Okay, so 11-11, we did it. Here we are. We're here, figured it out. Okay, okay. So I thought I would
leave the minutes to the regular. Yeah, that's fine. Thanks. Yeah, okay. So first things on the agenda
are approval of the agenda. I don't think anybody can run their own sheet there. Actual attendance will
fall. What? It's on the agenda too.
Oh, gotcha. Totally thoughtful. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we should do that. Does anybody want to start us off?
Yeah. Do amendments to the agenda or? Okay. I move we adopt the agenda as written. Yeah. That and Adam.
Okay. Hold on. It's sad that the other half's gone, but it is nice to be here.
Okay. All right. I hope to prove it. Pauli? Yes. Arminis? Yes. Brown? Yes. Geyser? Yes. Fester? Yes.
Canoas? Yes. We're deciding on a different word. Okay. Well, great. Glad we are moving forward. And
then we can hit the project and move on to the next thing. All right. Pauli? Here. Cartina? Here.
Okay, sir. Thank you. Yeah. Great. Okay. Well, this is super fascinating and I appreciate everybody
making time for. Well, I got a couple of items on here. One is first one is a working group discussion.
Do you remember that's been a conversation we've had in different ways over the last year. So I will
pass it over to Matt. Do you want to hit us up? Sure. I can introduce this item. So at the moment, the
only standing working group or
to be considered a subcommittee that we have is ECPC, which is Environmental Commission Planning Committee.
We haven't had any real reason to meet for the last several months, and it's my understanding that at
the end of the calendar year, any subcommittees are gonna ask for approval from the Office of the Mayor
to have them. That's not the reason I wanted to have this discussion today. Due to all the headaches
we had in the past with working groups,
What I was going to suggest today is formally disbanding PCPC and just adding planning committee report
to the regular agenda and report section so that if staff or anyone else who gets the agendas for BZA
or planning commission sees anything that would be
of use to us, they could present it at the regular meeting. We could decide if anyone wants to write
a memo, can delegate the ability to write a memo at that time. But I just don't think we need a standing
subcommittee for it also because it would present issues with say the chair and the vice chair having
a conversation. If they're both members of a subcommittee, suddenly that would be for them and not noticed
meeting. So yeah, my proposal today was,
to formally end ECPC in name, in subcommittee form, but to still monitor it. And I'd be happy personally
to bring those updates each month. We just have to get it in the regular agenda in a different form.
So happy to hear people's thoughts. Quick question. What do we have to do exactly to abolish it? Handbook
somewhere and just press it out? Nothing.
It doesn't list our active or not active ones. There's nothing wrong with the text regarding working
groups in the handbook. So there's actually nothing to amend. We just agree to kind of dissolve it.
And previously we had said we were not dissolving it, like specifically that. We were kind of like making
the decision of like, nevermind, let's dissolve it. Yeah, as previously, right, water and biodiversity
and whatever, we normally ended everything
for practical purposes. And now I think this is, we're realizing this falls into the same basket, but
it's still a thing we want to do, but having it exist as a working group or subcommittee would be a
hurdle to regular functioning. So, right, still happy to do some of that legwork and keep an eye on
those other boards.
agendas in case I think there's anything noteworthy, but I don't think we need it anymore as a formal
subcommittee. So, again, we'd love to read the temperature of the road. What is the question?
Yeah, it seems like over the last several months, I just keep adding things to the reports section and
removing them from other sections. But I don't know, I've liked all the agenda tweets so far, the way
we do our reports. And so at this point, yeah, it would be, you know, obviously our liaison would always
be able to bring something to our attention if she thinks it's relevant, but also I want to be respectful
of staff time. And so I can also do it during that report portion.
regular meeting if that if that ends up being a better fit. And Melissa Herzl is the one that sent out
the email saying like here are all things coming through BZA and and you can get on it mailing list
if you want to but Matt is already on it. I think I might have missed at least one because there was
a planned commission one I didn't see but I looked at each of the last couple BZA ones and didn't think
there was anything that we'd be looking to write a memo about so I'm going to continue to monitor it and then
bring that information or lack of information to each federal. Any other questions or thoughts on this?
I just want to comment that I think it's great that you're volunteering to do this. There's nothing
material that will prevent any of us from also monitoring and bringing up essential environmental permission.
I don't think you're guarding that down for yourself. I just want to point out to everybody that you
wanted to also monitor that would be an option.
I think it's a great point. Anybody can keep an eye on any of those things. It was more my, my fear,
you know, in case someone was concerned that it was just going to slip away, say, I'm, I'm happy to
report on it, but yeah, absolutely correct. Everyone is welcome to pay attention to any.
or move it to the vote? Yeah, I think we treated that as the discussion. So we're ready. Aldi? Yes.
Martinez? Yes. Brown? Yeah. Pfizer? Yeah. That's sure. Yeah. Owens? Yes. Senator? And Albright? Yes.
Thank you. Cool. Yeah. And we'll talk to all of the people, you know, if they're safe. Sure,
for the process. Yeah.
Yeah, we always appreciate her updates. Yeah. Great. Well, then we're going to keep moving on to the
handbook amendment section, and I was going to open the floor to whoever it is that would like to kick
off this conversation. Happy to handle this one as well. Yeah. So now you guys
basically looking to propose a one-word change to our handbook. But first, I want to put into the record
a little bit of background. We had our first real farm issue that I can remember, and I've now been
on nine years, back in December of 24. So in February of 25, we convened, again, with just seven members,
and we tried to amend
form in our handbook. I wanted to make it clear that it was the number of appointed members in attendance,
not just members of the 12 seats. I did a thing that I hated the other day. I rewatched these meetings.
The emphasis was very clear. A representative legal was in the room. No one
seemed to have an issue with it and we passed it on that day. Then again, had a different set of handbook
updates brought about in March of 26. I was trying to make changes regarding elections and also to remove
a de minimis clause that I didn't think was very useful to our definition of form. Legal had also
brought a number of changes, and we had a representative with her again, and we were informed by Rachel
that, in a homeless, the legal department was firm on the fact that the sentence, a quorum means that
a majority of the members serving on the commission are in attendance, means a majority of the 12 total
seats. I just wanna make clear, I still do not feel that that is what that sentence says in plain English.
I don't see how,
Um, an empty seat can be a member and I don't see how it can serve. Um, so today's amendment is I just
want to put the word appointed back in there. So it would be actually expanding a little further. The
chair of the commission will determine whether there is a quorum prior to the start of the meeting.
Quorum means the majority of the appointed members, certain amount of commission are in attendance.
No official votes may be taken unless there's quorum. Again, that is verbatim for what it currently
is minus the added word.
And so that opened the floor to any discussion or questions on this change. I think it makes a lot of
sense. Hypothetically, for a second we thought Mitchell resigned. It's okay. If he did that, we would
not ever be able to think for him unless we got someone else appointed, which is kind of out of the question.
and that seems silly. Sorry, I didn't hear anything. I would just like to comment that the way we have
it now, I don't believe, I don't have to believe like you Matt, I don't believe it's the crack interpretation
of quorum. But even if it is, it's not in the spirit of open door laws. I don't want to be explained
by that. Right now we have seven of the 12 saints filled. Technically speaking,
If any one of us were to walk out the door, the rest of us could then convene sub-forum meeting, make
a decision, and then without any public input, then vote on that the next meeting. That practically
cuts the public out, and I am very interested in keeping the public abreast of what we're doing and
making sure that they have a proper input. So I am in support of a forum being defined as the appointed number.
I'd like to provide just a little bit more background. It's like boards and commissions and their advisory
capacity. It's complicated. There's a variety of them. There's some that are created by state statute.
There are some that are not. We are not. We are one that was created by the city back in the 70s, which
means our bylaws are what we run off of unless they're in conflict with city code, which this
determination of parole is not in conflict with anything in city code. So there is no legal reason.
In fact, it's consistent with some, excuse me, with some PAC decisions that looked up. This isn't something
that shouldn't stick in our handbook. This is something that is completely acceptable by code and for
us to adopt and do our own bylaws. I covered my bases site, that a fair amount of homework and checked
in with Deputy Clerk, Jennifer Broussley,
Um, she said it was fine that we are not the only commission, but it's already being done by at least
one other commission. Um, so this, this shouldn't, this shouldn't cause any headaches. Um, hoping it'll
just be a straightforward change. Can you preface it with a phrase that is well familiar to Steve? 12.
I think I already had too much attitude in my skull just now. I'm finding the simple long word change
for actual handbook. This can be for what Rachel returns, but actually the current version of our handbook
on our website, I think is updating because it still had the de minimis of five lines. By the moment
it was posted, it looked like our meetings wouldn't have had to be canceled for August anyway.
But again, I understand the interpretation and why the cancellation is sent out, and this is just making
it clear so that in the future, so long as we have a majority of the actual appointed seats filled here,
that we'll be able to conduct our meetings and have quality. It does say the number of commissioners
in our bylaws. Like I said, the commission is made up of 12, so that's up to anybody who wants
to double-check our map. That can only be changed
Do you want to change the literacy class? Personally, I do not have an appetite for that. I do want
to comment on that. I'm sure that we thought of it. It was, I think, presumably, we thought of it in
our last meeting. Council is considering changing the literacy in 70C. The council on the subcommittee.
They are currently considering that. We will pick up that question again after we're done with all the
budgetary stuff.
But that's something to keep in mind that they are considering to do just because we do have a severe
vacancy issue. Do the board have vacancies right now? It looks like they do, to my left side. Not as
severe as ours currently, although ours is old and recent that we have such a severe vacancy itself.
We've been hanging out for months on this. We've just lost a lot of people in a short time. And it's
been a really hard two years of going through our lot.
I think that's a great point. I think part of the reasons that some members may roll off is it feels
like we're not getting anything done and being able to consistently meet forum. And, you know, no clearly
defined rules, what we're doing allows us to suddenly kind of find identity again. So I think that this
will, you know, I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point.
Ease the problem in a way that doesn't necessitate reducing the members of the commission. But at the
end of the day, that'll be up to council and I hope they seek our feedback or just deciding. But again,
that is that would be an issue for them. Yeah, so people who are here showing up where we have our farm,
I feel like having the extra seats is great for when community members want to apply to join. And if
they don't, then we will continue to grow and do good work and
invite others to probably be part of it. So. I don't know if there's a city where you got this
new definition. I don't know if there's really a downside to having more possible seats. Because the
issue was just that both seats and those seats were full. Same. And I don't know what the turnover ratio
is across the various boards and various commissions and things like that. And I assume that the conversation
of reducing
commission sizes, I assume, will factor that in, or, you know, what is the average tenure of a,
I'm not sure, whatever. And I think that's a valid number to look at, but I would love to believe that
for the difficulty that we've had in the last couple of years, I do feel like there are some very committed
folks, and the folks who have been on the bus have been working with it a long time, and then, you know,
they retire or they move or whatever.
So this measure that Matt is proposing here also allows us to stay operational. If, for example, one
of us were mentioned to show up today, we wouldn't have a quorum. If one of us were quick to quit today,
the EC is essentially not a functionalist body. And I think that doesn't just serve us to sedate a citizen,
but wouldn't tend to have an EC essentially shut down based on our interpretation of quorum.
There's a school at the university that has a fire, and maybe people have an interest in it. Yeah. I'm
going to put some fuel in that also, and find out if they're on board with the school or not. But we'll
see if they're fired, if they're fined, I don't know. Is there other departments that I mean? We have
people from Sphere, like the aliens. Yeah, but it's a club application, so we'll be in those branch
with a badge. Sure.
I think it's a good, I mean, obviously we want to, we want to increase the number of members no matter
what, but this right, this change makes it so that, you know, if one of us gets hit in the parking lot,
we can still have a meeting. Come on, what if it's the lottery? That's the lottery. That's your bet.
Do you believe that you see if you won? No, I would give all of my way to the local community and the
inter-directed.
I don't think there's a huge downside to opening this up and I think that knowing that we have smaller
numbers right now and knowing how hard it is to schedule meetings, schedule a joint meeting, have an
entire commission trying to help coordinate this update will only help us keep our momentum.
Further comments, questions? Mitchell, do you have anything you want to share?
to get to work, to pass a joint resolution, to do whatever table and stuff, to do whatever's on our
horizon here. So I suppose with that, I would move that we adopt this change thing out. So there. Those
are your two? Yeah. Marking this? Yes. Brown? Geyser? Yes. Fester? Yes. Owens? Yes.
So that means we're going to get seven, we have to have four to the meeting. At least three of them
would have to be there. You'd have to go on, mine's tough. That's the question, how's the math for that?
Pretty sure in the jewelry you're supposed to be physically present. So I think we'd still need four
in the room. Four of them. We're hoping the numbers get up one way or another.
we're meeting these 50% of the seated commissioners in the in-person. So yeah and then any other members
can be out. Okay great well my friends we've made it to the end of our very extensive agenda. Um as
well as that we will um obviously we can't put our office meeting or no yeah office meeting um and we'll
work with because to reschedule um the meeting to talk about it's in a resolution for
I don't know if the cameras are falling at the start of the story or the light pollution. Okay, so the
thing that we talked about at our last meeting, we talked about how we can support that. And we'll do
that in September. Or we plan to have our next meeting in September. So. First of all, if you are interested,
we are opening up public
the pores of the water line if anybody can tell. This is the first time we're arcading publicly, so,
sorry, in January. September 9th, so Wednesday. It's not online yet, but it'll be soon. We're just clearing
up some hurdles on the transportation side of things. Would you mind sending the link to Jackie to share
with all of us when it comes, when they actually ask for that? Yeah, probably two years ago.
last year. Oh, that's very cool. Yeah, hopefully we'll do that a little bit more often. People
are interested, so. Are you leading this work or? Oh, no. Yeah, it's definitely a cool experience. They
can make this work. We'll see how our owner gets. It's one of the processes that not a lot of people
see that they actually get there
a topical, I fear that only a certain number of us will be able to attend to a forum. No. That's why
I said I'm excited anyway. There will be forum. Yeah. Well, certainly there's substance to that,
isn't there? Yeah. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. It's going to be
fun. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. It's going
to be fun. It's going to be fun. It's going to be fun.
Really quick announcement as well. There's going to be a lunar eclipse tonight. It will peak just past
midnight. It's not going to be total, but it doesn't quite matter as much of a lunar eclipse as it does
with the solar eclipse. It'll still be right and cool. It's 96%. So it's like almost 13 in the morning.
Like you'll see it start getting darker before. So I thought I was going to be clear last time.
Cool. Anything else? Any other cool events or updates you want to share before we get out of here? Okay.
Okay. We'll be adjourned. Perfect. Thank you. 736. Thank you so much, everybody. This was awesome.
Thank you, Mitchell. Your is a natural treasure.