[00:00:02]
[Charter Review Commission on February 6, 2024.]
YOU ARE.UM, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT.
I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6 37 ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2024.
UH, OUR FIRST, UH, PART OF THE AGENDA WILL BE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTED IN SPEAKING TO THE BODY ARE WELCOME TO SIGN UP ONLINE FOR A FUTURE MEETING.
WE HAVE SEVERAL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR TONIGHT.
I'LL CALL THEM AN ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED DUE TO THE VOLUME OF SPEAKERS.
EVERYONE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BEGIN.
LET'S SEE, WHERE'S THE SPEAKER LIST? FIRST UP, WE HAVE ALBERT MATA.
HEY, ALBERT MATA, 1 0 1 WEST DAVIS STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU AGAIN.
UM, I KNOW TODAY YOU WILL BE REVIEWING A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS OR SEVERAL OF THEM.
I WANTED TO, UH, TALK ABOUT A COUPLE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
SO, UH, I WILL BE VOICING SUPPORT FOR A COUPLE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND THE FIRST ONE IS, I BELIEVE AGENDA ITEM M RELATED TO AMENDMENT NUMBER 94.
UM, I SUPPORT THIS CHANGE IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WILL MAKE US A MORE INCLUSIVE CITY.
I BELIEVE IT INCREASES THE POOL OF OTHERWISE QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO CAN SERVE AS VOLUNTEERS, WITH WHICH I THINK SOMETIMES IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
AND I THINK IT'S, UH, SOMEWHAT IN LINE WITH SOME OF OUR NATIONAL BELIEFS OF, UM, IF YOU'RE BEING TAXED AND GENERALLY RESIDENTS ACROSS THE CITY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE REGISTERED VOTERS ARE NOT, ARE BEING TAXED, THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE, UH, A WAY TO INFLUENCE THE DIRECTION OF THAT TAXING ENTITY.
AND SERVING ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IS ONE OF THEM.
I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT, UH, BEING A REGISTERED VOTER IS A GOOD ENOUGH DISQUALIFIER FOR, OR A IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEONE IS QUALIFIED TO SERVE THE CITY IN WHICH THEY LIVE, UH, THE CITY IN WHICH THEY MAY BE RAISING CHILDREN, THE CITY IN WHICH THEY MAY HAVE GROWN UP, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONLY 8% OF THE CITY COMES OUT AND VOTES, UH, DURING THE ELECTIONS FOR, FOR LOCAL OFFICE.
SO, I WOULD LIKE TO, AGAIN, VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT 94 AGENDA.
UH, I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT AND A NECESSARY CHANGE FOR OUR CITY.
UM, AND OF COURSE I'LL BE SPEAKING LATER ABOUT AGENDA ITEMS J AND K, WHICH I BELIEVE GENERALLY WE SHOULD MAKE IT EASIER AND REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZENS TO SUCCESSFULLY, UM, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BALLOT INITIATIVES.
UM, AND HOPEFULLY I CAN SPEAK WITH YOU ALL LATER WHEN, WHEN THOSE ITEMS ARE, ARE BROUGHT UP.
UH, NEXT WE HAVE CARRIE MITCHELL.
MS. MITCHELL, WOULD YOU HIT THE BUTTON TO TURN ON THE MIC DOWN ON THE BOTTOM? DID THAT WORK? THERE YOU GO.
I LIVE AT 7 0 0 7 LA VISTA DRIVE.
I SUBMITTED CHARTER AMENDMENTS ONE 18 AND 1 19 2 OF THE FOUR UNDER AGENDA ITEM H.
THE OTHER TWO AMENDMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER MARSHALL MILLS AND BY MS. PAULA HUTCHISON, A WEST DALLAS COMMUNITY LEADER I KNOW AND RESPECT, WHO TOO MANY TIMES HAS EXPERIENCED DECISIONS BEING MADE FOR HER AND FOR HER NEIGHBORS WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND INPUT.
I HAVE PRACTICED COMMUNITY AND CIVIC JOURNALISM IN DALLAS FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS, AND HAD A FRONT REVIEW OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE TRADITIONAL NEWS BUSINESS MODEL, WHICH UNDERMINED ITS PUBLIC SERVICE MODEL.
[00:05:01]
NONPROFIT NEWS PUBLICATION, DALLAS FREE PRESS, WITH THE BELIEF THAT ALL NEIGHBORHOODS DESERVE REPORTING AND STORYTELLING THAT VALUES THEIR COMMUNITIES AND HOLDS LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE.BUT HOW CAN RESIDENTS HOLD ACCOUNTABLE? WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW EXISTS AND WHAT THEY CANNOT KNOW IS COMING.
THAT IS THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF CIVIC JOURNALISM, YES, BUT IT ALSO IS THE IMPERATIVE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC IN A TIMELY AND INCLUSIVE MANNER.
IF THE CITY DOES NO MORE THAN CHECK BOXES, THEN IT FULFILLS THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT IT FAILS TO LIVE UP TO THE LAW'S INTENT EIGHT TIMES.
THE CITY CHARTER GIVES DIRECTION TO PUBLISH PUBLIC NOTICES IN QUOTE, A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO COMMUNITIES WHERE ALMOST NO ONE SUBSCRIBES? WE NEED TO MOVE FROM A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION TOWARD LOCAL NEWS PUBLICATIONS OF GENERAL ACCESSIBILITY.
I'VE WORKED WITH TOM LEATHERBERRY AND CLINT KNUCKLES OF SMU FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT COMPI THAT COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW AND ALSO PUSHES THE CITY TO LIVE UP TO ITS OWN STANDARDS OF BEING WELCOMING, INCLUSIVE, AND EQUITABLE.
THERE IS MORE WORK TO DO WITH CITY ORDINANCES AND WITH INTERNAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, BUT THIS AMENDMENT IS A SOLID STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF A MORE ROBUST PUBLIC NOTICE SYSTEM THAT WILL WITHSTAND A LOCAL NEWS LANDSCAPE STILL IN FLUX, AND WILL GIVE RESIDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE HOW THEY WANT TO BE INFORMED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND FOR YOUR SERVICE.
NEXT WE HAVE CHRISTINE HOPKINS.
I LIVE AT 1 1 1 8 ELMWOOD BOULEVARD IN DISTRICT ONE.
I AM HERE TO SUPPORT, UM, MY COLLEAGUE ALBERT MATA AND THE ITEMS THAT HE MENTIONED, WHICH ARE AMENDMENT 94, AGENDA ITEM M AND AMENDMENT 55, WHICH ARE YOUR AGENDA ITEMS, J AND KI THINK BOTH OF THESE, UH, CHANGES TO THE CITY CHARTER WILL IMPROVE OUR DEMOCRACY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND BRING, UM, MUCH NEEDED, UH, PATHS FORWARD FOR HIGHER CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND DIVERSITY.
UM, AMENDMENT M, WHICH WOULD ALLOW, UH, RESIDENT, ALL RESIDENTS, ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS TO SERVE ON VERY IMPORTANT CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IS REALLY, UH, A MATTER CLOSE TO MY HEART BECAUSE RIGHT HERE IN MY ELWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, I CAN THINK OF THREE PEOPLE IN MY CLOSE CIRCLE WHO ARE AMAZING, BUT THEY'RE LEGAL, UH, PERMANENT RESIDENTS OR DREAMERS.
AND WHILE THEY, THEIR VOLUNTEERISM IS ASTOUNDING IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF HOURS THEY'VE GIVEN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO OAK CLIFF, BOTH IN TERMS OF ART IN PROMOTING VOTER REGISTRATION AND, UM, SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION UNDER THE CURRENT CHARTER, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE, UM, ON SOME VERY IMPORTANT COMMISSIONS AND, AND BOARDS DESPITE THEIR, THEIR EMINENT QUALIFICATION TO DO SO AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DO SO.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD, UM, DEFINITELY PASS, UH, AMENDMENT 94 TO OPEN UP THOSE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO PEOPLE WITH, WITH, UM, GREAT CREDENTIALS AND VOLUNTEERISM IN THEIR HEARTS.
UM, ON AMENDMENT 55, THE PETITION PROCESS, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GIVE RESIDENTS A PATHWAY TO IM IMPACT AND CHANGE THE CITY GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN JUST CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
IF YOU, IF WE THINK ABOUT HOW LOW THE VOTER TURNOUT IS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS RIGHT NOW, A CITY COUNCIL PERSON, UH, MANY ARE ELECTED WITH JUST A COUPLE HUNDRED OR FEW HUNDRED VOTES, UM, AS COMPARED TO THEIR, THEIR OPPONENTS.
AND THOSE FOLKS ARE GIVEN THE MANDATE TO, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE WHATEVER ORDINANCE CHANGES THEY WANT AND TO VOTE ON THOSE.
THERE'S NO REASON THAT RESIDENTS SHOULD FACE INSURMOUNTABLE BURDENS OF COLLECTING, YOU KNOW, 70,000 PLUS SIGNATURES IN SUCH A SHORT TIME IN ORDER TO GET ORDINANCE, UH, PROPOSALS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND I THINK THERE'S A, A LOT OF GREAT REASONS TO ALLOW RESIDENTS, UM, THAT AVENUE TO REALLY ENGAGE WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND FEEL LIKE THEY'RE MAKING A DIFFERENCE.
AND IT COULD INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT, UM, INCREASE PEOPLE WILLING TO VOLUNTEER IN THE CITY, AND JUST PEOPLE HAVING A MORE POSITIVE, UH, VIEW THAT THE CITY IS WORKING FOR THEM AND THAT THINGS ARE NOT JUST BEING IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE CITY.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME AND MR.
[00:10:01]
MATA, AND I HOPE YOU'LL VOTE TO APPROVE 94 AND 55.I DON'T SEE HIM IN THE AUDIENCE.
SO IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION? IF SO, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU MAY BEGIN.
APOLOGIES, THOUGHT I WAS SIGNED UP.
UM, PHILLIP HYATT HAGUE, DISTRICT ONE.
I'M, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, YOU'RE ALSO GONNA GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ACTUALLY DURING THE, YOUR REVIEW.
THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I SIGNED UP.
ANYONE ELSE WILLING TO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION? OKAY.
LIKE ANYONE ELSE, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON.
UH, OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR OUR JANUARY 23RD MEETING.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE APPROVAL.
MOTION BY, UH, PATTY CLAP AND A SECOND BY CAMPBELL.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WE'LL BEGIN AT, SO WE WILL BEGIN A, A LIST OF AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR A EXCLUSION FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
THESE THREE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY DEPARTMENTS AND CITY ATTORNEYS.
AND BASED ON THAT REVIEW, AREN'T WE, HOLD ON, ARE WE MOVING SOMETHING OUT OF ORDER OR DO YOU WANNA DO THIS ONE FIRST AND THEN GO TO THE NEXT ONE THERE? UM, SORRY.
AND CITY ATTORNEYS, BASED ON THAT REVIEW, RECOMMENDED FOR EXCLUSION, THIS IS THE SAME METHOD WE USED AS OUR LAST MEETING TO VOTE ON A LIST OF 25 AMENDMENTS.
AS AMENDMENTS CONTINUE TO BE REVIEWED, THERE MAY BE MORE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THIS MANNER.
ON A FUTURE AGENDA, REMEMBER THE INTENT FOR THIS ITEM IS THAT THE LIST BE TAKEN AS A WHOLE.
IN THIS CASE, ONLY ONE MOTION IS REQUIRED TO EXCLUDE THE ENTIRE LIST FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS ON THE LIST FIRST.
UH, SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL, I'LL MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVERYTHING IN AGENDA ITEM A.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND AND SECOND DISCUSSION.
I JUST SEE LIKE, AGAIN, LIKE YOU'RE GONNA PUSH YOUR BUTTON.
IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE, UM, ITEM P UP FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, ON JANUARY 23RD, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RETURN WITH LANGUAGE THAT REFLECTED MORE NARROW PARAMETERS FOR THIS LANGUAGE.
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS SUBMITTED SUGGESTED LANGUAGE AMENDING THIS SECTION.
YOU HAVE IT AS PART OF YOUR HANDOUTS FOR TONIGHT.
I WILL OPEN IT TO A MOTION AND DISCUSSION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO I NEED A MO? NO ONE TO MAKE.
WHY DON'T YOU READ THE ACTUAL, LIKE, LIKE READ THAT SO THAT THEY KNOW WHICH ONE.
IT'S LIKE THE, OR WHERE AM I AT? SO YOU, YOU READ THAT PART, RIGHT? OH, SORRY, I SKIPPED.
I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GONNA BE CHAIR UNTIL A COUPLE HOURS AGO.
SO, YEAH, SO THE PROPOSALS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT.
SO READ, LIKE, READ ALL OF THIS BLACKBOARD.
TO CLARIFY, WHICH, WHICH ITEM ARE WE ON? WE'RE GONNA DO P SO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS SHALL DEVOTE THEIR ENTIRE TIME TO THE SERVICE OF THE CITY IN CHAPTER SEVEN DASH TWO.
THIS ITEM WAS HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ON JANUARY 23RD.
DO Y'ALL KNOW NOW WHERE WE'RE AT? WHICH ONE WE'RE, OKAY.
SO I'D HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM TO DISCUSS SO WE CAN DISCUSS.
MS. PALOMINO, UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT DO WE HAVE PART-TIME CITY ATTORNEYS THAT WORK FOR THE CITY? IS, WOULD THIS BE APPLIED TO PART-TIME EMPLOYEES? WE DO NOT HAVE PART-TIME ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS IN OUR OFFICE, YES.
[00:15:01]
THANK YOU.UM, MS. PALAMINO, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN THAT THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FOR APPROVED PRO BONO REPRESENTATION? WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, AND I THINK OUR CONCERN IS WHAT THE PRO BONO WORK WOULD BE, AND THAT WE'RE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
AND SO ALL OF OUR TIME WHILE WE'RE ON THE CITY CLOCK, HAS TO BE DEVOTED TO THE CITY WORK.
SO IT WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, AFTER HOURS OF THE PRO BONO WORK WOULD BE DONE.
AND SO, UM, I THINK WE'RE CONCERNED WITH HAVING CONFLICTS IF WE'RE ALLOWING PRO BONO WORK.
WELL, IF, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, THAT SATISFIES ME.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, UH, AND YOU'LL PROBABLY HEAR ME ASK THIS MORE THAN ONCE TONIGHT, BUT WHAT, WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? WELL, I DIDN'T, OUR OFFICE DID NOT REQUEST THIS CHANGE.
UM, AT CURRENTLY IT SAYS THAT ALL CITY ATTORNEYS, UH, AND THE ASSISTANTS HAVE TO DEVOTE ALL OF THEIR TIME.
I THINK IT'S TO AVOID THAT CONFLICT.
AND BECAUSE WE ARE CITY EMPLOYEES THAT, UM, WE HAVE TO USE CITY FUNDS FOR CITY PURPOSES.
WE DO HAVE, UM, OUR OWN INTERNAL, UH, GENERAL POLICY AND PROCEDURES WHERE, UM, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS CAN COME AND ASK PERMISSION TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.
UM, AND AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A CONFLICT, IT'S NOT WITHIN, YOU KNOW, THE SCOPE OF THEIR TIME AT WORK THAT, YOU KNOW, ON A CASE BY CASE, WE CURRENTLY DO APPROVE SOME OF THE OUTSIDE WORK, BUT I NOTICED THE NEW LANGUAGE ABOUT TALKING ABOUT, WELL, WITH APPROVAL, BUT THAT THE PERSON COULD WORK FOR A FAMILY MEMBER OR FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF.
AND IS THAT LANGUAGE THAT, THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH? WE WERE ASKED, YES.
WE WERE ASKED TO DR TO DRAFT THIS LANGUAGE.
I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION, UM, ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE COULD LIVE WITH.
UM, AND THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS, WHEN THEY DO HAVE SOME MATTERS THAT DON'T CONFLICT, OR THEY, THEIR, THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS NEED HELP WITH A LEGAL MATTER, UM, THAT IT DOESN'T, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T CONFLICT AND THEY GET OUR APPROVAL, THAT THEY CAN DO THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
BUT IT, IT DOES STRIKE ME, IF YOU DON'T MIND THAT, THAT THE CITY HAS SO MANY TENTACLES THAT WE DO.
THE MINUTE THAT YOU DO START DOING WORK FOR A FAMILY MEMBER WHO'S IN TROUBLE, OR FOR A CASE THAT EVENTUALLY YOU'LL PROBABLY, YOU COULD RUN INTO THE CITY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT, IT SEEMS EASIER TO JUST SAY, NO, YOU'RE WORKING FOR THE CITY.
WELL, IF YOU NOTICE THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
BUT, AND THEN WE HAVE INTERNAL CONTROLS AS WELL THAT WE PUT IN PLACE IN OUR OFFICE.
SO, DO WE REALLY NEED THIS IN YOUR OPINION? I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY FOR OUR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS TO HELP THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS OUT IF THEY NEED IT.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, DIVORCE OR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, UH, ESTATE WORK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OFF HOURS.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, STILL RECOGNIZING THAT THEIR TIME NEEDS TO BE DEVOTED TO THE CITY BECAUSE THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS.
JUST MY LAST CON, THAT SEEMS TO BE A, A CONFLICT TO ME THAT THERE A CONFLICT IS GOING TO COME UP.
I'D RATHER HAVE MY CITY ATTORNEYS WORKING FOR MY, MY CITY.
I HAVE, YOU KNOW, NO OPINION ON I LEAVING IT THE SAME.
WE'LL STILL ALLOW US TO, ON A CASE BY CASE, UM, APPROVED TIME FOR PEOPLE TO DO SMALL PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF CITY TIME, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH CITY, UM, EMPLOYMENT CITY HOURS.
AND IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, IT, THEY'RE NOT, UH, ADVERSE.
WE WERE JUST ASKED TO, YOU KNOW, DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE.
AND SO I THINK THIS WAS A, A RESIDENT WHO PROPOSED THIS CHANGE.
SO YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ASK FOR THAT TO BE PUT IN? NO, I WOULD NOT HAVE.
SO, AND THEN COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, I THINK, I THINK THERE'S SOME WISDOM IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD ISSUES WITH THIS THAT I KNOW OF.
UM, CERTAINLY I'VE LIVED IT AND WE'VE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, APPROVING TEACHING AND SOME OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT WERE, THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PAST.
AND I FEEL LIKE MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT WHEN THE LANGUAGE WAS ASKED LAST MEETING TO COME BACK ON THIS, IT WAS TO CLARIFY OR ESSENTIALLY GIVE A, A SPECIFIC, UM, APPROVAL THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD APPROVE OTHER TYPES OF ACTIVITIES THAT WERE NOT IN CONFLICT OR NOT REPRESENTING, NOT NOT JUST LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
AND SO I DON'T SEE THAT PART IN HERE.
I SEE THE, THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS WHAT IT SAYS HERE.
IT MIGHT EVEN CODIFY IT MORE STRICTLY.
IT SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEYS WITH THE CITY'S ATTORNEY APPROVAL ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS MAY REPRESENT THEMSELVES AND ASSIST FAMILY MEMBERS IN LEGAL MATTERS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE THE CITY.
THAT SEEMS ALMOST TO EXCLUDE MORE, THAT MAYBE THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED
[00:20:01]
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY BECAUSE IT'S SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING THEM.I I WOULD THINK THAT THAT MIGHT, THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF WHAT OUR DISCUSSION WAS THE LAST TIME.
NO, AND I DON'T READ THE LANGUAGE, UM, HERE WHERE IT SAYS THIS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HAS TO DEVOTE ALL THEIR TIME.
I, THAT MEANS TO ME THEY'RE LEGAL TIME, BUT IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE TEACHING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT, UM, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS COME TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ASK FOR PERMISSION TO DO, INCLUDING TEACHING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES.
I, I GUESS THIS LANGUAGE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, IF IT'S HELPFUL OR NECESSARY, UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT SAID OR PUT IN THE CHARTER THAT GAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY SPECIFIC EXPLICIT PERMISSION TO ALLOW OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT WERE EITHER NOT IN CONFLICT OR NOT THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
I THINK THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS.
WELL, I, UNDER I, I DON'T HAVE THAT ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A LOT BROADER THAN WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.
AND MY, WE WERE ASKED TO NARROW IT BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS DOING, UH, WORK THAT MIGHT EVENTUALLY CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE DO HERE AT THE CITY.
AND WE DO HAVE A LOT OF TENTACLES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE GET APPROVAL TO DO WORK OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS WITH THE CITY IS IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE POINT RIGHT THERE, IS I WANT OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO HAVE PERMISSION MM-HMM.
CERTAINLY WITHIN THE CONCEPTS OF THEIR TIME WORKING FOR THE CITY.
AND THEN ANYTHING ELSE THAT COULD BE CONFLICT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THIS LANGUAGE.
BUT I'M, I'M OPEN TO ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
UH, SO IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, UH, SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THERE HASN'T BEEN THIS ISSUE IN THE PAST.
SO IN RECENT HISTORY, AT LEAST SINCE YOU'VE BEEN CITY ATTORNEY, THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN CONFLICTS BETWEEN NO.
I MEAN, ALL THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS WHO WANT TO DO ADDITIONAL WORK WOULD COME AND, AND, UM, DESCRIBE IT AND GET PERMISSION AND THERE'S A CONFLICTS CHECK JUST TO MAKE SURE AND ALL THAT.
AND LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE, UM, INTERNAL PROCEDURES FOR ALL OF THAT THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF AND HOW THEY COME AND GET, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING PERMISSION TO DO THE OTHER WORK.
SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO CHOOSE A SIDE HERE, BUT LIKE, WHAT IS MOST RATIONAL HERE? IS IT JUST TO TOTALLY SCRAP THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OR TO GO WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD, THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED? MAYBE THAT IS ASKING YOU TO CHOOSE A SIDE, BUT I'M NOT INTENDING TO, I JUST WANNA KNOW, I WANNA BE THE MOST INFORMED HERE.
I MEAN, I, I WOULD'VE PROBABLY MADE THAT CHANGE, UH, WHEN WE CAME FORWARD WITH OUR CHANGES IF I THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NO ONE ELSE? NO.
SO DO SOMEONE WANT TO, DO YOU NEED A MAKE MOTION MOTION? I KNOW.
UH, I WOULD, UM, MAKE A MOTION TO EXCLUDE THIS ITEM FROM CONSIDERATION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FOR THE CHARTER.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AND DISCUSSION NOW ON SAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, SAY AYE.
SKIP AROUND ONE MORE TIME AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO M UH, UH, AMEND CHAPTERS 4 15 16 17 TO ALLOW RESIDENTS TO SERVE ON THE REDISTRICT COMMISSION, THE PLAN, COMMISSION, THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, AND THE PARK DIRECTION BOARD INSTEAD OF CITIZENS.
IS THIS THE ONE I'M READING? RIGHT.
INSTEAD OF CITIZENS OR REGISTERED VOTERS.
UM, THIS WAS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.
THANK CHAIR, UH, IN LIGHT OF SOME CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION, STATE REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL AND SHIA, UH, I THINK HE HAS SOME COMMENTS HE'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION.
AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I'D LIKE TO TO MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL A LATER TIME.
UH, THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ITEM.
THIS IS, THIS IS THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ITEM.
SO I TOLD YOU I WAS GETTING 93, 94 MIXED UP.
FIRST OFF, I WANNA THANK ALL THE SPEAKERS WHO CAME TO SPEAK ON THIS TONIGHT AND MENTIONED THAT THIS AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN DC THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE BORDER RIGHT NOW IN EAGLE PASS, BUT IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH, I THINK, THE WAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED FAIRLY AND JUSTLY AND WITH MORALITY, UH, AS IF THEY'RE
[00:25:01]
RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.UM, TWO QUICK THINGS AND, UH, OUR SPEAKER, MR. MATA ALREADY MENTIONED, ONE OF THEM IS THAT IF YOU LIVE IN THIS CITY, YOU'RE PAYING TAXES.
EITHER YOU'RE CONDUCTING BUSINESS HERE OR YOU'RE TRANSACTING IN GOODS AND WITH GOODS AND SERVICES, OR MAYBE YOU OPERATE YOUR OWN BUSINESS, YOU'RE BEING TAXED WHENEVER YOU'RE DOING THAT.
AND TO DEPRIVE SOMEONE OF THE RIGHT TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY ON A BOARD AND COMMISSION, BUT ALSO DEMAND THAT THEY PAY TAXES, TO ME IS JUST ABSURD.
AND FURTHER, THE REST OF THE BOARD'S, COMMISSIONS AND TASK FORCE THAT ARE GOVERNED BY CITY ORDINANCE HAVE ALREADY HAD THIS CHANGE HAPPEN EITHER IN 2018 OR 2021.
SOMEONE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME OUT WITH THAT.
SO THE OTHER TASK FORCE AND COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS THAT ARE JUST BASED IN CITY ORDINANCE, NOT IN THE CITY CHARTER.
AGAIN, THIS AMENDMENT ONLY ADDRESSES THE FOUR CHARITABLE, UH, OR CHARTER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
THEY'RE OTHER ONES HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT CHANGE.
SO TO MAKE THIS CHANGE NOW JUST TO BE, MAKE TO, TO BRING THE CHARTER CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY APPROVED.
AND THEN LASTLY, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, THESE ARE VOLUNTEER POSITIONS.
IF YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE, BUT THESE ARE VOLUNTEER POSITIONS AND IT TAKES A LOT OF HOURS AND A LOT OF WORK, AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, CITY COUNCIL HAS A HARD TIME FILLING THESE BECAUSE IT'S A, IT IS A LOT OF, IT'S A BIG TIME COMMITMENT.
AND TO PRECLUDE SOMEONE FROM WANTING TO VOLUNTEER FOR THE CITY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY EITHER HAVEN'T REGISTERED TO VOTE OR HAVE A LEGAL BARRIER TO REGISTER TO VOTE TO ME AGAIN, IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR.
AGAIN, WE HAVE A SYSTEM HERE WHERE YOU CAN SERVE ON SOME BOARDS IF THEY'RE IN THE, IN THE, IF THEY'RE DICTATED IN CITY BY CITY ORDINANCE, BUT YOU CAN'T SERVE ON OTHERS IF YOU ARE, UH, IF THEY'RE DICTATED BY THE CITY CHARTER.
TO ME, THE INCONSISTENCY ALONE IS A REASON TO FIX THIS.
BUT THE INJUSTICE ITSELF, AS, AS ARTICULATED BY TWO OF OUR SPEAKERS, UM, IS APPARENT AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED.
UH, ONE MORE THING, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY A QUESTION ON THIS.
UH, IF SOMEONE IS A, OR CITY, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SORRY.
IF SOMEONE IS AN LPR OR IS HERE ON ONE OF THE LAWFUL VISAS AND HAS THEIR WORK PERMIT, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE CITY? YEAH, LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO TO BECOME A CITY EMPLOYEE, UM, ONE MUST JUST BE ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
SO YOU COULD BE A CITIZEN, YOU COULD HAVE A RESIDENT GREEN CARD OR A, A WORK VISA, UM, OR WHATEVER ELSE THE FEDERAL LAW WOULD REQUIRE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, RIGHT NOW, SOMEONE COULD BE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED BY THE CITY ELIGIBLE FOR ELIGIBLE FOR CIVIL SERVICE, ALL THE BENEFITS THAT COMES WITH, BUT COULDN'T SERVE ON THE PARKS BOARD.
IS THAT CORRECT? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? SO SOMEONE COULD BE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED BY THE CITY, BUT ALSO COULD NOT BE ON THE PARKS BOARD, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
NOPE, AND I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL HAVE? THANK YOU.
UH, LET'S GO WITH COMMISSIONER YOUNG, THEN WE'LL GO WITH DEL FUENTE.
AND THEN THE MASTER, I FIND AS I GET OLDER, I NOT ONLY FORGET THINGS THAT DID HAPPEN, BUT I REMEMBER THINGS THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
SO MY QUESTION IS EITHER FOR STAFF OR FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY OR FOR WHOEVER KNOWS, UH, I SEEM TO RECALL A SIMILAR AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED AND BEING DEFEATED AT THE BALLOT BOX.
AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD HAVE TO DO RESEARCH ON THAT.
I, I'M NOT SURE CITY ATTORNEYS? YES.
THIS IS WILLOW SANCHEZ FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
IN 2021, THERE WERE, THERE WAS A BALLOT INITIATIVE, UH, THAT READ ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT A MEMBER OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION CREATED BY THE CITY CHARTER BE REGISTERED OR QUALIFIED TO VOTE.
UH, THAT PROPOSITION LOST AND THE, UM, PERCENTAGES AGAINST WAS 65% AND IN FAVOR 35%.
AND WHETHER OR NOT THE WORDING WAS PRECISELY THE SAME AS IN YOUR MEMORANDUM FOR TONIGHT, THE GIST OF THE AMENDMENT THEN WAS THE SAME AS THE GIST OF THIS AMENDMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? WAS THAT ELE, WAS THAT VOTE IN A MAY OR A NOVEMBER ELECTION? IF YOU GIVE ME ONE QUICK MOMENT,
[00:30:07]
I CAN VERIFY IN A MOMENT.THE CITY SECRETARY SAYS IT WAS MAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, UM, IF YOUR AMENDMENT PASSES NON-CITIZENS WOULD NOT GAIN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT, UH, NON-CITIZEN COULD NOT RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UH, THERE'S STILL A STOP GAP, CORRECT.
ON BOARDS AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS ARE STILL THROUGH CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE NOT JUST RANDOM INDIVIDUALS.
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING HERE, DO YOU THINK THAT IF A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WANTED TO APPOINT SOMEBODY TO A BORDER COMMISSION, DO YOU THINK THE MOST LIKELY CANDIDATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE A LONG-TERM GREEN CARD HOLDER? SOMEBODY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, THAT MIGHT BE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED BY THE CITY? MOST LIKELY.
AND SPEAKING OF THE 2021, UH, SITUATION WHERE COUNCIL DID SEND THIS TO VOTERS, UH, A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL THAT VOTED FORWARD IS STILL ON COUNCIL.
THAT VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS MAYOR ERIC JOHNSON.
COUNCIL MEMBERS CHAD WEST, JAIME RESENDEZ, OMAR NVAS, ADAM VASALDUA, TANELLE ATKINS, PAULA BLACKMAN, KARA MENDELSON.
SO WE ALREADY KNOW A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL SUPPORTED THIS EVEN JUST THREE YEARS AGO, CORRECT? I BELIEVE ONE OF OUR MEMBERS ON THE COMMISSION TOO.
OH, AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, ADAM MADANO AND CASEY THOMAS, WHO HAVE LEFT COUNCIL ALSO VOTED FORWARD WITH 10, 10 MEMBERS VOTED FOR THIS ON COUNCIL.
EIGHT OF THEM ARE STILL ON COUNCIL.
UH, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS, UH, I I I THINK THE WAY I VIEW THIS IS NOT EMOTIONAL.
I THINK IT'S ALLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS THE DISCRETION TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR DISTRICT.
I PUT MY DISTRICT IN THE UNITED STATES CENSUS DATABASE MAPPED OVER IT.
I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THAT DISTRICT ONE, LIKE MOST DISTRICTS, HAS 90,000 RESIDENTS.
OF THOSE 90,000, 68,000 OR VOTING AGE POPULATION, 18 ABOVE OF THOSE 68,000 ONLY, UH, OR 51,000 ARE CITIZEN VOTING.
AGE POPULATION, MEANING 25% OF DISTRICT ONES ABOVE 18 AND ABOVE POPULATION DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE CURRENT PRACTICES HERE, I FEEL LIKE DISTRICT ONE IS DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY THE CURRENT CHARTER AND THAT OUR COUNCIL DISTRICT HAS ITS POOL AUTOMATICALLY LIMITED COMPARED TO A LOT OF THE REST OF THE CITY.
SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT.
UH, AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP MR. CAMPBELL.
I KNOW THIS IS A DIFFICULT ISSUE AND WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION, STUART AND I DID, UH, EARLIER TODAY.
IT, AND FOR SOME IT'S A MORAL ISSUE.
IT IT'S AN IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUE.
BUT I HAVE ONE OVERRIDING CONCERN.
I THINK I'M THE ONLY PERSON HERE THAT'S RUN THREE CHARTER ELECTIONS IN DALLAS, I THINK.
NOW I KNOW YOU'VE ALL PARTICIPATED, BUT, AND THEY'RE HARD TO WIN.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THEY'RE HARD TO WIN IS PEOPLE GO IN 15 AMENDMENTS, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST SOMETHING AND THEY FIND SOMETHING TO VOTE AGAINST.
UH, THE BIGGER PROBLEM IS THIS, AND IT'S A POLITICAL PROBLEM.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHO'S ON THE BALLOT FOR THE PRESIDENT PRESIDENCY THIS YEAR? OR WHO WE THINK IT IS? MR. TRUMP AND MR. BIDEN.
AND I THINK IT'S A HUGE PROBLEM.
I THINK THIS ISSUE COULD DRAW PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT WE PROPOSE BECAUSE IT WILL DRAW MAGA VOTERS.
IT WILL, I KNOW SOME OF YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, AND WE, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO STOP THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA GO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT.
IF YOU MEAN 9 MILLION PEOPLE IN TEXAS VOTED, UH, IN 2020, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE JUST OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH.
AND LET'S JUST PRETEND THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF MONEY TO RUN OUR CHARTER CAMPAIGN AND WE'RE AT THE END OF THE BALLOT RIGHT AFTER THEY GO THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND THEN THEY SAY, OH, WE GOTTA KEEP GOING, BUT, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.
AND WE, WE COULD RUN A TV CAMPAIGN RIGHT, ON A CHARTER ISSUE.
TV STATIONS IF WE HAD MONEY, WHICH WE WON'T.
TV STATIONS DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TAKE OUR MONEY 'CAUSE THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE FEDERAL MONEY AND THEY'LL BE OUT OF TIME AGAIN, IF YOU JUST IMAGINE
[00:35:01]
THAT, UH, I, I THINK IT'S A WORTHY THING TO KEEP DISCUSSING AND FINE TUNE, BUT I THINK TO DO IT THIS YEAR IS CRAZY.AND I THINK IT'S, IT SPELLS DEFEAT DEFINITELY FOR THIS ISSUE.
AND I THINK IT SPELLS TROUBLE FOR ANYTHING WE PUT ON THE BALLOT.
I WILL SAY THAT TO, UH, THE ELECTION IN 2021, THE FOUR VOTE WAS 20, WAS 35% FOR AND 65% AGAINST.
AND THAT DOESN'T, I I, I GET THE MORAL ISSUE, BUT I'M SAYING TROUBLE, TROUBLE IN RIVER CITY IF WE PUT THIS ON BALLOT IN NOVEMBER, 2024, THAT'S ALL.
WE CAN'T, I MEAN, IF MR. TRUMP IS GONNA BE SPENDING MONEY, WHICH WE THINK HE WILL, RIGHT.
BUT WE CAN'T OUTSPEND HIM AND WE CAN'T EVEN, WE CAN'T EVEN BUY THE TIME IF WE HAD MONEY TO BUY THE TIME.
SO, SO TO ME, NOT NOW, NOT THIS YEAR, BUT KEEP WORKING ON THAT.
UM, I WOULD JUST SAY I WAS INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION THE LAST TIME.
Y'ALL DID NOT READ MY NAME AS ONE OF THE NAMES THAT SUPPORTED IT THE LAST TIME.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WAS IN FACT, JUST WHAT COMMISSIONER LAMA TALKED ABOUT IT.
I DID NOT THINK IT WOULD PASS THE VOTE, AND I STILL DON'T THINK IT WILL.
AND I DO THINK THERE'S ENOUGH NEGATIVITY THAT WOULD SURROUND IT, THAT IT COULD HURT SOME OF THE REST OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.
AND SO, UM, FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT SUPPORTING IT AT THIS TIME.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER STEIN, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.
CAN A PERSON SERVE ON A JURY TRIAL IN DALLAS? IT'S NOT A CITIZEN, A REGISTERED VOTER? NO.
UH, JURORS MUST BE REGISTERED VOTERS.
JURORS MUST BE REGISTERED VOTERS.
THAT'S HOW JURORS ARE SELECTED BY GOING THROUGH THE VOTER REGISTRY.
SO THERE'S A ISSUE IN DALLAS, A PERSON THAT'S SITTING ON THE BOARD IS NOT EVEN QUALIFIED TO BE A JURY.
IF WE WAS TO PASS THIS, IF THIS ITEM WERE TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, THEN YES, THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE ELIGIBLE TO BE, TO SIT ON THESE FOUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHO WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE, UH, TO SERVE ON A JURY.
SO I I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, IT SHOWS ENOUGH ENFORCEMENT, YOU KNOW, FOR A PERSON NOT TO BE A REGISTERED VOTER OR WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT COMMUNITY THIS PERSON COULD LIVE IN.
I THINK WE OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS THAT WE CAN'T CLOSE IF WE WAS TO PASS THIS.
SO I I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING IT EITHER.
I JUST WANNA SAY I AGREE WITH, UH, MS. LAMA'S COMMENTS.
UH, I THINK THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE, CONTINUE TO BE DISCUSSED, BUT I THINK THIS IS THE WRONG TIME TO PUT THIS ITEM ON THE BALLOT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I DO, MR. CHAIR.
UM, I, I'M VERY TORN ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IN ISOLATION.
I, I WOULD SUPPORT, UM, FOR ALL RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT, THAT THEY LIVE IN.
AND I, I DO GET THE POINTS THAT IF PLACED ON THE BALLOT, IT'S AT HIGH RISK OF BEING VOTED DOWN.
BUT IF NOT NOW, WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SO MANY TIMES WHERE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN AFFORDED TO THEM BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE SAYS IT'S NOT THE RIGHT TIME, WAIT ON IT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
AND THEN YOU ARE WAITING 10 YEARS.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS OR WHAT MECHANISM, UH, FOR THIS TWO PASS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, TAKES TAKE AWAY OUR, OUR CHARGE TO KEEP TRYING TO PUSH THE BALL FORWARD.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT OUR CITIZENS ARE, ARE WISE ENOUGH TO DISCERN BETWEEN DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS AND MAKE CHOICES ACCORDING TO WHAT THEIR BELIEFS ARE.
'CAUSE EVEN IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT ALL RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY ARE ABLE TO, UH, VOLUNTEER AND PARTICIPATE ON
[00:40:01]
BOARDS AND, AND COMMISSIONS, I DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY, UH, CHANGES THE, THE, THE COLOR OF INTENT OF OTHER AMENDMENTS AND HOW THEY MAY VOTE.I'M, I'M VERY TORN ON IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
UH, I WANNA ADDRESS TWO THINGS THAT COMMISSIONER LEMASTER BROUGHT UP THAT OTHERS HAVE REFERENCED.
THE FIRST, I GENUINELY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, UM, BUT I DO WANT TO PAUSE IT.
AND IT'S THE NOTION THAT ONE UNPOPULAR MEASURE WOULD SINK THE OTHERS.
AGAIN, DON'T HAVE ANY ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN FRONT OF ME, BUT BASED ON STUDYING MULTIPLE BALLOT MEASURE, UH, GROUPINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED HERE IN DALLAS AND OTHER TEXAS CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, I'M NOT SURE THAT THEORY WOULD REALLY HOLD UP.
UM, IN PRI IN, IN THE REAL WORLD EXAMPLES.
WE SEE, I THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE CASE THAT I'VE BROUGHT UP MANY, MANY TIMES OF DOWN IN AUSTIN WHERE THEY VOTED ON MOVING THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, WHICH PASSED WITH OVER TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, RANK CHOICE VOTING PASSED WITH OVER 50% OF THE VOTE.
STRONG MAYOR WAS PACKAGED ALONG WITH IT AND GOT 15% OF THE VOTE, WHICH IS ABOUT A 50 POINT DELTA.
EVEN THOUGH THE GROUP THAT PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, UH, TRIED TO PACKAGE IT TOGETHER, VOTERS DID DISTINGUISH IT.
THE OTHER THING I WILL SAY REGARDING THIS NOT BEING THE TIME, I THINK IF THIS COMMISSION DECIDES THIS IS A CHANGE WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO THE CHARTER, AND IF COUNCIL REAFFIRMS THEIR PAST DECISION FROM 2021, THAT THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE THIS CHANGED IN THE CITY CHARTER NOVEMBER OF 2024.
A PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE IS PROBABLY THE MOST LIKELY SHOT WE HAVE WITH VOTERS TO ACTUALLY GET THIS PASSED AS OPPOSED TO A MAY ELECTION.
VOTER TURNOUT WILL BE MUCH HIGHER.
THE COMPOSITION OF THE ELECTOR AT THAT ELECTORATE WOULD BE GENERALLY MORE FRIENDLY TOWARDS THESE, UH, NOTIONS.
UH, THE ONLY OTHER CASE OF A CITY THAT I AM AWARE OF THAT PASSES AT THE BALLOT BOX, I BELIEVE DID THIS DURING A PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE.
UM, I THINK DALLAS'S ATTEMPT TO DO THIS DURING A MAY COUNCIL ELECTION WAS PERHAPS UNWISE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF WHAT WE WERE, UH, TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BACK THEN.
AND IF WE WANT TO MAKE THIS CHANGE TO THE CHARTER, DOING IT IN THIS PROCESS WOULD MAKE MORE LOGICAL SENSE TO ME THAN A, AN EVENTUAL SPECIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, I'LL, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
I THINK IT'S FOR THE REASON AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATOR AND AS A MOM WHO'S FIGHTING FOR, UM, MY BOYS, RIGHT? TO GET MORE CIVICALLY ENGAGED, I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY.
AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND I, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN SAID ABOUT IF, IF NOT NOW, WHEN I THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AND A DUTY TO ALLOW MORE, MORE VOICES.
AND I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER LAF TALKED ABOUT, RIGHT? IT'S STILL A APPOINTMENTS THAT ARE DONE.
IT'S NOT JUST ANYONE THAT CAN SERVE.
THEY ARE VETTED THROUGH A PROCESS, WHETHER THAT'S A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR SUCH, BUT ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY.
I SEE SO MANY STUDENTS OUT, A LOT OF THEM, UH, DACA RECIPIENTS, RIGHT? THAT ARE OUT THERE ACTIVE VOLUNTEERING, DOING EVERYTHING, BUT CANNOT HAVE A, A SEAT AT THE TABLE TO, TO GIVE THEIR OPINION.
'CAUSE I THINK THEY DEFINITELY BRING A PERSPECTIVE OF A GROWING GENERATION IN OUR CITY.
COMMISSIONER LARA, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UH, SECOND WHAT COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN SAID.
I ALSO HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR THIS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC.
AND I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER LEMASTER SAID ABOUT THE TIMING IS PROBABLY ACCURATE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I, I DO AGREE IF IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS RIGHT TO DO, THEN THAT SHOULD BE THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND WHETHER THE COUNCIL MOVES IT FORWARD AND WHETHER THE PUBLIC MOVES IT FORWARD IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
SO I, I KNOW THERE'S NOT A MOTION YET, BUT I DEFINITELY WANNA SPEAK.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UM, IT'S, UM, I MEAN, I GUESS FOR SOME OF Y'ALL IT'S PRETTY, UM, DALLAS IS BLUE.
BIDEN'S GONNA CARRY THIS CITY.
I THINK THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE OF IT MAY BE PASSING THIS TIME.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA DO IT.
I DO THINK THAT OUR VOTERS ARE, ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT, HEY, I'M GONNA VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT, THIS AMENDMENT.
NO, I'M NOT GONNA DO THAT ONE.
WE ALWAYS WANT TO GIVE IT, WE ALWAYS WANNA PUT SOMETHING, SOME OF THE TIMES THE DECISIONS THAT I MAKE HERE, I'D RATHER WE SEND IT TO THE VOTERS SOMETIMES TO LET THEM DECIDE.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT, ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.
BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING, UH, THIS MOTION
[00:45:01]
IF, WELL, HOPEFULLY THIS MOTION THAT YOU'RE GONNA MAKE, UH, COMMISSIONER HUNT.UM, DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION IN THE CHARTER FOR A RESIDENT? AND I MEAN, WHETHER THAT'S SOMEONE WHO'S LIVED HERE A DAY OR SIX MONTHS? COMMISSIONER HUNT.
NO, THE CHARTER DOES NOT CONTAIN A DEFINITION OF RESIDENT.
I DO THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME CRITERIA, UH, FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES RESIDENCY TO AND, AND NOT JUST FOR THIS, BUT I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME OTHER CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE, UM, TALKED ABOUT RESIDENT.
WE'RE WAITING FOR, OKAY, WE GO.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND THEN FRANKLIN.
MS. MORRISON, AM I CORRECT THAT THE DALLAS CITY CODE REQUIRES A BOARD APPOINTEE TO HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS? UH, YES.
THAT'S OUR DALLAS CITY CODE CHAPTER EIGHT ABOUT OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT ARE CREATED, UM, BY ORDINANCE.
OKAY, SO THAT WOULD NOT INDEPENDENTLY APPLY TO THE BOARDS THAT ARE CREATED BY CHARTER? WELL, IT WOULD EX BECAUSE THERE ARE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
CHAPTER EIGHT, UM, DEFINES BOARD OR COMMISSION AS CREATED BY ORDINANCE OR CHARTER, EXCEPT THAT THESE CHARTER PROVISIONS, UH, WITH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT, UM, HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, UM, IN THEIR SECTIONS, CREATING THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT SAY EITHER REGISTERED VOTER OR A QUALIFIED VOTER.
SO IT'S MORE SPECIFIC IN THE CHARTER.
SO IF THE CHARTER WERE AMENDED TO SAY RESIDENCE, WOULD THE SIX MONTH REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE CODE APPLY TO THESE CHARTER CREATED BOARDS OR WOULD IT NOT? YES, IT WOULD.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YOU WANT ME TO DO IT? DO YOU WANNA DO IT? OKAY, I'LL SECOND IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, GIVEN THE WAY THE DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE? UH, IT MIGHT BE WISE TO REQUEST A ROLL CALL VOTE BECAUSE THE A'S AND NAYES AND NAYS ARE PROBABLY GONNA BE ABOUT THE SAME.
UH, I GUESS WE'LL GO IN DISTRICT ORDER.
WELL, I THOUGHT I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT, UM, BUT I LOST IT.
I, I MEAN, I, I I'M NOT SURE IT'S RELEVANT, SO YOU NEED THIS? NO, I'M GOOD.
UM, DISTRICT ONE, MR. DE LAFONTE? YES.
UH, DISTRICT TWO? MR. SLE IS NOT HERE.
MR. STEIN, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE ON THIS? YES, SIR.
DISTRICT SEVEN, MR. CAMPBELL? YES.
AND DISTRICT 14, MRS. HUNT? YES.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAD SEVEN YESES AND SIX NOS.
[00:50:01]
NEXT UP WE HAVE, WE'RE GONNA GO TO L UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO.
REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL TO AMEND THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION'S.
RECOMMENDED DISTRICT PLAN FROM A THREE-FOURTHS MAJORITY VOTE TO A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE IN CHAPTER FOUR, FIVE B SIX.
UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UH, AGAIN, IN LIGHT OF THIS IS THE CORRECT AMENDMENT THIS TIME IN LIGHT OF THE CORRESPONDENCE WE RECEIVED FROM REPRESENTATIVE.
UH, AND SHE, UH, I WOULD MOTION TO TABLE THIS FOR A LATER DATE.
HE WAS KIND OF THE EXPERT BEHIND THIS, AND SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE AND IT'S FAIR FOR EVERYBODY IF WE GET HIM TO COME AND SPEAK, OR AT LEAST GIVE US A BRIEFING ON IT.
WE NEED TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT TO DATE CERTAIN.
SO WANT TO CALL THAT BACK MARCH, MARCH 5TH.
WOULD I NEED TO RENEW MY, DO IT AGAIN, MY MOTION.
MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL MARCH 5TH.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT 15.
PROHIBIT THE CREATION OF JOBS EXEMPT FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE IN CHAPTER 16.
OUR FIRST AMENDMENT IS, AGENDA WAS NOT FIRST, BUT AGENDA ITEM B.
THIS PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. PHILIP KINGSTON, WHO IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY TONIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO GIVE MR. KINGSTON THREE MINUTES TO EXPAND ON HIS SUGGESTION AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS.
THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT'S DIRECTOR JARED DAVIS, IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
AS A REMINDER, WE LOOK FOR A MOTION TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE THIS FROM THE LIST FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
PLEASE REMEMBER, THESE AMENDMENTS ARE STARTING POINTS FOR OUR DISCUSSION.
IF WE DECIDE TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, THEN ORIGINAL VERSION SUBMITTED, ANYONE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DO SO.
MR. KINGSTON, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, THIS IS PHILLIP KINGSTON 5 9 0 1 PE PINTO.
SORRY FOR NOT BEING THERE WITH YOU IN PERSON.
THE, UH, THE ISSUE AND SOME OF YOUR, UM, MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS ALREADY, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK YOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE, UM, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, UM, THE, UH, SUCCESSIVE CITY MANAGERS HAVE, UH, DWINDLED THE PERCENTAGE OF CITY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PROTECTED BY CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS, BY HIRING THEM INTO WHAT ARE KNOWN AT CITY HALL AS OFFICES INSTEAD OF DEPARTMENTS AND GIVING THEM NO CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS.
UM, MY BASIC IDEA IS THAT ALL, UH, CITY EMPLOYEES DESERVE CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS.
THERE'S A CLASS OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES WHERE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, IN LINE WITH CITY MANAGEMENT.
BUT IN GENERAL, UM, IT'S A HUGE ORGANIZATION WITH OVER 12,000 EMPLOYEES, AND THEY NEED A GUARANTEED RIGHT TO PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE, UM, A DOCUMENTED, UH, DISCIPLINE PROCESS, UH, AND THE ABILITY TO, UH, ADDRESS GRIEVANCES TO THE CITY MANAGER.
UM, IT BASICALLY, UH, IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, I THINK COUNCIL HAS SHOWN A REAL STRONG PROCLIVITY TOWARD PROTECTING WORKERS.
UH, SO I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE VERY POPULAR IF YOU, IF YOU ALL WILL, UH, SEND IT ON TO COUNCIL.
I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GIVING YOU SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
WHEN I INITIALLY SUBMITTED IT, I HAD HOPED THAT CITY STAFF WOULD GENERATE LANGUAGE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS FAIRLY EASY.
[00:55:01]
IT'S, WE SIMPLY NEED SOME, SOME GUARDRAILS ON THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE SURE THAT CIVIL SERVICE ISN'T UNDERMINED BY HIRING PEOPLE UNDER THIS FICTION OF WORKING FOR AN OFFICE AS OPPOSED TO A DEPARTMENT.AND IF YOU'D LIKE AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OFFICE AND A DEPARTMENT IS, THEN I SUGGEST YOU ASK CITY MANAGEMENT BECAUSE IT SEEMS FICTIONAL TO ME.
SO I WOULD BE VERY APPRECIATIVE IF YOU WOULD SEND IT ON TO COUNCIL.
AND I PROMISE THAT I WILL GET YOU, UM, VERY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO, UH, ULTIMATELY VOTE ON IT OR BEFORE THEY DO.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION OR, OR DO YOU WANT A DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER? I WANT TO, UH, GOOD EVENING.
UH, I AGREE WITH, UH, MR. KINGSTON THAT THERE HAS BEEN A, AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF OFFICES WITHIN THE, UH, CITY OF DALLAS.
AND I, I UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERNS AND TO SOME EXTENT I SHARE THOSE.
BUT THE DRAFT LANGUAGE WE WERE PROVIDED SAYS NO ADDITIONAL EXEMPT POSITION SHALL BE CREATED AFTER DATE.
CERTAIN, TO ME, THAT IS TOO RESTRICTIVE FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD.
IT KIND OF TIES THE HANDS OF REORGANIZATION AND THE NEED FOR CHANGES IN POSITION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OH, COMMISSIONER HUNT.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.
UM, I THINK, UH, MR. KINGSON AND MAKE SOME IMPORTANT POINTS.
AND WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT OUR EMPLOYEES ARE, ARE GIVEN ALL THE PROTECTIONS OF CIVIL SERVICE.
DO, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
DISCUSSION MS. HUNT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I'M GONNA SAVE MY VOICE FOR LATER IN OUR MEETING.
ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD LIMIT, I MEAN, DOES THIS SOMEHOW LIMIT THE MANAGER'S, UH, ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT CHANGE? SO, DO WE HAVE STAFF HERE THAT CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS? I THINK, OH, HR IS DIRECT.
YOU'RE HERE, YOU GONNA COME? YES.
AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER MADANO, I HAVE AN EXAMPLE, UH, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT I WAS IN, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE CONSIDERING WAS ADDING ANOTHER EXECUTIVE LAYER, UH, THAT WOULD BE EXEMPT POSITIONS.
WOULD THAT BE PROHIBITED WITH THE LANGUAGE, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN? AND WHY DID YOU NEED THE OTHER POSITION JUST TO DEAL WITH THE SIZE OF THE DEPARTMENT? WAS THAT A QUESTION TO STAFF, OR DOES THAT JUST, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? BUT I CAN REDIRECT IT.
WHICH WAS, WHAT, WHAT IS THIS LIMIT OR HOW DO YOU SEE THIS LIMITING OR EXPANDING OF, UH, THE MANAGER'S ROLE? JENNY, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I'M A MEMBER OF THIS DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, ONE VERY PRACTICAL IMPLICATION OF THIS IS THAT IT WOULD, IN OUR OPINION, TIE THE HANDS OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE EVENT THAT THEY WANTED TO DO A REORGANIZATION AND MOVE EMPLOYEES FROM A DEPARTMENT OF TO AN OFFICE OF.
AND IN OUR OPINION, THE CITY NEEDS THE FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO SERVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.
UH, I'M DE EZ, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES.
I CONCUR, UH, WITH, UH, JENNY'S, UH, STATEMENT.
UM, AND ALTHOUGH THERE ARE, THERE IS DEFINITELY AN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE CLARITY, UH, ON THE ABILITIES AND, AND I WOULD SAY THE TYPE OF POSITIONS THAT BELONG IN, UH, CIVIL SERVICE.
AND WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THOSE POSITIONS? UH, LIMITING A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, OR TY IN THE HANDS OF THE CITY MANAGER TO CREATE SUCH POSITIONS WITHIN CERTAIN CATEGORIES OR WITHIN CERTAIN GUARDRAILS, UH, WILL BE DETRIMENTAL FOR OUR ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN THE TALENT THAT IS NEEDED TO RUN THE CITY.
CAN CAN YOU THINK OF ANY RECENT EXAMPLE WHERE THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO
[01:00:02]
A RECENT CHANGE OR CHANGE IN THE ORGANIZATION THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IF THIS WAS IN PLACE? WHAT I WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHAT COMES TO MIND ARE POSITIONS THAT ARE HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND DO NOT FEEL OR FIT WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF YOUR STANDARD EMPLOYMENT.I WILL SAY IT POSITIONS, POSITIONS RELATED TO SECURITY, DATA SECURITY, UM, THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF POSITIONS THAT ARE, DO NOT TYPICALLY FIT WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF CIVIL SERVICE BECAUSE THOSE POSITIONS REQUIRE MORE FLEXIBILITY.
UH, WHEN I WAS WITH DALLAS WATER UTILITIES, WE DID A REORGANIZATION AND TOOK STORM WATER UTILITIES WITHIN DALLAS WATER UTILITIES, PIECES OF STORMWATER AND OF DALLAS WATER UTILITIES WENT TO THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
SO THAT WAS A MAJOR REORGANIZATION THAT REQUIRED SOME STAFF GOING FROM CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENTS TO OFFICES.
AND THE TOTAL IMPACT WAS THREE OR 400 EMPLOYEES.
BUT IT HAS DEFINITELY BENEFITED THE CITY.
IT HAS BENEFITED THE STORMWATER UTILITY AND THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE OUR, OUR RESIDENTS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MS. HUNT? DO ARE YOU DID? I DON'T KNOW IF SHE DOES.
MR. CHAIR, DID YOU, YOUR, YOUR, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? I WASN'T SURE.
ALL LIKE, NO OTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS SAY AYE.
OH, CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? THE CAME FROM MS. HUNT AND, OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE IT THERE, MS. HUNT? I DO.
IT'S PROHIBIT THE CREATION OF JOBS EXEMPT FROM CIVIL SERVICE IN CHAPTER 16.
AND MS. HUNT, THAT WAS A MOVE TO A MOTION TO INCLUDE IT FOR CONSIDERATION OR EXCLUDE IT TO INCLUDE, TO INCLUDE.
I HAVE, MR. MADANO IS A SECOND.
HOW ABOUT THAT? AND THEN WE CAN
I COUNT SIX IN FAVOR? DID YOU COUNT ON MS. HUNT? YES.
UH, MR. MCGEE, HOW DO, HOW DO YOU VOTE? WELL, HE DOES, WE HAVE, DOESN'T WE HAVEN'T, HE, HE DIDN'T RAISE HIS HAND.
WELL, HE'S DRIVING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE YEAH, HE'S DRIVING.
SO ARE THOSE NOW ALL THOSE AGAINST, RAISE YOUR HAND.
I CA I COUNT FIVE FIVE AGAINST, SO, 1, 2, 3.
CAN CAN, CAN WE, CAN WE HAVE THE AYE RAISE THEIR HAND AGAIN? I'M SORRY.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I GET EVERYBODY'S VOTE.
I COUNT SIX, SO I STILL HAVE SIX.
AND SO THEN, THEN THERE'S TWO PEOPLE ON HERE, REMEMBER, SO, RIGHT, BUT I'VE, I'VE ONLY GOT 11 VOTES HERE.
SO CAN I HAVE THE NOSE RAISE THEIR HAND AGAIN? YOU CAN.
SO WITH SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR AND SIX VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION CARRIES FOR INCLUSION.
OKAY, I GOTTA FIND OUT WHERE I'M AT.
NEXT ITEM IS AMENDMENTS 90 AND 1 0 7.
CLARIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT THE RULES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD DESIGNATES, WHICH MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE IN CHAPTER 16 THREE B ONE.
SO THIS, UH, WAS SUBMITTED BY CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF
[01:05:01]
HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT.SO YOU GOT GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON.
WE SUBMIT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT SUBMITS THIS AMENDMENT TO CLEAN UP AND TO CLARIFY AND TO ELIMINATE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SECTION THREE, UM, SUBSECTION IN CHAPTER SIX 16, SECTION THREE, UM, SUBSECTION ONE, OR IN IT, IT, IT READS OR OTHER MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL AS DESIGNATED BY RULES OF THE BOARD.
BUT WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD TO SUBSECTION 11, SECTION A, WE SET OUT THAT, THAT THE, THAT EXEMPT POSITIONS ARE DETERMINED BY COUNSEL AND MR. CHAIR.
SOME OF THAT IS DETERMINED WHEN WE ANNUALLY SET THE PCA DURING THE BUDGET SETTING EXERCISE, WHERE WE DETERMINE WHAT OUR MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL, WHAT AREN'T.
AND SO WHEN WE WERE UPDATING OUR CIVIL SERVICE RULES AS A MATTER OF OPERATIONS, WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS THIS, THIS ISSUE THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE WITH THIS RULE AMENDMENT IS, OR WITH THIS LANGUAGE AMENDMENT, WOULD ALLOW CITY COUNCIL ANNUALLY TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE THE POSITIONS THAT ARE IN THE MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL VERSUS THOSE THAT AREN'T WHEN WE SET AND ADD POSITIONS, UM, TO THE PCA OR TO THE OVERALL BUDGET.
AND SO WE, THERE'S A CONFLICT THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW IN THE CHARTER BETWEEN WHO SETS WHO DETERMINES MANAGERIAL.
AND SO WE WANT TO DEFER TO CITY COUNCIL AND NOT NECESSARILY TO THE RULES OF THE BOARD.
AND THAT'S EMANATING FROM THE WORK THAT THE BOARD UNDERTOOK IN REVISING ITS RULES.
AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE, WE SYNCHRONIZE THAT LANGUAGE HERE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT DEALS WITH.
IS THERE A MOTION OR DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CLAP.
I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT.
AGAIN, DISCUSSION INCLUDE IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
IT'S, UH, AMEND CHAPTER 16 SIX TO REFLECT THAT REORGANIZATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND FORCE SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER WITH RESPECT TO COMPENSATION AND REASSIGNMENT.
UH, THIS IS, UH, AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT.
MUCH LIKE THE LAST AMENDMENT, THIS ALSO ALLOWS US AND, AND, AND, AND MANDATES US TO TREAT REORGANIZATIONS AND REDUCTIONS IN FORCE THE SAME.
UM, TO THE EXTENT THERE'S NOT ANY CLARIFYING LANGUAGE AS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REORGANIZATION AND A RIF, WE MAINTAIN THAT WE COVER THAT NOT ONLY WITHIN OUR CIVIL SERVICE RULES, THAT WE, WE DEAL WITH THE REORGANIZATION WHEN THE WORK HAS CHANGED OR DISAPPEARED, AND WE DEAL WITH A REDUCTION IN FORCE WHEN, UM, FUNDING DISAPPEARS OR WE HAVE OTHER FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS ALLOWS US TO TREAT BOTH REORGANIZATIONS AND REDUCTIONS IN FORCE, UM, THE SAME AS IT RELATES TO HOW WE WILL TREAT THE SALARY COMPENSATION AND THE REASSIGNMENT EMPLOYEES SO AFFECTED BY A REASSIGNMENT AND A REDUCTION IN FORCE WITH THIS RULE CHANGE, IT WOULDN'T TAKE ANY RIGHTS AWAY FROM THAT EMPLOYEE.
UM, IT WOULD JUST ALLOW US IN CIVIL SERVICE AND, UH, BY THE RULES OF THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO FIND THEM OTHER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE CITY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE CHARTER THEN WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE TREATED THE SAME.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS CLEANUP IS A LOT LIKE IN THE LAST AMENDMENT.
SO I STAND FOR ANY, ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THAT, BUT THAT IT IS JUST A, A CLEANUP OF LANGUAGE AND HOW WE TREAT AND DEAL WITH INDIVIDUALS SHOULD THE DYNAMICS WITHIN OUR ORGANIZATION CHANGE.
MR. CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, HAS THERE BEEN ANY, IN YOUR RECOLLECTION IN RECENT HISTORY, ANY ISSUES WHERE THIS IS, WHERE THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AS, AS IT STANDS NOW, HAS NEGATIVELY AFFECTED AN AN EMPLOYEE? N NO, SIR.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR ROLES.
UM, IN TERMS OF IN, IN TERMS OF, SO IF WE TAKE A STEP BACK, WE SEE THE, THE CHARTER IS SETTING THE POLICY AND THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES BEING A LEVEL BENEATH SETTING THE PROCEDURE.
AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO IS ALLOW THE POLICY TO BE BROAD AND THE PROCEDURE TO BE SPECIFIC.
AND SO WE'VE NOT HAD ANY ISSUES.
IT IS NOTHING NECESSARILY PROMPTING US IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS CHANGE.
WE JUST WANT TO ALLOW THE CHARTER TO BE BROAD AND WHAT IT ALLOWS FOR IN THE RULE TO BE SPECIFIC.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS CHANGE, UM, FACILITATES.
SO THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANY NEGATIVE, LIKE YOU, I THINK YOU SAID IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.
THIS WON'T HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ANY EMPLOYEE'S CIVIL
[01:10:01]
SERVICE RIGHTS.THIS, THIS IS NOT CHANGE ANY CIVIL SERVICE RIGHTS.
THE BOARD STILL MAINTAINS AND ITS RULES AND STILL DEDICATED TO MAKING SURE THAT WE SEEK OUT OPPORTUNITIES TO REASSIGN REA, UH, AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE EVENT OF A REASSIGNMENT OR, OR, OR, OR A REORGANIZATION OR ARIF, UM, BY WAY OF REASSIGNMENT.
SO THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO EMPLOYEES, UM, THAT WOULD BE FACILITATED BY THIS CHANGE.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ALLOW THE POLICY TO BE THE POLICY AND THE PROCEDURE TO BE THE PROCEDURE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, SO THERE, WAS THERE A MOTION? THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND, OR NO, THERE'S NOT, NOT IN THIS ONE.
YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION? SO MOVED TO INCLUDE SECOND AND A SECOND BY CLAP.
ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NEXT UP, WE HAVE CLARIFIED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH RULES GOVERNING THE EVALUATION OF CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE AND REQUIRING REMEDIES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE FOR POSITIONS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
IN CHAPTER 16 SEVEN, UM, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US BY HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT.
THIS, UH, AMENDMENT SPEAKS TO ALIGNING PRACTICE AND THE, THE RULES.
UM, CURRENTLY THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PROVIDE, UH, RULES AND REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH THE RULES GOVERNING THE EVALUATION AND CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE OF, UH, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
AND WE DO THAT THROUGH OUR PERSONAL POLICIES THAT ARE APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
SO CURRENTLY THAT IS A FUNCTION OF HUMAN RESOURCES AS CREATE, UH, THIS, THIS PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES, WE BRING THEM FORTH TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL APPROVES THEM.
SO THE LANGUAGE THAT IS, IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE DOES NOT, UM, ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT PRACTICE.
SO OUR INTENT IS TO CLARIFY, UH, AND, AND ALIGN THE, UM, THE CHARTER, THE CHAPTER WITH, UH, THE POLICY ON, OR ACTUALLY THE CURRENT PRACTICE.
ANY, ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? NOTHING MOVE TO INCLUDE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
DO YOU HAVE DISCUSSION? YOUR LIGHT'S ON.
SAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.
NEXT UP, WE HAVE ADDED REQUIREMENT TO THE CITY, TO THE CHARTER THAT THE CITY ADOPT BY ORDINANCE, A CITYWIDE BIKE PLAN.
UH, THIS AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT TO US BY MR. PHILLIP HYATT HAGUE.
AND HE'S HERE, RIGHT? HE'S HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.
DO WE ALSO HAVE, UH, TRANSPORTATION ONLINE? THE DEPARTMENT? OKAY.
UH, MY NAME IS PHILLIP HYATT HAGUE.
UH, I'M A DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT ON LANSFORD AVENUE.
UM, SO I PROPOSE THIS AMENDMENT, UH, TO ADD THE BIKE PLAN TO THE CHARTER IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
UH, CURRENTLY THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, UH, IS IN THE CHARTER, UH, ONLY AS A PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND THE REASON WHY I THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IS TO GIVE SOME WEIGHT AND DELIBERATION TO THE BIKE PLAN, WHICH IS GOING TO BE, UH, WHICH IS BEING CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL, UH, LATER THIS YEAR AND HOPEFULLY ADOPTED.
SO I'VE HEARD THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IS NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS, UM, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND THE BIKE PLAN.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND AM NOT, UH, MARRIED TO THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF AMENDMENT.
BUT WHAT I REALLY THINK IS IMPORTANT IS SHOWING THAT
[01:15:01]
THE CITY HAS A STRONG SHOWING TO SAY THAT THE BIKE PLAN AND THAT OTHERS TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS OUR ROADWAY, UH, AS THE VEHICLES ON THE ROADWAY.AND SO THIS WAS OUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, LET'S PRIORITIZE THIS TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION, UM, AND PUT IT INTO, UM, A, A DOCUMENT IN THE CITY THAT IS STRONGER THAN A POLICY.
UH, BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE BIG DIFFERENCES IS THAT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS IN THE CHARTER.
IT'S IN ORDINANCE, AND IT'S ALSO IN CITY CODE.
UH, THE BIKE PLAN IS A POLICY.
AND SO THAT MEANS THAT IF COUNCIL AT SOME POINT OR OTHER MECHANISMS WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THE BIKE PLAN, IT IS VERY EASY TO DO THAT.
AND SO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS A VERY DELIBERATE DOCUMENT.
UM, I WENT THROUGH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS A COUPLE YEARS AGO FOR MY ORGANIZATION.
UH, IT WAS VERY EXPENSIVE AND IT TOOK A LONG TIME.
YOU KNOW, THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS A VERY THOUGHTFUL DOCUMENT AND IT DETERMINES THE DIRECTION OF OUR CITY.
THE BIKE PLAN IS BEING GIVEN A LOT OF DELIBERATION AS WELL, AND I THINK THAT IT SHOULD HAVE THAT SAME TYPE OF WEIGHT, UH, WHEN IT IS APPROVED, UH, LATER THIS YEAR AND BE SEEN AS A DOCUMENT THAT IS JUST AS SERIOUS AS A THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
SO I'M ALSO OPEN TO, UH, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BRING WEIGHT AND DELIBERATION TO THE BIKE PLAN, IF NOT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PRESENTED, UH, IN MY AMENDMENT.
UM, THERE, GOT, DO YOU, DO YOU WANNA COME UP? I'M NOT AS TALL AS
I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO GET THAT ONE DONE.
ANYWAY, MY NAME IS, UH, GUS CARLEY.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
UH, WE RECOMMEND THAT TO EXCLUDE THIS ITEM FROM THE CHARTER SIMPLY BECAUSE THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS A DOCUMENT THAT CLASSIFIES ROADWAYS AND PRESCRIBES THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR EACH TYPE OF ROADWAY WITH LEGAL AND RIGHT OF WAY IMPLICATIONS.
THE BIKE PLAN IS A PLAN THAT SHOWS PROPOSED ROUTES FOR, UH, BIKE LANES ON ROADWAY, UH, TRAIL AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY.
SOME OF THESE PLANNED ROUTES UTILIZE ROADWAY SPACE ON THE ROADWAYS THAT ARE DESIGNATED ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
SO THE BIKE LANE IS A, OR BIKE PLAN.
DESIGNATES IS A PLAN THAT DESIGNATES PROPOSED, UH, UH, LOCATIONS AND THESE LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGES.
NOW, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE BIKE PLAN, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO IN THE BIKE PLAN IS TO STRENGTHEN THE PARAMETERS FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE BIKE PLAN.
AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE GOING BACK TO, UH, SOME OF THE ADJUSTMENTS AND GOING BACK FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS, UH, DONE.
THE OTHER THING IS THE FACT THAT, UH, JUST AS A REMINDER THAT SOMETIMES PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ARE BEING IMPACTED BY THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTS, UH, UM, MAY BE, UH, PLANNING ON SOME, UM, SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAY IMPACT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
AND WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW IS SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS ARE DELAYING THE PERMITTING, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS TO ACCELERATE THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
SO IF ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THIS ITEM TO BE INCLUDED AS A CHARTER ITEM, THEN PROBABLY WE'RE NOT GONNA BE PERMITTING A LOT OF STUFF IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
SO, UH, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THIS TO BE EXCLUDED.
DISCUSSION MOTION? YES, I MOVE TO EXCLUDE.
ANY THAT WAS EXCLUDE RIGHT? ANY, UH, DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NO, THANK, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I, I WAS GOING TO, UM, THANK PHILIP FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
UM, MY CONCERN, HAVING ALSO DEALT WITH A THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS, UM, IT IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT DOCUMENT.
IT HAS TO GO, IT, IT'S VERY CHALLENGING AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE US LOSE FLEXIBILITY IN OUR ABILITY TO MODIFY THE BIKE PLAN, PENDING COMMUNITY INPUT, UM, DISCUSSIONS, THE EFFECT OF OTHER PLANS.
SO I THINK, UM, I, I AGREE THAT THE BIKE PLAN NEEDS TO BE A FOCAL POINT FOR OUR CITY, BUT I'M, I DON'T AGREE THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION,
[01:20:02]
IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.COMMISSIONER DE LA FUENTE AND COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.
UH, NEXT UP WE HAVE AMEND CHAPTER 15, 4 4, THE AUTHOR TO AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLAT APPLICATIONS, UM, AMENDMENTS 99 AND ONE 16.
UH, AGENDA ITEM G WOULD WOULD, OKAY, WHERE WE GO.
BRENT RUBIN, THE VICE CHAIR OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, AND MS. JENNIFER HIRI MOTO SUBMITTED THESE AMENDMENTS.
MS. RUBIN IS UNABLE TO JOIN, BUT DID SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION LAST WEEK.
UH, MS. HIRI MOTOS FULL RATIONALE WAS ATTACHED ON HER CHAIR'S SUBMISSION.
AND SHE'S HERE TONIGHT TO PROVIDE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR HER.
AND I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR IF SHE IS HERE.
DO YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING? DO YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING? OKAY, UM, DISCUSS MR. YOUNG.
UH, I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
I KNOW WE'VE GOT A LONG AGENDA REMAINING, AND SO I'LL TRY AND RUN THROUGH IT AS QUICKLY AS I CAN.
IF WE COULD HAVE THAT QUEUED UP PLEASE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PLAT APPROVAL, WHICH GOVERNS THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND.
IT HAS A LOT OF PURPOSES AND GOALS, WHICH I'VE OUTLINED THERE, BASICALLY THE LAYOUT OF LOTS AND A LOT OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOTS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROCESS BEGINS WHEN A PLAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW STAFF AT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S OFFICE, AND MR. BOARD BAR IS HERE.
UH, FROM THAT OFFICE, THE STAFF PERFORMS A DETAILED REVIEW AND PREPARES A LIST OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
IF THE PLAT IS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, THE PLAN COMMISSION MAKES THE FINAL DECISION.
UNLIKE ZONING CASES, PLATS DO NOT GO ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
MOST PLATS ARE CONSIDERED ON A CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH CAN HAVE ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 25 PLATS ON IT, AND PLATS MUST BE APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THEY ARE FILED OR THEY ARE DEEMED AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED.
IN SOME SPORTS, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS IN THE SPORT OF PLATTING.
PLAT APPROVAL IS MANDATORY IF THE PLAT COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND THE PLAT REGULATIONS.
MOST OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE TECHNICAL AND WHERE THEY ARE TECHNICAL, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, ALMOST ALWAYS RUBBER STAMPS.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT CONSIDERS TECHNICAL CONTROVERSIES, UH, WHERE THERE ARE DISPUTES ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE, HOWEVER, TWO REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE POLICY LADEN, ONE TO BE FOUND IN SECTION 8.503, AND THE OTHER RELATING TO BUILDING LINE MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL.
SECTION 8.503 A REQUIRES THAT LOTS CONFORM IN WIDTH, DEPTH AND AREA TO THE PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ADJACENT AREAS TAKING VARIOUS FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT.
AS AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS A PLAT NEAR LAKEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER.
YOU CAN SEE A UNIFORM PATTERN ALONG THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE BLOCK FACES AND A PROPOSAL TO COMBINE FOUR OF THOSE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS INTO ONE LARGE LOT THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE PLAN COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 8.503 BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE AREA.
THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO ALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
IT IS A MAJOR TOOL FOR NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THIS CITY TO PRESERVE THEIR CHARACTER IN EAST DALLAS, NORTH DALLAS, OAK CLIFF, SOUTHWEST DALLAS, AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.
AND THESE CONTESTED CASES CAN BE AS CONTROVERSIAL AS ANY CONTROVERSIAL ZONING CASE.
IN MY OPINION, ADMINISTERING SECTION 8.503 REQUIRES A DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS TO KNOW WHERE THE SO-CALLED AREA STARTS AND STOPS, AND WHAT IS A PATTERN AND WHAT
[01:25:01]
IS NOT.TURNING TO BUILDING LINES, MOST PROPERTIES HAVE SETBACK MINIMUMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
BUT IN ADDITION, SOME PROPERTIES HAVE A LARGER SETBACK IMPOSED BY A BUILDING LINE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PLATTING.
THESE CAN BE MODIFIED THROUGH THE RE PLATTING PROCESS.
AND HERE ARE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVING BUILDING LINE MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL.
LET ME POINT TO CRITERIA TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.
BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR THE ORDINARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION.
THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY SUBJECTIVE AND POLICY LADEN.
SOMETIMES THEY'RE UNCONTROVERSIAL.
I WANT MY SWIMMING POOL TO EXTEND TWO FEET CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE BUILDING LINE WOULD ALLOW.
OR I HAVE THE ONLY LOT ON THIS BLOCK FACE THAT HASN'T HAD ITS BUILDING LINE REMOVED.
WE HAD THAT CASE A FEW MONTHS AGO INVOLVING FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH'S PROPERTY.
SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, THEY'RE VERY CONTROVERSIAL.
UH, A BUILDER OR OWNER WHO WANTS TO PUSH HIS DEVELOPMENT CLOSER TO THE FRONT THAN HIS NEIGHBORS, EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS COMPLY.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COMMISSION IS FIRST AND FOREMOST THAT WE DO NOTHING ALREADY.
ALL PLATS ARE APPROVED OR REJECTED WITHIN 30 DAYS.
MOST ARE APPROVED ON THE CPC CONSENT AGENDA.
VICE CHAIR RUBEN POINTED OUT IN HIS PRESENTATION THAT THAT AGENDA COMES LATE IN THE CPC MEETINGS.
I AGREE THAT'S A PROBLEM, BUT I THINK THE SOLUTION IS TO REORDER THE CPC AGENDA, NOT TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER.
IF WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE THIS, IT OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED ONLY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PLATS THAT DO NOT, THAT INVOLVE ONLY COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, AND THAT DO NOT INVOLVE BUILDING LINE MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL.
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT WE LET THE COUNCIL SORT OUT THE DETAILS OF THIS.
I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THESE ARE MAJOR SOURCES OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION THAT WILL BE JEALOUSLY GUARDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF PROTECTING THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT THE PLANNING STAFF IS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ILL-EQUIPPED TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC POLICY DECISIONS THAT THOSE INVOLVE INSTEAD OF THE MORE ACCOUNTABLE CPC MEMBERS.
AND THAT, INCLUDING THIS IN THE CHARTER, WILL NEEDLESSLY, UH, CREATE CONCERN THAT A MAJOR NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION IS BEING TAKEN AWAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR? I MOVE TO EXCLUDE SECOND.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION, UH, OPPOSITION BY CAMPBELL.
YOU GOT THAT? ALL RIGHT, MOTION CARRIES.
WE HAVE BROADEN THE CITY'S NOTIFICATION PROCESS TO INCLUDE OTHER MEDIA OPTIONS IN ADDITION TO NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS IN CHAPTERS 3 19 4 13 15 4 16 OR THAT 18 15 22.
THIS AMENDMENT'S 1 10, 1 18, 1 19 AND ONE 20.
AGENDA ITEM H WOULD, UH, THIS ITEM ENCOMPASSES FOUR AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER MILLS, CARRIE MITCHELL, AND PAULA HUTCHINSON.
WHEN I FIRST GOT ON THIS COMMISSION AND READING IT TWICE, WHICH IS OVER A HUNDRED PAGE DOCUMENT, UM, AND NOT BEING A POLITICAL FIGURE OR INTERESTED IN POLITICS, IT BECAME APPARENT AND, AND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WAS DATED.
AND MY CONCERN IS THE VIABILITY OF THE DALLAS WARNING NEWS AND OTHER MAJOR, UH, PUBLISHING ENTITIES BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY TO MAKE A PROFIT.
HOWEVER, HAVING GOTTEN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS FOR OVER 40 YEARS, AND, UH, I ALSO HAVE THE DIGITAL VERSION.
MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT THE, THE PAPER WILL, THE PHYSICAL PAPER WILL BE ELIMINATED AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO ADD LANGUAGE
[01:30:01]
TO INCLUDE PROGRESSIVE AND FORWARD THINKING, SPECIFICALLY DIGITAL, UM, UH, INFORMATION AND, AND INFORMATION THAT CAN BE SUBMITTED EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY TO ALL CITY, UH, RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN OUR CITY.AND SO THE LANGUAGE THAT I ADDED WAS INDOOR DIGITAL FORMAT.
I'M NOT CAUGHT UP ON THE LANGUAGE.
UM, I HAD A NICE CONVERSATION TODAY WITH CARRIE MITCHELL, AND I THINK WE JUST GIVEN THAT, THAT THIS, UM, CHARTER IS REVIEWED EVERY 10 YEARS, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE NEXT 3, 5, 10 YEARS FROM NOW.
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY, ANY COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER LOWRY, UH, IF COMMISSIONER MILLS IS ALL RIGHT WITH IT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO THAT AND CHANGE THE WORDING INSTEAD OF, AND OR REMOVE THE OR AND JUST BE PRINT AND DIGITAL.
AND THE SAME IN ONE 18, THERE'S A PLACE WHERE IT SAYS, AND OR I WOULD ALSO, LIKE, CAN I DO THAT OR SHOULD I WAIT ON THAT TO REMOVE THE OR? I, I THINK YOU, YOU CAN DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE TAKING ALL THE THESE TOGETHER.
I DON'T THINK THIS ONE'S YOURS.
SO I THOUGHT Y'ALL WERE LOOKING AT ME.
MY NAME IS, UH, CLINT KNUCKLES.
I'M A LAW STUDENT IN SMU AND A MEMBER OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC.
UH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CARRIE, UM, JUST WORKING ON SOME LANGUAGE.
UM, AS WAS MENTIONED, UH, THE EXISTING LANGUAGE JUST REQUIRES IT TO BE, UH, PUBLISHED IN A, A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, UM, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND IS, IS A STATE REQUIREMENT.
AND WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THE CITY'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT ALSO DOES MORE THAN JUST THAT.
UM, SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, UH, IF I COULD JUST READ, UH, KIND OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, UH, THAT WE DEVELOPED.
UM, NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S COMMUNICATIONS POLICIES THAT ARE REASONABLY CALCULATED TO EFFECTUATE NOTICE TO THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY.
AND IN THE NEWSPAPER GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE CITY AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SAID HEARING OR IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW.
AND THIS CHARTER, UH, WE FEEL ADDING THIS LANGUAGE, UM, NOT ONLY, UH, CODIFIES WHAT THE CITY'S COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT'S ALSO DOING, BUT ALSO, UH, GIVES FLEXIBILITY TO THEM, UM, SO THAT THEY'RE NOT TIED TO A SPECIFIC MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION.
UH, AND ALSO GIVES THE, THE GENERAL READER OF THESE, UH, STATUTES.
UM, NOTICE THAT, UH, THE, THE CITY'S GOING ABOVE JUST PUBLISHING IN A NEWSPAPER GENERAL CIRCULATION, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IS, IS SLOWLY FADING OUT OF FAVOR.
UM, THERE'S ALSO THE ADDITION OF PAYWALLS THAT MIGHT MAKE READING SOME OF THESE NOTICES, UH, DIFFICULT FOR READERS.
SO, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER FUENTE AND COMMISSIONER YOUNG ON ONE 18 AND ONE 19? IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH.
UM, WHILE I APPRECIATE THE INTENT TO MAKE IT MULTILINGUAL TOWARDS DALLAS' DIVERSE POPULATION, I BET CITY STAFF WOULD HAVE PRIOR LANGUAGE THAT MIGHT MAKE, THAT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE ELSEWHERE IN CITY DOCUMENTS.
IN TERMS OF, UH, MAKING SURE IT'S MULTILINGUAL, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT US TO GET STUCK ON ENGLISH AND SPANISH ONLY OR FOREVER.
UM, DO YOU KNOW, DOES, DOES THE CITY HAVE PREFERRED LANGUAGE ABOUT THIS KIND OF COMMUNICATION? I'M, I'M GOING TO THROW THAT TO OUR INTERIM, UM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF, UH, COMMUNICATIONS, OUTREACH AND MARKETING.
WE ACTUALLY, AS STANDARD PRACTICE, DO DISSEMINATE ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH, BUT RECENTLY WE'VE BEEN INCLUDING VIETNAMESE AS A TOP PRIORITY AS WELL DUE TO THE RESULTS TO THE
[01:35:01]
2020 CENSUS.SO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE COULD BE AN EXPANSION ON THE LANGUAGE NEEDS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
AND DO BELIEVE ALSO THAT THE LANGUAGE COULD BE REFORMATTED TO ENSURE THAT IT ACCOMMODATES THE RESIDENT'S NEEDS THROUGHOUT THAT TIME.
SO I DON'T, I I, AND I APOLOGIZE HERE, I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT AMENDMENT, BUT WOULD YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION TO HOW YOU WOULD STRIKE ENGLISH AND SPANISH BUT CREATE THE SAME INTENT IN LANGUAGE THAT COULD BE FUTURE FOCUSED? I DON'T HAVE SOMETHING OFF THE TOP OF MY MIND.
I WASN'T PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S SERVICE VALUES OF EQUITY AND ENGAGEMENT, AND THAT IT WOULD LEAD TO A COMMUNICATIONS POLICY BEING PUT IN PLACE, WHICH IS WHAT I WOULD EXPECT IF THIS WAS TO BE PASSED AND IS NOT CURRENTLY SET.
THEN THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION THEN FOR JAKE, UH, FOR MR. ANDERSON.
UH, HOW SHOULD I PROCEED WITH MY CONCERN? SHOULD I DROP THEM DOWN AND BRING THEM UP AT A LATER DATE OR WI WITH A REQUEST FOR PO POTENTIAL NEW LANGUAGE HERE? I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S UP TO YOU.
UH, COMMISSIONER, WOULD THAT BE A, WOULD THAT BE AN APPROPRIATE STEP TO BRING IT BACK UP AT A FUTURE MEETING, LIKE THE MARCH 26TH ONE? YES.
IT WOULD BE OKAY WITH, WITH, WITH HELP FROM CITY STAFF TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO LAND THIS, RIGHT? YES.
I'LL, I'LL DROP MY CONCERN FOR NOW.
UH, MR. CHAIR, IN ABOUT 15 YEARS OF SERVICE ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, MY, I'VE LEARNED THAT MY ANTENNAE GO UP WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO GO TOO FAR TO CRAFT LANGUAGE AROUND THE HORSESHOE.
A LOT OF MISTAKES GET MADE THAT WAY.
I WOULD BE, I, I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE SUBSTANCE AND INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT, UH, AMENDMENTS.
BUT I WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE HAD THE, UH, REQUESTER AND THE APPROPRIATE CITY STAFF AND THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DEVELOPED SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WE COULD THEN TAKE A LOOK AT AND BE COMFORTABLE, UH, ACCOMPLISH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SO THERE, THERE'S A COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, I MEAN, I WAS JUST GOING TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
SO WOULD THE APPROPRIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER YOUNG, WOULD YOU PREFER TO PUSH THIS OFF TO A LATER DATE? 'CAUSE I THINK, I THINK, I THINK THE HORSESHOE HERE AGREES.
I'M, I AM AGNOSTIC AS TO THE DATE.
UM, DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? I, I BELIEVE MARCH 5TH, UM, WOULD BE THE DATE THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE LAST OF ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS? UM, CURRENTLY YOU COULD ALSO CHOOSE MARCH 26TH, WHICH WILL BE THE DATE THAT YOU'LL BE VOTING ON THE LIST OF AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION.
BUT, UH, THERE WOULD BE ROOM ON THAT AGENDA AS WELL.
I WOULD MOVE TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO MARCH 5TH SECOND.
DOES HE HAVE TO SAY IN DIRECTION OR NO, YOU, YOU'VE GOT IT.
DIRECTION STAFF IN THIS MOTION? NO.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE NEXT ONE IS AMEND CHAPTER THREE SEVEN THAT REQUIRE THAT SPECIAL MEETINGS SHALL BE CALLED UPON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RATHER THAN THREE MEMBERS.
UH, THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY SCOTT GOLDSTEIN.
SCOTT, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR VOLUNTEER SERVICE.
UM, I'M HERE AS A PROUD DISTRICT 10 RESIDENT AND A LOCAL GOVERNMENT NERD.
UM, SO I HAVE A HANDOUT THAT'S COMING AROUND, UM, THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER.
THIS IS ACTUALLY, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE ONE WORD.
UH, SO HOPEFULLY IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UM, IF YOU SPEND ANY TIME AROUND HERE, YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S NO CLICHE THAT YOU GET ANYTHING DONE.
UM, AND WHILE I RESPECT THAT, I DO ALSO BELIEVE STRONGLY IN THE POWER OF THE MINORITY OF THE COUNCIL.
AND SO THE QUESTION IS REALLY WHAT'S A REASONABLE STANDARD FOR THE MINORITY TO BE ABLE TO BRING FORTH POLICY? AND THIS PIECE OF THE CHARTER ADDRESSES THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT CAN, UH, CALL A SPECIAL MEETING FOR A TOPIC THAT THEY DETERMINE THE
[01:40:01]
WAY IT'S WRITTEN.NOW, IT SAYS THAT ONE OPTION IS FOR THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN MY HANDOUT, THAT DATES FROM, UM, IT GOES FAR BACK AT, AT LEAST TO 1931 WHEN THERE WERE NINE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
SO CLEARLY AT THAT TIME, THE INTENT WAS ONE THIRD OF THE BODY, THREE OUTTA NINE COULD FORCE A SPECIAL MEETING.
UM, IT'S ALSO CLEARLY THE INTENT OF COUNCILS THROUGH MOST RECENT YEARS AS SEEING THE COUNCIL RULES, WHICH IS PART OF THE HANDOUT THAT ONE THIRD OF THE BODY, CURRENTLY FIVE MEMBERS HAVE A MECHANISM TO PUT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
AND SO ALL I'M SAYING HERE IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS PUT IN THE POLICY CATEGORY, I REALLY THINK THIS IS A TECHNICAL CHANGE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE YEARS AGO AS THE COUNCIL GREW TO 15, UM, THAT IT SHOULD BE FIVE OUT OF 15.
UM, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU CAN'T COUNT TO FIVE, YOU'RE NEVER GONNA COUNT TO EIGHT ANYWAY.
SO, UM, I I THINK CHANGING THIS TO MAKE, LIKE I SAID, A REASONABLE STANDARD, UH, OF ONE THIRD OF THE BODY, UM, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT DATES TO, UH, A BODY OF NINE IN 1931 IS, UH, INAPPROPRIATE CHANGE DISCUSSION.
UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL AND THEN COMMISSIONER LEMASTER.
OH, COMMISSIONER LEMASTER, GO FIRST.
MY QUESTION IS, ISN'T THIS THE PRACTICE? IT MIGHT NOT BE THE POLICY, BUT ISN'T THAT THIS, THE PRACTICE THAT YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE FIVE SIGNATURES TO GET SOMETHING ON JUST THREE? THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN, UH, PUTTING AN ITEM ON AN AGENDA, WHICH IS A FIVE SIGNATURE MEMO, AND THEN A SPECIAL, SPECIAL MEETING, A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, WHICH IS A THREE SIGNATURE.
UH, I MEAN, HAS THIS BECOME AN ISSUE AT AROUND THE HORSESHOE? LIKE IS THERE AN, ARE ARE THERE AN EXCESS OF SPECIAL MEETINGS? OR I GUESS OTHER THAN THE PURE TECHNICAL FIX, WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATION? UM, FROM THE RESEARCH I GATHERED FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, THERE'S NOT BEEN MANY SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS.
IT'S USUALLY THROUGH THIS OTHER MECHANISM THAT'S IN THE, UM, IN THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT THESE, THE, THE FIVE SIGNATURE.
UM, SO THERE'S NO NECESSARILY A PROBLEM TO BE, TO BE FIXED.
AND THAT'S NOT REALLY THE APPROACH.
I THINK IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS, YOU KNOW, WE FIND THINGS THROUGH THE YEARS IN THE CHARTER THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED AS THINGS CHANGED.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT JUST TECHNICALLY, UM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED I THINK A LONG TIME AGO, YOUNG, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT, CURRENTLY ANY THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT THAT SPECIAL MEETING WILL HAVE NO AGENDA ITEMS UNLESS FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, SUBMIT A MEMO.
NO, AND THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND OF COURSE, THE CITY SECRETARY MIGHT BE MORE QUALIFIED TO ANSWER, BUT MY EXPERIENCE THEN IS THAT THIS IS ANOTHER MECHANISM TO CALL, TO CALL A MEETING WITH AGENDA ITEMS ON IT THAT THEY SPECIFY WHEN THEY WOULD WRITE A MEMO TO CALL THAT MEETING.
SO IF THAT'S THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION, THEN IF I WANT SOMETHING ON A REGULAR MEETING DATE, I HAVE TO HAVE FIVE.
BUT IF I WANT IT AT A SPECIAL MEETING TO TAKE PLACE ONE HOUR BEFORE THE REGULAR MEETING, I CAN DO THAT WITH THREE.
UH, HOW MANY SPECIAL CALL MEETINGS ARE THERE USUALLY, SAY IN A YEAR? OH, VERY FEW.
UH, AS, UH, MR. GOLDSTEIN MENTIONED, UM, GOING BACK THROUGH MY ELECTRONIC RECORDS, UM, DATING BACK TO 2011, ONLY FOUR SPECIAL MEETINGS HAVE BEEN CALLED WITH THE THREE SIGNATURE MEMOS.
I, I, I, I DON'T SUPPORT THIS.
I THINK IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS.
I, AND I, I REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY.
I MEAN, YOU JUST SAID THERE HADN'T BEEN THAT MANY CALLED, AND, AND I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S OKAY THE WAY IT IS.
COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, THANK YOU CHAIR.
I, I AGREE, UH, WITH THE CHAIR, I, I'M NOT GONNA BE SUPPORTING THIS ONE FOR THE SAME REASON, AND IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT REALLY A POLICY THING, BUT IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM HERE, THERE'S NO REASON TO ATTEMPT TO FIX SOMETHING, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
WE'RE GONNA BE SUBMITTING A LOT OF STUFF TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN CITY COUNCIL IS GONNA BE SUBMITTING A LOT OF STUFF TO THE BALLOT.
AND I DO WORRY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF THINGS THAT WE'RE SENDING TO THE VOTERS, UH, AND SOMETHING THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE RIGHT NOW, MAYBE, UH, SHOULDN'T BE GOING BEFORE THE VOTERS.
IF, UH, THEY'RE GONNA BE INUNDATED WITH A POTENTIAL.
I MEAN, WE HAVE A LOT OF AMENDMENTS TO TAKE UP.
SO THAT'S ONE OF MY PRIMARY CONCERNS.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M GONNA BE VOTING AGAINST THIS TODAY.
[01:45:02]
ANOTHER DISCUSSION.COMMISSIONER, I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, THIS FEELS LIKE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT'S SO INSIDE CITY HALL, IS IT, IS IT WORTH GETTING A GAUGE FROM COUNCIL? LIKE WE, IF IF WE, EVEN IF WE WERE TO EXCLUDE TONIGHT, WOULD IT WORTH GETTING A GAUGE FROM COUNSEL OF IF THIS IS SOMETHING THEY WANT US TO TAKE UP? I'VE ACTUALLY TALKED TO SEVERAL OF THEM, AND THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR THEM.
SO I THINK IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS, AND THAT'S WHY I'M STAYING.
MR. CHAIRMAN, YES, I AGREE THAT IT MAY BE FINE THE WAY IT IS, BUT IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO TO, TO BRING IT TOGETHER.
UM, IF, IF FIVE IS WHAT IT TAKES TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT IT TAKES THREE TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING.
YOU HAVE A MOTION, A MOTION TO INCLUDE SECOND.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, SO THE MOTION IS TO INCLUDE IT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE THEIR HAND.
SIX, SEVEN, ALL FOUR, FIVE COUNT.
SO WITH SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR OF INCLUSION AND SIX VOTING AGAINST, UH, THE MOTION CARRIES.
PETITIONERS MUST MEET TO COLLECT THE REQUIRED SIGNATURES ON A PETITION FROM 60 DAYS TO 120 DAYS IN CHAPTERS 18 11, 1 AMENDMENTS 55 AND ONE 14, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED ON A PETITION IN SUPPORT OF HOLDING A REFERENDUM IN CHAPTER 18 11 2.
THESE ARE FOR AMENDMENTS 55 AND 115.
AGENDA ITEMS, J AND K WILL BE BRIEFED TOGETHER AS THEY'RE RELATED AND SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER HUNT AND ALBERT MATA.
THOSE ARE PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I'LL GO WITH, UM, HAVE MR. MATA COME FIRST AND THREE MINUTES, AND THEN WE'LL GO WITH COMMISSIONER HUNT TO FOLLOW UP WITH THREE MINUTES.
AND I BELIEVE SHE ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, WE'LL GO, YOU'LL GO SECOND THEN.
UH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GIVING ME TIME TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, I, UH, SUBMITTED AMENDMENT 55, WHICH CALLED FOR A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE WAS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF DAYS, UH, GIVEN TO COLLECT SIGNATURES FOR A PETITION TO FROM 60 TO 120.
UM, IN THIS MATTER, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER HUNT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH ME, AND, AND ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT SHE HAS SUBMITTED IS TO MOVE TO 120.
THE OTHER ASPECT OF MY AMENDMENT WAS TO ADJUST THE PERCENTAGE REQUIRED FOR SIGNATURES NEEDED, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY SAY, UM, THE NUMBER OF, OR THE NUMBER PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS, OR THE NUMBER OF VOTES THAT YOU WILL NEED, ALLY, YOU NEED IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF VOTES GATHERED BY THE LAST CITY COUNCIL RACE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, FORMALLY ENDORSE COMMISSIONER HUNT'S AMENDMENTS OF JUST REDUCING THAT AMOUNT, UH, TO 5% OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENTS THAT SHE HAS SUBMITTED ARE, UH, FAR BETTER IN TERMS OF ACHIEVING, UH, THE GOALS THAT, THAT I HAVE IN MIND FOR, FOR SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
UM, AND THOSE ARE, I GUESS, THE FOLLOWING.
SO I THINK THAT GENERALLY, UH, THESE CHANGES WILL GET US CLOSER TO THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL OF, OF GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE.
I THINK THE ENCOURAGE, UH, GRASSROOTS MOVEMENTS AND EFFORTS, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE CITY HAS LACKED, AND IN DUE PART BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT, UH, CHARTER THRESHOLDS, UM, I THINK THIS INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT GRASSROOTS GROUPS CAN, CAN IMPACT, UH, POLICY MAKING AT THE CITY LEVEL.
[01:50:01]
UM, I THINK THIS WILL HAVE A POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON VOTER TURNOUT.UM, SOME OF THESE BALLOT INITIATIVES ARE OFTEN CENTERED AROUND, UH, PROPO PROPOSALS THAT VOTERS TRULY CARE ABOUT.
I ALSO THINK THE WAY THAT THE CHARTER IS WRITTEN REALLY FAVORS, UH, BIG MONEY AND SPECIAL INTERESTS.
UH, JUST THE 60 DAYS, 10% OF, OF REGISTERED VOTERS IS A SIGNIFICANT, UM, BARRIER THAT YOU CAN ONLY REALLY CROSS IF YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDING.
AND THAT LENDS ITSELF TO PACS AND, AND OTHER SPECIAL INTERESTS.
UM, I THINK SOMETIMES THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS, IS THE CLEAREST ON DIFFICULT TO DECIDE TOPICS, AND I THINK, UH, SOMETIMES IT'S BEST TO LEAVE THAT UP TO THE VOTERS THEMSELVES.
I THINK IF WE LOOK AT OTHER CITIES, OTHER CITIES HAVE, UH, MORE LENIENT THRESHOLDS, THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOES, UH, AND WE'VE SEEN MORE GRASSROOTS MOVEMENTS THERE THAT PUT BALLOT, UH, MOVE BALLOT PROPOSALS ON, ON DISPLAY OR, OR HAVE 'EM ON THE BALLOT.
IF WE LOOK AT THE MODEL CITY CHARTER, WHICH WE HAD SOMEONE COME OUT AND SPEAK ABOUT THE MODEL CITY CHARTER TO THIS COMMISSION, UH, THEY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OF FIVE TO 10% OF, UH, ALL THE VOTERS WHO CAME OUT TO VOTE, WHICH IS EVEN LESS.
UM, SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS WHY I AM ADVOCATING FOR REDUCING THOSE THRESHOLDS.
UM, AND I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
I HOPE WE CAN HOLD 'EM UNTIL COMMISSIONER HUNT'S PRESENTATION.
AND THANK YOU MR. MATA FOR YOUR SUPPORT, UM, AND FOR BRINGING THOSE FORWARD.
SO, A BALLOT INITIATIVE CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE PUBLIC AND VOTERS IN A COUPLE WAYS, AND WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY COUNCIL PUTTING ITEMS ON A BALLOT.
UH, WE SEE THAT WITH BOND PROPOSITIONS, UH, FREQUENTLY, AND THERE CAN ALSO BE TIMES WHEN THE COUNCIL FEELS LIKE AN ISSUE IS VERY CONTROVERSIAL, AND THEY WANT THE PUBLIC'S INPUT, AND SO THEY PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
ANOTHER WAY TO GET SOMETHING IN FRONT OF VOTERS IS VIA THE PETITION PROCESS, AND THE PUBLIC IS ABLE TO PETITION THE CITY TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT DALLAS'S PROCESS IS BROKEN, AND IT'S OUTLINED IN OUR CHARTER, AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU ALL TODAY.
UM, CURRENTLY 10% OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN ONTO A PETITION IN ORDER TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
SO WE HAVE ABOUT 700,000 REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
SO THAT TRANSLATES TO 70,000 SIGNATURES.
UH, AND THOSE SIGNATURES HAVE A DEADLINE IN WHICH THEY HAVE TO BE COLLECTED.
THEY ALL HAVE TO BE COLLECTED WITHIN A 60 DAY WINDOW.
SO THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO GET MORE THAN 1000 VALID SIGNATURES EVERY SINGLE DAY.
SO TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, UM, TO AMEND OUR CHARTER, WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT, TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT, UM, IN FRONT OF VOTERS TO AMEND OUR CHARTER ONLY REQUIRES THE LESSER OF 20,000 SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED VOTERS, OR 5% OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS WHICHEVER'S LESS.
AND YOU GET 180 DAYS TO GET ALL THOSE SIGNATURES, AND THAT TRANSLATES TO ROUGHLY A HUNDRED SIGNATURES A DAY.
THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE THAT WE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO AMEND OUR CHARTER TO PROPOSE, UM, A BALLOT PROPOSITION TO AMEND OUR CHARTER THAN WE WOULD TO PROPOSE A BALLOT PROPOSITION, UH, TO CREATE OR AMEND A CITY LAW.
SO, I THINK ONE WAY TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE IS LOOKING AT HOW MANY PEOPLE TURN OUT TO VOTE IN CITY ELECTIONS.
SO IF WE JUST LOOKED AT THE LAST SEVERAL ELECTION CYCLES, IT'S CHALLENGING TO GET 70,000 PEOPLE OUT TO VOTE IN A CITY ELECTION.
SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS YOU'VE GOTTA GET SIGNATURES FROM MORE PEOPLE THAN ACTUALLY VOTE IN CITY ELECTIONS JUST TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IN FRONT OF VOTERS.
UM, SO THAT'S AN, AN INCREDIBLY HIGH AND UNREASONABLY HIGH BAR.
SO I LOOKED AT SOME OTHER CITIES JUST
[01:55:01]
TO SEE HOW WE COMPARE.SO AUSTIN, AUSTIN USES THE SAME, UH, CRITERIA FOR THEIR BALLOT MEASURES FOR, FOR LEGISLATION AS THEY DO TO AMEND THE CHARTER.
UM, I COULDN'T FIND A TIME LIMIT IN AUSTIN, BUT I SUSPECT IT'S PROBABLY THE 180 DAY LIMIT.
THAT'S, THAT'S ALSO FOR, UM, CHARTER PROPOSING CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
THEIR LAST SUCCESSFUL REFERENDUM PETITION DRIVE WAS IN 2022.
AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE BALLOT INITIATIVE WAS APPROVED, IT JUST MEANS THAT THE FOLKS WHO WERE ADVOCATING FOR IT WERE ABLE TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT.
AND SAN ANTONIO, UM, NO, GO BACK ONE.
UH, IN SAN ANTONIO, 10% OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS ARE REQUIRED.
UM, IN LOOKING AT BALLOTPEDIA, THAT IS ABOUT 20,000 VOTERS.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THEY NOTED FOR THE 2021 ELECTION.
SO THAT'S A MUCH LOWER BAR, EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL 10% OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS.
AND THEY ALSO GET SIX MONTHS, JUST LIKE IN, UH, CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
SO 2021 WAS HOW RECENTLY THEY HAD A SUCCESSFUL REFERENDUM PETITION DRIVE.
HOUSTON DOES SOMETHING INTERESTING.
THEY HAVE 10% OF VOTERS IN THE LAST MAYORAL ELECTION.
SO THEY TIE TOGETHER THE FOLKS WHO WENT OUT AND VOTED IN A CITY ELECTION AND HOW MANY SIGNATURES YOU NEED TO COLLECT TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO VOTERS, WHICH MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
HOUSTON'S A HUGE CITY, YET THEY ONLY HAVE TO COLLECT ROUGHLY 24, 20 5,000 SIGNATURES TO GET SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT.
NOW, THEY DO HAVE A SHORTER TIME PERIOD, 30 DAYS, BUT AGAIN, IT'S A VERY LARGE CITY, AND IT'S A MUCH SMALLER NUMBER OF VOTERS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
THEIR MOST RECENT, UH, SUCCESSFUL PETITION DRIVE WAS 2016.
IF YOU LOOK AT DALLAS, THE MOST RECENT, UM, REFERENDUM PETITION DRIVE WE HAD THAT GOT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT WAS IN 2007.
AND THAT WAS THE BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT I LED TO, UM, KILL THE TRINITY TOLL ROAD.
AND IT'S BEEN 17 YEARS SINCE WE HAD ONE.
SO I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT OTHER CITIES, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS IN DALLAS, THERE'S MUCH LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING IN FRONT OF VOTERS THAN THERE IS IN COMPARABLE CITIES IN TEXAS.
UM, AND SO IT'S REALLY HAVING A DAMPENING EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO ENGAGE.
SO WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS WE END UP DISCOURAGING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, BUT WE'RE ALSO ENCOURAGING BAD CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
SO, LIKE MR. MODEST SAID, IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.
I'M TELLING YOU FROM EXPERIENCE, AND I'M PROBABLY GONNA TAKE OUT THAT QUALIFIER OF NEARLY, I WOULD SAY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A GRASSROOTS GROUP JUST VOLUNTEERS TO GO OUT AND COLLECT 70,000 SIGNATURES IN TWO MONTHS.
UM, IN 2007, WE TRIED AND WE SPENT ABOUT TWO WEEKS WITH PASSIONATE VOLUNTEERS, A HUGE GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS GOING OUT TO PARKING LOTS, WALMARTS COLLECTING SIGNATURES.
AND WE VERY QUICKLY REALIZED THAT WITHOUT, UM, HIRED HELP TO GO OUT AND COLLECT SIGNATURES, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO GET THIS DONE.
AND SO WE HAD TO, I I THEN SPENT ALL OF MY TIME FUNDRAISING AND WE HAD TO RAISE MONEY AND IT, IT COST BETWEEN A HUNDRED TO $200,000 TO HIRE PETITION SIGNATURE GATHERERS.
UM, SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU HAVE TO BE A WELL-FUNDED GROUP IN ORDER TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT VIA OUR PETITIONING PROCESS.
AND IT REALLY, UM, EXCLUDES GRASSROOTS VOLUNTEERS.
WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH AN ONEROUS PROCESS, IS GROUPS, UM, DECIDE I DON'T WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE AND COLLECT 70,000 SIGNATURES.
IT'D BE MUCH EASIER TO AMEND THE CHARTER, SO I'M GOING TO, UH, PROPOSE A CHARTER AMENDMENT.
THE PROBLEM IS A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES AREN'T APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHARTER.
I MEAN, AND OUR GROUP, UH, CONSIDERED THIS BACK IN 2007.
WE SAID, WELL, WE COULD GO THE CHARTER ROUTE AND MAKE IT A LOT EASIER, OR WE COULD MAKE THIS A LOT HARDER FOR OURSELVES AND HAVE TO COLLECT NEARLY 60,000 SIGNATURES AT THE TIME, UM, AND DO THE PROCESS, RIGHT.
WE CHOSE TO DO IT RIGHT BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY CHARTER AND BE CORRUPTING THE CITY CHARTER TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT WAS REALLY A LAW AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR OUR CHARTER.
[02:00:01]
OTHER GROUPS DON'T FEEL THAT WAY, AND THEY OPT FOR THE EASIEST ROUTE TO GET SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT.SO I, I, I THINK WE HAD SOMETHING, UM, A FEW YEARS AGO WITH, UH, THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL.
UM, WE ALSO, I I HAVE HEARD RECENTLY THAT THERE'S AN EFFORT TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA IN DALLAS, UM, OR TO REDUCE PENALTIES, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
THOSE AREN'T APPROPRIATE FOR OUR CHARTER, BUT OUR PROCESS SETS IT UP IN A WAY THAT IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO DO THAT.
UM, AND WE END UP WITH REALLY BAD CHARTER AMENDMENTS BEING PROPOSED.
SO WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS THAT WE REDUCE THAT 10% DOWN TO 5%, AND THAT WE ALSO INCREASE THE PERIOD OF COLLECTION TO 120 DAYS.
AND WHAT I WOULD ARGUE THIS DOES IS IT PROVIDES A MORE FAIR ROUTE, UM, FOR GRASSROOTS GROUPS TO COLLECT SIGNATURES WHILE STILL CREATING A HIGH ENOUGH BAR THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE INUNDATED, UM, OR VOTERS WON'T BE INUNDATED WITH MEASURES COMING BEFORE 'EM THAT DON'T REALLY HAVE BROAD SUPPORT.
UM, SO I, I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT THIS.
I CAN TELL YOU AFTER, AFTER LOOKING AT THIS, UM, AND AFTER LEARNING ABOUT SOME OF THE INITIATIVES THAT COULD COME FORWARD AS CHARTER INITIATIVES, I, I DON'T, I, I, I DO WONDER WHETHER IT MAKES MORE SENSE SIMPLY TO RELY ON THE SAME EXACT STANDARDS AS WE HAVE FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.
THE CHARTER AMENDMENT STANDARDS ARE STATE LAW, UM, BUT WE COULD CODIFY OUR, UM, THE SAME STANDARDS FOR OUR, UM, PETITION REFERENDUM.
BUT, SO IF, IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, IF THERE'S ANY INTEREST IN THAT, UM, I'M OPEN TO AN AMENDMENT, BUT I'M GOING TO PUT ON THE FLOOR.
UH, I PROPOSE THAT WE AMEND OUR CHARTER, UM, TO ALLOW SIGNATURE GATHERING OF 5% REGISTERED VOTERS AND A 120 DAY COLLECTION PERIOD.
AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
UH, THIS IS A CLARIFICATION QUESTION, MR. MATA, DID YOU FORMALLY WITHDRAW AMENDMENT 55 AND URGE THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT, UH, ONE 14 AND ONE 15 INSTEAD? I DO.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
ANY MOTIONS? I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
MR. UH, YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT IT'S GOING, YOU BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT.
AM I RIGHT? I BELIEVE I SAID, UH, I BELIEVE IT CAN.
WHAT MAKES YOU BELIEVE THAT? THAT'S WHAT I'M, I THINK DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, I THINK IT CAN, UH, GARNER SIGNIFICANT INTEREST, UH, IN BRINGING OUT THE VOTE.
UM, I THINK IF IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE, UH, I THINK THE CURRENT EFFORTS OF DECRIMINALIZING, UH, CHARGES FOR MARIJUANA, UH, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT, THAT SPURS PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND VOTE FOR IT.
UM, IT COULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT, THAT THAT MAY BE YOUNGER VOTERS OR OLDER VOTERS OR OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE CERTAIN INTERESTS MIGHT BE ALIGNED WITH SUPPORTING A PROPOSAL THAT OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT COME OUT AND VOTE FOR A CITY COUNCIL ELECTION.
UM, SO IT WAS MORE OF A, UH, QUALITATIVE COMMENT THAN A QUANTITATIVE COMMENT.
IF I MAY, UM, MR. MATA IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST TWO, UH, CITIZEN INITIATED BALLOT MEASURES, THE 2007 ONE LED BY COMMISSIONER HUNT, AND THEN THE 2009 ONE REGARDING THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL, UH, VOTER TURNOUT FOR THAT 2009 MEASURE, UH, IN MAY, 2009 WAS A NON MAYORAL CYCLE.
VOTER TURNOUT HIT 15%, WHICH AGAIN, RELATIVELY SMALL, BUT NO COUNCIL ELECTION, INCLUDING OPEN MAYORAL SEAT, HAS HAD VOTER TURNOUT HIT 15% SINCE THAT MAY, 2009 BALLOT MEASURE.
MORE PEOPLE CAME OUT TO VOTE ON WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD HAVE A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL THAN VOTED IN THE OPEN MAYORAL CONTEST IN 2011 AND 2019.
SO MORE PEOPLE VOTED TO LET THE CITY BUILD A CONVENTION CENTER
[02:05:01]
THAN ELECTED MAYOR MIKE RAWLINGS OR MAYOR ERIC JOHNSON.AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE 2007 BALLOT MEASURE THAT COMMISSIONER HUNT LED, THAT WAS PUT ON THE NOVEMBER, 2007 BALLOT, AND MORE PEOPLE VOTED IN NOVEMBER, 2007.
THEN IN THE OPEN MAY, 2007 MAYORAL ELECTION, WHICH ELECTED TOM LEPERT.
IF A I I, I AM A STRONG BELIEVER IN REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND THAT TOO MUCH DIRECT DEMOCRACY, TOO MANY BALLOT MEASURES, IS NOT GOOD FOR A CITY OR A STATE OR, OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
I DO THINK THAT COMMISSIONER HUNT IS CORRECT, AND I PLAN ON VOTING FOR HER MEASURES THAT, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SOME DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
AND THE GAP IN TIME OF THIS BEING NOT HAVING HAD ONE OF THESE SINCE 2007, I THINK SHOWS A BROKEN MECHANISM IN OUR CHARTER BY WHICH WE CAN DO THESE.
BUT THE NOTION THAT VOTERS, I THINK INSTINCTIVELY KNOW YES, NO BALLOT PROPOSITIONS AND FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE COMING OUT TO VOTE FOR THEM THAN VOTING FOR CANDIDATES ON THEIR BALLOT IS CERTAINLY TRUE AND PROVEN BY THE DATA.
I, I GOT A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER.
UH, YOU'VE THROWN OUT A BUNCH OF NUMBERS HERE, BUT THE, WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE CONVENTION CENTER, WHAT AREA, OR WHAT PART OF TOWN DID MOST OF THE VOTER TURNOUT INCREASED? DO YOU KNOW THAT? I'VE NEVER LOOKED THAT UP, NO.
I JUST MADE THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE WHEN IT COME DOWN TO CONVENTION CENTER, UH, DECK PARTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT YOU PUT ON THE BALLOT, THEN NORTH DALLAS SEEMS TO SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING THEM IN THE NORTHERN SECTOR.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ASK, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU PUT SOMETHING SOUTH OF 30 YEAH.
THEN YOU MIGHT GET MORE OF THE SOUTHERN SECTOR THAT TURNS OUT TO VOTE.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION.
BUT THE CON, BUT AS, AS COMMISSIONER HUNT SAID, THE CONVENTION CENTER WAS A CHARTER AMENDMENT, THEY DECIDED TO, TO DO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS.
AND THAT IS NOT IMPACTED BY COMMISSIONER HUNT'S PROPOSALS BECAUSE THAT'S GOVERNED BY STATE LAW.
UM, BUT I MEAN, BUT TO YOUR POINT, AND I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HUNT HERE, IS I THINK THE MUNICIPAL LAW CHANGE PETITION PROCESS IS SO ONEROUS THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS DECIDED TO DO, DO A SPECIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT, EVEN THOUGH I, I THINK IT'S DE I THINK IT'S HIGHLY DEBATABLE WHETHER THAT BELONGS IN THE CITY CHARTER OR NOT.
UM, SO YEAH, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? IS THAT SURE.
WELL, YOU USE THE CONVENTION CENTER TO BASE YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT YOU SAID IT HAD NOTHING TO DO.
IT WAS A CHARTER, SO I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT.
SO THERE WAS AN ELECTION, LIKE ON THE MAY 20 OR YEAH, THERE WAS, THERE WAS AN ELECTION ON THE MAY, 2007 BALLOT.
UH, SO LIKE WHEN, WHEN EVERY DALLAS REGISTERED VOTER THAT DECIDED TO GO VOTE IN MAY, 2007 WENT TO GO VOTE, THERE WAS A BALLOT PROPOSITION.
DO YOU WANT TO BAN A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL, YES OR NO? SO THAT WAS ON THE BALLOT.
MY, WHAT I JUST MENTIONED IS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT BELONGS IN A CHARTER.
I, I, I PERSONALLY, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER HUNT ALSO SAID THE SAME THING.
UH, EVEN IF YOU DID NOT WANT THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL, I THINK IT'S REALLY DEBATABLE ON DID THAT BELONG IN OUR CITY'S CHARTER.
THAT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH THIS, UM, THIS, THIS PROCESS.
THE, UH, MUNICIPAL LAW, THE PETITION FOR A CITY LAW CHANGE, WHICH MY GUESS IS THEY DIDN'T GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE IT WAS TOO ONEROUS.
I JUST HAVE A POINT CLARIFICATION, UH, MS. HUNT, ARE WE, DID YOU SAY 180 DAYS OR DID YOU SAY 120, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
IF, IF I, IF IT COULD HAVE MISSPOKE.
AND IS THERE ANY DANGER IN YOUR MIND TO GET WHAT MR. DE LA PUENTE WAS TALKING ABOUT OF GETTING THIS TO BE TOO EASY THAT WE'D HAVE THESE ELECTIONS ALL THE TIME? YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK SO.
UM, AND I THINK A, I THINK GIVEN THAT, UM, WE HAVEN'T HAD A PETITION DRIVE THAT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL FOR 17 YEARS, THAT BAR'S WAY TOO HIGH.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE THINKING 20,000 VOTES, LIKE WE DO, THE, THE CHARTER CHANGE IS TOO FEW, THEN I, I WOULD SAY THIS KIND OF IS A HAPPY MEDIUM WITH 5% THAT ENDS UP FULLY 5,000 VOTERS RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO I JUST, I DON'T SEE PEOPLE, I I, I, I'M AFRAID THAT
[02:10:01]
PEOPLE ARE STILL GONNA USE THE CHARTER PROCESS INSTEAD.UM, BUT I THINK THIS IS A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT, UM, FOLKS WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE.
WHEN, WHEN WAS THE LIQUOR ELECTION? THIS PROCESS, THE LIQUOR ELECTION FOR PRECINCT THREE? WELL, ANYWAY, OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER HUNT? MM-HMM.
LIKE HOW, HOW DOES THAT SHAKE OUT REALITY? UM, COMMISSIONER, I DON'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T LOOK AT, EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER HUNT, I APOLOGIZE.
UH, YOU, YOUR, YOUR VOLUME JUST WENT WAY DOWN IN THE CHAMBERS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN ISSUE WITH YOUR, UM, I, I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY.
I HAVEN'T TOUCHED ANYTHING, I PROMISE.
WELL LET, LEMME CHECK WITH OUR COMMS DEPARTMENT REAL QUICK, BUT I APOLOGIZE.
BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER HUNT, YOU CAN KEEP TALKING.
UM, IT'S JUST, IT'S VERY LOW VOLUME, SO I APOLOGIZE.
UM, WE MAY HAVE TO ASK YOU TO REPEAT YOURSELF.
Y'ALL, I'M TAKING A LOT OF COUGH SYRUP AND A LOT OF MEDICATION.
SO REMIND ME WHAT THE QUESTION WAS,
HOW MANY BALLOT MEASURES HAVE BEEN, UH, INCORPORATED IN AUSTIN, UH, SINCE THEY'VE INCORPORATED THIS? WELL, I, I WOULD CALL IT MORE GENEROUS, UH, METRIC THAN WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING.
YEAH, I THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, HOW MANY FOLKS, UM, HOW MANY PETITION DRIVES THEY HAVE HAD.
I JUST LOOKED AT THE MOST RECENT ONE.
UM, AND THAT I, I WAS REALLY, WHEN I PROPOSED THIS, TRYING TO FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM SO THAT, AGAIN, WE WOULDN'T GET INUNDATED, UM, WITH CHAR, YOU KNOW, PROPOSITIONS, UM, ON THE BALLOT, UH, DONE BY PETITION, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, UM, REASONABLE PATH.
COMMISSIONER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YEAH, BUT, UH, PRIOR TO MOTIONS, CAN I JUST NOTE THAT, UM, MM-HMM,
UM, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO MOTIONS TOTAL.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE ITEM J.
I'LL SECOND ANY DISCUSSION JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
PURPOSES, 55 WAS WITHDRAWN, CORRECT? CORRECT.
55 HAS BEEN FORMALLY WITHDRAWN AS STATED BY MR. MATA.
SO THIS MOTION IS FOR ONLY FOR ONE 14? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THE AYE AYE.
THE MOTION CARRIES THE NEXT ITEM.
IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION I'LL MOVE TO INCLUDE SECOND.
YOU NEED DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, NO DISCUSSION.
WHERE AM I? SO WE'VE DONE THIS ONE.
YOU SKIPPED AROUND, REMEMBER? YEAH.
SO THIS ONE IS, YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING OR WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO HERE? OH, YEAH.
SO, UM, AMENDMENT 86, AGENDA ITEM IN, UM, WOULD DELETE THE SECTION ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE URBAN CONSERVATION, REHABILITATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, UH, IN CHAPTER 15, SECTION TWO.
UM, THIS CAME FROM THE PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN DEPARTMENT AND YOU ALL DISCUSSED IT AT YOUR LAST MEETING, UM, AND HELD IT UNTIL THIS DATE.
HOWEVER, UM, AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THE PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN, UM,
[02:15:01]
DEPARTMENT HAS, UH, INFORMED STAFF THAT THEY NO LONGER WISH TO PURSUE THIS FURTHER.UM, AND THEY DO RECOMMEND THAT IT BE EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION, UH, GOING FORWARD.
SO DO WE HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT OR DO WE A MOTION TO EXCLUDE.
SO I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER LEMASTER IN A SECOND FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER CLAP.
OKAY, I THINK WE'RE ON THE LAST ONE FOR TONIGHT.
LEMME MAKE SURE I'M IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
AMEND, AMEND LANGUAGE WITHIN CHAPTER THREE A TWO TO PROVIDE THE CITY SECRETARY WITH ASSISTANCE AND EMPLOYEES WITH CONSIDERATION OF ADDING SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO CHAPTER SEVEN, TWO FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CHAPTER NINE FOR TWO FOR THE CITY AUDITOR AMENDMENT 58.
NOTE, THIS WAS HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 23RD.
2024 IS, UM, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO GO BACK AND CONSULT WITH COUNCIL APPOINTED DEPARTMENT HEADS ON THIS ITEM AND SEE IF THERE WERE OTHER LOCATIONS THIS NEEDED TO BE CHANGED.
UH, YOU RECEIVED THEIR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
MARK SWAN IS REQUESTED THE LANGUAGE IN CHAPTER NINE BE AMENDMENT IN THE SAME MANNER THAT CITY SECRETARY'S REQUEST.
THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER STATED NO OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL.
ALTHOUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY ALSO KNOW THAT SUCH A CHANGE WAS NOT NECESSARY.
WITHIN CHAPTER SEVEN, WE DO HAVE BOTH THE CITY AUDITOR SWAN AND CITY SECRETARY JOHNSON BOTH ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UH, I NOW OPEN THE FLOOR TO A MOTION AND DISCUSSION.
IS THIS, DOES THE LANGUAGE WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT TRACK WHAT THE, THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY MANAGER SENT US IN THE LETTER? OR IS THIS THE SAME PROPOSAL THAT WAS FROM LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AGO? UM, I, SO I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE CHANGED IN THE LETTER.
UM, WHAT THE CITY MANAGER, UM, IN HIS LETTER AND, UM, THE CITY AUDITOR, CITY SECRETARY ALL REFERRED TO WAS THE, THE ADDITION OF AND EMPLOYEES, UM, WITHIN THE SECTION, UM, THAT WAS, THAT WAS CITED, UM, IN THE AGENDA.
UM, AND THAT WOULD BE THE CITY AUDITORS REQUESTED THAT SAME LANGUAGE, THE, AND EMPLOYEES BE ADDED TO HIS, UM, OR TO THE CHAPTER REGARDING CITY AUDITOR AS WELL.
SO ARE WE, IS IT WAS A CHANGE MADE FROM WHAT WAS PROPOSED TWO WEEKS AGO IS A CHANGE, IS THERE A CHANGE TONIGHT ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? NO, NOT FROM, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ISN'T ANY ADDITION OR AMENDMENT TO THE, THE CHANGE THAT WAS PROPOSED FROM THE LAST MEETING.
MR. CHAIR, THIS IS LAURA MORRISON WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE NOTE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS REQUESTED NO CHANGE TO SECTION TWO IN CHAPTER SEVEN.
GO TO HIM FOR, GO TO COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND THEN GO, WILL BACK, GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER LAMA.
ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? NOT NOW.
I MOVE TO INCLUDE ITEM 58 WITH A CORRESPONDING CHANGE TO THE PROVISION REGARDING THE CITY AUDITOR.
DO I HAVE A, DOES YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
I'M GONNA TELL ME WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS.
I MEAN, WHAT CHANGE ARE WE MAKING HERE? THANK YOU.
THE CHANGE WOULD BE IN, IN MY OPINION, TO ALIGN IT WITH, I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL INTENT BASED ON THE TITLE THAT'S STATED ASSISTANCE AND EMPLOYEES.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON, I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR THE CITY SECRETARIES, UM, THE, THE EMPLOYEES THAT THE CITY SECRETARY IS ALLOWED TO HIRE AND ET CETERA IN THE DEPARTMENT.
BUT YOUR OFFICE AND YOUR OFFICE BOTH WOULD CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE HR DEPARTMENT AND THEIR STANDARDS, OR IS SOMETHING CHANGING IN THAT REGARD? OH NO, IT'S JUST CLAIRE.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, FOR ME IT'S CLARIFYING OR, OR MAKING IT, UH, VERY CLEAR THAT THE CITY SECRETARY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIRING AGAIN, ET CETERA.
NOT JUST ASSISTANCE, BUT THE EMPLOYEES.
THERE WAS A, A, A DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN ASSISTANCE AND EMPLOYEES.
SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND, WHEN, WHEN YOU HIRE SOMEONE, THEN DO, DO YOU SET THE SALARY OR DOES THAT GO TO HR AND THEY SET A SALARY OR DOES HR COME TO YOU BEFORE YOU HIRE AND YOU SET A SALARY? HOW, HOW DOES THAT WORK? WELL, LATELY IT'S BEEN, I WOULD SET THE
[02:20:01]
SALARY AND THEN THE HR DEPARTMENT WOULD, UM, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THAT, THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY, UH, GO TO ANOTHER LEVEL OF APPROVAL BEFORE A FINAL DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.WILL THAT CHANGE WITH, IF WE MAKE THESE CHANGES? YES.
I'M, I'M SAYING THAT, UM, BECAUSE I DO CONSULT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT ONCE THAT SALARY HAS BEEN DETERMINED, THAT'S THE SALARY WITHOUT THIS, THE EXTRA LEVEL OF APPROVAL FROM, IS THAT HOW IT OPERATES IN THE AUDITOR'S DEPARTMENT TOO? WELL, HOW THE CHARTER READS NOW, MARK SWAN CITY AUDITOR.
UM, HOW THE CHARTER READS NOW AS, AS THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S OFFICE THAT I CAN HIRE AND FIRE ACCORDING TO WHAT COUNCIL PROVIDES AND COUNCIL PROVIDES THROUGH THEIR ANNUAL ORDINANCE, THE POSITIONS AND THE SALARY GRADES.
SO WE WORK WITHIN THOSE SALARY GRADES.
UM, GOING FORWARD ARE, AS I'VE PUT IN MY MEMO, WE USED TO HAVE THE TITLES BEING ASSISTANT CITY AUDITOR, ONE ASSISTANT CITY AUDITOR TWO.
AND THEN WHEN IT, WE DID THE REBRANDING, WE WENT TO MORE MARKET BASED TITLES.
AND SO THIS TO ME JUST HELPS CLARIFY THAT EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT NOT SAY ASSISTANT CITY AUDITOR IN THE TITLE, IT'S STILL AN ASSISTANT CITY AUDITOR THAT MATCH JUST THE CAPTION WITH THE CHARTER.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT SEEMS TO ME THAT DEPARTMENTS NEED TO OPERATE UP WITH ONE POLICY FOR, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT FOUR OR FIVE, 10 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WITH THEIR OWN POLICIES ON SALARIES AND LEVELS AND ALL THAT.
WELL, I, LIKE I SAID, WE WORK WITHIN THE POLICY THAT COUNCIL SETS, BUT AS, AS THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR, I HAVE TO HAVE THE LATITUDE TO BE ABLE TO HIRE AND FIRE AND BRING PEOPLE IN AT THE LEVEL, I THINK PROFESSIONALISM THAT WE NEED TO DO THE JOB ALL.
AND, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT DIFFERENT RULES.
ARE WE ASKING FOR DIFFERENT RULES FOR THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE? NO, IT'S JUST PROCEDURAL.
NO, MR. CHAIR, I JUST HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IF YOU WERE TO TERM AN AS IS, AS IS DEFINED TODAY AN EMPLOYEE, ARE YOU THE FINAL SAY SO ON THE TERMINATION? OR DO YOU HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM SOMEONE ELSE BEFORE YOU CAN TERM AN EMPLOYEE? THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY SET UP, NOW I HAVE TO GET APPROVAL BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE CITY CHARTER OR IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED THAT EMPLOYEES DON'T NECESSARILY REPORT DIRECTLY TO ME UNDER THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
SO, AS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, IS THE, THE GENESIS OF THIS CHANGE, UH, FROM A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU'VE EXPERIENCED WHERE IN AN EMPLOYEE SAID THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIRE ME, OR YOU WANTED TO HAVE TERMED AN EMPLOYEE, BUT YOU DIDN'T GET THE PROPER APPROVAL FROM WHOEVER THE APPROVAL BODY IS, PERSON IS? NO.
THERE HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM WITH EMPLOYEE SAYING, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIRE ME.
IT'S BEEN, UM, AS FAR AS HIRING AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON SALARY OR POSITION FROM AN OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, FROM THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, MR. CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER STEENS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR EITHER JAKE, WHEN WE, UH, LOOKED AT THE LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY'S SECRETARY WANTED THEM MEN AND WE INCLUDED THE AUDITOR OR ANYBODY ELSE, ARE WE ADDING ANOTHER AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEY THEY UP ON THE DIFFERENT CHARTERS? TO MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE, BUT DIFFERENT CHARTERS.
SO BETWEEN, UH, THE MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU MA'AM.
BETWEEN THE MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO AND TONIGHT WE'VE ADDED THE OPTION TO CHA TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THE CITY AUDITORS CHAPTER.
UH, THERE, THERE'S NOT AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR.
THERE'S JUST A MOTION TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S CHAPTER AND THE CITY AUDITOR'S CHAPTER.
WELL, I READ THE COMMENT FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND UH, THAT'S WHY IN THE AUDITOR'S
[02:25:01]
OFFICE IT WAS, THEY WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MEN.I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AUDITOR GETTING THE SAME LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY THE IT'S TWO DIFFERENT CHARTER HERE.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, MR. YOUNG MADE A MOTION, UM, TO INCLUDE WITH, WITH THE CITY AUDITOR'S LANGUAGE INCLUDED.
AND SO ANYTHING THAT YOU ADVANCE WOULD THEN HAVE THE CITY SECRETARY AND CITY AUDITOR, UM, SECTIONS AND LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN, UH, IN ANY AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING GOING FORWARD.
SO, SO HIS MOTION WOULD ADD BOTH TO THIS AMENDMENT.
WHOSE MOTION IS THAT? MR. YOUNGS.
WHO MI MR. YOUNG MADE THE MOTION.
THAT'S THE MOTION HE JUST MADE TO INCLUDE IT? YES, SIR.
HIS MOTION WAS TO INCLUDE, UM, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION THIS AMENDMENT, UM, AS IT'S STATED, WHICH IS FOR THE CITY SECRETARY, BUT WITH ADDITION, UM, ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE CITY AUDITOR.
WELL, THAT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY MANAGER PUT IN, RIGHT? THE, THE CITY MANAGER DIDN'T PUT IN LANGUAGE, UH, BUT HE WAS, HE WAS REFERRING TO THE SAME LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF YOU GO LOOK AT IT, HE ALSO INCLUDED THE AUDITOR.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER STER? I'M JUST GONNA TRY AGAIN.
WHY DO WE NEED THIS? I MEAN, I'M WORRIED THAT IF YOU'RE GETTING, IF THERE'S SOME NEW POWER THAT THE CITY SECRETARY'S GETTING TO SET SALARIES, UH, AS SHE WANTS WITHOUT ANY SAY, SO I GUESS YOU'VE GOTTA SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL PERHAPS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AN INSIDER.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ALL THIS WORKS, BUT IT SOUNDS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU WANNA DO IS BE ABLE TO SET THE SALARIES FOR YOUR PEOPLE AND DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
WELL, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THEN WHAT YOU, WHY THIS IS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE INCLUDES NOT JUST ASSISTANTS, NOT JUST MY ONE ASSISTANT, BUT ALL EMPLOYEES.
ALL EMPLOYEES IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
WHY THEN, WHY WOULDN'T IT JUST SAY ALL EMPLOYEES? WHAT, WHAT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DISTINGUISHED PIECE OF ASSISTANT AND EMPLOYEES.
'CAUSE THE ASSISTANT IS A, AN EMPLOYEE.
I I, I DO AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THERE HAVE, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INTERPRETATION THAT, UM, EMPLOYEES ARE DIFFERENT THAN AN ASSISTANT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO, TO MAKE CLEAR THAT IT'S, IF IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I DON'T KNOW, THEN, THEN LET ME ADD EMPLOYEES.
BUT NOT EVERY EMPLOYEE, EXCUSE ME.
I KNOW THAT IT'S, WE'LL GO WITH MCGEE HAS BEEN TEXTING ME.
AND THEN WE'LL GO WITH COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
SO WE'LL GO WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE AND THEN COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND THANK YOU CITY SECRETARY.
I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A COMMON SENSE CHANGE.
UH, THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE CITY AUDITOR NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO, UM, HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR STAFF AND THEIR DEPARTMENTS.
AND I THINK THIS IS JUST A CLARIFYING POINT THAT DOES SO.
AND I THANK YOU, UH, BILLY RAY FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND FULLY SUPPORTIVE, UH, JUST LIKE WE WERE LAST TIME.
YOU'LL GO YOUNG AND THEN BACK TO YOU THE MASTER.
UNDER THE CHARTER, THE FOUR SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE CITY APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL ARE THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY SECRETARY, AND THE CITY AUDITOR.
RIGHT NOW, OBVIOUSLY THE MANAGER'S OFFICE HAS COMPLETE CONTROL, SUBJECT TO BUDGETS AND OTHER RULES OVER THE HIRING AND FIRING AND SETTING OF SALARIES AND POSITIONS FOR HIS BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.
THE SAME IS ESSENTIALLY TRUE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON, THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE CITY AUDITOR, UH, ARE PERMITTED TO DIRECTLY EMPLOY ASSISTANCE, BUT FOR SOME REASON NOT OTHER EMPLOYEES.
AND THIS AMENDMENT MERELY PLACES ALL FOUR OF THOSE COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS ON THE SAME FOOTING.
THERE IS NO MORE REASON THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SHOULD HAVE TO IMPROVE NON ASSISTANT
[02:30:01]
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY SECRETARY THAN VICE VERSA.THEY STAND ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.
THE CITY MANAGER GETS MOST OF THE PRESS BECAUSE HE'S THE ONE THAT KEEPS THE STREETS FIXED AND THE POLICE HIRED AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
BUT THEY ALL HAVE IMPORTANT JOBS AND THEY ALL HAVE JOBS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER THREE OFFICERS THAT I TAKE TO BE THE ESSENTIAL RATIONALE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
A DISCUSSION? I THOUGHT I SAW SOMEONE OVER THERE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION? YOU'RE OPPOSED.
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20TH AT 6:30 PM WELL, LEMME MAKE SURE WE, WE SKIPPED AROUND A LOT.
WE DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING WE MISSING.
UH, WELL NOT FINALIZED THAT MEETING AGENDA WILL LIKELY FEATURE MANY OF THE MAJOR CONVERSATIONS WE'VE BEEN ANTICIPATING.
COUNCIL TERMS, EXPANSION OF COUNCIL AND ELECTIONS, UH, WITH NO FURTHER ITEMS TO DISCUSS.
THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS CONCLUDED AT 9 0 9.