City Commission - Regular Meeting

So call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, board members. There is a public meeting of the Charter Review Committee of the City of Brownsville. Percerning to Chapter 551, Title V of the Texas Government Code, the Texas Open Meeting Act notice is heard by given that the Charter Review Committee of the City of Brownsville, Texas, in accordance with Article 5, Section 12 of the Charter of State City, will convene a regular meeting on Monday, May 11, 2026, 5 p.m. in the Commission chambers on the second floor of Bronzeville City Hall we have a string there's two members I think mr. van Pena and tremendous I need to swing yeah have you all been sworn in no okay yeah we need a swarm you have okay great Okay, we can do the same time then. Do you want to repeat after me? This is for the oath. In the name by the authority of the state of Texas. Do you want to repeat after me?

Yes. I. I.

Say your name.

Ben Pena.

Do solemnly swear.

Do solemnly swear.

That I will faithfully execute the duties of the office.

That I will faithfully execute the duties of the office.

As a charter review committee member.

As a charter review committee member.

Of the state of Texas.

Of the state of Texas.

And I will do the best of my ability.

And will do the best of my abilities.

To preserve.

To preserve.

Protect and defend.

Protect and defend.

The constitution and law.

The constitution and laws.

Of the United States of this state.

That is state.

Of this state. of the states so help me god so help me god okay and i'm gonna pass right now okay we'll go ahead and give signatures

You need two copies. He's got one of mine.

All right, next. I know we just called the meeting to order. We did the swearing in and now she will proceed with the roll call.

Um, Trey Mendez, Daniel Salinas, Ben Pena here, Gary Galansky here, Elisondo present. I don't run that. We do have a quorum. Um, the mini five also for the record, next public comment, the, um, office of the city secretary did not receive any public comment. I don't spread the video considerations. Consideration and action to appoint a chair or a vice chair. I know we did last meeting.

Yes, I believe last meeting we had an appointment for that meeting. That would be the appointment for the chair to run all the meetings. So you can remain with who you have or nominate someone else. And the same thing with the vice chair.

Okay.

I motion to keep Ms. Galofsky.

There's a motion. Who wants to be the vice chair? Liliana?

Make a motion for Liliana as vice chair.

So we have a first and a second. First, Mr. Cardenas. Second by Mr. Peña.

I'll second his motion to have faith. Commissioner Galansky is the chair.

Okay. You just need a second for Liliana.

I second Liliana. Yeah.

Let's do the chair first and then we'll do the vice chair. Okay. That's okay for the record. So there was a motion for the chair.

By Mr. Barifo Calenas to appoint Karen Galansky second by Liliana Elizondo.

All in favor? Oh, sorry. All those in favor? Sorry. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Sorry. Now I get it. All those in favor? All those in favor, right? Aye.

It passed.

Okay.

Six to zero. Vice Chair?

I have a motion for Susana Sondo.

Perfect. Second?

Second. So, I've got a first from Mr. Cardenas. Any seconds? I'll second it myself. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Well, that's good. It's over with. Public comments? Anyone? Three minutes from us.

um next item consideration nice to approve the minutes of april 1st 26th meeting uh they made sure that there was this uh experience errors on the minutes on the last name of uh just for the record if we can approve the minutes with that correction i make a motion to approve i've got a first from miss elisa to approve the minutes second

Second for Mr. Carvin. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

Okay. Public hearings. Presentation and discussion by City Attorney's Office on amendments recommended by the City Commission including A. City of Brownsville City Charter Article 5 Section 13 Compensation. B. City of Brownsville City Shop Charter article 5 section 28 a audit and oversee committee increasing amount of committee members and edits for governing efficiency see appointing appointive positions the compound finance report a disciplinary provisions for City Commission members Before we continue have y'all I know you called it earlier, but have y'all called the public comments

brought it up it is out of order sorry yeah we stated it for the record that there was no pre-registered public comment for this okay um so we already did the swearing in this is just a meeting outline of today's meeting we've already gone through all this so The first section that we're gonna be discussing today is the compensation section of the city charter, which is regarding the compensation of city commissioners. So we prepared a table here for you all. It has a lot of information on it in order of population of cities in Texas. So starting, not every city, but some cities, right? Uh, starting with the city of San Antonio with the population of 1.4Million, um, the mayor and the council or commission, depending on what they call it, um, what their salary is, and then the structure type for that particular city. So, like I said, for San Antonio, the mayor currently makes 96,600 dollars and the council makes 77,300 dollars. It's a structure type of a salary. Currently, if we move down to the center of the table, the city of Brownsville has more or less a population of 190,000. The mayor currently makes $40,000 with each commission member making $25,000 on a salary-based type of structure. You can kind of take a look at the different cities. If we go down to other cities in the Valley, like the city of McAllen, they have a population of a little bit less than Brownsville at 151,972. Their mayor makes $600. That's a salary, $600 for the year. So it's kind of more like a stipend. And then the commissioners make $120. They also get $650 in reimbursements. City of Edinburgh does not have any kind of monetary compensation, but they do get some health benefits. City of Mission has significantly less population in comparison to City of Brownsville. They make, the mayor, I'm sorry, makes $1,200 and the commissioners make $300 on a salary-based type of structure. If you want to move up to, let's see, we want to take a look like Corpus Christi. They are maybe about double city of Brownsville at 316,000 in population. Mayor makes 9,000 and the council makes 6,000 again on a salary type. As you can see, I mean, it's all different depending on the city. It just depends on how they have it structured. We have a couple of other cities here on this table. We go to the city of Pharr, which is also in the city of Harlingen, which are in red because they're valley cities. Um, bar making 80 with a, I'm sorry, population of 81,000 mayor making 6,300 commissioners making 3,600. They also get health benefits, uh, city of Harlingen 5,000 for the mayor, 3,000 for the commissioners also on a salary. Um, they also like, if you move all the way down to the city of Dickinson, which yes, significantly less of a population than the city of Brownsville, um, they get paid per meeting. So $75 per meeting. So it all just depends. It's all over the place. So as I said, the current section of our city charter regarding compensation currently reads as it is in that first section of the table here on the slide. So essentially it says that the mayor makes $40,000 and the commissioners make 25,000, I'm sorry, $40,000 and 25,000. Yes. So, um, There's several recommendations that we can make. The first recommendation being that we leave it as is, leave the language as it's written, except changing the dollar amount of what is the actual salary for the mayor. Can you please mute your phone? And for the... City Commissioner. So like I said, we can leave it as is, just changing the amount if the recommendation is to change the amount. The next recommendation that we would make would be to change it to not have a dollar amount actually listed in the charter, instead making it to be an ordinance that is passed by the City Commission that would change the salaries by ordinance. So as you all know or may not know, ordinances require two separate readings in order to be passed. In this particular case, the way it's written right now is, and I'll just kind of read it. The city commission may provide by ordinance for compensation to its members, provided that such compensation shall not exceed the amount available in the budget for such compensation in any given fiscal year, and shall not be increased more than once per fiscal year. Essentially, it has to be allowed in the budget, and it can only be done for that particular fiscal year. Increased, right? For that particular year. And then it continues to read, an increase in compensation for the members of the commission shall not exceed an amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index, which is published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the compensation that was in effect when it was adopted. Members of the Commission shall receive their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties upon approval by the Commission. So that would mean they would get their salary based upon ordinance, passed by ordinance, And they would get reimbursement, you know, necessary and actual expenses. They'd get reimbursement expenses, right? Which is kind of how some other cities do it right now. So, like I said, that's recommendation number two. Recommendation number three would be to not have the amount as listed. in the charter right now would be not to be changed by ordinance. Instead, it would be for the mayor to name a committee of people, qualified voters, where every two years they would meet and review the salaries of the mayor and the commissioners, and then make recommendations on those salaries. They'd make a report to the commission at a meeting, and the commission can either enact their recommendation, alter their recommendation, or totally reject it. In all cases where action alter the existing salaries for the mayor and the commissioners, the changes in salaries will begin immediately following the next election of city officials. And that would be every two years. So, like I said, first one. And then I'm sorry, recommendation four would be no change at all. Leave it as it is, which is the 40,000 and then 25,000. So just going back to it, recommendation number one, leaving it the same, changing the amount. Recommendation number two, making it by ordinance and then having expenses. And then three, having it done by a committee and then the commission approving or not approving. And then four, no change at all.

In regard to the next item

Okay, so I guess if y'all want to do a discussion on that right now, we can discuss that so that way we kind of keep it cohesive. Okay.

Question. The tables regarding the city population and the salaries for comparable cities, are you able to determine when the last time their charter was amended to include those salaries or those amounts?

I believe for some of them it's included. So like if you look at Fort Worth, that one was just passed.

So Fort Worth, San Antonio, El Paso has a population error that's actually 600,000. But those cities recently, either in 2024 or 2025, have increased their salary. Some did it by charter and some have done it by ordinance, depending on the particular city. The one that probably had the most significant increase is Austin. These are effective this June 1st. And the salaries, as you can see, they're $151,000 for the mayor and $137,000 for a council member or commissioner there.

So these are accurate as of today. So, for example, El Paso, when was that one? When was that one done? Most recent.

El Paso, I believe that was recent as well. Let me pull up our notes.

At what point will we know what the amounts are going to be on recommendation one?

I'm sorry, could you speak into the mic?

At what point will we know what the amounts are going to be on recommendation one and two?

to us that's what we're doing now i mean yeah it's essentially up to you all i mean what is the recommended increase that they're asking for they are not asking for um they're not giving a recommendation on increase uh that's what happened with the last um charter review committee the last charter review committee they all agreed that they should be paid a salary because at the time it was just i believe ten dollars a meeting and and If you're in the position, or if you kind of watch what they do as a elected official, you kind of see that it is a, it's almost a full time job for some members. Others would consider a part time job. And so you have the meetings at night meetings on the weekend, frequent calls. And so that body considered it, you know, they need to give a salary for the elected officials. what that number was, was not recommended. And so it was just a number that was made by motion at the, when the city commissioner called the election, it was then just kind of thrown out there, if you will. Um, but given that other cities have gone through and did recent adjustments, uh, within the last two years of pasta was a couple of years ago, um, Commission feels like it's time to take it back to the Charter Review Committee and ask, should there be an increase? And if so, what is that?

How do we know where it would come from in the budget? I mean, is it available?

As far as funding?

Yeah.

Yeah. So with the budget, I mean, with the budget, you have to set up a certain amount depending on what the expenditures are and, of course, what revenue comes in. We are currently in the process of undergoing our budget requests as departments, and we're going to start having budget workshops with our elected officials. Now, when it comes to these positions. We will find the money for it. I will add that part of the request that management has acquiesced to is providing. meeting office space. So meeting location as well as right now the elected officials don't have any support staff. And other cities are sized, they do have their own council aides or whatever you want to call it, district administrators. And so there has been funding that will be set aside for those positions, whether it's one per district or one that's shared by the mayor and then one that's shared by the district council members. And so there's budget for it.

I just want to give my thoughts since I think that's what we're here to do. And I think it's important that they be compensated because time is money for all of us, right? Our time is valuable. And I know that they do spend a lot of time. But we also, on the other side, want to make sure we're not going too far where people are incentivized to want to run just to stop doing what they do and do this instead. And I know we have term limits, but I think we just need to strike the right balance. And I'm on board with having some kind of maybe CPI adjustment or something. I don't know. But I do think it's important to compensate them. Does anybody have any thoughts on whether it should be the same for all of them or if any of the other commissioners do more work? I heard Whipple mention that in the past.

Madam Chairman, I think since we have three recommendations recommendation one would be that this body sets the amount recommendation two is by ordinance and recommendation three is by committee especially appointed committee i think probably what makes more sense to determine to determine the avenue of which we're going to go first um because if we're going to go by ordinance and by committee then the dollar amount is irrelevant right right so That probably makes the most sense to us to determine if we're going to go recommendation one, then we can start talking about the dollar amounts. If not, then ordinance, the commission would take care of that and the committee would also take care of that.

Right. The different recommendations are based on what other cities do. Most cities do have the voters set the salary for them. Right. That's the the cleanest way to get the most transparency is having the voters vote for it. The problem with that, though, is as like most employees like ourselves, when there's cost of living adjustments that need to be made, it's very difficult unless that language is built in. So you could have something with the CPI built in to where cost of living adjustments are made, you know, as time goes. What the other the thought is. that the committee, which is the citizens that are appointed by the mayor, would come up with the salary amount, which is essentially what you are here for, right? So it would be just punting it to another board or body. Now, doing it by ordinance, a lot of cities actually do set their, the voters have said, we are okay with our city council or city commission approving their salary by ordinance. And The thought behind that is if they are not pleased with it, of course, they can do a recall election or they can support a different candidate. So that is a time where those voters can say, yes, we agree with the salary increase or we don't. Of course, with public hearings as well and public comments. So there's this different thought process. What works for Brownsville, we would defer to you all on that. And of course, your appointed commissioners.

Now, we know what the current amount is right in 20 000 each daniel can you please speak into that microphone yeah yeah we know what the amount is now um regardless of the recommendations whichever recommendation i would suspect that the amounts would not be less than what they're making now right we're not talking a decrease we're talking an increase right well that could be that's up to you all if you don't want to um

recommend a decrease, that could be your motion.

Well, I mean, if I were the person receiving the compensation, I wouldn't be too thrilled about getting a decrease, right? So, I was just, you know, because it's open-ended here, you know, recommendation one, are we advocating a decrease or an increase?

I'm sure.

I would, I think, Recommendation one tends to make the most sense because it's the most transparent. It's up to the voters. Two and three kind of make it more so at the will of the commission, which can be manipulated depending on who's appointed. And also if the commission setting its own budget for its own salaries, I don't think that's a good idea. I think one makes the most sense. However, I think it does make sense if it's possible to build kind of like a COLA increase. in recommendation one. I'm not sure if other cities do it like that or not, but I think one with some sort of built in cost of living adjustment makes the most sense, at least for me. I agree with that recommendation. One makes the most sense to me. And then also just for perspective, you're on the list that was provided to us where the 10th most populous city on that list. As we as we sit here now, where there's only six cities that have salaries higher than ours so um we're seventh on the list right now we're the 10th most populous on this list i know houston's not on there but houston's mayor i think mayor strong right right um so right now we're already kind of doing better than than others if you look at population but um we're seventh on the list now so there's six above us

The other option you can do too is keep the salary where it is now, but have the voters decide if they're going to do like a CPI or cost of living adjustments, right? So you're not setting the, you're not making a recommendation as far as the amount, but you're recommending, you know, 40 and 25 seem reasonable, but we're going to allow the cost of living adjustment or CPI increase. That's an option too. Is the commission still getting a car allowance? Yes.

Oh, the salary. I'm not getting it.

Well, I'm just asking for clarification because some of these state plus allowances, I know that the commission does get reimbursements. I mean, each commissioner has a budget for that.

Correct. Yes. So that's already in there.

And then I know that there was allowances when I was on the commission. I just don't know whether that's still going or not.

Yeah. So the car allowance is still there. Commissioner will, Get with HR and figure it out.

That's the second time I get chipped.

It was around 700, somewhere in there. I believe it's 7,000.

It's 7,000 a year for the car allowance.

So we'll look into that. So in addition to the salary, they get 7,000 a year for car loans. Correct. Okay.

Anything else?

Yeah. Above what they're already getting paid.

Correct.

And what other compensations do they get?

They are getting insurance. Right now they're getting health benefits.

Okay.

They have the option to opt in, but only to have opted in.

But is it paid for by the city or is it reimbursed by the commissioner?

It's both. They are treated like an employee in the sense of they pay their portion. and then the city pays their other portion.

Moses Cerullo might have something to say about that.

A little bit. I know this was in a... I was on the committee that put this on the... That was two years ago. Correct. Okay. Are there any sitting city commissioners, mayor, that are not taking the compensation?

They're... To my knowledge, there is one elected official who is not keeping it themselves, but they are accepting it, but then diverting it to nonprofits. Some of them will actually, which is the reason why we are adding to the budget for each office, their ability to hire. Some of them have been using that pay to then go and hire someone part-time to assist them with the calendaring or, you know, answering emails and stuff like that.

But they have to pay tax on it, right, Ben?

Correct. So the one individual that is getting the money, because the city can't divert it, they have to give it to the individual, that individual is paying taxes on it, but then turning around and donating it.

Taking the deductions.

There was one individual who was not allowed to receive salary, but that's because they had a conflict because they were a state employee.

Now, also my opinion on salaries, I think the mayor should get, and I'm biased on this, obviously, because I serve and I can tell you what the position's worth and the amount of work that's involved. I didn't have a PR crew and I didn't have any assistants, but I do think the mayor's salary should be higher than the commissioner's, but I don't think there should be a difference in salary among commissioners. That's my personal thoughts. Say it again? Like, I don't think that the at-large commissioner should get paid more than the other commissioners. My personal thoughts. But I can only give you the perspective having served as mayor.

Is there a consideration of that, that the at-large commissioners get... An increase higher than the regular sitting city commissioners?

Yeah, I mean, you can structure it that way. It was a comment made by myself in passing, just talking about different options that you could do. And so, you know, mayor can get one salary, commissioners can get one salary, mayor and then at large can get their own different salaries and then district council members. But I think in the salary amounts, I mean, you want to be fair. I understand that at large might represent more individuals because they represent the whole city. But when it comes to, they all have meetings to attend. They all go to events. They all speak at those events. The one office that does actually travel quite a bit is the office of mayor. You have a former mayor here who can attest to that. I think he...

Which never got compensated when he was a mayor. Correct. And you're okay with it, right?

I came into office knowing I wasn't going to get compensated, so I didn't expect compensation. I mean, I think that you come into office expecting, in this case now, I mean, there's compensation. When I was in office, there wasn't, and I wasn't upset about not being paid. That's what I went into, right? But now I think the climate has changed as far as the expectation, and I think it's good that officials do receive some sort of compensation because like Lil said, I mean, it is a big commitment. For me, it was more than a full-time job, right? I mean, if I would have submitted an invoice to the city for my four years, it probably would have been a million dollars just based on work that I did. But again, I came in knowing I wasn't going to get paid. It was a volunteer position. Now it's not. It's just a matter of do we believe that the compensation that's in place is fair or should it be increased?

And there's benefits for having a salary in place. You know, two years ago, I was an advocate for it. But the reason, because all the cities I've been to, even the general large cities, have some kind of compensation for their elected officials. And I think by providing a salary, you are able to have a diverse group of elected officials for the city. Some people with the means are able to just, you know, take off from their job and represent the city at, you know, federal, state, and local events or meetings. And then by having a salary, you allow those working class individuals to be able to also have that chance as well, right? Of course, given whether or not their bosses allow them the time off, you know, that's between them and their boss, but they at least have that ability to, you know, supplement their income because they're They're not at work. They're over here, you know, in Austin advocating for the city's interests. So that's the, that's the thought behind having a, um, a compensation for the elected officials.

Well, um, the 40 and the 25 were set two years ago. I'm sorry.

What was that?

The 40 and the 25 amounts were set two years ago, two years ago. And yes, 2023. So, so at the, in, in the spirit of, of the mayor's, um, consideration regarding cost of living adjustments, usually those are in the 5% to 10%, right? So a 10% would catch you up to standard cost of living, a 10% increase. That would put the 40 at 44 and the 25 at whatever, 27, 5, right? With the 10%, that's an option that this body could do as well. Just at the very least, bump up 10%. to catch up the cost of living for the past two years. Right.

And while that would be nice, often employees don't get that. And so I would want to condition on employees should get it first before elected officials. I just think that would be fair.

Of course.

What does that look like, Will, with respect to the employees of the city? Well, so we, you can, you can make it contingent as, um, yeah. So the, the, the, the, obviously the budget would be where the cost of living increases for the employees are, are done when it comes to the city commission, you could make a contingent, um, not only based on CPI or, or other type of, uh, variables to measure, but also, um, making a contingent on budget availability. And then, of course, if the employee received a similar increase as well. Now, keep in mind, throughout the whole city, certain departments, certain employees in various departments might receive a performance-based increase while others don't, right? So that's different from COLA. So we just need to be very clear about if you're going to make it contingent on when that would kick in.

I think we need to be mindful of a couple things. One, it's ultimately up to the voters. So whatever we do, it's just recommendation. But then I have some reservations about making any of it tied to commission action because then it can be a perceived conflict. Like in other words, even if, and I agree that it should be adjusted for cost of living, but if it's based on the commission giving employees cost of living, then in essence, the commission is by giving employees cost of living, they're also doing it for themselves. So I'm just kind of concerned about tying any of it to commission action. If we think it should be cost of living, then we should build that into the ordinance that's going to be voted on, as opposed to the commission deciding it in some way, whether by setting a budget or by giving employees cost of living, which then triggers them getting cost of living. Just my thoughts.

The other thing to take in consideration is while with the current language as it is, and I saw this with some cities when the Great Recession happened, a lot of cities had their compensation set by charter. But what a lot of cities were doing as they were furloughing their employees, they also decided to take the hit too. And so by ordinance or resolution, they were able to, suspend increases or decrease the salary for the period of time until, you know, everything was able to stabilize. And so a lot of cities did that. And so that doesn't mean that Brownsville couldn't do that. Brownsville could very much do that if we were hit with something like that, where we had to make cuts. City commission could suspend the salary amounts or reduce it for the time being via ordinance.

What has been the traditional, I mean, what has been the average salary increase? I mean, in the corporate world, we go anywhere from 3% to 5%, no more than 5%. I've never seen a more than 5% increase in a long time. So what has been the, for the city, what has been the...

So employees, employees. Yeah. So with employees, it's a little difficult because the employees have not received cost of living adjustments before the last two budget cycles. Over, I believe, Mayor, I'm not miscorrect or Commissioner Galanski was a 10 year period where they didn't receive any colas. Right. So the last two budget cycles, maybe even three budget cycles have seen a huge increase in salaries. for employees throughout the city, right? Because when cities can't run like a business, but they can follow business principles, right? And we saw where employees, especially like with some of our, I mean, we were losing employees to PUB and other agencies, including corporations that are for profit. And so with that in mind, we've had some colas and more recently than that created a compression, right? And so the last budget cycle addressed that compression because you had employees that were here for many, many years banking almost the same as someone who just came in, right? So that's your compression. So for, and it's not criticism on the prior commissions, but for not addressing compensation, you know, yearly as they go through the budget, they did increase the amount of, of maintenance, if you will, that they had to go back and kind of make it competitive with other cities as well and other businesses. Same thing can be said for streets and other things. Now, you know, not to go off topic, the city has a robust CIP program to catch up with the maintenance of streets. Same thing with employees' budgets. And so I kind of see the salary or compensation for accounts and commission the same way. most cities have moved away from a per meeting basis to have some kind of salary and so to me the 40-25 should have been a little higher but they took a conservative approach and it probably was an attempt to kind of bring it in to be competitive if you will with other cities that are similar size if you look at El Paso El Paso is about three to four times our population size, and they're about 95, 45. But Laredo, Laredo, we're almost there with Laredo. We have the same number of ports. I think we even might have, we have deep seaport. I don't think Laredo has that. I think Laredo has that, right?

Yeah.

So we have a deep seaport, we have a spaceport, and there's a LRV 75, you know, 50. And so that was actually the recommendation that legal had for, almost three years ago, but, but again, commission decided to do a conservative approach and they went with 40, 25, but that was almost three years ago.

I mean, are we going to get, I don't, I think we can give recommendations at the end of the day, the commission has to vote, right? So we don't have to give an exact number, right? We can give our thoughts, which I understand is what happened the last time. I mean, I agree that with, with trey that having people having the commission decide is just the wrong way to go um and i also think that having that committee every two years is just kind of a way to circumvent this process um so i don't really i think that's just more work for everybody to be honest and it should be something that's more automated i was in a meeting one time and somebody said you want less friction on the commission or committee members right or whatever board you're talking about having that be a thing that has to come up every two years i think is too much i think it should you have more trust if it's just set and then maybe six years go by like in this case we're saying it's been three years now let's look at it that makes sense but to say we're doing it every two years it's going to get out of control i mean it could and and you know if if we go back to that i think third option where if the commission is doing it by ordinance i mean you could say like well we're all about to be term limited let's just go for it and then we're out and then what this the city of brownsville has to pay for it so um i think we just give them our thoughts and let them decide what the the the fair amount is but i do agree that with trey as well that you know you got to look at the fact that we're not that bad off we're a little low i think i don't think we're that bad and i do think we should consider that brownsville is growing And if you want to grow, you want to have the best people in leadership. And so we probably do need to go up. Those are my thoughts.

Another thing that I would like to bring up, I've seen now three different mayors, you and John and Tony Martinez. And you, I think, chose not to have an assistant. And John has one and Tony had one. And I don't know how you did it without it.

It wasn't a choice for me. I wasn't given an option.

But Tony and John are paying for it out of their own pocket.

Well, John's paying it, I think, out of the money he receives from the city. But yes.

Yeah, but then he's paying the taxes on the money, right? So if we could, with the way I've seen the mayors, you really, it's a full-time job and a half. I don't think it's unreasonable to supply them with at least an assistant. Whether or not they choose to delegate is a different story. But is there a way that maybe we could add language to that so that a mayor is provided?

Yeah, we could add language that's vague to indicate where, you know, as appropriated in the budget, etc., Commission is allowed to have their own staff. We could do something like that. I get worried about having language that locks it in, especially with voters, because voters could easily say, no, I don't want you to have this. And it really should be a management decision, of course, with commission approving the budget, saying, yes, we believe that you do need positions. As a matter of fact, most of... Most of the people in your management realm here at the city have been advocating for you all to have appointed council aides, if you will. That would be in place of the city, whether it's part-time, full-time. And so just recently now, it's coming to fruition. And I think that's just change in management. The time grows. The city is growing. And so they see that there is a need for it because you see the elected officials, they're inundated with emails and calls, et cetera, and they can do your constituent services relations for you, right? And so it's up to this committee if you want to recommend it as a charter amendment, but I would defer to management and commission and just let it go through the normal process of management providing those positions and commission approving it through the budget.

Yeah, I think that's the best way, Commissioner, is y'all can just do it as a commission or through Recommendation of the city manager, I think it's probably good for you to build in that position through the commission rather than going through the voters because. It becomes too complicated. I think you all should do it anyway. You have the, you have enough in the budget to do it.

Yeah, that is a management staffing issue. So, um, yeah, and then you start considering it's like, well, you've got 6 commissioners and a mayor. Right? And so. Does each one get an assistant or one assistance for all six or three assistance for all six? And you've got those different generations of how that workload is going to be shared. But that definitely is a management function that should be appropriated to the fund, to the annual budget.

Which also creates a job or jobs. Right. Which is good.

On that, let's say that we all just go with a no change, that option. the city commission could still put it on their agenda without us coming to an agreement.

Yeah, to be fair, they can accept or amend or deny any recommendations y'all make. Yeah.

I don't know if y'all wanted this time to open it up for public hearing just because we hadn't done that yet. So if there's anybody here that wants to speak on it as a public hearing, just because we do need to have a certain amount of public hearings by charge.

So this is a public hearing.

If there's anyone here that would like to speak on the matter, please feel free to step up. Y'all can continue. I just wanted to make sure we had it.

And then if we could get a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. I've got a first for Mr. Peña. And a second from Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

Just for clarification, that's just a letter A.

Correct.

Can we see the options again?

Sure.

The third was. Third is committee. And four is nothing.

But these are not set in stone, like. Will was saying. I mean, you all can add it. I know there was discussion about adding in the COLA increase, making a contingent on budget availability, and that going to employees first. So these are just recommendations.

It doesn't need to be these.

Do you need us to come to a decision today?

Well, no. I mean, we have – there is, of course, discussion about when you want to have the election. whether it's November or next year in May. And that might change how fast we need you all to make a decision. But we didn't put that on the agenda. But I mean, we could receive direction because it relates to this. But if you all plan to have the election in November, then yes, we would need a recommendation the next meeting or so, so that we can take it to commission and have them act before August.

Would this committee make the recommendation for November or May?

Is that what you're saying? Yes. Yes. That was discussed at the first meeting, and we were going to bring it back up. Did the commission have a preference on that? We haven't discussed it. No.

I mean, you're obviously going to get more voters in November. I'm thinking if you go anywhere above 75-50, I think it becomes something that won't pass for sure. I could be wrong. I'm not even sure if any increase is going to pass. But I think if we do anything above $75.50, we're probably making a recommendation that won't fly.

But I also think we need to look at building in a COLA.

So the COLA could be technically on the ballot? Like part of the amendment.

Great. It depends on what you recommend. If you recommend a certain increase, let's say you want to go to 50, 30. Then with the Cola, what I would recommend is you break it up into two different. Like the first one should be, should the city commission receive salary of 50, 30 second proposition would be, should the city's commission salary be based on a CPI increase just so that if one passes or doesn't, you still have one or the other, right? And the 50-30 might not pass, but then the CPI might pass. And that will allow the 40-25 to increase on its own.

I like that. So we need like a consensus, I guess.

Is consensus or motion stuff?

And we don't want to put you on the spot to say, hey, you got to decide now. What we can do is, of course, if you decide to table it, we can always bring it back at the next meeting, right, as you all, maybe you go out and discuss with your colleagues and maybe do your own research or maybe we'll have more comments at the next public hearing. But you can definitely make a recommendation now or you can table it and just kind of.

I would motion to table it until the next meeting.

But in the meantime, I'd ask that for the next meeting, which I think is already scheduled for June, that we do choose if we're going to try to go for November or wait until next year.

Okay. We'll have that on the agenda.

You need a second. You need a second. Oh, yes. So I have a motion to table from Mr. Cardenas.

Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

I've got a second from Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries and letter A is tabled for June.

Okay. So for letter B, this is regarding the audit and oversight committee changes. It's section 28A in the charter. Some of the changes that were recommended are to increase the number of members of this committee from five to seven. also to change the appointment of the city auditor from the committee to be appointed by the city commission. This one's a little different in the sense that Right now, the city auditor is appointed by the committee and not by city commissioner or city manager. So that's just one of the proposals to have it included in the city charter so that the city auditor is appointed by the city commission. Another proposal is that there is a contract for that city auditor. And then the other recommendations were that certain procedures that are included in the the section just be removed and added via ordinance depending on the needs of the committee at the time so it's not very much but those are just some of the things that are currently being proposed at this time it asks for clarification on number two appointment from AOC to the City Commission yes the

So, so currently, right now, the audit and oversight committee, uh, chooses and appoints the city auditor. It's not a city commission, but the city commission does set the salary for that individual and they do that through the budget process.

So it's for the appointment of the city auditor. Not from the committee, but from the commission.

Correct. Okay.

Correct.

Yeah. Currently right now, the only individuals that are appointed. By the city commission is the city manager and city attorney. The city auditor, for whatever reason, when this audit and oversight committee was established, in the draft of the language it had, the committee would appoint the auditor.

Yes, that is good governance practice. With respect to the five to seven members, has the committee expressed concern over the need to increase that number, or what does that stemming from?

So, yes, so the, the committee, I should say the prior committee, because the membership has changed with some of our members that have rolled off commissioner and commissioner. And I think there was 1 other individual as well. Um. But the, the desire was to increase the membership from 5 members to 7 members. Right now, if with all our boards and commissions, we're going towards having 1 appointment per commissioner or mayor. And so that's 1 of the reasons why they wanted to increase it as well as the decision is, you know, how many commissioners will they have on the audit and oversight? Obviously, do you want more citizen input on there? But but it's still good to have a mayor or 2 or not mayor or 2, but. Mayor or commissioner on there so that you can have that that kind of governance institutional knowledge.

And the employed by contract is the city auditory.

Yeah, the plug by contract right now. The city manager is the only 1 that's allowed by the charter to be employed by contract. Almost 3 years ago in 2023. The city attorney was included on there, and I was pushing forward that removal of it. Um. This is not necessarily by the audit and oversight committee. This is more the city auditor requesting this of the audit and oversight committee. He has come from places where the city auditor is also contracted by the city, kind of like the city manager. And so they wanted to add that or he wanted to add that provision in. But that would be a recommendation by the audit and oversight committee as well as you all. These certain procedures, just to reiterate, there are certain procedures in there that would be better put in an ordinance as procedures change. We follow, corporations follow, I think Ben, you might know this, or Mr. Pena, sorry, you might know this. I think there's a blue book. The cities follow a yellow book. on auditing principles. And so the procedures in this audit and oversight committee are more aligned with the blue book. And so we've thought it's best that we leave the procedures out, but the policy and the structure in the charter.

I have a question because I've seen this happen. The audit and oversight committee was created by charter, but if we leave it to the city commission to appoint the city auditor. Is it possible then that the city commission could subvert the whole AOC by not appointing someone? Because in the past they had an audit committee and they dissolved it because that's what the majority of the commission wanted. Right.

Yeah. So that is the possibility. But the citizens have the ability of also suing the city and sinking them in to force the city commission to appoint a city auditor. And besides, I think there is law that you have to have a city auditor or an auditor, whether it's external or internal, you do have to have that position. And a lot of smaller cities will hire external auditors for that reason. We're blessed to where we're able to have an internal auditor. Yeah, so that's something that's required by statute, so you can't really get away with it. Right, yeah, but I mean, there's not that Brownsville has, but some cities have gone astray, and the citizens are able to mandamus the city to force their hand.

Commissioner, I think that's one of the reasons we started off with three when we brought this back. I think originally it was three, because I think I remember appointing three members. Right, right. But that was one of the reasons we did it that way, because we didn't want any issues with what happened before to happen again. But I think now, I mean, it's a different commission.

But it could always go back.

Well, it always can. You're absolutely right. But Ben, I think the five to seven, when I came on board as mayor, we kind of made a real effort to make all the committees seven. That way every commission member had an appointment. Because before, some of the practice of the commission was people would just blurt out names and try and beat each other to appointments. So by doing it seven, then everybody kind of had their appointment. So trying to make it standard. So that makes sense.

So are all of these recommendations from the committee or from the auditor?

All of these are recommendations with the exception of the employee by contract. Now, when I say that, I will say that the committee has approved and commission approved it. It was the play on words. The charter says an employment contract. The only one that can have an employment contract is the city manager. So in the instance of Mr. City Auditor, we drafted a severance agreement. And that's only if he is terminated without cause would he receive the maximum amount, which is state allows you to pay out now 20 weeks. Before there was no maximum, now there's a max.

Is that request just because the person in question wants the job security or is it something that is beneficial to the committee or the city itself?

Well, I think it's a combination of that. I think, yes, of course, as an individual, that person wants job security. I think that's any employee, right? But I think also best practices, most cities have their city auditor and city manager on contract. Most cities have their city attorney on contract too, but... I was adamant against it. With regards to the city auditor, the last city auditor we had, we did lose because we weren't able to offer them a contract. And so then there's other personal reasons, but that was one of the big reasons why they decided to leave the city. Ben, what are your thoughts on that?

Ben? What are your thoughts on that as someone who does audits?

No, these are all good. These are all good provisions. And if anybody has any other objections, I'd like to make a motion at this point.

Sorry. No, we don't have proposed language for this at this time, but we can bring it back with proposed language.

Before we make a motion, I don't know if you want to open it for public hearing and close it before you. Oh, yes.

You're like, the voice, the voice. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to speak to this issue, please feel free to stand up to the microphone and voice your opinion. Seeing that there is none, I'll take a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Second. I've got a first from Mayor Mendez and a second from Mr. Pena. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

madam chair make a motion to change the composition of the audit and oversight composition from five members to seven members and to change the appointment of the city auditor from the audit and oversight committee to the city commission and that the city auditor be employed by contract as well as certain procedures to be removed in that via ordinance i second

I've got a first for Mr. Pena to make these three changes and a second for Mr. Cardenas. All those in favor?

Hold on. Before we take a vote, is there a recommendation on the term of the contract or is that going to be set by the commission?

We would follow what is in place for the city manager if there is no recommendation. A year or two years?

And you want that two years to be in the proposed amendment?

Yeah, you want to make an amendment to the motion?

No, no, no. I'm just asking for clarity on that just so that we know because that wasn't in here.

Yeah, that was the intent. The intent was to mirror the city manager's term.

Those are details, the negotiations with whoever the person is going to. Right.

The term and pay. Right, yeah. But the city charter is very clear as far as contracts.

city manager is only allowed to have up to a two-year contract so then this would be setting the max so this would yeah so it would be the same for the city auditor if they were allowed to have a contract employed by i'd like to make a an amendment to my motion to change it to employed by contract no more than two years okay it's just a recommendation right so i mean yes this is they can work out the commission can work out the details we're basically just saying we agree with the recommendation yep correct

So if I understand correctly, the motions that were or the decisions we're making today, though, are more guidance to when we later come back and vote on language, right? Like this is just giving direction to how what what language might be proposed later on.

If you want to amend your your motion to come back with language that you all can approve, then we can do that. I think with the with the. what we have done in the charter review committees is in the past, they would have given us recommendations as far as we want to do this. And then the actual language was taken to city commission where they individually voted on each ballot proposition and what the actual language change would be if it were to pass. So we can do that with you all.

Well, in the interest of time, instead of having to revisit the subject again, we should just vote on it and then tuck that in as one of the items achieved, right?

Yeah, I mean, that's what you're doing. You're making a motion to recommend this to the commission.

We will bring the language to commission.

Oh, so we as a body, the charter committee will not review the proposed language at the end?

No, it would be the city commission. That's how we've done it the last Couple of times.

Okay.

But if you want again, if you want to amend your motion, we can bring it back with the language.

Like, I don't know. I just thought we were coming up with stuff.

Yeah, I guess at the end, I mean, this body's just tasked with bringing recommendations to the commission. So it's just a matter of do we want to do it all at the end? Or do we want to kind of if we're ready to do this one, I guess we can. And then if we need to change it before we submit something to the commission, I guess we can do that as well.

My thought is to do it as we go, because once we get to the end and it's like, we're going to, well, what do we decide or what do we discuss? And if it gets a little complicated with respect to each of the individual items as, as we're knocking them out, I think we should.

Right. And I, and I think since these are the major changes, the substance of changes, the language itself that will effectuate these, I mean, that would be fine-tuned with legal's input, and then we'll of course bring it to commission. But I'm completely okay with you all helping with the verbiage, but I think it does drag out the meetings more if you go through and kind of look at every period and space.

But the commission will do that.

So as a body, the commission will go through the language themselves. But it's really up to you all or some of the commissioners.

Just for my edification, though, Mr. Pena, you change from five to seven members change from the decision of who to appoint from the AOC to the city commission. What were the other terms?

Employment of the city auditor by contract up to two years. And then certain procedures to be removed and added via ordinance. With respect to the Audit and Oversight Committee Charter, right? Correct.

I have a first for Mr. Pena and I believe a second for Mr. Cardenas. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries. Now for Section C. These are appointed positions.

As we discussed just right now that currently the city manager and the city attorney are the only ones that are appointed by the city commission. We just talked about how now city auditor would be included in that via this particular charter amendment election. Another thing that was proposed would be to include the city secretary. on the city charter because even though the city secretary's office is required by cities and is included you know in throughout the city charter there isn't a specific section that creates the office so uh the proposal is to include the city secretary on the city charter and with however you all would recommend that position to be appointed um in the city of laredo The city secretary is appointed by the city council based on the recommendation of the city manager. In the cities of Austin, San Antonio, Corpus, West Lico, Edinburgh, and Pharr, they are just outright appointed by the city council. The city of Harlingen and San Benito, they're appointed by the city manager with the consent of the city council. And as we mentioned for the city of Brownsville right now and also the city of Mission, they're solely appointed by the city manager. So it's just a recommendation to have the city secretary included in the city charter and to have a recommendation from this body as to how that position should be appointed. And that's essentially it. And it could be the same as appointed by the city manager, not include the city commission if that's what Charles' recommendation is, or I mean, however y'all want, but it's just something to have the city secretary's position included in the city charter, because right now it's not in there.

So throughout the charter, you see the word or the position city secretary mentioned throughout, right? But nowhere in the charter was the actual office created. And it is a requirement in state law that the city have a clerk, a municipal clerk. Most cities call them a city secretary. And so basic household cleanup is to create the office. Now is the opportunity, if it's going to go before the voters, to actually decide, well, who will be appointing the city secretary? Will it be the city manager? Will it be commission or a combination of the 2? Currently right now, the city manager is appointed by the city secretary is appointed by the city manager. Excuse me. And that's only because it was interpreted that way, because in the charter, it says the only 2 positions. Well, it says the city manager is in charge of. All personnel and appointment positions with the exception, and it names the city attorney. It doesn't even include the city auditor. So that's another fix that we need to have, too. And so this was a request to come before you all to see, one, do you want to create the office officially? And two, how would that appointment be made? And we actually have our city secretary here right now who can give you her input if you'd like.

If she wants to.

If she wants to, of course. I want to put her on the spot. But she came from other cities where I have come from, where the city secretary is appointed by the city commission. But as you can see, cities do it very differently throughout the state of Texas.

Yeah, the city I came from previously, I was appointed by the mayor and the council and was hired by them on a contract similar to the city manager's. And then the city before, of course, the city secretary as well. I was the deputy then. She was also hired as, you know, through the mayor and the council as well. So this one was different from being under the city manager appointed by the city manager. But it is a statutory position, right? That our office.

What is the practical effect of changing it? So like,

there's a new city commissioner a new city i guess a new city manager can change who the secretary is is there a charge so like right now we're in the process of um recruiting a new city manager right they could come in because they are responsible for all personnel they could i mean obviously commission will have a say because they could affect that position but they could clean house if you will with all the positions that are not appointed by city commission, no matter when you include your city secretary. I don't anticipate that happening, but to answer your question, that's the effect is they could come in and change.

But if it changes to be appointed by either the city commission or the manager with approval from the commission, either way, that

so i guess then it would stay if there's no new city manager like she would stay in her position i mean oh was she yeah she i mean she would stay in her position so so it either changes with the city manager or it changes with the commission right or stays the same throughout right so you you i guess option one would be you could keep it as is but codify the office in the charter right um and then of course Ms. Rios would keep her position no matter what. The other option would be to create the office and either do what Laredo or Austin or Heart Engine do where it's a combination of someone is appointing the person with the consent or recommendation of the other or straight appointment where the city commission appoints the individual. The city secretary's office to me is, other than the city manager that runs the whole city, is the most important office in the city because they basically are the record keeper of all the minutes, the agendas, the contracts.

Statutory requirements.

And it's a statutory requirement. A lot of the elections, everything is followed with them. And so there is a concern that if you have commission or council appoint the individual, it becomes political. That's what you usually hear as far as that position goes. But a lot of the requirements and duties that the city secretary has are ministerial duties. So even if politics were to be put in place there, the ministerial duties, like I said, citizens, they could raise a lawsuit and endame as a city secretary to do certain actions that are required by state law. And so even though the appointment process could get political, the same thing can happen with a city manager, right? There's always gonna be some kind of politics involved somewhere. So the recommendation is to create an office no matter what, but the method of appointment is up to this body to recommend to either keep the same or modify it.

Well, with respect to oversight and supervision of the city secretary, that currently falls under the city manager and would probably fall under the city manager regardless of whether the commission appoints it. or the city manager hires a city secretary, is that correct? I'm sorry, what was? The oversight of supervision of the city secretary is done by the city manager, operationally, right? Currently right now, yes. And so even if the city commission were to appoint or hire the city secretary, that purview would still fall under the city manager, correct?

Portions of it, yeah.

For supervision. But I mean, you could also,

put in there the removal you know as far as like with the consent of city commission or something like that i mean different cities have it in different ways yeah right but as far as oversight i mean there's when it comes to the appointed positions like the city attorney city auditor the there there's a there's a reason why they're appointed by by the same body right and not All follow under the city managers, so you can have that separation of powers, check some balances. It makes sense with the city attorney city auditor and the city manager, because at some point, the city auditor might be auditing the city attorney, or they might be auditing 1 of the departments in the city manager's office. City attorney might be involved in personnel matters in the city manager's office, or any other departments. And so you want that separation similar with the city secretary. There could be some. abuse of the office if the city manager directs the city secretary to do certain things, dealing with the agenda or minutes that a commissioner or mayor might not agree with, right? But because of the charter, they don't have that ability to bring it to that individual's attention. The only person they have the ability to bring it up to is the city manager, who in the first place may have put that restriction there.

I kind of see this like like in the judicial process where you have the clerks and the clerks are separate from the judges like it's their own office right so i mean i think this should be independent of the city manager so i'm i agree we should probably create it um as a an appointed position but i'm kind of lost as to who should pick it pick who it is and in the courts how the district clerks picked they're elected elected And they run their own office and it goes. I think she probably wants some independence to be able to make sure the laws are followed and that it's not subject to the city manager wants to change this or that.

Yeah, because there's some compliancy and as far as direction with the agenda, if there's an item request, there can be a policy procedures of two signatures or two requests from the body. but that can be, as far as the office, if it's created in its own, then the secretary will report to the governing body as requests like similar. So the city manager's office and the city secretaries, we would work closely together like we do now, right? Try and, you know, with the collaboration and information that is being shared as far as compliances and things that the office does operate when it comes to elections or when it comes to annexations and anything that our office is the filing authority, we still collaborate and ensure both offices are running forward right and still in parallel as far as the information that's ongoing.

So it's operating the way we want it to. It just needs to change.

Yeah, so right now it's operating where we all get along, right? Internally, right. One city, let's throw that out there. But I have been in other cities where the city administrator, because it's a smaller city, city administrator appoints the city secretary. And it turns into where the city secretary is weaponized. And if a city council member or an alderman in the smaller cities wants an agenda item, the city administrator would decline, right? Or make it convenient to where they don't put it on the agenda item. Here in Brownsville, we don't have that per se. We do have, you know, two individuals will sponsor an item and it will get on the agenda. But there is that potential for abuse in the future, right? The city has had some scary times, right? And right now we're doing really well. We could revert to scary times again. And so, By keeping it separate, you keep that. Check some balance in place.

So if the city secretary position becomes appointed by the commission, then only the city commission can take away also?

You could do it however they want.

If you want to have it to where, let's say you follow... Austin, San Antonio's route where the city council appoints the individual, it would be also them that terminates that individual too, pretty much like the way it is right now with the city manager or city attorney. I mean, technically right now with the auditor, as we all heard, you couldn't dismiss your auditor. It had to be the committee. And so by doing Laredo's or Harlingen's

It has to be on the recommendation of the city manager for both. In order to appoint the city secretary, it has to be recommended by the city manager, and then the city commission approves it. And then in order to terminate that person, it needs to be on the recommendation of the city manager, and then the city commission approves it or doesn't approve it.

Right.

So it has that checks and balances for both.

On the Brownsville mission model, if commission wants to do away with the city secretary... They couldn't because the charter prevents them from entering or interfering with any of the personnel matters.

I think as a starting point, we should do that. Like, make sure that the office is an appointment position that exists. Like, it has to be filled, right?

Okay.

Does that make sense? Like, that it has to exist. Like, the commission can't say, we don't want a city secretary this year. That it be in the

charter didn't you say that state law requires that municipalities have a sort of that position whatever i just had to call it but it's one of those where it's you know well first things first is to codify it into the ordinance right right right i mean the governing body could ignore that state and then the next the second part is who appoints and obviously there's pros and cons to both um yeah i can see how abuse from both sides can happen

maybe create a a situation where the ultimate is a city commission would approve at the recommendation of the city manager right so that would be like that's probably the best of both okay yeah i agree because you want the most checks and balances on something like this you don't want a rogue city commission getting rid of a city secretary that's doing a good job you also don't want a city manager to do it and then you don't want a rogue city secretary so I think the best process to kind of keep the checks and balances there is approval by city commission at the recommendation of the city manager.

Right. So if the city commission really wants them off, they have to have the recommendation. So that's the check in that.

Do we want to open it for public hearing? I don't think we've done that yet.

So this is a public hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to comment on this issue about a point of position, specifically the city secretary, please feel free to go up to the mic and say your piece. Seeing as there's none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. I've got a first from Luis Elizondo and a second from Mr. Pena. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

oh yeah do y'all want to take a vote as to which sure uh madam chair i'd like to make a motion to codify the office of the city secretary into the city charter uh to be appointed by the city manager and termination uh to be made by recommendation of the city manager to final approval of the city commission that makes sense do both require approval from the commission appointment and termination They both require hiring and firing?

Is that what you're saying?

Hiring and firing from recommendations from the city manager to the city commission. Okay.

Wait. Just like Laredo, right?

So, just to clarify, following Laredo's model, they're appointed or terminated by the city council based on the recommendation of the city manager? That's correct. Okay.

And it sounds like the wording is going to be what you put together, but essentially our recommendation, if approved, is that there's input from both the manager and the council, right? City Commission and the...

Okay. I'll second his motion. I've got a first for Mr. Pena and a second for Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carried.

So next we have section D regarding campaign finance.

Thank you.

So in the last year and a half, the city commission has adopted an ordinance with certain campaign finance type of restrictions. More recently, last, I believe, December, November of 2025, We modified some of the provisions. And just as a comparison, looking at Brownsville, of course, this was before. It was 1,000 for mayor, 1,000 for council as far as what the limit was per individual. PACS and other corporations was 2,500. And looking at Austin, set by charter, 400. McAllen, the voters of McAllen through an organization, I forget the organization, had a charter election that would limit the campaign contributions to 500 per mayor and 500 per council. Where in the charter, it was 10,000 per mayor and 5,000 for council. That provision though, it was taken to court and the court struck it saying that it was unconstitutional because it was too restrictive. Even though that was a charter election amendment, the court said that's way too restrictive. It was infringing on people's First Amendment rights. And so, in looking at some of the other, what other cities have done, Brownsville, Dallas, excuse me, is $5,000 for mayor, $1,000 for council, and then PAX and other corporations is $10,000. That's $2,500. But that's in Dallas. In looking at the law that's out there on campaign restrictions, it can't be too restrictive to where it infringes on someone's First Amendment rights. And in looking at the last couple of elections up into 2024, the expenditures didn't really go over the average that we had selected for individual contributions or even PACs. There was a few that were really large contributions to certain individuals since 2021. I think there was one that was $40,000 campaign contribution to one individual. But generally they stay below $5,000 or $2,500. And so the recommendations that commission has adopted for their campaign restrictions would be 25 per person per year and 5,000 per packer companies per year, cash limit 100. And then they added expenditures based on how much they spent in the past. So mayor or at large, they would have the ability to spend 100,000, 35,000 in a runoff, Commission 50,000, 15 in a runoff, and then they have loan limits, right? So there is a current ordinance in place for these campaign limits. And the benefit of having an ordinance in place does allow us to be fluid with the changes in law, right? As soon as we saw that McAllen's charter amendment was struck, We immediately, and of course there was a lawsuit in Austin about certain language within their ordinance. We immediately reviewed our numbers again and made the numbers less restrictive, right? And so there has been a request or a question of, do we codify these campaign restrictions? Because a new commission could come in and do away with these restrictions, right? So that is always the concern that the prior commission has is, as I approve and adopt this ordinance, is another commission gonna come in and change it, right? And the whole purpose of adopting this was to keep transparency and have certain limitations, make it fair playground for everybody to run for the office. The problem is, of course, as the attorneys in the office, We don't want to be too restrictive in the charter amendment to where if we adopt the whole ordinance as it is into a charter amendment, other than a case that says our charter amendment is void because of constitutional protections, we wouldn't be able to have any amendments to it for another two years, right? So it's very, very restrictive. The ability, though, is it does take it to the voters, so the voters can decide and have a voice, and yes, I do want to have campaign limitations or campaign restrictions. But then the caveat, of course, is it's difficult to amend. What some cities have done, of course, is you can, again, you could codify the ordinance as it was adopted into the charter. Or we could have language that requires that the city have some kind of campaign finance restrictions that comply with federal state law. Right? So that would be basically the language is the city commission shall provide by ordinance campaign finance restrictions. That way it is required by the body. But it doesn't lock in the numbers so that we can then come back and amend. Um, so it's a difficult question. The question is, do we. Add this as a charter amendment to where a commission can come in and change it. So that would be the first question. Or we just leave it by ordinance. Then the second question I would say is, how much of it do we codify into the charter? Or do you want to require some kind of restriction, but let the commission at that time decide, right? So there's kind of a careful balancing act, if you will.

about something in the middle like where you require you codify the requirement that they look at it every two years for an ordinance then they have time to do it right they don't have to get a full vote you know and right now it's an ordinance right now it's an ordinance and you're proposing or i guess

The thought is to make the ordinance less restrictive.

Well, we, we, uh. We have made the ordinance, um, less restrictive already. Oh, okay. So these changes were already done. Yes, these changes were already done. The red is what was changed. We, we didn't want to get a challenge. Right? Um, as soon as we saw the cases in Austin, San Antonio come out as well as the 1 in McAllen, we. thought it prudent to come before commission and say, hey, maybe our ordinance is too restrictive. Let's make it less restrictive so it can stand a constitutional challenge. The commission and the charge is asking, do we want to codify this? Because there is a fear that another commission might come in and repeal this ordinance.

So right now, the ordinance was changed to be a one-year cycle?

Yes, one-year cycle. Before it was a two-year cycle.

So it was as restrictive as we thought it should be. And then, of course, with the case law that came about, we decided we need to be less restrictive. Well, just curious, on the McAllen case, who were the plaintiffs? I don't recall. I know that the city elected not to appeal the decision. they were, I guess, pleased with it, but I don't remember who the plaintiffs were that challenged that lawsuit, the election.

Is there ever a situation where you think that these would have to be reduced again? I mean, is a trend going towards making them higher? I mean, AI, I don't know, things could change.

Right. I mean, it's, you could come up with a formula, right, based on the prior election, maybe like, say, a percentage, like, you know, certain campaign contributions or expenditures cannot be more than 10% of the prior election's average. But that's difficult to calculate and also difficult to enforce. Because even the ordinance itself, the enforcement mechanism, There's nobody on staff that actually reviews these. We review whether or not we get the finance reports because they're required, but we don't go through and see whether or not someone got more than $2,500 that year. We leave it up to the opponents to turn in their opponent so that it's more like a campaign-driven process.

Wait, so... Now the limit for mayor and at-large maximum you can spend for your campaign is $35,000.

For mayor?

Yes.

Yeah, for mayor's runoff.

Oh, sorry. And so for the general? Oh, it's the $100,000? $100,000.

Yeah.

Two every two.

Yeah, and that's just based on what was spent. in the last couple of elections.

I think in the runoff, I don't have it.

Well, yeah. In the last, let's say 2023 runoff, the average loan expenditure was 20,000 that a person lent themselves. Average expenditure for the runoff was 10,000, right? And so looking at the numbers, I think we're there to where the numbers will fit and they're not too restrictive. So this screen right here is the proposal or the change that we're... Yeah, so this is already an ordinance that's in place that candidates have had to adhere to for the last election. And coming up to the next election next May, they'll have to adhere to this. The question is, because there's always a concern that something that the commission puts in place, kind of like what y'all heard earlier about the audit and oversight committee, another commission might come in and they might do away with those protections, what's seen as protections at least. That's the concern, right? And by adding it to the charter by a charter amendment, not only do you give the residents the ability to vote and have their voice in the election and say, yes, I do want campaign restrictions. It also codifies them to where a commission can't come in other than through a charter amendment to do away with those provisions. So question is, if you want to have it in the charter, that's the first question. Do we want to have campaign contribution limits or some kind of finance code in the charter? And then the second question to me would be, do you put all of it in there? and then just amended every two years or just rely on the courts to amend it for you by court order? Or do you put a basic skeleton in there for the commission to follow that they can then extract and adopt the actual numbers by ordinance?

And was this amendment or were the changes from two years down to one and the monetary limits, was that a unanimous vote for the commission? Yes.

Okay.

I mean, it seems pretty good the way it is now. It's just a matter of, do you want to make this a charter election or not? Because you're in a way you're restricting it as well. It can work both ways. And that's assuming people even vote for this because the language can be very confusing. What do you think commissioner? I mean, is, is there, um,

the commission is this something that you all think is a good idea to codify like to put in a charter it's been a while since we discussed it we and we just had when we approved these changes uh it was by input of uh the three who ran previously um in a way as i said before i liked having a limit on how much i could spend um it's it's nice because you as you know people come out of the woodwork and ask for money everywhere. So now you can say, well, you know, I've got a limit. Some people say, though, that that's a restriction on speech, right, by money. I don't really see it because you can just donate, you know, your time.

I think it's easier for the candidate.

It's easier for the candidate to have it in the charter, like to actually have it as a, because it's already an ordinance. So, and the ordinance actually, it's pretty good, but, but is that, do you think it's something that the commission actually wants to be in a city charter?

Because think about the elections right now, like, how much they, with those, it's, it's nice also to have, uh, that you can't use the limit on the size of the signs. Cause otherwise you could rent all these trailers and, and, you know, it's crazy how much you can spend. Um, so you would hope that people would keep it at a, at a reasonable level so that there's still people who can enter. You never know. Like I just see these, these current elections. I'm like, sometimes it seems like they're, covering the city, right? And all sorts of things. Jim, I see ads.

You should have a sign ordinance as far as how long signs can be up. Because right now it's like 365 days a year there's a sign somewhere. That's probably something to consider, not necessarily through charter, but maybe through an ordinance. I'm not sure that there's a sign ordinance now that applies to this specifically.

Like, Yeah, we do have a sign code. We don't look at the content. We look at whether it's on-premise or off-premise. And even with trailers, we don't look at the sign that's on it. We look to see that it's parked in an unimproved surface in a lot that might not be commercial. Or even if it is commercial, it's still on an unimproved surface. We have been citing individuals for that and coming up with a procedure to tow away at some point as well. And I think Commissioner Galanski was referring to the electioneering ordinance, but the electioneering ordinance is different from the campaign finance ordinance. They're hand in hand, they go under the same chapter in the code of ordinances, but this would be how much you are able to spend. One idea is if these numbers were commissioned approved unanimously, if you wanted to codify these in the charter, you could add in a CPI increase, right? Where it's 2,500 per person per year right now, but maybe the CPI increases it to 2,300 per person next year, right? So you could have that to where it's fluid with the CPI increases. And that would take care of the ability of having to go back and increase anything, unless we have to, of course, you know, we get sued and there's something that's out there that changes and in case law, then of course that's a consideration, but that would, we would not enforce this at that time. We would follow whatever a court order is.

It becomes a codified and the charter and say,

the higher powers that be say that it's it's not constitutional would if the voters approved it do we have an obligation to challenge um we would the ruling what we would do is we would take it to city commission an executive session and discuss that and it would be that body's decision whether they'll want us to appeal the let's say it's just a court to appeal the district court's decision, because we believe it's narrowly construed, least restrictive way, compelling government interest, all those buzzwords. I don't know how or what happened in McAllen, but they had that option. They could have. But given the expense of litigation, too, with appeals, they might have thought it's the restrictions they had in place, which was five and I think ten, were already in place, they felt possibly that that was sufficient restrictions for their elections.

I think McAllen was lobbied by an outside group to put in really restrictive campaign finance ordinances or charter.

Is there an ordinance or charter? This? McAllen? McAllen is a charter. He has it really well. Right. Yeah. And the charter was to reduce the amounts to 500, which 500 is restrictive.

What if, could we just, I mean, require campaign limits be set by the commission without putting numbers? And then that way it has to be there and they've got to decide. And if they say something.

Yeah, that's recommendation too, I think. Right.

Right. So, I mean, it's that it be required. I mean, like the, the charter say, you must set them because does it currently say you must set campaign finance limits right now?

It does not. The charter has the language in there.

It would go into it as a right.

So, so part of recommendation too, of course, we put campaign finance restrictions, but we can actually spell it out to where you have to have campaign contribution limits, expenditure limits, loan limits instead of shall must.

Yeah.

I mean, it's kind of the same word, but I think that might be best. This is a public hearing. If anyone here in the room would like to say something, please feel free to step up to the microphone.

No one's stepping up. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second. Got a first from Mr. Mendez and a second from Mr. Pena. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

And if you're stuck at this moment, you could table it and we can bring it back with compensation.

Yeah, that's what I was going to suggest is this is probably one that we need to table. So I would just make a motion to table this.

Second. I've got a motion to table for Mr. Mendez and a second for Mr. Pena. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

Okay. We have one more. It's disciplinary provisions for city commission members. And right now there is no other language in the city charter of removing an elected official other than the recall election, right? And so a question came from commission is, do we want to have disciplinary provisions in place within the charter that may even include removal? Because right now we do have the code of ethics, but within the code of ethics, There's limited discipline that can be taken upon a commissioner. Includes anything from a letter of reprimand to maybe a suspension. What are the other? But removal.

Like legal.

If something's criminal, bring it up to the authorities. But there's no removal. And so other cities do have removal provisions where a two-thirds vote would remove an elected official for willful violations, right, of the city charter. But it's narrow, right? So it's narrow in the sense of so that other elected officials within don't weaponize it. it's narrow to where it's if you attempt to dictate something that you're not allowed to by charter, right? So if you interfere in personnel matters with the city manager, interfere with the appointment of employees, et cetera, those are the instances where you could be disciplined by your governing body, right? And so there is a hearing process that we have drafted, and this is language that we've taken from other cities, And so it doesn't have to just include removal. It can include suspension, removal of certain benefits, if you will. And so that is the question is, one, do we want to have something in place within the charter where the commission is able to discipline one of their own members, right? And then two, what does that look like? And so just borrowing language from other cities that have something in place like this, we've brought that forward as a recommendation if you want to have something like this in place.

Who would have the burden of bringing it to the jury and to decide, oh, yes, there have been willful violations, as you said, which merit then a punishment?

Yeah, so it could be the commission, city manager. or here in this instance is the one, two, third paragraph, the commission, the city manager, any person or committee authorized by either of the two. So in cities where this has happened, the city commission will, the city attorney will appoint the city commission and the city in sort of like a pseudo hearing.

And

The person that's before that disciplinary body, their colleagues, is able to have their own attorney or represent themselves. And they would basically have a hearing where witnesses come before them. So it's almost like an ethics hearing, but it would be before the city commission. And that's how some cities have done it. Is there room for abuse? Of course. Most definitely there could be room for abuse. And the thought is, of course, as an elected official, you are removing someone that was elected by their constituents, right? Or at least the majority of the constituents. Do you want to put that power in the commission's hands? You could narrow this down to where if it's rather than a violation of the charter, maybe some kind of criminal negligence that they're found, guilty of right because then you know not that that would happen or hopefully wouldn't but there's different ways you can structure those language if you want to have the ability to remove someone or discipline though is there any language in the current ethics ordinance about this like about let's say bad acts by a commission member is there isn't there some language yes there is there's a referral for criminal prosecution or something right right

yeah i i have some real concerns about a commission having the ability to get rid of a member um even if it's two-thirds i don't know i mean that's there's been stuff that rose to the level of being worthy of it but i've i find that even the ethics process right now it was not ideal so before we get to got to that part i would say Like, let's fix up the ethics code and make it stronger.

Yeah, because of the ethics code, that's what I thought. That was my recollection, that there was some sort of referral provision in there. I think that's kind of what you want if there's a bad actor on the commission. But having a commission remove another member, that one's tough. Again, it's not our decision. I mean, we would only recommend it to go to a vote. But that one, that can be hard because if there's a 5-2 or – I mean – You can, you can get rid of somebody just because.

And we did put in, of course, as far as the provisions, there is recall language in there. So that individuals constituents wanted to recall that individual. Of course, they have to have a petition, follow the process, get approved, get on the ballot. There is a process for the. Residents of the city to do away with the elected official. but there's nothing in place for the commission. Even under the ethics ordinance, if the recommendation is to remove an individual, under the charter, there is no mechanism for removal, right? It would be just basically some kind of discipline, suspension, reprimand, or recommendation to the authorities.

Well, but even the way the ethics code operates right now, whoever has the burden of bringing the proof is already at a disadvantage. And then whoever's accused is also, well, then either they defend themselves or they have to hire someone. And it becomes really political because I think we need to even just fix the process of how to bring a complaint and how to provide A fair jury.

Going through some of the other hearings, of course, this might be, it's related to this, so we feel comfortable talking about it. But in going through some of the process in the Ethics Commission, it is very clear that it needs to be amended, the process itself. And so Elisa is here. She's been working with the Charter, not Charter, the Ethics Commission to come up with those recommendations to bring before City Commission to make it stronger, more efficient, just as lessons learned from the other hearings that we've had. but the question was, of course, you know, even with the most recent, um, the most recent individual that was found by the body to have, um, had some kind of finding to where there was worthy of a reprimand. It was, it was letter of notification is what they issued, right? The next one, the next step would have been let a reprimand. The, the issue didn't arise to, to, um, to reporting it to the authorities, but it was very clear that they didn't have the option. Unlike with an employee, an employee can be recommended for removal by the ethics body. They couldn't do that with the city commission. And so that's where that idea came up in, okay, at the most, what some might call a slap on the hand, that is essentially what they have as far as the ability, unless it's criminal, of course, right? Then the authorities would get involved. But again, this is a provision that can be weaponized. It's possible that it might have been in other cities. I've seen it used. In my experience, I've seen it used once to remove a mayor, and it was because that individual refused to pay their property taxes, right? So that's, you know, willful violation, official misconduct. It was all part of their their MO, if you will. And so that individual was removed. That individual did sue the city and the courts upheld that removal. And so in that instance, I think it was appropriately used because there was other issues with that individual. But in this instance, it might not work for the city of Brownsville.

Well, an example of official misconduct, what would that look like? I know it's a very vague term, but Other than criminal, right? Right. Guilty to a felony offense, right? Right.

So, I mean, a lot of the times with official misconduct, I think of, like, what's actually, like, violating, you know, something in the penal code, like abuse of office or abuse of... confidential information for personal gain or somebody else's personal gain, conflict of interest, conflict of interest, like those kind of violations, right? But there's already a mechanism in place for those to be prosecuted under the law, right? If you have the appropriate evidence. And so, you know, there's already another mechanism in place.

But if that happens, you don't get removed necessarily just because there's an investigation. I think there needs to be at least a mechanism to remove someone who's been like, indicted or possibly more, that doesn't exist right now?

There is no mechanism other than that person resigning.

And people can refuse to resign?

In and of itself, it's not. I mean, you'd have to adjudicate the whole process before you can take any action. Right, right. Because he's innocent until proven guilty, so you really can't do anything. Correct.

That person's, I mean, courts are, that person might be ended before they actually go to trial.

Yeah. So, Couple of things 2 thirds of the commission is a very, very high bar. So, when when you're talking about official misconduct and the 2 thirds. It seems like there's no middle ground between, like, a censure at this point. You're just going directly to immediately expel and vacate the position. Right? And so I'm having a little bit of heartburn going that extreme. in cases where you might have something in the middle that may not warrant full expulsion from the commission so i get your point i mean it's it is pretty onerous that could very easy to be weaponized right um against but again two-thirds is a very high bar in my opinion that would want to be four because if the person that is accused of something

Five. Yeah, it's five.

Okay, but so that would include the person that I guess they could vote to, right? The person being accused of doing something. I guess I'm just kind of confused. So this is only for non-criminal things.

Anything that constitutes official misconduct. And I get it because we're not defining what official misconduct is. But in most cases dealing with elected officials, it usually does include some kind of criminal element to it. Maybe not one that rises to the level where they're found guilty, but there's enough evidence at a civil level to find them liable and therefore you got to go, you know.

I think when it's like a more serious offense, I have no problem recommending including something like that for removal. But if we're not going to define it clearly like something small, then I think it's going to be weaponized for sure.

Exactly.

So I think, I think, maybe if anything just for extreme circumstances where you get you know five out of the seven agreeing that someone needs to be removed for something bad not just maybe you had a conflict of interest that's just that's too dangerous that's weaponized for sure a lot of things unfortunately with conflict of interest you get the whole gamut of the effect of you know it could be millions of dollars it could be

Kickbacks could be, you know, a lot of...

I mean, it's just subject to interpretation. So, like, it can be used for nitpicky things that maybe shouldn't require a whole hearing or whatever, but...

I'm sorry, we're just looking... We're looking at other cities to compare, and Alisa did find, like, language and therefore forfeiture of office. So, instead of disciplinary...

provisions there's forfeiture of office like when you will vacate mandatory grounds and like when a mayor or a council member automatically forfeits office if they do certain things yeah so it wouldn't at this point for this city they don't even have to go to the commission it's just an automatic and that's how they have it here kind of scenarios, a warrant or for this one, for this one, it says, uh, the mandatory grounds, uh, the mayor or a council member shall forfeit office. If he or she, a lacks at any time during the term of office, any qualification for holding the office prescribed in this charter or by law, we do have that.

We do have that.

Uh, B is fails to meet the residency requirements for election to office. And we have that as well. C is convicted of a felony. D is fails to attend three consecutive regular council meetings without being excused by the council. E violates the prohibited personal financial interest provision set forth in section 12.01 or any other provisions of this charter that prescribe forfeiture. I don't know what that section is, but regarding financial interest. And then F is fails to attend six consecutive or non-consecutive regular council meetings in any 12-month period with or without being excused by council. And then there's potential grounds for forfeiture of office. And this says if the mayor or a council member is convicted of any criminal offense other than a felony or a class C misdemeanor. the city attorney shall file a petition for a declaratory judgment with the district courts of the county for a determination on whether the crime is one involving moral turpitude. If it is determined by the district court judge that the mayor or council member was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, then the city council shall automatically order a recall election at the next allowable election date under the Texas elections code and dispense of the certified recall petition required under section 11.05 of the charter. So I think for this, they wanted to codify or put in here specifically regarding a definition of moral turpitude because there are certain misdemeanors, class A and B misdemeanors that a council member or commissioner could potentially be convicted of that don't qualify for automatic forfeiture. And so I think here it includes now if they're convicted of a class A or B misdemeanor that involves moral turpitude, then that's when this kicks in for the removal. But they have to go, in this case, they have to go to the court for the court to make a determination on whether that particular crime is considered a crime of moral turpitude. So crimes of moral turpitude are kind of like theft, fraud. Like a DWI is a class A or B misdemeanor, but that I don't think is considered a crime of moral turpitude. I don't think. But for sure, things that call into question kind of your moral compass is kind of what, in my head, I kind of think of when I think of a moral turpitude circumstance. So that's how this is here.

So in my opinion, those criminal acts are already covered in what you just read, right? And so this is the gray area that would not necessarily involve a criminal offense, correct?

Correct.

And so if that's the case, why would we immediately go to expulsion? I mean, as opposed to censure or reprimand or what have you. And that's a little bit of the heartburn that I'm having with respect to immediate expulsion by two-thirds. That's pretty serious, of which I think is already covered in the current statute, right? Mm-hmm. Well, that wasn't our current.

That's an example. That was from another city, right?

This is another city. Right, right, right. Yeah. This is another city. We don't have this. No, no, no. This is a different city.

We have a couple of them, but we don't have all of that. Because I know we have the residency one and the qualifications of holding office.

Right. So there is one provision in there that you can kind of play with. It is where the governing body is the um the judge of qualifications for their colleagues right so that's where the residency requirement or the other requirement of um um what was one above eight lacks lack of the qualifications the the body that would determine whether that residency has lapsed or the qualifications are no longer met would be the city commission um but those would do very limited instances where they actually judge

qualifications which are those two um a question um i mean obviously you know a situation like this can get pretty political but the question is with our existing processes is the recall election what are the parameters for a successful recall what are the things that have to happen to have a successful recall Because one of the concerns that I have is basically going against the will of those constituents that elected individuals to begin with. So what are the parameters? And have we historically had any successful recalls that anybody could think of?

That's a good question. So it is to have a recall, a petition that meets all the requirements of state statute, signed by at least 10% of the voters registered to vote. for a successor in that district, whether it's at large or the district, would be enough to trigger that recall. But as far as one that's been successful, I don't, Myra and myself are pretty new to the city. I don't know if Blanca remembers, but

Because you have to get 10% of registered voters. So if it's a citywide position, only 10% of the people that are registered actually go out to vote. If it's a district position, yeah, it's almost impossible.

Yeah, I think I had heard a rumor two or three years ago of someone trying to do a recall petition, but they couldn't get the 10%.

Especially because we have such low voter participation.

And then the petition itself didn't comply with state law requirements. So even if they got the voters, we would have told them, sorry, this doesn't comply with the petition requirements.

I think they tried to do that in the past few years, right?

Yeah, they tried. Right.

but I don't think they got enough and it was an uphill battle.

This is probably another table one, what do you all think? Yeah.

I don't know if we opened this one for public hearing. I don't remember. Okay. This is a public hearing. If anyone here would like to comment on this, please step up to the podium. One thing I would like to bring up is there have been situations where city, or I hear, city commissioners overstep their bounds. And so how do we try to get people to stay in their lane, basically? While removal might be a bit extreme, but maybe, and this might be for the ethics committee, just to give them a little bit more teeth, like, hey, This is above and beyond your role.

I think I have heard also of city attorney or city manager reminding or educating possibly that individual or individuals about, you know, what they can and can't do because they might be a first-time commissioner or, you know, they forget. But with the ethics, like, that's a good point because the ethics is complaint-driven. That is by affidavit, right? So there's no language in there for city manager or the city's attorney to start that process, right? They would be the only ones that would know or maybe another colleague or a citizen. But yes, we can look at the language of the ethics ordinance and come back to that body.

Well, and it might be very difficult for a city manager or a city attorney to do it because technically they're your boss.

One of the bosses, yep.

so um but the ethics code is in the charter so then wouldn't we have to propose a change to that well the ethics code is not in the charter it's my ordinance okay so anyway just uh you know two readings an amendment okay we're almost there on that um if there's any further discussion or i'll entertain a motion related i think

Motion to close.

I've got a motion for Mr. Pena and a second for Mr. Carr. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. Any motions on how to deal with this?

Motions to table.

I've got a first for Mr. Pena and a second for Mr. Carr. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

And before we adjourn, just a quick announcement. The next Charter Review Committee meeting, of course, if we need to change it, we can. I think June 1st.

June 1st at 5 o'clock.

Does that work for everyone?

Yep.

And it's going to be here in City Hall, right?

Yes, City Hall.

June 1st. It's Monday.

At least one of them is Monday.

So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, Madam Chairman.

I've got a first for Mr. Pena and a second for Mr. Cárdenas. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.

Meeting adjourned. 7-11.