►
From YouTube: Charter Review meeting 09 16 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
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
tamika
and
I
believe
this
week
we
had
the
minutes
distributed
via
email.
Has
everyone
had
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
those?
If
so,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
approve.
If
that's
your
pleasure,.
C
A
A
My
suggested
approach,
although
I
am
certainly
open
to
any
suggestions
about
procedure,
my
suggested
approach
is
to
have
the
groups
begin
to
go
through
their
respective
suggestions
and
that
before
another
working
group
goes
forward,
we
go
ahead
and
vote
like
we
vote
by
working
group
and
then
move
on
to
the
next
one
and
then
vote
by
that
one,
I'm
a
little
reluctant
to
have
everybody
go
through
all
of
theirs
and
then
we
double
back
and
then
we
vote
on
all
the
recommendations
at
that
time,
which
could
be
the
october
meeting.
So
that's
my
suggested
approach.
A
I
spoke
with
lucy
and
it's
you
know
it
works
for
them
in
terms
of
procedurally
and
and
legally
any
suggestions
or
contrary
ideas
to
that
procedure.
Yes,.
A
D
A
So
this
this
is
a
vote.
It's
a
vote
to
gain
consensus
that
the
commission
is
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
this.
But
it
is
not
the
final
vote.
It's
an
important
vote,
because
if
something
comes
up-
and
it
has
no
support
from
the
commission-
then
that's
something
we
need
to
look
at-
does
that
need
to
go
before
the
public
hearing,
but
it
certainly
will
give
us
an
opportunity
to
know.
Is
this
something
that
the
body
you
know
by
majority
is
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with?
So
that's
what
we're
going
to
do
today?
Yes,.
E
Yes,
I
just
need
to
be
clear
on
something
that
I'm
that
I
may
have
misunderstood
you,
but
it
may
be
her
too
that,
when,
when
we,
when
all
of
the
recommendations
go
to
the
to
a
public
hearing,
if
I
remember
right,
if
I
understand
it
right
when
when
it
goes
to
the
public
hearing,
we
are,
we
are
trying
to
expose
the
public
to
what
is
fixed
to
be
on
the
ballot.
I
think
that,
isn't
it
a
done
deal
at
that
time,
but
then.
A
No
because
the
public
hearing
is
not
a
vote,
public
hearing
is
just
to
have
input
and
really
I
mean
we're
voting
today
for
consensus
to
see
if
these
things
are
viewed
by
the
majority
of
the
commission,
things
that
we
should
move
forward.
But
this
isn't,
you
know
the
final
final
vote
that
takes
place
in
january.
E
Right
but
I
mean
but
but
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
I
understand
about
the
public
hearings,
I
thought
the
public
hearings
was
to
let
the
public
know
what's
going
to
be
on
the
ballot
and
why
and
that
them,
but
they,
but
but
the
input
is
over
as
far
as
what's
going
to
be
on
the
ballot,
because
that's
our
job,
that's
what
I
thought.
Maybe
I
misunderstood
it.
D
That
does
not
mean
that
comments
from
the
public
on
particular
items
could
not
be
taken
into
account
after
the
public
hearings
is
when
the
commission
makes
a
final
vote
to
send
their
recommendations
to
council
to
be
placed
on
the
ballot
now.
Obviously,
it
would
defeat
the
purpose
of
the
public
hearings
if
the
commission
were
to
come
back
after
the
public
hearings
and
make
another
suggested
ballot
item
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
anything
that
had
been
discussed
or
recommended.
Previously,
it's
simply
a
matter
of
offering
an
opportunity
to
refine
matters
on
the
ballot.
A
A
Okay,
so
I
will
say
that
tyson
beckley
who's,
a
spokesperson
for
group
number
one
reached
out
to
me
as
soon
as
we
set
this
date
and
said
he
would
not
be
able
to
be
here
because
he
had
a
function
for
work
that
took
him
to
pennsylvania,
so
group
number
one
will
not
be
presenting
in
september.
They
will
present
in
october.
A
And
let
me
let
me
say
just
be
before
the
group
starts.
This
is
the
time
for
our
discussion.
This
is
our
time
for
speaking
in
favor,
as
proponents
of
certain
provisions
or
recommendations,
and
against
I
mean
this
is
where
we
will
determine
as
a
commission
itself
what
we
feel
is
worthwhile
to
move
forward.
So
there
are
no
bad
questions.
There
are
no
bad
comments.
This
is
an
open
forum
for
anybody's
opinion
on
any
of
these
recommendations,
some
of
which
will
be
very
easy.
It'll
be
cleanup
type
things.
A
E
Okay,
we
are
have
article
three,
which
is
the
legislative
branch
and
our
committee
members
are
vivian:
bishop,
gwen,
ruff,
willie,
bellfield
and
dominic
perkins
and
me
so
we
had
a
great
committee.
We,
our
our
folks,
were
very
engaged
and
everybody
was
inattentive
at
everything
we
did.
E
We
have
some.
We
think
some
recommendations
that
the
commission
should
look
at.
Our
first
one
is
is
article
3,
which
is
a
section
3-100.
E
That's
that's
our
first
recommendation.
Do
we
do
we
want
to
talk
about
that
before
we
go
forward
any
further
or
just.
A
I
I
had
a
question
and
please,
let's
just
jump
in
when
there
are
questions
before
we
even
turn
the
page
to
the
next
recommendation.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
language
means
that
you
you're
not
limited
in
total
to
two
four-year
terms,
but
that
you
can't
have
more
than
two
consecutive
terms.
So
that
means
you
have
to
sit
out
for
at
least
one
and
you're
not
prohibited
from
running
again
after
that.
E
We
we
discussed
that
and-
and
we
figured
that
that
was
something
that
that
the
full
commission
needs
to
kind
of
tool
out,
because
we
we
did
talk
about
that
and
first
we
said
no.
We
need
to
make
it
be
two
concept
consecutive
terms
period
and
then,
and
then
we
had.
We
also
talked
about
the
fact,
like
you
said
that
that,
after
you
serve
two
terms,
two
four-year
terms
you
set
out
a
four-year
term.
E
You
can
run
again
so
we
we
left
that
kind
of
open,
because
we
didn't,
we
couldn't
decide
among
ourselves.
What
would
be
the
best
way
to
go
so
but
we're
we
see
both
sides
being
more
than
adequate.
F
F
E
F
About
that
would
be
experience.
What
would
that
look
like
for
half
to
turn
over
at
one
time?
So
you'd
have
a
completely
new
new
commission,
so
not
that
the
expiration
of
terms
is
a
big
issue,
for
me
would
be
the
quality
that
we
would
receive
in
some
of
the
quality
that
we'd
be
losing
from
a
tenure
as
well.
E
I
understand
that
I
really
do
okay,
okay,
so,
madam
chairman,
before
we
go
any
further
and
his
his
comments
are
pretty
much
on
target
and
my
this
is
a
this-
is
not
the
committee
so
can
I
speak
for
just
for
me?
Yes,.
E
Absolutely
well,
the
first
thing
is:
is
I'm
I'm?
I
am
convinced
that
we
already
have
term
limits.
It's
called
the
ballot
box,
so
I
don't
think
that
term
limits
as
such
are
are
good.
I
think
that
when
we
think
about
term
limits,
every
one
of
us
can
think
of
one
person,
maybe
in
in
congress
or
in
the
senate
or
maybe
in
the
georgia
house
or
the
georgia
senate
or
somewhere
they
can
think
of
one
person
that
they
wish
that
they
could
could
make
term
limits
apply
to
well.
E
When
we
have
a
ballot
box
and
the
people
who
vote
for
the
person,
that's
in
your
district
as
a
council
member
within
that
pertains,
and
that
makes
it
work
for
term
limits,
because
nobody
that
lives
and
and
what
what
this
would
do
to
some
extent.
The
way
I
look
at
it
is
that
if
you
live
in
district
2
with
of
a
council
district
two-
and
we
have
term
limits
well,
then
you're
telling
whoever
it
is.
Who
is
the
person
who
serves
in
district
one
that
they
can't
serve
but
two
terms?
E
So
I
I
think
term
limits
are
is
at
the
ballot
box.
I
and
I,
as
far
as
the
some
people
say
that
that
we
need
new
new
people
to
run
well,
there's
no
restriction
from
anybody
running
for
any
office,
not
in
this
county
and
mostly
in
america.
So
so
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
legitimate
reason
not
to
have
tournament
to
have
term
limits.
If
somebody
is
afraid
that
they
don't
want
to
run
against
an
incumbent.
Well,
then
they
probably
need
to
stay
home,
but
the.
E
E
All
it
takes
is
get
out
there
raise
a
little
money
and
work
hard
and
get
elected,
and
it's
not
going
to
be
any
different
with
term
limits,
and-
and
I
think
we
need
that-
those
people
that
that
are
willing
to
serve
and
who've
been
on
this
council
for
for
more
than
one
or
two
terms,
and
I
think
that's
a
big
deal
that
we
that
we
let
the
ballot
box
determine
the
term
limits.
E
Thank
you
so
much
and
one
one
more
thing
for
us
is
when
we
checked
on
all
the
cities
and
counties
in
georgia,
almost
100
percent
of
them
did
not
have
term
limits.
There
were
some
who
had
a
term
limit
for
a
mayor
as
we
do
in
muskogee
county,
but
no
term
limits
for
their
council
or
their
commission.
I
mean
it
was.
I
think
I
reported
to
y'all
last
month
that
we
had.
E
We
checked
out
like
20
something
cities
and
counties,
and
only
one
which
was
macon
has
term
limits
and
they
are
are
considering
doing
away
with
their
term
limits.
So
it's,
of
course
we
don't
have
to
be
like
everybody
else,
and
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
about
us.
We
don't
we're.
I
think
we
are
different.
I
think
we
are
special.
I
think
we're
better
than
most
of
these
cities
and
canons
around
georgia,
so
we
don't
need
to
be
like
them
either
way,
but
term
limits
are
at
the
ballot
box.
E
G
I
would.
I
would,
at
this
point
of
our
conversation,
be
against
tourmaline.
The
reasons
why
I
would
be
against
them.
I'll
tell
you
when
I
look
at
the
when
I
look
at
our
our
overall
talent
pool.
I
think
that
term
limits,
especially
at
a
local
level,
goes
against
the
very
nature
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
when
we're
electing
our
official.
G
It
limits
my
rights
as
a
voter
to
vote,
who
I
want
into
office
in
that
we're
going
to
say
that
we
mandatorily
have
to
move
somebody
out
of
office
every
four
years
just
simply
well.
We
can
get
into
the
pros
later,
but
essentially,
what
we're
creating,
in
my
opinion,
is
you
you
get
someone
in
office
they're
going
to
spend
four
years.
They
do
a
good
job,
they
get
elected
for
another
four
years.
At
that
point,
we've
got
a
lame
duck
session.
G
That
lame
duck
session
is
going
to
limit
anyone's
incentive
to
try
to
make
this
their
profession
and
lawmaking
and
legislating
is
a
profession,
it's
a
craft
that
has
to
be
crafted
and
so
we're
taking
someone
who
spent
four
years.
Who
has
the
knowledge
who
has
the
craft
who's
proven?
He
can
do
it,
she
can
do
it,
they
get
reelected
and
now
we've
got
a
lame
duck
session.
G
Oftentimes
I've
looked
at
the
ballot
and
said:
is
this
really
the
only
two
people
I
can
vote
for,
and
so
now,
where
legislation
is
the
most
important
to
me
is
in
our
city,
who
my
city
councilman
is
who
my
mayor
is
is
probably
more
important
to
me
than
who
my
president
is.
If
I
call-
and
I
get
a
pothole
in
the
road-
I'm
not
I'm
not
calling
biden
to
come
fix
it
right.
I'm
going
to
talk
to
my
city
councilman.
G
G
A
You
speaking,
thank
you
is
anybody
who
wants
to
speak.
We've
heard
two
pretty
reasonable
and
passionate
arguments
against
anybody
who
wants
to
speak
four
term
limits.
A
E
That
the
idea
that
we
have
in
with
our
charter,
as
far
as
we
have
eight
districts
and
two
at
large
on
our
council-
and
so
I
just
I-
I
really
have
a
hard
time
of
the
whole
city
deciding
what
happens
in
a
district,
no
matter
what
district
it
is,
that's,
not
important,
but
but
for
a
district
person
to
run
for
the
council
from
whatever
district
one
of
the
eight.
That's
this.
That
is
a
district.
E
Well,
there's
whatever
it
is:
15
000
people
that
live
in
that
district,
whatever
that
number
may
be,
and
then
people
who
live
outside
of
that
district
to
be
able
to
dictate
that
that
person
in
that
district
cannot
run
again
that
to
me,
that's
that
is
one
way
to
disenfranchise
a
voter,
because
those
those
people
ought
to
decide
who
is
their
council
person,
the
people
who
live
in
that
district?
E
Not
anybody
else,
and
if
that
people
who
live
in
that
district,
if
they
want
to
elect
fred
or
whoever
it
may
be,
every
time
there
is
election.
Well,
that's
their
decision.
It's
not
anybody
else's
decision.
It's
not
the
decision
of
people
who
live
in
another
district,
and
I
think
that's
the
way
it's
supposed
to
be
it's
supposed
to
be
where
the
people
who
live
in
that
district
decide
who
their
representative
is,
who
their
council
member
is,
and
that's
all
that
should
be
required
of
that
district
is.
E
Is
those
people
decide
that
that
that
person
and
and
shouldn't
be
anybody
else,
and
I
that
really
bothers
me
that
that
that
we
could
do
something
that
would
that
would
limit
the
district
or
or
even
the
at-large
folks,
but
but
especially
the
districts
that
would
that
would
limit
that
person
from
how
long
they
can
serve
and
the
people
who
live
in
that
district
will
only
be
at
the
pleasure
of
the
of
138
000
minister
voters
in
the
county,
and
I
just
don't
think
that's
the
way
we
should
do.
E
That's
a
good
question.
I
I
guess
that
I
didn't
do
a
very
good
job.
What
I'm
saying
is
if
this
goes
to
the
ballot.
If
this
commission
decides
to
put
term
limits
on
the
ballot
within
138
000
registered,
voters
will
have
the
ability
to
say
district
two
has
term
limits.
District
one
has
terminally
important.
E
E
My
example
was
that
that
you
wish
we
should
not
take
away
the
ability
for
that
people
who
live
in
that
district
to
reelect
somebody
as
many
times
as
they
want
to
that.
That's
my
main
point
you're
right.
I
I
did
that
was
not
clear.
A
I
I'm
not
necessarily
in
favor
or
opposed,
but
I
do
want
to
present
to
the
commission
some
of
the
other
discussions
that
the
team
had
relative
to
putting
this
out
there.
We
looked
at
it
from
the
perspective
that
our
charge
was
to
look
at
the
complete
charter.
I
From
start
to
finish,
so
I
just
want
to
put
out
that
this
is
just
an
opportunity
for
our
citizens
to
look
at
this
and
for
them
to
make
the
decision
that
we
do
not
want
term
limits.
And
if
that
is
the
decision,
I
think
that's
a
good
decision
and
if
they
want
to
say,
put
term
limits
either
way.
It'll
work,
but
I
think
our
charge
as
a
committee
was
to
identify
pieces
that
we
thought
were
not
addressed
in
the
charter.
I
A
A
The
commission's
recommendation-
yeah,
the
working
group-
has
put
it
forth
as
a
proposed
item
for
the
public
hearings,
but
what
we
take
to
the
public
hearings
will
be
the
commission's
recommendations.
So
if
the
commission
is
not
behind
this,
if
it
doesn't
have
support
of
the
entire
commission,
well,
not
the
entire
commission,
but
at
least
the
majority
of
the
commission
we're
not
going
to
take
it
forth.
I
mean
why
would
we
so
it's
presented?
A
E
Next
recommendation
is
just
about
as
controversial.
I
I
cleaned
that
up
a
little
bit,
the
the
counselors
are
currently
non-partisan,
so
the
recommendation
is
that
each
counselor
shall
declare
party
affiliation
at
the
time
of
qualification.
E
K
J
Vivian
bishop
could
not
be
here.
I'm
also
going
to
give
my
rationale,
but
ms
bishop
couldn't
be
here
for
medical
reasons
and
ask
that
I
read
a
statement
on
this
specific
topic,
so
I'll
do
that
very
quickly
in
her
statement
and
again,
this
is
from
his
bishop.
It
says:
recent
elections
show
that
party
participation
increases
turnout
which
strengthens
our
democracy.
J
It
gives
the
electorate
a
general
view
of
a
candidate's
political
views
and
history,
which
is
the
con,
is
and
has
been
the
concern
of
many
voters.
Transparency
is
extremely
important
and
it
makes
elected
officials
more
accountable
to
constituents
and
enhances
interest
in
issues
being
considered
by
office
holders.
J
There
have
been
changes
made
in
this
area
in
the
past
and
to
keep
with
changing
times
again
and
to
consider
the
will
of
some
voters
in
the
city.
This
matter
should
be
placed
on
the
agenda
for
the
discussion
for
the
full
board.
If
this
is
the
process,
the
board
will
follow.
So
the
final
ask
is
that
city
councils
be
considered
to
choose
a
party
affiliation
by
whatever
process
is
valid
at
this
time.
So
that
is
a
statement
from
miss
bishop.
J
My
my
view
on
the
matter
is:
is
partisan
politics
at
least
the
justification
I
have
heard
in
the
past.
For
why
city
council
is
not
partisan
was
because
we
were
trying
to
remove
the
partisan
aspect
of
their
job
from
the
process.
J
I
have,
I
would
say,
to
people
to
just
consider
if
you
know
someone
who
belongs
to
either
of
the
two
major
political
parties
which,
if
you
need
to
speak
to
a
democrat,
you
can
speak
to
me
because
I'm
active
with
the
party
ask
them
if
they've
ever
recruited
candidates
to
city
council.
The
answer
is
yes
and
then
ask
them
if
they've
ever
spoken
with
them
or
tried
to
influence
local
policy,
the
answer
would
be
yes,
so
it
already
exists
in
our
local
politics
and
in
our
city
council.
J
L
E
I
think
I
was
about
three
when
they
did
that,
but
but
he's
exactly
right.
The
idea
was
was
that
there
are
people
that
should
be
encouraged
to
run
for
a
political
office
like
the
council
or
the
mayor
that
maybe
don't
have
any
affiliation
with
either
party
they're,
just
they're,
just
somebody
who
really
is
concerned
about
the
way
the
direction
or
the
whatever
is
going
on
in
the
government,
and
they
wanted
to
to
offer
themselves
for
service.
E
E
Now,
I'm
also
very
very
much
against
going
back
to
the
partisan
now
20
years
ago,
when
I
may
have
been
four
but
but
I
was
very
against
changing
and
going
to
nonpartisan,
but
it
didn't
take
me
long
to
realize
that
that,
on
that
I
was
was
not
right
and
I
was
wrong
in
that
assessment.
I
think
the
nonpartisan
makes
it
where
everybody
in
the
city
can
speak
and
has
the
ability
to
equally
address
anybody
on
the
council
with
any
maybe
any
problem
they
may
have,
and
and
not
where
they're
saying.
E
Well,
I'm
a
republican
and
and
like
he
said
there
are
people.
You
know
that
that
have
maybe
had
a
probably
a
party
affiliation
in
the
past
before
they
became
a
non-person
and
ran
for
the
council
or
for
mayor.
But
that's
not
important.
What's
important
is
what
they
are
when
they
run,
and
I
think
that
we
have.
I
guess
the
thing
that
I'm
most
concerned
about
is
in
this
country
today
we
are
very
divided
and
I
think
we're
divided
because
of
partisan
politics
and
I
don't
think
columbus
needs
to
get
in
that
ball.
E
In
that
ball
game.
I
think
we
need
to
stay
nonpartisan
where
anybody
can
run,
and
you
know
if
you
I
go
back
to
to
the
mayor
before
skip
and
theresa
every
all
those
people
that
have
ever
run
for
mayor.
E
They
go
to
every
meeting,
they
go
to
all
the
civic
clubs
and
they
go
as
a
nonpartisan
candidate
and,
and
they
have
the
ability
to
to
have
the
city
has
the
ability
to
ask
any
one
of
those
any
question
and
it,
and
and
not
as
it
relates
to
a
party,
but
as
it
relates
to
their
personal
feelings,
who
may
be
partisan,
but
still
there
they're
going
to
their
candidate,
and
so
I
so
the
the
nonpartisan
is
to
me
makes
us
makes
us
a
better
city.
E
It
makes
us
easier
for
us
to
have
the
discussion
about
what's
right
and
what's
wrong,
what
we
need
to
do,
what
we
don't
need
to
do
and
the
council
members
have
the.
I
think
they
have
the
the
freedom
to
be
who
they
want
to
be
and
run
on
their
own
decisions
and
their
own
merits
not
based
on
what
a
party
says
they
should
listen
to
and
what
they
should
be.
They
they
can
be
whatever
they
want
to
be,
but
they
are
their
council.
E
Candidates
are
mayor
candidate,
so
nonpartisan
to
me
is
is
the
most
effective
way
and
it's
it
has
been
really
worked.
I
think.
Well
in
columbus-
and
I
it's
one
of
those
things
that
ain't
broke,
don't
fix
it,
and
I
I'm
really
convinced
that
nonpartisan
is,
is
the
correct
thing
for
us
to
stay
and
wait
for
us
to
stay.
A
E
Know
what
we,
when
we
and
I'm
not
speaking
for
anybody
on
our.
E
But
but
I
don't
remember
anybody
saying
this
is
why
we
need
to
fix
this
problem
and
if
and
if
that
was
said-
I
I
missed
it.
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
saying
that
that
I
didn't
hear
it,
but
I
didn't,
and
but
we
did
have
some
people
like
mr
perkins.
It
says
that
we
need
to
go
back
to
the
partisan,
but
as
far
as
saying
you
know
it's
it's
not
working
now
I
I
don't.
I
don't
think
we
we
discuss
that.
G
As
we
become
more
granular
in
our
population
and
our
choices
of
people
to
elect
the
more
open
it
is
and
the
more
open
my
rights
are
to
choose.
Somebody,
I
believe,
is
the
better
at
this
level
of
politics,
especially
non-partisan
elections.
They
can.
They
can
eliminate
the
extremes
on
on
both
ends.
So
some
notes
I
took
alton
was
was
talking.
G
It
introduces
a
greater
chance
of
partisanship
moving
back
into
politics,
if
you,
if
you
venture
into
those
waters
it
nonpartisan
gives.
The
independent
person
gives
the
third
party
candidate
gives
that
person
who
has
no
affiliation
with
politics
whatsoever,
an
opportunity
to
stand
up
and
run
for
election
without
the
intimidation
factor
of
having
to
stand
with
a
party
and
make
a
decision
one
way
or
another
blue
or
red.
G
They're
more
free
at
that
point,
I
believe
a
candidate
whether
whether
you're
registered
as
a
democrat
or
a
republican.
When
you
run
non-partisan,
I
think
you're
more
free
to
be
able
to
speak
your
mind,
you're
more
free
to
be
able
to
give
your
true
beliefs
when
you're
not
having
to
again
curry
favor
to
a
party
and
at
this
level
of
politics.
G
One
of
the
one
of
the
more
powerful
things
that
you
have
in
negotiating
is
a
label
that
you
give
somebody
and
if
you
really
want
to
give
somebody
a
label
at
the
beginning,
a
fair
way
that
I'll
start-
and
I
don't
know
your
anything-
I
might
say-
john
hey
man-
everybody's
told
me
that
you're
a
fair
and
good
guy
and
you're
going
to
take
care
of
me
and
I've
labeled
him
at
the
beginning
of
that
negotiation
and
his
little
shadow
is
going
to
stay
in
his
ear.
G
That
he's
a
fair
he's,
a
good
guy
and
he's
going
to
take
care
of
me
and
when
you're
forced
at
the
beginning
of
an
election,
to
declare
one
way
or
another
you're
forcing
to
put
a
label
on
somebody
that
you
may
feel
is
more
important
to
live
up
to
that
label
than
you
would
to
represent
me
whether
whatever
that
party
is
representing
at
the
time
and
again
at
this
granular
nature
of
politics.
I
want.
I
want
a
more
open
menu
of
talent
than
I
do
a
smaller
one.
So
thank
you
so
much.
A
H
Incredibly,
quick,
if
you
have
partisan
politics
here,
you
add
an
additional
election,
a
primary
it's
hard
enough
to
find
good
people
to
run
today,
it's
very
expensive
to
run
today.
If
you
bring
back
partisan
candidates
here,
it
means
you
bring
in
potentially
two
additional
elections
that
are
expensive
not
only
to
the
city
but
they're
expensive
to
the
candidate.
That
he's
got
to
run
in
a
primary,
potentially
a
runoff
from
the
primary
and
then
the
general
election.
It
becomes
very
expensive
to
run.
E
J
The
one
thing
I
would
say
is
when
we're
talking
about
labels.
Those
labels
exist.
Already
people
discuss
it
in
the
community.
We
know
who
who
the
affiliated
people
are
and
who
the
few
people
on
council
who
are
unaffiliated
are
so
those
titles
exist
already
we're
just
by
having
people
by
having
people
say
they
belong
to
one
party
or
another,
we're
just
being,
I
think,
more
open
and
honest
about
it.
J
I
would
also
say
the
same
thing
about
council
votes
like
we
don't
see
it
in
the
paper,
but
there's
very
heated
discussions
that
I'm
a
part
of
with
young
professionals,
groups
and
different
organizations.
You
can
almost
not
always
but
very
often
can
kind
of
telegraph
votes.
So
all
of
those
things
exist
already.
J
So
for
me,
it's
about
just
being
transparent
about
where
influence
is
coming
from,
because
I
think
it
exists
already
and
I
think
it
happens
on
on
from
all
political
parties
in
the
city.
So
that's
my
final
point.
A
D
Do
have
a
just
comment
on
the
wording.
Yes,
the
proposal.
It
says
each
counselor
shall
declare
party
affiliation.
I
don't
think
you
can
require
that
someone
have
a
party
affiliation.
I
think
you
can
require
that
if
they
are
affiliated
with
the
party,
they
declare
it,
but
they
can
still
run
as
independents.
You
can't
preclude
that
under
the
constitution.
A
E
A
E
If
what
you're
saying
is
true,
that
means
that
you'll
have,
for
example,
you
would
have
a
two
democrats
and
three
republicans
running
in
their
own
primary,
and
then
you
would
have
an
independent
would
run
in
in
the
nonpartisan
election
that
that's
not
right.
I
don't
think
that's
true
would
work.
I'm
asking.
D
E
D
D
E
A
D
A
C
That's
right,
the
others,
the
others
provide
for
a
primary
election
at
this
time
in
the
state
law.
A
Okay
group:
two:
are
you
you
understanding
that
twist?
Okay,
we
ready
for
the
question
all
right,
so
is
anyone.
The
floor
is
open
for
a
motion
for
this
recommendation
by
group
two
with
respect
to
partisan
declaration
for
local
elections
that
are
not
state
positions.
A
E
All
right
next
one
is
3-104,
which
is
the
powers
of
council.
E
Agencies,
departments,
divisions,
boards,
authorities,
commissions
and
positions
of
public
employment
existing
under
this
charter.
So
well,
our
recommendation
is
that
there's
not
anything
wrong
with
that,
but
we
think
that
that
there
should
be
an
addition
in
there
that
says
that
each
all
of
these
will
offer
a
process
for
public
notification,
because,
as
of
right
now,
there's
nothing
that
says
that
it
has
to
even
be
put
on
our
website
the
city's
website.
So
one
that's,
that's
our
recommendation.
It's
kind
of
a.
E
Well,
the
council
has
the
responsibility
and
authority
to
create
all
these
things,
the
bureau's
boards
and
commissions,
and
they
can
do
it
without
any
notification
to
anybody
except
themselves
and
who
may
be
here
in
the
council
chambers
when
it's
done.
So
our
recommendation
is:
is
that
the
council
be
required
to
publish
and
notify
the
public
the
public
that
these
things
are
being
changed
added,
subtracted
or
whatever?
It
is.
I
When
you
describe
the
agenda
being
posted
on
the
website,
does
it
explain
that
there's
a
recommendation
to
make
changes,
or
is
it
just
the
agenda
that
says
that
there's
discussion
about
it,
because
I
know
I
have
seen
in
the
past
where
the
changes
are
included
in
the
budget
after
the
budget
is
approved?
And
you
see
the
budget
document
and
you
see
all
of
that
information.
D
Well,
some
of
the
items
actually
have
what
are
called
agenda
reports
that
are
posted
with
them.
That
would
describe
them,
and
any
agenda
item
has
what
we
call
the
title
of
the
ordinance
on
the
agenda,
which
is
a
brief
description
of
what
it
does
and
then
the
full
copy
of
the
ordinance
is
also
posted
with
it.
That
can
be
clicked
on.
I
And
I
appreciate
that
it's
on
the
website,
but
not
all
of
our
citizens
have
access
to
the
website
and
whether
or
not
it's
something
that
can
be
put
on
ccg
tv
or,
if
there's
another
platform,
that
we
can
strive
to
be
more
open
and
transparent
in
communicating
changes
and
information
to
our
constituents,
and
that
may
not
be
specifically
covered
here.
But
that
was
the
discussion
that
we
had
and
the
thought
behind.
Putting
that
in
this
recommendation.
A
So
I
I
assume
by
reading
this,
that
the
the
genesis
of
this
is
that
it
may
not
be
as
easy
as
it
should
be
for
people
to
have
notice
of
these
things.
So
the
process
with
the
agenda
and
the
click
and
the
whole
ordinance
attached
is
group,
two
thinking
or
a
did.
You
know
that
that
was
out
there
and
b.
If
you
did,
is
the
thought
that
well
for
your
average
citizen,
your
average
citizen,
that
may
not
be
enough
yes
and.
I
A
A
So
so
I'm
just
trying
to
find
something
actionable
here.
So
so
is
the
recommendation
that
an
additional
method
by
which
the
public
can
be
notified
of
these
proposed
ordinances.
What
the
group
is
recommending
because
they're
I'm
hearing
there
is
a
process.
It
may
not
be
as
effective
as
you
know,
the
communications
professionals
would
tell
us
it
should
be,
but
do
we
want
to
add
something
additional.
K
A
I
H
Can
I
recommend
that
we
potentially
not
everything,
needs
to
be
a
change
in
the
charter?
There
may
just
be
some
things
that
are
recommendations
that
we
send
to
council
to
consider
like
something
like
this
that
we
there
seems
to
be
concerned
about
the
communication
to
the
public
on
different
items.
Could
we
send
a
recommendation
to
the
council
to
look
at
it?
I'm
not
comfortable
voting
on
putting
this
on
the
ballot
today,
when
I
don't
even
know
what
it
says
and
so
and
I'm
not
sure
it
needs
to
be
on
a
ballot.
H
A
H
A
A
A
F
Question
yes,
clifford:
what
would
be
the
process
of
keeping
the
discussion
open
before
we
send
a
motion,
or
do
we
have
to
carry
out
this
motion?
First.
A
I
have
to
carry
out
this
motion
first.
Yes,
so
you
I'm
afraid
to
even
ask
your
question,
but
we
got
a
motion
and
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
Please
raise
your
hands.
F
C
C
F
Okay,
but
currently
in
ordinance,
someone
would
have
to
just
be
regularly
checking
the
website
in
order
to
know
what's
on
the
agenda,
correct,
otherwise,.
F
I
Thank
you
ma'am
and
in
the
interest
of
time,
the
the
next
two
items
that
we're
looking
at
are
in
alignment
with
the
previous
recommendation
for
communications.
I
Again
we're
talking
about
the
ordinances
and
how
they're
printed
how
they're
deployed-
and
we
are
recommending
again
that
we
look
at
available
technologies
to
assist
us
in
getting
the
communication
out
and
that's
section
3-205,
which
talks
about
the
printing
of
the
ordinances
and
then
section
3-206,
which
talks
about
the
publication
of
the
ordinances
and
we're
recommending.
I
I
G
A
Well,
the
the
only
thing
about
not
adding
it
to
modernize
each
provision
is
that
that
provision
is
still
standing
out
there
without
any
you
know
stated
means
to
do
it
other
than
what's
currently
in
there
that
that's
my
only
concern.
I
mean
it's
repetitive,
to
have
to
repeat
something
like
this
every
time,
but
you
know
there's
a
lot,
that's
repetitive
in
there
and
I
just
I,
I
fear
someone
going
directly
to
a
provision
and
only
that
and
not
continuing
to
read
that
there
may
be
some
kind
of
blanket
update
or
modernization
requirement.
A
O
And
forgive
me
for
asking
this
legal
question
but
when
you
say
all
available
printed
news
media,
it
does
include
neighborhood
newsletters
that
include
the
washington
post.
Does
that
include
usa
today
that
include
new
york
new
york
times
ajc,
because
when
you
say
all
available
printing
news
media
I
mean
somebody
could
technically
and
lucy
and
clifton
are
left,
but
they
know
that
there's
some
people
who
might
say
hey,
I
print
something
a
newsletter
every
month.
Y'all
need
to
send
me
stuff,
too,
and
and
what
about
these
other
major
newspapers
that
are
available
to
columbus?
O
A
C
I
think
you
need
to
be
pretty
specific
when
you're
talking
about
printed
news
media,
you
either
need
to
say
the
two
printed
news
media
with
the
largest
circulation
or
the
one
like
it
does
say.
I
think
in
places
now
in
the
charter,
and
not
just
the
open,
ended
all
available,
but
that's
that's
for
the
body
to
think
about.
There
is
going
to
be
a
cost.
Now,
whether
you
have
one
two
printed
media,
there's
going
to
be
a
cost,
a
budget
impact
on
the
clerk
of
council's
office
to
get
these
things
printed
wherever
they
are.
F
A
L
L
D
P
I
think
we're
all
saying
the
same
thing:
that
what
we've
got
is
outdated
and
what
we've
got
is
certainly
not
giving
the
public
any
kind
of
notice
of
what
council
is
doing.
However,
I
do
think
council
needs
to
have
control
and
the
public
needs
to
know
how
that
information
is
going
to
be
disseminated
on
a
yearly
basis.
P
So
if
we
reference
that
at
a
minimum
it
we
referenced
it
as
a
minimum
going
to
the
website
to
the
clerk
of
council
for
the
ordinances
and
any
other
publication
tied
to
the
right
entity.
That
would
would
publicize
that
online.
And
then
you
leave
council
under
a
requirement
to
come
up
with
the
annual
list
of
where
else
they
would,
where
else
they
would
publish
it
annually
for
the
public
and
then
that
way
council
has
then
put
into
what
they
want
to
do.
M
P
Well,
we
can
do
what
you
said
and
already
require
them
to
put
it
online,
which
I
think
is
already
being
done,
yeah
and
then
say
that
the
charter
also
is
going
to
require
council
to
determine
an
alternative
method
of
delivery,
whether
that's
picking
it
up
at
the
courthouse
steps
in
paper
versions.
You
know,
depending
on
what
council
determines
each
year.
That
would
be
my
suggestion.
A
K
C
K
A
Respect
to
notice,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
try
to
do
something
blanket
in
every
mentioning
of
notice,
that
must
be
given.
We
we
don't.
The
last
thing
we
need
to
do
is
leave
something
out.
So
I'm
looking
for
someone
who's
had
that
type
of
script
of
the
charter,
where
every
single
provision
with
respect
to
notice
is
flagged.
C
Well,
I
think
ken
and
carter
have
some
good
ideas
about
letting
the
council
require
some
due
process
notice.
I
think,
if
you're
going
to
put
something
in
the
charter,
it
needs
to
specifically
say
unless
otherwise
provided
in
the
state
law
notice
shall
be
published
on
the
city
website
at
a
minimum,
and
then,
if
you
want
to
also
say
council
she'll,
set
an
annual
procedure
on
it.
That's
fine
too,
but
you
need
to
be
consistent
throughout
the
whole
charter.
E
Other
thing
that
we
need
to
be
sure
that
that
we
will
pay
attention
to
and
if
we
can
delete
it
or
not,
is
fine
with
me,
but
but
the
order
right
now
it
says
publication
by
caption
only
and
if
you
look
we
are
we
also
asking
that
we
have
a
general
contents
published
and
then
also
that
it
would
also
have
the
office
of
the
consolidated
government
in
which
the
full
text
will
be
available
to
the
public
for
review.
So
that's
caption
or
general
content
is,
is
another
part
of
it.
C
C
A
So
as
a
procedural
matter,
I
I
need
some
assistance
on
this.
So
if,
if
we
are
saying
that
every
reference
to
notification,
that's
currently
in
the
charter,
we
need
to
kind
of
wrap
those
up
and
give
that
list
that
city
attorney's
office
is
going
to
provide
us
to
the
council
and
say
you
you
are
to
determine.
We
recommend
that
you
determine
every
year
how
best
to
communicate
this,
the
minimum
and
any
additional
ones.
Well,.
A
I
I
do
think
it
needs
to
be
consistent,
and,
personally,
I
think
kind
of
a
catch-all
somewhere
in
the
charter
may
not
as
a
practical
matter,
do
what
we
need
it
to
do,
because
it's
so
easy
to
not
see
something
like
that
when
you
go
directly
to
the
procedure
to
the
section
and
you
see
it
in
there,
there's
no
way
around
it
just
again
my
personal
opinion,
but
I
think
it's
fine
to
pause
it.
We
can
talk
about
it
in
october,.
I
I
A
I
Yes,
ma'am,
it's
very
similar
to
that.
Okay
and
the
the
last
thing
that
we
have-
and
we've
talked
about
this
before
was
the
section
3-3-0,
which
is
the
investigations
to
be
made
public
and
the
current
language
just
says
that
the
city
council
has
the
opinion
to
determine
when
executive
sessions
are
required.
A
A
C
I
would
have
to
agree,
I
mean
you.
The
state
law
specifically
sets
out
the
little
categories
that
council
can
take
for
an
executive
session
discussion
of
an
issue
whether
it's
personnel
real
estate,
legal
matters.
But
I
don't
think
you
want
to
get
into
trying
to
detail
that
here.
You
just
certainly
can
say
an
executive
session.
C
May
be
required
when
permitted
by
state
law
and
they're
closed
to
the
public
discussion
is
confidential
and
actually
the
records
are
confidential
under
state
law.
So
I
think
you
maybe
can
stick
with
the
first
sentence
and
maybe
strike
the
second
one,
but
it's
it.
Conflicts
could
conflict
with
the
state
law.
The
way
it's
written
here.
D
Now,
actually,
the
first
sentence
does
in
that
I
believe
under
state
law.
You
have
to
have
a
quorum
present
and
then
a
majority
of
the
quorum
can
vote
to
go
into
executive
session.
So
that's
a
little
bit
different
from
the
majority
of
the
whole
council,
but
that's
all
again
spelled
out
in
state
law.
It
tells
you
exactly
how
you
vote
to
go
into
the
session
when
you
can
vote
and
what
the
grounds
of
the
session
can
be.
A
Can
we
just
put
a
comma
at
the
end
of
the
first
sentence
when
you
know,
in
accordance
with
state
law
period,.
K
C
D
A
Okay,
I
want
to
move
this
along
here
so
that
that
is
the
recommendation
of
working
group
two,
with
the
exception
of
deleting
that
second
sentence
in
red
and
having
the
first
sentence
in
red
reading,
an
executive
session
may
be
required
comma.
A
C
Well,
I
think
the
goal
is
transparency
from
what
I
hear
from
the
committee
and
it's
okay,
it
already
says:
you'll
be
open
to
the
public
except
and
it's
fine
to
say
when,
under
protocol
majority,
voter
council
quorum,
an
executive
session
may
be
required
in
accordance
with
the
state
open
meetings.
Act
I
mean
it's,
it's.
C
A
A
A
F
All
right,
so
we
are
group.
Four,
we
covered
sorry
group.
Three,
we
cover
article
four,
which
is
the
executive
branch,
and
we
have
a
few
recommendations,
one
process
that
we
want
to
go
through
first.
So
these
are
the
group
members
that
we've
that.
F
Thank
you,
gentlemen,
that
are
here.
I
see
both
melvin
and
john
here
and
the
others.
Of
course
they
could
not
be
here.
F
F
So
we
were
asked
to
look
at
the
checks
and
balances
as
it
pertains
to
city
officers
and
their
areas
of
oversight,
and
so
the
idea
is
that
you
know
you
have
a
lot
of
changes
that
were
taking
places
as
pertaining
to
public
safety
offices
and
recommendations
that
were
maybe
unheard
of
or
unseen,
and
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
protecting
ourselves
from
any
lewd
kind
of
conduct
or
things
that
may
not
be
in
the
in
the
best
interest
of
our
our
city.
So
we
looked
at
that.
F
We
said
you
know
what
let's
really
make
sure
that
we
have
checks
and
balances
in
place
within
article
4
in
these
particular
areas.
So
it
really
comes
down
to
checks
and
balances,
really
comes
down
to
make
sure
that
our
our
mayor
is
elected
by
the
people.
So
every
four
years,
there's
a
vote
and
the
city
has
an
opportunity
to
choose
who
they
feel
best
fits
that
position.
F
F
As
you
can
see
the
sections
that
are
referenced
there.
If
you
want
to
go
and
look
at
those
particular
references,
you
can
approval
and
removal
of
officers
are
also
approved
by
six
council
votes
so
that
that's
not
something
that
the
mayor
would
do
on
it
by
his
or
herself,
but
would
lean
on
counsel
to
do
that
and
then
also
as
it
pertains
to
city
employees,
not
city
officers.
F
So
we
really
feel
like
with
these
four
areas
that
we
have
enough
checks
and
balances
in
place
that,
regardless
of
who's
elected
to
the
mayor
or
office,
that
our
public
safety
offices,
as
well
as
officers,
are
going
to
be
covered
sufficiently
covered
by
what
we
have
in
our
charter.
So
al
paul
is
there
and
asks.
Does
anybody
have
any
thoughts
or
questions.
A
F
All
right,
so,
let's
move
forward
to
our
recommendations,
so
this
one
is
strictly
type
typographical
in
nature.
Article
4,
section
2015.
F
However,
this
is
how
it
reads:
currently
it
says,
subject
to
approval
of
six
members
of
council
to
appoint
and
remove
division
heads
such
as
the
police
and
fire
chief
and
such
as
such
other
officers
as
prescribed
by
ordinance,
so
division,
heads
inappropriately
or
incorrectly
addresses
the
officers
we
that's
referenced
by
4-300,
which
addresses
our
particular
officers
as
city
officers.
So
the
only
change
would
be
just
switching
out
the
the
title
city
officers
for
division
heads.
So
that's
our
recommendation.
F
All
right
hang
in
here
with
us
guys:
we've
got
one
more
all
right,
so
article
4
dash
16
3
deals
with
boars
and
authorities.
F
Alright,
so
in
4-6-10,
so
basically
we
have
your
primaries
that
serve
on
the
board,
and
then
we
have
your
alternates,
and
so
the
way
that
it's
currently
set
up
is
that
your
alternates
are
assigned
to
specific
board
members,
and
they
can
only
replace
those
specific
board
members.
However,
that
can
present
an
issue
if
both
that
board
member
and
the
alternate
is
unavailable
to
serve
so
there
would
have
to
be
some
type
of
election
process
to
to
choose
that
or
some
type
of
process
they
would
have
to
go
through
to
choose
that
particular
person.
F
Let
me
read
that
for
you
all
as
it
currently
stands,
the
personnel
review
board
shall
consist
of
five
regular
members
and
five
alternate
members.
Each
alternate
member
shall
be
designated
as
the
alternate
for
a
particular
regular
member
in
the
absence
of
any
regular
member.
The
alternate
soul
designated
for
his
or
her
place
shall
sit
as
a
substitute
for
said,
absent
member
and
shall
be
empowered
to
act
as
a
regular
member
until
such
time
as
the
proceeding
begun
in
the
absence
of
the
regular
member
arc
included.
F
Now,
I'm
just
going
to
read
the
first
line
with
the
recommendation
that
we
have
personnel
review
board.
Shell
consists
of
five
regular
members
and
five
alternate
members.
Each
alternate
member
shall
be
designated
as
the
alternate
for
a
particular
regular
member
without
being
barred
from
serving
as
an
alternate
in
general.
F
So
what
this
does
is
it
gives
the
particular
board
the
option
of
choosing
someone
who
is
a
designated
alternate
to
serve
as
an
alternate
in
general
doesn't
mean
that
they
have
to
exercise
that
option,
but
it
gives
them
the
option
to
employ
someone
to
fill
that
position
in
in
the
situation
of
need
or
dire
need.
So
actually,
what
we're
doing
is
we're
just
adding
this
particular
option.
Again
it
doesn't
mean
that
they
have
to
exercise
the
option.
A
So
I
let
me
make
sure
I'm
understanding
it
correctly
and
that
is
rather
than
limiting
alternate
service
to
the
specific
person
that
they're
assigned
to
if
there
is
a
need
for
any
alternate
to
serve
as
a
general
alternate
for
whatever
reason,
this
will
allow
that
practice
to
take
place.
Okay,
any
questions,
any
feedback
for
the
group.
A
O
Good
afternoon,
madam
chairperson,
good
afternoon,
fellow
commission
members,
members
of
the
public
working
group,
four
we're
here
today
to
make
our
final
recommendations.
Working
group
four
consists
of
ben
richardson,
myself
carter,
schondemeyer,
pastor,
jimmy
elder.
This
is
john
stacy
and
chair
person,
allison
val
next
slide.
Thank
you.
We
were
tasked
by
the
chairperson
to
come
over
to
rationale.
O
So
that's
what
we
did
and
we
also
have
a
question
about
regarding
the
sheriff's
jurisdiction
but
I'll
address
that
later,
all
right,
as
you
can
see,
the
proposed
language
change
and
we
section
542
municipal
court
jurisdiction
the
sum
of
five
thousand
dollars
that
is
no
longer
valid
under
state
law.
So
we
just
basically
said
the
statutory
amounts
as
designated
by
the
state
of
georgia.
That's
proposed
language
change.
O
Rationality
is
to
align
with
state
law
and
clarify
jurisdiction
of
the
municipal
court
for
selling
property
disputes
in
civil
cases
and
the
reason
we
didn't
want
to
say
the
exact
amount
for
this
year
because
they
constantly
change.
So
that's
why
we
just
said
the
stash
tour
mountains,
that's
designated
by
the
state
of
georgia,
clifton
and
lucy.
They
agree
with
that
language.
So
that's
our
recommendation
and
we'll
entertain
the
motion
at
this
time.
They
change
or
any
questions.
O
You
all
right
next
slide,
all
right,
section
5603604.
As
you
know,
recorders
court
is
an
anomaly
in
the
state
of
georgia,
we're
one
of
the
few
jurisdictions
to
have
quote
unquote
recorders
court.
So
we
just
wanted
for
future
reference
to
basically
say
that
a
recorded
court
judge
can
be
removed
in
accordance
with
state
law,
and
so
that's
why
we
propose
adding
to
the
existing
language
section
b,
any
record
or
recorders
pro
tem
may
be
removed
by
the
council
to
consolidate
the
government
for
any
of
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
ocga
section.
O
3632,
I
mean
sorry,
that's
2.1,
subsection,
b,
subsection
one,
because
currently
there
was
no
removal
process
for
a
recorded
court
judge.
So
if
you
got
appointed
legally,
you
could
say
all
right,
I'm
staying
for
four
years,
so
we
just
wanted
to
add
that
language
under
state
law
says
you
can
be
removed
by
council
or
by
state
law
in
accordance
with
the
proceedings.
Therefore,
in
paragraph
c
d,
e
of
the
same
code
section-
and
we
talked
to
chairperson
judy
thomas-
and
she
agreed
with
this-
just
want
to
give
council
an
option.
O
All
right
and
again
section
5605
was
just
parallel
to
five
604,
like
I
said,
recorder
scored
as
an
anomaly
in
the
state
of
georgia,
and
we
just
basically
we
just
wanted
to
say
at
the
in
addition
that
what
the
general
intended
recorded
score
did
so
that
way,
if
any
attorneys
want
to
question
that
after
at
the
hearing
that
they
can
refer
to
the
charter
and
say
well,
that's
not
the
purpose
of
this
court,
so
we
just
kind
of
want
to
clean
it
up.
O
C
It's
created
by
the
local
act
of
the
general
assembly,
which
goes
way
back,
I
think,
to
1920,
but
this
is
consistent
with
state
law.
What
you're
talking
about
here
for
the
probable
cause
hearing,
that's
their
main
duty
and
perform
other
statutory
duties,
as
provided
by
georgia
law.
That
makes
it
clear
what
what
they're
there
for
right
and
other
other
statutory
duties
would
be.
C
A
O
O
We
talked
to
the
sheriff
and
the
old
charter
said
the
sheriff
of
the
consolidated
government
and
in
accordance
with
other
sheriffs
around
the
state.
He
wanted
to
be
shared
for
the
muscular
county,
because
that's
what
he
was
elected
to
when
you
voted
for
him.
But
there
was
a
question
saying
well
what
about
federal
property
within
the
county
lines?
Well,
I
did
some
research
and
you
can
see
where
the
two
brackets
are
federal
criminal
jurisdiction.
Government
property
can
be
categorized
in
three
ways.
O
First,
certain
lands
fall
within
the
exclusive
jurisdiction
of
the
united
states,
so
fort
benning.
That's
what
an
example
that
would
be
exclusive
jurisdiction.
You
step
on
four
minute
property:
they
have
their
own
mps,
they
have
their
own
set
of
investigative
agents
to
deal
with
that.
They
want
call
to
share
because
it
happened
on
forbidden
property,
so
that's
exclusive
jurisdiction.
O
Another
way
that
the
federal
government
says,
though,
is
that
other
properties
acquired
by
the
united
states
fall
within
the
concurrent
criminal
jurisdiction
of
the
state
and
federal
governments.
So,
for
example,
if
they
say
you
are
going
into
the
highway
report,
you
could
have
the
mps
there
possibly
or
you
could
have
challenged
your
county
sheriff,
because
the
federal
government
says
we're
going
to
share
jurisdiction
for
these
highways
with
the
local
government,
the
local
county
government.
So
that's
the
second
example
for
concurrent
jurisdiction.
O
The
united
states
say
you
know
what
we
want
to
deal
with
it.
You
know
you
if
you
go
to
go
to
a
park
somewhere
and
they
say
you
know
what
we
don't
want
exclusive
jurisdiction
on
this
park.
We
don't
want
concurrent
jurisdiction,
we're
going
to
let
y'all
control
that
park
here,
for
whatever
reason,
maybe
they
say
we
don't
have
the
resources
we
don't
have
enough
park
rangers.
So
we're
going
to
ask
that
the
city
of
columbus,
I
mean
the
city
of
columbus
or
pisco
county
to
step
in
and
help
us
put
enforcement.
O
So
that's
when
they
what
they
call
give
over
jurisdiction
and
their
third
way.
I
know
this
kind
of
law
school,
professor
trying
to
explain
it,
but
I
got
some
fellow
lawyers
in
here
and
the
chairperson
can
also
add.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
about
those
three
ways?
So
technically
it
won't
affect
when
we
say
the
sheriff
of
muscular
county
because
he's
still
going
to
terrible
story
county,
he
just
might
not
have
jurisdiction
over
certain
federal
property
to
have
an
exclusive
jurisdiction.
Q
K
Q
O
Right
are
they
not
in
if
they're,
in
federal
illinois,
county
and
the
federal
government
says
we're
going
to
keep
the
jurisdiction
right
right,
right,
right
and
also
the
post
office
down
here.
K
O
O
Well,
under
the
federal
gov
under
federal
law,
we
can't
give
them
any
more
jurisdiction
than
the
constitution
of
georgia,
which
says
that
the
county
that
is
not
taken
in
by
the
federal
government,
jurisdiction
or
another
jurisdiction.
He
has
basically
inherent
power,
but
in
terms
of
trying
to
answer
that
we'll
be
going
against
federal
law.
O
N
O
Consolidated
governments
to
muscular
count
we're
just
basically
man
like
it's
pretty
much
typographical,
like
commissioner
harvard
said,
but
we
had
a
question
for
one
of
the
members,
so
we
just
want
to
delve
into
a
further
one.
Why
that
wouldn't
really
matter
for
this
type
of
graphical
change?
O
A
G
So
in
our
working
group
we
had
pace
hadler
carmen
rice,
rob
roberts
and
myself.
We
consulted
a
couple
of
people
and
just
really
looked
for
areas
that,
were
you
know,
possibly
sore
spots,
areas
of
call.
You
know
that
could
cause
concern,
possibly
put
us
out
of
line
with
the
with
the
state
in
the
first
area
that
we
came
up
to
was
under
the
time
for
holding
voting
for
elections,
regular
elections
as
the
charter
currently
states.
G
It
says
the
irregular
regular
election
of
the
consolidated
government
shall
be
held
on
the
tuesday
next,
following
the
first
monday
in
november
and
each
even
number
year,
the
proposed
change
would
be
the
regular
election
of
the
consolidated
government
shall
be
held
on
the
date
officially
specified
by
state
law
for
a
nonpartisan
office
in
each
even
number
years.
This
was
just
to
ensure
that
our
special
elections
were
always
in
line
with
state.
G
There
was
just
concern
that
you
could
possibly
reach
a
situation
since
it
was
spelled
out
so
specific
and
that
we
would
be
better
off
directly
aligning
with
the
state.
In
this
instance,
I
believe
we
had
some
questions
last
time.
Let's
bring
us
out
of
line
with
the
federal,
and
I
think
council
answered
that
that
it's
the
state,
if
I'm
correct,
does
govern
when
our
elections
are.
Is
that
correct
clifford?
You
voted
for
yeah.
K
A
C
C
A
C
A
A
If
not,
is
there
a
motion.
K
A
All
those
in
favor
of
approving
this
recommendation,
please
say
aye
any
opposed
all
right.
Thank
you.
G
Appendix
2
chapter
8,
section
2
penalties
for
violation
of
the
coda
ethics
and
prohibited
practices
currently
states.
The
council
may
provide
by
ordinance
that
violation
of
section
that
violations
of
sections
one
through
seven
and
the
appendix
shall
be
punishable
by
a
fine
not
to
exceed
six
hundred
dollars
by
imprisonment,
not
to
exceed
sixty
days
etc.
G
The
proposed
changes
would
be
the
council
may
provide
by
ordinance
that
violation
of
sections,
one
through
seven
of
the
appendix,
shall
be
punishable
by
a
fine
not
to
exceed
one
thousand
dollars
or
max
penalty
allowable
by
law
for
any
violation
of
city
ordinance.
In
the
previous
recommendation,
we
had
put
a
placeholder
amount
of
twelve
hundred
dollars
there
and
we
wanted
to
vet
that
amount
under
advisement
the
maximum
penalty
that
we
can
charge
for
violation
of
a
city.
G
Ordinance
right
now
would
be
one
thousand
dollars,
and
if
we
went
above
that,
it
could
possibly
require
additional
changes
elsewhere.
So
we
just
maxed
out
that
penalty
to
one
thousand
dollars
and
then
by
adding
the
second
or
max
penalty
allowed
by
law
for
any
violation
of
city
ordinance.
If
that,
if
that
amount
ever
gets
adjusted
up,
then
this
would
automatically
adjust
up
and
should
not
require
any
further
changes
in
the
future.
C
C
A
A
All
right
any
if
there's
no
other
discussion
or
questions,
then
I'll,
entertain
a
motion
about
this
recommendation
to
accept.
A
All
right,
I
moved
and
seconded
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
working
group.
Five,
look
at
us
finishing
early
who
who
knew
when
we
started
that
we
get
here
all
right.
Let
me
look
at
the
agenda
so
today
with
our
great
efficiency
we
have
done
all
but
the
one
working
group
who
is
not
present
and
they
will
report
at
the
october
meeting
and
also
for
the
city
attorney.
A
B
A
A
There
is
a
remote
possibility
and
I
will
know
within
the
next
two
weeks,
whether
or
not
I
can
be
present
for
the
october
meeting,
an
event
that
surely
will
cancel
with
with
the
state
that
we're
in
with
the
coronavirus
the
minute
I
know
I'll,
let
tamika
know,
but
in
the
event
that
we
have
it,
it's
a
must
attend
for
me,
one
of
those
things,
so
I
I
would
very
much
like
to
be
in
attendance
at
the
october
meeting,
even
though
we
have
a
very
able
co-chair
and
mr
russell
is
there
a
date
around
the
third
thursday
of
october
that
if
we
have
to
use
for
an
alternative,
perhaps
that
friday,
that
we
can
use
and
not
have
to
gather
or
poll
everyone
about
their
availability.
A
Does
that
friday,
the
third
friday
work
it
doesn't
have
to
be
at
the
end
of
the
afternoon.
I
can
make
anything
happen.
Yes,
we
definitely.
You
know,
I
don't
want
to
say
we
don't
need
the
three
hours
because
then
we'll
need
the
three
hours,
but
I
would
like
to
think
that
no
won't
be
good
for
you.
Okay,.
A
Definitely
not
on
that
friday.
Is
there
another
date
that
week
as
long
as
it's
in
the
morning,
I
can
make
it
work.
I've
gotta
gotta
fly
to
dc.
Yes,.
A
A
A
If
it
works
for
you,
then
you
you
may
be
the
the
delegate,
then,
mr
woodruff,
okay,
so
what
we
will
do
and
that's
that's
our
backup
date
in
the
event
that
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
be
here
on
our
typical
date.
But
if
you
don't
hear
a
change
in
dates,
we
will
be
here
on
the
third
thursday
to
conclude
all
of
the
discussion
on
on
our
recommendations.
A
So
I
I
thank
you.
Yes.