[00:00:03]
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER THE CITY OF PRINCETON HOME RULE CHARTER
[1. CALL TO ORDER; ROLL CALL]
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TODAY IS JUNE 25TH.THE TIME IS 603. WITH THAT, WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AT THE TOP OF MY PAGE, I HAVE GENTRY KELTON.
SUMBUL. ZEB. I'M GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO.
OH, THAT'S ALLISON. I'M SORRY. ALLISON.
I JASON RUTLEDGE, YOU'RE HERE.
CAN YOU HIT YOUR MIC FOR ME? JIM? PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
GOPHERS HERE, TERRANCE JOHNSON HERE.
SHERRY SHERRI CAMPBELL. NOT HERE, ALISON GUERRERO.
DAVID YOST HERE. MARK CRISWELL HERE.
AMISHA NEEL HERE. MAXINE ELLIS HERE.
JOSE RIOS HERE. SKYLER SMITH HERE.
AND, MICHELLE, BILL MICHELLE IS NOT HERE.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL HAND IT OVER TO JIM POWELL, WHO WILL BE DOING OUR INVOCATION FOR TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. JIM. IF YOU'D BOW YOUR HEADS WITH ME.
MOST LOVING AND GRACIOUS HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS FREE COUNTRY TO TO GATHER WITH SYMPATHETIC HEARTS AND OPEN MINDS, FATHER THAT YOU WOULD GUIDE OUR DECISION MAKING AND FULFILL FATHER THE PROMISE OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON. AND THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO FOR THE CITIZENS.
PLEASE MAKE THE THE UNCLEAR THINGS CLEAR.
AND WE WOULD EXPRESS OURSELVES, FATHER.
AS WE SEEK YOUR FACE. THESE THINGS WE ASK IN CHRIST'S HOLY NAME.
AMEN. ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEN TO THE PLEDGE TO THE TEXAS FLAG.
[F. PUBLIC APPEARANCE]
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC APPEARANCE.THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS SET ASIDE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE ON ANY ITEM OF BUSINESS THAT IS NOT FORMALLY SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOULD COMPLETE A PUBLIC MEETING APPEARANCE CARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY.
SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO OR DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THIS PORTION AND THAT ARE NOT ON THE ON THE AGENDA, 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. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK SHALL ONE ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE DIRECTLY, NOT CITY STAFF OR OTHERWISE, TO BE COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL AND CORDIAL, AND THREE REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL, DEMEANING, INSULTING, THREATENING AND OR DISPARAGING REMARKS AS TO MAINTAIN DECORUM AND TO SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY FLOW OF THE MEETING. WITH THAT, I WAS JUST RECENTLY HANDED PUBLIC APPEARANCE ITEMS FOR TWO MEMBERS HERE.
SO WE'LL START WITH THERESA MCGUINNESS.
AND THERESA, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE PODIUM AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU.
I'M AT 512 BUCKEYE. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.
[00:05:03]
ONE I BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING OVER THE POWERS OF THE MAYOR AND THE POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TODAY. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT OUR MAYOR IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, AND HE SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO VOTE.AND HAVING A MAYOR THAT HAS NO POWER IS INEFFECTIVE AND MAKES NO SENSE.
SO WHEN YOU WHEN YOU ALL DISCUSS THAT, I HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER GIVING HIM SOME POWER. THE POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
IF Y'ALL I KNOW, I KNOW Y'ALL DOES YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
IF YOU TOOK IT, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT MELISSA'S CHARTER, THEY HAVE THE POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL LISTED OUT.
IT MAKES IT VERY EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND.
KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO AND LET EVERYBODY ELSE KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO TALK TO ANY OF THE CITY OR ANY OF THE CITY EMPLOYEES BECAUSE, YES, THEY HAVE THE POWER RIGHT NOW TO INVESTIGATE, BUT THEY NEED TO GO, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE PASSING BY SOMEBODY. HEY, HOW'S EVERYTHING GOING OVER THERE? WE'RE NOT ASKING ANYBODY TO INVESTIGATE ANYTHING. WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT IF THEY CANNOT COME TO ANYBODY WITH A PROBLEM, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU NEED TO INVESTIGATE IT? SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY, AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO YOU. ALSO.
OKAY. ONE OTHER THING IS IF THERE IS SOMEBODY ON THE IN THE CITY, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS, IF THERE'S AN EMPLOYEE THAT EVERY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SAYS NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO THAT SHOULD BE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE COMMISSIONS AND THE COMMITTEES AND ALL THAT. WE NEED AN ETHICS COMMISSION.
AND I SAY A COMMISSION BECAUSE WE NEED SOMEONE THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT'S APPOINTED, BUT RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO KNOW WHO CAN DECIDE IF THERE'S AN ETHICS VIOLATION.
AND I SAY THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR PREVIOUS MAYOR.
SHE WAS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID, WELL, THAT'S UNETHICAL. AND MAYBE IT WAS.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE DID, BUT MAYBE IT'S NOT.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT THE RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, EVERYBODY CAN GO TO PUT THIS IN THERE AND SAY, I BELIEVE THIS IS AN ETHICAL COMPLAINT, AND THEY HAVE CONFIDENCE TO KNOW THAT THERE'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, YES, THIS IS A THIS IS A VIOLATION OR THIS ISN'T A VIOLATION, LEAVE IT UP TO A THIRD PARTY OR ANYWAY.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
ALSO, OUR CHARTER DOES NOT HAVE A GENERAL.
I'M GOING TO INVITE YOU TO CLICK AND YOU CAN CONTINUE. I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER MINUTE TO CONTINUE, PLEASE. OKAY.
AND IF IT DID, I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DOUBLE CHECK IT.
BUT IT DOES NOT FOR MY MEMORY HAVE A GENERAL PROVISION SECTION.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED IN THE BEGINNING SO THAT YOU CAN ADD GENERAL PROVISIONS. ONE OF THE BIGGEST GENERAL PROVISIONS THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH IS THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT.
NOW IT'S ALREADY IN THE TEXAS CODE THAT IT'D BE WRITTEN IN MODERN ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
THE PURPOSE OF THAT, THAT CODE IS SO THAT IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE AND EASILY READ.
SO THAT TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, IF YOU GO TO THE NATIONAL LITERACY ASSOCIATION OR THE NATIONAL LITERACY INSTITUTE, YOU'LL SEE THAT 5,454% OF ADULTS READ BELOW SIXTH GRADE READING LEVEL.
SO THAT MEANS THAT OUR CHARTERS SHOULD BE WRITTEN SO THAT IT'S CLEAR, EASY TO READ IN. A SIXTH OR SEVENTH GRADER CAN UNDERSTAND IT.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND EVERYTHING SHOULD BE IN THERE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK UP WORDS, AND YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO LOOK UP OTHER AREAS OF THE LAW. ALL RIGHT.
THERESA. WELL, THAT'S THE EXTENDED MINUTE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. CAN I CAN I SAY LIKE TWO MORE THINGS? IT'LL BE REALLY FAST. REAL QUICK.
20S. OKAY. SO THE HOME RULE CHARTER.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYBODY, BUT IT'S TAILORED.
IT'S THE TEXAS CODE TAILORED TO PRINCETON.
AND SO IF YOU GET A RESPONSE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
AND, OH, IT'S IN THE TEXAS CODE SOMEWHERE.
IT'S UP FOR GRABS. THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD TAKE THAT CODE AND YOU CAN MODIFY IT.
YOU CAN'T GO AGAINST IT, BUT YOU CAN YOU CAN MODIFY IT SO THAT IT WORKS FOR PRINCETON. SO ALL OF Y'ALL THAT ARE MAKING THE DECISIONS AND YOU'RE TALKING, LOOK, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
DON'T TAKE ANYBODY'S WORD FOR IT WHEN THEY SAY, OH, IT'S IN THE CODE. IT'S OKAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT. THANKS, THERESA.
ALL RIGHT, YOU GUYS. OOPS. SORRY.
YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD DAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
[00:10:03]
THE NEXT PERSON I HAVE LISTED IS KEN SIEGELMAN.JUST AS A REMINDER, WHEN YOU GET UP THERE, IF YOU CLICK YOUR MIC, IT WILL ALLOW YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. ONCE IT STARTS TO BLINK, YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO YOUR TIME BEING UP.
I'LL TRY MY BEST TO GIVE YOU AN EXTENSION IF YOU'RE IN MID THOUGHT, BUT I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE TIME AND ENSURE WE'RE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE MEETING. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.
COMMISSION MEMBERS. I CAN'T WHAT I HANDED OUT I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH COFFEES FOR EVERYONE. DETAILS. LIST OF POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THIS IS FROM THE CHARTER OF MELISSA.
THE CITY OF ANNA, IN THEIR CHARTER, DETAILED VERY SIMILARLY SPECIFIC POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK THAT A LOT OF THE WAY OUR CITY COUNCIL IS, IS ASSUMED OR PRESUMED AS BEING ABLE TO EXECUTE THE POWERS OF THE CITY.
BUT IT WOULD BE, I THINK, VERY PRUDENT TO DETAIL SPECIFICALLY SIMILAR TO BOTH WHAT THESE CITIES HAVE DONE.
OUR OUR CHARTER STATES THAT THE MAYOR IS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.
SO THEREBY, BESIDES ANY SPECIFIC THING, EXTRA DUTIES ASSIGNED TO HIM, HE HAS THE POWERS OF COUNCIL MEMBER.
BOTH BOTH CHARTERS OF ANNA AND MELISSA DO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO HAVE A VOTE.
WE WE ONLY ALLOW THE MAYOR TO HAVE A TIE BREAKING VOTE.
THEY ALSO HE ALSO WORKS WITH THE CITY, THE CITY MANAGER, TO PROVIDE TO PUT THINGS ON THE ON THE AGENDA.
IT YOU KNOW, AT TIMES THAT HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A STRUGGLE.
IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT HE HE AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL AND IS ABLE TO PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA. THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT MANY, MANY THINGS. THE THE BOTH OF THEM HAD MULTIPLE PAGES THAT I DIDN'T TRY TO COPY AND BRING. THERESA MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS.
OUR CHARTER DOES NOT EXCLUDE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM SPEAKING TO EMPLOYEES. IT IT ONLY EXCLUDES THEM FROM GIVING THEM DIRECTION.
SO IT IMPLIES THAT THEY CAN SPEAK TO THEM.
THIS SPECIFICALLY THESE CHARTERS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE POWERS OF INVESTIGATION THAT THEY THAT THEY MAY TALK TO PEOPLE, THEY MAY COMPEL TESTIMONY, THEY MAY SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS, THEY MAY DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO TO TO GET ANSWERS. AND THEN THE ONE THING THAT WITH REGARD TO THERESA WAS TALKING ABOUT ETHICS COMMISSION ARE WE NEED AN ETHICS COMMISSION.
OUR OUR ETHICS RULES ARE VAGUE AND WEAK.
THEY THEY NEED WE NEED AN ETHICS COMMISSION TO TO TO FIRM THOSE UP.
AND SOMEONE THIRD, A THIRD PARTY TO RULE ON ON MATTERS OF ETHICS.
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY MANAGERS CAN CAN CAN REFER THINGS TO, TO AND HAVE CAN HAVE A THIRD PARTY INVITE YOU TO TAKE ONE MORE MINUTE CAN HEAR ME NOW A THIRD PARTY THAT THAT THAT CAN AT LEAST HERE AND DO SOME INVESTIGATIONS AND MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND IF IT'S A SERIOUS MATTER THAT REQUIRES SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS, THEY CAN REFER IT TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY LIKE A LAW FIRM.
SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, SHE BROUGHT UP A BUSINESS OWNER, LIKE, LIKE MAYOR FORMER MAYOR JACKSON.
SHE MAY IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO, TO MAKE HER REVEAL ALL OF HER BUSINESS INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES, BUT A LAW FIRM COULD LOOK AT THAT AND AND CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THOSE THOSE ACTIVITIES WERE PRESENTED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR NOT.
AND CERTAINLY WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING SO THAT THEY CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM MAKING DECISIONS, VOTING ON BEING INVOLVED IN, IN DECISIONS OF THOSE MATTERS.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DO SEE THAT WE DO HAVE OUR MAYOR HERE.
AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ANY WORDS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE END OF THE AGENDA? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.
I KNOW THAT I WAS ASKED TO BE HERE FOR TODAY.
SO JUST BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HERE TO.
TO ANSWER ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY MIGHT, MIGHT HAVE. SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
[G. CONSENT AGENDA]
[00:15:02]
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.CONSENT AGENDA. ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE COMMITTEE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.
THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL REQUEST, IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDER IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA.
AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G .12025012.
CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
FOR JUNE 4TH, 2025 HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM AND THEN WE CAN DO A VOTE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. AWESOME. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TERRANCE MOTION AND MAXINE SECOND.
AND WITH THAT, WE CAN RAISE OUR HANDS IF WE ALL AGREE TO VOTE TO APPROVE.
AND KEEP THEM HIGH. ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANY THAT WERE FOR NOS.
I SEE ALL THE HANDS. SO WE'RE GOING.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD TO GO. ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE MOVING ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.
REGULAR AGENDA. FIRST ITEM H.12025-113.
[H.1 2025-113 Review and discussion regarding Resolution No. 2025-06-23- R03, extending the duration of the Committee and establishing a new final, written report deadline.]
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION REGARDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025.DASH 0623R03. EXTENDING THE DURATION OF THE COMMITTEE AND ESTABLISHING A NEW FINAL WRITTEN REPORT DEADLINE.
RYAN, YOU WANT TO KICK US OFF? SURE.
GOOD. GOOD EVENING, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. IT'S GOOD TO SEE EACH EACH ONE OF YOU AGAIN. I KNOW EVERYONE'S SEATS ARE KIND OF DIFFERENT THIS GO AROUND, SO I'M TRYING TO SEE WHERE EVERYONE'S AT. BUT IT'S GOOD. GOOD TO SEE EACH OF YOU ALL. AND IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. SO KIND OF GO BACK INTO IT.
BUT BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I KIND OF WANTED TO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE TUNED INTO THE COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY.
COUNCIL APPROVED RESOLUTION 2020 5-062303, WHICH EXTENDED ESSENTIALLY THE DURATION OF THE OF THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY THE COMMITTEE WAS SET TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 23RD BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE FINAL REPORT WAS DUE. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE CHARTER AND MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION. SO COUNCIL EXTENDED THE DURATION OF THE COMMITTEE UNTIL JULY 28TH.
THE REASON BEING AND MAYOR CAN CHIME IN TO IF, IF, IF NEEDED IS TO KEEP THE NOVEMBER ELECTION ON THE TABLE.
NOT IT'S NOT A I DON'T THINK IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE A NOVEMBER ELECTION PER SE, BUT JUST TO MAKE GIVE AN OPTION IN CASE THAT'S THE ROUTE WE WANT TO GO.
ONCE AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO RUSH ANYTHING, BUT JUST TO TO SEE IF WE'RE ABLE TO PUSH ANYTHING TO THE AGENDA FOR THE NOVEMBER.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY HERE IS RUSH.
WE STILL HAVE MADE TO TO GET THIS DONE AS WELL.
SO BUT WE NEED TO BE AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING DONE BY THE 28TH IF WE WANT TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE NOVEMBER ABOUT IT.
SO YEAH. SO THERE'S NO ACTION TO TAKE.
JUST WANTED TO KIND OF UPDATE THE COMMITTEE.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. SO THE EXTENDED THE DURATION.
I JUST WANT TO KIND OF GIVE US WE HAVE A NEW TARGET DEADLINE OF JULY 28TH.
SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, THERE'S NO ACTION TO TAKE ON THIS ITEM. JUST KIND OF AN UPDATE. PERFECT.
THANKS, GRANT. YEAH, I THINK OBVIOUSLY THERE'S ANOTHER ITEM THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDRESSING HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR MEETINGS. AND WE'LL PROBABLY GET INTO THE THE MEAT OF THAT AT THAT POINT.
BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR GRANT REGARDING ANYTHING THAT'S JUST COVERED? RANDALL. YES. YES. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY IGNORANCE ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE, FRANKLY, I DON'T REMEMBER THE LAST ELECTION.
I REMEMBER SOME OF WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS THE MAYOR ON THE BALLOT SEPARATE AS A POSITION THAN THE REST OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE BALLOT? OR ARE THEY JUST REPRESENTED AS A ONE OF THE CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE, WHO IS THEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE MAYOR? SURE. AND WE CAN MAYBE GET INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE ONCE WE START DISCUSSING THE CHARTER ITSELF. BUT THE MAYOR IS LISTED SEPARATELY ON THE BALLOT AS THE MAYOR AND THEN COUNCIL SEATS, YOU KNOW, ONE, 2 OR 3, WHATEVER, WHICHEVER IS UP FOR REELECTION. SO ANYBODY WHO'S.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, ANYBODY WHO'S RUNNING FOR MAYOR IS NOT REPRESENTED ON THE BALLOT AS ONLY RUNNING FOR MAYOR.
OKAY. AND THEN COUNCIL PERSONNEL ARE REPRESENTED AS COUNCIL FOR.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, GRANT HAS MENTIONED THAT THIS IS NOT AN ITEM THAT WE'LL BE TAKING ACTION ON. SO THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
ITEM 8.2202511 FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER ONE,
[H.2 2025-114 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 1 (“Incorporation and Boundaries”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the June 4, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
[00:20:01]
INCORPORATION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, AS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 4TH, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. ALRIGHTY. SO I THINK ONE OF THE PRINTOUTS THAT EACH ONE OF YOU HAVE, THERE'S A THERE'S A ONE PAGER TITLED PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS.AND THIS IS BASED ON A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WAS PASSED ON THE JUNE 4TH MEETING.
SPECIFICALLY SECTION 1.0 FOR THE SECTION.
THE PORTION AT THE VERY BOTTOM THAT'S KIND OF BOLDED.
ITALICIZED AND UNDERLINED IS A PROPOSED PROPOSAL.
ONCE AGAIN, YOU GUYS VOTED ON LAST GO AROUND TO POTENTIALLY YOU KNOW, PLACE ON THE BALLOT. SO AS I MENTIONED THE WAY IT WORKS IS KIND OF AS WE GO THROUGH THE CHARTER, KIND OF MAKE MOTIONS.
AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW TO KIND OF SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON PAPER.
AND THEN AT THE VERY END OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS, YOU'LL SEE ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
SO YOU'LL SEE IT THEORETICALLY THREE TIMES.
SO THIS IS WHAT WAS PASSED LAST MEETING.
I JUST WANT TO PUT IT BEFORE YOU ON PAPER SO WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER VOTE TO APPROVE IT AS IS OR TWEAK IT OR. YEAH. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE. I'M GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT MYSELF JUST TO REVIEW IT, AND I RECOMMEND YOU GUYS DO THE SAME.
I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE AT THE LAST MEETING.
SHOULD WE ADD SOMETHING? CONSIDERING THE FACT OF WITH FIRE.
YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH THE FIRE? THAT THE CITY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO THE ETG AREAS.
OR WAS THIS. AND IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
YOU CAN LET ME KNOW. BUT YEAH, GRANT, YOU'RE PROBABLY MORE QUALIFIED TO, TO COVER THAT, BUT I KNOW IT WAS DISCUSSED.
I'LL LET YOU GET INTO THE MEAT OF THAT.
SURE. YEAH, WE DID DISCUSS IT QUITE A BIT AT THE LAST MEETING.
I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ADD ANYTHING IN THERE, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, I'VE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE IS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ONLY AMEND THE CHARTER ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. SO I, I MEAN, WE'RE ALREADY NOT OBLIGATED TO SERVE THE ETG.
SO IT'S I DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED TO PUT THAT IN THERE.
AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF A THAT'S THE WAY THE LAW IS.
AND WHAT WE DID DISCUSS FIRE AND TJ AND ALL THAT QUITE, QUITE A BIT AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND KIND OF FELT LIKE IRONED IT OUT, BUT JUST JUST MY $0.02.
IT'S OKAY. AND IT DOES INCLUDE LIKE UNLESS IT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE A FORMAL.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OR DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS THAT PROVIDE FULL REIMBURSEMENT.
YES, I WILL SAY THAT THE SECTION THAT WE'RE KIND OF DISCUSSING IS MORE TO DO WITH THIS ANNEXATION FROM THE CITY LIMITS, CORPORATE LIMITS.
I THINK THE THOUGHT BEHIND THIS SECTION WAS TO NOT KIND OF DISCUSS THIS LAST MEETING, TO NOT TO HAVE POCKETS YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE I MENTIONED, KIND OF THE, THE SWISS CHEESE APPROACH WHERE YOU HAVE LITTLE POCKETS OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS. IT JUST KIND OF MAKES A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE FOR SERVICE.
AND THEN I PUT IN THERE, UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, IF WE DON'T PROVIDE MUNICIPAL, FULL MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO A PARCEL THAT THEY CAN ANNEX. AND WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THIS ANNEXATION PETITION OR IT GOES TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND KIND OF FORCED TO.
SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE THAT AT THE END.
WE AS FAR AS THE E TJ WE DISCUSSED SECTION 1.05 KIND OF IN, YOU KNOW, SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON IT.
I THINK THERE WAS A MOTION TO TABLE THAT SECTION UNTIL THE VERY END.
SO WE'LL WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THIS.
THIS WAS THIS ONE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.04 WAS THE ONLY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER ONE FROM THE THE LAST MEETING.
[00:25:02]
OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.YEP. SURE. SO IF I UNDERSTAND THIS SECTION CORRECTLY CORRECTLY, A LANDOWNER CAN ASK TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY AND THAT.
BUT I ALSO SEE THAT ALSO A MAJORITY OF THE LEGAL VOTERS RESIDING ON LAND COULD SEEK TO BE ADDED. BUT WHAT IF THEY ARE RENTERS AND NOT THE OWNERS OF THE LAND? SO IT'S ONLY PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO THERE'S THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS TO ANNEX IN OR DIS ANNEX.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN THERE'S CONSENT ANNEXATIONS.
THERE'S FORCE ANNEXATIONS THAT THIS THIS SECTION AT THE END JUST ESSENTIALLY PROVIDES IT. I MEAN, THE CITY'S NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ANNEXING PROPERTY.
REALLY, IT'S MORE OF GROWING THE BOUNDARIES, BUT JUST IT REQUIRES COUNCIL TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FINDING ON THE RECORD IF THEY'RE GOING TO ANNEX A CHUNK OF LAND THAT'S GOING TO BE SURROUNDED BY INCORPORATED AREA.
JUST THAT JUST I'VE SEEN THIS DONE IN OTHER CHARTERS, AND I KIND OF LIKE THE LANGUAGE.
THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED IT. BUT IT'S NOT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A MAKE OR BREAK NECESSARILY FOR THE CITY.
IT JUST ADDS ADDITIONAL PROTECTION.
SO IS THERE ANY COUNTY STATE ORDINANCE THAT PREVENTS THAT OCCURRENCE FROM HAPPENING, FROM HAVING POCKETS OF, WELL, WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE LAND WANT TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY, LET'S SAY, FOR FIRE PROTECTION OR WHATEVER, BUT THE LANDOWNER DOES NOT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS DOES NOT DEFINE THAT.
IT'S YOU'RE TELLING ME, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, ONLY THE LANDOWNER CAN MAKE THE REQUEST.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS HERE.
OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, BY A MAJORITY OF THE LEGAL VOTERS RESIDING ON THE LAND SOUGHT TO BE ADDED.
WHAT IF I OWN THE LAND? BUT ALL MY RENTERS WANT TO ANNEX TO THE CITY, AND I DON'T WANT IT? THIS TELLS ME IT'LL HAPPEN ANYWAYS.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT LANGUAGE WAS IN THERE, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, I WOULD SAY. OR AS THE CASE MAY BE UNDER LAW.
RIGHT. I THINK IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE. IT ALLOWS SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE THE ANNEXATION, THIS ANNEXATION LAWS ARE ALWAYS THEY'RE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. THEY'RE VERY COMPLEX. RIGHT. SO THIS LIKE I SAID, I WASN'T PART OF THE INITIAL DRAFTING.
I THINK THE OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, JUST PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE IN CASE THE LAW DOES CHANGE AS FAR AS ANNEXATION TO ANNEXATION, THAT'S THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET IT.
OKAY. THE THE THE REMAINING QUESTION I HAVE THEN IS THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT LET'S SAY THE CITY A VARIETY OF OWNERS WANT TO ADD BECOME PART OF THE CITY.
BUT MAYBE THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE NOT.
AND THAT CREATES THAT ENCLOSED AREA.
DOES THE CITY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO ANNEX THAT AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE LANDOWNER OR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON IT? AND IF NOT, WHERE IS THAT IN WRITING? IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE I'M GOING HERE IS OUR STATE HAS A REPUTATION OF MAKING RULES AND REGULATIONS VAGUE, INTENTIONALLY.
AND THE MORE SPECIFIC THEY ARE, THE LESS LIKELY THEY BECOME ABUSED.
AND. WELL, THERE'S BEEN A HISTORY OF ABUSE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO PREVENT THAT NOT ONLY FOR TODAY, BUT FOR THE FUTURE AS WELL.
AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW.
THAT'S NOT AN ACCUSATION OF ANYBODY HERE OR A COMMENT ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED.
JUST I'M LOOKING TO NOW IN THE FUTURE.
SO I GUESS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. SO THERE, THERE'S A SECTION A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN, IT SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
I MEAN, A LOT OF THAT'S JUST IT'S BOILERPLATE.
I THE THOUGHT WAS JUST TO ADD, AT THE VERY END LIKE I SAID, AN ADDITIONAL FINDING IN ORDER FOR COUNCIL TO DIS ANNEX PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE SERVICE GAPS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OR, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU HAVE AREAS THAT ARE INCORPORATED. IT'S JUST YOU KNOW, FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICE REASONS.
THAT'S WHY THAT WAS PUT IN THERE.
I THINK ALL THE LANGUAGE AT THE BEGINNING IS, IS A LITTLE BIT BROAD AND VAGUE, INTENTIONALLY.
IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, AS THE LAW CHANGE, AS THE ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION LAWS CHANGED, IT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW,
[00:30:03]
ALLOWS, GIVES THE CITY AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT? FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY BY LAW.HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. YES.
YES. GRANT, I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR FERVOR AND HAVING AN ANSWER.
I WOULD SUGGEST EVERYBODY HERE READ CASE LAW.
CASE LAW IN TEXAS SAYS THAT THE MAJORITY OF OWNERS, IT'S NOT THE MAJORITY OF OWNERS. IT'S NOT THE OWNER THAT MAKES THE MAJORITY OF PROPERTY.
IF IF IF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH 200 RESIDENTS DECIDES THAT THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE CITY, THEY CAN ABSOLUTELY REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE CITY AND VOTE TO DO THAT.
I THINK IT'S EVERYBODY'S OBLIGATION TO GO READ THE CASE LAW.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT STUFF. GRANT, I APPRECIATE YOU, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT YOU'RE WRONG ON THAT STATEMENT.
THE THE CASE LAW THAT I READ FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS SAYS THAT THE RESIDENTS OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY CAN PETITION THE CITY REQUESTS TO BECOME PART OF THE CITY AND WHETHER THEY'RE THE OWNERS OR NOT. THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA CAN VOTE TO BECOME PART OF THE CITY AND A LANDOWNER. IT'S IRRELEVANT.
OKAY. ON TOP OF THAT EMINENT DOMAIN, THE CITY CAN GO THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN.
AND THERE'S ALL KINDS OF LAWS ABOUT THAT. SO THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER SECTION OF CODE.
SO THE CITY IS CAPABLE OF TAKING TAKING PROPERTY, BUT THAT USUALLY ENDS UP IN LEGAL ACTION. SO IT'S MORE CONVOLUTED.
SURE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THE LANGUAGE IS IN THERE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IT'S A CASE BY CASE DETERMINATION.
ANNEXATION IS ALWAYS CHANGING THE LAWS BEHIND IT.
SO IT SAYS OWNERS OF LAND, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAJORITY OF THE LEGAL VOTERS RESIDING.
SO I THINK WE'RE COVERED EITHER WAY WITH THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.
I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR INPUT THERE.
I WOULD ASK THAT AS WE'RE SPEAKING, THAT WE JUST KIND OF BE REMINDED TO KIND OF LEAN IN A LITTLE BIT. SO THAT WAY IT'S CAPTURED BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE IS REVIEWING THIS LATER ON. THEY'RE ABLE TO CAPTURE THE WORDS THAT BEING SAID.
BUT YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE INPUT THERE.
HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, RANDALL. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM? BECAUSE I WANT TO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE MEATY TO GET INTO, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MOVING THIS ALONG. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR GRANT BEFORE WE KIND OF TAKE ACTION HERE? ARE WE ABOUT TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS? I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
GRANT, I WAS GOING TO ASK, IS THERE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH ANNEXATION AND THE ANNEXATION FROM THE CITY? I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY CHARGES.
I MEAN, I THINK THEY THEY COULD POTENTIALLY CHARGE.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ATTACHED THAT THE CITY HAS ADOPTED. MY THINKING HERE IS MAYBE WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AND PROBABLY ADD SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, WHICH WOULD BE AS AN INCENTIVE OR DISINCENTIVE TO DANCE.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT SWISS CHEESE EFFECT WHERE IF A PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY THE CITY UNDER TEXAS LAW, UNDER STATE LAW, THEY CAN ANNEX.
BUT THEN I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO, NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ANNEX, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PUT SOME TYPE OF DISINCENTIVE IN IT. YEAH.
I MEAN, I WOULD KIND OF COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON'S POINT THAT'S PROBABLY BEST SUITED FOR, LIKE AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE CHARTER CAN ONLY BE AMENDED, YOU KNOW, ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. BUT THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. YEAH.
SO, YEAH, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE DISCUSS THIS, IT MAY BE YOU KNOW, A GOOD IDEA THAT WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT, BUT IT MAY BE BEST SUITED FOR AN ORDINANCE THAT CAN BE MORE EASILY AMENDED.
SO WE'LL TAKE NOTE AS WE MOVE.
MOVE THROUGH. THAT'S A VERY GOOD, GOOD POINT.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO TO THE POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER. THE REASON FOR THE VAGUENESS WITHIN THE CHARTER IS IT'S NOT AS NIMBLE AS SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WE MAY PUT IN PLACE LIKE ORDINANCES.
WITH THAT BEING SAID FOR THAT ITEM, WE WE DO HAVE IT LISTED AS REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SO THAT THIS WOULD BE AND ACTUALLY TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO, TO GO AHEAD AND GET THESE APPROVED.
SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND AND APPROVE THAT THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, I SHOULD SAY.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1H2202514.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE AND RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE. YES.
[00:35:13]
ALL RIGHT. I DON'T THINK I SAW.DO WE HAVE ANY NOS RANDALL ON RECORD WITH A NO.
THANKS, RANDALL. YOU'RE WELCOME.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING TAKEN CARE OF, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM.
THE NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO BE H THREE.
[H.3 2025-115 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 2 (“Form of Government”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the June 4, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
IT'S GOING TO BE 2025115.REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER TWO FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, AS DISCUSSED ON THE JUNE 4TH, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION GRANT ONTO YOU.
SO WE'LL MAKE THIS ONE EASY. WE DID NOT.
THE COMMITTEE DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER TWO.
SO THERE'S NO ACTION TO TAKE ON THIS ONE. WE CAN JUST MOVE FORWARD. I JUST WANTED TO HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA IN CASE THERE WAS, BUT THERE WAS NOT.
SO NO ACTION TO TAKE. ALL RIGHT.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, SINCE THERE WEREN'T ANY PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS, DO WE ACTUALLY NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO VOTE TO? WELL, I GUESS IT DOES SAY TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. SO I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE TO.
YOU CAN JUST DO TAKE NO ACTION.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
[H.4 2025-116 Review Chapter 3 (“City Council”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action.]
ITEM 8.42025116. REVIEW.CHAPTER THREE CITY COUNCIL OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS. CONSIDER AND CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT THERETO AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
ALL RIGHTY. SO I DON'T HAVE A FANCY POWERPOINT OR ANYTHING.
WE'LL JUST KIND OF, AS MR. CHAIRMAN, AS YOU DID LAST, GO AROUND, JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH.
WE'RE JUST DOING CHAPTER THREE THIS EVENING BECAUSE THERE'S QUITE A FEW SECTIONS MAYBE SOME AREAS OF A LOT OF CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION.
SO JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH, I THINK YOU HAVE A THERE'S A PRINTOUT THAT I LEFT A LITTLE NOTE SECTION SO YOU CAN KIND OF MARK IT UP AS YOU GO THROUGH AND READ, BUT I'LL KICK IT BACK OVER TO YOU AND KIND OF GO THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION.
PERFECT. THANKS, GRANT. ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, OUR FIRST SECTION IN THIS CHAPTER OF CHAPTER THREE IS SECTION 3.01.
IT'S PERTAINING TO THE MAYOR, THE PERSON.
I'LL READ IT. SO THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN IT'LL BE ON RECORD THAT'S BEEN READ OUT LOUD BUT READS THE PERSON ELECTED MAYOR SHALL BE THE GOVERNMENTAL AND CEREMONIAL HEAD OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT, PRESIDING OVER COUNCIL MEETINGS AND ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DEBATING AND DEBATE REGARDING ANY ITEM, BUT SHALL ONLY CAST A VOTE ON MATTERS AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS NECESSARY TO BREAK TIES BETWEEN THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING ON THE ON THE ITEM.
THE OFFICE OF MAYOR SHALL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATE SEPARATELY FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS SEATS FOR PURPOSES OF THE LIMITATION ON SUCCESSFUL TERMS IN THIS CHARTER, BUT OTHERWISE THE MAYOR SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD OPEN THE DISCUSSION UP TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS, ANY QUESTIONS, SO WE CAN TAP INTO THIS FIRST SECTION 3.01 ALLISON. SO I THINK JODY IS ON.
I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. ALLISON. I DIDN'T SEE YOU. JODY. LET ME LET JODY WAS IN Q FIRST.
GO AHEAD. JODY. YEAH. HERE. YEAH.
OKAY. THANKS. IT WAS WITH SOME INTRIGUE THAT I ACTUALLY SAW THIS COMING UP.
I WAS ACTUALLY WATCHING YOU GUYS OVER AND OVER IN AFRICA, AND AND IT WAS A GOOD MEETING.
BUT I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST DO A BOARD.
I'M ON TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION.
IT BOILS DOWN TO, OBVIOUSLY WHEN DOES THE MAYOR VOTE? JUST IN CASE OF OBVIOUSLY TIE ONLY OR ALL THE TIME.
AND I WAS ABLE TO RUN IT BY THE FOLKS I DEAL WITH ON MY BOARD WHO HAVE APPROXIMATELY PROBABLY 80 OR 90 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE TRENCHES, THEIR COUNCILMEN OR MAYORS, PLACES LIKE.
RICHARDSON. PLANO. AND TO A PERSON THEY THOUGHT THE WAY WE HAVE IT NOW IS PREFERABLE TO THE MAYOR VOTING ON ALL ISSUES.
BUT I DUG DOWN A LITTLE DEEPER, AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS THE EVEN NUMBER. AND THIS IS AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, NOT AS A MATTER OF PERSONALITY, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY.
AND THIS GUY IS NOT GOING TO FALL.
BUT THAT I VIEW AS THE ISSUE AND TRYING TO WORK AROUND THAT JUST CREATES ANOTHER WRINKLE IN GOVERNMENT WE GOT TO DEAL WITH WHEN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO DEAL WITH. BUT AND THAT'S I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A PRETTY SOLID FOUNDATION TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.
AND I SEE HERE THAT FOR EXAMPLE I THINK I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS CAME FROM.
I'M SORRY. THIS WAS FROM GRANT.
I WOULD DRILL DOWN ON DOES THE MAYOR VOTING MAKE IT AN EVEN NUMBER?
[00:40:05]
SO TO ME, IT'S AN EVEN ODD ISSUE.YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TEMPERAMENTAL ABOUT IT AT ALL.
BUT THAT'S IF THERE'S A WAY TO WORK AROUND IT.
BUT IS THE WORKAROUND WORTH THE TROUBLE? SO THAT'S THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT ISSUE.
SO I DID MY RESEARCH AND BASICALLY LOOKED AT THE SAME CITIES IN COLLIN COUNTY.
AND I THINK THERE WERE THREE THINGS THAT I NOTICED THAT CAME UP UNDER THE MAYOR.
FROM THE OTHER COUNTIES WAS I NOTICED THAT IT DIDN'T MENTION VETO POWER OR NOT.
AND THE OTHER PLACES DID, AND THEY SAID NO VETO, WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY DOESN'T MENTION IT AT ALL.
THE OTHER WAS WHAT JODY MENTIONED WAS THAT SOME PLACES ALLOW THE MAYOR TO VOTE, OTHERS DO NOT. BUT I THINK IN OUR CASE, IF WE DECIDED TO GO THAT WAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER EITHER ADDING OR REMOVING A COUNCIL MEMBER TO MAKE IT AN ODD NUMBER. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
SO THOSE WERE THE ONLY THINGS THAT I NOTICED FROM THE OTHER CITIES WERE THAT IT DOESN'T MENTION VETO AND THAT LIKE WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN ODD NUMBER.
THANKS, ALISON. I DID A LOT OF REVIEW.
I HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CITIES HERE AND EVERYTHING, AND. I HAVE TO SAY IF WE WERE TO ALLOW.
AND NOT THAT I DON'T WANT THE MAYOR TO HAVE VOTING ABILITY.
HOWEVER, IF WE WERE TO HAVE THE MAYOR CURRENTLY HAVE VOTING ABILITY, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD HAVE FORCE A YES FOR SAY NO.
AND THEN THAT WOULD GIVE THE MAYOR ANOTHER VOTE.
SO IN THEORY, THE MAYOR WOULD BE GETTING TWO VOTES, WHEREAS IF WE HAVE IT THE WAY IT IS NOW, BUT AS AND GIVE THE MAYOR POWER TO VETO OVER ORDINANCES. KIND OF LIKE WHAT SELINA DOES.
MORE ABILITY TO THE MAYOR AND BE MORE OF A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY ALLOWING THAT ABILITY.
THANKS, MAXINE. REAL QUICK, BEFORE WE KIND OF MOVE OVER, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT MARLO HAS IS NOW PRESENT.
I BELIEVE HE WALKED IN AROUND TO MAKE SURE WE RECOGNIZE THAT HE'S HERE.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL MOVE OVER TO YOUR NEXT IN QUEUE.
SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE HAVE AN ODD NUMBER OR AN EVEN NUMBER OF PEOPLE, IF SOMEONE HAS TO RECUSE THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY'RE INVOLVED IN WHATEVER IS BEING VOTED ON, THAT CHANGES THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES.
SO I WOULD THINK IN PRACTICE IN GENERAL, AN ODD NUMBER WOULD BE BEST.
AT LEAST MY RECOMMENDATION IS AN ODD NUMBER WOULD BE BEST.
AND THE MAYOR VOTES ON EVERYTHING.
SO WE'VE BEEN TASKED WITH THE WITH THE TASK OF ARCHITECTING THE CHANGES FOR THIS HOME RULE CHARTER. I, I LIKE THAT PEOPLE ARE DOING THE RESEARCH FOR OTHER CITIES.
I JUST I JUST THINK IT NEGATES THE FACT OF WHAT WE'RE BROUGHT HERE.
HOW DO WE WANT TO BE GOVERNED IN PRINCETON? HOW DO WE THINK IT WORKS BEST FOR US? I I'M OKAY. I LIKE THIS WHEN WE SEE HOW THEY DO IT.
BUT EVERYTHING THAT WORKS IN FRISCO AND MCKINNEY DOESN'T WORK IN PRINCETON.
SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS A SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT, THE MAYOR THAT I VOTE FOR, THE I VOTE FOR THAT VISION.
SO I THINK THAT WHEN WE MAKE THE DECISIONS TO THE WHAT WE IMPLEMENT HERE, I THINK THE VISION WE VOTED FOR THAT PERSON SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET THAT VISION AND MOVE THAT FORWARD.
SO AS FAR AS HAVING VOTING POWER, I GET THAT EVEN IN ODD NUMBERS.
BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU KNOW, HAVING THE MAYOR VOTE PUTS LETS THEM PUT SKIN IN THE GAME SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY STAND.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WAY, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T VOTE ON IT, I DIDN'T WHEN A SITUATION HAPPENED. WE KNOW THIS MAYOR HAD AN ABILITY TO IMPACT WHATEVER THAT CHANGE IS.
AND ALSO, AS FAR AS THE I DO AGREE WITH THE VETO POWER.
I THINK THAT IN SOME WAY THAT SHOULD BE THERE.
RIGHT. OR MAYBE WE SAY VETO UNLESS THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS BY COUNCIL.
ALL RIGHT. SO IF THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, TWO NODE, THREE NODES, FOUR YESES.
YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO VETO, BUT IF THERE'S SEVEN YESES ALL ACROSS THE BOARD, THEN MAYBE THE, YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR.
[00:45:01]
I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE CAN PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE. BUT I DO THINK THAT JUST AS THIS PROCESS GOES ON AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT HOW WE WANT OUR CITY TO BE GOVERNED AND KIND OF SIT THESE OTHER CITIES AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING ASIDE AND FOCUS ON WHAT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT.THANKS, AMICIA. YEAH, I, I AGREE TO A DEGREE.
I LIKE THE WAY IT IS, WHERE IT'S THE ODD NUMBER AND THE MAYOR VOTE TO BREAK THE TIE. BUT AS I CONSULTED TML ON THE OFFICE OF MAYOR AND WHAT THE MAYOR'S ALLOWED TO DO OR LEGALLY ALLOWED TO, THERE IS A PROVISION THAT IF COUNCIL VOTES ON AN ON AN ITEM, THE MAYOR CAN RESEND CONSENT IT FOR CONSIDERATION.
HE SIGNS OFF ON ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT COUNCIL VOTES ON, AND HE CAN HAVE SOME VETO POWER.
SEND IT BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION, CONSIDERING SEVERAL THINGS.
SO TO YOUR POINT, THE MAYOR, WE VOTE HIM IN AND HE HAS AN AGENDA.
OR THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HE WANTS TO ACCOMPLISH.
THAT COULD BE AN AREA WHERE HE GETS THE THINGS THAT HE WANTS DONE COMPLETED, BECAUSE COUNCIL MAY VOTE IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT HE WANTS.
AND IF IT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT THE CITY WANTS, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR ETHICAL AND LEGAL MILIEU, THEN HE CAN SEND IT BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION.
AND I WAS I WANTED TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS I THINK A VERY INTERESTING AREA FOR US TO DISCUSS.
BUT I, I WOULD SAY THAT ORIGINALLY I WAS VERY MUCH ALONG THE LINES OF KEEPING THE THE ODD COUNCIL MEETING AND TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE, WE WEREN'T KIND OF GOING INTO THE CHAOS OF HAVING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, THEREBY ALLOWING THE, THE MAYOR TO HAVE VOTING POWER.
BUT I HAVE TO SAY, TERENCE, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
LIKE, I, I REALLY FEEL LIKE WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE STATE OF PRINCETON THAT THE MAYOR IS GOING TO GET A LOT OF FLACK WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE.
IT'S ONE OF THE I MEAN, HE'S THE FACE OF THE CITY, RIGHT? CURRENTLY HE FUTURE STACY WHO KNOWS.
RIGHT. AND SO TO BE IN THAT POSITION AND NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE AN IMPACT, I THINK IS ALMOST SETTING THEM UP FOR FAILURE, RIGHT. AND SO I WOULD AGREE WITH BEING IN A POSITION TO WHERE HE HAS THE ABILITY TO VOTE.
AND I'M JUST SAYING HE JUST TO BE CLEAR, JUST BECAUSE OUR CURRENT MAYOR IS A MALE.
RIGHT. BUT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
AND ALSO, I DO FEEL STRONGLY AND THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS I THINK I MENTIONED WE FIRST STARTED THIS, I KICK THIS OFF IS THAT I'VE, I'VE DONE MY RESEARCH AS WELL.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF HAVING A THE MAYOR HAVING VETO POWER.
AND I LIKE HOW YOU POST THAT IN THE SENSE OF ALMOST LIKE A SANDWICH APPROACH.
RIGHT? IF IF EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT, THERE'S NO REASON FOR VETO.
BUT ALSO, IF HE VETOES, WE SHOULD HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY, RIGHT? EVERYONE SHOULD BE IN AGREEMENT TO OVERTURN IT. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THAT WHERE WE MAY HAVE TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION.
AND I AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WHERE THE LINES I'VE SEEN IT KIND OF HAVING IN OTHER HOMER CHARTERS WHERE THERE'S, LIKE, HE GETS 1 OR 2 OF THOSE VETO ATTEMPTS WITHIN HIS RIGHT WITHIN A YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE CAN PROBABLY DISCUSS HOW THAT LOOKS.
I DON'T KNOW IF IF IT MAKES SENSE TO KIND OF MAKE THAT A AT ALL TIMES TYPE OF SCENARIO, BECAUSE I CAN SEE HAVING TO GO OUT AND BRING THAT ITEM BACK AND IT KIND OF DELAYING PROGRESS. WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WANNA GET INTO THAT SCENARIO RIGHT NOW. WE PROBABLY ALL FEEL GREAT ABOUT EUGENE, BUT WHO KNOWS? YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS. AND WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO BE PIGEONHOLED TO WAITING FOR US TO HAVE MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WE ARE ABLE TO KIND OF MOVE THINGS FORWARD. SO MY TWO SENSES, I WOULD AGREE WITH VOTING POWER AND ALSO VETO POWER IN THIS IN THIS SPECIFIC SECTION.
AND, TERRENCE, I DO WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE MYSELF, AFTER HEARING WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY, I CHANGE MY THOUGHT PROCESS.
BUT I STILL DO AGREE WITH VETO POWER AND THAT ABILITY.
TO WIN OVER. SO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING VOTING POWER, ARE YOU SAYING VOTING POWER ON ALL OR ARE YOU STATING VOTING POWER ON TIME.
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR. I'M STATING VOTING POWER ON ALL.
OKAY, SO I'M AS A RESIDENT I WOULD SAY I DON'T WANT TO PUT REGARDLESS OF WHO'S MAYOR, I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT OUR MAYOR IN A POSITION BEING SOMEONE THAT IS AT THE POLLS
[00:50:06]
CONSTANTLY AND YOU'RE ALWAYS YOU'RE HEARING THE WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING.BASED ON THOSE THINGS, I WOULD SAY I LIKE IT THE WAY THAT WE HAVE IT. AND OUR MAYOR IS TO VOTE ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO A TIE OR IF SOMEONE HAS TO RECUSE THEMSELVES AND IT BECOMES A TIE.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY, THE MAYOR, SHOULD VOTE ON TIE ONLY AND HAVE VETO POWER IN THE CASE THAT SOMETHING.
COMES UP THAT THEY KNOW IS GOING TO PRESENT SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE.
LET HIM BE ABLE OR HER BE ABLE TO VETO WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE.
BUT I WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO VOTE ON ALL ISSUES.
I SEE. SO TERRENCE, YOUR POINT.
TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. TOTALLY GET IT. LISTENING TO WHAT EVERYBODY'S SAYING.
WITH THE MAYOR GETTING, OF COURSE, THE VOTE ON ALL WE AS THIS COMMITTEE, IF THAT'S WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO, WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE PUTTING THE COUNCIL IN A POSITION TO WHERE WE ARE CREATING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TIE.
WHAT'S NOT IN HERE IS HOW DO WE BREAK IT? WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH WHAT THE TIE BREAKER IS.
AND SO NOW WE'RE CREATING SOMETHING.
WHO GETS THAT VOTE. BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY SITTING UP THERE.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT YOU'RE GIVING ONE INDIVIDUAL TWO VOTES.
SO LET'S GO DOWN A RABBIT HOLE.
LET'S JUST SAY BECAUSE WE LIVE IN THE COUNTRY THAT WE LIVE IN, THAT UP THERE WE'RE DIVIDED FOUR AND FOUR ON EVERYTHING, OR 98% OF EVERYTHING AT THAT POINT.
ONE INDIVIDUAL, IF WE CHOOSE TO GIVE THAT ONE PERSON TWO VOTES, ONE INDIVIDUAL IS RUNNING EVERYTHING.
AND SO IF I WAS THE MAYOR, I WOULDN'T WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
AND SO JUST UNDERSTAND, IF WE MAJORITY HERE CHOOSE TO GIVE THE MAYOR, WHOEVER IT IS, THE VOTING POWER.
NOW WE'VE GOT TO GO DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE. WHO'S GOING TO WHO'S GOING TO BREAK THE TIE? BECAUSE UNDOUBTEDLY A TIE IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S NOT IF, IT'S WHEN AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN A LOT.
NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE CURRENT COUNCIL, BUT DOWN THE ROAD.
AND THEN I'LL JUST END THIS WITH YOU KNOW, THE IDEA OF GIVING A MAYOR A VOTE IS GREAT WHEN IT'S WHO YOU VOTED FOR, RIGHT? AND SO IF YOU GIVE THIS PERSON THAT POWER, AWESOME.
LET'S DO THIS. GREAT. BUT IF YOU GET SOMEBODY IN THE OFFICE THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH AND YOU GIVE THEM THOSE TWO VOTES, NOW YOU'RE KIND OF YOU'RE ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT COIN. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO SIT BACK AND THINK.
AND IT'S GOING BACK TO WHAT JODY STARTED WITH THE ODD AND EVEN THE WAY IT'S SET RIGHT NOW, IT GUARANTEES THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A TIE BECAUSE IF COUNCIL TIES MAYORS BREAKING IT.
AWESOME. GREAT. OKAY. BUT AGAIN, I HEAR YOUR POINT.
I 100 I DON'T WANT TO THINK YOU THAT I'M NOT HEARING YOU.
AS THERESA SAID WHEN SHE WAS UP HERE MAKING IT AS ELEMENTARY AS POSSIBLE FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND. RIGHT. THIS, IN MY OPINION, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, MAKES IT AS FAILSAFE AS POSSIBLE.
SO JUST TO COMMENT ON WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THAT I FEEL LIKE, UNFORTUNATELY, THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AND JUST, YOU KNOW, LIVE THEIR LIVES IN PRINCETON WITHOUT KNOWING A LOT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT AND HOW IT'S RUN. DO YOU THINK THAT THE MAYOR DOES GET A VOTE AND MAKES MOST OF THE DECISIONS? SO WHETHER THE MAYOR IS UP THERE VOTING OR NOT, THEY THINK THAT HE OR SHE IS SO IN THE YOU KNOW, YOU SEE ONLINE, THEY USUALLY BLAME THE MAYOR FOR EVERYTHING, WHETHER IT'S THEIR FAULT OR NOT OR THE CITY OF PRINCETON.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT GIVING THE MAYOR A VOTE WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN WHO THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT OR, OR YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT AT THE POLLS OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY THINK THAT THE MAYOR VOTES.
ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS MATH,
[00:55:01]
RIGHT? A VETO VOTE IS A HUGE SHIFT IN BALANCE.A TIE BREAKING VOTE IS A HUGE SHIFT IN BALANCE.
HAVING A VOTE MAKES MAKES THE MAYOR A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.
RIGHT. SO. WHEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MATH AND YOU START TALKING ABOUT VETO OVERRIDES AND SUPERMAJORITIES IF YOU HAVE A FOUR FOR COUNCIL, RIGHT, A TIE VOTES A LOSS.
THAT'S THAT'S A NO. IN OUR COUNTRY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE MAJORITY.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE MAJORITY. THE MOTION FAILS.
THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE. THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENS IN THE HOUSE.
THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENS IN OUR STATE LEGISLATURE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A TIE BREAKER. YOUR TIE BREAKER IS A TIE IS A LOSS.
SO A FIFTH VOTE BEING REQUIRED OR OR AN ABSTAIN.
AND YOU GET FOUR VOTES BEING REQUIRED.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY HAVE, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE STANDING ON THEIR, THEIR BEHALF, THEN HAVING THE MAYOR VOTE AND REQUIRING A FIFTH VOTE TO PASS PROVIDES YOU WITH THE MAJORITY. SO IT'S ANOTHER OPTION OTHER THAN GIVING SOMEBODY A SWING VOTE ON A VETO OR A SWING VOTE ON A SECOND.
YOU KNOW, SLICE OF THE PIE. SO IT'S.
THANKS, DAVID. BEFORE I JUST WANT TO I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. THIS MAY KIND OF ADDRESS SOME THINGS. GRANT.
IN THIS PROCESS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT NUMBER OF SEATS RIGHT NOW.
THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE NUMBER OF SEATS.
AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT? RIGHT. BECAUSE I WHEN I DID SOME QUICK RESEARCH LOOKING AT THE EXAMPLES THAT WERE LISTED HERE, SOME OF THEM ARE SET UP WHERE THEY DO TIE.
SOME ARE SET UP WHERE THEY DON'T TIE.
SO THAT ALSO IS SOMETHING I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT WE'RE NOT LOCKED INTO THE NUMBER OF SEATS THAT WE HAVE HERE. I UNDERSTAND SOME MORE WORK AND MAYBE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. BUT AS WE'RE KIND OF THINKING THROUGH THIS, I WANT TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS THAT UNDERSTANDING. I GET YOUR POINT, DAVID, BUT WE CAN FIX THAT BY CHANGING THE NUMBER OF SEATS.
SO I THINK I, I YEAH. SO THAT WAS MY, THE REASON I, I PRESSED IT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW WE ARE SITTING AT EVERYBODY BEING AT LARGE SEAT.
I'VE HEARD THAT THAT WAS GOING TO CHANGE.
SO IF THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE IT KIND OF CHANGES THE DYNAMIC AS WELL.
SO WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT AND EVERYBODY HAVING BEING AN AT LARGE, THEN WE GO INTO ZONING AND DISTRICT DISTRICTS.
THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO RUN I, I, I WOULD STILL SAY THE SAME THING AS THE MAYOR BEING THE TIEBREAKER AND THE VETO.
BUT MY QUESTION WAS I AND I'M NOT SURE, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE JUST HEARD THAT WE WILL BE ADDING MORE COUNCIL SEATS.
SO IS THAT NOT THE CASE? NO, WE'RE NOT ADDING MORE COUNCIL SEATS.
SO WE WHAT WAS IT, 20? WELL, SO RECENTLY WE MOVED FROM, YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR PLUS FIVE TO THE MAYOR PLUS SEVEN. IN 2020, 29, 2030, YOU'LL BE GOING TO THE DISTRICT.
SO WE'RE LIKE AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S NOT AT AT LARGE.
IT'LL BE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DISTRICTS FOR EACH OF THE SEATS.
BUT WE'RE NOT ADDING, YOU KNOW, SEATS 8 OR 9.
IT'S JUST THEY'RE ASSIGNED TO THEIR, THEIR DISTRICTS.
THEY WILL GO INTO DISTRICT SEATS AND THEN WE WILL HAVE HOW MANY AT LARGE.
SO I BELIEVE THE MAYOR IS THE ONLY IS GOING TO BE THE ONLY AT LARGE.
AT LARGE? YEAH. IT'S IT'S YOU'RE RIGHT.
YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. SO HOW MANY AT-LARGE SEATS.
THREE. SO THREE AT-LARGE SEATS AND ONLY FOUR ALONG WITH THE MAYOR.
SO THERE'S ALWAYS AN ODD NUMBER.
WHEN IS IT. WHEN THE CITY HAS A POPULATION OF 50,000.
I THOUGHT I READ THAT SOMEPLACE.
[01:00:04]
23,000. 23. 20. 30. IT'S IN 2030.IT'S SECTION. CAROLYN, IT'S CHAPTER TWO.
SECTION 2.01. SO LET'S GO DOWNSTAIRS.
OKAY. YES, MA'AM. DAVID, YOU MENTIONED THAT.
YEAH. RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE YOUR MIC'S NOT TURNED ON.
YEAH. WELL, LET'S COME BACK TO YOU.
WELL, AS IT STANDS AND REVIEWING THIS, I'M OF THE MIND OF MR. GIFFORD'S HERE. IT'S NOT WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
I THINK TIEBREAKERS IS GOING TO HAPPEN MORE THAN YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH THE NUMBER OF CURRENT COUNCIL SEATS.
IF WE ALLOW THE MAYOR TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE FOR AND FOR MORE THAN ANYBODY REALIZES.
HOWEVER, I DO APPRECIATE WHAT MR. JOHNSON SAID IN REGARDS TO THE MAYOR HAS A VISION.
HE'S ELECTED FOR A PLATFORM THAT HE'S STAYING.
SO HE DOES HAVE SOME THINGS THAT AT STAKE THAT AS IT STANDS, HE REALLY HAS NO CONTROL OVER.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T THINK THE MAYOR SHOULD VOTE ON EVERYTHING. I DO THINK THE MAYOR SHOULD SUSTAIN THE TIE BREAKER VOTE, BUT I DO LIKE AN OPTION OF THROWING IN THAT VETO OPTION WITH HIM BEING ABLE TO BRING THAT BACK TO THE TABLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO REEVALUATE.
BEING A FORMER COUNCILMAN, I KNOW THAT WE VOTED ON SOME THINGS BEFORE THAT WE HAD TO GO RECONSIDER AND THINK ABOUT AFTER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS CONSIDERED, WHETHER IT WAS PUBLIC APPEARANCES, WHERE THEY BROUGHT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SOME TOPICS OR JUST AMONGST US COUNCIL.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, ESPECIALLY ON AN ISSUE THAT THE MAYOR CAMPAIGNED ON AND THAT THE CITY SEEMS TO BE SUPPORTING HIM ON, FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE, SO TO SPEAK, TO GIVE THE COUNCIL ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS ISSUE WITH MAYBE MORE CONSIDERATION, WITH MORE DATA, AND WITH MORE PUBLIC APPEARANCE ON THAT SITUATION. SO I THINK GIVING HIM A VETO OPTION, ESPECIALLY ON SOME OF THOSE PARTICULAR OPTIONS TO GIVE HIM THAT ABILITY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER TO GIVE HIM MORE AT STAKE THAN JUST PUTTING EVERYTHING ALL IN THE HANDS OF THE COUNCIL. YEAH.
AND ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF WHAT MR. RIBEIRO SAID, IS THAT FOR A GENERAL LAW TYPE A CITY, THE MAYOR HAS THAT RECONSIDERATION POWER.
BUT FOR A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY, YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY THAT IN THE CHARTER.
SO, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY FEW CITIES HAVE THE VETO POWER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ROUTE THAT MR. BARBERA MENTIONED IS KIND OF LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR CHART, IT'S LIKE WHAT SALINA HAS WHERE THE MAYOR VOTES ON TIES ONLY.
BUT THEN THE WAY IT WORKS IS THEY HAVE A VETO POWER OVER ORDINANCES.
THEY CAN VETO IT, COME BACK, AND THEN THE COUNCIL HAS TO OVERRIDE BY A MAJORITY OR A SUPERMAJORITY.
SO IF THERE IS IF IF THE COMMITTEE DOES WANT TO GO TO THE VETO ROUTE.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE SPECIFY THAT IN THE CHARTER. RENTAL.
DISCUSSION. BOTH DAVID AND RYAN MADE VERY COMPELLING COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY REALLY HAVE, WHICH IS A DEMOCRACY.
AND WHEN WE HAVE A TIE, WHAT HAPPENS? IT GETS REVISITED AND RE VOTED ON.
AND FOR ME WE GOT RID OF CEREMONIAL LEADERS MORE THAN 200 YEARS AGO TO CREATE THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND WHEN YOU WATCH ANY NEWS OR DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT CITIES AND EVENTS AND HOW THINGS HAVE PROGRESSED, WHEN YOU SEE LEADERSHIP IN A PURELY 100% CEREMONIAL ROLE, THEY ARE PLACED IN A NO WIN SITUATION FOR EVERYTHING.
BUT LIKE WE DESCRIBED EARLIER.
IF THEY HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME, THEY NOT ONLY ARE REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, BUT THEY ARE ALSO FREE TO SPEAK EXACTLY HOW THEY MAYBE FEEL AND THEY COULD PASS ON. AS AN ASIDE.
I FELT DIFFERENTLY, BUT THIS IS HOW WE VOTED AND THIS IS HOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD IN THE CITY. BUT I STILL ADVOCATE FOR THE MAYOR VOTING ON EVERYTHING.
SO THEY DO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME AND EVERYTHING.
AND IF WE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, REGARDLESS OF A EVEN OR ODD NUMBER AND AN ODD
[01:05:06]
NUMBER, WOULD CERTAINLY SET US UP TO HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY OF NOT HAVING AS MANY TIES, OBVIOUSLY. THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS GO SMOOTHER.BUT IN THE CASE OF A TIE, IF WE HAVE AN EVEN VOTING BODY BECAUSE MAYBE AGAIN, SOMEONE HAD TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES TO RECUSE THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF INVOLVEMENT IN WHAT'S BEING VOTED ON.
IF WE HAVE A TIE, WE THEN TABLE IT AND REVISIT AGAIN.
MAYBE WE MAKE CONCESSIONS OR ADJUSTMENTS TO SOMETHING ABOUT THE, LET'S SAY, RULE OR REGULATION THAT'S BEING VOTED ON SO THAT IT CAN BE PASSED OR A DECISION MADE THAT NO, IN THAT FORM, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THAT. AND MAYBE SOMEDAY WE REVISIT IT AGAIN, WHICH HAPPENS IN THIS COUNTRY EVERY DAY.
IT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. THANKS, RANDALL.
ALL RIGHT. I SEE SKYLER RIGHT HERE REAL QUICK.
AS A RESIDENT, I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL DURING YOUR CURRENT TERM OR WHATEVER.
HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN HERE? HOW LONG HAVE WE SEEN THESE TIES? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN A PART OF IT? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ARGUING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST VERSUS.
IT'S ODD. CORRECT. THAT'S THE POINT I'M GETTING TO.
I'M MORE LEANING TOWARDS THE SIDE OF HOW DAVID WAS SPEAKING, BECAUSE I AGREE. IF IT'S EIGHT, IF IT'S SIX, IF IT'S FOUR, HE STILL DESERVES A VOTE.
HE OR SHE DESERVES A VOTE, RIGHT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE RUNNING FOR A POSITION YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OF, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE ASSAULT AND I'M CALLING YOU SOFT.
MY APOLOGIES. A WEAK FIGUREHEAD, AND IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO BE IN THAT POSITION, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PUT IT.
I'M OPEN TO ANYONE SMARTER THAN ME ON THE SUBJECT OF WHERE TO HAVE IT, BUT I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A VOTE IN HERE.
THE VETO PIECE SIMILAR TO CELINE, I THINK IT WAS ON THE FORM.
WE CAN MAYBE PUT SOMETHING AROUND OR SOME STIPULATIONS, BUT VETO POWER AND EVERYTHING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
SO. I THINK A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED IS THAT THE MAYOR IS HE HE HE OPERATES AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
HE'S WITH COUNCIL AT EVERY MEETING, WHATEVER DISCUSSION OCCURS, THE MAYOR IS THERE. SO THE MAYOR GETTING ELECTED TO FULFILL HIS ELECTION PROMISES OR HIS ELECTION MANDATE HAS LEVERAGE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SO IT'S NOT AS IF HIS AGENDA WILL NOT GET FULFILLED.
I, I AS WE LOOK AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WE SEE THE VICE PRESIDENT BEING A TIE BREAKER. WHEN WE LOOK AT MAYBE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAYBE MAJORITY VOTE. BUT I TRULY BELIEVE THAT TO KEEP IT AS DEMOCRATIC AS POSSIBLE AND AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE. IT SHOULD BE THAT THE MAYOR IS THE TIEBREAKER, AND HE HAS THAT VETO POWER, THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE POWERS IN OTHER AREAS, AND HE'S JUST CEREMONIALLY THERE.
THESE ARE THE THIS IS THE TERMINOLOGY THAT'S USED BECAUSE IT'S BROUGHT OVER FROM OLD ENGLAND WITH THE TERMINOLOGY.
BUT THE MAYOR HAS MORE THAN JUST A CEREMONIAL IMPACT AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
THANKS, CAROLYN. IF I CAN JUMP IN, I SEE JUST JUMPING REAL QUICK BECAUSE I'M JUST ON THERE. I WANT TO INPUT MYSELF.
I THINK THAT THE CONVERSATION IS INFLUENCE OVER AUTHORITY.
RIGHT. THE MAYOR'S ROLE CURRENTLY HAS IS A POSITION OF INFLUENCE.
YES. HE HAS THE EAR OF THE COUNCIL.
HE'S IN THE COUNCIL MEETINGS. HE'S AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT AGAIN, TO THE POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER. I THINK TERENCE MENTIONED THIS. WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR PRINCETON AND PRINCETON? FUTURE STATE AND AND FOR ME, WHAT I HEAR ON A CONSISTENT BASIS IS SOCIAL MEDIA ALL OVER THE PLACE. PEOPLE CALLING OUT THE MAYOR FOR NOT DOING A, B, AND C, AND I GET THAT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE STATE, BUT WE ARE IN A POSITION RIGHT NOW WHERE WE ARE THE FASTEST GROWING CITY IN THE NATION, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE BIG CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOING FORWARD.
AND I ANTICIPATE, AGAIN, I'M NO SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT.
I'M WILLING TO BE ARGUED DOWN, BUT I ANTICIPATE THIS BEING A LONG TERM, LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE THE FIVE, TEN YEAR MARK. RIGHT. SO WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT ENSURES THAT THE PERSON THAT GETS ELECTED TO THAT POSITION,
[01:10:05]
THAT'S GOING TO GET THE, THE, THE, THE EAR, NOT JUST THE COUNCIL, WHAT THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT VISION FORWARD.AND SO TO ME, I THINK THAT IS THE ELEMENT THAT IT'S WORTH IT.
I'M I'M OPEN TO. HEY, I HEAR THE POINT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT ADJUSTING THE NUMBER OF SEATS. LET'S TALK ABOUT OTHER MEASURES THAT WE CAN PUT IN PLACE. BUT I DO THINK THAT IT'S IT'S IT'S A REYNOLDS POINT EARLIER.
WE'RE PUTTING HIM IN A POSITION WHERE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO ENACT THE VISION THAT THAT THAT HE HAS BEEN ELECTED TO FULFILL.
AND HE'S GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK AT THOSE MEETING POINTS POLLS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE CALLING HIM OUT FOR NOT DOING A, B, AND C WHEN HE DIDN'T HAVE THE THE ABILITY OR AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO DO SO. SO THAT'S MY MY $0.02 AND I'M SORRY DAVID I'LL, I'LL, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. OKAY.
YOUR, YOUR POINT ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT HAVING A VOTE OR HAVING VETO OR A VOTE FOR TIEBREAKER ISN'T A DIRECT PARALLEL, BECAUSE THE VICE PRESIDENT IS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD. NOW, IF THE IF OUR MAYOR WAS OUR CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. RIGHT.
SO, SO TO SAY THAT AS THE MAYOR, YOU'RE A A TIE BREAKER AS A, AS A, AS AN EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
SO TO, TO ELECT A MAYOR, GIVE HIM NO VOTE IS IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE CITIZENS. THE MAYOR NEEDS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT HE'S WHAT HE'S ELECTED TO DO. AND I THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO LEAVE HIM OUT.
SO. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO STILL KEEP IN MIND THAT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DECIDING ON AND VOTING ON IT AND DECIDING TO MOVE FORWARD TO STILL IS GOING TO BE ON A BALLOT FOR THE PEOPLE OF PRINCETON TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT, AND TO COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ACTUAL PART OF THIS OR NOT.
SO SAME THING WITH IF WE REVISIT THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS LATER AND ONE PASSES AND THE OTHER DOESN'T. THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, TOO. BUT I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO DECIDE TO GIVE HIM A VOTE OR NOT, THAT'S EITHER WAY. LIKE, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT STILL WILL BE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF PRINCETON. THANKS, ALISON. YEAH. AND TO ALICE'S POINT AND MY ISSUE, MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THE MAYOR HAVING A VOTE IS THE NUMBER OF SEATS.
I DON'T LIKE THE EVEN NUMBER OF EIGHT.
NOW, IF THERE IS IF IF THIS BODY SEES TO SEE FIT, TO PUT SOMETHING FORWARD FOR THE VOTERS TO VOTE ON, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN ADDITIONAL SEAT ADDED.
IF THERE WAS NINE SEATS, I MEAN EIGHT COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE ONE SEAT FOR NINE VOTES. I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT MATH.
I JUST DO NOT. I DO NOT LIKE THE TIE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND THAT'S JUST TO ME, THAT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE MORE OF AN ISSUE THAN IT HAS TO BE. SO LET'S I MEAN, IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY IS CONSIDERING BECAUSE YES, THE MAYOR, HIS NAME IS EVERYWHERE, YOU KNOW, EVEN EVEN AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC ON 380, IT'S THE MAYOR'S FAULT. I GET THAT.
IT SHOULD HAVE A STAKE IN THAT.
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THE FOUR FOUR IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
SO IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY CONSIDERING, WE NEED TO ADD ANOTHER COUNCIL SEAT.
RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE OVER TO YOU, RANDALL.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING FOR THE SAKE OF TIME.
LET'S MAKE THESE NEXT ROUNDS KIND OF QUICK BECAUSE WE ARE ON THE FIRST SECTION AND KIND OF GET TO A POINT WHERE WE ACTUALLY CAN MOVE TO A VOTE.
THANK YOU. MY LAST COMMENT IS THAT, OR AT LEAST FOR THE MOMENT, IS THAT MAYORAL CANDIDATE IS GOING TO HAVE A CAMPAIGN.
THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO CONVINCE VOTERS THAT SOME KIND OF AGENDA THEY HAVE IS WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AND IN HOPE THEY WILL BE REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC IN THAT WAY.
YET YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE THEM TO A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING IF THEY CAN'T VOTE. SO I AS WELL ALSO ADVOCATE FOR THE ODD NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
BUT THAT WILL BE A CONSIDERATION OF YOUR VOTING CAPACITY FOR THE MAYOR AS WELL.
THANK YOU. I THINK WE'RE KIND OF VOTING.
SO IF WE DON'T GIVE THE MAYOR A VOTE, BUT WE GIVE THEM VETO, THEN IT'S ESSENTIALLY LIKE A TIE.
BUT IF WE GIVE THE MAYOR A VOTE ANY TIME THAT IT LOSES, IT'S KIND OF THE SAME THING. RIGHT. SO IT'S EITHER WE LEAVE IT THE SAME WAY AND GIVE THE MAYOR A VETO, AND IF SOMETHING COMES UP LIKE A TIE, IT WILL. WE'RE KIND OF IN THE SAME LOOP THERE.
SO I DON'T I DON'T SEE AND WE'RE JUST PREDICTING THAT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE TIES
[01:15:01]
TITHES ALL OVER THE BOARD, AND I JUST DON'T.I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING.
IN OUR INSTANCE. SO I KNOW IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WILL I DON'T KNOW IF CHAIR IF YOU'RE READY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, BUT BUT I DID WANT TO GIVE THE.
WE HAVE THE MAYOR. I WANTED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I DO WANT TO GIVE JUST ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. AND THIS IS NOT TO INFLUENCE ANY, ANY WAY, WHICHEVER WAY TO GO.
BUT AS MAYOR AND I JUST BEING IN THIS SEAT HERE, I DO HAVE I'M NOT GONNA SAY CONTROL, BUT I DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PICK WHATEVER THAT I FEEL THE, THE PEOPLE WANT ON THE AGENDA FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE.
SO IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS PUTTING AN AGENDA.
THEN I GET A CHANCE TO VOTE. I DO GET A CHANCE TO PICK WHAT I FEEL THAT THE CITY NEEDS ON THE AGENDA. AGENDA.
I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT I NEED TO VOTE ON IT BECAUSE I DO HAVE THAT ABILITY.
BUT THE TIE BREAKING IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL LIKE IT IS NECESSARY.
AND I ALSO FEEL LIKE THAT THE ABILITY TO VETO BECAUSE LET'S JUST SAY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE WANT. RIGHT.
THIS IS WHETHER IT'S PINK TREES OR WHATEVER THAT WE WANT.
RIGHT? AND COUNCIL DECIDES THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AND THAT VETO POWER, THAT IS ME LETTING THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT, HEY, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO AND COUNCIL IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
AND I'M VETOING THIS. AND THEN THE SUPERMAJORITY OF COUNCIL CAN POTENTIALLY OVERRIDE ME. SO IT DOESN'T GIVE NOBODY THAT DOESN'T GIVE ME THE LAST TWO VOTES.
IT DOESN'T GIVE ANYBODY THE FINAL SAY, BUT LET'S SAY I VETO IT.
AND THEN THEN FOR IT COUNCIL TO OVERRIDE ME WOULD BE THE SUPERMAJORITY AT THAT AT THAT POINT. SO BECAUSE I HAVE CONTROL OF THE AGENDA, I STILL HAVE A SAY. SO I DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY HAVE A VOTE.
BUT IF I DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH, THEN WE CAN DEFINITELY USE ANOTHER METHOD TO WHERE I CAN VETO, AND THEN SUPERMAJORITY WILL OVERRIDE ME AT THAT POINT.
AND SUPERMAJORITY WILL BE EITHER SIX OF THE SEVEN COUNTY COUNCIL VOTED FOR IT OR AGAINST IT. SO. BUT JUST BEING AS MAYOR.
IT'S LIKE I DO HAVE THAT SAFE.
SO I DON'T HAVE IT'S NOT I'M NOT POWERLESS OR OR WHERE IT'S JUST SOMEBODY ELSE'S AGENDA TOGETHER AND WE ALL VOTE ON IT.
I CAN PAY WHATEVER I WANT ON THE AGENDA ITSELF, AND THAT I FEEL LIKE THAT IS MY VOICE THERE, WHERE WE CAN THEN GO BACK, BACK AND FORTH FROM, FROM FROM THERE.
SO THE VOTING, WHETHER I VOTE OR NOT, THAT'S NOT REALLY A BIG DEAL, BUT I THINK THE VETO WILL BE, WILL SAY TO THE PEOPLE HOW I ACTUALLY FEEL OR WHOEVER COMES AFTER AFTER ME.
CAN I? I CAN SAY AS A AS THE CHARTER CURRENTLY STANDS, THE MAYOR TECHNICALLY LEGALLY DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'S AT THE WHIM OF THE CITY MANAGER.
IF WHAT THEY DECIDE ON, THEY BOTH AGREE ON.
SO YOU WOULD KNOW TECHNICALLY BY THE HOME RULE CHARTER.
IT. CAN YOU CONFIRM FOR ME? WE WE'LL WE'LL GET TO THIS WHEN WE GET TO TO CHAPTER FOUR.
BUT BUT I, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IT SAYS SPECIFIC POWERS.
THE CITY MANAGER PREPARE AND RECOMMEND ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN THE OFFICIAL AGENDA.
NOW THE BYLAWS. THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY.
AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS. SO I DO THINK WHETHER IT'S IN THE MAYOR SECTION OR IN THE CITY MANAGER'S SECTION, THERE PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE SOME SOME CLARIFICATION. SO I'M I'M ONLY SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE ARE HERE TO DEFINE THAT.
SO THERE'S NOTHING ARBITRARY ABOUT IT.
THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. SO MR. MAYOR, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR THAT INPUT.
BUT I THINK AS CITIZENS AND I'M TRYING TO THINK BEYOND JUST YOUR SEAT FOR WHOMEVER SITS THERE WHEN THINGS GO WRONG, I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHO I NEED TO GO TO AND COMPLAIN ABOUT WHY IT WENT WRONG, OR IF I NEED TO RECALL THAT PERSON IN THAT SEAT. I NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAD AN ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING AND YOU DIDN'T.
ONE OF THE OH, I'M SORRY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP FOR THIS SECTION THAT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO YET WAS THAT THE MAYOR DOES HAVE THAT ABILITY TO SET THE AGENDA. ALSO, THE AUTHORITY TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL.
WE JUST HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR YET BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ON THIS PART OF IT.
YEP. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO TO RANDALL, AND THEN LET'S TRY TO GET TO RANDALL.
WE'LL GET OVER HERE, AND THEN LET'S HOPEFULLY WE CAN KIND OF COME TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE COMFORTABLE MAKING THE DECISION. MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IF YOU HAVE THE VETO POWER AND YOU HAVE YOUR YOU HAVE YOUR TIE OF FOUR AND FOUR.
HOW DO YOU ACCOMPLISH YOUR SUPERMAJORITY? BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A TIE.
[01:20:05]
SO WHAT? DO YOU CONVINCE SEVEN OF THOSE PEOPLE TO GO ONE WAY.SO THE VETO WILL ONLY COME IN EFFECT.
LIKE LET'S JUST SAY IT'S SIX OR IT'S FIVE AND THREE, RIGHT? AND I FEEL LIKE THAT AND IT'S IT'S IN OPPOSED TO WHATEVER I PUT ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'S WHERE THAT VETO POWER WOULD COME AND PLAY. BUT THE THE TIEBREAKER WOULD STILL BE IN EFFECT. SO IF IT'S FOUR AND FOUR OR IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, THREE AND THREE, I WOULD STILL BREAK THAT, THAT TIEBREAKER. BUT I THINK THE VETO POWER WOULD ONLY BE TO BRING SOMETHING BACK FOR A REASON CONSIDERED CONSIDERATION AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
SO IT'S IT'S IT CAN GO EITHER WAY, BUT I DON'T SEE.
IF I'M THE TIEBREAKER, THEN WE WON'T NEED TO VETO NOTHING AT THAT POINT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING.
I'M SORRY IF SOMEBODY ELSE HAS THE MICROPHONE.
RIGHT. IF YOU IF YOU HAVE THE VETO POWER AND YOU'VE BROKEN THE TIE, WHAT'S THE NEED FOR THE SUPERMAJORITY? SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT OF THE SUPERMAJORITY.
SO ON. SO THE VETO POWER WILL ONLY BE.
SO IF I, IF I HAVE A VOTE THEN THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO VETO.
IT'S ME SAYING LET'S KEEP IT AS IT IS.
GIVE ME THE VETO POWER AND THEN I CAN VETO AT THAT POINT.
BUT IF I HAVE A VOTE, THEN YEAH, IF IT'S FOUR AND FOUR, IF IT'S FOUR AND FOUR IS BECAUSE I HAVE A VOTE, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE KEEPING IT THE SAME WAY THAT IT IS WHERE IT'S A SEVEN VOTE.
AND IF THAT SEVEN VOTE IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL LIKE IT'S AGAINST WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT, THEN THAT'S WHEN THAT VETO WILL COME IN PLAY. BUT IF IT'S A FOUR AND FOUR THERE'S NO POINT FOR THE VETO. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO LEAVE THE THE MAYOR WITH NO VOTE, BUT GRANT THE MAYOR THE POWER OF VETO WITH THE. DID YOU COMPLETE YOUR MOTION? DID YOU COMPLETE YOUR MOTION? OH. COULD WE DISCUSS THIS? OKAY. COMPLETED HIS MOTION YET? HAVE YOU? YEAH. HE HASN'T COMPLETED A MOTION.
ALL RIGHT, SO I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION.
ORIGINAL MOTION TO MAKE THE MOTION TO LEAVE IT AS IS.
THE MAYOR WITH NO VOTE BUT GRANT THE MAYOR THE VETO POWER WITH THE TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY. SO, NO, NO.
SO YOU DON'T WANT HIM TO BE A TIGER? THAT IS A TIGER. YEAH.
HE'S A TIE BREAKER NOW BECAUSE HE SHOULD LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
THE MOTION IS LEAVE IT. LEAVE IT AS IT IS.
AS IT'S CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED WITH NO VOTE.
ONLY TO ADD THE MAYOR WITH THE ABILITY TO VETO WITH WITH THE TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY.
YEAH, WE CAN WE SAY IT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAY NO VOTE, CAN YOU TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON, PLEASE? I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.
CAN WE, CAN WE INSTEAD OF SAYING NO VOTE, LET'S LET'S SAY THIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A MOTION THAT THE MAYOR.
YEAH. DO WE? WELL, BEFORE YOU.
OKAY. I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
OKAY, SO I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE.
I'M SORRY Y'ALL. I'M LEARNING HOW TO WORK MICS.
OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT A MOTION FOR THE MAYOR TO HAVE THE VOTE OF BEING THE TIEBREAKER, AS WELL AS HAVING VETO POWER.
WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN HERE THAT SOLANA HAS.
SO THAT'S ON THE. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.
YEAH. WELL, IT SAID NO VOTE, AND I JUST MEANT NO GENERAL VOTE.
OKAY. SO THAT COMPLETES YOUR MOTION.
MISHA. I'M SORRY. THAT THAT COMPLETES YOUR MOTION.
YOU WANT TO BE SURE THAT THERE WAS ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHERE YOU WERE.
AND I THINK SOMETHING JUST. YOU JUST WENT OFF. ALL RIGHT.
SO WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST JUST WHENEVER WE HAVE A DISCUSSION, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ORGANICS OF THIS VETO FOR SURE. SO WHAT WHAT CAN HAPPEN IS SHE'S PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND, AND THEN AFTER THAT WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT UP TO VOTE.
SO IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE THE SECOND I MAY ASK FOR SOME CLARIFICATION.
[01:25:03]
SO SO IT'S TO KEEP IT AS IS.NO VOTE EXCEPT FOR A TIE AND THEN A VETO.
POWER TO THE MAYOR. ARE YOU THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT A SUPERMAJORITY VERSUS MAJORITY. SO SALINA IS JUST A MAJORITY.
SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY YOUR MOTION.
I'M GOING TO GO WITH SUPERMAJORITY.
IT'S LIKE A TWO THIRDS OR A33 FOURTHS.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE MOTION ALL RIGHT WITH THAT.
WELL, MARLOW'S SECOND BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE. SO WITH THAT. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? THAT WOULD BE WHERE YOU WOULD COME IN. JODIE IF YOU HAVE ITEMS TO DISCUSS.
SO THAT'S TWO THIRDS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
OKAY. WHAT'S TWO THIRDS OF SEVEN? 71%. AND THAT THAT WORKS ON ANYTHING PASSED BY COUNCIL.
WELL, YEAH. FOR THE VETO. HE CAN VETO ANYTHING PASSED BY COUNCIL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT'S FINE.
OKAY. I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
CAN SOMEBODY WITH THE TWO THIRDS AND THE FIVE BEING TWO THIRDS OF SEVEN, AND CAN SOMEBODY RUN THROUGH A SCENARIO THEN FOR US OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE VOTE WOULD BE, WHAT THE MAYOR WOULD, WOULD DO? AND I GUESS I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE LISTENING, BEING VERY QUIET, WHICH IS NOT UNLIKE WHICH IS NOT LIKE ME NORMALLY.
AND IN MY MIND, GIVING OUR MAYOR VETO POWER GIVES HIM GREATER POWER THAN A SINGLE VOTE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND.
I'D LIKE A SCENARIO IN TERMS OF WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH ANYBODY.
MAYBE YOU, MAYOR, BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME SOME CONTEXT AROUND WHY THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
I THINK JUST SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT, NOT AS MAYOR, BUT LET'S JUST SAY THAT IT'S A WE WANT TO DIRECT FUNDS TO GO TOWARDS POLICE, BUT BUT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE IT GO TOWARDS PARKS.
THAT WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE AA4 OR THREE VOTE WHERE, WHERE COUNCIL VOTED THAT IT GOES TOWARDS PARKS AND NOT TOWARDS POLICE.
BUT WE KNOW THAT WE NEED A WE NEED TO REDIRECT THE MONEY TOWARDS POLICE.
THAT'S WHERE I WOULD COME IN AND VETO THAT VOTE ITSELF.
AND THEN FOR THAT VOTE TO BASICALLY BE OVERRAN, THE SUPERMAJORITY WILL HAVE TO VOTE, WHICH THAT WOULD BE SIX OF THE SEVEN WILL HAVE TO BASICALLY VOTE AGAINST ME, AND THAT THEY VOTE AGAINST ME AT THAT TIME FOR FIVE. SO 5 OR 7. OKAY.
SO 5 OR 7 WILL HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST WHAT I'M SAYING TO.
AND THEN IF THEY VOTE AGAINST ME, THEN THAT FUNDS WILL GO TOWARDS PARKS AND NOT TOWARDS WHEREVER. I FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO GO AT THAT POINT.
SO IT STILL IT DOESN'T GIVE THE MAYOR A FINAL SAY.
IT JUST MAKES THE COUNCIL MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL HAVE TO AGREE WITH WHAT EITHER I'M SAYING OR OR NOT, BUT IF THE TWO THIRDS IS NOT MET.
SO IF IF THERE'S YOU, IF YOU VETO THE FOUR THREE VOTE FOR PARKS FUNDING, YOU VETO THAT.
AND THERE IS NO SUPERMAJORITY IN THIS CASE DEFINED AS TWO THIRDS.
THE VETO STANDS. MY VETO WON'T STAND.
SO LET'S JUST SAY THAT WE VOTE AGAIN.
AND AND FIVE STILL VOTES AGAINST ME.
BUT NOW LET'S SAY THOSE FIVE DO VOTE IN MY FAVOR.
THEN. THEN WHAT? WHAT I SAID WOULD BASICALLY GO FROM AM I CORRECT? OR WE WILL BRING THAT BACK UP TO TO RECONSIDERATION AT THAT POINT ON HOW WE'LL HAVE TO BASICALLY CREATE A NEW MOTION FOR WHATEVER THAT THAT ITEM IS.
YEAH. SO, SO THE SALINA METHOD, I KNOW THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT SALINA IS DOING VERSUS WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED, THE DIFFERENCE BEING THE MAJORITY VERSUS SUPERMAJORITY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, SAY AN ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED FOR THREE THE MAYOR CAN USE VETO POWER AND IT REQUIRES THAT ORDINANCE TO GO BACK.
GO, GO TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING FOR RECONSIDERATION.
AND THEN IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ADOPTED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY A SUPERMAJORITY. ONCE HE'S CORRECT, ONCE HE'S VETOED, WHICH WOULD BE IF IT'S TWO THIRDS, IT WOULD BE THE FIVE, FIVE MEMBERS OR FOUR OUT OF SIX OR.
[01:30:01]
YEAH, 3 TO 5. YEAH. SO THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S HOW THE SALINA METHOD WORKS.SO IF WE KIND OF USE THAT IN PRINCETON, WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THE SUPERMAJORITY, THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT WOULD WORK PRACTICALLY.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING WITH SUPERMAJORITY.
RIGHT. SO THE REASON WHY I SAY IN FIVE OUT OF SEVEN BECAUSE THAT'S 71% TWO THIRDS IS 67.
SO THREE OUT OF FIVE WOULD ONLY BE 60%.
SO WE NEED TO BE FOUR OUT OF FIVE.
ARE WE CLEAR THAT'S NOT A SUPERMAJORITY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DEFINE IT IN HERE BY A PERCENTAGE. THE SUPER, SUPER MAJORITY IS GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY HOW MANY COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO DOING THE MATH ON IT IS 66%.
YOU CAN'T HAVE 4.6 PEOPLE, SO THAT ROUNDS UP TO FIVE.
SO THAT'S HOW YOU GET TO FIVE, 5 OR 7.
SO IN A SITUATION WHERE TWO PEOPLE AREN'T, THERE IS FIVE.
SO YOU'RE MY YOU'RE MY I'M ON.
OH THERE YOU GO. SO IN THE SITUATION WHERE TWO PEOPLE AREN'T THERE THAT'S FIVE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVE WE CAN ONLY HAVE THREE.
AND THAT'S FINE BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S HOW MUCH PERCENT SO IF THERE'S FIVE, THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOUR MEMBERS. IT'D BE THREE AND A THIRD. SO YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE FOUR. SO BEFORE THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID.
IT'S NOT IT'S NOT YOU BREAKING TWO DOWN EACH TIME.
IT'S A PERCENTAGE. SO IT'D BE TWO THIRDS OF THOSE PHYSICALLY PRESENT AND VOTING.
YEAH. IF THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW WE WANTED TO FINE IT.
OKAY, SO I THINK WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION FOR CLARIFICATION THERE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ARE WE GOOD TO GO AHEAD? SO SO GRANT SALINA HAS MAJORITY AND WE'RE PROPOSING SUPERMAJORITY.
THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALINA WAS PROPOSED. YEAH.
YEAH. THANKS. WOULD YOU PERMIT ME TO JUST READ SOMETHING FROM HTML? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. IT SAYS AFTER AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION IS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, IT MUST BE PLACED IN THE SECRETARY'S OFFICE FOR THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE.
THE MAYOR MAY SIGN THE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION, IN WHICH CASE IT TAKES EFFECT.
OR HE OR SHE MAY RETURN THE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TO THE COUNCIL WITH OBJECTIONS.
IN THE CASE OF RETURN TO THE COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL MUST RECONSIDER THE VOTE BY WHICH THE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED.
IF THE COUNCIL PASSES THE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY, EXCLUDING THE MAYOR, THE ORDINANCE TAKES EFFECT.
IF THE MAYOR NEITHER SIGNS THE ORDINANCE NOR SENDS IT BACK BACK TO COUNCIL, IT AUTOMATICALLY. IT AUTOMATICALLY TAKES EFFECT AFTER THE FOURTH DAY.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT THAT'S FOR TYPE A MUNICIPALITIES, NOT FOR HOME RULE.
WE HAVE A SECOND. ARE WE GOOD TO VOTE? SORRY. MALO. MALO. SECONDED.
YEAH. SO. OKAY. WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN IT.
SO IF YOU'RE IN A APPROVAL OF THE MOTION THAT WAS PUT ON THE FLOOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THAT MUST BE THERE. ALL RIGHT.
AND FOR THE KNOW RANDALL AND MARK.
ALL RIGHT. AWESOME. THAT WAS THAT WAS THE FIRST SECTION GUYS.
YEAH I DO HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT SECTION.
I WOULD BRING IT OUT FOR DISCUSSION THAT THE MAYOR DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY, AS I MENTIONED, TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES, INITIATIVES DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE MAYOR WILL NEED TO PROVIDE A MONTHLY COMMUNICATION TO RESIDENTS, OUTLINING KEY UPDATES, DECISIONS AND UPCOMING ISSUES.
THE MONTHLY COMMUNICATIONS CAN BE DELIVERED VIA VIDEO, NEWSLETTER AND OR SOCIAL MEDIA.
SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDED TO SECTION 3.01.
I GUESS. ANYONE IN MOTION? ANYONE HAVE? WELL, I THINK WE OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION AND SEE IF ANYONE HAS ANY INPUT ON
[01:35:03]
THAT. IF NOT, THEN. SO I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT BECAUSE AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THIS POINT YET, BUT WE CURRENTLY DON'T PAY OUR MAYOR, PERIOD. SO TO ASK OR HAVE A A REQUEST SUCH AS THAT AND ASK THEM, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE WORKING AND DOING THINGS IF THEY ARE THE LEADERS OF THEIR HOUSEHOLDS AND NEEDING AND THAT'S THE THEY HAVE ANOTHER JOB ON THE SIDE.WE'RE ASKING THEM TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE REALM, ESPECIALLY PUTTING IT IN A CHARTER.
NOW, WHEN IF WE'RE GOING TO I GUESS BEFORE WE SAY AT THAT MOST BEFORE I EVEN BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE AS THE RESIDENT, I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.
BUT BEFORE I GUESS BEFORE I WOULD EVEN AGREE TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE I'M GOING TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER UNTIL WE GO DOWN BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE COMING UP.
WELL, WE DO HAVE THE COMPENSATION COMING UP, BUT THIS PART THAT I'M REFERRING TO, CAN WE SOME POINT, CAN WE CONSIDER THEM SEPARATELY REALLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, YEAH, THE CONVERSATION SECTION IS ITS OWN SECTION.
SO NO, NO, NO, I MEAN, CAN WE CONSIDER THE TWO THINGS MAXINE SAID SEPARATELY? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE TALKING ABOUT ADDING THINGS TO THE AGENDA AND THEN ALSO A NEWSLETTER CAN WE LIKE, TALK ABOUT FOR SURE SEPARATELY.
AND I WANT TO KIND OF CALL OUT SOMETHING AS LIKE A YEAH, TWO SEPARATE LIKE THIS THIS.
SHE HASN'T MADE AN OFFICIAL MOTION YET.
SO THIS IS AN ITEM UP FOR DISCUSSION, WHICH I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, A GOOD POINT TO BRING UP.
OH YEAH. NO. SHE ASKED IF SHE CAN MAKE A MOTION.
SHOULD SHE MAKE A MOTION. AND I WAS SHE WASN'T MAKING A COULD WE YET COULD WE POTENTIALLY MAYBE HAVE TWO MOTIONS ON THEM AND TWO DISCUSSIONS ON THEM BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE MAYBE I FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT TWO OF EACH ONE.
AND THEN MAXINE, WOULD YOU MIND CAN WE JUST MAYBE CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FIRST ONE FIRST SO I CAN HEAR IT AGAIN, THE FIRST PART OF WHAT YOU SAID.
SO THE FIRST THING I SAID WAS THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE AGENDA, PUT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICY INITIATIVES DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL, SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO GET LIKE AN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
HE CAN DIRECTLY, IF HE CHOOSES, TO PUT ON THE AGENDA, TO VOTE ON ADDING PINK TREES OUTSIDE.
HE CAN PUT THAT ON THERE AS WELL AS INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES.
YEAH. TERRANCE, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY IF WE BECAUSE I KNOW THE COMPENSATION PORTION OF IT CAME UP. BUT WHEN THAT ITEM OR WHEN DISCUSSIONS HAPPENED WITH THAT, I THINK IT WILL BE WISE THAT CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THAT CONVERSATION. SO I WOULD JUST OPENLY SAY THAT ONCE THAT CONVERSATION COMES UP, WE'LL PROBABLY I WOULD PROBABLY STEP OUT OF THE ROOM WHILE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPENSATION PORTIONS OF IT.
YEAH. WE HAVEN'T GOT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION TO TO.
HER FIRST POINT AROUND THE MAYOR HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO BRING UP ORDINANCES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
IS THAT ADDRESSED THE POWERS ONLY IN THIS SECTION, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS COVERED IN OTHER. IS THIS I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT A SECTION FURTHER ON DOWN THE LINE WHERE THAT'S ACTUALLY MORE. YEAH, I WOULD SO I WOULD ADD SOME LANGUAGE TO POTENTIALLY JUST IF THAT'S THE ROUTE, THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO GO TO THIS SECTION 3.01.
AND THEN WE CAN ALSO IT CAN BE THE SAME BALLOT PROPOSITION.
WE CAN SPECIFY THE SECTION FOR WHERE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE 403 I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED.
SO THE CITY JUST JUST TO CLARIFY.
OKAY. WHO HAS, YOU KNOW, FINAL SAY OVER AGENDAS.
SO WE COULD ADDRESS IT IN THIS SECTION AND THEN ALSO CLEAN IT UP IN CHAPTER FOUR AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU.
PERFECT. OKAY. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID MAXINE, IF YOU IF YOU'D LIKE, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION BROUGHT UP FROM ALLISON AS TO HOW WE'RE APPROACHING THAT FROM A MOTION STANDPOINT.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY OTHER INPUT OR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. OKAY, THANKS. OKAY. CAN YOU RESTATE IT ONE MORE TIME? SURE. THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICY INITIATIVES DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL, AS WELL AS SET AGENDA ITEMS AND SET THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT HE WOULD LIKE ON THE AGENDA. MY MICROPHONE PLEASE.
[01:40:02]
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, JUST TO AMEND THAT SO THAT IT STATES THAT HE HAS FINAL SAY OF THE AGENDA.HE CAN AS I USED AS AN EXAMPLE, HE CAN PUT AN AGENDA ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO HAVE COUNCIL VOTE ON ADDING PINK TREES OUTSIDE IF HE WANTED TO.
I GET YOUR POINT BECAUSE THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT OPEN ITEM DISCUSSION IS WHO HAS THE FINAL SAY SO I AGREE WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
THE MAYOR HAS THE SAY OVER THE AGENDA, THE ITEMS AND THE FINAL SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT SEEMS LIKE WE VOTED TO SAY AS IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE VETO, THE BOILERPLATE STUFF SHE'S TALKING ABOUT OUGHT TO BE A PART OF THAT.
THAT MOTION. IT SEEMS TO BE RIGHT NOW.
WHAT'S IN THE CHARTER? THERE'S ONLY TWO SENTENCES.
AND IF WE LEAVE IT AS IS, IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THAT STUFF.
WELL, IT'S A, IT'S A DISCUSSION. IT'S, IT'S A DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT'S THE POINT OF IT TO, TO MAKE A MOTION.
WELL RIGHT NOW IT'S A DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION HASN'T BEEN MADE.
AND THAT'S THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION, IS TO GET TO THE POINT OF A MOTION BEING MADE, AND THEN WE'LL WE'LL VOTE ON IT.
YEAH. AND AT THAT POINT, IF IT'S APPROVED, WE'LL BE AT IT.
BUT CAN YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG? WOULD THIS HAVE TO AMEND THE MOTION WE JUST HAD WITH THE VOTING AND THE VETOING? I DON'T THINK SO. I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION, BUT I THINK THAT THE.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WHOEVER MADE THE MOTION, I THINK THE INTENT BEHIND THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS TO KEEP IT AS IS, MEANING THE VOTING. CORRECT? YEAH. MINE'S NOT INVOLVING THE VOTING OR THE MEETING.
MINE'S INVOLVING THE AGENDA AND THE POWERS THAT THE MAYOR HAS.
YEAH. SO I THINK THERE'S A SECTION THAT ISN'T IN OUR CHARTER THAT I THINK WE'RE GETTING TO NOW, WHICH WAS MAXINE IS ALLUDING TO, IS POWERS OF THE MAYOR, POWERS OF THE COUNCIL, SO THAT WE'LL KIND OF DRILL THAT DOWN IN TERMS OF WHAT THE MAYOR, WHAT POWERS THE MAYOR HAS AND WHAT POWER THE COUNCIL HAS. I THINK I SEE YOUR YOUR MIC ON.
YES. SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, THE MAYOR WOULD BE THE SOLE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AGENDA.
TOO. NO ONE ELSE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND OR HAVE ANYTHING INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA.
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
I'M. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I'M GIVING THE MAYOR THE POWER TO PUT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND THE POWER TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCES.
RIGHT NOW, THE MAYOR DOESN'T HAVE THOSE, RIGHT? OKAY, POWERS, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY THE MAYOR.
THANK YOU. RIGHT. AND I WANT TO CLARIFY AND ALSO FINAL SAY.
AND THE FINAL SAY ON THE HE WOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THE AGENDA.
SO HE'S EXCLUSIVE. SO CAN I PROVIDE SOME CLARITY? HE DOES HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE AGENDA.
IF HE HAS FINAL SAY. NOT NECESSARILY.
I CAN PROVIDE SOME CLARITY. SO THE WAY THE WAY THAT IT IS, THE AGENDA IS PREPARED BY THE CITY SECRETARY AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY, AS IN THE CITY MANAGER.
WHAT'S PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC ISN'T NECESSARILY THE FINAL SAY OF THE MAYOR.
THAT THAT CAN BE PRESENTED WITHOUT THE MAYOR'S INVOLVEMENT OR HIS SIGN OFF.
ACCORDING TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER, AS IT STANDS, WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS IT STILL GOES TO THAT PROCESS. BUT BEFORE WE SEE IT AS A PUBLIC, THE MAYOR NEEDS TO APPROVE WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC ON THIS AGENDA AND WHAT WE GET TO DISCUSS ON COUNCIL AND CAN ADD ITEMS OR REMOVE ITEMS AND TO TO BRING SOME CLARIFICATION. THIS IS THIS CURRENT STATE THAT HAPPENS.
IT JUST HAPPENS IN A DIFFERENT ROLE, RIGHT? WE'RE JUST SHIFTING IT FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. CORRECT.
SO YOU SO YOU DON'T SEE THAT AS THE MAYOR HAVING EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE AGENDA THAT'S PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I AM SORRY, GRANT, BUT GRANT AND THE CITY MANAGER HAVE EXCLUSIVE. DON'T AGREE LIKE THAT.
YEAH. NO OFFENSE, GRANT, BUT IT'S YOU KNOW AND I'LL LET I'LL LET THE MAYOR CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT TOO, BUT I THINK THE WAY IT WORKS RIGHT NOW, A LOT OF THIS HAPPENS BEHIND THE SCENES. IT'S JUST NOT EXPRESSLY WRITTEN THAT THAT'S THE PROCESS TO FOLLOW, RIGHT? SO I KNOW THAT THAT MAYOR MEETS, YOU KNOW, HE GETS A CHANCE TO GO OVER THE AGENDA AND MEETS WITH WITH MIKE TO LOOK AT IT.
BUT IT'S IT'S I THINK JUST HAVING WE'VE HAD SOME THERE'S TWO WAYS TO INTERPRET THE CHARTER AND THE BYLAWS.
SO I THINK HAVING SOME CLARIFICATION WOULD HELP.
NOT JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE POTENTIALLY AMENDING THE CHARTER NOT FOR TODAY'S SITUATION, BUT FOR FIVE, TEN, 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
AND WE'VE HAD SOME DISCREPANCY ON THIS IN THE PAST.
SO OKAY, SO I UNDERSTAND AND I AGREE WITH HER THAT THE MAYOR SHOULD HAVE THE EMPOWERED
[01:45:01]
ABILITY TO DICTATE SOME THINGS, YOU KNOW, ON THE AGENDA.BUT WHAT I HEAR WHEN YOU WRAP UP IS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, HE'S THE FINAL DECISION MAKER.
BUT CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW, GRANT AND THE CITY MANAGER ARE.
AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE SAYING, NOT ME.
YES. WELL, BUT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE SETTING THE AGENDA.
THE MAYOR HAS NO SAY IN IT AT ALL RIGHT NOW.
CURRENT STATE. THE COUNCIL CAN INTRODUCE ITEMS. THEY CAN THEY CAN SEND OFF FOR ITEMS, BE ADDED TO THE THEY CAN REQUEST ITEMS BE ADDED TO AGENDA AT THE END OF THE DAY.
THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE ITEMS ACTUALLY MAKE IT. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.
AM I MISSING SOMETHING? YES. SO. YES. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? I'LL DO MY SOMETHING. WELL, WE WE HAVE, WE HAVE LET'S WE HAVE SOME.
SOMETHING CUTE. I'M DONE WITH MY COMMENT.
AND I THINK THE MAYOR WANTED TO SAY, WELL, LET'S LET'S THE WE WE LOVE OUR MAYOR.
HE'S NOT IN QUEUE YET, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE LINE.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT, CHAIRMAN.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, MAXINE, WE'RE BASICALLY PULLING FOR THREE SPECIFIC POWERS. NUMBER TWO, FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
FROM THE CITY MANAGER TO THE MAYOR.
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WELL, I. I'LL LET YOU ANSWER YOUR FIGURES.
WELL, I HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET.
THE THE CITY MANAGER WILL STILL HAVE INPUT, BUT THE MAYOR WILL NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD ITEMS TO THE AGENDA, AS WELL AS INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES TO COUNCIL. AND THE MAYOR WILL HAVE A FINAL SAY IN THE AGENDA AS WELL. AND I WOULD SAY JUST.
JUST TO GO OVER KIND OF HOW IT WORKS NOW.
AND IT'S, IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LIKE GRANT ENTITIES.
A FEW TIMES IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY WHO HAS THE FINAL SAY.
SO LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH AN EXAMPLE.
IF I WANTED TO PUT A FORENSIC AUDIT ON THE AGENDA TO FOR COUNCIL TO VOTE ON.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE CITY MANAGER CAN'T.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THAT HAS TO GO ON THE AGENDA.
THE CITY MANAGER POTENTIALLY CAN SAY, I DON'T WANT THIS GOING ON AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GOING TO PUT IT ON.
SO. AND I THINK THAT THE WAY I READ THE BYLAWS AND THE AND THE CHARTER ITSELF, THE CITY MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING THE CITY BUSINESS ITSELF, WHICH MEANS THAT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S LIKE A PLOT OR SOMETHING THAT'S TIME SENSITIVE, THAT IS HIS JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MAKES IT ON THE AGENDA ITSELF.
AND I DON'T WANT NO POWER OVER IT, TELLING HIM THAT CITY BUSINESS CAN'T BE DONE.
WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, WHICH IS WHAT I KIND OF CALL CITY BUSINESS AND THE PEOPLE BUSINESS, WHICH I FORENSIC AUDIT THINGS THAT THAT PEOPLE WANT. LIKE I SAID, THE PINK TREES. HE SHOULDN'T.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY, THE BUSINESS ITSELF, THE MACHINE ITSELF SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THIS ON THERE REGARDLESS OF IF THE PEOPLE WANT IT OR NOT.
SO I'M NOT TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH CITY BUSINESS.
BUT I THINK THAT HAVING THE FINAL SAY AS FAR AS PUTTING THINGS OUTSIDE OF REGULAR DAY TO DAY BUSINESS SHOULD BE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT THAT THE PEOPLE ELECT.
SO NOT NOT THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES.
SO THE EMPLOYEES SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY, I DON'T WANT TO PUT THIS ON A FORENSIC AUDIT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOVER SOMETHING. SO AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE THIS KIND OF SITUATION CAME, CAME UP WHERE WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T KNOW IN THE BEGINNING WHO HAS THAT FINAL SAY. BUT I THINK THAT THE WAY IT'S STATED IN THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE CITY MANAGER FORMULATES AND IT SAYS IT BASICALLY GIVES A LIST OF ITEMS OF IS BASICALLY CITY BUSINESS THAT, YOU KNOW, TIME SENSITIVE ITEMS. BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT A MAYOR OR COUNCIL HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PUT STUFF ON THE AGENDA AGENDA. SO I THINK THAT IS CLEAR, CLARIFYING WHO HAD THAT FINAL SAY.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A FINAL SAY AS FAR AS FOR CITY BUSINESS ITSELF.
SO PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE CLEAR IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YEAH. OKAY. SO MICROPHONE PLEASE.
THERE YOU GO. SO HERE'S A QUESTION.
SAY THAT I KNOW THAT IN ORDER FOR CITY MANAGER TO BE REMOVED YOU HAVE TO BRING THEM BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THAT HAS TO BE ON THE AGENDA.
CORRECT. SO IF THE CITY MANAGER HAS FULL CONTROL OVER THE AGENDA AND HE KNOWS THAT
[01:50:05]
HE'S ON THE AGENDA TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL FOR WHATEVER REASON.HE CAN KEEP THAT OFF. IS THAT TRUE? CURRENTLY. IS IT TRUE? NO IT'S NOT. NO. OKAY.
LISTEN. I AM ASKING A QUESTION.
THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE IT.
THAT IS ACTUALLY THE ITEM RIGHT THERE. CAN'T HAPPEN.
I THINK WE NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE BYLAWS AND THE CHARTER.
THE CHARTER? WE'RE HERE FOR THE CHARTER? YES, BUT THERE IS SOME BEING THAT WE ARE HERE FOR THE FOR THE CHARTER AND BEING THAT WE ARE HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS FLOW SMOOTHLY THROUGH OUR CITY.
I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP EMOTIONS OUT OF IT.
I DON'T GET EMOTIONAL THAT WAY.
SO I AM ASKING THIS QUESTION BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE SAYING THERE'S THERE'S THERE'S GAPS, THERE'S THINGS THAT WE NEED TO CLEAN UP, THERE'S THINGS WE NEED TO CLOSE.
SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, ARE ARE BEING VERY SPECIFIC.
SO WHEN THOSE CITIZENS CAME UP, THEY'VE ALREADY COME AND ASKED TO ASK OF US AS A COMMITTEE, AS RESIDENTS.
NOT IT, BECAUSE I'M NOT A COUNCILMAN, I'M NOT ANY OF THAT AS A RESIDENT.
BE SPECIFIC. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
BREAK IT DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE A SIXTH GRADER CAN READ IT.
THAT'S THAT'S WHY THESE QUESTIONS ARE FORMING.
AND I'M ASKING THEM, CAN THAT HAPPEN? AND IF IT CAN, LET'S CLEAN IT UP.
THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. IT'S JUST LIKE HE SAID THE CITY IS.
IN DOING BUSINESS WITH AMICIA.
AMISHA. THAT'S WHAT MY TOPIC WAS, IS TO HELP CLEAN IT UP A LITTLE BIT IN DETAIL. OUT EXACT. OKAY.
AND I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION AND I JUST WANT TO CALL TO ATTENTION.
IT'S 755. SO FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH THE FULL CHAPTER TONIGHT.
AND THIS, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MOVE TO TO BRING INTO OUR NEXT MEETING BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ITEM ON HERE TO DISCUSS WHAT OUR NEXT MEETING DATES ARE GOING TO BE, AND THAT MAY HELP US INFORM WHEN THAT SHOULD BE AND HOW OFTEN THEY SHOULD BE GOING FORWARD. SO I DON'T WANT TO STOP ANYONE FROM MAKING A MOTION, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE WE'RE LIKE FOUR MINUTES FROM BEING OUT OF HERE.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE WE PAUSE, WE MOVE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING, AND THEN LET'S MOVE ON TO THE ITEM TO DISCUSS WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING DATES ARE GOING TO BE.
SO THAT WAY WE CAN KIND OF ENSURE THAT THAT'S LINED OUT.
THAT'S FINE. I CAN WE CAN TABLE I WILL TABLE MY 3.1 MAYOR AUTHORITY ITEM TO OUR NEXT MEETING, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AND THEN WE CAN CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR SURE.
CONTINUE WITH THAT. AND THEN I'LL TABLE MY SECOND ITEM THAT I HAD ABOUT THE MONTHLY COMMUNICATION AS WELL.
WITH THAT BEING SAID I DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE GET THROUGH THIS THIS NEXT ITEM.
SO, SO THAT EVERYONE'S CLEAR RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THAT WE'RE TABLING THE REMAINING PART OF CHAPTER THREE, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM TO CONSIDER THE DATES.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE ITEM H .52025117.
[H.5 2025-117 Consider selecting the dates and times of future Committee meetings; and take appropriate action.]
CONSIDER SELECTING THE DATES AND TIMES FOR FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. GRANT, IF YOU WANT TO KIND OF KEEP US HONEST HERE.SO THE THE EXTENSION HAS US OUT TO THE 28TH OF NEXT MONTH.
CORRECT? RIGHT. AND SO KURT STATE WE ARE HAVE WE HAVE OUR NEXT MEETING SET FOR THE NINTH WHICH IS BASED OFF THE BIWEEKLY SCHEDULE.
ORIGINALLY WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADJUST THAT BECAUSE I THINK AFTER WE SCHEDULED THE CDC'S SCHEDULED A MEETING.
SO WE'RE KIND OF BACK WE'RE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. GOTCHA. OKAY.
WHETHER THAT'S GOOD OR BAD NEWS.
SO WHAT I WHAT I WOULD SAY IS JUST KIND OF MOVE THIS ALONG.
I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHERE HOW LONG THIS HAS TAKEN US TO KIND OF GET THROUGH THIS. RIGHT? AND WHAT THE CADENCE LOOKS LIKE.
SO I KNOW THAT FOR ME, I THINK THAT WE'RE PROBABLY TO MEET THAT TIME FRAME THAT JULY 28TH, WE MAY NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE BIWEEKLY,
[01:55:01]
BIWEEKLY AND MOVE TO A WEEKLY.CADENCE IS MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT I WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND SEE WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS.
I AGREE. I AGREE. I AGREE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT MAYBE WE FIND A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE TO GET OUR OUR AMENDMENTS PRESENTED, DISCUSSED, VOTED ON THE MOVE, PASSED BECAUSE AT THE CURRENT RATE WE'RE GOING, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST THROWING THINGS AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE WHAT STICKS, AS OPPOSED TO COMING PREPARED TO PRESENT THOSE AMENDMENTS AND DETERMINE IF WE WANT TO VOTE ON THOSE OR NOT. SO I JUST I MEAN, WE JUST LOOK AT THE SECTIONS, MAKE YOUR NOTES AGAINST A 3.1, 3.2 AND THEN PRESENT WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE. IF WE'RE IF WE HAVE SOME OF THE SAME NOTES OF THE SAME MIND.
ADJUST THE MOTION FOR THAT AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
OPPOSE ITEMS WITH MOTIONS AND PARENTS CAN TAKE IT TO DISCUSSION.
ONE SECOND. CAN YOU TALK TO YOUR SUGGESTION? CAN YOU OUTLINE THAT AND GET THAT OVER? SO THAT WAY WE CAN KIND OF REVIEW IT AND WE CAN PRESENT IT BACK TO THE TO THE GROUP HOLISTICALLY AS TO THE FORMAT.
YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY ASKING WAY TOO MUCH.
BUT IF SOMEONE HAS AN AMENDMENT TO PRESENT FOR WHAT WILL BE COMING UP ON THE AGENDA TO HAVE IT TYPED UP AND WE HAVE ENOUGH COPIES TO PASS OUT IN ADVANCE.
PROBABLY ASKING TOO MUCH, BUT IT WAS YOUR HELP.
SO MORE THAN HAPPY. AND WHAT I WILL DO IS BASED OFF OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
BASED OFF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
WHAT KIND OF SOLIDIFY ON SOMETHING, AND WE'LL COME BACK AND PRESENT IT TO YOU GUYS IN THE NEXT MEETING. I THINK RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FIGURE OUT WHEN THE NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT JULY 9TH IS OFF THE TABLE, BUT SO NEXT WEEK. IF WE WERE TO KEEP IT ON WEDNESDAY.
WHAT? WHAT DAY IS THAT? JULY 2ND. JULY 2ND. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AT AD HOC IS MEETING THE BYLAWS COMMITTEES MEETING ON JULY 2ND ALREADY? WELL, WE'RE WE'RE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS.
WE'RE JUST. I'M JUST PLAYING. OKAY.
SO DOES ANYONE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO, LIKE, MAYBE A DIFFERENT DATE? MAYBE THURSDAY THE THIRD. DO YOU WANT TO POST A THURSDAY THIRD? MARK SUPPOSED THURSDAY THE THIRD OR IS THAT UP AS A YES.
AS OPPOSED. OPPOSED? OKAY, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE BALL ROLLING. I THINK NEXT WEEK WAS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT JUST BECAUSE THE CURRENT THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE TABLE, AS WELL AS IT BE IN THE HOLIDAY WEEK, WE MAY BE STUCK HAVING TO DO THE EIGHTH OR 10TH OF THAT, AND THEN JUST FROM THERE, GOING EVERY WEEK AT A TIME.
I'LL LET ESTEFANIA TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE EIGHTH AND NINTH ARE FOR TAKING THE 10TH. SO I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING UNPOPULAR.
WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST? CAN WE DO JULY 1ST? I HEARD YOU SAYING, BUT I'M STILL TRYING TO GET AS MANY MEETINGS IN THERE AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I JUST KIND OF SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING. YEAH.
IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE FIRST PROBLEM WITH THE FIRST IS WHEN DOES THE AGENDA HAVE TO BE READ? THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO YEAH THE AGAIN ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH NEXT WEEK IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE AGENDA DONE BY CERTAIN TIME FRAME MEMBERS FOR YOU.
I'LL TURN IT OFF. WELL THE AGENDA IT'S EASY TO SET UP CHAPTER THREE.
WELL, NO, IT'S MORE THAN THAT. BECAUSE IF WE'RE INTRODUCING, EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE THEIR PROPOSED CHANGES.
THEN THOSE HAVE TO BE PRESENTED AND READY.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN IF WE HAVE THE AGENDA, CAN WE HAVE THESE THE CHARTER THING SO WE CAN HAVE THE HOW THE WHAT.
OH, LIKE THE CHARTER NOTES LIKE THE CHARTER OF THE NOTES SITS OUT WHEN THE AGENDA SENT OUT. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT SHOULD BE PRETTY SIMPLE, RIGHT? BECAUSE ALL WE'RE DOING IS JUST ADJUSTING THE THE NOTES SECTION.
YEAH. AND EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A HAVE A COPY OF THE WHOLE CHARTER.
IF NOT WE CAN GIVE YOU RESCIND IT.
SURE. WE CAN MAKE SURE EVERYONE EVERYONE HAS AN ELECTRONIC OR PRINT OUT COPY OF THE OF THE CHARTER. SO. OKAY. WHAT WAS IT? OKAY. SO GRANT, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF, LIKE, THE DATES, LIKE, DO WE KNOW WHAT DATES ARE LOCKED OFF, OR DO WE HAVE TO KIND OF KEEP PUTTING DATES OUT THERE FOR YOU GUYS TO CHECK AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE? OKAY.
SO I, I'M NOT SURE AS TO IS IS JULY 1ST AVAILABLE? AND I THINK THAT WAS MENTIONED BY SOMEBODY I CAN LOOK INTO.
IT IS AVAILABLE. SO JULY 1ST IS AVAILABLE, JULY 2ND IS NOT.
AND THEN JULY, YOU KNOW JULY WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO JULY 4TH.
[02:00:02]
IF YOU DO. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT.SO FIRST IS AVAILABLE. YOU SAID THE SECOND IS NOT CORRECT VERSUS AVAILABLE SECOND IS NOT THIRD IS THIRD IS NOT, THIRD IS AVAILABLE.
RIGHT. SO AGAIN JUST TO KIND OF PUT OUT THERE SO FIRST IS AVAILABLE.
SECOND IS NOT THIRD IS AVAILABLE.
ANYONE ON THOSE DATE. THE FIRST IS TUESDAY RIGHT.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE I THINK WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF TALKED THROUGH THE THIRD.
BUT I'M GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE AGAIN. THAT'S THAT THURSDAY. ANYONE HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH ANY OF THOSE DATES? AND IF NOT, THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT WEEK.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE FOR FOR JULY 1ST.
YEAH. RIGHT. WELL, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S DISCUSS TIME AND ALL THAT STUFF.
LIKE, IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THE TIME IS OKAY.
AND I WAS JUST WONDERING SHE CAN GET IT NOTICED OUT IN TIME.
I, I WOULD I WOULD ASSUME SINCE IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET IT BACK OUT THERE. YEAH. AND WE'LL BRING CHAPTER THREE BACK.
OKAY. CORRECT. YES. ALSO CHAPTER FOUR.
YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
SORRY. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
THE. SO IF WE DO IT ON THE FIRST THE THE DOES THE MEETING HAVE TO BE.
SO THE NOTIFICATION THE 72 HOUR NOTIFICATION.
DOES THAT INCLUDE WEEKENDS OR DOES THAT.
IT DOES RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT LAW IS CHANGING.
IT'LL BE BUSINESS DAYS STARTING IN SEPTEMBER.
THANK YOU. OKAY. BECAUSE BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD GIVE US WHAT, TWO DAYS OR. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THIS IS THE BUSINESS DAYS NOW.
OH, WELL, HE SAID CURRENTLY IT INCLUDES WEEKENDS.
CORRECT? RIGHT. WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE IT POSTED BY FRIDAY. WE CAN GET IT DONE. WE CAN PROBABLY GET IT POSTED TOMORROW.
YEAH. SO MY MOTION IS TO HOLD OUR NEXT MEETING ON JULY 1ST AT 6 P.M.. SOUTHERN. ONE SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. I'LL SECOND THAT. JODIE BEAT YOU TO IT, SKYLER. SO WITH THAT, IF YOU GO OUT, IF YOU RAISE HAND, IF YOU WANT TO VOTE YES TO THAT, VOTING YES TO JULY 1ST AT SIX.
NOW, GRANT, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IS IT POSSIBLE IF THIS ROOM IS TAKEN? CAN WE USE THE TRAINING ROOM? YEAH. I DON'T KNOW. FROM A TECH.
NO I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE RECORDING SET UP FOR BOTH TO RUN AT THE SAME TIME. YEAH. OKAY. SO. YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO.
OKAY. OKAY. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, SINCE WE'VE GOT THE NEXT MEETING, I KNOW WE HAVE TO STILL KIND OF COORDINATE WHAT THAT CADENCE LOOKS LIKE.
WE WILL. DID YOUR YOUR MOTION.
I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEING WEEKLY.
DID YOUR MOTION INCLUDE THE CADENCE OF IT BEING WEEKLY? YES.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN THAT COVERS THAT.
BUT I THINK, GRANT, YOU SAID THE ROOM'S NOT AVAILABLE ON THE NINTH.
CAN WE JUST ADD THAT ITEM FOR THE SAKE OF TIME BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING. WE CAN COME BACK AND DETERMINE THE NEXT MEETING DATE. YEAH.
YEAH. AND WITH THAT, COULD YOU HAVE, WHAT, BETWEEN NOW AND JULY 28TH? WHAT DATES ARE AVAILABLE FOR US? I'LL WORK WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, AND WE'LL.
WE'LL HAVE A CALENDAR SO WE CAN PINPOINT THE DATES, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT GOING ON IN THE CITY.
SO A LOT OF MEETINGS RIGHT NOW.
ALL RIGHT. THAT MOVES US TO OUR REPORT AGENDA.
[I. REPORT AGENDA]
IS THAT YOU? ITEM I IT'S LISTED THERE.I KNOW THE DATES HAVE BEEN CHANGED.
I MEAN, OKAY, THE NEXT MEETING IS WEDNESDAY JULY 9TH, BUT WE JUST JUST CHANGED IT.
AND THEN JUST ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN? YEAH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN.
MARLOW. SECONDS. AND WITH THAT, YOU CAN GET UP AND WALK OUT OF HERE.
YES. IF NO, YOU CAN STAY HERE UNTIL THE
PRINCETON PD COMES AND PUTS YOU OUT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.