City Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, so we need both in the microphone and okay.

Okay, great.

Well, I'll call the meeting to order since we have a quorum.

Person to chapter five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five five um here um Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh,

Good afternoon, everybody.

So in picking up where we left off as far as the disciplinary provisions go, and whether or not you all would like to see that on the city charter, currently the city of Brownsville has the city charter section 5A, which includes the recall election, and the city of Brownsville code of ordinances chapter 38 regarding the code of ethics. So those are the two things right now that the city has in regards to how a commissioner could be removed.

I'm not gonna get into the specifics of it.

Y'all can read it, but it's essentially what would need to happen if there's gonna be a recall election, which is already in the charter. This is just to point out that that's one mechanism currently existing. So as far as the code of ethics goes, what is currently stated in there is section 30 and 194, which is when the Ethics Commission determines that there's a violation, it can take the following action. Section four is when a complaint involves a city commission member, the matter will be referred to the city commission. So section B then says, when that matter is referred to the city commission, the ethics advisory commission can recommend the following sanctions, which includes section four removal or suspension from office. So that is something that can be recommended when the ethics advisory commission finds that there's a serious or repeated violation of the ethics code that was committed intentionally or through culpable disregard of that chapter, which is chapter 38. And then it says that the commission can include the length of any suspension in its recommendation. As far as the disciplinary action section goes, It simply says that if a city commission member fails to comply with this chapter, which is the Court of Ethics, or violates the Court of Ethics, the matter must be decided by the city commission in accordance with the city charter. Well, the city charter doesn't have anything in there. So that's where we're at. So as far as some examples of some other cities and what they have, we kind of discussed this one a little bit at one of the meetings. a forfeiture of office section, which has mandatory grounds of when a city council member shall forfeit office. So that's if at any time they no longer qualify, if they fail to meet residency requirements, convicted of a felony, fail to attend three consecutive meetings without being excused, violate the prohibited personal financial interest section that they have in their city charter, Or if they fail to attend six consecutive or non-consecutive meetings in a year without being excused. So those are mandatory grounds. And then they have essential potential grounds. So for that, they have specifically that if the mayor or a council member is convicted of any criminal offense other than a felony or a Class C misdemeanor, because if you notice, felony is included in the forfeiture of office mandatory grounds. So for this one, it's the potential grounds where it's taking out, it's pretty much saying if they're convicted of a criminal offense, which is essentially either a Class A or a Class B misdemeanor, the city attorney shall file a petition in the district court to ask the court to determine if that particular crime is one involving moral turpitude. It says that if the judge, if it's determined by the judge that they were convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, then the city council shall automatically order an election at the next available election time. So, That's how they made it as a potential grounds rather than a mandatory ground. So they kind of put it in the hands of a district court judge to determine if it's something of moral turpitude. And if that's the case, then they will be removed. City of Corpus Christi also has something in their charter. They also make it mandatory for these particular reasons. Regarding willful violation of any of their ethics codes or conflict of interest provisions under state or federal law or city ordinance. Any willful violation of something specifically prohibited in their charter. Any kind of misconduct, malfeasance, incompetence, inability, or willful neglect in the performance of their official duties. Conviction of any felony or misdemeanor involving moral court turpitude. Failing to maintain any residency requirement. absence from three consecutive meetings without excuse. And then they have the specifics on how that removal action would happen. So for them, it can either be by their own initiative or it can be instituted upon a particular five or more registered voters. And any final decision to remove a member shall be by the majority vote of all council members, with the exception of the ones being challenged. The council can provide by ordinance for the referral of any disciplinary matter involving a council member to the ethics commission for recommendation. The challenge member shall have the right to written articles of impeachment, an opportunity to be heard, to be represented by council, witnesses who shall be required to give testimony, and to reasonable advancements of the hearing. So essentially, we are giving them due process rights to challenge whatever it is being pledged as a reason for them to be removed. And it goes into what the burdens of proof are.

And essentially it says that the council additionally has been .

Then it goes on to say for removal, pending the charge for removal, the council can suspend that member from office for a period not 30 days before the vote of all council members in office. Remember, permission of any violations specified above shall distribute the grounds for office of state law. And then it says any member who is removed from office, whether this section by recall or other legal, or who resigns, shall not be eligible to be appointed. to run as a candidate for city office for years from that date. So again, it's just more specific in what they, I'm sorry, they changed it up here. I'm sorry. That's what I was reading. For Corpus Christi. Then the next place to be San Antonio, there's a very short people for. He just to possess the required publication while an office. Self work at the office. Then we have city Dallas also short and simple a willful violation of the previous permissions of the charter. shall constitute official misconduct and then it gives the council the authorization by a vote of two-thirds majority to expel such a member from the council if they're found guilty after a period and thereby cause no damage seen by that particular member. So then without being specific they're also saying that there needs to be a process where they can challenge whatever the allegations are. The next one that we found was Texas City.

The absence.

So they have qualifications of the commission, which says that any member of the commission that pleases to possess any of the qualifications that are specified in the charter or convicted of a felony while in office shall immediately accept their office.

Which is kind of what the others also have.

Essentially, if they're no longer qualified, then they're not there, or if they are convicted of a felony. then they're removed. But this one also goes on to say the rules are of the commission. What kind of stuck out here was that the commission shall have the power to compel the attendance of absent members, may punish its members for disordering behavior, and by vote of not less than a majority of all its members, may excel a member for disordered conduct or a violation of the rules. But number shall be excelled and let's know the inside shower against the number and given an opportunity to be heard in his own. So, this one also giving the process and a little bit different in the fact that it. Includes disorderly conduct and disorderly behavior.

Then this is the last one we have a city of Rob's town.

It says that they can punish its members for disorderly conduct, may compel the attendance of its members, and may impeach a member in the manner herein provided. So the section referring to that is the removal section below, which says that they are subject to removal for willful violation of ethics code or their coverage provision, their federal law or city ordinance, willful violation of their charter, misconduct, malfeasance, incompetence, ability or willful neglect of the performance of duties, conviction of any felony or any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, failing to maintain a residency requirement, and then also being absent from certain amount of meetings. And then it just continues to be like how the removal is done. It needs to be by its own initiative or to qualify for a social program. Um. Office not exceeding 30 days. Um, that any of the by leasing specified shall just be grounds for furniture of office. If they're removed, then they are not eligible to. Right after that. So, that's what we saw. So, going back to what we had previously showing you all as far as what possible recommendations could be. These were just some ideas that our office had come up with. Of course. Well, they'll not get me at all, but we just wanted to provide you with a little bit of. What other cities have and that we all have a little bit. And that's it for this section. I don't know if you want to open it for public hearing now, if y'all want to wait after I'll step it over.

Oh, I'll go ahead and open. Do you need me to use the microphone or just with this submission? Okay, so I'll open this up to a public hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to participate and discuss this agenda item, please feel free to speak up. Seeing as there is no one, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion to close public hearing.

I've got a first motion to close from Mr. Pena and a second from Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. Any discussion on the item?

I think it might be a good idea to make a list of the things that we think there should be a procedure for, as we've seen through these different samples. The ones that stood out to me were ineligibility, felony conviction, conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, and then violation of the ethics code. But there may be more. I wouldn't mind scrolling back through it. But then I think the next issue would be like, what is the procedure? Because that last one that you showed us looked like it didn't really have any teeth. You want them to have a chance to be heard because I think that's important because you get public opinion to weigh in rather than just letting the commission just ignore it, right? Or take a quick vote and not have a hearing on it. But you also don't need like a, I don't think you should have a massive spectacle of the matter. So I think it's a matter of striking the right balance. Um, those are my 2 cents.

I agree with respect to being able to cherry pick certain items for the individual partners. I don't know if we do that now, or maybe take that with us for the next. And final meeting, I don't know. Scheduling the timing of all the, but I do like the city of the radio. For instance, one is good.

Two is good.

Three is good. Four and six on attendance is good. It could probably be combined into one. And five is good. Actually, all of those are very good to me.

And this example is pretty clear, you know, it's mandatory and what's the potential. So it clearly states the differences between the two versus the others that were kind of like convoluted.

So it appears to be pretty clear.

And I would like to add that it'd be nice to have council members that are in good standing. They're current with their property tax, with their POV bills. While I understand sometimes economic circumstances don't permit it, but now that there's a salary, maybe that could be a priority. I think that's important. We should at least model that kind of behavior.

qualifications we can include some provisions like that that would then limit to those two where if they do not qualify anymore tracing back to the qualifications they would then be they can either see or commission will have opportunity to declare that but we can add that as a recommendation that would be like a different part of the charter or Correct. That would be in the section just before this, these proposed provisions where it talks about the qualifications of a commissioner. So we are currently right now have some where it's residency requirements and the other relates to the ones that are already required by state law, if registered voter not have any felonies, et cetera.

Commissioner Galanski, what would you propose for like how behind they be? Because like if you miss your payment right away, that might be too soon. What are your thoughts on like how delinquent let's discuss, I guess, what are your initial thoughts on that?

Considering that it's a four-year term, like one or two years behind, right? That way it gives you ample opportunity to cure it and If there's some unexpected circumstances, like the pandemic, right? And people lose their jobs. That's, I think something comprehensive and maybe it's something that should be under the ethics charter.

Right, so generally the way the tax cycle works, I think. The taxes are declared in October, they're doing a table in January. Right? So from October, November, December, January. you have four months to pay, right? After January 31st, it becomes delinquent until the next cycle, right? So I would think that within one tax cycle, I guess you could say delinquent status, right?

A year.

Or maybe even, you know, anytime between October and October for one year would be appropriate because two years being a delinquent status to me is a very long time.

With regards to the residents, with regards to the residency is we're talking about primary residents, right?

Yes.

Okay. So, hypothetically, let's say somebody ran for district commission position. And they moved, they bought a house, they bought a house somewhere else. Would that be a disqualification at that point or not?

If you're not living there, like primary residents, primary residents.

Is that 1 by law? We have to reside in the town in which you're.

Yes, that's my. Jurisdiction jurisdiction that you want to run with regards to earlier comments. Yeah, we definitely put the. So, for example, they.

I have my boat at Sea Ranch.

On the Port Isabel side? Where did this happen? On the bay?

Off the north?

Where the fingers are at?

Right there. On the left. Closer. On the left side. Coming in on the left side.

Let's do where you live, though.

Further up. Further up? Yeah.

I think so.

Like shore? Like in a cemetery? Yeah.

Got it. Talking about.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

And then how, um. We go back to the 2nd, sure. This 1 or this.

I like 304 and that 1.

How do you define incompetence, though?

I know.

That one I would just not.

That's too far.

Yeah, I think that one could be, like, weaponized against people, you know? I feel like if one of the commission members says, you know, you're incompetent, what does that even mean? Then you have to have a hearing if that's what we choose.

Like performance of official duties.

Well, and if someone was struck with like a serious illness, right, depending on how they internalize it, some people might be like, no, I need to work harder. And some people just completely shut down, right?

If they got a cancer diagnosis or something. Or Alzheimer's or dementia.

Yeah. So like you said, Alzheimer's, do we say, well, you can't be, that's a pickle. Do we say you can't serve anymore?

Have we decided with regards to the absences, whether we're comfortable with three consecutive absences, and what's the total, or we're just not there yet?

I would say that three of the ones that are scheduled that we already know ahead of time, that that's more than enough. Okay. Cause especially now that there's a salary, I think those are a certain expectation that you should fulfill certain duties, attendance at city, at city meetings, the ones that are planned. Sometimes on rare occasions, we get a special meeting. Like we're going to have one at about two weeks. Uh, cause it's budget season, but, um, But I would think three is plenty.

Now, of course, there's options to do zoom, right, for those. Correct.

Yes. All you have to do is turn on your camera for it to count.

Actually, you can have three options, be excused, still be okay. Okay. That's true.

It's the unexcused. As far as DWI or DUI, where does that fall in this category?

But you have to have a conviction too.

Okay.

It would depend because generally the first or second DWI are class B seniors or they could be a class A senior. But I'm not sure if they're considered class A. I don't think they are. But Once you have, like, a third or a fourth, then it's a felony. So it just depends on the type of... First, you get an early trial, so it depends on the level, whether it's a class A, B, or...

Okay.

But by the time you have a conviction, there's been quite a bit of time, right, that has passed?

Right.

My... The residency requirements. The first time I went, I had a competitor who didn't even live in the district, but he was still allowed to be on the ballot. And how do you prevent that? And it seems just petty for me to bring it up. But at the same time, it's not fair that we can do that.

That's a good point because you could live in District 1 and move to District 2 while representing District 1, right? And so... as opposed to the city as a whole. So you're out of your jurisdiction. If you move, if you're a district one commissioner and you move to district two, then I would think that you'd have to take it.

I would say like, as far as the residency goes, that's covered under state law and what's allowed and what's not allowed. And there's even like some case law on it and things like that. And the secretary's office is, has to normally be checking all of that as far as qualifications to run. So a way to kind of deal with that would be, again, just kind of putting the in compliance with state law, local law, if for some reason we have a code of ordinance section that requires a certain residency requirement or maybe something that changes in the future for the residency. So maybe if we put in there like just being in compliance with residency requirements as per state and local law.

So does the state law address districts within the city?

It addresses when you're eligible to run for certain places. I'm not sure as far as it's specific for the district. I think that's in the code. It goes with jurisdiction, yeah. Yeah, so it would cover the district at large.

But then, so whose responsibility is it for enforcement?

The commission.

That's how we need to add this.

So this, if it's, well, let the city secretary's office answer too, but if it is a candidate, then it would be the city secretary's office to confirm. If it is already someone that is in office, it would be the city commission. And under our charter, the commission does sit as the, It's a judicial body of the qualifications of its members.

But I'll let the city secretary also address.

Yes, that is correct. As a candidate, when we receive a candidate filing, that is on the application. So what we do is verify the residency based upon the jurisdiction that they're applying for. So if it's for a district or the at-large, just making sure that that candidate is within the jurisdiction. that is within that district. Like Will mentioned, now after there is a candidate, we've seen where there's a candidate that's become an elected official. If the elected official is no longer residing in that district, then it could be, depending on what the charter says on the commission, or it can be contested by another citizen or a resident that can really challenge that. that for our office, it's not to really investigate and really look into where they live, but if it does come out that the information is shared to our office, then we certainly relay that information to the leadership team.

So if somebody were to challenge a residency issue for an existing city commission, What criteria or what law would they invoke? Could it be state law right now at this point?

It would be both. It would be the state law because of the jurisdictions that you have to reside within the city of Brownsville. And then the charter in our code would set those stipulations regarding, hey, this resident needs to be resided in our city. In our charter right now, right?

with respect to districts?

I'll pull up what we have in there, what we use for the residency, so I can share that. But there's no mechanism to remove, is what you're saying?

There's no mechanism to remove right now. So I would think that if we're going to invoke state law, that the onus is on city council to push that, right? Because we would not be in compliance with state law, so he would be the one responsible to point that out to the commission.

I would think.

Yeah, you probably have to have someone like Sue, like a citizen.

Because the city commissioner will not pick that up.

Yeah, pick that up because it just doesn't look good. Right, so. So if we make it, or we recommend that it be something that must be considered when brought to the attention, then they can decide to ignore it or they can vote to remove them.

I guess my point is we should really put it in the charter. That way there's no ambiguity as to state law versus what the charter says. Just as long as the charter is not in conflict with state law, I think you'll be fine. But having it there in the charter automatically You can default to that.

In my running list of what we've been talking about, ineligibility or eligibility requirements per state, local law, and the charter, right? Those are the three things. And that's residency.

Anything else? Age, probably. I think you have to be 18.

Anything else?

That's not a one step.

That might, those might be good to put under the section for qualifications rather than under disciplinary provisions. So we could, you all could propose to amend the section of the charter, which is section four, I think it's article four, section four, I'm sorry, it's article five, section four regarding qualifications of the mayor and commissioners. Right now, it's something that exists in the United States, residents of Brownsville, and have the qualifications of electors therein. The mayor, ministers, and other officers and police shall not hold any office or emulance, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, so that would be a good place to put it in as far as qualifications. And then in the disciplinary provisions section, you could put as when you no longer meet the qualifications of the charter, then you can have disciplinary action or removal from office.

I like that.

That makes sense. It's an option. Okay, and then number two, felony conviction.

I think that's one. Crime of immoral, a conviction of a crime of immoral turpitude. A violation of the ethics coach, I think, is what more about like finances, right? And bribes. I don't know. Conflicts of interest. Okay.

And then so that. Bribe is an allegation. You'd have to get a conviction, right? I don't know what the ethics coach says. In regards to what's this for me? Well, she mentioned bribe, but that's just an accusation to me.

I mean, the Code of Ethics covers a lot of different things you could do. I mean, accepting tickets, not filing the proper financial statements, voting on something that there may be conflict of interest. I mean, there's a whole bunch of things that the Ethics Code covers. So it could be something. That's why I think in some of these other examples, they just put a violation of the Ethics Code. Yeah. Would be all encompassing. Right. So because there's a lot of, I mean, it would be too much to put all the specifics. Yeah.

Attendance. What are we doing? Attendance. Three. Three in a row. Three consecutive unexcused. Unexcused. And then six within a 12 month calendar period.

It's consecutive or in a 12 month, which I think is the same thing, right? Yeah.

Or six. Total. Six in total.

Per year. Per year. Within a year.

Within a year. Unexcused.

And then default owed to the city of Brownsville?

Taxes.

I would. I mean. I think that like. On property taxes. I would think a year. Or even, I don't know, a year and a half. I think sometimes things happen and I would hate for somebody to get, I guess they still have to vote on it, right? Are we making all these mandatory or are we making any of these up to the vote?

Well, they're subject to disciplinary action, right?

That's up to us to recommend. So do you think that if you're ineligible, I think that should be automatic? You're violating the city charter because you are... not one of the things that you need to have that I think that would be automatic because you shouldn't have been in the first place um maybe you can have like a grace period if you move but you know felony conviction should that be automatic I mean I think definitely violation of the ethics code is something that the commission should vote on do they think it's rises to the level of removal or not um I'm not sure that suspending somebody from the commission does anybody any good. You just, the city is, the people are down a commissioner.

But the charter then provides that the remaining members of the city commission, I think if it's too far away from an election, then by agreement, you can select a replacement. Is that a point? It would be by agreement of the remaining city commission. By appointment.

yes correct and with that appointment served till the next available time to hold an election or the remaining term of the i don't remember i just quickly read through the charter today that those sections but maybe one of y'all yeah they're very provisional in there that if it's i believe uh x number of days before or x number of days left uh within the four-year term then the city commission is required to Hold on.

I want to say it's 180 days, but I'll double check right now. And then they would come back after their suspension? Or is that just when someone's...

In what context has that occurred? I think it also depends on how much time is left on the person's term. Yes.

That's if they leave or are removed. And that's like, what would suspended be? I'm just trying to picture like the commission decides you were. The ethics code you're suspended for a year.

That what we're saying, it's like, it's really tricky because since we have districts, then you're putting out a district on the right. So, I don't think that's. Be feasible because otherwise you have taxation without representation.

Yeah, and really the ones who are paying for it are their citizens, not...

So, mandatory or are they all mandatory removals?

I think what we need to do is kind of list them up, what we liked, and then we have three boxes. Automatic, with city commission approval, and then the third one was what?

Oh, I was saying about removal versus suspension. It's like, what is the penalty? I guess for the automatic, it would be removal, right? But if you're dealing with one that we're saying the commission has to vote on, then what is the penalty? Is it removal for everything, or is there room for a suspension? And then do we have to propose, like, what happens in that event if you're suspending a commissioner? That's not already in there, but it sounds like it might be in the charter.

I think suspension is a very touchy situation because you're suspending an elected official, right, as opposed to either he stays on or doesn't. In cases where the offense is not as egregious, then maybe you can have censure or reprimand.

And then with regards to removal, after a member gets removed, are we comfortable with saying they can come back in two years? Or are there certain situations where we're just not going to have them back? I mean, we could have somebody that really does something extremely bad and they get removed, but do we really want them back? Or is that up to the voters?

I think as long as they're eligible, they should be able to. So like if you're... one of the eligibility requirements, like you're no longer a citizen or something happens, I don't even know if that's possible, but there's certain things you probably can't fix. Like you're convicted of a felony, you can't fix that unless you appeal it successfully. But on the other ones, I think it's up to the voters.

Yeah. If you otherwise meet the criteria to run, then you should be able to.

Yeah, like if you got removed because you didn't attend six meetings, You come back and you're a changed person.

You're formed.

Your life gets less hectic. Who knows?

Okay.

I think next what we could do is maybe kind of, I mean, if you don't mind, we'll go with the motion is to go. At the next meeting, maybe we could kind of finalize it or, and maybe put some language, make it there, you know, just an idea right now.

So do we have a list of stuff that we'd like to see on there right now?

So far, I have that you all like to, I know you all liked the idea of, like, being in compliance with tax, at least. The absences, automatic removal, the clients' estate, federal local law, ethics code.

Conviction of a felony.

Right, the conviction of a felony. And then depending on how we want, I guess, to, and that would be kind of, that would kind of go to the qualification section, making it a mandatory removal, and then if you all wanted to add in the A section where I guess we fall under disciplinary action, if it then goes to the commission for a vote, and then depending on if you all wanted to recommend a suspension or removal or something like that.

Can you write that up for the next table?

Yeah. And the attendance.

And the attendance, yeah.

And then I wanted to just mention, when we were talking about like if somebody's ill, you know, they're like not able to serve, then they may not be able to resign if they're incapacitated. So what if somebody is just, I don't, I don't like all the words in number three, but you know, inability to perform official duties. That might be something to consider because if somebody did end up, you know, like me and sometimes they don't and you can't do anything unless you get a guardianship. So Like, how do you get somebody off? You're going to do a full recall because someone is in a coma, you know?

That's a problem in the absences.

Yeah, I think at that point, it defaults to whether the commission wants to grant an excuse or an excuse, right? At some point, the commission is going to know, okay, this is taking too long. And then maybe they'll revert to the unexcused and invoke the three. And then for removal,

But I think at that point, that's a decision of the committee and the commission.

But somebody being sick in the hospital or being able to fulfill their role because of incapacitation, you kind of defer into the commission by way of the excuse sentence.

They have dementia, very severe dementia, but they keep showing up.

That's happened. In those days, they used to have a councilman. It was not quite there.

Do you need a motion to table for now? I'm chair of motion to table of agenda item 1A regarding city commission disciplinary provisions.

Okay, I've got a first to table motion 1A, or sorry, public hearing number 1A. Got a second? I'll second that. And I've got a first from Mr. Pena and a second from Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And 1B.

Public hearing is okay.

I was reminded by the potential system condition in carrying taxpayers on the website support level and safe working conditions.

And I'll open this to a public hearing. Anyone who's here who would like to speak on the motion, please feel free to come forward. If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved.

Second.

I've got a first from Ms. Elizondo and a second from Mr. Pena. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And I believe that the city already has a policy similar to this, but I have encountered a group of people who are seeking to add this to the charter.

So we just want to bring it up to your attention because it was brought to our attention that this is a petition that is currently circulating. I believe it already has something, maybe 4,000 signatures at this point, 5,000 signatures at this point. So I don't know that it qualifies for it to go through the process to be on the election ballot. as a post-charter amendment, but we do want to just bring it to y'all's attention to see what it is, and if you all maybe want to recommend it, or if you don't, you know, either way, but just to let you know that it is going on, and just kind of give a little bit that we know about simply what was on the website, which is called They're trying to get over 6,000 signatures to adopt a policy to amend the charter to ensure taxpayer-funded contracts support local hiring and safe working conditions. So the language on it is essentially to create a policy that's called the Brownsville First Jobs and Contracts Policy. the purpose of which to ensure that contracts support local hiring, fair access to small businesses in safe working conditions, which would strengthen participation of local and small businesses in city contracts, keep public funds circulating in the local economy, promote accountability, safety, transparency in city procurement, training opportunities, ensure that the projects deliver high quality work and best value, Then they go on to have the specific definitions of what a city contract is, a local worker, a small business, an OSHA 10. They specify that all city contracts would need to include these specific contract conditions to the extent permitted by state and federal law. That the contractors would need to certify compliance with all applicable laws, including wage laws, and may voluntarily commit to higher wages. But they need to ensure each on-site worker has completed OSHA 10 or equivalent safety training before beginning work. The contractors need to just carry workers on insurance or coverage by without exposure requirements. The contractors would be encouraged, would not require to make good faith efforts to hire local workers, contractors must start to make good faith efforts to hire local workers. And the contractor shall cooperate with compliance, monitoring, approved by the city for contract terms. And then it specifies what the incentives and prioritization would be with a small and local business preference that the city could establish scoring criteria that gives preferences to small businesses or businesses headquartered in the Rio Grande Valley, provided that the criteria complies with state procurement laws, that there would be workforce trading partnerships, that the contractors would be encouraged to partner with local For unions or educational institutions to the purpose of workers and transparency, saying that the city needs to maintain a public dashboard and see contract recipients available compliance reports and participation outcomes provided that such criteria is in compliance with state laws. And then it specifies what the local jobs and business access program could be that the city would need to create and maintain this program. In order to assist small local businesses for bidding, I'm sorry, in bidding form, complying with city contracts, provide free technical assistance in English and Spanish for contract paperwork, compliance certification, maintain a directory of local contractors who meet these contract requirements, conduct quarterly outreach and training sessions over the public, coordinate with workforce training teams to help grow a qualified local labor pool. And then it has just legal compliance in the sense that this policy applies only as conditions of city contracting and shall not regulate OEJ's hiring or benefits outside the scope of public procurement. Implementation must comply with the state code and constitution and House Bill 2127 and any subsequent state or federal law. City attorney shall review contract forms and program rules for compliance prior to enforcement. And then it talks about review and reporting, which the city commission shall conduct a public review of this policy over three years, including a compliance report from the procurement office and any monitors, a summary of the local business participation, data from local jobs and business access program, public comment and recommendations for treatments. And then severability would just be that if anything's found to be not in compliance and everything else still applies and just that part would not comply. And that's pretty much it. That language is specifically from the website that talks about this, what is going to be proposed in the petition. And so if it passes, that's the language that would be in the chart. So I defer to you all.

And I just wanted to add real quickly, we did invite the group to come and present to you all. We let them know, hey, there's a charter review committee going on right now. That's the process we follow. We want to do amendments. They politely declined, but they said, thank you. They have almost the signatures they need to present it to the city secretary's office. There is a process. She will, you know, do sampling and probably review the whole thing, but she does have to comply, or she does have to review and see if it complies with state law with regards to petitions. The reason why we wanted to bring it to you all's attention is knowing that this might come forward and knowing that the city commission recommendation might either have an election in November or May, we wanted to just run it by the committee to see if this is something that you wanted to recommend to put on the charter anyways, whether or not they come forward with the petition. for the reason that if we have it in November, we have to call the election by August, right? And that includes having everything lined up with the ballots, the call for the election, has to be all spelled out. All the changes we want are recommending, the language that we'll apply, the propositions, and running them by the Secretary of State. If that's something that's new, I would recommend doing that, just as a cover for us. If they don't submit it in time, they run the risk of missing the election deadline for them to go off the ballot. And we can only amend the charter every two years. That's a full 365 days. So depending on when the next election occurs, they might not get, if it's a ballot petition and it complies with state law, but we have the election, then that's their deadline. they would have to wait the two years getting on the ballot. So it's really a detriment to them as a group and the citizens that signed the petition to not come before July and request this, or at least submit it to the city secretary's office before the August deadline, because then they would have to wait. State law requires that we call the election when it's feasible for us, If we have the election in November, given the deadlines that we have that are very tight, they wouldn't be able to have an election until two years from November. So that would be six, seven, eight, nine.

Well, let's just say that they got all the signatures and this was a non-charta review year, right? Let's say this session next year. Would you have to put it on the ballot at the next election anyways?

Yes, but by state law, because we're having an election already, or hypothetically, if you all make recommendations in the commission, put those on the ballot, they would still have to wait. We would have to put it on by state law, but by state law, we wouldn't be able to have another election for two years.

So if we're not ready, what we propose may, they may get to have their election and then this has to wait two years. Can't they also, the reverse happens?

Sorry about that.

It could, so we need to have our next meeting. Because if they get the signature, do you have to have an election? It passes. This can't be put on another election for 2 years, right?

Assuming they give it to, like, let's say we're not ready. Let's say we're going to have the election in May. They come with enough time to give it to the city secretary's office. She does her ministerial duty to review it and. certifies it for commission, commission will have to put it on the next available following election, right? So if there's time to call the election and it's before the August deadline, we would have to put it on November. So you're right, the opposite could happen.

If it passes.

Right.

Yeah, if they get all the signatures by August, then you put in an election in November, right? Right. The rest of this would have to wait until two years from now. So they can only do the charter amendment every two years from when we meet? Correct. So they missed a window? They would have missed a window. So it goes into me approaching this committee to get that addressed between now and either November or the May election.

But they can get the signatures and then it goes on. The commission doesn't vote on it.

It goes after the vote. Yeah, but you can't make a charter amendment until... If we're going to be done, let's say... At the end of the month. At the end of the month for a November election, then the window's going to be missed.

If something passes. Because it can only be amended every two years, but if we have the election and nothing passes, you can do it again? Or no?

You don't have to wait two years.

Even if it doesn't pass? Wow.

So... So if they get the signature and they put it on the election and it wins, they still can't change it until this committee meets again, right? You mean theirs?

Yeah, theirs. Yeah, so if they do it timely to where they're able to put it on November's election, then this buys for if we hadn't completed it in time ourselves or if we decide, commission decides we're going to do it in May but they come in August, The recommendations you have would have to be postponed until the following two-year election.

28.

In 2029. In 2028.

So, but to a committee member, at least on this point, I was bringing this forward as I didn't want, and I understand that they declined to present before you all. But I felt like it was a good opportunity. If they have the signatures, and this is going to go on the ballot at some point, assuming the signatures are valid, and they comply with the petition, they do have attorneys that help them with this. So I'm assuming this is going to be compliant. Although we haven't looked to see if a voter, they decide in the city, et cetera. But I didn't see the alternative occur. If they get it in time, we review it. then we miss out the chance of having our termination.

I'll move to table that.

I have a first from Ms. Elizondo to table public hearing number 1B. And a second from Mr. Salina. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Items for individual considerations.

So this is kind of going off what we discussed at the last meeting, but if we, as far as needing to have one more meeting and to be in compliance with the charge for creating this committee and meeting the deadlines, recommend this amendment going to the November election. As Will was talking about, the deadline for the commission to order the election is August 17th, which is all the way at the bottom of this chart. So that would be something that could be ordered at the August 4th regular city commission meeting. So that would have to be the second reading of the ordinance. So if we go backwards, the first reading, which would be the day of the public hearing. And when all the language finalized, it's literally what the ordinance has, what's going to be on the ballot and how it's going to look and all that. That would be the first reading. So if we are going to go backwards, that could be the July 21st regular city commission meeting. So continuing to move back, then that means you all would need to present your findings and recommendations to the commission prior to that meeting to give the city commission opportunity to hear, to change things, to do whatever it is that they may or may not want to do. So that could be presented at the July 7th regular city commission meeting. So then that brings us to now, where we still need to have another meeting to be compliant, like I said. So that puts us at needing to figure out a date of what that would be, when we can do that, and where that would be. So that could be here, again, the event center. or another one of the locations that we had discussed at the last meeting, maybe like the library or something like that. But that's essentially where we're at. I know that there is another regular city commission meeting scheduled for June 16th, which is next week, is that right? Yes, that's next week. So I don't know. And looking at the... The calendar, if you all want to have another meeting, maybe the 15th on Monday of next week, you could post tomorrow. And then would it need to be posted, be able to be presented at the 16th meeting? No, right? Or could it?

Yeah, it could be. It's not possible, but it can be. Yeah, we could.

Let's do the recommendations portion, not with the final language.

Yeah. Okay.

We're going to discuss that on the 15th because you still need to finalize what we talked about today. You also need to go over, like, the final wording of the other ones that you all agreed on. I mean, those aren't.

Yeah. So these are just high-level recommendations, not necessarily the language, the specific language. Right. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

So that could be done. So in other words, hypothetically, you all could meet on Monday the 15th. meaning we can post tomorrow. On that agenda, we can have what we discussed today as far as the disciplinary provisions. Anything else that y'all may want to add on that for Monday's meeting? And then on the 16th, which is the regular city commission meeting, present the report.

Yeah. And if you need, I think commission prefers to have a member. Thank you. I think the Commission prefers to have a member of the body present to present that recommendation or report. Staff can present it, too, as well. So we defer to you all, of course. I think, Commissioner Delancey might have.

If y'all are busy and you trust me, then I'd be happy to bring this up to my peers like a summary. And I do actually think that it would be a good idea to broach the topic at the meeting next week simply because my experience is they like to mull things over a long time. And so I think it'll take at least two meetings for them to decide, okay, are we going to pull the trigger for November or wait until May of next year? So then that way they've got this meeting in June and then by July 7th, they should be able to decide, are we going to go for November or next May?

That's how I see it. It would be helpful for next meeting to have a summary of what we're presenting on the 16th. Okay. Top to bottom of all the items we've considered. That way we're all in the same page. Okay. Well done. including the ones that we talked about today that we're going to take on. Right.

So what we'll do is we'll go back and all the recommendations you have already, we'll put them on the, kind of like what we saw currently and then recommended. And if we have time, we'll also do what it looks like as far as a proposition.

Perfect.

So Monday at 5?

Yeah. Is that a time that works for you all? Yes.

And you all would just let us know the location?

Is this location better for you?

We can do it here if it's available, if not, we'll go to the library. But we'll let you all know.

15th. Second.

I've got a first from Mr. Pena and a second from Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor? And the opposed motion carries and stand adjourned.

You have to group before you can read.

You have to group first before you read.