WEBVTT 00:00:00.610 --> 00:00:28.254 - Okay, so. Okay. Okay, so again, this is this is actually something that 00:00:28.706 --> 00:00:37.404 - the CCP meeting or the committee actually wanted to have last year. And so it was worked on in the summer 00:00:37.404 --> 00:00:46.349 - and I had been working with this with Anna Holmes from legal and the intent was to have a better streamlined 00:00:46.349 --> 00:00:54.965 - process to understand or have a better understanding for board members and commissioners of expectations 00:00:54.965 --> 00:00:56.606 - as they are serving 00:00:56.930 --> 00:01:08.980 - through the city of Bloomington. We actually mirrored something of this to the city's HR policy handbook. 00:01:08.980 --> 00:01:20.461 - The main concerns were just trying to figure out what's expected of them in terms of attendance, how 00:01:20.461 --> 00:01:25.918 - to act or how to address themselves as they are 00:01:26.786 --> 00:01:36.202 - Um, I'm like, I've had long nights this week. So, um, so. There literally is just let me rewind and 00:01:36.202 --> 00:01:46.183 - and staying. All right. Good. So, um, essentially what we are doing here is just to have some expectation 00:01:46.183 --> 00:01:49.950 - of all board members and commissioners. 00:01:50.082 --> 00:01:58.358 - throughout the city and the intent is for new members and existing members, they are to sign this so 00:01:58.358 --> 00:02:06.717 - that if there is any behavioral issues or any things that are violated, we can bring this up and this 00:02:06.717 --> 00:02:15.075 - gives the council a better streamlined process to remove board members and commissioners if they need 00:02:15.075 --> 00:02:16.222 - to. So again, 00:02:17.730 --> 00:02:24.413 - And this just kind of goes over the code of conduct and how to interact, um, representing the commission, 00:02:24.413 --> 00:02:31.032 - basically just trying to make sure that they're not, folks aren't going rogue and, and, you know, saying 00:02:31.032 --> 00:02:37.337 - things outside of the commission and speaking on behalf of the commission, especially if they don't 00:02:37.337 --> 00:02:39.102 - have approval or authority. 00:02:40.386 --> 00:02:46.899 - Definitely highlighting the conflict of interest because several of the boards and commissions have 00:02:46.899 --> 00:02:53.542 - people that have had some conflicts and having to accuse themselves or should be recusing themselves. 00:02:53.542 --> 00:03:00.250 - So just kind of goes over and highlights this information. We are a very active and engaged community. 00:03:00.250 --> 00:03:06.046 - And so political involvement, just making sure that they are not representing themselves 00:03:06.402 --> 00:03:14.181 - as the member of the board or commission that they're serving as they are involved in political activities. 00:03:14.181 --> 00:03:21.672 - Not Santa, people cannot because democracy looks well and people are involved. However, you just cannot 00:03:21.672 --> 00:03:29.307 - represent the city and your capacity as a commissioner or a board member at these events. And then again, 00:03:29.307 --> 00:03:36.222 - the biggest thing is highlighting and outlining attendance as well and knowing what is expected 00:03:36.450 --> 00:03:45.387 - and what happens when they miss consecutive meetings or regularly scheduled meetings in any 12 month 00:03:45.387 --> 00:03:54.323 - period. And then this just has them sign it and it is on file with us. And then this also will go in 00:03:54.323 --> 00:04:03.348 - tandem with training. So we are in the process right now of trying to finalize the training for staff 00:04:03.348 --> 00:04:05.118 - liaisons right now. 00:04:05.218 --> 00:04:12.801 - but also the part two to this is to have board members and commissioners also go forth in training in 00:04:12.801 --> 00:04:20.235 - terms of, you know, expectations kind of going over this in detail as well and having them signing. 00:04:20.235 --> 00:04:27.892 - So that, my goal is to have all of this as it is approved to be done within first quarter of 2026. And 00:04:27.892 --> 00:04:33.022 - I apologize that it's taken so long to get to you all, but we happy. 00:04:33.282 --> 00:04:42.519 - Um, and the only thing that I was going to say in terms of, uh, feedback is, um, is we brought up several 00:04:42.519 --> 00:04:51.407 - times instead of citizen and making sure that we put resident. Um, that is a huge thing that I wanted 00:04:51.407 --> 00:05:00.382 - to highlight. That's kind of blingard, but I want to change that as well. Um, so good. And that's all. 00:05:01.442 --> 00:05:11.644 - Thank you. Any questions? On the conflict of interest piece, I heard from someone on the border, I think 00:05:11.644 --> 00:05:21.554 - it was the Board of Housing Quality Appeals, there are certain circumstances where people have had to 00:05:21.554 --> 00:05:30.590 - recuse themselves and that compromised forum. I'm just wondering how often does that happen? 00:05:30.722 --> 00:05:37.736 - What are the mechanisms that we could potentially put in place to prevent that from happening? That 00:05:37.736 --> 00:05:44.820 - is a good question. I think it also might be, well, number one, I think the corn issue is now ceased 00:05:44.820 --> 00:05:52.044 - because they are now full. Right. And so that was the biggest thing is they were working with a little 00:05:52.044 --> 00:05:59.198 - tiny body and those that were there had to recuse themselves. I do believe that was an issue with the 00:05:59.458 --> 00:06:07.712 - mayoral appointments. And as a result, I think that person ended up having to resign because there was 00:06:07.712 --> 00:06:15.806 - just too many conflicts that were happening there. So that person ended up resigning early on in the 00:06:15.806 --> 00:06:23.900 - summer. So hopefully we don't run into that as an issue because quorum won't be an issue. Thank you. 00:06:23.900 --> 00:06:25.182 - You're welcome. 00:06:26.114 --> 00:06:34.046 - Thank you. Two items, one also on public interest. It's kind of implicit there but I wonder if we actually 00:06:34.046 --> 00:06:41.460 - want to say to financially gain. Like his personal gain is like a ambiguous concept like if we vote 00:06:41.460 --> 00:06:45.982 - on like a bike lane, I bike in the city, I get, I have that. 00:06:46.210 --> 00:06:51.589 - Also, as essentially defined by the council members, I'm pretty sure it's defined as a financial interest 00:06:51.589 --> 00:06:56.969 - and all the disclosure requirements there around that, including the family members, I guess, as directed 00:06:56.969 --> 00:07:02.145 - here. But that might be helpful to like, I've just found in my time on council that people don't have 00:07:02.145 --> 00:07:07.322 - a good, like, there's not a good common understanding of what a conflict of interest is or means. And 00:07:07.322 --> 00:07:12.600 - it actually does have like definition as applied to us anyway, through the state law and mirroring that 00:07:12.600 --> 00:07:14.782 - as a financial framework might be helpful. 00:07:15.554 --> 00:07:24.507 - One other thing. Second is a little involvement piece, reflecting on that. I mean, I have beginnings 00:07:24.507 --> 00:07:33.637 - in politics. In Bloomington, when I was running for office in 2019, I told people that I served on the 00:07:33.637 --> 00:07:42.590 - Commission on Sustainability. It was part of my bio. People want to know how you're engaged in civic 00:07:42.882 --> 00:07:48.042 - uh, space basically. And we want people to engage in civic space and serve on boards and commissions. 00:07:48.042 --> 00:07:53.354 - And we want them to be active politically as well. As long as they're not, I guess my gut is like, maybe 00:07:53.354 --> 00:07:58.615 - this is overly, um, uh, limiting and that like, as long as they're not representing themselves as like, 00:07:58.615 --> 00:08:03.776 - uh, or as long as they're not holding themselves out, holding themselves out to represent the city or 00:08:03.776 --> 00:08:08.885 - represent its views or represent the commission, which is already kind of covered elsewhere. I guess 00:08:08.885 --> 00:08:11.870 - personally, I don't have a problem with folks saying like, 00:08:13.442 --> 00:08:20.897 - the areas of public service they're engaged in as part of being engaged in political participation. 00:08:20.897 --> 00:08:28.351 - So I'm curious to know what others think and also just think a little bit more about that provision 00:08:28.351 --> 00:08:36.104 - and where it's maybe where it's coming from, or it could be more, yeah, narrowly crafted. I don't know. 00:08:36.104 --> 00:08:42.590 - When I was running, there was a Bloomington firefighter who knocked some doors for me. 00:08:42.946 --> 00:08:50.742 - One of the, he like went out of his way to make very clear, like, I am on, I am in the fire department. 00:08:50.742 --> 00:08:58.389 - I'm not representing the fire department. So I think there are some ways around that and it's, it was 00:08:58.389 --> 00:09:05.736 - like well taken at the door and everything. So I don't know. I also am not sure what his specific 00:09:05.736 --> 00:09:11.358 - instructions were on your BFD. And this was under a former administration. 00:09:12.770 --> 00:09:19.653 - Or maybe just changing language shall refrain from representing themselves or as a representative of 00:09:19.653 --> 00:09:26.740 - the form. Of the city. That's kind of repeating the represent a verb but still representing themselves. 00:09:26.740 --> 00:09:33.623 - So they shouldn't identify themselves as representing a word condition. Right. Right. Let's do that. 00:09:33.623 --> 00:09:40.505 - That is covering the clause two parts above already. Maybe it would make sense to call it out in the 00:09:40.505 --> 00:09:42.686 - photo format that specifically. 00:09:43.394 --> 00:09:50.515 - Could you tell us more, Jennifer, about is that coming from somewhere else and mirroring another requirement, 00:09:50.515 --> 00:09:57.054 - like an employee handbook or like where that part came in? So I was kind of looking back in my draft 00:09:57.054 --> 00:10:04.111 - that I did early on, and I actually kind of what you were saying, because of course, I think it is important 00:10:04.111 --> 00:10:08.254 - for people to say, hey, I'm a part of this board of commission. 00:10:08.898 --> 00:10:18.680 - The intent is people not going to these events and going, you know, I'm pro, as an example, if anybody 00:10:18.680 --> 00:10:28.272 - watches this, you know, I'm pro redistricting right now and I serve on the, you know, I'm serving on 00:10:28.272 --> 00:10:35.870 - the City of Chairs and Tables Commission. And so, you know, we are saying this. 00:10:36.066 --> 00:10:44.065 - That's the uh-oh moment where you like, you can't do that. Certainly don't want to stifle people and 00:10:44.065 --> 00:10:52.142 - highlighting what they're doing, but just at political events saying, yeah, I am, you know, you know, 00:10:52.142 --> 00:11:00.458 - Joe Snow and I, you know, I'm on the city of tables and chairs and I definitely am yours. Council member 00:11:00.458 --> 00:11:04.734 - Sidney's late for reelection, that type of thing. So, 00:11:04.866 --> 00:11:12.809 - I wanted to. Exactly. And so early on in my drafts that I'm looking at now, I actually kind of had a 00:11:12.809 --> 00:11:20.752 - very like bulleted point so that people can understand. We're not trying to say you can't do this at 00:11:20.752 --> 00:11:29.246 - all because I do think that's a good point when people would ask the question. And so I think that we could 00:11:29.378 --> 00:11:36.741 - I could go back to the drawing board with the lead role and express we need to kind of clean this up 00:11:36.741 --> 00:11:44.324 - to make sure that we are not telling people we don't want you to even say, you know, that we don't want 00:11:44.324 --> 00:11:51.687 - you to say any of that. We, you know, we just want you to, because we did have a commissioner on one 00:11:51.687 --> 00:11:58.686 - of the commissions speak at the state house on behalf of the commission. And they did not have, 00:11:59.138 --> 00:12:05.852 - Yeah, yep. I'm okay with there being a standalone political involvement section to like explicitly draw 00:12:05.852 --> 00:12:12.437 - attention to the maybe additional sensitivity in a political context, but I guess I would like prefer 00:12:12.437 --> 00:12:18.957 - a definition that leaves room for people even describing their own biography. Should people at least 00:12:18.957 --> 00:12:25.542 - talk about their civic engagement or service while making clear, yeah, they can't represent that with 00:12:25.542 --> 00:12:28.318 - any type of endorsement turning them away. 00:12:32.098 --> 00:12:41.114 - There's also, sorry, I just accidentally flicked away from it. Under that same draft at the beginning, 00:12:41.114 --> 00:12:49.430 - the very first sentence reads, how did I lose it? What is wrong with me? It's late in the day. 00:12:49.430 --> 00:12:58.447 - I've had a day. Here it is. Any member may participate in a political or campaign activities to remove 00:12:58.447 --> 00:13:01.598 - the A. I think it makes more sense. 00:13:02.178 --> 00:13:10.659 - in political or campaign activities. It's just maybe nitpicky, which it might not even matter anymore 00:13:10.659 --> 00:13:19.140 - if this gets rewritten. So you said, oh, remove the A. Yeah, and political. OK. So in addition to the 00:13:19.140 --> 00:13:27.454 - two uses of the word citizen, I'm glad you're going to change that. Under conflict of interest, the 00:13:27.586 --> 00:13:44.468 - Last sentence says, recuse him slash herself from deliberation and voting. Themself is what I thought 00:13:44.468 --> 00:13:54.398 - it. Yeah. Yeah. So I did bring to Jennifer's attention that 00:13:55.298 --> 00:14:06.951 - Our office is exploring the continued use of Robert's Rules of Order as we research amendments entitled 00:14:06.951 --> 00:14:18.381 - to. There are one or two council members who suggested maybe moving away from Robert's Rules at least 00:14:18.381 --> 00:14:20.958 - in respect to council. 00:14:21.538 --> 00:14:30.377 - I think that would have any impact on this code of conduct. I think that it would be permissible for 00:14:30.377 --> 00:14:39.567 - boards and commissions to use Robert's rules, and if council decides not to, I think that would be okay. 00:14:39.567 --> 00:14:48.406 - But it is something that we generally worry about. Yeah. And I think as Claire pulled in about it as 00:14:48.406 --> 00:14:51.294 - well, I tend to think that if we 00:14:51.426 --> 00:14:59.190 - because I saw in the title two part where it says that the parliamentary procedures outlines that for 00:14:59.190 --> 00:15:06.879 - boards and commissions. I think if council changes it for their part, it shouldn't affect boards and 00:15:06.879 --> 00:15:15.252 - commissions as long as that part of type 2 isn't changed. But I can double-check to see if we're interpreting 00:15:15.252 --> 00:15:21.342 - that correctly. It is something that I've talked to the legal department about. 00:15:21.634 --> 00:15:30.316 - perhaps that we disagree. Dr. Crosley, what would you like from us? I mean, I don't think we have to 00:15:30.316 --> 00:15:38.655 - approve this. I appreciate you bringing it to us and taking our feedback. Yeah, I appreciate it. 00:15:38.655 --> 00:15:47.251 - Thank you. I think the next step is, I don't know if this is something that you all want to discuss 00:15:47.251 --> 00:15:50.174 - overall as a entire council body, 00:15:50.498 --> 00:16:02.931 - Because I can make the changes and meet with legal to go over the changes that we discussed and then 00:16:02.931 --> 00:16:12.286 - submit it back again for a final approval. Or if you all are okay with. Um, 00:16:16.130 --> 00:16:22.766 - Yeah, well, let's just start there. Like we can, I can meet with legal and we can kind of go over it. 00:16:22.766 --> 00:16:29.466 - And then I can check with clerk both then just to kind of give it a bird's eye view one more time. And 00:16:29.466 --> 00:16:36.297 - then maybe bring it back again in January. Or do we need to see this again? What's the adoption process, 00:16:36.297 --> 00:16:43.258 - I guess? Well, yeah, that's kind of basic in my opinion. Are we going to codify this or have a requirement 00:16:43.258 --> 00:16:45.470 - for the product that is otherwise 00:16:46.370 --> 00:16:54.285 - you know, assigned to someone approved by, like we. Well, since we've started reviewing title two, we've 00:16:54.285 --> 00:17:02.125 - been more inclined to take things out, put an administrative manual than average is. But it would still 00:17:02.125 --> 00:17:09.738 - be sort of subject to council approval, right? Like the. If it's an administrative. Right. You still 00:17:09.738 --> 00:17:14.110 - reference the products that dictate or govern a situation 00:17:14.434 --> 00:17:20.500 - But nevertheless, the products themselves or what it referred to is called out in code. And then the 00:17:20.500 --> 00:17:26.807 - update process isn't a code change. It's just like a vote on the new version of the, it's not like CBUs, 00:17:26.807 --> 00:17:32.874 - like rules and regs stuff. It's not qualified, but like we do approve the updated rules and regs. So 00:17:32.874 --> 00:17:39.000 - they come to us and that's like an updated document, simply an update to the administrative manual or 00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:40.862 - update to the code of conduct. 00:17:42.178 --> 00:17:49.261 - That's my information. Like, it feels like a thing that we should approve formally, but it doesn't need 00:17:49.261 --> 00:17:56.140 - to live in city code, as that's like all taxable. Anybody else thought about this? I like you there. 00:17:56.140 --> 00:18:03.155 - Yeah, I'm thinking through it also. I'm not sure that it would go into the title to rules of procedure 00:18:03.155 --> 00:18:10.238 - that we were planning on kind of matching up with council's portion, because this would apply really as 00:18:10.882 --> 00:18:16.969 - as much about war to the administration and then its appointments to the boards and commissions, but 00:18:16.969 --> 00:18:23.055 - we raise a valid point, like where would it go? Yeah. Well, it might be important to have, like, I'm 00:18:23.055 --> 00:18:29.142 - seeing the connection here between this and removal for cause as well. Right. And then we always had 00:18:29.142 --> 00:18:35.469 - ambiguity about that. There were sort of things that everyone agreed would probably be cost for removal, 00:18:35.469 --> 00:18:39.326 - but like this and actually explicitly tying those things, like, 00:18:39.714 --> 00:18:46.643 - might be the right approach. So yeah, I'm not sure which section of code, or like, I'm gonna, the whole 00:18:46.643 --> 00:18:53.305 - thing needs to be thought by, but I think approving it or referring it through to is. Well, I mean, 00:18:53.305 --> 00:19:00.433 - we're gonna, on our agenda is to talk about Chapter 2.12, where we wanna move all those general provisions 00:19:00.433 --> 00:19:07.095 - so we could just add a provision back at the end. Shall be maintained by the Deputy Clerk for X and 00:19:07.095 --> 00:19:08.894 - N, as approved by Council. 00:19:09.026 --> 00:19:14.494 - And then you're going to grab the system or the office of the city clerk. Yeah. 00:19:37.634 --> 00:19:46.818 - So can we move on to changes to city code? Yes, sorry. This, uh, this agenda got a little mixed up. 00:19:46.818 --> 00:19:56.185 - So there was supposed to be a heading that said more to the commissions under which there was code of 00:19:56.185 --> 00:20:05.644 - conduct and changes to city code. Because there are more changes to city code than just that. But yes, 00:20:05.644 --> 00:20:06.654 - to be, um, 00:20:07.138 --> 00:20:16.618 - There's the city code about boards and commissions. So as we discussed last time, we wanted to get feedback 00:20:16.618 --> 00:20:25.746 - directly from six commissions that we might consider having LTE committees for. So I think that we have 00:20:25.746 --> 00:20:33.470 - all taken a look at that list and also volunteered to reach out to one or two of those. 00:20:35.074 --> 00:20:49.880 - I didn't get that let's stop working. Transparency doesn't beat again this year, but he does. 00:20:49.880 --> 00:20:55.550 - I have to. Yeah, and I'm very cast. 00:21:04.386 --> 00:21:13.941 - something we'll talk about later. At least not in January. Okay. All right. Then we can move on to the 00:21:13.941 --> 00:21:23.403 - draft code revision regarding the general provisions that apply to boards, commissions, and councils. 00:21:23.403 --> 00:21:33.886 - You'll see here there is language proposed and thank you to Attorney Bennett for preparing this, which will move 00:21:34.274 --> 00:21:46.051 - almost all of 2.08.020 into 2.12, the new section 2.12.010. So that would include the terms for appointment, 00:21:46.051 --> 00:21:57.720 - the residential requirement, removal for cause, vacancies, majority vote, foreign, parliamentary procedure, 00:21:57.720 --> 00:22:01.502 - officers, duties of the secretary, 00:22:02.242 --> 00:22:18.441 - special meetings and office space staff. So open to comments here and I think we could add the code 00:22:18.441 --> 00:22:27.998 - of conduct here so much. That may be applicable for cause. 00:22:28.930 --> 00:22:40.516 - Since we may want to, or before it's limited to references. That's fine with me. I don't have any other 00:22:40.516 --> 00:22:51.880 - additions. So you're thinking that would be the new, a new paragraph for you? Yes. We can place a set 00:22:51.880 --> 00:22:56.670 - of things simply together that would cover 00:23:03.554 --> 00:23:17.007 - feedback on this? I did reach out to the mayor's office and I think they were fine with that, but let 00:23:17.007 --> 00:23:30.592 - me just bring up that email to make sure. I also discussed this with the legal department and the city 00:23:30.592 --> 00:23:32.702 - attorney review 00:23:33.602 --> 00:23:48.864 - this track changes document as well and had no issue with it. But I do remember seeing that communication 00:23:48.864 --> 00:24:01.822 - from the deputy mayor as well. So there was something. Yes, so item 13 was about budgets. 00:24:02.050 --> 00:24:19.632 - And we left that in the executive branch. Yes. I changed the number to two and three. What about the 00:24:19.632 --> 00:24:28.510 - intentional display of fireworks? That we move to. 00:24:29.922 --> 00:24:37.290 - Why would that not be moved to general permissions of forestry missions? I think it could be. Yeah, 00:24:37.290 --> 00:24:38.174 - good point. 00:25:01.634 --> 00:25:16.167 - So for the budget, they wanted to leave or some commissions in there. That was my take on Breton's message. 00:25:16.167 --> 00:25:30.430 - County Council. So Breton said regarding the budget, council does prepare budget and so do several votes. 00:25:30.530 --> 00:25:40.156 - such as RDC and MPA and managed funds. Since the phrasing notes that a budget is required in a board 00:25:40.156 --> 00:25:50.259 - with processes defined by the mayor, you may not require a budget for most boards, I think the purporting 00:25:50.259 --> 00:25:57.598 - is fine as is. So yeah. Any other feedback? Is the display of firearms piece 00:26:00.418 --> 00:26:08.103 - Are we covered? I'm just curious. I think, like, this comes up not often. Maybe, like, most likely to 00:26:08.103 --> 00:26:15.712 - come up at the city council meetings. And are we, is the common council, like, I don't know if city, 00:26:15.712 --> 00:26:23.773 - if boards, commissions, and councils are referred to here, like, is the common council among the councils? 00:26:23.773 --> 00:26:28.670 - I believe that this wording, are you saying because of the state 00:26:30.338 --> 00:26:39.273 - of what I'm looking for, how we can't reaction. Yes, thank you. Well, no, more so just like, does putting 00:26:39.273 --> 00:26:47.787 - this in the general provisions of boards, commissions, and councils narrow its scope? Is that, like, 00:26:47.787 --> 00:26:55.710 - is that possible to only apply to boards, commissions? But I don't know how I could get this. 00:26:57.762 --> 00:27:06.176 - I'm curious if city council is a council under this chapter or commissions and councils. If not, does 00:27:06.176 --> 00:27:14.508 - putting that firearm provision there implicitly say city council meetings are different and there is 00:27:14.508 --> 00:27:22.757 - no anti-display of firearms provision for city council meetings? That's probably not a thing that's 00:27:22.757 --> 00:27:27.294 - going to happen. I don't know. There is a provision in 00:27:27.874 --> 00:27:37.765 - 2.04, which is for the council that mirrors this provision. I don't know that it's placed in the best 00:27:37.765 --> 00:27:48.044 - location, but we can say that about almost everything. We'll get there. That is the concern that I think. 00:27:48.044 --> 00:27:52.990 - I'm just going to also say, I think to your point, 00:27:53.282 --> 00:28:01.187 - Um, we looked at this earlier. I looked at this with, um, chief deputy McDowell in our office and we 00:28:01.187 --> 00:28:09.249 - thought that councils meant like some of the councils from the various boards of commissions, like the 00:28:09.249 --> 00:28:17.468 - pharmacy advisory council and such. And so we were saying that title two is kind of cloudy when it comes 00:28:17.468 --> 00:28:20.990 - to council because it's the city council or. 00:28:21.218 --> 00:28:32.023 - It's referred to as common council, so we know it's common council, but then here it says council. That's 00:28:32.023 --> 00:28:42.420 - also something to keep in mind as the quest to change continues. Yeah, I perceive the word council as 00:28:42.420 --> 00:28:45.886 - not improving the common council. 00:28:46.370 --> 00:28:57.041 - By virtue of the fact that it's identified as a plural and there's only one city council meeting and 00:28:57.041 --> 00:29:08.556 - by the location of this language within that they're covered. So, well, yeah, all this stuff about staggered 00:29:08.556 --> 00:29:12.254 - terms. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, um, 00:29:12.770 --> 00:29:27.809 - If staff could incorporate the things we discussed and maybe even have a glass for us for the next meeting. 00:29:27.809 --> 00:29:39.646 - Sure. Thank you very much. So the next talk, oh, wait, wait to go to public comment. 00:29:40.898 --> 00:29:53.321 - Let's have a public comment on this issue of changing the city code regarding general requirements for 00:29:53.321 --> 00:30:06.105 - morsel conditions. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment? I do not see any answers. 00:30:06.105 --> 00:30:10.206 - All right, so now we can go on to 00:30:10.434 --> 00:30:19.470 - Item C, allowing discussion of legislation at first reading. So again, we have some draft language here. 00:30:19.470 --> 00:30:27.646 - Page nine of the packet. So there's the markup version and then there's a clean version after. 00:30:40.386 --> 00:30:53.267 - Basically, we are removing the part that says we can't discuss at first reading. I'm also losing any 00:30:53.267 --> 00:31:06.148 - kind of articulateness. You would like for me to last through it since I've cleared it. I'd be happy 00:31:06.148 --> 00:31:07.678 - to do that. 00:31:07.842 --> 00:31:17.976 - New subsection A would first clarify that every ordinance shall be given at least two readings. This 00:31:17.976 --> 00:31:28.311 - is mostly about discussion at first reading, but would also clearly contemplate the idea of subsequent 00:31:28.311 --> 00:31:31.422 - readings after second reading. 00:31:31.586 --> 00:31:41.799 - And then it does take a little bit of a detour there to explain how the process works and the importance 00:31:41.799 --> 00:31:51.720 - of a state statute if you want to adopt an ordinance at first reading that you have to have unanimous 00:31:51.720 --> 00:31:58.334 - consent at least two thirds have to vote to adopt at first reading. 00:31:58.466 --> 00:32:07.095 - and then says, oh, by the way, this doesn't apply to zoning ordinances because they have their special 00:32:07.095 --> 00:32:15.639 - rules. We tried to make that as clear as possible, including making sure that it was stated the right 00:32:15.639 --> 00:32:25.022 - way for the zoning ordinances. I bring that up mostly because as I've shared with some folks, the state statute 00:32:25.154 --> 00:32:36.830 - lacks a little bit of clarity, so I tried to add a little bit in there so it was not confusing. Then 00:32:36.830 --> 00:32:43.998 - Subsection B would really just talk about the ability to make 00:32:44.098 --> 00:32:55.130 - debate and amend both at first reading and subsequent readings and a little bit more of the procedure. 00:32:55.130 --> 00:33:05.842 - Subsection C then just puts everything about resolutions all in one section. So really just sort of 00:33:05.842 --> 00:33:13.982 - cleaning up overall. But the two big things are to allow for discussion and 00:33:14.210 --> 00:33:22.737 - and an amendment at first reading, um, and to allow for subsequent readings after a second. Okay. And 00:33:22.737 --> 00:33:31.097 - then we're also adding under the section about voting. Yes. Thank you. I forgot about that. That's, 00:33:31.097 --> 00:33:40.126 - um, this vote on, or this will be voted on the same day, only if everybody agrees and then it's two, three, 00:33:44.450 --> 00:33:51.845 - Well, actually, it's only about the two-thirds vote, right? It doesn't say about unanimous consent. 00:33:51.845 --> 00:33:59.462 - That's in the previous section of that. Well, actually, we have a question about item C, which is that 00:33:59.462 --> 00:34:07.079 - I wonder if it should mirror the language on item B that says upon motion made, seconded, and approved 00:34:07.079 --> 00:34:12.478 - by a majority, because it was weird that section C, or it was, you know, 00:34:12.770 --> 00:34:18.386 - that are applying to resolutions. It's weird to me that it said provided there's unanimous consent. 00:34:18.386 --> 00:34:24.227 - Like why would you need, why would you do it that way? Why would you treat resolutions differently than 00:34:24.227 --> 00:34:29.955 - how I treat ordinances? So that just strikes me as an odd thing. But if we don't, if we take that out 00:34:29.955 --> 00:34:35.684 - and don't refer to the voting thing at all, it's a little, it reads it as like the resolution must be 00:34:35.684 --> 00:34:42.142 - read, shall be read, like regardless of a vote, almost, you know? And so, yeah, I would recommend parallel between 00:34:42.306 --> 00:34:57.688 - And so you'll see. Got it. Any other feedback? Unless? There may be two sentences, maybe. But yeah, 00:34:57.688 --> 00:35:10.302 - I think. Yeah. Yeah. It was great. Thanks for doing that. Yeah, another feedback. 00:35:16.130 --> 00:35:29.261 - So is this, oh, let's go to public comment. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment 00:35:29.261 --> 00:35:41.886 - on the proposed Title II change to allow discussion for street? All right, seeing none. So this is, 00:35:44.162 --> 00:35:51.597 - I think it's in good enough shape that we could vote on it, or would you prefer to see an actual draft 00:35:51.597 --> 00:35:59.176 - resolution or ordinance with whereas clauses before we go? I think with the board and commission liaison 00:35:59.176 --> 00:36:06.611 - stuff, we probably added an extra step because we brought it to council and we came back and broke the 00:36:06.611 --> 00:36:14.046 - legislation and then passed it again. I don't know if that's necessary, especially just given how much 00:36:14.370 --> 00:36:23.319 - where it requires, I would prefer to wait until there's a resolution to go for it though. Yeah. 00:36:23.319 --> 00:36:32.735 - That's fine. It would be ordinance. Yeah, great. Yeah, I think at next week's council meeting, I can 00:36:32.735 --> 00:36:42.430 - give reports that people are aware and the college wants to give feedback. I think that's a great idea. 00:36:42.850 --> 00:36:54.476 - Yeah, this might not have been a support person. So the next item is allowing for a consent agenda. 00:36:54.476 --> 00:37:04.126 - Yeah, I don't know if I've turned that if you want to go through this one as well. 00:37:04.226 --> 00:37:12.999 - Sure, I'd be happy to do that. We talked about the idea of using consent agenda at the last meeting. 00:37:12.999 --> 00:37:22.379 - The feedback that we heard was that sounded of interest to the committee. We did put together this language 00:37:22.379 --> 00:37:31.065 - to allow for the use of a consent agenda. We intentionally made it very broad and included a lot of 00:37:31.065 --> 00:37:34.192 - categories. That was really just so 00:37:34.192 --> 00:37:43.621 - that this committee can have the discussion about what you think is appropriate to include and not to 00:37:43.621 --> 00:37:53.051 - include. In a consent agenda, the types of things that are included in here that are pretty common to 00:37:53.051 --> 00:38:03.774 - be included in consent agendas are approval of meeting minutes, acceptance of reports, this job description change, 00:38:03.874 --> 00:38:12.815 - That's a little bit of an odd category, but that would mostly apply to council staff. It would really 00:38:12.815 --> 00:38:21.669 - just be that one. Some of the ones that we additionally included, and this was based on our research 00:38:21.669 --> 00:38:30.698 - of what other legislative bodies in Indiana have chosen to include would be appointments to boards and 00:38:30.698 --> 00:38:31.838 - commissions. 00:38:31.938 --> 00:38:40.435 - and acceptance of reports. I know a lot of times there are verbal presentations that go along with those 00:38:40.435 --> 00:38:48.770 - reports, but in the case of a report that is just being submitted, that could go on an consent agenda. 00:38:48.770 --> 00:38:57.025 - And then the one I'm saving for last is first readings of the ordinances. It is not common for common 00:38:57.025 --> 00:39:00.990 - councils to do first readings by consent agenda. 00:39:01.090 --> 00:39:09.454 - But we included that in there and can talk a little bit about Evansville as the example. They do allow 00:39:09.454 --> 00:39:17.657 - for first three needs of ordinances. The way that they do those is they still read the ordinances by 00:39:17.657 --> 00:39:25.777 - title, by number title of synopsis. They do it at the very beginning of the agenda item on consent. 00:39:25.777 --> 00:39:31.056 - The clerk will read them all together, just one after the other. 00:39:31.056 --> 00:39:39.063 - and then they would get approved as a whole unless a council member says, I'd like to pull one out and 00:39:39.063 --> 00:39:46.914 - take it through the normal course. The intersection between this issue and the last one that we just 00:39:46.914 --> 00:39:48.158 - talked about is 00:39:48.322 --> 00:39:57.443 - It really is just a decision point for council members individually and the council as a whole. Whether 00:39:57.443 --> 00:40:06.827 - they've got something, there's an ordinance that may be fairly routine that nobody has really any interest 00:40:06.827 --> 00:40:15.685 - in talking about at first reading or instead, there's something that would be really good to have an 00:40:15.685 --> 00:40:17.790 - earlier presentation by 00:40:17.922 --> 00:40:25.895 - uh, by the city administration and then some discussion about the item that may set it up, um, for better 00:40:25.895 --> 00:40:33.567 - decision-making, uh, and second reading. I like it. I like the flexibility. Yeah, I appreciate it. My 00:40:33.567 --> 00:40:41.163 - one concern was, well, what if there is, say, a point two board mission that we wanted to discuss? I 00:40:41.163 --> 00:40:46.654 - like that you pulled that out. Yeah. Yeah. So there's flexibility there. 00:40:46.786 --> 00:40:56.288 - Sydney and I met to discuss this. She had volunteered to do that and we took a more inclusive approach 00:40:56.288 --> 00:41:05.882 - thinking that it might be easier for the committee to see everything and then change something if there 00:41:05.882 --> 00:41:16.030 - wasn't support for it. You know, there have been several letters that come before council too and potentially 00:41:16.354 --> 00:41:29.151 - Letters can be part of this. Let's see if there's a section where maybe the president can include materials 00:41:29.151 --> 00:41:41.593 - or add items to non-controversial items to the consent agenda. But it has the potential to make meetings 00:41:41.593 --> 00:41:44.318 - more effective without 00:41:45.026 --> 00:41:52.877 - taking away the flexibility of council members to discuss items, if that's warranted. One question I 00:41:52.877 --> 00:42:00.650 - have that I'd love to grapple with a little bit, as we, the previous ordinance, you know, draft, is 00:42:00.650 --> 00:42:08.734 - the potential uncertainty that allowing discussion, amendments, and even the vote, if we decide to take 00:42:08.734 --> 00:42:10.366 - it at first reading, 00:42:10.850 --> 00:42:16.578 - Um, introduces two members of the Republican, you know, also the council members or anyone else. Um, 00:42:16.578 --> 00:42:22.420 - and how to like, it might just be, there's more, there's a bit more uncertainty and that's okay. Like, 00:42:22.420 --> 00:42:28.319 - um, but, uh, I am mindful of that and trying to show up to meetings. Like they, it's a lot to ask folks 00:42:28.319 --> 00:42:34.217 - to come to our meetings. Right. And so, um, if they don't have clarity or certainty about which meeting 00:42:34.217 --> 00:42:40.286 - they're gonna have a chance to speak at, or, you know, when a vote is going to happen, that's not a great, 00:42:40.834 --> 00:42:49.284 - And so just that's like my biggest concern actually with opening up this first reading thing and actually 00:42:49.284 --> 00:42:57.336 - wonder if we developed a norm around how we wanted to use the consent agenda that like that could be 00:42:57.336 --> 00:43:05.706 - a signal. Like it could be like counselors are responsible for letting staff know before faculty release 00:43:05.706 --> 00:43:09.214 - or something like that that if they want to 00:43:10.434 --> 00:43:16.289 - And maybe it's the president's job, I don't know. But if they want to discuss substantively a first 00:43:16.289 --> 00:43:22.144 - reading, that that item would not appear on the consent agenda. And items that we plan to just pass 00:43:22.144 --> 00:43:27.999 - right through to a second reading would appear on the consent agenda. And that could be a signal to 00:43:27.999 --> 00:43:33.854 - the public. And that will allow additional flexibility then to kind of do the thing we're trying to 00:43:33.854 --> 00:43:39.358 - do with first readings, but also have some schedule, management, traffic keeping, dimensions. 00:43:39.490 --> 00:43:45.107 - That's why it's difficult to read the packet in advance. What's that? That's why it's difficult to read 00:43:45.107 --> 00:43:50.238 - the packet in advance. Indeed. Yeah. I'm not sure if that's fully based what I just described. 00:43:50.238 --> 00:43:55.801 - It's like, I don't know. I mean, your point was taken though about the public not knowing when to show 00:43:55.801 --> 00:44:01.743 - up and that could cause a problem. I mean, on the other hand, I really like the idea of trying to consolidate 00:44:01.743 --> 00:44:07.306 - and make things a little smoother so that when we do have big issues at the end of the night, we don't 00:44:07.306 --> 00:44:08.926 - end up like we did last week. 00:44:09.506 --> 00:44:20.619 - with the towing machine. So this might cut that down. There's always, of course, the option that if 00:44:20.619 --> 00:44:32.288 - a member of the public isn't present during the first reading to make a comment before the public, there 00:44:32.288 --> 00:44:38.622 - should be a second reading where that would be possible. 00:44:39.138 --> 00:44:51.348 - I mean, at least since I've been here, there hasn't been strong support or a push by council members 00:44:51.348 --> 00:45:03.678 - to vote on matters during first reading. So I don't necessarily see the consent agenda altering that. 00:45:04.450 --> 00:45:12.618 - Well, we're not allowed to, probably, so how can you gauge whether it's interested? Well, say it all. 00:45:12.618 --> 00:45:21.026 - No, say it all permits it. I mean, but according to our own code, we're not allowed to discuss it. Yeah, 00:45:21.026 --> 00:45:29.273 - but I don't know to what extent that would be supportable at law, because it differs with the NUF. But 00:45:29.273 --> 00:45:34.078 - nonetheless, I still think the first reading should change. 00:45:34.818 --> 00:45:42.469 - I think that in the sense that there should be session permitted and the title too should be amended 00:45:42.469 --> 00:45:50.119 - to support that. I would also just be shocked if all nine of us voted favor or voted on something on 00:45:50.119 --> 00:45:57.770 - the first reading that later turned out to be controversial. I think that we all have our fingers so 00:45:57.770 --> 00:46:03.678 - in different corners of the community that one of us would surely, hopefully, 00:46:05.026 --> 00:46:13.869 - Right? I would think so. I would hope. Yeah. I mean, I would think it's, we tend to know, we tend to 00:46:13.869 --> 00:46:22.800 - have an idea ahead of time as things are coming up. Okay. This was going to take a while. So I really 00:46:22.800 --> 00:46:31.556 - want to remove first reading orders from being allowed on a concept agenda. I think it makes things 00:46:31.556 --> 00:46:34.270 - very confusing. We're already, 00:46:34.370 --> 00:46:41.224 - trying to introduce a change about first readings, then having it possibly on a consent agenda where 00:46:41.224 --> 00:46:48.010 - it could be pulled from at any time. I just think it's too muddled. Only one other city does it, as 00:46:48.010 --> 00:46:55.067 - far as we know. It's also not, you know, it's not saving that much time because we still have to repeat 00:46:55.067 --> 00:47:01.989 - it, unlike the other things on the consent agenda, and we don't agree because it's just emissions. So 00:47:01.989 --> 00:47:03.550 - I would be in favor of 00:47:03.810 --> 00:47:11.768 - Deleting number three. It just becomes, I guess, time consuming when there's a lot of first readings 00:47:11.768 --> 00:47:19.805 - and someone's on Zoom. So we have to vote by roll call for every introduction. So it is a little more 00:47:19.805 --> 00:47:27.842 - than that. Yeah. Yeah. I guess it's just like, which one are we going to prioritize? Which either one 00:47:27.842 --> 00:47:32.254 - is fine. I understand where you're coming from as well. 00:47:34.562 --> 00:47:42.034 - very agnostic. I do think we're going to have to grapple with, like, ideally providing some, well, 00:47:42.034 --> 00:47:49.733 - you know, I'm just anticipating this issue without certainty for what it is we're going to have up to 00:47:49.733 --> 00:47:57.733 - three weeks. That's kind of...except that I'm workshopping the idea of whether Thetogenic could be useful 00:47:57.733 --> 00:48:03.998 - in providing additional priority. I wouldn't mind moving forward with this without 00:48:04.194 --> 00:48:11.476 - first reading, and then if for any reason we decide in a year, hey, sure, we're really rocking this 00:48:11.476 --> 00:48:18.903 - consent agenda thing. Enhance the first reading. Let's combine them. Collegiate lab. That's fine with 00:48:18.903 --> 00:48:26.330 - me. I don't mind leaving it out for now. Yes, it certainly could be added over. Thank you. What about 00:48:26.330 --> 00:48:31.646 - adding approval of letters from the council regarding particular issues? 00:48:32.770 --> 00:48:40.263 - I mean, those tend to be more controversial. Some of them maybe not. I mean, I think the one about the 00:48:40.263 --> 00:48:48.119 - EPA standards, it's not very fun to bring. Usually we're bringing a letter because we want to say something 00:48:48.119 --> 00:48:55.612 - about a thing. Right. Well, and then the letter writer can say, I won't pull that. Right. That's true. 00:48:55.612 --> 00:49:02.014 - I'm going to either way about it. Yeah. I don't have the keys either way. And it could. 00:49:02.370 --> 00:49:11.267 - slide under sub-paragraph six. True. You know, actions designated by the council president. So I don't 00:49:11.267 --> 00:49:19.905 - know that you would have to specifically call out letters, although you could. Well, we're kind of, 00:49:19.905 --> 00:49:28.802 - it's unclear right now where letters going. In other words, putting them under council member reports, 00:49:28.802 --> 00:49:31.998 - which is very nice. So that can be a 00:49:32.130 --> 00:49:46.200 - Question for the bigger overall. You ready to go public? Ready. Is there any member of the public who 00:49:46.200 --> 00:50:01.374 - would like to comment on the proposal to add a consent agenda? Y'all see any hands? So back to the committee. 00:50:02.210 --> 00:50:11.036 - Um, for this one also, should we wait until we have a actual draft ordinance? I think so. And I'm happy 00:50:11.036 --> 00:50:19.692 - to work with staff on the whereas clauses. That's fantastic. All right, we have four minutes required 00:50:19.692 --> 00:50:28.772 - to have some responses for all items of legislation. Uh, I'll take this one. Yes. I had expressed interest 00:50:28.772 --> 00:50:31.742 - in this previously. I think we did 00:50:31.938 --> 00:50:38.825 - It's definitely do it at some level to see if other places do this. I thought we had some examples of 00:50:38.825 --> 00:50:45.915 - other cities that do. They didn't misremember it. Oh. But Wayne's coming to mind. I don't know if that's 00:50:45.915 --> 00:50:52.668 - true. I know I've seen this somewhere. I'm just not entirely sure. The idea is that I think there's 00:50:52.668 --> 00:50:55.166 - a couple elements of it. One is that 00:50:55.746 --> 00:51:02.650 - Why is the mayor empowered with putting legislation on? I mean, there's a track-keeping version or a 00:51:02.650 --> 00:51:09.690 - responsibility already for the president who could say, no, this isn't ready. Staff might inform that, 00:51:09.690 --> 00:51:16.731 - right? And we don't put it on the agenda. But it's sort of assumed that even absent a sponsor, I mean, 00:51:16.731 --> 00:51:24.318 - that's the practice. Anything that, for the most part, the mayor would want to put on our agenda can go there. 00:51:25.410 --> 00:51:32.143 - I'm not sure, it just strikes me as odd because the mayor's not a member of the body and it seems like 00:51:32.143 --> 00:51:38.811 - a member of the body should sponsor all legislation. So it just seems like a more natural thing given 00:51:38.811 --> 00:51:45.675 - the nature of what the thing, what legislation is and what our role is. I also think it would encourage, 00:51:45.675 --> 00:51:52.277 - there's no shortage of things that come to us that are probably, could have used more time or public 00:51:52.277 --> 00:51:54.238 - input and creates like first, 00:51:54.658 --> 00:52:00.135 - including stuff we heard just last week, you know? And like, so in some respects. And so it kind of 00:52:00.135 --> 00:52:05.775 - puts a check in the system of like, actually staff has to like, not just submit something to you, they 00:52:05.775 --> 00:52:11.416 - have to find a council member and like talk to them about it. The council members are gonna have their 00:52:11.416 --> 00:52:17.002 - name on it. Probably wants to like take a look and maybe ask a question or two about like, what'd you 00:52:17.002 --> 00:52:22.643 - do? What'd you do by way of public outreach? You know, like anything. And it just, I don't think it'll 00:52:22.643 --> 00:52:24.286 - be onerous. I think it could, 00:52:24.834 --> 00:52:31.574 - encourage healthier communication and collaboration, and also save time by functioning as a little bit 00:52:31.574 --> 00:52:38.314 - of a chat or a filter to task a few things before it actually is being assessed. So I'm curious about, 00:52:38.314 --> 00:52:44.924 - there may be special exceptions with like appropriations or the budget or something. We're like, I'm 00:52:44.924 --> 00:52:51.991 - curious if we'll run into something like that. But we can't, you know, with some things actually statutory, 00:52:51.991 --> 00:52:53.758 - the mayor is empowered to, 00:52:53.954 --> 00:53:01.110 - in a sense. But otherwise, I know it requires a little more exploration from a legal perspective. Obviously, 00:53:01.110 --> 00:53:08.331 - we're going to get input on it, too, from colleagues and from their administration. But that's the rationale. 00:53:08.331 --> 00:53:15.159 - I'm curious about other members' thoughts about it. I'm generally supportive, based on what I know now. 00:53:15.159 --> 00:53:21.920 - I totally agree with you. I think it's good. I like the idea of maybe getting a little bit deeper into 00:53:21.920 --> 00:53:23.102 - it, to make sure. 00:53:23.234 --> 00:53:32.333 - that it is ready for prime time. I mean, I don't have strong feelings either way, but I do like that 00:53:32.333 --> 00:53:41.522 - aspect of it. That's for sure. I'm also agnostic, but I do think that it would give more trust on the 00:53:41.522 --> 00:53:51.072 - buying. I like that. I think it could have possibly prevented the two-time ordinances from coming forward 00:53:51.072 --> 00:53:53.054 - when they were ready. 00:53:53.442 --> 00:54:00.513 - I don't think it'll be a fail safe. It'll depend on where the sponsor is. If they actually, it could 00:54:00.513 --> 00:54:07.654 - just be that any MROs are just like, y'all fucker or anything. I can say it's ready for anything. But 00:54:07.654 --> 00:54:15.145 - I can say, yes, speaking for myself, I would always give it a full reading and probably ask some questions 00:54:15.145 --> 00:54:20.606 - before I would be willing to sponsor something. So yeah, it could be helpful. 00:54:21.122 --> 00:54:29.279 - Yes, in terms of the logistics, is that how legitimate, like, an ordinance would be prepared and a draft 00:54:29.279 --> 00:54:37.125 - would be provided to a potential council member to ascertain if they're interested in supporting it? 00:54:37.125 --> 00:54:44.894 - Good question. Yeah, you could imagine staff, a department head coming to council staff and saying, 00:54:45.250 --> 00:54:50.303 - who you think would be a good sponsor for this. Or if it's a transportation item, I serve on 00:54:50.303 --> 00:54:56.117 - the transportation division, I'd be a natural person to be the sponsor for Title 15 changes for residents. 00:54:56.117 --> 00:55:01.659 - And so I think it encourages actually hopefully better direct working relationships between staff and 00:55:01.659 --> 00:55:07.310 - non-council staff and council members. But I think it could also come through to council staff and say, 00:55:07.310 --> 00:55:12.798 - hey, this item's looking for a sponsor, say they're a volunteer, or you can direct that to somebody. 00:55:12.798 --> 00:55:15.134 - So I think there's some flexibility there. 00:55:15.714 --> 00:55:22.322 - I mean, we can think through it more, but I think, obviously, we don't have to go to Berkshire. Yeah. 00:55:22.322 --> 00:55:28.800 - Can we go to public comment? I have to leave. Oh, yeah. I didn't necessarily have public comment on 00:55:28.800 --> 00:55:35.343 - this item, but is there anybody in the public who would like to comment on this item we added to the 00:55:35.343 --> 00:55:39.230 - agenda requiring Councilmember Sponsorship for legislation? 00:55:45.634 --> 00:55:55.160 - Okay. So, I think let's keep this on the agenda for next one. And maybe staff, if you want to prepare 00:55:55.160 --> 00:56:04.967 - some questions and logistics and things. I could admit to putting together like, uh, less than one page, 00:56:04.967 --> 00:56:14.587 - like rationale statement as well. That's a whole book. Yeah. Chris Westman thinking a workshop. Right. 00:56:14.587 --> 00:56:15.614 - All right. 00:56:15.938 --> 00:56:30.974 - Well, we may not be the same committee as we, but maybe we will. So we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.