Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC Minutes 2021-08-19 RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2021 THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD MET IN A REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2021, IN THE SECOND FLOOR (CMO) CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 910 S. FRIENDSWOOD DRIVE, FRIENDSWQOD, TEXAS, WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS PRESENT CONSTITUTING A QUORUM: James H. Nye Vice Chairperson Kitten Brizendine Commissioner Bill Provenzano Commissioner Ron Cox Commissioner Judy Wiggins Commissioner Dave Smith Commissioner Robin Hall Chairperson Morad Kabiri City Manager Mary Kay Fischer City Attorney Leticia Brysch City Secretary Mayor Mike Foreman welcomed the members of the Charter Review Commission and thanked them for their service for this very important work. 1. CALL TO ORDER City Manager Morad Kabiri called the meeting to order with a quorum present at 6:12 P.M.; all members were present. 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS City Manager Morad Kabiri introduced himself, Mary Kay Fischer, City Attorney and Lettie Brysch, City Secretary as the staff that would be supporting the Commission as it went through the charter review process. The members briefly introduced themselves and Mr. Kabiri noted that many of the current commissioners had served in prior charter review commissions and welcomed their comments and historical knowledge. City Secretary Leticia Brysch gave an overview of the information packet before the commissioners to include a current charter, ordinance and resolutions from previous charter amendment elections, a chart of staff proposed charter amendments, a tentative timeline, and a chart to document commission comments and recommendations per section. Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Kabiri gave an overview of the charter itself and stated that it is basically the constitution for the City of Friendswood. He noted that the city adopted the original charter back in 1971, and that this document outlined the rules by which Friendswood governs itself. He clarified that as a home rule city, which means that aside from those items and powers allowed under state law, the city gets to specify certain laws and ordinances to the benefit of the city, except under certain circumstance when the city is superseded by the state. Mr. Kabiri further noted that as a home rule city, the city is allowed to have a charter, so this commission has a special responsibility to review this document and make recommendations for a potential change to it that will require voter approval. City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer stated that the charter can only be amended every 2 years, which is the reason for this commission, and stated that she was very excited to work with them as she had heard great things about their work in previous commissions. Ms. Fischer noted that there will be many items in the staff recommended charter amendments that makes wording consistent with state law, which will be helpful as state laws keeps changing and the city does not want to have to keep going back and changing the charter to accommodate these changes. Ms. Fischer further clarified that in an instance where there is conflict between the charter and federal/state law, the city will follow the state or federal law; an example being the canvassing provision in the charter which is inconsistent with state law. In response to a question from the commissioners regarding public comments and outreach, Ms. Brysch stated that staff has not received any feedback from the public, even though a charter webpage has been setup to allow for public comments. She did note that Mayor Foreman had stated that he has no interest in changing the council term limit requirements that currently exist in the charter. Ms. Brysch also noted that as the city now conducts its election with Galveston County and Harris County, there are some limitations to conducting the election, one of which is a character limitation for the ballot from Harris County to 800 characters per entity. She noted that she will reach out to the county representative to see if this limitation will also be in place for the May 2022 election. Commissioner Hall noted that as it related to historical information, she has served on the last couple of charter review commissions and had the reports that contained their rationale and recommendations and could provide those to whomever wanted them. 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. Consider the election of the Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson. City Manager Morad Kabiri presented the item and called for nominations for the chair and vice -chair positions. Commissioner Smith made a motion to elect Robin Hall as chair and Mr. Nye as vice -chair, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wiggins. The vote was the following: Ayes: Chairperson Robin Hall, Vice Chairperson James H. Nye, Commissioner Kitten Brizendine, Commissioner Bill Provenzano, Commissioner Ron Cox, Commissioner Judy Wiggins, and Commissioner Dave Smith Charter Revie%% Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 Page 3 of 10 Nays: None The item passed unanimously. 4. BUSINESS ITEM A. Consider setting the times, dates and place for the Charter Review Commission's recurring meetings. The Commission briefly discussed this item and had a consensus that the Commission would meet every other Thursday, and review sections of the charter at each of the next few meetings as follows: 1. Thursday, September 2, 2021 (Review Sections 1.00 — 3.05) 2. Thursday, September 16, 2021 (Review Sections 3.06 — 4.01) 3. Thursday, September 30, 2021 (Review Sections 4.02 — 5.08) 4. Thursday, October 14, 2021 (Review Sections 5.09 -- 8.03) 5. Thursday, October 28, 2021 (Review Sections 8.04 — 9.13) Commissioner Smith made a motion to hold the regular meetings for the Charter Review Commission every other Thursday, beginning at 5:30 P.M. in the CMO Conference Room. Commissioner Brizendine seconded the motion. The vote was the following: Ayes: Chairperson Robin Hall, Vice Chairperson James H. Nye, Commissioner Kitten Brizendine, Commissioner Bill Provenzano, Commissioner Ron Cox, Commissioner Judy Wiggins, and Commissioner Dave Smith Nays: None The item passed unanimously. B. Consider approving Rules of procedures for the Charter Review Commission. The Commission briefly discussed draft rules of procedure which outlines the way the commission, staff and the public are to handle all aspects of the meeting, including public comment. City Secretary Brysch noted that this item was included in the agenda packet for their review. She further noted that these rules were simply a recommendation, and the Commission could change them as they felt was appropriate. Chairperson Hall requested that the criteria used to decide what items needed to be moved forward as a proposed amendment be added to the rules of procedure; the criteria include the following questions: • Does the proposal institutionalize a process promoting good government practice? • Does the proposal correct an omission? • Does the proposal create more openness or responsiveness in government? Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 Page 4 of 10 • Does the proposal create more efficiency or effectiveness in government? • Does the proposal clarify the terms of the Charter? • Is the proposal easily understood? • Is the proposal just and fair? • Does the proposal attempt to address something substantive? Commissioner Smith made a motion to amend the original motion to add the criteria to the rules of procedure. Commissioner Brizendine seconded the motion. The vote was the following: Ayes: Chairperson Robin Hall, Vice Chairperson James H. Nye, Commissioner Kitten Brizendine, Commissioner Bill Provenzano, Commissioner Ron Cox, Commissioner Judy Wiggins, and Commissioner Dave Smith Nays: None The motion to amend the original motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Hall called for a vote on the original motion. The vote was the following: Ayes: Chairperson Robin Hall, Vice Chairperson James H. Nye, Commissioner Kitten Brizendine, Commissioner Bill Provenzano, Commissioner Ron Cox, Commissioner Judy Wiggins, and Commissioner Dave Smith Nays: None The original motion passed unanimously. 5. BUSINESS ITEM A. Discuss possible Charter amendments. The Commission requested that the staff go over the presented staff recommended charter amendments. In response to question from the commission, City Secretary Brysch noted that on the chart, the strikethroughs are deletions of existing language in the Charter and the underlined is the proposed additional language. Sec. 2.06. — Litigation of Liability for damages. Staff Recommendation: Consider mirroring language to that of state law, reducing the time frame to file claims and add language to protect the city's sovereign immunity. City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer presented the section and stated that in this section the reference of the law of this one is the Texas Tort Claims Act and under the state law, the city is given 6-months to file a claim, but there is a provision in the state law that allows for cities that have a charter provision to Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 Page 5of10 determine a notice deadline. She stated that she had looked at other city charters and some give 6-months to be consistent with state law, some are less, such as 60 days, Friendswood currently has 100 days. Ms. Fischer also noted that she had contacted the city attorney from Baytown, whom she highly respects and she added a provision to the end of this general language, which reasserts that this section does not waive the city's sovereign immunity. Mr. Kabiri noted that the time frame should refer back to state law and allow for the 6-month time frame; specifically, as noted is state law under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Sec. 3.09. — Meeting of the City Council. Staff Recommendation: Consider cleaning up language to conform to state law as it relates to open meetings, limiting a quorum to call special meetings, accessibility of open meetings, executive sessions, and giving the city manager authority to call special meetings. Ms. Brysch presented this item and noted that the meeting of the council section is a little bit too specific which ties staff and councils' hands as to when it can hold and operate its meetings. Therefore, the proposed language allows the council to establish the dates and times of its meetings and making them public without being overly specific and thus allow the Council more control over how it operates. Sec. 3.11. — Ordinances in general. Staff Recommendation: Consider the following changes: • 3.11 (b) - remove requirement of approval of a majority of council for a council initiated proposed ordinance before it can be reviewed by the City Attorney, this is a potential violation of OMA by reducing the number to three members instead of majority; replace second posting location with website instead of physical building; remove 72 hour posting requirements for amendments prior to the meeting; and remove requirement to postpone the final reading of an ordinance if said ordinance is amended at the moment of final reading. • 3.11 (c) - remove the effective date of ordinances being contingent on the publication of caption and penalty/offense clauses and have publications comply with state law. • 3.11 (d) - remove requirement for paper copies to be available to citizens present at the meeting, and instead provide copies at the meeting upon request to the City Secretary. Ms. Fischer presented Section 3.11 and stated that this section relates to items that if a city council member wants to bring an ordinance forward, there's a special process that has to be followed, i.e., special review, special deadline, special posting, and staff would like the Commission to consider making all ordinances consistent, so the same process is followed regardless of who brings it forward City Manager Morad Kabiri stated that the last two charter reviews, there was a requirement that staff had to post ordinances that were going to be considered by council a week ahead of time for the public to read and had to be posted outside city hall and the library before the agenda for the meeting was posted, which Charter RevieN% Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 Page 6 of 10 was very cumbersome. Therefore, in the last charter review or so, it has changed from all ordinances to just the ones that were brought forward by the council. Mr. Kabiri further noted that it really makes no sense to have an ordinance posted ahead of time, beyond the meeting agenda being posted in the public if staff doesn't have any draft language yet and recommend staying consistent with state law. Ms. Brysch stated that in order to post the ordinances staff reduced the size of the copy to such a small size that they were not really readable and didn't really enhance public transparency. She further noted that the City of Friendswood is very good at posting its agenda packets in excess of the 72-hour requirement under state law, and it has a very robust agenda packet posted online. Ms. Fischer presented Section 3.11(c), which she felt was important because the charter requires that if there's an ordinance with the penalty, fine, or forfeiture, no person can be liable for any of it unless the caption, the offense, and the penalty clauses are all published. She noted that she is fine with the caption and the penalty, but the offense clause is very unusual, and it causes a lot more expense for publication. She stated that her recommendation would be to have language that those types of ordinances with penalty, fine, or forfeiture will become effective, not less than 10 days from the date of passage, which gives staff time to publish the information in the newspaper. She also recommended that the only items required for publication include the caption and the penalty because that would be in line with what is required under state law. Ms. Brysch noted that another item in 3.11 that is a recommended change is to remove the required paper copies at every meeting. She noted that staff can provide the information upon request, because having paper copies available at every meeting that no one is going to use is a waste of city resources. Ms. Brysch further noted that this information will be provided if requested at no cost as there is a difference between customer service and public information requests, and this city is very customer -service oriented. Ms. Fischer noted that another item under 3.11(b) says that if an amendment is made to the proposed ordinances at the time designated for final reading, the final reading shall be postponed until the next regular meeting or special meeting; staff recommends that this be removed so that it doesn't delay things, especially now that the council meets just once a month. Sec. 3.13. — Codes of technical regulations. Staff Recommendation: Consider amending 3.13(b) to make copies available in compliance with state law (PIA). Ms. Brysch noted that this item is another clean-up to make the language in line with state law and relates to the release and distribution of records. She noted that this item is not necessarily a requirement because the city will follow state law regardless, but it does clean up the language. Sec. 3.14. — Authentication and recording, codification, printing. Staff Recommendation: Consider amending: Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 Page 7 of 10 3.14 (b) — to eliminate requirement for recodification every 10 years; eliminate requirement to print and distribute a physical paper code book as most staff uses electronic format which is also accessible to the public on the website; copies to the public are subject to the PIA and should conform to state law. 3.14 (c) — to eliminate the requirement to print the charter as most records are being kept electronically both for record keeping purposes and accessibility to the public. Reproduction of the charter for the public is subject to PIA and should conform to state law. Ms. Brysch presented the item and stated that the biggest problem with this section is that the codification language is a shall versus a may. She noted that the codification is required at least every 10 years, and this may or may not be necessary and should really allow for the council to make that operational decision. Lastly, Ms. Brysch stated that staff recommended that the commission consider eliminating the requirement to sell copies of the code by a price fix by council under state law; copies to the public are regulated by state, and this just cleans up the language. Sec. 4.04. - City Secretary. Staff Recommendation: Consider moving the city secretary's employment and compensation from under the council to the city manager; this position should be treated like every other department head. Making the duties more general and not as specific to allow for operational control at the management level. Ms. Brysch stated that the item related to under the city secretary rules was her recommendation. She stated that she had been hired to be supervised by the city manager and hired and fired by the council which, as an employee, is a difficult position to be in because she would kind of straddle two worlds. She noted that the language she was proposing would finish moving the city secretary under the jurisdiction of the City Manager so that that the position is seen as any other department head and is fully involved in the operations of the organization, and not kind of a standalone separate island. Ms. Brysch further noted that in her opinion, the duties that are listed in this section are extremely specific. She stated that typically, when a city clerk or a city secretary is listed in a charter, it gives a general outline of the position's responsibilities to the council. It doesn't go into the nuts and bolts of how someone is going to send out a letter, and the day-to-day operations, so the recommendation is to treat the position like any other department head. Under the proposed language, the city secretary would be supervised, hired and fired by the city manager, and would thus allow the city manager to use this position in a matter that is in the best interest of the organization. Sec. 5.04. — Determination of sufficiency. Recommendation: Consider adding days to verify petition signatures, 10 days is not sufficient time and remove registered mail component and clarify the amended petition process. Ms. Brysch presented Section 5.01 and noted that this relates to initiatives and referendums which are ways to bring ordinances or revoke ordinances of the city. She noted that in the past, she had dealt with several initiative and referendum petitions; and had verified 3 initiatives, 1 referendum, and 1 recall. Ms. Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 page 8 of 10 Brysch stated that one of the things that was identified as an issue by her previous city was opportunities for people to submit referendums on items that were regulated by other laws or had fiscal implications, such as a zoned property. Ms. Brysch noted that for the most part, the language in the Friendswood charter is very similar, but recommended the addition of language that eliminates the ability to bring an initiative or referendum that impacts utility rates, zoning regulations, the zoning of specific property, and franchises, which are all regulated under other legislation. As it relates to determining sufficiency of a petition, Ms. Brysch stated that 10 days is not enough time to verify a petition as there are about 13 points that must be checked for each signature and it is a very time- consuming process if done accurately and in a manner that will hold up in court. The Commission discussed the number of days to verify a petition and one additional submission if the petition is found to be insufficient and the consensus was to have 30 calendar days for the initial verification and 10 business days for the one-time supplement. The Commission's consensus was to increase the time frame for the review of the petition from 10 to 30. Sec. 6.02. Filing for Office. Staff Recommendation: Consider removing Section (d) public disclosure requirement as financial reporting is already a part of state law - creates issues with ballot. Remove all of sections (b) - (c) regarding the nomination of a person that may or may not want to file for a place on the ballot. What happens if someone is nominated that does not want to be on the ballot - if someone wants to be on the ballot, they can just file, it is free and state law does not require cities to have a petition process unless there is a filing fee associated with the process, which Friendswood does not have. Additionally, state law does not require the petition for a regular candidate filing with no filing fee, and as ;such should remove that additional requirement. Ms. Fischer stated that she also recommended making the change to the section in order for the charter to be in line with state law and make elections more open and accessible to the public. Ms. Brysch state that in looking at subsection "d" regarding public disclosure, there is a requirement in the charter and it is a part of the filing for office, so to not do this invalidates the candidates filing per the charter. This section specifies that a candidate must file financial report with very specific information about him/herself, his/her spouse, and his/her minor children. Ms. Brysch stated that this report is an additional financial disclosure other than those that are required under state law and governed by the Texas Ethics Commission. Ms. Brysch stated that this report is problematic on several levels, the first being that the filing is required 21 days prior to the election and if someone fails to comply, it invalidates his/her filing for a place on the ballot. However, 21 days prior to the election, the ballot is done, the L&A test is done, and no one can be removed from the ballot, so essentially, there is the potential that a person can be elected that may not be a valid applicant. Sec. 6.04. — Canvassing and election results. Staff Recommendation: Consider changing language to comply with state law as current language cannot be enforced. Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 19.2021 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Brysch stated that the recommended change to 6.04 clarifies the canvassing requirements and puts it in line with state law. Sec. 8.02,. — Public record. Staff Recommendation: Consider making (c) Public notice and hearing on the budget comply with state law. Ms. Brysch stated that this section requires that copies of the budget as adopted shall be made a public record and shall be made available to the public upon request, the recommended change simply clarifies that copies of said records will be made subject to states law, i.e., the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). Sec. 8.03. — Annual budget. Staff Recommendation: Consider making (c) Public notice and hearing on the budget comply with state law. Ms. Brysch stated that Section 8.03 relates to the annual budget and contains additional legalese associated to the public notice and publication for a public hearing. Staff s proposal is just to make it in line with state law, which is already very detailed. Sec. 8.07. — Administration of budget. Staff Recommendation: Consider removing section (c) Independent audit and making it its own section under a separate section and remove requirement to have copy at the library as all records are going to be accessible online via Laserfiche. Ms. Brysch stated that this recommendation came from the City Manager's Office and Ms. Katina Hampton, Director of Administrative Services, i.e., Finance. They recommended that this subsection be moved into its own separate section to give it greater emphasis. Sec. 11.02. — City newspaper. Staff Recommendation: Consider removing language to allow for operational control of administrative processes as there have been issues with paper quality and/or ability to stay in business. Ms. Brysch noted that Section 11.02, is an operational issue and noted that there have been some issues with the existing paper in quality and responsiveness and recommended allowing the council to designate its paper as needed. Sec. 11.10. — Submission of Charter to voters. Staff Recommendation: Remove as language is obsolete and creates confusion of process from original charter to charter amendments. Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Ms. Brysch stated that this item regarding the submission of the original charter of the voters and could be confusing. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business to discuss, Chairperson Hall adjourned the August 19, 2021, Charter Review Commission Meeting at 7:57 P.M. OF FRIEN/ps Leticia Brysch, City