►
From YouTube: 08-21-19 Charter Revision Commission Meeting
Description
08-21-19 Charter Revision Commission Meeting
A
B
A
E
F
A
G
A
I
know
that
recent
events
created
questions
over
there's
no
question
about
a
felony,
but
there's
a
question
about
what
constitutes
moral
turpitude
and
my
question
through
this
body
is:
should
we
undertake
to
define
moral
turpitude
or
should
we?
You
know
I,
think
because
it's
all
day
already
there
that
it
would
be
very
simple
for
Council
to
define
by
ordinance
moral
turpitude
and
not
leave
it
up
in
the
air
as
to
what
is
more
to.
As
you
know,
Maul
turpitude
is
a
creature
of
the
federal
government.
A
H
I
just
want
to
add
to
that,
and
then
I
agree
with
everything
that
you
just
said
and
I
was
trying
to
answer.
That,
for
myself
is
what
exactly
is
moral
turpitude
and
I've
seen
that
it
goes
back
several
decades
in
the
60s
when
it
first
started,
popping
up
and
and
has
been
used
in
in
different
scenarios,
but
I
was
never
able
to
find
a
specific
definition
of
it.
It's
more
of
a
broad.
H
But
you
know
I,
guess:
I
had
a
hard
time.
You
know
finding
in
broaden
general
terms,
I
find
some
definitions,
but
in
specifics
they
seem
to
be
lacking
and
and
even
thence
it
seemed
to
be.
You
know
a
little
uncertain
as
to
what
it
is
so
I.
Don't
know
that
that
this
Commission
wants
to
set
out
to
define
it.
It
would
be
nice
to
have
some
guidance,
it's
not
a
definition,
but
perhaps
we
might
ask
legal
staff
to
to
bring
something
to
us
and.
H
F
You,
but
even
me,
you're
wrong
counsel,
also
kind
of
struggled
with
is
trying
to
figure
out
again
what
a
clear
definition
is,
and
there
really
isn't.
One
I
know
that
in
discussions-
and
this
happened
with
Councilman
Sam
BL
was
on
board
and
and
not
that
they
took
an
official
vote,
but
they
kind
of
not
all
of
them
agreed
with
this.
F
Laredo
charter
be
amended
to
add
the
language
providing
that
the
mayor
and
city
council
members
shall
forfeit
office
if
convicted
of
a
crime
of
moral
turpitude
as
found
by
a
court
of
competent
criminal
jurisdiction
in
relation
to
the
specific
specified
criminal
charge.
During
that
elected
officials,
current
term
and
I
think
everyone
kind
of
agreed
with
this.
At
the
time,
the
only
concern
was
your
the
current
term
or
prior
to
the
current
term
and
for
the
majority
of
them
did
emphasize
that
they
said
during
that
current
term.
F
So,
but
they
wanted
to
bring
it
to
the
Commission.
So
you
all
might
have
some
input
and
I
with
the
situation
that
happened.
I,
guess
people
are
saying:
well,
that's
more
interpretive.
Someone
else
would
say:
well,
no,
it's
not
defined
like
that
or
whatever
the
issue
was,
and
so
I
said.
Well,
what
did
the
judge
say
and
just
says
I'm,
not
considering
that
part
of
it
and
so
I
said
well
really.
F
If
it's
a
crime
and
the
judge
does
come
out
and
say
this
is
a
crime
of
moral
turpitude,
then
at
that
point,
that
would
be
it
that
would
be
defined
by
the
judge.
Where
were
there
that's
ruling
on
that
situation?
That's
how
they
were
looking
at
it
or
envisioning
that
section
being
changed,
but
I
give
you
that
information.
So
you
can
take
that
into
consideration.
Also
I.
A
C
Wonder
a
judge:
how
common
is
it
for
the
judge
to
add
that
special
saying
whether
its
moral
turpitude
or
not,
because
the
last
time
the
DA
came
and
they
make
the
case
that
it
was
moral
turpitude
and
it
was
still
not
accepted
so
I.
Just
wonder
if
that
judge
goes
out
of
doing
way
to
say
that
yeah
well.
F
I
won't
say
and
I
don't
want
to
say
that
the
judge
was
asked
that,
and
he
said
no
I
want
to
change.
The
DA
did
come
up
and
one
of
the
assistant
das
and
did
say
well.
He
felt
that
it
was,
but
at
the
end
of
the
date
the
judges
ruled
and
so
I
think
that's
what
counsel
says
local
leave
it
up
to
the
judge
for
ever
the
judges
and
they
can
whoever's
prosecuting
the
case,
can
ask
for
that
interpretation
if
it
is
or
it
is
it
at
that
point.
A
The
way
I
see
it,
someone
may
get
into
commission
of
some
offense
prior
to
the
time,
he's
elected,
but
what
he
is
running
and
but
does
not
get
convicted
until
he's
in
office,
which
is
the
situation.
What
happened,
what
happened
and
I
don't
think
there
are
to
be
any
vagueness
as
to
what
is
more
interpretive
leave
no
no
room
for
interpretation.
It
either.
Is
it
isn't
DWI
any
theft,
offense.
A
C
Good
is
it
possible
to
put
in
some
word
into
the
effect
of
is,
for
example,
you
know
three,
his
convicted
of
a
crime
involving
moral
turpitude,
including
such
crimes
as
so
and
so,
and
so,
but
not
limited
to
these
crimes.
In
other
words,
do
we
at
least
lay
out
some,
like
you
said,
DWI
fare,
you
know
possible
abuse.
Do
we
one
at
least
put
something
in
there?
Let.
A
G
J
I
think
it's
gonna
be
a
never-ending
spindle.
You've
got
to
catch
all
of
them,
and
how
can
you
I
think
what
mr.
Melissa,
just
in
when
I
read
here
on
this
amendment,
see
if
you
leave
it
to
the
court,
a
court
of
a
company
of
company
jurisdiction,
the
case
itself?
Can
they
have
the
grounds
whether
is
it
moral
or
is
it
not
more,
but
the
suggestion
that
mister
it
says
that
we
list
quite
will
you
stop
you
list
this
this
day,
but
you
missed
this
one
and
that's
the
one
that
applies
well.
J
Being
asked
and
said,
and
I'm
gonna
be
fine
to
discuss,
consider
and
recommend
desire.
This
is
our
charge
to
discuss,
consider
and
recommend
the
the
amendments
of
the
Charter
to
provide
the
City
Council
and
remove
members
from
the
office
for
violation
of
section.
We
can,
you
consider,
recommend,
discuss,
consider
and
recommend,
considering
and
recommending
that
mean
it's
gonna
be
done.
I
What
what
we
currently
have
is
really
absolutely
not
nothing
yeah.
What
is
being
proposed
here
in
amendment
seeing
is
saying
that
the
court
will
decide
yes
now,
if
the,
if
the
judge
doesn't
specifically
say
moral
turpitude,
we
can.
We
can
say
that
that
in
any
bite,
so
if
they
don't
specifically
say
moral
turpitude,
but
regardless
the
the
person
charge,
is
convicted
in
a
court
of
law.
So
that's
better
than
what
we
have
absolutely
you.
I
I
J
J
H
I
moved
to
to
amend
charter
and
incorporate
the
language
that
is
recommended
and
presented
to
us
as
amended
amendments
II
and
specifically,
to
add
language,
providing
that
the
mayor
and
council
members
so
forfeit
office
if
convicted
of
a
crime
of
moral
turpitude
as
found
by
a
court
of
competent
criminal
jurisdiction
in
relation
to
a
specified
criminal
charge.
During
the
that
elected
officials.
Current
term.
C
One
because
if
it's
let's
say
the
City
Council
person
violated
something
and
it
didn't
it
occur
during
his
first
term,
but
the
court
was
not
final
until
the
second
term.
So
because
it
didn't
happen
in
the
current
term,
he
gets
away
scot-free
or
should
it
be
since
he's
been
in
office
well,
I
mean
I
would
think
as
long
as
he's
been
in
office
instead
of
saying
just
in
the
current
term,.
I
The
crime
the
alleged
crime
may
have
happened
that
either
before
or
during
okay.
J
C
Okay,
I
think
this
isn't
even
a
way
out
and
because
of
the
wording
of
the
current
term,
I
think
it
should
be
just
period
like
as
long
as
ever
since
that
person
became
an
electric
official.
That
applies
that's
well.
How
would
you
word?
It
specified
criminal
conviction
during
the
elected
official
current
term
instead
of
charge,
because
you're
gonna
be
charged
and
they're
in
my
drag
for
three
years.
It
could
that's.
C
H
H
If
we
just
take
away
the
current
term,
then
what
would
do
is
leave
it
open
to.
If
someone
had
a
conviction
for
moral
turpitude
ten
years
ago,
okay,
then
it
would
still
be
open
and
to
be
considered
here,
because
we're
not
admitting
to
to
any
terms
we're
saying
at
any
point
so
I,
don't
think.
That's
anybody's
intent,
I
think
the
intent
is
well.
There's
certain
positions.
E
C
E
C
A
G
E
I
The
place
this
here
is
that
just
another
paper,
well,
you
know:
okay,
the
chart
could
have
been
made
at
any
time
prior
ordering,
okay,
but
the
conviction,
while
in
office
all
right
help
me
up.
I
have
okay,
but
we're
still
not
that
big
moral
turpitude,
so
that,
if
the
judge
that
that
was
your
concern
right.
A
A
That's
why
I'm
thinking
that
we're
leaving
it
open
if
we
don't
define
moral
turpitude,
but
it
you
know
what
I
keep
thinking
it's
it's
a
difficult
thing
to
do.
You
know
what,
if
someone
has
like
that
former
superintendent,
a
baggie
or
a
cigarette
marijuana
possession
of
marijuana,
although
it's
legal
in
some
states
here
it's
not
and
under
federal
law,
it's
not
and
is
that
moral
turpitude
we
don't
know
and.
A
I
I
would
agree
with
that
study.
We
passed
this
as
has
been
motion
in
the
second
that
he
we
at
worthy
to
the
effect
that
that
recommending
this,
but
we're
also
asking
the
council
to
to
tackle
the
issue
of
defining
moral
turpitude,
because
if
the
court
doesn't
specifically
say
it,
may
that
may
be
a
legal
loophole.
I
mean
you're
you're,
the
attorney
here,
it's
social.
So
what
do
you
think
if.
E
H
The
question
that
I'm
hearing
is
that
is
not
not
so
much
the
finding,
but
what
actually
initiates
submitting
the
case
for
review
by
very
judge
which
cases
may
be
submitted
for
review
and
which
don't
qualify
as
being
submitted
for
review
for
moral,
turpitude
and
I.
Think
this
is
for
the
examples.
Looking
epic
falls
in
this
type
of
situation
and
it
would
go
otherwise.
It
wouldn't,
but
in
other
words,
a
council
can,
just
through
its
own
inaction,
nullify
this
right.
Unless
you
have
something
that
says
in
these
circumstances,
you
will
do
that.
A
A
A
K
Believe
the
moral
is
the
way
like
the
people
of
the
once
oddity
soceity
wants
to
make
all
the
so
city
in
that
way.
I
think
is
why
stay
moral
turpitude
here,
because
we
want
our
politicals
people
coming
in
that
way
and
if
we
think
of
this
article,
it's
not
a
way
of
the
people's
ones
immoral
in
there
I.
C
What
I
actually
the
way,
if
it's
possible
to
do
it?
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
ask
legal
to
get
us
the
crimes
in
Texas
that
constitute
moral
turpitude
and
see
what
they
are,
and
maybe
we
can
include
those
because
I'm
sure
people
are
charged
with
north
or
between
Texas
all
the
time.
But
what
are
they
I
mean
I,
think
that
at
least
will
give
us
something
to.
F
For
me
again,
what
counsel
was
reviewing
this
portion?
It
was
a
long
discussion.
I
know
some
of
the
several
attorneys
on
counsel.
Some
said
this
is
what's
considered
moral,
turpitude,
so
I
said
well.
This
is
what's
considered
and
that's
not
considered,
so
they
went
back
and
forth
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
and
will
provide
the
minutes.
F
If
you
want
to
table
the
item,
that's
fine
and
we
can
provide
the
minutes
of
that
discussion,
specifically
just
for
that
issue,
because
it
was
a
long
discussion
and
a
lot
of
points
were
brought
up
and
the
concern
again
was
if
you
list,
if
you
have
a
listen
I
like
Webster's
dictionary.
This
is
what
moral
turpitude
is
and
then
they're
listed
there
it's
crimes
of,
and
so
again,
like
mr.
F
Think
more
of
an
issue
than
the
actual
vagueness
of
the
moral
turpitude,
the
the
consideration
was
from
the
general
and
I
say
in
general,
because
not
everyone
agreed,
but
for
the
majority
of
them
they
said,
leave
it
to
a
judge
to
discuss
it
or
to
decide
that
issue
at
that
time.
And
so,
if
you
wanted
this
table
the
item,
we
can
bring
you
back
those
minutes,
so
y'all
can
review
them
and
consider
them.
And
then
we
can
bring
back
this
item
at
another
meeting.
A
A
We
want
to
get
mired
up
in
the
removal
procedure.
I
think
those
are
good
sections
that
are
there.
You
know
that
the
city
manager
is
in
charge
and
as
well.
It
should
be,
and
the
council
individually
should
not
meddle
with
the
management.
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
any
changes
you
want
to
make
to
that
or.
A
C
F
When
I
read
this
substance
is
acting
city
manager,
section
3.0
for
acting
city
manager
by
letter
filed
with
the
city
secretary
city
manager,
shall
designate
subject
to
approval
by
City
Council,
a
qualified
administrative,
City
administrative
officer
to
exercise
the
powers
and
duties
and
performances
and
perform
the
duties
of
the
city
manager.
So
you
designating
someone
to
perform
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
city
manager
during
his
temporary
absence
or
disability.
F
During
such
absence
of
disability,
the
City
Council
may
revoke
the
designation
at
any
time
and
appoint
another
officer
of
the
city
to
serve
until
the
city
manager
shall
return
or
his
or
her
disability
shall
cease.
In
the
event
the
city
manager,
city
manager
is
Inc,
capacitated
and
cannot
or
will
not
designate
an
acting
city
manager.
Then
the
City
Council
shall
appoint
an
acting
city
manager
by
an
affirmative
vote
of
no
less
than
five
council
members,
so
the
council
may
select
someone
city
manager
may
select
someone
during
his
absence.
F
F
And
see
the
that
for
recommendation
is
to
the
same
language
solely
through
the
city
managed
solely
through
the
city
manager
or
the
city's
manager's
designee.
So
he
also
says
these
people
are
also
in
charge.
Then
that's
allowed
at
this
point.
It
says
solely
through
the
city
manager,
but
council
can
again
in
the
absence
we
have.
This
situation
happen
recently
mr.
de
Leon
resigned
or
retired,
and
so
they
appointed
somebody,
and
so
as
I
read
through
the
Charter.
F
In
the
absence
of
the
city
manager,
the
council
shall
appoint
or
may
appoint
someone
which
they
did,
which
is
a
coenzyme
city
manager,
and
so
they
have
the
powers
as
city
manager
has
so
so
I
think
the
department
was
looking
at
that
also
and
said:
okay.
Well,
that's
included
or
the
city
manager's
designee.
So
that's
that's
I,
think
where
you
were
referring
to
mr.
Cisneros.
Yes,.
C
My
only
question
would
be
if
it
if
it
does
indeed
refer
to
the
acting
city
manager.
Would
it
not
be
more
clear
to
say
at
the
very
last
of
be
through
the
city
manager
or
acting
city
manager,
as
prescribed
by
304
I
mean
in
other
words,
you.
You
will
actually
come
out
and
say
acting
city
manager
instead
of
just
designee,
it's
already
in
the
Charter.
How
do.
F
The
city
manager's
absent,
but
if,
like
he
had
the
executive
directors
in
the
past,
are
not
there
anymore,
but
he
was
stating
that
he
could
give
that
power
yeah,
which
I
think
if
it's
there
it'd
be
more
more
clear
and
clearly
defined.
Yes
at
section
like
you're
saying
as
far
as
it
does,
it
need
not
just
in
the
app.
F
F
F
C
F
Up
here
again,
if
you
want
to
do
it,
you
can
propose
them
to
do
this
change
through
an
ordinance
and
so
that
would
go
back
to
say.
I
city
manager
designate
the
deputy
the
assistants
to
act.
You
know,
even
if
I'm
here
you
know
the
same
powers
or
whatever
the
limited
powers
are
and
Council
you
either
you
say
yes
or
no,
and
so
that's
official,
and
to
change
that
you'd
have
to
go
back
to
council
through
an
ordinance.
F
I
Is
that
in
the
proposed
change,
the
manager
is
weakening
his
position
all
by
himself
he's
still
here,
but
think
he's
saying,
but
the
county
can
approach
so
and
so
and
so,
and
so,
even
though
I'm
still
here,
yeah
tell
me
that
that
makes
some
sense.
I
I
would
be
in
favor
of
keeping
at
the
waist
and
just
solely
to
assume
and
the
way
it
is
right
now
just
to
the
city
manager.
F
Man,
I
think
an
example.
Maybe
he
could
be
here
in
a
conference
and
some
action
needs
to
be
taken
and
the
council
needs
to
talk
to
him,
but
he's
unavailable
and
so
for
whatever
reason
they
needed
some
action,
so
they
might
approach
and
if
there's
no
one
else
and
he's
the
only
one
that
could
be
a
situation
it
may
occur,
it's
happened
in
the
past
I'm,
not
saying
that
that's
the
justification,
but
that's
a
situation
that
could
happen,
and
maybe
that's
the
thought
behind
this.
A
I
Would
not
be
famous
if
you
have
a
weak
city
manager,
the
council
is
going
to
fill
gap,
and
here
not
only
do
you
have
that
problem.
He
here
that
manager
is
weakening
his
his
his
his
position
all
by
himself,
so
that
then
that
opens
the
door
for
the
council
to
yes
get
him
out
of
the
out
of
the
out
of
the
way,
and
just
deal
directly
would
be
the
permanent,
so
I
I
would
definitely
not
not
support.
Will
that
change
and
I
would
support
you
thing
and
they
were
motioning.
The.
I
A
G
I
A
E
A
0.05,
which
is
council,
shall
be
the
judge
of
the
election
and
qualifications
of
its
members
and
of
the
grounds
for
forfeiture
of
office.
The
City
Council
shall
have
the
power
to
subpoena
witnesses,
administer
oaths
and
require
the
production
of
evidence.
A
member
charged
with
conduct
constituting
Lunsford,
forfeiture
or
office
shall
be
entitled
to
a
public
hearing
notice.
A
search
here
shall
be
published
in
one
or
more
newspapers
of
general
circulation,
etc,
and
decisions
made
by
City
Council
under
this
section
are
subject
to
be
the
judicial
review.
J
I
C
F
I
mean
yeah,
you
know
again
I'm
not
in
their
thought
process,
but
I
think
it
also
falls
under
forfeiture.
So
but
you
have
to
go
to
a
jury
and
so
there
that's
why
the
City
Council
shall
be
the
judge
of
election
and
qualifications.
So
let's
say
you
have
to
live
in
your
district
you're
found
that
you
live
in
another
district,
and
so
there
would
be
basically
like
a
hearing
amongst
the
council
and
they
would
say
yes
or
no,
that
you
haven't
forfeited
your
qualifications
and
that
could
be
during
the
election
or
after
the
way.
F
C
Then,
at
the
very
end
of
the
on
the
item
and
the
agenda,
it
says
specifically
to
clarify
the
definition
of
moral
turpitude,
so
that
would
tell
me
that
it
also
applies
to
section
2.04
B,
in
other
words,
section
2.03,
a
B
and
C
and
section
two
point:
zero
4
b
all
should
undergo
a
vote
by
the
City
Council
to
be
enforced.
According
to
this
two-thirds
vote
is
the
way
I
understand.
C
F
So
if
someone's
gonna
enforce
those
who
would
have
to
be
the
City
Council
I
mean
listen,
says
otherwise,
but
I
would
imagine
that
why
they
are
the
judge
of
qualifications
of
its
members,
but
then
I,
guess
someone
can
file
something
in
district
court
and
go
that
route.
There's
a
violation
which
everyone
has
a
legal
right,
I
think
amongst
themselves.
The
way
it's
defined
right
now.
The
judge
of
qualifications
shall
be
the
City
Council,
but.
I
What
I'm
reading
is
that
this
this
proposed
amendment
a
wants
us
to
add
forfeiture
of
office
right
now.
It's
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
okay
I
think
they
want
us
to
add
the
fact,
those
those
things
that
if
a
council
member
interferes
with
appointments
or
interferes
with
administration,
that
that
be
added
as
a
reason
for
so.
F
A
E
I
A
A
The
aggrieved.
The
aggrieved
party
is
the
city
manager
because
I'm
interfering
with
the
operation
and
the
management
of
the
city
matters.
So
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
that,
because
there's
going
to
be
differences
among
the
City
Council
members,
that
a
two-thirds
majority
can
say
well,
you
know
what.
A
C
H
C
H
You
know
violation
here
of
instead
of
City
Council
being
making
that
decision,
it
should
be
a
a
judge
making
that
determination,
independent
to
the
council
report
impartial.
Yes,
so
I
think
that's.
You
know
probably
just
saying
that
everything's
okay,
except
instead
of
having
council,
make
its
own
decisions,
send
it
to
to
a
judge
to
make
an
independent
decision.
F
F
The
attorney
should
file
charges
or
whatever,
but
you
also
have
that
scenario
where
the
city
manager
might
not
get
along
with
somebody,
and
so
you
might
say
well,
I
interpreted
this
as
happening
this
way
where
you
violated
this
or
now
your
honor
again,
you
have
to
you,
know:
you're
not
putting
guilty
you're,
not
what
is
it
you're
not
guilty
guilty
and
trying
to
prove
yourself
innocent.
You
should
be
innocent.
You.
F
Why
the
judge
of
qualifications
they
can
also
subpoena
people
everything
and
at
that
point,
once
they
find
out
okay.
This
was
a
violation
and
that's
I
think
where
they
were
going
with
that
because
and
I
like
the
idea
of
having
a
judge
do
that.
But
someone
has
to
file
a
complaint,
and
so
if
they
find
that
there
was
substantial
evidence
them
accountable,
the
way
I
interpret
it
right
now.
Is
the
council
said:
okay,
there
was
enough,
let's
file
something
in
court
and
remove
this
person
they're
not
going
to
remove
you,
because
you
know
that
reason.
F
F
They
can
freely
discuss
the
appointment
or
not,
but
not
giving
direction
here.
I
want
you
to
hire
this
person.
You
could
say:
I
feel
this
guy's
qualified.
Please
consider
him
that
wouldn't
be
a
violation.
As
far
as
I
understand
it.
You
know
you
start
dictating
to
them
and
four
or
five
becomes
an
issue
at
that
point.
I
Basically,
it's
division
of
power.
You
have
the
council
making
the
rules
and
then
the
manager,
good
administrating
administrating
the
roof,
putting
them
away.
So
the
the
the
writers
of
the
Charter
found
this
this
important
enough
to
allow
the
manager
to
manage
so
that,
specifically,
it's
written
here,
City
Council
shall
not
in
any
men,
dictate.
I
I
I
Conviction
of
a
crime,
moral
turpitude,
213
you're
out,
but
not
not.
It's
not
here,
listed
as
serious
enough
to
merit
forfeiture
of
office.
So
I
think
that
if
you
don't
put
in
here,
you're
you're
opening
the
door
to
encroaching
on
the
functions
of
the
of
the
city
manager,
because
there
is
no
penalty.
C
I
I
I
Has
attempted
to
on
the
other
so
I'm
back
again
to
politicians?
If
you
have
two
thirds
of
those
politicians
against
you,
they
make
judge
a
minor
offenses
is
serious.
I'm
out
you
go
it's
it's
not
easy,
but
if
you
don't,
if
you
don't,
you
don't
specifically
take
a
stand,
it
will
clear
it
up.
Then
it's
wide
open
I
can
see
both
ways.
It's
politics.
I
So
this
amendment,
it's
saying
that
we
add,
we
have
done
react,
but
we
had
interfering
with
with
appointments
and
interfering
with
administration,
as
we
saw
for
removal.
That's
how
I
see
it
and
that
of
course,
and
the
council
will
will
will
be
the
judge
of
hearing
hearing
all
the
evidence
in
the
design.
F
C
F
Counsel
had
said
to
take
to
the
commission
of
almost
unity
and
then
during
the
elections
or
Commission
hit
back
then
that
said,
we're
not
gonna
do
anything
right
now
wait
till
after
the
elections
and
then
we
started
kind
of
slowly
trying
to
get
back
and
that's
what
we're
hearing.
That's
what
counts
had
voted
back.
Then,
of
course,
councilman
tell
me
some
other
councilmen
are
new,
so
this
is
what
was
given
to
the
council.
C
C
I
F
C
F
Again,
there's
certain
conflicts,
I
know
the
last
amendment
to
the
Charter
say
that
he
votes
in
a
section,
but
they
forgot
to
remove
the
other
section,
which
says
he
only
votes
in
case
of
of
a
time,
and
so
he
has
been
voting.
And
so
that's
what
one
of
the
issues
that
needs
to
be
clarified
in
these
in
this
program
to
remove
one
section
or
the
other,
we
can
say
six.
F
Have
to
say
the
stakes
of
the
council,
because
if
you
say
or
five
or
the
main
and
any
and
one
with
the
mayor,
then
he
would
have
to
vote
and
maybe
he's
not
at
that
meeting
or
whatever,
and
so
maybe
the
other
six
do
you
want
to
remove
forever?
That
person
would
be
with
infraction
and
so
I
don't
know.
If
you'd
want
to
limit
yourself
to
include
the
Maryland
within
the
six,
we
just
save
the
City
Council
and
that's
what
I
think.
F
A
F
F
C
E
I
E
H
Only
concern
that
I
have
here
that
Isis
is
the
the
infraction
of
council
member.
You
know
giving
directives
and
getting
involved
interfering
with
administration.
Does
it
rise
to
the
level
of
the
other
items
of
forfeiture
which
which
really
have
to
do
with
that
person's
qualifications
to
hold
office?
Does
this
rice
the
same
level
as
one
through
six
or
you
know,
I'm,
not
a
hundred
percent,
convinced
that
that
violation
is
the
same.
H
That
say
as
as
failing
to
attend
the
six
council
meetings,
which
means
he's
not
representing
his
constituency
or
you
know,
no
longer
lives
in
his
district,
which
means
he's
it
doesn't
represent
those
people
again.
Does
this
come
to
the
same
level
as
those
other
reasons
for
removal
not
entirely
sure
it
does.
I
C
I
K
I
Saying
you
can
do
that
so
now
we
say
and
the
penalty
for
doing
it
is
this
this
removal
right,
but
it's
like
to
be
a
serious
matter,
because
it's
gonna
require
six
votes
and
if
you
have
only
a
quorum
of
five,
they
can't
take
up
tonight.
I
know
you
have
to
have
at
least
six
members
present
and
then
all
of
them
voting
for
remove
there.
F
A
A
C
I
G
I
J
A
I
A
This
recommendation
I
believe,
but
the
one
that
I
wanted
to
discuss.
First
was
Section
C,
which
says
ACORN.
You
must
be
established
before
the
council
to
conduct
any
business
and
no
vote
can
be
taken
in
the
essence
of
a
quorum.
Five
council
members
for
four
council
members
and
the
mayor
shall
constitute
a
quorum,
but
a
smaller
number
may
adjourn
or
recess
from
time
to
time,
etc.
A
A
A
F
Is
a
section
I'm
trying
to
find
it
which
says
that
the
only
action
that
can
be
taken
is
by
an
affirmative
vote
of
five
council
members
or
five
votes,
and
so
even
if
only
five
show
up,
if
all
five
are
on
the
same
page,
it
doesn't
happen.
It
doesn't
pass.
That's
happened
sometimes
on
council
that
some
issues
depends
on
the
issue
on
any.
F
F
F
F
Yeah
I
think
so
see
right
there.
It's
saying
that
the
mayor
has
a
vote
yeah
for
council
members
or
the
mayor,
and
so
but
then,
if
you
go
to
the
other
section,
I
think
that
was
a
part
of
this
of
the
Charter
that
was
amended
to
include
the
mayor
to
vote
okay,
but
when
they
passed
that
motion
or
they
with
that
act.
That
amendment
to
the
voters
say
if
this
passes
remove
the
other
section.
So
then
we
have
the
other
section
under
the
mayor's
powers,
which
says
the
mayor
shall
only
vote
in
case
of
legs.
A
F
F
A
F
C
Well,
judge
I
just
wondered
because
mr.
they
said
that
last
time
around,
they
left
in
the
part
of
her
America
not
vote,
but
apparently
he
can
vote
in
certain
situations.
F
Right
which
is
voting
this,
it
says
that
that's
being
respected,
so
a
quorum
would
the
way
I'm
interpreting
this
motion
is
you'd.
Have
five
council
members
and
the
mayor
could
be
there,
but
let's
say
one
of
the
council
members
disagrees,
so
you
staff
for
what,
but
the
mayor
is
voting,
and
so
that
would
that
would
be
done.
The
voting
part
didn't
applies
well.
C
F
It
based
on
the
council
again-
and
this
could
be
something
you
all
want
to
take
up
and
bring
back
that
I,
don't
specifically
and
say,
remove
this
section
from
the
mayor's
powers
only
in
case
of
a
type
and
I
love
him
to
vote
whenever
he
wants
or
have
the
same
rights
as
the
rest
of
the
council.
As
far
as
voting
now,
you
can
do
that
also,
maybe.
A
It's
item
D
under
five
six.
Oh
four
point
five
budget,
and
this
is
whether
the
city
can
make
expenditures
for
an
on
city
government
function.
Without
setting
aside
funds
to
clarify
a
non
city
government
function
with
funds,
they
will
complete
for
such
a
interest
and
to
provide
protection
to
the
taxpayers.
F
I
A
And
in
many
several
other
agencies
that
were
to
provide
something,
but
sometimes
they
would
get
the
money
with
no
contract
and
I.
Think
that's
what
led
to
this
section.
They
said
you
know
you
have
to
have
a
contract,
you
have
to
have
goals
and
priorities
and
set
out.
What
are
you
gonna
do
for
us
before
you
get
the.
F
Money
effort
stories
in
the
past
where
and
again
this
is
just
stories
a
bit
hope
that
the
city
would
give
money
to
foreign
organizations
and
it's
still
spending
and
they
put
it
in
the
bank
and
get
money
from
from
the
introspect
in
the
day
when
the
interest
was
good
and
so
I
think
this
was
what
brought
it
in.
You
couldn't
do
that.
No,
this
isn't
really
clear
and
I.
Don't
know
if
you
like
the
first,
a
table
it
or
if
you
always
considered
tabling
it
up
to
the
budget,
see
they
know
what
this
is
about.
F
F
F
I
In
other
words,
the
way
I
see
it
is
this
is
something
that
wasn't
wasn't
budgeted
and
then
it's
something
that
came
up
and
so
we're
going
to
take
money
from
somewhere.
But
but
according
to
this,
it
doesn't
say
from
where-
and
this
amendment
proposes,
that
these
functions
are
going
to
be
funded.
These
non
city
functions
are
going
to
be
funded
that
they
specifically
say
where
the
money
is
coming
from.
You
know
what
who
you're
going
to
take
it
away
from?
That's
what
it
says
there
yeah.
F
G
H
Is
that
currently
in
the
in
the
Charter
in
six?
Oh
four,
five
section
5,
it
says
no
funds
taxed
closest
our
appropriations
will
be
set
aside
specifically
for
young
city
government
function,
activity,
Department
agency
reform,
unless
those
entities
have
entered
into
a
contract
agreement,
engagement
or
study
with
the
city
and
is
included
in
the
budget
has
finally
approved
and
adopted
by
council.
So
what
it
says
is
that
if
it's
been
approved
in
the
budget
and
adopted
by
council,
then
the
money
can
be
expended
because
it's
been
reviewed
and
it's
been
approved.
H
What
I
see
this
asking
is
a
backdoor
to
that
and
say:
well,
you
know:
could
we
make
appropriations
expenditures
without
setting
aside
funds,
in
other
words,
without
having
it
in
the
budget,
so
making
expenditures
that
have
not
been
approved
in
the
budget
seems
a
little
a
little
Cavalier
to
be
yes
using
taxpayers
money
when
there
is
a
procedure
which
is
the
budget
adoption
appropriations
procedure
to
approve
those
things
and
if
my
project
didn't
get
approved
well,
this
lets
me
go
ahead
and
do
it
anyway.
It
wasn't
set
aside,
but
I
can
still
do
it.
F
Think
what
would
sinks
are
reading
gr
the
the
weight
says
currently-
and
it
says
currently
the
section
limits,
the
use
of
excess
carryover
funds
to
one-time
appropriation
and
then
said
the
change
should
clarify
limitation
to
apply
only
to
the
general
thing,
because
we
have
utilities
Department,
which
is
funded
by
itself,
so
I
think
it's
hurting
them
the
way
they
do
function,
and
so
they
were
saying
this
should
only
apply
to
the
general
fund,
which
is
basically
the
taxes
and
that's
what
it
comment
about.
This
will
ensure
that
taxpayers
monies
are
more
secure
and
I.
F
F
H
F
I
think
what
happens
is
since
you
transfer
everything
from
the
foyer
of
the
enterprise
funds
in
general
and
enterprise.
One
might
need
to
have
an
expenditure
one-time
expenditure
that
you're
only
limited
to
one.
So
where
do
you
choose
and
I
think
that's
why
they
were
saying
this
should
only
apply
to
the
general
fund
and
the
other
ones
should
be
allowed
to
be
able
to
have
those
expenditures
or
than
even
I,
think
that's
where
this
was
coming
from.
H
A
J
A
J
A
C
Okay,
the
the
item
we
just
discussed
numbers
deep
letter,
B
I,
believe
I-
might
be
wrong,
but
I
think
that
what
the
judge
wanted
to
discuss
was
the
six
over
four
point:
I'm,
sorry,
6.04
C,
because
we're
talking
about
the
infrastructure
and
whether
or
not
the
city
should
subsidize
development
and
we
never
and
we
do
in
other
words
they
was
mistakenly
put
in
here.
You
think.
F
A
A
When,
when
we
talk
about
majority
and
run
off
selection,
as
you
know,
and
the
city
secretary
knows
this
better
than
anybody
else,
having
two
elections
is
expensive,
as
opposed
to
one
having
the
candidate
go
through.
Two
elections
is
sometimes
it
leads.
The
campaign
funds
having
term
limits
becomes
meaningless.
If
you
hold
over
for
a
runoff
election.
A
My
idea,
you
know
that
I
want
to
throw
out
for
discussion.
It
is
difficult
because
you
always
want
a
majority
vote.
The
people
to
decide
who
gets
elected
to
the
council
over
mayor
but
like
take,
for
example,
recently
I
think
there
were
nine
or
ten
candidates
running
for
City,
Council,
there's
actually
12,
I,
think
yeah,
and
so
necessarily
that
I
was
going
to
involve
a
runoff
and
runoff
means
you
have
to
go
through.
A
You
know
through
the
process
again
and
I
was
thinking
if
it
would
be
wise
to
change
it
so
that
a
simple
plurality
gets
you
elected
rather
than
a
majority
vote,
because
then
whoever
the
highest
vote-
getter,
that's
it!
Well,
you
get
thirty
percent
25
percent,
you
know.
Usually
one
candidate
gets
close
for
three
percent
or
something
again
and
I.
Don't
know
that.
A
I
G
A
C
Question
because
I
notice
that
under
run
up
it
says,
run
off
election
shall
be
held
according
to
their
current
Texas
and
Mexico.
So
I
mean
the
election
code
required
run
off,
serve
I,
know
the
school
district
on
have
them,
but
I'm,
just
wondering
the
city
and
wet
I
mean
counties,
require
them.
I'll.
F
A
F
F
E
F
F
It
depends
what
you
wanna
be.
In
other
words,
if
you
want
it
by
majority
and
I,
don't
know
if
I
guess
you
would
have
I'm,
not
the
attorney,
but
if
the
options
there
I
guess
they
could
by
charter
change
it
to
poor
allottee,
that's
what
the
council
or
the
citizens
want
if
that's
on
the
ballot
but
like
they
like
amendments,
those
are
bye-bye,
you
don't
have
run
off
there.
F
So
if
that's
a
parameter
type
of
vote
within
the
hi
spoken
with
within
the
Charter
and
within
state
statutes,
but
it
just
depends
what
the
council
wishes
to
put
out
there
to
the
motor.
So
they
want
to
change
it.
You
can
change
it.
That's
a
recommendation
from
you
all
that
will
be
passed
on
to
them
also,
but
it's
allowed
my
understanding.
It's
allowed.
What
is
a
lot
morality
or
majority.
F
Not
sure
judge
I
know
that
when
the
census
comes
out,
I
remember
when
I
was
on
council
that
the
census
is
there,
because
they
want
to
break
up
the
districts
into
equal
number
of
people,
not
so
much
registered
voters,
and
so
you
could
have
I
think
it's
within
a
certain
percentage
of
the
amount
of
people
that
you
represent.
Well.
A
A
A
But
when
you
compete
that,
let's
say,
for
example,
the
north
with
the
south
or
west
Laredo
services
of
the
city,
whether
perhaps
someone
who
gets
elected
at-large
would
have
a
better
grasp
of
serving
the
needs
of
Hoarders
generally,
rather
than
one
small
district.
It's
all
what
I
had
envisioned
was
discussing
whether
the
time
has
come
continued.
What
the
council,
what
the
Commissioner
originally
did
with
the
intent
was
we're.
Gonna
have
eight
single-member
districts.
There
will
be
no
political
control.
A
A
G
We've
gotten
parochial
with
the
eight
districts
now
when
it
started
going
back
150
years,
everybody
lived
the
diets,
the
Minear,
the
city
councilman's,
everybody
lived
within
seven
blocks
of
each
other.
I,
remember
that
and
the
organization
was
to
bring
central,
New
York
voice,
Jack
Warner
voice,
but
now
it's
got.
G
G
I
A
I
G
H
H
And
I
think
that
they
did
serve
the
purpose
at
the
time
and
I
I
also
think
and
now
and
and
that's
served
of
the
school
board
at
the
United
ISD,
and
we
at
that
time
went
to
single-member
districts
as
well,
so
I
can
I
see
how
it
works
on
the
inside,
and
you
always
have
that
balance
about
well
I'm
here
to
serve
this
entire
entity,
whether
it
be
the
city
or
the
district
or
whatever
it
is.
But
I
get
elected
by
these
people
here.
H
So
I
got
to
be
sure
that
if
I
want
to
keep
on
running
that,
you
know
these
people
stay
happy.
So
it
it's
kind
of
it
can
be
a
hard
thing
to
balance.
It
doesn't
have
to
be,
but
it
can
be,
and
I
also
see
now
the
pendulum
swinging
in
the
other
direction,
for
where
we
had
the
the
concentration
of
power
being
being
problematic.
Now
we
have
the
parochialism
being
problematic
and
everybody
just
wanting
to
do
well,
not
wanting
to
just
wanting
to
but
primarily
pulling
for
you
know
their
different
areas.
H
E
H
H
G
H
I
Concur
with
what
you
just
said
since
the
election,
a
lot
of
people
have
told
me
that
a
two
would
have
passed,
but
not
the
four
and
I
think
it's
an
easy,
an
easier
way
to
can
ease
me
into
the
situation
of
the
pendulum
swinging
in
the
opposite
direction.
Then,
four
and
four,
and
to
your
point,
judge
yes,
we
we,
we
recommend
to
at
large
the
city
could
be
divided
along
north-south
line
or
its
west
lines
is
west
of
it
would
be
more
more
appropriate
than
north-south
yeah.
I
F
To
designate
yes,
I
would
assume
so
because
the
way
I'm
reading
the
Charter
it
you're
looking
at
the
districting
and
where
it
says
eight
districts
and
so
now,
you're
considering
maybe
high
that
just
a
uniform
I
remember
when
this
issue
came
up
several
years.
I
think
I
was
on
the
council
the
first
time
he
came
around
and
I
saw
studies
where,
as
in
Houston,
has
single
districts
and
also
at
large
and
most
of
the
cities
that
have
this
type
of
districts
for
several
council
districts.
I.
F
F
F
I
There's
every
district
in
every
ten
years
period
as
a
result
of
the
chance
and
so
I,
don't
know
whether
we
would
have
time
to
put
it
out
for
the
council
to
approve
it
and
send
it
on
to
the
voters
and
under
voters
to
approve
before
the
2020
census,
but
even
if
it
happens
after
that,
it
could
still
be
done
regardless.
So
redistricting
changing
the
boundaries,
a
few
blocks
one
way
or
the
other
shouldn't
be
any
problem.
I
F
F
G
C
I
E
F
F
I
know
that's
a
census
in
that,
because
I'm
just
saying
the
way
that
item
is
written,
you
know
I,
don't
want
to
deviate
from
that,
because
I
don't
want
somebody
come
back
and
say:
hey
you
guys
are
talking
about
this.
While
you,
okay,
you're
right,
beautiful
voters
as
it's
written
here
I
mean
this
honey
can
be
brought
back
to
today's
meeting.
Yet
Nora.
F
I
I
F
Every
10
years
they
redo
the
districts
based
on
population.
It's
not
based
on
voter
registered
all
right
and
I'd
say
when
I
was
back
because
I
was
on
council.
The
biggest
district
was
in
the
south,
which
a
customer
negative
I'm
at
the
time
was
the
councilmember
for
them,
and
he
grew
because
there
was
a
lot
of
expansion
and
growth
in
homes
towards
the
so
V
suppose
that
area.
F
So,
unfortunately,
by
the
time
we
get
to
the
ten
years
when
it
was
required
to
update
everybody
and
move
the
boundaries
mm,
I
think
he
had
the
largest
I
had
the
second
largest
and
then
I
think
the
smallest
one
was
the
inner
city,
which
was
district
number.
Four.
There
were
and
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
numbers
I
think
I
represent
about
21,000
people,
Osman
Arizona
had
about
30
and
the
smallest
one
was
at
the
10,000
manomaya.
F
E
F
F
F
Yeah
we
have
that
I
have
a
list
of
I,
think
it's
120
6666.
I
E
I
F
A
F
A
A
G
E
C
A
G
G
F
G
D
D
F
F
F
Easier
to
be
able
to
talk
about
several
items
within
that
section,
it's
gonna
be
specific
about
of
this
section.
When
talk
about
this,
just
if
you
leave
it
general
I
think
that's
enough
notice
for
everybody
that
knows
that
you're
gonna
talk
about
that.
They
want
to
come
and
talk
about
that
or
discuss
that
or
have
a
comment.
They
have
that
right.
I,
think
that
would
help.
So
we
can
move
things
along
for
the
next
week.
F
H
H
F
And
that's
because
I
think
of
the
holdover
provision,
but
I
think
this
is
very
trumped
it.
But
this
is
different
than
the
holdover
provision.
That's
in
case
you
create
a
vacancy
and
the
candidates
still
there
and
they
would
stay
there
until
somebody
qualified
get
selected
for
that
seat.
But
in
this
case
it
since
it's
a
recall-
and
they
want
you
out
and
what
you
vote
you're
out
and
that's
why
they
immediately
remove
the
councilman.