WEBVTT 00:00:01.666 --> 00:00:12.569 - So implementation of discussion at first reading. So I drafted just a first proposal for how this could 00:00:12.569 --> 00:00:23.472 - work, including procedure or first readings and then how to take the item up again for second readings. 00:00:23.472 --> 00:00:31.230 - So I don't know if we can get that displayed or maybe it's not necessary. 00:00:32.866 --> 00:00:40.834 - So there would be a first reading motion to introduce the legislation, then a vote to introduce the 00:00:40.834 --> 00:00:49.201 - legislation. The clerk, as has been our practice for a long time, the clerk reads the title of synopsis, 00:00:49.201 --> 00:00:57.567 - then there's a vote to adopt. Then there would be a staff presentation, council member questions, public 00:00:57.567 --> 00:01:01.950 - comment, and here's where we need to think about this. 00:01:02.146 --> 00:01:09.571 - My proposal was to limit that public comment to 30 minutes. And then I said no council member discussion, 00:01:09.571 --> 00:01:16.785 - but I've talked to Council President Asari since then, and he was thinking that it would be beneficial 00:01:16.785 --> 00:01:24.000 - to have council member discussion or comments, especially if people are thinking about amendments. And 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:26.942 - then there would be a motion to postpone. 00:01:29.026 --> 00:01:38.389 - I'd love to hear feedback. I think council staff may have some feedback on this as well, so. Yes, I 00:01:38.389 --> 00:01:47.752 - thought about this in preparation for today's meeting, and I think there are various ways that this 00:01:47.752 --> 00:01:57.022 - can be structured. One option is to take the framework that you just presented, but to incorporate 00:01:57.634 --> 00:02:08.990 - an alternative to committee of the whole within the main motion to adopt. There was some discussion 00:02:08.990 --> 00:02:20.800 - about the committee of the whole during the last council meeting. It's kind of an awkward feature under 00:02:20.800 --> 00:02:27.614 - Robert's rules. It's really designed for very large bodies. 00:02:28.130 --> 00:02:37.302 - Um, and there has been, um, some guidance from the public access counselor, expressing concerns about 00:02:37.302 --> 00:02:46.923 - noticing it, committee as a whole, under the indoor law. Um, but there is an alternative to it in Robert's 00:02:46.923 --> 00:02:56.185 - rules, um, which is designed more for smaller bodies like council. And it's, it's called, um, informal 00:02:56.185 --> 00:02:57.534 - consideration. 00:02:58.210 --> 00:03:08.477 - Um, so at the point where the motion to adopt the main motion is adopted, um, there could, um, and if 00:03:08.477 --> 00:03:18.543 - that passes, then there could be, uh, a motion to consider informally. Uh, the president could kind 00:03:18.543 --> 00:03:25.790 - of cross that topic by, by saying something to the effect of, you know, 00:03:26.082 --> 00:03:35.850 - I'd like to consider this informally or is somebody interested in making a motion to consider 00:03:35.850 --> 00:03:46.241 - this informally? And then that presents a more relaxed way of discussing the matter too. Would that 00:03:46.241 --> 00:03:49.982 - include, sorry, am I just blanking? 00:03:51.650 --> 00:03:59.788 - Let's keep going. I'll let you know. It just left my mind as soon as I had the opportunity. So a council 00:03:59.788 --> 00:04:07.539 - member at that point could move that the question be considered internally. And then at that point, 00:04:07.539 --> 00:04:15.367 - you know, there's a staff presentation for the council members, their questions, et cetera. And then 00:04:15.367 --> 00:04:17.150 - when that's concluded, 00:04:17.890 --> 00:04:24.446 - or when at such time that a council member feels that it's time to move on, then a council member could 00:04:24.446 --> 00:04:30.877 - make a motion to conclude the informal consideration. So then if nobody makes that motion to consider 00:04:30.877 --> 00:04:37.181 - informal consideration, that means we're just not going to discuss it. If we don't have anything to 00:04:37.181 --> 00:04:43.737 - discuss, we can keep moving on. Exactly. Like that. Because that was going to be my question about this 00:04:43.737 --> 00:04:47.646 - whole thing. Is this opening up to us falling into a trap of, 00:04:47.938 --> 00:04:56.263 - always discussing everything. Yeah, that's a good point. Right. So wait, I want to make sure I understand 00:04:56.263 --> 00:05:04.430 - what Terri Layner was saying. So this would be, would the motion to move to for informal consideration, 00:05:04.430 --> 00:05:12.284 - would that for after the motion to introduce the legislation? Yeah, so it would work exactly as you 00:05:12.284 --> 00:05:17.310 - stated, motion to introduce and read, just like we've done now. 00:05:17.666 --> 00:05:25.280 - Motion to adopt and then the motion to consider informally as a subsidiary motion. So it would be number 00:05:25.280 --> 00:05:32.822 - three instead of motion to adopt legislation, it would be motion to consider informally. Is that right? 00:05:32.822 --> 00:05:40.364 - No, there would still be number three and then the motion to consider informally would be between three 00:05:40.364 --> 00:05:47.326 - and four. Okay. Why would we need a motion to adopt if we're just going to consider informally? 00:05:48.098 --> 00:06:02.328 - Well, and that potentially is another option. There could be a motion to discuss or to consider. I think 00:06:02.328 --> 00:06:16.830 - that potentially that could stand as a main motion and then staff presentation, council member discussion, 00:06:17.122 --> 00:06:26.881 - public comment, what have you. And then potentially a motion to move the matter to second reading or 00:06:26.881 --> 00:06:36.640 - in the alternatives, you know, you want to keep options open so that if there is a situation or like 00:06:36.640 --> 00:06:46.302 - an urgent need to approve something at first reading, somebody could make a motion for unanimous to 00:06:46.946 --> 00:06:56.917 - consider the affordance for adoption during first season. So maybe try to envision this as a flow chart 00:06:56.917 --> 00:07:06.504 - where at different steps there may be branches with options depending upon how council members want 00:07:06.504 --> 00:07:13.790 - to proceed. My only hesitation with the motion to discuss or to consider is 00:07:18.530 --> 00:07:31.760 - You know, maybe, maybe quick bold and you have, you know, Something to add to this, whether that would 00:07:31.760 --> 00:07:45.118 - stand as a main motion to support the discussion in that event. No, I don't have anything to add. Okay. 00:07:47.266 --> 00:07:58.913 - So you want to leave room for a motion to unanimously move the item? That would be after there is discussion. 00:07:58.913 --> 00:08:10.349 - I mean the one potential benefit of this motion to consider informally is it is informal. So there wouldn't 00:08:10.349 --> 00:08:16.702 - necessarily have to be like time restrictions that apply to 00:08:16.898 --> 00:08:27.146 - to council member comments, for example. I think one or two council members during the last meeting 00:08:27.146 --> 00:08:38.008 - expressed support for having an informal discussion, like what was happening with committee of the whole. 00:08:38.008 --> 00:08:46.206 - So that might be one benefit of the first option I described. I'm worried that, 00:08:46.882 --> 00:08:53.919 - the more flexibility we give the council, the more confusion we create for both the public and for the 00:08:53.919 --> 00:09:00.888 - staff who might potentially have to present the legislation. I mean, if they get all ready to present 00:09:00.888 --> 00:09:07.788 - and take, you know, arrange their childcare and whatever, and they're there, and then we decide, oh, 00:09:07.788 --> 00:09:15.030 - we don't need to discuss it for Syria. That's- Agreed. I thought about that. But my thought was, I think, 00:09:15.030 --> 00:09:16.670 - well, maybe we have to, 00:09:17.634 --> 00:09:24.408 - I think we would know ahead of time or a council member would know ahead of time if they wanted to have 00:09:24.408 --> 00:09:31.051 - the discussion. Yeah, I guess. So in my brain, the way I was envisioning it, which saying it out loud 00:09:31.051 --> 00:09:37.565 - isn't quite as clean as I saw it in my brain, was we would look at something, we would kind of know 00:09:37.565 --> 00:09:44.990 - ahead of time if we wanted to discuss something and then we would let staff know. It would stop putting your pen. 00:09:45.122 --> 00:09:52.196 - Oh, thank you. Thank you. We would kind of informally know on our own ahead of time. We sense what the 00:09:52.196 --> 00:09:59.133 - bigger topics are that we're going to be wanting to talk about. And then other ones, I think we kind 00:09:59.133 --> 00:10:06.276 - of know as a body too, which ones aren't going to be a big deal versus which ones are. So then we would 00:10:06.276 --> 00:10:13.694 - give notification to staff that, hey, we plan to talk about it. But then I guess we would want to implement 00:10:14.370 --> 00:10:22.044 - a deadline for when we officially have that, which does complicate it again. Well, I think it would 00:10:22.044 --> 00:10:29.718 - have to be on the agenda noted somehow that we expect a discussion of the science. That's fair. Not 00:10:29.718 --> 00:10:37.468 - just the staff or public also. That's fair. I think this will be a process of testing certain things 00:10:37.468 --> 00:10:43.070 - and then deciding what works. But to the point you were just discussing, 00:10:43.586 --> 00:10:51.668 - I think the president would make some decision and potentially prepare a memo before the meeting, like 00:10:51.668 --> 00:10:59.593 - as to what maybe some expectations were, because some decision will need to be made so that staff in 00:10:59.593 --> 00:11:07.518 - the panel, whether they should be present at first reading. And I think it also raises the question, 00:11:07.518 --> 00:11:09.950 - do you want city staff then to 00:11:10.818 --> 00:11:17.478 - be present at both first reading and second reading? Or is first reading largely going to be like renewed 00:11:17.478 --> 00:11:24.075 - second reading and that's where staff make the presentation, questions are asked, and then maybe there's 00:11:24.075 --> 00:11:30.546 - not the expectation that they'd be present for second reading also? Well, the whole point of first and 00:11:30.546 --> 00:11:35.070 - second reading is that we have the opportunity to ask questions without 00:11:35.394 --> 00:11:42.536 - bringing it to a vote immediately. Exactly. And then like, if we don't get those questions in writing, 00:11:42.536 --> 00:11:49.192 - then really our only opportunity to hear it as a full body is at the next meeting. And so like, 00:11:49.192 --> 00:11:56.403 - unless staff, it would be willing to provide like a full memo on like all the questions that were asked 00:11:56.403 --> 00:12:04.030 - in advance. Those are, those are our two options. Cause that was probably attention. So during first reading, 00:12:05.154 --> 00:12:16.824 - Council members ask questions after staff presentation. Staff then take those questions and then provide 00:12:16.824 --> 00:12:27.938 - answers by a particular deadline back to council members, let's say by the Friday before the second 00:12:27.938 --> 00:12:34.718 - reading meeting. Those answers could be provided by staff to 00:12:35.042 --> 00:12:42.536 - to council members, and they could also go into the packet for the next meeting. That could be an option 00:12:42.536 --> 00:12:49.815 - as well. Some questions might take more than two days to answer. No, I'm thinking, well, this assumes 00:12:49.815 --> 00:12:57.023 - that there are like two weeks or more between the two meetings. But are we, are any of us willing to 00:12:57.023 --> 00:13:01.662 - take a vote on something that we can ask questions the night of? 00:13:02.178 --> 00:13:10.351 - No, I think staff has to be there. Okay, I would agree. Okay, I don't think there's a way around that. 00:13:10.351 --> 00:13:18.287 - Okay. And just to go back, because you mentioned Committee of the Whole and that this idea would be 00:13:18.287 --> 00:13:26.777 - important consideration could take the place of what we used to do with Committee of the Whole. As council 00:13:26.777 --> 00:13:32.094 - member here who was on council when we did Committee of the Whole, 00:13:32.642 --> 00:13:38.881 - I have to tell you, it was just as formal as any other meeting. It's not like we all sat in a circle 00:13:38.881 --> 00:13:45.367 - and bounced ideas off each other. It was like, raise your hand, yes, council member so-and-so, go ahead, 00:13:45.367 --> 00:13:52.101 - no, council member. It's not the formality of the process that's tripping me up. I've never been comfortable 00:13:52.101 --> 00:13:58.401 - with the idea that we vote right after we ask our questions and have our conversation. I mean, I know 00:13:58.401 --> 00:14:02.046 - we can ask questions ahead of time, but deeper things get, 00:14:02.402 --> 00:14:11.992 - unlocked and dug up when I hear my colleagues asking questions and I hear their line of thinking, oh, 00:14:11.992 --> 00:14:21.676 - I wouldn't have thought of it that way. So that's why I really support a discussion at first. So Hopi? 00:14:21.676 --> 00:14:29.950 - I'm really, really sorry that I was at an MPO meeting that is still going on, actually. 00:14:31.010 --> 00:14:39.113 - So are we debating whether or not there should be just council member questions or council member comments, 00:14:39.113 --> 00:14:46.916 - or what exactly is the question on the table about how this should be? So just presenting two different 00:14:46.916 --> 00:14:54.568 - options on possibilities for. There's two different options. Not actually three, probably more. Okay, 00:14:54.568 --> 00:14:56.894 - what is the concern right now? 00:14:56.994 --> 00:15:04.575 - versus like informal discussion. No, I mean, I don't think anybody's talking about brain committee. 00:15:04.575 --> 00:15:12.382 - I don't want that. Yeah. So, so I think what Lisa was saying is, so if we look at our list here, first 00:15:12.382 --> 00:15:19.660 - reading, after a motion to adopt legislation, somebody could move to consider it under informal 00:15:19.660 --> 00:15:26.558 - consideration. Yeah, there's a thing in Robert's book. There could be a motion to consider 00:15:26.978 --> 00:15:34.116 - Good question. So, like, instead of a motion to adopt, we could move to consider it. Now, a motion for 00:15:34.116 --> 00:15:41.116 - a formal consideration is a subsidiary motion, so there would still be the motion to adopt. Is there 00:15:41.116 --> 00:15:48.116 - any motion for it? What's the difference between procedure if you have informal consideration versus 00:15:48.116 --> 00:15:49.918 - just the motion to adopt? 00:15:50.018 --> 00:15:59.882 - Well, we already covered this. No. The motion to consider informally doesn't stand on its own. It needs 00:15:59.882 --> 00:16:09.935 - a main motion. But in terms of how the discussion would go, how would that be different? Well, if there's 00:16:09.935 --> 00:16:19.230 - a motion to adopt and then discussion, then arguably there's a need to be more formal in terms of 00:16:19.362 --> 00:16:29.770 - time limits potentially on council member comments, et cetera. The motion to consider it formally is 00:16:29.770 --> 00:16:40.075 - kind of, it's like committee as a whole that there are relaxed procedures. So then we're discussing 00:16:40.075 --> 00:16:49.246 - that amongst us, whether we like that idea. So I'll talk with you. Well, and how we can, 00:16:50.434 --> 00:16:56.227 - make it feasible for staff to know and the public to know whether there will be discussion first reading 00:16:56.227 --> 00:17:01.965 - or whether they won't. Right. So coming into this, I didn't even think about, oh, maybe there are times 00:17:01.965 --> 00:17:07.814 - when we don't want it because it's a straightforward thing. Yeah, exactly. We need to make sure everybody 00:17:07.814 --> 00:17:13.883 - knows that. How do we decide that ahead of time and all? Yeah, is that something that the House of Presidents 00:17:13.883 --> 00:17:20.062 - want to decide? Well, I think we can also like ask, hey, was there anyone who was planning on speaking on this? 00:17:21.538 --> 00:17:30.058 - Well, during the meeting. Ask the public. Well, is the concern then like the idea that we could on first 00:17:30.058 --> 00:17:38.334 - reading just motion to introduce as we normally do and then not have any discussion over it? And then 00:17:38.334 --> 00:17:47.422 - if there's somebody from the public who wanted to discuss it, then that doesn't leave space for public comment. 00:17:47.874 --> 00:17:53.553 - I mean, I guess I could just imagine like it going like this and it being something, say, like pretty 00:17:53.553 --> 00:17:59.177 - basic from the controller's office. And, you know, the controller, maybe he's maybe would have to be 00:17:59.177 --> 00:18:04.856 - there or maybe would end or maybe, you know, have a two line memo like this is what this does. And we 00:18:04.856 --> 00:18:10.424 - often don't have any comment on those sorts of things anyway, or questions on those sorts of things 00:18:10.424 --> 00:18:16.214 - anyway. So it'd be like, do council members have concerns or questions for this? And then if you don't, 00:18:16.214 --> 00:18:17.662 - does the public have any, 00:18:17.986 --> 00:18:25.961 - of any comment for this. And then that allows the public comment. But maybe, I mean, just because we 00:18:25.961 --> 00:18:34.488 - as council members can ask the question or make the comment doesn't mean that we have to. I'm not cheering. 00:18:34.488 --> 00:18:42.463 - I was waiting for you to stop talking. I was waiting for her to look over at me, but I was listening 00:18:42.463 --> 00:18:44.990 - to you. It's just her face. So, 00:18:46.306 --> 00:18:53.176 - In the past, when you guys have had discussions where you wanted to have that discussion on first reading 00:18:53.176 --> 00:18:59.656 - or if you were anticipating something unusual in terms of presentation, you usually indicate or you 00:18:59.656 --> 00:19:06.266 - have indicated like on the agenda or in the packet in some way to notify the public like, hey, we are 00:19:06.266 --> 00:19:09.118 - anticipating some level of discussion here. 00:19:09.282 --> 00:19:15.452 - So part of it doesn't have to necessarily be in your process. It can just be in the way you communicate 00:19:15.452 --> 00:19:21.503 - to them and establish some basic, we're going to talk about this. We're going to talk a lot about it. 00:19:21.503 --> 00:19:27.851 - We're going to have a whole bunch of questions we're going to ask of staff. And if you have any questions, 00:19:27.851 --> 00:19:34.199 - make sure you bring them here. You can do it through your packet. You can also do it through your separate 00:19:34.199 --> 00:19:38.174 - channels, your sub stacks and your social media, your sky writing. 00:19:39.010 --> 00:19:46.671 - I don't know. But I think some of that is just, you know, when you're talking about staff not knowing 00:19:46.671 --> 00:19:54.331 - or members of public not knowing as part of it is incumbent upon us to tell them beyond this process. 00:19:54.331 --> 00:20:02.518 - I mean, because we could, my assumption after that legislation that we passed last week was that essentially 00:20:02.518 --> 00:20:07.550 - everything for first reading now is going to have the potential of 00:20:07.746 --> 00:20:15.905 - A discussion is going to have some measure of presentation. And the potential for public comment and 00:20:15.905 --> 00:20:24.144 - that everything is going to be like that. And so then it especially is communicating public like even 00:20:24.144 --> 00:20:32.464 - when an asterisk And and maybe that's maybe just an asterisk on everything that that could potentially 00:20:32.464 --> 00:20:33.918 - be discussed like 00:20:34.146 --> 00:20:40.562 - this could be discussed, this could be discussed, this could be discussed in terms of all of 00:20:40.562 --> 00:20:47.529 - that legislation. And I mean, come on, we know, the public knows, everybody knows, staff knows, when 00:20:47.529 --> 00:20:54.428 - there's gonna be an mayor knows, I care, when there's gonna be something on the agenda that's, that 00:20:54.428 --> 00:21:02.430 - is interesting, that is some kind of like, you know. Sometimes things that seem routine, some, one colleague might, 00:21:03.106 --> 00:21:09.750 - find something that is problematic that I didn't think of. I also looked at it the way that Hopi did, 00:21:09.750 --> 00:21:16.459 - and I actually don't see a problem with just saying, we're going to have discussion as much discussion 00:21:16.459 --> 00:21:23.037 - as we're going to allow discussion at first reading for everything. And then just say, oh, they have 00:21:23.037 --> 00:21:28.574 - no questions. Go to the public, they have no question. Go to the comment, we have no 00:21:29.282 --> 00:21:34.321 - That's true. Right, just automatically. So there's going to be a presentation for everything at first 00:21:34.321 --> 00:21:39.360 - reading. And that might make things more just like clear to the public in terms of like expectations. 00:21:39.360 --> 00:21:44.449 - I'm coming. This is what I can expect. Right. And I mean, it's not to be long. And that's where, like, 00:21:44.449 --> 00:21:49.390 - when I was looking at this, I was like, do we want to put time limits on all of these things? Like, 00:21:49.390 --> 00:21:54.379 - that's what I literally have written down. Like, do we want a staff presentation at first reading to 00:21:54.379 --> 00:21:58.974 - be really short? Or maybe we want a staff presentation at second reading to be really short. 00:21:59.362 --> 00:22:09.264 - and first reading to be longer. Right now we have no limits on council member questions in second reading, 00:22:09.264 --> 00:22:18.796 - but do we want to put those on first reading? What I want to avoid, which I said last time, was I want 00:22:18.796 --> 00:22:28.606 - to avoid two very long and very similar periods of debate, of questions, of comments, of public comments. 00:22:29.122 --> 00:22:34.817 - Well, questions, I think that it's. Well, no, it's repeated. It's the same. It's like the same questions, 00:22:34.817 --> 00:22:40.189 - the same like. Well, hopefully council members will get their questions answered. That's the point. 00:22:40.189 --> 00:22:45.723 - Yes. We can also limit, we could do the same style of questions that we do during budget season, where 00:22:45.723 --> 00:22:51.256 - every council member has a certain amount of time to ask all of their questions. And then if you don't 00:22:51.256 --> 00:22:56.844 - get them in, feel free to submit them in writing because you will have another opportunity to get those 00:22:56.844 --> 00:22:57.918 - questions answered. 00:22:58.658 --> 00:23:03.879 - And I would also, one of the things that I was thinking in some of these first reading things, a piece 00:23:03.879 --> 00:23:08.947 - of information that I might really want to know isn't necessarily a question I have of staff, but a 00:23:08.947 --> 00:23:14.218 - question I have of colleagues. Like I read this, I'm not sure how I feel about this thing. I'm thinking 00:23:14.218 --> 00:23:19.591 - of amending it in this way. Colleagues, tell me what you think about this, because then it's like, should 00:23:19.591 --> 00:23:24.862 - I take this time and do this amendment that may or may not have agreement? And then that saves me time. 00:23:25.122 --> 00:23:30.509 - I'm trying to call at least, you know, four or five other people in support of this amendment that I'm 00:23:30.509 --> 00:23:35.739 - going to do. And so I wasn't sure I was kind of, I was questioning the no council member discussion 00:23:35.739 --> 00:23:41.021 - because then it's like, well, like, and so maybe that's like, well, we have three minutes of council 00:23:41.021 --> 00:23:46.618 - member questions or discussion or comments, because sometimes it's just a comment too. Like I was actually 00:23:46.618 --> 00:23:51.848 - specifically thinking about Hopewell and then going, I don't think I have a question right now, but 00:23:51.848 --> 00:23:55.038 - I have a concern that it's not a question. And so it's like, 00:23:55.330 --> 00:24:00.912 - I kind of like, how am I going to address this? Because it doesn't even like, it doesn't easily fit 00:24:00.912 --> 00:24:06.718 - into this. I think it would follow to have some other questions. Well, in theory it would, but we don't 00:24:06.718 --> 00:24:12.635 - have to put, I guess what I'm saying is that when we have this procedure, it's documented at the meeting. 00:24:12.635 --> 00:24:18.385 - So same council member questions, that's council member questions and comment. Sure. And it's a piece, 00:24:18.385 --> 00:24:24.190 - you know, yeah, three minutes a piece, including any kind of response that we're asking for from staff. 00:24:25.346 --> 00:24:33.933 - Wait, so we had, yeah, before you arrived, we had our question in the middle council member discussion. 00:24:33.933 --> 00:24:42.602 - I had spoken with Council Member Asari and we also thought we should have discussion because of possible 00:24:42.602 --> 00:24:50.858 - amendments on suging. So are you saying if, I think you raised an interesting point, like after the 00:24:50.858 --> 00:24:54.078 - staff presentation and some questions, 00:24:54.690 --> 00:25:01.070 - If I say, hey, I'm thinking of this amendment, what do y'all think? Does that go under council member 00:25:01.070 --> 00:25:07.387 - questions? That is not a question for staff. Or it could go under discussion. I think it would. It's 00:25:07.387 --> 00:25:13.767 - not a council member comment, but it is. I think one of the benefits of the way that it goes directly 00:25:13.767 --> 00:25:20.522 - from public comment to a motion to postpone is that then council members don't get in the weeds potentially 00:25:20.522 --> 00:25:22.398 - responding to public comment. 00:25:22.786 --> 00:25:29.343 - So that's where I like Sydney's idea of going, well, it's like we do a budget time. We have these three 00:25:29.343 --> 00:25:36.027 - minutes, each of us have these three minutes after the staff presentation to do whatever we want. Whether 00:25:36.027 --> 00:25:42.458 - it's inquire, make inquiries with staff, make inquiries of each other, put comments out into the void 00:25:42.458 --> 00:25:48.889 - and say, these are the things I'm making, like I'm interested in your, you know, like, I mean, if I'm 00:25:48.889 --> 00:25:50.718 - the first speaker and I say, 00:25:51.106 --> 00:25:56.266 - You know, and if I know going into it, I'm like, I really want to hear from my colleagues about this 00:25:56.266 --> 00:26:01.630 - thing. Then I might go, Hey, I want to be the first speaker because after everybody, like when everybody 00:26:01.630 --> 00:26:06.994 - else takes their turn, I would love to know a quick, like, yeah, I'm kind of interested in that. I think 00:26:06.994 --> 00:26:12.307 - that's a terrible idea. I don't know. I want to hear more about it in terms of the details. Cause that, 00:26:12.307 --> 00:26:17.518 - I mean, I'm not going to eat up a ton of that three minute time, but you know, so I like that idea of 00:26:17.518 --> 00:26:18.846 - calling it three minutes. 00:26:19.106 --> 00:26:25.341 - whatever you want, and then go to public comment, and then immediately go to promotion to postpone. 00:26:25.341 --> 00:26:31.701 - Yeah. I think the other thing is like, since public comment is 30 minutes, you know, our time's 3.27. 00:26:31.701 --> 00:26:37.999 - Our transition time's about 30 minutes. I like that we're on, I know, I recognize. 30 minutes is not 00:26:37.999 --> 00:26:44.422 - enough for test fact. I think at first reading it shouldn't be. I like five minutes. 45 minutes is not 00:26:44.422 --> 00:26:48.350 - too much. As long as second reading ends up being short. Yeah. 00:26:48.898 --> 00:26:55.643 - Right. We can always try. Okay. My son reminds us to try to five minutes and if it gets obnoxiously 00:26:55.643 --> 00:27:02.658 - long, then we turn it down, which theoretically then we're, we're, you know, in this plan and lingering 00:27:02.658 --> 00:27:09.943 - questions that we have, we're putting in writing and then we're getting those addressed for second reading. 00:27:09.943 --> 00:27:16.958 - So that should, in theory, at down second reading time in theory, in theory, maybe we could just accept 00:27:17.154 --> 00:27:25.148 - like a six-month check-in, if we do five minutes in six months, the same body can re-evaluate, hey, 00:27:25.148 --> 00:27:33.222 - is this working, is it not working? I suspect if it's not working, we'll all know before six months. 00:27:33.222 --> 00:27:41.456 - I suspect that as well. You never know. The five minutes that you're discussing, that would begin with 00:27:41.456 --> 00:27:44.574 - council's next meeting. Yes. Oh, yeah. 00:27:46.146 --> 00:27:55.141 - And we would need to clarify that it's five minutes all in one go. Yes. And that once you have had your 00:27:55.141 --> 00:28:03.877 - five minutes, you're done. If you only use two minutes, I'm sorry. Because that's too much for staff 00:28:03.877 --> 00:28:12.094 - to keep track of. Yeah, that's not fair. No. So then just following through with your example, 00:28:14.658 --> 00:28:22.292 - Then when the discussion is complete, somebody would make a motion to postpone the matter to a date 00:28:22.292 --> 00:28:30.154 - certain. After the public comment. Yeah. Yeah. So after public comment, back to council. The president 00:28:30.154 --> 00:28:37.788 - would say, OK, seeing no more public comment, back to council for a motion. Yeah. And then it would 00:28:37.788 --> 00:28:42.750 - probably be the parliamentarian who makes all the other motions. 00:28:43.394 --> 00:28:51.433 - to motion to postpone to the next regular session. You have to, in that motion, postpone to the next 00:28:51.433 --> 00:28:59.473 - regular session. Okay. Yeah. Then at the second reading, are you envisioning motion to introduce and 00:28:59.473 --> 00:29:06.955 - read? Again, so with the second reading- I think we have to- No, we have the motion to- Yeah, 00:29:06.955 --> 00:29:12.606 - but you may, the presiding chair, in that case, I guess the president, 00:29:13.154 --> 00:29:21.383 - would take up the postponed motion, and then the second reading would need to occur within that space 00:29:21.383 --> 00:29:29.693 - too. I don't know that there would need to be a motion to read it again. That's what we've always done 00:29:29.693 --> 00:29:35.582 - though. I put that up in Robert's rules, if you don't need a new motion. 00:29:35.906 --> 00:29:43.199 - Okay, even though we've always, that's what we've always done at this point, like if something from 00:29:43.199 --> 00:29:50.711 - second reading gets postponed to third reading, then we always introduce it again at the third reading 00:29:50.711 --> 00:29:58.295 - time. And I guess that's, I don't know if there's anything wrong with this. I mean, this is not Indiana 00:29:58.295 --> 00:30:03.838 - law, grammar schools are not. So if we have a new motion, we open it up to, 00:30:04.066 --> 00:30:12.261 - a roll call vote on the motion, and it could be stymied, like the motion introduced a second time. I'm 00:30:12.261 --> 00:30:20.217 - not saying any colleague would do that, but it opens that door in case somebody wants to respond in 00:30:20.217 --> 00:30:28.332 - again. I mean, it might take time if for any reason staff wasn't able to provide answers in time, and 00:30:28.332 --> 00:30:33.662 - there were important questions that were asked. That might be one. 00:30:34.242 --> 00:30:40.566 - opportunity that we would have to continue it. Although you could do that after. Yeah. That's true, 00:30:40.566 --> 00:30:47.016 - too. But I guess I more meant like for time's sake, if we needed, if like we know automatically, hey, 00:30:47.016 --> 00:30:53.466 - we're not going to be able to vote on this tonight. X, Y, Z needs to be addressed. It might just save 00:30:53.466 --> 00:30:59.790 - us some, but. Because the motion to introduce is debatable. If there's that issue, then anybody can 00:30:59.790 --> 00:31:03.774 - say. Oh, yeah. We don't always do that. We did that last year. 00:31:04.034 --> 00:31:16.279 - You know, another option that I flashed out also was to start with the promotion to introduce the read, 00:31:16.279 --> 00:31:28.524 - a motion to discuss, which then would be seconded and voted on, and then do the discussion or whatever. 00:31:28.524 --> 00:31:33.822 - And then a motion to move to second reading. 00:31:34.626 --> 00:31:44.248 - or if a vote wanted to be, if a council member desired that it be voted upon at first reading, a motion 00:31:44.248 --> 00:31:53.963 - for the ERS consideration or consent to consider the ordinance for adoption at first reading. So that's- 00:31:53.963 --> 00:32:03.678 - I like that way better. Well, here's my question with that. I mean, can the motion to discuss the motion 00:32:05.058 --> 00:32:11.164 - I don't know, I think so. So it would be in procedure of first reading. So it's the motion to introduce 00:32:11.164 --> 00:32:17.329 - and read and the clerk reads. And then instead of having a motion to adopt, we have a motion to discuss, 00:32:17.329 --> 00:32:23.318 - which is a different, I like it because it's a different signal to the public that we're not going to 00:32:23.318 --> 00:32:29.248 - adopt this tonight. We're going to talk about it. And then everything stays the same, except instead 00:32:29.248 --> 00:32:32.830 - of postponing, we're motioning to move it to second reading. 00:32:34.914 --> 00:32:43.553 - Well, if there's a motion to discuss passes, right. What is a motion to go to second reading? It's just 00:32:43.553 --> 00:32:51.942 - saying that it goes to second reading. Yeah, or maybe like move to second reading on a specific day. 00:32:51.942 --> 00:33:00.830 - It's only we don't need to do that because it kind of automatically goes to second reading in our process. 00:33:04.834 --> 00:33:10.267 - It's very similar to a motion to postpone it, except that when we postpone, we're doing not attached 00:33:10.267 --> 00:33:15.701 - to adopting legislation. Because in the motion to adopt, we've already said we're going to adopt it. 00:33:15.701 --> 00:33:21.080 - So right now, we're postponing a decision about adopting. But if we're only discussing, then at the 00:33:21.080 --> 00:33:26.513 - end of the discussion, then we have to say, OK, when are we going to take up this legislation again? 00:33:26.513 --> 00:33:31.947 - Well, we're going to move on to second reading. I feel affected for a chief at Markham what a second 00:33:31.947 --> 00:33:34.206 - reading does, which is a motion to adopt. 00:33:36.162 --> 00:33:45.970 - What do you all think? I would agree. So do you have any comments? No, I'm just confused. Sorry. Because 00:33:45.970 --> 00:33:55.871 - at the beginning, we talked about motion to adopt and then motioning for informal discussion or whatever. 00:33:55.871 --> 00:34:05.118 - So I'm getting these mixed now. Now I'm confused about the flow chart. Well, I think that everyone 00:34:05.218 --> 00:34:10.915 - because it's the motion for informal discussion or informal consideration has to be underneath another 00:34:10.915 --> 00:34:16.999 - motion. So you can't motion for informal consideration directly, but you can motion for discussion correctly. 00:34:16.999 --> 00:34:23.083 - So discussion would have to follow all the other like Robert's Rules formalities, which is how our discussion 00:34:23.083 --> 00:34:28.615 - normally does, but we're discussing instead of actually considering that question. So at the end of 00:34:28.615 --> 00:34:33.150 - it, so when we have a motion to adopt, it's like, we have to vote on that motion. 00:34:33.794 --> 00:34:39.816 - Like there's like a motion on the table that we have to vote on. I see. And a motion to discuss, there's 00:34:39.816 --> 00:34:45.608 - nothing that we vote on. Motion to discuss is different from a motion to consider informally. Right. 00:34:45.608 --> 00:34:50.942 - That would be the flow of that. Right. So like we could, because the informal discussion has 00:34:50.942 --> 00:34:56.734 - to be underneath. That has to be like a layer. It's a flow chart thing. It's like it's been inserted 00:34:56.734 --> 00:35:01.150 - under something else. You can't have it stand by itself. It's just so wonky. 00:35:01.250 --> 00:35:07.057 - Yeah. Yeah. But the motion to discuss it, it can stand by itself. Okay. So why would we do like, 00:35:07.057 --> 00:35:13.342 - you know, right? Yeah. So potential, I guess that could be. So why would we what? Why would we go? Okay. 00:35:13.342 --> 00:35:19.388 - Motion to discuss that passes motion to consider informal. No, we wouldn't put that on, but we would 00:35:19.388 --> 00:35:25.375 - just be a motion to discuss motion to discuss motion to adopt. Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. We need a 00:35:25.375 --> 00:35:29.086 - flow. I feel dense right now. I'm very sorry. Okay. I get it. 00:35:29.762 --> 00:35:38.207 - Oh yeah, there's a whiteboard. So where does that leave us in terms of if there is a situation where 00:35:38.207 --> 00:35:46.652 - we want to vote on the document or on that legislation and first reading? Could we not move to adopt 00:35:46.652 --> 00:35:55.097 - post discussion? Yes, that's what I was going to put that slow chart. Yeah, that's what I would say. 00:35:55.097 --> 00:35:57.438 - It would be a motion to end 00:35:57.538 --> 00:36:05.192 - that discussion and then move on to like that branch where the motion, that question is moved to a second 00:36:05.192 --> 00:36:12.413 - reading or there's a motion to adopt for unanimous, cause you need the motion for unanimous consent 00:36:12.413 --> 00:36:19.706 - at the first reading in order to even vote on it. All right. And that could be like, ah, so, so this 00:36:19.706 --> 00:36:23.966 - would be like motion for unanimous consent with that first 00:36:24.642 --> 00:36:32.799 - Yeah. But that would be like after public comment. So it's, I'm going to have to put this on the board. 00:36:32.799 --> 00:36:40.799 - Would it be, I move to suspend the rules and I will have the council to vote on this tonight? I don't 00:36:40.799 --> 00:36:49.192 - think the measure needs to be suspended. I think the vote would occur as long as there's unanimous consent 00:36:49.192 --> 00:36:52.094 - first. Okay. And then the two thirds 00:36:52.834 --> 00:37:00.869 - About on the actual word. So what would the motion look like though, like I moved for unanimous consent 00:37:00.869 --> 00:37:09.058 - to consider this tonight. Yeah, I think it would be something to be to the extent of I know for unanimous 00:37:09.058 --> 00:37:13.694 - consent to consider the ordinance for adoption, but I Okay. 00:37:30.914 --> 00:37:42.284 - So I do want to check in with the mayor about this because it would this change leads to why staff have 00:37:42.284 --> 00:37:53.326 - to be here. I guess questions of use, which is something we used to do under the previous years. But 00:37:53.326 --> 00:38:00.542 - you want to weigh in on any concerns about that? Yeah, we do have 00:38:01.570 --> 00:38:09.699 - fairly significant concerns about the expectation that staff be there twice, especially, well, 00:38:09.699 --> 00:38:18.256 - twice period, but especially if these sort of prolonged on the spot, questioning and public comment 00:38:18.256 --> 00:38:26.813 - periods on deliberation. So I guess part of the question is, does the council believe that it would 00:38:26.813 --> 00:38:31.006 - be the exception to the rule that there would be 00:38:31.554 --> 00:38:39.588 - a motion for unanimous consent to move forward to the vote, or would it be standard to go to second 00:38:39.588 --> 00:38:47.863 - and have another full discussion at second? Because right now, we expect to be at one council meeting, 00:38:47.863 --> 00:38:56.219 - and with exceptions, we go to two. You have first reading, and then it ends up going to three meetings. 00:38:56.219 --> 00:39:00.798 - But this seems to pivot it to be, we always come to two. 00:39:03.362 --> 00:39:11.845 - And that's concerning. We're maxed out and it's not going to get better. In terms of staff time, it's 00:39:11.845 --> 00:39:20.578 - not going to get better because we've already said we can't hire any new staff with SDA warrant at least 00:39:20.578 --> 00:39:29.145 - through July 27th, but likely 28th. Well, to answer your question, and please correct me if I'm wrong, 00:39:29.145 --> 00:39:32.222 - that the committee members might say 00:39:32.610 --> 00:39:40.869 - that it is the assumption that it would have two things. Then staff would be present. First staff would 00:39:40.869 --> 00:39:48.890 - be present. Because of the way that things were written on the board. That's right. Is it OK if I go 00:39:48.890 --> 00:39:57.546 - stand over there so that Al picks it up and I'll read them quickly? And let me say, this is my understanding 00:39:57.546 --> 00:40:01.278 - of what it is I heard in a very short kind of. 00:40:01.442 --> 00:40:08.469 - What you had first was a motion to introduce, right? A second motion to read by title and synopsis only? 00:40:08.469 --> 00:40:15.361 - No, that's all in one. I was mimicking what is in the packet. So first it's read, or first it's motion 00:40:15.361 --> 00:40:22.187 - to introduce, and then it's read by the clerk. And so you're saying a motion to introduce and to read 00:40:22.187 --> 00:40:28.946 - by title and synopsis, which stick a pin in that. Right. After it's read, there would be a motion to 00:40:28.946 --> 00:40:31.422 - discuss or a motion to adopt. Right. 00:40:31.778 --> 00:40:38.544 - If there's a motion to adopt, you have informal consideration. Yeah. I can't read your writing very 00:40:38.544 --> 00:40:45.716 - well, sorry. That's presentation, because that's within the packet. Fourth is staff presentation, council 00:40:45.716 --> 00:40:52.549 - member question and comments, and then public comment. Right. And if we have a motion to discuss, if 00:40:52.549 --> 00:40:59.518 - there's a motion to discuss, there's a motion to second reading or a motion to unanimous consent. Yes. 00:40:59.810 --> 00:41:08.608 - You were writing fast. I was. And if it was motion to adopt, then we would have to motion to postpone. 00:41:08.608 --> 00:41:17.235 - Yeah. Does that help? I think so. Cause it's like two alternate flowcharts and like which, which one 00:41:17.235 --> 00:41:25.948 - do we want to do? I think we can do something like this in some form where it's typed up where people 00:41:25.948 --> 00:41:27.998 - can see it. Yeah. Okay. 00:41:31.042 --> 00:41:41.332 - So committee members, how do you think, how are you thinking about the impact on staff? Sorry, what 00:41:41.332 --> 00:41:51.726 - was the question? Impact on staff. Yeah. I think that it doesn't make sense for us to vote on things 00:41:51.726 --> 00:41:57.694 - that we can't get answers to, same night. I would like to 00:41:58.658 --> 00:42:06.813 - figure out some way to be very, very clear to staff and respectful of everyone's time. I'm like, hey, 00:42:06.813 --> 00:42:15.047 - this is the time about where this is going to be on the agenda. This is about how much time it's going 00:42:15.047 --> 00:42:23.282 - to take. Being able to provide that expectation for staff, I think, would be able to help them prepare 00:42:23.282 --> 00:42:28.638 - a little bit better. So yeah, for first reading, we can tell them. 00:42:28.802 --> 00:42:36.981 - Look, it would be your presentation. How long that is? Plus 45 minutes, plus 30 minutes. Massive. Yeah. 00:42:36.981 --> 00:42:45.082 - And I think we can even say, like, presentation should be this long so that you can prepare to fit all 00:42:45.082 --> 00:42:53.103 - of this information in. And then, like, there's no new presentation. It's just a follow-up on all the 00:42:53.103 --> 00:42:57.822 - questions that are asked during first reading. Right. Yeah. 00:42:58.050 --> 00:43:06.229 - I said during second reading, the staff will present any new information including answers to previously 00:43:06.229 --> 00:43:14.253 - asked questions. Yes, but I do see the potential for a lot of frustration just in terms of, hey, staff 00:43:14.253 --> 00:43:22.198 - doesn't necessarily need to be here for four hours of discussion. So whether you could say like, hey, 00:43:22.198 --> 00:43:23.678 - as soon as council 00:43:23.938 --> 00:43:29.583 - common question period is over, like you're good to go because we have public comment and then we're 00:43:29.583 --> 00:43:35.339 - going to make a decision one way or the other, but there will be no more questions asked. I think that 00:43:35.339 --> 00:43:41.319 - might be another thing that would protect staff time a little bit, especially because when we have council 00:43:41.319 --> 00:43:46.964 - questions and then public comment and then we go back to council questions, there's, I think there's 00:43:46.964 --> 00:43:52.664 - some confusion on like the staff point of view where it's like, well, how many times am I expected to 00:43:52.664 --> 00:43:53.726 - get back up there? 00:43:55.650 --> 00:44:03.055 - That's true. They could leave after. So I have a question on that here. And we might figure out, we 00:44:03.055 --> 00:44:10.905 - might want to limit. I know that we've been doing council questions and then public comment, then council 00:44:10.905 --> 00:44:18.385 - member questions and comment. If we wanted to, especially to protect staff time, we could limit that 00:44:18.385 --> 00:44:23.198 - to just discussion. So that way we could get staff out of there. 00:44:23.426 --> 00:44:30.350 - You mean outside of reading now? Yes, I heard. Oh, I see with the idea being that we asked our questions 00:44:30.350 --> 00:44:37.076 - at reading one and we submitted our questions and lingering questions to be answered. Yes. So then we 00:44:37.076 --> 00:44:43.671 - should not have any further questions by the time we get to. Ask public comment and back to council 00:44:43.671 --> 00:44:50.397 - comment section. Like I know that we've been past precedent have asked a lot of questions during that 00:44:50.397 --> 00:44:51.518 - period. I think. 00:44:51.874 --> 00:44:58.302 - the amount of opportunities that we're going to open up for questions to be asked in first reading versus 00:44:58.302 --> 00:45:04.669 - like the time period in between, that might be an opportunity. And it might be a nice compromise because 00:45:04.669 --> 00:45:10.855 - I do recognize that this is going to add a lot to stats on. My concern specifically with that is that 00:45:10.855 --> 00:45:17.161 - sometimes during public comment, the public raised questions that we kept a lot about. Yeah, but that's 00:45:17.161 --> 00:45:20.254 - fair. But nobody, you know. But they make periods. 00:45:20.546 --> 00:45:27.282 - And they may do that at first reading. They may, but then they also may do it at second reading. Like 00:45:27.282 --> 00:45:34.149 - there might be an entirely different crop of people who comment and are written entirely. And so that's 00:45:34.149 --> 00:45:40.819 - like, I just don't want to limit that last part to, but I appreciate that. And I have other comments 00:45:40.819 --> 00:45:47.620 - generally about staff resolution. Are you thinking that there might be situations where you would want 00:45:47.620 --> 00:45:50.526 - to introduce an amendment at first reading? 00:45:51.522 --> 00:46:00.028 - or simply discuss about possible amendments at second reading. You mean first? Oh, yeah. I was thinking 00:46:00.028 --> 00:46:08.534 - that at first reading, you could kind of gauge whether there's support for an amendment or not. There's 00:46:08.534 --> 00:46:16.222 - need for an amendment. And then that amendment could be written up and be in the paper. Okay. 00:46:21.506 --> 00:46:27.319 - Any other feedback about staff time? Yeah, I want to say publicly I voted against this because I was 00:46:27.319 --> 00:46:33.132 - concerned that the administration and staff had not had enough input into how it would impact staff. 00:46:33.132 --> 00:46:39.060 - I think that it would impact staff. I have a lot to give a full presentation at first reading and then 00:46:39.060 --> 00:46:45.161 - have to present new information because it does necessitate a whole second slideshow. It does necessitate 00:46:45.161 --> 00:46:50.398 - a whole, and that is a work process behind the scenes that we don't see that they have to. 00:46:50.786 --> 00:47:03.355 - So I guess, once again, I voted no on this because I have a real hard time asking staff to come to two 00:47:03.355 --> 00:47:16.169 - meetings and I really have to wonder, if I read through the packet and I have questions at first reading 00:47:16.169 --> 00:47:20.318 - stuff and if, and I just kind of, 00:47:20.578 --> 00:47:27.869 - leave them and I guess I want to strongly take into consideration what Mayor Thompson just said about 00:47:27.869 --> 00:47:35.017 - staff time and about how stretched staff are and throw out the possibility of not requiring them to 00:47:35.017 --> 00:47:42.307 - be at first reading with their whole presentation and for us as council members to raise questions or 00:47:42.307 --> 00:47:49.598 - concerns that we have that they can watch later, you know, the next day they can come in and see that 00:47:49.826 --> 00:47:56.048 - portion on cats so that then they don't have to sit through however long and they can then gauge, okay, 00:47:56.048 --> 00:48:02.271 - council members are concerned about this thing. And that only works if we are not voting on it at first 00:48:02.271 --> 00:48:08.433 - reading. And so I guess that means like if there is something that seems like there might be unanimous 00:48:08.433 --> 00:48:14.655 - consent to just get it done at first reading and out of the way that we need to work with staff on that 00:48:14.655 --> 00:48:16.510 - and give them a heads up to do 00:48:16.994 --> 00:48:22.665 - that like deep presentation. So I guess I would prefer staff presentation to be potentially optional 00:48:22.665 --> 00:48:28.448 - at a first reading. And so, because maybe it depends on the complexity of the legislation too. I mean, 00:48:28.448 --> 00:48:34.119 - anything that might, you know, think about like some PD from last year that might, you know, went to 00:48:34.119 --> 00:48:39.958 - the rereadings at three, you know, to have, maybe we could have done that too, if we had had the first, 00:48:39.958 --> 00:48:46.078 - you know, because there kind of, there were two times that staff had to come in and deal with anyway, right? 00:48:46.210 --> 00:48:51.621 - So when there's something particularly big or complex, then maybe say, like, you know, we want that 00:48:51.621 --> 00:48:57.194 - to happen. And that actually, that might help staff prepare for the fact that, you know, this is a big 00:48:57.194 --> 00:49:02.714 - thing that's going to take these two meetings. Because otherwise, when we move something on the third 00:49:02.714 --> 00:49:08.125 - reading, it's almost like, oh, now I have to figure out my schedule for the next week. Maybe I have 00:49:08.125 --> 00:49:13.536 - to get childcare. Maybe I have to move something else, because all of a sudden, I can't see if it's 00:49:13.536 --> 00:49:15.646 - what you did. I do want to say that I, 00:49:15.970 --> 00:49:22.331 - I did reach out to the deputy mayor before we voted on this item of legislation last week. And she said, 00:49:22.331 --> 00:49:28.812 - you know, the administration's aware of it, and it would create some staff burdens, but we're not opposed. 00:49:28.812 --> 00:49:35.294 - It always seems weird to me that there's kind of dead space, you got the first three days, and complicated 00:49:35.294 --> 00:49:41.413 - issues go to three anyway, so it may not result in more staff time. So I did think about this before 00:49:41.413 --> 00:49:44.926 - I voted, and I did reach out to her, and I was reassured. 00:49:45.634 --> 00:49:56.077 - Um, I, I don't know about, if I would agree to what, um, Hopi just said. I was out of presentation, 00:49:56.077 --> 00:50:06.520 - so we would just be saying, I read it and here are my questions. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess that's 00:50:06.520 --> 00:50:13.726 - the thing, like making meeting staff presentations. And, or I think. 00:50:13.922 --> 00:50:18.660 - for the second readings, we don't necessarily have to have a presentation for the second readings. 00:50:18.660 --> 00:50:23.446 - You know, even if it's following up on the questions we had, there's no reason to have to put those 00:50:23.446 --> 00:50:28.423 - into a slideshow. It could be, you know, they might get up there and say, you had these questions, here 00:50:28.423 --> 00:50:33.257 - are my answers, or I could also put it in that. I was gonna say, or they just submit them in writing 00:50:33.257 --> 00:50:38.043 - and they're in the packet. And then maybe they're there just to answer any lingering questions that 00:50:38.043 --> 00:50:42.302 - we might have when discussion comes up, but we're not putting them on the spot with the, 00:50:43.362 --> 00:50:49.474 - stress of a presentation. I think it would now be more likely to go that direction. I think it would 00:50:49.474 --> 00:50:55.706 - make more sense to have staff there, at least for the first one, just to be able to say, like, I don't 00:50:55.706 --> 00:51:01.757 - want to box us into where we're all sitting up on that dais and, like, all of the questions that we 00:51:01.757 --> 00:51:07.869 - have are based off of someone who can't be there to answer them. Yeah. It's very awkward. Yeah. So I 00:51:07.869 --> 00:51:12.286 - guess I would reference, if we're going to pick one, maybe we could do a 00:51:13.090 --> 00:51:19.824 - staff is here for night one and then we there's questions are submitted in the packet and then maybe 00:51:19.824 --> 00:51:26.491 - someone could call in over zoom and and answer those and answer any supplemental questions but then 00:51:26.491 --> 00:51:33.424 - they're not sitting there for like three hours while we try to figure out i was just going to ask mayor 00:51:33.424 --> 00:51:40.958 - thompson what is y'all's position on your staff having those presentations on virtually versus in person because 00:51:41.058 --> 00:51:49.185 - I feel like most of the time, most staff comes in person and it's only the consultants that do things, 00:51:49.185 --> 00:51:57.234 - but I assume. Yeah. I guess my recommendation would be that you have the in-person staff presentation 00:51:57.234 --> 00:52:05.598 - and significant questions at the first and that it's optional or TBD on the second, depending on how many 00:52:06.146 --> 00:52:13.843 - questions there are that would address staff time. I have to go to another meeting that my public comment 00:52:13.843 --> 00:52:21.105 - was going to be. This is also going to bring up concern for public comment. I've already heard from 00:52:21.105 --> 00:52:28.658 - people which meeting should I go to? I don't want to sit through two very long meetings to wait to give 00:52:28.658 --> 00:52:33.886 - my comment. Are they going to forget that I commented in the first one? 00:52:33.986 --> 00:52:43.037 - Et cetera, et cetera. So I think some clear direction. And I mean, honestly, since there was no discussion 00:52:43.037 --> 00:52:52.257 - at first reading anyway, maybe a discussion among council about how open they are to hearing these unanimous 00:52:52.257 --> 00:53:01.054 - consent. It's not an exception to the rule. But if there are things that really don't need to sit, that 00:53:01.054 --> 00:53:03.422 - they can just get approved. 00:53:09.602 --> 00:53:21.961 - So given that, instead of limiting our council number of questions and comments at first reading to 00:53:21.961 --> 00:53:34.938 - the three or five minutes or whatever, should we do that at second step and allow more time for comments 00:53:34.938 --> 00:53:38.398 - or questions back and forth 00:53:39.010 --> 00:53:47.438 - with staff so that then those things are ironed out to a high degree. So then going into second reading 00:53:47.438 --> 00:53:55.704 - staff can feel comfortable that being there virtually will be satisfactory in terms of their advocacy 00:53:55.704 --> 00:54:04.213 - for their. Yeah, that was the debate I was having internally, which is if we're limiting it in the first 00:54:04.213 --> 00:54:08.670 - round, well, then we always have moving to the written 00:54:09.954 --> 00:54:16.286 - Question and answer. If we're limiting it in the second round, though, because the time is limited, 00:54:16.286 --> 00:54:22.617 - I mean, hopefully then, yeah, hopefully the theory is we ironed it all out the first writing. There 00:54:22.617 --> 00:54:29.075 - shouldn't be massive follow-up the second round. Right. Ideally. That's the theory. Ideally. Or we go 00:54:29.075 --> 00:54:35.407 - to another group, which nobody wants. I hear you. Yeah. I'm just, that was what I was winging in my 00:54:35.407 --> 00:54:39.902 - mind. So I was kind of on that same page, maybe leaning the other way. 00:54:41.026 --> 00:54:48.808 - So I'm sorry, I think I missed the very first part of what you said would be, instead of doing something 00:54:48.808 --> 00:54:56.515 - at second reading, do it at first reading, what was that? It's the other way around. OK. It sounds like 00:54:56.515 --> 00:55:04.001 - what I was going to say was that she would prefer the first staff presentation to be the more robust 00:55:04.001 --> 00:55:10.078 - one, and the second one for them to be able to potentially show up online and not 00:55:10.274 --> 00:55:19.045 - have to do as much. And so if they're doing more for the first one, then instead of having council member 00:55:19.045 --> 00:55:27.486 - question comment time limited on the first reading, we should be able to take as much time as we need 00:55:27.486 --> 00:55:35.678 - to, to understand and have that time more limited at the second reading. I think that makes sense. 00:55:35.842 --> 00:55:42.538 - That's the process question right now. Like, how are we gonna present this for our meeting next week? 00:55:42.538 --> 00:55:49.168 - Did we just have the one item for first reading and we don't have anything for second reading? Do we 00:55:49.168 --> 00:55:55.930 - have any resolution? No, it appears that there will be a resolution plus the first reading. Okay. What 00:55:55.930 --> 00:56:01.182 - do we have the first reading? A bottle of water. I guess the other thing that I 00:56:01.410 --> 00:56:07.666 - that we should do next week to make really super duper clear to the public is that whatever process 00:56:07.666 --> 00:56:14.048 - we follow next week is not a precedent for what might happen at the next meeting. Because I feel like 00:56:14.048 --> 00:56:20.366 - there are way too many unanswered questions right now about how we should do this. Yeah, I think I'm 00:56:20.366 --> 00:56:23.870 - not going to know until you start testing things. Yeah. 00:56:24.418 --> 00:56:32.394 - Um, but like that, that's not it. Like I don't, I don't want the public to, you know, show up and say, 00:56:32.394 --> 00:56:40.371 - Oh, well, you did it like this. So you're going to do it like this. Um, and I want to plan, but I also 00:56:40.371 --> 00:56:48.425 - want the public to know that that plan might change. Well, um, it's, it's one o'clock. Uh, we have some 00:56:48.425 --> 00:56:54.078 - other items on the agenda. What I could do is try to summarize like the, 00:56:54.754 --> 00:57:04.762 - the flow chart and the premise about staff time and went to focus the staff time in the first reading. 00:57:04.762 --> 00:57:14.673 - And I could draft a new proposal that I could send to individually committee members and individually 00:57:14.673 --> 00:57:23.710 - reply whether I captured everything. And then we could share that with the council president 00:57:24.098 --> 00:57:32.975 - or a plan for March 4th. Yeah. And I would say, March 4th especially, since it's got a whole lot on 00:57:32.975 --> 00:57:42.385 - it, that we shouldn't limit time on anything, potentially, except for public comment in terms of, because 00:57:42.385 --> 00:57:51.440 - it's large and there's, I talked with Anneke and Hanson yesterday, there's concern about availability 00:57:51.440 --> 00:57:54.014 - later on for the consultant. 00:57:55.362 --> 00:58:04.861 - So if we can get the bulk of things out of the way, then there might be concerns or questions about 00:58:04.861 --> 00:58:14.836 - that might enable that legislation to be treated differently. Well, this committee will meet again until 00:58:14.836 --> 00:58:22.910 - possibly after the second March meeting, right? It depends. We need to discuss that. 00:58:25.282 --> 00:58:33.189 - But yeah, I can do a draft run it by all of you and just pass it on to the House of Person as this is 00:58:33.189 --> 00:58:40.941 - our draft right now. We recommend using this for the time being, but we're still working on it. And 00:58:40.941 --> 00:58:49.236 - we're also going to take feedback as to how things go using this draft. We may try it in certain portions. 00:58:49.236 --> 00:58:54.430 - I found the words might pop out as, yeah, those don't look at all. 00:58:54.530 --> 00:59:01.869 - We'll have to change this. Does that sound okay? I think we're trying over there. Yeah, the method is 00:59:01.869 --> 00:59:09.207 - fine. But as long as like we're communicating with the public when nobody's saying, hey, this is new. 00:59:09.207 --> 00:59:16.618 - I've heard that we're trying to get to the best rhythm for what works for everybody. And sometimes the 00:59:16.618 --> 00:59:22.302 - only way you can do that is just test it. So in the packet for next Wednesday, 00:59:23.234 --> 00:59:29.590 - I don't know if the agenda has already been approved, but I hope the agenda says something about there 00:59:29.590 --> 00:59:35.760 - will be public discussion, there will be council discussion and public comment on this. I was going 00:59:35.760 --> 00:59:42.239 - to ask whether it would be best to just clearly include that on the agenda. The agenda has been approved 00:59:42.239 --> 00:59:48.533 - and we'll have to get back to you, President Osari, for confirmation of what he's going to do in that 00:59:48.533 --> 00:59:51.742 - way. Thank you. Thanks. And then if we are willing, 00:59:52.066 --> 01:00:01.369 - I don't think that we should bother even talking about that right now because we don't have anything 01:00:01.369 --> 01:00:10.672 - up for second reading next week. Right. But then the next regular session after that, the only thing 01:00:10.672 --> 01:00:19.422 - that we have up is hope well, and I'm not sure that so we want to help well in that way. Yeah. 01:00:20.418 --> 01:00:27.353 - I mean, I think that we also, I mean, what we have that motion is suspended for a reason. So that when 01:00:27.353 --> 01:00:34.287 - we know that we're faced with something that's like, that they can do something different. And I mean, 01:00:34.287 --> 01:00:41.154 - we're both pretty big. So, uh, the voice is bad. The rules on the summit district, maybe as well, the 01:00:41.154 --> 01:00:45.598 - structure of the debate. Yeah. All right. Let's go to the public. 01:00:46.146 --> 01:00:53.366 - I remember, and I do apologize to the public who are not in the room, because we did have some things 01:00:53.366 --> 01:01:00.585 - on a whiteboard that are hard to see, even when the camera was pointed there. But yes, let us welcome 01:01:00.585 --> 01:01:07.734 - public comment on what we just talked about, up to three minutes. Well, yeah, I'm assuming we better 01:01:07.734 --> 01:01:15.166 - do somebody else first. No, go ahead. Come on up to the mic. I want to message you, just for this point, 01:01:16.098 --> 01:01:22.108 - First of all, as always, thank you. I love this committee because I think it's important to be good 01:01:22.108 --> 01:01:28.418 - governance. So thank you for your work. My only comment is, oh, sorry. We'll never know. Carrie, answer. 01:01:28.418 --> 01:01:34.488 - My wife and I live in a building. I like the direction that you're trying to do. And I like, I don't 01:01:34.488 --> 01:01:40.678 - think this is your word in that. Don't put words in your mouth, please. Council. Options or something. 01:01:40.678 --> 01:01:45.726 - The option, you should get the options for the council. I think that's a good idea. 01:01:46.242 --> 01:01:52.592 - I'm mostly talking about the larger comments. I also think the comment that was on the screen, it's 01:01:52.592 --> 01:01:59.514 - gone by now, someone named Eric about the public understanding. There it is. How will the public understand? 01:01:59.514 --> 01:02:06.182 - I just want to say yes to that. That's important. It goes back to what they understand in the room about 01:02:06.182 --> 01:02:12.596 - these arrangements across the protocol, but beforehand as well. Now, may I say humbly, the education 01:02:12.596 --> 01:02:15.390 - needs to extend to council members as well. 01:02:16.226 --> 01:02:22.409 - Not just those that are here, but others as well. Any group of humans doing work together need to have 01:02:22.409 --> 01:02:28.413 - some understanding, and the council members don't always seem to completely know what the protocols 01:02:28.413 --> 01:02:34.596 - are for something new. So I'm just saying, that's part of the education, in my one-person opinion. The 01:02:34.596 --> 01:02:40.780 - only other thing I had a question about, there's more questions than I'm going, informal deliberation. 01:02:40.780 --> 01:02:44.862 - There's some, I think, discussion on what guides that a little bit. 01:02:45.346 --> 01:02:51.506 - beyond maybe a typical Robert Fields of Order kind of thing. And you've had documents, one from me, 01:02:51.506 --> 01:02:57.974 - that I should happen to know about, which I don't privilege or prioritize. Don't Rosenberg do something. 01:02:57.974 --> 01:03:04.257 - The protocols that you adopt for those discussions will be interesting and educational and a benefit, 01:03:04.257 --> 01:03:10.787 - because they may make that time you're setting aside. Last thing, just about first treaty, second treaty, 01:03:10.787 --> 01:03:13.374 - once we win, I can understand the dangers 01:03:13.922 --> 01:03:20.603 - even from outside where I sit at the desk, about the time elements. And so the thoughtful options of 01:03:20.603 --> 01:03:27.680 - when you apply what you have is gonna be so important, which you already know. So you don't get in trouble 01:03:27.680 --> 01:03:34.361 - with yourselves and everybody else, including the mayor. And the other question was, and I'll go, is 01:03:34.361 --> 01:03:40.446 - I didn't know whether at that stage where you can decide, okay, here's what we're gonna do, 01:03:41.602 --> 01:03:47.374 - And I've lost track, and I'm not asked to talk about it now. But I don't know if somebody, that whole 01:03:47.374 --> 01:03:53.202 - consensus thing, we're in a more public, and wherever you're calling that these days, I've lost track, 01:03:53.202 --> 01:03:59.030 - as I admit. I'm teaching this semester, what is it called? Deliberation Center. Thank you, I just lost 01:03:59.030 --> 01:04:04.801 - track, I'm too busy right now. Can someone say that's where it should go, at this stage? I don't mean 01:04:04.801 --> 01:04:10.686 - to talk about it, I want you to get out of the next word. I just wasn't clear where you can bring that. 01:04:10.850 --> 01:04:18.804 - There's probably a piece of ripped paper already says all about that. And that's what I'm going to meet 01:04:18.804 --> 01:04:26.222 - with Ms. Crostham. So, so that you can tell me and make sure I have all the fair piece of paper. 01:04:26.222 --> 01:04:34.558 - All right. Thank you. Any public comment from someone online? Any hands raised? I didn't see any. Okay. Yes. 01:04:34.818 --> 01:04:40.461 - I had one more request related to your motions and everything else, which would be to separate that 01:04:40.461 --> 01:04:46.216 - first motion, because right now it's kind of two in one. It's a little bit of a Frankenstein. I moved 01:04:46.216 --> 01:04:52.084 - to introduce and have the clerk read by title and synopsis only. And it always struck me as an odd kind 01:04:52.084 --> 01:04:57.840 - of combination. We don't have to deal with it right now, but I wanted to make sure that you heard the 01:04:57.840 --> 01:05:03.934 - reference as a committee in the chair. I asked them to separate that first motion they tend to make. Sorry. 01:05:04.130 --> 01:05:11.239 - It's just me helping me here. And I'm soft spoken and speaking into the table. My apologies. Yes. I 01:05:11.239 --> 01:05:18.562 - just want to clarify something about conversation going by about what's on the whiteboard, that it was 01:05:18.562 --> 01:05:25.955 - a visual representation of what we were discussing based on what is in the packet. And I can write that 01:05:25.955 --> 01:05:32.638 - up. If you want, it would be probably easier to do that, to take a picture of the whiteboard. 01:05:32.770 --> 01:05:42.499 - in terms of how readable the font is up there. Basically, in the packet, we have a draft procedure that 01:05:42.499 --> 01:05:52.228 - was provided by Isabelle that has number three being the motion to adopt legislation. A trained learner 01:05:52.228 --> 01:06:02.238 - said that there could be a different option there that we could motion to discuss the legislation instead. 01:06:02.498 --> 01:06:08.379 - And then, if we motion to discuss, then we would have to motion to second reading or motion on unanimous 01:06:08.379 --> 01:06:14.036 - consent after discussion. If we motion to adopt, then we have to motion to postpone. So it's the two 01:06:14.036 --> 01:06:19.581 - treaties. And so I just, I hope that that like helps explain that a little bit more to the public. 01:06:19.581 --> 01:06:22.270 - Who's like, what is going on on the whiteboard? 01:06:22.498 --> 01:06:31.854 - The markers were almost out of ink, so you can really barely read it even here in the room. So I think 01:06:31.854 --> 01:06:40.937 - the photo would not benefit, but we will convert this into an actual document that if staff is able 01:06:40.937 --> 01:06:49.566 - to, we'll add to the record for this meeting. Let us go to the next item. Consent agendas. So, 01:06:50.242 --> 01:07:01.687 - Attorney Bennett has kindly prepared some legislation that would add consent agenda to our regular order 01:07:01.687 --> 01:07:12.587 - of business. So we can look at that text. And then I have some discussion points here on our agenda 01:07:12.587 --> 01:07:19.454 - about the implications of having a consent agenda. So let's... 01:07:19.842 --> 01:07:31.971 - Do committee members or staff or anybody have feedback on the legislation draft? Do I get to get feedback 01:07:31.971 --> 01:07:43.643 - on this right now too or do you need to explain that? I'll get to the back then. I generally like it. 01:07:43.643 --> 01:07:46.046 - My only thought was, 01:07:47.682 --> 01:07:53.459 - Uh, so in, in addressing your questions as long as start there, I think. So should staff always be at 01:07:53.459 --> 01:07:59.123 - meetings to present consent agenda items? I feel like generally speaking, none of the items. Oh, do 01:07:59.123 --> 01:08:05.013 - you not want to talk about that right now? Well, I wanted to first look at the language. Okay. If there 01:08:05.013 --> 01:08:10.676 - are any issues with the language. I'm fine with the language. The only thing that I have that is to 01:08:10.676 --> 01:08:16.510 - wonder, like, if things are removed from the consent agenda, should they all be considered right after 01:08:16.930 --> 01:08:22.852 - that instead of having minutes and boards and commissions still be at the same place on either side 01:08:22.852 --> 01:08:28.774 - of reports. So like, because if appointments to boards and commissions and approval minutes are all 01:08:28.774 --> 01:08:34.992 - in the consent agenda, but something that removed from the consent agenda, then I think anything removed 01:08:34.992 --> 01:08:41.151 - from the consent agenda should be all considered at the same place in the agenda. Does that make sense? 01:08:41.151 --> 01:08:43.934 - Do you know what I mean? Yeah, so I think what 01:08:44.674 --> 01:08:53.242 - What we had envisioned at a staff level is like counting those items for minutes to appear on the agenda 01:08:53.242 --> 01:09:01.810 - with maybe implements after that, if removed from the consent agenda. And then of course, if the minutes 01:09:01.810 --> 01:09:10.297 - are approved as a part of the consent agenda, there wouldn't be a need to address minutes as the header 01:09:10.297 --> 01:09:14.622 - on the agenda. I guess I would just propose to like, 01:09:15.074 --> 01:09:23.773 - scratch item four and six of the approval of minutes and appointments, awards, and commissions, and 01:09:23.773 --> 01:09:32.732 - either add a new item for saying something like consideration of items removed from the consent agenda 01:09:32.732 --> 01:09:41.431 - or add a new item after it reports saying the same thing. So then if anything's, you know, so if we 01:09:41.431 --> 01:09:42.910 - decide to remove 01:09:43.490 --> 01:09:48.954 - one set of minutes from the consent agenda and one board appointment from the consent agenda. We're 01:09:48.954 --> 01:09:54.528 - then looking at both of those things at the same place in our agenda where we then look to reconsider 01:09:54.528 --> 01:10:00.047 - them as separate items instead of going, okay, well, we took these things off the consent agenda and 01:10:00.047 --> 01:10:05.730 - now we're gonna do this one and then we're gonna have these reports. And now we have to go back to this 01:10:05.730 --> 01:10:11.249 - thing that we removed from the consent agenda so that we're just like dealing with those removals in 01:10:11.249 --> 01:10:12.670 - the same place instead of 01:10:12.834 --> 01:10:22.730 - separate them. I don't think I had an opinion on whether we do that before reports or after reports. 01:10:22.730 --> 01:10:33.018 - I just think we should do it all at the same time. So then, just as an example, number four, under owner 01:10:33.018 --> 01:10:41.150 - of business would be to consider items for consideration of items from the agenda. 01:10:41.474 --> 01:10:48.760 - right from the consent agenda and five, it's still the reports and then six would be legislation for 01:10:48.760 --> 01:10:55.757 - first readings and seven would be second and subsequent readings and those solutions, et cetera, 01:10:55.757 --> 01:11:03.403 - et cetera. Or go for number three, the consent agenda to number four reports to number five consideration 01:11:03.403 --> 01:11:08.958 - of item two or from the consent agenda. Like I have no real opinion on that. 01:11:10.274 --> 01:11:19.840 - Yeah, so that's because it might be legislation. So clerk open. I have a question, which may require 01:11:19.840 --> 01:11:29.501 - that somebody actually taking break right now. But have you looked at how the county actually handles 01:11:29.501 --> 01:11:36.510 - their consent agendas or asked for guidance or input from council people. 01:11:37.538 --> 01:11:46.621 - We did look at the, I can't recall if it was an ordinance or a resolution that was adopted at the council 01:11:46.621 --> 01:11:55.789 - staff level. Yeah, but I don't know that we went beyond that and had a discussion with Deputy Kirk Prosler 01:11:55.789 --> 01:11:57.246 - or anybody else. 01:11:57.794 --> 01:12:07.205 - When they had a discussion with Deputy Clerk Crossley that you know, I've tried one with County Council 01:12:07.205 --> 01:12:16.526 - Member Crossley. I'm sorry, County Council President Crossley. President Crossley, my bad. Do you mind 01:12:16.526 --> 01:12:25.756 - taking a break right now? I can hear officially. Please allow me to take a break. President Crossley, 01:12:25.756 --> 01:12:27.294 - what a surprise. 01:12:27.490 --> 01:12:37.089 - Yeah, that's like wonderful. So at the council level, we usually do consent or agenda items when it 01:12:37.089 --> 01:12:47.167 - comes to minutes and other things like accounts creation wants. And so we have had people have questions 01:12:47.167 --> 01:12:56.094 - where council members have said, and I kind of want to separate this from the entire motion. 01:12:56.482 --> 01:13:03.178 - And we have, and so instead of having it go into, because we've also rearranged our agenda items too, 01:13:03.178 --> 01:13:10.004 - to kind of make the flow of the meeting a little bit better. But instead what we do is, if for example, 01:13:10.004 --> 01:13:16.766 - council member A decides to separate something because they want to have more questions about why this 01:13:16.766 --> 01:13:23.396 - line is created or minutes of some sort, because they think there's something that they just want to 01:13:23.396 --> 01:13:24.446 - say or discuss. 01:13:24.706 --> 01:13:32.614 - Instead, we don't have, we don't put it into like council agenda items or separate sub area of our agenda. 01:13:32.614 --> 01:13:40.596 - We just vote on the overall where a person has not separated everything. So like we will vote on everything 01:13:40.596 --> 01:13:48.282 - that's not separated. And then we tackle in that next round after we're done with that, we go into just 01:13:48.282 --> 01:13:53.086 - dealing with whatever it is that is separated. So, and you know, 01:13:53.282 --> 01:14:00.713 - make a motion, go from there. And then after that, we, you know, we'll take role, deal with that, and 01:14:00.713 --> 01:14:08.143 - then we move on. So it's rare. I'm not going to say rare. Well, occasionally it comes up. But usually 01:14:08.143 --> 01:14:16.157 - it's because they want to have a discussion of whatever it is that's happening. And usually those discussions 01:14:16.157 --> 01:14:16.958 - are brief. 01:14:17.250 --> 01:14:24.284 - And usually also council members will look at the agenda to and go out our question about that was that 01:14:24.284 --> 01:14:31.182 - in the consent agenda. So it's also coming up on council members to do their due diligence and do all 01:14:31.182 --> 01:14:37.945 - the pre work ahead of the meeting so that you can have those questions asked of whatever department 01:14:37.945 --> 01:14:39.230 - or whatever it is. 01:14:39.458 --> 01:14:46.827 - that's in the consent agenda items from sign of questions about. So I would recommend to my colleagues, 01:14:46.827 --> 01:14:54.195 - it's really upon all nine of you all to kind of do your free work of whatever it is that you might have 01:14:54.195 --> 01:14:59.934 - with respect to your consent agenda. Again, it's like the KISS method instead of 01:15:00.130 --> 01:15:05.649 - the last word would you say silly keep it simple silly um but you know it's it's really like trying 01:15:05.649 --> 01:15:11.278 - to keep it like that because our agenda's got way too long when we were talking about a lot of things 01:15:11.278 --> 01:15:16.907 - and we also had a lot of departments that were there you know like sitting there having to figure out 01:15:16.907 --> 01:15:22.425 - if they need to flex their time because they're sitting there just waiting on something that can be 01:15:22.425 --> 01:15:27.006 - done in like communities and so the intent is is to do all of this i want those to 01:15:27.202 --> 01:15:36.712 - As long as no one has any kind of objections to anything and usually we just keep it for them. 01:15:36.712 --> 01:15:46.823 - Thank you. And I have a hard stop at 130. Yes, we're going to have to discuss consent agendas again. 01:15:46.823 --> 01:15:53.630 - I just want to clarify what the president process said in terms of. 01:15:53.826 --> 01:16:00.459 - what's on our sheet. So that suggestion would be number three would be consent agenda and we would scratch 01:16:00.459 --> 01:16:06.659 - number four and scratch number six. Okay. In the consent agenda thing, if you have a small question 01:16:06.659 --> 01:16:13.168 - about one item, can you just ask that question without separating it from the rest? Yes, you can. Right. 01:16:13.168 --> 01:16:16.702 - And usually we do that all the time because as presiding 01:16:17.090 --> 01:16:25.022 - Officer of the meeting, I'll look around and say, are there any questions or comments for the consent 01:16:25.022 --> 01:16:33.265 - agenda items as presented? No. And then we will go on about the day. And then usually, of course, because 01:16:33.265 --> 01:16:41.353 - it's consent agenda items, as long as everybody is present and no one is virtual, you can do voice vote 01:16:41.353 --> 01:16:46.174 - and then move on. So in this case, parliamentarian would say, 01:16:46.402 --> 01:16:53.522 - I have approval of the consent agenda, there would be a second, and then there would be a, does anybody 01:16:53.522 --> 01:17:00.438 - have questions or discussion items around the consent agenda? And then take the vote, at least for a 01:17:00.438 --> 01:17:07.490 - contest. It sounds great to me. Okay, let us take off this discussion at our next meeting. Did we want 01:17:07.490 --> 01:17:12.830 - to do public comment? Yes, is there any public comment about consent agendas? 01:17:19.138 --> 01:17:28.854 - See any? Let us try to schedule a monthly meeting time that works for everybody. And we'll have to move 01:17:28.854 --> 01:17:38.384 - the other agenda items to our next meeting. So this time, it usually does not work for me. So I guess 01:17:38.384 --> 01:17:47.166 - it's something else to be here. Well, and I clearly like the NPO was supposed to end at noon. 01:17:47.970 --> 01:17:57.932 - and they did not today. Often, it's much shorter than the hour and a half it's allotted, and it was 01:17:57.932 --> 01:18:07.893 - not today. So, at the end of the meeting, you just probably haven't been just this. So, I know that 01:18:07.893 --> 01:18:16.062 - Courtney has pretty limited availability in Sydney on this program, so are there, 01:18:16.546 --> 01:18:26.138 - Noon times, 4 p.m. times, and I know that clerks staff and council staff probably prefers to have it 01:18:26.138 --> 01:18:35.635 - within the work day. In the work day, we prefer meetings? During the work day. In our office? Yeah, 01:18:35.635 --> 01:18:45.132 - that's the ideal. So I could, Wednesdays are just definitely a no for me, unfortunately. I could do 01:18:45.132 --> 01:18:46.462 - four o'clock, 01:18:47.490 --> 01:18:56.409 - I could do four o'clock. Tuesdays and Thursday, four o'clock are better for me, but not deal breakers. 01:18:56.409 --> 01:19:05.414 - 12.30 on Mondays I could do. I should say middle of the days. Right. It depends on the day, the weekend 01:19:05.414 --> 01:19:14.072 - and the specific time, right? So like Monday at noon, no, Monday at 12.30. Yes, but we have to keep 01:19:14.072 --> 01:19:16.670 - it to an hour. Sorry, I know. 01:19:17.154 --> 01:19:31.271 - I apologize. Tuesdays and Thursdays at noon, I could probably do four an hour, an hour and a half. Would 01:19:31.271 --> 01:19:41.758 - a Tuesday or Thursday at four, for an hour and a half work? Right now, if you 01:19:41.890 --> 01:19:49.030 - Because it's counted processes and frequently we are talking about board's admissions, I would recommend 01:19:49.030 --> 01:19:56.238 - that you not do it on Tuesdays. Right, yes. Because that will come up against some other responsibilities 01:19:56.238 --> 01:20:03.310 - for staff. But I think service days are manageable. I don't know how it's going to address that. Sorry. 01:20:03.310 --> 01:20:10.654 - It's good to know. I mean, so four o'clock is just the lesson of the old time within my life at this point. 01:20:12.290 --> 01:20:19.290 - It's like doable if that's the only option. I just much prefer the middle of the day. So like a middle 01:20:19.290 --> 01:20:26.291 - of the day I can do, but I really prefer to keep it to an hour if we have to work in the middle of the 01:20:26.291 --> 01:20:33.087 - day. Just because, right, then for me it is an hour and a half, right, with the travel time. And so 01:20:33.087 --> 01:20:35.806 - I'm out of work for an hour and a half. 01:20:38.018 --> 01:20:49.092 - Is your Thursday for no place to be? Yes, I'm here. There's one day a month where it's not. It's usually 01:20:49.092 --> 01:21:00.061 - the same Thursday. Okay, how about the third Thursday? Next month that falls into the break. Are people 01:21:00.061 --> 01:21:04.702 - around? I don't have to be here. I am here. 01:21:08.226 --> 01:21:19.710 - I live back on the 18th, so I'm here often. Third? Thursday? Yes. At noon? No. Or are we running on 01:21:19.710 --> 01:21:31.538 - 4 to 5.30? I would prefer. Is that feasible? Oh. Thursday at 4 to 5.30, is that feasible? On the 19th? 01:21:31.538 --> 01:21:37.854 - We don't have staff, or we're very short of staff. OK. 01:21:38.754 --> 01:21:46.605 - Okay, so maybe Thursday. Generally speaking on Thursdays. On Thursdays, I think it looks good. I'm trying 01:21:46.605 --> 01:21:54.159 - to do a quick and dirty scan. You can also do fourth Thursdays, since it's pretty the minor of today. 01:21:54.159 --> 01:22:01.714 - I would honestly prefer the third and a more regular thing, because as it goes on to the BZA meetings 01:22:01.714 --> 01:22:06.750 - right now, there were a few things that I'm like, oh, I don't know. 01:22:06.978 --> 01:22:14.939 - And I know I'm half of our ones, but yeah, sevens have just been really long, but maybe next month could 01:22:14.939 --> 01:22:22.748 - be the 26th. And then moving forward, we could do the third Thursday. How does that feel for the parks 01:22:22.748 --> 01:22:30.329 - office? I'm checking. In the abstract, I think it's going to be fine. I would let you know if there 01:22:30.329 --> 01:22:34.878 - are any other conflicts. Is that comfortable for everybody? 01:22:37.346 --> 01:22:46.075 - But our next meeting is gonna be the 26th at four. Can't do that. Oh. Okay. I'm going to Seattle. Oh, 01:22:46.075 --> 01:22:54.718 - right. Well, what about the week before spring break, Thursday the 12th? I can't. That's when I have 01:22:54.718 --> 01:23:03.018 - voice readout day board, perhaps. Okay. Thursday at 12 or Thursday at four? Four. Yeah, at four, 01:23:03.018 --> 01:23:06.270 - the 12th, March 12th is what I meant. 01:23:06.658 --> 01:23:12.706 - Oh, and. Yeah, that's the second Thursday, so we can't. OK, got it. Right. And we can't eat it. Because 01:23:12.706 --> 01:23:18.637 - we can't do it. OK. OK, what is your Friday thing at? It's Institute New. You've got major works. OK. 01:23:18.637 --> 01:23:24.801 - You've got to get conflicts. Is it personal? I volunteer at the community kitchen. That's very important. 01:23:24.801 --> 01:23:30.907 - I mean, I could do it every week. I could do it another time. No, it's fine. Do you do that? Or a Friday 01:23:30.907 --> 01:23:36.606 - cruise. Stuff. Do you do that every week? Yes. I would like to validate your volunteer hours. OK. 01:23:36.706 --> 01:23:44.372 - Well, what were the other days that were good for you, Courtney, the other days of four? It was Tuesday. 01:23:44.372 --> 01:23:51.745 - I mean, are we talking just for this once? Yes. Any day of the Wednesday, I could probably make work 01:23:51.745 --> 01:23:59.119 - as long as I don't already have a meeting scheduled on that. What about Monday, the 23rd? I can't do 01:23:59.119 --> 01:24:05.470 - that. I have the downtown business meeting. The 24th? What did you say about the 24th? 01:24:06.178 --> 01:24:12.815 - I just said, how about the 24th? You won't have Deputy Kirk Crossley, but the 24th at four? Yes, but 01:24:12.815 --> 01:24:19.584 - I will just raise, if we're going to talk about boards and commissions, we probably should have Deputy 01:24:19.584 --> 01:24:26.222 - Kirk Crossley. Are we going to talk about boards and commissions? We can put that off another month. 01:24:26.222 --> 01:24:32.793 - OK, that's fine. I just want to be aware if we're not going to have someone. So we could do consent 01:24:32.793 --> 01:24:35.422 - agenda, the council member sponsorship, 01:24:37.090 --> 01:24:44.882 - and revisit the. Yes. And that would probably take an hour and a half right there. Right there. 01:24:44.882 --> 01:24:53.080 - There we go. So March 24th at 4 PM. And then starting in April, we're going to do the third Thursday 01:24:53.080 --> 01:25:01.196 - at 4. And that works for everybody. And the park is going to post those. And so I don't have to put 01:25:01.196 --> 01:25:06.878 - them on my calendar, because they are usually refreshed. So accurate. 01:25:07.362 --> 01:25:22.133 - Yeah. And so that's third Thursday in April is the 16th. It is one 30. Yeah. Oh, super. All right. Thank 01:25:22.133 --> 01:25:26.494 - you all. Thank you, everybody.