[00:00:01]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE I'M CALLING THIS MEETING
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
TO ORDER IS 6:00 PM.AS STATED THAT THE NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING WAS DULY POSTED.
THAT WILL NOW BE A ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL.
AS I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE THAT YOU WERE HERE.
MAYOR PRO TEM MEMBER WAS PRESENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER EDWARDS, COUNCIL MEMBER
THERE WILL NOT BE A ROLL CALL OF CITY STAFF MEMBERS AND MEETING PRESENTATIONS.
UM, SO IF I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU'RE HERE.
CINDY MANAGER OF OLDEST JONES, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, BILL ATKINSON PRESENT IS THE CITY MANAGER, GLEN MARTEL, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, BEN MARTEL PRESIDENT.
ATTORNEY JOSIE AMO DEPUTY TO THE SECRETARY OF VICKY.
WE KEEP BERGEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, ATLANTA PORTERS.
STACY WALKER, THE ATTORNEY JAMES ANGELA ANGLE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
ANYONE ELSE SMELLS WAS NAMED THAT I HAVE NOT CALLED IF SO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, NOT HEARING ANYONE.
UM, ANY PERSON INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ON ANY AGENDA ITEMS AND THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA MUST HAVE NOTIFIED THE CITY BY EMAIL, PHONE OR SUBMISSION OF A PUBLIC COMMENT FORM THE CITY SECRETARY BEFORE 4:00 PM ON THE DAY OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS A 4:00 PM TODAY, THE CITY HAVE RECEIVED NO REQUEST TO SPEAK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER TWO, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.
[2(a) Consider authorizing staff to take further actions on the 2020 Charter Review Commission Final Report and additional potential Charter amendments. (Proposed presenter: Assistant City Attorney James Santangelo) ]
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING STAFF TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION ON THE 2020 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, FINAL REPORT AND ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL CHARTER AMENDMENTS.WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY JAMES, UH, THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
UH, TONIGHT I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING ON THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE 2020 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
UH, ON DECEMBER 21ST, YOU ALL RECEIVED THEIR FINAL REPORT.
UH, THAT BASICALLY, UH, WAS BROKEN UP INTO TWO SECTIONS THAT INCLUDED THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY'RE MAKING FOR, UM, PUTTING FORTH TO THE VOTERS IN A SPECIAL CHARTER ELECTION, AS WELL AS THE ITEMS THAT THEY, UH, DECIDED NOT TO RECOMMEND TO YOU ALL.
AND I'M GOING TO BE GOING OVER BOTH THIS EVENING.
UM, THEY WERE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF FIVE, UH, CITY RESIDENTS.
THEY SERVE THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR ABOUT, UH, FOR SIX MONTHS.
UH, THEY WERE APPOINTED IN THE SUMMER AND, UH, THEIR FINAL REPORT YOU RECEIVED LAST MONTH WAS KIND OF THE SUMMARY OF THEIR WORK FOR THOSE, FOR THAT SIX MONTH TERM.
AND I'M GOING TO BE, UH, BASICALLY GOING OVER EACH OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY CONSIDERED TONIGHT AND, UH, ASKING YOU TO, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO, MAKE A MOTION AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO, UH, BY ORDINANCE CALL AN ELECTION TO PUT ANY OR ALL OR NONE OR WHATEVER YOU ALL WANT.
AS FAR AS CHARTER PREP, UH, CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT.
AND, UH, THIS ITEM ADDRESSES THE CITY.
COUNCIL'S STRATEGIC GOALS OF CREATING A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE, MAINTAINING A FINANCIALLY SOUND CITY GOVERNMENT, AND DEVELOPING A HIGH-PERFORMANCE CITY TEAM.
[00:05:01]
AND AS I KIND OF ALLUDED TO, UH, WHEN I INTRODUCED MYSELF, UH, THERE ARE FOUR OBJECTIVES TO THIS PRESENTATION AND THE FIRST IS I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE, UH, 20, 20 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, AND REVIEW THE ITEMS, ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT IT DIDN'T RECOMMEND.UM, I'M GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THEM FAIRLY QUICKLY.
AND I'M GOING TO JUST HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS AROUND EACH OF THE ITEMS THEY CONSIDERED.
IF THEY IDENTIFIED PROS AND CONS, I MIGHT GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT.
AND, UM, AFTER EACH ITEM THAT I PRESENT, WE'RE BASICALLY, I'M GOING TO BE ASKING YOU NOT AFTER EACH ITEM, BUT, UM, ON EACH ITEM YOU'LL BE ABLE TO, UH, AT THE END, EITHER ACCEPT, REJECT, ALTER, OR POSTPONE FOR A FUTURE DISCUSSION, UH, ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED TODAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT YOU KIND OF TAKE A MENTAL NOTES AFTER I PRESENT EACH ITEM THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION REVIEWED, UH, BECAUSE AT THE END, UM, YOU'LL HAVE THE OPTION TO, UM, BASICALLY PUT FORTH A MOTION.
UM, BASICALLY TAKING ONE OF THOSE FOUR ACTIONS ON EACH OF THE ITEMS PRESENTED TONIGHT AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'LL ASSIST, WE WILL ASSIST IN PUTTING TOGETHER THOSE MOTIONS, BUT, UH, THOSE WILL BASICALLY BE YOUR OPTIONS ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS. UM, NOW AT THE, UM, WE'LL ALSO ASK, UH, TOWARDS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS THAT WEREN'T REVIEWED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, UH, THAT YOU ALL MIGHT WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE ON THE BALLOT.
UM, AND, UH, AND THAT'S NUMBER TWO, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, IF ANY, THE THIRD OBJECTIVE IS TO, UH, DETERMINE WHETHER TO CALL AN ELECTION IN EITHER MAY OR NOVEMBER.
UM, IF YOU ALL DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY, UM, CHARTER PROPOSITIONS, AND THEN FINALLY, UM, IF A MAY ELECTION IS DESIRED, THEN, UM, AT THIS TIME YOU CAN AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ORDER, A SPECIAL ELECTION, AND, UM, OUR LEGAL DIVISION.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PRESENT THAT TO YOU, UM, AT A FUTURE SPECIAL MEETING.
SO I'M GOING TO START BY GOING OVER AND I DO WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE'LL ASK YOU, UM, TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING WHAT YOU MIGHT WANT ON THE BALLOT AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.
UH, THERE ARE ABOUT 12 ITEMS THAT I'M GOING TO GO OVER FAIRLY BRIEFLY.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT STOPPING AFTER EACH ONE AND ASKING YOU WHAT YOUR DECISION ON EACH ONE IS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DO WANT TO SAY IF YOU ALL HAVE A QUESTION ON ANY ONE OF THESE ITEMS, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN AND ASK YOUR QUESTION WHILE IT'S FRESH IN YOUR MIND, AND I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO, UH, STOP AND TRY TO ADDRESS ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.
SO, UM, I'LL START GOING OVER THE ITEMS NOW.
UM, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND FOR, UH, ENTRY ONTO THE BALLOT FOR A POTENTIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST ONE IS AMENDING SECTION THREE OH FIVE OF THE CHARTER IT'S, UM, THEY'RE BASICALLY RECOMMENDING THAT THE PROVISION THAT STATES THAT THE MAYOR ACT AS THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE CITY UNTIL THE CITY MANAGER IS APPOINTED, IS DELETED FROM THE CHARTER.
AND THE REASON THAT THEY MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE TWO CONFLICTS WITH THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION OR IDENTIFIED, UH, THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, IN SECTION THREE OH EIGHT, WHICH SAID NOBODY ON THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HOLD ANY OTHER CITY OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT DURING AN ELECTIVE TERM.
AND THEN UNDER THE SECTION GOVERNING THE ROLE OF THE ACTION, UH, THE ACTING CITY MANAGER, UH, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT NO PERSON SHALL SERVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL OR AS THE CITY SECRETARY AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY ARE A CITY MANAGER ACTING AS CITY MANAGER.
UM, AND AFTER THOSE CON, UH, AFTER THOSE CONFLICTS WERE IDENTIFIED, UM, THERE WEREN'T ANY CONS, UH, BASICALLY THIS JUST ELIMINATES A, UH, A PERCEIVED CONFLICT IN THE CHARTER, UH, AS I JUST MENTIONED, UM, AND IT, WE ALSO, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ASKED FOR SOME RESEARCH INTO WHY THIS CONFLICT EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THEY WAS IDENTIFIED THAT, UH, THE PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT THE MAYOR SELECT A CITY MANAGER.
AND SO WHAT IS APPOINTED, MIGHT'VE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTER IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS 1974, AND
[00:10:01]
THIS WAS BEFORE THE FIRST CITY MANAGER WAS APPOINTED.SO THEY KIND NEEDED A, A PLACEHOLDER TO ACT AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE.
AND THE SECOND ITEM, UH, IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT, UH, THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO EXTEND ALL, UH, ELECTED TERMS, MEANING MAYOR, UH, DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMBER AND COUNCIL MEMBER AT LARGE FROM A TWO YEAR TERM TO A FOUR YEAR TERM.
AND THEY DISCUSSED THAT, UM, SUCH AN EXTENSION WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE TERM BY BASICALLY BUILDING IN SOME TIME FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO GET USED TO BEING ON COUNCIL AND KIND OF HOW IT WORKS AND GET USED TO HOW THE BUSINESS'S CITY COUNCIL FLOWS, UM, AND ALSO GIVES THEM ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE ACT TO RUN FOR REELECTION IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
AND, UM, ANY NEGATIVES WEREN'T REALLY IDENTIFIED IN EXTENDING THE TERM.
UM, I'LL ALSO SAY THAT, UH, THE ONLY STATE LAW AND FLUCTUATION OF EXTENDING THE TERM OF OFFICE FROM TWO TO FOUR YEARS IS THAT, UH, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, A, UH, SOMEBODY ON COUNCIL WOULD AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN IF THEY SERVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THEY ANNOUNCE A CANDIDACY FOR A STATE OR FEDERAL OFFICE.
UM, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THAT WOULD RARELY HAPPEN, UH, BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE YOU ALL AWARE OF THAT.
AND THEN, UM, FINALLY ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE WAS PRESENTED, WAS PRESENTED TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF OFFICE FROM TWO TO THREE YEARS, INSTEAD OF FROM TWO TO FOUR YEARS.
SO, UM, THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS A FOUR YEAR TERM, BUT AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, ALTER THIS PROPOSITION.
SO IF YOU DO FIND A BETTER TO HAVE A THREE-YEAR TERM, UM, YOU CAN PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT AS WELL.
AND KIND OF A COMPANION TO THE EXTENSION OF, UH, THE TERM OF OFFICE, UH, IT WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION THAT A, A TERM LIMITS PROVISION OF SORTS BEING INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER.
BASICALLY THE ONE THAT THEY ASKED FOR AND WHAT WAS, UH, EVENTUALLY DRAFTED AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION WAS THAT, UH, THE LIMIT WOULD BE, UH, 12 CONSECUTIVE YEARS ON COUNCIL BEFORE HAVING TO, UH, WAIT, UH, BASICALLY HAVE A SIT OUT PERIOD AS THEY CALLED IT FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS, UH, BEFORE AN INDIVIDUAL CAN SERVE ON COUNCIL.
AGAIN, UH, THIS WOULD REDUCE THE CHALLENGE OF RUNNING AGAINST LONG-STANDING INCUMBENTS.
IF, UM, SUCH INCUMBENT WOULD HAVE TO KIND OF TAKE A, A MINIMUM TWO YEAR BREAK AFTER 12 YEARS.
AND IT ALSO, UH, PROVIDES A GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE CITY TO INTRODUCE NEW IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES IN, UH, THE MISSOURI CITY GOVERNMENT.
UH, THE NEGATIVES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED WAS THAT, UM, IF THERE WAS A UNIQUELY QUALIFIED OR PASSIONATE OFFICE HOLDER, UM, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT KIND OF INTERRUPT THE FLOW OF BUSINESS TO, UH, HAVE THEM HAVE TO SIT OUT FOR TWO YEARS AFTER RUNNING AGAIN, OR I'M SORRY, BEFORE RUNNING AGAIN FOR OFFICE.
AND ANOTHER NEGATIVE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WAS THAT, UH, THE VOTERS OF MISSOURI CITY WOULD HAVE LESS CHOICE.
UM, IF THEY REALLY WANT SOMEBODY IN OFFICE THAT SERVED 12 YEARS, UM, THE CHARTER WOULD THEN SAY THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION, THEN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT AT LEAST ANOTHER TWO YEARS BEFORE, UH, GETTING TO VOTE FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL AGAIN, UM, OR REINSTATE THEM IN OFFICE AS IT WERE A COUPLE MORE NOTES, UM, SURROUNDING THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM.
IN MOST INSTANCE, INSTANCES THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO WAIT MORE THAN THE MINIMUM TWO YEARS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ELECTIONS WORK OUT.
UM, SO I THINK THE LONGEST THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT WOULD BE ABOUT FIVE YEARS, BUT, UH, THE TWO YEARS IS KIND OF, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A BUILT-IN KIND OF BREAK AFTER THAT 12 YEAR TERM TO SERVE OR SORRY, 12 YEAR, UH, TENURE OF OFFICE IS SERVED.
AND, UM, MUCH LIKE THE TERM LENGTH ITEM.
THERE WERE SOME ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED, UH, REGARDING TERM LIMITS AS WELL.
UM, WE DISCUSSED, OR THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED A LIMIT OF, UH, THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN ANY ONE POSITION ON COUNCIL, MEANING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL COULD SERVE THREE TERMS AS A, UH,
[00:15:02]
COUNCIL MEMBER AT LARGE, AND THEN RUN FOR MAYOR WITHOUT ANY INTERRUPTION.UM, SO CONCEIVABLY, IF YOU, UH, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CHANGED WHAT KIND OF A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THEY WERE SERVING AS, OR LIKE I SAID, IF THEY WERE TO RUN FROM, THEY WERE SERVING AS COUNCIL MEMBER, THEY WERE TO RUN FOR MAYOR OR VICE VERSA.
UH, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY SORT OF, UH, SIT OUT PERIOD OR BREAK IN, UH, POSSIBLE, UH, TERM OF SERVICE.
AND THEN A SECOND ALTERNATIVE THAT THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL, UM, PROPOSAL THAT WAS PUT TO THE COMMISSION.
UH, THE SECOND ONE WAS A, UH, A 12 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON ANY POSITION OR COMBINATION OF POSITION ON COUNCIL, MEANING, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY SERVED SIX YEARS AS MAYOR AND THEN, UM, SIX AS COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE WAS A BREAK IN SERVICE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, UM, THAT 12 YEARS WOULD BE ALL THAT PERSON COULD POSSIBLY GET, AND THEY COULDN'T RUN AGAIN IN THEIR LIFETIME TO SERVE ON COUNCIL.
AND THE COMMISSION, UH, EVENTUALLY DID REJECT THAT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT A LIFETIME LIMIT ON COUNCIL SERVICE WOULD BE TOO LIMITING TO THE VOTERS OF MISSOURI CITY AND THOSE THAT WISH TO SERVE.
SO, AND, AND I WILL SAY THAT THESE TWO, THE, THE TERM LENGTH AND THE TERM LIMITS WERE PROBABLY THE, THE MOST, UH, LONGEST DISCUSSED AND I GUESS, LIVELIEST DISCUSSED ITEMS, UM, BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DID HAVE SOME STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT, UH, WHETHER THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S TERM OF SERVICE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TERMS OR CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS.
SO THERE WAS MUCH DISCUSSION AND MUCH WORK, UM, OVER THESE TWO ITEMS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
NOW, UM, THE NEXT ITEM IS, UH, ONE THAT DIDN'T GARNER MUCH DISCUSSION.
THIS WAS A FAIRLY EASY ONE, BUT IT WAS AMENDING SECTION 9.04 D.
AND THE CHARTER TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE CITY MANAGER CAN TRANSFER UNENCUMBERED FUNDS FROM 60 TO 90 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
UM, AND THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO KIND OF MOVE FUNDS AROUND AFTER THE FISCAL YEAR ENDS, UH, TO GIVE A GREATER CUSHION FOR A TO RECONCILE BUDGET TRANSACTION, KIND OF CLOSE SOME OF THE YEAR-END FINANCES WITHOUT CONFLICTING WITH THE CHARTER.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS A FAIRLY EASY DECISION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND.
THEY DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANY NEGATIVES IN MAKING THIS CHANGE.
SO, UH, AGAIN, THAT DECISION WAS REACHED FAIRLY QUICKLY.
UM, THE NEXT AMENDMENT THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS, UH, IN THAT SAME ARTICLE THAT SECTION NINE 10, DEALING WITH FINANCES.
UM, THIS ONE WOULD CLARIFY THAT, UH, BIDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL ONLY FOR COMPETITIVE BOND SALES.
UH, CURRENTLY THE CHARTER SAYS THAT BIDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED BY, UM, BY COUNSEL FOR ALL BONDS SALES.
UH, THIS CHANGE WOULD ACTUALLY, UH, LIMIT THAT REQUIREMENT TO COMPETITIVE BOND SALES ONLY ALLOWING FOR A NEGOTIATED SALES, WHICH ARE NON-COMPETITIVE BY NATURE, UM, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, UH, DESIRES TO DO AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE.
AND THIS WOULD BRING THE CHARTER INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVAILING AND, UH, CONVENIENT PRACTICES THAT IS DESIRED BY THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
AND AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, AT OUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETINGS, THE, UH, ELENA PORT IS THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, KIND OF EXPLAIN THE BENEFITS OF MAKING THIS CHANGE AND, UH, THE COMMISSION, UH, CONCURRED, AND DECIDED TO RECOMMEND THIS FOR, UH, FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT.
AND THIS, I BELIEVE IS THE FINAL, UH, POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS, UH, PUTTING FORTH TO ALL, UH, PURSUANT TO THEIR 2020 TERM.
AND THIS ONE JUST CHANGES THE APPOINTMENT MONTH OF, UH, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM JULY TO JANUARY.
AND, UH, THIS WOULD BASICALLY JUST SHIFT THE COMMISSION'S WORK.
THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THEY HAVE A SIX MONTH TERM, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE.
SO THIS WOULD JUST ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO COMPLETE ITS WORK
[00:20:01]
IN JULY INSTEAD OF DECEMBER, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT, UH, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY PUT FORTH TO THE CITY COUNCIL CAN BE PLACED ON A, UH, UH, FOLLOWING, UH, NOVEMBER, UH, GENERAL ELECTION DATE.AND AGAIN, THAT WAS A FAIRLY, UH, EASY AND KIND OF NON-CONTROVERSIAL DECISION FOR THE, UH, COMMISSION TO COME.
SO I THINK THEY ACTUALLY REACHED THAT DECISION DURING THEIR FIRST MEETING IN JULY, AND THEY DIDN'T IDENTIFY ANY, UH, NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS IN MAKING THIS CHANGE.
SO THOSE, UH, THOSE SIX RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ITEMS THAT THEY DID RECOMMEND, UH, BE PUT TO THE VOTERS.
UH, NOW I'M GOING TO GO OVER ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION CONSIDERED AND DECIDED NOT TO RECOMMEND TO YOU ALL.
AND IF THEY DID PROVIDE A REASON FOR GOING AHEAD AND NOT RECOMMENDING IT, I'LL BRIEFLY BRING THAT UP.
SO YOU ALL HAVE THE MOST INFORMATION POSSIBLE, BUT, UH, THE FIRST ONE IS A, UH, AN, UH, UH, BASICALLY A NEW SECTION THAT WAS PUT FORTH, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY COUNCIL TO USE A PROFESSIONAL SEARCH FIRM, UH, BEFORE TO BASICALLY REPORT BACK TO YOU ALL BEFORE APPOINTING A CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, OR CITY CENTER RYTARY.
AND, UH, THE, UH, DURING THE DISCUSSION, IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT, UM, THE COUNCIL BASICALLY HAS BROAD LATITUDE AS FAR AS THE METHODOLOGY OF, UM, APPOINTING, UH, ONE OF THOSE THREE, UH, INDIVIDUAL, ONE OF THOSE THREE APPOINTED POSITIONS, AND THAT, UH, REQUIRING THAT A PROFESSIONAL SEARCH FIRM BE USED WOULD, UH, HELP THE CITY TO, UH, POSSIBLY AVOID A, A, A SEVERANCE, YOU KNOW, EITHER A, A PREMIUM SURE.
SEVERANCE FROM THE CITY OR A COSTLY PROCESS, BECAUSE PRESUMABLY USING A PROFESSIONAL SEARCH FIRM WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, BE A TOOL TO FIND, UH, A CANDIDATE WITH A GOOD FIT FOR THEM, THE CITY.
UM, IT WAS MENTIONED DURING THE DELIBERATION ON THIS ITEM THAT, UH, NONE OF THE 26 OR SO CITIES SURVEYED REGARDING THIS ITEM, UH, HAS A SIMILAR PROVISION IN ITS CHARTER.
UH, THEY GENERALLY, UM, GRANT THEIR CITY COUNCILS, UH, THE SAME LATITUDE THAT MISSOURI CITY CURRENTLY DOES IN SELECTING THEM CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, OR CITY SECRETARY.
AND OF COURSE, UM, YOU KNOW, NOTHING AS THE CURRENT CHARTER IS WRITTEN WITH THAT LATITUDE, NOTHING WOULD PRECLUDE THE CITY COUNCIL FROM, UM, UTILIZING IT CONSULTANTS OR A PROFESSIONAL SEARCH FIRM IN MAKING THIS DECISION, WHICH I THINK WAS THE PROCESS THAT WAS USED TO, UM, TO APPOINT MR. JONES TO, UH, THE CITY MANAGER POSITION, UH, JUST THIS YEAR.
SO, YOU KNOW, NOTHING, NOTHING IN THE CHARTER CURRENTLY PREVENTS THAT FROM HAPPENING.
UM, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD JUST MANDATE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO THAT, WHICH AGAIN, THE, UH, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND NOT RECOMMEND NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE SECOND ITEM THAT THEY, THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED AND DECIDED NOT TO RECOMMEND WAS, UH, BASICALLY ESTABLISHING A, UH, A CONTRACT DRAFTING PROCEDURE, UH, THAT WOULD INVOLVE THE CITY ATTORNEY, UH, THE HR DEPARTMENT, UM, YEAH, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DRAFTING A CITY MANAGER CONTRACTS AFTER, UH, IT WAS KIND OF A ITEM BECAUSE INCLUDED IN THIS WAS THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER BY A TWO THIRDS VOTE.
UM, AND, UM, I'LL ACTUALLY GET BACK TO THAT PART OF IT LATER, YOU KNOW, IN A DIFFERENT ITEM, BUT, UH, AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT DRAFTING, UH, KIND OF SPECIFICATION IN THE CHARTER, UH, CHAIRMAN WORKMAN, UH, JOE WORKMAN OF THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY, UH, VOLUNTARILY REMOVE THAT ITEM AFTER SEEING THAT THE, UH, THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UM, THERE, THERE WASN'T ANY SORT OF CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM.
SO IT WAS BASICALLY, UH, NOT EFFICIENTLY TABLED, BUT WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION.
NOW THIS IS, UM, THIS WOULD BE A, AN AMENDMENT TO A FEW OF THE EXISTING CHARTER SECTIONS REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE THREE APPOINTED OFFICIAL POSITIONS, THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THE CITY SECRETARY.
UM, AND THIS CHANGE WOULD BE BASICALLY JUST TO REQUIRE A, UH, A TWO THIRDS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL INSTEAD OF WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS CURRENTLY, WHICH IS BASICALLY JUST A, A SIMPLE
[00:25:01]
MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL.AND THE BENEFIT OF THAT WOULD BE THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
THAT WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE BIG KIND OF BROAD SWEEPING CITY MISSION LEVEL, UH, PERSONNEL DECISIONS, AND THAT IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO, UH, REQUIRE A GREATER DEGREE OF UNANIMITY AMONG THE COUNCIL, UH, TO MAKE SUCH IMPORTANT DECISIONS AS THE, UH, APPOINTMENT OR REMOVAL OF, UH, THE CITY MANAGER SAY, OR A CITY SECRETARY.
UM, SO THAT WAS, UH, PROPONENTS OF THIS ITEM, UH, HAD BROUGHT THAT UP.
BUT, UH, THOSE THAT, UH, WEREN'T IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM SAID THAT BY REQUIRING A TWO-THIRDS VOTE MAY CREATE KIND OF A TOUGHER HURDLE TO ACTUALLY COMING TO A CONSENSUS, TO APPOINT OR REMOVE AN OFFICIAL AND ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT.
SO, UH, THERE WERE SOME ON THE COMMISSION THAT WEREN'T IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM.
IT WAS NOTED DURING THE DISCUSSION THAT ONLY TWO CITIES OF THOSE THAT WERE SURVEYED.
AND AGAIN, I THINK THERE WERE ABOUT 25 OR 26 TO OTHER CITIES, UH, ACTUALLY REQUIRED A TWO OR GREATER MAJORITY TO MAKE THESE, UH, PERSONNEL DECISIONS FOR THESE TYPES OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS.
AND, UH, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WAS DISCUSSED, UH, THIS WAS REMOVED BY THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION FOR, UM, FOR LACK OF INTEREST.
AND THIS WAS, UH, PROVIDING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY SECRETARY BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL.
UM, CURRENTLY THERE ISN'T A REMOVAL, UH, PROVISION, SO THIS WOULD JUST BRING IT IN LINE WITH, UH, WHAT IS CURRENTLY, UM, IN THE CHARTER REGARDING THE CITY MANAGER, UH, FOR THE OTHER APPOINTED POSITIONS.
AND THIS AGAIN WAS REMOVED BY THE CHAIR AFTER NOTING LACK OF INTEREST IN THE ITEM.
NOW THIS ITEM, UH, BASICALLY WOULD CHANGE THE CHECK SIGNING AUTHORITY CURRENTLY IN THE CHARTER, THE, UH, MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN CHECKS.
THIS WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THAT THAT'S THAT POWER IN THE CITY MANAGER AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, UM, BECAUSE IT WOULD GIVE, UH, THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT SORT OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THE, UH, KIND OF THE DAY-TO-DAY STAFF OF THE CITY.
UM, AND THIS ONE, ACTUALLY, THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THIS ITEM, BUT I FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
AND THAT, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE LAST ONE.
THIS IS AGAIN, WASN'T RECOMMENDED.
UM, IT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS BY ORDINANCE AND ALSO PERMIT THE CITY TO BORROW FUNDS FOR SUCH EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.
AND, UM, AFTER A SIMILAR PROVISION WAS ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE CHARTER AND, UH, SECTION 9.04 B THAT ALLOWS FOR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.
UH, THE ITEM WAS VOLUNTARILY RE UH, REMOVED AT THE, UM, RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF.
SO THIS ONE WASN'T RECOMMENDED EITHER NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO, LIKE I SAID, UM, ON EACH OF THOSE ITEMS, THERE WERE ABOUT 12 OF THEM.
LALL PART OF YOUR MOTION CAN EITHER ACCEPT, REJECT, ALTERED, UM, THOSE ITEMS, OR POSTPONE THE DISCUSSION TO A FUTURE SPECIAL MEETING.
UH, JUST PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT LEGAL DOES RECOMMEND THAT, UH, ANY ORDINANCE THAT YOU ALL AUTHORIZED STAFF TO DRAFT B, UM, ADOPTED, UM, IN ONE READING IN THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY, UH, THE REASON FOR THAT IS I BELIEVE FEBRUARY 12TH IS THE DEADLINE TO CALL FOR A SPECIAL CHARTER ELECTION, AND THAT WOULD BE ON THE, UH, THE MAY 1ST BALLOT.
SO JUST PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN POSTPONE ANY OF THESE ITEMS, BUT, UM, THE FUTURE DISCUSSION WOULD BE, HAVE TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING, OR AT LEAST FAIRLY SOON WE RECOMMEND THIS MONTH.
UM, AND AGAIN, IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO VOTE ON TONIGHT AND, UH, FOR PUTTING FORTH TO THE VOTERS OF MISSOURI CITY, YOU ALL CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AS WELL.
IN ADDITION TO MAKING A DECISION ON THE ITEMS PRESENTED TO YOU THUS FAR, AND, UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU ALL IS, THIS COULD BE AFTER YOU ALL DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT YOU EVEN WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR WHICH ONES YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, BUT, UH, THE CITY STAFF IS ASKING YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER A MAY OR NOVEMBER ELECTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TONIGHT AND, UH, YOU KNOW, NOW I'LL
[00:30:01]
KIND OF PUT IT TO YOU ALL TO DISCUSS THE, UH, THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, BROUGHT TO YOU ALL BY THE COMMISSION AND, UH, WE'LL, UH, YOU KNOW, ASSIST IN ANY, ANY MOTION THAT YOU ALL WANT TO PUT FORWARD TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS.UM, SINCE THE CITY ATTORNEY JAMES
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AS SUBMITTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE, UH, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEPARATELY, UM, MODIFIED, UM, AND THAT BEING THE ONE ON EXTENDING THE LENGTH OF ALL ELECTED TERMS OF OFFICE FROM TWO TO FOUR YEARS, AND ACTUALLY MAKING THAT TWO TO THREE YEARS.
UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT, UH, ALL OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT ONE MODIFICATION.
UH, AND I DO HAVE SOME OTHER DISCUSSIONS, BUT I'D LIKE TO START WITH THESE THEY'RE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO YOUR, UM,
I'M SAYING THAT I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, I AM SEEKING TO MAKE A MOTION WHILE I'M MAKING A MOTION TO ACCEPT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, ASKING FOR A MODIFICATION, WHICH IS THE EXTEND THE LENGTH OF ALL ELECTED TERMS OF OFFICE FROM TWO TO FOUR YEARS.
AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT ACTUALLY TO LEAVE.
SO YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCEPT THE ITEM EXTENDING THE LENGTH OF TERMS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM TWO TO FOUR IN LIEU OF THAT RECOMMENDATION, YOU WOULD LIKE TERMS TO BE FROM TWO TO THREE YEARS.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT IS A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND HEARING IN A SECOND? SO THAT MOTION FAILS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION I LIKE, OH, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DISCUSS, UM, THE SECTION IN WHICH WE DECIDE WHETHER IT'S A THREE YEAR OR FOUR YEARS, JUST OPEN IT UP FOR DIALOGUE.
WELL, SOMEONE COULD HAVE MADE A SECOND, THEN WE COULD OPEN IT UP, BUT YEAH, MY APOLOGIES.
FEEL FREE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION THOUGH.
IS THAT YOUR EMOTION? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT YOUR ENTIRE MOTION? JOYCE WILL ASSIST ME, UH, WHAT I WAS, MY MOTION WAS TO, UM, UH, MY MOTION IS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE SECTION.
I THINK IT'S SIX OH ONE, B, C AND D, WHERE WE DISCUSS WHETHER IT'S A THREE-YEAR TERM OR A FOUR-YEAR TERM, BUT APPROVE EVERYTHING OFF AS IS.
SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR.
SO YOUR MOTION IS ACTUALLY TO APPROVE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LENGTH OF TERM THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS, WHETHER THAT LENGTH OF TERM SHOULD BE THREE YEARS OR FOUR YEARS.
IS THERE, THAT'S THE MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND?
[00:35:02]
OKAY.SO THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION BY COUNCIL AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER, EMORY DISCUSSION.
SO, YEAH, JAMES, GO AHEAD FOR NOW.
WELL, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT, UH, THE, THE TERM, UH, KIND OF GOES HAND IN HAND WITH A NUMBER OF TERMS, UH, THAT, UH, WOULD BE ALLOWED.
AND IF YOU GO TO THREE, THEN WE HAVE TO, OR SHOULD WE CONSIDER INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TERMS, UH, FROM THE, UM, WHAT WAS IT, WHAT IS IT FOR, RIGHT.
NO, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY STATED IN TERMS OF THE TERMS, IT'S A, QUMULO, THAT'S A NUMBER, UH, IT'S 12 YEARS TOTAL.
IT'S NOT BY TERMS. SO YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO CHANGE THAT BECAUSE YOU COULD JUST SERVE FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS. OKAY.
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING IN THE, IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE IN THE CHAIR THAT IN THE PAINTED OR THAT WE WANT TO DO INDICATE THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR TERMS, OR WE WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS 12 YEARS, AND THIS IS JAMES.
UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THERE WERE SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.
BASICALLY WHAT THEY DECIDED TO DO WAS MAKE THE CONSECUTIVE TERM.
WELL, I SAY TREMBLING TO PUT THE CONSECUTIVE LIMIT ON COUNCIL, A SERVICE IN TERMS OF YEARS, INSTEAD OF IN ACTUAL TERMS OF OFFICE.
AND THAT WAY, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL WOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO EITHER KEEP THE TERM LENGTH THAT TWO YEARS OR, UM, CHANGE EITHER THREE-YEAR TERMS OR FOUR YEAR TERMS THAT 12 YEAR MAXIMUM LIMIT ON CONSECUTIVE SERVICE WOULD ACTUALLY FIT EITHER ONE OF THOSE SCENARIOS, SINCE THEY'RE ALL, SINCE 12 IS DIVISIBLE BY EITHER THREE, FOUR.
SO I SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL WANT TO CHANGE THE TERMS TO THREE YEARS.
THEN THEIR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE A FOUR TERM, UM, CONSECUTIVE LIMIT IF YOU WANTED TO.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO THREE YEARS, IT WOULD BE A FOUR TERM CONSECUTIVE LIMIT.
IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE IT TO FOUR YEAR TO A FOUR YEAR TERM.
AND IT WOULD BE A THREE TERM CONSECUTIVE LIMITS, BUT EITHER WAY IT WOULD BE 12 YEARS OF COUNCIL SERVICE BEFORE THEY WOULD HAVE TO SIT OUT.
THIS CONSUMMATE MEMORY, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
I STILL SUPPORT THE 12 YEARS AND I WAS JUST WANTING TO DO THE FOUR YEAR.
AND, UM, JAMES ON THE REVIEW WITH THE CHARTER COMMITTEE, THAT WAS WHAT THEY ALSO DRIVE AS WELL, RIGHT? YES.
UH, THE LEGAL DIVISION BASICALLY JUST ASSISTED IN DRAFTING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS IS, THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THEY ASKED FOR WAS THE ONE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THEY OPTED TO HAVE IT BE A 12 YEAR, UH, MAXIMUM, UH, TIME MOVEMENT ON, UH, CONSECUTIVE COUNCIL SERVICE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT PRESENTED THAT WAY IN THE FINAL REPORT.
AND THAT'S THE FORM THAT IS BEING PUT TO YOU ALL, UM, IN TONIGHT.
THIS IS COUNCILWOMAN STERLING.
UH, I KIND OF CONCUR WITH A FOUR YEAR TERM, UH, FOUR YEARS WITH THREE-YEAR TERMS WOULD BE MUCH MORE FEASIBLE.
I AGREE WITH THE FOUR YEAR EVE NUMBER TERMS. UM, I DO THINK YOU NEED ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP IS RAN, HOW THE, HOW THE POSITION IS RAN IN.
UM, JUST GIVE YOU TIME TO BE COMFORTABLE WITHIN A POSITION.
AND I BELIEVE FOUR YEARS WILL GIVE YOU THAT COMFORTABLE.
UM, BILLINGS, I ALSO AGREE WITH, UH, THIS IS ROBIN.
I DO AGREE WITH MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, STERLING, AS WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBER EDWARDS TO KEEP THE FOUR YEARS, UM, WITH THE THREE YEAR, I MEAN THREE TERMS, BUT THE YEARS WOULD BE FOUR YEARS OF EACH OF THOSE TERMS, MAKING IT A 12TH.
SO MARY, IF I CAN ASK YOU JOYCE, A QUICK QUESTION.
SO IF WE ALL DECIDE, THIS IS THE DIRECTION
[00:40:01]
WE WANT TO GO, AND WE PUT IT ON THE MAY BALLOT AND IT'S APPROVED, THEN STARTING NOVEMBER, 2021, THE DISTRICT SEATS ARE ON THE BALLOT AND WHEN THEY WIN THEIR NEXT ELECTION IS FOUR YEARS FROM THAT NOVEMBER THE 2020, RIGHT.SO ESSENTIALLY THE DISTRICT MEMBERS ARE ON THE BALLOT IN 2021, THE TERM FOR WHICH THEY WOULD SERVE BEGINNING 20, 21 WOULD BE FOUR YEAR TERMS. AND THEN NEXT YEAR THE LARGEST ARE ON THE BALLOT.
AND THOSE TERMS STARTING FROM NEXT YEAR WOULD BE FOUR YEAR TERM.
YOU, UM, UM, THIS IS REMEMBER EDWARDS.
I KNOW WE SPOKE, I KNOW, UM, MAYOR PROTIUM A REALIST, MADE A MOTION FOR US TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING THAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH EXCEPT THE TERM LIMITS.
BUT I WILL LIKE FOR YOU TO GO BACK OVER THE DISCUSSION AS FAR AS THE MAYOR, UM, IT IS HARD IF THE CITY MANAGER WAS REMOVED FROM THIS POSITION.
CAN YOU GO BACK OVER THERE, JAMES PLEASE? YES, OF COURSE.
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE ABILITY TO GO BACK TO THE SLIDE, BUT, UM, MAYBE WE CAN FIND THAT GO BACK TO, UH, TO THAT PARTICULAR SLIDE, BUT BASICALLY THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION THREE OH FIVE OF THE CHARTER.
UM, LIKE I SAID, IT STATES CURRENTLY THAT THE MAYOR, UM, SHE'LL ACT AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE CITY AND SHALL FULFILL THE DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER UNTIL THE CITY MANAGER CAN BE APPOINTED.
UM, AND AS I MENTIONED, UH, WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE, UH, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETINGS WAS THAT TWO OTHER, UM, PROVISIONS IN THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY CONFLICT WITH THAT.
ONE OF THEM IS IN THAT SAME ARTICLE THREE, I THINK IT'S THREE OH EIGHT.
AND IT SAYS THAT, UM, NOBODY ON COUNCIL SHALL HOLD A, UH, ANOTHER CITY OFFICE OR A POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT WHILE SERVING ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN THE OTHER CONFLICT WAS, UM, IN ARTICLE FOUR.
UM, AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE SUBSECTION THAT ADDRESSES AN ACTING CITY MANAGER.
AND I BELIEVE THAT STATE AND THAT'S UM, YEAH, YEAH.
THANK YOU FOR FINDING THE SLIDE.
UM, AND I ACTUALLY PUT IT IN THE SLIDE HERE.
UM, IT'S FOUR OH ONE E AND IT STATES THAT, UM, NO PERSON WHILE SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR AS THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL EVER SERVE AT THE SAME TIME AS CITY MANAGER OR AS AN ACTING CITY MANAGER.
AND, UM, IT WAS DISCUSSED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF, UM, THE CITY MANAGER WERE TO, UH, IF THAT POSITION WERE TO BECOME VACANT BASICALLY.
UM, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS A, AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER WOULD ASSUME THE DUTIES OF, UM, OF THE CITY MANAGER AND, UM, AND USUALLY THAT COUNCIL APPOINTED, UM, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN INSTANCES WHERE AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS WELL UNTIL, UH, A FULL TERM CITY MANAGER CAN BE APPOINTED, BUT USUALLY THAT RESPONSIBILITY WOULDN'T FALL ON THE MAYOR.
IT WOULD FALL ON, LIKE I SAID, EITHER AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, OR IF A CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS AN INTERIM, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD ASSUME THE DAY-TO-DAY RESPONSIBILITIES OF A CITY MANAGER ROLE AND JAMES THAT YOU MENTIONED ON WHAT OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES WERE DOING IN THIS MATTER.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, UM, AT HAND TONIGHT, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY PRESENT IT TO YOU ALL.
UM, AS FAR AS WHAT, UH, IF, IF IT'S MENTIONED IN THE CHARTER OF THE CITIES THAT WE SERVE A, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY DO IN THE EVENT OF THE CITY MANAGER, VACANCY JAMES, THIS IS COUNCILWOMAN STERLING, UM, IS THAT MAY AND NOVEMBER ELECTION, ARE THOSE THE ONLY SPECIAL ELECTIONS THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SPECIAL ELECTION? YES.
UM, I BELIEVE THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT, UH, IF YOU ALL CALL THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, IT WOULD BE A, UH, A GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTION SINCE, UM, CITY, UH, THE ELECTION OF, OF CITY OFFICES IN TERMS OF, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ARE, ARE
[00:45:01]
TAKEN UP, UH, PUT TO THE VOTERS AT THAT TIME.BUT, UH, YEAH, THE, UH, CHARTER ELECTION WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SPECIAL ELECTION.
IF THERE'S A MOTION TONIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY STAFF TO PUT TOGETHER AN ORDINANCE FOR A MAY ELECTION, THEN YES, THAT WOULD BE A SPECIAL ELECTION IN MAY.
THE REASON I ASKED, BECAUSE WE SERVED ON A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, UH, MAYOR ALLOCATE.
AND YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT WE CHANGED IT FROM MAY TO NOVEMBER, BECAUSE IT WAS MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO HAVE IT IN NOVEMBER, AS OPPOSED TO ME SOMETHING IS COMING BACK AROUND AGAIN AND RECOMMENDING MAY AGAIN, I DON'T THINK, UH, MY CONSOLE WAS STERLING YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE ELECTION THAT THERE, ESPECIALLY LIKE NOT IN SPECIAL ELECTION EITHER.
I MEAN, THIS IS JUST BECAUSE IT SAID CHARTER REVIEW.
SO IT GOES INTO THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, WHICH IS IN MAY, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
I'M NOT, I DIDN'T DECIDE THIS, BUT UNTIL I THINK I'LL LET JOE SPEAK TO IT THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS OUR ELECTIONS CITY ELECTION FOR A LARGE MAYOR, AS WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL REMAIN IN NOVEMBER.
I MEAN, THAT'S PULLING FORWARD UNTIL UNLESS WE CHANGE IT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
BUT I THINK THIS IS TO MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING TODAY.
ALLOWING OUR RESIDENTS AND MISSOURI CITY TO MAKE THE, MAKE THE APPROVAL OR, OR NOT APPROVED IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTAND.
COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROULETTE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER, EMORY, EXCEPT THE CHARTER, THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE OR FOUR YEAR TERM ITEMS. SO, SO IF WE CAN GET THAT MOTION APPROVED AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO A SECOND MOTION, WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE FOUR OR THREE, CORRECT.
OR YOU COULD AMEND, SOMEONE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THIS MOTION.
THEN YOU WOULD VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND FIRST, THEN GO BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.
WOULD THIS BE, UM, SO, SO THAT YOUR MOTION TO AMEND A COUNCIL MEMBER STERLING WOULD BE, UM, TO AMEND
SO RIGHT NOW WITH THIS AMENDING MOTION, NO, THAT'S NOT, NO, THAT'S NOT MY MOTION.
GET ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, SOMEONE WHO MADE THE MOST, UH, THE MOST.
SO, YEAH, SO, BUT, UH, SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND.
THERE HAS TO BE A SECOND, AND THEN THERE'S A BOAT ON THE AMENDMENT AFTER THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
WHEN WE GO BACK TO THE BOAT ON THE MAIN MOTION, WHICH WAS MAYOR PRO TEM, THE ROULEZ MOTION.
SO AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBERS STERLING TO CHANGE, OR TO ADD TO MAYOR PROTONS MOTION, THE FOUR YEAR TERMS FOR THAT ITEM.
SO NOW IF THERE'S A SECOND, YOU ALL WILL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
AND THEN AFTER THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, YOU'LL VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION.
OOH, BUT COUNCIL MEMBER, CUSTOMER STERLING, BUT YOU'RE SAYING FOUR YEARS AND FOUR TERM FOUR TERMS AT 16.
NOW, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER STERLING MET FOUR YEARS AND THEN THE EXISTING 12 YEAR LIMIT THAT'S IN THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT SECOND? SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNSEL MS. STERLING COUNCIL MEMBER.
UH, SECOND THAT, UH, WE'LL CALL FOR EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT YOU'RE WANTING FOR.
[00:50:01]
REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE REPEAT IT.BUT THIS IS THE ENJOY THE MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW IS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO MAYOR PRO TEM OR RUELAS HIS MOTION.
THE AMENDMENT IS TO ADOPT THE FOUR YEAR TERMS OR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE FOR THIS ITEM TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL ARE VOTING ON.
SO THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT I MADE WAS THAT WE WOULD RE I WAS RECOMMENDING FOUR YEAR TERMS CONSECUTIVE WITH THE THREE TERM LIMIT, RIGHT? SO I SERVED FOR FOUR YEARS AND TO MAKE IT TOTAL 12, THAT MEANS I CAN ONLY SERVE THREE TIMES.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS SECONDING AS WELL.
SO YOUR ORIGINAL, THIS IS THE JOYOUS, YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO ADOPT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ITEM THAT PROVIDED FOR A TERM, YOU WANTED ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON WHETHER COUNCIL SHOULD MOVE FORWARD AND THREE YEAR TERM OR A FOUR YEAR.
SO THERE WAS NO, UH, YOU DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION OR AN ACTION ON WHETHER YOU WANTED THREE OR FOUR.
YOUR MOTION WAS JUST TO HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM.
SO NOW COUNCIL MEMBER STERLING HAS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND YOUR, YOUR MOTION, WHICH INCLUDED EVERYTHING ELSE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WHETHER YOU ALL WANTED A THREE-YEAR TERM OR A FOUR YEAR TERM.
SO HER AMENDMENT IS THAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE A FOUR YEAR TERM PLACED ON THE BACK OR FOR ANTHONY, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THE RULE IS YOU CAN JUST AMEND YOUR OWN MOTION.
IT'S SIMPLE THAT MOST OF ITSELF LET'S DO WE NEED TO VOTE.
SO DO WE NEED, JUST VOTE THAT OTHER ONE DOWN AND START OVER? I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU ALL HAVE IT ON THE FLOOR.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE FOUR VOTES.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU VOTE ON WHETHER YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD A FOUR-YEAR TERM.
SO THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD BE VOTING ON FOR THIS FIRST ONE, THIS FIRST VOTE.
SO, SO MAYOR PRO TEM AND EVERYBODY OFF.
SO THE VOTE, I MEAN, W WHAT I WILL CALL THE ROLL CALL WILL BE TO PUT FOUR YEARS FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS, RIGHT? THAT WOULD GIVE YOU AT 12 YEARS, TOTAL AID PERSON, MAYOR, OR COUNCIL, A LARGE OR DISTRICT CONCERN.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT FOR YOUR TERM FOUR YEAR TERMS WITH A THREE TERM LIMIT.
CORRECT? SO THAT IS THE MOTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER STERLING PUT UP IN YOUR SECOND.
ARE THERE RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THIS MOTION OVER THE VOTE? WAIT, I DIDN'T HEAR IT.
WAS ASKING WHERE THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS MOTION.
IT WAS BROUGHT UP, AND THEN IT WAS KIND OF PUSHED UNDER THE TABLE.
SO THIS MOTION IS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION.
THE ONLY THING YOU ARE FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THIS MOTION IS THE FOUR YEAR TERMS FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS. THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU'RE VOTING ON, BECAUSE THIS IS AN AMENDMENT.
THEN ONCE THE MAYOR TAKES UP THIS ITEM, OR ONCE YOU ALL VOTE ON THIS, THEN HE WILL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDS.
NOW WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER MOTION, WHICH IS MOTION.
UH, IT WAS PUT TO MOTION BY COUNCIL MAYOR PRO TEM, MARULA AS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER, EMORY, WHICH IS ALL ON THEIR ITEMS. NOW ALL IN ONE
[00:55:01]
FOOT TOGETHER TO MOVE FORWARD TO APPROVE AS STAFF RECOMMENDS AS A COMMISSION, AS A COMMISSION, SORRY, AS COMMISSION RECOMMENDS, IS THIS COUNCILMAN EMORY, IS THERE ANY SUMMARY, UH, DISPLAY THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT, UH, ALL OF THOSE WERE AGAIN, SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.THERE'S NO SUMMARY SLIDE, BUT, UM, IF I PAGE TWO AND TWO IT'S PAGE TWO OF TWO, IT'S UNDER BACKGROUND.
I DON'T KNOW, JAMES, CAN YOU JUST BRIEFLY GO OVER THOSE ADDITIONAL ITEMS PLEASE? YES.
I'M PULLING THEM UP RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND.
I CAN GO AHEAD AND, UM, DESCRIBED THOSE.
THE FIRST ITEM IS TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION THAT STATES THAT THE MAYOR SHALL ACT AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND FULFILL THE DUTIES OF CITY MANAGER UNTIL THE CITY MANAGER IS APPOINTED.
THE NEXT ITEM IS TO LIMIT THE TIME AND INDIVIDUAL CONSERVE CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUSLY ON COUNCIL TO 12 YEARS WITH A TWO YEAR SIT OUT.
THE NEXT ITEM IS TO EXTEND THE TIME THE CITY MANAGER CAN TRANSFER OR REQUESTS TO TRANSFER AN APPROPRIATIONS FROM 60 DAYS TO 90 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
THEN THAT ITEM IS TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY MAY RECEIVE NEGOTIATED BOND SALES.
THE LAST ITEM IS TO CHANGE THE DATE ON WHICH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS APPOINTED FROM JULY TO JANUARY.
I STATED EARLIER, NOW I'M GOING TO ELABORATE ON MY STATEMENT.
I BASICALLY DON'T AGREE WITH THE MAYOR AND REMOVED, UM, AND ACTUALLY HAVING ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER IN PLACE.
AND SO WE GET A, UM, A FULL-TIME CITY MANAGER SIMPLY BECAUSE, UM, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER IN THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS ROLE WITHOUT THE EXPERIENCE OF ACTUALLY COMPLETING THOSE ASSIGNMENTS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE RUNNING FEASIBLY.
SO, UM, MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS JUST PLACED ON THE AGENDA, UM, FOR THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW AS AN ATTACK BY THE OLD ADMINISTRATION, THIS WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WAS, AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH POINTLESS AT THIS POINT.
I AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT ONE, UM, MS. COUNCIL MEMBER BONEY, UM, AND LOOKING AT THE COMMISSION, IT, IT ACTUALLY, UM, EVERYONE THAT WAS APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER.
UM, AND THEY MENTIONED THAT THE REASON THAT THEY WERE DOING SO WAS BECAUSE, UM, IT WAS, UH, BASICALLY, UH, NO MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD HOLD ANY OTHER CITY OFFICE OF CITY EMPLOYMENT DURING HIS TERM AS MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER.
AND BECAUSE WE HAVE A COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT, UH, IT WAS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL, IN THIS CASE, THE MAYOR WAS PROTECTED FROM HAVING TO SERVE IN THE CAPACITY OF THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BASED OFF OF OUR CHARTER.
SO IT WAS, AGAIN, THIS WAS THE CHARTER COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
NONE OF US BROUGHT THIS FORTH, BUT YOU KNOW, WE BONNIE FOR THAT, UM, CLARITY, UM, THE CHARTER DOES STATES AND EMPLOYEE CANNOT HOLD AN, UM, YOU CANNOT HOLD HER ROLE AS AN EMPLOYEE.
AND UN DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE IS SOMEONE THAT'S BEING PAID.
IF THE MAYOR IS ACTING AS MAYOR FOR THE CITY CITY, SORRY, ACTING AS CITY MANAGER IN THAT ROLE, SHE'S NOT SHE OR HE IS NOT BEING COMPENSATED.
SO THEREFORE I FEEL AS IF THE CHARTER SHOULD BE AMENDED IN THAT PORTION TO ACTUALLY ELUTE THAT LANGUAGE.
I WAS JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE, THE PROS THAT THE CHARTER COMMISSION THEMSELVES GAVE FOR AMENDING THE CHARTER, UH, WAS THAT IT ELIMINATES A CONFLICT BETWEEN SECTION
[01:00:01]
3.05 AND BOTH SECTIONS 3.08 AND 4.01 E.AND IT BRINGS THE CHARTER INTO BETTER CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
AND AS IT RELATES TO CONS TO THE AMENDMENT, NONE WERE IDENTIFIED.
SO IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY FIVE.
AND SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE APPOINTED TO THIS COMMISSION HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.
UH, BUT I JUST WAS GOING OFF OF WHAT THE CHARTER COMMISSION REVIEW COMMISSION THEMSELVES STATED.
WELL, I'M GLAD, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BONEY, THEY'RE NOW IN FAVOR OF COMMISSION, UM, ANY TYPE OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PAST.
YOU HAVEN'T, SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU'RE COMING AROUND CUSTOMER EDWARDS, AND LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THE COMMISSION WAS, UM, PUT TOGETHER BY, UM, THE MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION DID HAVE THE MAJORITY.
SO OVERALL I THINK THAT WAS A VERY FAIR COMMISSION.
SO LET'S, LET'S JUST NOT, I THINK COUNCIL, UH, I THINK MR. JONES, UH, MENTIONED THIS LAST LINE, LET'S STOP PLAYING POLITICS FAIR.
UM, YOU UP FOR DEBATE, I STATED HOW I FELT AND, UM, YOU GUYS GOING TO VOTE REGARDLESS, BUT I MADE MY STATEMENT AND I STAND BY IT, COUNCIL MEMBER.
I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT I WASN'T GIVING YOU MY OPINION ABOUT THE MATTER I WAS SHARING WITH YOU, WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS.
UH, AND, AND I, I CONCUR WITH THEIR FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD.
UM, AS YOU HEARD ME EARLIER, STATE THAT I WAS MORE IN FAVOR OF THREE YEAR TERMS VERSUS FOUR, THAT WAS ANOTHER ONE OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I DID NOT AGREE WITH.
UM, BUT I MADE A MOTION TO CONSIDER THAT.
AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, OR AMENDMENT TO MAKE A MODIFICATION TO THE, UH, MOTION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.
BUT TO SAY THAT THIS WAS AN ATTACK ON THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE THAT CAME ON.
THAT THAT'S THE ONLY POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.
THANKS ON THAT, UM, THAT I HAVE IS FROM
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT, I'LL CALL ROLL CALL OF MODES, MAY APPROXIMATE RULERS, COUNCILMEMBER EDWARDS.
THAT'S A YES FOR ME, MOTION PASSES 6.1.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I THINK THE FINAL ACTION THAT, UH, CITY STAFF IS ASKING YOU ALL TO CONSIDER TONIGHT IS, UH, WHETHER YOU ALL NOW, NOW THAT YOU'VE APPROVED THE RECOMMENDED THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ITEMS, THE NEXT STEP IS TO, UM, MAKE A MOTION TO EITHER CALL FOR A, UM, MAY OR NOVEMBER ELECTION.
AND, UM, IF A MAY ELECTION IS DESIRED, THEN, UH, THE MOTION WOULD ALSO OFFER THE STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO THAT EFFECT TO CALL IT YES, UH, THAT, UH, WE MAY NEED TO CONSIDER, UH, ANOTHER ITEM, UH, AS FAR AS, UH, A MODIFICATION TO THE CURRENT CHARTER.
UH, IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION THREE OH FIVE, IS THE MAYOR PRO TEM ELECTION DATE, THEY TALKED TO ABOUT IT BEING CHANGED, UM, UH, OR THAT THE ELECTION BEING DONE, UH, ON THE, UH, FIRST, UM, COUNCIL MEETING, UH, AFTER THE ELECTION.
WELL, IF WE'RE MOVING THIS, THIS OUT, UH, TO, UH, FOUR YEARS, I THINK THAT WOULD, UM, PROVIDE, UH, MORE THAN A ONE YEAR TERM AS MAYOR APPROACHED HIM.
AND I THINK THE, THE PRO MAYOR PRO TEM LANGUAGE SAYS THAT IT'S ONE YEAR, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN LOOK AT AND WE NEED TO, UH, CONSIDER THAT TYPE OF A MODIFICATION.
[01:05:05]
NOW, FIRST REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, FOLLOWING LATER, THE LITTLE CITY OF LECTURE UNDER SPECIAL CITY LIMITS, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, UH, TO SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES DO.
HOWEVER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF A RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT AT TWO YEARS VERSUS THE, WHAT IT IS NOW, OR FOUR YEARS, OR WHAT HAVE YOU, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AS WELL.
WELL, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT AT ONE YEAR AND MAKE WHATEVER MODIFICATIONS ARE IN THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE CITY CHARTER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
GUESS ONE OTHER, OH, GO AHEAD.
NO, FINISH YOUR, UH, JUST FINISH YOUR SCREEN.
WELL, I'M FINISHED WITH THAT, THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
I HAD ANOTHER ITEM THAT IF YOU WERE, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, WE MIGHT GUESS THAT'S FINE.
WE'LL WAIT TILL WE DO IT COMES BACK, BUT I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.
AND AS FAR AS HOW MANY CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF MAYOR PRO TENSION SERVE UNDER THE NEW, UM, MODIFICATIONS TO MOVE FORWARD? YEAH.
UH, THE OTHER ITEM THAT, UH, I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE HAVE SOME CLARITY, IS THAT, UH, JUST RECENTLY WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS AS FAR AS WHAT IS, UH, THE CONCURRENCE OF COUNCIL, UH, MEAN, UH, IN, IN TERMS OF, UM, UH, WHEN, UH, A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR IS EITHER HIRED, TRANSFERRED, OR ARE REMOVED.
AND, UH, TO ME, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT CONCURRENCE OF HASSLE IMPLIES OR NOT IMPLIES, BUT MEANS, AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE CITY CHARTER THAT SAYS, WHAT CONCURRENCE AM I GETTING BACK FEED? WELL, DID YOU HEAR MY, MY COMMENTS? SO PLEASE WAIT, PLEASE SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
WELL, I, I THINK THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S SOME, SOME QUESTION IS WHAT TO, WHAT THE DEFINITION OF CONCURRENCE OF COUNSEL MEANS WHEN A, A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR IS EITHER HIRED, FIRED, OR ARE REMOVED.
AND, UH, I, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS SOME, UH, CLARITY ADDED TO THE, UH, UH, WHAT, UH, CONCURRENCE REALLY, UH, UH, STIPULATES ARE, ARE, ARE, UM, UH, INVOKES AS FAR AS, UH, WHAT ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CONCURRENCE WOULD MEAN THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO, UH, AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY VOTE, UH, ON WHATEVER THE ACTION THE CITY MANAGER IS, UH, PRESCRIBING.
AND IF THAT VOTE WAS UNFAVORABLE, THEN THAT ACTION THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBING, UH, WOULD FAIL THEN CONSTANT RESISTANCE.
I, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, UH, IN THE INDUSTRY WHEN THERE'S A PROVISION SUCH AS THIS AND THE CHARTER, UH, THE CITY MANAGER, UH, WOULD, UH, COME TO THE COUNCIL, UM, AND, AND MAKE ITS CASE IN TERMS OF HIRING OR FIRING, UH, OR SUSPENSION IS A WAY THIS PROVISION IS WRITTEN.
BUT IF THE COUNCIL DID NOT VOTE TO CONCUR WITH THE DECISION OF THE MANAGER, THEN THAT DECISION WOULD BE REVERSED.
SO, UH, SO TYPICALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, THE WAY, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW WOULD HANDLE A MEASURE LIKE THIS IS IF I, UH, IF THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, WHO WAS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, RANKS, WHO, UM, UH, RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION FROM HR THAT I WANTED TO FIRE, FOR EXAMPLE, I WOULD, UH, BEFORE I MAKE A DECISION TO FIRE, I WOULD COME TO CITY COUNCIL AND ALLOW FOR HR OR EITHER, UH, I WOULD MAKE THE CASE TO THE COUNCIL AND IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THEN, UH, ASK COUNCIL, UH,
[01:10:01]
FOR THEIR OPINION ABOUT WHETHER THEY WOULD CONCUR WITH MY DECISION TO NOT.AND THAT IS REFLECTIVE OF THE CURRENT CHARTER IN, SO THAT THE CURRENT CHARTER SAYS THAT WHILE THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO TELL ME WHO TO HIRE FIRE IT, EXPRESSIVELY SAYS THAT THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR HAS THE ABILITY TO TELL ME WHAT THEY THINK.
SO, UH, FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT IN THE INDUSTRY, WHEN YOU SEE A PROVISION LIKE THIS, UH, I WOULD SEE COUNCIL'S, UM, CONCURRENCE PRIOR TO FINALIZING A DECISION.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL OR NOT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY I INTERPRET THAT.
SO I WOULD NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, A BLACK TODAY, WE'RE OUT RIGHT NOW, RECRUITING FOR, IF WE GOT A RECRUITING FIRM LOOKING FOR A FIRE CHIEF, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, ONCE THAT RECRUITING FIRM GIVES ME A RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD COME TO THE COUNCIL AND SAY, BASED OFF THE PROCESS THAT'S BEEN UNDERTAKING, HERE'S THE INDIVIDUAL THAT I LIKE TO POINT TO THE POSITION.
AND I LIKE TO GET THE COUNCIL'S CONCURRENCE IN THAT APPOINTMENT.
UH, THE COUNCIL BEING WHAT HAPPENED BOTH ON WHETHER THEY CONCUR WITH MY DECISION OR NOT.
UM, UM, AND, UM, IF THEY DID, THEN THAT PERSON WOULD BE HIRED IF THEY DIDN'T, THEN THAT PERSON WOULD NOT BE HIRED.
I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE RECRUITING PROCESS.
WELL, YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, W I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GOING ON THE BASIS THAT, UH, UH, THAT'S WHAT THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS, OR IS THERE ANY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, UM, UH, ARE, UH, SPECIFIC IN, UH, WHAT, UH, THE TERM CONCURRENCE MEANS, UM, IN MISSOURI CITY? UM, JUST, UM, I DO HAVE TO STEP OUT OF THIS MEETING FOR A QUICK SECOND.
SO MAYOR PRO TEM, I WOULD WANT YOU TO, UM, TAKE THAT INTO A NOTE THAT IS 7:13 PM, BUT I AM STEPPING OUT OF THIS MEETING FOR AN EMERGENCY REASON.
SO THIS WAY THAT, UH, THAT YOU'RE RUNNING THE MEETING TO, I HAVE, I CAN GO BACK.
THERE ARE TWO MAIN CONCURRENCE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF WHAT TYPE OF CLARIFICATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE THAT MEANS, UM, YOU KNOW, PLACEMENT BEFORE COUNCIL, BEFORE FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UM, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, THIS COUNCILMAN EMORY, UH, YOU, JOYCE, I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOU IF YOU CONCUR WITH, UH, CITY MANAGER, JONES IS, UM, UH, UH, UH, I GUESS, UH, NOT DECISION BUT OPINION, UH, THAT THAT WOULD, UH, UH, BE A SATISFACTORY, UH, AS FAR AS, UH, WHAT THE WORDING IS IN S IN THE CITY CHARTER NOW.
SO IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IT NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR, UH, SHOULD IT STAND AS IT IS? IT'S MY OPINION THAT IT'S DISCRETIONARY AND THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ADDED TO IT, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING IN PRACTICE UNDER AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONCURRENT MEANS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT, OR COUNCIL CANNOT DECIDE TO ADD LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY IT.
SO IT'S REALLY DISCRETIONARY AND IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU ALL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THERE, THAT SPECIFICALLY STATES WHAT YOU WANT THE VOTERS TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF CONCURRENCE, YOU CAN DO.
I MEAN, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
I GUESS THAT NAME, SHOULD I MAKE THE MOTION TO, TO, UH, ADD SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE AND WHAT I NEED THAT LANGUAGE NOW, OR IF YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION AND, UH, ASSUMING
[01:15:01]
IT'S APPROVED, WE CAN BRING BACK LANGUAGE AT THE NEXT MEETING, THE NEXT SPECIAL MEETING NEXT WEEK AT WHICH YOU ALL CAN DISCUSS THE LANGUAGE AND YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO A BALLOT.WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IF I MAKE THAT AMENDMENT IS TO GET THE OPINION OF THE, UH, OF THE COUNCIL, UH, THEIR VOTE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAS ANY MERIT, OR IF WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE THE, UH, UH, THE CHARTER LANGUAGE ALONE AS IT IS.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LONG FOR YOU TO PROVIDE ANY BACKGROUND INFORMATION OR SOME TYPE OF SUPPORTING INCIDENTS OR SOMETHING TO GIVE ME SOME CLARITY OF WHY YOU BROUGHT THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
I LOOK AT WHAT CONCURRENCE MEANS.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU KNOW, WHAT IT MEANS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ACTS IN THAT CITY SHOULD TAKE THE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE, SORRY.
I JUST ASKED HER BACK FOR YOU TO PROVIDE ME WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION, BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO INSULT MY POINT OR A POINT OF ORDER.
I LIKE TO ACCEPT, UH, THE OPINION OF, UM, CITY MANAGER DOMES, BECAUSE IN ANY ORGANIZATION, UH, THAT'S TYPICALLY IN ANY ENTITY OR INDUSTRY COMPANY, THAT'S BASICALLY THE WAY IT'S DONE.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE JUST STAYED WITH THE, UH, RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT FROM THE, UH, CHARTER REVIEW.
OKAY, WELL, THIS WASN'T A PART OF THAT.
SO WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS WE'LL JUST, UH, UH, WE WOULDN'T BRING THIS UP AS AN ITEM, UH, TO CONSIDER FOR CHANGING THE CITY CHARTER AND COUNCIL MEMBER, EMORY, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT ON A FUTURE ITEM FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
AND ALSO, UH, UH, COUNCIL, LADY EDWARDS, UH, I WASN'T INSULTING YOUR INTELLIGENCE.
YOU ASKED ME WHY I BROUGHT THIS UP.
AND IT WAS BECAUSE, AS I SAID, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT CONCURRENCE MEANT YOU IN MY INTELLIGENCE, BUT I ASKED FOR CLARITY AND YOU WERE RUDE, BUT WE'RE CARRYING ON THAT WAS FIVE MINUTES AGO.
SO, UM, USUALLY I BELIEVE THE NEXT TIME THAT WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS WAS, UM, WHETHER WE AS A COUNCIL, SO WANT TO DISCUSS HAVING THIS.
I HAD ANOTHER ITEM COUNSELING
UH, FOR ME, THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION AND OR AMBIGUITY AND, UH, AS A PRECURSOR IN ADVANCE OF ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME MY WAY, THE REASON THAT I BRING I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS BECAUSE OF WHAT I EXPERIENCED MOST RECENTLY, AS IT RELATED TO, UH, THE HIRING OF OUR NEW CITY MANAGER, UH, SURROUNDING THE CONTRACT.
UH, AND I JUST WANTED TO READ A FEW OF THE ITEMS, SECTION 4.01 UNDER CITY MANAGER, B COMPENSATION SAYS THE CITY MANAGER SHALL RECEIVE COMPENSATION AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE COUNCIL, ACCORDING TO HIS EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION AND TRAINING.
AND IT SAYS THE COMPENSATION SHALL BE, BE AGREED UPON BEFORE APPOINTMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNCIL MAY CHANGE IT AT THEIR DISCRETION.
UH, SECTION 4.02 FOR ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY, UH, SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
IT SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL RECEIVE FOR SERVICES, SUCH COMPENSATION AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE COUNCIL AND SHALL HOLD THE OFFICE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL.
THEN IT SAYS AT THE END, THE FINAL SENTENCE, THERE SHALL BE SUCH ASSISTANCE TO THE ATTORNEY AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNCIL AND APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER.
AND HE SHALL, WE SEE SUCH COMPENSATION AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE COUNCIL AND UNDER SECTION 4.04 CITY SECRETARY COMPENSATION, IT SAYS THE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE SET THE COMPENSATION AND CITY SECRETARY AND THE ASSISTANT CITY ASSISTANT CITY SECRETARY, IF ANY.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND, UM, IS WHEN ON CITY MANAGER, IT SAYS THE COMPENSATION SHALL BE AGREED UPON BEFORE APPOINTMENT.
UH, I REMEMBER THAT, UM, AT THE TIME, UH, THERE WAS A MOTION MADE AND SECONDED AND IT PASSED FOR THREE RELATIVE TO
[01:20:01]
GIVING THE MAYOR AT THE TIME, THE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT, THE CITY MANAGER, BUT THAT CONTRACT NEVER CAME.THAT FINAL CONTRACT NEVER CAME BACK BEFORE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW BASED OFF OF ANY RECOMMENDED EDITS OR CHANGES THAT WE SUBMITTED.
AND SO THE NEXT, THE FIRST TIME THAT I HEARD THAT WE WERE, WE HAD HIRED A CITY MANAGER, IT WAS THROUGH THE PRECEDENT.
I HADN'T SEEN THE FINAL CONTRACT OR ANYTHING.
I ACTUALLY HAD TO REQUEST IT THROUGH OPEN RECORDS.
AND SO THAT, THAT IS ONE ISSUE AS TO WHY I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE STRONGER LANGUAGE ABOUT COUNCIL BEFORE APPOINTMENT OF OUR CITY OFFICIALS, ALL OF THEM, CITY MANAGER, CITY, ATTORNEY, CITY, SECRETARY, THAT IF WE'RE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY, UM, PROVIDE THE, UH, COMPENSATION OR IT'S FIXED BY US, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY AMONGST ALL THREE OF THOSE POSITIONS.
SO THAT IF I AM GOING TO BE CREDITED AS BEING A MEMBER OF COUNCIL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY MANAGER, CITY, SECRETARY COME A BOARD, WHOEVER THEY MAY BE, UH, IF THERE IS SOMEONE BROUGHT IN, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE UNIFORMITY.
AND THEN I ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE, UH, CAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS TIME BEFORE, IT'S EITHER WHILE WE'RE TASKED WITH, UH, THE, THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANT CITY SECRETARIES COMPENSATION.
SO I KNOW THAT'S A LOT, BUT, UH, IN A NUTSHELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, FROM A DISCUSSION STANDPOINT, IF WE NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS, I FEEL LIKE WE DO.
AND IF I MAY, I AGREE WITH YOU.
CAUSE I REMEMBER THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME UNIFORMITY THAT I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO COMPENSATION, BUT HR WOULD BE SETTING THE COMPENSATION AND NOT THE COUNCIL.
NO, UH, ENJOY, UH, REGARDING COMPENSATION.
UM, BECAUSE THOSE THREE INDIVIDUALS ARE APPOINTED BY COUNCIL COUNCIL GENERALLY SET THE COMPENSATION, UH, TO ADDRESS THE ITEMS OF COUNCIL MEMBER VOTE THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS AND ASSISTANT CITY SECRETARIES.
I THINK THAT YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING AT AN OLD VERSION OF THE CHARTER.
THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT THOSE POSITIONS WILL RECEIVE COMPENSATION AS SET FORTH BY THE CITY MANAGER.
UM, WAS THERE AN ANOTHER QUESTION, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THE FIRST PART ABOUT AUTHORIZATION OR SETTING COMPENSATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER.
CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR FIRST KIND OF QUESTION? SO, SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UH, UH, THE CITY THAT THERE WAS A MOTION MADE TO GIVE THE MAYOR, UH, THE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT FOR THE CITY MANAGER.
UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT THE SAME THING COULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSISTANT MEAN TO THE CITY SECRETARY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF WE HAD TO GO FORTH AND DO THAT, UH, BASED OFF OF THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED, I FELT LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF AMBIGUITY THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY I NEVER SAW THE FINALIZED CONTRACT.
UH, AND I EVEN SHARED THIS WITH THE CITY MANAGER.
I DIDN'T EVEN SEE THE FINALIZED CONTRACT, UH, BEFORE I SAW THE PRESS RELEASE THAT HE HAD SIGNED.
SO SOMEHOW SOME WAY BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, WE AS COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OR BEEN, BE ABLE TO VOTE, SIGN OFF ON THE FINAL CONTRACT AS AGREED UPON BY THE CITY MANAGER BEFORE ACTUALLY EXECUTING IT.
AND IT BEING SIGNED BY THE MAYOR.
THIS IS THE CHOICE AGAIN, I BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED ON THE PREVIOUS INSTANCE WITH THE CITY OF SUMMER WAS THAT A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREED TO AUTHORIZE THE NEGOTIATION AS EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT.
NOW, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OR MAYBE CLARIFICATION IN THE SECTION THAT REQUIRES SOME SORT OF PROVISION OF THAT CONTRACT TO COUNCIL BEFORE IT'S EXECUTED? IS THAT JAMES? I APOLOGIZE.
NO, I'M SAYING I THINK THAT WELL FOR SURE, UH, BEFORE IT'S ACTUALLY SIGNED, UH, I BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS TO BE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE CONTRACT
[01:25:01]
UNTIL, UH, WE, I LIKE, AGAIN UNTIL I SAW IT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT WAS, YOU KNOW, SHE WAS GIVEN OR THE MAYOR WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT, BUT WE NEVER SAW THE CONTRACT, UH, THE FINALIZED CONTRACT.SO IN MY OPINION, THERE HAS TO BE SOME LANGUAGE THERE THAT CAUSE, CAUSE WE'RE TASKED WITH ANYTHING OVER 50,000, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON ANY CONTRACT OVER $50,000.
AND SO THIS CONTRACT WAS ABOVE $50,000.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE ACTUALLY APPROVED THAT.
WE APPROVE THAT CONTRACT OR DID WE JUST AUTHORIZE THEM TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT? I, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I FEEL LIKE IT HAS TO BE SOME STRONG LANGUAGE THAT COUNSEL HAS TO BE, UM, COUNSEL.
THIS HAS TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL BEFORE, UH, IT IS ACTUALLY EXECUTED.
SO, UH, THIS IS UH, OH, UH, IF I MAY REALLY, I KIND OF REMEMBER WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT.
A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AUTHORIZED THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF THAT CONTRACT.
HOWEVER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES THE CONTRACT, OR IF THESE OTHER POSITIONS HAVE CONTRACTS TO BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL BEFORE EXECUTION, WE CAN CERTAINLY BRING BACK LANGUAGE TO YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND ALL COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THAT LANGUAGE.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HOW THESE CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY DONE.
I KNOW IT'S BY MAJORITY BY CAN YOU PROVIDE US JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND HOW THEY'VE BEEN ACTUALLY TAKEN CARE OF IN THE PAST? UM, I AM NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT FAMILIAR WITH HOW THEY HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN THE PAST.
I BELIEVE THE LAST ONE, UH, I BECAME CITY ATTORNEY IN 2015.
SO THE ONLY OTHER ONE I SAW, I BELIEVE IT WAS HANDLED SIMILARLY.
UH, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR PREVIOUS YEARS IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR, UH, I GUESS UP TO RESEARCH I CAN GET WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND WE CAN TAKE A LOOK TO SEE HOW THOSE MOTIONS WERE, UH, PROVIDED.
UH, BUT AT LEAST, UH, SINCE THE, THE TWO I'VE SEEN, THEY WERE, I BELIEVE NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE WITHIN A CERTAIN LIMIT.
SO, UM, THEY WERE SIMILAR, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST, UH, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS OR SO, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN IN PRACTICE AND PEOPLE FOLLOWING THE PROTOCOL OF THE PREVIOUS MAYORS AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY IS IT NOW A BIG DEAL? WELL, I CAN ANSWER THAT.
UM, COUNCILWOMAN EVERS IS RELATED, CAUSE THIS IS WHAT I BROUGHT FORWARD.
UM, PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS AND THAT'S WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION.
IT'S A CHARTER REVIEW, UM, UH, AMENDMENT DISCUSSION.
AND SO, BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THINGS IN THE PAST, UH, JUST LIKE THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD, I FELT LIKE THERE WAS SOME THINGS WE NEEDED UNIFORMITY ON.
IT'S ALL ABOUT TRYING TO CORRECT AND GET MORE CLARITY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE AND ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY IS CLEAR JUST LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER, EMORY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT CONCURRENCE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE WANT TO SHORE UP REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY MAY HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.
UH, THERE SEEMINGLY WAS SOME, SOME, SOME FREELANCING GOING ON OR MAYBE SOME DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS MADE, UH, BASED OFF OF PAST PRECEDENT OR CURRENT PRECEDENT, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO, AS A GOVERNING BODY, UM, OR AT LEAST THE CITIZENS NEED TO HAVE THIS APPEAR BEFORE THEM SO THAT THEY CAN DECIDE ON WHETHER WANT OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, TO ACTUALLY REVIEW AND, UM, SIGN OFF ON A CONTRACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE APPOINTED OFFICIALS WHO REPORT TO THEM, UH, HAVE TO ADHERE TO THAT'S MY THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT'S I FEEL LIKE THE PATH FORWARD OF GO FORTH IS, IS THAT FOR ME NOW? WHETHER, WHETHER ANYONE ELSE DISAGREES WITH ME, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE.
I JUST, I BROUGHT IT FORTH FOR CONSIDERATION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I, UH, SO SHE'LL DO SOME RESEARCH.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE PRESENTED TO US FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
[01:30:01]
STEPPED OUT.I BELIEVE WE LEFT OFF ON ITEM TWO A AND WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE WANTED TO PROPOSE A MEET AN ELECTION IN MAY OR NOVEMBER.
UM, EGOS CAN GET US BACK ON TRACK.
SO, UH, ARE YOU NEEDING US TO CUT TO ARTHRITIS? WELL, AT THIS POINT, THIS WAS, HE JOINED AT THIS POINT.
I MAY A PERSON, YOU CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CALL A MAY ELECTION TO CONSIDER THE ITEMS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED TO MOVE FORWARD.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CALL FOR AN ELECTION IN 2021? THE PREFERENCE OF MAY OR NOVEMBER? SO MOVE COUNCILMAN BONE FOR MAY, SIR.
IS THERE A SECOND COUNCIL MEMBER KLAUSER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THAT? THERE'S NO DISCUSSIONS.
NOW COUNCIL MEMBER CLOUSER YES.
[2(b) Discuss the Mayor’s proposed advisory committee related to the development and redevelopment of the Texas Parkway and Cartwright Road corridor. (Proposed presenter: City Attorney E. Joyce Iyamu)]
ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED ADVISORY COMMUNITY RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TEXAS PARKWAY AND CAR RIGHT CORRIDOR.THERE'LL BE A PRESENTATION BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MAYOR ELLEN CAT REQUESTED A DOCUMENT, ESTABLISHING A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW PROPOSALS, UH, TO PRO AND PROVIDE INPUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TEXAS PARKWAY CARTWRIGHT ROAD CORRIDOR.
THIS ITEM SIMPLY PROVIDES YOU ALL WITH THE PROPOSED ADVERTISEMENT FOR THAT COMMITTEE SECTION 3.05 OF THE CITY'S CHARTER AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO A POINT SPECIAL COMMITTEES.
AS HE DEEMS ADVISABLE, HE HAS PROPOSED A NINE MEMBER SPECIAL COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SEVEN NON ELECTED CITY OF MISSOURI CITY RESIDENTS, AGAIN TO A REVIEW PROPOSALS AND PROVIDE INPUT ON DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT ALONG THE TEXAS PARKWAY CARTWRIGHT ROAD CORRIDOR, THE COVER MEMO THAT'S BEFORE YOU INCLUDE SEVERAL PROPOSED ELIGIBLE ELLA ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL NON-ELECTED MEMBERS, INCLUDING THAT FRESH MEMBERS I'D BE ARRESTED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE CITY OF MISSOURI CITY, THAT THEY MUST BE CURRENTLY MA MUST NOT BE SERVING ON A TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE, AND THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE HELD PUBLIC OFFICE WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.
THOSE ARE JUST A FEW, THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR PHOTOS OR APARTMENTS ARE SET FORTH IN YOUR COVER MEMO.
THE TEXANS PARKWAY CARTWRIGHT ROAD CORRIDOR, UH, IS PROPOSED.
IT CONSISTS OF THE MISSOURI CITY PORTION OF TEXAS PARKWAY FROM US HIGHWAY 92, THE EASTERN CITY LIMIT LINE NEAR TURTLE CREEK DRIVE.
AND FROM KARTRA THE INTERSECTION OF TEXAS PARKWAY AND CARTWRIGHT ROAD TWO CARTWRIGHT ROAD AND FM 10 92 WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY SUGGESTIONS OR, UM, I KNOW THE MAYOR HAS STEPPED OUT, BUT IS THERE ANY SUGGESTIONS ARE MADE TO PAY IT BACK TO HIM? I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
ENJOYS THIS AS COUNSEL ON THE STERLING QUESTIONS.
YOU SAID THAT THERE WERE A COMPILATION OF, UM, UH, CITIZENS THAT WERE THEY SELECTED FROM DISTRICTS OR HOW WERE THEY SELECTED OR WERE THEY JUST RANDOMLY SELECTED? UH, I'M JUST CURIOUS.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE.
MA'AM THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SELECTED.
JOYCE, THIS IS MAYOR PRO TEM ROULIS.
UM, I'VE ALWAYS STRUGGLED WITH THE DEFINITION OF TEXAS PARKWAY CORRIDOR AND CAR WRECK CORRIDOR.
I'D LIKE TO, UH, OPEN UP A CONVERSATION AROUND HOW WE CAN MAYBE EXTENDED BEYOND 10 92.
UH, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PROJECTS COME BEFORE US SPECIFICALLY RIGHT AT, UH, LET'S SEE.
IT WAS RIGHT AT 10 92 AND CARTWRIGHT WHERE THE FORMAL PALAI ROYAL IS AND WE'VE HAD SOME OTHER BUSINESSES AS WELL.
[01:35:01]
YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE US EXTEND IT PAST 10 92 TO DALLAS.I WILL MENTION, I WILL MENTION THAT, UH, TO THE, TO THE MAN.
I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO HAVE A PRIORITY FOR TEXAS PARK WAY AND CONTRITE ROAD BE A PRIORITY SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY REDEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS.
AND I THINK THIS ENCUMBERED UPON US TO SERVICE THE NEEDS OF OUR, THAT COMMUNITY PARTICULAR DISTRICT A AND B FIRST, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN TAKE THAT BACK TO THE MAYOR.
THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN STERLING.
I DO THINK IT'S A PRIORITY FOR US TO FOCUS ON TEXAS PARKWAY AND HEARTBURN CONSIDERING, UM, IT HASN'T HAD ANY MUCH IMPROVEMENT SINCE, UM, FOR A WHILE NOW, BUT I ALSO WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN EXPAND THE TWO COUNCIL MEMBER POSITION AND THE LEAST HABITS OF FOUR OR THE AT-LARGE MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AS WELL AS THE COUNCIL ON THE DISTRICT SEATS AS WELL.
SO I WILL ASK FOR THAT TO BE PROPOSED.
UM, IF I MAY, I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE, UH, THE, THE REASON WHY THERE ARE ONLY TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, ONCE YOU GET TO, UH, THREE OR FOUR, THEN YOU START TO HIT OPEN THE OPEN MEETINGS REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE THOUGHT WAS THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD JUST BE ADVISORY AND THEY WOULD PROVIDE YOU ALL WITH RECOMMENDATION.
SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS LIMITED TO TWO, BUT I WILL LET HIM KNOW THAT THERE'S A REQUEST TO ADD THE LARGEST SO THAT IT WOULD BE FOUR.
SO, UH, JOYCE, UH, I GUESS YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SOMETHING BACK TO THEM AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THIS.
SO, UH, READY TO MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO C UH, MEMBERS OF
[Addendum Item]
COUNCIL, MAYOR PRO TEM.UH, THIS ITEM HERE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE AGENDA, UH, IN RESPONSE TO OUR PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, ITEM, UH, REGARDING, UH, PERSONNEL MANAGER PERSONNEL MATTERS REGARDING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE FIRST, SINCE THE CITY ATTORNEY POSITION IN THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR BUDGETING PURPOSES AND DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO SUBMITTING RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT.
IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND TO COUNCIL MEMBER? BONIS MOTION.
I SECOND, THIS IS CO COUNCIL MEMBER KLAUSER.
I KNOW WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION.
NOBODY WAS IN THAT SAME MEETING TOGETHER.
AND SECOND WE'LL CONDUCT, A ROLL CALL, VOTE AND COUNCIL MEMBER EDWARDS.
UH, WE CAN GO ON IT'S EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I GUESS, UH, IF THERE'S ANY, THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS AND THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS WE CAN ADJOURN.