Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:02]

ALRIGHT, WE'LL GET STARTED.

[Charter Review Commission on April 2, 2024.]

UH, GOOD EVENING AS WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT.

I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:35 PM ON TUESDAY, APRIL 2ND, 2024.

WE WILL BEGIN TONIGHT'S MEETING WITH PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTED IN SPEAKING TO THE BODY TO THIS BODY ARE WELCOME TO SIGN UP ONLINE FOR A FUTURE MEETING.

UH, WE HAVE MANY REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS TONIGHT, SO EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.

STAFF WILL CALL YOUR NAME AND THE ORDER SIGNED UP AND WILL BE ENFORCING STRICTLY, UH, THE TIME LIMITATIONS.

WITH THAT, I HAND IT OVER TO JAKE ANDERSON TO CALL THE SPEAKERS.

TWO MINUTES EACH.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UM, SO WE HAVE 10 REGISTERED SPEAKERS TONIGHT, SO I'M GONNA CALL THE, THE FIRST FIVE JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT ORDER YOU'LL BE IN.

UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE MS. SINA NOLAN, THEN TAMMY BROWN RODRIGUEZ, THEN DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, THEN MARY BROOKS, AND THEN JILLIAN HAWKINS ZORN.

SO WE'LL START WITH MS. NOLAN.

MS. NOLAN, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

OKAY.

UM, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON RANK CHOICE VOTING.

SORRY, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S AN ECHO.

UM, AND FIRST I WANNA THANK THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM, UH, DISTRICT 13 FOR VOTING AGAINST IT.

I THINK IT'S AN ABSOLUTELY AWFUL IDEA, WHICH IS WHY LESS THAN 20% OF PEOPLE SAYS AN A, B, C POLL, NOT A, YOU KNOW, RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY POLL.

LESS THAN 20% HAVE TRUST IN THEIR GOVERNMENT.

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THIS IS A VERY NONPARTISAN ISSUE, AND THIS IS GONNA KILL ME, BUT I'M GONNA QUOTE FROM CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR, UH, FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR JERRY BRAT, WHO VETOED THEIR LEGISLATIVE BILL TO EXPAND RANK CHOICE VOTING.

AND I QUIT.

QUOTE, IT IS OVERTLY COMPLICATED AND CONFUSING AND DEPRIVES VOTERS OF GENUINELY INFORMED CHOICES.

SUCH A SYSTEM WILL PRESENT MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO RIG THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AS IF WE NEED MORE MEANS OF RIGGING.

I'M SORRY, YOU'VE GOT THE SECRETARY OF STATES AUDIT THAT SHOWS DOWS HAS GHOST VOTERS.

WE DO NOT TRUST OUR ELECTIONS.

WE'RE WORKING ON MACHINES THAT ARE NOT CERTIFIED BY CERTIFIED PEOPLE.

THEY CANNOT PASS THE LOGIC EVALUATION TEST, BUT WE GET WAIVERS FROM THE SOS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO.

AND NOW YOU'RE THROWING THIS ON, IT'S REALLY, REALLY DISTURBING.

UM, I'M SURE YOU'RE GONNA HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT WILL GO THROUGH THE POINT BY POINT, BUT I THINK OUR, OUR COUNTRY IS BASED ON ONE MAN, ONE VOTE WHEN YOU THROW OUT VOTES BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T, YOU KNOW, RANK THEM.

YOU DON'T HAVE ONE MAN, ONE VOTE ANYMORE.

AND WHICH CONSENT OF THE GOVERN.

THAT'S YOUR HONOR, IS, IS, IS WHAT WE NEED TO ABIDE BY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MS. NOLAN.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MS. RODRIGUEZ.

MS. TAMMY BROWN RODRIGUEZ.

OKAY, WELL, WE CAN GO PAST MS. RODRIGUEZ.

UM, MR. RODRIGUEZ IS NEXT.

OKAY.

WE'VE GOT A GROUP WALKING IN.

UH, NONE OF THEM.

OKAY.

UM, SO WE'LL, WE'LL SKIP PAST THE RODRIGUEZ'S FOR NOW AND MOVE ON TO MARY BROOKS.

MARY BROOKS SHOULD BE ONLINE.

I DON'T HAVE MARY BROOKS ONLINE.

UH, MARY BROOKS IS NOT ONLINE, SO WE'LL, WE'LL MOVE PAST HER AS WELL.

UH, JILLIAN HAWKINS ZORN, WHO I BELIEVE WAS ONLINE THERE.

SHE'S, YES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS OPENING THIS UP TO THE, TO THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK.

AND, UM, I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I'D LIKE TO, TO POINT OUT.

I AM AN ELECTION JUDGE, SO I AM ON THE FRONT LINES OF HOW, UH, ELECTIONS GO AND HOW PEOPLE APPROACH THE, UH, THE BOOTHS, UH, PRACTICAL, EVERYDAY USE.

NUMBER ONE.

I WILL, UM, I WILL SAY THE SAME THING THAT SERENA DID IS THAT WE HAVE NOT CERTIFIED OUR, OUR MACHINE SINCE 2019.

[00:05:01]

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.

NUMBER ONE, ARE YOU GUYS GONNA GO DOWN TO CENTRAL COUNT AND, AND VOTE? I'M NOT, I'M SORRY, NOT VOTE.

BUT ARE YOU GUYS GONNA BE THE ONES TO COUNT THESE? THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, OUR, OUR MACHINES ARE FAULTY.

THEY'RE IN TERRIBLE SHAPE.

UH, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA TRY TO PROGRAM THESE OLD MACHINES THAT AREN'T EVEN CERTIFIED TO DO THIS.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, BUT THE DATA ITSELF SHOULD SPEAK LOUDLY TO YOU THAT THE DATA'S THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT IT.

IT LEAVES US VULNERABLE.

WE'RE ALREADY VULNERABLE, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT OR NOT.

IT'S BEEN PRO PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THOSE MACHINES ARE VULNERABLE.

NOW WE'RE GONNA ADD ANOTHER LAYER OF THAT ANO.

COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS.

WHO IS SUPPORTING THIS? WHO INTRODUCED IT? WHAT'S THE MONEY BEHIND IT? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE? WE'RE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR? UNLESS THERE ARE NEFARIOUS REASONS BEHIND IT.

THIS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VOTER ON ANY LEVEL.

AND THERE IS DATA ALREADY OUT THERE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GUESS AT THIS TO CONSIDER THIS EVEN TO THINK ABOUT IT.

I HAVE TO KNOW, I HAVE TO SAY, THIS IS NEFARIOUS.

THIS IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

YOU ARE GONNA HAVE TO GET THE MACHINES.

MS. THORN, THAT'S YOUR TIME.

YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET THE MACHINES READY BETWEEN NOW AND THE, THE, UH, THANK, THANK YOU MS. THORN.

BETWEEN NOW AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, MS. THORN, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT MS. THORN THE REAL WORLD.

I'M SORRY.

THAT'S, THAT IS YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

THIS INCREASES OUR IRREGULARITIES.

LET'S MOVE ON.

OUR ACT SPEAKER.

HAVING TO, TO, ALRIGHT, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS, OR LET ME READ THE NEXT FIVE SPEAKERS.

UM, WE HAVE MICHELLE HOPPER, THEN DIANE BRYANT, THEN JOHN PARKER, THEN MIKE HOOK, AND THEN AJ MASON.

AND THEN WE'LL RETURN TO THE THREE SPEAKERS THAT WE SKIPPED EARLIER.

SO, MS. HOPPER, YOU, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

OKAY.

HI.

UM, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST, TO RANK CHOICE VOTING.

UM, IT'S CONFUSING.

THE BALLOTS ARE COMPLEX.

IT REDUCES VOTER TURNOUT AND IT RELIES ON MACHINES.

THE FURTHER ON DOWN THE LINE YOU GET, THE MORE HEAVILY YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THEM.

AND THEN IT REDUCES YOUR TRANSPARENCY.

IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A, AN AUDIT, LIKE A HAND COUNT AUDIT.

UM, EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY VOTE, THEY WANT A TRANSPARENT, FAIR, SECURE ELECTION.

AND RANK CHOICE VOTING IS JUST, IT'S A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

UM, IT DISENFRANCHISES VOTERS, IT REQUIRES EVEN MORE RELIANCE ON THE COMPUTERS, WHICH THEY ARE HACKABLE.

THEY'RE JUST VULNERABLE.

WE KNOW THAT.

UM, AND IT TAKES LONGER TO GET THE RESULTS.

WHY WOULD WE EVER WANNA DO THAT? UM, ALASKA AND MAINE HAVE IT NOW WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO REVERSE COURSE.

UM, ALASKA HAS HAD THEIR LOWEST VOTER TO OUT IN HISTORY LAST YEAR, AND THEY WERE ONE OF THE LAST TO GET THEIR REELECTION RESULTS.

UM, RANKED CHOICE VOTING HAS BEEN BANNED IN AT LEAST FIVE STATES, FLORIDA, TENNESSEE, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA.

SOME OF THE QUOTES FROM THE LEGISLATORS WHERE IT'S A BAD, COMPLICATED AND EXPENSIVE IDEA, UH, RANKED CHOICE VOTING CAN ELIMINATE TOP CANDIDATES.

IT'S OVERLY COMPLICATED AND IT TURNS ELECTIONS INTO A GAME OF ODDS.

UM, GAVIN NEWSOM IS ALSO AGAINST IT.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE CAN AGREE ON.

UM, SO LET'S NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES THAT THEY MADE BY FINDING, YOU KNOW, CHASING THE SHINY NEW OBJECT.

UM, THE END RESULT IS IT'S HARDER FOR VOTERS, IT'S HARDER FOR THE ELECTION OFFICIALS, AND IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR EVERYONE TO TRUST THE ELECTIONS.

UM, AND ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF ALL OF THIS IS THAT YOUR VOTERS EXPECT YOU TO UPHOLD YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AND REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS.

AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ANSWER IS NO TO MAKE CHOICE VOTING.

THANK YOU.

THERE'S CHANCE.

THANK, THANK YOU.

OKAY.

WE, WE'LL, WE WILL RETURN TO THOSE, UH, SPEAKERS AFTER, AFTER THE ONES I JUST CALLED.

UM, IF WE COULD PAUSE JUST ONE MOMENT.

UM, WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES NOW.

THE, UH, IF COMMS CAN HEAR ME, THE, THE WEBEX IS COMPLETELY SILENT.

SO CAN WE GET THAT SET BACK UP SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HEAR? UM, OH, MAYBE IT WAS JUST, UH, LET'S ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE HIT OUR, I HIT THE BUTTON ON THE MIC TO SPEAK.

UM, FOR OUR ONLINE GUEST, IF YOU COULD NOTE AGAIN IN THE CHAT, LET ME KNOW YES OR NO THAT YOU CAN HEAR US ONLINE.

[00:10:05]

SO, MS. BRIAN, IF YOU WOULD JUST HIT THE BUTTON ON THE MIC IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND NOW ONCE YOU HIT IT, GO AHEAD AND TRY.

YEAH, NOW THERE YOU GO.

HI, I'M DIANE BRYANT AND, UM, I'M HERE ABOUT RANKED CHOICE VOTING.

UM, I'M LIKE, WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT THE WAY IT IS? IT'S JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS.

WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT'S BROKEN? AND, UM, THERE ARE SO MANY, MANY STATES THAT HAVE GONE TO RANK CHOICE VOTING AND REGRETTED IT AND GONE BACK.

SO WHY CAN'T WE LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES INSTEAD OF CONTINUING ON? AND, UM, IT IS A SCHEME TO DISCONNECT ELECTIONS FROM ISSUES AND ALLOW CANDIDATES WITH MARGINAL SUPPORT FROM VOTERS TO WIN.

UM, THE AVERAGE PERSON IS NOT GONNA GO AND STUDY ALL THE DIFFERENT CANDIDATES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT NUMBER THEY'RE GONNA BE.

UM, IT OBSCURES TRUE DEBATES AND ISSUE DRIVEN DIALOGUES.

SO IN CANDIDATES AND ELIMINATES GENUINE BINARY CHOICES BETWEEN TWO TOP CANDIDATES.

IT ALSO DISENFRANCHISES VOTERS BECAUSE BALLOTS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE TWO ULTIMATE FINALISTS ARE CAST ASIDE TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE MAJORITY FOR THE WINNER.

AND IT'S JUST NOT A GOOD CHOICE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MS. BRYANT.

WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA PAUSE FOR A SECOND JUST BECAUSE THE WEBEX, UM, THE, THE SOUND IS NOT GOING THROUGH THERE SO THAT OUR ONLINE PARTICIPANTS CAN'T CURRENTLY HEAR, UH, WHAT'S BEING SAID.

SO IF YOU WOULD JUST HOLD ON ONE MOMENT.

WE WILL GET BACK TO THE SPEAKERS, UH, IN JUST ONE SECOND.

OKAY? OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

NOW, NOW WE SHOULD BE GOOD.

WE SHOULD BE WORKING.

SO, UM, I APOLOGIZE.

THANK YOU MS. HOPPER.

MS. BRYANT, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON WITH TO MR. PARKER.

JOHN PARKER.

NOW MR. PARKER.

OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO MR. HOOK.

MIKE HOOK, MR. HOOK.

HE WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

RANK CHOICE VOTING.

RCV PROMISES, A FAIR, PROMISES A FAIRER AND MORE INCLUSIVE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

BUT OUR RESEARCH SPANNING OVER TWO DECADES REVEALS CONCERNING PATTERNS THAT CHALLENGE THIS NOTION.

THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH RCV ARE ALARMINGLY COMMON AND CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED FROM BALLOT CONFUSION TO COMPLEXITY, EXHAUSTED BALLOTS AND CONFUSED VOTERS.

THE ISSUES ARE MANIFOLD, LONG BALLOTS AND EXTENDED DELAYS IN GETTING RESULTS ONLY COMPOUND THE PROBLEM.

MOREOVER, CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHICS EXPERIENCE HIGHER ERROR RATES AND MORE EXHAUSTED BALLOTS.

WITH RCV HIGHLIGHTING ITS INEQUITIES, THESE CHALLENGES UNDERMINE THE VERY ESSENCE OF DEMOCRACY, LEAVING VOTERS DISENFRANCHISED AND ERODING TRUST IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.

IT'S TIME WE ADDRESS THESE ISSUES HEAD ON AND SEEK SOLUTIONS THAT TRULY UPHOLD THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCESSIBILITY IN OUR ELECTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. HOOK.

UM, NEXT WE'LL HAVE MS. MASON, AJ MASON, MS. MASON, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

WHERE IS THE TIMER? UM, I HAVE IT ON MY PHONE AND THE PHONE WILL JUST DING WHEN IT'S DONE.

OH, I START IT ONCE YOU START SPEAKING.

OKAY.

UH, APPRECIATE Y'ALL.

UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT TONIGHT'S AGENDA DOES NOT, UM, ENTAIL RANK CHOICE VOTING, HOWEVER, IT IS A, IT IS A CONCERN TO THE DALLAS, UH, RESIDENTS TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IMPLEMENTED.

SO APPRECIATE Y'ALL ALLOWING US TO SPEAK ON IT EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO TONIGHT'S, UH, AGENDA.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT HAVING A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION IS SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, BIPARTISAN.

WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT.

DOESN'T MATTER WHAT AISLE YOU, YOU PARTICULARLY, UH, LEAN ON FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US AS AMERICANS.

AND THERE'S HISTORY AND DATA THAT SURROUNDS RANKED CHOICE VOTING.

YOU CAN LOOK AT ALASKA, YOU CAN LOOK AT MAINE, PLACES LIKE THAT, THAT,

[00:15:01]

UM, HAVE IMPLEMENTED IT AND IT'S TRYING TO REVVER REVERSE THE COURSE.

SO I GUESS I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY WOULD WE TRY TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING THAT IS OBVIOUSLY FAILING WITH RANK CHOICE VOTING.

I'M GONNA READ JUST SOMETHING REAL QUICK, UM, CONCERNING RANK CHOICE VOTING.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, A COMPUTER ALGORITHM IS WHAT MAKES THE DECISION.

HOW DOES THAT SOUND LIKE? SOMETHING THAT'S FREE AND FAIR FOR AMERICANS THAT A COMPUTER WILL DECIDE MY VOTE.

THAT'S A VERY CONCERNING ISSUE WITH RANK CHOICE VOTING.

YOU NO, UM, YOU NO LONGER WILL SELECT ONE CANDIDATE FOR YOUR ELECTORAL SUPPORT.

INSTEAD, ALL CANDIDATES ARE LUMPED IN AND YOU ARE TOLD TO RANK EACH ONE AGAIN.

LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE ME.

WHAT'S, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM THAT WE ARE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE WHERE WE GET TO CHOOSE OUR CANDIDATE? IF ANYTHING I SAY WE NEED TO FIX THE, THE COMPUTERS AS THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S YOUR TIME.

IS THAT IT? THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY IT WAS SO QUIET.

ALL RIGHT.

GOD BLESS YOU.

THANK YOU.

NOTE TO RANK CHOICE VOTING.

ALRIGHT, WE WILL CIRCLE BACK NOW, UM, TO MS. TAMMY BROWN RODRIGUEZ, AND THEN MR. DANIEL RODRIGUEZ AND MS. BROOKS AND MR. PARKER IF THEY'RE HERE.

SO, MS. RODRIGUEZ, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

HELLO.

UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING US AGAIN TONIGHT.

I KNOW I WAS HERE WITH YOU LAST WEEK AND MY STANCE IS STRONG.

SAY NO TO RANKED, UH, CHOICE VOTING.

I AM FROM ALASKA, AND YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT SEVERAL EX EXAMPLES OF THE PROBLEMATIC SYSTEMS IN ALASKA USING RANKED CHOICE VOTING OUT OF 119 PEOPLE, 119,000 PEOPLE VOTED IN ALASKA FOR A HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE AND THEY HAPPENED TO VOTE REPUBLICAN.

75,000 VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRAT.

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE PERSON THAT GOT 75,000 VOTES WON BASED ON RANK CHOICE VOTING.

ALL OF YOU RECEIVED AN EMAIL TO ME, PROBABLY TWO EMAILS FROM ME TODAY WITH VERY DETAILED INFORMATION.

UM, THE ASSOCIATION OF RANK CHOICE EDUCATION.ORG IS A FANTASTIC RESEARCH, UM, ENTITY THAT IS BIPARTISAN, THAT HAS PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION.

THEY'RE IN ALASKA AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE REPEALED, EFFECTIVELY GOT THE RANK CHOICE VOTING TO BE REPEALED FROM ALASKA BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SO PROBLEMATIC, SPECIFICALLY IN THE NATIVE COMMUNITIES.

IT'S COMPLEX, IT'S CONFUSING.

THE BALLOT IS TOO LONG.

AND HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY WHO HAD LESS VOTES, 75,000, WON OVER SOMEBODY WHO RECEIVED 119,000? IT'S PROBLEMATIC IN SO MANY WAYS, THE DUE PROCESS IS GONE.

THERE'S NO WAY TO DO A FULL AUDIT.

THE ONE MAN, ONE VOTE IS GONE.

THAT'S ALSO PROBLEMATIC.

YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE STUDIES AND SUPREME COURTS HAVE STATED IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HAVE STRUCK IT DOWN.

THAT TOO IS IN THAT EMAIL I SENT TO YOU TODAY AS THE DIRECTOR OF POLICY FOR YAKU BOOING'S MINISTRIES, WHERE I DO LEGISLATION FOR A LIVING.

PLEASE HEAR ME ON THIS.

THIS IS VERY PROBLEMATIC.

THANK YOU.

THAT YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU MR. RODRIGUEZ.

UH, MR. RODRIGUEZ, YOU ALSO HAVE TWO MINUTES.

OKAY.

HELLO.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, UM, IF YOU, IF YOU HIT THE MIC BUTTON, GO, GO AHEAD.

AND Y'ALL HEARD OF FUZZY MATH? I'M SORRY.

ONE, ONE MORE TIME.

WE HAVE ALL HEARD OF FUZZY MATH, RIGHT? THIS IS WHAT THIS SOUNDS LIKE.

THIS IMPLEMENTING RCV LOWERS VOTER TURNOUT RATES.

FOR EXAMPLE, BOTH MINNEAPOLIS ST.

PAUL MINNESOTA HAVE RUN LOCAL ELECTIONS USING RCV FOR MORE THAN A DECADE, AND BOTH LAG WELL BEHIND OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN CITIES AND MULTIPLE ELECTION VOTER TURNOUT.

IN FACT, COMPARATIVELY LOWER VOTER TURNOUT IN JURISDICTIONS USING RCV IS CONSISTENT PATTERN.

A STUDY OF SAN FRANCISCO ELECTIONS FROM 1995 TO 2011 REVEALED A STRONG RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A DECLINE IN

[00:20:01]

VOTER TURNOUT IN THE ADOPTION OF RCV.

FURTHERMORE, DURING ODD AND OFF CYCLE ELECTION YEARS, RCV JURISDICTIONS HAVE ON AVERAGE 8% LOWER VOTER TURNOUT RATES THAN NON RCV JURISDICTIONS.

BECAUSE RCV IS MORE COMPLEX THAN TRADITIONAL VOTING, THE SYSTEM INHERENTLY DISCOURAGES NEW AND INFREQUENT VOTERS FROM PARTICIPATING BETWEEN VOTER CONFUSION, HIGH RATES OF VALID EXHAUSTIONS, AND THE DIFFICULTY OF TABULATING THE RESULTS.

RCV INCREASES THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF ELECTRICAL PARTICIPATION, ELECTRICAL ELECTORAL PARTICIPATIONS, BLESS YOU OVER THERE.

SO, AS YOU GUYS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS FUZZY MATH.

WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT IT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TO MAKE THINGS MORE COMPLICATED.

AND REMEMBER, YOUR GRANDCHILDREN ARE GONNA GROW UP IN THIS WORLD, IN THIS COUNTRY.

SEE, WE NEED TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

UM, I'M JUST GONNA CIRCLE BACK TO THE LAST TWO SPEAKERS, UH, WHO ARE NOT PRESENT.

MARY BROOKS, UH, WHO IS NOT ONLINE.

AND THEN, UH, MR. JOHN PARKER.

OKAY.

THAT CONCLUDES YOUR PUBLIC SPEAKING.

OKAY.

MEMBERS, OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES, UH, FROM OUR MARCH 26TH MEETING.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE.

THANK YOU.

MS. CLAP.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

ALRIGHT, UH, DISCUSSION ON THOSE MINUTES.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED? NAY.

AYES HAVE IT.

THE MOTION CARRIES.

NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

AS WE MOVE INTO THAT PART OF THE AGENDA, WE WILL GIVE, UH, THE PEOPLE WHO SUBMITTED EACH OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, UH, THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THEIR SUBMISSION.

FOLLOWING THAT, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE EACH ITEM.

I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT A MOTION IS REQUIRED TO BE PUT ON THE FLOOR BEFORE DISCUSSION BEGINS.

DISCUSSION MUST THEN BE LIMITED TO THAT WHICH IS GERMANE TO THE MOTION.

WE WILL BEGIN NOW, UH, WITH AGENDA ITEM A.

THIS WAS INITIALLY ADVANCED BY OUR BODY ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2024, BUT DURING OUR MEETING ON MARCH 4TH, 2024, COMMISSIONER HUNT MADE A MOTION TO REVISIT THIS ITEM.

AS SUCH, I'D LIKE TO GIVE, UH, COMMISSIONER HUNT THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THAT, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO MOTION THE DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UH, I SEE THE HONORABLE MR. KINGSTON HERE.

UM, PHILLIP, I KNOW THAT YOU HAD PROPOSED THIS INITIALLY, BUT I THINK WE GOT THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT GARBLED.

UM, WAS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON IT? OKAY.

UM, MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO, UM, REVERSE COURSE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

I'M GOING TO MOVE TO EXCLUDE IT AFTER TALKING WITH STAFF, AFTER TALKING WITH MR. KINGSTON, UH, IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS AND THAT THIS, UM, AS PROPOSED WOULD, UH, BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROCESS OF HIRING AT THE CITY.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AS A SECOND.

UH, THAT'S TO EXCLUDE, UM, AMENDMENT 15.

UH, ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE.

AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED? NAY.

AYES HAVE IT.

THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE CARRIES AGENDA ITEM B.

UH, THIS WOULD AMEND CHAPTER THREE, SECTION 13 B TO ALLOW EACH COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO ELECT THEIR OWN CHAIR AND VICE CHAIRS.

THIS IS AMENDMENT 1, 2 2.

THIS PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED BY MINISTER DOMINIQUE ALEXANDER.

NOT HERE.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE HE'S HERE.

MR. ALEXANDER, YOU'RE NOT HERE.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

UM, SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXCLUDE SECOND DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE, SAY AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED? NAY.

AYES HAVE IT.

THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE CARRIES AGENDA ITEM C.

THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE MAYOR RECEIVE TWO COUNCIL MEMBER CO-SPONSORS FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION CHAIR APPOINTMENTS.

THIS IS AMENDMENT 9 96.

LET'S SEE.

I'LL SEE THIS SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.

UM, I'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT IT.

THANKS.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

[00:25:01]

I WILL NOT USE ALL THREE MINUTES.

UH, WHOOPSIE.

THE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO ENCOURAGE MORE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE, UH, THE REST OF CITY COUNCIL.

THESE CHAIR APPOINTMENTS, UH, AS WE CAN SEE FROM THIS PROCESS, BUT ALSO THAT PLAYS OUT IN MANY OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UH, ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT AND CAN SET THE AGENDAS AND HAVE A LOT OF POWER.

AND SO THE POINT OF THIS IS JUST SO THAT IN THE EVENT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A NEW APPOINTEE THAT BECOME THAT FROM THE MAYOR.

THAT WOULD BE BECOME THE CHAIR OF SAID COMMISSION OR CHARTER, OR TASK FORCE, UH, SORRY, NOT TA, UH, NOT CHARTER, BUT, UH, BOARD.

THEN, UH, IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE THE MAYOR TO AT LEAST COME TO COUNCIL AND SAY, HEY, LOOK, I'M PUTTING THIS PERSON UP.

UH, I WANT THEM TO BE CHAIR.

THAT WAY IT'S NOT SOMEONE THAT EVERYONE HATES.

AND THE, AND THE MAYOR GETS THE LAST SAY.

I, I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON THIS.

UH, THIS IS A, AN IDEA THAT I THOUGHT THAT WOULD JUST MAKE THE SYSTEM OR THE APPOINTMENT SYSTEM A LITTLE BIT MORE FAIR, UH, TO THE REST OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

BUT, UH, I'M OPEN FOR ANY SUGGESTIONS AND, UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTARY.

MS. LEMASTER, IN 1989, WHICH YOU'VE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT BEFORE, THIS WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR THINGS, UH, A NEW POWER FOR THE MAYOR TO HAVE.

IN FACT, THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A COMMITTEE SYSTEM AT THAT POINT, AND I SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE A COMMITTEE SYSTEM THEN.

AND THE CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT WE PASSED CREATED THAT.

AND THEN THE MAYOR BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS OF THE CHAIRS.

AND IT WAS A WAY TO TAKE BASICALLY A WEAK BEAR TO A LITTLE BIT STRONGER BEAR.

AND I JUST WANNA PAUSE BEFORE, I MEAN, I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM OTHERS, BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT, I MEAN, SO MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS HAS BEEN WHO HAS THE POWER? AND I SEE PEOPLE TAKING POWER AND TRYING TO SUBTRACT POWER.

SO I JUST, I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THE REST OF, UH, OR SOME, SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS THINK ABOUT THIS.

IT, MY GENERAL RESPONSE TO THAT.

AND THEN I, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM ESPECIALLY THE FOLKS THAT HAVE SERVED ON, ON COUNCIL BEFORE.

BUT, UH, MY GENERAL RESPONSE IS THAT, IS THAT THE POWER SHOULD LESS OR SHOULD REST OF THE MOST, LIKE SMALL DE DEMOCRATICALLY, UH, ACCOUNTABLE OFFICE, WHICH IS GONNA BE THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICE HOLDERS ON CITY COUNCIL.

UNLESS, SO ONE INDIVIDUAL LIKE THE MAYOR.

THAT'S KINDA WHERE MY HEAD'S AT NORMALLY SPEAKING.

BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR AGAIN FROM OTHER FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN ON CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE, MR. YOUNG.

WELL, I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL JUST ARTICULATED, BUT I HAVE TO RAISE A QUESTION.

UH, IF, IF A MAYOR CAN'T GET TWO COS SIGNATORIES, HE OR SHE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT RESIGNING AS MAYOR.

UH, SO I WONDER IF THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ANY PRACTICAL EFFECT AND BE WORTH THE, THE MECHANICAL BUREAUCRACY THAT IT WOULD CREATE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

SO I ALSO SUPPORT THE UNDERLYING CONCEPT.

AND IN FACT, THE NEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT ARE ADDRESSING THE SAME CONCEPT.

I ALSO WILL SHARE THE, I I DON'T THINK THIS SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

I, I DON'T, I MEAN, I'M NOT EVEN SURE IT HELPS THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S, THE MAYOR'S GONNA HAVE TWO PEOPLE CHAIRS OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS GONNA JUST DO IT.

SO IT, I DON'T THINK IT ACCOMPLISHES WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

AND SO I DO THINK IT DOES ADD SOME ADDITIONAL BUREAUCRACY AND ALSO TENDS TO IMPACT THE POWER DYNAMIC.

MAYBE THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD THING.

BUT, UM, AND THE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT OPTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO CONCUR WITH WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER MCGOO AND COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND LAMA STATED.

I, I DO THINK IT, IT, UH, REDISTRIBUTES POWER, THE MAYOR IN OUR CITY HAS LIMITED POWER TO BEGIN WITH.

AND I DON'T THINK IT ACCOMPLISHES, UH, THE GOAL BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER IS CORRECT.

ANY, ANY MAYOR CAN GET TWO PEOPLE TO CO-SPONSOR WITH.

SO I DON'T THINK IT, AND IT DOES CREATE MORE BUREAUCRACY.

AND HAVING WORKED FOR THE CITY FOR 31 YEARS, WE HAVE QUITE A BIT.

.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.

DON'T SEE ANY, SO CAN WE GET A MOTION? SOMEONE ELSE WANNA GO? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXCLUDE.

OKAY.

THERE'S A MOTION TO EXCLUDE THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

HAS A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION?

[00:30:03]

OKAY.

HERE ARE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

THE MOTION TO INCLUDE, EXCLUDE, SAY AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NAY.

AYES HAVE IT.

THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE CARRIES AGENDA.

ITEM D.

UH, THIS WOULD AUTHORIZE A LIMITED POWER OF VETO FOR THE MAYOR WITH A CITY COUNCIL OVERRIDE OF TWO THIRDS VOTE.

THIS IS AMENDMENT 1 0 8.

AND THIS WAS, UH, SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL, UH, COMMISSIONER MAGOO.

UM, THREE MINUTES TO TELL US ABOUT IT, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO THIS IS ALL COMING FROM THE SAME AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN, UM, KIND OF BROKEN OUT INTO SEVERAL DIFFERENT PARTS.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PARTS.

THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL WAS TALKING ABOUT, IS, UM, TRYING TO REQUIRE, ASSERT THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS, COLLABORATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE TWO BIGGEST THINGS THAT OUR, OUR CITY COUNCIL PUTS FORWARD, WHICH IS OFTEN BILLION DOLLAR DECISIONS LIKE A BOND AND OUR BUDGET EACH YEAR.

UM, WHAT HAPPENS, AND THIS IS LARGELY GONNA BE ADDRESSED IN THE NEXT, UM, ITEM AS WELL, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS WE GET, THE COUNCIL GETS A BUDGET THAT IS REALLY ALMOST COMPLETELY COOKED EVERY YEAR.

THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE MONTH OF JULY, PUTS FORTH, UM, A BUDGET.

AND THE COUNCIL THEN IS USUALLY LEFT WITH WHAT IS, UH, AFFECTIONATELY REFERRED TO AS THE HUNGER GAMES TO FIGHT AFTER VERY LITTLE PIECES OF, UM, THE BUDGET THAT DON'T HAVE HUGE IMPACTS.

AND IN MANY CASES, YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED, I WAS HUGELY EXCITED ABOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS.

'CAUSE I THOUGHT, OKAY, WE'D HAVE ALL THESE, WE COULD, WE COULD REALLY HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN, IN OUR DISTRICTS AND OTHER PEOPLE'S DISTRICTS.

AND THERE WOULD BE THIS, THIS COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSION.

UM, AND INSTEAD IT, IT BASICALLY COMES DOWN TO A BUDGET THAT'S PRESENTED.

AND ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE CUT AGAIN, WHAT THE PRACTICE OF THIS IS, WE GET A LIST OF LIBRARIES AND, UM, PUBLIC SAFETY AND THINGS THAT WE'LL NEVER WANT TO CUT.

AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT WE CAN CUT IN THE BUDGET.

AND SO THAT WHOLE PROCESS IS JUST OUTTA WHACK.

AND SO THE MOTIVE OR THE INTENT BEHIND THIS IS TO REQUIRE THERE TO BE, UM, YOU'LL SEE IN THE LATER AMENDMENT THERE TO BE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS OF PRIORITIES THAT EACH COUNCIL PUTS FORWARD.

AND THEN HERE IS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT DD ONE CITY ELECTED OFFICIAL IE THE MAYOR, UM, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQ, I WOULD SAY, REQUIRE THERE BE DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND THE COUNCIL.

AND BY WORK, BY VIRTUE OF THE MAYOR TO SAY, UM, NO, THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THIS BUDGET.

THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE BOND.

WE NEED TO KEEP WORKING AT IT UNTIL WE GET IT RIGHT.

AND, UM, BUT THAT HAS, HAS TO ACCOMPANY ITSELF WITH AN OVERRIDE SO THAT IF THE COUNCIL, THIS CAN'T JUST BE A ROGUE MAYOR GOING OFF AND SAYING, NO, NO, NO.

IF THE COUNCIL HAS, UH, THE, THE REQUIRED OVERRIDE, THEN THEY VOTE TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR'S VETO AND YOU KEEP MOVING FORWARD.

THE ISSUE WITH ALL THIS THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THIS TIME IS THE TIMELINES.

THERE ARE STATE REQUIRED TIMELINES THAT SAY WHEN THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS TO PASS THEIR BUDGET.

AND SO TRYING TO MAKE A VETO WORK WITH THAT, THOSE TIMELINES IS GOING TO TAKE SOME, UH, PEOPLE SMARTER THAN ME NECESSARILY.

UM, BUT AS, AS I'VE TALKED TO, UM, PREVIOUS MAYORS, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS, CERTAINLY MAYOR ROWLINGS THAT WAS, UM, HAS ADVOCATED FOR THIS PARTICULARLY, AND OTHERS TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THERE BE ADDITIONAL, UH, COLLABORATION IN THE TWO BIGGEST ITEMS THAT, THAT OUR COUNCIL PUTS FORWARD, AT LEAST FINANCIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE BUDGET AND THE BOND.

AND SO THAT IS, THAT IS THE INTENT BEHIND, UM, ITEM D.

AND THEN I'LL SAVE OTHER DISCUSSION FOR ITEM E.

UH, THANK YOU, UH, MEMBERS ALSO, JUST SO YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, UH, WE DO HAVE THE DIRECTOR OF BUDGET MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

I WON'T CALL THEM UP UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK THEM.

SO LET ME KNOW.

UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, UH, FOR MR. MAGOO ON THIS? YES, I, I HAVE A QUESTION.

MR. FRANCIS.

UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UH, COMMISSIONER, WHY VEST THIS ADDITIONAL POWER WITH THE MAYOR AND NOT DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL? WELL, IT, IT DOES, IT HAS TO START SOMEWHERE.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN.

THE, THE MAYOR IS, IS FIRST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT'S THE ONLY CITYWIDE ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SO IT IS THE PERSON THAT IS TASKED WITH REPRESENTING EVERYBODY AT EVERY AREA OF OUR CITY.

UM, AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO, TO GO.

THE SECOND PIECE IS, IT CAN'T BE EXCLUSIVELY WITH, WITH

[00:35:01]

THE MAYOR.

AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S THE OVERRIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE COUNCIL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, MAYOR, YOU'RE WRONG.

AND THE TWO THIRDS OVERRIDE POWER THAT THE WOULD BE RESERVED BY THE COUNCIL.

IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH, WITH OTHER CITIES AND OF THE SIZE WHO HAVE GRANTED THE POWER OF, UH, VETO POWER TO THEIR MAYOR? YEAH, I, I HAVE NOT DONE THE RESEARCH LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES, SO I DON'T WANNA COMMENT ON IF THAT'S THE SAME OR NOT.

SO SO TWO THIRDS IS JUST A NUMBER THAT YOU CAME UP WITH.

IT'S ANY, YEAH, ANYTIME WE HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY ON OTHER ITEMS, IT'S, IT'S A COMMON PRACTICE IN THE CITY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU MS. HUNT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UM, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS, UM, ABOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ONE OF THE REASONS I VOTED TO EXCLUDE THE LAST, UH, PROPOSAL THAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED THE MAYOR TO GET TWO CO-SPONSORS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

'CAUSE IT CHANGES THE POWER DYNAMICS, UH, OF THE COUNCIL.

WE HAVE A WEAK MAYOR SYSTEM.

UM, WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND WE HAVE SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES WITHIN THAT.

BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A STRONG MAYOR.

OUR CITY HAS VOTED AGAINST A STRONG MAYOR SYSTEM.

AND NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS PROPOSING THAT, BUT THIS IS CREEPING A LITTLE TOWARDS THAT, THAT END OF THE SPECTRUM.

AND I, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE POWER AWAY FROM OUR MAYOR BY REQUIRING, UH, HIM OR HER TO GET APPROVAL OR, UM, TO NOMINATE CHAIRS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

BUT I ALSO DON'T WANNA GIVE THE PAYER THE MAYOR SUCH EXTENSIVE POWER OVER THE PURSE STRINGS BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS SUCH AN INCREDIBLE, UH, POWER.

AND I THINK A, A TWO THIRDS OVERRIDE DOESN'T QUITE KEEP THE PLAYING FIELD EQUAL.

SO WITH DUE RESPECT, I'LL, UH, BE VOTING TO EXCLUDE THIS ITEM, MR. YOUNG, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

AND APPARENTLY COMMISSIONER MAGOO, UH, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THOSE ABOUT HOW THE TIMING OF THIS WOULD WORK, PARTICULARLY WITH THE BUDGET, UH, AS WRITTEN, THIS IS, UH, A EITHER OR THE MAYOR VETOES THE ENTIRE BUDGET, OR HE DOESN'T, OR SHE DOESN'T.

UH, IF THE MAYOR VETOES THE BUDGET AND IT IS, UH, THE LAST DAY TO ADOPT THE BUDGET, THEN THE COUNCIL IS CONDEMNED TO TRYING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL SOMETHING PASSES.

LIKEWISE, ON A BOND ELECTION, IF, IF YOU VETO A BOND ELECTION, YOU CAN ALWAYS BRING IT UP TWO WEEKS LATER.

BUT WITH THE CITY HAS A TENDENCY TO PUSH THE DEADLINE FOR ORDERING AN ELECTION, UH, TO, UH, ORDER THE ELECTION AT THE LAST POSSIBLE DATE.

AND THEN YOU'RE IN THE SAME SITUATION OF, WELL, WE EITHER PUT THE ELECTION OFF SIX MONTHS, UH, OR WE, UH, STAY ALL NIGHT TO TRY AND FIND SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY CAN AGREE ON.

UH, I ALSO SHARE, UH, COMMISSIONER HUNT'S CONCERNS.

AND, UH, I JUST AM NOT SURE THAT THIS IS A PROPOSAL I CAN SUPPORT MS. LOWERY.

UH, FOR MANY YEARS I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE OF THE LARGEST BUDGETS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, UH, AND PUT IT TOGETHER EVERY YEAR.

AND ALL OF THE MECHANICS THAT WENT INTO THAT, INCLUDING THE BILLING SYSTEM TO DO WATER BILLS.

UH, THE TIMING ON THIS, I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT, AS WELL AS THE CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER HUNT MENTIONED.

BUT TO PUT THE CITY'S BUDGET TOGETHER IS A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING.

AND FOR, TO HAVE SOMEONE TO HAVE THE POWER TO JUST SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT.

WE HAVE BILLS THAT HAVE TO BE PAID.

WE HAVE CONTRACTS THAT HAVE TO BE ISSUED.

THERE'S A LOT OF IMPACTS TO THAT.

THAT WOULD BE VERY NEGATIVE TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE, IN MY OPINION.

MS. LEMASTER, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, JUST, I JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY VETO POWER WOULD FORCE MORE COLLABORATION.

IT, IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD SPARK MORE FIGHTS, BUT I HELP ME UNDERSTAND.

SO AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, THERE IS, UM, POTENTIALLY ZERO INCENTIVE FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO, UM, SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH THE MAYOR, AND IN SOME CASES THE MINORITY, MINORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

SO RIGHT NOW, AS LONG AS THE CITY MANAGER HAS EIGHT VOTES, THERE'S THE WHOLE BUDGET CAN START SKEWING IN CERTAIN DIRECTIONS, UM, BASED ON WHO THOSE EIGHT PASSERS

[00:40:01]

OF THE BUDGET ARE.

SO WITHOUT SOME CHECK ON THAT, UM, THERE'S, AND IT HAS PROVEN TO BE THE CASE, THERE ARE SOME TIMES WHERE THE, A BIG PORTION OF THE CITY AND THE COUNCIL HAVE NOT MUCH INPUT INTO AT LEAST SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE IMPORTANT PRIORITY AREAS ARE OF THE CITY.

ONE, ONE MORE QUESTION.

UH, DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER COUNCIL MANAGER, FORMER GOVERNMENT WHERE THE, UH, MAYOR HAS VETO POWER ON THE BUDGET? I, I HAVE, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THEY, THE MAYOR DOES HAVE VETO POWER, BUT I'M NOT, I HAVE NOT RESEARCHED THE DIFFERENT CITIES, ANY COUNCIL MANAGER FORM GOVERNMENT.

I, I, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK TO IT IF I'M INCORRECT, BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, CAN I GET A MOTION? I'LL MOVE TO INCLUDE, IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A SECOND FOR MS. CLAP.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO INCLUDE AMENDMENT 1 0 8.

UH, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AND RAISE YOUR HAND.

AYE.

TWO AYES.

ALL OPPOSED? NAY.

NAY.

ALRIGHT.

NAY MAY'S HABIT, THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY ANY OTHER MOTIONS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BEFORE WE MOVE ON.

OKAY.

AGENDA ITEM E, THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY MANAGER TO SEEK AND OBTAIN THE CITY COUNCIL'S POLICY PRIORITIES BEFORE SUBMITTING THE CITY MANAGER'S ANNUAL BUDGET AND REQUIRE THE CITY MANAGER'S AN ANNUAL BUDGET TO REFLECT THOSE PRIORITIES.

THIS IS AMENDMENT 1 0 8, UH, WAS ALSO, UH, SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER MCGOO, AS HE REFERENCED A BIT EARLIER.

SO I'LL TURN FORWARD WITH HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.

YES.

SO THE, THE OTHER ONE YOU WEREN'T BUYING, BUT HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? ? UM, THIS IS SIMPLY WHAT IT SAYS, AND IF YOU READ THE, THE LAWYERS AND IT'S, UM, IT'S, IT REALLY IS JUST SAYING, ALL RIGHT, CITY MANAGER, PLEASE TAKE THE STEPS TO IDENTIFY THE CITY COUNCIL'S POLICY PRIORITIES BEFORE WE GO THROUGH AND, AND CREATING THE ENTIRE BUDGET.

AGAIN, IT'S, YOU, YOU'D THINK THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE, BUT THE INTENTION BEHIND IT IS TO ENCOURAGE THERE TO BE THIS ADDITIONAL COLLABORATION AND EARLIER ON, UM, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY PRIOR TO, TO BREAK AND WHEN TO COUNCIL BREAK IN JULY.

AND, UM, WHERE THERE'S, I MEAN, I'D, I'D EVEN SUPPORT MOVING THE DATES UP AHEAD OF TIME, BUT EITHER WAY, JUST IN TRYING TO GET MORE, MORE CONVERSATION, MORE COLLABORATION ON ITEMS THAT ARE SUPER IMPORTANT AS IT RELATES TO THE BUDGET.

MR. YOUNG, UH, COMMISSIONER MAGOO, IS IT YOUR INTENT THAT THE MANAGER RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL AS A BODY OR FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AS INDIVIDUALS? I, I DIDN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD BELIEVE IT WOULD BE AS A BODY.

I MEAN, UH, SO IT WOULD BE AN AGENDA ITEM? CORRECT.

AND THE COUNCIL WOULD VOTE ON ITS BUDGET PRIORITIES? CORRECT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I, I DID HAVE A QUESTION.

IF YOU CAN ALL CAN HEAR ME, MR. SISE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UH, COMMISSIONER MAGOO, THANK YOU FOR THE THOUGHTFUL PROPOSALS.

UM, I COULDN'T GET ON BOARD WITH THE LAST ONE FOR, UH, UH, A SET OF REASONS.

UH, THIS ONE IS ONE THAT I'M MORE INCLINED TO WANNA SUPPORT, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION AS TO THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS THAT THE BUDGET WILL ULTIMATELY REFLECT THE POLICY PRIORITIES.

UH, AND AS I READ THE, THE LEGAL SORT OF MANIFESTATION OF THIS, OF, OF WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED, IT LITERALLY SAYS, UH, IN SECTION ONE THAT THE ESTIMATE SHALL REFLECT THE CITY COUNCIL POLICIES, PRIORITIES.

UM, AND SO I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IN REFLECTION? WOULD IT, WOULD THE BUDGET HAVE TO SAY THIS ISSUE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER X, THIS ISSUE WAS SOMETHING BROUGHT UP BY COUNCIL MEMBER Y, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE? SO, I, I DON'T THINK IT'D HAVE TO BE AS SPECIFIC AS TO WHO BROUGHT IT UP OR WHOSE PRIORITY IT WAS.

ASSUMING THAT IT DOES COME FROM THE BODY, THE BODY WOULD ESTABLISH WHAT THE PRIORITY IS, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A, A CORRESPONDING ALLOCATION OF HOW THIS IS ADDRESSING THAT PRIORITY, THEN IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL TO VOTE FOR THE BUDGET, LIKE THEY WOULD ANYTHING ELSE, UM, UP OR DOWN, BUT AT LEAST IT WOULD BE IN THERE.

WELL, SO I GUESS MY SECOND AND FINAL QUESTION WOULD BE, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, UM, AS BOTH A, A CITY STAFF MEMBER AND

[00:45:01]

AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HAVING OPERATED, UM, WITH MULTIPLE MAYORS, UM, AND WITH MULTIPLE CITY MANAGERS, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS, THAT IT IS PERHAPS A CONSISTENT TREND THAT CITY MANAGERS DON'T DO THIS OR THAT PERHAPS CITY MANAGERS DO DO THIS, BUT THERE'S, UM, FOR THE FUTURE YOU WOULD JUST WANT IT TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED, KNOWING IT'S A PRACTICE THAT IS EXHIBITED? YEAH, I, I MEAN, CITY MANAGERS DO THIS.

IT'S TO THEIR ADVANTAGE AND INTEREST TO DO SO.

IT, IT JUST SHOULD BE A PROCESS.

WHAT, THROUGH MY EXPERIENCE, I'VE SEEN THERE'D BE DECISIONS WHERE THEY DECIDED NOT TO.

AND SO THAT JUST HAS LED TO A, A DIFFERENT PROCESS AROUND THE HORSESHOE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT GETS DONE, BUT IT'S JUST NOT VERY, NOT VERY CLEAN, NOT VERY TRANSPARENT.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'D, I'D MUCH RATHER HAVE THE, THE DEBATE ON PRIORITIES BE IN PUBLIC AND THEN LET THE, LET THE PUBLIC SEE HOW THE THINGS ARE BEING ADDRESSED, UM, IN, IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

SO IT, IF I'M, IF I'M SOMEONE LOOKING TO BECOME THE CITY MANAGER OF DALLAS, AND I KNOW THAT IN THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT IT IS A, UH, UH, WEAK MAYOR SYSTEM, UH, I KNOW I HAVE A TON OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT'S GONNA BE ASKED OF ME AS A CITY MANAGER.

AND MY, I WOULD AT LEAST GO AND LOOK AT THE CITY CHARTER TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT, UH, MY, MY ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE.

WHILE THIS MAY, UM, FEEL LIKE, PERHAPS EVEN IF IT'S A THING THAT IS DONE, IF IT'S NOT STATED IN THE DOCUMENT, UM, AND YOU DON'T WANNA DO IT, UH, YOU'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANNA DO.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF SORT OF INDUCING THROUGH LEXICON IN THE CHARTER, UM, COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

AND SO, COMMISSIONER MCGOO, IF YOU MOVE THIS FORWARD, I'M HAPPY TO SECOND AND I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF, UM, INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE MR. DE LA PUENTE.

YEAH.

SOMETHING THAT WE, I THINK AS A COMMISSION HAVE ASKED OURSELVES THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS IS, IS THIS SOLVING A PROBLEM? AND IT SEEMS LIKE FROM THE EXCHANGE THAT JUST HAPPENED, THIS IS NOT REALLY SOLVING A PROBLEM THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

UH, CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH CURRENT AND FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE INDICATED, AT LEAST TO ME, THAT THEY DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY MANAGERS HAVE ALWAYS DONE PRETTY WELL.

SO I'LL BE VOTING TO EXCLUDE, UM, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AT A TIME WHEN, UM, I THINK WE ARE LOOKING AT PROBABLY SENDING OVER 10 PLUS BALLOT MEASURES TO COUNSEL AND TOTALITY.

UM, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THIS MEETS THE THRESHOLD OF NECESSITY AT THIS TIME.

MS. HUNT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

I WHOLLY AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD REVEAL THE COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES AND HIS PROPOSED BUDGET, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS PROPER FOR THE CHARTER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A SHOULD.

I DON'T SEE THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN HERE THAT YOU COULD LEGALLY REBUT AND SAY, WELL, THE CITY MANAGER DIDN'T REALLY FOLLOW THE COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES.

AND THE CITY MANAGER SAYS, YES, I DID.

SO I, I DON'T, I, I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT AND I SUPPORT THE SENTIMENT, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT PUTTING THIS IN THE CHARTER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, CAN I GET A MOTION I'D MOVE TO INCLUDE? OKAY.

AND SINCE YOU CHOSE MOTION TO INCLUDE, THERE WAS SOMETHING PASSED OUT EARLIER IS THE ATTORNEY'S MEMO, UH, SENT EVERYONE EARLIER, AND IT'S ON YOUR DESK, BUT IF YOU'LL GO TO PAGE SIX OF 16, THERE WAS AN OPTION ONE AND AN OPTION TWO.

UH, YOU'LL HAVE TO TELL US WHICH ONE OF THOSE IS INCLUDED IN YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE, PLEASE, OR INCLUDE.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE DIFFERENCE IS THE REQUIREMENT OF SHALL CONVENE AN OPEN SESSION.

IS THAT CORRECT? ATTORNEYS? I THINK IT'S BY THE DATE, YEAH.

FOR OPTION TWO, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT COUNSEL MEETS AN OPEN SESSION BY A CERTAIN DATE, AND YOU'D HAVE TO LET US KNOW WHAT THAT DATE IS SO THAT THEY COULD DISCUSS THEIR POLICY PRIORITIES AND HAVE THE CITY MANAGER BE

[00:50:01]

PART OF THAT DISCUSSION IN OPEN SESSION.

AND THEN THE OTHER, THE FIRST OPTION IS JUST, IT'S A, LEAVES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE VAGUE.

IT JUST SAYS, AFTER THE CITY MANAGER HAS SOUGHT AND RECEIVED THE POLICY PRIORITIES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN HE SUBMITS HIS BUDGET, UM, BY THE 15TH DAY OF AUGUST.

THAT GOES TO COMMERS.

YOUNG QUESTION AS WELL.

I, I GUESS WITHOUT HAVING A SPECIFIC DATE IN MIND, I WOULD GO WITH OPTION ONE WOULD TO INCLUDE MS. LAMAER.

YOU HAD A QUESTION? YES, I HAD A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER MAGOO.

UH, WELL, WELL, I THINK WAS HER QUESTION MAYBE, OH, NO, NO.

FOR THE ATTORNEYS IT'S SEPARATE.

IS THE QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEYS OR IS IT OKAY.

SO THERE HAD TO BE A SECOND ON THE MOTION THEN BEFORE I COULD RECOGNIZE YOU FOR THAT SECOND.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. SOLI LINE.

MS. LEMASTER QUESTION FOR THOUGHT, SINCE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW CITY MANAGER, W WOULD THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE, WHAT IF WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL INCLUDE THIS AS A JOB REQUIREMENT FOR THE INCOMING CITY MANAGER? WOULD THAT DO IT? WOULD THAT ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH? I MEAN, IT, ANYTHING THAT ADDS TO THE REQUIREMENT IS HELPFUL.

YES.

UM, I DON'T THINK IT GETS THERE TO REALLY, UH, COMMISSIONER ALI'S POINT OF, IF IT'S JUST IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY MANAGER THAT'S THERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THERE.

UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

AND, UM, BUT IT DOES, IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

SO.

WELL, I WAS THINKING MORE IN THE CONTRACT OF THE WHOEVER THE NEXT CITY MANAGER WOULD BE.

YEAH, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE IS A, CAN BE A LACK OF COMMUNICATION DURING THE BUDGET TIME.

YEP.

BUT I'M ASKING, I DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL.

I MEAN, YEAH, I, I DON'T EITHER.

I WOULD, I I WOULD ADVOCATE BOTH.

BOTH.

AND .

OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT WAS OPTION ONE.

YEAH.

AND HAVE A SECOND ON THAT, UM, BY COMMISSIONER SLIS.

UH, IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, THEN ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

RAISE YOUR HANDS.

AYE.

2, 3, 4.

ALL OPPOSED NAY.

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

ALRIGHT, SO THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY AGENDA ITEM F.

THIS WAS STA ESTABLISHED AN OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN WITHIN THE FUNCTION OF THE CITY AUDITOR.

THIS IS AMENDMENT 37, UH, SUBMITTED BY MR. MARCUS WOOD.

MR. WOOD, UM, IS NOT PRESENT.

HE DID SEND, UM, A MESSAGE JUST SAYING THAT HE FEELS LIKE HE, HE'S MADE HIS POINT, UH, IN THE MULTIPLE EMAILS AND, AND, UH, OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK.

UM, I WILL NOTE, UM, UH, BUT JUST BY WAY OF APOLOGY, I JUST SENT OUT SOMETHING, UM, FROM THE CITY AUDITOR, UM, THAT, THAT ADDRESSED THIS ITEM.

IT JUST CAME TO YOUR EMAIL INBOX.

I WAS SUPPOSED TO SEND IT YESTERDAY, UM, AND FORGOT.

SO THAT IS IN THERE.

BUT, UM, THE CITY AUDITOR IS HERE TO DISCUSS THE, THE PROPOSAL AS WELL.

UM, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN, UM, LOOKING AT FURTHER, COULD WE ASK THE, UH, CITY AUDITOR TO COME UP? I BELIEVE WE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS.

YES, SIR.

UH, MR. SWAN, IF YOU WOULD, MS. CLAP, I WOULD JUST LIKE YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS AND HOW YOU THINK IT WOULD WORK WITHIN THE OFFICE.

MARKWAN CITY AUDITOR, UM, MR. WOOD PROPOSED THIS, UM, EMAILED ME AT THE SAME TIME.

UH, I, IN MY, IN MY RESEARCH, CAN YOU JUST TALK ME, GET MY RESEARCH.

UH, THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE A SIMILAR FUNCTION, BUT IT DOES EXIST IN THE CITY OF PORTLAND AND ANCHORAGE, ALASKA AND THE CITY OF DETROIT, OR THE BIGGER CITIES THAT HAVE A INDEPENDENT, A BUDS PERSON, UM, TO HELP CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS WHEN THEY GET FRUSTRATED THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THEIR ISSUES.

MR. MILLS, WHO WOULD THIS INDIVIDUAL REPORT TO WITHIN THE CITY? UH, WELL IF THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE FOR THE REPORT TO THE CITY AUDITOR, MR. DE LA FUENTE.

UH, SO I SEE IN THE EMAIL THAT YOU, UH, ASKED TO BE FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION THAT, UH, YOU MAY NOT TAKE AN OFFICIAL POSITION ON WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD HAVE AN OMBUDSMAN, BUT THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE CHARTER.

AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? UM, I GUESS, DID I SEND THAT EMAIL? OH, , SORRY.

I IT MIGHT BE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE, BUT IN THE EMAIL THAT WAS JUST, THAT WAS FORWARDED TO US.

OH, SORRY.

IT WAS FROM

[00:55:01]

MARK SWAN.

THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S ME.

THAT'S, THAT, THAT WAS SOME TIME BACK THAT WAS TRYING, IT'S NOT THE MOST RECENT ONE.

UM, AND, AND I'M HAPPY TO READ THAT IF YOU'D LIKE, JUST NO, NO, NO, THAT'S FINE.

NO, AT THE TIME WHEN I FIRST STARTED RESEARCHING, IT JUST SEEMED KIND.

UM, MAYBE IT, YOU KNOW, WILL THIS WORK IN THE CITY OF DALLAS? WE DON'T KNOW.

YEAH.

ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

AND, AND MEMORIALIZE IT IN THE CHARTER FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD DID NOT SEEM LIKE MAYBE THE MOST PRUDENT THING TO DO IN MY MIND, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO, OUR BUDGET GETS APPROVED INDEPENDENTLY BY THE WHOLE COUNCIL, AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD PREFER NOT TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, BUT STILL STILL THINKS IT IS A GOOD IDEA, I COULD PROPOSE IT AS PART OF MY BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL.

AND THEN IF THEY WANTED TO GO FORWARD WITH IT, ALSO BEING IN THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET THE RESULTS.

I THINK THE, THE GOAL BEHIND THIS FUNCTION IS TO GET SOLUTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO BECOME FRUSTRATED WITH ALL THE FRAGMENTED DEPARTMENTS AND JUST DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO GET AN ANSWER TO THEIR CONCERNS.

AND SO, UH, AGAIN, I HAVE THE CITY AUDITOR HAS POWER TO RECOMMEND, BUT DOESN'T HAVE POWER TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.

UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE AN EXPERIMENT TO SEE HOW, HOW WELL IT ACTUALLY GOT RESULTS.

AND IT MIGHT BE MORE PLACED BETTER MAYBE AS A, A FUNCTION IN 3 1 1 OR IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

AND I THINK HAVING IT OUTSIDE THE CHARTER GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY.

THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.

THANK YOU.

THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR POTENTIALLY PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH AS I TRIED TO JUGGLE READING YOUR EMAIL TO ASK QUESTION.

NO, NO.

I READ THAT.

I DID PUT THAT IN AN EMAIL SEVERAL WEEKS AGO.

SO, THAT'S OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUES, UH, MR. YOUNG, UH, NOT A QUESTION, BUT A COMMENT.

ARE YOU READY FOR THAT? YES, SIR.

UM, I FIRST WANT TO THANK MARCUS WOOD FOR TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS.

MARCUS IS A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NINE WHO HAS BEEN FOR DECADES INTERESTED IN IMPROVING IN VARIOUS WAYS THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE CITY TO ITS CONSTITUENTS.

I THINK THE IDEA OF AN EMB OMBUDSMAN IS A GREAT IDEA.

FRANKLY, I THINK OUR 3 1 1 SYSTEM IS BADLY BROKEN.

I THINK IT FOCUSES ON THROUGHPUT AND PROCESSING COMPLAINTS AND CLOSING COMPLAINTS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY RATHER THAN SOLVING THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION.

I THINK AN OMBUDSMAN WOULD ALSO AID THE COUNCIL OFFICES IN REMOVING SOME OF THEIR CONSTITUENT SERVICE BURDEN.

WHAT I CONSISTENTLY ADVISE PEOPLE TO DO WHO ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET A SOLUTION OUT OF THE CITY STAFF IS EITHER TO SIGN UP FOR OPEN MIC AT COUNCIL, UH, AND OR TO CONTACT THEIR COUNCIL OFFICE BECAUSE THE COUNCIL OFFICES, UM, OPERATE AS MANY OMBUDSMANS AND I THINK THIS WOULD, UH, WOULD RELIEVE THEM OF SOME OF THAT BURDEN.

THAT SAID, I CONCUR WITH THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CHARTER.

I THINK THIS WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT CITY ORDINANCE.

UM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE, UH, NOT SO EXCELLENT A CHARTER AMENDMENT.

AND SO I WOULD MOVE TO EXCLUDE THIS ITEM.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

UH, WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE DISCUSSION.

MR. CAMPBELL.

MR. YOUNG, UH, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID.

I JUST WOULD LIKE, CAN YOU ELABORATE MORE ON WHY YOU THINK IT IT SHOULD, IT BELONGS MORE IN THE CITY ORDINANCE THAN IN THE CHARTER FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

I THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD EVALUATE WHETHER IT BELONGS UNDER THE AUDITOR OR UNDER THE, UM, PERHAPS THE, UH, OFFICE OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OR IN SOME OTHER LOCATION.

I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE AUDITOR THAT IT WOULD BE EXPERIMENTAL IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

IT MIGHT BE AN EXPERIMENT THAT SUCCEEDS, BUT IT MIGHT ALSO BE AN EXPERIMENT THAT FAILS.

THANK YOU.

MR. DE LA FUENTE.

THIS IS PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, LIKE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS.

UM, IF THIS MOTION TO EXCLUDE SUCCEEDS, LIKE I BELIEVE IT WILL, UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST AROUND THIS HORSESHOE THAT THIS IS GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA THAT JUST DOESN'T BELONG IN THE CHARTER.

WHAT'S THE PROCESS TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO COUNCIL? WELL, I BELIEVE THAT, UM, YOU CAN EITHER OPT TO DO THAT AS A BODY.

UM, IN 2014, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PUT IN THEIR LETTER TO COUNCIL AND ULTIMATELY THEIR, UM, UH, PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY LIKED BUT DID NOT BELONG IN THE CHARTER.

UM, AND IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO LOOK INTO.

UM, ALTERNATIVELY, YOU COULD ALSO REACH OUT, UM, JUST DIRECTLY TO YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND, AND MAY MAYBE MAKE THEM AWARE OF THIS CONVERSATION AND AWARE OF, UH, OF THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A PERSONAL LEVEL, UM, WAY THAT YOU CAN GAUGE.

AND FOR THE RECORD, THE 2004

[01:00:01]

CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DID LIKEWISE.

OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE, SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED NAY AYES HAVE IT.

THE MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT IS AGENDA ITEM G.

THIS WOULD CLARIFY THAT CITY COUNCIL'S APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE AT WILL.

THIS IS AMENDMENT 13, UH, SUBMITTED BY MR. KINGSTON, AND HE'S ALREADY ON DECK.

THAT'S AWESOME.

THREE MINUTES, SIR.

UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

JUST A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ON THE PARK BOARD AND ON THE RANK CHOICE VOTING, JUST NO, WE WON'T DO ANY.

UM, THE, UH, THIS ONE IS ANNOYING TO HAVE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, FRANKLY, BECAUSE THE CHARTER ALREADY MAKES IT EXCRUCIATINGLY CLEAR THAT BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS ARE AT WILL.

UM, I HAVE ANALYZED THE LANGUAGE FOR YOU IN THE EMAIL I SENT YOU THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGES THAT SUCH MEMBERS SHALL SERVE FOR A TERM AS PROVIDED BY ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL NOT TO EXCEED TWO YEARS FROM OCTOBER 1ST OR UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE APPOINTED AND QUALIFIED NOT AND UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE APPOINTED AND QUALIFIED.

UM, IT WAS ALWAYS THE INTENT OF THE DRAFTERS OF THE CHARTER THAT BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS SHOULD BE AT WILL.

UM, THIS IS NOT A BAD THING, 12 A, THE ETHICS CODE ALREADY SPECIFIES THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE NOT TO DOMINATE OR OTHERWISE INAPPROPRIATELY INFLUENCE THEIR APPOINTEES.

SO THERE IS NO DANGER OF THAT.

THE PROBLEM BECOMES WHEN WE HAVE CHANGES ON COUNSEL THAT AFFECT A FUTURE COUNSEL PERSON BY THE APPOINTMENTS OF HIS OR HER PREDECESSOR.

AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CREATED CHAOS IN 2021 BY FIRST CONVENING THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION BEFORE THE DATA FROM THE, FROM THE CENSUS BUREAU WAS AVAILABLE.

I CONTEND THAT THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION THIS LAST TIME WAS ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED AND FRANKLY HAD NO AUTHORITY.

WE'RE KIND OF PAST THAT NOW, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT GREAT.

SO, UH, ONE HOLDOVER APPOINTMENT ON THE RE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION WAS STILL THERE, REFUSED A REQUEST TO RESIGN.

AND THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO NO LONGER WORKS HERE FOR SOME REASONS, RULED THAT SHE WOULD, COULD ONLY BE REMOVED FOR CAUSE.

THERE IS A CAUSE REMOVAL PROVISION IN THE CHARTER, BUT IT IS SEPARATE FROM THE AT WILL REPLACEMENT PROVISION THAT THIS WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUR EVERY 10 YEARS WHEN WE HAVE CHANGES IN THE COUNCIL AT THE SAME TIME AS WE'RE DOING REDISTRICTING.

BUT IT ALSO COULD ARISE IF YOU HAVE AN APPOINTEE WHO CONTINUALLY, UH, FLOS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER.

THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT REPEATEDLY.

BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE THERE TO SMOOTH THE PATH FOR THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND SENDING FORWARD THINGS THAT THEY KNOW WILL NOT BE RECEIVED WELL IS EXTREMELY INAPPROPRIATE AND SHOULD RESULT IN A REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT.

AND IF YOU THINK THAT THAT'S HEAVY HANDED OR WHATEVER, IT WILL BE USED VERY INFREQUENTLY.

UH, WHEN NIXON DID IT, HE GOT FIRED.

UM, YOU HAVE TO DO IT WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS WILL ENSURE THAT.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO SEND THIS FORWARD TO COUNSEL WITH THE ADDITION TO SECTION 13 A THAT I HAVE AT THE BOTTOM OF MY SUGGESTION THAT SAYS, THIS PROVISION ALLOWS COUNCIL MEMBERS TO APPOINT AND REPLACE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS AT WILL.

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS.

AND PERHAPS BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN COUNCIL CONSIDERS THIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL PERHAPS RELENT IN THEIR, UH, FRANKLY, INCORRECT AND INAPPROPRIATE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARTER LANGUAGE THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE.

THANK YOU, MR. KINGSTON.

MR. YANO, UH, MR. KINGSTON, THERE'S A JOKE THAT WHEREVER TWO ATTORNEYS ARE GATHERED, THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE CONFLICTING OPINIONS.

UH, AND MY OPINION CONFLICTS RATHER DIRECTLY WITH YOURS, BUT NEITHER MY OPINION NOR YOUR OPINION REALLY PREVAILS.

SO I WOULD ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UH, WHETHER THE CHARTER CURRENTLY PROVIDES FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS TO SERVE AT.

WELL, UH, BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, UM, ARE APPOINTED BY COUNCIL TO SERVE A FULL TWO YEAR TERM.

UH, THEY'RE NOT APPOINTED AT WILL.

THEY MAY BE REMOVED, UM, BY THE ENTIRE COUNCIL BECAUSE IT IS THE ENTIRE

[01:05:01]

COUNCIL THAT APPOINTS EACH BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBER.

UM, INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS NOMINATE, BUT THEN THOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE BY THE FULL COUNCIL.

SO IT'S ONLY THE FULL COUNCIL, UM, THAT CAN REMOVE A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER.

AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER SAYS FOR ANY CAUSE DEEMED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SUFFICIENT FOR REMOVAL IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.

AND THEN WHOEVER'S BEING REMOVED HAS THE OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND IF THAT REQUEST IS MADE, THEN THE COUNCIL HOSTS A PUBLIC HEARING,