Welcome. I'll go ahead and call to order this meeting of the Committee on Council Processes for Monday, August 11, 2025. And we have committee members here. I'll have them introduce themselves starting in the room. Sidney Ziller, Wilmington City Council District 6. And I'll zoom. Hi, clarity council member at large. Sorry to be a minute late here running between meetings today, but glad we have the virtual option.
 about Piedmont Smith with City Council District 1. From the clerk's office, we have... Deputy Clerk Colleen Williamson. And Deputy Clerk Jennifer Crossley. And from City Council Office, we have... Lisa Lyanna, Council Attorney. Christine Chain, Council Researcher. All right, welcome, and welcome to those from the public who are here. So on today's agenda, we have a follow-up on some old business,
 The proposal for counseling over liaisons to boards and commissions, then an update if she's ready to give one from Deputy Crossley about code of conduct, the board and commission members. Then we will touch on the sign in for public comment at meetings. Proposal for planning and scheduling and deliberation sessions, that was approved recently. Update on the Title II overhaul and administrative manual.
 And then we will have public comment on those items. Um, then we will have, uh, a new item or business at regular sessions of council. This is kind of bringing back something that we've discussed, um, and, uh, last year and maybe put down in January as well, uh, how to incorporate reports from entities related to the city, but not city departments. And then there's a general discussion of the order of business, uh, depending on how much time they have left.
 And public comment on that portion and then we will adjourn and I believe we do need to adjourn by one 30 today because that's when Councilmember Flaherty has to jump off or another meeting. Any additions comments on the agenda. Okay.
 So let's dive right into the proposal for council member liaison's divorce and commissions that was approved by council and now council members who like to flip this into a. So this is on page 2 to page 4 of the packet and it pretty much just. Transfers all of the information from the proposal that we approved into a.
 legal document, and I worked with Lisa and Christine to make it. I don't really have a lot of others in that. I didn't add anything past what we talked about in our proposal. Okay. Well, I think this looks really good. Councilmember Flaherty, any feedback on this?
 No, looks good to me. Appreciate the work on it. And this step forward in our board and commission, lazing and communication process. Should I just bring this? Yeah, I think that, do we need to vote on this or? I wouldn't think so since we already passed. Yeah.
 It's just making official what we've already discussed. Yeah, I don't think there's anything in the bulletin, municipal code, which indicates what are the other things that you can go about. Okay. In that case, I will draft an email to council leadership and Stan with a request that this makes it onto the agenda and so it works. Okay, great. And you've got my note about the past. Yes. Right. Yes.
 That's reflected here. Great. Thank you. All right. Well, we can move right along then to an update on the public comment. So, uh, I spoke with our homes and.
 Audrey from legal. And so shortly after this or after last month's meeting, I went and spoke with them because they received it and they saw it. It is not ready yet. So they had some things that we're all just kind of going through just to kind of take a little bit more of a deeper dive because the thought process to this was to also implement the code of conduct into training requirements for staff liaisons.
 as well as new and existing board members. So that's also something in addition to this code of conduct that I'm working on. I was hoping that it would be ready by this particular meeting, but I did get good feedback and it was a good start. And we're gonna find to comb it a little bit more so that we can have it all ready. Cause the idea is to make sure
 Once this is officially ready, the idea is to have new and existing commission members and board members sign on to it because in the event that there is something that we kind of have to refer back to in case people need to be removed, this is something that we would have that clearly defines the rights to remove them. So again, this is something that I am working on.
 I don't want to hold my breath and say that I will be ready for next month, but it is a work in progress. So I hope to keep you all updated as we continue to go through. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. So we did, the council did approve the sign in for public comment at meetings.
 You know, I was just wondering if there are any updates from council staff or from the clerk's office about implementation if we're still looking at getting ready by September 3rd. Anybody have an update on that? I met with ITS to describe the process in general terms.
 and they would like to be included in a discussion with the folks office, particularly with respect to the display of the QR code. My understanding is that the course office will organize some communication. At some point, I think council staff or staff at ITS
 straight to sit down and discuss it. Yeah, and I don't want to speak for Court Holden, since she's not here, but we can certainly pass that information on to you. OK, that sounds good. And if I recall correctly, Stephanie,
 The clerk's office already has one or two tablets. It has, yes. So that's already on hand. It's a matter of the logistics of your code. Right. Any other questions on that? Moving right along. The proposal for planning and scheduling to the variation sessions.
 Yes, please. Fellow Samuel started his summer internship again last week on Wednesday, and this is a task that he is working on. There wasn't sufficient time to prepare a proposal and a potential Google document by today's meeting, but the intention is to have
 something for the next committee on council processes moving. So I think we had talked about a Google form, right? So that it would only be accessible. Right, I think he's operating, he's familiar with the public access council
 opinions in question. His proposal, I think, involves preparing some type of Google document that would be maintained by one individual, whether it's someone in the council or somebody else, with parameters that would then comply with the pack opinion. Okay, great. Any questions on that?
 All right. Title II overhaul and administrative manual. So I had another meeting with Christine a few weeks ago about, we finished going through Title II through the section on council. And she is going to be preparing a draft administrative manual that has
 things that we, that through council members, sorry, original proposal and through our work, we decided to pull into an administrative maple. So, and I'm right. I'm starting with the raw first and your first, and then we'll discuss that sir and.
 put it into maybe a potential administrative manual. And also I'm meeting with holding this afternoon to talk with the first office on some of the heads-up. Just in on for sure, just a couple of things that we noticed when we had before about through it, that I was trying to do. And also we're preparing some of the questions also additional to confirm with the first office. Okay. That's right. I forgot the distinction between rules of procedure
 and administrative manual. Yeah, so I guess we'll work on the rules of procedure first, and then maybe we can discuss what to put into the administrative annual after. Yes. The new deputy attorney is scheduled to begin work in a week, and I think that this would be an appropriate project.
 for that attorney to be involved in as well. However, my intention hasn't been to slow down progress and wait for that person to onboard, but I would anticipate that the attorney would be a wonderful resource to involve in this.
 Yeah, so I think the distinction that we've discussed between rules of procedure and administrative manual is like rules of procedure are what we do during meetings and how we do that. And that would be also approved by the council. And that would be also in the Wilmington list out. It'd be referenced. Reference, yeah. It'd be approved by council. Whereas the administrative manual is more like behind the scenes, like if I have an idea of the legislation here,
 best practices of what I should do, how I should work with the clerk's office and staff and all that. There are varying degrees in my research and the level of formality and specificity among municipalities with respect to these different types of rules. So at some point in a different
 possibilities, different options available to council and who works through this process too. That might be an appropriate discussion topic within this committee at some point. How specific should the rules be? Is there consensus regarding the level of formality
 I think some people have opinions with respect to the use of Robert's rules of order. For example, some municipalities don't use Robert's rules. Others do. And it begs the question, if council wants to be less formal, then
 what rules would take place, take the place of Robert's rules. Would there be certain guidelines that that type of information would be helpful and drafted. Ultimately, I think council staff will need to draft these actual rules and procedures. Yeah, I think we're just at the stage of like,
 this should be in there and this should be in there and not like the actual language. But I think that's a good point that this committee maybe should discuss whether we do want to get rid of Robert's rules and have everything in the rules procedure, how specific we want to be. These are big questions.
 And you might consider having this as a topic of a deliberation session also. I think that type of decision would probably be best made with all nine of us or at least like that type of deliberation. I think it would be more productive to do that at a time after the deputy attorney has had
 some time to adjust and learn more about the council's processes. Yeah, that makes sense. I also want to record that I've talked to Esam again, and he's going to move back in to next time I meet with Christine.
 Pauline is the contact for Florida's office, so we'll loop her back in as well. So we are trying to include everybody who has important ideas to contribute. If you all have any specific thoughts on it, please let us know. You all meeting Matt and Cindy. Sorry, I missed the last thing you said right before that, Isabel.
 with respect to ESOX update. Oh, so he is interesting. I conveyed to him the content of the last two meetings I had with Christine and the clerk's office and going through Title II, and he wants to be in on any future meetings. Gotcha. Colleen is the point person from the clerk's office.
 Uh, didn't we run into some logistical challenges with respect to our past assumption that we could involve noncommittee members in committee meetings? Because if all four committee members are here and council member Rosari joined, we would then have a quorum with the council and like run into challenges there. That's definitely a concern. Yes. I think at this point, um, he's joining like a subcommittee.
 And this commission, I mean, unofficial, like just a working group. Yeah. So far. So yeah, they would be tricky if he came to a meeting. Got it. Yeah, I support with his interest in the topic. Yeah, it's a little bit logistically challenging. I think up to two of these committee members, right, this committee,
 members of this committee could work with Council Member Sari as needed, and then maybe a proposal is brought at some point and represented not by the committee members who participated and not by Council Member Sari directly. That's just like one option. Before expecting a proposal to have some discussion at this committee level, I mean, which seems appropriate.
 Yes, Julie noted. Any other thoughts on that before we move on? One thing that I just realized over the weekend is that the city clerk is listed as city council employees and officials or something like that, which
 is not appropriate, I think. So there's some big reasons to do this overall. Jennifer, I was just saying that currently entitled to the city clerk, the duties of the city clerk are outlined like under the heading of city council. Which really should be its own session. Yeah. I'm entitled to.
 It has all the fun parts to it. All right, let's go to public comment. Is there any public comment on any of the old business that we've just reviewed? Yes. Very briefly. Would you like to come to the table so you don't be alarmed? I guess it's the resolution I'm carrying around.
 Terry Amsler, I live in Bloomington. It's nice to see you all. I love this committee. It doesn't disappoint them. I will say just one little beginning. Both the council liaisons, I might hold myself to resolution, as well as deliberative sessions or whatever we call them, are all related to community boards. So there are some, obviously, connections to this work that are important.
 And we thought about by the city in a broader way, as the mayor actually has talked about in time and time. And the council and the council, maybe a council president talked about in time and time. So it's all connected in some way, as I would say, but that's not why I'm here. I want to make a brief comment about, positive comment really, about the resolution, the council liaison resolution, section three, item three.
 and I've got to find it here, excuse me, which says, informing assigned boards of commission chairs and staff liaisons of any relevant legislation be developed or discussed by the council for listening feedback from the board of the commission's onset of instruction. So this is, first of all, correct. I'm glad I started, Don, so I'm just saying it's good. And I say, this goes so far, this in elements goes way beyond anything the Novak report, Novak report consultants,
 We're charged or understood, they're charged to be. And it's very important. So my question really is, is that to be discussed? I know I'm just putting it out there. It's how you make this work. Because I think the question is, very nice, on paper, hooray, as you know how that works. But I'm saying, how are the members of these commissions truly informed about what this means? How do you know that'll be done by the liaisons?
 How do you know what the committee says back about how they think that can happen about? How do we charge in power, if you will? You're allowed to say that word, you know? How do we help these boards and commissions to do their work well and understand their role as they are generally interested in being? That it's not simply one board or commission they therefore speak to
 council member about something, which is good by itself. But it also made me an opportunity for the Board of Commission to ask their communities, whoever that Board of Commission might be, whoever they may tend to interact with, whoever it is that is interested in their work because of that committee, boards or commissions interests, how did they get feedback and therefore educate the public about the government's work?
 education governed by the public. I'm just saying this is an opportunity. I hope you will think it through about how you can make this happen optimally and how the board, I'm not trying to save the world. I gave it up a lot of back. I'm just saying you can do this work a little better if the stakeholders involved understand it and they got their own set of protocols on how it's gonna work. And the board of the commissions have the capacities
 to use what they're set up to be, to hear from their publics about the issue that's gonna come before the council. So this is no different in a way, kind of sort of, the deliberative session I use, being a broader voice, getting more voice here for people. So I'm just saying, you have an opportunity. Thank you very much. Oh, and there is, I'm gonna back away slowly. Robert's rules.
 open question, but there are a lot of meeting protocols that are not formally around its rules. There's a judge, I have a bunch of them, there's a judge in California, I used to work for California, a judge in California, you know, on their spare time, made up some, I can't think of his name right now, let's call it his name, our rules and rules, and they've been used. I can send it to whoever, you know, because there aren't, I rate this way, David,
 I'm just saying there are other things besides Robert's rules that are simpler, maybe used in appropriate places. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments? Doesn't look like it.
 Let's move on to order of business at regular sessions. This is something that we talked about last year. And the order, of course, was changed last year. We now have first rates before second ratings. And we have a great document that Sam Rohl, our intern, compiled for us in December.
 I wanted to specifically call out the question that came up last year and has actually come up this year as well, because we just had a report from the BEDC, which is also not a city department. So currently in our order of business, which is in code, it says reports from the mayor and city offices. Well, we often hear reports that are not from the mayor and city offices during that period.
 They usually have something to do with the city. Some partnerships or something, some organizations that the city supports. But that's not what it says right now. So I want to throw that open for discussion. We're already kind of doing it, so we just need to catch up in terms of code. Well, that's one way to look at it. I know when
 Isak was still on this committee last year. He questioned what the point of it was, hearing these reports. I know he and others have made it a point to ask, what can the council do for you? What happened when we work with you on common goals when these entities present? We could also say, we're not going to have non-city entities present to us.
 So I guess there are two directions to go in this Maybe it's a spectrum of sorts like there's a a range of things you might consider at that moment like I I Personally find them valuable I guess I think that you know the council meetings as a forum for
 uh, a getting all nine council members most of the time, you know, in a room, uh, or in a room and on zoom to, to, um, convene and, and, and, uh, hear information and updates from folks. Uh, I think inclusion of board and commissions, uh, that want to report out in that way or that format has been a long standing practice and is also, you know, valuable. So I think like a slight evolution to include that. But when I said a spectrum, I mean, like we've also had like, um,
 kind of silly, sorry, city, city coordinated, like nonprofit reports, right? Like, um, canopy Bloomington, like, uh, came in and reported a few months ago and others. And like that maybe starts to get a little farther afield. If it's like a city project, like, you know, um, or city funded initiative, like I think you can kind of make the case. Um, so there's probably some scheduling discretion, uh, you know, for the council president to manage, uh, just how much we can fit into those sections and not have, you know,
 60 to 90 minutes of preliminary before we get to the kind of meat of the agenda at regular sessions. So I think there's some balance to all that, but I think personally, I still favor mainly how we've been using that today. And I think to Councilor Zulek's point, a very modest change to code to the extent that our regular order of business remains in code would help clarify that.
 I think one last note on that front, which is that I've kind of been a fan of, like we tend to just extend the 20 minute section for each of those portions, like as long as we like at any time. And that's part of the kind of like creep of that section of the agenda that I think should be more assiduously managed. I don't think
 it is common, and maybe this has changed under current council leadership, but I don't think it's common that the board and commission members or, you know, city department heads often know that they are expected to fit within a certain timeframe, or they think they have 20 minutes, but it turns out there's actually two or three reports from them, you know, opposite the mayor, or for folks in the mayor's administration, and like, they really should have had, you know, seven or 10, and we've got questions, all that. And so kind of managing all that is an important part of,
 administering that portion of the agenda. And I'm probably having like a timer up and just making sure there's very clear communication about the expected constraints on, you know, sharing the top level, most important points with us and not letting all reports kind of stretch, which I think we have a little bit of a practice or habit of doing. So you agree both with keeping it and sticking to time.
 Yeah, I think every presenter should have five minutes, get to the important stuff and stop reading off the stops. I wanted to clarify with the council members what we're saying with respect to the time limit. So we favor the time limit for all reports. Yes.
 city departments and entities that might not technically be a city department. Yeah, I think we should make it clear that everyone has a certain amount of time for the presentation, and at that point we'll move on to questions. And I will say that the class of president usually does tell them, like, oh, we have two reports tonight, so you have, you know, five minutes
 and then, because we've only five minutes for questions. So those conversations I think do happen. Yeah. Between the council president and whoever's presenting. I think about a conversation is just different than a timer. Yeah. No, that's true. That's true. And I think the indication in the past has been instead of five minutes, 10 minutes. And so I think
 reducing the time to five minutes would have an impact on the duration of the meetings. And then that will give people time to feel like they're not being rushed for questions. Last point on that front is just, I think it will take some discipline on all our parts to actually kind of stick to that if we're trying to shift norms.
 a bit, and I think, again, we've been very lax. Even if we're communicating that there are kind of time limits, I don't think most presenters have often actually practiced or held themselves to that. There's this kind of vague notion out there. But again, the timer, I think that will help. And also, we might want to say, it's like, look, we've got a lot on the agenda tonight. We've met our five minutes. Thank you very much for getting through what you got. Please send us additional notes if you have them. But we're going to move to questions now and just stay on schedule.
 We've not published a written rule to that effect, and that might help support enforcing a time limit. We're in the process of updating council's website too, and that may be one type of rule that could be placed on council's website. Presentations to council, time limits,
 that might be helpful in educating the public to understand why those limits exist, because otherwise, you easily can have four hour meetings with an hour and a half of reports. So I'm wondering if there's only one report scheduled for an evening, would they still only get five minutes? And who determines whether? I think it should be a standard practice.
 It's easier for me as a staff member to explain that rule and help enforce it if it's uniform, regardless of whether there's one report before. I like that. Yeah, I agree with that. And it helps kind of set the boundaries that it's a maximum, you know, of 20 minutes. It doesn't mean we should just fill the space because it's there.
 And that might then also lead to, if we're expecting enormous five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions, say, then maybe with extremely rare exception, you know, the max for a given meeting is two reports within each of the sub bullets, right? Council members are a bit different. That's a little more flexible, depending on what folks have to say. And we don't tend to run into problems there. But for mayor and city offices and boards and commissions are included in that portion, or council committees, same deal, you know,
 Yeah, kind of setting the upper limit of number of things that get booked in that section based on that time limit. Yes, please. I found it interesting that some municipalities seem to schedule reports
 a particular department report, for example, at a particular time of year. And I mean, that would take significant amount of time in terms of planning that throughout a year long calendar and coordinate that and messaging that to departments. But I found that to be interesting. I've noticed often what happens is we have a desert
 of a lack of reports, and then suddenly, council will be asked to hear eight in a really compressed period of time. Do you think that once we're back to being fully staffed, that that would be a project that you would have time to undertake? Part of it is not just council staff, but coordinating that with the departments and the administration.
 I don't know what kind of support that would receive. It's something that we could discuss. But that's one reason why I bring this up, to see if there's any support to do anything like that. I would like. I think it's worth exploring. So going back, if you look at page six of
 the packet. So here is the order of business. So we look at, um, for the reports from the mayor and city offices, how should we revise that? I'd also like to be able to include the city clerk's office. Um,
 I think that to me, the clerk's office would reasonably be included under that under city offices if we just added and city boards and commissions. I agree. And then so that would not allow reports from the CDC or you could say the housing authority or others would be like city adjacent entities.
 Look, I think that would include like BT. Those would be partners. Yeah. Community. Yeah. I mean, I, Matt mentioned the, um, the true. Yeah. Yeah. Which really was kind of stretching it a little bit. I mean, I was president. I love them. But, um,
 Yeah, I guess it would be up to the president to interpret that and limiting, you know, considering the limits of time. Yeah, I think, you know, it's not uncommon for folks to have experts as part of their presentation. I think that type of thing would have to fit within, this is the Parks Department presenting on the administration of, you know, some funds to do acts and they're presenting along with,
 Oh my goodness. Our parks director's name is escaping me at the moment. But what's that? Tim Streep. Yes, yes. Thank you. Yeah, anyway. And having a community group who's helping with the work to present alongside that kind of thing. So I think we will reasonably be able to include those types of special cases because they really should only come in when there is a
 strong tie to some type of city program or something we're administering, right? And so there's always, it's always going to kind of be under a heading of some type of border commission partnership or city department's work, I think. Again, with some discretion, of course, for the president. So reports from the mayor, city offices,
 And, or city boards and commissions. Did you still want to have a spot for like being DC or. Well, I mean, what. How I interpreted what matches said was that it would be like the economic development. The sustainable development department.
 would come and say, we partner with the BEDC, and here's what they have to say. Okay. I mean, that kind of would require a city staff member to be there when previously they didn't have to be there. So I don't know. Is that what you meant, Matt? I think so. I think BEDC is an interesting one. I mean, they still have city funding, do they not? Obviously they coordinate very closely with economic sustainable development department. I think it would be great to have, you know,
 Director Cooper-Smith there to help set the stage slash context for what, you know, Jen Pearl may share, for instance, and kind of help us to connect the dots as well for the way this is impacting city work, city department work. So I realize that's a, yes, potentially a request for someone to be present for the beginning of a meeting, you know, if they're gonna present, but I think that's reasonable.
 I like that, because like you said, Matt, it kind of puts it in the context of the city. Why are we hearing from BDC? Well, because the city gives their money and then partners in trying to get good jobs and the department head, or what do you have to be the department head, it could be T. de la Rosa, or whoever from that department could give that context.
 I think that would be helpful. And are you envisioning also that the tree commission could give a report and then say, here's Canopy Bloomington to tell us what they're doing? Would a commission also be able to bring in community partners or host community partners? I think so. I think so if it's a partnership of some kind. Again, I think there's always going to be some line drawing or discretion involved.
 if that's how it's being administered is through a board of commission. I don't think it should be like, we're going to present and then we're going to have these other folks tell you about a totally disparate and unrelated thing. It should be a cohesive project or initiative that's being reported on. But yeah, I think that's reasonable. I think that's a good idea. The two deputy clerks here does city offices and your few design clerk's office.
 Um, I don't sure if we're both. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Easily. Yeah. So, um, do you mind if we put a pin in that and then. Uh, we could vote on it at our next meeting is that we'll know from the city clerk whether she would rather call out.
 Okay. Good, good. Well, the next part of the agenda is just to a general discussion of our order of business. And there were several examples and some analysis by Sam Earl. Let's see, we have about half hour left. I'll leave a little time for public comment.
 So what stood out to you all looking at the comparison report? Anything that others are doing that looks better than how we're doing it or other feedback? I kind of felt like every single one had like pros and cons in a way that
 Ours does too, like there wasn't one that I looked at. I was like, oh, this is, this is it. But, yeah. I thought it was interesting that Monsigny, just because like they cut out everything that's not, like just legislation, I guess. But I don't know, I don't even think that would work for Bloomington.
 I confess I'm still in the process of reviewing. I wasn't able to get to it based on life logistics until today, and so I'm just kind of working through it still. My high level impression is that, you know, there's some pros and cons, yeah, to having this more formal in the form of city code versus putting it in something that's more like a
 an administrative policy statement that is adopted and shared on the council website, you know, for people's viewing. That's something like that is slightly easier to change by way of just kind of like a motion and a vote at a meeting as opposed to, you know, formally bringing legislation. I do think our title to including this tends to be a little overwrought. So I don't have especially strong feelings.
 I'm trying to recall what the concerns or perceived problems were with our current approach to order of business and either the content of it or the codifying of it and what we were looking to address. Other committee members have thoughts specifically about that aspect.
 thing we talked about a few times is discussion and first reading. And I think that, you know, I would still like to talk about that. Some things that I noticed was that consent agendas are used in several cities. And that may sort of save time on
 very routine things, allowing the animal shelter interloan agreement to continue another year or something like that. And then I also noticed that several cities have third readings as a matter of course on their agenda, which may, especially if we don't have discussion at first reading, the status quo is now,
 Having a third meeting on the agenda might reinforce the idea that we don't have to adopt something a second reading. It can take another meeting time. I think that's something that would potentially help council staff too. Okay. Instead of before, you know, the day before meeting rushing to complete an amendment and make sure that all the cross references
 and other areas of the code would match up with that within 24 hours. If we can have a third reading, it would provide me more time to identify any potential errors and allow us to operate more efficiently too. If we were to,
 allow more like regularly entertain third readings, I guess. I think we would also probably have to communicate in some way with the administration to say like, hey, if you need something like done sooner, that needs to be communicated because we might be taking an extra reading to process this or just any type of communication like that. Just so they're not like, we really need this passed today
 and no one's ready to do that. Yeah, definitely. To me, the notion of, I mean, when we moved away from the practice of using a committee of the whole as kind of as a matter of course for all legislation for a variety of reasons and kind of learned sense from the former PAC that our use of that
 consistent with Robert's even, which, well, we weren't really consistent with Robert's, but the PAC sort of, if I'm recalling correctly, didn't distinguish between those types of meetings anyway. So it kind of, it created some constraints that limited our flexibility and moving towards regular sessions has been part of an overall evolution in process that I think gave us more flexibility to pass something kind of the same night it is, and we typically do, that it is getting first,
 substantive discussion at second reading, but introduced a little bit of the potential for challenges or time crunches that our counsel attorney just described. That's what I think is maybe the most significant substantive issue we're grappling with here. There's both the idea of discussing at first reading and the idea of using third readings. Both get at that from a different side, I think.
 And so maybe there's a question of, I mean, and there's some practical implications of which approach we would use. I would kind of favor, I mean, third reading is always available. That's always an option for us, but it really does elongate the process quite a lot, especially with our practice of introducing deliberative sessions and not having quite as frequent of regular sessions. So I think on balance, I'd be interested in exploring the evolving our code to allow substantive discussions of
 of legislation at first reading that we would not consider adopting typically, except in rare cases of real compelling need. And there's already state code protections around that in terms of having to have, I think, unanimous consent to do so and to third's majority.
 to pass, I could be wrong about those details offhand, but we've kind of like added like basically an extra prohibition in local code, preventing discussion at first reading. And to me, that seems maybe the element that could go here and that we could shift practice. But I think we'll have to really be thoughtful about crafting that proposal and proposing it to the council. What do you think, Sydney?
 Do you think either third readings or especially first reading might not be bad for the other or neither? I'm leaning towards first reading, but I will say it all just depends on how it gets set up. Cause I just want to make sure that like, it makes sense for say staff and our staff and their staff. And I think we might need more input from various groups before we really made a, that type of decision.
 Well, I think. Oh, sorry. I think it would encourage that better. A better process for amendments, because oftentimes you might think you want to amend something, but you don't really know until you have the conversation with the city staff who are presenting the legislation or the city council member is bringing it. And often that happens in the meeting itself. And so it's it's it's a little bit tricky. And then there's kind of this pressure inherently to like
 pass the thing and not, you know, wait for a third reading to do an amendment. So I think actually discussing, let's say, having some level of substantive discussion, maybe even time-limited substantive discussion at first reading would allow maybe more efficient and less stressed, time-stressed production of amendments that are better informed. Thank you. To hear why council members do that,
 I often meet with the attorney Anna Holmes, the legal department, and Julius Mitchell, who is the legislative specialist in the office of the mayor to discuss pending, or even before it becomes pending, legislation.
 So that's something that recently has evolved over the last two or three months. Okay, that's great. And the intention is to hopefully identify any time constraints with respect to legislation and then also to discuss any peculiarities
 in terms of time or the legislation itself. Okay. Well, would it be helpful then to invite some guests to our next meeting to discuss, like maybe the deputy mayor, maybe the controller, because some of this is about, you know, probation and the services that may have
 deadlines and have public notice requirements that are different. I think that would be helpful. I'm wondering if maybe the first step also is for me to speak with Anna and also Julius, who I think are kind of the white people for the administration on those studies in terms of scheduling.
 Uh, well, do you want to talk to them and then get back to me and then we can, um, see who they think should be part of the conversation that our next CCP meeting. Great. Matt or Sydney, do you have other thoughts or who should be? I mean, the clerk's office obviously is part of. Part of these meetings anyway, and that would be important. I don't know if the clerk herself would want to come for that discussion.
 would be certain. What about this idea of consent agendas? Or somebody has to make a judgment call as to what is appropriate to go into a consent agenda.
 And having been on the planning commission in the past, there is a consent agenda, but anybody can move to take something off of it and have a full discussion. So the staff still have to be ready for that. Yeah, I mean, it's the same basic principle of unanimous consent, right? And if we don't have it, yeah. I think that is an adequate protection that any individual member can choose to bring an item off. And yeah, to your point, Councilmember Piedmont's made it clear we have to be ready
 Uh staff whoever's presenting the legislation has to be ready for that We do use consent agendas at the utility service board as well. And I think it is very helpful with um, uh, you know, yeah kind of basic and and uh Administrative items and keeping meetings running smoothly and efficiently I think it's at least worth trying In favor of maybe not, um
 Surprising staff. Maybe we could also just have a, an expectation like, hey, if you think that you're going to want to. Discuss this give our staff a heads up so that they can prepare. Yeah, well, I mean, I think the president sets the agenda, right? So I think if the president feels like. They, if they can predict that people will want to discuss it, they wouldn't put it on the center. Right.
 But if there were any, like, if you're going into a meeting and, like, something's on the consent agenda that maybe you would like to talk about. Oh, somebody else. Yeah. Yeah. Just let staff know. I agree with that. I think, well, we, of course, have to kind of reserve the right for any person, any council member to make, to move, to remove something from the consent agenda just at the meeting with no prior notice. But I think as a norm and as a expectation for the sake of
 collaboration like I agree that if once you see the packets and review the packet, if you think you're going to request something be removed the consent agenda as a courtesy, communicating that with probably council leadership and the relevant staff or council members presenting legislation would be helpful. Yeah. So how should we proceed with this proposal for consent agendas?
 Do we want to bundle it with the first reading consideration too, like kind of set of changes in a proposal? Yeah, I think we should run it by the administration as well. So we can pair those two. That would be nice to talk to them all at once too.
 Do you envision this would potentially when we can do standalone things, but this is also Title II relevant, would it fold into more of an omnibus Title II item if timely, or do you envision doing this separately, given the nature of it? I envision doing it separately, because the Title II is going to be sometime in 2026, I think. OK.
 That sounds good. One other thing I just wanted to highlight, looking at these other cities in the order of business, at least two of them, Greenwood and Terre Haute,
 require that a council member sponsor each piece of legislation. Whereas here in Bloomington, the administration, you know, is the sponsor of a lot of legislation and there's no council member that has to sponsor it. I just thought it was interesting. I don't feel strongly that we need to do that, but I thought it was interesting.
 On balance, I would actually favor that practice. I don't think it's a huge deal. But of course, the council can choose not to introduce an item if folks feel like it is not ready or hasn't had adequate collaboration with the council in advance, if we expect some type of invitation from the administration, for instance, to give input in something in the development stages or opportunity to do so. We don't generally have that opportunity. We don't generally hear anything about legislation before it lands in the packet.
 But I don't necessarily think that's a great practice as far as collaboration between the branches goes. I know certainly when we bring legislation, there is a strong expectation on the mayor's side that we have worked extensively with staff to develop and vet it. And that's not really a reciprocal expectation. It would probably look a little different, but I think if we wanted to be more collaborative, I think
 having some touch points or opportunities to be involved or give input in the policy development stage from the mayor's side would be welcome. And that's kind of unrelated, speaking to that concept, but I guess it is related in the sense that the idea of identifying and having a council member sponsor for all legislation brought by the administration kind of helps
 create structure for collaboration, kind of in the same way we're doing with the board and commission liaisons, right? The idea that if you're developing legislation as a council member, you're going to try to reach out to the relevant liaison, if that's not you, and to the relevant board or commission. It would encourage the same thing on the administration side of making sure that there are, and departments really vary quite widely in their practices with this, like planning and transportation, for instance, they've done a lot of very active work with the commissions in bringing legislation
 I think some of the other departments less so. And so, yeah, I don't know. I think it's an interesting concept and I think it's something worth exploring because I think it could help build structures that actually enhance collaboration and address some shortcomings in my view in current practices. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I'm open to exploring.
 Well, I mean, I also think that it, I think in principle, it's a good idea. In practice, it may end up that the mayor's administration would just always go through the same council member who may be the most amenable to just bringing something forward.
 I don't know. So it could be a good tool for collaboration, but it could just be something that they check off their list. So I think maybe if you would like to pursue it, Matt, I think maybe talking with Gretchen or the mayor to see how they would approach it or whether they would immediately get defensive, I don't know.
 Yeah, it's an interesting, even from a procedural standpoint, it's a little odd and occasionally runs into some awkwardness that the mayor is essentially able to just, I mean, I guess the sort of pseudo sponsorship kind of comes in the form of the president putting it on the agenda, I suppose. And I agree with you that there's a possibility that it would just sort of become a rote
 and meaningless formality of the president sponsoring all the legislation or something that comes from the administration. I think there's also a possibility that it could lead to productive improvement and iteration and even conversation about the council sponsor. Like it might lead to some questions for the council sponsor, for instance, for what it looked like when the administration approached them. Did they have any involvement in it?
 or questions or participation in the development of legislation. I'm happy to explore it more deeply. I think of it as something that would be maybe related to the other two more substantive changes we've discussed just in this section of the agenda with regard to discussion of first readings and the possible use of consent agendas. I think from a procedural standpoint, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to me that all legislation is sponsored by
 a member of the legislative body. Well, let's leave that for another day then. Any other feedback from the committee members? And we can go back and talk about some of these another time as well.
 Okay, well, let's go to public comment then. Is there anybody in the public who would like to comment on either our order of business or anything else related to the committee on custom processes? Mr. M.G. Thank you, Council Member Isabelle Piemont-Smith, Christopher M.G. from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. Just a couple of quick comments. I like the consent agenda. I think streamlining some of
 what goes before the council to make the meeting shorter, always beneficial. I think those meetings do run a little long. And I think just for your own sanity, it makes sense. Reports from the mayor and boards and commissions. This one's a hard one. I agree with council member Flaherty on bringing, if you're gonna bring in nonprofits, if they have a staff member with it, what ends up happening with some of these, it's the nonprofits sort of selling what they've been doing the last year. And they might be before multiple political bodies doing the same thing, which makes it not,
 city oriented. And this is where the discretion of the president's really matters because some of these reports from the actual boards and the mayor are really important and you really want to get to the nitty gritty of them, including tax abatements, for instance, that came up recently. Other ones are just kind of going through the motions. So the five minutes really works well. I don't know how you do it, but I would give the council president, which if you're taking on that task, you kind of understand what the council's
 with before you that is really important and stuff that is less so. So that's where I'm at on that, but I appreciate the meeting today. I thought you guys went through quite a bit today and was productive. Thanks. Thank you. Any other member of the public with your left hand? I'm receiving them.
 We will come back to the committee. Um, so before we adjourn, uh, let's just double check our calendars to make sure that we have our next meeting down on the base. Great. Yes. Does that still work for the people here? Yes. Okay. So for that meeting, um,
 If Lisa talks to Anna and Julius, we'll try to invite some people from the administration to talk about these order of business potential reviews. And then we'll have some more updates on the deliberation sessions and such. Anything else?
 I've also communicated with Samuel regarding the proposal and people document to the left. Yes, that's right. That's right. Actually, yes, other thing and I totally spaced this and to deputy. So game of Dallas online and I caught this earlier.
 It looks like our October meeting is also scheduled when the city has observed holiday, which is the October 13th, which is the Indigenous People's Day. And since I think that's a holiday for the city, the city is closed. And so that is the second Monday.
 in October where we usually have these types of meetings. So we need to bring that to your attention. Thank you. You're welcome. Could we do October 6 instead? It's fine if we... Double checking calendars. One moment.
 Yes, I believe that should be fine for me as well. I'll have to check with Councilmember Daley. I thought she had something like on the first Mondays maybe. So let me check with her and if October 6th doesn't work, then we can revisit. And it should also work for the court's office too.
 Thank you. All right. Well, thank you all. We are adjourned.