►
From YouTube: Charter Review Meeting 11 18 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
So
let's
get
into
charter
review
mode
and
welcome
to
our
public
hearing
our
first
public
hearing,
so
that
the
public
can
hear
and
ask
any
questions
and
give
any
input
on
the
recommendations
that
we
have
worked
so
hard
to
come
up
with
at
this
point,
just
got
some
clarity
from
the
attorneys
that
we
do
need
to
have.
Each
group
go
through
their
recommendations
for
the
record,
just
walk
through
them
and
at
the
end,
we'll
open
it
up.
If
there's
anyone
here
to
give
commentary
or
ask
questions,
we
will
not
be
voting.
A
C
The
current
charter
uses
the
word
hospital
purposes,
so
1949
definition,
and
so
we
revise
the
language
so
that
the
three
millage
can
be
applied
to
hospital
purposes
that
can
be
defined.
C
This
may
not
go
forward
to
the
ballot
there's
currently
work
in
the
general
assembly.
That
would
redefine
hospital
purposes
through
health
care,
so
that
this
would
not
be
needed,
but
this
is
being
suggested
so
that
if
that
does
not
go
through,
this
can
go
on
the
ballot
and
update
that
language
from
hospital
purposes
to
healthcare
purposes.
C
We
are
adding
language
to
require
that
the
annual
budget
proposal
include
the
past
three
years
of
adopted
budget
versus
actuals.
This
is
to
help
make
more
informed
decisions
to
see
the
historical
trends
of
spending
and
budgeting
so
that
when
you
pass
the
current
year's
budget,
you
you
have
that
historical
information.
B
C
C
C
F
F
Okay,
the
the
recommendation
is,
if
you
need
that
it
says
the
caption
of
every
audience
ordinance
showing
his
general
content
will
be
posted
on
the
consolidated
website,
upon
becoming
law
and
be
published,
digitally
or
in
print
within
10
days
after
becoming
law.
That's
basically
the
main
thing
that
we
were
concerned
about.
F
The
other
thing
is
in
this
sheet
here.
It
shows
that
my
next
part
is
section
1,
103
taxing
district,
and
I
don't
think
that
was
in
our
group.
H
H
F
Everywhere
that
that
that
a
notice
is
mentioned,
we,
it
was
changed
throughout
the
charter,
but
basically.
H
L
F
N
O
All
right
map,
again,
okay,
so.
P
Group
three
covering
article
four,
which
deals
with
the
executive
powers
of
the
charter.
We
just
have
two
recommendations
for
approval
or
that
have
been
approved
by
the
charter
commission.
P
P
Q
The
first
recommendation
we
made
on
the
section
542
section
1
was
to
take
out
the
sum
of
five
thousand
dollars,
because
that
is
legally
insufficient.
Currently,
as
stated,
and
so
our
recommendation
was
to
remove
the
sum
of
five
thousand
dollars
and
replace
it
with
the
statutory
amounts
as
designated
by
the
state
of
georgia.
Q
We
felt
this
was
appropriate
because
sometimes
those
limits
changed
by
the
legislature,
and
so
this
way
it
gives
more
fluidity
of
fluidity
to
the
to
the
recommended
language,
and
that
was
the
line
with
state
law
and
clarified
jurisdiction
of
the
minister
of
the
municipal
court
when
settling
property
disputes
in
civil
cases.
Q
The
second
change
we
recommended
section
5
603.
Currently
there
was
no
removal
process
for
a
recorder's
court
judge.
As
stated,
therefore,
we
created
subsection
b
to
state
any
recorder
or
record
pro
tem
may
be
removed
by
the
council
to
consolidate
the
government
for
any
of
the
reasons
set
forth
in
ocga,
section
36,
32
2.1,
section,
b,
subsection
1
and
also
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
set
forth
from
paragraph
c
d
and
e
of
the
same
code
section.
Q
The
third
change
section
5604,
the
term
of
office
for
recorders
and
recorders-
pro
tem-
should
be
four
years
until
a
successor
is
appointed
and
qualified.
We
just
basically
to
add
consistency,
said
to
add
the
language.
Unless
such
record,
our
recorder,
pro
tem,
is
removed
in
the
previous
recognition
that
we
made
in
the
course
of
the
provision
set
forth
section,
5,
603
b
and
again,
that's
just
basically
the
track
state
language
and
to
make
it
more
consistent.
Q
The
other.
The
other
change
we
made
in
section
5
605,
was
that
the
council
shall
fix
the
term
and
we
just
add
the
existing
language.
The
general
intends
this
law
of
this
court
is
to
establish,
calls
and
perform
other
statutory
duties,
as
provided
by
georgia.
Law
columbus
has
a
pretty
much
an
anomaly.
Q
A
lot
of
people
don't
have
a
quarters
court,
so
we
just
basically
wanted
the
general
public
to
know
what
is
the
purpose
of
the
quarter
score
and
that
way
they
can
know
going
forward.
So
that
was
the
rationale
behind
that
recommended
change,
and
we
also
checked
with
the
city
attorney
and
they
agreed
the
last
change
we
recommended.
We
talked
to
the
sheriff
section
8-100
and
the
current
language
said
that
he
was
the
sheriff
or
the
consolidated
government.
He
did
not
want
that.
Q
He
said
that
he
wanted
to
be
like
state
law
and
change
that
to
the
sheriff
of
muscovy
county,
which
he
was
elected
to
and
that's
why
we
asked
for
that
change
to
be
recommended
in
the
last
change.
R
Our
first
recommendation
was
to
change
the
verbiage
that
special
elections
would
be
held
on
the
tuesday
next,
following
the
first
monday
in
november,
in
each
even
numbered
year
to
the
date
officially
specified
by
state
law
for
nonpartisan
office
in
each
even
numbered
year,
the
state
determines
when
our
elections
are
going
to
be
and
having
it
as
specific
as
we
had
it
in
our
charter
could
lead
to
a
situation
to
where
we
were.
It
could
create
a
conflict.
R
We
could
possibly
have
two
elections
if
that
was
even
possible,
and
that
came
on
the
recommendation
that
nancy
warren
had
pointed
out
section
two
section
6-201,
we
just
changed
one
one
minor
piece:
there
we
went
that
the
election
special
elections
required
herein
shall
be
held
on
the
date
specified
in
the
advertisement,
but
not
less
than
30
days,
nor
more
than
45
days
after
the
publication
of
the
call
of
election.
We
change
the
45
days
to
90
days
again.
This
mirrors
the
state
previously,
with
the
45
days
the
state
had
90.
R
R
We
sought
to
update
the
charge,
the
fine
that
was
in
there
from
six
hundred
dollars
and
we
kind
of
put
a
place
filler
in
there
and
we
have
twelve
hundred
dollars.
We
originally
we
adjusted
it
down
to
one
thousand
dollars
or
maximum
penalty
allowed
by
law,
for
any
violation
of
city,
ordinances
and
right
now.
One
thousand
dollars
is
the
maximum
penalty
allowed.
If
that
was
ever
adjusted,
then
the
charter
would
automatically
adjust,
and
then
we
wouldn't
need
to
update
that
in
the
future
either.
A
Any
questions
on
those
sections
or
input-
okay,
thank
you.
So
those
are
all
the
recommendations
of
all
the
working
groups
and
the
charter
review
commission
itself.
I
believe
I
recognize
yes.
F
I
don't
is
it
on.
At
our
last
meeting
we
I
brought
up
to
change
that
section
of
four
days
624,
which
is
the
board
of
tax
assessors
to
change
that
term
from
six
to
three
years
and
and
it
was
a
motion
and
a
second
and
it
was
passed
without
any
descending
vote
and
it's
not
listed
on
our
changes.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we
don't
leave
here
and
not
that
be
part
of
this
public
hearing.
F
F
A
S
K
A
I
like
it
all
right.
I
believe
I
recognize
everyone
here
in
attendance
as
members
of
the
commission
and
no
members
of
the
public
present,
but
I
want
to
confirm
that,
if
anybody's
not
one
of
us,
then
I
am
we've
been
through
the
recommendations.
There
have
been
no
questions
or
no
input
other
than
noted
by
working
group
number
two
with
the
terms
of
service
we're.
Looking
at
that,
I
believe
that
we
can
conclude
the
public
hearing
and
reconvene
at
six
o'clock
for
public
hearing
number.
Two
all
right.
Thank
you
all
right.
A
Thank
you
all
so
much
and
welcome
to
public
hearing
number
two:
the
charter
review.
Commission.
We
were
able
to
have
our
first
hearing
this
morning
this
afternoon
and
just
for
a
bit
of
housekeeping
for
our
members
of
the
public
that
are
here
and
for
the
commissioners
who
may
have
not
heard
this.
A
We
recorded
the
first
hearing
where
everyone
got
up
and
they
gave
their
recommendations
on
behalf
of
their
working
groups,
and
so
what
we've
decided
to
do
is
just
replay
that
recording
just
in
its
entirety
and
we
will
take
questions,
input
any
suggestions
from
anyone
in
the
audience.
After
that
is
played
so,
rather
than
be
able
to
pause
it
and
say
I've
got
a
question
for
this
right
here
we
technologically
we
can't
do
that.
A
Okay,
because
the
whole
point
is
you're
here
for
a
reason
we
want
to
hear
from
you
so
with
that.
I
will
ask
mike
and
team
to
go
ahead
and
play
the
recording
from
earlier
today.
C
This
may
not
go
forward
to
the
ballot.
There's
currently
work
in
the
general
assembly.
That
would
redefine
hospital
purposes
through
health
care,
so
that
this
would
not
be
needed,
but
this
is
being
suggested
so
that,
if
that
does
not
go
through,
this
can
go
on
the
ballot
and
update
that
language
from
hospital
purposes
to
health
care
purposes.
C
We
are
adding
language
to
require
that
the
annual
budget
proposal
include
the
past
three
years
of
adopted
budget
versus
actuals.
This
is
to
help
make
more
informed
decisions
to
see
the
historical
trends
of
spending
and
budgeting
so
that
when
you
pass
the
current
year's
budget,
you
you
have
that
historical
information.
B
C
The
next
change
is
also
in
section
7-405
city
council
currently
does
not
have
an
audit
committee.
It
is
best
practice.
I
have
an
audit
committee,
so
we
are
advising
for
the
creation
of
one.
The
language
in
here
makes
it
much
more
of
an
advisory
committee,
so
it's
not
that
they
are
investigating
or
reviewing
in-depth
processes,
but
more
someone
to
communicate
with
the
internal
auditor
in
the
external
auditor.
C
It
is
going
to
make
it
easier
to
dispose
of
city
property
right
now
are
going
forward.
C
H
F
F
The
the
recommendation
is,
if
you
need
that
it
says
the
caption
of
every
audience
ordinance
showing
its
general
content
will
be
posted
on
the
consolidated
website,
upon
becoming
law
and
be
published,
digitally
or
in
print
within
10
days
after
becoming
law.
That's
basically
the
main
thing
that
we
were
concerned
about.
F
The
other
thing
is
in
this
sheet
here.
It
shows
that
my
next
part
is
section
1,
103
taxing
district,
and
I
don't
think
that
was
in
our
group.
F
So
everywhere
that
that
that
a
notice
is
mentioned,
we,
it
was
changed
throughout
the
charter,
but
basically.
H
L
F
N
P
Group
three
covering
article
four,
which
deals
with
the
executive
powers
of
the
charter.
We
just
have
two
recommendations
for
approval
or
that
have
been
approved
by
the
charter
commission.
P
The
second
change
is
in
article
four
section:
four,
that's
610
subsection
three,
which
deals
with
the
personal
review
board
and
which
restricts
alternate
board
members
to
serve
in
place
of
specific
board
members,
so
that
is
restricting
each
alternate
to
serve
in
place
of
a
designated
primary
board
member.
P
Q
The
first
recommendation
we
made
on
the
section
542
section
1
was
to
take
out
the
sum
of
five
thousand
dollars,
because
that
is
legally
insufficient.
Currently,
as
stated,
and
so
our
recommendation
was
to
remove
the
sum
of
five
thousand
dollars
and
replace
it
with
the
statutory
amounts
as
designated
by
the
state
of
georgia.
Q
We
felt
this
was
appropriate
because
sometimes
those
limits
changed
by
the
legislature,
and
so
this
way
it
gives
more
fluidity
of
fluidity
to
the
to
the
recommended
language,
and
that
was
the
line
with
state
law
and
clarified
jurisdiction
of
the
minister
of
the
municipal
court
when
settling
property
disputes
in
civil
cases.
Q
The
second
change
we
recommended
was
section
5
603.
Currently
there
was
no
removal
process
for
a
recorders
court
judge.
As
stated,
therefore,
we
created
subsection
b
to
state
any
recorder
or
records.
Pro
tem
may
be
removed
by
the
council
to
consolidate
the
government
for
any
of
the
reasons
set
forth
in
ocga,
section
36,
32
2.1,
section,
b,
subsection,
1
and
also
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
set
forth.
In
paragraph
c
d
and
e
of
the
same
code
section.
Q
The
third
change
section
5604,
the
term
of
office
for
recorders
and
recorders-
pro
tem-
should
be
four
years
until
a
successor
is
appointed
and
qualified.
We
just
basically
to
add
consistency,
said
to
add
the
language.
Unless
such
record,
our
recorder,
pro
tem,
is
removed
in
the
previous
recognition
that
we
made
in
the
courses
provision
set
for
section
b
and
again,
that's
just
basically
the
track
state
language
and
to
make
it
more
consistent.
Q
Q
A
lot
of
people
don't
have
a
quarters
court,
so
we
just
basically
wanted
the
general
public
to
know
what
is
the
purpose
of
the
quarter
score
and
that
way
they
can
know
going
forward.
So
that
was
the
rationale
behind
that
recommended
change,
and
we
also
checked
with
the
city
attorney
and
they
agreed
the
last
change
we
recommended.
We
talked
to
the
sheriff
section
8-100
and
the
current
language
said
that
he
was
the
sheriff
or
the
consolidated
government.
He
did
not
want
that.
Q
He
said
that
he
wanted
to
be
like
state
law
and
change
that
to
the
sheriff
of
muscovy
county,
which
he
was
elected
to
and
that's
why
we
asked
for
that
change
to
be
recommended
in
the
last.
J
K
R
It
could
create
a
conflict
where
you
could
possibly
have
two
elections
if
that
was
even
possible,
and
that
came
on
the
recommendation
that
nancy
warren
had
pointed
out
section
2,
section
6-201,
we
just
changed
one
one
minor
piece.
There
we
went
that
the
election,
the
special
elections
required
herein
shall
be
held
on
the
date
specified
in
the
advertisement,
but
not
less
than
30
days,
nor
more
than
45
days
after
the
publication
of
the
call
of
election.
We
change
the
45
days
to
90
days
again.
R
R
We
sought
to
update
the
charge,
the
fine
that
was
in
there
from
six
hundred
dollars
and
we
kind
of
put
a
place
filler
in
there
and
we
have
twelve
hundred
dollars.
We
originally
adjusted
it
down
to
one
thousand
dollars
or
maximum
penalty
allowed
by
law,
for
any
violation
of
city,
ordinances
and
right
now.
One
thousand
dollars
is
the
maximum
penalty
allowed.
If
that
was
ever
adjusted,
then
the
charter
would
automatically
adjust,
and
then
we
wouldn't
need
to
update
that
in
the
future
either.
A
All
right,
so
those
were
the
substantive
sections
that
we
went
through.
There
was
one
additional
thing
that
was
brought
up
outside
of
the
working
group
report
and
that
is
with
respect
to
a
section
four
six,
two
four,
the
terms
of
the
board
of
tax
assessors
that
was
brought
up
in
our
meeting
our
commission
meeting
and
motioned
and
passed.
A
I
think
the
recommendation
was
that
the
term
be
reduced
from
six
years
to
three
years
and
at
the
conclusion
of
the
last
public
hearing,
we
asked
the
city
attorney's
office
to
take
a
look
at
that
to
make
sure
that
that
was
not
in
conflict
with
state
law
and
the
position
of
the
city
attorney's
office.
Is
that
to
limit
it
to
three
years
is
in
conflict
with
state
law,
because
the
state
law
says
three
to
six
years,
so
that
six
years
that
we
wanted
to
reduce
is
encompassed
within
the
state
law.
A
On
this
section
and
there's
a
suggestion,
I
hope
everybody
picked
that
up.
There's
a
red
line
suggestion
in
terms
of
how
to
to
address
that,
and
it
reads
as
follows:
appointed
by
the
council
for
staggered
terms
of
office
of
no
less
than
three
years
and
nor
more
than
six
years
as
specified
by
act
of
the
council
in
accordance
with
state
law.
So
the
provision
of
state
law
does
give
that
power
to
the
council
and
it
does
broaden
it
from
the
three
years
to
the
six
years.
S
That
would
be
our
recommendation
to
the
full
commission
just
to
give
the
council
that
flexibility
where
they
can
appoint
within
the
range
three
to
six
years,
that's
allowed
by
state
law.
So
I
mean
you
can
either
take
a
vote
next
time
when
you
have
a
quorum
on
that
and
then
put
it
on
the
official
list.
A
Okay,
why
don't
we
take
it
up
as
just
a
amendment
to
the
motion
that
was
already
passed
and
approved
and
we'll
just
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
our
next
meeting
to
tamika
to
just
revisit
this
in
light
of
this
state
law
provision?
Yes,.
F
I
understand
what
the
city
attorney's
office
is
saying,
but
there's
a
procedure
that
we've
already
taken
by
the
commission,
and
that
was
we
had
a
properly
made
motion
and
a
second
and
then
we
voted
and
it
was
unanimous
to
change
it
from
six
to
three.
Now
I
understand
what
what
they're
saying
and
they're
supposed
to
know,
and
so
I
guess
they're
right,
but
procedurally,
we,
you
can't
amend
the
motion
unless
you
just
want
to
after
a
month
later
and
that's
what
would
be
happening
if
we
try
to
amend
this
motion.
F
So
the
there's
got
to
be
a
way
that
we
can
do
it,
where
it's
risk,
where
it's
legal
and
to
reconsider
would
be
one
way.
But
but
then
you
got
to
have
the
right
motion
made
to
reconsider
and
I'm
not
trying
to
to
cause
a
problem.
But
I
just
don't
want
us
to
get
down
the
road
and
somebody
say
well
at
that
public
hearing
they
didn't
do
everything
right
and
then
they
come
back
to
bite
us.
That's
so
there's
a
procedure
but
right,
but
you
cannot.
S
Yeah
well,
we
certainly
respect
the
previous
action
of
the
commission,
but
a
substitute
motion
is
always
in
order
under
robert's
rules
and
any
other
bylaws.
So
it's
just
there
and
if
any
member
of
the
commission
wants
to
bring
it
up,
we
think
it's
a
better
recommendation
than
the
strict
three-year
rule
that
they've
already
voted
on.
S
A
A
I
know
the
working
groups
have
been
very
careful
to
make
sure
that
any
recommendations
that
they're
making
are
not
going
to
be
in
conflict
with
state
law
in
any
of
the
working
groups,
so
we
don't
want
to
get
to
the
end
and
walk
forward
with
one
that
there's
a
question,
so
my
recommendation
would
be
that
we
table
this.
We
bring
the
request
up
at
the
next
meeting
and
we
let
the
commission
determine
what
its
will
is.
A
T
A
F
Sherman,
yes,
I'm
I'm
really
concerned
about
the
fact
that
we
had
a
public
hearing
at
two
o'clock
and
we
had
nobody
from
the
public
here
and
I
don't
think
we
have
anybody
here
tonight.
It's
six
o'clock!
Yes,.
A
F
F
So
I
know
we
did
do
what
we
the
minimum
that
we
could
do,
but
I
I
think
we
need
to
think
about
having
another
public
hearing
and
and
try
to
do
a
news
release
and
get
the
media
to
tell
the
public
that
we're
going
to
have
a
public
hearing,
because
I
I
just
you
know
this
is
a
big
deal
and-
and
I
remember
10
years
ago
we
had
when
we
had
our
public
hearings.
We
had
them.
We
had
two
or
three
of
how
many
we
had
and
we
had.
A
Right,
well,
I
want
to
be
clear:
we've
given
them
the
opportunity
now
publication,
to
whatever
degree
may
be
in
question,
but
this
these
are
not
secret
meetings,
they're
public
meetings
and
my
understanding
is
that
we
have
used
similar,
if
not
the
same
publication
as
we've
used
in
the
past.
A
My
term
on
the
charter
review
commission,
and
I'm
not
saying
this
in
defense
of
people
not
coming
out,
but
just
as
a
fact
that
the
last
charter
review
commission
10
years
ago
did
not
have
a
packed
out
house.
F
F
U
Madam
chair,
I
just
like
to
say
that
the
publication
was
out
there.
In
fact,
I've
heard
it
three
times
on
the
radio
on
three
different
channels
today,
myself
about
this
meeting,
so
it
was
out
there
for
the
puppet
to
hear
it's
up.
Then
whether
they'd
show
up
or
not,
but
I
think
the
chair
did
a
or
the
council
there.
The
commission
did
enough
of
their
own
to
make
sure
that
they
got
out
there
to
the
public.
It
was
there.
U
S
S
Well,
the
state
law
says
you
can
have
three
to
six,
so
we
think
a
better
recommendation
is
to
allow
the
council
to
appoint
for
the
three
not
less
than
three
and
not
more
than
six
years
and
give
them
that
discretion
which
they
have
under
state
law,
and
this
would
be
consistent
with
that
so
and
that
would
be
up
to
you
all
as
a
commission
to
bring
that
back
up
as
a
substitute.
If
you
want
to.
A
V
A
V
Madam
chair,
my
name
is
marvin
broadwater
senior.
I
reside
at
3004
slippery
rock
court
31909
for
the
record,
I'm
in
a
little
bit
of
disagreement.
I
was
in
agreement
with
you
initially
and
I'm
in
a
little
bit
of
disagreement
as
far
as
public
notice,
and
I'm
going
to
explain
that
to
you,
I
believe
when
we
as
a
government,
some
of
your
meetings
need
to
be
held
on
a
saturday.
I
don't
care
what
time
you
have
it
during
the
week
it
doesn't
matter.
People
are
working
and
at
six
o'clock.
V
You
need
to
have
at
least
one
meeting
on
the
weekend,
and
I
know
that's
a
little
bit
inconvenience
and
convenient
to
a
lot
of
people,
but
you
work
when
you
serve
on
one
of
these.
You
serve
the
people,
not
yourself
so,
and
let
me
apologize
first
before
I
begin
with
what
I
really
came
to
the
mic
to
talk
about.
V
Forgive
me
for
my
lateness
and
tardiness,
because
I've
been
trying
to
find
out
about
these
meetings.
Since
june,
I've
called
the
mayor's
office
and
I
went
to
a
website.
It
wasn't
updated.
V
V
A
T
S
You
do
for
the
charter
review
commission
action,
but
you
can
always
make
recommendations
to
the
columbus
council
who
deal
with
the
legislative
delegation
to
the
general
assembly
every
year
and
if
there's
something
that
the
council
thinks
is
serious
enough
to
put
on
the
list
to
ask
the
delegation
at
the
general
assembly
hey,
we
really
need
this
in
our
charter.
Of
course
you
can
bring
that
up
to
the
council
at
any
time.
In.
V
But
it
says
that,
because,
with
our
consolidated
government
there
are
only
two
elected
offices
that
have
to
be
partisan,
meaning
that
you
have
to
list
whether
you
or
what
party
that
you
belong
to,
and
I
have
a
problem
with
that
as
a
citizen,
because
I
want
to
know
who
you
support,
I
want
to
know
what
your
belief
system
is
in
america
when
you
have
someone
come
to
you
and
they
they
can
say
I'm
nonpartisan,
but
then
you
can
govern
a
different
way
when
you
get
into
the
seat.
V
I
think
that's
a
problem,
so
only
people
that
can
really
push
that
is,
and
then
you
correct
me
from
wrong
to
the
city
attorney.
Is
this
commission
bring
that
bring
that
to
the
council,
and
then
the
council
makes
it
part
of
the
legislative
agenda
and
then
you
can.
I
I'm
asking
the
city
attorney
from
correct
or
not.
S
A
K
V
So
go
back
to
the
original
question,
see
what
you
look
like
like
the
gentleman
said,
extinguish
them
and
said
here
earlier
you
don't
have
the
public
here.
The
public
is
not
what
I
and
I
don't
know
what
else
to
do
to
get
them
here.
I
know
I'm
here,
but
I
don't
know
what
else
to
do
to
get
them
here,
but
I
do
know
you
cannot
continue
have
meetings
during
the
week.
V
V
And
not
to
make
it
a
long
debate,
madam
chair,
but
I
just
think
that
you
all
sit
on
this
commission.
You
need
dialogue
from
your
community
from
the
constituents.
V
I
think
that
we
have
to
allow
our
constituents
every
opportunity
you
and
you
have
to
meet
people
where
they
are.
I'm
retired
I'm
going
to
be
here,
but
you
have
a
lot
of
people
that
work
three
jobs.
U
V
V
A
Yeah,
thank
you
for
your
comments.
They
do
not
fall
on
deaf
ears.
I
I
will
take
exception,
though,
and
I
don't
want
to
split
hairs
on
this,
but
these
have
been
public
forums.
The
news
media
could
have
been
here.
The
public
could
have
been
here.
In
fact,
when
we
were
sworn
in,
we
had
the
expectation
that
they
would
and
the
meetings
have
been
consistently
held
on
the
same
day.
H
F
Yes,
ma'am
I'd
like
to
the
city
attorney
to
say
what
he
said
while
ago
about
the
way
that
the
charter
is
today.
That
is
not
in
violation
to
state
law.
I
think
that's
what
you
said.
If
I
heard
you
right,
that's
why
I'm
asking
you
repeat
it
please.
S
In
the
charter
says,
on
board
of
tax
assessors
at
section
4-6-2-4
there's
created
a
board
of
tax
assessors
for
the
consolidated
government,
which
shall
consist
of
five
members
appointed
by
the
council
for
six-year
staggered
terms
of
office.
Now
that
is
within
the
permissible
range.
That's
in
the
current
state
law
and
some
previous
charter
commission.
Just
like
this
one
decided
that
well,
the
maximum
six-year
term
was
what
they
wanted
to
go
with.
S
The
recommendation
by
mr
russell
is
for
the
short
end
of
the
range
for
three
years
and
we're
just
saying
why
not
give
council
total
flexibility
and
have
the
recommendation
of
three
to
six
years
and
that's
perfectly
consistent
with
state
law.
Also,
this
is
not
contrary
to
state
law.
It's
just
at
the
maximum
end
of
the
range.
F
Okay,
so
so
your
recommendation
is,
that
is
what
it
is,
but
so
the
motion
that
that
we
did
and
that
we
that
we
that
was
made
second
and
properly
passed,
is
not
in
conflict
with
the
state.
If
we
change
it
from
six
to
three,
because
you
said
it's
six
is
is
okay,
so
the
number
is
not
what's
important.
It
it
we're,
and
so
this
this
body
can
stand
by
our
recommendation
that
it
be
three
based
on
what
you
just
said
and.
F
S
F
F
S
Well,
I
think
we're
saying
the
same
thing.
I
don't
believe
six
would
be
deemed
illegal
by
any
court,
because
it's
within
a
permissible
range
and
I
don't
think
three
would
be
deemed
illegal.
What
we're
saying
is
we
think
the
better
recommendation
is
to
let
council
have
the
full
range
permitted
by
the
state
law,
which
is
three
to
six
years.
F
Okay,
I
got
that.
Thank
you,
I'm
just
saying
that
this
commission
voted
for
three
and
if
you
want
to
bring
it
back
up
at
our
next
meeting,
I
would
I
would
not
have
any
problem
that,
but
I
think
we've
already
made
that
decision
and
the
recommendation
by
the
city
attorney's
office
is
more
than
more
than
adequate
and
it
makes
sense,
but
but
the
commission
is
who
is
what
we're
charged
to
do
to
make
that
decision
and
if
three,
if
six
is
not
illegal
and
three
is
not
illegal?
F
Well,
then,
there's
no
reason
why
our
motion
and
the
past
cannot
go
forward
is.
Is
that
what
you
said?
Six
is
not
illegal
and
three
would
not
be
illegal
either.
You
know
what
you're
just
saying.
Well,
you.
S
A
F
A
T
T
T
T
I
guess
how
the
commission
wants
to
approach
it,
but
I
think-
and
I
think
had
we
done-
that
these
problems
would
have
come
up
during
the
vetting
process
and
we
would
have
a
better
understanding
of
where
we
are
rather
than
you
know,
have
these
issues
come
up
now
at
the
last
minute.
So
that's
just
my
opinion,
but
thank
you.
Okay,.
F
Can
I
answer
him,
he
made
a
valid
point
and
we
talked
about
that
this
morning,
but
you
know
before
I
when
I
decided
when
I
looked
at
it
and
and
saw
that
and
and
had
a
request
to
do
that
I
called
the
members
of
the
group
that
addresses
this
part
of
the
of
the
charter,
and
I
only
had
I
talked
to.
I
left
messages
for
every
one
of
them.
I
had
two
people.
F
One
person
called
me
back
and
one
person
that
was
here
that
day
and
I
asked
him
if
he
would
do
it
if
he
was
they
wanted
to
take
it
to
his
committee,
and
he
says
no,
I'm
good
with
it.
F
You
make
the
presentation,
so
it
was
not
that
I
that
I
did
bring
it
up,
but
I
didn't
bring
it
up
without
trying
to
discuss
it
with
those
with
that
group,
because
that's
what
I
wanted
to
do
and-
and
they
didn't
have
any
interest
in
talking
to
me
about
it-
they
would
not
return
my
phone
call,
but
I
said
that's
why
that's
how
it
came
about.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
and
to
to
the
commissioner's
point.
We
we
have
spent
months
and
months
working
on
the
things
that
made
their
way
to
actual
formal
recommendations
and
and
for
the
benefit
of
our
member
of
the
public.
Here
we
started
here
and
then
the
funnel
got
smaller
and
smaller
to
what
you
currently
see.
So
it
was
not
without
healthy
debate.
A
Research
looking
outside
of
what
columbus
georgia
does
to
other
cities
and
and
townships
for
best
practices,
so
I
I
think
just
to
put
this
to
bed
this
matter
since
we've
got
new
information
from
the
city.
Attorney's
office
warrants
a
brief
discussion
for
our
next
meeting,
where
we
will
then
go
to
formal
vote
to
conclude
the
commission's
service
on
all
the
recommendations
and
that
will
be
held
now.
Is
that
going
to
conflict
with
christmas?
The
third
thursday?
S
Well,
we
were
talking
earlier.
You
can
either
try
to
have
a
december
meeting
or
push
it
to
mid-january
to
try
to
have
a
final
public
meeting
with
votes
on
each
recommendation.
But
it's
it's
up
to
y'all
the
good
thing
about
the
process.
Is
you
have
time
all
the
way
until
april?
So
if
you
want
to
try
to
wrap
it
up
mid-january,
you
could
do
that.
A
I
don't
want
to
cram
it
into
the
holidays,
but
to
the
earlier
point,
we've
had
standing
meetings
every
month
on
certain
dates
and
there's
a
rhythm
to
that
that
once
you
start
deviating,
you
lose
people
and
people's
conflicts,
and
things
like
that.
Let
me
think
about
that
and
tamika
will
send
something
out,
maybe
poll
to
pull
the
commission.