- Okay, so. Okay. Okay, so again, this is this is actually something that
- the CCP meeting or the committee actually wanted to have last year. And so it was worked on in the summer
- and I had been working with this with Anna Holmes from legal and the intent was to have a better streamlined
- process to understand or have a better understanding for board members and commissioners of expectations
- as they are serving
- through the city of Bloomington. We actually mirrored something of this to the city's HR policy handbook.
- The main concerns were just trying to figure out what's expected of them in terms of attendance, how
- to act or how to address themselves as they are
- Um, I'm like, I've had long nights this week. So, um, so. There literally is just let me rewind and
- and staying. All right. Good. So, um, essentially what we are doing here is just to have some expectation
- of all board members and commissioners.
- throughout the city and the intent is for new members and existing members, they are to sign this so
- that if there is any behavioral issues or any things that are violated, we can bring this up and this
- gives the council a better streamlined process to remove board members and commissioners if they need
- to. So again,
- And this just kind of goes over the code of conduct and how to interact, um, representing the commission,
- basically just trying to make sure that they're not, folks aren't going rogue and, and, you know, saying
- things outside of the commission and speaking on behalf of the commission, especially if they don't
- have approval or authority.
- Definitely highlighting the conflict of interest because several of the boards and commissions have
- people that have had some conflicts and having to accuse themselves or should be recusing themselves.
- So just kind of goes over and highlights this information. We are a very active and engaged community.
- And so political involvement, just making sure that they are not representing themselves
- as the member of the board or commission that they're serving as they are involved in political activities.
- Not Santa, people cannot because democracy looks well and people are involved. However, you just cannot
- represent the city and your capacity as a commissioner or a board member at these events. And then again,
- the biggest thing is highlighting and outlining attendance as well and knowing what is expected
- and what happens when they miss consecutive meetings or regularly scheduled meetings in any 12 month
- period. And then this just has them sign it and it is on file with us. And then this also will go in
- tandem with training. So we are in the process right now of trying to finalize the training for staff
- liaisons right now.
- but also the part two to this is to have board members and commissioners also go forth in training in
- terms of, you know, expectations kind of going over this in detail as well and having them signing.
- So that, my goal is to have all of this as it is approved to be done within first quarter of 2026. And
- I apologize that it's taken so long to get to you all, but we happy.
- Um, and the only thing that I was going to say in terms of, uh, feedback is, um, is we brought up several
- times instead of citizen and making sure that we put resident. Um, that is a huge thing that I wanted
- to highlight. That's kind of blingard, but I want to change that as well. Um, so good. And that's all.
- Thank you. Any questions? On the conflict of interest piece, I heard from someone on the border, I think
- it was the Board of Housing Quality Appeals, there are certain circumstances where people have had to
- recuse themselves and that compromised forum. I'm just wondering how often does that happen?
- What are the mechanisms that we could potentially put in place to prevent that from happening? That
- is a good question. I think it also might be, well, number one, I think the corn issue is now ceased
- because they are now full. Right. And so that was the biggest thing is they were working with a little
- tiny body and those that were there had to recuse themselves. I do believe that was an issue with the
- mayoral appointments. And as a result, I think that person ended up having to resign because there was
- just too many conflicts that were happening there. So that person ended up resigning early on in the
- summer. So hopefully we don't run into that as an issue because quorum won't be an issue. Thank you.
- You're welcome.
- Thank you. Two items, one also on public interest. It's kind of implicit there but I wonder if we actually
- want to say to financially gain. Like his personal gain is like a ambiguous concept like if we vote
- on like a bike lane, I bike in the city, I get, I have that.
- Also, as essentially defined by the council members, I'm pretty sure it's defined as a financial interest
- and all the disclosure requirements there around that, including the family members, I guess, as directed
- here. But that might be helpful to like, I've just found in my time on council that people don't have
- a good, like, there's not a good common understanding of what a conflict of interest is or means. And
- it actually does have like definition as applied to us anyway, through the state law and mirroring that
- as a financial framework might be helpful.
- One other thing. Second is a little involvement piece, reflecting on that. I mean, I have beginnings
- in politics. In Bloomington, when I was running for office in 2019, I told people that I served on the
- Commission on Sustainability. It was part of my bio. People want to know how you're engaged in civic
- uh, space basically. And we want people to engage in civic space and serve on boards and commissions.
- And we want them to be active politically as well. As long as they're not, I guess my gut is like, maybe
- this is overly, um, uh, limiting and that like, as long as they're not representing themselves as like,
- uh, or as long as they're not holding themselves out, holding themselves out to represent the city or
- represent its views or represent the commission, which is already kind of covered elsewhere. I guess
- personally, I don't have a problem with folks saying like,
- the areas of public service they're engaged in as part of being engaged in political participation.
- So I'm curious to know what others think and also just think a little bit more about that provision
- and where it's maybe where it's coming from, or it could be more, yeah, narrowly crafted. I don't know.
- When I was running, there was a Bloomington firefighter who knocked some doors for me.
- One of the, he like went out of his way to make very clear, like, I am on, I am in the fire department.
- I'm not representing the fire department. So I think there are some ways around that and it's, it was
- like well taken at the door and everything. So I don't know. I also am not sure what his specific
- instructions were on your BFD. And this was under a former administration.
- Or maybe just changing language shall refrain from representing themselves or as a representative of
- the form. Of the city. That's kind of repeating the represent a verb but still representing themselves.
- So they shouldn't identify themselves as representing a word condition. Right. Right. Let's do that.
- That is covering the clause two parts above already. Maybe it would make sense to call it out in the
- photo format that specifically.
- Could you tell us more, Jennifer, about is that coming from somewhere else and mirroring another requirement,
- like an employee handbook or like where that part came in? So I was kind of looking back in my draft
- that I did early on, and I actually kind of what you were saying, because of course, I think it is important
- for people to say, hey, I'm a part of this board of commission.
- The intent is people not going to these events and going, you know, I'm pro, as an example, if anybody
- watches this, you know, I'm pro redistricting right now and I serve on the, you know, I'm serving on
- the City of Chairs and Tables Commission. And so, you know, we are saying this.
- That's the uh-oh moment where you like, you can't do that. Certainly don't want to stifle people and
- highlighting what they're doing, but just at political events saying, yeah, I am, you know, you know,
- Joe Snow and I, you know, I'm on the city of tables and chairs and I definitely am yours. Council member
- Sidney's late for reelection, that type of thing. So,
- I wanted to. Exactly. And so early on in my drafts that I'm looking at now, I actually kind of had a
- very like bulleted point so that people can understand. We're not trying to say you can't do this at
- all because I do think that's a good point when people would ask the question. And so I think that we could
- I could go back to the drawing board with the lead role and express we need to kind of clean this up
- to make sure that we are not telling people we don't want you to even say, you know, that we don't want
- you to say any of that. We, you know, we just want you to, because we did have a commissioner on one
- of the commissions speak at the state house on behalf of the commission. And they did not have,
- Yeah, yep. I'm okay with there being a standalone political involvement section to like explicitly draw
- attention to the maybe additional sensitivity in a political context, but I guess I would like prefer
- a definition that leaves room for people even describing their own biography. Should people at least
- talk about their civic engagement or service while making clear, yeah, they can't represent that with
- any type of endorsement turning them away.
- There's also, sorry, I just accidentally flicked away from it. Under that same draft at the beginning,
- the very first sentence reads, how did I lose it? What is wrong with me? It's late in the day.
- I've had a day. Here it is. Any member may participate in a political or campaign activities to remove
- the A. I think it makes more sense.
- in political or campaign activities. It's just maybe nitpicky, which it might not even matter anymore
- if this gets rewritten. So you said, oh, remove the A. Yeah, and political. OK. So in addition to the
- two uses of the word citizen, I'm glad you're going to change that. Under conflict of interest, the
- Last sentence says, recuse him slash herself from deliberation and voting. Themself is what I thought
- it. Yeah. Yeah. So I did bring to Jennifer's attention that
- Our office is exploring the continued use of Robert's Rules of Order as we research amendments entitled
- to. There are one or two council members who suggested maybe moving away from Robert's Rules at least
- in respect to council.
- I think that would have any impact on this code of conduct. I think that it would be permissible for
- boards and commissions to use Robert's rules, and if council decides not to, I think that would be okay.
- But it is something that we generally worry about. Yeah. And I think as Claire pulled in about it as
- well, I tend to think that if we
- because I saw in the title two part where it says that the parliamentary procedures outlines that for
- boards and commissions. I think if council changes it for their part, it shouldn't affect boards and
- commissions as long as that part of type 2 isn't changed. But I can double-check to see if we're interpreting
- that correctly. It is something that I've talked to the legal department about.
- perhaps that we disagree. Dr. Crosley, what would you like from us? I mean, I don't think we have to
- approve this. I appreciate you bringing it to us and taking our feedback. Yeah, I appreciate it.
- Thank you. I think the next step is, I don't know if this is something that you all want to discuss
- overall as a entire council body,
- Because I can make the changes and meet with legal to go over the changes that we discussed and then
- submit it back again for a final approval. Or if you all are okay with. Um,
- Yeah, well, let's just start there. Like we can, I can meet with legal and we can kind of go over it.
- And then I can check with clerk both then just to kind of give it a bird's eye view one more time. And
- then maybe bring it back again in January. Or do we need to see this again? What's the adoption process,
- I guess? Well, yeah, that's kind of basic in my opinion. Are we going to codify this or have a requirement
- for the product that is otherwise
- you know, assigned to someone approved by, like we. Well, since we've started reviewing title two, we've
- been more inclined to take things out, put an administrative manual than average is. But it would still
- be sort of subject to council approval, right? Like the. If it's an administrative. Right. You still
- reference the products that dictate or govern a situation
- But nevertheless, the products themselves or what it referred to is called out in code. And then the
- update process isn't a code change. It's just like a vote on the new version of the, it's not like CBUs,
- like rules and regs stuff. It's not qualified, but like we do approve the updated rules and regs. So
- they come to us and that's like an updated document, simply an update to the administrative manual or
- update to the code of conduct.
- That's my information. Like, it feels like a thing that we should approve formally, but it doesn't need
- to live in city code, as that's like all taxable. Anybody else thought about this? I like you there.
- Yeah, I'm thinking through it also. I'm not sure that it would go into the title to rules of procedure
- that we were planning on kind of matching up with council's portion, because this would apply really as
- as much about war to the administration and then its appointments to the boards and commissions, but
- we raise a valid point, like where would it go? Yeah. Well, it might be important to have, like, I'm
- seeing the connection here between this and removal for cause as well. Right. And then we always had
- ambiguity about that. There were sort of things that everyone agreed would probably be cost for removal,
- but like this and actually explicitly tying those things, like,
- might be the right approach. So yeah, I'm not sure which section of code, or like, I'm gonna, the whole
- thing needs to be thought by, but I think approving it or referring it through to is. Well, I mean,
- we're gonna, on our agenda is to talk about Chapter 2.12, where we wanna move all those general provisions
- so we could just add a provision back at the end. Shall be maintained by the Deputy Clerk for X and
- N, as approved by Council.
- And then you're going to grab the system or the office of the city clerk. Yeah.
- So can we move on to changes to city code? Yes, sorry. This, uh, this agenda got a little mixed up.
- So there was supposed to be a heading that said more to the commissions under which there was code of
- conduct and changes to city code. Because there are more changes to city code than just that. But yes,
- to be, um,
- There's the city code about boards and commissions. So as we discussed last time, we wanted to get feedback
- directly from six commissions that we might consider having LTE committees for. So I think that we have
- all taken a look at that list and also volunteered to reach out to one or two of those.
- I didn't get that let's stop working. Transparency doesn't beat again this year, but he does.
- I have to. Yeah, and I'm very cast.
- something we'll talk about later. At least not in January. Okay. All right. Then we can move on to the
- draft code revision regarding the general provisions that apply to boards, commissions, and councils.
- You'll see here there is language proposed and thank you to Attorney Bennett for preparing this, which will move
- almost all of 2.08.020 into 2.12, the new section 2.12.010. So that would include the terms for appointment,
- the residential requirement, removal for cause, vacancies, majority vote, foreign, parliamentary procedure,
- officers, duties of the secretary,
- special meetings and office space staff. So open to comments here and I think we could add the code
- of conduct here so much. That may be applicable for cause.
- Since we may want to, or before it's limited to references. That's fine with me. I don't have any other
- additions. So you're thinking that would be the new, a new paragraph for you? Yes. We can place a set
- of things simply together that would cover
- feedback on this? I did reach out to the mayor's office and I think they were fine with that, but let
- me just bring up that email to make sure. I also discussed this with the legal department and the city
- attorney review
- this track changes document as well and had no issue with it. But I do remember seeing that communication
- from the deputy mayor as well. So there was something. Yes, so item 13 was about budgets.
- And we left that in the executive branch. Yes. I changed the number to two and three. What about the
- intentional display of fireworks? That we move to.
- Why would that not be moved to general permissions of forestry missions? I think it could be. Yeah,
- good point.
- So for the budget, they wanted to leave or some commissions in there. That was my take on Breton's message.
- County Council. So Breton said regarding the budget, council does prepare budget and so do several votes.
- such as RDC and MPA and managed funds. Since the phrasing notes that a budget is required in a board
- with processes defined by the mayor, you may not require a budget for most boards, I think the purporting
- is fine as is. So yeah. Any other feedback? Is the display of firearms piece
- Are we covered? I'm just curious. I think, like, this comes up not often. Maybe, like, most likely to
- come up at the city council meetings. And are we, is the common council, like, I don't know if city,
- if boards, commissions, and councils are referred to here, like, is the common council among the councils?
- I believe that this wording, are you saying because of the state
- of what I'm looking for, how we can't reaction. Yes, thank you. Well, no, more so just like, does putting
- this in the general provisions of boards, commissions, and councils narrow its scope? Is that, like,
- is that possible to only apply to boards, commissions? But I don't know how I could get this.
- I'm curious if city council is a council under this chapter or commissions and councils. If not, does
- putting that firearm provision there implicitly say city council meetings are different and there is
- no anti-display of firearms provision for city council meetings? That's probably not a thing that's
- going to happen. I don't know. There is a provision in
- 2.04, which is for the council that mirrors this provision. I don't know that it's placed in the best
- location, but we can say that about almost everything. We'll get there. That is the concern that I think.
- I'm just going to also say, I think to your point,
- Um, we looked at this earlier. I looked at this with, um, chief deputy McDowell in our office and we
- thought that councils meant like some of the councils from the various boards of commissions, like the
- pharmacy advisory council and such. And so we were saying that title two is kind of cloudy when it comes
- to council because it's the city council or.
- It's referred to as common council, so we know it's common council, but then here it says council. That's
- also something to keep in mind as the quest to change continues. Yeah, I perceive the word council as
- not improving the common council.
- By virtue of the fact that it's identified as a plural and there's only one city council meeting and
- by the location of this language within that they're covered. So, well, yeah, all this stuff about staggered
- terms. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, um,
- If staff could incorporate the things we discussed and maybe even have a glass for us for the next meeting.
- Sure. Thank you very much. So the next talk, oh, wait, wait to go to public comment.
- Let's have a public comment on this issue of changing the city code regarding general requirements for
- morsel conditions. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment? I do not see any answers.
- All right, so now we can go on to
- Item C, allowing discussion of legislation at first reading. So again, we have some draft language here.
- Page nine of the packet. So there's the markup version and then there's a clean version after.
- Basically, we are removing the part that says we can't discuss at first reading. I'm also losing any
- kind of articulateness. You would like for me to last through it since I've cleared it. I'd be happy
- to do that.
- New subsection A would first clarify that every ordinance shall be given at least two readings. This
- is mostly about discussion at first reading, but would also clearly contemplate the idea of subsequent
- readings after second reading.
- And then it does take a little bit of a detour there to explain how the process works and the importance
- of a state statute if you want to adopt an ordinance at first reading that you have to have unanimous
- consent at least two thirds have to vote to adopt at first reading.
- and then says, oh, by the way, this doesn't apply to zoning ordinances because they have their special
- rules. We tried to make that as clear as possible, including making sure that it was stated the right
- way for the zoning ordinances. I bring that up mostly because as I've shared with some folks, the state statute
- lacks a little bit of clarity, so I tried to add a little bit in there so it was not confusing. Then
- Subsection B would really just talk about the ability to make
- debate and amend both at first reading and subsequent readings and a little bit more of the procedure.
- Subsection C then just puts everything about resolutions all in one section. So really just sort of
- cleaning up overall. But the two big things are to allow for discussion and
- and an amendment at first reading, um, and to allow for subsequent readings after a second. Okay. And
- then we're also adding under the section about voting. Yes. Thank you. I forgot about that. That's,
- um, this vote on, or this will be voted on the same day, only if everybody agrees and then it's two, three,
- Well, actually, it's only about the two-thirds vote, right? It doesn't say about unanimous consent.
- That's in the previous section of that. Well, actually, we have a question about item C, which is that
- I wonder if it should mirror the language on item B that says upon motion made, seconded, and approved
- by a majority, because it was weird that section C, or it was, you know,
- that are applying to resolutions. It's weird to me that it said provided there's unanimous consent.
- Like why would you need, why would you do it that way? Why would you treat resolutions differently than
- how I treat ordinances? So that just strikes me as an odd thing. But if we don't, if we take that out
- and don't refer to the voting thing at all, it's a little, it reads it as like the resolution must be
- read, shall be read, like regardless of a vote, almost, you know? And so, yeah, I would recommend parallel between
- And so you'll see. Got it. Any other feedback? Unless? There may be two sentences, maybe. But yeah,
- I think. Yeah. Yeah. It was great. Thanks for doing that. Yeah, another feedback.
- So is this, oh, let's go to public comment. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment
- on the proposed Title II change to allow discussion for street? All right, seeing none. So this is,
- I think it's in good enough shape that we could vote on it, or would you prefer to see an actual draft
- resolution or ordinance with whereas clauses before we go? I think with the board and commission liaison
- stuff, we probably added an extra step because we brought it to council and we came back and broke the
- legislation and then passed it again. I don't know if that's necessary, especially just given how much
- where it requires, I would prefer to wait until there's a resolution to go for it though. Yeah.
- That's fine. It would be ordinance. Yeah, great. Yeah, I think at next week's council meeting, I can
- give reports that people are aware and the college wants to give feedback. I think that's a great idea.
- Yeah, this might not have been a support person. So the next item is allowing for a consent agenda.
- Yeah, I don't know if I've turned that if you want to go through this one as well.
- Sure, I'd be happy to do that. We talked about the idea of using consent agenda at the last meeting.
- The feedback that we heard was that sounded of interest to the committee. We did put together this language
- to allow for the use of a consent agenda. We intentionally made it very broad and included a lot of
- categories. That was really just so
- that this committee can have the discussion about what you think is appropriate to include and not to
- include. In a consent agenda, the types of things that are included in here that are pretty common to
- be included in consent agendas are approval of meeting minutes, acceptance of reports, this job description change,
- That's a little bit of an odd category, but that would mostly apply to council staff. It would really
- just be that one. Some of the ones that we additionally included, and this was based on our research
- of what other legislative bodies in Indiana have chosen to include would be appointments to boards and
- commissions.
- and acceptance of reports. I know a lot of times there are verbal presentations that go along with those
- reports, but in the case of a report that is just being submitted, that could go on an consent agenda.
- And then the one I'm saving for last is first readings of the ordinances. It is not common for common
- councils to do first readings by consent agenda.
- But we included that in there and can talk a little bit about Evansville as the example. They do allow
- for first three needs of ordinances. The way that they do those is they still read the ordinances by
- title, by number title of synopsis. They do it at the very beginning of the agenda item on consent.
- The clerk will read them all together, just one after the other.
- and then they would get approved as a whole unless a council member says, I'd like to pull one out and
- take it through the normal course. The intersection between this issue and the last one that we just
- talked about is
- It really is just a decision point for council members individually and the council as a whole. Whether
- they've got something, there's an ordinance that may be fairly routine that nobody has really any interest
- in talking about at first reading or instead, there's something that would be really good to have an
- earlier presentation by
- uh, by the city administration and then some discussion about the item that may set it up, um, for better
- decision-making, uh, and second reading. I like it. I like the flexibility. Yeah, I appreciate it. My
- one concern was, well, what if there is, say, a point two board mission that we wanted to discuss? I
- like that you pulled that out. Yeah. Yeah. So there's flexibility there.
- Sydney and I met to discuss this. She had volunteered to do that and we took a more inclusive approach
- thinking that it might be easier for the committee to see everything and then change something if there
- wasn't support for it. You know, there have been several letters that come before council too and potentially
- Letters can be part of this. Let's see if there's a section where maybe the president can include materials
- or add items to non-controversial items to the consent agenda. But it has the potential to make meetings
- more effective without
- taking away the flexibility of council members to discuss items, if that's warranted. One question I
- have that I'd love to grapple with a little bit, as we, the previous ordinance, you know, draft, is
- the potential uncertainty that allowing discussion, amendments, and even the vote, if we decide to take
- it at first reading,
- Um, introduces two members of the Republican, you know, also the council members or anyone else. Um,
- and how to like, it might just be, there's more, there's a bit more uncertainty and that's okay. Like,
- um, but, uh, I am mindful of that and trying to show up to meetings. Like they, it's a lot to ask folks
- to come to our meetings. Right. And so, um, if they don't have clarity or certainty about which meeting
- they're gonna have a chance to speak at, or, you know, when a vote is going to happen, that's not a great,
- And so just that's like my biggest concern actually with opening up this first reading thing and actually
- wonder if we developed a norm around how we wanted to use the consent agenda that like that could be
- a signal. Like it could be like counselors are responsible for letting staff know before faculty release
- or something like that that if they want to
- And maybe it's the president's job, I don't know. But if they want to discuss substantively a first
- reading, that that item would not appear on the consent agenda. And items that we plan to just pass
- right through to a second reading would appear on the consent agenda. And that could be a signal to
- the public. And that will allow additional flexibility then to kind of do the thing we're trying to
- do with first readings, but also have some schedule, management, traffic keeping, dimensions.
- That's why it's difficult to read the packet in advance. What's that? That's why it's difficult to read
- the packet in advance. Indeed. Yeah. I'm not sure if that's fully based what I just described.
- It's like, I don't know. I mean, your point was taken though about the public not knowing when to show
- up and that could cause a problem. I mean, on the other hand, I really like the idea of trying to consolidate
- and make things a little smoother so that when we do have big issues at the end of the night, we don't
- end up like we did last week.
- with the towing machine. So this might cut that down. There's always, of course, the option that if
- a member of the public isn't present during the first reading to make a comment before the public, there
- should be a second reading where that would be possible.
- I mean, at least since I've been here, there hasn't been strong support or a push by council members
- to vote on matters during first reading. So I don't necessarily see the consent agenda altering that.
- Well, we're not allowed to, probably, so how can you gauge whether it's interested? Well, say it all.
- No, say it all permits it. I mean, but according to our own code, we're not allowed to discuss it. Yeah,
- but I don't know to what extent that would be supportable at law, because it differs with the NUF. But
- nonetheless, I still think the first reading should change.
- I think that in the sense that there should be session permitted and the title too should be amended
- to support that. I would also just be shocked if all nine of us voted favor or voted on something on
- the first reading that later turned out to be controversial. I think that we all have our fingers so
- in different corners of the community that one of us would surely, hopefully,
- Right? I would think so. I would hope. Yeah. I mean, I would think it's, we tend to know, we tend to
- have an idea ahead of time as things are coming up. Okay. This was going to take a while. So I really
- want to remove first reading orders from being allowed on a concept agenda. I think it makes things
- very confusing. We're already,
- trying to introduce a change about first readings, then having it possibly on a consent agenda where
- it could be pulled from at any time. I just think it's too muddled. Only one other city does it, as
- far as we know. It's also not, you know, it's not saving that much time because we still have to repeat
- it, unlike the other things on the consent agenda, and we don't agree because it's just emissions. So
- I would be in favor of
- Deleting number three. It just becomes, I guess, time consuming when there's a lot of first readings
- and someone's on Zoom. So we have to vote by roll call for every introduction. So it is a little more
- than that. Yeah. Yeah. I guess it's just like, which one are we going to prioritize? Which either one
- is fine. I understand where you're coming from as well.
- very agnostic. I do think we're going to have to grapple with, like, ideally providing some, well,
- you know, I'm just anticipating this issue without certainty for what it is we're going to have up to
- three weeks. That's kind of...except that I'm workshopping the idea of whether Thetogenic could be useful
- in providing additional priority. I wouldn't mind moving forward with this without
- first reading, and then if for any reason we decide in a year, hey, sure, we're really rocking this
- consent agenda thing. Enhance the first reading. Let's combine them. Collegiate lab. That's fine with
- me. I don't mind leaving it out for now. Yes, it certainly could be added over. Thank you. What about
- adding approval of letters from the council regarding particular issues?
- I mean, those tend to be more controversial. Some of them maybe not. I mean, I think the one about the
- EPA standards, it's not very fun to bring. Usually we're bringing a letter because we want to say something
- about a thing. Right. Well, and then the letter writer can say, I won't pull that. Right. That's true.
- I'm going to either way about it. Yeah. I don't have the keys either way. And it could.
- slide under sub-paragraph six. True. You know, actions designated by the council president. So I don't
- know that you would have to specifically call out letters, although you could. Well, we're kind of,
- it's unclear right now where letters going. In other words, putting them under council member reports,
- which is very nice. So that can be a
- Question for the bigger overall. You ready to go public? Ready. Is there any member of the public who
- would like to comment on the proposal to add a consent agenda? Y'all see any hands? So back to the committee.
- Um, for this one also, should we wait until we have a actual draft ordinance? I think so. And I'm happy
- to work with staff on the whereas clauses. That's fantastic. All right, we have four minutes required
- to have some responses for all items of legislation. Uh, I'll take this one. Yes. I had expressed interest
- in this previously. I think we did
- It's definitely do it at some level to see if other places do this. I thought we had some examples of
- other cities that do. They didn't misremember it. Oh. But Wayne's coming to mind. I don't know if that's
- true. I know I've seen this somewhere. I'm just not entirely sure. The idea is that I think there's
- a couple elements of it. One is that
- Why is the mayor empowered with putting legislation on? I mean, there's a track-keeping version or a
- responsibility already for the president who could say, no, this isn't ready. Staff might inform that,
- right? And we don't put it on the agenda. But it's sort of assumed that even absent a sponsor, I mean,
- that's the practice. Anything that, for the most part, the mayor would want to put on our agenda can go there.
- I'm not sure, it just strikes me as odd because the mayor's not a member of the body and it seems like
- a member of the body should sponsor all legislation. So it just seems like a more natural thing given
- the nature of what the thing, what legislation is and what our role is. I also think it would encourage,
- there's no shortage of things that come to us that are probably, could have used more time or public
- input and creates like first,
- including stuff we heard just last week, you know? And like, so in some respects. And so it kind of
- puts a check in the system of like, actually staff has to like, not just submit something to you, they
- have to find a council member and like talk to them about it. The council members are gonna have their
- name on it. Probably wants to like take a look and maybe ask a question or two about like, what'd you
- do? What'd you do by way of public outreach? You know, like anything. And it just, I don't think it'll
- be onerous. I think it could,
- encourage healthier communication and collaboration, and also save time by functioning as a little bit
- of a chat or a filter to task a few things before it actually is being assessed. So I'm curious about,
- there may be special exceptions with like appropriations or the budget or something. We're like, I'm
- curious if we'll run into something like that. But we can't, you know, with some things actually statutory,
- the mayor is empowered to,
- in a sense. But otherwise, I know it requires a little more exploration from a legal perspective. Obviously,
- we're going to get input on it, too, from colleagues and from their administration. But that's the rationale.
- I'm curious about other members' thoughts about it. I'm generally supportive, based on what I know now.
- I totally agree with you. I think it's good. I like the idea of maybe getting a little bit deeper into
- it, to make sure.
- that it is ready for prime time. I mean, I don't have strong feelings either way, but I do like that
- aspect of it. That's for sure. I'm also agnostic, but I do think that it would give more trust on the
- buying. I like that. I think it could have possibly prevented the two-time ordinances from coming forward
- when they were ready.
- I don't think it'll be a fail safe. It'll depend on where the sponsor is. If they actually, it could
- just be that any MROs are just like, y'all fucker or anything. I can say it's ready for anything. But
- I can say, yes, speaking for myself, I would always give it a full reading and probably ask some questions
- before I would be willing to sponsor something. So yeah, it could be helpful.
- Yes, in terms of the logistics, is that how legitimate, like, an ordinance would be prepared and a draft
- would be provided to a potential council member to ascertain if they're interested in supporting it?
- Good question. Yeah, you could imagine staff, a department head coming to council staff and saying,
- who you think would be a good sponsor for this. Or if it's a transportation item, I serve on
- the transportation division, I'd be a natural person to be the sponsor for Title 15 changes for residents.
- And so I think it encourages actually hopefully better direct working relationships between staff and
- non-council staff and council members. But I think it could also come through to council staff and say,
- hey, this item's looking for a sponsor, say they're a volunteer, or you can direct that to somebody.
- So I think there's some flexibility there.
- I mean, we can think through it more, but I think, obviously, we don't have to go to Berkshire. Yeah.
- Can we go to public comment? I have to leave. Oh, yeah. I didn't necessarily have public comment on
- this item, but is there anybody in the public who would like to comment on this item we added to the
- agenda requiring Councilmember Sponsorship for legislation?
- Okay. So, I think let's keep this on the agenda for next one. And maybe staff, if you want to prepare
- some questions and logistics and things. I could admit to putting together like, uh, less than one page,
- like rationale statement as well. That's a whole book. Yeah. Chris Westman thinking a workshop. Right.
- All right.
- Well, we may not be the same committee as we, but maybe we will. So we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.