ALL RIGHT, IF EVERYBODY IS READY, WELL, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:33. [1. CALL TO ORDER; ROLL CALL] [00:00:07] WE'VE GOT A LONG MEETING TONIGHT, I THINK. MY AGENDA HERE. CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. WE HAVE ONE ALTERNATE IN ATTENDANCE. PUBLIC COMMENT. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ALLOWED 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE PRINCETON HOME RULE CHARTER COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO OR DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THIS SECTION THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A SPEAKER'S INQUIRY OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR AGENDA. [3.Consent Agenda] ALL AGENDA ITEMS ARE LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE HRCC AND WILL BE ACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS AN HRCC VOTING MEMBER SO REQUESTS IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED DURING THE COURSE OF THE REGULAR AGENDA. WE HAVE THE ADOPTION OF DRAFT MINUTES HRCC JULY 6TH, 2022 AND ANY UPDATES REFLECTING ALTERNATES. MR. OVERCASH, DO WE HAVE ANY ROSTER UPDATES? THERE ARE NO UPDATES SINCE THE LAST MEETING. WITH THAT UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY DISCUSSION, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS THEY ARE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ELLIS. SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY MR. GERFERS, ANY OPPOSED? CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. MOVE US ONTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. [4. Discussions and deliberations regarding the formation of a charter for the City of Princeton, Texas] NUMBER FOUR, DISCUSSIONS OF DELIBERATIONS REGARDING THE FORMATION OF A CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY THE CHARTERS I'M SORRY, BY THE HRCC'S MOTION TO ADOPT A CHANGE TO THE DRAFT CHARTER. ADOPTION OF MODIFIED LANGUAGE FOR ONE SECTION OF THE CHARTER SHALL INCLUDE ADOPTION OF HARMONIZING MODIFICATIONS TO OTHER SECTIONS WHICH CONCERN THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER TO ELIMINATE CONFLICTS BETWEEN PROVISIONS AND ENSURE THAT THE HRCC'S DECISION IS ACCURATELY REFLECTED THROUGHOUT THE DRAFT DOCUMENT. A LISTING OF SPECIFIC SECTIONS BELOW DOES NOT LIMIT THE HRCC TO DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATIONS REGARDING OTHER SECTIONS OF THE SAME CHAPTERS. THIS MEETING, AS TIME ALLOWS THE HRCC PLANS TO DISCUSS PROVISIONS FOR CHAPTERS NINE, 14 AND 15 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FROM THIS JULY 10TH AND JULY 16TH PUBLIC WORK SESSIONS AND THEN ANY DETAILS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICTS. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. OVERCASH. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO I'M GOING TO GO A LITTLE BIT OUT OF SEQUENCE, AT LEAST WITH MY OPENING REMARKS AND TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC WORK SESSION COMMENTARY FIRST, INSOFAR AS WE HAD THOSE TWO SESSIONS, AND WE HAVE SOME FEEDBACK. WHILE THEY WERE NOT NEARLY AS WELL-ATTENDED AS WE HAD HOPED THAT THEY MIGHT BE WE PROVIDED AT LEAST 2 HOURS ON EACH OF THE TWO DAYS ON WEEKENDS WHERE THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND VOICE COMMENTS DIRECTLY IN A CONVERSATIONAL FORMAT AND WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT OPEN MEETINGS, ACT ISSUES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND WHERE THEY COULD COME IN ONE PLACE AND HOPEFULLY GET THEIR CONCERNS HEARD. WE DID HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTARY IN THE FORM OF QUESTIONNAIRES TURNED IN WHICH I HAVE REVIEWED AND CAN SUMMARIZE AS FOLLOWS. SO JUST KIND OF FOLLOW ALONG, BUT BASICALLY THE FEEDBACK FELL INTO BASICALLY TEN POINTS. EACH OF THESE ITEMS, UNLESS I STAYED OTHERWISE, WAS JUST A SUGGESTION OF ONE PERSON. THAT IS IT IS ONE PERSON'S IDEA OR RECOMMENDATION. SO WE CAN KIND OF CONSIDER THAT WE'VE GOT 15 PEOPLE HERE FORMING THE VOTING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WHO ARE DECIDING THESE QUESTIONS. IT WOULD BE PROBABLY AN OVERREACTION TO TAKE TOO MUCH INTO ACCOUNT ON THE FORMS OF THESE COMMENTS BEING THERE. IF YOU ALL ARE ALREADY COMFORTABLE WITH THINGS AS THEY ARE RATHER THAN AS SUGGESTED. SO THE FIRST SUGGESTION THAT I OR AT LEAST HEARS THE SUGGESTIONS IN THE ORDER I READ THEM, NOT IN ANY OTHER ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT WE TRANSLATE THE HOME RULE CHARTER INTO TAMIL, WHICH IS A LANGUAGE THAT IS NOT PARTICULARLY COMMONLY SPOKEN IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, BUT THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT WE PROVIDE ALTERNATE TRANSLATIONS OF THE DOCUMENT. [00:05:01] THERE WAS ALSO SUGGESTION THAT WE PUT A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE CITY LIBRARY, WHICH IS, I THINK, A SUGGESTION THAT WOULD BE WELL TAKEN. IT'S A LITTLE BIT IMPRACTICAL FOR THESE DRAFTS AS THEY COME ALONG TO BE DOING THOSE REPETITIVELY AND REPLACING WHAT'S IN THE LIBRARY OVER A COUPLE OF WEEKS. SO THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE, BUT CERTAINLY WHEN THE CHARTER IS ADOPTED, WE'LL HAVE COPIES OF OF IT AVAILABLE IN THE CITY LIBRARY AND READILY ACCESSIBLE IN ORDER SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN CONSULT AT ANY TIME. THAT'D BE AN IMPORTANT, I THINK, FEATURE, AND I THINK STAFF CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE THAT SHOULD THE CHARTER BE ADOPTED. THERE WAS SOME COMMENTARY THAT ENDORSED TERM LIMITS. THEY LIKED THE IDEA OF HAVING TERM LIMITS, BUT WERE SUGGESTING THAT EIGHT YEARS WAS TOO TOO SHORT OF A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE YOU'RE FORCING PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE, AND THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT THEY'D BE ALLOWED 12 YEARS TO SERVE BEFORE BEING REQUIRED TO STEP DOWN. THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS FOR ELECTING THE POSITIONS OF MUNICIPAL JUDGE, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY AND CITY MANAGER. ONE PERSON JUST THOUGHT THAT ALL OF THOSE POSITIONS SHOULD BE ELECTED INSTEAD OF APPOINTED, AND THEN THERE WAS A SECOND PERSON WHO ENDORSED THE IDEA OF ELECTING THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL JUDGE. THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS THAT INDICATED THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT OUR PROVISION FOR STAGGERING THE TERMS. WE'VE GOT THE PROVISION IN THERE THAT PROVIDES THAT THE NEW SEATS THAT WE'RE ADDING, NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'RE FILLING THOSE, THEY WOULD HAVE A LESS THAN FOUR YEAR TERM IN ORDER TO GET EVERYTHING STAGGERED PROPERLY. SOMEBODY DIDN'T GET THAT AND READ IT AS WE'RE MAKING TWO COUNCIL SEATS THAT WILL HAVE DIFFERENT TERM LENGTHS FOREVER THAN THE OTHER COUNCIL SEATS, AND THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT MADE ANY SENSE. I THINK THAT WAS JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THAT PROVISION DID AND THAT THEY DIDN'T GET HADN'T GOTTEN TO THE PART OF THE CHARTER YET. THAT EXPLAINS THAT EVERY TIME AFTER THAT, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE FOUR YEARS. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT THE PARAGRAPH RELATING TO OR THE SECTION REFERRING TO THE DISTRICTING COMMISSION BE MOVED FROM ITS CURRENT PLACEMENT IN CHAPTER 11 TO CHAPTER NINE, WHERE THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE. THAT IS NOT BY ANY MEANS AN UNREASONABLE IDEA. THE PLACEMENT THAT I'VE SUGGESTED IN CHAPTER 11 IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A RARELY USED PROCESS AND HAD A LOT OF IMPORTANCE MORE TO THOSE POWERS THERE IN CHAPTER 11 THAN IT DID IN CHAPTER NINE, BUT IT COULD BE IN EITHER PLACE. THERE WAS ALSO A SUGGESTION TO IN SECTION 12.03, AND THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST POINTED SUGGESTIONS WE RECEIVED. 12.03 RELATES TO THE WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO GET A PETITION TO WHEN YOU'RE CIRCULATING A PETITION, WHAT DOES THE PETITION HAVE TO BE TO COUNT? YOU CAN'T JUST USE COCKTAIL NAPKINS WITH PEOPLE SCRIBBLING ON IT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME MORE ROBUST INFORMATION IN THERE. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT FROM THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, WE REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF. THE SIGNATORIES PROVIDING THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBER. I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT DRAFT CALLS FOR NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBER, ADDRESS, AND THERE'S A SUGGESTION THAT THEY WOULD THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE THE VOTER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT FOR PETITION SIGNATORIES, BECAUSE NOT MANY PEOPLE KNOW THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBER, AND I WOULD CONCUR THAT IT IS CERTAINLY A RARE THING. MOST PEOPLE DON'T BOTHER TO MEMORIZE THAT NUMBER. IT IS ON THERE, THOUGH, TO MAKE TRACKING THE PETITIONS VERY MUCH, MUCH EASIER AND ALSO TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO FABRICATE SIGNATURES WHERE THEY CAN FIND LISTS OF PEOPLE'S NAMES AND ADDRESSES JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE. FINDING THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBERS IS SUBSTANTIALLY HARDER. THAT INFORMATION IS DISTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY REGISTER TO VOTE. IT'S ON THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION CARD. SO THAT NUMBER WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE CERTAINLY TO ANYBODY WHO IS CONSIDERING SIGNING A PETITION FROM THEIR HOME, AND THERE SHOULD BE ENOUGH TIME UNLESS PEOPLE ARE REALLY OVERLY CONCERNED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN A PETITION ONLY ON THE LAST DAY OF THE WINDOW FOR DOING THAT. FOR THEM TO SAY, I WANT TO SIGN YOUR PETITION, I DON'T KNOW MY VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBER, WHERE CAN I FIND OUT HOW TO SIGN IT WHEN I GO HOME AND FIGURE THAT OUT? SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CERTAINLY CONSIDER. IT IS NOT MANDATORY BY ANY STRETCH THAT THE VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBER BE INCLUDED ON THE PETITIONS. THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT ABOUT THE SUGGESTION THAT IT BE REMOVED. THAT MAY BE A TOPIC YOU GUYS WANT TO DISCUSS AT SOME POINT. THERE WAS A GENERAL SUGGESTION OR CONCERN STATED THAT IT MAY BE TOO SOON FOR DISTRICTING. IT MAY BE TOO SOON FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON TO IMPLEMENT DISTRICTS. [00:10:03] THERE WAS A CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE HAVE ZERO CANDIDATES WHO CHOOSE TO RUN FROM ONE OF THE DISTRICTS AFTER DISTRICT LINES ARE DRAWN? WHAT HAPPENS THEN, AND I WILL SAY THE CHARTER DOES NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF HOW THE CHARTER COULD ADDRESS THAT. IF WE NEED TO GET THAT, IF THERE'S MORE INTEREST IN THAT TOPIC FROM FROM THE COMMISSION, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER. I'M JUST GOING TO FINISH OUT THE LIST, THOUGH, BECAUSE THE LAST ONE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT WE REPLACED THE WORD INHABITANT IN CHAPTER ONE WITH THE WORD RESIDENT IN CHAPTER ONE, BECAUSE THAT'S AN EASIER WORD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY GOING TO MAKE A FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE OR NECESSARILY AGREE THAT IT IS A MARKET IMPROVEMENT FOR THE TERMS OF READING LEVEL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. I CAN CERTAINLY REPEAT ANYTHING THAT I SAID IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT AGAIN, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S MUCH MORE TO SAY ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC DURING THOSE PUBLIC WORK SESSIONS? AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REVIEW YOU MENTIONED EXTENDING ELECTION TERMS TO UP TO 12 YEARS. WHAT POSITION WERE YOU REFERRING TO? THEY WERE THE PUBLIC INPUT WAS SUGGESTING THAT FOR BOTH MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, BOTH JUST VIEWING THEM, VIEWING THEM BOTH EQUALLY. THE COMMENT WAS THAT EIGHT YEARS WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO LET THEM BE EFFECTIVE AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE. 12 YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, IT WAS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR HOW THEY WANTED THAT TO POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE CUMULATIVE TERM LIMITS IN TERMS OF YOU HAVE TO DISCONTINUITOUS THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, BUT THEY DID MAKE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE CONCEIVING OF ALLOWING THREE, FOUR YEAR TERMS TO BE SERVED IN A ROW. THE REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE I SPOKE IN LENGTH WITH AN ATTENDEE WHO BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION, BUT SHE WAS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND BELIEVING THAT SHOULD BE AN ELECTED POSITION, WHICH I KNOW A COUPLE OF PEOPLE MENTIONED. SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT. YEAH, AND TO FOLLOW UP AND TO REFRESH EVERYBODY'S MEMORY, I BELIEVE THAT WE DID HAVE AN EARLIER DISCUSSION OR SOMEBODY HAD ASKED WHETHER OR NOT MUNICIPAL JUDGES COULD BE ELECTED OR IF THEY HAD TO BE APPOINTED. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION NOT CHANGE IT TO BE AN ELECTED POSITION WHILE PRINCETON IS THIS SIZE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, IT WOULD MAKE THINGS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT, PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE IS A COMPENSATED POSITION. IT IS ELECTED, AND IF OR AND IF IT IS ELECTED AND IT IS RECEIVING PAYMENT, THEY CANNOT HOLD OTHER ELECTED OR APPOINTED POSITIONS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. SO IT WOULD BE A JUDGE WHO SERVES PRINCETON AND NOWHERE ELSE. YOU HAVE CURRENTLY TWO COURT DATES A MONTH, SO THERE'S TWO DAYS WHERE YOU'RE HOLDING COURT. THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT, BUT THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE IS CALLED UPON TO DO IN TERMS OF DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF COURT DOCKETS IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON. IN THE IN-BETWEEN TIMES THEY HAVE OTHER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES YEAR ROUND. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT MORE THAT THE JUDGE DOES, BUT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO OFFER ANYBODY ENOUGH COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WE NEED FROM THEM TO GET THEM TO BE WILLING TO TAKE THIS THAT POSITION AND MAKE IT THEIR ONLY JOB. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE NOT COST EFFECTIVE FOR THE CITY TO TRY TO IDENTIFY AND ATTRACT RESIDENTS. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR AN ELECTED JUDGE, THAT'S ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES IS THAT ARE THEY GOING TO BE A JUDGE THAT HAS TO BE ELECTED FROM THE RESIDENTS OF PRINCETON, OR ARE WE ALLOWED TO GO STATEWIDE? STILL, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WITH A JUDGE THAT'S APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU CAN DRAW FROM A POOL OF LOTS OF JUDGES WHO WHAT THEY DO IS JUDGE. THEY DO THAT A LOT. THEY DO THAT FOR MORE THAN ONE CITY AT A TIME. THEY ARE OFTEN SERVING AS THE JUDGE IN FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES OF VARIOUS SIZES, AND THEY ESSENTIALLY KIND OF RIDE A CIRCUIT, KIND OF LIKE IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN WHEN BEFORE THERE WERE AUTOMOBILES, YOU USED TO HAVE A JUDGE WHO WOULD GO TO A TOWN, SIT AND HOLD COURT FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND HE'D GET ON HIS HORSE AND RIDE TO THE NEXT TOWN. THAT SYSTEM STILL VERY MUCH EXISTS IN A PRACTICAL MATTER IN THE STATE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND AT THIS STAGE, ELECTING A MUNICIPAL JUDGE WOULD DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE POOL OF POTENTIAL CANDIDATES YOU COULD USE. [00:15:01] YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTRACT THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PROFESSIONAL ATTORNEYS WITH THE DEPTH OF EXPERIENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW NECESSARY TO MAKE THEM SUITABLE CANDIDATE FOR MUNICIPAL JUDGE. SO THAT IS AT LEAST WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE IDEA OF OF ELECTING A MUNICIPAL JUDGE. IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT IS LEGAL TO DO. IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO DO IN THE CHARTER. YOU COULD CHOOSE TO DO THAT IF YOU GUYS THINK IT'S DESIRABLE FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, BUT JUST UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY DRAMATICALLY CHANGE WHAT KINDS OF JUDGES YOU WILL END UP WITH SERVING PRESIDING OVER THE PRINCETON MUNICIPAL COURT AND WOULD POTENTIALLY BE A DRAMATIC SHIFT FROM THE WAY THINGS WERE BEFORE THE CHARTER IN A WAY THAT YOU GUYS MAY NOT HAVE ORIGINALLY INTENDED OR ANTICIPATED, OR THAT THE PERSON WHO'S MAKING THESE SUGGESTIONS MAY NOT FULLY APPRECIATE AS WELL. WERE THERE ANY WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK FROM THE WORK SESSIONS? ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, I'LL TURN TO THE KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. QUICK OVERVIEW. THE GOAL IS AND THE OBJECTIVE IS WE THINK WE'RE ALMOST DONE, OR AT LEAST I THINK THAT WE'VE AT LEAST REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED ALL THE MAJOR SECTIONS. WE'VE GOT SOME POLISH OUT TO DO IN TERMS OF FINISHING OUT HOW DISTRICTING IS GOING TO WORK, IF THAT'S GOING TO BE INCLUDED, BUT THE REST OF IT, WE'RE REALLY CLOSE ON, AND THE OBJECTIVE IS TO TRY TO KEEP TO OUR CURRENT SCHEDULE OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE OUR NEXT MEETING ON AUGUST 3RD, BE THE ONE WHERE IT'S THE KIND OF LAST CHANCE TO SUGGEST EDITS TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE. IF WE GET ENOUGH DONE HERE TONIGHT, THE IDEA IS THAT ON AUGUST 3RD, WE'D BE CONSIDERING A VERSION OF THE CHARTER THAT HAS NO HIGHLIGHTING, THAT HAS NO COMMENT BUBBLES, THAT IS JUST LOOKS LIKE IT'S A FINISHED DOCUMENT AND NO BLANKS TO FILL IN, AND WILL BE READY FOR YOU GUYS TO SAY, YES, WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD DOCUMENT. WE THINK WE'RE DONE AND THIS CAN BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO THEN BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS FOR CONSIDERATION. SO THAT'S OUR TARGET. THE MAIN MISSING PIECES ARE CURRENTLY JUST RELATING TO DISTRICTING. THAT'S WHERE THE BLANKS ARE AND THE THINGS TO BE FILLED IN, AND SO I'VE GOT A HAND OUT FOR THAT HERE TODAY ABOUT THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, AND I TRIED TO GIVE YOU SOME EXTRA CONTEXT AND GUIDANCE SUGGESTIONS IN TERMS OF PRESENTING THESE IN THE WAY OF WAY OF QUESTIONS. WHEN'S THE FIRST TIME YOU'RE GOING TO DRAW THE DISTRICTS AND THEN WHEN DO THEY BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER YOU DRAW THEM? AND I TRIED TO LAY OUT A CHART THAT KIND OF SHOWS OR AT LEAST A LIST OF HOW THE SEATS ARE CURRENTLY LAID OUT RIGHT NOW. SO TRYING TO FIT IN HOW DISTRICTING WORKS INTO THAT RHYTHM OR DECIDING YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE RHYTHM. ALSO, THE GENERAL QUESTION OF HOW OFTEN IS THE REDISTRICTING GOING TO GOING TO BE DONE? AS I JUST TRIED TO BASICALLY LAY OUT THERE THAT, WELL, YOU'VE GOT FOUR YEAR TERMS. SO OBVIOUSLY FOUR SEEMS LIKE THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM ANYBODY COULD THINK ABOUT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME DISTRICT MAP APPLY TO A SEAT MORE THAN ONCE WITH A FOUR YEAR TERM. WELL, TO MAKE THAT TRUE OF EVERY SEAT AS OPPOSED TO SOME OF THE SEATS, ARE GOING TO BE DOUBLED UP, AND WE USE THE SAME MAP TWICE. THEN YOU'D USE IT FOR ONLY ONE ELECTION, THEN YOU'D USE THE NEXT EXTREME MAP TWICE. ALL RIGHT, IF YOU WANT IT TO BE, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A DISTRICT MAP, WE FILL SEATS FROM IT TWICE. YOU WOULD NEED SOMETHING OVER SEVEN YEARS JUST BECAUSE OF. THAT'S HOW MATH WORKS. I CAN'T MAKE THE VERBAL EXPLANATION MUCH SIMPLER THAN THAT. SO THEN THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU OR AT LEAST ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT HOW OFTEN SHOULD IT BE DONE IS, WELL, DO YOU WANT TO TRY TO STRETCH ONE MAP AND MAKE IT GOOD FOR THREE? IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO STRETCH ONE MAP AND MAKE IT GOOD FOR THREE DISTRICT THREE ELECTIONS FOR EACH SEAT, YOU WOULD NEED A 12 YEAR DISTRICTING CYCLE. SO THOSE ARE AT LEAST KIND OF THE MOST BASIC OPTIONS TO KIND OF CONSIDER, ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT? AND THAT MIGHT BE ONE WAY TO APPROACH THE QUESTION. AS WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED POPULATION NUMBERS, ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS ON A TEN YEAR FREQUENCY BASIS. BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE DISTRICTING PROCESS BECAUSE WE'RE WE'VE SEPARATED THE POPULATION FROM THE FEDERAL CENSUS, FROM HOW WE DO OUR DISTRICTS. WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING OUR DISTRICTS AS WE VOTED AS YOU GUYS VOTED TO DO AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS BASED ON OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. [00:20:07] SO THOSE ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US ON A MUCH MORE REGULAR BASIS AND ARE UPDATED MUCH MORE REGULARLY. SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE DOING THAT OR MAKING THAT DETERMINATION POSSIBLE ESSENTIALLY ANY YEAR WITH FIGURES THAT ARE LESS THAN A YEAR OLD OR AROUND A YEAR OLD. SO THEN I'VE HIGHLIGHTED A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS IN HERE AS WELL. LIKE I JUST MENTIONED IN PASSING ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE HANDOUT THAT I INCLUDED A PROVISION IN THE DRAFT THAT GAVE US A +/- 100 PEOPLE AND NOBODY CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. THAT'S WHAT THAT IS INTENDED TO DO. JUST THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY. IF YOU HAD EXACTLY 100 PEOPLE OR 100 RESIDENTS OR DWELLING UNITS TO DIVIDE INTO DISTRICTS, WELL, THAT WOULD MEAN 25 EACH. PRETTY EASY MATH. IF YOU HAVE A NUMBER THAT'S NOT DIVISIBLE BY FOUR, YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE ONE DISTRICT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE MORE UNITS THAN. ANOTHER ONE OR ONE THAT HAS LESS THAN THE OTHER THREE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. THIS IS INTENDED TO SAY THAT, LOOK, AS LONG AS THE DISTRICT LINES FALL WHERE WE'RE WITHIN 100 PEOPLE BETWEEN THEM, WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT'S OKAY. PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE IT MAY ALLOW FOR TIDIER DISTRICT LINES SOMETIMES SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CUT A CITY BLOCK AND A HALF TO PUT ONE SIDE OF IT IN ANOTHER ONE YOU CAN MORE READILY BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON. LET'S WIGGLE THIS PART A LITTLE BIT SOUTH. SO IT COVERS THIS ENTIRE SUBDIVISION AND THEN WE'LL MOVE THIS OTHER LINE OVER ANOTHER BLOCK, AND THAT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE AN EXACT TRADEOFF IN NUMBER OF UNITS, BUT SO LONG AS WE'RE GETTING THEM ALL EQUITABLY ARRANGED AND WITHIN THAT 100 PEOPLE OR SO OF EACH OTHER, WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT A VOTER BASE THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE 8000 PLUS POTENTIAL POOL. HAVING THOSE NOT BE 2000 EACH AND HAVING ONE OF THEM BE 2100 IS PROBABLY, I THINK, A REASONABLE MEANS TO GO ABOUT IT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN A 5% VARIATION IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. SO I MENTION IT HERE. IT HAS NOT BEEN SOMETHING THAT ATTRACTED ANY ATTENTION. IT IS SOMETHING THAT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO CHANGE, THAT THIS WOULD BE A GREAT MEETING TO BRING IT UP SO WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. OTHERWISE I WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION JUST ADOPT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S PRESENTED. IF YOU WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO SERVING ON THE DISTRICT AND COMMISSION, YOU CAN STATE THEM IN THE CHARTER, BUT YOU NEED TO DECIDE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE, WHAT ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS GOING TO BE? ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO BE PEOPLE WHO ARE OVER THE AGE OF 21? YOU CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THEM HAVE TO BE RESIDENTS? DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A MINIMUM RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT? THOSE KINDS OF THINGS COULD BE DONE TO THAT BODY, BUT YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP NOW OR IT'S NOT GOING TO END UP IN IT. THEN THE MANNER OF APPOINTMENT ITSELF, THE CURRENT DRAFT JUST SAYS THEY'RE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT ANY DETAILS. TEXAS LAW IS NOT GOING TO GIVE US A ROADMAP OR A PLAN OR RULES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO FOLLOW ON HOW TO DO THAT OTHER THAN THE BASICS ABOUT THEY HAVE TO DO IT AT AN OPEN MEETING AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS HERE OR SOME FACTORS TO CONSIDER THAT I'VE OUTLINED THERE. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN SAY THAT EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO NOMINATE ONE AND THEN THEY GET TO HOLD THE POSITION. IF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL APPROVES, IF THE COUNCIL REJECTS THE APPOINTMENT, THEY HAVE TO PICK ANOTHER NAME, BUT IT'S STILL THEIR NAME TO PUT ON THE TABLE. THAT WOULD BE ONE OPTION. ANOTHER OPTION IS THEY JUST GET TO APPOINT THEM. THE REST OF THE COUNCIL DOESN'T GET TO VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUAL CHOICES BY INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. THAT ENSURES THAT EACH OF THE SEVEN VOICES OF A COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE REPRESENTED ON THE DISTRICT COMMISSION, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE POWER TO VOTE DOWN EACH OTHER'S PICKS, AND THEN OR AT LEAST THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIN THIS CAT. I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO APPROACH THIS, BUT IF YOU GUYS WANT TO TELL THE CITY COUNCIL HOW THEY SHOULD DO IT, THIS IS WHERE YOU TELL THEM HOW TO DO IT. OTHERWISE, THEY'RE GOING TO GET TO FILL IN THE BLANKS AND WRITE THEIR OWN RULES FOR HOW THEY CHOOSE THEIR DISTRICT AND COMMISSION, AND THEN DO YOU WANT TO PROHIBIT MEMBERS OF THIS DISTRICTING COMMISSION FROM BEING ANYBODY WHO'S SERVING ON ANOTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION OR FROM BEING CITY EMPLOYEES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROHIBIT THEM ON THAT BASIS, IT WOULD BE BEST TO JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CLEAR HERE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY BEING CONFUSED OR COUNCIL MEMBERS TRYING TO NOMINATE EMPLOYEES AND ACCIDENTALLY FIRING THEM IN THE PROCESS OR SOMETHING WEIRD LIKE THAT, AND THEN THE KIND OF FINAL ISSUE [00:25:10] THAT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO ME, BECAUSE THERE'S ACTIVE LITIGATION GOING ON RIGHT NOW ON THIS VERY TOPIC ON WHEN ARE PEOPLE ELIGIBLE TO SIGN A RECALL PETITION BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT DISTRICTS. IF SOMEBODY'S ELECTED FROM A DISTRICT AND THE DISTRICT LINE CHANGES, HOW DO THOSE DISTRICT LINE CHANGES AFFECT WHO CAN SIGN THE PETITION TO RECALL THEM? YOU BASICALLY GOT TO SAY THERE'S TWO BASIC OPTIONS. WE USE THE OLD DISTRICTS FROM WHEN THE PERSON WAS ORIGINALLY ELECTED, OR YOU USE THE DISTRICTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE PETITION HAPPENS. THAT'S THE TWO BASIC OPTIONS, BUT I HIGHLY RECOMMEND PICKING ONE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LAWSUIT ABOUT IT, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE A DISTRICT REDISTRICTING THING HAPPEN AND SOMEBODY SAYS, I'M GOING TO GO TRY TO RECALL A COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE'S GOING TO BE A POTENTIAL FOR A LAWSUIT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO CHALLENGE WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION WAS GOOD ENOUGH BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE WEREN'T IN THE DISTRICT WHEN I WAS ELECTED. SO THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SIGN A PETITION TO RECALL ME. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT ARGUMENT UNLESS YOU ELIMINATE THE ARGUMENT CLEARLY IN THE DOCUMENT, AND KIND OF BY THE SAME TOKEN, YOU MIGHT ALSO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO SAYS, HEY, THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THIS PETITION AREN'T MY DISTRICT ANYMORE. THEY GOT KICKED OUT BY THE NEW DISTRICT LINES. THEY'RE NOT MY CONSTITUENTS. THEY CAN'T RECALL ME. THERE HAS TO BE A DECISION MADE. UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN UP RECALL PETITIONS TO THE ENTIRE CITY TO SAY WE AREN'T GOING TO REQUIRE ONLY PEOPLE INSIDE A DISTRICT TO RECALL A DISTRICT MEMBER, WHICH TO A LARGE DEGREE WOULD PROBABLY BE VIEWED BY MOST PEOPLE TO THWART THE PURPOSE OF DISTRICTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO I SUBMITTED TWO POTENTIAL VARIATIONS HERE IN AN ATTEMPT TO JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHT THIS IS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE COULD LOOK LIKE. THERE'S ANOTHER PHRASING THAT I'M KIND OF MULLING OVER AS PREFERENTIALLY USING, IF THE IDEA IS TO USE. THE DISTRICT LINES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE PETITION HAPPENS. THE NEW DISTRICT LINES [INAUDIBLE] CHANGE WHILE SOMEBODY IS IN OFFICE. THE USING THE NEW DISTRICT LINES. THE PHRASING MIGHT BE THAT THE VOTERS ARE ENTITLED TO VOTE FOR THE SUCCESSOR TO THE SEAT, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS THE LANGUAGE THAT'S PRESENTED HERE IN VARIATION TWO, BUT IS JUST DIFFERENT WORDING THAT IS PREFERENTIALLY USED IN SOME OTHER CITY CHARTERS TO KIND OF ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AND IS A LITTLE BIT TIGHT. IT'S FEWER TOTAL WORDS. SO THAT USUALLY HAS AN ELEGANCE TO IT THAT IS APPEALING, BUT SO THAT SUBSTITUTION MIGHT BE MADE, BUT REGARDLESS, THE DECISION POINT I'M ASKING YOU TO MAKE IS DO YOU WANT TO USE HAVE RECALL, BE BASED ON THE TIME THAT SEAT WAS FILLED OR THE TIME WHEN THE RECALL HAPPENS BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS COULD CHANGE IN BETWEEN? SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT I THINK ARE MOST ESSENTIAL TO RESOLVE IN ORDER TO GET THE DISTRICT PROCESS PORTIONS OF THIS FINISHED OUT. THAT IS THE ESSENTIALLY THE FOCUS OF WHAT I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION HAS LEFT TO DO IN TERMS OF RESOLVING THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS THAT IT HAS SO FAR WITH WITH THE CURRENT DRAFT. ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS THAT THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO RAISE ON ITS OWN ON LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY IN HERE OR OTHER TOPICS. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT I THINK IS DESPERATELY NEEDING OF YOUR ATTENTION, THOUGH, OF COURSE, IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT COMES UP, I'LL CERTAINLY BRING IT UP WHEN I NOTICE IT AND CERTAINLY BY THE AUGUST 3RD MEETING, BECAUSE I'LL GIVE IT THE WHOLE THING IS GOING TO GET ANOTHER PROOFING, ANOTHER BIG REVIEW AND THAT SORT OF THING BEFORE WE PRESENT IT TO YOU FOR FINALIZATION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I TAKE MY SEAT AND LET YOU GUYS START DELIBERATING? I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. WHAT WOULD BE THE ESTIMATED EXPENSE BEHIND GETTING TRANSLATED COPIES OF THE FINAL DRAFT? TRANSLATED INTO HOW MANY LANGUAGES, AND THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT USUALLY YOU HAVE TO PAY A PRICE AND THE PRICE VARIES DEPENDING ON WHICH LANGUAGES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND HOW MANY. SO I UNDERSTAND I GUESS MAYBE I'M JUST THINKING MAYBE ONE LANGUAGE, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA IF IT WOULD EVEN BE FEASIBLE. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T TRANSLATE IT INTO EVERY POSSIBLE LANGUAGE THAT SOMEONE MIGHT NEED, BUT WE DO HAVE A LARGE HISPANIC POPULATION, AND I THINK AT LEAST THE BARE MINIMUM SPANISH MIGHT BE A BENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY. [00:30:04] I DON'T HAVE FIGURES FOR HOW LONG, FOR WHAT THE EXPENSE OF THAT WOULD BE. I'M NOT SURE ACTUALLY WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO OR WHETHER STATE LAW ALREADY CALLS FOR US TO DO A SPANISH TRANSLATION. I DON'T KNOW. I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT QUESTION TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO GIVE YOU AN ESTIMATE ON A FIGURE. SO BUT AM I AT LEAST UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE SOME INFORMATION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE FEASIBLE FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE LANGUAGES FOR THE CHARTER DOCUMENT [INAUDIBLE] AT LEAST WORTH LOOKING INTO. I WILL CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT. ONE OF THE TRICKIER PARTS IS THAT PARTICULARLY WITH A DOCUMENT LIKE THIS, IS THAT THIS IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND YOU CAN'T JUST USE ANYBODY WHO KNOWS SPANISH TO TRY TO TRANSLATE IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE REALLY LARGE DIFFERENTIATIONS IN TERMS, AND IF THEY'RE NOT ATTORNEYS WHO ARE TRANSLATING IT FROM ENGLISH INTO SPANISH AND FLUENT IN BOTH, THERE ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE ERRORS THAT ARE GOING TO THAT ARE GOING TO CROP UP THE DOCUMENT, THE LEGALLY EFFECTIVE VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT WILL BE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. SO THE LEAST CHANCE OF ACCIDENTALLY MISINFORMING VOTERS IS TO LEAVE IT IN ENGLISH AND LET THEM TALK TO AN ATTORNEY WHO SPEAKS ENGLISH WELL ENOUGH TO READ IT, EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT IT MEANS IN SPANISH RATHER THAN HAVE OR WHOEVER THE CITY WAS GOING TO USE FOR TRANSLATION SERVICES, TRY TO DO THAT. AND LIKE I SAID, IT COULD BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN YOU MIGHT THINK WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY A BILINGUAL ATTORNEY TO DO A TRANSLATION OF THIS KIND OF DOCUMENT. I KNEW IT WOULDN'T BE A I MEAN, MAYBE A PROFESSIONAL ON TOP OF A TRANSLATOR. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. OVERCASH? THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. I GUESS WE'LL JUST START AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA, WORK OUR WAY DOWN AND SEE HOW MUCH WE CAN GET ACCOMPLISHED TONIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS, CONCERNS, TOPICS THEY WANT TO DISCUSS IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC WORK SESSIONS AND THOSE FEEDBACK? I THINK THE PUBLIC WORKS WENT WELL, BUT AS THOSE OF US THAT WERE THERE, THERE WASN'T A LARGE PUBLIC TURNOUT. THE FEEDBACK WAS GREAT, BUT I THINK IF WE HAD MORE PEOPLE, WE WOULD HAVE HAD MORE FEEDBACK TO HELP KIND OF GUIDE US TOWARDS OUR GOAL TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING. THE PUBLIC WORKS SECTIONS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND UNFORTUNATELY CAN'T MAKE EVERYBODY PARTICIPATE. RIGHT. SO, ALL RIGHT, IF NOBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO CHAPTER NINE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WAS THERE SOMETHING SPECIFIC WE HAD ON THAT, DAVID, OR DID WE COVER EVERYTHING? DO WE JUST NEED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED LANGUAGE? MR. OVERCASH. I'M LISTENING. I'M JUST FLIPPING TO THE RIGHT PAGE. SORRY. SO THIS DRAFT WAS UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ON JULY 6TH, AND I KIND OF RUSHED IT OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THAT VERSION AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC WORK SESSIONS. I JUST HIGHLIGHTED THE CHANGES THAT WERE ADOPTED AND THE DELETION THAT WAS MADE SO THAT YOU GUYS COULD LOOK AT THAT TEXT IN PLACE. I PUT IT ON HERE AGAIN BECAUSE YOU HADN'T YET SAID, WE'RE DONE WITH CHAPTER NINE. YOU HAD MADE SOME MORE CHANGES TO IT, BUT YOU HADN'T SAID, WE'RE DONE WITH THIS CHAPTER. WE LIKE THE WAY IT READS. SO IF YOU WERE SATISFIED WITH THE TEXT AS PRESENTED, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY ACTION THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY AS RELATES TO CHAPTER NINE. NIKKI, I'D JUST LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT CHAPTER NINE AS IT IS. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. RAGAN AND A SECOND BY MR. WALKER TO ACCEPT CHAPTER NINE AS AMENDED. THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. MOTION PASSES. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR MR. BRINKERHOFF'S VOTE. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. [00:35:02] ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO CHAPTER 14, GENERAL AND TRANSITION PROVISIONS. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SKIP PAST THAT. THAT'S JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE THERE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND SKIP DOWN TO THE ITEM. DETAILS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICTS FOR THE ELECTION. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC IN REGARDS TO ELECTIONS THAT THEY WANT TO BRING UP OR TALK ABOUT? OR DO WE JUST WANT TO GO DOWN THE BULLET POINTS? THE ONE THING THAT I'D LIKE TO MENTION IS MR. OVERCASH MENTIONED ON PAGE TWO, THE VERY FIRST BULLET OF PUTTING IN THE VARIATION OF UP TO 100. I THINK WE SHOULD I MOTION THAT WE PUT IN THAT VERBIAGE BECAUSE. AS HE MENTIONED, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT AT LEAST ALLOWS US TO HAVE THAT DIVISIBLE BY FOUR. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE 100 VARIABLE FOR THE DIVIDING LINES OF THE FOUR DISTRICTS. CORRECT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. RAGAN. GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. PASSES TEN ZERO. SO MR. OVERCASH HAD TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE PUBLIC STATING WHAT HAPPENS IF NOBODY RUNS FOR DISTRICT? WHAT DO WE DO FOR THAT SEAT? AND HE SAID THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW IN THIS, WE HAVE NO PROVISION THAT COVERS THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD REALLY DIVE INTO ON IF NOBODY RUNS FROM A DISTRICT, THEN WHO'S GOING TO FILL THAT SEAT? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN THIS DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW. I THINK THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES THAT WE NEED TO AT LEAST BE AWARE OF EVEN WITH DISTRICTS, BECAUSE WITH FOUR DISTRICTS, WE'VE ALREADY ASSIGNED FOUR SEATS. RIGHT, BUT THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT ONE DISTRICT COULD HAVE FIVE REPRESENTATION. THE MAYOR, THE SEAT AND THE THREE OTHER AT LARGES. SO YOU COULD HAVE A DISTRICT THAT HAS REPRESENTED BY FIVE. BECAUSE THEY'RE AT-LARGE SEATS, THEY COULD BE VOTED FROM THAT DISTRICT ALONG WITH THE MAYOR BEING APPOINTED IN THAT DISTRICT. THAT'S A POTENTIAL PROBLEM THAT I SEE HERE. WILL IT COME UP? I DON'T KNOW, BUT--I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT THE WHOLE DISTRICTING, MY ORIGINAL WAS DISTRICTS FOR THE ENTIRE. ALL THE SEATS WERE DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR THE MAYOR, AND WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT PRINCETON WAS READY FOR THAT. SO THAT'S WHY WE DID THE FOUR AND THEN THE THREE AT LARGE. I'M GOING TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE REALLY QUICK. SO THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING. SO YOU KIND OF HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AS WELL, IS THAT DISTRICTS CAN HELP PREVENT THAT IN CERTAIN WAYS. SO IF YOU'VE GOT SEVEN SEATS PLUS THE MAYOR, THEY COULD ALL SEVEN COME FROM THE SAME AREA. BY DOING DISTRICTS, YOU AT LEAST GUARANTEE THAT THERE'S SOME DIVERSITY BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU'RE USING YOUR EXAMPLE, I THINK FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR CURRENT SITTING COUNCIL AND MAYOR ARE WITHIN THE SAME TWO MILE RADIUS, MOST OF THEM EVEN CLOSER THAN THAT, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE COMMENT ABOUT NOT HAVING ANYBODY TO RUN, THAT CAN REALLY OCCUR, WHETHER YOU HAVE DISTRICTS OR NOT. SO DO WE PUT IT IN A PROVISION THAT SAYS IF THIS IS AN EMPTY SEAT, THEN WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? I JUST DON'T I'M NOT SOLD YET ON THE EFFECT ON HOW THAT AFFECTS REDISTRICTING SPECIFICALLY. WELL, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT DOES OR IT DOESN'T. I'M SAYING THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT. I GUARANTEE YOU, SINCE WE TALK ABOUT WE'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT LAWSUITS ARE GOING TO OCCUR. MAN, THAT'S A BIG POTENTIAL, I THINK ALSO, TOO. AS SOON AS WE DRAW DISTRICT LINES THAT CHANGE AND NOW YOU MAY HAVE A DISTRICT THAT HAS ZERO REPRESENTATION BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL THAT REPRESENTED THAT DISTRICT IS NOW NO LONGER IN THAT DISTRICT. THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A RECALL FOR SURE, BECAUSE THE DISTRICT NOW IS GOING TO SAY WE NO LONGER. [INAUDIBLE] WHY WOULDN'T IT? THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE TO. [INAUDIBLE] MIC, PLEASE. MIC, PLEASE. THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE TO FINISH OUT HIS TERM AND HE WOULD HAVE TO REPRESENT THAT DISTRICT EVEN IF HE WASN'T IN THE NEW LINES. [00:40:06] I GET THAT, BUT, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT ARE GOING TO SAY, HE'S NOT IN MY DISTRICT ANYMORE, EVEN THOUGH HE SAYS HE'S REPRESENTING MINE. HE REALLY IS IN THAT DISTRICT OVER THERE. SO WHERE DO YOU THINK HIS. INTERESTS ARE, EVEN THOUGH HE'S SUPPOSED TO BUY ELECTION AND BUY THE ORIGINAL DISTRICT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT MINE. HE NO LONGER IS IN MY DISTRICT, SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HE IS REALLY GOING TO REPRESENT MY DISTRICT. HE'S GOING TO REPRESENT HIS NEW DISTRICT, AND NOW THAT DISTRICT. DON'T TELL ME THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I'M TELLING YOU, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THINK THAT WHETHER IT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T. HOW DOES REMOVING DISTRICTS PREVENT THAT? HOW DOES REMOVING DISTRICTS? IT DOESN'T BECAUSE THE AT LARGE RIGHT NOW. SHELLEY WASN'T YOU THAT EXPLAINED SOMETHING ABOUT SOMEBODY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH WATER PROBLEMS AND NOBODY ON THE COUNCIL. WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT OLD PRINCETON, AND SO DISTRICTS NO DISTRICTS. WE'RE GOING TO BE SUED. IT'S GOING TO BE A LAWSUIT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO SUE, THEY'RE GOING TO SUE. I GET THAT. I THINK THAT OUR TWO WORKSHOPS ARE A PRETTY GOOD REPRESENTATION OF HOW INVOLVED THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY ARE IN CITY GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS UNLESS THEY HAVE A COMPLAINT, THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP AND THEY DON'T CARE. RIGHT. SO WHETHER YOU HAVE DISTRICTS OR YOU DON'T HAVE DISTRICTS, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM IN AN AREA OF THE CITY, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO HEY, COME TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS, GET YOUR NEIGHBORS TO COME TALK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THE CITY COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS AND KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR AREA OF THE CITY. THAT'S MY THINKING, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DISTRICTS. I'M SAYING. THIS THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE STUFF THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO COME UP AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE THAT OR ARE WE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WHEN IT HAPPENS? AND THEN AGAIN, AS SURFER SAID AND AS MR. OVERCASH SAID, WHAT IF YOU HAVE A DISTRICT WHERE NOBODY WANTS TO RUN? NOW, WHAT DO YOU DO? RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO FORCE SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN CITY COUNCIL WHERE THEY HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT SHOWING UP TO THE MEETINGS, AND WHEN THEY DO, THEY DON'T REALLY CARE. THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE THERE. TYPICALLY THAT IN MY OPINION. AGAIN, SO. IF WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CITY AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR AREA, JUST LIKE WE HAVE NOW. THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW UP WHEN THERE IS A COMPLAINT. RIGHT. HOW DO WE GET THEM TO SHOW UP AND BE INVOLVED WHEN THERE'S NOT A COMPLAINT OR COME TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SHOWING UP AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS? WHAT'S THAT? IT'S BEEN INCREASING, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A COUNT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW EITHER. ON THE SUNDAY, WE HAD THREE PEOPLE. NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR WORKSHOPS. I'M TALKING ABOUT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S THE THING. I'M JUST SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK DISTRICTING IS GOING TO RESOLVE WHAT WE BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO RESOLVE. THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I DON'T KNOW. OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE FLOOR BACK AGAIN. SO JUST FOR SAKE OF TIME, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON THAT WE WANTED TO DO DISTRICTS. SO UNLESS WE HAVE A MOTION TO READDRESS THAT, THEN WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON AND MAYBE HASH OUT SOME OF THOSE MORE DETAILS. AS FAR AS DO WE WANT TO PUT ANY VERBIAGE IN THERE AS FAR AS WHAT HAPPENS IF NOBODY RUNS FOR A SEAT DISTRICT OR NOT? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY LANGUAGE SUGGESTIONS? MR. OVERCAST, DO YOU HAVE ANY MAYBE EXEMPLARS OF LANGUAGE THAT CAN COVER WHAT IF NO ONE WANTS TO RUN AND WE HAVE AN EMPTY SEAT? NIKKI, IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO GO AHEAD AND FILL IN THE BLANKS ON CHAPTER 11 RIGHT NOW, AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, OKAY, NOW WE'VE GOT NOW WE KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO BE SET UP. NOW WE CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. I'LL GO AHEAD AND LET MR. OVERCASH FINISH REAL QUICK. SO MOST CHARTERS DON'T ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. I CAN'T SAY THAT'S ALL OF THEM, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S COMMONLY ADDRESSED IN A CHARTER, THOUGH THE QUESTION WASN'T EXACTLY I DON'T SAY THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT WELL TAKEN WHEN IT COMES FROM THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OF, WELL, WHAT DOES HAPPEN. SO WITHOUT THE CHARTER SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, MY AT LEAST OFF THE CUFF ASSESSMENT OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THE [00:45:01] GENERAL SITUATION WITH A CHARTER THAT HASN'T BEEN ADOPTED YET IS THAT THE CURRENTLY SITTING OFFICEHOLDER, THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE SEAT UP TO THAT POINT, WOULD CONTINUE ON IN OFFICE UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSOR IS QUALIFIED. THE PROBLEM THAT COULD RUN INTO IS THAT. SO IF YOU ALSO HAVE TERM LIMITS IS WHAT IF THAT CAUSES THEM TO RUN OVER THEIR TERM LIMITS? WELL, I TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT WHEN WE WROTE THE TERM LIMIT PROVISIONS TO MAKE IT SO THAT TERM LIMITS ARE MORE ABOUT THEIR ELIGIBILITY TO RUN AGAIN, NOT THEIR ELIGIBILITY TO CONTINUE EXERCISING THE POWER OF THEIR OFFICE, AND SO THAT SHOULD BE WHAT'S REFLECTED THERE. SO LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER IN SEAT NUMBER 30, JUST TO USE A NUMBER THAT NOBODY HAS RIGHT NOW AND ISN'T IN THIS DRAFT SEAT NUMBER 30 GETS ELECTED TO AND SERVES TWO CONSECUTIVE FOUR YEAR TERMS AND THEREFORE WOULD BE TERM LIMITED OUT. AND THEN THEY CANNOT RUN AGAIN AS AN INCUMBENT. SO THEY'RE NOT ON THE BALLOT TO FILL THAT SEAT, AND THEN THE CANDIDATE FILING DEADLINE GOES BY AND NOBODY FILES FOR CANDIDACY OR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DO DON'T LIVE IN THE DISTRICT THAT IS REQUIRED TO LIVE IN IN ORDER TO BE ELECTED TO SEAT 30. SO THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT CURRENT MEMBER OF SEAT 30 WOULD STILL BE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER UNTIL SOMEBODY ELSE COMES ALONG WHO QUALIFIES TO PUSH THEM OUT. SO HOW COULD SOMEBODY ELSE QUALIFY TO PUSH THEM OUT? YOU COULD CALL FOR REPEATED ELECTIONS, SAY, ALL RIGHT, NOW WE HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION. WE TRIED IT IN NOVEMBER. NOBODY FILED WHO WAS ELIGIBLE AND RAN FOR IT. WELL, NOW LET'S TRY IT AGAIN. THE FOLLOWING MAY AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WE'RE GOING TO KEEP HOLDING SPECIAL ELECTIONS ON EVERY ELECTION DATE UNTIL SOMEBODY FILES AND DOES IT. OR YOU CAN PROVIDE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL THAT EXISTS. THE OTHER MEMBERS OTHER THAN SEAT 30 TO VOTE ON AN APPOINTMENT TO FILL THE VACANCY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE NEXT REGULAR ELECTION FOR THAT SEAT COMES UP. SO IN THE YEAR 3000, SEAT NUMBER 30 WAS VACANT AND WE HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION. THEY WOULD APPOINT SOMEBODY WHO WOULD FILL OUT THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM UNTIL THE END OF THAT FOUR YEARS WHEN THAT SEAT WOULD COME UP AGAIN. OR YOU COULD SAY THAT IT'S A KIND OF MIX OF THE TWO WHERE YOU SAY THEY APPOINT SOMEONE TO SERVE FOR THE TIME BEING, SO THAT YOU'RE SITTING OFFICE HOLDER IS GOING TO BE REMOVED SOMETIME AFTER ELECTION DAY, POSSIBLY BEFORE THEN, AND THEN YOU MIGHT KNOW WHO IT'S GOING TO BE BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE TERM END, AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE THEN IT SAY THAT THEY WILL SERVE FOR ONE YEAR, AT WHICH TIME THE CITY WILL CONDUCT ANOTHER ELECTION TO TRY TO FILL OUT THE SEAT AND RESTORE TO ITS NORMAL RHYTHM OF FOUR YEARS AND A PERSON ELECTED TO A FOUR YEAR TERM. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY EXEMPLARS FOR YOU HERE TODAY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF WHAT YOU GUYS WANTED TO DO OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANTED THE CHARTER TO SPEAK TO THIS. THE CHARTER DOESN'T HAVE TO YOU KNOW, THE LAW WILL GIVE YOU AN ANSWER EVENTUALLY. IT JUST MAY NOT BE WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO HAPPEN WHEN NOBODY RUNS, NOW'S THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SPECIFIC THING YOU WOULD WANT TO HAPPEN. WHAT DO WE DO? WHAT DO WE WANT OUR CITY COUNCIL TO DO? WHEN THEY FIND OUT THAT NOBODY WANTS TO RUN FOR THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SEAT, THAT'S UP FOR THIS ELECTION OR WHAT HAVE YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO KIND OF MULL THAT OVER AND THINK ABOUT HOW THEY WANT TO GO THAT WAY. AND WE'LL START KIND OF AT THE BEGINNING AND JUST WORK OUR WAY DOWN THIS LIST. SO LET'S START WITH THE FIRST BULLET POINT, THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY'LL DRAW DISTRICTS AND THEN WHEN WILL THEY BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE REDISTRICTING. SO YOU HAVE HERE A LIST OF CURRENTLY WHICH SEATS ARE UP FOR ELECTION. SO ASSUMING THIS PASSES THIS NOVEMBER 2023, YOU HAVE SEATS THREE, FOUR AND FIVE STARTING THEIR FIRST FOUR YEAR TERM. THEN YOU HAVE THE BRAND NEW SEATS, SIX AND SEVEN, STARTING A TEMPORARY THREE YEAR TERM, AND THEN 2024, YOU HAVE MAYOR SEATS ONE AND TWO WITH THEIR FOUR YEAR TERM. THEN 2025 IS OUR FIRST OFF YEAR WITH SIX AND SEVEN STARTING THEIR FIRST FOUR YEAR IN 2026. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS, THOUGHTS? WHICH WAY THEY'D LIKE TO SEE THAT GO? I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE WOULD START WITH THE 2023 WITH SEATS. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THREE, FOUR AND FIVE. IT CAN BE FOUR OR FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. IT CAN BE NOT FOLLOWING. I'M SORRY. THAT WE START THE DISTRICTING WITH THE NOVEMBER 2023. SO YOU'LL HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE A DISTRICT COMMITTEE THAT HAS TIME TO WORK AND TO SET THOSE DISTRICTS BEFORE WE CAN GO INTO EFFECT. [00:50:05] SO I'M THINKING THAT MIGHT NOT BE REALISTIC. NO, FORGOT ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO THEN I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK TOWARDS THE 2026 ELECTION OR THE 2027. FOR THE DISTRICTING BECAUSE SO THINK OF IT IN TERMS OF WHEN DO YOU WANT THE COMMISSION TO DO THEIR WORK AND DRAW THE DISTRICTS? NOT NECESSARILY. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHEN WE'RE GOING TO DRAW THEM BEFORE WE CAN DETERMINE WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO GO INTO EFFECT. SO WITH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS, IF THEY GO INTO EFFECT IN 26. ARE YOU THINKING MAYBE DO THE DISTRICT IN 25? YES. SORRY. NO YOU'RE FINE WALKING. JUST WALKING THROUGH IT. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. SO YES, BY 2025. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IF THEY STARTED IN 2027, THE NEW DISTRICTS, DON'T WE NEED TO VOTE ON IT? DOESN'T THE CITY HAVE TO VOTE ON IT BEFORE WE CAN START VOTING ON THE DISTRICTS. SO IF WE HAD AN ELECTION IN 2024 WITH THE NEW DISTRICTS ON THERE. MR. OVERCASH, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? BECAUSE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD BE UP TO THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE TO FINALIZE THAT. SURE. SO THE WAY THAT THE PROCESS IS CURRENTLY DESCRIBED AS FUNCTIONING IS THAT ASSUMING THAT THE CHARTER GETS ADOPTED, THAT'S NOVEMBER 2022, IT GOES INTO EFFECT AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWS THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION AND SAYS, YEP, IT PASSED AND NOW IT'S EFFECTIVE AND WE'LL MAIL A COPY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. THEN ELECTIONS CAN BEGIN OCCURRING UNDER THE NEW DISTRICT RULE, UNDER THE NEW CHARTER RULES BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER 2023. IN TERMS OF WHEN DO THE DISTRICT LINES KICK IN? THAT IS PART OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED. THEY NEED TO BE DRAWN AT SOME POINT AND THEN YOU HAVE TO DECIDE, DO THEY GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY? WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN AFTERWARDS? THE IDEA IS THAT THE DISTRICT COMMISSION WOULD DO ITS WORK, GO IN TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WANT TO DRAW THE LINES, COME UP WITH A MAP, PRESENT IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD SAY, YES, THIS IS A DISTRICT MAP. IT LOOKS LIKE IT DOES THE JOB IT NEEDS TO DO UNDER THE CHARTER TO BE A DISTRICT MAP. IT HAS FOUR ZONES, NOT THREE, ETC, AND THEN THEY PUT IT INTO EFFECT. SO IT REQUIRES ENOUGH TIME FOR COUNCIL TO ACT ON IT BEFORE THE ELECTION. IN TERMS OF TIMING IN A YEAR, IT WOULD ALSO YOU'D WANT IT TO COME UP IF IT'S GOING TO BE IF NEW DISTRICT LINES ARE GOING TO BE IMPOSED TO BE EFFECTIVE THE SAME YEAR THAT THEY ARE IMPOSED. YOU WOULD WANT IT TO BE BEFORE THE CANDIDATE FILING DEADLINE FOR CITY OFFICES IN NOVEMBER. ELECTIONS COMES TO PASS SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHAT DISTRICT SEATS THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FROM. SO I'M NOT SURE IF I LOST YOUR QUESTION IN THAT OR NOT, BUT LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. IN ORDER FOR THE DISTRICTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE, DOES THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE TO APPROVE IT OR DOES THE CITY HAVE TO VOTE ON IT? ON THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, IT WOULD NOT BE THE VOTERS DIRECTLY SAYING WE LIKE THIS DISTRICT MAP, THAT THEY VOTE DIRECTLY ON THE CHARTER, AND OF COURSE, THEY VOTE THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS INTO PLACE TO THEN MAKE SURE THAT THE CHARTER IS BEING IMPLEMENTED RIGHT. IT IS NOT A QUESTION THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS. THEY WOULD NOT BE SHOWN A MAP AND SAY, DO YOU LIKE THIS DISTRICT MAP OR NOT? OKAY, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE'RE TRYING TO PUSH THIS IN AS FAST AS WE CAN. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE CITY IS READY FOR THAT. IF THIS CHARTER GETS RATIFIED IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTION, THE CITY'S ALREADY GOING TO BE OVERWHELMED WITH CHANGES THAT THEY'VE GOT TO MAKE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS CHARTER, AND SO WHAT I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR HERE AS THAT IN 11.07 THE VERY FIRST BLANK WE HAVE TO FILL IN IS WHEN WE WANT THE DISTRICT LINES TO BE DONE, AND I'M GOING TO SAY ON AN OFF YEAR, 2025, WE SHOULD GIVE THEM TILL 2025 TO GET THE COMMISSION IN PLACE, TO GET THE DISTRICT LINES FIGURED OUT, WHICH WOULD THEN START THE WHICH WOULD THEN START IT IN THE 2026 [00:55:06] ELECTION. SO MY MOTION IS THAT FOLLOWING THEIR APPOINTMENT AND BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE IN NOVEMBER 2025. THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. I THINK TO CLARIFY WHAT MR. RAGAN IS SAYING IS THAT HE WANTS THE CHARTER I'M SORRY, NOT THE CHARTER. THE DISTRICTS FORMED AND COMPLETED IN 2025. BEFORE WE HAVE A SECOND, I THINK THERE'S SOME MORE DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE DISTRICT LINE IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE IN 2029, BECAUSE I THINK THAT. THE DISTRICT POPULATION OR RESIDENTS IS GOING TO CHANGE QUITE A BIT, PROBABLY FROM 25 TO 29 AND MAY NEED TO BE REDRAWN ALREADY IN A IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER. I WOULD THINK THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA. ALSO, IT'S THE WHOLE REASON FOR WHAT I WAS PROPOSING WAS SO THAT THIS WOULD THE LINES WOULD BE DRAWN, EVERYTHING WOULD BE SET IN PLACE ON AN OFF YEAR. THAT WAY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE. THE ELECTION AND THE DISTRICTS ALL ON THE SAME YEAR. YOU CAN'T YOU HAVE TO DO THE DISTRICTS ON AN OFF YEAR AND THEN THE NEXT ELECTION. TO CLARIFY 2029 IS ALSO AN OFF YEAR. YES. YES. SO EITHER WAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SO WHICH CITY COUNCIL SEATS ARE GOING TO BE DISTRICT BECAUSE IF. THAT'S FURTHER ON DOWN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF WE DO IT AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE THOSE COME UP, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT. AND COULDN'T THE DISTRICTING COMMISSION BE SET UP, SET UP LIKE RIGHT AWAY, AND THIS WAY THEY CAN JUST FORM IT OUT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL LATER ON, BUT IT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO GO THROUGH IT, SET IT UP, GIVE THE CITY COUNCIL THE TIME TO VOTE ON IT, AND THEN WHEN THEY VOTE ON IT, THEY SAY, OKAY, YEAH, GIVE THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, OKAY, WELL, THIS IS GOOD. WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THAT EFFECTIVE, THAT DATE, MORE OR LESS JUST GIVING THEM SETTING IT UP RIGHT AWAY TO GIVE THEM PLENTY OF TIME. SO I AGREE, AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE SENTIMENT BEHIND DOING IT IN AN OFF YEAR SO THAT THEY'RE NOT RUSHED. HOWEVER, THE CONCERN BEING DOING IT, SAYING 2025 AND NOT HAVING IT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL 2030 IS WE'RE GROWING SO FAST RIGHT NOW THAT WAITING WOULD DRASTICALLY AFFECT THOSE LINES. I AGREE. SO IF WE DID IT IN 2025 OR IF THEY MADE IT SET UP THE COMMISSION 2025, YOU COULD REALLY, YOU KNOW, 2027 OR 2026, YOU KNOW, ALMOST, ALMOST RIGHT AWAY INSTEAD OF WAITING, YOU KNOW, FIVE, SIX YEARS. THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. SO I HAVE A QUESTION AND THIS MAY BE MY FAULTY MEMORY. SO THIS IS JUST A CLARIFICATION AND SEEING IN THIS DOCUMENT, HOW THE ELECTIONS ARE DISTRIBUTED. I SEEM TO BE VAGUELY REMEMBERING THAT IN THE MEETING WHERE WE HAD THE GRID, WHERE WE LOOKED AT LAYING THOSE THINGS OUT, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO HAVE THOSE ELECTIONS ON THE YEARS THAT WERE GUBERNATORIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL, BASICALLY HAVING TWO, TWO YEARS IN WHICH THERE ARE, AND WHAT I'M SEEING HERE LOOKS LIKE WE'RE DOING IT THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR YEARS INSTEAD OF TWO OUT OF FOUR. YEAH, SO I KNOW WHAT WE FINALLY DECIDED ON WAS THAT THE MAYOR AND SEATS ONE AND TWO WOULD BE ON A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR, AND THEN SEATS, I BELIEVE. LET'S SEE. THREE, FOUR AND FIVE? NO, BECAUSE THIS YEAR WOULD BE A GUBERNATORIAL. SO ONE, TWO, THREE. SO SIX AND SEVEN WOULD BE ON A GUBERNATORIAL. SO THEN YOUR SEATS THREE, FOUR AND FIVE WOULD BE IN THAT ERA BETWEEN AND THAT OTHER YEAR. IN BETWEEN WOULD BE AN OFF YEAR SO THAT WE'RE NOT ELECTING A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, AND ONCE WE DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY TURNOVER IN ONE YEAR, I THINK IT'S WHERE THAT LANDED. SO MY RECOLLECTION THAT WE HAD SETTLED ON HAVING THEM ONLY IN PRESIDENTIAL AND GUBERNATORIAL YEARS, THAT RECOLLECTION IS A BIT FAULTY THEN. YES, THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION. I WANT TO THANK YOU. LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE'RE LOOKING AT EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE IS WHAT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT. IS THAT CORRECT? [01:00:01] I'M NOT FOLLOWING. WHAT DO YOU MEAN EXAMPLE. I THINK HE'S LOOKING DOWN AT THE SECOND BULLET POINT WHERE I'VE GOT THREE EXAMPLES OF THE FREQUENCY OF DRAWING DISTRICT LINES. THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES ON THE FIRST BULLET POINT OTHER THAN I SUPPOSE YOU CAN TAKE THE LAST BOLD SENTENCE THAT SAYS IF DISTRICTS WERE DRAWN IN 2025 IS JUST A DEMONSTRATION OF OF HOW IT WOULD WORK IF THE COMMISSION WAS CONVENED IN 2025, DREW THE DISTRICTS, GAVE THEM TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL APPLIES THEM IN 2025. THEN THOSE DISTRICTS COULD BE USED FOR ELECTIONS IN 2026 AND AFTER. LET ME JUST SAY THAT FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE PRACTICAL FOR IN TERMS OF A TIME FRAME FOR A DISTRICT COMMISSION TO CONVENE AND DO ITS WORK AND THAT SORT OF THING OPTIMISTICALLY, I WOULD THINK THAT CERTAINLY THE FIRST TIME OR TWO YOU'RE DOING THIS, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE THAT CONTENTIOUS OF A PROCESS AND IT CAN PROBABLY BE RESOLVED WITHIN JUST A FEW MONTHS. I WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU HAD A DISTRICT AND COMMISSION APPOINTED IN JANUARY, THEY CAN PROBABLY BE DONE IN SIX MONTHS. EVEN IF THEY'RE MEETING ONCE A MONTH. THERE SHOULDN'T BE THAT MANY ISSUES FOR THEM TO TRY TO HASH OUT. THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT THE NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT IN THE BOXES, AND THEN IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WIGGLING THE LINES AROUND UNTIL YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THEM BEING AS SMOOTH OR BUMPY AS YOU THINK THEY NEED TO BE TO MAKE TO BE A GOOD REFLECTION OF HOW YOU WANT TO DIVIDE VOTERS IN PRINCETON. SO DOING IT AND THINKING THAT THE COMMISSION WILL BE ABLE TO DO ITS JOB IN SIX MONTHS OR SO IS CERTAINLY WOULD BE A REALISTIC WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. SO WITH NOVEMBER ELECTION CYCLES, YOUR CANDIDATES HAVE TO FILE FOR THOSE ELECTIONS, USUALLY IN THE AUGUST OR AFTER TIME FRAME. THE NOVEMBER ELECTION IS ORDERED IN AUGUST AND THE CANDIDATE DEADLINES, YOU KNOW, CANDIDATE FILING PERIODS USUALLY OPEN IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. SO THAT'S THE KIND OF TIME FRAME OF YOU WOULD WANT THE DISTRICT LINES TO BE KNOWN TO EVERYBODY IN PLACE, AT LEAST BY AUGUST ONE OF THE YEAR THAT YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE VOTING PEOPLE OUT OF THAT DISTRICT. SO BUT IF WE CONSIDER DOING DISTRICTS IN AN OFF YEAR, THAT NECESSARILY WON'T APPLY UNLESS FOR SOME REASON WE HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION. CORRECT. I MEAN, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF DISTRICT LINES ARE BEING DRAWN IN 2025, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT UNTIL AUGUST 2026 TO GET THEM FIGURED OUT. SO, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA OF STARTING A COMMISSION IN 2025 FOR USE IN ELECTIONS IN 2026 AND AFTER IS NOT UNREALISTIC. 2029 IS CERTAINLY OBVIOUSLY ALSO DOABLE. IT'S FURTHER AWAY, WHICH MAKES IT JUST AS EASY, IF NOT EASIER. THE CURRENT LANGUAGE ALLOWS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO GET THIS PROCESS KICKSTARTED ANY TIME AFTER A CHARTER EXISTS. THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT SAYS RIGHT NOW THAT FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION THEY SHALL APPOINT AND THEN AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER THEY'RE APPOINTED, THEY DRAW THE LINES. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO HOLD OFF IF THE CHARTER IS ADOPTED UNTIL 2029. EVEN IF YOU SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE THEIR DISTRICTS OR PUT THE DISTRICT LINES ON A MAP YET AND SAY THAT THEY ARE THE DISTRICTS UNTIL THE 2030 ELECTION. SO YOU COULD FORM A COMMISSION IF THE CHARTER GETS ADOPTED IN 23, YOU COULD FORM THE COMMISSION IN 24 OR 25, HAVE THEM TAKE THEIR SWEET TIME, MEET ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS, AND THEN THEN PLAN ON HAVING THE ACTUAL FIRST ELECTION THAT THEY KICK IN 2030. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING THAT DELAY. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MORE DIRECTLY, MR. WALKER, EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE IS MORE IN REFERENCE TO HOW OFTEN THE REDISTRICT IS LOOKED AT , BUT YES, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CONSENSUS ON THE FLOOR MAY BE LOOKING AT 2025 WITH IT GOING INTO EFFECT AFTER AND BEFORE THE THIS DISCUSSION KEEPS GOING, I'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF PUT OUT THERE KIND OF WHERE MY THOUGHT, MY BRAIN WAS GOING WITH THIS WHEN I WAS LOOKING OVER THIS EARLIER, AND IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION AND MY THOUGHT PROCESS KIND OF KNOCKS OUT SEVERAL OF THESE BULLET POINTS AND IT TIES IN WITH SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WORK SESSION THAT MAYBE WERE TOO SOON FOR DISTRICTS AND THINGS LIKE THIS. AND IT KIND OF FEEDS INTO WHAT MR. BRINKERHOFF WAS SAYING EARLIER, AND MY THOUGHT BEHIND IT WAS MAYBE LOOK AT DOING IN THE OFF YEAR OF 2029, HAVE THAT DISTRICT COMMITTEE SET UP SET UP THOSE LINES. THAT GIVES US A FEW MORE YEARS TO GROW. SEE, SEE HOW MUCH FASTER WE'RE GOING TO GROW IN THE NEXT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, THEN HAVE IT GO INTO EFFECT, STARTING WITH THE 2030 ELECTION. BECAUSE BY DOING THAT, YOU HAVE ALREADY ALL OF YOUR SEATS GOING THROUGH TWO FULL ELECTIONS, AND SO YOU RUN LESS RISK [01:05:01] WITH HAVING A CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBER BEING DE-SEATED BASICALLY BY A CHANGING DISTRICT LINE BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY MET THEIR QUOTA BASICALLY, AND IT WOULD GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF APPLY THAT TO A NEW SET. RIGHT. KIND OF A ROLLING MOVING FORWARD. YOUR MIC'S OFF. SORRY. IS IT ON NOW? YES. THINK ABOUT IT IN 2026, WE'RE ADDING TWO MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO DO YOU WANT TO LET THE CITY ADJUST TO. SO THERE ARE SIX OR SEVEN ARE ADDED IN 23 FOR A THREE YEAR TERM AND THEN IN 2026 THEIR FIRST FOUR YEAR. SO THEY WOULD BE AT SEVEN YEARS. SO THEY REALLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RUN AGAIN BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY MET THAT. YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO. YEAH, I GOTCHA, BUT IT GIVES THE CITY A CHANCE TO ADJUST TO MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS PERIOD, AND THEN LOOK AT DISTRICTS. THAT WAS MY THOUGHT AS WELL. SO I KNOW YOU CAN'T MAKE A MOTION. WELL, HOLD ON. YOU CAN'T MAKE A MOTION. WE STILL HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SO, MR. RAGAN, TO EITHER AMEND OR WITHDRAW, I WANT TO AMEND MINE TO THE 2029. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SET THE FIRST DRAWING OF DISTRICTS IN 2029. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. SECOND BY MR. CARR. SORRY, AND WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MOTION PASSES TEN ZERO TO START DISTRICTS IN THE DRAWING OF DISTRICTS IN 2029 TAKING EFFECT IN 2030. SHOULD WE ADDRESS WHEN WE WANT THOSE DISTRICT LINES SET SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR COUNCIL WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT NOW HAVE TIME TO GO, OH, THIS IS MY DISTRICT AND I WANT TO RUN, BUT THAT'S ONLY JUST--WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT--I'M SORRY. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS WE'RE SAYING. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE DISTRICT LINES WILL BE SET IN 2029, BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING WHEN THEY'RE SET BY IT. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELECTION IN 2029. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO CLARIFY, BY THE WAY, THAT WE WANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION MARCH 1ST OF 2029. THE DISTRICT LINES NEED TO BE DEFINED SO THAT THOSE PEOPLE IN THOSE DISTRICTS CAN PREPARE TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL IN 2030 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THIS SPECIFICALLY STATES ON HERE THE ELECTION DATE IN NOVEMBER 2029. WELL, IT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO DO IT AFTER THEIR APPOINTMENT, BUT BEFORE THE ELECTION DATE IN 2029. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETIME BEFORE NOVEMBER 2029. THEY WOULD BE FINISHED, AND THAT MEANS THAT IT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL AND THEN BE ALREADY BE ABLE TO BE APPROVED AND IN PLACE FOR THE FOR THE 2030 ELECTION. IF YOU WANTED ABSOLUTE CLARITY, IT WOULD BE YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE SIMPLE ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THEY WILL SUBMIT THEIR DISTRICT MAP ON OR BEFORE A DATE, YOU KNOW, SO THEY'RE GOING TO FIRST DRAW THEIR DISTRICTS IN 2029. THEY WILL SUBMIT THEIR FINISHED PRODUCT, PRODUCT ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2030. YOU KNOW THAT SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES WOULD WORK AND AT LEAST JUST MAKE IT SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND APPLY. YOU KNOW, A POINT WAS RAISED BY STAFF THAT I THINK WAS ALSO ECHOED OUT THERE BY THE COMMISSIONERS DURING DISCUSSION THAT IF YOU HAVE TOO LONG HAPPEN WHERE YOU TRY TO GET TOO FAR AHEAD OF THE GAME, THE NUMBERS CHANGE BETWEEN THE TIME THE COMMISSION STARTS. AND IF YOU WAIT TWO YEARS, WE'RE HAVING SEVERAL HUNDRED ANNEXATIONS OR NEW UNITS BEING ADDED EVERY YEAR. RIGHT NOW IT'S A PERIOD OF EXPLOSIVE GROWTH, AND SO WHILE I DID BUILD IN A YOU GOT TO GIVE US AT LEAST 100 PEOPLE, PLUS OR MINUS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT BIGGER VARIATIONS OF THAT NATURALLY OCCURRING IF YOU HAD A LARGER SEPARATION BETWEEN THAT. SO THE IDEA OF 2029 BEING THE FIRST YEAR THAT THE DISTRICTS ARE DRAWN AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE ADOPTED BEFORE A DATE CERTAIN SET IN EITHER 2029 OR YOU KNOW, IT'D HAVE TO BE A DATE BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 2029 GENERAL ELECTION DATE TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. I JUST DREW A SENTENCE IN THERE THAT POINTED OUT THAT WE HAD TO HAVE A DEADLINE. [01:10:04] THAT SENTENCE CAN CHANGE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TIED TO THE ELECTION DATE. I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH ACTUALLY HAVING IT BE DONE BEFORE THE CANDIDATE FILING DEADLINE. THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ELECTION DATE. SO THAT LANGUAGE I'D RECOMMEND BE ADJUSTED AT THIS MEETING BEFORE YOU GUYS MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT? I MOTION THAT WE... EXACTLY WHAT MR. OVERCASH JUST SAID. [CHUCKLING] I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING CLOSE ENOUGH TO RESEMBLE A MOTIONS. SO IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO SUGGEST A FORM MOTION, I CAN DO THAT. YES, BECAUSE YOU WORDED IT VERY WELL. WELL, ALL RIGHT, HOW ABOUT WE TRY IT THIS WAY? SO IF THE MOTION THAT COULD BE MADE TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING RESEMBLING WHAT I JUST SAID WOULD BE TO MODIFY THE CHARTER DRAFT, TO PROVIDE THAT THE FIRST DISTRICTS WILL BE PUT IN PLACE BEFORE THE CANDIDATE FILING DEADLINE FOR THE 2030 ELECTIONS, AND THAT'S MY MOTION. SO THAT'S MY MOTION. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. A SECOND BY MR. RAGAN. ROLL CALL VOTE. MOTION PASSES TEN ZERO. ALL RIGHT, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SECTION 1107 AND WE GO TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, I AM THINKING THAT EVERY FOUR YEARS IS PROBABLY TOO SOON. WE SHOULD DO IT EVERY EIGHT YEARS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WHERE MR. RAGAN IS GOING IS THAT HE IS SAYING THAT TO REDRAW DISTRICTS, HE IS MAKING A MOTION FOR EVERY EIGHT YEARS, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ECHO THAT. THAT KIND OF FALLS IN LINE WITH MAKING SURE THAT SEATS DON'T CHANGE DISTRICTS. WITHIN THEIR ALLOTTED TERM LIMIT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR REDRAWING DISTRICTS EVERY EIGHT YEARS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A SECOND BY MRS. MERCER. YES, SORRY ABOUT THAT. ROLL CALL VOTE. DAVID WALKER. OH, I'M SORRY. ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. YOU HAVE A MIC. SO IF WE REDRAW THE DISTRICTS EVERY EIGHT YEARS, BUT THE CYCLE IS EVERY 12 YEARS. HOW IS THE CYCLE EVERY 12 YEARS FOR THE FOR THESE ELECTIONS FOR THE IT'S EIGHT IT'S EIGHT YEARS IT'S EIGHT YEARS. SO WE HAVE A ELECTION THREE YEARS IN A ROW AND THEN AN OFF YEAR AND THEN AGAIN THREE YEARS IN A ROW, IN AN OFF YEAR WITH FOUR YEAR TERMS AND EIGHT YEAR LIMITS. OKAY, ALL RIGHT, BUT FOR FOR CLARITY, AS I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, IT WOULD BE THAT WE'RE DOING OUR FIRST DISTRICT IN 2029. REDRAWING EVERY EIGHT YEARS MEANS THAT NEW DISTRICT LINES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DRAWN IN 2037 AND THEN AGAIN IN 2045 AND SO ON. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO WORK OUT THAT EVERY SEAT WILL BE ELECTED FROM THE SAME DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TWICE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE AS CLOSE AS WE CAN NECESSARILY MANAGE, I THINK, IN A PRACTICAL WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, AND THEN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WOULDN'T THAT ALIGN WITH OUR WHERE THEY CAN HOLD AN OFFICE FOR THE TWO TERMS THEORETICALLY? SO THAT WOULD AT LEAST GIVE THAT DISTRICT, THAT AREA, THE COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL MEMBER, THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A FEW YEARS BEFORE [INAUDIBLE]. THEORETICALLY, IF YOU READ THROUGH THE DISTRICTS EVERY EIGHT YEARS, THEN THEN YES, THEIR TERM LIMIT WOULD BE MET BEFORE THEY HAD A CHANCE TO BE WITHIN A NEW DISTRICT. THEORETICALLY, THOUGH LIKE MR. OVERCASH IS SAYING THERE COULD BE SOME VARIANCE TO THAT. RIGHT. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT ROLL CALL VOTE. PASSES TEN ZERO, AND BEFORE WE MOVE PAST THE REDRAWING OF THE DISTRICTS, DO YOU GUYS WANT TO CONSIDER LANGUAGE THAT ONCE WE REACH A CERTAIN POPULATION, THAT EITHER SLOWS DOWN OR STOPS? OR DO YOU WANT IT TO BE EVERY EIGHT YEARS INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE CHARTER LANGUAGE CHANGES? [01:15:06] MHM. BECAUSE MY THOUGHT TO THAT WAS IF WE HIT OUR PRETTY MUCH OUR ESTIMATED MAX CAPACITY SOMEWHERE 100 HUNDRED AND 20,000. I THINK IT WAS A BUILD OUT. DO YOU WANT TO KEEP DOING REDRAWING EVERY EIGHT YEARS OR DOES IT KIND OF BECOME A MOOT POINT OF THAT? WELL, I THINK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THAT POINT IS THEY COULD STILL GET TOGETHER AND MEET, BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO REDRAW. THEY COULD MEET AND GO, YOU KNOW WHAT, EVERYTHING LOOKS GREAT. LET'S JUST KEEP IT THE SAME, AND SO I THINK FOR SIMPLICITY, LEAVE IT IN THERE, AND I MEAN, THEY COULD DO THAT AFTER THE FIRST, YOU KNOW, TWO MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S NOT CHANGE IT. IT'S A GOOD POINT. OKAY, SO WE'LL MOVE ON. SO THE NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO SERVE ON THE DISTRICT AND COMMISSION? ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THERE? DO YOU WANT TO MOVE ON? THE ONLY QUALIFICATION CURRENTLY STATED IS REGISTERED VOTER OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON. THAT'S IT. SO IT'S A BE OVER 18, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE THAT IN ORDER TO REGISTER TO VOTE, YOU HAVE TO BE FACTUALLY REGISTERED TO VOTE. NOT JUST CAPABLE OF IT, BUT HAVE ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO DO IT, AND YOU HAVE TO BE A PRINCETON RESIDENT. BEYOND THAT, IT'S JUST FOG A MIRROR. IT'S JUST TO STAY BREATHING AND BE THERE. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL YOU'D HAVE TO DO. THERE ARE NO OTHER REQUIREMENTS. I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THERE'S ANY NECESSITY THAT YOU ADD ANYTHING ELSE, BUT THIS IS YOUR TIME TO MAKE THAT CONSIDERATION, AND IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE PUT MORE DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS IN THERE, SUCH AS A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT. MR. RAGAN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? WELL, IF WE'RE USING REGISTERED VOTERS, THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY, I MEAN, THEY WOULD JUST AUTOMATICALLY BE THEY WOULD BE LIVING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE APPOINTED TO THE REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE. RIGHT. IF YOU'RE A REGISTERED VOTER, YOU CAN YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE A RESIDENT OF PRINCETON. OR DO YOU? WELL, IN ORDER TO BE A REGISTERED VOTER OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A TWO PART TEST. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T JUST BE REGISTERED ANYWHERE. YOU HAVE TO BE A VOTER WHO'S IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON AND REGISTERED. SO THEN WOULD WE NEED TO ACTUALLY STATE THAT THERE'S SPECIFIC RESIDENT REQUIREMENTS, NOT IN ADDITION TO THIS, UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE A LENGTH OF RESIDENCY REQUIRED, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RESIDENCE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE. YOU CAN'T JUST BE STAYING IN A HOTEL FOR THREE DAYS AND THEN REGISTER IN THAT DISTRICT. YOU HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT. SO BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE LETTING STATE LAW TAKE CARE OF AND FEDERAL LAW TAKE CARE OF WHO GETS TO REGISTER TO VOTE AND WHEN THEY QUALIFY AND WHAT ADDRESS OR PRECINCT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ACCOUNTED TO. IF YOU WANTED TO SAY WE WANT THEM TO HAVE LIVED IN THE CITY FOR 12 MONTHS, WE WANT THEM TO AT LEAST THEY HAVE AT LEAST BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR TWO YEARS OR FIVE YEARS OR WHATEVER. THERE'S PROBABLY AN UPPER LIMIT, NOT JUST IN PRACTICAL TERMS, BUT PROBABLY IN LEGAL TERMS, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE RUNNING INTO THINGS WHERE THIS IS SILLY. IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO BE THERE FOR 25 YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE THEY CAN BE ON DISTRICTING COMMISSION. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO PUT SOME SORT OF REQUIREMENT IN THERE ALONG THOSE LINES, YOU COULD DO THAT. I THINK LIKE THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THE SENTANCE THAT SAYS MAY NOT HOLD ANY ELECTED OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF. THAT SHOULD BE PART OF IT, JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS. WAS THAT A MOTION? OH. I REALLY DON'T THINK, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S ENTIRELY NECESSARY. THIS ISN'T LIKE A BOARD THAT IS MAKING, YOU KNOW, REGULATIONS. THIS IS JUST A BOARD THAT IS GOING TO DO THE MATH AND FIGURE OUT WHERE THESE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT NEEDS--DEVIL'S ADVOCATE THERE, THEY ARE ASSIGNING THE UTMOST IMPORTANT TASK TO RESIDENTS. THEY ARE DECIDING WHO CAN VOTE FOR WHO. SO I DON'T THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I HAVE TO AGREE, I THINK. STAYING CONSISTENT. IT JUST MAKES EVERYTHING EASIER HAVING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE COMMISSIONS AND THAT IS [01:20:06] MY THOUGHT. MR. BRINKERHOFF, WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO ELABORATE ON THAT. YOU WOULD HATE TO THINK THAT SOMEBODY WOULD WANT TO START DRAWING SOME SQUIGGLY LINE TO ACCOMMODATE. CORRECT, RIGHT, BUT STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED, RIGHT? YEAH. SO I WOULD AGREE. SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? OH, YOU CAN'T MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE STAY CONSISTENT AS WE ARE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONS WITH AT LEAST SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS, AND THEY CAN'T BE UNCOMPENSATED AND THEY CAN'T HOLD, YOU KNOW, AN ELECTIVE OFFICE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO MATCH THE LANGUAGE TO THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS REQUIRING AT LEAST SEVEN MEMBERS NOT BEING HELD BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. BONGIANNI. DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. MOTION PASSES TEN ZERO. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT DOES SAY AT LEAST SEVEN. SO IF THEY WANT TO HAVE. MORE. THAT'S. SO WE'VE DETERMINED AT LEAST SEVEN NO ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO NOW WE NEED TO DETERMINE HOW THOSE MEMBERS ARE SELECTED. ANYBODY WANT TO OPEN THAT DISCUSSION? WELL, I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA. I MEAN, THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO SELECT THEY'RE GOING TO APPOINT THIS COMMISSION JUST LIKE THEY DID OUR COMMISSION. I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF ANY MEMBER ON THE COUNCIL CAN RECOMMEND SOMEBODY, BUT THE ENTIRE COUNCIL HAS TO VOTE FOR THE COMMISSION. I DON'T WANT I DO NOT WANT EVERY MEMBER ON THE COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO JUST RECOMMEND THEIR BUDDY TO THE POSITION. I THINK THAT WITHOUT ANY VOTE OR ANYTHING, IT'S THAT'S OUR OTHER OPTION. SO DEFINITELY IT HAS TO BE RATIFIED BY THE ENTIRE BODY AFTER THE NOMINATIONS ARE IN. SO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE'VE SAID AT LEAST SEVEN. BY THE TIME WE GET TO THIS POINT, WE WILL HAVE SEVEN COUNCILS PLUS A MAYOR. SO YOU TECHNICALLY HAVE EIGHT SEATS. SO I WOULD CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE MAYOR HAS THE OPTION TO NOMINATE ALONG WITH THE OTHER SEVEN MEMBERS. ANY DISCUSSION. I DO SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, IF THE CITY COUNCIL NOMINATES MARY SUE THAT LIVES DOWN THE STREET AND THE SIX OTHERS DON'T LIKE MARY SUE. WELL, THAT'S NOT FAIR THAT MARY SUE DOESN'T GET ON THE COMMISSION WHEN MARY SUE COULD DO A GREAT JOB, BUT YOU ALSO DON'T WANT ONE PERSON MAKING A FINAL DECISION. WELL, HOW DID WE ALL GET PUT ON THERE? WERE WE VOTED ON. I CAN BE CORRECTED, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND NOT PRIVY TO THE PUBLIC. WE JUST KNOW THAT WE WERE PICKED AND VOTED ON. NO, TO BE CLEAR WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY MADE THEIR OWN LIST OF NOMINATIONS AND THEN THE ENTIRE BODY VOTED ON THE SLATE OF CANDIDATES THAT WAS NOMINATED. WHAT WAS DONE NOT IN THE OPEN MEETING WAS THE RANDOMIZATION PROCESS TO FIGURE OUT, BECAUSE EACH OF THEM WERE NOMINATING THREE PEOPLE HOW MANY WHO WERE ON THE FIRST ALTERNATES VERSUS WHO WERE FILLING OUT THE INITIAL 15 SEATS. THEN WE HAD A SECOND WAVE OF APPOINTMENTS TO GIVE US MORE ALTERNATES TO DRAW FROM BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL ONES WEREN'T ENOUGH TO KEEP THE BODY GOING. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, THANK YOU, AND THEN A QUESTION THAT LEADS INTO THAT FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONS, IS THAT HOW THOSE ARE ALSO DETERMINED IN A SIMILAR FASHION? THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE NOMINATED BY THEIR SEATS AND THEN VOTED ON AS A WHOLE. WHICH I BELIEVE IS WHAT MR. RAGAN WAS SUGGESTING, THAT EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD BRING A NOMINATION AND THEN THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE WOULD VOTE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THOSE SEATS. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION AND TO STAY. GOTCHA. THANK YOU, AND THEN TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WE SHOULD DO THE SAME [01:25:07] FOR CONSISTENCY. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING INITIALLY IS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL NOMINATE OR PRESENT SOMEBODY FOR A VOTE. IS THAT REALLY GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN EACH COUNCIL MEMBER JUST GOING, HEY, NOT HISTORICALLY. RIGHT. WHAT? NOT HISTORICALLY? YEAH, NOT HISTORICALLY. RIGHT. BECAUSE THE COUNCIL TYPICALLY IS NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST. ESPECIALLY FOR DISTRICTING LINES COMMISSION, BUT I'VE GOT A QUICK QUESTION. SO IS THERE A CAP FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER TO HOW MANY THEY COULD PRESENT? NO, WE GOT A MINIMUM. SO CURRENTLY THE COMMISSION THE RECENT VOTE THAT WE DID WAS THERE IS AT LEAST SEVEN. NO, I'M SAYING SO, BUT NO, THEY CAN NOMINATE AS MANY PEOPLE THEY WANT. COUNCIL MEMBER TRUITT CAN NOMINATE THREE PEOPLE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, AND THEN THEY VOTE TO GET A MINIMUM OF SEVEN, MAYBE MORE, AND THEY MAY CHOOSE TO NOMINATE TWO APIECE AND GO WITH 14. I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT MINIMUM OF SEVEN. OKAY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR A MOTION. A MOTION FOR CONSISTENCY. WE REMAIN LIKE THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL, EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WILL NOMINATE. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AND THEN THE ENTIRE COUNCIL WILL VOTE TO ELECT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. BEFORE YOU CONSIDER A SECOND, LET ME CLARIFY THAT THE CHARTER DOES NOT REQUIRE OR SPECIFY ANYTHING ABOUT WHO NOMINATES THE MEMBERSHIP OF THOSE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO THERE'S NOTHING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH BETWEEN THE DISTRICTING COMMISSION AND THOSE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN THE CHARTER. THIS IS THOSE CURRENT RULES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR THE CURRENT PRACTICES ARE REFLECTED IN THE CURRENT BYLAWS OF THOSE BODIES THAT WERE ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT THEY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO CHANGE THAT IF THEY WANT, AS THERE IS A KIND OF COMMON CUSTOM AND ROUTINE THAT'S BEEN UNDERTAKEN FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THE NOMINATION, BECAUSE THE BYLAWS JUST KIND OF DESCRIBE IT AS AN APPOINTMENT BY A GIVEN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THEY APPOINT THEM, THEY ANNOUNCE WHO THEY'RE APPOINTING IN THE MANNER OF A NOMINATION, BUT THEY VOTE ON IT AND THEN IT ALL GETS APPROVED. IT IS NOT A UNILATERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT AT PRESENT, AND IT WOULD NOT BE ONE UNDER THE NEW CHARTER, BUT THIS CHARTER DOESN'T SET FORTH ANYTHING. SO IN ORDER TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE, EACH MEMBER NOMINATES ONE AND THE ENTIRE BODY VOTES, YOU WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE MOTION RATHER THAN REFERENCING THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO SUCH? YES, AND WILL YOU ALSO CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE MAYOR GETS ONE OF THOSE NOMINATIONS, SO WE CAN KNOCK OUT TWO BIRDS. ABSOLUTELY. SO OTHER THAN THE MAYOR, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE ABLE TO NOMINATE CITIZENS FOR THE DISTRICT AND COMMITTEE AND EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER COULD NOMINATE, AND THEN THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL OTHER THAN THE MAYOR WHO CANNOT NOMINATE, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD VOTE FOR THE MEMBERS A MOTION TO NOMINATE BY SEAT AND APPOINT BY WHOLE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MAYOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. KEY. JUST TO CLARIFY, MAKE SURE THERE'S NO FURTHER CONFUSION. ALL SEVEN CITY COUNCIL SEATS WOULD BE ABLE TO NOMINATE. DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE WOULD VOTE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THOSE COMMISSIONERS AND THE MAYOR WOULD NOT HAVE AN OPTION TO NOMINATE OR VOTE. SO CAN ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER NOMINATE MORE THAN ONE, OR ARE WE SAYING THEY CAN ONLY NOMINATE ONE? THAT IS UP TO THEM. THEY HAVE TO MEET A MINIMUM OF SEVEN. SO ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER COULD NOMINATE FOUR PEOPLE JUST AS LONG AS THEY END UP WITH AT LEAST SEVEN, AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO DELIBERATE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT ONE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN NOMINATE MULTIPLE. DOES THAT HELP? THEY MAY ASSIGN ONE COUNCIL MEMBER TO COME UP WITH ALL SEVEN OF THEM. YEAH. OKAY, DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. [01:30:13] PASSES TEN ZERO. ALL RIGHT, I THINK THE LAST ONE IS RECALL. YEAH. SO TO RESET JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A FEW MINUTES AND YOU'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT LOTS OF THINGS SINCE THE LAST TIME I TALKED ABOUT THIS. SO THE REAL POINT OF QUESTION HERE IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DISTRICT LINES BEING REDRAWN. NOW THAT WE'VE SET A SCHEDULE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FIRST DRAWN IN 2029. SO THINK OF IT THIS WAY. IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR CHART IN 2028, SEATS ONE AND TWO WILL BE ELECTED. I MEAN, IN 2028 AND 2029, THE DISTRICT COMMISSION FORMS AND DRAWS LINES. SO. HOW DO THOSE LINES AFFECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN OFFICE WHEN THE MAP HITS THE TABLE? DOES THAT CHANGE? WHO CAN VOTE FOR THEIR. WHO CAN SIGN A PETITION FOR THEIR RECALL? OR DOES IT OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? YOU KNOW, THAT'S REALLY KIND OF THE QUESTION THAT'S IN PLAY HERE. ALSO, THIS IS NOT ON THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS LIST, BUT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS WORTHY OF POINTING OUT RIGHT NOW. MY DRAFT JUST SAYS THAT THE DISTRICTS ARE SEATS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR. WHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE THE FIRST FOUR NUMBERS. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I SAID ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR. I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE ANY PREFERENCE AS TO WHICH SEATS OR DISTRICTS, AND WHEN YOU'RE SETTING THEM OUT AS FAR AS YOU ARE, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY REAL ADMINISTRATIVE REASON WHY IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHICH SEATS YOU ASSIGN TO DISTRICTS OR WHICH ONES YOU DON'T ASSIGN TO BE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT TOPIC AND DECIDE HOW YOU WANT IT TO GO. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I WOULD SAY THAT WE'VE GOT THE SCHEDULED BUNDLES, SEATS THREE, FOUR AND FIVE TOGETHER. SO IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT WEIRD TO HAVE THREE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS OF YOUR FOUR DONE IN ONE YEAR AND THEN ONE OF THEM DONE A DIFFERENT TIME. IT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE TO DO TWO AND TWO, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S JUST KIND OF A PERSONAL INSTINCT PREFERENCE. IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE TO OTHER PEOPLE TO SAY, LET'S DO AS MANY AS WE CAN AT ONCE AND THEN JUST DO THE STRAGGLER. IT MIGHT CREATE A LITTLE CONFUSION TO SAY I'M IN DISTRICT SIX IF THERE'S ONLY FOUR DISTRICTS. MIKE, PLEASE. RIGHT. SO ONE MOMENT. ONE, ONE CONVERSATION AT A TIME. IF WE'RE DISTRICTING, THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED IN 2029 AND FINALIZED IN JULY. WE SAID THE FOLLOWING ELECTION IS SEATS SIX AND SEVEN. RIGHT. THAT THE ELECTION AFTER THAT WOULD BE THREE, FOUR AND FIVE. SO SIX AND SEVEN DISTRICT FOUR AND FIVE DISTRICT AND THREE AT-LARGE. RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS WAY YOU'RE GETTING TWO SEPARATE ELECTIONS, TWO AND TWO. SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT SEATS FOUR, FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN BE DISTRICT SEATS? YES, BECAUSE THAT FALLS IN LINE WITH THE 2029 DISTRICT AND COMMISSION AND SO ON. ARE THEY ABLE TO ASSIGN DISTRICTS INSTEAD OF NUMBERING DISTRICTS LIKE ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR? DO YOU LIKE DISTRICT A, B, C AND D TO HELP MITIGATE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT I'M SEAT SIX, BUT I COVER DISTRICT ONE OR WHATEVER THREE. YOU KNOW, THEY WILL HAVE SOME LIBERTY TO CALL THE DISTRICTS WHATEVER THEY WANT. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE KNOW HOW TO CORRELATE THE DISTRICTS THEY DRAW TO SEATS. SO THE MOST COMMON PRACTICE IS USUALLY TO HAVE THE SEAT NUMBER MATCH A DISTRICT NUMBER, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WOULD BE WEIRD TO CALL THEM SEATS OR CALL THEM FOUR OR FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN AND DISTRICTS, FOUR, FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN WHEN THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS DISTRICTS ONE, TWO AND THREE. SO THAT COULD MAKE A MAKE A DIFFERENCE AT THE PART OF THE CONFUSION IS GOING TO COME UP FROM THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT EXISTING SEATS THAT ARE ASSIGNED NUMBERS SO WE CAN ADJUST THAT LANGUAGE. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES AND THAT WOULD BE EVEN SOMETHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPLEMENTED OR DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT MEETING. IF WE WANTED TO JUST CHANGE PHRASINGS ON A LABEL ISSUE LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD STILL BE POTENTIALLY ACHIEVABLE TO DO, BUT SO TO MR. BONGIANNI'S POINT, I THINK WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT IS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ALMOST TWO YEARS LATER TO IMPLEMENT THE DISTRICTS IF WE DO 2029 AND THEN IT'S 2031 BEFORE WE HAVE AN ELECTED DISTRICT SEAT. I NEED MR. OVERCASH FOR THIS. [01:35:07] I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO TO MR. BONGIANNI'S POINT, THE REASON HE WAS MENTIONING DOING SEATS FOUR FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN FOR THE DISTRICT SEATS IS BECAUSE IF WE DO THE DISTRICT DRAWING IN 2029 TO TAKE EFFECT IN 2030, IF SEATS SIX AND SEVEN ARE IN DISTRICT SEATS THEN WE HAVE ALMOST A TWO YEAR GAP BEFORE DISTRICTS TAKE A HOLD. SO COULD WE DO IT TO WHERE IF THEY WANTED TO DO SEATS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR DISTRICTS, ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR, WHEN THEY'RE IMPLEMENTED IN 2029, THEY GO AHEAD AND APPLY TO THOSE SEATS, WHETHER THOSE PEOPLE ARE IN THOSE DISTRICTS OR NOT. AND THEN IT WOULD ROLL OVER AT THAT NEXT ELECTION FOR THAT SEAT SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE AN UNMANNED DISTRICT PER SAY. I WOULD MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT MAYBE WE CALL THE DISTRICT'S DISTRICT SEAT FOR DISTRICT SEAT FIVE MIGHT HELP CLARIFY THE DISTRICT TO ALIGN WITH THE SEAT RATHER THAN DISTRICT FOUR. YOU COULD CALL IT DISTRICT SEAT FOUR. I MEAN, I SEE WHERE EVERYBODY'S GOING HERE, AND IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT REALLY OCCURRED TO ME THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE THE MISMATCH BETWEEN THE NUMBERS AND HOW YOU DESIGNATE THE DISTRICTS. FRANKLY, I'M INCLINED TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD REQUIRE THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION TO GIVE THEM LETTER NUMBERS OR CALL THEM ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA, DELTA, JUST SO THAT THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT BECAUSE THAT'S EASIER THAN TRYING TO RENUMBER THEM. YOU KNOW, WE COULD TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH IN THE SENSE THAT I'M NOT EVEN FORMALLY SURE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S I'D HAVE TO LOOK AGAIN TO SEE WHETHER STATE LAW SAYS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CALL THEM PLACES OR WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CALL THEM SEATS UNDER GENERAL LAW, BUT WE'VE PROBABLY BEEN USING SOMETHING I BELIEVE WE'RE USING PLACE IS THE CURRENT WORDING ON OUR FORMAL DOCUMENTS. WE SAY THAT THEY'RE BEING ELECTED TO PLACE NUMBER WHATEVER. SO. WE COULD CHANGE THOSE DESIGNATIONS AND SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION. SEAT FIVE IS FOR DISTRICT ONE, BUT THAT'S A BIT CONFUSING, POTENTIALLY TO OUR SIMPLICITY SAKE. MAYBE, MAYBE WE DO THE SEAT FOUR FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN, AND THEN JUST DEFER TO THE DISTRICT IN COMMITTEE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WANT TO IDENTIFY THEM AS TO CAUSE THE LESS CONFUSION AND KIND OF DELEGATE THAT DISCUSSION LATER ON. WE'RE GETTING INTO A WHOLE 'NOTHER BALLGAME HERE. WE'RE KIND OF CONVOLUTING THIS. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS SAY CURRENTLY WE'RE CALLING THEM SEATS, WHICH SEATS ARE GOING TO BE THE FOUR DISTRICTS. WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH SEAT IS GOING TO BE WHICH DISTRICT. DISTRICTING COMMITTEE CAN DO THAT. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS DECIDE WHICH FOUR, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE A NOMINATION, AND IT'S FOUR OR FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN, AND YOU MADE THAT MOTION, CORRECT? THEN I WANT TO SECOND THAT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND ROLL CALL VOTE. PASSES TEN ZERO. ALL RIGHT, I THINK THE LAST ONE HERE IS BACK TO THE RECALL. HOW DO WE WANT TO AFFECT THE RECALL? AND WE HAVE TWO EXAMPLES HERE. VARIANT ONE AND VARIANT TWO. MR. BRINKERHOFF, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND KICK THAT OFF? WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT SINCE FOUR AND FIVE ARE NOW GOING TO BECOME DISTRICT SEATS, THAT WON'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE 2031 ELECTION THEN. CAN WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN WITHOUT SCREWING THAT UP TOO MUCH? YEAH. SO THAT SOMEBODY IS NOT GOING TO COME IN AND WANT TO RECALL FOUR AND FIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE DISTRICT. WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN, THE FOLLOWING VOTING HERE ANYWAY. RIGHT. SO WE'RE NOT VOTING ON WHETHER WHEN RECALL TAKES EFFECT. WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS IF I ELECT SEAT SIX AND THEN IN EIGHT YEARS IT CHANGES--MAYBE I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT. DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AS FAR AS SEATS FOUR AND FIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE AN OFF YEAR FROM WHEN THE DISTRICT LINES ARE IMPLEMENTED. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT SHOULD WE MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBODY DOESN'T COME IN AND GO, HEY, I WANT FOUR AND FIVE RECALLS NOW? THEY COULD. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO IF THE DISTRICTING COMMITTEE IS REALLY ENGAGED WITH THIS. [01:40:05] THEY SHOULD SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE FOUR DISTRICTS. DISTRICTS ONE AND TWO ARE GOING TO TAKE EFFECT IN THIS YEAR, AND DISTRICTS THREE AND FOUR WILL TAKE EFFECT IN THIS YEAR. THE DISTRICTING COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SPECIFY. THE DISTRICTING COMMITTEE CANNOT DETERMINE WHEN IT TAKES EFFECT. WE'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY DONE THAT AND IT WILL TAKE EFFECT IN 2029. RIGHT. THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE WON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHEN IT TAKES EFFECT. SO WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DECIDE AND KIND OF TO YOUR POINT IS IF YOU DON'T WANT SOME SEATS OR SEATS, SIX AND SEVEN WILL ORIGINALLY BE ELECTED AT-LARGE. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHEN THE DISTRICTS GO INTO EFFECT, YOU DON'T WANT THE AT-LARGE TO BE ABLE TO RECALL DISTRICTS OR YOU DON'T WANT DISTRICTS FOUR AND FIVE TO BE ABLE TO BE RECALLED BY JUST THOSE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THEY WERE ELECTED BY THE BODY AT LARGE. WELL, I'M SAYING WHY CREATE A RECALL WHEN JUST IN ONE YEAR THEY'RE GOING TO BE VOTED IN THEIR DISTRICT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE YOU WOULDN'T WANT THE POWER IF YOU DIDN'T. IF YOU DIDN'T, IF YOU WEREN'T SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM BEING ELECTED, YOU WOULDN'T BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM BEING RECALLED. SO IF YOU KIND OF LEANED THAT WAY SAYING THAT A RECALL COULD ONLY BE DONE BY THOSE THAT ELECTED THEM, THEN YOU KIND OF NEGATE THE NEED FOR THAT CLARITY. YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WIHT THAT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU CAN'T RECALL THEM FROM A DISTRICT THAT THEY WEREN'T ELECTED FROM. WELL, YOU COULD RECALL THEM, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE EVERYBODY TO BE INVOLVED, NOT JUST THOSE DISTRICTS, BECAUSE IF THEY WERE VOTED BY AT LARGE, THEN RECALL POWERS WOULD BE AT LARGE. ALL RIGHT, LET ME JUMP IN HERE, BECAUSE I WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING THAT IN BOTH OF THESE TWO VARIANTS, THEY START OUT WITH THE CASE OF OFFICIAL WHO IS ELECTED FROM VOTERS RESIDING IN A SINGLE DISTRICT. SO WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO WORRY ABOUT THIS PROVISION UNLESS THEY'RE ELECTED INTO A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT THAT ALREADY EXISTS. SO THIS IS ONLY GOING TO POTENTIALLY AFFECT RECALLS OCCURRING IN THE 2030 ELECTIONS FOR SEATS SIX AND SEVEN BY DISTRICT AND THEN THE 2031 SEATS FOR FOUR AND FIVE BY DISTRICT. THESE ARE THEIR RECALL PETITIONS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTED TO SEATS IN 2030 AND 2031. THAT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE US. SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE OF IF THEY WERE ELECTED AT LARGE, THE VOTERS AT LARGE CAN RECALL THEM. WE'RE ONLY WORRIED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF IF THEY WERE ELECTED BY ONE QUARTER OF THE CITY'S POPULATION, ESSENTIALLY BY MEMBERS OF A SINGLE DISTRICT. HOW DO WE RESOLVE THE CHANGE IN DISTRICT LINES BETWEEN ELECTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THINKING ABOUT RECALL? IT SEEMS LIKE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE OUT THEIR TERM AND NOT BE RECALLED FOR THAT PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEY WERE ELECTED. THAT'S JUST MY, BUT YEAH. YEAH. FOR THE FIRST FOR THAT TERM, I MEAN. THEY WEREN'T ELECTED BY A DISTRICT. THEY CAN'T BE RECALLED BY ANYBODY, I THINK IS WHAT NO, NO. IF THEY WEREN'T ELECTED BY DISTRICT, THEY STILL CAN BE RECALLED. IT WOULD JUST BE BY EVERYBODY IN THE CITY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO SIGN THE PETITION BECAUSE THEY WERE ELECTED FROM THE ENTIRE CITY. I THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER IS THAT WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE NEW DISTRICT LINES DRAWN OR YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO CORRUPT THE DISTRICTING PROCESS BY TRYING TO GET LINES DRAWN TO MOVE THE DISTRICT LINES SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT I CAN GET A PETITION FOR RECALL SIGNED BY THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAPPENED TO HATE THAT GUY, AND I KNOW THAT THEY HATE THAT GUY, AND SO THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SIGN THIS PETITION. DO YOU WANT TO LET THEM POTENTIALLY HAVE A MOTIVE AND ABILITY TO AFFECT THE DISTRICTING IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE POOL OF PEOPLE WHO CAN RECALL THE VOTER OR THE ELECTED OFFICIAL? OR SHOULD IT JUST NOT MATTER WHERE, LOOK, IF YOU MOVED THE DISTRICT LINES DURING THE GUY'S TERM, IT DOESN'T MATTER. WE REFER TO THE OLD DISTRICT LINES, THE ONE HE WAS ELECTED FROM FOR PURPOSES OF COUNTING. HOW MANY SIGNATURES QUALIFY ON A PETITION? I THINK UNDER WHAT WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED, REALLY THE ONLY TWO SEATS THAT SHOULD BE A PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE FOUR AND FIVE FOR ONE YEAR, BECAUSE ANY TIME THE NEW DISTRICT LINES ARE DRAWN, IT'S GOING TO BE ON AN ODD YEAR, A NON VOTING YEAR. AND THEN THE VERY NEXT YEAR THE VOTING YEAR WILL BE SIX AND SEVEN. IS THAT NOT TRUE? NO, THE ISSUE CAN ARISE AT ANY TIME BECAUSE RECALL CAN ARISE AT ANY TIME OTHER THAN I THINK THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THE TERM OR THE [01:45:07] LAST SIX MONTHS OF THE TERM. SO IF A SITTING OFFICE HOLDER FOR IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN 2032, THE SECOND ELECTION OR I'M SORRY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I GUESS, 2035, THE SECOND ELECTION BY DISTRICT FOR PLACES FOUR AND FIVE, THOSE DISTRICT LINES COULD CHANGE IN 2032 OR WHATEVER. YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT CHANGE DURING THEIR TERM, AND IF THEY DO, WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S ELIGIBLE TO SIGN A PETITION TO RECALL THEM. EITHER WAY WE CAN. THERE'S TWO BASIC TOGGLES. YOU EITHER COUNT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE OR YOU SAY, WHAT ARE THE DISTRICT LINES NOW, WHOEVER'S IN THE DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE ASSIGNED TO NOW, I'M JUST ASKING THAT Y'ALL MAKE A CHOICE AS TO WHICH ONE. IS ANYBODY FOR GIVING SOMEONE THE POWER TO RECALL THAT WEREN'T GIVEN THE POWER TO ELECT. SO I THINK WE HAVE A GENERAL CONSENSUS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, I MOTION WE USE VARIANT ONE, WHICH IS IN THE CASE OF AN OFFICIAL WHO WAS ELECTED FROM THE CITY'S VOTERS RESIDING WITHIN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT, ONLY THOSE SIGNATURES FROM VOTERS WITHIN THE CORRESPONDING DISTRICT LINES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE CITY. OFFICE HOLDERS ELECTION MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE NUMBER. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. ELLIS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY HONEA ROLL CALL VOTE MOTION PASSES TEN ZERO. IS THERE ANYTHING WITH DISTRICTING THAT WE DID NOT COVER THAT ANYONE WANTS TO DISCUSS? NIKKI. THIS KIND OF TAGS ONTO SOMETHING MIKE SAID EARLIER THAT MADE ME THINK ABOUT IT. AFTER DISTRICTS SAY YOU HAVE SOMEBODY IN PLACE SIX AND LET'S SAY THAT PLACE SIX IS FOREST GROVE. THE PERSON WHO IS ELECTED IN FOREST GROVE IS IN THEIR SEAT FOR TWO YEARS. WHATEVER. THEY BUY A NEW HOUSE. IN A NEW SUBDIVISION THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT. DOES THAT HAVE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACT TO SERVING THEIR DISTRICT? THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THEY WOULD BE DE-SEATED, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY WOULD BE NO LONGER TO RUN ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR ELECTION TO THAT SEAT. CHANGING YOUR RESIDENCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY DISQUALIFY YOU FROM HOLDING THE OFFICE, EVEN IN A DISTRICT PLACE SYSTEM. UNLESS YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE IN THE CHARTER SPECIFY THAT YOU MUST CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN YOUR RESIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT FROM WHAT YOU ARE ELECTED. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT CURRENTLY PROVIDES FOR THAT. IT COULD BE ADDED THAT IS A POTENTIAL VIABLE THING, BUT THEN YOU RUN INTO THE POSITION OF SOMEBODY GETS A JOB OPPORTUNITY AND GETS A TRANSFER AND THEY GET TO MOVE OR EVEN JUST THEY WANT TO MOVE ACROSS TOWN BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENT PART OF THEIR HOUSE. WELL, REQUIRING THAT TO INVOLVE A CHANGE OF REPRESENTATION WHEN THEY'RE STILL A CITY RESIDENT MAY OR MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE. IT MAY SEEM LIKE MORE TROUBLE THAN IT'S WORTH, AS OPPOSED TO JUST ALLOWING THEM TO COMPLETE THEIR TERM BUT THEN NOT BE ABLE TO RUN FOR THAT SEAT AGAIN BECAUSE THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR RESIDENCE. NOW, IF THEY MOVE THEMSELVES ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY POTENTIALLY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST ABOUT TO ASK, TOO, KIND OF ON THE SAME TOPIC AS I KNOW AT LEAST WHAT GENERAL LAW STATE LAW SAYS, THAT IF YOU MOVE OUTSIDE OF YOUR YOUR CITY, THAT YOU'RE ELECTED IN, THAT YOU'RE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR THAT SEAT. SO THAT STILL APPLIES MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CHARTER. IT ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, REGARDLESS IF THEY MOVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON. I CAN'T SAY THAT THE GENERAL LAW RULES WOULD APPLY. IT'S MORE. IN FACT, I DON'T THINK THAT THE STATE LAW SPEAKS TO HOW RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS OR QUALIFICATIONS ARE DETERMINED FOR HOME RULE CITY OFFICIALS. SO. SO IF WE WANT THAT TO BE A HARD, FAST RULE, WE NEED TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WE HAVE IN QUALIFICATIONS IN SECTION. THIS IS IN CHAPTER THREE OF THE CHARTER, SECTION 3.02. TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION, YOU HAVE TO BE 21 YEARS OF AGE, LIVE IN THE CITY FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTION DAY. ON THE DAY OF YOU BEING ELECTED AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, USUALLY THAT TEXAS ELECTION CODE REQUIREMENT WOULD INCLUDE A [01:50:05] YOU MUST RESIDE WITHIN THE TERRITORY FROM [INAUDIBLE] MUST CONTINUALLY RESIDE WITHIN THE CITY DURING HIS TERM. YEAH. SO REMOVAL OF THE RESIDENTS FROM THE CITY IS YOU'RE VACATING YOUR OFFICE, YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY TENDERING YOUR RESIGNATION BY CHANGING YOUR RESIDENCE OUTSIDE. THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN HERE PRESENTLY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU CHANGE YOUR RESIDENCE. YOU'RE STILL WITHIN THE CITY BUT ARE IN A DISTRICT. IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC TERM, THE ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT THE REST OF THEIR TERM. THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO VACATE JUST BECAUSE THEY MOVE ACROSS TOWN OR MOVE FROM FROM DISTRICT ALPHA TO DISTRICT BETA. SO DO WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO ADD THAT VERBIAGE THAT THEY WOULD FINISH OUT THEIR TERM? IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY. IF YOU STAY SILENT, THAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT. YOU WOULD REALLY ONLY NEED TO ADD LANGUAGE IF YOU WANTED IT TO WORK SOME DIFFERENT WAY. IF YOU WANTED TO FORCE THEM OUT, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT. YEAH, AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY. ALL I SEE THAT DOING IS CREATING SPECIAL ELECTIONS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE A MONUMENTAL EXPENSE TO THE CITY, WHICH TRICKLES DOWN TO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT ALONE, TO BE HONEST. OKAY, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. ANYTHING ELSE? I WOULD SAY THAT AT THIS TIME IT WOULD BE A GOOD A GOOD TIME TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT CHAPTER 12 WITH THE WITH TONIGHT'S CHANGES. WE WOULD NEED THAT LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THOSE CHANGES, I DO BELIEVE. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. OVERCASH? YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO, BUT IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO WAIT UNTIL IT WAS ALL DONE. I MEAN, THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE POINT OF NEXT MEETING, IS TRYING TO GO OVER AND SAY, WE ARE ADOPTING ALL THE LANGUAGE IN THIS DRAFT AS PRESENTED. SO PART OF THE REASON WE'VE BEEN DOING CHAPTER BY CHAPTER ADOPTIONS AS WE WENT ALONG WAS NOT BECAUSE THAT'S A MANDATORY STEP, BUT JUST BECAUSE IT HELPED US TO TIE A BOW AROUND IT AND CONSIDER THE ISSUE SETTLED FOR PURPOSES OF LATER MEETINGS AND SETTING MORE AGENDAS. SO A VOTE TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE WOULD PROBABLY BE REDUNDANT AT THIS POINT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? MY QUESTION THEN TO MR. OVERCAST IS AT THE NEXT MEETING, ARE WE PREPARED FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT TO US A DOCUMENT THAT'S READY FOR US TO SIGN OFF ON? THAT IS CERTAINLY THE QUESTION OF THE DAY, AND I'M HOPING THAT I WILL BE. I THINK THAT UNLESS NEW IDEAS COME TO THE FLOOR, THAT ALL THE CHANGES THAT YOU IMPLEMENTED TODAY WILL RESOLVE THE LINGERING QUESTIONS, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS EXTRA BELLS AND WHISTLES. IT WOULD BE EXTRA OPTIONAL FEATURES, THAT SORT OF THING. CUSTOMIZATION FOR WHAT YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. SO AS I SIT HERE AT THIS MOMENT, I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK I'LL BE PREPARED TO COME HERE ON AUGUST 3RD WITH A VERSION THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT SHOW, ALL MY CHANGES AND WHATNOT LIKE I'VE BEEN DOING THUS FAR AND COMMENT BUBBLES, IT WON'T HAVE THE CHANGES ADOPTED TODAY, HIGHLIGHTED AND STUFF. IT'LL BE CLEAN. SO YOU'LL HAVE TO HUNT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO FIND THE PARTS THAT CHANGE TODAY, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO GIVE YOU ONE THAT LOOKS CLEAN AND IS READY TO ADOPT. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE DONE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO JUMP ON THAT AND GIVE YOU GUYS AN EMAIL WELL IN ADVANCE SO THAT YOU CAN START PONDERING IT AND HELPING ME FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE IT. BECAUSE THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE NEXT MEETING TO DETERMINE, HEY, THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT. WE NEED TO FINISH THIS OUT. LET'S ADJUST THAT. WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION OR MAKE A TWEAK. IT COULD STILL BE DONE AND THEN DECLARED FINISHED WAITING FOR THE SCRIBNER'S PART TO BE DONE AT THAT MEETING. IF FOR SOME REASON NEW TOPICS ARE DISCOVERED OR BROUGHT UP ON AUGUST 3RD WHERE WE SAY, OH, WAIT, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF STUFF HERE, OR THERE'S A BIG TOPIC HERE AND WE MIGHT NEED MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION. WELL, WE'VE GOT A BACK UP DATE AVAILABLE. YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. WE'VE GOT TIME TO SQUEEZE IN ONE MORE MEETING THAN THAN I'M CURRENTLY HOPING FOR AND STILL BE ABLE TO MEET OUR ELECTION SCHEDULE. IT JUST MAKES IT TIGHT IF ISSUES COME UP THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN THE FRONT END OF AUGUST 3RD TO RESOLVE OR WORST CASE ALL BY AUGUST 3RD AND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON AUGUST 17. THEN WE'D BE LOOKING AT IT WON'T BE READY FOR THE VOTERS THIS NOVEMBER. IT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT MAY, BUT WE CAN HAVE AS MANY MEETINGS AS YOU ALL THINK. WE NEED TO GET YOU GUYS COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE, AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THE LANGUAGE WHERE A LOT OF YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE DONE. [01:55:06] SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DOES ANYBODY HERE SEE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVEN'T COVERED IN THIS DOCUMENT? WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO BRING UP REAL QUICK AND I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT TONIGHT. I DON'T KNOW, BUT NOW THAT WE'VE GOT WHAT SEATS ARE GOING TO BE, DISTRICTS AND WHATNOT, I'M JUST GOING TO THROW SOMETHING OUT THERE AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS IN OUR NEXT MEETING IF WE HAVE TO, SINCE IT'S 8:30, BUT LET'S JUST SAY I'M SITTING ON SIX AND I HAVE REPRESENTED MY DISTRICT AND I'M IN MY EIGHTH YEAR AND SO I'M ABOUT TO BE DONE. I CAN'T RUN AGAIN BECAUSE MY EIGHT YEARS IS UP, AND NOBODY ELSE IN THE NEXT ELECTION IS GOING TO RUN FOR MY DISTRICT. WHO'S TAKING MY SEAT? YOU ARE. YOU WOULD CONTINUE IN THAT POSITION. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE DECIDED ON TONIGHT. SO THE TERM LIMITATIONS DO NOT FUNCTION TO SAY ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE TOO OLD FOR YOUR OFFICE. YOU ARE NOW PUSHED OUT. IT IS SAYING YOU HAVE RUN TOO MANY TIMES. YOU CANNOT RUN AGAIN, OR RATHER YOU HAVE SERVED TOO MANY TIMES FROM AN ELECTED TERM. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN AGAIN. SEAT SIX, SERVE EIGHT YEARS. YOU CAN'T RUN AGAIN. NOBODY RUNS TO REPLACE YOU TECHNICALLY UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING TO DISQUALIFY YOURSELF LIKE MOVE OUT OF THE CITY. THE HOLDER OF SEAT SIX WOULD CONTINUE TO BE THE HOLDER OF SEAT SIX UNTIL SOMEBODY PUSHES THEM OUT. SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE FOR A POWER OF APPOINTMENT OR DO YOU WANT TO SPECIFY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD REACT TO A VACANCY OR A MEMBER UP THERE ON THE DAIS WHO WASN'T ELECTED, SHOULDN'T BE IN OFFICE IF SOMEBODY HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE TO RUN AND CHOSE TO RUN, BUT ARE THERE JUST KIND OF BY DEFAULT OPERATION OF LAW. AND HONESTLY IF THAT HAPPENED, THE WHOLE IDEA OF APPOINTING SOMEBODY TO FILL THAT POSITION IS GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF. A LOT OF BACKLASH WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. I LIKE THE IDEA OF YOU BEING ABLE TO RIDE THAT POSITION OUT UNTIL SOMEBODY RUNS AGAINST YOU. WELL, WE'VE ALREADY COVERED APPOINTMENTS SAYING THAT THEY CAN ONLY APPOINT IF THERE'S LESS THAN A YEAR LEFT. SO IN THAT SITUATION, THERE WOULD BE MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT. SO TECHNICALLY, WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED THAT WOULD BE FORCE A SPECIAL ELECTION UNLESS THEY JUST WERE ABLE TO SIT THROUGH ANOTHER TERM. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SUGGEST LANGUAGE ALTERNATIVELY TO THAT OR ARE WE OKAY MOVING FORWARD AS IS? OKAY, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT MR. OVERCASH ADDRESS THAT LANGUAGE TO WHERE YOU WOULD JUST RIDE THAT OUT UNTIL, WELL, [INAUDIBLE] THERE IS NO LANGUAGE TO BE DRAFTED. AND TO MR. OVERCASH'S BENEFIT, WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE HIM THAT DIRECTION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANTED TO GO, AND WITH AUGUST OUR NEXT MEETING, THEORETICALLY BEING OUR LAST MEETING, WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THEN TO MAKE A DECISION ON FURTHER LANGUAGE CHANGES. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE, I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO THAT TONIGHT. RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT'S SET UP, IF YOU'RE IN POSITION SIX AND YOU HIT THE END OF YOUR EIGHT YEARS, BUT NOBODY RUNS AGAINST YOU, YOU WOULD STAY IN THAT POSITION UNTIL SOMEBODY RAN AGAINST YOU FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS. LET ME JUMP IN AND SAY THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT WE CAN'T CHANGE WITH THIS CHARTER AND IS IN EFFECT RIGHT NOW THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU HAVE TERMS THAT ARE MORE THAN TWO YEARS, WE HAVE THREE YEAR TERMS CURRENTLY. SO IT APPLIES NOW AND IT APPLIES LATER AFTER THIS CHARTER IS ADOPTED. IF IT'S ADOPTED BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO FOUR YEAR TERMS, IF THERE IS MORE THAN 12 MONTHS LEFT REMAINING IN THE TERM, THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO FILL THAT SEAT BY SPECIAL ELECTION. IT CANNOT FILL IT BY APPOINTMENT IF THERE'S MORE THAN 12 MONTHS REMAINING. IF NOBODY RUNS FOR THE SEAT, IT IS THEORETICALLY VACANT. NOBODY WAS ELECTED TO THE SEAT. THE TERM HAD EXPIRED. THE SEAT IS TECHNICALLY VACANT. THE CURRENT OFFICEHOLDER HOLDS OVER IN OFFICE, SERVING POTENTIALLY IN THE VACANT SEAT FOR A WHILE, BUT THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO HOLD SPECIAL ELECTIONS AND IN FACT IS SUPPOSED TO DO SO WITHIN 120 DAYS OF THE VACANCY OCCURRING. SO YOU HAVE GENERAL ELECTION DAY COME UP. TERM ENDS FOR THE GUY WHO WAS ELECTED TO A FOUR YEAR TERM WITHIN 120 DAYS OF HIS TERM. ENDING THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO HOLD ANOTHER SPECIAL IS SUPPOSED TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION TO TRY TO FILL THE SEAT AGAIN, AND IT [INAUDIBLE] FORCED INTO A [02:00:08] SPECIAL ELECTION AND WE CAN'T EVEN MAKE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW. YEAH. THERE'S REALLY ISN'T GOING TO BE NOTHING TO CHANGE. THERE REALLY IS NOTHING TO CHANGE ABOUT THAT UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO TRY TO EXPLAIN IT DIFFERENTLY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO STRIP THE HOLDOVER OF POWER IN THE INTERIM, TO SAY THAT THEY THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE THE GUY WHO WAS LAST IN SEAT SIX, AT LEAST STILL UP THERE AND ABLE TO VOTE. THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING DOING THAT WITH CONSIDERING THAT, JUST TO TELL YOU WHY, OF COURSE, THAT HASN'T BEEN REALLY SUGGESTED TO YOU THUS FAR, IS THAT IF YOU STRIP ANYBODY WHO'S UP THERE FROM THEIR POWERS TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE OR SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT VOTING ANYMORE, YOU END UP WITH MORE TIES, YOU END UP WITH PROBLEMS POTENTIALLY FINDING A QUORUM. IT MAKES IT HARDER TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IF YOU ALLOW VACANCIES TO LINGER, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR THAT. BUT ALSO THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS TIED OUR HANDS AND SAID YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE FILLING SEATS FOR TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS WITH APPOINTMENTS. THOSE SEATS ARE INTENDED TO GO TO THE VOTERS FOR SELECTION AND THEY WILL KEEP GOING TO THE VOTERS FOR SELECTION UNTIL THEY WORK. I THINK WE'RE GETTING TO THE SIZE THAT WE'RE GOING TO REALLY START SEEING. [INAUDIBLE] IT'S JUST GOING TO WORK ITSELF OUT, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROBLEM IS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN TEXAS LAW, AND WHILE WE MAY NOT LIKE THE WAY THAT'S GOING TO WORK, IF IT CAUSES US TO HAVE TO CAUSE RUN A BUNCH OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS, THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID THAT IS TO CUT YOUR TERM LENGTHS BACK DOWN TO TWO YEARS. THAT'S THE WAY TO AVOID SPECIAL ELECTIONS. TO FILL VACANCIES IS CUT YOUR ELECTION TERMS BACK DOWN TO TWO YEARS. I DO HAVE A MOTION. BEFORE WE ADJOURN, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? THEY NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE NEXT AGENDA? SO THE NEXT MEETING IS AUGUST 3RD AT 6:30. [5. Discussion and potential action regarding meeting calendar and setting agenda items for the next HRCC meeting, scheduled for August 3, 2022.] I WOULD HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE CHARTER BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. IF YOU HAVE ANY SCRIBNER'S ERRORS OR TYPOS OR WHATNOT, YOU CAN EMAIL THEM TO MS.. AMBER OR MR. OVERCASH DIRECTLY. WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY I MOTION FOR OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM TO BE THE REVIEW OF THE CHARTER BECAUSE WE HAVE COVERED ALL THE CHAPTERS AT LARGE, BUT YES, ALSO, I'D LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN. A MOTION BY MS. ELLIS, A SECOND BY MR. RAGAN. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.