>> WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER. [A. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:04] THE HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. TODAY IS NOVEMBER 20TH. THE TIME IS 6:36. WE'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL, JOSE RIOS. >> HERE. >> SOME IS NOT HERE. JOSE RIOS I'M HERE, JIM POWELL. >> HERE. >> THANK YOU, JIM. RANDALL ROBERTS. >> HERE. >> RYAN GERFERS IS NOT HERE. TERRANCE JOHNSON IS NOT HERE. JULIE ZELLER. >> HERE. >> ALLISON GUERRERO. >> HERE. >> ALL RIGHT. DAVID YOST. >> HERE. >>> MARCOS WELLS IS NOT HERE. AMISHA NEAL IS NOT HERE. MAXINE ELLIS. >> HERE. >> SKYLER SMITH. >> HERE. >> JODY SUTHERLAND. >> PRESENT. >> DAVID GRAVES IS NOT HERE, AND MARLO OBERA IS NOT HERE. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO INVOCATION, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN TO US BY RANDALL ROBERTS. >> FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY YOU'VE GIVEN US TO BE ABLE TO GOVERN OURSELVES AND TO LOOK TO YOU FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR UNDERSTANDING, AND YOUR WISDOM TO MAKE THE DECISIONS NECESSARY TO GOVERN US WELL AND IN KEEPING WITH YOUR LAW. I PRAY, FATHER THAT TONIGHT WOULD BE A PEACEFUL MEETING. TONIGHT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COVER MANY DIFFERENT THINGS IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. I ASK FOR YOUR GRACE AND MERCY BE UPON EVERY ONE OF US, AND ON OUR FAMILIES AND ANYONE WHO'S TRAVELING IN THIS TRAFFIC. I THANK YOU, LORD, FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR US IN JESUS NAME. AMEN. >> AMEN. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEN THE PLEDGE TO THE TEXAS FLAG. >> >> >> THAT WILL MOVE US ON TO PUBLIC PARENTS. 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 PRESENTED TO THE CITY SECRETARY. SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO WHO ARE DISCUSSING THE 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 RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK, ONE SHALL ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE DIRECTLY, NOT CITY STAFF, OR OTHERWISE, TO BE COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL, AND CORDIAL, AND 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, [G. CONSENT AGENDA] SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THAT IS ITEM G. 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. THAT IS ITEM G.1, 2025-2024. CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. NOVEMBER 6, 2025 HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> ON MOTION, WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS IS. >> I SECOND. >> I SECOND. WITH THAT WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE. THAT PASSES 10, 0. THAT MOVES US ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. [H.1 2025-205 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 14 (“General and Transitional Provisions”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the November 6, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.] OUR FIRST ITEM IN THE REGULAR AGENDA IS H.12025-205. REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER 14 GENERAL IN TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, AS DISCUSSED AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. I BELIEVE THAT ITEM IS IN ALL OF OUR HANDBOOKS AND IS THAT ALL YOU GRANT TO REVIEW? >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WE'LL START WITH SECTION 14.04 NEPOTISM. AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING ON NOVEMBER 6, [00:05:04] THE DESIRE OF THE COMMITTEE WAS TO REMOVE ALL THE VERBIAGE THERE AND JUST REPLACE IT WITH THE SENTENCE THERE AT THE BOTTOM, JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ AND UNDERSTAND, SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FOR GRANT? >> YES. HOW CLOSE IS THE STRUCK PORTION TO THE APPLICABLE STATE LAWS? >> HOW CLOSE IS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE TO STATE, IT MIRRORS IT. >> IT'S IDENTICAL? >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WITH THAT, I WILL ENTER A MOTION. >> A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CHANGES FOR SECTION 14.04. >> SETTLE ON SECOND. >> WITH THAT, WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. MOTION APPROVE 10, 0. BACK TO YOU GRANT. >> MOVING ON TO SECTION 14.07. AS DISCUSSED THE LAST MEETING, THE DESIRE WAS TO STRIKE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH FROM 14.07, IS JUST NOT BEING APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SECTION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> MOVE TO ACCEPT AS WRITTEN. >> I SECOND THAT. >> SECOND. >> I'M SORRY. WAS THAT A MOTION? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. THANKS. >> THE SECOND WAS JIM? >> YES. >> WITH THAT, WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. DAVID MADE THE FIRST. >> WE HAVE NINE OUT OF 10. A MIXING CATCHERS. ALL RIGHT. REAL 10, 0. >> MOVING ALONG TO SECTION 14.08. WE'LL I THOUGHT WAS TO ADDRESS THE FIRST PORTION, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE SECOND PORTION SINCE THEY'RE DIFFERENT. THE FIRST PORTION OF THE DESIRE OF THE COMMITTEE WAS TO CREATE IN ADDITION TO STATE LAW POSTING REQUIREMENTS THAT NOTICE OF ALL MEETINGS OF CITY COUNCIL BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY TO BE SENT OUT TO SUBSCRIBERS VIA TEXT AND EMAIL. MY ONLY COMMENT TO THIS. I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY FINE TO DO THAT. MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE MAYBE TO ELABORATE AS TO SHOULD THAT NOT OCCUR, SHOULD YOU NOTICE NOT BE SENT OUT VIA TEXT AND EMAIL, WHETHER THE MEETING CAN STILL PROCEED. BECAUSE, UNDER STATE LAW, WE HAVE TO POST NOTICE ON THE BULLETIN BOARD OF THE CITY AND ALSO ON THE WEBSITE. I JUST MAY WANT TO BECAUSE I CAN SEE THIS COMING UP IN THE FUTURE. SAY THERE'S AN INSTANCE TO WHERE, THE CITY FAILS TO SEND OUT A TEXT OR EMAIL WITHIN THE THREE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR. I DON'T WANT THERE TO GET ANY TYPE OF ISSUE TO WHERE SOMEONE COULD ALLEGE THAT WE DIDN'T PROPERLY NOTICE THE MEETING, WE COULDN'T HAVE THE MEETINGS. WE MAY WANT TO MASSAGE THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT. THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT. BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE'LL DEFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON HOW YOU GUYS WANT TO PROCEED. >> DO I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THAT? I MEAN, WHAT IS THE STATE GUIDELINES FOR THAT IF IT WASN'T NOTICED? >> YEAH. I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT NOTICED PROPERLY, YOU CAN'T HAVE THE MEETING. STATE LAW SAYS, WE HAVE TO POST IT ON OUR BULLETIN BOARD, WHICH IS OUT FRONT, A TOWN HALL, AND ALSO ON THE WEBSITE. THAT HAS TO BE DONE AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR. I WAS 72 HOURS, BUT NOW IT'S AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR. THAT'S WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES FROM MUNICIPALITIES. AS FAR AS NOTICING A POSTINGS DONE PROPERLY, THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE THE. >> THEY MISSED OUR NOTICE, SO WE HAD TO RESCHEDULE OUR MEETING. >> YEAH. THEY DID THAT. >> WAS THE INTENT FOR THIS VERBIAGE TO BE IN ADDITION, SO BASICALLY A REQUIRE. YEAH. IF THAT WAS THE INTENT, I THINK THAT, THE STATE LAW STILL SUPERSEDES, RIGHT? >> YES. I THINK HE'S SAYING THAT THIS WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING SUPPLEMENTAL THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO DO, BUT IT WOULDN'T CAUSE THE MEETING TO NOT OCCUR IF SOMETHING HAPPENED WITH, LIKE, ELECTRONICS THAT DAY, AND FOR SOME REASON, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT EXACTLY TO THE DATE OR TIME THAT'S REQUIRED. >> THAT'S HOW I WAS UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S WHY I MEAN STATE LAW WAS SUPERSEDED. YEAH, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE VERBIAGE HERE GRANT WILL PROBABLY BE BENEFICIAL IF WE ADDED SOMETHING JUST TO CLARIFY THAT? >> YEAH. JUST, THE CITY SHALL ENDEAVOR TO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT A IF THE CITY FAILS TO DO THIS FOR WHATEVER REASON, [00:10:02] THEY CAN STILL HAVE THE MEETING AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS UNDER TOMA. UNLESS OF COURSE THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO GO THE OTHER ROUTE, AND IT'S LIKE, YOU'VE GOT TO DO THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS PLUS THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMITTEE. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING THIS IN ADDITION. >> JASON. IF THE INTENT IS WHAT ALLISON MENTIONED EARLIER, WHICH IS TO, WHICH WAS NOT TO ADD IT AS A SUBSEQUENT REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD NEGATE A MEETING. THEN WHATEVER WORDING WE PUT IN THERE, I DO THINK IT NEEDS TO BE MORE CLEAR THEN, BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WORDED, ANYONE COULD READ THIS THAT THIS HAS TO BE DONE WITH THE SAME CONSEQUENCES THAT THE STATE POSTING REQUIREMENTS HAVE, OR SOMEONE COULD READ THIS AND SAY, BUT STATE POSTING REQUIREMENTS TRUMP THIS SO YOU CAN'T CANCEL THIS MEETING, EITHER WAY, I THINK, THERE NEEDS SOME CLARITY. OKAY. >> I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENTS. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS THOSE. >> I DO. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT. IT'S WRITTEN AS WRITTEN IN ADDITION TO STATE LAW. IT'S IN MY OPINION, IT'S VERY CLEAR, IF YOU START GIVING OUTS, THEN YOU'RE GIVING OUTS. IF YOU GIVE IT OUT, THERE'S NO REASON TO PUT IT IN. IF YOU WANT RECOMMENDATIONS, PUT THEM IN THE BYLAWS OR SOMETHING. IF YOU WANT A REQUIREMENT, PUT IT IN THE CHARTER. >> GRANT, HAS THERE BEEN A TIME IN WHICH A CITY, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS RUN AFOUL OF THE THREE DAY POSTING? >> I'M SURE YES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE YEAH. I'M SURE, ESPECIALLY THE NEW LAW. YEAH. >> YEAH. WHAT HAS OCCURRED IF THEY JUST NOT HAD A MEETING OR WHAT? >> YEAH, YOU CAN'T I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO POST THE PROPERTY CAN'T HAVE THE MEETING. >> FOR THIS MEETING, THERE WAS A MIX UP WITH THE POSTING OR WE HAD TO RESCHEDULE, ONE OF OUR MEETINGS. >> WE DID. I'M JUST CURIOUS THAT WE HAD TO, BUT WE DID, SO THAT WAS PROBABLY GOOD. >> AT THAT POINT, IF ANYONE FEELS I WASN'T HERE AT THE TIME, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WAS ASKING WHAT THE INTENT WAS. IT FELT LIKE TO ME, THE GENERAL PERSPECTIVE WAS THAT FOR THE COMMITTEE AT THAT TIME, THE INTENT WAS TO BE SUPPLEMENTAL, AND IF THAT WAS THE INTENT, THEN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE ADDITION OF VERBIAGE. IF THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT AND THE INTENT WAS TO STATE A REQUIREMENT, THEN I THINK TO DAVID'S POINT, WE CAN WE COULD LEAVE IT IN THERE AS IT IS, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THE COMMITTEE COLLECTIVELY INTENDED IT TO BE A REQUIREMENT. >> IN THINKING ABOUT THIS AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT DAVID SAID AND WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE SAID, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IF YOU PUT IN AN EXCEPTION, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION? SOMEBODY COULD SAY, "OH, MY EMAIL FAILED TO SEND THAT DAY OR OOPS. I DIDN'T GET IT ONLINE." IF YOU GIVE ONE EXCEPTION, THEN YOU'RE OPENING THAT DOOR. FOR MORE AND MORE EXCEPTIONS. IT'S EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU EITHER FOLLOW THE STATE GUIDELINES OR YOU DON'T, THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE AGAIN, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE ON WHAT'S AN EXCEPTION? WHAT'S NOT AN EXCEPTION? >> YEAH, MY CONCERN IS WHEN SOME OF THIS WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S CONTROL. YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE THAT ALLEGES I DIDN'T GET THE TEXT. THEN THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN BOTTLE NEXT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AND WELL, DID WE HAVE AN ISSUE, WE CAN'T HOLD THIS MEETING? I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THE CITY CAN CONTROL IF WE POST ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IF WE PUT ON THE WEBSITE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DIRECTLY WITHIN OUR CONTROL, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE OUT FALL OUTSIDE THE CITY'S CONTROL THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HINDER THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE MEETING DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S WARDED IN HERE. THAT'S JUST ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT. OF COURSE, IT'S UP TO THE COMMITTEE AND WHAT THE INTENT IS. I JUST FEEL LIKE I'M JUST EXPRESSING SOME THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS. >> IS THIS VERBIAGE HAVE YOU SEEN THIS IN OTHER CHARTERS? >> I WANTED TO ADD THAT THESE SERVICES, THE TEXTING AND EMAIL SERVICES, THESE SERVICES ARE NOT CHEAP. I KNOW, BECAUSE, MY CHURCH USES, SERVICE THAT, YOU CAN TEXT TO GET THE INFORMATION, THE NEWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THESE SERVICES ARE NOT CHEAP. I DON'T KNOW IF EVEN ADDING THIS, IF IT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH, THE BUDGET OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BE APPROVED IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE SERVICES COST MONEY, AND THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY THAT AND THEN LIKE GRANT WAS SAYING, [00:15:03] IT'S THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF OUR CONTROL THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OPEN UP THE CITY TO THINGS THAT WE PROBABLY DON'T WANT. THERE TO BE OPEN. >> I THINK TO THAT POINT, IF A TEXT SERVICE GOES DOWN, WHICH WE DON'T OWN OR RUN OR HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER AND IT DOESN'T GO OUT OR AN EMAIL SERVICE GOES DOWN, AND THAT DOESN'T GO OUT, THEN IT PREVENTS US FROM BEING ABLE TO CONDUCT THE MEETING. I WOULD SAY I PERSONALLY AM IN SUPPORT OF IT BEING SUPPLEMENTAL, WHICH IF I BELIEVE, THAT'S THE WAY THAT THE COMMITTEE INTENDED TO BE. >> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. >> RANDALL. >> I STILL HAVE A COMMENT. WHAT COULD HE PUT A VERBIAGE IN THERE THAT INDICATED THAT THIS PROVISION IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, ONLY SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET ACCESS AND DOES NOT MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING. >> ESSENTIALLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE EXACTLY WHAT RYAN ACCESS. OKAY. TO DO. >> I CAN'T HEAR HIM VERY WELL, SO I'M SORRY. >> WHAT I'M REPEAT. >> HE'S ALL THE WAY ON THE END BY HIMSELF. HE'S LIKE, ISOLATED DOWN THERE. >> WELL, THERE'S A SPIDER IN BETWEEN THEM. >> I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ALLISON. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD SOME VERBIAGE TO CLARIFY THAT JUST THE TEXT AND EMAIL WOULD BE NOT CONDITIONAL ON THE MEETING TAKING PLACE. >> WE HAVE A SECOND. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ANNOUNCED ME. CAN I ABSTAIN? 'CAUSE I NEVER HEARD MY NAME AND WHAT TIME I GOT HERE. >> LET IT BE KNOWN THAT MARK CRISWELL SHOWED UP AT 6:44. GOOD TO VOTE, SIR. WITH THAT, WE HAVE SIX FOUR, FOUR AGAINST, AND ONE ABSTAIN. MOTION IS APPROVED. STAYING WITH SECTION 14.08. THERE'S A NEW ADDITION AT THE VERY BOTTOM, TALKING ABOUT, I THINK MAYBE MISS ELLIS RECOMMENDED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING TO ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY MAINTAIN A PUBLIC FACING ONLINE PORTAL OR WEBSITE FOR CERTAIN MEETING, AGENDAS, MINUTES, AND RECORDINGS, BUDGETS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, ETHICS, DISCLOSURES, ET CETERA, ARE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT AS WELL. >> NO QUESTIONS ARE IN CHANGE. >> BOARD APPLICATIONS THAT HAS POTENTIALLY PRIVATE INFORMATION ON IT, DOESN'T IT SOMETIMES? >> IT'S FOR PEOPLE TO GET THE BOARD APPLICATION. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT A BOARD APPLICATION IS, BUT WHAT'S THE SITUATION WITH IT NOW? >> THE APPLICATIONS AREN'T ON THE WEBSITE. I DON'T HAVE OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S SOME STUFF IN THERE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONFIDENTIAL, THAT IF SOMEONE WERE TO ASK FOR IT, WE WOULD REDACT THAT OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, BUT AMBER'S SHAKING HER HEAD. >> YOU MEAN WHO'S APPLIED, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE APPLIED? THEIR INFORMATION OR YOU MEAN BEING ABLE TO APPLY FOR THE BOARD? >> BEING ABLE TO APPLY FOR THE BOARD MEETINGS. >> NOT THE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS, BUT THE ABILITY TO. I WOULD THINK ONCE THEY GET APPOINTED, BUT I DON'T KNOW. SOMEONE JUST APPLYING THAT DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT TO ME. >> BUT RIGHT NOW, YOU CLICK A LINK AND IT TAKES YOU TO A WEBPAGE RIGHT NOW TO APPLY FOR A BOARD. THIS IS JUST PUTTING IT ON THE CITY WEBSITE. >> FOR THE PUBLIC C. FOR THE PUBLIC C HERE. MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING. >> BLANK. >> NOT COMPLETED APPLICATION. I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION. >> SORRY. >> I'M GOING TO REITERATE MY DISAGREEMENT FROM LAST WEEK THAT THIS IS SECTION 14.08 WAS PUBLIC MEETINGS OR RECORDS. THE WAY THAT THIS IS WRITTEN INCLUDES THOSE BLANK FORMS IS NOT A PUBLIC MEETINGS OR RECORDS. IT DOESN'T FLOW WITH THE TEXT OF THIS PARAGRAPH. THOSE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IN A DIFFERENT PLACE, I THIINK SO. IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THOSE ARE COMPLETED DOCUMENTS. [00:20:09] >> WITH THE FIX FOR THIS BRAND BEING PLACING IT IN THOSE SECTION, YOU'RE LOOKING AT? >> YEAH, WE COULD CERTAINLY PLACE IT IN A DIFFERENT SECTION. DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO ME, WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO. >> NO, I THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS IN THIS ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH. I DON'T THINK SHE WANTS BLANK MINUTES. I DON'T THINK SHE WANTS BLANK AGENDAS. THOSE THINGS ARE COMPLETED DOCUMENTS. IF THEY'RE IN THE SAME SENTENCE WITH ETHICS DISCLOSURES AND BOARD APPLICATIONS, IT READS AS THOUGH THOSE ARE SIMILARLY COMPLETED DOCUMENTS. I THINK YOU'RE GOING DOWN A ROAD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE CHURN TO EVEN GET IT VOTED ON IF YOU LEAVE THOSE AS ONE BODY OF TEXT. I KNOW I'D BE UPSET IF I WAS SEEING THAT. >> SURE. I JUST TOOK THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME AT THE LAST MEETING, SO I'M HAPPY. WE CAN MASSAGE THIS, ADJUST IT HOWEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO. >> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON WHO MADE THE RECOMMENDATION. BUT WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IS WE HAVE MEETING AGENDAS, MINUTES AND RECORDINGS, BUDGETS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ETHICS DISCLOSURES AS ITEMS THAT ARE AND I'M ASSUMING POTENTIAL PROJECT UPDATES AS WELL AS ITEMS THAT WE ARE INFORMATIONAL THAT WE WANT TO HAVE PREDETERMINED, ALREADY HANDLED, THAT'S PUBLIC RECORD? AVAILABLE TO REVIEW. THEN WE NEED TO SEPARATE OUT OF THAT THE BOARD APPLICATIONS. THAT'S IT? >> YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH DAVID THAT IF ETHICS DISCLOSURES MEANS A COPY OF THE ETHICS EXPECTATIONS, THAT NEEDS TO GO TOO BECAUSE THAT'S A GENERAL INFORMATIONAL ITEM THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC MEETINGS. IT WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE ETHICS EXPECTATIONS ARE. SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND WHAT SHOULDN'T, I WOULD SAY ETHICS DISCLOSURES AND BOARD APPLICATIONS BOTH NEED TO BE REMOVED. >> I WOULD AGREE. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE JUST ADDED FOR THE ETHICS COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ONE NOW. I'M NOT SURE IF FUTURE STATE, WHAT THAT COMMITTEE MAY END UP ADDRESS. >> BUT IF IT FELL INTO COMMITTEE WORK, THEN IT GOES ONLINE, BUT ETHICS DISCLOSURE AS WRITTEN HERE. >> THERE WOULD BE MINUTES. >> YEAH. I THINK COMING UP DID ADD SOMETHING ABOUT ETHICS IN THIS. IN THE NEXT COUPLE, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THAT SHORTLY. >> IN THAT THE SECTION? >> FUTURE SECTION COMING UP TODAY. >> YEAH, THAT WAS PART OF 60 APP. >> AVAILABLE. APPLICATIONS. >> TRYING TO WRAP MYSELF AROUND A BIT, AT HIS DISCLOSURE. SOME OF YOU GUYS HAVE ONLY BEEN WORKING ON IT, TALKING ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST THINGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I WOULD SURMISE. >> I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT'S MADE IN AND JUST TO GET AN IDEA. I DON'T WANT TO SKIP TOO FAR AHEAD. I CURRENTLY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION WILL BE WITH THE ETHICS ADDITION THAT'S BEEN ADDED. ONCE WE GET THERE, I GUESS WE CAN MAKE AN ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENT OF BP. BUT FROM HOW I'M READING IT, NOT TO SKIP AHEAD IN THE SECTION 14, READS ESSENTIALLY AS WE'RE GIVING OR MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION FOR AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR AN ETHICS COMMITTEE TO BE CREATED AND APPOINTED, AND THE PURPOSE OF IT IS EVALUATING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ETHICS COMPLAINTS AND VIOLATIONS. THAT COMMITTEE POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE MINUTES AS WELL. MAYBE ANY ITEMS THAT COME OUT OF THAT POP I WOULD SEE WOULD BE ADDRESSED WITHIN MEETING AGENDA, MINUTES, AND RECORDINGS. I WOULD PROBABLY STILL STICK WITH WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED CURRENTLY AROUND THE ETHICS DISCLOSURES AND BOARD APPLICATIONS [00:25:01] BEING PULLED OUT AND THE REST OF IT REMAINING. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS ON IT. I WANT TO HAVE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS INTENDED TO SOLVE A PROBLEM? IF SO, WHAT IS IT? IS IT A DISCLOSURE OR TRANSPARENCY? >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TO SOLVE A PER SE PROBLEM VERSUS POTENTIAL PROBLEM. IN THE PAST, THERE'S BEEN HUGE TRANSPARENCY PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. I CAN GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE, THE ARCADIA FARMS PARK. THEY DID AN AGREEMENT BASED ON A HANDSHAKE, A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND THE BUILDER. THERE WAS NO TRANSPARENCY. IN 2024, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND THEY DIDN'T MENTION, NO, THERE WAS ONLY A HANDSHAKE AGREEMENT. NOBODY EVER SIGNED DOCUMENT. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF NON TRANSPARENCY WITHIN THE CITY FROM PRIOR THAT WE NEED TO WRAP OUR HANDS ON. >> SORRY. REPLY. EXCUSE ME A SECOND, RANDY. THIS SAYS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, THAT WOULDN'T APPEAR ON HERE ANYWAYS. IT WAS A HANDSHAKE. IT WOULDN'T SURFACE HERE AS FAR AS THE TRANSPARENCY ISSUE? >> WELL, NO, BUT THE THING IS, IF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ARE REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT HAS TO BE IN HERE IN THERE. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH ALL THE NEW PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING ON, ARE NOW REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES OUT HERE THAT HAVE JUST HANDSHAKE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. A LOT. >> I'M ACTUALLY IN FAVOR OF THE BODY OF THIS TEXT BECAUSE IT ALSO ELIMINATES A LOT OF YOUR FREEDOM OF DISCLOSURE ACTION. REQUEST REQUIRED SUBMISSIONS TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE CITY. RIGHT NOW, THE TIMELINESS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS TO GET STUFF OUT OF THE CITY. WHILE, I APPRECIATE AMBER'S EFFORTS, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE QUICKEST THINGS TO GET OUT. IF THEY'RE ALREADY ON THE WEBSITE, THEY CAN DIRECT YOU TO THE WEBSITE, AND YOU NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING TO GET IN. >> CORRECT. I ACTUALLY WAS JUST READING ABOUT THAT FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT TODAY, SO, CORRECT. >> WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO SOLVE A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE HERE BY ACTUALLY CREATING A SECOND SECTION THAT COVERS PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE IN THAT ADDED SENTENCE PLUS WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TODAY. THAT WAY YOU MAKE THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND RECORDS REQUIREMENTS WHICH THIS IS IN EXCESS OF. YET WE FIND THAT THIS IS AND I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT LACK OF INFORMATION IN OUR CITY HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR MANY DECADES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CHANGE, AND I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN BY MAKING IT A PART OF THE HOME RULE DOCUMENTS, AND WOULD IT BE SERVED BETTER AND EASIER TO WORK IF IT WERE ITS OWN SEPARATE SUBSECTION OR SECTION OF THE HOME RULE COMMITTEE. >> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WHEN I BROUGHT IT UP. I HAD ASKED IF IT SHOULD BE A SEPARATE SECTION OR IN WITH THIS, AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREED IT WOULD BE IN THIS SECTION. LAST WEEK. >> IT'S OKAY FOR US TO ADJUST. I THINK WHAT WE TALK EVEN FROM RAND'S RECOMMENDATION. I THINK WE ALL SOUND LIKE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE AT THIS POINT. JUST WANT TO ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT MISS CAROLYN DAVID-GRAVES IS IN ATTENDANCE, SHE SHOWED UP AT 7:01. >> JASON, BEFORE WE DO A MOTION, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF MINUTES AND AGENDAS ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT OR THE PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT? >> IN ALL THE AGENDAS, OBVIOUSLY JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON THE CONVERSATION FROM EARLIER. THAT'S ALL ON THE WEBSITE ALREADY. THAT'S ACCESSIBLE. THE MINUTES. I GUESS THE UNAPPROVED MINUTES YOU CAN FIND ON THE AGENDA THEMSELVES, BECAUSE COUNSEL APPROVES ON EVERY MEETING. IT'S ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION. I DON'T THINK THE CITY CURRENTLY PUTS APPROVED MINUTES ON THE WEBSITE, [00:30:04] BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT, OH THEY ARE. AMBER SHAKING HER HEAD. >> IT'S ACTUALLY APPROVED. >> THE APPROVEMENT, OKAY. THEN AS FAR AS RECORDINGS, THOSE GO UP ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL, BUDGETS ARE ALREADY ON THE WEBSITE. I THINK THE ONLY THING UNDER HERE THAT'S PROBABLY NOT ALREADY READILY AVAILABLE, MAYBE IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. I GUESS THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT. I KNOW SOME OF THEM ARE THAT HAVE HE'S ATTACHED TO THEM, BUT HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. >> BECAUSE I ONLY KNOW CALIFORNIA, AND I KNOW THAT IN CALIFORNIA, THIS WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET AS PART OF THE LAW. DOES THE CITY WEBSITE QUALIFY AS A PUBLIC FACING ONLINE PORTAL? >> I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE COMMITTEE. I WOULD THINK SO, BUT I MEAN. >> I WOULD AGREE. >> THEN THE INTENT HERE IS JUST TO ENSURE THAT IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN? >> CORRECT. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT BEING IN THE CHARTER LEAVES IT OPEN FOR THE INFORMATION NOT BEING AVAILABLE, AND GOING BACK TO WHAT DAVID SAID, IF YOU HAVE TO REQUEST THIS INFORMATION, IT CAN TAKE A WHILE. ALSO SOMETIMES COST YOU MONEY. >> IN THINGS THAT FALL EXEMPT, WE WOULDN'T PROVIDE ANYWAY. THE WHOLE CONFIDENTIALITY WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE IF IT'S ALREADY EXEMPT, WE DON'T HAVE TO AS THE CITY, WOULD HAVE TO RELEASE THAT WHEN OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WILL COME THROUGH. >> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 4.08, SECOND PARAGRAPH WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE PHRASES ETHICS DISCLOSURES, AND BOARD APPLICATIONS. >> WHAT WE'LL SAY? >> THAT, WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE. I HIT THE WRONG BUTTON. >> SAME. >> YOU DID TOO? >> YEAH. >> MAYBE IT'S THE SCREENS. WE'RE GOING TO BLAME ON THE SCREENS. >> I WAS JUST PUSHING BUTTONS. >> WE HAVE SEVEN IN SO FAR? >> DAVID WALKED AWAY. RANDALL AND JIM. SAME THING. >> THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE WAS TO RETAIN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH 14908 WITH THE EXCLUSION OF ETHICS DISCLOSURES AND BOARD APPLICATIONS. >> THANK YOU. >> NO WORRIES. >> IS THERE A VOLUME PUT ON THE SIDE FOR YOU? TEST VOLUME. >> DAVID WALKED OUT. >> HE EXCUSED HIMSELF. [BACKGROUND]. TESTING. I THINK WE ARE WE'RE GOOD AS 11-0 FOR THAT ROOM. DAVID WALKED OUT AT THE TIME OF VOTING. [BACKGROUND]. GUYS. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SECTION, SECTION 14.1, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED TODAY. RANDALL, IF YOU WANT TO MOVE DOWN TO [INAUDIBLE] SPOT. >> FOR SOME REASON RIGHT NOW, I CAN HEAR ALL OF YOU BETTER. I THINK YOU HAVE TO LEAN INTO THE MIC A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE BACK LIKE HERE, IT'S NOT THE SAME VOLUME, BUT HERE IT IS. >> GOT YOU. THANK YOU. >> NO WORRIES. [00:35:04] >> SECTION 14.10 AS DISCUSSED THE LAST MEETING, I WAS A DESIRE TO ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED, AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE'S ONLY A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A HOME RULE CHARTER COMMISSION UPON INITIAL ADOPTION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT FOR SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S ALWAYS RECOMMENDED TO HAVE A COMMITTEE BUT NOT A REQUIREMENT. COUNCIL, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE SITTING HERE TONIGHT, SO COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMMITTEE THIS TIME. WHAT THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT WOULD DO WOULD MAKE A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A COMMITTEE FORMED ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS TO REVIEW THE THAT CHARTER, MAKE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS THERE TOO. THEN ALSO, THERE WAS A DESIRE THAT THE MAYOR CAN APPOINT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS AND THE REST OF THE MEMBERS CAN BE APPOINTED BY THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> CAN WE MAKE IT THAT THE MAYOR APPOINTS ONLY TWO MEMBERS? >> SURE. WHATEVER YOU GUYS DESIRE. >> BECAUSE LEAVING IT OPEN LIKE THAT GIVES ME AN IMPRESSION HE COULD APPOINT ALL THE MEMBERS. >> WELL, I THINK IF THE COMMITTEE NUMBER FLUCTUATES, IF IT'S SEVEN, IF IT'S 12, IF IT'S 20. >> BUT THAT'S NOT INDICATED IN THE NUMBER THERE IN ANY OF OUR REQUIREMENT. >> IT'LL BE A VOTE BY CITY COUNCIL, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER. THEN ONCE THEY DETERMINE THE NUMBER, THAT'S WHEN THEY CAN KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HE CAN APPOINT. >> IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL ABOUT OUR EXISTING MAYOR OR ANYTHING, JUST FUTURE MAYORS. >> OUR THOUGHT WAS WE WANTED TO LEAVE IT FLUID. WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT A NUMBER BESIDES MAKING SURE THAT THE MAYOR AT LEAST GOT TO APPOINT TWO, WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT A NUMBER ON HOW MANY NEEDED TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE OR HOW MANY THAT COUNCIL NEEDED TO APPROVE BECAUSE OF THE FLUCTUATION OF POTENTIAL COUNCIL MEMBERS. ALSO, SINCE EVERY TWO YEARS, THEY MIGHT WANT TO HAVE LESS OR MORE FOR A COMMITTEE, BUT THAT IT COULD BE DONE INSTEAD OF IN THE CHARTER BY DOING IT VIA, WHAT'S THE OTHER THING CALLED? THE ONE THAT CAN BE AMENDED MORE OFTEN? >> BY LAWS. >> BY LAWS. >> YES. >> THAT THE BY LAWS COULD BE STIPULATED IN THERE INSTEAD OF HAVING IT IN THE CHARTER. >> WELL, THIS WAY, THE MAYOR COULD APPOINT THE TWO AND ONLY TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US HERE THEN TO SAY AT LEAST NO MORE THAN 10% OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS SELECTED BY COUNCIL? >> WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT A PROPORTIONAL SHARE THEN? >> PARDON ME. >> RIGHT. >> WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT A PROPORTIONAL SHARE THEN? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IF EVERY MEMBER PICK TWO, IT'S STILL LESS THAN TEN OR IT'S TEN. >> EVERY MEMBER OF COUNCIL CAN APPOINT MEMBERS? >> WELL, RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT, BUT IF YOU PUT A FIXED NUMBER IN LIMITING HIM TO 10%, THAT'S LESS THAN THE CURRENT PROPORTIONAL SHARE. YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY DEVALUING PERCENTAGE BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS HOW MANY MEMBERS THEY WANT. SAYING AT LEAST TWO PUSHES THEM TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF PROBABLY 14 OR 16 PEOPLE, AND WHICH IS ENOUGH TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A QUORUM, BUT DOESN'T LIMIT THEM TO HAVING TOO SMALL OF A GROUP OR TOO BIG OF A GROUP, SO THAT WAS THE INTENT OF WHY IT WAS TOO [OVERLAPPING]. >> YEAH, I THINK T GIVES FLEXIBILITY. IF THAT COUNCIL AT THAT TIME DETERMINES IN THE CHARTER, THE MAYOR GETS AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS, AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH ALSO POINTING JUST ONE, AND THEY'RE ALL WITH THAT, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THAT COLLECTIVELY AS A COUNCIL. WE'RE JUST ENSURING THAT THE MAYOR HAS A MINIMUM AT LEAST TWO WITHIN THAT. THEN THE REST OF THE DECISION FROM THAT POINT IS GOING TO BE DONE AT THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME. SAME WAY WE DID WITH THIS SITUATION. A CERTAIN NUMBER AND THEN IT ADJUSTED FROM THERE, AND IT WENT BEFORE COUNCIL AND THEY MADE THEIR APPROVEMENT. >> CORRECT. >> I PERSONALLY FEEL THE WAY IT'S STATED IS FINE. >> COULD WE MAYBE ADD AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS NOT TO EXCEED 50% OR 40% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> I THINK THE WAY THIS READS, IT ALMOST MAKES ME UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAYOR CAN PICK 20 PEOPLE TO THE COMMITTEE. AT LEAST TWO, BUT IF HE WANTS TO PACK THE COMMITTEE WITH ''HIS OR HER PEOPLE'' THEN WHAT'S THERE TO SAY THAT THE MAYOR CAN'T PUT 20 PEOPLE IN THE COMMITTEE. [00:40:03] >> THE REMAINING MEMBERS APPOINTED. >> IS IT MY TURN? I'M ON. IS IT MY TURN? GRANT HELP ME OUT WITH THIS, BECAUSE MAYBE I'M MISSING THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPOINT HR REVIEW COMMITTEE. SO THE MAYOR CANNOT JUST JUMP UP AND SAY, I WANT THE COMMITTEE, AND I WANT 12 PEOPLE PERIOD. IT HAS TO START WITH THE COUNCIL WHO LAYS THE FOUNDATION OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE APPOINTED. >> YOU ARE CORRECT. >> THE SECOND SENTENCE ONLY SAYS WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE MAYOR CAN GET AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE ON. I THINK WE'RE LOSING THE POINT OF, JUST LOOKING AT THE SECOND SENTENCE AND NOT OBSERVING THE FIRST SENTENCE, IF THE COUNCIL, AND I KEEP POINTING AT YOU, YOU COULD JOIN COUNCIL. IF THE COUNCIL SETS IT UP TO STATE 12, 15, 18, THE COUNCIL ALSO WILL NOW IN THAT SAME SESSION, SAY, EACH PERSON WOULD HAVE X, AND THAT'S HOW IT WOULD BE LAID OUT. THE SECOND SENTENCE ONLY ALLOWS, CORRECT IF I'M WRONG, ONCE THAT'S SET IN PLACE, THEY HAVE TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO HAVE TWO. >> MARK, YOU'RE CORRECT. IF WE GO TO FOR EXAMPLE, THE PARKS BOARD THAT JUST GOT PUT, THE COUNCIL DECIDED ON HOW MANY PEOPLE, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS SEVEN OR EIGHT PEOPLE ON THERE, EACH MEMBER, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, GOT TO SELECT ONE PERSON. YOU'RE EXACTLY CORRECT IN THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THIS IS SAYING, SAYING THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO SELECT IT. THEY WILL DECIDE, AND THEN THE MAYOR CAN CHOOSE AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE, AND THE REST, THE COUNCIL WILL CHOOSE. >> THE WAY IT READS, IT SAYS AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE. BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD SAY THE MAYOR CANNOT APPOINT TEN. IT SAYS AT LEAST TWO, SO HE CAN APPOINT MORE THAN TWO. >> BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, THE MAYOR IS NOT LIKE A KING. WE DIDN'T GIVE HIM ANY VOTING RIGHTS IN ANYWHERE IN THIS CHARTER, SO HE STILL DOESN'T HAVE A VOTE ON ANYTHING. HE ONLY HAS A DECIDING VOTE IF WE END UP KEEPING THAT IN HERE. >> IT GIVES HIM HERE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. IT GIVES THE MAYOR THE POWER TO PACK THE COMMITTEE. >> I DON'T AGREE. CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN LIST OF PEOPLE THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE ON THERE. THEY CAN EASILY CHOOSE TO PREVENT OR ALLOW FOR THE MAYOR TO BASICALLY HAVE FIVE PEOPLE OR WHATEVER, SO THEY CAN BASICALLY SET THE RULES. THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. THAT'S WHAT THIS SOUNDS LIKE. JUST SAYING THAT HE HAS ABILITY TO APPOINT AT LEAST TWO DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WON'T HAVE THEIR OWN GROUP OF PEOPLE THEY WANT TO APPOINT AND CAN'T BLOCK THE APPOINTMENT OF PEOPLE. >> WHEN THE CHARTER COMMITTEE IS FORMED, COUNCIL WILL COLLECTIVELY DECIDE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMMITTEE OF 17, 18, 23, 57, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AT THAT TIME, COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY WILL DECIDE EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WILL BE ABLE TO APPOINT X NUMBER OF MEMBERS. THE MAYOR WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPERSEDE BECAUSE COLLECTIVELY, THEY WILL VOTE ON WHAT THE SET NUMBER OF MEMBERS ARE AND HOW MANY WILL BE ABLE TO BE APPOINTED BY EACH COUNCIL MEMBER. THIS IS JUST GIVING THE FLEXIBILITY FOR HIM TO AT LEAST HAVE TWO? >> CORRECT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THIS SITUATION, YOU HAVE ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY, AND YOU'RE THROWING THE MAYOR A BONE HEARS. >> THE BENEFIT OF SAYING AT LEAST TWO ALMOST FORCES THE HAND OF THE COUNCIL TO HAVE A LARGER QUORUM. YOU'RE NOT LIMITING IT TO SEVEN PEOPLE WHEN THREE DON'T SHOW UP, YOU HAVE FOUR PEOPLE DECIDING THE FATE OF THE COUNCIL. AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE WAY WE DISCUSSED IT. THAT'S THAT'S HOW THAT DOES. >> ALSO, IT'S FORCING THEM NOT TO BLOCK HIM OR HER AND ALLOW THE MAYOR NOT TO HAVE ANY PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR SECTION 14.10 TO ACCEPT THE REWORDING OR THE ADDITIONAL WORDING FOR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. >> SECOND. >> THERE WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE. >> THE SECOND WAS DAVID. >> WE MISSING. [00:45:03] >> DAVID, WE'RE MISSING YOUR PHONES. >> I VOTED. >> THERE WE GO. >>> NO. THAT WAS MY FAULT. >> IT'S 12 NOW, SO PASSES 9-3. >> LET'S MOVE ON. >> I HATE TO BE THIS GUY GRANT, BUT WE DIDN'T VOTE ON 1410 UPDATING CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WORDING AT THE VERY TOP. >> WE CAN HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION FOR THAT TOO, JUST TO BE CONSISTENT. THANK YOU FOR POSING THAT OUT. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE RENAMING OF THE TITLE OF SECTION 14.10 TO BE AMENDMENT OF THIS CHARTER CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. >> I SECOND. >> NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE TITLE IS GOING TO BE AMENDMENT OF THIS CHARTER; CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE OR THE TITLE IS GOING TO BE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE? THE FIRST ONE YOU READ. AMENDMENT OF THIS CHARTER; CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> WE HAVE EIGHT DOWN. >> COULD YOU RESTATE THE MOTION? >> THE MOTION WAS TO ACCEPT THE TITLE AS AMENDMENT OF THIS CHARTER;CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. >> THAT'S ABOUT THE TITLING? >> YES. >> CORRECT. >> DAVID. THANK YOU. >> IT'S 12-0. MOVING ON TO SECTION 14.13, MEANING OF WORDS. YOU'LL JUST SEE WE CROSSED OUT, WHERE'S CURRENTLY THE CASE WHERE IT SAID PROVIDES FOR AND, MEANS OR, AND OR MEANS AND, TO REMOVE THAT BECAUSE AND AND OR ARE TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT SECTION 14 13 AS UPDATED. >> I SECOND. >> I SECOND. >> WE GOT A MOTION BY MARK AND A SECOND BY [INAUDIBLE] AND WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. [BACKGROUND]. DID YOU PULL OUT A DICTIONARY? THAT ONE PASSES 12-0. >> THE LAST SECTION OF CHAPTER 14 IS SECTION 14.14 EFFECTIVE DATE. YOU'LL SEE THAT WE ADDED NEW LANGUAGE IN THERE TO CONTEMPLATE AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER AS WELL, NOT JUST THE INITIAL ADOPTION, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS SECTION. >> QUESTIONS GOING ONCE. QUESTIONS GOING TWICE. NO QUESTIONS. CAN I SEE A MOTION. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT SECTION 14 14 WITH THE AMENDMENT OF, AND ANY AMENDMENT HERE TOO. >> I SECOND. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. ROIS, SECOND BY MS. CAROLYN DAVID-GRAVES. GOOD TO VOTE. THAT 12-0. 15. >> WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM H.2 2025-206, REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF CHAPTER 15 ADOPTION OF CHARTER OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS AS DISCUSSED AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION UNDER YOUR END. >> THIS ONE'S PRETTY SIMPLE. AS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, THE DESIRES TO JUST REMOVE CHAPTER 15 IN ITS ENTIRETY. A LOT OF THIS LANGUAGE, PROBABLY I'M ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING IT IN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE OR ORDER, CALLING FOR THE ELECTION, NOT NECESSARILY BEING IN THE CHARTER ITSELF. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> I DO HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION. DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER TO COVER US FOR WHEN AMENDMENTS ARE MADE. IN THIS SECTION? >> I THINK IT'S ALREADY ADDRESSED, I REMEMBER CHAPTER 14. >> MOTION. >> I'LL MOVE TO DELETE IT IN ITS ENTIRETY 15. >> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION, DAVID. >> WILL THAT WORK A VOTE? [00:50:13] 12, 0 PASSES. THAT MOVES US ON TO ITEM H.3 2025-207, [H.3 2025-207 Review and consider all Committee-approved, proposed amendments to Chapters 1–15 of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; and take appropriate action.] REVIEW AND CONSIDER ALL COMMITTEE APPROVED, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF CHAPTERS 1-15, THE HOME CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. YOU WANT TO WALK US ITEM BY ITEM? >> SURE. THIS NEXT PORTION, I THINK IT'S THE BIG PRINTOUTS YOU GUYS HAVE WITH A LOT OF THE GREEN LANGUAGE. THIS COMMITTEE DATES BACK TO MAY. WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE. I KNOW SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED IS A WHILE BACK. THE THOUGHT WAS TO ROLL THROUGH EVERYTHING IN THIS PRINTOUT YOU GUYS HAVE BLESSED AND APPROVED AT THIS POINT. BUT AS WE MENTIONED MONTHS AGO, YOU GUYS WILL SEE IT AGAIN, SO Y'ALL CAN MAKE ANY LAST MINUTE TWEAKS OR ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE WE FINALIZE THE WRITTEN REPORT AND SEND IT TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. I GUESS I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO CHAIRMAN TO PROGRESS THROUGH. BUT LIKE YOU SAID, EVERYTHING IN GREEN, ALL THE GREEN LANGUAGE THAT'S UNDERLINED, HAS BEEN ADDED LANGUAGE, AND ALL THE GREEN LANGUAGE THAT'S MARKED OUT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, DELETED LANGUAGE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WE ROLL THROUGH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AMENDMENTS. >> WHAT I WANT TO DO IS, I'M GOING TO GO SECTION AT A TIME. I'M NOT GOING TO READ AT ALL. WE GET THESE ITEMS FAR HEADED UP IN ADVANCE. HOPEFULLY EVERYONE'S GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT. I WILL PAUSE FOR A BRIEF MOMENT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AS WE GO INTO THE SECTION. AFTER THAT, I WILL OPEN UP FOR A MOTION FOR US TO APPROVE THAT SPECIFIC SECTION AS SOLIDIFIED AS A RECOMMENDATION AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SECTION. STARTING WITH THE FIRST SECTION IS SECTION 1.04, WHICH IS ANNEXATIONS AND DISANNEXATIONS. I'M PAUSING FOR A MOMENT FOR YOU GUYS TO BRIEFLY READ THROUGH IT. WITHIN THAT TIME, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GRANT. AFTER A MOMENT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I HAVE A QUESTION AND MAYBE IT DOESN'T FIT INTO ANNEXATIONS AND DISANNEXATIONS, BUT IT PROBABLY GOES INTO THE BYLAWS ANYWAYS. BUT I KNOW SINCE WE STARTED THIS, WE NOW HAVE POTENTIALLY THE CITY CHARGES FEES FOR THE ETJ. REMOVALS. >> REMOVAL. >> COUNSEL. >> I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT NEEDED TO GO ANYWHERE. COOL. >> WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, AND I DON'T RECALL. THE PROBLEM BEING MET BY THIS AMENDMENT ON 104 OR THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, AND MAYBE I JUST HEARD IT, WHAT WAS IT WHAT MOTIVATED THIS? >> YEAH, I THINK THIS WAS DISCUSSED MONTHS AGO, BUT JUST TO PREVENT I GUESS, POCKETS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS THAT AREN'T CITY TO HAVE THE SWISS CHEESE METHOD, JUST FOR LOGISTICS OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES, ETC, IF COUNSEL IS GOING TO DISANEX, AND IT'S GOING TO LEAVE AN AREA UNINCORPORATED WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES, JUST TO PROVIDE AN EXTRA FINDING ON THE RECORD THAT IS IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DO SO. BUT JUST A RECOMMENDATION. I KNOW IT'S BEEN MONTHS AGO, AND WE HAVE TONS OF AMENDMENTS THROUGHOUT HERE. IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OR KEEP THE LANGUAGE. >> MY CONCERN IS THAT, THAT IT'S BAD FOR THE CITY OR IS IT BAD FOR THE LITTLE POCKET OF SWISS CHEESE IN THE MIDDLE? WHO IS IT BAD FOR? >> YES. RIGHT NOW, IF YOU GO SOUTH OF 380 TO THE NEXT INTERCHANGE AND YOU TAKE A RIGHT, YOU GO 30 YARDS. IT TURNS INTO COUNTY ROAD FOR ABOUT 400 YARDS, AND THEN IT TURNS BACK INTO CITY PROPERTY. THAT 400 YARDS HAS NOT BEEN SERVICED BY THE COUNTY, 3.5 YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE. THERE'S HOLES ALL OVER IT. IT DAMAGES CARS, IT JUST TEARS EVERYTHING UP. IT'S IT'S DANGEROUS. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT BY ALLOWING IT TO DO THE SWISS CHEESE APPROACH, NOT BY TAKING IN WHOLE AREAS, YOU ALLOW THE CITY TO DO FOR WHAT CAN EQUATE TO JUST MONEY GRABS OR WHATNOT. >> THEY COULD DO IT, BUT THEY'D HAVE TO COME UP WITH A GOOD REASON AND VOTE IT. >> AT THIS POINT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> A MOTION. WE ACCEPT SECTION 1.04 AS AMENDED. >> I SECOND. >> I'M GOING TO COUNT THAT ONE FOR SKYLER. AT YOU NEXT TIME, J. WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. [00:55:01] THAT'S 12.0. WE WE ENTER OUR NEXT SECTION. SECTION 3.01, MAYOR. I WILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ. >> THE TWO HIGHLIGHTS IN THIS SECTION IS ONE, GIVING IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER, GIVING THE MAYOR A ONE TIME VETO POWER, AND THEN ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE THINGS ON THE AGENDA IN ADDITION TO THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE ARE THE TWO KEY AMENDMENTS IN THIS SECTION. >> GRANT THIS ONE TIME VETO WITH THIS TWO THIRDS SUPER-MAJORITY. OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY OTHER CITY. ANY PLACE AROUND HERE THAT HAS ANYTHING LIKE THIS? >> YES. I CAN'T THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT MAJORITY RULE OR ANYTHING, BUT I HAVE SEEN IT DONE BEFORE. >> I CAN'T I WAS THE ONE THAT I THINK BROUGHT THIS UP. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK INTO MY FILES AND FIND THAT THERE WAS LIKE, THREE CITIES THAT PULLED THIS FROM. >> THE SEWER MAJORITY CAN GET? >> I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE THIS, BUT WHAT TO YOUR POINT, IT DOESN'T, JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE MAJORITY RULE DOESN'T MEAN YOU GUYS CAN'T DO IT. I'VE SEEN IT DONE BEFORE. >> CERTAINLY DOESN'T RULE US, BUT IT'S A CURIOSITY QUESTION. >> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPTED AS ADJUSTED OR AMENDED. >> THANK YOU, DAVID. SECOND. >> I SECOND IT. >> I'II SECOND. WE GOT JULIE ON RECORD BEFORE YOU AGAIN, JIM. IT'S TOO SLOW. WITH THAT, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE. I WANT TO CALL OUT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT CALLING OUT EARLIER. AS WE MOVE INTO THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OR I SHOULD SAY THE CHAPTERS, IF THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO ADD, ALSO, IF WE WANT TO OPEN UP FOR ADDITIONAL THINGS AS WELL. WE HAVE 10, 2. THAT'S PROVED. >> NEXT SECTION IS SECTION 3.02 QUALIFICATIONS. >> IF NO QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE, I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT SECTION 3.02 AS REVISED. >> I SECOND. >> THAT WAS MISS CAROLYN DAVID-GRAVES, AND THEN THE SECOND WAS JOSE RIOS. WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. MISSING TWO PEOPLE, 12, 0. THAT IS APPROVED. NEXT SECTION IS SECTION 3.03 LIMITATIONS OF SUCCESSIVE TERMS. >> IF NO QUESTIONS, I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT SECTION 3.03 AS REVISED. >> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A FIRST AND THE SECOND. THE SECOND WAS MR. RANDALL ROBERTS. WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. THAT'S PROVED 12, 0. THE NEXT SECTION IS SECTION 3.04 COMPENSATION. >> I HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE TOPIC REGARDING, WE SHOULD NOT JUST GIVE THEM THE MONEY JUST BECAUSE THEY NEED TO PROVIDE SOME OF WHAT'S THE ITEMIZATION OF THEY ATTENDED THE MEETING. THEY APPROVED EXPENSES, THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY ATTENDED A TOWN HALL. [01:00:01] WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAND THEM MONEY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO WALK IN FOR A COUPLE HOURS A DAY. WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME STANDARDS BEHIND IT. >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, WE ARE GOING TO HAND THE MONEY. TO THE POINT OF A STANDARD. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THROUGH THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THE MINUTES, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR FACT CHECK FROM BY REQUIRING THEM TO DO THE JOB AND THE REPORT THAT THEY DID THE JOB TO ME IS NOT WORTH THE DOLLAR NUMBER WE'RE ASKING OR WOULD BE PROVIDING FOR THEM. >> TO YOUR POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD AUDIT THAT. >> THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. >> WHAT? >> THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. >> THAT'S NOT AN ETHICAL POINT. >> WE KNOW WITH THE ATTENDANCE, THEY HAVE TO HAVE EXCUSED ABSENCES. THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES ALREADY IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB. >> WHAT'S TO SAY IF A COUNCIL MEMBER MISSES BOTH MEETINGS FOR THAT MONTH, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET COMPENSATED. >> IF THEY HAVE AN EXCUSED ABSENCE, THEY'RE HOLDING THERE'S STANDARDS IN PLACE ALREADY, THEY HAD A MEDICAL EXCUSE OR WHATEVER. THEY'VE ALREADY GOT REQUIREMENTS, AND WE'VE ALREADY PUT THINGS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY LIKE THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE PUT IN HERE THAT SAID, IF THEY MISSED SO MANY MEETINGS OR IF, THERE'S THINGS THAT SAY, THAT THEY HAVE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS IN ORDER TO BE AND ALSO VOTING, VOTERS HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO A WAY HIGHER STANDARD THAN ANYBODY ELSE DOES AS FAR AS ANY JOB I'VE EVER HAD. >> I KNOW THIS WAS MY RECOMMENDATION. I JUST THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY BEHIND IT. >> JUST A QUICK POINT TO MAXINE. YOU SAID THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE AN ITEMIZED LIST. BUT IF YOU READ LATER IN THE SECTION, IT SAYS, IN ADDITION TO THAT COMPENSATION, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL NECESSARY, ETC. IT'S ALMOST LIKE FOR THE MAYOR 1,000 FOR COUNCIL MEMBER 750 BASE PAY CORRECT. THEN ANYTHING ON TOP OF THAT. I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING IS, THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING AN ITEMIZED LIST ANYWAYS IF THEY'RE NEEDING TO BE REIMBURSED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES. I DO SUPPORT THERE BEING SOMETHING IN HERE THAT WE'LL SAY, IF THEY'RE ON THE LEAVE. IF THEY'RE ON THE LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR SIX MONTHS, I'M JUST THROWING THE NUMBER OUT THERE. ARE WE REALLY GOING TO BE PAYING THEM THE $750 OR $1,000 FOR THOSE SIX MONTHS. AT MINIMUM, I WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE SOME VERBIAGE THAT LIMITS, EITHER THEY'RE NOT, IF THEY'RE ON LEAVE. >> I THINK THAT FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS OR THE MAYOR, THAT'S COVERED IN WRONG GRANT AND LIKE VACANCIES. >> 3.35. IF THEY MISSED 25% OR MORE, IF IT'S NOT EXCUSED, THEN IT COULD BE AN ISSUE. BUT IN YOUR SCENARIO, THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCUSABLE ABSENCE THAT THEY WOULD STILL BE PAID. I GET YOUR CONCEPT OF WHERE YOU'RE GOING. THE REASON WHY I DON'T AGREE WITH IT IS BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT SOMEBODY IN CHARGE OF JUSTIFYING WHY I GET $750. BECAUSE NOW IF CAROLYN DAVID-GRAVES SUBMITS HER FORMS, AND I'M LIKE, NOPE, THAT'S ONLY WORTH $300 THIS MONTH. THAT NOW PROHIBITS THE WHOLE MEANING BEHIND PRETERM PROVIDE COMPENSATION. >> BUT YOU ARE I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER SOMETHING, NOT THAT I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD GET PAID. BUT I'M THINKING THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMPENSATION, THIS GOES INTO EMPLOYMENT. I THINK RATHER IT SHOULD BE A STIPEND OR WE COULD REVISE THIS TO SAY THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE A STIPEND OF UP TO THIS AMOUNT. THAT WAY, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH ATTENDANCE OR ANYTHING, IT CAN THEN BE PRO RATED. >> BUT WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? >> PARDON ME? >> WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? >> IS IT POSSIBLE TO REVISE THE BY LAWS THAT WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE? [01:05:01] THIS IS LIKE A BLANKET. >> I'M NOT AGAINST THE IDEA AROUND HAVING KPIS OR KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN PLACE FOR COMPENSATION. I WILL SAY TO MARK'S POINT AT THIS LEVEL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS READ THE NEWS RECENTLY, BUT THERE'S LIKE A MAYOR I GOT $134,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SALARY, THAT'S WORTH KPIS. BUT FOR $750 AND $1,000, I THINK AT THIS LEVEL, THIS IS A VERY BASE LEVEL TO START OUT WITH. I WOULD THINK THAT THE MINUTES, THE MEETINGS, SO ON AND SO FORTH, ARE ENOUGH FOR THIS LEVEL. IF IT INCREASES AND GETS INTO A LITTLE BIT OF A HIGHER RANGE, I WOULD PROBABLY BE RIGHT THERE BEHIND YOU, MAXINE AND BACKING YOU 110% TO SAY, WE NEED TO START IRONING OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET FOR THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. >> GRANT, DO YOU KNOW HOW OTHER CITIES HANDLE IT? >> MOST EITHER THEY DON'T PROVIDE COMPENSATION OR THEY DO. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY [INAUDIBLE]. >> NO KPIS? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I THINK IT'S STILL FOR THE MAYORS $12,000 A YEAR, BUT IT'S I THINK TO THE POINT OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BEING SAID, IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO WHERE IT'S NOT LIKE ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GUYS ARE PAYING THEM AND THEY'RE DOING MORE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING CURRENTLY EVEN WITHOUT GETTING PAID. I THINK IT'S MORE JUST A GOOD FAITH. [OVERLAPPING] IT'S NOT LIKE ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE DOING MORE BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING PAID. >> WITH THE TWO RED MICS. >> WE HAVE RANDALL AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO JODY AND THEN DAVID, I SEE, YOU'RE IN THE WAIT. >> AT THE END OF SECTION 304, IT INDICATES THAT UPON APPROVAL OF SUCH EXPENSES BY THE CITY COUNCIL, DOES THAT INDICATE THAT EVERY SINGLE EXPENSE WILL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND WILL IT BE BEFORE OR AFTER THE EXPENSE? AND WILL IT OCCUR IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OR?BASICALLY, IS THERE ANY GUIDANCE ON THAT FROM EITHER THE STATE OR ANYBODY ELSE, OR WE JUST HAVE OUR INTERNAL PROCEDURES? INTERNAL PROCEDURES? THEY COULD BE ANYTHING, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE, EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO DEAL WITH THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS. >> IT'S IN THE BY LAWS. >> IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION. >> RIGHT. >> YEAH, IT'S ALL PUBLIC. >> I'M SORRY, JASON, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU. >> I WAS SAYING IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE AS A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST, SO YOU CAN GET ACCESS TO IT THAT WAY AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> PRETTY SURE THERE'S A SEPARATE LINE ITEM ON THE BUDGET THAT REFERENCES COUNCIL EXPENSES AND TRAININGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR BOARD MEMBERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, TOO. BUT YES, IT'S ALL THE EXPENSE INVOICES, RECEIPTS. THAT'S ALL OF THE INFORMATION. >> IS THERE ANYTHING WE'RE CHANGING HERE BY HAVING THOSE EXPENSES APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THAT'S ALREADY PART OF THE INTERNAL AGREEMENTS? >> THAT'S ALREADY VERBIAGE. >> THANK YOU. >> JODY. >> I WATCH ALL THE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND REALLY ALL THE COMMITTEES, AND I'M SOMEWHAT APPRISED WITH THE WORK THAT'S INVOLVED HERE, THE CONTROVERSY AND EVERYTHING THEY'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH AND SOMETIMES PUT UP WITH. THIS IS DE MINIMIS, AND IT'S NOT REALLY COMPENSATION. THIS IS DE MINIMIS AND I THINK WE'RE REALLY FIRMLY ENTERING THE THEATER OF THE ABSURD, EVEN HAGGLING ABOUT IT THIS MUCH. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PASS IT AND MOVE ON. >> TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT ADDING ITEMS TO JUSTIFY THE $750 PER MONTH, IN THAT LAST SENTENCE WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THEIR COMPENSATION REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES, IT DOES SAY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL DUTIES, SO IT WOULD BE JUST AS EASY TO PUT EACH COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL RECEIVE COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $750 PER MONTH, AND ALSO INCLUDED WITH THE ONE FOR THE MAYOR FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL DUTIES. IT CLARIFIES IF WE FEEL THAT WE NEED CLARIFICATION THAT THIS IS FOR CITY COUNCIL DUTIES. THEN THE COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES IS ON TOP OF THAT. I WILL TELL YOU, IT DOES BOTHER ME A LITTLE BIT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS APPROVING THEIR OWN EXPENSES. THAT WOULD BE LIKE JULIE ZELLER IS GOING TO SUBMIT HER EXPENSES TO BE APPROVED BY JULIE ZELLER. THAT SEEMS A LITTLE ODD. [01:10:01] I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN DONE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THEIR OWN EXPENSES IS POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I'M PULLING FROM PAST KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS STILL CURRENT STATE, BUT IN THE PAST, ON THE CDC, WE WOULD APPROVE A BUDGET LINE ITEM AMOUNT. THAT LINE ITEM AMOUNT COULD BE USED, AND THEN ACCORDING TO THE POLICIES THAT WERE WRITTEN IN OUR BY LAWS, I WOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR THOSE REASONS, AND I WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT RECEIPTS. WHAT I'M APPROVING IS THE BUDGET AMOUNT, AND I'M SUBMITTING MY RECEIPTS, AND THEN THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE STAFF WISE THAT'S LOOKING AT MY RECEIPT, CHECKING IT ACCORDING TO WHAT THE BY LAW SAYS, THAT'S APPLICABLE, AND CLICKING A BUTTON. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS THERE. >> WELL, I THINK THE PORTION THAT TO WHAT GRANT WAS SAYING EARLIER, AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING THAT IT'S NOT EXTREMELY CLEAR, BUT I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE CLARITY FOR THE REST OF GROUP. I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING HERE IS THAT WHAT'S BEING APPROVED IS THE EXPENSES FROM A BUDGETARY STANDPOINT, THE BUDGET AMOUNT IS WHAT'S APPROVED BY COUNSEL. THEN THE BYLAWS ARE WHAT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT'S OKAY TO BE ALLOWABLE, YEAH. >> AVA. >> WELL, FOR ONE, I DON'T THINK $1,000 PAYS FOR FACEBOOK ACCOUNT. JUST THAT BY ITSELF, HAVING LISTENED TO FACEBOOK IS INSUFFICIENT, TOO MUCH FOR A 1,000 BUCKS. BUT I WOULD ALSO MOVE THAT WE HIT ENTER AFTER THE WORD COMPENSATION WHERE IT'S GREEN, AND MAKE A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH FOR THE MAYOR OF CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT SO THERE'S CLEAR DELINEATION BETWEEN THE COMPENSATION CONVERSATION AND THE EXPENSE CONVERSATION BECAUSE AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN THIS CONVERSATION, PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS FOR THAT AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST SENTENCE OF A COMPENSATION. I THINK IT WOULD CLEAN IT UP. >> [INAUDIBLE] THE TWO. >> JUST SPREAD IT INTO TWO SEPARATE. >> IS THAT A MOTION? >> YEAH I WOULD MOVE TO DO THAT. >> THAT WAS A MOTION WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> WITH THAT. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE. WE'RE GOOD 12-0. >> I WOULD LOVE TO. >> THAT WAS FOR THE PARAGRAPH, RIGHT? >> YEAH. >> YEAH, THAT WAS JUST TO VOTE TO SEPARATE IT OUT. >> TO SEPARATE IT, YEAH. >> NOT TO VOTE TO APPROVE. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 3.04 AS AMENDED. >> SECOND. >> VOTE. >> STILL MAKES SOME ONE MORE. WE HAVE 11-4, ONE ABSTAIN. I TRY TO KEEP TRACK OF TIME HERE. THAT MOVES US ON TO SECTION 3.05, VACANCY IN THE CITY COUNCIL FILLING UP VACANCIES. IT'S A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS HERE, SO I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT IF YOU DO HAVE ANY ADJUSTMENTS, LET'S GO ABC. LET'S BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHICH AREA WE'RE SPEAKING TO. >> I KNOW WE SPENT LIKE THREE DAYS ON THIS SECTION, SO IF I MIGHT, CAN WE MOVE TO ACCEPT IT AS EDITED? >> I'M OPEN FOR A MOTION. ABSOLUTELY. >> I MOVED TO ACCEPT IT AS EDITED HERE. >> I ACCEPTED THAT. >> IS THAT FOR ALL OF SECTION 3.5? THANK YOU. >> WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT WAS ALL OF SECTION 3.05 THAT HE MADE A MOTION. JUST NEED ONE MORE. THAT'S 12-0. THE NEXT SECTION IS SECTION 3..08, WHICH IS A STRIKE OUT OF THAT COMPLETE SECTION. >> A MOTION, WE ACCEPT SECTION 3.08 AS IS. [01:15:03] >> A MOTION BY SHER ELLISON, SECOND BY SCOTT SMITH. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. THE MOTION WAS TO REMOVE 3.08. ONE MORE VOTE. >> WELL, IT'S ME BUT IT'S BLANK. >> ARE YOUR SCREENS BLANK? >> FOR THE RECORD, DOES IT SHOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR? >> SHE HAS THERE. IT'S 3.08. >> OH, I SEE IT HERE. THAT'S CONSISTENCY. >> WE'RE 12-0. AVA IS NOT GOING TO KNOW. YOU CAN TELL THAT, RIGHT? BEFORE YOU MOVE TO THE NEXT CHAPTER, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS SECTION IN CHAPTER 3. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL SECTION FOR ABSTENTION TO BACK UP SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE BY LAWS TO ENSURE THAT THIS BECOMES A VOTE APPROVED CHANGE, AND IT SHOULD READ, SHOULD ANY PERSON OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON ANY QUESTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, THE PERSON'S VOTE SHALL BE RECORDED AS A NEGATIVE VOTE IN THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS. I CAN SEND THAT TO YOU. THAT IS MY MOTION. >> THAT LANGUAGE MIRRORS ALMOST EXACTLY TO WHAT THE BY LAW COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY APPROVED. >> YEAH. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION. > >BUT WHERE ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT GOES? >> IT'S GOING TO BE ITS OWN SEPARATE SECTION. >> IN SECTION 4? >> IN CHAPTER 3. >> CHAPTER 3. >> YEAH, IT'LL BE 3.09. WELL, TECHNICALLY, IT'LL BE 3.08 SINCE WE REMOVE 3.08. >> [INAUDIBLE] GOING TO BE 3.06? >> IT'LL BE 3.08. [BACKGROUND] YEAH. IT'LL BE REPLACING 3.08, WHICH WE JUST REMOVED AS THE NEW SECTION 3.08, AND IT'LL BE TITLED ABSTENTION. JUST TO BE CLEAR SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR IT AGAIN, SHOULD ANY PERSON IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON ANY QUESTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, THE PERSON'S VOTE SHALL BE RECORDED AS A NEGATIVE VOTE IN THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING. >> COULD YOU PROVIDE THE RATIONALE? >> I WOULD SAY THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I WILL LEAVE THAT TO YOU TO JUSTIFY THAT. >> WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE MEETING BEFORE. THERE'S CERTAIN STATE LAW CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THERE'S INSTANCES, AND IT'S NOT JUST PRINCETON, IT'S EVERYWHERE, IT'S OTHER PLACES TOO WHERE EITHER A COUNCIL MEMBER OR BOARD MEMBER WILL JUST ABSTAIN WITHOUT A CONFLICT. UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN YOUR CHARTER AND BY LAWS DEFINING WHAT THAT ABSTENTION MEANS, IT LEAVES IT UP FOR INTERPRETATION. THERE'S A GRAY AREA. USUALLY WHAT I'M USED TO SEEING IN OTHER CHARTERS OR BY LAWS IS IF YOU ABSTAIN FOR A NON LEGAL CONFLICT, IT MEANS A NO. WHAT IT DOES IS IT FORCES THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE BOARD MEMBERS, PEOPLE THAT ARE ELECTED AND APPOINTED TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND NOT HAVE A COP OUT UNLESS THERE'S A LEGAL CONFLICT AND THEY CAN'T VOTE. >> I'M READING THIS VERBIAGE FROM THE CITY OF MELISSA, AND IT'S THE EXACT SAME VERBIAGE IN THE CITY OF SACHSE. >> YEAH. >> IT'S PRETTY COMMON. >> PRINCETON DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING. WE'VE LOOKED AT IT BEFORE. WE'VE HAD IT OCCUR A COUPLE OF TIMES. PRINCETON DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> RANDALL IS. >> WHO'S TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR NOT? >> GRANT, IF YOU CAN GIVE ONE MORE TIME. >> IF THERE'S A LEGAL CONFLICT, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REACH OUT BEFORE THE MEETING AND THEN EITHER CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY, BOTH OF US, WE DETERMINE IF THERE IS A LEGAL CONFLICT, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FILL OUT A DESIGNATED FORM, WHETHER IT'S A CLOSE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP OR A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, ETC. SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE PAST MEETING OR TWO. IT'S ALL COVERED UNDER STATE LAW. >> WOULD IT BE IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL FOR US TO REQUIRE IF SOMEONE IS ABSTAINING FOR THE REASON OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT THEY WOULD STATE THAT PUBLICLY IN THE MEETING? >> YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO? >> BUT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN HERE. >> WELL, WE'RE MAKING THAT RULE NOW. >> IT'S HAPPENED HERE AND THERE. >> IN THEORY IT DOES, BUT IN PRACTICE, WE DON'T. >> I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN. >> IT'S HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES. >> BUT I THINK THIS IS GOING TO MAKE IT CONCRETE. [01:20:02] >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, GRANT, IT'S LIKE STEVE DEFFIBAUGH THAT'S ON THE CITY COUNCIL. HE DOES HAVE TO ABSTAIN EVERY NOW AND THEN WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER. HE'S ONE THAT WILL ACTUALLY PUBLICLY SAY THAT HE'S ABSTAINED BECAUSE IT'S NAMED AFTER HIM. THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF BUT IT DOESN'T OCCUR EVERY TIME. >> DAVID. >> LET ME PUT THIS RIGHT. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE IDEA OF HAVING THE TEXT THAT YOU HAVE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A REFERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENT ATTACHED, NOT THE WORDS OF THE REQUIREMENT, WITH A REFERENCE OF WHAT WE'RE SAYING. CAN WE REFERENCE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATE REQUIREMENTS AS THE SECTION? >> PUT IN THERE, PER? >> BASICALLY SUPPORTED IN STATE LAWS SO YOU'RE SAYING REFERENCE THAT VERBIAGE THAT WE FOUND. I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE WITH THAT GRANT. >> FOR STATE LAW. >> WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THE SAME PER STATE LAW OR YOU WANT TO HAVE THE VERBIAGE FROM STATE LAW? >> WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS LEAVE IT OPEN WHERE SOMEBODY CAN BE INCLUSIVE TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A LIMITING. I CAN SEE AN OCCASION WHERE SOMEBODY WOULD FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A CONFLICT AND LOOK FOR A WAY TO NOT VOTE. IF WE LIMIT IT TO WHAT THE STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR FOR THAT THING, THEN WE'D BE MORE APT TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE. >> AGREE. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW RIGHT THAT IS. >> JASON, MY QUESTION IS THE SAME AS DAVID'S. I SCRIBBLED DOWN SOMETHING, BUT I DIDN'T GET YOUR EXACT WORDING. DOES YOUR AMENDMENT SAY DESIGNATED LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST? WHAT DOES IT SAY? >> NO. IT SAYS, "SHOULD ANY PERSON ON THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON ANY QUESTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, THE PERSON'S VOTE SHALL BE RECORDED AS A NEGATIVE VOTE IN THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING." >> COULD WE AMEND THAT LANGUAGE TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE DESIGNATED LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLOWABLE BY TEXAS STATE LAW OR SOMETHING THE VOTE WILL COUNT? >> FOR SURE POINTING TO DAVID'S POINT, I'M TRYING TO THINK, IF WE JUST SAY STATE LAW. >> I WAS JUT SAYING, HERE'S WHAT THE BY-LAW COMMITTEE IS. THIS IS THE VERBIAGE THAT THEY CAME UP WITH. I'M JUST GOING TO READ IT FOR POINT OF REFERENCE. OBVIOUSLY, CHARTER TRUMPS THE BY-LAWS, SO WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY MIRROR ONE ANOTHER. SHOULD A COUNCIL MEMBER CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON ANY MATTER BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE NO LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE SHALL BE RECORDED AS A NEGATIVE OR NO VOTE IN THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING. THAT'S WHAT THE BYLAW COMMITTEES APPROVED UP TO THIS POINT. >> IF GRANT IS SAYING THE PROCESS IS FOR YOU TO HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT IT AHEAD OF TIME AND GET APPROVAL FROM GRANT, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCUSE DURING A MEETING FOR NOT TO SLIDE ON IF IT'S NOT LEGALLY APPROVED. >> GO AHEAD NOW, I'M SORRY. I'M READING THE CONFLICT OF RESOLUTION SECTION. >> THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL WAIT FOR JASON TO FINISH HIS ANALYSIS THERE. MY COMMENT IS, I'M CONCERNED, LET'S SAY I WAS ON THE COUNCIL AND I DECIDED THAT I HAVE AN ETHICAL CONFLICT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A LEGAL ONE. I ABSTAINED FOR THAT, AND MY VOTE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A NO. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO HAVE MY VOTE DETERMINED BY MY ABSTAINING FROM VOTING. IF I'M ABSTAINING FROM VOTING, IT'S BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO VOTE. >> THE POINT IS THAT YOU'RE ELECTED. [01:25:02] [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT I REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT LEGALLY. BUT WHAT IF THERE'S AN ETHICAL SITUATION THAT MAYBE HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR ILLEGAL? >> BUT WHEN YOU'RE SITTING UP THERE, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. IT'S ABOUT THE RESIDENT. WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE ETHICAL ISN'T WHAT THE RESIDENTS THINK. >> BUT WHAT IF FOR INSTANCE, IT'S SOMETHING ABOUT, LET'S SAY A CITY EMPLOYEE, AND WE'RE MAKING A DETERMINATION IN A PUBLIC MEETING ABOUT SOMETHING, AND I HAVE AN ETHICAL CONFLICT. >> THEN YOU VOTE, NO. >> EXACTLY. THEN YOU VOTE, NO. IF YOU HAVE ANY ETHICAL CONFLICT, DAVID'S RIGHT. YOU VOTE NO. >> BUT WHAT IF VOTING NO MAKES IT LOOK LIKE I'M EXTENDING FAVORITISM? >> IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME ON COUNSEL. >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, RANDALL, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT'S PROBABLY LESS LIKELY THAN THE ALTERNATIVE WHERE SOMEBODY WOULD. >> WELL, I UNDERSTAND RECENTLY THREE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSTAINED IN A SITUATION AND GAVE NO REASON FOR WHY THEY WERE ABSTAINING? >> YES. THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUTTING THAT IN THERE. >> DO WE KNOW WHETHER THAT'S LEGAL OR ETHICAL OR PERSONAL OR I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE VOTING AT THIS MOMENT. NOTHING PERSONAL AGAINST THOSE PEOPLE. I'M JUST STATING AS AN EXAMPLE. >> BECAUSE I'M HEARING THAT WE'RE MAKING RULES, AND PEOPLE AREN'T FOLLOWING IT. IT'S THE REALITY. >> WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO IS THEY DIDN'T GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THERE WASN'T A VOTE. THEY DIDN'T STAY FOR THE VOTE. THEY DIDN'T GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THEY RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM IT. I THINK THAT IS A SEPARATE SCENARIO. YOU SHOULD BE IN THERE TO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION. I AGREE. BUT I WOULD SAY, FOR WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING TO AS FAR AS THE VOTING ITSELF, I THINK THAT FOR THE MOST PART, THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WE'VE SAID THIS IN OTHER SECTIONS, TOO MUCH SUPERSEDE STATE LAW. I THINK IN TAKING DAVID'S APPROACH OF HEY, LET'S ENSURE THAT THE CLARIFICATION INCLUDES THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT REASON. THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT. THIS IS THE REFERENCE POINT AND MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT. I THINK THAT WILL RESOLVE THIS. IT'S IN THE BY-LAWS. THIS IS REALLY A SUPPORTIVE MEASURE. >> THE EXAMPLE THAT I JUST GAVE, WOULD THOSE THREE COUNCILMEN VOTE AUTOMATICALLY BE COUNTED AS NO? >> THEY DIDN'T GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT WASN'T A VOTE. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC. >> THIS IS FIRST I'VE HEARD OF THIS, AND I LIKE IT MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME. A PERSON GETS ELECTED TO COUNSEL. WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE AGENDA? THEY HAVE WARNING OF, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE WHAT CONFLICT, ETC, REASON THEY HAVE TO ABSTAIN, SO THEY SHOULD PUT ON THEIR BIG PERSON PANTS IN ADVANCE, BE PREPARED. I LIKE IT. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE TO RE-MOTION AND RE-SECOND? >> IF YOU DON'T MIND FOR ME, PLEASE, BECAUSE I LOST TRACK. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE ADDITION OF SECTION INTO CHAPTER 3 FOR WHAT JASON SAID, INCLUDING WHAT DAVID SAID OF HAVING A SECTION ABOUT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE STATE GUIDELINES. >> THAT'S SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH FOR YOU? >> DO YOU NEED TO READ? >> I THINK I JUST WANT A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE LATTER PART OF THE MOTION. THE LANGUAGE THAT JASON READ OUT EARLIER, I'M CRYSTAL CLEAR ON. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LATTER PART. >> CAN YOU HELP OUT WITH THIS? >> I WOULD PUT IT AS DEFINED BY STATE LAW AND PUT THE REFERENCE AT WORK. >> THE REFERENCE FOR WHAT? THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. >> WHERE WE DEFINE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? >> IT ALREADY SAYS LEGAL. >> IT IS NOT BEING RECOMMENDED. >> THE WORD LEGAL IS IN THE BY-LAW COMMITTEE. NOT IN THE MOTION THAT HE PUT FORWARD. >> WOULD YOU WANT TO ADD THAT? THAT WAY COVERS THE LAW. >> I'M FINE WITH ADDING THAT. I ALSO WOULD STILL SUPPORT ADDING ACCORDING TO STATE LAW. I STILL THINK THAT IS IN SUPPORT. [01:30:01] >> ACCORDING TO STATE LAW CHAPTER, SECTION, ETC. >> IF IT MAKES IT CHOPPY TO ADD THE REFERENCE OR SECTION, I UNDERSTAND LEAVING OUT. BUT IF THERE'S CLEARLY A SECTION THAT DEFINES WHAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS WITH THE STATE I THINK ADDING SECTION 219 POINT DOT WHATEVER, IT RELIEVES ALL AMBIGUITY AND PUTS US ON A CLEAR PATH. >> SURE. I WILL TAKE A STAB AT IT, AND YOU GUYS WILL LOOK AT IT NEXT MEETING. >> THAT WORKS. >> THAT'S GOOD. >> PERFECT. >> I CAN LOOK IT UP, BUT I DON'T HAVE POWER. >> WE HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND. >> THAT WAS FIRST. I SHARE IN THE SECOND DAVID. ONE MORE. THAT IS APPROVED 12-0. ANY ADDITIONS TO CHAPTER 3 BEFORE WE MOVE TO CHAPTER 4. MOVING ON. WE'RE MOVING TO CHAPTER 4, CITY MANAGERS. STARTING WITH SECTION 4.02, DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES, NON-INTERFERENCE BY COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVALS OF DEPARTMENT HEADS. I GIVE SOME TIME FOR EVERYONE TO READ. >> HELP ME OUT SOMEBODY. WHAT DID WE DECIDE IF THE CITY MANAGER AND MAYOR DID NOT AGREE IN WRITING BEFORE APPOINTING AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS A GOOD COUNSEL OR WHAT? WHAT DID WE DECIDE IF THEY'RE AT LOGGERHEADS? I WASN'T GOING TO STAY SILENT ON IT. >> THAT'S IT. THEY BASICALLY DON'T GET HIRED. IF THEY DON'T BOTH AGREE, THEY DON'T GET HIRED. >> IT'S WHAT? >> IF THEY DON'T AGREE ON A PERSON, THE PERSON DOESN'T GET HIRED IS THE WAY IT READS. >> THE CITY'S A LITTLE PARALYZED IN THAT POSITION? >> CORRECT. >> IT'S ONLY THE APPOINTEES DEPARTMENTS. >> JODI, WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST INSTEAD? >> RIGHT NOW, THE MANAGER DOES IT. I WOULD JUST VOTE NO. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT SECTION 4.02 AS REVISED. >> I SECOND. >> WE'RE GOOD TO VOTE. THAT IS APPROVED 9-3. NEXT SECTION, SECTION 4.03 SPECIFIC POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER. >> AS WRITTEN HERE ON ITEM 4.032, IT IS SAYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR. JUST TO CLARIFY. >> WHICH ONE IS THAT? >> ITEM 2, IN COLLABORATION WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 3.01. LET ME GO BACK TO IT. >> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. >> WE HAVE A LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS. CURRENTLY, THE MAYOR DOES NOT HAVE THE SAY OF WHAT GETS PUT ON THE AGENDA. >> I REMEMBER IT BEING IN COLLABORATION WITH BUT THE SUBJECT 2 MEANS THAT THE MAYOR FALLS AHEAD OF CITY MANAGER. I THOUGHT IT WAS ALWAYS IN COLLABORATION. THEY BOTH HAVE EQUAL SAY IN IT. BUT HERE, THE SUBJECT 2, I DON'T REMEMBER US ADDING THAT. WE ALWAYS WANTED THEM TO HAVE EQUAL ABILITY AND SAY IN THIS. BUT HERE IT SAYS THAT THE MAYOR BASICALLY IS SUBJECT TO AUTHORITY. SUBJECT AND AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR MEANS THAT THE MAYOR SUPERSEDES THE CITY MANAGER WITH THAT WORK. [01:35:02] >> BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE THAT RECOMMENDED THAT, WAS THAT THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE ITEMS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA INDEPENDENTLY AND SHALL REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FINAL AGENDA JOINTLY WITH THE CITY MANAGER. THAT'S WHAT MY ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE VOTED ON, THOUGH. >> NO, WE DIDN'T. >> WE VOTED THAT THE MAYOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA. NOT THAT HE WAS IN AUTHORITY OVER THAT. THE DISCUSSION ALSO INCLUDED THAT WE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THE MAYOR OR THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO OWN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PREPARING AND SUBMITTING THE AGENDA. THEY JUST WANTED TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THINGS ON AND NOT BE TOLD THEY COULDN'T. >> CORRECT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE THAT. >> I DON'T REMEMBER VOTING ON THIS LANGUAGE EITHER, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. >> IT'S FINE. WE HAVE A FIELD ABOUT IT. DO WE WANT TO OFFER A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT? HE CAN GO BACK AND REWORK IT TO MEET THE CURRENT FEEL OF WHAT WE BELIEVE WAS INTENDED? >> I MOVE THAT WE REVISE ITEM 2 TO READ IN COLLABORATION WITH THE MAYOR, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3.01 OF THE CHARTER, AND REMOVE THE SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OFF. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE. JUST ONE MORE. THAT IS APPROVED 12-0. ANY OTHER BEFORE WE MOVE ON? I KNOW THAT WAS JUST FOR THAT SECOND POINT. WAS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REMAINING SECTION? NO. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REMAINING SECTION. >> IS IT JUST FOR 4.03 OR JUST FOUR IN GENERAL? >> THIS IS FOR 4.03. SHE MADE AN AMENDMENT OR A RECOMMENDATION FOR 4.03. BEFORE WE MOVE OFF OF 4.03, I WANT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IF NOT THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REMAINING AMENDMENTS IF THERE'S OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE MADE TO APPROVED. >> I DID HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR 4.03 REGARDING TRANSPARENCY REPORTING AND THE CITY MANAGER PROVIDING QUARTERLY PUBLIC REPORTS ON CAPITAL PROJECTS, CONTRACTS, AND KPIS FOR THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. >> IS THAT A MOTION? >> THAT'S A MOTION. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, MAXINE?. >> SHE ASKED IF YOU WOULD REPEAT IT, MAXINE. >> IT'S CALLED TRANSPARENCY REPORTING. THE CITY MANAGER SHALL PROVIDE QUARTERLY PUBLIC REPORTS ON CAPITAL PROJECTS, CONTRACTS, AND KPIS METRICS FOR EACH DEPARTMENT. >> ISN'T THAT ALREADY ON THE WEBSITE? ISN'T THAT PROVIDED IN MEETINGS? >> NOT ALL OF IT. >> WHAT WOULD THAT DO IF SOME OF THAT INFORMATION IS PROPRIETARY? HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE CITY? >> I CAN REQUEST AND ITEM I WANT AS A PUBLIC REQUEST. >> AS MUCH AS I LOVE THE TONE BEHIND IT, I FEEL LIKE THAT, AGAIN, IS MORE OF A BY LAW. IT SEEMS MORE PROCEDURAL. >> THIS IS A LOT OF MICROMANAGEMENT. >> WELL, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS? YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF THAT, OR JUST A SIGNED CONTRACT OR INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED HERE? IN WHAT MAXINE IS RECOMMENDING. >> I DON'T BELIEVE WE GOT A SECOND. I'LL SECOND MAXINE'S MOTION SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. >> WE HAVE A SECOND. OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. BUT I THINK YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, RANDALL. [01:40:03] I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER FOR MAXINE. I'M GOING TO LET TO MAXINE ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT QUESTION WAS FOR ME OR IF IT WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS CAROLYN WHO COMMENTED ABOUT THE INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED. >> I GUESS IT WOULD BE MORE DIRECTED TOWARDS CAROLYN. WHAT'S YOUR CONCERN ABOUT SOME INFORMATION BEING MADE PUBLIC THAT YOU HAD INDICATED THAT IT COULD CAUSE SOME ISSUES? WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR A SPECIFIC CONCERN? >> THERE ARE SOMETIMES IN DISCUSSION, IN NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S PROPRIETARY, AND IF SO IT COULD BE LITIGIOUS FOR THE CITY. I WOULD CAUTION THE MICROMANAGEMENT OF THAT AREA. I KNOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE HOME RULE CHARTER, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOME RULED CITIES, COUNCIL BASICALLY JUST HAS A CEREMONIAL POSITION. MOST OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY CITY STAFF, WHO WE TRUST TO BE QUALIFIED TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. IT IS NOT THAT THERE ISN'T TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCESS, BUT SOMETIMES THE NATURE OF THE NEGOTIATION PROHIBITS THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION. >> I DIDN'T SAY NEGOTIATION. >> HOLD ON. >> AS MUCH INFORMATION THAT IT'S ALREADY ON OUR WEBSITE, I THINK THAT SATISFIES INFORMATION BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ENOUGH UNTIL MAYBE THE COUNCIL CAN VOTE ON IT AND THE INFORMATION CAN THEN BE FULLY MADE PUBLIC. >> YOU'RE DONE? YOU JUST SAID A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH. ONE, YOU SAID WE NEED TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT. THEN YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE PART OF AN ORGANIZATION AS THE CITY COUNCIL THAT'S BASICALLY JUST THERE TO LET THEM DO THEIR JOB. >> I DID NOT SAY THAT. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. YOU SAID YOU SHOULD TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. WE NEED TO TRUST THEM TO DO THEIR JOB. THAT IS NOT THE CITY COUNCIL'S JOB TO TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WHO'S NOT ELECTED THAT THEY'RE HIRED. THE CITY COUNCIL'S JOB IS TO OVERSEE THE CITY GOVERNMENT. IF YOU'RE NOT INTENDING TO OVERSEE THE CITY GOVERNMENT, THAT YOU'RE IN THE WRONG SPOT. WITH REGARDS TO THE MOTION THAT WAS PUT FORWARD BY MAXINE, SHE'S ASKING FOR A REPORT. SHE'S NOT ASKING FOR ALL THE INTIMATE DETAILS OF EVERY CONTRACT TO BE SUBMITTED AND RELEASED. SHE'S ASKING FOR THE GUY WE'RE PAYING $200,000 A YEAR TO PROVIDE A REPORT QUARTERLY OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY FROM HIS POSITION. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK, AND IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR ANYBODY WHO'S RUNNING A COMPANY. THE CEO OF MY COMPANY PROVIDES A REPORT. THE CEO OF MICROSOFT PROVIDES A REPORT TO HIS SHAREHOLDERS. IT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT PERSON PROVIDE SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THE PEOPLE THAT HE'S REPRESENTING. AS FAR AS KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT HE MANAGES, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY IN EVERY QUARTERLY REPORT IN ANY ORGANIZATION TO TRY TO WALK AWAY FROM THAT AND GIVE HIM A FREE PASS IS UNETHICAL OF US TO DO. NOW, WHAT THOSE KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ARE AND WHAT THAT REPORT LOOKS LIKE, ABSOLUTELY, I THINK THAT'S A BY LOSS CONVERSATION. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, I STATED CAPITAL PROJECTS AND CONTRACTS. I DID NOT STATE ANYTHING ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS. JUST CLARIFYING. >> TO CLARIFY, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, MAXINE IS JUST THE REPORT TO BE RELEASED FROM THE CITY MANAGER. ANY COMPETENT CEO WOULD GO TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND SAY, HEY, PARKS & REC, GIVE ME YOUR QUARTERLY REPORT? >> EVERY SINGLE COMPANY DOES THAT. >> GOT YOU. I JUST WANT YOU TO CLARIFY. >> WE'RE NOT A COMPANY. WE'RE A CITY. WHY SHOULDN'T THE RESIDENTS KNOW WHAT THE CITY'S DOING QUARTERLY? >> IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE [OVERLAPPING]. >> RANDALL >> MAXINE, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO SEE HAPPEN, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD IDEA, IS THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING QUARTERLY REPORTS BASICALLY ON THEIR BUDGET. [01:45:02] THEY'RE SHOWING THIS IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST QUARTER. I THINK THE CITY WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW THAT IF THEY'VE BLOWN THEIR WHOLE BUDGET IN ONE QUARTER, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW THAT. IF THEY HAVE ONLY SPENT 20% OF THEIR BUDGET, THEN SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S 80% OF THE MONEY AVAILABLE TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, INSTEAD OF ROLLING IT OVER INTO THE NEXT YEAR, OR WHATEVER WE'VE DECIDED TO DO. BUT THE ASPECTS OF NEGOTIATIONS, I WOULD NEVER EXPECT THAT BE PUBLICLY REPORTED. >> I DIDN'T MENTION ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS. >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT'S BEING ADDRESSED. >> THAT WASN'T. >> ONE QUICK THING. I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO A QUARTERLY REPORT. I DO HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE MICROMANAGEMENT OF THAT. YOU CAN CALL ME JODY. COULD YOU READ YOUR MOTION ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE. >> MY MOTION IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHALL PROVIDE A QUARTERLY PUBLIC REPORT ON CAPITAL PROJECTS, CONTRACTS, AND STAFF, OR DIRECTOR HIS DEPARTMENTS, KPIS METRICS. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT LIKE DAVID SAID, EVERY COMPANY DOES THINGS LIKE THIS. >> I'M GOING TO JUST PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION. OBVIOUSLY, WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ON THE QUARTERLY REPORT ASPECT, MAYBE YOU COULD KEEP A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY AND UPDATES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND NOT LIMIT IT TO CAPITAL PROJECTS IMPROVEMENT. IN A WAY, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LIMITING. HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE IS A QUARTERLY REPORT, BUT ON WHAT THE FORMAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT'S IN THERE. MAYBE LEAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCRETION TO CITY MANAGER. >> BUT IT NEED TO INCLUDE THESE ITEMS. >> I CAN SAY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. JUST EXPAND ON IT. JUST AN IDEA, IT'S NOT MY MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE STYLED? I SEE 1-11, ARE WE GOING TO ADD A 12 OR IS THIS A SUBSECTION OF 4.03? >> YES. >> SHE'S ADDING ANOTHER POINT. I APOLOGIZE, CAROLYN. GO AHEAD. >> ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S PAGE, THEE QUARTERLY REPORTS. THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. HE PROVIDES A REPORT THAT ANYONE CAN GO AND SEE. IT'S ALREADY DONE. >> GREAT. THIS IS WHAT SHE'S RECOMMENDING. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT DETERMINING WHICH WAY I'M GOING TO VOTE, BUT WHAT SHE'S DOING IS RECOMMENDING THAT IT'S ADDED TO THE CHARTER SO THAT THAT NEVER GOES AWAY. IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. GREAT THAT HE'S DOING IT. NOT AN INDICTMENT ON THE CITY MANAGER CURRENTLY, BUT IT'S JUST THAT IT CONTINUES. >> BECAUSE IT WASN'T DONE PREVIOUSLY. >> IT'S JUST AN AMENDMENT. >> I'M GOING TO AMEND MY RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE WHAT I HAD STATED WITH, NOT LIMITED TO. >> AS THE ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE. GOOD. >> THE INITIAL VERBIAGE. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO A MOVE TO VOTE. >> I SECOND. >> WE ARE GOOD TO VOTE. THAT IS APPROVE 7-5. WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO PAUSE. IT IS 8:24. WE'RE GOING TO TABLE. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A MOTION TO TABLE 8-32025-207. REVIEW AND CONSIDER ALL COMMITTEE APPROVED. I'M GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING. BUT TO TABLE THAT ITEM AND PICK BACK UP IN THE NEXT MEETING AT SECTION 4.03. MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE H32025-207. EVERYTHING ELSE TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO PICK BACK UP IN SECTION 4. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THAT. >> CHAPTER 4. >> ONE MORE, 12-0. GOOD TO GO. WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. [H.4 2025-208 Consider selecting the dates and times of future Committee meetings; and take appropriate action.] [01:50:03] H-42025-208, CONSIDER SELECTED THE DATES AND TIMES OF FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. SOMEONE SAVE ME. DID WE DISCUSS? >> THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS DECEMBER 4TH AT 6:30. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS AS OF RIGHT NOW. >> I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO LEAVE THAT ONE ON THE BOOKS AND THEN ON THAT DATE, IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT, WE CAN CHOOSE ANOTHER DATE FROM THAT POINT IN TIME. DOES EVERYONE AGREE WITH THAT? >> I AGREE. >> WITH THAT WE ARE MOVING ON TO NEXT ITEM. >> MOTION TO CLOSE, H42025-208. >> THANK YOU. SURE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> EVERYBODY'S ALL READY VOTING. ANYWAYS, IT DON'T MATTER. I'M COMING OFF A ILLNESS, AND I'M ON MEDICATION, [LAUGHTER] SO I'M BEING STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE JUST NEED ONE MORE, 12-0. GOOD TO GO. MOVING TO THE NEXT ITEM. ITEM I ADJOURNMENT. IF YOU WANT TO STAY HERE, YOU CAN STAY FOR NOW. I'M NOT STAYING HERE WITH YOU. EVERYBODY, HAVE A GREAT NIGHT. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.