>> WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER
[00:00:02]
THE CITY OF PRINCETON HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.THE TIME IS 6:35, AND WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
JASON ROLLS IS PRESENT. JIM POWELL?
>> YOU THREW THE MIC FOR ME, JIM. THANK YOU.
JULIE ZELLER IS NOT HERE. ALISON GUERRERO.
>> DAVID YOST IS NOT HERE. MARK CHRISWELL.
>> THANK YOU. AMISHA NEAL IS NOT HERE. MAXINE ELLIS.
>> SKYLER SMITH IS NOT HERE. JODY SUTHERLAND.
>> CAROLYN DAVID-GRAVES IS NOT HERE, AND MARLO OBERA IS NOT HERE.
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO INVOCATION, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN TO US BY JIM POWELL.
>> MOST LOVING AND GRACIOUS HEAVENLY FATHER, WE ARE HONORED TO GATHER, FATHER, FOR THE THINGS THAT REPRESENT THIS CITY WE LOVE, AND TO MAKE THE DECISIONS, FATHER, RIGHT IN YOUR EYES AND SOUND JUDGMENT, FATHER, AS WE DELIBERATE, WE ASK YOUR GUIDANCE AND KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PATH AS WE SEEK YOUR WILL.
IN CHRIST HOLY NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN.
>> WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THE PLEDGE OF THE TEXAS FLAG.
MOVING ON TO ITEM F, WHICH IS 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 PRESENTED 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 THAT ARE NOT 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.
TWO, BE COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL AND CORDIAL.
THREE, REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL, DEMEANING, INSULTING, THREATENING, AND/OR DISPARAGING REMARKS AS TO MAINTAIN DECORUM AND SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY FLOW OF THE MEETING.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYONE FOR PUBLIC APPEARANCE TODAY, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO CONSENT AGENDA,
[G. CONSENT AGENDA]
WHICH IS ITEM G. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINED BY THE COMMITTEE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SO REQUEST AND IN WHICH EVENT, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA, AND I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT ITEM G, CONSENT AGENDA.
>> APOLOGIES. LET ME DO A QUICK CORRECTION HERE.
ITEM G.1 2025-174, CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2025, HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.
THEN NOW I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THANK YOU.
>> I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G.1 2025-174 AS IS.
>> WITH THAT, WE HAVE THAT PROOF 70.
I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT JOSE RIOS IS NOW HERE.
THE TIME IS, I'M GOING TO PUT IT AS 6:38, IS ABOUT THE TIME I BELIEVE HE CAME ABOUT 6:37. THANK YOU.
[00:05:07]
DO YOU HAVE A CHECK? THERE WE GO.[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S 80 FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THAT MOVES US INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
BEFORE WE START, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT MARLO OBERA HAS NOW SHOWED UP TIME IS 6:40.
[H.1 2025-175 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 6 (“City Secretary”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the September 11, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action. ]
REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER SIX, CITY SECRETARY OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, AS DISCUSSED AT THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. ON TO GRANT.>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE BEFORE US IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6.02 FROM THE LAST MEETING.
IT'S JUST MERELY TO MAKE MAYBE A NON SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, CHANGING IT FROM OR TO AND, AS NOTED IN 6.027, AS DISCUSSED IN THE LAST MEETING.
LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> NO QUESTIONS. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE UPDATED PORTION OF 6.02. WHO WILL SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A QUESTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> DO WE HAVE THE QUORUM REQUIRED FOR US FOR THE MEETING?
>> YEAH. NO PROBLEM. WE HAVE A FIRST THAT WAS BY MR. CHRISWELL, AND THEN WE HAD A SECOND BY JODY SUTHERLAND AND WE CAN VOTE.
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT WE ARE 904.
>> MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM,
[H.2 2025-176 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 8 (“Municipal Court”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the September 11, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
ITEM H.2 2025-176 REVIEW, AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER EIGHT, MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS AS DISCUSSED AT THE SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.>> STARTING WITH SECTION 8.02, YOU'LL SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED AND AS DISCUSSED LAST READING IS BOLDED AND UNDERLINED, ADDRESSES THE REMOVAL PROCEDURE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.
LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT ITEM H.2 2025-176 WITH THE AMENDED CHANGES.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR ELLIS, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY RAND ROBERTS AND THAT WE CAN VOTE.
>> I KNOW THIS IS SMALL, BUT ON HERE IT SAYS ONLY 8.02, ARE YOU REVIEWING 8.02 AND 8.05?
>> THIS IS JUST 8.02, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO 8.05 NEXT.
>> AND WE'LL VOTE FOR THAT ONE TOO?
>> [OVERLAPPING] SHE STILL NEEDS TO AMEND HER MOTION BECAUSE SHE DID BOTH.
>> AMEND MY MOTION TO ACCEPT SECTION 8.02 FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.
>> RIGHT. WE HAVE A FIRST BY VICE CHAIR ELLIS AND SECOND BY RAND ROBERTS, AND WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE.
>> RANDALL, YOU NEED TO VOTE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
>> NOW MOVING TO SECTION 8.05.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CATCH. WE'LL HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION FOR THIS SECTION.
AS YOU'LL SEE, BROKEN IT UP INTO TWO SUBSECTIONS AN A AND A B.
THE B IS ALL NEW LANGUAGE BASED ON WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, WHAT WAS PRESENTED BY MR. POWELL.
I TOOK SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PRESENTED ON THE HANDOUT AND CONSOLIDATED A BIT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPROVED FOR THE READABILITY AND FLOW, ETC AND JUST CONSOLIDATE FOR LACK OF OTHER TERM.
I THINK THE INTENT IS STILL THERE.
IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN HOW IT WAS PRESENTED ON THE HANDOUT LAST TIME.
LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR EDITS.
>> I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 8.05 COST FINES, PENALTIES, AND REPORTING AS AMENDED.
[00:10:02]
>> WE GOT A SECOND FROM ALLISON.
WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR ELLIS AND A SECOND BY ALISON GUERRERO. WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE.
>> THAT MOTION IS APPROVED 90.
>> MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM.
[H.3 2025-177 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 9 (“Boards and Commissions”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the September 11, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
ITEM H.3 2025-177. REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER NINE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, AS DISCUSSED AT THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.>> IN THIS SECTION, SECTION 9.05, I'M JUST CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THERE PREVIOUSLY, I THINK IS MAYBE PROPOSED BY MR. CHRISWELL.
IMPORTANTLY, MENTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION PRESCRIBE SOME OF THE PURPOSE, COMPOSITION, FUNCTION, DUTIES OF THE BOARD.
JUST CLEANS IT UP. THAT'S NECESSARY LANGUAGE.
LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR REVISIONS.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THIS.
WITH THE DISCUSSION FROM MONDAY NIGHT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMMISSION AND AN ADVISORY BOARD, DO WE NEED TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER THAT SAYS THEY CAN SERVE ON AN ADVISORY BOARD AND A COMMISSION? BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CHARTER AND I KNOW THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN CONFUSION ON THAT.
>> WE COULD. I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ITEM IS.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME STATE LAW ISSUES TO WHERE THERE'S A CONFLICT IF YOU STAY ON BOARD, YOU HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF ON THE OTHER.
A LOT OF THAT'S COVERED UNDER STATE LAW.
IT'S NOT TO YOUR POINT, EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE CHARTER OR OTHERWISE.
WE COULD CERTAINLY PROPOSE ANOTHER AMENDMENT IF WE WANTED TO GO THAT ROUTE.
>> I JUST DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED IT BECAUSE FIVE, 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WHOEVER'S UP THERE OR WHOEVER'S HERE MAY NOT KNOW THAT YES, YOU COULD SERVE ON CDC AND YOU COULD SERVE ON THE PARK'S BOARD OF ADVISORIES OR PLANNING AND ZONING AND PARK'S BOARD OF ADVISORIES.
>> YEAH. WE COULD PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF DUAL APPOINTMENTS ARE AUTHORIZED UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY LAW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S DIFFERENT IF YOU'RE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL VERSUS APPOINTED.
I THINK WE'RE TALKING THE REALM OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS.
BUT WE COULD IF SOMEONE WANTED TO MAKE A SUGGESTION TO THAT ROUTE, WE COULD CERTAINLY PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE. THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
BECAUSE I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT BASICALLY THE FIRST SENTENCE, ESTABLISHED BLAH BLAH, BLAH, A POINT AS MAY BE ACQUIRED BY LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, DOESN'T THAT ALREADY INCORPORATE THAT WITHIN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE OTHER BOARD?
>> IT COULD. I'M JUST BECAUSE IT CAME UP MONDAY NIGHT.
>> I THINK IT'S ALL ADDRESSED IN THIS.
IT'S NOT BOILERPLATE PER SE, BUT IT'S GOOD LANGUAGE. IT COVERS IT.
I THINK IF WE WANTED TO CLARIFY OR EXPRESSLY STATE IT, WE COULD.
IT'S ALL COVERED IN THIS TO YOUR POINT.
>> I GET THE IMPRESSION GRANT.
THIS GIVES US PROVIDES MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY HERE AS IT SITS.
I GUESS IF WE WANT TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT FLEXIBILITY SOUNDS GOOD.
>> TO GIVE CLARIFICATION BEHIND WHY THIS WAS BROUGHT UP MONDAY NIGHT BECAUSE THEY ARE BRINGING THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD BACK.
I WAS SUBMITTING MY NAME FOR THAT ADVISORY BOARD.
INITIALLY, IT WAS ADVISED THAT I WOULD HAVE TO RESIGN FROM PLANNING AND ZONING.
BUT AFTER SPEAKING WITH GRANT, AND THE QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP MONDAY NIGHT BECAUSE BEING ON PLANING AND ZONING, I CAN'T BE ON CDC, I CAN'T BE ON EDC.
BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION THAT WAS THERE FOR ME, BASICALLY, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE THERE FOR ANYBODY ELSE.
>> QUESTION. RAND. I KNOW YOU MADE THE SEPARATION BETWEEN APPOINTED AND ELECTED?
>> IF SOMEONE WERE APPOINTED TO LIKE THE CDC, COULD THEY BE APPOINTED TO THE EDC AS WELL? BASED OFF THE CHARTER INFORMATION.
BECAUSE TO ME, THEN AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD INSTANCES WHERE SINCE THE CHARTER HAS BEEN ADOPTED,
[00:15:02]
WHERE SOMEONE WAS SERVING ON THE CDC, BUT ALSO SERVING ON COUNSEL, AND DECISIONS WERE MADE, SO WHERE THEY HAD TO RELINQUISH ONE OF THEM, RIGHT? IF I'M A RESIDENT AND I SEE THAT, I'M GOING, WELL, HOLD ON.THIS PERSON HERE IS SERVING ON THE EDC AND ON THE CDC, WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHY IT'S OKAY FOR THEM BECAUSE IT'S A BOARD BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO SEE YOU'RE IN TWO ROLES.
I THINK THE CLARITY PROBABLY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IN THAT REGARD.
>> YEAH. I DON'T SEE, FROM A STATE LAW PERSPECTIVE, WHY YOU COULDN'T.
IT'S JUST NOT TYPICAL BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES THAT TYPE A AND TYPE B, THEY JOINED TOGETHER IN PROJECTS.
SO IF YOU'RE SERVING ON BOTH ROLES, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF TO SOME EXTENT.
I DON'T SEE FROM JUST A HIGH LEVEL WHY YOU COULDN'T AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR YOUR OATH.
>> YEAH. I I WOULD SAY I'M IN FAVOR PERSONALLY, AND OPEN TO OBVIOUSLY THE PROCESS TO PLAY ITSELF OUT.
>> BUT I'M IN FAVOR FOR THAT CLARITY BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD INSTANCES AND MAY HAVE FUTURE INSTANCES WHERE THOSE THINGS OCCUR.
AGAIN, THE MODE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS CREATING THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE CITY.
THIS FRAMEWORK IS AS MUCH AS IT IMPACTS THE COUNCIL AND THE STAFF.
IT REALLY IS SUPPORTING THE RESIDENTS.
IT'S REALLY ENSURING THAT IT'S PROVIDING THEM WITH THE CLARITY AND THE DETAIL THAT THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE CITY IS FUNCTIONING.
IF THEY WERE TO SEE THAT AND GO, THAT LOOKS WEIRD, THAT THIS PERSON HAD TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THIS POSITION, BUT THEN THIS OTHER PERSON IS ON TWO BOARDS.
I'D LIKE THAT CLARITY TO BE WITHIN THE CHARTER TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING OF [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE IDEA OF CLARITY SOUNDS GREAT.
AS WE SIT, THOUGH, THE KEY DISTINCTION IS WHETHER IT'S AN ADVISORY BOARD OR NOT, CLARITY IS FINE.
>> BASICALLY, THE PURPOSE OF THE CLARITY IS TO PREVENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFUSION.
>> YEAH, THEY CAN'T SERVE ON MULTIPLE BOARD CONCERNS.
>> CERTAIN, BUT AREN'T THEY ILLEGALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ABSTAIN FROM A VOTE BECAUSE OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN ANY OTHER COMMITTEE?
>> ONE OF THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING PEOPLE TO VOLUNTEER FOR BOTH BOARDS IS SOME OF THE BOARDS THEY STRUGGLE TO GET PEOPLE ON THEM.
THERE'S CITIZENS OUT THERE THAT DO WANT TO VOLUNTEER AND BE A PART OF IT, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> I AGREE. WOULD THAT BE A SEPARATE SECTION, OR WOULD THAT BE 9.05?
>> I'LL GET THE THOUGHT OF THE COMMITTEE.
YOU CAN MAYBE DO A 9.06, DUAL APPOINTMENT, OR SOMETHING LIKE IF YOU ALL WANT TO.
I MEAN, YOU COULD CERTAINLY WE COULD ADD IT TO 9.05, BUT IF YOU GUYS THINK IT WOULD LOOK BETTER OR FUNCTION BETTER AS 9.06, IT'S UP TO.
>> I WOULD SAY FROM A HYGIENE PERSPECTIVE, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO HAVE A SEPARATE SECTION.
>> THEN WE CAN CONTINUE THE VOTING PROCESS FOR WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED HERE.
THEN WE STILL HAVE CHAPTER 9 OPEN FOR ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> BECAUSE I HAVE ONE FROM LAST WEEK THAT I DID.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE TO VOTE, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LEGAL SCENARIO WHERE YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE FOR CLARITY, WHICH MAKES 100% SENSE, BUT WE CAN'T PUSH BACK AGAINST LEGALITY.
I THINK KEEPING IT OPEN AND BROAD LIKE THAT, NOT IN HERE, HELPS US LEGALLY, THAT WE'RE NOT FORCING SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T DO.
>> I WAS TOLD THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO RESIGN FROM P&Z ORIGINALLY TO BE ON THE ADVISORY BOARD BECAUSE P&Z I WAS A COMMISSIONER.
BUT THEN, AFTER SPEAKING TO GRANT AND COUNCIL ASKING THE QUESTION, PARKS AND RECREATION IS JUST AN ADVISORY BOARD, AND IT'LL MEET MAYBE ONCE A MONTH.
WHEREAS P&Z MEETS TWICE A MONTH, YOU HAVE TO BE ON A COMMISSION.
>> I MEAN, THE EXAMPLE I CAN GIVE YOU IT'S SUPER FACT-SPECIFIC, IT'S ALSO SUPER PERSONAL TO BASED ON THEIR PERSONAL CONFLICTS TO IS.
FOR INSTANCE, THE EDC OR CDC THEY HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEY WANT TO REZONE IT, THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING ENDS.
THERE'S A CONFLICT, YOU CAN'T SERVE, YOU HAD TO RECUSE YOURSELF, OR CAN THERE'S A CONFLICT THERE? THAT'S JUST THERE'S SO MANY FACTUAL SCENARIOS, AND IT'S ALSO SPECIFIC TO EACH PERSON AND THEIR CAREERS TOO.
>> THAT ANSWERS WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO ABSTAIN,
[00:20:02]
WOULD NOT NECESSARILY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO SERVE ON THE BOARD HOLISTICALLY.>> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER YOU RESIGNED FROM THE P&Z COURT OF ADJUSTMENT.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IT ALREADY BAKED INTO THE LEGAL PROCESS THAT THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN? IS IT NECESSARY FOR US TO DESIGNATE IT SEPARATELY?
I THINK WHAT GRANT SAID EARLIER IS THAT, I MEAN, THE VERBIAGE HERE IS, AS YOU MENTIONED, BOILERPLATE, BUT IT DOES COVER IT.
ESSENTIALLY, AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THIS CHARTER.
THE LAW THAT COVERS THAT BASICALLY SAYS THAT IT'S OKAY TO DO SO.
THE REASON FOR THE CLARITY IS EVEN THE EXAMPLE THAT VICE CHAIR ELLIS GAVE, AND THERE'S BEEN OTHER ONES.
I'VE SERVED IN CDC WHERE IT'S COME UP.
FOR ME, BEING SOMEONE, ME, NOT NECESSARILY ME, BUT ANYONE THAT'S ON ONE OF THOSE BOARDS.
THIS TELLS ME WITHOUT THE QUESTION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, SOMETIMES SOMEONE WILL COME TO YOU AND SAY, YOU CAN'T SERVE HERE.
WELL, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT I CAN'T.
THE CLARITY IS THERE WITHIN THE HOMEWORK CHARTER.
>> I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I GET IT UNDER PERCENT.
I THINK THIS IS MORE OF A CONVERSATION OF WHO'S EVER CONFRONTING WITH THIS INFORMATION, NOT KNOWING THE LEGAL FACT BEHIND IT, VERSUS US TRYING TO FORCE IT INTO THE CHARTER, BECAUSE THEY TOLD HER SHE COULDN'T DO IT, DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RIGHT.
>> WELL, LET ME DO THIS. LET'S TAKE THIS APPROACH BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE AGREED IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, IT'S A 9.06.
THEN WE CAN MOVE INTO CHAPTER 9.
WE CAN BRING THAT DISCUSSION BACK.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE TIME IS 6:57, AND DAVID YOST IS HERE AS WELL.
LET ME FIND HIM ON MY SHEET SO I CAN MARK HIM PRESENT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 9.05 AS AMENDED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY SIR ELLIS AND THE SECOND, ALISON GUERRERO, THAT WE CAN VOTE.
THAT WE HAVE 941 ABSTAINED, AND THAT IS APPROVED.
MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT SECTION, SECTION H.42025-178, REVIEW CHAPTER 9 BOARDS AND
[H.4 2025-178 Review Chapter 9 (“Boards and Commissions”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action. ]
COMMISSIONS OF THE HOME CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TOO, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION THAT NOW OPENS THAT SECTION UP.
WE'VE ACTUALLY, FOR THE RECORD'S SAKE, GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE OTHER SECTIONS.
THIS IS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD INTO CHAPTER 9.
I'M OPEN FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS ONE.
>> DID YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION?
>> WE WERE ALREADY DISCUSSING YOURS. LET'S GO BACK TO THAT ONE.
>> I THINK ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS IT SAYS HERE IN SECTION 9.05 THAT CREATES ESTABLISHES A POINT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW OR THIS CHARTER.
BUT THIS CHARTER DOESN'T GIVE THE DETAILS, SUCH AS WHAT WE'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
YES, THE CHARTER SAYS, WE HAVE A PLAN IN ZONING, WE HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ETC, BUT IT DOESN'T CLEARLY SAY THAT IF YOU'RE ON A COMMISSIONED BOARD, YOU CAN BE ON AN ADVISORY BOARD.
>> I THINK THE PURPOSE BEHIND THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS WE'LL GET TO MAYBE THIS EVENING HERE, LATER ON THE COUNCIL DISTRICT COMMISSION.
THAT GOES INTO DETAILS ON THE PURPOSE, THE CONVERSATION, AND ALL THAT.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, IF WE WANTED TO DISCUSS, MAYBE HAVING DUAL, BEING ABLE TO BE DULY APPOINTED TO DIFFERENT BOARDS.
>> IT'S IMPLIED RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST NOT EXPRESSING.
>> BUT I THINK IT WOULD CLARIFY A LOT, IT WOULD HAVE HELPED ON MONDAY NIGHT FOR BETTER CLARIFICATION.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHERE DOES IT GRANT SPECIFY THAT YOU CAN'T BE ON EDC, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, PLANNING AND ZONING, CDC? I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU CAN'T, YOU HAVE TO RESIGN FROM ONE TO BE APPOINTED TO THE OTHER.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY OTHER ONES THAT I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, GRANT, BUT IT'S A STATE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HOLD TWO DUAL-PAID POSITIONS.
>> YES, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IF YOU'RE JUST A HIGHER LEVEL THAN THAT,
[00:25:07]
IF YOU'RE HEARING SERVING ON TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS AND YOU'RE HEARING THE SAME THING.IT'S NOT THE BEST EXAMPLE, BUT YOU CAN'T BE ON COUNCIL AND P&Z.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S AN ELEMENTARY EXAMPLE.
THERE'S NOWHERE THAT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT PER SE.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING IS IT'S IN ANY OF THE OTHER WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT IT, IT'S NOT IN THE CHARTER, WHAT'S THE OTHER RULES THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE [OVERLAPPING] BYLAWS? IS THERE ANYWHERE EXPRESSLY THAT IT STATES THAT, OR IS THAT JUST A KNOWN RULE THAT THEY JUST TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO RESIGN FROM ONE?
>> MAYBE IT WOULD BE GOOD TO JUST STATE IT SOMEWHERE, LIKE MAXINE SAID.
>> I MEAN, I'LL SAY A LOT OF CITIES, YOU DON'T SERVE ON MULTIPLE BOARDS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T.
THERE JUST MAY BE INSTANCES, EVEN IF YOU SERVE ON THE BOARD TO WHERE YOU HAVE TO ABSTAIN RECUSE.
THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE AS LONG AS THERE'S A QUORUM WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD, THEY CAN VOTE ON THE MATTER.
>> OTHER CHARTERS THAT I'VE NOTICED BRING THIS UP, BUT IT RESTRICTS VERSUS OPENS UP.
MY FEAR WITH TRYING TO OPEN IT UP TOO BROAD IS WE WON'T BE WITHIN THE COMMON LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION.
KEEPING IT EITHER LAW OR RESTRICT WOULD BE MY TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THAT'S FINE TOO. I REMEMBER, AND ACTUALLY, JODI REMEMBERS THE SAME THING.
WHEN WE DID THE FIRST HOME RULES CHARTER.
THERE WAS SOMETHING, AND I HAVE LOOKED UP, DOWN, BACKWARDS, FORWARDS, EVERYTHING THAT SAID SOMEONE COULD NOT SERVE ON MORE THAN ONE BOARD, BUT I CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE IN THE CHARTER THAT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT.
>> IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE FIRST TIME WE DID THIS CHARTER, WE HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WAS ALSO RUNNING CDC.
THAT CHANGED, AND I WE DEALT WITH THAT.
IT'S GOT TO BE IN THERE SOMEWHERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I REMEMBER WE DEALT WITH IT. I WOULD BE STUNNED.
>> THAT'S MORE OF A STATE LAW. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHEN YOU'RE A COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> THAT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE I REMEMBER THAT DEBATE.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, MARK.
MAYBE GRANT, YOU COULD HELP WITH SOME OF THE VERBIAGE FOR THAT AND BRING IT BACK TO US?
>> JUST WHATEVER THE DIRECTION IS OF THE COMMITTEE, I CAN TRY TO PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING.
JUST IF YOU WANT MORE THAN A RESTRICTIVE ROUTE OR MORE.
>> I THINK AT THAT POINT, YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, ONCE WE GET TO A VOTE, PROBABLY GIVE HIM SOME LEAST FOUNDATIONAL VERBIAGE.
THEN HE CAN GO BACK AND TWEAK IT AND COME BACK TO US NEXT WEEK.
>> WITH THAT, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION?
>> I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION.
MAXINE, LAST WEEK, WE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING IN SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF ATTENDANCE.
>> BECAUSE IT WENT ALONG WITH YOURS, THAT'S COMING NEXT.
>> I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYTHING IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THE QUESTIONS TO WHERE MAXINE CAN MOVE ON IF SHE'D LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, I MEAN, MAKE A MOTION?
>> YES. FOR THE ADDITION OF GETTING A CLEAR DEFINITION ON HOW WE CAN SERVE ON BOARDS COMMISSIONS.
MY MOTION IS A NEW SECTION THAT WILL PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION REGARDING HOW RESIDENTS CAN SERVE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND GRANT WILL HELP WITH THAT VERBIAGE IN A MANNER THAT GIVES IT MORE, WHAT OUR RESTRICTIONS ARE, IS MY MOTION.
>> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. DOES THIS REQUIRE A MOTION? I THINK IN THE PAST, WE'VE JUST DEFERRED OR WE'VE TAKEN IT VERBALLY AND THEN SHOWS UP NEXT MEETING.
MOTION AND SECOND, AND VOTE SEEMS A LITTLE FORMAL.
>> THE WAY I'M SEEING THIS IS AN ADDITION OF A SECTION TO THE CHARTER.
WELL, I MEAN, WE'VE HAD OTHER MOTIONS THAT WERE GENERAL VERBIAGE, LIKE MARK'S MOTION LAST WEEK WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ENDED UP. WELL, MAYBE I'M SORRY.
[00:30:03]
IT WAS YOU, HE SPOKE ABOUT TODAY WAS YOUR MOTION.THAT HE TOOK THE GENERAL VERBIAGE AND HE TWEAKED IT, AND CAME BACK WITH IT.
>> BUT SOMEONE DID FIRST AND SECOND THAT THAT'S HOW WE'VE BEEN DOING IS, IF THINGS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, JUST A RECOMMENDATION FIRST, SECOND, AND THEN I'LL DRAFT IT, PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOU.
THEN YOU GUYS WILL VOTE ON IT AGAIN AT THE VERY END.
YOU'LL SEE IT MULTIPLE TIMES. THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY ELLIS, WE HAVE A SECOND. ONE MORE TIME FOR ME, JIM.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR, SECONDED BY JIM POWELL, AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO VOTE.
>> WE'RE 10, ZERO, FOUR. THAT MOVES US ON CONTINUING IN THIS SECTION 9.
I KNOW THERE'S ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> LET ME PULL IT UP HERE IT'S IN MY PHONE. I APOLOGIZE.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO GIVE US THE REASON BEHIND THIS, AND I'LL READ THE VERBIAGE THAT I HAVE HERE.
THE RECOMMENDATION ESSENTIALLY IS IN INSTANCES WHERE A BOARD VOTES UNANIMOUSLY ON SOMETHING, IT WOULD TAKE AN EQUAL UNANIMOUS VOTE FROM THE COUNCIL TO OVERTURN IT.
ESSENTIALLY, IF I VOLUNTEER MY TIME ON THE CDC AND SEVEN OF US ALL AGREEING BASED OFF OF THIS ITEM TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, IT WOULD TAKE SEVEN OF THE COUNCIL TO OVERTURN THAT.
ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT DOES, IN MY PERSPECTIVE IS, THE PROCESS FOR GETTING APPOINTS AT THESE BOARDS, MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN YOU HAVE TO COME UP, TALK ABOUT YOUR CREDENTIALS, EXPERIENCE, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THEY SAY, WE THINK YOU'RE A GREAT CANDIDATE.
YES, YOU MADE IT TO THE BOARD.
THEN AT THAT POINT, YOU'RE NOW WITHIN THE REALM OF WHETHER IT'S EDC OR CDC TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THAT SPACE.
WHAT I WANT TO TRY TO SOLVE FOR IS THAT, WITHIN THEIR RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THAT SPACE, THAT COUNCIL IS WE DON'T HAVE A GROUP OF SEVEN BEEN HERE FOR HOURS, GONE THROUGH THE RESEARCH, DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE, AND NOW MAKES IT TO COUNCIL AND THEY GO.
NO I DON'T LIKE IT. I'LL READ THE VERBIAGE SO YOU CAN HEAR HOW IT SOUND AS FAR AS THE HOME CHARTER IS CONCERNED.
AGAIN, WHATEVER SECTION NUMBER WE ASSESS TO IT, WOULD BE ACTION ON UNANIMOUS BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
LIMITATION ON COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY.
WHEN ANY BOARD OR COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY CHARTER OR BY ORDINANCE RENDERS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION ON A MATTER WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL NOT ALTER, REJECT OR OVERRIDE SUCH RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE FULL COUNCIL.
DEFINITION OF UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION.
THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION MEANS A VOTE IN WHICH ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION PRESENT AND CONSTITUENT A QUORUM, VOTE IN FAVOR OF A SPECIFIC ACTION, RECOMMENDATION OR DECISION.
THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION, THE SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO MATTERS FOR WHICH THE BOARD OR COMMISSION HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE CHARTER OR ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
EXCEPTIONS. THE PROVISION OF THE SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL AS REGARDLESS OF BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE BOARD OR COMMISSION ACTED OUTSIDE OF THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY, OR THE CITY ATTORNEY PROVIDES A WRITTEN OPINION THAT ADOPTING THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION WOULD EXPOSE THE CITY TO LEGAL LIABILITY.[LAUGHTER] THAT IS THE VERBIAGE, I'M OPEN TO HEAR FEEDBACK INPUT.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW.
>> HE HAS A MOTION.[OVERLAPPING]
>> ARE YOU READY TO TALK ABOUT THAT?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF TIMES WHETHER IT BE THE CDC, THE EDC OR PLANNING AND ZONING, AND WE DENY SOMETHING OR WE APPROVE SOMETHING AND IT GETS TO COUNCIL.
LIKE YOU SAID, PUT IN THE TIME, DO THE RESEARCH ON, IT GETS TO COUNSEL AND FOR PEOPLE SAY, NO.
IT ALMOST MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE THEY DIDN'T LISTEN TO WHAT YOU SAID AND ALL THE WORK YOU DID.
>> CAN WE GET YOU ON THE MIC IS R.
>> WAIT. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE.
[00:35:02]
TALKING ABOUT THE CDC AND EDC, ET CETERA ALONG THOSE LINES?
>> THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW IT APPLIES TO BOARDS BOARDS.
>> THESE FOLKS ARE APPOINTED AND NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.
I COULD NOT TAKE THAT PHILOSOPHICALLY.
>> THAT'S WHAT FOURTH TO THAT POINT, I WOULD LIKE SOME MORE LEGAL RESEARCH TO SEE IF THAT'S EVEN ALLOWED.
WITH THAT BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL VERSUS APPOINTED POSITION, I NEED TO SEE IT LEGALLY IF THAT'S EVEN ALLOWED.
I DON'T SOMETHING TELLS ME THAT'S NOT LEGAL..
>> I'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT TOO.
I'LL SAY AND I'VE MENTIONED WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT.
I DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T LEGALLY DO IT.
I WILL SAY THE UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUS MAY POSE SOME ISSUES.
THEN ALSO IF WE APPLY IT TO ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS POSE SOME ISSUES, ESPECIALLY.
I'M JUST THINKING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, PLANNING AND ZONING, THINGS OF THAT NATURE MAY POSE SOME LEGAL ISSUES, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULD THIS IS ONE THAT IF YOU GUYS WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, I WOULD PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, CONFIRM LEGALLY THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO.
GREAT IDEA. HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEFORE, DOES MEAN IT CAN BE DONE THOUGH.
>> ANYONE ELSE HELP ANY INPUT OR FEEDBACK?
>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA THAT WE DO THIS AS WELL, YOU HAD GIVEN AS AN EXAMPLE, A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD, WOULD, LET'S SAY, UNANIMOUSLY AGREE ON SOMETHING, AND THEN A SEVEN MEMBER CITY COUNCIL COULD OVERRIDE IT.
BUT WHAT IF THE BOARD WAS MORE THAN SEVEN PEOPLE? FOR INSTANCE, THE BOARD HAD 24 PEOPLE ON IT, AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY AGREED.
BUT IS THERE A DESIGNATION THAT'S GIVEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY CAN OVERRIDE.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE WAY THAT I READ IT OUT IS NOT REALLY I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T USE THE NUMBER AS AN EXAMPLE.
>> IT'S BASED ON THE QUORUM, IF EVERYONE THAT'S THERE THAT CONSTITUTES A QUORUM AGREES.
>> BECAUSE I WOULD EXPECT THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKING.
>> WHETHER IT'S AN APPOINTED OR ELECTED BOARD WITH THE CITY COUNCIL OR WITH THE CITY OF PRINCETON.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL SAY TO MR. EROS POINT, I'M FULLY, LIKE I'VE TALKED TO GRANT OFFLINE JUST TO START TO DO A LITTLE DIGGING AROUND THIS AS WELL.
OBVIOUSLY, IF THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE LEGALLY CAN DO, WE WOULDN'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
I WILL SAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, TO JODY'S POINT EARLIER, YOU'RE APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE VETTED YOU AND MADE THE DECISION.
MY LOGIC IS THAT IT SHOULD BE VERY SELDOM THAT YOU SAID, WE FEEL LIKE YOU'RE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO DO THIS ROLE, THAT SOMETHING MAKES IT UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE THEY SHOULD BE REALLY OVERTURNING WHAT THE DECISIONS ARE MADE.
BEING AGAIN, TAKEN FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, WHEN YOU HAVE THE CITY GOES AND DETERMINE WHAT THE STRATEGY IS GOING TO BE FOR THE CITY.
THEY HAVE A STRATEGIC RETREAT.
THEY COME OUT WITH A CITY PLAN.
AND THEN THAT GETS PUSHED DOWN TO THE BOARDS TO SAY, HEY, EDC THIS, WE'RE LOOKING TO DO, CDC HERE'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO PLANNING ZONING, SO ON SO FORTH.
AND THEN IT'S NOW THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT POSITION TO MAKE DECISIONS WITHIN THAT SANDBOX.
WHAT I JUST WANT TO TRY TO SAFEGUARD IS THE COUNCIL, AT SOMETIMES MAY NOT BE AS INTO THE WEEDS AS SOME OF THE RESEARCH AND WORK THAT'S DONE BY THE BOARDS.
SOMETIMES WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT IT TO HAVE HAPPEN OR THIS IS NOT HOW WE ENVISION IT.
THIS IS NOT THE PERSON WE WANTED YOU GUYS TO BRING ON BOARD, AND WE'VE DONE THE TIME OF INVESTMENT, AND SO ON, SO FORTH FROM THE BOARD PERSPECTIVE, AND IT JUST KIND OF IMMEDIATELY GETS TOSSED TO THE WAYSIDE.
I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A FULL UNANIMOUS VOTE, IT SHOULD SAY SOMETHING, IN MY OPINION.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SOLVE FOR HERE.
I'M NOT SAYING EVERY VOTE THAT GETS PUSHED THROUGH.
I'M JUST SAYING WHEN IT'S A FULL UNANIMOUS VOTE BY THE BOARD, THAT SHOULD BE A PRETTY CLEAR INDICATION THAT, A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS HAVE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND MADE ADJUST DECISION.
BUT THAT'S THE LAST THING I'M GOING TO SAY.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR GRANTS.
NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK AGAIN BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION.
DID YOUR WORDING SAY ALL MEMBERS? REGARDLESS OF QUORUM. EXAMPLE,
[00:40:04]
WE HAVE SEVEN NOW, BUT IF ONE'S NOT THERE, THEY CAN'T VOTE ON WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING BECAUSE ALL AREN'T THERE.>> AS LONG AS THERE IS A QUORUM, IT HAS TO BE THE FULL NUMBER OF MEMBERS THAT CONSTITUTES A QUORUM.
AT LEAST FIVE. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT WOULD MAKE IT UNANIMOUS AT THAT POINT.
>> GOT YOU. WHEN WE ABSTAIN, HOW DOES THAT VOTE COUNT? THAT WOULD NOT UNANIMOUS.
THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO NOT BE HERE TO HIT THE FIVE TO MATCH YOUR. WHAT'S YOUR.
>> IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION, YOU'RE SAYING SO LET'S SAY A BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES FOR SOMETHING? IT MAKES UP THE COUNCIL.
>> THEY HAVE FIVE, WHICH MEETS QUORUM?
>> THEY ALL VOTE AFFIRMATIVE FOR.
THEN THAT WOULD BE UNANIMOUS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A QUORUM.
IT'S MEETING QUORUM, AND THEN EVERYONE THAT'S THERE IS ALL IN AGREEMENT.
>> QUICK QUICK QUESTION. I GUESS IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECT.
LET'S SAY THIS COMMISSION VOTES IT UNANIMOUSLY GETS TO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL VOTES TO NOT PASS AND IT, , SIX TO ONE.
ALTHOUGH IT PASSES, DOES THAT MEAN THAT BECAUSE IT WAS UNANIMOUS HERE, THEN IT STILL GOES THROUGH, OR.
>> THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS.
>> WE CAN TAKE THIS CHARTER, FOR EXAMPLE.
>> HIS QUESTION WAS, BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION OR THEY VOTE.
IT'S UNANIMOUS AT THE BOARD LEVEL.
COUNCIL IS SEVEN PEOPLE. SEVEN MEMBERS.
THE COUNCIL IS NOT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE REJECTED, OVERTURNED.
>> BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> YOURS IS ONLY FOR OVERTURNMENT, NOT FOR ACTUAL APPROVAL.
IF IT'S SIX TO ONE, IT STILL GETS PASSED.
>> THE COUNCIL ESSENTIALLY IF IT'S SIX TO ONE, THEY HAVE TO PASS WHAT WAS PUSHED UP BY THE BOARD.
>> YOU'RE SAYING IF IT'S UNANIMOUS AT THE BOARD LEVEL, THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO VOTE UNANIMOUS THE OTHER ROUND IN ORDER FOR IT TO. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> GIVE ME EXAMPLE. NOT GOING TO GET CRAZY SPECIFIC.
LET'S SAY THAT THE BOARD IS PUT IN A POSITION TO HIRE SOMEONE.
AND THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS HOURS UPON HOURS, INTERVIEWS, SO ON AND SO FORTH. THEY ALL AGREE.
WE'D LIKE THIS PERSON, WE'VE DUG INTO THEM, WE'VE RESEARCHED THEM, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THEY SAY, THIS IS THE GUY WE WANT, THIS IS THE GIRL WE WANT, AND WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
THEN IT MAKES IT UP TO COUNCIL.
COUNCIL THEN VOTES SIX TO ONE, THE BOARD THAT PERSON THAT THEY'RE HIRING FOR THAT WOULD BE REPORTING TO THAT BOARD, THEY STILL GET THAT PERSON BECAUSE THEY'RE REPORTING TO THAT BOARD.
THEY'VE MADE THAT DECISION. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE GOAL HERE.
THEY HAVE THE GOALS TO ENSURE THAT THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE THE AUTONOMY AND THE AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS AS THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD. GO AHEAD.
>> WHY HAVE A BOARD TO REVIEW AND MAKE DECISIONS, IF COUNCIL IS JUST GOING TO OVERRIDE IN THEORY. COUNCIL DOES.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, IS YOU'RE GIVING APPOINTED BOARD THE POWER OVER THE ELECTED CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON A PARTICULAR SITUATION.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU ARE. I'M GOING TO ABSOLUTELY.
IF IT'S UNANIMOUS. IF IT'S UNANIMOUS, YES.
>> I DIDN'T WHY HAVE AN ELECTED COUNCIL, WHY NOT JUST HAVE BOARDS?
>> COULD BE SINCE YOU ASKED ME THE QUESTION, I'LL GIVE YOU MY PERSPECTIVE.
[00:45:02]
COULD BE LOOKED AT THE SAME WAY, FOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN.WHY HAVE APPOINTED BOARD IF THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE GO UP AND THEY JUST HIT A CEILING IN FALL?
>> WELL, THE BOARD IS APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
CHANCES ARE THE COUNCIL IN THEIR MORAL INFINITE WISDOM WOULD PICK PEOPLE WHO, ARE GOING TO BE OPEN TO WHATEVER CHOICE THEY WANT TO MAKE.
I DON'T THINK HISTORY SUPPORTS THAT SO MUCH.
I WOULD THINK THAT IN GENERAL, THEY WOULD FIND THEMSELVES MUCH IN A LINE.
BUT I DON'T KNOW, GIVING POWER TO UNANIMOUS VOTE, IS PROBLEMATIC FOR ME.
AGAIN, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IF IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, I COMPLETELY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT A NORMAL, THING TO BE ADDRESSED IN A HOME RULE CHARTER.
>> IT IS A DIFFERENT WAY TO APPROACH, BUT I WILL TELL YOU FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IS WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION AS A BOARD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YOU GUYS ARE FOLLOWING WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY.
LET'S SAY YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS DONE YOUR RESEARCH, AND YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS SPECIFIC LAW SAYS, I SHOULDN'T DO THAT OR I CAN'T DO THAT, OR GIVES ME THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
ACCORDING TO MY BOARD, SO SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY, THE CDC, WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976, I THINK IS THE DATE OF IT THAT OUTLINES WHAT A CDC CAN AND CANNOT DO.
SOMETIMES YOU'D HAVE INSTANCES WHERE YOU'D HAVE POLICE COME UP AND SAY, HEY, WE NEED SWAT EQUIPMENT.
WELL, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACCESS THAT WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO PURCHASE THINGS FOR POLICE THAT ARE FOR CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES.
BUT THEY WERE SENT HERE BY SOMEONE SAYING, GO TO THE CDC AND GO AND ASK THEM TO PURCHASE.
WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE TYPES OF DYNAMICS TO WHERE YOU WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHT DECISION IS MADE AT YOUR LEVEL THAT DOESN'T GET OVERTURNED AT THE NEXT, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAFEGUARD.
>> IT JUST ACTUALLY HAPPENED LAST WEEK AT PLANNING AND ZONING.
THERE'S A BUSINESS HERE IN PRINCETON THAT HAS NO FIRE SAFETY, EXCEPT FOR RUNNING A HOSE ACROSS A FOUR LANE HIGHWAY.
THEY'VE ALREADY HAD THREE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCIES AND STILL HAVEN'T FIXED THEIR FIRE SAFETY.
THE BOARD WAS ALL THE WHOLE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WAS IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD DENY A FOURTH TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT.
WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, IF QUORUM SAYS, OH, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT, THAT JUST OVERRODE WHAT WE DID AND OPENS UP THE RESIDENTS OF PRINCETON TO GO TO A BUILDING THAT'S NOT FIRE SAFE.
>> BUT IF THIS RULE WAS IN PLACE, THEN COUNCIL WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO OVERTURN OUR DENIAL IF THE ENTIRE QUORUM SAID THEY APPROVED TO GIVE THE TEMPORARY.
>> YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A UNANIMOUS VOTE FROM THE COUNCIL TO SAY THAT IT WAS OVERTURNED OR A UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT IT WAS APPROVED?
>> BUT IF WE UNANIMOUSLY SAID IT, AND COUNSEL SAYS UNANIMOUSLY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THE TEMPORARY, THEN THEY GET IT.
BUT IF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL DOES NOT SAY I APPROVE TO GIVE THE FOURTH TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY, THEN WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING DID STAYS IN PLACE AND THEY DON'T GET IT. CORRECT.
>> YES. WELL, HAVE WE HAD OCCASION WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL OVERRULES THEIR APPOINTED BOARDS?
>> I SERIOUSLY, I APOLOGIZE, I SHOULDN'T.
[00:50:01]
MY FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS THAT IN A DEMOCRACY, WE HAVE THE CHOICE TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST AND IN GENERAL MAJORITY RULES.
HOWEVER, I CAN SEE WHERE A BOARD WOULD THINK THAT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHARTER THAT IT'S GIVEN TO PERFORM UNDER FEELS THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST, LET'S SAY, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, NOT TO GRANT.
BUT FOR SOMEONE ON THE COUNCIL, THEY MAY JUST DISAGREE FOR SOME REASON.
I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD NOT BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST, I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE ABSTAINING.
BUT I KNOW THAT HASN'T HAPPENED EITHER.
>> I WANT TO HEAR FROM DAVID, I KNOW HE'S BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING. THANK YOU, DAVID.
>> OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS INTENDED TO BE ARDUOUS.
I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO MAKE THINGS EASIER, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT OUR BOARD'S TRANSITION ELECTION CYCLES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SAY THAT PART I MISSED THAT.
>> BOARD'S TRANSITION ELECTION CYCLES? YES. CORRECT? IF A BOARD TRANSITIONS AN ELECTION CYCLE AND THE ELECTORATE CHANGES WHO THEY WANT REPRESENTING THEM TO TELL THOSE PEOPLE THAT THEY DON'T GET TO DECIDE AS A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DISAGREE WITH WHAT A PREVIOUS BOARDS, THE GROUP OF NOMINEES DECIDES, EVEN IF IT'S UNANIMOUS, I THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE I SO I EFFECTIVELY AGREE WITH.
I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME. OUR CITY COUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET.
THEY'RE EMPOWERED WITH THAT BY THE PEOPLE.
BOARDS ARE NOMINATED OR APPOINTED, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO USE TO DO THE HOMEWORK FOR THE BOARD AND NOT TO BE THE BOARD.
THAT'S THE WAY I'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT IT AND SEE IT, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO FALL.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I ALMOST FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES.
I ALMOST FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD WAIT TILL NEXT WEEK TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY SURE.
>> I'M DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME SO I KNOW.
>> ABOUT TABLE UNTIL WE KNOW IF IT'S ILLEGAL.
>> CHAIRMAN HE BROUGHT THIS UP TO ME AND I ADMIT I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO LOOK INTO IT IN DEPTH, TOLD HIM IT WAS A NOVEL IDEA. I HADN'T HEARD IT BEFORE.
I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AND OBVIOUSLY GIVE A LEGAL OPINION ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS EVEN IF I'M NOT SAYING WE COULD, BUT IF WE COULD GO THAT ROUTE TO SOME EXTENT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN MY OPINION, JUST SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW, HAVE TO BE REALLY MODIFIED WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY.
NO SAYING IT CAN BE DONE, I NEED TO LOOK INTO IT MORE, BUT I FELT LIKE WE COULD AT LEAST HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU GUYS WANT ME TO PURSUE AND LOOK INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE OR JUST IT'S DEAD AND DON'T EVEN LOOK AT IT.
YES, I I'LL LOOK INTO IT MORE, LET YOU ALL KNOW IF SOMETHING WE CAN DO LEGALLY. THERE'S A COMPLICATION.
>> I'M HAPPY TO, OF COURSE, GIVE GRANT TIME TO RESEARCH AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK.
I HAVEN'T MADE AN OFFICIAL MOTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS OF YET.
IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND FIRST BASE, IS IT EVEN SOMETHING POSSIBLE? HAPPY TO GIVE THAT TIME?
>> I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF IT, BUT LEGALLY TO ME JUST ME JUST LOOKING WITHOUT DIGGING INTO MY RESEARCH.
THAT GOES AGAINST EVERY STATE CONSTITUTION AND EVERY US CONSTITUTION.
THAT WE UNDER, THAT THAT USURPS THE AUTHORITY OF THE ELECTED OFFICIAL.
I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF IT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES.
YOU KNOW, AND I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE, I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO SOME DEEP LEGAL RESEARCH.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S LEGALLY STANDING TO BE PUT INTO A CONSTITUTION.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO GO AGAINST EVERY CONSTITUTION THAT OVERRULES A CITY CHARTER.
THAT'S LIKE IN JUST IN THE LEGAL WORLD, IF I HAVE A CASE APPEAL TO THE STATE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, IF THEY RULE UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF WHAT I ARGUE, THEN IT'S APPEALED TO THE US SUPREME COURT, AND I HAVE TO MAKE THEM ALL NINE OF THEM AGREE UNANIMOUSLY TO OVERTURN THAT THAT'S MAKING THE U THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
YOU'RE MAKING THE US SUPREME COURT HAVE TO RULE UNANIMOUSLY OVER A LOWER LEVEL COURT.
[00:55:01]
THAT JUST GOES AGAINST THE WHOLE JUDICIAL STRUCTURE.>> I APPRECIATE. AGAIN, HAPPY TO HEAR THE FINALIZED STANCE FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.
GRAHAM, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK NEXT WEEK, AND GIVE US YOUR FINAL STANCE ON AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSSION.
>> ALSO, I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK THOUGHT ON IT.
IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HIRING THING, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THOSE IMPORTANT DECISIONS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE BOARDS BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT, IF THEY HAVE A REALLY STRONG OPINION ON SOMETHING, WE DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO TO THE BOARDS WITH THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD WORRY THAT THEY WOULD PICK SOMEBODY THAT MAYBE WE DON'T, AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO OVERTURN WHAT THEY WANT, AND WE DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO THERE.
WE WOULD RATHER JUST MAKE THE DECISION ON OUR OWN AND NOT HAVE THEM VOTE ON IT.
I WOULD HATE FOR IT TO BE THAT, BUT IT MIGHT BE WHERE CERTAIN DECISIONS JUST ARE TAKEN AWAY FROM BOARDS.
>> I CAN DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT PERSPECTIVE.
I THINK THERE'S SOME REALM OF JURISDICTION, IF YOU WILL, FOR EACH BOARD, CERTAIN THINGS IN THE PNC JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PNC.
I FEEL A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT THAT SAFEGUARD IN THAT REGARD.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A COMPLEX ONE, SO I'M GOING TO TABLE MY RECOMMENDATION, GIVE GRANTS TIME TO COME BACK NEXT WEEK, AND THEN WE CAN HEAR FROM HIM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S EVEN LEGALLY POSSIBLE AND THEN THAT MIGHT SOLVE THEM.
WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE THAT OUT AND HAND IT OFF OR WHOEVER ELSE HAS ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION FOR FOR CHAPTER 9.
>> THE ONE THAT I HAD LAST WEEK AND IT ALIGNED WITH AN ITEM THAT JOSE WAS LOOKING AT WOULD BE A NEW SECTION FOR CHAPTER 9 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, I'D BE TITLED TRANSPARENCY, TRAINING, ATTENDANCE, AND TERM LIMITS.
VIDEO RECORDING, ALL MEETINGS OF CITY BOARDS COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES SHALL BE VIDEO RECORDED AND ARCHIVED ONLINE FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
SOME OF THIS WE MAY ALREADY DO, BUT PUBLIC POSTING OF MEETINGS, ALL MEETINGS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SHALL BE RECORDED AND MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ONLINE WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.
BOARDS AND COMMISSION ATTENDANCE AND TERM LIMITS.
ANY BOARD COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO MISSES THREE REGULAR MEETINGS IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD WITHOUT VALID EXCUSE SHALL FORFEIT THEIR POSITION.
MEMBERS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS UNLESS WAIVED BY COUNSEL.
MANDATORY TRAINING, ALL MEMBERS MUST COMPLETE OPEN MEETINGS AND PUBLIC RECORDS TRAINING.
THEN A AD HOC TASK FORCE APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR MAY CREATE A TEMPORARY ADVISORY TASK FORCE TO INVESTIGATE REPORT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL RATIFICATION.
THOSE ARE MY RECOMMENDATIONS TO PUT IN A NEW SECTION.
>> AS PART OF YOUR ABSENCE CLAUSE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS OR 25% WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'LL BE TWO MEETINGS MISSED.
>> I WAS SURPRISED SO THREE CONSECUTIVE 25%, SURE?
>> YEAH 25% OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS DURING THE 12 MONTH PERIOD.
IF THAT'S YOUR MOTION, I'M SECOND IN THE MOTION.
>> THAT WASN'T WAS A RECOMMENDATION?
>> THAT WAS ONLY A RECOMMENDATION.
>> GRANT QUESTION ON THAT TOMA AND THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'RE SETTING WITHIN THAT RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TRAINING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I FEEL LIKE I WAS TRYING TO GO AND SEE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ADDRESSED IN CHAPTER 9, BUT IS THAT COVERED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CHARTER?
>> I MEAN, IT'S A STATE LAW REQUIRE.
THERE WAS A THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS UNPACK.
I WAS GOING TO MENTION THAT THAT STUFF'S ALL COVERED UNDER STATE LAW.
I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP MY RECOMMENDATION, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, EXACTLY WHAT OUR ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT WAS FOR COUNSEL.
I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THAT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WHATEVER THE ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT IS FOR COUNSEL
[01:00:01]
TO MIRROR THAT WITH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND NOT HAVE ONE MORE RIGOROUS THAN THE OTHER.JUST FOR FAIRNESS ACROSS THE BOARD BUT THAT'S I THINK IT WAS SIMILAR TO THAT.
BUT THE ONLY REASON THAT I WAS DOING IT MORE THIS WAY IS BECAUSE COUNSEL IS ELECTED AND BOARDS ARE VOLUNTEER.
AS A VOLUNTEER, YOU JUST TEND TO PROOF DISAPPEAR.
OH, LET ME GO DO THIS, LET ME GO DO THAT TYPE THING.
IT DOESN'T BECOME AS MUCH OF A PRIORITY FOR SOME PEOPLE THAT VOLUNTEER VERSUS SOMEBODY THAT WAS ELECTED IN.
>> I FOUND OUT WHAT YOU GUYS APPROVED FOR COUNSEL WAS 25% OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS DURING A ROLLING 12 MONTH PERIOD WITHOUT EXCUSE.
>> WE'RE JUST ADDING THREE CONSECUTIVE OR, 25%?
>> YES. MINE WAS SPECIFICALLY YOU HAD LANGUAGE IN THERE FOR THE REASONING OF ABSENCES.
WHO'S GOING TO DETERMINE THAT?
>> WHAT WAS YOUR LANGUAGE ON THAT?
>> MY LANGUAGE ON THAT WAS WITHOUT VALID EXCUSE.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A DEFINITION.
>> WELL I THINK A VALID EXCUSE WOULD BE ACTUALLY GIVING AN EXCUSE VERSUS JUST NOT SHOWING UP.
>> DID WE HAVE SOMETHING WITH THE BOARDS BEFORE WHERE IT HAD TO IF IT WAS AN ABSENCE, IT HAD TO GO UP TO COUNSEL TO SIGN OFF TO APPROVE IT TO BE OKAY WITH IT? THE COUNSEL WAS THE VALIDATION POINT?
>> I THINK MAYBE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG TO MR. ABAS POINT.
I THINK WHEN YOU PUT THE WORD VALID POINT IN FRONT OF IT, YOU NEED TO FIND WHAT'S VALID IF YOU JUST LEAVE IT AS WITHOUT BEING EXCUSED, [OVERLAPPING] YOU'RE VALID.
[OVERLAPPING] WHAT'S THE VERBIAGE FOR COUNSEL? WHAT IS THE APPROVED ABSENCE? BECAUSE IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT APPROVED ABSENCES, AND HOW ARE THEY APPROVED? MAYBE WE JUST COPY THAT.
>> IT'S JUST REALLY UP TO COUNSEL'S DISCRETION ON WHAT'S EXCUSE IT CAN BE.
WE'VE EXCUSED SOME RECENTLY FOR SOME PEOPLE BEING OUT OF TOWN VACATION, SOME HAD FAMILY CONFLICTS, SOME SICK.
>> MAYBE YOU JUST SAY IT'S APPROVED BY THE CHAIR OR CHAIR OR CO CHAIR OR SOMETHING.
>> THEN YOU GO WHAT IF I NEED A MENTAL HEALTH DAY.
THAT'S VALID FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
SOME PEOPLE MATCH [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'D BE WILLING TO TAKE THAT VERBIAGE OUT AND JUST LEAVE ANY BOARD COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO MISSES THREE CONSECUTIVE OR 25% REGULAR MEETINGS IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SHALL FORFEIT THEIR POSITION.
>> WELL, IF THEY HAVE A MEDICAL LEAVE OF LIKE SOMETHING THAT MEDICALLY MAKES THEM NOT AVAILABLE? [BACKGROUND] I HAVE THIS SOMETHING I WANT TO HAVE.
MY QUESTION IS, CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT TERM LIMITS?
>> TERM LIMITS WHERE MEMBERS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS UNLESS WAIVED BY COUNSEL.
>> THEN IS THERE SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT WHEN THEY CAN APPLY AGAIN?
>> DO WE NEED SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT? IT'S JUST AFTER THREE TERMS, THEN THEY WOULD TAKE A TERM OFF AND THEN THEY CAN RUN AGAIN OR APPLY AGAIN.
>> WE CAN PUT THAT IN THERE. THAT'S FINE.
>> IT WOULD JUST BE ASSUMED IF IT'S NOT STATED.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO AFTER THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
>> ON THE NINTH, I'M GOING TO BE IN POLAND. I WON'T BE HERE.
HOW WOULD I ADDRESS THAT AND WHO WOULD I ADDRESS IT TO YOU IN YOUR EXAMPLE?
>> WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO COUNSEL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
>> CAN YOU PULL A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, DAVE? I'M SORRY. IT'S PROBABLY JUST ME I'M HAVING HARD TIME READING IT.
>> YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
>> WELL, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR MAXINE.
I THINK THAT WAS MY INTERJECTION BASED OFF OF PRIOR EXPERIENCES.
I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT'S BY LAWS.
I JUST REMEMBER FROM MY TIME IN THE CDC, THERE WAS A POINT WHERE WE STATED, LIKE, IF THERE WAS ABSENCES,
[01:05:01]
THEN IT HAD TO GO UP TO COUNSEL FOR IT TO BE APPROVED.OUTSIDE OF THAT, IT WAS NOT AN EXCUSED ABSENCE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M REMEMBERING FROM MY TIME IN THE CDC.
I WAS INTERJECTING THAT JUST AS A POINT OF WHAT I REMEMBERED IT BEING CURRENT STATE, NOT NECESSARILY BEING WHAT HER RECOMMENDATION WAS.
>> SURE. I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN I HAD WHEN WE DID THIS PREVIOUSLY.
IS IT YOU'RE NOT DEFINING ALL THE TERMS AND GIVING A PROCESS BY WHICH IT HAPPENS YOU'RE LEAVING YOURSELF OPEN FOR PROBLEMS. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO VOTE FOR THINGS THAT I KNOW ARE GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. UNDERSTANDABLE.
>> I AGREE WITH DAVID, ACTUALLY.
I LIKE THE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT, AND MAYBE I'M THE OUTLIER HERE, SO FEEL FREE TO PUSH BACK.
I DON'T WANT ANY VALID REASON.
IT SHOULD READ ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD COMMISSIONER COMMITTEE WHO IS ABSENT FROM THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OR 25% OF REGULAR SCHEDULE MEETINGS DURING A 12 MONTH OR REPEATED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING, AND INCLUDING THE ABSENCE IN QUESTION, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAJORITY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS SHALL FORFEIT HIS OR HER OWN POSITION ON THE BOARD COMMISSIONER COMMITTEE.
IF YOU CAN'T BE THERE, YOU CAN'T BE THERE.
I'M SORRY IF YOU GET SICK, I'M SORRY IF YOU HAVE MENTAL HEALTH. THINGS HAPPEN.
MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE APPOINTED POSITION FOR YOU.
THIS IS APPOINTED. I AGREE 100% WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. JUST CUT IT OUT.
>> YOU WERE APPOINTED BECAUSE YOU WERE YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR IT.
>> IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR THAT YOU WERE NOT AVAILABLE.
>> JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, JOSE, AND I'M GOING TO USE YOU AS AN EXAMPLE.
REMEMBER, WEDNESDAYS WERE DIFFICULT FOR YOU, BECAUSE A CHURCH.
IF THE MAJORITY DIDN'T CHOOSE TO CHANGE TO A THURSDAY, YOU WOULD HAVE MISSED MEETINGS OR YOU WOULD HAVE REMOVED YOURSELF FROM THE BOARD BECAUSE WEDNESDAYS ARE YOUR CHURCH.
I'M JUST USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.
BUT THIS WOULD PROTECT THAT BOARD FROM JOSE JUST I'M NOT GOING TO BE THERE THIS WEEK.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE THERE NEXT WEEK TYPE THING.
>> I WANTED TO ADD, I KNOW THAT FOR CITY COUNCIL, IT STATES A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE.
I GUESS FOR ME, I GUESS THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING A SPECIFIC NUMBER, NOT JUST A PERCENTAGE, BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, EDC MEETS ONCE A MONTH, BUT WE MEET TWICE A MONTH.
OUR 25% MIGHT LOOK DIFFERENT FOR US THAN IT DOES FOR EDC.
IF YOU DO A SET NUMBER LIKE FIVE OR SIX MEETINGS, THEN I GUESS IN MY EYES, IT'S EVEN ACROSS THE BOARD.
YOU COULD SAY THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OR FIVE OR SIX TOTAL MEETINGS.
THAT WAY, IT'S EVEN ACROSS THE BOARD, AND I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE DOING I THINK WEEKLY MEETINGS, SO FOR THIS COMMITTEE, IT MIGHT ALLOW SOME MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT MORE TIMES THAN SAY EDC OR CDC OR THE OTHER BOARDS.
>> THEN YOU RUN INTO THE CHALLENGE WITH THE BOARDS THAT MEET ON IT AS NEEDED.
HOW DOES THAT FALL INTO IT? BECAUSE THEY REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE PER SAY SIX MEETINGS? THEY MAY HAVE TWO MEETINGS A YEAR.
>> I GUESS THE RECOMMENDATION IS THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OR THE PERCENTAGE?
>> I LIKE MARK'S TRAIN OF THOUGHT HERE IN REGARDS [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU PUT IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER FOR ME.
[LAUGHTER] I LIKE MARK'S TRAIN OF THOUGHT HERE, IN REGARDS TO ESPECIALLY IN THE EXCUSE AREA.
YOU DID MISS AND THAT'S IT BECAUSE VOLUNTEERING HERE YOU MAY WIN IN NOBLE, YOU MAY WIN IN.
YES, I WANT TO DO THIS, BUT THINGS HAPPEN, LIFE CHANGES, AND IT MAY NOT BE A FIT FOR YOU AT THAT POINT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE CITY BUSINESS CAN'T STOP.
[01:10:02]
I UNDERSTAND IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT FOR VOLUNTEERS.I THINK IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED, AND CONSIDERING THERE MAY BE SOME SPECIAL MEETINGS AND THINGS CALLED.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE THREE CONSECUTIVE AND 25%, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY GROUNDS FOR ANY TYPE OF VALID EXCUSE BECAUSE AT SOME POINT, IF YOU REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR EXCUSE IS, YOU'RE NOT UP TO DATE ON WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT REALLY CAN YOU OFFER TO THAT COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT ANYWAY.
>> I WILL SAY MARLOW, AND I AM IN AGREEMENT, AND I WAS GOING TO SAY I DID LIKE THE VERBIAGE THAT MARK HAD FOR IT AND WOULD BE WILLING TO REWARD THIS TO THAT VERBIAGE THAT MARK HAD.
>> I GUESS AT THAT POINT, SO LET'S SUPPOSE SOMEBODY DOES MISS 25%.
DOES YOUR I GUESS WORDING STATE WOULD THAT POSITION OPEN UP IMMEDIATELY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO APPOINT SOMEBODY ELSE, OR DO WE HAVE TO WAIT?
>> IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE BOARD THE CHAIRPERSON OF THAT BOARD WOULD ADVISE THE CITY SECRETARY THAT THIS POSITION, YOU FOR EXAMPLE, ARE BEING REMOVED FROM THE BOARD DUE TO THE ATTENDANCE?
>> AMBER IS A GREAT SNITCH. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW.
I'M TELLING YOU AS A COUNCIL AMBER WILL SNITCH YOU OUT THIS PERSON HAS MISSED THIS MEETING SO EVERYBODY KNOWS.
>> AMBER DO YOU WANT THIS BAG OF CANDY? IS THAT ENOUGH TO BUY? [LAUGHTER]
>> BUT THEN WHAT AMBER WOULD DO IS PUT ON THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THEM TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL.
>> IT WOULD IT WOULDN'T BE A REMOVAL PER SE.
IT WOULD JUST BE THAT IT'S AUTOMATICALLY FORFEITED THE SEAT BECOMES VACANT.
THEN THAT PERSON BY THE CONSTITUTION STAYS IN HOLDOVER STATUS UNTIL THE REPLACEMENT IS APPOINTED BY COUNSEL.
IT JUST BE AUTOMATICALLY SEAT FORFEITED VACANT, AND THEN AS SOON AS COUNSEL IS ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE TO REPLACE.
>> IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF OPENING IT UP FOR PEOPLE TO VOLUNTEER, ETC.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT STEPPING OVER ANYONE.
I KNOW FOR COUNSEL, WE HAVE A SPECIFIC SECTION THAT COVERS VACANCIES, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THAT INTO THE CHARTER TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR ABOUT HOW VACANCIES ARE HANDLED OR IS THAT GOING TO FALL INTO THE SAME REALM?
>> I THINK WE COULD LUMP IT ALL INTO THE MOTION, POTENTIALLY INTO THE SAME LENGTH.
>> WOULD I MOTION THIS WITH AMENDING THE BOARD AND COMMISSION ATTENDANCE AND TERMS LIMIT TO THE VERBIAGE THAT MARK HAS, IS THAT APPROPRIATE WAY TO MAKE THAT MOTION?
>> THAT'S APPROPRIATE. MR. CHRISWELL, I MAY GET THAT LANGUAGE OR EITHER AMBER, MYSELF, MAY GET THAT SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR ELLIS AND A SECOND BY MARK CHRISWELL.
>> BASICALLY, SHE'S USING THE VERBIAGE THAT MARK PROVIDED.
>> MY APOLOGIES [OVERLAPPING].
>> BOARD AND COMMISSION ATTENDANCE.
>> THIS IS NOT TO BE A STICKLER, BUT THIS IS NOT 9.01.
[BACKGROUND] THIS WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE 9.08.
>> BECAUSE IF WE DO JASON'S, IT'S 9.07.
>> WELL, THAT ONE'S NOT ON ON THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WE'VE OPENED UP H4, WHICH IS CHAPTER YOU JUST WANT TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 9.
>> WELL, NOT ON THE ACTUAL VOTING LAW.
>> YOU WANT THE WHOLE THING OR JUST WHAT MARK HAD?
>> THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING ON. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE WHOLE THING ALL THE BULLETS, BUT AMENDING TO WHAT MARK HAD? [BACKGROUND]
>> ANY MEMBER OF A BOARD COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE WHO IS ABSENT FROM THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OR 25% OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS DURING THE 12 MONTH PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND INCLUDING THE ABSENCE IN QUESTION WITHOUT EXPLANATION ACCEPTABLE TO A MAJORITY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS SHALL
[01:15:03]
FORFEIT HIS OR HER POSITION ON THE BOARD COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.>> WE'RE GOOD BECAUSE WE HAD A FIRST AND SECOND, RIGHT GRANT SO.
>> JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THAT MOTION.
I THINK MISS ELLIS, YOU MENTIONED ALL THE STUFF.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR AS A COMMITTEE THAT WE'RE VOTING JUST ON THAT LANGUAGE AND NOT EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> I THINK WE WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT OR THINKING THAT WE WERE VOTING ON ALL OF THE ITEMS I HAD STATED FOR SECTION 9.08, THE NEWS.
>> I GUESS I'M ASKING FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
IS THAT SO YOU WANT TO PROVE ALL THAT WITH THAT.
>> WITH THE [OVERLAPPING] UPDATE TO THE BULLET POINT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION ATTENDANCE.
>> I JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE MOTION IS MORE THAN JUST THAT LANGUAGE.
>> WELL, IT'S ALREADY BEEN MOTIONED AND SECONDED.
>> BUT WE'RE REFERRING ONLY TO 9.05, CORRECT?
>> WE'RE REFERRING TO ALL OF NINE.
>> THIS IS [OVERLAPPING] A SECTION IN CHAPTER 9.
>> BECAUSE ACTUALLY [INAUDIBLE] 9.08 SO IT'S 9.07.
>> SHE TOOK IN THE RECOMMENDATION I HAD AS A MOTION, AND WE NEVER MOTIONED FOR THAT ONE.
>> I HAVE ENOUGH STRATEGY CONFUSING [INAUDIBLE]
>> CAN WE GET YOU ON THE MIC, DAVID?
>> 9.06 WAS THE ONE THAT WE DID TO DETAIL WHAT SOMEBODY CAN BE ON ANOTHER DUAL.
>> HOPEFULLY THE SUGAR IN THE CANDY.
>> SO THE NEW SECTION WOULD INCLUDE, FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSION, TRANSPARENCY TRAINING, ATTENDANCE, TERMS LIMIT.
ALL MEETINGS OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES SHALL BE VIDEO RECORDED AND ARCHIVED ONLINE FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
ALL MEETINGS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SHALL BE RECORDED AND MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ONLINE WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.
THEN THE NEXT ONE, THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION ATTENDANCE AND TERMS LIMIT.
THE ATTENDANCE PART WILL BE WHAT MARK READ AND THE TERMS LIMIT WILL BE MEMBERS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS UNLESS VOTED BY COUNCIL.
AFTER THEIR THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> EXACTLY. THEN THEY COULD COME BACK AND BE ON THAT BOARD AGAIN.
ALL MEMBERS MUST COMPLETE OPEN MEETINGS AND PUBLIC RECORDS TRAINING.
AD HOC TASK FORCE FOR THE MAYOR TO APPOINT.
THE MAYOR MAY CREATE TEMPORARY ADVISORY TASK FORCES TO INVESTIGATE, REPORT, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL RATIFICATION.
>> SORRY FOR MARK. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU'RE VOTING ON ALL OF THAT.
JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYBODY.
WE HAD A FIRST AND A SECOND, AND WE'RE OPEN FOR VOTES.
DID I MISS ANYBODY? I THINK WE'RE ALL IN. ITS 7:2 FOR.
>> [OVERLAPPING] MR. SUTHERLAND.
[01:20:02]
>> I THOUGHT AS WELL BUT BRING SPARE FOOD, SO JODY?
>> I APOLOGIZE, THAT'S 8:2 FOR.
WE'RE STILL, I BELIEVE, IN SECTION 9, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.
YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING FOR WHERE IT MADE A DISTINCTION THAT YOU COULD SERVE ON ONLY SO MUCH WITHIN 9.02, WHICH READS THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPOINT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHAT IS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT TERM BEFORE.
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT. THEY MEET ON AS NEEDED BASIS TO DETERMINE AND HEAR VARIANCES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IT'S A VERY SELDOMLY USED BOARD IN PRINCETON, BUT IT'S REQUIREMENT BY LAW THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. COMPRISED OF FIVE REGULAR MEMBERS AND FOUR ALTERNATE MEMBERS FOR TWO YEARS STAGGERED TERMS, EACH OF WHOM SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON.
SUCH EMPLOYEES SHALL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION AND MAY NOT HOLD ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
HERE'S MY QUESTION. OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF DURING THEIR TERMS. WHAT IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION? IS THAT AN APPOINTED COMMITTEE?
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ONE OF OUR BOARDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S ELECTIVE OFFICES, I THINK THAT'S THE DISTINCTION.
>> A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF AN ELECTED OFFICE.
>> YOU JUST CAN'T HOLD DUAL ELECTED OFFICE.
>> NO, I'M SORRY. I WASN'T CLEAR.
IS THAT HOW IT'S STATED IN STATE LAW?
>> ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHAPTER 9? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND COUNT THAT AS CLOSED.
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP ITEM H.52025-179,
[H.5 2025-179 Review Chapter 10 (“Ordinances”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action. ]
REVIEW CHAPTER 10 ORDINANCES OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TOO, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. OPEN HEARING RECOMMENDATIONS.
FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, AS WE'VE BEEN READING THE OTHER CHAPTERS IN THESE SPECIFIC AREAS, LET ME GO AHEAD AND READ THAT FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THAT ON RECORD.
SECTION 10.01, WE'LL START THERE.
THEN WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON 10.01.
THIS TITLED VALIDATION OF ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, RULES, CONTRACTS, AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY, HERE-FORE ORDAINED, PASSED, ADOPTED, OR ENACTED, I'M SORRY, THAT ARE IN FORCE AT THE TIME THIS CHARTER BECOMES EFFECTIVE, AND WHICH ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH SUCH CHARTER SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE UNTIL ALTERED, AMENDED, OR REPEALED BY THE COUNCIL AFTER SUCH CHARTER TAKES EFFECT.
ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 10.01?
>> I MAKE A MOTION WE ACCEPT SECTION 10.01, VALIDATION OF ORDINANCES AS STATED.
>> WE HAVE VICE CHAIR ELLIS AS A MOTION.
WITH THAT, WE CAN GO FOR A VOTE.
MOVING ON TO SECTION 10.02, PROCEDURE FOR PASSING ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL EVIDENCE ITS OFFICIAL ACTIONS BY WRITTEN ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, OR ORAL MOTIONS.
THE STYLE OF ALL ORDINANCES SHALL BE AND ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.
THE STYLE OF ALL RESOLUTIONS SHALL BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.
EACH PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHALL NOT BE AMENDED OR REPEALED EXCEPT BY ADOPTION OF ANOTHER ORDINANCE.
ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY FROM AND AFTER PASSAGE, EXCEPT WHERE PUBLICATION OF A CAPTION IS REQUIRED OR WHERE THE ORDINANCE STATE LAW OR OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER PROVIDE, OTHERWISE, IN WHICH CASE, THE EFFECTIVE DATE SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE.
OPEN FOR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS HERE.
[01:25:04]
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 10.02, PROCEDURE FOR PASSING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR ELLIS, SECOND BY MARK CHRISWELL, THAT WE CAN MOVE TO A VOTE.
MOVING ON TO SECTION 10.03, PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES.
THE DESCRIPTIVE CAPTION OR TITLE OF EACH ORDINANCE CONTAINING A PENALTY SHALL BE PUBLISHED AT LEAST ONCE IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE CITY.
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE STATE LAW FOR THIS CHARTER.
THAT IS. OPEN FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTION 10.03.
>> WHAT'S THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON?
>> I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 10.03, PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES AS IS.
>> WE HAVE VICE CHAIR WITH THE INITIAL MOTION, AND RANDALL WITH THE SECOND, THAT WE CAN VOTE.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
>> DOES IT HAVE TO ONLY BE THE NEWSPAPER OR? MARK, I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD A NEWSPAPER.
IS THIS NEWSPAPER POSTED ONLINE OR ON OUR CITY WEBSITE OR?
>> I THINK TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION AND CONCERN, WE'LL GET TO IT IN THE NEXT SECTION, 10.04, ABOUT AN ONLINE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO ACCESS IT, NOT JUST VIA NEWSPAPER. CORRECT.
>> THE PRINCETON HERALD IS ONLINE, THEY'RE ON FACEBOOK, ETC.
>> THE REPORTERS ACTUALLY HEAR AT EVERY COUNCIL MEETING.
>> PARTLY ASIDE, I JUST NEVER.
FOR SAKE OF CONTINUE THE WORKFLOW HERE, WE HAVE THAT SECTION 10.03 WAS APPROVED 10:0.
NEXT SECTION IS SECTION 10.04, CODES OF ORDINANCES.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CAUSE THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY TO BE PRINTED IN CODE FORM AND SHALL HAVE THE SAME ARRANGED AND DIGEST AS OFTEN AS THE COUNCIL MAY DEEM ADVISABLE, PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO PRINT THE ORDINANCES AS HEREIN PROVIDED SHALL NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE SAME.
THAT'S NOT CONFUSING LANGUAGE.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 10.04, CODE OF ORDINANCES AS IS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR ELLIS, SECOND BY ALISON GUERRERO.
FOR THAT, WE CAN GO INTO A VOTE.
MOTION PASSES 4:0. NEXT SECTIONS.
SECTION 10.05, ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF ORDINANCES.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE FOR ALL ORDINANCES ADOPTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHARTER TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ORDINANCES DATE OF ADOPTION.
IN ADDITION, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE FOR PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE ON OR BEFORE THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHARTER.
THE ONLINE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CREATED BY THIS SECTION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY CITY ORDERS, PAST OR FUTURE, OR AFFECT THE VALIDITY THEREOF EXCEPT AS MAY BE PROVIDED UNDER THE TEXAS LAW.
>> I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO BE ADDED TO THIS AMENDMENT.
KEEP EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS, BUT ADD ONE SENTENCE THAT SAYS, IN ADDITION TO ORDINANCES, THE CITY SHALL POST [LAUGHTER] ALL EXECUTED PUBLIC.
[01:30:04]
>> PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS THAT EXCEED $25,000.
>> IN ADDITION TO MAKING PUBLIC EVERYTHING ELSE WITH THE ORDINANCES.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCES, THE CITY SHALL POST ALL EXECUTED PUBLIC, PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS THAT EXCEED $25,000.
>> I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE IN THIS SECTION.
>> THE OTHER PARTY OF THE CONTRACT MAY NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
THERE MAY BE SOME COMPETITION ISSUES.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS HERE TO TELL US IF WE CAN DO THAT OR NOT.
>> I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. I GET IT FROM.
>> TRANSPARENCY. BUT ALSO, SHOULD IT BE IN THE ORDINANCE SECTION?
>> I ALSO WAS THINKING THE SAME THING. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S NOT?
>> MAYBE NOT IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S MORE JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY.
>> I HAVE A MOTION [INAUDIBLE]
>> THIS SECTION TALKS ABOUT PUBLISHING IN THE PAPER ONLY APPLIES TO PUNITIVE SECTIONS.
>> THE CURRENT PUBLICATION ONLINE THAT WE HAVE FOR ORDINANCES IS CURRENTLY NOT UP TO DATE.
I WOULD LIKE TO DELETE THE LAST SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS THE ONLINE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CREATED BY THE SECTION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE PAST OR FUTURE OR AFFECT THE VALIDITY THERE EXCEPT AS MAY BE PROVIDED UNDER TEXAS LAW.
I MOVED TO DELETE THAT SENTENCE.
>> ONE MORE TIME FOR ME. I'M SORRY, DAVID.
>> THE LAST SENTENCE OF 10.05, THE ONLINE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CREATED BY THIS SECTION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE PAST OR FUTURE OR AFFECT THE VALIDITY THEREOF, EXCEPT AS MAY BE PROVIDED UNDER TEXAS LAW.
I WOULD LIKE TO DELETE THAT SENTENCE.
>> THAT'S MY MOTION, BUT THE CONTEXT IS A CURRENT LIST OF ORDINANCES.
>> LET'S GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO COME BACK TO THAT.
>> YOU'VE MADE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> TECHNICALLY, YOU ARE THE SECOND.
>> MY REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE OUR CURRENT ONLINE PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE IS INCORRECT.
THE ONLY REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH IN THE PAPER IS FOR PUNITIVE SECTIONS OF ORDINANCES UNDER 10.03.
WITHOUT A REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLISHING AND OR ACCURATE ORDINANCE DOCUMENTATION IN THE ONLINE PUBLICATION, YOU'RE TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT THEY STILL CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR AN ORDINANCE THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW EXISTS OR HAVE ACCESS TO READ IN AN APPROPRIATE FORMAT.
HAVING A SAY THAT THE CAN HOLD SOMEBODY ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW IS INAPPROPRIATE TO ME, AND I THINK YOU SHOULD BE.
>> THEN I WILL KEEP MY SECOND AS A SECOND.
>> IS EVERYTHING ONLINE RIGHT NOW?
>> EVERYTHING'S IN IN MUNI CODE. I MAY DEFER.
I WILL SAY FOR THINGS TO GET CAUGHT THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT 90 DAYS IN THERE, I'M ASSUMING BECAUSE IT TAKES BY THE TIME COUNSEL ADOPTS, IT DOES TAKE SOME TIME FOR THEM TO GET UPLOADED AND CODIFIED, WE USE A THIRD PARTY.
I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT 90 DAYS IS IN THERE.
BUT IT SOUNDS AS IF EVERYTHING.
>> IF YOU READ THE CONTEXT HERE, IT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO POST IT WITHIN 90 DAYS TO A WEBSITE THAT IT DOESN'T REFERENCE.
DURING THAT 90 DAYS, IF THE ORDINANCE GOES INTO EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE, THEY HAVE 90 DAYS TO POST IT AND IT'S NOT ONLINE, AND YOU CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF THAT SENTENCE STAYS?
>> WHICH I SEE YOUR POINT. BECAUSE IF I READ IT ON DAY 90, LIKE, 86, THE ORDINANCE SAYS ONLINE, THAT'S THE ORDINANCE, I THINK IT IS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS CHANGED, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU, DAVID, BECAUSE I SHOULDN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING
[01:35:04]
THAT I DON'T KNOW. I'M CHANGING.>> IS PASSED BUT NOT PUBLISHED.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD. I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT REMOVING THE WHOLE THING VERSUS ADDING MAYBE VERBIAGE THAT SAYS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES, YOU KNOW, UNLESS IT'S REQUIRED.
YOU HAVE THE 90 DAYS, UNLESS IT'S PUBLISHED ONLINE YOU CAN'T BE HELD LIABLE FOR IT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
IT MIGHT BE THAT WE DO DELETE THAT SENTENCE AND THEN ADD SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT I LEAVE THAT UP TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE COMMITTEE ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
I WILL SAY PRETTY COMMON PLACE TO HAVE THAT BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME BETWEEN ADOPTION TO ACTUALLY PUTTING IT ONLINE AND CODIFYING.
BUT THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS ARE APPOINTED TO TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> MAYBE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF LACK OF ACTUAL NOTICE COULD BE A VALID DEFENSE AND MAKE IT CASE BY CASE BUT EITHER WAY THIS LANGUAGE ELIMINATES THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT LEAVES THE CITY WITH A POSITION THAT THEY CAN READ AN ORDINANCE, NOT PUBLISH IT, AND YOU'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
>> CORRECT. BECAUSE THEY HAVE 90 DAYS TO PUBLISH IT.
YOU'RE STILL HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THERE.
>> GRANT IS THAT NOT COVERED IN THE GOVERNMENT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IN TERMS OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY NEW ORDINANCES? I THINK THEY MIGHT BE IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
>> I HAVE TO LOOK. LIKE I SAID, TYPICALLY, IT'S VERY COMMONPLACE FOR ALL ORDINANCES TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSAGE, UNLESS THERE'S A STATE LAW, IT PASSES, AND THEN IT CAN ONLY TAKE EFFECT AFTER BEING IN THE NEWSPAPER, BUT IT'S TYPICALLY IT'S PASSED AND IT'S IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE, AND THEN YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO POST IT ONLINE.
>> CAN YOU CHECK ON THAT? BECAUSE I FEEL COMING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, I KNOW THAT THEY DON'T ALWAYS FIND AND FOLLOW THEIR OWN ORDINANCES.
IT WOULD BE CONCERNING THAT THEY WOULD BE PENALIZING CITIZENS FOR ORDINANCES THAT MAYBE AREN'T PUBLISHED ANYWHERE.
[OVERLAPPING] ONCE THERE DEFINITELY BE SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO LOOK INTO.
IF IT'S STATE LAW, IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE WOULD HAVE IT IN HERE, BUT OTHERWISE, MAYBE WE WOULD TAKE IT OUT.
>> IF THERE'S A PENALTY PROVISION, IT HAS TO BE IN A NEWSPAPER.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY STATE LAW PROBLEM WITH MONKEYING WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
>> I THINK THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE COVERS THAT THERE IS A NOTICE REQUIREMENT.
NO MUNICIPALITY JUST PASS ORDINANCE AND NOT PROVIDE ANY NOTICE AND THE ENFORCEMENT.
I THINK THERE'S A TEXAS LAW THAT SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS THAT. [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT MAKES SENSE TO REMOVE THE SENTENCE.
IF THAT'S ACCURATE, WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO REMOVE THAT SENTENCE THAT DAVID IS CALLING OUT.
>> SURE. I CAN LOOK INTO THIS ONE AGAIN.
I SAID, THIS IS PRETTY COMMONPLACE, BUT I CAN LOOK INTO IT AND BRING IT BACK.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEST. SURE.
>> WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT, DAVID, TABLEING YOUR MOTION LAW GRANT.
>> OR CAN YOU GUYS CAN VOTE ON IT, AND THEN WE BRING IT BACK TO VOTE ON IT AGAIN, THEN I CAN EXPLAIN WHAT I FOUND.
>> WELL, I SECONDED YOUR MOTION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTION. MARK IS STILL VERY.
>> NO, WE CAN VOTE. I JUST THINK LEGALLY, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S THERE OR NOT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO POST IT ONLINE FOR IT TO GO INTO EFFECT.
IT COULD BE A PAMPHLET RULE BECAUSE OUR CITY SECRETARY NOW CARE.
>> TYPICALLY ANY ACT IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
THERE'S A STATE LAW, IT ONLY SUBSEQUENT NOTICE OR WAITING PERIOD.
I THINK THIS IS ALL SELF IMPOSED.
BUT I'LL LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GIVEN.
>> IT'S JUST FOR CLARY, BECAUSE I WAS READING, YOU WANT TO REMOVE THE LINE. REMOVE THE SENTENCE.
[01:40:01]
>> WELL IT'S A MUST WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO VOTE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE WE PASSED THAT 73.
>> WITH THAT BEING SAID, THAT WAS CLOSING OUT SECTION 10.05.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND I'M GOING TO OPEN
[H.6 2025-180 Review Chapter 11 (“Elections”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action. ]
UP ITEM H-62 025-108, CHAPTER 11 ELECTIONS AT THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TOO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.I'M GOING TO GIVEN THE TIME. I'VE OPENED THE ITEM.
I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WE MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS INTO OUR NEXT MEETING SO THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE THE ALLOTTED AMOUNT OF TIME TO GO INTO THAT FULL CHAPTER. ALL THE LOGIN.
>> YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE ITEM H.625-180, THE REVIEW OF CHAPTER 11 TO OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> WE HAVE FIRST FROM ICIER ELLIS, SECOND FROM RANDALL, AND WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE TO THE TABLE.
>> DAVID DO YOU HAVE ONE THING BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
>> LET ME OPEN IT UP AND WE CAN INTO IT.
[H.7 2025-181 Consider selecting the dates and times of future Committee meetings; and take appropriate action.]
CONSIDER SELECTING THE DATES AND TIMES OF A FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION WITH THAT.>> JUST FOR EVERYONE TO BE AWARE, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, MY WORK SCHEDULE IS CHANGING FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER ONLY.
THERE IS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME A CHANCE I WILL MISS OUR NEXT TWO MEETINGS DUE TO HAVING TO WORK FROM 5:00 P.M. UNTIL 1030.
JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
>> WHAT PERCENTAGE IS THAT? [LAUGHTER]
>> WITH THAT, I THINK WE ALL HAVE THANK YOU.
I KNOW AMBER, YOU PROBABLY TOOK CARE OF WE ALL HAVE THE SCHEDULE IN FRONT OF US.
ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS REGARDING THE NEXT SCHEDULE DATES FOR FOR THE ARC COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT NOVEMBER SINCE THERE'S THANKSGIVING AND ALREADY SOME MEETINGS ARE FILLING UP ON THERE.
>> WE ARE MEETING ON THURSDAY, WHICH DEPENDING ON I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE BI WEEKLY SET UP WHERE.
>> WELL, BUT THE SIXTH IS ALSO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE'S A STAKEHOLDER MEETING FOR THAT.
>> ANY OBJECTIONS? AS LONG AS COMPS NOT TAKEN OVER THE ROOM FOR US TO KEEP 6TH NOVEMBER?
>> I MOVED TO ADD NOVEMBER 6TH AND 20TH, SAME TIME AND LOCATION.
>> I AM A STAKEHOLDER OF THE COMP PLAN.
>> I'LL BE A FEW MINUTES LATE.
[01:45:04]
>> WE DO HAVE A MOTION BY MARK CHRISWELL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? [LAUGHTER]
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MARK CHRIS WOOD, WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE WITH THAT WAY THAT SET UP.
CAN YOU LET US KNOW FOR SURE? CAN YOU GOT? THEN WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE ON THE NEXT MEETING.
>> YES. I'M TAPPING AND NOTHING'S HAPPENING.
>> AMBERS EXTEND YOU. THAT PASSES 10-0.
IT MOVES US TO I THINK MOST PEOPLE'S FAVORITE ITEM OF THE NIGHT, WHICH IS ITEM I ADJOURNMENT.
IF YOU WANT TO STAY HERE, YOU CAN TALK TO GRANT AND AMBER, BUT I'M LEAVING.
>> I'M OUT TOO.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.