* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [ CITY OF BAYTOWN NOTICE OF MEETING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2021 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL 2401 MARKET STREET, BAYTOWN, TEXAS 77520 Due to the COVID 19 Disaster and the CDC's recommendation regarding social distancing measures, the public may not be allowed to be physically present at this meeting, as there is a limited amount of space when maintaining the required 6-feet separation from others. For those members of the public that cannot or do not wish to be physically present at the meeting, they will be able to participate through two-way communications. For video conferencing, use the following website www.zoom.com, click on "join a meeting" on the top right-hand corner, and input the following Meeting ID: 895 2499 0119 . For telephone conferencing please use the following toll-free number: 1-888-788-0099, Meeting ID: 895 2499 0119. The agenda packet is accessible to the public at the following link: https://www.baytown.org/city-hall/city-clerk/agendas-minutes. After the meeting, a recording of this meeting will be made available to the public at https://www.baytown.org/city-hall/city-clerk/agendas-minutes. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF QUORUM ] [00:00:21] SO I NOW CALL THIS, UH, WORK SESSION WITH BAYTOWN CITY COUNCIL. ORDERED IS THURSDAY, JUNE 10TH, 2021. IT IS FIVE 40. AND WE, UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. UH, WE HAVE ITEM ONE [a. Receive training and discuss the Ethics Ordinance and the composition of the Ethics Commission. ] A, RECEIVE TRAINING, DISCUSS THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AND THE COM, UH, THE COM, UH, I GUESS THE COMPOSITION OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. HELLO, THIS IS, UH, Y'ALL'S BIANNUAL EVERY OTHER YEAR TRAINING THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GET IN ETHICS, AND I WILL TRY TO GET THROUGH IT AS FAST. I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS TO GET TO. OKAY. HEY, I'M TREVOR FANNING. I'M THE, UH, FIRST ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HERE, AND THE, UH, ETHICS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN 2009, AND IT APPLIES TO CITY OFFICIALS, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WONDER WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY'RE DEFINED BY THE ORDINANCE. THEY INCLUDE THE MAYOR, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE, UM, MEMBERS OF ANY CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION THAT HAS DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY THAT SERVE IN MORE THAN JUST AN ADVISORY CAPACITY. AND CERTAIN OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE THE CITY MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, THE CITY ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS, UM, ANY DEPARTMENT HEADS, IT EXCLUDES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THEY'RE COVERED BY CIVIL SERVICE CAN BREAK THE STANDARDS DOWN INTO TWO BROAD CATEGORIES, ONE BEING STATUTORY STANDARDS OR THOSE FOUND IN OTHER TEXAS LAWS AND LOCAL STANDARDS. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT APPLY JUST IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. THE STATUTORY STANDARDS ARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND THEN THE ACCEPTANCE OF HONORARIUMS AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS. THOSE ARE FOUND IN THE PENAL CODE. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE HIGHER CRIMES LIKE BRIBERY OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE FELONIES BECAUSE FELONIES DISQUALIFY YOU ANYWAY. THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST INCLUDE, UH, THE, THE INITIAL PROHIBITION, UM, THAT YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE OR VOTE IN ANY MATTER IN WHICH YOU HAVE A SPECIAL INTEREST. AND THAT SPECIAL INTEREST WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ACTION IN A WAY THAT IS DIFFERENT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE WAY IT WOULD AFFECT ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT ANYONE WITH A CONFLICT FILE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THEY HAVE A CONFLICT, AND THERE'S AN EXCEPTION THAT IF THE MAJORITY OF THE BODY, UH, THAT IS MAKING THE DECISION ALL HAVE CONFLICTS AND THEY ALL FILE AFFIDAVITS, THEN YOU CAN PARTICIPATE. SO YOU CAN HAVE A CONFLICT AS LONG AS EVERYONE'S DOING IT. WHAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A BUSINESS ENTITY? IT'S ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS. IF YOU HAVE 10% OR MORE OF THE VOTING STOCK, 10% OR MORE OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, IF YOU OWN 15,000 OR MORE OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A BUSINESS ENTITY, OR IF YOU RECEIVE FUNDS FROM THAT ENTITY, THAT AMOUNT TO AT LEAST 10% OR MORE OF YOUR GROSS INCOME, WHAT IS A BUSINESS ENTITY? THEY COVER ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD ASSUME. UH, IT ALSO COVERS A RECEIVERSHIP OR A TRUST. THINGS THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ARE A STATE UNIVERSITY, A CITY AND A SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO IF YOU OR A SPOUSE ARE, UM, A MEMBER OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT, THEN, THEN THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED A BUSINESS ENTITY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT ON SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY. THAT'S JUST A ONE, ONE SHOT TEST. IF YOU OWN AN INTEREST THAT'S WORTH 2,500 OR MORE, THEN YOU HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY. IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT, IF ONE OF YOUR RELATIVES HAVE A CONFLICT, UH, IT'S THE SAME AS YOU, AND THAT'S ONE DEGREE OF CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY, WHICH IS BLOOD OR MARRIAGE, UH, THEN IT'S THE SAME AS YOU. THAT WOULD INCLUDE YOUR SPOUSE, PARENT, CHILD, PARENT IN-LAW, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, AND SON-IN-LAW. THE SECOND PROHIBITION IS THAT YOU'LL, YOU WON'T KNOWINGLY ACT AS A SURETY FOR A BUSINESS IF THAT BUSINESS HAS BUSINESS WITH THE CITY. YOU WON'T ACT AS THE SURETY ON A BOND IF THAT'S A BOND THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CITY. AND WHO DETERMINES IF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL HAS, UM, A CONFLICT, THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL DOES. IT'S UP TO THEM. AND IF THEY DON'T, THE COMMISSION WILL DECIDE, OR THE POLICE. AND IF THE POLICE DECIDE IT COULD BE UP TO A YEAR IN THE COUNTY JAIL AND OR A $4,000 FINE. IT'S CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN HONORARIUM, HONORARIUM IS SOMETHING OF VALUE THAT YOU RECEIVE FOR [00:05:01] SERVICES PROVIDED. AND IF, IF YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES, SERVICES, BUT FOR YOUR OFFICIAL POSITION, THEN IT'S ILLEGAL TO RECEIVE THAT HONORARIUM. THERE'S AN EXCEPTION THAT'S FOR, YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS THE SEMINAR EXCEPTION. IF YOU GO TO, TO GIVE A SPEECH TO AN ORGANIZATION BECAUSE YOU ARE A CERTAIN CITY OFFICIAL, YOU CAN RECEIVE YOUR TRAVEL EXPENSES, LODGING, AND ANY MEALS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE VENUE, THE ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS. THESE ARE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IN WHICH A PUBLIC OFFICIAL HAS SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY AND ANYONE WHO'S SUBJECT TO THAT AUTHORITY, YOU CAN'T RECEIVE A GIFT FROM THAT PERSON. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A QUID PRO QUO. IF THERE'S A QUID PRO QUO, THAT WOULD BE BRIBERY, THAT WOULD BE A FELONY HERE. JUST RECEIVING A GIFT AT ALL FROM SOMEONE THAT YOU HAVE AUTHORITY OVER WOULD MAKE YOU GUILTY OF ONE OF THESE MISDEMEANOR CRIMES. THE FIRST ONE IS A CITY OFFICIAL THAT HAS A REGULATORY OR INSPECTION FUNCTION LIKE ANY OF YOUR INSPECTORS. UM, IF THEY RECEIVE A GIFT FROM ANYONE THAT THEY HAVE THAT REGULATORY FUNCTION OVER, IT'S A VIOLATION. A CITY OFFICIAL THAT, UH, HAS CUSTODY OF PRISONERS. THERE'S A PROVISION THAT THEY CAN'T RECEIVE ANY GIFTS FROM THE PRISONERS, BUT AGAIN, THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THE POLICE. SO ANY CITY OFFICIAL WHO HAS TAKEN A PRISONER AND IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER, THEY HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS. , PRETTY SURE PROHIBITION THREE A CITY OFFICIAL. UM, YES, I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE HAVE PLANS THIS WEEKEND CALL LEGAL DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. UH, THE CITY, ANY CITY OFFICIAL THAT, UM, IS CARRYING ON, UH, LITIGATION, CAN'T ACCEPT A GIFT FROM ANY PARTY TO THAT LITIGATION OR FORESEEABLE PARTY TO THAT LITIGATION. A CITY OFFICIAL WHO EXERCISED DISCRETION IN CONTRACTS CAN'T RECEIVE SOMEONE WHO'S A PARTY TO A CONTRACT OR A FORESEEABLE INTERESTED PARTY WHO COULD BECOME PARTY TO A CONTRACT. A CITY OFFICIAL WHO HAS JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY CAN'T RECEIVE A GIFT FROM ANYONE UNDER THAT AUTHORITY, OR AS A HEARING EXAMINER CAN'T RECEIVE THAT GIFT. THERE IS AN EXCEPTION AS A PUBLIC SERVANT. IF YOU'RE GIVEN AN UNSOLICITED GIFT, YOU CAN GIVE IT TO A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE IT, OR YOU COULD DONATE IT TO A CHARITY. THE ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS, THESE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT'S NOT A VIOLATION, A FEE PRESCRIBED BY LAW, A GIFT OR OTHER BENEFIT, UH, BECAUSE OF KINSHIP, A REAL GIFT BECAUSE OF SOMEONE WHO'S A FRIEND OF YOURS OR THAT YOU HAD A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH, OR A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OFFICIAL STATUS. AND THERE'S CERTAIN LAWS THAT REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE GIFTS TO, TO FILE A, UM, A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT ABOUT IT. AND THERE ARE CASES WHERE IT'S, IT'S NOT REIMBURSABLE AND IT'S THERE TO COVER EXPENSES AND THOSE, IT'S OKAY. A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION IS NOT A GIFT. ANYTHING OF VALUE THAT'S LESS THAN $50, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT CASH OR A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, THEN THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED A GIFT. AND AN ITEM USED BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT'S REGULARLY GIVEN BY THAT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR USE THE LOCAL STANDARDS, THESE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT ARE JUST FOUND IN THE ORDINANCE. THESE ARE NOT CRIMES TO HAVE VIOLATED. UM, UH, BASICALLY IT AMOUNTS TO DOING ANYTHING FOR ANYONE THAT YOU WOULD NOT NORMALLY DO IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TREATING SOMEONE DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU WOULD TREAT SOMEBODY ELSE. THERE'S THE GENERAL PRACTICE, AND IF YOU GO OUTSIDE OF IT TO HELP SOMEONE, AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE LIKE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT. IF SOMEONE COMES AND ASKS FOR COPIES OF INFORMATION AND, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN OTHERWISE HAVE, AND YOU MAKE THEM A BUNCH OF COPIES AND GIVE THEM TO 'EM, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD DO FOR EVERYONE. YOU WOULD DIRECT THEM TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION AREA TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS SO THAT WE HAVE A RECORD OF IT. AND SO THAT LEGAL LOOKS AT IT AND KNOWS THAT IT APPLIES. UH, THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR ANYTHING LIKE A VARIANCE. IF THERE'S A EXCEPTION PRESCRIBED IN LAW, THAT'S NOT TREATING THEM DIFFERENTLY. THAT'S AN AN EXCEPTION THAT'S IN THE LAW. A CITY OFFICIAL WON'T REPRESENT ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. BEFORE A BOARD, THAT'S ANY BOARD THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO, OR YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL THEIR BUDGET, YOU CAN GO REPRESENT YOURSELF, BUT YOU CAN'T GO REPRESENT SOMEONE ELSE. UM, YOU CAN'T DISCLOSE INFORMATION THAT'S CONFIDENTIAL. YOU CAN'T USE YOUR POSITION TO GET A RELATIVE HIRED FOR THE CITY. AND THAT'S, AGAIN, THAT [00:10:01] ONE DEGREE OF AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY. YOU CAN'T RECEIVE A PECUNIARY GAIN FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY IF YOUR INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY WAS OBTAINED AT A TIME THAT IT WAS FORESEEABLE, THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN BUYING OR RENTING OR DOING SOMETHING WITH THAT PROPERTY. SO IF YOU KNOW THE CITY'S ABOUT TO REALLY NEED SOME PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T GO OUT AND BUY IT REAL QUICK SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE SOME MONEY. YOU CAN'T MISREPRESENT FACTS IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY. SO NO LYING BEFORE ANY BOARD OR IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AT ALL. YOU CAN'T REMAIN IN OFFICE CONTRARY TO THE CHARTER, YOU CAN'T MISUSE STAFF OR EQUIPMENT OR VEHICLES CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE APPOINTMENT OR VOTE FOR ANYBODY WHO IS IN YOUR FAMILY TO A BOARD. THIS IS HOW THE COMPLAINTS WORK. ANYONE CAN FILE THEM. THEY HAVE TO BE IN WRITING FILED WITH THE COMMISSION. IT'S NOT THE ONLY REMEDY. SO JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE'S FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION BECAUSE OF CONDUCT, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT CONDUCT CAN'T BE INVESTIGATED BY SOME GOVERNMENT AGENCY IF IT'S A CRIME, OR THAT IF IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE CITY POLICY, THERE CAN'T BE AN EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATION. THOSE THINGS CAN ALL HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME. THERE'S ONE LIMITATION THAT IT CAN'T BE OLDER. THE CONDUCT THAT'S BEING COMPLAINED OF CAN'T BE OLDER THAN FOUR YEARS, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE, ON THOSE MISDEMEANORS, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TWO YEARS. SO MAYBE YOU COULDN'T BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME, BUT YOU COULD STILL GET A COMPLAINT WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION. THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAS THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO, TO INVESTIGATE THOSE COMPLAINTS AND THEN TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEY CAN ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT IT, OR THEY CAN COME BEFORE THIS COUNSEL AND GET WRITTEN PERMISSION TO USE AN INVESTIGATIVE ATTORNEY WHO WILL LOOK INTO IT, DETERMINE IF THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE, AND THEN BRING THAT TO THE COMMISSION. AND THE COMMISSION CAN THEN SET A HEARING, UM, TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF RECOMMENDATION THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO ALL ALONG THE PROCESS, SOMEONE WHO IS ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION AT THE FINDING THAT IT'S UP TO THE COUNSEL TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE AND SCHEDULE A HEARING TO CONSIDER IT FURTHER AT THAT HEARING, THERE'LL BE DUE PROCESS. SO THE ACCUSED HAS THE RIGHT TO VIEW ANY INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE HEARING. THEY CAN BRING A WITNESS. THEY OF COURSE CAN HAVE THEIR ATTORNEY, THEY CAN CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES, THEY CAN BRING EVIDENCE. THEN THE ETHICS COMMISSION MAKES THEIR FINDING, AND THEN THEY HAVE FIVE DAYS TO REPORT THAT TO THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY. AND WHO THEY REPORTED TO DEPENDS ON WHO THE ACCUSED IS. IF THE ACCUSED IS THE CITY MANAGER OR THE JUDGE OR THE, UH, ANY OF THE NON-CITY EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN THOSE PEOPLE, THEN THEY COME TO Y'ALL, THE COUNCIL. AND THE COUNCIL TAKES THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND TAKES APPROPRIATE ACTION. IF IT'S A OTHERWISE A DIFFERENT KIND OF CITY EMPLOYEE, THEN IT GOES TO THE CITY MANAGER. IT HAS TO BE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY EVERYONE AFTER RECEIVING THE REPORT, THEY, THE MANAGER OR THIS BODY WOULD TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PURSUANT TO THE ORDINANCE AND OTHER RULES. THE PENALTIES ARE CIVIL IN NATURE COMING FROM THE COMMISSION, THEY AMOUNT TO EITHER A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, WHICH IS IF IT'S MINOR AND UNINTENTIONAL, A LETTER OF ADMONITION, IF IT'S, IF IT'S MORE SERIOUS, BUT STILL UNINTENTIONAL, A RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION IF IT'S SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATION, THAT SHOWS A, A WILLFUL DISREGARD AND A LETTER OF CENSURE OR A RECOMMENDATION TO RECALL IF IT'S AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. THERE'S ALSO A, A PROVISION IN THERE THAT IF THE, THE CONDUCT INVOLVED A CONTRACT THAT THIS BODY HAS THE ABILITY TO VOID THAT CONTRACT. IF IT'S NOT OTHERWISE VOIDED BY LAW, BUT IT'S UP TO Y'ALL, YOU COULD VOID IT OR NOT VOID IT. AND LASTLY, IT REQUIRES EDUCATION. IT REQUIRES THAT ANY NEW CITY OFFICIAL RECEIVE A COPY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF, OF ASSUMING THEIR POSITION. UM, BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT NOT RECEIVING YOUR COPY IN 30 DAYS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE, TO THE RULES ANYWAY. AND IT'S, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL PROVIDE EDUCATION, AND THAT HAPPENS EVERY OTHER YEAR, WHICH IS WHY I'M DOING THIS RIGHT NOW. AND IT ALSO PROVIDES, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL, UH, NOTIFY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS IF THERE'S BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO IT. LASTLY, POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS. UH, I KNOW THAT THIS BODY HAS INDICATED THAT, UH, THEY WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE [00:15:01] THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO SERVE. AND THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE. IT IT PROVIDES THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BE MADE UP OF FIVE PEOPLE APPOINTED FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BAY AREA MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF THIS BODY CHOSE, IT COULD AMEND TO LIKE OTHER COMMISSIONS, BE OPEN TO MORE PEOPLE. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? ALMOST PRESENTED? ONE COMMENT. YES, SIR. SO I WOULD JUST BE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE AS THE MEMBERS. I ACTUALLY, UH, REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS DISCUSSED LONG AGO, EVEN BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL, AND AS A WAY TO, TO KEEP THINGS APOLITICAL AND TO HAVE A, A VERY HIGH STANDARD OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE. I, I JUST FEEL PERSONALLY THAT IT WAS, IT WAS PUT IN, PUT TOGETHER CORRECTLY, AND THAT, THAT THE MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE IS WORTHY OF, OF KEEPING INTACT. AND THAT BEING ONE REQUIREMENT, SIR? YES. YES, SIR. EXCUSE ME. IF WE'RE GONNA DO, IF WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE, I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD OPEN IT UP TO OTHER CLERGY. UM, MAYBE A RABBI. UM, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT FROM OTHER RELIGIONS, JUST TO SAY THAT WE ARE DIVERSIFYING THE COMMITTEE ALSO. AND IF WE'RE GONNA DO THAT, AND WE ALREADY HAVE FIVE THAT ARE ON HERE, WE PROBABLY NEED TO ASK THEM IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE SINCE NOTHING EVER COMES UP FOR THEM TO, TO, UM, FOCUS ON. AND IF NOT, IF POSITIONS OPEN UP, ALLOW THEM TO ALLOW THESE OTHERS TO FILL IN THOSE POSITIONS. IF THEY CONTINUE TO WANT TO SERVE, I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK TO EXPAND IT, MAYBE TWO OR THREE. AND, UM, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD DIVERSIFY TO INCLUDE OTHER FORMS OF RELIGIONS, UH, BASED OFF OF WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN THE CITY. YEAH, AND, AND I AGREE, COUNCILMAN AND MY COMMENT CERTAINLY DIDN'T MEAN WE SHOULD NOT MM-HMM . I, I AGREE WITH THAT A HUNDRED PERCENT. LET, LET ME, IF I CAN MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT WAS SAID, IF, IF COUNCIL WOULD INDULGE, INDULGE ME A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. SO WHEN IT WAS CREATED, THERE WAS LIKE 30 MEMBERS AND, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGE. THERE'S LIKE, THERE, THERE WAS 30 MEMBERS OF THE ALLIANCE ITSELF MM-HMM . AND SO, UM, THERE'S BEEN NEW CHURCHES, THERE'S BEEN NEW PASTORS. THIS, THIS WAS WHAT, I DON'T KNOW, CHRIS, 10 PLUS YEARS AGO, RIGHT? OH YEAH. SO MORE THAN 10. YEAH. ANYWAY, SO THE POINT BEING IS IF COUNCIL INDULGE ME, I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH, I'VE BEEN TALKING TO SOME OF THE PASTORS, AND IT IS A MIX. IT COULD BE THE LOCAL SYNAGOGUE, IT COULD BE, UM, IT, IT IS A MIX. AND SO IF Y'ALL WOULD INDULGE ME, LET ME CONTACT THEM. THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH SOME REORGANIZATION THEMSELF FROM WHAT, WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD. LET ME COME BACK AND WE'LL COME BACK WITH SOME, SOME NAMES. THEY MAY BE SOME THAT EXIST. STILL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGE. SO WHATEVER THE FIVE ARE, WE WILL, WE CAN RECONSIDER THAT AT, AT A, AT A FUTURE MEETING. OKAY. BUT IT, I DO AGREE WITH A MIX OF OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT FAITHS. YES, MA'AM. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO THERE'S NO TERM LIMITS ON THIS PARTICULAR COMMISSION? THERE ARE, I BELIEVE THEY'RE THREE YEAR TERM LIMITS. THREE YEAR TERMS. OKAY. INITIALLY IT WAS STAGGERED, BUT AFTER THAT THREE YEAR, YEAH. SO, OKAY. I THINK I AGREE. WE GO BACK AND REVISIT. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM OR UNLESS THERE'S ANY, THAT'S IT. OKAY. SO ITEM ONE B, DISCUSSED [b. Discuss and consider possible amendments to the City Charter of the City of Baytown.] AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF BAY TOWN. SO MS. WARNER, SO WE'RE AFTERNOON MAYOR COUNCIL. SO WE'RE GETTING READY TO, UM, CALL ELECTION THE FIRST MEETING OF JU JULY. SO WE WANNA JUST KIND OF TOUCH BASE WITH YOU AGAIN ON POSSIBLE CHARTER ELECTION, UM, PROPOSITIONS THAT YOU MIGHT WANNA CONSIDER. YOU HAD A MEETING AND RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE CHARTER COMMITTEE, AND THEY HAD SEVERAL, SEVERAL, UH, SUGGESTIONS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST TWO THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY ISSUES WITH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. THE FIRST ONE WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS. WE WERE JUST GOING TO, UM, MAKE THE CHANGES NOTED IN THIS SLIDE JUST TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO CONSOLIDATE OR CHANGE, UM, OFFICES OF DEPARTMENTS BY ORDINANCE. THE SECOND ONE WAS THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE. THIS IS JUST REALLY A, A TYPO CLARIFICATION. WE DO REQUIRE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ANNEXATION ORDINANCES. UM, THIS ONLY SAID THAT WE HAD TO HAVE MULTIPLE READINGS OF A, UM, FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. SO THIS JUST KIND OF, UH, TIDIES UP THAT [00:20:01] ACT THAT THAT ONE ISSUE. AND THEN THE LAST ONE WAS TERM LIMITS, AND WE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT QUITE A BIT AND JUST WANTED TO SEE HOW WE WANTED TO GO FORWARD ON THAT. UH, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THEY SERVE, UM, THREE CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS AND WANTED TO, TO CONSIDER YOU ALL TO CONSIDER TERM LIMITS. SO WE TALKED ABOUT TERM LIMITS, WE TALKED ABOUT LENGTH OF TERMS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ALL SORTS OF THINGS. SO WE WANTED JUST TO KIND OF OPEN THIS UP AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE TO WHAT OTHER CITIES DO. WE'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH ON THAT JUST IN NEARBY CITIES. UM, 44% DON'T HAVE TERM LIMITS. 56 DO, UM, OF THOSE THAT HAVE TERM LIMITS, OH, AND THIS ONE, THERE WAS A 2012, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTUALLY DID A, A, UH, A SURVEY AND THE SURVEYMONKEY CAME BACK. AND THESE WERE THE RESULTS THAT, THAT A LOT OF THEM DID WANT TERM LIMITS. 80% WANTED TERM LIMITS IN 17, ALMOST 18% DIDN'T, AND THEN THERE WERE SOME THAT JUST HAD NO OPINION. UH, WE TALKED ABOUT CONSECUTIVE TERMS. AND SO HOW MANY CONSECUTIVE TERMS CAN YOU SERVE? AND HERE WE HAVE MOSTLY THREE. UM, SOME GO UP TO FOUR. THERE'S SOME THAT HAVE FIVE. AND THEN IN 2012, AGAIN, THE SURVEY RESULTS SHOWED THE, UM, CONSECUTIVE TERMS. REALLY IT WAS SOME HAD TWO YEAR TERM, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, AND FOUR YEARS. AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS TIME WE DO PARTIAL TERMS COUNT. AND SO THE CHARTER REVIEW, UH, COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT PARTIAL TERMS DON'T COUNT, THAT WE WOULD JUST LOOK AT ACTUAL FULL TERMS THAT WERE, WERE COMPLETED. UM, AGAIN, THIS WASN'T DISCUSSED BY, UH, PAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEES, BUT THEY ALSO LOOKED AT WHETHER YOU CAN SERVE AS COUNCIL AND THEN A COUNCIL MEMBER, THEN AS A MAYOR OR MAYOR, THEN BACK TO A COUNCIL MEMBER. AND SO, UM, THIS WAS KIND OF THE RESULTS THAT MOST DID ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A CONSECUTIVE TERM SO LONG IT WAS A DIFFERENT OFFICE FOR MAYOR TO COUNCIL OR COUNCIL TO MAYOR, AND THAT WAS IT. SO WE JUST WANTED TO, AGAIN, OPEN THIS UP SO WE CAN BETTER PREPARED TO PROVIDE YOU SOME BALLOT LANGUAGE ON THE EIGHTH, UM, TO KINDA GET YOUR IDEAS OF HOW YOU WANTED US TO PROCEED. OKAY. I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST PREFACE A LITTLE BIT WITH, WITH, I THINK WHAT I REMEMBER FROM THE DISCUSSION, UM, IT SEEMED LIKE, AT LEAST AS FAR AS TERMS ITSELF, AS FAR AS LENGTH OF TERMS, IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS MORE OF THE THREE YEAR IS WHAT I KIND OF GATHERED FROM A CONSENSUS. SO THERE'S THREE YEAR, I KNOW THROUGHOUT THE FOUR YEAR, UH, MAYBE IN, LIKE, I EXPRESSED IT IN MY MIND, 12 YEARS AS A TRUE LIMIT WAS MY PREFERENCE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE THREE, FOUR YEAR TERMS. UM, BUT, UH, IT COULD BE I GUESS FOUR, THREE YEAR TERMS. I, HOWEVER YOU WANNA DO IT. UM, BUT I'M GOOD EITHER WAY. I, I, I WILL SAY I AM IN FAVOR OF, OF SOME TYPE OF TERM LIMIT. SO I, AT THIS POINT, I, I'M, I WANT TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL AS, AS FAR AS WHAT DO WE WANNA DO WITH THIS, WE NEED TO DECIDE ON LENGTH AND NEED TO DECIDE ON HOW MANY TERMS. WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU, MAYOR, ON THE TERM LIMITS. I'VE JUST, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A PROPONENT OF TERM LIMITS. I ACTUALLY CAMPAIGNED AND RAN ON TERM LIMITS, AND I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ON THE 12 YEARS. AND I KNOW THAT MAY SEEM LIKE A LONG TIME, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF BENEFIT IN A, IN A TENURED COUNCIL PERSON. AND I, I, I'VE SAID THIS WHEN I RAN, AND I CONTINUE TO SAY TODAY, IF, IF 12 YEARS ISN'T LONG ENOUGH FOR ANYBODY, , YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, IT'S A LONG TIME UP HERE. AND WHEN YOU'RE WORKING HARD, IT, IT, IT'S A LONG TIME. SO YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO GET DONE AND THEN SOME IN 12 YEARS. SO, I, I FEEL I'M WITH YOU ON TERM LIMITS, MAYOR. OKAY, MAYOR. YES, MA'AM. UM, I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT OUR TERM LIMITS WERE OUR VOTERS. IF THEY DON'T WANT YOU THERE ANYMORE, YOU'RE NOT DOING A JOB, THEN THEY VOTE YOU OUT. UM, AT THE SAME TIME, I'M REALLY NOT OPPOSED TO TERM LIMITS. UM, I DO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES TIME FOR US TO GET AGENDA ITEMS THROUGH, OR, OR DIFFERENT PROJECTS. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA GET SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, BIG WITHIN THE FIRST THREE YEARS. UM, AND SO, UM, WE REALLY START SEEING ACTION. IF YOU GET REAPPOINTED FOR THAT SECOND TERM, UM, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF FOUR, THREE YEAR TERMS. AND MR. JOHNSON, I KNOW YOU WERE VERY VOCAL. IT'S OKAY. YOU ARE. YEAH, THAT'S FAIR. I'M NOT IN FAVOR. OKAY. FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IF YOU'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB, THE PEOPLE WILL VOTE YOU OUT. IF YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB, TERM LIMITS MEAN YOU'RE GONNA BE FORCED OUT. AND PERSONALLY, I FEEL AS IF WE'RE ACTUALLY TYING THE HANDS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, THE VOTERS, BY PUTTING TERM LIMITS OUT THERE. IF THEY [00:25:01] THINK YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB AND YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE, AND IT GOES UP TO 15, 20 YEARS, THAT'S BETWEEN YOU AND THE VOTERS. I MEAN, IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE. IF THEY, IF SOMEONE THINKS YOU'RE DOING A BAD JOB, THEY CAN RUN AGAINST YOU. BUT IN MY OPINION, WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO, PIGGYBACKING OFF OF WHAT COUNCILMAN PRESLEY SAID, THERE'S A BENEFIT, BENEFIT OF A TENURED COUNCIL PERSON. RELATIONSHIPS ARE FORMED. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GONNA GET WHEN YOU LEAVE THE FIELD WIDE OPEN FOR ANYONE. AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M GOING TO RUN JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO, THE, THE SEAT IS OPEN AND NO ONE'S THROWING THEIR HAT IN, OR I'M GONNA RUN BECAUSE THIS PERSON NO LONGER HAS THE ABILITY TO SERVE IN THAT SEAT. I, I FEEL AS IF WE'RE ACTUALLY TYING THE HANDS OF THE VOTERS WITH TERM LIMITS. UM, THAT BEING SAID, IF WE ARE GOING TO DO TERM LIMITS, I WOULD, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE ONE WITH MORE LINK TO IT. HAVE WE ALREADY DECIDED THAT THIS IS GOING ON BALLOT? NO, SIR. AND THAT NO DECISIONS BEEN MADE TONIGHT. THIS IS REALLY, REALLY TO HELP ME SO I CAN HAVE, UM, ABOUT LANGUAGE AND, AND AN ORDINANCE PREPARED FOR YOU, BUT NO DECISIONS BEEN MADE TONIGHT AND NO DECISION WILL BE MADE UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY VOTE TO CALL THE ELECTION. SO, OKAY, WELL, YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER TIME TO CONSIDER THIS, BUT I WAS JUST TRYING TO, WELL, I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT THE REST OF MY COMPADRES UP HERE WOULD CONSIDER, UM, WHAT I'VE SAID, AND, UM, ANYBODY WHO'S LISTENING TO THIS, THAT, THAT VOTE, IF YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO ANY OF US, PLEASE REACH OUT TO US AND LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. BUT, UH, YOU, YOU SAID YOU, SO I KNOW YOU SAID THE LENGTHY ONE, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT YOU DOWN AS 12 YEARS. YEAH, YEAH. AND, AND ALSO WELL PUT ME DOWN AS NUMBER ONE. I, I KNOW. OKAY. BUT ALSO, JUST AS A POINT IS THAT THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO ANY CURRENT SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I'M SORRY TO, I'M NOT IGNORING THIS SIDE, BUT, UM, I SUPPORT TERM LIMITS. I'M OKAY WITH THE 12 YEARS. I HAVE NO STRONG PREFERENCE OF WHETHER IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THREE, THREE YEAR TERM, FOUR YEAR TERMS. I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T CARE HOW YOU SPLIT IT. SO I'M GOOD WITH 12. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE, THE 12 AS WELL, THE FOUR, UH, THREE YEAR TERMS. AND, UM, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SOMEWHAT LIMITING THE, THE ABILITY OF THE VOTERS, BUT, UM, I MEAN, THEY HAVE, THEY'LL HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON THIS AS WELL, I GUESS IS THE RESPONSE TO THAT. I MEAN, THEY, IF THEY WANNA VOTE IT DOWN, BUT I THINK WE AT LEAST NEED TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT IT. OKAY. APPRECIATE THAT. IS, UH, MR. LESTER, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER LESTER, IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE? YES, YES, SIR. YES, CAN, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, WE CAN HEAR YOU. I KIND OF AGREE WITH, WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE VOTERS MAKE THE DECISION IN THE LONG TERM, BUT IN THE SURVEY, I THINK THEY MADE IT KIND OF LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEEM SOME TYPE OF, UH, TERM LIMITS. SO IF, BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO TERM LIMITS. WE, WE NEED TO DO THE FOUR TERMS FOR 12 YEARS. UM, THAT IS A LONG TIME, BUT AS COUNCIL PERSON ALVARADO POINTED OUT, IT TAKES A WHILE SOMETIMES TO, TO GET GOOD THINGS GOING. AND, UH, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOUR TERMS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. I THINK THE, THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND GENERAL AND THE POLLS HAVE INDICATED THEY'D LIKE TO SEE US MOVE TOWARDS THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I I, I THINK IF WE'RE GONNA MOVE THAT WAY, I THINK FOUR TERMS WILL BE FINE. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT, MAYOR. THANK YOU. THANKS, SIR. OKAY, SO I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH DIRECTION FOR THAT DIRECTION, SIR. WE'LL BE BACK WITH A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND QUESTION. I, I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT TOO, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHARTER AMENDMENTS, AND I JUST KIND OF WANT TO THROW THIS OUT THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THIS IS, UH, THIS IS GONNA SOUND SOMEWHAT STRANGE COMING FROM A, A POLITICIAN AND A COUNCILS CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT REALLY MY COMMENT IS GEARED MORE TOWARDS FUTURE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND I KNOW THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW WON'T BE FOR WHAT, TWO YEARS FROM NOW. SO REALLY IN THE FUTURE, NOT AT PRESENT. YOU KNOW, I, I THINK PAY OR, OR COMP, REIMBURSEMENT, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, SHOULD BE LOOKED AT. AND I'VE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO WHERE I KNOW HOW HARD EACH OF THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS WORK AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO, WE HAVE A COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND I, I, THIS DOESN'T MEAN I, I THINK THE MAYOR IS COMPLETELY ENTITLED TO THE $1,000. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS MEANS, BUT THIS MEANS I THINK THAT THE GULF AND A COUNCIL MANAGER FORM GOVERNMENT 1,500, KNOWING HOW HARD THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS WORK, I, I JUST, IF, IF THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE A FUTURE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO MAYBE LOOK AT THAT GAP [00:30:01] AND, AND, AND AT LEAST DISCUSS IT. AND, AND THAT'S NOT FOR ANYBODY'S TIME THAT MAY BE UP HERE NOW, BUT JUST IN THE FUTURE, I THINK IT'S AT LEAST WORTH DISCUSSING. AND IT, LIKE I SAY, IT'S DIRECTED MORE TOWARDS FUTURE COUNCIL MEMBERS AT A LATER DATE. YEP. I, I GUESS I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND MAYBE IT'S JUST FOR MY KNOWLEDGE. SO ANYONE ELE ELECTED NOVEMBER 2ND OR LATER? UM, THREE YEAR TERMS WOULD BE, IF, IF WE DO DECIDE ON FOUR YEARS, WHICH I DON'T THINK SO, WOULD'VE, WOULD'VE TAKEN PLACE FOLLOWING THAT. LIKE IF THIS, IF THIS ELECTION COMING UP WOULD BE A FOUR YEAR TERM, AND I GUESS IT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE, THE TERMS AFTER THAT, WHICH WOULD BE ONE, TWO, AND THREE DISTRICTS, ONE, TWO, AND THREE, WE CERTAINLY COULD WRITE IT SO THAT THAT WOULD TAKE EFFECT. SO THAT WOULD BE A LEGISLATIVE TYPE ISSUE. SO WE COULD WRITE IT TO I'M NOT ASKING FOR THAT, I'M JUST, I'M JUST ASKING . I JUST, IT HAS CROSSED MY MIND ON IT. BUT, AND, AND THAT BEING SAID TOO, SINCE COUNCILMAN OF PRESLEY MENTIONED, UH, SOMETHING HE WANTS TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE, JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE RECEIVED THESE THREE REQUESTS OR, OR THINGS FROM THE CHARTER COMMITTEE, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT YOU COULD PUT ON FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO LOOK AT OR PROVIDE FOR YOU, JUST LET, LET ME KNOW. WE'LL MAKE SURE Y'ALL CAN CONSIDER THAT. WELL, AND I DON'T MEAN TO, TO INSINUATE THAT IT SHOULD BE PUT ON AND, AND RUSHED THIS TIME. I, I JUST THINK A COUPLE OF YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THEY MEET AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE ONE ITEM THAT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. OKAY? CORRECT? YES, SIR. TWO QUESTIONS. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SEAT IS VACANT AND NO ONE DECIDES TO RUN? SO THERE'S A HOLDOVER PROVISION. MM-HMM. THOSE, THE LAST PERSON THAT QUALIFIED WOULD HOLD OVER IN OFFICE UNTIL A SUCCESSOR WAS, WAS ELECTED. OKAY. AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY TOOK THIS SURVEY? THE SURVEY WAS DONE IN 2012. IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 60, 50, 60 CITIZENS. AND IT WAS, WAS IT MAILED OUT? HOW, HOW WAS IT GIVEN? IT WAS A SURVEY MONKEY, I BELIEVE. SO IT WAS ALL ELECTRONIC. ALL ELECTRONIC. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO IF THERE'S ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED AS ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA. IF NOT, THEN THIS MEETING, THIS WORK SESSION IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.