Laserfiche WebLink
<br />b. Properly this section should be entitled "Public Nature of Records" or simply "Public <br />Records." "Publicity" is usually considered to mean "newsworthiness" or a similar concept. <br />c. Change the title to replace the inappropriate word. <br />d. Cleanup only. <br /> <br />38. a. Section 132 prohibits a council member, officer, or employee of the City from having <br />a financial interest, direct or indirect, by reason of ownership of stock in excess of I % of the <br />total stock of a corporation that contracts with the city, or to have an interest in the sale of <br />land or materials, or to have other direct or indirect financial interest. Violation subjects the <br />officer or employee to forfeiture of office or position and renders a contract voidable. <br />b. State law, through Chapters 171 and 176 of the Local Government Code as well as <br />penal provisions punishing abuse of office, address the type of conflict of interest envisioned <br />by this charter provision, and will punish violators, but will not cause a city contract to fail or <br />a person to forfeit office. <br />c. Amend this section to be governed by state law. <br />d. This charter provision is more restrictive than state law and may cause the City to lose <br />qualified officer holders, officers, or employees, or may cause an important contract to fai1. <br /> <br />39. * a. Section 135, entitled "Persons indebted to the city shall not hold office or <br />employment" provides that a person who is in arrears in taxes or other liabilities due the city, <br />even though qualified otherwise, may not hold office or be employed by the City. Also see <br />Comment 8 above. <br />b. As discussed under Comment 8 above, this provision is not enforceable. <br />c. Delete this section or amend it in a manner that will not subject the City to any <br />potential liability. <br />d. See Comment 8. A similar charter provision was held to be invalid in Gonzales v. <br />City of Sinton, 319 F. Supp. 189 (S.D. Tex. 1970). <br /> <br />40. a. Section 136, entitled "Oath of Office," contains a lengthy oath of office which is <br />different than that required by state law. <br />b. The oath of office is different than that which officers who are qualified to administer <br />the oath are accustomed to giving. <br />c. Amend the section to require the same oath of office required by state law. <br />d. Other than avoiding the necessity of having the Charter oath when new officers are <br />sworn in, there is no significant incentive for pursuing this amendment. <br /> <br />41. a. Section 149, entitled "Amending the Charter" contains requirements, such as the <br />mailing of a copy of all proposed amendments to each qualified voter in the City, that are <br />expensive and cumbersome. <br />b. Amendment of the Charter under this section is more complicated and expensive than <br />state law requires. <br />c. Revise the amendment process to be consistent with state law or to at least omit the <br />mailing requirement. <br />d. This amendment is suggested is for efficiency and cost-saving purposes. <br /> <br />10 <br />