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.