WEBVTT 00:00:00.418 --> 00:00:27.454 - All right. Well, let's go ahead and follow through on this meeting of the City Council Committee on Council Processes for Monday, July 14th, 2025. We have all four committee members here. You know, I just want to say who you are. I'm Larry. I'm a council member at large. I'm Zoe. I'm a committee member for the City Council District 6. 00:00:27.906 --> 00:00:55.998 - We're May Daily, Bloomington City Council District 5. And I'm Isabelle Piedmont Smith, District 1. And we have from the clerk's office, you want to say who you are at your present today? Okay, Nicole Bolden, City Clerk. Senator Crossley, Deputy Clerk of Communications and Outreach. And then from the council office. Lisa Lader, Council Attorney. 00:00:56.866 --> 00:01:23.998 - And Sophia McDowell, the chief deputy clerk is here. She just stepped out for a minute. So committee members, does this agenda look good? Any suggestions or provisions? So let's launch right into old business. We talked at our last meeting about new options for signing in for public comment at meetings. 00:01:24.450 --> 00:01:48.062 - Um, that Clark Bolton had brought forward some suggestions. So toss it to Clark Bolton. Talk further about, you know, the sign in or okay. So today will be a bit of show and tell. So y'all know when I refer to my pad is this very, very heavy machine. Probably wouldn't be that heavy, but the 00:01:48.194 --> 00:02:11.774 - case itself was heavy, we could either put it on a stand or put it on the table close to the clerk's office so that they could actually be there and have somebody to touch base with without crowding up around the staff table on the other side of the room. So there's that for signing up at least. I thought it would be helpful if you had a list of people who are signing in and I'm sure in just a moment 00:02:12.034 --> 00:02:41.118 - Similar to what we did during the UDO, and sometimes occasionally during COVID when there were several thinkers, the presiding officer could say, okay, next up we have speaker Smith, speaker Djiboutis, speaker Yang, so they can just go through the one, two, three, and they know that they're going to be up next for speaking. Sorry, I will share my screen so you can see a rough draft of what the form would look like for 00:02:41.634 --> 00:03:09.950 - people to share, or to look at. I'll check on that in a second to open that. Wow. Okay. No idea what all those numbers were, so we're going to move to that. So this is a rough draft of what the form would look like. I think this is actually, 00:03:11.490 --> 00:03:40.094 - the form piece, so we can't find it. Here we go. This is what somebody would see when they log into the form, which would just be form, their first name, and their next name. So with your permission, council members, will it? Yes. It would have their name. 00:03:42.370 --> 00:04:05.118 - Next is the item of the day. Thank you. What would you prefer, Council Member Zuley? No. Next, a brief description of what you would like to discuss. Thank you. A brief one word would be good. Snow. Really? Yeah. Okay. We'll time it at the end of the summer. And that will be the end of it. 00:04:06.498 --> 00:04:28.286 - I'm going to do the max characters on the bridge. Yeah, not a bad idea. I have 30. OK. OK. I wasn't sure about that. What the presiding officer would see would then be that dumb face. I wonder who the ghost. Yeah. 00:04:28.418 --> 00:04:56.926 - I'm glad to see that. That was Mr. Test. I don't know why in Waller's Press he votes for monkeys there. The test did not. I feel a little seen. We did some other tests earlier and I actually deleted those out this morning because I wanted to do a cleaner on the last portion of it. So this is kind of how it would be set up. Very simple. You can filter so that if you 00:04:57.218 --> 00:05:21.310 - want to see just those that say yes, presiding officer can see that's the only person who wants to do it on items on the agenda. So there are multiple ways to filter the data. And the reason I said it was in rough form was because I wanted to make sure that we're also new 00:05:21.602 --> 00:05:47.998 - The language on the forum is very changeable. They may not like the way it looks right now, because it's very bare bones. It's not on the agenda, so it can be cleaned up. And I do think we should add links at the top to the rules for public comment. I think we see. Can we have a, I'm sorry. Do you mind if I jump in? Yeah, there are more comments and questions, and I'll probably add some notes. 00:05:48.514 --> 00:06:17.822 - Should we have, are you participating in this meeting via Zoom or in person on there so that we know when the chair calls on people that they're on Zoom or in person? I think it creates another friction point for getting people's names and we'll know in the room. And that's part of what we're tracking anyway through the clerk's office. So that's a, I don't know. Is this for in the room only? Like it's a, okay. 00:06:18.210 --> 00:06:48.126 - both. So it'll be available in the QR code that can be displayed prior to the meeting, and also a link that can be dropped in the chat by the staff while they're in the street to the meeting. How early can they submit? What are the timeframes for being able to access this to submit the form for public comment? I would recommend that you not open it up before unless you're doing some other form of public comment that you're accepting for 00:06:49.186 --> 00:07:07.902 - comments to be submitted to council checking through all we're researching and looking at. I would recommend that the suggested for public comment during the meeting which means opens when the meeting opens and closes when the gate closes for this, because this is tracking public comments made during. 00:07:08.066 --> 00:07:37.918 - Paper. I don't put the paper out four hours ahead of time and I don't leave it out four hours afterward. No, I agree. Actually, I left it out four hours afterward. I left it overnight, but most people can't get into City Hall to actually access the paper. What do other committee members think about the Zoom question? I'm just trying to envision if I'm chairing a meeting. 00:07:39.298 --> 00:08:09.150 - I would recommend to whoever's chairing to not say Mr. or Mrs. or whatever, just say first and last name. Next person is Sidney Zulick. Then if I don't know the person, I may not know whether they're there, whether I need to look at the staff desk and say, unmute that person, you know. Some names are gender neutral. 00:08:09.538 --> 00:08:37.534 - Yep. It's your guessings. They're unexpected. Like sometimes what you might assume would be different. In terms of just like a, yeah, quick checkbox at the end of the form, it's like, are you making your comment via Zoom or in person? I think it's just a checkbox. That would probably be okay. I mean, we could try it either way. Okay. Maybe, I think for... 00:08:37.858 --> 00:09:05.790 - be an efficiency administration. Is it contemplated that whoever's presiding at the meeting then would read this this list when it comes to the public comment portion of the meeting and say, 00:09:07.906 --> 00:09:32.734 - you know, Sydney's a little like, come forward, present comment, or is this purely for the work records to keep track of names? The way I contemplated it, which may be different than the council members themselves, was that council members would at the beginning of the meeting say, you know, for public comment, 00:09:33.026 --> 00:10:01.790 - rather than have people sign in, a link to a form will be provided. Once you sign in, the presiding officer will call your name and the correct order. So you have, I'm going to wait for the next slide to get that. When you actually are looking at it, you'll have a list of everybody who signed up. So you will know by time stamp what the correct order is. And then you will be able to, the way it goes, 00:10:03.522 --> 00:10:32.318 - That's rough. That makes sense. So ideally, the presiding officer would say, for items on the agenda, you'd have to check with those people and put those in more of a self internal, and then you could cue people up. So it would be, Isabel, it's your turn. You have three minutes of UMS. I'm not following city yet. 00:10:33.090 --> 00:11:00.190 - And then that way it can get some kind of a little bit more organized. OK, so not just say, now it's Cindy Zulek. Please give your comment. Who would also say, after Cindy Zulek, we will have math clarity? So the next person, Kim, please. Yeah. OK. So we were talking about it in the office. 00:11:01.090 --> 00:11:30.622 - So the memory was that we did it during video discussions. I thought we did it during the fully remote days of council, but we did keep people open at the readings when there was a long list of people. So it's not unfamiliar to members of the public who attend meetings. The sense of, OK, next step, we're going to have person A, person B, and person C. And then after that, next step, what person can eat meat at? And then person C and N. 00:11:31.394 --> 00:11:59.774 - And they can alternate between in-person and Zoom, however the chair chooses. Make sure that any of them say alternate between in-person or Zoom, because he can have the time to stay with us, and then he'll just know who's next. Yeah. He wouldn't actually have to worry about that. He could just go on. Did we see the shares view again? Yes. 00:12:00.706 --> 00:12:29.342 - It is live, too, so in the moment, if people were signing up with the QR code, let's say, from their seat, it will just be 500-1. That's great. I'm not entirely sure what I did with the sharing, so you'll have to do it in just a moment, because I'm struggling. 00:12:31.330 --> 00:13:00.190 - While you're looking for that, Claire Bolden, did you say that your office actually has two iPads that could be made available? Yes. Sorry, I just fell off. And we would do things like allow you not to use this box for you. So there's nothing in that access with the privacy of the bank so that they can access things. And then the screen will go away. 00:13:00.674 --> 00:13:29.950 - watching. We can put it on never. Yeah, all of those little burpee type things we can work out too. Are folks required to fill this out? Like if we get to the end of the list but there's somebody that had a lot of comment and they walk up, do we have to fill this out like after their comment? Obviously we still keep a record, a lot of people are active. 00:13:31.138 --> 00:13:57.150 - I would say we have a paper option too, but I don't know. We can't make someone on Zoom fill it out. We can kind of hold someone to account in their room and make sure you fill this out. Yeah, I don't think we should deny anybody the opportunity to speak if they did request it. I mean, they may not be moved to speak until they've heard something else. So we have to give them that chance. 00:13:57.538 --> 00:14:22.206 - But the benefit of doing it with QR code and the link is that a lot of people can sit at their table or at their chair and just fill it out on their phone and not move. And they don't move up. So they may come up and have to type in. So that makes the added benefit if somebody says something outlandish that they want to respond to when making their statement. That's true. Which we've seen. 00:14:23.810 --> 00:14:51.070 - I think this will cut down on the line too, which was problematic. Work with the QR code. I would suggest dropping it on the screen. You know how there's usually a timer as a person or something like that for a while, just maybe the timer 00:14:53.026 --> 00:15:21.342 - with the QR code or something like that. Or you just set it up on the screen. Or we could, I don't know, you put it in lots of places. That's why we can contact ITS if you have some suggestions about that. You can even have it printed out on the door next to the agenda. Okay, this is an option. 00:15:22.466 --> 00:15:50.430 - I'm the round, the easiest, cheapest. It's super easy to achieve. Thank you. That is what I have. Yeah. But I want to play with the language. Please let me know. We can do that. I want you to be able to do that. Follow us. That's very good. 00:15:53.058 --> 00:16:22.142 - And I will stop. Somebody already added commenting via Zoom. Oh, I think I did that. I was talking, so I didn't want to forget it. Well, we can put that at the end, so it doesn't sound like you're going to be treating it differently if you clip one or the other. Fair enough. So, we're done. Yay. Thank you for doing that. Of course. 00:16:22.690 --> 00:16:50.238 - Um, so committee members, are there any concerns, questions, comments? I think it'll make it a lot easier from the standpoint of documentation. And then it'll feel more organized, I think, in the heat of the moment. Yeah. Maybe we'll learn stuff from implementing it too. It's the kind of thing that can easily be iterated on. 00:16:50.562 --> 00:17:19.966 - One part's working well, the other part's not, but I think it's moving forward. I do have a question. When we were talking about this, we were mostly talking about regular council meetings, and somewhere in the last hour or so, the question was raised about deliberative sessions, and I said, I imagine it'd be roughly the same, but I really don't. So that is just something to 00:17:21.474 --> 00:17:46.974 - You're out there and part of it depends on what type of deliberative session you are having, because if it's one of the big ones, the breakout rooms where people are coming in and out, that might be more difficult. There's no guarantee that they'll be speaking in the same way and they wouldn't be tracking attendance in the same way. But I did want to flag that, while you're having sessions. 00:17:48.130 --> 00:18:14.878 - Well, maybe we can just start with sessions and then see how that goes and implement it. As the format allows, deliberation sessions. So I think we would need a motion to make this recommendation to the full council and move to recommend these sign-in forms to the full council. 00:18:16.034 --> 00:18:44.222 - The regular sessions. The regular sessions. All right, moved and seconded. Councilmember Flaherty? Yes. Councilmember Zulek? Yes. Councilmember Daly? Yes. I will vote yes. Well, thanks to Lord Bolden and the deputy clerks for having me this Sunday. You're recommending it to the full council on this Wednesday? 00:18:46.050 --> 00:19:12.990 - Um, uh, Lisa, do you see any problem with that? Like there are committee reports. You know, I hesitate to say anything without hoping, um, we have a lot coming before council this next week. So she might have a specific opinion about that between the tax abatements, the zoning matters. Um, 00:19:15.010 --> 00:19:44.670 - I think that will be potentially quite a bit. Yeah, maybe we should wait also to, so I have a chance to put a memo in the packet to describe, maybe, with your help. Okay. You could also bring it up in counseling on Wednesday and just give people a heads up that this is what we're up to. Right. And then bring it to the next record. That'll give them the opportunity to do public comment on it. There we go. 00:19:45.346 --> 00:20:13.214 - All right. So the next part of old business also related to getting more public input in different ways was there were ideas for alternative public feedback mechanisms on legislation. And I think Sydney and Courtney, you have 00:20:13.346 --> 00:20:43.006 - volunteer to look into it further. I don't know if you've had a chance to. Yes, we put together, it was last minute, so I apologize I didn't get it in time to everybody to get in the packet or an addendum, but I emailed it out to all of you just shortly ago, just a Google Doc where we put together written comment guidelines. Can we just say something? I was going to say, is anybody able to display it possibly? 00:20:43.170 --> 00:21:09.438 - We'll send it to the courts, you know, in general. Should I send it somewhere else? You can share your screen. Oh, you're not in there. Oh, yeah, you're not. 00:21:11.330 --> 00:21:39.198 - I'm sure someone's at the top of your email. I'll share it again so it's at the top of your email. The problem is actually getting ready now. I just closed it and said it should already be at the top of the email. Is that how many emails to get, I guess? Do you want me to join the meeting so I can join? I've got it now. Finally. Sorry for that, Lily. Sorry, I didn't get it asked. 00:21:41.634 --> 00:22:10.846 - Good. There we go. Yes, that's it. So this was some research into, well, first of all, just submitting some suggestions for how we might want to go about doing public comment and then some examples from around the country for how other localities have done it. So the idea of doing written comment or providing the avenue for written comment 00:22:10.978 --> 00:22:40.638 - you know, is not in place of verbal comment. This is in lieu of, or not in tandem with, just to provide another avenue and also an opportunity for things to be part of the public record. So we would need to set specific deadlines for when they can get their comments in. If they want it part of the packet that's to be distributed each Friday, we would have to 00:22:41.666 --> 00:23:09.374 - determine when we would want to do that. Or if they're going to be in, you know, if we're not planning on publishing them in the packet, do we want to just put them in the minutes? We need to ensure that every council member gets copies directly to them as well to make sure that we are having easy access to them, making sure that, well, I guess actually it's in the packet ahead of time. 00:23:10.146 --> 00:23:38.110 - It doesn't need to be e-mailed, but we need to provide many other committees for where they can access this. So they can either e-mail directly their public comments saying they want it to be public comment, or we can have another online form that they can access right from our web page. So we would need to decide the specifics for what we would allow, what we want. We want their name. 00:23:38.306 --> 00:24:08.286 - If nothing else, probably the zip code. Just to determine residency. Word limit, I would suggest 450 words because that would be roughly equivalent to three minutes worth of speaking time. But as you can see, San Diego only allows 200 words. And then we can have them indicate whether this is just like with the sign-in sheet, is this an item on the agenda or an item not on the agenda? 00:24:09.410 --> 00:24:38.942 - um sitting under the mess you had to add about this with if we were to accept written comments like prior to the packet we would need to have uh an agenda go out sooner because people would have no way of knowing what was going to be in the packet um so that's that's my only so anything i was thinking about but or we could we also don't have to do that publish them on you know have them 00:24:39.074 --> 00:25:07.262 - linked either in the PDF or on the website somewhere so that other members of the public can easily find them. And then if we wanted to do that, again, that would be another two question. Now that might create too much last minute work, but if we wanted to say, hey, you can get your public comments submitted by noon on Wednesday or two o'clock on Wednesday, and then they'll be up on the website for anybody to see. Just another way of making sure that people have more time 00:25:08.674 --> 00:25:38.462 - to get their comments in on whatever's happening that evening. Obviously, if they're not related to the agenda, if these are general public comments that we do at our beginning and end sessions, it might not matter, might not be a time-sensitive issue for which path that they're reading. So we would need to think about which is doable, really. I guess the logistics is really the biggest question. 00:25:38.562 --> 00:26:07.230 - here. My inclination was to say publish them in a packet, but Sydney brings up a good point that that might be logistically difficult. Might be too early to be collecting the public comment. But I don't know about a website that might be putting a lot of work on somebody else to get those posted in a timely manner. Any thoughts or questions? Thank you. 00:26:07.490 --> 00:26:37.182 - I think first reflection is that, look, this is an evolution maybe in a sort of more ad hoc existing practice, which is people can, of course, submit comments via email to the council office, and we generally forward those to council members. So we already do receive written comments, but this helps provide a more formal structure for that and let folks know that that's an option, which everybody might not think of. And I think, oh, can I just outside? 00:26:37.282 --> 00:27:01.054 - I think, right, this goes to what I was saying as part of the public record, then it's not just going to RIs only if they want, you know, the rest of the city to see, or if they want to make sure their comments are publicly digested. My concern with that is, well, a couple considerations. One is like, 00:27:02.050 --> 00:27:31.934 - if we're publishing in a, like just sort of like the, are we advantaging one form of comment over another, so to speak, versus like attending in person versus writing? When someone's making an in-person comment, there are rules that are, you know, that are, for better or worse, you know, attempted to be implemented in real time by the parliamentarian, by the chair or anything, the chair. That seems like we'd have to have something like that to make sure it's not, 00:27:33.730 --> 00:28:03.326 - you know, egregious violations of CASA rules or, you know, whatever it is. For publishing written comments, that strikes me as like, probably involves some difficult line drawing and administrative burden. So I'm definitely a little hesitant about the notion of publishing written comments, though I like the idea of formalizing the process of how to submit written comments. That's my reaction, I guess, to showing questions. Yeah. Thank you. 00:28:06.434 --> 00:28:35.774 - I'm trying to problem solve. I see some, just purely from a staff perspective, potential issues to resolve, such as maybe the time in making the comments accessible. Beginning of April 2026, there are going to be new accessibility 00:28:35.906 --> 00:29:03.870 - goals that are being much more stringent than what we're complying with now. So I'm trying to think of compliance with that going forward. So we'd need to receive the comments. I'm assuming this would come through council staff and then make the text accessible. 00:29:04.930 --> 00:29:33.214 - And I can see where this would also include maybe some staff time in maybe reviewing what the content is a little bit. Monitoring a website and email to make sure that we're capturing the comments. And then if they're prepared in the packet, then 00:29:34.082 --> 00:30:00.958 - including those in the packet as well. So it's not to say that this couldn't be done. We'd simply need to address those issues on the part of it with the staff. I think your point is well taken about. It might require that the packet be released earlier. I don't know how that might impact 00:30:01.090 --> 00:30:27.582 - the legal department and other areas which are trying to get legislation and documents to us for the packet release date. But that's something that comes to mind. For clarification, I wasn't even suggesting that the packet be released sooner, but I was more saying it's not feasible the current way that it's being done to accept public comment when the packet has been released. Sure. Yeah. 00:30:31.042 --> 00:30:58.366 - And I don't even know that this is really a good option for us. This is just, if we wanted to consider going down the staff, these would be the suggestions and best practices that you were able to give out. No, thank you. This, I mean, this is really good starting point to think through it. So I appreciate your work. For 00:30:59.202 --> 00:31:24.286 - Sorry, were you finished? Maybe we could accomplish the same thing. What are the important goals that you'd like to address from this? One of the most important things that I see about providing this option is that not everybody's comfortable speaking public. 00:31:24.930 --> 00:31:52.926 - or speaking in front of other people. They are available at 630 on Verizon. Or available. And they may want their words to go public, right, not just to our ears, but to make sure that their fellow residents have access to what they're trying to say. So I think it's just another accessibility avenue. Yeah, I can see totally why that would be important. 00:31:55.650 --> 00:32:24.574 - Well, as far as what Matt was saying, and I agree that we have rules for public comment that we can try to enforce when they're in person or on Zoom. We could certainly have those rules as part of any form that somebody submits for written comments and have a checkbox that you have to have read and agree to these rules. Otherwise, we will not. 00:32:24.994 --> 00:32:51.614 - Make it public. Exactly. So you break in as well as, you know, not be publishing their comment. So that's common sense. I think that would be fair. Yeah. My running this in free speech issues. Well, for public comment, I mean, the, the ones that we use in person are the same ones we should use here. And we carefully craft our ones for in person to 00:32:54.050 --> 00:33:22.750 - I mean, I don't remember exactly what it says, but they're certainly within the free speech guidelines. Yeah, I think that the existing rules are solid in terms of current law. Now, if we just have an email address, there's really no way to do that unless we have an 00:33:23.554 --> 00:33:52.670 - an auto-reply that says, thank you for your comment. These are our rules for public comment. If the comment that you have submitted does not appear to these rules, it will not be public. So, I mean, it could be like a separate email address, maybe, to keep it out of the council at Bloomington email address. It could be public comment. So that then you could have an auto-reply. 00:33:56.706 --> 00:34:25.662 - That's a good question. Of course. So you were looking at some of these other cities that aren't in Indiana, but for any of them, do they have any security measures in place so that they don't get, I don't know the word for it, if you get a bunch of bots that are submitting forms or something like that. I don't know. That's a very good question. I didn't see anything that 00:34:26.306 --> 00:34:56.254 - Acknowledge that you need to prove your human thoughts. One of those, you know, a capture. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, those are some checkbox. I clicked into a couple of the forms, but not all of them. Okay. So I didn't cross anything to see any reference to anything like that. Good question. That was just one of the things I was looking at for the public comment forms. And then I set up those. Would it be helpful if 00:34:56.770 --> 00:35:18.398 - If we met, the two of you met with staff because there probably are ways to work around a lot of the issues that I just raised, including like creating an accessible template for the public comments, things of that nature. I mean, that could be a next step. 00:35:20.066 --> 00:35:42.238 - I mean, is this something that everyone wants to pursue because it's like we were really just doing research to be able to present you with some options? Yeah, I mean, if we want to move forward, sure, but not if there's no appetite to this, I guess. 00:35:42.498 --> 00:36:11.550 - a favor, at least a minimum step forward of clarifying that anybody can submit a comment via writing, having a defined process and timeline for that, some rules around, yeah, reverse a public comment, length of a post, et cetera, and have that go to council members to be collected in some form. I think where we start to run into difficulty around administrative burden and other questions is when we start talking about publishing or reading aloud, those kind of things strike me as like, 00:36:12.418 --> 00:36:39.998 - needing more conversation and consideration to get ready. But I think it'd be a positive step to have a slightly more formalized process than just email in the council office. So I'm supportive of at least completing that version. Yeah. I think another piece of clarity that would help me is when you say to be included in the record, what does that specificity mean? And that seem to be rendered in council or published? 00:36:40.386 --> 00:37:10.238 - because currently that's not council practice. Yeah. So there would be the record is that's the question. Yeah. You know, I don't necessarily support actually reading them during, you know, some, some of these cities do read them during their council meetings. I would not be in favor of that, but I mean, we could put that on the table if people wanted to talk because 00:37:10.530 --> 00:37:39.934 - Right now, I think the way that there will be a disparity between the way written comments are treated versus in-person comments. If they're to be posted on the website or something, there would be that disparity between those two types of comments. So for example, when you get email, that doesn't get put in email, right? It's just kind of from your eyes only. So the goal is to try and make 00:37:40.066 --> 00:38:08.798 - public comment to the larger community. So that would be a very cumbersome thing for IT. They'd have to design a whole thing through on-board. Jen, you probably know what I'm talking about in terms of that, logistics, or infrastructure rather. We just did a whole big thing with onboard. So that's kind of where I'm coming at it. Did we ever. 00:38:09.154 --> 00:38:38.494 - Well, and that was my concern. So what does, I'm sorry, I don't understand how on board after this. Well, I'm thinking that would be what probably the ITS is going to recommend to you all as the only option to publish these written comments if they are to be published for the larger community. Oh, okay. And we don't do that. So it wouldn't be the meeting minutes. No, no. Sorry, I said that very quickly. 00:38:38.594 --> 00:39:08.254 - Well, these clarifying minutes are supposed to be a record of what the council does and also what the council says. And then for members of the public, while we certainly captured their names and that they spoke about goats, we're not going to capture the fact that somebody like, say, Nicole Wolding got up and spoke at length about the benefits of various types of goats and her personal preference for painting goats because they make her giggle, but she also recognizes them when they follow or it makes them do, and on and on and on. I could go on for hours. You all know that, right? Yeah, I do. 00:39:08.386 --> 00:39:35.486 - So that's not going in the minutes. It would bare bones, Nicole Bones would talk about those. And Robert's discourages that. And Robert's discourage is actually even capturing everything you all say as well. And it's not really a record of the meeting if it doesn't happen in the meeting. It becomes a platform for members of the public where it can inhibit council action. It's meant to be a 00:39:39.842 --> 00:40:08.286 - Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm just not going to continue the conversation now. I'm going to take this myself. Sorry. But from a large perspective, I thought that would naturally be included in this. Gotcha. And should I keep sharing this or keep the gun? So I guess we should make some kind of decision. How do we default? 00:40:11.362 --> 00:40:31.966 - So, following up with what Matt was saying. So did I understand correctly that you were, you met. Let's start with clarifying that constituents can all submit comments, counsel, the email and counsel will read them. 00:40:32.066 --> 00:40:58.750 - No, I'm much more shy about the council will read them out loud at a meeting or read them as in like, yes. Yes. Yes. You've received that. I meant to step further than that of not just letting people know that they can email us, but actually having a form for submission. So channeling it that way. Make it feel more official. Yeah. And again, that some people feel 00:40:59.106 --> 00:41:27.870 - Kind of will know they can email us or just look it up if you intend to or whatever, you know what I mean? Like I feel empowered to do so. May not. Instead just clarifying that this is an option and like getting it out of the option into a submission form that has some guidance, I guess around, I don't know. There's a, there's a con to that too. It's like a slightly different thing, right? If we're controlling like the length of a post, it's a different, emails have attachments. Sometimes people send us like. 00:41:28.130 --> 00:41:57.822 - you know, four pages of text and a bunch of hyperlinks and attachments. And maybe we want that too. So I don't know. I guess I was in favor of sort of democratizing written comments a little bit more than just people's own initiative to email us by naming it and having a process. And so I support that, I guess. I don't have to mark it as that. We also could like start a pilot program with this, 00:41:57.954 --> 00:42:25.502 - a form to receive comments that just council members read and if somehow there comes another solution other than on order, we can move forward with that solution instead, like to make it something that could actually be readable for the public. Well, one, because in one of the cities, it was Walnut Creek, California, they post their public comments via PDF 00:42:26.114 --> 00:42:54.974 - Like, I don't know if this could be like an addendum to the packet, like afterwards, like when we're, where we post our packets on the website and then have this link with like the PDF and public comments. I don't know if that's doable. And easy. I don't know if it's easy, you know, that's the other thing too. I don't think we want to create like a really heavy lift for very little payoff. 00:42:57.122 --> 00:43:26.270 - if nobody's going to utilize it or the public's not paying attention to it. So how would they, we did a form, how would council members receive the information for, if you use Google form, you can forward it to your city emails. And would that be, 00:43:27.842 --> 00:43:55.198 - The benefit would be that I don't see the difference, I guess. I guess, okay, well, I do. I don't know if it's worth it, but like Matt was saying, one benefit maybe that it would limit the length of the comment, but the form could just say, you know, limit 500 words or whatever. And it could kind of 00:43:55.554 --> 00:44:21.182 - that could potentially confirm their address or district. But we're still, I mean, we still have the email option. We will always have the email option because that's just public service. Or snail mail. That's an example. We received a letter 00:44:22.338 --> 00:44:51.294 - to council member Keebot Smith in the office. So we do email, snail mail. So I guess since we already have a variety of ways, I'm wondering what the benefit is. I mean, I understand the benefit if we're going to go through the effort of making it public. 00:44:51.650 --> 00:45:18.846 - Right. But if we're not, I don't really see what the benefit is. Yeah, it's just an option. I think Courtney and I were both kind of like, let's do the research and figure out what other cities do, but we're not super attached to it. Yeah, I think almost like the main value to me, at least in like a light touch version of this is 00:45:20.962 --> 00:45:49.246 - People just might not think of reaching out to us in forums other than public comment during a meeting, because that's kind of what's most visible. Instead of just like on the city council, like homepage even or something, right? Like just having a widget of some kind or link, I don't know, for submitting certain comments to the council might again help more people understand that that is an option if they haven't thought of it. That's kind of it. I mean, we can even literally just say like, 00:45:50.018 --> 00:46:17.694 - you can email comments to cancel out this address. It could be that simple. Maybe that doesn't go as far as you all would like to go. I mean, I get that we're talking about ranges of options. I mean, has anybody had feedback from anybody in the public saying, oh, I really want to make public, but I can't. I mean, is this an issue that 00:46:17.826 --> 00:46:41.374 - Are we trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist? I mean, I do want to make sure we're providing more accessibility for people, but if they can email us and that has historically been good, is there an appetite for people making public comment? I have heard from people that they're not available at 630. Fair. Okay. 00:46:47.298 --> 00:47:14.494 - Yeah, there have been instances during meetings, during the chat where we've received written comments with the request to read them for certain reasons. It doesn't address what Councilmember Zulek was talking about. These were people who were present in the meeting, but for any number of reasons, 00:47:15.202 --> 00:47:43.358 - weren't able to liberalize or perhaps make the comments. So we've read those comments before during the meeting. They've been fairly limited though. They haven't been lines and lines of text. But that's a precedent. So somebody potentially could misuse that and have you read something that is 00:47:43.586 --> 00:48:07.774 - hateful. Right. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, but I also I mean, I know one of the constituents who frequently sends a written comment. And I think it's because he can very easily write them speak. And so we don't want to mitigate that kind of input. 00:48:13.122 --> 00:48:41.694 - It's a number. Well, I think we could just informally just ask for a Council President to announce every time that you're welcome to email the Council Office on anything. 00:48:42.370 --> 00:49:08.478 - And they'll come to all council members and then maybe put a pin in the other items until we're fully staffed at the council office and maybe January revisit. What do you think? Yeah. And then at that point, maybe you and I can meet with them to suggest it to explore what that could look like. 00:49:12.354 --> 00:49:41.118 - Do we need a kind of vote on this? Thank you. Okay. So the other three items under old business are pretty much just reviewing where we are. So 00:49:41.250 --> 00:50:10.526 - We had talked about the proposal for planning and scheduling deliberation sessions, and there were concerns about using the Google Doc to submit suggestions because it may violate open door law if several people are in a Google Doc or exchanging information in that way. So I don't know, Lisa, if you have anything else to say about that at this point or what 00:50:11.554 --> 00:50:40.958 - Where do we stand with that? In preparation for today's meeting, I went back and looked at a prior CAC opinion, which stated that shared online document editing is contrary to the official site of intent, that liberation and other official actions be conducted in public meeting. It's antithetical to 00:50:41.090 --> 00:51:10.942 - the spirit of the open door law and some other things. The suggested process by the PAC is to delegate an individual to draft or maintain a working document and then have others contact that individual. In this case, that could occur with 00:51:12.226 --> 00:51:37.918 - You know, Matt, for an example, as an example, as a council member who's agreed to maintain a list of potential topics, and then council members could contact Matt and add additional topics to that list. And then at periodic points, that list could be discussed here in the CCP. 00:51:38.434 --> 00:52:07.582 - meetings, or it could be presented to the council president. That could be one option in handling it. I mean, I know the council president already has a lot on their plate, but it seems like having the middleman and just having the middle person 00:52:07.714 --> 00:52:35.646 - The liaison, just having people send their topics and their ideas directly to the president seems like the most logical. If we can't do a Google Doc. Yes, then that would be another option as well. Given that this is Google's form of Google. Yes. Speaking about Google. So then people are responsible for populating all the development fields. Exactly. They walk through it. 00:52:36.450 --> 00:53:01.982 - In the form of this the president. So, looking at the proposal again. 00:53:03.330 --> 00:53:31.070 - Were there other, and I'm sorry, I didn't check my notes from the last time we talked about this. Were there any other concerns about the language and proposal? So any council members or set of council members can propose a topic in appropriate format for deliberations session. They should consider the following questions. What is the purpose of the session? What is the 00:53:31.234 --> 00:54:00.350 - format that best serves the purpose, and how will the public be engaged? And then, yeah, those are the two main questions that are subheadings under there. And then so the Google Sheet, we could create a Google Form with these headings of topic, this is a preferred date. You know, we have one month scheduled, often they're taken out by other things, but topic, preferred date, 00:54:00.450 --> 00:54:30.270 - stage you are in the legislative process, if this is just idea gathering or you already have an idea for legislation, et cetera, type of meeting, whether it's developing legislation, discussion of legislation that's already written, type of public engagement, whether it's open for public to have breakout groups, whether the public is just going to give comments at the microphone, et cetera, 00:54:30.498 --> 00:54:59.614 - Whether it's council members just sitting around the table and then the physical format and then do you need facilitators? And then, of course, the council member or council members who propose a session that is going to require public engagement tools, then they have to help with it. They have to do the 00:54:59.746 --> 00:55:27.134 - you know, engage facilitators and such. And so I think one, one reason we kind of delayed action on this as well is because of the staff time that would be involved. If we have these kinds of sessions now, I don't know if there's a lot of staff time involved just to gather the input. Somebody has to make the form, but what do you all think? 00:55:30.018 --> 00:55:57.566 - With any of us to make the form, I think the staff time involved in making the film. It's natural. It wouldn't be breaking up a bill if a form instead of going just to council president went to all of the. Council members to see, I mean, we would have obviously. 00:55:58.722 --> 00:56:24.542 - A plan for then how it gets acted on and, you know, the president would still take the scheduling lead or, you know, decide whether or not that's going to get scheduled or just so other council members can see what's being proposed and say, oh, I'm going to help you with that or. You mean, if it's a view, yeah, it's a view on. I mean, it's yeah, because it's just the results of the forum that we would be seeing not. 00:56:24.738 --> 00:56:52.094 - I had a similar idea and I was wondering if the meeting schedule that is maintained, if there could be a section added to that for these deliberation sessions and have maybe a list of those on it. I'm sorry, a list of standard meetings? Potential topics. 00:56:55.330 --> 00:57:23.838 - Maybe that could be distributed periodically to council members as well. I'm sorry, I think I missed half a sentence. The meeting schedule was the dates of regular sessions and deliberation sessions. I think in the past periodically that has been distributed 00:57:24.418 --> 00:57:49.406 - So the legislative schedule. Exactly. Not just the council calendar. No. But add maybe a sheet with respect to topics because council president maintains that schedule. If topics and forms are being sent to the president for this purpose, maybe 00:57:50.274 --> 00:58:18.206 - That schedule can be updated to include those targets as well. So, um, when somebody fills out the Google form, you're thinking there would be a link to the legislative schedules? Well, 00:58:18.626 --> 00:58:42.942 - The form would be received by the president and then the president could add a particular topic. Oh, okay. Because that legislative schedule, a version of it is already shared with all of us. I think at times the president, she has a version that's more streamlined, that's shared with all of us. 00:58:50.178 --> 00:59:20.158 - So that could be the way that the input from the Google form is shared with everybody. The president adds it to the legislative schedule. Yes. I think it makes sense for council members to periodically see what legislation is scheduled going forward. I mean, that changes frequently, but at least 00:59:20.418 --> 00:59:50.046 - I think it would be helpful for you to see that. The upcoming schedule that I have access to hasn't been updated since April. Yeah, that's the thing. It would have to be kept up to date. So Lisa, do you see public records 00:59:50.210 --> 01:00:16.318 - an open door law problem with what Courtney was suggesting that the Google form that all that when a colleague submits a Google form about a deliberation session that we can all see it. The only. I need to go back and look at the different opinions, but I could see. 01:00:18.626 --> 01:00:47.358 - And so I hesitate to say anything with respect to that. Yeah, because official action as defined in the Indiana Code includes a receipt of information. Well, after we have a meeting on July 30th, right? A regular session? 01:00:49.442 --> 01:01:16.830 - Council meeting? Yes. Yeah. Yes. So I'm wondering if in addition to bringing forward the sign in proposal, we can bring forward this proposal revised to just reflect it'll be a Google form that goes only to the president. And then we can cross the bridge later as far as how the president shares that with others or how it gets shared with others. Yeah, does that sound 01:01:18.114 --> 01:01:47.678 - Figure out one step at a time. Yeah. See if the council's even on board with. Because I think that we might get some good feedback from the current council president. You know, before we spend any more time on this, right? So I would entertain a motion to. 01:01:49.218 --> 01:02:15.230 - revise the proposal to replace a Google form that goes only to the council president, put that in instead of the shared Google Doc with all the same information, and then forward that proposal to the council for a discussion and possible approval on the 30th. So moved. Second. 01:02:18.338 --> 01:02:46.462 - You stepped out a minute. Do you understand? Yep. Got it. Okay. All right. Council member Daley? Yes. Council member Zulek? Yes. Council member Flaherty? Yes. And I will vote yes. Deputy Clerk Crossley, was that clear enough, I hope? Yes. And if not, I can go back to the lunch. Okay. 01:02:53.122 --> 01:03:21.150 - The proposal for Councilmember Liaisons to Boards and Commissions, so that was adopted by Council, and I think Councilmember Zulek is still working with staff on how to formalize. So I got a sample from Lisa on what the legislation might look like, and I'm hoping to have that ready to release the draft by our August meeting. And Lisa, I probably will. 01:03:21.250 --> 01:03:49.790 - reach out to you for a minute before that at some point. But I'm not sure what stage I'll be in yet. It will be like a draft for you to review so that we can go into the meeting prepared. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And then the Title II overhaul initiated by Council Member Asare and the accompanying administrative manual. 01:03:50.530 --> 01:04:19.806 - I can report that Clerk Bolden, attorney later, attorney of written thing, and I all had a meeting about starting to just go paragraph by paragraph through Title II and looking at the changes that were recommended and just kind of thinking through it. But going paragraph by paragraph, of course, takes a while. That was a two-hour meeting. 01:04:20.066 --> 01:04:50.014 - Yeah. Yeah, so we'd probably. Yeah. To add maybe some context that might be helpful to council members. What's been proposed is actually amending 01:04:50.882 --> 01:05:15.134 - these portions of Title II, and then also creating a new document of rules of procedures that would then incorporate tasks that's maybe been edited out of Title II into these rules. So it's actually potentially creating two different 01:05:15.650 --> 01:05:42.206 - documents, a new Title II, and then new rules. Is the administrative meeting will exist yet? Because I've heard it doesn't. Yeah. OK. I'll take that. Is this an administrative manual for council members? OK. Yeah. That's what's envisioned. 01:05:44.066 --> 01:06:13.758 - I would say the council office, including council members, right? Like things that extend beyond council members alone. Yeah, right. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. How council does its work, which of course includes council staff, of course. You know, relationship. Yeah. Where it's manual, which is separate. 01:06:13.922 --> 01:06:40.542 - I see what you're saying. Staff has been preparing processes and procedures internally to use. And that's in a series of electronic files and folders, but it isn't a manual per se. Thank you. 01:06:42.146 --> 01:07:09.150 - And I want to correct, I said Yang, I meant Jane. Jane was part of the meeting, thank you for that. So we will have another one of those and we'll kind of plan out through. I think none of us thought it was like urgent to get this done for the playwrights, it was more important to get it done right. It's really important to work. 01:07:09.826 --> 01:07:36.638 - because it really gets to the heart of what council does, and it affects the clerk's office potentially, it affects other departments within the city too. I'm sorry, since we're so old business, I just wanted to update. Yeah, please. 01:07:36.930 --> 01:08:04.990 - Breaking news, but remember old business and old and old from the council or the committee from last year that we were working on the Code of Conduct and I had submitted the Code of Conduct to legal and so Anna from legal just sent an email to look at it and she has some things that she wanted to go over with me. So hopefully I can bring that back to this committee 01:08:05.282 --> 01:08:34.142 - next month for review. It's been a project of mine that I've been trying to work on for a little bit and finally got some headway and some movement. It's going. Thank you. Great. Thanks for the update. That's for Board and Commission. Yes. Yeah. Excellent. Let me come in and get them. New business. This was brought 01:08:34.402 --> 01:08:59.710 - to me by Deputy Mayor Gresham that they want to revisit possibly merging the Environmental Commission and the Commission of Sustainability. One of the reasons is because that she cited was consistent vacancies on both having trouble filling both commissions. She said, another thing that 01:08:59.842 --> 01:09:28.702 - We could consider it's just reducing the number of members of each commission that might help with that problem. So, I mean, this would just be our first session. You know, I think we would want to reach out to those commissions as well for any major steps were taken. So in the packet, other descriptions of each of the commissions purposes, 01:09:28.994 --> 01:09:56.542 - as newly revised earlier this year. So just interested in getting feedback. All right. Cool questions. Has the administration talked to the commissions at all yet since they're proposing this? I don't think so. Okay, just one other question was just 01:09:58.530 --> 01:10:27.230 - And in my experience, both the Environmental Protection and Sustainability Commission have, of course, they're at, you know, end of load. They're actually down, like any commission, but have generally been, like, well engaged and no shortage of people, like, wanting to serve on those commissions. Like, it's a little bit, like, I'd be curious to ground the feedback or the perception that they're having a hard time filling seats relative to other commissions and boards. 01:10:27.490 --> 01:10:56.478 - That just strikes me as a little surprising. So I'd like to see the data, I guess, on it as the rational justification. So we did consider this question, of course, previously and had decided not to pursue that particular recommendation from the NOVAC organizational assessment of all the boards and commissions. So yeah, if that's the only rationality, I'm curious to see it grounded in data that also looks at other boards and commissions and tries to dig into the question a little bit more before taking action on it. 01:10:58.274 --> 01:11:18.302 - Yeah, let me read you what she sent me. So this is from the deputy mayor having been at the city 18 months now I wondered if there was an appetite for visit the merging of these two commissions. These two commissions are both really big they're 26 members total. I assume it's 13 and 13. 01:11:18.498 --> 01:11:39.806 - And there are almost never enough viable applicants to keep them filled. I also think the differences between them are confusing to the public and even internally. Finally, there's a perception that the cost is the more powerful commission, which leads to a disappointing resident experience on the EC. One unified commission makes sense to me, and at least one of the staff liaisons has raised that idea. 01:11:40.418 --> 01:12:08.926 - But even if we want to keep them as separate commissions, would there be support for making each smaller while keeping the ratio of appointments the same major council? If they each have six to eight members, that would really reduce the recruiting left and get them closer to the actual membership we maintain. So the environmental commission has 12 members, currently has three vacancies. And a commission on sustainability has 14 seats and two vacancies. 01:12:09.730 --> 01:12:38.078 - But both have like quite a few applicants. So I'm sorry that UC has 12 members and how many vacancies? Three. And BCOS has 14 members and two. Yes. Yeah, but it's not, since I'm definitely meant to, to me. Not too bad. BCOS also has, or yeah, has about eight applicants. So. 01:12:39.522 --> 01:13:07.230 - How many applicants does the BC have? Three. Surprising. So. And they've all been created after May 1st. What do you mean? Like they're all viable. They're all viable applications. So then the folks, gotcha. 01:13:11.138 --> 01:13:39.518 - OK, so we need to see the data that she's referring to as her vacancies. In respect to subject matter overlap, I wonder about, we've kind of been down the street talking about it all. I agree that the lay or the scanning of sustainability in many people's minds might simply go to environmental. The notion has always been that this is intersectional. 01:13:40.130 --> 01:14:00.478 - social and economic issues. Also, more recently, the commission has emerged as the lead entity responsible for assisting in implementation of the climate action plan and really good measures. I mean, I want to read about the commission on environmental quality, which is like the origin 01:14:00.770 --> 01:14:29.918 - of that. Maybe that doesn't. We just changed it to take that away. Oh, was that what it's called? Oh, yeah. Oh, that's funny. That's funny. So we never colloquially referred to that. Yeah. It was more apt in a sense. I don't know. I mean, I guess. They do very different things. Right. Yeah. So to some degree, it's like that sounds like a communications challenge, not a merge the submissions challenge. It's like maybe it's named, maybe it's 01:14:30.594 --> 01:15:00.190 - their, you know, onboard or wherever else their pages are, you know, describing what they do more clearly. Maybe it's improvements in the application system, which we've talked about, like, for instance, limiting the number of applications. You know, number of commissions people can submit applications for. Other things, I guess, yeah. Given how strongly most people on both of those commissions felt about the prospect of merging as well, I think, like, sure, the administration wants to reconsider this question again, like, 01:15:00.290 --> 01:15:28.254 - by all means they can. I guess my advice would be they should do it in consultation and in a collaboration with the commissions. So a couple of things here that I wanted to add to the conversation is one, in looking at the applications, I think there has been 01:15:28.930 --> 01:15:53.982 - a matter of quality of the quantity in the terms of getting qualified applicants, because in talking to the liaison, I think they see like a number of advocates, but they don't really dive deep. This particular liaison for like the environmental commission, for example, is very vocal and very hands-on with things and will refer to me. 01:15:54.242 --> 01:16:23.454 - and we'll say, hey, we recommend this, please tell the council to have a council member appointment. I think that is also very concerned. In both cases, for both commission on sustainability and environmental commission, the only vacancies that are left are mayoral appointments. They are in the process of doing that and then they have a new person that's trying to go through all of that. I just wanted to add that. But having said that, 01:16:24.034 --> 01:16:53.054 - Um, in terms of, you know, trying to look at the combined commission on sustainability and because, and, and the NOAAQ report just kind of cracked for this particular meeting, it does state that one of the core things is, um, trying to combine both because, both because and commissioners, or that is it, on the environmental commission, um, have the same type of 01:16:53.506 --> 01:17:19.550 - Um, goal, which is quality of life. And so that actually was something that was very specific. And that, and I just wanted to highlight that that was, you know, one of the other ones that they wanted to have us combine that we also did this year with the bicycle beds or the cashier and whatnot. So we've already done that, but, and we're going back to the back report in the state. 01:17:19.874 --> 01:17:41.118 - that somebody did say, or you may have to mention that it is confusing. I heard that report, it does talk about how people have been confused by the two and getting that strong recommendation. Thank you, that's good information. Yes, thank you for that. 01:17:51.426 --> 01:18:16.062 - So is there any appetite for doing anything on our part to merge them, or do we just say, if you want to merge them, then give us your proposal and talk to the commissions? Yeah. I mean, I don't really want to work on that. 01:18:16.258 --> 01:18:44.030 - Something I'm interested in. I agree. Yeah, I think if that's something they want to do, they can work on it. Courtney, any thoughts? Oh, yeah. I agree. I mean, we can look at the proposal and see what they're thinking. I don't have a desire to do it. I mean, CASA, not in person. 01:18:47.394 --> 01:19:16.734 - Okay. So, um, so it sounds like the consensus is that if the administration wants to move ahead, they should consult with the commissions and then put together a proposal, you know, based on a solid rationale that we will then consider. Yes. 01:19:17.186 --> 01:19:45.598 - Good. Great. We're at public comments. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on any of the things we've talked about today or any other related things related to the processes of the Common Council? Blair Folder? I would like to talk about goodness. I'm sorry. 01:19:46.786 --> 01:20:14.974 - Why? I did want to ask if there was language in your rules for comment that I forgot to ask you all about because it refers to citizens throughout and wanted to know if we could go ahead and change that to residents for bringing in front of the council program. I would love that and not constituents either. Is that also something I shouldn't or rather should be used very specifically? 01:20:17.122 --> 01:20:45.822 - That was it, and there's your name. Okay. Thank you for that. I've been thinking of that too. Mr. M.G. Go ahead. Good afternoon, council processes. I was hearing in and out of it, so I'll do the best I can, but my public comment on public comment is that anything that you do with it should be just streamlining the process and not make it too complicated. You can see just by the 01:20:46.146 --> 01:21:14.398 - discourse on this, you can get in the weeds very quickly. You need to have just a couple goals of what is in mind by having this sort of sign in process, which I think can work very well with an iPad. But we also have to remember that it's very, it's the levels of public discourse. It's kind of a little bit like social media. It's very easy to post something on social media. There's no real ramifications. Posting or giving counsel sort of the 200 word or whatever it is, 01:21:14.562 --> 01:21:41.502 - Feedback is much easier than going online, right? What I'm doing now, making public comment. You know what's even harder is going in person than in making public comments. So we have to sort of realize these discrepancies in it. So I would, it was talked about or bantied, I should say, on sort of reading any public written comment, which I think is just a bad idea in general, just to get into that with what you read and don't read and anything like that. 01:21:41.826 --> 01:22:11.710 - and just have a forum where you're seeing it and if you want to make it open to the public, great. I don't know if you want to add that to the minutes, I think complicates things as well, but just make sure you're streamlining it and making it not burdensome and you're getting something out of it. So anything that's a boarding convention, making sure it's furthering the council's work, not just making it look like you're taking an input from the community or making things that just kind of 01:22:12.482 --> 01:22:41.534 - sort of look like just not real input, but just kind of looking like you're getting that from the public to make it look it, because you want to make sure you're more informed doing your job and not to make it more complicated for staff or make it more complicated for you and adding anything burdensome. That's why like streamlining commissions, I think is always a good idea whenever you can. Thanks for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Anybody else like to make a comment? 01:22:49.602 --> 01:23:17.342 - I don't see any other hands raised and there's nobody here in person. I'd like to follow up on what Claire Bolden said. This is something I've been meaning to do. Let me pull it up here. Our rules for making public comment on agenda and non-agenda items that's linked on the council's website. It says the 01:23:17.442 --> 01:23:44.382 - Let me to come to council greatly values the voices of its citizens and welcome to public comment. So, and then citizens is used at least two other times and I would very much be in favor of changing that to residence. I know that wasn't on the agenda today. Are we allowed to vote on that even though it wasn't on the agenda. Thanks. Okay. 01:23:46.274 --> 01:24:13.182 - Okay, a second motion and a second. What exactly is the motion. The motion. What exactly is the motion is all the things you just said. I heard it to update the language on rules for public comment. Yes, from citizen to resident. Yes. And any other problematic language like reverse to constituents. 01:24:13.730 --> 01:24:42.014 - Yes, it doesn't have the word constitution. It does have the word citizen. Anything that refers to the people of Bloomington? Has anything to do with residents? Yeah, nothing. So I see it four times that uses the word citizen. So those should be changed to residents. 01:24:42.754 --> 01:25:12.318 - We'll make that motion. Council member Zulek. Okay. And then... David. Okay. So let's vote on that motion to bring that to the council. That would be July 30th as well, I think. Council member Flaherty. Yes. Council member Zulek. Yes. 01:25:12.546 --> 01:25:33.278 - That's member daily. Yes. And I will go. Yes. Thank you for that reminder. We'll bring that forward. And we have my version version to go to the committee chair. 01:25:33.762 --> 01:26:01.758 - Thank you. All right, anything else before we adjourn? There is one other item. Deputy Crossley pointed out that October 13th is Indigenous People's Day. Oh, right, for our cancer. We'll do something. Okay, let's see. There's two other meetings before then, but I'm sure if you want to address it today. 01:26:04.034 --> 01:26:33.118 - Yeah, better sooner than later, I suppose. I do have a hard stop in two minutes. It's because I have to go back to work. But if we can find it around the next meeting's agenda. Should we just do October 20th instead? Should we do it at the same time? Over the same time? Over the same time? Or should it be available? Having to wait. Should it be available? Not available. 01:26:34.178 --> 01:27:03.582 - I'll be traveling back that day, potentially from a organizational retreat. It spans the previous weekend weekend. So I'm a, I'm a baby. What about October 6th, the week before? I mean, maybe, maybe not. Typically I have meetings first Monday of every Monday, but I don't know if I thought it should be happening at that time. 01:27:03.906 --> 01:27:20.350 - I am a little bit. I'm not, I'm not a hundred percent sure. Am I going to finalize the details that are free? Yes, I know a hundred percent of my travel schedule, but it's a maybe. Let's revisit this in August. All right. All right. We are adjourned.