Mar 07, 2024 Charter Review Commission

[00:00:03]

FORUM.

SO WE WILL CALL

[CALL TO ORDER]

MM-HMM.

, TODAY'S MEETING IS GOING TO BE A COMBINATION.

WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A FEW ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR, UM, TO TAKE ACTION, UM, AND TO HAVE DISCUSSION.

SO WE WILL FIRST HAVE OUR GENERAL OPEN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING WHERE WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

OKAY.

I THOUGHT I SIGNED UP.

YOU, THIS, THIS, YOU REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THE PRESENTATION OR YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SPEAK DOWN.

OKAY.

YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND, YEAH, PLEASE.

UH, GOOD EVENING.

GO AHEAD.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JOE RIDDEL.

UM, I WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK Y'ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT.

I MEAN, IN GENERAL, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS HERE ABOUT WAYS TO IMPROVE DEMOCRACY.

SO I'M GOING TO END BY TELLING YOU A WAY I THINK THAT DEMOCRACY COULD BE IMPROVED THAT REALLY HASN'T BEEN, UH, INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION SO FAR.

AND TO DO THAT, I WANT TO GO BACK IN TIME TO A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A CHARTER ELECTION AND IT PROVIDED THAT THERE WOULD BE COUNCIL ELECTIONS.

ON THE APRIL OF ODD NUMBERED YEARS, THE COUNCIL HAD FIVE MEMBERS, AND IT WAS AN OPEN ELECTION.

THE TOP FIVE VOTE GETTERS, UH, BECAME COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, IN 1953.

THAT WAS MOVED TO THE FIRST SATURDAY IN APRIL.

IN 1967, IT WENT FROM FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SEVEN A COUPLE YEARS LATER, UH, THE SEVENTH COUNCIL MEMBER THERE, THERE'D BE SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THE MAYOR ELECTED SEPARATELY.

THERE WAS A BIG CHANGE IN 1985.

UH, AT, AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS AT EIGHT, ONE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS SET UP, UM, WITH, UH, THAT MEAN NINE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

SO THERE WAS ALSO A PROPOSITION ON THE BALLOT TO HAVE THREE STAGGERED, THREE YEAR STAGGERED TURNS THAT WAY.

THREE PEOPLE GET ELECTED EACH YEAR.

NOW, UH, VOTERS DEFEATED THE EIGHT ONE PLAN, BUT THEY DID APPROVE THE THREE YEAR STAGGERED TERMS. AND THEN, UH, YOU MAY ARE WELL AWARE IN 2012, UH, VOTERS ADOPTED A TEN ONE, UM, SCHEME WITH FOUR YEAR STAGGERED TERMS AND MOVED ELECTIONS FROM APRIL TO NOVEMBER.

AND THEN THREE YEARS AGO, THE MAYOR'S ELECTION WAS MOVED TO PRESIDENTIAL YEARS.

AND, UM, HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

WELL, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADVOCATE IS THAT WE RETURN TO HAVING A TWO YEAR COUNCIL MEMBER TERMS. AND I ACTUALLY, UM, APPRECIATED WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SEVENTIES WHEN I BECAME AN ACTIVE VOTER.

THE ELECTIONS WERE IN APRIL, UH, BECAUSE THEY WERE IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS, THAT WAS ABOUT THE ONLY ELECTION GOING ON IN TOWN.

SO THERE WAS A LOT OF TENSION, UH, FOCUSED ON THE COUNCIL RACES AND, AND, UH, A LOT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD KIND OF GROWN UP THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, WHICH WERE VERY ACTIVE THEN BECAUSE THERE WAS A PRETTY BIG BATTLE BETWEEN THE, UH, POWER STRUCTURE AT THE CITY HALL, WHICH WAS, UH, DOMINATED BY, UH, A CITY MANAGERS, VERY STRONG AND, UH, VERY MUCH ORIENTED TOWARD, UM, GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.

AND THERE WAS A BIG MOVEMENT, UM, TO, UH, SHAPE GROWTH.

UH, THAT WAS THE AUSTIN TOMORROW PLAN.

IT, UH, DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY, BUT I WOULD SAY, UH, RIGHT NOW I DON'T FEEL LIKE I HAVE THAT MUCH INPUT.

UH, AS A, AS A CITIZEN, I GET TO ELECT ONE PERSON FOR MAYOR AND ONE PERSON FOR MY DISTRICT.

AND THAT'S TWO OUT OF 11.

I JUST FEEL LIKE, UH, PEOPLE, ANYWAY, I, I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF WE COULD, UM, GO BACK TO THOSE TWO YEAR ELECTIONS AND EVEN GO AT LARGE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. DEL.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION? NO.

OKAY.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION.

UM, I SEE EVERYONE THAT I SEE IN THE AUDIENCE LOOKS LIKE A FAMILIAR FACE FOLKS THAT WE'VE HAD HERE BEFORE.

SO I WILL SKIP THE KIND OF GENERAL INTRODUCTION ABOUT WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND JUMP STRAIGHT INTO, UM, WHAT WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON AND VOTED ON SO FAR.

WE'RE GONNA GO BRIEFLY THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE VOTED ON, AND I'M GONNA CALL ON SOME OF MY FELLOW COMMISSION MEMBERS TO KIND OF HELP PROVIDE A BRIEF EXPLANATION AND THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT AND FEEDBACK.

UM, SO ITEM NUMBER ONE THAT WE VOTED ON, AND BY THE WAY, THESE ARE IN ORDER.

THESE ARE IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WILL AFFECT THE

[00:05:01]

SO THESE, THE NUMBERING HERE IS NOT INTENDED TO, UM, BE IMPORTANT IN ANY I RESPECT, OTHER THAN IT JUST ALIGNS WITH THE, HOW THE CHANGES WILL GO THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER DOCUMENT.

UM, SO

[1. Conduct a public hearing to receive feedback regarding proposed amendments to the City Charter recommended by the 2024 Charter Review Commission]

IT IS CURRENT PRACTICE THAT AFTER EACH ELECTION WE RESET TO THE LETTER A.

UNDER THIS RECOMMENDATION, WE WOULD CYCLE THROUGH THE COMPLETE 26 LETTER ALPHABET, SO THAT IN A YEAR, IF THERE WERE TO BE TWO ELECTIONS, SAY A MAY ELECTION AND IN NOVEMBER ELECTION, AND THEY BOTH FEATURED PROPOSITIONS, IF ELECTION A ENDED AT LETTER C ELECTION IN NOVEMBER WOULD START AT LETTER D.

THERE IS ALSO A CLAUSE DEALING WITH A PECULIAR CO CASE.

WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU HAVE 27 PROPOSITIONS ON A BALLOT? BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, THE ALPHABET HAS 26 LETTERS.

WE, WE SUGGEST THAT WE DOUBLE LETTER SO THAT THE 27TH WOULD BE AA.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ALANO.

ITEM NUMBER TWO IS CITY COUNCIL RATIFICATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL.

SO UNDER THIS RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD, UH, CONSENT TO BOTH THE APPROVAL AND REMOVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER, I MEAN, OF THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO WOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

AND THAT WAS ADOPTED BY AN EIGHT TO ZERO VOTE.

UM, NUMBER THREE ALSO RELATES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THIS RECOMMENDATION WOULD PROVIDE THE COUNSEL WITH A DESIGNATED ATTORNEY WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WITH WHOM THEY COULD WORK ON DEVELOPING, UM, POLICY PROPOSALS.

THAT ONE WAS ADOPTED BY AN EIGHT TO TWO VOTE.

AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR, I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER VAN MANON FOR AN EXPLANATION.

UM, I BELIEVE ACTUALLY ON NUMBERS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX, IF YOU JUST WANNA GO THROUGH THOSE.

SURE.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO ITEM NUMBER FOUR APPLIES TO ALL KINDS OF PETITIONS.

ESSENTIALLY, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TRANSPARENCY AROUND WHO IS INITIATING PETITIONS, WHO IS FUNDING PETITIONS, WHO IS SUBMITTING THOSE PETITIONS TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.

UM, THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY REQUIRE THAT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE INTENT TO SUBMIT A PETITION.

UM, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER THINGS IN THERE, LIKE A STANDARDIZED PETITION FORM, WHICH INCLUDES CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE ENTITY THAT IS, IS CIRCULATING THAT PETITION, UM, WOULD REQUIRE, UM, IT, IT WOULD PLACE SOME, SOME SORT OF TIME LIMITS AROUND THIS AS WELL.

SO IT'S NOT JUST AN OPEN-ENDED.

YOU CAN COLLECT AS MANY SIGNATURES AS YOU WANT OVER ANY PERIOD OF TIME.

UM, IT WOULD BE SIX MONTHS, WHICH IS PER STATE LAW.

HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT OR, SORRY, COLLECT THE SIGNATURES FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION.

UM, THE EFFECTIVELY IT WOULD REQUIRE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUBMITTING THAT NOTICE OF INTENT, WHICH IS THAT TOOL FOR SUBMITTING THE, OR FOR DISCLOSING THAT INFORMATION.

UM, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WHICH MAKES A LOT OF SENSE RIGHT NOW.

THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS ON THAT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO INITIATE A PETITION, TO SUBMIT A PETITION OR TO FUND A PETITION.

UM, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE, UM, THE FILING OF A TREASURER APPOINTMENT, WHICH EFFECTIVELY MEANS THEY WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE WHO'S FUNDING THEY WOULD'VE TO FILE APPROPRIATE REPORTS.

UM, THIS THE ENTIRETY OF NUMBER FOUR.

THE NOTICE OF INTENT RECOMMENDATION IS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

UM, I THINK WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE EXAMPLES THAT YOU CAN PROBABLY THINK OF WHEN THERE HASN'T BEEN TRANSPARENCY.

PEOPLE HAVE SORT OF WORKED AROUND THAT.

UM, AND THIS IS AIMED AT JUST MAKING SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO'S CIRCULATING A PETITION, NOT INTENDED TO, UM, DISSUADE ANYONE FROM STARTING THAT PETITION.

BUT WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE SIGNING IF, IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, A RANDOM VOTER OUT, OUT SIGNING A PETITION.

UM, NUMBER FIVE IS ABOUT RECALL PETITION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

UM, RIGHT NOW, A RECALL OF A MAYOR MEMBER, UH, THE MAYOR OR A MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL IS EFFECTIVELY A CAMPAIGN AGAINST A POLITICIAN.

RIGHT? ONE OF THOSE POLITICIANS IS REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY SOME FAIRLY STRICT CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, OR NOT LAWS RATHER, BUT I GUESS ORDINANCES WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

UM, BUT FOR RECALL, PETITIONS, THE ENTITY THAT IS TRYING TO COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES IN ORDER TO GET A RECALL ON THE BALLOT IS NOT REQUIRED TO, AGAIN, THEY WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO FILE THE NOTICE OF INTENT UNDER THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED RIGHT NOW TO FILE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.

THERE ARE NO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, THERE'S NO REPORTING REQUIRED OR DISCLOSURE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PETITION ITSELF.

ONCE SOMETHING'S ON A BALLOT, THEN SOME OF THOSE RULES CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.

UM, BUT THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY JUST MAKE IT MAKE IT FAIR.

SO THERE'S NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, MAYBE A MILLION DOLLARS BEING PUMPED INTO TRYING TO REMOVE SOMEONE WHO CANNOT SPEND SIMILAR TO DEFEND THEIR

[00:10:01]

SO NUMBER SIX IS ABOUT, YES, NUMBER SIX IS ABOUT THE, THE THRESHOLD FOR RECALL PETITIONS.

UM, CURRENTLY IN OUR CHARTER, THE THRESHOLD IS 10% OF THE DISTRICT THAT THE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD BE RECALLED IN.

THAT IS A HOLDOVER FROM THE AT LARGE SYSTEM WHEN 10% MEANT 10% CITYWIDE.

AND IT WAS THE SAME NUMBER FOR EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR.

UM, AT THE TIME THAT WE ADOPTED THE TEN ONE SYSTEM, THAT WAS ABOUT 50,000 SIGNATURES TO RECALL, THE MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER RIGHT NOW, 10%, WHICH WAS NOT UPDATED WHEN WE MOVED TO TEN ONE 10% IN ONE DISTRICT IS ABOUT 3,700 VOTERS IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT.

IT'S TWICE AS MANY.

SO THERE IS A DISPARITY THERE, BUT ALSO THEY'RE VERY LOW.

THOSE ARE VERY LOW THRESHOLDS FOR SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS.

UM, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TAKE THIS TOOL AWAY FROM ANYBODY, ESPECIALLY IN AUSTIN.

IT IS, IT IS THE WAY OUTSIDE OF A REGULAR ELECTION THAT YOU REMOVE A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO IS, WHO IS DERELICT OF THEIR DUTY OR FOR WHATEVER REASON.

UM, HOWEVER IT NEEDS TO BE DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT.

SO WE ARE, THIS WOULD INCREASE THAT ONLY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, NOT THE MAYOR TO 15% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS IN THEIR DISTRICT MAYOR.

IT WOULD STAY 10%.

'CAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S CITYWIDE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER VAN MANON.

UM, COMMISSIONER ULTA MURANO OR COMMISSIONER BOTKIN.

WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO EXPLAIN ITEMS NUMBER SEVEN AND EIGHT AND THEN WE CAN TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER DWYER FOR NUMBER NINE? SURE.

UM, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, CONFLICTING BALLOT INITIATIVES.

UH, AT PRESENT, THERE'S NOT A FORMAL MECHANISM IN THE CHARTER, UH, TO RESOLVE, UH, DIRECT CONFLICTS BETWEEN, UH, BALLOT MEASURES.

UH, WE HAVE PROPOSED ADOPTING LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THE HOUSTON CITY CHARTER, IN WHICH A BALLOT MEASURE, UH, THAT HAS A DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER THAT HAS ALSO PASSED.

UH, IN THAT EVENT, THE, THE MEASURE WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES WILL PREVAIL.

SO THAT'S THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROVISION.

UM, AND ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS THE, UH, UH, MOVING THE, UH, ELECTION DATES FOR, UM, CITIZEN INITIATED, UH, PETITIONS AND I BELIEVE CHARTER AMENDMENTS AS WELL TO, UH, THE FIRST AVAILABLE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION DATE, UH, THAT ALLOWS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER DWYER, CAN YOU HANDLE NUMBER NINE? SURE.

UH, SO FOR ISSUE NUMBER NINE, THIS WAS THE CULMINATION OF A VERY LONG AND THOROUGH CONVERSATION WE HAD ON WHETHER TO ADOPT A DURABLE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD FOR INITIATIVE PETITIONS.

UM, CURRENT CHARTER LANGUAGE EFFECTIVELY MAKES THE NUMBER OF PETITIONS NEEDED FOR A VALID, UM, PETITION, EXCUSE ME, THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES NEEDED FOR A VALID PETITION TO BE 20,000.

THAT'S A NUMBER THAT DOES NOT CHANGE OVER TIME.

AND WE TOOK THE WORD DURABLE TO MEAN THAT WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT POTENTIALLY CHANGING THAT TO A PERCENTAGE BASIS SO THAT THE VALUE OF THAT NUMBER COULD RISE AND FALL WITH THE POPULATION OF OUR CITY.

UM, WE HAD AN INITIAL VOTE ON A 5% PERCENTAGE, WHICH WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY INCREASED THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SIGNATURES, UH, IN THE NEAR TERM FROM 20,000 TO AROUND 29,000 THAT FAILED.

UH, AND THEN WE WENT ONTO A SECOND VOTE, WHICH WOULD HAVE INSTITUTED A 3.5% SIGNATURE THRESHOLD, WHICH IN THE NEAR TERM WOULD HAVE LEFT THE NUMBER OF EFFECTIVE SIGNATURES REQUIRED AT AROUND 20,000.

UM, THAT FAILED BY A VERY EVENLY SPLIT FIVE TO FIVE VOTE.

NOT EVERYONE HERE GOT A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THAT, SO WE MAY REVISIT IT EITHER TODAY OR NEXT MEETING.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER DWYER.

SO THAT THIS IS ALL THE ACTION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THUS FAR.

UM, WE HAVE, AND IF YOU'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE ARE INCLUDING SUGGESTED TOPICS, UM, TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ON THE SLIDE ARE THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED THUS FAR, BUT THIS IS STILL AN OPEN LIST.

UM, AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, TAKING ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS, UM, AS MR. RIDDELL HAD FOR ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, UM, THAT WE CAN SUGGEST TO COUNSEL AS PART OF OUR REPORT.

SO WITH THAT, WE WILL, AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND GOING BACK TO SLIDE SIX, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT UP DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND SO WITH THAT, WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

UM, THIS IS UNLIKE THE HEARING THAT WE HAD LAST TIME.

THIS WAS GOING TO BE MORE TRADITIONAL FORMAT.

WE WON'T BE DEBATING OR KIND OF HAVING BACK AND FORTH QUESTIONING.

IT WILL BE MORE, UM, COMING TO THE PODIUM AND, AND GIVING THE THREE MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT.

UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, MS. RIOS, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? YES.

UM, DAVID BUTTS AND WILLIAM BUNCH.

I DON'T SEE THAT THEY ARE HERE.

UM, AND KATHY MITCHELL.

WELCOME MS. MITCHELL.

THANK YOU ALL FOR LISTENING TO ME SO MANY TIMES, .

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY

[00:15:03]

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

UM, SO I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF EQUITY ACTION, AND I WANT TO SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I'M SO GLAD TO SEE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT Y'ALL HAVE ROLLED OUT AND VOTED FOR.

I THINK THEY WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

SO PART OF WHY I THINK I'M BACK TODAY IS THAT IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THE WAYS THAT YOU HAVE FOUND TO ADDRESS SO MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE FACED IN THE PETITION PROCESS, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT IT IS OUR POSITION THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO GO TO A PERCENTAGE, UH, ON THE THRESHOLD.

SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO RE-VOTE THAT I WOULD URGE YOU TO VOTE NO.

UM, AND I HAVE TESTIFIED ON THIS BEFORE, SO I'LL JUST SORT OF QUICKLY RECAP.

OUR POSITION IS THAT THE THRESHOLD ISN'T INTENDED AND SHOULDN'T BE USED AS A WAY TO PREVENT GRASSROOTS GROUPS FROM DOING VALID PETITION WORK.

WE DIRECT DEMOCRACY AS AN OPTION IN THIS STATE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT CONTINUE.

UM, THE THRESHOLD DOES HAVE A PURPOSE AND ITS PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE THAT GROUPS ARE READY FOR THE ROUGH ROAD AHEAD, RIGHT? YOU DON'T SHOW UP AS A DANTE AND NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS THING THAT YOU ARE BRINGING TO THE TABLE.

WHEN YOU GO TO THE BALLOT BOX, YOU ARE AT THE END OF YOUR ROPE.

YOU HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING ELSE.

THIS IS THE LAST THING, AND YOU ARE READY TO GO AND PULL TOGETHER THE RESOURCES THAT ARE REQUIRED.

SO THE THRESHOLD WE HAVE DOES DO THAT.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEEDING TO RAISE AND SPEND $300,000 AT THIS POINT IN THIS MARKET TO DO IT IN THE CURRENT THRESHOLD, AND RAISING THAT BY TO 3.5%.

WHILE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE IT IN THE, YOU KNOW, NEXT YEAR, YOU'RE KIND OF JUST KICKING THAT DECISION DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD.

THAT NUMBER, THAT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU NEED TO RAISE AND SPEND IN ORDER TO DO THAT BASIC THING, THAT ENTRY LEVEL THING.

AND THEN YOU STILL HAVE TO WIN A CAMPAIGN AFTER THAT.

UM, THAT WILL JUST GET HARDER AND HARDER OVER TIME.

SO I THINK THAT OUR POSITION AT THIS POINT IS THAT THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS BETTER DISCLOSURE TO ENSURE THAT VOTERS UNDERSTAND WHO IT IS YOU ARE AND WHAT IT IS YOU'RE DOING.

AND YOU'VE ADDRESSED CONFLICTING BALLOT INITIATIVES.

I, I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF READING ALL THE CASE LAW ABOUT HOUSTON AND I WISH IT WERE GONNA JUST WORK TOMORROW, BUT IT IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE ARE WITH ALL OF THIS.

EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE IS MAKING IT BETTER THAN WHERE WE ARE NOW.

AND YOU CAN REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL THAT WE ARE MOVING THE NEEDLE.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, IT WILL STILL BE A PROCESS THAT'S OPEN TO GRASSROOTS GROUPS THAT WANT VERY BADLY TO COME FORWARD WITH A, YOU KNOW, GRASSROOTS BASED DEMOCRACY INITIATIVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

APPRECIATE YOU.

I'M NOT SURE IF MR. RIDDEL WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AS WELL.

YES, .

WELL, GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

UM, I DON'T, I WON'T HAVE TIME IN THREE MINUTES TO TELL YOU EVERYTHING.

I THINK I'LL TRY TO PUT IT IN WRITING BEFORE YOUR NEXT MEETING.

'CAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS HERE THAT I, I REALLY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT.

UH, I'D LIKE TO MENTION THREE PARTICULAR THINGS THOUGH RIGHT NOW.

ONE IS THE BALLOT WORDING.

WHAT I'M SEEING SO FAR DOESN'T REALLY TELL PEOPLE WHAT CHANGE THEY'RE MAKING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO TELL THEM, UH, SHALL YOU, UH, REQUIRE 15%, UM, PETITION THRESHOLD FOR RECALL ELECTIONS? IT DOESN'T TELL THE VOTER THAT IT'S 10 RIGHT NOW, THAT NEEDS TO BE IN ON THE BALLOT.

SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHETHER THEY'RE GETTING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF OR, OR JUST, YOU KNOW, WHICH DIRECTION THINGS ARE GOING.

PUT IT THAT WAY.

UH, SPEAKING OF THE RECALL, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF SAYING, WELL, WE HAVE A SMALL DISTRICT HERE, SO, UH, 10%, THAT'S, THAT'S TOO LITTLE.

UH, IT SHOULD BE 15.

WELL, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT MATTERS.

IT'S STILL 10% OF THE VOTERS THERE, UH, IN ANY PARTICULAR DISTRICT.

BUT, UM, IN PARTICULAR,

[00:20:02]

AND THAT WAS, OH GEE, WIZZ, IF WE HAVE A RECALL AND SOMEBODY IS RECALLED, OH, THEN THOSE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION.

WELL, THAT'S REALLY UP TO THEM, UH, TO BE PART OF THEIR CALCULUS WHEN DECIDING WHEN TO VOTE.

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT.

YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE TO WAIT SIX MONTHS TILL THE NEXT, UH, STANDARD, REGULAR ELECTION BECAUSE THERE'S A PRISON IN THE LAW FOR THE GO FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO ASK THE GOVERNOR, UH, TO GIVE THEM, UH, TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE SPECIAL ELECTION ON A SOONER DATE.

AND I'VE SENT YOU AN EMAIL THAT, THAT HAS THAT LAW.

IT'S SECTION 41.0011 OF THE, UH, ELECTION CODE.

UM, THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION, THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS, UH, IN THE PROPOSAL FOR THE, UH, VERIFICATION SIGNATURES AND THE NOTICE OF, UM, THE PETITION.

AND I WANNA SAY, UH, SOME OF THOSE ARE PILING UP AND MAKING THE PROCESS UNNECESSARILY LONG.

I THINK, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE CLERK IS AFRAID OF GETTING THREE PETITIONS AT ONCE AND HOW MUCH TIME IT'S GONNA TAKE, BUT, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, THAT TIMEFRAME COLLAPSED AS POSSIBLE.

BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, UH, THE CLERK HAD 10 DAYS TO COUNT THE SIGNATURES AND THEN JUST A MATTER OF DAYS, UH, FOR THE COUNCIL TO ACT AND THE ELECTIONS HAD TO BE LIKE 30 OR 40 DAYS, HENCE.

SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDRESSED.

UM, OKAY.

ALSO MOVING TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS.

COME ON, THAT'S EVERY TWO YEARS WHEN WE HAVE THOSE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS.

UH, AN INITIATIVE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT MONTHS AND MONTHS FOR THIS ARBITRARY, UH, ELECTION DATE THAT YES HAS MORE VOTERS, BUT, BUT DELAYS YOUR JUSTICE AND THE NEED FOR A CHANGE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS REGISTERED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.

HONOR CHAIR.

I'M SORRY.

WE DO HAVE, WE DO? YES.

OKAY, SURE.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS ED ESPINOZA.

I MIGHT REMEMBER YOU FROM LAST TIME MEMBER OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

THOUGH I'M NOT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.

I'M ALSO MARRIED TO A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAS HEARD THE ARGUMENTS I'M ABOUT TO SHARE WITH YOU.

MANY TIMES HAS ASKED ME TO TAKE IT TO A MORE APPROPRIATE VENUE.

SO HERE I AM.

UM, I DON'T NORMALLY SPEAK TO COUNCIL, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY SURPRISINGLY UNCOMFORTABLE FOR ME.

BUT, UH, BEAR WITH ME.

LAST YEAR I WROTE A PIECE FOR THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE AND I'M HERE TO SHARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM MY ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE WAY LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES ARE LETTERED.

I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU'VE COME AROUND AND, UM, I'M HOPING TO ADD A LITTLE SUPPORT TO THAT.

NOW IMAGINE IF EVERY YEAR, EVERY TWO YEARS, EVERY TWICE A YEAR, WE HAD CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT, VERY DIFFERENT CANDIDATES, BUT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO USE THE SAME NAME BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST ONE TO FILE.

JOHN SMITH IS THE MOST COMMON NAME IN AMERICA.

IMAGINE IF WE HAD VERY DIFFERENT CANDIDATES WITH JOHN SMITH EVERY TIME.

'CAUSE THE LAW MANDATED IT.

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

AND I THINK THE LETTERING OF EVERY BALLOT IN, UH, MEASURE, STARTING WITH A, IS A VERY SIMILAR ARGUMENT.

WHAT'S THE POINT IN LETTERING THEM IF THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF THEM HAVE THE SAME LETTER? IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

I THINK IT'S A DISSERVICE TO THE VOTERS.

IT'S A DISSERVICE TO DEMOCRACY.

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THAT HERE.

NOW, STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT THEY BE LETTERED, BUT THE LAW IS ALSO VAGUE.

THE LAW DOESN'T STATE IF WE HAVE TO START OVER.

EVERY ELECTION, A 2017 LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE AFFIRMED THE LETTERING AND ALSO DID NOT AFFIRM WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD CONTINUE LETTERING WITH A AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ELECTION.

THERE'S NO GEOGRAPHIC PARTISAN, RURAL OR URBAN ADVANTAGE TO THIS CHANGE.

IT JUST IS.

IT'S JUST EASIER FOR PEOPLE.

WE'VE HAD ABOUT 10 MEASURES NAMED MEASURE A SINCE 2018.

IF WE WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THE ALPHABET WITH THESE, WE WOULD'VE HAD ABOUT TWO AT THIS POINT.

IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE.

WE OWE IT TO THE VOTERS TO ENACT THE CHANGE.

I'M GLAD THE COMMISSION IS GOING ALONG.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT BEFORE I MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO? NOPE.

OKAY.

OKAY.

WITH

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SO THIS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

AND WE, I BELIEVE, NEED TO DO THIS

[00:25:01]

SO ONCE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW, I WILL ENTERTAIN SEPARATE MOTIONS TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES.

CHAIR.

YOU CAN VOTE ON THEM TOGETHER.

WE CAN.

MM-HMM, .

OKAY.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

THEY WERE EMAILED OUT.

YOU SHOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE A HARD COPY ALSO IN YOUR MATERIALS.

OH, THAT I THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM, UM, THE 29TH AND THE 15TH.

15TH.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.

COMMISSIONER COLES.

ALL IN FAVOR? A.

ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM

[3. Discussion and possible action on the Petition Process Working Groups initial recommendation report on revisions to the petition process. (Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, and McGiverin)]

UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER COLES, DWYER AND MCGON.

I DUNNO IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION OR UPDATES FROM THIS GROUP.

UM, WE LEFT THIS ON THE AGENDA LAST TIME BECAUSE WE WEREN'T ALL PRESENT LAST TIME.

UM, AS I MENTIONED, I, I FEEL LIKE OUR, OUR WORK ON THE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD IS FINISHED.

UM, NO MATTER WHETHER WE TAKE ACTION OR NOT, TODAY, WE'RE GONNA BE SENDING A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE TO COUNSEL THAT WE ARE PRETTY EVENLY DIVIDED ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS FAIR GIVEN THAT IT'S A NUANCED ISSUE.

UM, SO I WON'T BE MAKING ANY MOTIONS TODAY, BUT IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SECOND, I GUESS I'M PROBABLY THE ONE THAT NEEDS TO SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, AGENDA ITEMS, I, I THINK I'D, I'D, UH, LIKE TO ADD THAT TO THE, THE 21ST AGENDA, UH, FOR A FORMAL VOTE.

UH, AND I'LL HAVE SOME COMMENTARY ABOUT THAT.

OKAY.

SO WE WILL ADD TO THE MARCH 21ST AGENDA.

WE WILL KEEP THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PETITION PROCESS WORKING GROUP.

ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE ON AGENDA ITEM? OH, COMMISSIONER ALANO.

OH, JUST TO, UH, MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL ADOPTED LANGUAGE FOR THE REPORT AVAILABLE.

BECAUSE IF WE ADD A PIECE THAT WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND AND WE ARE VOTING ON THE FINAL REPORT, WE WILL NEED THE, THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT IN THE FINAL REPORT OR ELSE WE WOULD'VE TO RECONVENE.

WE WILL.

AND SO WE CAN, IN DRAFTING THE FINAL REPORT, WE CAN THE INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE VOTED ON LAST TIME, AND THEN WE CAN, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT VOTE GOES, UH, WE CAN DELETE THOSE PAGES OUT IN THE FINAL REPORT IF EVERYONE'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT APPROACH.

COMMISSIONER LASH, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, IS THERE A REASON WHY WE CAN'T VOTE ON IT NOW IN CASE THERE'S SOMEONE MISSING ON THE 21ST? I'D HATE FOR US TO, CAN BE IN THE SAME SITUATION.

WE ALL ARE PRESENT TODAY.

SURE.

FINE WITH ME.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA I DON'T WANT TO RUSH ANYTHING.

I'M JUST, ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION COMMISSIONER? WE ? UM, I, I THINK SO, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'S GONNA BE RUSHED IF WE WAIT UNTIL THE 21ST AND WE ALL ARE HERE.

AND WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN BETWEEN ON THE 21ST.

SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, UM, THE PETITION, UH, WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 3.5%, UM, DURABLE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER, WHICH WAY DID YOU VOTE? WHAT? CAN WE GET A, CAN I GET A SECOND? WELL, SOMEONE FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE, THERE'S NO PREVAILING SIDE, WHICH IS THE, THERE IS A PREVAILING SIDE BECAUSE THE MOTION FAILED.

SO SOMEONE WHO VOTED AGAINST WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

CAN WE GET SOME

[00:30:01]

I MEAN, I, I'M LIKE 75% SURE SHE'S CORRECT, BUT THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT OKAY.

I JUST HAD A COUNCIL ITEM TAKEN BACK IN ANOTHER CITY AND THE PERSON THAT VOTED FOR IT ASKED FOR IT TO COME BACK.

THE MOTION HAD PASSED.

SO I GUESS THAT'S A PREVAILING SIDE.

YEAH.

AND SO THE MOTION NEEDS TO COME EITHER FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT, WHO DID NOT VOTE LAST NIGHT, LAST TIME, OR WHO PREVAILED ON, OR WHO VOTED ON THE PREVAILING SIDE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.

I, I'M JUST NEVER SEEING THE SITUATION WHERE IT'S A TIME VOTE, RIGHT.

PREVAIL.

RIGHT.

IT, IT, IT MAKES SENSE, BUT THE, AND IT TIES SITUATION SINCE IT DIDN'T GET SIX.

AND WHAT ABOUT A SECOND? CAN A PERSON WHO VOTED OKAY.

OKAY.

IN THAT EVENT, SINCE I WAS ABSENT, UM, AT THE LAST MEETING IN WHICH THIS WAS DISCUSSED, I MOVE TO ADD THIS, UH, CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE 3.5, UH, AGENDA ITEM NOW.

OKAY.

SO COMMISSIONER BAKKEN IS MOVING, UM, THAT WE ADOPT THE DURABLE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD OF 3.5% OF QUALIFIED VOTERS.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? HE DIDN'T VOTE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE VOTE, BUT HE WAS NOT PRESENT.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHICH SIDE PREVAILED IN THIS DETERMINATION? IT FAILED OR NO, NO SIDE.

NO SIDE.

BECAUSE IT DID NOT PASS.

YOU NEEDED SIX TO PASS.

IT WAS FIVE.

FIVE.

SO IT DID NOT PASS.

SO THEN NO PREVAILED, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.

AND DOES SOMEONE, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IS SOMEONE WHO WAS ABSENT GET COUNTED AS A NO OR A YES IN THAT CALCULATION? THAT'S WHAT I THINK.

WE DON'T KNOW IT.

I'M ALSO JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW BINDING THIS IS.

UM, IN TERMS OF ROBERT, OF ORDER YOU MEAN ON THIS BODY AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT.

IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S FOR DRAFTING A REPORT THAT WE'RE GONNA ACTUALLY, WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE THE REPORT.

MM-HMM.

DOES THAT, THAT WILL BE A SECOND.

THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

IT'S LIKE THIS IS KIND OF A, RIGHT.

I MEAN, IF THERE'S NO HARM FROM PROCEEDING, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE VOTE IF THERE'S NO HARM IN THAT, UM, APPROACH.

SO REMIND ME, WHO MADE THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER BACH AND WHO WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE LAST MEETING.

CHAIR, IT'S YOUR MEETING.

UM, BUT TO, IN, JUST IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CLARITY, THOSE WHO VOTED NO, WERE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG MCGON, VAN MAN AND COS ORTEGA.

SO IF ONE OF THE NAMED COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION, I DON'T THINK THEY, I'M ASSUMING NONE OF THEM DO .

UM, OKAY THEN I I I DON'T THINK IT'S A, I I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS PROCEED WITH THE VOTE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A VOTE TO INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE FINAL REPORT.

AND THEN THE FI THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL REPORT WILL BE SUBJECT OF A SECOND MOTION, UM, OF A SEPARATE MOTION.

OKAY.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING, THAT WAS UP TO SPEED ON ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS I CLEARLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

UM, BUT WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS SITUATION? SO, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, UM, FROM COMMISSIONER BACHAN.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER DWYER SECONDS.

ALL IN FAVOR? I'M SORRY.

CAN WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE THE VOTE? WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION.

YES.

I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE JUST ONLY BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE DISCUSSION TODAY, JUST TO REMIND FOLKS THAT EFFECTIVELY A PERCENTAGE WILL PUSH IT ABOVE THE THRESHOLD FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHICH IS PER STATE LAW.

UM, AND THAT'S FOR US EFFECTIVELY GOING TO BE 20,000 SIGNATURES UNTIL THAT'S CHANGED IN STATE LAW.

AND SO I'M, I DO HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT PUSHING IT ABOVE STATE LAW IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY AT LENGTH.

AND I JUST TO, I, I AGREE THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED CLEARLY TO COUNSEL IN OUR FINAL REPORT.

IF THE MOTION PASSES AND THE RECOMMENDATION GOES IN OR, OR REALLY EITHER WAY, WHETHER IT PASSES OR FAILS, I THINK THE REASONING, UM, BEHIND THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP AGAIN.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, I GUESS, I MEAN, I HESITATE TO BRING THIS UP 'CAUSE I KNOW THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED, BUT THIS SEEMS ACTUALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE, THE, UM, PRIOR, UH, SUGGESTION THAT WE, UH, SHOULD THE STATE LAW INCREASE THE VOTER THRESHOLD THAT CITIES CAN, CAN MAKE FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

IT WOULD, UM, WELL I GUESS THE CITY COULD STILL AT THAT POINT, WHAT I, MY POINT BEING THAT LIKE THIS WOULD SEEM SORT OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THOSE WHO

[00:35:01]

SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S KIND OF A, A, UM, MAYBE A BAD DEAL FOR BOTH SIDES.

BUT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? NO.

CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? SO AT THE MEETING ON THE 21ST, UM, WHERE WE EXPECT TO BE VOTING ON OUR FINAL REPORT IS IT'S ONE SIMPLE VOTE ON THE ENTIRE REPORT, UP OR DOWN.

WILL THERE BE ROOM, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD BE EXPLAINING, UM, THE POSITIONS.

'CAUSE IN PARTICULAR THIS VOTE, ASSUMING THAT IT GOES SIMILARLY TO THIS TIME THAN IT AS IT DID LAST TIME, UM, LIKE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE, THE COMMISSION HAS SAID THAT THEY DON'T APPROVE OF THIS.

AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AN OPTION.

SHOULD THIS PASS RIGHT NOW AND IT GETS INTO THE FINAL REPORT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT SIGNIFICANT PORTION TO EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND THEIR VOTE ON THAT.

YES, I THINK THAT THAT WILL BE REFLECTED AND WE'LL GET TO, WE DO HAVE A UPDATE TODAY ON, YOU KNOW, THE DRAFT REPORT AND HOW IT'S COMING ALONG.

BUT I THINK WE WILL HAVE CON THE CONTEXT FOR ALL OF THIS AND OBJECTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE WRITTEN REPORT.

YOU ALL WILL HAVE A DRAFT OF THAT AHEAD OF TIME.

AND SO YOU WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO KIND OF ADD SOME CONTEXT THERE.

UM, AND ALSO WHEN WE GIVE OUR FINAL PRESENTATION TO COUNSEL, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY WANNA CONSIDER HOW WE PRESENT THIS AND MAYBE, MAYBE IT'S, WE HAVE ONE PERSON FROM THE PRO SIDE AND ONE PERSON FROM THE CON SIDE TO KIND OF PRESENT TO COUNCIL BECAUSE THIS WAS SUCH A DIVIDED ISSUE.

BUT I THINK WE CAN FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW WE WANNA PRESENT THAT AT THE MARCH 21ST MEETING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO EVERYONE.

BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT ALL OF VIEWPOINTS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED BECAUSE THIS WAS SUCH A TIGHT VOTE.

WHICHEVER WAY IT ENDS UP GOING.

YES.

I JUST WANNA A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

THIS VOTE THAT WE'RE TAKING ON THE MOTION IS CONTRARY TO THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? I'VE BEEN GOOGLING IF YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT GOOGLE AS A RESOURCE.

UM, LET'S SEE.

UH, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER MAKES IT EASY TO REINTRODUCE A DEFEATED MOTION AT A FUTURE MEETING.

THIS IS CALLED RENEWING THE MOTION.

ALL A MEMBER HAS TO DO IS REQUEST THE MOTION, BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA, OR BRING IT UP AT THE RIGHT TIME DURING A FUTURE MEETING, PROVIDED THAT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.

AND SO ANY, ANY MEMBER REGARDLESS OF WHICH WAY THEY VOTED, COULD HAVE RENEWED THE MOTION.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

SO WE ARE VOTING ON A RENEWED MOTION.

OKAY.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? OKAY, HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, MEANING THAT WE ARE VOTING FOR, UH, CHANGING THE DURABLE SIGNATURE THRESHOLD FOR INITIATIVE PETITIONS TO 3.5% OF QUALIFIED VOTERS VOTING IN FAVOR? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

FIVE, SIX.

OKAY.

SIX IN FAVOR.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY, THE MOTION PASSES.

SO THIS WILL BE IN OUR FINAL REPORT AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD CONTEXTUAL LANGUAGE.

AND WITH THAT MOTION PASSED, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM FROM THE PETITION PROCESS WORKING GROUP.

IS THAT CORRECT? AND SO WE NO LONGER NEED AN, AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE PETITION PROCESS WORKING GROUP AT THE MARCH 21ST MEETING.

OKAY.

MOVING ON TO AGENDA

[4. Discussion and possible action regarding community engagement of the Charter Review process from the Outreach Work Group. ]

THIS IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OF THE CHARTER REVIEW PROCESS FROM THE OUTREACH WORKING GROUP.

TODAY WAS OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING AND UNLESS EITHER, UM, COMMISSIONER GARCIA OR LASH HAS ANYTHING FURTHER, I BELIEVE WE ARE OUR WORK AS THE WORKING GROUP IS COMPLETED.

OKAY.

I SEE THEM NODDING.

SO WE HAVE NO FURTHER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE OUTREACH WORKING GROUP.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS

[5. Discussion and possible action on the review and finalization of the draft report to Council. ]

WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS A LITTLE BIT JEHA, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN DIGGING IN THE LAST, UH, FEW DAYS.

SURE.

SO, UH, MY PLAN IS TO TRY MY UTMOST TO GET YOU A DRAFT BY THE 15TH SO THAT EVERYONE WILL HAVE, UH, THE WEEKEND AND ABOUT A WEEK TO TAKE A LOOK AT, UH, AND MAKE ANY CHANGES TO

[00:40:01]

UM, FOR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE SUBSTANTIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF I, IF I HAVE SOME CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER, I'LL BE REACHING OUT TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY, UM, TO DISCUSS THOSE.

UM, I'VE ALREADY STARTED SOME OF THAT OUTREACH, BUT YOU WILL HOPEFULLY HAVE, UH, WELL OVER, UH, A WEEK TO, TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE, REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE DRAFT REPORT? SORRY, I, I WAS JUST GONNA MENTION ON THE RECALL, UM, SIGNATURE THRESHOLD, I THINK KINDA ALONG THE LINES THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER VAN MANNEN BROUGHT UP OVER ITEM NUMBER NINE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE GOOD CLARIFICATION OF LIKE WHY WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THE MAYOR AND UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WHEN I HEARD YOUR REASONING BEHIND IT, IT MADE SENSE, BUT I THINK ON THE, YOU KNOW, FACE OF IT, IT'S GONNA CONFUSE VOTERS AND LIKE, UM, MR. RIDELL BROUGHT UP ALSO LIKE, WHAT WAS IT NOW? 10%, IT'S GOING TO 15 AND WHAT DID 10% MEAN? IN SOME DISTRICTS THAT MEANT LIKE, LIKE 2000 VOTERS.

RIGHT? SO I THINK SOME OF THAT CONTEXT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE I THINK ON ITS FACE PEOPLE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND IT OR, YOU KNOW, BE SCARED OF IT.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER ALANO? YES.

SINCE WE ARE SPEEDING ALONG AND UH, YOU HAVE JUST JOINED US, WELCOME MS. .

I WANTED TO, UM, SPEAK TO TWO, UH, ITEMS THAT ARE TWO AND A HALF THAT ARE KIND OF IMPORTANT AND THE, UH, INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AND THE APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS SINCE I WROTE THEM.

MOSTLY I KNOW DO NOT CAPTURE THE FULL EXTENT OF OUR DISCUSSION.

AND ONE THAT IS VERY KIND OF RICH AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR EXPERTISE IN FILLING IT OUT HAS TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF HOW OUR RECOMMENDATION ON MOVING CHARTER TO MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION INTERACTS WITH THE TWO YEAR, UM, PROHIBITION ON HAVING ANOTHER CHARTER ELECTION.

BECAUSE THERE IS A, UH, BELIEF AMONG US THAT THAT WOULD MEAN COUNCIL HAS THE OPTION OF KICKING A ELECTION NOT TO THE NEXT UNIFORM ELECTION DATE, BUT ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE NEXT POTUS.

AND IT IS A SUBTLE BUT VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL SUBSTANTIVELY BECAUSE THE CHARTER IS THE OPERATING SYSTEM OF THE CITY.

AND BECAUSE WE AS A GROUP COMPREHENSIVELY BELIEVE POLICY QUESTIONS SHOULD BE SETTLED THROUGH THE ORDINANCE ROUTE, NOT THROUGH THE CHARTER ROUTE, THE CHARTER SHOULD NOT BE FREQUENTLY AMENDED THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS AFTER PETITIONING TO CHANGE.

THE CHARTER, I THINK IS COMPATIBLE WITH OUR VIEW OF WE WANT POLICY QUESTIONS TO BE SETTLED BY ORDINANCE.

BUT THERE WAS A, UM, EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION AND BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS IN INDEED THE CASE THAT COUNSEL HAD THAT ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY SAY NO ALL THE WAY TO POTUS OR NOT AS YOU REVISIT THIS MATERIAL, WHAT WE APPROVED DIDN'T DIVE TOO MUCH INTO IT IN, IN PART 'CAUSE WE USE THE CLAUSE AS, AS SORT OF STATE LAW ALLOWS AS A, AS EJECTION.

BUT I THINK ONCE IT GETS TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY, THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DESIRE FOR UNDERSTANDING.

UH, AND THEN SECOND, AND, AND THIS IS I I THINK, UM, IMPORTANT, UH, I WAS WANTED TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS ON THE, THAT THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE US TO USE IN PROVIDING FEEDBACK.

SO WE ARE GONNA GET A DRAFT YES.

AND THEN THE FEEDBACK THAT WE PROVIDE SHOULD BE SENT TO DIRECTOR, CORRECT.

AND, UH, OR DO YOU WANT US TO VOTE ON AMENDMENTS AT THE END IF THERE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'VE MADE? UM, I MEAN I THINK WE WILL DISCUSS THOSE AS PART OF THE FINAL REPORT IF THERE ARE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

UM, I THINK THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT MS. ROVY WAS DESCRIBING WHILE SHE, SHE WILL BE REACHING OUT TO INDIVIDUALS IF SHE COMES ACROSS SOMETHING THAT SHE DOES FEEL LIKE NEEDS TO BE AMEND AMENDED.

SO HOPEFULLY NONE OF THOSE WILL COME AS A SURPRISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

UM, BUT I THINK IF YOU ALL WILL DIRECT YOUR FEEDBACK DIRECTLY TO HER, UM, THAT WILL ALLOW US TO KIND OF WORK

[00:45:01]

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT IT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY.

ABSOLUTELY.

AND I THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

SO THE, THE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF IT'S SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE RECOMMENDATION, IT'S LANGUAGE EDIT, LET'S GIVE IT TO THE DRAFTER ASAP AND THEN WE WILL FIX IT IF WE HAVE TO AT THE END.

OKAY.

AND THEN THE HALF IS THIS, THERE WAS A TABLE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE SAW TODAY FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, UM, AND, AND PUBLIC INPUT THAT I THINK IS REALLY VALUABLE TO HAVE CLEARLY SOMEWHERE IN THE, IN THE REPORT, WHICH IS THE VOTE OUTCOMES ON ALL OF THESE ITEMS. UH, I, UH, I IN THE WAY, THE FORMAT THAT WE ADOPTED, THEY'RE BURIED IN THE OVERVIEW OF EACH ITEM.

BUT I THINK THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT TABLE FOR OUR POINTERS AND THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND AS THEY KIND OF MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THE, THE PACKAGE.

SO IF WE COULD JUST HAVE THAT TABLE SOMEWHERE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PAGE, THE PAGE AFTER THE PAGE OF TABLE OF CONTENTS, I THINK THAT'D BE REALLY, UM, HELPFUL AND POWERFUL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER LASH.

I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, DO YOU WANT IT IN THE FORM OF REDLINES? BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE THAT WILL DO DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMENTS AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO GET 10 OR 11 DIFFERENT, LIKE SOME PEOPLE WILL BULLET POINT IT AND BE LIKE, PAGE THIS, BUT THEN THE PAGE NUMBERS WILL CHANGE AND THEN YOU'RE SEARCHING FOR THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS.