Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 03/07/02 (Part C)

Part A | Part B | Part C

Note: Since these log files are derived from the Closed Captions created during the Channel 6 live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. These Closed Caption logs are not official records of Council Meetings and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records or transcripts, please contact the City Clerk at (512) 974-2210.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR TO YOU BEFORE I MAKE MY COMMENTS.

THOMAS: YES, SIR, THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, I THINK THE CITIZENS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WANT THE TERM LIMITS, AT THIS TIME I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY THAT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN WRONGLY ACCUSED OF DANCING AROUND THE TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE, I WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN MY POSITION. THEY ACCUSE ME OF GOING AROUND THE TERM LIMITS ORDINANCE WHEN I MOVED FROM PLACE 5 TO PLACE 2. WELL, THE ORDINANCE DIDN'T APPLY AT THAT TIME. I DIDN'T MOVE FOR THAT REASON. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. AND THEN I QUIT AFTER THE FIRST TERM AND IN WHICH TERM LIMITS APPLIED, SO I DIDN'T — I DIDN'T COME CLOSE TO HAVING TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. THEN I CAME INTO THIS OFFICE AND THIS TERM DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD TERM LIMITS. SO, YOU KNOW, I WILL BE AS OLD AS STROM THURMON IF I GO THROUGH ALL THE TIME THAT I HAVE ON THE TERM LIMITS, YOU KNOW. PEOPLE ARE STILL POKING FUN AT ME OVER THIS THING. SO — BUT I THINK — WELL, ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. STEINER. WHAT HAPPENS IF — IF TERM LIMITS STAY IN PLACE AND THEN WE HAVE AN 8-2-1, DOES IT START RUNNING AGAINST? DOES THAT MEAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING IN OTHER PLACES? OR DOES THE TERM LIMIT APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS?

THE TERM LIMIT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS SERVING IN A POSITION. SO IT'S ARTICLE —

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF YOU ARE ON THE COUNCIL AND YOUR NAME IS GUS GARCIA, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU ARE, IT'S GOING TO APPLY TO YOU.

NO, SIR. IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU ARE. SO — AS MAY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO AVOID THE TERM LIMIT PROVISION IN THE CHARTER. ONE WAY IS A LOOPHOLE WHICH IS THAT YOU CAN SWITCH SEATS. AND THAT — IT'S PROBABLY INSTRUCTIVE THAT THIS WAS ON THE BALLOT AT THE SAME TIME AS A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT INITIATIVE. PROBABLY THE DRAFTERS WERE THINKING THAT PEOPLE WOULDN'T SWITCH SEATS BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T LIVE IN THE OTHER DISTRICT. BUT THE '94 ELECTION MAY HAVE HAD SOME AT LARGE — LET ME CHECK. IN '94, —

MAYOR GARCIA: BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE] SYSTEM. IT WAS '81.

I HAVE A LITTLE FILING CABINET HERE TO CARRY AROUND WITH ME: IN '94, IT WAS PEER AT LARGE SYSTEM. SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT IN THAT — HAD THAT PASSED AS WELL, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITHOUT ACTUALLY MOVING TO A NEW DISTRICT. BUT SINCE THEN PASSED AND THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS DOESN'T THERE'S A LOOPHOLE BECAUSE IT SAYS A PERSON MAY NOT — A PERSON MAY NOT — NO PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED AND SERVE IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. IF YOU CHANGE POSITION, YOU ARE NOT — YOU ARE NOT [INAUDIBLE]. OF COURSE THE OTHER WAY OUT WAS THE WAY OUT THAT WAS MEANT TO BE, WHICH IS THE PETITION. IF WE SWITCHED TO A MIXED SYSTEM, TO AN 8-2-3 —

MAYOR GARCIA: 8-2-1 —

SORRY, I'M STARTING TO GET A LITTLE PUN CHEE. A THREE MAYOR SYSTEM WOULD BE INTERESTING. PUNCHY.

I THINK THEY HAVE THAT IN YUGOSLAVIA.

WE HAVE SIX, SEVEN MAYORS HERE. [ LAUGHTER ]

BUT THE — SO — IF WE SWITCHED TO AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM, PRESUMABLY, AT LEAST TO BEGIN WITH, ALL OF THOSE WOULD NOT BE THE SAME POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE NOW BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO MATCH UP WHICH OF THE TWO AT LARGE SYSTEMS, AT LARGE SEATS CORRESPONDED TO THE SEATS THAT YOU NOW HOLD AND ALL OF THE DISTRICT SEATS WOULD BE NEW. SO EVERYBODY EXCEPT THE MAYOR WOULD BE IN A NEW — A NEW SEAT, I WOULD — IS THE WAY I WOULD READ THAT, AND THAT THE TERM LIMITS WOULD ALL START FROM SCRATCH FROM THAT TIME FORWARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I VOTED LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT THE LAST TIME. I THINK THAT THE CITIZENS PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, SO I'M GOING TO BE VOTING FOR THIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NAY.

NO.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR VOTE.

THOMAS: I SAID NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. SO IT CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3. WITH COUNCILMEMBERS THOMAS, WYNN, AND ALVAREZ VOTING NAY. LOWERING THE PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFIED VOTERS SIGNATURES REQUIRED ON THE PETITION TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR ON THAT ONE? THERE BEING NO MOTIONS ON THAT, THAT WILL DIE FOR LACK OF A MOTION. REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. IS THERE A MOTION ON THAT? THE REPEAL — ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE SCRIPT BECAUSE WHAT I DID ON THIS ONE, I PUT THE MORE DIFFICULT ONES FIRST AND THEN SLIDE INTO THE EASIER ONES. CHARTER AMENDMENT — [INAUDIBLE] [ LAUGHTER ]. THE ITEM — F AND G ARE FOR THE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED TONIGHT. SO — ITEM E — ITEM D IS THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITIZEN INITIATED AUSTIN FAIR ELECTION ACT — THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ACTION, JUST A RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT, MR. YOLANISKY?

AS TO WHETHER IT REQUIRES ACTION, I GUESS MR. STEINER SHOULD ANSWER THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT I MEAN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ADOPTS PUT ANYTHING. IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, THAT COMPLIES WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

WYNN: IN FACT I THINK MR. LEWIS WAS CORRECT EARLIER, WE ARE NOT SPOES POSTED FOR ANY ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE.

YOU ARE POSSESSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION. SO I THINK IN FACT YOU ARE POSSESSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER YOU WANT TO PUT AN ALTERNATIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.

YES, I THINK THAT YOU ARE POSTED FOR THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE POSTED FOR IT. ITEM E, INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY —

JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED — ONE OF THE ITEMS — I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I'M TAKING NOTES TO WHAT TO PUT IN THE ORANCE. THERE WAS A — ARE WE STILL ON THE ONES THAT THEY DID RECOMMEND —

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE IN THE ONES THAT THEY RECOMMENDED.

OKAY, SORRY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, BEFORE WE GET DEEP INTO THAT, CAN I CLARIFY THE NOOTION WE JUST HAD ON THE TERM LIMITS. IN GOING AND LOOKING AT THE SCRIPT THAT WE HAD LAID OUT THAT YOU GAVE US, I WAS FOLLOWING —

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS I OUT TO FOLLOW THE SCRIPT. G WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THAT'S ON THE 20TH AND 21ST.

GOODMAN: YEAH. WELL —

MAYOR GARCIA: GOING TO ITEMS NOT RECOMMENDED, THE FIRST ONE TO REPEAL THE CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRING NEWLY ELECTED OFFICERS TO PUBLISH A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE STATEMENT IN THE AUSTIN NEWSPAPER. THAT ONE HAS WIDE ACCEPTABILITY AMONG COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT'S JUST GIVING MONEY — NOBODY READS IT. YOU PRINT IT IN THE CHEAPEST NEWSPAPER IN THE SMALLEST PRINTS THAT YOU CAN GET. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ONE TO PUT THAT ON THE — ON THE — ANYWAY, WE FILE REPORTS WITH EVERYBODY THAT HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT APPEARS IN THE PAPER.

YES, SIR, THIS CHARTER PROVISION PREDATES THE MODERN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE YOUR SWORN STATEMENTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. IT WAS SORT OF A OWE SOMETHING THAT PRE-EXISTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR.

GOODMAN: MAYOR —

GRIFFITH: I'M SORRY.

GOODMAN: GO AHEAD.

GRIFFITH: BECAUSE THIS IS AN ANTIQUATED AND REDUNDANT ACTIVITY, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT ON FOR REPEAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: I WILL SECOND IT WITH A COMMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: PLUS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY EARLIER ON THE OLD MOTION, I WAS DOING IT ON FIRST READING THE WAY THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER STARTED, I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE DOING ALL OF THESE LIKE THAT, BUT I FORGOT TO SAY IT. NOW ON THE NEWSPAPER THING, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IS RIGHT, THIS WAS DONE IN THE DAYS WHEN THE ONLY WAY TO BE PUBLIC WAS IN A NEWSPAPER. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER THING TO PUBLISH IN, WE NOW HAVE CITY WEBSITES, SO ON, SO FORTH. IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF THE LANGUAGE SORT OF LAID THAT OUT. I DON'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE ON THE TIP OF MY TONGUE RIGHT NOW, BUT SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THAT CAMPAIGN SENTENCES, A STATEMENT OF CAMPAIGN SENTENCES — CAMPAIGN EXPENSES, A ESTIMATE OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE MEDIA OR INFORMATION VENUE AND I REALLY DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE, BUT JUST SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW IT WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE IN TO SEE'S MODERN TECHNOLOGY TO ACCESS THAT INFORMATION. SO WITHOUT HAVING THE — THE RIGHT LANGUAGE COULD I OFFER THAT AS AN — AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

GRIFFITH: ABSOLUTELY. AND COULD MR. STEINER HELP US WITH THAT AS YOU ARE DRAFTING THIS WEEK? SURE. WE CAN — I COULD DRAFT SOMETHING THAT SAYS — I APOLOGIZE, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT THE CITY CLERK WILL SEE TO IT THAT THE — THAT THE CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE. WE ALREADY DO THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE — I APOLOGIZE FOR BURR DEPENDING YOU WITH THAT WITHOUT SPEAKING TO YOU FIRST, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE EASILY DONE, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALREADY DOING. SO IT WOULDN'T BE A GREAT UPSET.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. FOLLOW THE SCRIPT, THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC UTILITY GOVERNING BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ONE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? ARE WE GOING BACK TO THE ONES THAT ARE CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED LATER? BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET ALL OF THOSE, DID WE?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE GOING BACK AND FORT. THIS ONE WAS NOT RECOMMENDED.

SLUSHER: I GUESS MY SCRIPT IS DIFFERENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS ONE WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

GOODMAN: MAYBE THAT'S THE QUESTION TO ASK THEN, WHETHER THE COMMISSION REALLY HAD TIME TO GO INTO DETAILS OF WHY THE RECOLLECTION UTILITY COMMISSION WANTED TO DO IT AT THIS TIME. WAS THERE A DISCUSSION?

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION. THERE WAS A PRESENTATION BY — BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS, I BELIEVE, TWO OR THREE MEMBERS, I BELIEVE, MR. KOCUREK, CHIEF AND OTHERS. THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT PELT FELT AND I BELIEVE OUR REPORT DID MENTION SPECIFICALLY THAT THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT — THAT WE COULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT — THAT THIS — THIS GOVERNING BOARD BE APPOINTED BY THE STOP YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR THE PARTICULAR PROVISION ON THIS SINCE WE'VE MOVED AHEAD TO A NEW ISSUE. I THINK AGAIN THE COMMISSION FELT THAT THIS ONE, LIKE SOME OF THE OTHERS, WOULD — WOULD REMOVE FROM THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT YET ANOTHER POSITION. AND FOR THAT REASON WAS RELUCTANT TO DO IT. BUT THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF INPUT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE DONE GIVEN THE WAY THAT — THAT — THAT THE — THAT THE INDUSTRY IS DEVELOPING.

GOODMAN: WELL, LET ME COMMENT ON THAT THEN MAYOR BECAUSE I HAD THOUGHT THAT MAYBE WHAT WE COULD DO IS BY CHARTER ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CREATION OF SUCH A BOARD OR COMMISSION AT THE TIME DEEMED APPROPRIATE. BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT MORE INDEPENDENT DECISION MAKING VENUE, RELATIVE TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY EVER SINCE — ACTUALLY, BEFORE REREGULATION WAS A THREAT, AND THEN ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAD TO DEVISE A NEW WORK PLAN AND BUSINESS PLAN AND CORPORATE PERSONA, I THINK WE ALL ASSUMED OR AT LEAST I DID BACK THEN ASSUMED THAT SOONER OR LATER WE WOULD HAVE TO DEVISE SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BUT IT HAD NOT BEEN LAID OUT. IT HAD NOT BEEN DESIGNED. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY DETAILS AT THIS MOMENT, EITHER. SO COULD IT BE AN ENABLING THING AS OPPOSED TO A CREATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS MY CONCERN WITH THIS ONE, I'M SURE TAKE IT WAS EXPRESSED TO YOU IN THE CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, THIS ONE CREATES AN INDEPENDENT LEAK UTILITY GOVERNING — INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC UTILITY GOVERNING BOARD. THAT'S LIKE CREATING A SEPARATE ENTITY. THAT MEANS SPINNING OUT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY OUT FROM UNDER THE CITY. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF. SO I'M STILL NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS BECAUSE THAT REPRESENTS A MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I AGREE WITH THAT. I AGREE WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NOT TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT. THAT WAS AN IDEA THAT WAS — BEEN AROUND LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WE LOOKED AT THAT REAL SERIOUSLY BACK IN '96 WHEN WE DID THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND I REALLY CONCLUDED AT THAT TIME AND HAVE HAD MY CONVICTIONS STRENGTHENED SINCE THEN THAT — THAT THE UTILITY IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CITY THAT — THAT IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY, IT'S OWNED BY THE CITIZENS, AND I THINK THE RESPONSIBILITY AS THE — FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THAT UTILITY SHOULD BE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY, THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK THAT RESPONSIBILITY LIES HERE ON THE DAIS AND SHOULD REMAIN HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM I MEAN COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: IT'S HALF THE BUDGET AND I THINK IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE TO CUT OFF AND LET FLOAT AWAY FROM OUR RESPONSIBILITY HALF OF A TWO BILLION DOLLARS BUDGET.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY MOTIONS ON THIS ONE? OKAY. THAT — ANY MOTIONS ON THIS ONE? THAT THAT LACK OF A NOTHING. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY GENERAL MANAGER. THAT ALSO WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION. THIS ONE, LIKE THE ONE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THEM BECAUSE TO ME THIS REPRESENTS A DEPARTURE FROM COUNCIL MANAGER. SOME PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT DEPARTING FROM COUNCIL MANAGER. IF WE DO THAT, WE NEED ON CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND — CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT BREAK IT DOWN PIECE BY PIECE. I CAN'T SUPPORT EITHER C OR D. I AGREE WITH THE — WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ON THAT. BUT IF THERE'S A MOTION TO BE MADE, I WILL ENTERTAIN IT AT THIS TIME.

GOODMAN: FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU MAKE A MOTION ON C IN.

GOODMAN: YES, C, APPOINTMENT OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S GENERAL MANAGER.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400

THOMAS: YES, SIR. LOOKING AT WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS SAYING AND SOME OF THE PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AROUND AUSTIN ENERGY, I FELT THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO LOOK AT. THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE NEED TO — QUESTIONS WASN'T ANSWERED LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEING THAT WE HAVE A COUNCIL AND A CITY MANAGER. I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE TREATMENTS, SOME OF THE ANSWERING OF THE QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ANSWERED WASN'T ANSWERED. LIKE THE OLD SAYING, IT WAS PULLING TEETH TO TRY TO GET INFORMATION. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM THAT I HAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM 9-C, CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY GENERAL MANAGER?

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM. I MEAN, THERE IS SOME LOGIC FOR THE BRTDZ TO — IF WE'RE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO HIRE THE GENERAL MANAGER, BUT THEN WE GET BACK TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY AND THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE MANAGER BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR HIRING THE PERSONNEL EXCEPTION, IN THIS INSTANCE THE CITY AUDITOR, THE CITY CLERK AND MUNICIPAL JUDGES. AND I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO GO ANY FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD OF HAVING COUNCIL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIRING AND FIRING OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. I THINK IT'S REALLY UNWIELD DI TO HAVE SEVEN BOSSES. THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THAT OVER THE YEARS. I THINK THAT THE — WELL, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I THINK IT'S VERY UNWIELDY TO HAVE SEVEN BOSSES AND I THINK THAT WE DOOULD NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WITH AUSTIN ENERGY BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO CRITICAL A POSITION THAT IF WE'RE HAVING ANY KIND OF PARTICULAR PROBLEMS LIKE WITH INFORMATION FLOW, RESPONSIVENESS, WHICH I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW OR THE PREVIOUS ADD NISTRATION THAT WAS THERE, BUT WE'RE — ADMINISTRATION THAT WAS THERE, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ON OUT AND IN THE FUTURE. BUT IF THERE ARE THOSE KIND OF PROBLEMS, WE NEED TO TELL THE CITY MANAGER THIS IS A PROBLEM, A SERIOUS PROBLEM, YOU NEED TO TAKE CARE OF IT. THAT'S THE WAY THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT WORKS. AND I THINK WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I ALSO WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS, AND MY CONCERNS FURTHER BUILD ON WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S COMMENTS ARE. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE OF COMPETITION IN THE BUSINESS CYCLE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS IN, THE LAST THING I THINK WE NEED TO — MESSAGE WE NEED TO SEND, PARTICULARLY TO THE BONDING RATING AGENCIES ON WALL STREET IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO POLITICIZE WHO IS GOING TO RUN OUR MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR AUSTIN ENERGY. I MEAN, THEY WOULD RECOGNIZE RIGHT AWAY THAT IN FACT IT HAS GONE FROM BEING AT LEAST ONE STEP REMOVED FROM A HIGHLY POLITICAL APPOINTEE POSITION TO RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. AND I JUST THINK THAT'S A VERY POOR DECISION ON OUR PART AT THIS TIME TO GIVE THAT SIGNAL. SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER COMMENTS?

GOODMAN: QUESTION, MAYOR. AFTER COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: YES. I'M LISTENING TO MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK THAT IN 2002 THERE'S GOING TO BE TIMES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE BECAUSE DOING THE SAME OLD BUSINESS ALL THE TIME IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD. WE'VE GOT ISSUES RIGHT NOW THAT WE'VE HEARD, PERSONNEL ISSUES. AND I'M NOT KNOCKING OUR CITY MANAGER. YOU DO AN EXCELLENT JOB. EVERYBODY NEEDS AN IMPROVEMENT. I NEED SOME IMPROVEMENT. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS OVERALL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A-MILLION-DOLLAR BUSINESS. SURE IF WE NEED TO CORRECT THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE'S INFORMATION NOT COMING OUT TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. I'VE BEEN HERE TWO YEARS ALMOST AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. THERE HAS BEEN AN IMPROVEMENT, BUT WE HAVE STRUGGLED TO DO THAT. SOMETIMES WE STRUGGLE EVEN IN A SYSTEM THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO STRUGGLE. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT REALTY OPPOSED TO WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT THINK WE'RE DOING ON THE NATIONAL OR WHATEVER. I THINK THE REALITY IS THAT.

SLUSHER: I WANT TO TAKE ONE MORE SHOT BECAUSE I'M — I'M REALLY WORRIED THAT IT'S GOING TO PASS, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS MISTAKE ON THE COUNCIL'S PART. OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE'S FREE TO DISAGREE, BUT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DREW ME INTO AUSTIN POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT STARTING BACK WITH THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT AND MY OPPOSITION TO THAT AND TO AUSTIN GETTING INVOLVED IN THAT. AND IT'S BEEN MY LONG TIME SUPPORT FOR THE UTILITY MAINTAINING A PUBLIC UTILITY AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GOT ME TO RUN FOR THIS SEAT BECAUSE THERE ARE PROPOSALS AND VERY SERIOUS PROPOSALS TO SELL THE UTILITY, MAKE IT BECOME A PRIVATE UTILITY, AND I FOUGHT AGAINST THAT, ALONG WITH OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE UP HERE. WE WERE ABLE TO PRESERVE THAT UTILITY AS A PUBLIC UTILITY AND WERE ABLE TO PUT IN A STRATEGIC PLAN THAT ONLY PASSED ON THE 4-3 VOTE. AND FRANKLY, WENT AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME, BUT THEN THE CITY MANAGER PROCEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THAT PLAN, OUR BOND RATING WITH THE WALL STREET HOUSES WENT FROM A NEGATIVE WATCH TO HAVE THAT NEGATIVE WATCH REMOVED AND IT'S GONE UP SINCE THEN. THE UTILITY IS AS HEALTHY AS IT'S EVER BEEN. IT KEEPS TAXES DOWN, KEEPS TAXES FROM BEING HIGHER AND IT KEEPS THEM LOWER BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF THE UTILITY AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT TRANSFERS TO THE GENERAL FUND. AND THIS HAS ALL BEEN DONE UNDER THE SYSTEM WHERE THE MANAGER HIRES THE COUNCIL. AND THE MISTAKE THAT THE UTILITY HAS MADE OVER THE YEARS, LIKE GETTING INVOLVED IN THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED IF THE COUNCIL HAD HIRED THE GENERAL MANAGER INSTEAD OF THE CITY MANAGER HIRING THE GENERAL MANAGER. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS THE COUNCILS THAT WERE PUSHING THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROBLEM OR PROJECT AND A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES AND MISTAKES THE UTILITY MADE OVER THE YEARS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY THE MANAGER BEING HIRED BY THE COUNCIL. AND I THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS RIGHT, THAT THE RATING AGENCIES ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK ON IT AS FAVORLY IF WE POLITICIZE THE MANAGERS OF THE UTILITY AND MAKE IT WHERE SHE OR HE IS SERVING AT THE WHIM OF THE FOUR VOTES. NOW, IF THE GENERAL MANAGER IS MESSING UP AND NOT CARRYING OUT THE POLICIES OF THE COUNCIL, THEN THE CITY MANAGER HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THAT AND IT'S COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE THE CITY MANAGER ANSWER FOR THAT. BUT I REALLY THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING A MISTAKE IF WE PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT AND SUPPORT THIS ITEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR MR. STEINER. IN THE CHARTER IS THERE A REFERENCE FOR THE COUNCIL BEING A POLICY-MAKING COUNCIL?

I PRESUME YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PROVISION REGARDING THE — REQUIRING THE COUNCIL TO REFRAIN FROM PERSONNEL MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO PEOPLE OTHER THAN THOSE THAT THE CHARTER SPECIFICALLY ENOOM RATES AS BEING HIRED BY THE COUNCIL. THAT'S ARTICLE 2, SECTION 7 THAT SAYS, NEITHER THE COUNCIL NOR ANY OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL INSTRUCT OR REQUEST THE CITY MANAGER OR ANY OF HIS OR HER SUBORDINATES TO APPOINT OR REMOVE FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT ANY PERSON EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE OFFICES WHICH ARE TO BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE COUNCIL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHARTER. THAT'S SORT OF ONE OF THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL SENTENCES THAT YOU'LL FIND IN CHARTERS THAT CREATE THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS ONE THAT GOES BACK TO THE REFORM MOVEMENT OF THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY WHEN THE UNITED STATES IN THE LATE 18TH CENTURY AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY WAS UNDERGOINGG URBANIZATION WITH IMMIGRANTS MOVING INTO THE CITIES, AND IT GAVE RISE TO THE GREAT POLITICAL MACHINE, LIKE THE FAMOUS ONE BEING THE BOSS- TWEED MACHINE IN NEW YORK CITY WHERE THE POLITICAL PATRON AGE WAS HOW MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS WERE RUN. AND PEOPLE LARGELY GOT JOBS BECAUSE OF THEIR PATRONAGE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND THERE WERE KICKBACKS FROM PUBLIC PAY ROLLS TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT GOT THE PEOPLE THOSE JOBS. AND IF YOU LOOK IN MOST CITY CHARTERS WITH COUNSEL-MANAGER SORT OF GOVERNMENT, THESE WERE THE REALLY SORT OF GOVERNMENT REMAIN BECAUSE WHAT THEY WERE AIMED IS IS THE DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES FROM POLITICS SO THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO HAVE PATRONACKNOWLEDGE IN ORDER TO GET DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES. AND A BIG PART OF THAT WAS SEPARATING THE MUNICIPAL WORKFORCE FROM DIRECT SUPERVISION BY THE ELECTED OFFICIAL. SO YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND THE PROVISIONS IN COUNCIL-MANAGER CHARTERS THAT SAY BOTH THAT THE — LIKE THE AUSTIN THAT I JUST READ TO YOU, PLUS THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PROVISION SOMEWHERE LIKE THERE IS IN OURS THAT SAY YOU MAY NOT REQUIRE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CITY EMPLOYEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS OF THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONE YOU WERE ASKING ME ABOUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE ASSISTANT HISTORY ATTORNEY FOR GIVING US A HISTORY LESSON BECAUSE I THINK THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF HISTORY, PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION TO IT ANY MORE. AND YOU DO NEED TO LEARN FROM HISTORY. AND IN BUILDING ON WHAT HE SAID THAT IT WAS EARLIER IN THE LAST CENTURY WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO BE IMPLEMENTED. SO ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT SOMETIMES NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AND I THINK THOMAS JEFFERSON SAID THAT IN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT VERSION. AND SO MAYBE PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO THINK ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND MAYBE THAT DOESN'T MEAN CHANGING THE STRONG MAYOR. MAYBE THERE'S A NEW SYSTEM THAT WE HAVEN'T INVENTED YET THAT NEEDS TO BE INVENTED. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. BUT WHAT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO IS BEGIN TO WHITTLE AWAY PIECE BY PIECE AT THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT BEFORE WE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO PUT IN ITS PLACE. IF WE HAVE TO ABAN DON THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE WANT TO PUT IN ITS PLACE, NOT CHANGING DIFFERENT SMALL PIECES OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WELL, THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR ANYONE WHO KNEW THE ANSWER IS HOW DOES THE INDUSTRY OF INDUSTRIAL- — CITY-OWNED UTILITIES TRUST ANYWHERE CEO. AND THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD BE REAL CAREFUL WHEN WE USE THE WORD POLITICIZE. THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC NEGATIVE THAT GOES WITH THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS THE CASE, BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'VE USED THE WORD POLITICS, THEN THE WORST IS EXPECTED, I ASSUME. BUT THIS BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL IF THAT'S HOW YOU MEAN THIS BOARD OF DIRECTORS. SO I'M NOT — I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A TOTALLY ACCURATE WAY TO TRY TO JUDGE THE APPROACH. AND THE REASON THAT THIS PARTICULAR POSITION AND THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, IF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS ON THIS LIST, IS NOT NECESSARILY TO REVOLUTIONIZE GOVERNMENT OR ANYTHING AND PROPOSE A WHOLE NEW SYSTEM BECAUSE MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. BUT I THINK THAT IN THIS SLIGHTLY NEW WORLD WHERE THERE IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF ASSUMPTION FOR US AS DIRECTORS OF THAT UTILITY, BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE NEED TO DO NOW THAT WE NEVER NEEDED TO DO BEFORE, AND PART OF THAT IS HAVE SOME SORT OF REASSURANCE AND PROTECTION FOR THE CONSUMER COMPONENT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY THAT CAN NO LONGER BE SO PUBLIC. SO THE GOAL IS NOT TO ERODE THE CITY MANAGER-COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BUT IT IS TO PUT INDEPENDENCE IN WHERE YOU NEED SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE IN A WAY THAT REASSURES THE PUBLIC OF THE INDEPENDENCE. THAT'S THE ONLY GOAL HERE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I ACCEPT THE CRITICISM OF THE USE OF THE WORD POLITICIZE, BUT I DID ADDRESS ALREADY ABOUT THE — I THINK IT'S BETTER ONCE SEPARATED FROM THE ELECTED BODY, EVEN THOUGH IN THE PRIVATE UTILITIES IT'S TRUE, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THAT IT IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT PICKS THE GENERAL MANAGER, BUT I DO THINK IT BRINGS A DIFFERENT PRESSURE TO BEAR THAT I WOULD RATHER NOT SEE. I'D RATHER SEE IT BE THAT THE MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE TO US, THE CITY MANAGER IS THE GENERAL MANAGER AND IS THE CITY MANAGER.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANOTHER THING IS THIS CITY HAS MORE THAN ONE ENTERPRISE. WE HAVE THE AIRPORT AND THE CONVENTION CENTER. WE HAVE THE WATER UTILITY. WE HAVE SOLID WASTE SERVICES. ALL OF THOSE ARE BASICALLY OUTSIDE THE GENERAL FUND. SO THE QUESTION IS IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DISMANTLING PIECE BY PIECE, I THINK WE OUGHT TO DO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAYS AND THINK ABOUT CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. IF WE WANT TO DO THAT. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE STRONG MAYOR, PLEASE WAIT UNTIL I LEAVE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THAT JOB. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I TEND TO AGREE MORE WITH MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN WHERE THERE'S A CERTAIN STANCE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN OVER THE COURSE OF MANY YEARS TO TRY TO INCREASE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED. AND IT'S BEEN SUCH A HUGE OPERATION, 12,000 EMPLOYEES AND OVER A BILLION AND A HALF WORTH OF OPERATIONS THAT WE HAVE. AND SO I'VE BEEN REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK, AGAIN, IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE POSITION —

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND. CAN YOU ELIMINATE THE FEEDBACK ON COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S MIC? I'M SORRY.

ALVAREZ: WELL, I THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, INDEPENDENCE, IN TERMS OF POLICE OVERSIGHT INDEPENDENCE, IN TERMS OF THE UTILITY. THOSE ARE TWO VERY SPECIAL CASES BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN DIFFERENT AREAS. AND THE UTILITY WITH DEREGULATION, WHAT WE'VE PASSED NOT VERY LONG AGO WAS A RESOLUTION LIMITING WHAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH MEANS THAT BASICALLY THE COUNCIL IS CHARGED WITH BEING THE EXPERT ON THE ELECTRIC UTILITY. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT REALLY I COULD CALL MYSELF AN EXPERT ON ELECTRIC UTILITY. AND SO IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE ORGANIZATION IS STRUCTURED, WE BASICALLY SENT INFORMATION THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, THE GENERAL MANAGER, TO THE CITY MANAGER, TO US, AND THAT'S FINE, I THINK, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WANTING TO DO AS AN ADVOCATE OR ANALYST, LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE UTILITY FROM THE SMALL RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER AND SMALL BUSINESS PERSON POINT OF VIEW, AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME RESISTANCE FROM OUR CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENTING THAT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. SO IT SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THESE THINGS ARISE HERE BECAUSE POLICY DECISIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAKES ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED THROUGH BY CITY MANAGEMENT. AND I THINK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OFFICE WAS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF THAT WAS THE COUNCIL GIVING VERY CLEAR DIRECTION AND THAT WORK SEEMS TO BE UNDERMINED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. BUT FOR ME I TRY TO LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF WHAT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT, IN TERMS OF WHETHER THIS IS NOT UNDERMINING THE STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK IF WE START HAVING DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL, THEN WE START DOING THAT. BUT IF WE START SAYING WHAT WE WANT IS SOME INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT IN PARTICULAR AREAS, THEN WE HAVE MORE CHECKS AND BALANCES AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS IMPROVE THE CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE DO HAVE. AND SO I THINK THAT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS IN TERMS OF HOW WE MIGHT DO THAT WITH THE UTILITY, GIVEN THE DEREGULATION, THE LACK OF INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND PERSONALLY I DON'T SUPPORT THE GENERAL MANAGER REPORTING TO COUNCIL BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO RESPECT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE, THAT I DO BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE, IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ANALYST THAT WILL LOOK LIKE MAYBE JUST A ELECTRIC UTILITY, BUT THE OTHER UTILITIES THAT WE HAVE, THE RATE-MAKING AND OTHER ISSUES ARE SO SIMILAR, AND THEN ONE QUESTION THAT I DID HAVE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GO HERE IS ACTUALLY THE STAFF ATTORNEY WHO SEEMS TO BE AN EXPERT ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES, BECAUSE ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT'S ON THE TABLE IS THE ABILITY TO MAYBE PLAY CERTAIN POSITIONS WITH AN AUDITOR'S OFFICE — AND I'M TALKING SPECIFICALLY HERE ABOUT THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE POSITION THAT WOULD, AGAIN, TRY TO LOOK AT FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENT IN A PARTICULAR WAY. AND I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DO THAT IN TERMS OF THOSE THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ACHIEVE FOR MORE ACCOUNTABILITY. AND I THINK THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO ALLOW THAT. AND THE PROPOSAL I HAVE PUT ON THE TABLE TO MAKE IT VERY SPECIFIC THAT THAT WAS POSSIBLE IS THAT AMENDMENT REALLY NECESSARY OR NOT IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT?

I APOLOGIZE ABOUT GOING ON AND ON ABOUT THINGS SOMETIMES IF I DID, WHICH I PROBABLY DID. THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE AUDITOR WILL HAVE SUCH DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT INCLUDE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT OR CAUSE TO BE CONDUCTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, INVESTIGATIVE AND OTHER AUDITS FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AS PROMULGATED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. SO WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS, THE CITY AUDITOR HAS ALL THE AUTHORITY THE CITY AUDITOR NEEDS TO HIRE ANYBODY HE NEEDS TO DO THAT, AND TO — OR SHE AS THE CASE MAY BE FROM TIME TO TIME. OR TO HIRE — THEY CAN HIRE ANYBODY THEY WANT TO DO THAT AND AUDIT ANY OF THOSE FUNCTIONS. THE ONLY RESTRICTION BEING, AS I SEE IT, THAT THEIR FUNCTION HAS TO BE AN AUDIT FUNCTION AS OPPOSED TO A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION, THE IDEA BEING THAT IF AN AUDITOR — AND I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS WOULD SAY THAT AUDITOR MUST MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE AUDITOR — A PERSON CAN'T AUDIT THEMSELVES, SO THE AUFTER NEEDS TO STAND APART FROM MANAGEMENT AND BE PERFORMING AN AUDIT FUNCTION AS OPPOSED TO BEING PERFORMING A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION. BUT AS LONG AS THEY PERFORM THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT FUNCTION, THE CHARTER GIVES THEM ALL THE AUTHORITY THEY NEED TO AUDIT ANY FUNCTION OF THE CITY, INCLUDING ITS DELIVERY OF CONSUMER SERVICES, MANAGEMENT OF THE UTILITY —

> MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S AN AUDITOR FUNCTION, NOT AN ADVOCATE FUNCTION.

YEAH. AN AUDITOR FUNCTION. AN ADVOCATE WOULD BE A PERSON WHO WAS CHARGED WITH TAKING A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW. NOW, THAT WOULD BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT WHICH JUST LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE OPERATION FROM A PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WAS REAFFIRMED IN THE ENRON CASE AND ARTHUR ANDERSON.

RIGHT. IF YOUR AUDITOR IS ALSO YOUR CONSULTANT ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING FOR YOUR PERSON WHO IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING, THEN YOUR AUDITOR IS AUDITING THEMSELVES ESSENTIALLY. BUT WITHIN THAT — WITHIN THOSE LIMITS THE AUDITOR CAN AUDIT ANY FUNCTION OF THE CITY AND CAN RETAIN SUCH SPECIALISTS AS NEEDED TO PERFORM THOSE AUDITS. SO THAT WOULD BE —

ALVAREZ: IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE'S ANOTHER STATEMENT IN THE CHARTER IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CITY AUDITOR CAN DO. SO CAN WE ELABORATE ON WHAT ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES THAT GIVES THE AUDITOR.

THERE SHALL BE A CITY AUDITOR WHO SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE AUDITOR MAY BE REMOVED ONLY BY A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THE AUDITOR SHALL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY AN AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. THE AUDITOR SHAVE SUCH DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND STAFF AS DETERMINED BY ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE RESPONSEBILITY TO CONDUCT OR CAUSE TO BE CONDUCTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, INVESTIGATIVE AND OTHER AUDITS FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AS PROMULGATED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CITY AUDITOR SHALL ASSIST THE CITY COUNCIL IN ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND IN IMPROVING CITY SYSTEM AND SERVICE DELIVERY.

ALVAREZ: THAT LAST STATEMENT, IF WE DECIDED TO HIRE A CONSUMER ANALYST OR PUTTING THAT IN THE AUDITOR, YOU'RE SAYING THAT LAST SENTENCE WOULDN'T LET US DO THAT?

I THINK A CONSUMER ANALYST, BUT A CONSUMER ADVOCATE MIGHT BE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THING. I THINK THE MAYOR PROBABLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT AUDITING STANDARDS CERTAINLY THAN I DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. AND THE PORTION OF THAT PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT DEALS WITH COMPLYING WITH AUDITING STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPTROLLER, THE U.S. WHAT?

THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT IS VERY EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT THE FUNCTION OF THE AUDITOR IS. AND IT'S NOT TO DO ADVOCACY WORK OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER KIND OF WORK. HE HAS A VERY SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY THAT INVOLVES HIM BEING INDEPENDENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT HE'S AUDITING. AND THAT'S — THAT HITS AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT AUDITING STANDARDS ARE ALL ABOUT. THAT HITS VERY HARD THE VIOLATION THAT ARTHUR ANDERSON COMMITTED IN THE ENRON CASE, YOU KNOW. THAT HAS BEEN — THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH WRITTEN ON THAT ONE. AND THE PROFESSION AS WE SPEAK IS UNDERGOING TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CHANGE BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE NOT ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFESSION CAN DO AUDITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALSO BEING THE TAX PERSON AND ALSO BEING THE CONSULTANT. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROFESSION IS STRUCTURED BECAUSE THE PROFESSION WAS STRUCTURE THE AND IT STARTED BACK IN 1933 THAT WANTED SOMEBODY INDEPENDENT TO LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON BY THE CLIENTS OF THAT PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, AUDIT FIRM. AND THE OTHER USERS.

ONE OF THE GENERAL STANDARDS IN THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS SAYS IN ALL MATTERS RELATING TO AUDIT WORK, THE AUDIT ORGANIZATION AND THE INDIVIDUAL AUDITORS SHOULD BE FREE FROM PERSONAL AND EXTERNAL IMPAIRMENTS TO INDEPENDENCE, SHOULD BE ORGANIZATIONALLY INDEPENDENT AND SHOULD MAINTAIN AND INDEPENDENT ATTITUDE AND APPEARANCE. SO THE AUDITOR'S POINT OF VIEW SHOULD, IT SEEMS TO ME UNDER THAT STANDARD, NOT BE PREDETERMINED TO ADVOCATE A PARTICULAR POSITION, BUT BE FREE TO LOOK AT THE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY THAT INDEPENDENCE IS BASICALLY MADE UP OF TWO PARTS. YOU HAVE TO BE INTELLECTUALLY INDEPENDENT, AND THAT IS EASILY DETERMINED. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENT IN APPEARANCE TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RELYING ON WHAT YOU'VE PUT OUT. YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU'RE INDEPENDENT. SO IT IS A VERY SERIOUS PART OF THE STTDZ THAT ARE SET FOR AUDITING. SO THAT PARTICULAR POSITION NEEDS TO HAVE THE INDEPENDENCE. NOW, AFTER THEY FINISH THE WORK, THEN THEY COME TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE TO REPORT, LIKE THE CHARTER DICTATES. BUT THEY SHOULD NEVER BASICALLY BE TOLD WHAT TO DO OR THEY SHOULD NEVER BE TELLING MANAGEMENT HOW TO DO THINGS. THAT'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE AUDITOR. AND LIKE I SAY, THE ENRON CASE IS BRINGING IT ALL OUT SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT NOW BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS KNOWN WELL. AND THEY'VE GONE NOT JUST TO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, BUT THEY NOW ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER AUDITORS SHOULD BE DOING THE TAX WORK FOR THE FIRM. ANYWAY —

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: WE'VE BEEN HAVING LITTLE SIDE DISCUSSIONS AS WE LISTENED TO YOUR REPORT AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH ENRON. SO WHAT WAS ON MY MOTION, I WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT TRADED DIRECTOR OF THE — WHAT DID WE SAY PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR? THAT TRADED THE POSITION OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S GENERAL MANAGER FOR NUMBER 9-F UNDER ITEMS CONSIDERED AND NOT RECOMMENDED FROM THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

ALVAREZ: I WOULD OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU'RE BASICALLY — WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER D, THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATES?

GOODMAN: TRADED IT, YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THAT'S F UNDER ITEMS CONSIDERED, NOT RECOMMENDED. DID YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?

IS THAT ALL?

MAYOR GARCIA: HOLD IT JUST A SECOND. THIS AMENDMENT BASICALLY, THE AMENDMENT BASICALLY WITHDRAWS ITEM C AND NOW WE'RE CONSIDERING ITEM F, WHICH IS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, 9-F. IN OTHER WORDS, — AND MY QUESTION, SINCE THE ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, WE DON'T NEED AN APPROVAL FROM THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION? SHE'S SAYING IN PLACE OF THIS, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS.

GOODMAN: WELL, I ACCEPTED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THAT CHANGED THE POSITION. SO BY MAKING THAT REPLACEMENT, IT TURNED IT INTO ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE HAD BEFORE US.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO ARE YOU GOING TO — NOW IT'S GOING TO BE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATE. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS CONSIDERED AND NOT RECOMMENDED, SO BASICALLY YOU'RE SUBSTITUTING SOMEBODY F FOR NUMBER C, CORRECT?

GOODMAN: IN ESSENCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE ISSUE OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES, Y'ALL DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT.

WELL, MAYOR, I THINK JUST THE SAME SONG, SECOND OR THIRD VERSE ON THIS, WHICH IS I THINK UNDER EACH OF THE ONES WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND, COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POSITION, WE WERE LOOKING FOR SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND OF ALL THOSE RECOMMENDED, THERE WAS ONLY ONE INSTANCE IN WHICH WE FELT THAT A DEPARTURE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED OR AT LEAST IT WAS POTENTIALLY JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO BE PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS, AND THAT WAS THE POLICE MONITOR. WE DIDN'T FIND THE SAME LEVEL OF — WELL, WE DIDN'T FIND THE SAME JUSTIFICATION. AND MAYBE THERE IS ONE, BUT WE DIDN'T SEE IT FOR A CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT SINCE THIS IS PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONSENT TO THAT.

THOMAS: I CONSENT TO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT WILL BE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. OKAY. DISCUSSION? WITHIN: MAYOR? —

WYNN: MAYOR? I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SPONSORS OF THIS. FIRST, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, A CONSUMER ADVOCATE, BUT FOR WHAT? FOR ELECTRIC RATES, FOR SEWER RATES, FOR HOW MUCH WE CHARGE THE GREEN FEES ON OUR GOLF COURSES, FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION USER FEES? YOU KNOW, WHAT CONSUMPTION DO THEY ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST?

GOODMAN: IT'S TRUE THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN SPECIFIC, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE UTILITY. IN EARLIER DISCUSSIONS, THOUGH, IT WASN'T LIMITED SOLELY TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, SO I WAS KIND OF ASSUMING SINCE THERE WAS NO QUALIFICATION HERE THAT THAT WOULD BE WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ELECTRIC. I HAVENOT HEARD DISCUSSIONS OF A CONSUMER ADVOCATE SORT OF POSITION BEING NECESSARY IN ANY OTHER ENTERPRISE OR FEE-BASED DEPARTMENT.

WYNN: SO BASED ON THAT —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ADD ONE OTHER THING. ACTUALLY, IN THE SETTING OF THE RATES, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ITS TEXAS LAW, IT ALLOWS THE UTILITY TO APPOINT A CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTS THEM. BUT IN THOSE TWO DEPARTMENTS, WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ELECTRIC. WHAT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM DOES IS IT MOVES THE APPOINTMENT FROM CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? WHEN THAT HAPPENED, — WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN AWHILE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A RATE INCREASE, BUT DOESN'T THE APPOINTMENT THEN COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL BECAUSE THE COUNCIL HAS TO APPROPRIATE THE MONEY TO PAY THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, SO DOESN'T THE COUNCIL VOTE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE ANYWAY?

MAYOR GARCIA: INDIRECTLY I GUESS THE COUNCIL APPROVES IT. I DON'T REMEMBER EVER APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO DO THAT, BUT YOU USUALLY HAVE IT IN THE BUDGET, SO WHEN YOU APPROVE THE BUDGET, YOU'RE APPROVING THAT PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE.

SLUSHER: I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. I REMEMBER MR. MCCOLLOUGH WAS THE ADVOCATE ON A COUPLE OF CASES, BUT HIS SALARY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOVE THE 39,000, SO IT SEEMED LIKE WE WOULD VOTE ON THAT.

GOODMAN: WE DID. IT WAS A CONTRACT. IT WAS A SPECIFIC TERM AND SCOPE OF WORK, NOT AN ACTUAL —

SLUSHER: OKAY. I'M SORRY.

WYNN: SO WE'VE DETERMINED THEN IT'S GOING TO BE AN ELECTRIC RATE AND WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THE NEXT QUESTION, ARE THEY WHAT I'D CALL RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER RATE ADVOCATES OR ARE THEY COMMERCIAL CONSUMER RATE ADVOCATES OR BOTH? STHAS THAT IS, AS WE KNOW, OUR RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CUSTOMERS IN AUSTIN PAY THE LOWEST ELECTRIC BILLS IN THE STATE BECAUSE OUR BUSINESS CUSTOMERS PAY A MUCH HIGHER RATE. THEY SUBSIDIZE. IN FACT, WE'VE DONE THE SAME DYNAMIC ON OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUE. SO THE QUESTION IS DOES THIS PERSON ADVOCATE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IF THEY ADVOCATE FOR ONE, THEY'RE ADVOCATING AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER,. WHICH WOULD IT BE?

GOODMAN: I WOULDN'T THINK SO. THE WAY I SAW THE WORD CONSUMER IS USER. SO WE WOULD WANT THE INFORMATION ON ALL RATE CLASSES, ALL CLASSES OF CONSUMER, AND THAT INCLUDES LARGE USERS WHERE WE OCCASIONALLY HAD TARIFF ISSUES TO LOOK AT THE BEST RATES WE CAN GIVE THEM AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE SMALL USERS WHO ARE NOT NECESSARILY RESIDENTIAL, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A DIFFERENT CLASS OF SERVICES FORMULA THAT WE FOLLOW FOR THEM TOO. THERE ARE SMALL BUSINESS USERS AND LARGER BUSINESS, BUT CERTAINLY NOT CORPORATE COMPLEX USERS, AND SO BY CONSUMER ADVOCATES, WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE LOOKING AT IS THOSE WHO PAY FOR POWER FROM OUR UTILITY.

WYNN: BUT WE'VE LEARNED A A ZERO SUM GAIN. SO IF SOMEONE IS ADVOCATING AS OPPOSED TO AN ANALYST GETTING INFORMATION, IF THEY'RE ADVOCATING FOR HAVING SEEN — DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME RESIDENTIAL UTILITY RATES CONTINUE TO BE THE LOWEST IN THE STATE, THEN THEY ARE ADVOCATING THAT COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS OR DUPLEX OWNERS OR APARTMENT DWELLERS OR SOMEBODY IS PAYING THAT COST. UNLESS WE DECLARE WHO THEY'RE GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR, ZERO SOME GAIN, LIKE A WATER AND WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND OR OUR UTILITY, I SEE AN INHERENT CONFLICT HERE.

GOODMAN: IF THERE'S A MORE PERFECT SEMANTIC WAY TO LABEL WHAT IN ESSENCE IS MAKING SURE THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE ALWAYS A PART OF WHAT'S CONSIDERED AND MADE ACCESSIBLE TO COUNCIL OR GOVERNANCE BOARD PERUSAL OR HOWEVER YOU ULTIMATELY STRUCTURE THAT, THE WORD ADVOCATE IS THE ONE THAT'S EASY FOR PEOPLE TO THINK OF AND SO THAT'S HOW THEY PERCEIVE THAT POSITION, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE EXACTLY THE WAY SOME OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS I THINK WOULD DRAW A PICTURE OF. WHEN MR. MCCOLLOUGH FOR INSTANCE WAS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE DURING A RATE CASE, IT WAS THE PERSON WITH EXPERTISE WHO WAS GOING TO GO WITH ALL THE NUMBERS AND THE PROPOSALS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A SMALL USER, BASICALLY RESIDENTIAL. AND TO ANALYZE EVERYTHING TO SEE WHETHER IN FACT ANYTHING WAS BEING DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF HIGHER RATE TO RESIDENTIAL OR SMALL USER. SO IT'S AN ADVOCATE IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD. THERE'S A CERTAIN SCOPE AND PROJECT THAT THAT PERSON WAS HIRED AS A AN ADVOCATE FOR ONE INTEREST, WHEREAS THIS ONE I THINK WAS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AS USERS AND OWNERS RATHER THAN THAT SAME SORT OF ADVOCATE, BUT BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY USE THAT WORD, THAT'S THE WAY IT POPS UP. IF YOU HAVE A BETTER ONE, I'M SURE WE'RE ALL OPEN.

WYNN: I'LL MAKE A SUGGESTION LATER. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR ELECTRIC UTILITY, THEN ALSO IF THEY'RE ADVOCATING AS RATEPAYERS, THEN THEY'RE ADVOCATING AGAINST TRANSFERS TO THE GENERAL FUND TO KEEP OUR PROPERTY TAX LOW. THAT IS, OUR ROLE HERE AS THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES, CONSUMER BEING BOTH OUR BUSINESSES, OUR RESIDENTS AND RATE PAYERS AND GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX PAYING BALANCES, IF SOMEBODY IS AN ADVOCATE FOR AN ELECTRIC UTILITY, THEN THEY'RE SAYING, WHOA, WHY AM I AS THE RATEPAYER IF I DON'T OWN PROPERTY, WHY AM I THE RATEPAYER MAKING A PROFIT, MORE THAN AUSTIN ENERGY NEEDS AS A PUBLIC UTILITY FOR MONEY THAT WOULD THEN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND IN ORDER TO KEEP AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES LOWER THAN THE STATE AVERAGE. SO I HAVE TO ADVOCATE AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS AND I HAVE TO ADVOCATE THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TRUTH IN ADVERTISING AND OUR AD VALOREM TAX RATE SHOULDN'T BE 45 CENTS, IT SHOULD BE 61 CENTS AND WE SHOULD RUN A BREAK EVEN ELECTRIC UTILITY AND ME AS AN ADVOCATE FOR MAYBE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS, I'M SAYING, OLD ON, YOU CAN'T TRANSFER MONEY TO THE GENERAL FUND. I'M ADVOCATING FOR UTILITY CUSTOMERS.

GOODMAN: YOU HAVE PUT YOUR HAMMER RIGHT ON THE NAIL. WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE REASON THAT THE UTILITY IS NOW A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF ENTITY IS BECAUSE WE AREN'T ABLE TO PUBLICLY AIR THOSE DIFFERENT PERSON IN AS WITHIN THE ENTITY ANY MORE. ALL WE KNOW NOW FROM THE PUBLIC SIDE REALLY, SINCE SO MUCH OF THE BUSINESS HAS TO BE CARRIED ON PROCEED PRIOR TORELY IS THE CORPORATE PERSONA, AND OZ STOCKHOLDERS, OUR CONSUMERS BENEFIT FROM THAT. BUT MANY OF OUR CONSUMERS AND STOCKHOLDERS DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE STOCKHOLDERS. THEY ONLY KNOW THEY'RE RATEPAYERS. AND SO WITHIN OUR PERSONA NOW AS A CORPORATE UTILITY, AN INDUSTRY MEMBER OF A PRETTY CUTTHROAT INDUSTRY IN SOME AREAS, WE KNOW THAT IN A STATE WHERE WE HAVEN'T HAD COMPETITION BEFORE WE'VE GOT TO BE REALLY ON TRACK, WE HAVE TO BE A SUCCESSFUL CORPORATE PLAYER OR WE WILL NOT SUCCEED, BUT IN THAT ENTITY WE STILL ARE THE PUBLIC, THE USER, THE ONES WHO NEED THE BEST RATES THAT THEY CAN GET AND TO BE SURE THAT OF THOSE THREE PERSONALITIES THAT ONE ENTITY HAS TO CARRY, ALL THREE ARE REPRESENTED. WE HAVE THE CORPORATE PERSONA. WE HAVE OUR GENERAL MANAGER, WE HAVE OUR VICE-PRESIDENTS AND WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO KEEP PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM BEING THROWN OUT TO THE WINDS FOR THE OTHER CORPORATE POTENTIAL COMPETITORS. WE HAVE THE COUNCIL AS CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN A WAY, BUT WE ARE NOT IN THE CULTURE AND WE'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE ONE STEP AWAY FROM US WITH THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO THERE IS NO IDENTIFIABLE REPRESENTATION FOR THE TRADITIONAL CONSUMER INTEREST, WHICH YOU COULD TELL BECAUSE THE PUBLIC ENTITY IS FOR THE PUBLIC. AND NOW IT STILL HAS THE NAME, BUT IT HAS NO IDENTIFIABLE CHECK AND BALANCE.

WYNN: I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT'S EXACTLY THE ROLE WE PLAY BECAUSE AN ADVOCATE BY TESTIFY NITION IS GOING TO BE ADVOCATING AGAINST THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WE BALANCED OUT HERE AS THE GOVERNING BOARD. THE FIRST THING THEY'RE GOING TO DO IF THEY'RE WORTH THEIR WEIGHT AT ALL IS THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, IX-NAY ON THE TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND. I'M THE RATE PAIR ADVOCATE, I AM NOT AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX PAYING ADVOCATE. THAT'S NOT MY JOB. SO WE'RE JUST — WE'LL SAY YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT WE REALLY LIKE THIS 15-CENT AD VALOREM TAX CREDIT THAT OUR PROPERTY OWNERS ENJOY IN AUSTIN AND WE'RE ABLE TO KEEP THE LOWEST AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX RATE IN THE STATE BECAUSE OF IT. SO THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT, BUT WE NEED TO ADVOCATE NOW NO THE BIGGER, BROADER DEAL. SO YOU SEE, IT'S — ARE WE GOING DO IT RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL OR ARE WE GOING TO DECLARE IT JUST UTILITY OR ARE WE GOING TO DECLARE IT AN ADD VO LOWER RECOMMEND TAX PAYING ADVOCACY, WHICH I THINK WE ALL DO HERE ON A DAILY, HOURLY BASIS, SO I JUST SEE IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GIVING US INFORMATION THAT THEN WE SIMPLY BALANCE OUT BECAUSE WE CAN'T GO ADVOCATE. BECAUSE IT'S A ZERO SUM GAIN, WE CAN'T GO ADVOCATE ONE SIDE VERSUS THE OTHER. WE HAVE A VERY DELL CAT BALANCING ACT AND THE CITY HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AND HISTORICALLY DOING.

GOODMAN: AND THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL COMES IN BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO SORT OF MERGE THOSE THREE PERSONALITIES.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

IT'S GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS, I MAKE THE STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT BUDGET COME OUT OF AN EXISTING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AND WE DELETE OUR MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET AND JUST CARVE OUT $100,000, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, FOR THIS PERSON AND/OR SOME SUPPORT, LET THEM GO DO THEIR JOB, COME RIGHT BACK TO US, TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW AND THEN WE ARE IN THE SAME SPOT WE ARE ALREADY IN, WHICH IS BALANCING OUT A ZERO SUM GAIN, A DIFFERENT ADEQUACY GROUPS, FIGURING OUT HOW TO RUN THE CITY, HOW TO KEEP THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, VERY COMPETITIVE AND — IN A VERY COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. SURE, I WILL SUPPORT DOING IT IF WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING TO PAY THIS PERSON, IF THE FUND COME OUT OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET, LET'S DON'T GO CUT PARKS AND LIBRARIES AGAIN TO PAY SOMEBODY TO DO WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW, WHAT WE KNOW TO DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE EQUATION IS THAT THE UTILITY HAS A VERY STRONG RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BOND HOLDERS. WHO IMPOSE COVERAGE, DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE, WHO IMPOSE DEBT TO EQUITY RATIOS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT GO INTO MAKING THE UTILITY A COMPLETE BUSINESS. AND WHAT WE HAVE HIRED CONSUMER ADVOCATES, WE HAVE HIRED THEM JUST TO MAKE SURE THE RATEPAYERS — BASICALLY THE RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS, WHAT WE HAVE HIRED IS RESIDENTIAL RATE ADVOCATES. NOT ADVOCATES FOR EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THE BIG INDUSTRY USERS HAVE THEIR OWN ADVOCATES. THEY COME TO THE COUNCIL. SO WHAT THE LEGISLATION WAS INTENDING TO DO WAS TO ALLOW THE UTILITIES TO HIRE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD PROTECT THOSE FOLKS WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GO OUT AND HIRE THE HIGH PRICED LOBBYISTS. SO THAT WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE PROTECTING, BOND HOLDERS, INDUSTRIAL USERS, IN THIS COMPETITION WE ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN TRYING TO KEEP THOSE CONSUMERS, KEEP THOSE USERS INSIDE THE UTILITY. SO IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED KIND OF THING FOR ME. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THIS PERSON WOULD FUNCTION. I'M LIKE YOU, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS PERSON COULD FUNCTION IN WHAT IS NOW A VERY COMPLEX SEPARATION. SO I'M — I HAVE DIFFICULTY FIGURING OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS WOULD WORK. I SUSPECTS AT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THEY MAY HAVE HAD SOME OF THOSE SAME CONVERSE. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: UM, I — I RESPECT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S POSITION, OBVIOUSLY I DISAGREE. I DON'T THINK THAT — THAT — I THINK IT'S OVERSIMPLIFIED A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS THE DYNAMICS OF IT. BUT I THINK, MAYOR, YOU CALL ATTENTION TO ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS HERE IS THAT BIG INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CORPORATIONS HAVE THEIR ADVOCATES. IF THAT'S WHO THIS CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS SPENDING THEIR TIME REPRESENTING, WE HAVE DONE A VERY BAD JOB OF SELECTING THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE THERE ISN'T MODEL FOR US TO FOLLOW. THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION HAS AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC UTILITY COUNCIL THAT LAYS THIS VERY ROLE. OBVIOUSLYLY AT THE STATE LEVEL, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ENOUGH AFTERING INITIATIVE, BIG ENOUGH OF AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT OVER THIS FUNCTION. AGAIN, IT GETS COMPLICATED BECAUSE THIS IS MORE OF A CITY GOVERNMENT THAN A STATE BUREAUCRACY, BUT THE WE DON'T HAVE AS OPEN A SITUATION WITH OUR UTILITY NOW, IT'S CHANGED. SEEMS TO ME LIKE THERE'S A NEED TO TAKE THIS KIND OF ACTION TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS BEING REPRESENTED IN TERMS OF THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT ADVOCATING FOR UTILITY RATES, YOU KNOW, THE ADVOCATE WOULD LOOK AT ITS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE RATE PAIR, WHO IS ALSO A TAXPAYER, TO HAVE THIS TRANSFERRED FROM THE UTILITY TO THE GENERAL FUND. AGAIN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VERY MY I DON'T KNOW PICK, — MYOPIC LOOKING AT A VERY PARTICULAR SORT OF WAY. I THINK THERE ARE EXAMPLES OUT THERE. THE PUBLIC INSURANCE COUNCIL, PUBLIC INSURANCE COMMISSION ALSO HAS THAT SAME TYPE OF SETUP, TNRCC HAS A PUBLIC INTEREST COUNCIL, THAT'S NOT AN INDEPENDENT BODY, BUT IT IS A BODY THAT HAS A CHARGE OF LOOKING FOR THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN TERMS OF THE DEALINGS OF THAT PARTICULAR ENTITY. SO THAT'S HOW YOU WILL LIKE AT THIS. THERE ARE OTHER ENTITIES WE CAN LOOK AT IN TERMS OF HOW TO DEFINE THE PARTICULAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS OFFICE OR INDIVIDUAL. SO AGAIN THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S A NEED TO DO OR TAKE THIS TYPE OF ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THOSE ARE REGULATORY AGENCIES, THOSE ARE NOT BUSINESSES. THE ELECTRIC UTILITY IS A BUSINESS. WE OPERATE A — A BUSINESS, A BIG BUSINESS THAT HAS REVENUE OF 8, 900 MILLION A YEAR. IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION. WE ALSO OWE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY, PAST THE BILLION DOLLARS. IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION, OVER THERE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS PUTTING REGULATION OVER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE STATE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AT RISK. WE DO. WE HAVE A LOT OF RISK HERE, SO IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION, THAT'S WHY THE LAW ALLOWS US TO HIRE A CONSUMER ADVOCATE WHEN WE ARE GOING THROUGH RATE SETTING. THAT'S PERMITTED BY STATE LAW. THE MORE — COUNCILMEMBER — COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH. WELL, AFTER LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE. WE HAVE AMONG — IF NOT THE LOWEST, AMONG THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL RATES IN THE STATE. EVEN THOUGH WE'VE HAD REPRESENTATIVES OF LARGE CORPORATIONS COME DOWN TIME AFTER TIME, YEAR AFTER YEAR, TRYING TO GET THEIR RATES UP LOWER. I CAN REMEMBER EVEN BEING ON THE SHORT END OF ONE TIME WHERE — WHERE WE DID DO THAT. I WAS ON THE SHORT ENDS OF A 4-3 VOTE. BUT THERE WAS PLENTY OF — THERE'S CLEARLY — IT'S CLEAR WHERE THOSE ISSUES WERE, EVERYONE WAS ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED. THERE WAS JUST AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT ON THE COUNCIL. BUT I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE CITY'S RATE STRUCTURE ON BOTH THE ELECTRIC AND THE WATER RATES, AND I THINK THE CONSUMERS ARE BEING REPRESENTED — REPRESENTATIVE — REPRESENTED PRETTY GOOD, PRETTY WELL. I WOULD ASK, I'M TRYING TO ENVISION, EXACTLY WHAT THE PERSON WOULD DO AND HOW THEY WOULD APPEAR BEFORE US. WHAT — WHAT ISSUES WOULD THEY APPEAR BEFORE US ON, WHAT KIND OF QUESTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD THEY MAKE TO US AND ON WHAT TYPE OF MATTERS.

GOODMAN: WELL, WHAT I'M ASSUMING, I GUESS I'M GOING TO BE THE ONE TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT. ESPECIALLY IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY MATTERS, BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH LARGER THAN THE WATER AND WASTEWATER, IF WE INCLUDE THAT UTILITY, WHICH IS AT THE SAME TIME AS SO MUCH MORE OF OUR BUSINESS AN DELIBERATION HAS TO GO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. SO, TOO, WITHIN THE STRUCTURE COULD A CONSUMER ADVOCATE OR BETTER — BETTER LABEL THAN CONSUMER ADVOCATE, IT'S JUST TRADITIONAL AND IT CARRIES AN ASSUMPTION WITH IT'S, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON THAT IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY. BUT A — BUT A CONSUMER ORIENTED — ANALYST OR TRACKER OR MONITOR, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WOULD BE ABLE TO — BY BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, BUT WITH THE ABILITY TO DISCONNECT ENOUGH TO BE INDEPENDENT, BE ABLE TO ANALYZE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES AND MOVES FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO THAT WE ALWAYS HAD THE THREE PERSPECTIVES THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO THE UTILITY THESE DAYS AND NOT GET SO WRAPPED UP, AS I THINK ANY — ANY COUNCILMEMBERS NOW OR IN THE FUTURE WILL JUST BY HABIT GET INTO BECAUSE IT IS IN THAT VERY CLOSED SORT OF GREENHOUSE, HOT HOUSE ATMOSPHERE. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE OTHER ISSUES ARE — ARE REGULARLY PART OF THE DISCUSSION IN AN ATMOSPHERE LIKE THAT. BECAUSE THE PUSH IS TO BE — TO BE A LEAN, GREEN, FIGHTING MACHINE. A CORPORATE SUCCESS THAT MAKES MONEY, THAT PAYS DIVIDENDS. BUT IN A PUBLIC UTILITY, EVEN WHEN WE HAVE TO — TO HAVE NEW KINDS OF — OF MEETINGS WITH PROPRIETARY PROTECTIONS, WE STILL HAVE TWO OTHER FACES THAT ARE SOMETIMES AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER IN AN INVESTOR OWNED. THEY DON'T COME TOGETHER IN AN INVESTOR OWNED. SO THE CORPORATE — THE CORPORATE GOAL, THE CORPORATE CHARGE IN INVESTOR OWNED IS NOT NEEDED OR DOES NOT NEED — SORRY, DOES NOT NEED THOSE OTHER TWO PERSPECTIVES, NECESSARILY UNLESS THEY ARE TRYING TO ANALYZE WHAT SOMEBODY LIKE US IS TRYING TO DO. BUT IT DOES MAKE SURE THAT EVEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND EVEN BEING A RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE BOARD FOR A UTILITY, FOR AN INDUSTRY, THAT YOU STILL ALWAYS HAVE THE INFORMATION PUT IN FRONT MUCH YOU TO KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE FROM THE CONSUMER, MEANING THE RATE PAYER POINT OF VIEW, BEYOND THE TIME WHEN YOU JUST HAVE A RATE CASE. WHAT — WHAT — LET ME TRY TO THINK OF THIS AN... ANECDOTALLY, WHICH THERE IS A LARGE INDUSTRIAL GIENLTS OF A UTILITY — GIANT OF A UTILITY PROVIDER. THEY TELL US AND THEIR COMPETITORS TELL US THAT THEY HAVE THE BEST RATES FOR US, THAT THEY ARE THE BEST ONES FOR US, AND WE SEE MANY, MANY TV COMMERCIALS WITH LET'S GO TO PHONES, FOR INSTANCE, IF NOT ONLINE KIND OF PROGRAMS. THEY EACH TELL US THAT THEY ARE THE BEST. ALL OF THE 10-10-220'S. I REALLY COULD NOT TELL YOU WHO HAS THE BEST OF ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT NUMBERS THEY PUT UP THERE, THE DIFFERENT COMPANIES, WHAT THEY OFFER ON THE 10 MINUTES, 7 MINUTES, 20 MINUTES AT 7 CENTS OR WHATEVER IT IS. THEY ARE TELLING ME, FROM THE CONSUMER POINTS OF VIEW HERE IN TOWN, MANY PEOPLE STILL DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC UTILITY, THAT THEY IN FACT AS PROPERTY OWNERS OWN THIS UTILITY. ALL THEY HAVE IS OUR WORD FOR IT. WHEN THEY HEAR US, THAT THEIR RATES ARE OF THE BEST. THEY DON'T ASSUME THAT. BUT SO IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO POINT TO THAT MADE THIS UTILITY STILL A VERY IDENTIFIABLE PUBLIC UTILITY, NO MATTER THAT — THAT FEW OF THE THINGS THAT WE USED TO TALK ABOUT IN PUBLIC CAN HAPPEN ANYMORE, THEN THERE'S SOMETHING TO POINT TO, THEN THERE'S SOME REASSURANCE AND THERE'S SOME — SOME ASSURANCE, SPECIALLY FOR CONSUMER ADVOCATES WHO ARE OUT IN THE WORLD LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, NOT JUST UTILITIES. THAT THERE IS AT LEAST THE PERSPECTIVE INVOLVED. I'M SORRY TO BE SO WORDY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM WITH HAVING THAT POINT OF VIEW REPRESENTED WITHIN THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE SINCE IT IS ONE OF THE CHARGES AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR BEING A PUBLIC UTILITY. AND THAT THE LAST THING THAT I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS. MAYBE IN MY WHOLE LIFE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 7C, THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

WYNN: MAYOR? I HAVE HOPEFULLY A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THAT ONE — THAT ONE, WE — WE GIVE OURSELVES A BUDGET, WE TELL THE TAXPAYERS HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO COST, WE PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT ALONG WITH THE ITEM AND THAT WE — THAT WE AGREE TO TAKE THOSE FUNDS OUT OF THIS — OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AND NOT ASK THE CITY DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR CUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

GOODMAN: NO, THAT DIDN'T SOUND TOO FRIENDLY. ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS A UTILITY — PART OF THE UTILITIES CORPORATION STRUCTURE AND SINCE THE POSITION IS ALREADY BUDGETED WITH THE UTILITY, CERTAINLY THAT'S THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE SINCE THAT'S WHERE THE PERSON WILL DO THEIR WORK.

WYNN: THEY WON'T BE [INAUDIBLE] ON THE WATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUES.

GOODMAN: WELL, NOBODY HAD AMENDED FOR THAT. SO —

WYNN: SO CAN WE IDENTIFY THEN THAT — THAT THIS IS A — AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC AND SAY WHETHER IT'S — WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL.

GOODMAN: NO. WE WERE NOT MAKING THAT DISTINCTION. CONSUMER IS CONSUMER.

WYNN: ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

GOODMAN: YEAH. UNLESS YOU HAVE A BETTER WORD FOR ADVOCATE OR IF ANYBODY HAS A BETTER WORD FOR ADVOCATE.

WYNN: YOU NEED TO TELL THEM WHO THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR.

GOODMAN: THE CONSUMER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE — THE ITEM THAT HAS THE MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY, [ LAUGHTER ], BEING THAT IT IS PAST 10:00, I NEED A MOTION TO OWE TO SEE TO WAVE THE 10:00 ADJOURNMENT RULE.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COMOSH. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. SO THE 10:00 RULE IS WAIVED. SO — SO I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.?

NO. THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS WYNN, AND SLUSHER AND GARCIA VOTING NAY. CAN WE GO TO AN EASY ONE?

CAN I ASK A QUESTION, I'M SORRY. BUT IT'S SO THAT I CAN WRITE THE LANGUAGE. I SHOULD CALL THIS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

MAYOR GARCIA: CORRECT. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

AND WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DESCRIBE IN THE PROVISION WHAT THE PERSON WILL DO? FOR EXAMPLE, TO ANALYZE AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE ISSUES FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CONSUMER OF — OF ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES?

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE MOTION, RIGHT, MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY BE A LITTLE LOOSER, BUT THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED WERE FINE, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS DECIDED BY COUNCIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY.

GOODMAN: YOU CAN'T KNOW —

MAYOR GARCIA: SHE WANTS A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY.

I WILL TRY TO WORK WITH THAT AND GIVE YOU SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU CAN REVIEW.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO SKIP THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS THE CITY ATTORNEY, GO TO ITEM NO. 10 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION — THIS WAS NOT RECOMMENDED OR CONSIDERED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, BUT THAT WE HAVE A RESIGN TO RUN PROVISION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES HIRED BY THE COUNCIL. I ASKED — THIS WAS ONE THAT I — THAT I BROUGHT UP AND — PART 20, PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE CHARTER, THE NEW LANGUAGE IS SHOWN UNDERLINED. IF ANY JUDGE OF A MUNICIPAL COURT ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR IN FACT BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY GENERAL SPECIAL PRIMARY ELECTION FOR AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE, THE JUDGE ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL JUDGE. THAT APPLIES IF THE JUDGE HAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR.

NO, SIR, THAT APPLIES PERI.

PERIOD.

I COULD MAKE IT SO IT ONLY APPLIED IF THE JUDGE HAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR, THAT'S EASY ENOUGH TO WRITE.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THIS ONE APPLIES PERIOD.

APPLIES PERIOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT SAID WE HAD TO PUT THAT ONE YEAR THING IN THERE.

NO. YOU CAN DO IT THIS WAY OR THE OTHER WAY.

SAME THING WITH COUNCIL APPOINT TEES.

AS TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES, OF COURSE THEY SERVE AT YOUR PLEASURE ANYWAY. SO YOU DON'T REALLY NEED IN A IN THE CHARTER. PERSONNEL POLICIES ALREADY SAY THAT A CITY EMPLOYEE WHO WANTS TO RUN FOR — FOR ELECTED OFFICE HAS TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND YOU COULD MAKE THAT — YOU DON'T — AS TO OTHER —

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DON'T NEED IT IN THE CHARTER.

I CAN PUT IT IN THE CHARTER IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT. YOU COULD DO THAT WITH A PERSONNEL POLICY. AS TO THE JUDGES IT NEEDS TO NUMBER THE CHARTER BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE OFFICERS OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

AND WHAT WE HAD HERE WAS THAT WE INTERVIEWED JUDGES FOR TWO-YEAR TERMS, SOON AFTER WE APPOINTED THEM, THREE OF THEM, ANNOUNCED CANDIDACIES FOR ELECTED OFFICE.

UH-HUH.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND SO I ASKED THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, I ASKED THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THIS IS WHAT THEY DRAFTED.

ACTUALLY I DID. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DID THAT ONE.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO MAYOR PRO TEM, IF YOU RECOGNIZE ME FOR A MOTION, I WILL STEP OFF THE MAYOR'S CHAIR AND MAKE A MOTION.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, PLEASE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY MOTION IS TO PUT IN THE ELECTION, THE CHARTER ELECTION A PROVISION THAT — THAT READS AS FOLLOWS: IF ANY JUDGE OF A MUNICIPAL COURT ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR IN FACT BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL OR PRIMARY ELECTION FOR ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE, THE JUDGE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL JUDGE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FIRST.

GOODMAN: I WILL SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I'M BACK TO — BACK TO CHAIRING.

SLUSHER: MR. STEINER, ISN'T IT — STATE LAW IS IF THE ELECTED OFFICIAL ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY FOR AN OFFICE, THAT HE OR SHE HAS TO RESIGN THEIR CURRENT OFFICE IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR ON THEIR TERM?

THE STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 11 SAYS THAT CITIES MAY PROVIDE OFFICES, TERMS OF OFFICE IN EXCESS OF TWO YEARS FOR — FOR ITS OFFICERS, EITHER ELECTIVE OR POINTED. IF IT DOES, — ELECTED OR APPOINTED. IF IT DOES, THEN SUCH OFFICERS, THERE'S A BIT OF AN AMBIGUITY THERE, BECAUSE YOU COULD READ THE "SUCH" AS REFERRING TO ALL OFFICERS. BUT I THINK IT'S ONLY THE ONES IN OFFICE FOR A FEW YEARS, AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN IF THEY BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE WITH MORE THAN A YEAR WHEN — AT ANY TIME WHEN THEY HAD MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERMS. SO I THINK IT'S NOT APPLYING CURRENTLY TO YOUR MUNICIPAL JUDGES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TERMS IN EXCESS OF TWO YEARS. SO — SO THE — SO THE GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS THAT MUNICIPAL JUDGES CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FOR A — FOR A SET NUMBER OF — FOR SOME ENNEW MEXICO RATED ISSUES. ONE — ENUMERATED ISSUES, ONE OF THINGS IT DOES IS ALLOW FOR REMOVAL IN THE CITY CHARTER. THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES IF THEY BECOME A CANDID FOR ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE ANYWHERE IN IN THE TERM.

IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE STATE WHERE AN OFFICIAL HAS TO AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN THEIR OFFICE WHEN THEY RUN IF IT'S LESS THAN A YEAR ON THE TERM?

NO, SIR. THE ONLY RESIGN TO RUN PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW ARE ONE THAT APPLIES TO COUNTY OFFICERS IN ARTICLE 16, SECTION 65 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND ONE THAT APPLIES TO MUNICIPAL OFFICERS IN ARTICLE 11, SECTION 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THEY BOTH OPERATE THE SAME WAY, WHICH IS YOU HAVE TO — YOU AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN YOUR OFFICE IF YOU BECOME A CANDIDATE AT A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON YOUR TERM.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT SO THEN WE WOULD BE CREATING HERE A MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT THAN ON ANYBODY — ANY OTHER OFFICIALS IN THE STATE?

YES, SIR. I COULD EASILY, AS I SAY, IT MAKE — MAKE IT SO IT ONLY APPLIED TO PEOPLE WHO HAD MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WAS THE INTENT. I THOUGHT WE HAD DRAFTED IT THAT WAY.

I CAN CERTAINLY DO IT THAT WAY. IN FACT I HAVE IT IN THE CAN I CAN JUST INSERT A CLAUSE IN THERE THAT SAYS AT A TIME DURING WHICH THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THEIR TERM.

SLUSHER: CAN I ADD THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE THAT'S FRIENDLY.

MAYOR, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PROVISION APPLYING TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THAT.

THE PERSONNEL POLICIES WOULD NOT REACH ALL OF THE COUNCIL APPOINTEES, HOWEVER ALL OF YOUR COUNCIL APPOINTEES SERVE AT YOUR PLEASURE YOU COULD AT ANY TIME ASK THEM TO STEP DOWN.

SLUSHER: WOULD WHO IT NOT REACH.

CITY AUDITOR, CITY CLERK.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER.

CITY MANAGER. PERSONNEL POLICIES ARE REALLY POLICIES THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVES THAT THE CITY MANAGER IMPLEMENTS.

SLUSHER: ARE YOU SAYING THE CITY MANAGER COULD RUN FOR OFFICE WITHOUT RUN — RUN FOR COUNCIL WITHOUT RESIGNING?

WITHOUT RESIGNING UNLESS THE COUNCIL AS THE CITY MANAGER'S EMPLOYER ASKS THE CITY MANAGER TO STEP DOWN.

MAYOR GARCIA: NOT AS A LIVE PERSON.

I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR THE RECORD TO NOT HAVE A RUMOR START BASED ON THAT QUESTION. [ LAUGHTER ].

THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH PROVIDING THAT IN THE CHARTER AND YOU MAY PREFER IT TO HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY.

SLUSHER: I WOULD PREFER THAT, MAYOR, BECAUSE I DOUBT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT — BUT JUST SEEMS LIKE WHY RISK THAT AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE INTENT WAS TO CAPTURE EVERYONE IN THAT AND SO — IF THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT THE PERSONNEL POLICIES DON'T CAPTURE, LET'S PUT THEM IN THE CHARTER.

THAT'S VERY EASY TO DO. THE LANGUAGE WOULD SAY, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO PUT IT IN ARTICLE 9, WHICH IS ABOUT EMPLOYMENT. AND IT WOULD BE A NEW SECTION 6, IT WOULD SAY: IF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER THIS CHARTER OTHER THAN A JUDGE OF MUNICIPAL COURT, BECAUSE THE JUDGE WOULD BE GOTTEN BY THE OTHER ONE, ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY ... THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AN AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT.

SLUSHER: THE PERSONNEL POLICY, ISN'T THE PERSONNEL POLICY THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE? RATHER THAN RESIGN THEIR —

RIGHT.

SO THIS WOULD BE STRONGER AND IT WOULD HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY. I CAN CERTAINLY EASILY DO THAT LAPPING FOR YOU.

SLUSHER: THIS WOULD BE THE AUDITOR, CLERK —

THE CITY AUDITOR, THE CITY CLERK, THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER.

CITY MANAGER.

SLUSHER: WHOEVER ELSE WE ADD TONIGHT.

WYNN: CONSUMER ADVOCATE. [ LAUGHTER ].

AND PRESUMABLY THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

SLUSHER: MAY I MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SLUSHER: THAT THEY RESIGN, NOT THAT THEY TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: I'M SORRY, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POINT THAT THESE OTHER PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYEES AT WILL OF OURS, THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES AREN'T. WE CAN'T FIRE A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS OR HER TERM. IT SEEMS TO ME BECAUSE OF THAT I'M CERTAINLY PREPARED TO HAVE THIS — OUR — OUR — OUR OVERSIGHT OF THIS ISSUE IN REGARDS TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES ARE FAR MORE STRINGENT THAN THE STATE LAW. SO WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE, CITY MANAGER WANTS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THEY ARE OUT OF A JOB, AND MUNICIPAL JUDGE DOESN'T HAVE TO RESIGN AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES BY DEFINITION THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE — WE HAVE TO BE EITHER MORE COGNIZANT OF MUNICIPAL JUDGES THAN, YOU KNOW, CITY AUDITOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THE STANDARD THAT COUNCILMEMBER, I ACCEPTED THAT, THAT — THAT AMENDMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, IS — IS WHAT APPLIES TO US, YOU KNOW, WHAT APPLIES TO US THAT — IS IF WE HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR, THIS HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF MAYOR WATSON, THEN WE HAVE TO RESIGN AT THE TIME THAT WE ANNOUNCE. I THINK THAT THE DALLAS ONE MAY BE DIFFERENT, I'M NOT REAL SURE HOW THAT WORKS. BUT ANYWAY WHAT THE COUNCILMEMBER WAS DOING IS WE ARE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES.

WYNN: I AGREE WITH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

OF COURSE THE ONE YEAR THING DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SET TERMS. SO WITH RESPECT TO THEM IT WOULD JUST BE WHENEVER THEY BECAME A CANDIDATE IT COULD AFFECT A RESIGNATION.

WYNN: THIS UNFORTUNATELY SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE TREATING THE CITY AUDITOR AS AN EXAMPLE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE SEVERELY THAN WE ARE OUR OWN POLITICAL APPOINTEES. I JUST SEE AN INEQUITY THERE.

SLUSHER: WELL, YOU COULD DO IT —

WYNN: WHO'S MORE LIKELY TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE OR THE CITY — CONSUMER ADEQUATE?

SLUSHER: WELL, JUDGES ARE NORMALLY, SOME ARE APPOINTED OFFICE, SOME ARE JUDGES, IF THEY HAVE — IF THEY WANT TO MOVE TO A HIGHER JUDGESHIP IN TEXAS, NORMALLY THOSE ARE ELECT I HAVE. SO I WAS — ELECTIVE, I WAS LOOKING TO TREAT THEM THE SAME AS US AND NOT PENALIZE IF THEY WANTED TO RUN FOR A HIGHER OFFICE, AS LONG AS DO WHAT MAYOR GARCIA WAS COME UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY START RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE, THEN I — I CONSIDER THAT TO BE A PROBLEM, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO FIX. I THINK — I CAN SEE IT EITHER WAY.

WYNN: WHY ARE WE TREATING OUR EMPLOYEES MUCH MORE STRINGENT THAN WE ARE TREATED?

I WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE IT LIKE — I LOOKED AT THAT MORE LIKE THE OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ON THE UNDER CITY MANAGER, THEY HAVE TO GO ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE. SO I WOULD BE OPEN TO — IT'S NOT MY MOTION, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT WHERE OUR EMPLOYEES JUST HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE IF THEY WERE TO IF THEY WERE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THAT WAY THEY ARE TREATED LIKE THE REST OF THE CITY EMPLOYEES.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT ONE, I TELL YOU WHY. THE JUDGES ARE APPOINTED FOR TWO YEARS. IF SOMEBODY TAKES A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, THERE IS — >SLUSHER: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE AUDITOR, I'M SAYING LEAVE THE JUDGE, BUT ON THE AUDITOR, CLERK, CITY MANAGER, ON THE OFF CHANCE ONE OF THEM DECIDES TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THAT WE CAN INSTEAD TREAT THEM LIKE THE EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS THE — THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH THEY HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, THEY CAN RESIGN IF THEY WANT TO, BUT THEY HAVE TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, THAT'S ALL THAT'S REQUIRED OF THEM.

DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT COUNCILMEMBER —

CAN I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? IS YOUR PROPOSAL THAT THE — THAT THE COUNCIL APPOINTEES OTHER THAN THE — OTHER THAN THE JUDGE APPOINT TEES THAT THEY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE?

SLUSHER: I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S — I'M TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO WORK OUT A COMPROMISE POTENTIALLY. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE AUDITOR, THE CITY MANAGER, AND THE CITY CLERK ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IF THEY WERE TO DECIDE THEY WANT TO RUN FOR COUNCIL AND THEN THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND WORK WITH THE COUNCIL. THAT DOES SEEM TO CREATE AN AWKWARD, AT LEAST, SITUATION. AND SO THAT'S WHY — THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL THINKING IN SAYING LET'S JUST HAVE THEM RESIGN. THAT WAS — I WAS OFFERING TO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. IF HE THINKS THAT'S INEQUITABLE, THE OTHER OPTION IS TO TREAT THEM LIKE THE CITY EMPLOYEES, LET THEM HAVE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE. SEEMS LIKE THE ODD SITUATION THEY WOULD COME BACK, SAY, YEAH, OKAY, LIKE THE CITY CLERK, I'M READY TO COME BACK NOW. [MULTIPLE VOICES]

I WOULD ADD IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER HAVING THEM TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, YOU REALLY DON'T NEED A CHARTER AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IS ALWAYS THE EMPLOYER OF ITS APPOINTEES. YOU GET TO — TO — A LEAVE OF ABSENCE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

SLUSHER: I WOULD SAY LET'S STICK WITH THE WAY WE ALREADY HAVE IT WHERE THEY HAVE TO RESIGN. THEY WILL JUST HAVE TO FACE THAT IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO GET ONE OF THESE SEATS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION AND SECOND —

SLUSHER: TAKE A BIG CUT IN PAY.

AS IT IS WRITTEN BUT WITH AS I UNDERSTOOD, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT'S AS WRITTEN BUT WITH A CLAUSE PUT IN AS TO THE JUDGES THAT SPECIFIES IT'S ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THE TERM. WAS THAT CORRECT OR NOT CORRECT?

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS ACCEPTED?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THAT'S IN REGARDS TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES. AS IT IS WRITTEN HERE.

YES, SIR.

FURTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YES, SIR, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE, WHERE DOES THAT POSITION FALL.

THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE IS A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.

THOMAS: A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. UNDER THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, DOES SHE COME UNDER THAT? DOES THAT POSITION COME UNDER IT?

YES, SIR.

I THOUGHT IT WAS MOVED OUT.

THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE IS A MUNICIPAL COURT JUST LIKE THE OTHER MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES.

THOMAS: I THOUGHT WE HAD SOMETHING —

GOODMAN: THERE'S A SEPARATE.

IT'S ALWAYS SEPARATE AS TO REPORTING. THE PRESIGHING JUDGE REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE JUDICIAL SUBCOMMITTEE, SO DOES THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE. PRESIDING JUDGE. I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY DISTINCTION. UNDER THE STATE LAW WHICH GIVES THE AUTHORITY FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES, THEY ARE ALL TREATED THE SAME, THEY ARE ALL MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES. THERE'S NO RECOGNITION OF A COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE? STATE LAW. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S A CREATURE OF THIS COUNCIL.

BUT — WELL, MAYBE I READ THAT WRONG. [INAUDIBLE].

THOMAS: I THOUGHT WE MOVED THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE. FROM — FROM WE MOVED IT FROM THE COURT TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S — THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE IS A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. THIS WOULD APPLY.

THOMAS: WELL, I HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THAT. THE JUDGE PUT SOME TIME IN — YOU SAID ONE YEAR.

THE PROPOSAL IS THAT A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE WHO BECAME A CAP DATE FOR PUBLIC ELECTIVE OFFICE AT A TIME WHEN THE JUDGE HAD MORE THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THE JUDGE'S TERM WOULD AUTOMATICALLY RESIGN BY THE FACT OF THE CANDIDACY.

THOMAS: DO WE HAVE A HISTORY OF THIS — I DON'T REMEMBER.

THERE ARE TWO, I BELIEVE, MUNICIPAL — THREE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES RIGHT NOW WHO ARE CANDIDATES FOR OTHER OFFICES, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY COURT JUDGE.

THOMAS: HISTORY, HISTORY, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT NOW.

YES.

IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE.

WITH SOME DEGREE OF REGULARITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU LOOK AT THE — IF YOU LOOK AT THE — AT THE AD THAT'S PEOPLE HAVE WHEN THEY RUN FOR JUDGES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE IN THERE, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES. THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THEM START THEIR CAREERS AS JURISTS.

THOMAS: OKAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, THERE IS ONE THING MAYBE — MAYBE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS WORRIED ABOUT ONE THING, WHICH I THINK IN CAMPAIGNING WOULD NOT BE THE CASE. ONCE A JUDGE IS A JUDGE, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THAT HONORIFIC. PEOPLE DON'T SAY FORMER MUNICIPAL JUDGE. THEY KNOW THAT YOU ARE A JUDGE, SO YOU ARE A JUDGE. YOU CAN CAMPAIGN AS A JUDGE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN AND DO HAVE A RECORD TO STAND ON AS A JUDGE. SO IF YOU ARE THINKING THAT SUDDENLY WE SORT OF DEFROCK THEM IN A WAY, IT'S NOT EXACTLY THAT FINITE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO GO ON WITH THE PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE RECORD AND CLAIM OF BEING A IF JUDGE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS AN ISSUE.

THOMAS: THAT WASN'T IT. IT WAS JUST THAT — IT EFFECTS SOMEBODY THAT HAS PROBABLY BEEN PRESIDING JUDGE A LITTLE LONGER AND THEN ALSO COME UP DURING THE [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL. I FEEL THAT — EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THEY WANT TO RUN. BUT I COULD KIND OF UNDERSTAND IF THEY HAVE BEEN THERE A YEAR, SIX MONTHS, BUT IF SOMEONE IS — HAS BEEN THERE WITH A LONG TENURE, TO ME IT'S NOT — IT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER, ALL THIS DOES IS PUT THEM UNDER THE SAME — THE SAME LAWS AS OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, INCLUDING US. WHERE THAT IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN A YEAR ON THEIR TERMS, THEY HAVE TO RESIGN. THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT THAT I MADE BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE SAID YOU RUN, YOU ARE OUT. I DON'T THINK THIS TREATS THEM UNFAIRLY, JUST PUTS THEM UNDER THE SAME RULES AS OTHERS.

THOMAS: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSESED NO?

THOMAS: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VOTING NO. THAT — LET'S GO BACK TO — TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A MOTION?

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, I WONDER IF WE COULD THINK ABOUT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU. THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A CITY ATTORNEY. FROM TIME TO TIME, I REMEMBER WE ARE ASKING THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION NOT LONG AGO, YOU SAID DO WE HAVE A LAWYER? AND THE ANSWER WAS ESSENTIALLY NO. THAT — THAT MANAGEMENT HAS LOTS OF THEM, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NO ATTORNEY THAT IS — THAT IS JUST — JUST COMMITTED TO ADVISING THEM AS COUNCILMEMBERS. AND THAT — THAT EXPERIENCE REALLY BROUGHT THAT HOME TO ME. AND — AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT — ABOUT THAT IF — IF OTHER PEOPLE FEEL THAT KIND OF NEED.

MAYOR GARCIA: [INAUDIBLE] DISCUSS THIS ISSUE.

GOODMAN: IF THIS WAS A MOTION, MAYOR, I WILL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH WOULD LIKE SOME EXPLANATION, FIRST, SO WE WILL GO TO THAT AND THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON IT.

WELL, THE CHARTER REVISION COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THIS AND DISCUSSED IT LIKE THE OTHER ISSUES AT SOME LENGTH. UNLIKE THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, I HAVE SOME PERSONAL EXPERTISE IN THIS BECAUSE I'M AN ATTORNEY. SO I DID TAKE THE POSITION THAT I HAD TROUBLE SEEING HOW ONE COULD DIVIDE THE ATTORNEYS RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT UNITS, DIVISIONS OF WHAT SEEMS TO ME AS AN ATTORNEY IS ONE LEGAL ENTITY AND THAT'S THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. SO — SO AND THE MAJORITY OF — OF THE COMMISSION I THINK ACCEPTED THAT OR TOOK THAT POSITION, SO I THINK I'M SPEAKING FOR THE MAJORITY IN THAT. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE GOTTEN ADVISE FROM THE ATTORNEY AND CITY COUNCIL ON THIS, SO OBVIOUSLY YOU WILL NEED TO CONSIDER THEIR ADVICE. BUT IT DID SEEM DIFFICULT — IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME AS AN ATTORNEY TO UNDERSTAND. HOW YOU WILL HAVE ONE — BILLION, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE HEARD THE SUGGESTION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS. WE HAVE HEARD EARLIER MULTIPLE.

MAYOR GARCIA:, NOW I GUESS MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS. BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHO WOULD PICK THE ATTORNEY, IT — IT DIDN'T SEEM TO US THAT IT MATTERED WHO PICKED THE ATTORNEY BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY'S PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY WAS GOVERNED BY THE ATTORNEY'S PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT BY WHO HIRED HIM OR HER. AND IF YOU START TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS, THEY ARE — THERE'S ONE LEGAL ENTITY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON MUNICIPAL LAW, BUT THERE'S ONE LEGAL ENTITY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COUNCIL COULD HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT THE CITY HIRES TO ADVISE THE COUNCIL INDEPENDENT OF — INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADVISE THAT'S GIVEN TO MANAGEMENT AND — ADVICE THAT'S GIVEN TO MANAGEMENT AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE INTEREST OF THE CITY AS A MUNICIPALITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY QUESTION AT THE TIME PERTAINED TO A SITUATION WHERE I WAS SUED PERSONALLY. AND I FELT LIKE I OUGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN WHO IS GOING TO DEFEND ME. AND UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS THE ONE THAT DID THAT. AND I — THAT'S WHAT I WAS — THAT'S THE POINTS OF REFERENCE THAT I HAD, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU KNOW, WHEN I GET SUED, DO I HAVE ANY SAY AS TO WHO IS GOING TO REPRESENT ME, BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT BEING SUED, I'M BEING SUED PERSONALLY.

I GUESS YOU CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE YOUR OWN ATTORNEY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. IF I'M SUED PERSONALLY FOR THINGS THAT I DO PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, I WILL HIRE MY OWN ATTORNEY. BUT IF I DO SOMETHINGS A — AS A COUNCILMEMBER, I GET SUED FOR THAT, DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE A LAWYER THAT I WANT OR DO I HAVE TO — TO FOLLOW — DO I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY? I GUESS UNDER THE CHARTER, JOHN, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY SELECT THAT ATTORNEY, IS THAT CORRECT.

THAT'S CERTAINLY BEYOND WHAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED.

THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THE ATTORNEY FOR ALL OF THE CITY AND ALL OF THE CITY'S OFFICERS. SO CLEARLY IN CASES WHERE — WHERE THE CITY INDEMNIFIES AN OFFICIAL WHO IS SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THEN — THEN AS WITH ALL LEGAL COUNSEL HIRED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ATTORNEY MAKES THAT CHOICE, THOUGH OBVIOUSLY WE CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE END DEM PHIED INDIVIDUAL. INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL. OR IF THE INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL SO CHOOSES, USUALLY THE PEOPLE WE INDEMNIFY ARE POLICE OFFICERS, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THE INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL ALWAYS HAS THE CHOICE OF NOT SEPTEMBERING THE REPRESENTATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY BUT HIRING THEIR OWN REPRESENTATION. BUT GENERALLY WE WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD HIRE REPRESENTATION THAT WOULD BE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE END DEM PHIED INDIVIDUAL. INDEMNIFIED INDIVIDUAL.

GOODMAN: CAN I JUMP IN HERE. I WILL BE BRIEF AND QUICK. I WISH THAT WHEN YOU ALL HAD BEEN DISCUSSING THIS IF YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD EVEN BE SUGGESTED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LET US KNOW. SO WE COULD HAVE COME OVER AND GIVEN YOU ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IF NOTHING ELSE. YES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE LAWYERS. THAT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. THE CITY HAS MANY LAWYERS. AND EVERY TIME WE HAVE A DIFFERENT EXECUTIVE SESSION, OR A DIFFERENT ITEM AND A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT LAWYER. WE HAVE SEDORA. EVERYBODY. BUT THE CITY COUNCIL IN DEALING WITH LEGAL ISSUES IS MADE UP OF A TRAIN OF LAWYERS. WITH YOU IT IS FOR THE CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE CITY. WHEN FOR INSTANCE IT IS AN EXTREME CASE, WHEN YOU ARE BEING SUED, I THINK MOST OF US HAVE BEEN OR HAVE THEREIN THREATENED BY NOW, THAT THE CORPORATE DIRECTION IS THE PROTECTION OF THE CITY AND IT DOESN'T ALWAYS ALLOW FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SORT OF PERSPECTIVE TO ENTER INTO THAT CITY DEFENSE AND CITY POSITION. SO THAT I DON'T KNOW GUS IF THEY MADE YOU STAY OUT OF THE ROOM. BUT WHEN I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS BEING SUED, I DIDN'T EVER KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN COURT ABOUT ANYTHING BECAUSE SINCE I WAS THE ONE BEING SUED AND SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL WAS BEING REPORTED TO, I COULDN'T BE IN THE ROOM. SO I HAD NO LAWYER REALLY, ALTHOUGH A CITY LAWYER WAS DEFENDING ME. I HAD NO INFORM THEM. IT WAS AN EXTREME CASE, BUT THERE IS NOBODY WITHIN CITY LEGAL ON SOME ISSUES IN SOME SITUATIONS WHO CAN COUNSEL COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THAT ELECTED BODY. SORT OF PERSPECTIVE. THE CITY — IT IS THE CITY AS A WHOLE, THEIR POLICIES AND I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT OTHER WORD I WANT RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY ARE CITY. THEY ARE CITY MANAGEMENT DESIGNED AND CARRIED THROUGH AND PROTECTED AND DEFENDED. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY COUNCIL AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY GIVE US THE EXTRA PERSPECTIVE WE NEED. SO I WISH YOU HAD ASKED FOR SOME INPUT THERE.

IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. YOU MAY MISUNDERSTAND ONE THING I SAID, WHICH IS ONE CITY ATTORNEY. OBVIOUSLY I'M AWARE THERE ARE MANY, MANY CITY ATTORNEYS, THERE — THERE'S AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SITTING NEXT TO ME, THE CITY ATTORNEY SITTING THERE. BUT THEY ALL AS YOU SAID ANSWER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THEY ALL AT LEAST IN THEORY SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE. THEY — ETHICALLY, I DON'T THINK COULD BE — I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, I WASN'T SPEAKING ALSO TO THE — TO THE SITUATION THAT THE MAYOR BROUGHT UP WHERE ONE INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER IS SUED. WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO WAS WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD FROM COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, WHICH WAS AN ATTORNEY WHO WOULD COUNSEL THE COUNCIL AS A BODY AND THAT THAT WOULD BE DISTINCT AND PERHAPS CONFIDENTIAL FROM THE ATTORNEY OR THE ATTORNEY GROUP THAT IS COUNSELING MANAGEMENT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO.

GOODMAN: YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ADD ANOTHER DIMENSION SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. IF A POLICE OFFICER IS SUED FOR — FOR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS DUTIES, WE HIRE AN OUTSIDE COUNCIL TO DEFEND HIM. OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO DEFEND HIM AND PAY FOR IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL IS HIRED BY YOU OR SELECTED BY YOU OR HIRED BY THE INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICER.

LET ME ADDRESS THAT. WHEN WE HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT A POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN SUED INDIVIDUALLY IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE POLICE OFFICER'S INTERESTS ARE DIVERSE TO THE CORPORATION. SO ETHICALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN'T REPRESENT BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE TO HIRE SOMEBODY ELSE WHOSE DUTY FLOWS TO THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS AN INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE CITY. IF HOWEVER WE MAKE AN ASSESSMENT THAT A CITY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ISN'T — DOESN'T HAVE AN INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE CITY, THERE'S NO ETHICAL DUTY ON OUR PART TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THAT PERSON IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT DO YOU HIRE THEM OR DOES HE HIRE? WHO SELECTS —

EVEN THE POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS AN ADVERSE INTEREST GETS AN ATTORNEY SELECTED BY ME. NOW, OUR PROCESS IS TO — OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, TO PROTECT THE CITY, THE CITY'S TILL, YOU CAN HAVE POLICE OFFICERS WANTING, YOU KNOW, THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAWYER IN THE COUNTRY. THAT ISN'T NECESSARY. WE ARE ACTING REALLY AS AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHEN WE DO THAT. BECAUSE WE ARE — WE ARE ACTING IN AN INDEM INDICATION CAPACITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT YOU TOOK AND THAT THE COMMISSION TOOK. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ONE?

GOODMAN: I WAS GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION IF THERE WAS A MOTION MADE. I WASN'T GOING TO FIGHT —

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT WE MAY WANT TO DO, WE MAY WANT TO DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE AMONGST, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE QUESTIONS, TALKING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

GRIFFITH: UH-HUH.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL PUT IT ON THE 20TH FOR CONSIDERATION AT THAT TIME?

GRIFFITH: THAT'S — THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. I KNOW THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T TRE, WE DIDN'T TAKE IT TO THEM. IT'S A SITUATION THAT — THAT I KNOW SEVERAL OF US FEEL NEEDS A SOLUTION, THAT'S BEEN — IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS. WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? IF — IF IT'S MANAGEMENT, IT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS IF — AS IF IT IS COUNCIL. WHETHER IT SHOULD BE OR NOT, IT'S — IT'S NOT ABOUT SHOULD. IT'S ABOUT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. AND THERE ARE — THERE ARE TIMES WHEN — WHEN COUNCILMEMBERS AND COUNCIL NEED COUNCIL THAT IS — NEED COUNSEL THAT IS STRAIGHT TO THEM. I WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO HEARING ANY IDEAS THAT — THAT COULD COME OUT OF CERTAINLY FROM A — FROM A — AN OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM FOLKS LIKE YOURSELF.

SURE, I DO THINK THE QUESTION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US WAS — WAS SHOULD THE COUNCIL, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER HOW THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US, BUT THE QUESTION THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE ASKED WHY SHOULD THE — WAS SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPOINT THE CITY ATTORNEY.

GRIFFITH: RIGHT, THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION. YEAH, YOU JUST GOT THIS ONE.

GOODMAN: ACTUALLY, I'M THE ONE WHO TOOK IT OVER, AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT I HOPED THAT THEY WOULD TALK TO AND I DID NOT SAY THE CITY ATTORNEY. I SAID A LEGAL ADVISOR. AN ATTORNEY.

GRIFFITH: DID YOU SEE THAT? I GUESS NOT.

I DON'T THINK WE — WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS — I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS A QUESTION. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHERS.

GRIFFITH: WELL, TAKING A WEEK IS — IS — A COUPLE OF WEEKS IS PROBABLY A GOOD THINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT ONE ON THE 20TH. AND AGAIN ON THE 21ST. NOW WE SWITCH OVER TO ITEMS CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED. WE SAID THAT THE — THAT THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURE WE WERE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ONE. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NOT PLACE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITIZEN INITIATED AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT. WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT ONE, TOO.

WYNN: MAYOR, ON THAT ONE I WILL SAY THAT I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE ABOUT THE POSTING LANGUAGE, BUT ACCORDING TO MR. DESIGNER THE FACT — MR. STEINER THE FACT THAT WE ARE — I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARILY AN ALTERNATIVE, THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. SO — AS I STATED IN A MEMO TO Y'ALL LAST MONTH, I THINK THE $100 CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE STIFLING TO CHALLENGERS. AND — BUT I DO SEE A — A DIFFERENT SCENARIO BETWEEN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, WHICH WE MAY HAVE EIGHT OF IN THE NEAR FUTURE AN THE CITY-WIDE RACE AS BEING SO MUCH LARGER, SO MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. SO I WOULD MOVE THAT WE PLACE WHAT I CALL AN AMENDED AMOUNT ACTIVE ON THE BALLOT THAT SIMPLY PRESERVES THE $100 LIMITS FOR ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT RACE IFS THEY EVER EXIST AND INCREASES THE LIMITS TO $500 FOR ALL AT LARGE OR CITY-WIDE ELECTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT ON C?

WYNN: THAT WOULD BE D, I GUESS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO LEAVE THE $100 LIMITATION WITH REGARD TO — WITH REGARD TO — TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS, IF WE EVER HAVE THEM, AND TO INCREASE THE AT LARGE LIMIT TO $500. IS THERE A SECOND?

GOODMAN: FOR DISCUSSION, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: HUH?

GOODMAN: FOR DISCUSSION. I'M SECONDING FOR DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY, THERE'S A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: WELL, GNAT TO BEHEADACHES............—WELL, NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT TOO MUCH, I SEE A SCENARIO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THIS MAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE. I DO SEE A SCENARIO WHERE GIVEN THE RIGHT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE RIGHT MAPS AND OBVIOUSLY THE DOJ APPROVAL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE SOME DISTRICT REPRESENTATION IN THE CITY AS EARLY AS MAY OF 2003. WE — SOUNDS LIKE WE CLEARLY WILL BE AMENDING OUR CHARTER THIS MAY, YOU KNOW, AT SOME LEVEL, SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO AMEND OUR CHARTER AGAIN FOR TWO YEARS. SO I SEE, YOU KNOW, A SCENARIO WHERE WE HAVE — YOU KNOW, MORE CITY ELECTIONS, EVEN WITH THE POTENTIALLY NEW FORM OF ELECTING COUNCILMEMBERS, SOME COUNCILMEMBERS WILL BE RUNNING AT LARGE, OVER THE ENTIRE CITY, AND SOME — SOME WOULDN'T BE. AND I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN — BETWEEN WHAT'S A REASONABLE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO RUN AN AT LARGE CITY-WIDE RACE VERSUS SOMEONE WHO IS RUNNING A MORE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED DISTRICT RACE. I JUST — YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT COULD NOT PASS JUST AS EASILY I GUESS AS THE OTHER ONE COULD NOT PASS. SO WE WOULD STILL BE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I JUST THINK IT JUST — IT DOES GIVE — I THINK IT DOUBLES THE CHANCES OF HAVING SOME ELEMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THIS MAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WAMENTS TO KEEP MY REMARKS SHORT, TOO, I LARGELY AGREE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THIS TO RAISE THE LIMIT, TO HAVE AT LEAST — I HAVE AT LEAST TWO PROBLEMS WITH IT. ONE I THINK THE — THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS SOME OTHER PROBLEMS WITH — WITH IT AND SO I DON'T — I DON'T LINE JUST LEAVING IT IN PLACE AND RAISING THE LIMIT. AND, TWO, I WOULD — BUT I WOULD — IF WE ARE GOING TO RAISE THE LIMIT OR LET ME SAY IT DIFFERENTLY. IF THE — IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE ONE DOESN'T PASS, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD DO THIS BY ORDINANCE RATHER THAN PUT IT IN THE CHARTER OR AS IT WERE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE — OF THE CITY. I THINK WE SHOULD COME BACK AND DO SOMETHING BY ORANCE, THEN I WOULD WANT — BY ORDINANCE, I WOULD WANT TO APPROACH THAT ALONG THE LINES WHERE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS SAYING, THEN WE WOULD RAISE THE LIMIT. I WOULD THINK MAYBE A THOUSAND, MAYBE WHAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IS. MY THIRD ONE, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD WORK IN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO SAY ONLY 100 IN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, BECAUSE ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF THE MIXED SYSTEM HAS BEEN THAT IT — THAT IT MAKES SOME COUNCILMEMBERS MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS, SO TO SPEAK. SO IF YOU HAVE — SOME CAN GET — ONLY GET $100 CONTRIBUTIONS, OTHERS 500. I THINK PROBABLY — I'M NOT — BECAUSE THE SINGLE MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE DROWN FROM A SMALLER BASE, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING MONEY, BUT I THINK IT'S UNCHARTERED TERRITORY HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY. THAT COULD EVEN BE AN ISSUE THAT THEY ARE GETTING MONEY FROM OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT. YET IF WE LIMIT IT TO 100 INSIDE, I THINK THAT WOULD FORCE THEM MORE OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT.

WYNN: IF I COULD RESPOND, PERHAPS MR. STEINER CAN HELP ME WITH THIS. IF THE AUSTIN'S FAIR ELECTIONS ACT DOESN'T PASS IN MAY, I AGREE WITH YOU FRANKLY I THINK THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED IN AN ORDINANCE, BUT WE — COUNCIL CAN'T PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT CHANGES WHAT'S IN THE CHARTER, CORRECT? WE COULDN'T SAY WE ARE GOING TO RAISE IT TO $500 BECAUSE OUR CHARTER SAYS $100, SO UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO PREPARED TO REPEAL THE —

SLUSHER: I AM.

WYNN: THE EXISTING — [ LAUGHTER ].

WYNN: MAYBE I'M GETTING AHEAD OF YOU —

SLUSHER: JUST THE ORDER WE TOOK THEM UP IN. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING A REPEAL ON THE BALLOT. HERE'S THE WAY I SEE IT. YOU WILL HAVE ON THE BALLOT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THAT'S BEEN PUT ON THE BALLOT BY A CITIZEN INITIATIVE PETITION DRIVE. YOU HAVE THAT ONE. THEN YOU HAVE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW THE REPEAL OF THE $100 LIMIT. THEN IF — SO IF THE $100 LIMB IS REPEALED, THE ORDINANCE — LIMIT IS REPEALED, THE OTHER ONE PASSES THAT ONE GOES INTO EFFECT. IF THE $100 LIMIT IS REPEALED THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FAILS AT THE BALLOT BOX, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD GO TO THE COUNCIL DOING AN ORDINANCE, THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO, MR. DESIGNER?

YES, SIR. — MR. STEINER.

YES, SIR. IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE REPEALS AND REPLACES THE CURRENT ARTICLE 3 SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER, WHICH IS THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION OF THE CHARTER, WERE THE COUNCIL TO PUT A SIMPLE REPEAL OF ARTICLE 3 SECTION 8 ON THE BALLOT, IF — IF BOTH THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND THE REPEAL PASS, THEN THE REPEAL WOULD BE REDUNDANT FOR THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE WOULD BE IN EFFECT. IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FAILED AND THE REPEAL PASSED, THEN — THEN THE — WE WOULD BE LIFT WITH NO CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISION IN THE CHARTER AND THE — AND THE — THE RESULT OF THAT WOULD BE THAT YOU WILL BE FREE TO LEGISLATE BY ORDINANCE. WHATEVER YOU CARED TO LEGISLATE IN THE AREA OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE. IF I UNDERSTOOD WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS, IT WOULD BE TO AMEND THE CURRENT PROVISION AND HAVE IT ONLY BE EFFECTIVE IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE DID NOT PASS.

CORRECT.

SO THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS.

WYNN: FRANKLY, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE REPEALING THE — YOU KNOW THE EXISTING, THE 1997 ORDINANCE — OR CHARTER ISSUES. YOU KNOW, FRANKLY FROM A PERCEPTION IF NOTHING ELSE. IT CAN BE PERCEIVED THAT WE ARE TAKING AWAY THE RULES, GOING BACK TO PRE'97 DAYS, SORT OF LIMITED WARFARE, MEANWHILE WE AMONGST OURSELVES COME UP WITH OUR OWN YOU KNOW RULES TO GOVERN OURSELVES. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT REPEALING IT. I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF REPEALING THE CURRENT CHARTER LANGUAGE REGARDING CAMPAIGN ISSUES. I DO THINK THAT STIFLING — IT'S STIFLING, I'M PREPARED TO — I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD RECOGNIZE IT AS A MODEST AMENDMENT. IT ONLY DEALS WITH THE ISSUES THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY AGREES IS PROBLEMATIC, THAT BEING THE LIMIT. WE WERE TOLD THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, I'M SIMULTANEOUS SUGGESTING WE ADOPT EVEN GO TO — I'M SUGGESTING WE ADOPT EVEN GO TO THE OTHER — DON'T EVEN GO TO THE OTHER PROBLEMATIC ISSUES, INCLUDING FOLKS PROMOTING AUSTIN FAIR ELECTIONS ACT ARE DOING THAT BECAUSE THEY SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION PIECE OF THE — OF THE 1997 ORDINANCE, I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF REPEALING, BUT I WOULD — BUT RECOGNIZING THAT WE — WE COULD GET CAUGHT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANY ELEMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THIS MAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS I WOULD PROPOSE — I HAVE PROPOSED WHAT I CALL AN AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVE.

SLUSHER: YEAH. I UNDERSTAND, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A VALID POINT ABOUT THAT. IT'S JUST I GUESS A CHOICE OR A JUDGMENT CALL BECAUSE I THINK THERE WILL BE POTENTIALLY A PERCEPTION PROBLEM THERE. I THINK THE $100 LIMIT LAW IS SO BAD. EVEN THE PEOPLE PUTTING FORWARD THE NEW ONE WANT TO REPEAL IT, THEY WANT TO REPLACE IT WITH THIS OTHER ONE. I GUESS THEY WANTS TO KEEP IT IF PLACE IF THE OTHER ONE DOESN'T PASS. AND I JUST — BOTH OF THE — OF THE LEADING NEWSPAPERS ARE THINKING IT'S RIDICULOUS. I JUST THINK IT'S BAD LAW. I THINK WE OUGHT TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT TO REPEAL IT AND RISK THAT PERCEPTION. I THINK THAT'S JUST AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT. I'M RAID TO — I'M READY TO VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? THE MOTION IS TO HAVE A PROVISION IN THE ELECTION BALLOT, TO SET THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AT $500 FOR THE AT LARGE, SEATS ON THE COUNCIL, SHOULD WE HAVE A MIXED SYSTEM AND $100 FOR THE DISTRICTS IN THAT SYSTEM. THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION WOULD APPLY ONLY IF THE AUSTIN FAIR ELECTION ACT PROVISION FAILS.

WYNN: CORRECT. PROCEDURALLY, MAYOR, I WILL BE PROPOSED......... PREPARED TO, FROM A TIMING STANDPOINT PERHAPS TAKE UP HIS ISSUE FIRST AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT RESULT IS —

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION TO TABLE IS A PRIVILEGE MOTION, I THINK, SO NO DISCUSSION ON THAT IS NECESSARY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE.

, IT'S TABLED. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN TO WHY I WANT THIS REPEALED. I WOULD JUST ADD ONE THING, THAT WE WOULDN'T GO BACK TO A NO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW AT ALL BECAUSE THE '95 COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, IT WAS — HAD AN ORDINANCE SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER SHEA THAT PUT IN X RAYS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, IT CERTAINLY WASN'T RESTRICTED. IT WAS A $100 LIMIT. I THINK IT PROBABLY COULD STAND SOME IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THERE IS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW IN PLACE. IT'S NOT TOTALLY UNREGULATED. SO I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO BACK TO THAT ONE IF THAT'S WHAT THE VOTERS DECIDE. AND THEN US PASS AN ORDINANCE. AT LEAST WE ARE GIVING THE VOTERS A CHOICE OF PASSING THE NEW INITIATIVE, REPEALING THE $100 LIMIT AND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL GET TO WORK ON AN ORDINANCE IN THE — IF THAT THE OUTCOME IS THAT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE ORDINANCE — NEITHER ONE OF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVES IN PLACE — I REALLY THINK THIS BELONGS AS AN ORDINANCE RATHER THAN IN THE CITY CHARTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS TO REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPENDITURES IS NOT — IS NOT A CHARTER PROVISION?

IF I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S SUGGESTION, IT'S JUST TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE PROVISION, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8. >SLUSHER: AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

WHICH INCLUDES A VARIETY OF REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: THAT'S THE INITIATIVE PASSED [MULTIPLE VOICES]

COMMONLY KNOWN AT THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S MOTION? I'M GOING TO SECOND IT. DISCUSSION? LET ME SEE THAT I'M SECONDING THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS THING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LIKE THE OTHER PART OF THE ORDINANCE HAVING TO DO WITH LIMITS ON NON-CANDIDATE ELECTIONS IT WAS TAKEN TO COURT APPEARED RULED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO I THINK THIS ONE IS, TOO. IT'S UNFAIR. IT'S UNFAIR TO PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT INCUMBENTS. DISCUSSION FROM ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS ONE? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION FAILS ON A VOTE OF 2 TO 5. WITH MOST EVERYBODY VOTING AGAINST IT.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: EXCEPT YOU AND ME.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR EVERYBODY SAY YES OR NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU AND I SAID AYE.

YOU SAID AYE.

SLUSHER: CAN WE CALL THE ROLL.

MAYOR GARCIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: AYE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN?

GOODMAN: AYE.

THOMAS: BEFORE YOU CALL THE ROLL, EXPLAIN THE MOTION AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION IS TO REPEAL THE CHARTER SECTION ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8 REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

SLUSHER: CAN I ELABORATE JUST SLIGHTLY TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION, MAYOR. WE HAVE ON THE BALLOT THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FOR $200 LIMIT LAW, PUBLIC FINANCING THAT — THAT WE HAVE — THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE GOT ON THROUGH THE PETITION AND WE HAVE TO PUT THAT ON AND THINK WE SHOULD LET THE VOTERS DECIDE ON THIS ONE. THIS ONE REPEALS THE $100 LIMIT LAW IF THE — IF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE PASSES THAT REPEALS THE $100 LIMIT LAW ANYWAY. BUT IF THAT ONE FAILED APPEARED THIS ONE PASSED THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO THE '95 SYSTEM.

COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: NO.

COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: NO.

COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YES.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS:

NO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT MOTION FAILS ON A VOTES OF 3 TO 4. WITH — WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, GOODMAN AND GARCIA VOTING AYE THE REST VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, DO YOU WANT TO — DO YOU WANT TO GO TO YOUR 500, 100 [INAUDIBLE] [MULTIPLE VOICES]

ARE YOU GOING TO REVIVE IT?

WYNN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE PROPER TERM, PUT IT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION. THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, AND IT WAS SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: IF I CAN REINTRODUCE IT WITH — WITHOUT TOO MUCH REDUNDANCY, MAYOR, IS THAT AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, REPEALING AND — AND ACCEPTEDING THE WRONG SIGNAL TO THE VOTERS AND THE PUBLIC, I THINK WE CAN MARGINALLY AMEND THE LAWS TO TRULY HELP CHALLENGERS.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

THOMAS: ON ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8, WHAT [INAUDIBLE] DOES THAT REPEAL? WHAT ELSE WOULD IT REPEAL.

WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU BE REPEALING IF YOU REPEAL THE WHOLE THING?

ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8, FIRST OF ALL, PROVIDES FOR — FOR A $100 CONTRIBUTION LIMIT PER DONOR PER ELECTION. IT PROVIDES THAT — THAT — THAT A CANDIDATE MAY NOT ACCEPT MORE THAN AN AGGREGATE OF $15,000 PER — PER MAIN ELECTION AND ANOTHER $10,000 IN THE CASE OF A RUNOFF FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR VOTE IN AUSTIN. IT PROVIDES FOR SOMETHING CALLED A SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE THAT IF IT IS CREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER, CAN DONATE $1,000 PER CANDIDATE PER ELECTION. IT — IT — SETS A 180-DAYTIME WINDOW ON THE RAISING OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BEFORE AN ELECTION. SO TO BELIEVE TIME THAT YOU CAN COLLECT CONTRIBUTIONS IS WITHIN 180 DAYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AN ELECTION. IT REQUIRES THE DIVESTMENT OF ALL REMAINING CAMPAIGN FUNDS WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION. IT — IT PROVIDES THAT IF A — IF A — IF A COUNCIL OR MAYORAL CANDIDATE SIGNS A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, AGREEING TO LIMIT THEIR EXPENDITURES, THAT THEY ARE LIMITED TO 75 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN — IN EXPENDITURES DURING THE MAIN ELECTION AND ANOTHER 50,000 IN THE EVENT OF A RUNOFF. IT — IT REQUIRES — THAT — IT HAS TWO PROVISIONS THAT WERE STRUCK DOWN BY THE — BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, WHICH LIMITED — WHICH LIMITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES IN MEASURE ELECTIONS. THEN — THEN THAT'S WHAT IT DOES. THOSE WOULD BE THE OTHER PROVISIONS.

THOMAS: OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YEAH, I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK THAT I CAN SUPPORT INCREASING SOME 100 TO 500, IT'S FIVE TIMES INCREASE, FROM 100 — [INAUDIBLE] THE ORANCE THAT WAS ON THE VOTER REFERENDUM. I COULD SUPPORT GOING UP FROM 100 TO 250, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE MORE THAN DOUBLE. BUT 500 IS JUST A LITTLE — A LITTLE TOO MUCH OF AN INCREASE FOR MY — FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS. I GUESS THAT I WOULD OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

WYNN: MAYOR, I WILL — I WON'T ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THE RATIONALE IS THAT THE — SEE THE 8-2-1 SYSTEM THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, THE AT LARGE, THE MAYOR AND THE TWO AT LARGE COUNCIL SEATS ARE GOING TO HAVE 8 TIMES MORE — MORE VOTERS TO REACH, 8 TIMES MORE LARGER GEOGRAPHIC AREA TO COVER. AND I'M ONLY PROPOSING THAT IN FACT, I THINK WE DISPROPORTIONATELY STILL DON'T — DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. WE ONLY RAISE IT TO $500. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE — YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO REPRESENTING ONE-EIGHT OF 700,000 PEOPLE, YOU ARE REPRESENTING 700,000 PEOPLE, YOU ARE HAVING TO CHASE THE RECOMMEND CENTERED VOTERS OVER THE 277 SQUARE MILES. THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN RUNNING IN ONE OF THOSE 8 DIFFERENT SEATS, I THINK FRANKLY FIVE TO ONE DOESN'T MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE, I FRANKLY ADOPT WANT TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT. I'M BASING IT ON AN 8 TO 1 DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN BEING A SINGLE-MEMBER OR NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT REP AND BEING AT LARGE OR MAYOR CANDIDATE.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS I'M BASING IT ON ON WHAT THE CITIZENS APPROVE, TRYING TO RESPECT THAT BUT ALSO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT ALTHOUGH ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM FOR THOSE THAT ARE CHALLENGING INCUMBENTS. TO MORE THAN DOUBLE IT, I THINK THAT'S — THAT'S — I THINK THAT'S PRETTY GENEROUS ALREADY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR. CHANGE CHANGENO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 2400

I THINK THAT NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE PRACTICALITY.IES OF THAT $100 WOULD BE EITHER. SO I'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT PAST THE CONVERSATION. GUYS, I CAN TELL THEY WERE RIVET ON EVERY WORD I SAID. ARE WE GOING TO VOTE?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MAYOR LOST CONTROL OF THE MEETING, BIG TIME. ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OR IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: DID Y'ALL LOOSE CONTROL OF THE MEETING?

THOMAS: I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT THE — WHAT DID YOU SAY, MAYOR PRO TEM?

WELL, THE CLERK SAID IT WAS, ALTHOUGH I SECONDED IT FOR DISCUSSION, IT ACTUALLY DOES MAKE SENSE, SO I'M STICKING WITH IT FOR THE VOTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE WITHDRAWING THE SECOND — ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE SECOND?

GOODMAN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IF FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: AGAINST? NAY.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT'S TWO TO FIVE. THIS TIME THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IN FAVOR AND EVERYBODY ELSE AGAINST. OKAY. NOW WE HAVE AN ITEM — WE HAVE THE COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE, WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT ALREADY. THE CITY AUDITOR AUTHORITY TO HIRE — I THINK WE DILT WITH THAT ALREADY. DID WE? I THINK SO. THAT LEAVES US ONE ITEM. INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S PURCHASE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. AN THAT'S ARTICLE 7, SECTION 15. NOW, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF THOUGHT BEHIND THAT RECOMMENDATION?

WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THOUGHT. WE HAD A PRETTY KNEE JERK REACTION THAT THE LIMIT WAS TOO LOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE LIMIT IS TOO LOW. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE ISSUE IS FOR COUNCILMEMBERS. AND I'LL REFER TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM WILL TELL ME WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO ON THE OTHER ISSUE. AND WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT MY CONCERN IS THIS: THE CITY MANAGER CAN HIRE SOMEBODY FOR $40,000, WHICH IS HIS LIMIT. AND IT'S A FOOT IN THE DOOR THING. SO IF IT'S A PROJECT IS GOING TO BE MUCH LARGER, BUT THE CITY MANAGER WANTS TO GET AN IDEA OF HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE SCOPED, AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM THAT COMES UP TO COUNCIL IS FOR A MUCH LARGER ITEM BECAUSE THAT PROJECT WAS MUCH BIGGER AND THE CITY MANAGER BESIDES TO PROCEED. AND THE WAY IT WORKS, IT CAN BE PRESENTED AS AN AMENDMENT TO A POSITION BY THE CITY MANAGER. AND WE HAVE HAD CONTRACTS THAT ARE VERY LARGE THAT STARTED OUT WITH A FIRM GETTING A 40,000 DOLLAR CONTRACT AND THEN FROM THERE ON OUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL AMENDMENTS TO THAT INITIAL CONTRACT. AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THAT, THEN THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY TO CONTROL IT. IF THAT CONTRACT IS GOING TO INCREASE BY MORE THAN, LET'S SAY, 25%, THEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL FOR REBIDDING OF THE WHOLE THING OR SENDING OUT AN R.F.P., THAT THE AUTHORITY BY THE CITY MANAGER WOULD BE TO SCOPE OUT THE PROJECT. SO ONCE IT'S SCOPED OUT, THEN THAT PARTICULAR SCOPING BECOMES PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL OTHER PROPOSALS ON THAT PARTICULAR CONTRACT. AND THAT WAS BASICALLY MY CONCERN WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH GOING TO, LET'S SAY, 100,000 BECAUSE THAT'S NOT — AND IT WOULD APPLY ON A ONE-TIME BASIS AND MAYBE INCREASE IT BY 25% IF THEY WANT — IF THEY NEED MORE FOR THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION. BUT — AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WANT TO GO FROM 40 TO 100, BUT SOME OF THOSE CONTRACTS ARE 10 MILLION DOLLARS. AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IF A CONTRACT IS FOR 10 MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE THAT CONTRACT, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL SCOPING IS FOR ONLY 30,000 OR 40,000, THAT THAT SHOULD COME TO COUNCIL AND LET THE COUNCIL DECIDE AFTER WE DO AN R.F.P. FOR THAT PARTICULAR CONTRACT.

I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND THE COUNCIL, OF COURSE, CAN DECIDE HOW MUCH CONTROL IT WANTS OVER THAT. THE WAY WE LOOKED AT IT WAS THIS SEEMS TO BE AN OUTDATED........ OUTDATED — .

MAYOR GARCIA: IT IS, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. SO TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM — WHERE DID THE MAYOR PRO TEM GO? I UNDERSTAND, FOR INSTANCE, THE REASON WHY THE CITY MANAGER OUGHT TO HAVE SOME AUTHORITY TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. AND 100,000 IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE FIGURE. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SAY FOR THAT ONE INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASING AUTHORITY TO $100,000 ON CONTRACTS THAT HAVE A POTENTIAL FOR INCREASES OF NO MORE THAN 25%, SO THAT IF A CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE FOR 125,000, THEN THE CITY MANAGER COULD BEGIN BY, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST STEP OF SPENDING THE FIRST 100,000. BUT IF THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE MUCH LARGER THAN THAT, THEN THE CITY MANAGER'S OBLIGATED TO BRING IT TO THE — THROUGH THE R.F.P. PROCESS AND BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL. SO THAT WAS MR. STEVENS?

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M JOHN STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES. FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE THINK THAT IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO LEAVE THE SECOND PHRASE THAT'S IN THAT SENTENCE THERE CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE THOUGHT WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. THE SITUATION — THE REASON THAT WE WANTED TO RECOMMEND THAT LANGUAGE WAS THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THAT THE CITY HAS DONE BUSINESS THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE 1990S. HOWEVER, WE HAVE HAD SOME SORT OF INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT LANGUAGE. TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE MANAGER'S CURRENT CONTRACTING AUTHORITY IS 43,000. AND THROUGHOUT THE 1990S AS FAR AS I KNOW THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DECADE OF THE 1990S, THAT GAVE THE AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR $43,000 ANNUALLY. AND IF IT WERE A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, FOR EXAMPLE, NOW THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE WOULD BE LIKE THREE TIMES 43,000. I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOOKING AT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS — THAT THE WORDING IS NOT CLEAR ON THAT AND THAT THE WORDING NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED TO BRING OUR PRACTICE IN LINE WITH — TO BRING THE WORDING IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN, OTHERWISE IF WE GO BY A STRICT WORDING OF WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS RIGHT NOW, IN EFFECT IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, YOU WOULD BE REDUCING THE CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY FROM 43,000 TO 14,333, WHICH IS 43,000 DIVIDED BY THREE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE.... HAVE — THROUGHOUT THE 90'S WE CONSISTENTLY ACTSED AS IF THAT LIMIT, THAT 43,000 DOLLAR LIMIT WAS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND THE MANAGER COULD BRING FORWARD OR COULD ENTER INTO CONTRACTS THAT MIGHT BE TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS IN LENGTH. AND THE SUM TOTAL OF THAT CONTRACT AMOUNT PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE MORE THAN THE ANNUAL LIMIT OR WHAT WE HAD INTERPRETED TO BE THE ANNUAL LIMIT OF 43,000.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOU SAYING, FOR INSTANCE, IF A CONTRACT IS FOR FIVE YEARS AND WE MOVE IT TO 100,000 THAT EVERY YEAR THE CITY MANAGER COULD GIVE 100,000 DOLLAR CONTRACT TO SAIMENT COMPANY TO DO A JOB?

IF THIS LANGUAGE THAT I READ IS LEFT ON THERE, YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND UNDER THE ONE THAT'S HERE, WHAT DOES THAT DO? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS LANGUAGE MAKES THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE PERMISSIVE THAT IN CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR, SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT, LET'S SAY, THE CITY MANAGER HIRES XYZ COMPANY TO DO SOMETHING AND LET'S SAY WE MOVE IT TO 100,000 SO I REQUEST DO THE ARITHMETIC. THE SECOND YEAR HE HIRES THEM AGAIN FOR THE SAME THING, CONTINUATION OF THE FIRST ONE, ANOTHER 100,000.

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY AT $100,000 A YEAR FOR YEARS UNDER THIS PROVISION IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME.

THAT'S CORRECT. IT IS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW IT'S MORE EFFICIENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE SERVICE IS AND DEPENDING ON WHAT — YOU KNOW, WHAT THE MARKET FOR THAT SERVICE IS. IT IS SOMETIMES MORE EFFICIENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT THAT IS LONGER THAN ONE YEAR. IF THE MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY WERE RAISED TO $100,000, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THAT PHRASE WAS LEFT OFF THAT CLARIFIED THAT, THEN IF THE MANAGER WANTED TO ENTER INTO A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, FOR EXAMPLE, HE COULD ONLY GO UP TO $33,000 A YEAR FOR THAT CONTRACT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T READ IT THAT WAY, BUT I GUESS I CAN ASK. IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS?

THE CURRENT CHARTER SAYS IN ARTICLE 7, SECTION 15, EXCUSE ME WHILE I TURN TO IT. IT SAYS THESE WORDS: THE CITY MANAGER SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT TO EXPENDITURES WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL FOR ALL BUDGETED ITEMS NOT EXCEEDING $25,000. OF COURSE, THAT'S ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, SO IT'S 43,000 DOLLARS NOW. SO I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND READ THE ADJUSTED AMOUNT AS I READ ON. ALL CONTRACTS FOR EXPENDITURES INVOLVING ALL — ALL CONTRACTS FOR EXPENDITURES INVOLVING MORE THAN $43,000 MUST BE EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. SO THAT LANGUAGE ATTACHES TO THE CONTRACT, SO IT DOESN'T SAY FOR A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT OR A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT, IT ATTACHES TO THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT. SO IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT OVER ITS LIFE IS MORE THAN THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT, THEN THOSE WORDS SAY THAT CONTRACT SHOULD BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

AND MAYOR, AGAIN, THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT, THE CITY'S PRACTICE THROUGHOUT — AT LEAST THROUGHOUT THIS LAST DECADE WHEN I'VE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH IT, HAS BEEN TO INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN ANNUALLY THE MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THAT ANNUALLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE CHARTER? I DIDN'T HEAR YOU SAY ANNUALLY.

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHERE DID THAT INTERPRETATION COME FROM?

I'M NOT SURE, MAYOR. AGAIN, IT'S BEEN THE CITY'S PRACTICE TO DO THAT AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT. AND UP UNTIL RECENTLY I HAD NOT READ THE CHARTER LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAD ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THIS TO MEAN THE CITY MANAGER CAN ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR $43,000 WITHOUT COMING TO THE COUNCIL. IF THE CONTRACT GOES BEYOND THAT, THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO BRING TO THE COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS BECAUSE IT WENT ABOVE THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAD AUTHORITY FOR. AND LIKE I INDICATED TO THE OTHER GENTLEMAN EARLIER, SOMETIMES THOSE AMOUNTS AMENDMENTS ARE FOR MANY, MANY TIMES WHAT THE ORIGINAL 43,000 WAS. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING MR. STEINER IS THERE A PROVISION THERE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT ANNUALLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THERE'S BEEN SOME PROJECTS THAT ULTIMATELY WIND UP WITH US ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS WITH FIRMS FOR 10 MILLION DOLLARS THAT STARTED OUT WITH THE CITY MANAGER GIVING A CONTRACT FOR $40,000. AND WHEN WE GET IT AGAIN — AND IT'S A FOOT IN THE DOOR ISSUE THAT THE CITY MANAGER WAS TALKING ABOUT. WHEN WE GET INTO THE SECOND TIME, IT'S FOR AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT HE ENTERED INTO. AND WHAT I WAS SAYING IS IF IT'S A BIG CONTRACT AND, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO A RENOVATION OF THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL PLAN, WELL, IT AIN'T GOING TO COST $43,000. WE KNOW THAT. IF WE WANT TO SCOPE OUT THE PROJECT, HE CAN HIRE SOMEBODY FOR $40,000 TO SCOPE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. THAT COMES TO US AND THEN WE SEND IT OUT ON AN R.F.P. FOR THE WORK ITSELF, BUT IF — WHAT WE DO IS BEGIN THE PROCESS WITH A CONTRACT, AND THEN WE AMEND IT TO GIVE THE CONTRACT TO THE SAME PERSON, IN MY ESTIMATION THAT'S SUBVERTING THE INTENT OF THE LAW, WHICH BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, GIVES THE POWER TO THE COUNCIL TO APROVES CONTRACTS OVER $43,000. AND THAT'S BASICALLY MY CONCERN. AND THAT'S WHY I READ IT THE WAY I DID IT. COUNCILMEMBER? THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHY I SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M — I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS SETTING THIS THING AT 100,000. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CAN GET APPROVAL FROM THE COUNCILMEMBERS ON THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT BECAUSE I THINK GIVEN THE SIZE OF OUR BUDGET, IT'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT. AND THAT PROVISION THAT JUST DEALT WITH INFLATION ALSO DEALT WITH IT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS MUCH SMALLER. AND SO — BUT I'M SAYING THE CITY MANAGER CAN GO ABOVE THAT BY NO MORE THAN 25%, PERIOD. AND IF IN ESSENCE THE CONTRACT GOES BEYOND THAT 25%, THEN WE HAVE TO SEND OUT THE R.F.P.'S AND — OR REBID THE WHOLE THING.

WE DO NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVAL AND BIDDING ARE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUES. CONTRACTS HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY ARE FOR MORE THAN $43,000. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO STATE BIDDING LAWS AND THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO STATE BIDDING LAW AT AN AMOUNT THAT'S MUCH LOWER THAN A CONTRACT THAT HASN'T COME TO COUNCIL. SO THERE WILL BE MANY CONTRACTS THAT MUST BE BID THAT NEED NOT COME TO COUNCIL, AND MANY CONTRACTS THAT NEED TO COME TO COUNCIL THAT NEED NOT BE BID. SO THOSE ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS THAT WORK INDEPENDENTLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE SOLE SOURCE ISSUES, JOHN, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF VARIATIONS. THERE'S SITUATIONS WHERE IT'S NOT A BID, IT'S A REQUESTED PROPOSAL, IT'S A — THERE ARE REQUESTS FOR ALL KINDS OF THINGS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF THE EXPENDITURE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ENGAGEMENT OR THAT PARTICULAR WORK IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN THE 100,000 AND WE KNOW THAT AT THE OUTSET — AND I MADE THE REFERENCE TO THE RENOVATION TO THE SOUTH AUSTIN REGIONAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, THEN FROM THE VERY OUTSET IT OUGHT TO COME TO COUNCIL UNLESS ALL THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING DO IS SCOPE OUT. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT HEADS MAY WANT TO SCOPE OUT A PROJECT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S INVOLVED. — BUT ONCE THE SCOPING IS DONE, IT NEEDS TO GO OUT ON AN R.F.P. OR WHATEVER AND NOT COME BACK TO US. IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT THAT THE MANAGER HAPPENED INTO. AND THAT HAPPENS. THAT HAS HAPPENED WHILE I'VE BEEN ON COUNT. AND THAT'S THE ONE WHERE I HAVE A CONCERN. SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S GETTING LATE AND I'M — I'M AGAINING TO GET FUZZY HERE IN MY MIND. CAN YOU WORK SOMETHING — CAN WE WORK ON SOMETHING BETWEEN NOW AND THE 20TH SO WE CAN ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? YOU AND JOHN AND WE CAN ALL GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY — I CAN'T STRUCTURE — OTHER THAN WHAT I TOLD YOU HERE, I CAN'T PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT I WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER. OKAY?

YES, SIR, WE CAN DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND LET ME ASK THE COUNCIL, IF WE WERE TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER?

THOMAS: I WOULD, YES.

WYNN: OKAY FOR ME.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? I THINK THAT IMPROVES IT, WHAT YOU DID TO IT, BUT I'VE BEEN ARGUING ON OTHER ITEMS TONIGHT ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND KEEPING IT THE WAY IT IS AS FAR AS THE DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTING, AND I THINK THIS ONE TAKES IT THEN THE OTHER WAY AND I FEEL LIKE THAT TO BE CONSISTENT I'M GOING TO — I DON'T SUPPORT THIS ONE EITHER. IT'S ALREADY TIED TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST KEEP IT LIKE THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, IT IS. WE'RE NOT REMOVING THAT. WHEN WE SAY IS THAT IF A CONTRACT — WE KNOW THAT THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE MUCH BIGGER THAN HIS AUTHORITY, THAT FROM THE OUTSET WE BRING IT HERE BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S DONE, THE CITY MANAGER CAN HIRE SOMEBODY FOR THE 43 PLUS THE INFLATION AND THEN THE NEXT TIME WE SEE THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CONTRACT THAT THE CITY MANAGER ENTERED INTO.

SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT AND I THINK THAT DEFINITELY IMPROVES IT. I'M SAYING I DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE LIMIT, THOUGH.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE LIMIT. OKAY. SURE. I DON'T HAVE — I'M NOT ENAMORED AND TIED TO THE 100,000 AT ALL. THAT'S FINE WITH ME. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT IS DONE IT SEEMS TO ME NEEDS SOME LOOKING AT.

SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: AS PART OF THE PREVAILING ASIDE ON ITEM NUMBER 9-C, I WANT TO MOVE TO RECONSIDER THAT VOTE, PLEASE?

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION TO RECONSIDERATION FOR 9-C.

WYNN: WHICH IS THE REPEALING OF THE CHARTER SECTION ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT APPOINTMENT OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE?

WYNN: NO, SIR, THIS IS THE REPEALING OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING — .

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: SORRY, IT'S LATE. [LAUGHTER].

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. 9-C. SORRY ABOUT THAT, COUNCILMEMBER. I TOLD YOU THAT I WAS GETTING FOGGY HERE.

WYNN: WHICH OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES IS THIS? [LAUGHTER].

MAYOR GARCIA: WAS I GIVING YOU A HARD TIME ON THAT ONE? REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS MOVING FOR RECONSIDERATION. IS THERE A SECOND?

SLUSHER: I SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE OF RECONSIDERATION, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES SO WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER THIS ITEM. THIS MOTION ORIGINALLY WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY ME. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YOU ALL DID A GREAT JOB THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

SLUSHER: WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, AND THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO RECONSIDER. AND I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND I SECOND THAT. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO THREE.

SLUSHER: DID WE GET FOUR OR FIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WE GOT FIVE.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HEAR HOW COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VOTED. [LAUGHTER]. YOU ARE ALL DOWN THAT WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOUR TO THREE WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, GRIFFITH AND THOMAS AND GARCIA, GOODMAN, SLUSHER AND WYNN ARE THE AYE SIDE. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME — COUNCILMEMBER?

I APOLOGIZE TO THE COUNCIL. I KNOW YOU'RE SICK OF HEARING FROM ME. BUT WITH YOUR PERMISSION, IN WRITING SOMETHING TO CIRCULATE TO YOU IN THE WAY OF A DRAFT, I WILL TAKE THE LIBERTY, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, OF GOING AHEAD AND MAKING UP BALLOT PROPOSITIONS FOR EACH OF THESE. PLEASE CONSIDER THOSE TO BE PLACE HOLDERS THAT ARE JUST SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU CAN TAKE OR LEAVE WHEN WE COME BACK, BUT I WILL — I WILL SUGGEST SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE BALLOT ITEMS AS A PRESENTATION TO THE VOTERS ON THE BALLOT. WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE — FROM MR. LEWIS, WHO WAS ONE OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE, A SUGGESTION FROM HIM AS TO WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE SHOULD SAY. AND I WILL PASS THAT ALONG TO THE COUNCIL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I CAN ALSO PASS ALONG SOME OTHER POSSIBILITIES THAT YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER. AND AGAIN, PLEASE CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE TO BE PLACE HOLDERS UNTIL YOU MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE SHOULD SAY. BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUTTING TOGETHER A DRAFT TO CIRCULATE TO YOU, I'LL JUST TAKE THE LIBERTY, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, OF MAKING SOMETHING UP.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

SLUSHER: NOW, MAYOR, SOME OF THESE PASSED ON FOUR-THREE VOTES. AND I SAT ON THE — SAT ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT ONE THAT WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK. THE ONES THAT PASSED ON FOUR-THREE, WILL THEY TAKE FIVE VOTES IN ORDER TO GET ON THE BALLOT WHEN WE VOTE ON THE 21ST?

MAYOR GARCIA: BECAUSE IT REQUIRES AN ORDINANCE, AND WE ONLY HAVE TWO DAYS TO CONSIDER THEM, THE FIRST READING WITH FOUR VOTES, BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE SEC AND THIRD IT WILL HAVE TO HAVE FIVE.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD MOVE OF PUTTING THEM ON WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY ANYWAY, BUT NOW I REALLY SEE WHY YOU'RE DOING THAT AND I CON GRAT LATE YOU ON YOUR FORWARD THINKING.

MAYOR GARCIA: TO YOU AND THE COMMISSION, WE WANT TO TELL YOU THAT WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE, MR. STEINER, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, THE STAFF AND EVERYBODY. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS AND YOU'VE HELPED US TREMENDOUSLY. WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE OUT OF HERE.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log