Closed Caption Log, Council Worksession
Tuesday, March 19, 2002

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: IF THEY CAN COME IN FROM THE HALL WE WOULD HAVE A QUORUM AND WE CAN GET STARTED. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY, MY NAME IS GUS GARCIA. ALSO IN THE DAIS HERE IS COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND SEDORA JEFFERSON, THE CITY ATTORNEY, TOBY FUTRELL THE CITY MANAGER, COUNCILMEMBER RAUL ALVAREZ AND MAYOR PRO TEM JACKIE GOODMAN. WE HAVE FIVE OF THE SEVEN COUNCILMEMBERS, SO WE HAVE A QUORUM. I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER THIS SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, IT'S TUESDAY, MARCH THE 19TH, IT'S 3:13 IN THE AFTERNOON. WE ARE IN — AT CITY HALL, 124 WEST 8TH STREET, ROOM 304. WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLANNED EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, THAT MEANS EVERYTHING WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY WILL BE IN OPEN SESSION. SO I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE PARAGRAPH DEALING WITH CLOSED SESSIONS, UNLESS THERE IS A REQUEST BY A COUNCILMEMBER OR BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR BY THE CITY MANAGERS, CITY MANAGER, TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE AGENDA TODAY IS CALLED DEALING WITH POSSIBLY AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER THAT WILL BE PLACED, IF ENOUGH VOTES ARE IN CAST — ARE CAST IN FAVOR, WILL BE PLACED ON THE MAY 4TH BALLOT. HERE'S THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, GUYS. LISTEN CAREFULLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE WILL — I'M GOING TO ONLY GO THROUGH THIS ONE TIME UNLESS THERE'S CONFUSION. THE COUNCIL HAS TO VOTE ON THREE THINGS. THE CONCEPT OF THE PARTICULAR BALLOT ITEM, THE CONCEPT. SECONDLY, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. AND THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN FURNISHED A — AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. AND, THIRDLY, WE WILL VOTE ON THE ORDER IN WHICH THIS BALLOT PROPOSITION — THESE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE MAY 4TH BALLOT. CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

MR. CITY ATTORNEY? NOW, BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THE ISSUES HAVE THE SAME — THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS AS TO SAY WHETHER THEY WERE DISCUSSED OR THEY WERE POSTPONED OR WHATEVER, I HAVE MADE — I'M MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CONSIDER ITEMS A THROUGH G, A IS THE METHOD OF ELECTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, B IS THE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL. C IS THE REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRING NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PUBLISH A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE STATEMENT IN AN AUSTIN NEWSPAPER. I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS NOT A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE STATEMENT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION THAT WAS PUT IN THE NEWSPAPER. BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.

IT'S A CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENSE STATEMENT.

OKAY. D IS A RESIGN TO RUN PROVISION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES. E IS A RESIGN-TO-RUN PROVISION FOR OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES APPOINTS BY THE COUNCIL. F IS REPEAL OF THE CHARTER SECTION REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. AND G IS THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THOSE ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST WORK SESSION THAT WE HAD, ABOUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. AND — AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON THE CONCEPT AND WE WILL VOTE ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ON THOSE ITEMS, A THROUGH G. AND ACTUALLY, IT SHOULD BE — AND ALSO I AND J. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND JUDGE IS THE INCREASING THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ONE CONTRACT APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF CONTRACT. AND WE WILL HAVE A BETTER EXPLANATION THAN THE ONE THAT I JUST GAVE BY READING WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY. WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT, BOTH AS TO CONCEPT, AND AS TO BALLOT LANGUAGE. I WILL CALL — CALL UP EACH ITEM. THEN AFTER WE VOTE ON CONCEPT, WE WILL VOTE ON BALLOT LANGUAGE. AND LIKE I SAY, IT'S A THROUGH G. AND I AND J. ITEMS H AND K WILL THEN BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL. H IS A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT THE CITY SHALL NOT MAINTAIN A CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL FILE FOR A POLICE OFFICER. AND K IS THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE MONITOR AND A POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. THOSE TWO, THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST BY SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT — THAT COME TO THE LAST MEETING — THAT CAME TO THE LAST MEETING, WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT, WE POSTPONED IT, THEY HAVE THOSE LATER ON SO THAT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SPEAK CAN COME AND SPEAK, ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T ALREADY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. AGAIN, WE WILL VOTE ON THE CONCEPT, WE WILL VOTE ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. ONCE WE APPROVE CONCEPT AND BALLOT LANGUAGE, BALLOT LANGUAGE ON ALL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER, THAT RECEIVE — THAT RECEIVE THE MAJORITY VOTE, THEN WE WILL VOTE ON THE BALLOT ORDER. NOW, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE WITH ORDINANCES, WE MAY NOT VOTE ON THE BALLOT ORDER TODAY. BECAUSE IF SOMETHING PASSES TODAY ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 2, THAT ITEM BASICALLY HAS BEEN APPROVED AS TO CONCEPT AND AS TO BALLOT LANGUAGE. IF IT PASSES ON BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES. BUT IF SOMETHING PASSES ON THE VOTE OF 4 TO 3, THAT ORDINANCE IS HA ONLY BEEN APPROVED FOR THE FIRST READING. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE SECOND READING TOMORROW AND POSSIBLE THIRD READING TOMORROW AND IF IT ONLY PASSES ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 TOMORROW, THEN THE THIRD READING WILL BE THURSDAY. ONCE WE HAVE ALL OF THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AS TO CONCEPT AND AS TO BALLOT LANGUAGE, AT THAT TIME WE WILL DO THE BALLOT OR, WHICH IS PROPOSITION 1, 2, 3, AND ALL THE WAY THROUGH. MR. STEINER DID I DO ALL OF THIS CORRECTLY?

I THINK THAT WILL WORK.

MAYOR GARCIA: HERE WE GO. IS EVERYBODY READY?

ALVAREZ: I HAD A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, SIR, COUNCILMEMBER.

ALVAREZ: THAT MEANS WHATEVER WE APPROVED LAST WEEK THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, IT DIDN'T COUNT AS A READING. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. [ LAUGHTER ]. WE DISCUSSED IT AND WE TOOK SOME VOTES, BUT — BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTED TO HAVE THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, DONE SO THAT WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD VOTE ON. SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. AND I THINK WE HAVE TWO VERSIONS.

STEINER: WE HAVE TWO VERSION THAT'S DIFFER ONLY IN ONE DETAIL, WHICH IS THAT ONE OF THEM, I BELIEVE, IF — CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ASKED FOR ONE VERSION THAT HAD A PROVISION IN IT THAT EVERY TEN YEARS AFTER THE — AFTER THE DICENNIAL CENSUS THE COUNCIL STARTED OVER AGAIN AND RESTAGER ITS TERMS BY ELECTING THE WHOLE COUNCIL THE WAY THE STATE SENATE DOES. ONE OF THE VERSIONS HAS THAT FEATURE, THE OTHER VERSION DOESN'T. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ONE IS CALLED OLD VERSION B OR B — THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS THE 10 YEARS? DESIGN STEIN THE B HAS THE STARTING OVER EVERY 10 YEARS.

THE OTHER ONE IS A, OLD VERSION. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THE 10-YEAR STAGGER PROVISION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM THAT I WILL CALL UP IS UNDER THE CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO PLACE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON THE MAY 4, 2002 BALLOT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: ITEMS APPROVED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE 7TH OF MARCH, WE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION COUNCILMEMBER, BUT WE HAVE TO APPROVE BY ORDINANCE, SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY. TO CHANGE THE TERMS AND THE METHODS OF ELECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM ELECTION AT LARGE TO A METHOD COMBINING ELECTION OF MEMBERS FROM GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRICTS AND ELECTION OF MEMBERS AT LARGE. AND WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK UNLESS MS. — [ LAUGHTER ].

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

...>

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOU TRYING TO SPOOK US?

THAT'S ALL. ERIC RAINBOLT, DID YOU SIGN UP FOR — FOR ITEM A?

NO, I SIGNED UP FOR K.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM K. OKAY. I WENT TO THE BOTTOM, IT SAYS K. MIKE HANSON, YOU — YOU DIDN'T INDICATE WHICH ITEM YOU ARE HERE FOR.

I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S H AND K. POLICE REVIEW ACTUALLY IS — POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, IS THAT THE ONE? THAT'S ITEM K. THE SAME ONE THAT MR. RAINBOLT IS SIGNED UP FOR. SCOTT HANSON IS H AND K. MIKE — OKAY. MIKE SUPAK IS H AND K. GIOVANNI ANGELO IS J AND K. NATHANIEL NORTON IS K. ANN DELJANOS, H AND K. FRED LEWIS, LANGUAGE FOR POP POSITION OF CLEAN CAMPAIGNS, THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY, FRED. IS IT?

WELL —

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DECIDED — AT THE LAST MEETING WE DECIDED WE WERE NOT GOING TO PUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT THE CITIZENS —

STEINER: YES, SIR, BUT THE COUNCIL STILL HAS TO CHOOSE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. IN OTHER WORDS THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER ARE WHAT THEY ARE. BUT IT'S — THE COUNCIL HAS TO CHOOSE THE LANGUAGE THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE ON THE BALLOT AND THE ORDER IN WHICH IT WILL APPEAR —

MAYOR GARCIA: WHICH ITEM IS IT? A, B, C, D, E, F, G?

STEINER: IT'S NOT ANY ONE OF THOSE, IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT ANYWAY. THERE'S NOTHING FOR YOU TO DECIDE ABOUT PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT. ALL THAT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE IS HOW THE PROPOSITION WILL READ.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL CALL YOU OFF WE DO SMESHSS. SO YOU WOULD — AFTER WE DO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, SO YOU WOULD BE 1-A, A. A, BIG A, LITTLE A. NOW WHAT DID I DO WITH THE OTHERS? HERE WE GO. CHARLES FOSTER IS HERE FOR K, AGAINST H. BERNADINE LUCKY IS HERE FOR K AND AGAINST H. B.J. TAYLOR IS HERE FOR H AND K. SO WE WILL CALL YOU AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. SO WE DON'T HAVE — ANYBODY SIGNED UP ON ITEM NO. 1A. SO I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION OR PRESENTATION BY STAFF. MR. ROBINSON IS HERE. AND MR. STEINER. DO YOU ALL HAVE —

STEINER: YES, SIR, THE — THE PROVISION THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP IS A — TO SAY THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS. THEY DIFFER ONLY IN THE FACT THAT WITH ONE OF THEM THE COUNCIL STARTS OVER EVERY 10 YEARS AFTER THE DICENNIAL CENSUS AND THEN DRAWS LOTS TO STAGGER THE TERMS. OTHER THAN THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL, THEY PROVIDE WITH A CITY COUNCIL WITH 8 MEMBERS ELECTED FROM DISTRICTS. TWO MEMBERS ELECTED AT LARGE AND A MAYOR ELECTED AT LARGE FOR A TOTAL OF 11 COUNCILMEMBERS. I HAVE MADE CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO ALL OF THE THE PLACES IN THE CHARTER THAT TALK ABOUT QUORUM. AND TALK ABOUT — ABOUT THE NUMBER OF VOTES REQUIRED TO PASS THINGS ON EMERGENCIES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. THE — ACCORDING TO YOUR INSTRUCTIONS FROM A WEEK AGO THURSDAY, I HAVE NOT PROVIDED FOR A TRANSITION. THE TRANSITION WILL BE PROVIDED BY A SEPARATE ORANCE, WHICH THIS — THIS GIVES THE COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO DON'T, EITHER ON A — ON AN ANTICIPATORY BASIS, IF YOU WISH, ACCORDING TO I BELIEVE INSTRUCTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, IT PROVIDES THAT IF THE COUNCIL DOES DON'T ANTICIPATORY ORDINANCES, THEN THOSE ARE SORT OF FROZEN IN PLACE UNLESS THERE'S A — A COURT ORDER OR AN OBJECTION FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO CHANGE THEM. SO BASICALLY, THIS WOULD RESIDE THAT YOU COULD — — THIS WOULD PROVIDE THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER THE TRANSITION AT ANOTHER TIME AND IF YOU WANTED TO OR NOT, YOU COULD — YOU COULD — YOU COULD DON'T AN ORDINANCE THAT — THAT — YOU COULD ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT DIVIDED THE CITY INTO DISTRICTS BEFORE OR AFTER THE ELECTION. SO THIS GIVES YOU THAT FLEXIBILITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I REMEMBER I DID TALK ABOUT THAT IN RELATION TO THE MAP. BUT I DON'T REMEMBER — TRANSITION —

I CAN CHANGE THAT. BUT THE WAY I PROVIDED ITRONIX SAYS THAT IT WOULD — IT SAYS THE TRANSITION ORDINANCE, THE WAY I DRAFTED IT WAS THIS: A TRANSITION ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ANTICIPATION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS ON MAY 4TH, 2002, MAY NOT BE AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNLESS THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE ARE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW OR LEGAL PREREQUISITES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VOTING CHANGES CONNECTED BY THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

STEINER: I SAID THE SAME THING WITH RESPECT TO THE REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.

SLUSHER: I WOULD THINK WE WOULD JUST GET THE — GET THE TRANSITION, DO IT AS PART OF THIS. WHAT'S THE WAY THAT'S USUALLY DONE.

STEINER: YOU COULD DO IT EITHER WAY. I THINK THE REASON THAT YOU INSTRUCTED ME A WEEK AGO THURSDAY TO PROVIDE FOR IT IN ANOTHER ORDINANCE WAS SO THAT YOU COULD WORRY ABOUT THAT ANOTHER DAY.

SLUSHER: RIGHT. WELL —

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT IS IF THIS THING DOESN'T PASS, WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT TRANSITION.

SLUSHER: BUT I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING IT COULD BE BEFORE OR AFTER, BUT YOU ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO IT BEFORE, RIGHT?

STEINER: I GAVE YOU THAT FLEXIBILITY. YOU CAN DO IT BEFORE OR AFTER. FRUIT FRUIT...........FRUIT FRUIT BASICALLY YOU SAID — FRUTRELL: MAN ORDINANCE PROVISION BEFORE OR AFTER THE ELECTION.

I SAID THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BY ORDINANCE PROVIDE FOR AN ORDERLY TRANSITION FROM THE SEVEN MEMBER COUNCIL ELECTED AT LARGE TO THE 11 MEMBER ORDINANCE PROVIDED BY THIS ARTICLE. THE TRANSITION ORDINANCE MAY SHORTEN THE TERMS OF ALL OR SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED UNDER THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM. MAY REQUIRE A CLASS OF COUNCILMEMBERS TO DRAW LOTS. THE TRANSITION ORDINANCE MAY PROVIDE FOR A CITY COUNCIL THAT TEMPORARILY HAS MORE THAN 11 MEMBERS, INCLUDING THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS CONSTITUTING A QUORUM AMEND THE NUMBER OF VOTES NEEDED FOR COUNCIL ACTION, ADJUSTMENTS TO QUORUM AND VOTE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE NUMBERS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER. TRANSITION ORDINANCE SHALL PROVIDE FOR STAGGERING THE TERMS OF COUNCILMEMBERS AND CREATING A SEQUENCE OF GENERAL ELECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE. TRANSITION ORDINANCE MAY ACCEPT A COUNCILMEMBER WHO RECEIVES A SHORTENED TERM FROM THE APPLICATION OF A TERM LIMIT PROVISION IN THIS CHARTER WITH RESPECT TO THE SHORTENED THERM. AN ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ANTICIPATION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS ON MAY 4TH, 2002 WAS NOT VOID BECAUSE OF ITS ANTICIPATORY NATURE.

SLUSHER: SO UNDER THAT — SO COUNCILMEMBERS COULD VOTE AFTER AN ELECTION TO SHORTEN ANOTHER COUNCILMEMBER'S TERM, SO LIKE IF I GOT MAD AT SOMEBODY, IF I COULD GET FOUR VOTES, I COULD SAY WELL, YOU WILL BE OUT OF OFFICE IN SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR.

YOU HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

SLUSHER: THAT SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY TO ME. [ LAUGHTER ]. I WOULD THINK WE WOULD NEED TO BE — LET ME ASK IT ANOTHER WAY. IF WE WERE TO AGREE ON THIS DURING THE NEXT THREE DAYS OF VOTES, THIS COULD BE ADDED AS AN AMENDMENT WHERE IF IT WAS A 4-3 VOTE IT WOULDN'T NEED TO HAVE THREE SEPARATE READINGS, BUT COULD BE ADDED IN AS AN AMENDMENT ON ONE OR MORE OF THE READINGS.

STEINER: YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I THINK WE OUGHT TO PROBABLY DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE MORE BEFORE WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. THAT SEEMS PROBLEMATIC TO ME. I DON'T SEE THE POINT IN PUTTING IT OFF ANOTHER DAY. MAYBE ONE MORE DAY, BUT NOT TO ANOTHER MONTH OR —

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, TO GO BACK TO, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WERE HERE WHEN WE DID THIS, WE — THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE VOTE ON CONCEPT AND THEN ON BALLOT LANGUAGE. BALLOT LANGUAGE IS WHEN WE GET INTO THE ORDINANCE. THE CONCEPT IS BASICALLY A21. YOU ARE SAYING THE FIRST READING WE VOTE ON CONCEPT —

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. WE COULD DON'T ON ALL THREE READINGS TO SEE, THE CONCEPT BEING 8-2-1. 8 DISTRICTS, TWO AT LARGE, THE MAYOR. WE CAN DO THAT. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE BALLOT LANGUAGE OR FOR THAT MATTER ANYTHING IN THE ORDER THAN THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER. WE MAY DO THAT LATER. SO WE HAVE THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT WE HAVE THAT OPTION, RIGHT, MR. STEINER?

STEINER: YOU CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. IF THE COUNCIL ONLY HAS — IF THERE ARE ONLY FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR OF A PARTICULAR BALLOT PROPOSITION, THEN THAT WILL NEED TO GET THREE READINGS ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS. IT MAY BE THAT THERE ARE NOT — A CONSISTENT GROUP OF FOUR VOTES FOR ALL OF THE THINGS THAT — THAT THE COUNCIL WISHES TO PLACE ON THE BALLOT. IN WHICH CASE WHAT I CAN DO IS I CAN BREAK THOSE OUT AS SEPARATE ORDINANCES SO THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY VOTE ON EACH PROPOSITION AS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE.

IN FACT THAT'S WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT HERE. TAKE EACH ONE OF THEM, THE SIMPLEST WAY, TAKE EACH ONE OF THEM, FOUR VOTES THREE TIMES, FIVE VOTES ONCE.

SLUSHER: PART OF A SEPARATE BALLOT, AS MR. DESIGNER IS SAYING, WITHIN THE MIXED SYSTEM PROPOSAL, WE COULD SAY PASS IT ON FIRST READING TODAY, EVEN IF IT'S 7-0 VOTE, WE COULD SAY WE WANT TO WORK ON THIS SOME MORE. PASS IT ON 7-0 FIRSTRYING. THEN ADD OR ALTER IS SOMEWHAT AND HAVE THE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF IT, THOSE COULD PASS. THEY COULD SPLIT 4-3, THAT WOULD STILL PASS ON SECOND READING EVEN IF SOME OF THE PROVISIONS ONLY HAD 4-3 VOTES.

TO PASS AN ORDINANCE ON A READING YOU JUST NEED FOUR VOTES. YOU CAN AMEND AN ORDINANCE BETWEEN READINGS.

SLUSHER: THAT'S BASICALLY HAS THAT BOILS DOWN TO.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THAT BRINGS UP THE QUESTION OF — THERE ARE CON EPTUAL PIECES OF THE MIXED SYSTEM ORDINANCE THAT I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, INCLUDING THE TRANSITION, STAGGERING OF THE TERMS ET CETERA. SO IF — IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A — YOU KNOW, A 5-2, 6-1 OR 7-0 VOTE TODAY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE AGREEMENT TO WHAT THOSE CONCEPTS ARE. OTHERWISE, LET'S JUST DO IT — WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO GET AS MANY VOTES OUT OF THE WAY AS WE CAN. THROUGHOUT THE WEEK. I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ENOUGH VOTES —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.

SLUSHER: LET ME ADD I AGREE WITH THAT. THE PRESENCE OF TWO POLICE ITEMS, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE DISCUSSED THEM AT ALL, OTHER GROUPS, SO I WOULD LIKE TO — I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE US TALK ABOUT THIS ONE AT LENGTH TODAY AND THEN GET DOWN TO FURTHER DOWN ON THE AGENDA TO THE — TO THE TWO ITEMS BACK TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEN HAVE BEEN HERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS, NOT GIVE THAT OUR FULL ATTENTION. I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THEM ALL OUR FULL ATTENTION. I — I WOULD BE WILLING TO — TO PUT THIS OFF ONE MORE DAY. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ONE MYSELF.

...>MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, WE COULD DO IT ON FIRST READING LIKE YOU INDICATED IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO. IF WE CAN RESOLVE THE ISSUES BETWEEN TODAY AND TOMORROW, WE COULD DO SECOND AND THIRD TOMORROW.

SLUSHER: OR SECOND TOMORROW AND THIRD THE NEXT DAY.

RIGHT.

SLUSHER: I'M WILLING TO COME BACK TO IT AND TRY TO FINISH IT OFF TODAY. I WOULD RATHER NOT POSTPONE IT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE POSTPONING THESE POLICE DEPARTMENT ITEMS AGAIN OR NOT GET A DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE SOME WAY TO POINT TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE THOSE ISSUES ARE, COUNCILMEMBER OR MR. STEINER?

STEINER: WELL, —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S TALK ABOUT TRANSITION.

STEINER: YOU HAVE VERSION A, PAGE 5 OF 20. LINE 3. SECTION 5, TRANSITION. I PROVIDED A — A — WHAT I PROVIDED BASED ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, THE COUNCIL'S INSTRUCTIONS FROM A WEEK AGO THURSDAY WERE JUST A PROVISION SAYING THAT THE COUNCIL CAN PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITION BY ORDINANCE. IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITION ACTUALLY IN THIS — IN THE CHARTER WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. I WOULD REPLACE THIS WITH A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE TRANSITION WOULD WORK. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT A TRANSITION COULD WORK. [MULTIPLE VOICES]

I THOUGHT WE WERE — [AUDIO PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] ENDED UP WITH ONE EXTRA COUNCILMEMBER, THAT WAS A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC, THAT WAS MY SENSE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON LAST TIME, ONE EXTRA FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

FROM '03 TO '05. IF THIS PASSES THE '03 ELECTION WILL HAVE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE SITTING, AND THEN WE WILL ELECT 8 MORE. THE MAYOR AND SEVEN. IF ALL OF THE SEVEN ARE ELECTED FROM DISTRICTS, IT WILL ACTUALLY BE SHORT. ONE EXTRA AT LARGE, ONE SHORT ON DISTRICTS.

YOU WILL HAVE THREE — YOU WILL HAVE — IF YOU — IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THE EXTRA COUNCILMEMBER OPTION, WHICH HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF NOT CUTTING ANY EXISTING COUNCILMEMBERS' TERMS SHOT OR ANYONE WHO WILL BE ELECTED IN THE ELECTION THE MONTH AFTER NEXT, YOU WILL END UP IN '03 WITH THREE AT LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS. THEN YOU WOULD ELECT IN ADDITION TO THEM A MAYOR AND 8 COUNCILMEMBERS. WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU 12. THEN THE 8 COUNCILMEMBERS ELECTED FOR DISTRICTS WOULD DIVIDE THEMSELVES INTO TWO CLASSES WHO WOULD THEN GET TWO OR THREE YEAR TERMS TO GET THEM STAGGERED. THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WHEN THE — WHEN THE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WERE ELECTED IN '02 EXPIRED IN '05, THEY WOULD BE REPLACED BY TWO AT LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS. YOU COULD THEN HAVE THE OPTION OF STAGGERING THEIR TERMS BY HAVING THEM DRAW LOTS SO THAT ONE OF THEM WAS ELECTED IN A SEQUENCE WITH THE MAYOR AND FOUR COUNCILMEMBERS OR ONE OF THEM OR YOU COULD HAVE IT SO THAT THE TWO AT-LARGE COUNCILMEMBERS WERE ELECTED IN THE OPPOSITE SEQUENCE OF THE MAYOR.

WYNN: MAYOR.

SLUSHER: IS THERE ANY WAY TO DO IT WHERE YOU DON'T CUT TERMS SHORT, BUT YOU YOU.... — YOU DON'T HAVE THE TURNOVER ALL AT ONCE? [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

I CAN'T THINK OF A WAY TO DO IT SINCE YOU WILL HAVE THREE AT LARGE SITTING COUNCILMEMBERS AND YOU HAVE TO GET RID OF ONE OF THEM SOME WAY. SO THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THE EXTRA ONE IS TO LET THEM HANG ON UNTIL THEIR TERM EXPIRES OR CUT THEIR TERM SHORT.

SLUSHER: WELL, WE COULD ALSO RUN IN THE DISTRICT AND IN THE FIRST DISTRICT ELECTION, I SUPPOSE.

STEINER: IF THIS VOLUNTARILY DECIDED TO STEP DOWN AND RUN IN A DISTRICT ELECTION THAT WOULD WORK, BUT OF COURSE YOU COULDN'T GUARANTEE THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

I WOULD LIKE TO — CITY ELECTIONS COST US A — HALF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR AN ELECTION, HALF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE RUNOFF THE FOLLOWING MONTH. WE STAGGER ELECTIONS NOW TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM HAVING TO VOTE FOR ALL SEVEN PLACES AT THE SAME TIME, THINKING, I GUESS, THAT IT'S JUST A LOT OF — A LOT OF CANDIDATES, A LOT OF — OF PLACES TO FILL. FOR — UNDER AN 8-2-1 SYSTEM, EVERY CITIZEN WILL BE VOTING FOR FOUR PLACES. JUST LIKE WE HAVE TODAY. YOU VOTE FOR THE MAYOR, YOU VOTE FOR THE TWO AT LARGE AND YOU VOTE FOR YOUR DISTRICT REP. SO THERE'S — THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE FOUR PEOPLE, FOUR PLACES THAT YOU VOTE FOR UNDER 8-2-1, EVEN IF WE ELECT, DON'T STAGGER IT, ONLY HAVE ELECTIONS EVERY THREE YEARS. SAVES THE CITY GENERAL FUND A MILLION DOLLARS THAT SECOND YEAR. I THINK IT'S — I THINK IT'S SILLY AND IT'S WASTEFUL OF THE GENERAL FUND TAX DOLLARS TO STAGGER IT TO WHERE SOME — SOME FOLKS IN THE CITY ARE VOTING FOR ONLY ONE SPOT, YET IT COSTS THE CITY A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FROM THAT ELECTION AND SOME VOTING FOR THREE, IF WE JUST HAVE AN ELECTION EVERY THREE YEARS, 8-2-1 PASSES, EVERY CITIZEN NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE IN THE CITY VOTES FOR EXACTLY FOUR PLACES, NO MORE, NO LESS, VERY CONSISTENT, WE HAVE ONE ELECTION EVERY THREE YEARS AND LIKELY HAVE ONE RUNOFF EVERY THREE YEARS. WE SPEND A MILLION BUCKS ONCE IN THREE YEARS, NOT TWICE IN THREE YEARS. AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT OUR CORE SERVICES, TRYING PHOTO CUT CITY SERVICES, NOT TRYING TO LAY OFF CITY EMPLOYEES, I THINK WE ARE BEING WASTEFUL TO, YOU KNOW, NOW COMPLEX, WORKING THROUGH A — THROUGH A COMPLICATED STAGGERING SYSTEM, JUST SO WE CAN CONTINUE THAT TRADITION OF HAVING AN ELECTION ONE YEAR, AN ELECTION THE NEXT YEAR AND AN OFF YEAR. EVEN WITH 11 PEOPLE ON THE DAIS, EVERY CITIZEN WILL ONLY VOTE FOR FOUR PEOPLE ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS. IT SAVES THE CITY A MILLION DOLLARS.

MAYOR? ACTUALLY I THINK YOU MAY SOME GOOD POINTS THERE. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE — ABOUT THE FINANCIAL ARGUMENT. I MEAN, IF I THOUGHT THE SYSTEM WOULD WORK BETTER WITH STAGGERED ELECTIONS THEN I WOULD THINK WELL THAT'S JUST AN INVESTMENT IN DEMOCRACY. BUT I CAN SEE THE — THE PEOPLE VOTING FOR EVERYBODY ALL AT ONCE. THE CONGRESS, SENATE STAGGERING, VARIOUS OTHER EXAMPLES. SO I'M WILLING TO DISCUSS THAT ONE, ENTERTAIN THAT ONE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HELL WITH THE CITY TO HAVE — TO HAVE 11 — TO CREATE THE NEW SYSTEM AND HAVE EVERYBODY ELECTED ALL AT ONCE. I WOULD THINK THAT AT THE VERY LEAST, IF I WAS GOING TO GO FOR YOUR IDEA, WHICH I WOULD CONSIDER, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PHASED IN IN SOME WAY RATHER THAN HAVING AN ELECTION NEXT YEAR OR 2005, WHATEVER, WHERE YOU HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE BALLOT AND A NEW SYSTEM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

WYNN: IT SEEMS TO ME IN THINKING THROUGH — I AGREE, I WISH THERE WAS A SIMPLER, LESS PAINFUL WAY TO PHASE IN. BUT WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS WHETHER THREE PLACES ARE — YOU KNOW, IMPACTED, IT'S INCONVENIENT FOR THREE FOLKS OR IF IT'S IMPACTING THE OTHER FOUR.

SLUSHER: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE THREE FOLKS. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU REPLACE THE WHOLE ELECTIVE BODY —

WYNN: THE VAST MAJORITY OF ELECTED ENTITIES IN THE COUNTRY DO THAT.

SLUSHER: I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU PUT IN A NEW SYSTEM AND REPLACE THE ELECTED BODY ALL AT ONCE. THAT'S WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. I AM WILLING TO ENTERTAIN HAVING THE ELECTIONS ALL AT ONCE. I DON'T LIKE THEM HAVING A NEW SYSTEM. YOU GO FROM 7:00 TO — FROM 7 TO 11, HAVE THEM ALL AT ONCE.

WYNN: IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE THEM ALL AT ONCE. EVERY CITIZEN VOTES FOR FOUR, LIKE WE ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR FOUR IN 2003.

SLUSHER: THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

WYNN: YOU DON'T VOTE FOR 11, YOU ONLY VOTE FOR FOUR.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, IF IN ESSENCE THE ONES THAT ARE ELECTED THIS YEAR SERVE OUT THEIR THREE-YEAR TERM, IN 2003 PEOPLE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR ONLY TWO. THEIR DISTRICT REP AND THE MAYOR. IT'S NOT UNTIL WE DO THE — WE DO THE ELECTION OF THE AT LARGE POSITIONS THAT YOU WILL HAVE FOUR. AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

THOMAS: MAYOR, SAY THAT AGAIN. SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: IF IN ESSENCE WE HONOR THE — THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS THIS GO AROUND BY SAYING THE FOLKS THAT GOT ELECTED, TWO GOT ELECTED FOR THREE YEARS, THEY WILL SERVE FOR THREE YEARS. THEN IN 2003, THE MAYOR COMES UP AND THE OTHER THREE COUNCILMEMBERS COMES UP. IF THE TRANSITION PLAN SAYS WE WILL ELECT 8 BY DISTRICT AND THE MAYOR, IN THAT YEAR PEOPLE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ONLY FOR TWO, THE MAYOR AND THEIR DISTRICT REP. AND IT'S NOT UNTIL WE — WE, YOU KNOW, WE — WE CYCLE OUT THE PROCESS THAT THE — AT THE NEXT ELECTION THAT THEY WILL HAVE —

SLUSHER: YOU COULD GO — YOU COULD GO — HAVE THE ELECTIONS COMING UP NOW, YOU COULD ELECT THE NEW COUNCIL IN 2005, AND HAVE THOSE BE TWO-YEAR TERMS, THEN DO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS TALKING ABOUT, HAVE EVERYBODY UP AT ONCE IN 2005. THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE — YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF A TRANSITION FROM AT LARGE TO SINGLE — TO DISTRICT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE 2003 ELECTION WOULD BE A TWO-YEAR ELECTION.

SLUSHER: UH-HUH.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THAT SIMPLIFIES THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE EVERYBODY RUNNING FOR THEIR TERMS IN '05.

SLUSHER: THAT'S RIGHT. IT ACCOMPLISHES WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS TRYING TO DO. I DON'T — I THINK HE HAS A GOOD POINT ABOUT —

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DOLLARS.

SLUSHER: IT'S NOT AS MUCH THE DOLLARS, I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO SAVE MONEY, IF I THOUGHT IT WOULD WORK BETTER FOR DEMOCRACY THE OTHER WAY I WOULD SAY SPEND THE MONEY. I THINK DEMOCRACY IS A CORE SERVICE THAT THE CITY DELIVERS. BUT I CAN SEE IF YOU HAVE DISTRICTS AND MIXED SYSTEM, THAT YOU HAVE THE WHOLE ELECTION AT ONCE, THE EVERY — TWO OUT OF THREE YEARS IS A LITTLE [INAUDIBLE], I THINK, THE WAY — OWE IRONICALLY, THE WAY IT WAS SET UP, IT WAS A COMPANION TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS ON THE BALLOT AND SO THE VOTERS PASSED THAT NOT THE DISTRICTS. THEN NOW WE WOULD BE TAKING, REMOVING THAT AS WE PASSED A MIXED DISTRICT SYSTEM. SO I WOULD SAY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD — THINK ABOUT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT THAT IN THERE ON FIRST READING AND TIP TO DISCUSS IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. INCIDENTALLY, THE REASON WE WENT FROM TWO TO THREE YEARS WAS BECAUSE THE CITIZENS DID NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF TOTAL FOOD BASKET TURNOVERS. AND WHERE IN ONE ELECTION THEY THROW OUT ALL OF THE RASCALS AND BRING IN NEW RASCALS. [ LAUGHTER ]. THAT'S THE ROPE WE WENT TO SINGLE TERMS.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: SO THE ONES IN THIS YEAR IS 2002, WE ARE — WE WILL HAVE THERE THREE YEARS. AND VERY IMPORTANT — OF COURSE 2003, —

MAYOR GARCIA: THE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE SITTING NOW THAT ARE NOT UP FOR ELECTION, THEIR TERM ENDS IN '03. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. AND THAT TERM ENDS IN '03. SO IF WE DO THE TRANSITION IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE TRANSITION TO — TO AN 8 DARN.......2-1, WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IS WE WOULD BE ELECTING 8 DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MAYOR IN '03. AND WE WILL HAVE ONE EXTRA COUNCILMEMBER WHO — WHICH WOULD BE AT LARGE, THAT COUNCILMEMBER WOULD SERVE UNTIL '05. AT '05 THEN YOU HAVE AN ELECTION FOR THE MAYOR, NO, FOR — FOR THE 2 AT LARGE. THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO —

SLUSHER: BUT UNDER THE WAY THAT — IF THE DISTRICTS THEN KICKED IN AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU ARE JUST THINKING ABOUT THE COUNCILMEMBERS, THEN THE DISTRICTS KICKED IN AT THE SAME TIME, THEN THE — THE COUNCILMEMBERS COULD EITHER RUN AT LARGE OR IN A DISTRICT. AND —

THAT MEANS, MAYOR, THAT MEANS THAT ALL THAT'S LEFT WOULD BE RUNNING THE ONE AT LARGE POSITION.

SLUSHER: NO, NO. IT WOULD BE — TWO OF THEM THAT — IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THAT OUT, THERE WOULD BE TWO AT LARGE POSITIONS, YOU WOULD HAVE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WERE SERVING AT THAT TIME AT LARGE, BUT THEY COULD RUN FOR THREE OF THEM COULD RUN FOR TWO SEATS OR ANY AMOUNT OF THEM, ALL OF THEM IF THEY WANTED COULD RUN FOR THE DISTRICT SEATS. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT — THERE'S CERTAINLY OTHER FACTORS, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF IT, THAT'S THE WAY THAT COULD WORK.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME READ THE WAY THE PROPOSITION READS, THEN WE WILL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. PROPOSITION 1 SAYS: THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR ELECTION OF 8 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A MAYOR ELECTED FROM THE CITY AT LARGE. THAT'S THE WAY THE LANGUAGE WOULD READ TO THE BALLOT. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ? COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, WERE YOU FINISHED? I GOT THE CONCEPT NOW. THE '03 WOULD BE TWO YEAR TERMS INSTEAD OF THREE YEARS TERMS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WAS GOING TO GO —

ALVAREZ: I WAS GOING TO SAY WE NOT SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON THIS TRANSITION TODAY BECAUSE THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT AT ALL. SERIOUS POLICY — POLICY IMPLICATIONS. OBVIOUSLY CHANGES TO THE CHARTER. I FIND PUTTING THIS TRANSITION — I'M FINE WITH PUTTING THIS TRANSITION PART OFF UNTIL AFTER THURSDAY, REALLY, BUT IF PEOPLE WANT TO HARSH OUT THE TRANS — HASH OUT THE TRANSITION, LET'S NOT SPEND ALL OF THE TIME TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONCEPTS AND BALLOT LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: THE ONLY THING THAT I DISAGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ ON IS THAT — I DON'T WANT WE OUGHT TO WAIT UNTIL THURSDAY. I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO DO THAT TOMORROW. MOVE ON TO POLICE ITEMS AND OTHERS TODAY. I WOULD MOVE TO — THE FIRST — ON FIRST READING THE 8-2-1 SYSTEM.

AND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.

SLUSHER: AND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD READ.

MAYOR GARCIA: CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF 8 MEMBERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A MAYOR ELECTED FROM THE CITY AT LARGE. DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS ON THE FIRST READING?

SLUSHER: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION TO — TO APPROVE PROPOSITION ON SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, I'M NOT GOING TO CALL IT PROPOSITION 1 BECAUSE THE ORDER ON THE BALLOT WILL BE SET LATER.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

WYNN: SECOND.

SLUSHER: I WOULD DO IT WITHOUT THE — WHICH ONE IS WITHOUT THE 10-YEAR CHANGE?

STEINER: THAT'S VERSION A.

SLUSHER: I WOULD DO A FOR NOW, THOUGH I'M VERY OPEN, I'M OPEN FOR THAT, I THOUGHT WE OUGHT TO DISCUSSION THAT. BUT LET'S PUT IT IN A AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION TOMORROW.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE SECOND ERWIN WIN YES, AS A FIRST READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES, MAYOR, DOES THIS PRESUME THAT THE BOUNDARIES ARE DROWN.......... ARE DRAWN OR NOT DRAWN?

MAYOR GARCIA: NOT WITH THIS MOTION.

GRIFFITH: NOT WITH THIS MOTION. AND DOES IT PRESUME HOW THOSE BOUNDARIES OR WHEN THOSE BOUND DEARS WOULD BE DRAWN — BOUNDARIES WOULD BE DRAWN AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN WHEN THE ELECTION HAPPENS?

MAYOR GARCIA: NOT IN THIS MOTION.

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER COMMENTS?

ALVAREZ: THE ORDINANCE MENTIONS SOMETHING ABOUT THE LINES, DOESN'T IT?

STEINER: AGAIN, THE — THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES THE — THE DRAFT OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT THE COUNCIL — IT GIVES THE COUNCIL THE FLEXIBILITY TO DON'T A REDISTRICTING ORDINANCE — TO ADOPT A RESTRICTING ORDER MANS IN ADVANCE, IN ANSWER — ORDINANCE IN ADD ADVANCE OR IN ANTICIPATION TO WAIT UNTIL IT PASSES TO DO THE REDISTRICTING —

SLUSHER: MR. STEINER, WE REMOVE SECTION FIVE FOR FIRST READING —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME TELL YOU HOW WE'RE DOING IT. THIS IS ONE ORDINANCE, PROPOSITION 1 LANGUAGE IS ONE ORDINANCE. WE WILL DO EACH ONE. AND THEN WE WILL CONSIDER THE WHOLE ORDINANCE.

SLUSHER: SO WE ARE NOT — I DON'T WANT TO PASS SOMETHING THAT HAS THIS IN YEAR, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMEMBERS BY ORDINANCE BEING ABLE TO VOTE ON EACH OTHER'S LENGTH OF THEIR TERMS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I UNDERSTAND.

SLUSHER: I WOULDN'T WANT TO VOTE FOR THAT —

MAYOR GARCIA: NO WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THAT. FURTHER QUESTIONS?

THOMAS: JUST ONE QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, SIR.

THOMAS: BACK TO THE — THE COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ARE WE — I KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT ARE WE GOING TO GET TO THE REDISTRICTING? WHAT ARE WE — NOT —

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL GET TO THE MAPS AND TRANSITION AND TO ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THE POLICE ITEMS, WHICH — WHICH I HAVE — ABOUT — ABOUT 15 SPEAKERS, WE NEED TO GET TO THAT TODAY. WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THAT AT ALL.

THOMAS: FOR PUBLIC RECORD WE NEED TO STILL THINK ABOUT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO?

GRIFFITH: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOIGT OF......... VOTE OF 6 TO 1. FIRST READING ONLY ON THE CONCEPT AND BALLOT LANGUAGE. NOT THE TRANSITION AND NOT THE —

SLUSHER: RIGHT. BUT THAT DOES — WHAT DID WE PASS THEN AS AN ORDINANCE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN MAKE ANY CHANGES THAT WE NEED IN THE ORDINANCE AND VOTE ON THEM TWO MORE TIMES DURING THE NEXT TWO DAYS AND THOSE GO ON THE BALLOT EVEN IF IT'S 4-3.

STEINER: I BELIEVE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS PASSED AN ORDINANCE PLACING THIS PROPOSITION ON THE BALLOT FOR MAY 4TH. YOU MAY AMEND THIS DRAFT BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD READING. SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT AMENDING THE TRANSITION PROVISION AT LEAST.

AND A POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF THE REDISTRICTING AND HOW WE DO THAT.

STEINER: RIGHT, RIGHT.

THOMAS: THAT'S TRUE.

STEINER: BETWEEN NOW AND SECOND AND/OR THIRD READING.

THOMAS: RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS THAT YOU WORK WITH MR. STEINER BETWEEN NOW AND TOMORROW.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: TOMORROW THE MEETING IS AT 10:00 IN THE MORNING, GET UP EARLY AND GET ON WITH IT. [ LAUGHTER ]. OKAY. THE VOTE WAS 6 TO 1. ON — ON ITEM 1-A. NOW WE WILL GO TO 1-B, THE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT'S ARTICLE 2, SECTION 3. OF THE CHARTER. IS THAT THE ONE THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT? I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THE MOTION WOULD BE TO —

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION WOULD BE TO PUT ON THE BALLOT SOMETHING THAT READS AS FOLLOWS: THE CHARTER AMENDMENT REPEALING THE TERM LIMIT PROVISIONS FOR COUNCILMEMBERS, COUNCILMEMBERS INCLUDES THE MAYOR. DO WE NEED TO SAY MAYOR, TOO?

SLUSHER: WE ARE NOT REPEALING THAT ONE. [ LAUGHTER ].

STEINER: THAT WOULD BE FINE, WE COULD PUT THAT IN. GENERALLY THE WORD COUNCILMEMBER INCLUDES THE MAYOR, BUT I COULD ABSOLUTELY ADD IT TO AVOID ANY —

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE MAYOR?

STEINER: GIVE YOU PRECEDENCE —

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MAYOR —

GOODMAN: THEN, MAYOR, I WOULD —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT DOESN'T OFFEND YOU THAT I COME FIRST, DOES IT?

SLUSHER: NO. I EVEN SAY IT LIKE THAT SOMETIMES. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THEN I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF MR. STEINER'S LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO WE ARE VOTING ON THIS ONE ON THE CONCEPT AND ON THE — ON THE — — I WILL RECOGNIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY. LANGUAGE IS THE ONE THAT APPEARS ON PAGE 1. YOU ARE REFERRING TO WHAT PAGE? MR. CITY ATTORNEY? BALLOT FOR ITEM B IS ON — IS ON THE FIRST PAGE OF VERSION A, BUT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD — THAT WOULD BE A PART OF THE ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE, IS ON PAGE 8, LINE 8, IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, MA'AM.

SO THE — SO I'M JUST ASKING WHETHER YOU ARE VOTING ON THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AT THIS TIME. WE ARE VOTING ON THE CONCEPTS OF REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS AND ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. NOT ON THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY.

SLUSHER: DON'T WE HAVE ON VOTE ON THAT.

YES, WE WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

— ALMOST SIX PAGES OF TEXT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON PAGE 5 OF 20 WHERE WE TALK ABOUT TRANSITION, THIS MERELY SETS OUT THE PROCESS THAT BY ORDINANCE PROVIDES AN ORDERERLY TRANSITION. NOW, I THINK THAT —.

STEINER: I UNDERSTAND YOU WILL WANT TO AMEND THIS SECTION BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. SO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, THAT'S FROM LINE 10 WHERE IT SAYS MEMBERSHIP ON PAGE 3, 3 OF 20 STUN STEIN ACTUALLY WHERE IT SAYS PART 8.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THE WAY TO — WHICH IS LINE 10.

STEINER: WHERE IT SAYS PART 9.

MAYOR GARCIA: PART 9.

RIGHT. THAT'S THE ACTUAL TEXT THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED IF THIS PROPOSITION WOULD PASS. AND I UNDERSTAND YOU WILL BE CHANGING THAT TEXT. THIS IS THE TEXT THAT PASSED ON FIRST READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

STEINER: YOU CAN AMEND THAT TAX BETWEEN READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. NOW, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL TLSMT IS A MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. BUT I DO WANT TO BRING UP THE — I THINK SORT OF A CAUTIONARY LANGUAGE ISSUE IS THAT IF THE LANGUAGE ON THE BALLOT IS GOING TO BE VOTING TO REPEAL SOMETHING VOTING TO REPEAL TERM LIMITS, I SEE SORT OF A FLORIDA BUTTERFLY BALLOT SCENARIO WHERE PEOPLE WALK IN AND YOU ARE ACTUALLY VOTING IN THE DOUBLE NEGATIVE TO AFFIRM YOUR VOTE. THAT IS, PEOPLE WILL WALK IN AND SEE TERM LIMITS AND THEY SAY TERM LIMITS YES, NO, IF THEY VOTE YES, THEY ARE VOTING TO REPEAL TERM LIMITS. PERHAPS WE NEED TO CONSIDER LANGUAGE THAT IS AS SIMPLE AS, YOU KNOW, DO YOU — SHOULD THE CITY CONTINUE TO HAVE TERM LIMITS. YES OR NO. THAT WAY THE ISSUE IS TERM LIMITS, UP OR DOWN. IF WE HAVE REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS ON THE BALLOT, PEOPLE WILL WALK IN AND IF THE ISSUE IN THEIR MIND IS TERM LIMITS, UP OR DOWN, THE TERM LIMIT IS UP, THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE VOTING TO REPEAL TERM LIMITS.

SLUSHER: HOW DO DID YOU SAY IT A SECOND AGO?

WYNN: SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT SHOULD THE CITY CONTINUE TO HAVE TERM LIMITS OR CONTINUE WITH ITS TERM LIMIT LANGUAGE. THAT WAY IT'S EITHER YES FOR TERM LIMITS OR NO FOR TERM LIMITS VERSUS THE LANGUAGE SAYS REPEALING TERM LIMITS. YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE YOUR YES IS A VOTE AGAINST TERM LIMITS. NO IS A VOTE FOR TERM LIMITS. I JUST SEE — I THINK A FAIR NUMBER OF PEOPLE —.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY IF THERE IS A PRESCRIPTIVE WAY THIS HAS TO BE WRITTEN?

STEINER: THE WAY I DRAFTED THESE IS ASSUMING WE WOULD HAVE FOR AND AGAINST OUT TO THE LEFT. SO THAT THE PEOPLE — SO WHAT THE PEOPLE WILL SEE IS THIS — I USED THE WAY THE STATE DOES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AS MY MODEL. SO WHAT PEOPLE WOULD SEE IS THIS PHRASE, AND THEN TO THE LEFT OF IT THERE WOULD BE A FOR BOX AND A AGAINST BOX. SO WHAT PEOPLE WOULD SEE ON THIS ONE WOULD BE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT REPEALING THE TERM LIMIT PROVISIONS TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS. TO THE LEFT WOULD BE A FOR BOX, AND AN AGAINST BOX. IF YOU VOTED FOR, IT WOULD BE FOR REPEALING THE TERM LIMITS, IF YOU VOTED AGAINST, IT WOULD BE AGAINST REPEALING THE TERM LIMITS PROVISION. WE'RE NOT REALLY ASKING THE VOTERS TO APPROVE A CONCEPT. WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO A SPECIFIC THING, WHICH IS GET RID OF SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY IN THE CHARTER.

SLUSHER: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DOES IT HAVE TO USE THE WORDS CHARTER? I THINK PEOPLE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE WORD REPEAL MEANS, BUT EXPERT LANGUAGE IT MIGHT MESS UP. WHAT ABOUT REPEAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR COUNCILMEMBERS. THEY CAN VOTE EITHER TO REPEAL IT YES OR NO. DOES IT HAVE TO SAY CHARTER?

STEINER: MY VIEW IT'S PROBABLY HELPFUL TO THE VOTERS THEY ARE VOTING ON A CHARTER ELECTION IN EACH CASE. IT'S NOT A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM. IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING TO THE CITY'S BASIC DOCUMENT. SO THAT'S MY — MY THOUGHT IS IT'S A GOOD THING TO MENTION IT'S A CHARTER AMENDMENT IN THE TEXT.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: SINCE WE'RE DOING THIS ON CONCEPT, AND SINCE AMENDMENTS MAY BE FORTH COMING ON OTHER THINGS AS WELL, WE CAN THINK ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE THE WAY YOU PHRASE SOMETHING CAN MANIPULATE THE VOTER. AND I DO NOT WANT TO MANIPULATE ANYBODY. I'VE NEVER KNOWN ANYBODY TO HAVE TROUBLE WITH THE WORD REPEAL, BUT I CAN THINK ABOUT THAT OF NIGHT AS EVERYONE ELSE CAN. [INAUDIBLE].

WE SEE THE FURROWED BROWSE OF OUR ATTORNEYS. THIS IS THE PLAIN ENGLISH VERSION.

STEINER: IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL HOW THEY WANT TO WORD THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: CHARTER AMENDMENT, DO AWAY WITH TERM LIMITS FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS.

STEINER: THAT IS CERTAINLY PERMISSIBLE PHRASING.

SLUSHER: IF YOU CAN DO IT WITH LESS WORDS, IT'S GENERALLY CONSIDERED BETTER.

GOODMAN: I KNOW. I JUST LIKE REPEAL.

SLUSHER: REPEAL IS ONE WORD. I GOT PRETTY GOOD AT EDITING TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOUR-LETTER WORD. OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND. MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 4-3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, WIN AND THOMAS VOTING NAY. PROPOSITION 3 IS A CHARTER AMENDMENT REPEALING THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1997 THAT PROVIDED FOR A $100 LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS. AND WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON THAT ONE. NOT THAT ONE?

NO I WAS — YOU NAMED 1 A 1, TAKE TALK ABOUT THE — [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME GO BACK TO THAT ONE AND RECOGNIZE YOU ON THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, SO I'M GOING TO LET YOU SPEAK ON THAT ONE. 1 A 1 WOULD BE AN ITEM THAT THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER AFTER WE HEAR FROM MR. FRED LURES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS. WE MAY NOT SEE EYE TO EYE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, BUT I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE FAIREST BALLOT LANGUAGES. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN NOTED AND MAYOR PRO TEM NOTED IT'S — GOODMAN, IT'S QUITE IMPORTANT WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS. WE'VE HAD SOME CONTENTIOUS DEBATES ABOUT LANGUAGE, WHETHER IT WAS THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE OR IF YOU GO BACK EVEN FARTHER FOR SOME OF US, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR SOME OF THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BONDS WHICH ACTUALLY ENDED UP IN COURT. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE VERSION OF THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY YOUR LEGAL STAFF. AND IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS. I NEVER SEEN THE LANGUAGE THEY USE, EVER USED TO REFER TO THE TYPE OF SYSTEM THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AND IN FACT, IT'S A TERMINOLOGY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN USED BY YOUR STAFF UNTIL THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. WHAT DO I MEAN BY THAT? PEOPLE DESCRIBE THE CLEAN CAMPAIGNS AND THE WAY WE DESCRIBE IT IN AND THE WAY YOU'VE ALWAYS DESCRIBED IT IS PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS. THAT PRESUMES THAT THERE IS PUBLIC FUNDS AND THAT IT'S MATCHING A PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT FULL PUBLIC FINANCING. YOUR PROVISION SAYS, OR YOUR RECOMMENDED PROVISION SAYS SYSTEM OF MUNICIPAL FINANCING. THAT LANGUAGE WAS NEVER USED IN THE PRESENTATION MADE TO YOU BACK IN OCTOBER BY YOUR STAFF. THE TEN-PAGE PRESENTATION, I WENT THROUGH IT. THE PHRASE "MUNICIPAL FINANCE" WAS NEVER USED. IT IS NEVER — I'VE BEEN STUDYING THIS STUFF FOR YEARS. I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT PHRASE USED THE DESCRIBE A PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM. I WILL NOTE, THOUGH, BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH AND COUNTED IT, IN THE FOUR PAGES OF THE TEN-PAGE DOCUMENT, WHICH IS IS THE SPEECH GIVEN BY YOUR STAFF THAT DISCUSSED THE FINANCING, 19 TIMES IT DESCRIBED IT AS MATCHING FUNDS OR MATCHABLE FUNDS. IN FACT, 25 TIMES IN THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. EIGHT TIMES IN THE DOCUMENT IT DESCRIBES IT AS PUBLIC FINANCING OR PUBLIC FUNDS. BUT NOWHERE IS IT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE WE NOW HAVE PROPOSED, WHICH IS A SYSTEM OF MUNICIPAL FINANCING. AND MY PROBLEM WITH THAT, AS I SAID, IT'S NOT ACCURATE. IT'S A PUBLIC-PRIVATE SYSTEM. IT IS A PUBLIC MATCHING SYSTEM. NOW, THAT MAY NOT SOUND IMPORTANT TO YOU ALL, BUT THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE OUT IN THE WORLD THAT I LIVE IN. AND THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE DESCRIBED IT. AND I THINK SOME DEFERENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FOLKS WHO SIGNED THE PETITION AND WHO SUPPORT THIS AND THE 20 CITIZENS GROUPS BEHIND IT WHETHER IT BE THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, NAACP, TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO WHAT IS USED ELSEWHERE THAT'S BEEN USED BY YOUR OWN STAFF, THAT'S BEEN USED BY ME REPEATEDLY. YOUR STAFF WILL TELL YOU YOU HAVE DISCRETION ON BALLOT LANGUAGE. BUT ONLY, LIKE ALL DISCRETION, IT'S LIMITED. NOW, I WOULD HATE TO GET IN A RANG — WRANGEL WHEN WE COULD EASILY CALL IT WHAT WE'VE ALL CALLED IT, WHICH IS PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS. I WOULD ALSO SAY SINCE YOU'VE GOTTEN LEGAL ANALYSIS, THAT I WENT TO THE LAW LIBRARY AND YOU'VE GOTTEN ONE SIDE OF THE CASE. THERE ARE CASES THAT HAVE UPHELD DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL ON BALLOT LANGUAGES. THERE ARE CASES THAT HAVE FOUND THAT DISCRETION TO BE LIMITED. AND IN FACT THERE WAS A HUGE WRANGLE OVER THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BACK IN THE 1980s, WHICH IS CITY ULTIMATELY WON, I GUESS, THE LANGUAGE WAS UPHELD, CITIZENS WEREN'T VERY HAPPY BIT AND LEFT A BAD TASTE IN PEOPLE'S MOUTH. I HOPED WE COULD HAVE LANGUAGE WHICH AT LEAST USES THE LANGUAGE WE'VE USED BEFORE AND THEN PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. LEWIS. I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR A BRIEF EXPLANATION

I WAS JUST POINTING OUT TO THE MAYOR THAT THE POSTING FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW AND THURSDAY IS BROAD ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE FAIR CAMPAIGN ELECTIONS ITEM THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT, SO YOU CAN CONSIDER THE BALLOT LANGUAGE TODAY, WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY. IT'S BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE IT ON ANY ONE OF THE DAYS. THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT MR. LEWIS WAS REFERRING TO, THE VERSION A, — VERSION A ON PAGE 2, STARTING WITH LINE 6, HAS SUGGESTED LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE FURNISHED FOR THE FAIR ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN ITEM. IT'S PROPOSITION 7. OF COURSE YOU WILL LATER DETERMINE WHAT ORDER IT WILL HAVE ON THE ACTUAL BALLOT. BUT THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT HAS SUGGESTED. MR. LEWIS'S SUGGESTED LANGUAGE HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO YOU, I THINK IT WAS IN A MEMO FROM JOHN STEINER TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. IT HAS HIS SUGGESTED LANGUAGE. THE LANGUAGE IS THERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WE'LL OF COURSE GIVE YOU GUIDANCE ON WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE CRITICAL TO INCLUDE JUST SO WE'LL COMPLY WITH CURRENT LEGAL PRECEDENT.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT I THINK WOULD IMPROVE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE EITHER WAY YOU COME AT IT. COULD I ASK MR. LEWIS A QUESTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. LEWIS.

SURE.

GOODMAN: IN LOOKING — EXCUSE ME — AT YOUR LANGUAGE, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU READ THAT — AND I'LL READ IT: TO EVEN ACT A CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT LIMITS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 AND MATCHES CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AUSTIN RESIDENTS WITH PUBLIC FUNDS FOR A CITY COUNCIL AND MAYORAL CANDIDATE AGREED UPON BY SPENDING LIMITS, ACTUALLY IT'S A QUESTION WHICH IS I THINK IF I WERE READING IT COLD, I WOULD WANTED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T AGREE TO ABIDE. IS THERE A WAY TO SORT OF EXPLAIN THAT PART? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS, I THINK, A LOT MORE VOLUNTARY THAN IT REALLY IS.

WELL, ACTUALLY IT IS VOLUNTARY. BECAUSE IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE, YOU DON'T. THE LANGUAGE — I MEAN TO ABIDE BY IS TO SORT OF SUGGEST HAVE YOU TO CHOOSE. IT'S OFTEN DESCRIBED AS VOLUNTARY, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY STRONGER LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST. THE LANGUAGE YOUR STAFF PROVIDED DOESN'T REALLY DEAL AT ALL WITH WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T PARTICIPATE. BUT IT IS CLEARLY A VOLUNTARY SYSTEM THAT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE. AND IN FACT, THAT'S REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

SLUSHER: YOU MEAN THEY CAN GET MORE THAN $200 CONTRIBUTIONS?

STEINER: NO, WHAT I MEANT WAS PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEMS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL IN THE UNITED STATES IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THEM.

SLUSHER: BUT IT JUST SAYS PUBLIC FOUND FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS... AGREED TO ABIDE BY CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS.

STEINER: THAT'S RIGHT. YOU AGREE TO SPENDING LIMITS, AND, YOU KNOW ESHTION THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, BUT THE GIST OF IT IS THE SPENDING LIMITS. THEN IF YOU QUALIFY, YOU GET PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS.

SLUSHER: BUT EVERYBODY HAS TO AGREE, DON'T THEY? I MEAN UNDER THIS ORDINANCE? THERE ARE OTHER REGULATIONS THAT HAVE TO MAYBE [INAUDIBLE] DOESN'T EVERYBODY HAS HAVE TO AGREE THIS IS JUST LIKE WE HAVE NOW?

.

STEINER: NO, IF YOU DON'T —.

SLUSHER: YOU CAN TAKE OVER $200?

STEINER: NO, YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE $200 LIMITS. BUT YOU DON'T GET PUBLIC FINANCING UNLESS YOU AGREE TO THE SPENDING LIMITS AND THE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS SLUB THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SHOULDN'T THEY AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT THE OTHER QUALIFYING —.

STEINER: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. IT'S HARD TO WRITE — [INAUDIBLE].

STEINER: NO, YOUR POINT IS NOT WRONG. IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT EASY AS YOU ALL STRUGGLED WITH TO WRITE SHORT LANGUAGE. REGARD A PRETTY COMPLICATED THING, WHETHER IT BE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS OR THIS. MY BASIC POINT WAS, THOUGH, THAT IF YOU SEE A DESCRIPTION OF THIS THAT WE HAVE OR THAT IS COMMON, IT'S DESCRIBED AS PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS. AND YOU GET PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS IN EXCHANGE IF YOU AGREE FOR SPENDING LIMITS. I PUT THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN THERE TO EXPLAIN TO FOLKS THAT THEY WERE BEING RAISED.

SLUSHER: AND THAT'S IN BOTH — MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M SORRY, I INTERRUPTED.

GOODMAN: THAT'S OKAY.

STEINER: THAT IS IN BOTH OF THEM.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO YOUR MAIN CITIES ATTORNEY'S LANGUAGE IS PUBLIC FUNDS — THE CITY ATTORNEY IS STAYING MUNICIPAL FINANCING INSTEAD OF PUBLIC FUNDS?

STEINER: INSTEAD OF PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS.

SLUSHER: WELL, YOU SAY MATCHES PUBLIC —

I USE THE WORD MATCH. YOU CAN CALL IT MATCHING FUNDS OR MATCH. BUT IT MAKES IT CLEAR.

SLUSHER: IT MAY MAKE THE SAME POINT. BUT THAT'S YOUR BASIC PROBLEM WITH IT. SHE HAS ON HER PROVIDING EXPANDED POWERS TO ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. IT DOES DO THAT.

STEINER: IT DOES DO THAT.

SLUSHER: DO YOU OBJECT TO HAVING THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE?

STEINER: NO.

SLUSHER: YOU ARE MAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC VERSUS MUNICIPAL?

.

STEINER: NO, MY MAIN COMPLAINT IS TWO-FOLD. ONE IS THAT THE TERM THAT IS COMMONLY USED IS PUBLIC FUNDS OR PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS OR MATCHING FUNDS. THERE IS NO PLACE THAT YOU ALL, STAFF OR ANYONE ELSE HAS EVER DESCRIBED THIS AS A SYSTEM OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE.

SLUSHER: ISN'T THAT WHAT I ASKED YOU?

STEINER: THAT'S THE FIRST ONE. THE SECOND ONE IS — IS THAT AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROPOSAL IS THAT YOU AGREE TO SPENDING LIMITS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE MATCHING FUNDS. THAT IS — IF YOU SAW A ONE SENTENCE DESCRIPTION OF THIS, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD BE DESCRIBED

SLUSHER: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE OVERALL SPENDING LIMITS, BUT IT'S — AS FAR AS CONTRIBUTIONS, IT'S 200?

STEINER: BUT THERE ARE SPENDING LIMITS UNDER THIS PROPOSAL THAT IF YOU AGREE TO THE MATCHING FUND PROPOSAL THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE IN ANY OTHER SYSTEM.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I'M SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: NO, ACTUALLY IT WAS GOOD YOU SAID THOSE THINGS BECAUSE NOW I UNDERSTAND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD. [LAUGHTER]. LET ME WORK ON THIS. MAYBE WE CAN MELD THE TWO, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE ETHICS COMMISSION, BECAUSE THAT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT PART OF IT.

STEINER: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION. MY PROBLEM IS AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND I DISCUSSED IT'S TERMINOLOGY NEVER USED BEFORE.

GOODMAN: RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. BACK TO THE AGENDA.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR, EXCUSE ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: COULD I ASK YOU ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION? ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS MEMO IT SAYS: TO ENACT A CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT LIMITS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO $200 AND MATCHES CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AUSTIN RESIDENTS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT NON-AUSTIN RESIDENTS DON'T GET THEIRS MATCHED?

STEINER: CORRECT.

GRIFFITH: AND THAT'S YOUR INTENT?

STEINER: THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. AND THE TOTAL THAT ARE REFERRED TO WOULD ALSO NOT BE — NOT INCLUDE OUT-OF-TOWN?

STEINER: TO NO, EVEN IF YOU PARTICIPATE, YOU COULD EXCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS UP TO $200 FROM ANYONE.

GRIFFITH: FRA OUT OF TOWN?

STEINER: BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE MATCHED EXCEPT FOR AUSTIN RESIDENTS.

GRIFFITH: THANKS.

STEINER: THANK YOU.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I MOTION A PROP 36789 I WANT TO CHANGE THE WORDING SLIGHTLY. A TAKE-OFF ON COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S —.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WOULD BE REPEALING THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONTRIBUTION THAT PROVIDED FOR A $100 LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I WOULD STRIKE THE FIRST FOUR WORDS "THE CHARTER AMENDMENT REPEALING," AND INSTEAD HAVE IT READ "REPEAL OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND INSERT CHARTER. IT WOULD READ: REPEAL... THAT PROVIDED FOR A $100 LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: REPEAL OF THE CHARTER CAMPAIGN — SLUSH CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. AND COUNCILMEMBER — LET'S SEE. IS THERE ON MOTION ON THAT ONE?

SLUSHER: THAT IS MY MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

ALVAREZ: WE'RE VOTING ON F? ON THIS SHEET OR HOW ARE WE DOING THAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE VOTING ON PROP 3 IS WHAT ON THE AGENDA?

ALVAREZ: LOOKS LIKE F.

MAYOR GARCIA: F. REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT IS THE — THIS DEALS WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, CORRECT?

JOHN, WHERE DOES PROPOSITION 3 ON YOUR ORDINANCE MATCH ON THE AGENDA ITEM?

STEINER: IT IS —

SFSMT AS CLOSE AS I COULD COME UP WITH.

STEINER: IT IS F.

SLUSHER: WHERE IS THE CORE SFONDING LANGUAGE IN THE —.

STEINER: YOU WOULD LOOK AT PART 10, WHICH IS IS PAGE 8 OF 20. LINE 12.

MAYOR GARCIA: PART —.

STEINER: PAGE 8 OF 20, LINE 12.

MAYOR GARCIA: LINE — PAGE 8 OR —.

STEINER: PAGE 8, LINE 12.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF PROPOSITION 3 IS APPROVED, THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS VOTING AT THE ELECTION, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 8 AS ADDED BY THE... IS REPEALED. AND THEN THE READING OF THE PROPOSITION WOULD BE REPEAL OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1997 THAT PROVIDED FOR A $100 LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER REGULATIONS. OKAY. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: YES. MR. STEINER, IF THE INITIATIVE MEASURE DOES NOT PASS, THE $200 DEAL, AND THIS ONE DOES PASS, THEN WHAT KIND OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE GUIDELINES OR CONTROLS OR WHAT'S LEFT?

STEINER: YOU HAVE THE STATE LAW, AND YOU HAVE CHAPTER 2-9 OF THE CITY CODE, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE COUNCIL IN 1994 THAT IS STILL IN EFFECT THAT PROVIDES FOR PUBLIC FUNDING THAT IS FUNDED PRIMARILY BY THE LOBBY REGISTRATION FEE AND THAT IS AVAILABLE TO CANDIDATES WHO AGREE TO EXPENDITURE LIMITS AND WHO MAKE IT TO A RUNOFF.

GRIFFITH: WHAT ABOUT LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS?

STEINER: IT DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRIBUTION LIMIT UNLESS YOU AGREE TO THE EXPENDITURE LIMITS. IF YOU AGREE TO THE EXPENDITURE LIMITS SHE YOU ALSO AGREE TO THESE LIMITS. BUT IF YOU DON'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY.

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

WYNN: MAYOR? IF I CAN, IN SUPPORTING THIS, I'LL ALSO BE HOPING THAT THIS COUNCIL CAN COME UP WITH A COUNCIL ORDINANCE FOR TRUE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THAT DEALS WITH LIMITING CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER ELEMENTS ESSENTIALLY THAT SHOULD — THAT SHOULD THE VOTERS REPEAL THIS, THEN COUNCIL DIRECTED ORDINANCE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TAKE EFFECT SO WE WOULDN'T BE CAUGHT WITHOUT HAVING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT — [AUDIO DIFFICULTIES].

SLUSHER: I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THE SIMILAR POINTS OF WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID. BUT I — MY THINKING ON THIS IS THAT, ONE, YOU'VE GOT THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM MR. LEWIS IS REFERRING TO THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT. THE VOTERS WILL HAVE A CHOICE TO PASS THAT. IF THAT PASSES, THAT AUTOMATICALLY REPEALS THE $100 LIMIT LAW THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. SO IF THE NEW ONE PASSES, IT REPEALS THE $100 LIMIT. IF IT DOESN'T PASS, WE WOULD BE LEFT WITH DID $100 LIMIT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD. THERE IS A LOT OF SENT NMENT THE COMMUNITY AGAINST THAT. THAT WAS A MISTAKE. EVEN THE PEOPLE BRINGING THIS ORDINANCE WHO ALSO BROUGHT THE $100 LIMIT ARE SAYING, WELL, THE PREVIOUS ONE, THE $100 ORDINANCE WAS A MISTAKE. I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THE VOTERS A CHANCE TO REPEAL THAT. IF THE ONE THAT — THE REPLACEMENT PASSES, THAT'S THE NEW LAW. IF IT DOESN'T, I WOULD SEE AND WE SAID THIS LAST TIME THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DO AN ORDINANCE STRENGTHENING OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. THE '94 WAS IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT WAS IN PLACE THERE. I THINK IT WOULD NEED TO BE FURTHER IMPROVED. I THINK THAT'S MORE PORP TO BE PASSED AS ORDINANCE THAN PART OF THE CITY CHARTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YES.

GRIFFITH: FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS, I WOULD HAVE TO KNOW HA THE SUBSTITUTE IS GOING TO BE AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT NOW. SO I DON'T WANT TO WIPE OUT EVERYTHING OR HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING ALL CONTROLS WIPED OUT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE SUBSTITUTE SUGGESTION OR ORDINANCE MIGHT BE.

SLUSHER: IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE '4 SYSTEM RATHER THAN THE $100 LIMIT LAW — 94.

GRIFFITH: I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIMIT DEAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY THERE WILL NOT BE A COUNCIL ELECTION UNTIL '03. SO THE COUNCIL HAS ENOUGH TIME TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE SHOULD — SHOULD THE NEW ORDINANCE FAIL AND THIS ONE PASS. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO WE'LL HAVE TIME TO DO IT. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSITION. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED SAY NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 4-3. YOU VOTED YES OR NO?

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE ONE DEALING WITH — CALLED PROPOSITION 3 IS REPEALING THE CAMPAIGN... LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS PASSED ON A VOTE OF 4-3 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALVAREZ, THOMAS AND GRIFFITH VOTING NAY. AND IF ANY OF YOU WANT TO HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES TO EXPLAIN YOUR VOTE, LET ME KNOW.

ALVAREZ: WELL, MAYOR, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME WE MET, BUT I DID SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT WAS A VOTER APPROVED AMENDMENT, AND WHAT I HAD EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN — WHAT I HAD HEARD FROM FOLKS IS $100 IS TOO LIMITING. BUT THE SENTIMENT WASN'T LET'S GET RID OF IT, IT'S UP IT A LITTLE BIT. THE REAL QUESTION IS DO WE UP TO IT 200, 500? I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN PUT SOMETHING ON THE TABLE LAST TIME THAT DIDN'T PASS. BUT I THINK THAT IS THE SENTIMENT I HEARD. I DIDN'T HEAR THE SENTIMENT THAT WE SHOULD GET RID OF LIMITS ALTOGETHER, BUT THAT WE SHOULD RAISE IT A LITTLE BIT. THAT'S WHY I WASN'T SUPPORTING THIS ITEM WHICH I HAD EXPLAINED LAST TIME. BUT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TAKING UP THE SAME ISSUES AGAIN AND VOTING ON THEM AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, I THINK THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER EXPLAINED, AND ALSO WHAT THE CHARTER COMMISSION PUT IN PLACE, AND THAT IS THEY DIDN'T WANT ANOTHER CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM MEASURE COMPETING WITH THEIRS. AND THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION COMING OUT OF THAT COMMISSION. SO I THINK THIS PARTICULAR ONE DOES WHAT THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE WANTED TO DO, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T REPEAL IT, SO WE ARE MOVE TO GO REPEAL IT SHOULD THAT OTHER ONE FAIL. OKAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, COULD I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON? NOT ABOUT A BALLOT ITEM, BUT ABOUT ELECTRONIC VOTING ABILITIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: JOHN.

STEINER: YES, MA'AM.

GOODMAN: ARE — SOMEWHERE IN HERE THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE STATE — GOSH, I LOST IT NOW, BUT IS IT AT THE STATE LEVEL WHERE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ELECTRONIC VOTING OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED PARTICIPATION — IS THEIR PERMISSIVE FROM OR CAN WE ALLOW SOMETHING THAT STATE LAW DOESN'T HAVE A PROVISION FOR OR —.

STEINER: YOU MEAN METHODS OF VOTING? LIKE PUNCH CARD OR VOTING MACHINES?

GOODMAN: NO, I WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE FUTURISTIC. A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS SINCE SO MANY FOLKS IN THIS CITY HAVE COMPUTERS AND YOU TALK ABOUT THE — WHATEVER THE PIT FALLS ARE FOR ELECTRONIC IDENTIFICATION OF YOUR NUMBER TO MAKE SURE NO ONE ELSE CAN USE YOUR VOTER RENTAL ADMINISTRATION BUT YOU YOURSELF COULD VOTE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF HOOKUP OR ANOTHER, IF TECHNOLOGY MOVES TOWARD THAT AND WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING, ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO THAT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE ENABLED AT THE STATE LEVEL FIRST?

STEINER: IT HAS TO BE ENABLED AT THE STATE LEVEL FIRST T SEK STARE OF STATE IS GIVEN THE POWER IN THE ELECTION CODE TO APPROVE VOTING METHODS. IF SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH A NEW INVENTION, FOR EXAMPLE, A COMPUTER OR VOTING THROUGH ATM OR IMAGINE WHAT YOUR IMAGINATION WILL, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT — AND THIS HAPPENED WHEN PUNCH CARDS WERE NEW AND IN FACT I USED TO DO THIS FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE. WHEN SOMEONE WOULD COME IN WITH A NEW INVENTION, THE SEK STARE OF STATE GETS TOGETHER A PANEL, AN ELECTION EXPERT, A PATENT LAW EXPERT, AND SOMEONE ELSE WHO ESCAPES ME AT THE MOMENT, AND THEY PUT TOGETHER THIS PANEL, AND THE PANEL REVIEWS THE TECHNOLOGY AND CERTIFIES WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW, WHETHER OR NOT IT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT SECURITY. IF IT'S FOUND TO DO SO, THEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE MAY APPROVE IT FOR USE IN THE STATE AND THEN POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS CAN PURCHASE THAT EQUIPMENT. UNTIL THE SECRETARY OF STATE APPROVES THE USE OF A SYSTEM IN THE STATE, THE VENDOR CAN'T SELL TO IT POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

GOODMAN: BUT ONCE IT WAS APPROVED IN THAT WAY, THEN ANY MUNICIPALITY COULD USE IT?

STEINER: COULD BUY IT AND USE IT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANKS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COULD I DO A LITTLE BIT OF LOGISTICS HERE WHILE WE'RE WAITING? THE — ON THE ITEMS DEALING WITH THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT — POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, THE DISAGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN REACHED IS THAT EACH SIDE WILL HAVE 30 MINUTES TO SPEAK. THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE SIGNING UP AND GIVING YOUR TIME TO MR. TOM STRIBLING, YOU ALREADY HAVE GIVEN HIM WELL OVER 30 MINUTES. SO YOU DON'T NEED TO SIGN ANY MORE CARDS. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS YOU NEED TO AGREE AS TO HOW YOU ARE GOING TO SPLIT THE 30 MINUTES BECAUSE SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE ALSO GIVEN TIME TO MR. CHARLIE WILKERSON AND I THINK HE HAS 15 MINUTES ALREADY, GIVE TEN TIME THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM. SO 30 MINUTES FOR EACH SIDE ON ITEMS H AND K. OKAY. THAT DONE, WE WILL GO TO — WE WILL GO TO ITEM C, WHICH IS REPEAL OF THE CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRING NEWLY ELECTED CITY OFFICERS PUBLISH A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE STATEMENT IN AN AUSTIN NEWSPAPER. AND THE ORDINANCE THERE IS WHICH ONE? THAT IS PROP 5. PROPOSITION 5. IT READS AS FOLLOWS. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION OF COUNCIL — CITY COUNCIL CAMPAIGN FINANCE FILINGS. DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT WE DO?

STEINER: YOU WANT TO SEE THAT ONE, PROPOSITION 5 IS —.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THOUGHT THIS WAS TO REPEAL. THIS DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REPEAL.

STEINER: IT ACTUALLY REPLACES THE CURRENT PROVISION, WHICH — HERE IT IS. THE CURRENT PROVISION, WHICH IS ARTICLE 3, SECTION 7,, PROVIDES THAT THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE TO CAUSE TO BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN A SWORN STATEMENT OF ALL OF HIS OR HER ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. AND BY WHOM SUCH FUNDS WERE CONTRIBUTED. AND THE AMOUNT OF EACH CONTRIBUTION. AND THAT GOES BACK TO THE CHARTER OF 1909. WHAT IT WOULD DO IS REPEAL THAT, BUT ON — I BELIEVE IT WAS COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN'S SUGGESTION, SHE SAID HOW ABOUT INSTEAD OF JUST TAGLIABUE THAT OUT, REPLACING IT WITH A PROVISION THAT WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY AND ALLOW THOSE STATEMENTS TO BE PUBLICIZED ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE. SO WHAT I'VE WRITTEN IS ON PAGE 8, LINE 24, AND IT WOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT ARTICLE 3, SECTION 7 WITH ONE THAT SAYS: THE CITY CLERK SHALL ELECTRONICALLY PUBLISH CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW BY MINES OF THE INTERNET OR SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY THAT MAY BECOME AVAILABLE AFTER ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION. SO I WAS ASSUMING THAT MAYBE THE INTERNET WILL BE REPLACED BY SOMETHING EVEN FANCIER AS FAR AS — THAT'S WHY I THROUGH THAT IN. BUT THIS WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE CLERK WOULD TAKE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE STATEMENTS THAT ARE FILED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND POST THEM TO THE THE CITY'S WEB PAGE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WE'RE ALREADY DOING.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THE WORDING OF THE BALLOT LANGUAGE CLEAR ENOUGH ON THAT?

STEINER: I BELIEVE IT IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. IT COULD BE OF COURSE WHATEVER THE COUNCIL WANTS IT TO BE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

ALVAREZ: IN TERMS OF THE PUBLISHING OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON OUR WEB PAGE? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AVAILABLE ELECTRONIC FORMAT AND FOR WHAT TIME PERIOD? I GUESS ANY TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR WEB PAGE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPACE AND HOW MUCH SPACE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO DEDICATE TO HAVING THESE REPORTS ON THERE. OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE IN HARD COPY. SO I MEAN THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE ISSUES MAYBE THAT WE SHOULD WORK THROUGH IS SHOULD IT BE FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD OR — BECAUSE IT GOES ON INDEFINITELY YOU ARE JUST GOING TO BE ADDING WHAT YOU HAVE.

STEINER: I COULD PROVIDE THE COUNCIL COULD BY ORDINANCE — YOU DON'T NEED THIS AT ALL. BUT I — IF YOU WANTED IT, I COULD SAY THE COUNCIL COULD BY ORDINANCE STATE THE CONDITIONS AND THE TIME FOR WHICH IT WOULD BE POSTED. SO I COULD PROVIDE THAT YOU COULD FLUSH THIS OUT BY ORDINANCE IF YOU LIKE.

ALVAREZ: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE ON MOTION ON THIS ONE?

STEINER: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADD SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BY ORDINANCE —.

ALVAREZ: YES.

STEINER: CAN I DO THAT FOR YOU.

GOODMAN: YES, AND I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL NOTING I THINK THE LANGUAGE HAS TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR THAT PUBLIC INFORMATION ACCESS.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECOND THAT MOTION. DISCUSSION? DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF WHAT IS CALLED IN THE ORDINANCE PROPOSITION 5, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH PUBLICATION OF CANDIDATES' CAMPAIGN FILING. AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO? MOTION CARRIES WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS. BACK TO THE AGENDA, YOU HAVE AN ITEM THAT HAS A RESIGN-TO-RUN PROVISION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES. AND ACTUALLY THIS ONE INCORPORATES NOT JUST THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES BUT OTHER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES. AND THE PROPOSITION WOULD READ: THE CHARTER AMENDMENT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND OTHER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO RESIGN TO RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE. THAT WOULD MEAN THE CITY MANAGER THE CITY CLERK, THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK, AND THE JUDGES: AND THE CITY AUDITOR. AND THE CORRESPONDING LANGUAGE IN THAT, MR. STEINER, IS COUNCIL APPOINTEES, ON PAGE 9 OF 20? 6 ITEM NO. 6.

STEINER: YES, SIR. IT BEGINS — ACTUALLY IT BEGINS AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF PAGE 8 OF 20 ON LINE 28.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

STEINER: IF PROPOSITION 6 IS APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS THE CITY CHARTER IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS. IT UNDER LINES ARTICLE 6, SECTION 2 OF THE CHARTER TO ADD THIS PROVISION. IF ANY JUDGE OF A MUNICIPAL COURT ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR IN FACT BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL OR PRIMARY ELECTION FOR ANY ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE AT A TIME WHEN THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE JUDGE'S OFFICE EXCEEDS ONE YEAR, THE JUDGE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL JUDGE. THAT PART IS ON PAGE 9 OF 20 BETWEEN LINES 19 AND 22. IT ALSO THEN AMENDS ARTICLE 9 OF THE CHARTER BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 6. THAT READS AS FOLLOWS, AND THIS IS ON PAGE 9, BEGINNING LINE 27: IF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER THIS CHARTER OTHER THAN THE JUDGE OF A MUNICIPAL COURT ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY OR IN FACT BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN ANY SPECIAL, GENERAL OR PRIMARY ELECTION, THE OFFICERS OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OR CANDIDACY IS AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICER EMPLOYMENT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES? THEY RUN FROM WHEN TO WHEN?

MAYOR GARCIA: THEY RUN FOR TWO YEARS STARTING IN EVEN YEARS. EVEN, ODD, EVEN, ODD.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO 2002 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF A TWO-YEAR TERM.

SLUSHER: SO THEY ARE STAGGERED

MAYOR GARCIA: THEY ARE NOT STAGGERED. ALL NINE —.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT YOU SAID ODD YEARS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE TERM IS AN EVEN NUMBERED YAER AND ODD NUMBERED YEAR. SO THIS GROUP THAT IS THERE WILL SERVE IN '02 AND '03. THE NEXT GROUP WILL BE IN '04 AND TWOOI.

SLUSHER: IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THEN THEIR TERM — IF THEY GOT ELECTED IN '04, THEY WOULD SERVE THROUGH THAT DATE IN '06.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, NO, THEY SERVE UNTIL THE END OF '05. THE TERM GOES FROM JANUARY 1ST OF '04 THROUGH '05.

SLUSHER: I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO PUT THEM IN A POSITION AND I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE THE JUDGES GET SOME KIND OF TRAINING ON THE JOB. I MEAN IT'S A GOOD WAY TO MOVE UP TO HIGHER OFFICE, I WOULD THINK, TO BE A JUDGE BEFORE YOU GET TO A HIGHER JUDGESHIP. BUT SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T PUT THEM IN A SITUATION WHERE THAT THEY GET APPOINTED ONE YEAR AND THEN IF THEY WERE GOING TO RUN — SEEMS LIKE THIS WAY, MAYBE HAVE ALREADY THOUGHT THROUGH THAT THEN, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE LESS THAN A YEAR ON THEIR TERM TO RUN FOR '02 THEY ARE APPOINTED, '04, THEY WOULD BE UNDER TO DO THAT WHAT WE HAVE IN HERE NOW. RIGHT?

MAYOR GARCIA: SAY THAT AGAIN.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF THEY GET APPOINTED IN TWOET —.

SLUSHER: RIGHT, AND THE JUDE SHALL ELECTIONS FOR THE COUNTY AND STATE RACES ARE IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS. THEN WE WOULD NOT BE — IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE WE APPOINTED THEM IN '03, AND THIS SEEMS TO WORK IN —.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE ONLY TIME WE APPOINT SOMEBODY IN AN ODD NUMBERED YEAR IS WHEN THERE IS A VACANCY.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND IT COULD BE THAT A JUDGE COULD BE APPOINTED EVEN FOR A SHORTER TIME THAN TWO YEARS IF THERE IS A VACANCY AND THE VACANCY OCCURS IN AN EVEN-NUMBERED YEAR.

SLUSHER: THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: YES. I WANTED TO CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE PART-TIME JUDGES.

STEINER: YES, MA'AM, ALL JUDGES.

GRIFFITH: FULL TIME AND PART TIME?

STEINER: YES, MA'AM.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED SAY NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 6-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS VOTING NO. SO THAT DEALS WITH D AND E. 6 TO 1, 6 TO 1. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

ALVAREZ: SO, MAYOR, WE ARE NOT TAKING UP E?

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S ALREADY DONE. THAT MOTION INCLUDED — THE RESIGN-TO-RUN FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES AFTER POINTED BY POINTED BY THE COUNCIL.

SLUSHER: THAT'S THE INTENT OF MY MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALSO FOR ME. AND NOW WE ARE A — THE APPOINTMENT OF A ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

THE BALLOT ON THAT ONE IS PROPOSITION 4 ON PAGE 1. AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER AFTERS ON PAGE 8 OF 20. BEGINNING ON LINE 15. APPEARS ON PAGE 8 OF 20 BEGINNING ON LINE 15.

ALVAREZ: I HAD A QUESTION ON THAT.

THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE, PARAGRAPH 8, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINTS AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADEQUATE. THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE SHALL ADVISE THE COUNCIL ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE ISSUES ON ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S THE WAY IT WOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE.

ALVAREZ: MY QUESTION, BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME WHEN I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM DESCRIBED THE POSITION OR PUT THE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT DOES THE CHARTER SAY ABOUT THE CITY AUDITOR, DOES IT HAVE SOMETHING THAT DESCRIBES WHETHER THE COUNCIL SETS THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OR IS THERE SOME LANGUAGE SOMEWHERE THAT WE CAN PUT HERE?

THE — JUST A SECOND, LET ME FINE IT FOR YOU. ARTICLE 7, SECTION 17.

YES, ARTICLE 7, SECTION 17. IT SAYS — THERE SHALL BE A CITY AUDITOR WHO SHALL BE APPOINTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY AUDITOR MAY BE REMOVED ONLY BY A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SHALL REPORT TO THE CITY THROUGH AN AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAFF AS DETERMINE BY ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT OR CAUSE TO BE CONDUCTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATIVE AND OTHER AUDITS, FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AS PROMULGATED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CITY AUDITOR SHALL ASSIST THE CITY COUNCIL IN ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPROVING CITY SYSTEM AND SERVICE DELIVERY.

ALVAREZ: I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR, THAT RELATES TO THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, YOU KNOW — ADOPTED BY ORANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF WE COULD WORK ON THAT ONE SO THAT TOMORROW WHEN WE DO SECOND READING WE CAN HAVE THAT WORDING, COUNCILMEMBER. SO MR. STEINER —

OKAY.

WE HAVE THE BEGINNING OF IT AND ON — ON LINE 17 OF PAGE 8 OF 20 WHERE IT SAYS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATE SHALL ADVISE THE COUNCIL ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE ISSUES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A PURCHASER OF ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES. SO THAT — THAT IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, IN THE CHARTER WHEN IT — WHEN IT GETS — IF YOU WANTED TO INCLUDE IT THAT WAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: ALONG THOSE LINES I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE MISLEADING HERE AND NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE POSITION WAS PROPOSED TO DO. THE RATE ISSUE THAT'S WE TAKE UP, WE ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTRACT DURING RATE HEARINGS WITH THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND THAT WAS OFTEN SCOTT MCCULLOUGH, A VERY GOOD LAWYER, WHO CAME AT THE NUMBERS AND THE ASSUMPTIONS FROM THE SMALL USER CONSUMER. THIS PARTICULAR POSITION, THOUGH, IS TO SAFEGUARD THE POSITION OF CONSUMER ADVOCACY WITHIN THE NEW ELECTRIC UTILITY PRACTICES THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW. SO IT WOULD NOT SIMPLY BE RATES. THAT'S A REAL NARROWING FOCUS. AND SO — SO I DON'T KNOW IF — IF LANGUAGE WOULD — WOULD BE EASILY COME BY TO AMEND THIS, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE CONSUMER ISSUES OR —

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING TO THE COUNCILMEMBER ABOUT, BETWEEN NOW AND TOMORROW, WHEN WE DO A SECOND READING, BECAUSE WE ARE DOING ALL OF THIS ON FIRST READING. WE COULD WORK THAT LANGUAGE IN AND GIVE IS... IT TO MR. STEINER TO INCORPORATE IT.

GOODMAN: THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ? DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I MOVE APPROVAL OF THAT ITEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'VE BEEN DERELICT IN MY DUTIES IN RECOGNIZING PEOPLE WHO MAKE MOTIONS. MAYOR PRO TEM DID YOU SECOND THAT MOTION?

GOODMAN: I DID, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SHIRLEY, WE GOT IT ALL DOWN, CORRECT? MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

WYNN: I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ALSO DECLARE WHETHER THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR RESIDENTIAL —

MAYOR GARCIA: RATEPAYERS?

WYNN: RATEPAYERS OR THE PERSPECTIVE OF A RESIDENTIAL PURCHASER OR THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO. IT'S A TWO-SIDED COIN. THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE BENEFITS FROM — FROM FRANKLY A LACK OF THAT PECULIAR SPECT ACTIVE FOR THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PURCHASER. SO I THINK WE IN THE VOTERS THEN KNOW WHEN SIDE WE ARE DECLARING THAT THEY ADVOCATE FOR AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, THE CURRENT PROCEDURE, IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A RATE CHANGE, CURRENT PROCEDURE ALLOWS THE UTILITY OR THE CITY MANAGER TO APPOINT A RESIDENTIAL RATE ADVOCATE. THAT — THAT IT BASICALLY ADVOCATES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS DURING THAT PROCESS WHEN WE HAVE THOSE HEARING. SO THIS WOULD BE SOMEBODY THAT WOULD HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT — I THINK THAT — I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS MOTION, BUT I THINK IF IT PASSES IT NEEDS TO HAVE THAT CLARIFICATION.

WYNN: SEEMS TO ME IF WE DO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL RATE CONSUMER ADVOCATE POSITION, IT'S ALREADY FUNDED FOR THOSE RATE CASES, IN THEORY THEN THIS PERSON SHOULD BE THE ADVOCATE FOR THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RATE PAIRS SO THAT THERE'S NOT A — YOU KNOW, ONE-SIDED ADVOCACY GOING ON. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ONE OR THE OTHER. WE HAVE TO DECLARE WHO THEY ARE GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR. FURTHERMORE I STILL THE CONFLICT, FIRST THING THEY ARE GOING TO DO I SAY STOP THE TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE I'M AN ADVOCATE FOR A PURCHASER OF ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES, NOT PAYER OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES. BECAUSE AS WE KNOW THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS IN AUSTIN WHO PAY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES BUT AREN'T AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS. CONVERSELY THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS WHO DON'T PAY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITY. SO WE JUST ARBITRARILY ASSUME THAT THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE, BUT THEY ARE NOT. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS THAT NEED TO BE PROPERLY ADVOCATED FOR AND OF COURSE A CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS GOING TO SAY, LOOK, THE DIVIDENDS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE PURCHASERS OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES, NOT AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES. THEY WILL OF COURSE, SAY, THAT WE SHOULD REDUCE, YOU KNOW — THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DIVIDEND PAID, IT SHOULD BE PAID BACK TO THE RATEPAYERS, NOT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO — YOU KNOW —

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, THE RATIONAL BEHIND HAVING A RESIDENTIAL RATE ADVOCATE APPOINTED BY THE STAFF, I SUSPECT THAT THAT MAY BE PROSCRIBED BY SOME LAW, I'M NOT REAL SURE. BUT THE RATIONAL WAS THAT THE LARGER RATEPAYERS HAVE THEIR ADVOCATES AND THEY COME TO THE COUNCIL. BUT THE FEELING WAS THAT MANY THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS DIDN'T HAVE ONE. THAT WAS THE RATIONAL FOR HAVING THE RESIDENTIAL RATE ADVOCATE. APPOINTED BY THE CITY. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND I WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO RETURN DIVIDENDS TO RATEPAYERS IS TO MAKE THIS A CO-OP. AND THIS IS REALLY NOT A CO-OP AS SUCH. IT'S A MUNICIPAL APPEALLY OWNED UTILITY. I GUESS IT HAS SOME — MUNICIPAL APPEAL OWNED UTILITY. I GUESS IT HAS CO-OP CHARACTERISTICS, YOUR POINTS IS WELL TAKEN.

GOODMAN: I THINK SOME OF THE POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN, BUT THEY ALSO POINT TO EXACTLY THE REIN THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A PERSON WITHIN THE CULTURE OF THE UTILITY THAT IS A FOLLOWER OF THE ISSUES AND PRACTICES THAT AFFECT CONSUMER ISSUES, THAT DOES NOT LIMIT IT ONLY TO RATES. NOW THAT WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO CARRY ON SO MUCH BUSINESS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY IN PUBLIC, WE AREN'T JUST A CORPORATE UTILITY AND INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY THAT HAS ONLY ONE FOCUS, WHICH WOULD BE NO MORE SPENDING MONEY ON THAT SILLY OLD GENERAL FUND. THAT'S ONE OF OUR PERSONAS, TOO. THAT COMES INTO PUBLIC PLAY IN THE POLICY SIDE WHEN COUNCILMEMBERS AND STAFF DISCUSS BUDGET ISSUES. BUT THE CONSUMER ISSUE IS ONLY TALKED ABOUT IN PUBLIC AT THE TIME OF RATE CASES. OR RATE HEARINGS. WHEN RATE CHANGE IS PROPOSED. AS A PART OF THE CULTURE, THERE IS NOT A POSITION NOR — NOR A POINT OF VIEW THAT IS INT INAUGURAL TO THE — INTEGRAL TO THE ORGANIZATION. THAT IS ALL THIS DOES, IT ALLOWS A REPRESENTATION OF CONSUMER ISSUES, THE USERS, TO BE OFFICIALLY PART OF A PUBLIC UTILITY THAT CAN NO LONGER BE PUBLIC IF IT'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO ITS OWNERS. ITS INVESTORS. ITS STOCKHOLDERS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. BUT WE ARE NOT A SINGLE FOCUS UTILITY BECAUSE WE ARE PUBLIC, WE HAVE THAT PERSONA, THE USER PERSONA. I DON'T ARBITRARILY ASSUME THAT ALL RATEPAYERS ARE OWNERS OF THIS UTILITY AND THAT — THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE OF THE NUANCES HERE. THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN OWN THAT UTILITY. THERE ARE RATEPAYERS THAT GO BEYOND THE CITIZENS. AND THIS IS A USER ISSUE. NOT AN OWNER ISSUE. NOR AN EMPLOYEE ISSUE. OR EVEN A CORPORATE POLICY ISSUE. IT'S A PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT A POINT OF VIEW IS PRESENTED IN AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS HAVING TO CHANGE DYNAMICALLY AND DRASTICALLY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

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

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO.

NO, NO, NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO THREE WITH COUNCILMEMBERS GARCIA, SLUSHER AND WYNN VOTING NAY. WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE POLICE DEAL HERE. HOLD ON HERE JUST A SECOND. OKAY. COUNCIL, WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS, TWO OF THEM HAVE — HAVE ABOUT AN HOUR OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY. AND THE OTHERS DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WE ARE ABOUT — ABOUT TWO MINUTES — WE ARE AT TWO MINUTES TO 5:00. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE — HAVE 6:00 APPOINTMENTS, IS THAT CORRECT?

UH-HUH.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. SO WHAT'S YOUR CHOICE?

SLUSHER: WHAT ARE THE TWO? EACH OF THE POLICE ITEMS HAS AN HOUR?

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, EACH SIDE ON THE POLICE ISSUE HAS 30 MINUTES.

SLUSHER: FOR BOTH ITEMS TOGETHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: BOTH ITEMS H AND K AND WE HAVE 37 PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, 37 TIMES 3 IS MORE THAN AN HOUR. SO THEY WILL HAVE TO DIED. YOU WILL HAVE TO DECIDE AND THE FOLKS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, WILL SPEAK FOR 30 MINUTES, AND THEN THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST, THERE'S ENOUGH OF THOSE FOLKS TO HAVE 30 MINUTES. SO — YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL 30 MINUTES. YOU WILL MAKE A LOT OF FRIENDS ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE IF YOU —

I THOUGHT WE HAD 3 MINUTES. I WAS PREPARED FOR THREE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DECISION WAS THAT — THAT ONE SIDE WOULD HAVE 30 MINUTES AND THEY CAN ALLOCATE IT ANY WHICH WAY THEY WANT TO. IF THEY WANT TO HAVE 10 SPEAKERS SPEAKING FOR THREE MINUTES THAT'S FINE. I'M GOING TO READ ALL OF THE CARDS. AND — AND SHOW — SHOW WHAT THE PREFERENCES ARE. SO — SO IF I MAY, I'LL DO THAT FIRST. AND THEN WE WILL START THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ERIC RAINBOLT IS SIGNED UP ON ITEM K, IN FAVOR OF. WISHING TO SPEAK. SO IF HE WANTS TO — MIKE HANSON, WHO WAS — WHO WANTS TO SPEAK AND HE DOES NOT DESIGNATE A PREFERENCE, HE DREW A CIRCLE AROUND ALL THREE. FOR, AGAINST AND NEUTRAL. SCOTT HANSON IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS H AND K, AND IS WISHING TO SPEAK AND IS REGISTERED FOR BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. MIKE SUPAK WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEMS H AND K. AND IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. JO ANN KNEE ANGELO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, SIGNED UP ON H AND K, WANTS TO DONATE TIME TO ANA DELLANO OR SCOTT HANSON. NATHANIEL NORTON WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM K, WHICH IS THE — THE ONE DEALING WITH PERSONNEL FILES. HE'S FOR ITEM K. DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. ANN DELLANO IS REGISTERED FOR ITEMS H AND K. REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF, CHARLES OSTER IS IN REGISTERED FOR BOTH ITEMS H AND K, HE WANTS TO SPEAK AND HE IS FOR K, WHICH IS THE — WHICH IS THE APPOINTMENT OF THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE OVERSIGHT BOARD, BUT AGAINST H, WHICH IS THE — THE — THE — THE ONE DEALING WITH CONFIDENTIAL FILES. BERNADINE LUCKY WANTS TO SPEAK, IN FAVOR OF K, AGAINST H. B.J. TAYLOR, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON BOTH ITEMS H AND K. DOES NOT SUPPRESS DMI PREFERENCES. BEARRY KENNAN IS REGISTERED WISHING TO SPEAK, IN FAVOR OF H AND K. TOMMY EATON WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM K IF HE'S PRESENTS. IF NOT — IS HE HERE? HE SAYS IF NOT PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS ON THE CARD. I WILL READ THEM SO THAT — SO THAT — SO THAT IN CASE HE DOESN'T GET SELECTED TO PARS PATRIOT. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE IF THE CITIZENS LOSE RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO ARE WEARING THE BADGES. A FEW OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND THE CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM FOR HOLDING OUR OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE. THE CITY COUNCIL CAN RESTORE OUR TRUST IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD APPOINTS A POLICE MONITOR AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. PLEASE PLACE THIS ISSUE ON THE MAY 4, 2002 BALLOT. MARY ALESHIRE WANTS TO SPEAK ON H AND K. AND SHE DOESN'T SAY — SHE DOESN'T EXPRESS ANY PREFERENCES. ANA INEZ BORERA DOESN'T EXPRESS ANY PREFERENCES. WILL HAROLD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS H AND K AND HE'S REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. MIKE BLISSER DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. ASHLEY CARR WISHES TO SPEAK ON — DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM H AN K, BUT IS REGISTERED FOR, IN FAVOR OF. REBECCA LADUDAS, I THINK, SHE'S REGISTERED ON ITEM H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. COLIN BOAST, H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. MARK FLEMMING ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. CHARLIE WILKINSON, ON H APPEAR K, WISHES TO — H AND K, WISHES TO SPEAK, REGISTERED AGAINST. CRAIG HOWARD, H AND K, COAPTSED THE TIME TO MR. CHARLES WILKERSON, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, REGISTERED AGAINST. DONATED TIME. RICHARD BURNS, I THINK, ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, DONATING THE TIME TO CHARLIE WILKERSON. EARNEST PEDRASA ON H AND K DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, REGISTERED AGAINST, DONATING THE TIME TO WILKERSON. TOM STRIBLING ON H AND K, WANTS TO SPEAK, WISHES TO SPEAK, A LOBBYIST FOR A.P.A. REGISTERED AGAINST. JIM JACKSON, ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, DONATING TIME TO TOM STRIPLING. DENNIS FERRIS DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, DONATING TIME TO TOM STRIBLING, REGISTERED — OKAY. WE ARE — WE ARE IN AUTOMATIC RECESS. UNTIL WE CAN GET THE FOURTH MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL BACK IN HERE.

SLUSHER: WHERE DID THEY GO?

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T KNOW, I WAS READING THE CARDS. I PROBABLY — YOU PROBABLY SAW THEM GO SOMEPLACE. [ LAUGHTER ]. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO MAY NOT KNOW HOW WE OPERATE, THIS COUNCIL AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDS A MEETING, RECESSES A MEETING WHEN WE LOSE A QUORUM. WE NOW HAVE A QUORUM, ALL RIGHT. MIKE SHEFFIELD ON ITEMS H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, AND HE'S DONATING TIME TO STOP STRIBLING, REGISTERED AGAINST, PATRICK SOUTH ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, I GUESS BECAUSE HE'S DONATING THE TIME TO TOM, I'M GOING TO MARK YOUR CARD, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, REGISTER AGAINST. CHRIS POLANCA, H AND K, DONATING TIME TO TOM STRIPLING. I'M GOING TO MARK YOUR CARD YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK, REGISTER AGAINST. FRED RODRIGUEZ, ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, AND IS DONATING TIME TO TOM STRIPLING. HE'S STEJ CENTERED AGAINST — REGISTERED AGAINST. KENNY NASH ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, DONATING TIME TO TOM STRIPLING, REGISTERED AGAINST. JAMES RITTER, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, DOES NOT DONATE THE TIME, BUT IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF H AN K. CHRIS RITTER, ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF, DOESN'T DONATE TIME TO ANYBODY. AUSTIN DULNIG, I GUESS, ON H AND K, WISHES TO SPEAK, IS IN FAVOR OF. KATHY ELLISSON, ON H AND K, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, WANTS TO DONATE THE TIME TO MR. TOM STRIPLING. FLORENCE — GERDY.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

WANTS TO SPEAK, DOES NOT EXPRESS A PREFERENCE FOR THE ITEMS H AND K. DID I READ KATHY ELLIS SON, YES. WANTS TO DONATES THE TIME TO MR. STRIBLING. IS IT STRIBLING? OKAY. I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. WE NOW HAVE A QUORUM. AND WE — ACTUALLY WE CALLED IT WHEN I STARTED READING AGAIN. THE TWO ITEMS THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER TOGETHER BECAUSE THAT'S THE ATHAT THEY ARE ASSIGNED IS ITEM NO. H ON THE AGENDA, A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT THE CITY SHAM NOT MAINTAIN A CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL FILE FOR A POLICE OFFICER. AND ITEM K, THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE MONITOR AND A POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. THOSE ARE THE TWO ITEMS. MR. STEINER, CAN YOU TELL US HOW THOSE THINGS APPEAR ON THE —

STEINER: THOSE THINGS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CURRENT DRAFT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE —

MAYOR GARCIA: DIDN'T DISCUSS THEM.

STEINER: NO INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT HOW TO DRAFT THOSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. ANY COUNCILMEMBER THAT WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE OPEN THE FLOOR FOR — FOR DISCUSSION BY — BY THE SPEAKERS? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A COMMENTS. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO QUICKLY OVER EXACTLY WHAT IS IN A CONFIDENTIAL FILE AT THIS MOMENT. AND THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING, TOO, THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT I'M SURE IT WILL COME UP IN TESTIMONY, SO I CAN ASK LATER.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO WE HAVE ANY OFFICIALS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HERE OR THE CITY ATTORNEY? CAN YOU —

GABE BREWER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ISSUE.

VERY BRIEFLY, COUNCILMEMBERS. THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW SETS OUT A TWO-FILE SYSTEM. THE FIRST FILE IS MAINTAINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SERVICE AS A PUBLIC FILE. WHAT MUST BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC FILE IS ANY COMMENDATION, CONGRATULATIONS OR HONOR BESTOWED ON THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH OFFICIALS DUTIES, ANY PERIODIC EVALUATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE BY A SUPERVISOR, THEN ALSO DOCUMENTS RELATING FROM THE EMPLOYING DEPARTMENTS RELATING TO MISCONDUCT BY THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE. IF THAT — IF THAT MISCONDUCT RESULTED IN DISCIPLINARIAN ACTION THAT WAS SUSTAINED. WHAT MAY NOT GO IN THE PUBLIC FILE BY LAW IS ANY DOCUMENT RELATING TO DISCIPLINARIAN ACTION THAT WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL AND ANY DOCUMENT RELATED TO ALLEGED MISCONDUCT THAT THE EMPLOYING DEPARTMENT DID NOT FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN AND IMPOSE DISCIPLINE ABOUT. THE SECOND FILE THAT MUST BE MAYBE......MAINED UNDER STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW OR MAY BE IS A DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL FILE. THAT FILE IS CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW. AND THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT SHARE THE CONTENTS OF THAT FILE WITH ANY OUTSIDE AGENCY OR PERSON. IT'S FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S USE ONLY. IF THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RELATING TO A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE, THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED BY STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW TO REFER THAT REQUESTOR TO THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SERVICE WHO MAINTAINS THE PUBLIC FILE FOR THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

GOODMAN: OKAY. IN MEET AND CONFER, COULD A — COULD A NEGOTIATING ORGANIZATION GIVE UP THOSE PROTECTIONS BY CIVIL SERVICE LAW?

UNDER THE MEET AND CONFER STATUTE, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE — FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT, WHICH IF RATIFIED BY BOTH SIDES CAN SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THAT'S IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. MS. DELLANO, MR. WILKERSON, MR. STRIBLING, HAVE YOU ALL DECIDED HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED ON THIS? WOULD YOU COME UP?

MAYOR, I'M FINE WITH THE POLICE CASE BEING PRESENTED FIRST. I DIDN'T CALL ALL OF THESE PEOPLE HERE, SO I WASN'T AWARE OF HOW [INAUDIBLE] UNTIL YOU CALLED OUT THE NAMES. AFTER YOU CALLED OUT THE NAMES IT APPEARS THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 10 PEOPLE WHO SAYS THEY ARE FOR IT. A COUPLE OF PEOPLE YOU SAID DIDN'T — WHO WANTED TO SPEAK. A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO SAID DIDN'T INDICATE FOR OR AGAINST, I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN YOU DO, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY APPEAR THERE ARE VERY MANY MORE THAN 10 WHO WANTED TO SPEAK FOR IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THEM IN THE 30 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME, SO MR. WILKERSON, DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST?

I DO. CERTAINLY.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND, AGAIN, IT'S — IT'S ABOUT 5:13. YOU HAVE UNTIL 5:43.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S NOT THE CLOCK. THIS IS THE CLOCK RIGHT HERE.

OKAY.

I WILL LOOK FOR THE HIGH SIGN. MR. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, WE — I'M CHARLIE WILKERSON, POLITICAL AND LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE COMBINED LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS OF TEXAS REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 100 LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS IN TEXAS, 13,000 MEMBERS. AND OUR INTEREST IN THIS IS PRETTY CLEAR. AND SO SINCE WE HAVE ALL MET BEFORE, AND WE HAVE ALL SPOKEN ABOUT THIS IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE, I WILL SPEAK BRIEFLY AND THEN IF SOMEONE WERE TO HAVE A QUESTION, I WILL TRY TO ANSWER IT. YOU HAVE A LOT OF POWER TODAY TO DECIDE THE FUTURE OF SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. WE ARE VERY SURPRISED, OF COURSE, TO FIND OURSELVES IN THIS POSITION. THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE WE NEGOTIATED WITH YOU OVER OUR CONTRACT IN LEGAL TERMS AND AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME OF GIVE AND TAKE, BOTH SIDES DECIDED ON THE LANGUAGE AND BOTH SIDES RATIFIED THAT CONTRACT. WE — WE DID NOT GET EVERYTHING WE WANTED. AND THE CITY, OF COURSE, DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING THAT IT WANTED. BUT REST ASSURED THAT ONE THING THAT THIS COUNCIL GOT BECAUSE OF YOUR LEADERSHIP, THE MAJORITY OF YOU WERE HERE, YOU WANTED POLICE OVERSIGHT. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT TODAY HAD WE NOT NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH. AND INTENDED THAT IN OUR CONTRACT. WE HAD A DEAL, 40% OF THE OFFICERS IN AUSTIN VOTED AGAINST IT. IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE PAY RAISE. AND THEY VOTED NO. BECAUSE THEY WERE APPREHENSIVE ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE GOING INTO. BUT BECAUSE OF YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND YOUR DETERMINATION, THAT WE WOULD HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT, THEY TRUSTED THAT. THEY TRUSTED THEIR UNION LEADER. AND THEY PASSED IT. SO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY IS SOMETHING THAT TOTALLY INVALIDATES THAT CONTRACT. IF THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN WANT TO REPEAL ANY PART OF THAT, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO START A PETITION. AND COME TO THE FRONT DOOR OF CITY HALL AND DEMAND THAT AN ELECTION BE SET. THAT'S THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE LAW. AND IN FACT IF WE WERE DOING THE OPPOSITE, WHAT SOME ARE SUGGESTING, YOU WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE DID GO OUT AND RECEIVE SIGNATURES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND MAKE SURE THOSE SIGNATURES ARE VALID AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS A VALID ELECTION THAT WAS FORCED. THAT'S NOT BEEN DONE. SO FAR WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT INVALIDATING THIS CONTRACT. THE ISSUE FOR US IS LABOR, PURE AND SIMPLE. IF YOU VIOLATE THIS CONTRACT, THEN THE SANCTITY OF THAT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN BREACHED. LEGALLY, ETHICALLY, AND IN EVERY OTHER SENSE. THE CITIZENS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO — TO PARTICIPATE. AND THE CITIZENS HAVE PARTICIPATED. THEY ELECTED YOU. YOU HIRED THE CITY MANAGER. THAT CITY MANAGER ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND WITH YOUR ADVICE AND CONSENT THE POLICE MONITOR WAS APPOINTED AS WE HAVE SAID IN THE PAST WE DO NOT CARE WHO APPOINTS THE MONITOR, NONE OF THAT IS OUR BUSINESS. YOU SAID YOU WANTED IT THIS WAY. AND THAT'S THE WAY WE DID IT. FINALLY, IN CLOSING, I THINK THAT — THAT TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE VERY CON — THAT TO POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE VERY CONFUSED, THEIR FEELINGS ARE HURT, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE HERE. THEY FEEL ABSOLUTELY SET UPON ABOUT BY 100 CITIZENS. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES THE ACTIONS THE COUNCIL TAKES WILL BE MISUNDERSTOOD OR NOT EVERYONE WILL AGREE. LIKE I SHE, WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH ALL OF THE CONTRACT EITHER. 60% OF THE OFFICERS VOTED YES, 40% VOTED NO. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SANCTITY OF AN AGREEMENT. THAT'S ALL IT IS. IF YOU — IF YOU USE THE POWER TO SEND SOMETHING TO THE VOTERS, THAT OVERTURNS THAT AGREEMENT, YOU WILL FOREVER DESTROY ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT OF MEET AND CONFER IN THIS STATE. WE REPRESENT 40 SOMETHING BARGAINING AGENTS, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THOSE 13,000 MEMBERS TODAY, WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T STAND UP, ALTHOUGH IT'S HARD TO DO, AND ON A VERY UNPOPULAR ISSUE, WE HAVE TO SAY THIS IS THE WAY YOU WANTED IT, WE AGREED WITH YOU, THE REASON YOU HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT IN THIS CITY IS BECAUSE OF US. YOU HAVE A — YOU HAVE A GOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. YOU HAVE POLICE OVERSIGHT BECAUSE WE AGREED WITH YOU ON THAT. TO GO BACK ON YOUR WORD, WOULD FLY IN THE FACE OF EVER AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAVE EVER MADE. IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY END THE RELATIONSHIP UNDER MEET AND CONFER. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH ANYMORE AND BOTH SIDES WOULD BE IN TOTAL DOUBT OF THE OTHER ONE SINCERITY AND BELIEFS. IT'S A VERY, VERY SERIOUS ISSUE, ONE THAT HAS RAMIFICATIONS IN THE COURTS AND HAS RAMIFICATIONS EVERY — TO EVERY POLICE OFFICER AND THEIR FAMILIES LIFE. I ASK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICERS OF AUSTIN AND ON BEHALF OF THE 13,000 OFFICERS THAT BELONG TO CLEAT, TO LET THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS ISSUING ENTER THE COMMUNITY, SELECT SIGNATURES AND COME BACK THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR IF THEY HAVE THE SUPPORT TO GET AN ISSUE LIKE THIS ON THE BALLOT. IT'S NOT ONLY FAIR, IT'S THE LAW AND IT'S WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT OF US. THANK YOU.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

I PROBABLY IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS HAVE SAT THROUGH MORE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS OF AUSTIN POLICE OFFICERS THAN ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AUSTIN POLICE OFFICERS BY THE NATURE OF THEIR JOB ARE SUBJECT TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF THEIR HOME, WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING THEIR COMPUTERS AND FILES. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS PUT TO THEM, INCLUDING QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR PERSONAL LIFE, THEIR FAMILY LIFE, WHO AND WHAT THEIR SPOUSES ARE AND DO, THEIR FINANCIAL STATUS. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH INCLUDE CONVERSATIONS WITH PSYCHOLOGISTS CONCERNING THEIR FAMILY RELATIONS. ALL IN THE NAME OF INVESTIGATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT THESE OFFICERS DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE, BUT ACCEPT WHEN THEY PUT ON THE UNIFORM. BECAUSE TO KEEP THEIR JOB, THEY GIVE UP CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. I DARE SAY THERE IS NOT A PERSON IN THIS ROOM WHO WOULD VOLUNTARILY UNDERGO THE TYPE OF SCRUTINY AND INVESTIGATION THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT ROUTINELY PUTS ITS OFFICERS THROUGH. THE ONE SAVING GRACE IS THAT WHEN AN OFFICER IS EITHER EXONERATED OR IS FOUND NOT TO HAVE VIOLATED CERTAIN POLICIES, THEY KNOW THAT THAT INVESTIGATION THAT HAS BEEN COMPILED AGAINST THEM WILL REMAIN WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY ALSO KNOW THAT IF THEY ARE FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED CERTAIN RULES, REGULATIONS OF THIS DEPARTMENT THAT CERTAIN FINDINGS ARE GOING TO BE MADE PUBLIC BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN A VERY DETAILED MEMO OUTLINING THE FACTS AND THE REASONS FOR ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION. HOWEVER, THEY STILL KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GATHERED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION WAS JUST REALLY — WHICH IS REALLY EXTRANEOUS IN MOST CASES, WILL STILL BE SOMETHING THAT THEIR PERSONAL LIVES CAN REMAIN PERSONAL AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. THE TRADE-OFF IS IF YOU ASK THEM TO GIVE UP THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE THEM SOME HOPE THAT IT WILL NOT GO BEYOND THEIR EMPLOYER, THAT IT WILL NOT BE MADE PUBLIC, THEY WILL NOT BE HELD TO PUBLIC RIDICULE. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I DARE SAY THAT THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE POLICE ASSOCIATION, THIS COMMUNITY NOW HAS BROAD REACHING OVERSIGHT. IS IT PERFECT? NO. BUT WE HAVEN'T EVEN GIVEN IT A CHANCE TO WORK. WE HAVE IT BECAUSE THE ASSOCIATION WAS WILLING TO BE INVOLVED, THE LEADERSHIP WAS WILLING TO BE INVOLVED IN A VERY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE AND AN ISSUE THAT TOOK A LOT OF EXPLAINING AND PROMISING AND CON JOELING TO GET THROUGH THE ENTIRE POLICE ASSOCIATION. I PERSONALLY STOOD IN FRONT OF GROUPS WHO LEVELED PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST ME BECAUSE I WAS INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, WHO TOLD ME THAT I HAD LED THEM DOWN THE PATH AND SOLD THEM OUT BECAUSE THEY SAID ONCE THIS GETS STARTED, YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO TRUST THE CITY COUNCIL. AND I STOOD UP AND SAID YES, YOU CAN, BECAUSE THEY GAVE UP THEIR WORD. I GUARANTEE THAT THE NEXT TIME I FACE THAT SAME GROUP, THEY'RE GOING TO BE SAYING, I TOLD YOU SO. THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU AS A COUNCIL SHOULD APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE OVERSIGHT OR WHETHER YOU AS A COUNCIL SHOULD SELECT THE POLICE MONITOR. I COULD CARE LESS. IN FACT, I SUPPORTED, PERSONALLY SUPPORTED COUNCIL SELECTION. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS HOW DO WE GET THERE? THIS IS A PROCESS. THIS CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED IN TERMS OF A NUMBER OF YEARS, THREE AND IT'S OVER. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO WITH YOUR EMPLOYEES AND IT'S A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO BOTH TRUST IN. IF WE CAN'T TRUST THE PROCESS, IT WILL NEVER WORK AGAIN. IT HAS WORKED TO THE BETTERMENT OF THIS CITY WITH REGARD TO THE HIRING PRACTICES OF THIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES OF THIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ALL WAYS TO IMPROVE WHAT STATE LAW HAD US STUCK IN. AND NOW THAT YOU'VE GAINED THOSE CONCESSIONS FROM THE OFFICERS, YOU WANT TO SAY YEAH, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS PROCESS, WE'LL JUST GO AROUND YOU BECAUSE THIS CONTRACT IS GOING TO END IN A YEAR, SO WE'LL JUST CHANGE IT FOR THE FUTURE. DON'T THROW OUT THE PROCESS. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS COME BACK TO THE ASSOCIATION. I GUARANTEE THAT MANY OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU WANT MADE WILL BE THERE BECAUSE WE ARE A PARTNER WITH YOU. WE WANT TO MAKE THIS WORK, BUT WE HAVE TO AGREE THAT IT WORKS TOGETHER AS A TEAM. IT CANNOT BE FORCED UPON ONE UNILATERALLY. IF THAT IS THE WAY IT'S GOING TO WORK, THERE WILL NOT BE A FUTURE FOR THIS PROCESS. AND SO THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE IS HOW DO YOU GET TO WHERE YOU WANT TO BE? BECAUSE TOGETHER WE CAN GET THERE. WE TOGETHER BUILT THE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED US TO PUT IN PLACE CITIZEN OVERSIGHT. AND TOGETHER WE CAN IMPROVE ON CITIZEN OVERSIGHT AS WE SEE IT WORK AND AS WE SEE THE PROBLEMS DEVELOP. BUT YOU HAVE TO GIVE BOTH THE ASSOCIATION THE CREDIT AND INVEST IN THEM IN THE LONG-TERM JUST AS YOU HAVE ASKED THEM TO INVEST IN YOU FOR THE LONG-TERM.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT. YOU SAID THAT AS FAR AS THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE POLICE OWE AND THE CITIZENS — POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OPINION AS TO WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE APPOINTED BY THE EMERGENCYR THE CITY COUNCIL?

WELL, I'LL ANSWER IT THIS WAY. I HAVE A PERSONAL OPINION, JUST AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL BE INVOLVED IN THAT SELECTION PROCESS, AND I MADE MY PERSONAL OPINION KNOWN TO THE ASSOCIATION WHEN WE WENT INTO THE BARGAINING. NOW, I CAN'T SPEAK HERE TODAY FOR 1200 MEMBERS THAT I REPRESENT. I CAN TELL YOU THAT TWO YEARS AGO THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THE ASSOCIATION WOULD HAVE BALKED AT THAT BEING THE WAY IT WAS. THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM WANTED, NOT AN ISSUE THAT THE ASSOCIATION WANTED. SO WHAT MR. WILKERSON SAID BEFORE AND WHAT I SAY TO YOU TODAY IS, WE ARE NOT HERE TO TELL YOU THAT WE ARE AGAINST COUNCIL APPOINTMENT. WHAT WE ARE AGAINST IS CHANGING THE PROCESS, CHANGING THE WAY WE GET TO HAVING THAT. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WANTS, ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS IN A YEAR FROM NOW SIT DOWN AND WORK ON THAT ISSUE. WE ARE NOT HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS COUNCIL HAVING THE POWER TO SELECT THOSE INVOLVED. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT TO SAY TO THE 12 TO 1300 MEMBERS THAT I REPRESENT THAT, GREAT, YOU HELPED THEM BUILD IT, NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT WITHOUT EVEN CONSULTING YOU IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THEM AND IT'S TELLING THEM YOU'RE NOT TREATED AS AN EQUAL. AND THEY ALREADY BELIEVE THAT, AND NOW THEY WILL GET THE PROOF.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION, YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO DO IT THROUGH MEET AND CONFER?

MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT, AND MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION AND STATEMENT TO YOU AS A COUNCILMEMBER IS THAT I WILL PERSONALLY WORK FOR THAT.

ALVAREZ: I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP. JUDGING FROM WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID, IF WE GO AT THIS THROUGH THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE AGREE TO MEET AND CONFER THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OR CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD —

MAYOR GARCIA: POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD.

ALVAREZ: POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, THEN YOU WOULD BE ASKING US IN THE MEET AND CONFER CONTRACT TO GO AGAINST THE CHARTER OF THE CITY. AND I THINK THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED BY SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS, SOME WHO VOTED AGAINST, SOME WHO VOTED FOR IT, WHO SAID THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WANTED TO REMEDY BECAUSE ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE HEARD IS THE CITY CAN'T APPOINT THE MONITOR BECAUSE THE CHARTER DOESN'T LET YOU. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL WE'RE DOING HERE IS GIVING THE CITY THE ABILITY TO DO THAT OR THE CITY COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. AND I GUESS THOSE ARE THE ISSUES HERE, SHOULD WE DO IT THROUGH MEET AND CONFER AND GO AGAINST THE CHARTER OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, LEAST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THAT YOU HONOR THE CURRENT MEET AND CONFER AND YOU WORK WITH THE ASSOCIATION IN THE NEXT ROUND AND SEE IF WE CAN'T COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT OR NOT. BUT AT LEAST IF WE DO TAKE THAT ACTION, MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING AGAINST THE CHARTER IN THE PROCESS OF ARRIVING AT SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT IN TERMS OF COMING TO AN AGREEMENT THAT GOES AGAINST THE CHARTER OR VIOLATES THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OR WHETHER THIS SEEMS APPROPRIATE. SO ME THIS IS WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF PROCEEDING. AND AGAIN, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, NOT SAYING TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO RESPECT OR HONOR THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT OR PROCESS AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T STILL WORK WITH THE ASSOCIATION, YOU KNOW, TO COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT ON THAT, BUT AT LEAST IF WE DO THAT WE'RE BEING — WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE CHARTER, WHICH IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CITY.

IN BRIEF RESPONSE, FIRST OF ALL, I HEARD THOSE ISSUES RAISED EVEN DURING THE PROCESS OF THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS, RAISED BY CITY MANAGEMENT, CITY LEGAL. I'M NOT HERE TO TELL YOU THAT I HAVE A LEGAL OPINION FOR YOU AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS CITY COUNCIL CAN HIRE OR APPOINT A POLICE MONITOR AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED. THERE IS AN ARGUMENT, A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT WE COULD DEBATE BACK AND FORTH AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW WHICH CREATES THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT ALLOWS THE AGREEMENT TO MODIFY THE CITY CHARTER. I THINK THAT IT DOES. IT TALKS ABOUT MODIFYING RULES AND ORDINANCES AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. IF THIS COUNCIL IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND WANTS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENS WILL VOTE TO CHANGE THE CHARTER WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL MAY DO SO, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE, THEN AT LEAST THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE SEEN UP TO THIS POINT, WHICH IS TELLING THE COUNCIL THAT YOU WILL DO THIS AND IT WILL HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE ASSOCIATION AND HOW IT'S BUILT, SO I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASKING FOR OR GETTING THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO DO SO VERSUS MANDATING IT BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN TALKED TO THE ASSOCIATION, BEFORE THERE'S BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN AGREE TO QUITE READILY, WHICH I THINK IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: TO GO ONE STEP BEYOND, IF — THIS WOULD BASICALLY BE A PERMISSIVE CHARTER AMENDMENT IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO PRESENT IT TO THE VOTERS AND THE VOTERS PASS IT. THE COUNCIL MAY APPOINT A POLICE MONITOR AND WILL APPOINT — WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF WE DO THAT, THAT YOU WANT US TO GO TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS TO DO THAT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND TELL ME AGAIN WHY. I'M NOT SURE THAT I FOLLOW YOU ON THAT ONE. BECAUSE WE COULD PASS — WE COULD PUT A CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT AND HAVE THE COUNCIL APPOINT THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD AND MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME THAT THE MEET AND CONFER CONTRACT EXPIRES. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT I THINK THAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE OTHER SIDE. BUT I HEAR FROM YOU THAT TO TO DO THE COUNCIL IS SOMEHOW BOUND TO FOLLOW THE MEET AND CONFER, AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT.

I'M NOT HERE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE BOUND. WHAT I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IS TO THINK IN TERMS OF THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, WHICH WILL END AND WHICH WILL NEVER ARISE AGAIN. THIS IS NOT TO BUILD OR CONSTRUCT AN AIRPORT AND IT TAKES THREE YEARS TO CONSTRUCT THE AIRPORT, BUT NEVER AGAIN WILL WE BUILD ANOTHER AIRPORT IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THIS IS A PROCESS BY WHICH THIS COUNCIL WORKS WITH ITS POLICE WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN ISSUES. AND THIS COUNCIL INVESTED IN ITS POLICE OFFICERS TO HELP THEM GET OVERSIGHT, COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT. IT WAS AN INVESTMENT. IT WAS TRUST ON YOUR PART THAT THE LEADERS OF THIS ASSOCIATION COULD DELIVER. YOU GAVE IT TO THEM AND SAID YOU CAN DISCUSS IT IN YOUR OVERSIGHT, IN YOUR OVERSIGHT, IN YOUR COUNTY. AND THE ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS LEADERSHIP, DELIVERED ON ITS PROCESSES, ON ITS WILLINGNESS TO SEE A PROCESS START. AND NOW TO SAY, WELL, THAT'S GREAT FOR THREE YEARS, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT THAT ANY MORE BECAUSE NOW THAT WE'VE GOT IT, WE DON'T NEED YOU ANY MORE. WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS THINK MORE LONG-TERM. THINK ABOUT THE DAMAGE YOU WILL DO TO THE PROCESS. BECAUSE THE NEXT TIME YOU COME AND ASK THE ASSOCIATION WE WANT TO IMPROVE OUR HIRING PRACTICES, STATE LAW HAS IT A WAY AND WITH DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING THE QUALITY OR THE TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT WE WANT, WE WANT TO CHANGE STATE LAW, WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS. WELL, THE ASSOCIATION IS GOING TO BE THINKING IN TERMS OF ONE OR TWO OR THREE YEARS, NOT A LONG-TERM, NOT INVESTING IN THIS FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE FUTURE. LEGALLY NO ONE IS BOUND. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IF YOU START THINKING OF THIS PROCESS IN TERMS OF THREE-YEAR INCREMENTS, IT WOULDN'T WORK WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE AND BUILD LONG-TERM CHANGES INTO OUR DEPARTMENT. AND THE CITY HAS ASKED THE ASSOCIATIONS AND THE MEMBERS OF THIS DEPARTMENT TO BUY INTO A LONG-TERM CHANGES. TWO OF THE BIGGEST ARE THE HIRING AND THE PROMOTION WITHIN THIS DEPARTMENT. AND THEY HAVE BOUGHT INTO THAT. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY THINK ABOUT IS GOING TO GO AWAY IN ANOTHER YEAR. THEY'VE INVESTED FOR THAT FOR THEIR CAREERS. BUT THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO THINK IN TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT AS THREE YEARS AND IT'S OVER INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN THE PROCESS AND SAYING OKAY, WE GOT PART OF THE WAY THERE, BUT WE DON'T LIKE EVERYTHING, LET'S GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT. LET'S SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO CHANGE IT. WE'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT THEY DON'T WANT IT TO BE THIS WAY, THEY WANT IT TO BE ANOTHER WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, LET ME SAY THIS: I AM FOR A COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND I UNDERSTAND IT WELL AND I KNOW HOW IT FUNCTIONS. BUT THE CHARTER IS NOT A DOCUMENT OF THE COUNCIL OR OF THE MANAGER, IT IS A DOCUMENT OF THE PEOPLE. AND IT'S CLEARLY STATED IN THE PREAMBLE. SO IF THE ISSUE IS WOULD THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN WANT TO INCLUDE THAT PROVISION, DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO DECIDE THAT?

IF THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN HAD PETITIONED, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD EVEN BE HERE TONIGHT. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THIS IS ABOUT A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T GET WHAT THEY WANTED THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THEY WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE PROCESS.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU HAVE FOUR MORE MINUTES.

I'LL ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. LET ME — AS MS. DELLANO COMES UP, LET ME READ THE NAMES OF SOME OTHER PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. ALLISON DEETER WANTS TO SPEAK AND IS FOR ITEMS H&K. LILA PERRY, THE SAME. EXCUSE ME. IF YOU ALL HAVE CONVERSATIONS IN THIS ROOM, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD TAKE THEM OUTSIDE SO WE CAN CONDUCT THE MEETING. LILA PERRY IS SIGNED UP FOR ITEMS HILL DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, AND IS FOR. ALLISON SIGNED TWO CARDS. AND THE GRAY PANTHERS ASK THE COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ACLU REGARDING ITEMS H&K.

> KATHY MITCHELL SIGNED UP ON ITEM H&K, WANTS TO SPEAK AND IS FOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: STEFAN IS FOR. PAM THOMPSON ON H&K IN FAVOR OF. REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. WILLIAM SPELMAN WISHES TO SPEAK AND IS IN FAVOR OF.

I WOULD SPEAK ALSO FOR — MY NAME IS ERIC —

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU NEED TO SIGN A CARD.

[ INAUDIBLE ].

YOU READ MY NAME EARLIER.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M JUST READING THE ONES THAT I HADN'T READ BEFORE. MS. DELLANO, IT'S ABOUT 5:41. YOU HAVE UNTIL 6:11.

WE HAVE 30 MINUTES TOTAL, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO TAKE TWO MINUTES AND CALL EACH ONE OF US AND WE NEED TO BE LINED UP. WE HAVE 30 MINUTES TOTAL. I DON'T THINK SOME OF YOU WERE HERE FOR THAT. SO I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST. AND BEHIND ME PLEASE LINE UP. WILL HARRELL AND ANNA AND I WILL TRY TO CALL PEOPLE. WE HAVE TO BE FAST. COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY. I'M ANNE DELLANO. I SPEAK FOR THE ACLU. WE HAVE SEEN TODAY, JUST NOW, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS YOU SHOULD ALLOW THE VOTERS TO DECIDE WHETHER WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT POLICE MONITOR AND POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. THE TAXPAYERS DESERVE TO KNOW HOW SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMPORTANT EMPLOYEES OF THE PUBLIC ARE ACTING. AND BEFORE YOU TODAY THE POLICE HAVE MADE BASICALLY ONE ARGUMENT, AND THAT IS THAT YOU SHOULD LET ALL OF THIS THINK ABOUT THEIR CONTRACT, THINK ABOUT THEIR CONTRACT PROCESS. FRIENDS, COUNCILMEMBERS, YOU HAVE. AS HELM OF BILL SPELMAN, YOU PUT TOGETHER A COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE CONTRACT AND YOUR COMMITTEE SAID THIS SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT SYSTEM. THEN YOUR BARGAINERS WENT TO THE TABLE AND WE FIND OUT TODAY IT WAS THE CITY MANAGER AT THE TABLE WHO SAID NO, WE DO NOT WANT THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPOINT THOSE PEOPLE. WE FIND OUT TODAY IT WASN'T THE POLICE UNION, IT WAS CITY MANAGER. WHY ARE THEY GOING TO GO BACK IN ONE YEAR, THREE YEARS, SIX YEARS AND MAKE THAT DIFFERENCE? WE'VE ALREADY TRIED TO BARGAIN AT THE TABLE FOR WHAT THE PEOPLE NEED, AND THAT FAILED. AND WE FIND OUT TODAY THAT IT WAS THE CITY MANAGER ACTUALLY. THE SAME CITY MANAGER AND SAME CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM WHO ADVISED YOU A YEAR AGO IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS, IT HAS TO BE IN THE CHARTER. IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THEY LOOKED YOU IN THE EYE AND ANDY MARTIN WITH CITY LEGAL AT THE TIME TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE CITY CHARTER. IS THERE A TRUST ISSUE HERE? THEY WENT TO THE TABLE AND SAID NO, THEY WOULDN'T DO IT, AND NOW THE POLICE ARE COMING AND SAYING WELL, GOSH, I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE IN THE CHARTER. WE HAVE NOW TRIED EVERYTHING. YOU HAVE SPENT AS A COUNCIL ABOUT THREE YEARS TRYING EVERYTHING. THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THINKING ABOUT THE CONTRACT. THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN. I HAVE INFORMATION THAT EACH ONE OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED OVER 300 PERSONAL CONTACTS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, LAST FEW WEEKS, ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT AND ALLOW THE VOTERS TO DECIDE THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT. PLEASE CONSIDER THE PUBLIC TRUST. OUT OF THIS BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR OPERATION THAT WE KNOW AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, YOU ARE THE ONLY SEVEN PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLOWED TO SIT THERE AND STAND UP FOR THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AND WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT WE WANT. AND THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN HAVE MADE THEIR WILL CLEAR. YOU HEARD — YOU'VE HEARD CONFLICTING STORIES NOW, DIRECTLY CONFLICTING FROM THE CITY MANAGER. PLEASE DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE. THE ONE ARGUMENT I'VE HEARD IS THAT THIS WOULD OVERRIDE THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. NOT IN ANY WAY. THE OVERSIGHT SYSTEM AND BOARD AND MONITOR DON'T HAVE ANY POWER. THEY HAVE NO POWER TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES, THEY HAVE NO POWER TO HIRE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE POWER TO SET A NEW POLICY AND MAKE IT IN EFFECT AT THE DEPARTMENT. THE ONLY THING THIS OVERSIGHT DOES IS REACH OUT AND BRING A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION TO THE SURFACE FOR YOU THE COUNCIL. IF YOU WON'T VOTE TODAY TO AT LEAST LET THE VOTERS DECIDE THIS ISSUE, PLEASE, IF YOU WON'T DO IT FOR YOURSELVES AND FOR THE VOTERS, DO IT FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCILS. ISN'T IT BETTER WHEN YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE WISER DECISIONS FOR OUR CITY? ISN'T THAT WHY YOU HAVE ALREADY PUT THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE THERE, TO BE INDEPENDENT, TO BRING YOU INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD OTHERWISE NOT HAVE? ISN'T THAT WHY THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED VERY SERIOUSLY? TO BRING INFORMATION, TO REPRESENT A PART THAT IS NOT REPRESENTED OTHERWISE. MY FRIENDS, PLEASE DON'T THINK AS MUCH ABOUT THE CONTRACT WHICH HAS FAILED, HAS COMPLETELY FAILED AT THIS ISSUE. THINK ABOUT THE PUBLIC TRUST. I WANT TO CALL WILL HARRELL.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WILL HARRELL. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS AND THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT BASED IN NEW YORK, BUT A PROJECT THAT DEALT WITH ISSUES OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGHOUT THE NATION. AND ONE OF THE ISSUES BEING ADEQUATE, INDEPENDENT CIVILIAN MONITOR PROGRAMS AND CIVILIAN REVIEW. MY STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN ALTERED SOMEWHAT SINCE I HAD PLANNED TO TESTIFY TONIGHT IN RESPONSE TO WHAT I HEARD EARLIER. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AN ARTICLE THAT WAS PUBLISHED YESTERDAY IN THE "AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN" WHICH DEALS PRETTY SPECIFICALLY WITH SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD BACK AND FORTH IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS ISSUE, BUT I THINK THE ISSUE HAS BEEN REFRAMED. AND I'VE BEGUN TO PERCEIVE IT ALL OVER AGAIN. AND TO ME THE ISSUE IS MUCH MORE BASIC THAN THE BROADER SPECIFIC DEBATABLE POINTS OF INDEPENDENCE OF OVERSIGHT AND POLICE AND SO FORTH. THIS IS NOW REALLY TO ME SIMPLY A QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY. THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE BEFORE BASICALLY HAS TOLD YOU LOOK, LET'S HAVE FAITH IN THIS PROCESS. WELL, WHAT IS THAT PROCESS? THE PROCESS IS ONE THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND THE POLICE UNION. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SOME RESPECT ABILITY AND SOME ARGUMENTS TO HAVE SUCH A PROCESS, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE ASKING YOU AS THE CITY COUNCIL NOT TO VIOLATE THAT TRUST, BUT TO SIMPLY TAKE YOURSELF OUT OF THAT AND PUT IT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS OF AUSTIN. WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO REVERSE A CONTRACT THAT EXISTS AND WILL EXIST FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS. WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO ALTER A PROCESS OF NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO PUT A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION PERTAINING TO POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE VOTERS. THAT'S IT PLAIN AND SIMPLE. AS YOU KNOW I'M SURE BY NOW, ARE AWARE OF SOME OF THE ATTACKS THAT THE POLICE UNIONS AND OTHERS HAVE ENGAGED IN IN OPPOSITION TO THE ACLU AND THOSE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE LINED UP TONIGHT TO TESTIFY, ON WHO FAXED YOU, WHO E-MAILED YOU, WHO PHONE CALLED YOU AND WHO WILL VOTE IN THE NEXT ELECTION AND WHO WILL VOTE ON THIS MATTER IN MAY IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO. I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PROBLEMS, BUT I DOPT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE RAISED. THE ONLY ONE THAT I PAID TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO WAS THE QUESTION OF PRIVACY, THE PRIVACY OF THE OFFICER'S DISCIPLINARY FILES AND MATTERS PERTAINING TO THEIR LIVES. WELL, THE AMERICANS CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION HAS A STRONG SOLID HISTORY OF PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY OF ALL INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING WORKERS. EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT THAT WE POSSESS IS BALANCED AGAINST THE ROLE THAT WE PLAY. THERE'S ALWAYS A TENSION BETWEEN THE PRIVACY OF AN INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND THE RIGHT OF DEMOCRACY AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH — AMONGST THOSE WHO WE CHARGE TO PROTECT OUR LIVES. AND NO MORE AREA OF PUBLIC LIFE IS IT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ARERY HAS RECENTLY — RHODE ISLAND HAS RECENTLY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE ACLU, I'LL QUOTE THE COURT IN RHODE ISLAND WHO SAYS TELL ME HOW IT WOULD BE AN UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY TO DISCLOSE THE NAME OF A POLICE OFFICER WHO PERFORMS HIS OR HER DUTIES IN PUBLIC, WHO HAS ONE OF THE MOST VISIBLE AND IMPORTANT JOBS IN THIS SOIT AND HOW HAS — SOCIETY, AND NOW HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE BRUTALLIZED SOMEBODY? WHAT IS THE PRIVACY INTEREST THERE AND WHY WOULD THE CITY WANT TO PROTECT THE NAMES OF THAT INDIVIDUAL? I ASK NOT YOU THIS QUESTION, I ASK THE VOTERS OF AUSTIN. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO REVISIT THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO REFORM YOUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS WITH THE POLICE. WE'RE ASKING YOU SIMPLY TO TRUST THE VOTERS EQUALLY TO THE AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION. ON THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, BUT I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOME STATEMENTS TO MAKE.

[ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

... YOU GUYS DO THIS FOR THE PUBLIC, THAT WHAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. LATINOS IN TEXAS [SPEAKING IN SPANISH] SO I JUST WANTS TO, I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF YOU GUYS WOULD GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND MIKE HANSON.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS MIKE HANSON. I CAME HERE TO GIVE YOU, THE POLICE A FEW SUGGESTIONS TODAY. NOT MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON YOUR PROGRAM HERE. DECENT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO BOTH LIBERTY AND PRIVACY. SO AS LONG AS WE ARE NOT VIOLATING SOMEBODY'S PERSON OR PROPERTY, THIS IS ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY. MY OWN BROTHER IS AN A.P.D. OFFICER SORKS DON'T GET ME WRONG. — SO DON'T GET ME WRONG. I AM FOR GOOD, HONEST, WELL TRAINED PEACE OFFICERS. BUT LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE A BAD COP. I TOLD MY BROTHER IF GOOD OFFICERS DO NOT SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE BAD OFFICERS, THEN YOU ARE ALL BAD. LATELY, IT'S BECOME CLEAR THAT IT'S THE POLICE VERSUS THE PEOPLE. I THINK THAT'S WRONG. AND I COME HERE TO MAKE FOUR SHORT SUGGESTIONS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY COUNCIL. FIRST, NUMBER ONE, STOP TREATING US AS CRIMINALS. START PROTECTING OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS IN THE — AND FOLLOW THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, STOP WEARING ARMY GEAR, BLACK SKI MASKS, CAMOUFLAGE PANTS, COMBAT BOOTS, BLACK UNIFORMS AND USING TANKS AGAINST THE PEOPLE. YOU ARE NOT AT WAR. AND YOU ARE NOT IN THE ARMY. YOU ARE PEACE OFFICERS. I WAS IN THE ARMY. AND THEY ARE TRAINED TO KILL AND BREAK THINGS. PEACE OFFICERS SHOULD BE THERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE AND TO SAVE LIVES ONLY. NUMBER 3, STOP USING YOUR PEACE OFFICERS AS REVENUERS. NUMBER 4, ALL WE WANT IS FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS TO TREAT OUR FAMILIES LIKE THEY WANT THEIR FAMILIES TO BE TREATED. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS.

I CALL COUNCILMEMBER BILL SPELMAN. FORMER COUNCILMEMBER BILL SPELMAN.

THANK YOU. [ LAUGHTER ].

I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS A MINUTE AGO. I JUST CAME UP TO OFFER SOME ADVICE ON A TUESDAY AFTERNOON AND I FIND I'M PART OF A FORMAL PRESENTATION, SO I WILL KEEP IT QUICK SO THAT ANN CAN GET BACK TO HER REGULAR PRESENTATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE — YOU NEED TO THINK — WELL, I'M PART OF THIS, SO I WILL SAY "WE" TOO. NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHY WE SET UP THIS POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE REASON IS BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT, THERE WAS AND STILL IS A LOT OF DISTRUST AND SUSPICION AS TO WHAT POLICE OFFICERS ARE DOING AND TO HOW POLICE OFFICERS ARE BEING DISCIPLINED BY THE POLICE DISPOLICE DEPARTMENTARY SYSTEM. THE — THE POLICE DISCIPLINARIAN SYSTEM. THE REASON WE HAVE A MONITOR AND THE BOARD BECAUSE THAT IS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE LOOKING OVER THE DISCIPLINARIAN DECISIONS, WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION NECESSARY AND THEN CAN REPORT BACK TO THE PUBLIC'S REPRESENTATIVES, MEANING YOU AND THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY. AS TO WHAT IT IS THAT'S GOING ON. AND WAS THIS A GOOD DECISION, DO WE HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO JUSTIFY THAT THIS WAS THE PROPER THING TO BE DONE. THE REASON THE CITY MANAGER HAS BECOME INSINUATED INTO THE MIDDLE OF THIS IS FOR, I THINK, A PRETTY GOOD REASON. THAT IS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF SUSPICION AMONG MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT THE MEMBERS OF THAT BOARD OR THE MONITOR ARE GOING TO BE ACTING IN THEIR OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS AND WILL BE STIRRING UP A POT. AND WILL NOT BE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS AT ALL, BUT WILL IN FACT INSTEAD BE ACTING ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S BEHALF. SO THERE'S A REASON WHY THE CITY MANAGER WANTED TO KEEP THIS BOARD FOR HIMSELF. ON THE OTHER HAPPENED I THINK THAT ROPE IS GOING TO DISAPPEAR IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A BOARD NOW THAT WILL BE SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE NEXT BOARD THAT WILL BE MAKING DECISIONS I THINK IN A VERY RESPONSIBLE MANNER AND THAT WILL BE MAKING CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS NOT A BOARD ABOUT POLITICS, THIS IS A BOARD ABOUT GOOD POLICE WORK. BECAUSE WE HAVE A GOOD BOARD NOW AND A GOOD MONITOR NOW, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT A LOT EASIER FOR YOU AT THE END OF THE PRESENT POLICE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT TO APPOINT A BOARD OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING TO REPORT TO YOU AND TO THE VOTERS AND TO CARRY ON THE GOOD WORK THAT THE CURRENT BOARD IS ALREADY — I THINK WILL HAVE ALREADY BEGUN. THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF IS DO YOU NEED A MIDDLE MAN? ARE YOU, YOURSELVES, RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH AND CAREFUL ENOUGH TO CHOOSE THE PEOPLE FOR THAT BOARD AND THAT MONITOR TO REPORT BACK TO THE PUBLIC AND BACK TO YOU IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY? I THINK YOU ARE. I THINK YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE. I DON'T THINK — BELIEVE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU NEED ANYBODY ELSE TO DO THAT ON YOUR BEHALF. NOW, IF YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE NOT, THEN I GUESS YOU NEED A CITY MANAGER TO DO IT FOR YOU. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE AS I BELIEVE THAT YOU GUYS CAN BE — DO A RESPONSIBLE JOB AND REPORT BACK TO THE PUBLIC JUST AS WELL AS ANYBODY ELSE, BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR JOB, NOT THE CITY MANAGER'S, NOT THE POLICE CHIEF'S, BUT YOU ARES, I THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT ON YOURSELF AND NOT SHIRK YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. I FULLY SUPPORT H AND K, I FULLY BELIEVE YOU NEED TO BE IN CHARGE OF THAT MONITOR AND YOUR BOARD, THEY ARE YOUR BOARD, THE PUBLIC'S BOARD, NOT THE CITY MANAGERS.

I CALL ERIC RAINBOLT. HELLO, FIRST I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. TO STAY WITHIN MY 3 MINUTES HERE, I TIMED IT, I HAVE EVERYTHING WRITTEN OUT, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AFTER A BRIEF INTRODUCTION. I HAVE LIVED IN AUSTIN SEVEN YEARS. I HAVE NEVER BEEN PULLED OVER, EVEN GIVEN A SPEEDING TICKET. I HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD. I CAN HEAR SEVEN YEARS AGO TO WORK ON THE POWER P.C. AT MOTOROLA, I STUDIED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF — AT PURDUE. RECENTLY, I WILL GET INTO MY STORY. THE EVENT THAT I'M SPEAKING OF BEGAN AT 10:00 P.M. IN PAST SUNDAY EVENING. THE TIME I WAS NOT AT MY HOME IN SOUTH AUSTIN. MY FIANCEE GWENN WAS AT HOME. AT THAT TIME TWO OFFICERS IN THE LAST 48 HOURS, IDENTITY STILL UNKNOWN TO ME RANG MY HOME DOORBELL. GWENN TOLD THESE OFFICERS WHILE COMPLETELY IN SHOCK THEY WERE LOOKING FOR ME AND AT THAT TIME THAT I WAS NOT HOME. I WAS TOLD BY HER LATER, EARLY THAT MONDAY MORNING, THAT THEY CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE HER STATEMENTS, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SHE HAD AND FORCED THEIR WAY PAST HER INTO OUR HOME AN SEARCHED MY HOUSE, OUR HOUSE AND MY PROPERTY OUT BACK. HOWEVER, THEY WERE THEN PRESENTED WITH THE FACT THAT I WAS SIMPLY NOT THERE. THE IRREFEETABLE FACT THAT I WAS SIM ME NOT THERE. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MIKE HANSON, A CANDIDATE FOR TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSION PRECINCT 4 WHO I HIGHLY RECOMMEND. AT 2:00 A.M. HE CALLED THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY WOULD NOT RELEASE ANY RELEVANT INFORMATION. TO MR. HANSON AND — HIDING THE POLICE OFFICER'S IDENTITY AND WHY THEY WERE SEARCHING THROUGH MY HOUSE AT 10:00 SUNDAY EVENING, THIS LAST SUNDAY EVENING. THAT NEXT MORNING, MONDAY MORNING I CALLED THE POLICE OFFICER STARTING AT 9:00, I CALLED THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE AND SPOKE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS I COULD, MIKE, RICK, ADAM. ALL ALONG THE ENTIRE DAY. I COULD NOT GET ANY INFORMATION. ALL I GOT WAS "SOMEBODY WILL BE GETTING BACK TO YOU, MIKE WILL BE GETTING BACK TO YOU." THAT NEVER HAPPENED. BUT YET AGAIN A POLICE CAR DROVE UP TO MY HOUSE THIS TUESDAY MORNING TODAY, JUST A FEW HOURS AGO OR SEVERAL HOURS AGO. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MIKE HANSON AGAIN, 656-0521. WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER FOUND THAT A VIDEO CREW WAS ON ITS WAY, THE POLICE OFFICER LEFT AND RIGHT BEFORE MIKE AND HIS CAMERA MAN ARRIVED. I FEEL THIS WAS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF MY FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION, MY FEENS YEA AND ROOMMATES WHOSE BEDROOM THEY INTERESTED AS WELL, WAKING HIM UP. I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO MY ACCUSERS ARE, THE NAMES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO ILLEGALLY ENTERED MY HOME WITH NO WARRANT AND NO PROBABLE CAUSE. I WILL STATE I REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE IT, MR. TOM STRIBLING'S TESTIMONY, YIPD THEY HAD TO GIVE UP CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE POLICE OFFICERS. I AM A CITIZEN I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE UP MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO REMAIN A CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY. THAT DOES NOT APPLY. HOW THE POLICE OFFICERS ARE TREATING PEOPLE SHOULD — THEY SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT. IT'S COMPLETEDLY WRONG. COMPLETELY WRONG. I HAVE MORE OTHER THINGS TO SAY, BUT I'M GOING TO LET THE OTHER PEOPLE GO AND TALK BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO [INAUDIBLE] TEXAS DRIVER'S LICENSE TX1828199, I DON'T FEEL SAFE IN MY OWN HOME. UNLESS I GO PUBLIC.

I CALL FLORENCE YURDY.

THANK YOU. ALSO I'M GOING TO LET — FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I COME FROM — IN MY COMMUNITY, MY RIGHTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VIOLATED AND FOR THE POLICEMAN THAT — FROM THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN THAT WROTE THE ARTICLE OF SPEAKING ABOUT POLICE [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S ALWAYS HAPPENED. I COME FROM A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE BEEN RACIAL PROFILED, RED LINED GENTRIFICATION AND BASHED MAINLY BY OUT OF CONTROL POLICE OFFICERS. WE NEED PEOPLE IN THIS OFFICE TO CHECK THEM AND CHECK US THAT ARE ALSO OUT OF CONTROL. I'M NOT AGAINST NOBODY. YOU KNOW WHAT? I — BOTTOM LINE IS I'VE BEEN TOLD TO LIMIT MYSELF. SO WE HAVE BEEN OSTRACIZED, BRUTALLIZED, INCARCERATED, CASTRATED, BERATED ALL BECAUSE OF OUR BLACK SKIN. RACIAL PROFILING HAS ALWAYS EXISTED IN MY HOOD. WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU ALL SITTING UP HERE SAYING HEY, LET'S PROTECT THE POLICE OFFICERS. WHAT ARE YOU ALL SAYING WE WANT POLICE IN OUR HOOD, YOU ARE GOING TO COME OUT AND PROTECT US, NO, YOU DON'T. IN SOME CASES YOU DO. DANNY WAS A GOOD POLICE OFFICER. I SUPPORT HIM. I AIN'T SAYING IT BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. I'M SAYING EVEN AT THE TIME HE WAS DOING HIS JOB, I BELIEVED IN HIM. BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE FEW. WHY HASN'T — OKAY. IF YOU ARE GOING TO POINT — APPOINT SOMEBODY TO REPRESENT US, THIS WOMAN THAT Y'ALL SAID WAS GOING TO REPRESENT, WHY HASN'T THIS WOMAN WHO HAS — WHAT BEEN ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES EVER ARRESTED — ADDRESSED — ADDRESSED THE SERIOUS ISSUES, THESE PROBLEMS IN OUR COMMUNITY? HOW CAN SOMEBODY REPRESENT US AND DON'T TALK TO US? HOW CAN SOMEBODY REPRESENT US AND THEY ONLY REPRESENT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN? IF SHE TURNS HER HEAD IN THE PAST AND CHOOSES TO KEEP HER JOB RATHER THAN STAND UP AND REPRESENT HER OWN BLACK PEOPLE, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK SHE WOULD DO IT NOW? THESE POLICE SHE REPRESENTS ARE THE SAME ONES THAT BEAT, KILL, RAPE AND — CITIZENS EAST OF 35 BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD LEGAL REPRESENTATION. IT'S NOT EVERYBODY INCARCERATED IS GUILTY. THEY CAN'T AFFORD LEGAL REPRESENTATION IF THEY DON'T GETED REPRESENTED WHEN THEY GET COURT APPOINTED LAWYERS. THESE ARE ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD DEAL WITH. ALSO SHOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CITY MANAGER VOTES THAT ARE NOT FOR THE CITY.

I CALL MARY ALESHIRE.

YES, MY NAME IS MARY ALESHIRE, I HAVE LIVED IN AUSTIN FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT — THAT I TALKED TO SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THAT THE TERM TO DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IS — IS I WAS NEUTRALIZED AS A POLITICAL ACTIVIST. WHAT KEEPS IT FROM HAPPENING TO YOU OR YOUR FAMILIES OR YOUR CAMPAIGN WORKERS? SO I'M HERE TO SUPPORT BOTH OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS, ALTHOUGH YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT AND ADD THE CITY MANAGER AND THE MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WHAT I HAVE HEARD IS EITHER/OR. AND WHAT YOU MIGHT DO IS SAY AND, BECAUSE WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS WE HAVE GOT TO KEEP MAKING THAT CIRCLE BIGGER AND BIGGER.

THANK YOU, MARY. I CALL KATHY MITCHELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: DIANE, YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES.

YEAH, I WILL TRY TO KEEP IT VERY SHORT AND TO THE POINT. I UNDERSTAND FROM — I CAME IN A LITTLE BIT LATE. BUT I'M HERE TO REALLY TALK ABOUT THE OPEN RECORDS ISSUE, WHICH HAS GOTTEN MUCH LESS ATTENTION HERE TONIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT PRIVACY ISSUES. I WORK A LOT ON OPEN RECORDS, BOTH IN MY PROFESSIONAL AND MY PRIVATE LIFE. I'M ON A STATE AGENCY ADVISORY BOARD RELATED TO OPEN RECORDS ISSUES AND BASICALLY JUST DO THIS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS NOW. AND I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE OPEN RECORDS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN. FIRST OF ALL, ON PRIVACY, THERE IS A STATUTE THAT SPECIFICALLY MAKES HOME ADDRESS, HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER, PERSONAL CELL PHONE, PERSONAL PAGER NUMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND INFORMATION WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL HAS FAMILY MEMBERS CONFIDENTIAL FOR ALL POLICE OFFICERS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO GET THAT PRIVILEGE. IT JUST IS. IN FACT, IT'S ONE OF THE FEW PRIVILEGES OF CONFIDENTIALITY THAT IS A PREVIOUS DETERMINATION UNDER THE STATUTE. MEANING THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE A.G. TO ASK FOR AN OPINION EVERY TIME SOMEONE WANTS THAT KIND OF INFORMATION. IT JUST CLOSED. PHOTOS OF POLICE OFFICERS ARE ALSO CLOSED. SO THOSE KINDS OF PERSONAL PRIVACY ISSUES ARE COVERED UNDER THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT AND SPECIFICALLY FOR PEACE OFFICERS. SO ANY — YOU KNOW, CONCERNS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THOSE KIND OF PRIVACY INFORMATION RELATING TO PERSONNEL RECORDS SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS VERY BRIEFLY IS THE WHOLE QUESTION OF THE PERSONNEL FILE I'M OUT OF TIME.

OKAY. NEVER MINE.

I CALL MARY — BARRY KEENAN.

MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THANK YOU. IF YOU WENT READ WILL HARRELL'S ON ED YESTERDAY IT GETS TO THE — OP ED GETS TO THE BOTTOM LINE OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE. MY DAY JOB IS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, BUT I HAVE BEEN 27 YEARS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES, I HAVE KEPT AN OFFICE APPEARED RAISED IN LOS ANGELES. THE LAPD WAS AS ESTEEMED AS THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT IS TODAY BACK IN THE 1960'S, THEN VIETNAM AND CIVIL RIGHTS BECAME. THEY BECAME LESS ACCOUNTABLE, THEY STONEWALLED THE CITY COUNCIL FOR 20 YEARS ABOUT POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY. DURING THAT TIME AND OVER THE EVOLUTION OF TIME THERE WAS LOTS OF HOLDING COURT ON THE STREETS WHERE PEOPLE GOT KILLED AND MAMED. WE ONLY HEARD ABOUT THE RODNEY KING INCIDENTS BECAUSE OF LUCK. THE RAM PART DIVISION BECAUSE OF LUCK. WE DON'T WANT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THE SAME KIND OF DEFENSIVE POSITION THAT THE LAPD FINDS ITSELF NOW IN AS A DISGRACED POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT WENT FROM THE FINEST IN THE COUNTRY TO DISGRACED BECAUSE THE SECRETS CAME OUT. BY OPENING THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD BE EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN THE A.P.D. SHOULD BE HERE ASKING YOU TO GET THIS ON THE BALLOT TO LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO HAVE THIS ACCOUNTABILITY AND THEN WE WOULD BE DONE WITH IT. PLEASE READ WILL HARRELL'S ARTICLE BECAUSE IT CUTS RIGHT TO THE BOTTOM LINE. THANK YOU.

AUSTIN [INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU, MUST NAME IS AUSTIN DULNICK, CO-CHAIR OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY GREEN PARTY AND SIT ON THE AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY REAL QUICK. I RESPECT THE POLICE AND WHAT THEY DO. I UNDERSTAND IT'S DIFFICULT TO BE AN OFFICER. I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE POLICE AND SHERIFFS, I HAVE STUDIED CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND WORKED IN A VOLUNTEER CAPACITY FOR STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT. I UNDERSTAND IT'S AN EXCLUSIVE COMMUNITY, EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. OFFICERS ARES ON EXTRA SIZED AND — OSTRACIZED AND PUSHED OUT OF THE MAIN STREAM. A DIFFICULT POSITION TO BE IN. THAT HAVING BEEN SAID I AM IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT H. I THINK IT WOULD ENDOW THE PROCESS WITH A GREATER TRANSPARENCY. NOT ONLY WOULD IT ALLOW US TO HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE PROCESS, I THINK IT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL TO HAVE THE PROCESS BE MORE TRANSPARENTS IN NOT KEEPING A SECRET PERSONNEL FILE. IT WOULD ALLOW US TO WEED OUT THE BAD APPLES PUBLICLY, AND THUS ENDOW THE OTHER OFFICERS WITH GREATER SAFETY. WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICE MONITOR POSITION, I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING ITEM K TO BE ON THE BALLOT. WE CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS LASTING AROUND. THE POLICE MONITOR WAS ON POINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER IN A RATHER ILLEGITIMATE WAY. A PERSON WHOSE IMPARTIALITY IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH SPEAKS FOR IT ITSELF FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN FOLD FOLLOWING THE PROCESS. I SUPPORT AMENDMENTS H AND K ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE POLICE FORCE ITSELF, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOUR MINUTES LEFT.

GREAT. COUNCIL I'M GOING TO WRAP UP REALLY QUICK. I'M SCOTT HANSON WITH THE ACLU. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERING THIS TODAY. COUNCIL, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY ISSUE THAT WE ARE BRINGING TO YOU HERE. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE GENERATED A BIG FIRE STORM. WHERE MAYBE Y'ALL WOULD HAVE PREFERRED IT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. NOBODY LIKES TO HAVE THE ATTACKS GOING BACK AND FORTH IN THE NEWSPAPER AMONG YOUR CONSTITUENTS. AND ALL OF THESE — ALL OF THIS FIRE STORM IS — IS NO FUN FOR ANYBODY. IT'S NO FUN FOR US, I KNOW IT'S NO FUN FOR Y'ALL. FRANKLY THAT'S WHY WE ARE ASKING YOU TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE — THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE OVERSIGHT BOARD INDEPENDENT AND PERMANENT. WE FRANKLY HEARD THE — THE — MAYOR, I THINK YOU SAID VERY ADEQUATELY WHY IT IS THAT THIS DOESN'T VIOLATE THE CONTRACT, IT DOESN'T "INVALIDATE" THE CONTRACT THE WAY CHARLIE WILKERSON TOLD YOU. TO INVALIDATE IT WOULD HAVE TO VIOLATE IT, TO VIOLATE IT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE DURING THE CONTRACT. IT WOULDN'T. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CHANGE IT IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD — WE HAVE BEEN GIVE VERY MUCH A CATCH 22 HONESTLY. LAST YEAR WE SAID WE WANTED INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. WE WERE TOLD NO YOU COMPLAINT DO THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER. TODAY WE COME BACK SAY, WE WILL LIKE TO YOU CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER SO WE CAN HAVE INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. YOU COMPLAINT DO THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE DONE THAT IN THE CONTRACT LAST YEAR. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. TELL US WHAT TO DO. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO GET INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT? I WILL DO WHAT YOU WANT. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? IT'S VERY, VERY FRUSTRATING, I'M JUST NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS ARE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD BY YOUR OWN CITY ATTORNEYS THAT THERE'S NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR POSITION. IF YOU GO AHEAD AND ENACT THIS POSITION AND PUT IT IN THE CITY CHARTER, THE BEST THING ABOUT IT IS THAT WE WON'T BE BACK UP HERE DOING THIS EVERY FEW YEARS. THE BEST THING ABOUT IT IS WHAT YOU HEARD THE POLICE UNION'S PROPOSAL, THEY WANTED TO SAY — THEY WANTED TO SAY THAT YOU MAY APPOINT THE MONITOR INSTEAD OF WILL. THEY WANT US TO HAVE TO FIGHT OVER WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A POLICE MONITOR EVERY THREE YEARS. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BE UP HERE FIGHTING EVERY THREE YEARS OVER THIS. I REALLY DON'T. I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME. YOU KNOW. LET'S FIX THIS PROBLEM AND MOVE ON TO OTHER THINGS. YOU KNOW, NOBODY — NOBODY IS GOING TO TRUST THE POLICE OVERSIGHT SYSTEM IF WE THINK THAT THE POLICE UNION AND THE CITY MANAGER WHO — NEITHER OF WHOM WANT IT IN THE FIRST POLICE ARE GOING TO GET TO GO BACK AND TAKE ANOTHER CRACK AT THE APPLE EVERY FEW YEARS. YES, MEET AND CONFER OVER THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MONITOR'S JOB, BUT DO NOT MEET AND CONFER OVER WHETHER TO HAVE OVERSIGHT EVERY THREE YEARS. IT'S JUST LIKE POURING SALT ON AN OPEN WOUND. FINALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS AN ATTACK ON THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND THE REASON THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS [INAUDIBLE] SAID WE ARE NOT GIVING THIS POLICE MONITOR ANY ACTUAL EMPLOYER POWER OVER ANY OF THESE FOLK. THIS IS ABOUT INFORMATION, IT'S ABOUT INFORMATION FOR THE COUNCIL, IT'S ABOUT INFORMATION FOR THE COMPLAINTANT. IT'S ABOUT LETTING ALL OF US HAVE MORE ACCESS TO THIS PROCESS. AND JUST LIKE WITH THE — WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY ISSUES, NOW THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE MORE CLOSED, YOU ARE FEELING LIKE YOU NEED TO HAVE MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION. WELL, THE — THE POLICE SITUATION IS ALREADY UTTERLY CLOSED. SO BY THAT LOGIC YOU OBVIOUSLY NEED TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION THERE, TOO. I WILL WRAP UP. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR HEARING US TODAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS —

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. HANSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HANSON. THE CITY MANAGER HAS REQUESTED, WHAT, ONE MINUTE.

I CAN DO IT IN LESS THAN ONE MINUTE. I JUST WANTS TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT MANAGEMENT IS TAKING A POSITION ON APPOINTMENT OF THE POLICE MONITOR. IN THE MEET AND CONFER DISCUSSION, THE ISSUE WAS A LEGAL BARRIER. IT WAS OUR ADVICE, IT WAS A — ADVICE WE GAVE BOTH PRIVATELY AND PUBLICLY IF THIS COUNCIL CHOOSES TO APPOINT THE CITY MANAGER, THEY NEED TO HAVE A CHARTER REVISION. THE CHARTER —

MAYOR GARCIA: NOT THE CITY MANAGER.

EXCUSE ME, THE POLICE MONITOR. THEY NEED TO HAVE A CHARTER REVISION. THE CHARTER CLEARLY SPELLS OUT WHO ARE APPOINTEES OF THE COUNCIL. WHETHER YOU DO THIS IN MEET AND CONFER OR WHETHER THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO DO THIS OUTSIDE OF MEET AND CONFER, ALL THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS REVISING THE CHARTER TO ALLOW THAT AND SEDORA IF YOU WILL JUST GIVE 20 SECOND OF WHAT THAT ADVICE WAS TO US.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE LEGAL ADVICE HAS NOT CHANGED. WHAT WE ADVISED BACK THEN AND THE ADVISE STILL PERTAINS TODAY THAT COUNCIL WITHOUT A CHARTER CHANGE DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO APPOINT THE POLICE MONITOR. THE MONITOR WHO WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO RECORDS WOULD BE INVOLVED IN PERSONNEL DECISION MAKING, COUNCIL ONLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT THE POSITIONS THAT ARE ENUMERATED WITHIN THE CHARTER. WITHOUT THAT AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CHARTER, THEY CAN DO NOT IN A UNILATERALLY. A MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT CANNOT CONFER THAT POWER UPON THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY THAT — ITEM H AND— OWE MR. STEINER — MR. STEINER IF YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THIS A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING THE CITY SHALL NOT MAINTAIN A CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL FILE FOR A POLICE OFFICER AND — AND — ACCORDING TO THAT — POINT TO THAT IN THE ORDINANCE — IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE YOU HAVE ALREADY TOLD ME THAT.

STEINER: LITTLE....... IT'S NOT. IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, THEN THE — WHAT I WOULD NEED IS YOU TO — FOR YOU TO DO IS GIVE ME DIRECTION AS TO WHAT YOU WANT ME TO WRITE, WHAT YOU WANT IT TO ACCOMPLISH AND THEN I CAN DRAFT THAT FOR YOU. AND WE CAN PROCEED FROM THERE. AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PROBABLY A VARIETY OF WAYS THAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH IT. SO IF — IF I KNOW WHAT COUNCIL'S GOAL IS, I CAN — I CAN GET YOU THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE SAME THINKINGS FOR ITEM K, CORRECT?

STEINER: YES, SIR.

WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE MONITOR AND A POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. OKAY. COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? MOTIONS? SOMEBODY TALK TO ME, PLEASE. DON'T LEAVE THE MAYOR OUT HERE BY HIMSELF. [ LAUGHTER ]. [INAUDIBLE].

I KNOW THAT FEELING. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, IF — IF THE OPPONENTS OF THESE TWO ITEMS WOULD WANT TO SPEAK TOWARDS A MOTION, THE PROPONENTS OF THESE TWO ITEMS WOULD WANT TO SPEAK TOWARDS A MOTION, THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AT THIS TIME.

ALVAREZ: MY OWN PERSONAL FEELING ABOUT THESE TWO ITEMS IS IN TERMS OF THE RECORDS ISSUE, I THINK WE HAVE ADVOCACY ON THE ERROR ASPECT OF THIS. AND FOR ME — ON THE RECORDS ASPECT OF THIS. I THINK WHAT WAS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE MEET APPEARED CONFER WAS A BIT OF A COMPROMISE WHERE YOU ARE STAYING INSTEAD OF DISCLOSURE OF ALL INFORMATION TO EVERYBODY, WE SAID ONLY THE POLICE MONITOR AND CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION AND IT WOULDN'T BECOME, YOU KNOW, ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYBODY. BUT — BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE IDEA WAS, WELL, WE ARE APPOINTING THESE INDIVIDUALS, THE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD AND THE POLICE MONITOR THAT WE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION AND CAN ADVOCATE, YOU KNOW, IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO SEE. SO PERSONALLY I'M NOT GOING TO — IN SUPPORT OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT'S BEFORE US RELATED TO RECORDS. BHU THAT........BUT THAT THEN CALLS MORE ATTENTION TO THE FACT IF THAT WAS A COMPROMISE, WE NEED TO HAVE MORE INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN THE MONITOR AND CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD IN ORDER FOR IT TO FUNCTION I THINK AS EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE. SO I DO SUPPORT INTRODUCING OR LETTING THE VOTERS DECIDE, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CHART FORE THE CITY TO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DO THAT — I KNOW IT — WE ARE BEING ASKED TO — YOU KNOW, TO ADD TO THE CHARTER LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE CITY WILL DO IT. BUT TO ME I WOULD RATHER, IF WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE WE SAY THE CITY SHALL HAVE THAT AUTHORITY THEN THE CITY CAN DECIDE AT SOME POINT BOTH WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT OR NOT. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M LEANING IN TERMS OF INDEPENDENCE, IN TERMS OF POLICE MONITOR AND OVERSIGHT BOARD. AND I DON'T THINK IT GOES AGAINST MEET AND CONFER. I KIND OF EXPLAINED IT, MY POSITION EARLIER AND WE HAVE HEARD OTHERS KIND OF SPEAK TO IT, ALSO. AND IT REALLY KIND OF SPEAKS TO THE NEED FOR US TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARTER, IF WE DO GO INTO MEET AND CONFER, WORKING WITH [INAUDIBLE] DECIDE WE WANT TO HAVE INDEPENDENT POLICE MONITORING AND CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD, THAT WE HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY WITH THE CHARTER AND WE ARE NOT VIOLATING THE CHARTER AND WE EVEN HEARD, YOU KNOW, OUR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL SAY THAT THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION THEY ARE GIVING IS THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CHARTER, WHICH IS WHAT THE CITIZENS — HOW THE CITIZENS HAVE TOLD US THEY WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DO OUR BUSINESS. AND, UM, LET'S SEE. I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENTS IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT DOES OR DOESN'T VIOLATE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. I REALLY DON'T THINK SO, IT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY. IN AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST, WE ARE NOT SAYING LET'S HIRE ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND WE'RE SAYING IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO HAVE SOME INDEPENDENCE. IN THE AREA OF UTILITIES, NOW WITH THE DEREGULATION AND THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THE RECORDS HAVE BEEN CLOSED FROM PUBLIC ACCESS, THAT WE HAVE AGAIN SOME INDEPENDENCE AND SOME MORE — SOME FOLKS WHO ARE THERE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE INFORMATION AND PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE TO COUNCIL TO INFORM THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. THAT'S REALLY HOW I SEE THESE TWO POSITIONS, SO I WOULD SUPPORT I GUESS IN THAT REGARD THE — THE POLICE MONITOR BEING ABLE TO BE APPOINTED BY COUNCIL AND THE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD AS WELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SAY THAT'S POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD HAS A DEFINITION THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

ALVAREZ: IS THAT RIGHT?

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. OKAY. I GUESS — I GUESS BY THAT STATEMENT I WOULD INTERPRET THAT YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE FLOOR, ON THE TABLE, SOMEWHERE, THE — THE ITEM K, CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE MONITOR AND POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, YOU WILL LIKE TO SEE THAT PLACED ON THE BALLOT ON MAY 4.

ALVAREZ: GIVEN LIKE SIMILAR LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD FOR THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE OF THE CITY MAY APPOINT AN — YOU KNOW, A POLICE — YOU KNOW, A POLICE MONITOR AND POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: PERMISSIVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

GRIFFITH: I WILL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I HAD A SIMILAR THOUGHT, EXCEPT I WENT ABOUT IT THE OTHER WAY, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CITY LEGAL IF — IF BY SAYING MAY, I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE FULL CONTEXT OF WHAT OTHER LANGUAGE PERHAPS WAS GOING TO BE INTRODUCED IN THAT AMENDMENT, IS THAT THE SAME AS SAYING THE CITY CHARTER SHALL NOT PROHIBIT? DOES — IS IT THE SAME PROCESS FOR THE CHARTER —

IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. MAY I AM PARTS DISCRETION. — IMPARTS DISCRETION. IF IT SAYS YOU MAY DO IT, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT. SHALL IS GENERALLY MANDATORY LANGUAGE, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU WILL DO IT. BUT MAY IMPARTS DISCRETION. SO IT WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO APPOINT, IF YOU SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES THAT THE CITY — THE COUNCIL MAY APPOINT A POLICE MONITOR AND THEN WE WILL GO ON FROM THERE, THEN THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DO THAT BUT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DO IT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I GUESS THAT I JUST HAVE PRIDE OF AUTHORSHIP HERE. AND DID YOU SAY, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, INDEPENDENT POSITION? OR — OR HAD YOU GONE INTO THAT MUCH DETAIL?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ SAID IS TO APPROVE ITEM K, WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE MONITOR AND A POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD, AND HIS MOTION SAID THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT A POLICE MONITOR AND A POLICE OVERSIGHT BOOR. THAT'S THE..........— OVERSIGHT BOARD. THAT WAS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. UNLESS I MISQUOTED THE COUNCILMEMBER.

ALVAREZ: I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK THAT FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS LET THE — SEE HOW THE OVERSIGHT SYSTEM THAT WE PUT IN PLACE IS GOING TO WORK. IT HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO WORK YET. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S GOING TO WORK ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IT WAS DECADES IN THE MAKING. IF COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN IS HERE TODAY, HIS COURAGE IN BRINGING THAT FORWARD I THINK WAS — IT WAS GREAT JUST JUST TO BRING THAT FORWARD, IT GOT SOMETHING DONE THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR AT LEAST 30 YEARS, PROBABLY LONGER. BUT IT WAS A COMPROMISE. THE WAY IT WORKED OUT. THAT'S THE WAY LEGISLATION IS DONE. THAT'S THE WAY CHANGE OCCURS. I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE IT A CHANCE TO SEE IF IT WORKS BEFORE — IF IT DOESN'T WORK THEM WE NEED TO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER, THEN LET'S COME BACK AND CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER. BUT I SAY LET'S DON'T CHANGE IT DURING THE TERM OF THIS CONTRACT BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS OVER MEET AN CONFER. MEET AND CONFER. I WOULD NEED SOME CONVINCING TO SUPPORT PUTTING IT UNDER THE COUNCIL. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I MIGHT HAVE USED THE WORD POLITICIZE TOO FREELY LAST TIME. MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN CALLED ME ON THAT BECAUSE PROBABLY EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER. I DON'T SEE THAT AS A BAD WORD. IT'S PART OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, IT'S PART OF BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, IT'S PART OF HAVING ELECTED OFFICIALS. BUT I THINK THAT SOMETHING LIKE POLICE — LIKE OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE, LOOKING INTO..... CITIZEN MISCONDUCT OF POLICE COMPLAINTS NEED TO BE AS FAR REMOVED FROM THE POLITICAL ARENA AS IT POSSIBLY CAN. I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING TO INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBERS ABOUT PARTICULAR CASES WHERE YOU ARE ALMOST — I CAN SEE WHERE YOU GET TO THE POINT OF COUNTING VOTES, WELL, HOW DOES THIS COUNCILMEMBER FEEL ABOUT THAT, HOW DOES THIS COUNCILMEMBER FEEL ABOUT THAT AND IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY JUST WORK WHERE THE COUNCIL WOULD SIDE WITH FOLKS, LIKE FOLKS THAT ARE BRINGING THIS FORWARD TODAY. IT COULD END UP THAT IT GETS POLITICIZED INTO OTHER DIRECTIONS. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SPEAK ABOUT THAT, BUT IT COULD GET POLITICIZED INTO THE OTHER DIRECTION WHERE THE COUNCIL IS DOING — IS DOING WHAT THE POLICE WANT OR THE CERTAIN ELEMENTS THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MIGHT WANT. WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT PASSING LEGISLATION, IT'S GOING TO BE IN PLACE LONG AFTER WE ARE GONE, YOU HAVE GOT TO TRY TO I THINK THINK ABOUT ALL OF THESE POTENTIAL EVIDENT........EVENTUALITIES. THAT'S ONE THAT I VICE-PRESIDENT HEARD ANYBODY DISCUSS WHERE IT MIGHT END — I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY DISCUSS WHERE IT MIGHT END UP GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION. I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK A WHILE TO WHEN WE FIRST STARTED DISCUSSING THIS AND IT WAS AN IFFY PROPOSITION FOR ME FROM THE BEGINNING BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW OF ANY PROCESSES AND STRUCTURES THAT WORKED. BUT I THOUGHT THAT IF WE WENT INTO THIS, IT'S GOT TO BE A PROCESS AND AN ORGANIZATION THAT LOOKS ABSOLUTELY FAIR AND BALANCED FROM EVERYBODY'S PERSPECTIVE. AND THE REASON THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING I THOUGHT THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD — SHOULD EITHER APPOINT BOTH THE MONITOR AND THE PANEL OR AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE TWO ENTITIES BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION CANNOT BE THAT SOMEBODY'S THUMB IS ON THE SCALES. OTHERWISE IT'S NOT AN ORGANIZATION, IT'S NOT A PROCESS THAT ALL THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN FOLLOWING THEIR — THEIR — NOT INVESTIGATIONS EXACTLY, BUT THEIR PRACTICES CAN TRUST. IF THE CITY MANAGER IS THE BOSS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FOR THE POLICE CHIEF, THEN THE CITY MANAGER, I DON'T THINK, CAN BE THE PERSON WHO APPOINTS THE MONITOR, HIRES THE MONITOR, APPOINTS THE — THE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD, BECAUSE THE IMPRESSION, EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CITY MANAGEMENT AND THE PERSONALITIES INVOLVED, THE PERCEPTION IS THAT THE FOX IS GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE OR COULD — THE FOX COULD BE GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE. SO IN ORDER TO TRY TO GET AWAY FROM THAT AND INTO — INTO AN ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURE, WHERE EVERYBODY CAN — CAN COME AND TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS AND THERE IS A POINT OF — OF CONTACT MEANING AN ELECTABLE OR ACCOUNTABLE POINT OF CONTACT, FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE THE ONE TO APPOINT THE MONITOR, AND THE REVIEW BOARD, I THINK GIVES THAT ACCOUNTABILITY SOME FOCUS. AND THAT ACCOUNTABILITY IS FOR THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AND FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE SYSTEM. SO THAT'S WHY I — WHEN I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS, I WANTED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I HAVE SAID SO PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES, THAT — THAT WITHOUT THAT PROVISION FOR COUNCIL APPOINTMENT, YOU CAN NEVER SAY IT'S AN IMPARTIAL, OBJECTIVE, FAIR AND BALANCED STRUCTURE. AND I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU CAN. I THINK IT'S GOT TO BE — TO BE NOT SO UNBALANCED THAT THE CITY MANAGER COULD BE SEEN AS HAVING TOTAL CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING, INFORMATION, PROCESS, PERSONNEL, EVERYTHING. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT CAN'T BE IN — IN A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN SUGGEST OR IMPLY OR ASSUME THAT IT'S TOTALLY POLITICAL. AND THAT DECISIONS MADE OR POLITICAL — ARE POLITICAL OR EVEN IN THE MODE OF — OF EXACTING REVENGE. THIS — THIS PROCESS AND THIS ORGANIZATION CAN'T BE ANY OF THOSE THINGS. IT'S GOT TO BE ABSOLUTELY FAIR. THE ONLY WAY I SAW TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WAS TO EVEN UP AND BALANCE OUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE CONTROL OVER HIRING AN APPOINTEE. AT THE SAME TIME, THOUGH, I AM VERY MUCH A SUPPORTER OF ORGANIZED LABOR. THAT'S ALL ABOUT WORKPLACE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY AND THE DIGNITY OF — OF WORK — OF A WORKING PERSON. SO, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO JEOPARDIZE ONE OF THE FEW ORGANIZED LABOR MECHANISMS THAT TEXAS HAS EVER LET PEOPLE HAVE. BECAUSE THEY..... — THERE ARE NOT MANY OF THOSE, I CAN COUNT THEM ON THE FINGERS OF ONE HAND. SO THERE'S AN ISSUE ALSO FOR MEET AND CONFER. NOT BREAKING A CONTRACT. NOT JEOPARDIZING A MECHANISM STATE-WIDE. THERE ARE PLENTY IN THIS STATE WHO WOULD LOVE TO SEE A PRECEDENT SET WHEREBY THEY CAN IGNORE A MEET AND CONFER CONTRACT AND MEETING GATE THE WHOLE MECHANISM AND THE CLOUT OF THAT ORGANIZED LABOR TOOL. AND IN FACT A LOT OF PEOPLE, I THINK, I RECALL ACLU CAPITAL BEING UP AT THE CAPITOL WHEN MEET AND CONFER WAS BEING DISCUSSED. I KNOW THAT I WAS THERE SUPPORTING IT AND I WILL NOT STOP SUPPORTING IT. SO IN THE LANGUAGE WHICH I'M ASSUMING IS THE SAME AS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO, THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ PROPOSES WHERE WE MAY DO THESE THINGS, THEN WE HAVE PLUCKED NOTHING OUT OF THE CONTRACT. WE HAVE BROKEN NO PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT. WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY NEXT TIME THAT WE TALK ABOUT THIS TO SAY OUR POSITION IS X AND I THINK THAT WE MAY HAVE THE FULL FORCE OF THE CITIZENS WHO VOTED BEHIND US TO MAKE THAT POINT VERY CLEAR. SO IT WILL BE WALKING IN WITH A — WITH A VERY LARGE — NO, LET ME CHANGE THAT. THAT'S NOT — PEACE, PEACE, PEACE OFFICERS. WHAT WE WALK IN WITH IS A CLEAR MESSAGE, I THINK FROM THE CITIZENRY, IF THEY VOTE FOR THIS, THAT THIS IS ALSO THE WAY THEY SEE BALANCE AND FAIRNESS INTRODUCED INTO A PROCESS THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET IF IT WORKS. BUT THIS WAY WE DON'T TRUMP ANYTHING BEFORE IT'S HAPPENED. WE DON'T JEOPARDIZE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CONTRACT OR THE LARGER MEET AND CONFER MECHANISM. AND WE DO PUT POLICY INTO WHAT HAS TO BE A THREE-WAY DISCUSSION HERE. LAST TIME, I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF IT, BUT OF COURSE STAFF WAS GIVING US THEIR ADVICE BASED ON THE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE. RATHER THAN A LATE PERSPECTIVE, WHICH CAN ONLY COME IN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT POLICY. SO WE HAD MANAGEMENT AND WE HAD POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THE TABLE, BUT POLICY WAS MISSING. SO WITH THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE THE VOTERS, I THINK WE PUT THE POLICY BACK IN. AND WE PUT THE BALANCE BACK IN. WITH THE — WITHOUT UNDERMINING ANY OF THE LABOR MECHANISMS THAT I SUPPORT AND WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.

[ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

IT ACTUALLY USES THE WORDS THAT SAYS MUNICIPAL COURT SHALL BE PRESIDED OVER A MAGISTRATE WHO SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT. HE OR SHE SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL. SO THAT GIVES YOU A SHALL — SHALL IMPOSES A DUTY, SO YOU HAVE TO APPOINT A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. THEN IS SAYS THE COUNCIL SHAVE THE POWER TO CREATE ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL COURTS AND TO APPOINT MORE THAN ONE JUDGE TO EACH MUNICIPAL COURT. SO THAT COULD JUST AS EASILY — INSTEAD OF USING THE LONGER PHRASE, SHALL HAVE THE POWER, IT SAYS MAY AND HAS EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT.

BUT I CAN'T THINK OF A PLACE WHERE IT ACTUALLY USES THE WORD MAY WHERE IT REGARDS THE APPOINTMENT OF AN OFFICIAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK WHERE IT REGARDS MORE THAN ONE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, I THINK IT JUST GIVES THE COUNCIL FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF SIZE.

LETS YOU — YOU SHALL APPOINT AT LEAST ONE MOUNT JUDGE, BUT YOU MAY HAVE AS MANY COURTS AS YOU SEE FIT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

SLUSHER: WE COULD ALL DO THIS. YOU COULD DO THE WORD SEARCH OVERNIGHT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.

MY GUESS IS, SHA HAVE THE POWER TO IS THE SAME AS SAYING MAY, BUT —

SLUSHER: WE CAN SEARCH FOR THAT.

I CAN SEARCH FOR THAT TOO. BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ONLY ONE WHERE THERE'S AN APPOINTMENT OF AN OFFICIAL. THERE'S FOUR, I BELIEVE, OFFICIALS APPOINTED — MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK, THE AUDITOR, THE CITY CLERK AND THE MANAGER. THERE ARE FIVE.

SLUSHER: I WASN'T LOOKING JUST FOR APPOINTMENTS, BUT WHERE IT GRANTS THE COUNCIL THE POWER, BUT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO EXERCISE THIS POWER, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS, SHALL DO THIS, IT JUST SAYS COUNCIL CAN DO THIS, IF THEY WANT TO, THEY CAN DO THIS.

I CAN TRY TO FIND THAT FOR YOU.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER COMMENTS?

GRIFFITH: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: THE PROPOSAL IS TO ME A MODERATE ONE AND ONE THAT LEAVES LOTS OF FLEXIBILITY FOR THE VOTERS AND FOR THE COUNCIL. THIS COUNCIL AND FUTURE COUNCILS. IT'S NOT AT ALL ABOUT CHANGING OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THERE'S NO POWER HERE. THIS IS AN ADVISORY ROLE, AND THE REASON WE NEED TO HAVE THE OPTION OF SETTING IT UP IN THE WAY THAT'S BEEN SUGGESTED IS BECAUSE OF INDEPENDENCE. THE FACT THAT WE WILL, IF WE DO NOT CHOOSE RIGHT AWAY TO HAVE THE FOLKS REPORT DIRECTLY TO US, THAT'S ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF THE MAY, IS WE CAN EITHER START NOW OR WE CAN DO THE TEST DRIVE AND THEN DO IT LATER. SO THERE'S ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE VOTERS ABOUT, IS TO GIVE US THAT VOICE AND THAT FLEXIBILITY. THE BIG ISSUE FOR ME AND THE REASON I THINK WE NEED THAT FLEXIBILITY IS THE QUESTION OF INDEPENDENCE. IF WE FIND THAT THE INDEPENDENCE IS NOT THERE, THEN WE DO HAVE THE CHOICE OF HAVING IT REPORT A DIFFERENT WAY.

THOMAS: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: IF WE COULD JUST DO THE WORDING AGAIN THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND MAYOR PRO TEM WAS TALKING ABOUT. THE WORDING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE WORDING, MR. STEINER, CAN YOU READ THAT WORDING.

Steiner: THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM PROPOSED?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION WAS BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND IT TALKS ABOUT THAT CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT A POLICE MONITOR AND A POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD.

Steiner: YEAH. AND THE — MS. DELLANO PROVIDED A SAMPLE. WORKING SORT OF OFF OF THAT, IT COULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THE COUNCIL MAY APPOINT A POLICE MONITOR TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL. MONITOR SHALL HAVE SUCH DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLES AS WHAT MAY BE ASSIGNED BY THE COUNCIL RELATED TO OVERSIGHT OF THE CITY'S POLICE FUNCTION. AND THEN YOU COULD GO ON AND HAVE SIMILAR LANGUAGE ABOUT AN OVERSIGHT BOARD IF YOU SO CHOSE. SO YOU COULD — I COULD DRAFT YOU SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAS THE FLOOR AND MAY HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS.

THOMAS: GO AHEAD.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE SIMILAR WITH THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE, COME BACK WITH LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE CITY WILL ASSIGN DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE AREAS OF A POLICE FUNCTION. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BRING BACK. TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT, IF IT INDEED PASSES, AND THEN COME BACK AND APPROVE THE LANGUAGE IN ONE OF THE UPCOMING MEETINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS? ANYTHING ELSE?

THOMAS: ONE MORE QUESTION. THIS IS TO MS. STRICKLAND. I JUST GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED WHEN YOU WERE SAYING THAT THE ASSOCIATION REALLY —

MAYOR GARCIA: COULD YOU COME TO THE MIC, PLEASE? THANK YOU.

THOMAS: YOU SAID THE ASSOCIATION REALLY DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE COUNCIL APPOINTING THE MONITOR OR THE COMMITTEE. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE NEGOTIATIONS?

I THINK THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE BEING THAT THIS ASSOCIATION HAS LONG RECOGNIZED CERTAIN ISSUES AND RIGHTS AS MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND RIGHTS. AND I THINK TO SOME EXTENT ONCE WE AGREE THAT THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE, EXACTLY WHO THAT PERSON IS GOING TO BE WE RECOGNIZE IS NOT GOING TO BE SELECTED BY THE POLICE THEMSELVES. STEPPING BEYOND THAT, WHETHER IT'S THE COUNCIL OR THE MANAGER OR SOME COMBINATION THEREOF, I THINK IT'S NOT A STICKING POINT. I THINK IT'S A POINT THAT WE COULD ALL HOPEFULLY HAVE SOME INPUT ON AND ARRIVE AT A GOOD SYSTEM. BUT WITH REGARD TO THE DUTIES, WHICH WAS ADDED HERE AT THE LAST SECOND, WE DO HAVE VERY STRONG OPINIONS WITH REGARD TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WORKED ON FOR MONTHS IN NEGOTIATION IS THE DUTIES AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND HOW IT OPERATES IS WHAT WE BUILT, THAT IS THE SYSTEM WE BUILT. SO IF NOW THE — IT GOES FROM WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENT TO WHO'S GOING TO BUILD THE SYSTEM, WE'VE TOTALLY CHANGED THE ARGUMENT. TOMHOMAS: AND WHEN YOU SAY THE DUTIES, WHO SAID THAT?

THAT WAS READ TO YOU JUST A MOMENT AGO I BELIEVE AS LANGUAGE PROVIDED BY MS. DELLANO. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE STATEMENT.

AGAIN, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL AS TO WHAT YOU MAY LIKE TO HAVE DRAFTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE GOING TO VOTE HERE IN JUST A MINUTE. I WANT TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AND THEN I THINK I'LL RECOGNIZE SOMEBODY ELSE.

THOMAS: I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WANTS, BUT FOR ME TO VOTE I NEED TO GET SOMETHING CLEAR.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, ME TOO. TOM.

THOMAS: THE WORDING IF IT'S NOT CLEAR BY ME, THIS IS WHY I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF — WE SAY ONE THING AND QUITE NATURAL, I WAS IN THE SYSTEM FOR 21 YEARS. THE ONLY THING I DO HAVE A PROBLEM — AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM AGAINST THE ACLU, BUT THE COMPLAINTS THAT I CAN REMEMBER 21 YEARS DEALT WITH CERTAIN PARTICULAR PEOPLE. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO — AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH HOW THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN SET UP. ONCE THE MONITOR WAS PICKED AND THE OVERSIGHT BOARD WAS CHOSEN, THE SYSTEM WAS NOT IN PLACE. THAT'S ONE THING THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IN THE BEGINNING. BUT ALSO A CONCERN THAT THE ASSOCIATION AT THE TIME DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CONTROLLING, APPOINTING THE MONITOR AND THE OVERSIGHT, BUT I JUST WONDER IF WE LET THE SYSTEM WORK, IF IT DOESN'T WORK, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO CORRECT IT? WE'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT AT THE MEET AND CONFER AGAIN AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE — I'M CONCERNED WITH THIS WORDING WILL HAVE TO US TO THE POINT WHERE IT COMES DOWN TO MEET AND CONFER THAT WE BE ABLE TO CORRECT SOME OF THE AREAS THAT ARE NOT WORKING.

THE DIFFICULTY THAT WE FACE IN THE MEET AND CONFER IS THAT THE MEET AND CONFER STATUTE PROVIDES ON OWE THE CIVIL SERVICE ALLOW — THAT THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT MAY OVERSIDE CERTAIN THINGS. IT DOES NOT ENOOM RATE THE CITY CHARTER AS ONE OF THE THINGS IT MAY OVERRIDE. ONE OF THE WAYS TO THREAD THE NEEDLE MAY BE PRESENTING THE DIFFICULTY, WOULD BE — THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION BASED ON THE CFERSS THAT I'M — CONVERSATIONS THAT I'M HEARING COUNCIL HAVE. YOU COULD HAVE A PROVISION IN THE CHARTER THAT SAID THAT A MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT ARRIVED AT UNDER THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW COULD PROVIDE FOR COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE MONITOR AND POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. AND THEN IF THAT WERE AGREED TO IN MEET AND CONFER, THE CHARTER WOULD NOT PRESENT A PROBLEM. AND THAT WAY IT WOULDN'T — THE CHARTER WOULD NOT — THERE JUST WOULD NOT BE A CHARTER ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE APPOINTMENT OF AN OVERSIGHT BOARD OR A POLICE MONITOR IF THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT THAT WAS — IF SOME MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT THAT WAS ARRIVED AT IN THE FUTURE PROVIDED FOR IT. SO IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE CHARTER AS AN ISSUE.

THOMAS: THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK PUT IN THIS MEET AND CONFER ON BOTH SIDES, BUT ALSO WE WANT THE SYSTEM TO WORK, BUT IF THERE ARE SOME FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM, IF THAT WORDING THAT YOU JUST SAID WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THOSE FLAWS, BUT ALSO GIVE THE MEET AND CONFER THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE AND THEN IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE CHARTER, BUT IT WOULD STILL GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THAT AGAIN. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT BECAUSE I THINK I'M VERY ADD MANT ABOUT MAKING — ADAMANT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT I'M GO MAYBE. I'M MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE GETTING EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED, BUT I'M ALSO MAKING SURE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT THE CITIZENS OF TAKING CARE WHERE THE SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING. BECAUSE THAT'S — THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. GO AHEAD.

GRIFFITH: PLEASE.

THOMAS: I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THE WORDING THAT HE JUST SAID IN THAT PROVISION. IF WE COULD DO THE WORDING THERE, THEN I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT. BUT THAT WOULD GIVE BOTH ENDS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LET THE SYSTEM WORK AND NOT VIOLATE WHAT THEY HAVE NEGOTIATED.

GRIFFITH: I TOO AM VERY SUPPORTIVE OF NEGOTIATIONS AND OF REACHING AGREEMENTS AND HONORING THE LABOR MANAGEMENT TRADITIONS THAT WE ALL VALUE. WOULD WHAT THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING ALLOW US TO CORRECT THE SITUATION THAT WE THOUGHT NEEDED CORRECTING IN TERMS OF THE RECORDING STRUCTURE OUTSIDE OF FEET MOOET AND CONFER.

WHAT I JUST SUGGESTED WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON A MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT, AND THAT WAS — AGAIN — AND I HAVE NO POLICY DECISION, I WAS JUST SAYING THAT THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE POLICE MONITOR IN THE PREVIOUS NEGOTIATION WAS THE CHARTER. AND IF THE CHARTER SAID THAT A MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT COULD PROVIDE FOR COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE MONITOR AND OVERSIGHT BOARD, THEN IT WOULD LEAVE IT ENTIRELY TO THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT AND JUST REMOVE THE CHARTER AS A WALL.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? WE'VE ALREADY SPOKEN TO HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY WHEN WE STARTED PUTTING STUFF IN THE CHARTER ABOUT MAY OR THAT PRESUMING A NEGOTIATION, I MEAN, TO ME THAT'S GETTING TO WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE AMENDED WITH THE KIND OF REGULARITY OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. TO ME — I'M VERY CONSERVATIVE TO CHANGING THE CITY CHARTER. IT'S THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT OF THE CITY AND IF WE WANT TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING IN MEET AND CONFER AND THEN SAY WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT TO A CHARTER AMENDMENT OR EVEN IF YOU WANT TO JUST LATER AFTER THE — BEYOND THIS CONTRACT ERA IF IT'S DECIDED THAT YOU WANT TO GO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER, THEN I WOULD SAY LET'S DO IT THEN, BUT I AM REALLY TROUBLED BY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE BY SETTING THINGS UP, WELL, LATER ON, WRITE IT INTO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT OF THE CITY, WELL, LATER ON WE MIGHT DO THIS AND WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS AND THAT SORT OF THING. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT OF THE CITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: PEOPLE HAVE TO LEAVE HERE TO GO TO ALL KINDS OF MEETINGS, INCLUDING ME. THROUGH THE YEARS OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN GOOD, AND THROUGH THE YEARS I HAVE WORKED TO IMPROVE IT, AND THEY HAVE TOO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN DONE HAS BEEN THE RECRUITMENT, TRAINING, PROMOTION, RETENTION OF MINORITY OFFICERS, OFFICERS OF COLOR. IT HAS NOT BEEN THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION. I DON'T THINK THERE IS SUCH A THING. BUT I THINK THAT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEY HAVE MANIFESTED THEMSELVES IN THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE HAVE PARTICULARLY IN THE LATINO COMMUNITY. THEY TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS ABOUT HOW LATINO INTERFACE, AND I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS SHE ALSO SHE HAD. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY IS NOT AT THE SAME STAGE. I SEE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DIFFICULTY, BUT I ALSO THINK WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TO IMPROVE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS. I LIKE MEET AND CONFER. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE CIVIL SERVICE FOR ONE VERY SIMPLE REASON. IT GIVES DIGNITY TO THE FOLKS WHO GO OUT THERE TO A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AND DO THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS INDIVIDUALS, HUMAN BEINGS THAT MAKE MISTAKES. I WANT ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T MAKE MISTAKES, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO STAND UP RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE HAVE THOSE THINGS. NOT THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE STANDING, NOT YOU SHEFFIELD. [ LAUGHTER ] THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE HAVE HAD SITUATIONS IN WHICH MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE. I THINK THE CEDAR AVENUE INCIDENT WAS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS. WE HAD OTHERS WHERE A POLICE OFFICER STOPPED SOMEBODY, GETS OUT OF HIS CAR, WALKS TOWARD THE PERSON THAT HE HAS STOPPED, PULLS THE GUN AND THE GUN GOES OFF, AND WE HAVE HAD TO DEFEND THOSE SITUATIONS. AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED. THE GUY WAS NERVOUS, HE WAS A NEW POLICE OFFICER OR MAYBE NOT A POLICE OFFICER, BUT I KNOW THAT IF I HAD THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF GETTING OUT OF MY CAR AND GOING TO A CAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO TRY TO DEAL WITH SOMEBODY WHO MAY HAVE VIOLATED A LAW, THAT I WOULD ALSO PROBABLY PULL MY GUN AND FIRE IT WITHOUT KNOWING. SO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS DO HAPPEN. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS WHEN SITUATIONS LIKE THE ONES THAT WERE REPORTED BY ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS ABOUT THE POLICE BREAKING IN, THAT THOSE THINGS BE INVESTIGATED AND THAT WE RESPOND IN A CIVIL MANNER TO THOSE CONCERNS. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE POLICE OFFICER DID THAT. NO POLICE OFFICER HAS EVER BROKEN INTO MY HOME, BUT I HAVE HEARD REPORTS OF THAT CONDUCT. CITY MANAGER, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE POLICE MONITOR NEEDS TO DO. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TRY THE SYSTEM AS IT IS. IN THE EDITORIAL BY MR. HARRELL IT SAYS THAT LIKE OURS, THEIR MONITOR IS TALK ON ON— IN CALIFORNIA THEIR MONITOR STARTED UNDER THE CITY MANAGER, BUT AFTER A FEW YEARS, WHILE WE'VE BEEN IN THIS A FEW WEEKS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT. AND I THINK WE HAVE BEEN MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I KNOW THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT A PERSON WHO WAS APPOINTED AND ALL THOSE THINGS WERE AIRED OUT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT WORKS. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AT THIS TIME, AND I HOPE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE HERE HAS TOLD US A FEW THINGS. I WAS GLAD TO SEE DR. STONE HERE, THE L.B.J. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS DID A SURVEY, I GUESS A STUDY, AND IT REVEALED THAT ACCORDING TO MR. HARRELL'S EDITORIAL, 87% OF AUSTINITES SUPPORT INDEPENDENT POLICE OVERSIGHT. THAT IS A PRETTY STARTLING STATISTIC. AND I THINK IT SHOULD SEND A MESSAGE TO THE POLICE THAT SOME WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. BECAUSE WE WANT OUR PEOPLE TO TRUST THE POLICE OFFICERS. WE WANT — AND I'M HAVING — I'M HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNSELOR GENERAL OF MEXICO, BECAUSE SOME OF THE IMMIGRANT THAT ARE HERE, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE VIOLATED AND ROBBED DON'T REPORT THE CRIME TO THE POLICE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE TRUST. BUT WE NEED TO WORK ON THOSE THINGS. BUT I DON'T THINK — LIKE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, I DON'T THINK PUTTING UNCLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER IS GOING TO DO THIS. I THINK THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO. AND I HOPE THAT THE MESSAGE GETS ACROSS THAT THERE IS CONCERN IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THERE'S CONCERN ACTUALLY IN THIS COUNTRY OVER HOW POLICE INTERFACE WITH PEOPLE. SO THAT'S IT. I'LL VOTE AGAINST IT AND TAKE MY LICKS ACCORDINGLY. ANYBODY ELSE?

THOMAS: I JUST NEED TO SAY THIS, MAYOR, AND THEN I'M THROUGH. I DID SOME SEARCHING AND I DID SOME TALKING AND I SPOKE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THIS. AND WE JUST REALLY NEED TO — AND IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE POLICE ASSOCIATION AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ACLU TO WORK TOGETHER TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THE SYSTEM DID WORK, IF IT HASN'T WORKED. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH FOR 21 YEARS WOULD BE WILLING TO COME BACK AND CORRECT THE PROBLEMS THAT WE DO HAVE. I DID SAY ON THE NIGHT THAT WE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT THAT I WOULD WORK. ALSO MAYOR PRO TEM BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT. AT THIS TIME I'M JUST GOING TO BE VOTING AGAINST IT, AND I WANT TO LOOK TO MY EX-COLLEAGUES THAT IF THIS IS NOT WORKING, THEN I'M GOING TO LOOK FOR YOU TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES WORK. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, YOU HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING AT THIS TIME? DO YOU WANT TO PASS?

WYNN: I'LL PASS. ALL THE POINTS HAVE BEEN VERY WELL MADE AND I'M HAVING TO WEIGH THEM ALL, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. OKAY. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY APPOINT THE POLICE MONITOR AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION FAILS ON A VOTE OF THREE TO FOUR, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS AL VA REZ — ALVAREZ, GOODMAN AND GRIFFITH VOTING IN FAVOR. AND COUNCILMEMBERS GARCIA, WYNN, THOMAS AND SLUSHER VOTING AGAINST IT. THAT LEAVES THREE ITEMS THAT ARE STILL — WE'LL ALLOW A LITTLE TIME FOR PEOPLE TO DEPART. LET ME PULL UP ITEM NUMBER H, WHICH IS A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT THE CITY HALL — THE CITY HADN'T MAINTAIN A CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL FILE AND SEE IF THERE'S A MOTION ON THAT. THAT WILL DIE FOR LACK OF A MOTION. THEN WE HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND AGAIN, MR. STEINER, ON THIS ONE WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT?

WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, BUT THERE WAS NO DIRECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, I WAS ONE OF THE GUYS THAT DISCUSSED THIS, AND — AND I JUST LOST THE PAPER. BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD WAS THAT THAT SOMETIMES — AND THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN A LOT, BUT SOMETIMES COUNCILMEMBERS GET SUED INDIVIDUALLY IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS COUNCILMEMBERS. AND IN TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER AND TO — AND TO PEOPLE — I THINK I TALKED TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT WHAT I WANTED DONE CAN BE DONE BY ORDINANCE WHERE IF A CITY COUNCILMEMBER GETS SUED, THAT A BUDGET AMENDMENT COULD BE PLACED IN OUR BUDGET AND THAT MONEY CAN BE USED BY THE CITY MANAGER TO SELECT AN EARN ATTORNEY OF THEIR CHOICE.

WE COULD DRAFT SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR AN ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBERS CAN DO THAT. SO I THINK THAT THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED THAT WAY BECAUSE AT TIMES COUNCILMEMBERS FEEL THAT THEY NEED THAT KIND OF REPRESENTATION, AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH INDICATED THAT I HAD MADE THAT STATEMENT AND SHE WAS TOTALLY CORRECT, I HAD MADE THAT STATEMENT. AT ONE TIME I FELT THAT I HAD THAT ISSUE. SO LET ME SEE IF THERE'S A MOTION TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTLY APPOINT THE CITY ATTORNEY?

GOODMAN: MAYOR? THIS WAS ORIGINALLY MY PROPOSAL, AND IT NEVER SAID THE CITY ATTORNEY. I DON'T KNOW WHO DECIDED THAT AND STARTED WRITING IT, BUT IT WAS SIMPLY AN ATTORNEY. COUNCIL TO COUNCIL. AND THE ISSUES THAT COME UP ARE NOT NECESSARILY SOLELY WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER IS SUED, BUT WHEN SITUATIONS COME UP LIKE THE ONE WE'VE SPENT ALL THIS TIME ON TODAY. WHAT I NEEDED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE WHOLE MEET AND CONFER, TAKING THE ISSUES OF THE MONITOR TO THAT PROCESS, WAS I NEEDED SOMEBODY WHO WAS GOING TO ADVISE ME FROM THE ANGLE THAT I NEEDED ALSO TO KNOW ABOUT, NOT FROM CITY MANAGEMENT, BUT FROM A LABOR UNION SORT OF SIDE TO LAY OUT THE ISSUES FROM A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANGLE SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, EVENTS HAPPEN, ISSUES COME UP WHERE I THINK THAT A CORPORATE CITY POINT OF VIEW IS NOT NECESSARILY THE ONLY ONE WHO SHOULD BE INTRODUCED IN THE CONVERSATION WHEN A POLICY DECISION HAS TO BE MADE WITH MANY DIFFERENT POINTS OF CONTENTION INCLUDED IN DECIDING WHAT APPROACH, WHAT DIRECTION A COUNCIL POLICY SHOULD TAKE. AND THAT WAS THE SOLE INTEREST IN MENTIONING A CITY ATTORNEY, A CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY FOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED FROM A DIFFERENT KIND OF DIRECTION. AND SO FOR THE FUN OF IT, I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION.

GRIFFITH: AND I'LL SECOND IT. AND I'LL POINT OUT THAT POLICY MAKING AND ADMINISTRATION ARE NOT THE SAME THING. AND A POLICY MAKER NEEDS ADVICE FROM A PROFESSIONAL, A LAW PROFESSIONAL, THE SAME WAY THAT MANAGEMENT DOES, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME FOLKS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY, AND EACH NEEDS ADVICE FROM HIS OR HER RESPONSIBILITY PERSPECTIVE. AND I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM EXPLAINED IT VERY WELL. AND I'LL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. MR. STEINER, DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS TO BE WORDED?

Steiner: NO, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THIS IS — THIS SHOULD BE A CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY AT A TIME WHEN THEY — WHEN IN THEIR INFINITE WISDOM DECIDE THAT THEY NEED ONE TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, AN ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE. AND I'M SURE YOU CAN WORD IT MUCH BETTER THAN THAT. I DON'T WANT TO USE THE TERMS INFINITE WISDOM ANYWHERE. [ LAUGHTER ]

SLUSHER: I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT BEING IN THE CHARTER. [ LAUGHTER ].

MAYOR GARCIA: ANYWAY, DOES THAT GIVE YOU — DOES THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH DIRECTION TO BEGIN WRITING SHOULD WE GET FOUR VOTES ON THAT ONE?

Steiner: YES, SIR, I THINK.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF NOT, THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AS THE SECOND CAN PROBABLY WORK WITH YOU TOMORROW OR LATER ON TONIGHT TO PUT THE WORDS TO THAT PARTICULAR CHARTER AMENDMENT. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

I HESITATE TO TRY TO HEAR IT. I THINK THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT I SHOULD OUTLINE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AS YOU THINK —

MAYOR GARCIA: I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE YOU. I SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT.

I TRIED TO STAY OUT OF THIS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

GOODMAN: NOT TO OBVIOUS.

THE IDEA OF HAVING AN ATTORNEY THAT WOULD HAVE THE COUNCIL I GUESS ONLY CLIENT IS WHAT I'M HEARING, AND I WOULD JUST RAISE SOME ISSUES LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, WHO WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE ABILITY TO ADVISE COUNCIL IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? WOULD THE ONE PERSON BE KNOWLEDGEABLE IN ALL ISSUES TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE ALL THE ISSUES ABOUT ADVISING COUNCIL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IS THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ALL THE LAWYERS IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT REPRESENT THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. ONLY A LAWYER REPRESENTING THE COUNCIL CAN TAKE IT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT'S JUST ONE THING TO CONSIDER. SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IS WHO IS THE CLIENT? IS THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL THAT GIVE DIRECTION TO THIS ATTORNEY SOMETHING LESS THAN THE MAJORITY? SO WITHOUT — I JUST WANT TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES OUT THERE AND LET YOU THINK ABOUT IT. YOU CAN CALL ME, JOHN STEINER, REALLY ANYBODY, ANY LEGAL EXPERTS IF YOU'D LIKE.

GOODMAN: MAYOR.

SLUSHER: GO AHEAD, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: I WAS JUST GOING TO AT A SAEU A COUPLE OF THINGS. OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE TO BEAT THEM OUT NOW IF THERE IS A MAJORITY SO INCLINED. BUT IN FACT ANY — OF COURSE ANY POSITION THAT COMES UNDER COUNCIL JURISDICTION IS GOVERNED BY A MAJORITY, SAME AS CITY MANAGER AND ANYTHING ELSE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER THING YOU WOULD DO. AND AS FAR AS WHO DECIDES WHEN IT'S TIME FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, I GUESS IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER IN FACT A COUNCILMEMBER WAS BEING SUED INDIVIDUALLY OR COUNCIL WAS BEING SUED, AND THAT LAWYER WAS THEN NEEDING AN EXTRA EXTRA SESSION AS OPPOSED TO WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY NOW MAKES THE DECISION AND OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT THE CITY RETAIN FOR DIFFERENT LAWSUITS OR LEGAL REMEMBER REDUCE SALS ARE IN — PERUSALS. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM. I DON'T SEE SOME HORRIBLE LINE OVER WHICH WE COULD NEVER FIND OUR WAY BACK.

SLUSHER: I JUST WANTED TO SAY, MAYOR, I WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER THE — I THINK AS FAR AS DISCUSSION, WHETHER THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE UNDER THE COUNCIL OR THE MANAGER, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD — AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS ITEM DOES, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DISCUSS. I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD THE KIND OF THOROUGH AND I WOULD SAY NEED TO BE LENGTHY DISCUSSION TO PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT FOR THIS CHARTER ELECTION, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. BUT I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I JUST THINK IT ALSO HASN'T HAD THE KIND OF THOROUGH REVIEW THAT WE NEED BEFORE WE PUT SOMETHING IN THE CITY CHARTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO.

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION FAILS WITH A VOTE OF THREE TO THREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN OFF THE DIAS. ITEM NUMBER J I THINK WE VOTE ODD THAT ONE THREE-THREE ON THE CITY ATTORNEY. IF YOU CARE TO REGISTER YOUR VOTE YOU CAN. IF NOT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

SLUSHER: IT CAME BACK TOO QUICK. [ LAUGHTER ]

WYNN: I'LL VOTE NO. ELECTRIC WITH IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM J IS ONE THAT WE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT. AND WE PROBABLY CAN HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH JOHN STEVENS ABOUT THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK WE MAY HAVE NOT — I MAY HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD FULLY THE ISSUE AT THE TIME THAT WE HAD THE DISCUSSION, BUT AFTER I DISCUSSED IT WITH MR. STEVENS, I GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND I'LL RECOGNIZE NOW MR. JOHN STEVENS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I WILL TRY TO DO A BETTER JOB OF EXPLAINING THIS THAN I DID THAT NIGHT WHEN IT FIRST CAME UP. I WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS VERY BRIEFLY. THERE ARE BASICALLY — THERE ARE TWO ISSUES HERE THAT WE'RE ASKING COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. ONE IS TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE CHARTER AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. AND THE OTHER ONE IS TO RAISE THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASING AUTHORITY. AND THESE ITEMS ARE OBVIOUSLY RELATED. BUT JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, VERY BRIEFLY ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE HANDOUT THAT WE GAVE TO YOU, I WANT TO ESTABLISH THE REASON WHY WE NEED TO DO MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS IN THE CITY. THERE ARE SOME GOOD REASONS FOR DOING THAT. IT ASSURES US A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF MATERIALS OR SERVICESMENT, IT LOCKS IN A FIXED PRICE FOR US AND HELPS US SET OUR BUDGETS. IT HELPS TO GUARANTEE A CONSISTENT PRODUCT AND SERVICE QUALITY. FROM THE VENDORS' SIDE IT ASSISTS IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. IF A VENDOR — IF A SMALL VENDOR, FOR EXAMPLE, OR A VENDOR KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF A TWO OR THREE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH US, THEN THAT HELPS THEM FROM THEIR CASH FLOW PERSPECTIVE AND IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF BIDDING FOR ROUTINE ITEMS THAT WE GO OUT FOR. SOME OF THE EXAMPLES OF MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE ARE WHAT YOU SEE HERE, AND THEY'RE COMMODITIES THAT MAY ALSO BE SERVICES OR THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT WE TYPICALLY ENTER INTO A CONTRACT THAT MAY HAVE A SECOND YEAR OR A THIRD YEAR EXTENSION. AND AGAIN, FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, IT'S AN EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THAT. IF YOU TURN TO THE SECOND PAGE, AGAIN, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS CHANGE. THE FIRST THING, NUMBER ONE UP THERE AT THE TOP, IS TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURCHASING AUTHORITY APPLIES TO EACH YEAR OF A CONTRACT RATHER THAN TO THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. IF YOU LOOK UNDER THE LINE WHERE IT SAYS EACH YEAR AND THERE'S 43,000 DOLLARS CLOOS THE PAGE THERE, — ACROSS THE PAGE THERE, A FIRST YEAR, FIRST EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH WOULD BE A SECOND YEAR, AND A SECOND EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH COULD BE A THIRD YEAR, THIS IS THE WAY THAT, AGAIN, WE OPERATE IT THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE 1990S. THIS LAST DECADE WE BASICALLY OPERATED THAT WAY. THE LIMIT WAS NOT 43,000. AS YOU KNOW, IT STARTED OFF AT 25 AND THROUGH INCREASES IN THE CPI HAS RISEN TO 43. BUT THIS IS THE WAY THAT WE OPERATE IT. THERE HAS BEEN A RECENT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE CHARTER IS NOT CLEAR AND SO THE INTERPRETATION CURRENTLY THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER IS THAT THE 43,000-DOLLAR LIMIT APPLIES TO THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN EACH YEAR. ANDYOU CAN SEE, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IT IF WE ENTERED INTO A MULTI-YEAR SUPPLY AGREEMENT TO BUY FLASH FLOOD WATCH LIGHTS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SPEND MORE MONEY EACH YEAR OF THAT CONTRACT WITHOUT BRINGING THAT CONTRACT TO COUNCIL FIRST. THE MANAGER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. SO THE FIRST THING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, AND REALLY I THINK FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, FROM THE CORPORATION'S PERSPECTIVE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR US IS THAT THIS CHARTER LANGUAGE BE CLARIFIED. AND ON THE THIRD PAGE I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT TO YOU, BUT ON THE THIRD PAGE MR. STEINER AND I HAVE WORKED TOGETHER ON LANGUAGE THAT STIPULATES — THAT SHOWS THE CHANGES THAT WOULD BE MADE. THE SECOND ITEM THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR — IT'S ACTUALLY AN ITEM THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER COMMITTEE, AND THAT IS TO CHANGE THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FROM 43,000 TO 100,000. COUNCIL, WE'RE CLEARLY NOT LOCKED INTO ONE OR THE OTHER. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 43 OR 100. IT COULD BE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN WHATEVER COUNCIL FEELS COMFORTABLE AT. BUT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHARTER COMMITTEE WAS THAT WE RAISE IT TO 100,000. AND UNDER THAT SCENARIO, AGAIN, IF THE FIRST ITEM UP THERE CLARIFYING THE CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY WERE PASSED AND WERE PUT ON THE BALLOT AND PASSED, THEN THAT MEANS THAT THE MANAGER COULD CONTRACT UNDER A SUPPLY AGREEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, AND SPEND 100,000 A YEAR FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF 300,000, BUT OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD. BARRING THAT CHANGE, IF IN FACT NUMBER ONE WERE INSTITUTED AGAIN, IT WOULD REMAIN AT 43,333 LIKE IT IS UP AT THE TOP. SO THE OTHER — THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT MAYOR GARCIA BRAIT UP AN EXAMPLE OF A PROBLEM THAT HAD EXISTED IN THE PAST WHERE STAFF ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT AND THEN BRINGS BACK AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CONTRACT LATER THAT IS A MUCH — FOR A MUCH LARGER AMOUNT THAN THE INITIAL CONTRACT WAS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY INITIALLY AND THEN WHEN IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTRACT AND IT MAY BE FOR VERY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE LAST PAGE AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING, THE PART THAT'S IN BLUE, UNDERLINED IN BLUE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT — OF THAT PARAGRAPH THERE IS THE LANGUAGE, MAYOR, THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING TO DEAL WITH THAT INSTANCE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. UNLESS COUNCIL SPECIFIES INITIALLY APPROVAL THAT A CONTRACT CAN BE AMENDED THAT WAY, THEN NO CONTRACT CAN BE AMENDED FOR MORE THAN 25% OF ITS ORIGINAL AMOUNT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU'RE APPROACHING IT. DOES THAT ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHERE THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THAT WHEN THEY GO IN, — BECAUSE WHEN WE GO IN, IF THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE A LARGE ONE, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS WE SHOULD NOT START IT WITH A 30,000-DOLLAR CONTRACT THAT THE CITY MANAGER APPROVES AND THEN WE GET THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR A MUCH LARGER AMOUNT. UNDER THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE HERE, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL'S INITIAL APPROVAL, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE CITY MANAGER WILL HAVE TO EVALUATE THE CONTRACT, AND IF THE INCREASE IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN 25%, THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS, THE R.F.P. AND EAT VALUATION BY STAFF AND BRING THEM TO COUNCIL THE ITEM SO THAT WE APPROVE IT EVEN IF IT'S FOR LESS THAN $ 43,000? Q. MAYOR, THE INTENT WAS TO SAY THAT STAFF — IF THE MANAGER ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, THAT CONTRACT. CANNOT BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN 25%.

MAYOR GARCIA: UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE COUNCIL'S INITIAL APPROVAL.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING. THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, THE — IT APPLIES ONLY TO CONTRACTS THAT ARE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO CONTRACTS THAT ARE ENTERED INTO BY THE MANAGER UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. SO THE 25% PROVISION APPLIES TO CONTRACTS OTHER THAN PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS THAT ARE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY'RE OVER THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT THAT REQUIRES — OVER THE ANNUAL THRESHOLD AMOUNT THAT REQUIRES COUNCIL APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS MY CONCERN. IT THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS, THEN IT DOESN'T ADDRESS MY CONCERN BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS LET'S SAY WE HIRE AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO DO WORK ON A WATER ANDR TREATMENT PLANT AND WE HIRE THEM FOR 30,000 TO DO SCOPING. AND THEN WE BRING IN PHASE 2 FOR THEM TO DO A LOT OF DESIGN WORK, WHICH IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE SCOPING CONTRACT. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. IF AT THE TIME THAT WE RETAIN ONE OF THOSE FIRMS, WE KNOW THAT THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE MUCH LARGER, WE DON'T WANT A FOOT IN THE DOOR FROM THAT — FROM THE INITIAL FIRM TO GET IN THE WAY OF US CONSIDERING OTHER FIRMS THAT MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS CONTRACT.

WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY, MAYOR, IS THAT WITHJUST WANT THIS TO APPLY TO PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS?

THAT'S CORRECT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED A BUNCH OF FANCY FOOTWORK. I THINK WE CAN FLAT OUT SAY THAT.

YES. AND MAY I SUGGEST THE CHANGE THAT WOULD DO THAT. WE WOULD DELETE THE ITEM THAT SAYS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL UNDER THIS SECTION AND WE WOULD DELETE — WE WOULD ACTUALLY DELETE ALL OF THAT UP TO MAY NOT BE AMENDED FOR MORE THAN 25%. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WAY IT WOULD READ IS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE COUNCIL'S INITIAL APPROVAL, A CONTRACT MAY NOT BE AMENDED FOR MORE THAN 25% OF THE ORIGINAL ANNUAL CONTRACT PRICE WITH THAT COUNCIL.

LET ME TRY BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE STILL MISSING IT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTS THAT DIDN'T HAVE AN UNUSUAL COUNCIL APPROVAL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTS THAT WERE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY. SO WHAT IS THE PROVISION THAT PREVENTS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY CONTRACTS FROM COMING BACK WITH LARGE AMENDMENTS THAT REQUIRE COUNCIL AUTHORITY, BUT AT THAT POINT YOU'RE LOCKED IN FOR A SHREK. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.

I BELIEVE THIS LANGUAGE DOES IT. JOHN, YOU HELP ME IF — HELP ME IF I'M ERRING. BUT IT SAYS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE COUNCIL'S INITIAL APPROVAL, A CONTRACT, THAT IS, ANY CONTRACT, MAY NOT BE AMENDED FOR MORE THAN 25% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE.

THE ONLY DIFFICULTY WITH THAT IS THAT THE ONLY CONTRACTS THAT GET INITIAL APPROVAL ARE CONTRACTS THAT AREN'T WITHIN THE MANAGER'S THRESHOLD AMOUNT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SPECIFICALLY THAT'S THE ISSUE.

SO LET ME SEE —

ISN'T THAT WHERE WE WANT TO BE? IN OTHER WORDS, WE WANT ALL SUCH CONTRACTS THAT COULD HAVE STARTED OUT UNDER THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY —

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T THINK THE LANGUAGE IS PRECISE, JOHN. THAT'S WHAT —

GENERALLY A GOOD WAY TO START IS NOT WITH THE LANGUAGE. GENERALLY A GOOD WAY TO START IS TO START WITH THE IDEA. SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN UNDERSTAND THE IDEA AND THEN WE CAN WORK BACK WARD TO GET LANGUAGE. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING YOU. I THINK MAYBE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT WHEN THE MANAGER IS WITHIN HIS OR HER THRESHOLD AMOUNT, YOU — HOW ABOUT THIS? SEE IF THIS GETS YOU WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. IF THE MANAGER ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT WITHIN THE MANAGER'S THRESHOLD AMOUNT, THE MANAGER CANNOT AMEND THAT CONTRACT FOR MORE THAN 25% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE WITHOUT COMING TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THAT AMENDMENT.

SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS — LET ME COME AT IT FROM ANOTHER ANGLE. WHEN THE CITY MANAGER GOES TO HIRE AN ENGINEERING FIRM OR AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM OR WHATEVER AND HE SAYS I WANT TO SCOPE OUT THIS PROJECT, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS FIRM A CONTRACT FOR $30,000 TO DO SCOPING. WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS THE NEXT TIME THAT THERE'S ANY ACTION, IT HAS TO COME TO COUNCIL BECAUSE IT GOES BEYOND THE THRESHOLD. AND USUALLY IT'S MUCH LORJ R. LARGERUT IT COMES IN AS AN AMENDMENT. WE'RE AMENDING A CONTRACT THAT WAS DONE BY THE CITY MANAGER UNDER HIS OR HER AUTHORITY.

LET ME TRY THIS BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE OUR QUORUM HERE. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY CANNOT BE AMENDED. TRY SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON FOR SIZE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE — IF WE HAVE TO GO ABOVE WHAT'S IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, THE SELECTION PROCESS HAS TO START AGAIN AND GO TO COUNCIL.

AND LET ME SAY THIS, JOHN. I THINK THAT TO DO THIS I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE THAN FOUR PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL VOTING FOR IT, SO I'M NOT — I WANT TO LET THIS GO UNTIL TOMORROW SO YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON THE LANGUAGE AND WE WILL BRING THIS BACK TOMORROW.

MAYOR GARCIA: SINCE I'M LOSING QUORUM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOTION AND A SECOND. WE'RE ADJOURNED.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log