WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.470 - All right. Well, let us all this meeting of the media and housing processes to order. It's Monday, 00:00:07.470 --> 00:00:09.040 - May 12th, 2005. 00:00:09.040 --> 00:00:18.240 - We have a number of committee members in New Zealand. Gordon Daly, myself, is about to be my submit. 00:00:18.240 --> 00:00:23.040 - The fourth committee member, Matt Clitter, did not make it today. 00:00:23.040 --> 00:00:31.600 - And then we have Micheal Bolden. We have Deputy Clerk Debra Crossley, also Attorney Administrator, 00:00:31.600 --> 00:00:34.560 - who's going to be some later here as well. 00:00:34.560 --> 00:00:42.000 - So, committee members, any issues with the agenda as proposed? 00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:47.360 - All right, so we will have 00:00:47.360 --> 00:00:52.400 - discussion of a public comment process and any ideas for 00:00:52.400 --> 00:00:58.960 - changing that process. Then we will go on to discussion of 00:00:58.960 --> 00:01:03.360 - whether we should allow discussion of legislation at first reading. 00:01:03.360 --> 00:01:11.000 - Then the review of old business, just to make sure we're all on the same page with other things 00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:12.560 - that we've been talking about. 00:01:12.560 --> 00:01:16.560 - Then we'll have general public comment and then we will adjourn. 00:01:16.560 --> 00:01:26.960 - So, at our last meeting last week, there was a desire to talk about public comment 00:01:26.960 --> 00:01:32.400 - and what we might do to improve the process. 00:01:32.400 --> 00:01:40.000 - So, I included, this was the topic of a council work session 00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:49.600 - in April of last year. So, I included a memo that Stephen Lucas, our Council Attorney Administrator, 00:01:49.600 --> 00:01:57.290 - shared with us at that time. It kind of gives the context of the first amendment. We cannot 00:01:57.290 --> 00:02:01.280 - regulate what the content of people's comments are. 00:02:01.280 --> 00:02:08.080 - Just the format and of course, whether we allow public comment. How often do we regulate that? 00:02:08.080 --> 00:02:17.220 - And then I also included in our packet for today, a memo that Council, that Court Holden sent us 00:02:17.220 --> 00:02:18.480 - last April 00:02:18.480 --> 00:02:26.040 - with her concerns at the time about public comment and that we also have the packet, our current 00:02:26.040 --> 00:02:26.640 - rules. 00:02:26.640 --> 00:02:41.200 - So, I'll just open it up to committee members, Court Holden, also feel free to jump in. 00:02:41.200 --> 00:02:52.880 - I guess I think it would be helpful to kind of identify what we see as the problems first. 00:02:52.880 --> 00:03:05.790 - Purely from the clerk's office standpoint, what I would like to see would be an easier way to 00:03:05.790 --> 00:03:08.320 - collect public comments during meetings. 00:03:08.320 --> 00:03:12.880 - And also beforehand, a lot of times people want to come to meetings, they want to provide their 00:03:12.880 --> 00:03:14.560 - comments to the Council. 00:03:14.560 --> 00:03:18.960 - There are some alternatives. I was trying to find my previous research for other second class 00:03:18.960 --> 00:03:19.440 - cities. 00:03:19.440 --> 00:03:26.050 - So please forgive me because I was not able to find that file. But in some cases, those comments 00:03:26.050 --> 00:03:31.730 - are collected through a form where people can actually submit their comments prior to coming into 00:03:31.730 --> 00:03:32.160 - Council. 00:03:32.160 --> 00:03:36.560 - And they're published as part of the packet as well. So we can see public comments on any 00:03:36.560 --> 00:03:37.520 - legislation. 00:03:37.520 --> 00:03:44.790 - It is there for other members of the public to read and can be addressed as you go through the 00:03:44.790 --> 00:03:46.000 - legislation. 00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:50.800 - And the alternative, or perhaps in addition to one of the things that we were looking at, was 00:03:50.800 --> 00:04:01.840 - adding a form so that during Council meetings, you could also accept public comment through the 00:04:01.840 --> 00:04:02.080 - form. 00:04:02.080 --> 00:04:07.380 - So we could put the link to the form up there and people could literally type their names in, which 00:04:07.380 --> 00:04:10.840 - one would save us the issues of misspelling all the names. 00:04:10.840 --> 00:04:15.580 - And you could collect additional data at the time. Do you want to speak on the number two on the 00:04:15.580 --> 00:04:18.560 - agenda, three on the agenda, four on the agenda? 00:04:18.560 --> 00:04:23.900 - Are you a resident of Bloomington? Some of those things you cannot compel, and I recognize that, 00:04:23.900 --> 00:04:25.240 - but you can still ask. 00:04:25.240 --> 00:04:30.830 - And then, again, you actually have a record, which can be shared with everybody on the Council of Dias. 00:04:30.830 --> 00:04:32.160 - Everybody would have access to it. 00:04:32.160 --> 00:04:39.380 - So you would know without having to say, attorney later, do we have anybody waiting on Zoom? No, 00:04:39.380 --> 00:04:43.640 - blah, blah, blah. It would provide just a few extra seconds every time to make sure that you're 00:04:43.640 --> 00:04:44.760 - actually moving along. 00:04:44.760 --> 00:04:51.570 - Next up, we have, you know, Sharon Smith. Next up, we have Jane Black. However it goes, we will 00:04:51.570 --> 00:04:55.600 - always know who's next, where they're speaking from and can follow them. 00:04:55.600 --> 00:05:02.180 - It's relatively easy to set a form for people to sign in. So I don't want to think that it can't be. 00:05:02.180 --> 00:05:07.650 - Other cities do variations on their public comment. Some people have little slips that they fill 00:05:07.650 --> 00:05:10.160 - out before they ever get to the meeting. 00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:15.710 - Some people stop accepting public comment at a certain time before the meeting starts. So if you 00:05:15.710 --> 00:05:20.040 - have not filled out your form, you are not going to speak. 00:05:20.040 --> 00:05:24.520 - I think we used to do that here in Monroe County for school board meetings. I have not been to a 00:05:24.520 --> 00:05:28.800 - school board meeting in a little over a year, so I can't actually speak to that directly. 00:05:28.800 --> 00:05:36.280 - But we have some options. But one of my things was, is there a way to make it a bit easier for 00:05:36.280 --> 00:05:40.800 - people to speak and for the council to know who's going to speak and what they're going to speak on? 00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:54.050 - So that was my thought/tuttle. And we do have some tools to actually do it very quickly. And I'm 00:05:54.050 --> 00:05:54.240 - done. For the moment. Maybe Emma. 00:05:54.240 --> 00:05:59.890 - I'm personally a fan of that, especially because there are quite a few people, even with the option 00:05:59.890 --> 00:06:04.080 - of Zoom, who just don't have the time on Wednesday nights to submit public comments. 00:06:04.080 --> 00:06:11.760 - So it would be nice to have additional forms of written comment for those that can't be there. 00:06:11.760 --> 00:06:21.710 - It's just another avenue of encouraging engagement. Another way to give them that opportunity to 00:06:21.710 --> 00:06:23.640 - share their voice. 00:06:23.640 --> 00:06:30.040 - I think it would also be helpful just in terms of we have had instances where people did not raise 00:06:30.040 --> 00:06:37.400 - their hand when we're trying to identify how much time to allot to individual speakers during a 00:06:37.400 --> 00:06:39.360 - specific piece of legislation. 00:06:39.360 --> 00:06:47.300 - And we've gone over it because either people came in or people didn't raise their hand and so we 00:06:47.300 --> 00:06:50.200 - didn't get an accurate count. 00:06:50.200 --> 00:06:57.510 - The only other thing I would add is we definitely need a better system for speaker times because 00:06:57.510 --> 00:07:02.960 - there are times where it's a full minute or the timer hasn't started yet for a speaker. 00:07:02.960 --> 00:07:09.940 - And there are other times where it starts immediately and you shouldn't your speaking time shouldn't 00:07:09.940 --> 00:07:16.520 - depend on how fast we can get the timer started. 00:07:16.520 --> 00:07:24.360 - Well, the timer issues will last a minute because we do have applications. 00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:29.200 - Okay, was this the more recent one that we just have it last week? 00:07:29.200 --> 00:07:36.680 - I don't know. I mean, there's also the issue of just an error on my part as well. 00:07:36.680 --> 00:07:44.040 - So there's certain aspects of the different computers that I'm still learning and trading on. 00:07:44.040 --> 00:08:01.240 - But hopefully, the loose time that we're using the application will be better than what it has been. 00:08:01.240 --> 00:08:08.460 - So, I'm hearing as far as what the problem is that some people can't come to our meetings, 00:08:08.460 --> 00:08:09.600 - obviously, either. 00:08:09.600 --> 00:08:15.440 - Honestly, you're more in person and they still want to comment on what our legislation is or at a 00:08:15.440 --> 00:08:17.800 - general level. 00:08:17.800 --> 00:08:26.600 - It's hard to gauge how long if we know there'll be lots of comment and we have a full agenda that 00:08:26.600 --> 00:08:30.280 - we want to limit comment on a certain item. 00:08:30.280 --> 00:08:36.670 - And sometimes we say, raise your hand if you want to comment so that we can gauge what that time 00:08:36.670 --> 00:08:38.160 - overall time limit would be. 00:08:38.160 --> 00:08:44.600 - That's not accurate to gauge what I understand. 00:08:44.600 --> 00:08:58.540 - And then also, I think you had mentioned this previous time I didn't hear it today, but it was also 00:08:58.540 --> 00:09:06.960 - reading people's handwriting to identify themselves. 00:09:06.960 --> 00:09:15.410 - Yes. Yes. And that was that was part of the reason why I wanted to switch to something where they 00:09:15.410 --> 00:09:21.280 - could just type their names in because I can't read it. 00:09:21.280 --> 00:09:27.190 - And there's one member of the public I can think of off the top of my head who writes their name 00:09:27.190 --> 00:09:34.320 - with a different spelling, has written their name with a different spelling multiple times. 00:09:34.320 --> 00:09:41.080 - I mean, I would put it as they put it on the paper every time, but it does beg the question of. 00:09:41.080 --> 00:09:47.830 - I personally, I feel a little awkward taking responsibility for what is got to be a misspelling, 00:09:47.830 --> 00:09:50.520 - but I don't know where it came from. 00:09:50.520 --> 00:09:55.340 - I mean, I misspelled my own name a couple of times, but I usually catch it. But I don't think that's 00:09:55.340 --> 00:09:59.920 - it. It's just it's an interesting question. 00:09:59.920 --> 00:10:07.280 - So with these electronic means of signing in or signing up, 00:10:07.280 --> 00:10:16.800 - would we have a tablet that the Frankland people would sign up or how do you think of that? 00:10:16.800 --> 00:10:24.180 - Just a couple of iPads. If we're really busy and we end up with the two polio sets of correct 00:10:24.180 --> 00:10:25.000 - plural, 00:10:25.000 --> 00:10:30.310 - we would have an iPad of each one where people could type in their name relatively quickly or a 00:10:30.310 --> 00:10:35.760 - stand to actually specifically hold the iPad. 00:10:35.760 --> 00:10:48.600 - And I think that would be an investment of maybe one or two hundred dollars for the stands. 00:10:48.600 --> 00:10:58.960 - What about the iPads? You already have them. You already have two, that you could use for this. 00:10:58.960 --> 00:11:16.440 - That's great. And then what for, like, what for on the farm day? 00:11:16.440 --> 00:11:23.200 - I think this is one of the I truly wish I had been able to find our files that had some of this 00:11:23.200 --> 00:11:24.680 - information in it. 00:11:24.680 --> 00:11:30.140 - And I think it was something that we had started to discuss in-house and hadn't gotten as far as 00:11:30.140 --> 00:11:30.440 - doing it, 00:11:30.440 --> 00:11:36.800 - because we need some agreement for like, oh, and this is what you're using. 00:11:36.800 --> 00:11:42.740 - But I do think that was one of the things that we had talked about drafting up and saying, what do 00:11:42.740 --> 00:11:43.880 - you like about this? 00:11:43.880 --> 00:11:48.840 - What do you not like about it? And getting some input from council members as well, 00:11:48.840 --> 00:11:55.720 - because I would need to have a form that is not easily usable by anybody. 00:11:55.720 --> 00:12:00.240 - I mean, the goal is to make it easier as opposed to harder. So. 00:12:00.240 --> 00:12:04.880 - So I understand. Right. It would be like people would sign up. 00:12:04.880 --> 00:12:09.480 - They could do it either by either online. 00:12:09.480 --> 00:12:14.160 - I think soon the zoom participants use the same form. Yes. 00:12:14.160 --> 00:12:19.570 - You'd have to pin it, the link to the form in your zoom chat or somewhere else so that people can 00:12:19.570 --> 00:12:20.360 - see it. 00:12:20.360 --> 00:12:26.110 - And I do think that some of the suggestions I made to clarify, there are a few different ways that 00:12:26.110 --> 00:12:26.960 - it can be used. 00:12:26.960 --> 00:12:32.040 - One, if you're only taking written comments before meetings and not allowing people to speak during 00:12:32.040 --> 00:12:32.480 - the meeting, 00:12:32.480 --> 00:12:37.880 - that is a separate issue as opposed to if you're taking a form during the meeting to allow people 00:12:37.880 --> 00:12:39.760 - to speak and reading from that. 00:12:39.760 --> 00:12:43.280 - So those are two separate issues. I mean, we could do both of them, 00:12:43.280 --> 00:12:47.780 - but I want to make sure that if we're just talking about a form to get people's names during 00:12:47.780 --> 00:12:48.600 - council meeting, 00:12:48.600 --> 00:12:56.240 - that is something separate than accepting comments to be included in the packet. 00:12:56.240 --> 00:13:08.260 - So since I kind of blasted out a bunch of options at once, I want to make sure that I distinguish 00:13:08.260 --> 00:13:11.000 - those two things. 00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:17.800 - So is that something committee members are interested in pursuing both of those? 00:13:17.800 --> 00:13:31.120 - I am. I think those are great ideas. 00:13:31.120 --> 00:13:38.620 - I guess we would have to think of how it would get in the packet, how it would be distributed for 00:13:38.620 --> 00:13:44.200 - the part that is outside of the meeting. 00:13:44.200 --> 00:13:53.880 - It has to be received in advance. 00:13:53.880 --> 00:14:01.560 - And then what would happen to the comments we got between the pack release and the meeting? 00:14:01.560 --> 00:14:05.480 - Also, how would people provide public comment on the packet that hasn't even gone out? 00:14:05.480 --> 00:14:10.800 - Well, that's why I was wondering if maybe this could be an addendum. 00:14:10.800 --> 00:14:12.240 - I hate to create more work. 00:14:12.240 --> 00:14:17.440 - I know that, I mean, either way, this does create another lovely idea. 00:14:17.440 --> 00:14:19.600 - We always have addendums anyway. 00:14:19.600 --> 00:14:22.240 - So, I mean, just go ahead. 00:14:22.240 --> 00:14:27.600 - I'm so sorry. 00:14:27.600 --> 00:14:34.160 - The addendums, like them coming out regularly, is relatively new to the council as a body. 00:14:34.160 --> 00:14:40.240 - It's just been your experience, I think, as you guys are perhaps the newest council members. 00:14:40.240 --> 00:14:46.400 - But it's not, it wasn't normal at first, it just started becoming more of the norm. 00:14:46.400 --> 00:14:49.360 - Doesn't mean you can't do addendum, but it's just that. 00:14:49.360 --> 00:14:53.920 - But you could, I'm really spitballing, and at some point, Lisa's gonna have to tell me, 00:14:53.920 --> 00:15:00.160 - no, that doesn't work, or you can do it, but you will be doing it. 00:15:00.160 --> 00:15:06.560 - But it seems that if it's something like that, you could have a place that just includes all 00:15:06.560 --> 00:15:09.520 - of your public comment up until noon on Wednesday. 00:15:10.480 --> 00:15:12.320 - And that's where all your written comments would lie. 00:15:12.320 --> 00:15:14.960 - So not necessarily in the packet. 00:15:14.960 --> 00:15:18.000 - Not necessarily in the packet, but a space where they could all fit. 00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:22.720 - I don't know then, though, if you get a bunch of written comments from folks like, 00:15:22.720 --> 00:15:29.440 - we have two members of the public in the room right now who regularly engage with the council. 00:15:29.440 --> 00:15:33.520 - If they send in a written comment, do you also want them to speak at the meeting? 00:15:33.520 --> 00:15:38.000 - Because that would give them two bites of the apple to use, you know, counsel. 00:15:38.880 --> 00:15:40.560 - And language. 00:15:40.560 --> 00:15:44.800 - Those are the details I'm just throwing out as problems also. 00:15:44.800 --> 00:15:47.120 - But they're all manageable. 00:15:47.120 --> 00:15:50.000 - Just so with your decisions. 00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:54.480 - Are you envisioning that the written comments would be 00:15:54.480 --> 00:16:01.680 - read during the meeting or just available for council members and the public to see? 00:16:01.680 --> 00:16:06.960 - And for anybody who may be visually impaired, I shook my head. 00:16:06.960 --> 00:16:10.080 - No, I don't imagine that they would be read during the council meeting. 00:16:10.080 --> 00:16:14.160 - Yes, I do imagine they would be available for the council and other members of the public to see. 00:16:14.160 --> 00:16:18.720 - Because if that were the case, I would personally be 00:16:18.720 --> 00:16:24.000 - writing paragraphs every week for you all to read out loud and that would just be torture. 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:27.600 - Thank you. That's nice. 00:16:27.600 --> 00:16:29.600 - Untrue though. 00:16:29.600 --> 00:16:33.440 - And plus you could have a case where you had like a couple of hundred people 00:16:33.440 --> 00:16:37.280 - who send in written documents. They don't know that you would want to incorporate them 00:16:37.280 --> 00:16:38.800 - into the meetings by themselves. 00:16:38.800 --> 00:16:39.680 - Yeah, that's fair. 00:16:39.680 --> 00:16:41.680 - Yeah, I'm trying to envision how 00:16:41.680 --> 00:16:50.800 - what regulations might need to exist just to manage the process. 00:16:50.800 --> 00:16:59.200 - Yeah, I mean, there's generally an average of like words per minute that an average person 00:16:59.200 --> 00:17:04.480 - will say like general patterns of speech. We can use that as like a maximum for whatever 00:17:04.480 --> 00:17:05.680 - the three-minute thoughts would be. 00:17:05.680 --> 00:17:16.480 - Well, the Indiana Code says that profoundly wrong to take reasonable steps 00:17:16.480 --> 00:17:22.240 - to maintain order in a meeting. 00:17:24.560 --> 00:17:34.400 - And I'm trying to imagine public comments, written public comments in the same manner as well. 00:17:34.400 --> 00:17:39.840 - I'm just thinking, I'm thinking out loud. 00:17:45.040 --> 00:17:56.160 - I'm just thinking, and as we talk about this, I'm just thinking in previous years when there was a 00:17:56.160 --> 00:18:03.920 - lot of rhetoric that was very harmful and hurtful to community members, if you get a written 00:18:03.920 --> 00:18:04.400 - comment 00:18:04.400 --> 00:18:14.880 - and it says something in there that is very offensive, who I would think that you would still 00:18:15.360 --> 00:18:20.960 - have to read that for, there might have to be some type of procedure, but it's like, because 00:18:20.960 --> 00:18:27.840 - if you don't read somebody's hateful comment, well, comment that we might, I know people might 00:18:27.840 --> 00:18:32.960 - seem as hateful and some that just think that they're just being smart and just sending out, 00:18:32.960 --> 00:18:42.200 - that would be a big concern, because then it would almost be like, how do you determine what to 00:18:42.200 --> 00:18:42.800 - read 00:18:42.800 --> 00:18:49.520 - versus, you know, somebody out there saying, I hate people that wear black sweatshirts that say, 00:18:49.520 --> 00:18:57.920 - significant, that might find that very offensive, you know, but for example, you know, that type 00:18:57.920 --> 00:19:07.040 - of thing, we can only imagine how that would have to be. Yeah, I think the comment should be read 00:19:07.040 --> 00:19:16.240 - out loud. Yeah. Yeah, I think that they wouldn't be read out loud. Courtney, would you agree? 00:19:16.240 --> 00:19:26.000 - Yeah, I just really like the idea of making it easier for people to know that they can and how 00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:35.510 - to give us feedback. You know, we're making an open pathway for them, right? We're more likely to 00:19:35.510 --> 00:19:35.760 - hear 00:19:35.760 --> 00:19:40.720 - more from our constituents, which we really want. You know, some people may not take the initiative 00:19:40.720 --> 00:19:47.120 - to figure out, you know, how to email us or how to give feedback. And then this can just be 00:19:47.120 --> 00:19:48.400 - basically 00:19:48.400 --> 00:19:54.160 - a public forum for all of us to see these comments ahead of time going into these conversations. So 00:19:54.160 --> 00:20:00.640 - we already have a bit of a read on the temperature on certain issues. For better or worse? 00:20:03.200 --> 00:20:09.680 - One of the concerns I had if we hear the deadline that's close to the meeting time 00:20:09.680 --> 00:20:14.800 - is that council members won't have time to read. Council members have jobs. 00:20:14.800 --> 00:20:21.260 - Yeah, I would think that, you know, 24 hours before the meeting is maybe when we say would be a 00:20:21.260 --> 00:20:21.520 - fair 00:20:21.520 --> 00:20:28.080 - time to cut it off. Because yeah, I don't always even get to look at the addendum, you know, if it 00:20:28.080 --> 00:20:35.360 - goes out that afternoon I might not even see that we have one. But 24 hours before the start of the 00:20:35.360 --> 00:20:44.080 - meeting I think is fair. So that would then still require in all cases an addendum to be sent out. 00:20:44.080 --> 00:20:54.480 - I know that's cumbersome for staff. It's particularly an issue right now because 00:20:55.280 --> 00:21:05.520 - I'm the person tasked with everything. It's something I've tried to minimize to the extent 00:21:05.520 --> 00:21:11.600 - that it's possible simply to make the office more efficient. Oh, I thought we were talking about 00:21:11.600 --> 00:21:17.600 - trying to figure out how to not have to make this to go in an addendum or necessarily in the 00:21:17.600 --> 00:21:18.240 - packets. 00:21:18.240 --> 00:21:24.000 - But was I understanding you correctly that this could just be another place where these are going 00:21:24.000 --> 00:21:34.000 - and not necessarily in the packet? Sorry. Yes, you could do it in a couple of different ways, 00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:40.560 - is I think what I was saying, which was it could be an addendum. It doesn't have to be anytime soon. 00:21:40.560 --> 00:21:45.760 - Also, it could be starting in January if you wanted to do written comments available. 00:21:45.760 --> 00:21:53.280 - This is not, I don't think, an emergency. So we can make changes across the board on an 00:21:53.280 --> 00:21:59.200 - ongoing path, but you could do it as an addendum or you could do it as resting somewhere on the 00:21:59.200 --> 00:22:03.440 - website where people could reference it with all the other packet materials and it could be 00:22:03.440 --> 00:22:10.240 - included in that space so people know where to find it if it's not necessarily actively sent out. 00:22:10.240 --> 00:22:14.320 - You have options. With Google Forms, 00:22:14.320 --> 00:22:20.720 - I know that there are different pros and cons for every survey 00:22:22.320 --> 00:22:27.840 - forum that we use, but with Google Forms, it is possible to create a spreadsheet based on 00:22:27.840 --> 00:22:34.960 - the results that will automatically populate into the Google Sheets that we could send out a link 00:22:34.960 --> 00:22:40.880 - to everyone that's just you only so that us and the public would be able to see the comments that 00:22:40.880 --> 00:22:44.000 - are being written. Oh, that's nifty. Yeah, yeah. 00:22:46.800 --> 00:22:53.360 - I think something like that could make sense because I don't want to create more work for our 00:22:53.360 --> 00:23:02.000 - staff, but also the public sees the packets when we do, so they're not going to have the chance to 00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:05.680 - submit comment before we're putting the initial packets together 00:23:05.680 --> 00:23:10.480 - because the material they would be commenting on is coming out in that packet. 00:23:12.720 --> 00:23:16.880 - Well, we have more than one reading. That's true. That's true. 00:23:16.880 --> 00:23:36.560 - When we talked about this last spring, it was prompted by hate speech that was 00:23:38.960 --> 00:23:49.120 - made in the public meeting, and I don't know if any of this would 00:23:49.120 --> 00:23:56.720 - discourage that kind of speech just because we're adding more snaps, 00:23:56.720 --> 00:24:04.960 - but of course there's a fine line. We can't control speech based on that, 00:24:06.400 --> 00:24:12.720 - so I don't know how that factors in. I think the conclusion we reached last spring is that 00:24:12.720 --> 00:24:17.760 - we have to allow it, but we can say something right after or turn our backs. 00:24:17.760 --> 00:24:29.280 - For somebody who's really determined to say something terrible, it's not going to stop them, 00:24:29.280 --> 00:24:32.320 - and then of course they could still get up during public comment time and just say it 00:24:33.040 --> 00:24:42.880 - verbally to our faces. I'm just curious with people's opinions. Do you think that 00:24:42.880 --> 00:24:51.360 - providing a written form that maybe feels more anonymous to some extent 00:24:51.360 --> 00:24:57.200 - would encourage more hate speech? 00:25:00.080 --> 00:25:13.120 - I mean, yes. I don't know. I think people skewing hate speech want audience. That's why they do it. 00:25:13.120 --> 00:25:20.160 - I'm not a psychiatrist. You don't dabble in hate speech yourself. 00:25:23.280 --> 00:25:32.240 - But it seems to me like it would be more attractive to them to have a written form. 00:25:32.240 --> 00:25:38.960 - I think there are different types of people. But I also think that whatever form it is, 00:25:38.960 --> 00:25:44.640 - there are going to be people who do that. I mean, unless we have another way, 00:25:44.640 --> 00:25:48.560 - legally there's no way to prevent people from doing that short both put it off, but kind of 00:25:48.560 --> 00:25:49.200 - entirely. 00:25:49.200 --> 00:25:51.840 - I'm sorry, what was that? 00:25:51.840 --> 00:25:57.600 - I said there's really no way to prevent it entirely unless we just cut off public comment. 00:25:57.600 --> 00:26:05.440 - So I wasn't really approaching this with a lens of how do we prevent hate speech? 00:26:05.440 --> 00:26:08.720 - I think it's not about prevention. It's what do we do 00:26:08.720 --> 00:26:11.840 - and how do we exhibit leadership when it does happen? 00:26:15.440 --> 00:26:24.720 - So if it does happen they were written for what to use. If that happens in a meeting, 00:26:24.720 --> 00:26:32.720 - we can make some touch on it. Council can. And this type of written for what might be 00:26:32.720 --> 00:26:40.960 - possible action that council would take in response to that. 00:26:40.960 --> 00:26:42.400 - We could do that. 00:26:42.400 --> 00:26:50.400 - Or just let it go. We could choose to address it during our public comments. 00:26:50.400 --> 00:26:55.520 - My brain isn't working. You know the words I'm trying to say. 00:26:55.520 --> 00:27:00.800 - When we get to speak at the beginning, if we choose to, it's one pathway. 00:27:00.800 --> 00:27:10.480 - Or just ignore it. Which sometimes that's the way to go and then other times it's absolutely not. 00:27:10.480 --> 00:27:15.920 - So it does create a bit of a, I think it'll be up to different council members. 00:27:15.920 --> 00:27:20.160 - If council feels strongly enough, they could pass a resolution as a body. 00:27:20.160 --> 00:27:25.360 - If individual council members feel strongly enough, they can issue a press release. 00:27:39.280 --> 00:27:51.600 - Okay, well why don't we hear from the public and we can talk about the next steps on this issue. 00:27:51.600 --> 00:27:55.360 - Does that sound good? Do we have time? 00:27:55.360 --> 00:28:00.480 - We usually have three minute time on us. 00:28:00.480 --> 00:28:04.800 - So is there any member of the public who would like to talk about 00:28:04.800 --> 00:28:09.040 - the process for public comment at our meetings? 00:28:09.040 --> 00:28:14.770 - Yes, and do you want to come to, when we speak, why don't you come to the table so we can get you 00:28:14.770 --> 00:28:15.520 - on them. 00:28:15.520 --> 00:28:16.400 - Krister Baum? 00:28:16.400 --> 00:28:25.920 - I've been to a lot of meetings, a lot of council meetings. Most of them are routine. 00:28:25.920 --> 00:28:30.000 - Some of them are very dynamic, very important to the public. 00:28:30.000 --> 00:28:37.680 - And the feedback that the public gives often is reacting to both what happens in the meeting, 00:28:37.680 --> 00:28:42.880 - what council members say in the meeting, what other commentaries from the public happens. 00:28:42.880 --> 00:28:48.960 - And it's dynamic. If you have to write it cold before the meeting and that's it and then you're 00:28:48.960 --> 00:28:54.480 - not allowed to speak during the meeting, you literally are restricting public input. 00:28:54.480 --> 00:28:58.320 - And I don't think that's your goal. It might be your goal, 00:28:58.320 --> 00:29:04.080 - but it would not be in line with the way we do democracy in this country. 00:29:05.120 --> 00:29:12.000 - So I do not, if I had to make my comments before this meeting, send them in. I mean, 00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:17.360 - I'm somebody that left his phone. You're dealing with all kinds of people and they all have 00:29:17.360 --> 00:29:17.680 - different 00:29:17.680 --> 00:29:23.680 - levels of communicating. Some of them only show up when a great important event is happening 00:29:23.680 --> 00:29:30.880 - and they will not like being, they'll feel tricked. I didn't sign up before the line 00:29:30.880 --> 00:29:36.400 - when I was supposed to sign up. So now I can't talk, you know, and then you might as well skip 00:29:36.400 --> 00:29:42.000 - having a public meeting. Everybody just sends in their stuff. You send in your stuff. You just do 00:29:42.000 --> 00:29:48.560 - the numbers and the public doesn't bother you and you get to have your answer. But that really isn't 00:29:48.560 --> 00:29:55.680 - how I've seen the best meetings work in Bloomington. And it was the Democrats that brought in 00:29:55.680 --> 00:29:56.080 - public 00:29:56.080 --> 00:30:02.000 - comment, you know, that before McCloskey, the old Republicans would meet in their little room and 00:30:02.000 --> 00:30:08.400 - there was nobody watching. And if we get to the point where nobody's watching, we're back, 00:30:08.400 --> 00:30:16.080 - we're back in equal pace. That's all I got. But I'll answer any questions. 00:30:16.080 --> 00:30:23.600 - Just to be clear, we're not suggesting that we stop public comment in the form of speech. We're 00:30:23.600 --> 00:30:30.240 - just considering adding another form so that other people who can't attend meetings have 00:30:30.240 --> 00:30:35.200 - the opportunity to share their opinion. But one of the suggestions was that if you did not 00:30:35.200 --> 00:30:40.720 - submit it in time, you couldn't read it or you couldn't or it wouldn't be heard in public. 00:30:40.720 --> 00:30:47.200 - It would be submitted but not read and you wouldn't be able to speak. But you submitted 00:30:47.200 --> 00:30:52.800 - it in time and it went online. I heard you say that. No, you heard me say it wouldn't be submitted 00:30:52.800 --> 00:30:58.880 - for public consumption for that meeting. It doesn't mean that you can't speak on it yourself if you 00:30:58.880 --> 00:31:05.760 - submitted in writing or you can submit it at a different time. It is in addition to, not only. 00:31:05.760 --> 00:31:13.440 - So you either misunderstood or misheard what I said. Were there ideas that if you didn't sign 00:31:13.440 --> 00:31:18.240 - up ahead of time you couldn't make public comment? There were. That was one of the options that I 00:31:18.240 --> 00:31:18.720 - said 00:31:18.720 --> 00:31:23.440 - we also researched that other communities have used including our own for a school board. 00:31:23.440 --> 00:31:28.880 - That was one of them. That is not a suggestion I personally would make but it is something that if 00:31:28.880 --> 00:31:32.640 - we're talking about options for public comment the council should be aware that that is one of the 00:31:32.640 --> 00:31:37.280 - options. I've never heard anybody on this council actually express an appetite for that type thing 00:31:37.280 --> 00:31:42.800 - and I don't think these committee members even addressed it as something they wanted to pursue 00:31:42.800 --> 00:31:48.480 - in the way that their conversation has gone so far today. Let's be careful because if you are 00:31:48.480 --> 00:31:54.400 - actually making this in addition and making it easier for public comment that's great if you're 00:31:54.400 --> 00:32:00.560 - actually inadvertently restricting public comment. That's how people will hear it. That's how I 00:32:00.560 --> 00:32:00.880 - heard 00:32:00.880 --> 00:32:07.280 - it when I heard and saw the writing and when I sat and listened to this it was how do we control 00:32:07.280 --> 00:32:13.280 - it? What if we accidentally give too much time because we haven't had the right amount of people 00:32:13.280 --> 00:32:19.440 - put up their hands. You know this is about restricting public comment and I don't think 00:32:19.440 --> 00:32:24.080 - that's what you really want to do. I don't think that's really allowed. I mean let's not do it. 00:32:24.080 --> 00:32:32.320 - Yeah I think that we have kind of been spitballing and talking about different ideas 00:32:32.320 --> 00:32:41.120 - but I agree with Clark Baldwin and the cast members who live that and I assume 00:32:41.120 --> 00:32:49.440 - House member Daly that we're looking for additional ways to have input from our constituents 00:32:49.440 --> 00:32:58.720 - and not taking away options for coming or online or in person and giving a verbal comment and we 00:32:58.720 --> 00:33:04.320 - hadn't we haven't gotten back to some of the things that Clark Baldwin said other communities did 00:33:04.320 --> 00:33:06.320 - but 00:33:07.920 --> 00:33:12.080 - you're right I mean that was in the details and we haven't gotten to those details yet 00:33:12.080 --> 00:33:16.480 - but I don't think there's an appetite for limiting. Yeah well we've both been in those kind of 00:33:16.480 --> 00:33:16.880 - meetings 00:33:16.880 --> 00:33:24.720 - where the dynamics of public back and forth really really is really really matters and I don't 00:33:24.720 --> 00:33:24.880 - think 00:33:24.880 --> 00:33:32.320 - we want to chill that or cut that or something so that's my warning and if I'm wrong on 00:33:33.360 --> 00:33:41.280 - on where we're going here is I'd love that. Okay all right well let's um let's go online next 00:33:41.280 --> 00:33:44.560 - Mr. M.G. 00:33:44.560 --> 00:33:54.800 - Hey good afternoon uh council staff and uh public uh good meeting I like I like some good 00:33:54.800 --> 00:33:58.640 - conversation on this this is Christopher M.G. from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce I 00:33:58.640 --> 00:33:58.720 - don't 00:33:58.720 --> 00:34:07.120 - know if I said better or not um just a couple things on the public comment let's start with um 00:34:07.120 --> 00:34:14.640 - can you hear me I uh let's yeah we're trying to increase the volume here why don't we 00:34:14.640 --> 00:34:20.880 - just start incrementally on some of these changes so I I think clerk Bolton's idea of like signing 00:34:20.880 --> 00:34:28.000 - ends just to make it a more formal process to call on people in a certain order on an ipad makes 00:34:28.000 --> 00:34:34.560 - makes complete sense to do that if you want to do the public comment on in the packet you know I'm 00:34:34.560 --> 00:34:40.320 - I'm okay with with that I think if you did it for just um ordinance changes that have a first and 00:34:40.320 --> 00:34:45.120 - second reading and just have a hard deadline you know fine it's in the packet you can reference 00:34:45.120 --> 00:34:52.960 - it or not but I'm hoping that council members in their newsletters sort of do reach out to those 00:34:52.960 --> 00:34:58.800 - people to get their input that's you know that's following the packets at city council is inside 00:34:58.800 --> 00:35:04.080 - baseball that I'm going to do but I don't know if that's going to be the general public but they 00:35:04.080 --> 00:35:04.640 - are 00:35:04.640 --> 00:35:10.400 - they are going to read your newsletters far more likely and have a google form and those on certain 00:35:10.400 --> 00:35:14.880 - issues I think because we want public input doesn't necessarily have to be at the meeting or not 00:35:14.880 --> 00:35:20.160 - and one other change I'd make on public comment is maybe for membership organizations that have 00:35:20.160 --> 00:35:26.640 - let's just say 500 or more members maybe maybe additional time is I think we could we could 00:35:26.640 --> 00:35:32.480 - the public and the council could stand up maybe five minutes from members of organizations 00:35:32.480 --> 00:35:37.680 - during public comment either general or specifically on legislation. Thank you. 00:35:37.680 --> 00:35:47.840 - Thank you. Thank you. I believe council member Zulek is the only one who has a newsletter. 00:35:47.920 --> 00:35:58.720 - So we'll take that comment as I'll take it to heart. Thank you. Yes as a compliment to council 00:35:58.720 --> 00:36:00.320 - member Zulek. 00:36:00.320 --> 00:36:08.560 - Mr. Amsord would you like to come to the... I'll talk less when I'm back here. Very briefly thank 00:36:08.560 --> 00:36:13.530 - you Terri Amsord on CEO. Thank you for your time and attention to the decision of public 00:36:13.530 --> 00:36:14.560 - participation. 00:36:15.280 --> 00:36:21.520 - Really. I think good public participation theory in practice suggests different opportunities in 00:36:21.520 --> 00:36:26.800 - different ways, maybe you have more people. So it's all good. I think the clarification to not 00:36:26.800 --> 00:36:32.640 - talk about reducing something else is really important. This creeping in this era age of 00:36:32.640 --> 00:36:40.720 - creeping and galloping, authoritarianism and autocracy. I think you get it. It would be easy 00:36:40.720 --> 00:36:45.280 - for what you do to be misunderstood, which touches on some of the comments that have been made as 00:36:45.280 --> 00:36:46.160 - well. 00:36:46.160 --> 00:36:49.200 - So you have to be really clear and you're going to have to make sure the responsibilities you're 00:36:49.200 --> 00:36:55.200 - taking on, additional responsibilities for the different work, are dealt with authentically. 00:36:55.200 --> 00:37:01.760 - So you could say what you're... I feel like people have some commitment, some confidence that what 00:37:01.760 --> 00:37:06.400 - they've done really shows up and is somebody who pays attention to it. So that's a basic 00:37:06.400 --> 00:37:07.520 - explanation. 00:37:07.520 --> 00:37:10.560 - But I think it's the right thing to be thinking about. I see no reason not to 00:37:11.040 --> 00:37:17.520 - although I think it's a bunch of work. I don't know how the hate speech thing plays out exactly. 00:37:17.520 --> 00:37:21.840 - I haven't thought about that. I haven't seen anything that I know much more about the written 00:37:21.840 --> 00:37:29.920 - and the oral stuff. I think you get more detail than written. And that could be good and bad. 00:37:29.920 --> 00:37:36.960 - That's content or clarity you might put up. But it's work. So I just encourage you to communicate 00:37:36.960 --> 00:37:44.400 - with the public about what will be done and why. And help educate the public in the process of 00:37:44.400 --> 00:37:51.120 - giving the public opportunities. Cities, counties don't do a very good job on promoting good 00:37:51.120 --> 00:37:59.040 - governance. We're talking about the issues that stop and not about guns and jobs. So 00:37:59.040 --> 00:38:03.200 - do a good job of that too. That's communication. You have a new public engagement director or 00:38:03.200 --> 00:38:20.560 - someone where I think they do very well with that. I talked to her informally at the downtown 00:38:20.560 --> 00:38:20.960 - cleanup 00:38:20.960 --> 00:38:33.360 - last week and she said, "Oh yeah, I'd love to plan together with the council." In principle, she is. 00:38:33.360 --> 00:38:42.640 - All right. I don't see any other public. Is that hand raised? So where should we take this from 00:38:42.640 --> 00:38:42.960 - here? 00:38:47.200 --> 00:38:55.360 - I think what Mr. Emcee said is a good point that we don't have to make all the changes at once. We 00:38:55.360 --> 00:39:05.920 - could start with kind of a signup process. So I don't know if, Claire, if you would want to 00:39:05.920 --> 00:39:10.960 - write up some kind of proposal for a signup process and we talk about that next time? 00:39:10.960 --> 00:39:18.000 - Yeah. And draft a couple versions of forms that could be used. Does that sound 00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:25.040 - unenable to the committee members? Because I think this is probably, 00:39:25.040 --> 00:39:32.800 - my assumption was that was where you'd want to start. Sorry, I had time to run. My assumption 00:39:32.800 --> 00:39:38.320 - was that was where you want to start and that seemed like the easiest first step. So 00:39:38.720 --> 00:39:46.480 - would these be initiatives that the clerk's office will carry out over the clerk's and 00:39:46.480 --> 00:39:54.800 - council's office? Oh, I meant for, just for a form for taking public comment during the meetings. 00:39:54.800 --> 00:40:02.560 - Yeah. But if you want to have eyes on, I'm happy to do it. No, I'm trying to learn. Okay. Well, 00:40:02.560 --> 00:40:08.720 - that's a good question. We can talk about it also. Yeah. And maybe, unless you want to take the 00:40:08.720 --> 00:40:08.720 - lead 00:40:08.720 --> 00:40:19.040 - on it, in which case, cool. Right now, my place is full. Okay. And when I say clerk's office, 00:40:19.040 --> 00:40:28.160 - some of it probably wouldn't be, so it'd be better on the computer than on me. There is a comment 00:40:28.160 --> 00:40:33.600 - that just got made, or a question rather. What if someone arrives late? Can someone decide to offer 00:40:33.600 --> 00:40:43.040 - comments impromptu? I think that's a really good question because also some questions arise while 00:40:43.040 --> 00:40:49.040 - the council is hearing the presentation and assessment. My understanding was that the iPad 00:40:49.040 --> 00:40:54.960 - would be at the podium, or on a stand next to the podium, or an impromptu. Yeah. So for somebody, 00:40:54.960 --> 00:41:01.280 - you can sign up before me. Yeah. What I was suggesting would not change that. I think there's 00:41:01.280 --> 00:41:08.880 - difference between, and coming back to what I said before, which was I think there are two 00:41:08.880 --> 00:41:09.600 - different 00:41:09.600 --> 00:41:14.800 - and very distinctive issues here. One is taking written comment, and one is taking public comment 00:41:14.800 --> 00:41:20.000 - during the meeting, which I did say a couple of times. So to be clear, if somebody comes and 00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:24.960 - wants to make public comment on a piece of legislation while you all are discussing it, 00:41:24.960 --> 00:41:28.640 - they will still sign up for public comment in the same way that they do now. They would just be 00:41:28.640 --> 00:41:35.120 - doing it in a typed form, as opposed to handwritten on a piece of paper. And it would be accessible 00:41:35.120 --> 00:41:40.000 - to those on Zoom as well. And it would be accessible to those on Zoom as well. That'd be awesome. 00:41:40.000 --> 00:41:47.440 - Yeah. And realistically, I mean, if you put it into a Google Form, and you have that in several 00:41:47.440 --> 00:41:52.400 - places where people can access it, they could be sitting at their chairs and signing up to speak, 00:41:52.400 --> 00:41:56.800 - instead of going up and standing in line to sign up, because then you would be calling them in 00:41:56.800 --> 00:41:57.280 - order. 00:41:57.280 --> 00:42:02.320 - So you would actually know how many people want to speak, and they could just get called up 00:42:02.320 --> 00:42:10.160 - relatively quickly. I mean, you could make it into a space where it becomes very, very open and 00:42:10.160 --> 00:42:14.400 - obvious, kind of like being at the airport, and you see all the people who are available for 00:42:14.400 --> 00:42:17.760 - being at the airport, and you see all the people who are available for upgrades next. 00:42:17.760 --> 00:42:29.440 - I really want to go fly somewhere. But you have options. I guess that's what it comes to. 00:42:29.440 --> 00:42:36.320 - That was a very lengthy answer too. Was that very? There's another. He says unnecessary complexity. 00:42:36.320 --> 00:42:42.800 - I'm not sure. He said Google Forms sometimes fail. Yes, that is what always happens with technology. 00:42:42.800 --> 00:42:51.120 - Zoom sometimes fails too. Yeah. There's also job forms which do the same thing functionally. 00:42:51.120 --> 00:42:57.200 - There are lots of different forms that can work. I don't think there's ever going to be a perfect 00:42:57.200 --> 00:43:05.440 - format for getting people's names for meetings. True. I was looking at it with an eye toward 00:43:05.440 --> 00:43:15.040 - making things easier, but stop us in terms of getting people's names. Yeah, I think this would 00:43:15.040 --> 00:43:22.080 - be great if you could bring up a proposal next time. Our next meeting is June 3rd. Is that enough 00:43:22.080 --> 00:43:29.680 - time? I won't need them. Okay, so we will have to look at discussing it after our recess. Yeah, 00:43:29.680 --> 00:43:35.040 - or I could send something with Sophia. I just can't answer questions on June 3rd. 00:43:35.040 --> 00:43:40.800 - So it's up to you how you want to approach it. 00:43:40.800 --> 00:43:49.520 - My preference would be to do it after recess, 00:43:49.520 --> 00:43:57.360 - because I'm hoping during recess to catch up on Title II thanks to the fun studying. 00:44:01.440 --> 00:44:06.880 - Okay, let's take this for our first meeting then after council recess. 00:44:06.880 --> 00:44:17.040 - Any final thoughts on this before we go to the next topic? 00:44:17.040 --> 00:44:25.520 - Did we want to separately pursue the idea of the public comments leading up to meetings 00:44:26.720 --> 00:44:33.520 - with that spreadsheet maybe? Would you want to work with that on me possibly to put a proposal 00:44:33.520 --> 00:44:38.880 - together? Just to explore that option. It doesn't have to be until after break again. 00:44:38.880 --> 00:44:48.400 - And we can kind of propose again some details about what that could look like. And again, 00:44:48.400 --> 00:44:55.040 - not as a substitute for any public comment that we currently have in place, but as an additional 00:44:56.080 --> 00:45:04.640 - way to encourage our constituents to reach out to us. Sarah? Residents. Yes. 00:45:04.640 --> 00:45:13.280 - No, no. I mean, way for Bloomington to be heard. 00:45:20.880 --> 00:45:31.200 - So is the term constituents not? Oh, sorry, that was a whole reaction, wasn't it? 00:45:31.200 --> 00:45:36.800 - Part of it is just citizens are different than constituents are different than residents. 00:45:36.800 --> 00:45:41.600 - Constituents are an implication that it's a voting member of the public who's actually coming in. 00:45:41.600 --> 00:45:45.680 - The citizen is somebody who is a citizen of the United States, and the resident is somebody who 00:45:45.680 --> 00:45:50.240 - lives in Bloomington. So there are times when you hear from residents who are not your constituents, 00:45:50.240 --> 00:45:55.920 - and there are times you hear from citizens who are not your constituents as well. So they all have 00:45:55.920 --> 00:46:03.440 - a slightly different meaning. So my assumption is broadest capture possible. And that assumption 00:46:03.440 --> 00:46:09.120 - was based off of knowing Councilmember Daly when I said residents to her in particular, 00:46:09.120 --> 00:46:16.320 - because she is tended toward having the more open consumption of voices in her leadership. 00:46:19.040 --> 00:46:30.320 - Thank you. You are safe. All right. Thank you for clarifying. Well, great. So Corby and Cindy, 00:46:30.320 --> 00:46:40.400 - you'll work on exploring that option. Thank you. Excellent. All right. So the next topic is 00:46:42.160 --> 00:46:53.600 - allowing discussion of an item of legislation at first three. And before I go on, I have 00:46:53.600 --> 00:47:07.040 - e-mails changed with Cindy about this. Cindy, do you want to speak to me? Sure. I see that 00:47:07.040 --> 00:47:13.360 - Council Member Asari has already kind of addressed discussion at first reading. And now while it 00:47:13.360 --> 00:47:19.360 - hasn't been written, I guess I'm just wondering if there's really anything else for us to do. 00:47:19.360 --> 00:47:35.760 - And my response was, I think we can separate out the issue of the session at first reading from 00:47:35.760 --> 00:47:42.160 - all the other many changes that Council Member Asari put in his initial proposal, which is not 00:47:42.160 --> 00:47:50.400 - drafted into legislation yet. Because I think it'll take quite a while for all those Title II 00:47:50.400 --> 00:47:58.640 - revisions to be made. And this is kind of an easier change that could be done sooner, 00:47:59.680 --> 00:48:08.320 - that could benefit Council Members in public, I think. So Courtney, what do you think about 00:48:08.320 --> 00:48:15.920 - talking about this now, waiting? I'm rereading the notes right now, actually. I mean, I looked at 00:48:15.920 --> 00:48:16.000 - it 00:48:16.000 --> 00:48:22.960 - this morning, but I'm looking over this again. I think, are we waiting? So we're not waiting on 00:48:22.960 --> 00:48:29.360 - more information, correct? You're looking at the notes from March? March 10th, yes. 00:48:29.360 --> 00:48:42.240 - Right, so Sydney and Matt did not work on a proposal because in the meantime we got 00:48:42.240 --> 00:48:54.240 - a proposal from ESAC. Right. Yeah, I mean, did we want to include, he's not on the committee, 00:48:54.240 --> 00:48:58.080 - but did we want to include Council Members, sorry, in the conversation since this is his 00:48:58.080 --> 00:49:05.520 - proposal, or no, this is something that he gives to us and we take and run with it? 00:49:07.120 --> 00:49:14.080 - I'm sorry, I'm just not clear on processes, so just clarifying. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say it's, 00:49:14.080 --> 00:49:21.200 - so he had a proposal for a lot of Title II changes on how the council does things. 00:49:21.200 --> 00:49:32.320 - Before that, he was on this committee last year and he and I both had talked about allowing 00:49:32.320 --> 00:49:41.120 - discussion at first reading, so he's not the only one who had that idea. Okay. And let me 00:49:41.120 --> 00:49:46.800 - just repeat that problem statement that I drafted for March. So I said, "Currently ordinances only 00:49:46.800 --> 00:49:51.920 - receive one guaranteed discussion by the common council, and therefore council members do not have 00:49:51.920 --> 00:49:56.880 - the benefit of guaranteed time between initial discussion, which may raise legitimate points, 00:49:56.880 --> 00:50:02.400 - and final vote. Such time may be necessary to consult with staff, further study of issue, 00:50:02.400 --> 00:50:11.440 - and/or consult with constituents or residents." So that, I mean, I think that there is a problem 00:50:11.440 --> 00:50:19.680 - here. There is kind of a pain point here. So that's why I wanted to move forward with it. I don't 00:50:19.680 --> 00:50:27.440 - think that council member Osari owns this thing. Although I would be happy with whoever he came up 00:50:27.440 --> 00:50:33.520 - with. I would definitely want to break him in because he's... Okay. Sorry. Yeah. I was just 00:50:33.520 --> 00:50:42.160 - clarifying the question you posed to me because I wasn't clear on that whole process. So thank you. 00:50:42.160 --> 00:50:48.880 - So what do you think? I mean, if I'm the only one who wants to pursue this on this commitment, 00:50:48.880 --> 00:50:59.680 - I guess like, is there enough gain for the three month difference? But look, if we wrote our own 00:50:59.680 --> 00:51:05.920 - legislation, like it would be after the break, Lisa's already said that she wants to spend most 00:51:05.920 --> 00:51:13.280 - of the council recess working on the Title II issue. I guess I'm just wondering, are we saving 00:51:13.280 --> 00:51:21.280 - ourselves like two months of allowed discussion at first reading or like, what is the goal of 00:51:21.280 --> 00:51:30.480 - separating them? What would our timeline be? I think we could get it. Yeah, I think two months 00:51:30.480 --> 00:51:38.480 - is probably the estimate of how much sooner we could do it if we separate it. I also feel like 00:51:39.360 --> 00:51:56.720 - the Title II changes are really big and this could get lost. I guess I just like, 00:51:56.720 --> 00:52:02.240 - we have a lot of things coming up that are going to require a serious amount of energy, 00:52:02.240 --> 00:52:07.040 - including but not limited to trying to figure out how we can bond all of our programs next year 00:52:07.040 --> 00:52:07.200 - with 00:52:07.200 --> 00:52:12.560 - the incoming onslaught of the federal government. Like this isn't necessarily something that 00:52:12.560 --> 00:52:20.880 - I think we should be taking extra time since it's kind of already coming down the pipeline. 00:52:20.880 --> 00:52:26.320 - Like there are other things that I would rather focus on that helps constituents rather than helps 00:52:26.320 --> 00:52:38.160 - process. Well, I would argue this would help constituents as well, but that's why I'm asking. 00:52:38.160 --> 00:52:42.480 - Yeah, I mean, I do agree with you that this could help constituents. I think this is something that, 00:52:42.480 --> 00:52:51.840 - again, it not only creates some more transparency if we were to do discussion at first readings, 00:52:53.840 --> 00:53:00.560 - but it could be another way, another opportunity to get more information 00:53:00.560 --> 00:53:09.600 - before the public without them having to seek out the information, possibly. Am I making sense? 00:53:09.600 --> 00:53:22.720 - I do think that it's a big discussion though, because I think we have to put a lot of 00:53:22.720 --> 00:53:30.480 - - we have to be pretty clear on the process for that, because it could add a ton of time to our 00:53:30.480 --> 00:53:40.000 - meetings. That's my main concern, is that it gets redundant, and then we're there and meeting that 00:53:40.000 --> 00:53:45.760 - midnight hard stop every time, and we're not finishing our work, because some of these issues 00:53:45.760 --> 00:53:51.280 - might -- I mean, we've seen how long just the second reading discussions can take. But then, 00:53:51.280 --> 00:53:59.440 - on the other hand, does it cut down the second reading discussions? Yeah, I think -- I could 00:53:59.440 --> 00:54:04.160 - flip-flop back and forth all day. You guys want me to keep going? On one hand, on the other hand. 00:54:04.160 --> 00:54:12.560 - So those are my initial thoughts on first reading discussions. Well, having a discussion at first 00:54:12.560 --> 00:54:18.240 - reading would allow council members the time to see the presentation, ask questions, get questions 00:54:18.240 --> 00:54:22.640 - answered by the second reading, so we're not doing a full presentation. We're just getting the 00:54:22.640 --> 00:54:23.040 - answers 00:54:23.040 --> 00:54:30.960 - that we need to vote on it. Yeah. I mean, I've seen us vote on things all the time, where directors 00:54:30.960 --> 00:54:34.640 - or whoever's presenting will be like, "Well, I'll get back to you." And we voted anyway. And it's 00:54:34.640 --> 00:54:45.920 - like, okay, well, why are we voting on it? And/or did this question even -- if we're not going to 00:54:45.920 --> 00:54:52.560 - postpone it, why ask the question if we're not going to get the answer? Yeah. I mean, I'm leaning 00:54:52.560 --> 00:54:57.600 - more toward being in favor of the first reading discussions, because as I've -- I mean, you all 00:54:57.600 --> 00:55:04.960 - know that that's been one of my biggest pain points is getting some -- not having that discussion 00:55:04.960 --> 00:55:10.220 - ahead of time and then having to vote that night. Right. That's not my favorite thing to do. But 00:55:10.220 --> 00:55:10.240 - the 00:55:10.240 --> 00:55:16.400 - question on the table isn't, are we doing this or not? Sorry. Are we doing this now? Taking the 00:55:16.400 --> 00:55:16.480 - time 00:55:16.480 --> 00:55:22.480 - to write the legislation when it's already coming down the pipeline. I think there's a point to 00:55:22.480 --> 00:55:30.720 - separating it out if there's a lot of Title II changes going on all at once. Okay. I don't have 00:55:30.720 --> 00:55:37.360 - strong feelings either way. I would be more inclined to say, well, let's just -- if it's here 00:55:37.360 --> 00:55:37.600 - before 00:55:37.600 --> 00:55:45.600 - us now, let's just talk about it now. Let's handle it now. But I also don't feel super strongly 00:55:45.600 --> 00:55:45.840 - that 00:55:45.840 --> 00:55:51.440 - we're in a rush to get this done because I don't think it's going to happen all that much sooner 00:55:51.440 --> 00:56:06.320 - than if we wait. Right. Well, let me ask this then. We have a meeting scheduled for June 3rd at the 00:56:06.320 --> 00:56:17.920 - CPD, and I don't know what we're going to work on at that meeting because we have postponed action 00:56:17.920 --> 00:56:18.160 - on 00:56:18.160 --> 00:56:29.360 - how to schedule deliberation sessions. We postponed action on the sign-up for 00:56:31.360 --> 00:56:38.080 - people to give public comment and possibly written comment process. 00:56:38.080 --> 00:56:48.640 - The Title 2 overhaul is also delayed because Lisa needs to have some time to look over and 00:56:48.640 --> 00:56:58.160 - work action at me with Kirk Bolden in Michigan, which canceled the meeting, but I think we could 00:56:58.160 --> 00:57:03.920 - work on this. And I know only three of the four people on the committee are here right now.