Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:18:06]

>> LET ME GO AHEAD AND WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:18:19]

TODAY IS TUESDAY JANJANUARY 19, 200021 IT IS 5:33 P.M. AS

[00:18:29]

AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE THIS

[00:18:33]

MEETING MAY BE CONVENED CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA HERE IN. IF YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO THE MEETING LIVE IN CALL 1-83- 1-83--568-8864 AT THIS TIME IF

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

WE CAN EXIT OUT OF THIS CALL AND GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I SEE WE HAVE ONE GUESS AT THIS TIME RICHARD HOW WE ARE RICHARD.

>> I AM GOOD THANK YOU. >> WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IT IS ESTIMATED 45 MINUTES WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE DONE WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE INTO THE WORK SESSION, BACK INTO THE WORK SESSION ONE 23456. IT IS AT 6:37 P.M. ON TUESDAY

[3A. Follow up discussion regarding Charter Review Commission recommendations. (45 minutes)]

JANUARY 19 AND WE JUST INCLUDED OUR EXECUTIVE SECTION AND NO FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN. ITEM THREE A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION REGARDING CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS. WE JUST LIKE EVERYBODY TO KNOW

[00:20:01]

IF YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE COLLAR MEANT FOR AGENDA ITEMS YOU CAN SEND THOSE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING.

THERE WILL BE NO COMMENTS TAKEN DURING THE MEETING UNLESS IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING BUT WE HAVE NONE OF THOSE NIGHT.

AND WE DID NOT SEE -- RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON WORK SESSION ITEMS TONIGHT. WITH THAT, WHO IS TAKING ITEM THREE A? MI MUTED?

>> NO MARY OR NOT? >> I CAN HELP FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION CERTAINLY. LAST COUNCIL MEETING THEY HAD TO REVIEW COMMISSION DECIDED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS OVERLONG WITH THE VERBIAGE FOR THE PROPOSITIONS.

IN THE MEANTIME THE COURT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE ITEMS SUBMITTED FROM THE JUDGE AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED BY THE COMMISSION.

THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THOSE BE THAT THOSE, THE COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE. SO, OTHER THAN THAT HOW DID YOU NOT -- HOW DID YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION?

DID YOU WANT TO GO ONE BY ONE. >> I THINK SO LAURA, I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WHO IS THE COUNCIL LIAISON ON

THE CHARTER COMMISSION? >> IT WAS ME.

>> WHITNEY? >> YES.

>> DID WE HAVE TWO? >> YES YOU ACTUALLY DID.

>> WHITNEY IF YOU WANT TO LEAD THE DISCUSSION I AM FINE WITH

THAT. >> I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO WANT TO

COUNSEL PERSON LEADING IT. >> THE CHARTER REVIEW WAS MARTHA

AND PAM. >> THERE YOU GO I WASN'T.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD THIS DISCUSSION WHITNEY?

>> NO. >> YOU ARE VERY DIPLOMATIC.

WE HAVE A LOT GOING ON WE HAVE A LOT OF STUFF COMING ON ALSO.

HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED MARTHA AND PAM?

>> IF THE CHAIRS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MUSICIANS -- COMMISSIONS, ACTUALLY DID AN IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION THE LAST TIME THAT THERE WERE HERE. THE ONLY THING THAT I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE CHARGED WITH BY THE MAYOR WAS TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THE COURT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES.

FROM THE COURT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE WHICH IS THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. SO, THAT COMMITTEE IS THAT IS COMPRISED OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND ALSO THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHITNEY P. LANING MYSELF. WE DID REVIEW THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND WE CAME BACK WITH A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, AND THE JUDGE AS A PART OF THAT COMMISSION BE ADOPTED. THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE SHOULD STAY AS IS WAS PRESENTED PER THE BALLOT.

>> RIGHT, BUT NOW WE DON'T EVEN WANT ANOTHER PRESENTATION BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD THAT.

THIS IS COUNCIL DELIBERATION, POINT BY POINT, THE GEA NAY AND IS THE LANGUAGE OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING

IN THIS MEETING RIGHT NOW. >> EVEN ONE THAT IS IN THE PACKET WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSITION BY EACH ONE A, B, C.

>> ALL I AM ASKING IS DO YOU WANT TO RUN THIS MARTHA OR PAM? OR DO YOU WANT ME TOO OR DO YOU WANT SOMEBODY FROM THE STAFF TOO. WE NEED TO GET THROUGH IT SO,.

>> WITH STAFFS AND HELP IF LARA CAN PULL UP THAT PRESENTATION OR THAT PORTION OF THE PACKAGE AND, AND THEN I WOULD BE GLAD TO JUST RUN THROUGH IT AND ASKED FOR COMMENTS AND THEN AN UP OR DOWN VOTE FOR COUNSEL ON EACH PROPOSAL.

TAKE IT. >> TAKE AWAY MARTHA.

[00:25:01]

>> THE FIRST ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION WAS SHOULD TERM LIMITS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER AND MAYOR BE EXTENDED FROM TWO YEARS TO THREE YEAR TERMS. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CRC IS THAT THEY WANT COUNSEL TO EGG'S EXTENDED TERM LIMITS OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR WHILE LIMITING THE OVERALL YEARS OF SERVICE. THIS IS THE LANGUAGE, THIS IS PROPOSITION A. AND DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

CONCERNING THAT RECOMMENDATION? >> I MADE A LOT OF COMMENTS AT THE LAST MEETING BUT I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THIS.

JUST FOR THE PUBLIC SAY THAT WHO WAS WATCH AND THERE WAS SOME MISINFORMATION THAT THEY PUT OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT THIS IS N NOT, THIS IS STILL YOU NEED TO GET RENEE REELECTED, EVERY THREE YEARS JUST LIKE YOU DO NOW. YOU JUST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN FOR ONE MORE TERM. IT IS NOT A NINE YEAR TERM THAT YOU WOULD BE RUNNING FOR. YOU WOULD STILL RUN, AS YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. IF SOMEBODY WANT TO HAVE AN RUN AGAINST YOU THE VOTERS WOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS EVERY THREE YEARS JUST HOW IT IS NOW. IT ALLOWS SOMEBODY TO SERVE ONE EXTRA TERM. WHICH REALLY LET YOU BUILD SENIORITY WITH OTHER CITIES AROUND SO YOU CAN SIT ON SOME OF THOSE REGIONAL BOARDS. IT COULD REALLY PAY OFF IN

DIVIDENDS FOR THE CITY. >> I AGREE WITH YOU THERE MATT, I THINK THAT AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS THAT THEIR CHAIRMAN JEFF MADE, WAS THAT THESE. ACTUALLY THESE PROPOSITION IS -- BACK PROPOSITIONS OFFER TERM LIMITS.

WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY BEFORE THE ONLY PROVISION THAT IS IN THE CHARTER AS IT STANDS, IT YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE A ONE YEAR LAYOUT BEFORE YOU CAN START THE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN.

AND YOU CAN JUST DO THAT IN PERPETUITY AS LONG AS YOU STAY OUT THAT ONE YEAR. SO THIS DOES PROVIDE FOR HARD TERM LIMITS. SO I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSITION. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER

COMMENTS? >> YES, WHILE I AM NOT SURE HOW A VOTE ON THIS PERSONALLY ON THE BALLOT.

I DON'T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM AT ALL TO ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE AND USE THEIR VOTE.

AS THEIR VOICE. SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH ADDING THIS ON THE BALLOT AT ALL.

>> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

>> YES, I HAD ONE MORE THAT I BROUGHT UP HERE IN THE MEETING WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, I AM JUST CURIOUS TO GET THE REST OF YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT.

I DO AGREE WITH TERM LIMITS, IN CONSECUTIVE TERM LIMITS, THAT THIS LIMITING LETS YOU CONSERVE AT ONE GIVEN TIME.

OVER A PERIOD OF A LIFETIME TO ME SEEMS LIKE A RATHER LIMITING.

WHETHER THERE'S ANY THOUGHT OR CONSENSUS WHETHER YOU PUT IN THREE YEARS OR SIX YEARS OR NINE YEARS YOU HAD TO TAKE THAT MUCH TIME OFF BEFORE YOU COULD RUN AGAIN.

AD A PERFECT EXAMPLE IS BLAKE, YOU ARE THE ONE OF THE YOUNGEST PEOPLE TO BE ELECTED TO CITY COUNCIL.

YOU WILL SERVE YOU TWO TURNS INTO A REALLY GREAT JOB THIS WILL ONLY ALLOW OLD -- ALLOW YOU TO SERVE ANOTHER TERM.

SO YOU MAY BE IN YOUR 40S AND YOU WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER STAB AT IT WHEN YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE SEASONED.

SO I WOULD HATE TO LIMIT IT, ALTHOUGH I DO AGREE WITH TERM LIMITS. MAYBE JUST PUT IN A LARGER TIME GAP AND THEY ARE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT YOU SERVED.

SO YOU CONSERVE AGAIN. I AM JUST CURIOUS OF WHAT

THOUGHTS ARE. >> I WOULD CERTAINLY AGREE WITH TAT MATT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE SAME TIME.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GETS LOST IN ALL THIS WAS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SAYS YOU SET OUT ONE YEAR IF YOU'RE GOING TO RUN FOR THE SAME POSITION. BUT QUITE FRANKLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIT OUT ANY YEARS IF YOU WANT TO DO SIX YEARS OF COUNSEL OR THREE OR SIX YEARS OR MAYOR OR THREE OR SIX YEARS OF MAYOR.

ALL OF THIS YOU HAVE TO GET ELECTED.

ELECTIONS IN THEMSELVES ARE TERM LIMITS.

BUT, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE AS THE

[00:30:03]

INCUMBENT. SO I'M NOT TRYING TO MINIMIZE

THAT. >> I HEAR YOU AS WELL, I SEE THAT MAY BE A PERMANENT PART TO THIS COULD BE A PROBLEM.

IN TERMS OF THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE.

I PERSONALLY WILL NOT RUN AGAIN IN MY 40S OR 50S OR ANYTHING WENT LIKE THAT. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE

TRYING TO GET AT. >> YOU SAY THAT NOW.

>> 0 NO I PROMISE. >> THERE CAN CERTAINLY BE SOME, SOME EXCEPTIONS TO YOUR POINT MATT.

I THINK THAT THE EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE FAIRLY RARE.

ESPECIALLY SINCE THESE TERM LIMITS ARE FOR A LIFETIME.

AND SO, LET'S SAY YOU SERVED TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS ON COUNSEL.

AND YOU LAID OUT FOR TEN YEARS, AND THEN YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND SERVE ANOTHER TERM ON THE COUNCIL.

THREE IS AS MAYOR, I THINK YOU COULD STILL DO THAT, SO MAYBE AN INDIVIDUAL IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF LONG TERM PLANNING AND STRATEGIZING IF YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.

WHERE YOU MAY WANT TO COME BACK IN LATER YEARS.

AND SERVE AGAIN. I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE TO PRESERVE SOME OF THESE TERMS SO THAT YOU COULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I DO HEAR YOU ON THAT MATT, BUT I THINK THAT OUR PUBLIC HAS AN APPETITE FOR TERM LIMITS.

I THINK IT GETS KINDA COMPLICATED IF YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT OKAY, WHAT KIND OF GAP ARE WE GOING TO INSERT IN THERE? IF IT IS NOT ONE YEAR IS IT FIVE YEARS? OR IS IT TEN YEARS? I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, AS IT IS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS JEFF THE CHAIR OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, IS ON THE CALL.

SO MAYBE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JUST SPEAK TO HOW THEY CAME TO TO THIS PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT THEIR

DISCUSSIONS WERE? >> SURE MOTHER, -- SURE MARTHA AS FAR AS THE METHODOLOGY THEY CAME UP WITH A THERE IS A LOT OF CONSENSUS TO GET ACTION. -- ACCURATE REPETITION AND REPRESENTATION, YOU NEED OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO STAY IN OFFICE AND SARAH. IN THE CASE OF THE MAYOR ONLY HAVING TWO TERMS IN THE OFFICE, BEING ELECTED TWICE.

THAT REALLY LIMITED THE ABILITY OF SOMEONE TO STEP INTO THAT ROLE, STEP INTO A INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION INTO PLAY A PART ON BEHALF OF ALL THAT.

WE REALLY RECOGNIZE THE VALUE THERE IS IN TERM LIMITS.

THE COMPROMISE THAT WE CAME UP WITH, WAS TO USE THIS AS A TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX TO LIMIT HOW MANY YEARS SOMEBODY COULD SERVE WITHOUT RESTRICTING THE IS ABILITY TO REPRESENT THE CITY IN

THAT CAPACITY. >> THANK YOU JEFF, THAT IS A GREAT SYNOPSIS OF WHAT I HEARD ATTENDING THE MEETINGS.

WELL COUNSEL,. >> LET ME THROW A SUGGESTION JUST AN ID DIA. MY JUST AN IDEA, WHAT IF YOU SAID NO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE OF THE COUNCIL AND NO MORE THREE CONSECUTIVE AS A MAYOR AND NO MORE THAN SIX CONSECUTIVE IN TOTAL? BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER YOUR COUNSEL FOR THREE YEARS OR NOT ABOUT, IT IS A LITTLE BIT WHETHER YOU ARE MAYOR. I CAN SEE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE LIKE MATT COMES BACK AND SERVES TWO MORE YEARS AS COUNSEL IN ONE MASS KIDS ARE GROWN AND OUT OF THE HOUSE, SO DOES THE RESTRICTION NEED TO BE THREE IN TOTAL OR DOES THE RESTRICTION

NEED TO BE 16 TOTAL COMBINED? >> THAT IS A GOOD POINT.

>> THAT IS A REAL GOOD POINT. >> WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT

SHAFT. >> AND SOME OF THE FEEDBACK I'VE SEEN ON SOCIAL MEDIA SPEAKING CANDIDLY, I THINK THAT WILL

[00:35:04]

ELICIT A LOT OF OPPOSITION. BECAUSE THE CHANCES OF YOU SERVING AS A COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS, FOLLOWED BY SERVING FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS AS MAYOR, IS VERY SLIM. FOR SOMEONE TO BE ELECTED THAT MANY TIMES NOT ONLY IN THOSE CAPACITIES BUT THEN ONLY TO BE SELECTED AND TO BE ELECTED AS MAYOR, WHICH IS JUST ONE SINGLE POSITION, IS VERY SLIM. WHEREAS WITH SIX COUNSEL SEES SOMEONE HOLDING POSITION FOR SIX TERMS, I DON'T THINK WOULD BE NEARLY THAT UNCOMMON. PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE ADVANTAGE AND INCUMBENT MIGHT HAVE TWO SERVE AS A COUNCILMAN. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

IT. >> NO ON NOT SAYING CONSECUTIVELY, I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T DO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVELY AS COUNSEL OR YOU CAN'T DO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVELY AS MAYOR. AND THE TOTALITY OF YOUR LIFE YOU CAN DO MORE THAN SIX IN TOTALITY.

>> OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. WHAT WOULD BE THE OFF TIME TO BE

TO SERVE AGAIN? >> I THINK YOU COULD WRITE SOMETHING IN THEIR YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE OFF FOR THE NUMBER OF YEARS YOU SERVED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I LIKE HAVING THE, I THINK TERM LIMITS ARE IMPORTANT.

I THINK ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS THAT SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY DOES IT EARLY IN LIFE, AND THE SUMMARY COMES BACK AND DOES IT LATER IN LIFE. I DON'T KNOW IS JUST AN IDEA

THAT I HAD. >> I COULD GET BEHIND THAT WORD IS SIX TOTAL TERMS WHETHER YOUR COUNSELOR OR MAYOR.

YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO SERVE THAT.

AND WHAT YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO SERVE THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN ANY ONE POSITION AT A TIME. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE OFF HOW MANY YEARS THAT YOU SERVE. THAT IS AN EASY WAY TO LOOK AT IT. OR IF YOU JUST WANT TO PUT AN ARBITRARY NUMBER ON THEIR, THE OTHER WAY WOULD JUST BE TO TAKE ONE TERM OFF BEFORE YOU COULD RUN AGAIN.

BUT THEN THEY ALLOWED SOMEBODY TO, IF THEY SERVE THEIR THREE YEAR TERMS AND THEY WANT TO TAKE A BREAK AND DON'T COME BACK AND DO IT AGAIN, IT COULD. IT IS JUST A THOUGHT.

>> THE REASON I DO THAT IS YOU, THERE ARE SOME CITIES MAYORS HAVE BEEN MAYOR FOR TEN, 12 OR 15 YEARS. THERE HAS BEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR A LONG TIME. I HAD NO AND I WOULD NEVER NOT WANT TERM LIMITS I THINK WE NEED TERM LIMITS.

WE ALSO LOOK AT, THERE COULD BE HOPEFULLY WE CONTINUE TO GROW AND MORE PEOPLE WILL GET INTERESTED.

AND RUNNING FOR AND SERVING IN THOSE POSITIONS.

BUT IF WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE DONE IT AND THAT ARE SEASONED AND WANT TO COME BACK AND SERVE THE CITY AGAIN, OR WHATEVER HAVING THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE.

BUT STILL HAVING A LIMIT OF WHAT THEY CAN DO IN A LIFETIME.

IT IS AT LEAVE -- IT IS AT LEAST WORTH CONSIDERING.

>> WHAT IS THE REST OF THE COUNCIL THINK?

>> I LIKE THE IDEA OF SIX TOTAL NO MATTER WHAT THE POSITION IS.

I SIT ON SEVERAL BOARDS AND I AM LIKE THE NEWEST GUY IN THERE.

I HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SERVICE.

THERE WAS ONE MAYOR FROM THE MID- CITIES I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IN THE LAST TIME I TALK TO HIM HE HAD BEEN THERE FOR 14 YEARS. THERE IS PEOPLE WITH TENURE ON THOSE BOARDS AND THEY ARE GOING TO GET, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FIRST IN LINE THAT IS PASSED AND OWED.

ANY MONEY OR ANYTHING ELSE THEY GET TO BE FIRST IN LINE.

WE ARE ALWAYS LAST IN LINE BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE. SO I THINK THREE YEAR TERMS I THINK THREE YEAR TERMS ARE GREAT IDEA.

THAT WON'T HAPPEN FOR ME BUT COME BACK AND LATER IN LIFE MAY BE LAY OFF FOR THREE YEARS OR SIX YEARS OR WHATEVER.

THEN YOU CAN COME BACK INTO IT AGAIN.

BECAUSE LIKE HE SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW

[00:40:05]

WHAT IS GOING TO DO WHEN HE IS 40.

MATT IS THE SAME WAY, MATT SAYS HE WON'T DO IT AGAIN AND THEN HIS KIDS ARE GONE AND HE'S PROBABLY THINKING I MIGHT DO THAT AGAIN. SO, I LIKE THE IDEA.

>> I LIKE THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE TO STAY OUT FOR AN ENTIRE THREE-YEAR TERM. WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, IS ELIMINATE THE ADVANTAGE THAT AN INCUMBENT HAS AND MAKE IT FAIR AND ALSO MAKE IT SO WE HAVE NEW BLOOD IN THERE.

I THINK IF YOU WERE TO SERVE AS A COUNCIL PERSON AND THEN SET OUT AN ENTIRE THREE-YEAR TERM. I THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE.

I THINK SIT NOT THE NUMBER USERS OR BECOMES COLLOCATED.

>> I THINK YOU COULD SIT OUT THREE YEARS AND THEN COME BACK AND THEN GO BACK TO THE LIKE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND I BELIEVE YOUR TENURE WILL HOLD.

BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW YOU. I THINK YOUR TENURE WILL HOLD

SOMEWHAT. >> THAT IS A GOOD POINT.

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT IS STILL UP TO THE VOTERS SO YOU STILL HAVE TO GET REELECTED AND TO HER.IT TAKES THREE YEARS AFTER TAKE THE ADVANTAGE AWAY FROM BEING AN INCUMBENT.

>> YES, I THINK THE CITY -- I THINK YOU TO SET UP ONE THREE-YEAR TERM BEFORE YOU CAN RUN AGAIN.

I THINK THAT IS A GOOD APPROACH. >> DOES JEFF OR ANYBODY ELSE ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> NO -- I WOULD JUST.OUT BASED ON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK I RECEIVED THE OPPOSITION IS NOT WHAT'S BEING SAID DISCUSED IS THE EDITION OF THE THREE-YEAR TERM CONSECUTIVELY THAT SOMEONE COULD SERVE. SO IT MIGHT BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THAT FOR ANYONE WHO

MIHT BE LISTENING OR WATCHING. >> YES, I MEAN THAT JUST GOES BACK TO, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET REPRESENTATION ON BOARDS WITH THE TENURE. I HAVE THE LONGEST TENURE HERE, BETWEEN COUNSEL AND MAYOR. AND I AM THE NEWEST MAYOR IN THE NORTH TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.

I THINK THE FIRST MAYOR THAT HAS BEEN ON THAT BOARD AND I COULD SERVE ANOTHER ON THAT BOARD, I COULD SERVE ANOTHER MULTIPLE YEARS BEFORE I GET RECOGNITION AS A SEASONED ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE REGION. IT DOESN'T MEAN I AM NOT TRYING TO EXERT WHAT WE NEED HERE IN ROWLETT I ABSOLUTELY AM.

I HEAR YOU JEFF, IT IS HARD. WHILE WE ARE PUTTING TERM LIMITS ON THE FIRST TIME IT APPEARS LIKE WE ARE EXTENDING TERMS BY DOING THREE CONSECUTIVE. IT IS TOUGH, IT'S A TOUGH ISSUE.

> I WILL SAY ON THAT YOU KNOW THERE ARE SOME LARGER CITIES THAT HAVE TERM LIMITS IF YOU'RE THE MAYOR OF DALLAS YOU ARE GOING TO GET THAT CLOUT REGARDLESS BECAUSE YOU ARE THE MAYOR OF DALLAS. BUT AS A MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER OF ROWLETT YOU HAVE TO BUILD THAT REPUTATION OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO BE ABLE TO GET SOMEBODY TO SEE.

THE PERFECT EXAMPLE GOES BACK TO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD ABOUT ROSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED HELP ON.

AND THAT TAKES HOW MANY RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMET WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

WE'VE NEVER HAD REPRESENTATION ON THERE.

SO IF IT COMES DOWN TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TO GIVE YOU THE MONEY TO PLANO OR RICHARDSON OR ONE OF THOSE CITIES THAT DOESN'T HAVE TERM LIMITS AND THAT MAYOR HAS BEEN SERVING ON APPLE FOR 12 YEARS. IF HE HAS A PROJECT HE WANTS DONE VERSUS THEM GIVING MONEY TO US TO HELP OUR ROADS GET DONE WE ARE GOING TO LOSE OUT. I HATE TO SAY IT BUT IT IS POLITICS. AND THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

IT IS NOT APPLES AND ORANGES TO EVERY CITY UNFORTUNATELY.

I'M NOT SAYING WE NEED THE APPLES OF OTHER CDS BUT WE HAD NEED TO AT LEAST GIVE THESE -- BUT WE NEED TO GIVE US A SHOT.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TERM LIMITS.

[00:45:04]

>> GARY PUT YOURSELF ON MEAL WE CAN HEAR YOU.

>> SO JEFF I WILL SAY THIS WE DO HAVE AN EDUCATION PIECE THAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE FOR VOTERS TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS ADDITIONAL TERM FOR THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS BUT IT'S NOT FOR US TO BUILD DYNASTIES.

IT IS TO GATHER INFLUENCE IN THE REGION FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR CITIZENS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN.

I HAVE SEEN THAT FEEDBACK ON FACEBOOK AS WELL.

BUT I WILL SAY THIS, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY WE ARE ASKING IS A MISSING PIECE IN THOSE POLES.

SO THAT JUST TELLS ME THAT THE COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN COMMENTING ON IT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS. SO THAT IS ON TO US ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FOR YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR FRIENDS ALL CONSTITUENTS. THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS.

WE JUST HAVE TO EDUCATE OUR PUBLIC.

TRULY THIS IS TO BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITY.

>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE CITIZEN EDUCATION PART, FOR NO TAKE A PERSON IS CAN WE CLARIFY WHAT IT IS YOU ARE RECOMMENDING?

>> WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT IT LARA,.

>> II JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHERE YOU ARE.

>> WE WILL, WE WILL. I CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT I PROPOSED AND I JUST ASKED YOU FOR FEEDBACK AND US WILL BE GOT WITH THAT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE I SUMMARIZE WHAT I COMPOSE AND WE CAN SEE WHO AGREES OR DOESN'T AGREE. SO WHAT I PROPOSE TO KEEP IT LIKE THIS NO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE MAYOR TERMS NO MORE THAN THREE YEAR TERMS CONSECUTIVELY AS MAYOR, NO MORE THAN THREE YEAR TERMS CONSECUTIVELY AS COUNSEL.

BUT NO MORE THAN 63 YEAR TERMS IN EITHER POSITION IN TOTALITY.

WITH THE PROVISION THAT IF YOU SERVE IN EITHER OF THOSE THREE ARE CONSECUTIVE TERMS YOU MUST SIT OUT THREE YEARS A TERM THREE YEARS BEFORE RUNNING FOR THAT SAME OFFICE IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK I JUST PROPOSED DOES ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THAT? NOT VOTING WHETHER THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE BUT DOES THAT LANGUAGE MAKES SENSE?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION SO IF YOU USE SAYING AFTER SERVING SIX TIMES IN TOTALITY WHETHER THEY AE CONSECUTIVE OR NOT?

>> YES. >> WHAT I WRITTEN DOWN JUST HEARING ABOUT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT AFTER SIX YEAR TERMS IN TOTALITY, COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR, CANNOT RUN FOR OFFICE AS MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER AGAIN BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THREE

YEARS OF THE LAST TERM ENDED. >> THAT IS A PERFECT WAY TO DESCRIBE IT. I DO THINK I WOULD LEAVE IN THEIR CONSECUTIVELY. WOULD YOU LEAVE OR IN TOTAL?

>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> I DID NOT HEAR THAT CORRECTLY EITHER.

>> JULIE SIX YEARS IN TOTALITY. NOT AFTER THREE YEARS.

THE THREE YEARS IS ONLY IF YOU WANT TO RUN IN THE SAME

POSITION. >> OKAY.

>> AFTER THE THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

OKAY I GOT YOU. >> I AM JUST PROPOSING THAT IS SIX YEARS IN TOTALITY REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION.

>> YEARS. >> WHAT I JUST SAY?

>> 33 YEARS TERMS, THEN YOU HAVE TO LAY OFF A ONE TERM WHICH IS THREE YEARS THEN YOU COULD RUN AGAIN.

THEN YOU SAID FOR THE SAME POSITION I THINK.

YOU CAN WE POSITION OUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH POSITION.

[00:50:01]

>> NO, BECAUSE IN THE LANGUAGE TODAY YOU COULD DO 3-3 YEAR TERMS AS COUNSEL AND THEN-33 YEAR TERMS -- THEN 3-3 YEAR

TERMS AS MAYOR. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE USING POSITIONS AS FAR AS POSITION ONE ON THE COUNCIL, AS POSITION TWO

ON THE COUNCIL. >> NO, POSITION BEATING

COUNCILPERSON OR MAYOR. >> NOT A SEAT.

>> THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN RUN FOR MORE THAN THREE AT TERMS AS A COUNCILPERSON AS IF YOU SIT OUT FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD AFTER

YOUR THREE TERMS. >> YES.

>> THE ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT THE ONLY WAY HE CAN RUN FOR THREE TERMS AS A MAYOR AS YOU SETTLE FOR THREE TERMS AS BEFORE RUNNING FOR MAYOR AGAIN. BUT IN NO CASE CAN YOU SERVE MORE THAN SIX TOTAL TERMS EITHER AS A COUNCILPERSON OR AS A

MAYOR. >> ANY COMBINATION THEREOF?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT COMPLICATED BUT MAYBE.

MAYBE. SO YES OR NO LEAVE IT AS IT IS? SO ADJUSTED IN TOTALITY AS A COMBINATION OR DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES I GUESS WHAT YOU GOING TO DO?

>> I WOULD SAY FIRST LET'S SAY WHO WANTS TO LEAVE IT THE WAY

THAT IT IS BY A SHOW OF HANDS. >> WHAT YOU MEAN WHAT IS

CURRENTLY IN THE CHARTER? >> HOW IT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

>> OKAY I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS OKAY THE NEXT WOULD BE TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HAS PROPOSED TO THE LANGUAGE THAT THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED.

WHO WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT? >> AGAIN THAT IS A CHANGE IN IT SO THAT THE TOTAL TERMS CAN BE A COMBINATION OF ANYTHING.

>> WITH A THREE YEAR LAYOUT. >> IF THEY ARE CONSECUTIVE

TERMS. >> SO NOW THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE

IF THEY ARE FOR THAT OR NOT. >> EXACTLY.

>> I WOULD POINT OUT THE THREE YEARS IF YOU'RE GOING FROM COUNSEL TO MAYOR. THREE YEARS DESPERATE THREE TERMS OF COUNCIL THEN JUMPED TO THREE TERMS OF MAYOR WITHOUT THE

HOLDOUT. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TODAY.

ALSO I'M SAYING IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THREE TERMS AS COUNSEL AND THEN YOU WANT TO RUN FOR COUNCIL AGAIN YOU HAVE TO

SET OUT AN ENTIRE TERM. >> A THREE YEAR TERM.

SO WE ARE EXTENDING THAT GAP. AND WE ARE STILL LIMITING THE

TOTAL NUMBER. >> AND WE ARE PUT IN TURN LIMITS

IN THEIR. >> YES, RIGHT.

>> 0 GOSH DO NOT CALL IT THE MAYOR'S PROPOSITION.

>> OKAY THE PROPOSAL THAT WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT.

>> I AM THE ONE ABOUT THE SILTING UP TO BEGIN WITH.

>> WHAT IF YOU HAD TO TERMS AS A COUNCILMEMBER AND ONE TERM AS A MAYOR THAT IS SIX CONSECUIVE YEARS OF SERVICE ON COUNSEL.

>> YES THEY NEED TO SET UP FOR THREE YEARS.

>> ANY COMBINATION OF THOSE FIRST THREE TERMS SET OUT THREE YEARS, AND THEN COME BACK FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE COMBINATION.

>> YES. GOT IT.

>> THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY SERVING MORE THAN

THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS RIGHT? >> IN THE SAME POSITION.

>> WELL NO WAIT A MINUTE. NO BECAUSE YOU CAN SERVE THREE

TERMS AS A MAYOR. >> IF YOU SERVE THREE TERMS IN ONE CONSECUTIVE POSITION THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO SIT OUT.

SO WHEN THAT AVENUE IF YOU SERVE TO, THEN YOU COULD SERVE THREE AS MAYOR, WHICH WOULD BE FIVE, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THREE YEARS OFF, AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK TO RUN FOR MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER ONE MORE TERM YOU COULD DO THAT BUT IT

WOULD ONLY BE A ONE TERM MEMBER. >> YES IT IS COMPLICATED.

>> WE CAN GO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

[00:55:01]

AND ALL THIS DISCUSSION WAS FOR NOTHING.

>> WELL WE HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.

IT IS COMPLICATED. >> IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE SCENARIO YOU COULD THEN RUN FOR THREE YEARS AS MAYOR, THEN YOU COULD GO BACK AND SERVE ONE MORE YEAR'S COUNCIL.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE IT THAT MUCH. >> TERMS NOT YEARS.

>> YES TERMS NOT YES. SOMEBODY COULD DO THAT SIX YEARS CONSECUTIVELY, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THIS WOULD PUT IN AT THREE YEAR HIATUS BETWEEN WHEN THEY SERVE THEIR THREE TERMS AS MAYOR TO WIN THAT COULD SERVE THEIR LAST TERM AS A COUNCILMEMBER. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

THE 00 WILL BE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPOSITIONS THAT ARE THERE RIGHT NOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> I THINK THIS IS VERY HARD TO PUT AN WORDING ON A BALLOT I

THINK. >> I AGREE.

>> I HAVE REWRITTEN IT ABOUT THREE OR FOUR TIMES THERE.

I THINK BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION I PERSONALLY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO PULL MY SUPPORT FOR THAT GOING ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION WILL CAUSE. SO I WOULD PERSONALLY GO WITH THE CHARTER -- MAKE THE CHART IS A REGIONAL RECOMMENDATION AT

THIS POINT. >> I THINK THE MORE WE DISCUSS AND ADD TO IT THE LESS LIKELY TO PASS.

BECAUSE IT IS GETTING TO CONFUSION JUNE.

THERE'S TOO MUCH CONFUSION WITH THIS.

I WOULD AGREE WITH BLAKE THAT WE JUST NEED TO GO ON THE ORIGINAL

RECOMMENDATION. >> OKAY, SO WITH A SHOW OF HANDS WH WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY

THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION? >> I THINK I AM TO I THINK IT IS TOO COMPLICATED TO DO IT SOME OTHER WAY.

>> IF WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH IT MADGE AND THE PUBLIC TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION. -- IMAGINE THE PUBLIC TRYING TO

MAKE A DECISION. >> WE HERE'S WHAT WE WILL SAVE MATT'S PROPOSITION WAS VOTED DOWN.

>> IT WASN'T VOTED DOWN WAS VOTED FOR BY TWO PEOPLE.

AND BLAKE I'M GOING TO CALL YOU WHEN YOU RUN FOR MAYOR WHEN YOU

ARE 35. >> NO I WON'T.

>> HE COULD GO BACK TO THE VOTERS THEN.

>> OKAY WE GOT THROUGH ONE IN THE CONCLUSION IS WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

>> YES. SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT THEY CONSIDERED WAS A LOCAL ELECTIN TIMING TIMING OF THE LOCAL ELECTIONS BEING MOVED FROM MAY TO THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CHARTER IN REGARDS TO LOCAL ELECTION TIMING AND I THOUGHT THAT THE REVIEW COMMISSION HAD SOME VERY GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING OUR LOCAL ELECTIONS IN MAY. HOWEVER, WE NEED A CONSENSUS OF COUNSEL LAURA. I'M SORRY IF YOU PULL DOWN THAT SCREEN AGAIN, AND CAN I SEE A SHOW OF HANDS OF WHO IS IN FAVOR

OF THE CRC'S RECOMMENDATION? >> KEEP THEM MID-MAY.

>> I WAS ON A CALL THE OTHER DAY THAT SAID THE PROVISION WITHIN THE STATE STATUTE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO MOVE THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION FROM MAY TO NOVEMBER EXPIRED IN 2016.

AND IT WAS NOT RENEWED. >> YOU KNOW WHAT I SAW THAT TOO.

>> THERE IS A BILL IN THERE NOW TO RE- UP THAT I'M SURE IT WOULD BE LEGAL FOR US TO DO THAT ANYWAY.

I THINK THERE IS A REALLY GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING IT IN MAY. SO THAT IS, WE WILL ACCEPT THE CRC'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT PROPOSAL.

NEXT, THE COMPENSATION THE CITY COUNCIL PAID COMPENSATION AMOUNTS. THE ITEM BEING CONSIDERED SHOULD COMPENSATION BE PAID TO THE MAYOR OF COUNCIL MEMBERS BE ADJUSTED AND THIS IS CONSIDERED ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

I THINK THERE WAS 13 YEARS BEFORE THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN AT THE LAST TIME. IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS SINCE THEN. SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS CONSIDERED RENAME AN STIPEND TO COMPENSATION TO ALIGN WITH THE IRS LANGUAGE AND INCREASE THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO $450 A MONTH. AND TO THE MAYOR AT $750 PER

[01:00:05]

MONTH. IF YOU PULL THAT SCREEN DOWN LAURA. YES, AND THE REASONING THAT WE ALL SAW THAT THE LAST COUNCIL SESSION.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTION ANYONE HAS BEFORE WE

TAKE A VOTE ON THAT PROPOSAL? >> I DO ACTUALLY, I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH INTO THE DEFINITION OF STIPEND VERSUS COMPENSATION.

I DON'T THINK WE EVER SHOULD WIN AWAY FROM COMPENSATION BECAUSE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SAYS, SO I CONSIDER THAT PIECE OF THIS SEPARATE FROM THE MONETARY CHANGES.

I WONDER IF THAT SHOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO DIFFERENT BALLOT POSITIONS. THE WORDING IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR LEGAL REASONS AND THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

SEPARATE FROM THE MONITOR PIECE. >> TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW ARE AS DEFINITIONS SHOULD THE BALLOT PROPOSITION NOT PASS?

>> WE SHOULD CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT CHANGING IT FROM STIPEND TO COMPENSATION IS A STUBBS -- IS A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

>> YES IT WOULD BE IN TERMS OF S -- F SLA AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TAXED ON THE STIPEND AMOUNT THAT WE GET. SO, IN THAT SENSE MAYBE IT'S MORE A MATTER OF DEFINITION THAN PRACTICE.

>> I KNOW TALKING TO DAVID EARLIER TODAY THAT HIS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT STAYS THE SAME FOR THE REASONS THERE ARE F SLA CONSIDERATIONS AND OVER TIME CONSIDERATIONS.

>> TO KEEP IT STIPEND? >> TO KEEP IT STIPEND VERSUS

COMPENSATION. >> THAT WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WHEN IT WAS CHANGED FROM COMPENSATION TO STIPEND.

FOR THOSE REASONS, AND THEN THIS COMMISSION DID SOME RESEARCH.

JEFF IF YOU ARE STILL ON THE CALL WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO

THAT? >> YES, SO IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WE JUST DETERMINED THAT BECAUSE THIS IS TAXABLE INCOME, TO A COUNCIL MEMBERS IN OUR MAYOR.

IT WOULD BE REGARDED AS COMPENSATION FOR THOSE PURPOSES.

A STIPEND IS MORE LIKE SOMETHING YOU RECEIVE AS AN INTERN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WERE. NONTAXABLE KIND OF OFFSET TO

WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING. >> GUYS, I AM SORRY, I SAID THIS IN THE LAST MEETING. WE JUST NEED RICHARD AND DAVID TO THE AGREE WITH THE RIGHT TERMS. IT IS NOT UP TO US AS COUNSEL PEOPLE OR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AS VOLUNTEER CITIZENS IS UP TO LEGAL MATTERS TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE CALLED STIPEND OR CONVERSATION.

>> MAYOR I AGREE WITH THAT. MAYBE IF DAVID AND RICHARD OR RYAN, YES IT WOULD BE RICHARD IT WOULD BE OUR HR AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT DEFINITION SHOULD BE.

AND WHEN THEY DETERMINE THAT. >> IS A CLERICAL CODE ERECTION

-- IS A CLERICAL CORRECTION. >> IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE OF CHANGING THAT, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT DAVID LOOKED AT AT THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW. BUT YOU KNOW, THINGS CAN CHANGE WITH THE IRS. SO WE DO NEED HR'S INPUT ON

THAT. >> RICHARD IS OKAY WITH STIPEND JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW. ULTIMATELY LIKE YOU GUYS SAID IS GOING TO BE TAXED REGARDLESS. BUT I THINK DAVID HAS OTHER CONCERNS ALSO. I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AS

THAT. >> I AGREE WITH THAT MYSELF.

FOR THOSE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. SO, ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE THE CRC'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE BALLOT?

>> I WILL SAY AGAIN BECAUSE I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE WE

[01:05:02]

DID NOT GIVE OR WE WERE UNABLE TO GIE OUR EMPLOYEES A RAISE, THERE IS NO WAY I CAN ACCEPT THE RACE.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT BROWNIE, OF COURSE NONE OF US DID THIS FOR THE COMPENSATION OF THE STIPEND THAT WE GET.

I WILL SAY THIS THOUGH, WE ONLY DO THIS ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE NOT ONLY IN THE AMOUNT THAT WE RECEIVE BUT ALSO WE ONLY HAVE ONE SHOT IN FIVE YEARS.

IF WE WERE CONSIDERING GIVING EMPLOYEES RAISES ONLY ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

WE ARE IN A UNIQUE YEAR, AND I THINK PROBABLY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED PROBABLY A HIGHER AMOUNT IF WE WERE NOT IN A COVERT YEAR.

BUT I THINK THEY WERE SENSITIVE TO THAT.

I WAS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION. JUST LISTENING TO THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS. SO BECAUSE IT IS ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS, I PERSONALLY AM COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

BECAUSE IT WILL BE 2026 BEFORE WE EVEN TALK ABOUT AGAIN.

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PRESENT COUNSEL ARE EXCLUDED.

>> THAT GETS COMPLICATED PAM BECAUSE OF OUR STAGGERED TERMS. THAT REALLY MAKES IT WEIRD. TO MY THINKING, WE JUST HAVE TO EITHER APPROVE IT OR NOT APPROVE IT.

>> MY WHOLE THOUGHT OF THIS MENTAL COMING TO THE SHOP EXPECTING A PAYCHECK. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY OVERTIME

PAY YET SO. >> AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE GETTING

A STIPEND IN OUR CONVERSATION. >> YES THAT IS RIGHT.

>> MARTHA I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE LOOK AT IT WITHOUT THE NAME CHANGE. TO STIPEND TO COMPENSATION THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT DAVID AND HR AND RICHARD ARE RECOMMENDED.

YOU MIGHT AMEND THEIR PROPOSAL TO NOT INCLUDE THE THE NAME CHANGE BUT INCLUDE THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

>> I AGREE WITH THAT. SO WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON NOW, IS THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY, RC, WITH THE DEFINITION OF STIPEND OR COMPENSATION REMOVED. THAT WILL SAY -- THAT WILL STATE STIPEND. I HAND VOTE FOR, SO WE HAVE FIVE IN FAVOR AND TWO AGAINST THE PROPOSAL.

I WOULD ASSUME YOUR GUESSER PROPOSAL BLAKE, AND BROWNIE.

YOUR STANDING OKAY, SO THAT PASSES.

NEXT. >> GO BACK TO THE VERY FIRST ONE IF WE COULD IT WAS NOT A RECOMMENDATION IT WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION BUT IT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED SO THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE.

>> OKAY, YES THE ITEM CONSIDERED WAS ISSUED CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS BE ELECTED TO SPECIFIC ZONES OR PRECINCTS.

THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CHARTER IN REGARDS TO GOVERNMENT ZONING. SO SHE CAN PULL THAT DOWN LAURA.

ANY DISCUSSION THERE? BEFORE WE VOTE.

OKAY SO THIS WILL BE A HAND VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE CRC THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE CHARTER IN REGARDS TO DISTRICTS. IF YOU ARE FOR THAT FOR THE RECOMMENDATION PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND WE HAVE SIX FOR IT AND I'M ASSUMING THE MAYOR'S VOTING AGAINST IT. SO THAT PASSES.

>> I HAVE ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE DONE WITH OUR LIST.

WELL WE. >> WELL WE HAVE ARTICLE

RECOMMENDATIONS. >> HOW MANY?

>> FIVE I THINK. >> I THINK WE HAVE ONE MORE.

THE CITY AUDITOR POSITION THE ITEM CONSIDERED SAID THE CITY COUNCIL BE REQUIRED TO POINT A CITY AUDITOR WERE AMENDING THE CHARTER TO REQUIRE THE APPOINTMENT OF A CITY AUDITOR.

COMPENSATION AND REMOVAL AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN

[01:10:06]

AN OPTION IN OUR CHARTER UP TO THIS POINT.

THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT IT BE REQUIRED.

THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.

>> I JUST DON'T LIKE THE LANGUAGE ON HERE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT BEING IN THE CHARTER OR NOT IN THE CHARTER. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU PUT THIS KIND OF DEFINITION AND FOR A CHARTER.

>> I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THAT MAYOR, I THINK IT SHOULD BE MUCH BROADER THAN THAT. I AM FINE WITH THE REQUIREMENT, BUT I THINK THE REST OF THAT HAS TO BE HASHED OUT INTERNALLY.

>> I THINK IT IS LIMITING SO YOU'RE RIGHT MARTHA I AGREE WITH

THAT. >> I AGREE.

>> WE DON'T DO THAT WITH ANY OTHER POSITIONS IN THE CHARTER

ON THINK? >> YOU MIGHT HAVE ASKED THE CITY

SECRETARY. >> I DON'T WANT TO DO IT FOR THE CITY AUDITOR, YOU KNOW GUYS WE SHOULD BE SPENDING PART OF OUR BUDGET MONEY ON THE AUDITOR. WHETHER IT IS IN THE CHARTER OR NOT, I THINK -- I AM KIND OF AMBIVALENT.

THIS COUNSELOR CAN MAKE A DECISION RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT THIS IN THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR.

AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A CHARTER AMENDMENT.

>> YES THAT WAS MY THINKING ALSO, IT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE IN THE CHARTER. GIVEN THAT EXACT.I JUST ME.

>> FUTURE COUNCILS CAN TAKE IT OUT A BUDGET.

>> YES THAT IS TRUE. THERE YOU GO.

>> THAT IS REALLY DOES DECISION-MAKER SO YOU WANT IT AS A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL COUNSELORS IN THE FUTURE HAVE TO ADHERE TO IT OR DO YOU NOT? OR AT LEAST FOR FIVE YEARS.

>> YES THEY CAN CHANGE THE CHARTER AS WELL.

>> WE TRY TO HIRE FOR THIS POSITION IS A DIFFICULT POSITION TO HIRE. WHAT HAPPENS IS IT'S IN THE CHARTER AND YOU HAVE A PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT A CITY AUDITOR OR BECAUSE YOU ARE BETWEEN OR TRYING TO HIRE A NEW ONE.

WHAT HAPPENS THEN? IF YOU PUT IN THE CHARTER?

>> I THINK THAT IS A REALLY GOOD POINT.

WE REALLY WORK HARD, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON INTERVIEWING AND TRYING TO HIRE AN INTERNAL AUDITOR.

THAT IS NOT AN EASY POSITION TO FILL.

AS TO WHETHER WE WANT TO REQUIRE IT OR NOT, IS ONE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ANSWER TONIGHT. THEN ALSO, DO WE WANT TO ELIMINATE ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE

RECOMMENDED HERE BY THE CRC. >> I AM FOR TAKING ALL THAT OTHER STUFF OUT AND JUST MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY HAS TO HAVE BEEN AUDITOR. IT CAN BE CONTRACTED OUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A FULL-TIME STAFF MEMBER.

BUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE -- WE SHOULD HAVE SOMEBODY DOING INTERNAL AUDITING IS IMPORTANT. SO YOU JUST FILL IT OUT AND IF WE GET BIG ENOUGH AND THE CITY WANTS TO HIRE SOMEBODY IN THE RIGHT PERSON COMES AROUND THAT MAKE SENSE TO DO IT.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME JUST CONTRACT THAT OUT.

>> WELL WE ARE BIG ENOUGH TO HAVE A FULL-TIME STAFF NOW.

>> I AGREE. BUT IF YOU CAN'T GET SOMEBODY HIRED YOU CAN ALWAYS CONTRACT THAT SERVICE OUT FOR A YEAR.

>> ANOTHER POINT IS IN THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS HAPPENING, LET'S SAY WE HAVE ANOTHER 2,008 CRISIS.

AND WE START TO CRUNCH NUMBERS AND IT DOESN'T MAKE THE CUT BECAUSE THAT WE ARE THAT DESPERATE.

THAT IS ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER AS WELL.

>> WHAT SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT ON THOUGH?

>> THAT IS GOING TO BE, THAT IS JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

>> WELL IT ALSO DOESN'T SAY A FULL-TIME AUDITOR SO YOU KNOW WE MAY HAVE TO CUT BACK SOME HOURS. ON THE CITY AUDITOR SO, I BELIEVE THAT MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT WE CAN CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FROM THAT WE MAY THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO HIRE THE AUDITOR. NONE OF THE LANGUAGE BELOW THAT THAT'S IT. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

>> I REALLY THINK, PUTTING ON A BALLOT AND PUTTING IN A CHARTER SAYS VOLUMES TO WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO DO FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. I THINK THERE IS AT ALSO.

>> YES. SO, OKAY THEN I WILL MAKE A

[01:15:07]

PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE A BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES US TO HIRE A CITY AUDITOR IN THE CITY CHARTER AND NO DETAILS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT POSITION WILL BE DESCRIBED IN THE

CHARTER. >> SO MARTHA, RIGHT NOW THE CHARTER SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE SHALL DEFINE THE RESPONSIBILITIES AS COMPENSATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AUDITOR. SO WE CAN TAKE OUT ALL OF THAT AND SAY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPOINT A CITY AUDITOR?

IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> WHAT WE ARE SAYING BY THE THE LANGUAGE BEING A PROSE THAT'S MY PROPOSED BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION WAS TO DETAIL. WE WILL CHANGE IT FROM MAY 2

SHALL. >> THAT'S WHAT I AM THINKING

MAYOR. >> THE CURRENT CHARTER ALSO SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL, BY ORDINANCE SHALL DEFINE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES BY AUDITOR. WOULD YOU NEED THAT PART AS

WELL? >> IF IT MAY HELP LARA COULD BRING UP THE SLIDE WITH THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.

>> I AM CONFUSED BY THE ORDINANCE PART JULIE? I DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAS TO BE BY ORDINANCE?

>> IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO THAT SOME THING THAT COULD

OUT WITH THE AUDITOR. >> I AM JUST REFERRING TO THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU READ IN THE CURRENT CHARTER.

I DON'T KNOW WHY IT SAYS OR NOT. THAT'S THE PIECE I WOULD NOT WANT TO HAPPEN. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT I DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAS TO BE IN THE CHARTER.

>> YOU CAN TAKE OUT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITIES AND THEN IT CAN BE DONE BY RESOLUTION OR BY

CONTRACT. >> YES.

THIS CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPOINT A CITY AUDITOR.

>> AND TAKE OUT THE SECOND PART. >> I WOULD.

YOU COULD SAY, I AM JUST SAYING I WOULDN'T DO IT BY ORDINANCE.

I WOULD NOT REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE AND THE TERMS. NO, I WOULD KEEP THAT CURRENT LANGUAGE AND CHANGE MADE TO SHALL AND I WOULD GET RID OF THE WORDS BY ORDINANCE.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK THAT CLEANS UP VERY

NICELY. >> IT'LL BE THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT DETERMINES ALL OF THIS AND THEY WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND WE WILL NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH AN EMPLOYEE PROBABLY. PROBABLY.

WHAT YOU THINK? MARTHA YOU CAN TAKE ABOUT.

>> SO THE PROPOSAL FOR LANGUAGE IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPOINT A CITY AUDITOR AND WE TAKE OUT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE TAKE OUT BY ORDINANCE. OUT OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

AND THEN CHANGE MAY 2 SHALL. LET'S HAVE A HAND VOTE THAT WOULD APPROVE THAT LANGUAGE OKAY WE LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE 7-0 ON

THAT ONE. >> OKAY LAURA NEXT? THIS IS CODE A BAG FIX AND THEY ARE CONSIDERING A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY BY THE CHARTER. CONSIDER AMENDING THE CHARTER TO REQUIRE -- MIGHT INCLUDE AN INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF EXITS.

I THINK THIS ONE'S PRETTY EASY. SO CAN YOU PULL THAT DOWN.

ALL THAT WE DID WAS ADD THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA TO THE END OF OF THAT CODE OF ETHICS. IF YOU CAN PULL THAT DOWN.

>> JUST AS A REMINDER WE HAVE A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY IN PLACE.

SO IS THIS IS JUST CHANGING THE CHARTER SO THAT WE ALWAYS -- SO WE ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE IT IN PLACE.

[01:20:01]

>> THAT IS ALREADY IN THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF ETHICS.

BY SHOW OF HANDS ALL THAT APPROVE THAT BALLOT LANGUAGE? OKAY THAT IS 7-0 THANK YOU. OKAY LAURA NEXT.

THE SCRIBNERS ERRORS? DO WE NEED TO APPROVE THAT?

>> I DON'T THINK SO. >> IT'LL COME BEFORE COUNCIL AT

A LATER DATE FOR CONSIDERATION. >> OKAY MUNICIPAL COURT THE ITEMS CONSIDERED THE COURT CAUSES THAT THE CITY CHARTER WERE DISCUSSED WHILE ITS CHIEF JUDGE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE CONSIDER AMENDING THE CHARTER TO CHANGE THE APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK AND THE DEPUTY CLERKS FROM THE CITY MANAGER TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE.

>> MY QUESTION WHY WASN'T THIS DONE LAST TIME WE CONSIDERED ALL

THIS I AM CONFUSED. >> WELL BECAUSE WE HAD NOT GONE BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE AND HAD THAT CHANGE MADE.

THAT WAS DONE AFTER WE HAD DONE THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW.

SO NOW WE ARE JUST ALIGNING THE CHARTER REVIEW LANGUAGE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ASK OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE TO SPONSOR FOR

US. >> OKAY THIS PUTS US IN

AGREEMENT WITH STATE LAW. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> CURRENTLY OUR LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STATE LAW IN THIS REGARD. BECAUSE WE ARE OPERATING DIFFERENTLY THAN WITH OUR CHARTER BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD OPERATE WE ARE LOTS OPERATE THAT WAY UNDER STATE

LAW. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> LET ME SAY THIS, IT IS A COMPLIANCE ISSUE, REMEMBER WE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO STAY AND CHANGE IT.

SO ALL WE'RE DOING NOW NOW IS MATCHING THE CHARTER WITH WHAT

WE ASKED TO CHANGE IT TO. >> EXACTLY.

>> I'VE GOT IT THANK YOU. I WAS CONFUSED ON THAT.

>> I PROBABLY DIDN'T EXPLAIN IT WELL.

OKAY, THE INCLUSION OF A NOTE EXPLAINING TERMS OF OFFICE PROVIDING FOR CIVIL AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.

THIS IS TO REMOVE TWO-YEAR TERMS FROM THE CHIEF JUDGE IN AN ALTERNATE OR ASSOCIATE JUDGE AND ASSIGNED SUPERVISION OF COURT STAFF TO THE CHIEF JUDGE. THIS AGAIN IS TO ALIGN WITH

STATE LAW. >> REGARDING THE TWO-YEAR APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE AND ASSOCIATES?

OR THE LAST PART? >>

>> THE ALIGNMENT WITH STATE LAW STATE LOSSES TWO OR FOUR YEARS.

SO WE ARE JUST ALIGNING IT WITH THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATE LAW.

I THINK IT SAYS TWO YEARS AND STATE LOSSES TWO OR FOUR YEARS.

>> LARA CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE LAST SLIDE.

YES. >> OUR CHARTER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE LAW, BUT COUNCIL HAS AND CAN'T CONTINUE TO DECIDE TO LIMITED TO TWO YEARS BECAUSE THEY LOSSES

TWO YEARS OR FOUR YEARS. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> I WOULD BE FOR CHANGING THE LAST PART OF IT BUT NOT FOR THE

REMOVAL OF THE TWO-YEAR TERMS. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SPLIT INTO TWO IS THAT LAURA? I THINK THEY'RE JUST ONE RECOMMENDATION. OR ONE PROPOSITION.

>> THE WAY IT IS WORDED NOW IS THEY SHALL BE, OR THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THEY SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR A TERM AS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW. IT WOULD BE UP TO WHETHER YOU

WOULD BE UP TO,. >> UP TO COUNSEL IS SAMUEL

POINT. >> YOU EITHER ENTER TWO-YEAR OR

FOUR-YEAR CONTRACT. >> OKAY SO EITHER WAY THERE IS A

TERM. >> YES THE COUNCIL DETERMINES.

>> OKAY THAT IS ALL GOOD THAN OKAY.

>> ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL COURT ITEMS ARE BRINGING IT IN LINE WITH STATE LAW AND THOSE COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LOCAL IN THE COUNCILS ABILITY TO CHANGE THESE

[01:25:04]

ADMINISTRATIVELY RATHER THAN THE BALLOT.

>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE ARE CURRENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW WILL RECEIVE TWO-YEAR TERMS. SO WE ARE ELIMINATING A RESTRICTION WE ARE NOT ALIGNING IT WITH STATE LAW. SO I AM NOT SURE I AGREE WITH

THAT LAW. >> THESE WOULD NEED TO BE DONE

BY BALLOT. >> I THINK SO TOO.

>> THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AGREES WITH OUR WORK AS WELL.

>> SO YOU CAN YOU PULL THE PROPOSITIONS DOWN THEN LAURA? AND, AND I WILL JUST TAKE A VOTE OF ALL OF IN FAVOR OF THESE PREPOSITIONS THAT ARE ALIGNING OUR CHARTER WITH STATE LAW SHOW APPROVAL BY A SHOW OF HANDS. OKAY AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU I BELIEVE THAT IS THE LAST PROPOSITION TO REVIEW.

>> I JUST WANT TO MENTION ONE OF THE THING IF I COULD PLEASE.

I ASKED DAVID OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO LOOK INTO SOMETHING.

THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN AND THAT IS THE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT. THERE IS ALWAYS BEEN THE SUPERMAJORITY IF YOU HAVE SO MANY RESPONDENTS TO A ZONING CHANGE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY AREA. THAT ARE AGAINST A ZONING CHANGE AND IF YOU HAVE THAT NUMBER YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE TO APPROVE THAT ZONING. THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A PLACE.

AND THAT A STATE LAW. THERE IS ANOTHER ONE THAT WE PUT IN PLACE ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND THAT WAS IF THEY TURN DOWN A REZONING REQUEST FOR THE SUPERMAJORITY THAT WAS THEN ATTACHMENT THAT WE MUST HAVE ITS A MAJORITY OVERRIDE THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO DENY. SO WHAT I WAS INTERESTED IN BECAUSE WE HAVE A REAL SITUATION THIS YEAR THAT SUPERMAJORITY IS DEFINED BY THE TOTALITY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SERVING.

SO IF YOU HAVE SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY BASED ON THE SEVEN.

WHAT I WAS INTERESTED IN IS SEEING IF THE SUPERMAJORITY IS DEFINED LIKE IT IS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

LIKE COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTENDING THAT MEETING.

THEN I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE IT TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THE STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS US TO PUT AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE, SUCH AS THE ONE THAT WE PUT IN PLACE, TO FIND A SUPERMAJORITY BASED ON THE ENTIRE SEA TO COUNSEL.

NOT BASED ON COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.

SO, TO MAKE A LONG STORY, CONCLUDING A LONG STORY WE COULD NOT DO WHAT I CONSIDERED. WE PUT A DEVELOPER IN A TOUGH SITUATION BECAUSE OF ILLNESS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY TO PREVENT THAT IN THE FUTURE. FROM DAVID'S RESEARCH THERE IS

NOT. >> THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW.

>> OKAY ARE WE DONE? >> YES WE ARE.

>> I THINK WHAT I JUST SAW WAS A ONE 100% ACCEPTANCE OF COURT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS?

IS THAT WHAT I JUST SAW? >> YES THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IS AT RIGHT SHIFT? >> YES MAYOR THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITTEE'S WORK.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING ON THE CALL TONIGHT IS BEEN VERY

HELPFUL. >> THANK YOU THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER LOVE FOR US HERE AS WELL BUT THANK YOU FOR THE SHADOW.

>> YES, I SEE THE OTHERS ERIC AND TOM THANK YOU.

>> IT IS OUR PLEASURE. >> ALRIGHT SO WE ARE DONE WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING.

WE WILL TAKE A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK EVERYONE.

SOMEDAY I'M NOT GOING TO FORGET THESE ZOO MEETINGS.

[4. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT PULLED HER CONSIDERATION FOR DISCUSSION?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.