2020 REGULAR SESSION OF CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
COUNCIL LADY SMITH WILL SERVE AS OUR CHAPLIN OF THE DAY.COUNCILMAN EB WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE WE'LL INVITE YOU TO STAND IF YOU'RE ABLE.
AND COUNCIL LADY SMITH TALK TO THE KING FOR US.
DESIGN YOUR PRESENCE AND GUIDANCE IN THIS PLACE WOULD COME NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN SO GOOD FOR WE HAVE ALL SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF YOUR GLORY.
WILL RESTORE US WITH THE SPIRIT OF LOVE, A SPIRIT OF UNITY IN A SPIRIT OF PEACE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE BEST DECISION FOR THIS CITY AND CITIZENS THAT WERE PROVIDED QUALITY OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THIS IS OUR PRAYER IN THE MIGHTY NAME OF JESUS, ALL OF GODS CHILDREN SAID AMEN.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL BULLET ELECTRONIC MEETING IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNORS EXECUTIVE ORDER REGARDING HOLDING OPEN MEETINGS IN A FORM OTHER THAN OPEN AND PUBLIC DISCOVERING BODY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ITS CITIZENS DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
I WOULD NEED A MOTION AND SECOND.
>> MADAME CLERK? PLEASE TAKE THE.
WE ARE NOW IN SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WANTS TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR IT PERSONAL ORDER OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT.
[6) PLANNING COMMISSION]
THAT WOULD BE COUNCILMEMBER GARRET.>>RICHARD GARRET: WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY WOULD MADAME CLERK, WILLIE REALLY ORDNANCES.
>> ORDINANCE 10 2021 FIRST READING POSTPONE AUGUST 6 FOR PUBLIC HEARING HELD AUGUST 6 THROUGH AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MEMBER OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF FAITH INVESTMENTS IN CARE OF CHRIS BLACKWELL FOR HIS OWN CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH WOODFIELD ROAD FROM AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT OR OR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ZONING PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 25 2021.
FIRST READING FOR AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF JN ENTERPRISES UNINCORPORATED FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TANEYTOWN ROAD AT THE WESTERN FROM NIGHT OF SEGAL DRIVE AND A GREAT DRIVE FROM OUR TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO OUR 2D TO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
FIRST READING THREAT AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
SID HEDRICK AGENT FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND GREENWOOD AVENUE FROM R 33 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WOULD ORDINANCE 27 2021.
MANNING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BEECH STREET AND PROVIDENCE BOULEVARD.
FROM C TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO R SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
[00:05:05]
DISTRICT.ORDINANCE 28 2021 FIRST READING VERY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE THIRD APPLICATION A VERY HEDRICK, SID HEDRICK AGENT FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOOK AT THAT THE INTERSECTION OF CROSSLAND AVENUE AND MARTIN STREET FROM C TO COMMERCIAL TO R SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
>>RICHARD GARRET: THANK YOU FOR A MOVIE GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION TO GO TO HEARING.
FIRST ITEM IN PUBLIC HEARING IS ORDINANCE 25 AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY PARKS APPLICATION.
TO HAVE THERE BEEN NO REQUESTS TO SPEAK FOR NO REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE 25.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE SECOND ITEM IN OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT IS ORDINANCE 26, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE MAP OF THE CITY CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
MR. SID HAS ASKED TO SPEAK FOR ORDINANCE 26.
MR. HEDRICK, ARE YOU HERE ONLINE?
>>JOE PITTS: IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
MY ADDRESS IS 2006 HIDDEN MEADOW DRIVES, ATOMS TO THE SEA.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY BOARD.
WE WERE GIFTED THESE PROPERTIES AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER AND WE FOUND WITH THE R SIX DESIGNATION WE WILL BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OF OUR CURRENT LOT HOLD.
AND IF WE BUILD FIVE HOUSES IN THIS NEXT YEAR, WE WILL NEED TO ADD 10 LOTS TO ADJUST OUR CASH OF LOTS IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR CLIENTS.
WANT TO FURTHER OMISSION IN THE COMMUNITY AND LEAVE A SPOT FOR THOSE FOLKS WE SERVE.
SO I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT US IN THIS REQUEST.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A QUESTION OF MR. HEDRICK? TAKE YOU, SIR.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO ONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE 20 60 WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE OR ORDINANCE 27 Â" 21.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE.
APPLICATION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
ESTHER SID HEDRICK HAS REQUESTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 27.
MR. HEDRICK? YOU KNOW THE DRILL.
IF YOU WILL, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
>> SID HEDRICK, 2006 HIDDEN MEADOW DRIVES, ATOMS TO THE SECRET AGAIN, SOME KIND OF THING.
ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY TO BETTER SERVE OUR CLIENTS AND FURTHER THE MISSION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IN OUR COMMUNITY.
>>JOE PITTS: ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF COUNSEL FOR MR. HEDRICK? SEE NONE, NO ONE HAS REQUESTED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE 27 SO WE ARE READY FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF VERY HEDRICK.
MR. SID HEDRICK HAS REQUESTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 28.
>> AGAIN, SID HEDRICK, 2006 HIDDEN MEADOWS DRIVE ADAMS TENNESSEE.
THIS IS A PERSONAL PROJECT I HOPE TO DO WITH MY DAD.
IT IS A LONG THE CROSTON AVENUE CORRIDOR CLOSE TO AREAS WHERE I'M CURRENTLY DOING SIMILAR PROJECTS WE HOPE TO GIVE A NICE STREETSCAPE THE AREA ENHANCED BY THE WORKABILITY OF THAT AREA.
THERE ARE RESTAURANTS IN THAT AREA AND SERVICES THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO FOLKS THAT MIGHT WANT TO BUY THESE HOUSES.
AND IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THE AREA.
WE HOPE YOU SUPPORT OUR REQUEST.
>>JOE PITTS: ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL HAVE A QUESTION OF MR. HEDRICK ABOUT ORDINANCE 28? THANK YOU, MR. HEDRICK.
THERE HAS BEEN NO ONE ASKED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE 28.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT? P2 I MOVIE GO BACK TO REGULAR SESSION.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO GO BACK TO GET THE SESSION.
WE ARE BACK IN REGULAR SESSION.
>>RICHARD GARRET: ALL MOTIONS UPON THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL SHALL BE FOR APPROVAL.
ORDINANCE 25 Â" 20 Â" 21 OF THE STAFF AND COMMISSION REGULATION WAS FOR APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 25 Â" 21 AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
AND A MEMBER OF COUNSEL COUNCILMAN BURKART, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>JEFF BURKHART : WE HAVE TO TAKE UP ORDINANCE 10.
IN A MEMBER OF COUNSEL WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT ORDINANCE 25?
[00:10:10]
ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.>> ORDINANCE 26 Â" 2020 Â" 21.
WITH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION REGULATION WAS FOR APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE.
>>JOE PITTS: ORDINANCE 26 HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
A MEMBER OF COUNSEL HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT ABOUT ORDINANCE 26? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
>>JOE PITTS: ORDINANCE 26 IS ADOPTED PARIS FIRST READING.
>>RICHARD GARRET: 27 Â" 2020 Â" 21.
BUT THE STAFF AND COMMISSION REGULATION IS FOR APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 27.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT ABOUT ORDINANCE 27? HEARING ON AND SEE NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK? TAKE THE VOTE.
>>RICHARD GARRET: >>RICHARD GARRET: BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 28.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REGARDING ORDINANCE 28? SEE NONE HEARING ON, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? TAKE THE VOTE.
>>JOE PITTS: ORDINANCE 28 IS ADOPTED FIRST READING.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT? P2 FINAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ORDINANCE 10 Â" 2020 Â" 21 TO READ BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR DISAPPROVAL.
I MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS TO BE POSTPONED AS THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO POSTPONE DURING.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR APPROVAL OF 10.
>>RICHARD GARRET: WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT REGULAR SESSION.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO POSTPONE ORDINANCE 10 TO THE NEXT REGULAR SESSION OF COUNSEL.
>> JUST CURIOUS WHY WE ARE POSTPONING?
>> IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE ZONING TO BE POSTPONED.
>> WAS TELLING IT WAS POSTPONED LAST MONTH.
>>JOE PITTS: WE POSTPONED IT LAST MONTH SO THAT IS WHY IT WAS LISTED AS POSTPONED FROM LAST MONTH.
>> I WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO POSTPONE.
>>JOE PITTS: ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? DO YOU STILL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? OKAY.
SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION, COUNCILMAN GARRETT.
WE ARE NOW IN POSTURE OF ORDINANCE 10 HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR ADOPTION AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL REGARDING ORDINANCE 10?
>> MAY I HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION?
>>JOE PITTS: I HAVE YOU ON THE LIST.
[00:15:03]
>>DAVID ALLEN : I WAS THE ONE WHO POSTPONED IT LAST MONTH.
MR. BLACKWELL SHARED HE WOULD NOT START ANYTHING UNTIL THE CITY STARTS WALKING ON THAT.
SO IT IS NOT LIKE HE'S GOING TO FINISH AND I THINK THAT WAS A CONCERN IS THAT HE MAY START IF WE DON'T HAVE THE REST OF THE INTERSECTION FIXED.
BUT I SPOKE WITH HIM AND HE ASSURED ME HE WOULDN'T HAVE IT HAPPENED THAT WAY.
COUNSEL BEEN CHANDLER, HE RECOGNIZED.
>>TIM CHANDLER : I'M AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE.
THAT AREA IS ALREADY WELL OVERCROWDED.
WE ARE GETTING READY TO SPEND AN UNDETERMINED AMOUNT OF MONEY TO HELP OUT WITH THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM IN THAT AREA AND I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE IN FAVOR OF ADDING MORE TO THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW.
TOWNSMAN HENLEY COMMIT YOUR RECOGNIZED.
>>JEFF HENLEY : THIS IS IN MY WARD AND I HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMPLAINTS, EMAILS.
I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE DEVELOPER AND HE ENSURED ME LIKE COUNCILMAN ALAN SAID, HE WOULDN'T START CONSTRUCTION UNTIL AFTER OUR ROAD PROJECT WAS DONE AND HE ALSO SAID HE WAS RECEPTIVE TO DONATING THE EASEMENTS TO THE CITY, I THINK IS GREAT.
AND ALSO, LAST MONTH NO MORE THAN 1/2 MILE AWAY WE REZONED AND ARE ALLOWING 107 HOUSES.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THAT AND TELL HIM HE CAN'T.
I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
>>JOE PITTS: ANY OTHER MEMBER OF COUNSEL HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REGARDING ORDINANCE 10? SEE NONE HEARING ON, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? TAKE THE VOTE.
ORDINANCE 10 IS ADOPTED FIRST READING.
>>JOE PITTS: THANK YOU COUNCILMAN GARRETT.
ARE NOW READY FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[7) CONSENT AGENDA]
MADAME CLERK, COULD I ASK YOU TO READ THE CONSENT AGENDA.>> ALL ITEMS IN THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND NONCONTROVERSIAL BY THE COUNCIL AND MAY BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION, HOWEVER, A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL MAY REQUEST AN ITEM BE REMOVED FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE REPORT.
ORDINANCE 120 22ND READING AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
ORDINANCE FIVE 2021 SECOND READING AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF WILLIAM BOOZER, TODD MORRIS AGENT FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF PRUITT LANE FROM AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO OUR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE SIX Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING FROM AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF UTILITY SERVICES TO 1551 WOODLAWN ROAD, REQUEST OF PATRICIA MURPHY.
ORDINANCE SEVEN Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING.
REPEALING ORDINANCE 152 Â" 2006 Â" 07 ESTABLISHING THE CAPITAL PROJECTS REVENUE DISTRICT IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND.
ORDINANCE EIGHT Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING FOR YOU AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE RELATIVE FIREWORKS.
ORDINANCE NINE Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF CAROL STEVENS, DEREK STEVENS AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF WEST THOMPKINS LANE FROM OUR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OUR THREE THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 11 Â" 2020 Â" TO BE ONE SECOND READING PART AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF PARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF JOE ROBERTS, CALVIN K, BRIDGET AND COMPANY AGENT.
ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD ASHLAND CITY ROAD AND MARTHA LANE FROM OUR THREE THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO OUR SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 12 Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING.
MEANING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF SID HEDRICK, SID HEDRICK AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE IN PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
[00:20:01]
INTERSECTION OF GREENWOOD AVENUE AND WOODMONT BOULEVARD FROM THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO OUR SIX, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ARE FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.ORDINANCE 13 Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF MARY DAVIS HOLT, BOBBY POWERS/GREEN SPACE PARTNERS AGENT, OR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND CITY ROAD IN AVONDALE DRIVE FROM C-5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO OUR SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ARE TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 14 Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF MARY DAVIS HOLT, BOBBY POWERS/GREEN SPACE PARTNERS AGENT, OR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND CITY ROAD IN AVONDALE DRIVE FROM OUR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO SEE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 15 Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF LUKE BAGGETT, SID HEDRICK AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SEVEN MILE FERRY ROAD AND EDMONTON FERRY ROAD FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND ARE ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO OUR SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 16 Â" 2021 FIRST READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF RIVER CHASE MARINE TERMINAL LLC FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND CITY ROAD AND BEACON DRIVE FROM MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO ART TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 17 Â" 2020 Â" 21 SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF HOLDINGS LLC FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAFAYETTE ROAD IN LOUISVILLE LANE FROM OUR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO OUR SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
RESOLUTION 19 Â" 2020 Â" 21 APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKING COMMISSION AND HOUSING AUTHORITY.
>>JOE PITTS: THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED.
ANY NUMBER OF COUNCILMAN WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED?
I WANT TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS COMMENTS MADE LAST MONTH IN REFERENCE TO ORDINANCE ONE Â" 2020 Â" 21.
THERE WAS SOME CONCERN AND I WANT TO REASSURE THE PUBLIC IN THE COUNCIL THAT THERE WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
I HAVE BEEN ASKED SOME QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS TO WHICH MY RESPONSE HAD BEEN THOSE QUESTIONS NEEDED TO BE ASKED IN PUBLIC SO EVERYONE COULD HEAR THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
AND THEN CHECK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENSURE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATED.
AND THAT WAS AGAIN CONFIRMED IN OUR PRESENTATION TUESDAY NIGHT.
I WISH TO PULL RESOLUTION 19, WHICH IS ITEM 14.
WILL BE OFFERING AN AMENDMENT AND WE WILL TAKE THAT UP UNDER NEW BUSINESS.
ANY OTHER MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? JASMINE CHANDLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER A NO VOTE ON ORDINANCE FIVE Â" 2020 Â" 21.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCILMAN HENLEY, YOUR RECOGNIZED.
>>JEFF HENLEY : WHAT ONE DID YOU PULL?
>>JOE PITTS: THE RESOLUTION ON APPOINTMENTS OF COMMITTEES.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN GARRETT COOK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZE.
>>RICHARD GARRET: I WOULD LIKE TO REREGISTER AS A NO VOTE FOR ORDINANCE ONE Â" 2020 Â" 21.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A NO VOTE ALSO.
>>JOE PITTS: SAME ORDINANCE? THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNSEL LADYSMITH, YOUR RECOGNIZED.
SHE WISHES TO BE RECORDED AS A NO VOTE ON ORDINANCE ONE.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED?
>> THIS IS COUNCILMAN RICHMAN.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A NO VOTE ON ORDINANCE Â" ITEM NUMBER ONE.
>>JOE PITTS: ITEM 1, WHICH IS ORDINANCE.
>> SORRY, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? HEARING ON AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
[00:25:02]
>> AYE CONSENT AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
WE ARE READY FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
[8) FINANCE COMMITTEE]
CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.>> WE HAVE SIX ITEMS FOR ORDINANCE 19 Â" 2021 AUTHORIZE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1019 MAIN STREET TO TANGIE SMITH REFINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 19.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO PUT THIS OFF UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING.
I THINK SOME QUESTIONS THAT SEVERAL OF THE MEMBERS HAVE HAVE NOT BEEN TOTALLY ENTERED.
SO TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT ALL RIGHT AND LAID OUT ON THE TABLE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PUT THIS OFF UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED HELP MEETING.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO POSTPONE ORDINANCE 19 UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR SESSION.
WHICH WOULD BE OCTOBER, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS REGARDING THAT MOTION? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
>>JOE PITTS: ORDINANCE 19 IS POSTPONED.
>> ORDINANCE 2021, AMID THE OFFICIAL CODE RELATIVE GAS, WATER AND SEWER CHARGES, DEPOSITS, PROGRAMS, ADJUSTMENTS AND INSTALLMENT PLANS FOR FINANCING GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: PROPERLY SECONDED.
ANYONE ASH QUESTIONS REGARDING ORGANS 20? SEEING NONE AND HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK?
WAITING CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 21.
COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>DAVID ALLEN : I THINK IT IS SUCH A GREAT DAY.
IT IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT OUR CITY.
WE ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN HOME OWNERSHIP.
I APPLAUD WHOM EVER PRESENTED THIS.
I APPLAUD THEM FOR THIS EFFORT.
AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTED.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 20 FOUR ORDINANCE 21, EXCUSE ME.
ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
>> 23 Â" 2021 AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN 10 JAMESTOWN PLACE TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 23.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 23? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.
[00:30:01]
>> RESOLUTION 10 2021 AUTHORIZING A LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MONTGOMERY COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR USE OF RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSES, FINANCE COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE RESOLUTION 10? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
>> AYE RESOLUTION 10 IS ADOPTED.
>> RESOLUTION 11 2021 AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MONTGOMERY COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR USE OF RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSES, FINANCE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEES APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR RESOLUTION 11.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON RESOLUTION 11? HEARING ON AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
>>JOE PITTS: RESOLUTION 11 IS ADOPTED.
>> 21 Â" 2021 AUTHORIZE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT COUNTY PERTAINING TO DIVISION OF A 2020 JUST HIS ASSISTANT GRANT FUND, ALLOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION AND USE OF SUCH FUNDS TO FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL, I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND SECONDED FOR RESOLUTION 21.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON RESOLUTION 21? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
WE ARE READY FOR GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE.
>> ORDINANCE 18 Â" 20 Â" 2021 AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF CITY UTILITIES TO GARRETT'S BERG.
GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE APPROVED AND I MAKE A MOTION.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 18.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNSEL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? SEEING NONE IN HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.
OUR NEXT GAS WATER MEETING WILL BE SYMPTOM OR SEVEN Â" 17.
THAT 3:30 P.M.. WE ALSO HAVE THE GAS DISTRIBUTE 197 WITHIN CUBIC FEET OF GAS
[9) GAS & WATER COMMITTEE]
LAST MONTH AVERAGING 6.3 MILLION CUBIC FEET PER DAY.THE WATER PLANT PUMPED 6500 90 MILLION GALLONS OF TREATED WATER INTO THE SYSTEM AVERAGING 19 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY.
[00:35:06]
THE CALL CENTER HANDLED OVER 14,000 CALLS AVERAGING ALMOST 500 PER DAY IN EACH CALL LASTING APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES AND TWO SECONDS.THAT IS A BIG IMPROVEMENT TO GAS AND WATER.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE? BEFORE I INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, LET ME ONE MORE TIME WELCOME DENNIS NEWBORN, THE NEW DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
I CAN TELL YOU FROM OBSERVATION AND PERSONAL EXPENSE HE'S MAKING AN IMPACT WITH THE STAFF.
SO THANK YOU, DENNIS, FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE SO FAR AND WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO.
CHAIRMAN ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT SUPPORT.
[10) HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE]
>>DAVID ALLEN : DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL REPORT AS DIRECTED BY THE MAYOR OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ARE IN THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING OUR PROGRAMS AND DURING THE NEXT 90 DAYS OUR STAFF WOULD EXPLORE NEW WAYS TO LEVERAGE OUR FEDERAL DOLLARS TO CREATE MORE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PERSONS TO GET TO EXPAND SERVICES FOR THE HOMELESS THROUGHOUT Â" THROUGH THE COORDINATION OF THE CITY, COUNTY, FEDERAL AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
INCREASE SHORT-TERM AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS AND SUPPORT SERVICES INCLUDING NUTRITION, MEDICAL, DENTAL AND MENTAL HEALTH.
NEW ACTIVITIES UNDERWAY INCLUDE DEVELOPING A REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR TARGETED LEGACY NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING RED RIVER.
TO ADAPT REUSE PLAN FOR FROSTY MORE, THREE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS INTERESTED IN APPLYING FOR CVG AND HOMOPHONES, ESPECIALLY THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT APPLIED UNSUCCESSFULLY IN PREVIOUS YEARS.
THREE, CREATE A MICRO PROGRAM.
>>JOE PITTS: YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> NOW YOU KNOW WHY THE MAYOR.
REGARDING THE COMMITTEE REPORT? THANK YOU.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT.
[11) PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE]
CHARLIE GUZMAN.>>VALERIE GUZMAN : THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MET AUGUST 10, 2020 VIA GOOGLE MEET FOR THE ITEMS DISCUSSED INCLUDE AN ONGOING AND UPCOMING PROJECTS AND THE POSITION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT HEARD NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY COMMITTEE.
THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 14 AT 3:00 P.M.. THERE ARE LOTS OF UPCOMING EVENTS OUR PARKS AND.
GO TO OUR WEBSITE AND YOU CAN FIND ALL THE INTERESTING THINGS WE HAVE HAPPENING THROUGH THIS MONTH IT'S THE LAST MONTH FOR THE FARMERS MARKET SO PLEASE TAKE STRONG ADVICE TO GO OUT THERE AND CATCH ALL THE GOODIES THEY HAVE OUT THERE.
SO WE WILL SEE YOU AT THE MARKET.
>>JOE PITTS: EVERY SATURDAY MORNING TO READ ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL REGARDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE? THANK YOU.
[12) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE]
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.CHAIRMAN HANLEY, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
FIRST THING IS ORDINANCE 22 Â" 2020 Â" 21 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE RELATIVE TO STORAGE OF INOPERABLE VEHICLES ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE APPROVAL.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MOVE MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE 22? SEEING NONE IN HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
>>JOE PITTS: ANOTHER GREAT BIG YES.
>> ORDINANCE 22 ADOPTED FIRST READING.
>> MOVING ON TO RESOLUTION 20 Â" 2020 Â" 21.
ADOPTING MONTGOMERY COUNTY MALL TEACHERS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE COMES OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
AND A MEMBER OF COUNSEL HAVE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT REGARDING RESOLUTION 20? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
[00:40:02]
>> MOVING ALONG THE BUILDING CODES AUGUST ACTIVITY THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION PERFORMED 2658 TOTAL INSPECTION.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OR 290 NEW CASES FOR THE ABATEMENT DIVISION CLEARED 92 WORK ORDERS DURING AUGUST THROUGH THE ADVENT DIVISION SHOULD 95 SINGLE-FAMILY PERMITS.
31 MULTIFAMILY PERMITS AND 20 COMMERCIAL PERMITS.
CLARKSVILLE FIRE WENT ON 1199 RUNS DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST AND CLARKSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO 11,569 CALLS FOR SERVICE.
I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THE 13 NEW CADETS SWORN IN LAST WEEK TO THE CLARKSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND FINALLY, OUR NEXT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 16 AT 4:00 P.M.. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
>>JOE PITTS: EXCELLENT REPORT.
AND YES, THAT WAS A GREAT CLASS OF 13 CADETS.
VERY DIVERSE IF YOU SAW THE PICTURE.
WE HAD SOME VETERANS AMONG THEM.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE STREETS AND GARAGE COMMITTEE.
[13) STREETS & GARAGE COMMITTEE]
CHAIRMAN CHANDLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.>>TIM CHANDLER : AND Q, MAYOR.
I WOULD LIKE TO BACKUP ONE SECOND ON AUGUST 22 Â" 2020 Â" 21 AND GIVE A BIG THAT A BOY TO DAVID SMITH AND HIS STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY LANCE BAKER AND THEIR STAFF.
THIS TOOK QUITE A WHILE FOR THEM TO GET IT ALL IRONED OUT AND LET THEM KNOW HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE THEIR WORK.
>> THE STREET DEPARTMENT THE COURSE HAS BEEN BUSY THIS TIME OF YEAR TRYING TO GET THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
THEY HAVE COMPLETED IN FOUR AREAS.
I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT ON THE PROJECTS UPDATE.
OF COURSE I GIVE A WHOLEHEARTED APOLOGY TO THE PUBLIC.
THE ONE OF TALKING ABOUT HIS DUMBBELL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FRICATIVES CAUSED PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS.
BUT THIS BRIDGE HAD BEEN DEEMED UNSAFE AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET IT FIXED AT NO COST TO US.
AND IT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN A 45 DAY SCHEDULE.
THE CEMETERY WALL IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE.
JUST DOING SOME CLEANUP WORK ON IT.
NEW SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IS ALMOST COMPLETED ON HOMESTEAD AND KIRBY DRIVE.
THE SIDEWALK ON FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD ARE STILL IN THE STATES HAND, BUT IT'LL BE HERE BEFORE WE KNOW IT.
DONE A LOT IN LANE AND INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD BRICK CONSTRUCTION HAS RESTARTED UTILITIES HAVE BEEN Â" EXCUSE ME, RELOCATED AND OUT-OF-THE-WAY.
SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE EVERYTHING DONE NEXT TWO WEEKS COMPLETE THE PROJECT BY OCTOBER.
ROSS VIEW, UTILITY RELOCATION HAS BEGUN.
ROADWORK IS SCHEDULED RIGHT NOW AND IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING HOLDS OUT SPRING OF 2021.
MAYWEATHER AND TRENTON CONSTRUCTION STARTED ON INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AND IT SHOULD TAKE BETWEEN 90 AND 120 DAYS.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE BUSY AND IN THE FOUR YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL, THIS IS THE MOST ON THE CAPITAL PROJECTS I HAVE SEEN GOING AT ONE TIME.
AND NOW SWITCHING OVER TO THE GARAGE.
THE GARAGE AGAIN IS DOING A GREAT JOB.
THEY ARE ACTUALLY WORKING IN REPAIRING AND DOING MORE MAN HOURS THAN WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME.
AND RIGHT NOW THEY ARE RUNNING UNDER BUDGET AGAIN AVERAGING ABOUT $48,000 A MONTH UNDER BUDGET THERE THAT LOOKS LIKE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE CITIZENS ON THIS BUDGET FOR THE GARAGE.
>>JOE PITTS: GOOD REPORT TO READ ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL REGARDING THIS REPORT? ENQUEUE FOR THE RUNDOWN ON THE CAPITAL PROJECTS.
NEXT ITEM IS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
[14) TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE]
CHAIR LADYSMITH, WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK WITH US.>>WANDA SMITH : GLAD TO BE BACK.
TRANSIT SYSTEM REPORTED THIS TIME THERE ARE NO UPDATES ON THE NEW LOCATION FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER, CTS TRANSPORTED 36,363 PASSENGERS FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST WITH SENIOR CITIZENS FOR THE MONTH WAS 6551.
THE MAYOR RESPONSE FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST WAS 2125.
CTS HAS ADOPTED A NEW PROGRAM CALLED THE ADOPT A STOP PROGRAM TO HELP KEEP
[00:45:06]
CLEAN, FOOD COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND PARTICIPATION.ANYONE ELIGIBLE Â" IS ELIGIBLE TO ADOPT A BUS STOP.
INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES AND ASSOCIATIONS AND FAMILIES.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.RIDECTS.COM.
CTS BUSES WILL NOT RUN ON LABOR DAY, WHICH IS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7.
OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY AT 4:00 P.M.
AT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
THANK YOU VERY THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN ALLEN, DO YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THIS REPORT.
>>DAVID ALLEN : SOMETHING PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION.
COUNSEL LADYSMITH WAS CONCERNED.
I DON'T VIOLATE THE SUNSHINE LAW.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY ON THIS PAST WEEK.
ABOUT SIDEWALKS BEING BY THE BUS STOPS AND FOR SOME PLACES IT IS REALLY HARD TO WALK TO GET TO THE BUS STOP.
AND I KNOW UP AT A TOWN WHERE THERE IS A NEW BUS STOP, BUT THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS.
IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.
CAN GET GRANTS OR SOMETHING FOR SIDEWALKS OR MAYBE IT CAN BECOME A PRIORITY FOR THE CITY? AT LEAST AROUND THE BUS STOPS WHEN THEY CAN WALK TO THE BUS STOPS.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN.
WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT YOU WOULD MR. NELSON TALKED ABOUT PUTTING SIDEWALKS AND WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT.
LOOK OVER THERE BY THE PROJECTS IN GREENWOOD AND YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A SIDEWALK RIGHT WHERE YOU SEE THE BUS STOP CALDWELL LANE AREA.
WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT.
BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP AGAIN.
>> I WILL BRING THAT UP IN THE MEETING AGAIN AND SPEAK WITH THE DIRECTOR BUT WE DO HAVE THAT IN THE PLANS.
ANYTHING ELSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE? GOOD REPORT, CHAIR LADYSMITH.
WERE NOW READY FOR NEW BUSINESS.
[15) NEW BUSINESS]
IT IS AND GENTLEMEN, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE FIRST ORDINANCE 24, LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN HERE Â" YOU HAVE PROBABLY SEEN HIM FOR HIS NAME IS SAUL SOLOMON.MR. SOLOMON IS AN ATTORNEY THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR MAYOR DEAN'S OFFICE IN METRO NASHVILLE.
IS NOW IN PRIVATE PRACTICE WITH CLIENT SOLOMON AND MILLS AND NASHVILLE.
BASED ON MY RESEARCH AND OTHER INFORMATION I HAVE GATHERED, WE WILL BE ABLE TO READ US THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS CODE OF ETHICS ORDINANCE BEFORE US.
IT'S NO SECRET THAT HAS BEEN ETHICS COMPLAINTS FILED BY AGAINST OUR CITY ATTORNEY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY AND MANY OF US ON COUNSEL.
AND SO WITH THAT NECESSITATED BRINGING MR. SOLOMON ON TO HELP US TO MAKE SURE WE ARE FAIRLY REPRESENTED MR. SOLOMON, IF YOU WILL RAISE YOUR HAND AND YOU WILL RECOGNIZE HIM THERE.
HAVING SAID THAT, HE WILL SERVE AS CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM IN REGARDS TO THIS ORDINANCE IN THIS ORDINANCE ONLY.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR ORDINANCE 24.
COUNCILMAN NORIS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZE.
>>GARY NORRIS: I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVED ORDINANCE 24 Â" 2020 Â" 21.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 24.
>>GARY NORRIS: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS ORDINANCE.
YOU SHOULD HAVE IT IN FRONT YOU.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO AMEND ORDINANCE 24 AND THAT AMENDMENT WAS DISTRIBUTED JUST A MOMENT AGO.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN CHANDLER? OR COUNCILMAN RICHMAN DID YOU HEAR?
>> IS THERE A WAY THOSE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY CAN SEE THAT AMENDMENT.
[00:50:04]
COUNCILMAN RICHAMOND?>>VONDELL RICHAMOND: ALONG WITH THE AGENDA?
TREY IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS SO YOU CAN SEE IT VIRTUALLY ON THE SCREEN.
>>VONDELL RICHAMOND: THANK YOU.
CAN SOMEONE REFER WHICH PAGE IT IS.
AND LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE IN THE REGULAR AGENDA.
I GUESS IT IS AN ATTACHMENT? AMONG 36.
>>JOE PITTS: STANDBY A MINUTE.
WE WILL GET THAT ANSWER TO YOU OR WE WILL GET IT ON THE SCREEN.
>>VONDELL RICHAMOND: THANK YOU.
COUNCILMAN NORIS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZE BOOK WITH YOUR APPROVAL I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MR. SOLOMON TO COME FORWARD.
HE IS THE ATTORNEY THAT YOU HAVE APPOINTED TO HELP US GO THROUGH THIS AND LET HIM EXPLAIN THIS AMENDMENT.
AND THEN WE CAN OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
>>JOE PITTS: WITHOUT OBJECTION, MR. SOLOMON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YOU WILL HAVE TO HIT YOUR MICROPHONE BUTTON THERE TO THE RIGHT.
IT IS A GREAT HONOR TO BE CHOSEN TO BE THE CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM FOR THIS MANNER.
BUT THE AMENDMENT DOES, THE FIRST STEPS BASICALLY ALLOWS COUNSEL TO PASS AN ORDINANCE TO EITHER ADVANCE EXPENSES OR TO REVERSE EXPENSES FOR ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO A COMPLAINT THAT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
THAT IS BASICALLY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
YOU ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS, I BELIEVE IS THE SCOPE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
IT ALSO SETS FORTH SOME STANDARDS COUNSEL SHOULD LOOK AT IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT OR ADVANCE OF EXPENSES.
STARTED WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION BY THE PERSON SUBJECT TO THE COMPLAINT WAS DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OR HER EMPLOYMENT.
WHETHER THE PERSON ACTED IN GOOD FAITH.
LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SURROUND THIS AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO CONSIDER.
SO THAT IS SET FORTH ALSO IN THE AMENDED ORDINANCE.
IT PROVIDES UPON FILE DETERMINATION BY EITHER THE ETHICS COMMISSION OR COURT OF LAW, MOST YOU NOTE TO BILL WITH HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE COURT FROM UNDER TENNESSEE LAW FOR COMMISSION RULING.
IT'S A FILE DETERMINATION THAT THERE IS A MATERIAL VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE AND HAD AARTI PASSED AN ORDINANCE ADVANCING EXPENSES.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK THOSE AND TRY TO GET THOSE RETURNED AND FINALLY, THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES AND APPLIES RETROACTIVELY.
AS YOU KNOW, AS THE MAYOR POINTED OUT, THERE IS A CURRENT ETHICS Â" ACTUALLY, THREE ETHICS COMPLAINTS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION WILL BE BEFORE THE COMMISSION WHEN IT MEETS.
AS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY TO THOSE AS WELL.
THAT IS THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES.
>>JOE PITTS: THANK YOU, MR. SOLOMON.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
IN OTTAWA COUNCILMAN GARRETT COMING RECOGNIZED.
>>RICHARD GARRET: JUST A QUESTION.
IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, AND NOTICED THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS DOES HAVE A PROVISION FOR IN THE EVENT THE PERSON IS CONVICTED OR MAY BE CONVICTED AS A STRONG TERM, BUT IF THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE ETHICS COMPLAINT, AT THE BODIES DISCRETION, THEY COULD CALL FOR IT TO BE REIMBURSED.
BASED ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, WOULD IT BE MORE PRUDENT TO DO THE WHOLE THING IS MORE OF A REIMBURSEMENT SO YOU ARE NOT HAVING TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAVE NOW BEEN FOUND GUILTY, IT'S ON THEM TO PAY BACK THE CITY.
TO INSTEAD, IF THEY ARE FOUND INNOCENT OF THIS, TO HAVE THE CITY COVER THOSE
[00:55:01]
EXPENSES.INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET MONEY BACK FROM THEM AFTER THE FACT IF IN FACT THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY.
I THINK WHAT YOU FIND IN THESE MATTERS IS IN AN IDEAL WORLD YOU WOULD WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
THE PROBLEM IS LEGAL FEES AND THESE KIND OF EXPENSES TEND TO ADD UP VERY QUICKLY.
AND TYPICALLY, BUT IT IS UP TO THE COUNCIL WHAT IT WANTS TO DO, BUT TYPICALLY BODY SUCH AS THIS COUNSEL DID NOT WANT TO PUT TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON THE EMPLOYEE AS HE OR SHE IS GOING THROUGH THE PARTICULAR PROCEEDING.
DO YOU HAVE TO GET A SECOND MORTGAGE ON A HOUSE, DO YOU HAVE TO SELL YOUR CAR.
THOSE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT TYPICALLY THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY OFTEN THERE'S AN ADVANCEMENT OF FUNDS.
YOU SEE THAT NOT ONLY IN THE MUNICIPAL WORLD.
YOU SEE IT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AS WELL.
IS A RECOGNITION THIS IS WHAT COULD BE QUITE A STRAIN ON THE RESOURCES OF AN EMPLOYEE.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN GARRETT.
>>WANDA SMITH : I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OF MR. SOLOMON?
IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HOW MANY OF THESE EVENTS GO WITH AN ATTORNEY ON BOTH SIDES? DOES THAT HAPPENED OFTEN?
>> WHEN I WAS LEGAL DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY, WE HAD ONLY TWO OF THESE.
ONE PEOPLE WERE PRESENTED, ONE THEY WERE NOT.
I PARTICIPATED SINCE THEN IN A SIMILAR ROLE.
OF CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM FOR THE CITY OF NASHVILLE BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION APPEARED IN THAT CASE THE PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED.
I THINK IT BOILS DOWN TO THE SERIOUSNESS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON BRINGING THE COMPLAINT, IF THEY HAVE A LAWYER.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE GET REPRESENTED OR NOT.
>> YOU TALK ABOUT THESE BE INEXPENSIVE CASES.
HOW MUCH MONEY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> IT WILL BE DEPENDS ON HOW FAR IT GOES.
BUT FOR WHAT IT WOULD PREPARE FOR A HEARING, DO THE INVESTIGATION, ATTEND THE HEARING AND THEN LET'S ASSUME THAT THE COMMISSION DECIDES THE PERSON DID VIOLATE THE ETHICS CODE, THAT PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL.
AT LEAST IN NASHVILLE A CHANCE.
AND VERY EASILY WE HAVE 30, 40, $50,000 IN NO TIME AT ALL.
>>JOE PITTS: GIFFORD COUNCILMAN ALLEN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
WHAT ARE THE TYPICAL CONSEQUENCES THAT CAN HAPPEN TO A PERSON IF THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT?
>> YOURS ARE SET FORTH IN THE ETHICS I DO NOT HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.
BUT TYPICALLY THEY RANGE FROM A PUBLIC SENSOR, THE COUNCIL MIGHT HAVE ABOUT WHICH SAYS BASICALLY WHICH SAYS NO CONFIDENCE.
IF IT IS SOME BASIL STOLE MONEY, OFTEN THERE IS A REFERRAL TO THE CITY ATTORNEY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
THE COMMISSION ITSELF TYPICALLY DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO ANYTHING.
TYPICALLY THESE THINGS, I THINK THIS IS THE CASE WITH YOUR CODE, THE COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL AND IT IS UP TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
BUT I HAVE NOT YET STEEPED MYSELF IN THE ENTIRE CODE YET.
I BELIEVE THAT IS THE WEIGHT IT OPERATES HERE IN NASHVILLE AS WELL WITH THE COMMISSION MAKES REGULATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL.
>> SO IT CAN RANGE POTENTIALLY 30 TO 50,000, BUT THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A MONETARY CONSEQUENCE OR AN ACTUAL.
>> THERE'S TYPICALLY NO FINES.
THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY ONE OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE.
AGAIN, IF THE PERSON TOOK MONEY, IT CAN BEGIN AGAIN SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF WEAPON FOUND TO VIOLATED THE ETHICS CODE.
THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION OPEN TO THE CITY IS TO ASK THAT PERSON.
THE COMMISSION IS A WIDE RANGE OF THINGS I CAN RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL, BUT ULTIMATELY COUNSEL IS GOING TO BE IN CONTROL OF WHAT TO DO WITH REGARD TO THE PERSONS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COUNCIL.
[01:00:03]
>> TYPICALLY IT IS A PUBLIC CENSURE, AND TO COMMENT WHERE THERE IS AN ETHICS VIOLATION, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT OF A SERIOUS NATURE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING OR BELIEF ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL THAT THE PERSON DID ACT IN GOOD FAITH THE MIGHT OF MADE A STUDENT MISTAKE.
BUT THIS JUST GOT OUT IN FRONT OF THEMSELVES TOO MUCH.
THAT IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE MAYOR HAD MADE A MISTAKE.
WE DON'T WANT TO SEE HIM DO IT AGAIN.
AND THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THIS.
THAT IS WHAT PUBLIC SENSOR IS.
>> I WILL RESERVE MY COMMENTS FOR LATER ON.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN NORIS, ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> AND FIND ME THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IF I MAY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE PROPER TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS OR NOT, BUT I'M GOING TO SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, MR. MAYOR.
THERE MAY BE A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SITTING COUNSEL PEOPLE WHO ARE SUBJECT OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT ME TO TAKE UP OR ARE THERE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? IS THIS THE PROPER TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT?
>>JOE PITTS: DO YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? WE WISH TO HEAR FROM HIM REGARDING THIS?
>> SO ASSUME NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST ANYBODY IN THE COUNCIL DECIDED SOMEBODY BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION TO COUNSEL THAT THIS JUST ISN'T FAIR BECAUSE EMPLOYEES COULD BE SUBJECT TO ETHICS COMPLAINTS AND THAT IS PART OF THE NATURE OF DOING BUSINESS HERE OR THERE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE WITH VALIDITY.
CLEARLY COUNSEL WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADD THAT POINT IN TIME CHANGE THE ETHICS CODE TO ALLOW THAT.
AND EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE SITTING ON THE COUNCIL ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN BENEFIT FROM NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO COULD Â" YOU ARE AMONG THE GROUP OF PEOPLE AGAINST WHOM AN ETHICS COMPLAINT COULD BE LAUNCHED.
SIMILARLY, IF YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE ON COMPENSATION OF COUNSEL PEOPLE OR YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE ON A BENEFIT PLAN FOR COUNSEL PEOPLE, THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE GOING TO HAVE A DIRECT INTEREST IN THE LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL.
BUT AS LONG AS THAT IS NOT SPECIFIC AND PERSONAL TO SPECIFIC COUNCILPERSON, THE KNOT IS NOT VIEWED UNDER TENNESSEE LAW IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, LEGALLY SPEAKING.
SO THE FACT YOU ARE BRINGING THIS UP AFTER THE COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED DOES NOT RENDER IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WHICH FOR WHICH COUNCILPERSON WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE HIM OR HERSELF OR IN NOW, I WOULD SAY THE PROPER THING TO DO FOR A COUNCILPERSON IF THEY ARE FACING THIS, WHERE ON THE HORIZON AS A POTENTIAL BENEFIT.
DON'T FORGET THESE ARE EXPENSES ARE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE HEARING.
THE FIRST STEP IS TO DETERMINE ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT WHETHER IT IS EVEN AN ALLEGATION THAT HAS MERIT.
THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE SUBJECT OR COMPLAINT EITHER WAY.
ONLY IF THE ETHICS COMMISSION BESIDES THERE COULD BE A VIOLATION AN ETHICS CODE, IN THE HEARING.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE PERSON MAY WANT A LAWYER.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, IF A COUNCILPERSON IS CONCERNED ABOUT AN OFFICIAL POSITION, WHAT IS OFTEN DONE IN THESE CASES IS THAT BASICALLY THE COUNCILPERSON COULD STATE ON THE RECORD WORDS TO THIS EFFECT THAT HIS OR HER VOTE ANSWERS ONLY TO HIS OR HER CONSCIENCE AND OBLIGATION TO CONSTITUENTS IN THE CITIZENS THIS BODY REPRESENTS.
THAT PUT ON THE RECORD, LISTEN, I UNDERSTAND THIS COULD BE PERCEIVED BUT I HAVE A CONFLICT.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW I'M PUTTING ON THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN ALLEN, DID YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? YOU ARE RECOGNIZE.
>>DAVID ALLEN : HE MENTIONED AS IT PERTAINS TO SELLERS IN ALL.
BUT AS FAR AS OUR COUNSEL, WE WERE ALWAYS TOLD THAT BASICALLY WHEN WE DID VOTE
[01:05:02]
FOR A PAY RAISE, WE VOTED IT IN ONE YEAR AND IT DIDN'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL TWO YEARS LATER BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T VOTE YOURSELF A PAY RAISE.THAT WOULD BE LIKE A CONFLICT.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR THE NEXT CYCLE.
IF YOU HAPPEN TO WIN THAT CYCLE, YOU WERE IN.
BUT YOU DIDN'T VOTE YOURSELF ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER A CONFLICT.
AND I AM JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY THIS WOULDN'T BE THE SAME WAY.
>> COUNCILMAN IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT.
IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE CITY CHARTER THAT DOES NOT ALLOW CURRENT COUNCILMEMBERS TO APPROVE A PAY RAISE DURING YOUR CURRENT TERM.
>> I'M HAVING TROUBLE FORGET IF I'M GOING TO RECEIVE LEGAL, SOMEONE PROVIDED.
>> IF I AM GOING TO BE PROVIDED AN ATTORNEY AT THE CITIES EXPENSE, HOW IS THAT NOT A DIRECT BENEFIT TO ME? THAT'S A GREAT BENEFIT.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT IS LIKE A CONFLICT OF BENEFIT FROM IT.
AND JUST SEEMS TO BE A MAJOR CONFLICT THERE.
>> WHAT THE LAW WOULD SAY IS IF THE ORDINANCE SAID THAT COUNCILMAN ELLEN AND ONLY COUNCILMAN ELLEN WOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF HAVING HIS EXPENSES REIMBURSED, THERE IS NO DOUBT AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF.
SO THAT IS SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOURSELF.
IF IT IS IN THE GUISE OF THE GOVERNMENT WHERE IS GOING TO BENEFIT MORE THAN JUST YOU, IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS, ALL COUNSEL PEOPLE, ALL COMMISSION AND BOARD REPRESENTATIVES, UNDERSTAND THAT ARE GOING TO BE TIMES WHERE A GOVERNING BODY SUCH AS YOURSELF ARE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE FOR THINGS THAT THEY WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE BENEFIT FOR.
>> COUNSEL LADYSMITH, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SOLOMON?
>>WANDA SMITH : I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE.
>>JOE PITTS: ASK IT AND THEN WE WILL SEE.
>>WANDA SMITH : LOOKING AT THIS, THE ONLY THING WE ARE CHANGING IS THE EXPENSES.
IT MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED BY UNKNOWN ATTORNEYS.
NON-ATTORNEYS? WE ARE DELETING OUT OF THIS AMENDMENT.
>> THE EXISTING ORDINANCE SAYS EACH PARTY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE BUT NOT PRESENTED BY UNKNOWN ATTORNEYS.
THAT ACTUALLY SHOULD STAY BUT MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED BY NON-ATTORNEYS.
YOU ARE RIGHT, THAT SHOULD STAY.
THAT IS A MISTAKE TO READ ABSOLUTELY.
>>WANDA SMITH : INSTEAD OF STRIKING THAT OUT.
>>WANDA SMITH : WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE CHANGING IS PAIN IF IT'S THE ONLY EXPENSE.
BUT TO GET THE ADVANCE FROM THE COUNCIL, YOU CAN PAY IT BACK.
WE CAN DECIDE HOW THEY PAY IT BACK.
BUT I SEE IT IS GOING TO RUN-WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
JUST MORNING TO MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN RIGHT.
>>RICHARD GARRET: I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT.
>>JOE PITTS: WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU AS SOON AS WE ARE THROUGH WITH MR. SOLOMON.
ANY CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON THIS AMENDMENT?
>> I THINK IT IS A GOOD AMENDMENT.
WE WILL NEED TO DECIDE HOW WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE AMENDMENT TO PUT THE WORDING BACK IN.
IT WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT.
NOT REPRESENTED BY UNKNOWN ATTORNEY.
OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT AMENDMENT TO GO WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
WE ARE NOW ON THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMAN NORIS.
COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YET A COMMENT OR QUESTION?
[01:10:04]
>>DAVID ALLEN : I HAVE A QUESTION.
LAST THURSDAY, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY YOU WERE LISTENING TO THE VIDEO OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING IS WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO BRING THIS UP? I WAS WATCHING THE LIVE FEED Â" AND I WAS WATCHING IT TOO, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING Â" WHAT I SAW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BUT I SAW IN WHICH IS PUBLIC RECORD IS THERE.
AND WHEN YOU WATCH THAT PART OF IT, THAT WAS NEVER ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS LEGAL OR NOT OR WHETHER WE Â" WHETHER THEIR ATTORNEY FEES SHOULD BE PAID OR NOT.
IT WAS JUST BROUGHT FORTH BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
I HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THIS.
THE FIRST ISSUE I HAVE IS THAT WE WORKED ON THIS IN 2013.
WE PUT THIS ETHICS COMMISSION TOGETHER.
IT TOOK A LOT OF WORK, IT WAS A BIG THING.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY IF SOMEONE COMES UP WITH A COMPLAINT, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO DO WITH IT.
AND EVEN BY THE ATTORNEY THAT IS HERE.
AND IT WAS PRESENTED AND EVERYBODY LOOKED AT IT AND EVERYBODY PASSED IT.
NOW SEVEN YEARS LATER WE WANT TO CHANGE IT.
BUT IT IS ONLY BASED ON ETHICS COMPLAINT BEING FILED AGAINST SOME PERSONS ON THE COUNCIL OR WHATEVER.
I THINK THE WHOLE THING WITH ETHICS IS THE CITIZENS, A LOT OF THEM HAVE A LOT OF MISTRUST WITH THE GOVERNMENT EITHER WAY.
A LOT OF THEM HAVE A LOT OF MISTRUST.
AND I THINK THIS JUST FURTHERS THE MISTRUST WHEN WE PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT IF A CITIZEN BRINGS A COMPLAINT, COUNCILMAN ALLEN DID SUCH AND SUCH AND THEY FILED A COMPLAINT.
FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND EVEN LOOKING AT THE ETHICS POLICY AND BEING ON HERE ONLY PAST IT, IT WAS NOT THAT GREAT OF A DEAL LIKE A 50 OR $60,000 LAWYER.
AND SO WHAT I WOULD TAKE FROM IT IS IF I WERE ACCUSED THERE WAS A VIOLATION BROUGHT AGAINST ME OR A COMPLAINT BROUGHT AGAINST ME, I WOULD SIMPLY READ THE COMPLAINT AND GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND EXPLAIN WHY OR WHY NOT IF THIS IS TRUE OR IF IT IS NOT TRUE.
AND, IT IS KIND OF PRETTY CUT AND DRY.
BUT I THINK THE WAY WE ARE DOING IT, THE WAY WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO IT IT SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT WHEN A CITIZEN MAKES A COMPLAINT.
SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO USE THEIR TAXPAYERS DOLLARS WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THE ATTORNEY FOR PASSES.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR A LAWYER TO DEFEND THE PERSON THEY ARE MAKING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST.
THAT IS NOT TRANSPARENCY, THAT IS NO GOOD.
REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT COMING UP BECAUSE WHEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE TUESDAY BEFORE OUR MEETING, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT ON THE AGENDA.
BUT SOME KIND AWAY AND GOT ON THE AGENDA.
I'M ASSUMING, AND I MAY BE WRONG AND SOMEONE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
I'M ASSUMING IT CAME FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
BUT SOMETHING ON THERE PERTAINING TO THIS.
AND THE COMMITTEE TOOK A VOTE ON IT AND THEY VOTED.
IT WAS ON THE AGENDA BEFORE AND THEY VOTED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT OUR ATTORNEY.
AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE IF IT CLEARLY SAYS THIS WAS JUST COMING BEFORE US.
IF IT CLEARLY SAYS HE WILL PAY FOR IT AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE, HOW IS THERE A MOTION OR ANYTHING VOTED UPON IN FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING THAT SAYS THEY WILL DO IT.
AND THEN THAT WAS TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY WHEN I SEE THE AGENDA AND I SEE THIS ON
[01:15:05]
HERE SAYING WE WANT TO CHANGE IT AND BASICALLY MAKE IT RETRO.I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOOD FOR THE CITY.
I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR FOR ANYONE.
I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR FOR THE CITIZENS.
IF I WAS A CITIZEN MAKING A COMPLAINT AND IF I HAD TO GET AN ATTORNEY, I HAVE TO PAY MY OWN FEES.
BUT THE PERSON MAKING THE ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST, THE CITY IS GOING TO PAY THEIR FEES.
IT'S LIKE THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST THEM.
AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY PREVAIL OR NOT.
BUT IF THEY DON'T PREVAIL, THEY ARE REALLY GOING TO SAY GUESS WHAT.
IT WAS STACKED AGAINST ME ANYWAY.
THE CITY PAID THESE ATTORNEYS AND THEY CAME TO FIGHT WHAT I WAS SAYING AND THERE IS NO WAY I COULD WIN.
I THINK THE WAY WE HAD IT TO START WITH WAS FAIR.
IF WE ARE DOING SOMETHING IN THE COURSE OF OUR LEGAL DUTIES, WE CAN'T BE SUED INDIVIDUALLY.
BUT IF I AM DOING SOMETHING OR ANYONE ELSE, BE IT A CITY EMPLOYEE WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HEADS OR ANYONE ELSE.
IF I'M DOING SOMETHING THAT BRINGS ABOUT AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, I HAVE TO MAN UP TO IT.
THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE PAYING TO DEFEND BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE OTHER SIDE.
THE PERSON BRINGING THE COMPLAINT.
IF THEY WANT AN ATTORNEY THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.
I THINK IT JUST SENDS A BAD MESSAGE.
I THINK EVEN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING, I THINK THAT IS AN SENDING A REAL BAD MESSAGE.
IT WAS CLEAR AND SAYS PLAIN AS DAY IN HERE THEY WERE PROVIDED AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.
IT JUST TROUBLES ME NOW THAT COULD SLIP PAST ALL THE ATTORNEYS AND EVERYBODY.
AND ACTUALLY MAKE IT TO THE AGENDA AND GET VOTED ON.
IN MY EYES IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO COVER UP SOMETHING OR FIX SOMETHING.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ETHICS POLICY IS ALL ABOUT.
IN MY EYES, THAT'S BASICALLY SUPER UNETHICAL.
IT WAS WRITTEN BY NOT EVEN ANOTHER ATTORNEY, BUT IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE ATTORNEY WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
AND IF YOU GO BACK AND PLAY THE TAPES WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED SEVEN YEARS AGO, IT WAS LIKE THIS IS GREAT BUT WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE NOW AND THIS IS GREAT.
AND SO NOW BECAUSE IT AFFECTS SOMEONE ELSE, WE ARE GOING TO WANT TO CHANGE IT.
AND IT'S BASICALLY KIND OF LIKE TO FIT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE THOSE WHO APPEAR TO SAY THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM THE COVERAGE.
I DON'T THINK I DESERVE THAT COVERAGE BECAUSE IF I DIDN'T VIOLATE ANYTHING.
IF I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING UNETHICAL OR TO VIOLATE ETHICS CODE, I HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
AND IF I DID, I NEED TO FESS UP TO IT AND DEAL WITH IT.
NOBODY IS GOING TO GO TO COURT AND SPENT $50,000.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE POLICY, THE CENSURE, NOBODY IS GOING TO GO TO COURT AND SPENT $50,000 AND BASICALLY IF I VIOLATE THE ETHICS CODE, THE COME UP AND SAY GUESS WHAT, YOU FOUND THAT YOU DID THIS AND FROM WHAT I'M READING Â" AND I REMEMBER BECAUSE I HAD TO REFRESH MY MEMORY, BUT THEY COULD GET RECOMMENDATIONS.
OKAY YOU DID THIS AND YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS, BUT FROM HERE ON OUT HERE IS WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING.
LOOKS MAKE SURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
IS NOT A THING WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO GO TO COURT AND SPENT 50 OR $60,000 IT WOULD NOT THE WAY OURS IS WRITTEN.
NOBODY'S GOING SPENT 50 OR $60,000 WHEN ALL I CAN DO IS COME IN HERE AND TAKE A SMACK ON THE HAND AND SAY DON'T DO THAT AGAIN.
SO I THINK TO BLOW THAT OUT OF PROPORTION AND ORDINANCE, IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MUCH.
SO BASICALLY IF I WANTED TO GO GET A HIGH POWER LAWYER CHARGING $600 AN HOUR TO REPRESENT ME AND I BRING MY FEES BACK ACCORDING TO THIS AND THE COUNCIL DECIDES SHOULD BE PAID, THEN THERE IS NO LIMITATIONS.
[01:20:07]
FOR SOMETHING SO SIMPLE AS AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.ANOTHER THING IS SEE AND HEAR TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SERIOUSNESS.
I THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT THE WHOLE THING WAS ABOUT.
BASICALLY YOU DON'T DO THIS, YOU DON'T DO THIS, DON'T DO THIS.
BY THE YOU DID IT OR YOU DIDN'T.
I JUST THINK THIS TO ME, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD HAVE EVEN BEEN BROUGHT UP AND IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN FILED NOW BECAUSE NOW IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION WE ARE TRYING TO GO BACK AND FIX SOMETHING TO COVER OUR OWN.
BASICALLY, LIKE I SAID, I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS WARRANTED AT ALL.
I DON'T THINK IT IS NEEDED, I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR, AND OF THINK IT IS FAIR TO THE CITIZENS.
IF I HAVE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT OR ANYBODY ELSE, I SHOULD HAVE TO SPEAK UP FOR MYSELF.
IF A CITY EMPLOYEE, IF THERE IS SOMETHING AGAINST THE CITY EMPLOYEE, GUESS WHAT.
THAT'S WHY IT IS SET UP FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS OR ANYBODY ELSE CAN COME FORTH AND SAY GUESS WHAT, THE COMMISSION IS GOING TAKE IT, LOOK AT IT AND SAY MAY BE SOMETHING TO THIS.
AND IF IT IS, YOU JUST HAVE A HEARING AND TALK ABOUT IT EVERYBODY IS SWORN IN.
IS NOTHING THAT IS GOING TO TAKE ALL OF THIS.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT, AND THINK IT IS SO THE WAY THIS WHOLE THING WENT OUT THROUGH THE WHOLE THING PLAYED OUT WRITTEN.
THAT'S WHY I QUESTION HOW IT GOT ON THE AGENDA.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ANYBODY OR ANYTHING, BUT ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS WHEN I WATCH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING, THERE WAS NEVER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BEING IN HERE THE PERSON HAS TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN WATCH THE VIDEO AND COME UP WITH THIS.
BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO, IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THAT.
IT IS LIKE IT IS ORCHESTRATED.
I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR, I DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND I RESPECT THE ATTORNEY PRO TEM, BUT I TOTALLY DISAGREE IS SOMETHING PERTAINING TO YOU, YOU WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT.
OF COURSE YOU WILL VOTE FOR IT.
IN THE SAME ISSUE WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND IT SAYS THE COUNCIL WILL DECIDE.
AS I STATED LAST WEEK, IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES IF IT IS AGAINST SOME COUNCIL PEOPLE, THEN WE SAY I THINK WE SHOULD PAY IT.
IT MAY BE ANOTHER PERSON, THE CITY EMPLOYEE OR SOMETHING AND WE SAID NO, WE ARE NOT GONNA PAY THAT.
IS PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT IS GOOD FOR ONE SHOULD BE GOOD FOR THE OTHER.
BUT I THINK THE CODE WAS FINE JUST THE WAY IT WAS.
YOU HAVE TO REPRESENT YOUR OWN SELF.
AND IF YOU ARE DOING WHAT IS RIGHT, YOU DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE.
I WOULD HATE TO THINK WE ARE DOING SOMETHING AND THE PERSON ACTUALLY TURNED OUT TO BE GUILTY.
WE FRONT OF THEM THE MONEY AND ASSISTED HERE, NOW WE WANT THEM TO GIVE IT BACK.
IF THEY VIOLATE THE ETHICS CODE.
PAYING MONEY BACK IS PROBABLY THE LAST THING THEY ARE GOING TO DO.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF PAYING THE RENT IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MUCH IT IS.
IT IS TOO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THIS.
LIKE I SAID, I HAVE A BIG MAJOR CONCERN ABOUT HOW THESE THINGS TOOK PLACE.
ANYTHING I'M SAYING CAN BE VERIFIED.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO.
YOU AGREE TO PAY YOUR ATTORNEY FEES.
THURSDAY HE PRESENT SOMETHING SAYING MUST CHANGE THE CODE SO WE CAN ALLOW IT.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNSEL LADYSMITH?
>>WANDA SMITH : AFTER LISTENING TO THE SPEAKER, I THINK IT WOULD BE UNETHICAL
[01:25:04]
AT THIS TIME TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURES IN THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT.IT DOES LOOK KIND OF Â" I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT, FOR LACK OF BETTER WORD, IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.
HE IS A COUNSEL ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TRUSTED, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THINGS AND ABIDE BY THE LAW FROM THE AND TODAY IF WE CHANGE THIS, AS THE SPEAKER SAID, WOULD NOT LOOK GOOD FOR THE COUNCIL WRITTEN IS TO STAY UNTIL IT IS UNTIL AFTER WHOEVER VIOLATED THE CODE FOR IT IF THEY HAVE.
I'M SAYING, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS TODAY JUST TO HELP A CERTAIN PEOPLE I DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT AS WELL.
I THINK IT IS UNETHICAL TO CHANGE THIS TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE FACING SOME TYPE OF PROBLEM, LITIGATION, CHARGE, I DON'T KNOW ALL AND SAYING IS IT IS NOT RIGHT TO CHANGE THAT TODAY.
IT IS NOT FAIR AND IT IS NOT RIGHT.
AND WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE PUT IN.
I THINK WE NEED TO POSTPONE THIS WE DON'T NEED TO BRING THIS UP FOR THE COUNCIL UNTIL AFTER THIS CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED.
BUT TO CHANGE IT TO HELP SOME PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL IS NOT RIGHT.
>>JOE PITTS: THANK YOU COUNSEL LADYSMITH.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE? YOU WISH TO MAKE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS.
>>JOE PITTS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE STOOD BY AND WATCHED THIS LEGAL DRAMA UNFOLD OVER THE PAST 20 MONTHS TIME AND AGAIN.
WE HAVE TRIED TO SETTLE, RESCIND, DISCUSS, NEGOTIATE OUR WAY THROUGH THIS THAT IS NOT ENTIRELY ARE MAKING.
WE THOUGHT WE HAD A VERBAL AGREEMENT TO SETTLE ONLY TO BE JILTED AT THE ALTAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.
THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT SEE MORE THAN 100 MOTIONS MADE BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST THE CITY.
ONE CAN ONLY SURMISE THE STRATEGY WAS TO DISCREDIT OUR CITIES LEGAL APARTMENT AND FORCE US TO SPEND MONEY WHILE THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE LETTER, THEY WILL IMPROVE IN OUR CITIES LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHEREBY THE PARTS OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEE FAMILY IS DOING THEIR JOB AND DOING IT WILL.
AND THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE IS ONE OF OUR LEGAL FEES AND CLAIMS THEIR LEGAL FEES HAVE BEEN RUN UP AND HAVE GOT A WHOPPING $8300 SETTLEMENT IN COURT, JUDGMENT IN COURT.
IS A LEGISLATIVE SETTLEMENT AND THAT WAS REJECTED SOONER AFTER THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE FILED ETHICS COMPLAINTS AGAINST CITY EMPLOYEES AND NO MEMBERS OF HIS COUNSEL.
JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET THEIR WAY AND WE WON'T GIVE THEM A WINDFALL PAY DAY.
WHILE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE FAIR GAME, AND IN MY CASE I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY THINK OF ME, ARE CITY EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE HARASSMENT THAT SOMEONE WITH AN ATTORNEY FRIEND AND A COPY MACHINE WILL LIKELY FILE MANY OF THESE ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
FURTHER, NO ONE SHOULD BE FACED WITH THE PROSPECT OF HAVING TO PAY THEIR LEGAL FEES TO DEFEND AGAINST A WILLFUL ASSAULT ON SOMEONE'S CHARACTER.
FOR THE RECORD, I WILL NOT ASK THE CITY TO PAY MY LEGAL FEES TO DEFEND ME AGAINST THIS ETHICS COMPLAINT.
SADLY IT IS BECOME THE PRICE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE WE WONDER WHY PEOPLE DON'T RUN FOR OFFICE OR WHY THEY DON'T VOTE FORGET THANK YOU.
>> IT IS COMMENDABLE FOR IT WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE FIRST PART AND HE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LAWSUIT.
BUT THE ETHICS PART OF IT, IT IS MORE THAN JUST THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE.
THIS IS HOW WE DEAL WITH ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
AND SO EVERYTHING MAY NOT BE Â" AND I UNDERSTAND THIS SITUATION.
EVERYTHING MAY NOT BE THAT WAY.
BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE KIND OF SETTING UP TO HER IF A PERSON IS ETHICALLY WRONG, THEY ARE WRONG IN BRINGING THE ETHICS CODES, WE WILL PAY TO DEFEND THEM.
WE ARE POSSIBLY GOING TO PAY TO THEM TO GET THE DEFENSE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM AND AS I STATED BEFORE, IF YOU GO BACK Â" IF EVERYONE WOULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ETHICS CODE, IT'S A SIMPLE PROCESS.
[01:30:02]
IT IS NOT A HARD PROCESS.IT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE A PERRY MASON.
IT WOULD REQUIRE A PERRY MASON.
HERE ARE THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU, WHAT DID YOU DO.
NOBODY'S GOING TO JAIL BEHIND.
IT WAS A CRIMINAL MATTER, YES.
BY ALL MEANS GO TO MAKE SURE I GET A GOOD ATTORNEY.
THIS IS AN ETHICS VIOLATION THE BASICALLY ALL YOU'RE GOING TO GET WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE HIS BACK ON HIM FOR AN THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL CHARGES BEING BROUGHT AGAINST THEM AND THEY ARE BEING TRIED IN COURT TO BE FOUND GUILTY.
NOT JUST OUR PEERS TO SAY WE DON'T LIKE YOU SO WE ARE GOING TO KICK YOU OFF THE COUNCIL.
SO I THINK OF SETTING ABOUT PRESIDENT AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN.
BECAUSE YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE IT.
AND THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES WITH THIS THAT EACH TIME A PERSON DOES IT PRETTY SOON THE CITY GETS A BIG LEGAL BILL TOO.
BECAUSE EACH TIME THEY HAD TO PAY THE PERSONS FEES, THE TAXPAYERS PAY.
AND THERE IS NO LIMITS IN HERE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU CAN GET, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY, JOHN DOE HAS AN ATTORNEY FRIEND PRETTY WAS TO GET HIM TO REPRESENT HIM.
IS IS OKAY, GOOD, YOU REPRESENT ME, THE CITY IS GOING TO PAY IT.
AND WE SIT HERE AND SAY NO, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PAY THAT VITAL THINK WE SHOULD PAY THAT.
WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, IT WAS FINE JUST THE WAY IT WAS.
FOR ETHICS COMPLAINTS YOU WILL PAY FOR YOUR OWN BECAUSE INDIVIDUALLY YOU CAN'T BE SUED.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEE THE WHOLE CITY BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTING AS A BODY.
>>JOE PITTS: ANYBODY ELSE? COUNCILMAN HENLEY?
>>JEFF HENLEY : I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
YOUR SPOT ON AND IT WAS GOOD TO HEAR.
I WILL ALSO SAY ON THE RECORD THAT I WILL NOT BE ASKING THE CITY TO PAY ANY ATTORNEY FEES FOR ME WITH THIS BOGUS ETHICS VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST FIVE OR SIX OF US APPEAR.
BUT I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS TO PROTECT THE CITY EMPLOYEES SO THEY CAN DO THEIR JOB AND DO IT PROPERLY AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HIT WITH LEGAL FEES.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNSEL LADIES TREATMENT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>STACY STREETMAN : I TOO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THE SAME THING THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID BEFORE HE.
ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH MYSELF.
BUT I AM CONCERNED WITH THE CITY EMPLOYEES.
BUT I'M ALSO THINKING OF OUR FUTURE COUNCILMEMBERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK ANYBODY FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE COULD SERVE ON THIS COUNSEL WITHOUT CONCERN THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD IF SOMEBODY WERE TO FILE CHARGES LIKE THIS AGAINST OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT AS FAR AS A TIMELINE WAS CONCERNED, THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR THURSDAY NIGHT AND THERE WERE ADDITIONAL ETHICS COMPLAINTS FILED AFTER THE FACT THAT THIS WAS DONE.
SO AGAIN, I WILL BE COVERING MY OWN, BUT I WANT TO LOOK OUT FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON THIS COUNSEL THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEIR OWN ATTORNEY.
>> I TOO WILL BE COVERING MY OWN EXPENSES.
I WOULDN'T ASK THE COUNCIL Â" AND THE THING IS I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE CITY EMPLOYEES OR FUTURE COUNSEL PEOPLE IN A POSITION TO WHERE THE CITIZENS CAN FILE ETHICS COMPLAINT AFTER ETHICS COMPLAINT TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO HAVE TO HIRE THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS AND RUN UP A BILL OR TRYING TO FORCE DIFFERENT COUNSEL PEOPLE MAKE A DECISION THAT THERE IS NOT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL BE COVERING MY OWN AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF EVERY CITY EMPLOYEE, AND IN FAVOR OF OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND I AM IN FAVOR OF OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE PROTECTING THEM BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
[01:35:02]
THIS IS NOT ABOUT US.COUNCILMAN CHANDLER AND THEN I WILL COME TO COUNSELOR ALLEN.
I WILL BE COVERING IN THE LEGAL EXPENSE OUT OF MY OWN POCKET.
IN MAYOR, I AGREE 100 PERCENT WITH THE STATEMENTS YOU MADE IN THE WORDS OF THE LATE GREAT BERNIE MAC WHEN THIS IS NOTHING BUT SOME OLD BULL.
>>JOE PITTS: THANK YOU COUNCILMAN CHANDLER.
COUNCILMAN ALLEN, NOW YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> IT MAY BE FULL TO SOME, BUT IT IS NOT TO ME.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT A CITY EMPLOYEE, IF THERE IS AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
SOMEBODY IS CHARGING THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG.
THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
THEY ARE NOT GUILTY, THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY ARE GUILTY, IT IS JUST A CHARGE.
AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, MOST OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS, I'M TOLD THIS IS THE FIRST ONE UNDER THIS.
BUT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN UNFOUNDED.
AND THINK SOMEBODY EVEN REPORTED ME A COUPLE TIMES SOMEBODY CALLED AND ASKED ME AND I SAID THAT IS NOT THE TRUTH.
I WISH IT DIDN'T OWNED THESE THREE PROPERTIES ARE VOTED ON, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER DAVID ALLEN.
THEY SAID YEAH, THAT IS NOT YOU.
I WAS ACCUSED OF DOING SOMETHING UNETHICAL.
I DIDN'T NEED AN ATTORNEY, I DIDN'T NEED ANY OF THAT.
IF THE COMMITTEE WHEN THEY ARE IN ELECTIVE EVIDENCE AND LOOK THROUGH WHATEVER IT IS PRESENTED AND THEN THEY WILL MAKE A DECISION.
AND IF NOBODY IS GOING THERE FEES PAID, IS JUST A SAD WAY TO MEET TO CHANGE STUFF.
AND I THINK THE WAY WE HAVE DONE IN IS SO COMPLETELY WRONG.
AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, IT WAS WRONG.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA TUESDAY.
HOW DID IT EVEN GET ON THE AGENDA? WHEN I LOOK AT IT AND IT CLEARLY SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
AND YET IT IS ON THE AGENDA AND GET VOTED ON.
THERE ARE THINGS GOING ON BUT SHOULDN'T BE GOING ON.
IF THE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM, EVERYBODY KNOWS ALL THE STUFF, THE ONE THAT DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE IS THERE AND HE DIDN'T KNOW AND SAID YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE.
WHO WROTE THAT ONLY AGENDA? DO YOU KNOW? WHO ASKED THAT I TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA.
>>JOE PITTS: I CAN ONLY SAY THE COMMITTEE CHAIRS DECIDE WHICH ITEMS GO ON THERE, BUT THEY ARE ALSO Â" WE HAVE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OTHERS WHO OFFER ITEMS TO BE PUT ON A COMMITTEE AGENDA.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT MISTAKES ARE MADE AND BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD AN ETHICS COMPLAINT IN FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG, PERHAPS IT WASN'T FRESH ON EVERYBODY'S MIND.
BUT ONCE IT WAS DISCOVERED, THE FINANCE COMMITTEES VOTE WAS CONSIDERED KNOLL AND VOID BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T.
THAT'S WHY THIS ORDINANCE IS BEFORE US.
>>DAVID ALLEN : MY QUESTION IS, MAYBE YOU SAID THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR.
MAY I ADDRESS IT TO THE CHAIR?
>>JOE PITTS: YOU CAN ASK HIM A QUESTION.
>>DAVID ALLEN : I JUST WANT TO ASK THEM THAT.
CHAIR, WHO ASKED THAT THEY PUT ON THE AGENDA?
>> I GOT THE AGENDA AT THE SAME TIME YOU DID.
>>DAVID ALLEN : IT MAGICALLY APPEARED ON THE AGENDA?
>>JOE PITTS: DIDN'T MAGICALLY APPEAR.
>>DAVID ALLEN : I WANT TO KNOW WHO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, WHO ASKED TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA.
>> THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT.
IT IS MY RIGHT TO NOT DISCUSS IT AT THIS TIME.
AND UPON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, THAT'S WHAT I WILL SAY ABOUT IT.
AND I WILL ALSO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT I WILL BEAR MY OWN ATTORNEY FEE EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ETHICS CHARGES AGAINST ME.
[01:40:01]
I AGREE WITH WHAT THE SPEAKERS HAVE SAID BECAUSE THERE IS ONE ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT HAS BEEN LEVEL I BELIEVE UNFAIRLY AND WRONGLY AGAINST OUR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION.AND GOING FORWARD, CERTAINLY THIS LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE APPLICATION.
BUT AS FAR AS WITH THE PENDING CHARGES ARE, I WILL BEAR MY OWN FEES AND EXPENSES.
>>DAVID ALLEN : MAY BE MISS SKINNER KNOWS.
MISS SKINNER, SOMEBODY KNOWS WHO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
IT DIDN'T MAGICALLY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN, YOU HAVE ASKED AND WE HAVE ANSWERED.
>>JOE PITTS: THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS FOR ITEMS TO GET ON THE AGENDA.
IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER, I PUT ON THE AGENDA.
>>JOE PITTS: I CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AS WELL.
>>DAVID ALLEN : YOU PUT THIS ON.
>>JOE PITTS: IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER, I WILL SAY IT.
>> WHY CAN'T I GET WHO PUT IT ON THEIR.
>>JOE PITTS: BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT.
>>DAVID ALLEN : GOOD ANSWER OR YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO TELL.
>>JOE PITTS: I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT.
>>DAVID ALLEN : SO NOBODY KNOWS?
>>JOE PITTS: THINK YOU HAVE ASKED.
>>DAVID ALLEN : I'M OVER THE Â" AMONG THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
>>DAVID ALLEN : THOSE ITEMS BROUGHT FORTH USUALLY BACK WHEN THEY WERE MR. DENNIS, THEY WOULD ASK ITEMS HERE IS THE AGENDA, HERE IS WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON, THEY WOULD BASICALLY MAKE OUT THE AGENDA FOR YOU AND HERE ARE THE THINGS WE NEED TO DISCUSS.
AND I AM ALMOST SURE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO GAS AND WATER, IT IS DONE THE SAME WAY.
IT JUST SMELLS OF A COVER-UP TO ME.
AND SMELLS OF A COVER-UP THAT NOBODY KNOWS WHO PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA.
>> I JUST EXPLAINED A MOMENT AGO AND I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT UPON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL AM NOT GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION UNTIL THE ETHICS HEARING FOR THAT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH.
YOU CAN'T COMMAND AND MAKE ME.
NOBODY ELSE MAY HAVE AN ANSWER BUT ME.
IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH? I JUST SAID I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU UPON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL UNTIL THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
>>DAVID ALLEN : THIS IS SO UNFAIR.
I ASKED THE QUESTION AND IT IS SIMPLE.
YOU HEARD FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL THAT HE CANNOT ANSWER BECAUSE THAT IS THE VERY SUBJECT OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO LET THE ETHICS COMPLAINT PLAY OUT AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE.
>>JOE PITTS: I WILL PUT YOU ON THE LIST.
>>VALERIE GUZMAN : I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS.
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC WATCHING AND I WANT PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING.
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT IS TRUE.
IT HAS BEEN SAID MULTIPLE TIMES AND AM SURE BECAUSE EMOTIONS ARE HIGH AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE ACCUSATORY OF ANYONE, IF YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING UNETHICAL YOU PROBABLY DID SOMETHING BAD BUT DOES NOT A TRUE STATEMENT.
AND SO I WANT TO SAY IF YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH SOMETHING UNETHICAL OR YOU'RE GOING TO THIS COMMITTEE, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A LEVEL OF BULLYING AND THERE IS SUCH A THING IS YOUR NAME.
WHEN YOU SIT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE SPACE, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, WHEN YOU WALK FROM HERE AND SOMEONE SAYS YOU BEEN CHARGED WITH AN ETHICS, YOUR NAME IS NOW IN QUESTION.
FOR WHAT I DO EVERY DAY MY NAME IS QUESTION.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT FAIR AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY FEELS LIKE BOWLING.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS JUST A SLAP ON THE HAND.
NOT FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME THE WORK I DO EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I'M A HARD-WORKING WOMAN AND THREE CHILDREN, THREE GRANDCHILDREN AND A HUSBAND WHO WORKS HARD.
SO WHEN SOMEONE SAYS MY NAME AND CONNECT IT WITH SOMETHING, I WILL LOOK ON THE FLOOR THE CHURCH FOR A PENNY, IT'S MORE THAN A SLAP ON THE HAND AND I AM NOT OKAY WITH THAT.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WITH THE ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT HAS BEEN LODGED AGAINST
[01:45:03]
ME, I BELIEVE THAT WAS PROBABLY PUT ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF EMAILS THAT HAVE BEEN COMING THROUGH AN ABUNDANT SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO FILE AND POSSIBLY FILE, WHICH IS HOW IT PROBABLY GOT ON BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE WHEN WE ARE IN THE PLACE OF LEGISLATION HAPPENING, WHERE WE ARE IN THE PLACE OF LOSSES HAPPENING.GUESS WHAT, I DON'T NEED TO SEE MY WHOLE HOUSE BURNED DOWN FOR ME TO GET THE WATER HOSE OUT.
OUR HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE PUTTING THE FIRE OUT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, MY HUSBAND WHO IS A HARD-WORKING MAN AND MYSELF WHO IS A HARD-WORKING MAN, I WILL PAY FOR MY OWN BECAUSE I DON'T NEED NOBODY TO FIGHT FOR ME.
BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE BULLIED.
AND WITH THAT, AS ALL HAVING ANGRY THANK YOU.
>>RON ERB: I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION.
>>JOE PITTS: QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR FEAR THAT IS A NON-STABLE MOTION AND HAS BEEN SECONDED.
SO NOW WE ARE VOTING ON THE QUESTION, WHICH IS TO CEASE DISCUSSION.
THE VOTE WILL BE YES TO CEASE OR KNOW TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS.
>> NOW VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN.
>> NINE YES, THREE NO AND ONE ABSTAIN.
>>JOE PITTS: THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE ARE NOW ON THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>RICHARD GARRET: I WILL BE BRIEF AND LEAVE THIS ONE UP TONIGHT.
I JUST HAVE FOUR POINTS I'M GOING TO SAY.
THE FIRST IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THIS CASE, I REMEMBER SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON THIS AS WE TRIED TO STOP THE BLEEDING IN TERMS OF THE LIMITS ON SETTLEMENTS AND THINGS AS IT OCCURS WITH LAWSUITS.
AND SO WE KIND OF CHANGED THE SETTLEMENT AND LEGAL EXPENSE POLICY FOR ISSUES, BUT WE MADE IT POST THE ROBINSON CASE TO WHERE THE DECISION THAT WE MADE DIDN'T GO BACKWARDS.
IT DEALT WITH WHAT IS GOING FORWARD.
AND SO IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE DID TO ADDRESS THE ROBINSON CASE IN FUTURE LEGISLATION, I FEEL LIKE IT IS ONLY FAIR TO FOLLOW SUIT.
AND WITH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TRIGGERED BY THE ROBINSON CASE, LET'S MAKE IT GOING FORWARD IN AND LET'S HOLD THIS TO THE SAME STANDARD WE DID THE OTHER ITEMS. THE NEXT ITEM IS Â" SO BASED ON PROFESSIONAL OPINION FROM THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, IF AN INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED ISN'T LIKELY TO RECEIVE A PUNITIVE ACTION AND ONLY A RECOMMENDATION THAT COMES BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE ON WHY WOULD WE SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO NECESSARILY DEFEND THEM.
HERE WE HAVE EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN IT THAT SAID THEY HAVE NO DESIRE FOR THE CITY TO PAY THE LEGAL FEES AND SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED.
WE ARE NOT OWNING UP TO THE COMPLAINT.
OWNING UP TO DEFENDING YOURSELF AGAINST WHAT IS ACCUSED.
[01:50:04]
OWNING UP TO DEFENDING YOURSELF.AND AGAIN, WE ARE TALKING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T CARRY A FINE, DOESN'T CARE IMPRISONMENT FOR TO GET BEEN YOUR NAME BEING TARNISHED.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY TO FIGHT FOR ME.
AS A MATTER OF FACT IN THAT INSTANCE, I FOLLOWED FACT IS THAT PRIOR ADMINISTRATOR SAID WAS OKAY, BUT I DIGRESS ON THAT.
I STILL PAY THE PRICE AND I WAS IN SIMILAR POSITIONS IN MY LIFE NEEDED WAS BASED ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND STILL IS.
BUT I HAD TO STAND ON MY OWN TO GET THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND I HAVE NOBODY TO FIGHT FOR ME.
MY THIRD POINT IS AND IT KIND OF FLOWS INTO THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE ETHICS COMMISSION RULING WOULD BE ALMOST NOON DIFFERENT THAN THE LEAF ARTICLE PUTTING OUT SOME NEGATIVE ABOUT IT.
IN THE FACT THAT NEGATIVE STORY ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE OR AN OFFICIAL AND THAT HAVE THE CITY TAKE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PAY A PR CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO SPIN IT AND MAKE EVERYTHING OKAY.
AGAIN, WHY ARE WE USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO TRY TO CHANGE PUBLIC OPINION? IN ESSENCE, ALL THE ETHICS COMMISSION RULING IS IS A RECOMMENDATION AND HOW THEY VIEW WHAT WENT DOWN.
WE HEARD IT CAN RANGE WORST CASE $30-$50,000, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD A SINGLE REASON WHY YOU WOULD NEED LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM SOME THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE GOING BEFORE A JUDGE.
ONLY LOOK AT LEGAL REPRESENTATION, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME IF THIS WHOLE THING WAS BROUGHT ABOUT TO PRIMARILY PROTECT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE FINANCE MANY GOT DRAGGED INTO THIS.
BUT I LOOKED AT IT AS WE WOULD HIRE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE ATTORNEYS THE ATTORNEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES AND WHAT THEY DID OR DIDN'T DO.
I DON'T HAVE A LEGAL DEGREE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT JUST FROM A PERSONAL CARD AND THEIR ACTIONS DEALING WITH THE MOTHERS OF MY CHILDREN.
I'VE GOTTEN PRETTY GOOD WHERE I REPRESENT MYSELF NOW.
AND HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL.
AND THAT IS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BACKGROUND AND THE STAKES ARE WAY HIGHER WHEN YOU'RE TALKING CHILD CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT.
THE WHOLE PREMISE OF WHY ARE WE COMMITTING OURSELVES TO GO RETROACTIVELY BACKWARDS FOR PENDING LAWSUITS WHEN WE DIDN'T DO THAT FOR A SETTLEMENT AND THAT WILL POLICY.
BUT THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT THE STAKES REALLY ARE AND ARE WE REALLY GOING TO WRITE A CHECK WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING THAT BOILS DOWN TO A PR HEADING FOR WHOEVER GOES THROUGH IT.
AND SO THAT IS JUST MY COMMENTS ON IT.
JUST THE WAY THAT IT CAME ABOUT LEAVE SOME ROOM FOR QUESTIONS AND I THINK WE NEED TO VOTE THIS DOWN.
COUNCILMAN BURKHART, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IN QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR IMPROPERLY SECONDED.
NON-DEBATABLE MOTION PARIS AND WE ARE VOTING ON THE QUESTION WHICH IS TO CEASE DISCUSSION.
YOU VOTE YES TO CEASE DISCUSSION, VOTE KNOW YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS.
>>JOE PITTS: DISCUSSION IS CEASING.
WE ARE VOTING ON THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED.
MADAME CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE BOAT.
[01:55:01]
>>JOE PITTS: ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED FIRST READING.
WE ARE NOW WAITING FOR ITEM 2, WHICH IS ORDINANCE 29.
AMENDING ORDINANCE 29 Â" 19 Â" 20 Â" BEFORE I DO THAT, EXCUSE ME.
THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT I HAD OFFERED AND WANTED TO WITHDRAW THAT.
SO NOW WE ARE BACK IN THE POSTURE OF ORDINANCE 29.
AMENDING ORDINANCE 29 19 Â" 20 IN THE OFFICIAL CODE RELATIVE TO INTERNAL SERVICE FUND SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY.
COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, I BELIEVE THIS IS YOURS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL OCTOBER REGULAR SESSION.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO POSTPONE ORDINANCE 29 UNTIL THE OCTOBER 2020 REGULAR SESSION.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? HEARING ON AND SING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAME CLERK?
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION TO POSTPONE IS ADOPTED.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM 3A, WHICH IS A MOTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 22, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU AS OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
GO ORDER TO GET THIS BEFORE IS BECAUSE I INADVERTENTLY LEFT IT OFF IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA, WE WOULD NEED THREE FOURTHS MAJORITY VOTE.
AND SO I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 22.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 22? HEARING ON AND SING NONE, MADAME CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
WE ARE NOW IN RESOLUTION 22, THE CITIES LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
I WILL NEED A MOTION AND A PROPER SECOND.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR THE APPROVAL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 22, WHICH IS THE CITIES LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
THOSE ITEMS ARE BEFORE YOU IN THE PACKET COUNCILMAN GARRET, YOU HAD A QUESTION OR COMMENT?
>>RICHARD GARRET: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
WANTED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, IF I MAY.
STUDENT RECOGNIZED FOR AN AMENDMENT.
>>RICHARD GARRET: I PASSED OUT EARLIER JUST SOME ITEMS THAT I PREVIOUSLY EMAILED TO THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION.
I APPLAUD THEM ON THE WORK THEY PUT INTO ITEMS A PLAN TO PRESENT.
I THINK THE ROAD PROJECTS ARE DEFINITELY TIMELY IS SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE ON NEED TO BE COMPLETED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
THERE ARE A JUST A FEW OF THE ITEMS BASED ON COMMUNITY INPUT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ATTENTION OF THE FULL BODY OF THE COUNCIL.
MOTION WOULD BE FOR THE FOUR ITEMS YOU SEE IN GREEN AT THE TOP OF THE EMAIL.
THE FIRST ONE IS TO DISCONTINUE THIS FRANCHISING OF CONVICTED FELONS BY NO LONGER TAKING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE AND HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.
SECOND ONE, MAKE CONVICTED FELONS A PROTECTED CLASS AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION.
MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO WEAR BODY CAMERAS WHEN ON DUTY AND REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO UNDERGO MORE THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT INCLUDE SOCIAL MEDIA AND AT TIMES TO RACES OR TERRORIST GROUPS WOULD BE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT REALLY RESONATED WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN LIGHT
[02:00:02]
OF THE HEIGHTENED ENVIRONMENT WE ARE IN.I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE CURRENT LEGISLATIVE AGENDA JUST TO ENABLE US TO BE A VOICE FOR SOME OF THE VOICELESS.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED.
COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YET A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON THE AMENDMENT? YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>DAVID ALLEN : IN READING IT, I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH ALL FOUR OF THESE.
BUT THE ONE DEALING WITH FELONS, THAT TO ME IS A BIG ISSUE.
BUT IT'S A BIG ISSUE TO ME BECAUSE I THINK OFTEN TIMES IN SOCIETY WHAT WE DO ONCE A PERSON IS CONVICTED AND THEY PAY THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY, THEY WENT TO JAIL, WHATEVER.
AND UNLESS YOU ARE WELL-TO-DO, UNLESS YOU HAVE THE FUNDS AND RESOURCES TO GO AND TRY TO GET IT EXPUNGED OR CHANGED, YOU ARE STUCK.
AND I HAVE KNOWN SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE EVER BEEN IN CHARGE OF A FELON.
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY.
AND IT'S LIKE THE PERSON IS 40, 45.
BUT WHEN THEY WERE 18 THEY MESSED UP.
I THINK ONCE THEY PAY THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY, THIS SHOULD NOT BE A WAY FOR THEM Â" THEY SHOULD BE CONTINUED TO BE PENALIZED FOR THEIR MISTAKE.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.
I THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THEY ARE OUT, THEY ARE DONE.
AND SO I'M IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH ALL FOR THESE.
THE THIRD ONE, MAKING IT MANDATORY FOR THEM TO WEAR BODY CAMERAS, I AM A FIRM BELIEVER THAT IF YOU HAVE BODY CAMERAS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME LAW OR SOMETHING IN PLACE OF THOSE CAMERAS SHOULD NEVER BE TURNED OFF.
IF THEY ARE TURNED OFF, THERE'S CONSEQUENCES.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ALL MUNICIPALITIES HAVE BODY CAMERAS.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE IF YOU HAVE THEM THAN YOU ARE TO WEAR THEM.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD PLAY OUT IN.
>> IS THAT A QUESTION TO THE SPONSOR? COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU WISH TO RESPOND?
>> THE INTENT OF IT WAS FOR ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.
WE SAW THE VALUE IN PAYING IT.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES AT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DON'T HAVE IT AND IT CAN BE A LACK OF FUNDING.
AND I THINK THIS IS A WAY OF THE STATE MANDATE THAT THE STATE SHOULD OFFER UP SOME OF THAT RAINY DAY FUND TO ENSURE YOUR PROTECTION FOR BOTH WAYS.
BECAUSE IS NOT JUST FOR WHAT WE SEE ON THE NEWS, BUT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GET ACCUSED FOR THINGS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT OF DONE.
AND THAT BODY CAMERAS SERVES AS EVIDENCE THAT WHATEVER FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT THEY SOMETIMES RECEIVE WASN'T IN FACT ACCURATE.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD PRACTICE TO PROTECT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO HAVE THE CAMERAS ROLLING ANYTIME THERE IS AN INTERACTION.
>>JOE PITTS: I CAN TELL YOU, AND YOU KNOW THAT OUR CITY WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE THOSE BECAUSE WE GOT A FEDERAL GRANT THAT ALLOWED US TO DO THAT.
PAID A LOT OF THE FREIGHT FOR THAT.
BUT FOR THAT GRANT WE WOULD STILL BE STRUGGLING TO PAY FOR THAT.
>> THE MORNING THOSE CAMERAS AND HAVING TO WEAR THE CAMERAS, OF MAKING THIS ARGUMENT WHEN IT FIRST CAME UP.
TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH IT IS MORE OF THE CASES I HEAR ABOUT.
WE HEAR ABOUT THE ONES WHERE THE OFFICER IS DOING WRONG.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS GETS, I GET THEM.
AND COP PULLED ME OVER AND HE DID THIS TO MEAN.
I WILL FORWARD YOUR COMPLAINT ON.
THE CAMERA IF THIS TAKES CARE OF ALL THAT.
I SAID SOMETHING I DIDN'T SAY, YOU CAN'T SAY I DID SOMETHING I DIDN'T DO.
>>JOE PITTS: AS FAR AS KEEPING THE CAMERA ON PERMANENTLY WHILE THEY ARE
[02:05:05]
IN DUTY, IF THEY ARE IN THE RESTAURANT WE PROVIDE THE NOT.DID YOU SAY AMEN? LET ME JUST SAY TO THIS, THE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THESE ITEMS I THINK THEY WERE LASER FOCUSED ON WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTED MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
THAT IS WHY ROAD PROJECTS MADE THE TOP OF THE LIST AND MADE THE LIST AND THAT ONE ITEM REGARDING FEE THAT WE COLLECT FOR DRIVERS LICENSE AT THE KIOSK IN CITY HALL.
BECAUSE THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS US AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THE COMMITTEES MOUTH, BUT I THINK THEY WERE CONCERNED THIS WAS MORE OF A GENERAL STATEWIDE APPLICATION.
WE ALREADY HAD BODY WORN CAMERAS ON EVERY SINGLE OFFICER.
WE HAVE HAD THOSE ON THERE FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS.
SO THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE AGENDA.
NOT THAT THERE WAS ANY JUDGMENTS MADE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THESE ITEMS. YOUR RECOGNIZED.
>> I CAN SEE MAYBE THOSE LAST TWO BEING MORE OF A STATEWIDE THING.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THEY CAME FROM CITIZENS HERE AND OFTEN TIMES OUR CITIZENS FOR THE MOST PART MIGHT SAY THEY SEE HERE, BUT THEY OFTEN TRAVEL.
PEOPLE COMMUTE FROM NASHVILLE TO OTHER PARTS THROUGH THE STATE.
WHAT KIND OF DIRECTLY IMPACTS THAT THEY CAN BE FEEL SAFE AND SECURE AT THE MOMENT WE LEAVE OUR BUBBLE, SOMETHING HAPPENS, THERE IS NOT COVERAGE.
PUTTING A BLANKET OVER THE STATES IS REALLY ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT.
AND IN TERMS OF THE FIRST TWO, IT'S NO SECRET.
I HAVE YOUTUBE VIDEOS WITH MY HOME PASSED ON THEIR.
THE FIRST TIME HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT IN THIS SEAT AND BE APPOINTED WHEN NICK STEWART RESIGNED, I'LL NEVER FORGET IT.
WAS WITH MY WIFE AND WE WERE ON OUR ANNIVERSARY IN THE BAHAMAS IN THE ELECTION COMMITTEE WAS TRYING TO CALL ME IN THE ONLY BUT THEY, EMAIL ADDRESS AND EMAILED ME AND SAID I'M SORRY, YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE.
EVEN THOUGH I HAD THE PETITION SIGNED.
THEY SAID YOU DON'T HAVE Â" THEY TOLD ME I DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
MY CONVICTION WAS MAY 1, 2004 AND THIS WAS IN 2013.
THE TRACK RECORD EVERYTHING I DID SINCE BEING RELEASED FROM PRISON, I COULDN'T EVEN HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.
UNTIL I HAD TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS OF GETTING MY CIVIL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS FOR STORY.
SOME OF YOU MAY NOT LET THAT SINK IN.
BECAUSE FROM MAY 1, 2004 UNTIL 2014 I WAS NOT CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
I GOT MY RIGHT TO VOTE AND THINK IN 2008, BUT IT'S STILL DIDN'T GIVE ME CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
SO A LOT OF THE RIGHTS AND ONE OF US TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT BEING ABLE TO DO HAD GONE ON, GOT A DEGREE, HELPED PEOPLE ALL THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
BUT I COULDN'T HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.
AND GRANTED THROUGH THE FAVOR OF GOD I WAS ABLE TO OVERCOME THAT.
SO I AM FOREVER INDEBTED TO HIM.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO MAY NOT KNOW INDIVIDUALS LIKE THAT THAT CAN HELP THEM NAVIGATE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO GET THE RIGHTS RESTORED.
WITH WORKING WITH THE AND EVEN STILL MENTORING A LOT OF YOUNG MEN THAT MAKE MISTAKES, THEY ARE OUT HERE STRUGGLING TRYING TO DO BETTER.
THAT SOCIETY AIN'T WORKING WITH THEM.
THERE STRUGGLING WITH HOUSING.
PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO RENT THEM BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING THEY DID 10, 12 YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WERE FRESH OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL.
SOME OF THEM WERE STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL, 17, BUT GOT CHARGED AS AN ADULT BECAUSE THEY DID SOMETHING WITH SOME OTHER ADULTS.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO HIRE ATTORNEYS TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS, TO FIGHT THOSE BATTLES.
WHO ARE GOING TO FIGHT FOR THEM?
[02:10:02]
WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK FOR THEM? AND I JUST FEEL LIKE AS A CITY WE CAN'T FORGET ABOUT WHAT SOME WOULD CONSIDER THE LEAST OF US.BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THEY TREAT WHEN YOU ARE A FELON.
YOU ARE THE LEAST, YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN.
THERE ARE STILL RATES I DON'T EVEN HAVE WITH MY CITIZENSHIP.
I STILL GET DENIED STUFF TO THIS DAY.
I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY OPPORTUNITIES AND I THINK THAT CLARK'S DIVERSE OF THE COMMUNITY AS WE ARE, EACH OF US HAS TO KNOW SOMEBODY IMPACTED IN THIS TYPE AWAY.
LIKE WE ARE DOING FOR THE VARIOUS THINGS WERE HAVING TONIGHT.
WE JUST HAVE A SIMPLE SHEET OF PATIENT ONLY A SENTENCE STATE REPRESENTATIVE, YOU ARE CALLED THE SAFE SERVE THE SAME PEOPLE WE ARE CALLED TO SERVE AND THESE ARE THE CONCERNS THEY HAVE.
LET'S BE THE VOICE FOR THE ONES DISENFRANCHISED.
HELP THEM IN ON AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNSEL LADY GUZMAN , YOUR RECOGNIZED.
>>VALERIE GUZMAN : NUMBER TWO WHERE YOU HAVE CONVICTED FELONS OF PROTECTED CLASS WE ALSO NOTE DEFENDERS ARE CONSIDERED FELONS AND I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THOSE BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN JOBS IF THEY ARE SEXUAL OFFENDERS NOT WORKING IN THE SCHOOL PARIS HOWEVER, IF WE HAVE THE SUDDEN LEGISLATION THAT EMPLOYMENT SCRIMMAGE AND THAT WILL NEGATE ANYTHING OUT THERE THAT YOU SAY COULD WORK ON THE SCHOOL AND THEY COULD LIVE NEXT TO A NURSERY THAT IS PART OF THE VIOLATION.
WE ARE ACTUALLY ASKING TO HAVE LEGISLATION COMBATED WITH THE LAW.
THAT NUMBER WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED SEXUAL OFFENDERS WHO ARE CONSIDERED CLASSY FELONS WITH IN THE SECOND PART OF THE STATEMENT.
I THINK THAT ONE IS PROBABLY NOT READY TO BE PUT IN THIS ONE.
BECAUSE IT IS TOO WIDE OPEN AND THERE IS ALREADY SUCH A SHORTNESS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY VIOLATED.
IN THIS RIGHT HERE WOULD BE KIND OF A DIG IN THE THIGH FOR THAT.
AND I GET IT ABOUT ALL THE REST, BUT THAT IS HUGE.
RIGHT NOW IN TENNESSEE WE ARE STILL BEHIND IN THAT.
THAT WILL NOT MAKE FOR GOOD RECOURSE TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> OF NEVER SERVED ON ONE OF THESE COMMITTEES, BUT WHAT IS THE LIMIT.
AS YOU KNOW, WE DO THIS IN TANDEM WITH MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
THEY BEEN DOING IT FOR A NUMBER A YEARS.
IN THE EARLY YEARS THEY HAD PROBABLY 50 ITEMS ON THEIR LIST.
THEY BEGIN TO PARE BACK BECAUSE IT WAS OVERWHELMING.
THERE'S NO LIMIT, NO LIMITATION TO THE NUMBER.
IT WAS JUST THE COMMITTEE OVER TIME THAT WE WOULD ZERO IN ON THOSE THINK SPECIFIC TO CLARKSVILLE.
AND AGAIN, NEGATING THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID.
ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS SAID.
>> WE COULD POSSIBLY ADD THESE.
AND TO THINK ABOUT WHAT PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID ABOUT NUMBER TWO.
IF WE WANTED TO ADD THREE OF THESE, THREE OUT OF THE FOUR WE COULD ADD TO IT AND IT'S STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THAT WE NEED THE ROADS DONE AND IT JUST GIVES THEM THROUGH MORE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER.
AND DOESN'T ELIMINATE WITH THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING.
AND I APPRECIATE COUNSEL LADY GUZMAN , OR WAS THEM BRINGING THAT FORWARD.
MADE TO ADDRESS, I MAY NEED TO BRING ON MR. BAKER TO HELP US NAVIGATE AN AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT.
BUT BEFORE WE GET THERE, ARE YOU THROUGH? I'M SORRY.
COUNSEL LADYSMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>WANDA SMITH : LOOKING AT NUMBER FOUR WHERE IT SAID REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICE MORE THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT INCLUDE SOCIAL MEDIA AND ANY TIES TO RACIST OR TERRORIST GROUPS WOULD BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR
[02:15:01]
EMPLOYMENT.AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT DON'T HAVE OFFICERS THAT HAVE BEEN FIRED FROM ANOTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION OR BEEN FORCED TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION DUE TO UNETHICAL BEHAVIORS.
I'M SAYING IT MIGHT NOT BE INVOLVING A RACIST SITUATION OR TERRORIST GROUP, BUT NO REJECTS.
I CALLED THEM REJECTS BECAUSE MAYBE THEY HAVE DONE SOMETHING.
WOULD LOVE TO ADD THAT IF WE COULD.
COUNSEL LADYSMITH, WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK BECAUSE I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO MAYBE CLEAN UP THIS A LITTLE BIT.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED.
>>RICHARD GARRET: I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK HIM WHAT WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE THEN TO DISPOSE OF THIS BY IMPROVING THIS AMENDMENT AND THEN AMEND THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED TO ADD TO LINE ITEM NUMBER TWO THAT IT EXCLUDES SIX OFFENDERS.
>>JOE PITTS: I WILL MAKE SURE I DON'T STEP ON ROBERT'S RULES HERE.
MR. BAKER, CAN YOU HELPED ME WITH THIS? THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT? AS PROPOSED THESE AMENDMENTS.
WE NEED TO AMEND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THIS AMENDMENT.
OUT OF WE GET IT IN THE PROPER POSTURE?
>> YOU CAN DO THAT BY Â" HE HAS HANDED OUT A WRITTEN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL SO IT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHARTER AND THE CITY CODE.
I'M SORRY, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE EVEN SEEN THE LIST OF THE RESOLUTION.
I AM ASSUMING THE RESOLUTION LISTS TOPICS OR PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO STATE OUR STATE DELEGATION CARRY THE WATER FOR SOLOMON AND TRY TO PASS THROUGH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
AND SO YOU COULD ADD THESE ITEMS TO THAT LIST.
>> WE HAVE A WRITTEN AMENDMENT WILL FOR US THAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED.
>> YES, I HEARD WHAT COUNSEL LADYSMITH SAID.
SHE JUST NEEDS TO MOVE TO AMEND HIS AMENDMENTS.
>>JOE PITTS: THAT GETS US IN THE PROPER POSTURE.
ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? LET ME GO BACK TO COUNSEL LADY GUZMAN BECAUSE SHE BROUGHT UP THE FIRST ISSUE REGARDING ITEM NUMBER THREE.
>> NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, ALL AMENDMENTS HAVE TO BE IN WRITING AND SO IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO JUST TAKE THIS Â" IT'S A RESOLUTION.
SO THERE IS NO SECOND READING.
YOU WANT TO JUST WRITE IT OUT REAL QUICK, WRITE OUT THE CHANGE YOU WANT? BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS THAT DIFFICULT.
>> IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE ON ONE ALSO BECAUSE YOU ALSO HAVE CONVICTED FELONS NO LONGER TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE OR HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE, WHICH WOULD MEAN SCHOOL BOARDS IN THOSE THINGS THEY MAY STILL HAVE TO DO THAT WOULD BE FOR CHILDREN.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SEXUAL PREDATORS, CORRECT? WHEN YOU GET TO THE EDITOR OR HUMAN TRAFFICKING, THAT IS THE FAR RIGHT OF THAT 19-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO IS WITH A 17-YEAR-OLD GIRL.
SEE WHAT I AM SAYING? YOU COULD BE CHARGED AS A OFFENDER AND HIS LIFE DROP OFF.
I JUST THINK IT IS TOO SOON RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE THEM OFF, GET THE OTHER TWO ON THERE AND COME BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE.
THINK IF WE DO THIS HARSH AND FAST THAT WE ARE GOING TO OFFEND IN OR REMOVE THE RIGHTS OF SOME VICTIMS. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS, IF YOU ARE AN OFFENDER AND YOU OFFENDED, YOU STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE YOUR CHILD.
EVEN IF YOU HAVE ASSAULTED THAT CHILD.
WE ARE NOT READY TO TACKLE THAT.
THOSE TWO RIGHT THERE, AND THINK WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME Â" IF YOU SET IT UP IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE HOLD A TRIAL.
YOU KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING? AND GET THEIR THINGS CONVICTED OFF OR MOVED.
BUT I THINK IT IS TOO WIDE OPEN.
>> IF I COULD MAKE A SUGGESTION.
THINK I UNDERSTAND NOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
[02:20:03]
AND LOOKING AT COUNCILMAN GARRETT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.NUMBER TWO IN GREEN SHOULD MAKE CONVICTED FELONS A PROTECTED CLASS AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING AND DISCRIMINATION,, THAT THE PHRASE " EXCEPT FOR FELONY SEX OFFENDERS ." AND AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE LAW YOU WANT THEM TO PASS VERBATIM SPECIFICALLY HOW YOU WANT IT WRITTEN.
THE IDEA HERE IS THIS IS THE IDEA BEHIND WHAT WE WANT FOR THIS IS THE GENERAL IDEA A LAW WE WANT YOU TO PASS.
YOU CAN SIMPLY SAY IF THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WANT, MAKE CONVICTED FELONS A PROTECTED CLASS AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING AND DISCRIMINATION,, EXCEPT FOR FELONY SEX OFFENDERS.
WITH REGARD TO COUNSEL LADYSMITH PROPOSAL, REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO UNDERGO A MORE THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECK THAT INCLUDES SOCIAL MEDIA AND ANY TIES TO RACISTS AND OR TERRORIST GROUPS WOULD BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT.
AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADD SOMETHING LIKE ANY OFFICERS THAT HAVE BEEN DECOMMISSIONED.
THAT IS WHAT DECOMMISSIONED MEANS.
DECOMMISSIONED MAY NOT BE HIRED.
SO THAT WOULD BE ADD AN EXTRA SENTENCE FOR.
ANY OFFICER THAT HAS BEEN DECOMMISSIONED.
AND YOU CAN EVEN GO FURTHER AND SAY FIRED IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT.
>> THE FIRED PART, THAT'S EASY.
THE REJECT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A WORD YOU OUGHT TO USE.
ANY OFFICER THAT HAS BEEN DECOMMISSIONED OR FIRED, TERMINATED, DISCHARGED.
THE LANGUAGE IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT, BUT THE IDEA IS THEY HAVE BEEN FIRED.
AND THEN FORCED TO LEAVE DUE TO UNETHICAL BEHAVIORS, THAT IS COVERED BY THE LANGUAGE IF THEY HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED OR TERMINATED.
YOU DON'T REALLY NEED THAT LANGUAGE.
HAS EVERYONE GOT IT? MAKE CONVICTED FELONS PROTECTED CLASS AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING AND DISCRIMINATION, EXCEPT FOR FELONY SEX OFFENDERS.
NUMBER FOUR, REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MORE THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECK THAT INCLUDES SOCIAL MEDIA, ANY TIMES TO RAISE OR TERRORIST GROUPS OR DISQUALIFICATION FROM EMPLOYMENT READ ANY OFFICER THAT HAS BEEN DECOMMISSIONED MORE PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED OR DISCHARGED MAY NOT BE HIRED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
OKAY? CAN YOU HAND THIS TO THE CLERK.
>>JOE PITTS: WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT ONE AMENDMENT OR TWO?
>>JOE PITTS: YOU WANT TO DO IT AS ONE?
>> WITH HER AMENDMENT, HE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON COUNSEL LADYSMITH AMENDMENT TO COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT.
AND THEN INFERS PASSES, HE WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT AS AMENDED BY COUNSEL LADYSMITH AMENDMENT.
>>JOE PITTS: BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE COUNCIL LADIES GUZMAN AMENDMENT REGARDING SEXUAL OFFENDERS.
>> WE PROBABLY SHOULD JUST PASS COUNSEL LADYSMITH AMENDMENT AND THEN PASS COUNSEL LADIES GUZMAN AMENDMENT AND THEN YOU CAN VOTE ON THE COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED.
>>JOE PITTS: I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU.
>>RICHARD GARRET: I MAKE A MOTION WE SUSPEND THE RULES AND ALLOW THAT LAW TO BE TOGETHER.
>>JOE PITTS: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW THESE TWO AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
MOTION IS FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES TO BE ALLOWED TO ALLOW THESE TWO AMENDMENTS TO COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT TO BE CONSIDERED.
[02:25:01]
>>JOE PITTS: WE ARE VOTING TO SPEND THE RULES.
NOT TO CONSIDER Â" WE ARE JUST SUSPENDING THE RULES.
NO? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? WE ARE SUSPENDING THE RULE TO ALLOW MR. BAKER Â" THANK YOU.
>> WHAT COUNCILMAN ALLEN HAS JUST DONE Â" I THINK IT'S OKAY.
HE HAS MADE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR THE RULES HE IS TALKING ABOUT IS OUR CITY CODE.
SPECIFICALLY THE REQUIREMENTS OF ROBERTS RULES ABOUT HOW YOU PROCESS LEGISLATION OR MOTIONS.
COUNCILMAN ALLEN CAN CORRECT ME, HE WANTS TO SUSPEND THE RULES SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON SEPARATE AMENDMENTS SEPARATELY.
YOU CAN LUMP THEM ALL TOGETHER AND VOTE ON COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT WITH THE COUNSEL LADYSMITH AMENDMENT INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL LADIES GUZMAN AMENDMENT INCLUDED.
>>JOE PITTS: I HAVE YOU ON THE LIST.
>> IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, VOTE ON IT ALL AT ONE TIME, YOU HAVE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMAN ALLEN'S MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES.
>>JOE PITTS: DEVOTE WAS, COUNSEL LADYSMITH? BEFORE WE PROCEED, DID YOU HAVE A POINT OF ORDER?
JUST A POINT OF CLARITY IN THIS ONE INSTANCE.
THIS IS NOT A BASIS IN THE CITY CODE, MAKE IT YOUR MY VOTE IS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
>>JOE PITTS: SUSPENDING IT JUST FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
>>JOE PITTS: I GUESS I NEED TO LOOK TO THE SPONSOR TO MAKE SURE.
>>JOE PITTS: OKAY FOR THAT MOTION PASSES.
WE ARE NOW PUTTING THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS TOGETHER.
ANY DISCUSSION? COUNSEL LADY STREETMAN, YOU WERE ON THE LIST.
>>STACY STREETMAN : THANK YOU.
I WAS WAITING FOR A FEW MINUTES.
I KNEW THERE WAS INFORMATION REGARDING THIS THAT IS ALREADY ON THE MONTGOMERY
[02:30:08]
COUNTY LEGISLATIVE ITEMS. I JUST DID NOT MY LEGISLATIVE FOLDER WITH ME TO GO OVER IT AND DO WANT TO POINT OUT Â" AND I ONLY HAVE THE LIST SENT TO ME AS A SCREENSHOT.I DON'T HAVE HOW IT IS ALL BROKEN DOWN.
BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT VOTER RIGHTS WERE RESTORED TO CONVICTED FELONS IS ALREADY ON THE LIST.
WOODARD HE REPORTED LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AS A COMBINED TOTAL FROM THE CITY AND COUNTY.
THAT ONE IS ON THE COUNTY SIDE.
ANOTHER ONE THAT IS ON THERE IS PHRASED EXACTLY HOW IT WAS DISCUSSED A LITTLE WHILE AGO.
ESTABLISHED STATE GRANT FUND FOR BODY WORN CAMERAS.
THAT WAY THE REQUEST WAS MADE AGAIN.
THAT CAME FROM THE COUNTY SIDE.
BUT WE ARE NOT ASKING THEM TO MAKE A DECISION THAT IS GOING TO PUT HARDSHIP ON OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.
IS PUTTING IT BACK ON THE STATE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO COVER IT.
BEFORE WE GET TO DOWN THE LINE AND AMENDING AND DOING EVERYTHING, TWO OF THESE ITEMS ARE ALREADY GOING TO BE IT SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY SIDE WILL ALREADY BE ON THAT COMBINED LEGISLATIVE AGENDA REQUEST.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? COUNSEL LADYSMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>WANDA SMITH : ARE YOU SAYING, PREVIOUS SPEAKER THAT IN THE RESOLUTION THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO WHERE THE BODY CAMERAS ALREADY IN THERE? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
>>JOE PITTS: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>>STACY STREETMAN : I DO NOT HAVE ALL THE DETAIL.
WHAT IS HERE IS TO ESTABLISH A STATE GRANT FUND FOR BODY WORN CAMERAS WERE EACH OF THESE HAS ALREADY BEEN VETTED OUT AND WRITTEN IN THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY.
EVERYTHING WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE IN ONE NIGHT.
IS NOT THE DETAIL BUT IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS WE SHOULD BE IN MY OPINION THE RIGHT REQUEST TO STAY ESTABLISH GRANT FUND PROVIDING WORN CAMERAS SO THAT THE STATE WOULD BE PAYING FOR THOSE FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES.
THAT DOES SAY GRANTED MONEY FOR THAT.
BUT IT DOESN'T SAY PARTICULAR.
THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING FROM GET.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN RICHAMOND, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>VONDELL RICHAMOND: MY MAJOR QUESTION IS WHERE CAN WE GET THIS MASTER Â" I THINK THIS IS THE SAME SCENARIOS LAST YEAR.
WHO SEEMS TO BE PART OF THE COUNCIL PRIVY TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
IF YOU LIKE I AM JUST IN THE DARK.
I THINK IF WE ALL HAD A COPY OF WHATEVER DOCUMENT COUNSEL LADIES TREATMENT WAS REFERRING TO, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE PUT THIS ON A SECOND TIME.
WHERE IS THAT MASTER LIST FOR THAT PARTICULAR MEETING.
>>JOE PITTS: I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SHE WAS READING FROM THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, NOT FROM THE CITY.
SO WE ARE MERELY DISCUSSING THOSE ITEMS WE WANT TO CONSIDER FOR THE CITY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
>> IS THERE A COMMITTEE FOR THAT?
>>JOE PITTS: THERE WAS A COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY ME LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR TO CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS WE PUT OUT EMAILS IN PUBLIC NOTICES FOR EVERYONE TO PITCH IN THEIR IDEAS FOR THE COMMITTEE MET TWO OR THREE TIMES OR MORE TO CONSIDER THE ITEMS IN THEIR THE LIST TO A MANAGEABLE FEW WE THOUGHT MIGHT GET TRACTION.
>> I WASN'T MADE AWARE I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE AND THAT.
I FEEL LIKE I AM IN THE DARK AGAIN AND WOULD LOVE TO BE INCLUDED ON THOSE ITEMS SO I CAN WEIGH IN ON THEM.
>>JOE PITTS: ALL THOSE MEETINGS WERE CONSIDERED PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE POSTED BY THE CITY CLERK.
THE MINUTES AND AGENDAS WERE POSTED AS WELL.
I APOLOGIZE IF YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR EMAILS.
WILL ASK IT TAKE LOOK INTO THAT TOMORROW.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT ABOUT THE AMENDMENT WE ARE CONSIDERING? COUNCILMAN GARRETT? ANY FINAL COMMENTS ON YOUR AMENDMENT IS AMENDED?
>>RICHARD GARRET: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYBODY TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
AND ON THE COUNTY HAS SOME SIMILAR THINGS ON THEIR AGENDA, PART OF WHICH IS THE SAME ONE I FORWARDED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON THE CITY SIDE.
I FORWARDED THE SAME THING ON THE COUNTY SIDE FOR IT AND GRATEFUL THEY INCLUDED AND MODIFIED IT WHAT THEY WOULD DISCUSS AND I THINK OURS COINCIDES.
ESPECIALLY IF THEY WILL PUSH FOR THE STATE TO FUND THE BODY CAMERAS AND WE PUSH FOR IT TO BE MANDATORY.
THE ITEMS ARE VALID, THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND LIKE A SENTIMENT WOULD DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT IT.
IN FUTURE LEGISLATIVE AGENDAS, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE Â" I REACHED OUT TO SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO JUST KEEP ME POSTED.
JUST BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS WILL THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.
THAT WAY WE COULD HAVE COME TOGETHER WITH A MORE POLISHED PRODUCT.
BUT CERTAINLY I GET IT, YOUR SCHEDULES AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU ALL DID THE BEST WITH THE TIME YOU HAD.
APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING INTO IT AND ASK FOR YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION NOW THAT YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR MY HEART AND SPEAKING OF FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY WHO WE ARE CALLED TO SERVE TO HAVE THIS PRESENTED TO OUR STATE LEGISLATIVE.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNSEL LADYSMITH, YOU WISH TO COMMENT?
>>WANDA SMITH : I THINK THIS IS GOOD LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION 22.
I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO VOTE OUR CONSCIOUS.
VOTE FOR WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE CITIZENS.
NOT BASED UPON OUR EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS.
WE NEED TO VOTE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE CITY.
ANYBODY ELSE? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? WE ARE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMAN GARRETT HAS AMENDED.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
[02:35:01]
>>JOE PITTS: WE HAVE A QUESTION.
>>STACY STREETMAN : I AM NOT SURE WHAT WE ARE VOTING Â" I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL PRODUCT IS.
>>JOE PITTS: WHAT SUSPEND THE VOTING FOR A MOMENT.
WE ARE TAKING A COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED.
AND THAT AMENDED AMENDMENT PASSED, BUT WE ARE VOTING ON THE AND IT SAYS DISCONTINUE, DISENFRANCHISING CONVICTED FELONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS BUT NO LONGER TAKING WHAT THE YOU RIGHT TO VOTE OR HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.
ITEM 2 IS MAKE CONVICTED FELONS A PROTECTED CLASS AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, EXCEPT FOR FELONY OFFENDERS.
MY ON THE RIGHT TRACK THERE? OKAY.
THREE, MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO WEAR BODY CAMERAS WHEN ON DUTY.
AND THEREFORE, REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO UNDERGO A THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECK THAT INCLUDES SOCIAL MEDIA.
ENTICED A RACIST AND/OR TERRORIST GROUPS WOULD BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, ANY OFFICERS THAT HAD BEEN DECOMMISSIONED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED OR FIRED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR HIGHER.
>>JEFF BURKHART : WE VOTED ON THE COUNCILMAN TO PUT THEM TOGETHER, BUT WE NEVER VOTED ON THEM AFTER WE VOTED TO PUT THEM TOGETHER.
>>JOE PITTS: THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW.
WE ARE GOING TO PUT THEM TOGETHER.
BUT I THINK WHAT WAS SAID WAS WE ARE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
BUT WE NEVER VOTED ON THOSE TWO TOGETHER, CORRECT?
>>JOE PITTS: ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE.
>> IT'S REALLY WHY YOU SHOULDN'T DO THIS KIND OF STUFF BECAUSE IT CAUSES CONFUSION.
THE WAY IT WAS ANNOUNCED WAS BOTH THE COUNSEL LADYSMITH AND COUNSEL LADIES GUZMAN AMENDMENT WERE SUSPENDING THE RULES SO THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.
COUNCILMEMBER BURKHART REALLY IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT.
YOU SHOULD VOTE ON THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS TOGETHER AND THEN VOTE ON IF THEY PASSED HE WOULD GO ON COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
THAT WAY THE RECORD WILL BE CLEARED.
BUT WHEN COUNCILMAN ALLEN MADE HIS PROPOSAL, I WILL TAKE THE BLAME FOR IT IF YOU WANT TO BLAME SOMEBODY.
I THINK IT WAS SAID BECAUSE IT WAS UNDERSTOOD HE WAS WANTING TO DO IS THAT HE WAS WANTING TO LUMP IT ALL TOGETHER AND HAVE A SINGLE VOTE ON COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT AS CHANGED BY COUNSEL LADY GUZMAN AND COUNSEL LADYSMITH.
IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FROM THE RECORD STANDPOINT, IT MAKES THINGS MUCH EASIER TO GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER COUNCILMAN SMITH AND COUNCILMAN GUZMAN AMENDMENTS TOGETHER AS ANNOUNCED BY THE MAYOR.
HE JUST READ WHAT THOSE CHANGES WOULD BE.
AND IF THOSE CHANGES, TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
IF THAT PASSES YOU WILL NEED TO VOTE ON COUNCILMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
>>JOE PITTS: EVERYBODY CLEAR? DOES THAT CLARIFY FOR YOU?
>>JOE PITTS: YOU HAD A QUESTION?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF WE WOULD DO IT HERE NEXT.
IF WE ARE DOING THE VOTE NOW WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS AS A WHOLE BECAUSE I HAVE SOMETHING I THINK NEEDS TO BE AMENDED ON THE FIRST ONE AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE I NEED TO DO THIS YET.
>> LET'S VOTE ON THE SMITH GUZMAN AMENDMENT FIRST.
>>JOE PITTS: WE ARE GOING TO START OVER.
WE ARE VOTING ON THE COMBINED SMITH/ GUZMAN AMENDMENT.
EVERYBODY GOT IT? WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.
THE CHAIR WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONFUSION.
EVERYBODY READY TO VOTE? MADDEN CLERK? LET'S TAKE THE VOTE ON THE SMITH/*UNTRAN6*.
[02:40:01]
NOW ON HUNTSMAN GARRETT AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
COUNSEL LADY STREETMAN WHEN YOU RECOGNIZED.
>>STACY STREETMAN : MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN CLARIFY WHERE IT SAYS DISCONTINUE DISENFRANCHISING CONVICTED FELONS BY NO LONGER TAKING AWAY THE RIGHT TO VOTE OR PUBLIC OFFICE.
BY CONVICTED FELONS, WOULD THAT INCLUDE PEOPLE THAT ARE SERVING Â" IF YOU ALLOWED CONVICTED FELONS Â" IF YOU ARE RIGHT TO VOTE, I THINK THE WHOLE PUBLIC OFFICE MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFICULT.
BUT IN REGARD TO RIGHT TO VOTE, ARE WE ASKING OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO GRANT THOSE FELONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SERVING TIME THE ABILITY TO VOTE WHILE THEY ARE IN THERE? IS THAT WHAT WE ARE WANTING TO DO?
>>JOE PITTS: THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT? THIS CAME FROM THE COMMUNITY CITIZENS.
DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT?
>>RICHARD GARRET: I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SPEAK TO WHILE SOMEONE IS INCARCERATED, AWARDING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.
BECAUSE THE DECISIONS THEIR STATE REPRESENTATIVES THE DIFFERENT WILL MAKE STILL AND PACKED THEIR LIVES.
SO IN OUR EYES, THEY STILL DISENFRANCHISED, ARE THEY NOT A CITIZEN BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED A DEFENSE AND THEY DON'T HAVE A VOICE? EVEN WHILE IN CAPTIVITY?
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN THEY ARE IN PRISON IN A LOT OF THEIR RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY DURING THAT TIME, CORRECT? NO?
>>JOE PITTS: THAT IS DIRECTED AT COUNCILMAN GARRETT?
WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE INCARCERATED, THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO GO WHERE THEY WANT, DO WHAT THEY WANT.
THERE ARE MANY RIGHTS THEY DON'T HAVE DURING THEIR TIME.
I THINK THAT PART OF THE TIME IN PRISON.
>> TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE SOMEBODY THAT'S GOING TO REPRESENT WHAT LITTLE RIGHTS THEY DO HAVE.
>> IF THEY WERE IN PRISON SAY FOR ELECTION FRAUD FOR VOTING FRAUD WE CONTINUE TO VOTE.
I KNOW YOU MENTIONED OFFENDERS DOWN HERE, BUT IF SOMEONE WAS DOWN HERE FOR Â" I REALIZE THERE'S ALREADY SOME LAWS THAT PROTECT SOME OF YOUR HIGHER CRIMES COMMITTED, BUT WHEN SOMEBODY IS IN THERE SERVING THEIR TIME, ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IS SERVING THEIR TIME IN GETTING THEIR PUNISHMENT.
THIS IS STRICTLY IN REGARD TO WHILE THEY ARE IN THEIR.
THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING IF WHAT WE ARE DOING IS GRANTING CONVICTED FELONS WHY THEY ARE SERVING IN PRISON THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
AS WELL AS TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE WILL THEY ARE IN PRISON.
>> DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN RUN ADEQUATE CAMPAIGN IN PRISON?
LET'S NOT DO A RUNNING DEBATE HERE.
>> WE ARE GETTING TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS AND IT WAS ALREADY EXPRESSED THAT WE ARE EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF WHAT WE WANT, BUT IT IS UP TO STATE LEGISLATORS SPEND IT.
WE ARE NOT DRAFTING LEGISLATION.
WE ARE EXPRESSING WITH THE COMMUNITY WE ARE CALLED TO SERVICE ASKING FOR.
AT THIS STAGE WE ARE PASSING IT ON TO THE STATE.
TO FIND HOW IT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO LOOK.
I THINK THIS COVERS THE BASIS AND IS PRACTICAL.
IS NOT PRACTICAL SOMEONE WILL RUN FOR PRACTICE OFFICE WHILE IN PRISON.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TREATMENT, AND I CAN VOUCH FOR IT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN SEVERAL FACILITIES IN MY DAY.
YOU GET TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT ON HOW YOUR STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS LOOK UPON THESE CORPORATIONS.
AND WHAT THEY LET THEM GET AWAY WITH.
PIPELINE TO PRISON, A LOT OF OFTEN TIMES MINORITIES ARE IN THEIR.
YOU TALKING TO SOMEBODY WHO IS EXPERIENCE BOTH SIDES OF IT.
I KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE BEHIND BARS AND NOT HAVE ANYBODY ELECTED THAT CARES
[02:45:01]
ABOUT THE MISTREATMENT THAT OCCURS THERE.WE HAVE TO PAY OUR REPARATION, WE HAVE TO PAY OUR DEBT TO SOCIETY.
BUT JUST BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING OUR DEBT TO SOCIETY DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD HAVE A VOICE ON WHO IS CALLED TO REPRESENT US.
>>JOE PITTS: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GARRETT.
AND I CAN SAY FROM EXPERIENCE, I KNOW ONE STATE LEGISLATOR, NOT ME THAT RAN A CAMPAIGN AND WAS ELECTED AND WAS IN JAIL.
ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? DO YOU KNOW WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON? THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED FORGET MADDEN CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.
>> WE ARE CONFINING THEM? BECAUSE I ONLY GOT HALFWAY THROUGH THAT VOTE.
LET'S GO BACK TO VOTING ON THE COMBINED TWO AMENDMENTS.
MADDEN CLERK? YOU HAVE US VOTING, IN THE MIDDLE OF VOTING FOR? THE TWO AMENDMENTS?
MR. GARRETT YES, MR. RICHAMOND YES, MR. ERB YES, MR. CHANDLER YES, MS. GUZMAN YES.
>>JOE PITTS: LET'S PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF BECAUSE THAT WAS A RECORDED VOTE.
THIS IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE VOTE ON THE COMBINED TWO AMENDMENTS FROM GUZMAN AND SMITH.
COUNSEL LADYSMITH, YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED?
>>WANDA SMITH : I TOOK NOTES WHILE WE WERE VOTING AND YOU SAID IT WAS ADOPTED.
IT WAS 13 YES AND YOU SAID IT WAS ADOPTED.
WE CAN LOOK AT THE RECORDING TO MAKE SURE, BUT WE ALREADY VOTED ON IT.
>> THE GARRETT AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
>> I BELIEVE WHAT OCCURRED WAS WE WERE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE GARRETT AMENDMENT TO.
AND SHE WAS CALLING OUT THE COUNCILMEMBERS TO VOTE.
THE CLERK IS RIGHT ABOUT THIS.
COUNSEL LADY STREETMAN SAID I'M CONFUSED HERE.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE VOTING ON AND THAT SPURRED THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD.
SO WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT VOTE.
>>JOE PITTS: I DON'T THINK IT WOULD DO US ANY DAMAGE TO VOTE Â".
>> IF YOU WANT TO START OVER AGAIN TO MAKE IT CLEAR, THERE IS NO HARM IN THAT.
>>JOE PITTS: HANG ON A SECOND, LET ME GET THIS RIGHT.
>>WANDA SMITH : WE HAD FINISHED AND THEN YOU SAID GO AHEAD AND LET US VOTE ON MS. GUZMAN SMITH COMBINED AMENDMENT.
AND THEN YOU SAID 13 YES AND IT WAS ADOPTED.
AND THEN AFTER THAT MS. LADY SAID I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT ONE.
I KNOW IT IS RECORDED WE ARE DEVOTED ON THIS.
>>JOE PITTS: THANK YOU, COUNSEL LADYSMITH.
SO NOW WE ARE VOTING ON THE GARRETT AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
>> WHICH INCLUDES THE GUZMAN AND SMITH.
WE ARE ALMOST HALFWAY THROUGH THAT VOTE.
MADDEN CLERK, PICKUP WHERE YOU LEFT OFF.
>>JOE PITTS: THIS IS THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
[02:50:01]
>> NINE YES, ONE NO, THREE ABSTAIN.
AMENDMENT AS AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE ARE NOW ON THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED.
ANY QUESTIONS? ARE WE GOOD? EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING? THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, WHICH WAS A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WE JUST PASSED THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN GARRETT WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW WE ARE ON THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED.
EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON ANYBODY CARE? LET'S VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED.
>> 11 YES, ONE NO, ONE ABSTAIN.
>>JOE PITTS: RESOLUTION 22 IS AMENDED AND ADOPTED.
WE ARE NOW UNDER RESOLUTION 19, WHICH WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT I SUBMITTED AND IT IS IN WRITING HERE.
[14. RESOLUTION 19-2020-21 Approving appointments to the Parking Commission ● Housing Authority: Trina Hill (fill unexpired term of Sheron Williams-resigned) - September 2020 through September 2022; Dr. Gregory Stallworth (replace Gary Ellis-term expired) - October 2020 through September 2025 ● Parking Commission: Andrea Herrera (replace Alan Senseney-term expired) - September 2020 - August 2022]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UPON RECOMMENDATION OF MR. TYNDALL AT THE PLANNING CREATION, WE CREATED A ADVISORY COMMITTEE MADE UP OF TWO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.YOU ALL APPROVED, COUNSEL LADYSMITH, COUNCILMAN GARRETT TO SERVE ON THAT.
AND AND THREE CITIZEN MEMBERS TO BE JOINTLY APPOINTED BY CITY AND COUNTY.
THOSE ARE THE THREE NAMES RECOMMENDED TO THE MAYOR AND MEET BY MR. TYNDALL.
AND THAT WOULD BE SID HEADER, AUSTIN MAYBURY AND BERT SINGLETARY TO SIT ON THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
I NEED A MOTION FOR THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 19.
>>JOE PITTS: PROPERLY MOTIONED IN SECOND IN.
NOW I WOULD NEED A MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT.
MOTION AND SECOND RING THE AMENDMENT TO ADD THE APPOINTMENT OF THESE THREE PRIVATE CITIZENS TO THE LAND RESID ADVISORY COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING? ALL RIGHT.
YOU READY TO VOTE? LET'S VOTE.
WE ARE NOW ON RESOLUTION 19 AS AMENDED, THE APPOINTMENT TO THE VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO INCLUDE THE LAND REGULATION ADVISORY COMMISSION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADDEN CLERK, TAKE THE BOAT.
>>JOE PITTS: RESOLUTION 19 AS AMENDED IS ADOPTED.
WE ARE NOW ON MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS.
[16) MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS]
>> I JUST WANTED TO EXTEND AN INVITATION FROM SURE YOU GOT IT IN THE EMAIL BUT I WANTED TO FORMALLY INVITE YOU IN THE COMMUNITY TO JOIN US AT MOSAIC CHURCH SUNDAY AT 9:00 FOR THE OFFICIAL GRAND OPENING.
1020 GARRETT SPURRED ROAD AND WE WOULD LOVE TO FELLOWSHIP WITH EVERYONE.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNSEL LADYSMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YOU SENT ME TWO INVITATIONS BACK TO BACK.
>>JOE PITTS: COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>>DAVID ALLEN : WE ALL RECEIVED THIS IN OUR EMAIL, BUT SOMETIMES YOU MAY BE LIKE ME AND SKIP OVER THINGS.
THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA RECEPTION.
AND THAT IS COMING UP TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22.
LAST YEAR THINK MOST OF US WERE ON THE COUNCIL.
>>JOE PITTS: EVERYBODY IS INVITED TO RETHINK YOU THAT.
[02:55:02]
WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.SEPTEMBER 22, WHICH IS A TUESDAY AT CIVIC PLAZA, SENEGAL AND VETERANS PLAZA.
ANYBODY ELSE? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.