All right. Well, let us all this meeting of the media and housing processes to order. It's Monday, May 12th, 2005. We have a number of committee members in New Zealand. Gordon Daly, myself, is about to be my submit. The fourth committee member, Matt Clitter, did not make it today. And then we have Micheal Bolden. We have Deputy Clerk Debra Crossley, also Attorney Administrator, who's going to be some later here as well. So, committee members, any issues with the agenda as proposed? All right, so we will have discussion of a public comment process and any ideas for changing that process. Then we will go on to discussion of whether we should allow discussion of legislation at first reading. Then the review of old business, just to make sure we're all on the same page with other things that we've been talking about. Then we'll have general public comment and then we will adjourn. So, at our last meeting last week, there was a desire to talk about public comment and what we might do to improve the process. So, I included, this was the topic of a council work session in April of last year. So, I included a memo that Stephen Lucas, our Council Attorney Administrator, shared with us at that time. It kind of gives the context of the first amendment. We cannot regulate what the content of people's comments are. Just the format and of course, whether we allow public comment. How often do we regulate that? And then I also included in our packet for today, a memo that Council, that Court Holden sent us last April with her concerns at the time about public comment and that we also have the packet, our current rules. So, I'll just open it up to committee members, Court Holden, also feel free to jump in. I guess I think it would be helpful to kind of identify what we see as the problems first. Purely from the clerk's office standpoint, what I would like to see would be an easier way to collect public comments during meetings. And also beforehand, a lot of times people want to come to meetings, they want to provide their comments to the Council. There are some alternatives. I was trying to find my previous research for other second class cities. So please forgive me because I was not able to find that file. But in some cases, those comments are collected through a form where people can actually submit their comments prior to coming into Council. And they're published as part of the packet as well. So we can see public comments on any legislation. It is there for other members of the public to read and can be addressed as you go through the legislation. And the alternative, or perhaps in addition to one of the things that we were looking at, was adding a form so that during Council meetings, you could also accept public comment through the form. So we could put the link to the form up there and people could literally type their names in, which one would save us the issues of misspelling all the names. And you could collect additional data at the time. Do you want to speak on the number two on the agenda, three on the agenda, four on the agenda? Are you a resident of Bloomington? Some of those things you cannot compel, and I recognize that, but you can still ask. And then, again, you actually have a record, which can be shared with everybody on the Council of Dias. Everybody would have access to it. So you would know without having to say, attorney later, do we have anybody waiting on Zoom? No, blah, blah, blah. It would provide just a few extra seconds every time to make sure that you're actually moving along. Next up, we have, you know, Sharon Smith. Next up, we have Jane Black. However it goes, we will always know who's next, where they're speaking from and can follow them. 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. Other cities do variations on their public comment. Some people have little slips that they fill out before they ever get to the meeting. Some people stop accepting public comment at a certain time before the meeting starts. So if you have not filled out your form, you are not going to speak. I think we used to do that here in Monroe County for school board meetings. I have not been to a school board meeting in a little over a year, so I can't actually speak to that directly. But we have some options. But one of my things was, is there a way to make it a bit easier for people to speak and for the council to know who's going to speak and what they're going to speak on? So that was my thought/tuttle. And we do have some tools to actually do it very quickly. And I'm done. For the moment. Maybe Emma. I'm personally a fan of that, especially because there are quite a few people, even with the option of Zoom, who just don't have the time on Wednesday nights to submit public comments. So it would be nice to have additional forms of written comment for those that can't be there. It's just another avenue of encouraging engagement. Another way to give them that opportunity to share their voice. I think it would also be helpful just in terms of we have had instances where people did not raise their hand when we're trying to identify how much time to allot to individual speakers during a specific piece of legislation. And we've gone over it because either people came in or people didn't raise their hand and so we didn't get an accurate count. The only other thing I would add is we definitely need a better system for speaker times because there are times where it's a full minute or the timer hasn't started yet for a speaker. And there are other times where it starts immediately and you shouldn't your speaking time shouldn't depend on how fast we can get the timer started. Well, the timer issues will last a minute because we do have applications. Okay, was this the more recent one that we just have it last week? I don't know. I mean, there's also the issue of just an error on my part as well. So there's certain aspects of the different computers that I'm still learning and trading on. But hopefully, the loose time that we're using the application will be better than what it has been. So, I'm hearing as far as what the problem is that some people can't come to our meetings, obviously, either. Honestly, you're more in person and they still want to comment on what our legislation is or at a general level. It's hard to gauge how long if we know there'll be lots of comment and we have a full agenda that we want to limit comment on a certain item. And sometimes we say, raise your hand if you want to comment so that we can gauge what that time overall time limit would be. That's not accurate to gauge what I understand. And then also, I think you had mentioned this previous time I didn't hear it today, but it was also reading people's handwriting to identify themselves. Yes. Yes. And that was that was part of the reason why I wanted to switch to something where they could just type their names in because I can't read it. And there's one member of the public I can think of off the top of my head who writes their name with a different spelling, has written their name with a different spelling multiple times. I mean, I would put it as they put it on the paper every time, but it does beg the question of. I personally, I feel a little awkward taking responsibility for what is got to be a misspelling, but I don't know where it came from. I mean, I misspelled my own name a couple of times, but I usually catch it. But I don't think that's it. It's just it's an interesting question. So with these electronic means of signing in or signing up, would we have a tablet that the Frankland people would sign up or how do you think of that? Just a couple of iPads. If we're really busy and we end up with the two polio sets of correct plural, we would have an iPad of each one where people could type in their name relatively quickly or a stand to actually specifically hold the iPad. And I think that would be an investment of maybe one or two hundred dollars for the stands. What about the iPads? You already have them. You already have two, that you could use for this. That's great. And then what for, like, what for on the farm day? I think this is one of the I truly wish I had been able to find our files that had some of this information in it. And I think it was something that we had started to discuss in-house and hadn't gotten as far as doing it, because we need some agreement for like, oh, and this is what you're using. But I do think that was one of the things that we had talked about drafting up and saying, what do you like about this? What do you not like about it? And getting some input from council members as well, because I would need to have a form that is not easily usable by anybody. I mean, the goal is to make it easier as opposed to harder. So. So I understand. Right. It would be like people would sign up. They could do it either by either online. I think soon the zoom participants use the same form. Yes. You'd have to pin it, the link to the form in your zoom chat or somewhere else so that people can see it. And I do think that some of the suggestions I made to clarify, there are a few different ways that it can be used. One, if you're only taking written comments before meetings and not allowing people to speak during the meeting, that is a separate issue as opposed to if you're taking a form during the meeting to allow people to speak and reading from that. So those are two separate issues. I mean, we could do both of them, but I want to make sure that if we're just talking about a form to get people's names during council meeting, that is something separate than accepting comments to be included in the packet. So since I kind of blasted out a bunch of options at once, I want to make sure that I distinguish those two things. So is that something committee members are interested in pursuing both of those? I am. I think those are great ideas. I guess we would have to think of how it would get in the packet, how it would be distributed for the part that is outside of the meeting. It has to be received in advance. And then what would happen to the comments we got between the pack release and the meeting? Also, how would people provide public comment on the packet that hasn't even gone out? Well, that's why I was wondering if maybe this could be an addendum. I hate to create more work. I know that, I mean, either way, this does create another lovely idea. We always have addendums anyway. So, I mean, just go ahead. I'm so sorry. The addendums, like them coming out regularly, is relatively new to the council as a body. It's just been your experience, I think, as you guys are perhaps the newest council members. But it's not, it wasn't normal at first, it just started becoming more of the norm. Doesn't mean you can't do addendum, but it's just that. But you could, I'm really spitballing, and at some point, Lisa's gonna have to tell me, no, that doesn't work, or you can do it, but you will be doing it. But it seems that if it's something like that, you could have a place that just includes all of your public comment up until noon on Wednesday. And that's where all your written comments would lie. So not necessarily in the packet. Not necessarily in the packet, but a space where they could all fit. I don't know then, though, if you get a bunch of written comments from folks like, we have two members of the public in the room right now who regularly engage with the council. If they send in a written comment, do you also want them to speak at the meeting? Because that would give them two bites of the apple to use, you know, counsel. And language. Those are the details I'm just throwing out as problems also. But they're all manageable. Just so with your decisions. Are you envisioning that the written comments would be read during the meeting or just available for council members and the public to see? And for anybody who may be visually impaired, I shook my head. No, I don't imagine that they would be read during the council meeting. Yes, I do imagine they would be available for the council and other members of the public to see. Because if that were the case, I would personally be writing paragraphs every week for you all to read out loud and that would just be torture. Thank you. That's nice. Untrue though. And plus you could have a case where you had like a couple of hundred people who send in written documents. They don't know that you would want to incorporate them into the meetings by themselves. Yeah, that's fair. Yeah, I'm trying to envision how what regulations might need to exist just to manage the process. Yeah, I mean, there's generally an average of like words per minute that an average person will say like general patterns of speech. We can use that as like a maximum for whatever the three-minute thoughts would be. Well, the Indiana Code says that profoundly wrong to take reasonable steps to maintain order in a meeting. And I'm trying to imagine public comments, written public comments in the same manner as well. I'm just thinking, I'm thinking out loud. I'm just thinking, and as we talk about this, I'm just thinking in previous years when there was a lot of rhetoric that was very harmful and hurtful to community members, if you get a written comment and it says something in there that is very offensive, who I would think that you would still have to read that for, there might have to be some type of procedure, but it's like, because if you don't read somebody's hateful comment, well, comment that we might, I know people might seem as hateful and some that just think that they're just being smart and just sending out, that would be a big concern, because then it would almost be like, how do you determine what to read versus, you know, somebody out there saying, I hate people that wear black sweatshirts that say, significant, that might find that very offensive, you know, but for example, you know, that type of thing, we can only imagine how that would have to be. Yeah, I think the comment should be read out loud. Yeah. Yeah, I think that they wouldn't be read out loud. Courtney, would you agree? Yeah, I just really like the idea of making it easier for people to know that they can and how to give us feedback. You know, we're making an open pathway for them, right? We're more likely to hear more from our constituents, which we really want. You know, some people may not take the initiative to figure out, you know, how to email us or how to give feedback. And then this can just be basically a public forum for all of us to see these comments ahead of time going into these conversations. So we already have a bit of a read on the temperature on certain issues. For better or worse? One of the concerns I had if we hear the deadline that's close to the meeting time is that council members won't have time to read. Council members have jobs. Yeah, I would think that, you know, 24 hours before the meeting is maybe when we say would be a fair time to cut it off. Because yeah, I don't always even get to look at the addendum, you know, if it goes out that afternoon I might not even see that we have one. But 24 hours before the start of the meeting I think is fair. So that would then still require in all cases an addendum to be sent out. I know that's cumbersome for staff. It's particularly an issue right now because I'm the person tasked with everything. It's something I've tried to minimize to the extent that it's possible simply to make the office more efficient. Oh, I thought we were talking about trying to figure out how to not have to make this to go in an addendum or necessarily in the packets. But was I understanding you correctly that this could just be another place where these are going and not necessarily in the packet? Sorry. Yes, you could do it in a couple of different ways, is I think what I was saying, which was it could be an addendum. It doesn't have to be anytime soon. Also, it could be starting in January if you wanted to do written comments available. This is not, I don't think, an emergency. So we can make changes across the board on an ongoing path, but you could do it as an addendum or you could do it as resting somewhere on the website where people could reference it with all the other packet materials and it could be included in that space so people know where to find it if it's not necessarily actively sent out. You have options. With Google Forms, I know that there are different pros and cons for every survey forum that we use, but with Google Forms, it is possible to create a spreadsheet based on the results that will automatically populate into the Google Sheets that we could send out a link to everyone that's just you only so that us and the public would be able to see the comments that are being written. Oh, that's nifty. Yeah, yeah. I think something like that could make sense because I don't want to create more work for our staff, but also the public sees the packets when we do, so they're not going to have the chance to submit comment before we're putting the initial packets together because the material they would be commenting on is coming out in that packet. Well, we have more than one reading. That's true. That's true. When we talked about this last spring, it was prompted by hate speech that was made in the public meeting, and I don't know if any of this would discourage that kind of speech just because we're adding more snaps, but of course there's a fine line. We can't control speech based on that, so I don't know how that factors in. I think the conclusion we reached last spring is that we have to allow it, but we can say something right after or turn our backs. For somebody who's really determined to say something terrible, it's not going to stop them, and then of course they could still get up during public comment time and just say it verbally to our faces. I'm just curious with people's opinions. Do you think that providing a written form that maybe feels more anonymous to some extent would encourage more hate speech? I mean, yes. I don't know. I think people skewing hate speech want audience. That's why they do it. I'm not a psychiatrist. You don't dabble in hate speech yourself. But it seems to me like it would be more attractive to them to have a written form. I think there are different types of people. But I also think that whatever form it is, there are going to be people who do that. I mean, unless we have another way, legally there's no way to prevent people from doing that short both put it off, but kind of entirely. I'm sorry, what was that? I said there's really no way to prevent it entirely unless we just cut off public comment. So I wasn't really approaching this with a lens of how do we prevent hate speech? I think it's not about prevention. It's what do we do and how do we exhibit leadership when it does happen? So if it does happen they were written for what to use. If that happens in a meeting, we can make some touch on it. Council can. And this type of written for what might be possible action that council would take in response to that. We could do that. Or just let it go. We could choose to address it during our public comments. My brain isn't working. You know the words I'm trying to say. When we get to speak at the beginning, if we choose to, it's one pathway. Or just ignore it. Which sometimes that's the way to go and then other times it's absolutely not. So it does create a bit of a, I think it'll be up to different council members. If council feels strongly enough, they could pass a resolution as a body. If individual council members feel strongly enough, they can issue a press release. Okay, well why don't we hear from the public and we can talk about the next steps on this issue. Does that sound good? Do we have time? We usually have three minute time on us. So is there any member of the public who would like to talk about the process for public comment at our meetings? Yes, and do you want to come to, when we speak, why don't you come to the table so we can get you on them. Krister Baum? I've been to a lot of meetings, a lot of council meetings. Most of them are routine. Some of them are very dynamic, very important to the public. And the feedback that the public gives often is reacting to both what happens in the meeting, what council members say in the meeting, what other commentaries from the public happens. And it's dynamic. If you have to write it cold before the meeting and that's it and then you're not allowed to speak during the meeting, you literally are restricting public input. And I don't think that's your goal. It might be your goal, but it would not be in line with the way we do democracy in this country. So I do not, if I had to make my comments before this meeting, send them in. I mean, I'm somebody that left his phone. You're dealing with all kinds of people and they all have different levels of communicating. Some of them only show up when a great important event is happening and they will not like being, they'll feel tricked. I didn't sign up before the line when I was supposed to sign up. So now I can't talk, you know, and then you might as well skip having a public meeting. Everybody just sends in their stuff. You send in your stuff. You just do the numbers and the public doesn't bother you and you get to have your answer. But that really isn't how I've seen the best meetings work in Bloomington. And it was the Democrats that brought in public comment, you know, that before McCloskey, the old Republicans would meet in their little room and there was nobody watching. And if we get to the point where nobody's watching, we're back, we're back in equal pace. That's all I got. But I'll answer any questions. Just to be clear, we're not suggesting that we stop public comment in the form of speech. We're just considering adding another form so that other people who can't attend meetings have the opportunity to share their opinion. But one of the suggestions was that if you did not submit it in time, you couldn't read it or you couldn't or it wouldn't be heard in public. It would be submitted but not read and you wouldn't be able to speak. But you submitted it in time and it went online. I heard you say that. No, you heard me say it wouldn't be submitted for public consumption for that meeting. It doesn't mean that you can't speak on it yourself if you submitted in writing or you can submit it at a different time. It is in addition to, not only. So you either misunderstood or misheard what I said. Were there ideas that if you didn't sign up ahead of time you couldn't make public comment? There were. That was one of the options that I said we also researched that other communities have used including our own for a school board. That was one of them. That is not a suggestion I personally would make but it is something that if we're talking about options for public comment the council should be aware that that is one of the options. I've never heard anybody on this council actually express an appetite for that type thing and I don't think these committee members even addressed it as something they wanted to pursue in the way that their conversation has gone so far today. Let's be careful because if you are actually making this in addition and making it easier for public comment that's great if you're actually inadvertently restricting public comment. That's how people will hear it. That's how I heard it when I heard and saw the writing and when I sat and listened to this it was how do we control it? What if we accidentally give too much time because we haven't had the right amount of people put up their hands. You know this is about restricting public comment and I don't think that's what you really want to do. I don't think that's really allowed. I mean let's not do it. Yeah I think that we have kind of been spitballing and talking about different ideas but I agree with Clark Baldwin and the cast members who live that and I assume House member Daly that we're looking for additional ways to have input from our constituents and not taking away options for coming or online or in person and giving a verbal comment and we hadn't we haven't gotten back to some of the things that Clark Baldwin said other communities did but you're right I mean that was in the details and we haven't gotten to those details yet but I don't think there's an appetite for limiting. Yeah well we've both been in those kind of meetings where the dynamics of public back and forth really really is really really matters and I don't think we want to chill that or cut that or something so that's my warning and if I'm wrong on on where we're going here is I'd love that. Okay all right well let's um let's go online next Mr. M.G. Hey good afternoon uh council staff and uh public uh good meeting I like I like some good conversation on this this is Christopher M.G. from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce I don't know if I said better or not um just a couple things on the public comment let's start with um can you hear me I uh let's yeah we're trying to increase the volume here why don't we just start incrementally on some of these changes so I I think clerk Bolton's idea of like signing ends just to make it a more formal process to call on people in a certain order on an ipad makes makes complete sense to do that if you want to do the public comment on in the packet you know I'm I'm okay with with that I think if you did it for just um ordinance changes that have a first and second reading and just have a hard deadline you know fine it's in the packet you can reference it or not but I'm hoping that council members in their newsletters sort of do reach out to those people to get their input that's you know that's following the packets at city council is inside baseball that I'm going to do but I don't know if that's going to be the general public but they are they are going to read your newsletters far more likely and have a google form and those on certain issues I think because we want public input doesn't necessarily have to be at the meeting or not and one other change I'd make on public comment is maybe for membership organizations that have let's just say 500 or more members maybe maybe additional time is I think we could we could the public and the council could stand up maybe five minutes from members of organizations during public comment either general or specifically on legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I believe council member Zulek is the only one who has a newsletter. So we'll take that comment as I'll take it to heart. Thank you. Yes as a compliment to council member Zulek. Mr. Amsord would you like to come to the... I'll talk less when I'm back here. Very briefly thank you Terri Amsord on CEO. Thank you for your time and attention to the decision of public participation. Really. I think good public participation theory in practice suggests different opportunities in different ways, maybe you have more people. So it's all good. I think the clarification to not talk about reducing something else is really important. This creeping in this era age of creeping and galloping, authoritarianism and autocracy. I think you get it. It would be easy for what you do to be misunderstood, which touches on some of the comments that have been made as well. So you have to be really clear and you're going to have to make sure the responsibilities you're taking on, additional responsibilities for the different work, are dealt with authentically. So you could say what you're... I feel like people have some commitment, some confidence that what they've done really shows up and is somebody who pays attention to it. So that's a basic explanation. But I think it's the right thing to be thinking about. I see no reason not to although I think it's a bunch of work. I don't know how the hate speech thing plays out exactly. I haven't thought about that. I haven't seen anything that I know much more about the written and the oral stuff. I think you get more detail than written. And that could be good and bad. That's content or clarity you might put up. But it's work. So I just encourage you to communicate with the public about what will be done and why. And help educate the public in the process of giving the public opportunities. Cities, counties don't do a very good job on promoting good governance. We're talking about the issues that stop and not about guns and jobs. So do a good job of that too. That's communication. You have a new public engagement director or someone where I think they do very well with that. I talked to her informally at the downtown cleanup last week and she said, "Oh yeah, I'd love to plan together with the council." In principle, she is. All right. I don't see any other public. Is that hand raised? So where should we take this from here? I think what Mr. Emcee said is a good point that we don't have to make all the changes at once. We could start with kind of a signup process. So I don't know if, Claire, if you would want to write up some kind of proposal for a signup process and we talk about that next time? Yeah. And draft a couple versions of forms that could be used. Does that sound unenable to the committee members? Because I think this is probably, my assumption was that was where you'd want to start. Sorry, I had time to run. My assumption was that was where you want to start and that seemed like the easiest first step. So would these be initiatives that the clerk's office will carry out over the clerk's and council's office? Oh, I meant for, just for a form for taking public comment during the meetings. Yeah. But if you want to have eyes on, I'm happy to do it. No, I'm trying to learn. Okay. Well, that's a good question. We can talk about it also. Yeah. And maybe, unless you want to take the lead on it, in which case, cool. Right now, my place is full. Okay. And when I say clerk's office, some of it probably wouldn't be, so it'd be better on the computer than on me. There is a comment that just got made, or a question rather. What if someone arrives late? Can someone decide to offer comments impromptu? I think that's a really good question because also some questions arise while the council is hearing the presentation and assessment. My understanding was that the iPad would be at the podium, or on a stand next to the podium, or an impromptu. Yeah. So for somebody, you can sign up before me. Yeah. What I was suggesting would not change that. I think there's difference between, and coming back to what I said before, which was I think there are two different and very distinctive issues here. One is taking written comment, and one is taking public comment during the meeting, which I did say a couple of times. So to be clear, if somebody comes and wants to make public comment on a piece of legislation while you all are discussing it, they will still sign up for public comment in the same way that they do now. They would just be doing it in a typed form, as opposed to handwritten on a piece of paper. And it would be accessible to those on Zoom as well. And it would be accessible to those on Zoom as well. That'd be awesome. Yeah. And realistically, I mean, if you put it into a Google Form, and you have that in several places where people can access it, they could be sitting at their chairs and signing up to speak, instead of going up and standing in line to sign up, because then you would be calling them in order. So you would actually know how many people want to speak, and they could just get called up relatively quickly. I mean, you could make it into a space where it becomes very, very open and obvious, kind of like being at the airport, and you see all the people who are available for being at the airport, and you see all the people who are available for upgrades next. I really want to go fly somewhere. But you have options. I guess that's what it comes to. That was a very lengthy answer too. Was that very? There's another. He says unnecessary complexity. I'm not sure. He said Google Forms sometimes fail. Yes, that is what always happens with technology. Zoom sometimes fails too. Yeah. There's also job forms which do the same thing functionally. There are lots of different forms that can work. I don't think there's ever going to be a perfect format for getting people's names for meetings. True. I was looking at it with an eye toward making things easier, but stop us in terms of getting people's names. Yeah, I think this would be great if you could bring up a proposal next time. Our next meeting is June 3rd. Is that enough time? I won't need them. Okay, so we will have to look at discussing it after our recess. Yeah, or I could send something with Sophia. I just can't answer questions on June 3rd. So it's up to you how you want to approach it. My preference would be to do it after recess, because I'm hoping during recess to catch up on Title II thanks to the fun studying. Okay, let's take this for our first meeting then after council recess. Any final thoughts on this before we go to the next topic? Did we want to separately pursue the idea of the public comments leading up to meetings with that spreadsheet maybe? Would you want to work with that on me possibly to put a proposal together? Just to explore that option. It doesn't have to be until after break again. And we can kind of propose again some details about what that could look like. And again, not as a substitute for any public comment that we currently have in place, but as an additional way to encourage our constituents to reach out to us. Sarah? Residents. Yes. No, no. I mean, way for Bloomington to be heard. So is the term constituents not? Oh, sorry, that was a whole reaction, wasn't it? Part of it is just citizens are different than constituents are different than residents. Constituents are an implication that it's a voting member of the public who's actually coming in. The citizen is somebody who is a citizen of the United States, and the resident is somebody who lives in Bloomington. So there are times when you hear from residents who are not your constituents, and there are times you hear from citizens who are not your constituents as well. So they all have a slightly different meaning. So my assumption is broadest capture possible. And that assumption was based off of knowing Councilmember Daly when I said residents to her in particular, because she is tended toward having the more open consumption of voices in her leadership. Thank you. You are safe. All right. Thank you for clarifying. Well, great. So Corby and Cindy, you'll work on exploring that option. Thank you. Excellent. All right. So the next topic is allowing discussion of an item of legislation at first three. And before I go on, I have e-mails changed with Cindy about this. Cindy, do you want to speak to me? Sure. I see that Council Member Asari has already kind of addressed discussion at first reading. And now while it hasn't been written, I guess I'm just wondering if there's really anything else for us to do. And my response was, I think we can separate out the issue of the session at first reading from all the other many changes that Council Member Asari put in his initial proposal, which is not drafted into legislation yet. Because I think it'll take quite a while for all those Title II revisions to be made. And this is kind of an easier change that could be done sooner, that could benefit Council Members in public, I think. So Courtney, what do you think about talking about this now, waiting? I'm rereading the notes right now, actually. I mean, I looked at it this morning, but I'm looking over this again. I think, are we waiting? So we're not waiting on more information, correct? You're looking at the notes from March? March 10th, yes. Right, so Sydney and Matt did not work on a proposal because in the meantime we got a proposal from ESAC. Right. Yeah, I mean, did we want to include, he's not on the committee, but did we want to include Council Members, sorry, in the conversation since this is his proposal, or no, this is something that he gives to us and we take and run with it? I'm sorry, I'm just not clear on processes, so just clarifying. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say it's, so he had a proposal for a lot of Title II changes on how the council does things. Before that, he was on this committee last year and he and I both had talked about allowing discussion at first reading, so he's not the only one who had that idea. Okay. And let me just repeat that problem statement that I drafted for March. So I said, "Currently ordinances only receive one guaranteed discussion by the common council, and therefore council members do not have the benefit of guaranteed time between initial discussion, which may raise legitimate points, and final vote. Such time may be necessary to consult with staff, further study of issue, and/or consult with constituents or residents." So that, I mean, I think that there is a problem here. There is kind of a pain point here. So that's why I wanted to move forward with it. I don't think that council member Osari owns this thing. Although I would be happy with whoever he came up with. I would definitely want to break him in because he's... Okay. Sorry. Yeah. I was just clarifying the question you posed to me because I wasn't clear on that whole process. So thank you. So what do you think? I mean, if I'm the only one who wants to pursue this on this commitment, I guess like, is there enough gain for the three month difference? But look, if we wrote our own legislation, like it would be after the break, Lisa's already said that she wants to spend most of the council recess working on the Title II issue. I guess I'm just wondering, are we saving ourselves like two months of allowed discussion at first reading or like, what is the goal of separating them? What would our timeline be? I think we could get it. Yeah, I think two months is probably the estimate of how much sooner we could do it if we separate it. I also feel like the Title II changes are really big and this could get lost. I guess I just like, we have a lot of things coming up that are going to require a serious amount of energy, including but not limited to trying to figure out how we can bond all of our programs next year with the incoming onslaught of the federal government. Like this isn't necessarily something that I think we should be taking extra time since it's kind of already coming down the pipeline. Like there are other things that I would rather focus on that helps constituents rather than helps process. Well, I would argue this would help constituents as well, but that's why I'm asking. Yeah, I mean, I do agree with you that this could help constituents. I think this is something that, again, it not only creates some more transparency if we were to do discussion at first readings, but it could be another way, another opportunity to get more information before the public without them having to seek out the information, possibly. Am I making sense? I do think that it's a big discussion though, because I think we have to put a lot of - we have to be pretty clear on the process for that, because it could add a ton of time to our meetings. That's my main concern, is that it gets redundant, and then we're there and meeting that midnight hard stop every time, and we're not finishing our work, because some of these issues might -- I mean, we've seen how long just the second reading discussions can take. But then, on the other hand, does it cut down the second reading discussions? Yeah, I think -- I could flip-flop back and forth all day. You guys want me to keep going? On one hand, on the other hand. So those are my initial thoughts on first reading discussions. Well, having a discussion at first reading would allow council members the time to see the presentation, ask questions, get questions answered by the second reading, so we're not doing a full presentation. We're just getting the answers that we need to vote on it. Yeah. I mean, I've seen us vote on things all the time, where directors or whoever's presenting will be like, "Well, I'll get back to you." And we voted anyway. And it's like, okay, well, why are we voting on it? And/or did this question even -- if we're not going to postpone it, why ask the question if we're not going to get the answer? Yeah. I mean, I'm leaning more toward being in favor of the first reading discussions, because as I've -- I mean, you all know that that's been one of my biggest pain points is getting some -- not having that discussion ahead of time and then having to vote that night. Right. That's not my favorite thing to do. But the question on the table isn't, are we doing this or not? Sorry. Are we doing this now? Taking the time to write the legislation when it's already coming down the pipeline. I think there's a point to separating it out if there's a lot of Title II changes going on all at once. Okay. I don't have strong feelings either way. I would be more inclined to say, well, let's just -- if it's here before us now, let's just talk about it now. Let's handle it now. But I also don't feel super strongly that we're in a rush to get this done because I don't think it's going to happen all that much sooner than if we wait. Right. Well, let me ask this then. We have a meeting scheduled for June 3rd at the CPD, and I don't know what we're going to work on at that meeting because we have postponed action on how to schedule deliberation sessions. We postponed action on the sign-up for people to give public comment and possibly written comment process. The Title 2 overhaul is also delayed because Lisa needs to have some time to look over and work action at me with Kirk Bolden in Michigan, which canceled the meeting, but I think we could work on this. And I know only three of the four people on the committee are here right now.