[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:05]
>> SPECIAL SESSION OF MAY 12, 2021, OF THE CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER.
COUNCIL PERSON REDD WILL SERVE AS OUR CHAPLAIN TODAY. INVITE YOU TO STAND IF YOU
WISH. >> LORD, HELP US TO BE ONE ACCORD, LORD, BUT TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS IN LOVE AND WISDOM AND TRUTH. LORD, REMIND US THAT WE ARE ONE NATION, ONE COMMUNITY UNDER GOD, HELP US, LORD, AS A BODY TO BRING HONOR TO OUR CITY AND TO YOU AND LORD HELP US TO BE THAT BRIGHT AND SHINING CITY ON A HILL.
IN THE HOLY AND PRECIOUS NAME OF JESUS WE DO PRAY, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, 1 NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL NA UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALLONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
[4. Attendance]
>> MEMBERS, PLEASE REGISTER YOUR ATTENDANCE. ALL MEMBERS REGISTERED.
COUNCIL PERSON EVANS, YOU'RE NOT SHOWING UP ON THE BOARD. THERE WE GO.
MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE ROLL. >> ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[5.1. ORDINANCE 93-2020-21 (First Reading; Postponed April 29th) Amending the Official Code relative to hiring outside counsel]
FIRST AND ONLY ITEM ON THIS SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA IS ORDINANCE 93-2020-21, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE RELATIVE TO HIRING OUTSIDE COUNSEL. COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN IS THESPONSOR AND YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> MOVE TO HEAR ORDINANCE 932020-21
>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN. >> YOU ALL RECEIVED THE OUTLINE FOR A DISCUSSION, HOWEVER, I
HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO PRESENT. >> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> SO DO I HAVE TO -- WITH THIS AMENDMENT >> HOLD ON.
>> I MOVED FOR THE AMENDMENT. >> YOU MOVED -- WELL, LET'S MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT ONE. BECAUSE I'VE GOT A COUPLE. IS IT THIS FORM?
>> ONE IN THE GREEN. >> FOR THOSE OF US CHALLENGED AS FAR AS COLORS, STAPLED ONE?
>> STAPLED ONE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> IS THERE A SECOND.
>> SECOND. >> PROPER MOTION AND SECOND. BUT LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE
LOOKING AT THE RIGHT ONE. >> THE ONE THAT YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IS THE ONE THAT HAS
THE ORDINANCE NUMBER AT THE TOP. >> OKAY.
EVERYBODY GOT THAT? >> THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT HAVE AN ORDINANCE NUMBER AT THE TOP.
>> OKAY. COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> IF I COULD GO THROUGH THIS AND TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS THAT I CHANGED AND WHY I CHANGED THEM. WE PUT A FEE AMOUNT IN THERE OF $125,000.
MY THINKING WAS THAT AT $150,000, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CAN SETTLE A LAWSUIT.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE THAN $150,000, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD TRULY START TO LOOK AT ONCE WE GET UP TO THAT AMOUNT, $125,000, WE SHOULD REALLY START TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
OKAY. OR WE SHOULD BE STARTING TO GET MORE READ INTO WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE CASE IF WE GET UP TO THAT AMOUNT. I ALSO PUT IN THERE THAT, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL WHEN THEY DO GET TO THAT AMOUNT, OR CLOSE TO THAT AMOUNT. AND IT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE MEETING, SO THAT WE ARE NOT GIVING OUR STRATEGY AND ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF TO THE OPPONENT IN THAT THING, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS, WE CANNOT DELIBERATE, BUT WE CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO ASK AND COME BACK AND VOTE OR AMEND OR WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO. THE SECOND CHANGE IS I TOOK OUT THE SELECTION OF THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEY, THE REASON WHY I TOOK THAT OUT IS BECAUSE WITH MR. BAKER ALREADY HAVING $125,000 TO USE, ON A CASE, HE HAS SELECTED ATTORNEYS TO CHANGE THE ATTORNEY, THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO IN THE MIDDLE. SO I TOOK THE SELECTION OF THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEY OUT.
I ALSO TOOK OUT THE CITY COUNCIL BY MAJORITY VOTE SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPORTION. I TOOK IT OUT BECAUSE IT'S REDUNDANT.
WE ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY OKAY, WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET THIS CASE SETTLED.
WE WANT TO USE THIS MONEY FOR THIS OR THAT. SO THAT IS REDUNDANT.
[00:05:06]
THE NEXT THING I TOOK OUT IS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL SHALL BE APPORTIONED ONLY AFTER THE CITY SUBMITS THE REPORT. I TOOK THAT OUT.IT IS A REDUNDANCY. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL VOTE ON WHETHER TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE RETENTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THE LAST THING I CHANGED WAS THE REPORT IS A QUARTERLY REPORT AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN A MEETING, IT CAN BE SENT TO US BUT IT IS -- IT WILL BE AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED REPORT. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SEND OUT TO EVERYONE ELSE.
AND THAT IS MY AMENDMENT. >> OKAY. YOU'VE HEARD THE AMENDMENT EXPLAINED. I HAVE COUNCIL PERSON STREETMAN, DID YOU WISH TO
ADDRESS THE AMENDMENT? >> YES, SIR. >> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO COMMEND COUNCILPERSON ALLEN. WE HELD A SPECIAL CALLED FINANCE MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS AND I APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT SHE CAME TO THE MEETING AND WE SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME DISCUSSING THESE CHANGES. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE AND THANK YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS AND YOUR VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONVERSATION. SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANTED TO SAY THAT. AND SECONDLY, IN THAT DISCUSSION, DURING THAT SPECIAL CALLED FINANCE MEETING, WE DISCUSSED ASKING MR. BAKER KIND OF DRAFT WHAT HE FELT LIKE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT HE COULD WORK WITH AND HE THOUGHT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO TAKE ON. AND LOOKING AT THE AMENDMENT THAT COUNCIL PERSONALLEN HAS BROUGHT FORWARD, THEY ARE ALMOST MARRIED OF ONE ANOTHER. I MAY NEED GUIDANCE ON THIS, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE THINGS IN WRITING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF BLEND ON THIS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO WRITE ON HERE FOR THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CHANGE THE AMENDMENT REGARDING 125,000 TO THE 150,000, SINCE THAT IS THE LIMIT WHERE WE HAVE IT AT. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEING WITH THAT 150,000, AS HE WAS GETTING CLOSE TO THAT, I THINK HE WOULD HAVE TO START COMING TO US AT THAT POINT ANY WAY. LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT SURE MR. BAKER, WOULD I NEED TO WRITE ON HERE OR SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE THE OTHER AMENDMENT WHERE WE
HAVE INFORMATION IN WRITING. HOW THAT WOULD NEED TO WORK. >> MR. BAKER.
>> THERE IS A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS TOO IN HERE IN REGARD TO THAT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A BLEND ON. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT TO BLEND.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST FOR YOU TO JUST MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ALLEN AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE YOUR PROPOSED VERSION. AND THEN I CAN GO OVER, ONCE THERE IS A SECOND, IF THERE IS A SECOND, ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, THEN I CAN COVER WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE BETWEEN THE TWO. AND FRANKLY, IT'S PRETTY MINIMAL. OTHER THAN THE AMOUNT. SO IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT
>> SHE'S MADE THE MOTION. DO I HEAR A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> PROPERLY SECONDED. NOW, MR. BAKER, LEAD US THROUGH, IF THAT IS OKAY.
>> Y'ALL PULL UP BOTH COPIES, ORDINANCE VERSION IN GREEN, THAT IS THE ALLEN AMENDMENT, AND THEN PULL UP THIS OTHER ONE THAT HAS GOT RED, BLUE AND GREEN.
FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME. AND FIRST LOOK AT UNDER THE ONE THAT HAS GOT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER AT THE TOP, THIS IS THE ALLEN AMENDMENT, YOU NOTICE THAT FIRST SENTENCE IS EXACTLY THE SAME. AND YOU KNOW, SHE HAS EXPLAINED THAT.
SO YOU GO THEN, TO THE NEXT SENTENCE, OR RATHER LET ME SAY THIS, IN THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT, I HAVE ADDED THE WORDS THERE WHERE IT SAYS -- LET ME SEE.
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AS PROVIDED BELOW SHALL HAVE FULL AUTHORITY. SO WHAT SHE DID IN HERS, SHE KEPT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE EXISTING SUB-SECTION B. BUT THEN SHE TOOK OUT THAT SECOND SENTENCE THAT SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL HAVE FULL AUTHORITY. I'VE ADDED THAT SENTENCE BACK IN BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I THINK IT SPEAKS TO THINGS THAT REALLY NEED TO BE INCLUDED.
BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS I HAVE CHANGED OR ADDED WHAT IS IN BLUE THERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER BE JUST TOTALLY UNDER MY DISCRETION. IT'S ACTUALLY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AS PROVIDED BELOW.
AND THEN THAT, THIS ALL DOWN BELOW IS WHERE WE GET INTO REALLY IT REPEATS BASICALLY
[00:10:05]
WHAT THE ALLEN VERSION IS. SO FOLLOW ALONG WITH ME AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THAT REALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO BREAK UP THE ALLEN AMENDMENT IN TO SEPARATE SUB-PARAGRAPHS. BECAUSE THAT MAKES IT EASY WHEN LAWYERS AND COURTS HAVE TO REFER TO PARTICULAR SECTIONS AND SUB-SECTIONS AND EVEN WHEN Y'ALL ARE REFERRING TO IT.YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN DISTINCT ALPHANUMERIC IDENTIFIER.
PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE BROKEN UP. LOOK AT THE NUMBER TWO THERE IN BLUE, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE STREETMAN VERSION. SHOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY DEEM IT NECESSARY.
AND THEN TO RETAIN, I HAVE STRICKEN THAT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO ALONG WITH EITHER THE ALLEN VERSION OR THE STREETMAN VERSION, AS THEY POINTED OUT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION MAKING ON THE FRONT END. IT'S ONLY AFTER WE HAVE REACHED A CERTAIN THRESHOLD. AND THEN THE ALLEN AMENDMENT, IT'S 125.
IN THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT, IT'S 150. SO SHOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY DEEM IT NECESSARY NOT TO RETAIN, BUT TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY OUTSIDE COUNSEL IN ANY LEGAL MATTER, FOR ANY AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE LEGAL FEES OR EXPENSES, THAT WAS LEFT OUT OF THE ORIGINAL VERSION AND THE ALLEN AMENDMENT, BUT I'VE GONE OVER IT.
I THINK SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE EXPENSES. FOR ANY AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES THAT EXCEED $150,000, THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE REQUEST SHALL STATE, BY THE WAY, THIS WHOLE THING IS A VERBATIM COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ALLEN PROPOSAL. OKAY.
WHAT IS IN BLUE IS JUST CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL ALLEN PROPOSAL. THE REQUEST SHALL STATE THE GROUNDS FOR RETAINING AND ACTUALLY I SHOULDN'T SAY FOR RETAINING.
IT SHOULD SAY THE GROUNDS FOR CONTINUING, SO STRIKE THAT WORDING.
THE GROUNDS FOR CONTINUING TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL, THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL'S EMPLOYMENT, IF IT PERTAINS TO A NEW MATTER, AND THE THINKING WHY I ADDED THAT IS, YOU'RE GOING TO ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON IF I'VE ALREADY RETAINED THEM AND
THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CASE FOR A WHILE. >> WE WON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT UNTIL IT GETS UP TO $150,000.
>> LET'S JUST STRIKE THAT. I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT. LET'S LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS.
>> HANG ON. BEFORE WE START -- EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE STRIKING SO EVERYBODY IS
LOOKING AT THE SAME VERSION. >> SCOPE OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL'S EMPLOYMENT, SEMI COLON, STRIKE THE WORDS, "IF IT PERTAINS TO A NEW MATTER", GOOD POINT. NUMBER THREE, THE CITY -- PROBABLY NEED THE WORD "AND" AND NUMBER 3I, THE CITY'S ATTORNEY BEST ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL COST -- IT SHOULDN'T BE OF RETAINING, BUT OF CONTINUING, STRIKE THE WORDS "RETAINING OR", THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S BEST ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL COST OF CONTINUING TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE GROUNDS STATED. EVERYBODY GOT THAT.
FOLLOWING ALONG WITH ME? >> EVERYBODY GOOD? GO AHEAD, MR. BAKER.
>> NOW, I HAD THOUGHT IT BEST TO TAKE OUT THAT NEXT BULLET, BUT LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING, YOU COULD WANT TO KEEP IT IN BECAUSE WE ENDED UP MAKING A CHANGE WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN AND I TALKED ABOUT IT. SO IN THE NEXT BULLET, IT SAYS AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S BEST ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXPOSURE PRESENTED TO THE CITY BY ANY SUCH MATTER WHICH OUTSIDE COUNSEL IS INVOLVED. ON HER ORIGINAL VERSION, I WANTED TO STRIKE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO TELEGRAPH TO THE OTHER SIDE WHAT WE THINK OUR EXPOSURE IS.
I MEAN, THAT TELLS THEM, GIVES THEM A UNIQUE ADVANTAGE. SO YOU NOTICE MY NOTE, I DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE IT BECAUSE BASICALLY IT HELPS THE OTHER SIDE.
BUT THEN LOOK AT HER VERSION AND WE CHANGED THAT TO SAY -- LET ME SEE WHERE IT IS.
NUMBER TWO. LET'S SEE. WHERE IS IT? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY.
SO IT SAYS -- YEAH. SO WHAT WE CHANGED THERE TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, OKAY, WHICH
[00:15:03]
SAYS WHICH MAY BE CONDUCTED DURING AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE MEETING OR A PORTION OF A MEETING. SO BOTTOM LINE IS I'M OKAY IF YOU'RE GOING BACK TO THE STREETMAN VERSION, I'M OKAY WITH LEAVING THAT LAST BULLET IN AS LONG AS WE GO BACK UP TO THE TOP AND SAY THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND JUST ADD THAT LANGUAGE, WHICH MAY BE CONDUCTED DURING ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE MEETING OR A PORTION OF A MEETING. SO WE WANT TO ADD THAT TO THIS STREETMAN VERSION. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS. OKAY.THEN LET'S GO TO BACK NUMBER 3 ON STREETMAN, WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT FOURTH BULLET ON NUMBER TWO. BECAUSE WE MADE THE CHANGE. THAT MAKES IT OKAY.
AND THEN NUMBER THREE, CITY COUNCIL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE WORD "BY MAJORITY VOTE", BECAUSE OUR CHARTER AND CODE ALREADY SAYS THAT ALL VOTES FOR ANYTHING TO PASS, IT HAS TO BE MY MAJORITY VOTE. AND IT'S ALWAYS THAT UNLESS THE CHARTER OR THE CITY CODE REQUIRES SOMETHING, EXPRESSLY REQUIRES IT TO BE DONE BY A SUPERMAJORITY.
EITHER TWO-THIRDS OR THREE-FOURTHS. OR IT MIGHT ALSO SAY BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT. I'M SORRY.
BY A MAJORITY OF THE FULL MEMBERSHIP. IF ANY LEGISLATION Y'ALL EVER PASS DOESN'T SAY ANY OF THOSE THINGS, TWO-THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY, THREE-FOURTHS SUPERMAJORITY OR BY MAJORITY OF THE FULL MEMBERSHIP, THEN IT'S AUTOMATICALLY BY DEFAULT, IT MEANS THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT. YOU JUST DON'T NEED THAT PART.
NUMBER THREE, CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE FULL AUTHORITY REGARDING THE TERMINATION AS TO WHETHER TO CONTINUE TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL, AND THEN BOTH STREETMAN AND ALLEN VERSIONS WOULD DELETE THE PART OF SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL. AND THEN CONCLUDE THE DEFENSE OF CLAIMS MADE AGAINST THE CITY. I THINK THAT IS KIND OF SURPLUS, IT'S JUST NOT NECESSARY. SO THEN THAT LAST PART, AS COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN ALREADY SAID, THAT IS KIND OF REDUNDANT.
YOU DON'T NEED THAT SENTENCE. SO THEN WE GO TO NUMBER 4, TURN THE PAGE.
ALL RIGHT. SO THERE YOU WILL SEE THAT CHANGE AGAIN.
I'VE ADDED SHOULD THE LEGAL FEES OR EXPENSES COST ANY SUCH OUTSIDE -- OR COST OF ANY SUCH OUTSIDE COUNSEL RETAINED EXCEED THE ESTIMATE PROVIDED IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REQUEST, LET'S SAY WE REACH $150,000, I COME TO YOU AND SAY OKAY, LOOK, I'VE TALKED TO THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER $200,000. I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU TO GET AUTHORITY TO SPEND THAT EXTRA MONEY. SO THE CITY ATTORNEY THEN SHALL SMITH A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD DETAILING, BECAUSE THAT COULD END UP MEANING I HAVE TO GIVE AWAY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE INFORMATION. I WOULD RATHER SUMMARIZE THE REASONS FOR THE COST OVERRUN.
AND THE BEST ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR CONTINUED RETENTION.
AND THEN NUMBER 5, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL THEREAFTER VOTE ON WHETHER TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE CONTINUED RETENTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
AND THEN THE REST OF THAT, AS COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN TALKED ABOUT, WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS JUST REDUNDANT AND YOU DON'T NEED THAT LANGUAGE. BUT THIS DOES COVER NUMBER 5, IN THE STREETMAN VERSION, IT DOES COVER THE SAME CHANGE THAT SHE MADE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM IN HER VERSION. THEN IT GOES ON, NUMBER 6, FINALLY, THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL PROVIDE CITY COUNCIL MONTHLY REPORT. I THINK THAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN HAD CHANGED THAT TO QUARTERLY. AND UNLESS COUNCIL MEMBER STREETMAN OBJECTS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT WOULD BE A BETTER WAY OF DOING IT.
QUARTERLY REPORT, ON THE STATUS OF EVERY MATTER, IN WHICH OUTSIDE COUNSEL IS INVOLVED.
WHICH REPORT SHALL INCLUDE A RUNNING TOTAL OF THE COST OF THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR EACH SUCH MATTER. THANKS NEXT TWO THINGS I HAD STRICKEN IN THE STREETMAN VERSION. I PREPARED THE STREETMAN VERSION BEFORE I MET WITH
[00:20:03]
COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN ABOUT HERS. GIVEN THE CHANGE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT, YOU WILL SEE DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF HER VERSION, THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A QUARTERLY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE REPORT. SO AS LONG AS WE'VE GOT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE, I THINK YOU CAN KEEP THE LAST TWO BULLETS ON THE STREETMAN VERSION THAT I HAD STRICKEN.BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO TIP OFF OUR HAND YOU KNOW TO THE OTHER SIDE.
SO YOU CAN KEEP THOSE LAST TWO BULLETS UNDER NUMBER SIX IN THE STREETMAN VERSION.
BUT WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP OR ADD TO THE STREETMAN VERSION THAT LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY COUNSEL WITH A QUARTERLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF EVERY MATTER, WHERE A QUARTERLY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED REPORT.
OKAY. DOES EVERYBODY GOT THAT CHANGE IN THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT TO
THE AMENDMENT? >> PUNCH A BUTTON AND WE'LL GET TO YOU IN A MINUTE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FINISHED?
>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. IT'S COUNCIL PERSON STREETMAN'S AMENDMENT SO I'M GOING TO GO TO HER AND COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN AND THEN GOING DOWN MY LIST.
>> I DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE SAID, BECAUSE ONE THING THAT COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN HAD IN HERS FURTHER UP, AGAIN, JUST RIGHT AFTER THE AMOUNT WAS LISTED, WHICH MAY BE CONDUCTED DURING AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED MEETING OR PORTION OF MEETING.
SO WE DID PUT THAT BACK IN UP HERE, CORRECT? >> YES.
>> I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE ON THAT. AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE PERFECT BLEND OF EVERYTHING THAT WE ALL DISCUSSED. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PUT IN. I THINK WOULD GIVE US WHAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD ON OUR DIFFERENT SUITS. BUT THE IMPORTANT PART BEING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT IN AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, ALLOWING MR. BAKER TO BE ABLE TO SELECT WHO IT IS HE NEEDS, BEING THAT HE IS THE SUBJECT EXPERT MATTER.
BUT IT'S ALSO KEEPING US KIND OF IN LINE WITH EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH ALL OF THE CASES AND PUTTING THE RESPONSIBILITY BACK ON OUR END, WHICH IS I KNOW WHAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL WERE LOOKING FOR TO DO AS WELL. SO BASED ON THE AMENDMENT WE WOULD BE VOTING ON IS EVERYTHING YOU JUST CHANGED IN HERE AS WE WERE DISCUSSING, CORRECT? I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE PERFECT BLEND OF EVERYTHING WE WERE LOOKING FOR. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF WE COULD DO THIS AND DO IT AS COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN HAS SUGGESTED AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON STREETMAN.
COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN. >> I THINK IT IS A PERFECT BLEND.
I DID TELL MR. BAKER THAT I WAS GOING TO GET WITH HIM TO KIND OF GO OVER SOME THINGS WITH HIM. I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 150 VERSUS 125,000. AND I THINK AS LONG AS WE'RE PUTTING ALL OF THOSE BULLETS BACK IN THERE, BECAUSE IT'S UNDER ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD BLEND TOO. I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PRICE
WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
NOW TO THE LIST. COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> YOU HAD SAID MR. BAKER, IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SPIEL THAT YOU THOUGHT THIS SHOULD BE DONE IN SECTIONS. BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IS GOING TO BE UPSET IF I MAKE A MOTION TO DIVIDE THIS
QUESTION SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS EACH SECTION. >> THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT.
>> OKAY. >> WHAT I MEANT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION AND IN COUNCIL
MEMBER ALLEN'S VERSION, IT'S ALL ONE BIG PARAGRAPH. >> IT DRIVES THE COURTS CRAZY.
>> THEY WANT IT BROKEN DOWN SO THEY CAN SAY HEY, THIS -- >> MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS GO
[00:25:23]
AHEAD AND APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. THEN YOU GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE AMENDED, THE ALLEN AMENDMENT AS AMENDED. THEN SOMEONE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT AGAIN TO THE ALLEN AMENDMENT AS AMENDED TO CHANGE WHAT WOULD BE 150 TO 125 OR ANY OTHER NUMBER. I COULD BE WRONG, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM EVERYONE. BUT I THINK THAT IS ALL THAT IS REALLY AT ISSUE.WE DID ADD BACK ALL OF THE BULLETS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE MADE THAT CHANGE ABOUT ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. IF SOMEBODY ELSE HAS GOT SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- IT MAY NOT BE VERY OFTEN, I SENSE SOME REAL KARMA GOING ON HERE TODAY.
WE GOT PEOPLE AGREEING ON STUFF. I WOULD HATE TO LET THAT SLIP AWAY FROM US. WHAT I HEARD IS THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT
IS THE AMOUNT. >> SO THEN LET ME ASK THE SPONSOR, YOU ARE OKAY WITH A PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S AMENDMENT? YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT? WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT? >> WELL, I'M OKAY WITH THE -- I'M OKAY WITH THE AMENDMENT.
ANOTHER PART I REALLY DON'T LIKE WOULD BE AMENDMENT IS -- I MEAN, WE'RE REITERATING THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL HAVE THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO RETAIN COUNSEL, SELECTION OF COUNSEL, WE'RE ADDING THAT PART BACK IN, WE'RE PUTTING THAT STATEMENT IN THERE.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. >> OKAY.
EXCELLENT QUESTION. I SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THIS ALREADY, I APOLOGIZE.
THE REASON WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ADD THAT BACK IN, BUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL PHRASE THAT HAS BEEN ADDED, WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT COUNSEL, YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.
BUT WHAT THE REST OF THIS DOES, IT GIVES ME AS THE CITY ATTORNEY THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE TACTICAL LEGAL DECISIONS THAT EVERY AUTHORITY MAKES IN EVERY CASE.
THERE ARE SOME DECISIONS UNDER THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR ATTORNEYS THAT CAN ONLY BE MADE BY THE CLIENT. THE CLIENT OF COURSE IS THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. BUT IT'S ANINANIMATE ENTITY. THERE ARE DOZENS AND DOZENS OF TACTICAL DECISIONS THAT GET MADE ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT. NO LAWYER CAN FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY IF EVERY TACTICAL DECISION HE HAS GOT TO COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE.
YOU KNOW, FILE THIS MOTION, WHAT POSITION TO TAKE, DISCOVERY.
I ADDED THAT PART, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PROVIDED BELOW, WHAT PROVIDED BELOW, OKAY, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF LITIGATION, DEFENDING THE CITY AND ALL OF THAT, BUT IT'S ALL SUBJECT TO ALL OF THIS. REPORTS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL FUNDS. YOU GOT TO DO THE QUARTERLY REPORTS. AND THAT PART IS STAND-ALONE PROVISION IN THE SENSE THAT I GOT TO DO THAT WHETHER I'VE GOT OUTSIDE COUNSEL ABOVE $150,000 OR NOT. AND THAT IS -- THE PURPOSE BEHIND THAT, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE WITH, BY THE WAY, IS TO KEEP THE COUNSEL FULLY INFORMED OF WHAT IS GOING ON SO YOU DON'T END UP GETTING SURPRISED ABOUT SOMETHING. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I HAVE DONE THAT ALL ALONG, UNDER THE LAW THAT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, WITH REGARD TO THE F&A COMMITTEE. I TRIED TO DO MY BEST TO KEEP THE FULL COUNCIL INFORMED TOO.
YOUR AUTHORITY DOESN'T COME INTO PLAY UNTIL $150,000. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THE WHOLE COUNCIL SHOULD BE KEPT APPRISED ALL ALONG OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN LAWSUITS.
>> COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> I'M CONCERNED WITH PASSING
[00:30:04]
THIS ALL AT ONE TIME. I REALLY AM. BECAUSE OF THE LITTLE THINGS THAT SHE IS SAYING, THAT ONE SENTENCE THAT SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH IN THE AMENDMENT ET CETERA. THE REASON I'M CONCERNED IS THAT I DON'T WANT US TO GET INTO THE SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE WANTS TO CHANGE SOMETHING BUT WE'RE ALREADY THREE AMENDMENTS DEEP AND WE CAN'T DO THAT. I MEAN, IF I MOTION TO DIVIDE,DO WE VOTE ON IT AS A COUNCIL? >> THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT CAN
BE MADE TO THE MAIN MOTION. >> LET ME JUST REMIND YOU TOO THAT THIS IS THE FIRST READING.
>> OKAY. >> SO ONCE WE -- >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERYBODY GETS THEIRS. >> I GOT IT. >> ONCE WE MOVE AND TAKE ACTION ON THIS, IF WE ADVANCE IT, IT WILL BE REWRITTEN IN THE PROPER FORMAT AND AVAILABLE FOR SECOND
READING AT THE JUNE REGULAR SESSION. >> COOL.
I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE ALL NIGHT EITHER, GUYS. >> THANK YOU.
>> THE LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENTS.
THERE IS UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MAIN QUESTION.
>> AS LONG AS EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT, WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. >> OKAY. COUNCIL PERSON EVANS, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MY QUESTION IS FOR THE
SPONSOR OF THE RED AND BLUE AMENDMENT. >> THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL PERSON
STREETMAN. >> YES. >> MY QUESTION WAS JUST KIND OF FINDING CLARITY IN THE THOUGHT PROCESS FOR 150,000 VERSUS 125,000 AND HOW YOU WENT ABOUT LIKE MAKING THAT DECISION. WAS IT BECAUSE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CAN --
>> BECAUSE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CAN SETTLE UP TO $150,000 ALREADY, SO IT WAS A MATCHING NUMBER GOING ALONG WITH THAT. THAT WAS WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE PUBLIC MEETING THAT WE HAD FOR THE FINANCE MEETING. THAT 150, IT WAS A GOOD MATCH
TO GO RIGHT ALONG WITH THAT. >> FOR WHATEVER IT IS WORTH, THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION TOO.
BECAUSE IT KEEPS THINGS SIMPLE AND CLEAR. YOU DON'T HAVE DIFFERING AMOUNTS. I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TOO, IF I MAY, AT THE FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING, DURING THE PUBLIC SESSION, I WAS ASKED TO DRAFT AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL ALLEN ORDINANCE BY COUNCIL MEMBER AND CHAIR OF F&A STREETMAN, BUT ALSO BY COUNCIL MEMBER KNIGHT. YOU KNOW, HE MAY NOT FEEL LIKE
HE'S GETTING CREDIT HERE. >> HE IS ON THE LIST. >> THIS VERSION IS ALSO HIS VERSION. I AM SURE -- SHE JUST KIND OF BEAT HIM TO THE PUNCH I THINK.
YES, SIR, I WILL DO THAT. >> OKAY. IS THAT LIKE BENNIFER OR SOMETHING? ANYTHING ELSE COUNCIL PERSON EVANS?
>> YES. WANTED TO ASK THE SPONSOR OF THE MAIN MOTION WHAT THEIR REASONING BEHIND THE $125,000 LIMIT WOULD BE, IF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CAN SETTLE FOR UP TO
150 >> COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN. >> YES WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION AND WE DID TALK ABOUT IT BEING THE SAME. BUT THEN THE REASON WHY I BROUGHT IT DOWN TO 125,000, FOR ME, IT'S LIKE IF WE'RE GETTING THAT CLOSE, THERE IS A $25,000 GAP THERE. IF WE'RE GETTING THAT CLOSE, WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT THIS.
IF WE'RE GETTING THAT CLOSE TO WHERE WE'RE GETTING OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO GETTING PASSED TO WHERE THEY CAN SETTLE, AND WE KNOW IT'S GETTING READY TO START COMING TO US, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT IT BEFORE IT HITS $150,000. MY THOUGHT PROCESS ON IT.
SOMETIME BEFORE THEY CAN NO LONGER SETTLE IT. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, YOU'RE NEXT ON THE LIST. RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. LISTENING TO LANCE AND WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE ME, I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I'M SEEING HERE THAT WE'VE ADDED BACK THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
I MEAN THE MOTION, WE'VE ADDED BACK THE FIRST MOTION. AND I'M CONFUSED AS TO YOU KNOW, I SEE, I AM HOPING THAT WE WOULD WRITE THIS AMENDMENT OUT CORRECTLY AS TO WHAT IS BEING SAID TO US. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS BEFORE
[00:35:04]
WE VOTE ON IT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT PRINTED AS WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO.PRINT IT OUT. SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON.
BECAUSE HERE YOU ARE SAYING YOU ADDING ONE, GOING BACK TO SIX HERE.
YOU SAID THE LAST PARAGRAPH WE ADDED IN. I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M VOTING ON. I SEE THIS BEFORE ME AND UNDERSTAND IT VERY WELL.
I'M SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTLY WRITTEN. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT TRISH BUTLER -- I DON'T WANT TO CALL THE NAMES. WARD 12 SAYS SHE WANTED TO DIVIDE IT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SHE WAS KIND OF CONFUSED.
I'M KIND OF CONFUSED AS TO WHAT IS REALLY IN THIS AMENDMENT. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON. AS WE SAID, ANYTHING FOR CHANGES, IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN OUT. THIS IS YOU KNOW, IS KIND OF LIKE UNCLEAR. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ADDED BACK IN VERSUS WHAT YOU LAID OUT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M
CLEAR ON WHAT I'M VOTING ON. >> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT -- DO YOU HAVE IT ON DIGITS AND YOU CAN SEND IT TO ME AND I CAN MAKE THE CHANGES? DO YOU HAVE IT ON DIGITS?
>> DECIPHER THAT FOR THE OLD PEOPLE. ON DIGITS?
>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. >> HANG ON. HANG ON.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD DO THAT. >> CAN I SUGGEST SOMETHING.
>> PLEASE. >> PROBABLY NOT WORTH SUGGESTING.
IF YOU JUST VOTE ON THE STREETMAN VERSION, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE BULLETS, THEY'RE WRITTEN OUT, THERE IS A LINE THROUGH IT. BUT WHICH WILL INCLUDE ALL OF THE BULLETS, ALL OF THE BULLETS, THEN WE CAN I CAN ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, DURING ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE MEETING OR A PORTION OF THE MEETING AND THE OTHER PLACE WHERE THEY SAID QUARTERLY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE REPORT.
I CAN BRING THAT NEW VERSION TO YOU ON SECOND READING SO THAT WE DON'T SLOW THINGS DOWN.
AND Y'ALL CAN JUST VOTE TO AMEND IT ON SECOND READING, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
>> OKAY. COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU WANTING TO DO THAT, LANCE, BUT LIKE I SAID, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT TO HOLD UP ANYTHING, BUT IT'S TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. I DON'T WANT TO SAY WELL, WE ADDED THIS BACK IN.
I'M SAYING WHAT DID WE ADD BACK IN? I SEE YOU GOT THESE BULLETS ON YOURS. BUT THERE IS NO BULLETS ON WARD 8.
IT'S CONFUSING. YOU GOT RETAINED STRUCK OUT. AND THEN YOU GOT TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY. IT'S JUST THINGS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IN WRITING.
THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS, WE HAVE MADE THIS DECISION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING IN WRITING THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON. IF Y'ALL WANT TO CHANGE IT
TONIGHT, THAT IS FINE WITH ME. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. >> CLEAR AND CONCISE.
>> LET'S GO THROUGH THIS THING FIRST. >> IF Y'ALL WANT TO TAKE A
RECESS, I CAN KNOCK IT OUT IN 30 MINUTES. >> WE'VE GOT OTHER PEOPLE ON
THE LIST. >> OKAY. >> I'M SORRY.
I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU. >> I'M USED TO IT. THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE SPONSOR OF THE ORIGINAL BILL FOR THE HARD WORK AND RESEARCH THAT SHE HAS PUT INTO IT. I APPRECIATE IT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK, IS IT POSSIBLE TO, I JUST -- TO DIVIDE THE VOTE FROM JUST THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THEN
EVERYTHING ELSE? >> I WILL SAY SECOND IF YOU MAKE THAT MOTION.
>> HOLD ON. I'M NOT SURE. >> I MEAN, TO ACCEPT IT, JUST TO DIVIDE OUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. LIKE FOR THE AMENDMENT.
>> DISCUSSING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THE AMENDED VERSION OF THE ALLEN AMENDMENT.
>> LET ME EXPLAIN WHY I THINK YOU CAN'T DO THAT. BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE VOTING ON AN AMENDMENT OR AN AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT, YOU'RE VOTING ON A COMPLETE PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT GET FURTHER AMENDED. AND THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION NEEDS TO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A THRESHOLD AMOUNT AT ALL, IT NEEDS TO STATE WHAT THAT
AMOUNT IS. >> THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF STRIKE THIS, MOVE THIS.
[00:40:11]
ONE SUGGESTION IS PERHAPS EACH PERSON COULD SEND THEIR VERSIONS TO MS. SYLVIA AND THAT WAY WE WOULDN'T BE COMMUNICATING. JUST A SUGGESTION.>> MR. BAKER. >> IT'S PROBABLY BEST IF I GO ACROSS THE STREET AND MAKE THE
CHANGES AND JUST PRODUCE A CLEAN VERSION. >> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S GET THROUGH THE LIST HERE AND THEN WE'LL DECIDE THAT.
>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL PERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. LET ME START BY SAYING RONALD REAGAN SAID THAT THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF GOOD THAT YOU CAN DO IF YOU DON'T CARE IF WHO GETS THE CREDIT.
THE PARTICULAR PERSON THAT DRAFTED THE LEGISLATION AND ONE THAT STATED THE AMENDMENT, COMMEND BOTH. AND THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT AND PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, SO THAT WE CAN COME TO A CONSENSUS FOR WHAT IS AGREEABLE FOR MR. BAKER AS WELL AS AGREEABLE FOR THE COUNCIL. I WOULDN'T WANT TO OVERCOMPLICATE ANYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT AND GET ON FROM THERE. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PERSON REDD, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> LANCE, WE CAN'T DIVIDE THE QUESTION ON THE AMOUNT, BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE LOOKED LIKE EVERYBODY WAS IN AGREEMENT.
WE WOULD COME BACK THEN AND GO AHEAD BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MAIN QUESTION, WE WOULD PUT THE AMOUNT IN, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHY WE COULDN'T SET ASIDE THAT PORTION AND GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE STUFF THAT MOST OF US ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH.
>> REAL QUICK. WASN'T THIS ASKED AND ANSWERED ALREADY?
>> HE HAS A RIGHT TO ASK IT AGAIN IF HE DIDN'T GET IT THE FIRST TIME.
>> IT'S CALLED THE DIVISION OF THE QUESTION. MAYBE I SHOULD ASK THE CHAIR.
>> THE CHAIR IS THE ONE WHO ANSWERED THE QUESTION FIVE MINUTES AGO, THOUGH.
>> PARLIAMENTARY WISE. >> HANG ON A MINUTE. HANG ON.
OKAY. COUNCIL PERSON REDD, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR AND YOU WISH TO --
>> I MOVE TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION ON THE AMOUNT. >> OKAY.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. >> TAKE IT UP >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION ON THE AMOUNT IN THE AMENDMENT. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
PROPERLY SECONDED. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE MOTION TO DIVIDE THE
QUESTION? >> I SHOULD WAIT UNTIL AFTER SOMEBODY MOTIONS FOR A RECESS, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO AND HAVE LANCE COME BACK WITH THE CLEAN VERSION, VOTE FOR THAT VERSION AND THEN AMEND THAT VERSION. INSTEAD OF DIVIDING THE QUESTION. THAT JUST -- IT MAKES IT COMPLICATED AND LIKE LANCE ALREADY SAID THAT HE DIDN'T ADVISE THAT. LIKE THAT WE DID THAT.
I JUST THINK THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE. >> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
>> THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR DIVIDING THE QUESTION. NON-DEBATABLE MOTION.
REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS, WHICH IS NINE OF US, IN ORDER TO CEASE DISCUSSION.
WE GOT A SECOND TO THIS. LET'S DO IT THIS WAY, ANY OBJECTION TO CALLING FOR THE QUESTION? OKAY. QUESTION BEEN CALLED FOR.
WE ARE VOTING NOW ON DIVIDING THE QUESTION. WE ARE VOTING TO CEASE DISCUSSION ON DIVIDING THE QUESTION. ALL MEMBERS PLEASE VOTE.
[00:45:41]
CEASING DISCUSSION ON DIVIDING THE QUESTION. CEASE DISCUSSION ON DIVIDING THE QUESTION. ALL MEMBERS VOTED. ANY MEMBER WISH TO CHANGE THEIRVOTE? >> LET ME REPOST THAT. >> HOLD ON.
DO YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? >> YES, PLEASE. >> I THOUGHT YOU JUST DID THE GAVEL AND SAID IS ANYBODY OBJECTING TO CEASING THE DISCUSSION?
BAM. CEASE DISCUSSION >> YOU'RE RIGHT.
KEEP ME OUT OF THE DITCH. OKAY. WE HAVE CEASED DISCUSSION ON DIVIDING THE QUESTION. WE ARE NOW VOTING TO WHETHER TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION.
THE CLERK IS TAKING CARE OF US, AS SHE NORMALLY DOES. KEEPING ME OUT OF THE DITCH.
ARE WE READY? WE ARE VOTING AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION PERTAINING TO THE DOLLAR LIMIT IN THE AMENDMENT. ALL MEMBERS PLEASE VOTE.
EVERY MEMBER VOTED. ANY MEMBER WISH TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
MADAM CLERK. >> FIVE YESES, EIGHT NOS. ZERO ABSTAIN.
>> MOTION TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION FAILS. WE ARE NOW BACK ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. WHICH IS THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT TO THE ALLEN AMENDMENT. THE STREETMAN KNIGHT AMENDMENT. OKAY.
COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> HELLO AGAIN EVERYONE.
I MOTION THAT WE RECESS WHILE LANCE MAKES IT INTO A CLEANER FORMAT FOR US.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO CALL FOR A RECESS WHILE WE REDUCE THE CHANGES TO WRITING.
AND SO IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? HEARING NONE, WE WILL RECESS UNTIL LANCE RETURNS OR UNTIL 5:40. OKAY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU, MR. BAKER, WE ARE NOW BACK INTO SESSION. MR. BAKER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED
IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. >> SO ON THIS SIDE, I PASSED OUT, I BELIEVE IT'S THE CLEAN VERSION THAT IS GOING AROUND. THIS SIDE COMING AROUND IS THE COLOR MARK-UP.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THE BEST CLEANEST LEAST COMPLICATED WAY TO DO WHAT I THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO IS TO ACTUALLY VOTE DOWN THE STREETMAN-KNIGHT AMENDMENT AND THEN BECAUSE HER AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO IT FRANKLY, AND WE NEED TO DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY, AND THEN VOTE DOWN THE ALLEN AMENDMENT, SO WE'RE JUST STARTING WITH ORDINANCE 73 THEN. THE MAIN MOTION. AND THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF WE ALLOWED COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN TO THEN PRESENT A NEW AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION THAT WOULD BE THIS FINAL VERSION THAT IS A MELDING OF THE ALLEN AND STREETMAN KNIGHT VERSIONS. IF I CAN GET A COPY OF THE COLOR VERSION.
DOES ANYBODY GOT AN EXTRA COPY >> OKAY. YOU'VE HEARD MR. BAKER EXPLAIN WHAT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED FROM THE LEFT AND FROM THE RIGHT. YOU'VE HEARD HIS SUGGESTION THAT WE VOTE ON AND VOTE DOWN BOTH AMENDMENTS TO GET US BACK IN TO THE POSTURE OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. ANY QUESTION? COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
>> AND I'M SORRY, MAYOR, I FORGOT TO ADD, SO WHEN YOU GET BACK TO VOTE DOWN THE TWO AMENDMENTS, THEN YOU'VE GOT THE MAIN MOTION, THEN COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN CAN SAY I MOVE NOW TO AMEND ORDINANCE 73 WITH THIS NEW CLEAN VERSION. YOU WILL NOTICE IN THE CLEAN VERSION SAYS 150,000, BUT IT ALSO HAS AN ALTERNATIVE 125,000.
AS PRESENTED, IT WOULD BE 150,000. BUT THEN SHE OR ANYBODY ELSE ON
[00:50:05]
THE COUNCIL CAN SEEK TO DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THAT AMOUNT FROM 150 TO125. >> WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS, TWO SPONSORS.
I'M GOING TO GO TO THE SPONSOR OF EACH AMENDMENT AND ASK THEM IF IT'S OKAY TO PROCEED THAT WAY. SO LET'S START WITH THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT,
COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN. >> THERE SHOULD BE 16 COPIES. I NEED ONE
>> YES, SIR, MAYOR. >> I'M GOOD WITH THAT STRATEGY. >> THANK YOU.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, I WILL COME TO YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.
>> I THINK I'M FINE WITH THAT. WE CAN'T REPEAL OUR MOTION TO THE AMENDMENT?
>> COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN. >> THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT ON UPON ADVICE OF COUNCIL, WE WOULD VOTE NO, IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED. HANG ON A SECOND.
WE HAVE GOT TO GET IT TEED UP CORRECTLY. >> HOLD ON.
>> KEEP THE POWDER DRY. >> WE ARE NOW ON THE BOARD ON THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT.
REMEMBER IT'S NOT QUITE ON OUR SYSTEM YET. SO HANG ON A SECOND.
OKAY. WE ARE READY TO VOTE ON THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT.
LIGHT IT UP. MADAM CLERK. >> 0 YES, 13 NO.
>> AMENDMENT FAILS. NOW WE WANT TO TAKE UP THE ALLEN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. LET'S GIVE THE CLERK TIME TO SET THE STAGE HERE.
WE ARE -- EVERY MEMBER VOTE, PLEASE. EVERY MEMBER VOTED.
ANY MEMBER WISH TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.
>> 0 YES, 13 NO. 0 ABSTAIN. >> AMENDMENT FAILS, WE ARE NOW BACK TO THE SPONSOR.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE 73 TO THE NEW CLEAN COPY. >> SECOND.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO AMEND ORDINANCE 93.
>> I MISSPOKE >> 93. AND IT'S BEEN PROPERLY
SECONDED. >> AND THE OFFICIAL AMOUNT IN YOUR AMENDMENT IS 150,000.
IGNORE THE GREEN FOR THIS VOTE. >> RIGHT. >> THE GREEN NUMBERS.
>> YEAH. I WAS GOING TO DO THAT NEXT. >> PURPLE NUMBERS, WHATEVER IT
>> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE PRICE
FROM $150,000 TO $125,000. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO REDUCE THE 150,000 TO 125,000. ANY MEMBER WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THAT AMENDMENT? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT TO THIS AMENDMENT? IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE.
ALL RIGHT. MADAM CLERK, AS SOON AS YOU GET US ON THE BOARD, WE WILL BE
VOTING ON THE AMENDED AMOUNT, REDUCING IT FROM 150 TO 125. >> OKAY.
WE ARE NOW -- THE AMENDMENT IS TO RAISE IT FROM 150 TO 125. EVERY MEMBER CAST THEIR VOTE.
WE'RE GOING DOWN FROM 150 TO 125. EVERY MEMBER VOTED.
>> WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT BECAUSE IT SAYS 150. >> OKAY.
OKAY. WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
[00:55:02]
ANY MEMBER WISH TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.>> 7 YES. 6 NO. >> AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT ADOPTED. WE ARE NOW ON THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
ANYBODY WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED? SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE ON THE COUNCILPERSON ALLEN AMENDMENT AS AMENDED? ALL RIGHT.
MADAM CLERK, AS SOON AS YOU TEE US UP WE WILL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
EVERYBODY CAST THEIR VOTE. EVERY MEMBER VOTED. ANY MEMBER WISH TO CHANGE THEIR
VOTE. >> 13 YES. 0 NO. 0 ABSTAIN.
>> AMENDMENT AS AMENDED ADOPTED. WE ARE NOW ON ORDINANCE 93 AS AMENDED. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS?
SEEING NONE, MR. BAKER. >> I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO IMPLORE TO THE COUNCIL. I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN HAS DONE A GREAT JOB ON IT. AND I AM IN FAVOR OF IT.
THAT SAID, I WANT TO JUST RAISE TWO POINTS THAT I'M ASSUMING THIS IS GOING TO PASS, AND LIKE I SAID, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT I WANT Y'ALL TO BE AWARE OF TWO POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. ONE IS, ACTUALLY THE FIRST PROBLEM IS NOT REALLY A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU DID PASS THE THRESHOLD AMOUNTS. IT'S REALLY JUST THE SECOND PROBLEM THAT I HAD RAISED IN OUR COMMENTS LAST WEEK OR WHENEVER WE HAD IT. WHAT IF YOU APPROVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, I RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL, AND WE GET TO THAT NUMBER $125,000 THRESHOLD, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO START PAYING OUTSIDE COUNSEL FEES. THE QUESTIONS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF AT THAT POINT IS ARE YOU GOING TO SETTLE? MEANING, ARE YOU GOING TO PAY WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS DEMANDING? WHAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT AGREE ON A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND YET, THEY CAN'T AGREE TO ALSO CONTINUE TO FUND OUTSIDE COUNSEL? AT THAT POINT, IF Y'ALL DON'T WORK TOGETHER AND FIGURE THIS OUT, AND GET THROUGH THIS, WHENEVER THIS DOES COME UP IN THE FUTURE, THE OTHER SIDE WILL HAVE THE CITY OVER A BARREL AT THAT TIME BECAUSE THEY WILL KNOW THAT YOU WILL NOT APPROVE FURTHER FEES SO THEY WILL PLAY HARD BALL AND DEMAND A HIGHER SETTLEMENT AMOUNT THAN THEY OTHERWISE MIGHT DO. THIS COULD LEAVE ME IN A VERY BAD POSITION, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY OR ANY FUTURE CITY ATTORNEY.
BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL REASON FOR THE HIRING OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL WOULD STILL BE THERE.
WHICH COULD BE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ATTORNEYS TO THROW AT THE CASE, TO WORK THE CASE, OR YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO GET TO IT, OR IT'S A CASE WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE NECESSARY TO WORK THE CASE.
LIKE YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENTAL, FOR EXAMPLE. SO YOU COULD PUT ME IN A BAD POSITION BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL REASON FOR THE HIRING OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL WOULD STILL BE THERE, BUT NOW YOU CUT THE LEGS OUT FROM UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY IN MID STREAM.
IT REMINDS ME, SOME OF Y'ALL, I LOVE HORSES, LOVE RIDING HORSES AND STUFF, I LIKE HORSE ANALOGIES, AND THERE IS AN OLD SAYING AMONGST HORSE PEOPLE THAT YOU DON'T CHANGE HORSES MID STREAM. IF YOU'VE EVER RIDDEN A HORSE AND TRIED TO RIDE ONE ACROSS THE RIVER OR STREAM, YOU KNOW IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE LAWYERS IN THE MIDDLE OF A LAWSUIT. AND IF YOU SAY WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP PAYING THOSE FEES, AND YOU'RE GOING TO PUT ME IN A SEVERE DISADVANTAGE, BECAUSE IF I -- IF WE START OUT WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL, THE WHOLE POINT IS LET THEM DO THE WORK, BECAUSE MY STAFF NEED TO BE WORKING ON OTHER STUFF.
I WILL NOT HAVE ATTENDED ALL OF THE PRETRIAL COURT HEARINGS, THE DEPOSITIONS, I WILL NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE WRITTEN DISCOVERY, MUCH OF THE TACTICS, TACTICAL DECISIONS AND
[01:00:07]
CASE LAW ISSUES WILL BE THINGS THAT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT. BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PRIOR INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE. SO JUST KNOW THAT THIS, IF YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE YOU GO, WE JUST WANT TO CUT HIM OFF. THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE FACED WITH A VERY DIFFICULT CHOICE OF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER PAY THEM OFF, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE A MERITLESS LAWSUIT OR THEY MAY BE ASKING A TOTALLY UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF WHAT THE MERITS OF THE LAWSUIT MAY BE.HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, AGAIN, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING.
BUT I WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT YOU COULD BE FACED WITH IN THE FUTURE. I HAVE HAD TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS SOMEWHAT WITH REGARD TO TACTICAL DECISIONS, I'M GLAD TO SHARE THIS RESPONSIBILITY, LET YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE YOU ARE THE STEWARDS OF THE TAXPAYER FUNDS, YOU ARE THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, I AM NOT.
AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE CLIENT DECISIONS WHETHER TO SETTLE, FOR WHAT AMOUNT AND WHEN, THOSE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CLIENT DECISIONS. I HAVE NEVER MADE THOSE DECISIONS. SO JUST BE AWARE OF THIS. THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. YOU MADE A GOOD POINT, ATTORNEY BAKER.
Y . BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T SEE US HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALWAYS CALLED SPECIAL SESSIONS TO DEAL WITH ISSUES OF SUCH. ALSO, I HOPE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, GET IN CONTACT WITH THE MAYOR TO SET UP A SESSION SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BEFORE THIS HAPPENS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> SORRY, THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WAS GOING TO ASK A QUESTION TO MR. BAKER.
SO WITH YOUR PRECAUTION THAT WE JUST HEARD, WOULD THERE BE A REMEDY IN VERBIAGE TO PREVENT THAT OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING IT AS LIKE AN ERR OF CAUTION FOR THIS?
>> IT'S A CAUTION FOR YOU THAT YOU COULD BE PRESENTED WITH A VERY DIFFICULT CHOICE.
AND THE CHOICE WOULD BE OKAY, DO WE KEEP PAYING ATTORNEY'S FEES WHEN REALLY WE'VE HAD ENOUGH, WE WANT TO SETTLE THE CASE, BUT SETTLING A CASE TAKES TWO.
YOU GOT TO HAVE THE OTHER SIDE. AND IF THEY'RE BEING UNREASONABLE, THEN YOU GOT TO MAKE A DECISION. ARE WE GOING TO KEEP FIGHTING OR PAY THEM WHATEVER THEY'RE DEMANDING, WHICH COULD BE SOMETHING VERY UNREASONABLE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS REALLY ANY -- THERE IS NO LANGUAGE THAT I CAN THINK OF TO WRITE IN HERE THAT REMEDIES THAT SITUATION. BECAUSE YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE FACED WITH THAT SITUATION.
THE REASON WHY I CAUTION YOU, THOUGH, ABOUT IT IS IF YOU ACTUALLY TAKE A VOTE TO CUT THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL FEES OFF, THEN YOU'RE TELEGRAPHING TO THE OTHER SIDE THAT WE'VE REACHED OUR PAIN THRESHOLD LEVEL. AND THAT IS GOING TO MAKE THEM BE EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO GET A
REASONABLE SETTLEMENT WITH. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT MR. BAKER JUST SAID FOR THIS. SOMETHING ELSE I WANT EVERYBODY TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN WE ARE MAKING THE DECISION REGARDING THIS THAT WHILE WE ALL MAY HAVE INTENTIONS ON HOW WE WANT THINGS TO GO OR HOW WE WANT THIS TO WORK, WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS NOT JUST FOR THIS COUNCIL BUT FUTURE COUNCILS, HOW THEY MAY CHOOSE TO HANDLE THINGS. IF WE'RE TAKING IT OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND PUTTING IT IN OURS, WE'RE PUTTING IT IN ALL COUNCIL HANDS.
THE CITY ATTORNEY, THAT DEPARTMENT IS NOT JUST HANDLING LAWSUITS THAT COME OUR WAY.
THEY ARE ALSO HANDLING REVIEWING CONTRACTS THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS NEED TO BE WORKED ON, ANY LEGISLATION THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL MAY WANT. SO COMING FORWARD.
SO IF WE DO CHOOSE DOWN THE ROAD TO SAY NEVER MIND, WE WANT TO STOP OUTSIDE COUNSEL RIGHT NOW, AND PUT MORE ON OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE COULD BE SLOWING THINGS UP FOR THE OTHER THINGS OF CITY BUSINESS THAT DOES NEED TO OCCUR BOTH FOR OUR WISHES AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT'S NEEDS AND WISHES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT EVERYBODY, WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THIS DECISION, BOTH NOW AND ON ANY CASES IN THE FUTURE, THAT WHAT THE EFFECT THAT MIGHT
[01:05:07]
HAVE. IT COULD VERY WELL HAVE EFFECTS ON OUR DEPARTMENTS FOR OURCITY. >> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> SO WHILE I DO AGREE THAT, I ALSO AGREE WITH WHAT MR. BAKER SAID ABOUT THE ATTORNEY FEES.
AND ABOUT YOU KNOW, STOPPING IT OFF. I THINK THIS KIND OF SHOULD HELP US REALLY BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE DIFFICULT DECISIONS. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WILL BE READY ON THESE CASES VERY MUCH SO MORE THAN WE ARE NOW AT THIS POINT.
WE WILL BE READY, KNOW THE DIRECTION IT'S GONE. HE IS GOING TO TALK TO US ABOUT THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE, I MEAN THE SCOPE OF WHERE WE'RE AT, WHAT DOES HE THINK THE BEST DIRECTION FOR US TO GO. I MEAN, I THINK THAT AT TIMES WHEN I KNOW WE SAY THAT THE CASE THAT THEY SAY BROUGHT THIS LEGISLATION ON, WHAT DID HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, IS THAT WE FIGURED OUT THAT OUR SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE CURRENTLY HAD FLAWS.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO PREVENT THAT, BUT AT LEAST NOW THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE READY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SAY YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S TIME TO START MAKING THESE DIFFICULT DECISIONS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS CASE.
THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. BAKER, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, I ALSO AGREE WITH MR. BAKER'S RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MADE THE FIRST POINT, SEEK A RECOMMENDATION FROM MR. BAKER TO GET US TO HAVE A WIN-WIN OF WHAT -- I CAN'T READ MY WRITING.
SO I THINK I ECHO A PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S REQUEST, IS THERE A -- SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN GET BEFORE US TO INCLUDE BOTH, TO CREATE A WIN-WIN? I THINK THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE FIRST PART. SO I WILL ASK THAT FIRST AND THEN PAUSE AND GIVE YOU TIME TO
ANSWER. AND THEN I HAVE A SECOND. >> IF I MAY, BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT, THIS IS FIRST READING. SO YOU'RE NOT JUST ANSWERING ON THE FLY, TRYING TO CREATE
LANGUAGE. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO CREATE IT. BUT DOES HE FEEL HE COULD COME
UP, BY SECOND READING WE COULD ADD THAT. >> I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO A
SITUATION -- >> NO. BY ALL MEANS. >> IN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS POINT AND QUESTION, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH ANY LANGUAGE TO DO AWAY OR RESOLVE OR REMEDY THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM OR ISSUE THAT CAN COME UP.
WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL OR UNDER THE OLD WAY OF DOING THINGS, F&A, DECIDES THAT YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH, WE WANT YOU TO JUST YOU KNOW, SETTLE THIS CASE, AND YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE, THOUGH, IS UNDER THE OLD WAY, AND WITHOUT THIS LEGISLATION, I DIDN'T -- THE OTHER SIDE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE'RE DONE WITHOUT PAYING OUTSIDE COUNSEL FEES.
SO WHAT THIS DOES, IT'S GOING TO HELP THE OTHER SIDE. >> IT SENDS A WARNING SHOT.
>> IT LETS THEM KNOW HEY, WE'VE REACHED OUR THRESHOLD OF PAIN AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT HARDER TO SETTLE CASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN THE PURPOSE, I THINK BEHIND HER LEGISLATION, WHICH IS YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE FULLY INFORMED ALL ALONG. AND WHEN WE GET TO A CERTAIN DOLLAR THRESHOLD AMOUNT, WE NEED TO BE MAKING DECISIONS. WE ARE THE STEWARDS OF THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
I HOPE IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO BITE US IN THE SENSE THAT IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO
SETTLE CASES FOR REASONABLE AMOUNTS. >> COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, OR
RICHMOND, EXCUSE ME. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, MR. BAKER.
TWO CAVEATS THEN, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE, BECAUSE I DO -- I DON'T THINK MYSELF OR -- I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. I KNOW NOTHING OF LAW.
I KNOW SITTING HERE DELIBERATING AND LISTENING TO INDIVIDUAL CASES, I FEEL I HAVE A COMPETENT ENOUGH ONCE WE HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHARE WITH US THE INSIGHT, I FEEL COMPETENT ENOUGH TO REACH DECISIONS TOGETHER AS LEADERSHIP.
BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT THE ONUS OF ANY LEGAL DECISION MAKING IN OUR LAP OR FUTURE COUNCIL'S LAP. I JUST DON'T WANT THAT SORT OF RESPONSIBILITY.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. SO >> MAY I ADDRESS THAT?
[01:10:01]
>> SURE. >> THAT IS ALREADY IN YOUR LAP. YOU MAY NOT REALIZE IT.
BUT IT IS. A MOMENT AGO I TOLD YOU, UNDER THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR ATTORNEYS, THERE ARE CERTAIN DECISIONS THAT ATTORNEYS CANNOT MAKE.
THE CLIENT HAS TO MAKE THEM. >> WE ARE THE CLIENT. >> WELL, THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE IS THE CLIENT. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. BUT YOU KNOW, AS A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, IT CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS UNLESS THERE IS SOME PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY MAKE
DECISIONS. >> I SEE. >> AND THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS IS THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THE DECISION ABOUT -- THIS HAS BEEN TRUE THROUGHOUT THE CASE, EVERYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT, BUT IT'S BEEN TRUE THROUGHOUT HISTORY. IN THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO SETTLE, OR WHAT AMOUNT, WHEN TO SETTLE, IS ALWAYS A CLIENT DECISION.
ATTORNEYS DON'T MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. I CAN GIVE YOU ADVICE ABOUT IT.
BUT I CAN'T MAKE THE DECISION. SO THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY, EVEN THOUGH YOU GO, I'M NOT A LAWYER, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE SHOULD DO, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
I DON'T WANT THIS RESPONSIBILITY. THE VOTERS THAT PUT THAT --
>> FOR SOME REASON MY MIND STARTED TURNING ME INTO LAW AND ORDER HERE.
WITH THAT, HOW MANY CASES DO WE HAVE THAT HAVE MET THIS 125K THRESHOLD, DO WE HAVE AN
AVERAGE OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS OR TWO YEARS? >> I CAN THINK OF ONLY TWO
CASES. >> SO IT MIGHT NOT BE THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS, THE COUNCIL THE COUNCIL WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS OFTEN, IT WOULD BE AN OUTLIAR.
>> I THINK SO. I THINK IT WOULD BE PRETTY RARE.
IRONICALLY, EVERYBODY CAN GUESS THE STATE LAWSUIT, ROBINSON AND FRANKLIN STREET CORPORATION VERSUS CITY, MR. OLSEN REPRESENTS THEM. THE OTHER CASE WAS THE DURAD FAMILY TRUST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I CAN'T REMEMBER, THEY SUED THE CITY IN ANOTHER TAKING CASE, TAKING CASES ARE VERY EXPENSIVE CASES TO DEFEND. WE WON THAT CASE.
BUT WE SPENT ABOUT $300,000, AS I RECALL. IN MY 13 YEARS, THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO CASES THAT I RECALL WHERE WE COME EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO SPENDING MORE THAN YOU KNOW, 50, $60,000 ON ATTORNEY'S FEES. WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION, ACTUALLY OF THE -- ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK WE ACTUALLY PAID THE ATTORNEY IN THE LAWSUIT THAT WE HAD WITH THE CONTRACTOR DOWN HERE FOR THE LIBERTY PARTNER, WE WERE ACTUALLY THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT CASE. WE GOT A VERY LARGE SETTLEMENT. AS I RECALL, ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS IN THAT CASE. ONLY TWO CASES THAT I CAN RECALL.
>> COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, MR. BAKER.
>> YES, SIR. >> THAT IS IT. MY RECOMMENDATION MAY NOT BE NEEDED BUT I WILL PUT IT OUT THERE SOMETHING FOR THE COUNCIL TO THINK ABOUT, IF WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF IT SHOULD COME BEFORE US, OR IF WE SHOULD LEAVE THAT RIGHT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
THANK YOU, MR. BAKER. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> COUNCILPERSON GARRETT.
>> CALL FOR THE QUESTION. >> QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED. >> PROPERLY SECONDED.
NON-DEBATABLE. REQUIRES NINE OF US TO APPROVE. WE ARE NOW VOTING ON THE QUESTION. NOT RIGHT NOW. HANG ON A MINUTE.
VOTING TO CEASE DISCUSSION. HOW ABOUT IF WE DO THIS, IS THERE OBJECTION TO CALLING FOR THE QUESTION? HEARING NONE, WE ARE NOW VOTING ON THE ORDINANCE 93 AS AMENDED.
PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. EVERY MEMBER VOTED. ANY MEMBER WISH TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. SHE IS AT LEAVE.
>> 8 YES, 4 NO. >> ORDINANCE 93 ADOPTED, THE FIRST READING, PURPOSE FOR WHICH THIS SPECIAL SESSION
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.