Charter Review Committee - Regular Meeting

The following is a regular meeting of the Odessa City Charter Committee on June 15, 2026. Those present are Craig Stoker, Peggy Dean, James Parker, City Attorney, Dallas Kennedy, Ronnie Phillips, Aaron Smith, CM, Norma Aguilar, City Secretary.

All right, everyone. So yeah, just real quick, I think, obviously, we went through one through three last time. And Norma, James, and I basically did a additions deletions component of one through three. No, ma'am. It's the one with a blank page on the front. So you can write a few notes if you want to or something like that. So I don't know what you want to do from there to when we go through there. Make sure that's all good to go. For now.

That one's mine. And I can explain that that is extra work that So I said I spent the weekend and I took our charter and then some peer cities and threw it into the quad and then told it to look up all the state laws surrounding all of it and said, let's compare notes. And so that's kind of what we came up with on some of this stuff and made some red lines and Again, mine was the, I got up to five and stopped since that's where we were.

Well, thank you all for all your redlining.

Yeah, I don't know that I came up with anything different than what we discussed.

So the only one we really increased with general powers, we went from like three sentences to a lot, but that's probably needs to be in there.

I think we also clarify the annotation and disannotation procedures as well. Yeah. Because many people who want to look up annotation stuff, they don't look for the word. It's easier for them to find it. Instead of trying to figure out extension of boundaries. A lot of us may think, okay, that's the same thing, but people think annotation. That way there's a reference to annotation.

Yeah, because extension of boundaries...

sounds like oh we just yeah we didn't have to go through the whole we just they let us have it we just kind of we didn't go through the whole annexation process so it does sound a little different yeah so this is kind of what we've done so far so put a pen to paper

So a lot of it is really just taking out all the language and saying what's authorized by the state of Texas.

Right. You just completely deleted two of them. health went from a page to three sentences?

What?

I said health went from a page to three sentences. Not what it should.

Well, yeah, exactly. I mean, if you look at it, I mean, there's so much stuff there that it's like we don't regulate that stuff anymore.

I didn't see what Ronnie kept asking of our Dallas about that we couldn't give up our own. What was it?

I think we discussed perhaps putting that under general provisions in Section 10. So when the time comes, we'll stick that. Isn't that what we talked about, James? Yes, I agree. And then real quick, again, those were what I added. Back at 10, you're going to see some languages well related to Charter Review Commission where we talked about adding a Charter Review Commission to it. And then there's some charter construction language back there, which basically just reiterates that, you know, we can do everything that's authorized under the state of, under the laws and the Constitution of the state of Texas, basically. Just because it isn't in here doesn't mean we can't do it. That's just reiterating that. Again, as long as the Constitution allows it and as long as the State of Texas allows it.

These changes don't have to go to the voters, do they?

I think they do. I guess there's some argument on whether or not there's some... That's part of what we...

I'm sorry to interrupt, but that's part of what we... It kind of brought some language in charter construction that, you know, have the charter actually authorize... city and even the city council to make non-substantive correction and changes that basically misspelled words, language, whatever needs to be cleaned up we can do that without having to go to the voters to it'll be a non-substantive amendment to the city charter and if our charter authorizes it to do it as long as it's not changing the intent or the subject matter then we can maybe be able to have some there may be things we find in there that can be changed without having to go to the voters for everything.

So the ordinances don't have to, but the charter does?

Yes, correct. But it's, I mean, if the charter authorizes, let's say, you know, another way to make non-substantial charter amendments and changes and corrections that fulfill the intent of the charter, as long as we're not changing anything, we find, I don't know, if there's something in there that, a certain law that no longer matters that no longer exists if the legislature comes in and repeals something and we have in our charter we can remove it from the charter and it's no longer law something along those lines without having to go to the voters to have them vote on something that really you can literally have a charter amendment but as it is now you can have a the voters vote on a charter amendment that actually has no meaning in law anymore and then if the voters rejected if they reject us like the railroads you know if they say no we're not going to vote for that charter provision we're going to keep that railroad provision in there and it serves no purpose we don't have to ignore it yeah so we'll ignore it it's just a matter of cleaning up unusable language that way everything in the charter is actually useful and actually applies and it's not you know that people think when they're going to vote on something there's a lot of people that think well what did they leave out but yeah yeah and the thing is a lot of this is much of the huge percentage of this is about cleaning it up and updating it to what the law says now i mean of course the only the only question i have though i mean when you do it anyway but will all this have to be on the ballot Yeah, we're going to have to go through, and that's part of the final thing we'll have to go through, is trying to get somebody. We may have quite a few ballot propositions.

Well, I mean, like, this whole thing would have to be printed on the ballot, right? Yeah. So that ballot's going to be 100 pages long.

We've got two different options. We have two different, there's two different ways, and there's probably the one way that's going to work for this one is, I've seen it where they'll actually have the old charter language and I'll have strikethroughs and add-ons basically anything added is any new language is underlying anything to be struck as is under is struck through and we'll have the charter and it says we're the ballot proposition is the new charter to read like this we probably won't do it on this one that works for small sections and small elections where we're not taking up a lot about it here what we'll do is it'll just be the proposed new ballot language the ballot will just say this is the proposed new charter and we do a summary of what we're doing in other words what are we eliminating so there's two different schools of approach on how you do your ballot i've done it both ways where we'll just have a little small and the ballot will say a proposal to eliminate repetitive language archaic language hard to understand language and to replace that old charter provision with this new ballot let me with this new charter language and of course the any voter is free to pull up the charter as it exists and we advertise and put that on the website all the voters will know what the ballot propositions are before election day and that's part of our advertisement that's part of our Put it on the city's website. Hey, we've got 15 charter provisions there. Whatever we have, we have a whole list on our website. We have a town hall meeting. Everyone can see the ballot in advance. They can read what the charter says. But on short amendments, we have done like that. We'll say, here's what it reads, strikeout, add-ons. And then this is what we'll leave. I would prefer.

It won't work in this one. Yeah, I was like, I would feel bad for the elections office having to print that.

No, yeah. You have to flex it out basically on a bigger provision here. Our ballot will only have a little small introductory of why are we changing it, and here's the new language. Do you approve this new language? Because it's presumed every voter can go look and see what the current charter says. They can go in there and say, oh yeah, that health section, that was like 20 sentences. That was super long and they're just going to replace it with this little bit here. You know, things like that.

So what will be on the, that they could go in and see?

will it be something like this document so they could see what was there and now we very well could when we get our easier well when we get our complete document erin has already started this document here when we end up with a complete report from the committee says here's the What it is, here's our strike-throughs, here's our add-ons. We can literally put that on the city's website. Every voter can click on that and see exactly what we trade. They can see what the council gets, so there's no hiding the ball.

And we could put it on the top ribbon, you know what I mean, of the website, so this is... Yeah. Proposed charter revision, something like that.

It's all there. So the ballot will be quite a few ballots, depending on what the committee finally says. This is the proposed ballots that we want to change. And then it'll just be, the ballot will be, most of it will start with the same sentence. Proposal to amend the charter to replace old, archaic language, whatever we come up with. and for sections so and so to read as and then each ballot will just have to lose section.

So when you say ballot, excuse my ignorance, but I'm thinking do you have one ballot and lots of propositions or proposals?

Each one's going to be a proposition. Proposition one, proposition two, proposition three.

But you just have one You have a ballot for each one of those?

You could if you have a paper ballot, but if you picture your electronic, it'll look just, you voted it where you see the constitutional amendments, and maybe ten constitutional amendments, just one after another.

It'll feel a lot like a constitutional amendment. That's exactly the way it's going to look. And that's what this is, it's the city's constitution.

When you said each will have a ballot, I'm

Well, each place on the ballot. That's going to be a long one. You're going to be pushing next, next, next, next. I guess the issue is, honestly, the recommendation is folks vote yes, but we can't make them do that. Actually, I think by voting yes, it'll probably be... I think most of them will pass.

People will just... Well, the language has to be simple because you've read some of those constitutional amendments. If you sit there and you read it once, you go, no. You read it again, wait a minute. And then the third time, I ain't voting for that. Yeah, I am.

I sometimes think of that because I sometimes will get in there and I'll have to read it four times.

The word I'm trying to do?

And I'm like, I do this for a living.

I watch the League of Lady Voters who explain it and I'll watch that like six times and I'll talk to state reps and I'm still not getting them like...

Yeah, you're not alone, because I sit there and I'm thinking, what are they thinking with this language? I said, how many times have I wrote it? I've read it four times.

If you haven't read it that many times, you might as well have written it out. Yeah, exactly.

It's just extremely wordy, one long sentence. We'll keep our ballot, but I like to keep the actual ballot part, like a one sentence, maybe two sentences, nice and short, and really what they're going to see is the new charter, section so-and-so, to read like this. And so, We'll have a chance to see what it looks like, and we'll go through it, and the whole idea will be to tailor this thing so it'll be simple. That's the number one thing. If you make it simple, and you put forth the effort to make it simple, and make it complicated, the voters will punish you for it if you make it complicated. Or they won't vote at all. So what'll happen is... you can see the ones that are complicated because you'll just get the canvas that i'll be like proposition so hardly nobody votes for it people just like under vote 15 000 yeah yeah i don't understand that one they don't vote against it but they don't vote for it either so it don't pass well it seems like if this is on our website and they have an opportunity to compare speed up their

We don't want him to be seeing these and thinking about them the first time they get to the booth.

And that's the thing. I mean, you can sort of put it all out there, but there's going to be a large number of voters who will never bother to look at it. But when we do it, we can't.

I know it's... Because I remember last week talking about second readings, and I didn't see that in here. I don't think we got into that yet. Okay, we were just talking about it.

I know that was in what we're talking about today.

Okay. Yeah. Because I remember us talking about it quite a bit.

Well, there was some stuff in P&Z that went over that.

Yeah. All right.

So this looks like you've got everything. we'll have the opportunity where we next week. I mean, to look at this this week. And if there was still anything that questions on Yep, that's exactly right.

Okay.

I did think in the first one, were we not going to just remove extra counties?

Well, hold on just a second. What were the boundaries?

The corporate name. City of Odessa.

Corporate name. All inhabitants of Odessa. Oh, yeah. We did need to remove that still.

I thought we were just going to remove Ector County. All inhabitants of the city of Odessa.

Because we have city in Midlake County.

Because then it goes, yeah.

Okay.

Because, yeah, because none of us are in Ector County anymore.

and not quantify it with the city of Odessa.

Just a cursory read of the green looks like you captured it better.

We went through with all our notes on Friday, Aaron and Norm and I, and we basically walked through it. So to summarize, I think that way you guys... That is something too nefarious to look in there.

not yet no all three of the appointees get together is that a quorum y'all are in today's section i just got back from their collection convention they go through their whole platform and there were people trying to sneak stuff oh my gosh yeah so is there anything here correct we need to go through none of the first three i thought those were pretty it it really wanted to kind of delete a lot of this stuff out of that third section, kind of favoring, really combining a lot of this stuff, relocating. You'll see that in there there's a chart of kind of delete, relocate, merge. Some of it, you know, its idea was, well, this is better off as an ordinance. instead of being in the charter some of the pretty smart tool some of the powers well again it's just like i i was i kept pushing for like what's the best practice what does tml want you to do what's if we were starting over today you know how how would we do it would it be in the charter and going back to our conversation of you know what what peggy you kept asking you know

Who's this for?

Where does this belong?

So that's kind of what the chart went back and forth on. When we get into what we're talking about today, there were several things that the election code has changed from where the charter was. So some of the filing deadlines are different. And our... The charter still has May listed as our election date. Yeah, it's not that. And we don't use it, and it's just noted as an editor's note?

Yeah, I did see, I found it. It was like 19, I don't remember, anyway. They just voted in city council to change it. Well, there was a... Based on the new state law.

Yeah, so the state law allows us to go to the uniform election date, and we did, by ordinance. But the charter still says our elections are in May. Well, that would be a great... In May is...

Going back to that provision of saying, you know, to allow us to change it when state law or the Constitution is in conflict. And then...

But the way it is right now, though, state law is not in conflict because May is a uniform election day. So we just did it by city council vote and changed the charter without... You get what I'm saying? They voted. We didn't change the charter. That's what I mean. We didn't follow the charter. That's what I mean. They just voted by ordinance to change it to any uniform election day, even though our charter says may.

I believe the election code trumps it. I think the election code has a section that says, based on the legislature and the election code, this is why the council did that. The statute says... council, you can just do it regardless of what your charter says. Okay. And they fixed that. That's the reason. On the surface, it looks like our council just did whatever they wanted. Well, I didn't think it was like that. No, no, I know, I know. It read into my mind. When I first read it, then I'm like, oh, crap, there's that election code says contrary to whatever, basically notwithstanding whatever your charter says. As long as you choose... As long as the council orders an election on a, see the trade-off is we can't pick whatever we want. We got to go with that May or that Saturday. I mean, not that May or that November. And they're really strict on that because I actually had to, we had an election that we tried to get an election set on during COVID on the shutdowns. And we, it was. The uniform dates weren't working, and we had all these closings, and we had all these delays, and we had all kinds of stuff. And we submitted a request to the governor to allow us to veer. They sent a big absolutely not letter back to us and said, you're not doing it. They said, well, COVID or no COVID, there ain't no veering. Because the Secretary of State was giving variances on the election stuff during the real height of COVID. During that winter storm, they did some. Very little on the COVID stuff they did. On the winter storm, they got really strict with it, and they really stuck to the statute. So that's the tradeoff. We can move around, but we can only move for those two days.

Good.

One in Article 4 was about requiring... P&Z members to be real property taxpayers. Where are we at now?

33. Page 36, Section 33, Planning and Zoning Commission.

I've got a couple of questions on 33. Go ahead.

I mean, we can go through. I think so. Let's just start. Sure.

Like with 33, that's the first one under rule. Yes, ma'am. I had asked earlier if PNC members had terms.

They don't.

They don't, but it refers to the term. It says the city council should determine the number and terms. And then a vacancy, it says, will fill an unexpired term. So that seems like...

So our charter requires them to have a term, but we never...

This is exactly what we do with charter reviews, because you're finding an inconsistency. I mean, you're basically... Because you're finding that, but at the same time, maybe that's something that can... If that's what the committee wants to kind of... Get on... Choose a lane. Okay. term or no term, and then be done with it. Yeah, because it could be, I mean, it could be, it raises the question.

Well, there's terms for everything. I kind of feel they need to have a term. I'm kind of surprised.

It's a little startling to me to have a committee that is a lifetime appointment.

Yeah. I haven't seen any of the ordinances on this, but when this is, the city council should have terms.

If they have terms, they just don't have term limits.

Yes. Yes. City council. No, they don't.

Oh, okay. But if council decides to read the points. If the mayor has a term limit. Well, the mayor and council have term limits, but the committee members, I can only think of.

They couldn't do a compliance committee. That's not we don't appoint compliance. No, but I mean, they have the term limit though. It's the same. Everybody talks about like everybody's sitting in a sitting in a chair forever in control of everything when people are trying to do something else.

The big deciding factor on term limits on these boards and committees is how hard is it to find new board members. If we have a hard time finding new board members, you get really good board members who get termed out and you're like, everyone's kicking ourselves. Why don't we have terms? We'd like to reappoint this person. He's great. He's awesome. He or she's great. They're awesome. So that's really what it comes down to.

Yeah, but do what we do. Put them on advisory for a year and then let them back.

Yeah, however you want to do it. That's the biggest factor on the term limits because it comes back to you on... having someone limited out who is otherwise really, really good at what they're doing.

I mean, because this is really an important committee. Isn't it easy? Okay.

It should be an important committee.

Okay.

I think right now it's a rubber stamp.

Okay. Is that because it's got the same people on it forever?

I mean, my appointee had been there 32 years.

Wow.

Were they active?

Yeah.

Chairman. Well, I'm just asking. But...

So be it. So do you guys want specific year term limits? What I keep asking about, and I think we're working on, is like a committee's committee to look at what committees have term limits, who's even attending, are the committees active? Which ones do we still need? Yeah. Do we need them? Are they by statute?

Like that, though, I would think, That kind of stuff, though, would be more by ordinance because it says they can have terms. I would think it would be up to the city council to put the term limits in there. Because, again, like, and I know you'll find somebody for, like, the animal advisory board, you have to have a vet on there. And you may not be able to find another veterinarian. So you may have one on there for 20 years because nobody else will do it. And so you may... So that's another one that... You found somebody. I'm glad. I'm just saying. Right.

That's a great example of those are council appointees instead of each seat having an appointee. So they all ganged up. And I mean, that was a block. You couldn't move anybody on or off that committee.

Right.

So... so again i have a lot of thoughts about our committees yeah but why is pnz in the charter why is that i wondered i thought this is really important all the state law implications right and all the things that they do is that right now is i mean the statute requires them to have a planning and zoning committee so i mean if you're a

home rule city you have to have a separate planning and zoning committee or commission or however you want to call it so that's why it's in there what's going to do away with zoning well look at it this way look at west odessa compared to what goes on over here right nobody tells them what to do or where to do it or how to do it it's a mess but let me finish something after all this time we're going back and having to rebuild water line rebuild certain line rebuild structure that everybody just did what they wanted to do. You know, you could go over there and buy an acre of land 20, 30 years ago and move out of your family, build five houses with one septic system on the home, and it's just a giant cluster over there. And that's why, you know, the question like you, like who is on this committee and why are they there? Is it just grandmas and wanting to be on there? I want to know what goes on in those businesses. But we have some silly people that have been, and I won't name names, that have been on the city council, not you, Peggy. Thanks. But no, we understand that. And that's why. Who is this and what do they actually bring into each and every committee? Like you're saying, don't block somebody out. Because in this room, I like the fact that we don't all get along. I don't want to be in a room with a bunch of yes men. or women or whatever and so we all have a different view to say certain things and that's what makes it better everybody can live here and they can live in harmony with one another but we're not all going to see everything out of that's my speech for today on this lies in the charter the big question is is there anything about the planning and zoning committee that we want established by charter so no city council can ever change it by ordinance

So in other words, if you want to say, okay, we want the committee to stay with this number of people, we want this type of terms, we want this kind of appointment structure, we don't want that ever to be changed by any future council pipe ordinance. You've got to go back and change the charter if you want to change it. That's really all it comes down to. So at some point when they put this in in 85, they felt that they wanted certain things in the charter that couldn't be changed by a city ordinance. It's basic stuff.

So now being you said 1985, looking at that, what was happening in 1985? It's coming back after a massive oil bust. And people were people did have certain things that they were going to do this or that people would make a development. So I'm sure they wanted to control certain aspects of how it came back around. And they did.

And I guess on their application to be on this, those questions are on there.

Are you a real property taxpayer or is that checked? What I do is I attach the qualifications to the application and then they check mark. I certify that I meet the requirements.

And that may have been a... subtle way that they made certain that PNZ members were all property owners in the city. That's why I went to the charter. Somebody back then probably wanted, they only said, hey, if you're going to be on this, you've got to own property here. They want invested people. So it's up to the committee. This is the kind of thought process we go to. I mean, it's 2026 now. That's 40 years ago. Do we still have the same considerations?

Well, there was a 1970 Supreme Court case that your Secretary of State advises that requiring a candidate to own property is unconstitutional.

A candidate, but I don't know about a board member.

A candidate to be on the board.

Oh, a candidate to be on the board. Sorry, okay. I think it's almost like a poll tax. I mean, it's in that same kind of category. I mean, back in the day, those were used to keep Rape blacks and Hispanics and other ethnicities off the boards and off the council.

That's what those were used for back in the 30s and 40s. I will say if you take that out, that will be one that might get voted down. That would be the most controversial. Because I hear a lot of people saying only people who own property should be able to vote. Still. I still hear people. So I'm just saying that's the one that could rile people up.

I get that.

It would be real property tax. It probably should come out.

But the thing is, even if it did get voted down, it doesn't matter. We can't do it. We can't do it. Again, that provision in the charter that they do pass, maybe down the line, which is, well, it's in conflict with state law or the Constitution.

And if we just explained it like that, then maybe it wouldn't cause a big controversy. Just say, look, it's We don't think we're not allowed to anymore. Courts have ruled that you can't be required to own property. Yeah, I'm taking it out.

Maybe it wouldn't be a good candidate that gets bumped off and they decide to file.

Yeah, you got some people that just read.

In their minds, that's a better investment.

How do you find out who's on planning is only if you're just average Joe Blow. It's on the website. It's on the way.

If you're a pastor living in the church parsonage, it doesn't need been in the church parsonage for 40 years.

that doesn't mean you're not qualified you know the pnz board yeah i can see how that'd be very problematic so yeah well and to possess the same qualifications i mean one of the qualifications for council is that you live in the area of your district in the district so i guess if I mean, that's not the case here. The case is that you're a real property owner somewhere. I mean, I don't know the same qualifications if that's a true statement to you. You know, to live and live.

Probably just that you live in the city for six months. That's the only qualification.

But if that's the case, should it say that? Because the other qualification is that you live in the district that you're running in.

Yeah, I think so. I think it should be.

But you don't have to be in the district.

Sorry, you don't have to live in a district to be P and Z just within the boundaries of the same qualifications.

It's not true.

But what about me? You? We didn't have a district.

Well, but that you could live in any district if you're at large. That's still a district.

District one's a point, well, my recommendation would have to be from my, the way this works, I could see how you could, district one has to have somebody from district one.

I guess I'm just saying the same qualifications, that's really not.

I mean, she'll be a resident of Odessa and a, be a resident of Odessa and a qualified voter?

Yeah, resident of Odessa for at least six months and a qualified voter.

And leave off the real property ownership?

Yes.

And this suggested that you strike that property qualification.

I could see some people arguing that. And there's some people.

particularly the Indian community where there's like three generations in one house because that's what they feel called to do is to take care of my kid decided to build a house in the backyard I'd live in it for free that doesn't make me not qualified we don't allow ADU sir

You need to talk to Planning and Zoning about that. That's why we're not going to allow you on Planning and Zoning.

See, I don't qualify. There you go. Let me take that back.

So, Aaron, you said a resident of the city of Odessa for six months and a qualified voter.

Sure. Resident of Odessa six months and a qualified voter. Which doesn't mean that they're even registered. You mean the qualifications to register. We can put a change in there.

yeah that definitely sounded to me like somebody they didn't want somebody to run that rented like malcolm for instance right malcolm rented but there but there are some people who still think like and i get it like you get to vote on property tax but you don't own property so yeah you're gonna

So like people that are over 65, they shouldn't get to vote on a school bond because their taxes aren't going to go up. So it doesn't affect them. So they shouldn't be allowed to vote. So there are still people who think like that. I hear that often.

So then when you come down below to the any vacancy, she'll be filled by the city council for the unexpired term. Should there be a different verbiage than unexpired term?

I don't know that it should. I'm just struggling with that a little bit because any term... is determined by council. So it could be an indefinite term. Well, she did say they have their terms. Yeah. Yeah. Well, they could have terms.

It comes before council for council consideration.

So it's determined by ordinance. Is that correct? And you've been in the meetings. They're like, Norma says I called them and they said they'd serve in council.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

That's how they ended up there for 30 years. Not me. I know you don't listen to me. Like Dallas would be on it.

so that's okay take my question the next section I just had what you marked out so I didn't have a curiosity on cleaning this up A good example, the adoption of this charter amendment shall not terminate the existing planning and zoning commission previously referred to in the city charter as the planning board, nor invalidate any of its acts, blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Like, that obviously meant, was from the 1950 version, and they didn't want to redo any of that in 85. So in our version, why can't we just strike that? Exactly, yeah, strike that. With the adoption. So the adoption through the end.

Agreed.

Like as long as we're cleaning this up. The adoption of this charter amendment shall not terminate the existing.

Correct. I mean, I'm for any of that.

Like as long as you're cleaning it up, and that kind of goes back to the beginning where it's talking about the boundaries are listed on page two of the ancient document stored at the top of the fridge. Yeah.

Even if there was some kind of loss, it's been 50 years, they couldn't go back and sue now because the name changed or whatever. So are we on 35 now? 34. I would just say on 34, I like what you marked out, just the 10-day thing. I think that's too restrictive.

I just believe that council should have the authority to remove.

commissioners or people on boards at their pleasure right only after I mean the first sentence they have the oh yeah yeah cuz I don't think it's really we don't even have to say

Yeah.

And then mark out, but only after a public hearing before the city council.

Yeah, that's just way too onerous.

Well, I think being an at-will state, of course, boards are different, but that's a situation where you could get in a lawsuit if some city council member said, yeah, I didn't put you on there because your sister made me mad or something. So it's probably best just not to even have to require a public hearing.

You've got seven council members. You're going to have to convince four of them to remove you from the board. So I don't think there needs to be a...

public hearing.

That's just that's your public hearing. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah.

I'm 35. Do we have this comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city to the city council?

We have a, let's see, we did a comp plan. I can't remember the last one. I've got it in my office, though.

I mean, I've had all kinds of plans that we hired when I was on council. For this planning and zoning, it says... To recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city to the city council. I mean, do they even do that? Is that even real?

Which number are you on? I'm sorry. Five. I recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city and such other regulations are necessary to implement a comprehensive plan including subdivision one. I mean, it's...

I mean, isn't that something that...

It's kind of like best practices anyway. I mean, they, you know, usually about every five years you do a comp plan. The reason why we do comp plans is because, like, you can't have CDBG funds. I believe it's CDBG funds. You can't have CDBG funds.

So community development did the comp plan, but I don't know that I remember it going through P&Z. Mm-hmm.

That's all I'm asking. I mean, I've got all kinds of plans.

Maybe unnecessary. You know, to conduct the necessary hearings to recommend a report.

I mean, it has to be done to get the CDBG funds. It does. So it's being done anyway. But again, I don't remember.

Well, it seems like it varies into a whole other subject when it says and. I mean, you can see that they should maybe recommend other regulations that are necessary to implement the plan. I don't know. It just...

This is jargony.

It's a lot of words.

Yeah.

Because the city does. I mean, I still have copies of all the plans from when I was on council, but I don't think any of them ever came from P&C.

No. Ours came from community development.

I mean, I'm not sure what physical development means.

But if you read at the very beginning, it says the commission shall have the following authority and responsibility. So that just gives them the authority to do it in case they need to.

But it gives them the responsibility, too.

Oh, well, then you're right. It says authority and responsibility.

That word changes if it just had authority, but responsibility is. Yeah, you're right.

Well, let me check, maybe check with state law and see if that's a requirement. But if it's a requirement of state law, then it's... Yeah, what's that? What's that? I mean... To recommend a comprehensive plan?

No, the statute just states that the governing body shall adopt a comprehensive plan. It doesn't have a direct requirement that it go through P&Z. So I would interpret this to being that when it was drafted for P&Z... at least have the ability to review it because right here it says to recommend um authority and responsibility that the five doesn't seem mandatory so but i'll read you the statute the statute on comprehensive plan is the governing body of a municipality may adopt the concept comprehensive plan the media is probably made to find a content design a comprehensive plan then uh all in 213 of the local government code adoption of amendment a comprehensive plan may be adopted or amended by ordinance following a hearing and reviewed by the miss and also reviewed by the municipalities planning commission but just in just a review so i think that's probably where it's coming in at so they just allow a review of a comprehensive plan

Well, the question this raises to me is on the physical development of the city. It's like all these guys that come in and meet me.

Exactly.

Build something in an area. Is that just because I want to go build 500 houses? I want to do it over here in the city. It's going to do whatever I want to do. Or is there a plan?

It should. If you look at where all these developers are going, if you look at the comprehensive plan, there will be a map for future land use. And my guess is... Should yeah, it should you know, it should match up with that.

Yeah might not be perfect But well relatively speaking this is where we want residential homes Yeah, it just the statute says a municipality may establish in its charter or by ordinance procedures for adopting amending a comprehensive plan so we can Put in there. I mean do we want require PNZ to review and issue a report or But that's probably where this is, that's probably how this language got worked in.

It just, I know it says to recommend, but it also says up here that it's their responsibility to do it. And is it really?

Well, it just, the statute just says a review. So PNC doesn't have any kind of, just, PNC could literally just say we reviewed it and We didn't have no changes or no recommendations. So I think that's what they're trying. The statute's very vague. The statute just says a review by the PNZ.

So is it, should the word recommend be changed to review? It could.

It could, yeah.

And then that would be the quote.

How often, though? And that's the thing it doesn't say, right?

Or review. Well, I'm sorry? Or you could put to recommend or review a comprehensive plan that would give them ability to do either one. They could create one or they could review one somebody else created. They recommended they reviewed it.

I guess when you have like, all of these studies done, You know, if the council gets it and you go through it and you don't want to not be able to act because PNZ hasn't reviewed it.

Right. Yeah. I mean, the statute is pretty broad and it gives the city the ability in its charter to establish more. We want specific procedures when it's a comprehensive plan. We want time periods and go through certain steps. We're authorized by statute to impose those or set them in an ordinance or a charter. My recommendation is to keep it kind of broad, and if we ever have to do anything with it, the council can always come back and adopt ordinances that address a comprehensive plan review. It's an example. You can get detailed in an ordinance. but require the basics of P&Z. Review or recommend, or we can use review in either one. That way it goes through P&Z.

We can maybe come back to that. What I mean by that is I think maybe the three of us can maybe come up with some language in there. Some language?

Yes, and then kind of bring it back to the next one. Just imagine what 36 through 42 used to say. About the master plan of the city. Yeah.

I love those master plans.

I mean, I've got all those would there and before we go on, would there be any value in having some like UDC language in there every 10 years or whatever best practice will be on that.

Because what we say there is kind of what is that to conduct necessary hearings to recommend reports of various zoning regulations, restriction. And mama, that's where your UDC comes in right there under one, right?

Well, just it hadn't happened. So how do you, I guess, how do you force it going forward so that it's not 30 years before somebody realizes, oh, maybe we don't need 35 different zones? I mean, you could put that in there. You could put a comprehensive review, Shelby.

You know, you can require a comprehensive review of... zoning regulations restrictions and boundaries every five years or something like that there shall be at least a review not that you shall but at least a review every five years of that maybe that's conduct

So maybe that should say to conduct a review of a comprehensive plan.

Every five years.

Yeah, every five years. And it doesn't really say who does it, but they would conduct a review of it. Instead of reviewing it, they would conduct a review of it.

And report to the council.

Make recs to council. Maybe. Okay. We can play around with that language.

Because that's one of the ones that just felt like it.

I've always looked at that committee as a very powerful committee.

PNZ, sure. I feel like it should be. I just feel like some of the things that i wanted done we could just never get to bring it i mean all we did was approving the class and it's like no no no no no there we should have more ability than we do well no you may have well no that's up to council okay well then i'm on council all right let's do it let's

always this big great mystery so anyway first page I didn't have any questions on that I didn't have any questions on 43 that all seemed pretty straightforward to me first page

On F, I had some questions.

On which one?

F. On the second page?

Before we go to section 45, It is on the third sentence from the bottom. Not less than 45 days according to election code. It's 78 days.

We want language that says she'll comply with election code. Probably, because that changes.

Yes.

78 days.

That's what it is now, but we can say Texas election code. Comply.

So that was this was one of the ones that I tore up to. One of the questions I had is that the 50 signature seems to be something we made up.

Yes, I can give you a little bit of history from what I know. Before we had the petition, We used to have candidates that would literally come 4.59 at my office to turn in the application. And we've had had some candidates that weren't they were not really serious about running. It was just more to get their name on the ballot. So then that's when council decided let's weave those out and let's do the 50 signatures with the petitions. And so that's where that came in.

So the election code says that there's a formula that it has to be one half of 1% of the mayoral votes in the district from the last election. 25 whatever 25 is the floor and so I can you make it harder than the law no I think this is probably gonna be one of those things yeah you're gonna have to I mean because they've gotten really strict for example

You know, you can't even check. You have to take their word on the residency, on their application. You can't even check their license. You can't do anything. The application for place on ballot under state law is sworn to. So we have to accept it on its face pattern, on its face.

One of the mayors of Kima, Texas, lived in Mississippi. Yeah, but you... he had a house in Kemah plenty of houses in Kemah but that dude spent 11 months out of the year he was just flying on his jet Why he cared so much, who knows? But he'd fly in for meetings and then fly out. I mean, just to be thorn in everyone's... But he couldn't... And he was an attorney and a multi-millionaire and just said, I don't know, take me to court. I don't care. You know what I mean? So, yeah, it's sad, but it is what it is.

That's... Well, what... What I came up with in mind is having a filing fee, and that shows you're interested. So it's any qualified voter who meets the residency and other qualification required by this charter and state law may have their name placed on the official ballot by filing an application as provided by state law accompanied by either a filing fee in the amount set by ordinance or by a petition in lieu of the filing fee signed by the number of qualified voters required by state law. The filing deadline and application requirements are those prescribed by state law. So you have both. If you don't have the $500, you can go get your signatures.

The filing fee would probably be closer to $200 for a local election. It's pretty low.

I don't know.

Because it's $750 for the county judge and county commissioners. It's lower than that for other...

But when you go kind of run the search of the ballot numbers... Let me see. All right. District 1 would need 25. District 2 would need 35. District 3, 25. District 4, 41. District 5, 21.

Instead of the 50. Instead of the 50.

Yeah. And that's off the last election. We had 28,985 people.

So all in all, the 45 just needs to be in harmony with state law. Yeah, right.

And then the city secretary would have to figure out that formula every two years. Or figure out the numbers.

Right, but you work with the election office. No, I know.

I'm not saying it's hard. I'm just saying she would have to be, okay, district one, you've got to have 26.

Yeah, whoever's qualifying the package.

45, yeah.

All right. So those were my issues.

So on 46, what about that failure to continuously reside? I mean, to your point, what does it mean if somebody lives at their branch and then they come in for the council meetings and they've got a language i've seen language that says they must be a bona fide president of yeah well i said that you know what does that mean how do you qualify to be your homestead where your homestead is but i'm saying a lot of people have two homes no i know i know patient homes And as they get older, they they don't want to be here all the time. And so they go, they come in for the meetings and maybe one or two days in the two week period. Is that bona fide?

I have a resident a lot of the ranchers rather, you know, most of them are passed on now. But they did they had branches down there in San Diego. They had a house over

Even your representatives in Congress don't.

Congress doesn't require it. Yeah, right. I looked it up. State requires. Congress does not require you to live in your district. Wow. You have to live in your state but not your district. I know. It's nuts.

If that's the case, I'm going to go run for whoever Tony Gonzalez had. I'm going to go take that over. Those guys have lots of help. I can't believe that. That's insane.

Yeah, I just I don't know.

I don't know. What is bona fide? You know, even bona fide is a Latin comes from Latin in good faith. Right? I mean, there's certain things you can't believe.

I don't know how you because right now, I know they're dealing with it in a school board in the metroplex or a lady owns a living mainly in another town next door and has a home in that town. And they just, they're fighting.

But there is a provision though, right? If you feel so strongly that that guy is not a resident here, recall him.

And that's what's happening. Well, city you can. You've got a recall provision. The school board, they're fighting. There's people trying to get her kicked out.

If you feel that they're not living here in good faith, then it kind of does. It kind of reverts back to the folks to recall and get them out.

Or her. Whoever it might be. I'll run to Mary Hill. She can tell you a story.

on section 46 if we're if we do want to clean up my thinking is

The more we stay with the statute, the less likely we'll have problems and pushback from the Secretary of State. They've taken real harsh views on the statute, in other words. I've fought this battle. I've had cities fight this battle. And the Secretary of State's – and I've even – I got a contact at the Secretary of State's office. He's a longtime attorney there. You know, we've had a lot of election fights, and he's like, man, the way we look at it, it's like Chapter 141. This is what has to be done with an application for placing a ballot. They've got a pre-promoted form. As long as they fill it out, as long as they swear to it, that's it. And the thing is that it works both ways because I had one council member run for re-election, and he didn't get that in in time. And then we said, we couldn't put you on the ballot. The Secretary of State says, you're dang right. He ain't going on the ballot. He didn't make the deadline. And that's the thing. It cuts both ways. They're very strict either way. So, I mean, I've had this fight. I've had these fights where we basically, you know, we have our own limitations. And then we get a complaint from the Secretary of State. And they come back and say, hey, you're stuck with the statute. And I feel like the more we stick with that statute, the more simple everything will stay for us.

And that's what you're going to do in 45, right? You're going to refer back to the statute.

And it's hard, as mentioned, but the Secretary of State's position right now is if we know we have somebody who is not qualified, we know you don't live under a death set, she has to process the application, and what the Secretary of State's told me, you don't buy it, then you gotta go and challenge the District Court. The Secretary of State can be a party to those cases, or any member of the public can challenge. And plus, we have the unique, we got the recall, so we can always recall somebody, and then that stuff, but the thing is, We did that. This happened in one county where somebody filed for district attorney. This came up, and the current district attorney, everybody knew that this person did not live in the county. And all they said is, we're going to check it, and we're going to file a complaint that you're not qualified. It's a legal document. There's actually criminal penalties for falsifying it. When we go through it and find out that you can't make the residency, we're going to charge you. for filing this false and fraudulent document. Because once they file it with our Secretary of State, they actually can be primly charged. It's a class A or class B misdemeanor. And that person withdrew their application. And so if it does happen, and also we defined the Chapter 1, I think, in the election code defines residence. So whatever residence is, it's what we go with. But she can't even ask for a driver's license. It's crazy. But that's the Secretary of State's interpretation of the statute. They actually want her job to be totally ministerial and just process it. And if anyone doesn't like it, follow your charter. If a charter says you can go and do a recall, do that. If you want to file a suit in district court to challenge the application, another candidate can do that. Ideally, it's an opponent who says he's running uncontested. This person jumps in and says, you're not a candidate. He can actually file a suit. Once the thing is, once you file a suit and someone who... is filing something fraudulent, that's the warning sign. You better withdraw quick. Because if you go and then you're found to have filed a false and fraudulent document, that's a criminal offense. So that's kind of what it is. And ultimately, my dealings with the Secretary of State is definitely pointed towards just default over the statute as much as you can on the election code.

And that's what we're doing in 45, right?

I think 46, too. Yeah, in 46.

But 46, yeah, A and B don't even have to be there, do they? Right, neither does A.

Let's go over to E in general.

I mean, because the charter at that time had that in there, so.

Yep, I would agree that it doesn't need to be there.

And then I have a question in F. Okay. So that service prior to 2003 shall not be counted. Does that mean, and I'm looking back, if Jimmy Goats or Joanne Davenport showed up that have both served eight years, but it was prior to 2003, they can do it again? They can do it again. Mm-hmm. Okay.

So you could strike that language if it's doesn't make sense anymore service prior to 2003. I mean, you're you're 23 years later now.

Yeah. But those people can still come and they're still active. They will make them about wouldn't be surprised.

Joanne Joanne. I was thinking of Joanne. We made up.

So that's the one I had a question on if we could Because like her situation where she was appointed, could we do it where it basically says, and say it exceeds eight years, that a person now shall not serve more than two full terms, and if a person is appointed to an open seat and serves less than two years by appointment, they are eligible for two full terms following that?

But I wasn't appointed for two years, I was elected.

She was elected. Oh, that's true.

So it just means if I wanted to run again, I could just serve one term because that would be six.

And that was just a weird...

It was weird.

Yeah, that would take a charter. But I mean, I would think like if somebody... Do you want term limits? I do want term limits.

Yes.

But no, what?

We don't for Congress, but we do here. But what I'm saying is like, look at Midland. I mean. How many people are on there? How many are maybe, there are no term limits for them?

He was there forever. And Wes Terry was.

I don't think you'll be able to remove term limits. That won't get voted down.

Oh, I think it will get voted down.

It's always funny.

Anytime you put it in a charter amendment, and when you talk about eliminating term limits in a city charter, typically it fails. Across the state of Texas, it fails.

Yet in Congress. My only thing here is, though, like...

I think we should have term limits on Congress, too.

If a city councilman passed away six months before their term ended, you appointed somebody, according to this, they'd only be eligible for one more election. Yeah, so... And I don't know.

I put some language in green down there that I'm trying to... I don't know that that... addresses that or not but the idea is and I don't know that that's in conflict or not oh I see what you're saying okay service while filling a vacancy of less than two years shall not be counted something like that yeah I don't even know if that's possible but in my mind that's what I thought that meant I was picking up on that I didn't notice the green because I was looking I just missed the green that one time because okay again that's just my my thoughts but yeah um

Could it be filling a vacancy or elected for less than a full term?

Well, there's some language in here. You can't be there for that long just filling, right? Yeah. So there's some language about filling vacancies that we're in conflict with.

Go back to 52.

52. Or go forward to 52. Yeah. So we... Texas requires a vacancy to be filled with a special election within 120 days, not by appointment until the next general election, except that the charter may provide for an appointment to fill in an expired term of 12 months or less.

So maybe what it should say is service while filling a vacancy and then reference service while filling a vacancy shall not be counted. Right? Because in our charter, a vacancy can only go how far? For an election. So maybe that's what it says. Service while filling a vacancy. Common. I feel like the law is going to take care of the... If that's in there, then yeah.

Shall not be counted. Okay. Right? I mean, that's what you're saying.

Right. No, I'm with you. That makes perfect sense. Yeah, at that point, if you were going to run, you would just have to turn down the six-month appointment to run, basically. So, yeah, I like that.

Because there's, that's what I've always thought. There seems to be like a halfway point. That if you're before the halfway point, you've got to call an election. If you're after the halfway point.

Right. Yeah, I know. That's what I think.

I know there was a way to do that. Yeah. Yeah.

Do you want some charters put in a like basically a cooling off period where you have to set out so you know where you can't you have an eight year term limit but you can run again but you have to wait four years.

Yeah, I've had those cities where they'll basically you can run you can do three consecutive terms and then you got to sit out a term and then you can run again. ODC is set up that way.

I said about the committees.

serve two terms but sit on advisory for a year and then come back and I've seen that so for instance I've seen this a lot where people will be on council for eight years then they'll go jump over to EDC for four or PNZ for four and then they'll run again basically keeping them in the loop and engaged and stuff like that so that's not a term limit in my opinion not a term limit but It's something to think about in a town where people are becoming, in every town across the country, it is becoming harder and harder to get people to run for office.

Well, it's a thankless job. I mean, it really is. It is. And a lot of people have just decided, heck. And for two bucks a meeting.

And I've addressed that in the back here. But anyway, not that you'll do that. To be beaten. No, really.

Well, and everything you do be put on social media.

Yeah, because you're getting all those under-the-table deals and all that cash under the table.

So one good thing the city, well, I think it was by state law, but the school board just changed it to where a ref can kick you out immediately. Usually they had to give a parent a warning. Now they can kick you out. if you're acting a fool. Who can kick you out of it? The ref can kick you out of a football game if you're acting a fool up in the stage. Oh, really? Before they had to give you a warning. If a parent was acting a fool, you had to give them a warning. They had to have a second offense. Now they can just kick them out if you're acting...

brought it up because arguing balls and strikes or something like that yeah if you're being really disruptive they can kick you out now they don't have to give you a warning yeah i mean that was what we bring it up because nobody wants to be counsel it's like high school refs for football games it's like a huge shortage because people are like i ain't doing this anymore because they're getting threatened they're getting stuff thrown at them it's the same thing i mean it's like why do it and so yeah they got to try to entice more of them so they're almost in the same position you have to entice people to run for council it's like i'm Why am I going to get attacked on social media?

And we've got shadow packs that are attacking you and sending out mailers. Shadow packs, you're exactly right. I mean, so that thing that's, so I just came back from the Republican Convention. I ran for State Republican Executive Committee. I didn't get it, but that's okay. But the lady that ran, there were three ladies that ran, and they started getting mailers for her. She didn't know, she didn't know who was doing it. There were texts, phone calls, and mailers going for a, Volunteer position inside the Republican Party. Not even a real elected position. The mailers and stuff are going out on her behalf. She still doesn't know who... I know who's doing this. She doesn't.

Yeah, they're supporting her in some way, right? She has no idea who they are. That's got to be just discomforting.

But I'm just saying, that kind of stuff's happening in the city elections now.

Because everything they do will come back on that person. They get to sit there and do whatever they want, and they're going to be like, that's one of your packs. I have no idea who they are. They don't believe you when you tell them that.

Right. Well, I know this lady didn't know. It's provable that they're lying and stuff. You know, people don't care. No, they don't. They don't care about whether they're lying. They don't care about it. So. Anyway.

Okay, so.

We were on 47.

I did not I mean when it says something is the deviation is excessive by legal standards is that something that's on 46 D I mean is that something that

by legal standards instead of... Yeah, that may be just something to get rid of. They just basically just have a district boundary should be reviewed after each census to determine if the districts maybe basically don't have to use this language, but to see if the districts need to be revised or changed or amended. So we don't have to sit there and ask, well, we don't know if aviation is accepted by a legal standard.

Well, there are, because you know, like, district four is growing excessively. So in 10 years, district four, four could have 20,000 people in district one could have 5,000 people and that would our city's moving that much where that would be a serious deviation where you'd need to redraw the line. But I don't know if that's the right wording.

But basically, it's just gonna populate, remove for the change for the population have some sort of council of council decides to they can trigger a redistricting if they decide to do so, they'll have a review and they decide, do we need to redistrict? That way they're not tied to any particular standard other than just common sense standard.

But I think the end of that sentence does that.

When it says to equalize the district.

As near as practical to equalize. Yeah.

I just didn't know about the language about the deviation that says, hey, yeah, we need to.

Well, I agree. Just make it simple.

Yeah.

That's 2019. You should be able to remember why y'all did that.

I don't know if they did that, though. That might have just added those first that first paragraph, though, in 2019. I betcha. They didn't change anything else.

Well, would there need to be a provision if you wanted to add another one? Say the way the town is going that way, if you needed to add another council? Or do you just re... I think that's the average size of...

About size, right, of the district, the amount of constituents. Because I think practically your board is about as big as it should get. Yeah. Seven. Right. We couldn't fit any more people on the dais now anyway, so.

I'd start kicking people off.

You'd have to do like Midland and put the staff up front.

You know, right?

To basically be the guard between the constituents. Get some baby gates on the side.

I think, but anyway. Well, they did get kicked off. Didn't they kick Michael off when they were mad at him? He got kicked off to a card table.

When it was COVID, we got kicked off. Was it COVID? The city manager up his eyes?

That's funny. That's usually a sign that you're not going to be there much longer. That is always true.

I actually seen that happen and he wasn't there much longer, but he was The city manager, what happened, the city manager was very, very, very, very strong. I mean, a very strong city manager. The city of Kyle, south of Austin. We worked with that city when I was with the Barney Knight's law firm. And he was a nice guy, but he was very, very strong, very experienced. And a new council came in, and he proceeded to – he wasn't wrong, but his tactics probably could have been better because he was pretty much – shut up and listen to me. I'll tell you what you need to do kind of attitude. But in a nice way. But we had a council. We had three council members that came on with the state of attention. The city manager doesn't run the city. The city council runs the city. And so, yeah, they moved him down to the kiddie table.

Only if the city manager didn't sit down.

They sent him down. It was so funny. He was like, just sitting down there. He eventually left. It was still funny though.

So, The only question I have on these, are there days in here? For the runoff election, the dates are all now set by the state. Yeah, there were. So does that need to be changed? Yeah, that's... Because it says, shall call for a second election.

Yeah, it's actually in Chapter 2. There's some statute in there. That's the problem with the statute. The way the chapter, it's in 2, election code. When you go on the runoff, and it's all set by statute, and I think Secretary of State goes by, but a lot of it all defaults to all the state and federal offices. But a lot of it's just, a lot of it's followed. And so it's one of those things where we may just, unless there's something specific that we want to set some kind of parameters. This is maybe just another one that says runoff elections will be conducted. I mean, I'll review it a little bit more. My runoff elections have always been, my most nastiest runoff elections were always, there was always general law in cities. I mean, so we didn't have charter to fall back on, so it never mattered. And we would have runoff elections We would tie in the regular election. They would have a runoff election. We'd tie again. I mean, it would just... Then you're flipping coins. Yeah, you're drawing lots and all the other stuff.

You didn't have any suggested changes, Aaron, on this. You feel like the way... On which one? On 47.

Richard Pierce? They had some of those. To be honest, I guess when I read that, I just didn't see anything that was a problem.

If there's something that we can clarify... Strike that very last sentence. Yes.

That last sentence needs to be removed.

anyway yeah oh yeah but i didn't see anything there that harmed us if that made any sense yeah i don't need to change it i just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything that so we can do a check though on state law well i just know that now all those runoff dates are uniform you don't have a choice so i didn't know i didn't see any language in there i was just

That's a whole lot of language, though.

Yeah. Yeah, but if you read it, though, it makes sense.

It did need to be in there.

I mean, you really could have a tie, you know, ties. We've had elections that are very, very close.

Casting lots is in the statute, I think, still. And that's happened in, I mean, that has happened in real life.

And it happens in general law cities all the time.

and Richard Pierce you know they were tight and they just elected between the two of them we didn't have a runoff because they didn't want to yeah I was standing there They said there's no point in going through another election.

I remember Richard telling me after he talked to the guy, he's like, oh, we think the same, so I'm fine.

Yeah, he did.

Yeah. We had one really nasty one that was like that, and it went back and forth and tied, and they weren't going to flip coins. And then the one who won decided, I don't want to be on the council. I'm moving out of the city. After all that? She left. She moved off. I got to focus on my job. You know what? You want to run over somebody with a truck and stuff like this. It caused a lot of... It was a lot of work on that one.

So there was 48 pages here. There's apparently some canvas rules. Why did I put this in like that? So the city council shall, on the next regular meeting day, to the council, regular canvas the returns and declare. This is saying that state law sets the canvas window between the third and 11th day after the election. And if the regular meeting day falls outside of that, we might have a problem. But... Yeah, it says instead of this is just saying the city council within the within the prescribed by state law canvas return.

Instead of on the next regular meeting day. We follow state law. We do it within the timeframe.

Yeah.

And 49, you said now is... Just need to redo it.

Yeah. Just say that our elections will be run on a general election day as prescribed by state law or something like that.

General uniform election date. If y'all want me to say that. On a general uniform election date, whatever. What did you say again, Jay? General uniform election date set by state law. The statute dictates it. That way we can at least give our council the authority if they want to, if we want to go back to May elections, who knows. the council at least has the they can secretary of state doesn't here's my point secretary of state doesn't care as long as it's on an uniform election day so they're like whatever you guys decide you have two choices first Saturday in May for us because it's an even year or odd year it doesn't matter first Saturday in May or the first Tuesday after the first Monday choose I feel like that's a Secretary of State doesn't care, we shouldn't get more detailed than that.

This is 52 on the vacancies. That's exactly.

I was going to say, before we go on to that, this is where it stuck it in our mind. One of the things that I thought was missing, the question we got asked a lot is, when are you getting sworn in? When do you start? Yeah. The charter makes absolutely no, it doesn't say.

That comes up a lot, and so what we normally do is we end up basically field expediency. We have them do it right before the next council meeting. We have a little swear-in item, but that always adds confusion, too. It's like we start the council meeting with the old council, and then we have this little switcheroo musical chairs. I don't know. It's whatever. I've seen it done, and sometimes what I've done is I literally have a second agenda sometimes. We'll have them convene. do the swearing in and then adjourn. New council takes their seats and they convene into a new council meeting. I don't know. I mean, I've seen it done in different ways.

The county was real clear. They had their election and then January 1.

That's set by state law.

So you're going to get elected in November. You can just have it. I mean, it depends on whether we want to have a special meeting. or do we want to do it as part of the next, it can be just done, you know, at the next council meeting, first council meeting preceding the election. The canvassing of the vote. Yeah, the canvassing of the vote.

Because it needs to be, because the last, well she can tell you, the last two times, As soon as the vote was canvassed, like, an hour later, people were running around swearing me in right now because they didn't trust it. I don't know if it's quite that quick, but it's pretty close. What do you think?

Well, we didn't even know when Javier and his group were sworn in.

Yes. I would like a section that says when council will take office.

Because some councils didn't trust the previous council members and The second the clock ticked, as soon as the election office said canvas, they were sending our office in, so we're meeting right now.

How have y'all done the canvases? Have y'all followed state law?

We follow state law, which is usually have a special meeting for the canvas.

But not just the two. You actually have a full special meeting for the canvas?

Just the canvas, yes. A full meeting for the canvas, then that's it. And then usually the second meeting in November is when we do the oath of office. then we have what we call the changing of the guard, you know. They switch out.

You can put that procedure in the charter if you want and leave it that way. That way it takes the pressure off you when people come running in. Charter says this. Or do it after the canvas. I've seen it done both ways. I've seen it done canvas squaring.

I would like a set date. That way we're not rushed.

Well, and I said, you know, The comment I made was, you know, do it like Easter. I don't care. You know, the first meeting after the second full moon, but just have it written down somewhere that, you know, after the canvas, it's the first meeting. So I don't know that a date is necessary, but if it falls on a date, then write it down.

The first council meeting after the canvassing of the election. That way you can, because it helps new members. But the canvass is prescribed.

That has to happen in 11 days.

11 days, okay. First regular meeting after the canvass?

That would be, could be four days after the canvassing. Could be, because the canvassing is the 10-day meeting.

The question is, do you want to be able, this is going to be mainly helping the city secretary, do you want it to be shall Or what about new council members running into your office two days after canvassing and demanding to be sworn in before the meeting?

It doesn't have to happen at a council meeting. In fact, the last two haven't.

Do we want to provide by charter that it happens at a council meeting so everybody knows when and how? Or do you want to be able to have those? Because after a canvas, you may have people just coming in. It happens in some cities. Maybe you don't have that history here. But I have some cities do it. What makes me nervous? They come running in and they want it done.

I would like to have it written. Okay, after the canvas. Okay, what day the new council will take office.

Yeah, that way you can have a ceremony or whatever. Everybody knows this is the day he's got things over.

It makes me look like I'm trying to take sides and that's not the case.

I'm just trying to... As a citizen... I saw a good reason for some people to swear in the second they were available. Because there was some worried about some contracts and money and can they write checks at 8 a.m. the next morning. 9 a.m. 9 a.m. You know what I'm saying? So... I want a set date. I definitely want a set.

We've got a set of date, but they're... Well, I mean, does it work to say that all officers, you know, will be, you know, sworn in prior or, I'm sorry, first regular meeting after Canvas is when they take office?

That'd be fine.

First regular meeting after Canvas.

Or couldn't you, if it's always in November, can't you just say... first meeting in December?

First regular meeting in December? First regular meeting December of the election year?

There will be a meeting in November.

This is something that shows a little. This is when everything changes. Like the inauguration. You're the president. You're not going to do anything until you're sworn in.

Or you can just really make our council happy and just require a special meeting after the campaign. Actually, that might not be horrible.

It actually might be a good idea. Because like last time when they did the swearing in and they did it at the Hector, because it doesn't require them to have the city council meeting here, right?

Why don't we just do the swearing in at the campus? That's what I've done before. We can do that too. That way you can't just swear in, that's done.

Once they swear in, that takes two years. You could say the day of the canvas, so that way if they wanted to have a ceremony at the Hector, she could do the canvas and they could walk over to Hector and do it. If you guys have already been... I know, I'm just saying if you wanted to. If traditionally... That was a celebration.

That was a wink wink.

And I like it, that's what I'm saying.

I want the opportunity to do that again if we need it. If the procedure has been, the only thing that throws that off, because some cities will literally take it, they'll only do the two, because you only have to have two for a quorum, for a canvas. but if we have traditionally called a special meeting for the canvas you might as well right after the canvas have a separate item I've done it that way I don't always do it that way because some cities literally only do the two for the canvas because that's all they're coming in to do the canvas and they're out and they don't not everybody shows up they only do the quorum of two because the statute says that and they're in and they put it together really in a hurry but if we have been setting a special meeting for the canvas And we have a full council coming in. You might as well just do it that way and just do the swearing in. And still, if you've got council members who aren't happy, remember statute said you only have to have a swarm of two. And a swearing in is not an action of council. it is literally just falling through. So you can still have the swearing in if you don't get a quorum showing up.

Well, that's what I was kind of thinking. Kind of like if you elope, you can get married at the courthouse and then go have your big wedding in Mexico. Yeah, I agree. I agree. You can do that. So that addresses your... So take care of the business end of it at the canvas. And then if you want to go have your big ceremony at the Ector.

Yeah.

Or if you want to do it... For a continuity standpoint...

And there's nothing that says you can't do another swearing. So if you wanted to swear in again at the next city council meeting for pictures or whatever, you could do that too. You could do another ceremonial one. The legal official ones right then.

But the point is, why do it twice?

Well, I'm just saying, if somebody wanted to do it for pictures, they would have the option.

More government. Why do it twice? Oh, you've got to show back up next week and do it again. Nah, that would be ceremonial. That would just be ceremonial.

It wouldn't really count.

we think do the swearing in at the canvassing election basically you would take off and shake office at the same meetings that canvassing occurs actually that way you can always say at the canvas

and that addresses everybody because then there's no awkward y'all get down you somebody has to switch out the signs and there's no there's there's not the chance that you could have a rogue council that has another 10 days in office to do whatever they want that's what i'm saying we've had that concern i didn't want that to happen of course they have that anyway because

I mean, it takes 11 days to canvass the boat, so they still have their 11 days to do stuff. They could call a special meeting. I think they did. What's that?

That gets harder and harder. We don't have the 72-hour rule anymore. That three business days does give you a little bit more, less time to work with than you used to. You used to be able to just get that 72 hours notice, but now you have to have that three business days. You don't get to count weekends. So that's actually functionally going to be a little bit harder. I've seen that done before. Hey, I just reviewed and prepared the agenda. I make no note on what councils are trying to do. We need an agenda for a special meeting really quick. I'm like, okay. But that's a lot harder to get nowadays. It's almost double in some cases depending on how your days are calculated. Or the day of the meeting. Or the day of the meeting. 59C is the exact same verbiage as 52. It's redundant.

59C. The identical verbiage is 52. 52? That's right. I mean, so when we, whatever we do in 52.

It's repetitive, very repetitive, yeah.

Yeah, I don't even know why it's.

Yeah, and the thing is, Dave. Oh, you know, because, yeah, I see why they did it, but it didn't need to be done, no.

I even wrote a question and looked it up and figured it out myself. They even came back and amended that one in 02, and they still didn't catch that. Oh, look at it.

Maybe it needs to say shall. I don't want to mess with that.

is I mean this is this is 59 determines who has a vacancy so do you need vacancies in 52 if you're gonna bring it back up yeah you're gonna bring it back up would you just well this one's only this is this vacancy is only talking about attendance

They're vacant because they didn't come enough. Other vacancies could be because somebody quit or died or whatever other reason got arrested.

But the rule for the vacancy is exactly the same. Yeah, the following.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So does it maybe need to stay in 52 and not be in 59C? Right, that's what I would think so.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I think you can address the 59C at 52. Yeah. It's going to be the same.

So this wouldn't prevent them from appointing the same, like if they missed 50%, this wouldn't prevent them from reappointing that same person. So if it was like for medical reasons, I know that sounds bad, but if it was for medical reasons, I could see a situation where this guy, he got COVID, he was out for, he missed 50% of the meetings, it wasn't his fault and we'll let him sit back down. I see people get beat and then they have a vacancy and the council appoints them.

It happened in my previous town. I mean, that sounds good.

Well, I think Steve, when he got so sick, they literally kind of had to bring him in. They did. That's what I'm saying.

They wheeled him up there on oxygen because they wanted to take him out. Oh, they were ready. That's why I'm saying maybe, could we change this to May or should we just leave it shallow and they have the right to put the guy back in if they want to? that they miss more than 50%. I mean, there's also the implied.

I mean, it would be, I think, James, is it expressly implied, though, that you couldn't do that? Say that again? If you were to look at 59B... you know, where somebody misses and then they get them out. But does the charter expressly imply that you couldn't do that?

Yeah, I've always been really uncomfortable with those where you deprive someone of office for vacancies. I always feel like that's just a... Again, recall them. Yeah, recall them. And I think you can also deal with them through your evidence ordinance, too. That's true. I always feel I've always been... I've actually never had that because I've always felt... I've never seen it. I mean, I know it's been done, but to me it just seems like you're just asking for... You're not paying them anyway. Yeah, you're not paying them anyway, but the problem is you've got someone who's elected. Please take me out. It's common in charters. I've seen it, but I've just not seen people pull the trigger on it. Because I always felt like it's a little bit... That's their office that they won through elections. And then you're like, you didn't get your time. Where do you draw the line? It's kind of tough.

What we did in Nebraska when I was up there, the law was pretty strict up there, too. In fact, it's in state statute up there, which is why at the first of every meeting, there would be a formal action if someone was absent to excuse that individual and their absence. So there would be a right off the bat. I mean, that would be like item one. I move to excuse counsel.

So is there a difference in excused absence and an unexcused absence?

I'll make the example. I will call upon my statement. I've seen it done in general law cities under the general law statutes where it basically says a certain number of absences is considered a resignation. And I had to write the letter to the council member, and he would be like, I'm not going to resign. And then he just stopped coming to council. And then at that time, they basically just basically state law, by operational law, considered a resignation. But that was statutory. That was a state law.

I don't think that would get us in a bond ever. Just leave it.

Okay. If it happens, it happens. I can only think of that one time, and that was very politically motivated.

So the regular city council meetings that they're referring to, since we now have a workshop, I mean, that's just talking about the meetings themselves, right?

And if we could ever get our technology upgraded, I could be laying in a hospital bed and it'd count. As long as the quorum counted, as long as the physical quorum was here, I would still be in attendance to the meeting as long as we get the stupid monitor to work. We have to add that to the chart.

We have to be able to do live feed. See, that was one of the very few advantages, one of the very few pluses to come out of COVID was... allowing us to perfect our zoom and prepare us by uh remote and get everyone is able to understand that a lot more but you're totally right i had i kept having to say one council member is okay because the corn is where the corn yeah as long as the physical corn exactly

One can attend.

And what happened is COVID made and forced a lot of cities to get their electronic equipment and get their technology up to speed, which is what we never did. Before COVID, none of my cities could pull that stuff off until we had no choice. Then we were able to pull it off, and then that made everything a lot easier. We had a lot of meetings and a lot of good, important business that was done. when we had one or two council members who were not present but needed them there. So it definitely saved a lot of council members.

Like our CURS meetings. Yeah. We could never get a quorum because we don't have to have all that. So we sneaked one through, luckily.

Yeah.

Luckily.

So we're leaving.

We've got some flower pots on a dicey call.

But take C. I think what you're saying, take C out. I think we could take C out there because it's just...

Do we have a rules of procedure for the council, or have we ever adopted a rules of procedure? No.

I think that what that means is it's up to their prerogative. They can adopt as Roberts or one of the other three or four.

We just follow a legislative procedure. I thought that's what we... Yeah, it's not Robertsville. No, we don't use Roberts, but it's written down. I just assume everybody does. It's a general term. There's easier ones out there that aren't crazy like Robertsville. Yeah, the way it's written is we follow like a blank legislative procedure.

Yeah, it's not Robertsville. Oh, good.

Well, that's what Mr. TGAA figured out. quickly that we didn't follow robert rules and that's why he couldn't disrupt us like he thought he was going to be able to. But it's written down somewhere.

It is. It's in the code of ordinances. Okay.

I was going to say, it is written down somewhere that we do not follow Republicans. Thank goodness.

I don't want to have to learn that again. I know it kind of. You can get one here.

When you start going down that, then you've got to also basically select a parliamentarian that can be the go-to person for all that stuff. I apply. It could have been another board anyway. Okay. We skipped. We were at 52 and Peggy jumped us.

What's that game where you jump over?

Yeah, we actually went over.

We actually, I think we went from 52. You jumped over compensation, Peggy. That's where I made changes.

Yeah, I wanted to change that to zero.

Yeah, 50.

Are we lucky to be on city council?

Look at the back of the page. printed on both sides. Yeah, I didn't mean vacancies.

Yeah, I want to increase it.

I want to take it down. We got mayor pro temp that mayor pro temp section is extremely general. I didn't know a lot of times we'll have temporal requirements on that. But it's totally up to what right now there's no we can we can appointed mayor pro temp at any time. A lot of charters will like the first meeting after the election. That's right.

And we normally put it after the election.

And then one or more.

But we usually wait until like January until they get kind of.

Yeah, I mean it's like, I don't know.

Do we appoint, like I know you're the mayor, do we appoint For the whole term or for the year?

It's indefinite right now. Yeah. It depends.

But I've had, like, requests to bring it up every, whether it's changed every year or every two years.

Because I think when Hogan was mayor, didn't they change it pretty regularly, like took turns doing it?

Yeah, they took turns.

Because I know Mari. It's not all three of them. No, because, like, Mari was mayor pro tem one time because she came to my school and presented the ordinance to us.

Yeah, they changed it a little more.

So I think they, like, But anyway, so you're wanting to increase compensation with $500? Give them one code zero. I was thinking zero dollars.

Well, I think it's almost a disgrace that as much time as it takes, if you're really doing your job,

You want good council members. You do. You want good council.

And the mayor. I mean, look at, look at how, you know, he sells time for a living and he doesn't have any to sell. You know, because he's given it all for a hundred bucks.