S STILL A PROCESS. YOU BETTER HAVE A REASON TO FIRE SOMEBODY IF YOU'RE GONNA FIRE THEM OR DEMOTE THEM. AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT I'VE BEEN TAUGHT. AND I'VE ALSO BEEN TAUGHT, DON'T GO WITH THE STRIKE THREE AND YOU'RE OUT DEAL. BECAUSE THAT WAS ALWAYS SOMETHING I ALWAYS WANTED TO DO IS, HEY, THREE STRIKES, YOU'RE OUT. NO, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME. THERE'S THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT MORE INVOLVED IN IT. IT'S NOT JUST AS EASY AND CUT AND DRY AS YOU THINK, MR. PRINCE, REGARDING INTERIMS, I. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF REQUIRING COUNCIL APPROVAL ON INTERIMS AND MY MY REASON IS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THE POLICE CHIEF BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. WE'VE GOT TO HAVE AN INTERIM AND IT HAS TO BE RIGHT NOW OR IT'S THE CITY ATTORNEY. YOU KNOW, WE NEED CITY ATTORNEY AND WE NEED A PERSON RIGHT NOW AND MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, RESIGNED. RIGHT? SO WE GOT TO WE GOT TO HAVE SOMEBODY RIGHT NOW. SAME THING IS TRUE. SO ALL OF THESE ARE CRITICAL POSITIONS, I WOULD SAY, FRANKLY, IF WE REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE POSITIONS AND WE REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE INTERIMS, YOU CAN IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE A CITY MANAGER GETS AT ODDS WITH THEIR COUNCIL AND YOU CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE. YOU KNOW, IT JUST STOPS EVERYTHING. SO I THINK JUST LIKE ON THE BUDGET SIDE, WE HAVE IN OUR CHARTER THAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL CAN'T AGREE ON A BUDGET, THEN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSAL BECOMES THE BUDGET. AND I THINK THE SAME THING HAPPENS HERE, RIGHT? IF THE CITY IF THE CITY COUNCIL CAN'T AGREE ON APPROVING SOMEONE, THEN THE CITY MANAGER'S GOT TO GET GOT TO RUN THE CITY. AND SO I WOULD SAY, LET THE CITY MANAGER APPOINT INTERIMS. AND IF THEY'RE TAKING TOO LONG TO GET TO THE PERMANENT AND GET COUNCIL APPROVAL, THEN IT'S ON COUNCIL TO DEAL WITH THAT. AS THE CITY MANAGER, YOU KNOW, TAKE ACTION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GETTING THEIR JOB DONE. RIGHT. BUT BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE MAY BE OVERSTEPPING A LITTLE BIT TO TRY TO INSERT COUNCIL IN THE APPROVAL OF INTERIMS, BOTH HIRING AND FIRING. SO I NORMALLY AGREE WITH 90%. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE ON THIS ONE. 
          THIS IS WHY I'VE ALWAYS FELT IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE TRANSITION POLICY OF, SAY, SOMETHING HAPPENS, CHIEF OF POLICE, EVEN IF HE'S NOT REMOVED BY THE CITY MANAGER SAYS HE'S IN A CAR ACCIDENT, PASSES AWAY. WE NEED AN IMMEDIATE PERSON TO STEP IN. 
          THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A PROCESS, MEANING AN ASSISTANT HAS ALREADY NOW STEPPED UP. IF HE NOW BECOMES THE INTERIM BECAUSE OF THAT DELINEATION PROCESS, THE ONLY WAY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW HIM TO BE REMOVED WOULD BE FROM COUNCIL, IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DONE A LINE OF LINE OF SUCCESSION PER SE. SO I THINK THAT ANYONE THAT'S PUT IN THOSE INTERIM POSITION IS ACTING IN THAT THAT ROLE AND SHOULD HAVE THE PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS OF COUNCIL TO BE REMOVED FROM THAT ROLE. IF WE HAVE HAVE FAITH IN THEM ENOUGH TO GIVE THEM THAT POSITION, WE SHOULD HAVE THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RESPECT ENOUGH FROM COUNCIL TO BE REMOVED FROM IT, AND NOT JUST BY ONE PERSON. SO I I'VE ALWAYS FELT ASSISTANT IF THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THAT ROLE, MAYBE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A BUDGET FOR IT. MAYBE WE JUST HAVE A TRANSITION AREA AND THAT CAN BE DELINEATED WITH THREE HR. BUT FOR MUNICIPAL FOR THOSE MUNICIPAL ROLES, I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. IF WE DON'T HAVE AN ASSISTANT MANAGER THAT CAN GO IN AND BECOME THE INTERIM. AND THE UNFORTUNATE CASE THAT WE LOSE OUR CHIEF OR, YOU KNOW, SAY, OUR MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR THAT REASON, WE SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE SOMEONE ON BACKUP, EVEN IF WE LOSE OUR SAY, OUR ATTORNEY. YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE FROM HIS OFFICE THAT OBVIOUSLY CAN STEP IN AND TAKE OVER. SO I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THAT ARGUMENT IS VALID. MR. BENNEFIELD. WELL, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THERE A LENGTH OF TIME IN WHICH SOMEONE IS ASSIGNED TO A TEMPORARY POSITION? LIKE I MEAN, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU COULD BE AN INTERIM POLICE CHIEF FOR TWO YEARS. I KNOW. YEAH. SOMETIMES INTERIM IS A FUNCTION OF THE JOB MARKET AND FINDING THE RIGHT CANDIDATE. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS FOR FOR THE POLICE ISSUE, IF THERE IS A 
          [03:05:04]
SUDDEN DEPARTURE, THEN, THEN AND YOU REQUIRE AN INTERIM TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, YOU'VE GOT AT LEAST A THREE BUSINESS DAY GAP, RIGHT? LIKE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PUT IT ON AN AGENDA AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING. AND SO AT A MINIMUM, YOU'VE GOT A THREE BUSINESS DAY GAP. AND WHAT I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IS WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD RUN AFOUL OF T COLE. EVERYTHING ELSE I THINK IS NOT IS REALLY NOT AN ISSUE, BUT THAT ONE I'D WANT TO VERIFY FOR POLICE CHIEF WHETHER OR NOT INTERIM BECAUSE I, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE T COLE RULES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WELL ENOUGH, BUT I DO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME. THERE HAS TO BE SOMEONE IMMEDIATELY TAKE OVER IN THAT ROLE. IF THE PERSON WHO FILLS IT DEPARTS OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IS NO LONGER IN THAT ROLE FOR WHATEVER REASON. SO THERE HAS TO BE AN IMMEDIATE TRANSFER AND WE CAN'T HAVE A GAP THERE. AND IF THAT CAN BE BY POLICY SO THAT THE CAPTAIN FILLS THAT ROLE, YOU KNOW, BY BY POLICY, AND PERHAPS THAT IF THAT MEETS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEN, OKAY, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AS I SIT HERE RIGHT NOW. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE CAN'T BE A GAP. SO, SO KNOWING THAT THAT COULD BE A LENGTHY PROCESS, IT KIND OF CHANGES ME TO KNOW I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL ON THE ON THE TEMPORARY RULES. I TOTALLY RESPECT ON THE POLICE CHIEF. YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE MAYBE THERE'S AN AUTOMATIC MAYBE CITY MANAGER HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE A, A REC, YOU KNOW, MAKE AN APPROVAL FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL COUNCIL CAN CONVENE. BUT AN APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL HAS TO BE HAD WITHIN, YOU KNOW, A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I'M FINE ON THE DIRECTORS. YOU MAKE A VALID POINT, MR. PRINCE. SO I I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT. I DO FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ON AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, CONSIDERING THE GRAVITY OF THAT ROLE, EVEN THOUGH MAYBE NOT REQUIRED LIKE THE OTHERS, I THINK IT WOULD BE RELEVANT. SO MY OPINION, THOSE FIVE CORE POSITIONS PLUS ANY TEMPORARY POSITIONS OR IS IT SIX POSITIONS NOW WITH THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER? WELL, TO MR. BENFIELD'S POINT, PERHAPS THE THE THE COMPROMISE IS THAT IF YOU KNOW. THAT THAT A CITY MANAGER MAY APPOINT AN INTERIM AND THAT THAT INTERIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE YOU DON'T HAVE YOU HAVE CONTINUITY, BUT SOMEONE WHO'S AN INTERIM STILL GETS COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 
          BUT BUT THERE'S NOT A GAP, RIGHT, WHICH COULD BE IMPORTANT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. SOMEONE YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT. NOW YOU HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY WHO'S A FIRM, RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS CAN GET SICK OF ME TOMORROW AND I'M OUT THE DOOR, AND THEN YOU HIRE A SOLO, AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THAT SOLO PRACTITIONER, AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S BACKUP. I MEAN, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CIRCUMSTANCES. NOW, YOU KNOW, YOUR CHARTER NEEDS TO CONTEMPLATE, YOU KNOW, CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE A COMPROMISE WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO APPOINT, AND THEN THEY ARE APPROVED AT THE NEXT MEETING OR WITHIN 30 DAYS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT, THAT THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE GAPS. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY MY BIG CONCERN WOULD BE TO AVOID. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT GAPS, BUT I ALSO I'M AWARE THAT ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THAT THEY NORMALLY DO HAVE A DESIGNEE OR RULE OF SUCCESSION, WHETHER IT BE SOMEBODY THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE HAS PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF, SHOULD, YOU KNOW, HE HAVE AN ACCIDENT, BE OUT OF TOWN, GO ON VACATION OR BE REMOVED FROM REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION FORCIBLY. SO I THINK THAT THAT SHOULDN'T REALLY BE TOO MUCH OF A CONCERN FOR THE CITY MANAGER, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY AGREED ON A SUCCESSION APPROACH FOR THAT ROLE, SHOULD THE SHOULD THAT HAPPEN? SO I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, GIVING HIM, YOU KNOW, INTERIM OR TEMPORARY IS IS NECESSARY AS LONG AS THERE'S ALREADY A PLAN IN PLACE FOR FOR A SUCCESSION, WHETHER THAT BE AN ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CAPTAIN. BUT I DO THINK THAT IT DOES NEED TO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE CHARTER A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY. MISTER RON, I WAS JUST GOING TO WEIGH IN ON THE CRC DELIBERATIONS AND PERSPECTIVE. SO. WITH RESPECT 
          [03:10:03]
TO TEMPORARY REMOVAL SUSPENSION, WE DELIBERATELY DID NOT INCLUDE THE WORD SUSPENSION IN FIVE TWO B TO ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO HAVE THE LATITUDE TO SUSPEND SOMEBODY IN THE CASE OF AN INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE QUICKLY. WE NEED TO TURN OFF THEIR COMPUTER ACCESSES BEFORE THEY DO SOMETHING NEFARIOUS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. SO CRC DELIBERATELY DID NOT INCLUDE THE WORD SUSPENSION IN FIVE TWO B FOR THAT VERY REASON. AND WITH REGARD TO THE INTERIMS, WE LEFT IT SILENT. THINKING THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO ADD IT TO THE CHARTER, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE INDICATIONS, SITUATIONS WHERE THE CITY MANAGER NEEDS TO MOVE QUICKLY AND FELT LIKE THAT'S AN AREA THAT COULD BE LEFT TO ORDINANCE. SO WE DIDN'T MENTION INTERIMS IN THE CHARTER. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, THE FIVE TWO B THAT I HAVE DOES SAY SUSPEND. YEAH, I WAS READING THE SAME THING. AND THE SECOND I THINK THE SENTENCE MR. OWEN WAS REFERRING TO IS AT THE VERY END OF IT SAYS, YES, REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR EMPLOYMENT OR REMOVAL, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE WORD SUSPENSION. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. THAT LAST SENTENCE THERE THAT PERTAINED TO WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO AS THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, THOSE THAT YOU HAVE THE APPROVAL. SO CITY MANAGER ABSOLUTELY CAN SUSPEND ANY EMPLOYEE, BUT HE CAN'T. WE ALSO LEFT THE SUSPENSION AS A POSSIBILITY THERE WITHOUT REQUIRING COUNCIL ACTION, EVEN THOUGH HE MAY OR SHE MAY BE A MUNICIPAL OFFICER. OKAY, JUST TO RECAP REAL QUICK, I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THE CITY MANAGER CAN HIRE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADS, BUT STILL NEEDS APPROVAL ON MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. THAT'S WHERE I'VE STOPPED AT OUR CONSENSUS. BUT THE IN THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, HAVE WE GOT CONSENSUS THAT IT IS. CITY MANAGER, JUDGE, POLICE CHIEF, CITY SECRETARY, ATTORNEY, AND THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. DID WE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THAT? WELL, THE SMALL SUBTLETY IS WHAT THIS IS WHAT IT WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. SO, YES, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF MIXING BECAUSE BRAD WAS SAYING, HERE'S THE LIST OF CITY OFFICERS. THE CITY MANAGER IS A CITY OFFICER, BUT THE CITY MANAGER IS HIRED AND FIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHO DOES COUNCIL HAVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY OVER HIRING AND FIRING, BUT NOT SELECTING OF THAT PERSON? RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THAT THE LIST YOU JUST SAID I CORRECT, EXCEPT FOR THIS DISCUSSION, IT'S NOT THE CITY MANAGER BECAUSE ELSEWHERE WE HAVE THE. SO I THINK IT'S THE CITY, THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE I THINK WE WERE HEADED TOWARDS CONSENSUS ON ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, CHIEF OF POLICE, SECRETARY AND ATTORNEY. THOSE FIVE. THOSE WOULD BE THE FIVE POSITIONS THAT COUNCIL WOULD RETAIN APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR EITHER HIRING OR FIRING. AND I THINK I'M HEARING CONSENSUS TO TO INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE TRUE OF BOTH INTERIM AND PERMANENT POSITIONS. OKAY. ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT THEN? ALL RIGHT, MR. OWEN. YEAH, YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE THERE, WHAT THE INTENT WAS, EXCEPT FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS WHICH REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL. SO OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS, YOUR CITY MANAGER COULD TAKE ACTION ON. 
          BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN DEPARTMENT HEADS DEFINED DOWN BELOW. CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY, PD AND MUNICIPAL COURT. THOSE FOUR DEPARTMENT HEADS REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION. 
          THAT WAS OUR INTENT WHEN WE SAID, EXCEPT FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS, WHICH REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION. AND I CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE YOU MIGHT BE CONFUSED IN THINKING IT EXPANDS TO ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS, BUT THAT NO IS INTENDED TO BE THOSE FOUR DEPARTMENT HEADS. AND TO CLEAR THAT UP, WE'RE GOING TO NOW MAKE IT A DEFINITION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICER OFFICER. BUT IF YOU INCLUDE CITY MANAGER IN THE DEFINITION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICER, THEN YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T APPOINT HIMSELF, WHICH IS KIND OF ILLOGICAL. SO. I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT TO. IS IT REALLY UNCLEAR WHEN IT SAYS DEPARTMENT HEADS, WHICH REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL, WHEN THE REST OF THE CHARTER THEN DEFINES THOSE FOUR HEADS? I THINK IT CAN BE. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER IS NOT CONTEMPLATED NOR ADDED TO THE CHARTER IN ANY WAY. 
          ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. SO THAT WOULD. DO YOU WANT TO ADD THAT POSITION TO THE CHARTER, OR IS THAT KIND OF AN INFORMAL EXO ROLE THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE DEFINED AND LOCK INTO THE CITY CHARTER, THAT WE WILL HAVE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOREVER UNTIL WE HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION? THANK YOU. MY RECOMMENDATION IS YOU DEFINE YOUR OR LIST YOUR MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, WHICH WOULD BE THE OF COURSE, CITY MANAGERS HIRED AND FIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT THE OTHERS, THE 
          [03:15:07]
MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. THE RECOMMENDATION COMES FROM CITY MANAGER. CITY COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE THEM. BUT YOU LIST THOSE POSITIONS OUT, INCLUDING THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. 
          THAT WAY THERE'S NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT WHO HAS AUTHORITY OVER WHAT. YEAH. WOULDN'T YOU JUST GO BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CHARTER? AND DEFINITIONS DEFINE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, INCLUDES THE CITY MANAGER IN THERE. BUT THEN WHEN YOU COME IN HERE AND REFERENCE IT LATER, IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO YOU NOW HAVE COVERED THAT ISSUE WITH THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, USE WORDSMITHING. OKAY. BUT ONE LITTLE CLARIFICATION THERE. I THINK I HEARD BRAD SAY ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER WOULD TYPICALLY NOT LEGALLY BE A MUNICIPAL OFFICER. AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T CREATE A MUNICIPAL OFFICER THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE, BY DEFINITION, IN OUR CHARTER, BUT WE CAN WE JUST SAID IT'S NOT TYPICAL, OR WE CAN LEAVE IT OUT OF THE DEFINITION MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. BUT THEN WHEN YOU COME TO THIS SECTION, ADD ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. OKAY. 
          YEAH. MR. CHAVARRIA, I JUST WANT TO JUST TO CLARIFY. SO SINCE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS RULE, I WAS LOOKING, JUST LOOKING, LOOKING US UP BRIEFLY ABOUT WHO IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. AND THAT ACTUALLY ALSO INCLUDES THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, WHICH IS A LITTLE ODD, BUT BUT IT ALSO ENCOMPASSES LIKE IF WE WENT TO A CITY AUDITOR OR FINANCE DIRECTOR, AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE MIGHT WANT TO JUST DISCUSS OR CONSIDER IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THAT ROUTE. BUT I WAS JUST LOOKING UNDER THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ACTUALLY DOES FALL UNDER THAT AS WELL. SO AND EVEN UNDER FOR BIGGER CITIES, POLICE CAPTAIN AND LIEUTENANT, EVEN EVEN SO, WE COULD BROADEN IT OR NARROW IT AS MUCH AS WE WANT. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE PALATABLE TO THE VOTERS AS WELL. WHAT I IT CAN BE BROADLY DEFINED. WHAT DEFINITIONS YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THOUGH, ARE YOU LOOKING AT. I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT JUST MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. SO, I MEAN, I KNOW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT GENERAL RULE CITIES. SO I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, CLARIFYING THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING POLICE CHIEF JUDGE, EITHER OUR CITY CLERK OR OUR SECRETARY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ALSO THE, YOU KNOW, DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT CHIEF. BUT I'M ALSO LOOKING UNDER. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THERE'S WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT HEADS AND DIRECTORS, BUT THERE'S CERTAIN ONES THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AS MUNICIPAL. AND I THINK THAT FINANCE WOULD ACTUALLY FALL UNDER THAT ONE AS WELL. UNDER UNDER THE GENERAL LAW CITIES, THAT IT WAS CALLED THE CITY TREASURER. THEY DIDN'T CALL IT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. SO WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO, HOWEVER DEEP YOU WANT THE BENCH TO GO IN TERMS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU HAS AUTHORITY TO HIRE FIRE. 
          THAT'S THAT'S YOUR CALL. BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST TO MAKE THAT LIST AND DEFINE THAT LIST. 
          AND IF IT INCLUDES ASSISTANCE OR IT INCLUDES THE, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER IT IS THAT'S WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW, I'M STILL FINE KEEPING ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER IN THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. IF YOU IF WE HAVE FOUR THAT ARE OKAY WITH IT, JUST TO SIMPLIFY IT, IT'S IT'S AN IMPORTANT ROLE. 
          OKAY. BRAD'S NEXT COMMENT IN SECTION FIVE, ARTICLE FIVE WAS 575.01, THE FIVE VOTE SUPERMAJORITY FOR HIRE FIRE CITY MANAGER INSTEAD OF FIVE OF SEVEN SUPERMAJORITY FOR CITY MANAGER. REMOVAL IS UNUSUALLY HIGH WITH A SEVEN MEMBER COUNCIL AND THREE YEAR TERMS. THIS MEANS A FOUR THREE MAJORITY THAT LOSES CONFIDENCE IN A CITY MANAGER, A STATUTORILY BLOCKED FROM ACTING. MR. OWEN, THAT IS CURRENTLY OR WAS, I SHOULD SAY IS PROBABLY NOT ANYMORE WITH THE STREAMLINED RULES OF PROCEDURE. BUT THAT WAS IN THE CHART. THAT WAS IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE OLD RULES OF PROCEDURE. AND IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A HARD NUMBER AS OPPOSED TO REFERRING TO SUPERMAJORITY. TO THE COMMITTEE. SO THE COMMITTEE KIND OF VOTED USING WHAT WE REFERRED TO AS THE DOUGLAS RULE, WHAT THE WHAT COUNCIL GIVETH. COUNCIL COULD TAKE IT AWAY. AND APPARENTLY IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. SO THE COMMISSION FELT LIKE IT WAS COMMITTEE FELT LIKE IT WAS BEST TO GO AHEAD AND CODIFY THAT IN OUR CHARTER, THAT EXISTING PROVISION THAT REQUIRED AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FIVE MEMBERS. IT'S THE LAST SENTENCE OF 5.011. SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AT IT 
          [03:20:07]
TAKES A SUPERMAJORITY OR DO YOU WANT TO LOWER IT? SIMPLE MAJORITY, I GUESS. IF I GET TO VOTE ON ALL SEVEN, THIS IS CHARLES FAVORITE DISCUSSION I'M GOING TO DO. MY MR. PRINCE MAJORITY IS SIX OF SEVEN. SO FIVE OF SEVEN IS ALREADY REDUCED BY ONE. AND I THINK THAT IF A COUNCIL CAN'T GET TO CONSENSUS ON HIRING, YOU KNOW, TO A FIVE OF SEVEN CONSENSUS ON HIRING OR FIRING, THEN ACTION IS A BIG ACTION. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT AT FIVE, NOT DROPPING IT TO SIMPLE MAJORITY. OKAY. MR. HALL? YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT FOR, FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR. PRINCE, THAT THAT'S A VERY, VERY BIG AND IMPORTANT DECISION. AND THAT SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST FIVE OF US IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. MR. BENNEFIELD. I I'M AT FOUR I NOT THAT I WANT TO MAKE IT EASY TO HIRE OR FIRE. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT EASY NECESSARILY TO FIRE CITY MANAGER, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO HIRE A CITY MANAGER. AND I AGREE IT'S A BIG DECISION. YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE UNANIMOUS. EVERY HIRING AND FIRING DECISION I'VE EVER SEEN, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNANIMOUS. I HAVEN'T SEEN A SITUATION WHERE IT HASN'T BEEN UNANIMOUS. SO BUT I COULD ENVISION A SCENARIO WHERE, YOU KNOW, ANYWAY, I I'M NOT AGAINST FIVE. I WOULD JUST BE FOR FOUR. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO FOUR EITHER. I'M NOT AGAINST FIVE. I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USING THE TERMS MAJORITY AND SIMPLE OR SIMPLE MAJORITY AND SUPERMAJORITY, BUT I THINK THERE'S A, THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEAR DELINEATION ON SIMPLE MAJORITY WOULD BE FOR 3/5 MAJORITY. THEN YOU'VE GOT THE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY AND THEN YOU HAVE THE THREE QUARTERS MAJORITY. SO WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO WAS YOU WERE SAYING SUPERMAJORITY, WHERE YOU WOULD SAY IS SIX OF SEVEN IS ACTUALLY A THREE QUARTERS MAJORITY. AND SO FOR FIVE OF SEVEN, THAT WOULD BE THE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY. SO WHAT'S TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED SUPERMAJORITY IS, IS SIX OF SEVEN, BUT TWO THIRDS MAJORITY IS THE FIVE OF SEVEN. I'M ALSO ON THE THE THE FOUR AS WELL. SO BUT I CAN GO 4 OR 5. WELL, WE'D HAVE THREE FOR FOUR IF THERE WAS A FOURTH, WE CAN. IF WE DON'T GET THERE THEN WE DON'T GET THERE MISS ON. SHE'S ON FIVE. YOU'RE ON. SO THERE'S ONLY THREE THAT ARE IN SUPPORT OF FOUR. SO THEN WE'RE BACK TO FIVE. ARE WE OKAY TO KEEP IT AT WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW? SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE STAYING AT FIVE, MR. PRINCE. MR. WEST, I WILL MAKE ONE QUICK STATEMENT. CITY MANAGERS, THAT IF YOU OFFER THEM A JOB AND IT IS NOT A MAJORITY VOTE TO OFFER THAT PERSON THE JOB, MOST CITY MANAGERS WORTH THEIR SALT WILL NOT TAKE THE POSITION IF IT'S NOT A MAJORITY MAJORITY ON THE OFFERING OF A JOB. OKAY, WELL, I WAS GOING TO STAY AT FIVE. 
          THE NEXT ONE I JUST HAD IS STILL STILL HERE IN 5012 E THIS WAS PREPARED AND SUBMIT THE PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET. PREVIOUSLY, WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD ADD LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD WORK WITH THE SUB COMMITTEE, THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE, OR THE MAYOR IF THERE WASN'T ONE. WE GOOD TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE HERE AS WELL. THAT MIRRORS WHAT WAS IN THE OTHER LANGUAGE. I SEE HEADS NODDING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? 5012GE. 
          PARENTS SUBMIT THE PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET. OKAY, SO YOU JUST WANT TO BRING THE OTHER LANGUAGE AND PUT IT IN THERE. OKAY. I WOULD LEAVE THE DATE THAT IT HAS TO BE AUGUST 1ST. 
          THAT WAY YOU DON'T GET BEHIND TO GET INTO A BIND. OKAY. IS THAT LANGUAGE WE NEED TO ADD? I THINK SO I THINK YOU NEED TO ADD AUGUST 1ST. YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR FIRST DRAFT TURNED INTO THE CITY SECRETARY BY AUGUST 1ST. MAYOR. MR. OWEN, I THINK YOU'RE GETTING INTO 
          [03:25:03]
ANOTHER SECTION THAT DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE BUDGET. THERE IS A THERE IS ANOTHER FINANCE SECTION THAT GETS INTO THE BUDGET PARTICULARS. OKAY. THE NEXT 1 IN 5 THAT BRAD HAD POINTED OUT WAS 5.06. NEPOTISM OVERLAP WITH STATE LAW. THE DRAFT RESTATES A NEPOTISM RULE AND PARENTHESES SECOND DEGREE BY AFFINITY. THIRD DEGREE BY CONSTANT. THAT CLOSE. I'M NOT A LAWYER. THOSE CLOSELY TRACKS, BUT MAY NOT BE IDENTICAL TO WHAT THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES VERIFICATION FROM HIM. SO THAT'S MORE OF A BRAD QUESTION THAT JUST NEEDS TO MATCH WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. YEAH, I. WHAT WAS MY COMMENT AGAIN? DID YOU READ WHAT WAS THE THE NEPOTISM OVERLAPS WITH STATE LAW. SO THE DRAFT RESTATES THE NEPOTISM RULE. AND THEN MY COMMENT TO THAT IN THE DISCUSSION BOARD WAS THIS ENTIRE SECTION SHOULD JUST BE SHORTENED TO CITE THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW WHAT'S IN FEDERAL AND STATE LAW. I MEAN, THAT'S THE EASIER WAY TO DO IT, FRANKLY. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, JUST REFERENCE THE THE NEPOTISM. I DON'T REMEMBER THE STATUTE, THE CHAPTER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. BUT BUT THAT IS FRANKLY THE EASIER WAY TO DO IT. YOU DON'T NEED TO RESTATE STATE LAW BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO GOVERN ANYWAY. OKAY. ARE Y'ALL GOOD WITH THAT? THAT WE JUST REFERENCED STATE LAW INSTEAD OF TRYING TO RECREATE IT? OKAY, I GOT ENOUGH HEAD NODS ON THAT ONE. THE NEXT ONE THAT I HAD A COMMENT ON WAS 5.07. OTHER ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENTS. NUMBER ONE, THIS ONE SAYS THERE SHALL BE SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS AS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THIS CHARTER, AND IT'S ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE, ALL OF WHICH SHALL BE UNDER THE CONTROL AND DIRECTION OF CITY MANAGER. I PUT. I SUPPORT ALLOWING DEPARTMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE, RATHER THAN LISTING THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES IN THE CHARTER. AND SO I PROPOSE SIMPLIFYING IT, SAYING THERE SHALL BE SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE. WHAT THAT DOES TO ME IS ENSURES THAT COUNCIL IS STAYING INVOLVED IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE CITY. AND SO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE PROCESS, WE WOULD DECIDE WHAT DEPARTMENTS THERE ARE OR NOT. CREATION OF. YES. MISTER PRINCE. YEAH. MY ONLY COMMENT HERE IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS A DEPARTMENT, RIGHT? AND WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH IN THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE, WE WERE TRYING TO COME UP WITH OUR NUMBERING SCHEME. RIGHT NOW, HISTORICALLY, IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, WE'VE HAD DEPARTMENTS OF ONE. RIGHT? WE SAID THAT'S THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. AND SO WE NEED TO RENAME THE DEPARTMENTS TO BE A LITTLE MORE LOGICAL. LIKE THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH MAY CONTAIN SEVERAL OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WERE LABELED AS DEPARTMENTS. AND SO TO ME, THE DEFINITION OF DEPARTMENTS IS LIKE HOW YOU DRAW AN ORG CHART AND HOW YOU, YOU DO MANAGERS. I, I'M, I'M AGAIN, I'M KIND OF IN THE SPACE OF LET THE CITY MANAGER JUST DO THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF APPROVING DEPARTMENTS. AND SO ON THE ONE HAND, YES, BIG NEW ORGANIZATIONAL THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GOING TO DO. LIKE WE'RE GOING TO COMPLETELY SPLIT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INTO TWO SEPARATE, YOU KNOW, DEPARTMENTS. 
          ONE THAT IS SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS DEPARTMENT, RIGHT? THERE MAY BE SOME BIG DEPARTMENT LEVEL DECISIONS THAT CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO ONEROUS. WHERE THE CITY MANAGER HAS TO HAS TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL TO KIND OF REDRAW HIS ORG CHART AND SAY, OH, THIS, THIS GUY'S A, I'LL USE THIS EXAMPLE. SO PERSON A IS DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB LEADING THIS FUNCTION. I WANT TO I, THE CITY MANAGER, WANT TO GIVE THEM THESE OTHER TWO FUNCTIONS AND MAKE THAT A NEW DEPARTMENT. 
          THAT'S AN ORGANIZATIONAL THING, WHICH THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD JUST BE ABLE TO DO WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH AN ORDINANCE PROCESS WITH THE, WITH THE COUNCIL. SO I, I'D RATHER THIS STAY LIGHTWEIGHT RATHER THAN FORMALIZED. MR. WEST, I THINK ON THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE SHOULD BE PART OF YOUR ANNUAL BUDGET ORDINANCE THAT CITY COUNCIL MUST ADOPT, AND EVERYTHING SHOULD BE LISTED OUT THERE AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THAT'S HOW THEY CAN OPERATE THAT WAY. THEY CAN'T JUST CREATE A NEW DEPARTMENT. BECAUSE IF I CREATED A NEW DEPARTMENT TODAY AND I DON'T 
          [03:30:01]
HAVE A BUDGET FOR IT, WHAT GOOD IS THAT DEPARTMENT GOING TO DO ME? SO I SAY, JUST LET THAT BE PART OF YOUR ORDINANCE, YOUR ANNUAL BUDGET ORDINANCE, THAT THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE MUST BE LISTED IN THE BUDGET AND SHOWS ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. AND THEN IF ANOTHER DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO BE ADDED LATER ON, CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO SAY, HEY, WE NEED TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT SO WE CAN CREATE A DEPARTMENT HERE. THIS IS MY THOUGHTS ON IT. MISS OWEN. I WAS GOING TO SAY COUNCILOR PRINCE, I THINK WHAT WAS PROPOSED HERE ACTUALLY GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE THE WAY THAT IT'S STATED CURRENTLY, ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THIS CHARTER. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU START CHANGING, AS I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, IF YOU START CHANGING THE STRUCTURE, THEN IT HAS TO BE THEN GO BACK TO REVOTE OR UNDER CHARTER. AND I THINK THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR HAS PUT I SUPPORT ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE, RATHER THAN LISTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES IN THE CHARTER. SO IT. HE WAS ACTUALLY PUTTING MORE FLEXIBILITY THERE, NOT TAKING AWAY CITY MANAGER STRUCTURE. ANYWAY, THAT THAT WAS MY OBSERVATION, AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THAT. THIS IS A FAIR POINT, AND I WILL JUST NOTE THAT WHAT MR. WEST JUST SAID, IN ESSENCE, IS USE THE ORDINANCE PROCESS TO CREATE DEPARTMENTS. AND HIS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT BY DEFAULT, IT BE IN THE BUDGET ORDINANCE EVERY YEAR. SO I I'M I'M FINE WITH THAT DIRECTION. MR. I LIKE. MR. WEST STATED, BUT I ALSO HAVE SEEN WHERE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR CLOUT AND THEIR, THEIR PAY PAY STILL CAME FROM THEIR OTHER PREVIOUS POSITIONS, BUT THEY'VE BEEN NOW GIVEN A NEW TITLE OR A NEW DEPARTMENT. SO BUT I DO AGREE WITH MAYOR ON ON THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE THROUGH ORDINANCE, WHETHER WE DO IT THROUGH BUDGET, YOU KNOW, ADOPTION, THAT THAT'S REALLY, I GUESS, JUST A POINT THAT COULD BE DEBATED LATER. BUT I LIKE IT. 
          THE ORDINANCE FORMAT THAT THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTING. I THINK IT WOULD CLARIFY THE ISSUE WE HAD EARLIER IN THE YEAR. NOW WE I GUESS IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S THE BUDGET ORDINANCE, NOW, WE KNOW WHAT OUR DEPARTMENTS ARE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE. THE ONE PART I WASN'T CLEAR ON IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE MOVING DEPARTMENTS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS YEAR WE HAD THE CODE COMPLIANCE MOVED OUT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OVER TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I DON'T KNOW IF UNDER EVEN MY PROPOSAL, DOES THAT TAKE AN ORDINANCE OR SHOULD IT? THAT'S A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL, MR. PRINCE. WELL, AND THAT'S WHERE I SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF A DEPARTMENT? RIGHT. SO CODE COMPLIANCE IS A FUNCTION. IS CODE COMPLIANCE A DEPARTMENT? TO ME, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY NOT. BUT DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DRAW AND DEFINE THINGS, YOU COULD MAKE CODE COMPLIANCE A DEPARTMENT, RIGHT? SO. IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THERE'S A, THERE'S A, A, A, A TEAM UNIT, IF YOU WILL, RIGHT? THERE'S A TEAM LEAD AND THERE'S PEOPLE WORKING FOR THAT PERSON. THERE'S A MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE WITH FORMAL REVIEW PROCESSES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND THEN THERE'S DEPARTMENT AT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, I, IF WE, IF WE, WE ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, ALONG WITH THE TEXAS STATE FOLKS WERE HEADED TO A, A HIGHER LEVEL DEFINITION OF DEPARTMENTS WHERE IT'S, IT'S REALLY A BUDGETARY ENTITY THAT CONTAINS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SPENDING, RIGHT? THAT'S A DEPARTMENT. AND SO IF WE'RE SAYING, YEAH, WE NEED AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE A NEW ENTITY THAT'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY, THEN YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY WE NEED AN ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO MOVE THE TWO COMPLIANCE OFFICERS FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, I THINK WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT. SO LET'S LET'S GET THE LET'S LET'S FIND LANGUAGE THAT MEETS THAT INTENT WOULD BE MY, MY REQUEST. SO BUT WE ARE GOOD ABOUT CHANGING THIS LANGUAGE TO IT'S TO THE ORDINANCE INSTEAD OF IN THE CHARTER. OKAY, OKAY. AND THEN THAT WOULD TAKE US TO ARTICLE SIX WITH. AND WE'RE STILL GOOD THAT WE SAID WE WOULD GO TO FOR EVERYONE. STILL, WE GOT 22 MINUTES IN US. MR. MAYOR, I'M SORRY, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT 5.07. SO YOU SAID. THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS THERE ARE CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS PD, SECRETARY, HR, THEY'RE DEFINED BY THE CHARTER. THEN YOU HAVE TO ENACT AN ENABLING ORDINANCE. AND THEN SECONDLY IS ANY OTHER 
          [03:35:06]
DEPARTMENTS YOU WOULD ENABLE, YOU WANT TO HAVE YOU WOULD DO BY ORDINANCE. ARE YOU SAYING WHEN YOU SAID LEAVE OUT CHARTER, I WASN'T CLEAR WHAT YOU MEANT THERE? YOU BASICALLY DELETE THAT WHOLE FIRST PART FROM THERE SHALL BE TRUE OR SIMPLY SAYS THERE SHALL BE SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE. OKAY, JUST DON'T REFERENCE THE ONES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED BY CHARTER UP ABOVE. CORRECT. JUST TAKE THAT ALL OUT. OKAY. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. OR AN ARTICLE SIX STARTING AT NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS. I'LL SEE. DID BRAD HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS ONE? YEAH. THERE ARE NO ATTORNEY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE. MR. I HAVE ONE QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE RULES LISTED. THE FIRST RULE. IT SAYS NO CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE, INCLUDING INCUMBENTS, MAY WITHDRAW THEIR CANDIDACY AND REFILE IN THE SAME ELECTION. MY QUESTION WOULD BE REFILE THE SAME ELECTION FOR THAT SAME POSITION OR POSSIBLY A SEPARATE POSITION, MEANING THERE DECIDED TO RUN FOR A DIFFERENT PLACE NUMBER WITHIN THAT SAME ELECTION. I'D ASK THE CRC, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? I DON'T RECALL THAT WE GOT INTO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL. IT WAS MORE OF LIKE WITHDRAWING FROM ONE POSITION TO ANOTHER. GENE, UNLESS YOU REMEMBER DIFFERENTLY, I THINK THE ONLY THING WE MAY HAVE CONTEMPLATED THERE WAS, I DON'T LIKE WHO I'M RUNNING AGAINST, SO I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW AND NOW APPLY FOR ANOTHER PLACE BECAUSE I THINK I CAN MEET THIS PERSON WHERE SOMEONE MORE STRONG RAN AGAINST ME HERE. SO I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW AND GO THERE. I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE MISCHIEF WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT. UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE REMEMBERS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I'LL CHALLENGE YOU BACK WITH WHAT IF THEY'VE DECIDED THAT THEY ACTUALLY REALLY DO LIKE THE CANDIDATE THAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY RUNNING AGAINST, AND NOW THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR POSITION AND HAVE FOUND A CANDIDATE THAT IS ALSO RUNNING FOR A DIFFERENT POSITION, AND THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB OR ALIGNING WITHIN THAT. SO I THINK AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT RUNNING, THEY'RE NOT GOING IN PULLING THEMSELVES IN AND GOING BACK OUT FOR THAT SAME POSITION. I THINK HAVING THAT FLEXIBILITY TO RUN FOR A DIFFERENT POSITION DURING THAT SAME ELECTION CYCLE SHOULD BE SHOULD BE AN OPEN. YEAH, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE I JUST KIND OF REWROTE IT. THIS IS WHERE I DIDN'T WANT TO RESTATE SO MUCH OF ELECTION LAW. 
          AND SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, I SIMPLIFIED IT AND I DON'T EVEN MENTION THAT PART OF IT IN THERE ANYMORE. THE ONLY ONE THAT I MAINTAINED WAS. SO I TOOK ALL THOSE BULLET NUMBERS THERE UNDER ONE THROUGH FIVE, I MADE SIX, I MADE THAT 6.02 CANDIDATE FILING AND I SAID, CANDIDATE SHALL FILE FOR A SPECIFIC OFFICE DESIGNATE AS MAYOR BY PLACE NUMBER. NO CANDIDATE MAY FILE FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFICE IN THE SAME ELECTION. AND THE ONE THAT I KEPT. THAT'S NOT NORMAL, BUT IT'S WHAT WE DO HERE IN LARGO. BUT IT MIGHT CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE THE THREE YEAR TERMS, ACTUALLY, INCUMBENT COUNCIL MEMBER SEEKING ELECTION AS MAYOR SHALL RESIGN FROM THE OFFICE PRESENTLY HELD ON OR BEFORE THE CANVASING DATE AND COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW. I TURN TO MR. PRINCE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW. IS THAT AN ISSUE NOW, UNDER THE WAY THAT WE DID THE TRANSITION IN THE THREE YEARS, OR IS THAT STILL A CONCERN? I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY DIFFERENT. YEAH. SO. THIS. TO ME, THIS ALWAYS HAS STRUCK ME AS A LITTLE BIT ODD. AND SO IF CANDIDATE, IF IF AN INCUMBENT COUNCIL MEMBER SEEKING ELECTION AS MAYOR DOES NOTHING, THEN WHEN THEY'RE ELECTED TO MAYOR, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY ON THAT DATE, THE DATE THAT THEY'RE ELECTED TO MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I I'M I'M NOT SURE WE MAY NEED SOME HELP FROM. BRAD DOES IT. SO IF THE INTENT IS THAT A PERSON ON COUNCIL CAN ONLY SERVE IN ONE OFFICE AND THEY'RE RUNNING FOR MAYOR WHEN THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN A PLACE, DO WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER SAYING THEY HAVE TO 
          [03:40:02]
FORMALLY RESIGN FROM THEIR THEIR COUNCIL PLACE, OR CAN THAT JUST BE? ON THE ON THE CANVASING BECAUSE THEY THEY DON'T GET TO HOLD ON TO THEIR PLACE IF THEY LOSE FOR MAYOR, RIGHT? THEY DON'T GET TO HOLD ON TO PLACE WHATEVER THEY HAD BEFORE. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DO IT. SO, MR. PRINCE, I'LL LET ME. SO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION HAS A RESIGNED TO RUN PROVISION WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE MOMENT YOU. YOU CAN. AND THERE. CASE LAW OR AG OPINIONS ON THIS. IF YOU ANNOUNCE YOU ARE RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE, JUST THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CREATE A CAMPAIGN FUND OR FORMALLY FILE. THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT CONSTITUTES AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION FROM YOUR CURRENT OFFICE, AND THAT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION. I GOTTA DOUBLE CHECK. AND I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS WITH ANOTHER ONE OF MY CLIENTS, WHO COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCED ON FACEBOOK THAT HE WAS RUNNING FOR COUNTY JUDGE. AND THE MOMENT THAT FACEBOOK POST, YOU KNOW, WENT LIVE, TECHNICALLY, THAT HE WAS CONSIDERED TO HAVE RESIGNED FROM HIS POSITION. NOW, HE HELD OVER IN THAT POSITION UNTIL THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL HIS VACANT SEAT. SO HE STILL ATTENDED SEVERAL MEETINGS. BUT, BUT BUT THAT'S ALL IN THE CONSTITUTION. SO YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE ANYTHING IN YOUR CHARTER ABOUT THE RESIGNED BECAUSE IT'S THAT'S BY OPERATION OF LAW. I NEED TO GO AND DOUBLE CHECK. I KNEW THAT I KNOW THAT IT APPLIED WHEN THE COUNCIL MEMBER WAS RUNNING FOR COUNTY OFFICE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD APPLY NO MATTER WHAT. YOU MIGHT HOLD OVER. BUT YOU YOU DON'T. YOU WON'T. YOU WON'T HOLD OVER UNTIL A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL YOUR YOUR SEAT OR ITS APPOINTED. SO AGAIN, THAT AND THAT COMES BACK TO ARE YOU A TWO YEARS OR ARE YOU THREE YEARS AND DOES THAT 120 DAY PROVISION APPLY. CAN YOU HELP ME WITH WHAT HOLDOVER MEANS? SO WHEN YOU SAY HOLDOVER, DOES THAT MEAN THE PERSON ATTENDS MEETINGS AND VOTES YES. OKAY. YES. SO SO IN THAT PARTICULAR, IN THE CASE I'M TALKING ABOUT AND THE INDIVIDUAL HAD ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE. SO THEY THAT CONSTITUTED A RESIGNATION, BUT IT TOOK TIME TO OBVIOUSLY CALL AND HAVE THE SPECIAL ELECTION. AND SO DURING THAT TIME, THAT INDIVIDUAL STILL ATTENDED SEVERAL COUNCIL MEETINGS, VOTED, PARTICIPATED FULLY EVERYTHING. 
          THEY WERE CONSIDERED A CONSTITUTIONAL HOLDOVER AS WHAT IS THE TECHNICAL TERM? BUT BUT THAT'S ALL IN THE CONSTITUTION. SO WE DON'T NEED TO PUT THIS IN. HERE IS WHAT SOUND LIKE. WE DON'T NEED THIS LANGUAGE AT ALL. I DON'T, I, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU DO. IT'S ALL THAT'S ALL PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION. IS THAT THE SAME WITH NO CANDIDATE MAY FILE FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFICE IN THE SAME ELECTION. I I'M 99% SURE THAT'S ALSO IN STATE LAW. I'D HAVE TO GO DOUBLE CHECK, BUT I'M ALMOST CERTAIN THAT'S IN STATE LAW. I MEAN, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT IMPERMISSIBLE OR ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO TEAR IT. YOU KNOW WHAT STATE LAW SAYS? IT'S OKAY. IT'S NOT NECESSARY. SO BUT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE IT IN YOUR CHARTER, YOU CAN THERE'S NO PROHIBITION AGAINST IT AS LONG AS YOU AS LONG AS IT MIRRORS STATE LAW. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS AMBIGUOUS, SO NO CANDIDATE MAY FILE FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFICE. 
          IN THE SAME ELECTION. MISS CHAVARRIA WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW CANDIDATE TO FILE, WITHDRAW AND FILE AGAIN FOR A DIFFERENT OFFICE. BUT THIS LANGUAGE WOULD PROHIBIT THAT BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE FILED TWICE FOR ONE ELECTION. AND SO IT MAYBE THE LANGUAGE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS, BUT THIS THIS LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN, I THINK, WOULD PROHIBIT THE THE ACTION THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. SO WE NEED TO MAYBE WE NEED TO GET THE CONSENSUS. ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO WITHDRAW AND CHANGE THEIR MIND ON WHAT THEY'RE RUNNING FOR OR NOT, AND THEN GET THE LANGUAGE THAT EITHER ALLOWS THAT OR DOES NOT ALLOW THAT. TO BE CLEAR. FOR MY MY PURPOSES, I THINK PERSON SHOULD JUST MAKE A DECISION AND STICK WITH IT BECAUSE YOU CAN IMAGINE SOMEBODY SAYING, OH, I'M RUNNING FOR PLACE ONE. SOMEBODY ELSE SIGNS UP FOR PLACE ONE AND THEY SAY, OH, WELL, I DON'T WANT THEM RUNNING AGAINST ME. I'M GOING TO SWITCH TO PLACE THREE. AND THEN THAT PERSON SAYS, WELL, I RAN FOR PLACE ONE SPECIFICALLY TO TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T GET ELECTED. SO THEY SWITCHED THE PLACE. SO YOU GET ALL KINDS OF NONSENSE THAT POSSIBLY COULD GO ON. I THINK JUST, YOU KNOW, PICK YOUR SEAT AND STICK WITH IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. I AGREE THE ONE, THE ONE ONE CHALLENGE TO THAT WAS THIS ACTUALLY THIS ACTUAL LAST ELECTION CYCLE WHEN AFTER I HAD ALREADY FILED, I FOUND OUT PAUL 
          [03:45:06]
ROBERTS WASN'T GOING TO RUN, HAD. BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ALREADY AFTER I HAD FILED FOR THAT POSITION. AND THEN NOW HE, YOU KNOW, NOBODY ACTUALLY, FOR A LITTLE WHILE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY THAT WAS GOING TO GO IN AND. AND THEN SO THAT WAS A WAS A LATE WE, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT. AND SO I GUESS MAYBE I COULD HAVE WAITED TO FILE MAYBE JUST A LAST MINUTE KIND OF THING, BUT I'M ALWAYS, I LIKE TO ALWAYS ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND GET IT OUT THERE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. AND THEN AND BECAUSE I WASN'T GOING TO RUN AGAINST HIM, ABSOLUTELY NOT BECAUSE I KNEW ONE, I KNEW I WASN'T GOING TO BEAT HIM. HE'S GOING TO DEFINITELY OUTSPEND ME. BUT AND THEN OF COURSE, WHEN KAREN CAME ON, I WAS I WAS THRILLED, BUT I WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY HAVE LIKED THAT OPTION HAD I HAD I KNOWN THAT. 
          AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN PEOPLE THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, SAID, YOU KNOW, I REALLY LIKE RUNNING AGAINST OR I'M GOING TO REALLY RUN AGAINST SO AND SO. AND THEN THE INCUMBENT DECIDED TO WITHDRAW. AND NOW THEY'RE NOT AS PASSIONATE ABOUT IT ANYMORE. BUT NOW THERE'S ANOTHER, ANOTHER MEMBER THAT THEY'D LIKE TO REALLY GO AFTER. SO I'M PLAYING, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM BOTH SCENARIOS. BUT I DO AGREE THAT ENTERING IN AND OUT OF THE RACES, IT CAN GET REALLY MESSY. MAYBE THEY SHOULD JUST WAIT AND HOLD OFF ANOTHER YEAR OR THREE. MISS ON. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN HERE, OTHER THAN 6.01, FOUR AND FIVE, WHICH WERE TWEAKED A LITTLE BIT, WAS ORIGINAL CHARTER LANGUAGE, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS REVISED IN NOVEMBER OF 2015. SO SOMETHING HAPPENED IN 2015 THAT HAD THEM PUTTING THESE ITEMS INTO EFFECT. THE SIMPLE WAY TO DO IT IS JUST TO GO BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW. 
          I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. I THINK POTENTIALLY, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, THAT IF IT'S SEEN BY THE PUBLIC THAT SOMEONE IS SIGNING UP FOR POSITION AND THEN LEAVING THAT POSITION AND THEN REDOING POSITIONS, THAT THERE WOULD BE A REPUTATIONAL REPERCUSSION TO THAT. SO I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE THAT WE NEED TO ADD INFORMATION IN THERE. I DO LIKE 6.02 IN TERMS OF HOW YOU'VE SIMPLIFIED THAT, MAYOR, JUST TO STATE. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS ACTUALLY PREDOMINANTLY ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OTHER THAN THE CRC DID GO AHEAD AND. ADJUST A BIT. I THINK ABOUT WHEN. WHEN, WHEN THEY RESIGNED THEIR POSITION AND WHEN THE IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN THEY WERE PRESENTLY HELD OR BEFORE THE CANVASING DATE. ANYWAY, THOSE LAST TWO ITEMS, IF WE REMOVE ALL THAT TOGETHER, THEN THAT DOESN'T IT'S NEGLIGIBLE. MR. BENFIELD SO IF LANGUAGE IS GOING TO FOLLOW STATE LAW, IT SHOULD NOT BE IN OUR CHARTER. STATE LAW TENDS TO CHANGE. I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSTANTLY HAVE TO MONITOR OUR CHARTER TO MAKE SURE WE'RE STAYING UP TO DATE WITH WHAT STATE LAW IS OR IS NOT. SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE LANGUAGE JUST SIMPLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER STATE LAW IS, THAT'S WHAT WE FOLLOW, THAT'S FINE. IF NOT, LEAVE IT, LEAVE IT OPEN ENDED. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH MR. PRINCE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKE YOUR PICK YOUR POSITION AND STICK TO IT. HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK I THINK MISS CHAVARRIA BRINGS UP A REALLY VALID POINT. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S FAIR AND HONEST TO DECLARE EARLY. I THINK THAT'S GREAT. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU FIND OUT A MONTH LATER THAT SOMEONE ISN'T GOING TO RERUN AND, YOU KNOW, OR LIKE YOU MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU FOUND OUT YOU REALLY LIKED THE PERSON THAT YOU WERE RUNNING AGAINST. AND, YOU KNOW, SO I, I ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE'S GOING TO FILE FOR ONE AND THEN GO TO THREE. AND THEN THE OTHER PERSON GOES TO THREE AND THE OTHER PERSON GOES BACK TO ONE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, SO MAYBE THERE'S JUST LANGUAGE SAYING, HEY, YOU CAN DO THAT UP TO YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND UP TO ONE TIME OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE I THINK YOU MAKE A VALID POINT. AND AS FAR AS REPUTATION HARM, I THINK IT WOULD KIND OF DEPEND ON WHY AN INDIVIDUAL CHANGED THEIR MIND. IF IT WAS BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DECIDED AN INCUMBENT DECIDED NOT TO RUN, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THEY'RE RUNNING FROM RUNNING AGAINST SOMEBODY. I MY QUESTION FOR BRAD HERE IS, IS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REASON AT LEAST OUR CHARTER AND I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG. THE REASON IN OUR CHARTER, IT SAYS THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER FILING FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR MUST RESIGN FROM. THEIR 
          [03:50:05]
POSITION. IS THAT WAS IT 2019? A COUNCIL MEMBER RAN FOR MAYOR, LOST AND THEN RETAINED THE POSITION ON CITY COUNCIL. AND THEN AFTER THAT, I GUESS THE CHARTER WAS REVISED. IS THERE ANYTHING IN STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER MUST RESIGN IF THEY RUN FOR MAYOR? WELL, I'VE GOT TO COMPARE THOSE OFFICES TO THE RESIGNED TO RUN PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
          AND SO WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU ARE AN OFFICE HOLDER, AN EXISTING OFFICE HOLDER, AND YOU ANNOUNCE TO RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICE OF I THINK IT'S OFFICE OF EMOLUMENT IS THE SPECIFIC NAME, I HAVE TO GO DOUBLE CHECK THAT. BUT THEN THAT THAT ANNOUNCEMENT CONSTITUTES YOUR RESIGNATION FROM YOUR CURRENT OFFICE. BUT AND I KNOW THAT IT APPLIED LIKE I KNOW THAT IT APPLIED WHEN IT WAS A CITY COUNCIL PERSON WHO RAN FOR A COUNTY COUNTY. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS A COUNTY JUDGE OFFICE. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT HOW THAT PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS WRITTEN TO SEE THAT IT APPLIES FROM ONE CITY OFFICE TO ANOTHER CITY OFFICE. I, I JUST DON'T HAVE IT MEMORIZED. SO I'D HAVE TO GO AND LOOK. THE REASON, THE REASON I ASK IS I, I CAN WE'LL JUST USE ME AS AN EXAMPLE. I, I CAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROVISION IF, IF, LET'S SAY I WAS UP FOR ELECTION, I COULD NOT RUN FOR MAYOR OR, AND OR PLACE. TWO, I WOULD HAVE TO CHOOSE. I'M RUNNING FOR TWO OR I'M RUNNING FOR MAYOR. THAT'S GOING TO THREE YEAR TERMS. I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT THE VERY BEST PERSON IN THE MAYOR'S SEAT. AND ASSUMING THIS GETS APPROVED, THE MAYOR'S SEAT IS NOW GOING TO BE ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL ELECTION. AND THE INDIVIDUALS MOST LIKELY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, BUT MOST LIKELY TO BECOME MAYOR. ARE THE INDIVIDUAL SITTING ON THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL. AND SO IF THE PROVISION IS IN THERE THAT SAYS YOU MUST RESIGN, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL NEVER RUN FOR THAT POSITION UNTIL IT'S EITHER VACATED OR UNTIL THEY'RE READY TO LEAVE COUNCIL, AT WHICH TIME YOU REALLY WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO BE MAYOR ANYWAY. AND SO FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER TO RUN FOR MAYOR, THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY YOU MIGHT END UP ACTUALLY LOSING REALLY STRONG TALENT IN THE PROCESS OF THEM TRYING TO BECOME BETTER. I JUST DON'T SEE WHY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO'S CURRENTLY SERVING AND IS NOT UP FOR REELECTION SHOULD HAVE TO RESIGN IN THE EVENT THAT THEY RUN FOR MAYOR, UNLESS STATE LAW PROHIBITS IT. I THINK WE SHOULD. I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY JUST I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT. 
          SO JUST TO TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT IN TERMS OF THE WHAT STATE LAW AND AG OPINIONS HAVE DISCUSSED ARE THE PROHIBITION IS AGAINST SIMULTANEOUS. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T SHOTGUN IT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S WHAT STATE LAW PROHIBITS. I CAN'T FILE FOR MULTIPLE OFFICES IN THE SAME ELECTION. WHAT STATE LAW THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND YOU KNOW CAN'T DOESN'T ADDRESS. AND THERE AREN'T AG OPINIONS ON IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S NOT AN EXPRESS PROHIBITION ON FILING. 
          YOU FILE FOR AN OFFICE AND THEN STATE LAW REQUIRES IF YOU'VE DECIDED YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT ANYMORE, THEN YOU MUST FILE A WITHDRAWAL, RIGHT? SEPARATE DOCUMENT. YOU FORMALLY WITHDRAW. THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW THAT PROHIBITS THAT INDIVIDUAL, AS LONG AS THE FILING DEADLINE HAS NOT PASSED FROM FILING A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR A DIFFERENT OFFICE, AS LONG AS THOSE DEADLINES ARE STILL APPLICABLE, STATE LAW DOESN'T SAY THAT'S IMPERMISSIBLE. IT HAS ONLY DEALT WITH THE TWO AT THE SAME TIME. THAT'S THAT'S IMPERMISSIBLE. I GUESS MY QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW. SORRY. OKAY. GO AHEAD. NO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS. IF A COUNCIL MEMBER IS NOT UP FOR ELECTION AND THAT INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO RUN FOR MAYOR, AND THEN THEY LOSE THAT MAYOR, IS THERE ANYTHING IN STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT INDIVIDUAL MUST RESIGN AT TIME OF CANVASS OR RESIGN AT THE TIME OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF RUNNING FOR MAYOR? IS THERE ANYTHING IN STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT THAT MUST OCCUR? AND THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO LOOK UP. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE RESIGNED TO RUN PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION. AND IT APPLIES IN THE SCENARIO THAT I DESCRIBED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT APPLIES IN THE SCENARIO YOU'RE DESCRIBING BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE A SITTING COUNCILMAN. 
          [03:55:03]
AND IN THIS CASE, THIS PERSON WAS A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER WHO ANNOUNCED FOR COUNTY JUDGE. 
          YOU'RE DESCRIBING THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN YOUR SCENARIO IS IT'S A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, NOT UP FOR ELECTION, WHO'S RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE. AND AND THAT'S THE SCENARIO THAT I'VE JUST GOT TO REVIEW THE RESIGNED TO RUN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND SEE THE OFFICES TO WHICH IT APPLIES. AND I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT RIGHT THIS SECOND. BUT I WILL LOOK IT UP. 
          WELL, BEFORE YOU LOOK IT UP, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S EVEN CONSENSUS TO CONSIDER THAT. AND IF THERE IS, THEN. BUT FOR ME. I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PENALTY TO A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER IF THEY'RE NOT. IF MY TERM IS UP AND I WANTED TO RUN FOR THE MAYOR UNDER THE WAY IT IS TODAY, I TOTALLY AGREE. YOU RESIGN BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY RUN FOR ONE OFFICE. BUT IF YOU'RE A SITTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO BECOME THE MAYOR, I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK THAT SHOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION. I THINK IT WEAKENS THE COUNCIL, AND I THINK IT LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR MAYOR, UNLESS THEY'RE DONE WITH THEIR TERM. AND THEY'RE JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? WIN OR LOSE, I GUESS I'M OUT. OR IF I WIN, GREAT. BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MAYOR POSITION TO BE A A HIGHLY CONTESTED SCENARIO WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'LL, I'LL RUN FOR IT AND I'LL GO FOR IT. AND IF I GET IT, GREAT. IF I DON'T, I CAN STILL CONTINUE TO SERVE WHERE I'M AT. MISS HELEN. I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE TALENT OR TRYING TO PUNISH A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK WAS IF THEY WIN, THEN YOU'VE GOT AN OPEN SEAT AND YOU'D HAVE TO RUN ANOTHER ELECTION OR DO ANOTHER APPOINTMENT TO FILL IT. SO I THINK THAT WAS THE GENERAL IDEA IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT IS IN MY MIND ON ON OUR ORIGINAL CHARTER. 
          YEAH. THE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS IF YOU LOSE, YOU'RE OUT. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS, IS RIGHT NOW ARE WE'RE ON A THE MAYOR IS RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME AS OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND WHAT'S TRANSITIONING HERE WITH APPROVAL IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL ELECTION FOR MAYOR, WHICH MEANS ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL ON COUNCIL WOULD THEN BE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THAT MAYOR POSITION. AND LET ME JUST HIGHLIGHT, LET'S SUPPOSE THREE PEOPLE DECIDED TO RUN FOR MAYOR ON THAT OFF YEAR, RIGHT? AND ALL THREE PEOPLE, LET'S SUPPOSE TWO OF THOSE ARE GOING TO LOSE, RIGHT? YOU'RE THEN GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION TO REPLACE ALL THE SITTING MEMBERS THAT LOST. I'M JUST GOING TO STATE THAT IS, IF THE VOTERS GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THE LONGER TERMS, IF THEY DON'T VOTE FOR THE LONGER TERMS, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK CAN THEY RETAIN THE CURRENT TERMS? YOU STILL HAVE CONFLICTS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY THERE VERSUS THE WAY IT IS GOING TO. SO THE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE IT DEPENDS ON WHICH WAY THE VOTERS GO. IN MY MIND, AGAIN, WHETHER THE IF IT GOES TO THE THREE YEAR TERMS AND THE MAYOR IS OFF, THEN YOU'RE CORRECT. THERE'S YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT CURRENTLY, THOUGH, THERE IS A CONFLICT. SO YOU RUN IT JUST THINKING THROUGH. I'M ALMOST THINKING THAT'S LIKE TERMS. IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE NEED TO FIGURE, LET THE VOTERS FIGURE OUT WHICH WAY THEY'RE GOING FIRST AND THEN ADD THIS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A THING, BUT WELL, THERE'S ONLY A CONFLICT EVEN IN TODAY FOR ONE, THREE AND FIVE. YEAH. FOR ONE, THREE AND FIVE. 
          YEAH. YEAH. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW IT'S SO I'VE GOT ANOTHER APPOINTMENT SHORTLY. SO I'VE GOT TIL IT'S A LITTLE AFTER FOUR. SO I'VE GOT TO LEAVE IN JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES. JUST FYI. YEAH. WE CAN, THIS COULD BE LAST COMMENT. WE CAN PIN THIS FOR THE CHARTER DISCUSSION WILL BE ON THE JULY 2ND MEETING. YEAH. AND BRAD THIS IS GOING TO ACTUALLY JUST BE A COMMENT OR A QUICK QUESTION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT TO RUN. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN I MEAN EVEN PAXTON DIDN'T RESIGN AG TO RUN FOR SENATE. SO I MEAN, IT MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. I JUST THINK THAT THAT RESIGNING WHEN YOU STILL HAVE TO RESIGN, IT'S A RESIGNED TO RUN WITH A HOLDOVER. YEAH. OKAY. SO YOU HOLD OVER. 
          YEAH I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING IF IF HE FOR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, FLUKE, HE HE WINDS UP LOSING, THEN, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING TO HAVE THAT HE'S GOING TO SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE RUNNING FOR THE FOR AG POSITION AS WELL. YEAH. I BUT I'M JUST USING THAT. THAT'S THE CASE. YEAH. SO I'M JUST USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE THAT THAT THE SIMILAR THING COULD HAPPEN HERE. MAYOR SAM, HAD HE NOT BEEN UP FOR ELECTION THIS THIS PAST YEAR OR FOR ELECTION 
          [04:00:03]
FOR THAT POSITION, YOU KNOW, HAD HE HAD IT BEEN AN OFF CYCLE YEAR, YOU KNOW, SAME SCENARIO THAT MR. BENEFIELD HAD BROUGHT FORWARD. SO HE WOULD HAVE LOST HE WOULD HAVE HE WOULD HAVE LOST, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY BOTH POSITIONS. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU JUST JUST TO MY FINAL COMMENT WILL BE THE RESIGNED TO RUN WILL APPLY IF YOU IF THE CHARTER GETS IF THE VOTERS APPROVE THREE YEAR TERMS, YOU CAN APPLY RESIGNED TO RUN TO TWO YEAR TERMS. BUT THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. BUT OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY IT APPLIES AUTOMATICALLY FOR THREE YEAR TERM FOR POSITIONS. SO OKAY WELL THE TIME IS 404. AND I
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.