Remarks by Jazzmin Cobble
159 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 7
- Play at 3:19:56
“No, the council with the four of you, as you have passed many other items and have more today on the agenda and have voted with four members of the council prior to today, can achieve three votes, either in the affirmative or in the decline. You can. So you're... Your assimilation that from now to December, every item will go to a vote. Well, we obviously know it's not true. You voted in the special call meeting, you voted in other meetings since the resignation of District 2, and you have achieved three. votes either to defer to deny or to approve so no there's no there's nothing that says…”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 3:21:28
“wonderful you should as you're a voting member of the city council mayor of the city of stonecrest i vote in the event of a tie i vote difference i vote in the event of a tie There is no language that says I must vote only in yay or nay. There's no language that says I am a tie-breaking vote of which I have to vote yay or nay. It says the mayor only votes in the event of a tie. In the event of a tie, I voted. The same rights you have, so do I.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 3:22:25
“I have voted today as I voted any other day of this particular tie.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 3:22:41
“You do. And I'm going to correct you every time you make an association that is untrue with what I said or what I need. We need order. We do. So don't lie on the microphone. That works both ways. I have voted as I have in every other. It is not considered a vote. It is a vote.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 3:27:30
“City Clerk, would you please restate the motion?”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 3:27:57
“Considering that it was my recommendation to defer the motion, I will agree and vote yay to defer to the next council meeting.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:01:48
“I have questions about page, oh, I don't know what, there's no page numbers. Section 2-180. B and C. My first question about B is I just wanted to be reminded about what the decision was from the city council on the obtaining a surety bond. I thought there was a kind of discussion back and forth that the city's government insurance would cover the those who were a part of this agreement or this ordinance rather um but i didn't see that reflected in c the c's language still states that these folks shall obtain and maintain a charity bond in the amount established by the policy so my first…”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:03:29
“Okay. All right. So we will still ensure, we will still require the positions mentioned to obtain a surety bond.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:03:40
“Okay. C, my question is C, is, I'm going to read the sentence and then give you the question. Well, I guess it's all a C. It says it refers to the City Council temporarily suspending or permanently revoking check signing authority. And I just wanted to my question. I have a question about clarity on the language and also procedure. So in the charter, of course, we all know that there's only two positions in the charter that have check signing authority, which is the mayor and the city manager. The definition of this ordinance is, of course, changing the code of ordinances that reflect the…”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:06:35
“Okay, I just want to re-say that. So your legal opinion is that although the charter assigns that responsibility to only two roles, that the city council can write a code that extends that same authority to others not mentioned in the charter?”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:06:59
“Okay, let me rephrase it for clarity. The charter, your legal opinion is that the charter lists check signing authority to two roles within it, only the mayor and, I'm sorry, within it, period, that would be to the mayor and the city manager. your legal opinion is that the city council can write an ordinance that extends that same responsibility to those not listed in the charter.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:07:33
“Yeah. But I'm just asking you is your legal opinion that that's obviously you wrote it. So I guess you are in agreement that the legislative body can assign the same authority listed under the city manager and the mayor in the charter to others by legislation.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:08:30
“right yeah that's what the ordinance says my question is and i'm assuming that you're agreeing with this but again my question is that by legislation the city council can give the authority listed to two individuals in the charter to others as well right so so to mimic those powers in a sense right So you said that what's listed in the charter is the powers of the mayor and the powers of the city manager. Again, my question is, it is proper and in order for the legislative body to take those same powers and by legislation, assign them to others.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:09:15
“Okay. This C specifically refers to check signing authority, but I believe the resolution is referring to more than just check signing, right? It is referring to the signing of all orders, checks, instruments, and warrants of payment of money. But in C, it specifically only calls out one type of payment, which is the check signing authority. So, would that mean that the City Council would not have the same power to temporarily suspend or permanently revoke any of the other forms of signing, seeing as we are specific to just one here?”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:10:04
“Okay. C refers to the city council having the authority to temporarily suspend or permanently revoke check signing authority. The resolution in its entirety is amending the powers of the signer and more than just checks. It is listing orders, instruments, and warrants. My question is, is C restricting the council to simply only revoking check signing, but warrants, orders, and instruments are not included in that?”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:10:41
“And is that the intention of, and I guess I'm asking the council now, is that the intention of the council is to only revoke one type, which is check signing authority and to leave, or check signing rather, and to leave orders, instruments and warrants open?”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:11:03
“C, list one type of payment, which is checks. as it's the council's authority to revoke or temporarily suspend. I'm asking, is it the council's intention to only list checks or was the intention to revoke all orders, instruments and warrants to be included with checks as it's titled in the beginning of the ordinance? Certainly, if that is the intention, then you may want to modify that to say more than just checks. Otherwise, you're what reads here to me is that you're simply saying you can revoke check signing, but if it's warrants, instruments, or orders, that you would not have the same…”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:14:50
“Yes, is everything that's bold and underlined is being removed and everything that's red is being added.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:15:15
“In that section, checks, orders, instruments, and warrants are listed. And C, checks is revoked. Right. The others are not listed. I mean, that's your intention. That's fine. I was just surprised that the intention would be just checks and not all of the other things listed for consistency.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:16:11
“Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree that. I mean, if that's the intent is to just only, you know, just to list what you think is most vulnerable and all the others that may not have the same vulnerability you're not as concerned with. You know, it seems like that's your position. That's fine. My that was my question is, did you was the intention of the City Council to only be concerned with revoking either permanently or temporarily check signing, but the others you feel were not important to have the ability to revoke or suspend? If so, fine. Yes. Oh, absolutely. I have a follow up question about…”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:18:02
“I want to go back to a and a it says I'm going to go down to the last sentence ish. However, to safeguard public funds and ensure the integrity of financial transactions, all checks, orders, instruments and warrants and payment of money in the amount of 25,000 or greater shall require the signature of two duly authorized signers. The 25,000 or greater requires two Diners again going on the interpretation of the city attorney there, although the Carter list that responsibility in the mayor and the city manager's role that the council can write legislation to mimic that same authority to other.…”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:20:03
“All right. If staff will provide that report and copies of those checks that were issued this year of anything over $25,000 with the two signatures, that would be fantastic. And my question for that related to this particular ordinance is obviously under the, again, the legal synopsis that it is not only the responsibility of the mayor and the city manager to sign checks that anyone in this ordinance can sign those checks. One would expect to see one of those one, two, three, four folks listed here to be signing it. But also I think what is the precipice of my challenge that by legislation, I…”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:24:37
“I have a question. City Manager stated that there was a change. Was that changed before or after the request for me to sign?”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:25:15
“I'm not sure you answered the question. you all sent me a contract to sign and said that it was prepared and ready i signed that contract are you saying that there was changes to the contract after i signed it from the vendor yes the vendor provided okay so the copy i signed is not valid because there are now changes right okay can you please stay and point me to where those changes are I don't see a red line version of what's in the agenda is the one that I did sign, which apparently sounds like it's not the one that.”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026
- Play at 4:26:32
“The very last one. Which now says versus what it said before, and I apologize, the red line version is not in the packet, so I can't. I don't know what was changed, so if you'll either provide that an email. And so I assume that the council is voting on a contract that's not in the packet?”
City Council · Jul 27, 2026