[00:00:01]
>> WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER THE CITY OF PRINCETON HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.
TODAY'S DATE IS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23RD, 2025.
WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO A ROLL CALL.
I, JAISEN RUTLEDGE, IS PRESENT. JIM POWELL?
>> RANDALL ROBERTS? NOT PRESENT.
TERRANCE JOHNSON IS NOT PRESENT. JULIE ZELLER?
>> DAVID YOST IS NOT PRESENT. MARK CHRISTWELL?
>> AMISHA NEAL IS NOT PRESENT. MAXINE ELLIS?
>> CAROLYN DAVID-GRAVES IS NOT PRESENT, AND MARLO OBERA IS NOT PRESENT.
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO INVOCATION.
>> THOSE GUYS CAN BE A LITTLE LATE.
>> NO WORRIES. FATHER GOD, WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, AGAIN, LORD, TO BE ABLE TO COME AND BE A SERVICE FOR YOUR PEOPLE, GOD, TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO USE THE EXPERIENCES THAT WE HAVE, FATHER, THE SKILLS, AND THE EDUCATION THAT WE HAVE, FATHER, TO BE ABLE TO TRY OUR BEST TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, FATHER.
WE PRAY RIGHT NOW THAT AS WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS, GOD, THAT THEY BE GUIDED BY YOU, THAT REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN ALL THINGS.
FATHER, WE PRAY THAT AS WE BEGIN TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS, WE DO SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AND THE INTENTION FOR THE LONG-TERM SUCCESS OF THE CITY AND ALL THAT LIVE HERE.
FATHER, WE PRAY FOR THE STAFF, FOR THE FIRST RESPONDERS, FOR ALL OF THOSE THAT SERVE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH OVER THEM, GOD, AND WE COVER THIS PRAYER IN YOUR SON JESUS' NAME, AMEN.
WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEN THE PLEDGE TO THE TEXAS FLAG.
[F. PUBLIC APPEARANCE]
IS GOING TO BE 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'S NOT FORMALLY SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOULD COMPLETE A PUBLIC MEETING APPEARANCE CARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY.
SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
THE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO, OR DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT BROUGHT UP DURING THE 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, 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 FROM PUBLIC APPEARANCE ON TODAY, SO WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM G,
[G. CONSENT AGENDA]
WHICH IS CONSENT AGENDA. CONSENT AGENDA.ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE COMMITTEE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.
THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SO REQUEST, IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA.
WE HAVE ITEM G12025-191, CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, OCTOBER 9TH, 2025, HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.
[NOISE] FOR THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM G.12025-191.
>> WITH THAT, WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE.
ONE, 2, 3, 4, 5, 06, 7, 8, I THINK WE'RE MISSING ONE. WE HAVE SEVEN FOR, ONE ABSTAIN.
MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM. I'M SORRY.
[H.1 2025-190 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 11 (“Elections”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the October 9, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
NEXT SECTION IS THE REGULAR AGENDA.ITEM H.1, ITEM NUMBER 2025-190, REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 11, ELECTIONS OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON TEXAS,
[00:05:01]
AS DISCUSSED AT THE OCTOBER 9TH, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. OVER TO YOU GRANT.>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A FEW AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 11 AS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, PARTICULARLY UNDER SECTION 11.04.
YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE EMPHASIZED LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARAGRAPH IS NEW, AS PROPOSED FROM THE LAST MEETING.
JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS BEFORE YOU GUYS CONSIDER APPROVING, JUST A THOUGHT, I WANT TO KICK IT AROUND TO, THE COMMITTEE IS ON THE $100 NUMBER.
A POTENTIAL OPTION WOULD BE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF A FEE TO BE ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL VIA ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE THOUGHT IS IF IT'S $100, YOU'RE GOING TO BE STUCK IN $100 UNTIL THE CHARTER IS AMENDED AGAIN JUST TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
THAT'S AN OPTION THERE, AND THEN ANOTHER COMMENT IS ON THE THIRD LINE, THE 50 QUALIFIED VOTERS.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CHANGE THAT DOWN TO 25 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
THE ELECTION CODE COVERS THIS.
I DON'T WANT OUR LANGUAGE TO BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.
IT PROVIDES A MINIMUM OF 25, NOT 50.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANT TO POINT THOSE TWO THINGS OUT, AND IF YOU GUYS WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
>> IF WE LEAVE IT WITH THE OPEN LANGUAGE OF IT BEING FOR COUNSEL, THEN WOULD THEY HAVE TO ENACT THAT BEFORE IT COULD BE VOTED ON BY THE VOTERS OR HOW WOULD THAT WORK? WHAT ORDER WOULD THAT NEED TO TAKE PLACE?
>> COUNCIL JUST NEED TO ESTABLISH THAT FEE VIA ORDINANCE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION FILING PERIOD, SO IT WOULD BE IN EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED AGAIN.
I JUST THINK IF YOU KEEP IT AT $100, CITY'S NOT MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT REGARDLESS WHETHER IT'S 50, 100, 152.
WE WILL BE LOCKED IN AT THAT $100 WITH THIS CURRENT LANGUAGE.
>> COULD WE DO BOTH? COULD WE DO A MINIMUM OF AND THEN ALSO GIVE THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY?
>> YOU COULD DO THAT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ALTERNATIVE, JUST TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY, BUT MAYBE SOME [INAUDIBLE]
>> IS IT JUST EVERY ELECTION OR IS IT A PER PERSON VOTE?
>> NO, IT WOULD BE JUST A FEE THAT THEY ESTABLISHED VIA ORDINANCE, AND THAT WOULD FOREVER BE THE FEE.
>> UNTIL CHANGED. IT'S JUST AN ORDINANCE YOU CAN AMEND A LOT MORE FREQUENTLY THAN YOU CAN AT CHARTER.
THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THERE TO ADJUST THAT FEE ON A MORE FREQUENT BASIS.
>> GRANT, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OR, OR AND, $100 OR COUNCIL, OR DISJUNCTIVE OR CONJUNCTIVE?
>> IT'S REALLY UP TO WHAT THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO DO.
I GUESS MY INITIAL THOUGHT WAS JUST TO DO NOT AN OR, JUST TO DO AS ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL VIA ORDINANCE, BUT YOU COULD PROVIDE SOME GUARD RAILS IN THERE, PROVIDED THAT IT'S NOT MORE OR LESS THAN A DOLLAR FIGURE THAT YOU GUYS ESTABLISHED.
THAT'S UP TO HOW THE COMMITTEE DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> I WOULD SAY MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, AND THANK YOU GRANT FOR BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE I DEFINITELY THINK THOSE WERE SOME VALID POINTS.
I THINK THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS WAS TO PUT TEETH BEHIND THE APPLICATION, SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP WITH THAT LOGIC AND MAKE A MINIMUM AND THEN ADD THAT THE CAPABILITY OF COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST THAT FROM THERE.
HAPPY TO DO SO. I JUST WANT TO OFFER THAT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAD ANY POINTS TO INTERJECT.
>> I LIKE THE IDEA THAT GRANT BROUGHT UP, IT'S A DEFINITELY A GREAT POINT.
THE DEVIL INSIDE OF PEOPLE SCARES ME BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO RUN FOR A CYCLE, AND THEY MAKE IT $1,000, KNOWING THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.
I THINK THE SMALL, AND I'M SAYING SMALL IS $100, I FEEL AS IF IT'S A SATISFACTORY NUMBER TO DETER PEOPLE FROM JUST THROWING THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT, BUT STILL NOT TO ABSORB IN TO WHERE IT'LL PUSH COUNCIL TO MAKE, TO ME, A BAD DECISION ON RECORD.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT LIKE A REVENUE GENERATOR FORUM, BUT I GET YOUR POINT.
>> THEN MY SECOND QUESTION, YOU SAID THE 50, WHAT'S THE STATE LAW?
>> THE STATE LAW PROVIDES A MINIMUM OF 25, SO I THINK WE NEED TO MIRROR THE STATE LAW THERE.
I THINK IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY CHALLENGED AS BEING CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.
[00:10:02]
THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE IS ALL GOOD.IT'S JUST THE 50, I WOULD RECOMMEND BUMPING THAT DOWN TO 25.
THE STATE LAW HAS A MINIMUM OF 25, AND WE'RE IN THIS VERBIAGE, WE'RE MEETING THAT MINIMUM, BUT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE APPLYING TO BE A CANDIDATE ON A BALLOT, SO I THINK WE ERR ON THE SIDE OF COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW HERE AND HAVING THE MINIMUM LOWER, AND NOT HAVING IT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT STATE LAW PROVIDES BECAUSE IF YOU'RE REQUIRING MORE THAN 25, IT'S HARDER TO PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BALLOT THAN IF IT WAS 25 OR LESS.
I WOULD RECOMMEND MIRRORING STATE LAW HERE BECAUSE I THINK IT COULD BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE.
>> GOT YOU. IT'S MORE FAVORABLE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.
>> MOST PEOPLE JUST PAY THE FEE, AND DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND GET 25 SIGNATURES, WHATEVER THE CASE IS.
I WOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF MAKING IT EASIER TO OBTAIN THE SIGNATURES THAN NOT, ESPECIALLY IF STATE LAW PROVIDES A 25.
>> I UNDERSTAND MR. CHRISTWELL'S POINT.
I WOULD SAY I STILL WOULD LEAN WITH HAVING THE MINIMUM BEING 100 AND GIVING THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO ADJUST WITHOUT HAVING ANY OTHER RESTRICTIONS THERE.
I WOULD HOPE, AGAIN, THAT IF SOMEONE WERE, WITH THE EXAMPLE GIVEN, TO TRY TO INCREASE SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY HIGHER THAN WHAT'S LISTED, IT WOULD BE VERY CLEAR TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL IF A MOTION WAS MADE IN THAT REGARD.
ALSO, I'D HOPE THAT RESIDENTS WOULD TAKE NOTICE.
I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE PRETTY PUBLIC THAT PUBLIC TAKE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
MY PERSPECTIVE, UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M OKAY WITH MAKING A MOTION FOR THIS. THIS IS THE ONE.
>> I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IN ANSWER, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, JAISEN, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT COUNCIL WOULD ACT RESPONSIBLY AND WITH INTEGRITY AS WELL.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A WAY TO AMEND THAT BY HAVING A NO LESS THAN, NO MORE THAN CLAUSE.
PUT IN THERE, IT STILL LEAVES SOME DISCRETION TO COUNCIL TO SET AN AMOUNT THAT THEY DEEM ACCEPTABLE OR ACHIEVABLE BY MOST CITIZENS WITHIN THAT RANGE.
BUT IT ALSO PUTS A SAFEGUARD ON THE TOP END THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NOT BE QUITE SO OBVIOUS, BUT MIGHT BE INTENTIONAL WITH THE AMOUNT ON THE TOP END.
>> I WOULD BE FALLING FROM THAT AS WELL.
>> I THINK IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO DETERMINE WHAT A MAXIMUM AMOUNT SHOULD BE.
DO WE SAY 300? DO WE SAY 500? I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL WOULD GO THAT CRAZY AND SAY SOMETHING LIKE $100.
BUT BY PUTTING THE WORD, THE WORD'S JUST 100 WITHOUT, WHAT YOU SAID, THE MINIMUM AND THEN COUNCIL DISCRETION, THEN THAT MEANS, I DON'T WANT TO SAY FOREVER, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE $100, UNLESS HRC REVIEWS IT AGAIN AND DECIDES TO CHANGE IT.
>> I THINK I'M UNDER THE FENCE, I COULD GO EITHER WAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS TO CAP IT AT.
AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE POINT TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THE FUTURE REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF THE CHARTER OR ANY SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO IT.
I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PUT AN AMENDMENT IN PLACE TO WHERE WE ENSURE THEN THAT IT'S BEING REVIEWED ON A CONSISTENT BASIS TO WHERE, IF WE DO PUT IT AT A CERTAIN NUMBER, WE CAN ENSURE THAT FUTURE REVIEW COMMITTEES CAN COME BACK AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED.
>> ALSO, IT'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST SEVEN PEOPLE VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE OF PRINCETON, POTENTIALLY MORE, AND YOU WOULD HOPE THAT A MAJORITY VOTE THAT THEY WOULD BE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.
>> I COULDN'T SEE SEVEN PEOPLE SAYING, LET'S CHARGE $1,000.
>> I THINK THAT'S A SURE FLIGHT TICKET TO NOT GET RE-ELECTED, [LAUGHTER] IN MY OPINION.
>> AGAIN, I GO EITHER WAY WITH IT.
[00:15:02]
>> GRANT, WHAT STATE CODE ARE YOU FINDING THAT 25, THE NUMBER IN?
>> YES, CHAPTER 143 OF THE ELECTION CODE.
>> I DO AGREE WITH CHANGING THE 50 TO 25 TO MATCH WHAT STATE GOT.
I'M GOING TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR MR. CHRISTWELL TO SEE IF HE HAS ANY OTHER POINTS TO OBJECT, AND IF NOT, THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE MY MOTION.
>> WITH THAT, THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS AS RECOMMENDED TO THE SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO THE FILING FEE TO SET IT AS A MINIMUM OF 100 AND TO GIVE COUNCIL THE DISCRETION TO ADJUST THE FEE AS NEEDED, AND THEN ALSO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO THE PETITION SIGNED BY NO LESS THAN 50 QUALIFIED VOTERS TO REDUCE THAT BACK DOWN TO 25 TO MATCH WHAT THE STATE LAW COVERS THERE.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND. WITH THAT, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
>> SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, WHAT YOU JUST SAID?
>> I MADE A MOTION FOR US TO ADJUST THE FILING FEE OF $100 SECTION TO STATE $100 AS A MINIMUM WITH THE ABILITY OF COUNCIL TO HAVE DISCRETION TO ADJUST ABOVE THAT, AND THEN THE SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO THE PETITION SIGNED BY NO LESS THAN 50 QUALIFIED VOTERS, TO ADJUST THAT BACK DOWN TO 25 TO MATCH THE STATE LAW.
>> WE'RE ALL IN. SO THAT WENT 7:1.
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED IN THE MAY OR ELECTION? DO YOU KNOW THAT NUMBER BY CHANCE?
>> I DON'T KNOW I HAVE TO LOOK UP AGAIN.
>> I KNOW SO FAR THEY ONLY HAVE 213 AND HAVE VOTED SO FAR IN EARLY VOTING.
>> I MOVING ON TO SECTION 11.05.
YOU'LL SEE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE EMPHASIZE THERE AT THE BOTTOM.
JUST ESSENTIALLY THAT I THINK THE CONCERN WAS IF TWO CANDIDATES HAD THE SAME SURNAME, PROVIDING REQUIRING THAT THEY PROVIDE THEIR ADDRESS, SO PUBLIC KNOWS WHO THEY'RE VOTING FOR, WHICH CANDIDATE? I HAVE NO COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR GRANT? NOT IN WEAKEN.
>> MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 11.05 OFFICIAL BALLOT AS MODIFIED.
>> THAT ONE PASSES 8:0. MOVING ON ALONG.
[H.2 2025-192 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 12 (“Initiative, Referendum and Recall”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the October 9, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
THAT MOVES US TO ITEM H.2, 2025-192, OR YOU CAN CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12, INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL.OF THE HOMER CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON TEXAS AS DISCUSSED ON THE OCTOBER 9TH, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
>> PERFECT. THIS ONE IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12.07 OF THE CHARTER AS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, THE LANGUAGE AT THE BOTTOM, I THINK PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE NUMBER OF THIS SIGNATURES THAT IS NEEDED ON THE PETITION IN THE INSTANCE YOU'RE TRYING TO RECALL SOMEONE FROM A DISTRICT.
I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION.
I THINK THAT THE ROMAN NUMERALS HELP WITH THE READABILITY AND THEN THE LANGUAGE TO THE BOTTOM ADDS THE NECESSARY CLARIFICATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY.
>> A MOMENT FOR ANYONE TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR GRANT.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE SECTION 12.07 POWER OF RECALL AS MODIFIED.
>> CAN WE GET YOU ON MIC? MAYBE I JUST DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
[00:20:02]
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE SHER ELLIS AND THE SECOND BY MR. POWELL. WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE.
[H.3 2025-193 Review Chapter 13 (“Franchises”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action.]
2025-193. REVIEW CHAPTER 13 FRANCHISES OF THE HOMEWORK CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TOO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
>> THE MAIN TWO COMPONENTS OF THIS SECTION 12.0, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ONE OF THEM BEING IF SOMEONE IS REMOVED VIA RECALL, THAT THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT, IN THE INSTANCE THAT THERE'S 12 MONTHS OR LESS LEFT IN THE TERM, THAT THEY CAN'T OBVIOUSLY, IT'S ALREADY PROVIDED THAT THEY CAN'T BE A CANDIDATE IN A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL THE VACANCY.
CLARIFYING THAT THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT. IF THAT EVER CAME UP.
THEN ALSO PROVIDING PROHIBITION, THAT I THINK WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THAT THEY CAN'T RUN FOR ONE FULL TERM.
YOU'LL SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT I HAD IN THERE WAS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE FIRST REGULAR ELECTION OCCURRING FOLLOWING THE DATE OF REMOVAL, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU ENCOMPASSED I THINK THAT WAS THE DESIRE WAS FOUR YEARS, NOT NECESSARILY, A YEAR OR TWO.
OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S ANY ADJUSTMENTS WE CAN MAKE THOSE, I JUST TOOK A STAB AT IT BASED ON DISCUSSION, THE LAST MEETING.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I THINK I JUST READ OFF THAT WE WERE ENTERING AT THREE, AND I APOLOGIZE, WE'RE STILL AT TWO.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT.
>> JUST IS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
THAT LAST SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS UNTIL THE FIRST REGULAR CITY ELECTION OCCURRING AFTER FOUR YEARS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF REMOVAL.
IF THERE IS A REGULAR ELECTION ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF REMOVAL, ESSENTIALLY THE PERSON IS WAITING FIVE YEARS.
IT'S AT FOUR YEARS, IS THAT THE.
>> THAT'S HOW IT'S DRAFTED. OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN ADJUST THAT BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A POINT IN TIME TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ELECTIONS EVERY YEAR.
I JUST MAKING IT I THINK WAY IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE FULL TERM OR I THINK TERMS A LITTLE BIT FOR SURE.
>> THAT'S WHY AS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
I'M NOT OBJECTING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I READ IT.
>> NO. WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
>> I ALSO THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE EXPECT THAT AS WE HAVE FUTURE REVIEW COMMITTEES THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND REVISIT. PROGRESS SO.
>> I DO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE SECTION 12.10 RESULTS OF A RECALL ELECTION AS MODIFIED.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT. WITH THAT, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
ALSO NOTE THAT IS 657 AND JOSE RIOS IS NOW IN ATTENDANCE.
ONTO OUR NEXT SECTION, ITEM H.3, 2025-193, REVIEW CHAPTER 13 FRANCHISES OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, CONSIDERING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TOO.
THAT OPENS US UP INTO CHAPTER.
WE'LL START WITH SECTION 3 THAT'S YOUR ONE.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU GUYS THE SAME INFORMATION I WAS GIVEN WHEN I STARTED.
MOST OF THIS IS GOING TO BE BOILER PLATE, AND I'M GOING TO TRY MY BEST TO RE QUICKLY AND GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND SO WE CAN MOVE ON.
SECTION 13.01 POWER TO GRANT FRANCHISE.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS HEREOF BY ORDINANCE TO CONFER UPON ANY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, THE FRANCHISE OR RIGHT TO USE THE PUBLIC PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING TO THE PUBLIC ANY GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE OR BENEFIT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HEAT, LIGHT, POWER, TELEPHONE SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION, OR OTHER TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE.
THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER BY ORDINANCE TO GRANT, RENEW, AND EXTEND ALL FRANCHISES OF ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES OF EVERY CHARACTER OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY.
NO SUCH FRANCHISE SHALL BE GRANTED UNTIL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING SHALL HAVE BEEN CALLED AND HELD UNTIL SUCH ORDINANCE SHALL HAVE BEEN PASSED AND ACCEPTED BY THE FRANCHISEE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR 13.01 FOR GRANT?
>> MOTION TO ACCEPT SECTION 13.01 AS WRITTEN. I SECOND THAT.
[00:25:06]
>> WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. MOTION PASSES 9:0.
ON TO THE NEXT SECTION, SECTION 13.02, TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE.
NO PUBLIC UTILITY OR OTHER FRANCHISE SHALL BE TRANSFERABLE, EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSED BY ORDINANCE. QUESTIONS FOR GRANT.
>> GRANT, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS WHEN IT COMES TO DEBT AND USING MY FRANCHISE BUSINESS TO CREATE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.
IS THIS TELLING ME THAT IF I WANT TO TRANSFER MY FRANCHISE TO OBTAIN CAPITAL OR TO START ANOTHER BUSINESS LIKE A SECOND MORTGAGE OR ASSET CHECK, I HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL?
>> THIS IS NOT LIKE A BUSINESS FRANCHISE, LIKE A MCDONALD.
IT'S MORE LIKE IT'S MORE LIKE IT'S UTILITIES, ENCORE, TRASH, CITIES PUBLIC SERVICES.
>> I DON'T LIKE THE WORDING THEN BECAUSE IT SAYS NO PUBLIC UTILITY, WHICH IS EVERYTHING YOU DESCRIBED.
>>IT'S NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A OTHER FRANCHISE.
>> OBVIOUSLY I DIDN'T DRAFT THIS LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S THIS IS INTENDED, YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST READ THROUGH, IT'S YOUR POWER.
IT'S YOUR NATURAL GAS TELEPHONE.
IT'S IT'S NOT MCDONALDS OR STARBUCKS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SERVICES IS WHAT IT IS.
SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE MORE IT'S NOT A PUBLIC SERVICE, IT'S A PRIVATE.
>> IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN PUT IN THERE THAT DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN IT BEING THE CITY AND MARK'S EXAMPLE, IS THERE ANY STATE WORDING OR SOMETHING?
>> CAN WE SAY THE FRANCHISE MAY PLEDGE FRANCHISE ASSETS AS SECURITY FOR A VALID DEBT OR A MORTGAGE OR A MORTGAGE? OR DEBT. KEEP IT SIMPLE.
>> WHY CAN'T YOU JUST PUT CITY APPROVED FRANCHISE SO THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S ONE THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY THAT FOLLOWS THE WHAT'S LAID OUT IN SECTION 13.01.
OR COULD WE JUST ADD THE WORD CITY FRANCHISE IN FRONT OF THE WORD FRANCHISE?
>> I THINK WE WOULD THEN NEED TO DEFINE CITY FRANCHISE.
BECAUSE I HAVE TO GET A FRANCHISE.
IF I OPEN UP A FRANCHISE OUTSIDE IT HAS TO BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY.
>> THE CITY HAS TO APPROVE ALL BUSINESSES, FRANCHISES THAT COME INTO THE I DON'T HAVE A FRANCHISE, BUT I'M JUST ASKING TO AS A CASE, GRANTED LOANS OF MONEY AND WHAT I THINK WE'RE MISINTERPRETING WHAT THIS FRANCHISE.
THIS IS NOT SPEAKING TO AS A FRANCHISE THAT YOU WOULD GO OUT AND BUY, LIKE A STARBUCKS MCDONALD'S, YOU KNOW, ETC.
THIS IS SPEAKING TO THE WORDING OF THAT THIS USE AS A FRANCHISE, IT'S LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S SPECIFICALLY TO CITY GOVERNMENT NOT, FRANCHISES OUTSIDE, LIKE A MCDONALD'S, THESE ARE PRIVATE ENTITIES THAT YOU WOULD BE A PRIVATE ENTITY OPENING UP THESE BUSINESSES.
I THINK THIS IS I DON'T THINK I KNOW THIS IS REFERRING TO A CITY GOVERNMENT TYPE OF FRANCHISE.
>> I THINK I THINK GRANT, I THINK YOU CLARIFY THAT ELEMENT, AND I AGREE.
I DO ALSO THINK THAT PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COMMITTEE IS TO PROVIDE CLARITY WHERE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CLARITY.
IF THERE'S A CONFUSION HERE AT THIS TABLE, THEN WE SHOULD EXPECT THE RESIDENTS OF PRINCETON CAN PICK THIS UP AND AND GAIN AN UNDERSTANDING.
SURE. I GRANT, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, I KNOW WE JUST COVERED 13.01 BUT DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO DEFINE THE TERM IN 13.01? WHEN IT'S COVERED EVERYWHERE ELSE IN SECTION 13 THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION.
I JUST I WORK WITH POLICIES AND FRAMEWORKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
TYPICALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT, YOU FIRST START SPEAKING ABOUT A TERM YOU DEFINE THAT TERM ADA.
THAT WAY, WHENEVER YOU SAY FRANCHISE, IT'S VERY CLEAR EVERYWHERE ELSE WE'RE REFERRING TO?
>> I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY COULD.
YOU LOOK AT CERTAIN AREAS IT DEFINES AS PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY FRANCHISES.
[00:30:04]
I JUST DOES THERE'S NOT CONSISTENT TECHNOLOGY.THAT'S SOMETHING I COULD TAKE A STAB AT AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS TO I MEAN, I CLARIFICATION THAT'S NEEDED.
>> I'M GOING BACK TO WHAT JODY SAID EARLIER, LIKE THE OR
>> IF YOU GET INTO IT, STRONG ENOUGH, YOU START TO LIKE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? BECAUSE IT SAYS PUBLIC UTILITY OR OTHER FRANCHISE.
BUT BEFORE THAT, I'M READING THE VERBIAGE AND I DON'T SEE WHERE IT REALLY DEFINES WHAT THAT IS.
BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC UTILITY, LIMITED HEAT LIGHT, POWER, TELEPHONE SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION, OTHER TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES.
IT SAYS, GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE OR BENEFIT, THINGS THAT FURNISH TO THE PUBLIC GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE OR BENEFIT.
BUT ALL THAT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT'S DESCRIBED AFTERWARDS ARE UTILITIES FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
>> JAISEN, TO THAT PURPOSE, AND WE VERY QUICKLY APPROVED OR SAID NO CHANGES ON SECTION 13.01, BUT LOOK AT THE THIRD LINE OF SECTION 13.01, IT SAYS, TO CONFER UPON ANY PERSON BLAH, BLAH.
THE FRANCHISE AND MAYBE COMMA, OR RIGHT TO USE THE PUBLIC PROPERTY OF THE CITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING TO THE PUBLIC, THAT OR RIGHT TO USE THE PUBLIC PROPERTY IS A DEFINITION OF A FRANCHISE IN THIS CONTEXT.
SETTING IT OFF BY COMMAS MIGHT CLARIFY THE FACT THAT THE OR IS ACTUALLY IN PLACE OF THE WORD FRANCHISE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WILL DO IT IN TERMS OF GENERAL UNDERSTANDING WHEN PEOPLE GO TO THE BALLOT TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE IN 13.02, BUT THAT OR RIGHT TO USE IS THE DEFINITION OF FRANCHISE AS IT'S USED HERE.
>> I THOUGHT I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT, JULIE.
THOUGHT I HAVE HERE AS I LOOK INTO THIS.
I'VE GOT SOME UNDERSTANDING AND BE ON THE BOARD OF THE WATER DISTRICT AND SO FORTH, OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND FRANCHISES A BIT, BUT NOT TOTALLY.
I THINK WE'RE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS AS WE DIVE INTO THIS, AND WHAT JAISEN HAD TO SAY IS A LOT OF US BOILERPLATE, AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING HERE.
I DO BELIEVE WE ARE OPENING UP A BIT OF A CAN OF WORMS OF DIVING INTO THIS AND THE DISJUNCTION BETWEEN UNDERSTANDING OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE VERSUS FRANCHISE AND SO FORTH.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD TREAD CAREFULLY AND MAYBE NOT TREAD AT ALL.
ON THIS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION TO THE GROUP.
WHAT THIS IS SAYING, WE CAN'T TRANSFER ANY OF OUR FRANCHISES OF THE CITY TO SOMEONE ELSE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTS, CORRECT? SAXE, MELISSA, PITTSBURGH, JUST 23 QUICK ONES.
I PULLED UP, ALL HAVE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, THE FRANCHISE MAY PLEDGE FRANCHISE ASSETS AS SECURITY FOR A VALID DEBT.
I THINK THEIR UNDERSTANDING IS THE SAME, BUT I THINK THEY'RE TAKING A STEP FURTHER.
WHERE THEY CAN USE IT, GIVING THEM A REASON TO USE IT.
>> I'M SORRY, MARK, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ONCE AGAIN?
>> YES, MA'AM. AFTER EVERYTHING WAS SAID, CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSED BY ORDINANCE, HOWEVER, THE FRANCHISE MAY PLEDGE FRANCHISE ASSETS AS A SECURITY FOR A VALID DEBT OR MORTGAGE, MEANING THEY'RE TRYING TO BUY PROPERTY OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
I DON'T KNOW IF ADDING THAT IN THERE MAY KIND OF HELP SUBSIDE A LITTLE BIT, HAVE ROOM ON BOTH ENDS, BUT I'M OPEN.
I'M JUST MORE INQUISITIVE THAN ANYTHING.
>> DOES THAT GO UNDER THE TITLE OF TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN A SEPARATE CATEGORY?
>> SORRY. ALL THE HOPE CHARTS I PULLED UP ARE ALL UNDER THE SAME TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE.
IT ALMOST HAS THE SAME BOILER POINT LANGUAGE.
EXPRESSED BY ORDINANCE IS A LITTLE OFF FOR US.
BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALL THE SAME, AND THEN THEY INCLUDE THAT NEXT HOWEVER LINE.
>> I THINK WE CERTAINLY COULD ADD THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY NECESSARILY, BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD ADD IT AS A GENERAL COMMENT.
THE TITLE OF THIS CHAPTER FRANCHISES IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING BECAUSE WHAT I'M USED TO SEEING, LIKE I JUST PULLED UP MELISSA'S AS YOU WERE GOING THROUGH THAT.
THEIRS IS DEFINED AS UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE FRANCHISES.
AS THE LAYMAN LOOKS AT THIS AND YOU SEE FRANCHISES, YOU THINK COMMERCIAL FRANCHISES, NOT NECESSARILY THE ENCORES, THE CWD OF THE WORLD.
[00:35:03]
>> CAN WE CHANGE THE TITLE OF IT?
>> I THINK WE COULD CHANGE THE TITLE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO CHANGE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CHANGE THE TITLE TO GRANTS RECOMMENDATION, UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE FRANCHISES AND LICENSES.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY SHER ELLIS, A SECOND BY MR. CRISP FOR VOTE.
NEXT SECTION. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE BOWLER PLATE, EVERYBODY, SO [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING].
BUT IS THERE A MORE COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD WORD THAT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE WORD FRANCHISE TO SPEAK TO SOME OF JAISEN'S CONCERNS THAT ALL OF US HAVE MENTIONED AROUND THE TABLE IN TERMS OF PEOPLE GOING TO THE BALLOT, NOT THINKING THIS IS ABOUT MCDONALD'S, OR READING PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT CERTAINLY NOT READING INTO IT WELL ENOUGH OR SOMETHING?
>> I THINK IF WE ELABORATE IN LIKE WHAT WAS JUST THAT MOTION, I THINK THAT WOULD MAYBE HELP PROVIDE SOME ADDED CLARITY.
FRANCHISE THAT'S PRETTY COMMONLY USED.
I JUST THINK I THINK ADDING SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE WOULD HELP.
>> NEXT SECTION IS GOING TO BE SECTION 13.03.
OWNERSHIP USE AND CONTROL OF STREETS.
NO FRANCHISE OR EASEMENT INVOLVING THE RIGHT TO USE THE STREETS, ALLEYS, HIGHWAYS, PARKS, AND PUBLIC WAYS SHALL BE VALID UNLESS GRANTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CHAPTER.
NO GRANTING OF A FRANCHISE BY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER SHALL CONVEY ANY OWNERSHIP OR INTEREST IN ANY PROPERTY OF THE CITY OTHER THAN THE RIGHT TO USE THE PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES AS SUCH FRANCHISES, OPERATIONS AS EXPRESSED IN THE ORDINANCE, GRANTING SUCH FRANCHISE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK, I GUESS OBSERVATION.
I DON'T THINK WE VOTED FOR 13.02.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I THOUGHT WE MADE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE TITLE.
I APOLOGIZE. LET ME GO BACK TO SECTION.
I APOLOGIZE. LET'S GO BACK TO SECTION 13.02.
NO PUBLIC UTILITY OR OTHER FRANCHISE SHALL BE TRANSFERABLE EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSED BY ORDINANCE.
THAT IS NOW OPEN, WE WE WANTED TO MAKE MOTIONS TO CHANGE THAT VERBIAGE?
>> OUR MOTION, WE ACCEPT SECTION 13.02, TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE AS IS.
NOW, SECTION 13.03, OWNERSHIP IN OWNERSHIP USE AND CONTROLS OF STREETS.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO RE READ THAT. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK THEM FOR GRANT.
WITH THAT, WE ALSO ARE OPEN FOR ANY MOTIONS.
>> I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 13.03, OWNERSHIP AND OWNERSHIP USE AND CONTROL OF STREETS AS.
SECTION 13.04 RIGHT OF REGULATION.
IN GRANTING, AMENDING, RENEWING, AND EXTENDING PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY FRANCHISES, THE CITY SHALL RETAIN THE RIGHT TWO, ONE, REPEAL SUCH FRANCHISE BY ORDINANCE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS THEREOF, SUCH POWER TO BE EXERCISED ONLY AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING.
TWO, REQUIRE AN ADEQUATE EXTENSION OF PLANT AND SERVICE AS IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND REQUIRE MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT AND FIXTURES AT THE HIGHEST REASONABLE STANDARD OF EFFICIENCY BASED UPON APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
TREE, ESTABLISH REASONABLE STANDARDS OF SERVICE AND QUALITY OF PRODUCTS AND PREVENT UNJUST DISCRIMINATION IN SERVICE OR RATES.
[00:40:01]
FOUR, IMPOSE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE SAFE, EFFICIENT AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC.THE FRANCHISE HOLDER IN OPENING AND REFILLING ALL EARTH OPENINGS SHALL RELAY THE PAVEMENT AND DO ALL OTHER WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE RESTORATION OF STREETS, SIDEWALKS, OR GROUNDS TO A CONDITION EQUALLY AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN WHEN DISTURBED.
FIVE, UPON NOTICE TO FRANCHISEE, AND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO REGULATE, LOCATE, OR PROHIBIT THE ERECTION OF ANY AND ALL POLES, WIRES, OR OTHER UTILITY EQUIPMENT, CONVEYANCE OR STRUCTURE ON THE STREET, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC PLACES OF SET CITY, AND TO CAUSE THE ALTERED, INCREASE, DIMINISHED, PLACED UNDERGROUND OR TO BE SUPPORTED BY POLLS OF SUCH MATERIAL, QUALITY, IN CLASS AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WHETHER THE SAME BE TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, CABLE TELEVISION, OR OTHERWISE, AND TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS HEREOF BY APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.
>> ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR GRANT.
THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING I WAS AT, SOMEONE BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT ABOUT A LIGHT SHINING IN HER WINDOW.
WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT EXAMINES OR AUDITS THE REPORTS THAT ARE PRESENTED OUT FOR THE FRANCHISEES.
WOULD WE BE OPEN TO ADDING A LINE OR NUMBER SIX TO EXAMINE AN AUDIT ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS AND TO REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTS ON LOCAL OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OR UTILITY? FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THAT WENT UP IN FRONT OF HER HOME? SHE HAD NO TRUE REGULATION FROM THE CHARTER TO SAY, LET ME SEE THE AUDIT REPORT THAT TOLD ALL THIS WAS THE CORRECT SPOT IN ANGLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
NOW, SHE CAN ASK. BUT GOT TO GET A VOICEMAIL RETURNED.
>> I MEAN, WHAT WE COULD DO IS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION, AND THEN I CAN LOOK INTO IT AND WE CAN COME BACK AGAIN.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF REGULATION WITHIN HERE, SO I THINK IT'S IMPLIED, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THAT'S NOT EXPRESSLY STATED.
I KNOW THAT, THIS COMMITTEE CONSISTENTLY IS ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LET'S NOT HAVE THE IMPLIED, LET'S HAVE THE CLEAR.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION, I'LL LOOK INTO IT, AND I'LL GIVE YOU A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN.
NEXT MEETING. I THINK I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO SPECIFIC.
I THINK THAT THE EXAMPLE YOU PROVIDED MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE APPLICABLE HERE DEPENDS ON WHO OWN BUT YES, I GET THE EXAMPLE..
>> I'LL MOTION IT AS IT IS, BUT IF THERE'S BETTER LANGUAGE, YOU WANT TO ALTER, FEEL FREE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADD UNDER SECTION 13.04 NUMBER 6 TO EXAMINE AND AUDIT ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS AND TO REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTS ON LOCAL OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OR UTILITY.
>> MARK, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LADY THE OTHER NIGHT WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT THE LIGHT SHINING OR SOMEBODY.
ANY REASON GRANT THAT COULDN'T BE IN AN ORDINANCE?
>> NO. WE DO HAVE A LIGHT POLLUTION TYPE ORDINANCE.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO, FOCUS ON ONE EXAMPLE PER SE.
I THINK I GET YOUR CONCERN AS A BROAD.
>> JUST FEELING I GET SURE WE CAN PUT IT IN, BUT IT'S LIKE A BIT OF A MICRO MANAGEMENT THAT CAN BE AN ORDINANCE INSTEAD.
BUT SURE IF WE WANT TO, WE HAVE ALL THE STUFF IN CHARTER WE CAN.
>> A MOTION IN A SECOND, SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE.
IT WAS MAXINE. I COULDN'T TELL.
WE TALKED AT THE SAME TIME, BUT I HAVE EIGHT UP THERE.
>> YOU'RE MISSING ONE MORE THERE WE GO, 08, 1. MOTION PASSES.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE WE LOOK AT THIS SECTION IN TOTALITY.
IN SECTION 5, THE 1, 2, 3, FOURTH LINE DOWN.
I THINK THIS IS VERY PICKY OF ME, BUT I THINK THIS IS BECAUSE IT CAME FROM BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE.
SHOULD IT SAY PUBLIC PLACES OF THE CITY OR SAID CITY? BECAUSE SAID CITY, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO WHO THE CITY WAS.
I KNOW IT'S A PRINCETON DOCUMENT, BUT I'M JUST ASKING.
>> I MEAN, IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE CITY.
BUT WE'LL GET TO THIS AND WE'LL GET TO CHAPTER 14.
I THINK THERE'S A SECTION ABOUT MEANING OF WORDS,
[00:45:02]
ANYTIME THE CITY, IT SHALL MEANS THE CITY OF PRINCETON.IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE THAT CITY.
BUT YEAH, TO YOUR POINT, IT IS BOILERPLATE, SO IT'S PROBABLY A COPY.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I WANT TO.
YOU CAN ALWAYS GO TO THE NEXT SECTION AND SEE WHAT THE VERBIAGE SPEAKS ABOUT, MEANING OF WORDS.
>> EVERY REMEMBER, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND RE REVIEW EVERYTHING.
>> IF YOU'D LIKE TO YOU CAN, I'M JUST SAYING WHEN WE GET TO THE SECTION OF MEANING WORDS, YOU MAY READ THROUGH THAT AND FEEL LIKE IT'S OKAY AND I WANT TO MAKE YOUR MOTION ANYMORE.
BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE A MOTION AT THE END OF ALL OF THIS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SO.
>> NEXT SECTION 5, COMPENSATION FOR FRANCHISE.
ALL PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PERSONS TO WHOM A FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE MAY HEREAFTER BE GRANTED SHALL PAY TO THE CITY FOR SUCH PRIVILEGE, SUCH COMPENSATION AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE GRANT OF SUCH FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE.
SUCH COMPENSATION AS FIXED BY CONTRACT OR PROVIDED BY STATE LAWS LAW OR LAWS, I'M SORRY, SHALL BE COME DUE AND PAYABLE AT SUCH TIME AS THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL FIX IN THE GRANTING OF SUCH FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE.
THE FAILURE OF ANY FRANCHISE TO PAY SET COMPENSATION WHEN DUE MAY RESULT IN FORFEITURE OF THE FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE.
>> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 13.05 COMPENSATION FOR FRANCHISE AS IS.
>> A SECOND. WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE, 09, 0. NEXT SECTION, SECTION 13.06.
COUNSEL TO FIX AND REGULATE CHARGES, FARES OR RATES.
IF APPLICABLE STATE LAW SUPERVISED, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE FIX AND REGULATE THE CHARGES, FARES OR RATES OF ANY PERSON FIRM OR CORPORATION ENJOYING A FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE GRANTED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL PRESCRIBE THE SERVICE TO BE FURNISHED TO THE PUBLIC BY FIRM OR CORPORATION, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT SHALL BE RENDERED AND MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ALTER OR CHANGE SUCH RULES, REGULATIONS, AND COMPENSATION AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING.
THE RATES, CHARGES, AND FARES, SO FIX SHALL AT ALL TIMES, BE REASONABLE AND PERMIT THE FRANCHISEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE FRANCHISEES INVESTED CAPITAL USED AND USEFUL IN PROVIDING SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC IN EXCESS OF ITS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY OPERATING EXPENSES.
IN THIS CONNECTION, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE ANY UTILITY OR FRANCHISE HOLDER TO FURNISH SUCH FINANCIAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUEST, INCLUDING REPORTS OF ACTUAL OPERATING COSTS AND THE FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF ITS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY.
CITY COUNCIL MAY EMPLOY AT THE EXPENSE OF SUCH FRANCHISEE, NECESSARY OUTSIDE EXPERTS TODAY TO EXAMINE AND AUDIT THE ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF THE FRANCHISEE TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF SUCH CHARGES, FARES, AND RATES.
>> A MOTION TO ACCEPT SECTION 13.06, COUNSEL TO FIX AND REGULATE CHARGES, FARES AND RATES, AS IS.
>> JUST A REMINDER TO ALL OF US, WE CAN MAKE NOTES, AND, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND RE-REVIEW EVERYTHING.
>> WHEN WE READ IT TONIGHT IN OUR SLEEP.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE OUT OF CHAPTER 13, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WANT TO BE ADDED WITHIN THAT CHAPTER.
THIS WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY IF NOT WE'LL MOVE ON TO CHAPTER 14.
[H.4 2025-194 Review Chapter 14 (“General and Transitional Provisions”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action.]
>> WE HAVE NEXT ITEM, ITEM H.4 IS ITEM NUMBER 2025-194, REVIEW CHAPTER 14, GENERAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE HOME RULE CARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.
CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TOO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
THAT WILL PUT US INTO OUR FIRST SECTION.
SECTION 14.01, CONTINUATION OF PRESENT OFFICES. I'LL READ THAT.
IT READS, ALL PERSONS HOLDING ELECTIVE OFFICES THAT ARE RETAINED UNDER THIS CHARTER WILL CONTINUE TO FILL THOSE OFFICES
[00:50:01]
FOR THE TERMS TO WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED AND SHALL BE ELECTED PROSPECTIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2901, FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CREATION, APPOINTMENT, TERMS, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, THE PRINCETON MUNICIPAL COURT, THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THIS CHARTER, ARE PRESERVED AND CONTINUED UNLESS EXPRESSLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS SET FORTH HEREIN.
IN WHICH CASE, CHARTER PROVISIONS SHALL HAVE CONTROLLING EFFECT UNTIL THEY ARE OTHERWISE AMENDED OR MODIFIED BY ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
A PERSON HOLDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT THE TIME THIS CHARTER TAKES EFFECT, SHALL CONTINUE IN OFFICE AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES AND THE CAPACITIES TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN APPOINTED UNTIL PROVISIONS SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CHARTER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH DUTIES OR THE DISCONTINUANCE OF SUCH OFFICE, IF ANY.
THE POWERS CONFERRED AND THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE CITY BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE SHALL IN IF SUCH OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY BE ABOLISHED BY THIS CHARTER OR UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, BE THEREAFTER EXERCISED AND DISCHARGED BY THE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY DESIGNATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN. QUESTIONS FOR GRANT?
>> I JUST REALLY JUST CURIOUS ON THAT FIRST CHAPTER, IT LISTS THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MAYBE IT'S JUST IGNORANCE ON MY END, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IS I KNOW IT SAYS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THAT WOULD BE, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MAYBE WASN'T INCLUDED.
>> I MEAN, IT COVERS ALL OFFICE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T LIST IT SPECIFICALLY. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
BUT I THINK THIS IS A LOT OF LANGUAGE THAT COULD BE SUMMED UP BY THE TITLE OF THE SECTION.
IT'S A LOT OF THINGS TO READ AND IT CAN BE SUMMED UP WITH THOSE FOUR WORDS.
>> I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, ISN'T THIS OBSOLETE NOW, ANYWAYS, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN IN EFFECT FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW?
>> THIS DOESN'T IN ANY WAY APPLY TO FUTURE AMENDMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO KEEP IT? LET'S GET YOU ON THE MIC.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME OF THIS IS STILL THERE, GIVEN THAT IT WAS WRITTEN FOR THE FIRST ENACTMENT OF THE CHARTER.
OR WHY WE WOULD NEED TO KEEP IT.
FOR INSTANCE, IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, WHERE IT SAYS, ALL PERSONS HOLDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AT THE TIME THIS CHARTER TAKES EFFECT.
I'M WONDERING IF THAT WHOLE SENTENCE COULD BE DELETED AND THE PARAGRAPH STARTS WITH THE POWERS CONFERRED AND THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON ANY OFFICE.
DO WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTER?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE TO WHERE EVERY TIME WE UPDATE THE CHARTER IS AN ADOPTION OF THE CHARTER.
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION. IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE REASON TO KEEP IT WHERE, AS WE'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS LIKE FOR NOW, IN ANY FUTURE REVIEW COMMITTEES THAT WILL BE ACTING AND AMENDING THE CHARTER? I THINK, GRANT YOUR PERSPECTIVE WAS, THIS IS REALLY SPEAKING TO THAT FIRST.
I GET THAT IT MAY BE SOMEWHAT OBSOLETE.
I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN KEEPING IT, RIGHT? IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE. I MEAN, I WOULD PROBABLY JUST KEEP IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DOMINO EFFECT WOULD BE PER SE.
>> I MEAN, I WAS SAYING IT WAS OBSOLETE, BUT IT'S JUST LIKE IT'S THERE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL CHARTER, BUT CORRECT READING IT AND NOT TAKING ANY ACTION ON IT BECAUSE IT IS PAST TENSE.
IT'S JUST LIKE IT'S THERE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL CHARTER.
IT HASN'T BEEN AMENDED SINCE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT NOW.
BUT THERE'S NO ACTION WE HAVE TO TAKE IN IT BECAUSE IT'S ALL OBSOLETE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
IT JUST STILL EXISTS BECAUSE IT JUST NEVER NOBODY'S DONE ANYTHING WITH IT SINCE.
IT PROBABLY CAN EXIST FOREVER IF WE WANTED TO.
I JUST I MEAN, IT'S JUST ALL OLD INFORMATION AT THIS POINT.
IS THERE A REASON TO RETAIN VERBIAGE IN THE CHARTER THAT DOESN'T REALLY PERTAIN TO ANYTHING THAT IS ATCTIONABLE? I'M WEIRD THAT WAY.
>> I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THE FIRST PART OF IT, AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU BECAUSE AGAIN, BREAK IT DOWN LIKE I'M FIVE.
THE FIRST PART ALL PERSONS HOLDING AN ELECTED OFFICER IS TO RETAIN.
THAT'S CIRCLING BACK TO 201, SAYING, THIS IS HOW WE DO IT.
THAT MAKES SENSE TO JOSE'S POINT,
[00:55:01]
AFTER ALL AND AFTER THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ELECTED OFFICER FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WHAT ARE WE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SOMEBODY EDUCATE ME?
>> I MEAN, SOMETIMES THE WORD OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE IS USED INTERCHANGEABLE.
IT'S NOT, YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE PUBLIC OFFICIAL, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COUNCIL MEMBER OR A BOARD MEMBERS.
I WOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT TO EMPLOYEES.
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ARE MORE IN LINE THAN AN OFFICIAL.
>> BUT LIKE JAISEN SAID, IF YOU JUST READ PAST ALL THE WORDS BECAUSE IT IS A LOT OF WORDS.
IT SAYS, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS CHARTER ARE PRESERVED AND CONTINUED UNLESS EXPRESSLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS SET FORTH HEREIN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DOMINO EFFECT WOULD BE EITHER AND YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN ANY OF US, GRANT OR BE THE ONE TO FIND OUT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT REGULATION OF THE CHARTER.
SORRY. NO. WELL, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE WORDS MEANS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN TOGETHER IN THE THIRD LINE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, WHERE IT SAYS, THE TERMS FOR WHICH THEY ELECTED AND SHALL BE ELECTED PROSPECTIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.0.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN THAT GOING FORWARD, THEY ARE GOING TO BE ELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.01?
>> BECAUSE IF 2.01 UPDATES, THEN THAT REMAINS WITH IT. CUES BACK INTO IT.
BACK TO THE SECOND HALF OF MY QUESTION, WHAT DOES ALL RESOLUTION OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CREATION, APPOINTMENT TERMS, POWERS, DUTIES MUNICIPAL OFFICES? I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
IF SOMEBODY CAN SHINE LIGHT, I JUST AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING, TAKE IT OUT.
I'M JUST LIKE, I'M HALF-GLASS-HALF-EMPTY GUY. WHY IS IT THERE?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING, GRANT, HELP ME BECAUSE I COULD BE OFF BASE HERE, BUT I READ THAT AND UNDERSTAND IT AS ANY DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE PRIOR TO THIS BEING ADOPTED STILL STAND BECAUSE IT SAYS, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS CHARTER, ARE PRESERVED AND CONTINUE UNLESS EXPRESSLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS SET FORTH.
THEY STILL STAND UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING IN THIS CHARTER THAT SAYS THAT THAT'S NO LONGER. VALID?
LET'S SAY THERE'S A POLICE POSITION THAT WE DON'T NEED NO MORE THAT WE'RE NOW LETTING THEM MAINTAIN THAT POSITION.
WILL THIS BE AIR WE WOULD TAKE THAT OUT? I'M NOT I LOVE THE POLICE THE POLICE.
>> USING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S LISTED, NOT FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I MEAN, LIKE, IF THERE'S A POSITION.
THAT'S NOLA AND BOYD; THIS CAN KEEP IT IN THERE.
DO WE NEED IT? DO WE NEED OUR TAXPAYERS PAYING THAT?
>> I MEAN, I GUESS I WOULD POINT TO THAT LAST SENTENCE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE OTHERWISE AMENDED OR MODIFY ACTION THE CITY COUNCIL.
I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY JUST SAYS THAT THE CITY'S OPERATING LIKE IT WAS PRIOR TO THE CHARTER AND THERE'S SOMETHING IN CONFLICT WITH THE CHARTER, THE CHARTER PREVAILS.
BUT EVERYTHING ELSE CONTINUES TO OPERATE, UNLESS AND UNTIL AMENDED.
>> WOULD THE COMMITTEE BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA, BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS, GRANT STATE DOESN'T REALLY KNOW OFF TOP OF HIS HEAD THE DOMINO EFFECTS, WE'D BE FINE WITH GRANT GOING AND LOOKING FURTHER INTO TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE DOMINO EFFECTS WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WITHIN THIS SECTION AND COME BACK TO US WITH HIS PERSPECTIVE.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE GRANT RESEARCH 14.01.
>> NO. I THINK I'M JUST USED TO SEEING THIS STAY IN THERE.
I GET THAT IT'S LIKE IT'S OBSOLETE.
CHARTER HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR THREE YEARS.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DOMINO EFFECT IS, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS THERE'S NO HARM IN KEEPING IT IN THERE.
THERE'S NO HARM. I'M USED TO SEEING THIS LANGUAGE KEPT IN.
>> IT'S COMMENT TO FIND THIS LANGUAGE IN WS CHARTERS?
>> I JUST PULLED UP JUST TWO NEIGHBORING CITIES, MELISSA AND SELINA AND THEY HAVE THE SAME; THEY'VE KEPT IT IN THERE.
JUST AS SOME EXAMPLES, DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO DO IT, MELISSA AND SELINA DO, BUT I JUST PULLED THAT UP AS JUST TO SEE WHAT LOCAL IS DONE.
>> MR CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
[01:00:03]
THIS LINKAGE IS FOR EVERY TIME THE CHARTER HAS CYCLED THROUGH.I THINK THAT'S WHAT GRANT'S TALKING ABOUT IS IN PLACE, LINKING IT TO THE VERY MOST IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS CHARTER.
>> THAT'S MY MISUNDERSTANDING IS.
>> THE FIRST ONE. BUT THE ONE RIGHT BEFORE. IT'S LIKE LINKAGE.
>> IF THAT'S CORRECT, THEN I'M ABSOLUTELY OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE TO ME, THEN IT MAKES SENSE TO KEEP IT IN THERE.
BUT I THOUGHT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THIS WAS REALLY FOR THE INITIAL ADOPTION AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER.
BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, REGARDLESS, I MEAN, IF IT'S COMMON VERBIAGE IN OTHER CITIES, I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] FOR ELECTED OFFICES.
ALL THESE AREN'T ELECTED OFFICES.
THAT'S WHERE MY MISS CLARITY IS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ELECTED OFFICES.
WHY ARE WE NOW BRINGING UP THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT?
>> WELL, WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE IS AN AID AND LEGAL INTERPRETATION.
EVERYTHING MAY NOT BE COVERED BY THE CHARTER.
YOU LOOK BACK AND AND FINDING THE LAW AND AND SOMETIMES YOU WILL NEED TO LOOK BACK TO TIMES PRIOR TO THE CHARTER.
IF YOU READ THAT LAST SENTENCE, IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA THAT COULD STILL BE IN EFFECT BECAUSE THAT BEEN MODIFIED.
>> ALSO, MAYBE IT'S MENTIONED BECAUSE A LOT OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SOMETIMES HAVE LIKE SAY AND WHO THE NON-ELECTED PEOPLE ARE THAT ARE IN THOSE POSITIONS.
MAYBE IT'S JUST SAYING, JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE ELECTED NOW AND YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THINGS, DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY COME IN AND DECIDE TO CLEAN HOUSE.
>> THE OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THAT SENTENCE IS ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE CREATION APPOINTMENTS, TERMS, POWERS AND DUTIES OF CERTAIN PEOPLE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS CHARTER ARE PRESERVED AND CONTINUED.
IF YOU TAKE OUT THE ACTUAL NAMING OF THE GROUPS OR PEOPLE, THE SENTENCE MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO ME, MEANING WE'RE GOING TO RETAIN THE RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCES THAT PRE-EXISTED UNLESS THEY CONFLICT WITH THE NEW SECTIONS IN THE CHARTER.
IT'S NOT WORDED AS CLEANLY AS IT COULD BE.
BUT IF WE CHANGE THE WORDING, REMEMBER, IT GOES ON A BALLOT.
>> HOPEFULLY, I THINK THE WAY THAT JULIE EXPLAINED IT IS REALLY GOOD.
HOPEFULLY, MARK, THAT HELPS CLARIFY IT, AND ALSO I READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE AS A BREAKING POINT, AND THEN TO HER POINT AS IT'S GOING INTO THAT SECOND SENTENCE, IT'S ADDRESSING THE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE THAT GO INTO PLACE FOR SOME OF THESE OTHER ROLES.
A BOARD MEMBER IS AN APPOINTED MEMBER.
THERE'S TYPICALLY, WHEN IT HAPPENS, COUNSEL WILL GO AND NAME OUT THE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE APPOINTING, AND A RESOLUTION IS MADE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THAT BOARD MEMBER.
THAT POSITION RETAINS GOING FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE VERBS LISTED HERE.
WHEN YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU LOOKED AT SOME OF A COUPLE OF THE OTHER CITIES, DO THEY SPECIFICALLY NAME THE CITY AND MUNICIPAL COURT OR DOES THAT?
>> NO. I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT WORDIER THAN IT COULD BE OR NOT IT'S CLEAR.
I THINK IT ALL HITS THE SAME POINTS.
IT'S JUST THE VERBIAGE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I THINK JUST GO BACK TO THAT SENTENCE WE KEEP DISCUSSING.
WHEN PRINCETON WAS A GENERAL LAW MUNICIPALITY, THE CREATION OF A CITY MANAGER OR CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR CHIEF OF POLICE OR FIRE CHIEF THAT WAS ALL DONE VIA ORDINANCE.
I THINK WHAT THAT'S JUST TRYING TO SAY IS THAT ALL THE EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS THAT WERE CREATED BEFORE THE CHARTER STILL LIVE ON, BUT THERE'S A CONFLICT; THIS CHARTER PREVAILS.
IT'S LIKE THE CITY MANAGER, FOR INSTANCE.
I THINK PREVIOUSLY IT WAS CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND THERE WAS SOME DUTIES IN ORDINANCE.
BUT NOW IT'S JUST SAYING THAT THE CITY STILL EXISTS LIKE IT DID, BUT THIS CHARTER ADDS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, DIFFERENT COMPONENTS.
I DON'T KNOW. PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN DRAFTED A LITTLE BIT BETTER FROM THE GO.
>> WHERE ELSE IN THE CHARTER DOES IT BRING UP THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> DON'T WORRY. I GOT YOUR GRANT.
>> SINCE MY FIRST MOTION DIDN'T PASS. WE'LL TRY PART 2.
I LIKE MAXINE'S IDEA DIRECTLY FROM ANOTHER CHARTER.
I MAKE A MOTION TO UPDATE SECTION 14.01 TO STATE CONTINUATION OF ELECTED OFFICES SHOULD BE THE TITLE.
UPON ADOPTION OF THIS CHARTER, THE PRESENT PERSONS FILLING ELECTED OFFICES ON THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO FILL THOSE OFFICES FOR THE TERM IN WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED.
PERSONS WHO, ON THE DAY THIS CHARTER IS ADOPTED, ARE FILING APPOINTED POSITIONS WITH THE CITY.
[01:05:01]
THOSE ARE OTHER POSITIONS WHICH ARE RETAINED UNDER THIS CHARTER, MAY CONTINUE TO FILL THESE POSITIONS FOR THE TERM FOR WHICH THEY WERE APPOINTED, UNLESS REMOVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR BY OTHER MEANS PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER.>> CAN I ASK THEM OR WOULD YOU CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THAT TO ALSO INCLUDE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 201? YES, SIR. THAT I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> BECAUSE I THINK THAT TAKES AT LEAST FOR ME, IT TAKES AWAY.
>> CONTINUATION OF PRESENT OFFICES. THAT WHOLE 14-POINT.
>> WHAT YOU READ REPLACES THE FIRST PARAGRAPH?
>> BECAUSE THE TOP PART TO ME IS A LITTLE HAZY, AND THE SECOND PART IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT I READ.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IN FRONT OF ME IN WRITING.
COULD WE TABLE THE MOTION AND SEE IT NEXT MEETING? THIS IS A LOT TO REPLACE, AND I DIDN'T LISTEN CAREFULLY TO.
>> MARK, BEFORE WE CONSIDER CHANGING THE TITLE.
PARAGRAPH 1 COVERS ELECTIVE OFFICES.
PARAGRAPH 2 COVERS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
>> PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT ELECTED OFFICE.
I'M FINE WITH TAKING PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT OUT.
BUT CHANGE IN THE TITLE TO CONTINUATION OF ELECTIVE OFFICES, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE JUST A RECOMMENDATION OF MAYBE KEEPING THE TITLE AS IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THE TWO DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS.
>> I THINK AT THIS POINT, UNFORTUNATELY, NOT UNFORTUNATELY.
I ACTUALLY REQUESTED A REC FOR HIM TO AMEND HIS MOTION AND THEN MADE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION.
AT THIS POINT, HE WOULD EITHER HAVE TO BE WILLING TO RECALL THE MOTION GRANT, IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE BASICALLY VOTING A THIS MOMENT.
>> OR AMEND HIS MOTION AGAIN SO, ARE YOU ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION?
>> I'M ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT.
[BACKGROUND] YES, AND TO AMEND IT TO CHANGE THAT REMOVE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT, LIKE YOU SAID, BUT CHANGE KEEP THE TITLE AS IS.
>> YOU NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU SAID TO ME BECAUSE THAT WAS MY SAME LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.
>> MY ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO REMOVE EVERYTHING AT 14.1 AND REPLACE IT WITH THIS, INCLUDING THE CHANGE JAISEN RECOMMENDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.01 FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
>> THAT IS PULLED FROM ANOTHER CHARTER, RIGHT?
>> GET THERE? BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN AMENDMENT SO, WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, ARE YOU STILL WANTING TO DO SO?
>> WELL, I DON'T FULLY AGREE REMOVING EVERYTHING BECAUSE THE TOP CONSIDERS ELECTIVE AND THE BOTTOM CONSIDERS ADMINISTRATIVE.
>> WELL, I SEE THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEN IF WE VOTE, LET'S SEE WHERE IT GOES, AND IF IT DOES PASS, THEN IT'S SILL GOING TO COME BACK IN OUR NEXT MEETING FOR IT [OVERLAPPING] TO REVIEW AGAIN.
>> THAT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. I FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE'VE BEAT THIS ONE DOWN.
I THINK IT MIGHT HELP IF YOU GUYS SEE IT.
YOU'RE NOT APPROVING IT TONIGHT, [INAUDIBLE] IS THE NEXT STEP.
MAYBE THAT'S A WAY TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> GRANT'S GOING TO DOCTOR IT UP, TOO.
>> I'LL DOCTOR IT UP, AND I'LL TRY TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON WHY THAT SENTENCE IS IN THERE WITH THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T KNOW THERE MIGHT BE A REASON WHY I WOULD SO I'LL LOOK INTO IT.
>> WITH THAT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TIME AND EFFICIENCY, MARK, FOR ONE MORE TIME YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF DIALOGUE, CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION?
>> YES. [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU.
IF [INAUDIBLE], PUT IT UP REAL QUICK? I HAVE TO READ IT TO EVERYBODY.
>> MY FACE TIME KEEPS GOING OFF, PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR ME.
[BACKGROUND] I'M TELLING YOU [INAUDIBLE].
CONTINUATION OF ELECTED OFFICES WILL BE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE TITLE AND I GOT TO FIND A WAY TO ADD IN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2.01, [OVERLAPPING] UPON ADOPTION OF THE CHARTER, THE PRESENT PERSONS FILLING ELECTED OFFICES ON THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO FILL THOSE OFFICES FOR THE TERMS FOR WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED.
PERSONS WHO ON THE DATE OF THIS CHARTER IS ADOPTED ARE FILLING APPOINTED POSITIONS WITH THE CITY WHICH ARE RETAINED UNDER THIS CHARTER,
[01:10:01]
MAY CONTINUE TO FILL THESE POSITIONS FOR THE TERM FOR WHICH THEY WERE APPOINTED.UNLESS REMOVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR BY OTHER MEANS PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER.
THEN SOMEWHERE IN THE BEGINNING, I WOULD ADD IN THERE THAT AFTER ELECT IT MAY BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.01 FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
MARK MADE THE MOTION, I SECOND IT WITH THAT.
ONE MORE. WHO ARE WE MISSING? [BACKGROUND] SHE'S THINKING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TO MAKE THE SECTION 14.01 PARAGRAPH 1 MAKE THAT CONTINUATION OF ELECTIVE OFFICES, AND THEN RENUMBER EVERYTHING AND MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, SECTION 14.02, CONTINUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR ELLIS AND A SECOND BY SCHOLAR. WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE.
>> I'M SORRY. CAN YOU JUST SAY ONE MORE TIME?
>> MY MOTION IS TO BREAK THE SECTION UP INTO TWO SECTIONS AND REMOVE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MAKE THE FIRST SECTION, CONTINUATION OF ELECTIVE OFFICES, REMOVING PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THEN PARAGRAPH TWO WOULD BE A NEW SECTION, CONTINUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
>> I DON'T THINK THE MUNICIPAL COURT IS AN ELECTED OFFICE, ISN'T IT? IT'S NOT. IT'S ALSO A NOMINATED OFFICE, [OVERLAPPING] IT'S A NOMINATION.
>> THEN I WOULD AMEND MY MOTION TO REMOVE PRINCETON MUNICIPAL COURT AND ANYTHING THAT'S NOT AN ELECTED OFFICE, REMOVE THAT.
>> IF YOU CAN KEEP THE TITLE AS HE IS, THOUGH, YOU CAN'T KEEP HIM IN THERE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FORCE HIM OUT SO, THAT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY.
>> GRANT. ANYTHING THAT'S NON ELECTIVE OFFICE, REMOVE IT FROM THAT PARAGRAPH.
I'M MYSELF TAKING TIME TO READ THROUGH IT TO GET A DECISION.
>> [BACKGROUND] WE HAVE SEVEN, WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR TWO.
WOW, MOTION PASSES FOUR AGAINST ONE, TWO ABSTAIN.
>> THAT NOW CHANGE 14.02 [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE 14.03?
>> IT WILL, ONCE WE ACTUALLY APPROVE IT,
[01:15:01]
CURRENT STATE, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME.>> GRANT'S GOING TO REMOVE FROM THAT PARAGRAPH, ANYTHING THAT'S NOT UNELECTED OFFICE.
>> NEXT SECTION IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE CHARTER, THAT IS SECTION 14.02 ETHICS, THE PROPER OPERATION OF DEMOCRATIC LOCAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT CITY OFFICIALS ARE INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL AND RESPONSIBLE ONLY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
ALL GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AND POLICIES ARE MADE USING THE PROPER PROCEDURES OF THE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE.
NO CITY OFFICIAL HAS ANY PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF HIS OR HER DUTIES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
PUBLIC OFFICE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS A NON PARTISAN BODY, AND CITY OFFICIALS FULLY COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES, LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
THAT'S IT. ANY QUESTIONS ON SECTION 14.02 ETHICS?
>> JUST ONE THOUGHT. IN SOME FASHION, I THINK WE VOTED IN A REASONABLE SALARY, AND WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT RECOGNIZING THAT.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, JODY IS HAVING SOME VERBIAGE IN HERE THAT SPEAKS TO THE SALARY IN WHAT REGARD?
>> I THINK SO, IT SHOULD GO WITHOUT SAYING THAT IT'S REASONABLE.
THAT'S NOT REALLY FINANCIAL, AGAIN, THIS LITTLE PITTANCE THAT WE VOTED IN.
HOWEVER, EVERY NOW AND THEN, PEOPLE GET A LITTLE WACKO AROUND HERE OR OTHER PLACES, AND THEY MIGHT LOOK AT THAT AND GET ON THE INTERNET AND GO CRAZY.
>> JODY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO SOMETHING LIKE, I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW TO WORD THIS.
WITH THE FINANCIAL THAT WE PUT IN THAT MAYBE LIKE AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT GOES UNDER ETHICS OR IT MAY GO UNDER AN ETHICS COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO REVIEW THE FINANCE BEFORE THEY GET PAID.
>> NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL.
JUST PUT IN A LITTLE LANGUAGE.
IN OTHER WORDS, I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT AS A THOUGHT.
I THINK IT MENTIONED FINANCIAL GAIN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A REASONABLE COMPENSATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHAT DID WE GO IN WITH? WAS 1,000 A MONTH OR SOMETHING JUST A PITTANCE.
BUT JUST SOMETHING RECOGNIZING THAT AS AN EXCEPTION OF THAT.
THAT'S NOT REAL FINANCIAL GAIN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS PARAGRAPH.
>> SURE. I THINK JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MAYBE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK WHAT MR. SUTHERLAND WAS SAYING IS THAT MEETINGS AGO, YOU GUYS APPROVED PROVIDING COUNSEL COMPENSATION, JUST CLARIFYING THAT.
NOW, I WOULD SAY THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS RECEIVING THE 750 OR 1,000 WHENEVER IT WAS A MONTH WOULD NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR PROPER DISCHARGE BECAUSE THAT IS BUT MAYBE SOME LANGUAGE TO MASSAGE THAT A LITTLE BIT.
>> BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN HERE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE SERVING THE PUBLIC FOR ANY FINANCIAL GAIN.
HE'S SAYING JUST TO SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT MAYBE AS AN EXCEPTION, THAT THEY DO HAVE A SALARY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC READING THIS WOULD SAY, WELL, THEY ARE GETTING A FINANCIAL GAIN BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING PAID.
>> I JUST WANT TO GIVE THEM A BIT OF AN OUT IN CASE SOMEBODY GOES OFF ON THEM. QUITE FRANKLY.
>> PUBLIC OFFICE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED UNDER [OVERLAPPING].
>> UNDER THIS CHARTERS. [BACKGROUND] UNDER THE ACCORDANCE OF SECTION, WHICHEVER SECTION IT WAS.
THANK YOU, JOSE. I GUESS THAT'S A MOTION.
>> WAS THAT A MOTION? THAT WAS YOUR MOTION?
>> GRANT, IF YOU CAN THINK OF SOME GOOD LANGUAGE FOR THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I'M NOT GOING TO RUSH ON THIS.
>> MAXINE MADE A MOTION AND ALLISON SECOND.
[01:20:06]
>> I'M FINE ON THAT. MAYBE WE'RE JUST SLAYING ROBERTSON'S RULES OF ORDER HERE, BUT I'D RATHER BE PRACTO THAN PROCEDURALLY PURE.
>> JIM [BACKGROUND]. THANK YOU.
WE HAD IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS TALKED ABOUT AN ETHICS COMMITTEE.
I CAN'T RECALL IF WE EVER PUT THAT IF WE EVER INCORPORATED THAT TO THE CHARTER AND IF WE DIDN'T, IF IT COULD GO I GUESS HERE.
>> THIS WAS DISCUSSED, AND I KNOW GOING ALONGSIDE YOU GUYS IS THE AD HOC BY LAWS COMMITTEE AND SO IN THE COUNCIL BY LAWS, THERE'S A CODE OF ETHICS, RULES OF ETHICS, AND A PROCEDURE THERE FOR COMPLAINTS.
I ELABORATES MORE THAN JUST THIS SECTION 102.
THAT COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT THE CODE OF ETHICS, AND THEY'RE ELABORATING ON A LITTLE BIT, HAVING MORE PROCEDURE BEHIND IT.
BUT I GUESS THERE'S TWO WAYS TO GO ABOUT IT, YOU CAN ADD A MANDATORY ETHICS COMMITTEE IN THIS SECTION, OR IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE BY LAWS WITH THE COMMITTEE.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU COULD GO ABOUT IT SO I'LL KICK IT BACK TO YOU GUYS ON HOW YOU WANT TO ADDRESS IT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THAT.
I THOUGHT I HAD HEARD FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE THAT THEY WERE MAKING AN ORDINANCE TO HAVE AN ETHICS COMMITTEE AT THE END OF THE AD HOC.
THEY'RE STILL GOING THROUGH IT AND FINALIZING IT, YEAH, THAT'S THE DIRECTION THEY'RE WANTING TO GO.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION. JOSE WOULD BE, DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE AS PART OF THE SUPERSEDING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE HOMEWORK CHARTER? BECAUSE THAT RIGHT NOW BY LAW, THAT COMMITTEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE VOTING RIGHT NOW, BUT FUTURE DATE THAT COULD CHANGE.
>> BUT TO GRANT'S POINT, I THINK THAT THERE'S THE OPTION OF EITHER PUTTING SOMETHING IN HERE TO REQUIRE THAT OR ALSO PUTTING SOMETHING HERE TO REQUIRE THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OR OR THE BYLAWS RETAIN THAT.
WE CAN NOT REQUIRE IT SPECIFICALLY HERE, BUT THAT THE BY LAWS HAVE I'M ASSUMING, LIKE THAT MAY BE A POTENTIAL OPTION AS WELL.
.>> IF WE PUT IN HERE THOUGH, THEN IT'S GOT TO GET VOTED ON.
>> NO, NOT AT ALL. NO. I WAS JUST PROVIDING PERSPECTIVE.
>> I THINK ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, TOO.
SO PRINCETON HAS A CODE OF ETHICS.
THEY HAVE RULES OF ETHICS SO BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS CHARTER THAT REQUIRES THEM TO HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS.
THERE'S A SECTION, I THINK WE DISCUSSED IT EARLIER.
IT'S MAYBE 3.06, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE COUNCIL SHALL ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PUNISH THOSE THAT ENGAGE IN MISCONDUCT, LIKE THAT, WHICH BIRTH THE BYLAWS.
THE BYLAWS CAME FROM THAT PROVISION.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS YOU SHALL HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS, AND THE CODE OF ETHICS SHALL INCLUDE AVC.
THEY HAVE A GOOD SECTION ABOUT THAT.
THE COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCED BY ORDINANCE, OR RESOLUTION AT CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMONG OTHER THINGS, ESTABLISHING AND DEFINING THE BOUNDS OF REASONABLE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALL CITY OFFICIALS.
I THINK THEY HAVE THAT IN THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR CHARTER ABOUT A CODE OF ETHICS REQUIREMENT.
NOW, WE HAVE ONE, AND THEY'LL CONTINUE IN THERE ELABORATING ON IT.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I RECOMMENDED, AND IT DID NOT GET APPROVED.
I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK.
>> I CAN'T REMEMBER. I THINK TO JOSE'S POINT.
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION SECTION, MAYBE ESTABLISHING THERE, AND I THINK AT THAT TIME, MAYBE I MENTIONED WHEN WE GET TO THE ETHICS COMPONENT,
[01:25:02]
IT MIGHT GUYS WANTED TO HAVE A ETHICS BOARD REQUIREMENT OR ELABORATE ON ADD TO THE SECTION 102.THIS WOULD BE THE SPOT TO DO THAT.
>> AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, LET'S SAY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR WHOEVER THAT, THE CODE OF ETHICS COVERS.
I GUESS WHAT DOES CITY COUNCIL THEN DOES IT GET BROUGHT UP TO CITY COUNCIL HAS A COMPLAINT OF SORT, AND THEN THEY VOTE ON IT, OR I GUESS WHO REVIEWS IT.
>> I THINK IN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IT TOUCHES IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT I THINK WE CAN BEEF THAT SECTION UP TO A LITTLE BIT IF YOU ARE HIT WITH ONE OF THESE, THERE SHOULD BE LIKE AVOIDABLE POSITION, BASICALLY AT THAT POINT, BE MY THOUGHT PROCESS IF PROVEN TO BE TRUE THROUGH A PROCESS FROM THE ACCOUNTS OR WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE.
BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE ON THE ETHICS, THE STATE HAS ALREADY SAME LANGUAGE.
I NOTICED WHEN I WAS LOOK AT OTHER CHARTERS, A LOT OF CHARTERS DON'T EVEN HAVE AN ETHICS SECTION BECAUSE THEY PIGGYBACK OFF WHAT THE STATE DOES.
>> THEN USUALLY IT'S ELABORATED IN ORDINANCE IT'S USUALLY IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
THERE'S AN ETHIC SECTION IN THERE, BUT WHICH ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT PRINCETON CURRENTLY HAS.
THERE'S JUST NOT SOME CITY CHARTERS HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS REQUIREMENT IN THE CHARTER AND SOME DON'T.
OURS DOES NOT HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS REQUIREMENT, EVEN THOUGH WE DO HAVE PRINCETON DOES HAVE THAT, AND THE BYLAW COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT NOW AND THEY'RE ELABORATING ON IT, IRONING OUT THE PROCESS, MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT MORE ROBUST.
I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER? IS THAT GOOD THERE?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT IN THIS SECTION, THE VERBIAGE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, GRANT, THAT WE ADD THAT VERBIAGE, AND THEN CORRECT IT.
I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A BREAKDOWN BUT HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT TO MAKE THESE THINGS MELT TOGETHER, BUT WE ALSO INCLUDE THAT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ETHICS COME AS WELL.
IN THE SECTION, SO WE ALSO HAVE A CODA ETHICS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A ETHICS COMMITTEE THAT'S REVIEWING ANY ISSUES.
>> WE HAVE SECOND BY JOSE, AND WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE.
>> IS THIS ADDING TO SECTION 14.02.
>> THAT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION, YES.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO SWITCH THE VOTE THEN.
>> JOHNSON, IS YOUR MOTION JUST THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ETHICS COMMITTEE OR A REQUIREMENT FOR A CODE OF CONDUCT AS WELL.
>> I KNOW WE'RE VOTING GRANT, BUT WHILE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT, DO WE NOW HAVE TO CIRCLE BACK TO CHAPTER 9 TO ADD A BOARD OF ETHICS BREAKDOWN?
>> I THINK WE DID BECAUSE I THINK I BROUGHT THAT UP.
>> WHO MISSING HAVE EIGHT UP THERE?
>> I CAN'T RECALL, BUT I THOUGHT I BROUGHT THAT UP.
>> NO I'M PRETTY SURE WE DIDN'T ADD ANY ADDITIONAL BOARDS.
>> BECAUSE I, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO VOTE, BUT I JUST A PENCIL POINT CHAIR AND CO CHAIR.
WHEN WE CIRCLE BACK, WE MIGHT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT INCLUDING HOW THAT CAUSE AGAIN, HOW'S THAT COMMITTEE FORMED?
>> I THINK A LOT OF THE PROCEDURAL COMPONENTS OF THE ETHICS BOARD, YOU WOULD LEAVE, TO BE ESTABLISHED VIA ORDINANCE OR MORE POLICY OR BY LAW, BECAUSE IT CAN BE MORE FREQUENTLY, IT'S MORE FLUID, IT CAN BE AMENDED MORE.
BUT I DO THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU GUYS, WHETHER IT'S IN THIS SECTION OR ADDING A SECTION TO CHAPTER 9, EITHER ONE, THERE'S TWO WAYS TO SKIM THE CAT SPECIFYING WHAT THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BOARD IS.
IT'S GOING TO BE MADE UP OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS APPOINTED BY COUNSEL.
JUST A HIGH LEVEL, HOW IT'S FORMED, BUT THEN LEAVING THE PROCEDURE JUST LIKE FOR ANY OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF.
>> WE ESTABLISHED VIA ORDINANCE BY LAWS.
EITHER WAY, IT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN I KNOW WE DISCUSSED IT PREVIOUSLY,
[01:30:08]
BUT I THINK IT WAS GOOD THAT YOU COULD HAVE THE REQUIREMENT IN 1402 AND MAYBE ELABORATE ON THE ETHICS BOARD IN CHAPTER 9.I THINK I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT GRANT BECAUSE IN THAT SECTION, ISN'T THAT THE SECTION THAT HAS LIKE OTHER SPORTS COMMISSIONS? WOULD THIS NOT NATURALLY FALL UNDER THAT?
>> IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY FALL UNDER THAT, BUT I THINK IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE FE IT UP A LITTLE BIT FILL IT UP, YOU CAN HAVE A SEPARATE IT EITHER WAY, IT'S IT WOULD BE AN OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BOARD.
>> IT'S AWAY TO GO ABOUT WHEN YOU ALL WANT TO ADDRESS IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON SECTION 1402? MOVING ON TO SECTION 1403, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
NO MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE MAYOR, OR ANY OTHER OFFICER, WHETHER ELECTED, APPOINTED, PAID OR UNPAID, WHO EXERCISES RESPONSIBILITIES BEYOND THOSE THAT ARE ADVISORY IN NATURE, SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A VOTE OR DECISION ON A MATTER INVOLVING A BUSINESS ENTITY OR REAL PROPERTY IN WHICH SUCH OFFICER HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, IF IT IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE THAT AN ACTION ON THE MATTER WOULD HAVE AN ECONOMIC EFFECT ON THE BUSINESS ENTITY OR ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
NO MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE MAYOR, OR ANY OTHER OFFICER, WHETHER ELECTED, APPOINTED, PAID OR UNPAID, WHO EXERCISES RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND THOSE THAT ARE ADVISORY IN NATURE, SHALL HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST, DIRECT OR INDIRECT IN ANY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OR SHALL BE FINANCIALLY INTERESTED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN THE SALE OF THE CITY OF ANY LAND MATERIAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, OR SERVICE.
ANY WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE MALFEASANCE IN THE OFFICE, AND ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE VIOLATING THIS SECTION SHALL FORFEIT HIS OFFICE OR POSITION.
ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION WITH THE KNOWLEDGE EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED OF A PERSON OR CORPORATION CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY SHALL RENDER THE CONTRACT INVOLVED VOIDABLE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS AFTER LEAVING OFFICE, NO MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR MAY CONDUCT ANY TYPE OF PERSONAL BUSINESS WITH THE CITY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW OR THIS CHARTER, IF THAT OFFICER WAS STILL IN OFFICE.
FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS AFTER LEAVING OFFICE, NO MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR SHALL BE EMPLOYED BY THE CITY AS A PAID EMPLOYEE OR PAID OFFICER.
ANY CITY EMPLOYEE OR SUBORDINATE OFFICER WHO IS ELECTED OR APPOINTED TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL BE DEEMED TO RESIGN FROM ALL OTHER CITY POSITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND ANY BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THEIR NEW OFFICE UNDER THIS CHARTER OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THEIR QUALIFICATION AND ASSUMPTION OF THE DUTIES OF THAT OFFICE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU GRANT.
THE PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS AFTER LEAVING OFFICE, WHERE IT SAYS, NO MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR MAY CONDUCT ANY TYPE OF PERSONAL BUSINESS WITH THE CITY THAT'S WHY.
I GUESS MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS, WHY DOES IT MATTER.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE CITY, THEY'RE NO LONGER IN OFFICE.
>> THIS WOULD BE A LOCAL RESTRICTION THAT YOU GUYS PUT.
I'VE SEEN SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO THIS, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE A STATE LAW THING PER SAY SO YOU GUYS COULD LAX THAT, YOU COULD REMOVE IT, YOU COULD KEEP IT AS IT IS.
>> I GUESS JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, LET'S SAY THERE'S A MAYOR THEY DO ROADS AND HE LEAVES SIX MONTHS AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE, HE PUTS IN A BID TO BE ABLE TO DO ROAD WORK FOR THE CITY.
IT'S AT A WE'LL SAY A GOOD PRICE.
AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, HE OR SHE WOULD BE UNABLE TO DO THAT, CORRECT?
>> FOR TWO YEARS SO I'LL GUESS BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, I'LL LET OTHERS SPEAK.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE LOOKING AT A GOOD SITUATION.
I THINK A BAD SITUATION WOULD BE LIKE A MAYOR THAT IS NOT A MAYOR ANYMORE THAT KNOWS THAT HE HAS.
THAT KNOWS THE GUY THAT'S GOING TO DO HAS ALL THE BIDS,
[01:35:03]
AND HE MAYBE ISN'T GOING TO GIVE THE CITY A GOOD PRICE, BUT BECAUSE HE KNOWS EVERYBODY THAT WORKS IN THE CITY, HE'S GOING TO WIN THE BID BECAUSE HE HAS EVERYBODY IN THE CITY THAT HE KNOWS.HE'S NOT THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB, BUT BECAUSE HE HAS ALL THE CITY CONNECTIONS, HE'S GOING TO GET THE BID, AND THE CITY'S GOING TO BE PAYING A HIGHER AMOUNT OF MONEY BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE DOING HIM A FAVOR.
FEELS LIKE A LOT FROM OTHER CHARTERS I INTRODUCED MY BRAIN TO.
DO WE HAVE ANY BACKGROUND OF HOW THIS CAME TO BE? FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION AND I'M LOOKING AT MAXINE.
THEN SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, JUST FOR CLARITY.
LET'S GO BACK TO JOSE SCENARIO.
I AM A CURRENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER.
I OWN A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, OR IT'S IN MY WIFE'S NAME.
SHE CAN TECHNICALLY WIN THE BID WHILE I'M IN COUNCIL, GET APPROVED, AND THIS DOESN'T COME IN.
>> WHY DON'T WE JUST GO BACK TO TAKING ALL THIS OUT AND JUST HAVING JUST ONE OR TWO LINES ALL ABOUT STATE LAW?
>> MY IDEA IS, IF I WANTED TO RUN FOR MAYOR AND THE FIRST THING THAT I DID WAS I WAS MAKING BACKDOOR DEALS AND PROMISES SAYING WHEN I GET UP THERE, I'M GOING TO START RECOMMENDING YOU FOR THIS BOARD FOR LIKE A GUY WHOSE WIFE WANTS TO BE ON THE ZONING COMMISSION.
BUT HER HUSBAND OWNS THIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
THEN MAYOR I'M SAYING, I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND JOHN PAUL, SANCHEZ OR WHATEVER, DON'T THINK TOO HARD ON THAT.
I WAS THINKING ABOUT LIKE THE POPE AND THOUGHT WOULD BE A GREAT NAME BUT THE THING IS IS THAT IF I BECAME MAYOR AND I STARTED FLOATING ALL THESE DIFFERENT NAMES OR PEOPLE WERE LIKE GEEZ, HE'D BE GREAT FOR LIKE HOME LE CHARTER COMMITTEE AND I PUT THIS GUY ON THERE AND THEN HE STARTS TRYING TO MAKE MY POWERS GREATER.
THEN I ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVE THIS INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF POWER, THEN THAT WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF NEPOTISM.
ANOTHER THING WOULD BE WHERE LIKE, PLACING PEOPLE THAT I KNOW IN CHARGE OF THE VOTING MACHINES OR WHATEVER.
THAT'S WHAT NEPOTISM REALLY COVERS.
BUT IF I'M OUT OF OFFICE, I CAN REALLY ENGAGE WITH PLANS OF THE CITY OR DO REALLY ANYTHING BECAUSE I'M NOT A PERSON THAT CAN MAKE DECISIONS.
IF I'M NOT ON A BOARD, IF I'M NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, OR IF I'M NOT AN APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF ANYTHING ELSE, THEN OR A CITY EMPLOYEE, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S PERFECTLY PERFECTLY FIND TO JUST DEFINE IT AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS IN A POSITION OF POWER, WHO STARTS TO TRY TO GET OTHER PEOPLE, HE KNOWS UNDER A POSITION OF POWER TO RAKE THINGS IN HIS FAVOR.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS MORE OF TRYING TO DISCUSS, I THINK.
>> LOOKING AT THIS, AND I HEAR DISCUSSION REGARDING A PERSON OUT OF OFFICE, AND I BELIEVE I HEARD SOME PROS AND CONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS SHOULD DEAL WITH A PERSON WHO HAD LEFT OFFICE AND THE PROHIBITION SHOULD STAND.
IT'S LOOKING AT SELF DEALING AND WHAT'S MOTIVATING THAT PERSON TO BE IN OFFICE? THEY MAY BE LOOKING WHILE THEY'RE IN OFFICE AT THE TIME WHEN THEY'RE LEAVING OFFICE, WHAT'S MOTIVATING THEM? I HEARKEN BACK TO, A GENTLEMAN NAMED MR. BORN THAT GRANT WAS ACQUAINTED WITH, AND I GOT STARTED WITH HIM IN POLITICS A LONG TIME AGO, AND HE DIDN'T DO IT.
BUT THE GUY PRIOR TO HIM, THIS REALLY DATES ME WAS SWEPT OUT OF OFFICE BECAUSE HE WAS DEALING AND HE WAS GETTING HIMSELF SET UP FOR WHEN HE WAS AFTER OFFICE BY, LOOKING AT MAKING MONEY, AND SO PEOPLE WILL BE MOTIVATED BY SELF DEALING AFTER THEY'RE OUT OF OFFICE.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO LEAVE IT IN THERE.
>> THINK ABOUT PEOPLE THAT WERE IN OFFICE AND NO LONGER IN OFFICE AND NOW HOLD PROFITABLE BUSINESSES SUCH AS REAL ESTATE.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT WITH THE CITY, THOUGH.
THIS IS, SPECIFICALLY, SPEAKING TO THE CITY.
>> GRANT. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS MIRRORING STATE LAW, BUT I KNOW SOMETIMES, OUR CITY IT EXTENDS.
IS THIS EXACTLY MIRRORING STATE LAW, OR IS THIS EXTENDING THE MONTHS OR ANYTHING, THE YEARS.
[01:40:04]
IS THIS MIRRORED EXACTLY?>> THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE MIDDLE PARAGRAPH IS A LOCAL RESTRICTION.
EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, MIRROR STATE LAW.
THE THIRD PARAGRAPH IS, ALSO, A LOCAL RESTRICTION THAT YOU GUYS PUT ON THERE.
>> THERE IS A BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE DO IS WE DO THE STATE LAW AND THEN WE MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT LONGER OF A DATE.
THAT MAKES SENSE WHY WE WOULD DO THAT.
>> I THINK IT WAS JUST TO REALLY PROTECT THE CITY MORE THAN ANYTHING BECAUSE OF THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
>> I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT REASONABLY PROTECTS THE CITY AND TAKES A STAND FOR THE INTEGRITY OF BOTH THE PERSON WHO'S IN OFFICE WHILE THEY'RE IN OFFICE AND THEIR BEHAVIOR AFTERWARD.
IT SEEMS TO ME AND BEING IN EDUCATION, THIS DID NOT EVER APPLY TO ME, BUT MY CHILDREN ARE NOT IN EDUCATION AND HAVE LEFT PLACES.
THE 24 MONTHS SEEMS EXCESSIVE BASED ON WHAT MY SON IN PARTICULAR HAS EXPERIENCED 12 MONTHS SEEMS TO BE A STANDARD LIKE HE WAS IN A A SITUATION WHERE HE COULDN'T TAKE CLIENTS WITH HIM OR HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH CLIENTS FOR 12 MONTHS.
LOOK, IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DO THIS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SET THEMSELVES UP, AND THEY'RE GOING TO USE THEIR OFFICE WHILE THEY'RE IN OFFICE TO SET THEMSELVES UP AND GAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP, THERE WILL BE THINGS COMING UP 36 MONTHS DOWN THE LINE.
WE COULD EXTEND THIS OUT TO FIVE YEARS.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT 24 MONTHS IS EXCESSIVE.
I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION, BUT I AM ASKING FOR US TO CONSIDER 12.
>> STATE LAW COVERS WHEN YOU'RE IN OFFICE.
I THINK TO MR. CHRISTWELL'S FIRST QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS IN HERE.
I WASN'T HERE. I FEEL LIKE IT PROBABLY IS IN HERE FOR A REASON.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THIS IS A LOCAL THING FOR YOU GUYS.
EVEN WHEN YOU'RE NOT IN OFFICE.
WHEN YOU STILL HAVE RELATIONSHIPS ON COUNCIL, YOU SILL RELATIONSHIPS ON P&Z.
EVEN IF IT'S NOT ACTUAL CONTROL, YOU HAVE SOME INDIRECT CONTROL OR RELATIONSHIPS.
IT'S CERTAINLY ALSO DISCRETION ON HOW YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS, BUT I FEEL IT'S IN THERE FOR YOU.
>> IT WAS PUT IN THERE FOR A REASON.
AGAIN, IT WAS MORE TO PROTECT THE CITY REGARDING THINGS THAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
THE ORIGINAL CHARTER WERE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS, AND WANTED TO SEE THE CITY PROTECTED.
>> TEXAS LAW SECTION 171 IS WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PULLING THE MAJORITY OF THIS LANGUAGE FROM?
>> I GUESS I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING AFTER CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, OFFICERS, ANYBODY APPOINTED, PAID OR UNPAID.
THAT DOES INCLUDE OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES, DOES IT?
>> WOULD IT? ARE YOU REFERRING TO PEOPLE THAT APPOINTED [OVERLAPPING]
>> LIKE ME AND AMBER COULD PROFIT OFF OF IT JUST USING IT FOR EXAMPLE.
>> BUT TO YOUR QUESTION MARK, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S ANY LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT COVERS AMBER.
FOR INSTANCE, WHILE WE'RE PICKING ON AMBER BECAUSE IT SAYS ELECTED, APPOINTED, SHE'S NEITHER.
>> THAT SITUATION IS COVERED UNDER STATE LAW.
I THINK OBVIOUSLY AN EMPLOYEE CAN'T VOTE, SO THE SECTION ABOUT BEING ABLE TO VOTE OR PARTICIPATE IN A VOTER DECISION.
BUT THERE ARE INSTANCES THAT DON'T NECESSARILY GO BEFORE COUNCIL IF IT'S BELOW THIS EXPENDITURE THRESHOLD.
EVEN EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICER AND THEY'RE STILL BOUND BY STATE LAW.
EVEN IF IT'S NOT IN HERE, THEY'RE BOUND BY STATE LAW UNDER 176, FOR INSTANCE.
>> BUT THAT 176 COVERS AFTER THEY ARE NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY THE CITY,
[01:45:04]
LIKE THE SECTION OR IS THAT?>> THE SECTION THIS IS TO BE SPECIFIC TO COUNCIL AND MAYOR.
>> HOW WOULD IT BE A DIFFERENT SECTION FOR EMPLOYEE? BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER.
I THINK THERE IS A SECTION WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER AND STUFF, AND IT DOES TALK ABOUT AFTER THREE MONTHS.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT AND THEN THINKING ABOUT IT, EMPLOYEE, HOW FAR DOWN THE LINE DO YOU GO.
ARE YOU GOING TO THE ENTRY PERSON?
>> I THINK THAT THERE'S IF THE LOGIC IS TO PROTECT THE CITY IN IN THE CAPACITY OF SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN IN A POSITION OF MAKING DECISIONS THAT HAS INFLUENCE, THERE ARE OTHER ROLES WITHIN THE CITY, OTHER THAN THE CITY MANAGER WHERE YOU HAVE A POSITION OF INFLUENCE, WHERE YOU END UP HAVING THOSE TYPES OF CONNECTIONS.
I WOULD THINK IF IT'S NOT ALREADY ADDRESSED AND WHERE IT'S IN THE CHARTER, THEN TO THE POINT THAT WAS STATED BY JULIE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT REALLY COVERS STAFF HERE, AND I THINK IT'S A VALID POINT TO IF WE FEEL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE RETAINED, THAT WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE STAFF IS INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION 12.
>> WE HAVE TO AGREE BECAUSE JUST THINKING ABOUT DIRECTORS OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, THINKING ABOUT THE CEO OF EDC, CDC.
CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, SO MAYBE IT'S DIRECTORS AND ABOVE.
>> WOULD THAT GRANT? THIS BE THE SECTION THAT ADDRESS IT?
>> JUST SO I'M UNDERSTANDING SO THE THOUGHT WAS ON THIS LAST SENTENCE OF THE MIDDLE PARAGRAPH WHERE IT TALKS OF THE 24 MONTH PROHIBITION IS CHANGING IT FROM NO MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR.
CHANGING THAT LANGUAGE TO ME THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THIS MIDDLE PARAGRAPH WHERE ELABORATES MORE MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAYOR OR ANY OTHER OFFICIAL ELECTED APPOINTED PAID OR UNPAID, WHO EXERCISE RESPONSIBILITIES BEYOND THOSE ADVISORY IN NATURE.
ARE YOU WANTING TO EXPAND UPON?
>> SOMETHING LIKE DIRECTOR AND ABOVE.
>> WOULD BE A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS AFTER LEAVING OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT AND THEN ELABORATING MORE THAN JUST CITY COUNCIL MAYOR. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING?
>> YOU CHANGED THE 24 TO 12TH PER TO FOLLOW.
>> MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE TIME, SINCE THE TIME THE 24 AND THE 12 WERE PUT IN THERE TO PROTECT THE CITY, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT?
APPARENTLY, THIS IS VERY LOUD.
BUT I THINK 12 MONTHS FROM CITY PAID TO CITY OFFICER IS MENTIONED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S ALSO MENTIONED IN THE CITY EMPLOYEE SECTION, MAYBE BECAUSE I REMEMBER US DISCUSSING THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SORRY, I WONDER IF IT'S A REPEAT OF THE CITY EMPLOYEE SECTION BECAUSE I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS AND WONDERING HOW LONG IT SHOULD BE BEFORE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO SWITCH FROM BEING A CITY ELECTED OFFICIAL TO BEING ABLE TO BE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY.
WE DEFINITELY DISCUSSED THAT AND I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THAT SECTION OR IN THE SECTION OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND BEING A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER.
I THINK MAYBE IT WAS JUST TAKEN FROM THAT SECTION.
>> THE ONLY 12 MONTH PERIOD I'M AWARE OF IN THE CHARTER HAS TO DO WITH SPECIAL ELECTIONS.
I ALSO HAS TO DO WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
YOU HAVE TO LIVE SO MAYBE WE DID DISCUSS IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> JULIE, JUST TO GO BACK TO YOUR 12 AND 24 SO THE 24 MONTHS IS NO TYPE OF PERSONAL BUSINESS WITH THE CITY VERSUS THE 12 MONTH
[01:50:02]
IS NOT BECOMING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY SO THAT'S.>> THANK YOU. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> MY POSITION IS BECOMING STRONGER AND STRONGER THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE 24 SHOULD BE CHANGED A 12.
>> IS THE 12 ACTUALLY IN THE STATE LAW? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT.
>> NO. THAT'S A LOCAL THAT'S OUR THING SO AND THEN MY FOLLOW UP FOR CLARIFICATION, AMBER'S POSITION IS NOT REFLECTED IN STATE LAW OR IN THE CHARTER. CORRECT?
>> IS LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS DEFINED IN TEXAS STATE LAW AS MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY OR ANOTHER OFFICE?
>> ELECTED, APPOINTED, WHETHER PAID OR UNPAID? ANY DISTRICT INCLUDING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, PRECINCT, CENTRAL APPRAISALS OFFICE, TRANSIT AUTHORITY OR DISTRICT, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY EXERCISE RESPONSIBILITIES BEYOND THAT OR ADVISORY IN NATURE?
>> AN AGENT OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY WHO EXERCISED DISCRETION IN THE PLANNING, RECOMMENDING, SELECTING, OR CONTRACTING OF A VENDOR SO THAT WOULD COVER.
I GUESS AMBER'S NOT SELECTING VENDORS PER SAY, BUT CITY MANAGER.
>> MAYOR. THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD FALL UNDER AS A LOCAL PUBLIC OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE, THEY'RE AN AGENT OF THE BODY AND THEY HAVE DISCRETION IN SELECTING VENDORS SO THEY THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THAT PROVISION.
>> WOULD THAT COVER MY THING OF DIRECTORS AND ABOVE? BECAUSE THERE ARE DIRECTORS THAT DO WORK ON CONTRACTS, GET BIDS.
>> I'M APPOINTED TO THE CDC, I THEN TAIL CAN'T PROFIT OFF OF THE CITY BY OPENING A BUSINESS?
SINCE IT IS 8:26, DO WE MAYBE WANT TO TABLE THIS COME BACK TO THIS?
>> I THINK IT'S GOOD DIALOGUE THAT'S HAPPENING.
I WOULD AGREE, VICE CHAIR MAYOR THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TABLE SECTION 1403.
I THINK THIS CHAPTER 14 HAS QUITE A FEW MORE ITEMS TO DISCUSS SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND END OFF HERE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE REST OF IT. THAT'S HOW IT GOES CONSISTS.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THE REMAINING SECTIONS OF SECTION 14, CHAPTER 14, SO SECTION 14.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, ALL THE REMAINING SECTIONS THROUGH 14.14.
GOT SEVEN UP THERE SO FAR, LOOKING FOR TWO MORE.
>> THAT'S APPROVE 90 AND I BELIEVE WE ALSO HAVE TO TABLE.
I DON'T HAVE TO OPEN THE TABLE RIGHT. DO I HAVE TO OPEN IT?
>> SO 52025-95 CHAPTER 15 ADOPTION OF CHARTER.
[H.5 2025-195 Review Chapter 15 (“Adoption of Charter”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action.]
THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TOO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TABLE THIS.>> A MOTION THAT WE TABLE ITEM 52 025-95.
[H.6 2025-196 Consider selecting the dates and times of future Committee meetings; and take appropriate action.]
THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 8362025-196, CONSIDER SELECTING THE DATES AND TIMES OF FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.LOWRY GRANT OR AMBER HAS PROVIDED US WITH THE CALENDAR HERE FOR US TO REVIEW.
>> THAT'S AMBER, I'LL GIVE HER THE CREDIT.
>> I KNEW IT WASN'T YOU GRANT. I JUST TRYING TO.
I'LL LUMP YOU IN THERE WITH HER.
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE HRC MEETING SET FOR WHAT IS THIS? THE NEXT ONE SIXTH AND THE 20TH?
[01:55:02]
862025-196 UNTIL NEXT MEETING BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE TWO ON THE BOOKS.>> JUST TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.
I MIGHT BE JUST A LITTLE LATE FOR THE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 6, 20.
> I WOULD I BE ABLE TO GET A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO THIS WEEKLY SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THE ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8.
WE BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MEETING?
>> WE'VE ALREADY MISSED THAT DEADLINE.
>> WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM. WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> ALRIGHT, 90. LAST ITEM IS ITEM I ADJOURNMENT.
IF YOU WANT TO STAY HERE, YOU CAN STAY HERE.
AMBER WILL KEEP YOU IN PLAY IF SHE WON'T.
SHE'S GOING HOME, TOO. WE'RE GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.