[00:00:01]
4 6 0 1[1. CALL SESSION TO ORDER]
SIX OH ONE.WE'LL CALL THE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15TH, 2020 FOR THE ORDER ROLL CALL.
[3.1. Final Report of Recommendations for Charter Amendments (Legal)]
FIRST ITEM, FINAL REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS.MAYOR COUNSEL, I SENT OUT A MEMO, UM, FEBRUARY 9TH AND WITH SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, CHART PETITION FOR COUNCIL
AND SO I PLACED THEM ON A POWERPOINT AND SO I GO THEM, I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK.
OH, WE TO THE VERY FIRST, OH, HERE'S MY, I WENT TO THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT THEY WERE THE OPENING AFTER THEIR EXHIBITS WEREN'T OPEN.
SO THEY GAVE ME A WOODEN NICKEL, LIKE A WOODEN COIN.
DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR MEMO TO REFER TO? YES MA'AM.
SO ON THE FIRST PROPOSITION THAT I, WHAT, WHAT DAY WAS THAT? SO I CAN JUST PULL IT UP REAL QUICK.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL CHARTER PROPOSITION.
SO POSITION FIVE, WE TALKED ABOUT, UM, EVERYBODY HAS TO VOTE IN ATTENDANCE UNLESS THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT CHAPTER OF 1 71 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
THE, UH, AND THAT'S A REQUIREMENT ANYWAY, EVEN IF IT WASN'T IN THE CHARTER.
BUT WHAT I WAS RECOMMENDING TO ADD TO THIS OR ACCEPT THAT A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL ABSTAINS FROM VOTING IN ORDER TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AS DEFINED IN THE HO ETHICS CODE OR CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOLS.
SO APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS A LOT OF TIMES YOUR NONPROFIT AGENCIES WILL COME UP AND ASK FOR FUNDING, AND YOU MIGHT BE A MEMBER OF THAT NONPROFIT GROUP OR ON THE SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THAT GROUP, OR SOME ENTITY COMES UP.
YOU DON'T HAVE A LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHERE YOU DON'T OWN PROPERTY, 10% OF THE BUSINESS OR EMPLOYED BY THE BUSINESS THAT YOU'RE CONNECTED TO THE BUSINESS AND YOU JUST WANT TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING.
SO THIS GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO ABSTAIN THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN EXHIBIT A.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE CHANGE EXHIBIT A BE THAT ONE AND THAT B EXCEPT WHEN THE MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL ABSTAINS FROM VOTING IN ORDER TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE IMPROPRIETY.
AND THEN YOU CAN, YOU CAN END IT THERE, OR YOU CAN SAY AS DEFINED IN YOUR ETHICS CODE.
SO YOU CAN TIE IT TO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS OR YOU CAN PUT YOUR COUNCIL PROTOCOLS WHERE YOU CAN JUST END IT AFTER APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
AND SO WE HAVE AN ABILITY ON THIS, UM, AGENDA TO, UM, MAKE MOTIONS.
AND IF YOU WANNA DO THAT RIGHT NOW, OR IF YOU WANNA JUST GO TO THE END AND MAKE ONE MOTION.
I THINK WE DO WANT EACH ONE AS WE GO.
SO WE CAN YOU WANT US TO DO STUFF IN THIS MEETING? YEAH.
WE POSTED IT SO YOU COULD TAKE ACTION.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE AS
MOTION BY COUNCIL THORNTON BY COUNCILOR LAR, ACCEPTING CHANGES TO PROPOSITION FIVE.
UH, STRONG SECRETARY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THIS ONE IS PUBLICITY OF RECORDS.
THIS WAS POINTED OUT AT THE LAST MEETING THAT, UH, THERE'S A TENANTS IN THERE DURING NORMAL OFFICE HOURS.
ANY PERSON OR DUTY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
[00:05:01]
OR OTHER NEWS MEDIAS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE ANY SUCH PUBLIC RECORDS BELONGING TO THE CITY.TO MAKE COPIES UNDER WHICH REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THIS CHARTER.
SO, UM, YOU CAN DELETE THAT BECAUSE STATE LAW GOVERNS THAT YOU CAN, UM, GIVE SOME OPTIONS.
THE HIGHLIGHTED SUPPLY SUPPRESS NEWS MEDIA ADD TO THE END AS ALLOWED BY STATE LAW ORDINANCE OR REMOVE.
UM, MY RECOMMENDATION IS REALLY JUST TO HAVE A PROPOSITION SAYING BE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE PROVISIONS, ALLOWING THE PRESS AND NEWS MEDIA TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE COPY PUBLIC RECORDS.
BECAUSE STATE LAW PROVIDES THE PRESS AND NEWS MEDIA WITH THAT.
MY MOTION TO WHAT DOTTIE JUST SAID, SAID, JUST MERCHANDISE
AND THAT'S REMOVING THE YELLOW.
SO HOW WILL, ARE YOU GONNA COME UP WITH DIFFERENT, HOW ARE YOU, HOW IS THIS GONNA BE WORDED ON THE, UH, THE BALLOT MEASURE? JUST AS I READ IT TO YOU? SO I, AND I HAVE THESE STRAPPED AND I'M JUST GONNA SLIP 'EM IN BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THE NEXT MEETING, JUST SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT.
SO IT'LL JUST BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE MM-HMM,
I THINK ESSENTIALLY WE'RE JUST
I THINK THE POINT OF CONTENTION ON THIS ONE IS THAT SOME PEOPLE READ IT AS ANY PERSON, MEANING ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESS OR NEWS MEDIA, WHEN IT SEEMS TO MEAN ANY, THAT ANY PERSON, IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO'S IN THE NEWS MEDIA? IT DOES.
OR IS THAT SUPPOSED DOESN'T MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE TO ME BECAUSE TO ME, WHAT IS, SO WHAT GIVES THE PUBLIC A RIGHT TO EXAMINE RECORDS? IT'S IN THE STATE LAW.
SO CAN IT, CAN IT SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT? THAT THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS THROUGH STATE, STATE LAW BY LAW? IT DOES SAY, BY LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT I'M NOT ABLE TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE WE ALREADY, WE ALREADY HAVE A, WE ALREADY HAVE A THING, LIKE THERE'S A CONTRACT, A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THAT BY LAW WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK, IT'D BE ASKED TO RELEASE IT.
THEN BY LAW, WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK THE AG FOR THEIR OPINION ON IT.
AND SO WE SHIP IT OFF AND WE SPEND 45 OR 60 DAYS.
AND SO LITERALLY THE CITY COULD THEN GO AND EVERY TIME SOMEONE ASKS FOR INFORMATION, THEY COULD SAY, WELL, WE GOT SENT TO THE AG G'S OFFICE.
BUT THAT THE EXAMPLE YOU'RE SHARING, IT'S, IT ISN'T BECAUSE THE CITY OBJECTED TO RELEASING NS THE OTHER PARTY OBJECTED TO, AND IT WAS THEIR RIGHT TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT RELEASED.
WELL, ABOUT TO ARGUE ABOUT THAT OUT THERE.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE AND TALKING TO PEOPLE, IT'S AN INTERPRETATION.
SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE CITY, THE EDC SIDE IS TAKING, AND TO ME, YOU TAKE THIS OUT AND YOU, YOU'RE SHUTTING THE PUBLIC OUT.
YOU'RE GONNA SAY, AS BY STATE LAW, AND WE HAD 17 LAWSUITS IN THE CITY WITH A EE TRYING TO RESTRICT THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
ME, IT OUGHT TO BE DURING NORMAL OFFICE HOURS.
ANY PERSON SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE.
I TAKE OUT OR DO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND JUST SAY, ANYBODY OUGHT TO HAVE THE RIGHT.
AND THEN AT THE END OF IT, YOU CAN SAY, AS PRESCRIBED BY STATE LAW, BUT WE'RE ALREADY NOT DICTATING TO PEOPLE.
SOME PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN GET COPIES OF INFORMATION.
IMAGINE IF WE THEN CHANGE THAT AND SAY, GOING FORWARD, WE'RE NOT LETTING ANYBODY TAKE A COPY OR A PICTURE OF ANY DOCUMENT OF ANYTHING IN THE CITY.
YOU CAN ONLY VISUALLY LOOK AT IT.
RIGHT? WELL, BUT IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT AND YOU SAY, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THEN YOU OPEN EVERYTHING UP TO INTERPRETATION.
AND THEN YOU HAVE TO, THE INDIVIDUAL HAS TO FIGHT WITH THE AG TO RELEASE INFORMATION IS ALL CITY, AM I RIGHT? NOT ALL CITY THEN HAS TO DO IS KICK EVERYTHING TO THE AG CONSTANTLY.
WELL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO KICK SOMETHING TO THE AG, OTHERWISE JUST GET POURED OUT AND THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT CORRECT.
RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY, THE CITY CAN CREATE RULES, EXCUSE ME ON THIS.
WELL, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT ONE TONIGHT.
AN EVENT TO WHERE THE INFORMATION IS ABOUT, IS ABOUT BIDS CAN BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL AND WE'RE KEEPING A, NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY, BUT SOMEONE IS WORKING TO KEEP THE CONTRACT CONFIDENTIAL.
AND SO YOU ALWAYS AIR BY, I MEAN, EVEN IN 2019, I SPENT NINE MONTHS TRYING TO GET A COPY OF THE PERFECT GAME LEASE.
AND I WAS ON COUNCIL THAT COULDN'T EVEN GET IT BECAUSE HE KEPT GOING TO THE AG AND THE AG WOULD SAY,
[00:10:01]
SOMEDAY GO BACK TO THE AG.AND I'M LIKE, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.
BUT ANYWAY, SO IF YOU GUYS WANNA DO THAT, I'M, I'M NOT ABOUT TO EVEN GIVE, UH, THAT IMAGE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESTRICT INFORMATION.
I THE REASON YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY COVERED BY STATE LAW.
SO THIS DOESN'T, DOESN'T INCREASE OUR, IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE CITY IN ANY WAY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY COVERED.
WELL, IT'S, IT'S COVERED BY LAW, REDUNDANT BY STATE LAW, IF YOU WANNA LEAVE IT AS IS.
IT SAYS THE RIGHT TO MAKE COPIES THEREOF UNDER SUCH REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CHARTER.
SO THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED THEIR, UM, PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT POLICY ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.
SO THAT'S A RULE AND REGULATION.
THEY'VE ALSO ADOPTED, UH, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE WHERE YOU'RE LIMITING, UM, THE RIGHTS TO COPY BASED ON, UM, PEOPLE'S FINANCES GETTING OUT AND BEING COMPROMISED.
SO YOU COULD LEAVE IT ALONE IF YOU WANTED.
WE ALREADY STILL HAVE PROTECTIONS REGULATION.
THEN MAYBE JUST LEAVE IT AS IT'S, UH, SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO STRIKE OR ANY DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
NO, WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
MOTION TO AMEND, TAKE OUT ANY DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESS OR NEWS MEDIA AND IT JUST SAY, DURING NORMAL OFFICE HOURS, ANY PERSON SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE ANY SUCH PUBLIC RECORDS BELONGING TO THE CITY.
'CAUSE I'LL JUST WITHDRAW THE MO.
SO I'M MAKING AN AMENDED MOTION AND SO THEN THERE'S A SECOND THAT CAN DISCUSS IT.
SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO APPROVE REMOVING ALL THE YELLOW MM-HMM.
I ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THE YELLOW SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, UH, SAME NAME.
SO WE DON'T NEED THIS PAGE THEN.
SO THEN THE NEXT ONE IS, UM, YOUR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1301, WHICH IS THE PROHIBITIONS, I'M SORRY, 1309 PROHIBITIONS 1301 A.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS SECTION, IT SAYS, NO PERSON SHALL BE APPOINTED TO OR REMOVED FROM IN ANY WAY FAVORED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WITH RESPECT TO ANY CITY POSITIONS APPOINTED CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS IS, WHAT DOES THE CHARTER MEAN BY CITY POSITIONS OR APPOINTED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE? ARE THEY ONLY TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYMENT OF THE CITY WITH THE CITY FOR CITY POSITIONS, CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE GENERALLY REFERS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY SECRETARY.
THOSE ARE THE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES OF YOUR CITY.
AND SO THIS, SO THIS IS A TWO PART THING.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANNA CLARIFY THAT.
AND THEN THE SECOND THING THAT WAS, UM, APPROVED LAST TIME WAS JUST TO UPDATE YOUR, UM, ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, TOLAR, ANYWHERE WE CAN CLARIFY.
IT HELPS AVOID A CONTENTION OVER WHAT SOMETHING MEANS OR DOESN'T MEAN.
SO CAN YOU MOVE FORWARD? I THINK WE'VE GOT THE REST IN THERE.
WHAT IS THERE MORE HERE? SO THE WAY I WORDED, OKAY, SO THE, OR SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE COVER THIS ONE TOO OR, OR NOT YET? SO, SO, UM, I DIDN'T PUT WHAT CITY POSITIONS MEAN.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WANTED TO KNOW.
IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY IN YOUR CHARTER PROPOSITION,
[00:15:12]
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO SAY YES.I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT AS YOU PRESENTED THERE.
SO, UM, IT WOULD READ YOUR CHARTER AMENDMENT, UM, THAT IT WOULD, INSTEAD OF SAYING SEAT POSITIONS, EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OR APPOINTED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, I WANTED TO DEFINE THAT AS, UM, APPOINTED CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY SECRETARY.
DO YOU EVEN NEED TO DO THAT? BECAUSE THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY SECRETARY ARE ALSO EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY.
IF YOU JUST SAY EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY, YOU ALREADY COVER IT FOR AND, AND WOULD THAT BE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE? YEAH.
THERE'S NOT A DIFFERENCE IN PENALTY OR ANYTHING.
SO YEAH, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, IT WAS THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER 'CAUSE THE MANAGER.
SO WE'RE DOING LOT OF DISCUSSING.
SO YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO SAY WHAT I'LL, I'LL AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY, JUST, JUST TO STATE THAT POSITION.
THE SECOND PART OF THIS HAS TO DEAL WITH, WE GOTTA TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN CALL VOTE.
AND THEN WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS PENALTY PROVISION, I DON'T THINK WE, UM, CAME TO ANY CONCLUSION AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND SO IT READS NOW ANY, ANY PERSON, SO I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD CHANGE THAT TO A, A PERSON WHO INCLUDES ANYONE ACTING INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS WHO VIOLATES.
AND IT SHOULD BE SECTION 1309 A WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISIONS OF THE FOREGOING SECTIONS 1309 A.
SO INSTEAD OF SAYING WILLFULLY SAY, AS EVIDENCED IN A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR A FINAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION, WILLFUL IS ONE THAT IT IS, IT IS PROBABLY GOOD TO DELETE THAT BECAUSE IT'S ONE THAT WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW.
AND, AND I PROVE I DIDN'T KNOW WASN'T, I WASN'T WILLFUL.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY, SO GETTING RID OF THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
SO THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE WHEN YOU SAW THE FINAL COURT JUDGMENT IS WHAT IS CONSIDERED, NOT THAT IT APPLIES TO ANYTHING IN THE COURT, BUT WHAT COUNTS AS THE FINAL COURT JUDGMENT? FOR EXAMPLE, HYPOTHETICALLY YOU HAVE A PERSON THAT KEEPS GETTING EOC COMPLAINTS, RIGHT? WE KEEP SETTLING THEM.
ARE THOSE SETTLEMENTS THEN CONSIDERED FINAL JUDGEMENTS THEN? AT WHAT POINT DOES THE CITY GO? WELL, WE HAVE TO GO TO A LAWSUIT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO NOT SETTLE BECAUSE YOU DRAG EVERYTHING THROUGH THE FOOT SO THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE A FINAL COURT TITLE.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE AT WHAT POINT, IF YOU, IF LIKE, IF YOU HAD HABITUALLY LEGITIMATE CLAIMS THAT KEEP GETTING, BECAUSE WE HAD A CITY MANAGER WHERE THEY WERE LIKE, WHAT, FIVE CLAIMS THAT WERE SETTLED.
YOU COULDN'T DO ANYTHING UNDER THE FIVE CLAIMS BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF 'EM WERE SETTLED.
SO I'M JUST, MY ONLY QUESTION IS IF I READ THIS, I'M LIKE, OKAY, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU EVER CONVICT ANYONE UNDER IT.
WELL, THAT I WON'T SAY THE ISSUE, BUT PETER AND I SERVED ON A DEAL AND I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE, WE WE DON'T WANT THAT GOING TO COURT.
THE ONE WE WENT TO MEDIATION FOR.
AND TO ME IT'S ONE THAT WAS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE TO TO YOUR POINT YEAH.
YOU DON'T WANT THAT GOING OUT THERE.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS LITTLE.
BUT THEN IF YOU DO THAT AND YOU, YOU DO THAT AND PEOPLE WILL SAY, WELL THAT WAS STUPID, WHY WOULD YOU GO TO THAT? WELL, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY, WAY TO BE ABLE TO PROVE THIS PERSON WAS, WHAT'S THE WORD? UH, TERMINATE WITH THE ONLY WAY TO TERMINATE THE CAUSE IS I HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE RAN THROUGH AND NOW WE'RE PAYING OUT $2 MILLION OR $3 MILLION FOR THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT, BUT WELL, SO THIS ONE IS JUST SAYING THEY CAN'T, UM, BE APPOINTED TO A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
WERE ELECTED TO POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS.
IF SOMEBODY IS DECLARED TO BE IN THAT POSITION, THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE RIGHT TO GO AND TAKE US TO COURT OVER THAT.
THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY, HOW YOU WOULD DO THE ELECTED CITY COUNCIL IS YOU WOULDN'T PUT THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT IF THEY, IF YOU FOUND A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT WHERE THEY DISCRIMINATED
[00:20:01]
THEN SO FILE CRIMINAL CONVICTION BECAUSE YOU CAN, THERE ARE CODE PROVISIONS AGAINST SEXUAL, UH, FOR HARASSMENT.WELL, AND THEY IN THEORY BE A FELON, WHICH ALSO WOULD DISQUALIFY THEM FOR SO HOW LONG, HOW LONG DOES THAT LAST FOR? FOUR YEARS? NO, I MEAN FOUR YEARS YOU CAN'T RUN.
BUT HOW, WHEN'S A CONVICTION GOTTA BE? SO IF YOU'RE 40, YOU GOT CONVICTED OF SOMETHING IN YOUR TWENTIES.
WELL, IF IT'S A FELONY CONVICTION, YOU'RE NEVER CLEARED TO RUN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE.
THAT IS THE CASE OR IS THAT AT, I THINK THAT'S IN THE ELECTION.
THAT'S YOUR, IN THE ELECTION CODE FROM THE STATE.
YOU CAN'T BE A CONVICTED MEMBER EVER.
JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T VOTE IF YOU'RE A CONVICTED MEMBER.
'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENT FELONIES MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS.
NO, FELONY IS A VERY, UH, LEVEL.
IS THIS SOMETHING DEMEANOR OR SOMETHING ELSE DIFFERENT? THIS IS IN YOUR CURRENT CHARTER? YES.
PERSON WHO INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS WILLFULLY VIOLATE SAME PROVISIONS OF THE FOREGOING SECTIONS.
1309 A SHALL BE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OR ELECTED TO A POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
MY MY QUESTION IS THE SENTENCE YOU WANT TO ADD AT THE END THERE ABOUT COURT JUDGMENT, CRIMINAL CONVICTION, THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T, CAN YOU GO BACK IN THE PAST AND USE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN A PROVISION LIKE THIS? THAT'S JUST ADDEDS WHAT I'M, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
HAVE TO BE A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT CASE WITH THE LAW.
YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE LAW AND THEN MAKE IT RETROACTIVE.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT'S YEAH, BUT YOU WOULD BUT BUT A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT IF IT CAME, IF IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET, THEN IT HAPPENED.
WELL THEN THAT BROUGHT MY OTHER QUESTION.
YOU GOT A FINAL COURT JUDGE APPOINTMENT AT A COURT THEN IF YOU APPEAL THE JUDGMENT, IS IT STILL NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT? BECAUSE THEN IT GOES TO LIKE AN APPELLATE COURT.
BUT THEN WHAT I'M SAYING IS, SO IF SOMETHING WAS IN PROCESS BUT THEN GOT A FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER THIS WENT IN EFFECT, IT WOULD THEN APPLY.
SO IT WOULD APPLY GOING FORWARD.
RIGHT, BUT IT WOULD APPLY EVEN IF THE CASE WAS ONGOING.
LIKE WE HAD OTHER CASES ONGOING THAT ARE NOT FINAL JUDGEMENTS THAT WOULD APPLY.
ARE YOU SAYING LIKE SOMEONE IS RUNNING IN THE MIDDLE OF A CASE, THEY GET ELECTED.
AND THEN YOU SAY, WELL SORRY YOU, THAT'S MY POINT.
I'M SAYING WOULD THAT HAPPEN? WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT HAPPEN DONNIE OR ARE THEY IN THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE STATUTE SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE FINALLY CONVICTED FELONY.
THAT'S A FELONY IS A VERY, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHEN IT HAPPENS.
IT'S AN ELECTION CODE TEXAS, NO ONE A FELONY FOR FINALLY CONVICTED A DUI.
YOU CAN NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE IF IT WAS A FELONY AND IT MAY NOT BE A FELONY.
THAT EXPLAINS WHY ONCE HIS NAME GOT OFF ON HIS, BECAUSE COULDN'T RUN FOR REELECTION.
WELL, BUT THIS TEXT DOESN'T SAY FELONY.
SO, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY PROSECUTOR COULD PROSECUTE YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, DAY WALKING AND BE CONVICTED AND, BUT, BUT IT WOULDN'T, THAT WOULDN'T BE A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT RELATED TO THAT WOULD BE A CRI IT SHOULD BE.
WELL, ANYTHING, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CRIMINAL CODE.
WHAT IS THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF THE, OF THE STUFF THAT YOU DID UP ABOVE IN THE POSITIONS? YEAH.
YEAH, IT'D BE HELPFUL TO SEE THE WHOLE, WHOLE 1309.
IT REFERS TO 1309, WHICH NOW INCLUDES THE, SO 13 OH ONE'S A TYPE WELFARE.
13 WALKING WOULDN'T COUNT AS A MORAL CONVICTION OF MORAL TUDE.
THAT'S WHAT THE FINAL CONVICTION IS FOR THE MORAL TUDE ONE.
SO WHAT YOU NAME, WHAT YOU'RE NAMED IN THIS TEXAS CODE.
WHAT THOSE ARE? TWO TYPE TWO, WHATEVER.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? TURPITUDE, YOU COULD SAY FINAL DILIGENCE.
IT DOES IN THE NEWER LANGUAGE.
WELL, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANNA SAY BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT AREN'T FELONIES THAT YOU'D STILL PROBABLY NOT WANT SOMEBODY RUNNING FOR.
SO COULD YOU SAY, AS AN INVESTIGATIVE BY THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, YOU CAN'T USE A NON-ELECTED GROUP TO REMOVE ELECTED OFFICIALS? THAT WOULD BE BAD.
WAIT, YOU CAN'T USE A NON-ELECTED.
'CAUSE YOU COULD, WHAT YOU COULD DO IS YOU COULD HAVE FOUR PEOPLE COUNCIL COULD ELECT REMOVE EVERY BOARD MEMBER OFF THE ETHICS COMMITTEE IN THEORY, PUT IN SEVEN PEOPLE THAT ARE THEIR FRIENDS AND SAY, GO CONVICT THIS OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER AND KICK 'EM OFF FOR NO REASON HOW THAT THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
AND OH REALLY? SEE THAT YOU, YOU AND THEN YOU'VE MADE YOU BEEN COMPROMISED.
OUR ELECTION AUTHORITY, THE, THE VOTER PEOPLE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE RE RECALL ELECTION.
RIGHT? WE'RE GONNA MAKE THINGS.
SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF HAVING, UM, SO THE WAY CURRENTLY READS IS, UM, IF YOU'RE CURRENTLY IN OFFICE, THEN YOU HAVE TO, UM, IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT YOUR OFFICE IF YOU
[00:25:01]
WANT TO RUN FOR OFFICE.YOU CAN'T DO IT IN FOR FOUR YEARS AFTER THE FINAL CONVICTION OR FINAL COURT JUDGMENT IF YOU'RE, UM, AND THEN ALSO YOU CAN'T BE APPOINTED TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND, BUT IT IS CORRECT.
IF YOU'RE HAVE THAT FELONY CONVICTION, YOU CAN'T RUN IT ALL.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE OR WITH OTHERS? 'CAUSE WOULDN'T THE INDIVIDUALLY CAPTURE EVERYTHING? I, I GUESS I'M, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF AN INSTANCE WHEN SOMEBODY'S ACTING INDIVIDUALLY INTERACTING WITH OTHERS OR ALSO ACTING INDIVIDUALLY, AREN'T THEY? I GUESS, I GUESS.
WELL SOMETIMES LIKE YOU'RE IN THE SAME VEHICLE AS SOMEONE WHO'S COMMITTING A CRIME.
AND THEN I THINK YOU GET CHARGED TOO, LIKE LA SAY MARIJUANA, WHATEVER YOU GET CHARGED TOO, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PINPOINT IF IT'S YOURS OR MINE OR WHATEVER.
SO EVERYBODY NEEDS A CHARGE, BUT THEN THEY'RE CHARGED INDIVIDUALLY.
AND YOU COULD STRIKE THAT LIKE OR PER YEAH, YOU COULD JUST SAY A PERSON WHO VIOLATES 1309 A VIOLATES ANY PROVISIONS OF 1309 A WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORD THIS.
UM, LOOK, I'M JUST THINKING OF LIKE, FOUR GUYS GO AND THEY, THEY IZE THE HOME AND THEY GET CAUGHT.
WOULDN'T THEY BE CHARGED INDIVIDUALLY? YOU, YOU WOULDN'T CHARGE EM AS A GROUP.
LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE CHARGED INDIVIDUALLY.
TRIED INDIVIDUALLY CONVICTED INDIVIDUALLY.
SO I, WELL MAYBE SAY LIKE A BUSINESS, RIGHT? SO FOR YOU AND I AREN'T A BUSINESS.
AND THEN WE DID SOMETHING, DID SOMETHING NEFARIOUS.
WE'D EACH GET CHARGES INDIVIDUALLY.
THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT COURT WORKS, IS YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRIED INDIVIDUALLY NOT, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
SO IF THEY DO IT, IT DOESN'T EVEN REPORT, THEN THEY CAN RUN, THERE'S NOT A FINAL COURT JUDGE DOESN'T TAKE.
SO IT'S ONLY ABOUT CONVICTION.
AND YOU CAN STOP IT TO AN EXAMPLE IN THE CITY, LIKE, UH, SAY THE CITY MANAGER, HE DECIDES HE'S GONNA, UM, DO SOMETHING THAT, UH, IS DISCRIMINATORY AND HE HAS FOR THOSE, YOU KNOW, IN THE ACTION.
SO THAT WOULD I, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY INCLUDED IT LIKE THAT.
BUT YOU ALSO JUST SAY A PERSON IS NOT GONNA LET THIS PERSON REMAIN IN OFFICE, RUN FOR COUNCIL FOUR YEARS OR BE APPOINTED TO A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION FOUR YEARS COULD REMOVE ANYONE ACTING INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS.
WOULD YOU SAY ANYONE WHO VIOLATES A PERSON INCLUDES ANYONE WHO VIOLATES SECTION 1309.
THAT WAY THE PERSON WHO VIOLATES SECTION 1309 A SHALL BE INELIGIBLE FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
OR SAYS, CURRENTLY SAYS ELECTED TO A POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHAT ABOUT THE SECOND PART? AND THEN IF SUCH PERSON IS AN OFFICER OF THE CITY AT THE TIME, SO SHOULD INSISTING OFFICER CITY, OFFICIAL CITY, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OR UM, MEMBER OF THE CITY, COUNCIL CITY, WHAT'S ADMINIS, WHAT'S CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATIVE? IT'S CITY SECRETARY.
THOSE ARE YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCE.
MAYBE FINANCE DIRECTOR WOULD BE A OFFICER OR CFO.
AND SO THEN WHAT TRIGGERS THAT? A FINAL, FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR AN ACCUSATION? UH, WHAT NOT ACCUSATION.
IT SHOULD BE A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR FINAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
I MEAN WE HAVE TO ADD THAT OTHERWISE AT, WITHOUT ADDING THAT NOW IT'S JUST WILLFULLY.
IF IF YOU FIND THEY DID IT WILLFULLY, YOU CAN REMOVE THEM.
WHAT DO YOU FIND THEN? THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING STRIKE WILLFULLY AND THEN SAY IT'S EVIDENCE IN A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR FINAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT'S EVEN BETTER BECAUSE IN THEORY THAT TAKES WHERE THE INTENT OF WILLFULLY VIOLATING BECAUSE, BUT IT KIND OF IS BECAUSE THE JURY WOULD LOOK AT THAT FOR A JUDGE AND SAY, YEAH, I THINK YOU DID THIS FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR A FINAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
IT'S A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF.
SO IS THIS ALWAYS COUNCIL ACTION IN THIS SECTION? THIS COULD BE
[00:30:01]
YOUR OR THE DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DO IT.IF IT'S NOT YOU, YOU COULD, IT COULD BE A PERSON THAT IS ON COUNCIL OR A PERSON THAT'S YEAH.
BUT WHO'S GONNA TAKE THE ACTION TO DECLARE THIS? IS THIS ALWAYS A COUNCIL ACTION TO DECLARE THAT THIS HAS TAKEN PLACE? IT SAYS AT THE END HE OR SHE SHALL IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT THE OFFICE.
SO IF THEY DIDN'T THEN COUNSEL UNDER YOUR FORFEITURE PROVISIONS AND FIVE ABOVE FIVE.
YEAH, NO, WHAT WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS, UM, EMPLOYMENT LAW AND IF WE APPLY IT TO OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES BESIDES THE CITY MANAGER, THEN ARE WE PUTTING THE CITY AT ANY RISK? BUT I MEAN, WE CAN DO IT COUNCIL.
BUT YOUR PERSONNEL POLICIES IS GONNA TAKE CARE OF LONGER CITY EMPLOYEES.
AND SO THEN I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WANT A BROADER DEFINITION THERE.
THAT'S SHOULD IT JUST BE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER AND THEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS COVERED.
'CAUSE TO ME THAT'S AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL WITH, I WOULD JUST SAY COUNCIL
'CAUSE COUNCIL CAN ALREADY HAVE EMPLOYMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER AND WE DON'T.
WE HAVE AT WILL EMPLOYMENT AND IF SO, BUT IT'S NOT A WITH CAUSE.
WHAT THIS WOULD WOULD GIVE IS, I DON'T KNOW, YOU GO BOTH WAYS.
THEY GIVE POTENTIAL COVER FOR AN AT CAUSE FIRING IF IT'S IN HERE AND IT'S BLACK AND WHITE.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE CONTRACT ALREADY.
YOU KNOW, I, ONE OF, ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE WITH CITY MANAGERS IS THEY HARDLY EVER GET FIRED FOR CAUSE BECAUSE, WELL I WOULD ARGUE THOUGH THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A CHARTER THING.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE AMEND THE EMPLOYMENT POLICY.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO SEVERANCE IF I GET CRIMINAL.
YEAH, IT'S IN HIS, HIS CONTRACT ALREADY.
IT'S PROBABLY NORMAL THAT IT IS THEN.
SO I THINK, I THINK I DON'T, I THINK IT'S JUST COUNSEL.
BUT CRIMINAL CONVICTION ISN'T DISCRIMINATION MOST TIMES.
RIGHT? WELL UNLESS IT'S SEXUAL.
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE PENAL CODE FOR THAT.
WELL I'M SAYING TO DAN'S POINT, IF YOU, IF THE IDEA IS ABOUT DIS DISCRIMINATION, WHETHER YOU HAVE A CITY MANAGER THAT'S DISCRIMINATING, BUT YOU CAN'T, IF YOU GO TO PAY THE PERSON OUT, THEY GET A FULL YEAR SALARY.
IF HE HAS A CONVICTION, CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
AND SO THEN, THEN IF YOU GO OUT AND PAY SOMEBODY THAT SAY THERE'S WHATEVER, 20 EOC COMPLAINTS, IT'S OUTTA CONTROL.
YOU'RE KIND OF CAUGHT CHIN ROCK AND HARD SON.
'CAUSE YOU'RE PAYING SOMEBODY THAT, WELL THAT DOESN'T COVER HERE BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY A COURT JUDGMENT OR A CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
AND IT'S HARD TO APPLY A SETTLEMENT BECAUSE ALMOST EVERY SETTLEMENT SAYS NO, YOU KNOW, NOBODY TOOK, YOU KNOW, NOBODY TOOK ANY BLANK.
BUT YOU ONLY HAVE A SO MANY YEAR CONTRACT, SO THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA GET RENEWED.
AND THERE'S WELL THERE'S ALWAYS THE NO, THE NO.
WELL WHAT DO YOU MEAN? SO MANY YEAR CONTRACTS? YEAH.
THAT'S NOT USUALLY
WELL WE CAN, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE CAN JUST YEAH.
TO A ONE YEAR WE JUST, WE HAVE TO PAY OUT THE ONE YEAR.
SO DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR SETTLEMENTS ARE, THAT COULD BE LESS.
HOPEFULLY THAT DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
DOES 1309 INCLUDE SETTLEMENTS? SO THEN WHY WOULD IT JUST BE CONVICTION AND NOT SETTLEMENT ADDED? I MEAN JUST, WELL, BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S THE CASE WHERE SOMEBODY MAKES A COMPLAINT
SO THAT HAPPENS WITH, WITH EEOC CLAIMS DOESN'T MEAN THAT SOME OF YOU KNOW SOME OF 'EM ARE VALID, SOME OF THEM MAY NOT BE.
BUT THEY GET SETTLED FOR SMALL AMOUNTS OF MONEY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER IN FEDERAL TO DO THAT.
BUT THERE'S A FINDING THAT GOES INTO NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO ADMISSION.
IT'S USUALLY SAYING BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THERE'S YEAH.
THAT THERE'S SETTLING FOR FOR MONEY AND THERE'S NO ADMISSION OF GUILT AND WE'RE DONE.
WE ACTUALLY HAD THE OC COMPLAINT THAT GOT KICKED OUT AND WE STILL SETTLED BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER.
LIKE DAN SAID, IT WAS A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY, LIKE A MONTH SALARY.
AND THAT WAS CHEAPER THAN LITIGATING THE WHOLE THING OVER.
SO WHAT ARE WE CHANGING ON THIS? SO WE'RE GONNA REMOVE WHO EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS.
WE'RE GONNA SAY A PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISIONS
[00:35:01]
OF THE FOREGOING SECTION 1309 A SHALL BE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.SO DO WE AS EVIDENCED IN A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR FILING CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
OR ELECTED TO A, UM, POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS.
SO WE DO WE WANNA CHANGE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
NEEDS TO BE, IT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE JUST ADOPTED, WHICH WAS CITY EMPLOYEE.
SO THAT IT JUST ENCOMPASSES EVERYONE THAT'LL BE INELIGIBLE FOR INSTEAD OF EMPLOYMENT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND INELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE EMPLOYMENT.
EMPLOYMENT AND THEN, OR ELECTED TO A POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH TO A POSITION? SO THE CITY SECRETARY WILL GO TO START WITH PEOPLE APPLICATIONS IN, THEY ACCEPT THAT.
THEY'LL CHECK WHATEVER LEGAL SYSTEM RISKS TO SEE.
'CAUSE I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I SAID BEFORE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A FINAL JUDGMENT ON A DISCRIMINATION ISSUE 20 YEARS AGO THAT BARS YOU FROM NO, NO, NO, NO.
THIS WOULD BE A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT WHILE YOU WERE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN HU THAT THEN YOU WERE THEN HAD IMMEDIATELY RESIGN AND THEN BARRED FOR FOUR YEARS.
NOT THAT YOU WERE LIVING SOMEWHERE ELSE AND 10 YEARS AGO.
WELL, I THOUGHT WE WERE SAYING NO IT'S NOT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS 1309 SAYS NO PERSON SHALL BE APPOINTED TO OR REMOVED FROM OR ANY WAY.
AND WE ADDED IN, I THOUGHT WE WERE ADDING IN CITY COUNCIL TO THAT ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED THEN WE JUST ADD IN CITY COUNCIL TO THAT.
BUT THAT'S PROHIBITED WHILE YOU WERE THAT PERSON.
NOT WHAT, WHEN YOU WERE ON COUNCIL.
YEAH, I PROBABLY CLEAR THAT UP.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW PEOPLE, UH, THIS UP.
NOT THAT WE WERE MAKING IT FOR EVEN PEOPLE RUNNING.
I MEAN TEXAS CODE SAYS
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S LIKE COULDN'T BE ON THE BALLOT ANYWAY IF THEY WERE CONVICTED FELON.
SO, UM, AND, AND SO HERE'S THE SECOND LAST PART OF IT.
IF SUCH PERSON IS AN OFFICER OF THE CITY AT THE TIME OF SUCH VIOLATION.
SO SUB CITY IS A UM, WELL WE'VE ALREADY LIMITED IT.
CITY COUNCIL ABOVE OR I GUESS WE DID WE LEAVE EMPLOYEES IN THERE? YEAH, WE SAID EMPLOYMENT.
NO, I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T GONNA DO THAT 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA LET THE EMPLOYMENT POLICY HANDLE THAT.
'CAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT A DOC COMPLAINT COMING IN TO LIKE A POLICE OFFICER AND THEY IMMEDIATELY, WE LOSE OUR WHOLE POLICE FORCE.
'CAUSE WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT THEY ALREADY GET CHECKED, THEY GO TO BODY CAMERAS, THEY DO ALL THIS STUFF AND IF THEY DID SOMETHING BAD, WE WOULD HAVE A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT AND THEY'D BE REMOVED FROM THE FORCE BASED ON THAT.
SO, UM,
THEY'RE GONNA PULL UP ANY OF THESE THINGS.
SO IF WE SAY INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, SO ARE WE SAYING LIKE OREGON COMMISSIONS THAT INCLUDE THAT NO CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IS REALLY YOUR CITY MANAGER.
IF YOU CAN'T GO RETROACTIVELY, WHY DO YOU SAY YOU CAN'T BE APPOINTED? BECAUSE WHY DO YOU SAY YOU CAN'T BE APPOINTED IF YOU CAN'T LOOK IN THE BACK? BECAUSE WELL, IF THEY GOT CONVICTED FOR FOUR YEARS, THEY COULDN'T BE APPOINTED.
UH, THAT'S, SEE THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S WHAT I SAID BEFORE YOU GUYS SAID NO, IT HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE YOU GET IN.
AND THE WAY I'M READING IT IS SOMETHING HAPPENS BEFORE.
AND SO WHEN IN THE PAST DOES IT HAPPEN AND THEN WHAT, FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE YOUR PAST CONDUCT IS NOT GONNA APPLY.
SO IF YOUR PAST CONDUCT DOESN'T APPLY, THEN WHY DO WE SAY YOU CAN'T BE APPOINTED? IF THIS HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE DATE THAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR THE APPOINTMENT, THERE WOULDN'T BE A CONVICTION BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY HAPPEN AFTER THE APPOINTMENT.
SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE THAT IT HAS TO HAPPEN AFTER THE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVE.
OH, IT'S IT'S FROM THE POINT OF THE CHARTER THEN.
AND THEN YOU LOOK AT, SAY THERE'S A CRIMINAL ACTION AND PROCESS AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER.
WE'RE JUST GONNA USE HIM AND THEN HE GETS CONVICTED THE SECOND YEAR AFTER THIS WAS APPROVED, THEN HE FORFEIT HIS OFFICE OR SOMEBODY ON COUNCIL.
SO IT'S, IT'S PASSED IN THE CHARTER FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WE'RE GOING TO HIRE A CITY MANAGER AND WE DO A BACKGROUND CHECK AND WE FIND OUT THAT IN 1995,
[00:40:01]
THAT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY WERE CONVICTED IN 1995, WELL YOU MAY NOT HIRE 'EM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO HIRE, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THEY DID IN THE CITY OF HU.IT'S ONLY IF THEY DID SOMETHING IN THE CITY OF HU THEY ARE FORCIBLY REMOVED AND THEN THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE A PART OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT FOR FOUR YEARS.
THEY IMMEDIATELY HELP AT THEIR OFFICE.
THIS PASSES AND AFTER TAXES THERE'S A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND THEY'RE IN A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OR WHATEVER THAT MEANS THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT THE PROVISION ABOUT UM, AND IF SUCH PERSON IS AN OFFICER OF THE CITY.
SO WHAT, SO THAT'S THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN? SUCH PERSON IS A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU JUST NEED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A SECOND REDO THIS, RIGHT? NO, THIS IS IT.
IS THERE A WAY YOU CAN WRITE IT OUT WHEN WE GO DOWN AND MAKE THE SECOND VOTE? BECAUSE IT STILL SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE SAYING BOTH THINGS.
WE'RE SAYING ONCE YOU'RE IN THE OFFICE, YOU'RE SAYING ONCE YOU'RE IN OFFICE YOU CAN BE FORFEITED YOUR, YOUR DEAL.
BUT THEN WE'RE ALSO, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALSO SAYING IN THE WORDING THAT YOU CAN'T BE, YOU CAN'T BE APPOINTED IF THIS HAPPENS.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
HOW CAN YOU NOT BE APPOINTED TO SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET? NO.
SO I'M ON COUNCIL, I AM CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND I'M REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
USUALLY A PERSON HAS TO BE OFF FOR ONLY A YEAR, THEN THEY CAN RUN AGAIN.
I THINK WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS IF I REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, I CAN'T JUST WAIT MY YEAR AND RUN AGAIN.
COUNSEL, WHERE'S THIS SAYING THAT THAT'S, IT'S ALREADY IN THERE CHARTER.
YEAH, IT'S ALREADY, BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK.
ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS IS ADDRESSING? IT'S IF I DO SOMETHING AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND I'M REMOVED, IT'S PREVENTING ME FROM RUNNING AGAIN IN A YEAR.
OR IF THE CITY MANAGER'S REMOVED BECAUSE HE DOES SOMETHING.
HE CAN'T JUST REAPPLY AFTER A YEAR AND A NEW COUNCIL COMES ON AND HE THINKS, OH MAYBE I CAN GET THIS.
AND IT'S NOT LIKE THEY GOT A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT THAT SOME OTHER CITY WHERE THEY WERE LIVING THAT THEY COULDN'T RUN FOR OFFICE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S, IF THAT PERSON WAS REMOVED FROM THIS, THIS CITY AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, THEN THEY CAN'T COME BACK FOR FOUR YEARS.
YOU'RE INFRINGING ON WHAT THE STATE HAS SAID.
YOU CAN RUN OFFICE, WHICH IS YOU HAVE TO BE LIVING IN THAT PLACE AND YEAH, IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE.
LIKE YOU HAVE A FELONY CONVICTION.
SO WE'RE SAYING YOU'RE, YOU DO SOMETHING WRONG WHILE YOU'RE AT THE CITY.
YOU'RE REMOVED FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S THE ONE.
AND IT'S ONLY RELEVANT TO COUNCIL AND BOARD AND COMMISSIONS NOT, NOT BOARD COMMISSIONS.
WE DON'T NEED TO DO BOARD OF COMMISSIONS.
WE CAN REMOVE ANYBODY ANYTIME.
SO NEED COUNCIL SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION ON ALL THIS.
SO THE, SO THE THINGS TO REMOVE IS EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS AND THEN REMOVE THE WORD WILLFULLY.
IT'S SIMPLY BE VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THE FOREGOING SECTION 1309 A SHALL BE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FOR ELECTED TO THE POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS.
AND IF SUCH PERSON IS A, AND THIS IS WHAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH OFFICER OF THE CITY.
SO SHOULD WE JUST REPEAT IF SUCH PERSON IS A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE? NO, I THINK IT IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OF THE CITY IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
NO, WE DON'T NEED TO BUT WE SAID ALREADY COVERED IT.
SHE SAID IT EARLIER IN HOW IT WAS LAID OUT.
SO WE NEED TO GET THAT CLARIFIED.
SHE'S JUST TRYING TO CHANGE THAT.
CAN JUST SAY CITY MANAGER OR ELECTED.
THIS PERSON IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OF THE CITY BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE POLICY, HE CAN TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER UNDER THE PERSONNEL POLICY, TAKE ACTION AGAINST ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES UNDER THE PERSONNEL POLICY.
DID YOU READ AS EVIDENCED IN A FINAL JUDGMENT OR FINAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION? IS THAT NOT YEAH, THAT'S GONNA BE EVIDENCE THAT'S PART OF THAT.
DO YOU HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN? I HAVE IT MY WAYS HERE.
IT'LL BE FOR US TO VOTE DOWN ELSE.
SO WE DON'T, I HAVE A TEMPLATE OVER HERE THAT I'M GONNA PLUG THIS INTO.
WE'LL JUST SEE THE FINAL ONE WITH THOSE CHANGES WHEN RON DIES.
I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES FOR RESUMING INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH
[00:45:01]
OTHERS WILLFULLY.AND THEN ADDING THE EVIDENCE IN A FINAL COURT JUDGMENT OR FINAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND SPECIFYING ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS ONLY DISCUSSION ON THAT QUESTION.
DID THEY GET SKIPPED? I THINK I PASSED SEVEN ZERO, RIGHT? OH YEAH, YOU'RE HERE SEVEN.
SO, SO THERE WAS ONE REQUEST BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOTT TO RE-LOOK AT THE, UM, AMENDMENTS, THE ETHICS.
I DIDN'T PUT THAT ON THE SLIDE.
WHAT ABOUT THE, THE SALARY THING? I DIDN'T SEE THAT ABOUT THE, THERE WERE SOME WORDING QUESTIONS THAT I HAD.
DID WE JUST DISCUSS THOSE DOWNSTAIRS AND MEETING LIKE FOR INSTANCE? YEAH, THE FIRST ONE.
WAY IT READ SAYS, SHALL SECTION 3.04 COMPENSATION OF THE CITY, IDAHO CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS RECEIVE A SALARY SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF BY LAW.
SO IT'S MAKING IT SOUND LIKE WE DON'T CURRENTLY RECEIVE A SALARY AND THAT WE WANT TO START RECEIVING A SALARY, WHICH IS, IS MISLEADING IN MY OPINION.
IT'S, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO INSTEAD OF SAYING RECEIVE A SALARY.
RECEIVE A SALARY AND NOT COMPENSATION, I THINK THAT'S STILL GONNA BE CONFUSING TO THE HOPE.
UH, BECAUSE REALLY OUR INTENT IS TO JUST CHANGE THE, JUST REWORD IT.
RIGHT? WE CURRENTLY RECEIVE COMPENSATION.
WE WANNA JUST CHANGE THE WORDING TO SALARY SO IT CONFORMS WITH STATE DEFINITIONS BY STATE LAW.
YEAH, THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO SAY.
SO IF WE WORD IT IN A WAY THAT THE, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN WHEN THEY WALK IN THERE, THEY KNOW, OH WELL THEY'RE ALREADY RECEIVING A COMPENSATION.
THEY'RE JUST LIKE CHANGING THE WORD.
SO WE COULD JUST SAY AMENDED TO REPLACE THE WORD COMPENSATION WITH SALARY.
DO YOU WANT ME TO ADD AND THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION? SURE.
ALREADY, ALREADY IMPLIED, BUT LET, LET ME SENSE LISTED.
REST THAT SPRING DOWNSTAIRS JUST SO WE SOJOURN 6 48.