* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:01]
          TO 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
ORDER AT 5 34. 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES. 
          UH, KATHY MITCHELL. 
          HELLO. 
          HI THERE. 
          THANK YOU FOR COMING TO SPEAK TO US. 
          I HIT THIS BUTTON AND NOW I'M ON. 
          IS THAT HOW THAT WORKS? OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, SO MY NAME IS KATHY MITCHELL. 
          I AM WITH EQUITY ACTION. 
          THE GROUP THAT LED THE FIGHT AGAINST A BALLOT MEASURE A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK, UM, THAT WAS PROP A AND THEN COLLECTED SIGNATURES FOR A BALLOT MEASURE TO THE POINT OF THIS COMMISSION THAT WAS ALSO PROP A  IN A SUBSEQUENT ELECTION. 
          AND THAT WAS VERY CONFUSING FOR US ALL. 
          UM, SO ANYWAY, I HAVE BEEN WATCHING ALL OF THIS CLOSELY BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE PROBABLY GOT THE MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE, UM, COLLECTING SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSING OTHER PEOPLE COLLECTING SIGNATURES IN AUSTIN AT THE KIND OF CURRENT ECONOMIC MOMENT. 
          UM, AND IN GENERAL, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'VE TOLD THOSE, I'VE SPOKE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          UM, AND OUR POSITION ON SOME OF THIS IS THAT THE COST HAVE RISEN SO MUCH IN THE PAST TWO YEARS THAT IT IS COST PROHIBITIVE FOR MOST PEOPLE TO DO WHAT WE DID. 
          NOW, UM, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE COST PROHIBITIVE TO US TO DO  EVER DO IT AGAIN. 
          UM, DON'T WANNA SAY NEVER, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S A REAL THING. 
          SO, UM, SO I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THE DRAFTS THAT I RECEIVED WERE PRETTY HAPPY WITH THE APPROACH. 
          THE THINGS THAT WE THINK SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED ARE LARGELY PROCEDURAL AND TRANSPARENCY. 
          UM, AS YOU ALL I'M SURE KNOW, BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN AUSTIN, THE, UM, WE PUT FORWARD A BALLOT MEASURE AND THEN OPPOSITION PUT FORWARD A CLONE BALLOT MEASURE THAT WAS NOT IDENTICAL, BUT HAD THE SAME CAPTION, IT HAD THE SAME TITLE. 
          THEY CAME IN UNDER A FALSE NAME. 
          THE ORGANIZATION DIDN'T SAY WHO WAS FUNDING IT. 
          NONE OF THE PETITION FORMS HAVE TO SAY WHO IS BEHIND IT. 
          SO AT A CERTAIN POINT THEY SAID THEY WERE US. 
          THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. 
          THEY STOOD ON THE STREET CORNER AND CLAIMED TO BE OUR ORGANIZATION RUNNING A MEASURE THAT WAS ACTUALLY AGAINST OUR MEASURE. 
          SO, UM, THAT KIND OF THING. 
          WE REALLY SUPPORT THE PROCEDURAL THINGS THAT ARE IN HERE THAT WE THINK WILL PUT A STOP TO THAT. 
          LIKE HAVING PEOPLE HAVE TO PUT THEIR NAME ON SOMETHING. 
          WE LIKE THE REGISTRATION IN ADVANCE. 
          WE LIKE ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT IT. 
          IT REFLECTS ESSENTIALLY WHAT ANY LEGITIMATE ORGANIZATION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UM, CAN I CONTINUE? 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE RECALL ONE YET. 
          UH, YES. 
          IF YOU COULD, UM, FINISH YOUR COMMENTS MAYBE IN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES. 
          YOU THINK YOU CAN WRAP IT UP IN TWO MINUTES? YEAH, I'M NOT GONNA LIKE TAKE UP HALF AN HOUR OR ANYTHING. 
          SURE, YES. 
          , PLEASE FINISH YOUR COMMENTS. 
          UM, SO, SO WE LIKE EVERYTHING IN HERE, SO I'LL JUST SKIP TO THE END. 
          THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION WE THINK MAY BE A LITTLE TOO WONKY. 
          UM, WE LIKE THE CONCEPT OF A 90 DAY SIGNATURE COLLECTION, BUT WE ALSO REALIZE, AND THIS WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION, THAT THAT MIGHT BE TOO SHORT FOR GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS WORKING WITH VOLUNTEERS. 
          UM, AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT SEEMS LIKE 180 IS PROBABLY OKAY. 
          AND PUTTING THAT IN BETWEEN STEP IN THERE MIGHT TRIP UP SOME LEGITIMATE PEOPLE. 
          LIKE, THERE MIGHT BE A MOMENT WHERE IF YOU GET YOUR PERMISSION AND YOU START COLLECTING YOUR SIGNATURES AND NOW YOU'RE IN YOUR SIGNATURE COLLECTION MODE AND YOU FORGET TO GO BACK AND ASK FOR AN EXTENSION AT 90 DAYS BECAUSE YOU'RE THINKING 180 DAYS, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO BE LIKE A TECHNICALITY UPON WHICH, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY'S HOPES AND DREAMS FALL. 
          UM, SO WE JUST WANTED TO CONSIDER THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE JUST THE 180 DAYS IS JUST WHAT IT SHOULD BE. 
          UM, 
          [00:05:01]
AND THE NEXT THING, LET'S SEE, WE HAD NO COMMENTS ON SECTION TWO. 
          UM, I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE, UM, UH, YEAH, WE HAVE NO COMMENTS ON SECTION TWO. 
          THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO TELL Y'ALL. 
          APRIL OH OH, THE 50,000. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT Y'ALL REALLY STRUGGLED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CREATE A HIGHER LIMIT FOR EMERGENCY, LIKE TO CREATE AN EMERGENCY OUT FOR THE, THAT TIME WINDOW. 
          YOU'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT IF WE'RE SENDING IT ALL TO GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER, THAT'S EVERY OTHER NOVEMBER, AND ON CERTAIN CALENDAR YEARS, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS BEFORE YOUR THING COULD GO ON THE BALLOT. 
          AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM. 
          LIKE, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S TOO MUCH. 
          UM, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE WHAT THE, HOW TO DEFINE THAT 50,000, UH, WHEN, WHEN IT'S TRIGGERED, WE THOUGHT MAYBE IT SHOULD BE MORE CLEAR THAT IT'S IN PART RELATED TO NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS FOR THE THING TO GO ON THE BALLOT. 
          UM, DUNNO HOW TO DO THAT. 
          BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE THE MOST LIKELY USE CASE FOR THAT EMERGENCY MEASURE. 
          UM, OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WITH ENOUGH MONEY AS ALWAYS IN THIS MARKET WILL DO WHAT THEY WANT. 
          UM, SO IF WE'RE GONNA KEEP IT TO THE EVERY OTHER NOVEMBER, WE THOUGHT ABOUT MAKING THIS 50,000 THING LIMITED TO THAT TIMELINE, THAT TIMING PROBLEM THAT, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY SHOULD BE SOLVED. 
          'CAUSE TWO, THREE YEARS IS TOO LONG. 
          THE WORLD CHANGES IN THREE YEARS. 
          SO, UM, THAT WAS IT FOR OUR COMMENTS ON THAT. 
          UH, GOING TO BRIEFLY GOING TO THE RECALL, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO WE, THIS WAS REALLY A FIRST, FIRST REVIEW, IF YOU DON'T MIND MY SAYING, WE DIDN'T SEE THIS UNTIL PRETTY RECENTLY. 
          UM, SO WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT RAISING THE, THE PERCENTAGE TOO MUCH. 
          I WENT AHEAD AND PULLED, UH, KIND OF WHAT THEY ARE IN OTHER STATES AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR RECALLS. 
          AND 15 SEEMS TO BE PRETTY NORMAL. 
          15, 20, 25. 
          THAT IS LIKE THE RANGE. 
          UM, IN THIS MOMENT IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE TO MOVE THIS THING UP INCREMENTALLY AND JUST START WITH 15 AND THEN IN THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW CONSIDER ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER FIVE. 
          LIKE THIS COULD JUST BE SOMETHING THAT GETS A LITTLE HARDER OVER TIME. 
          UM, WE DON'T WANT IT, I, I DON'T THINK IT IS YOUR INTENTION TO LOOK LIKE THIS IS A INCUMBENT, INCUMBENT PROTECTION MEASURE, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT INCUMBENTS, YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THIS NONSENSE NOT BEING NONSENSE. 
          UM, SO OTHER THAN THAT, UM, I DO THINK IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING. 
          UM, WE LIKE TO ALL PUTTING IN ALL OF THE SAME TRANSPARENCY AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUFF FOR BOTH. 
          SO IT'S JUST STANDARDIZED AND THERE ISN'T ONE PROCESS THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER. 
          UM, AND I GUESS I'LL STOP THERE BECAUSE AGAIN, WE WERE SORT OF FIRST IMPRESSION. 
          WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS MS. MITCHELL. 
          AND WE WILL BE HERE AGAIN ON THE 20TH, ON TUESDAY IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OKAY. 
          THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME BEFORE I GET UP? UH, WE TYPICALLY DON'T DO QUESTIONS DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          WE JUST, UH, WE'LL TAKE COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS DURING OUR DISCUSSION TIME. 
          FINE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          THE 20TH ON THE 20TH IS OUR NEXT MEETING, I THINK. 
          I THINK THE 30TH. 
          IS IT THE 30TH? YES, IT'S THE 30TH. 
          TUESDAY THE 30TH. 
          NEXT SPEAKER IS JOE RIDDEL. 
          SORRY, DO I PUSH A BUTTON TO START, OR IS, IS IT GOING? I THINK YOUR MIC SHOULD BE ON SO WE CAN ALL HEAR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, MY NAME IS JOE RIDDELL. 
          I, UM, I FIRST VOTED IN AUSTIN IN 1971, SO I'VE SEEN A LOT OF ELECTIONS AND, UH, SOME OF 'EM TURNED OUT THE WAY I WANTED AND SOME DIDN'T. 
          BUT, UH, I'VE SEEN THIS FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES AND I, I WOULD SAY I DON'T ENVY YOUR POSITION. 
          I FEEL LIKE THE COUNCIL, BASICALLY THE RESOLUTION TOLD YOU TO COME UP WITH CERTAIN IDEAS THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE VERY GOOD. 
          AND I, I SEE THAT YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, GOING ALONG THAT PRO PROCEDURE, BUT I, I'M SORRY THAT YOU HAVEN'T HAD A PUBLIC HEARING YET TO HEAR 
          [00:10:01]
FROM THE, THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY THINK OF SOME OF THOSE IDEAS. 
          I'LL SAVE ALL MY, UH, COMMENTS ON THE SUBSTANCE OF SOME OF THE IDEAS. 
          TELL ANOTHER DATE, LIKE A PUBLIC HEARING, OR I'LL WRITE YOU A LETTER. 
          BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS, SINCE YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT HARD WORDING, AND MAYBE I'M GONNA PROVE SOME OF THIS, I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT WHEN PEOPLE SHOW UP AT THE POLLS, THEY'RE GONNA JUST SEE A LITTLE BLURB. 
          AND I DON'T LIKE THE LITTLE BLURBS THAT, THAT ARE, HAVE BEEN PROPOSED HERE ON A COUPLE OF THESE. 
          AND SO, IN PARTICULAR, UH, THE, THE BLURB SHOULD EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT'S BEING CHANGED RATHER THAN JUST TELLING THEM, WELL, THIS IS THE WAY IT'LL BE. 
          YOU WANT IT THIS WAY OR NOT. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, FOR THE, FOR CITIZEN INITIATIVES, UH, THE, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS, SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL BE REQUIRED TO HOLD CITIZEN INITIATIVE, UH, INITIATIVES ON CITIZEN INITIATED INITIATIVES ON NOVEMBER ELECTION DATES? WELL, SHALL THEY BE REQUIRED TO HOLD THEM THEN? WELL, WHAT'S CHANGING? AND IF YOU WOULD ADD TO THAT SENTENCE THE PHRASE, INSTEAD OF THE NEXT AVAILABLE ELECTION DATE, THEN YOU'D BE CLUING IN THE PUBLIC THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET TO GET TO VOTE ON THAT, THAT THE NEXT AVAILABLE ELECTION DATE, THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER. 
          ALRIGHT? AND THAT'S FAIR THAT, THAT'S, VOTERS SHOULD KNOW THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE OTHER, UH, RECOMMENDATION I WAS TALKING ABOUT IS THE ONE ABOUT WHEN SHALL CHARTER ELECTIONS BE, AND THERE'S A STATE LAW THAT GIVES THREE DIFFERENT TIMES. 
          IT COULD BE THE NEXT UNIFORM ELECTION DATE, OR IT CAN BE THE NEXT MUNICIPAL ELECTION OR THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
          WELL, THE PROPOSED BALLOT LANGUAGE SAYS, SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL BE REQUIRED TO PREFER HOLDING CITIZEN INITIATED CHARTER CHANGES ON MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION DATES? AGAIN, WHAT ARE THEY PREFERRING THAT OVER? SO, UM, IT NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THAT, UM, THEY'D BE DOING THAT EVEN IF THE ELECTION COULD BE HELD SOONER ON AN AUTHORIZED UNIFORM ELECTION DATE. 
          SO, PLEASE, UH, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING ON THESE, THINK ABOUT WHAT VOTERS ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT AND EX AND MAKE SURE THAT WORDING EXPLAINS TO THEM THE NATURE OF WHAT THEY'RE LOSING OR CHANGING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MR. RIDDELL. 
          THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPEAKERS. 
          THANK YOU, MYRNA. 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
SO THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, UM, FOR THE DECEMBER 14TH MEETING, WHICH ARE IN YOUR PACKET, I BELIEVE. 
          YES. 
          HERE THEY'RE, SO AFTER YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER LASH MOVES TO APPROVE. 
          SECOND COMMISSIONER AL MURANO ENTHUSIASTICALLY SECONDS. 
          UM, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ALL. 
          ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 
          [2. Discussion regarding a Charter amendment concerning an Independent Ethics Commission. (Commissioner Greenberg)]
THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS A DISCUSSION ITEM AND, UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S ITEM REGARDING A CHARTER AMENDMENT CONCERNING AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION. 
          AND I BELIEVE SHE HAS PROVIDED US WITH A PRESENTATION WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN YOUR MATERIALS AND ALSO ON THE SCREEN. 
          SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M BETSY GREENBERG. 
          UM, THE FIRST SLIDE IS A QUOTE THAT I DISLIKED THAT CAME OUT OF THE, UM, PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE REPORT. 
          IN FACT, A LOT OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS PRESENTATION CAME FROM THAT ETHICS COMMISSIONS WORK TO ENSURE VOTERS TRUST IN POLICYMAKERS AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS THROUGH EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPARENCY. 
          ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES TO ETHICS COMMITTEES IS MAINTAINING THEIR CREDIBILITY WITH THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, SO THE NEXT SLIDE JUST IS A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. 
          THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE IS THAT THE COMMISSION WILL NOT NEED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL TO RECOMMEND AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION BECAUSE THE 2018 CHARTER COMMISSION DID ALL THE WORK FOR US, UM, THEY PASSED A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION. 
          UM, TODAY'S BACKUP HAS THESE SLIDES, THE PRELIMINARY REPORT, UM, AN ARTICLE WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING ON EVERYDAY ETHICS, ALTHOUGH, UM, IT'S FROM CALIFORNIA, BUT IT'S VERY INTERESTING. 
          AND, UM, THE DRAFT CHARTER AMENDMENT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE FINAL COPY THAT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE RED LINES AND I THINK IT NEEDS A SLIGHT BIT OF CLEANUP. 
          UM, BUT ANYWAY, CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CONSIDER THIS. 
          THEY DIDN'T REJECT IT, THEY JUST DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS. 
          AND SEVERAL OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 
          [00:15:01]
FROM THE 2018 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          UM, NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO, RIGHT NOW, THE CURRENT SITUATION IN AUSTIN IS THAT THERE'S FOUR ENTITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN ETHICS MATTERS. 
          THE CITY CLERK, WHICH IS HIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO IS HIRED BY THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY AUDITOR, WHO'S HIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND THEN THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, WHICH IS AGAIN, APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          UM, THERE ARE NO ADVISORY OPINIONS PROVIDED FOR CANDIDATES, UM, OR POLITICAL COMMITTEES OR THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, ALL COMPLAINTS ARE INITIATED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, SOME CHOOSE TO GO TO THE CITY AUDITOR, SOME CHOOSE TO GO TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, BUT THEY ALL HAVE TO COME FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, THERE'S REALLY, I WOULD SAY, LITTLE ENFORCEMENT. 
          THERE'S NO FINES FOR VIOLATIONS EXCEPT FOR THE LOBBYISTS HAVE LATE FEES. 
          UM, SO NEXT SLIDE IS THE CITY CLERK EXCEPTS, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE LOBBYIST FILINGS. 
          UM, BUT AS FAR AS THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS AND THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IF THEY'RE NOT FILED, NOTHING HAPPENS. 
          UM, THERE ARE REMINDERS AND FINES FOR THE LOBBYISTS. 
          QUARTERLY REPORTS UP TO $500, SO $500 PER QUARTER. 
          UM, THE CLERK DOES PROVIDE A DETAILED CANDIDATE PACKET. 
          UM, BUT THE CONTENTS, IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY ON ONE OF THE PAGES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. 
          SO THAT'S JUST VERY HELPFUL. 
          IT'S LIKE THAT THICK. 
          UM, ANYWAY, THE NEXT IS THE CITY ATTORNEY, UM, PROVIDES LEGAL ADVICE TO THE CITY CLERK AND THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          THE CITY ATTORNEY DOES NOT ADVISE, YOU KNOW, GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS TO CANDIDATES OR GIVE ANY ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, ONLY ENFORCEMENT ACTION POSSIBLE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS TO PROSECUTE A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR FOR A MAXIMUM FINE OF $500. 
          AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS NEVER TAKEN AN ETHICS OR CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION, UM, TO COURT FOR THAT CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE CITY AUDITOR INVESTIGATES CITY COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE COUNCIL, BOARD MEMBERS AND CITY EMPLOYEES. 
          UM, IF THE CITY AUDITOR INVESTIGATES AND FINDS A VIOLATION, UM, NOT FOR CITY STAFF, BUT FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, I GUESS THE, IT'S REFERRED TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          AND IF THE CITY AUDITOR INVESTIGATES AND FINDS A VIOLATION OF THE OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES, NOT THE COUNCIL OR THEIR STAFF OR BOARD APPOINTEES, UM, THEN THERE'S JUST A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL EVER DOES. 
          UM, THE CITY AUDITOR, MAYBE THIS ISN'T COMPLETELY TRUE, RANDOMLY AUDITS AT LEAST 5% OF THE LOBBYIST FILINGS. 
          AND I KNOW THERE WAS GOING THROUGH THE MOTION, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT PASSED, BUT TO CHANGE THAT TO A THREE YEAR REVIEW. 
          AND THEN THERE'S THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          UM, I DID SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION NOT QUITE FOUR YEARS, UM, BUT 11 COMMISSIONERS ARE APPOINTED LIKE EVERY OTHER COMMISSION BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THERE'S NO REQUIRED EXPERTISE IN ETHICS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE OR ENFORCEMENT. 
          WHEN THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY REQUESTED TRAINING FROM THE STAFF, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME PROVIDED INFORMATION, A BRIEFING ABOUT ETHICS. 
          AND THAT CITY ATTORNEY, WHO'S NOT THIS ONE, UM, SAID THAT SHE WAS NOT AN EXPERT IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WHICH IS COMPLICATED. 
          AND SO IT'S HARD FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ENFORCE RULES THAT THEY DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, THERE ARE NO QUALIFICATION RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS EXCEPT THE NORMAL ONE THAT YOU CAN'T BE A LOBBYIST. 
          UM, SO THERE'S NOTHING RELATING TO RUNNING FOR OFFICE OR PARTICIPATING IN CAMPAIGNS. 
          UM, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, THE COMMISSION HAS HAD NO CASES GO TO A FINAL HEARING, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE TWO LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION AND ONE LETTER OF ADMONITION. 
          ONE POINT THE, I THINK IT WAS THE STATESMAN WROTE UP THAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION CAN WRITE A MEAN LETTER OR A SLIGHTLY MEANER LETTER. 
          , UM, . 
          UM, SO THAT'S ALL FROM PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. 
          THE, THE FAILURES TO PROCEED TO FINAL HEARING HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE, UM, THIS IS MY OPINION OF SPLIT VOTES SOMETIMES BECAUSE OF BARELY HAVING 
          [00:20:01]
A QUORUM AND NEEDING SIX VOTES. 
          THERE WAS A CASE WHERE IT WAS FIVE TO ONE AND PEOPLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND FIVE TO ONE. 
          WHY DIDN'T THAT GO TO FINAL HEARING? IT'S LIKE, 'CAUSE YOU NEED SIX VOTES FOR ANYTHING THAT A COMMISSION DOES. 
          UM, LACKING LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE STANDARD. 
          UM, YOU DON'T NEED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT JUST TO GO TO FINAL HEARING. 
          AND THE COMPLAINTS THAT INCORRECTLY LISTED THE ALLEGATION. 
          THIS HAPPENS VERY OFTEN BECAUSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND. 
          THEY THINK THAT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE VIOLATION. 
          AND THEN IT GETS DISMISSED. 
          UM, SO THE COMMISSION ALSO CONSIDERS PROPOSED CODE CHANGES. 
          UM, FOR THOSE SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ARE UNDER THEIR DOMAIN. 
          THOSE USUALLY COME FROM THE STAFF. 
          UM, THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL HIRE THE CLERK, THE MANAGER, AND THE AUDITOR. 
          UM, SO THEY IN FACT END UP HAVING A BIG IMPACT ON ETHICS. 
          UM, THEY ALSO EMPLOY THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING, I GUESS THERE'S BOLD OR ALL CAPS, BECAUSE THIS BOTHERS ME, A FIRST DEGREE RELATIVE OF A CURRENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO CLEARLY HAS SOME CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 
          BUT THEY SAID NO. 
          UM, MANY OF THE COMPLAINTS, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. 
          SO THAT'S FINE. 
          MANY OF THE COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE PUBLIC ARE AGAINST CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THEIR APPOINTEES, THREE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED. 
          AGAIN, JUST A MEAN LETTER. 
          UM, THE 2018 CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CONSIDER THE CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION. 
          AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION THAT WERE MADE IN 2021 TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY ABOUT COUNCIL MEMBERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS. 
          A REALLY BIG PROBLEM IS THAT COMPLAINTS MUST BE FILED BY THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, THE AUSTIN BULLDOG HAS REPORTED ON NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE NOT RESULTED IN COMPLAINTS BECAUSE NOBODY FILED A COMPLAINT. 
          MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE CANDIDATES FAILED TO FILE THE REQUIRED PERSONAL FINANCIAL REPORTS. 
          UM, I THINK IT'D BE AN EASY FIX TO SAY YOU DON'T FILE THAT YOU DON'T GET ON THE BALLOT. 
          UM, BUT THERE IS NO RULE LIKE THAT. 
          UM, RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT AN EASY FIX. 
          YOU'RE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. 
          YOU CAN'T DO THAT. 
          OKAY, WELL, THERE SHOULD BE SOME RECOURSE TO DEALING WITH CANDIDATES THAT DON'T FILE REQUIRED PAPERWORK. 
          UM, 17 CANDIDATES, UM, SAYS FROM THE BULLDOG, EXACTLY HALF THE NUMBER WHO FILED APPLICATIONS FOR A PLACE ON THE BALLOT FAILED TO FILE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS THAT WERE DUE AT THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN, DECEMBER, I MEAN, JANUARY, UM, OF 2023. 
          SO THAT'S HALF THE CANDIDATES FROM THE 2022 ELECTION DIDN'T FILE THEIR, UM, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. 
          SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          THIS IS ALSO, AND NUMEROUS LOBBYISTS HAVE CRIMINALLY VIOLATED CITY LOBBYING LAW. 
          THAT'S, AGAIN, THAT BULLDOG'S OPINION. 
          BUT THERE'S NO COMPLAINTS. 
          THERE'S NO COMPLAINTS, NOTHING HAPPENS. 
          SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2018 CHARTER COMMISSION WHERE, FIRST OF ALL, TO GET ALL THESE DIFFERENT, UM, FUNCTIONS INTO ONE AGENCY. 
          SO THE ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE. 
          ALL THE TASKS WERE HANDLED BY ONE AGENCY INSTEAD OF FOUR. 
          UM, THE OTHER IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE AGENCY HAS TO BE INDEPENDENT. 
          THE ETHICS COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY MANAGER, OR THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, NOT BE INFLUENCED BY POLITICS. 
          THE MEMBERS WOULD BE SELECTED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ARE SELECTED, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE NOT SELECTED OR VOTED ON BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          UM, THE SEEMS LIKE A COMPLICATED STRUCTURE, BUT THE COMMISSION HIRES AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF WHO ACTUALLY ADMINISTER THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONFLICT OF INTEREST REVOLVING DOOR AND LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE LAWS. 
          AND THEN HEARINGS GO, WELL, THAT'S THE NEXT PART, UM, TO THE COMMISSION. 
          THERE'S, UM, A LOT OF DETAILS IN THE RECOMMENDATION ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THE TERMS ARE STAGGERED. 
          UM, THE TERMS ARE FAIRLY LONG UP TO FIVE YEARS. 
          EVENTUALLY EVERYBODY WOULD BE A FIVE YEAR TERM. 
          BUT AT THE BEGINNING, 
          [00:25:01]
STARTING WITH SOME THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE YEAR TERMS. SO THERE'S NOT EVERYBODY STARTING AND STOPPING AT THE SAME TIME. 
          UM, THE MEMBERS CANNOT BE LOBBYISTS, CANDIDATES, CONTRIBUTORS, POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, ET CETERA, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE AND AFTER THEIR SERVICE. 
          UM, AND THEN MORE IMPORTANT, OR, I MEAN, IT'S ALL IMPORTANT. 
          I THINK MEMBERS WOULD HAVE EXPERTISE IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE, ETHICS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND OR ENFORCEMENT. 
          'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE, UM, ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE ANY PARTICULAR EXPERTISE. 
          THERE'S, UM, A RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE SURE THERE'S SUFFICIENT BUDGET TO, SO THAT THE COMMISSION CAN ACTUALLY HAVE MONEY TO HIRE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF, IN OTHER WORDS, TO DO THEIR JOB. 
          AND THAT THAT BUDGET ISN'T, AGAIN, SUBJECT TO POLITICS, UM, IS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          THE CITY AUDITOR COULD PROVIDE CURRENT SPENDING DATA AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN IN INITIAL BUDGET AND COST OF LIVING AND WORKLOAD ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ANNUALLY. 
          AND THE FIFTH PART IS ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT, SORRY, ENFORCEMENT PROCESS. 
          THE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, THEY DO INVESTIGATIONS AND THERE'S LAWYERS. 
          THEY WORK FOR THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AND NOT AGAIN, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY MANAGER. 
          THE COMMISSION'S LAWYERS WOULD WORK ON A PROACTIVE AUDITS AND INVESTIGATION WITHOUT A REQUIREMENT THAT COMPLAINTS COME FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF WOULD'VE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE WITH SUBPOENA POWER BEFORE HEARINGS. 
          THERE'S NO INVESTIGATION BEFORE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS CURRENTLY, SO YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FOR A HEARING. 
          THE ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD ACTUALLY HOLD THE HEARINGS AND SET FINES. 
          UM, SO JUST TO CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC ONE MORE SLIDE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS, FROM OUR CANDIDATES, AND FROM POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES. 
          UM, AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION THAT'S FREE TO OPERATE WITHOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE WOULD HELP US ACHIEVE THIS GOAL. 
          UM, IT ALSO, I THINK, WOULD HELP REDUCE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS AGAINST PUBLIC SERVANTS. 
          I'VE SEEN COMPLAINTS THAT ARE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DID THIS TINY PRINT OF DISCLOSURE, IS THAT ON YOUR YARD SIGN? AND IT'S LIKE, AS SOON AS THE CANDIDATE KNOWS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT AND DIDN'T THEY FIX IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T REQUIRE A HEARING OF AN ETHICS COMMISSION FIRST. 
          MAYBE I SHOULDN'T CALL IT FRIVOLOUS, BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT I THINK COULD BE SOLVED WITHOUT HEARINGS. 
          UM, THE CHARTER COMMISSION PROVIDED A DETAILED 10 PAGE RECOMMENDATION COVERING THE MEMBERSHIP, THE TERMS, THE QUALIFICATION, POWERS AND DUTIES, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF, HOW THE INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT WORKS, AND THE SELECTION OF COMMISSIONERS BOTH INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY, UM, DATES. 
          AND I THINK THERE'S SOME CLEANUP NEEDED. 
          UM, THERE'S SOME PLACES WHERE IT SAYS THREE IS A QUORUM OR FOUR IS A QUORUM. 
          UM, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS WE COULD FIX, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO WRITE THIS WHOLE THING OVER. 
          UM, SO I THINK GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S THE 2018 COMMISSION DID SO MUCH WORK AND THE COUNCIL UNFORTUNATELY DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER IT, WE SHOULD GIVE THE COUNSEL THE CHANCE TO CONSIDER THIS. 
          AGAIN. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          WELCOME. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT VERY DETAILED PRESENTATION. 
          I DO WANNA PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT AROUND THE WORK OF THE 2018 COMMISSION. 
          UM, BECAUSE YOUR HONOR, WELL, FIRST, AND I KIND OF MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME, A DRIVING FACTOR. 
          THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, BUT A DRIVING FACTOR FOR US AT THE TIME WAS ALSO THAT IT WAS TIED TO THE DEMOCRACY DOLLARS PROPOSAL AND WE NEEDED AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY TO ADMINISTER THAT. 
          OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE OTHER REASONS FOR AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION, WHICH YOU'VE OUTLINED TODAY. 
          UM, THE TIMING AND WORK, WHILE THE 2018 COMMISSION DID A LOT OF WORK, THERE WAS STILL SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT DOWN TO THE END ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, UM, SPECIFICALLY HOW THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE APPOINTED. 
          UM, AND SO I WOULD SAY THERE'S STILL WORK TO DO. 
          I THINK IT, WE DID GREAT WORK AND IT'S A GREAT START. 
          I DO THINK THIS COMMISSION, THOUGH, WOULD NEED TO DEVOTE SOME SIGNIFICANT TIME AND ATTENTION 
          [00:30:01]
TO THIS. 
          SO I DO THINK THERE'S STILL SOME MORE WORK TO DO. 
          UM, AND WE DID LAST TIME GO TAKE OUR PRESENTATION AND OUR PROPOSAL TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE CAUGHT EVERYTHING. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, UH, THEY CONDUCT HEARING FROM MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES. 
          THAT WAS NOT IN OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. 
          AND IT WASN'T UNTIL WE TOOK IT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT WE REALIZED WE WERE MISSING THAT PIECE. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING IF WE DECIDE AS A GROUP THAT WE DO WANT TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP THAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO IS TAKE THIS BACK TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON OUR PROPOSAL AS WELL, TO MAKE SURE WE ARE, IF WE ARE GOING TO CONSOLIDATE ETHICS FUNCTIONS THAT WE, THAT WE MAKE SURE WE GET EVERYTHING. 
          UM, THE OTHER CONTEXT I WANTED TO PROVIDE IS, UM, SO WE, I WENT BACK AND I, I DID INCLUDE OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR SOME REASON THE REPORT THAT'S ON OUR WEBSITE IS THE DRAFT REPORT. 
          AND I CANNOT, THE FINAL REPORT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AND IT IS SOMEWHERE . 
          UM, BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TRACK IT DOWN. 
          BUT JUST, I WANTED TO STILL INCLUDE THIS REPORT BECAUSE FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, SO WE GOT OUR FIRST WRITTEN REPORT IN EARLY JANUARY FROM THE WORKING GROUP THAT WAS WORKING ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE. 
          AND WE HAD NINE WORKING MEETINGS FROM THE POINT THAT WE GOT OUR FIRST WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION FROM THE WORKING GROUP UNTIL WE HAD A FULLY FORMED, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH MEETING WE VOTED ON, BUT, SO IT WAS A HEAVY LIFT. 
          DEMOCRACY DOLLARS WAS A HEAVY LIFT, INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION WAS A HEAVY LIFT. 
          I THINK IT'LL BE LESS OF A HEAVY LIFT THIS TIME, BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE STILL SOME WORK TO DO. 
          AND WE, ACCORDING TO OUR CURRENT SCHEDULE, HAVE FOUR MEETINGS LEFT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE KIND OF SET THE PARAMETERS FOR OURSELVES IF WE WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER WORKING GROUP. 
          I CAN REMIND EVERYBODY OF THE CRITERIA, BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE'VE SAID. 
          UM, IF WE DO WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER WORKING GROUP, I THINK WE DO NEED TO REEVALUATE OUR SCHEDULE AND TIMING FOR, UM, WHEN WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS RECOMMENDATION, UM, AND, AND VOTE ON IT. 
          SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS. 
          I THINK THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM. 
          AND SO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL ACTION LATER ON, ON CREATION OF THE NEW WORKING GROUP. 
          BUT I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION SINCE THIS IS A SOVEREIGN COMMISSION, THE ETHICS COMMISSION, IS THAT RIGHT? HAS STATE SOVEREIGNTY? YES. 
          NEIL SAYING NO, NO. 
          IS THIS, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY PARAMETERS IN STATE LAW THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM RECOMMENDING IT OR PREVENT COUNSEL FROM INSTITUTING INDEPENDENT ETHICS? IF THE ETHICS COMMISSION ITSELF OH, IT WOULD BE CHARTER. 
          IT WOULD BE A CHARTER CHANGE, RIGHT. 
          UM, YEAH, PARTLY IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT AN ETHICS COMMISSION IN STATE LAW THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS TYPE OF INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION? OR IS IT ALL JUST BASED ON HOME RULE THAT WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT? UM, THIS IS CAROLINE WITH LAW DEPARTMENT. 
          NO, THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO WE KNOW WHY COUNSEL DIDN'T TAKE UP THE RECOMMENDATION LAST TIME? IT WASN'T ONLY THIS, UM, THE ONLY TWO THINGS THAT GOT ONTO THE BALLOT WERE THE BEING ABLE TO APPOINT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS EVERY TWO YEARS AND PUNCTUATION. 
          UM, I THINK THEY DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER IT. 
          I REALLY THINK OUR CHAIR COULD PROBABLY COMMENT ON THAT BETTER. 
          THERE WERE A LOT OF BALLOT QUESTIONS. 
          THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION. 
          AND I THINK THE TIMING WAS IN THE MIDDLE, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY. 
          IT WAS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF CODE NEXT. 
          AND I THINK THAT FROM A CAPACITY STANDPOINT, IT JUST WAS NOT AT THE TIME A PRIORITY OR SOMETHING THAT THEY, UH, YOU KNOW, COULD TAKE UP. 
          AND THEN HOW WAS THE RE HOW WAS THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION APPOINTED IN THE, DID THEY HAVE THIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STRUCTURE? NOT TO GET TOO FAR, NO. 
          WEEDS, I'M JUST CURIOUS. 
          I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 
          UM, AND I THINK THERE'S, THEY HAVE SOME STAFF, BUT THEY'RE A MUCH LARGER COMMISSION THAN WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR SEVEN COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS SORT OF, SHOULD IT BE FIVE, SHOULD IT BE NINE DISCUSSION, IS WHAT I'VE HEARD. 
          UM, WHICH I THINK IS SORT OF ALMOST IRRELEVANT. 
          [00:35:01]
BUT THE, I BELIEVE AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THE AUDITOR WOULD SELECT A PANEL AND THE PANEL WOULD GO THROUGH THE APPLICATIONS, MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE, FIRST OF ALL, HAD THE QUALIFICATIONS AND NOT THE DISQUALIFICATIONS, AND THEN CHOOSE, IT'S UNCLEAR 'CAUSE IT'S IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE, THREE OR FOUR, UM, RANDOMLY. 
          AND THOSE WOULD CHOOSE THE REMAINING, UM, THREE OR FOUR TO MAKE SEVEN. 
          UM, BUT THE COUNCIL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT ULTIMATELY ENDED UP IN THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, AND THERE WAS, I MEAN, THERE WAS A NOT INSIGNIFICANT COST ASSOCIATED WITH SELECTING THE COMMISSIONERS, JUST BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE TO HIRE THE, THE WAY WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IT, YOU HAD TO HIRE OUTSIDE AUDITORS. 
          AND SO THAT WAS A BIG DEBATE, UM, AMONG THE LAST COMMISSION WAS WHETHER WE SHOULD ALLOW, UM, I BELIEVE WE HAD COUNSEL YEAH. 
          OR THE AUDITOR. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT WHO WAS GONNA DO THE SELECTION, UM, PROCESS. 
          SO IT'S, UM, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING THE SELECTION PROCESS. 
          I DON'T, I'M NOT REMEMBERING ALL THE DETAILS. 
          YEAH, IT SOUNDED PRETTY COMPLICATED. 
          LIKE IT WAS ALMOST TWO PROCESSES. 
          ONE, JUST TO SELECT THE AUDITORS. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AND THEN ANOTHER TO SELECT THE ACTUAL COMMISSIONERS. 
          AND, UM, MAYBE AT THE END IT WAS DECIDED THAT REALLY WE COULD RELY ON THE AUDITOR, UM, AND SIMPLIFY THAT PROCESS. 
          THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. 
          SO THERE ARE DETAILS THAT I THINK A WORKING GROUP COULD, UM, LOOK AT. 
          I'M NOT REAL CLEAR ABOUT THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE ETHICS COMMISSION ANY LONGER LOOKS AT CIVIL SERVANTS, IF THAT'S, MAYBE IT'S, IT WAS THE CONDUCT OF HEARINGS FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT COVERED BY THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICES COMMISSION. 
          BUT I THINK THE FINAL, WHAT WE ORIGINALLY, WHAT WE EVENTUALLY APPROVED INCLUDED, COVERED THAT CONCERN. 
          UM, THE REMAINING DEBATE WAS REALLY AROUND THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS. 
          YES, I, CAROLINE WEBSTER WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT. 
          I WOULD SAY RIGHT NOW MOST OF THE, ALL OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION STUFF IS IN CITY CODE AS OPPOSED TO THE CHARTER. 
          MM-HMM. 
          SO IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANTED TO LAY IT OUT, BUT SOME OF THOSE DETAILS FOR APPOINTMENT METHODOLOGY AND THAT SORT OF THING, THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE LEFT TO ORDINANCES THAT AMEND THE CITY CODE. 
          UM, IF, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE THAT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT COULD JUST HAVE, IT'S GONNA BE INDEPENDENTLY APPOINTED AND HAVE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. 
          AND THEN SOME OF THOSE DETAILS COULD, IF THAT PASSES, IF THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT PASSES, THEN SOME OF THE OTHER DETAILS OF EXACTLY HOW SOME OF THAT WORKS COULD BE A CODE AMENDMENT INSTEAD OF A CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          SO I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S, THAT'S AN OPTION. 
          'CAUSE RIGHT NOW, ETHICS COMMISSION IS, IS ENTIRELY WITHIN CITY CODE. 
          YES. 
          AND I WOULD SAY 10 PAGES OF INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ ON A BALLOT MEASURE IS NOT REALLY, I, I JUST DON'T THINK PEOPLE READ 10 PAGES. 
          YEAH. 
          COMMISSIONER DWYER, TO CAROLINE'S POINT, COULD THIS ENTIRE RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT PART, BE MADE IN CITY CODE? DOES ANY OF IT NEED TO BE PUT TO VOTERS? I, I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION, BUT I WOULD THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES, , THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE ALL OF THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, NOT ALL, BUT ALL BUT A, A HANDFUL, UH, SOME OF THEIR, THE WAY THEY'RE SELECTED IS PRETTY STANDARD. 
          BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE SOME DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS DIFFERENT THAN THE STANDARDS. 
          SO I WOULD THINK IT COULD GO IN CITY CODE, BUT, BUT HONESTLY I'D LIKE TO, TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH AND, AND DOUBLE CHECK. 
          UM, 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A, THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY BIG CHANGE. 
          AND UM, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF SOMETHING OF THAT MAGNITUDE WOULD BE, IF PUTTING IT IN CITY CODE MIGHT, THAT MIGHT BE KIND OF NOT, IT'S HARD TO EXPRESS. 
          IT'S KIND OF TOO BIG OF A CHANGE FOR, FOR CITY CODE TO THE POINT. 
          IT COULD BE CHANGED SO EASILY. 
          AGAIN, AGAIN. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE THE, MAYBE THE THING BEHIND PUTTING AT LEAST SOME OF IT IN CITY CHARTERS, THEN IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO QUICKLY. 
          'CAUSE YOU COULD HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THE, THE ETHICS COMMISSION IS INDEPENDENT, 
          [00:40:01]
AND THEN A WEEK LATER OR TWO WEEKS LATER, THEY COULD CHANGE THAT. 
          SO I THINK EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD PUT IT, SOME OF IT IN CITY CODE, THERE IS SOME THAT'S KIND OF POLITICS LESS THAN LEGAL, UM, OR POLICY LESS THAN LEGAL. 
          BUT, UM, THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE ISSUE WITH PUTTING IT ALL IN CODE. 
          I THINK, AND I'M LOOKING BACK AT THE LANGUAGE, IF YOU ALL ARE LOOKING FOR THIS, AT LEAST, I THINK WHAT WAS THE LATEST DRAFT IS AN APPENDIX DI DON'T KNOW THAT YOU ALL, UM, HAVE A FULL COPY OF THE 2018 CHARTER COMMISSION REPORT, BUT WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN FIND THE FINAL. 
          IT SHOULD BE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MATERIAL SOMEWHERE. 
          DO YOU HAVE IT? COMMISSIONER ALONA? UH, I REMEMBER WHEN WE SIGNED UP FOR THIS READING, THE ONE THAT HAS A VERY, VERY LONG DEMOCRACY DOLLARS MM-HMM. 
           IBU, UH, BUT IT WAS IN, IT WAS INCOMPLETE AND THERE WERE, IT WAS CHOPPY. 
          MM-HMM. 
           IT SEEMED LIKE AT LEAST THE ONE THAT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WASN'T DONE. 
          AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS, UH, THAT I, I WAS JUST, I REMAIN, UM, INTERESTED IN HAVING A MORE CONCRETE ITEM IN FRONT OF ME, UH, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHETHER I, MY APPOINTER AND MY CONSCIOUS STYLE ALLOWS ME TO SUPPORT IT. 
          AND LET ME TELL YOU KIND OF MY KIND OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN. 
          IS IT, AND THE QUESTION I WAS TRYING TO ANSWER IS, WHO REMOVES A COMMISSIONER THAT'S BEEN APPOINTED BY THE THE ICRC PROCESS THAT IS COVERED IN THE RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? NOT THE ICRC. 
          I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE ICRC, BUT HERE, I THINK IT'S A VOTE OF FOUR OUT OF THE SEVEN WOULD REMOVE A COMMISSIONER. 
          I MEAN, I'M SURE THERE'S ONES HAVE BAD ATTENDANCE OR WHATEVER, RIGHT? BUT WHO CAN REMOVE A COMMISSIONER? THAT'S WHO THE FOUR, THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. 
          SO IT'S THE ISSUE THAT THE COMPLETELY CLOSED SYSTEM WAS SUBPOENA. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          THAT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
          WHO FIRES A ROAD? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 
          THE COMMISSION. 
          SO THIS IS THE THING. 
          IT'S LIKE ICRC, THE REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE IS FIRE AND FORGET. 
          THEY EITHER JOB WANTS AND THEN THEY'RE GONE. 
          THESE FOLKS ARE STUCK FOREVER WITH SUBPOENA POWER AND THERE'S NO WAY TO GET TO THEM. 
          IF SOMEBODY WAS SAYING LET'S SELECT THEM, THAT WOULD BE LEGITIMATE IN MY EYES. 
          BUT WE'RE SAYING LET'S HAVE SOME VERY BESPOKE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT NO ONE CAN RECALL 'EM FROM. 
          GIVE 'EM INVESTIGATIVE POWER OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND GIVE 'EM A BUDGET. 
          UH, TO ME SEEMS A LITTLE BIT UNREMARKABLE. 
          NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IN THE PROCESS' WE'RE STRIPPING THINGS AT WORK AND LIKE THE AUDITOR. 
          AND FOR WHAT, WHAT IS THE QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE THAT AUSTIN HAS AN ETHICAL CRISIS? SO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED INDICATES NO ONE BELIEVED WE HAVE AN ETHICAL ISSUE. 
          NO ONE IS COMPLAINING. 
          THAT IS THE QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE THAT NO ONE IS CONCERNED. 
          MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED. 
          I'M CONSISTENTLY LAID DOWN BY MY CITIZENS, BUT WHY ARE WE GOING TO ARM WITH A MASSIVE BUDGET AND COMPLETE POWER? A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE ONCE THEY'RE APPOINTED BY BESPOKE PROCESS DESIGNED FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A ONE SHOT ACTIVITY. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE CONCRETE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF ME SO I CAN DISCUSS IT WITH MY POINTER. 
          BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE FROM 2018 IN THIS PRESENTATION IS LEAVES A LOT OF PIECES DANGLING OUT THERE FOR SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS. 
          SO TO MY EARLIER POINT, I THINK THIS COMMISSION WILL HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS  ABOUT THIS, UH, THE 2018 PROPOSAL. 
          AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY AT THE STAGE RIGHT NOW OF DECIDING, AND IT IS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, IF WE WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER WORKING GROUP, UM, WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO THAT. 
          I WOULD JUST SUBMIT, IF WE DO, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR MEETING SCHEDULE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE OURSELVES SUFFICIENT TIME TO DO THIS ISSUE JUSTICE. 
          SO IF, IS THERE ANY, OH, CAN I HAVE ONE MORE? YES. 
          QUESTION FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY. 
          IN THE MATERIALS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US, WHICH I KNOW ISN'T LAW, IT'S JUST A GUY, BUT IT ESTABLISHES THAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS A SOVEREIGN BOARD ESTABLISHED BY FEDERAL LAW, STATE LAW, OR CITY CHARTER. 
          SO SHOULD IT FALL IN, SHOULD AN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION FALL INTO ONE OF THOSE AND NOT CITY CODE? AND I KNOW IT'S JUST A GUIDE. 
          SO STATE LAW MAY ALLOW FOR THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY CODE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SO IF THIS IS CORRECT, LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. 
          RIGHT NOW, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS ESTABLISHED BY CITY CODE, FEDERAL STATE LAW, OR CITY CHARTER. 
          SO IS THE FACT THAT IT'S IN CITY CODE PERMITTED BY STATE LAW OR IS THIS NOT? I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          OR IS THAT, IS THAT NOT 
          [00:45:01]
INCLUSIVE? SO ETHICS ON THIS? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL, I'LL HAVE TO, I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK IT. 
          I CAN DOUBLE CHECK THAT RIGHT NOW AND, AND TELL YOU IN A MINUTE, WHY DON'T WE CIRCLE BACK ON THIS, UM, ISSUE WITH CAROLINE AND GIVE HER A LITTLE TIME TO LOOK AT IT SO WE'RE NOT PUTTING HER ON THE SPOT AND STARING AT HER WHILE SHE'S TRYING TO INTERPRET THE LAW. 
          UM, AND WE CAN CIRCLE BACK TO THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSS DISCUSSION ON COMMISSIONER GREENBERG'S ITEM BEFORE WE MOVE ON? I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THE AUDITOR IS NECESSARILY THINKING EVERYTHING'S SATISFACTORY. 
          UM, THERE'S DEFINITELY BEEN CASES WHERE THE AUDITOR BROUGHT A CASE TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION AND THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION FAILED TO GO TO FINAL HEARING AFTER A VERY LONG DETAILED REPORT AND PRESENTATION FROM THE AUDITOR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER VAN NAMAN, DID YOU HAVE COMMENT? YEAH, SUPER QUICK. 
          UM, I, I CAN SEE THERE'S THE LAWYERS IN THE ROOM ARE, ARE JUST BUBBLING RIGHT NOW, . 
          UM, AND, UH, AS A NON-LAWYER, SORT OF ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT TO ME ARE JUST SOME OF THE LIKE PRACTICALITIES THAT ARE IN HERE AND, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE TO GO OVER ALL OF THEM RIGHT NOW, BUT I, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE'S JUST SO MUCH IN HERE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DEVOTE NOT ONLY JUST THE WORK GROUP, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO DEVOTE TIME AS A COMMISSION TO SIT DOWN AND REALLY GO THROUGH THESE THINGS AND HEAR A LOT OF FOLKS, UM, JUST LIKE TOP LEVEL THINGS FOR JUST, FOR ME AND, AND SORT OF THE FIELD THAT I WORK IN. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IF I'M THINKING OF WHO HAS EXPERTISE IN CAMPAIGN FINANCES OR PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY LIKE, CURRENTLY LOBBYISTS OR CURRENTLY, UM, POLITICAL CONSULTANTS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THOSE THINGS. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT THAT WHAT, TO ME, THAT IS KIND OF THE REASON THAT'S A RED FLAG FOR ME IS IT JUST KIND OF SHOWS ME THAT THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY SPECIFIC STUFF THAT NEEDS SOME OF THAT WALKING THROUGH IF WE'RE GONNA BE MAKING SUCH REALLY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, TO COUNCIL BASED ON THAT. 
          AND, AND I'M INTERESTED ALSO TO HEAR MORE WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS TO BE CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHETHER IT CAN BE CODE, WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT BECAUSE, UM, AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING LIKE SO SPECIFIC THAT, THAT FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, VOTING FOR THAT I WOULD WANNA DIG INTO A LOT OF THESE THINGS, HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. 
          UM, THAT'S, THAT WAS JUST LIKE THE VERY FIRST THING, BUT THERE'S A BUNCH IN HERE AND HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REALLY REVIEW IT IN DETAIL, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M, HOW I'M REACTING TO THIS. 
          THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. 
          AND I'M THINKING MAYBE FOR NEXT TIME UNDER DISCUSSION ITEMS, MAYBE WE CAN HAVE AN ITEM FOR CAROLINE TO COME BACK ON THE SPECIFIC QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION COULD BE CREATED IN CITY CODE OR CHARTER. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND THEN WE CAN ALL GET A REPORT NEXT TIME ON THAT. 
          DOES THAT WORK? COMMISSIONER MCGON? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE BRIEFLY. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW, I, I HAVE KIND OF MIXED THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS. 
          LIKE, UM, ON ONE HAND I DON'T SHARE THE VIBE OR THE FEELING THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE LIKE WIDESPREAD MIS FOR INSTANCE. 
          UM, ON THE OTHER HAND, I MEAN JUST AS A GENERAL MATTER, I MEAN, I THINK IN PRINCIPLE, ANYBODY THAT EXERCISES POWER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO REASONABLE SCRUTINY, UM, I SHARE MISGIVINGS ABOUT NOT, I HAVEN'T DONE ANY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH, BUT I THOUGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER AL MORENO'S MISGIVINGS WERE VERY PERSUASIVE. 
          UM, THAT BEING SAID, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE CURRENT ITERATION OF THE COMMISSION DOES THAT, THAT'S IN PLACE NOW IN CODE HAS SOME, UM, AT LEAST A COUPLE OF SORT OF GLARING FLAWS. 
          I MEAN, IF NOTHING ELSE ABOUT LIKE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO BE APPOINTED, IT MAY BE LOCKING THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. 
          AND SOME OTHER EXAMPLES THAT EVEN IF THERE IS NOT WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT OR CORRUPTION OR WHAT HAVE YOU, I MEAN THERE'S A VALUE NOT ONLY TO THE ABSENCE OF MISCONDUCT, BUT ALSO THE, THE ABSENCE OF THE APPEARANCE OF MISCONDUCT. 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN I, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING LIKE AN APPROACH WHERE POSSIBLY, UH, THE CHARTER WERE TO INCLUDE LIKE SOME MINIMAL DIRECTION SAYING THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE THESE FEATURES AND THAT THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH CODE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I THINK, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME VERY REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUND THAT'S WORTH DISCUSSING. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER TANO. 
          UH, WELL WHEN I DISCUSSED THIS WITH MY APPOINTER, ONE OF THE PIECES OF FEEDBACK THAT I GOT WAS IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HEAR FROM SOME OF THE OTHER ENTITIES, PARTICULARLY SOME THAT THIS PROPOSAL MIGHT, CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC UP PLEASE? YES. 
          AND THAT'S A REALLY LONG LIST OF ENTITIES, RIGHT? SO WE, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE AUDITOR, 
          [00:50:01]
THE EXISTING ETHICS BOARD, THE ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          AND IT GETS AT THE ISSUE YOU RAISED, WHICH IS THAT'S A LOT OF TIME. 
          AND SO WHENEVER WE TAKE, DECIDE TO TAKE ACTION ON HOW TO PROCEED, MY FEEDBACK WOULD JUST BE TO THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THIS IDEA, WHAT IS MAYBE THE NARROWEST CHARTER ONLY HIGHEST IMPACT REFORM, UH, THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET CONSENSUS TO TAKE THE COUNSEL BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT DOES FEEL LIKE, UH, WE WILL RUN OUT OF TIME AND THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT COUNSEL IN A PREDICAMENT OF A VERY HEAVY RECOMMENDATION THAT SCRAPES BY AND WE HAVE NOT DONE DILIGENCE. 
          SO THAT MIGHT BE A ALTERNATIVE WAY OF GETTING AT WHAT MIGHT BE ANIMATING THE, THE GREATEST SENSE OF CONCERN, UH, AROUND THIS. 
          I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UH, THAT THE STATUS QUO IS NOT OPTIMAL EITHER. 
          ONE APPROACH WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IF WE FEEL LIKE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME AND BANDWIDTH IS INCLUDING A RE A SUGGESTION IN OUR REPORT THAT THIS BE THE SUBJECT OF FUTURE, UH, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, THAT WE VISITED THIS ISSUE, WE FEEL THAT IT'S WORTHY OF SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION AND YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT THE, THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER IT IN THE NEXT CHARTER RESOLUTION. 
          JUST A THOUGHT FOR HOW WE APPROACH IT IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE CAN TAKE IT UP THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT BEFORE WE MOVE ON? UM, SO WE ARE 
          [6. Discussion and possible action regarding community engagement of the Charter Review process from the Outreach Work Group. ]
GONNA MOVE ON. 
          I'M GONNA TAKE ITEM NUMBER SIX OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR SURVEY RESULTS FROM OUR OUTREACH SURVEY, UM, AND MIA AND SO ARE HERE TO PRESENT THOSE RESULTS AND WE THOUGHT THEY MAY BE USEFUL, UM, FOR US TO CONSIDER BEFORE WE GET INTO ANY SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS ON FROM THE WORKING GROUPS. 
          SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MIA AND SAUL. 
          THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DID ON THE SURVEY. 
          WE'RE EXCITED TO SEE THE RESULTS. 
          THANK YOU B BEAR WITH US ONE MINUTE WHILE WE UH, GET THE PRESENTATION UP AND GOING. 
          I DID, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY FOR THE DELAY HERE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE WHO HELPED SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT THE SURVEY. 
          WE GOT SOME GOOD, A GOOD RESPONSE. 
          I WANTED TO SHARE YOU WITH YOU JUST A SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE HEARD. 
          UM, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF UM, HOW MANY PEOPLE PARTICIPATED 160 TOTAL. 
          WE GOT MORE VIEWS THAN THAT BUT WE GOT A LOT OF RESPONSES. 
          SO THIS IS THE FIRST QUESTION. 
          HOW OFTEN DO YOU VOTE? UM, OVERWHELMINGLY MOST PEOPLE SAID IN EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. 
          AND NEXT, FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION, WE HAD A NUMBER OF OPTIONS FOR WHY THEY DON'T. 
          UM, THE TWO MOST COMMON ANSWERS WERE THERE ARE TOO MANY ELECTIONS EACH YEAR OR I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSALS ON THE BALLOT. 
          UM, THERE WERE ALSO A FEW RESPONSES FOR I CAN'T TAKE TAKE TIME OFF WORK 
          [00:55:01]
OR I DON'T TRUST THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. 
          NOBODY SAID I'M NOT REGISTERED. 
          NEXT QUESTION WAS, HOW MUCH DO LOCAL ISSUES INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS? OVERWHELMINGLY MOST PEOPLE SAID THEY GREATLY INFLUENCED MY DECISION. 
          NEXT WAS, WHAT MOTIVATES YOU TO VOTE? THIS IS ONE MORE PEOPLE COULD CHECK AS MANY BOXES AS THEY WANTED TO. 
          UM, THE THREE TOP ANSWERS WE GOT WERE CIVIC DUTY INFLUENCE ON POLICY OR CHANGE OR SUPPORT FOR A SPECIFIC CANDIDATE OR ISSUE. 
          THE NEXT WE HAVE HERE IS THE TWO PART. 
          HAVE YOU EVER VOTED ON A CITIZEN INITIATED BALLOT PROPOSAL IN LOCAL ELECTIONS? UM, MOST PEOPLE SAID YES. 
          UM, FOR THOSE THAT CHECKED NO OR NOT SURE I HAVE NO WHY NOT? UM, THE TOP, IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY SPREAD OUT. 
          WE HAVE THE NAMES OF THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS ARE CONFUSING. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROPOSALS WOULD DO. 
          THERE ARE TOO MANY PROPOSALS OR I DON'T TRUST CITIZEN INITIATED BALLOT PROPOSALS. 
          AND THEN THERE IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT SAID IT'S ONLY IMPORTANT TO VOTE ON CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICES. 
          THE NEXT WAS HAVE YOU EVER SIGNED A PETITION FOR A CITIZEN INITIATED BALLOT PROPOSAL? MOST PEOPLE SAID YES. 
          UM, FOR THOSE WHO HAD NOT, WHY NOT? UM, THE TOP ANSWER WAS I'VE NEVER BEEN ASKED TO SIGN A PETITION. 
          THERE'S ALSO, UM, ABOUT ALMOST 30% OF I DON'T TRUST THE PETITIONS AND THEN 11% EACH OF THERE ARE TOO MANY PETITIONS OR THE PETITIONS ARE CONFUSING. 
          UM, THE NEXT, TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY, HAVE YOU EVER STARTED A PETITION OR COLLECTED SIGNATURES FOR A CITIZEN INITIATED BALLOT PROPOSAL? AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE SAID, NO, THIS IS A BIT WORDY. 
          UM, SO I'LL GO THROUGH IT. 
          UM, WHAT WOULD WE IMPROVE THE CITY'S INITIATE CITIZEN INITIATE PETITION PROCESS? AND AGAIN, PEOPLE COULD SELECT AS MANY AS THEY WANTED. 
          UM, OUR TOP THREE HERE, UM, WITH OVER 60% OR ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION THAT SIGNATURE COLLECTORS PRESENT TO POTENTIAL SIGNERS IS TRUE. 
          UM, REQUIRE THAT EACH SIGNATURE SHEET HAS THE EXACT PROPOSAL LANGUAGE ON IT AND THE FILER'S CONTACT INFORMATION AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET. 
          THEN CREATE ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR HOW PEOPLE CAN COLLECT SIGNATURES. 
          UM, WHETHER IT'S ON A PAPER, ONLINE, THE HOW THERE, UM, DROPPING DOWN TO FOUR, OH JUST OVER 40%. 
          THE NEX IS CREATE ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR WHO CAN COLLECT SIGNATURES, WHETHER THAT IS A RESIDENT. 
          UM, DIFFERENT KINDS OF AROUND GUIDELINES AROUND THE WHO. 
          UM, THEN ALSO OVER 40 REQUIRE FILERS TO SIGN A STATEMENT AFFIRMING THEY BELIEVE EACH SIGNATURE IS GENUINE. 
          AND THE COLLECTORS WITNESSED EACH SIGNATURE SHOWED POTENTIAL SIGNERS PROPOSAL AND VERIFIED THAT EACH SIGNER IS REGISTERED VOTER. 
          SO I ABOUT 40% AND THEN OUR LAST ONE INCREASED THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNATURES ON THE PETITION NEEDS TO GET ON THE BALLOT ONLY GOT 22%. 
          SO THOSE WERE OUR QUESTIONS. 
          I'LL JUMP AND GO QUICKLY THROUGH THE DEMOGRAPHICS. 
          UM, PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION. 
          IT WAS AT THE END FOR THOSE WHO DID WANT TO PROVIDE THAT INFO. 
          UM, SO THE FIRST WE HAD WAS THE AGE OF RESPONDENTS. 
          THE THREE BIG BLOCKS ARE 26 TO 35, 36 TO 45 AND 46 TO 55. 
          SO OVER HALF OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 26 AND 55 COLLECTIVELY. 
          NEXT WE HAD ETHNICITY RESPONDENTS. 
          UM, OVERWHELMINGLY ALMOST 70% WERE WHITE. 
          AFTER THAT WE HAVE HISPANIC, LATINO OR SPANISH. 
          AND THEN BLACK OR AF AFRICAN AMERICAN WERE THE NEXT IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES. 
          NEXT WE HAD GENDER, UM, OVERWHELMINGLY FEMALE, UM, BUT THEN ALSO ABOUT 40% MALE EDUCATION LEVEL. 
          UM, THE MAJORITY, UM, I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THAT COLOR. 
          WELL THE MAJORITY 47 THAT HAVE A GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE. 
          LET ME CHECK THIS COLOR HERE. 
          I SAY THAT'S A BACHELOR'S DEGREE. 
          47% WERE 47% ARE GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE. 
          40% IS BACHELOR'S DEGREE. 
          9% BEING SOME COLLEGE AND 4% BEING OTHER. 
          SO THAT'S, UH, MAYBE NOT ALIGNED WITH THE POPULATION, BUT YES. 
          SO THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND AGAIN, JUST REMINDING THAT PEOPLE HAD THE OPTION THAT THEY COULD 
          [01:00:01]
TAKE THE SURVEY BUT NOT DO DEMOGRAPHICS. 
          SO THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY ALIGNING WITH WHO TOOK THE SURVEY. 
          DO WE KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE RESPONDED TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS? SO OVERALL, UM, PARTICIPANTS WAS 160 AND IN THE DEMOGRAPHICS WE GET AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT, OF ABOUT 78. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, THAT'S ABOUT HALF. 
          UM, THE NEXT WAS MARITAL STATUS. 
          WE HAD, THE MAJORITY HAD WERE IN MARRIED OR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP NEXT TO THAT WAS NEVER MARRIED. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THIS ONE IS, WAS REALLY HARD TO UM, FORMAT. 
          I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT 'CAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO READ. 
          BUT THIS IS, UM, WHICH COUNCIL DISTRICT, THE RESPONDENTS WERE IN AND I PULL THIS UP. 
          SO BAR CHART. 
          CHART. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO THE MOST WERE SEVEN, UH, WAS DISTRICT SEVEN AT 15%. 
          DISTRICT FIVE AT 11%. 
          AND THEN, UM, WE ALSO HAD DISTRICTS NINE AND 10, BOTH AT 10%. 
          BUT OVERALL THESE ARE PRETTY EVEN. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF RESPONDENTS. 
          AND THAT'S IT. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. 
          I THINK THE SURVEY JUST CLOSED. 
          WAS IT YESTERDAY? YESTERDAY, YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER SO QUICKLY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THERE WERE, WE HAVE A FULL, THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS. 
          UM, SOME OF WHICH WERE NOT NECESSARILY APPROPRIATE TO PRESENT TODAY. 
          AND SO WE CAN SHARE THAT REPORT WITH EVERYONE AFTERWARDS. 
          UM, SO YOU CAN READ THROUGH THAT YOURSELF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO WE WERE PLANNING TO SHARE THE FULL REPORT, INCLUDING ALL COMMENTS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS VIA EMAIL AFTER THE REPORT, UM, OR AFTER THE, THE MEETING TODAY. 
          CAN YOU CHANGE THOSE PIE CHARTS TO BAR CHARTS? UM, THEY, WE CAN OR IS IT TOO LATE? YEAH, THIS CAME FROM THE SOFTWARE, SOFTWARE ITSELF. 
          UM, BUT WE CAN WORK ON IT, BUT YOU'LL ALSO BE ABLE TO SEE IT IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT WHEN WE SEND YOU THE REPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS WOULD MEANINGFULLY DIFFER IF WE TOOK OUT THE 13% THAT SAID THAT THEY HAD PERSONALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN, IN ENACTING A PETITION OR ORGANIZING ONE? I DO NOT KNOW. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I DUNNO THAT WE CAN MATCH UP EXACTLY. 
          UM, WHO SAID THIS OR THAT. 
          I CAN LOOK INTO THAT. 
          SO YOU CAN JUST PULL OUT THOSE RESPONDENTS IN THE REPORT. 
          I HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE DATA AND SEE IF WE'RE ABLE TO PARTS OF IT LIKE THAT, UM, THROUGH THE PLATFORM THAT WE USE. 
          BUT I CAN CHECK INTO IT. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS IF IT'S MORE THAN LIKE TWO CLICKS, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. 
          YES, ABSOLUTELY. 
          IT WAS 21%, UH, HIGHER THRESHOLD WOULD BE USEFUL. 
          RIGHT? IT WAS 21%. 
          AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY? CORRECT. 
          21%. 
          THE NUMBER OF PETITIONS THRESHOLD. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          OF OUR HIGHLY ENGAGED, HIGHLY EDUCATED AUDIENCE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , ABSOLUTELY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU GUYS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE WE SAY GOODBYE TO ME? AND SO ? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WHY WE'RE ON THIS ITEM. 
          SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT, IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO TALK ABOUT A PUBLIC MEETING? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE DO NEED TO TALK. 
          WELL DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT SINCE WE'RE ON OUR OUTREACH GROUP? YEAH. 
          I JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, AS A GENTLEMAN NOTED, WE DO, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I THINK NOW THAT WE'RE PAST THE HOLIDAYS, IT'S PROBABLY GOOD TO GET THAT SCHEDULED, UM, SINCE THAT IS WHAT OUR WORKING GROUP IS SUPPOSED TO DO. 
          YES. 
          SO WE UM, WE HAVE INTENDED TO HAVE EITHER A TOWN HALL OR A PUBLIC MEETING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID LAST TIME. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE LANDED ON A SPECIFIC, ARE THERE, WHAT'S THE CURRENT LIKE, STATUS QUO FOR LIKE DOING THAT TYPE OF THING VIRTUALLY AFTER COVID? I MEAN, IS IT, WHAT'S, WHAT, WHAT, HOW DO PEOPLE HANDLE THOSE MEETINGS NOW, NOW THAT COVID HAS CHANGED OUR WAY OF HAVING MEETINGS? WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE, MYRNA, DO YOU KNOW TO DO A VIRTUAL TOWN HALL OR WOULD WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING IN PERSON? OR DO WE HAVE TO DO BOTH? LIKE WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE BEST COVERAGE? SOMETIMES WHEN I HOST SOME MEETINGS, I'LL DO ONE OF EACH JUST TO SAY I COVERED MY BASES. 
          NOT SAYING THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT, BUT I MEAN IF IT'S CONDUCTED HERE AT CITY HALL, YOU CAN UTILIZE CHAMBERS IF AVAILABLE 
          [01:05:01]
AND WE CAN CONDUCT A, A HYBRID MEETING LIKE THEY DO AT COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           YOU CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC REGISTER IN PERSON AND SOME REMOTE. 
          SO, SO WE CAN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT REMOTE IF FOLKS WANNA ZOOM IN RATHER THAN COME TO CITY HALL. 
          RIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE THOUGHTS ON HOW MANY MEETINGS WE WANT TO HAVE? UM, AND HOW WE WANT TO TRY TO HOLD THEM? I MEAN I, I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF DOING A TOWN HALL HERE THAT ALSO HAS A VIRTUAL OPTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT ALLOWS A GREATER LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION. 
          YEAH, I AGREE. 
          AND I WOULD SUGGEST IF IT'S POSSIBLE, I KNOW OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE TIGHT ON TIME FOR THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION, BUT IF WE COULD HAVE TWO DATES JUST IN CASE THERE ARE SOME FOLKS WHO FEEL VERY STRONGLY AND, AND COMING AND TELLING US ABOUT IT IS THE BEST WAY FOR THEM TO DO THAT, BUT THEY CAN'T MAKE IT TO ONE OF THOSE DATES. 
          LEAST THEY'VE GOT AN OPTION. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SO WE WILL TAKE THIS BACK AS AN ITEM WITH THE OUTREACH WORK GROUP AND WORK WITH MYRNA TO PRESENT TO, WE'LL GIVE MORE THAN TWO DATES AND WE CAN , WE CAN ALL KIND OF CHECK OUR RESPECTIVE SCHEDULES TO MAKE SURE COMMISSIONER ORTEGA AND UNLIKE COMMISSIONER VAN MEN'S IDEA ABOUT HAVING A SECOND MEETING AND THAT'S WHAT YOU INTEND TO WRITE TWO MEETINGS AT LEAST OR AT LEAST WOULD THE SECOND MEETING OR SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS NOT BE AT CITY HALL AND BE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND OTHER DISTRICTS? OR ARE WE DOING THEM ALL AT CITY HALL? I WANTED TO GIVE THE COMMISSION AN OPPORTUNITY TO, IF ANYONE HAS OPINIONS ON THAT, PLEASE I CAN SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON IT. 
          BUT, UM, SO WHEN WE LEFT FOR THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, THIS WAS BEFORE COVID OBVIOUSLY. 
          AND SO WE DID MEETINGS IN PERSON AND WE GOT VERY LIMITED PARTICIPATION AND FEEDBACK. 
          SO I THINK I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE ZOOM OPTION, I THINK IT'S, IF IT'S EASY FOR US TO MEET HERE, WE CAN SCHEDULE, IT'S EASY FOR US TO SCHEDULE A ROOM HERE, UM, AND HAVE THE ZOOM OPTION AVAILABLE AND KIND OF PUBLICIZE THAT THROUGH OUR WEBSITE AND WE CAN WORK WITH ME AS TEAM. 
          MY SENSE IS THAT WE ARE, WE WILL GET GREATER PARTICIPATION WITH A REMOTE OPTION THAN WE WILL IN PERSON KIND OF GOING OUT TO DISTRICTS. 
          BUT I'M CERTAINLY OPEN IF FOLKS THINK OTHERWISE OR WE WANNA TRY A DIFFERENT APPROACH THERE. 
          I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGICALLY CHALLENGED THAT MAY WANT TO COME IN PERSON TO A MEETING. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IF THEY CAN'T GET DOWN TO CITY HALL, GOING TO A LOCAL COMMUNITY CENTER MM-HMM. 
           COULD BE AN OPTION TO CIRCUMVENT THEM. 
          SO WE CAN, I'LL, WE'LL GET WITH MYRNA ON SOME DATES THAT WE COULD DO CITY HALL VIRTUAL HERE, AND THEN WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT OPTIONS THERE ARE IF WE WANT TO DO A MEETING OUTSIDE OF CITY HALL. 
          UM, NOW THAT WOULD NOT HAVE A VIRTUAL OPTION. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE THAT TERMINOLOGY CORRECT UNLESS IT WOULD HAVE, UNLESS IT'S CONDUCTED AT, FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, UM, CENTER DON'T GO, HAS THE ABILITY TO HOST MEETINGS. 
          UM, AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH HAS SOME FACILITIES. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW. 
          WE'D HAVE TO LOOK, WE'LL LOOK AT SOME OPTIONS IF WE'RE NOT. 
          MY ONLY CONCERN IF WE DO DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO DO LOCATIONS WHERE FOLKS CAN COME IN PERSON IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO NORTH, DO WE NEED TO GO SOUTH? IF WE GO EAST, DO WE NEED TO GO WEST? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND THEN HOW DO WE, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE MAY BE OPENING UP A BIT OF A CAN OF WORMS, BUT IF WE CAN FIND ANOTHER LOCATION WHERE WE CAN DO IN-PERSON AND VIRTUAL AND IT'S NOT AT CITY HALL, THEN MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD SOLUTION. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, TO GET THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION. 
          ARE THERE TIMING, LIKE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS? DO WE HAVE TO NOTICE, PUBLISH THE MEETINGS 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE? TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE? NO, IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE THE 72 HOUR POSTING. 
          72 HOUR POSTING. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , YES. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MAYBE IT WAS CODE NEXT OR THE NEXT ITERATION. 
          THERE WERE MEETINGS AT, UM, ASIAN AMERICAN, UM, WHATEVER THAT RESOURCE CENTER AND THEN DOVE SPRINGS SO THAT THERE WAS SORT OF THAT, UM, ABILITY FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE FURTHER NORTH AND FURTHER SOUTH TO PARTICIPATE MORE EASILY IN PERSON. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND THOSE WERE WELL ATTENDED. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT. 
          UM, IN THAT SITUATION WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK AVAILABILITY AND RESOURCES FOR THE AV A TXN STAFF TO SEE IF THEY EVEN HAVE, UM, THE ABILITY TO SET UP AT, UM, OFFSITE LOCATIONS SO THAT IT CAN BE RECORDED AND, YOU KNOW, A VIRTUAL OR HYBRID, A HYBRID VERSION, UM, TO BE OFFERED. 
          BUT WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. 
          [01:10:01]
I'M NOT SURE HOW THOSE MEETINGS WERE CONDUCTED IF THEY WERE THROUGH A COMMISSION OR WERE THEY THE ACTUAL COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          'CAUSE IF THEY WERE COUNCIL THEN THEY HAVE A LOT OF FUNDING FOR IT , SO NO, I THINK THEY WERE THE LAND USE COMMISSIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          JOINTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND A TXN WAS THERE, BUT IT'S BEFORE THE DAYS OF HYBRID MEETINGS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AYE, AYE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL WE WILL TAKE THIS BACK AND COME BACK WITH SOME OPTIONS FOR US. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO 
          [3. Discussion and possible action on the Petition Process Working Groups initial recommendation report on revisions to the petition process. (Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, and McGiverin)]
THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS, UM, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PETITION PROCESS WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS COMMISSIONER KAWELL DWYER AND MCGIVEN. 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO TAKE LEAD. 
          I THINK YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE LEFT OF YOUR  OF YOUR WORKING GROUP. 
          WE TWO MORE TO THAT WORKING GROUP, SO OH, WE DID COMMISSIONER OH, BERG MYSELF AROUND ALSO. 
          GREAT, GREAT. 
          AND COMMISSIONER VAN MANNIN DID SOME PRE-WORK THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO SHARE TODAY 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T ALL GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT, OKAY. 
          AND SO THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE FOR NEXT MEETING WE'LL HAVE, UM, YEAH. 
          DID WE WANT TO GET ANY INPUT TODAY ON PROCESS? I MEAN, I, I THINK WE HAD QUESTIONS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT I DID. 
          UM, AND SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, THEY MAY BE QUESTIONS THAT PERHAPS CAROLINE, WE MAY NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON. 
          UM, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE HAVING SOME, SOME, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE A CHARTER AMENDMENT VERSUS, VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, AND WHAT COULD BE DONE EACH WAY. 
          BUT I THINK WE OBVIOUSLY WANT, YOU KNOW, DEFINITIVE ADVICE ON WHAT THOSE THINGS SHOULD, WHAT THE, WHICH CATEGORY THOSE THINGS ARE IN. 
          BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT THE FULL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS ALL OF THE WORK GROUPS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN SOME WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, A WHOLE LOT OF CHARTER AMENDMENT THINGS THAT, FOR THINGS THAT VERY LIKELY DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER AND ARE JUST MORE SUPPORTIVE. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE THE, LIKE THE PRE-WORK THAT WE HAD DONE FOR TODAY WAS REALLY JUST MORE SUMMARIZING WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FOR FROM LAST TIME. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK ALSO THOUGH, THERE IS THE OPEN QUESTION ABOUT, ABOUT THE ACTUAL PETITION, LIKE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD, UM, AND WE'VE KIND OF BEEN HAVING SOME LIGHT INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT IN THE WORK GROUP AND, YOU KNOW, VERY OPEN TO HEARING FOLKS FEEDBACK ON THAT, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING MORE THAT NEEDED TO BE SAID AT THAT TIME. 
          UM, I'M NOT NECESSARILY LIKE REPRESENTING THE FULL WORK GROUP AND I'M SPEAKING RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY STARTING WITH THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, WHICH IS THAT I'M, I FEEL LIKE WE NEED MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC IN PARTICULAR ON THAT AND, AND NEED MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE FULL GROUP ON THAT BECAUSE INTERNALLY WE WEREN'T REALLY ABLE TO COME TO ONE RECOMMENDATION FOR WHAT, YOU KNOW, PETITION THRESHOLD OR THE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD SHOULD BE FOR PETITION. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY THE, THE BIGGEST OUTSTANDING QUESTION. 
          I DUNNO IF I SUMMARIZE SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, NO, THAT COVERS IT. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL JUST PLAN ON A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION ON THE 30TH ON THOSE ISSUES IF, WELL, I GUESS THE QUES PART OF MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE COMMISSION? HOW DOES THE COMMISSION WANNA MOVE FORWARD ON THE QUESTION OF SIGNATURE THRESHOLDS? BECAUSE I, I THINK WE'RE NOT INTERNALLY ALIGNED IN OUR GROUP, AND SO WE CAN'T OFFER A SINGLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL GROUP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          WE COULD OFFER DIFFERENT, WE COULD OFFER A RANGE OF OPTIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          WE COULD OFFER A FRAMEWORKS OR GUARDRAILS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, OR WE COULD WAIT FOR MORE INPUT IN THE FORM OF PUBLIC INPUT BEFORE WE TRY TO REGURGITATE SOMETHING. 
          UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOT ON THE WORKING GROUP FEEL ABOUT HOW WE INTEND TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT VERY LARGE TOPIC. 
          I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE KIND OF OPTIONS AND THEN HEAR ALL OF Y'ALL'S THOUGHTS AND YOU KNOW, WHAT THE DISAGREEMENT IS AND, AND WHY. 
          AND YOUR, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF ALL Y'ALLS THINKING ON THAT. 
          DID YOU RIGHT. 
          I I'D LIKE TO HEAR SORT OF A, A SENSE OF WHAT YOUR INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS SOUND LIKE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE MORE INFORMED THAN, THAN I AM ON THOSE ISSUES. 
          AND IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, I I THINK IT WOULD BE INFORMED CONVERSATION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME AT LEAST. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          SAME. 
          AND WOULD YOU LIKE THAT BEFORE OR AFTER THE PUBLIC FORUMS? SO I WOULD LIKE OPTIONS BEFORE, UM, I MEAN THE, I THINK WE NEED TO BE HAVING, AND THE, AND AT LEAST THE WAY THAT WE KIND OF WORKED LAST TIME IS WE HAD ROBUST DISCUSSIONS AND THEN WE HAD DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS OUT AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC FORUM AND THEN WE GOT FEEDBACK ON THOSE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS. 
          AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO BEFORE WE ARE GONNA BE AT A CONSENSUS POINT ON THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE EVEN WANNA MAKE. 
          UM, SO I THINK WE SHOULD START, YOU KNOW, HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND, AND PRESENT OPTIONS TO OUR GROUP BEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          I MEAN, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AT EVERY MEETING. 
          WE HAVE AN EMAIL, WE HAVE ALL KINDS 
          [01:15:01]
OF WAYS THAT FOLKS CAN GET THEIR OPINIONS TO US NOW. 
          UM, BUT I THINK I'D LIKE TO SAVE THE TOWN HALL FOR FEEDBACK ON OUR SPECIFIC PROPOSALS OR DRAFT PROPOSALS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO EVERYONE. 
          GREAT. 
          IF I, SO THE, THE, THE FEEDBACK, OR SORRY, THE BACKUP THAT WE PROVIDED, UM, FOR LAST, THE LAST MEETING, UM, THE, THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION UNDER RECOMMENDATION THREE, UM, WAS NO RECOMMENDATION YET, RIGHT? UM, WE SORT OF, BECAUSE THAT'S SORT OF THE, THE, THE THRESHOLD QUESTION. 
          AND THAT'S SORT OF INTERNALLY WHERE WE HADN'T REALLY COME TO A FIRM AGREEMENT. 
          UM, AND WE HAD KIND OF PRESENTED LIKE POSSIBLE OPTION A KEEP THRESHOLD AT 20,000 FOR, FOR EVERYTHING, BUT FOCUS MORE ON THE TIMING OF THE ELECTIONS. 
          AND THIS JUST SORT OF SUMMARY FOR EVERYONE, THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY NEW INFORMATION. 
          UM, WHAT WE HAD PRESENTED IN THAT, UM, AFTER WE HAD SPOKEN INTERNALLY FOR LIKE POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION B IS KEEP THE THRESHOLD AT 20,004 ITEMS APPEARING ON EVEN YOUR NOVEMBER BALLOTS. 
          AND IF IT NEEDED TO BE, IF THE THE PETITIONERS FELT FIRMLY THAT IT NEEDED TO BE SOONER, IT WOULD BE A HIGHER THRESHOLD OF WE HAD SUGGESTED 50,000. 
          AND THEN THE LAST, UM, OPTION WAS, UM, 5% OF QUALIFIED VOTERS, WHICH IS, I WANNA SAY, AND CORRECT ME ON MY MATH, JC, BUT I THINK IT'S LIKE 29,000 ISH. 
          THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. 
          AT LEAST AS OF RIGHT NOW, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE THAT WOULD VARY, YOU KNOW, PER ELECTION. 
          UM, SO I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE SOME OF THAT DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO MORE DETAIL OR WE COULD HAVE SOME OF THAT DISCUSSION LATER, UM, AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          HOWEVER Y'ALL WANNA PROCEED WITH THAT. 
          UM, I HAVE PERSONAL NON-WORK GROUP OPINIONS ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS. 
          AND I THINK ALL OF OUR, THERE WAS, THERE WAS DISCUSSION, RIGHT? THERE WAS NOT NECESSARILY AGREEMENTS. 
          I THINK WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS ABOUT LIKE WHICH ONE WE WOULD PREFER TO GO FORWARD WITH. 
          UM, WE COULD HAVE A DEBATE, WE COULD PRESENT OUR, OUR, YOU KNOW, IDEAS. 
          AND I THINK Y'ALL SHOULD ALL SET UP AND WE'LL JUST HAVE A DEBATE. 
          YEAH. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO HOWEVER Y'ALL THINK WOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO, TO LEAD THAT DISCUSSION. 
          UM, BECAUSE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HAVEN'T CHANGED FROM THE LAST MEETING. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , I THINK WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD, AS LONG AS WE ALL, YOU KNOW, REFRESH OUR MEMORIES ON WHAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE, I THINK WE COULD, WE COULD DISCUSS IT NOW. 
          UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. 
          AT LEAST SHARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS ON IT, BUT WANNA HEAR WHAT Y'ALL THINK. 
          SO COMMISSIONER TANO. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A LIST, A LIST, A LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION. 
          UM, I'M STARTING TO GET CONCERNED, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME TO PREPARE THIS REPORT, UH, AND BE DONE IN TIME, UH, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO ME. 
          UH, AND THEN I AM CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE, PRESENT THE PUBLIC, UH, COHERENT DRAFT. 
          I THINK IT WILL BE A DISSERVICE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC AND SAY, HERE'S EIGHT OPTIONS. 
          UM, THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT HARD TO, UM, GET GOOD ENGAGEMENT AS OPPOSED TO, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, YES OR NO, ADJUST IT. 
          I'M, THERE'S SORT OF BASICALLY 20 K IS ONE NUMBER 50 K IS ANOTHER NUMBER. 
          AND THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER THIRD NUMBER THAT IS BEING BEING DISCUSSED. 
          UH, I PERSONALLY LIKE THE, IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT, LET'S MOVE IT TO A RATE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REVISIT A PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND JUST BECAUSE OF, OF SIMPLICITY AND, UM, UH, INTELLIGIBLE INTELLIGIBILITY, LIKE A NUMBER, LIKE 5% OR 2.5% OR 3% IS WHERE WE'RE GONNA END UP. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA END UP WITH 2.89. 
          UH, SO I'M CURIOUS IF THE GROUP HAS A RANGE OF WHAT THAT ALTERNATIVE PERCENT MIGHT BE TO FIVE. 
          BECAUSE IF THAT'S REALLY THE ONE THAT'S IN CONTENTION, THEN IT'S REALLY JUST A DEBATE ABOUT 20 K OR 5%. 
          AND THE 20 K REMEMBER IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS THE STATE MANDATED CHARTER NUMBER AND WHY WE DON'T, WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT DEVIATING FROM IT. 
          'CAUSE IT MIGHT PUSH POLICY TO THE CHARTER. 
          SO THE QUESTION TO CRYSTALLIZE IS, IS THERE A NUMBER BESIDES 5% THAT'S IN DISCUSSION IN THE WORK GROUP? CAN I JUST OFFER, BECAUSE I, MY RECOLLECTION OF THE WORK GROUP IS, UM, OF THE WORK GROUP DISCUSSION, FELLOW WORK GROUP COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE JUMP IN. 
          UM, OF THOSE THREE OPTIONS, I THINK WE CAN JUST STRIKE OPTION TWO WHERE THERE'S A HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR POTENTIAL EMERGENCIES. 
          I THINK WE PROPOSE THAT AS JUST LIKE, WELL WE CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT. 
          SO WHAT ABOUT THIS OTHER OPTION THAT KIND OF MIGHT ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE THINGS. 
          UM, I'M NOT A FAN OF THAT OPTION BECAUSE I THINK KIND OF TO KATHY'S POINT EARLIER ACTUALLY IS, IS THAT IF YOU'VE GOT THE MONEY, YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THOSE SIGNATURES. 
          AND SO IT'S NOT REALLY, IT'S NOT, I DON'T FORESEE THAT WORKING OUT THE WAY THAT IT MIGHT'VE BEEN WRITTEN. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, SO TO, TO COMMISSIONER ALT MURANO'S POINT, UM, REALLY THE OPTIONS ARE KEEP IT AT 20, BUT THEN ALSO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT TIMING OF THOSE ELECTIONS, RIGHT? UM, OR JUST MOVE IT TO 
          [01:20:01]
A FLAT 5%, WHICH MOVES TO EACH OF WHICH OBVIOUSLY WILL MOVE PER, UM, PER ELECTION. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE FEELING ABOUT THAT. 
          THE, IF I CAN JUST OFFER HOW I'M FEELING ABOUT THAT. 
          MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THE PERCENTAGE IS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE THE CHARTER CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITIONS THAT WOULD BE MOVING. 
          SO YOU WOULD STILL ALWAYS HAVE THAT 20% AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE HIGHER THRESHOLDS FOR THE OTHER AMENDMENTS AND CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          THE WAY THAT I SEE THIS, IF YOU'RE AMENDING THE CHARTER, IT BETTER BE MORE SERIOUS THAN, THAN A REFERENDUM OR A BALLOT INITIATIVE. 
          AND SO, TO ME, I JUST GET SOME KIND OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE RAISING A THRESHOLD, UM, FOR SOMETHING THAT I, I FEEL SHOULD BE A MORE UTILIZED MORE OFTEN THAN A CHARTER AMENDMENT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING POLICY THROUGH A VALID INITIATIVE. 
          UM, AND YOU'RE RAISING THAT THRESHOLD TO MAKE IT ACTUALLY HARDER TO DO THAT OPTION THAT SHOULD BE USED A LITTLE BIT MORE REGULARLY THAN A CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S HOW I'M FEELING ABOUT IT. 
          I'LL BE QUIET FOR A WHILE NOW. 
          UM, YEAH, SO I'M, I'M ALSO, I'M SORRY, MICHAEL'S NOT HERE 'CAUSE HE, WE PROBABLY HAVE SOME REALLY SMART THOUGHTS ON THIS. 
          UM, I'M ALSO A FAN OF THE PERCENTAGE FOR THE REASONS COMMISSIONER ALT MURANO PUT OUT. 
          IT'S A MORE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION THAN NAMING ANOTHER RAW NUMBER THAT WILL INEVITABLY NEED TO BE, UM, LOOKED AT BY A FUTURE COMMISSION. 
          IT DOES. 
          SO 5% IF YOU'RE, IF THE MATH YOU WERE REMEMBERING IS ALSO MATH I'M REMEMBERING WAS A HIGHER RAW NUMBER THAN 20,000 ALREADY. 
          SO IT'S ALREADY SLIGHTLY MISALIGNED WITH, UM, THE CHARTER THRESHOLD, WHICH WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT, EVEN THOUGH I THINK IT'S BAD POLICY GENERALLY TO HAVE THAT LO OF A NUMBER FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          UM, AND SO OVER TIME IT'S GONNA GET WORSE TOO, RIGHT? 'CAUSE LIKE 5% WILL BE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THE 20,000 THEORETICALLY MAKING THE 20,000 AND MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE TARGET FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING PETITIONS. 
          THAT SAID, THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN DISINCENTIVIZE, UH, THE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO THROUGH THE CALENDAR, FOR INSTANCE, OR THERE MIGHT BE OTHER, UM, TRICKS, I DON'T KNOW, WAYS TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO CHARTER ELECTIONS VERSUS REGULAR, UH, PETITIONS. 
          UM, AND I'M PERSONALLY LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCENTIVE PUSHING PEOPLE TOWARDS CHARTER ELECTIONS. 
          I DON'T, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE OVERBLOWN. 
          I REALIZE THAT IT EXISTS, BUT SO LONG AS THOSE THINGS ARE AT LEAST LOOSELY ALIGNED, I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE WORTH THE EXTRA 10,000 SIGNATURE OR IT WOULD BE WORTH THE EXTRA, THE, THE LESSER 10,000 SIGNATURES FOR A GROUP TO PIVOT FROM A REGULAR PETITION TO A CHARTER AMENDMENT, UM, IN A GIVEN YEAR. 
          I'M SURE, UM, MS. MITCHELL AND OTHERS MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT, UM, I, I AGREE THAT THE 50,000 IS, UM, I USED TO BE A FAN OF THE BREAK CLASS, 50,000 EMERGENCY RESPONSE, BUT, UM, NOW THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT CERTAIN ACTORS COULD GET THAT ANYTIME THEY WANT TO, IT DOESN'T SEEM WORTH INCLUDING IN THE PROPOSAL. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I MEAN, FOR ME, IF YOU'RE MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO THE PETITIONS, YOU'RE JUST HURTING GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ONES WITH THE MONEY WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO DO IT, JUST LIKE KATHY MITCHELL SAID. 
          AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO IT QUICKLY TOO. 
          UM, IF YOU HAVE THE RESOURCES, I READ THAT THERE'S A PETITION DRIVE, OR MAYBE IT'S COMPLETED FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT IN ROUND ROCK, UM, SPONSORED BY THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES TO DO, ALLOW MORE, UM, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARDS. 
          SO THEY'RE PUTTING THE SIGN ORDINANCE INTO THE CHARTER. 
          SO YOU MIGHT THINK WE ONLY WANT IMPORTANT THINGS OR APPROPRIATE THINGS IN THE CHARTER, BUT IF YOU MAKE IT EASIER TO DO CHARTER AMENDMENTS OR CHARTER PETITIONS, THEY'LL GET ALL KINDS OF STUFF INTO THE CHARTER. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS MANDATED BY STATE LAW FOR THE CHARTER, UM, FOR THE INITIATIVE PETITIONS OR WE GET STUPID STUFF, WHICH IS ONE OBSERVATION ABOUT THE CONVERSATION IS THAT I THINK WHERE WE STARTED THIS PROCESS BACK IN, YOU KNOW, UH, LAST YEAR, LAST FALL, UH, I THINK A LOT OF US WERE LIKE 50 K, THERE'S TOO MUCH TOO MANY 
          [01:25:01]
BALLOT INITIATIVES THAT DON'T PASS. 
          IT'S TOO MUCH TIME TOO FRAUDULENT. 
          AND I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT, BECAUSE I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY DEFENDING MORE THAN 5% IS A BUMP OF NINE. 
          OF NINE K, IT SEEMS THAT THE BOUNDARIES WE'RE SETTING ARE 20 OR 29. 
          SO WE, ONE OF THE DEBATES IS WHAT IS THE MARGINAL, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL VALUE IN TERMS OF FILTERING PROVITY AND THINGS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATE FROM THE MEDIAN VOTER OF THAT NINE K. 
          I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT, UH, AT LEAST IN THE TESTIMONY FROM ENGAGED PEOPLE AND FROM OUR SAMPLE, THE THRESHOLD WAS NOT A, A BIG WINNER. 
          AND I PERSONALLY WOULD FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE MAKING THE CASE FOR UH, 5%. 
          BUT IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION OF, IS THE NINE K WORTH IT? ONE FINAL ASSUMPTION CHECK, THERE'S A PERCEPTION IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT AUSTIN WILL DOUBLE IN POPULATION FOR 20 YEAR, EVERY 20 YEARS FOREVER. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE OFFICIAL, YOU KNOW, FORECAST, THEY, THESE ARE PROBABLY GONNA BE THE BOUNDARIES OF HOW MANY SIGNATURES. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE, IF WE DO THE 5%, IT'S NOT LIKE IN 20 YEARS IT WILL BE 50,000, IT WILL PROBABLY BE IN THE 29, 33, ET CETERA, IF YOU BELIEVE OUR FORECAST AND ENTITLEMENTS AND A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS. 
          SO THE SO POINT OF THAT IS WE REALLY ARE PICKING, UH, IF THE NINE K, THE 10 K, THE 11 K ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE WORTH IT IN TERMS OF FILTERING, UM, FRIVOLITY AND THINGS THAT DO A TOO MUCH FROM, FROM THE MEDIAN VOTER, UH, TO KIND OF CRYSTALLIZE WHERE OUR DISCUSSION IS AT. 
          WHAT'S GOTTEN TAKEN OFF THE TABLE IS 50 K. 
          WHAT NO ONE SEEMS TO BE DEFENDING IS THE, UH, CIRCUIT BREAKER AS WE USED TO CALL IT, OR THE PRIORITIZATION OF HOT TOPIC THROUGH HIGHER SIGNATURES. 
          WE'RE KIND OF HAVING A DISCUSSION OF WHAT DO WE GET IF WE BUMP IT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR PETITIONS? IS THAT WORTH IT IN LIGHT OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN WITH CHARTER ELECTIONS IF I'M, I'M NOT AS IN THE WEEDS ON THIS AND OBVIOUSLY I WAS NOT AT THE LAST MEETING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. 
          THE CONCERN IS IF WE RAISE THE THRESHOLD THAT THEN ALL THESE AMENDMENTS GO TO THE CHARTER, IF I COULD JUST RESPOND TO THE POINT ABOUT THE PUBLIC INPUT. 
          I, I THINK MOST OF THE PUBLIC INPUT WE'VE RECEIVED HERE ON THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN FROM ACTORS IN THE CURRENT STATUS QUO. 
          UM, CHANGING STUFF IN GOVERNMENT IS HARD FOR MANY REASONS. 
          ONE OF WHICH IS THAT THE EXPERTS YOU MUST RELY ON ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME. 
          UH, AND TO OUR POLL OF AUSTINITES OR UNREPRESENTED, VERY EDUCATED POLL OF AUSTINITES, UM, THERE WAS, YOU'RE RIGHT, A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN THE SIGNATURE QUESTION, WHICH I THINK IS A FAIRLY ARCANE QUESTION EVEN TO FOLKS WITH GRADUATE DEGREES WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. 
          BUT THERE WAS A STRONG, UM, OPINION THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THESE ELECTIONS AND THIS IS ONE WAY TO LESSEN THE NUMBER OF ELECTIONS. 
          YES. 
          AND OR TO MAKE IT LESS POLITICALLY VIABLE BY PITCH, PUTTING THEM TO HIGHER TURN ON ELECTORATES, UH, WHICH MIGHT BE A SOLUTION. 
          AND I THINK, I THINK THAT WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS, DO YOU THINK NINE K IS GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING? AND SO IF YOU DON'T THINK NINE IS GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING, THEN WHY EVEN EN ENGAGE IN THE SLIGHT SUBTLE INCENTIVIZATION TOWARDS CHARTER? LET'S FOCUS ON, TO USE A PHRASE THAT, THAT I I LIKE, BUT NOT EVERYBODY LIKES, LET'S MAKE IT EASY TO GET ON, BUT HARD TO WIN, WHICH IS TO SAY, GO TO THE TOUGHEST ELECTORATE. 
          UM, AND THAT IN SOME WAYS ALSO MAKES IT VERY, MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD BOTH TO THE PUBLIC AND THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS WE WANT IT EASY MAKE IT, WE WANT TO MAKE IT EASY TO PETITION. 
          WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE CROSS INCENTIVES WITH, UH, THE CHARTER BECAUSE WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA CHANGE IT FROM THE STATE, BUT YOU'VE GOTTA WAIT TO GO TO A BIG ELECTORATE SO THAT IT'S, WHEN WE SAY AUSTIN VOTED, IT'S TRULY AUSTIN. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          I MEAN, I, I NEED TO DO, I WANNA DO MORE HOMEWORK AND GO BACK AND WATCH. 
          I HAVE NOT YET WATCHED THE MEETING FROM LAST TIME, BUT I, I'M HEARING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I THINK THIS MAKES SENSE. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT INCREASING THE THRESHOLD BY 9,000 AS MUCH OTHER THAN PERHAPS TO DISCOURAGE SOME FROM SOME GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS FROM DOING PETITION DRIVES AND COULD CREATE SOME VERY ODD RESULTS IN THE CHARTER, UM, POTENTIALLY. 
          [01:30:01]
SO, UM, THIS WAS VERY, IT WAS HELPFUL TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK FOR, TO HEAR EVERYBODY'S POSITION ON IT. 
          UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I MEAN, JUST A QUICK OBSERVATION IS THAT 9,000 IS ALMOST A THIRD MORE THOUGH. 
          LIKE IT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. 
          SO WHEN YOU SAY, OH, IT'S ONLY 9,000, YEAH, BUT THAT'S A THIRD MORE LIKE, THAT'S NOT INSIGNIFICANT. 
          SO DO YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT CREATING ODD, LIKE PEOPLE DOING CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITIONS? NO, I WAS JUST REALLY KIND OF CIRCLING BACK TO WHAT IS IT, IS IT REALLY GONNA CREATE A DETERRENT RIGHT. 
          TO, FOR FRIVOLOUS BALLOT INITIATIVES? AND IF YOU MAKE SOMETHING A THIRD HARDER, IT'LL, IT SHOULD BY A THIRD. 
          RIGHT? DECREASE THE NUMBER OF FRIVOLOUS OR FRIVOLOUS, TO USE THE WORD LOOSELY VALID INITIATIVES. 
          RIGHT? YOU'RE MAKING IT A THIRD MORE DIFFICULT. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S, IT'S, I THINK IT'S BETTER TO LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF THAT RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF JUST THE NUMBER, RIGHT? OR DOES IT JUST TURN THEM INTO CHARTER AMENDMENTS ? NO, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A FAIR CONCERN AND I'M, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT BIG PICTURE, THE, JUST THE BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF IT. 
          WHAT IS IT REALLY DOING? I THINK PART OF IT IS I'M PSYCHOLOGICALLY ANCHORED ON SOME OF THE BIG PERCENTAGES AND BIG NUMBERS WHEN WE'RE LIKE SAYING WE'RE ADDING 30,000 ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES, OR WE'RE GOING TO, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS, EL PASO OR WHATEVER WITH SOME BIG NUMBER. 
          AND THIS SEEMS VERY MODEST AND IT FEELS NOT, UM, ESPECIALLY FOR THE GROUPS THAT HAVE RESOURCES. 
          IF ONE OF THE THING, IF THE HYPOTHESIS IS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT VERY HARD, NOBODY'S GETTING THROUGH, UNLESS IT IS INCREDIBLY HOT TOPIC, INCREDIBLY RESOURCED, YOU'RE GONNA USE CITY COUNCIL FOR POLICY MAKING, THEN THE 50 K, THAT IS A HEAVY CURTAIN, AN IRON CURTAIN, UH, THE NINE, THE ADDITIONAL NINE, WHILE IT WILL BE OBVIOUSLY YOUR ABSOLUTELY CORRECT PERCENTAGE WISE AND NOT INSIGNIFICANT COST, IT DOES NOT FEEL LIKE A, UH, A REAL CLAMPING DOWN, UH, OR IT DOESN'T FEEL AS CONSTRAINED. 
          I THINK PART OF IT IS I'M PSYCHOLOGICALLY ANCHORED BY THOSE OTHER NUMBERS, UH, AND I DO THINK IT PROVIDES THAT SLIGHT INCENTIVE TO CHARTER OR THE CHARTER'S TRICKY BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE WHEN YOU WANT THE ELECTORATE THAT YOU WANT. 
          UM, I, I THINK THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO REGISTER IS WE'VE MOVED, WE'VE REALLY CONSTRAINED HOW FAR WE'RE WILLING TO THROTTLE AND IT'S NOW A VERY KIND OF NARROW FIELD OF OPTIONS. 
          I ALSO, AS I SAID, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE CASE FOR 5% BECAUSE I DO THINK IT IS, IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS RELATIVELY MODEST IF THE BODY FEELS, WE'VE GOTTA FIND A LITTLE WAY TO FURTHER SLOW THEM DOWN. 
          BUT I AM AN OPTIMIST THAT IF WE MOVE EVERYTHING TO NOVEMBER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THAT IS THE THE TOUGHER HURDLE. 
          I PERSON, SORRY, JUST A SUPER QUICK COMMENT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THE, THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN ARE, WHILE I FEEL LIKE OUR SURVEY, THERE WAS SOME SELECTION BIAS, SO THEY WERE CLEARLY SOME PRETTY ENGAGED AND PRETTY EDUCATED PEOPLE ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, IN GENERAL, I THINK THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN ARE ALSO JUST GENERALLY FAIRLY ENGAGED. 
          MAYBE NOT QUITE AS MUCH AS THE, THE FOLKS ANSWERING OUR SURVEY, BUT, UM, SO I THINK IT'S JUST, THIS IS SORT OF MY GUT FEELING THAT, THAT IF YOU POSE THE QUESTION TO PEOPLE, IS IT THAT WE'RE HAVING TOO MANY OF THESE ELECTIONS OR IS THAT, IS IT THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE GETTING ON THE BALLOT WHEN THERE IS AN, IS YOU KNOW, AN UNREPRESENTED ELECTORATE? OR IS THE ISSUE THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY FRIVOLOUS THINGS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE JUST USING THIS AS A WAY TO CHANGE POLICY BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK THAT THEY COULD SUCCEED BY, YOU KNOW, TALKING TO THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND HAVING COUNCIL DO BUSINESS THE, THE, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE SET UP TO BE DOING. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT CHANGE PEOPLE'S LIKE PERSPECTIVE ON IT JUST A LITTLE BIT. 
          BECAUSE WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT HERE IS WE'RE NOT REALLY JUST LOOKING AT A NUMBER, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE THRESHOLD WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALL OF THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE WERE MAKING FOR, FROM THE PETITION PROCESS WORK GROUP. 
          SO THAT IS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE, WHO ARE INITIATING THESE PETITIONS TO INCREASE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THOSE PETITIONERS AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 
          UM, AND ALSO JUST STANDARDIZED PETITION FORMS. AND SO THE RESULT, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER, IF YOU TAKE THE NUMBER OUT OF THAT AND, AND IF ALL OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE TO PASS, WE WOULD HAVE MUCH GREATER TRANSPARENCY, WHICH MEANS I THINK THAT YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD STILL SEE FEWER PEOPLE FEELING LIKE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHO'S BEHIND THESE PETITIONS, THEY DON'T TRUST THESE PETITIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, BECAUSE WE NEED TO CONSIDER THESE 
          [01:35:01]
THINGS TOGETHER. 
          I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE HOLISTICALLY THAN JUST THAT NUMBER ON ITS OWN. 
          UM, YEAH, I SAID I WAS GONNA BE QUIET AND I, AND I WASN'T, SO I'LL SAVE THE REST OF MY THOUGHTS FOR LATER. 
          I, I PERSONALLY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE 5% JUST BECAUSE, UM, I FEEL LIKE WITH, AS MUCH AS AUSTIN IS GROWING TO CONTINUE TO TIE IT TO AN EXACT NUMBER, YOU KNOW, FOUR YEARS FROM NOW THERE'S ANOTHER COMMISSION THAT'S GONNA BE HAVING TO TAKE UP THE SAME ISSUE. 
          PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE IT'S JUST LIKE, LET THEM WORK ON SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S IMPORTANT. 
          UM, AND I DON'T, I, I KINDA LIKE THAT IT'S NOT A BIG, A BIG INCREASE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT AN IRON CURTAIN. 
          IT'S, IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE. 
          I, I THINK 9,000 IS ACTUALLY MEANINGFUL. 
          I THINK THAT IS, UM, A HARD, I MEAN I'M SURE YOU, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE FOLKS THAT ARE ACTUALLY OUT THERE COLLECTING SIGNATURES. 
          9,000 IS A LOT FOR THEM, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT SO OFFENSIVE LIKE A 50 K THAT, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE I LIKED SEEING THE 40, WAS IT 41% THAT THOUGHT THERE WAS TOO MANY ITEMS COMING, YOU KNOW, TO, TO VOTE. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THAT SMALL SITE CHANGE WOULD BE AND IT WOULD PERHAPS ALLOW IT TO THE TYING IT TO A PERCENTAGE WOULD ALLOW IT TO GROW WITH OUR POPULATION. 
          SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE THINKING THAT THE, THE 5%, THE 9,000 MIGHT BE A GOOD INCREASE. 
          I AM CURIOUS WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE. 
          I MEAN, 'CAUSE MY BIG CONCERN HEARING THIS IS THE CHARTER, YOU KNOW, PROTECTING THE CHARTER AND HAVING ALL THESE AMENDMENTS THEN GO TO THE CHARTER. 
          WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THAT? IF NOT, WHY NOT? CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR MY, JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. 
          IF IT GOES TO THE CHARTER, THEN IT HAS TO WAIT THREE YEARS. 
          NO, TWO. 
          BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS. 
          IT COULD BE CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT IT COULD BE UP TO THREE YEARS. 
          I MEAN, TO ME THAT'S THE THAN, SO WE HAD A DEBATE ABOUT THIS LAST TIME, AND IT COULD BE LIKE THE NEXT MAY IN MY INTERPRETATION WATCH, I KNOW, WELL, TWO YEARS PLUS THE NEXT, NEXT HELP ME OUT HERE, HELP ME OUT. 
          TO ME, THAT'S A DETERRENT, RIGHT? BECAUSE AS SOMEONE NOTED BEFORE, THE WORLD CAN CHANGE. 
          AND SO IF I'M LOOKING AT, IF IT'S A HOT TOPIC ISSUE, I, I DON'T WANT IT TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE YOUR STEAM. 
          EVERYTHING COULD CHANGE, ALL YOUR VOTERS COULD CHANGE IN, IN THAT TIMEFRAME. 
          SO IF IT IS, IF IT GOING TO THE CHARTER COMMISSION ADDS THIS LONG LEAD TIME OF WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE VOTED ON, TO ME THAT'S AN, AN A DETERRENT OF TAKING IT TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION. 
          BUT MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING. 
          SO WOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENCE IN A CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION AND A REFERENDUM OR A, SO, SO TELL ME IF I'M SUMMARIZING THIS CORRECTLY, BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT WHAT TWO YEARS MEANS. 
          SO TWO YEARS CAN EITHER BE TWO CHRONOLOGICAL YEARS AS YOU TALK, AS YOU SPEAK OF THEM IN THE, IN A NORMAL CONVERSATION OR IT CAN BE 720 DAYS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT EXPLAINS THE CHART THAT I SAW IN THE LAST OKAY. 
          AND SO THAT VERY CONFUS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THAT PLUS WHAT THE MEANING OF OR IS GO TO COURT. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL I'M JUST, I'M, I'M, I'M SIMPLY PROVIDING TO YOU WHAT HAS I HAVE HEARD AND REITERATING THIS ON THE PETITION INITIATIVES FOR ORDINANCES. 
          WE ARE IN A GREAT PLACE TO SAY IT WILL BE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION OR IT WILL BE NOVEMBER. 
          WE'RE IN A GOOD PLACE FOR THAT WITH THE CHARTER BECAUSE IT'S EVERY TWO YEARS AND THERE IS, OUR STAFF TELLS US THAT 720 DAYS THERE MAY BE SITUATIONS WHERE THE NEXT MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION OR PRESIDENTIAL IS NOT AVAILABLE. 
          AND THUS SOME WOULD ARGUE YOU HAVE TO DO THE NEXT UNIFORM ELECTION DATE AND THAT WOULD BE A MAY. 
          AND SO DEPENDING ON WHICH LEGAL INTERPRETATION, AND YOU AS AN ATTORNEY CAN DIVE INTO THIS AND, AND COME TO A BETTER JUDGMENT THAN I, AS SOMEONE WITH MIDLING READING COMPREHENSION, YOU CAN DETERMINE WHAT YOU THINK WOULD BE LIKELY, OUR OFFICIAL OPINION IS THAT IN SOME CASES WE WOULD BE FORCED TO TAKE THE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE AND SO THAT WOULD BE A MAY. 
          SO YOU COULD HAVE CHARTER PETITIONS IN MAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
           WE, SO THE, IF THE LANGUAGE IT WAS SUGGESTED WAS, UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW, WE WILL DO A MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION FOR THE CHARTER. 
          IT A CONFLICT BECAUSE THE MUNICIPAL 
          [01:40:01]
GENERAL ELECTION IS NOT THE NEXT AVAILABLE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE. 
          THE NEXT AVAILABLE UNI FORM ELECTION DATE WOULD BE A MAY. 
          AND THUS I BELIEVE WHAT YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE IT. 
          BUT I'M SUMMARIZING MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE AS I'VE GAINED IT. 
          IN ATTEMPTING TO DO THE DUTIES OF THE WORK GROUP, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM REPRESENTING CITY LEGAL'S OPINION. 
          AND I OBVIOUSLY, UH, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN HAS AN OPINION AS WELL. 
          THE IMPLICATION FOR COMMISSIONER LASH IS THAT COMMISSIONER ANO DOES NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE REPRESENTING CERTAINTY THAT IT WILL DEFINITELY BE A MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION FOR CHARTER. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER GN, I, I'LL JUST SAY I, I I REALLY HAVE NO APPETITE FOR ENGAGING IN THE, THE SAME LEVEL OF DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST TIME, BUT I, I WILL AGREE THAT WE HAD A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
          I'D INVITE YOU TO READ THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE I THINK IS LICENSED TO, WELL I THINK WE'RE ALL EQUALLY CAPABLE OF READING THAT. 
          MY VIEW WAS THAT IN THE EVENT, AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER UL YOU DID CLARIFY THIS, NOT A COUNCIL MEMBER YET. 
          COMMISSIONER YES. 
          , YOU JUST REVEALED YOUR CARD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MY VIEW IS THAT THE RAMIFICATION WOULD BE THAT IF, IF THERE WERE TWO CHARTER ELECTIONS AND THEN WELL TWO NOVEMBERS THAT WERE NOT SEPARATED BY I THINK 730 DAYS, THEN IT MAY BE THAT YOU, IN THAT INSTANCE, HAD THERE BEEN A CHARTER ELECTION THAT PRIOR NOVEMBER MM-HMM  THAT THAT FOLLOWING EVEN NUMBERED NOVEMBER WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE AND YOU'D GO OUT TO THE FOURTH YEAR. 
          I THINK THAT IS THE CORRECT READING IN MAY STATUTE. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY SCENARIO WHERE IT RESULTS IN IT BEING MAY, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT ARGUMENT. 
          THANK YOU FOR SHARING. 
          CAROLINE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? , I MEAN THE, THE, THE CONCERN THAT I'M HAVING HEARING THIS DISCUSSION IS BY INCREASING THE PETITION THRESHOLD, ARE WE GOING TO BE CREATING A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF AMENDMENT PETITIONS TO AMEND THE CHARTER? MM-HMM . 
          AND IS THERE A SCENARIO WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A MAY ELECTION OR WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A MAY ELECTION, A MAY CHARTER ELECTION, A MAY CHARTER ELECTION, EVEN IF WE AMEND THE CHARTER TO SAY WHENEVER AVAILABLE AND ALLOWED, WE WILL USE A MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION OPTION THAT SOMETIMES WE WOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE A MAY. 
          YEAH, WELL FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, IT DOES HAVE THIS UNUSUAL LANGUAGE. 
          UH, AND I SAY IT'S UNUSUAL 'CAUSE MOST OTHER STATUTES ALWAYS SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR ELECTION ON THE NEXT UNIFORM ELECTION DATE THAT ALLOWS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AREAS OF LAW. 
          AND FOR CHARTERS IT'S THE NEXT, NEXT UNIFORM DATE OR THE EARLIER OF THE DATE OF THE NEXT MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION OR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
          SO OUR PRESIDENT, OUR MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY DELAY IF YOU HAVE A, IF YOU RECEIVE A PETITION, LIKE IF WE RECEIVED A PETITION TO TODAY, WHAT'S THE DATE LAST WEEK TO HAVE A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION? AND WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, I WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THAT MEANS WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A HAVE IT IN MAY BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF THE NORMAL LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE. 
          BUT BECAUSE OF THIS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS US TO PUSH IT. 
          SO EVEN IF WE GOT A PETITION LAST WEEK, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT THE CHARTER AMAN ELECTION A PETITION FOR CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION. 
          WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT IT IN MAY. 
          WE COULD SKIP TO NOVEMBER. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE ISSUE WHERE IF YOU PUT IN A PETITION AND THERE'S NOT, LIKE IF YOU PUT IN A PETITION TO AMEND THE CHARTER IN THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER, OCTOBER, OCTOBER OR 2025 OR WHATEVER, YOU COULD BE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE AN ELECTION FOR A LONG TIME. 
          AND FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, LEGALLY COUNSEL MIGHT COULD WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, NOT LIKE I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTHS. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY WAIT EVEN, EVEN IF THE CHARTER EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR THAT. 
          UM, IT JUST, IT DOES SET UP A POSSIBLE SITUATION WHERE COUNSEL, IF WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS A PREFERENCE FOR NOVEMBER, 
          [01:45:01]
UM, YOU KNOW, IT COULD SET UP A SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD GO QUITE A LONG TIME BETWEEN ELECTIONS, BUT THAT'S TRUE FOR CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTIONS OR FOR INITIATIVE ELECTIONS. 
          SO I DON'T, TO ME IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM THAT YOU COME UP WITH, YOU COME UP AGAINST, I SHOULD SAY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          IN, IN MAY, 2021 WHEN WE HAD THE AUSTINITES FOR PROGRESSIVE REFORM SET OF ELECTIONS, THAT GROUP HAD WANTED TO USE NOVEMBER OF 2020, BUT WE COULD NOT, BECAUSE OF THE 730 DAY THING OF MCG A GIGGER. 
          WHAT WE, ONE OF THE PROPOSALS WE MADE WAS WE WILL FORCE, WE WILL REQUIRE THE COUNCIL TO USE A MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION DATE UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          ONE OF THE, THE THINGS THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER LASH IS TRYING TO ASCERTAIN, WOULD THERE BE A SITUATION WHERE, BECAUSE WE MUST HAVE AN ELECTION WITHIN SO MANY DAYS OF THE CHARTER PETITION BEING, UH, SUBMITTED WHERE WE WOULD BE FORCED TO DO MAY BECAUSE NOVEMBER, BECAUSE THE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION DATE IS NOT AVAILABLE. 
          AND WHAT COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN SAYS IS, NO, YOU COULD JUST WAIT THREE YEARS. 
          WHICH IF WITH THE CHARTER, I THINK I WOULD FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE BEING LIKE THE CHARTER IS NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH, YOU MAY HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. 
          AND SO A LOT HINGES ON COULD WE WAIT THE THREE YEARS IF, IF WE WANTED TO, COULD WE TIE COUNCIL'S HANDS TO SAY THE CHARTER ONLY SUPER HIGH TURNOUT, WE WILL WAIT THREE YEARS TO MAKE THE CHANGES. 
          AND THAT'S, I MEAN, LEGALLY YOU COULD DO THAT BECAUSE, BECAUSE 'CAUSE THEY CAN COMPLY WITH STATE LAW STILL BECAUSE STATE LAW ALLOWS THEM TO WAIT. 
          AND IF THE CHARTER SAYS YOU MUST WAIT, THEN THAT IT'S STILL, THIS, THAT WOULD STILL BE POSSIBLE. 
          IT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW. 
          YOU JUST HAVE TO READ THEM BOTH TOGETHER. 
          UM, I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE A GOOD CHANCE THAT THE PETITIONERS WOULD SUE US. 
          AND UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD WIN THAT OR NOT. 
          I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THIS SECTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WE CAN DO IT, BUT COURTS TEND TO BE ELECTION FRIENDLY. 
          THEY WANT THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR CHANCE TO VOTE. 
          AND SO ALL, MANY, MANY COURT CASES THAT COME UP ABOUT PETITION REQUIREMENTS AND SUCH, COURTS TEND TO BE LENIENT ABOUT THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT NECESSARILY WHAT ARGUMENT THEY COULD MAKE THAT, UH, THE PETITIONERS OR SOMEONE COULD MAKE IF THEY WENT TO COURT. 
          I REALLY DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S A WHOLE, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD SAY. 
          AND, AND OUR ONLY ARGUMENT IS THIS ALLOWS US TO WAIT. 
          BUT THERE ARE CASES OUT THERE THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY OF CASES THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPTION TO ORDER AN ELECTION ONCE IT'S BEEN PETITIONED. 
          IT'S BEEN PETITIONED, DO YOU HAVE THAT ELECTION PERIOD? BUT THEN WE WOULD SAY, BUT THIS SAYS WE CAN WAIT. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW. 
          I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW A COURT WOULD COME OUT ON THAT, BUT I VIRTUALLY, I THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY WE WOULD BE SUED IF IT MEANT THAT THEIR ITEM WOULDN'T COME UP FOR AN ELECTION FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS UNLESS WE HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL THING TO RELY ON UNLESS THE, THE CONSTITUTION SAID, WELL, WE CAN'T HAVE THIS FOR TWO YEARS. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THAT, THAT ARGUMENT WE WIN EASILY. 
          BUT IF WE, IF WE'RE NOT, IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT IS NOT IN PLAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS OR WHATEVER SINCE WE'VE HAD A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION AND WE STILL WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER THREE YEARS TO HAVE IT ON OUR NEXT MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION, I JUST, YEAH, I, I THINK IT WOULD BE, I THINK WE COULD DEFEND IT AND, AND WE WOULD DEFEND IT IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTED TO DO. 
          BUT I I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW A COURT WOULD DECIDE. 
          WELL, THAT'S A MUCH MORE ENCOURAGING ANSWER AS IT TURNS OUT BECAUSE, SO STATISTICALLY, REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, THE COMBINATION OF THEM WANTING TO GAME IT TO MAY US HAVING DONE ONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, IT NOT FITTING IN THE SEVEN 30 CYCLE. 
          IT REALLY STARTS TO NARROW DOWN THE CHANCE OF THAT COLLISION IF INDEED YOU, UH, HAVE ADOPTED WHAT I CALL THE MCGIVEN OR RULE OF GIVING US THE CHANCE OF WAITING THE THREE YEARS. 
          AND THIS SEEMS LIKE THIS IS VERY IN 
          [01:50:01]
THE WEEDS, BUT THIS IS SORT OF THE HOUSE OF CARS UPON WHICH A RECOMMENDATION IS BUILT. 
          BECAUSE IF WE CAN DEFEND THE CHARTER, THEN WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT A MORE AGGRESSIVE, THE 5% RULE, WHICH STARTS TO FINISH OUT THE PACKAGE. 
          AND SO IF INDEED IT'S POSSIBLE TO WAIT THREE YEARS IN SOME VERY LOW PROBABILITY SITUATION AND ME IN GOOD FAITH, SAY TO COMMISSIONER LASH, WE CAN PROBABLY PRIORITIZE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTIONS. 
          PRETTY MUCH REALISTICALLY, THE EDIFICE OF A CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION STARTS TO BE BUILT WHERE IT'S 5% MOVE, MOVE, UH, MAKE CHARTER HARD, MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION, MAKE PETITION INITIATIVES, HARDISH MAYBE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION TOO. 
          AND EVERYTHING JUST STARTS TO SORT OF FALL INTO PLACE. 
          BUT IF THE OR INTERPRETATION FALLS APART, THEN WE'RE BACK TO IT COULD BE MAY 5% PUSHES IT TO CHARTER, WE START TO GET ANXIOUS. 
          SO THIS IS A VERY CONSEQUENTIAL ANSWER. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER BACH, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SHARE? NO, I THINK I WANT TO CONSULT WITH THE COUNSEL ABOUT MY INTERPRETATION BEFORE I PROPOSE IT TO THE FAIR ENOUGH COMMISSION. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG. 
          AND IT'S NOT ONLY THE COURTS THAT FAVOR THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO VOTE, THE VOTERS HAVE TO APPROVE THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT AND THE VOTERS CLEARLY WANT THE RIGHT TO VOTE. 
          SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BEFORE YOU JUST TRY TO MAKE THINGS MORE DIFFICULT. 
          YEAH, THE COMBINATION OF INCREASING THE THRESHOLD COMBINED WITH IS, UH, PERCEPTION WISE, THAT IS DIFFICULT. 
          UM, AND I THINK WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO MESSAGE EXACTLY WHY WE NEED TO PROTECT THE CHARTER, WHY WE NEED THAT. 
          UM, SO I WANNA THINK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE HAD A LITTLE MORE TIME TO PONTIFICATE ON IT THAN I HAVE. 
          YEAH, I, I WANNA BE CLEAR, I I I'M ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE CHARTER AS WELL. 
          I, I DON'T WANNA SEE SOMETHING LIKE WHAT ROUND ROCK IS DOING, GETTING, AND NOT TO CALL IT ROUND ROCK, BUT LIKE TO GET SIGN ORDINANCES IN THE, IN THE CHARTER. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE. 
          SO FINDING THAT MIDDLE GROUND OF HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE PROTECT THE CHARTER WHILE ALSO DOING WHAT SOME OF THE, WHAT WE'VE HEARD AND I FEEL LIKE BEEN TASKED WITH MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING A MILLION ELECTIONS A YEAR. 
          SO, OR EVERY OTHER SIX MONTHS. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER DWYER, JUST TO ADD ONE LAST LAYER OF CONFUSION HERE. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS DO THE CALENDAR, UM, BUT WE KNOW FROM THE PRIOR STAFF REPORT THAT THERE ARE MANY, THERE ARE SEVERAL CITIES IN TEXAS, COMPARABLE CITIES THAT HAVE HIGHER OR DIFFERENT, UM, THRESHOLDS FOR THEIR CITIZEN INITIATIVES. 
          AND THEY DON'T HAVE A DIFFERENT, THEY HAVE THE 20,000 SAME AS WE DO. 
          UM, I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY HEARD OF A RASH OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS RESULTING FROM THAT IN THOSE CITIES. 
          I MAY BE WRONG. 
          THERE MAY BE. 
          IT'S THE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON ME TO PROVE WHAT I'M SAYING HERE. 
          BUT, UM, WHILE YOU MIGHT EXPECT THE DIFFERENCE TO MAKE THOSE THINGS COMPETE AND PUSH PEOPLE TOWARDS CHARTER AMENDMENTS, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVE THAT, PROVE AT THAT 0.1 WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          HAVE WE SEEN ANY, OR IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET THAT KIND OF DATA FROM OTHER CITIES AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF ORDINANCE PETITIONS VERSUS THE NUMBER OF CHARTER PETITIONS? PROBABLY NOT EASILY. 
          YEAH, I CAN POKE AROUND. 
          I JUST WANTED TO SOW MORE CONFUSION. 
          YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE REACH CONSENSUS. 
          I MEAN, I THINK IT'S, UH, MAYBE PAINFUL TO REHASH AND I'M SURE I ADDED TO THE PAIN PAIN TONIGHT BECAUSE I WAS NOT AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          UM, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER DISCUSSION NEXT TIME, MAYBE NEEDED BEFORE WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO KIND OF A CONSENSUS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO ANYTHING ELSE ON THE PETITION PROCESS WORKING GROUP BEFORE WE MOVE ON QUICK? I MEAN, MY ADDENDUM TO, TO YOUR COMMENT, IF I MAY BE BEING SO BOLD TO IT THEN, YOU KNOW, ADD PLEASE DO. 
          BUT, UM, I THINK A LOT OF THAT MICROPHONE, SORRY, MY ADDENDUM TO YOUR COMMENT WOULD BE THAT I THINK A LOT OF THAT DOES DEPEND ON THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MECHANICS AND THE TIMING AND WHERE THE GROUP IS FEELING ON THAT. 
          BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT COULD IMPACT, I MEAN, A LOT OF OUR DISCUSSION IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PUSHING IF CHARTER AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF VARIOUS REASONS, UM, HAVE TO BE AT, AT CERTAIN TIMES, ARE WE MAKING IT ANYWAY. 
          UH, I'LL STOP MID-SENTENCE. 
          MY POINT IS THAT I DO THINK THAT A LOT OF THAT DISCUSSION HINGES ON THE TIMING OF WHEN WE'RE PUTTING THESE THINGS ON THE 
          [01:55:01]
BALLOT, WHICH IS DIFFERENT WORK GROUP. 
          YES. 
          SPEAKING OF, UH, THE, I CAN'T REMEMBER, COMMISSIONER ALANO B ORTEGA, WHAT WE DECIDED TO CALL YOUR GROUP IF IT WAS THE INITIATIVE WORK GROUP OR THE MECHANICS WORK GROUP MAKE MECHANICS WORK GROUP. 
          MECHANICS WORK GROUP. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE MECHANICS WORK GROUP I DID SEE CAME WITH WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS LAST TIME. 
          UM, AND SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE WE ARE ON THOSE, HOW THE DISCUSSION WENT IF WE'RE READY TO, IF ANYONE'S READY TO MAKE A PROPOSAL. 
          I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE, FROM WHAT I AM HEARING AND CERTAINLY THE SURVEY RESULTS, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE ALPHABET ROTATION, UH, FOR PROPOSITION NUMBERING. 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE READY FOR VOTING ON ANY OF THOSE THINGS YET, BUT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO Y'ALL FOR A UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE. 
          SO I HAD DISCUSSED WITH, UM, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, BAKKIN AND AL MURANO TODAY THAT OUR THREE PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MOVING ALL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ELECTIONS TO GENERAL ELECTION DATES IN NOVEMBER WITH LEEWAY FOR EMERGENCY EXCEPTIONS. 
          THAT MAY CHANGE TONIGHT AFTER SOME OF THE INPUT THAT WE HAD. 
          UM, HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF VOTES BETWEEN CONFLICTING BALLOT PROPOSITION WOULD PREVAIL AND THREE FULL ALPHABET EXPENDITURE ON PROPOSITION NAMES TO AVOID CONFUSION OVER A PERIOD OF CLOSE YEARS. 
          AND I GUESS I WANNA HEAR FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, JUST LIKE WE DISCUSSED. 
          UH, ITEM THREE TONIGHT FOR ITEM FOUR, I'D LIKE TO HEAR INPUT FROM OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE NOT SERVING IN OUR WORK GROUP. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE COMMENT? COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN? I THOUGHT THE PROPOSAL SOUNDED EXCELLENT. 
          SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          I SAID I THOUGHT THE PROPOSAL SOUNDED EXCELLENT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, SO THESE, I HAVE THESE CHANGED THE RECOMMENDATIONS? HAVE THEY CHANGED AT ALL SINCE THE ONES THAT WERE PROPOSED IN WRITING AT THE LAST MEETING? WE HAVE NOT DONE ADDITIONAL DRAFTING. 
          I I THINK THE CONVERSATION AS I PERCEIVED IT AT THE END WAS LET'S MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE WANNA PUT IN. 
          TWO OF OURS ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UH, LETTERING. 
          WE DO HAVE A, I THINK, UM, DISCUSSION ONGOING OF DO WE WANT TO RECOMMEND IT AS A CHARTER OR DO WE WANNA SAY WE LIKE THIS IDEA, BUT DO IT AS AN ORDINANCE. 
          BUT IT'S, THAT WAS, UH, RAISED AND I, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR THE PASSIONS ON IT, BUT IT WAS PREPARED AS A CHARTER THING. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD IN THAT IT'S KIND OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO US THAT SEEMS TO HAVE SPACE AFFORDED TO IT BY THE SUPREME COURT. 
          IT'S ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IN A FEW, A FEW OTHER COMMUNITIES. 
          I I KNOW SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY REALLY LIKE IT, UH, MS. MITCHELL. 
          UM, SO IT SEEMS NON-CONTROVERSIAL AND DOES THAT IS DEFINITELY CHARTER APPROPRIATE. 
          SO THOSE TWO ARE KIND OF FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          THEY MIGHT NEED ADDITIONAL VETTING IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE OR THE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE, BUT SUBSTANTIVELY, I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADED. 
          AND THEN ON THE GENERAL, THE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION RULE, IT INTERPLAYS WITH OUR PETITION DISCUSSION. 
          THERE'S A, A SUBTLE THING THAT NOW I THINK WE'RE READY TO HAVE MORE, UH, THOROUGHLY ADDRESSED, WHICH IS, CAN THEY BE THE, THERE'S A VERSION OF HOW WE AMEND THE CHARTER WHERE THE VOTER VOTES ON ONE ITEM. 
          THERE'S A VERSION OF HOW WE AMEND THE CHARTER ON THIS, WHERE THE VOTER HAS TO PUT IN AN ITEM FOR ORDINANCE INITIATIVES AND ANOTHER ONE FOR CHARTER CHANGES. 
          AND SO IT DEPENDS ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INDIVIDUAL TOPIC, WHAT SECTION WE WANNA DO. 
          AND SO NOW WE'RE JUST GETTING, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE NITTY GRITTY OF IT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UM, I THINK IN THE LAST ONE I SEPARATED THEM, UH, ANTICIPATING THE, THE DISCUSSION OF IT. 
          UH, THERE'S ALSO THE KIND OF SPECIFICS OF WHAT IT SAYS IN THE CHARTER VERSION LAST TIME, AND THIS WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE MEETING, UH, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN POINTED, UH, MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS, UH, ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND, UH, SOME OF ITS ISSUES BASED ON THE DEBATE THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT, OR, UM, IT IS, IT WAS DRAFTED BY ME AND IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST WAY TO GET AT WHAT WE SUBSTANTIVELY WANT. 
          SAME THING FOR THE ORDINANCE INITIATIVE 
          [02:00:01]
CHANGE TO THE CHARTER, WHERE IT HAPPENS AND HOW IT HAPPENS. 
          SO WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE MIGHT WANNA ENGAGE THOSE MORE GRANULAR DISCUSSIONS. 
          UH, AND A LOT OF THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE FEEDBACK FROM CITY LEGAL AND THE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THE GROUP. 
          UH, I DO THINK, UM, ANOTHER COMPLICATING FACTOR FOR US TO CONSIDER IS WHEN THE PERSON WALKS INTO THE BOOTH, THEY MAY VOTE ON PETITION THRESHOLD CHANGE AS ONE ITEM MOVE TO NOVEMBER AS ANOTHER ITEM. 
          AND SO WE'VE BEEN HAVING A DISCUSSION AS TOGETHER PROPOSAL COMPREHENSIVE TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          BUT THERE IS ALSO THE REALITY OF, I BELIEVE WE MAY BE TOLD WE MUST, IT IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE PARTICIPATION, ENHANCEMENT CHARTER CHANGE. 
          IT IS ALL THESE LITTLE PIECES. 
          AND SO WE HAVE TO PLAN FOR THOSE EVENTUALITIES. 
          SO TAKING THE EASIEST TWO, WHAT I'M THINK OF THE EASIEST TWO, THE LETTERING. 
          AND THEN, UM, I MEAN, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE APPROACH OR DO WE NEED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? I THINK IF NOT, THEN WE WOULD BE, OH, COMMISSIONER BAY. 
          FOR, FOR THE LETTERING. 
          FOR THE LETTERING, CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION OR, OR MAYBE GET SOME GUIDANCE FROM, FROM LEGAL ABOUT WHETHER AND THAT NEEDS TO BE A CHARTER AMENDMENT OR IF THAT CAN BE AN ORDINANCE? UM, WE CAN, I MEAN, MY THOUGHT IS, I THINK FROM THE SURVEY RESULTS THAT WE'RE GETTING, I MEAN, EVERYONE THAT HAS TALKED TO US HAS SAID THIS IS CONFUSING, WE NEED TO FIX IT. 
          AND WE ARE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD PROPOSE, THAT'S MY OPINION IS WE SHOULD PROPOSE A CHANGE TO THE CHARTER, WHETHER IT LEGALLY NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER OR NOT. 
          UM, THAT WOULD BE MY OKAY. 
          APPROACH. 
          BUT IF YOU HAVE DIFFERENT, WELL, 'CAUSE I THINK WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS SIMILAR TO THAT ABOUT, ABOUT A LOT OF THESE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE DONE EITHER ADMINISTRATIVELY, UM, YOU KNOW, EITHER BY STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY OR BY COUNCIL AS A, AS AN ORDINANCE CHANGE. 
          UM, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO FORMAT ALL OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN AS CHARTER CHANGES, THEN I THINK THAT IT, IT MAKES THAT POINT MOOT A LITTLE BIT. 
          OBVIOUSLY COUNCIL KNOWS WHAT IS IN THEIR POWER TO DO AND SO THEY CAN ALSO ASSESS THAT SEPARATELY AND, AND UNDERSTAND LIKE, OH, WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. 
          UM, BUT IF THAT'S FOR US TO DISCUSS, THEN I WOULD WANNA HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. 
          MR. GREENBERG, IS IT IN SOME CODE NOW THAT SAYS EVERY SINGLE ELECTION WITH QUESTIONS HAS TO START WITH THE LETTER A, LIKE HOW COUNSEL JUST DOES IT AUTOMATICALLY? IT IS STATE LAW I BELIEVE AS FAR AS OUR, IT SAYS IT HAS TO START WITH THE LETTER A LETTER A OH OH OH, NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT. 
          NO, IT DOESN'T HAVE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT IT, THE ONLY THING IT HAS TO DO, IT HAS TO BE A LETTER AND IT HAS TO, THE LETTER HAS TO CORRESPOND WITH ITS PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT. 
          SO YOU COULDN'T HAVE ZAQ, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, OUT OF ORDER. 
          IT HAS TO GO IN ORDER. 
          BUT YOU COULD HAVE GHI. 
          YES. 
          YEAH, CORRECT. 
          AND SO WE COULD JUST WRITE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL TO STOP, TO START ROTATING. 
          DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER, DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN CODE. 
          IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNCIL DO IT THAT WAY. 
          THAT WOULD BE UP TO YOU ALL. 
          I, I, SORRY. 
          I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD MAKE A CHARTER RECOMMENDATION. 
          I MEAN, LIKE I, TO ME ASKING COUNSEL TO DO THIS FEELS A LITTLE BIT LIKE UPWARD DELEGATION. 
          WE WERE TASKED WITH A JOB, LET'S MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          IF THEY DON'T WANNA PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, THEY CAN PULL IT OUT AND DO AN ORDINANCE. 
          BUT I FEEL LIKE US TELLING COUNSEL TO MAKE AN ORDINANCE ADDS ADDITIONAL PROCESS TO THEIR WHOLE THING. 
          AND OH, COMMISSIONER SHONDA. 
          SO I, I I, I, I SUSPECT MAYBE NOT EVERYBODY GOT TO THIS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT THERE'S A LITTLE, UM, IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS I'VE BEEN WRITING THEM, I HAVE A LITTLE HEADER THAT SAYS ALTERNATIVE PROPOSITION, ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS. 
          AND THE ONE THAT I PROVIDED YOU IN DECEMBER HAS A SECTION AND IT SAYS YOU COULD DO THIS AS AN ORDINANCE IF YOU WANT, BUT IT'S WRITTEN AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          AND THEN THERE'S I BELIEVE, BOLDED LANGUAGE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD IT IN FRONT OF YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I DO NOT. 
          THAT SAYS THE BODY VOTED TO SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE. 
          UH, AND I'VE ADDED THAT AS AN OPTION TO FACILITATE DISCUSSION DEPENDING ON THE SENSE OF THE BODY FOR OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          I COULD BOTH MAKE SURE THAT THE TEXT THAT I HAVE WRITTEN IS APPROPRIATE, GET ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF THE BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. 
          SO TIDY IT UP FOR YOU ALL. 
          MM-HMM . 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THIS IN SOME OF THE BODIES WE DON'T. 
          WE HAVE SHOW OF HANDS BEFORE WE VOTE OR WE TAKE A POLL JUST TO HAVE A SENSE OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT THE ONE WHERE WE SAY LET'S DO THE ORDINANCE. 
          HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT THE VERSION 
          [02:05:01]
OF THE DRAFT THAT SAYS YOU COULD DO THE ORDINANCE BUT IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION. 
          ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO STRAW POLLS CAROLINE? NO. 
          UNDER ROBERT'S RULES. 
          WELL IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANNA FACILITATE THE MEETING. 
          YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY COULD GO AROUND AND SAY HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT. 
          YEAH. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, DID YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THE, WELL, REMEMBERING THAT A CHARTER AMENDMENT PREVENTS ANOTHER CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR TWO YEARS. 
          I REALLY DON'T WANNA SEE SOMETHING LIKE LETTERING BE WHAT BLOCKS FUTURE CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR TWO YEARS. 
          AND I THINK THE WAY THAT WE'RE PRESENTING IT, I MEAN AGAIN, WE ARE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON REVISIONS TO THE CHARTER. 
          I LIKE THE WAY COMMISSIONER ALT MURANO HAS DRAFTED THIS WHERE WE TELL THEM, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO THIS AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          YOU CAN DO THIS AS AN ORDINANCE. 
          AND THE COMMISSION VOTED TO SUPPORT THAT APPROACH AND THEN IT GIVES THEM THE ALTERNATIVE OF HOW THEY WANNA DO IT. 
          BUT I, YOU KNOW, OUR SPECIFIC TASK IS REVISIONS TO THE CHARTER AND, AND THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE GONNA BE AWARE AND HAVE SAGE LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING IF YOU PUT NUMBERING OR IF YOU PUT LETTERING ON THE BALLOT, THAT'S GOING TO PREVENT YOU FROM HAVING ANOTHER CHARTER ELECTION. 
          THERE IS ALSO A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT, I UNDERSTAND STAFF REPORT COMING ON OTHER KIND OF, UM, CHANGES TO THE CHARTER THAT NEED TO HAPPEN JUST BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN THE LAW OR FOR HARMONIZATION. 
          AND SO THERE WILL BE OTHER THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING THAT I WOULD EXPECT WOULD CERTAINLY GO TO THE VOTERS IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE TO PUT ON FROM OUR REPORT. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER ORTEGA? I MEAN, AT THIS POINT I FEEL COMFORTABLE TO MOVE FOR A VOTE IF YOU DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR EVERYONE'S THOUGHTS. 
          I WILL SAY THAT I SUPPORT, AND IT'S PROBABLY OBVIOUS SINCE I'M ON THE GROUP THAT RECOMMENDED THESE, BUT I DO SUPPORT THE ALPHABETICAL ROTATION TO REDUCE CONFUSION IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO FOR NEXT TIME IS GET THE WRITTEN REPORT KIND OF IN THE FINAL FORM, COMMISSIONER TANO, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT IN. 
          AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THAT ALL IN FRONT OF US NEXT TIME. 
          UM, AND THEN IF SOMEONE IS SO INCLINED, THEY CAN MOVE, UM, FOR US TO HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, I WAS JUST GONNA SUGGEST BRIEFLY FOR THE GROUP WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO WHETHER A CHANGE IS BEING, IF, IF, IF, IF THE, THE QUESTION IS RECOMMENDING THAT A CHANGE BE MADE IN THE CHARTER OR BY LIKE ORDINANCE BY, YOU KNOW, UM, I'M HEARING A LOT OF THAT AS BEING IN PART SORT OF AN ELECTORAL CALCULATION ABOUT LIKE THE VOLUME OF THINGS BEING ON THE BALLOT AND HOW THAT MIGHT IMPACT THE ACTUAL ELECTION. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE MIGHT BE PUTTING THE, THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE JUST A LITTLE BIT. 
          'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT VOLUME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS COUNSEL IS EVEN GONNA CONSIDER. 
          AND IF THEY ONLY TAKE UP THREE, THEN THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN IF THEY MIGHT TAKE UP EIGHT. 
          SO I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT'S ONE REASON WHY I THINK THERE'D BE A LOT OF MERIT TO SIMPLY SAY, THESE ARE CHANGES THAT LOOK GOOD. 
          YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD DO IT EITHER WAY. 
          AND THEN SORT OF LIKE, LET THEM MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          BECAUSE I THINK THAT, AND ALSO WITH, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTION, MEANING YOU, I THINK THAT, UH, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PROBABLY BETTER POSITIONED TO KIND OF OPINE ABOUT THE ELECTORAL FEASIBILITY ABOUT HOW THESE THINGS ARE STRUCTURED, HAVING ACTUALLY LIKE, RUN FOR OFFICE. 
          SO I'M, I'M, MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO SIMPLY MAKE THE SUBSTANTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, IF WE HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT HOW IT CAN BE DONE, SHARE THAT WITH THEM AND THEN JUST SORT OF GIVE THAT TO THEM. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          YOU CAN'T, IF, LISTEN, IF, UM, I, I FEEL LIKE IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE PART OF COUNCIL'S DECISION. 
          LIKE THE, THE ELECTORAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE GONNA HAVE TO BE PART OF WHAT COUNCIL CONSIDERS WHEN THEY LOOK AT OUR PACKAGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHAT THEY WANT TO IMPLEMENT, WHAT THEY DON'T WANNA IMPLEMENT, WHAT THEY BELIEVE NEEDS TO GO TO THE VOTERS. 
          I'M ACTUALLY, HONESTLY, IF OUR, IF OUR STANDARD, IF OUR SORT OF EXPECTATION AND THE EXPECTATION FROM COUNCIL OF US, UM, NO, OF COUNCIL FROM US. 
          IF THE EXPECTATION FROM COUNCIL IS THAT WE ARE PRESENTING ONLY CHARTER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM, I'M ACTUALLY SUPER OKAY WITH JUST MAKING EVERYTHING A CHARTER RECOMMENDATION AND THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT SHOULD BE AN ORDINANCE AND WHAT SHOULDN'T BE. 
          I WAS JUST MORE, IT'S BEEN A QUESTION IN MY MIND BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT, THAT NOT ONLY COUNSEL, BUT TO SOME EXTENT THE PUBLIC AS WELL MIGHT BE TAKING EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN THE, THE REPORT. 
          LITERALLY MEANING LIKE, IF WE'RE PUTTING, YOU KNOW, LIKE 40 RECOMMENDED CHARTER CHANGES IN OUR FINAL REPORT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY INDIVIDUAL THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, UM, THEN IT MIGHT SORT OF, THINGS MIGHT GET LOST. 
          THE IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE MIGHT GET A LITTLE LOST IN THAT. 
          HOWEVER, IF THE EXPECTATION IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE GONNA PRESENT TO COUNCIL IS A CHARTER AMENDMENT, OR AT LEAST THAT'S HOW WE'RE PRESENTING IT TO THEM, MY QUESTION'S ANSWERED. 
          I'M, I'M GOOD. 
          [02:10:01]
NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND I THINK, I MEAN, MY EXPERIENCE FROM LAST TIME, I'M LOOKING TO SEE, I THINK WE HAD 10 RECOMMENDATIONS, WAS IT 10, MAYBE NINE. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, THERE WERE TWO THAT WERE SELECTED. 
          SO I MEAN, I THINK ULTIMATELY THOSE PUNCTUATIONS, WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA DECIDE WHAT THEY WANNA DO WITH THEM OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM MAY, THEY MAY IMPLEMENT THROUGH ORDINANCE, OTHERS SAY MAY SEND HOPEFULLY FOR, UM, AN ELECTION. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          SO THAT IS ALPHABET, UM, NUMBERING. 
          SO I THINK THE NEXT, UM, EASIEST PERHAPS, UM, IS THE CONTRADICTORY ORDINANCES AND HOW WE RESOLVE THE CONTRADICTORY ORDINANCES. 
          UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WAS AS WELL PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED LAST TIME. 
          IS THERE ANY KIND OF ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT? UM, AND I THINK CLAR, I'M SORRY, I STARTED TALKING, I THINK CAROLINE CLARIFIED IT IN AN EMAIL TO ME THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN BALLOT PROPOSITIONS, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          SO NORMALLY WHAT, SO, OKAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS LAST MAY, WE HAD THE TWO COMPETING POLICE OVERSIGHT ACT PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT. 
          AND AT THAT POINT, IF THEY BOTH PASSED, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO IMPLEMENT THEM BOTH AND THEY SIMPLY CONFLICTED WITH EACH OTHER AND, UH, IN SOME PLACES, AND THEN THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THAT OUR POSITION IS THAT THEY VIOLATE STATE LAW AND WE COULDN'T IMPLEMENT THEM. 
          SO THAT KIND OF TOOK CARE OF THAT FOR US BECAUSE THAT, THAT WAS OUR ARGUMENT, WHICH WE ARE NOW BEING SUED OVER THAT INTERPRETATION, JUST SO YOU KNOW. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, I MEAN WE GIVE EFFECT TO AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN AND IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WE'LL DO AN INTERPRETATION, WE'LL IMPLEMENT IT AS WE FEEL WE CAN, AND THEN IF SOMEONE SUES US, THEN THE COURT WILL TELL US WHAT TO DO ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT IS A QUESTION THAT I HAD IN READING THE PROPOSAL. 
          SO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? SO WHEN TEN ONE PASSED, THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE ON THE BALLOT THAT ALSO GOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE VOTE. 
          UM, IT WAS KIND OF A, I MEAN IT SEEMED TO ME CLEAR THAT YOU GO WITH THE ONE WITH THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE. 
          YOU COULDN'T DO BOTH. 
          WELL THOSE WERE WRITTEN VERY SPECIFICALLY. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND I'VE HAD TO WRITE BALLOT LANGUAGE LIKE THIS MYSELF. 
          THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ITSELF. 
          MM-HMM. 
           SAYS IF THIS IS JUST, THIS IS NOT EXACTLY DOESN'T PASS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF AN IF THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER IS AMENDED ON THE SAME DAY, THEN THIS WILL TAKE, THIS WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE OR SOMETHING. 
          BASICALLY THE BALANCE LANGUAGE ITSELF CONTAINED KIND OF AN OVERRULE PROVISION AND IT'S, AND THAT'S HOW IT WORKED. 
          SO, SO BOTH, SO IN, IN A SENSE BOTH, THEY BOTH HAD THAT LANGUAGE BOTH PASSED? NO. 
          OH, THE ONE WAS PETITIONED FOR AND THE OTHER WAS WRITTEN BY CITY COUNCIL AND SO THEY BOTH PASSED, BUT BECAUSE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE CREATED BY COUNCIL INCLUDED SOMETHING SAYING, IF THIS IS A, IF THIS IS CHANGED IN ANY OTHER WAY, THEN THIS PREVAILS. 
          AND SO IT'S, THAT'S KIND OF ANOTHER WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. 
          BUT YOU HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT DRAFTING. 
          AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE, THAT ONLY HELPS YOU WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL WILL DRAFT SOMETHING THEMSELVES. 
          IF YOU HAVE TWO PETITIONED THINGS THAT, UM, DON'T CONTAIN THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, WHICH COULD VERY MUCH BE THE CASE, UH, THEN, THEN YOU'RE STILL STUCK WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. 
          SO UNLESS IT INCLUDES THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT ON THE BALLOT ITSELF, IF YOU HAVE LIKE TO PETITION FOR AMENDMENTS, THEN IT'S, THEN YOU'RE STILL STUCK WITH THE PROBLEM OF HOW, OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT THEM BOTH. 
          AND ANYWAY, GOING WITH THE HIGHER NUMBER, UM, SEEMS LIKE A NO BRAINER. 
          ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? YEAH, AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS DRAWN DIRECTLY FROM THE, UH, HOUSTON CITY CHARTER THAT WAS, UH, SORT OF ASSESSED AND APPROVED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT LAST YEAR. 
          UH, SO IT'S, IT'S A PRETTY FAIR, UH, BET THAT IT'S GONNA WITHSTAND SCRUTINY. 
          GREAT. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW. 
          LET'S VOTE ON THAT ONE. 
          ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION COMMISSIONER MEMBER? YEAH, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION I'D. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ORTEGA SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, WE PASS. 
          CONGRATULATIONS Y'ALL. 
          WE HAVE OUR FIRST RECOMMENDATIONS, . 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT ONE AGAIN. 
          . 
          WELL DONE. 
          ALRIGHT, 
          [02:15:02]
VERY WELL DONE. 
          [4. Discussion and possible action on the Initiative/Charter/Referendum Mechanics Work Groups initial recommendation on proposition lettering. (Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega)]
UH, MECHANICS WORKING GROUP. 
          UM, OKAY, SO THE LAST UH, RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAVE FROM YOU ALL IS THE ELECTION DATE, DATES, DATES, BECAUSE, SO THAT WE GET START TO GET DISCIPLINED ABOUT THIS AS OF THIS MOMENT, MY PERCEPTION IS THE CITY LEGAL WOULD REQUIRE US TO DO ONE CHANGE FOR INITIATIVES THAT ARE ORDINANCES AND ONE FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS. 
          WE COULD NOT CONFLATE THEM INTO ONE TYING OF THE HANDS OF COUNSEL AROUND PETITIONED CHANGES. 
          JUST THINKING, IF YOU WANNA THINK ABOUT THAT . 
          UM, I MEAN I DO THINK IT IS THE CRITICAL QUESTION. 
          UM, AND SO IF YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND COME BACK TO US NEXT TIME. 
          YEAH, I, I, MY INITIAL ANSWER IS, I, I THINK YOU COULD PUT IT IN ONE THING THAT ANY PETITIONED ELECTION HAS TO BE, OR ANY MM, LET ME THINK ABOUT IT. 
          I DON'T, I THINK YOU COULD DO IT IN ONE, BUT , I MEAN YOU COULD SAY ANY, ANY ELECTION AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHARTER OR BY  STATE LAW. 
           . 
          THAT'S A BIG ONE THOUGH. 
          'CAUSE THERE ARE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PETITION ELECTIONS. 
          OR YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, ANY IN ANY ELECTION AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHARTER OR BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE MUST BE HELD ON NOVEMBER. 
          EVEN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I, I DON'T SEE WHY YOU COULDN'T DO THAT. 
          IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT'S TO BORROW A WORD FROM YOU, THE MOST ELEGANT SOLUTION. 
          SO, I DUNNO, LEGALLY YOU COULD DO IT EITHER WAY. 
          I JUST DON'T, I DON'T REALLY, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, HOW PEOPLE ARE GONNA LOOK AT THE CHARTER AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA READ IT AND WHAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE IT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TO BREAK IT OUT OR PUT IT IN ONE, BUT LEGALLY YOU COULD DO IT EITHER WAY. 
          QUESTION COMMISSIONER MC, I'M SORRY. 
          LET ME HEAR FROM HIM. 
          'CAUSE I JUST HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          I WANT, WELL, I MEAN, I WONDER IF THIS MIGHT BE ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO COMMUNICATE SORT OF A HOLISTIC PICTURE TO COUNSEL ABOUT HOW WE THINK THE CHARTER SHOULD LOOK AND MAYBE FLAG THE CONCERN THAT SHOULD, I MEAN, I I WOULD IMAGINE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LAW DEPARTMENT WOULD GIVE A LOT OF SCRUTINY TO THIS QUESTION BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, AND THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, HAVE, YOU KNOW, ROBUST LEGAL ADVICE THAT FLAG FOR THEM THE CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS THAT POTENTIAL DANGER, UH, THE POTENTIAL MONKEY P OF UH, IF THEY DO HAVE TO BE SEPARATED AND JUST COMMUNICATE TO THEM THOSE THINGS. 
          AND THEN AGAIN, ALLOW THEM TO TAKE THOSE THOUGHTS AND MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO PUT ON THE BALLOT AND WHAT THEY SHOULD BE. 
          I THINK, I FORGET HOW I BEGAN, UH, HOW I FRAME THIS INITIALLY. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION FOR WHAT WE DO. 
          I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          SO MY QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION IS THAT WHEN I WAS ONE QUICK TO SECOND THE VOTE EARLIER, THESE ARE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE MY PRESUMPTION IS THAT WE'RE TAKING THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMUNITY LIKE MR. DALE POINTED OUT EARLIER. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO WE'RE MAKING THESE MOTION AT THIS POINT RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, AND THAT WILL GO INTO, SO THE WAY THAT WE DID IT LAST TIME IS WE WOULD VOTE ON A RECOMMENDATION, PUT IT IN THE REPORT, AND THEN WE, WE VOTED ON THE FINAL REPORT AND THE FINAL REPORT, WE PUT ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE VOTED ON INTO A DRAFT REPORT. 
          AND THAT WAS WHAT WE PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY FOR DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK. 
          UM, AND I DON'T BELIEVE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE MUCH FEEDBACK, I DON'T BELIEVE WE MADE ANY CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT REPORT AND THE FINAL REPORT. 
          UM, BUT I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY GO BACK AND AMEND ANYTHING THAT WE, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE APPROVE THAT WE WANNA CHANGE AFTER PUBLIC FEEDBACK, WE CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT. 
          SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR, MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT UNTIL WE CLOSE UP SHOP AND LIKE WE'RE DONE, WE CAN GO BACK AND CHANGE ANYTHING BY THE MAJORITY, CORRECT? SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW OF ANY RESTRICTIONS OR WHY WE COULDN'T CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IF WE GET, IF WE GET NEW INFORMATION. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING TOO. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE 'CAUSE I WAS QUICK TO SECOND. 
          YES. 
          , WERE YOU GONNA TAKE IT BACK? OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THAT WE WANNA HAVE ON THIS NOVEMBER DATE RIGHT NOW? UM, DOES THE BODY WANT WHAT? OKAY, SO NOT IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS, I AND THE WORKING GROUP WILL 
          [02:20:01]
CONSULT WITH LEGAL AND PRIORITY. 
          THE, OUR FAVORITE CHOICE WOULD BE WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WE MADE BACK IN THE DAY ONE BIG EVERYTHING, MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION. 
          THEN IF THAT FOR SOME REASON CANNOT BE DONE, THEN WE WILL DO THE TWO DIFFERENT PIECES. 
          AND THEN REMEMBER, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING TO YOU ALL IS MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC MEANING FOR US HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          WE ARE NOT DOING SOON AS NOVEMBER. 
          AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S KIND OF, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING. 
          AND SO THAT MEANS IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, PETITION ORDINANCE COULD WAIT MORE THAN A YEAR M SO REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF WHERE, THAT'S WHERE WE, THAT'S WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS IN TERMS OF WHAT I'VE WRITTEN, I'VE WRITTEN AND THE LANGUAGE IS AS, UM, VERBALIZED AND I WANNA MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE OF, NOW WHAT WE COULD DO IS AGAIN, BIFURCATE AND SAY, OKAY, CHARTER IS DEFINITELY MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION PETITION ORDINANCE IS SOON AS NOVEMBER. 
          ARE YOU PUTTING THAT ON THE COUNCIL AS WELL? YOU KNOW, COUNCIL DOES CHARTER CHANGES TO VOTE THAT DON'T COME FROM PETITIONS. 
          UH, SO COUNCIL WOULD BE FORECLOSED UPON FROM HAVING A CHARTER, UH, A COUNCIL INITIATED CHARTER CHANGE PER THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE 730 DAYS. 
          BUT ON THE, UH, INITIATIVES OR THE ORDINANCES, THEY COULD PUT THEM UP WHENEVER THEY WANTED TO. 
          THIS IS RELATES TO CITIZEN INITIATED PETITIONS FOR CHARTER OR CODE CHANGES. 
          SO I WOULD, YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT I'M OPPOSED TO ALL THESE THINGS THAT MAKE THE PETITIONS MORE DIFFICULT, I WOULD SAY IT'S MUCH BETTER TO HAVE ONE CHARTER QUESTION ON THE BALLOT THAT SAYS DO THESE THINGS, BOTH OF THEM THIS WAY SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN WHEN YOU CAN HAVE A CHARTER AMENDMENT AND WHEN YOU CAN HAVE A PETITION. 
          NOTHING THAT WOULD SORT OF RESULT IN WEIRD STUFF ENDING UP IN THE CHARTER. 
          AND ONE QUESTION IS EASIER FOR THE VOTERS. 
          I MEAN, THE VOTERS ALREADY SAID TOO MANY QUESTIONS, TOO HARD TO UNDERSTAND YOU. 
          I DON'T THINK THE GENERAL VOTER WOULD EVEN UNDERSTAND CITIZEN INITIATED INITIATIVES. 
          CHARTER AMENDMENT. 
          WHAT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO QUESTIONS IF YOU PUT THEM SEPARATELY ON THE BALLOT? I THINK IT WOULD JUST ADD TO THE VOTER'S CONFUSION. 
          SO I'LL VOTE AGAINST IT, BUT JUST MAKE IT ONE. 
          OKAY, LET'S VOTE FOR ONE. 
          AND I, I THINK IN THE RANKING IT'S A ONE, UNLESS WE FIGURE OUT THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, THEN WE WOULD DO THE TWO AND ALL THAT. 
          I'M TRYING TO CONFIRM SO THAT WE TIDY THIS UP AND IT'S READY FOR YOU ALL IS EVERYBODY FEELS COMFORT. 
          THERE IS COMFORT, THERE'S AN EXPECTED COMFORT BY A MAJORITY THAT PETITIONED ORDINANCE IS MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION, WHICH MEANS IN SOME CASES FOLKS WOULD WAIT MORE THAN A YEAR OR TWO. 
          UH, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT TWO BECAUSE THE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION IS EVERY TWO YEARS. 
          I MEAN, THEY WOULD'VE TO TURN IT IN LIKE THE DAY OF THE, SO THAT WOULD NOT, THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. 
          I AGREE WITH THE PRESENTING IT TOGETHER. 
          I MEAN, CONSOLIDATED, I MEAN THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. 
          ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS? SO ON THIS ONE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO GET WITH CITY LEGAL AND PRESENT A TIDIED UP, TIDY IT UP. 
          ONE, ONE QUESTION. 
          ALL MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM THE MECHANICS WORKING GROUP BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE 
          [5. Discussion and possible action on Recall Petitions Work Group recommendations. (Commissioner Van Maanen)]
RECALL? PETITIONS WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS A WORKING GROUP OF ONE, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER VAN MANON. 
          IT IS. 
          UM, AND YOU MAY BE SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON  ON SOME OF THOSE ITEMS, UM, THAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME. 
          SO THERE'S SOME BACKUP FOR THIS ITEM THAT, THAT IT'S JUST ELECTRONICS. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT OUR, OUR BACKUP, UM, ON OUR WEBSITE THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S, IT'S JUST A SUMMARY. 
          THERE'S NOT REALLY ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN CHANGED SINCE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LAST TIME. 
          UM, 
          [02:25:01]
THE, WELL I SAY THAT, BUT THE ACTUAL THING THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE LAST TIME IS THAT WHILE I PRESENTED LAST TIME, UM, A, A SUGGESTION FOR THE ACTUAL THRESHOLD, UM, OF WHAT THE, WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER RECALL PETITIONS SHOULD BE. 
          I'M KIND OF BACKING OFF OF THAT. 
          AND RIGHT NOW I'M SORT OF UNDECIDED THAT'S, THAT'S THE BACKUP. 
          IT'S JUST SORT OF A SUMMARY TABLE. 
          UM, WHICH COULD BE HELPFUL. 
          UM, IF, IF YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT THAT RATHER THAN READ THROUGH LIKE THE, THE MANY EXCESSIVE WORDS THAT I USED FOR IT. 
          SOME OF THESE ARE ALSO VERY ALIGNED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          IN FACT, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING FROM THE FIRST TWO SECTIONS ON THERE IS PRETTY ALIGNED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PETITION PROCESS WORK GROUP. 
          UM, SO THERE'S SORT OF LIKE THE GOAL THERE IS HONESTLY, I THINK THEY, THERE NEEDS TO BE AS LITTLE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE AS POSSIBLE, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THE STANDARDIZATION OF THE, THE PETITION FORMS. IN TERMS OF A NOTICE OF INTENT, I THINK THEY'RE USEFUL FOR ALL OF THOSE. 
          THE WHERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE VARY FROM THOSE PREVIOUS WORK GROUP OR THE, THE OTHER WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, OR DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS POINT WOULD BE THAT, UM, IF WE GO, CAN WE GO TO THE SECOND PAGE? WE'LL GET TO THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IN JUST A MINUTE. 
          BUT, UM, FOR THIS, THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE, THE PETITIONERS, UM, HAVE A CAMPAIGN TREASURER APPOINTMENT, UM, FILED AND ADHERE AS WELL TO THE, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE RESTRICTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, INCUMBENT COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR ARE, AND, AND CANDIDATES FOR COUNCIL AND MAYOR, UM, ARE, ARE BOUND TO. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING. 
          I ADDED THE ADDITIONAL, UM, ITEMS ON THERE FROM, FROM THE RELEVANT ARTICLE IN THE CHARTER JUST TO SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINE, IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BALLOT QUESTION. 
          ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE UNCHANGED AS FAR AS THE THRESHOLD QUESTION GOES. 
          THE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD. 
          IT DOES STILL BOTHER ME QUITE A BIT THAT THE, THE VARIANCE OF THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED VOTERS PER COUNCIL DISTRICT IS, IS PRETTY DIFFERENT THAN THE VARIANCE OF THE POPULATION PER COUNCIL DISTRICT, RIGHT? THERE'S, YOU NEED ABOUT TWICE AS MANY SIGNATURES IN DISTRICT NINE TO RECALL A COUNCIL MEMBER CURRENTLY THAN YOU DO IN DISTRICT FOUR. 
          UM, AND I ALWAYS USE THOSE TWO JUST 'CAUSE IT'S THE SMALLEST AND THE LARGEST. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE. 
          IT'S A 4,000 SIGNATURE DIFFERENCE. 
          HOWEVER, THAT VARIANCE ALSO EXISTS GENERALLY IN ELECTING A COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          I'VE SORT OF BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT. 
          AND SO IF UNLESS WE'RE PLANNING TO CHANGE THAT, IF WE WANNA KEEP IT CONSISTENT, THEN WE DON'T NEED SORT OF LIKE A, A FLOOR IS SORT OF WHAT I HAD KIND OF PROPOSED, UM, IN THE, IN THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          STILL KIND OF THINKING THROUGH, WOULD LOVE TO HEAR OPINIONS ON LIKE, YOU KNOW, A PERCENTAGE. 
          I CURRENTLY IT'S 10% PER COUNCIL DISTRICT, AGAIN IN DISTRICT FOUR, THAT'S ROUGH. 
          IT'S UNDER 4,000. 
          IT'S ABOUT 3838 9 SOMETHING, UM, SIGNATURES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          AND IT'S ABOUT DOUBLE THAT IN DISTRICT NINE. 
          UM, ULTIMATELY I THINK THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I'M PRESENTING ON RECALLS ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE ALREADY PRESENTING FOR, FOR THE, THE OTHER BALLOT INITIATIVES. 
          AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE, THE NOTICE OF INTENT. 
          UM, I DO THINK THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE ARE IMPORTANT AND THOSE DO VARY SLIGHTLY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I I'M NOT READY TO SUGGEST A SPECIFIC THRESHOLD FOR THAT. 
          I'M ALSO NOT READY TO SAY LET'S NOT CHANGE THAT THRESHOLD AT ALL. 
          UM, WOULD LOVE TO HEAR MORE FEEDBACK ON THAT. 
          BUT WHAT I CAN COMMIT TO IS, YOU KNOW, AFTER TALKING TO VARIOUS PEOPLE JUST INDIVIDUALLY OUTSIDE OF THIS HEARING MORE FEEDBACK, UM, FROM, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          AND HERE I CAN PREPARE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO CONSIDER NEXT TIME, BUT I MAY HAVE TO SEPARATE OUT LIKE A LOT OF THESE THINGS AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD BE SEPARATED ANYWAY, BUT FROM THAT THRESHOLD. 
          'CAUSE THE THRESHOLD IS STILL WHERE I'M PRETTY UNCOMFORTABLE IN IT. 
          I'M LOOKING TO SEE MY RECOLLECT, WE DID CONSIDER THIS ISSUE IN 2018 MM-HMM. 
           RAISING THE THRESHOLD SPECIFICALLY FOR RECALLS. 
          AND MY RECOLLECTION FROM THAT TIME, WHICH I THINK WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HEARD FROM MS. MITCHELL, IS THAT IT, WE DIDN'T HEAR A WHOLE LOT OF OPPOSITION TO RAISING THE THRESHOLD. 
          YOU KNOW, NOT A LOT, BUT I THINK, UM, MS. MITCHELL'S COMMENT TODAY WAS 15% IN THE 15% RANGE. 
          MM-HMM. 
           BECAUSE WE WERE FAIRLY LOW. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, TO ME THE RECALL PETITION IS A BIT BIT OF A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. 
          AND I, I THINK RAISING THAT THRESHOLD MAKES SENSE BASED ON MY MEMORY OF THE WORK THAT WE DID IN 2018. 
          DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? UM, I DID WORK ON A PETITION, WHICH WAS A DISTRICT PETITION TO GET A CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT WHO WAS RUNNING FOR A THIRD TIME. 
          AND IT IS NOT AS EASY AS YOU MIGHT THINK. 
          IT'S 
          [02:30:01]
HARDER THAN THE, UM, CITYWIDE BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT DISTRICT YOU LIVE IN. 
          THEY LIVE IN, THEY SHOP IN A, THE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T JUST GO TO A GROCERY STORE IN THE DISTRICT AND ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY SHOPPING THERE LIVES IN THE DISTRICT 'CAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. 
          THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT DISTRICT THEY'RE IN. 
          YOU END UP THROWING AWAY A LOT OF SIGNATURES AS INVALID BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE DISTRICT. 
          UM, YOU, THEY'RE WILLING TO SIGN, BUT THEN YOU CAN'T USE THE SIGNATURES. 
          AND FOR A DISTRICT LIKE DISTRICT FOUR, WHICH HAS FEWER VOTERS, IT MAY BE EVEN HARDER. 
          THE NUMBER, THE ABSOLUTE NUMBER IS LOWER, BUT IT MAY BE EVEN HARDER TO REACH THOSE VOTERS BECAUSE THERE'S FEWER OF THEM. 
          UM, SO I WOULD DEFINITELY STICK WITH A PERCENTAGE EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK, OH, THERE'S THIS BIG DISPARITY BETWEEN FOUR AND NINE, UM, I'D STILL STICK WITH A PERCENTAGE AND NOT SAY, I MEAN, MAKE IT 10,000 FOR EVERYBODY. 
          'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE REALLY HARD IN THOSE DISTRICTS WITH FEWER VOTERS. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I'M ON BOARD, RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SUPER COMFORTABLE WITH IT. 
          I, I WOULD LOVE IF WE HAD THESE BEAUTIFUL DISTRICTS WHERE THERE'S THE SAME POPULATION AND THE SAME NUMBER OF QUALIFIED VOTERS. 
          AND THEN LIKE PERCENTAGES WOULD BE BE NO BRAINER, RIGHT? EVERYBODY REGISTERS AND EVERYBODY'S A CITIZEN. 
          WELL, I MEAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS, YEAH, THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE FOLKS WHO ARE, WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, VOTING AGE AND POSSIBLY NOT ABLE TO VOTE FOR WHATEVER REASON. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S JUST THE WAY THAT IS. 
          BUT, UM, BUT GIVEN THAT, THAT, LIKE THE ELECTORATE OF THOSE HAS, THAT HAS A SIMILAR VARI WELL THE SAME VARIANCE, UM, IN, IN, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, THOSE TWO NUMBERS. 
          LIKE, I'M KIND OF DROPPING THE IDEA OF LIKE, LET'S DO A FLOOR. 
          I'M JUST GONNA HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT DISCOMFORT A LITTLE BIT. 
          UM, AND, AND ACCEPT PERCENTAGES JUST GONNA HAVE TO BE THE WAY THAT THAT GOES. 
          AND SO NOW THE QUESTION FOR THAT ONE IS KIND OF LIKE, WHAT IS THAT PERCENTAGE? IS 10% TOO LOW? I, I FEEL THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW IS YES. 
          UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE YOU THINK 10% IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE. 
          WELL, THE THRESHOLD FOR GETTING ON THE BALLOT WAS ONLY 5% AND IT WAS AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK. 
          I BELIEVE THE WHOLE 180 DAYS WAS USED. 
          THERE WERE 80 VOLUNTEERS AND I'M WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IT UP AGAIN, WHICH I JUST LOOKED UP. 
          IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LIKE $18,000 ON PAID CANVASSERS. 
          AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE EVERY PAGE NOTARIZED, UM, IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE TO CHASE DOWN THOSE CANVASSERS WHO STOPPED WORKING AS CANVASSERS BECAUSE THIS IS AUSTIN AND THERE'S LOTS OF BETTER OPPORTUNITIES THAN COLLECTING SIGNATURES. 
          UM, SO IT'S REALLY NOT THAT EASY. 
          AND I MEAN, I THINK I MENTIONED THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK LAST MONTH WHEN THEY WEREN'T HAPPY WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL WAS DOING WITH, WE OUGHT TO HAVE RECALLS, BUT IT, IT'S NOT EASY. 
          I MEAN, IT WASN'T EASY TO DO 5%, IT WILL NOT BE EASY TO DO 10%. 
          IT'S MAYBE EASY IF A COMPANY DOES IT RIGHT? LIKE, AND THEN THEY FORGET TO DO THE NOTARIZATION AND THEY DON'T GET ON THE BALLOT EITHER. 
          SO, SO FAR NOBODY'S BEEN RECALLED. 
          IT'S LIKE, WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO FIX? I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IS THE PROBLEM THAT IT'S, IT IS OPEN TO ABUSE. 
          YOU DON'T EVEN CURRENTLY HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF THAT DISTRICT TO TRY AND RECALL THE COUNCIL MEMBER OF THAT DISTRICT. 
          THAT'S NOT OH, THAT IS TRUE. 
          WELL, BUT TO SIGN THE PETITION AND TO VOTE IN THE ELECTION, YOU DO. 
          RIGHT. 
          RIGHT. 
          HOWEVER, IF YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH MONEY AND YOU GET ENOUGH CANVASSERS OUT THERE, YOU'RE GONNA COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES. 
          THAT'S NOT, AND THAT'S TRUE. 
          EVEN IF YOU MAKE IT REALLY HIGH. 
          RIGHT. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I THINK, BUT TO YOUR POINT THEN, UM, SOME OF THE OTHER, SOME OF THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THEN KIND OF ADDRESS THAT. 
          SO SOME OF THE, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS THAT YOU MUST BE THE, THE PEOPLE SUBMITTING AND PRESENTING THAT NOTICE OF INTENT FOR RECALL ELECTIONS MUST BE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNCIL DISTRICT, OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO RECALL. 
          AND I THINK HONESTLY, AS FAR AS RECOMMENDATIONS GO, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S A NO-BRAINER. 
          AND LIKE I THINK MOST PEOPLE ASSUME THAT THAT'S HOW IT IS RIGHT NOW ANYWAY. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I I FEEL LIKE THAT ONE'S PROBABLY PRETTY, PRETTY EASY. 
          LIKE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, DON'T MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW, BUT , BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL RECOMMENDATION OR DRAFT RECOMMENDATION TOGETHER, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT ONE'S PRETTY OBVIOUS. 
          I FEEL LIKE THE TRANSPARENCY ONES WHO DOESN'T LIKE TRANSPARENCY? I THINK WE ALL, WE ALL AGREE TRANSPARENCY IS GREAT. 
          AND SO IT REALLY IS KIND OF THAT, THAT THRESHOLD. 
          I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH 10% RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I I DO BELIEVE THAT I CAN BE SWAYED ON, ON A LOT OF THESE THINGS WITH SOME PUBLIC FEEDBACK WITH ALL OF Y'ALL BECAUSE Y'ALL ARE, ARE REALLY SMART AND PUT A LOT OF REALLY GOOD CONSIDERATION INTO A LOT OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          BUT I FEEL LIKE RIGHT NOW 10% IS, IT'S REAL LOW. 
          UM, AND IT, IT JUST SORT OF COMPOUNDS 
          [02:35:01]
THE PROBLEM OF THE FACT THAT RECALL IS OPEN TO ABUSE. 
          IT'S VULNERABLE TO ABUSE. 
          I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST HAVEN'T PURSUED THAT OPTION YET. 
          BUT I'M ALMOST LIKE, I'M ALMOST SCARED TO TALK ABOUT HOW VULNERABLE TO ABUSE IT IS TO, BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA GIVE ANYONE IDEAS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? . 
          UM, BUT I, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR MORE FEEDBACK AND, AND COOL. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK. 
          I THINK IT'S REALLY VALUABLE. 
          AND THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF THE 2018 COMMISSION. 
          I WAS JUST LOOKING BACK AT OUR REPORT, WE DID RECOMMEND 20% AS THE THRESHOLD AND IT WAS, I MEAN, IT, IT WAS UNANIMOUS AND I, I DON'T RECALL A LOT OF, UH, DEBATE OR DISCUSSION OR DISSENSION AROUND THAT. 
          UM, IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYONE WAS PRETTY MUCH ON BOARD WITH YES, THIS, THIS NEEDS TO BE RAISED BECAUSE I THINK THEY WERE SEEING THE SAME CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE SEEN LOOKING INTO IT. 
          SO I, I PERSONALLY LIKE THE TRANSPARENCY ITEMS AND I LIKE ALIGNING SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ALIGN WITH THE PETITION PROCESS. 
          UM, I THINK THAT SIMPLIFIES IT FOR, YOU KNOW, THE A PROCESS. 
          'CAUSE IT CAN GET KIND OF CONFUSING I THINK TO A LOT OF FOLKS. 
          SO I, I LIKE THE SIMPLIFICATION AND ALIGNING IT WITH THIS OTHER, THE OTHER TYPE OF TYPES OF PETITIONS FOR SURE. 
          SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE FOR NEXT TIME, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE CLOSE ON A LOT OF THE ITEMS, THE TRANSPARENCY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES. 
          IT'S REALLY JUST KIND OF GETTING THE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD NAILED DOWN. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, BUT, BUT MAYBE WE CAN GET THAT ONE DONE AT THE NEXT MEETING AS WELL. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I, YOU KNOW, I CAN PREPARE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION WITH A THRESHOLD MM-HMM. 
           AND IT WITH A NUMBER IN IT FOR SURE. 
          AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION IF THEY WANT TO APPROVE THAT PART. 
          IF THEY, IF EVERYONE'S LIKE, WHY WOULD YOU PUT, YOU KNOW, 17.5% IN THERE, YOU JUST GUESSING IT'S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO SELL. 
          BUT, UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE REST OF THE COMMISSION CAN, CAN WEIGH IN AND EITHER LIKE REMOVE THAT FROM THAT DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, APPROVE EVERYTHING ELSE, HOWEVER, HOWEVER THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO HANDLE THAT. 
          SO I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE READY FOR A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON THAT. 
          AND IF YOU WANNA PUT IN THE THRESHOLD THAT YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, AND THEN WE CAN ALL KIND OF WEIGH IN ON THAT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, EITHER AMEND IT, UM, OR APPROVE IT AS, AS PRESENTED. 
          HAS EVERYBODY. 
          ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS? YES, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SHOULD THE TRANSPARENCY RECOMMENDATIONS PERHAPS BE A SEPARATE ITEM? I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONE THAT IS REALLY SOMETHING I THINK THE CITIZENS WOULD FAVOR. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT NUMBER OF SIGNATURES, BUT TRANS LIKE YOU SAID, WHO DOESN'T FAVOR A TRANSPARENCY. 
          AND SO IF THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM, I THINK IT MIGHT BE EASIER. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE THOSE SEPARATE ITEMS. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S, SO ITEM SIX WE ALREADY HANDLED, WHICH WAS THE, UM, OUTREACH WORKING GROUP. 
          [7. Discussion and possible action on the identification and creation of additional Work Groups.]
SO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE IDENTIFICATION AND CREATION OF ADDITIONAL WORK GROUPS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAD, UM, A PRESENTATION REGARDING POTENTIAL WORK GROUP ON THE INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR ACTION PROPOSED THERE? MOVE THAT WE CREATE THAT WORK GROUP TO WORK ON THE INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? DO I HAVE A SECOND? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          HEARING NO SECOND FAILS? YES, MA'AM. 
          UM, AND THEN THE LAST ITEM FOR TODAY. 
          CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT? SURE. 
          I DO WANNA APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF YOUR INTENTION. 
          NO, I, I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT AND IT WAS GOOD AND VALUABLE INFORMATION. 
          WE APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU PUT INTO IT. 
          [8. Discussion and possible action of future meetings and meeting location. ]
UM, SO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION OF FUTURE MEETINGS AND LOCATIONS. 
          UM, SO WE DO HAVE FOUR MORE MEETINGS, UM, BEGINNING OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON THE 30TH. 
          UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DOES ANYONE, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA BE PROPOSING, UH, MEETINGS FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          DOES ANYONE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ADJUST THAT MEETING SCHEDULE? UM, I KNOW WE'RE ALL GETTING A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS ABOUT TIME, UM, BUT WE MAY WANNA WAIT. 
          UH, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER LASH? YES. 
          ARE WE ABLE TO SET THE, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE 30TH? LIKE IF WE CAN GET TOGETHER AS A GROUP WORKING GROUP OUTREACH GROUP, UM, LIKE THIS NEXT WEEK, ARE WE ABLE TO SET THAT BEFORE THE 30TH? NOT NOT HAVING THE MEETING BEFORE THE 30TH, BUT BUT DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON WHEN THAT PUBLIC MEETING OCCURS? OR CAN WE SOMEHOW AGREE AND AS A WORKING GROUP DECIDE THAT? AND I'M JUST LIKE, IF YOU WAIT, I WAIT UNTIL THE 30TH TO, TO THEN SALE. 
          YES, WE AGREE WITH YOU. 
          I, YEAH, THEN, THEN, THEN WE'RE NOT MEETING UNTIL MID-FEBRUARY. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M JUST LIKE, IF, IF WE CAN GET SOMETHING ON THE FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY AS FAR AS LIKE A PUBLIC MEETING GOES, 
          [02:40:01]
MY ONLY CONCERN IS IF WE SET SOMETHING AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE QUORUM. 
          UM, BECAUSE WE'VE SET IT AT A TIME WHEN NO ONE ELSE IS AVAILABLE. 
          SO, NO, I'M NOT MEANING, I'M JUST MEANING LIKE, CAN WE MAKE UP, LIKE PICK OUT A DATE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE GET TO THE 30TH, IS WHAT I'M ASKING. 
          WE CAN, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE DON'T GET FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION, WE WOULD CHOOSE A DATE WHERE WE WOULD NOT HAVE QUORUM BECAUSE WE ALL, WE HAVE TO HAVE A QUORUM THERE AS WELL. 
          IT CAN'T JUST BE THE RIGHT, OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO YES, COMMISSIONER M YOU WOULD NEED A QUORUM TO TAKE ACTION, BUT THE WORK CREW COULD JUST NOTIFY THAT IT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO TAKE TESTIMONY AND THEN YOU WOULD NOTICE THE POTENTIAL QUORUM. 
          DO YOU, DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? OKAY. 
          WE COULD, I HATE THAT. 
          I, I, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO HAVE A QUORUM AT WHERE WE ARE TAKING PUBLIC INPUT. 
          I THINK IF WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM WHEN WE'RE TAKING PUBLIC INPUT, I, IT'S BAD. 
          I, YEAH, SO I'D LIKE, I MEAN, I THINK I'D LIKE TO TRY TO FIND A DATE WHEN EVERYONE CAN ATTEND IF POSSIBLE. 
          THAT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE. 
          UM, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE ALL THERE. 
          UM, FOR AND PARTICULARLY OF HYBRID'S ADOPTION, CORRECT? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN. 
          I MEAN, IS THERE A REASON TO NOT TONIGHT, LIKE TRY TO FIND A COUPLE OF DATES WHEN WE ALL WOULD BE A QUORUM WOULD BE AVAILABLE? IT'S KINDA WHERE I WAS CALLING. 
          WE'RE GONNA, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IF WE PUT THAT DISCUSSION OFF UNTIL THE 30TH, LIKE WE CAN COME UP SOME DATES, BRING IT TO YOU GUYS ON THE 30TH, AND THEN IF WE STRIKE OUT THEN YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE'RE GETTING TOO CLOSE TO TIME. 
          SO IF WE CAN ALL THROW OUT SOME DATES RIGHT NOW. 
          WELL, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE YEAH. 
          BUT WE DO, I MEAN THE COUNCIL, IF WE'RE GONNA TRY TO DO THIS IN A PLACE WHERE WE NEED VIRTUAL, WE NEED TO CHECK AND SEE WHEN THE CHAMBER IS AVAILABLE. 
          WE NEED TO CHECK AND SEE IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GONNA TRY TO DO THE ASIAN AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER, DO SPRINGS. 
          I MEAN WE NEED TO GIVE MYRNA A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO KIND OF EXPLORE WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE. 
          I HEAR YOU THAT WE WANNA GET THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CALENDAR AND WE ABSOLUTELY WILL. 
          UM, IN FEBRUARY. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S VERY REASONABLE FOR US TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY. 
          UM, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING IT IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY BECAUSE HAVING HAD TO VOTE ON MY PROPOSED SCHEDULE THREE DIFFERENT TIMES BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING CONFLICTS AND ROOM CONFLICTS. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THOUGHTFUL AT THE FRONT END. 
          COMMISSIONER DWYER, WE CAN COMMUNICATE AS A COMMISSION WITHOUT TAKING ACTION OVER EMAIL. 
          RIGHT? LIKE IF WE DO REPLY ALL THROUGH, UM, MIRNA LIKE Y'ALL COULD THROW OUT SOME DATES, THE REST OF US COULD SAY WE'RE AVAILABLE, WE'RE AVAILABLE OR WE'RE NOT. 
          WOULD THAT IF WE, AND THAT'S PRESENTED A PLAN AND THEN FOLKS COULD RESPOND WITH AVAILABILITY, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          MY MAIN CONCERN IS, IS THE LOCATION MM-HMM. 
           WE CAN CONDUCT IT HERE OR IN CHAMBERS. 
          UM, I'M LOOKING NOW AND YEAH, WE HAVE OTHER COMMISSION MEETINGS SO I CAN, UM, LOOK AT AVAILABILITY AS SOON AS TOMORROW AND SEND SOMETHING OUT SO THAT Y'ALL CAN REVIEW. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          MM-HMM, , THANK YOU. 
          ASIDE FROM THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, DOES ANYONE ELSE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ADJUST THE MEETING SCHEDULE AT THIS TIME? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          OUR LAST 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEM FOR TODAY. 
          UM, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, TOPICS OR PRESENTATIONS. 
          UM, SO THE CITY ATTORNEY WORKING GROUP, WE DO, WE ARE READY TO PRESENT. 
          UM, WE WERE HOPING TO BE ON THE AGENDA THIS TIME, BUT THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION WHEN, UM, THE AGENDA GOT SENT OUT SO I MISSED IT. 
          SORRY, . 
          NO, IT'S, IT'S FINE. 
          UM, SO WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING PREPARED, UM, ON THE 30TH FOR YOU ALL TO REVIEW. 
          WE HAVE BEEN DILIGENTLY WORKING, UM, ON OUR TOPICS. 
          UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER TOPICS, PRESENTATIONS, AGENDA ITEMS THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AT THIS TIME FOR NEXT? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER SERANA. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS WHEN WE WILL SEE THE CLEANUP AMENDMENT BECAUSE I KNOW ONE ITEM IS OF IMPORTANCE TO MY APPOINTER AND WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, UH, INCLUDE IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, SO HE'S REFERRING TO THE, WE KIND OF HAVE A TWO-PRONG PROCESS HERE WHERE YOU ALL ARE OBVIOUSLY DOING YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THEY HAVE. 
          AND SO, UH, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES HAS PREPARED A REPORT. 
          WE HAVE A RED LINE OF THE CHARTER WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND THEN A REPORT THAT BASICALLY SAYS, THIS IS WHY WE WANT THIS CHANGE. 
          AND SOME OF IT IS ALMOST ALL OF IT IS CLEANUP. 
          ALMOST ALL OF IT IS JUST STUFF THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LAW CHANGED AND WE HAVE TO ADJUST THE CHARTER FOR THAT REASON. 
          SOME OF IT IS THERE'S SOME VAGUENESS AND WE'VE ANSWERED QUESTIONS A CERTAIN WAY AND WE'RE KIND OF CODIFYING OUR RESPONSES AND THAT SORT OF THING. 
          UM, THAT REPORT IS WITH OUR EXECUTIVE TEAM RIGHT NOW AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE US ANY RESPONSES BY THE 26TH. 
          [02:45:02]
AND SO I WOULD THINK WHEN IS YOUR, WHEN IS THE VERY NEXT MEETING? THE 30TH. 
          30TH. 
          I THINK, I THINK WE COULD, I THINK WE COULD DO A PRESENTATION ON IT AT THAT MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY I COULD NOTE, UH, IF IT'S THE CASE THAT WE HAVEN'T CONFIRMED THIS CHANGE, THIS, THIS CHANGE IS GONNA BE IN THE FINAL REPORT, BUT YOU'LL AT LEAST YOU'LL GET THE, THE GENERAL IDEA. 
          AND, UH, AND AGAIN, THE A GOOD THE, IT'S NOT ONLY THE, THE CHARTER, UH, RED LINE, BUT ALSO THE, THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE CHANGES THAT, THAT WE'RE SEEKING. 
          I THINK THE 30TH IS FINE UNLESS SOMEONE THINKS OTHERWISE. 
          BUT I MEAN, MY TAKE ON THIS, IT'S GONNA BE MORE INFORMATIONAL FOR US SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT OTHER CHANGES ARE GOING TO COUNSEL. 
          AND SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT WE SPECIFICALLY NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON. 
          SO IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO IT ON THE 30TH, I THINK THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE FINE AS WELL. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, SO THE, THE RESOLUTION THAT CREATED YOU ALL DOES, UH, INCLUDE THAT YOU GET TO REVIEW MM-HMM,  THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND SO THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO YOU TO REACT TO THOSE HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT, I SUPPOSE IN THIS SPECIFIC ITEM. 
          'CAUSE I, I THINK YOU WILL, UH, BE ALL, MAYBE YOUR POINTERS MAY BE INTERESTED ONCE THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS IS THE, UH, LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNED A BILL THAT REQUIRES AFTER APPORTIONMENT CITY, UH, COUN, UM, MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICIALS OR CITY COUNCIL TO COME UP WITH AN EQUITABLE PROCESS FOR IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE STAGGERED. 
          SO WE ELECT IN A STAGGERED WAY WHO GETS TO GO WHEN. 
          SO YOU MIGHT NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH IT NECESSARILY WITH THE ELECTIONS TO THE TRANSITION TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT. 
          SO THEY DREW BALLS OR SOMETHING IN 2014. 
          MARBLES. 
          MARBLES, BLACK AND WHITE. 
          A BLACK AND WHITE MARBLES. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AND WE'VE BEEN STUCK WITH THAT AND THE IN AND IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TEXAS STATE SENATE, SO THEY DRAW LOTS TO FIGURE OUT WHO GETS TO GO HOW IS A TWO YEAR, FOUR, FOUR YEAR TERM. 
          THERE ARE A VARIETY OF REASONS THAT THIS IS OF INTEREST TO BOTH OUR POINTERS AND THE CITY AT LARGE. 
          SO THERE IS THIS ACT THAT NOW REQUIRES US TO DO THIS. 
          WE HAVE NOT BEEN DOING IT, WE'VE JUST KEPT THE PATTERN THAT WE GOT FROM 2014. 
          SO NOW IN REAPPORTIONMENT EXCEPT FOR THE MAYOR, UH, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN MOVED TO 20 TO THIS YEAR FOR THEIR ELECTION. 
          UH, THE ACCESS THAT WE NEED AN EQUITABLE PROCESS TO DETERMINE THAT. 
          AND SO I'M CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE. 
          I SUSPECT IT WILL BE LOTS OR MARBLES OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. 
          UM, BUT HOW EXACTLY WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND HOW WILL, UH, AFFECT OUR BODIES. 
          THERE'S ALSO THE QUESTION OF, IN THE FUTURE WE MIGHT HAVE MORE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SINCE THEY'RE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, WHETHER IT'S SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OR POPULATION GROWTH. 
          UH, THE NUMBER WE HAVE MAY NO LONGER BE OPTIMAL. 
          AND SO WE WILL HAVE TO, THE EQUITABLE PROCESS WILL HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          SO IT'S A KIND OF A LITTLE SLEEPER ISSUE THAT MIGHT COME UP. 
          I, MYSELF WAS COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF THIS BILL AND IT ONLY CAME UP BECAUSE OF THE RICO ELECTION BECAUSE I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE TURNOUT NUMBERS AND THE TURNOUT VARIANCE AND HOW, WHY IT WAS BAKED IN. 
          BECAUSE SOME DISTRICTS HAVE POTUS AND SOME DISTRICTS DO NOT. 
          AND THAT LED ME DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE OF WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THIS. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL CONTEXT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER TOPICS, AGENDA, ITEMS TO REQUEST FOR NEXT TIME? NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. 
          OKAY. 
          EVERYONE MOVED? . 
          ALRIGHT. 
          YOU JUST TALK ABOUT THE WAR THING AGAIN REAL QUICK.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.