[00:00:03]
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
[*This meeting was joined in progress*]
UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.I'M HERE REPRESENTING WE RETHINK 35.
UM, THE ISSUE I WANNA TALK TO YOU ABOUT TONIGHT CONCERNS THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS THAT IMPACT AUSTINITES ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS ARE MADE BY A REGIONAL BODY, OUR METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CALLED CAMPO, ON WHICH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN ARE NOT FAIRLY REPRESENTED.
SO CAMPO IS GOVERNED BY THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD, WHICH CONSISTS OF 22 MEMBERS, AND ITS MAJOR FUNCTION IS TO ALLOCATE FEDERAL DOLLARS TO LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN THE REGION.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENTS OF TRAVIS CO COUNTY CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION IN THE AREA, CITY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES COMBINED HAVE A MINORITY OF THE VOTES.
SO ANY SITUATION WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION HAS THE MINORITY OF THE VOTES IS OF COURSE UNFAIR AND UNDEMOCRATIC.
BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF FAIRNESS, THIS POWER IMBALANCE AT CAMPO HAS LED TO YEARS OF POOR DECISION MAKING AND PLANNING THAT IS COMPLETELY AT ODDS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S GOALS FOR CLIMATE, MOBILITY, EQUITY, AND QUALITY OF LIFE.
I'LL MENTION JUST ONE EXAMPLE, BUT IT'S A PARTICULARLY GLARING ONE.
UM, IS THE RECENT PROPOSED EXPANSION OF I 35.
SO AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION RECENTLY EXPLICITLY ASKING THAT CAMPO PAUSE FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS GONNA PUT OVER 22 LANES OF HIGHWAY THROUGH THE CENTER OF DOWNTOWN.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE VOTING STRUCTURE AT CAMPO, OUR CITY REPRESENTATIVES HAD NO LEVERAGE AND THE REQUEST WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED.
SO THIS IS A BAD SITUATION, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE.
SO OUR NEIGHBORS IN HOUSTON WERE FACING A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION THERE.
AND LAST NOVEMBER THEY PUT AN ITEM ON THE BALLOT AND THE PROPOSITION WOULD BASICALLY, IF PASSED, REQUIRE THAT THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED SO THAT HOUSTON COULD NOT BE PART OF A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION THAT DIDN'T HAVE FAIR REPRESENTATION.
AND THE STRATEGY THERE WAS BASED ON SOME FEDERAL LAWS THAT REQUIRE THE LARGEST CITY IN A REGION TO BE A PART OF THE MPO IN ORDER FOR IT TO EXIST.
WHICH MEANS THAT IF THE LARGEST CITY WITHDRAWS THE MPO ESSENTIALLY DISSOLVES AND IS DYSFUNCTIONAL.
SO THAT PASSED, IT WAS VERY POPULAR, IT GOT 65% OF THE VOTE, AND IT FORCED THE HOUSTON MPO TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE.
THAT SITUATION IS STILL DEVELOPING AN AGREEMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN ARRIVED AT.
BUT SIMILAR INITIATIVES ARE NOW BEING CONSIDERED IN CINCINNATI AND IN TUCSON.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT HERE IN AUSTIN AS WELL.
WITHOUT FAIR REPRESENTATION, AUSTIN DOES NOT HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE AT ACHIEVING THE VISION FOR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FOR A LIVABLE CLIMATE FOR EQUITY.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE.
UM, JOE RIDDLE, WHERE SHOULD I STAY? YEAH, MA'AM, WE'RE ON BROADCAST.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
SO, SHOULD I SPEAK YOUR HONOR FOR QUESTION? IF YOU'RE ABLE? YEAH, I, MR. RIDDELL, WELCOME BACK.
UH, I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY.
I'VE JUST BEEN LOOKING OVER SOME OF THE, UM, MORE REFINED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'VE MADE.
I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE, UH, MAKING A STAB AT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S REAL IMPORTANT FOR WHEN PEOPLE WALK IN IN NOVEMBER AND, AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT IS GOING ON.
UM, I, AS FAR AS I KNOW, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING NEXT WEDNESDAY, NEXT THURSDAY.
I ASSUME THAT'S, IS IT GONNA BE IN HERE OR DO YOU KNOW? YES, IT WILL BE IN HERE.
WELL, I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY.
THIS REALLY SERVES AS AN INSTRUCTION.
THERE'S NO PLACE YOU CAN SIT AND SEE EVERYBODY.
[00:05:01]
WITH YOU LOOKING AT THE AUDIENCE.SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE, BUT, UM, IF IT'S SOMETHING CAN BE RA REARRANGED IT, CONNECT MUCH BETTER BETWEEN THE AUDIENCE THAN Y'ALL.
THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPEAKERS.
UH, WE ARE GOING TO SKIP ITEM NUMBER ONE.
WE WILL HAVE MINUTES TO APPROVE AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE AVAILABLE FOR TONIGHT.
SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO,
[2. Law Department briefing regarding staff proposed charter revisions. ]
WHICH IS A BRIEFING BY MR. AUGU REGARDING THE STAFF PROPOSED CHARTER REVISIONS.AND THERE SHOULD BE A PRESENTATION THAT WILL GET PULLED UP HERE.
DO YOU HAVE A CLIP? ALL RIGHT.
I'M THE DIVISION CHIEF FOR THE OAKLAND GOVERNMENT ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE DIVISION.
AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED STAFF, UH, CHARTER AMENDMENTS, UM, FOR THE PAST, UH, SEVERAL MONTHS WHILE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN DEBATING OR DELIBERATING AS A BODY, UH, WE'VE BEEN CONDUCTING A STAFF REVIEW OF THE CHARTER AND HAVE COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF STAFF RECOMMENDED CHARTER CHANGES.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE PRESENTING TONIGHT.
SO, UH, THE BRIEFING, WE WILL COVER FIRST, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR TIMELINE FOR MOVING FORWARD, UH, SO THAT YOU ALL HAVE SOME IDEA OF SORT OF THE, THE, UM, PACE AT WHICH WE'LL BE, UM, DRAFTING AMENDMENTS AND GOING TO COUNSEL.
SO, UM, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THIS AT A PRETTY HIGH LEVEL.
YOU SHOULD HAVE, UH, THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH IS A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF ALL OF THE RECOMMENDED, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY STAFF.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, UH, AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO DISPOSITION OF CITY PROPERTY.
THIS WOULD ALLOW, UH, ADD LANGUAGE TO THE CHARTER THAT WOULD ALLOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY TO DISPOSE OF A SALVAGE OR SURPLUS PROPERTY.
UM, I, I DON'T THINK MANY PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS, UH, BUT, UH, ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAS A LOT OF STUFF IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, UM, FROM, UH, DELEGATIONS THAT VISIT THE CITY.
AND WE HAVE A WAREHOUSE WHERE A BUNCH OF STUFF IS SITTING, UH, INCLUDES FOOD, OTHER, UH, ITEMS, UH, THAT ARE JUST SORT OF SITTING IN A WAREHOUSE THAT WE HAVE NO WAY TO DISPOSE OF.
SO THIS LANGUAGE WOULD ALLOW, WOULD ALLOW US TO DISPOSE OF THAT PROPERTY.
SECOND ONE IS, UH, ANNEXATION.
THIS WOULD AMEND LANGUAGE, UH, RELATED TO HOMEOWNER CONSENT AND LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATIONS, UH, TO HARMONIZE WITH STATE LAW, UH, ON REDISTRICTING.
AND SPECIFICALLY WITH THE INDEPENDENT, UH, CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE.
UM, IT WOULD CLARIFY THE MEANING OF INDEPENDENT TO, UH, SPECIFICALLY STATE INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD, UH, PERMIT REDRAWING OF DISTRICTS FOLLOWING AN ANNEXATION OR A DIS ANNEXATION.
UH, RIGHT NOW THE CHARTER, UH, PROHIBITS THE DRAWING OF REDRAWING OF LINES EXCEPT, UH, AFTER THE CENSUS AND ACCEPT WHEN, UH, THERE'S A COURT ORDER.
UM, THIS WOULD ADD, UH, ANNEXATION AND DIS ANNEXATION SO THAT WHEN THERE ARE LARGE PORTIONS COMING INTO OR OUT OF THE CITY, UH, WE COULD, UH, BALANCE THE DISTRICT'S, UH, IN RELATION TO THAT.
AND THEN IT WOULD, UH, CREATE AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR ANY NEW, UH, DISTRICT LINES THAT GO INTO EFFECT.
WOULD ALSO UPDATE THE PROCESS FOR SELECTING MEMBERS OF THE ICRC AND FILLING VACANCIES.
AND IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE COMMISSION AND STAFF TO COMMUNICATE OR SHARE INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF A COMMISSION MEETING.
RIGHT NOW, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THEY CAN ONLY COMMUNICATE DURING A MEETING, AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME COMMUNICATIONS IN BETWEEN MEETINGS SO THAT THE PROCESS CAN MOVE A LITTLE SMOOTHER.
UM, IN THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL, UH, THIS WOULD REQUIRE ALL COUNCIL OFFICES TO BE UP FOR REELECTION AFTER THE DECENNIAL REDISTRICTING.
UH, AND THIS IS TO COMPLY WITH A STATE LAW THAT WAS RECENTLY PASSED.
UM, ALSO IT WOULD SET THE ELECTION DATE FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO FILL VACANCIES TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW.
RIGHT NOW, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE ELECTION TO FILL A VACANCY SHOULD BE ON THE NEXT UNIFORM ELECTION DATE, BUT THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION SAYS IT WOULD, IT
[00:10:01]
IS A HUNDRED, AND IT WAS, IT IS NO MORE THAN 120 DAYS.UM, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO ADD THE 120 DAY LANGUAGE.
UM, THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW ALSO SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD MEET WEEKLY.
UM, IF YOU'VE BEEN AROUND HERE, YOU KNOW, WE MEET EVERY OTHER WEEK.
UH, SO WE ARE GOING TO, UH, UPDATE THAT LANGUAGE.
UM, ELECTIONS IN THE ELECTIONS PROVISIONS.
THIS WOULD REVISE THE DEADLINE FOR BALLOT APPLICATIONS TO BETTER ALIGN WITH STATE LAW.
UH, ALSO ALIGN THE PUBLICATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS WITH THE CITY'S BUDGET CALENDAR, UH, SO THAT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS AREN'T CHANGING IN THE MIDDLE OF A CAMPAIGN PERIOD.
AND IT WOULD, UH, REMOVE CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING TIME LIMITS AND DISGORGE REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH A CITY OF AUSTIN CASE THAT WENT TO, UH, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
UH, IN RELATION TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT.
THIS WOULD UPDATE THE RESIGN TO RUN REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES TO, UH, ALIGN WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THE STATE CONSTITUTION, UM, AND THE FINANCE SECTION OF THE CHARTER.
UM, RIGHT NOW THERE'S, UH, OLD LANGUAGE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT, GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT GAAP MEANS.
UH, SO WE WOULD UPDATE THE LANGUAGE TO, UH, ALIGN WITH CURRENT GAP PRINCIPLES, UH, WOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENTS TO SUBMIT ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMS. UM, SO THAT'S, UH, OUR BUDGET PROCESS HAS CHANGED SO THAT, THAT, THAT IS NO LONGER, UH, A PRACTICE THAT WE USE, UM, WOULD REVISE THE PURCHASING PROCEDURES TO BETTER REFLECT, UH, CURRENT BEST PRACTICES AND TO CREATE MORE EFFICIENCY.
AND THEN IT WOULD INCREASE THE MANAGER'S, UH, SPENDING AUTHORITY TO $150,000 IN THE PERSONNEL SECTIONS.
IT WOULD REMOVE, UH, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO, FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, TO REMOVE EMPLOY APPOINTEES AND EMPLOYEES OF THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE FROM THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND THEN TO REVISE THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM LANGUAGE TO REFER TO CONTROLLING STATE LAW IN THE GENERAL PROVISION SECTION OF THE CHARTER, UH, WOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT TO FILE A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY.
UH, THIS IS BECAUSE OFTENTIMES, UH, PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES, UH, TO FIND SOMEONE TO NOTARIZE THEIR AFFIDAVIT.
SO WE WOULD, UH, REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT TO SORT OF LOWER THE BARRIERS FOR PEOPLE FILING A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY.
AND THEN WE WOULD ALIGN OUR CLAIM NOTICE DEADLINE WITH THE 180 DAY DEADLINE IN STATE LAW.
SO THOSE ARE THE SUBSTANTIVE, UH, RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM STAFF, UM, AS, AS FAR AS OUR TIMELINE MOVING FORWARD.
UM, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA START AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE BECAUSE ELECTION DAY ON NOVEMBER 5TH IS WHAT SORT OF, UH, WE HAVE TO BACK UP FROM THAT DATE IN ORDER TO SET ALL OF OUR DEADLINES.
SO ELECTION DAY IS NOVEMBER 5TH.
THE DEADLINE FOR COUNCIL TO ORDER THE ELECTION IS AUGUST 19TH.
UH, BASED ON THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR, UH, THAT GIVES US, UH, VERY LIMITED DATES, UH, TO WORK WITH.
UH, JULY 18TH IS THE LAST, UH, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, UM, BEFORE AUGUST 19TH, AUGUST 14TH.
15TH AND 16TH ARE COUNCIL BUDGET WORK SESSIONS.
UM, SO THOSE DATES ARE AVAILABLE TO US, UM, IF WE, UH, NEED THEM.
BUT I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH THE JULY 18TH DATE.
SO BACKING UP FROM THAT DATE, UM, MAY THROUGH JUNE IS WHEN THE LAW DEPARTMENT WOULD BE DRAFTING, UH, THE ORDINANCE, UH, CALLING THE ELECTION AND ALL OF THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.
UM, WE POTENTIALLY HAVE SEVERAL ELECTIONS TO CALL THIS NOVEMBER, INCLUDING, UH, ANY SORT OF CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION, UM, AND COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
SO A CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION, UH, IS VERY DETAILED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PUT ALL OF THE LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE AND THE ORDINANCE.
SO WE NEED SOME TIME JUST TO GET ALL THAT LEGAL WORK DONE.
UM, THAT MEANS IN APRIL WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO BRIEF THE COUNCIL AND HAVE COUNSEL DETERMINE WHAT ITEMS, UH, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE BALLOT SO THAT WE CAN THEN BEGIN DRAFTING THE, UH, ORDINANCE LANGUAGE
[00:15:01]
FOR COUNSEL TO CONSIDER.THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE, A APRIL BRIEFING TO COUNSEL.
I KNOW OUR COMMISSION WILL HAVE A REPORT THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE STAFF REPORT, BUT WILL THE BRIEFINGS ALIGN? WILL THOSE HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME? YES.
SO WE PLAN ON, UH, PRESENTING THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS SEPARATE FROM THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, TWO DIFFERENT REPORTS, BUT IT WOULD HAPPEN AT THE SAME MEETING.
MM-HMM,
JUST, UH, STATE LAW REFER, DO IT AS PERSONAL PROPERTY.
BUT YEAH, NOT, NOT REAL PROPERTY.
UM, AND THEN WHAT IS THE CURRENT CITY MANAGER'S LIMIT? I THINK IT'S 74,000, AND IT IS ALIGNED WITH THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.
SO IT GETS UPDATED EACH YEAR, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND 74,000.
SO IT'S ALMOST, IT'S DOUBLING BASICALLY.
UM, ARE THERE ANY REPERCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OR NOT WE, BUT LIKE FOR INSURANCE, DOES THAT NEED TO, THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL INSURANCE EXPOSURE IF THAT'S INCREASED? NO, THAT OKAY.
COMMISSIONER ALONA, I WAS GONNA RAISE THAT ISSUE.
ARE, ARE WE SURE IT'S A CLEANUP AMENDMENT AND NOT A SUBSTANTIVE ONE ON THE, YOUR HONOR, I THINK YOUR MIC'S ON BECAUSE YOU'RE CORRECT.
UH,
OH, SO THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ADVANCE AS ONE UP OR DOWN VOTE? IT MAY BE ADVANCE AS SEPARATE PIECES.
YEAH, BECAUSE STATE LAW REQUIRES, UM, EACH THING TO HAVE A SEPARATE RIGHT.
SO WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT YET ABOUT HOW IT WOULD BE PACKAGED.
WE JUST HAVE PROPOSALS ON AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW.
AS YOU RECALL FROM THE, UH, FIFTH CIRCUIT'S OPINION, THE, UH, POSTAL CODE ENVELOPE, THE AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT, WHAT REMOVE THAT WAS THAT THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING.
AND I'M USING LEGAL TERMS AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO ALL THE LAWYERS, PLEASE CORRECT ME, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT, HE COULD NOT PROVE INJURY FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
UH, OUTLINED DID THE STAFF CONSIDER PROACTIVELY RECOMMENDING A SUBSTANCE OF CHANGE TO MAKE THE POSTAL CODE MORE DEFENSIBLE IN THE FUTURE SINCE THE COURT IN THE BODY OF THEIR OPINION WAS SAYING IF SOMEBODY HAD BEEN INJURED OR PROVED INJURY, IT WOULD LIKELY HAVE STRUCK IT DOWN SHOULD WE BE PROVING RATIONALITY EARLIER? SO I HAVE NOT BEEN PART OF THE ACTUAL DISCUSSIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR CASE.
UM, SO WE CAN, I CAN GO BACK AND FIND OUT, UH, I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH OUR ATTORNEYS ON THAT AND, UH, WE DO HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE STUFF, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THAT PROVISION.
I ONLY ASK 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA COME UP IN THE TOPICS FOR NEXT TIME I SAW, BUT I, I THINK YOU SHOULD, THAT, UH, COUNSEL WILL BE THE APPROPRIATE BODY TO ADDRESS IT AS IT'S NOT BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
I WAS CURIOUS IF, UH, WE SHOULD AMEND THE POTENTIAL TOPICS FOR NEXT TIME LANGUAGE TO BETTER ALIGN WITH WHAT YOU MAY YOU'RE PRESENTING.
QUESTION? YES, MR. GEORGE? A QUESTION, IS STAFF DEFINED AS A COMBINATION OF COUNCIL OFFICES AND MANAGED DEPARTMENTS, OR IS IT ONLY CITY MANAGEMENT? SO, UH, WHAT WE DID IS WE REACHED OUT TO CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR'S OFFICES.
UM, AND SO THIS IS ALL OF, ALL OF THE STAFF OTHER THAN COUNCIL OFFICES? MM-HMM.
UM, HOW MANY BALLOT QUESTIONS DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THAT DISCUSSION YET.
SO, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND OUT FIRST IS WHETHER COUNSEL WANTS TO PUT ANY OF THIS ON THE BALLOT.
SO ONCE WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT COUNSEL WANTS TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, THEN WE WILL WORK ON PACKAGING THEM SO THAT THINGS THAT ARE RELATED ARE PRESENTED UNDER ONE PROPOSITION.
AND MA'AM, I I THINK YOUR MIC IS ON.
CAN YOU, CAN WE GET THESE POSTED TO OUR BACKUP? YES.
UH, THE CLERK'S OFFICE WILL POST THAT AND THE PRESENTATION.
[00:20:01]
OKAY.AND ARE YOU, WE JUST GOT, WE, WE WERE REVISING THEM TODAY.
ARE YOU WANTING THIS COMMISSION TO VOTE OR HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS OR RE ANY KIND OF FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS AT ALL? UM, NO NEED FOR YOU TO VOTE.
IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK, WE'RE HAPPY TO LISTEN TO YOUR FEEDBACK.
BUT THIS IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SO THAT'S WHY THE COMMISSION IS GONNA HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE REPORT.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, SO THERE'S NOTHING REALLY FOR US TO VOTE ON.
UM, BUT IF YOU ALL HAVE COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS YES, PLEASE SHARE THEM.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR MR. FARGO BEFORE WE MOVE ALONG? NO, VERY THOROUGH.
[3. Discussion and possible action on the City Attorney Working Group initial recommendation report. (Chair Palvino, Commissioners Garcia and McGiverin)]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS OUR FIRST DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM.IT'S DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY WORKING GROUP.
UM, YOU DO HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE REVIEWED LAST TIME.
YOU DO HAVE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION IN YOUR REPORT.
THERE ARE TWO COPIES OF IT, ONE IN COLOR AND ONE IN BLACK AND WHITE BECAUSE THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION, BUT BETTER TO BE OVER-PREPARED THAN UNDER-PREPARED.
UM, SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER GARCIA TO DISCUSS THIS RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS RELATED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL POSITION THAT WAS, UH, DISCUSSED AT THE PREVIOUS, UH, MEETING.
UM, AND SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED REVISION TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.
SO YOU GUYS CAN REVIEW THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
AND COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, I KNOW YOU WERE DRIVING LAST TIME WHEN WE WERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD FROM A SUBSTANTIVE STANDPOINT, UM, ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL OR SORT OF HOW WE CAME TO IT.
I, I THINK, I THINK THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT I WAS JUST OFFICIALLY OFF CAMERA.
WELL, WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP TO MOVE APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDATION, BUT I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WORKING GROUP.
SECOND COMMISSIONER ALANO SECONDS.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ONE QUESTION DID WE, DOES, DIDN'T THIS SAY LAST TIME, UM, APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND AND CONFIRMED BY COUNCIL, THAT WAS RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE, RIGHT? WHICH WE VOTED ON LAST TIME AND WAS APPROVED, RIGHT? SO DOES IT NOT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS LIKE, AS WELL, OR THIS IS JUST, THIS IS OUR SECOND RECOMMENDATION? YES.
SO THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD APPOINT AND REMOVE THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH COUNSEL'S APPROVAL HAS ALREADY PASSED.
WHAT I'M ASKING IS, DOES THAT LANGUAGE NOT NEED TO BE IN APPEAR AS WELL? LIKE I UNDERSTAND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE, THIS IS A, THIS IS INTENDED TO BE KIND OF A STANDALONE SECOND RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE COUNSEL IS GOING TO CONSIDER EACH RECOMMENDATION SEPARATELY.
THEY WERE NOT BUNDLED TOGETHER AS ONE RECOMMENDATION.
DOES THAT CLARIFY OR DOES, IS THAT, I GUESS YEAH, I, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT IS THIS, UH, AND WHAT IS THIS ANTICIPATING SOLVING OR IS THIS WHAT PROBLEM? YEAH, YEAH.
SO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GOING BACK AND COMMISSIONER GARCIA, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN HERE.
UM, BUT WE KIND OF GO BACK TO WHAT IS THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
AND THE ISSUE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE IS THE PERCEPTION THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FAVORS THE CITY MANAGER OVER THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AND WE ARE TRYING TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTS THE CITY.
BUT I THINK THERE IS A PERCEPTION, UM, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BECAUSE THEY'RE APPOINTED BY THE MANAGER AND BECAUSE COUNSEL DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A DESIGNATED ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH, THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS LEGAL ADVICE THAT IS SLANTED TOWARDS THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
SORRY, I DIDN'T PHRASE THAT VERY WELL.
THIS ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE THAT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE INITIALLY AS A WORKING GROUP STARTED, AND WE'VE TALKED THROUGH SOME OF THIS STUFF, SO IT MAY BE REPEAT, BUT, UM, WHERE WE INITIALLY STARTED WAS,
[00:25:01]
YOU KNOW, SHOULD CITY COUNCIL HAVE AN INDEPENDENT CITY ATTORNEY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? AND FOR VARIOUS REASONS, AFTER TALKING WITH CHUCK THOMPSON, WE DECIDED THAT THAT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE YOU RUN THE RISK OF HAVING CONFLICTING LEGAL ADVICE IF YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING COUNSEL SEPARATELY THAT IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS AND PRECEDENT WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.AND SO THIS RECOMMENDATION ACTUALLY WAS ONE THAT WAS FORMED AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH CHUCK.
HE THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BEST WAY TO STRUCTURE THIS WOULD BE TO HAVE A DESIGNATED CITY ATTORNEY WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUT WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK WITH COUNSEL AND COULD, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT ZONING, THEY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY DON'T GO TO ONE PERSON.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER GO THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY HERSELF OR THEY WOULD FIND THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON THAT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO SORT OF HELP THEM FIND THAT LEGAL ADVICE.
AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE IDEA.
DO Y'ALL HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? COMMISSIONER MCG? COMMISSIONER? YES.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY LEGAL.
DO WE HAVE A COMPARABLE ROLE IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT WOULD FULFILL THIS? SO I'M NOT GONNA COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF ANY PROPOSAL.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW, UH, ANY ATTORNEY IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT ADVISES CAN ADVISE, UH, COUNCIL OFFICES.
AND I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING WHAT WE PROPOSED LAST WEEK, PLUS WE WERE GONNA DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GONNA DO THIS AS AN ADDITION WHEN I, IT IS INTENDED TO BE AN ADDITION.
AND WHEN I READ THIS AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK ISN'T IN IT, THAT'S WHAT MADE ME FEEL LIKE IT'S AN EITHER OR.
THAT'S THE, THE TWO, AND CORRECT ME IF THIS IS WRONG, NEIL, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, BUT THESE ARE, THESE ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AS TWO SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN THEY GO OKAY TO THE VOTERS.
UM, THESE WOULD NOT BE PACKAGED TOGETHER WHEN THEY GO TO THE VOTERS, SO THEY WOULD BE INDEPENDENT.
IS THAT, IS THAT ACCURATE? SO I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THAT IT'S BEING PROPOSED IS YOU COULD ADOPT THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY BEING RATIFIED BY COUNSEL MM-HMM.
OR YOU COULD DO IT THE OTHER WAY.
YOU COULD NOT ADOPT THE RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT, BUT YOU COULD ADOPT THE DESIGNATED ATTORNEY WITHIN THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO THEY OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER.
AND OUR INTENTION, I THINK, IS THAT THEY WOULD BOTH, I MEAN OUR, I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL IS THAT THEY BOTH BE ADOPTED TO YOUR POINT.
UM, BUT WE ARE PRESENTING THEM AS SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS JUST BECAUSE THE COUNCIL COULD CHOOSE TO DO ONE AND NOT THE OTHER.
AND I THINK FROM A, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY GO ON A BALLOT THAT THEY WOULD BE PRESENTED SEPARATELY.
MR. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I GUESS MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT THERE ARE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND WHY WOULD YOU WANNA LIAISON AN EXTRA LAYER? UM, IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT A CERTAIN SUBJECT, YOU SPEAK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO HAS EXPERTISE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
UM, IF THE COUNCIL OR THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTED THIS EXTRA LAYER, THEY COULD APPOINT THIS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THIS TO BE IN THE CHARTER.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT COMMISSIONER MCGILLAN? I'D LIKE TO, UM, AND ALSO WHEN I DO THAT, I'D LIKE TO RELATE BACK TO A POINT THAT I WOULD, YOU MADE I THINK LAST MEETING THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO COMMENT ON BECAUSE I THINK IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY OR IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, YOU'D ALSO EXPRESSED A CONCERN ABOUT LIKE, IS THIS LIKE A MEANINGFUL STEP OR IS IT LIKE A HALF MEASURE? LIKE WHY, WHY DO THIS INSTEAD OF THAT WAS THE, ABOUT THE, UM, INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING THE CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL.
I SEE COMPROMISE, I THINK, UM, TO HAVE IT JOINTLY.
I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT THERE, I I, LET ME, LET ME BEGIN WITH AN ANECDOTE.
IT KIND OF RELATES TO AN OBSERVATION THAT, THAT, UM, OUR, OUR CHAIR HAD.
I REMEMBER, I, I SPENT A YEAR WORKING FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER LONG AGO UNDER MARK OTTS ADMINISTRATION, SO MANY CITY MANAGERS AGO.
AND WHEN I HAD SHOWN UP MAYBE A WEEK BEFORE THAT, A MEMO WENT OUT SAYING
[00:30:01]
NO ONE ON COUNCIL IS ALLOWED TO TALK TO ANYONE IN CITY STAFF EXCEPT THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR THE TOPIC THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN.IT WAS AMAZING BECAUSE THERE WAS STILL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BUDGET BACKUP AND THEY'RE LIKE, HERE'S THE STAFF PERSON WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
HERE'S THEIR PHONE NUMBER AND A MEMO FROM THE CITY MANAGER SAYING, THOU SHALT NOT CALL THEM.
WELL, NEVERMIND ABOUT THE CONFLICT.
THE PRETTY BALD CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT AND THE CITY'S ROLE.
UH, CITY COUNCIL'S ROLE IN THE CHARTER.
UM, I THINK THINGS DO FLUCTUATE A BIT WITH TIME.
AND I THINK PERCEPTION DOES MATTER.
YOU KNOW, LIKE WITH MISCONDUCT, WITH, UH, JUDICIARY, FOR INSTANCE, I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE ABOUT THIS EARLIER TODAY.
THERE'S A RULE NOT ONLY THAT JUDGES SHOULD AVOID MISCONDUCT, BUT ALSO THE PERCEPTION OF MISCONDUCT.
'CAUSE EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT, THE PERCEPTION SHAKES PUBLIC TRUST IN THE INSTITUTION.
AND WE NEED THAT TRUST IN ORDER FOR THE INSTITUTION TO FUNCTION.
AND I THINK THAT THAT TRUISM APPLIES IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES.
AND I DO THINK THAT AT MINIMUM THERE HAS OFTEN BEEN A PERCEPTION AMONG SOME COUNCIL STAFF MEMBERS OF SORT OF A CURATION OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY RECEIVE.
AND IF YOU RECALL AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF, UH, OUR PROCESS HERE, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A FORMER STAFF MEMBER WHO'S NOW AN ATTORNEY WITH A NONPROFIT IN TOWN, UH, WHO BASICALLY EXPRESSED THAT SENTIMENT.
I CAN TELL YOU ANECDOTALLY I'VE HEARD IT FROM OTHERS AS WELL.
AND I MEAN, YOU NEVER REALLY KNOW IF IT'S THE TRUTH, BUT AT MINIMUM THE PERCEPTION CAN DAMAGE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS.
SO I THINK SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO ESTABLISH TRUST BY ITSELF, EVEN IF THAT'S ALL THAT IT DOES, IT'S HELPFUL.
AND I THINK LONGEVITY OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH A PERSON DOES TEND TO BREED TRUST AS OPPOSED TO HAVING, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS A, A RANDOM ASSORTMENT OF PEOPLE WHO YOU MEET FOR A BRIEF TIME AND THEN EVAPORATE OFF IT TO THE ETHER.
UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO JUST GO A STEP FARTHER ABOUT WHY I THINK THAT THIS IS A REALLY VALUABLE ALTERNATIVE TO JUST POINT HAVING LIKE A COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, WHICH I KNOW IS NOT YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT'S A POINT I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON.
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CHUCK IMPRESSED ON ME.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A TENSION BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST TWO PRINCIPLES HERE.
TWO VALUES, ONE INDEPENDENCE WHICH HAS VALUE, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER, TO RECONCILE, TO AVOID, TO, TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WHEN THEY ARISE.
AND WHAT HE HAD TALKED ABOUT, AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE, SO WHO KNOWS IF IT WOULD EVER ACTUALLY ARISE, BUT IT IS A DANGER, IS, YOU KNOW, IN HIS EXPERIENCE, SOME DIMENSION OF SORT OF A RETRENCHMENT OF POSITIONS BETWEEN THESE TWO OFFICES WHERE THEY TOOK ON DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND IT CAUSED SOME SORT OF A DIMENSION OF ONGOING TENSION OR MAYBE NOT CONFLICT, BUT IT WASN'T HELPFUL, IT WASN'T PRODUCTIVE.
AND HONESTLY, I THINK THAT IT'S SMART TO PLAN FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND HAVE A MECHANISM IN PLACE TO HELP, YOU KNOW, RESOLVE IT IN A PRODUCTIVE, HEALTHY WAY.
AND I DO THINK THAT HONESTLY KEEPING THESE TWO FUNCTIONS IN HOUSE, ALTHOUGH IT DOES POTENTIALLY UNDERMINE SOME INDEPENDENCE, IT DOES IT IN A WAY THAT I THINK IS NOT REALLY MATERIAL TO THE OBJECTIVE AND WOULD PRESENT LIKE A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID SOME SORT OF POLARIZATION THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN SOME, AND I'LL JUST ADD ON TO THAT.
I MEAN, I, I PRACTICE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, BUT SPEAKING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP AND HOW YOU ADVISE YOUR CLIENTS HAVING ONE-ON-ONE CONTACT BUILDS TRUST, NUMBER ONE.
UM, BUT THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT IF YOU HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS GOING DIRECTLY TO SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, THIS PERSON MAY BE NO, EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT ZONING LAW, BUT IF WE HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE OVER HERE THAT IS IMPLICATED, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY GONNA HAVE THE FULL PICTURE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT LIAISON WHO IS WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH COUNSEL WHO DOES HAVE THE FULL PICTURE AND IS AN ATTORNEY.
SO THEY ARE GONNA KNOW, WELL, YOU NEED TO NOT ONLY TALK WITH THIS SUBJECT MATTER AND EXPERT AND THIS SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER TALKING WITH THESE OTHER THREE PEOPLE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S THAT VALUABLE TO ME TO HAVE THAT LIAISON, UM, THE TRUST PERSPECTIVE AND THEN ALSO I THINK YOU JUST GET MORE HOLISTIC LEGAL ADVICE THAT WAY.
I I I, IF I'M BEING PARTICULARLY OBTUSE HERE, AND I I'M GONNA TRY TO PHRASE MY QUESTION, UM, BETTER THAN I HAVE THE LAST, LAST TIME.
BUT WHAT, WHY ARE WE LOOKING AT TWO? WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF HAVING TWO SEPARATE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS HERE? IS THIS, AND RELATEDLY, IS THIS LIKELY TO CONFUSE VOTERS WHO ARE, WHO ARE, IF IF BOTH OF THESE ARE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSIONER S DO YOU A YOU OH, I I MEAN, THE REASON THAT WE DID IT IS TWO WAS BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK WE COULD ACCOMPLISH THIS WITH ONE
[00:35:01]
BALLOT INITIATIVE BECAUSE IT IS TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.AND SO I I THOUGHT THEY WERE GONNA HAVE TO BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY.
UM, I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO COMBINE THEM, AND CERTAINLY THEY WILL BE COMBINED IN THE REPORT, BUT I THINK FROM A BALLOT LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE, I, I DON'T BELIEVE WE COULD COMBINE THESE.
THANK AND THAT WAS WHY THEY WERE PRESENTED SEPARATELY.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THAT HELPS ME.
I, THAT'S WHAT I WAS STRUGGLING WITH.
'CAUSE I FELT LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE BOTH, I IT WAS GONNA CAUSE CONFUSION AT THE BALLOT.
I MEAN, THE MORE I SIT HERE AND THINK ABOUT IT, I CAN SEE WHY IT NEEDS TO BE TWO SEPARATE, BECAUSE THE SECOND ONE IS CREATING, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT POSITION.
BUT I, I DO HOPE THAT WE CAN PRESENT IT IN A WAY WHEN, IF IT, IF IT GOES TO A VOTE, UM, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THAT IT'S CLEAR.
BECAUSE I WOULD PROBABLY READ THE HIGHLIGHT, LIKE, OH, I CAN'T GET BOTH.
LIKE I WOULD READ IT AS IF IT'S, I'M NOT GOING TO GET APPOINTED BY COUNSEL.
A LOT OF TIMES I FEEL LIKE WHEN IT'S PRESENTED NEXT TO EACH OTHER, MM-HMM.
AND WE CAN WORK, WE'LL WORK WITH MR. FOG'S OFFICE ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IN THE FINAL, WE'LL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE CURRENTLY GOT A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THIS.
IF WE END UP APPROVING IT, THEN WE'LL PUT IT IN THE FINAL REPORT AND WE WILL ALL APPROVE THE FINAL REPORT.
AND THEN THERE WE'LL HAVE BALLOT LANGUAGE.
UM, AND IF THE DESIRE IS TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO COMBINE IT, WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SEE IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
BECAUSE THAT IS, THAT WAS, I THINK THE INTENTION OF OUR GROUP WAS THAT BOTH OF THEM WOULD HAPPEN.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SINCE THIS ROLE IS AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, MY SUPPOSITION IS THAT PERSON IS HIRED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND SUPERVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, UM, BECAUSE MAYBE THIS IS GETTING LOST.
WE, IT IS NOT IN OUR DISCRETION TO COMBINE IN ALL LIKELIHOOD.
IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF CONSTITU, THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE THAT SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT TOPICS BE DISENTANGLED.
UH, AND SO, BECAUSE ONE IS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES TOPIC AND ONE IS THE OMBUDS LAWYER TOPIC, I THINK THERE WAS A SENSE THAT THEY WOULD BE, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED ONCE THE, UH, LEGAL SQUAD LOOKED AT IT TO SEPARATE 'EM.
UH, ALTHOUGH THEY OBVIOUSLY WORK BEST TOGETHER, UH, IN, IN SOME WAYS.
I WASN'T SURE WE WERE GETTING TO THAT, THAT IT'S NOT IN DISCRETION AND ALL LIKELIHOOD OF US TO COMBINE, AS IT TURNS OUT.
THAT IS A BETTER EXPLANATION THAN WHAT I WAS GIVING.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG FOLLOWING UP ON THE STORY ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER FROM A FEW MANAGERS AGO, UM, HOW DID THAT, AND I MEAN, WAS IT LIKE, OKAY, WE'LL ONLY TALK TO THE PEOPLE YOU SAY WE CAN TALK TO OR THE COUNCIL TALK TO WHOEVER THEY WANT ANYWAY, OR THERE WAS PUSHBACK ON THE DIRECTIVE AT ALL, DO YOU KNOW? OR YOU WEREN'T WORKING? UH, I WAS WORKING HERE, SO AS I RECALL, ENOUGH OF US JUST SORT OF IGNORED HIM THAT IT, EVENTUALLY THAT RULE KIND OF WENT AWAY.
SO JUST KEPT DOING WHAT WE WERE DOING.
AND, AND THIS WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE MANAGER FROM DOING THAT? NO, NO.
THAT WAS JUST TO, TO COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, AS, AS ROSIE AS ONE ADMINISTRATION MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE AND PERSONALITIES CHANGE TO KIND OF DEMONSTRATE THE, THE, THE BREADTH OF THE GIVING THE JOINTS ON THAT.
BUT IF THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTED A SPECIFICALLY LIAISON, THEY COULD DO THAT NOW WITHOUT A CHARTER AMENDMENT.
AND THAT'S, AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL WANTED A SPECIFIC LIAISON, THEY COULD ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO, I THINK THAT'S TRUE.
AND THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THESE PROVISIONS IN CHARTER IS TO CABIN THAT DISCRETION.
SO THEY EITHER HAVE TO OR CANNOT DO CERTAIN THINGS, AND WE'LL MAKE THAT POINT IN THE FINAL REPORT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING REVISIONS TO THE CHARTER, AND THEN IF COUNCIL DECIDES THAT THEY WANNA HANDLE IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, OF COURSE THAT'S WITHIN THEIR DISCRETION.
AND I JUST WANTED TO, UH, TO ADD, I THINK THE, ONE OF THE GOALS IS TO GIVE THE COUNSEL DIRECT ACCESS TO, TO A, TO A CITY ATTORNEY AND REMOVE THE FACT THAT IT WOULD GET SENT TO A BULLPEN OF ATTORNEYS, RIGHT.
WHO COULD, WOULD THEN DETERMINE WHICH ONE IS ELIGIBLE TO HANDLE THIS BEST SET OF EXPERTISE INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING ONE ATTORNEY THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN GO TO EVERY TIME THAT CAN ACCESS, THAT THEY CAN ACCESS AND HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO VERSUS GOING THROUGH A POOL OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS.
[00:40:01]
CREATE A CLEAR PATH OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE COUNSEL AND AN ATTORNEY.AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE GOAL IS HERE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE? NO.
ANY OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER ORTEGA.
THAT IS THE LAST UPDATE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WORKING GROUP.
AND WE CAN REMOVE THIS AS AN AGENDA ITEM OR NOT.
[4. Discussion and possible action on the Initiative/Charter/Referendum Mechanics Work Groups initial recommendation on proposition lettering. (Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega)]
TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE MECHANICS WORK GROUP.UM, WE ARE CONSIDERING, THIS SAYS WE'RE CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSITION LETTERING.
DIDN'T WE ALREADY VOTE ON THAT? WE DID, LIKE TWO OR THREE MEETINGS AGO.
SO WE, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE MECHANICS WORKING GROUP AT THIS TIME? NO.
[5. Discussion and possible action on the Petition Process Working Groups initial recommendation report on revisions to the petition process. (Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, and McGiverin)]
MOVE ON, UH, TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PETITION PROCESS WORKING GROUP.AND I KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE, UM, SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THEM, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN OUR MATERIALS HERE.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHICH OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE LEAD ON PROVIDING THE UPDATE FROM YOUR WORK GROUP? UM, I CAN BE PRETTY QUICK ABOUT THE, UH, I, I GUESS THEY'RE BOTH, THEY AREN'T LABELED DIFFERENTLY.
THE ONE WITH SMALLER FONT, IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT THAT WAY.
UM, THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT A FEW TIMES REGARDING THE NOTICE OF INTENT.
UM, I RESTRUCTURED PART OF IT A LITTLE BIT SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION FOR STANDARDIZED PETITION FORMS BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT POTENTIALLY, I MEAN, IT'S COUNCIL'S DECISION, BUT LIKELY WOULDN'T NEED TO BE, UM, SPECIFICALLY ON ITS OWN IN THE CHARTER.
AND SO REALLY THIS IS NOW, THIS, THE, THE VALIDITY OF A SIGNATURE IS NOW THE SUBJECT OF THE SENTENCE.
UM, IN THIS VERSION I DID, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, ADD IN LANGUAGE ABOUT, UM, A SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR PETITIONS, WHICH IS 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE BY WHICH AN ELECTION WOULD NEED TO BE CALLED, UM, FOR THAT UNIFORM ELECTION DATE IN EVEN YOUR NOVEMBERS, ASSUMING THAT THAT ALSO THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION'S PASSED ALSO GETS ONTO THE BALLOT AND IS APPROVED BY VOTERS.
UM, AND THEN I ADDED A SUBSECTION FOUR, WHICH REALLY JUST SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY CLERK WOULD NEED TO PERFORM THE WORK TO VERIFY, CERTIFY THAT PETITION IN TIME.
AND WITH 90 DAYS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, BUT ALSO WE INCLUDED LANGUAGE, UM, SAYING THAT SHOULD ADDITIONAL RESOURCES BE NEEDED FOR THE CITY CLERK'S PERMIT TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WORK THAT CITY COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO, OR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DIRECT THOSE RESOURCES.
NOW POTENTIALLY THERE, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS ABOUT, ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT RESOURCES MAY BE REQUIRED.
AND IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T POINT TO A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN RECENT PAST, BUT I THINK IT'S NOT A FAR STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION THAT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY A CITY MANAGER OR CITY COUNCIL IF THEY DIDN'T LIKE A PARTICULAR BALLOT ITEM.
THERE ARE WAYS TO INHIBIT THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS OF THAT.
UM, IF EXTRA RESOURCES ARE NEEDED, WE WANNA JUST MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT FROM THE CITY AS I BELIEVE THAT THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN, UM, TO ACTUALLY CERTIFY THAT IN TIME.
SO I DON'T NEED TO GO ON TOO LONG ABOUT THIS 'CAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH
AND SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE KIND OF THE HIGH LEVEL POLICY RECOMMENDATION, IT'S NUMBER ONE, A NOTICE OF INTENT, CORRECT.
AND NUMBER TWO IS THE WELL, IS THAT, IS THAT, YES.
SO BASICALLY, BASICALLY THIS IS SAYING THAT A SIGNATURE IS PART OF A PETITION TO THE EXTENT ALLOWABLE UNDER STATE LAW FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS, BUT DEFINITELY FOR VALID INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS AND RECALLS, UM, IS ONLY VALID IF IT'S SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, AFTER A FILED NOTICE OF, OF INTENT, WHICH INCLUDES VARIOUS THINGS, UM, THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT QUITE A BIT HERE.
UM, IT IS, YOU KNOW, A VALID SIGNATURE THAT IS ALREADY, UM, SORT OF IN SOME OF THESE THINGS IN THE, THE CHARTER IN STATE LAW IN TERMS OF WHAT MAKES A VALID SIGNATURE ON
[00:45:01]
A PETITION.BUT YOU CAN ADD EXTRA REQUIREMENTS TO THAT.
UM, AND THAT'S SUBMITTED ON A STANDARDIZED PETITION THAT IS PRESCRIBED BY THE CLERK STANDARDIZED PETITION FORM.
UM, AND I THINK, HONESTLY, I THINK THE VALUE OF THIS ULTIMATELY IS THE TRANS, SORRY, THE TRANSPARENCY.
BUT I THINK PART OF THE VALUE HERE IS THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE PETITIONERS WHO I'M CALLING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, FILING THAT NOTICE OF INTENT WHO ARE THEN RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING THAT PETITION TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE, REQUIRING THAT THOSE PETITIONERS BE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
BECAUSE CURRENTLY THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THERE, WE GET REALLY INTO THE WEEDS AND REALLY INTO THE MINUTIAE IN THIS RECOMMENDATION IN PARTICULAR.
BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS THAT THIS IS TRYING TO SOLVE.
NOT ONLY THE TRANSPARENCY PART OF IT, NOT ONLY MAKING SURE THAT THE CITY CLERK KNOWS WHAT'S COMING AND SO SHE CAN PLAN, UM, PLAN THE RESOURCES IN HER DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK THAT SHE NEEDS TO DO.
UM, BUT ALSO JUST TO, TO PROTECT THIS PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE, THERE ARE SOME GAPING FLAWS I THINK IN OUR CHARTER WHERE THAT'S CONCERNED.
SORRY TO WAX A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, BIGGER PICTURE AND POETIC ON IT.
BUT, UM, BUT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A LOT OF MINUTIAE IN HERE, I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL, THE FUNDAMENTAL PART HERE IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT IT'S AUSTINITES WHO ARE CHANGING AUSTIN CITY ORDINANCE AND THE AUSTIN CHARTER TO THE EXTENT ALLOWABLE BY STATE LAW.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME POTENTIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
I'M CERTAINLY NOT A, NOT A LEGAL EXPERT ON, ON STATE LAW AS IT CONCERNS, UM, BALLOT INITIATIVES IN GENERAL AND CHARTER AMENDMENTS IN PARTICULAR.
SO I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE TIMES WHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS RAISED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND AND STAFF ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS.
UM, BUT I'M HOPING THAT AT LEAST THIS LANGUAGE AS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO, TO CONVEY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT ALSO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNCIL IS THE ONE RECOMMENDING WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT AND THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS ALSO DRAFTING THAT LANGUAGE ULTIMATELY.
YEAH, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M WONDERING IF, I THINK THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS HELPFUL TO GIVE THEM AN IDEA OF WHAT WE WANT, BUT I'M WONDERING IF OUR ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION SHOULD KIND OF BE A POLICY LEVEL RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN HERE, UM, SO THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS KIND OF COMING AT A HIGHER LEVEL AND THEN THE COUNCIL HAS SOME, 'CAUSE I, I HAVE A FEELING THERE, YOU KNOW, THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE, ONCE IT GETS, UM, TO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY LEGAL WILL, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL BE REVISED.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR POLICY RECOMMENDATION IS CAPTURED AND WE CAN DO THAT THROUGH THE FINAL REPORT.
I MEAN, IF EVERYONE'S GENERALLY COMFORTABLE HERE WITH WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING, I THINK WE CAN BUILD THAT IN, YOU KNOW, THAT THE BROAD RECOMMENDATION IS A NOTICE OF INTENT, A STANDARD PETITION FORM, UM, AND THAT THERE'S SOME MECHANISM SO THAT THE REQUESTER, THE, THE PERSON WHO'S SUBMITTING THE PETITION KNOWS IF THEY'RE, WHAT THEIR DEADLINE IS TO MAKE IT ON THE BALLOT.
IS THAT KIND OF THE HIGH LEVEL? YES.
BUT I THINK THIS ALSO SOLVES A LITTLE BIT FOR SOME OF THOSE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THE, THE PETITIONERS WITH SUBMITTING THAT NOTICE OF INTENT, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD THEN NEED TO BE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN.
SO THAT SOLVES THE ISSUE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH, UM, WITH THE FACT THAT THAT LITERALLY ANYBODY COULD START AND FUND THAT PETITION RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND SO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS IN HERE SERVE THAT LARGER PURPOSE.
AND SO I DIDN'T LIKE, I, I UNDERSTAND I'M, YOU KNOW, NOT A FAN OF PUTTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF REALLY SPECIFIC THINGS IN THE CHARTER.
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.
UM, MAYBE I'M, I'M LEANING TOO MUCH ON OUR, OUR PRIVILEGE HERE IN THAT WE'RE ONLY MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL AS OPPOSED TO WRITING LANGUAGE FOR THE CHARTER OURSELVES.
BUT I DO THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO, TO CLARIFY SOME OF THOSE THINGS.
AND ALSO BECAUSE IT IS A, IT'S A COMPLICATED POLICY WHEN IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO IT BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT A LOT OF TIMING ISSUES.
YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, STAFF CAPACITY.
YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE WITH WHAT WE COULD DO AND WHAT'S FAIR AS WELL FOR BOTH PETITIONERS, FOR, FOR CITY COUNCIL, FOR STAFF, UM, AND FOR THE VOTERS.
UM, AND DOES IT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM? AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME REALLY SPECIFIC WAYS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM.
SO IT DOESN'T JUST BECOME EITHER A HURDLE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ATTEMPTING TO, UM, TO, UH, TO FILE THESE PETITIONS OR THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME MEANINGLESS AS WELL.
SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO AT LEAST LEAVE THAT IN THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO VOTE ON TODAY, TO LEAVE THAT SPECIFICITY IN THERE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THAT SPECIFIC SPECIFICITY IN THE FINAL REPORT TO COUNSEL AS WELL.
AND I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH HAVING THIS LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY IN THE FINAL REPORT.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE PRESENTATION TO COUNSEL, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA GET INTO THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL.
SO I WANNA, AND, AND I THINK WE CAN DO THIS IF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS ADOPTED.
I THINK WE CAN DO THIS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE FINAL REPORT
[00:50:01]
THAT WE ULTIMATELY APPROVE, JUST KIND OF MAKING SURE WE'RE CONVEYING THE HIGH LEVEL POLICY RECOMMENDATION.AND THEN WE CAN GET INTO THE SPECIFIC, AND, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AS FAR AS REVISIONS TO THE CHARLIE LANGUAGE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
AND I, I FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD BE REVISIONS TO THIS LANGUAGE.
'CAUSE THERE ARE PROBABLY ALSO CONSIDERATIONS THAT THAT MAY BE EITHER BROUGHT TO COUNCIL OR THAT COUNCIL THEMSELVES MAY HAVE, UM, THAT WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF EITHER.
SO, MADAM CHAIR, UM, IF I MAY, UH, JUST TO SORT OF TEST WHAT, UH, THE THOUGHT IS HERE, UM, WOULD, IF YOU PASS THE RECOMMENDATION, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO MAYBE SAYING IN THE CHARTER THAT THE COUNCIL MAY BY ORDINANCE THEN LAY OUT SOME OF THESE DETAILS SO THAT AS THIS GETS IMPLEMENTED, WE DON'T HAVE TO CONSTANTLY GO BACK TO AMENDING THE CHARTER TO MAKE CHANGES? WE CAN JUST DO THAT BY ORDINANCE FULLY.
AND I THINK IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT JUST PRESENTING EVERYTHING AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE ARE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND WE'RE NOT THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION.
UM, ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD BE A FUN COMMISSION, I WOULD LOVE TO BE ON THAT
UM, BUT, UM, BUT YES, I, I FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT A LOT OF THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO PUT IN THE CHARTER.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THE CHARTER AND THE THINKING THERE.
WE, WE DID DEBATE THIS KIND OF EARLY ON AND THE THINKING WAS IN THE FINAL REPORT, WE CAN POINT OUT TO COUNCIL, LIKE THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO GO IN THE CHARTER.
UM, BUT IF, IF IT DID, IF, IF THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL WOULD GO IN THE CHARTER, THIS WAS SORT OF WHAT WE WERE ENVISIONING JUST BECAUSE WE'RE COMING AT IT FROM A CHARTER REVIEW PERSPECTIVE.
BUT I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY THIS RECOMMENDATION AND OTHERS THAT WE'RE GONNA MAKE THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I THINK SOME OF THIS IS, IS CONFUSING TO ME AND LIKELY TO BE CONFUSING TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, SUBSECTION ONE, A LOT OF IT READS LIKE ITS INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PETITION ITSELF, NOT THE NOTICE OF INTENT, LIKE THE SIGNATURE WAS COLLECTED DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF A NOTICE OF INTENT.
SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARIFICATION ABOUT, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PETITION ITSELF, LIKE BEING ON A STANDARDIZED FORM.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NOTICE OF INTENT, SUBSECTION TWO I THINK IS REALLY CLEAR THAT THIS IS INFORMATION DISCLOSED ON A NOTICE OF INTENT.
UM, BUT SUBSECTION ONE SEEMS TO BE ABOUT THE PETITION ITSELF.
AM I MISUNDERSTANDING OR IT'S ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF A SIGNATURE ON THE PETITION, BECAUSE THAT IS THE, THAT'S SORT OF THE VEHICLE THAT ALLOWS US TO SAY THAT, WELL, A SIGNATURE ISN'T VALID IF IT WASN'T COLLECTED AFTER THIS NOTICE OF INTENT WAS FILED, IF IT WASN'T COLLECTED ON THE STANDARDIZED PETITION FORM.
SO I GUESS MAYBE THE TITLE FOR SUBSECTION ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT MAKES A SIGNATURE VALID? RIGHT.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT PROBABLY IS A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT BECAUSE I I I FEEL LIKE OTHERWISE, LIKE A, I I FEEL SILLY MAKING A CHARTER RECOMMENDATION THAT IS JUST USE A PETITION FORM RIGHT.
UM, HOWEVER, IF IT'S CRUCIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SIGNATURE, THEN IT MAKES SENSE TO SORT OF PACKAGE THOSE THINGS TOGETHER IN ONE PART OF THIS RECOMMENDATION.
BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT.
IT'S ABOUT THE PETITION THAT COMES AFTER A NOTICE OF INTENT THAT'S FILED.
AND MAYBE EVEN SUBSECTION TWO SHOULD BE BEFORE SUBSECTION ONE, UM, SINCE SUBSECTION TWO IS REALLY ABOUT THE NOTICE OF INTENT FULLY.
AND THE INFORMATION ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT.
I THINK ALMOST EVERYTHING ABOUT CHECKING THE VALIDITY OF SIGNATURES IS ALREADY BEING DONE, EXCEPT YOU WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S THE SIGNATURES ARE COLLECTED AFTER THE NOTICE OF INTENT IS FILED.
AND MY ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT A SIGNATURE IS NOT VALID IF IT WASN'T COLLECTED WHEN AN AFTER A NOTICE OF INTENT WAS FILED.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I SORT OF, BUT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, REFRAMED IT LIKE THAT, LIKE 20 THINGS HERE, NOT JUST, IT HAS TO BE AFTER THE NOTICE OF INTENT WAS FILED.
I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S A LOT SUPPOSED BE, I, I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE THAT I CAN'T BE EDITED, SO I FEEL LIKE IF, IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATE FEEL, FEEL FREE.
BUT, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I, I DO FEEL LIKE THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO, TO PUT IN WRITING AND TO BE CONSIDERED AND HOPEFULLY TO MAKE IT ALL INTO A REPORT BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL, EVERY SPECIFIC THING ON HERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE, WE'VE CONSIDERED IN MAYBE MORE DEPTH THAN, THAN WE MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE.
BUT I THINK THAT THEY'RE ALL IMPORTANT TO THIS PROCESS.
SO COMMISSIONER MCGINN, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD
[00:55:01]
IN, IN PART AS AN EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE TO MY WORK GROUP COLLEAGUE FOR HAVING DONE SO MUCH FOR THE HEAVY LIFTING AND DRAFTING ALL OF THIS, UM, MY TAKE IS THAT YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT WITH RESPECT TO MAYBE CHANGING THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION BECAUSE IT IS MORE OF LIKE AN OMNIBUS COLLECTION OF STEPS.WELL, YEAH, A NUMBER, A NUMBER OF, OF, UH, MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL PROCESS.
UM, I FEEL LIKE THE BODY OF THIS, ALL OF THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME.
THE ONE POINT WHERE THERE MAY BE A, A TWEAK WARRANTED, I THINK PROBABLY WOULD JUST BE THE TITLE AND MAKING IT SOMETHING MORE EXPANSIVE THAN NOTICE OF INTENT, THOUGH.
I ALSO TAKE OUR CHAIR'S POINT THAT THE COUNCIL MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE SOME OR ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE.
AND I DO, I DO THINK IT'S VERY USEFUL TO PRESENT IT THIS WAY BECAUSE I PERSONALLY CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER WAY TO PRESENT THIS DENSITY OF INFORMATION OR THIS COMPLEXITY IN LIKE A SUCCINCT WAY.
AND I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU'RE LIKE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS, IT'S HARD TO LIKE REALLY GET INTO THE DETAIL UNTIL YOU GET INTO THE DETAIL.
AND SO I THINK AS IF, IF NOTHING ELSE IS A DEMONSTRATIVE OR AS A VERY CONCISE WAY TO EXPLAIN ALL THESE IDEAS IS, IS VALUABLE.
BUT YES, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCIL MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY ADOPT THE VERBATIM LANGUAGE, BUT SO AS ANOTHER PERSON ON THE WORK GROUP, THOSE WERE MY THOUGHTS.
AND JUST AS A PRACTICAL POINT, IF WE APPROVE, IF, IF WE APPROVE THIS DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, CAN WE STILL MAKE NIS AND EDITS? YES.
WE'LL HAVE, WHEN OUR FINAL REPORT, IT, UH, COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY SLATED FOR MARCH 21ST, IS WHEN WE'RE GONNA BE VOTING ON OUR FINAL REPORT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WILL OBVIOUSLY AT THAT POINT HAVE WHATEVER KIND OF CHANGES WE NEED TO MAKE IN THE LANGUAGE.
UM, WE CAN REVIEW THEM AND, AND IMPROVE THE FINAL LANGUAGE AT THAT TIME.
I, I MEAN, IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, SO JUST IN MOTION
I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT THAT.
COMMISSIONER COS MOVES TO APPROVE.
COMMISSIONER DWYER, I THINK YOU WERE FIRST.
ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, THE RECOMMENDATION PASSES.
SO WE'LL INCLUDE THAT IN THE FINAL REPORT.
WE, UM, WAJIHA IS GONNA BE WORKING WITH US ON DRAFTING THE FINAL REPORT AND SO, UM, WE MAY, SO THE ASK HER TO GET IN TOUCH DIRECTLY WITH YOU SO THAT YOU CAN TWEAK THE LANGUAGE.
IS THERE ANY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE PETITION WORKING GROUP? YES.
WE HAVE TAKE THREE OF THE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD PROPOSAL.
UM, SO THE PROPOSAL, Y'ALL, EXCUSE ME, THE BACKGROUND PIECE THAT Y'ALL RECEIVED YESTERDAY IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE FIRST OF THE THREE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, EXCEPT THAT IT SUBS OUT 3.5% FOR, UH, THE POTENTIAL NEW THRESHOLD AS OPPOSED TO 5%, WHICH WOULD PRACTICALLY SPEAKING HOLD US IN THE CURRENT YEAR OR THE YEAR THAT WE, WE WERE GIVEN NUMBERS FOR FROM MYRNA TO AROUND 20,000, WHICH IS THE CURRENT LEVEL.
UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REALLY WE THOUGHTFUL, UH, GENERATIVE GOOD FAITH DISCUSSION ON THIS.
AND UM, ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE A GOOD READ ON EVERYONE'S OPINIONS HERE, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS WHO FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CHANGE THE THRESHOLD FROM THE CURRENT IN PRACTICE 20,000 TO A PERCENTAGE THAT CAN GROW OVER TIME.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT APPROACH, UH, AND THAT THE MAJOR CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN VOICED ARE THAT DOING SO MIGHT, UH, DISENFRANCHISE OR, UM, RAISE THE PRICE TO STEEPLY FOR GRASSROOTS GROUPS ONE AND TWO, UH, MIGHT INCENTIVIZE PETITIONERS TO MOVE FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY CHARTER IF THERE WAS A DIFFERENT, A DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED.
UM, I'M SORRY WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE VOTE ON IT CONCLUSIVELY SINCE IT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AND ONE THAT WE WERE ASKED TO CONSIDER.
SO MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT WE GO THROUGH A SERIES OF VOTES TONIGHT, A VOTE ORAMA, UM, THAT WOULD START WITH THE FIRST PROPOSAL THAT WAS MADE, THE SIMPLE 5% CHANGE.
UM, AND THEN IF THAT FAILS, MOVE TO THE 3.5% CHANGE.
IF THAT FAILS, THEN TURN TO THE 5% TRIGGER THAT WAS OFFERED IN THE
[01:00:01]
LAST UH, MEETING.AND IF THAT FAILS, WE CAN, UH, LOOK TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO THERE.
BUT, UM, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO SORT OF THE, THE POLICY DISCUSSION, UH, ARE THERE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT PROCESS? I THINK THAT WORKS FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT.
WE WILL JUST NEED MOTIONS AND SECONDS TO GET EVERYTHING KICKED OFF, BUT WE CAN KIND OF, WHOEVER WANTS TO MAKE THE MOTION, UM, WE CAN START, START GOING THROUGH THEM.
AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE MY OWN MOTION OR IS IT JUST A MATTER OF DECORUM THAT I DON'T NO, GO FOR IT.
WELL LET'S START THEN WITH A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE FIRST, UH, PIECE OF BACKUP WE RECEIVED SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY CHANGING THE CURRENT, UH, THRESHOLD FOR INITIATIVES.
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA FROM 5% OR 20,000 TO 5%.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND, MR. COS? ALL IN FAVOR? WELL, DISCUSSION.
DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION? SORRY, I WAS GONNA ASK THANK YOU.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA OPPOSE THIS.
I'M NOT GONNA VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
LEAVE THE DISCUSSION FOR THE OTHER PROPOSALS.
BUT FUNDAMENTALLY IT DOES CONCERN ME IF WE'RE, WE'RE RAISING A THRESHOLD BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE CHARTER, WE CAN'T RAISE THE CHARTER THRESHOLD.
AND SO THAT, I BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT.
I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS.
I THINK JCS, UM, SUMMED UP SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS.
UM, I THINK WE'VE HAD A LOT OF THAT DISCUSSION, BUT I DID JUST ALSO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I THINK MAYBE SOME OF MY DISCUSSION IS GONNA COME UP FOR THE 3.5% PROPOSAL, BUT JUST WANTED TO, TO TELEGRAPH THAT AND JUST LET FOLKS KNOW THAT THAT'S MY, MY PRIMARY CONCERN WITH IT.
THAT AND THE FACT THAT DON'T THINK THAT IT'S THAT, ANYWAY, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A PERCENTAGE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS.
I HADN'T RAISED MY HAND, BUT, OH, I, I'M SORRY.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER VAN MANON.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE? OKAY.
ALL OPPOSED? OKAY, SO THAT MOTION FAILS.
DO YOU WANNA MOVE ON TO THE SECOND MOTION? MOVING ON.
CAN WE PLEASE, UH, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR A VOTE ON THE CURRENT PIECE OF PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH IS THE CHANGE TO 3.5%.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER ALANO SECONDS DISCUSSION.
UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, ALTHOUGH THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW, IF THE POPULATION OR THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS, UM, IS WHAT THE CLERK SAYS BY THE TIME ANOTHER PETITION IS SUBMITTED, THE INTENT OF USING A PERCENT IS TO MAKE IT HARDER TO DO PETITIONS OVER TIME.
UM, AND BECAUSE THIS IS A CITY THAT IS GROWING, UM, SO I OPPOSE MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO PETITIONS, EVEN IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S INTENDED TO HAVE THAT EFFECT.
I MEAN, SOMETIMES THEY SAY AUSTIN DOUBLES IN POPULATION EVERY 10 YEARS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY GROWING THAT FAST RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S LIKE SAYING WE'RE GONNA GO TO 40,010 YEARS FROM NOW AND OR WHENEVER WE REACH THAT LARGER POPULATION.
SO I DON'T THINK, I WON'T SUPPORT THAT.
IT ALSO HAS THAT OTHER EFFECT THAT OVER TIME IT WILL MAKE IT PREFERABLE TO DO, UM, CHANGES TO THE CHARTER INSTEAD OF AN ORDINANCE, WHICH IN SOME INSTANCES ISN'T REALLY WHAT WE WANNA SUPPORT.
I ACTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'M A BIG SUPPORTER OF A PERCENTAGE.
UM, I TALKED MYSELF OUT OF THE 5% AFTER THE LAST MEETING, SO I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS PROPOSAL OF THREE AND A HALF PERCENT BECAUSE I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE PERSONALLY THAT CHANGING IT TO A PERCENTAGE INTENT IS TO MAKE IT HARDER.
I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY BROAD BRUSH STATEMENT TO MAKE.
I THINK THAT WE ARE A GROWING CITY AND WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME MEASURES IN PLACE TO TAKE BACK INTO ACCOUNT.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA BE LIKE 10 YEARS FROM NOW.
I MEAN, WE COULD BE THE SAME POPULATION AND THEN NOTHING'S CHANGED.
THE STATE LAW COULD CHANGE IN 10 YEARS, AND THEN WE'RE THE ONES THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE STUFF BEHIND.
SO I PERSONALLY WILL BE IN, IN SUPPORT OF THE 3.5% COMMISSIONER VAN MANON.
SO, ANOTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, UM, IT'S NOT MY PRIMARY REASON FOR OPPOSING A PERCENTAGE.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, THERE ARE MORE SUBSTANTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER LIKE TO WHAT EXTENT THE POPULATION ITSELF WOULD BE, UM, SHOULD BE A FACTOR.
IF IT'S THE ONLY FACTOR, WHICH PERCENTAGE MAKES IT THE ONLY FACTOR IN, IN, UM, CREATING THAT, THAT THRESHOLD.
BUT I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE, THE NUMBER OF SUSPEND
[01:05:01]
THE NUMBER OF, UM, QUALIFIED VOTERS.SO THE CITY OF AUSTIN FLUCTUATES PRETTY WILDLY BECAUSE THE SUSPENSE LIST FLUCTUATES PRETTY WILDLY.
UM, SO I BELIEVE MARINA, YOU PULLED IT IN, UM, JANUARY, THAT'S RIGHT BEFORE THE VOTER REGISTRATION DEADLINE, WHICH MEANS AT THAT POINT, UM, I, I CAN'T RECALL IF IT WAS THE STATE OF TEXAS OR IF IT WAS JUST TRA I THINK IT WAS JUST TRAVIS COUNTY.
THE SIZE OF THE SUSPENSE LIST IN TRAVIS COUNTY WAS ABOUT 18% OF REGISTERED VOTERS, WHICH IS NUTS.
AND, AND BELIEVE ME, IT FREAKED ME OUT WHEN I HEARD THAT PERCENTAGE OF LIKE THE SIZE OF THE SUSPENSE LIST.
BUT WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS IS PEOPLE WERE REGISTERING TO VOTE, RIGHT? IT WAS, THAT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE VOTER REGISTRATION DEADLINE.
SO IF YOU CHECK THAT SUSPENSE LIST AFTER THE ELECTION, RIGHT? 'CAUSE A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS ARE STILL GONNA BE ABLE TO VOTE IN, IN ON MARCH 5TH, UM, THAT NUMBER IS GONNA BE DIFFERENT.
SO THAT IS ALSO NOT IN ITSELF A STABLE NUMBER.
AND I WORRY THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT, THERE'S GOING TO BE CONFUSION FOR THAT, PARTICULARLY IF SOMEONE'S COLLECTING SIGNATURES OVER SIX MONTHS BECAUSE THAT NUMBER COULD CHANGE WILDLY OVER THOSE SIX MONTHS.
AND WHEN I SAY WILDLY, I MEAN POTENTIALLY BY FOUR OR 5,000 PEOPLE.
MR. MCN, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ADD BRIEFLY, I'M ALSO GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS FOR A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT REASON, WHICH IS, I MEAN, I THINK IN A VACUUM, A PERCENTAGE, IF, IF WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT BEING ABLE TO OPPOSE AN INCENTIVE, A PERCENTAGE, I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE.
YOU KNOW, IF WE ASSUME THAT A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF RESIDENTS LIKE THAT, THERE SHOULD BE A THRESHOLD, THEN IT MAKES, IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO ALLOW THAT TO BE OUTPACED BY THE INFLATION OF OUR POPULATION.
AND FOR THAT SAME REASON, I THINK IN A VACUUM, A FLAT NUMBER REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT IN A VACUUM, YOU KNOW, THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN US THIS RESTRICTION POISON PILL ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT FOR THE CHART, FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS, WE ARE LIMITED TO 20,000.
AND SO AS MUCH AS I THINK THERE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY MERIT TO ATTACHING THIS, ATTACHING A PERCENTAGE OF THIS REQUIREMENT, UM, I JUST IN LIGHT OF THE, WHAT STATE LAW SAYS ABOUT CHARTER AMENDMENTS, I THINK THAT THIS EFFORT ULTIMATELY, EITHER IT ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING OR ACCOMPLISH IT, IS JUST FOLLY BECAUSE IT'LL EITHER, EITHER THE POPULATION WON'T CHANGE AND IT'LL STAY AT 20% FUNCTIONALLY OR 20,000.
AND SO WE'LL, YOU KNOW, BE AT THE SAME PLACE OR POPULATION WILL INCREASE AND IT'LL JUST CHANNEL THINGS INTO THE CHARTER, WHICH MAY NOT BE THE END OF THE WORLD.
AND AGAIN, IT'S A FATAL FLAW ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING BY CHANGING THE BALLOT PORTION OF THIS TO A PERCENTAGE.
SO I SHARE YOUR CONCERN, HOWEVER, I'VE COME TO A DIFFERENT ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.
THE REASON IS WITH THE 3.5%, AND THE REASON IS THAT COUNSEL HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SEE A DURABLE THRESHOLD.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF THE CHARTER, YOU KNOW, SENDING PEOPLE TO THE CHARTER FOR AMENDMENTS.
BUT I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL, I THINK IF WE SEND IT UP TO COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT WITH A FULL EXPLANATION OF OUR CONCERNS.
AND I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL AND CITY LEGAL IS IN A BETTER POSITION THAN WE ARE TO KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO HAVE THAT UNINTENDED, IF OUR AMENDMENT IS GONNA HAVE THAT UNINTENDED EFFECT.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF I WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD VOTE ON PUTTING THIS ON THE BALLOT OR NOT, BUT WHERE I'VE LANDED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THEY ASKED TO SEE.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
UM, AND I THINK WE NEED TO SHARE THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION WITH THEM.
AND IF THAT IS DONE IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF SENDING THIS TO THE VOTERS THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, WITH PASSING IT, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'VE LANDED.
I WONDER IF THE SAME THING COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY COMMUNICATING TO COUNCIL THAT WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE DECIDED NOT TO RECOMMEND THIS FOR THESE REASONS.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO, TO DO THIS COUNCIL, THIS WOULD BE THE LEAST FOOLISH OF THE FOOLISH OPTIONS.
AND, BUT I MEAN, I THINK THERE IS A WAY TO PERHAPS FRAME IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT, UH, I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU.
THAT'S A QUESTION I THINK FOR YOU MR. FOGGO IS, I MEAN, IF WE CAN THE COUNSEL PUT, DECIDE IF WE DON'T RECOMMEND SOMETHING, COULD THEY STILL DECIDE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT OR, OH, SURE.
SO THAT'S NOT LIMITED BY, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT COMES FROM STAFF OR A RECOMMENDATION THAT COMES FROM THE COMMISSION.
THE COUNCIL COULD DECIDE TO SURE.
[01:10:01]
LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU ALL ON WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.I THOUGHT I HAD MY MIND MADE UP.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF I COULD JUST RESPOND TO ONE ARGUMENT THAT WAS RAISED.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE INTENT OF A 3.5% IS NOT TO MAKE IT HARDER TO DO PETITIONS.
WE WOULD'VE PASSED A 5% IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED.
UM, IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A DURABLE REPRESENTATION OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF POLITICAL WILL BEHIND ANY GIVEN PETITION.
ALSO, I, YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THIS PROBABLY EVERY SINGLE MEETING THAT COMING IN HERE, I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO NEED TO RAISE THIS THRESHOLD BECAUSE IT SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF HAVING THESE ELECTIONS ON, YOU KNOW, ONE BALLOT ITEM IN A 7% MAY ELECTION, 7% TURNOUT MAY ELECTION.
AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM.
THE PROBLEM THAT'S, I FEEL LIKE FOR ME, THAT WAS A VERY KNEE JERK REACTION TO, TO SEEING THAT PROBLEM.
BUT SINCE BEING ON THIS COMMISSION, SINCE TALKING TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS SINCE VOTING ON, FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THOSE ELECTIONS TO IN YOUR NOVEMBER ELECTIONS, UM, I FEEL LIKE THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS.
AND SO I WOULD JUST WANT TO PUT OUT THERE THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CHANGING THE THRESHOLD BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST A MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION.
RIGHT? UM, I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGING THE THRESHOLD IS THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT OR THAT WE COULD LOOK AT OR THAT WE COULD RECOMMEND OR ADDRESS.
SO THAT'S ALSO PART OF MY REASONING FOR THIS, IS THAT EXPANDING MY VIEW A LITTLE BIT, I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IF WE JUST LOOK AT IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, WHICH HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE ON THIS AND, AND THE EXPERIENCE OF A FEW OTHER PEOPLE THAT I'VE TALKED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS, BOTH CASUALLY AND MORE FORMALLY AS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP OR, OR IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES.
SO, MADAM CHAIR, UM, IF, IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES NOT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ASKED FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON, YOU COULD ALWAYS EXPLAIN IN YOUR REPORT WHY YOU'RE NOT MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION AND THAT YOU THINK THIS POLICY QUESTION IS ADDRESSED BY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU HAVE MADE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE? I JUST SAID ONE FINAL THOUGHT ON, ON THE ISSUE IS THAT BY NOT RAISING THE THRESHOLD, THAT MAKES GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE MORE, HAVE THE, THE FOOTING THAT THEY NEED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT TO GET DONE.
DOESN'T THAT ALSO MAKE IT EASIER FOR FUNDED NON GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION TO GET WHAT THEY WANT DONE? DOESN'T IT MAKE IT THAT MUCH EASIER FOR THEM? COMMISSIONER VAN? I WOULD JUST, I THINK THAT THAT'S A, A GOOD, YOU KNOW, SORT OF TEST TO LOOK AT FOR THIS.
AND, AND I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT A LOT, BUT I THINK THAT RAISING THE THRESHOLD DOESN'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR THOSE, THOSE WELL FUNDED GROUPS.
BUT MAKING IT NOT INCREASING, IT ALSO DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY HARDER FOR THEM.
NO, BUT IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR THE GRASSROOTS GROUPS, SO IT MAKES IT HARDER.
SO FOR THE TWO GROUPS THAT WERE MENTIONED, IT ONLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR ONE OF THEM AND IT'S THE, THE FOLKS WITH LESS MONEY.
IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR FOLKS WITH MONEY.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'S EASIER FOR FOLKS WITH MONEY EITHER WAY.
LIKE IF THE SIGN, THE AMOUNT OF SIGNATURES YOU COLLECT IS A FUNCTION OF THE MONEY THAT YOU HAVE HIGHER CAN, RIGHT.
SO THE, THE MORE MONEY YOU HAVE, THE MORE SIGNATURES YOU CAN COLLECT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A THRESHOLD THAT IS REALISTIC.
LIKE UNLESS WE'RE LIKE, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR SOMETHING, UM, THAT WOULD STOP THE, THE MONEYED INTERESTS IN PARTICULAR.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY.
AM I COUNTING CORRECTLY? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
UH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, 1, 2, 3, 4.
WOULD WE, LIKE COMMISSIONER, WE ARE MISSING A COMMISSIONER AND WE ARE TIED THE TEXT
ALL RIGHT, MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK, JUST AS A, A PROCESS POINT, UH, ONCE A MOTION FAILS, CAN IT BE BROUGHT BACK IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WITH AMENDMENTS OR JUST, UH, IN THE SAME FORM? I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF COMMISSIONER BOT BOTKIN DOES WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN THIS MATTER, MAYBE YES.
I DON'T SEE WHY IT COULD BE BROUGHT BACK.
I DON'T APPEAR VEXATIOUS
I MEAN, IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE BROUGHT BACK.
UM, AND JUST TO KIND OF WRAP THIS UP, I MEAN, I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE EITHER WAY WE
[01:15:01]
ARE GOING TO WANT TO ADDRESS THIS IN OUR FINAL REPORT.IT'S CLEAR BY THE VOTE TODAY, UM, THAT WE ARE CONFLICTED ON THIS ISSUE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER EMOTIONS RELATED TO THE PETITION PROCESS WORKING GROUP AT THIS TIME? OR OTHER UPDATES OR DISCUSSION? OKAY.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX,
[6. Discussion and possible action on Recall Petitions Work Group recommendations. (Commissioner Van Maanen)]
WHICH IS DIS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE RECALL PETITIONS WORKING GROUP.UM, SO FIRST BACK UP ITEM ONE IS THE, THE SHORTER INITIAL PARAGRAPH.
UM, THIS IS LARGELY WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE PREVIOUS MEETING WITH, UM, WITH ESSENTIALLY REQUIRING PETITIONERS FOR THE RECALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER, A MAYOR TO ABIDE BY THE SAME OR SIM YOU KNOW, SIMILAR BUT WORKABLE, UM, CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT CANDIDATES FOR COUNCIL CAN, THERE ARE STILL, IN MY MIND, THERE ARE DEFINITELY STILL SOME OPEN LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
LIKE, I'M NOT, I'M NOT CERTAIN, BECAUSE MOST OF THESE ARE GONNA BE PACS, THEY'RE GONNA BE GENERAL PACS, GENERAL PURPOSE PACS.
I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT OF THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO, TO LIMIT THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
MAYBE THEY CAN FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, I'M NOT SURE.
BUT I'VE ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A, YOU KNOW, AN ANY ANSWER ON THAT
UM, AND SO THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF CHANGE TO THIS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LAST TIME THAT I PROPOSED IT IN OUR, IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THAT THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT I'M PROPOSING HERE, WHICH AGAIN MAY CHANGE IN THE FINAL REPORT, IT MAY CHANGE FROM WHATEVER COUNSEL RECOMMENDS IF THEY DECIDE TO ADOPT THIS.
UM, I, I DO THINK THAT LANGUAGE AT LEAST ALLOWS FOR THE FACT THAT IT MAY BE POSSIBLE AND IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE.
AND THERE COULD BE CHALLENGES.
IT COULD SEEM TO BE POSSIBLE, AND THEN THERE COULD BE CHALLENGES THAT SHOW THAT IT'S NOT LEGALLY.
UM, REGARDLESS, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART AT LEAST, IS, IS THE REQUIREMENT TO REPORT.
OBVIOUSLY IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE A PAC, UM, IF THEY'RE A PAC SPENDING MONEY ON SOMETHING ON A BALLOT, THEY, THEY CERTAINLY WOULD ALREADY BE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT.
BUT IT'S REALLY WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE AN ITEM'S ON THE PACK, OR SORRY, ON THE BALLOT, IF THERE ARE A NEW PACK.
ARE THESE, ARE THESE EXPENDITURES REPORTED? I WOULD LIKE TO ENSHRINE IN THE, IN THE CHARTER THAT THEY SHOULD BE.
AND THEN YOU, I MAY HAVE MISSED WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE WAS, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS ALSO AN INCREASE ON THE THRESHOLD.
THE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD FOR RECALL? YEAH, THAT'S ITEM TWO.
I MIGHT HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THE WRONG, SO I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT NOW, BUT WE MIGHT WANT TO NO, I DON'T WANNA GET US AHEAD OF, SORRY, I JUST HAD THE WRONG YEAH, JUST IT'S THE ONE, IT'S ACTUALLY THE THICKER OF THE TWO PROPOSALS, ONLY BECAUSE I PUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE IN THE CHARTER FOR CANDIDATE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE BACK.
JUST FOR REFERENCE, COMMISSIONER VAN MANON CITY LEGAL HAS NOT BEEN A, OH, WHAT'S UP? YEAH.
COMMISSIONER VAN MANON, UH, JUST TO GO BACK, I WOULD, I SUBSTANTIVELY LIKE THIS RECOMMENDATION, WANNA SUPPORT IT.
UH, HAVE YOU RECEIVED NO GUIDANCE FROM CITY LAW BECAUSE IT IS AN AREA OF LAW THAT IS TOO MYSTERIOUS TO RECEIVE GUIDANCE FROM
UM, AND HER RESPONSE WAS ESSENTIALLY THAT SHE'S, SHE'S GETTING SOME PEOPLE SAYING, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE.
AND OTHER PEOPLE SAYING, I THINK IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, NO DEFINITE ANSWERS EITHER WAY, EVEN IF THEY'RE CONFLICTING RESPONSES.
UM, AND I'VE SORT OF MYSELF KIND OF ASKED A FEW PEOPLE WHO I WOULD CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, CAMPAIGN FINANCE EXPERTS, MAYBE SOME OF THEM ARE NOT LAWYERS, SOME OF THEM ARE.
UM, AND ALSO NO, LIKE CONSENSUS OR STRONG LIKE CERTAINTY OR FEELINGS OF CERTAINTY ON IT.
UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S ENOUGH HESITATION THERE TO WORRY ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE.
UM, WHETHER THE CITY COULD RESTRICT CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY PAX FOR THIS PURPOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I DID WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S EASY FOR US TO, WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS, TO, TO ESSENTIALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, COPY THE, THE CANDIDATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND, AND PASTE THOSE IN AND JUST CHANGE THE WORD, UM, TO, UH, TO, YOU KNOW, ENTITIES THAT ARE SEEKING TO RECALL A CAN, A COUNCIL MEMBER
[01:20:01]
OR MAYOR.SO I GUESS IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE MYSTERIOUSNESS OKAY.
SO WE, WE WILL BE TRAILBLAZING AND WE MAY TRAIL BLAZE INTO A CLIFF THAT SAID, I FEEL LY I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE SUBSTANCE AND DIRECTION OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SO IS IT JUST YOU WANT THE RULES TO BE THE SAME FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO RECALL AS FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO GET SOMEONE ELECTED THE SAME, THE SAME AS AMOUNT OF OUT OF ZIP CODE CONTRIBUTIONS THE SAME, IT'S ESSENTIALLY CONTRIBUTION, BUT THERE'S NOT THE SAME CONTRIBUTION LIMIT.
OR LIKE RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, IT SAYS 300, BUT IT'S REALLY FOUR 50 RIGHT NOW, UM, PER CONTRIBUTOR.
YOU WANT ALL OF THAT THE SAME FOR CONTRIBUTIONS, OR IT'S NOT REALLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S A PACT DOING THE WORK AND NOT A CANDIDATE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
THAT MAKES IT SORT OF LIKE, CAN WE DO THAT? I DON'T KNOW.
MAYBE NEIL HAS SOME THOUGHTS ON IT, BUT
UM, BUT THAT, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE THOUGHT.
AND, YOU KNOW, CANDIDATES AND, AND PACS AND COMMITTEES ARE, ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY OF, OR QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT LIMIT THAT.
WELL, AND I THINK TOO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ANOTHER, I DON'T WANNA PUT
AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CITY LEGAL IS GONNA BE LOOKING AT MORE CLOSELY ONCE IT GOES IN OUR REPORT AND WHEN IT'S PRESENTED TO COUNSEL.
UM, SO I MEAN, I, I FEEL COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING WITH KIND OF AN UNCLEAR ANSWER ON THE LEGAL SIDE, JUST BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S STILL TIME FOR THAT, THOSE PIECES TO BE WORKED OUT.
COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, I AGREE WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE TOO.
UM, WHILE ALSO DISCLAIMING ANY EXPERTISE WHATSOEVER IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, I GET THE IMPRESSION IT'S AN EVOLVING AREA OF THE LAW.
I MEAN, I, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE CITY FELT THAT THE REGULATIONS THEY HAD IN PLACE THAT WERE STRUCK DOWN BY ZURU AND V THE CITY OF AUSTIN WERE LEGAL WHEN THEY PASSED THEM.
AND SO I, I DO GET THE IMPRESSION IT'S AN EVOLVING AREA OF THE LAW AND I THINK THAT WHETHER TO TREAD INTO THAT TERRITORY IS GONNA BE LIKE A POLICY DECISION BASED IN PART ON WHAT THEY THINK THE STRENGTH IS AND ALSO SORT OF THEIR APPETITE TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THAT AT PERHAPS THE EXPENSE OF LITIGATION.
LIKE THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S A POLICY DECISION.
SO I, I AGREE IT MAKES SENSE TO SAY THIS WOULD BE GREAT.
AND THEN LET THEM DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO ROLL THE DICE.
COMMISSIONER LASH, SIR, I JUST HAVE THE QUESTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG HAD ABOUT THE $300 VERSUS THE FOUR 50? OH, THAT'S, UM, INFLATION, IT'S ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO INFLATION.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S FOUR 50, SO IT'S JUST IN THE CHARTER IT'S BASICALLY FOUR 50.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT IT SAYS FOR YEAH, IT'S GOT, IT'S INDEXED TO FOR INFLATION.
AND SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S ROUGHLY FOUR 50 OR IT IS FOUR 50, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, BUT WE DO HAVE AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HERE WHO, UM, WAS SHAKING HIS HEAD.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HIS OPINION EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T GONE TO COURT OVER THIS YET.
UM, SO YEAH, THIS IS A UNCLEAR AREA OF LAW, SO I WOULD SAY LET US HEAR FROM THE COMMISSION ON WHAT YOU RECOMMEND AND THEN LET US WORK OUT THE DETAILS.
WE'LL GO BACK AND HAVE A, A FULL DEBATE ON THIS IN OUR OFFICE AND THEN TALK WITH THE COUNCIL ABOUT IT AND SEE WHAT THEIR, UH, THOUGHTS ON IT ARE.
YOU'RE MOVING TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION? YES.
UH, BACKUP ITEM NUMBER ONE CONTAINED IN BACKUP ITEM NUMBER ONE FROM THE RECALL PETITION WORKING GROUP.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? RANDY? I'D SECOND
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY SHE'S NOT FINE.
[01:25:01]
THAT'S ON BACKUP ITEM NUMBER TWO.UH, DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL A VOTE? NO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? NONE OPPOSED.
AND SO NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO BACKUP ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE INCREASING THE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD FOR RECALL PETITIONS COMMISSIONER VAN MANON.
SO, YOU KNOW, I DID, I DID PROVIDE WHAT I FEEL IS EXTENSIVE BACKUP, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS PASS THE PASS OUR VOTE TODAY? SHOULD IT BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL REPORT? CERTAINLY THAT CAN BE EDITED, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, AND I'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT BEFORE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, WHY I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF WANTING TO STRENGTHEN OUR INSTITUTIONS AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD BE, I KEEP USING THE WORD ABUSED, UM, BY PEOPLE WITH, YOU KNOW, ILL INTENTIONS OR, OR PEOPLE WHO ARE HOPING TO USE RECALL AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A LAST RESORT TO ACHIEVE POLICY ENDS.
BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL STEPS IN THAT PROCESS, RIGHT? AND WHEN YOU'RE REMOVING SOMEBODY'S REPRESENTATION, THAT SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT.
I THINK THAT RECALL'S ALWAYS BEEN DESIGNED TO BE A LAST RESORT AND NOT TO BE SORT OF A POLICY FIX.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS OUT THERE FROM ACADEMICS AND FROM OTHER FOLKS SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE LIKE A REALLY CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT A COUNCIL MEMBER COULD BE RECALLED FOR AND WHAT THEY COULDN'T BE.
I ACTUALLY DISAGREE BECAUSE I, I THINK A LOT OF THAT'S SUBJECTIVE.
I COULD ARGUE THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER IS, IS DERELICT OF THEIR DUTY OR, OR, YOU KNOW, FAILING TO DO THEIR JOB ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE POLICIES THAT THEY VOTE FOR.
UM, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A BUILT-IN PROCESS ABSENCE OF AN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCE TO REMOVE A COUNCIL MEMBER OUTSIDE OF A RECALL.
AND IT'S THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.
AND IN FACT, IN AUSTIN, WE ALSO HAVE TERM LIMITS AS WELL.
SO THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT STUCK FOREVER WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH.
UM, BUT I'LL ALSO, YOU KNOW, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THEY AGREE WITH.
UM, RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, I, I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS FROM, YOU KNOW, AN INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN PERSPECTIVE ESSENTIALLY.
UM, AND WANTING TO STRENGTHEN RECALL IS, IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT FOR AUSTINITES IS PRESERVED FOR THEM.
BUT AGAIN, AS A LAST RESORT, AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE CHARTER CURRENTLY DOES THAT FOR A FEW REASONS.
NAMELY, IT'S KIND OF THE SAME ISSUE AS WE HAVE WITH THE OTHER PETITIONS.
YOU DON'T, YOU COULD START A RECALL PETITION.
UM, YOU COULD SUBMIT THOSE SIGNATURES WITHOUT EVEN BEING A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT, OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO RECALL.
SO I FEEL LIKE THAT IS NUMBER ONE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE HAVE TO FIX.
BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THAT'S FIXED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE PASSED WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENT.
BUT SECONDLY, AGAIN, I FEEL STRONGLY FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, BUT IN TALKING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK THAT'S CONFIRMED.
I THINK YOU MAY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT, UM, CHAIR PINO PREVIOUSLY WHEN THIS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE 2018 COMMISSION, UM, IT'S ALSO JUST, IT WAS JUST NOT UPDATED WHEN WE MOVED TO TEN ONE.
THE 10% THRESHOLD WAS A POLICY DESIGNED FOR AN AT LARGE COUNCIL, WHICH AT THE TIME, UM, SO I LOOKED UP THE, THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE TIME IN NOVEMBER, 2012 WHEN, UM, TEN ONE WAS PASSED, AND IT WAS ABOUT 50,000.
IT WAS A LITTLE UNDER 50,000 SIGNATURES.
50,000 IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT 10% REPRESENTS IN EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT TODAY.
AND AS I'VE DISCUSSED, ALSO AT LENGTH IS SOMETHING THAT I, THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS, BUT I STILL FEEL FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN PERSPECTIVE IS PROBLEMATIC.
UM, THERE IS SUCH A VARIANCE, SUCH A WIDE VARIANCE IN THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED VOTERS PER DISTRICT THAT YOU HAVE ONE COUNCIL DISTRICT, DISTRICT FOUR, WHERE YOU NEED, I THINK AFTER THE, THE JANUARY PULL OF THE, THE SUSPENSE LIST, IT'S LIKE 3,700 SIGNATURES.
WHEREAS IN D NINE IT'S TWICE AS MANY, WHICH IS JUST THAT, TO ME, THAT JUST, THAT BLOWS MY MIND.
BUT THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A MUCH MORE COMPLICATED PROBLEM.
AND IT'S KIND OF A PROBLEM THAT'S INHERENT IN, IN THE, THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTING SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE NOW.
ALL OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY, IF THIS IS A VESTIGE OF THE AT LARGE COUNCIL, THEN IT'S, IT'S A POORLY DESIGNED AND INAPPROPRIATE TOOL AS WRITTEN IN THE CHARTER FOR A TEN ONE SYSTEM.
NOW I'M PROPOSING 15% IS THE, THE NEW THRESHOLD, 15% FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS KEEPING IT AT 10% FOR THE MAYOR.
DO I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BEST OUTCOME, THAT'S THE BEST POLICY THAT WE COULD, THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY WRITE IN A VACUUM? HONESTLY, NO.
I FEEL LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF, A LOT MORE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE.
HOWEVER, I'M ALSO TRYING TO BE REALISTIC BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S DEFENSIBLE TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO COUNSEL THAT THEY COULD NEVER PUT ON THE BALLOT, WHICH WOULD BE RAISING IT HIGHER
[01:30:01]
THAN 15%.UM, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO TAKE THAT FIRST STEP.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S ALSO REALLY, YOU KNOW, UNSATISFACTORY TO SAY THAT THIS ISN'T WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE POLICY TO BE MADE.
BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A POLICY THAT WE CAN PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL, UM, AND KNOW THAT AT LEAST IT'S, IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
BUT I DID INCLUDE IN THE RECOMMENDATION JUST SOME ADDITIONAL, LIKE, THIS SHOULD BE REVISITED AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.
JUST A, A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH I GUESS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
BUT, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A, IT'S NOT SO MUCH COMPLICATED, IT'S JUST, IT'S FRAUGHT WITH A LOT OF, LIKE, A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
I THINK IT NEEDS A LOT MORE TIME AND ATTENTION.
AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE A FOCUS SPECIFICALLY FOR FUTURE, FUTURE, UM, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
BUT FOR NOW, I'M JUST PRESENTING A REALLY SIMPLE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SORT OF LIKE A RED LINED LANGUAGE HERE FOR SECTION SIX OF THE CHARTER THAT JUST STRIKES OUT 10, 10% AS IN 15%.
I DID PUT A REFERENCE TO A NOTICE OF INTENT ANTICIPATING THAT, THAT WE MIGHT BE PASSING THAT AS WELL.
UM, AND THEN ALSO JUST CLARIFYING THAT 10% WOULD REMAIN FOR THE MAYOR.
WOULD LOVE TO, WOULD LOVE TO VOTE ON IT.
BUT I KNOW THAT THIS IS, IT'S COMPLICATED.
I AM CURIOUS, THIS WAS A, YOU FOUND A STUDY, I THINK THAT IS A NEWER STUDY THAT I, WE DIDN'T SEE LAST TIME AS PART OF THE 2018 COMMISSION MM-HMM.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP 'CAUSE I DID FORGET ABOUT THAT.
SO A UA UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON REPORT SURVEYED, UM, CITIES IN TEXAS THAT HAVE RECALL.
UM, AND THEY, THEY LOOKED ALSO AT, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THAT, VARIOUS INSTANCES OF RECALL, JUST TO FIND OUT LIKE, HOW OFTEN IS IT SUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? UM, AND THERE'S A LOT OF MIXED RESULTS IN THERE.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS REALLY PREEXISTING IDEAS OF HOW OFTEN THAT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL.
THERE'S A LINK IN HERE IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELECTRONIC VERSION.
I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS REPORT.
UM, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRUCK ME WAS THAT RIGHT NOW AUSTIN IS INCREDIBLY LOW COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES.
THE AVERAGE, OR I GUESS THE, THE, THE, THE MOST USED NUMBER, UM, FOR A THRESHOLD IS 30%.
DOES AUSTIN HAVE TO BE LIKE EVERY OTHER CITY? NOT NECESSARILY.
MAYBE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT VALUES HERE THAT THAT WOULD SUGGEST A LOWER THRESHOLD OR A HIGHER THRESHOLD.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING SURE THAT RECALL IS, IS PROTECTED AS THAT LAST RESORT AS WELL, AND NOT AS A POLICY SOLUTION.
UM, AND THAT IT CAN'T BE SORT OF MANIPULATED BY, BY PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY UNDER OUR CHARTER, MAY NOT EVEN LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, THAT, THAT REPORT, I THINK IT'S REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE IT'S ALSO SUGGESTING A LOT OF THINGS THAT I'M NOT SUGGESTING IN HERE, AND THAT FRANKLY I WOULD DISAGREE WITH.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK THEIR PERSPECTIVE IS SORT OF AS AN AC AS ACADEMIC ACADEMICS, UM, IS KIND OF REMOVED FROM LIKE THE DIRECT POLICY CONSEQUENCES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONSIDER HERE IN THE COMMISSION.
UM, BUT THAT THRESHOLD I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
WHEN WE WERE FIRST INTRODUCED TO THIS IDEA, UM, THE PRESENTATION FROM, FROM, UM, CAROLINE ALSO MENTIONED, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE SO MUCH OF ELMA EL PASO MUNICIPAL ITEMS, UM, ARE ACTUALLY IN THE, IN STATE LAW AND STATE CONSTITUTION, UM, EL PASO'S RECALL RULES ARE VERY EASY TO LOOK UP BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN STATE LAW AND EL PASO USES 50%, 50%.
HONESTLY, IN THEORY, SOUNDS IS ACTUALLY NOT BAD 'CAUSE IT KIND OF PRECLUDES THE NEED FOR, FOR A, UH, FOR A RECALL ELECTION.
IF YOU HAVE 50% PLUS ONE SIGNATURES ON A PIECE OF PAPER, THAT'S EFFECTIVELY SAYING THAT YOU'RE, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS IN THAT DISTRICT WANT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TO BE REMOVED.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, A SUSTAINABLE PROPOSAL FOR US TO MAKE, ESPECIALLY GOING FROM 10%.
BUT I DO FEEL LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO RAISE THAT.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THOSE ACADEMICS IS 50%.
THEY SAY MOST CITIES USE 30, WE RECOMMEND 50.
WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT HERE.
AND I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HEARS THAT WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING 50%.
UM, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE SOME INCREASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT.
UM, IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED VOTERS PER DISTRICT, THE ONLY REASON WHY THERE'S A VARIANCE BETWEEN, UM, THE PERCENTAGE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS VERSUS FOR MAYOR? BASICALLY, YES.
I MEAN, RIGHT NOW 10% FOR MAYOR, THAT'S STILL CITYWIDE.
SO RIGHT NOW THAT'S ABOUT 60,000, UM, SIGNATURES, WHICH IS A LOT LIKE, IT WOULD ALREADY TAKE SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT EFFORT, UM, TO RECALL THE MAYOR.
AND SO, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO RAISE THAT ANY, UM, 10%
[01:35:01]
MAKES SENSE CITYWIDE FOR THIS, THIS PURPOSE.UM, I THINK FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT, I THINK YOU SHOULD, YOU SHOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN 3,700 SIGNATURES TO BE ABLE TO OVERTURN AN ELECTION.
AND SO I DO FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO RAISE THAT THRESHOLD.
SO IT REALLY, IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CITYWIDE VERSUS DISTRICT LEVEL POPULATIONS.
I ONLY BRING IT UP BECAUSE ONE, THIS BODY IS OBVIOUSLY VERY SENSITIVE TO ISSUES OF MISALIGNMENT.
UM, AND TWO, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS AS A, LIKE A LAY READING OF THE PROPOSAL, IT, IT APPEARS LIKE WE'RE MAKING IT HARDER TO RECALL COUNCIL MEMBERS THAN TO RECALL THE MAYOR.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE PERCENTAGE, THEN I GUESS YOU WOULD SEE IT THAT WAY.
BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGE REPRESENTS AS THIS IS CONSISTENT ACROSS MY OPINIONS OF THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS, BUT THE PERCENTAGE REPRESENTS, YOU KNOW, REAL EFFORT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES, IT'S THE EFFORT IT TAKES TO COLLECT IT 10%.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S NECESSARILY APPROPRIATE FOR US RIGHT NOW WITHOUT A LOT MORE WORK TO LOOK AT LOWERING THAT.
SO THAT'S JUST REMAINING STATUS QUO FOR THE MAYOR.
UM, BUT BECAUSE THE EFFORT IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN 30 760,000, I FEEL LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THAT LOWER OF THE TWO NUMBERS.
SO YOU WOULDN'T BE OPEN TO AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE THEM BOTH 15.
I FEEL LIKE WE WOULD NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LOT MORE.
LIKE I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE A GOOD OPINION ON THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE 10% FOR THE MAYOR, 60,000 IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFICULT, UM, FOR ANYONE TO COLLECT.
AND AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, LIKE THIS SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT.
AND SO MAKING IT DIFFICULT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE END OF THE WORLD BECAUSE IN THEORY THERE ARE A LOT OF STEPS BEFORE YOU WOULD GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU NEED TO RECALL A COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR.
UM, BUT I THINK IF WE GO ABOVE THAT FOR, FOR THE MAYOR, WE'RE LOOKING AT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERCENTAGE OF 15% OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE ENTIRE CITY OF AUSTIN WOULD BE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.
UM, AND I WANNA START BY SAYING I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, BUT I AM CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM THOSE THAT, UM, WERE AGAINST THE, UM, INCREASE IN PERCENTAGE IN THE PETITION, WHY A PERCENTAGE IS OKAY HERE.
I'M JUST CURIOUS OF YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THAT.
I JUST WANT TO HEAR THAT THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
I WOULD LOVE THE TIME TO LOOK INTO OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE THIS, BUT I THINK BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH A PERCENTAGE ON THIS ONE, WHEREAS WITH THE OTHERS, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE DEALING WITH A 20,000 NUMBER, WE'RE DEALING WITH A FLAT NUMBER.
TO ME, IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO START FROM THAT PERCENTAGE TO WORK OUR WAY TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT SYSTEM, UM, AS OPPOSED TO STARTING FROM A FLAT NUMBER AND THEN MOVING TO A PERCENTAGE, WHICH DOES FLUCTUATE OVER TIME.
I, I STILL DON'T, YOU KNOW, LOVE A PERCENTAGE AS, AS THE, THE, YOU KNOW, BASIS FOR THAT DECISION THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING.
BUT WE'RE NOT STARTING FROM NOTHING.
WE'RE STARTING FROM SOMETHING AND WE HAVE TO GET TO EVENTUALLY, HOPEFULLY AS A CITY, A PLACE WHERE THIS ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE FOR OUR SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION.
BUT THAT'S KIND OF ITERATIVE, RIGHT? IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE PREVIOUS, UM, STEP THAT WE'RE AT.
COMMISSIONER ALANO, UM, COMMISSIONER NAN, COULD YOU REMIND ME IF A RECALL PETITION IS SUCCESSFULLY PETITIONED, HOW QUICKLY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ELECTION? HOW QUICKLY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ELECTION? YEAH, WHAT, UM, THE RECALL, THE ELECTION FOR THE RECALL ITSELF, UM, MAYBE NEIL, YOU COULD HELP REMIND US OF WHAT THE CHARTER SPECIFICALLY SAYS ON THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT, BELIEVE SAYS THE NEXT AVAILABLE ELECTION DATE.
BUT THE, THIS COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD THEN HAVE TO RESIGN WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF, OR HAVE, WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE OF RESIGNING WITHIN FIVE DAYS AND THEN NOT HAVE TO FACE THAT RECALL ELECTION.
IS THAT CORRECT SECTION? IT'S, LET ME GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
AND I DON'T HAVE MY, MY LAPTOP UP.
I COULD LOOK AT IT, BUT IT'S ARTICLE FOUR OR ARTICLE, YEAH.
ARTICLE FOUR SECTIONS LIKE SIX THROUGH 10 OR WHATEVER GO WITH THAT.
I, I THINK, I THINK THE CONCEPT PULL IT UP ON MY SUPER COMPUTER, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.
AND I GOT, I DEFER TO THE LAWYERS.
I THINK THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE HAS VERY PRESCRIPTIVE GUIDANCE ON WHEN YOU GOTTA HAVE IT.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE OUT OF OUR HANDS, BUT I WANNA I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK THIS BEFORE.
UH, I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, UH, AS SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WORKED WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS, THE ISSUE WITH LOW RECALL THRESHOLDS IS NOT THAT THEY WILL BE SUCCESSFUL, IT'S THAT A MINORITY OF PARTICIPANTS WILL DISTORT WHAT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL DOES BECAUSE IT CAN THREATEN AN EASY RECALL.
SO THE POINT IS, AS WE WILL HEAR, RECALLS DON'T HAPPEN.
THEY'VE NEVER BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
THAT IS NOT THE THREAT TO OUR SYSTEM.
THE THREAT TO OUR SYSTEM IS THE THREAT OF IT STARTS TO DISTORT
[01:40:01]
YOU AWAY FROM THE MEDIAN VOTER.MOREOVER, THERE IS AN INCREDIBLE ASYMMETRY TO THE OUTCOMES YOU COULD WIN BY LITERALLY ONE VOTE IN AN ODDLY TIMED RECALL ELECTION AND LOSE REPRESENTATION AS A DISTRICT IN, YOU KNOW, FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND SO, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN, THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WE HAVE IN TEXAS, PLUS THE THRESHOLD THAT WE HAVE IS REALLY A EASY TO WEAPONIZE SYSTEM.
UM, AND SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHY WE NEED TO CHANGE IT, I HOPE THAT OUR LANGUAGE IN THE REPORT, IF THIS IS ADOPTED AS I HOPE IT IS, REFLECTS THAT IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO THAT THERE'S A, A CRISIS OF MEMBERS BEING RECALLED.
IT IS BECAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE DISTORTS AND OBFUSCATES THE WILL OF THE MEDIAN VOTER BY MAKING IT VERY SIMPLE FOR SMALL WELL-RESOURCED AND OR VOCAL GROUPS TO SAY, WELL, I'LL RECALL YOU AND IT JUST TAKES 3000 SIGNATURES AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE ELECTION IN SOME TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE TURNOUT OF FOUR PEOPLE.
NOT THAT WE'VE HAD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE RECALL.
I FOUND, UM, INFORMATION ON YOUR QUESTION, UH, REGARDING THE DAYS TO RESIGN.
SO IT'S CHAPTER 2 77 REQUIREMENTS.
IT SAYS ONCE THE PETITION IS CERTIFIED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS BEING SUFFICIENT, THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHOSE REMOVAL IS SOUGHT HAS FIVE DAYS TO RESIGN.
IF HE OR SHE DOES NOT RESIGN WITHIN THAT TIMEFRAME, THE CITY COUNCIL MUST ORDER A RECALL ELECTION.
SO IT'S BEFORE FOR, AND IT DOESN'T SAY THE DAYS FOR THE RECALL ELECTION, NOT WHERE I'M LOOKING.
ARE YOU LOOKING IN THE CHARTER? I THINK COMMISSIONER, I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER PALER AND MCGINN, WHO WAS FIRST? WELL, I I JUST WANTED TO SECOND COMMISSIONER ULTA MURANO'S POINTS THAT EVEN, EVEN THE CONCERN ABOUT, UM, SOMEONE, IT BEING TOO EASY TO RECALL A COMMISSIONER, EVEN IF IT HASN'T NECESSARILY SURFACED AS A PROBLEM.
I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF PRECEDENT IN AUSTIN FOR US NOT ADDRESSING PROBLEMS AND UNTIL THEY BECOME REALLY CEMENTED AND, UM, AND A A BIT OF A BURDEN AND HARDER TO ADDRESS AFTER THE FACT.
SO I THINK THAT I COMPLETELY ECHO WHAT YOU'VE SAID.
I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM FOR MONEY, INTEREST MONEY GROUPS COMING IN AND, AND RECALLING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO DON'T VOTE IN THEIR, UH, IN THOSE MONEY INTERESTS, UM, PREFERRED DIRECTION.
MY QUESTION TO YOU, UM, COMMISSIONER MANNON, WHAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US ABOUT WHY YOU DECIDED TO LOWER IT FROM 20% TO 15%, WHY YOU DON'T THINK, WHY YOU THINK THIS LOWER THRESHOLD'S MORE APPROPRIATE? SO I MEAN, I DO, I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE, THE REALITIES OF THE FACT THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE CHARTER MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO COUNCIL.
AND COUNCIL HAS TO BE THE ONES, BECAUSE THERE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS, THEY HAVE TO BE THE ONES TO PUT THEIR NECKS OUT AND SAY TO THE VOTERS, WILL YOU VOTE FOR THIS? AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT COUNSEL IN A POSITION WHERE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T, THEY CAN'T JUSTIFY TO VOTERS, UM, BECAUSE OF MESSAGING OR BECAUSE IT JUST SOUNDS BAD, YOU KNOW, TO SAY WE'RE GONNA DOUBLE THE PERCENTAGE, RIGHT? IF THAT'S THE ONLY INFORMATION A VOTER HAS, THEN POTENTIALLY THAT'S, THAT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE COUNCIL IS TRYING TO MAKE IT HARDER TO GET RID OF THEM.
BUT I THINK OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF CONTEXT AND A LOT OF OTHER INFORMATION AS WE'VE DISCUSSED A FEW TIMES IN THIS COUNT, THIS COMMISSION, UM, THAT MAKE IT A MUCH MORE COMPLEX ISSUE THAN JUST A SIMPLE, MAKE IT HARDER TO REMOVE A COUNCIL MEMBER, RIGHT? UM, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S HOW SOME COULD KIND OF SEE THAT, OR, OR, AND I, I THINK INCORRECTLY WOULD SEE THAT, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD SEE.
SO I DON'T WANT TO PUT COUNCIL IN A POSITION WHERE THEY FEEL LIKE THAT'S THEIR ONLY OPTION, RIGHT? I FEEL LIKE I WANT TO PRESENT SOMETHING FROM THIS COMMISSION TO COUNCIL THAT THEY COULD PUT ON THE BALLOT THAT VOTERS WOULD ALSO UNDERSTAND, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE EASILY WITHOUT REQUIRING VOTERS TO, YOU KNOW, GO READ THIS REPORT OR, OR, UM, YOU KNOW, GO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT TO ASK FOR, FOR ONE BALLOT ITEM.
UM, SO I DID LOWER IT FROM 20, WHICH IT WAS THE 2018 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, I BELIEVE WAS 20%.
UM, BECAUSE I JUST WANTED TO, TO GET SOMETHING THAT GETS US ON THE ROAD TO CREATING A BETTER INSTITUTION OF RECALL.
I GUESS I'M, I'M CURIOUS, WOULD IT MAYBE BEHOOVE US TO, UM, MAKE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS, ONE WITH A HIGHER THRESHOLD, ONE WITH THE 15%? I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, DID YOU HAVE
[01:45:01]
A COMMENT? UM, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO A RECALL BECAUSE I THINK, UM, EVEN IN A COUNCIL WITH A SMALL NUMBER OF VOTERS, YOU STILL HAVE TO GET THE SIGNATURES AND PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT DISTRICT THEY LIVE IN.UM, IT, IT'S NOT AS EASY AS PEOPLE THINK.
HOWEVER, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, WHAT DID WE JUST PASS FOR? UM, SORRY.
THE NOTICE OF INTENT, AND I WONDER WHETHER WE SHOULD ADD THIS.
A NOTICE OF INTENT FOR RECALL PETITIONS INTO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ALREADY PASSED FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE IS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY NOT WANT TO EVEN CHANGE IT TO 15% BECAUSE IT STILL LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PROTECTING THEIR OWN JOBS.
SO POLITICALLY THEY MAY NOT PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, IT MAY NOT PASS.
BUT IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO A RECALL PETITION, I REALLY WOULD LIKE THEM TO FILE THE NOTICE OF INTENT.
SO WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT PREVIOUSLY.
WE DID AGREE PREVIOUSLY TO ADD RECALL IN INTO THAT THE NOTICE OF INTENT RECOMMENDATION.
AND IT, THE LANGUAGE IS IN IS IN THERE.
IT SAYS IT LISTS OUT THE TYPES OF PETITIONS AND CAN RECALL IN THERE.
MADAM CHAIR? YES, COMMISSIONER UPDATE SECTION 21 1 0 4 ELECTION.
UNLESS THE MEMBER WHO IS THE TARGET OF THE PETITION RESIGNS BEFORE THE SIXTH DAY, AFTER THE DATE OF PETITION AND CERTIFICATE OR DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY, THE GOVERNING BODY SHALL ORDER THAT A RICO ELECTION BE HELD ON THE FIRST UNIFORM ELECTION DATE THAT OCCURS 78 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ORDER.
SO MAY ELECTION IN THE MIDDLE OF WHO KNOWS WHAT IS TOTALLY VIOLENT.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ELECTION, RIGHT? HE'S QUICK, HE'S QUICK.
THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A SPECIAL ELECTION IF IT'S SUCCESSFUL.
DOES IT SAY WHAT? WHEN THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WOULD BE? SO THAT'S, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE, SO THE VACANCY WOULD OCCUR WHEN THE ELECTION IS CANVASED AND THEN WE HAVE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT ON CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL THAT VACANCY.
SO RIGHT NOW THE CHARTER SAYS, I FORGET WHAT IT SAYS, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE IT TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW.
SO IF YOU GO TO OUR STAFF REPORT ON PAGE THREE, SPECIAL ELECTIONS FOR COUNCIL VACANCIES, THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE CHARTER STATES THAT A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL A COUNCIL VACANCY SHOULD BE HELD ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE STATE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE.
ARTICLE 11, SECTION 11 C OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL A MUNICIPAL, GO MUNICIPAL GOVERNING BODY'S VACANCY TO BE HELD WITHIN 120 DAYS AFTER THE VACANCY OCCURS.
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS REVISING LANGUAGE REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR FILLING COUNCIL VACANCIES BY POINTING TO STATE LAW, WHICH PUTS IN PLACE THE 120 DAY LIMIT.
'CAUSE WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS, SHALL DECLARE HIS OR HER OFFICE VACANT AND SUCH VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHARTER FOR FILLING VACANCIES.
SO THERE MUST HAVE BEEN ANOTHER PLACE.
AND SO OF FILLING VACANCIES, YEAH.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT? I HEARD SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO BE IN FAVOR.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
COULD I JUST ADD ONE MORE THING? SORRY, I KNOW EVERYONE'S SICK OF HEARING MY VOICE.
UM, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY ADD TO THE, THE OTHER ITEM ABOUT ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT, THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND FUTURE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONS LOOK INTO REALLY, IS THAT THAT PROCESS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, REMOVING A COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP THAT BECOME NECESSARY IS RECALL THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN HAPPEN OR RESIGNATION, RIGHT? LIKE SHOULD THERE BE OTHER ALTERNATIVES UNDER ALLOWABLE, UNDER STATE LAW AND REPLACING AND FILLING THAT VACANCY POSSIBLY WITH, YOU KNOW, AN INTERIM COUNCIL MEMBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IF THAT WERE POSSIBLE.
I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T RESEARCHED IT BECAUSE THAT WASN'T PART OF THIS, BUT MAYBE FUTURE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONS CAN, BECAUSE
[01:50:01]
I THINK THAT LIKE THE RELIANCE ON EITHER, YOU KNOW, A GENERAL REGULAR ELECTION OR RECALL, UM, SORT OF SKEWS THE POSSIBLE USES OF A RECALL.AGAIN, BECAUSE I, FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, IT SHOULD BE THE LAST RESORT, RIGHT? I MOVE TO ACCEPT, UM, WHAT ARE WE CALLING THIS? IT'S A RECALL PETITION INCREASE, UM, TO 15% FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL DISTRICTS, SECOND
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.
ANY OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND COMMISSIONER GARCIA? OKAY, THE MOTION PASSES.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER UPDATES, UH, OR DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM THE RECALL POSITION WORKING GROUP? OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM
[7. Discussion and possible action regarding community engagement of the Charter Review process from the Outreach Work Group. ]
NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FROM THE OUTREACH WORKING GROUP.SO AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAVE OUR NEXT, UH, TOWN HALL.
I THINK WE'RE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE CALLING IT A TOWN HALL OR A COMMUNITY CONVERSATION.
I CAN'T RECALL WHAT THE UH, WORDING IS, BUT WE'RE WAITING ON A PRESS RELEASE AND INFORMATION TO GO OUT.
SO I DON'T KNOW MARNA, IF YOU HAVE ANY UPDATES ON TIMING FOR THAT.
UM, I WASN'T AWARE THAT WE NEEDED TO PROVIDE A LINK.
UM, AND I DON'T HAVE STAFF THAT, UM, AVAILABLE, BUT THEY'RE AWARE.
AND SO I KNOW THAT THEY'LL LOOK AT THEIR EMAIL AND, AND GET IT DONE.
SO I WOULD SAY HOPEFULLY TOMORROW, IF NOT MONDAY FOR SURE.
AND SO THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE PRESS RELEASE THAT GOES OUT AND THEN THERE WILL BE AT LEAST I THINK TWO SOCIAL MEDIA, UM, PUSHES, UM, TO KIND OF GET THE WORD OUT.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, PLEASE FOR YOU ALL WHO ARE HERE AND FOR ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SPREAD THE WORD.
IT'S GONNA BE MARCH 7TH HERE AT CITY HALL IN THIS ROOM AT OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TIME.
IT IS ALREADY POSTED ON THE WEBSITE BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE REG REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
UM, SO IT'S BEEN UP THERE FOR A WHILE.
UM, BUT WE ARE CONVERTING THAT, UH, MEETING INTO A OUR TOWN HALL OR COMMUNITY CONVERSATION, UM, AND THEN SCHEDULING ANOTHER MEETING ON MARCH 21ST TO FINALIZE OUR REPORT.
SO THIS IS OUR, I GUESS SECOND TO LAST MEETING, UH, TODAY.
UM, YES, COMMISSIONER DWYER, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO REFORMAT THE ROOM IN A MORE CONVERSATIONAL WAY AS MR. RYDELL SUGGESTED WE CAN TALK? YEAH, WE'LL, WE WILL TALK TO MYRNA AND THE CITY STAFF ABOUT THAT.
WE, WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE AGAIN, UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR FOLKS WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT DOWN TO CITY HALL, WE WANNA PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO FIND OUT KIND OF WHAT ROOM CONFIGURATIONS ARE AVAILABLE, UM, HERE IN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
SO THIS TABLE UP FRONT EVEN CAN'T BE MOVED.
UM, THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE MOVED, BUT WE NEED THIS IN ORDER TO TELEVISE AND RECORD AND DO ALL THE TECHNICAL MM-HMM,
DOES THAT WORK, MR. FIRE? YEAH.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON OUTREACH? AND WE WILL AHEAD OF THAT MEETING, WE WILL ALSO, UM, PREPARE A LIST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE, THAT HAVE, THAT WE HAVE VOTED ON.
UM, AND THAT I WILL, I CAN PREVIEW THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING SO THAT EVERYONE WHO ATTENDS THE MEETING CAN SEE WHAT ITEMS ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHAT WE VOTED ON ALREADY, UM, AND THEN CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THOSE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS.
SO IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR THINGS THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE, UM, LET ME KNOW.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON OUTREACH BEFORE WE MOVE ON? OKAY.
[8. Discussion and possible action on the review and finalization of the draft report to Council. (Part 1 of 2)]
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REVIEW AND FINALIZATION OF THE DRAFT REPORT.SO, UM, AS WE DISCUSSED, THE CITY'S LAW DEPARTMENT IS GONNA BE HELPING US PUT TOGETHER THE FINAL VERSION OF THE REPORT.
COMMISSIONER ALTA MURANO HAS PREPARED A PRELIMINARY LIST OF TOPICS, WAKE UP
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS I THINK WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE AGENDA ITEM.
ARE WE PERMITTED TO INVITE MS. SHEFFIELD UP FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND CONVERSATION AT THIS TIME, UM, MR. FARGO, OR WOULD WE NEED TO SCHEDULE
[01:55:01]
THAT AT A, AT A LATER MEETING? UM, IF IT'S IN REGARD TO, TO POTENTIAL TOPICS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.SO WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE THAT UP UNDER ITEM NUMBER 10.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, YES.
AND SO CAN WE, CAN I TAKE THOSE ITEMS OUT OF ORDER? CAN I MOVE ITEM 10 UP AND WE TAKE THAT ITEM FIRST AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS ITEM EIGHT
IS THAT OKAY? YES, THAT'S ALLOWED.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEM NUMBER 10 OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ALL WANTED TO DISCUSS THE CAMPO, UM, PROPOSAL.AND MS. SHEFFIELD, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING UP TO THE TABLE SO WE CAN HAVE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU DON'T GET TOO DEEP INTO AN EXCHANGE OKAY.
SINCE IT'S NOT A POSTED FOR DISCUSSION, BUT JUST, UH, WHETHER IT POTENTIALLY COULD BE CONSIDERED AT A FUTURE MEETING.
IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON THE PARAMETERS BEFORE WE START ASKING QUESTIONS OR DO WE WANNA CLARIFY WITH MR. ALGO? I COULD USE SOME CLARIFICATION.
SO THIS ISN'T POSTED FOR DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION, RIGHT? SO, BUT IT'S THE DISTINCTION OF WHAT, SO YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN DISCUSS IT MOMENTS INSOFAR AS WE COULD POTENTIALLY ARRANGE FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION, LIKE WE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SUBSTANTIVE CORRECT.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THIS INDIVIDUAL ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO SCHEDULE IT FOR A FUTURE THAT WOULD HELP YOU DECIDE ON WHETHER TO SCHEDULE FOR A FUTURE DISCUSSION, YOU COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION HERE.
SO I THINK THE DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE IS, DO WE, WE EITHER WANNA SET ANOTHER MEETING AFTER OUR MARCH 7TH MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE, OR DO WE WANNA INCLUDE IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM, AS A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM ON OUR MARCH 21ST MEETING? WE CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I GUESS I'M UNCLEAR BECAUSE THIS WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THE ITEMS IN THE BACKUP FOR ITEM EIGHT.
SO WHY CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT IT? IT'S NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA AS A TOPIC TO DISCUSS.
SO AS A SUB, AS A SUBTOPIC, IT WOULD NOT RISE TO THAT DESIGNATION.
I DON'T, I DON'T MEAN TO BE STUPID ABOUT THIS.
YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN GETTING FROM REGARDING POSTING ON THE AGENDAS IS THAT WE DO HAVE TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC ITEMS LISTED FOR DISCUSSION JUST BECAUSE WE, WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS AWARE IF WE'RE GONNA BE HAVING SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION.
UM, BUT I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO ASK TO DECIDE IF WE WANT TO TAKE THIS UP AND SET IT FOR A FURTHER DISCUSSION, EITHER AT AN ADDITIONAL MEETING TIME OR ON, ON MARCH 21ST.
MS. ENFIELD, DO YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THIS UP AT A FUTURE MEETING OR A DISCUSSION? YES, I DO.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOT MY EMAIL, WHICH WAS, IT DID NOT GET, I MEAN, IT GOT APPROVED BY THE VOTERS AND THERE WAS A 60 DAY DEADLINE AND THE DEADLINE WASN'T MET AT, WHICH IN THEORY, BASED ON WHAT GOT INTO THE CHARTER MEANT THAT HOUSTON NEED TO LEAVE THEIR METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.
DID THEY LEAVE THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION? NO, THEY HAVE NOT LEFT THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.
SO THERE WAS A HOPE THAT THIS, THAT AN AGREEMENT WOULD BECOME, WOULD BE ARRIVED AT DURING THAT 60 DAY PERIOD.
UM, THEY WERE CLOSE TO AN AGREEMENT, SOMETHING FELL THROUGH AT THE LAST MINUTE, AND SO THEY ARE IN LIMBO RIGHT NOW.
UM, THE ADVOCATES WHO'VE BEEN CHAMPIONING THIS ARE, UM, LOOKING AT MANY DIFFERENT AVENUES TO PURSUE HOW TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT, UM, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS POINT.
UH, CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. AUGU ON, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE TIME TO TAKE UP, JUST BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO FINALIZING OUR REPORT, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT, UM, MS. SCHOFIELD AND CAMPO COULD RAISE DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING RECOMMENDATIONS? WILL THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT? SURE.
UM, YOU COULD PUT IN YOUR REPORT THAT THERE WAS A PRESENTATION MADE REGARDING THIS TOPIC, BUT THE COMMISSION DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO FULLY DEBATE IT.
UM, AND THEN WHEN THE COUNCIL, UH, HEARS THE PRESENTATIONS AND THEN VOTES ON WHAT TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, THERE WOULD BE, UH, OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT ACTION BY COUNCIL.
UM, AND BY PRESENTATION YOU MEAN HER, UM,
[02:00:01]
PUBLIC COMMENT.SO THE STAFF AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WILL BE PRESENTING TO THE COUNCIL THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON WHAT TO PUT ON THE BALLOT.
AND AT THAT TIME, THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON WHAT TO PUT ON THE ACTUAL BALLOT.
THERE ARE ALSO, UM, MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO SIGN UP FOR GENERAL CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AT NOON ON DURING COUNCIL MEETINGS.
AND I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THE COUNCIL WILL DECIDE THIS FOR ANYONE TO SIGN UP TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL.
COULD WE, COULD WE REQUEST A MORE IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION AS PART OF OUR MARCH, UH, SEVENTH MEETING, WHICH IS KIND OF THE TOWN HALL MEETING.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD AN, AN AGENDA ITEM TO THAT MEETING.
UM, SO I COULD, COULD THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATE IN A, IN A DEBATE IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THESE ADDENDUM TOPICS? ADDENDUM TOPICS AS WELL SURE.
NOT JUST OUR MAIN FORMALLY VOTED ON RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT EVEN THESE SUBTOPICS, CORRECT.
IF THE, IF SOME MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THINKS THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ITEM ADDED TO WHAT THE COUNCIL CALLS, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION ADDRESSES, THEY CAN GO AND OH, EVEN IF WE DIDN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL.
SO ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR OPTIONS ARE, YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE, WE CAN REQUEST A MORE IN DEPTH PRESENTATION, UM, IF MS. SCHOEN FIELD IS WILLING TO DO SO AT OUR MARCH 7TH MEETING OR MARCH 21ST MEETING.
UM, OR WE CAN INCLUDE THIS, AND I KNOW WE'LL GET TO THIS WHEN WE GO BACK TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, BUT WE CAN INCLUDE THIS IN OUR TOPICS, UM, FOR NEXT TIME.
COMMISSIONER ANO, UM, MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD BE, UM, CURIOUS TO, UH, PUT THE DECISION ON HOW TO PROCEED IN THE, OR ASK ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED TO THE GRASSROOTS GROUPS LIKE RETHINK MM-HMM,
UM, THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO INVEST TIME IN A BODY THAT'S WRAPPING UP AND LIKELY WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
THE DOWNSIDE IS YOU DON'T GET TO POTENTIALLY GALVANIZE US, UH, TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.
UM, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO GET, AND IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, I'M, I WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, CURIOUS TO THINK ABOUT, UH, WHERE WE FIT INTO HOW YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH COUNSEL WHO ARE THE ULTIMATE DECIDERS IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO THE BALLOT WITHOUT PETITIONING.
YEAH, I CAN THINK ABOUT THAT AND TALK TO MY TEAM AND, AND SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE.
AND IF YOU'LL, IF YOU'LL JUST LET US KNOW, I THINK THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S INTEREST IN, UM, HAVING A PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION IF YOU ALL ARE INTERESTED IN, IN PRESENTING TO US ON MARCH 7TH OR 21ST.
IF, AS YOU'VE HEARD, WE ARE LIMITED, SOMEWHAT LIMITED IN TIME, UM, AND SO THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR DESIRE TO FURTHER PRESENT TO THIS BODY VERSUS TAKING YOUR ISSUE DIRECTLY TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND WHAT WOULD A PRESENTATION AMOUNT TO LIKE ANOTHER THREE MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT LIKE I DID JUST NOW? IT WOULD BE A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM.
AND SO WHEN GROUPS HAVE PRESENTED TO US IN THE PAST, IT'S TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO BRING MATERIALS OR A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, BUT IT'S TYPICALLY A LONGER PRESENTATION WITH MORE BACK AND FORTH AND QUESTION AND ANSWER.
ALRIGHT, WHILE WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER 10, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS, TOPICS, OR PRESENTATIONS TO DISCUSS? NO, I THINK FOR FUTURE AGENDAS, MARNA, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY WORKING GROUP HAS WRAPPED UP, THE MECHANICS WORKING GROUP HAS WRAPPED UP, AND THE RECALL PETITIONS GROUP WORKING GROUP HAS WRAPPED UP, UM, THE OUTREACH WORKING GROUP.
I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY STILL KEEP AN AGENDA ITEM ON THERE JUST IN CASE WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UP.
UM, WHAT ABOUT THE DISCUSSION? I MEAN, UH, MEETINGS AND MEETING LOCATION.
[02:05:01]
GO AHEAD AND REMOVE THAT SINCE LET'S GO AHEAD AND KEEP THAT ON JUST IN CASE.WE DON'T WRAP UP IN THE TIMEFRAME THAT WE THINK WE DO.
I THINK WE'RE ON TARGET, BUT, OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 BEFORE WE HOP BACK TO EIGHT? SORRY, MADAM CHAIR, DID YOU RECOMMEND REMOVING THE PETITION PROCESS? WORKING GROUP ALSO, OR NO, FROM THE, NO, IT SOUNDED LIKE, I MEAN, I WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO YOU, COMMISSIONER DWYER IF YOUR WORK HAS WRAPPED UP, BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU COULD BE BRINGING THAT BACK ON MARCH 21ST POTENTIALLY.
I MEAN, MY, MY, I FEEL MY WORK HAS, HAS WRAPPED UP.
I, I WOULD WANNA PRESERVE THE OPTION FOR COMMISSIONER BOTKIN IF HE FEELS LIKE HE WANTS HIS VOTE TO BE COUNTED.
UM, YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD, LET'S LEAVE THAT AS AN AGENDA ITEM.
WE CAN ALWAYS, UM, REMOVE IT IF WE FEEL IT'S NO LONGER NECESSARY WHEN WE GET CLOSER TO MARCH 21ST.
[8. Discussion and possible action on the review and finalization of the draft report to Council. (Part 2 of 2)]
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, COMMISSIONER TANO, DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO US ABOUT YOUR TOPICS FOR NEXT TIME? THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.I, UH, PREPARED A NON EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TOPICS FOR NEXT TIME, ANTICIPATING SOME OF THE, UH, INTERESTS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT, UH, AS WELL AS SURVEYING THE LANDSCAPE OF POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL CHARTER CHANGES THAT FUTURE COUNCILS, UM, OR COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS MAY ASK FOR.
I HAVE MADE NOTE THAT FIGURING OUT WHAT TO DO WITH, UH, A CO WITH THE CO THE EMPTY COUNCIL MEMBER SLOT.
IF SO, IF ONE IS RECALLED, POTENTIALLY CONSIDERING AN INTERIM COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINTMENT, IF LEGALLY VIABLE, UM, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE WANT TO DISCUSS.
AND IF THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS THAT FOLKS WANNA ADD TO THE LIST, REMEMBER THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD IS, UH, THIS IS A CHRISTMAS TREE.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE LIST FOR CITY COUNCIL, THIS IS YOUR MOMENT TO PUT IT ON THE LIST.
UH, WE WEREN'T REALLY GOING TO DIVE INTO I LIKE THIS ONE.
UM, THERE MAY BE, UH, CHANGES TO LANGUAGE IF YOU ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT ONE OF THE ITEMS, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME AND COLLEGIALITY, UH, I WOULD SUGGEST IF, IF YOU WANNA, UH, MAKE SOME CHANGES, TAKE OWNERSHIP AND SUGGEST THE CHANGES TO THE REPORT WRITING BODY.
IF YOU WANT AN ADD AN ITEM, UM, WRITE THE ITEM AND ADD IT AS SUGGESTED TO THE REPORT WRITING BODY.
THE REPORT MEANING WRITING BODY MEANING
I KNOW YOU'RE NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT HE KEEPS LOOKING AT ME WHEN SAYING THE REPORT RIGHTS BY
I MEAN, I THINK SOMEBODY, I'LL BE, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL BE TAKING PRIMARY LEAD ON WRITING THE REPORT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, WITH US PROVIDING SUPPORT.
SO IF YOU DO HAVE ADDITIONAL ITEMS, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WAJIHA AND NEIL HAVE A COPY OF THIS.
AND THEN IF YOU DO HAVE ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO ADD, UM, PLEASE JUST SEND IT TO THEM.
UM, AND THEY CAN ADD IT TO THIS TOPICS FOR NEXT TIME.
AND I HAVE NO OTHER UPDATES ON THE DRAFT REPORT AT THIS TIME, OTHER THAN I THINK WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR WRITING IT AND HAVE IDENTIFIED KIND OF WHAT THE ROLES ARE GONNA BE.
UM, I DON'T, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME YET AS TO WHEN WE WILL BE CIRCULATING THAT DRAFT REPORT.
UM, THE TARGET IS STILL TO FINALIZE IT AT THE MARCH 21ST MEETING.
MADAM CHAIR, WOULD THIS BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO MAKE REQUESTS ABOUT THE REPORT? YES.
UH, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, N EQUALS ONE.
I AM JUST ONE APPOINTED, UH, MEMBER, BUT I THINK LESS IS MORE, UH, BOTH FOR COUNCIL MEMBER TIME, COUNCIL STAFF TIME, MEDIA MEMBER TIME, ADVOCATE TIME.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ACCESSIBLE, BE VERBOSE.
I THINK WE'VE DONE A, A GREAT THING IN, UH, FORMATTING ALL OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ALONG THE LINES OF THE 2018 REPORT.
SO WHILE IT WILL NOT BE A SIMPLE CUT AND PASTE JOB, I THINK THAT IT CAN BE EASY TO COMPILE WHAT WE HAVE SAID.
I THINK THE MAIN CONTRIBUTION THAT I'M, UH, PERSONALLY EXPECTING FROM THE REPORT WRITING TEAM, UH, IS THE VETTING OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE LANGUAGE TO ALIGN WITH THE SUBSTANCE RECOMMENDA RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, IN THE REST OF THE TEXT OF HOW WE'VE WRITTEN OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, MY EXPECTATION IS THAT WHILE IT WILL NOT BE, UM, NECESSARILY BE READY A WEEK AHEAD OF OUR MEETING, IT WILL BE READY WITH ENOUGH TIME FOR US TO REVIEW, UM, UH, SO THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO COME WITH OUR AMENDMENTS TO THE GROUP ON 3 21.
SO THAT 3 21 MAY INDEED BE, WILL INDEED BE, MUST BE, UH, OUR FINAL MEETING SO THAT THIS IS
[02:10:01]
READY TO GO IN TIME FOR THE APRIL BRIEFING THAT THE CITY STAFF IS, UM, PLANNING FOR THEIR PATH ON CHARTER CHANGES.IT WOULD BE GREAT IF OBVIOUSLY OUR REPORT IS READY AND HAS, AND EVERYBODY'S HAD TIME TO READ IT BY THEN.
AND I, I'LL COORDINATE TOMORROW WITH NEIL AND WAJIHA AND SEE IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, TRY TO COME UP WITH WHAT WE THINK IS A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME WITHIN WHICH WE CAN GET YOU ALL THE DRAFT REPORT TO REVIEW WITH ENOUGH TIME AHEAD OF THE MEETING THAT YOU CAN MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIVE, YOU KNOW, SUB DO A SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT? SUGGESTIONS? NO.
[9. Discussion and possible action of future meetings and meeting location. ]
IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF FUTURE MEETINGS AND MEETING LOCATIONS.WE HAVE, AS WE'VE SAID, MANY TIMES, TWO MEETINGS LEFT MARCH 7TH, MARCH 21ST.
MARCH 7TH IS OUR TOWN HALL, MARCH 21ST WILL BE FINALIZATION OF THE MEETING, UM, OR FINALIZATION OF THE REPORT.
UH, THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON OUR FUTURE MEETING DATES OR LOCATIONS? COMMISSIONER DWYER, WE'LL NEED TO CHOOSE A BAR FOR THE 21ST.
DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT TASK? THE, YOU CAN HAVE THE NOT COOL ENOUGH FOR THAT TASK.
THE DRINKING WORKING GROUP
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? NO.
DO I HEAR MOTION TO ADJOURN? JUST ADJOURN,
PLEASE BE SURE TO SIGN THE, UH, ATTENDANCE SHEET.