So implementation of discussion at first reading. So I drafted just a first proposal for how this could
work, including procedure or first readings and then how to take the item up again for second readings.
So I don't know if we can get that displayed or maybe it's not necessary.
So there would be a first reading motion to introduce the legislation, then a vote to introduce the
legislation. The clerk, as has been our practice for a long time, the clerk reads the title of synopsis,
then there's a vote to adopt. Then there would be a staff presentation, council member questions, public
comment, and here's where we need to think about this.
My proposal was to limit that public comment to 30 minutes. And then I said no council member discussion,
but I've talked to Council President Asari since then, and he was thinking that it would be beneficial
to have council member discussion or comments, especially if people are thinking about amendments. And
then there would be a motion to postpone.
I'd love to hear feedback. I think council staff may have some feedback on this as well, so. Yes, I
thought about this in preparation for today's meeting, and I think there are various ways that this
can be structured. One option is to take the framework that you just presented, but to incorporate
an alternative to committee of the whole within the main motion to adopt. There was some discussion
about the committee of the whole during the last council meeting. It's kind of an awkward feature under
Robert's rules. It's really designed for very large bodies.
Um, and there has been, um, some guidance from the public access counselor, expressing concerns about
noticing it, committee as a whole, under the indoor law. Um, but there is an alternative to it in Robert's
rules, um, which is designed more for smaller bodies like council. And it's, it's called, um, informal
consideration.
Um, so at the point where the motion to adopt the main motion is adopted, um, there could, um, and if
that passes, then there could be, uh, a motion to consider informally. Uh, the president could kind
of cross that topic by, by saying something to the effect of, you know,
I'd like to consider this informally or is somebody interested in making a motion to consider
this informally? And then that presents a more relaxed way of discussing the matter too. Would that
include, sorry, am I just blanking?
Let's keep going. I'll let you know. It just left my mind as soon as I had the opportunity. So a council
member at that point could move that the question be considered internally. And then at that point,
you know, there's a staff presentation for the council members, their questions, et cetera. And then
when that's concluded,
or when at such time that a council member feels that it's time to move on, then a council member could
make a motion to conclude the informal consideration. So then if nobody makes that motion to consider
informal consideration, that means we're just not going to discuss it. If we don't have anything to
discuss, we can keep moving on. Exactly. Like that. Because that was going to be my question about this
whole thing. Is this opening up to us falling into a trap of,
always discussing everything. Yeah, that's a good point. Right. So wait, I want to make sure I understand
what Terri Layner was saying. So this would be, would the motion to move to for informal consideration,
would that for after the motion to introduce the legislation? Yeah, so it would work exactly as you
stated, motion to introduce and read, just like we've done now.
Motion to adopt and then the motion to consider informally as a subsidiary motion. So it would be number
three instead of motion to adopt legislation, it would be motion to consider informally. Is that right?
No, there would still be number three and then the motion to consider informally would be between three
and four. Okay. Why would we need a motion to adopt if we're just going to consider informally?
Well, and that potentially is another option. There could be a motion to discuss or to consider. I think
that potentially that could stand as a main motion and then staff presentation, council member discussion,
public comment, what have you. And then potentially a motion to move the matter to second reading or
in the alternatives, you know, you want to keep options open so that if there is a situation or like
an urgent need to approve something at first reading, somebody could make a motion for unanimous to
consider the affordance for adoption during first season. So maybe try to envision this as a flow chart
where at different steps there may be branches with options depending upon how council members want
to proceed. My only hesitation with the motion to discuss or to consider is
You know, maybe, maybe quick bold and you have, you know, Something to add to this, whether that would
stand as a main motion to support the discussion in that event. No, I don't have anything to add. Okay.
So you want to leave room for a motion to unanimously move the item? That would be after there is discussion.
I mean the one potential benefit of this motion to consider informally is it is informal. So there wouldn't
necessarily have to be like time restrictions that apply to
to council member comments, for example. I think one or two council members during the last meeting
expressed support for having an informal discussion, like what was happening with committee of the whole.
So that might be one benefit of the first option I described. I'm worried that,
the more flexibility we give the council, the more confusion we create for both the public and for the
staff who might potentially have to present the legislation. I mean, if they get all ready to present
and take, you know, arrange their childcare and whatever, and they're there, and then we decide, oh,
we don't need to discuss it for Syria. That's- Agreed. I thought about that. But my thought was, I think,
well, maybe we have to,
I think we would know ahead of time or a council member would know ahead of time if they wanted to have
the discussion. Yeah, I guess. So in my brain, the way I was envisioning it, which saying it out loud
isn't quite as clean as I saw it in my brain, was we would look at something, we would kind of know
ahead of time if we wanted to discuss something and then we would let staff know. It would stop putting your pen.
Oh, thank you. Thank you. We would kind of informally know on our own ahead of time. We sense what the
bigger topics are that we're going to be wanting to talk about. And then other ones, I think we kind
of know as a body too, which ones aren't going to be a big deal versus which ones are. So then we would
give notification to staff that, hey, we plan to talk about it. But then I guess we would want to implement
a deadline for when we officially have that, which does complicate it again. Well, I think it would
have to be on the agenda noted somehow that we expect a discussion of the science. That's fair. Not
just the staff or public also. That's fair. I think this will be a process of testing certain things
and then deciding what works. But to the point you were just discussing,
I think the president would make some decision and potentially prepare a memo before the meeting, like
as to what maybe some expectations were, because some decision will need to be made so that staff in
the panel, whether they should be present at first reading. And I think it also raises the question,
do you want city staff then to
be present at both first reading and second reading? Or is first reading largely going to be like renewed
second reading and that's where staff make the presentation, questions are asked, and then maybe there's
not the expectation that they'd be present for second reading also? Well, the whole point of first and
second reading is that we have the opportunity to ask questions without
bringing it to a vote immediately. Exactly. And then like, if we don't get those questions in writing,
then really our only opportunity to hear it as a full body is at the next meeting. And so like,
unless staff, it would be willing to provide like a full memo on like all the questions that were asked
in advance. Those are, those are our two options. Cause that was probably attention. So during first reading,
Council members ask questions after staff presentation. Staff then take those questions and then provide
answers by a particular deadline back to council members, let's say by the Friday before the second
reading meeting. Those answers could be provided by staff to
to council members, and they could also go into the packet for the next meeting. That could be an option
as well. Some questions might take more than two days to answer. No, I'm thinking, well, this assumes
that there are like two weeks or more between the two meetings. But are we, are any of us willing to
take a vote on something that we can ask questions the night of?
No, I think staff has to be there. Okay, I would agree. Okay, I don't think there's a way around that.
Okay. And just to go back, because you mentioned Committee of the Whole and that this idea would be
important consideration could take the place of what we used to do with Committee of the Whole. As council
member here who was on council when we did Committee of the Whole,
I have to tell you, it was just as formal as any other meeting. It's not like we all sat in a circle
and bounced ideas off each other. It was like, raise your hand, yes, council member so-and-so, go ahead,
no, council member. It's not the formality of the process that's tripping me up. I've never been comfortable
with the idea that we vote right after we ask our questions and have our conversation. I mean, I know
we can ask questions ahead of time, but deeper things get,
unlocked and dug up when I hear my colleagues asking questions and I hear their line of thinking, oh,
I wouldn't have thought of it that way. So that's why I really support a discussion at first. So Hopi?
I'm really, really sorry that I was at an MPO meeting that is still going on, actually.
So are we debating whether or not there should be just council member questions or council member comments,
or what exactly is the question on the table about how this should be? So just presenting two different
options on possibilities for. There's two different options. Not actually three, probably more. Okay,
what is the concern right now?
versus like informal discussion. No, I mean, I don't think anybody's talking about brain committee.
I don't want that. Yeah. So, so I think what Lisa was saying is, so if we look at our list here, first
reading, after a motion to adopt legislation, somebody could move to consider it under informal
consideration. Yeah, there's a thing in Robert's book. There could be a motion to consider
Good question. So, like, instead of a motion to adopt, we could move to consider it. Now, a motion for
a formal consideration is a subsidiary motion, so there would still be the motion to adopt. Is there
any motion for it? What's the difference between procedure if you have informal consideration versus
just the motion to adopt?
Well, we already covered this. No. The motion to consider informally doesn't stand on its own. It needs
a main motion. But in terms of how the discussion would go, how would that be different? Well, if there's
a motion to adopt and then discussion, then arguably there's a need to be more formal in terms of
time limits potentially on council member comments, et cetera. The motion to consider it formally is
kind of, it's like committee as a whole that there are relaxed procedures. So then we're discussing
that amongst us, whether we like that idea. So I'll talk with you. Well, and how we can,
make it feasible for staff to know and the public to know whether there will be discussion first reading
or whether they won't. Right. So coming into this, I didn't even think about, oh, maybe there are times
when we don't want it because it's a straightforward thing. Yeah, exactly. We need to make sure everybody
knows that. How do we decide that ahead of time and all? Yeah, is that something that the House of Presidents
want to decide? Well, I think we can also like ask, hey, was there anyone who was planning on speaking on this?
Well, during the meeting. Ask the public. Well, is the concern then like the idea that we could on first
reading just motion to introduce as we normally do and then not have any discussion over it? And then
if there's somebody from the public who wanted to discuss it, then that doesn't leave space for public comment.
I mean, I guess I could just imagine like it going like this and it being something, say, like pretty
basic from the controller's office. And, you know, the controller, maybe he's maybe would have to be
there or maybe would end or maybe, you know, have a two line memo like this is what this does. And we
often don't have any comment on those sorts of things anyway, or questions on those sorts of things
anyway. So it'd be like, do council members have concerns or questions for this? And then if you don't,
does the public have any,
of any comment for this. And then that allows the public comment. But maybe, I mean, just because we
as council members can ask the question or make the comment doesn't mean that we have to. I'm not cheering.
I was waiting for you to stop talking. I was waiting for her to look over at me, but I was listening
to you. It's just her face. So,
In the past, when you guys have had discussions where you wanted to have that discussion on first reading
or if you were anticipating something unusual in terms of presentation, you usually indicate or you
have indicated like on the agenda or in the packet in some way to notify the public like, hey, we are
anticipating some level of discussion here.
So part of it doesn't have to necessarily be in your process. It can just be in the way you communicate
to them and establish some basic, we're going to talk about this. We're going to talk a lot about it.
We're going to have a whole bunch of questions we're going to ask of staff. And if you have any questions,
make sure you bring them here. You can do it through your packet. You can also do it through your separate
channels, your sub stacks and your social media, your sky writing.
I don't know. But I think some of that is just, you know, when you're talking about staff not knowing
or members of public not knowing as part of it is incumbent upon us to tell them beyond this process.
I mean, because we could, my assumption after that legislation that we passed last week was that essentially
everything for first reading now is going to have the potential of
A discussion is going to have some measure of presentation. And the potential for public comment and
that everything is going to be like that. And so then it especially is communicating public like even
when an asterisk And and maybe that's maybe just an asterisk on everything that that could potentially
be discussed like
this could be discussed, this could be discussed, this could be discussed in terms of all of
that legislation. And I mean, come on, we know, the public knows, everybody knows, staff knows, when
there's gonna be an mayor knows, I care, when there's gonna be something on the agenda that's, that
is interesting, that is some kind of like, you know. Sometimes things that seem routine, some, one colleague might,
find something that is problematic that I didn't think of. I also looked at it the way that Hopi did,
and I actually don't see a problem with just saying, we're going to have discussion as much discussion
as we're going to allow discussion at first reading for everything. And then just say, oh, they have
no questions. Go to the public, they have no question. Go to the comment, we have no
That's true. Right, just automatically. So there's going to be a presentation for everything at first
reading. And that might make things more just like clear to the public in terms of like expectations.
I'm coming. This is what I can expect. Right. And I mean, it's not to be long. And that's where, like,
when I was looking at this, I was like, do we want to put time limits on all of these things? Like,
that's what I literally have written down. Like, do we want a staff presentation at first reading to
be really short? Or maybe we want a staff presentation at second reading to be really short.
and first reading to be longer. Right now we have no limits on council member questions in second reading,
but do we want to put those on first reading? What I want to avoid, which I said last time, was I want
to avoid two very long and very similar periods of debate, of questions, of comments, of public comments.
Well, questions, I think that it's. Well, no, it's repeated. It's the same. It's like the same questions,
the same like. Well, hopefully council members will get their questions answered. That's the point.
Yes. We can also limit, we could do the same style of questions that we do during budget season, where
every council member has a certain amount of time to ask all of their questions. And then if you don't
get them in, feel free to submit them in writing because you will have another opportunity to get those
questions answered.
And I would also, one of the things that I was thinking in some of these first reading things, a piece
of information that I might really want to know isn't necessarily a question I have of staff, but a
question I have of colleagues. Like I read this, I'm not sure how I feel about this thing. I'm thinking
of amending it in this way. Colleagues, tell me what you think about this, because then it's like, should
I take this time and do this amendment that may or may not have agreement? And then that saves me time.
I'm trying to call at least, you know, four or five other people in support of this amendment that I'm
going to do. And so I wasn't sure I was kind of, I was questioning the no council member discussion
because then it's like, well, like, and so maybe that's like, well, we have three minutes of council
member questions or discussion or comments, because sometimes it's just a comment too. Like I was actually
specifically thinking about Hopewell and then going, I don't think I have a question right now, but
I have a concern that it's not a question. And so it's like,
I kind of like, how am I going to address this? Because it doesn't even like, it doesn't easily fit
into this. I think it would follow to have some other questions. Well, in theory it would, but we don't
have to put, I guess what I'm saying is that when we have this procedure, it's documented at the meeting.
So same council member questions, that's council member questions and comment. Sure. And it's a piece,
you know, yeah, three minutes a piece, including any kind of response that we're asking for from staff.
Wait, so we had, yeah, before you arrived, we had our question in the middle council member discussion.
I had spoken with Council Member Asari and we also thought we should have discussion because of possible
amendments on suging. So are you saying if, I think you raised an interesting point, like after the
staff presentation and some questions,
If I say, hey, I'm thinking of this amendment, what do y'all think? Does that go under council member
questions? That is not a question for staff. Or it could go under discussion. I think it would. It's
not a council member comment, but it is. I think one of the benefits of the way that it goes directly
from public comment to a motion to postpone is that then council members don't get in the weeds potentially
responding to public comment.
So that's where I like Sydney's idea of going, well, it's like we do a budget time. We have these three
minutes, each of us have these three minutes after the staff presentation to do whatever we want. Whether
it's inquire, make inquiries with staff, make inquiries of each other, put comments out into the void
and say, these are the things I'm making, like I'm interested in your, you know, like, I mean, if I'm
the first speaker and I say,
You know, and if I know going into it, I'm like, I really want to hear from my colleagues about this
thing. Then I might go, Hey, I want to be the first speaker because after everybody, like when everybody
else takes their turn, I would love to know a quick, like, yeah, I'm kind of interested in that. I think
that's a terrible idea. I don't know. I want to hear more about it in terms of the details. Cause that,
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
calling it three minutes.
whatever you want, and then go to public comment, and then immediately go to promotion to postpone.
Yeah. I think the other thing is like, since public comment is 30 minutes, you know, our time's 3.27.
Our transition time's about 30 minutes. I like that we're on, I know, I recognize. 30 minutes is not
enough for test fact. I think at first reading it shouldn't be. I like five minutes. 45 minutes is not
too much. As long as second reading ends up being short. Yeah.
Right. We can always try. Okay. My son reminds us to try to five minutes and if it gets obnoxiously
long, then we turn it down, which theoretically then we're, we're, you know, in this plan and lingering
questions that we have, we're putting in writing and then we're getting those addressed for second reading.
So that should, in theory, at down second reading time in theory, in theory, maybe we could just accept
like a six-month check-in, if we do five minutes in six months, the same body can re-evaluate, hey,
is this working, is it not working? I suspect if it's not working, we'll all know before six months.
I suspect that as well. You never know. The five minutes that you're discussing, that would begin with
council's next meeting. Yes. Oh, yeah.
And we would need to clarify that it's five minutes all in one go. Yes. And that once you have had your
five minutes, you're done. If you only use two minutes, I'm sorry. Because that's too much for staff
to keep track of. Yeah, that's not fair. No. So then just following through with your example,
Then when the discussion is complete, somebody would make a motion to postpone the matter to a date
certain. After the public comment. Yeah. Yeah. So after public comment, back to council. The president
would say, OK, seeing no more public comment, back to council for a motion. Yeah. And then it would
probably be the parliamentarian who makes all the other motions.
to motion to postpone to the next regular session. You have to, in that motion, postpone to the next
regular session. Okay. Yeah. Then at the second reading, are you envisioning motion to introduce and
read? Again, so with the second reading- I think we have to- No, we have the motion to- Yeah,
but you may, the presiding chair, in that case, I guess the president,
would take up the postponed motion, and then the second reading would need to occur within that space
too. I don't know that there would need to be a motion to read it again. That's what we've always done
though. I put that up in Robert's rules, if you don't need a new motion.
Okay, even though we've always, that's what we've always done at this point, like if something from
second reading gets postponed to third reading, then we always introduce it again at the third reading
time. And I guess that's, I don't know if there's anything wrong with this. I mean, this is not Indiana
law, grammar schools are not. So if we have a new motion, we open it up to,
a roll call vote on the motion, and it could be stymied, like the motion introduced a second time. I'm
not saying any colleague would do that, but it opens that door in case somebody wants to respond in
again. I mean, it might take time if for any reason staff wasn't able to provide answers in time, and
there were important questions that were asked. That might be one.
opportunity that we would have to continue it. Although you could do that after. Yeah. That's true,
too. But I guess I more meant like for time's sake, if we needed, if like we know automatically, hey,
we're not going to be able to vote on this tonight. X, Y, Z needs to be addressed. It might just save
us some, but. Because the motion to introduce is debatable. If there's that issue, then anybody can
say. Oh, yeah. We don't always do that. We did that last year.
You know, another option that I flashed out also was to start with the promotion to introduce the read,
a motion to discuss, which then would be seconded and voted on, and then do the discussion or whatever.
And then a motion to move to second reading.
or if a vote wanted to be, if a council member desired that it be voted upon at first reading, a motion
for the ERS consideration or consent to consider the ordinance for adoption at first reading. So that's-
I like that way better. Well, here's my question with that. I mean, can the motion to discuss the motion
I don't know, I think so. So it would be in procedure of first reading. So it's the motion to introduce
and read and the clerk reads. And then instead of having a motion to adopt, we have a motion to discuss,
which is a different, I like it because it's a different signal to the public that we're not going to
adopt this tonight. We're going to talk about it. And then everything stays the same, except instead
of postponing, we're motioning to move it to second reading.
Well, if there's a motion to discuss passes, right. What is a motion to go to second reading? It's just
saying that it goes to second reading. Yeah, or maybe like move to second reading on a specific day.
It's only we don't need to do that because it kind of automatically goes to second reading in our process.
It's very similar to a motion to postpone it, except that when we postpone, we're doing not attached
to adopting legislation. Because in the motion to adopt, we've already said we're going to adopt it.
So right now, we're postponing a decision about adopting. But if we're only discussing, then at the
end of the discussion, then we have to say, OK, when are we going to take up this legislation again?
Well, we're going to move on to second reading. I feel affected for a chief at Markham what a second
reading does, which is a motion to adopt.
What do you all think? I would agree. So do you have any comments? No, I'm just confused. Sorry. Because
at the beginning, we talked about motion to adopt and then motioning for informal discussion or whatever.
So I'm getting these mixed now. Now I'm confused about the flow chart. Well, I think that everyone
because it's the motion for informal discussion or informal consideration has to be underneath another
motion. So you can't motion for informal consideration directly, but you can motion for discussion correctly.
So discussion would have to follow all the other like Robert's Rules formalities, which is how our discussion
normally does, but we're discussing instead of actually considering that question. So at the end of
it, so when we have a motion to adopt, it's like, we have to vote on that motion.
Like there's like a motion on the table that we have to vote on. I see. And a motion to discuss, there's
nothing that we vote on. Motion to discuss is different from a motion to consider informally. Right.
That would be the flow of that. Right. So like we could, because the informal discussion has
to be underneath. That has to be like a layer. It's a flow chart thing. It's like it's been inserted
under something else. You can't have it stand by itself. It's just so wonky.
Yeah. Yeah. But the motion to discuss it, it can stand by itself. Okay. So why would we do like,
you know, right? Yeah. So potential, I guess that could be. So why would we what? Why would we go? Okay.
Motion to discuss that passes motion to consider informal. No, we wouldn't put that on, but we would
just be a motion to discuss motion to discuss motion to adopt. Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. We need a
flow. I feel dense right now. I'm very sorry. Okay. I get it.
Oh yeah, there's a whiteboard. So where does that leave us in terms of if there is a situation where
we want to vote on the document or on that legislation and first reading? Could we not move to adopt
post discussion? Yes, that's what I was going to put that slow chart. Yeah, that's what I would say.
It would be a motion to end
that discussion and then move on to like that branch where the motion, that question is moved to a second
reading or there's a motion to adopt for unanimous, cause you need the motion for unanimous consent
at the first reading in order to even vote on it. All right. And that could be like, ah, so, so this
would be like motion for unanimous consent with that first
Yeah. But that would be like after public comment. So it's, I'm going to have to put this on the board.
Would it be, I move to suspend the rules and I will have the council to vote on this tonight? I don't
think the measure needs to be suspended. I think the vote would occur as long as there's unanimous consent
first. Okay. And then the two thirds
About on the actual word. So what would the motion look like though, like I moved for unanimous consent
to consider this tonight. Yeah, I think it would be something to be to the extent of I know for unanimous
consent to consider the ordinance for adoption, but I Okay.
So I do want to check in with the mayor about this because it would this change leads to why staff have
to be here. I guess questions of use, which is something we used to do under the previous years. But
you want to weigh in on any concerns about that? Yeah, we do have
fairly significant concerns about the expectation that staff be there twice, especially, well,
twice period, but especially if these sort of prolonged on the spot, questioning and public comment
periods on deliberation. So I guess part of the question is, does the council believe that it would
be the exception to the rule that there would be
a motion for unanimous consent to move forward to the vote, or would it be standard to go to second
and have another full discussion at second? Because right now, we expect to be at one council meeting,
and with exceptions, we go to two. You have first reading, and then it ends up going to three meetings.
But this seems to pivot it to be, we always come to two.
And that's concerning. We're maxed out and it's not going to get better. In terms of staff time, it's
not going to get better because we've already said we can't hire any new staff with SDA warrant at least
through July 27th, but likely 28th. Well, to answer your question, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
that the committee members might say
that it is the assumption that it would have two things. Then staff would be present. First staff would
be present. Because of the way that things were written on the board. That's right. Is it OK if I go
stand over there so that Al picks it up and I'll read them quickly? And let me say, this is my understanding
of what it is I heard in a very short kind of.
What you had first was a motion to introduce, right? A second motion to read by title and synopsis only?
No, that's all in one. I was mimicking what is in the packet. So first it's read, or first it's motion
to introduce, and then it's read by the clerk. And so you're saying a motion to introduce and to read
by title and synopsis, which stick a pin in that. Right. After it's read, there would be a motion to
discuss or a motion to adopt. Right.
If there's a motion to adopt, you have informal consideration. Yeah. I can't read your writing very
well, sorry. That's presentation, because that's within the packet. Fourth is staff presentation, council
member question and comments, and then public comment. Right. And if we have a motion to discuss, if
there's a motion to discuss, there's a motion to second reading or a motion to unanimous consent. Yes.
You were writing fast. I was. And if it was motion to adopt, then we would have to motion to postpone.
Yeah. Does that help? I think so. Cause it's like two alternate flowcharts and like which, which one
do we want to do? I think we can do something like this in some form where it's typed up where people
can see it. Yeah. Okay.
So committee members, how do you think, how are you thinking about the impact on staff? Sorry, what
was the question? Impact on staff. Yeah. I think that it doesn't make sense for us to vote on things
that we can't get answers to, same night. I would like to
figure out some way to be very, very clear to staff and respectful of everyone's time. I'm like, hey,
this is the time about where this is going to be on the agenda. This is about how much time it's going
to take. Being able to provide that expectation for staff, I think, would be able to help them prepare
a little bit better. So yeah, for first reading, we can tell them.
Look, it would be your presentation. How long that is? Plus 45 minutes, plus 30 minutes. Massive. Yeah.
And I think we can even say, like, presentation should be this long so that you can prepare to fit all
of this information in. And then, like, there's no new presentation. It's just a follow-up on all the
questions that are asked during first reading. Right. Yeah.
I said during second reading, the staff will present any new information including answers to previously
asked questions. Yes, but I do see the potential for a lot of frustration just in terms of, hey, staff
doesn't necessarily need to be here for four hours of discussion. So whether you could say like, hey,
as soon as council
common question period is over, like you're good to go because we have public comment and then we're
going to make a decision one way or the other, but there will be no more questions asked. I think that
might be another thing that would protect staff time a little bit, especially because when we have council
questions and then public comment and then we go back to council questions, there's, I think there's
some confusion on like the staff point of view where it's like, well, how many times am I expected to
get back up there?
That's true. They could leave after. So I have a question on that here. And we might figure out, we
might want to limit. I know that we've been doing council questions and then public comment, then council
member questions and comment. If we wanted to, especially to protect staff time, we could limit that
to just discussion. So that way we could get staff out of there.
You mean outside of reading now? Yes, I heard. Oh, I see with the idea being that we asked our questions
at reading one and we submitted our questions and lingering questions to be answered. Yes. So then we
should not have any further questions by the time we get to. Ask public comment and back to council
comment section. Like I know that we've been past precedent have asked a lot of questions during that
period. I think.
the amount of opportunities that we're going to open up for questions to be asked in first reading versus
like the time period in between, that might be an opportunity. And it might be a nice compromise because
I do recognize that this is going to add a lot to stats on. My concern specifically with that is that
sometimes during public comment, the public raised questions that we kept a lot about. Yeah, but that's
fair. But nobody, you know. But they make periods.
And they may do that at first reading. They may, but then they also may do it at second reading. Like
there might be an entirely different crop of people who comment and are written entirely. And so that's
like, I just don't want to limit that last part to, but I appreciate that. And I have other comments
generally about staff resolution. Are you thinking that there might be situations where you would want
to introduce an amendment at first reading?
or simply discuss about possible amendments at second reading. You mean first? Oh, yeah. I was thinking
that at first reading, you could kind of gauge whether there's support for an amendment or not. There's
need for an amendment. And then that amendment could be written up and be in the paper. Okay.
Any other feedback about staff time? Yeah, I want to say publicly I voted against this because I was
concerned that the administration and staff had not had enough input into how it would impact staff.
I think that it would impact staff. I have a lot to give a full presentation at first reading and then
have to present new information because it does necessitate a whole second slideshow. It does necessitate
a whole, and that is a work process behind the scenes that we don't see that they have to.
So I guess, once again, I voted no on this because I have a real hard time asking staff to come to two
meetings and I really have to wonder, if I read through the packet and I have questions at first reading
stuff and if, and I just kind of,
leave them and I guess I want to strongly take into consideration what Mayor Thompson just said about
staff time and about how stretched staff are and throw out the possibility of not requiring them to
be at first reading with their whole presentation and for us as council members to raise questions or
concerns that we have that they can watch later, you know, the next day they can come in and see that
portion on cats so that then they don't have to sit through however long and they can then gauge, okay,
council members are concerned about this thing. And that only works if we are not voting on it at first
reading. And so I guess that means like if there is something that seems like there might be unanimous
consent to just get it done at first reading and out of the way that we need to work with staff on that
and give them a heads up to do
that like deep presentation. So I guess I would prefer staff presentation to be potentially optional
at a first reading. And so, because maybe it depends on the complexity of the legislation too. I mean,
anything that might, you know, think about like some PD from last year that might, you know, went to
the rereadings at three, you know, to have, maybe we could have done that too, if we had had the first,
you know, because there kind of, there were two times that staff had to come in and deal with anyway, right?
So when there's something particularly big or complex, then maybe say, like, you know, we want that
to happen. And that actually, that might help staff prepare for the fact that, you know, this is a big
thing that's going to take these two meetings. Because otherwise, when we move something on the third
reading, it's almost like, oh, now I have to figure out my schedule for the next week. Maybe I have
to get childcare. Maybe I have to move something else, because all of a sudden, I can't see if it's
what you did. I do want to say that I,
I did reach out to the deputy mayor before we voted on this item of legislation last week. And she said,
you know, the administration's aware of it, and it would create some staff burdens, but we're not opposed.
It always seems weird to me that there's kind of dead space, you got the first three days, and complicated
issues go to three anyway, so it may not result in more staff time. So I did think about this before
I voted, and I did reach out to her, and I was reassured.
Um, I, I don't know about, if I would agree to what, um, Hopi just said. I was out of presentation,
so we would just be saying, I read it and here are my questions. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess that's
the thing, like making meeting staff presentations. And, or I think.
for the second readings, we don't necessarily have to have a presentation for the second readings.
You know, even if it's following up on the questions we had, there's no reason to have to put those
into a slideshow. It could be, you know, they might get up there and say, you had these questions, here
are my answers, or I could also put it in that. I was gonna say, or they just submit them in writing
and they're in the packet. And then maybe they're there just to answer any lingering questions that
we might have when discussion comes up, but we're not putting them on the spot with the,
stress of a presentation. I think it would now be more likely to go that direction. I think it would
make more sense to have staff there, at least for the first one, just to be able to say, like, I don't
want to box us into where we're all sitting up on that dais and, like, all of the questions that we
have are based off of someone who can't be there to answer them. Yeah. It's very awkward. Yeah. So I
guess I would reference, if we're going to pick one, maybe we could do a
staff is here for night one and then we there's questions are submitted in the packet and then maybe
someone could call in over zoom and and answer those and answer any supplemental questions but then
they're not sitting there for like three hours while we try to figure out i was just going to ask mayor
thompson what is y'all's position on your staff having those presentations on virtually versus in person because
I feel like most of the time, most staff comes in person and it's only the consultants that do things,
but I assume. Yeah. I guess my recommendation would be that you have the in-person staff presentation
and significant questions at the first and that it's optional or TBD on the second, depending on how many
questions there are that would address staff time. I have to go to another meeting that my public comment
was going to be. This is also going to bring up concern for public comment. I've already heard from
people which meeting should I go to? I don't want to sit through two very long meetings to wait to give
my comment. Are they going to forget that I commented in the first one?
Et cetera, et cetera. So I think some clear direction. And I mean, honestly, since there was no discussion
at first reading anyway, maybe a discussion among council about how open they are to hearing these unanimous
consent. It's not an exception to the rule. But if there are things that really don't need to sit, that
they can just get approved.
So given that, instead of limiting our council number of questions and comments at first reading to
the three or five minutes or whatever, should we do that at second step and allow more time for comments
or questions back and forth
with staff so that then those things are ironed out to a high degree. So then going into second reading
staff can feel comfortable that being there virtually will be satisfactory in terms of their advocacy
for their. Yeah, that was the debate I was having internally, which is if we're limiting it in the first
round, well, then we always have moving to the written
Question and answer. If we're limiting it in the second round, though, because the time is limited,
I mean, hopefully then, yeah, hopefully the theory is we ironed it all out the first writing. There
shouldn't be massive follow-up the second round. Right. Ideally. That's the theory. Ideally. Or we go
to another group, which nobody wants. I hear you. Yeah. I'm just, that was what I was winging in my
mind. So I was kind of on that same page, maybe leaning the other way.
So I'm sorry, I think I missed the very first part of what you said would be, instead of doing something
at second reading, do it at first reading, what was that? It's the other way around. OK. It sounds like
what I was going to say was that she would prefer the first staff presentation to be the more robust
one, and the second one for them to be able to potentially show up online and not
have to do as much. And so if they're doing more for the first one, then instead of having council member
question comment time limited on the first reading, we should be able to take as much time as we need
to, to understand and have that time more limited at the second reading. I think that makes sense.
That's the process question right now. Like, how are we gonna present this for our meeting next week?
Did we just have the one item for first reading and we don't have anything for second reading? Do we
have any resolution? No, it appears that there will be a resolution plus the first reading. Okay. What
do we have the first reading? A bottle of water. I guess the other thing that I
that we should do next week to make really super duper clear to the public is that whatever process
we follow next week is not a precedent for what might happen at the next meeting. Because I feel like
there are way too many unanswered questions right now about how we should do this. Yeah, I think I'm
not going to know until you start testing things. Yeah.
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,
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
want the public to know that that plan might change. Well, um, it's, it's one o'clock. Uh, we have some
other items on the agenda. What I could do is try to summarize like the,
the flow chart and the premise about staff time and went to focus the staff time in the first reading.
And I could draft a new proposal that I could send to individually committee members and individually
reply whether I captured everything. And then we could share that with the council president
or a plan for March 4th. Yeah. And I would say, March 4th especially, since it's got a whole lot on
it, that we shouldn't limit time on anything, potentially, except for public comment in terms of, because
it's large and there's, I talked with Anneke and Hanson yesterday, there's concern about availability
later on for the consultant.
So if we can get the bulk of things out of the way, then there might be concerns or questions about
that might enable that legislation to be treated differently. Well, this committee will meet again until
possibly after the second March meeting, right? It depends. We need to discuss that.
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
our draft right now. We recommend using this for the time being, but we're still working on it. And
we're also going to take feedback as to how things go using this draft. We may try it in certain portions.
I found the words might pop out as, yeah, those don't look at all.
We'll have to change this. Does that sound okay? I think we're trying over there. Yeah, the method is
fine. But as long as like we're communicating with the public when nobody's saying, hey, this is new.
I've heard that we're trying to get to the best rhythm for what works for everybody. And sometimes the
only way you can do that is just test it. So in the packet for next Wednesday,
I don't know if the agenda has already been approved, but I hope the agenda says something about there
will be public discussion, there will be council discussion and public comment on this. I was going
to ask whether it would be best to just clearly include that on the agenda. The agenda has been approved
and we'll have to get back to you, President Osari, for confirmation of what he's going to do in that
way. Thank you. Thanks. And then if we are willing,
I don't think that we should bother even talking about that right now because we don't have anything
up for second reading next week. Right. But then the next regular session after that, the only thing
that we have up is hope well, and I'm not sure that so we want to help well in that way. Yeah.
I mean, I think that we also, I mean, what we have that motion is suspended for a reason. So that when
we know that we're faced with something that's like, that they can do something different. And I mean,
we're both pretty big. So, uh, the voice is bad. The rules on the summit district, maybe as well, the
structure of the debate. Yeah. All right. Let's go to the public.
I remember, and I do apologize to the public who are not in the room, because we did have some things
on a whiteboard that are hard to see, even when the camera was pointed there. But yes, let us welcome
public comment on what we just talked about, up to three minutes. Well, yeah, I'm assuming we better
do somebody else first. No, go ahead. Come on up to the mic. I want to message you, just for this point,
First of all, as always, thank you. I love this committee because I think it's important to be good
governance. So thank you for your work. My only comment is, oh, sorry. We'll never know. Carrie, answer.
My wife and I live in a building. I like the direction that you're trying to do. And I like, I don't
think this is your word in that. Don't put words in your mouth, please. Council. Options or something.
The option, you should get the options for the council. I think that's a good idea.
I'm mostly talking about the larger comments. I also think the comment that was on the screen, it's
gone by now, someone named Eric about the public understanding. There it is. How will the public understand?
I just want to say yes to that. That's important. It goes back to what they understand in the room about
these arrangements across the protocol, but beforehand as well. Now, may I say humbly, the education
needs to extend to council members as well.
Not just those that are here, but others as well. Any group of humans doing work together need to have
some understanding, and the council members don't always seem to completely know what the protocols
are for something new. So I'm just saying, that's part of the education, in my one-person opinion. The
only other thing I had a question about, there's more questions than I'm going, informal deliberation.
There's some, I think, discussion on what guides that a little bit.
beyond maybe a typical Robert Fields of Order kind of thing. And you've had documents, one from me,
that I should happen to know about, which I don't privilege or prioritize. Don't Rosenberg do something.
The protocols that you adopt for those discussions will be interesting and educational and a benefit,
because they may make that time you're setting aside. Last thing, just about first treaty, second treaty,
once we win, I can understand the dangers
even from outside where I sit at the desk, about the time elements. And so the thoughtful options of
when you apply what you have is gonna be so important, which you already know. So you don't get in trouble
with yourselves and everybody else, including the mayor. And the other question was, and I'll go, is
I didn't know whether at that stage where you can decide, okay, here's what we're gonna do,
And I've lost track, and I'm not asked to talk about it now. But I don't know if somebody, that whole
consensus thing, we're in a more public, and wherever you're calling that these days, I've lost track,
as I admit. I'm teaching this semester, what is it called? Deliberation Center. Thank you, I just lost
track, I'm too busy right now. Can someone say that's where it should go, at this stage? I don't mean
to talk about it, I want you to get out of the next word. I just wasn't clear where you can bring that.
There's probably a piece of ripped paper already says all about that. And that's what I'm going to meet
with Ms. Crostham. So, so that you can tell me and make sure I have all the fair piece of paper.
All right. Thank you. Any public comment from someone online? Any hands raised? I didn't see any. Okay. Yes.
I had one more request related to your motions and everything else, which would be to separate that
first motion, because right now it's kind of two in one. It's a little bit of a Frankenstein. I moved
to introduce and have the clerk read by title and synopsis only. And it always struck me as an odd kind
of combination. We don't have to deal with it right now, but I wanted to make sure that you heard the
reference as a committee in the chair. I asked them to separate that first motion they tend to make. Sorry.
It's just me helping me here. And I'm soft spoken and speaking into the table. My apologies. Yes. I
just want to clarify something about conversation going by about what's on the whiteboard, that it was
a visual representation of what we were discussing based on what is in the packet. And I can write that
up. If you want, it would be probably easier to do that, to take a picture of the whiteboard.
in terms of how readable the font is up there. Basically, in the packet, we have a draft procedure that
was provided by Isabelle that has number three being the motion to adopt legislation. A trained learner
said that there could be a different option there that we could motion to discuss the legislation instead.
And then, if we motion to discuss, then we would have to motion to second reading or motion on unanimous
consent after discussion. If we motion to adopt, then we have to motion to postpone. So it's the two
treaties. And so I just, I hope that that like helps explain that a little bit more to the public.
Who's like, what is going on on the whiteboard?
The markers were almost out of ink, so you can really barely read it even here in the room. So I think
the photo would not benefit, but we will convert this into an actual document that if staff is able
to, we'll add to the record for this meeting. Let us go to the next item. Consent agendas. So,
Attorney Bennett has kindly prepared some legislation that would add consent agenda to our regular order
of business. So we can look at that text. And then I have some discussion points here on our agenda
about the implications of having a consent agenda. So let's...
Do committee members or staff or anybody have feedback on the legislation draft? Do I get to get feedback
on this right now too or do you need to explain that? I'll get to the back then. I generally like it.
My only thought was,
Uh, so in, in addressing your questions as long as start there, I think. So should staff always be at
meetings to present consent agenda items? I feel like generally speaking, none of the items. Oh, do
you not want to talk about that right now? Well, I wanted to first look at the language. Okay. If there
are any issues with the language. I'm fine with the language. The only thing that I have that is to
wonder, like, if things are removed from the consent agenda, should they all be considered right after
that instead of having minutes and boards and commissions still be at the same place on either side
of reports. So like, because if appointments to boards and commissions and approval minutes are all
in the consent agenda, but something that removed from the consent agenda, then I think anything removed
from the consent agenda should be all considered at the same place in the agenda. Does that make sense?
Do you know what I mean? Yeah, so I think what
What we had envisioned at a staff level is like counting those items for minutes to appear on the agenda
with maybe implements after that, if removed from the consent agenda. And then of course, if the minutes
are approved as a part of the consent agenda, there wouldn't be a need to address minutes as the header
on the agenda. I guess I would just propose to like,
scratch item four and six of the approval of minutes and appointments, awards, and commissions, and
either add a new item for saying something like consideration of items removed from the consent agenda
or add a new item after it reports saying the same thing. So then if anything's, you know, so if we
decide to remove
one set of minutes from the consent agenda and one board appointment from the consent agenda. We're
then looking at both of those things at the same place in our agenda where we then look to reconsider
them as separate items instead of going, okay, well, we took these things off the consent agenda and
now we're gonna do this one and then we're gonna have these reports. And now we have to go back to this
thing that we removed from the consent agenda so that we're just like dealing with those removals in
the same place instead of
separate them. I don't think I had an opinion on whether we do that before reports or after reports.
I just think we should do it all at the same time. So then, just as an example, number four, under owner
of business would be to consider items for consideration of items from the agenda.
right from the consent agenda and five, it's still the reports and then six would be legislation for
first readings and seven would be second and subsequent readings and those solutions, et cetera,
et cetera. Or go for number three, the consent agenda to number four reports to number five consideration
of item two or from the consent agenda. Like I have no real opinion on that.
Yeah, so that's because it might be legislation. So clerk open. I have a question, which may require
that somebody actually taking break right now. But have you looked at how the county actually handles
their consent agendas or asked for guidance or input from council people.
We did look at the, I can't recall if it was an ordinance or a resolution that was adopted at the council
staff level. Yeah, but I don't know that we went beyond that and had a discussion with Deputy Kirk Prosler
or anybody else.
When they had a discussion with Deputy Clerk Crossley that you know, I've tried one with County Council
Member Crossley. I'm sorry, County Council President Crossley. President Crossley, my bad. Do you mind
taking a break right now? I can hear officially. Please allow me to take a break. President Crossley,
what a surprise.
Yeah, that's like wonderful. So at the council level, we usually do consent or agenda items when it
comes to minutes and other things like accounts creation wants. And so we have had people have questions
where council members have said, and I kind of want to separate this from the entire motion.
And we have, and so instead of having it go into, because we've also rearranged our agenda items too,
to kind of make the flow of the meeting a little bit better. But instead what we do is, if for example,
council member A decides to separate something because they want to have more questions about why this
line is created or minutes of some sort, because they think there's something that they just want to
say or discuss.
Instead, we don't have, we don't put it into like council agenda items or separate sub area of our agenda.
We just vote on the overall where a person has not separated everything. So like we will vote on everything
that's not separated. And then we tackle in that next round after we're done with that, we go into just
dealing with whatever it is that is separated. So, and you know,
make a motion, go from there. And then after that, we, you know, we'll take role, deal with that, and
then we move on. So it's rare. I'm not going to say rare. Well, occasionally it comes up. But usually
it's because they want to have a discussion of whatever it is that's happening. And usually those discussions
are brief.
And usually also council members will look at the agenda to and go out our question about that was that
in the consent agenda. So it's also coming up on council members to do their due diligence and do all
the pre work ahead of the meeting so that you can have those questions asked of whatever department
or whatever it is.
that's in the consent agenda items from sign of questions about. So I would recommend to my colleagues,
it's really upon all nine of you all to kind of do your free work of whatever it is that you might have
with respect to your consent agenda. Again, it's like the KISS method instead of
the last word would you say silly keep it simple silly um but you know it's it's really like trying
to keep it like that because our agenda's got way too long when we were talking about a lot of things
and we also had a lot of departments that were there you know like sitting there having to figure out
if they need to flex their time because they're sitting there just waiting on something that can be
done in like communities and so the intent is is to do all of this i want those to
As long as no one has any kind of objections to anything and usually we just keep it for them.
Thank you. And I have a hard stop at 130. Yes, we're going to have to discuss consent agendas again.
I just want to clarify what the president process said in terms of.
what's on our sheet. So that suggestion would be number three would be consent agenda and we would scratch
number four and scratch number six. Okay. In the consent agenda thing, if you have a small question
about one item, can you just ask that question without separating it from the rest? Yes, you can. Right.
And usually we do that all the time because as presiding
Officer of the meeting, I'll look around and say, are there any questions or comments for the consent
agenda items as presented? No. And then we will go on about the day. And then usually, of course, because
it's consent agenda items, as long as everybody is present and no one is virtual, you can do voice vote
and then move on. So in this case, parliamentarian would say,
I have approval of the consent agenda, there would be a second, and then there would be a, does anybody
have questions or discussion items around the consent agenda? And then take the vote, at least for a
contest. It sounds great to me. Okay, let us take off this discussion at our next meeting. Did we want
to do public comment? Yes, is there any public comment about consent agendas?
See any? Let us try to schedule a monthly meeting time that works for everybody. And we'll have to move
the other agenda items to our next meeting. So this time, it usually does not work for me. So I guess
it's something else to be here. Well, and I clearly like the NPO was supposed to end at noon.
and they did not today. Often, it's much shorter than the hour and a half it's allotted, and it was
not today. So, at the end of the meeting, you just probably haven't been just this. So, I know that
Courtney has pretty limited availability in Sydney on this program, so are there,
Noon times, 4 p.m. times, and I know that clerks staff and council staff probably prefers to have it
within the work day. In the work day, we prefer meetings? During the work day. In our office? Yeah,
that's the ideal. So I could, Wednesdays are just definitely a no for me, unfortunately. I could do
four o'clock,
I could do four o'clock. Tuesdays and Thursday, four o'clock are better for me, but not deal breakers.
12.30 on Mondays I could do. I should say middle of the days. Right. It depends on the day, the weekend
and the specific time, right? So like Monday at noon, no, Monday at 12.30. Yes, but we have to keep
it to an hour. Sorry, I know.
I apologize. Tuesdays and Thursdays at noon, I could probably do four an hour, an hour and a half. Would
a Tuesday or Thursday at four, for an hour and a half work? Right now, if you
Because it's counted processes and frequently we are talking about board's admissions, I would recommend
that you not do it on Tuesdays. Right, yes. Because that will come up against some other responsibilities
for staff. But I think service days are manageable. I don't know how it's going to address that. Sorry.
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.
It's like doable if that's the only option. I just much prefer the middle of the day. So like a middle
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
day. Just because, right, then for me it is an hour and a half, right, with the travel time. And so
I'm out of work for an hour and a half.
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
the same Thursday. Okay, how about the third Thursday? Next month that falls into the break. Are people
around? I don't have to be here. I am here.
I live back on the 18th, so I'm here often. Third? Thursday? Yes. At noon? No. Or are we running on
4 to 5.30? I would prefer. Is that feasible? Oh. Thursday at 4 to 5.30, is that feasible? On the 19th?
We don't have staff, or we're very short of staff. OK.
Okay, so maybe Thursday. Generally speaking on Thursdays. On Thursdays, I think it looks good. I'm trying
to do a quick and dirty scan. You can also do fourth Thursdays, since it's pretty the minor of today.
I would honestly prefer the third and a more regular thing, because as it goes on to the BZA meetings
right now, there were a few things that I'm like, oh, I don't know.
And I know I'm half of our ones, but yeah, sevens have just been really long, but maybe next month could
be the 26th. And then moving forward, we could do the third Thursday. How does that feel for the parks
office? I'm checking. In the abstract, I think it's going to be fine. I would let you know if there
are any other conflicts. Is that comfortable for everybody?
But our next meeting is gonna be the 26th at four. Can't do that. Oh. Okay. I'm going to Seattle. Oh,
right. Well, what about the week before spring break, Thursday the 12th? I can't. That's when I have
voice readout day board, perhaps. Okay. Thursday at 12 or Thursday at four? Four. Yeah, at four,
the 12th, March 12th is what I meant.
Oh, and. Yeah, that's the second Thursday, so we can't. OK, got it. Right. And we can't eat it. Because
we can't do it. OK. OK, what is your Friday thing at? It's Institute New. You've got major works. OK.
You've got to get conflicts. Is it personal? I volunteer at the community kitchen. That's very important.
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
cruise. Stuff. Do you do that every week? Yes. I would like to validate your volunteer hours. OK.
Well, what were the other days that were good for you, Courtney, the other days of four? It was Tuesday.
I mean, are we talking just for this once? Yes. Any day of the Wednesday, I could probably make work
as long as I don't already have a meeting scheduled on that. What about Monday, the 23rd? I can't do
that. I have the downtown business meeting. The 24th? What did you say about the 24th?
I just said, how about the 24th? You won't have Deputy Kirk Crossley, but the 24th at four? Yes, but
I will just raise, if we're going to talk about boards and commissions, we probably should have Deputy
Kirk Crossley. Are we going to talk about boards and commissions? We can put that off another month.
OK, that's fine. I just want to be aware if we're not going to have someone. So we could do consent
agenda, the council member sponsorship,
and revisit the. Yes. And that would probably take an hour and a half right there. Right there.
There we go. So March 24th at 4 PM. And then starting in April, we're going to do the third Thursday
at 4. And that works for everybody. And the park is going to post those. And so I don't have to put
them on my calendar, because they are usually refreshed. So accurate.
Yeah. And so that's third Thursday in April is the 16th. It is one 30. Yeah. Oh, super. All right. Thank
you all. Thank you, everybody.