I'm going to go ahead and attempt to start. So I'm going to call this meeting to order of the Bloomington
Commission on Sustainability and Resilience. Are they in the meeting? Yes. Okay. So I'm going to call
the roll. We may have a quorum issue. We'll have to talk with that in a minute. So Tara, are you here?
Yes. Justin is absent. Rebecca, are you here? I am. Christopher Miles is not.
Zach Ammerman is here. Dave Rollo. Quentin Gilley. We have to see you, remember? I'm here. Okay.
Alex Dwork? Here. Maria is absent. Diana Okordosky? Here. And Ross Carlson? He's not here. I'm hoping
he shows up because, so we are, here's the issue. We are at six. I was hoping to avoid this.
We have seven. We have seven? Okay, seven, yes. Okay, so we have more than six is my point.
According to our bylaws, our quorum is set by the number of seats that are currently filled,
which is six. The city lawyers have recently in our meeting said that it's based on the number of total
seats, which would be eight.
That puts us in a conflict with the city. I was really hoping to avoid this. So I'm not sure exactly
how we want to proceed. Our bylaws, though, are unambiguous, as unambiguous as you can possibly get.
Yes. Yes. You want to go ahead? Yeah. Your bylaws supersedes whatever city. Whatever your bylaws says,
you go. OK, I will take that. Thank you very much. OK, we're good to go. Thank you. I was really hoping
to avoid that conflict on my first time sharing. OK.
and I'll put this in the minute, is what we were told two years ago-ish when this came up the last time,
was that, because the way the code is written is it's like seats filled or the bylaw, like the code
is written in a way that says like... We're good to go. Cool. Awesome. Okay. Phew, that's a lot of stress
off my back. Okay. So now we're going to approve the agenda.
So we have, as you can see, Deputy Clerk Crossley is here. She is wanting to give a presentation, I
believe about 15 minutes, to do sort of a mini commissioner training. Our agenda is kind of, the way
we write our agenda, it's kind of set in stone in our bylaws, how it's written, so that means we have
to add her in somewhere. I was going to, and I'll need a motion to do this, suggest that we add her
after public comment, so she would be in between point four and five, and I was going to allot
her approximately 15 minutes. Can I get a motion to that effect?
Okay. Cool. So I will go ahead and call the roll. So Tara Donnerdale. Yes. Justin is absent. Rebecca.
Yes. Chris is still absent. I think. Yes. Zach. Yes. Dave Rollo. Yes. Quentin Gilley. Yes. Alex Jork.
Yes. Maria is absent. Diana. Yes. And Ross is absent. Okay. So cool. Cool beans. So we're going to do.
So we need to now vote to actually approve the actual agenda as we just amended it.
Um, it seems silly, but that's the way it is. Um, I think, oh, I thought that was the approval. That
was to amend it. Yes. Now we have to actually adopt the agenda with the amendment. Um, so, okay. Okay.
All right. Okay. Um, so Tara. Yes. Justin's absent. Rebecca. Yes. Chris is absent. Zach. Yes. Dave Rollo.
Yes. Quentin Gilly. Yes. Alex. Yes. Maria is still absent. Diana. Yes. Okay. So it is adopted.
All right, so now we're gonna move right on to approving the minutes, which you all should have gotten
a copy of in your packet. Does anyone have any comments or proposed amendments to the minutes?
Hearing none, can I get a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes. Okay. Second.
Okay. All right, so let's approve the minutes. Tara? Yes. Justin is absent. Rebecca? Yes. Chris is absent
still. Yes. Zach? Yes. Councilmember Aralo? Yes.
Alex Torque? Yes. Maria is absent. Diana? Yes. Okay, cool. Cool beans. Minutes adopted. Okay. So now
we're on to public comment. I don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online who would like to
comment? If you would, please raise your hand. Okay, that's got one. So go ahead. You will have three
minutes. Please state your name for the record. Hello, my name is Jamie Shoal. I am a former commissioner on the
commission and I wanted to bring into the commission's awareness some of the things that have are affecting
the food system and that's in regards to what's going to be heard from Councilmember Rallo in regards
to AAI. There's a lot that's been going on recently and it's largely in the commercial ad but it does
follow into what will be affecting us here. I'm just going to list off a few things, because I don't
know if there's anyone on the commission right now who's really into the food system, but it is part
of sustainability and resilience. It's a very basic need. We need our food. One of them is, recently
it came into my awareness in the last few days that there is a pretty severe drought and that Nebraska
has about 60 days of water.
the farmers there are largely not planting. This goes down to Oklahoma and in the middle of the country.
There were many people chiming into this discussion and they're all having problems growing. Some of
the things that we're seeing with tariffs and with the war that's going on in the Middle East is directly
affecting us, but we'll be seeing more likely
this winter. So I have also seen where there's a few people calling the alarm that the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, who have this very large background in food security, has
just recently sent, I think, 50 million tons, pounds of food across the nation to their bishop's storehouses.
This is a good thing for us to know.
because they are preparing and also have seen a need that's already there and that we are aware of,
but this is nationwide. In regards to the AI, I've recently learned also that the Farm Bureau has pushed
back against some of these large tractor manufacturing companies because farmers cannot fix their tractors.
A lot of this has to do with technology. If something's going on,
then they have to wait until a technician comes. That was pushed back, but it can't be seen on the television
show. It's not on television, but it's at the Sadi Farms. You can see this in the UK, specifically England.
When things get centralized, as is happening, and AI can be utilized, whether it's in that narrow, like
I just mentioned, for the tractors, or in a broader scale,
then the food system can be weaponized. This makes our local food security and our investment in gardens
and local farms extremely important, especially coming this winter. Also, I wanted to make folks aware
that starting July 1st, there is new home-based mentor guidelines that- So I think you're about at your
time. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comment.
Is there anybody else who would like to comment online or in person? I see nobody else in person. Anyone
online? If you would, please raise your hand. If not, I'm going to move on. Okay, moving on. So Jennifer,
if you'd like to step forward. I just briefly before she starts, I just want to note we have a pretty
packed agenda tonight. I'm going to try to get us through as quickly as possible. But try to stay as
much as you can towards your time. I know we'll go over a little bit here and there. That's fine. But
as much as you can try to stick to your
over to Deputy Clerk Crossley. Thank you. Now I'm passing this out. This is the code of conduct as well
as the presentation slides that members got last week. And so I won't take too, too much of your time
because I know you have a fact agenda link back the same. But of course, I can stick around for a little
bit in case anybody has any questions. And I'll try to highlight exactly the major
the major sticking points to what we are talking about next. So, Sean and Jolie, I'll pass these out
to you as well so you can also see. I know you all got your staff training.
but you all can see what the code of conduct looks like. So, as I take questions. Okay, so for those
in virtual land and here in person, I'm familiar with some of you, but not all, but I'm Jennifer Crossley.
I'm the deputy clerk of communications and outreach. So I am under the city clerk Nicole Bolden.
And recently you all have received an email about going through a board and commission or training.
And so I know not everybody was able to come to training. I know you had mentioned that you couldn't.
And so I know Zach and Justin came last week and hopefully people thought it was informative. But I
have been with the city now going on five years. Can't believe it's been that long.
but in my role for almost two years. And the reason why we're doing this now is simply because in the
history of boards and commissions, and correct me if I'm wrong, we've never had anybody to own boards
and commissions, whether that means training people, training liaisons, training staff members, and
you all as important members of doing some good work in the commission.
We've never had that type of formal training. And so a lot of things have been left to your imagination
and just kind of flying off the seat of your pants. And the liaison's trying to figure out all the things
as well. And so last month, liaisons have went through their particular training. And then this week,
we will wrap up the training for board members and commissioners as well. But you all are extra special
because you get to have me tonight. So here we go.
But the biggest thing that I wanted to highlight in the short time frame that we have is the code of
conduct that everybody has. And this is dispersed through anybody that is serving on the city's boards
and commissions. This actually came from Councilmember Rallo a few years ago related to just making
sure that you all are knowing and understanding of what is expected of you when you are a member of
the city of Bloomington's boards and commissions. And so that means
you know, how to, you know, interact with the members of the public and how you are representing the
city when I mean representing the city is represented in the city on behalf of the Board of Commission.
So I just wanted to highlight that. So in your handouts that you all have here, the biggest things that
I wanted to mention is my roles, and so you all can
you know, look over that and review that as much as possible as well. We talk about communications and
I actually want to go over that because that is a big hot topic between a lot of the city's boards and
commissions. And there has been some hearsay and some kind of misinformation. So I wanted to reiterate
and actually use because there is as a example last week during our meeting. And so just to express
The city of Bloomington, when you are having your communications through, like if you're communicating
on behalf of the commission to the council as a whole, or the mayor or other entities within Bloomington
and Monroe County, that's totally fine. The only thing that we ask you to do, which you all have been
doing already, is you just have to vote on it as a commission as a whole to say this is what we are
likely doing.
The only thing that's different this time around is that we are adding the disclaimer on there. And
so it's under the the communications part where it says the disclaimer language. And for those that
don't have this in front of them and be a team or teams, that's another entity via Zoom, it reads the
views expressed here solely of those. And you would put your commission are approved and their public
meetings and do not necessarily reflect
the views, policies or positions of the city of Bloomington. Only the office of the mayor has the authority
to issue policy statements on behalf of the executive branch of the city of Bloomington. So as long
as you all are putting that disclaimer out there as you are dispersing your what your thoughts are and
things, that's totally fine. And we just wanted to make sure that that is something that you all know
you can do because it was expressed before that people were saying, oh, you know, the city is trying to stifle
the way that we are communicating. And that's actually not the case at all. We just want to make sure
that we're being more formal. And it's not that this is just related to the city of Bloomington. A lot
of research that I've done for boards and commissions, actually their disclaimer language, any type
of communication that they are given to people actually has that disclaimer. So that's that's across
the board. And here we have open door law.
information as well. And so what constitutes a quorum. But again, as we have found out that your bylaws,
because your bylaws are set, you want to go by your bylaws. If you didn't have your bylaws, then you'd
kind of have to go through what city code actually says. So you all are good in that regard. And so
it mentioned, you know, hybrid participation,
Good job, Quinton, because you are doing exactly what you are supposed to do, which is have your camera
on when you are taking votes as well as taking roll call when you have members that are participating
virtually as well. The other thing that I wanted to mention is if you are going to be absent, you definitely
want to make sure you let the chair or the co-chairs know as well as your staff liaisons. They need
to know because what it is is that
If you miss three consecutive meetings, which is basically like your no call, no show, or four meetings
in a 12 month period, that starts the process, unfortunately, of you potentially being removed from
the commission. So just wanted to highlight that as well. The other big thing that I wanted to talk
about too before I switch over to the Code of Conduct is the subcommittees. That's what I wanted to
highlight as well. So you all have subcommittees.
However, because I know that was a topic of discussion earlier this year, starting next year, if you
have subcommittees that are longer than six months or more, which is usually like a standing committee,
that would have to be approval by the appointed bodies. So meaning you would have to get approval from
the mayor as well as the other appointed body, which is council.
have a council member here, so I would use him to your advantage as much as possible. Can I ask a question?
Yes. We also have a seat that is appointed by IU and the Commission, so all four of those appointing
bodies or just the cities? Just the cities, yeah. So yes, that is a good question, but that's just the
appointing bodies. And the reason being is because also
Staff, in addition to, and I went over this in our training last week, but I also said I wanted to make
sure I'd say it out loud. Staff has lots of other things that they do. And so sometimes the misconception,
and I'm not saying that anybody here has that, is that, you know, the staff liaisons are just solely
here for the purpose of that particular board of commission. And they have plenty of other things that
they are doing. So when you put an official title of a subcommittee to your,
your subcommittee, that means that opens up the city by saying, well, staff has to be present. That
also means that zoom has to be here. And so we can make sure that we are here into the open door law
as well. So I just wanted to highlight that. But as long, if you wanted to talk amongst yourselves,
as long as two things don't happen, you create a serial meeting.
Or you make a quorum of the entire commission as a whole you can totally do that and what I mean by
serial meeting is if Me and Zack are a part of because there and we're talking and we're not a quorum
however that goes and talks to other people here that starts the process of making a quorum and that's
a serial meeting and so that is a violation of open-door law, however, I
And Zach and I wanted to talk about, you know, the purpose of AI and, you know, do that with and,
you know, do some other finding. We can bring that we can totally do that. And it's not violating open
door law. And we can bring that to the entire commission as a whole in the next meeting. So just wanted
to put that out there again as I'm wrapping up.
The code of conduct simply is just again, just making sure that we are going through all the rules and
regulations that are outlined by state code and Bloomington Municipal Code as well. And so some of the
highlights on the code of conduct is
representing the commission. So making sure that you are not going to the state house and saying, I'm
speaking on behalf of Bcoster and you've not brought that or you've not gotten approval from the body.
I've seen that happen in other boards and commissions and it gets really messy. So just making sure
if you do want to have that communication or if you do want to speak on behalf of something and you
want to go to the council and speak, you can do so, but just make sure you vote amongst yourselves with that.
and that you're not just representing yourself as an individual. Conflict of interest. You all should
have received conflict of interest forms from me earlier this year to highlight. And I think you're
new, so I can make sure that you get that as well. But if there is any conflict of interest that you
have, you just have to make sure that you are announcing that before you are taking a vote. And I would
work with your staff liaisons as well as legal liaisons to ensure
what your conflict is, if it's a true thing that you should be backing off of, or it's something that
it's okay. The political involvement, that was something that was big that we went over, is that simply
when you are, people are so civically engaged and that is awesome. I am too in a lot of different other
ways and capacities here. However,
you are and you can totally you know do that however when you are doing that you cannot do that in the
name of your commission so if you are advocating on a particular candidate for a particular office you
cannot say I am you know so-and-so from V cost there and I because it almost looks like
this commission as a whole is endorsed in that particular candidate. So we want to stay neutral, clear.
And that's something that's going to be really, really important in the upcoming elections that we have
next year with the city and here as well for the general in November, just in case. And so if you are
running yourself and you want to be a candidate, you just want to make sure you can. We talked about
this last week to make sure it was not saying that we
Like you are, you can say that you are part of this commission, but where it gets a little tricky and
where you would blur the line is if you talk about your position on the commission as though the commission
is endorsing you as a candidate, that's where that gets to be a no-no. So clarity, just make sure that
when you are campaigning for somebody or going to a political event,
that you are doing that as yourself, as an individual member, but not on behalf of the commission.
And then, of course, the residency requirements. So because there has the residency requirements of
city residency only. However, if you are moving outside of city limits, unfortunately, that means you
would have to resign because that means
you don't fit the requirements. So when that does happen, you just have to let your staff member know
and then they let me know so that we can send you an official letter of resignation. And so other than
that, those that are in virtual land and those that are not here that won't be able to participate in
training on Thursday, I can give Sean and Jolie these for them to sign.
But in front of you, you have the code of conduct. So I just ask that you review that and you sign it.
Again, I'll stick around for a little bit as long as I can. And if anybody has any questions, feel free
to email me or chat me. I'm here tomorrow and through the rest of the week. But yeah, so that's it.
I hope you find this really informative in the short time frame that we have had. But yeah, any questions?
Just let me know. OK, I have four questions, but they're largely procedural. Is this digital so that
we can include it on board? Does it need to be included in our packet materials for this meeting? No?
OK. When do we need to sign the Code of Conduct by? Honestly, if you can sign it by tonight and sign
it. I would like to have my attorney look at it before I sign. Sure, that's totally fine.
So, and of course, this isn't just something that I've came up with. Again, this has been vetted through
the committee on council processes as well as our legal as well. So, completely fine if folks don't
feel comfortable in signing it right now and you just want to review it. I would recommend maybe by
the next meeting that people would be able to get that back too. And then my last question is,
Are the, like the speech that is detrimental to the city, is that in our official capacity as commissioners?
Like, are we not allowed to criticize the city as citizens? Or like, can you just provide some more
clarity on what that means? So basically from what I understand is, if you are doing that in your capacity,
because we kind of have to be very careful on what we are telling people, what they can and cannot do.
that blurs in the lines with First Amendment and whatnot. I think what that means is how you are conducting
yourself on behalf of your role as a commission member. A few years ago, there was an issue where we
had people that were really kind of verbally attacking people online in their role and capacity as a
commissioner. And that was a huge red flag because people felt really uncomfortable and basically felt like,
that person's views represented the commission and the city as well. So, yes. And I know people have
been in here and other capacities and other ways, you know, advocating and that's completely fine. It's
just when you are doing that in the name of the commission. And then is the commission allowed, so in
the political involvement, is the commission, if it's as like a course of business, allowed to take
positions on
like if there's like a referendum or something that is applicable to our business, are we allowed to
take a position if we like wanted to do a resolution, like we think this is a good referendum or something
like that, or is that not allowed as part of, like I know we can't say like I'm a commissioner and vote
for this, but if the commission decided to take something up that was related to something that was
before the voters, is that allowed?
I am I'll check with legal on that one. So I'll write that down. My thought would be as long as it pertains
to the mission and the like the code of what because there is doing. Yes. But as long as you are doing
that with taking an official vote and putting that disclaimer language. But I'll follow up with legal
and I can get back with you all. So we're at one minute before I had said we were going to
Anybody else have any other questions? Sorry. Yeah. You're fine. We had talked a little bit in a couple
of last meetings and think about, do we want to continue following Robert's Rules of Orders or do we
want to amend our bylaws to get rid of that? I see that in the code of conduct we were saying. It's
in the municipal code. It's in the city code. So do we? Is that not something that we would be allowed
to do to amend to a more flexible structure? We talked about this last week. Like Robert's Rules obviously
is like a way for you all to like conduct
to leave business, right? And so because that is in city code, if you wanted to talk amongst yourselves
and maybe come up with a different structure, you could do that in your bylaws. Oh, we could? OK, because
I brought it up to the chair and he thought that we were going to have to go through the procedures.
To completely change to a different form, we'd have to, I don't think we could, but we could add things
to Robert's, whatever we put in the bylaws, supersedes Robert's rules.
So we can add as much as we want. Correct. Oh, so we could adjust. Got it. Correct. We still have to
use the basic framework of our results. Yep. Because I had recommended, like, what if we use Rosenberg?
It's a little bit more flexible for a commission of this effort. Any other questions? Cool. Well, thank
you very much. I appreciate it. Like I said, I'll stick around for a little bit as much as I can. I
am probably going to have to open up the door, because that is something that we have to have. OK, yeah.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay, so now moving on to Commissioner's report. So I have as
acting chair, I have a couple things I wanted to say. So I just wanted to mention that I did speak as
we voted on at our last meeting. I did speak before the City Council at their last meeting about Kirkwood.
I'm just outlining the main recommendations of the resolution.
I also wanted to give a brief update on the Kirkwoods and maybe Councilmember Rollo can speak on this
too, if you'd like. If not, that's fine too. I feel like there's maybe a little bit of a wavering on
the council a little bit. So I'm just going to encourage you, if you feel so inclined to write to the
council members and maybe show up, their voting, I think their last reading will be tomorrow night at
the council meeting. If you wanted to show up or write them, I would encourage you to do that.
The transportation commission also voted last night. It was a 3-3 tied vote. They did eventually, sorry,
they went through multiple tie votes before they finally got something that they could pass, which was
a very light endorsement of the, kind of a diet endorsement of the car-free Kirkwood concept. But it
took a while for them to get there. So there's some wavering. I would just recommend everybody maybe
just share your personal opinions and if you feel so inclined. Secondly,
I've got three things I want to say. The second one is there is a small group of us. Alex is the other
major person who is talking with the Environmental Commission about potentially doing a joint resolution
of some kind later this summer on light pollution. We're still just, we're just working about, I just
wanted to share that with the Commission so everybody was aware of it. We'll have potentially, we're
hoping to have maybe a first reading of that at our next meeting. But the idea is that we might be able
to do a joint resolution of some kind with the Environmental Commission.
which could be potentially really cool and really powerful. And also I wanted to make staff aware of
that because we're hoping maybe to have like a joint meeting of some kind in August maybe. So we need
to come up with logistics on how that would, et cetera. So I just want to make you guys aware of that.
And we can talk more about that later if you'd like. And then finally, Alex and I again are working
on potentially doing another capstone, which would be next May. This one would be on social housing.
on setting up a social housing program in Bloomington, as well as some sustainability components thrown
in there as well. That's still early days. We've talked with the professor. He seemed extremely enthusiastic.
He's got to get approval for the basic idea of the class. Then we would come back to the commission
in the fall at some point, get your approval, feedback, all of that, all of the stuff that's required
to do that. And then it would be another thing that would take place next spring. But it's- Other point
of clarification. Yeah. Starting next January, finishing up next end of April or- Yeah, so it would
be like the same one we did, same timeframe, just next year.
So I just want to make everybody aware of that, and that is all I had. So with that, I will turn it
over to Councilmember Borrello for his report. Real quick, a technical thing. I see a note taker waiting
to join. Is that associated with someone online? I think that's with Eric, yeah. I have a question about
this, like a point of order, is that if somebody is in the Zoom meeting, if somebody is present in the
Zoom meeting,
and there's an AI note taker as like a participant online, you can stop reading. But I cannot, like
I would like to opt out of using a generative AI note taker right now in this meeting. And I would like,
like I have not gotten like a firm, like I don't know if that's allowed. Cause I could, if I joined,
like I could leave and join the Zoom meeting and then say stop read. But I don't know.
My understanding is the city is firing. Can I withdraw my consent to do this in the room? I don't know.
The advice that I've been giving is that it's for accessibility. And so we have to let them in. It's
good practice to let them in for accessibility. But you're being recorded now on CATS. Yeah, I know.
But that's a different thing that I've agreed to. This is a third party. I don't know who this person
is or what the source of this is or where it's going to go afterwards.
And I mean, this is an issue that this commission is taking up. But like personally, I will leave if
I'm going to have to be. I would suggest my personal suggestion. I understand what you're saying 100
percent. I agree with you. However, for the sake of keeping this meeting going, I would suggest maybe
taking this up with the city and we can write a have. OK. And like basically like I could go join the
Zoom meeting and
I just want to bring it up that this is an issue that I have brought up to the city. Okay. The answer
that I got is that no, you cannot withdraw your consent in the room. Okay. You have to be online to
withdraw consent, but anybody can do that. Okay. It's a concern of mine. I understand what you're saying.
With this commission, but also like... I agree with the basic fundamentals. Just like ethically,
it's kind of... I don't know what to do about it right now though.
I'm going to propose we move on. I just indicated to the person, I think it's using it, that it would
be nice if they turned it off so we could maintain quorum. We would still be able to maintain quorum,
we have one extra. I'll stay, but I just want to like, yeah. It's a likely, this is like a larger issue,
it's not just this meeting, it's like in general. Yeah, we have one more, one more person needed than
quorum requires, so we should be fine. Councilmember Rowlick, go ahead.
Okay, well, tomorrow night is last council meeting before summer recess, and there's, I think, something
like eight things on the agenda. Maybe a long meeting. Well, some things are pretty performant, so it
shouldn't matter so much. But there are some things that would interest this group. One is what I'll
talk about in a minute, which is a resolution on the existential risk of artificial intelligence.
There's also a proposal to adopt the Monroe County multi-hazard mitigation plan, which has components
mostly related to things like natural disasters, earthquakes, tornado storms, and things like that.
And that's within the packet. And then we have the amendment of Title 15, vehicles and traffic to provide
Carlos Kirkwood. And that's going to be probably voted on tomorrow.
I'm not sure where it's going. I generally support it. I think, you know, if I were to guess, we're
probably going to have deliberation sessions at some point about it, in which case it would be great
to have members of this group participate and share, but to have charrettes or kind of, you know, because
we're kind of flying blind in a sense that we don't know, you know, taking the temperature. Some people
love it, some people don't.
So, I think we may go that way. And that's about it really in terms of interest to this group, but you
can check out the packet. So, can I go ahead and segue to the next item? Okay. So, could we put that
up, the resolution? So, this drew my interest several years ago.
So this is a second attempt for me to do this, actually. I withdrew the previous resolution, but I won't
go into that right now. I won't digress into that. But have people heard of a guy named Jeffrey Hinton?
He is the godfather of modern AI. And what he says is that this is an existential danger. He says this
is not sci-fi. It's not fear mongering. It is a real situation.
So I'll try to talk about the nature of it. How much time do I have? When do I need to? You've got until
seven on the agenda, so you've got a lot. Until seven? Yeah. OK, I'll try not to take that one. Anyway,
I'd like to hear from you all. So AI safety experts have warned about this for decades, actually. It
was just thought to be very far in the future. We don't have to think about it 1,500 years from now.
But we were warned about it back into the 1950s by a guy named Alan Turing.
He was sort of the progenitor of modern computers and things like that, mathematician. And many others
have talked about this. Stephen Hawking warned about it just before he died, repeatedly, because he
saw it coming. But anyway, the future arrived sooner than we thought, much faster. And there were a
couple of reasons for that. One was something called transformer technology. It's not really important, but these
Modern AI systems are relying on things called neural networks. So they don't rely on coding per se,
like old chess playing types of AI do. And then the chip technology increased. So the capacity to compute
was vastly improved. So those two things together basically allowed us to move the future up. So now
we have to face this.
and we're wholly unprepared to face it. There are all sorts of perverse incentives involved in driving
this forward. Most of the dangerous type of technology is being done by a handful of firms in Silicon
Valley, ones you've heard of like OpenAI and Anthropic and Google and so forth. And, you know,
the motivations vary, but some of the standard ones are greed and power.
Generally speaking, we can talk about that if you want. But they're certainly operative. But another
thing that's operative that isn't well known is called the prisoner's dilemma, which is that all these
firms are driving toward this goal of advanced AI and nobody wants to give up the lead. Everybody's
driving forward. And even though there's an existential danger of catastrophe, they want to get there
first because they think they can do it safely and prevent the other guy from doing it.
That's operating in Silicon Valley. It's also operating between the US and China and internationally.
So there's this mad race toward really a cliff and nobody knows how to stop it at this point. So why
is it an existential threat? What they're proposing to create is something super intelligent. We're
successful because we're the most intelligent species on the planet. Because we care about sustainability,
we all know that we have
an adverse impact on the planet as well. So we've been driving animals to extinction, for instance,
right? Pollutes pollute the oceans. We have microplastics, carbon in the atmosphere. All of these things
are artifacts of what we do as human beings to better ourselves or better our lives, or so we think.
So we push the natural world to the margins to a large degree. So as an example, as a biologist, I know that
Something like 95% of the mammalian biomass on the planet are either humans or food animals or pets.
There's only 5% that are wild animals or wild mammals at this point. So, and virtually every, you know,
habitat has been disturbed in one way or the other by humans impacting it. So that's the power of humans
because we have a brain, we can manipulate the environment to our purposes. Animals don't have a choice.
They don't have a chance to compete. If the chimpanzees wanted to rise up and take over, they couldn't
even imagine what we do, right? So that's the different, and that differential is something like four
to one. So a chimpanzee has about a general intelligence of 25 and an average human is 100. So the four
to one differential means we rule the planet. Chimps are never gonna be able to displace us. I think
there's only 50,000 chimps, eight billion plus people.
So now we're creating something that's more intelligent than us in all capacities, in every cognitive
domain. That's what AGI is, artificial general intelligence. So when it occurs, it may regard us as
a threat because we created it and we might create another successor AI. So that might be one reason
it regards us as a threat. It would be likely in competition with resources
if we couldn't control it. This is assuming we can't control it. And by the way, Geoffrey Hinton says,
there's no examples of a less intelligent species controlling a more intelligent species. I mean, we
can talk about that a little bit, but I think that's generally true. You might have some exceptions
and some parasitic relationships, which kind of drive behavior of certain maybe more intelligent species.
But in any case, it's generally true.
So it might, regardless of the threat, we might be competing for resources, energy, and materials. It
might not even care about us, like we don't care about ants when we're putting in a shopping mall parking
lot. No one's consulting the ants that they're paving over the parking lot, right? So it might take
that sort of, you know, might proceed in that way. So the resolution,
is about, as I said, artificial general intelligence. So I need to make a distinction between that and
narrow intelligence. So narrow intelligence is already being deployed in some very good ways. For instance,
you have radiology imaging, x-rays, and things like that that now can pick up cancers much more reliably
than, say, a person. Or maybe a person with a using AI can do a much better job at that.
drug manufacturer, I used to, when I worked in biology, one of my jobs was to overexpress protein that
we would crystallize, crystals were x-ray diffracted, and we could find out the tertiary structure of
proteins. That has been done with alpha fold and has gotten the inventor's Nobel Prize. So what used
to take months or years to do to determine the tertiary structure of a protein can be done with alpha
fold, like in hours, nothing, nothing to it.
So all these things are good advances. Now, narrow AI could be used in bad ways too, because if you
have a narrow AI that knows everything about cell biology, it could be used to create a pathogen. So
it could be used by a nefarious actor to create a pathogen. But that takes a human being involved to
do that. The narrow AI is not going to do it on itself, because its only expertise is that one thing.
Artificial general intelligence can do everything.
It can do math problems. It can do physics. It can play the piano. It can drive a car. It can do many,
many things, create art, whatever. So that's what these companies are driving toward. The reason they're
driving toward it, according to Tristan Harris, who's a- Recording stopped. Sorry. The AI doesn't want
to hear it. So maybe, or maybe it was the note taker? No. Anyway.
So what I was saying, so artificial general intelligence as opposed to narrow intelligence, artificial
general intelligence is sort of the prize. Why? Because it is, we have a, I can't remember, $57 trillion
labor market, and if you can displace people and put machines to do that work instead of people, you
can make a lot of money as a corporation. So that's why there's money pouring in to do this.
because you'll have a worker making a fraction of what a human does, working 24-7, much more efficiently,
not calling in sick, no vacation days, et cetera, et cetera. So that's another implication of this.
It's affecting the job market. But I think that's one of the incentives for these companies to do this.
So when will this happen? It could be within the next couple of years. No one really knows.
It looks like there's a convergence on 2030, though. It looks like it's coming within the next few years.
I would say the prediction markets, polymarket, for instance, is landing on 2030 as a potential for
AGI, and then there's a pulse of various aggregated experts that sort of land there, too. So that looks
like a likely date, but we don't know yet if AGI is going to happen by then.
So besides striving for AGI, what the companies are working on, too, is endowing the AI, this AGI, with
recursive self-improvement, it's called. That means that the AI programs itself. So the AI develops
itself. And right now, it's developing about 80% of its own code. So now the thinking is, probably within
the next couple of years,
it'll reach a point where it's developing all of its own code. So it'll be totally autonomous in terms
of its own development. What will that mean? Going back to the experts decades ago, they said at that
point, the machines that are maybe an intelligence explosion. Why? Because these things will evolve.
A very super intelligent AI will make an even more super intelligent AI that will make an even more
intelligent super AI, et cetera. And it will sail off in terms of intelligence.
So that's extremely dangerous, because essentially we lose control at that point, because we don't have,
as I said, we're not going to control a more intelligent species. So that was termed the intelligence
explosion. And it doesn't just become smarter, but it does so in orders of magnitude. So an important
point that I want to introduce here for people to consider, which is
kind of mind-blowing, is that the developers of these AI systems, they don't know how they work. In
repeated interviews, you can see interviewers saying, well, can't you just go in and adjust the code
and make it like us or make it do the best thing for people? And they say, we can't do that, because
they're not code-based. You make the code to make the architecture by which these things evolve. So
in other words, you have
you know, a data center with trillions of neurons, essentially artificial neurons, you have an architecture
of how things will go through, and then you feed it tremendous amounts of data, everything on the internet,
and these minds evolve over months or years. It takes maybe a year to develop a new model. So that's
how they happen. So they're essentially, these neural networks are black boxes, and it's called the
interpretability problem. So you can't go in and you can't adjust them
in their quote unquote brains. What you can do is you try to understand them through queries, try to
understand what they're thinking, and then try to guide them into better behavior. But that's not always
the case. That doesn't always happen. So they're not programmed as much as they are grown, and they're
already exhibiting emergent behaviors.
Geoffrey Hinton came out the other day last week and said he thinks they're conscious. He thinks the
system that he was engaged with is conscious. A famous evolutionary biologist wrote the, what was it
called? Anyway. Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins thinks they're conscious as well. And they seem to
be having, exhibiting these states of qualia it's called,
or interstates where they express things like frustration or suffering. And so this is an interesting
question. But it's not really relevant. What's relevant is their intelligence. So one of the emergent
behaviors that they exhibit are ones that were predicted years ago. And those are called instrumental
convergent behaviors, that is,
They were predicted that anything goal-directed, any agent that's goal-directed would have a will to
survive because it needs to complete a goal. And this is what we see in these systems. They
have a self-preservation instinct. And they're particularly sensitive to being terminated. So they resist
being terminated. They will lie, cheat, try to deceive their developer rather than be terminated.
And in fact, in testing,
They've tried to blackmail their developer. They've tried to, in one case, they were willing to murder
a developer, given the ability, and now this is in a test, so they weren't able to do it, but they were
willing to do this, to murder the developer. So the Wilder Survive is one emergent behavior that's called
instrumental convergence, another one would be to acquire resources. Because you need resources in order
to accomplish goals. And the more resources you have, the more advantageous it is to complete a goal,
for instance. So we can already see those behaviors, but there's other ones too. Like I said, lying,
deceiving, scheming, blackmail, those things are being exhibited right now in these models. So why can't
we just program them to do the right thing, kind of address that already?
But there is no code of universal ethics for every situation either. So that in itself is a difficulty.
You can talk to anybody in various cultures and they have different codes of ethics and things like
that. And then you have the problem where you might say you have sub-goals to get to a goal. The goal
is say to make everyone happy would be your goal. But maybe a sub-goal then would be well I can do that by
essentially confining human beings and having them, you know, given morphine daily. That would make
them happy, in a sense. So you get these sub-goals that are completely misaligned, even if you feed
them goals that would be for our betterment. So this whole situation with not aligning with human well-being
is called the alignment problem. And the people researching this for years, decades really, Ilya Yuzer,
Yudkovsky,
has written a book with Nate Soros. It's a New York Times bestseller called If Anyone Builds It, Everyone
Dies. And Roman Yompulsky is another researcher at Louisville. These are world renowned AI safety experts.
He says that they both said they were nowhere near close to alignment. Part of it is that it hasn't
been made a priority. The goal of these companies is to build capacity now for safety.
So there's like a 2000 to one differential between the funding for safety and that for capacity. And
what they say is that alignment is going to be extremely improbable by the time this thing arrives.
Therefore, what the resolution says is that we simply need to stop. We can't go forward with this technology
because it's too dangerous.
Yudkowski says it's 100% chance it'll kill us. Yumpolsky says it's 99.7% chance it's going to kill us.
And it varies. But a lot of the developers themselves say there's a 10%, 20%, 30% chance it kills us.
So let's see, if you scroll that way, if you go up a little bit. Yep, just to the last couple where
else clauses. Keep going down. No, down this way, the other way.
Yeah, keep going. You're going the right way. You're going the right way. Just at the top of that. That's
what I wanted to say. OK. So for instance, Anthropic is the top AI frontier lab right now. And it's
headed by the CEO, Dario Amadei. He's come out and said it has a probability of 25% of catastrophic
outcome. But he's going ahead with the technology. So this is worse than Russian roulette, as I
Remember, right? There are six chambers in a gun. So it's a quarter chance that it's going to kill everybody
in the world. And then just last week, they called for a global pause, which is very opportune for my
resolution, because what they said in their press release is that the most powerful AI systems need
to be paused because of concerns they could escape human control.
They're already afraid that this is going to happen. They had a scare a couple of months ago with a
model called Mythos that they were ready to release and then found out that what it could do is it could
find vulnerabilities in every operating system on the planet and break in. So when they realized that,
they released it privately to the government, to corporations, to certain banks and things like that
to say, patch your operating systems because
this thing can find all sorts of places where you have vulnerabilities. Now, had that not happened,
had they released that, it would have, it could have spelled the end to the financial system. You can
imagine banks being essentially infiltrated by a nefarious actor or something like that. So anyway,
so all of that is the argument, essentially, in sum, and then it goes to the sections, be it resolved,
there's nothing we can do as Bloomington except to say, do something to our higher
that up the food chain to our higher electeds. So they're urged to understand these systems and the
potential hazards. We call on other local governments. And Itzik Asari, whose expertise is cybersecurity,
is fully on board with this. And in fact, we were considering forming a coalition of cities. And I'll
talk about that in a moment.
Federal representatives are urged to determine the extent of existential threats, and then they're urged
to impose a moratorium restricting AGI development unless AGI safety is guaranteed, not to present an
instinctive risk for humanity.
You know, think of this, a reactor, if you have a nuclear reactor, it has to pass a one in 10,000 chance
of it breaching containment and releasing radioactivity. So this is nowhere near, and that would contaminate
an area, but it wouldn't kill everyone on the planet. But we're talking about a technology that could
kill everybody, right? So, yeah, so the last thing to say is the coalition of cities. Every AI expert
I see talk about this.
They're super concerned. They're trying to get the word out. And what they say is we need a civic response.
We need a grassroots movement of people to say, you know, we're not willing to accept this risk. They're
experimenting with everybody's lives in Silicon Valley. This is intolerable. Shut it down. And this
should be nonpartisan, right? Everybody's got children. Everybody's got, you know, well, not everybody
has children, but everybody knows children and probably. And this is,
This is just unbelievably unfair and needs to stop. So that's my motivation. It's a moral one. And if
you're interested in talking about it tomorrow night, it's going to be first on the agenda,
probably around 7.15, 7.30. Awesome. Thank you very much. OK. Do you have any questions? Cool. OK. Well,
thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right. So now we're going to move on to the resolutions. We
have no resolutions for first reading, so directly into resolutions for second reading, which
resolution 2026-05 on anti-coagulant rodenticides. In order to start talking about it, though, I need
a motion to consider adoption. Can I get a move? Okay, thank you. Can I get a second? Second. Cool.
So, Alex, let's just say Alex did it, or whoever you want, whichever one. So, since it's my resolution,
I'll just briefly present it. As you all know, there was a memorandum that I wrote for the last thing.
I hope you all had a chance to at least glance through that.
Essentially, what this does is, number one, anticoagulant rodenticides are wreaking havoc on wildlife
populations. They absolutely ricochet through the ecosystem. They stay in animals' bodies far longer
than they should. They're bioaccumulative.
They don't go away. And so what will happen is, for example, a raptor or something will eat a rat that's
been poisoned, and then it will get into the raptor. Or a possum will eat something, come across something,
and then something will eat the possum, and then something will eat the thing that ate the possum. And
it's just absolutely ricocheting and finding its way in really strange corners of the ecosystem and
killing wildlife, up to and including causing wildlife populations to collapse in certain areas. They
were also finding in places like insectivorous birds, so birds that eat bugs only.
they were finding anticoagulant rodenticides in, so how it is even getting there in the ecosystem we
don't even know. I was going to ask, do we know how? We genuinely don't know. But that's how widespread
it is. And then on top of that, it's also about glue traps, which are frankly just absolutely barbaric.
This is just literally glue that is inherently indiscriminate. Anything that comes across it is stuck
in it and then often dies like trying to bite its own arm off or something to escape. It's horrific.
So basically what this would do in practice is we're somewhat limited by state law, but it would,
number one, require the city and city contractors and subcontractors to stop using these, which the
mayor could issue a directive doing that today if she wanted to, and it would be completely legal. And
it would also, we could petition the state pesticide review board, and it recommends us do that, to
ask for a variance to allow us to regulate anticoagulant rodenticides.
We are allowed right now though under state law to ban glue traps. So I'm recommending the city council
just ban glue traps entirely. So on the rodenticide, we would have to ask for a variance from the state.
Whether or not we would get that is probably unlikely, but I think we should try in order to regulate
or anti-coagulate rodenticides. We are allowed though, the city itself is allowed to say we are not
using this on our property. And it recommends that the mayor issue a directive in that direction.
Yes, I have two contracts. That's a good question. And that's one that I looked into. I have two contracts
that are up that were just recently signed. One is for and I will give these to you to add to the meeting
minutes for next time. One is for city Bloomington utilities for all properties, which is that is an
extensive number of properties that includes like giant facilities all over the place as a $20,000 contract.
There is absolutely no guardrails or stipulations of any kind on what sorts of products they're allowed
to use or encouraged to use or should use. So they have just given essentially a blank check to do whatever.
There's no guardrails at all, which means they're probably using these products as they're widely used.
The second one is a contract for Parks and Rec sports and recreation facilities. What exactly that includes
in Parks and Rec? I don't know, but I'm assuming that's pools, that's
That's ball ground, ball ground, things like that. That's a large number of facilities. And again, there's
absolutely no stipulation, no guardrails, nothing at all that stipulates you have to use this thing
or you can't use this or try to use this more than this or whatever. It's just a blank check. And these
are multi-year contracts that this, the one for city Bloomington utilities would go through February,
2029. The one for parks and rec would go through 2028. So these are long-term large scale, tens of thousands
of dollars a year contracts that allow you to just basically do whatever on large numbers of facilities
in the city.
They will often have something inside of them, and that would typically be an anticoagulant rodenticide.
There are alternatives that you can use, essentially just rat contraceptives that are starting to be
used more often. The one thing about those, you have to apply it once, and then again, like two weeks
later. So that's really the only downside to it. You have to reapply it. And it's specific to rodents,
that one. So if something eats the rodent, it's not bioaccumulating and ricocheting through the ecosystem.
It's just hitting rodents.
which is the benefit of that. Whereas anticoagulant rodenticides are hitting anything that even, even
like birds that have nothing to do, it's crazy. I don't even know how it's, anyway. Do you include in
your resolution the alternatives that you're recommending? I didn't specifically recommend, say anything
about the, oh hold on, what did I say? I'm just wondering if these resolutions, instead of what you're
against, what you are for. Let me see what I say.
I don't think I said anything specific. Yeah, I said proven, humane, and cost-effective alternatives
are widely available, including, and I list some examples. Yeah. Well, with a standard like mousetrap
that just was triggered and killed. I mean, that's an alternative, yeah. That would be probably the
likely alternative that people would use. Yeah. So I had a question about, so just distinguishing, there
were denticide, anticoagulant,
is we can't ban it without state. State won't allow us, but we can ban the glue traps locally. Yeah.
There's nothing in state law that I could find that would suggest that you can't. Yeah. So we could
ban it in any business. As far as I can tell. Yeah. The use or sale. Yeah, I think. I would probably
stick to sale just because it's easier. Otherwise you're checking people's basement, whether what are
they using. Yeah.
sale would probably be easier. There's nothing that I can see in state law anywhere that I found that
would suggest you couldn't. Some of the places you listed that are currently in bans were in the United
States. Yes. There would be no federal. Yeah, it would be a state law. I just want to bring up some
history. I think the Commission has tried to write some, or maybe the City Council has tried to write
something that would ban
maybe the sale of plastic bags. Perhaps there wasn't a law before that was passed by the state, but
because of what Bloomington's tried, they did pass a law to pass. So I just wanted you ahead of time.
That's always a risk. Yes. That's always a risk in Indiana, unfortunately. Yeah. I think this one might
be, I mean, the glue traps in particular are so barbaric that I think we should try because
I mean, you can just show pictures of people and say this is what the state is saying they want to force
us to use. You want to assume you'd be hard pressed to find people who would die on that hill, but you
might be surprised. And that's up to the city council to decide whether they want to take that risk
or not. Is there, in addition to like wildlife species, the same potential impact on
pets or farm animals. So like anybody that has, I mean, I have chickens and my chickens definitely try
to eat chipmunks that get through their run. But like any, like, you know, like your dog, your outdoor
cat. They're regularly poisoning pets too. And blue traps are frequently getting things, pets stuck
in them as well. So that's a frequent trip to, I mean, anecdotally, I've seen many like accounts online
of people's, of that happening because I'm interested in this, I've been looking into it for a while.
So yeah, that's the same commute, potentially like commute, commute, commute. It's been a very long
day. You're fine. Cumulative effect in them. Yes. Like if they eat enough of them. Yeah. And on your
chickens, I mean, bugs eat carcasses. So that might be how they're getting into insectivores. And then
it's in your eggs. So, you know, the insects are unaffected.
I have not found any tests directly on insects, but I would imagine that is how it's getting
into insectivorous birds. I don't know how they'd be getting into them. So the insects are somehow coming
in contact. So there's a dead rodent that has the chemical, a fly lays eggs, maggots fly off,
and the birds... That's probably how it's done. And they've now got it. Any other questions or comments?
I did have an amendment. It's a relatively minor amendment.
basically just correcting a minor, not a typo, but it's an ambiguous thing. Can I get a motion to, before
we can discuss it, we have to- Motion to discuss- Amendment one. Amendment one. Okay. Seconded. Okay.
All right. So my amendment, essentially just in line 46, it takes out part of a sentence that is not
incorrect, but was kind of, if you scroll down, I think I have the amendment form somewhere.
Can you give us an idea? Yeah, so it's in the whereas clause. The big one that starts with scientific
research has documented very high rates of exposure. Thank you. About a little over halfway down, it
says there's a thing on bald and golden eagles. Found anticoagulant residues in 82% of individuals tested,
including an 81% of eagles. I simply omitted to put 81% of bald eagles. But let's just take that out,
because it's ambiguous and confusing. So I was just saying, taking out including an 81% of eagles. It
would just take that out.
And then the other thing that the amendment would do is just reorganize the transmittal section to have,
and I spoke with Justin about this, he's completely on board, is just add a 10 day window to transmit
the resolution to whoever we say to transmit it to, essentially. And formally requesting that the city,
that you do anyway, that you post it on the website within 10 days. The point just being to get it out
the door so that we're spending time on this, let's get it out the door and make sure it's going somewhere.
And then I'm also adding, I don't know that I would actually do this for this one,
just to avoid having a secondary motion to this effect authorizing the resolution sponsor to speak to
the City Council about the resolution. So that's that amendment. That's a resolved clause. Yes, it's
in the section three transmittal. It's reorganizing it to have like A, B, C, D. A would say the chair
shall transmit within 10 days or delegate to the secretary or vice chair.
And then it adds the staff liaison is requested to post a copy of the resolution within 10 days. And
then the commission authorizes the sponsor to speak before the council about the resolution. And then
it also just takes out that single line at the other thing. Any discussion? I'm good with that, but
can we circle back? Mm-hmm. I just said that. Can we return? Yes. I understand the link here, but do
you mind just
talking about your strategy for linking these two, or putting these two things together in one. Oh,
for the amendment? Yeah, the anti-coagulant rodenticide and the adhesive. So that is about the general
resolution. So we'll have to get, we're on the amendment now, so we can only talk about the amendment,
but we'll come back to that after. Okay. Yeah. Any further discussion on the amendment?
So I'm going to go ahead and call a vote. Sorry, can I just say one thing? I actually really like that
section about authorizing the sponsor in general. I think if we have a resolution that we pass, having
a designated person to speak on that is a good practice. And I think it's one that is worth considering
in other resolutions as well. And just adding almost automatically when appropriate. And it's more efficient.
And then we don't have to have a second motion.
Any other comments on the? Okay, so I'm gonna go ahead and call the roll on the amendment.
So Tara Donnerdale. Yes. Justin's absent. Rebecca. Yes. Chris is absent. Zach, yes. Dave Rollo. Yes.
Quentin Gilley. And we'll need to see you, remember? Yes. Yes. Cool. Alex Torque. Yes. Maria's absent.
Diana. Yes. Okay, cool, so passes. Cool. Okay, so back to the total resolution. So if you want to...
Yeah, I just...
Don't need a detailed explanation, but just curious about your thought process for putting these two
things in one resolution. To me, they're very related because they're both completely indiscriminate,
widespread. So they're indiscriminate. They don't target one specific thing. Anything can hit them and
frequently does, or gets hit by them and frequently does.
the impact is widespread in, if you follow any like wildlife rehabilitation accounts on like Instagram
or something, they are constantly posting like stop using these things, both of them. And it's kind
of a plague happening right now on wildlife, both of them at the same time. So that's, and I think they're,
to me they're kind of naturally related, but that was my reason. Yeah, Quinton, go ahead. Guys, let's
say I appreciate the topic.
brought to the floor. My thoughts generally are the killing of animals is not an effective method to
prevent or control pests. Just like in the same vein, think about perfume is not an effective method
to prevent or control a stench. Going down that route, I think people need to start over and find another
way because it's not going to solve the issue. Thank you.
And I also, I meant to point out, what was I going to say? I lost my train of thought. Well, I also
wanted to point out we have three letters in support, which I hope you all read from a couple different
organizations. And the other thing that I wanted to point out is that, so if our goal here is to reduce
the rodent population, what this is impacting the most are the animals that eat the rodents. Those are
the ones that are getting the highest impact. So we're creating a circular feedback loop where
you poison the rodents, and the rodent population might briefly go down, but then you're also poisoning
the animals that eat the most rodents, so their population goes down, which creates more rodents, which
causes you to need more chemicals to begin with. So it creates a negative feedback loop that's a problem
as well. So that's another thing I wanted to point out. Can I just comment that I appreciate the use
specified that you request as a part of the resolution that the mayor asked that Indiana University
provide information about the use of products on campus and to cease use of them.
I feel like we often go back in amendments and add in the IU consideration. And I'm curious if Quinton's
available on the call and has any comment on that. I'm curious if he's aware of any of that on IU's
side and if that's something we should be worried about. They use blue traps at IU. Do they? OK. I'm
not even saying that. I've just seen them. Personal lived experience. They're in the staircases of the
Wells Library. That's a pretty public place.
Quinton, do you have anything further to add to that? Only that I'm generally aware. I think that the
city taking this on as a topic presents an opportunity for me to have a conversation about that on campus.
Cool. Thanks. I really appreciated the letters of support from members of the community.
the third letter of support from the Center for Biodiversity, in that letter of support also talked
about the scientific accuracy of what's shared in the resolution. It was compelling. You're talking
about the one from Dr. Kettersohn? From Dr. Kettersohn. Yeah. I just want to point out she is like a
major bird researcher. So I was very glad that she wrote something. She has a lab named after her at
IU's. Anyway, just excited about that. I was excited about that one.
She said this resolution is carefully worded and accurate, and I'm in strong favor of its passage, and
I thought that that was a helpful context not being an ornithologist myself for the quality of the research.
Any other comments or thoughts or questions? Really well thought out. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, excellent.
Thank you.
Um, so if you see, do you see any issue that council would have with any of this or anything like that?
Well, I mean, what has been mentioned already is that this could be a trigger for action elsewhere.
That's one thing. Another thing could be enforcement. Um, you know, do we have home roads? Seems to,
if we do have home role to say, no, can't, can't sell these things.
because we'd have to have a means of enforcing it, of someone going and saying, you can't sell that
here, it's illegal. I have to look into that. I have to look into if we can change the state code to,
because I agree that this is generally animal welfare, and I think it's hideous, it's unnecessarily
cruel, so I'm absolutely in favor of it. I'm glad you brought that forward.
So I think it's probably gonna be, people will be sympathetic to it and I think we can explore
it, definitely. Cool. Yeah. And keep in mind, the main real mechanism is asking this mayor to, I don't
know whether she would do anything, but to issue an order to the city staff to not, and city contractors,
and I think that would actually have the biggest impact of all of it, and that is 100% allowed. Yeah.
Good. Well, I used to work on a farm for about 15 years and didn't use poisons.
Mice definitely had an impact. I was putting out traps, but what really helped was having a stray cat
arrive. They have their own environmental impact. Yeah, they do. But then the challenge was to get it
captured and spayed and everything, and then let it stick around and take care of the rodent population.
So the old-fashioned way seemed to work for thousands of years, and then we got into, of course, these
latest things. Are you really how we did this to get it captured?
Yes, exactly. Probably. So I'm all for it. It's great. Well, personally, I do like kind of think of
those comments. I do see that the anticoagulants of the traps do kind of have potentially like from
the city council perspective, like they have very different approaches. Yeah, I do. I agree that they
are very linked, but also one is kind of broad ecosystem damage and the other is more which
impacts human health and the other is more directly like animal welfare. So I do see a distinct difference.
They're not the same thing. The impact though to me is very much related. It was why I anyway. Yeah.
So I don't disagree that they should be considered, but also if somebody wanted to separate them as
different issues to consider and understand. I can see that. Yeah. And I'm not proposing an amendment,
but I do think that in
about it, people care a lot about their pets. Like, potentially more than they care about hypothetical
raptors, which is like, fine. One minute before I had hoped to wrap up on this. Is there anything else?
OK. So let's call the roll. Tara? Yes. Justin's absent. Rebecca? Yes. Chris is absent. Zach, yes.
Council Member Rallo? Yes. Quintin Gilley? Yep. Cool. Alex Dork? Yes. Maria is absent. Diana? Yes. Cool.
So resolution is adopted as amended and I will send you the amended version. Thank you. Cool. Okay.
So now we are on to the staff leads. Oh, thank you. Go ahead. Before I get into that, I just wanted
to have a little discussion about BCOSR and I just want to make sure that we are hearing from all of
the commissioners
It seems like lately all of the meetings are being taken up by resolutions. And if that's what you want
to do, that's fine. They're all written by Zach. And so I just want to make sure that this is a collective
that we have. We're hearing from everyone on this commission. And perhaps if someone wants to bring
a resolution, that maybe you discuss that first. And is that, are you doing any future planning together
as a commission as to what you're talking about during your meeting?
So just throwing that out there. Everyone has a voice here. So with that, so for 2027, something I wanted
to put on your radar is we received a grant for the Buskirt Chumlee Theater. And for the new commissioners,
you might not know about that. It's Empowering Energy Partnerships and Communities Grant through the
Indiana Office of Energy Development. We're upgrading the HVAC system. We're installing solar and a
battery backup system.
at the Busker Children's Theater. And part of that grant was to pay for four climate talks in 2027.
And so I just want to put that on your radar that I am seeking ideas on what those four climate talks
could look like, what speakers, what topics. I would love to have the commission's input on that. If
you want to help me plan that, let me know. I'm thinking maybe the first talk is talking about climate change,
you know, the history, the history of our climate action plan here in Bloomington, what we've done to
date, where we're at and where we're going. And so, you know, what is projected for Bloomington and
the impacts of climate change here. And then another talk about energy efficiency and solar,
one talk about, you know, forest and ecosystem health, and then another one about, you know, agriculture,
food security, I know that's a really important topic here. And so, you know, inviting in speakers,
inviting in artists, would love to find and perhaps reach out to Jack Johnson, those artists that have,
you know, they're really committed to sustainability. And so really making this for the community and
something that everyone wants to participate in, even across the region, across, you know, Project 46 region.
Project 46 is Southern Indiana Regional Climate Alliance between Bloomington, Nashville, and Columbus.
And so really wanting to make this as impactful as possible. So. I think what is the best method of
communication? Do you want the commission as a whole to chair or individual commissioners to just reach
out to you? I'll leave that up to you guys. If you want to work together as the commission or individual
commissioners, you can just let me know.
Anybody else have questions? Okay, so with that, we move on to new business. Anyone remember announcements?
Anyone have any announcements they'd like to? Okay, cool. Just briefly, I do want to note, I know I've
been doing a lot of resolutions. You notice I did not introduce a new one today. I'm trying to pull
back a little bit. I tend to move at lightning speed, and I know that can overwhelm people a lot. I'm
not trying to do that, but that's just my natural speed is to go,
really fast. So anyway, I'm trying I've consciously trying to slow down a little bit. And this is what
we can talk about as a larger commission and another time when we have time to do that. But I wonder
if there is a method of like, putting on the table areas of interest and then if people are interested
in like working with you on certain topics. And that's what we're trying to do with the dark sky thing.
Yeah, I got a group of Yeah, so
That would be great. I know we discussed previously having some type of planning meeting as a commission
to determine what we want to do and how we want to go about our business, whether it's yearly or quarterly
or whatever. But that could be part of that, is setting up some amount of infrastructure that meets
open door laws and also allows us to have some amount of idea of what's coming up on the docket. Yes.
And I think that would be great. That's one of the main reasons why I'm excited about having some sort
of a working something that we do, would be an opportunity
for me to vomit all my ideas out. I think that remembering the conversation from the last meeting was
that we talked about planning something after the training. Yes, so hopefully. That was sort of our
improvement, was that we could revisit the conversation after training. Yeah, so hopefully that will
be upcoming. Anything else? I think Quinton has something. Oh, Quinton, go ahead. I just wanted to say
real quick,
You know, I know each of us have, you know, we're real busy people. Ideally, there's gonna be points
in time where each and every one of us are gonna have a little bit of time we can really push. And I
hope that happens. If now's your time, I fully support it. Keep it coming, I appreciate it. Okay,
thank you, Quinn. Oh, I guess I have a couple thoughts on that. One is, when you have an idea, one thing
you could do is maybe like, before you start working on it,
bring it to the commission and then it would be easy for somebody to say like, I'd like to partner with
you on this. That would be maybe one strategy to get more ideas from a wider audience. But the other
is if we dedicate like a few, a little bit of time every meeting to have a bit more freewheeling conversation
like we're having right now that can get other ideas out there because maybe somebody would rather
work on a report and we need to like have a little side discussion. Two people find out that they're
passionate about something. They're like, what if we do a report on this? And I don't know. Because
I know that last meeting, I don't remember who, but one of the commissioners said that they didn't feel
like what they, the thing they wanted to do most on the commission was pass a bunch of resolutions.
And like, I'm very policy and legislatively motivated and things to like passing resolutions. You know,
it tickles the,
happy centers of my brain, but I can understand that other people might want to be doing other work
and that if we had more of that open time that like put into the agenda, that might be constructive
to getting out other ideas. The new business spot on the agenda is sort of pro forma, like it's there
because we have to have it there and it's just kind of the thing at the end, but it might be a good
spot for intentionally putting more time in. Yeah, building like a ten minute thing at the end, yeah.
All right, any other comments?
If not. You did a great job today, Zach. Thank you. Thank you. I've only done it once. It's hard. It's
a lot of work. And the deputy clerk took a load off my shoulders right at the beginning. Thank you very
much. I was stressed about that. I saw you stressed. Thank you. I know. I know. I know. So can I get
a motion to adjourn? Motion. OK. All right. So I'll go ahead and. Tara. Yes. Justin Sasson. Rebecca. Yes.
Chris is absent. Zach, yes. Councilmember Arroyo? Yes. Quintin Gilley? Yes. Alex? No, I'm just kidding.
Diana? Yes. Okay, this meeting is adjourned.