you you you you you you you you the and ask Mr. Alex Buskin or City Secretary to please call the row. Committee members, please remember to unmute yourself and say here when your name is called and then remember to mute yourself again. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bates. Alex Buskin, City Secretary. I'll now call the roll. Chad Bates here. Brian Acosta here., Amanda Aresola, Jessica Black, here, here, Rob Cronin, here, Here. Sonica Dickerson. Cindy foot. Sied Hassan. Here. Wendy Hicks. Here. Wendy Hicks. Here. Nikki Hunter. Here. Jim Maybach. Here. Wes Manus. Here. Yen Wen. Here. How do you know? Here. Charlie Parker. Here Barbara Pearlwitz. Here. Andy Pryor. Here. David Shorty. Here. Ron Spiller. Here. Ray Whitworth. Here. Ray Whitworth. Here. Billy Wilson. Here. Stephen Zimmer. Here. Seneca Dickerson. Can you unmute Ms. Dickerson? Here. Thank you, Alex. Before we begin, I'm going to ask you to please explain the format we are using and lay out some housekeeping rules. Thank you, Mr. Bates. Alex Buskin, City Secretary. I will be assisting with the technical aspects of this meeting. I'd like to mention a few items before we begin. This meeting is being held by video conference so that we can advance the public health goal of minimizing face-to-face meetings, also known as social distancing, to slow the spread of COVID-19. The link to the online location where video of this meeting is available can be found by going to the city's webpage at www.arlingtontx.gov and clicking on agendas. This information is also posted on the city's website. This meeting can be watched on AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and Spectrum Channel 16 and 15.1. It can also be watched by going to the city's website at www.arlingtontx.gov and selecting watch meetings on the city hall drop down menu. Here are some pieces of basic information we want you to know about this meeting. This meeting is being recorded and this recording will be posted on the City of Arlington's webpage. There will be an opportunity for public comment during the meeting. I will indicate when that time occurs and you will be allowed three minutes to make your comments. If you would like to make a comment, please call the number at the bottom of your screen, 833-268- 8354, conference ID 819 317 596 pound. Tell the operator your name, address, and a call back number. City staff will call you back at the appropriate time when public comment is being taken. Comments can also be sent to the following email address. TLAC Public Participation at ArlingtonTX.gov at any time. Comments submitted in this manner will be shared with all members of the term limits advisory committee and summarized by the chair during the meeting. All speakers must identify themselves by name every time they speak. We will remind speakers if they forget so that we can have a full record of this meeting and so that the public may have a full understanding of the discussion. For the members of the committee, please ensure that you are in questions or questions, please do not be disturbed during this call. Back on noise can be very challenging in a meeting like this. If you can have your own device on mute when you are not talking, that would be helpful. If any member of the committee has to leave the meeting, you are requested to identify yourself at the time you leave the meeting as well as at the time you return. during both committee discussion sections of this meeting the chair will call on each member of the committee in alphabetical order to allow everyone to share their comments to the members of the committee have any questions. Hearing none will proceed. Thank you Mr. Busken. First off I'd like to welcome everybody the committee and public to what hopefully is our third and possibly final meeting of the Terminum Advisory Committee. Last week, two individuals, Mr. Zack Maxwell and Mr. Kelly Krenut were invited to present their perspectives on this topic for tonight's meeting. This plan was reflected in the posted agenda last Friday. However, I need to update the committee on some recent developments. In my correspondence with Mr. Maxwell last week, he indicated that his presentation would relate to and I quote, the facts about the 2018 term limits proposal. As a result, his presentation was posted under the open meeting rules of, quote, 2018, term limits ballot measure. Mr. Maxwell did meet the committee's expectation of submitted his presentation by Monday at noon. Poorson of Mr. Maxwell's submitted presentation did not fall within the posted agenda topic. He was asked by city staff to recent the presentation that would fully be captured by the posted topic. Mr. Maxwell did not want to do this and has climbed the opportunity to present to the committee. So in the interest of maintaining equal time and fairness to all, I have asked Mr. Kernut to not give his presentations to the committee this evening as well. As a result, we'll move directly to item C and ask staff to respond to questions that were raised during the July 23rd meeting. Following that update, we will hear input from the public and then we will begin our discussion and recommendations to Council guided by Ms. Karen Connard. This discussion will be more free-flowing than prior discussions and if that does not work, then we'll go back to the roll call version all that with though that would take much longer so I ask for all committee members when we get to the discussion phase please be concise in your comments and on target on on task with whatever the subject is we're discussing for the public who are watching I'd like to remind you that you can call in to state your intent to comment on term limits and term links during the season call. Please call 833-688354 and use the conference ID 819-317-596 pound. City staff will call you back when it's time for you to comment. I will ask Ms. Molly Shortall, Assistant City Attorney, to please present the information to the committee that she had from questions from last week. Thank you, Mr. Bates. We've got one question that was raised last week by a committee member that we wanted to provide some follow-up on. And that question concerned the process for transitioning council seats from the current two-year terms to a longer three or four-year term. And so, wanted to just let you know that there's nothing in state law that controls this process. It's really sort of the art of the possible in regards to how that transition might occur. Typically, this is addressed in the charter amendment itself. So in the language that's adopted to provide for the length in terms, the transition process is spoken for. At times, cities have done this by automatically converting every seat from a two-year term to a three-year term at the next election. But sometimes when you sit down and look at the timing that doesn't create the staggering that's needed to have certain seats roll over in certain years and others and other years so that you might create some staggering by providing two-year terms to some for a while while you allow other seats to move to a three-year term. So again, this is typically addressed in the charter amendment and in the language that's actually adopted. We'll speak to how that transition is handled. Thank you, Molly. Now we move to the citizen input section of our agenda. As a reminder, all comments must be focused on term limits and term links. The only items that this committee has any charter with in terms of council recommendations. Each speaker will be given three minutes. At the end of the three minutes time, city staff will ring a bell, and we ask for you to wrap up your conversation at that time. For this evening's meeting, we also have some written comments that have been submitted. These written comments are sent to the committee members earlier in full. However, we're still getting some additional commentary. They'll be forwarded to the committee. So these comments that I'm reading tonight are received up to an hour before the meeting started. Mr. John Pike called into our meeting on July 23 after the time for public input and shared he did not think this issue needed to be revisited after the voters decision in 2018. Mr. Larry Jordan emailed the committee on July 24th. His email included a number of observations and expressed the concern that the will of the voters in 2018 was not being respected. Mr. Jordan asked the committee to recommend limited changes to the term limit section of the charter. He did suggest a cool down period that would allow term limited individuals to run again after a specific period of time would improve the current term limits while being consistent with the intent of the voters who approved the current term limits in 2018. As Sue Phillips in email to the committee on July 25th requesting the committee consider recommending three three-year terms with a two-year cooling off period to wait until the person could run again. Mr. Kyle Fields emailed the committee July 28th stating that he is in favor of more flexible term limits and the Arlington's current term limits restrict the rights of voters and potential office holders. Mr. Larry McFarlane sent an email to the Committee on July 27th, asking the Committee to disband and support the current term limits. Mr. Thomas Guerrero emailed the Committee on July 27th, wishing to keep the term limits as they were voted on and passed. Mr. Richard Weber emailed the Committee on July 27th, wishing to keep the term limits as they currently stand. Mr. Tom Ware submitted comments on July 28th, stating he believes the current temperament is too limiting and suggested longer terms of service eight to 10 years. He also mentioned recognitions that the city and council has achieved. Mr. Chris Dobson submitted comments on July 28th and shared the results of a survey he conducted. The survey of 73 people showed support for the current limit, term limit structure or a shorter term of service and awareness among most individuals responded they were aware of what they were voting for the current term limits. It should note that we do not know where the methods are source of this survey. Mr. Doug Smith the the committee. We have 28 speakers this evening. Thank you, Mr. Busken. Can you please read the guidelines for speaker decorum? Yes, sir. We ask that the citizens and others participating in the term limits advisory committee meeting assist in preserving the order and decorum of this meeting. We ask that all participants refrain from making personal, profane, slanderous or threatening remarks and refrain from being disruptive while addressing the committee or while participating in the committee meeting. For speakers tonight, when your name is called, please clearly state your name and address for the record before providing your comments. Speakers will be given three minutes to make their statements. If multiple speakers plan to provide the same or similar public testimony, those speakers may, if they so desire, designate one or more individuals to provide public testimony on behalf of the group. A bell will signal the end of each speaker's time. In consideration of other speakers, please conclude your comments promptly when you hear the bell. We ask that you address your comments to the Terminements Advisory Committee members. Please note that the committee members will not be addressing your comments in questions individually, but we'll wait until after all of the public speakers have finished their comments to respond. Thank you, Alex. Can you please call the first speaker? Yes, sir. Our first speaker is Kelly Cannon. I believe we have Miss Cannon on the line. Miss Cannon, can you please state your name in residential address for the record? Mrs. Kelly Cannon, can you hear me? Yes. All right, good. I'm at 901 Christian Court in Ollington, Texas, 76012. And I wanna thank you for allowing me to address this committee. I rise in strong opposition to the entire nature of what this committee is being asked to do. The citizens of Arlington spoke loud and clear on November 6, 2018. We were not confused about the ballot language. Had we been confused, we would have more than likely voted to measure down. But we didn't. We wanted them and we want it now. Term limits with no breather or cool enough period. If it's good enough for the president of the United States, then it ought to be good enough for our city council members. Our city government, it seems, has lost its way. They are in office at the consent of the government. We consented to turn limits by a 20 point margin trying to rewrite what we consented to is absolutely appalling. Charter amendments, I want to talk a little bit about that. And I have one question to ask generally before I go any further. Can I ask a specific question about the scheduling of any ballot initiative that you guys have planned? Go ahead, Jennifer, if you'd like. I'm sorry, what? Would you prefer Molly? Ms. Cannon, we're going to have Molly short all. Assistant City Attorney answer your that on that item. Mrs. Cannon as we reminded the committee the discussion of when or if a charter amendment the timing of that is outside of the purview of the committee the council has charged them with looking at term limits and term links and not the timing of an election. Well I need to remind you guys thank you for that I need to remind you guys the term I for that. I need to remind you guys, the term, I'm sorry, that charter amendments have a two-year time limit, meaning you can't have another charter amendment prior to the last one. And the last one was on November of the 6th, 2018. And if you're hoping to do this for November 3rd, me, a third ballot, it would be three days shot of that two-year rule. So I imagine if you did attempt to place this issue on our ballot as another charter amendment, you'll be waiting until the next city election rolls around in May of 2021. And I'm hoping that that's the intention of this committee. And in closing, I'll just say, please leave well enough alone, let this work or not work and give it a couple more years and a couple more terms and then tweak it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cannon for calling in and your comments. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Bill Rosenberry. Mr. Rosenberry, please state your name and residential address for the record. Mr. Rosenberry? Yes ma'am. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Yes. My name is Bill Rosenberry. I reside at 36, 09 Lake Powell Drive, Arlington. I'm here at the RLINKTON in 1959. And I've lived here continually, except for a brief sojourn at school. Practice law here now for 50 years. And I'm thinking back when I moved RLINKTON, it was 25,000 people. So I've had an opportunity to see the city grow to the great city it is today. Mayor Vandegriff and all the other mayors through our current Mayor Jeff Williams. My concern with respect to the terminal limits issues and I know this past some time ago and possibly could be modified or rescinded. My concern is that the citizens actually are losing a right to vote for a leader that they wish to select based upon an arbitrary number of years passing. I think the citizens over the years have chosen leaders that have been very effective, but I think denying them the right to choose a leader because of an arbitrary period of time passing is a significant loss of a fundamental right, an extra vote, and select a leader. So with the present term limits that we have, there's a certain period of time as everyone knows, and then citizens don't have an opportunity to select that leader. And it may be a wonderful leader. Tom Van der Griff served this city for many years, very effectively. And to think that after a period of years of citizens may want him as their leader, but they were not allowed to vote for him, because a number of years had passed, it's just denying that fundamental right. So my thoughts are that as this advisory council looks at either a vote hopefully, maybe the council would have a vote to let the citizens reconsider the term limit problem. And I say it's a problem because a few years ago when this passed, perhaps it was poorly worded resolution or people misunderstood what they were voting for. And the right of the people of Arlington to select their leaders or reject their leaders is so fundamental that I don't have any problem with a group considering a new vote on that issue. If that isn't to occur, other options could be that City Council members, when somebody is getting ready to lose that ability to rerun for election, could vote to allow that candidate to run again Thank you for calling in mr. Rosenberry Alex please call the next speaker the next speaker is crystal James I believe we have miss James online His James please state your name and residential address for the record. Hi, crystal. Name 1100. Ackot Court. Arlington. Access 76012. Mag go ahead. Thank you. Go ahead when you're ready. As we witness the body of the late Congressman John Lewis carried across the Edmund Pettis Bridge this past Sunday, I was visibly wrong because he almost died on that bridge for my personal rights of vote. And I hold it sovereign and quite dear. I am 100% against term limits. And I engage heavily to defeat the measure in Armington. But our team lost, guys, 63% of voters in Armington passed quite a restricted term limit policy overwhelmingly. This should have been the end of this debate for at least a full cycle term under the new policy. What happened in November 2018 was that the establishment used to their friends and family voting causally in May met the rest of our needs. The rest of our needs and doesn't see people like them in office and aren't happy about it. They see the same people in office, year after year, and no matter who runs against them, they are defeated handily. That is because the money power and resources in Arlington, municipal and school board politics, is controlled by quite a small group of citizens that live in the northwest crescent, largely white, centered at a few search churches, paternalistically, involved in the chamber and rotary and still operate like it's 1984 Arnington. So people don't participate. This November, they spoke up and let's look at what happened. Instead of respecting their vote and licking our will, the proponents of this committee had insulted the electorate. And insinuated 63% of this city is either delusional, e-conused or profoundly ignorant. Charmed limits is only one way to ensure leadership doesn't become entrenched. My solution is different and why I'm talking to you today. This solution is to engage the other 80% of the city that currently does not vote in mavenous of elections. Get in step with every other major city in Texas and move municipal and school board elections to November uniform election date currently. This is cheaper for the city. No machines to rent, no staff to pay. It is sure that you hear from the largest electorate. This way, more people participate in local government, learn how it works, trust it, and begin influencing it. For those of us that claim to not be elitist or racist, this is a good thing. Give a 12-year cycle to run it course. You can't review a policy that hasn't been fully enacted. Give November election to take hold. Get every corner of this city engaged and putting people they know in office who truly represent them and guess what? They too, well hate to see their trusted leaders rotated out legislatively. They may understand the value of elected officials with experience. Then and only. Thank you for calling in in your comments, Ms. James. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Linda Wright. We had a couple of speakers signed up before Miss Wright, but we were not able to reach them. Miss Wright, please state your name and resident and address for the record. Hello? Or raise this? Miss Wright, if you could name your television. It was my first time to file a call. I'm sorry, what? Ready to begin? If you can mute your television and that record. Yeah, I am I'm sorry what again. Yeah, I am unmuting it right now. It's muted. Ms. Wright, please state your name and residential address for the record. Yes, my name is Linda Wright. My address is 3911 Tuscanie Court, Arlington, that code 76016. I want to speak again, I called in before, and when the committee was being discussed to be formed, I want to speak on the purpose of this committee, that you are reviewing and possibly proposing a new or different turn limits than what was already approved by the citizens of this city. Why are you doing this when the citizens are already spoken their will? We signed petitions. We'd overwhelm and and we voted to put specific turn limits in place. I don't understand why you think that we were misled or that were ignorant or that were stupid or we didn't know what we were voting for. We knew what we were voting for. We spoke and said, this is what we wanted. Why don't you just tell the mayor and the council members who selected you who want different turn limits than what we approved by our overwhelming vote to go ahead and take the same steps that the citizens of this city took. On their own time they can write and solicit signatures on a petition. If they give enough signatures on it, bring it to a vote by the electorate in this new city. We are not done. We know what we wanted. We chose it. We are trying to subvert what we already said we wanted. This should not be pushed through by a committee that was selected by the council members who don't want their ruling upset by term limits. This is wrong. By taking action on this, you are subverting what we have already expressed is all will, the will of the people of Arlington. Please respect that. Return to the council that the citizens chose what they wanted, ask it on what they wanted, and voted on what they wanted, and they need to follow the rules of what was approved by the citizens of this city, not what the council thinks they want. Thank you very much for listening. I hope you've hardly considered this. It is very upsetting to me that our city leaders are, I can't even call them leaders. Our city representatives are not representing what the city constituents want. Thank you. Thank you for calling in in your comments. Ms. Wright, Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Bob Yarborough. Mr. Yarborough please teach your name and residential address for the record. Hello. Yes, sir. Mr. Yarborough. Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. It's Bob Yarborough 2311 and O'Clayne, Arlington 76012. Go ahead and win're ready, sir. Okay. I'm going to ask that you please respect the vote and leave term limits alone. It seems like committee chair is ignoring minority members who are attempting to keep term limits unchanged. Then those members deserve a minority report option to counsel since they represent the majority of voters who voted yes to term limits. The counsel should have to vote on this minority report to show who is rejecting the role of the people of Arlington. Request a separate committee to look at recall since the council seems so keen on forming citizen committees to look at the issues. I knew what I voted for and got a tremendous amount of glossy mailers explaining everything wrong with term limits. The anti-term limits campaign spent over $400,000 and the four term limits spent $10,000. So the citizens spoke. I voted for three two year terms for mayor and council for a total of 12 years if you serve us both with no options of returning. Returning will lead to like-dwing, caraway and vows. I need not go on any further. I'm sure most people know about that scenario. The mayor's donor, Bob Johnson, is still serving taxpayers to invalidate the 2018 election. Why has a committee been formed when there is still an active court case that is sitting in the Texas Supreme Court? This is costing taxpayers incalculable and incalculable sum of money, possibly over one million already. We should be challenging why seven council members who lost an affair election of the voters is appointing a committee at all. Crime is something we should be focused on, COVID, and a $20 million deficit does not sound good. And I thank you for your time and I hope you listen to me because I speak for a lot of neighbors as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yarrow for calling in and your thoughts Alex please call the next speaker our next speaker is Stephanie Todd. Ms. Todd please teach your name and residential address for the record. odd 37 0 8 Danberry Drive Arlington 76016. Go ahead when you're ready, ma'am. Yes, thank you for taking your time and effort to review the issues of our term limits. Although I believe there is a place for term limits, I believe that the existing limits are way too restricted. leaders form relationships with businesses in Arlington, businesses that are looking to move to Arlington and federal leaders, state leaders, and leaders from other cities. This takes time and our city benefits from this process. It isn't good for our city to have to change in our leadership every few years. Please look into changing the restrictions on term limits for Arlington. Thank you for listening to me a concern citizen. Thank you for calling in and your thoughts Ms. Todd. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Gwen Johnson. Ms. Johnson, please state your name and residential address for the record. Believe we lost Ms. Johnson believe we lost Ms. Johnson. We lost Ms. Johnson, okay. We'll try to recall her. Yes sir. Please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Richard Green. Mr. Green please state your name and residential address for the record. Please state your name and residential address for the record. Please state your name and residential address for the record. I'm sorry I have I've been connected. Yes sir go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Okay that's Richard Green 2114 Cross Creek Court, Arlington, Texas. Chairman Bates and committee members, thank you for your service and Carrie and I, the assignment that you've received from the City Council. For more than six decades, Arlington has emerged as one of the most successful cities in the country by delivering an ever increasing level of public services and facilities to support a better quality of life for its citizens that today number about 400,000 people. We've seen the city grow from a water stop town to a thriving urban community with a strong diverse economy providing jobs and opportunity for all its citizens to achieve their dreams. When you examine that history, what you discover is a classic can-do spirit from the people of Arlington who have consistently, through three generations, stepped up to seize opportunities to increase the city's greatness and positive national identity. That includes multiple decisions they face to build a thriving vista and tourism industry that annually produces significant revenues for the city that serves to keep tax burdens on homeowners among the lowest and comparable cities. That has occurred under a system of local government that allowed voters the freedom to determine who would be our mayor and who would serve on the City Council without limits on how long they wanted them there. That system, which has served us so well, has now been revised to unreasonably curtail voters ability to do that. Term limits is such a popular concept that just those two words on a ballot produces widespread support. But the system we now have as the committee has seen is the most restrictive imaginable. My hope is that the committee will recommend to the City Council that they allow voters the opportunity to revise this restructuring of our government so as to accomplish two vital objectives. First, allow voters the possibility of keeping their choices in office for longer than the current limitations of only three two-year terms. Four or five two-year terms would serve to achieve that result while preserving for voters the opportunity to replace any member of the council in a two-year segment. So we have the best of both worlds. Secondly, eliminate the lifetime ban on council members who have reached the limit of their terms in office. Provide for an opportunity for voters to consider them again after the passage of a two-year period of time of being out of office. Doing these two things will support a better chance to ensure that the best days for our community are as they always have been the ones that lay ahead. Thank you again for your service and the opportunity to speak tonight. ahead. Thank you again for your service and the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you, Mr. Green, for calling in and your comments. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Kelly Kernut. Mr. Kernut, please state your name and address for the record. Kelly Kernut, 505 Southfield, Arlington, Texas, 76013. the county county county county county county county county county county county county county county your time is what our city council members do because we know they are not paid. The $200 a month does not compensate them for the dozens of hours they spend every month. And so to that very point I want to get to your charge and I understand there are a lot of things being discussed that are beyond the scope of this committee but specifically the scope of this committee, but specifically the charge of this committee, potential alternative term limit provisions. And I'm going to address two specific concerns. And by the way, I do respect the will of the voters. The voters did not get an opportunity to choose between different types of term limits, but they've spoken and said they do want term limits. And so to pursue the will of the voters to allow them an opportunity for alternative choices, I appreciate the opportunity to have input on that. The first objective is that it is a verifiable fact that the political stability of a government matters for bond ratings, for investors, entrepreneurs, people and families. They all depend on the stability of government when they make a decision to move to Arlington, to invest in Arlington, or to stay in Arlington. So for that reason, I would advocate an alternative for the voter citizen on to be a longer terms, whether that's increased number of terms or longer terms. Secondly, a second objective is, and it was while we're at it, what a beautiful opportunity to address the time and expense of elections every two years. Believe it would be a wonderful opportunity to increase the length of each of the term. And even if you did not increase the total amount of time that a person serves in office. But two, three year terms, even instead of three, two terms would eliminate much of a lot of the time, at least 50% of the time and money that so many people spend on these elections, for people that are doing just what you're doing to that, volunteering your time. And I still would advocate an opportunity for voters to be able to approve a total longer term, but also potentially and alternatively just each of the terms to be longer to help each of the citizens and the people who volunteer. There's been less time in elections and more time learning about the job and service. Thank you again, each of you for volunteering your time. We appreciate all of it. Thank you, Mr. Kronut for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Chris Dobson. Mr. Dobson, please state your name in residential address for the record. My name is Chris Dobson. I live at 2708 Buffalo Drive, Arlington, Texas. I'd like to thank the members of the Tournament Advisory Committee for coming together again, to discuss this issue. Earlier today, I provided the council with an unofficial poll survey that I conducted. poll survey that I conducted. It had 73 respondents. However, I do not believe that this is necessarily an unbiased random sampling as I was only able to put these into discussion forms on Facebook and Reddit. I do believe however that a survey conducted by this Turn Limits Advisory Committee and perhaps an association with UTA could provide real scientifically valid info to extrapolate how the population of Arlington feels about term limits. I am more than willing to take any questions council or sorry committee members might have about the survey. However, before we do that I would like to make one comment that I find that it seems that council members after serving sometimes eight or ten or twelve or fourteen years tend to get comfortable and insulated within office. One particular incident that comes to my mind is Lana Wolfe, I believe, in your eight of her public service, changing her home state exemption to a house in Plano, having forgotten that she needed to live in Arlington in order to serve upon the Arlington City Council. So, Matt said, if there are any questions, I'd like to reserve what time I have left, but I'd love to answer them. Mr. Chairman, this is Andy Prior. I do have a quick sort of clarification for Mr. Dobson regarding his survey. Mr. Prior was stated earlier that the committee members would have their time to visit after the citizens involvement. We've got 28 and counting number of dollars tonight. Not trying to squelch any type of discussion, but it's not the purpose of this forum for us to go back and forth with our citizens is to listen to them. Thank you, sir. is to listen to them. Thank you, sir. Well, I would like to say then that if you will take a look at the City of Arlington's website, I have campaign finance reports available from the last few years in which I list my cell phone number upon them and any committee members that would like to have a discussion with me about the survey, please feel free to use it, though I will not say it out loud now over the TV. Thank you, Mr. Dupson, for calling in and your thoughts. Alex, please call the next caller. Our next speaker is Gwen Johnson. We were disconnected with her earlier, so we were able to get her back on the line. Is Johnson please state your name and address for the record. This is Gwen Johnson. My address is 716. Pinsdale Drive, Arlington, Texas, 76006. Thank you. Go ahead, winner-ready, ma'am. Good evening. My name is Gwen Johnson. I have lived in Arlington since 2010. First, I would like to thank all of the members of the committee for their service. I watched the video of last week's committee meeting and was very impressed with the amount of research and thought that has gone into your positions. I am aware of the charge of the committee. I am aware that the committee is not considering the elimination of term limits, but is trying to decide on the length of the terms and also considering the lifetime ban. My primary concern is that this committee is considering changes to a law that came into being only two years ago. Many members of the public are under the impression that City Council is attempting to eliminate term limits altogether. There is considerable distrust of current leaders and considerable frustration with City Council members. Any attempt to change the law so soon after it was voted into existence will further frustrate and alienate voters. Much of the discussion at last week's meeting focused on whether terms should be two years or three years or four years and whether there should be a lifetime ban or a waiting period. I think those are not the right questions at this point. Once voters see that their wishes have been implemented and that term leavens are having an effect, we can consider changing the existing law. At this point, there is not enough trust between the public and the city council to consider changing it. As Mr. Wilson and Mr. Prior expressed last week, term limits were instituted only two years ago, and the public does not understand why this issue is being revisited so soon. As Mr. Wilson said, reconsidering this issue now may be premature. Mr. Parker mentioned that open city council seats do not attract many applicants, but it could be that city residents are so demoralized with how the city is being operated, that they do not see any point in running. If Arlington, if Arlingtonians felt that they could have a real impact on city government, more of them would likely be run. Mr. Manus made the point that some issues like the lifetime ban could be put in front of voters again. I agree with this, but I think it is too soon to bring the issue to voters. Trying to change Arlington's term-limit rules so soon after the vote makes voters feel that their voice was not heard. Once the public sees that term limits have actually been instituted, once some of the current city leaders roll off, the public may be willing to change the current law. But right now, many members of the public feel that any attempt to change the law they voted on is an end run around the voters decision. This concludes my remarks. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for calling in and your thoughts. Alex. You're welcome. Please call the next caller. Our next speaker is Luis Castilla. Mr. Castillo, please state your name and residential address for the record. Oh Yes, my name is Luis Castillo 4819 should have been driving our intent Texas Go ahead when you're ready sir Yes, I'm the president of our intent Lulac council 22 320 and I'm the President of Arlington, Lulac Council 22320 and I appreciate the opportunity here to address the committee and I may be upfront and advise the committee members that no disrespect intended, but some of my criticism will be rather pointed in racial. And because I believe that this whole process of term limits is unnecessary, the waste of resources and efforts and timing. The whole purpose of term limits is to weed out or prevent power of hungry politicians from staying in office. That's the whole, that's the underlying reason for it. And here we are trying to accommodate a white male, and it's no secret that the mayor wants to term. In political circles, that topic is circulating, that he wants to serve in the term, and he's the one screwed hand in the effort. And so here we are, accommodating a white male with white privilege, you know, so he can serve another term. This issue was decided two years ago by the vast majority of the citizens of this community. And why are we doing this when there's other more pressing issues in the community such as injustices, racial inequities, we need to be addressing those issues. And here we are dealing with this issue that just to accommodate an individual to maintain the status quo. And what is the status quo here, not in spite of white supremacy. You know, and those committee members who favor altering the, the eternal limit to accommodate the mayor or will be nothing more than an abuser of white supremacy and white supremacy. And we'll be keeping a count on that on those who vote in favor of it, because I mean, they did look at African-American or Latino or some other ethnic minorities, they're hitting the effort. None of this will be happening. But since you have a white male, one in more power, sustain in office, all this is happening. And my orientation takes exception to that. And those members, committee members who voting favor that will be labeled enablers of white privileges, enablers of white supremacy, and we're all in the pion then publicly, and any opportunity that we have, we will call them out. So I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, this issue is taking. And in this practice, I can assure you that racial change since in our country will continue. And that's bad for business. That is strictly bad for business. We support the status quo at a time for the National Environment, all for change. Here we are promoting status quo, a status quo for what and for whom? For a white male. You know, and so, so I hope the committee members vote against this, and that we go addressing other more important things. Is my time up? Yes, your time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Castillo, for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Please introduce the next caller. Our next speaker is Sheila Martinez. Ms. Martinez, please state your name and address for the record. Hello. Yes, Ms. Martinez, please state your name and address for the record. Hello. Yes, Ms. Martins, please state your name and address for the record. Hi, this is Sheila Martinez, 5410 Stage Trail Drive, Arlington, Texas, 76017. Go ahead when you're ready, ma'am. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for your willingness to come together to discuss and review another option of term limits for the city of Arlington. The ones that were passed in 2018 are just too restrictive for this great city. Yes. If you can clear your comments, ma'am, or are you still going? No. Thank you for taking my call. Thank you, Ms. Martinez, for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. The next speaker is Catherine Brin. Ms. Brin, please state your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is Kathy Brin. My address is 4812, Fawn Valley Court, Arlington, Texas, 76017. We'll have when you're ready, ma'am. Okay, thank you all for this time. My vote is my voice. Please don't take my voice away from me. Please don't take the voices of the 62% of voters who voted for proposition use turn limits as stated in 2018. Continuity of government already exists within the city charter with the exception to recall inept council members. I consider myself an informed resoder. I read the many flyers that were sent to me in the mail against term limits. I chose term limits. There's been no evidence-based material to date that suggests a change at this time. I listened to last week's calls or statements by the committee members. Something that spoke to me over and over again was that it takes a year to understand your job. In the world world, most people only get 90 days. So I really think that that should not be a test on the table. And then we should look into that further in a different discussion. The president himself has term limits. We should too, especially as voted for by the voters in 2018. 62% of the people that voted at that time voted for term limits as stated in that proposition. Oh my god sorry I lost my trade but there's nothing more American in this country than abiding by the voice of the voter. I really think the best term limits allowed for more diversity and leadership in their leadership thoughts and direction for the city, especially. I truly respect everybody's position and is in the committee and I thank you for this time and that's all I really like to just add to that conversation. Thank you, Ms. Brin for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Thank you, Ms. Bramford, calling in and sharing your thoughts. Thank you. Please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is John Darowitz. Mr. Darowitz, please state your name and address for the record. My name is John Darowitz. I live at 6203 Gettysburg Drive, Arlington 76002. Go ahead when you're ready, sir. Okay. I'm calling about the term limit issue. I strongly oppose this committee's efforts to overturn the will of the people by altering the current provision. This regulates the term limits of the members of the city council in the mayor. This is a blatant attempt to do what the court said was unlawful by underhandedly subverting the will of the voters. When people have spoken with 63% of the votes, we should honor their votes. This committee is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money. Thank you. Thank you for calling in Mr. Derowitz and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Bob Pierce. Mr. Pierce, please state your name and address for the record. Mr. Pierce, go ahead and state your name and address. Sure. My name is Robert C. Pierce III. Address is 3218. Can you work on it? Are you in Texas? Go ahead when you're ready, sir. Yes. I'm a 38-year resident of Arlington. I have been voting since I was 18. This is the first time I've ever called in on an issue with the City of Arlington. And the reason why? The Boat-R-Barty voted on this issue. Why we spending more tax dollars to rehash the issue that the voters of Arlington said. I to rehash the issues that the voters have already said. I think the reason this is that the existing term-limited, bivariate community just proves why there should be term-limits. Because those elective officials that we have now, without term-limits, have created this committee so that they can get around the term- and set the voters by 60 percent plus a voted four. Why are we doing this? Why are we doing this type of thing? I think we have to stop and look at the issues. This is a democracy. It's not a minority. It's not a government of the privilege. The voters here have overwhelmingly said we want term limits as we voted for, or not stupid, there was enough mailers on both sides of this issue to get it clear to us. So I don't think we should be spending any more money, any more of your time, which is valuable on these term limits. The issue is done and completed. Thank you for your time and also appreciate that you guys are keeping yourself safe and hope you keep the rest of us safe too by spending money where we should be spending money rather than doing another vote on the issue that's already been said. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pierce, for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Aftab Siddiqui. Mr. Siddiqui, please state your name and address for the record. My name is Aftab Siddiqui and my address is 7231 Jurassic Drive, Arlington 76002. Go ahead when you're ready, sir. Okay. Good evening. I'm speaking tonight on terms limits. I strongly oppose this committee's effort to overturn the will of the voters. 63% of the voters spoke in support of term limits in the elections. I would like the city council to focus its attention on real issues that the cities of Arlington are facing instead of focusing on matters already settled. The City Council wants to increase the tax on the residents of Arlington who are reeling from the devastation of coronavirus and its disastrous effect on their pocketbooks. The City Council says that tax increases needed to help the businesses because the City Council cannot help them due to lack of financial resources. Yet the City Council is ready to spend precious financial resources that they claim the city doesn't have on financing another ballot initiative. Let the city council change its priorities and focus on helping the citizens of Arlington. I would strongly urge the committee to forget about the idea of spending thousands if not millions of tax dollars on this divisive and riskful effort. Thank you. Mr. Sadecki, thank you for calling and ensuring your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Kaylee Hubbard. Yes, my name is Kaylee Hubbard. Yes, my name is Kaylee Hubbard. I reside at 6205 Getty's Burp Drive in Arlington, Texas. I'm speaking tonight on term limits. I strongly oppose this committee's effort to overturn the will of the voters by altering the current provision that regulates the term limits of members of the City Council altering the current provision that regulates the term limits of members of the city council and the mayor. This is a blatant tip to do what a court said was unlawful by underhandedly diverting the will of our vote. When people have spoken with 63% votes, we should honor their vote. This committee is unnecessary and a waste of tax appears money. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hoover, for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is John Barry. Mr. Barry, please state your name and address for the record. Hello. Yes, or please state your name and address for the record. Yes, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Yes, sir. This is John Berry. I live at 5500-100 Wood Street in Arlington, 76017. First off, I would just like to say thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you guys this evening. I appreciate what the City Council and Mayor Williams have done all the good work they've done for Arlington and very much support what they're doing. They provided great leadership and business and growth for the City of Arlington and continue to. I strongly believe the current term limits are too short and they'll handicap us going forward. As some have said already, it takes significant time to get from here with city government, the processes, and how it all works to be productive. Some say, a year or some say, maybe gone on two years. I think we need more like three year terms with limited set maybe after four terms. But give our LinkedIn assistance, you can experience needed to continue to grow and improve our quality of life here. So I'd like to see it added as an addendum to visit it. So I'm not against it. I just think they're way too short. They're going to limit our ability to stay on the main stage where we are now, but I think that current teams don't a great job and we appreciate everything you're doing. Thank you. Mr. Barry, thank you for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Paul Johnson. Mr. Johnson, please state your name and address for the record. Paul Johnson, 2430 Park Run Drive, Arlington. Go ahead when you're ready, sir. I'm having trouble hearing, but I think you said go ahead. So I'll go ahead. Thank you, Council Member Spoon, you're time to mind. It's clearly been a put in an awful lot of time and events and I'm in the service. I've always been appreciative very much. I'm here tonight to register my opposition to the current term in its ordinance and its current plan. It's left that I'm generally against term limits. I'm just against the term limit ordinance that we have in its current plan. I think on a local level term limits can be kind of harsh and I think they need to be put together thoughtful and methodically and my impression of the current term when it ordinance is that it was put together a little hastily and it's giving off off a few but I think are unintended consequences of it. So I want to just lay out two reasons really that I oppose it in its current form. And the first one is that it allows council members to serve a relatively short period of time. And the effective idea is that I fear the city is going to be constantly developing council talent rather than reaping the benefits and retaining its council talent. I think it's naive to believe that a new council member can step in and be the most effective council member possible. I think there's a learning curve. And then a council member just like in every profession or really anything we ever do, it takes a while. And so when you only have a few short years to learn your job, to learn the subtleties, to learn really how to how to need, I think we're doing the city of disservice by leaving that talent after they've sort of gone through that learning curve. The second thing, unintended consequence of it, I think, is that it will cause us to council members to have relatively short-term goals and plans for the city. That's not to say that council members won't step outside of their projected term limits, but the council members who back it, who come up with a longer range plan, who put it in place with the dawn after just a few short years and so they're plans that they have for many years down the road, they won't be around to shepherd them through. And so I think we do the city a disservice and cause our leaders to think we're on a short-term realm rather than a long-term realm with the ordinance and its present form. And so my perspective is that really we ought to have two solutions in replacing this ordinance. I'm advocating that it go away. My solution is that in terminus the lengthened from my perspective maybe eight years or so of terminus. And then that after a short sabbatical or a sabbatical in some way, I should say that I council member. Thank you for calling in and sharing your thoughts, Mr. Johnson. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Larry Fowler. Mr. Fowler, please state your name and address for the record. Okay it's Larry Fowler 4900 Morse Heights Drive Arlington 76016. Go ahead when you're ready sir. Thank you. Initially I would say thank you for letting me and the other citizens participate in this process. And I want to say thank you to all of you for agreeing to devote your time and serve on this committee. I mean, we know it is a thankfulest job, but I am so glad that there are citizens out there that will do it. With regard to the issue before you on term limits, let me begin by saying I absolutely oppose term limits. I just, I think every time we have an election, that is a term limit. If the person that's serving on the council or in the city government, even doing what they should be doing, we get to show them what we think with our vote. But having said that, I mean, I am very definitely in the minority, apparently, in Arlington. A majority of our citizens believe that term limits are appropriate. And it's majority rules. And so I think that we owe it to the citizens who believe the term limits are something that we need to come up with a reasonable proposal as far as term limits. When term limits were adopted, there were no choices. There was either your fort or your against it and the majority was for it. and we came up with the current three terms, two years, and I would submit to you that I think if the voters are given a choice for a more reasonable alternative that we should be allowed to vote on that. And two years, I mean, I'd start by saying two years in my opinion is just way too short. I mean, it's barely even going in a two-year period. And then even with three two year terms, six years, I just don't believe that's long enough. We're having all of our city council members roll off and you lose all of your institutional knowledge. I mean, look at the big projects that have gone in on our city, the three bridges, the 360 interchange, 360, the toll lanes, all of those projects have taken more than six years. And so essentially what we end up doing is the institutional knowledge is purely in the civil employees at the city. And you know what, we don't get to vote for them. And so I would prefer that the institutional knowledge remain in our elected officials. And whether they're there for, you know, two years or ten years, we've got to, every time we have the ability and the option to, you know, express our opinion with a vote, I would submit that, you know, that a three-year term is appropriate and I would hope it would seem like you know three or four three-year terms in my belief and I'd you know long enough to begin a project and see it through so and I guess finally I would say that the financial markets they they like stability they don't like instability and we as a city I think with our current term configuration I don't like instability, and we as a city, I think with our current term configuration, I don't think the financial market see that as a long-term stable proposition. It's just too short at the six years. So again, just for a variety of reasons, my opinion is that we should change it and grant longer, a longer term, and at least three or four term limits or terms. So anyway, thank you for letting me weigh in on this. Thank you, Mr. Fowler, for calling and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Betty Constantine. Ms. Constantine, please state your name and address for the record? Hi, my name is Betty Constantine and I live at 58 17 Sterling Green Trail in Arlington. Go ahead when you're ready, ma'am. Okay, I've lived in Arlington since 1979. I'm a resident, mother, social worker, and an Air Force veteran. I'm here to show support for the term limits that 62% of the voters approved on November 6, 2018. I was part of that group that collected over 11,000 signatures to get this measure on the ballot, despite being tremendously outspent by the opposition Arlington residents overwhelmingly, said yes to term limits. I recently read in the Star Telegram that some members of this committee stated that term limits are undemocratic, yet is the most democratic process that brought term limits to Arlington. Our group of citizens saw what they thought was a lack of transparency on the city council and came up with a plan to change that. They drafted a policy, collected the necessary signatures to get it on the ballot, and once placed on the ballot, they campaigned to their citizens to get it approved and were victorious. Isn't this what the politicians tell us to do? If we don't like something, work to change it. What is undemocratic about this? This committee is a perfect example of why the majority of Americans feel that their government does not work for them. The residents of Arlington sent a clear message. They wanted term limits and we're happy with the ordinance as it was written. However, the City Council is now saying that we know what you think you wanted, but let us tell us what you really wanted. Again, 62% of the people that voted in the election in 2018 were happy with the ordinance that was written. Do you really want to be the committee that said 62% of Arlington voters did not know what they voted for? Do you want to be a known as the committee that chose not to listen to the voters? This is being rushed out of the ballot with no town hall by any of the council members or by this committee during a pandemic when it is impossible to have town halls that would provide input from the voters. First, this process should take a year to receive citizen input and second, this committee should be convening in 20 years, not 20 minutes after the election. Please don't be the committee that chose to ignore the voters of Arlington. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Constan. For sharing your thoughts and calling in. Alex, please call the next speaker. The next speaker is Michelle Lecator. Hello? Yes, Mr. Mayor, please. Hello, my name is Michelle Lecator. 186-1 Brown Boulevard, Arlington, Texas, 7606. And I'm calling tonight to, first of all, thank you for your time. I'm sorry that your time is being wasted in this manner by a mayor who can't seem to take a loss like a man. I'm sorry to say that, but I'm here to express my opinion that the term limits need to remain on the city charter as voted by an overwhelming majority of Arlington residents. Just talked that there was no choice. That there was no choice between one version or another is a fallacy when the ballpark issue was put on the ballot. The voters were not presented with the choice of not building one, building a new one, building a smaller one, building a less expensive one. We were given two options. Four, building a new ballpark or not building a ballpark. So people who voted against it didn't want it. We didn't pitch a fit and file a lawsuit to try to stop the construction of it. I noticed that Mr. Green called in earlier and didn't mention that he's spent more than 20 years at City Hall. 10 is mayor and more than 10 years on planning and zoning. He is one of the people who is responsible for the 50,000 apartment units that currently exist in the city of Arlington. The number of apartment units in the city is one of the reasons why many people are in support and voted for term limits. It's the fact that we already have about 50,000 apartments in the city. It apparently is not enough for this mayor and council because this next city council meeting there are at least five, I believe five different projects on the next city council agenda, the agenda that are either involving flipping current commercial, land zoning and Arlington to apartments, or to approve another new complex of 380 units. The prolific apartment building in the city is just one of the reasons why people voted for term limits. The ballpark was another reason. I have a particular interest in this because I worked the polling place for early voting at a North Arlington location during the term limits campaign. And the voter abuse that I witnessed by the anti-extreme term limits side was shocking. I was there for nine out of 10 days of early voting. And what I saw at the polling side was shocking. I was there for nine out of ten days of early voting. And what I saw at the polling place was shocking. It didn't take long until I could figure out every day what message had been emailed to the pale extreme term limit staff. It was especially disgusting to see black voters being targeted, particularly after a Sunday sermon where the pastor of a local church had extorted them to vote against term limits. Some of these people were treated as if they were too stupid to find the door to the Elge Odom Rec Center. There was a certain paid anti-extreme term limits staff who called in last week who literally took these people by the hand to direct them away from the two people who are at the polling place supporting terms to direct them away from the doors or away from the people who are supporting them with the supporting term lines. So please don't abuse, don't subject Arlington voters to this abuse of the polls again and keep termlets intact. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cater, for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Jane Lynn. So these people are treated as if they were too stupid to find the door to the elevator. Ms. Lynn, can you please mute your television? Hey, and I can speak to people that stand on this ramp. You express your feelings. Hi, my name is Jane Lynn. I live at 2403 Havenwood Drive, Arlington, 76018. During a previous committee meeting, one of the members mentioned that what we are witnessing is a democratic process at work. Make no mistake about it. This is not the democratic process at work. Make no mistake about it. This is not the democratic process at work, but rather a means to overturn an election and to undermine the votes of 61,701 citizens. It is authoritarian. The vote know for extreme term-limits team had their opportunity to fight this in 2018 and lost. Now we're wasting precious time and resources during a time when the city is facing a $20 million shortfall as we watch and listen to dialogue which attempts to manipulate the outcome of an election. Public trust is at an all-time low. I live in District 3. A district that has been underrepresented for a very long time. Developers and power brokers controlling this city have been dumping undesirable projects such as apartments, warehouses and gas wells, and southeast Arlington for many years. Our quality of life is going down. The fact that an overwhelming majority voted for term limits in 2018 is a bellweather for needed change. Please respect the democratic process and accept the outcome of the election. It is too soon to revisit this now and it does a great disservice to the citizens of this city. Thank you, Ms. Lynn for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Clay Kelly. Mr. Kelly, please state your name and address for the record. Thank you Mr. Chairman Clay Kelly 1300 kind of record Arlington Texas. Like to all say thank the members of this committee as well as city staff for having worked quite a bit of overtime. All that's we said it would be interesting to talk about some statistics. The statistics are number one, zero percent of this council, previous councils, have ever been investigated for corruption and died for corruption, evidence of corruption, hear this over and over and over again by people and it didn't happen, it hasn't happened in Arlington, it's almost like people wanted to happen. I'll tell you what did happen, okay? There are 19,502 in corporate cities in the United States of America. Arlington voted by Wallet Hub as the 25th best run city in the United States. We have a triple aid bond rating. We have low taxes, quarter cent sales tax, lower than our peer group in this area. Lower property taxes. You know what people want to talk about? Transparency? How about a five star rating from the state comptroller's office? area, lower property taxes. And you know what people want to talk about, transparent? How about a five star rating from the State Comptroller's Office? Those are real statistics. Those are real facts. I find it interesting that a couple of speakers had talked about the people that were led by the hand, by people that were against the term limits during the election. Actually, had three different times where I encountered people that were against the term limits during the election. Actually, had three different times where I encountered people that actually, when I was walking out, minding my own business out of the library and twice out of the sub-cortiles, courthouse, three times. I didn't engage them, they engaged me. And that engagement was, do you believe in term limits? And if so, would you sign this position, petition, okay? I also want you to go to the City Council meeting from August 7th of 2018. This is on the record. You can go to the website just down if you're watching it right now and go to item 12.4 and watch from about the 15th minute of that meeting to the 56 minute of that meeting. And you will find in that meeting that the person that offered, the one person that authored this term limit bill even said that they didn't realize when it was written the retroactivity. So you had 11 weeks or so of signing petitions without people, a, spending what is about 48 seconds to read this. All they said was, term limits, term limits, term limits, sign the petition. When the author of that petition said that they'd be willing to challenge it after the fact if somebody tried to run, those are the facts. This has become a very emotional issue and I would ask people to set the motions aside and seek the facts and seek the truth. Thank you for your service. and seek the truth. Thank you for your service. Thank you, Mr. Kelly, for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Shandra Mensel. Is Mensel, please state your name and address for the record? Hello. Yes, ma'am, please state your name and address for the record. Shandra, Menzel, 625, Kingswood Drive, Arlington, Texas, 76001. Go ahead when you're ready, ma'am. I want them to call in tonight to let you guys know that I voted for a term one and we want them enforced and It's undermining the vote by trying to overturn it and you know, I love Arlington And this is the American dream city, but when you're trying to overturn a vote that should stand That's not American dream city to me Thank you for letting me speak Thank you, Ms. Minslewell for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is Kim Fale. Ms. Fale, please state your name and address for the record. Yes. Hello. Yes, ma'am, please state your name and address for the record. Yes, Kim Feele, 409 North Elm Street, Ireland'am. Please state your name and address for the record. Yes, Kimfield for 09 North Elm Street, Ireland and Texas. Go ahead when you're ready, ma'am. Okay. You guys are from a committee that is assisting in the what I feel is illegal to co-op, you're using the charter as a device. You undo either citizens brought to a ballot just because you can amend the city charter every two years doesn't mean that you can undo what the citizens voted on. It's wrong. It's wrong. It is wrong. You had a chance to work with Zach Maxwell while the language was being developed and the council did not want to work with him. And I remember in real time when Mayor Williams, I don't know if this was when he was running when he was just first elected, but I remember being there when he said he would only be a one-term mayor. And so that was the false promise. I also remember in one of the day sessions when we were, they realized we were going to have this item on the ballot, that they were already getting a committee together. And I remember then saying that the committee would not have former council members on it, and yet Paulie Parker is on this committee. So another false comment. The VAS was not able to present some items, and I saw this on Facebook. One of them was 20 out of 24 committee members, pointed by council members who actually opposed term limits. So we've got the majority of the people in this committee working for him already. There were also 154 comments back in November 2018 on Facebook when the council expected to appoint this committee and the majority of the current from the citizenry was angry. The Council of People have rubber stamped gas walls and they've run about the known attacks on the new stadium. We've got a 20 million budget deficit. We really want term limits. I would like to read something else I saw on Facebook. One of the, it was on all in Texas top on censored. It's persons on your very committee says, I still am a termless committee. It is a false image of citizen input. The citizen gave them, but almost two years ago, the committee is stacked with women supporters, therefore the outcomes is predictable. They won't counsel numbers terms to be extended from serving for two years to three and in the middle four terms, making it 12 years. What's the cool off period where our counsel person turns out to sit out in the next few years after that they can really get to position. The counsel person during the cooling off period would be no more than a playholder, not a true representative of the citizenry. In other words, should the modifications pass Williams because run again and again, plus K-PART, who has already been on the council 15 years, my time is up, but thank you for allowing me to give my feedback and read a couple of comments on Facebook. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Fale, for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, please call the next speaker. Our next speaker is John Bergdorf. Mr. Bergdorf, please state your name and address for the record. Good evening, John Bergdorf, 2514 Highgate Drive, 76016. I just want to quickly echo the sentiment of many residents who have called in tonight and in past weeks who are four terminates but against this particular plan. There are many aspects of the proposal that I believe would curtail the history of stable leadership that has helped this city achieve so many great things over the last several decades. And I just think this committee is certainly a big step in the right direction to give Arlington voters what they wanted, of Arlington voters what they wanted, but also do so in a reasonable proposal that is favorable for everyone here in Arlington. So just thanks for letting me speak. Appreciate this committee and what you're doing. And thank you all for volunteering to do this and have a good evening. Thank you very much, Mr. Bergdorf, we're calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, do we have another speaker? Yes, sir. Our next speaker is Olga Bosic. Ms. Bosic, please state your name and address. I take the leadership that has helped this city achieve so many great things over the last several decades. Please mute your TV. Hello. Yes, please mute your TV. Yes, yes, I'm ready. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. Yes, my name is Olga Bozic. My address is 715, Validie Drive, Arnick and Texas, 76010. Go ahead, would you ready, ma'am? Thank you. And thank you for letting me speak, one zero. Go ahead, were you ready, ma'am? Thank you and thank you for letting me speak, Councilor. I wanted to say that I voted for term limits on November 6, 2018 and I completely understood what I was voting for and that was term limits to limit the terms of the council people and the mayor. And I don't think that we need a committee to change what we as 61, 700, 61,700 voters voted for. And I just think that we need term limits. And I'm all for them. I just don't think that we need a committee to change what we voted for. That's all I have to say, but thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bozig for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Alex, do we have any other speakers? Thank you. Now so that concludes our speakers this evening. Okay. That concludes our Citizens' input on term Limits and term links. We'll now move towards a Committee discussion on Possible recommendations for City Council. As Karen Conard will now lead our discussion on recommendations for the City Council. I'll be taking a step back and taking more of a committee member role during this discussion. I Should note that we do need to be somewhat concise in our commentary when we're commenting and I'll turn it over to Karen. Thank you, Karen Thank you, chairman bays Good evening members of the committee It's good to see you all tonight. I Believe you all have the presentation that we're gonna try to work through here. I think based upon the last two meetings, we're at a point right now where I think the committee's discussion should focus on a few decision points. And so we're gonna get into that presentation here and try to get your input and your ideas and your perspectives on a few decision points to see if we can get to some consensus to provide a recommendation to the council members. I'd also just remind you that we're gonna be doing this by using your raise your hand function that we kinda tested out earlier. So if we can go to the first slide. I think where we are now is to look at a couple of decision points related to the charge that the City Council has given us. And those decision points relate to term length and term limits. And under the decision point related to term limits, there are a couple of subpoints that I want to bring your attention to. And we try to flush those out into under term limits issues related to a consecutive term limit and or a lifetime term limit, any potential length of a cooling off period to run for the same seat, additionally under that, issues related to number of consecutive terms, and finally under that number of total terms. So with those two high-level decision points related to our charge, I'd like for us to maybe start with where we are now, what we currently have in the cities, next slide. So as we all know, under the current City, Orange and City Charter, Council Member Turnle limits are three to your terms for a total of six years. The mayor has a term limit of three to year terms for a total of six years. And then there's also a lifetime term limit of 12 years, which means a person could serve six years as a councilmember and potentially six years at the mayor for a total of 12 years, or vice versa, they could serve six years at the mayor, and then six years as a council member. So that's kind of the state of where we are right now. So with that current state in mind, I'd like to start with kind of some definitional terms so that we are all operating from the same page when it comes to what these particular issues mean. So when we talk about term lens, we're talking about the number of years in which a council or a mayoral term last before a new election is held. And in our case here, that's two year terms. And let me just say we're providing those example boxes at the end of some of these slides just for informational purposes for you to give you kind of a visual idea of what these definitional terms look like. Next slide please. So with that kind of background of where we are, which is up there in the right hand corner and that definition of term lens. I think we're at our first discussion and decision point for the committee. So with that in mind, I'd like for us maybe to start some discussion on that first bullet point of does the committee want to make a recommendation to council on term length. And the box that you see there to the right is how we're going to kind of keep track of how the committee on these decisional points is going to see if we can get some consensus based on different potential term lengths that the committee may want to recommend to the council. So with that bottom line question let's start there there are a couple other questions there and I think we'll take those one at a time but I think we should start with the first decision point of can we find some consensus among the committee on making a recommendation to the council related to term length and the options are two years three years four years five years or other or other. Do we have anybody that would like to participate in any discussion or do you have any questions related to this first decisional point? Are you asking for comments then? Yes, this is a time where we're going to try to do the raise the hand function, try to get your input, your ideas and your comments to see if we can get to some type of consensus. Yes, sir. Okay, at my considerable peril, I'll jump in at Steve Schorty. And I would think that we should keep two years across the board. It is clearly the regime under which we've been operating for a very long time. And if we are going to be making other suggestions on the number of terms, I think it's probably very important that we keep the two years as is to make only minimal changes to what we have at the moment. Furthermore, the point was made last time by a couple of speakers. And I happen to agree with this. That if it's longer than two years and somebody's really doing a bad job, that is too long a hideous to wait to get them out. So those are my comments. Thank you. Miss Wilson. I'm sorry, Mr. Wilson. I'm sorry, I didn't see that. I was trying to see your raised hand, Mr. Wilson. I'm sorry, Mr. Wilson. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. I was trying to see your raised hand, Mr. Wilson. I wanted to clarify to make sure we cause on the left, on the question you have a yes or no, but then on the chart, you're looking at the different years. So we wanted to stay the same, which would be the two years. What I guess I vote would be no. Yes, sir. Okay. I just want to clarify that. Thank you. Nikki Hunter. I don't see your house here. Ms. Hunter. Yes, sorry. I'm having a little trouble hearing. So it's clarified what we're saying. What we're voting on is. Does the committee want to make recommendations to change the current term limits as they are? Is that what we're saying yes or no to? Yes. Yes, ma'am. That's what we're trying to determine if you want to make a recommendation to the council on changing term length. Are we able to make those comments now? Are we kind of waiting to the end for that? No. What I would like to have is kind of as we go through the presentation that we make our comments, I would like to walk us through each of these specific points. And we're going to try to keep a running tab of the input and using the raise your hand function, try to determine if we can get to some consensus on each one of these specific, a change in the issue of termlets? I'm sorry. A recommendation for the committee want to make a recommendation on the issue of term lists, a change in the issue of term lists? I'm sorry. A recommendation on term lists. Okay, so for me, if I can make a recommendation at this point, I would like to make a recommendation. Okay. Okay, so I think just, you know, by listening to everything that everyone has said and listening to the callers. I do think in order to do this fairly for the voters for all voters and to have everybody's voice heard. We need to really do. I think we do need to look at the links of the term limits and the term links on there. I think looking at extending it anywhere out, I know your second question we haven't got to that yet, but I'm a big fan of making it just a little bit longer for the mayor, just because the mayor does have a bigger job maybe than anybody in there. He is the fate. He or she would be the face of Arlington. So I think definitely two years is not, it's just not a, you know know what we have currently is just not enough I think it's too strict for city like Arlington if you think about it We're not Dallas. We're not for work and we're not Houston for Arlington and what's worked in Arlington has been Good leadership starting from bandagriff on down. I think we've had great leadership But you can't put a number on leadership and you know you know, all the colors that call them, they had great points on there. I'm not so sure about the race thing that was brought up. I don't understand why we're even considering why race should be an issue. When you vote for someone, you vote for that person because of their leadership, because of their leadership skills. So that's irrelevant. I'm sorry it is. And that's my comments on that. I'm sorry. This is Jeannie. I. You hear us. It's your turn. Mr. Prior. No, I didn't hear you, if I'm on. I think you all were muted for a second there. I was. Okay. You were next in line. Thank you. I think I've made my opinion fairly clear in previous meetings, but I appreciate what Mr. Shorety just said a moment ago. If we're going to make any kind of change at all, it needs to be very small and incremental. And I think changing the term length at this time is not the way to do that. So I am not in favor of any changes in term links. I think that would croit, as I mentioned last week, quite a bit of confusion in terms of how to stagger the changes. And it would not be a simple just flip of the switch to a new length in term. And so at this time, I am definitely not in favor of any recommendation to do changes in term links for anyone, City Council members, Councillors at large or the mayor. Thank you. Thank you. The next person is Mr. Charlie Parker? Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. I am also in favor of two-year terms. I don't know how we went down the bunny trail of districts or at large, but a council member is a council member. I think if you mix and match the mayor with the council members, you're going to get involved in some issues concerning the state constitution and changes in the state and changes in the state, in differences between council members and mayors' length of terms. That we had that illustration on the first meeting, I believe, that Molly gave. Also, I think that three-year terms has been on the ballot either once or twice. Molly, you could probably correct that and it has failed on both issues. So I'm in turn I'm in favor of keeping the terms at two years for everyone. Thank you. Next up is Chairman Bates? Yes, Karen. Thank you. When I originally came into this committee structure, I stated openly that I wanted to have an open mind and consider all alternatives, though I will tell you that I did come in with somewhat of a bias towards three-year terms. I have since reversed that and would like to keep saying two-year terms that we've been operating off of primarily because I want the will of the voters to still have an impact on our elections here in Arlington. And if somebody's not doing a good job, the voters should be able to vote them out. So I'm in favor of two-year terms. Next up, Cindy foot? Yes, I am recommending longer term lengths. I'd like to see three year term lengths because of the size of our city. I'd like that option to be out there on the ballots and let the voids of the people be heard in regards to and let the voice of the people be heard in regards to the length of the limits because many voted for term limits, but the options of different choices were not there. So that's my recommendation. Thank you. Next up, Steven Zimmer? Thank you. I was taken by the fact that it takes some up time to learn a job. I, therefore, was going to propose three-year terms. I'm taken by the fact that we have the XCD Councilman and others that think two years might work. I still think that three years would give a person more time and less to learn the job or to do the job that are stated and wouldn't have to run to the next, raise money for the next election. So I'd be in favor of three, but it sounds like if we got a major consensus for two, I could be swayed. Thank you, sir. Next up, Jeannie DeCon. We can't hear you, Mr. Conn. We can't hear you. No, we can't hear you, sorry. Jeannie, hear me now? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Perfect. I am. Interested. I also had been thinking and leaning more towards three years versus two years for the same reasons that Mr. Zimmer mentioned. But I think that based off of consensus and the conversation that we will likely have over number of terms, I could agree on two years. I also would like to make the recommendation that we do have separate recommendations for mayor and council member seats. Having those terms be the same for each the mayor and the council member not mixing those as Mr. Parker referenced. And then finally the question about the separating the district council members and the at-large council member seats. I think that that originated from discussion during the first meeting that just wanted to clarify that both of those groups have different constituencies, but also to the point of not wanting to suggest too many amendments to this and to make sure that the voice of the voters is still maintained that that might be something that could be considered at a later point in time and just not you know assigning too many changes during this phase of the conversation. So I would not be in favor of separating the district council members and the out large council member seats at this time. Thank you. Yeah, we're going to bring up next up is Mr. Ray Whittworth. All right, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I too am in favor of only two years per term. For simple reason, it gives the power to the voters to make a decision if they invoked somebody that also in turns out just to be not doing anything. Now then, first of all, if you are applying for a job, any job out there, especially in the business world, you have a 30 day to 90 day probationary period to make it or you're gone. Now, teachers, a lot of folks don't know this and I used to be a teacher. Teachers contracts were renewed in March. That is eight months since they were hired not a year. They are evaluated and they do not meet the principal standards. They're gone. So that's less than a year. So you've got to hit the floor run. You've got to research that position that you want to run for and represent the people in your district and or city if you should choose to be the mayor. So two years as it is, needs to remain. Thank you, sir. Next up, Rob Cronin. Yes, thank you. You know, I hear a lot of people talk about the 30 days, 90 days to learn a job. I need to remind everybody this is not a full-time job. City Council is not a full-time job. It's not a paid position. There's a lot of things that I think that the general public doesn't even know that council members in the mayor have tasked with. I heard some of the public comments with regards to approving apartment complexes and then regards to a $20 million deficit. Those are two things. The city council member has the obligation to meet the HUD requirements as laid out in the city's consolidated plan, which speaks to the housing needs of the city. And then they also have the obligation of providing a diverse tax base for the city to avoid a $20 million deficit. Granted, you know, COVID was a big hit and a big impact on this $20 million deficit. Granite, you know, COVID was a big hit and a big impact on this $20 million deficit. So I am in favor of extending the length of the terms. I'd even say to go, I'm going to be the minority here, but I didn't say to go as long as four years for the length of the terms. Thank you, sir. Next up is Brian Acosta. Yeah, I would like to. I was also open to, you know, three-year terms, but. Based on what I've heard so far, I think the best course to action is, like Andy said, to do more and incremental changes if we do any changes at all. I think that we run a risk of getting turned down in the polls if you try to do three or four year terms. So I am for two year terms. And yeah, that concludes my comment. Thank you, sir. Next up, Ms. Patricia Noe? Yes, I am also for two year terms. I believe that two years definitely gives them an opportunity to do to get in the office if it's their first time and that the voters aside after the two years is up. But definitely we should keep the two year terms first across the board for everyone. Thank you ma'am. Next, Mr. Billy Wilson. I did not have another comment. I just noticed this. He keeps raising his hand and I know we had trouble earlier. I wasn't expecting by would recognize that. Thank you. Next step, Mr. West, Manus. next step. Mr. West, man, is? Yeah. My biggest problem with the whole term on this thing and the election was the lack of choice. And it was either all of this or nothing. And it seems to me, and as we're talking about this, we really have three questions. You know, how long, how many consecutive terms and should there be a ban from running in after a certain number of terms? Why can't that go on the ballot? Why do we have to pick numbers for them to choose from that we suggest? Why can't the ballot just be, what should it be? How long should the term be? Say, given the choice of two, three, four, five, how any consecutive terms should there be? You know, two, three, four, zero, I don't know. And then should they be prohibited from running for office after serving so many terms in that position? It seems like why don't the voters get to make that decision? Why do we have to present a packet to them? It's going to necessarily exclude some of these. Again, which is what got us here last time, the lack of options. That's my commentary. I think the voters can make this decision by making the choice themselves instead of us presenting one that also might not be as palatable to some as the others. Like I said, I believe in the democratic process. I think that's how you get a good cross-section and understanding of what everybody wants on this hot topic. And that's that's that would be my recommendation. Thank you, sir. Molly, you want to address that? Karen, let me just kind of just sort of address that very briefly. So when we're given the citizens the ability to vote on a proposition, unlike when they're given the ability to vote on a candidate for a position, they have to be given the ability to either vote yes or no towards that proposition as opposed to sort of a multiple choice, pallet of options if you will. So unlike when voting for candidates, propositions are voted and given the option of yes or no if you will, so unlike when voting for candidates, propositions are voted and given the option of yes or no, if you will. Thank you. Next up is Mr. Jim Maybach? Thank you. I think it's apparent from the input we've gotten from the emails as well as the call-ins that it seems to me that there was a lot more negative, leave it like it is today than the war in the previous call-in. The other call-in, I think there were previous people saying we want options and there are more people asking for that. So it's kind of, it's almost kind of an equal from a community input standpoint in my mind, maybe even somewhat equal on our community that we've been tasked to come up with recommendations. And so that's good. That's what global process is about. Everybody having an input and having a saying. So you know, you can vote on charters to the city that change the charter on a particular item every two years. So you know, this saying that we're doing something illegal is absolutely incorrect. So getting to the term limits, I'm absolutely fine with two-year term limits or even three. The reason I'm saying too is that's what we've had. It's never been a problem to your term limited. We hear people gripping about having to rerun and costing them so much more money to rerun. But hey, two years and and you know, Ray Whitworth mentioned, hey, if we've got a bad candidate in there, we should have the right to get him out. So, you know, every two years is a democratic situation that is worked fine for Armit and I think the bigger question that we're here for today is how many is that going to be the question and then when we get to that in the next few minutes so but that's all I had to say thank you. Mr. Hassan. Your own mutants are okay. Well I am for, I am for two years, not for any other reason, but that's what people voted on. And they had a clear choice. If they wanted longer term or more term, they could have refused to vote on that. Or they could have said no and voted for and with anti-term anti-term limit proposition. So people are not that naive and that is wrong to assume that they didn't know what they're voting on or they didn't know what is the difference between two years or three years or three term or four term they had they they knew all the all the things when they voted and It's a 26% gap between four term limit and anti-term limit People 26% is a big gap. So if there is some randomness, there always is randomness in any polls, even your elections also, people don't know whom they're voting for. So anyway, I'm gonna vote for two years. I had a question. You said the consensus, what exactly consensus means? When are we going to have like if everybody say the same thing, then we will have consensus or is there some kind of. Mr. Mr. Hussan, what I'd like to do is give everybody the opportunity to have input on the different questions that we have before the committee. And then based upon, you know, kind of the feedback, then I'm going to ask for, I'm going to kind of summarize what I've heard. And then ask for people's show of support is am I correctly stating what that consensus is. And then I will ask the people who maybe are not in favor of that if they'd like another opportunity to show or to express a different opinion. So that's what I'm trying to get to is to allow people to express their opinion to determine if we can get to some consensus. And then I'm going to ask you, if I once we get through, I think we have one more speaker, once we get to the end of that. I'm going to ask everybody to use your raise your hand button to determine whether or not I've properly stated what I believe the consensus may be. And I don't have digital hand, so I can just raise my physical hand. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Next up is Ms. Jessica you. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Next up is Miss Jessica Black. Hi. I think I wanted to echo a lot of what Dave and Annie had said. I think the conference would just be for two-year terms across the board. I feel like that keeps our representatives accountable to the voters because you're going to have a face of the voters every two years and then kind of differentiating between an at-large seat and a district seat to me and have a layer of complication that I don't think we necessarily need and as far as you know lengthening for the mayor, I think given the fact that we have a mayor, city manager, from up government, that there isn't a strong enough justification. I mean, the mayor, although he has additional duties above and beyond, the city council member is essentially just one of nine votes on the council. So for simplicity, for fully people accountable, the voters, I would say just two years across the board. for fully people accountable about us, I would say just two years across the board. Thank you. Next person is Ms. Yen-Win. What I recommend for us to build the tea of the governments in the city and for the stability of the governments in the city and for the effectiveness. I would recommend two or three for city council and also at large, but at least one more length for the mayor. So for instance, we have two to four council, then three for mayor. So for instance, we have 22 for council, then three for mayor. So it's actually whatever it is, I would like to lease a little bit longer for the mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Dickerson, are you trying to raise your hand to speak. Yes, okay, we can't hear you. We see you trying to maybe push one of the buttons on your computer and we'd love to hear your input. Okay, can I speak now? Yes, you can. Yeah, there you are. Okay. I am for two year term limits all the way through. And wanted to add a couple of things. The reason why we are here today. Is that. Mayor was the sore loser along with the rest of the council. Okay, Mr. Dickerson. Mayor, Mayor, stop you right there. I would like for us to have plenty of opportunity to do. Can I just stop you right there? I'd like for us to like see. And they chose not to. They chose not to. And you are insinuating that 65,000 plus people didn't know what they were doing. You're basically calling them a lane brain. Nobody appreciates that. I have news for you. I would just like for us to maybe, can I just say, can we just maybe stick to the presentation and kind of how we're trying to get to consensus. I think we've heard a lot of the background. We've heard a lot of the citizen input about maybe what did or didn't happen. I really don't want to maybe get back into the insinuations and allegations. I really want to try to move us as effectively as I can tonight through what I think we've laid out is kind of some decision points. And so I really would ask your indulgence and just maybe trying to help us stick to this so that we can work through it a little bit more efficiently. And if we can, maybe get us out of here tonight. I mean, I appreciate your input. You've given some great input to the committee, but I really want us to try to just focus on the presentation. These questions we have before us, I think we're maybe potentially coming to some consensus on that. And I just ask if you help us with that through the comments to try to stick through this. And I don't think it's very productive for us to go back over maybe what the mayor council didn't. We have a charge before us. I think we're trying to work through these decision points. And I really, really just ask you, please try to hold your input to what we're trying to decide here tonight. Can I say something? Of course you can. Those same 65,000 people who voted for term limits, if you manage to try and change it, it's going to be 100,000 next time because people feel slided, okay? I understand your opinions Mr. Derrick and Neil. So at the end of the day, then what's going to wind up happening if you try and mess with them, you messing with the citizens, okay? All new, kind of. Can I refocus your comments on? And nothing but spend hundreds and thousands of dollars for nothing? Can I refocus your comments on giving us some input on whether or not you want to make a recommendation on term lens? I mean, if you'd like to do that, I'd really would like your input so we can try to move this. I already said it. Okay. Thank you. Next up I think is, I think we've probably, I think we've gone through everybody who maybe wants to have input. Real quick. May I interject something real quick please? Sure. Okay. Could we, before we move on, take about a five minute break. I think some of us would like to revisit the facilities. Sure. Mr. Cameraman, is that a high? Yes, we'll reconvene at 840. Thank you. Please keep your cameras on. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you We're going to be prepared to reconvene. It's 840. Turn it over to you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I think everybody who has indicated, I'm sorry. Miss Hicks, would you like to give some input on that first decisional point? Yeah, yes, I would. decision or point. Yes, I would. But it doesn't relate to what we've been hearing for the last couple of meetings and the citizens input. What I'm trying to figure out is, oh, we're going to have to rehash all of this. And how will I know what I specifically voted for or I guess? That's a great question. So I want me to show. Let me walk you through how we're going to try to show consensus because I believe that we promised the committee that your individual input would be reflected if the committee came to some consensus. So if you have the handout, the PowerPoint that we're working for, if you'll go to page slide 20, which is the last one, and we're going to show it up on the screen, it's shown on the screen. So what we're trying to do, and we have two people here, that's why we're using the raised hand, once we get using the raised hand. Once we get through the input, the people who just gave input on whether or not what their opinion was on term lengths, we're then gonna ask a foundational question. Does anybody want to change it? So what I've heard, and let's use that with what I've heard the feedback so far. Based upon the what I've heard, and let's use that with what I've heard the feedback so far. Based upon the feedback I've heard, I believe that there is a consensus that term let's stay at two years. And I want people who are in favor of that then to people who are in favor of that then to show that, you know, through your raised hand. I think there were some people who indicated that they wanted to consider three-year terms. So I'd like for that to also be reflected through raising of your hand. And we're going gonna record that. So the consensus that I think I heard was stay currently at two years, and I believe there were some other people who indicated that they would like to consider three years. And I'd like for those folks to indicate that by raising their digital hand. And we're gonna record that. So on that page, we will record who are how many, who and how many were in favor of staying at two years and those who maybe wanted to go to three years. Who wants to make a change, I guess, is the way we should phrase it because I believe it consensus that we heard was that most people want to stay at two years. So in order to record it, I think the best way to do it is that who would be in favor of making a change. So if those people maybe could raise their digital hand. Okay, there's one. I'm sorry. I think they're, let me, let me say it one more time. The consensus from the committee seems to be to stay at two years term lengths. Who would like to change that? Who would like to increase that? Who are the members that expressed an opinion on changing that to If you would raise your digital hand, we have you miss when and miss foot and miss hunter. Is there I'm sorry miss miss foot miss hunter miss when is that it? Okay, we have recorded that. So what our recommendation on slide 20 will look like is that all the other committee members will be reflected as having the consensus of the committee to be to stay at the current two-year term with the members whose names that just call indicating that they would like to have a change. Is that clear? And we're going to work through all the questions like that. I'm sorry we also want to make sure that you understand that Miss Aresola could not be here today. However, she did call in and left her opinion about this issue. And I think somebody's gonna read that into the record for us. Okay, the member Amanda Aresola is in favor of two year terms. Okay. Is there any more questions on that? I think we'd like to move to the next issue of whether or not the committee wants to make a separate recommendation on term lengths for mayor and council seats. Okay, okay, everybody's okay. No different. That's for everybody. Okay. And I do also believe that the consensus I heard from the committee was that they don't want to make any separate recommendation to separate out at large or district council seats. I don't think there's anybody, is there anybody that wants to make a change to that? So the consensus will show that there was nobody who wanted to separate out either the mayor, council member, and nobody who wanted to make a change to separating out district or at large council seats. Is that correct? Or is anybody opposed to that? Okay, let's move to the next slide. And these are just some definitional terms as we try to get into our next decision point. And this has to do with consecutive terms and we wanted to make sure, of course, that we're on slide six now, that the members of the committee were all on the same page of what the definition is when we talk about consecutive terms. And so that means the number of terms a person can serve if reelected in a row without a break in service. So when we go to the next slide, we also want to talk about a definitional item related to total lifetime terms. And to make sure that what we're talking about when we talk about that, that's the number of terms served by a candidate over their lifetime. The next definition that we want to make sure that we all understand is the cooling off period. That's a term that has come up many times as we've talked over the last several weeks. And that's the amount of time that a person must wait before holding office again. And a cooling off period is used with the consecutive term limits. So, there's also the possibility that when you're talking about consecutive terms, consecutive terms with total lifetime limit, that's a system that has a consecutive term limit that can also limit total terms served over a lifetime. So now with those definitional items behind us, we come now to start like we did before. And I think what I'll do is just, you don't make sure that we can get it going at order. The kind of the first question is does the committee want to recommend a consecutive term limit? And if you if you'll look up in the right hand corner of slide 10, you'll see that currently there are three total terms for council members and three total terms for council member. And so that is what currently we have in the city of Arlington. and the city of Arlington. Is that distinguishing between district and out large because it just says the exact same thing. Retail terms council member, three total terms council member. Well, I think that should have been three total terms mayor. I think that was a typo. Thank you, sir, for that. Are you ready for input? Yes, sir. I think we have the first speaker is Mr. Maybach. Thank you. I want to thank everybody for their time on this committee. It's just a lot of time. And this is one of the reasons why I like Arlington, Texas, that there's a lot of people that care and are putting their time forth. So in light of your, I'm going to make a recommendation for, for, limit, four terms, four, council district, council members and districts or at large the same, leave it the same. That would be eight years consecutive. And then Mayer, my recommendation for Mayer is five terms. Consecular, can I just make sure that consecutive deals with back to back? So currently, the city's charter doesn't say whether or not they have to be back to back terms. It just says that you can serve two, three year terms so you can serve two this year and then five years from now you can serve another two and then another. So consecutive has to do with how many terms can you serve in sequence back to back? Good. And currently it doesn't speak to that. It just has a total limit. It doesn't speak to consecutive. And it has a total lifetime. Okay, well I'll get to that lifetime. Okay. Lifetime's on here too. So, well, I'll get to that lifetime. Okay. Is lifetime's on here too, so? Yes, sir. It's consecutive limit for city council members would be four to your terms. Doesn't matter if in the district or at large, and then the mayor would be five to your terms. would be five to your terms and a lifetime limit on anybody of 30 years. So if they wanted to come back and do another round they could do partial but that would be my recommendation. Thank you sir. Next speaker is Andy Prier. Thank you, sir. Next speaker is Andy prior. So I Realized the current charter does not speak to consecutive terms. And I think If we're separating it out from consecutive versus lifetime terms. This needs to be a consecutive term, limb needs to be, then the lifetime terms obviously. Since I want the smallest possible change in adjustment, if any at all, I would not recommend that we insert a conservative term limit adjustment unless it is less than three terms. So consecutive limit of say two terms might be reasonable, but otherwise I would not recommend any insertion of a consecutive term limit separate from the total lifetime term limit. And let me just say, Mr. Prior, you can have both at the same time. They're not mutually. I realize that. Okay. Okay. Yes. No, I realize that and I wanted to clarify before I said further what I was really thinking because I want to make very clear that if we're talking about lengthening the lifetime limit, That's one conversation, but if we're talking about a consecutive limit, it absolutely has to be shortened to whatever lifetime limit we're thinking about. And so I wanted to be very clear in how I stated that. So at the moment, I would say if we're keeping things as is as much as possible or making very minor changes, then I would be in favor with a two term consecutive limit. Otherwise, I think we should leave it alone and just leave it as is with the lifetime limit. Thank you. I just want to be clear that what we tried to do here was separate out because you can have both. So I think the way I think I'd like to have the discussion is are you interested in trying to come to consensus on consecutive terms and that could be the consensus could be yes or no. And then once we get through that, that then are you interested in coming to some consensus on a total lifetime limit? So it's more of a yes or no for both of those. And that's, I think, the way we wanted to try to build upon maybe the next decisional point that you have. Next up is Patricia Nellie? Yes, thank you. I believe the consecutive terms should be five terms. For one reason is the incumbent is doing a really good job. Why not give them their freedoms, their rights to run again for reelection and give the freedoms and the rights to the voters to vote either against them or for a new candidate that's on the ballot. I believe in our freedoms are being jeopardized and I'm a teller supporter to always maintain those freedoms and wish and error put these barriers on people who if they're not doing a good job, well then the voters will fill them out. They are doing a good job. Well, let's keep them. I don't understand why there's a problem with maintaining the offices of our leaders that are really have shown in the past the good jobs that you're doing without our current council and mayor and those before them aren't them we've been stale we have with a grown, we would not have the cowboys. We would not have stams. Our entertainment district would be suffering. And our citizens, property taxis are some of the lowest. There's a lot of hostility against our council and mayor. And I just don't understand it, because I appreciate my freedom tonight. So I appreciate living in Orange and for 36 years. So I would say conservative, consecutive five term limits, maybe even six, but I would say at least a minimum of five. Next up is Mr. Crown. Yes, thank you. I'd like to see. We discussed from previous meetings. I'd like to see. At large council members treated separately than the district council members much like the mayor's treated separately. So, you know, if it would have stayed three terms, you could do three terms at the district level, three terms at that large level, and then even possibly go three terms to mayor. You know, just given we get Rockstar council members that want to serve, you know, they can, you know, the entire city votes on the out large members, much like they do the mayor. That's a way to preserve that continuity of good leaders. That a lot of people have stressed that is needed. And that's one of the biggest concerns that I hear when people talk about the term limits is losing the continuity of good leaders. And so I think by giving, treating that log members separate from the district and also separate from the mayor. So you could do you know three terms, three terms, three terms. I think that's a solution to help preserve the continuity. Thank you, Mr. Cronin. Next up is Mr. Charlie Parker. Thank you. I also agree with a lot of the, my colleagues on this committee that I think we should have at least a four year or I should say four terms and I think we've decided on two years as a commitment. So, and the reason I say that is because a lot of people have been throwing around the 22nd Amendment, and they've been doing it erroneously. And essentially, the 22nd Amendment states that yes, you can serve two years as two terms as president, and therefore your terms, but it also says they can serve two more of a term that they weren't elected to. In other words, Harry Trimman, the reason for the 22nd Amendment was because FDR was in, I think, his second month of his fourth elected term when he passed over an aneurysm. So that thing, the situation, I think that we shouldn't treat our elected officials at the city of Arlington with less deference than we do the president of the United States and make it more arduous to run for a seat on city council or mayor of Arlington, Texas, than it is to run for or more limited than to run for the mayor or city council of the city of Arlington. So I'm for at least four to your terms and I can be talked into an extension of that. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker is David Swarty. Yes, thank you. I've listened to this discussion and thank the group for really adding a lot of good points on both sides of the issue. It seems we've jumped ahead a little bit in terms of the number of terms that we're going to recommend. So I guess I better dive into that. terms that we're going to recommend so I guess I better dive into that. I would certainly support what both Mr. Maybach and Parker said in terms of four two-year terms for council. I think that is probably the minimum that we want. Otherwise what we force out of our city is a brain drain. I work for a lot of big companies and I just can't imagine companies literally forcing out people who've got expertise I work for a lot of big companies and I just can't imagine companies literally forcing out people who've got expertise after so short a period of time is six. I do recall that our mission is to make adjustments to the charter. I recommend adjustments and as I said in my first set of comments, we need to make those minor and cumulative so that it's clear, understandable and really just an incremental change as Mr. Price said. So I would certainly support four terms for council. I might be talked into five for the mayor. I'm sort of ambivalent on that. I'll tell you the thing that I don't understand, though, is why you would also have a total lifetime limit. Because here's a scenario, you have somebody who is as a Miss Crohn and set a rock star. He or she has four terms, leaves on great terms with the citizens, takes a respectable period of time off. And a lifetime ban, unless it's much longer than the consecutive, would preclude the citizens of Arlington from voting back into office someone that they all loved and that was forced to give up the office. So maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't understand why you would want a total lifetime ban, what the benefit is because the power of incomeancy after a respectable calling off period should have already evaporated and I thought that was what I was hearing was the major worry. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ray Whitworth. have the current term limits to in three year terms remain for both positions. First of all, we've heard the name of Mr. Tom Bandergry, who did a lot of things very, very well for Arlington. Well, I got to know Tom Bandergry. If I worked on his congressional campaign, what he got elected to the US House of Representatives the first time, and then lost to my economic teacher of all things at North Texas State University. And Mr. Williams is no Tom Vandergriff period on that one. There's just no way. And I believe firmly that on the cooling off period that just says sit back, come back and everything else. Well, first of all, if you lengthen these terms all the way through in term links etc etc etc. You're with the low pay, you're opening yourself up to a lot of paid lobbyists and yes, there's possible behind the doors and under the table deals going on etc. We don't want that. Let Dallas and all of them stuff deal with it. We don't want that in Arlington. That's what longer time, longer place behind the desk and the city of Arlington, you know, as an executive will produce. I guarantee if it doesn't happen immediately, it sure is that it's knocking on the door right now. Under the current power cartel that we now have with a hand-picked candidate, so. Okay, Mr. Whitworth, I'm just gonna ask that, you know, we not make accusations or insinuations. I mean, let's just try to focus on you know, where they're you're in favor of consecutive or lifetime ban Well, it just sharpens the illustrates to point man And I understand what you're saying, but I think it detracts from our I think it just detracts from our work here tonight Well, there's there's an explanation behind my decision and I just gave it as far as that point is concerned I appreciate your opinion sir. I really do. All right. Thank you. And so anyways, the people want it, what they have right now into Charter. We should not make any alterations to it whatsoever, because we know it's going to happen if there's any alterations, period. We don't want that. That's not what the people want. I have gone out and talked to people myself beyond my own district, beyond my own zip code, and even on social media, to get a general consensus of my dealing with feeling this way. And I was very objective. I wrote down things. Yep, they don't want this to change. So once again, only two years, four council persons, three terms, same thing for the mayor, we will have a better city because we have fresh ideas fresh faces to get the things done to meet the ever change the atmosphere of our city thank you thank you sir the next speaker is miss Nikki Hunter So for me, I think definitely I like the idea of 4-2, but I'm still kind of stuck. I still think that we really need to look at maybe a 5-2 for the mayor, just because as we stated, I think that we should separate those two on there. So it would be 4- four to counsel and five to four the mayor. And one of the reasons, you know, I've heard so many comments on there about leadership and fresh faces. And you know, that's great. But at the end of the day, it's at the will of the people. If you feel that someone should be in office, then it's your right. It's your vote. It's your voice to vote for that person. So us changing the terms or if this does change or anything on there, it's not going to change anything. It's still at the role of the voters for who you want to vote for. And I don't know about you guys, but it is my God giving right to vote for who I feel is best leadership. And I don't want that person limited. I personally have to say this because I think there's been so many shots thrown. I think our council and our mayor is going to a wonderful job. And I choose to vote for these people. It's my right to vote for them. So I think the four, two years and the five, two years I would definitely vote for that. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mr. Steven Zimmer. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mr. Steven Zimmer. Thank you. I changed my three year to two year vote because I thought. So I would support the four year, four times two for council and five times two for mayor to provide the continuity and the ability to come up to speed and do a good job. Thank you. Next up, Mr. Ryan Acosta. Sure thing, I just have a quick question with the current term limits. So let's say that I run for council and I do three terms. My allow to do three terms in the council members at large and then also three terms in the mayor. No, Mr Acosta, under the current term limits, district seats and at large seats are not distinguished. So it's just three terms as a council member, regardless of what district seat, what at large seat, or a distinction between the two. So three total terms as a council member in any seat and three total terms as mayor. There are an option to allow that where you run three terms, council, three terms, at largely terms mayor. Brian, this is Rob Cronin. That's what I was proposing. I think that's kind of the discussion. We're trying to have right now and so I think we're trying to get to maybe some consensus on what that might look like. Okay, well let's throw that in the air and opinions. I'm just going to open up for opinions. Mr. Williams. Is that your comment, Mr. Acosta, the next speaker then with the Mr. Billy Wilson? Mr. Wilson, you're mute at if you can unmute yourself. Mr. Wilson, you're mute at. right, there, okay, there you go. I was wanting to point out to them that that's actually bullet number four down there is where we start talking about trying to separate things out. It was also on the other slide as well. So that can be part of the conversation. But my personal opinion is that we don't want to change what the voters voted for. Three, two, your, and I think good enough. And let's look at and see how it happens. I would for it. I want to stick with the voters to say it like most of the comments tonight. Thank you. Jeannie DeCon. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Perfect. I too am in favor of four to your terms for the council members, four or five to your terms for the mayor. But I think what is most important to me and I think was illustrated in one of the letters we received as a part of the batch today. I think it was from Mr. Fields. He did kind of lay out a couple of scenarios where having a lifetime limit really narrows who might be willing to serve at various points in their life. You may have a scenario like his second scenario where he pointed out you may have someone who is interested in serving terms earlier than taking a break and then coming back either to serve in the same capacity or in a different capacity than under the current term limits are limited by a lifetime limit. I think, you know, just speaking really plainly, I could see how that's a real reality just based off of some of the comments tonight. The jobs that council members in the mayor serve, they're not easy ones and they certainly are not free from public criticism. And I think that it is a logical conclusion that someone may want to undertake public service and one capacity and then come back later in life and do something the same or different. So I am not in favor of the lifetime limit, but I do support the 4-2 and the 4-5-2 for the mayor. Thank you. The next speaker is Cindy Food? Yes. So as I had voted earlier with the three, three, with the total of nine years, I can definitely go with yes for consecutive term limits, four terms, two years, which would equal eight and no for like time limits. And I can actually be persuade to go a little bit longer term limits for the mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Ms. Yen-Win? I am in favor of if it's the length, it's two, then for the term, consecutive I would go with four to four councils and five to for mayor and no lifetime ban. That's it. Thank you. Mr. West, Manus. I like what I'm hearing so far. One thing that keeps coming up is people saying we shouldn't change what the voters wanted. If we keep in mind, this can be presented to them to change or not. We aren't changing anything. We're just presenting an option that wasn't there before. So I think it's important to recognize that we don't have the power nor the neither does council, and we're not changing it. We're just giving an option so that they actually are faced with an option. That said, after hearing everything, that my primary issue in here was the lifetime ban. That's the main thing I did not want to happen was a lifetime ban. That's why I'm in favor of the cool off hearing, running again. And having heard all the positions and what I've learned about Council and running and that thing, I'm in favor of the four consecutive two-year terms for Council and the five consecutive terms for mayor. That's all I got. Thank you. Miss Cindy, I'm sorry, did I see another hand? Charlie Parker. Okay, Mr. Parker. I'm sorry, I just wanted to make a quick comment on Mr. Costes' proposal. And I wanted to discuss the reality of what would transpire in a situation where you had council members running for at large seats and at large council members running for district seats and that would mean that you would have incumbents in the same office serving on the same council ball running against each other. And this creates a situation, a working situation, and I don't think you would want in your office, okay, if you were actually existing in an adversarial relationship where one person is trying to buy for the other person's job in a public forum. So I don't really think that there's a solution there. I think that the council member should be created as council members. As a matter of fact, you get into a situation where council members, because of mayors running or whatever, there is no endorsements by any council members on another candidate. And the reason for that is you're going to have to work with that whoever wins after this is all said and done. So we want to maintain a very homogenous type relationship on council where there's no adversarial feelings towards each other over the long run. And that's all I really have to say on that. Thank you. Ms. Jessica Black. Thank you. Miss Jessica Black. So I wanted to comment on kind of the idea of separating out the out large and in the district. Like I said in my previous comment, I think that that can kind of further complicate things when we're talking about making incremental changes. and I don't know if we need to go there, especially if there isn't, if there isn't a lifetime limit or if there is a cooling off period, anybody who turns out from a district seat or from an out-large seat can still come back to the council just after that cooling off period. So we're not losing that talent or saying it's still there, it's still available and it can come back. So I just don't know if we need to add that layer of complication. And I have a post to the lifetime man, and this is something that hasn't been brought up but one issue that bothers me about it is that we have council members that, you know, right now under the current plan, you serve six years as a council member and you can never come back. Or, you know, if you've done your six years as mayor, you end up with a lot of situations where you have elected officials who are not ever gonna face the voters again. And that bothers me because, you know, we hear this example of corruption with Dallas and doing care way. What about elected officials to don't ever have to face the others again? They're late ducks. They can do whatever they want because they don't ever have to answer to us again. So I like the idea of people being able to come back after a playing off point because I think that will help keep them accountable. And as far as you know the number of terms you know I'm fine with the eight years ideally just for simplicity sake I'd like to keep it the same across the board but if there's a strong preference to make it longer for the mayor I could entertain that. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think we see I'm sorry chairman Bates Thank you Karen I strongly believe in the will of the voters and so I am strongly opposed to any lifetime limit if we have a great council member or a great mayor That works to sit out and have a cooling off period and the voters want to bring them back that should be the voters rights in my opinion. Well though I prefer a little bit longer than four terms for Councilmember I would prefer five to keep the consensus building within the committee I would vote for four terms. I also think it's probably more palatable to get actually something done at the At the polls I am in favor of five year or five terms for the mayor Thank you Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rob Cronin. And then, Mr. I mean, I just like to just Charlie's Parkers comment. He mentioned that if you separated the district council members from that large, that you create adversary on the council because you'd have different members running against each other but you're going to have that I guarantee in a very short period of time where you have different council members both running for mayor at the same time which is going to create that same situation. So I don't see that as a logical reason for not being in support of separating district and at large council members. Thank you. I think the next next person I saw was Mr. Zimmer and then Mr. Hussah and then Ms. Nelly. Thank you. I just had not addressed the lifetime ban or cooling off period. I want to say that I'm for a cooling off period against the lifetime ban. Thank you. Next up, I think as Mr. Hassan, then maybe Miss Noe. Sorry, I about that. Okay, well I wanted to be one of the last one in this dog and ponitional. I think I feel like I'm watching a movie which I know what the end would be, what is scripted and what exactly is in the bag. One thing is the countless committee. This is going to stop you right there. I mean, I don't think that I know you will stop me by. I don't think that's fair to your committee members. I don't. I don't think that's a, you know, that that's a nice statement to make to people who've volunteered to spend their time to do here. I mean, I'd like to hear your input on the substantive I have a lot of respect for all the people who are in this committee. I do too, but I just don't believe that that was appropriate. Okay. Okay. So, well, my input is, I would like two years. Just like the water had said with no change it's too early to change the the charter. I don't know whether it's illegal but it is immoral to change the charter. People have just voted we should respect people of Arlington. This committee is not a representative of those people absolutely not. I was not poor, I never signed up for the term limit. I was not petitioner in that one, but when people have voted, we must respect their choice, their voice. And if you don't, then you will hear from people, it's just me in the committee, you know, very polite, but you will hear from people. So you can have any kind of very, I mean, you can just take the whole term limit out, I mean, but it will go to people. So people are watching. That's what my message would be. Next up, Miss Nelly. Yes, I like to just change my vote. If I could, I want to agree with the majority of the committee members and go with four years, four terms for the council, five for the mayor, and no lifetime ban. Thank you. And then Mr. Andy Pryor? I think this entire screen right here, this slide has confused most of the committee members starting with myself. I thought I had an understanding of it and then as more and more people have spoken up and spoken on completely different topics that have nothing to do with what's on this particular slide. I just think this slide ended up being out of order in a way that costs and unnecessary confusion. So let me go back and clarify what I think is the correct answer to the on the screen, that I don't think I've provided properly previously. And this prior, before we do that, I do not think we need. I just wanted to let you know that we're building out, I was going to restate it in a way that it builds upon the slides that are to come. And so I agree that the way we've set it out, but the slides that are next up build upon the conversation that's occurring right now for the actual other terms that you've heard today. But yeah, I would like to hear your input. Yeah. Yeah, I think I think most of the responses in the last few minutes, myself included, were actually in response to answer questions that are on future slides and definitely not the question on this slide. So that's correct. So the specific first question on this slide, I don't think we need a consecutive term limit as long as we maintain a total term limit that we currently have. And so I'm not in favor of a adjustment to insert an additional consecutive term limit, because I think it's unnecessary as long as we maintain a total lifetime term limit. Thank you. Ms. Nikki Hunter? I did have my hand up but I think you answered my question. I wanted to just clarify. I don't think I really spoke about the lifetime ban. I am totally against the lifetime ban. I didn't know if I needed to clarify that or not. Thank you. And so let me just, I'm sorry, are there any other hands? What I'd like to do is just try to talk through what I think we've heard. I'm sorry. Oh, I don't see. Miss Dickerson, I'm sorry. Mrs. Dickerson, I'm sorry. Mr Dickerson, you'd like to provide some input? Yes, I would just like to say we have no right to make changes to something that was already voted for by an overwhelming amount of citizens in allington. We have no business of being here. We should not be discussing anything to potentially change what was already voted. This is just a huge big scam. Yeah. I'll tell you. Okay, so let me see if we could use what the input has been to maybe speed us through some of the slides to come. So on this particular slide, the foundational questions were, does the committee want to make a recommendation to recommend a consecutive term limit. And based upon what I've heard, when you're talking about consecutive term limits, what I think I've heard is that there are several people who would be in favor of making a recommendation on consecutive terms. With a cooling off period, because a cooling off period is generally tied to consecutive terms. I think that's what I've heard based upon the conversation we've had. And when we get to the next couple of slides, we will talk a little bit more about that. But based upon the conversation I've had. And when we get to the next couple of slides, we will talk a little bit more about that. But based upon the conversation I've heard, I believe there may be a consensus on consecutive terms with a cooling off period. So for the people who are not in favor of that, I'm sorry, I see Mr. Maybox hand raised before I put that to the committee. Mr. Maybox would you like to make a comment? I'll make a comment after you finish, okay? Okay, okay. So what I'd like to try to reflect for the record is for the people who are not in favor, not in favor, of making a recommendation for consecutive terms with a cooling off period to use your raised hand signal. I'm going to repeat the question one more time. For people who are not in favor of consecutive terms with a cooling off period. So I see Mr. Whitworth hand, Mr. Prior, Ms. Dickerson, Mr. Wilson. I'm sorry, Mr. Hassan. Sorry, Mr. Hassan. Ms. Hicks. I have a question. Yes, ma'am. The next slide is slide 13. And that's when we're gonna be talking about cool and off periods. Correct. But this one, but this one is about setting a term, like a lifetime ban. We're gonna talk about that as soon as we get through this Decisional point right here. But I'm seeing a total lifetime term term limit. I Would like for that to be reflected separately from the first question. Okay, okay, and the first. And so let me just say that the comments that I heard and if I'm incorrect I'm happy to be the comments I heard however tied consecutive terms to the other Decisional point and so I just to the cooling off period and so I just wanted to reflect that as What I heard the committee talking about so even though the slide on that first question, the two are interrelated. And so I was just trying to get a reflection of who was not in favor of that based upon the comments that we heard. on the comments that we heard. It's me. Yes, ma'am. It's me again. Yes, ma'am. I am not in favor of changing the charter. Yes, ma'am, I heard that. Okay. So the question is, am I voting yes or no? sure if you're voting yes or no. You said that you were not if you said that you wanted to keep what we currently have and I was recorded. Thank you. There are seven people that we are counting who are not in favor of making a recommendation on consecutive terms which also would include the concept of a cooling off period. And so all of the other people who aren't reflected in those names I called, you will be reflected as being in favor of making that recommendation to council. Can I ask a question? Yes, sir. I mean, I would just like my recommendation to be three two year terms mayor council but separating district and at large so you could do. If you look at slide 13, we're going to take that separately on slide 13. So I'm just kind of how do I vote here? You've already voted. I've stated the consensus and what I wanted to get was the people who were not in favor of that consensus. Got it. All right. OK. What I'm trying to do is, like I said, when we were looked at slot 20, we're trying to build out that slide so that when we come to slot 20, everything will be reflected there. So that's why I'm trying to go through each one of these questions to make sure that each member's opinions are reflected individually when we build out the recommendation on slide 20. Yeah. So, Mr. Cronin, this is Jennifer Wickman. I think you said you like for example, you wanted the council to have. Was it five two year terms? Yes. No, I'm three, I'm fine with three two year terms. Yeah. You know, I would just like to see at large members treated like the mayor's treated. You know, so essentially you could have one council member do you know start at the district do that three terms go to out lodge do the three terms become the mayor do that three terms essentially get get nine terms 18 years. So that question is later the question here is whether if you want to stick with the three two-year terms if someone ran for their three two-year terms could they then sit out a period and then run for another three two-year term. So that's this question right here. By being silent you're saying that you do agree that people should be able to run for a certain period of terms and then run again in the same seat after a cooling off period. Oh, got it. No, I'll raise my hand against that. OK. All right, so we're going to have eight then opposing. So you don't want a cooling off period in between. No. Okay, so let me go back. I think the way this question was set out is different from the feedback that we heard. So what I tried to do was to restate what the feedback was that the committee stated. And instead of taking, I guess, the raised hands on the people who were in consensus, I thought it would be better to record the committee members who were not in favor of what I believed I heard as consensus. So if I'm not hearing that, that the first question does the committee want to recommend a consecutive term limit? And part of recommending consecutive terms includes a cooling off period. And so I heard lots of comments that is the committee members were making their comments. They talked about that. But we can separate that out. And let's just go to this question that is posed before us. And so let's maybe just start over so that I want to make sure that everybody's clear on what they're voting for and what their opinions are. So the consensus I heard then was that the committee was in favor of a consecutive term limit. Those committee members who express that they were in favor of consecutive terms, can you please raise your hand? This is in favor. We're going to just do this again. Yes, please. So you are saying those that are in favor. We're just going to do it totally over so that I want to make sure that everybody understands what the recommendation or the consensus recommendation would be. And then I'll come back. So this is yes to consecutive limits correct. Yes to yes to cooling off. It is that's correct, sir. Mr. Costa that's correct, sir. Mr. Costa, that's correct. So it would be yes to consecutive terms and consecutive terms includes a cooling off period. So it would be yes to both. Because that was what the discussion that I heard from a consensus of the members who were speaking related to this question. And then we'll go to the second question about, because I do think that I also heard a consensus that said the committee members did not want to recommend a lifetime limit. But to just separate it out and to get it, I guess, back on track so that everybody is truly, that we are reflecting with everybody truly stated, I just think maybe we should just take it the questions as they're listed and get your response to that as they're listed here. And then we will then go through the other slides, but we've already talked about. If you've said yes to consecutive terms, you're also saying yes to the cooling off period. And then the next decisional point is, what length would a cooling off period be? What length would a cooling off period be? I have. Okay, I've just been told that maybe we inadvertently Lord some hand. So everybody who's in favor of consecutive terms, which includes a cooling off period, please raise your hand. Are you recording? Yeah. We're working on it. Yeah. You haven't changed what we're really looking at. We already have the rules that we have. We're looking at changing them. And if I'm correct, that's what this first question is asked me, do you want to change it or not? Am I correct? That's correct. Yeah, because if you look on the right, I've stated what the current charter says. But I think people are confusing that with the other things that they want to deal with. And so maybe that will help some people understand. We're here to recommend changes. If you don't want to change, then you say no. If you do, then you say yes. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. So are those of you who are, I think, re-recorded those who are in favor of making a change to recommend consecutive terms which would include the concept of a cooling off period. I think we've recorded that. Those people who are not in favor of making a change, please raise your hand. Okay, we need to lower first. So which one you're voting, ma'am? We're still on number one. If you are not in favor, I'm just trying to make sure that we can have a record of what all the committee where all the committee members were on this particular question So the question you are not in favor of making a change you are opposed to making a change That's me related to consecutive terms which would include cooling off periods. Ms. Dickerson, did you vote? She wants to keep it the same at that. Okay. I think your comments were that you wanted to keep it the same, but I just wanted to make sure that we reflected your actual because I don't see it. I don't see it. Can you just maybe raise your actual hand when we can reflect that? Miss Dickerson? Me? Yeah, if you just wave you, are you not in favor of making a change? That's the way we had recorded you when you made your statement. Is that correct? Can you unmute me? You are unmuted. Okay. I don't want to change anything that 65,000 plus people voted. Thank you. Will you go ahead and recount who voted which way because you raised a hand, you hope you did it right, but I think it'd be helpful when we get a catalyst to how many voted for, how many voted against. Yes, that will be reflected on slides 20. OK. When we get there. OK. You have 16. 17 audience. So it looks like the tally we had seven who were opposed to the addition of a consecutive term limit and I believe we've got 22 voting so that would leave 15 who were in favor. Yes. Okay, let's go next question. Okay. The next question in which I think we, I've heard lots of consensus that the committee did not, was not in favor of a lifetime limit or lifetime ban. That was reflected through the previous vote. But let's go through that question. Those who are in favor, who would like to recommend a total lifetime limited. If you are in favor of that, which is what is currently in the city charter, please raise your hand. This is like this one. Seven again. This two person has her hand up. I'm sorry. Mr. Do you have a Mr. Carter? You're asking for a lifetime. That's the that's your in favor of I guess currently there is a lifetime ban in the city charter. So I want to reflect the members of the committee who are in favor, not help, you know, nothing about the numbers, but those who are in favor of a total lifetime ban limit. Are I guess of any kind, any links? Correct. If you're in favor of that. Okay. I'm not sure that the previous question was counted correctly because we only ended up with 22 votes when we've got 23 people in the committee today and only one. I believe Mr. both Mr. Spiller and Ms. Arizona are not on currently in the meeting and then we have Mr. Bates here in the room. Does that help Mr. Prior? We did start with Mr. Spiller. Okay, I was not aware that Mr. Spiller had left so my apology. No, no fine. It took me while to notice as well. Do you have that? Ms. Hicks, I had you at one point recorded as voting for this right here, but now I don't see your hand. Can you confirm whether you're muted? I lowered my hand, but you would be. Okay. Oh, thank you, ma'am. Okay, yep, got it. Okay. And now we're going to take lower hands. Now we're going to take or I'd like for you to raise your hand if you are opposed to the total lifetime ban lifetime limit. Hello, Mr. Parker. I'm going to go back to the parking lot. Mr Parker. Are you. We're voting on people who are opposed to the total lifetime limit ban. Okay, I'm back with you. My phone ran out of juice and I had to switch to an iPad. So anyway, I'm opposed to the lifetime ban. If you are opposed to that, we're trying to make the record reflect accurately the committee's opinions on that particular issue. So this is our current and we're not discussing your opposed to the current. What the charter currently says that the ban is you're just saying that you're not opposed to you're opposed to any type of lifetime ban that somebody could do. 80 years in Unconcil correct because we have some other questions. We're going to get to that. We'll refine that I was trying to just go through the questions here so that people would be Clear that we were voting on the questions that were stated in the presentation and then If you'll well when we get to a couple of slides down, we're going to be able to refine that a bit. You got a ribbon? Oh, I think. Okay, I think we got that. Okay. And so I just want to make sure that if we're not going to, if we look at the next question, I don't believe that there was anybody that wanted to make a distinction related to the mayor and the council on the issue of consecutive and or lifetime total ban. There was some distinction on the number of terms, but not on the issue of whether or not there should be a consecutive or whether or not that should be a total ban. But there was definitely a distinction on what the number should be. So I want to make sure that the committee agrees that that was the consensus. Nobody wanted to say anything about the mayor could have consecutive and council members cannot. But there was some distinctions made in numbers of years and that's going to come in members cannot. But there was some distinctions made in numbers of years and that's going to come in additional slides, but I just wanted to make sure that that's what I heard from the committee. Okay, I think we'll just move on because we definitely didn't want to do anything with the distinction between council at large and council districts. Okay, so this is where we go to the issue that we already talked about when we were talking about consecutive terms of a cooling off period. And that's basically just a period of time that a person would have to wait before they could hold office again. So the next thing that we need to look at related to a cooling off period that we need to look at is the length of a cooling off period. And that can vary in the number of years that that would be applicable to any period that you may want to consider. So now we're on slide 13. And this is another kind of decisional point that we need to go through. And I'm going to go through, how about I go through all three of the bullets and then so you can just have your discussion about all three as we go through So the first one so let's start with what the current charter says that the That a term limit mayor term limited mayor can run for council Member seed immediately after reaching their three term max and a term limited council member can run for council members seat immediately after reaching their three term max and a term limited council member can run for mayor immediately after reaching their three term max. So currently under the city charter there is no cooling off period. So does the committee want to make a separate recommendation relating to a cooling off period for the mayor and council member seats? And does the committee want to make a separate recommendation based upon what the number of years of a cooling off period should be. And then finally, does the committee want to make a recommendation on a cooling off period if you're moving from the council member seat to a mayor seat? Or maybe vice versa, well, I guess that was the first question, from the mayor seat to the council member seat. So those are kind of the three issues that we need to have some discussion on related to the cooling off period. What term of years do you think a cooling off period should be from a person moving from one seat to the next or from one seat to the same seat. Ms. DePrior. Okay. Before I comment on all of this, I did want to share a comment given to me by a member of the public the other day regarding a potential cooling off period that the committee could consider. They suggested that the cooling off period for the committee consideration should be 60 years. So I just want to make sure I threw that out there and shared that with the committee before I gave my own thoughts. Personally, as you've already stated, Ms. Canard, the current city charter does not provide for any sort of cooling off period. And as long as we maintain what the voters chose in 2018, I'm okay with that. However, if the consensus of the committee and other future changes looks towards making significant wholesale changes to what the citizens have already voted on in 2018. The only cooling off period I could possibly be in favor of is something longer, longer than a full term. So if a term is going to be two years, then the cooling off period must be at minimum of three years in my opinion in order to maintain any sort of remote resemblance to what the citizens have stated at the ballot box that they would like. So I am not generally in favor of worrying about a cooling off period because I think we're fine with what we've got right now. But if we are gonna consider a cooling off period, my recommendation is for something longer than the length of a single term. Mr. Sorte. Mr. Sorte. Yes, thank you. We've heard a number of times from various people including Collars that we should respect the well of the people. I think it was West who said this. In fact, remember our limited charter here is to determine whether there are proposals that we think as a group can be used to improve the ordinance as passed in 2018 and make recommendations. Ultimately, it's up to the city council to decide whether it's an opportune time to put those recommendations before the voters and it's ultimately up to the voters to determine whether or not those should be approved. This isn't disrespecting the wishes of the voters at all. In fact, it is getting them involved by giving them potentially another option. And let's face it, in a democratic system, voters get a chance every couple of years to change their minds. And that's what this is all about. On the subject of And that's what this is all about. On the subject of term limits on a cooling off period, I think the concern that I expressed, and I think I've heard it from others, is that we really force a lifetime loss of talent if there's no cooling off period. Clearly that's not in the existing ordinance. The question is whether that can be improved on. And I would suggest two years as a cooling off period because the individual has to sit out for a whole term. Someone else takes that position. If that's someone else is doing a good job, that's someone else is then the incumbent who has any of the advantages of incumbency. And I would recommend that we have the same cooling off period for at large council districts and mayor, again, for purposes of simplicity so that we don't clutter a ballot that no one will understand. And my final comment is today there is no cooling off period for someone moving from council to mayor or vice versa. And I would not be in favor of imposing such a cooling off period for the first time. In fact, that's now allowed and I think should be continued to be allowed. Thank you. This is Cindy food. Yes, does committee want to make separate No separate recommendations, same amount of cooling off period for both. Same with the middle question. My vote is no. And for the last question, the answer is no. There is no cooling off period when moving from council member to mayor or the other way around. Thank you. I'm going to go to the office. Mr. Whitworth, you're muted. Okay, that thing didn't click technical difficulties beyond our control. Okay, here we go. I'm against any cooling up here. It invites a hand picked placeholder until that former councilperson can run again. This has taken place in Russia and Putin had a set out of churned in a limous place on the office at that time, and a placeholder selected them Putin came back. In Dallas, the city councilperson named Caraway turned out but they had a cooling off period. Placeholder held his seat, he came back over the period, and shortly thereafter was investigated and died in Buster for fraud, he's sitting in prison right now. How do you not want Arlington any of those scenarios? If a cooling off period is approved, then you are just setting up the citizens for a possible bad situation. It's a matter of time with our current power broker control over the city. So no to cooling off periods. Thank you. Mr. West, Manus. Thank you. Mr. West, man. I'm in favor of the cooling off period. I think David's right. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't think we're Russian. I don't think we're Dallas. Thank God. I do have over agree that the term should be the cooling off period should be longer than one term. And I like the idea of it being a three year period. That way, you know, somebody obviously there's a reaction that well that's basically two terms because the term is two years. Well, that not necessarily so. I mean, the an at large position can run for a district position or vice versa, whatever somebody resigns or they run out of a different term. So I like the three year period for the cooling off time in between and I don't think there needs to be cooling off going from council to mayor. Miss Nikki Hunter. I'm not sure if you're going to get the call. Miss Nikki Hunter. As far as the cooling off period, I am definitely in favor of the cooling off period. I don't think we really need to have you know, any separate cooling off period or at large or from moving to council to mayor. But I definitely think the cooling off period is needed to make it fair. I think at least something like is needed to make it fair. I think at least something like two years would be a fair amount of a cooling off period. Again, it would be at the will of the voters. If, you know, in that two years, if someone wanted to read one, you feel that person is a good person for leadership. Then by all means you can vote for that person. If you feel they're not, then by all means don't vote for that person if you feel they're not the biomean self vote for that first plane ensemble. That's it. Thank you. Chairman Bates. Thank you, Karen. I'm in favor of two year cooling off period. I'm not in favor of anything longer than that because many of you may not realize we're in the middle of a census that census could very well mean that we don't have at large district or at large council members in the future. Anything two plus one or three years is de facto four year cooling off period which I think is too long I again believe that the will of the voters should be able to elect officials the way the voters would like I don't want a cooling off period moving from council to mayor or vice versa and I don't think there should be any difference between at large or or a district. Thank you. Next up, Mr. Charlie Parker. I'd like to thank Dave Schwarty for some very concise words of wisdom. I think a lot of the things that Mr. Shorie said were absolutely on point. I'm in favor of a two-year cooling off period. If you go to three-year cooling off period, it doesn't work for the mayor because he's going to have to go four years because if he wants to come back it'll be a four-year situation. But if you're going for a council member, a district council member to an at-lar member, a three year could possibly work. But I feel as though that a two year cooling off period and to be very honest with you, when you get off council, you kind of take a look at yourself and say what was I doing? And maybe you will come to your senses and not want to come back at all. So that's like me, I don't ever want to come back to council. So anyway, the bottom line is I think that two years're going to get your bearings back and your feet back upon you and see if you want to stick your nose back under that tin again. I think that that would be enough. Thank you. Mr. Steven Zimmer. I do not believe there should be any cooling off between answers one. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. Mr. Stevens-Imer? I do not believe there should be any cooling off between answers one, between Councilmen and Mayor. I don't think there should be, I think there should be only one cooling off period, and that would be the two year period at the end of the term served. So I would say no to cooling off between Council of the Mayor. I would say separate recommendations do not need to be made between Mayor and Council. And I say we do a two-year period that seems to be a reasonable amount of time and something is consistent with terms so you could get right back in the cycle. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Patricia Noe? I agree with Mr. Bites and Nikki Hunter. It should be a two years cooling off period. No periods from the council to the mayor. And the others yes I mean I just feel like once they serve an error they can just give them time to say okay I want to put my foot in the ring and see if I get real get elected again so I do agree with the cooling off period of two years thank you next up is Mr. Ryan Acosta? You're immediate Mr. Acosta. Oh well I was just going to clarify that does the committee wants to make separate reccomendations for mayor and council member seats? No. Does the company want to separate, recommend a separate recommendations for district council members at large council member seats. No. And does the committee want to want a cooling off period if moving from council member to mayor, which is no as well. I think everything should just be across the board, even. And then from moving from Mayor to Councilor, or Councilor to Mayor, there should be no cooling off period. Thank you. Next up, Mr. Saeed Hassan. Well, first of all, you know, I would like to complete my sentence, which I was not allowed to. I have no disrespect for council for this committee people. It's not the committee people. It's how the committee was constituted. That's that was my my concern. So I knew what exactly is going to happen because of people with those backgrounds. So anyway, I am not for changing the charter and because the one thing is not clear, what will happen after the cooling period. So they will have, so effectively there would not be any term limits. So if the term limited, whether it's three term or four term or five term, after two years these same people can come back and that that is what not the spirit of term limit is. So I'm against any kind of cooling of period. And there should not, I mean, same thing with the mayor to council, council to mayor, I think it should be free without any cooling off restriction. Thank you. Mr, thank you. I'm going along with the cooling off period of two years. But there's no cooling off going from council to mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to provide any input? Ms. Dickerson. I can't see you right here. You're on mute. Ms. Dickerson, you're on mute. Can you hear me now? Yes, ma'am. No cooling off. Just lie. What the citizens voted for already. We do not want Katherine while men and company back in. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Yanwin. I am in favor of two years cooling off, but no cooling off from council to mayor or mayor to council. I don't see any more hands, so let me see if I can properly restate what I think I've heard, maybe some consensus. I think I believe that there was consensus on making a recommendation to have a two-year cooling-off period for mayor and council member, no distinctions between the mayor and council member. No distinctions between the mayor and council member. I believe that there was also some consensus on not making a recommendation on distinctions between district and at large council members and I believe there was consensus to not require a cooling off period if you're removing from council member the mayor or mayor to council member and so I think the way I'd like to have it is that we vote on what I believe was the consensus of, you would like to make a recommendation to council to have a two year cooling off period for both the mayor and the council members. I think that would be the first to remain, yes, to run for the same seat again. If a council member was going to run for the same seat again. If a council member was going to run for the same seat or if the mayor was going to run for mayor again that you would like to have a two-year cooling-off period in that instance. Mr. Parker. Oh, you're voting, okay. Everybody in favor? Two years. Two years. We're talking, yeah. That's what I heard as the consensus was two years. Yeah, because I think we have everybody. So I think there's another question here before we get to the, I think there are two votes because I think there are some people who want their idea to be recognized that they were interested in a longer cooling off period. So the members of the committee who were interested in recommending a longer cooling off period of three years for the mayor and council member seats. Can you raise your hand? Because I want to make sure that that's reflected. Just to clarify, I think you missed Mr. Maybox vote at the end there, which would bring it up to 12. We missed, did you guys get it? You got it? And so this is the people who were interested in making a recommendation for a three-year cooling-off period for both the mayor and council seats if they were running for the same seat. And I think there are three hands raised. Four. Four. I'm going to go to the next floor. Mr. Carter, are you are you voting with this three year term cooling off period? No. Were you voting with the two year or are you voting against a cooling off here. I have a call for you against. That two year. Okay, see you're in the two you so Mr Carter is in the two year. No, no, no call. I'm going to call for it again. Yeah, yeah. Okay. And so, there's, I think there's also some people who express that they wanted a longer cooling off period. So, is there anybody who expressed that opinion, who'd like to raise their hand so that that can be reflected? No. Okay, so those who expressed an interest in a longer cooling off period, longer than a three-year period. Please raise your hand. And yeah, and that can be of any length. I know there was a 60-year period that was mentioned. Yeah. Those who are opposed to it. I guess so. I know. So just Mr. Brown? Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. I think now I'd like for the, can you clear it? I'd like to see the hands raised of people who express that they did not want to see any change made relating to cooling off periods when running for the same seat that you would like to keep what is currently in the charter. Can I see those voted twice. I think you voted twice. I think you voted for longer than three? Yeah, I did. I mean, this whole thing is just kind of, you know, I didn't speak out because everyone was saying two or three, but, you know, I would say six, but that's what I was thinking, you know, a full term limit, but, you know, no one else is discussing that type of stuff, so I didn't think it would necessarily, you know, I don't know. I mean, again, I guess this kind of proves why you don't have one put anything on a ballot that has 17 different decisions to be made because it's confusing as all can be, you know, so there, I guess we're proven one thing now because we're all very educated, highly intelligent people. I've sat in, you know, looked y'all up on LinkedIn. But, and I think that it's one thing that, you know, some of the most talented people in Elton have been confused by this whole thing. So, I'll just leave it at that, but I'll leave my vote at the six years. Thanks. Okay. So that. So if you'd lower your hand right now, because this is the people who are voting for no change. For cooling off period, they don't want any cooling off period, because currently in the charter, there is no cooling off period, they don't want any cooling off period because currently in the charter there is no cooling off period and they want to maintain what's currently there. Ms. Hicks, I think we're also reflecting that maybe you voted twice. So according to the record that's been kept. Okay. You voted for three years for cooling off. Oh, that was an accident because it was the no change. It's not only. Well, I was trying to work through all the different ideas that have been expressed to make sure that the record would act on and reflect that. So is your vote no change or no change? Absolutely. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Okay. Okay. And so now I think we also, I just want to make a recommendation that there should be a cooling off period when moving from a council member to the mayor or the recommendation would be that there would be no cooling off period when moving from council member to mayor. Or. moving from councilmember to mayor. Or vice versa. Correct. We're quick put a record. I wasn't sure miss Dickerson, miss her son both got it on there because I saw him waving her hand but I didn't know if you guys know. Yeah, I think we recorded. They were recorded. Yes, sir. Okay. So is that an accurate reflection of what the committee's consensus was that there, that you're recommending that there not be a cooling off period if moving from council member to mayor? That's what I heard in the comments. If that is accurate, that you want to make a recommendation that there be no cooling off period if moving from councilmember to mayor if you'll please raise your hand. I think we lost. First of all, Miss area Zola was not here and then we lost Mr. Filler quite a while ago, but we still have everybody other than those two. Okay. area Zola was not here and then we lost Mr. filler quite a while ago but we still have everybody other than those two. Okay thank you. We may have some people who just aren't voting maybe. Okay and let me just say that I wanted to I'm going to ask you to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to Um, Mr. Nard, I hate to do this to you. Please do. Would you please make it a little more clear what we are exactly voting on. I know everybody's rolling their eyes and looking at the clock. I forgive me folks, but we really got to make an accurate decision here. So please more clarity. Thank you. Sure. The third bullet on slide 13 says, does the committee want a cooling off period if moving from councilmember to mayor? And what I heard the committee say was, as a consensus, no. That is currently, even though the terms are in all of that, that is currently what you have. I'm just trying to make sure that we move through that to make sure it's accurately reflected that you discussed it and that there was a consensus that you did not, you were not in favor of including a cooling off period when moving from council member to mayor or vice versa. So it's that third bullet down there. I'm sorry. Yeah, to clarify, I'm just gonna What we're saying is that the answer to Current answer to the third question is no As Currently reads in the city charter and you're asking us If as a committee we agree with keeping the Removing between council and mayor as is currently in the city chart. That's correct even though you did say you want a cooling off period, but that is correct. The consensus was that there was going to be a cooling off period. I just to clarify what you just said this is Dave Shorty but but no cooling off period moving from council member to mayor correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Or mayor to council either way. Either way. Yes. Thank you. I have a question as. Yes, ma'am. I wonder if everybody's kind of getting confused because it is kind of getting late. Do we have the option? I mean, I don't know if we should take a vote to push this back maybe for Thursday. I myself have an eight today. I have help issues. I'm just curious if anybody, I mean, if we can take the vote to, I mean, if we're going to continue on in this fashion, then maybe push this back for Thursday. I know people probably don't want to come back on Thursday, but otherwise, we're going to continue here throughout the night and it's already 10th, 13th. That's just my question. It's the will of the committee. May I, this is Dave Schwarty. May I balloon a perhaps alternative suggestion that might get us out of here fast. We've been thrashing these issues around for about 12 hours as a group. And I think each of us by now is probably formed a pretty clear view of what he or she doesn't want and what he or she does want. Is there any sense in going directly to slide 20, which is your final slide so that we can vote on that and everybody can get a decent night sleep or eat if that's required? I just blown it for the group. I think Jim Mayback laid out the rest of the rest of that slide for us and I think a lot of us were lining up Against those other options to support David Schwartz's suggestion So as the chair I can't dispense of going through slide by slide and moving to Slide 20 is anyone in objection to that What is slide 20? It's the overall summary. So we would just be taking a vote by category. Well, it's so confusing in each and every slide. So let me suggest this is an alternative. We could say if you're in favor of keeping everything the way it is currently vote X if you're in favor of changing it. What is your vote? Change it And I'm not just suggesting Please let me just say that we've probably already made every decision except for two and I think can we Is there a way to reflect that up there? Why don't you summarize Karen what you think those last two are okay the last two are Number of consecutive terms and number of total terms those though the last I'm sorry only number of consecutive terms because we already did number of total terms so We didn't I'm gonna have to go with Miss Hunter on this I think there's a lot of confusion. We have some mental exhaustion going on here from all sides. And I think we need to go ahead and postpone these two crucial things before we pass it on. Let's go ahead and reconvene on Thursday. Okay, I'm gonna put this to a vote for the committee. If you'd like to keep going for these last two items, please raise your hand. If you're in favor of stopping now and coming back on thirsty to complete these, we're just second, let's get account, I'm sorry. Thank you. Go ahead and raise your hand if you're in favor of finishing tonight. That would be not coming back on thirsty. I'm going to go ahead and get finished. That would be not coming back on Thursday. I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Nine. They're wanting to go ahead and Can you help me Molly? As much as I'd like to get done to not, I think raised right. I think we'll be accused of rushing through to get to an end. And somebody will say it was predetermined. So I think there's more criticism if we finish tonight in a hurry. Okay. So we have a third Thursday night will be without any public. No, that's not correct. We have already stated in our agenda that we've posted for a Thursday night possible meeting that it would have public participation. It would? Yes. Okay. We do have two committee members who might be able to rejoin us on Thursday night to currently not with us and their votes are not being reflected. Some of you can you count the votes out of 22. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and make a call since we don't have a majority vote in favor of continuing that will reconvene at 630 on Thursday evening. the committee. I would like to thank the staff and the public and the committee for your time this evening. We stand adjourned. you you you