Okay. So it is recording circle. Okay. So I am a hacker. I'm gonna go ahead and call the Sievebrook Charter Review Commission meeting on Tuesday, September 17th, 24th, four talk a hand to order. First is public comments and announcements. I do not see anybody here. So we'll go into two consent agenda. 2.1, I'll prove the minutes in the September 3rd, 2024 Charter Review Commission meeting. Can we have a copy of it? We have it printed it out. It's not that they are aware of with Andrew's stuff. Okay. I'm kind of like, I'm gonna get it one more time. Because I sent Rachel a few changes that I had. Let's see. I reviewed them. Well, I believe I had, when I looked at some of the things that we decided, I do have some questions about some, but I don't think that's a separate matter from, does anybody want to approve the minutes. Yeah, I'll move for approval of the minutes with perhaps the same comment you've heard. Just some, as I reviewed what was published that we decided and discussed, I had a few questions, but I still, for the most part, I think the minutes reflect. The minutes reflect when we decide. If we can all a week and a half and go back and revisit issues. If we want to put this back on for reconsideration at the final meeting, we can, since we're going to not hear. Well, I want to, I wanted to go ahead and discuss it again as a committee today, too. But anyways, does anybody have a, you have a motion? Yes, motion. Second. Okay, all in favor? All in favor. Okay. You have a high unanimous? Okay. 3.1, all in business. Consider and take off property action on the additional review. 36 annual. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, nine, 10, 11, and 12 as necessary. Okay. So, I can go ahead and start. On all disnyss on the minutes, we had proposed to change to two plates. Oh, one. of course we have voted to keep it basically the same for four year terms. But then we proposed a change to include the verdict after individual vacates in office or is appointed. If 50% or less remain the individual's term, the term shall be considered a full term for reasons of calculating term limits. And so when I looked at that, that works for if you're vacating, but it doesn't work if you're appointed. In other words, if you vacate and you've got 50% or less and that's considered a full term, but if you're appointed, say you're appointed for, there's only one month left, that would be considered a full term. That doesn't seem like what we want. I wanted to bring this up for a very discuss. I think they're different. I don't know. I'm going to play in there. It's the last time someone's been here. For a second. So why the fixation on full, the word full? I don't see anything the word full. I don't see a thing that references full. It exists in life. Well, we put it, our change was the trial full term. So last the last time someone could be put on, was the last, how long does it, that they could be vacated. So let's say, Well, this would probably come up, let's say, for instance, you had a council member that had a felony, they're automatically off council, depending on where they're at in that term line. If it's above 50% or below 50%, it really didn't have anything to voluntarily do with the council member. In that case, they came to the position. It was something happened and it happened or someone passes away. Then you're gonna have all kinds of things above and beyond You know kind of issues we're talking about I think that was section two of two point oh five. Was it on? I don't think it was two point oh one. No two point oh one is we're talking about the council This one the wording we have yeah two point 2.05 is that, when you can be forwarded, it's 2.05, this five lights and expression. This is where we are talking about the term and that's basically. So no member of council should be elected for more than two consecutive terms and we had considered putting language in to say, you know, full consecutive terms. Correct. Correct. I think that's what we're going to talk about today, right? Two. Yes. Today, we're talking about the end. So if you, if you believe the time they have to be out of office, yeah, and we said we were going to consider that so all I'm saying is I think there's a difference whether you're appointed or you beg me. What are you? I thought you had to run. I'm sorry I'm being ignorant right now but I thought you would have to run for the position you're appointed. Well like they were saying, you say there's even a recall. Everybody gets kicked off and the main council people point some of them. Or some of them. Some of them is appointed. That's why it's a big, three-plus. It depends on if there's how much time is left or whatever. But I'm just saying that if some of them was appointed, if one month ago, why would that count as a full term? If we go ahead and put that other language in, that's all terms. It's just something that struck me for everybody to discuss. Yeah. I should have printed all of those, which were the actual minutes, because I think right here. Oh, okay. Because that doesn't match this handout. And now I think that's what confused me when I was trying to match up the agenda that what the supplement versus what was in the minutes under 2.01. Because I also had a question, I didn't think that we agreed, excuse me, that in the added language Nonetheless, no member of council shall serve more than four consecutive terms in the combination of those councilmember and mayor I Thought we would agree to three because if you leave four in there, that's a total of 16 years We didn't agree to that at all. No, we didn't. We didn't put it in. We didn't change anything. It's the same. We didn't change right now. In this four years, it's four years. And it's two terms. Four years, two. No one in ten seconds in terms. Then we are, I guess I'm confused. As to. Here was a step back. Because everything after the middle of your paragraph where it says more than two consecutive terms and then there's a semicolon. Correct. Correct. From that semicolon on it's just proposed line. Proposed line. The existing language stops right there. That's right. And we did we didn't agree to that. I think that's what we said. I don't think this is the supplement. This is more of a replacement of the proposed language. Additional language. Whether you all want to talk about the mayors and council members' consecutive terms or not, this is instead of this 12 months or less kind of thing, you're just saying, okay, for purposes of the existing language. And I was telling Gail earlier that it makes a lot of sense on that last little phrase to add the word more than two consecutive full terms so that if you make the comment about additionally and then add the language you talked about the last meeting, they at least sync up and we're talking about the exact same thing. Right. Right. But that's my understanding right now. Is that what was proposed? Last meeting? That language in lieu of the red line, because you don't have the red line in front of you. Your copy shows that there's no black, but ours. No, I do. I have read it off. I just thought it was for too long. I didn't know anything. No, it's still a retail stuff. I don't know what you're talking about. This is real retail stuff. Oh well, the dark print is the current language and then all this light that I have two different options. Yeah, this is option one and this is something. Any combination of what's being proposed, that's kind of what's on the floor right now. Yes, got a blow from screens, so we can kind of. I don't know if you have the ability to cut and paste the language it was proposed, so we can kind of throw it in different sections to see what it looks like, combination with the other language in lieu of. Yeah, that was fun. Yeah. What was the other besides the term stuff? What was the other big thing? So the sit-out was in the creates. Yeah, it was in a attachment. That's what we're, you know, that's that sitting out thing. That's what we respect. So talk about. I took so what I learned. So basically you can go, now correct me if I'm wrong. You can go to terms depending on where your numbers are. And then if you don't have to sit out for you, we could run for the next position, another position. So is there one consecutive crew? Yeah, so you can go back and forth. You can essentially be a year. So you're looking at your term ends in the May of an odd year. And then the next even year you'll have a different set of council members that will be up and you could run for one of those We weren't going to even sit out for a year. We were thinking about not sitting out. I thought we The next I thought we were the next one. So the next election they would be qualified to run the next election. So the next election to be the next year Yeah, but I thought there was always And you don't like that. So in her neck, you could get around 10 minutes by going about 4. Yes, and they did that pass the unit for what? Three terms, three terms, the two guys have been passed the unit and went back and forth. So we could do that technically here. Well, if I'm understanding correctly, so the two proposed languages for two, one is to provide clarity of if someone does the resign to run, friend goes into another position, are we going to count their two terms and counsel as anything against a mayor's term? And so the attorneys came up with these two options. If that's still the choice that we wanted, that you wanted to look at. So they're trying to put terms on it as they want terms. Can you scroll in? You can go and give that. There are no terms. You can go back and forth. So two consented terms per position. Is that what it is? You can only just just two consented terms. So if you run for counsel for two two consented three-year terms, you can. Four-year terms. Four-year terms. I'm so on three. I know. She wanted to buy a proposal. She was a whole lot. You could drop out and run for the mayor's position. You may even have to drop out. And you can run for another two consecutive four year terms. And it doesn't matter. According to the way it's written right now. Yes. I would disagree with it. Okay. Right. No. I think regardless the the the difference is there's been a practice. We have and then also the rules and came in and gave different advice. Yeah. We were we were telling the council members that they physically had to step down. So if they decided to run for a mayor's position they we didn't have it in the current charter but we kind of created based on legal opinion that you have to sit out for 12 months off the dius to be able to re-run and reset the clock. I think we agreed we didn't want that. Am I dreaming that? Let me give you kind of where what our position has been as it relates to the existing language. So if I'll scroll back up just so we can focus on section 2.01 as it's written. So the last sentence, no member of council shall be elected for more than two consecutive terms. So the trigger there is when you're elected for a term. You can serve three days. You are still in your second of two consecutive terms. So my position there was regardless of how much time you spend in that second term, you're already serving two consecutive terms. Whether you drop out or not is irrelevant. You really aren't eligible to serve again. Whether you resign to run, whether you resign, fake hate the position for legal reasons or whatever. That is contrary to practice in the way the city is. So that's why we threw this kind of 12 month language at the bottom of the proposed stuff is to capture what the actual practice has been. It's a relief to the mayor, not the resident. So that other thing that we came up with is that kind of irrelevant about calculating what a full term is? It is. Someone that's inconsistent with what's proposed here, it would be in lieu of this. So here we have the new language that says it has more to do with the mayor. Right. And the issue there was do we want to kind of distinguish the mayor and allow that the mayor to be somebody, anybody can be able to run for mayor or ours how long you've been on council and there is a lot of value in that because the mayor is a figure out of the city and it helps that the mayor has some experience most mayors come from a council seat so we don't want to penalize council members if they want to run for mayor that was the thought process. Right. But agreed. Do we want, I mean, the way I read this now, and again, I gave emphasized to me early on and this doesn't do it, is clarifying that whole 12 month or not 12 month or y'all have the 50% of your term thing, two years out of the four years, it's addressing the same concern that the staff has, and that's the interpretation of what consecutive terms means. And so we don't want to rely on legal, let's fill it out here. So it's clear. I think what you're proposing would do that, or we could put some language in there that says, you're eligible to run if you've sat off more than 12 months, which is a current practice, rather than 50% of your time. The same language would address that issue. Do you have any thoughts? Okay. Can we talk? I wonder how I talk to you. Yeah, we're just staff, thrown, and then we're going to check back on. I want to hear from you. I want to hear from you. clarity for me. The last sentence of your proposed on option one is when page was here last time, the resign to run, do they physically give up their seat at the dyes? Yes. Okay, because page had a different interpretation. What was her interpretation? She couldn't get to the floor. To apply, once they apply for another position, they're essentially giving up their current position regardless. Agreed. And so they decide to reapply. Right. So they can sit and serve throughout the end of the term. I agree that we have a provision or constitution come to hold over provision, which means unless they are replaced, IE appointed, the positions appointed, they can lawfully sit in that position until the expiration. Okay, that's for me, that's the key from the previous attorney is there was an interpretation they physically had to be. Well, that's because they physically are vacating the position as a matter of law, and we have another constitutional provision that says, and they do that for a community of government. There are plenty of small towns out there that people have tried to get out of the council seat or remove themselves from mayor and sorry, X until there's somebody to take your seat. You know I mean there is an obligation for you to continue your service. So yes they can lawfully sit in that position unless council takes I mean if somebody resigns to run in a majority of council would like to appoint somebody to fill that position they can do so if it's within 12 months. That's kind of the been the issue years of 12 month period. Now the 50% of your term throws a whole different wrench in that because if somebody resigns as a matter of law and it's outside the within 12 months of the expiration of their term and it's more than two years that triggers a special election. But then when you look at terms, when they go to run again, that was the understanding is put in the 50% role, so they know did that count as not? I'm fine with that. I just recognize that if one individual resigns, decides to run for mayor in one of those odd years where they have more than a year left on their term. We're going to have to call specialization. That's going to trump. But the 50% rule for the section further down that talks about vacancies. So if they're appointed and they come in, it's less than 50%. They don't have to count that. And I'm fine with that. Okay. To me, that makes a lot of sense if that's what y'all want to recommend. Yeah so that was a previous question that stood is still valid where if the it happens that vacancies by death or felony or something like that that person's going to want to understand if I say a year and a half does that now mean I can't serve two more terms. Right. No. I think that's what y'all voted on if I'm. I think that's fair because you start to clock over again. Right, right. So I mean, if y'all are looking for that two-year window of, I mean, that takes away, I mean, whether y'all wanna adopt the mayor language or not is up to y'all, I think, whether y'all wanna distinguish that position or not. But I think that a. But that's fine. I agree with that interpretation. And I'm OK with, I think, two thirds of that. But I go back to the proposed statement about if you're on council for two terms and then you run for mayor that you're eligible for another two consecutive terms. That would mean a total of 16 years. I don't think we'd... And not agree to that. No, we didn't agree. We didn't. That's why I'm bringing it up now. It's because I don't recall that conversation because we went through all those other cities that have had unlimited years and then some that had 16 years and some that were 19 years. And I think there was a consensus, even though we didn't go back to this. I think there was a consensus that no, we didn't want to run on mayor or run on council person. But my notes I put down from I guess having taken notes is that I thought we agreed to three sessions, three consecutive. We've already decided four years. Two, four years. But then we also didn't want to penalize somebody they wanted to be mayor. So that's why we think you're option two. No, and then why read this? I'm really option too. No, and then why read this? I'm really off. Go ahead. We decided what we didn't want to penalize somebody for being mayor. It's I wanted to run for mayor after their turn to counsel. After their turn to counsel. Then that allows them to go back and forth. You can go be two terms as a counsel person, and then you go to two terms on the mayors, and then you go back to your counsel, and then you go back to your council and then you go back to your mayor as long as the people vote for you you're not going to get out of those elections unless you make limits for that. Well you can't do that indefinitely because there's a at least the proposed language. Propose but right now it's not correct. Right now you can. Well right now I mean right now you'd have to you couldn't be consecutive because a mayor is considered a member of council Right, so now I'm not a distinguishable firm. So now we're going to take it away and make the mayor different than council We're looking at making the mayor eligible to serve additional consecutive terms. So from then on you're gonna be the mayor go No more than four so you're looking at two as a council member and then two more than that's just what's being proposed I don't think we're, well, the key language has been around for a while. I don't think we like two additional terms, isn't it? No. I think we all need more. I don't. I would not vote for that. That's not what we were voting on last time. I mean, I know that that's not what you're always thinking about. This is going to go against what we were thinking about. I thought there was consensus that if an individual served in the capacity of counsel for two consecutive terms, that individual should not be penalized with the current language that they could not run for mayor. So, I'm going to hit every one of these issues one at a time. And that's why I started that. Stopping right there because somehow this language came up and that's what triggered it as much you know we wanted to allow an individual with the experience of eight years on council to take those eight years convert them if interested to mayor and serve as mayor in a okay In a, okay, you're on, you're serving two years as a council person. Yes. That's a two terms. I'm sorry, two terms. That's eight years. Right. Okay. You got eight years of experience, relationships, all of that. So however it needs to occur, I thought there was consensus in here that we do not want to penalize that individual with two council terms to not be allowed to run for mayor. I don't remember that at all. Can I say it a different one? Sure. terms to not be allowed to run for mayor. I don't remember that at all. Can I say it in a different way? Sure. So you have a group of council members that have the same election cycles as the mayor. So they have the same council. They've all served or are in their second term. Some have three years left, some are up for election. The ones that are up for elections are same cycles a mayor. So the way it's worded right now those people could not run for mayor after their second term is council. The other set of council members. You're all, it'll be eligible to run for mayor. So we just looked at a way to distinguish the position of mayor for several reasons. That being won just so all the council members have equal footing when it comes to the decision to run for or not run for man. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a council member. But, you need one of those. So a lot of numbers, all of us, is to do this. Oh, perfect. Thank you. Next meeting, sir. And also to distinguish the position of mayor, because not that we encourage it, but it just seems to be the natural. We just like, you have people that serve on committees here, whether it's zoning, commission, planning, open space. Those are the types of people we get involved usually run for, and I like the office. And just like council members tend to have some kind of run from there. I don't know. If y'all don't want to distinguish it and make that recommendation that's fine, it's just some for consideration. So Lori, we got to get past that hurdle before we move on to this. Yeah, Lori, what is your, you seem like you don't. My thing is this is why do we even have limits if we're going to do all this? If you're going to let the mayor, when the council, the mayor go for two terms and then the council and then go to the mayor, I mean why are we even, why do we even make the term limits? Why are we making limits? I understand terms. Why are we making limits? Why do we even why because we got we've got counsel you got you can have two for your terms and then you can become a mayor and do what two more four-year term to agree with that. We did not agree didn't agree with that. This is just for this I mean this is just to throw something out there so we can start the conversation. Yeah. And what kind of makes sense from this staff, right? But are we thinking about doing another four years on top of the two, I mean, I will say this, the next sentence builds in some limitations in that if there was somebody that served two consecutive terms as a council member wanting to run for mayor, having to be on the same election cycle, they could not run for more than two terms as mayor. Two more. So they would have. So four total but that's just a- That's just a- That could be or you could reduce it to one. I'd rather reduce it to one. And I don't have necessarily have a problem with it. It's more about the company. I know from the very beginning you have not wanted any term limits but I think the majority that we do. You do. Right. You said like the motor society. We've had that discussion. So what I'm seeing here is that you're getting away from what you're wanting to do because you're really giving a free reign. You got 16 years. No, no. No, we just saying it. No, that's not untruful. Meaning if something run to four year terms as a council member, then two-four-year terms is a matter of that. That's 16 years ago. That's what you mean. Oh, agree. If that's just a matter of that, if we are agreeing to the proposed language, and I will say that I am monitoring it. I'm not agreeing to this part of the proposed language. I mean, I'm... All right, so... I was told you what you're... You're voting for... I mean, I'm okay with 16 years. I'm gonna vote it. I mean, I'm not a voter, I'm gonna vote back and forth. I mean, but that's... I don't think that's what you guys want to do. All right, so is it... relates to distinguishing the mayor? where are we as a group? It doesn't have to be unanimous. I didn't think we were even making. I thought the way we guys did this is that the mayor really isn't distinguished more than the city. And that's fine if y'all decide that that's the case. We just need enough. Except for that, you know, exceptions. I mean, I thought this was the whole thing is that mayor doesn't have any more power than city council people. I don't have any more power, just makes Council members eligible to run through. But we are making them have more power now by giving them... I thought we had them since it's time. Yeah, I could be eligible. A city council person could be eligible. I don't know how to be eligible. Okay, well that's issue number one. Why don't we take a vote on that? Okay. Just so we can move on to the next issue. And I appreciate the dissent. It's not unreasonable. So it's just, I mean, that's why we're here. We're not always going to agree on everything. So let's do that first, if you don't mind, just so we can move to the next issue. Okay, so you're wanting somebody to propose something about on? Just, you just tell me, no. I got it in a motion. The motion, this is simply just to let us know next issue is does is a consensus the majority of the board agree that we should distinguish the mayor for purposes of allowing consecutive two-term consecutive council members to run for the position. I would say I would agree with that. Okay. I would. Yes. So it sounds like it's a four-to-one type of thing. Okay. So that is really that first red line sense. Now we get to the second issue in the second part of that sense, which is two consecutive terms. I heard one thrown out there. Do we want 16? Do we want 12 total? I would just say two terms. Is it a cost of that? Two terms is mayor. Well, that's what's, that's how it's written. So do we want two is mayor or one is mayor? I'm sorry, I told you the wrong sentence. It's the next one. Yes, sorry. It's a little four. It's a little three years. Let's try to look at this. Yeah, so now we need to say to this. So I mean. But you're right, you can't really have. And recognize too that four, I mean you you're still bound by the consecutive term thing, and it doesn't work in reverse. I mean, if somebody ran for council for one term decided to run from mayor, they wouldn't be able to serve three terms. They still bound by the two consecutive term thing, because at that point, I'm not a council mover. That one exception that applies to seeing. But they could be council for one term run from mayor for two terms. Yeah, and then run the next cycle for a council position it was open. And well they'd have to take a break. Or take a year off and then run. And then run the next cycle but that still would only mean a total of 12 years consecutively three three terms. With the little one year. One year council two years mayor or two-years council, one-year mayor. No, at some point, I mean, I'm not a huge term limit guy, just because, I mean, at the end of the day, the electric is supposed to decide who's sitting. So just be careful with this stuff. I mean, to me, none of these things are unreasonable because you have very long terms. So to me, do you all okay with the four total terms, or do you want to make essentially the mayoral position, either one or make it after serve, one council member term, and then two years, or two terms as mayor, but either way, not to exceed four, or three. So three or four consecutive terms. Just bring that up only because you brought up the one year deal. And it makes sense to talk about it. I thought we weren't doing the one thing one year. Sit out. I thought we were going to go to the same thing. That's different. You talked about how many terms the mayor could serve. That's purple sentence. A great consecutive terms. Yes. If we want. As long as you understand the implications, meaning a sitting council member could run from here and serve out to full consecutive terms or two terms as a council member. So, so, and what you want. Now it's going to bring me to even the language that we have. Is it two consecutive terms or is it, what is full going in there or not? Full only comes into play if you add the language that you suggested. Okay. Well that's what we have in our minutes that we agree upon. That's why I'm bringing it. We haven't our minutes and we agree upon that's fine. We'll get to that. Okay. Not set in stone yet. Okay So can we just vote who wants three and that I think so? Let's move on now or you want it at all. I mean that's the whole point of this So you were not bound by this language. It's just proposed But yes, let us know what makes sense so we can move on to the next issue And we eventually will get to your proposed language from last week. Do you want emotion? No, I think we're familiar. No, I think we're familiar. So we're looking at three, four, or does that belong? So who's in favor of three? I'm not. I'm not. I'm not sentenced. I am. Who's in favor four? OK, so we're in favor four. All right. Now, to me, she's from my purposes. Yes. They're really confusing. Are you making any changes? No. The first two sentences as provided on the screen under item number one, option number one, are going to say, that's right. on the screen under item number one, option number one, are gonna stay as written. Eventually we're gonna get there. I just wanna kinda get, I mean, there's two new parts that do one motion. Let's skip through this, then we'll have a recommendation. Okay. Okay, so first and second second sentences stay as currently written. Is everybody kind of aside from as far as the majority? Okay. Last sentence in my opinion is an either or meaning this the purpose of this last sentence is to kind of put into writing what was practiced as we talked about. So meaning if somebody was to vacate their position, step down, get arrested, you know, something flounder, it's an airplane, there's all sorts of things they could do to vacate their position nowadays. It would only have to be for 12 months and then they could run again. What y'all have proposed is 50% which is 2 years. So we're talking about essentially the same kind of restriction. Just, is it going to be 12 months? Or is it going to be two years? And we can work on the language, but that's how I want to bring in y'all's. So kind of we wouldn't need the other language if we do this last day. They basically are the same rule just different terms. Right. Okay. And worded. terms. That's the way I read them, at least the intent. So I'm going to do hypotheticals that always helps me. So since it's not having to be that full in there at all, it just regardless of the number of consecutive terms. So if somebody had two terms, did they set out? Again, this is taking the position that the consecutive term. This does not address one of the biggest issues that Gail raised from the get go, which is what does that mean? Because that's been the controversy. Right. So we can get to that, but for now, it takes into consideration that consecutive terms means you start the term that's part of your consecutive term. It counts one day in. But the copyod is this last sentence, meaning that now if you serve you know two years and 364 days of your term and you're under that 12 month period. You can run. You could still do it. You could still resign on that day before the 12 month, started ticking and you would be eligible. So that does qualify what consecutive term means. And this clears up the kind of perceived unfairness to council members in positions 246. If they decided to resign to run, correct. Because then they could just sit on the line. And that's kind of what Gail was trying to talk to me about earlier about interpretation. As far as sitting versus what triggers, like of a better word, that those provisions, I think once they resign as a matter of charter interpretation, the charter would then be invoked as far as that 12-month cycle. But, and so, I mean, again, that either one is going to clear up what consecutive terms mean. So I think the way I would look at it legally is consecutive terms still starts on the day and would you or swore in, you start your second consecutive term. But again, you're eligible to run, that's kind of the qualifying that last sentence, as long as you resign with more than 12 months left on your term. So for purposes of looking at what a consecutive term is, it's going to be three years out of the four years. You'd have to, you know, be there. Pass that three years to really qualify as being a term. And the only time that- So if somebody is appointed like the 365 third day of a term, if somebody else is term, you know, and they get appointed. That counts as their term. And then they can, if they want to run, and then they're in their second term, they have to resign more than 12 months ahead of time. But you're not going to find a situation where somebody's appointed outside of 12 months. That's true, because you have to have this special like you. It's a new point. You have to have this special like you. Yes, so that'll never be triggered. Okay. I'm not worried about that sonar. Okay. So do we want to look at that language again and see if we... And again, I don't think at the staff level we have a recommendation either way. I mean, just whatever y'all think makes sense to recommend. We just need clarity. What do you think, Richard? I don't think you should punish these people that are in the three-year group that I'm running from here. I don't know. I'll say it. What was it? Two, four and six or whatever, they should be able to, if they're in there three years, one from there, I think that's what we're talking about. That's been addressed. Now all we're talking about is if somebody doesn't qualify for that position, and this applies to mayors or council members. So if I'm a council member in my, they would no longer have to resign to run for the position of mayor because there's an exception for the mayor and what if they wanted to run for a third because you know council term. Oh you have to resign to be able to run so this is going to keep people from having to resign to run for the position of mayor only and that's what the that says before says or the first first red locks. Okay, so we're gonna allow people to not resign. If they wanna run for the position of mayor, if they wanna run for a third term as a particular position, they would have to resign more than 12 months out from the expiration of that term. Okay, so that even means- There's a lot of built-in suspenders here. I mean, an issue in the first part was put in there to try to address the specific issue of council members resigning 12 months ahead of time so they'd be eligible to run. I've soon galed most of the time that was to run for mayor or was that to run for other council positions? Are you recall? Mayor has been the most perfect question. But in that, so that the first sentence addresses the mayor that's never going to be an issue. Nobody will ever have to resign. Okay so that's here. All that last sentence and the 50 whether it's 50% or 12 months is going to do is allow somebody who is vacated their position or otherwise resigns or is disqualified or whatever reason could no longer hold the seat. They would be able to run for that position again as long as it's more than 12 months. They wouldn't have to then wait another four years to run for that position. Or another counts a position that mirrors the same election cycle. I mean, you're not going to see that last sentence applies much with the adoption of the first red line sentence. So I think that was the bigger issue is council members you know wanting to run for the position mayor in order to avoid that consecutive term and the mayor is considered a member of council by charter so there'd be no different than running for their same position at third time. Do we have to have that last citizen or if that's the main focus because the only thing that like I said that addresses is in the off chance that somebody wants to run for you know can hold their seat for additional four-year term they'd have to sit out here make it running and it may come up I don't know. I don't know if it has. If you care as much about that, or I still kind of think it's confusing, though. I know what you're doing about the system. Well, there's a lot of overlap. And a lot of that is because a lot of this language was proposed, and then we layer on more stuff. And if you took out that last sentence, there would be no really Resign to run issues for council members wanting to run for mayor. So long as you know, they weren't exceeding the other limitations which they they really could it because you couldn't serve more to consecutive terms as a council member Anyway, so you're not going to exceed the four The only thing that last sentence does is qualify the other circumstances I talked about And I agree there's it it may be confusing the way it's written because there's a lot of redundancy. Yeah. Because I'm not sure I care as much about. I mean. Because I'm not sure I care as much about. Well really in my mind it was an either or really the last sentence what Gail has highlighted right now is a representation of what was current or practice up to date. The way it's been handled under the current legal team in the interpretation of the Marin Council staff at that time, that's kind of what they were doing. Right. But I think our main thing we wanted to take care of is spamming that first provided however, all members of council. I think that's really what we wanted to make happen. Does any of that give you a heartburn, Gail, about just removing what you have behind it? I just think it's more. So here's, and maybe we're dealing with the 50%. So let's say we have a member that was counsel appointed. He comes in for a year and a half. We're not counting that. So that person's going to get a bonus year and a half. I agree. We can grant her two consecutive terms, and then if you decide to run for mayor. So just to make sure, that would be eight. 13 and a half years. Yeah. I'm stuck on a defining. So again, if a member comes in and I'm thinking about the current mayor, so he appointed into a position at one point on council when he was a council member. So he finished off somebody else's term and I can't remember how long that was. But that's part of the confusion, making sure that we define however these amendments are of what is a term, because we don't say full term. That's why the 50% was important for me for interpretation is if a new person comes in and counsel points them and they finish off a year, a year and a half or let's say under a year they're not going to count that. So they're just getting a little bit extra time if they came into counsel by appointment. And then they actually go to election for all of these cycles that are successful. So not that it matter, I don't think the term or the number of years seems to be an issue or just I'm thinking through the different scenarios. I'm gonna worry about that. Where do we say though that? I think it got a sense. That it doesn't count as a turn though. I mean because right now I'm doing it right now. Yeah it's silent that's part of that's what we struggle to say. So you're in Germany and that way but it doesn't. So our legal right now says anywhere you see the word term that doesn't matter if you've served one day or the whole month. You're in a term. So they had a term so then you're saying somehow they get a bonus thing. So let's say we have council member pass away less than 12 months council points Joe Bob Joe Bob comes in and he serves nine months. Then he counts as a term. No. Not now. I've with the proposed language. which, you know, the current mirror, it'll be less than 50%. Right. And then the proposed language, then Jo Bob decides, he wants to go and run an election of his own, he wins, he runs another election, he wins. So then, how do you get some for, because I'm so excited. So we can't wait to have that. You're talking, you're talking about what we're doing. We're talking about what we're doing. We have some problems. I was looking at the existing language. I didn't say that. Right. That's the news language allows them to have 13 years. Okay. That should count against. Well, we're okay with the first two sentences. So if Joe Bob serves two and council moves over two on May or plus is nine months, then that's 16 plus. All right. This is very sloppy first draft I think I think the way you worded your proposed language and last meeting I don't think it was kind of also what was intended. It doesn't work Well an individual vacates and I'll so basically you're talking about the appointment of a person to an existing position and if that appointment is for 50% or less, if it's within the remaining two years, you're not gonna count that against them. It's not gonna count towards a calculation of term limits. So I think we can resolve that by doing it more in the positive and say, if a council member is appointed for a term that has more than 50% of the remaining, are basically no less, less makes sense because you're really looking to eliminate the argument that it's penalizing them. So if Calvin is pointing for a term that has less than 50 percent of the remaining term left on such terms, their remainder of the point in term shall not be considered. They're not be. And I don't want to say full. I want to use the word consecutive term because then it implicates the first sense. Okay. Okay. Or the last sentence of the existing language? I'm sorry. Can't you just say if they're appointed then it doesn't come out because it doesn't but it doesn't address the fact that well that's true because it pointed for they're appointed then the way we have so can you resign? Like early in your term and then you just want to buy a new hand? Well, because I think that the distinguished minutes of council are at least from the staff level. If they're a point and you know the thing about that, you know, though, you can't point anybody if they've got more year left on term anyway. It has to be a special. It's going to have to be 12 months. You're left on term anyway, so. It has to be a special one. It's got to have to be 12 months, which is the law anyways. Do you want to put something in there that mirrors the law? No. No. No, I think we're even clarity we need. I mean, it's just making sure that people understand there could be a plus. If that comes up and without that last sentence in there, somebody is appointed for, and they couldn't be appointed unless there was less than 12 months anyways. And we don't want that to count against. Can they resign the last year of their fourth term and go again. But we're talking about a point. Aren't we? I was asking. I know. Can you do that if you quit in your last term and your... So consecutive is... That's where the 12 month came in is, and currently, you break, you have to break away. So you so that consecutive doesn't come into play So they could start over if they wanted to resign So I can be my fourth year. What's that then two years council two years? Let's say I'm doing whatever two years of mayor two years of council. So I can do that right. I can go from two years of mayor. Not from mayor to council. You can't go from mayor to council. No. You have to sit out. Okay. So it gives good be a second. So it's only from council to mayor. So I can go two years or two terms for council, two terms for mayor. They regularly could acquit the last year of my term and then run for election the next term, the next year. If I'm out for a year, can I do that? And then I can take away the year of the new. That's a last. Can I do that? And then I can take away the hand earthing. It's a little less. Can I? So you were thinking about what you did in your turn? Like if you were in your second turn and then you want to quit a year early so that you could run. So I'm setting out for a year. And you don't have the mayor for a year, but I'm off for a year and upset out for a year so then I can run again. You're no longer consecutive. That's kind of what we've struggled with. You're no longer consecutive. I'm no longer consecutive, so I can run again. So I could actually do that. And that was the other original question was, if a person does want to do that what is the sit-out period that justifies a sit-out? Well to me if you're if we're trying to capture the appointment and not penalizing I mean the last sentence in the original proposed language does that if we're never we're doing we're never going to deal with more than 12 months for appointment. Constitutionally we're never going to deal with more than 12 months for appointment. Constitutionally, we're prompted from having a chart provision in the consistent with that anyways. So the 50% rule, as it relates to appointment, isn't going to apply. But the language I have in the red line section initially just says for purposes section, regardless of number of consecutive terms, if you don't serve for a period of 12 months, which it would be somebody's appointed in a 12 month, it won't, it doesn't count against you for purposes of the consecutive terms. So it wouldn't be considered a consecutive term. So now I'm leaning towards putting back that answer. It would allow somebody to get the point, not to be penalized for that eight months that they serve. It would allow somebody to sit out for 12 months, resign if they wanted to run for another council position. Or just need it to. It wouldn't penalize if they were in that 25 hour, you know, 12 months in one day before the expiration of their second term, they could resign and run for their position again that, you know, the next 12 months cycle after 12 months. That would be the practical and important. And that's kind of what has happened a little bit. Has it actually happened or has it just been discussed? Oh, it's just been discussed. So nobody's actually done it? I mean, I don't mean questions that we've had is going from council to mayor. Yeah, I mean, to me, the first two sentences kind of address it. But again, even though in my mind it makes a whole lot of sense. I mean the whole, a lot the big moving factor of this was clarifying that last sentence. Okay. Or at least putting some language in there that clarifies this idea that you can sit out for 12 months and be eligible to serve again. but again I can't imagine I just can't envision a scenario other than the position of mayor or somebody would want to do that. So they drop out for a year. Can you sit on can you resign and yet hold your seat? That's called resign to run. Okay so I still think you have the charge you have to hate your seat. That's called resinder on. Okay, so I can... I still think you have for part of the chart that you have to engage your position. So I can resign as the mayor a year and a day, and then I can stay a whole year on my seat. I can still stay in my seat. If they don't employ them. Whoa, so I get my buddies to... So I can resign. I get my buddies to, so I can resign. I get my buddies to keep me on as mayor, and then I can run again for mayor. People have to fight for you. Yeah, it's so easy. There's no action, but yes, that could happen. Yeah, so we're trying to make, we're trying to really hard to put limits here and as hard as we squeeze to put limits, there's ways to squeeze around to get away from limits. Well, we can take out this resinder run as a release of terminus. I'm just under. I mean, we could put some qualifier in there that, regardless of continuing to serve or not, there's some kind of qualifier in there. So even if they decided to resign knowing that their buddies are not going to appoint somebody to replace the position, then technically that's a weird deal to think about it 12 days in one month. I mean technically they went through your special election. And if they're within 12 months, it's not enough time. So I think that just fixes itself. 12, so what about 12? But here's how the body system doesn't work. Okay, okay. Okay. So you have you have a point in time, the 12 month clock. Okay. There's a second in every year that is that 12 month. So anything outside of that, any time more than that. And they resign that we have to call a special election. Okay. Anything under that doesn't qualify as sitting out for 12 months. It would eliminate that possibility. Does that make sense? Mm-hmm. Okay. Nice to like the 12-month thing in there just because that's practice. Okay, I'm coming around to it. Well, Council wanted some clarification about, you know, what the hell are we doing? And that spells it out. Does it matter that, why is, regardless of the number of consecutive terms, is that just saying then? Now, how many terms you've served? It's not going to apply to running from air. You can serve it. But without that second sentence, nonetheless, with just the first sentence, I mean, I guess they still be bound by the two. And that's again, they still wouldn't be able to serve more than four total terms consecutively because they'd be bound by the two consecutive terms as mayor. And it doesn't work backwards. They can't then say it doesn't apply to me running that as a council member. It's only from council to mayor. So do we want to vote on whether we approve this on the WeWandM election, and we approve this that law or state law? No. No, not this. Not when it comes to terminal limits. No, that would have the very end. No. Okay. No. It's not, but it does have the state law implications or what we talked about as far as what triggers a specialized. I'm sorry, I'm going to get the wrong thing. Okay. So do we just approve that? Yeah, we can't. We can't. We can't down the road. Well, the only thing that this doesn't cover and not to, you know, throw a wrench in, but just one last issue is the 50% rule. This covers the appointment issue. Obviously, we can't appoint somebody that has more than 12 months left on their term. So it wouldn't apply. But I'm trying to think of another situation where somebody would take office of an existing term other than appointment. There could be a special election. Like a recall election. Special election. What if somebody resigns in the first year, we have a special election, somebody serves three years. I guess at that point that's a term. Yeah, I know I always think about the unexpected vacancy thing. So again, somebody passes away into you know six months into their term and somebody we have a special election and we're either at 50% mark or under 50% mark, then you look at all of the terms that we just discussed. To me, that's where it becomes important. Is that person's gonna wanna know his partial term, my special election, did that? So it's finishing a term for somebody. Even a, yes. And the way it's currently written right now, if it's crazy, but if the just total far right side of this equation, if somebody resigned on the 12th month in one day, and we require my law to call special election, the way it's currently written, they would survey what? Two months term maybe had best, after we called the election with 180 days. So that would be considered a consecutive term in the way it's currently written. Right, which was part of the cleanup. We wanted to. Yeah. That would be the only scenario. I mean, the. I mean, OK, 19 years now, right? And that underneath that is the third. Never more than 16 is right? Well you've got four terms and now you've got a fifth if you're pointed or well that wouldn't be It wouldn't be a consent yet if they were I mean that's really more on the front end Than the back end so if somebody's appointed to fill an unexpired term versus You wouldn't be eligible to be appointed to fill somebody's unexpired term unless you sat out at least 12 months in which case you could be I guess technically. Oh no, I'm sorry, it's Mayer cast for period 12, I swear I should have a separate clause in here that just says I don't know circumstance shall I Don't see why this could be that hard because there's like a thousand cities and I don't have to do this. Yeah, most of them don't put it in turn. Very few cities do. That's what's causing us all this issue in these terms. I mean, do we want to put in another sentence just to address that crazy all scenario that somebody happens to be appointed to a special election? No, I think that. Or have a special election. I think that's right. Or have a special election. We have to keep it a lot more simple because if we don't get the more complicated and more worried. It just doesn't address that scenario where it's going to get somebody that it fills. Too bad, they know what happened. Somebody's running for a special election, not an appointed, running for an election, a special election. Whatever term is left on that, is going to be considered part of their consecutive. That's what they get. To become in by election, it's different if they were appointed. Well, it's going to have to be because the 12 month is kind of the trigger of whether a special election is called or not. So just having this 12 month language in there means there's not a scenario where somebody's appointing this is going could be more than 12 months. So that 12 month exception is going to apply. Everything more than 12 months is going to require special elections, so that's not going to apply. So yes, it would count as a consecutive. I mean we could write another sense to clarify that, but we're going to have a two-page term limit section. I'll think about that now before we finalize that too. I mean we could put a sentence in there you know under no circumstance shall somebody serving at least two years of an existing term or anybody serving at least two years of more in the existing term, shall we consider a consented term? Any less, shall I be considering a consented term? So if somebody in the off chance was elected to office in a special election, you know, in the third year of a term, in certain 18 months, it wouldn't count. But they served two years in a month it would. I'm just trying to bring in your 50% rule that y'all talked about. There was some rationale for that, so whether it's somebody should be penalized for that short and ten year, they're initial time. You ought to solve the world's problems today, So if you want, I can look at it. It's always easier to edit than create, meaning you could, the more you throw up to counsel, the more they have to chew on. And it's always easier to scratch that idea out if you don't, if you don't. But something to think about, do you want somebody serving a special election for a period of less than two or two years or less, if you want to give them a break and have that count towards penalizing for a good second term. Can we just do the appointed versus elected one year? Well, currently the way it's written, it's that way. So many that runs for special election, it it's gonna obviously be more than a year on the term, but that doesn't mean they're gonna be seated for more than a year. Because in my scenario that I've mentioned, I mean, you're looking at calling the election 108 days, you're looking at certifying the election results and then swaring them into office. So you're looking at more likely closer to 200 plus days at which time you're bumping up pretty close to call the next regular election anyways. If not right there, you're least talking about it. But again, they're running for office. So versus being appointed to the position, there's a way to distinguish it that way. So I guess do we want to entertain a motion on improving this or a way to see have him make other things for us to look at? It's going to be kind of what I said. It's just some kind of language that distinguishes if you know some kind of caveat that in no circumstance somebody serving two years or more of an existing term, you know, it should not be considered a consecutive term for purposes in this section. So, let me personally unfilialy this and not worrying about that kind of little rare scenario, but I'm open to other. I would agree. It's just going to be getting so simple or. Yeah. What does that mean? I also think, I guess we could make a motion in vote or not vote that. What are you proposing to make a motion to approve the proposed language? Just a little bit of a run away. That's not. If we wanted you to add a notch. I didn't understand what we were thinking about counseling, counting them against it every year or more or more. It's the second, two years or 50% more. That was just a very rare scenario where somebody is appointed in a special way. Or it's a win-to-special way. Other things are offered by next-gen. rare scenario where somebody is appointed in a special or wins a special lecture. Other things are covered by the next thing. I just personally didn't think we need it. We're in Smith down to get every last scenario. That's just me. Well we're so... Don't we have to decline them? In the middle of all of this, we're so... Don't we have to take the middle of all of this? We sort of understand all those moving pieces, but if you're not, you're... Yeah, it's very, very, very confusing. And, you know, if we hope to have people... Oh, periodous. We've got to keep it simple, though. I think most people can understand this. That's right. And it covers the majority of the situations. 99% of them. And it really covers all of them as long as you all recognize that somebody that decides to run for an unexpired term, to fill an unexpired term, it's going to be considered, if it's like one of their consecutive. And that's for that person to recognize. And make that decision right. Yeah. Now again, somebody appointed, has the ability to say, I don't want to take that, but they have the discretion to take the position or not to. So, wait, this is going gonna count against me or whatever. That's my son on the emergency bike. That's more for him. He's gonna call me right back. Oh my god. Oh, so sorry. Make sure to embarrass him, say that we all snarl them. How old is it? How old is it? See, he's right to, oh, he's 24. Oh, I thought so. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. You might be like, just stand there. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. So. All right, so we have somewhat of a consensus. I am going to do this'all can look at it. I think that's good. All right. Okay, so we're not going to make a motion now. Yeah, just look at this. I think we have the direction we need in that. What is representing that? The next meeting is the first week of October. I won't be good. How's the overall schedule look as far as completing whatever we're supposed to do? Yeah, that's why I was going to see if we need to get on the same job. No, we need to keep on moving on. So, if we're going to present the next meeting is going to be a final recommendation, I'm just going to give you some language that if you want to talk about it, you can't just say, have a good one. Which should be the hardest thing? I can't think of anything at all. This is the number one issue. Yeah, we knew that going in. We took care of the whole thing. So what you're saying is we're not going to do anything and more on this issue right now. Is that what we're saying? I think that's a good thing. He said of 30-year-old term. So what you're saying is you're going to get a final report from us. If the next year you're going to have one more final meeting with as soon we get through is that the only item what? Yeah I think everything else they voted on. So you're going to be proposing one more. We're going to propose a final report. I'm just on the side going to hand you a little separate piece of paper it says going back to two points everyone one here's what I'm talking about, you know, I'm saying, hand make sense or forget it. So you're gonna have a final recommendation next meeting. So it's just gonna be like a little side show. So then I want to keep on going, because we're gonna run time and I actually still have some things to do. So 2.05 though, that where we... So that graph will get it before the next meeting I guess, but yes. It makes no sense. There's too much in it. So if I'm not going to be here in the next meeting because this is the first week of the meeting. We'll schedule meeting even if it's not the regular time. We'll find a time when everybody can work. Okay. Okay. So on 2.05 we propose adding that in the intersection B3 stating and the city's code of conduct ordinance. David shouldn't that be or not and that's 2.05 B3. No. Because we don't want those to be cumulative. If they can pick the felony by itself, then they forfeit their office. That's state law now. No, no, I'm B-3. Failed to discharge official duties that provided this charter and the city's code of conduct ordinance. And I thought about it. What's up with something else? Did they vote? Yeah, we voted on it. It shouldn't be or the city's. Yes. Not and. No. Or. Correct. I don't sure that that would ever happen. It should be it would be difficult to lie to Right, it should be or agree. Well, we put we voted for and that's that's all I'm saying Well, I think is everybody okay with that being in here and the intention was to be if I like to eat a one of them That's right. That's what I thought we made when I looked at I was like we got that Okay, and then I'm just gonna go through my stuff and then get me back. So 4.04, we had an attachment that was, uh, it was where Gale's rewrite evolved a different, just how we do the, oh, the commissions and all that. My comment is just real small, is make sure that for consistency that council is capitalized, board is capitalized commissions. That's all going to be part of the grant. That's all. Just wanted to have one proposition to take your all in. Just wanted to put that out. And then in 6.01. What section was that again? That was 4.04. 4.04. Yeah, right now the language doesn't have the capital sections and all that. Blaine. And then in 6.01, let's see. We had, this is P and C, adding P and Z too. I just thought from the purchases that we should show the Stric and the sentence, because don't most of the, when we show it, you show what was Stric and then you show what was added. And so the Stric and Languages, it's not in there. The Stric and Languages, he or she, she'll all know their position, elected appointed or salary in the city government, she'll start without pay. That sentence was taken out, but it doesn't show what was taken out. Is that the way all these amendments are gonna be? No. The most of it shows what's taken out. We're gonna show red line, what's being stricken from the existing wording, and then added red line what's being stricken from the existing wording and then added red line. So the attachment we approved does not show this stricken language. That's all I'm pointing out. These are small, I'm sorry. But it does it show over. The final strict word will, I'm not sure why it does. Okay, it does it show. It will show right. Somewhere it's in the document and just we have to make sure we're correct. We want to show all that's changed. And then I guess my last question was on 11.23 where that's part of the PNZ, that PNZ. Maybe I wasn't there for a meeting, but where do we say that the conference and master plan review commission has to have three PNZ. It says May, does it not? No, we look at it. It says, what are going on? 11.23? 11, yeah, 11.23. You're moving so fast. We can't keep up. I'm just going. I'm running out of time. I'm just trying to say. No, I appreciate it. We're getting bumping up on another move. Right. Now, see, we changed it to May. The commission may compromise. May. May. Instead of shall. This was this was Sean's original. And then we may recommend that. On the attachment to the minutes it has shall shall. Shall we look? 11.2.3. Is it in the packet? We're looking at something 11.3. It's 11.23. This was the original recommendation. And you can see I marked out. See it says, shout, comprise. Where did we agree upon that? We didn't. We changed it to May. Okay, so we didn't get reflected, that's all I'm saying. Yeah, okay. I'm just trying to go back through the... No, no, no, that's smart because I probably should have printed all those. The word is... What's that? That's so... I'm trying to make up for that. Really counts, I'm trying to... He just tried to be it very thorough. So I just need to get really prepared and go back and say, in public. Wait. What do you mean? I don't know if the bads take three seasons and PNC numbers. Because we just sit here and invite. I say that because we're talking about another commission. So maybe we should say that it should be more. Conference of Master Plan Review Commission, I have a view commission, shall it surprise, when I'm playing zoning commissioners? I guess the commission's kind of here, so that's fine. I mean, is it made a tour or not? No, I think what you're saying was correct. It was made as we need flexibility. Okay, cool. It should be. Yeah, I agree. And it should be comprised. Yeah, comprised. Maybe comprised of. Maybe comprised of. Your pins, you may not want to serve in that additional way. Right. I didn't want to say that we had to have three. I didn't think we wanted to say we had. No, I'm telling you so much. You wanted it to. In your grammar, right now, maybe comprised of three. I don't really know. I'll do three. I'll cancel point. That's probably better. The commission is not comprising. Council would comprise. Yeah, wrong. So yes, the commission may be comprised of... Up to three. Up to three council. Yeah, I'm sorry. I mean... You just link three. Okay. You can comprise the three council appointed by PNZ and four council appointed members. Okay. Okay. So sorry to blow in the all the bad that was my stuff does he have That makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because I know you'll have other me. No. That's fine. Do we have time for the pulling down period? Oh yeah. Let's go back through the minutes. What we're supposed to do here. Eight eleven. Oh yeah. Eight eleven. Eight eleven. Is that the judge thing two left. Yeah. Is that the judge thing? No, no, this is really down. Recall hood. The cooling down period. I thought that we had... Sorry, not to do that. That we had said you actually kind of have a cooling down period built into it. So that we didn't need any further. That's our number. Yeah. actually kind of have a cooling down period built into it so that we didn't need any further. That's our remember. Yeah, but that, yeah, that we didn't need any further change to it. Yeah, I think you're going to be able to see samples and it seemed a little convoluted in the right area. Yeah, I think people might see it as being restricted to their high-mabry vents and they've gone to do all this. Of course, there we go. We're going to be mad. Yeah, why would you be mad? Yeah, why would you have a coolant? You're going to be mad at it. But I think once we really read through it, we're like, well, it has built in. Yeah. Built in a cooling period. So not issue? Okay. So we need to make A to L? But we're not but we're not changing that though are we? So if we're not changing it, do we need a motion? No, you know, all right I mean the only motions that I see so far would be to adopt the proposed language in 2.01 the change to OR 2.05 Generally dealing with proper capitalization not only in 4.04, but throughout. 6.01, making sure, as an example, that all proposed changes are reflected, additions and deletions by Redline. Okay. And then 11.23, changing shall to make as far as may be compromised. And you can salute if you so choose. I'll move. What do you say? All in all. That's why I said it. I want to also talk about all in favor. I, I, unanimous. We got it. Okay. And then, so when is our next? Well, I'm really, and it's up to Gail. I don't, this is not my show, it's our show. But I think it would be important if we could get you all together for the party. It's possible. Because that's a number four routine business is happy to be here. Can we do like a query? And a cherry? No, a cherry. No, but you can do it. Well, maybe if you could be ideal, we could do it. Michael. Before a counseling, just because we're all here, they don't have to pay me more to come down here. Oh, OK. But, so. So, say more to pick a date. That's up to you. So when is? All but the council meeting is going to be first for the third or the day? Yes, first and third Mondays. I'm sorry, Tuesday. I always... So the next council meeting is October 1. Yeah, it's all I will not be here, but if everybody else can be here, that's fine. Why are you back? I'm back the fourth, October 4th. Well, and you're going to send your comments to me and we'll make them. Is that okay? I can... Absolutely. Can you know me? I'll be sending comments. I'm gonna miss you. Feel it. Send them to... Well, now that you said, send them to Gale. And I'll take a look at them. Depends on when you get them. I mean I'm the one on vacation. I'll be back the four. Please enjoy your vacation and don't worry about this I think we know where you stand. I go on vacation the third so okay So maybe if they have the first if I could just look at it and send any comments to Gale and not Okay, we'll see we can do okay So that was reaching this is 4.1 I would be worried about this Yeah, get her done by, I would like y'all to have this. So that's the, if we get to this, you buy the first of next week, by Tuesday, next week, you get a week to look at. I think that's sufficient. Okay, yeah. Gail, do you need that sheet that I gave you on the MasterPran section 11.23. Do you need that for your otherwise, I'm gonna put it in my book. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. Okay. Okay, several copies. Okay, great. Thank you. So, should we move to adjourn? And we had to do that a camera. We do have to move that. It's my own move to adjourn. I'll move to move that. It's my only thing. I'll move to you. Okay, I'll second. All in favor? I re are adjourned at 520. Good work. So my next question is Andrew is You guys go sign and just put your name for and then okay I'm sorry Okay, I'll do that. Hold on. Whale? You all not fun? It must be Cindy and Kirby tonight. It's gonna be really fun.