[00:00:02]
>> GOOD EVENING. THE TIME IS NOW 6:30 P.M. AND IT'S AUGUST 7, 2025.
[ A. CALL TO ORDER]
I HEREBY CALL TO ORDER THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TASKED WITH REVIEWING THE COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY, RULES OF ORDER AND CODE OF ETHICS, COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE BY LAWS.WITH THAT, I'LL PROCEED WITH ROLL CALL. MS. CAMPBELL.
>> MR. WRIGHT, WHICH IS ME, AND I'M HERE. MR. [INAUDIBLE].
>> OTHER MEMBERS, MS. TODD IS NOT HERE.
WITH THAT WE HAVE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS HERE, SO WE'LL PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
WITH THAT, MS. CAMPBELL, IF YOU COULD LEAD US WITH THE INVOCATION.
>> BLESS US AS WE GATHER TODAY FOR THIS MEETING.
GUIDE OUR MINDS AND HEARTS SO THAT WE WILL WORK FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COMMUNITY AND HELP ALL YOUR PEOPLE.
TEACH US TO BE GENEROUS IN OUR OUTLOOK, COURAGEOUS IN THE FACE OF DIFFICULTY AND WISE IN OUR DECISIONS.
FATHER, WE PRAISE YOU FOREVER AND EVER. AMEN.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE TO THE TEXAS FLAG.
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED WITH PUBLIC APPEARANCE AND DOESN'T APPEAR WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FOR PUBLIC APPEARANCE TODAY, WHICH IS SECTION F SO WE'LL PROCEED TO CONSENT AGENDA,
[G. CONSENT AGENDA]
WHICH IS ITEM G HERE.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 A COMMITTEE MEMBER SO REQUESTS IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA.
AS IT RELATES TO CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, WE HAVE G12025-024, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND THOSE ARE THE JULY 22, 2025 AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES.
WITH THAT, [INAUDIBLE] TO YOUR OBJECTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G12025-024, THE MEETING MINUTES FROM OUR AD HOC MEETING JULY 22ND, 2025.
>> WE'LL PROCEED TO TAKE VOTE ON THAT.
[H.1 2025-025 Review and consider proposed amendments to Article 6 (“Addressing the City Council”) of the Council Relations Policy, Rules of Order, and Code of Ethics (Bylaws), as discussed at the July 22, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
WHICH IS REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, STARTING WITH H12025-025, WHICH IS TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6, ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY RULES OF ORDER AND CODE OF ETHICS BY LAWS AS DISCUSSED AT THE JULY 22, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.WE'LL PROCEED HERE STARTING WITH 6.2.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 6.2 AMENDMENT AS IS.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION AND I'LL TAKE A VOTE.
MOTION CARRIES. WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED TO SECTION 6.3.
>> ON THIS ONE, LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF EDITS.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, IT BOILS DOWN TO TWO THINGS.
ONE WAS ADJUSTING THE ALLOTTED TIME FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS FROM THREE MINUTES TO FIVE MINUTES AND THEN ALSO THE REST OF IT IS JUST REMOVING CITIZEN THROUGHOUT AND CHANGING TO PUBLIC OR SPEAKER.
THERE'S A LOT OF RED LINES AND EDITS, BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT CHANGE.
[00:05:05]
>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADOPT THAT SECTION AS IS.
>> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE SECTION 6.3 WITH THE EDITS HERE.
>> WE'LL TAKE VOTE ON THAT AS IT RELATES TO 6.3.
WITH THAT, I'LL DO A ROLL CALL. MR. WASHINGTON.
>> MR. WRIGHT HERE, WHICH IS A YES.
>> MOTION CARRIES. WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED TO SECTION 6.4.
>> ON THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK YOU HAD THE MOTION, YOU HAD SOME LANGUAGE IN THE LAST MEETING SO I TOOK MY BEST STAB AT TRYING TO INCORPORATE YOUR INTENT IN THE 6.4.
TAKE YOUR TIME TO REVIEW IT AND LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED.
I REVIEWED IT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT 6.4.
CONSIDERING THE CHANGES MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING, AND WITH THE CHANGES HERE, I'M OKAY WITH THAT, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT AS IT IS.
>> I'LL SECOND. WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE AS IT RELATES TO 6.4.
>> MR. WRIGHT HERE, WHICH IS A YES.
>> ON THIS ONE, THE MIDDLE PARAGRAPH THAT'S BEEN ADDED WAS PROVIDED BY MR. [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK HE MAYBE READ THIS ALOUD, SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THIS THE LAST MEETING.
ONCE AGAIN, TAKE YOUR TIME TO REVIEW IT, AND LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I BELIEVE SECTION 6.5 LOOKS GOOD.
I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE SECTION 6.5 WITH THE PROPOSED EDITS HERE.
>> CAN I ASK THE QUESTION ON THAT ONE? I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE HANDED TO COUNCIL, BUT SHOULD PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT ALSO BE READ OUT LOUD SINCE THEY WANT TO READ THEM.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO, I DON'T KNOW, IF WE ASSIGN A COUNCIL MEMBER OR THE CITY SECRETARY, TO READ OUT THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS, BECAUSE WE'RE DOING 6.5, CORRECT, TO READ OUT THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THEM.
IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
>> WHAT ARE EVERYONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS ON THAT?
IT'S A GOOD POINT, BUT I WOULDN'T SEE THE NEED TO INCORPORATE IT RIGHT NOW.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR THAT THEN IS, HOW WOULD OTHER RESIDENTS KNOW IF A CONCERN THEY HAVE IS ALSO A CONCERN OTHER RESIDENTS HAVE? BECAUSE OFTEN WHEN RESIDENTS COME BEFORE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS, OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAT THERE AND THOUGHT, NO ONE'S GOING TO HEAR ME, I HAVE THIS PROBLEM, AND WHEN THEY HEAR SOMEONE ELSE HAS THAT PROBLEM TOO, THEN THEY'RE NOT SO ADVERSE TO COMING FORWARD AND SHARING THEIR CONCERNS.
[00:10:04]
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT HELPS COUNCIL SEE A DIRECTION.THEY CAN SEE, THERE'S A PATTERN, THERE'S A PROBLEM, AND WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION.
>> I THINK MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THAT SECTION IS, IF YOU SHOULD REQUIRE A READ OUT, YOU CAN IMAGINE SAY TWO DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, YOU HAVE 500 PEOPLE SUBMIT E-MAILS TO THE SECRETARY AND REQUIRING ALL 500 TO BE READ OUT WOULD BE CUMBERSOME.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE A DISCRETION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS IT RELATES TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED TO READ THEM ALL OUT.
I WOULD SUPPORT INCLUDING A SECTION, BUT IT ALSO LIMITS, PROVIDED THERE'S TIME BECAUSE IT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC WHERE FOLKS WHO PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO SHOW UP ARE QUICK TO GO TO THEIR E-MAILS AND SAY, I'M SENDING 500 E-MAILS, AND THAT COULD BE VERY PROBLEMATIC.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE IT COULD BE THAT THERE'S SEVEN PEOPLE WITH THE SAME PROBLEM AND THEY E-MAIL IT IN.
WHEN IT'S READ OUT, IT CAN BE SHARED.
WE HAD THESE INDIVIDUALS CONTACT US ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND SHARE IT THAT WAY, OR MAYBE THERE'S A WAY THAT WE SCAN THEM AND WE ADD THEM TO THE AGENDA PART ON THE WEBSITE, SO YOU CAN GO BACK IN AND SEE WHERE OUR AGENDAS ARE AND UNDERNEATH IT, WOULD BE ANOTHER TAB THAT WOULD HAVE THE DOCUMENTS OF ALL THE SCANNED THINGS THAT WERE SENT IN.
I GUESS, MY BIG THING IS THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO ENSURE THAT IF THE PUBLIC WANT TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, THEIR VOICE SHOULDN'T JUST STOP ON A PIECE OF PAPER IN FRONT OF EIGHT INDIVIDUALS.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALSO BE TALKING TO THEIR NEIGHBORS.
I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN HOW IT GETS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
I THINK PEOPLE WHO ARE TRULY WANTING TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES WHO GO TO THE WEBSITE AND CLICK THE LINK AND WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT THIS VERSUS IT BECOMING LIKE SOME SOCIAL MEDIA POST WITH 100 THINGS, AND EVERYTHING GOES CRAZY.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. LIKE I MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING, I'VE NEVER KNOWN ANYONE TO SUBMIT A PUBLIC MEETING APPEARANCE CARD SO IF SOMEONE SUBMITS ONE OF THESE, QUITE HONESTLY, IF THE PERSON WHO'S SUBMITTING THESE CARDS, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THE INTENT IS FOR IT TO BE READ ALOUD.
I THINK THE INTENT IS MORE OF, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT GETS TO MY COUNCIL MEMBER, SO TO SPEAK.
I DON'T KNOW IF READING THEM IS REALLY NECESSARY BECAUSE QUITE HONESTLY, THOSE THAT ARE THAT INTEND TO BE VOCAL AND SPEAK, THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW UP AND SPEAK, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SUBMIT THESE CARDS.
>> ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, I THINK, TO MAYBE MS. TODD'S EARLIER POINT.
WE'LL GET TO IT IN JUST A SECOND.
ON SECTION 6.6B, IF THERE ARE A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE THE SAME CONCERN, THEY CAN DESIGNATE A SPOKESPERSON, WHICH ALLOWS THEM MORE TIME TO SPEAK ON BEHALF.
THAT WAY, YOU DON'T HAVE, 10 PEOPLE SPEAKING ON THE SAME THING.
YOU CAN DESIGNATE A SPOKESPERSON, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE 15 MINUTES SO THERE'S A PROCEDURE IN PLACE FOR THAT, THAT ADDRESSES THAT CONCERN ALREADY. JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY HERE LOOKING AT THAT SECTION, IN THE EVENT THE CITY RECEIVES THESE AHEAD OF THE MEETING, THAT WILL BE A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK ONCE IT'S THERE, THEN OTHERS CAN GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE WHAT THAT MAYBE.
>> BEING A PUBLIC RECORD THAT YOU CAN MAKE A REQUEST FOR IS ONE THING, HAVING IT ACTIVELY POSTED FOR THE AGENDA.
LIKE THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> IT'S LIKE A PART OF THE RECORD THAT'S ON THE WEBSITE, IS THAT POSSIBLE.
>> THE WAY IT READS RIGHT NOW IS IT'LL BE INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL MEETING RECORD, SO THAT WOULD BE THE MINUTES?
>> YEAH. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GET ACCESS TO THE WORD, LIKE WORD FOR WORD, WILL IT BE POSTED SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY CAN ACCESS IT PROBABLY ON THE WEBSITE, OR IS THAT POSSIBLE?
>> WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT [INAUDIBLE] HOW TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN PLACE, BUT WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY.
IT IS A PUBLIC RECORDS, BUT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHERE TO PUT IT.
>> YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE MS. TODD TO THAT EFFECT?
[00:15:05]
>> WELL, NOT BEING ABLE TO ANSWER THAT CONCERNS ME ON PASSING THIS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE AGAIN, A PUBLIC RECORD, YES, YOU CAN DO A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, IT'S 10 DAYS, YOU GO THROUGH ALL THE STUFF.
IT'S NOT THE EASIEST WAY TO GET ACCESS TO SOMETHING.
I DO FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AND HAVE A SOLUTION FOR IT BECAUSE IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN THE MEETING GETS PUT ONLINE, AND PEOPLE CAN GO BACK AND VIEW THE MEETING, IF THEY CAN'T SEE THE COMMENTS THAT ARE COMING TO COUNCIL, THEN THEY'RE MISSING PART OF THAT MEETING IN A WAY.
NOW, EVERY TIME THERE'S A COUNCIL MEETING, THE CITY IS GOING TO START ENDING UP GETTING, AND YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN? YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT OUR REGULARS.
YOU'RE GOING TO START GETTING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS AT EVERY SINGLE MEETING TO GET THOSE AND THEN NOW CITY STAFF IS BOGGLED DOWN, FILLING OUT THESE REQUESTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN EITHER.
I THINK COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION TO THAT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE.
>> I THINK WITH THAT FOR A SOLUTION, THAT IF YOU REQUIRED TO BE ON THE WEBSITE IS I THINK THAT'S A TECH ISSUE TO HAVE A TECH FOLK HERE, KNOW HOW TO CREATE A SECTION ON THE WEBSITE TO UPLOAD THOSE DOCUMENTS.
SIMILAR TO HOW WE UPLOAD THE RECORDING OF THESE MEETINGS, PROBABLY CREATE A SECTION FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS IN WRITTEN FORM LIKE A CARD, AND THEN THOSE COULD BE UPLOADED THERE BY WHATEVER MEANS CREATED BY THE TECH TEAM.
I THINK THAT COULD RESOLVE THAT ISSUE.
>> IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE LIKE A GOOGLE FORM, BUT TO HELP WITH NOT BOGGLING DOWN STAFF'S E-MAILS, WE COULD CREATE A FORM THAT THEY GO TO THE WEBSITE, THEY CLICK THE FORM, THEY CAN FILL IT OUT ONLINE AND IN SOME STUFF, IT AUTOMATICALLY CAN POPULATE TO THAT FORUM WHERE IT CAN HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS.
STAFF GETS IMPORTANT E-MAILS EVERY DAY, AND HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC IS ALSO IMPORTANT.
BUT WHEN YOU START GETTING THOSE TOGETHER, YOU'RE GOING TO START FINDING THAT YOU'RE GOING BETWEEN THEM, YOU'RE FISHING FOR THINGS, YOU MIGHT MISS SOMETHING, AND I WOULD HATE FOR A STAFF MEMBER TO BE IN THAT POSITION OF FEELING LIKE, I'VE MISSED SOMETHING OR GET BOGGLED DOWN BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF E-MAILS AND ALL OF THAT.
>> WITH THAT, EITHER WAY, WE COULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADOPT, WE COULD VOTE ON IT, IF IT'S NOT, OR WE COULD VOTE TO TABLE IT TO POLISH IT OUT OR WHATEVER EFFECT, IT'S UP TO.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS FOR MR. WASHINGTON.
I DON'T WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL SECOND, BUT WE CAN EITHER TAKE A SECOND AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE OR IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND MR. WASHINGTON CAN WITHDRAW HIS MOTION, WE CAN GO THAT ROUTE, BUT WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> MR. WRIGHT HERE WITH A YES.
>> WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO SECTION 6.6.
JUST TO CLARIFY MOTION CARRIES.
>> FOR 6.6 I UNDERSTAND WHY REPEATED VISITATIONS FROM RESIDENTS CAN GET FRUSTRATING BECAUSE YOU HEAR THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
BUT AGAIN, I HAVE SEEN COUNSEL TAKE ACTION ON THINGS WHEN IT KEEPS BEING BROUGHT UP, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WATER BILL.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM OUR COMMUNITY KEPT COMING UP AND SAYING IT TO US TO GET OUR ATTENTION SO WE COULD LOOK INTO IT AND FIND AN ISSUE THAT NEEDED TO BE RESOLVED.
SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HEAR IT THE FIRST TIME, IT'S LIKE, THEY HAVE A PROBLEM.
WE GIVE STAFF, IT LOOKS LITTLE,
[00:20:02]
BUT WHEN YOU HEAR IT MORE AND YOU SEE HOW BIG THE PROBLEM GETS, THEN YOU KNOW HOW BIG AND IMPACTFUL THIS ISSUE CAN BE.I ALSO AM CONCERNED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
NOW WE'RE TELLING THEM, YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THIS. YOU ONLY GET ONE SHOT.
>> WITH THAT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND WE AND VIEWPOINT, WE DID ADJUST THAT BY REMOVE SHALL NOT AND PUT ENCOURAGE.
THEN AS IT RELATES TO YOUR POINT, I WOULD SUGGEST INCLUDING A SECTION TO CLARIFY AS IT RELATES TO ITEMS THAT'S ALREADY BEING ADDRESSED.
WHEN I SAY ADDRESS, SOMETHING THAT'S FIXED, PROBABLY TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S MY PROPOSAL, YOU'RE CONSIDERING YOUR POINT.
WHEN I SAY FIX IS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A STONE AT THE DOOR OUTSIDE, AND IT'S ADDRESSED BY FIVE FOLKS REPEATEDLY, AND IT'S ALREADY FIXED AND YOU HAVE FOLKS COMING IN AND SAYING, WELL, YOU HAVE A STONE THAT WAS THERE.
I KNOW IT'S NOW GONE, BUT I HATED IT. IT'S ALREADY ADDRESSED.
EVEN WITH THAT, WE'RE NOT TELLING THEM NOT TO SPEAK.
WE JUST ENCOURAGE THEM TO NOT ADDRESS ISSUES THAT'S ALREADY ADDRESSED.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD CLARIFY.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. I WOULD ALSO AGREE THAT, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE EVEN WITH THE WATER BILL, WE ARE IN PROGRESS WITH IT.
WE ARE POSTING ONLINE, GIVING REGULAR UPDATES TO THE PUBLIC.
I CAN UNDERSTAND ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE WE ARE CLEARLY TAKING ACTION OR AS YOU SAID, HAVE TAKEN ACTION, ENCOURAGING THEM TO REMINDING THEM IN THAT SENSE OF, HEY, WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF YOU, WE HEARD YOU OR WE'RE WORKING ON IT, BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT TO THEM WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.
BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED, TELLING THEM, HEY, WE'VE HEARD IT.
I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD MAKE THE PEOPLE FEEL MORE UNHEARD THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
THE MAYOR HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AT THIS BECAUSE FOR PUBLIC APPEARANCE, THERE'S NO DIALOGUE BACK AND FORTH.
WHAT YOU CAN DO IS STATE FACTS OR RECITE POLICY.
IF SOMETHING HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, I KNOW THE MAYOR OR STAFF WILL CHIME UP AND SAY, HEY, IT WAS ADDRESSED ON THIS DATE, WE HEAR YOUR CONCERNS BUT IT'S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.
WHAT THAT WILL DO IS IF THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT'S GOING TO SPEAK ON THE SAME THING, THEY HEARD IT AS WELL.
STATING A FACT THAT IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED IS APPROPRIATE DIALOGUE DURING PUBLIC APPEARANCE.
I KNOW HE DOES A GREAT JOB AT THAT ALREADY.
>> HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THE MAYOR FOREVER.
HE CAN ONLY GET TWO TERMS. EIGHT YEARS, MAX. AFTER EIGHT YEARS, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO'S GOING TO BE UP THERE.
THAT'S THE CONCERN. WHEN WE WRITE THESE, WE CANNOT WRITE THEM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING UP THERE TODAY, WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND ONE DAY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE UP THERE, AND QUESTION, WHO'S GOING TO BE THERE.
WHAT CAN WE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE HOW WE CONDUCT THINGS AND HOW MAYOR ESCOBAR HE IS DOING A GREAT JOB DOING THIS.
HOW CAN WE ENSURE HIS SUCCESSOR WILL CONTINUE IT BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT IN WRITING, THE NEXT MAYOR COULD SAY, NO.
>> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO MAYBE NOT PUT SOMETHING IN HERE AS FAR AS NOT BEING ENCOURAGED NOT TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED, JUST ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK.
IF THE MAYOR OR PRESIDING OFFICER, WHATEVER IS APPLICABLE WANTS TO SPEAK UP AND SAY IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I HEAR THE CONCERN, BUT I WOULD MAYBE RECOMMEND REFRAINING FROM PUTTING THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE, LET FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, LET THEM SPEAK.
>> NOTHING IN THIS IS TELLING ANYONE THAT THEY CANNOT SPEAK. NOTHING.
>> BUT WITH US RIGHT NOW, WE HONOR IT IF THEY COME UP THERE.
BUT WE'RE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE ONES IN THOSE SEATS.
THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW AFTER US SEE THIS AND SAY, WE CAN ENCOURAGE THEM TO REFRAIN FROM TALKING, HOW THEY ENCOURAGE THEM IN WHAT MANNER IN WHICH THEY DO IT MIGHT NOT BE HOW WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING IT, POLITELY INFORMING THEM, HEY, WE'VE GOT THIS, WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
THIS LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR GIVING THAT ABILITY TO OUR SUCCESSORS.
I WORRY FOR THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO COMES AFTER US.
[00:25:01]
I WOULD AGREE THAT, MAKING IT, LIKE PRACTICE WITH STAFF OF THIS IS THE EXPECTATION, HEY, STEP IN, YOU CAN SAY THESE THINGS.I THINK ADDRESSING IT ON THAT POINT WOULD DO EXACTLY WHAT GRANT IS SAYING.
WE CAN STILL TELL THEM, HEY, WE'RE HANDLING IT WITHOUT PUTTING THIS CLAUSE IN THERE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OPEN THE DOOR FOR SILENCING PEOPLE, WHICH WE DON'T WANT THAT AS OUR FUTURE.
>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING TAKING OUT A?
>> BUT WE COULD LEAVE IN B UNDER THIS, I THINK, MAYBE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO AT LEAST HAVE A SPOKESPERSON?
>> I LOVE B. LIKE, THAT'S GREAT.
THAT WILL HELP WITH REDUCING SOME OF THOSE THINGS.
>> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT A LEAVING A LOOPHOLE FOR SOMEBODY TO SAY, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT, SIT DOWN.
>> I THINK THE PROPOSED EDITS IT LAXES IT MORE FROM, SHALL NOT TO ENCOURAGE NOT TO.
IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT I DON'T THINK TO YOUR POINT, WE DON'T REALLY NEED A IN THERE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO REMOVE IT.
I DO LIKE THE SPOKESPERSON ASPECT BECAUSE THAT'S A PROCEDURE THAT THERE MAY BE A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.
HAVING IN WRITING WOULD BE GOOD.
BUT IF THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS TO REMOVE A ALTOGETHER, THEN WE'LL JUST NEED A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
>> THEN I MOTION TO APPROVE 6.6 WITH REMOVAL OF A AND THEN CHANGING B TO A.
>> WITH THAT, JUST ONE COMMENT BECAUSE THEN THE TOPIC THAT SAYS PROHIBITED, MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT AND JUST LEAVE IT JUST TAKE OFF PROHIBITED AND LEAVE AS IS.
>> YES. IN ADDITION TO THAT REMOVING THE WORD PROHIBITED FROM 6.6, LEAVING IT AS REPETITIOUS COMMENTS.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT MOTION, AND WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE VOTE ON THIS. MR. WASHINGTON?
>> MR. WRIGHT HERE, WHICH IS A YES. MS. CAMPBELL?
[H.2 2025-026 Review and consider proposed amendments to Article 7 (“Council Relations Policy; Administrative Support”) of the Council Relations Policy, Rules of Order, and Code of Ethics (Bylaws), as discussed at the July 22, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
WE'LL PROCEED TO H22-025-026, WHICH IS TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE ARTICLE 7 COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY RULES OF ADER AND CODE OF ETHICS BY LAWS AS DISCUSSED AT THE JULY 22, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.>> ON THIS SECTION, WE JUST REMOVE THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO A SECTION OF THE PENAL CODE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY IT'S A WRONG CITATION ANYWAYS, AND JUST SAYS TO THE TEXAS PENAL CODE IN GENERAL.
>> NO OBJECTION. I AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE THE PENAL CODE MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME, SO TO AVOID THAT, JUST A GENERAL REFERENCE.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, AS IT RELATES TO THAT SECTION.
>> I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION.
FIRST I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION.
B FOR REQUEST SHALL BE FOR INSPECTION ONLY.
WHEN YOU SAY INSPECTION ONLY, IS THAT, WE HAVE TO COME IN PERSON TO BE ABLE TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE I WORK THE SAME HOURS AS A CITY STAFF MEMBER.
THAT'S THEN RESTRICTING MY ABILITY TO SERVE THE PEOPLE TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS THAT MAY VERY WELL BE IMPORTANT IN MY DECISION MAKING WHILE UP ON COUNSEL.
THAT CONCERNS ME IF I'M GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO TAKE OFF WORK TO BE HERE TO LOOK AT DOCUMENTS, OR WILL STAFF BE REQUIRED TO STAY LATE, SO I CAN GET HERE AFTER MY JOB.
THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THEM EITHER.
IT'S DEFINITELY NOT FAIR TO OUR RESIDENTS TO SAY, YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER HAS A JOB BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T GET PAID.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A JOB, THEY CAN'T SERVE YOU PROPERLY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT MIGHT IMPACT THEIR VOTE.
CAN WE AMEND THAT AND MAKE IT SO IT'S NOT JUST INSPECTION THAT IT CAN BE PHYSICALLY GIVEN TO THEM?
>> I THINK SO THE FORM, THAT IT'S APPENDIX A TO THE BYLAWS, THE COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FORM.
IT DOES SAY THAT EVERYTHING'S TO BE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR VIEWING ONLY, BUT THE CUSTODIAN RECORDS HAS SOME DISCRETION TO RELEASE COPIES AS WELL.
I THINK FOR 7.7B, MAYBE TO MIRROR THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN APPENDIX A.
>> STAFF MEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER,
[00:30:02]
AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER IS ONLY ABLE TO THEN COME IN PERSON TO SEE THIS SPECIFIC PIECE OF INFORMATION?>> NO. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC RELEASE.
THIS IS AN INTERNAL RELEASE INFORMATION, PRIVILEGE RELEASE [OVERLAPPING] CORRECT.
>> IF I NEED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT'S CRUCIAL TO AN UPCOMING MEETING, I'M BEING TOLD NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE IT TO YOU.
YOU HAVE TO COME IN PERSON IF YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT.
WE NOW RUN INTO AGAIN, DOES THAT MEAN THE STAFF MEMBER IS GOING TO STAY LATE AND WHEN I GET OFF WORK? I TEACH SPECIAL EDUCATION.
I CAN'T JUST NOT SHOW UP OR LEAVE EARLY.
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE INFORMATION.
BECAUSE ONCE SOMETHING IS OUT OF THE CUSTODIAN RECORDS HANDS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
DEPENDING ON THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION. [OVERLAPPING].
SEE HOLDS US TO THE PENAL CODE.
A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO ABUSES THAT.
I THINK THAT IS THE SAFETY NET THERE FOR PROVIDING THEM WITH THIS INFORMATION.
JUST AS WE DID IT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT I HAD ASKED FOR ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, AND I DISCUSSED IT WITH CITY STAFF, WAS TOLD, YOU KNOW WHAT? GO AHEAD AS A RESIDENT, PUT IN A REQUEST, AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION AS A RESIDENT.
AS A RESIDENT, YOU COULD SHARE THAT. THAT WAS THE PROCESS.
I GOT IT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, DISCUSSED IT WITH CITY STAFF, THEN REQUESTED AS A RESIDENT AND WAS ABLE TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION.
THAT I WOULD NOT BE VIOLATING THE PENAL CODE AND RELEASING INFORMATION. THAT WAS THE APPROPRIATE WAY.
>> WHAT C DOES IS A DETERRENT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT WHAT IT DOESN'T DO IS IT PREVENT THE LIABILITY OR THE EXPOSURE OF THE CITY ITSELF.
IT'S A DETERRENT TO THE PERSON REQUESTING, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, IN MY OPINION, 7.7B TO ADD A COMMA, UNLESS OTHERWISE DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CUSTODY OF RECORDS TO LEAVE THAT OPEN, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER HAS A RIGHT TO LOOK AT.
IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO INSPECT IN PERSON BECAUSE ONCE THAT CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT IS RELEASED OUT OF OUR HANDS, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
>> WHAT POLICY CAN WE HAVE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT ON THE CITY SIDE, THEN YOU'RE TRULY MAKING IT ACCESSIBLE.
AGAIN, PEOPLE ARE OUT ON FRIDAYS, THEY DON'T WORK ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
WE HAVE TO ALSO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.
WHAT PROVISION IS GOING TO BE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN SEE THE IMPORTANT INFORMATION SO THAT THEY CAN PROPERLY REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY ARE HERE TO REPRESENT.
>> WE CAN DRAFT THOSE POLICIES.
THE FORM TALKS ABOUT BEING FLEXIBLE AND SCHEDULING THAT TIME.
>> ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS HERE FROM MEMBERS?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT REAL FAMILIAR WITH DROPBOX, BUT IS THERE A WAY TO PUT THINGS THERE TEMPORARILY AND SAY YOU CAN VIEW IT TILL 3:00 P.M., AND THEN IT'S WITHDRAWN? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OKAY. I THINK IT'S A SCREENSHOT.
>> I CAN UNDERSTAND LIKE BOTH ENDS.
THE CITY, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN AS WELL.
BUT LOOKING AT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY, I UNDERSTAND YOU NEED DOCUMENTS, YOU'RE WORKING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY.
BUT THERE COULD BE DOCUMENTS THAT REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW UP AND INSPECT IT BASED ON CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE TRANSACTION.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT COULD BECOME PROBLEMATIC.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE WEEKEND ASPECT OF IT.
I THINK IF WE KEEP SUBSECTION 7.7B AND SAID IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY STAFF, MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY TO DETERMINE WHAT'S DEEMED APPROPRIATE, SO LIKE A CLEAR POLICY TO THAT EFFECT.
BUT TO OPEN IT UP WHERE YOU'RE SENDING EVERYTHING VIA EMAIL OR GOOGLE, OR DROPBOX, OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT MODES OR METHODS YOU GUYS HAVE, BUT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTS, THERE MAY BE A TIME WHEN YOU REALLY HAVE TO COME AND INSPECT IT BECAUSE IT'S TOO MUCH, WHETHER IT'S TO UPLOAD VIA EMAIL OR DROP SOMEWHERE.
>> I LIKE THAT IDEA A LOT ABOUT A POLICY TO DETERMINE THAT BECAUSE IT ALSO ELIMINATES THE POSSIBILITY.
LIKE I SAID, RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE GREAT PEOPLE.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE SUCCESSORS ARE.
THE DAY COULD COME THAT WE GET A CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS WHO'S LIKE, "I'M NOT GIVING IT TO YOU.
I'M GOING TO DEEM IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE." WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT THE PEOPLE WE HAVE TODAY MAY NOT BE HERE YEARS FROM NOW,
[00:35:03]
AND SO I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF A POLICY TO DETERMINE IF IT'S DEEMED POSSIBLE.BUT ALSO, I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT DOCUMENT WOULD QUALIFY AS THOSE INSPECTION ONLY.
WHEN THEY'RE FILING THEIR STUFF, HERE'S THIS TYPE, HERE'S THIS TYPE, AND THEN WHAT'S THEIR PROCESS OF DETERMINING THEY'RE GOING BACK AND LOOKING FOR THEIR STUFF.
IT IS ALL INCLUSIVE SOLID POLICY.
>> YEAH, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
I SUPPORT A POLICY THAT CLEARLY OUTLINES WHAT'S DEEMED APPROPRIATE.
IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY SOMEWHERE AT WORK OR OTHERWISE, SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T RELEASE EVERYTHING, BUT A POLICY THAT CLEARLY OUTLINES AND CLARIFY MATTERS WORK.
I SUPPORT THAT, BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT THE STAFF WHO DEVELOPS THAT OR WHO WOULD TAKE TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY?
>> I WOULD SAY STAFF TO DEVELOP IT.
WE COULD EVEN BRING TO COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE POLICY.
BUT YEAH, WE WOULD TAKE A STAB AT IT.
>> IF YOU CAN JUST ADD THE VERBIAGE IN THERE THAT WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS DETERMINED THAT IT CANNOT BE SHARED OUT, THAT STAFF WILL WORK WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TO ARRANGE AN APPROPRIATE TIME.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'D BE LIKE, "HEY, I'LL ROLL UP AT 10:00 P.M." IT'LL BE LIKE, "I'LL LEAVE WORK AS FAST AS I CAN AND GET THERE," TYPE OF THING.
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE IN THE POLICY AS WELL, THAT CLEARLY OUTLINED THAT INFORMATION.
IF STAFF CAN DEVELOP THAT, WE CAN MAKE A MOTION CONDITION ON THAT POLICY THAT SOMEONE WILL WORK ON.
IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD THERE, I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO THAT OR IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, I'LL ENTERTAIN ONE.
>> I WOULD. MOTION TO APPROVE 7.7, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION WITH THE AMENDMENT FOR B, ADDING IN UNLESS OTHERWISE DEEMED REASONABLE BY THE CUSTODIAN.
>> YEAH. WHAT I CAN DO IS I CAN BRING THIS BACK FOR YOU GUYS TO PLACE EYES ON IT TOO AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT I GOT IT.
>> SHOULD WE TABLE IT THEN OR?
>> YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGE, BUT THEN I'LL BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS SO YOU CAN SEE IT IN WRITING SINCE YOU'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON THE PAPER, I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO SEE IT.
>> YES, I MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITH THAT CHANGE TO B.
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FOR SEVEN.
>> SORRY, IT'S NOT LETTING ME. IT'S NOT TAKING MINE.
>> LET'S TRY AGAIN. THERE YOU GO.
PERFECT. WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED TO SECTION H3,
[H.3 2025-027 Review and consider proposed amendments to Article 8 (“Administrative Procedures”) of the Council Relations Policy, Rules of Order, and Code of Ethics (Bylaws), as discussed at the July 22, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
WHICH IS 2025-027, WHICH IS TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 8, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, AND OF THE COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY RULES OF ORDER AND CODE OF ETHICS BY-LAWS, AS DISCUSSED AT THE JULY 22, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED TO SECTION 8.1.
ANY SUGGESTION AS IT RELATES TO THAT SECTION?
>> MY QUESTION IS WHY EXECUTIVE SESSION IS AN OPTION.
IF THESE ARE THE BY-LAWS, THESE SHOULD BE PUBLIC.
WE SHOULD NEVER TAKE THIS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I CAN'T FORESEE A REASON WHY IT WOULD BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CLOSE OFF THE POSSIBILITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE TO WHERE IT WOULD NEED TO BE.
I WOULD SAY 99% OF THE TIME, IT WOULD BE AN OPEN SESSION, I AGREE.
>> DO WE EVEN NEED THAT IN THERE THEN IN EITHER OPEN OR EXECUTIVE SESSION? BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO CHOICES WE HAVE TO MEET.
[00:40:01]
>> YOU COULD PUT IN A PUBLIC MEETING.
YOU CAN KEEP OPEN, OR CLOSED, OR EXECUTIVE, OR DURING A PUBLIC MEETING, IF YOU PREFER THAT LANGUAGE INSTEAD.
>> I THINK SAYING IN A PUBLIC MEETING IS MORE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE WOULD FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF AN OPEN MEETING.
I DON'T LIKE SPECIFYING THAT WE CAN JUST SELECT EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF MAKING SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING OUR POLICIES ON OPEN MEETINGS.
WITH THAT, I MOTION TO APPROVE 8.1 BI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES WITH THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE IN EITHER OPEN SESSION OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPECIFIC MATTERS AT ISSUE AND CHANGE IT TO IN AN OPEN MEETING.
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE VOTE.
WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED TO ITEM H4,
[H.4 2025-028 Review Article 9 (“Rules of Ethics”) of the Council Relations Policy, Rules of Order, and Code of Ethics (Bylaws); consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action. ]
WHICH IS H4-2025-028, WHICH IS TO REVIEW ARTICLE 9, RULES OF ETHICS OF THE COUNCIL RELATIONS POLICY, RULES OF ORDER, AND CODE OF ETHICS BY-LAWS.CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERETO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
>> HAVE ANY OF YOU LOOKED AT THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES? BECAUSE I WAS REVIEWING MCKINNEY'S, AND THEY HAVE SOME INCREDIBLY WELL-WRITTEN ETHICS CODES THAT ARE IN THEIR ORDINANCES.
IT'S NOT EVEN JUST LIKE A DOCUMENT OF A RECOMMENDATION, IT'S IN THEIR ORDINANCES.
I KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO DRAG OUT A BUNCH OF MEETINGS, BUT I FEEL LIKE BEFORE WE GO INTO OUR RULES OF ETHICS BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD LOOK AT NEIGHBORING CITIES AND HOW THEY HAVE WRITTEN THEIRS TO SEE WHAT THEY'VE PUT IN BECAUSE SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE BROAD, AND IT LEAVES THESE GRAY AREAS.
BUT AGAIN, LIKE IN MCKINNEY'S, THEY'RE VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR THIS IS WHAT IT IS AND YOU CAN'T BE LIKE, BUT MAYBE.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE ETHICS OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
IT'LL PROBABLY BE A GOOD BENCHMARK TO LOOK AT.
I DID HAVE A QUESTION IN GENERAL ON THIS, IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, THAT THE COUNCIL IS ITS OWN ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE.
DID THE HRC COME UP WITH ANYTHING DIFFERENT, A SEPARATE WAY TO HAVE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE?
>> I HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED IT UP TO THIS POINT.
I THINK THERE WAS A BRIEF MENTIONING.
I'LL GET BROUGHT UP AT SOME POINT I THINK WHEN WE GET TO THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF THE CHARTER.
IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BUT NOT IN DEPTH.
>> IF YOU DO READ THE MCKINNEY ONE, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR, THEY HAVE A WHOLE SYSTEM FOR, AND WE'VE JUST HAD THIS RECENTLY WHERE ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE BUT THEN THEY'RE TAKEN AWAY, BUT NOW THERE'S LIKE, WHO KNOWS WHY WERE YOU ON THE AGENDA? IN THEIR ORDINANCE, IT HAS A PROCEDURE TO ENSURE OF HOW YOU CLEAR A PERSON'S NAME.
IF SOMETHING COMES UP, YOU CAN CLEAR THEIR NAME AND PROTECT THEIR DATA, REPUTATION, AND IT'S NOT JUST SAY, HEY, THIS IS PUT OUT THERE, AND NOW WHO KNOWS? THERE ARE PROCEDURES IN PLACE THAT ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR FOR THAT, THAT I THINK WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR OUR CITY AND FOR OUR COUNCIL IN GENERAL.
>> ARE THOSE IN THEIR RULES OF ETHICS OR IT'S LIKE AN ORDINANCE?
>> THEIR RULES OF ETHICS IS AN ORDINANCE.
THEY DON'T MAKE IT AN OPTION. THEY MADE IT A LAW.
>> I THINK WITH THIS SECTION, WITH 9.1, AND I MEAN YOU CAN CLARIFY WHAT SECTION THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU CAME UPON THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE CLARIFIED HERE.
BUT IN THE FIRST SECTION, IT MENTIONED LIKE IN THE PARAMETERS ESTABLISHED UNDER TEXAS LAW, AND LIKE THE HRC, WHICH IS THE HOME RULE CHARTER.
[00:45:02]
WHERE IT'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, I THINK TO ME ARE VERY CLEAR TO THAT EFFECT.EVEN WITH THAT, I THINK ONE THING WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT RULES OF ETHICS IS ALSO THAT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ARE ELECTED.
CERTAIN THINGS WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT ALIGNS WITH THE LAW, AND AS WELL AS THE HOME RULE CHARTER AMONG OTHER THINGS.
WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SECTION THAT'S VERY CLEAR, WELL, THE INVESTIGATION NEED TO PROCEED THIS DAY, AND COUNCIL CANNOT SHOW UP FOR SIX WEEKS OR DURING THE DURATION OF THE INVESTIGATION, THAT IS PROBLEMATIC.
WE HAVE TO TAKE OTHER THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION.
THAT'S JUST A POINT TO ADD WHILE WE THINK ABOUT THAT SECTION.
>> THEIR SECTION 262 INCLUDES COMPLY WITH LAWS TO COVER THAT STATE LAWS ARE ADHERED TO SO THAT THEIR ORDINANCES DON'T OVERRIDE THE EXISTING STATE LAWS.
IT ALSO INCLUDES MENTION OF THEIR CITY'S HOME RULE CHARTER THAT THIS ORDINANCE CAN'T OVERRIDE THAT.
>> FOR THIS SECTION, I CAN OPEN UP FOR OTHER SUGGESTIONS.
TO MY LEFT HERE, MR. WASHINGTON, CARGO SUGGESTION, AND MS. CAMPBELL.
I KNOW YOUR POINTS ARE WELL STATED, BUT OTHER FOLKS, IF YOU HAVE ANY OPINION TO THAT EFFECT.
>> AS I REVIEWED THIS, IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT'S UNCLEAR IN SECTION 9.1? AS YOU GUYS REVIEW THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY GRAY ANYWHERE?
>> ALSO LOOKING AT 9.1, WHICH I HAVE NOTES HERE, IT'S A LOT OF REPETITION THERE.
I MADE SOME NOTES THAT WOULD HAVE CLARIFIED THAT SECTION.
BUT AS IT RELATES TO 9.1, I HAVE NO CONCERN AS IT RELATES TO THAT SECTION.
BUT I HAVE NOTES TO CLARIFY INSTEAD A LOT OF STUFF HERE YOU'RE REPEATING STUFF ON AND ON.
I HAVE A SECTION THAT CLARIFIES THAT.
THEN I HAVE A SUGGESTION OR I CAN MENTION THAT ONE YOU REACHED THERE.
BUT AS IT RELATES TO 9.1, I THINK IT BEGS FOR CLARITY, WHICH I HAVE A SUGGESTION HERE.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE SUGGESTION AS IT RELATES TO 9.1 BEFORE I PROCEED TO DISCUSS OR? GO AHEAD, MR. WRIGHT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO DISCUSS THIS NOW, BUT THEN MAYBE ALSO WE DO HAVE TO COME BACK TO REVISIT IT AFTER REVIEW AND MCKINNEY.
AS IT RELATES TO 9.1, I UPDATE BECAUSE IT'S JUDGE AND QUALIFICATIONS.
THAT JUST DIDN'T READ RIGHT TO ME.
I UPDATED TO SAY THE CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING THE MAYOR, IS THE JUDGE OF THE QUALIFICATION OF ITS MEMBERS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS ESTABLISHED BY TEXAS LAW AND THE HRC.
THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION I HAVE FOR THAT SECTION.
THEN PROCEEDED TO SAY THE CITY COUNCIL BEARS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INTEGRITY OF GOVERNANCE.
THIS POLICY IS DEVELOPED TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNANCE THROUGH CLEAR EXPECTATIONS OF CONDUCT, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND PERFORMANCE.
IT ADDRESSES COUNCIL RELATIONS, COUNSEL, AND STAFF RELATIONS, AND COUNSEL AND MEDIA RELATIONS.
BY ADOPTING THESE GUIDELINES, THE COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO ONE ANOTHER, TO PROFESSIONAL STAFF, AND TO THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE.
THIS POLICY IS ADDITIVE TO ALL ETHICAL RULES IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE, STATE OR FEDERAL LAW,
[00:50:01]
WHICH THAT'S THE SECTION THERE THAT I BRING BACK IN HERE.THE CITY COUNCIL IS COMMITTED TO THE VALUES OF REPRESENTATIVE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT OF ITS MEMBERS, OPEN AND RESPECTFUL COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND DECISION MAKING THAT CONSIDERS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY.
THAT'S MY SUGGESTION AS IT RELATES TO THAT SECTION BECAUSE IT'S REPEATING A LOT OF STUFF, AND IT BEGS FOR CLARITY.
I LIKE THAT. I WOULD WANT TO ADJUST IT SLIGHTLY FOR THE BEST INTEREST PART.
BECAUSE AGAIN, MCKENNA HAS SOME GREAT THINGS, AND WHAT THEY HAVE IS THE OFFICIALS MUST USE THEIR POSITIONS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY RATHER THAN FOR PERSONAL INTERESTS, WHETHER THEIR OWN INTERESTS OR THE INTERESTS OF THEIR FAMILY, FRIENDS, OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES TO CLEARLY DEFINE WE ARE HERE FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT FOR OURSELVES.
READ THAT AGAIN. I BELIEVE THERE'S A SECTION GOING DOWN IN SECTION 9 HAS A SECTION FOR THAT, BUT WE CAN ADD IT UP FRONT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO REPEAT WHAT THAT IS.
THERE'S A PART THAT I WOULD WANT TO TWEAK.
IT'S LIKE, ADD IN. I DON'T KNOW HOW EXACTLY.
BUT WHEN MAKING THEIR DECISIONS AND POLICIES FREE OF COERCIVE AND OTHER IMPROPER INFLUENCE, OFFICIALS MUST USE THEIR POSITION IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY RATHER THAN FOR PERSONAL INTERESTS, WHETHER THEIR OWN INTERESTS OR THE INTERESTS OF THEIR FAMILY FRIENDS OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES.
WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT 9.1.
I WOULD SAY 9.3, AND IT'S NOT LABELED, IT'S 9.3 UNDER THE BOLDED SECTION TITLED ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST HAS LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THAT.
BUT I THINK IF YOU PULLED SOME OF THAT UP TO 9.1, IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HURT TO OVERSTATE THAT.
I'M FINE IF WE WANT TO TWEAK IT A LITTLE LATER IN 9.3, BUT I DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT A CLAUSE OF THAT THEIR POLICIES AND DECISIONS ARE FREE OF COERCIVE AND OTHER IMPROPER INFLUENCE.
MAYBE WE CAN WE GET TO JUST A SUGGESTION, WHEN WE GET TO 9.3, THAT SECTION, MAYBE WE CAN ADD SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE THERE, JUST A THOUGHT.
AS IT RELATES TO 9.2, I'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PORTION THAT I READ IN ADDITION TO THE CONSIDERATION FROM MS. TODD, WHICH WE CAN TAKE FROM 9.3 TO CLARIFY AS IT RELATES TO THAT FOR THE ADDITION.
WE'LL PROCEED TO TAKE VOTE ON SECTION 9.1 [LAUGHTER].
MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO SECTION 9.2.
ANY SUGGESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO 9.2 POLICY PURPOSE? I DON'T THINK THE ONLY MINOR SUGGESTION I HAVE, WHICH IS THAT SUBSTANTIVE IS TO HAVE INSTEAD OF PRINCETON CITY, CITY OF PRINCETON.
WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THAT JUST SO IT FLOWS.
I KNOW GRANT YOU ARE LIKE FIXING SOME STUFF FOR CONSISTENCY, LIKE COUNSEL.
YEAH, I'VE NOTICED A COUPLE OF PUNCTUATION, GRAMMATICAL ERROR.
THEN, AS WE'VE MENTIONED, THROUGHOUT CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IS NOT CONSISTENT.
I'LL CLEAN UP SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE WHEN WE BRING BACK THE FINAL VERSION. COMMITTEE TO APPROVE.
I KNOW I'M LIKE STEALING EVERYTHING FROM MCKINNEY.
LET ME READ THEIR PURPOSE TO YOU.
WHEN I READ IT, I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT A LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS RESIDENTS ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH TRANSPARENCY AND STUFF.
THEIRS SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND PROCEDURES ARE, ONE, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS.
TWO, TO PROVIDE CLEAR CONSISTENT GUIDANCE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH STANDARDS BY CLARIFYING WHICH ACTS ARE ALLOWED AND WHICH ACTS ARE NOT.
THREE, TO PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR CITY'S GOVERNANCE,
[00:55:03]
04, TO PROMOTE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ETHICAL PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY ARISE, TO MINIMIZE UNWARRANTED SUSPICION AND TO ENHANCE THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF OUR CITY'S GOVERNMENT TO RESIDENTS AND 5, PROVIDE FOR THE FAIR AND EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND PROCEDURES.WITH THAT, EVERYTHING YOU MENTIONED, IT'S LIKE IT'S JUST A PLAY ON WORDS.
IT'S LIKE, LITERALLY THE SAME THING AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, TRUST AND FAIRNESS.
ALTHOUGH I'M NOT ACTING IN THAT CAPACITY HERE AS AN ATTORNEY, IT'S JUST A PLAY ON WORDS.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING, AND I GRANT, IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN OR OTHERS.
BUT I GET YOUR POINT FOR CLARITY TO STATED OUT, WHAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, PRECISELY.
BUT I THINK IT'S JUST A PLAY ON WORDS AND JUST HAVING JUST THE WORDING, JUST LIKE A BOILER PLATE CONTRACT.
I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME GOOD LANGUAGE, AND WE CERTAINLY COULD PULL SOME OF THAT IN HERE, BUT, I THINK JUST AS A GENERAL COMMENT, AS YOU READ THROUGH THIS ARTICLE 9, IT'S A LOT OF LONG SECTIONS.
I THINK FOR READABILITY AND REFERENCE, I THINK HAVING THINGS.
SUBSECTIONS AND LABEL HAVING NUMBERS.
THERE'S JUST LIKE 9.3 IS JUST A BIG SECTION, FOR INSTANCE.
I THINK ARTICLE 9 IN GENERAL COULD BE CLEANED UP, BUTTONED UP ACROSS THE BOARD.
IF WE WANTED TO NUMBER CERTAIN THINGS, WE SPELLED OUT, WE COULD DO THAT JUST TO MAKE IT MORE READABLE.
I SEE THIS AS A SMALL TOWN, PUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS TOGETHER.
WE'RE A BIG CITY, AND OUR POLICIES AND HOW WE WRITE THINGS IS A PRESENTATION OF WHO WE ARE.
I THINK AS GRANT IS SAYING, CLEANING IT UP, PUTTING IN THE NUMBERS OR BULLETS AND STUFF.
MAKING IT CLEAR, BUT READABLE, BECAUSE WHO'S REALLY GOING TO SIT HERE AND WANT TO ACTIVELY READ ALL OF THIS LIKE THIS? IF YOU GET IT AND IT'S SHORT AND SWEET AND IT'S PUTTING IT OUT FOR YOU, IT'S EASIER ON THE READER, AND THAT'S BENEFICIAL FOR THE RESIDENTS.
ARE YOU TALKING 9.3 REQUIRES CLARIFICATION BECAUSE IT'S VERY SHORT.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT? NO. I WAS JUST USING 9.3 AS AN EXAMPLE. I'M JUST SAYING.
THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF THE PARAGRAPHS ARE NOT NUMBERED OR I THINK THERE'S AREAS THAT WE COULD IMPROVE READABILITY. POTENTIALLY.
I WAS A 9.2, SO I WAS CONFUSED I DON'T TO.
BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE WANTED TO ADD MORE THAN 9.2, WE'LL JUST NEED A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT, OR IF NOT, WE CAN ADOPT IT AS IS.
I THINK 9.2 IS FINE THE WAY IT IS.
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO ADD ANYTHING TO 9.2.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS IT RELATES TO 9.2.
I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO ADOPT SECTION 9.2 AS IS.
MY SECOND. WE'LL PROCEED TO TAKE A VOTE AS IT RELATES TO 9.2.
MOTION CARRIES, WE'LL PROCEED TO SECTION 9.3.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO POTENTIALLY I MEAN, BECAUSE THE REST OF THIS DOES GET VERY WORDY.
IF WE TABLED THE REST OF IT TO GIVE GRANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE, SO IT CAN BE EASIER TO READ, I THINK THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL RATHER THAN JUST GOING THROUGH AND TRYING TO CHANGE IT ALL RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW, I THINK GIVING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH AND AS A LAWYER, YOU KNOW THE THINGS TO MAKE IT LOOK NICER AND PRESENT BETTER AS THE FASTEST GROWING CITY IN THE UNITED STATES.
I APPRECIATE THAT. JUST A COMMENT.
I CAN GO THROUGH AND CLEAN IT UP FROM, LIKE A NON SUBSTANTIVE STANDPOINT, BUT IF WE WANT TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES OR EDITS, JUST A THOUGHT IS MAYBE WE COULD GO THROUGH AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN HERE THAT WE DON'T LIKE OR I DON'T WANT TO GO CLEAN IT UP, AND I'M NOT GOING TO ADD ANYTHING.
IT WOULD JUST BE KIND OF MAKING IT FORMATTING AND MAKING IT LOOK A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND READ A LITTLE BIT CLEAR.
[01:00:02]
IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO GO, THAT'S FINE.BUT IF THERE'S ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, MAYBE IT MIGHT BE BEST TO DISCUSS SOME OF THOSE AT LEAST AT A HIGH LEVEL, IF WE WANT TO COME BACK, WE CAN JUST TO ADD SOME MORE.
COULD WE GET EXAMPLES FROM OTHER CITIES TO LOOK AT? BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T REQUIRE THIS, BUT OTHER CITIES DO DURING SO IF I WENT TO THE EDC MEETING AND I WENT UP TO SPEAK, I COULD JUST GO UP THERE AND SPEAK.
BUT IN SOME CITIES, THEY REQUIRE THAT, FIRST, I SAY, AM I HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS A COUNCIL MEMBER OR AS A RESIDENT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER COMES BEFORE YOU, THAT CAN BE A LITTLE INTIMIDATING.
PUTTING SOME OF THOSE THINGS IN PLACE.
SAY A STAFF MEMBER WANTS TO USE THEIR RIGHT OF A 3 MINUTES.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT AS WELL TO PRESENT THEIR THREE MINUTES, AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO UP THERE AND SAY, I'M HERE AS A RESIDENT, AND IT NOT BE TAKEN AS, HERE'S A STAFF MEMBER COMING TO SAY SOMETHING.
I THINK PROVISIONS LIKE THAT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO HAVE.
AGAIN, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN HERE ARE.
GET TO THE ONE THAT THE NAME CLEARING PROCEDURES.
THEY ACTUALLY HAVE WHAT THE SANCTIONS CAN BE OR LOOK LIKE RATHER THAN JUST SAYING THERE COULD BE SANCTIONS.
THEY CLARIFY IN THERE'S WHAT THAT IS.
BECAUSE FOR ONE COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU CAN SAY, THIS IS YOUR SANCTION, AND IT'S JUST LIKE A LITTLE SLAP ON THE WRIST.
BUT THEN THERE'S ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, AND EVERYONE WILL BE LIKE, NOW IT'S THIS, AND IT'S MUCH BIGGER.
THERE'S NO GUIDANCE ON HOW TO JUDGE WHAT IS BEING LOOKED AT OR TO DEFINE HOW WE DETERMINE WHAT THOSE CONSEQUENCES ARE, WHEREAS OTHER MORE ESTABLISHED CITIES HAVE THOSE THINGS IN PLACE.
RATHER THAN PLAY CATCH UP EVERY TWO YEARS, I THINK JUST LIKE HOW HOME RULE IS TAKING IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
THEY'VE TABLED THINGS, THEY BRING IT BACK.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT DOCUMENTS FROM OTHER CITIES.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THE SAME THING BECAUSE THESE ARE OUR POLICIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LIVING BY, AND UNLESS SOMEONE IS ASKING TO BRING IT UP SOONER, IT'S GOING TO BE TWO YEARS BEFORE IT'S LOOKED AT AGAIN.
I UNDERSTAND. JUST AS A DISCLAIMER HERE, I DO LOOK AT OTHER CITIES.
THAT DOESN'T HAVE NOT REALLY A SIMILAR FRAMEWORK, BUT IT'S BENEFICIAL.
EVEN THOUGH SOME CITIES THAT'S NOT GOVERNED BY, TEXAS LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, I WENT TO TAMPA, FLORIDA TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO THAT EFFECT.
I GO THERE, SO I'M DOING DUE DILIGENCE.
BUT I HOPE YOU CAN TRUST THAT.
I SUGGEST THAT WE GO THROUGH EACH SECTION.
THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC SUGGESTION BASED ON YOUR REVIEW OF MCKINNEY, THEN YOU COULD PROPOSE IT FOR THAT SECTION, AND THEN POTENTIALLY AT THE END, WE CAN REVIEW THAT DOCUMENT AND COME BACK, BUT I THINK IT'LL BE BENEFICIAL TO GO THROUGH EACH SECTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU STATED A POINT AS IT RELATES TO HOLDING MEMBERS ACCOUNTABLE.
FOR INSTANCE, IF THEY DON'T SIGN THIS DOCUMENT, IT'S STATED IN HERE THAT THEY CANNOT SERVE ON CERTAIN BOARDS.
TO WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE CAN STATE LIKE, IN LAYMAN'S TERM, WE CAN STATE PUNISHMENT HERE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE HAVE ELECTED MEMBERS AND WE CAN'T GO TOO FAR, SO WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
BUT TO SUMMARIZE, I SUGGEST THAT WE REVIEW EACH SECTION, MAKE SUGGESTION, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT MCKINNEY HAS, WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
>> WITH THAT FOR 9.3, I DID HAVE A QUESTION HERE.
I DID MENTION, THEREFORE, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, CITY SECRETARY AT ALL EMPLOYEE SHALL CONDUCT.
HOWEVER, READING EIGHT SECTION FROM ONE THROUGH TO 16, I THINK IT PRIMARILY ADDRESSES MEMBERS.
I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT WHO IS APPLICABLE TO.
THAT WAS A CONCERN FOR ME THERE.
I'M NOT SURE IF OTHERS OBSERVED THAT.
[01:05:02]
>> I AGREE. THE TITLE ITSELF IS GOVERNING BODY CODE OF ETHICS, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY PERTAIN TO THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THE CITY SECRETARY AND EMPLOYEES MIGHT BE.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE STRANGE THAT THE CITY SECRETARY WAS CALLED OUT SPECIFICALLY.
>> [LAUGHTER] MAYBE REMOVE THAT.
>> THEN WE CAN GO THROUGH IT SECTION HERE FROM ONE AND SO FORTH AND PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS.
PLEASE CHIME IN AND MAKE SUGGESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THOSE.
>> JUST LOOKING AT THE ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MISS.
TODD HAD READ SOMETHING FROM THE MCKINNEY ONE THAT WAS MORE SPECIFIC REGARDING FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS AND THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO ELABORATE A LITTLE MORE ON THAT IN THIS SECTION.
I'M TRYING TO FIND IT. I'M SCROLLING THROUGH THERE.
>> I THINK IT'S THE ADD TO THE SECTION AND THEIR PERSONAL INTERESTS, WHETHER THEIR OWN OR THAT OF FAMILY MEMBERS TO CLARIFY.
>> I'LL JUST READ OUT THEIR. LET ME CLICK.
SORRY, I HAVE MULTIPLE CITIES UP.
THE OFFICIALS ACT AS FAR AS FIDUCIARIES ENTRUSTED WITH AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY AND RESOURCES OF THE COMMUNITY AND MUST MAKE, GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND POLICIES FREE OF COERCIVE OR OTHER IMPROPER INFLUENCE.
OFFICIALS MUST USE THEIR POSITIONS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY RATHER THAN FOR PERSONAL INTERESTS, WHETHER IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS OR THE INTERESTS OF THEIR FAMILY, FRIENDS, OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES.
>> WHAT I CAN DO IS TAKE THAT AND BLEND THE TWO AND MAKE THIS LANGUAGE. CLEAN THIS UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> SOMETHING I'VE NOTICED IN A LOT OF THE DOCUMENTS I'VE REVIEWED.
THEY HAVE A SECTION THAT'S DEFINING WHAT THESE THINGS ARE.
FOR EXAMPLE, I FORGET WHICH CITY IT WAS I WAS READING, BUT THEY IT'S NOT JUST A MARRIED PERSON.
A DOMESTIC PARTNER IS DEFINED BY SOMEONE WHO LIVES WITH YOU AND THERE'S FINANCIAL THINGS.
IT COULD BE ROOMMATES. IT'S NOT JUST YOU'RE MARRIED.
YOU COULD BE LIVING IN AN APARTMENT WITH SEVERAL ROOMMATES, AND IT'S TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND ENSURING THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING BIASED, BY YOUR ROOMMATES AS WELL VERSUS JUST LEAVING IT STRICTLY AS THAT FAMILY DEFINITION.
I THINK MAYBE CONSIDERING HAVING SOME THINGS CLEARLY DEFINED WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AS WELL.
>> I AGREE. I SEE THAT SECTION 2.2 60 IN THE KINNEY 1, AND ONE THAT STOOD OUT TO ME WAS THE DEFINITION OF GIFTS, AND IT GIVES A DOLLAR AMOUNT, WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THAT OUTLINED IN HERE.
THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF DEFINITIONS IN THERE THAT WOULD BE USEFUL.
>> I'M LOOKING AT DENTONS, AND FOR UNDER THEIR CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IT GOES A THROUGH H, AND IT'S LIKE A BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH THE CITY OFFICIAL OWNS 5% OR MORE VOTING SHARES OR STOCK.
THEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO A PERSON OR BUSINESS ENTITY WITH WHOM AS THE CITY OFFICIAL SOLICITED, RECEIVED OR ACCEPTED AN OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT OR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THE PAST 12 MONTHS.
>> ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THOSE THINGS ARE
[01:10:01]
ALSO CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE TEXAS CODE OF ETHICS.EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL THE TEXAS CODE OF ETHICS CLEARLY OUTLINES WHAT A GIFT IS, LIKE, THOSE THINGS ARE AND WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY YOU SEE THAT REFERENCE SO MUCH IN HERE IS BECAUSE EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL MUST ABIDE BY THAT.
>> EXCEPT HOW MANY THINGS HAVE I BROUGHT UP FROM THE DIAS THAT AREN'T SPECIFICALLY LISTED WITHIN OUR ORDINANCES? I JUST REFERENCES THE STATE LAW, AND I WENT AND READ THE STATE LAW AND UNDERSTOOD THE STATE LAW AND HAD TO BRING IT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YES, THERE ARE STATE LAWS FOR.
BUT BY REPEATING THEM AND CLEARLY DEFINING THEM IN THIS DOCUMENT, IT MEANS WE'RE NOT PLAYING SCAVENGER HUNT.
IT REFERENCES SOMETHING, BUT ONE OF THE CHANCES THE PERSON READING IT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO GO NOW READ ANOTHER DOCUMENT.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE RUNNING INTO HAVING ISSUES WITH IN OUR CITY RIGHT NOW WHERE WE HAVE ORDINANCES WRITTEN THAT WAY.
WE'RE CLEANING UP OUR ORDINANCES TO MAKE THINGS BETTER.
>> MS. T, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I WOULD HOPE THIS WOULD BE FOR SOMEONE VIOLATING THE ETHICS.
I WOULD HOPE THAT I WOULDN'T NEED TO BE GOING BACK AND READING TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT COMMITTING AN ETHICS VIOLATION.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THOUGH.
I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP IN CASE PEOPLE WERE THINKING THAT, LIKE A GIFT, WHAT IS A GIFT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN,? THAT THAT'S NOT CLEARLY DEFINED ANYWHERE BECAUSE IT IS.
>> WELL, IT'S NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK AND SEE IF YOU'VE VIOLATED AN ETHICS THING.
OUR RESIDENTS HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A DOCUMENT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS QUESTIONABLE, AND THEY CAN BRING STUFF LIKE THAT UP.
WE MAY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE MAY KNOW THE LEGAL JARGON ON SOME STUFF, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE READING THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO KNOW THE INFORMATION.
>> IS THERE A DESIRE TO HAVE A SEPARATE DEFINITION SECTION? IS THAT KIND OF THE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMITTEE? THERE ARE CERTAIN TERMS IN HERE THAT COULD BE DEFINED.
YOU MENTIONED A GIFT AS AN EXAMPLE JUST TO HAVE HAVE IT IN HERE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO FIND IT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
>> I REALLY THINK THAT, WE SHOULD TABLE WHAT'S LEFT HERE AND HAVE EMAIL OUT TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD, A COUPLE OF THE CITIES.
YOU'VE ALSO MENTIONED THAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT SOME AS FAR AS HOUSTON.
IF WE SHARE THE THINGS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, THEN EACH OF US CAN TAKE SOME TIME, DO SOME HOMEWORK, READ THOSE THINGS, AND COME BACK AND SAY, I REALLY LIKED HOW THIS ONE WAS WORDED.
>> WE CAN HAVE A DEFINITION SECTION.
A GOOD PROCEDURE HAS A DEFINITION SECTION, AND WE'RE ABSOLUTELY NEEDED.
ONE THING WE ALSO DO NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
SIMILAR TO WHEN WE MAKE REFERENCE TO THE TEXAS PENAL CODE IS THAT IF WE'RE DEFINING EVERY SINGLE THING, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE MENTIONED WHAT'S A GIFT OR DEFINED SOMETHING PRECISELY, AND WE DO THE SAME HERE, WE MAY NEED TO PROBABLY REVIEW AND UPDATE THIS DOCUMENT, NOT EVERY TWO YEAR, BUT YEARLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE SESSIONS AND YOU HAVE LAWS THAT MAY PASS, AND THERE MAY BE AMENDMENTS, THAT MAY CHANGE CERTAIN SECTION OR REDEFINE WHAT A GIFT IS.
THEN WE WILL HAVE A OLD DOCUMENT THAT HAS A DIFFERENT WORDING THAT FOLLOWS WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTS OR COUNCIL RELY UPON.
>> WHICH I THINK CAN BE FIXED WITH A CATCH ALL PHRASE THAT IS ADDED TO THIS IN GENERAL THAT STATES THAT AS STATE LAWS CHANGE, THEY WILL SUPERSEDE IF WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THIS DOCUMENT, SHOULD THERE BE.
>> BUT IF WE SAY IT'S WHAT YOU MENTIONED BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT IT TO BE AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THE THING IS IF IT SUPERSEDES, THE RESIDENTS OR WHOEVER REVIEWING, WILL STILL HAVE TO GO HUNT IT DOWN TO FIGURE OUT TO SEE LIKE YOU MENTIONED.
>> I GUESS WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS BY PUTTING IN THERE THAT SUPERSEDES, WE CAN ALSO ADD THAT THE DOCUMENT WILL BE UPDATED.
SAY RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SAYING $600 IS, WHAT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND THE STATE COMES BY NEXT YEAR AND SAYS IT'S $1,000, THAT CATCH ALL PHRASE WOULD STOP US FROM HAVING TO COME BACK TO ANOTHER MEETING, AND IT WOULD ALLOW OUR ATTORNEY AND STAFF TO JUST GO IN AND CHANGE THAT PART TO UPDATE AND MATCH IF A LAW CHANGES THAT DOES CONFLICT WITH SOMETHING THAT'S IN HERE,
[01:15:08]
IT CAN BE REVISED WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK AND MEET AGAIN BY PUTTING IN A CLAUSE LIKE THAT, ALLOWING THAT REVISION TO BE MADE BASED ON UPDATED STATE LAWS.>> WE CAN DO THAT, BUT TO THE POINT, IT WILL BE STILL LIKE HUNTING DOWN WHERE FOLKS WILL SAY, WELL, IS THIS CURRENT, I MAY HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK.
I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO THAT EFFECT, BUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE GET EMAILS WITH WHEN THE LAWS CHANGE.
HERE WE GO. THESE ARE THE NEW LAWS. THESE ARE THINGS ARE CHANGING.
WE ARE VERY AWARE WHEN THINGS ARE CHANGING SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE ON POINT UPDATING THOSE THINGS WHEN A LAW IS CHANGED, BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT THEM.
WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE FROM CITY STAFF TO COUNSEL OF WHAT THEY ARE.
IT'S JUST MAKING US BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR TAKING THE INFORMATION WE GOT, KNOWING THAT THE LAW CHANGED, AND FIXING THE DOCUMENT, AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S A CLAUSE THAT ALLOWS STAFF, TO JUST GO IN AND DO IT RATHER THAN THEY NOW HAVE TO FOLLOW A PROCESS AND LIKE, HEY, WE NEED TO HAVE A COMMITTEE AND ALL THE THINGS.
IT GIVES STAFF THAT FLEXIBILITY TO GO GET IT.
>> GIVE STAFF PERMISSION TO EDIT THE DOCUMENT, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A COMMITTEE TO MAKE CHANGES.
>> ONLY EDIT WHEN A STATE LAW SUPERSEDES WHAT'S IN THE DOCUMENT.
IF WE SAY $600, NEXT YEAR THE LAW SAYS IT'S 10,000, STAFF CAN GO TO UPDATE THAT AND ONLY THAT TO MATCH STATE LAW WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE A COMMITTEE.
THEY CAN'T JUST GO EDIT THE DOCUMENT AS THEY PLEASE.
THEY CAN ONLY UPDATE IT TO MEET STATE LAWS.
>> THAT'S FINE. I WOULD JUST STAFF WE CAN MAKE THE UPDATE, BUT THEN COUNSEL WOULD NEED TO OFFICIALLY.
BUT YEAH, ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, TOO, EVERY TWO YEARS WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE BYLAWS, I THINK IT'S BEST PRACTICE TO DO SO, ESPECIALLY IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.
WE ARE VERY SPECIFIC IN HERE AND WE'RE SUPERSEDED BY STATE LAW OR THE CHARTER, THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND TOO.
THE GOOD THING ABOUT THESE BY LAWS IS WE CAN UPDATE THEM AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
WE NEED TO DO IT ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS, BUT WE CAN DO IT ONCE EVERY MONTH IF NEEDED TO ADD THINGS.
THAT'S A GOOD THING ABOUT THE BYLAWS COMPARED TO THE CHARTER, FOR INSTANCE.
>> BUT TO HER POINT, SHE WOULD NEED A SECTION FOR STAFF, LIKE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADJUST, WHETHER IT'S AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT, LIKE, GO BACK AND ADD THAT?
>> WITH THESE BYLAWS, BECAUSE THEY IMPACT THE BY LAWS FOR COUNSEL, I THINK ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
>> STAFF CAN GO FIX IT AND THEN JUST PUT IT ON OUR AGENDA?
>> CORRECT. BUT I'M SAYING TO HAVE THAT IN THE BY LAW ITSELF UP FRONT, LIKE, HAVE THAT PROCESS.
BECAUSE CURRENTLY IT DOESN'T SAY, STAFF COULD CHANGE IT, BUT TO PROBABLY CLARIFY.
I CAN'T RECALL IT SAYING THAT.
SECTION 8.1 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT CHANGES CAN BE PROPOSED BY COUNSEL COUNSEL APPOINT COMMITTEE AND OR STAFF.
>> WELL, I GUESS, AMBER, YOU DO A LOT OF THE STUFF YOU'RE THE ONE THAT GETS OUR EMAILS WITH THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
AS A CITY STAFF MEMBER, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT JUST ALLOWS STAFF TO BE ABLE TO BE LIKE, WE'VE GOT THE UPDATE AND UPDATE IT HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCESSES OF A COMMITTEE AND A THING AND ALL THE CHANGES HERE YOU ARE AFTER HOURS, DOING ALL THIS? I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK.
>> WELL, HONESTLY, I'M GOOD EITHER WAY, WHATEVER ALL DECIDE.
YES, THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT JUST GOING IN AND MAKING THE CHANGES AND THEN WE COULD BRING IT TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
THAT COULD DEFINITELY BE AN OPTION VERSUS GETTING A COMMITTEE TOGETHER AGAIN AND THEN MEETING JUST TO MAKE MAYBE ONE CHANGE.
YES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT AND BENEFICIAL IF WE DID IT THAT WAY.
>> I COMPLETELY AGREE. I SAID, IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN HERE THAT'S CONTRARY TO STATE LAW, STAFF OR MYSELF WILL FLAG IT, AND THEN WE JUST SEND IT STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL AND DO IT BECAUSE THE BY LAWS HAVE BEEN AMENDED PREVIOUSLY.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A COMMITTEE HAS BEEN FORMED.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE TO AMEND THE BY LAWS JUST AS LONG AS COUNCIL APPROVES THEM, ULTIMATELY.
[01:20:02]
>> I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT EVERY TWO YEARS, WHEN THEY ARE REVIEWED, HAVING THE COMMUNITY BE A PART OF THIS, I LOVE THAT WE HAVE THIS COMMITTEE.
I DON'T EVER WANT TO SEE THAT GO AWAY.
BUT I DO LIKE THAT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CHANGES, WE CAN INSTANTLY FIX IT RATHER THAN WAIT IT OUT OR NOW GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FINDING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE JUST FOR ONE LITTLE THING.
>> GRANT, DO YOU THINK YOU'D BE ABLE TO WRITE THAT CLAUSE FOR US TO APPROVE AT THE NEXT MEETING?
>> I GUESS WHAT I MAY BE TRYING TO SAY AND DID A REALLY POOR JOB OF EXPLAINING IT IS THAT THE BYLAWS CAN BE AMENDED AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THE BY LAWS ALREADY COVER THAT.
THEY'VE BEEN AMENDED PREVIOUSLY BY COUNCIL JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS A REQUEST TO ADD THIS SECTION OR REMOVE THIS SECTION AND THEN THAT IT WAS AMENDED.
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.
I THINK ON A TWO YEAR BASIS, IT'S SMART TO DO THAT, BUT IF THE LAW CHANGES AND THERE'S SOMETHING HERE THAT'S CONTRARY TO IT, WE CAN FLAG IT, MAKE THE PROPOSED EDIT SENT TO COUNSEL, AND THEN COUNCIL CAN.
>> BUT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT OPEN ENDED WHERE COUNCIL CAN JUST SUDDENLY BE MAKING THE CHANGES, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, AND THEN WE NEVER SEE A COMMITTEE LIKE THIS AGAIN SINCE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN.
I THINK MAYBE IF WE CHANGE THE VERBIAGE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS REQUIRED EVERY TWO YEARS, EVEN IF THEY COME TOGETHER AND THEY LIKE THE WHOLE THING AND THEY JUST LEAVE IT AS IS, WE'RE BRINGING THE RESIDENTS TO THE TABLE TO LOOK AT IT AND THEN SPECIFY THAT THOSE IN BETWEEN CHANGES ARE BEING DONE WITH STAFF SUBMITTING AND COUNCIL APPROVING.
WHAT WE COULD DO IF I MAKE A SUGGESTION, I'M SORRY TO BOUNCE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT 8.1, THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE SECTION TO CLARIFY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT SAYS REVISED BY LAWS ON AS NEEDED BASIS AND AT A MINIMUM EVERY TWO YEARS.
IF WE WANTED TO MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMITTEE BE FORMED EVERY TWO YEARS, THAT WOULD BE THE SECTION TO DO THAT.
I THINK RIGHT NOW THAT AS NEEDED, COUNCIL CAN AMEND IT AS FREQUENTLY AS AS NEEDED.
BUT IF WE WANT TO SPECIFY THE COMMITTEE TO BE FORMED, THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE SPOT TO DO IT.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT LEAVES IT OPEN.
IT COULD BE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OR STAFF THAT MAKES THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> SINCE WE ALREADY VOTED ON IT, IS THERE A WAY TO APPROPRIATELY BRING THAT BACK UP? I KNOW HOME RULE SAID THAT THEY'RE BRINGING THINGS BACK UP AT THE END.
>> WE CAN OR SINCE WE'RE ON ITEM H4, THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW, WE COULD FINISH SECTION 9, AND THEN BEFORE WE ADJOURN, WE COULD REOPEN H3 AND THEN MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS, A1 TAKE ACTION AND I'M ALREADY BRINGING 8.1 BACK ANYWAYS BECAUSE WE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CHANGES IF WE WANTED TO ADD FURTHER CHANGES.
THAT'S THAT'S HOW I'D RECOMMEND PROCEEDING.
I DON'T HAVE, THE BIG DOCUMENT.
I FORGOT TO BRING THAT WITH ME OUTSIDE OF, 9.3, WHERE THERE IS DEFINING PROCESS FOR COMPLAINTS AS A WHOLE.
THIS DENTON OR MCKINNEY? THIS IS MCKINNEY.
THEY HAVE SECTION 2290, WHICH IS TIME FOR FILING COMPLAINTS.
YOU CAN'T JUST BE LIKE THREE YEARS LATER, COME BACK.
THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THE DETAILED WRITTEN COMPLAINTS ARE REQUIRED OUTLINING EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE AND SUCH, WHICH THEN GOES TO THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINTS.
TO THE PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING THESE THINGS, WHAT SANCTIONS CAN COME FROM IT? THEN IT GOES INTO, THE NAME CLEARING, SHOULD, CLAIMS BE MADE AND THEY'RE GETTING CLEARED.
THIS GIVES IT A VERY SOLID PROCESS TO, AN ACCUSATION IS MADE.
HOW ARE WE LOOKING AT THESE ACCUSATIONS.
HOW ARE WE ADDRESSING THEM? IT'S FREE FOR ALL.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH STRUCTURE ON THAT, BUT THIS WOULD CLEARLY DEFINE THAT STRUCTURE AND HOW IT'S ADDRESSED.
[01:25:04]
IT WOULD ENSURE THAT IT IS DONE, I THINK, IN A MORE FAIR STRUCTURED BASIS RATHER THAN AT THE LEISURE OF WHOEVER HAPPENS TO BE IN THAT POSITION AT THAT TIME, ADDRESSING IT.>> THERE'S NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THESE BY LAWS THAT PRINCETON DOES NOT HAVE ROBUST DETAILED PROCEDURES LIKE MCKINNEY DOES, FOR INSTANCE.
EVERYTHING THE PROCEDURES ARE CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 9.3 AND 9.4.
FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS. OF COURSE, THERE'S THEIR STAFF, EMPLOYEE.
THAT'S ALL THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT NOT FOR MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY.
>> I THINK STREAMLINING THAT, WHICH IS WHAT THEIRS SEEMS TO BE, BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT, LIKE THE STAFF AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS.
I THINK STREAMLINING THAT PROCESS IS IMPORTANT.
IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO A CITY STAFF MEMBER TO HAVE A COMPLAINT AND BE TREATED LESSER THAN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL HAVING A COMPLAINT OR VICE VERSA, THE STAFF MEMBER GETS A STANDARD PROCEDURE AND DUE DILIGENCE, WHEREAS A COUNCIL OR A BOARD MEMBER DOES NOT.
I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER A STREAMLINED PROCESS LIKE THIS THAT DEFINES THE PROCESS ALL ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERYONE.
THIS IS THE EXPECTATION, AND THIS IS HOW IT IS ADDRESSED TO ENSURE THAT IT IS FAIR FOR EVERYONE.
IS THERE A DIVISION FOR SECTION 2290-2295?
>> WHAT SECTION ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT SHOULD REPLACE HERE?
>> I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE PERIOD.
THINK OF COUNCILMAN JOHNSON AND JASON WHEN THEY WERE ON THE EDC AND STUFF, AND WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
IF WE HAD SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN PLACE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED MUCH DIFFERENTLY.
I KNOW THAT AFTER THEY GOT REMOVED FROM THE BOARDS OR STEPPED DOWN, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO SAY THAT WENT DOWN, THEY DIDN'T GET THEIR NAMES CLEARED.
THERE WERE RUMORS AND THINGS THAT WERE SAID, AND THAT WASN'T FAIR.
THAT WAS WRONG FOR HOW THAT WENT DOWN.
HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THIS GIVES THE DIGNITY AND RESPECT THAT PEOPLE SERVING THE CITY OR WORKING FOR THE CITY DESERVE.
>> AS FAR AS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER, THE PROCEDURE IS, I DON'T KNOW, ON YOUR PRINTOUT.
IT'S UNDER 9.4 THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH.
IT'S ALL CONTAINED IN THAT PARAGRAPH.
IT'S JUST BARE BONES, VERY BROAD.
>> VERY BARE BONES AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION ON HOW THAT GOES DOWN.
AGAIN, IT SHOULDN'T JUST BE THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
IT ALSO SAYS THE BOARD MEMBERS AND STUFF.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MORE CLEAR ON THIS, AND WE HAVE A STANDARD PROCESS FOR HOW THIS IS ADDRESSED.
EVERYONE'S DOING THIS BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE CITY.
WHEN STUFF COMES UP OR ACCUSATIONS ARE MADE, AND YOU DON'T HAVE A WAY TO CLEAR YOUR NAME OR YOU DON'T HAVE A WAY TO ACTUALLY HAVE REAL JUSTICE, THAT'S NOT FAIR.
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE MEMBERS OF OUR BOARD, AND I THINK THAT WE OWE IT TO EVERYONE TO HAVE SOMETHING CLEARLY DEFINED.
THE PEOPLE YOU KNOW SOCIAL MEDIA GETS, THIS ONE LITTLE WHISPER CAN CHANGE INTO A CRAZY THING ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND HURT THE REPUTATION, I CAN IMPACT THEIR JOBS, THEIR FAMILIES, EVERYTHING.
WE HAVE NOTHING IN PLACE TO STOP THAT, PROTECT IT, OR ANYTHING.
IF EVERYONE IN THE BOARD IS OPEN TO IT, COULD WE HAVE SAMPLES OF A COUPLE CITIES, JUST LIKE THREE CITIES WHO HAVE THESE TYPES OF PROVISIONS
[01:30:01]
IN PLACE EMAILED TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND DECIDE HOW WE WANT OUR STRUCTURE TO LOOK OR IF WE LIKE HOW ONE ALREADY IS TO ENSURE OUR CITY HAS SOME LIKE THAT IN PLACE AS WELL?>> I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS OR SOME EXAMPLES.
I KNOW, WE'VE MENTIONED MCKINNEY A COUPLE OF TIMES A NIGHT, SO WE CAN START THERE AND I CAN PULL A COUPLE ADDITIONAL MUNICIPALITIES SOME THAT WE REPRESENT AND SOME THAT JUST IN COLLIN COUNTY, JUST TO GIVE YOU GUYS SOME OTHER IDEAS ON HOW WE COULD UPDATE AND ENHANCE THE CURRENT CODE.
I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMITTEE.
>> IF ANYONE ELSE IS OPEN TO IT, I WOULD MOTION TO TABLE 9.3 AND 9.4 UNTIL WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH SOME EXAMPLES THAT WE CAN LOOK AT TO BETTER STRUCTURE OUR DOCUMENTS.
>> DID WE WANT TO PUT 9.5 IN THERE AS WELL? [LAUGHTER]
THAT IS A GOOD POINT FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
>> I'LL ENTERTAIN CORRECT THAT MOTION SINCE 9.5 IS NOT.
>> I MOTION TO TABLE 9.3, 9.4 AND 9.5 UNTIL WE'VE HAD EXAMPLES OF NEIGHBORING CITIES TO LOOK AT TO DETERMINE HOW WE WANT TO STRUCTURE OUR DOCUMENT.
>> I'LL PROCEED TO TAKE VOTE ON THAT.
NOW WE'LL PROCEED TO SECTION H5 2025-029,
[H.5 2025-029 Consider selecting the dates and times of future Committee meetings; and take appropriate action.]
WHICH IS CONSIDER SELECTING THE DATES AND TIMES FOR FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.>> AMBER, DID YOU MAKE THIS CALENDAR? IT IS SO SWEET. THANK YOU.
IS THE LIBRARY BOARD HERE? IT'S BY THE LIBRARY, IS THAT? [BACKGROUND] AVAILABILITY.
I WOULD PROPOSE THE 21ST OR IF YOU WANT TO CHIMING WITH OTHER DATES, TWO WEEKS.
I THINK THAT'S AMPLE TIME TO REVIEW THE MATERIAL AND MAKE SUGGESTED CHANGES.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT TO OUR NEXT MEETING MEETING ON THE 21ST.
>> AT 6:30, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
06:30 AUGUST 21ST FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
MOTION CARRIES FOR AUGUST 21ST AT 6:30 PM.
WELL, AFTER WE RECEIVED THE MATERIALS, I GUESS GRANT YOU WILL SEND THAT OVER TO US.
>> IT'LL EITHER COME FROM ME OR AMBER OR MEMBER OF STAFF.
BUT, I CAN GRAB SOME EXAMPLES AND SEND IT TO YOU GUYS TO STUDY IN ADVANCE, AND WE CAN HAVE COMPARE ACROSS THE BOARD AND MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR BRINGING BACK H3 FOR YOU?
>> I'M ALREADY GOING TO BRING H3 BACK BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN WE HAD THE ITEM OPEN.
WE CAN WE CAN GO BACK AND DISCUSS H3 RIGHT NOW, IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS IT MORE NOW, OR WE CAN DISCUSS IT AT THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE DID.
>> WHICH IS THE OTHER ONE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING BACK?
>> ESSENTIALLY, WE HAVE A FEW EDITS ON H1, H2, AND H3, THAT WERE ADDITIONAL TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
YOU GUYS CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE LANGUAGE, I'M GOING TO BRING THOSE BACK.
LIKE I SAID, ONE OF THEM BEING ITEM, H3, WHICH DEALS WITH SECTION 8.1.
AT THE NEXT MEETING OR WE CAN DISCUSS IT NOW, WHICHEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO, BUT WE JUST NEED TO GO BACK TO H3, IF THAT'S THE CASE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CHECK IF I NEED TO MOTION FOR YOU TO BE ALLOWED TO BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND BRING IT BACK SO.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AS IT RELATES TO 8.1 OR NO.
[01:35:03]
>> I HAVE A NOTE ON MY TABLE OF CONTENTS THAT WE HAD TABLED SECTION 3.1 A WHILE BACK, AND I'M TRYING TO SEE DID WE ADDRESS WHATEVER THAT I THINK WE DID.
NO, MAYBE NOT. VERY FINISH THAT.
I'LL HAVE TO DIG THROUGH ALL MY PAPERS. 3.1.
>> ONCE WE GET THROUGH ALL NINE ARTICLES, THAT'S WHEN IT'S OPEN ALL THE SECTIONS ARE OPENED UP TO DISCUSS AGAIN, ALL THE EDITS THAT WERE APPROVED AND THEN, IF WE WANT TO SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE TABLED, SO WE CAN GO BACK TO 3.1.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT CONTEXT BEHIND THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DO THAT.
>> I HAVE A NOTE THAT THE HOME RULE COMMITTEE WAS GOING TO HAVE SOME INPUT ON IT.
>> I BELIEVE AT THE END WE'LL HAVE A RED LINE VERSION OF ALL THE CHANGES AND THEN THE FINAL DOC.
PERFECT. ANYTHING ELSE? I LIKE TO ADD.
WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TODAY.
I'LL SEE YOU GUYS AUGUST 21ST AT 6:30 PM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.