WEBVTT

00:00:00.258 --> 00:00:08.139
- Okay, I'm going to call the order of this meeting of the Committee on Council Processes for Tuesday,

00:00:08.139 --> 00:00:16.488
- March 24th. Yes, 26th. Let's just go around the table and say who's here. We'll start. Am I right? Council

00:00:16.488 --> 00:00:24.447
- Member Sittner-Zulik, District 6. And I'm Council Member Isabelle P. Mott-Sniff, District 1. Hope you

00:00:24.447 --> 00:00:26.398
- pass through District 3.

00:00:26.754 --> 00:00:34.860
- And then we have two members of the clerk staff here who are introduced to the show. Susan Stalin, Deputy

00:00:34.860 --> 00:00:42.584
- Clerk, Sylvia McGill, Chief Deputy Clerk. Thank you for being here. That's right. We have one member

00:00:42.584 --> 00:00:50.307
- of the public here. Okay. So first of all, take a look at the agenda. It looks a lot like the agenda

00:00:50.307 --> 00:00:55.966
- last month, because we didn't get through a lot of the agenda last month.

00:00:56.418 --> 00:01:14.139
- Is there any motion to exchange anything? I move to approve. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

00:01:14.139 --> 00:01:23.262
- All right. So first let's talk about implementation

00:01:23.906 --> 00:01:29.511
- Through our online process, let's say you just don't need to buy it. Where, what would you describe

00:01:29.511 --> 00:01:35.117
- that? Yeah. What would you comment that may not be right? Yes. Are you not going to check it? Where

00:01:35.117 --> 00:01:41.002
- do you think it's going to go? It's all about the time. Oh, OK. So you expect to have a comment on items

00:01:41.002 --> 00:01:46.608
- not on the agenda? Oh, sure. OK, we'll try to leave room, but yeah. OK, but I can pick everybody in

00:01:46.608 --> 00:01:53.054
- whatever I do. There's no way around it. Yeah, no. I appreciate a question. I didn't add a general public comment.

00:01:53.826 --> 00:02:06.034
- Okay, so let's first talk about the process for discussion at first reading, which council passed in

00:02:06.034 --> 00:02:18.121
- February. There are links in the agenda to an updated document that kind of goes step by step. So I

00:02:18.121 --> 00:02:19.934
- was hoping to,

00:02:20.898 --> 00:02:29.103
- have a finalized document that we could report back to the Council on April 1st. I did reach out to

00:02:29.103 --> 00:02:37.308
- Council President Asare, but it was only yesterday, so I know he's been very busy, to see if he had

00:02:37.308 --> 00:02:44.446
- any feedback. I want to throw it to the committee members. Do you have any feedback on

00:02:44.994 --> 00:02:54.369
- what's written here, or on how it went, or we used this procedure on March 4th. What are we reading?

00:02:54.369 --> 00:03:03.650
- Wait, stop. Yes, it wasn't. It is linked in the agenda. What do we need to do? It should be linked.

00:03:03.650 --> 00:03:13.025
- It's that mirror that I wrote down with the packets. Yes. Yes, I opened it yesterday and I was like,

00:03:13.025 --> 00:03:14.974
- where is the packet?

00:03:15.298 --> 00:03:30.193
- So the assumption is we will always discuss something at first rate. I think we do need to have an assumption

00:03:30.193 --> 00:03:43.870
- there to make sure that the public and the staff knows that we will be presenting and discussing it.

00:03:45.794 --> 00:03:51.628
- So let's start there. I can't remember when we did this before, when there was the motion to discuss

00:03:51.628 --> 00:03:56.942
- the legislation, did we have to vote on that motion before we discussed it? I think we did.

00:03:56.942 --> 00:04:02.891
- It would be bad. So I think that that is a fair assumption, just so that we're generally going to have

00:04:02.891 --> 00:04:09.013
- a motion to discuss it, and people don't want to discuss it, but they can vote no on a motion to discuss.

00:04:09.013 --> 00:04:09.822
- It should be.

00:04:10.242 --> 00:04:18.941
- So that would be option two. Yeah, I much prefer option two, personally, because I appreciate that it

00:04:18.941 --> 00:04:27.811
- makes it clear that we're not adopting it in terms of our discussion around it. And I think that that's

00:04:27.811 --> 00:04:36.766
- because otherwise, yeah, I just think that that helps the public and also kinds of members to be able to

00:04:39.810 --> 00:04:47.411
- It's just the expectation. It sets up an expectation that we're going to talk about it, but not necessarily

00:04:47.411 --> 00:04:54.448
- verbatim. And once we've motioned it adopt, then if somebody called the question, for example, then

00:04:54.448 --> 00:05:01.556
- that would end up triggering a different email in terms of. That's true. I think, at least. But then

00:05:01.556 --> 00:05:09.086
- you have to have unanimous consent in order to do something unperturbed. So it feels like that gets messy.

00:05:09.698 --> 00:05:18.683
- Or it's just discussing it. It's like there's a mess attached to that. And I think that's what we did.

00:05:18.683 --> 00:05:27.929
- Yeah, we did. So motion to introduce the legislation. Work reads by title and synopsis. Motion to discuss

00:05:27.929 --> 00:05:35.518
- the legislation. Then the staff give a full presentation. So we talked last time about

00:05:36.258 --> 00:05:44.762
- At first reading, it can be a full presentation and then at the second reading, it would just be a follow-up

00:05:44.762 --> 00:05:53.033
- based on our questions. It works for me. I also like that we have the opportunity to get public questions

00:05:53.033 --> 00:06:01.225
- answered. So we might think about how we could afford to read that or like submitting questions. I think

00:06:01.225 --> 00:06:04.190
- that's in there somewhere, very good.

00:06:05.122 --> 00:06:12.043
- Well, just because the option to number six, it goes from public comment and then move out onto a second.

00:06:12.043 --> 00:06:18.572
- I don't think we need to even like put it in the procedure, but I just wanted to be aware of what's

00:06:18.572 --> 00:06:25.102
- the, what's the process to get someone's public question answered. Further down under the procedure

00:06:25.102 --> 00:06:29.150
- for second readings, it says to us in the Bergen House staff,

00:06:29.922 --> 00:06:37.061
- Well, it says the answers to previous questions could be put in writing and included in the council

00:06:37.061 --> 00:06:44.201
- packet for the second meeting. Yes. And so I would say that we should just to some degree formalize

00:06:44.201 --> 00:06:51.412
- the procedure of. Either staff or council members. Your staff or to staff at the only word. Yeah, so

00:06:51.412 --> 00:06:54.910
- I have staff should practically go. Okay. Right.

00:06:55.074 --> 00:07:01.963
- members of the public have this question, I'm going to address this question later in the written comments,

00:07:01.963 --> 00:07:08.724
- or council members can, you know, kind of take up that responsibility and go, okay, members of the public

00:07:08.724 --> 00:07:15.230
- asked this question, I'm going to ask this question of staff. I mean, it's my, it's my responsibility

00:07:15.230 --> 00:07:21.608
- for the vice president and parliamentarian to ensure that, like, all of the, if someone is taking a

00:07:21.608 --> 00:07:24.606
- hair of public questions, so we can say, like,

00:07:24.770 --> 00:07:32.016
- I'm happy to, um, to sort of try it out. It will be the responsibility of the vice president to. I don't

00:07:32.016 --> 00:07:39.606
- think we need to sum up that, but I mean, I, I would prefer personally, I would prefer staff who's presenting

00:07:39.606 --> 00:07:46.714
- it to take that responsibility and kind of go, okay, like, I'm receiving these questions, even if they

00:07:46.714 --> 00:07:52.510
- are questions of clarification from the public for them to make note of that. Yeah.

00:07:53.570 --> 00:07:59.741
- Yeah, just because I feel like that's, I mean, part of what city staff should be doing is responding

00:07:59.741 --> 00:08:05.850
- to the public. I mean, they respond to the public probably more than council members do in a lot of

00:08:05.850 --> 00:08:11.960
- ways. I guess my concern is like, where's council oversight to ensure those questions are asked? We

00:08:11.960 --> 00:08:18.130
- have members that was like responsible for keeping track of what questions were asked by the public,

00:08:18.130 --> 00:08:22.590
- even if like it is staff expectation, but they want to do the full work.

00:08:23.394 --> 00:08:29.406
- I just want to make sure that we're keeping track of questions. But we don't think so. Yeah, I just

00:08:29.406 --> 00:08:35.839
- don't know if that needs to be like one person all the time. You know what I mean? But maybe that connects

00:08:35.839 --> 00:08:41.972
- to the other thing that's like down farther in our agenda around council members having to co-sponsor

00:08:41.972 --> 00:08:48.405
- legislation that comes from staff. So then maybe that could be the responsibility if we do that of whoever

00:08:48.405 --> 00:08:52.734
- the council member is, who's supposed to be answering that legislation.

00:08:53.058 --> 00:08:59.362
- I like that. I just want to make sure that some of it is responsible. Yeah. Because I think that when

00:08:59.362 --> 00:09:05.542
- we spread it out over the nine of us, no specific person will get lost. So I just want to make sure

00:09:05.542 --> 00:09:11.413
- it works. Yeah. And I don't want to give that to the same person all the time. But that, yeah,

00:09:11.413 --> 00:09:17.717
- that could be, that could work out. Because if it's spread out, kind of naturally. I agree. And then,

00:09:17.717 --> 00:09:22.846
- you know, as a sponsor of the legislation, we know that you have a responsibility.

00:09:23.394 --> 00:09:34.071
- All right. All right. Cool. Okay, so we like option two. Both options council members should put in

00:09:34.071 --> 00:09:44.748
- writing the questions they didn't get to and submit those by the end of the following Friday. Yeah,

00:09:44.748 --> 00:09:52.542
- so maybe. The following Friday, does that mean two days later? Yes. Yes.

00:09:52.802 --> 00:10:00.890
- that did worse out of the immediate following climate. I just covered four emphasis. And maybe also

00:10:00.890 --> 00:10:08.330
- we're noting of the questions from the public thing, like questions, you know, encouraging,

00:10:08.330 --> 00:10:16.661
- CCP is encouraging some sort of reliable process around sessions that might be brought up to make sure

00:10:16.661 --> 00:10:19.006
- that those questions get in.

00:10:26.114 --> 00:10:36.863
- Feel free to shorten that. Okay. That would give city staff or petitioners one week to answer their

00:10:36.863 --> 00:10:47.612
- questions before they place them in the packet. Well, one week before they're placed in the packet.

00:10:47.612 --> 00:10:54.814
- But that means that it's not the following Friday, two days later.

00:10:55.138 --> 00:11:01.786
- Yes, it's the next week. No, the answer is, questions are due two days later and the answers to those

00:11:01.786 --> 00:11:08.499
- questions get put in the packet the next morning. What would that work out with timing though? Because

00:11:08.499 --> 00:11:15.147
- if we have a first reading, say, where we discuss this. Usually we have two weeks between first year.

00:11:15.147 --> 00:11:19.774
- Oh, I suppose with students we have those deliberation sessions. Okay.

00:11:27.330 --> 00:11:35.201
- So then if we carry through with option two, in second reading, motion to introduce legislation, clerk

00:11:35.201 --> 00:11:42.996
- reads by title and synopsis, motion to adopt legislation. That's like how we do second reading. Yeah,

00:11:42.996 --> 00:11:50.791
- the usual. And then staff present any unique questions. Yeah, so the short presentations, potentially

00:11:50.791 --> 00:11:56.446
- remotely. Most member questions, public comment, most member discussions.

00:11:56.834 --> 00:12:06.009
- Now, the thing that we deployed with last time was whether to do a time limit for council member questions

00:12:06.009 --> 00:12:15.012
- at either the first reading or the second reading. I think second reading will make time make more sense

00:12:15.012 --> 00:12:23.586
- than first reading, just because I don't want to limit us when we're targeted all of the stuff that

00:12:23.586 --> 00:12:24.958
- I said earlier.

00:12:25.954 --> 00:12:32.419
- out of two weeks. Most of them should be answered. I agree with that, but I wonder if we can ask- Wait,

00:12:32.419 --> 00:12:38.635
- I'm sorry. I had a mind. You said it's 94 cents for second reading? Yes, that's a limited question.

00:12:38.635 --> 00:12:44.851
- Especially if we're going to have the staff person there in person for first reading, then it makes

00:12:44.851 --> 00:12:51.129
- a lot more sense being able to do that work while we have someone who's on the graph with us. Right,

00:12:51.129 --> 00:12:55.294
- and I agree with that, but I also wonder if it would be necessary.

00:12:56.610 --> 00:13:10.314
- They're all. We could. We could in our look for say, depending on. The issue at hand, the time limits

00:13:10.314 --> 00:13:23.749
- may be considered. Well, if it's like how it goes like, I mean, I just think that. I mean, it's not

00:13:23.749 --> 00:13:25.630
- like anybody.

00:13:25.954 --> 00:13:34.750
- to belabor things. We want like just to belabor them. I feel like the belaboring is more likely to happen

00:13:34.750 --> 00:13:43.047
- during the council member discussion slash. Or we already have time for some. Yes, which we already

00:13:43.047 --> 00:13:51.262
- have time for some. So I'm not sure that the question, I just don't know if it would be necessary.

00:13:51.938 --> 00:13:59.064
- And then for the moments that there might be something that say might be like big enough that it, that

00:13:59.064 --> 00:14:06.120
- we might want to have a third, you know, and like, like continue to talk about it just because of the

00:14:06.120 --> 00:14:13.384
- number of things get brought up. I didn't want to have to like have an extra motion to suspend the rules

00:14:13.384 --> 00:14:20.510
- to get rid of the time limits. Yeah. Um, so I guess I'll just leave that out then. And then if we, um,

00:14:21.250 --> 00:14:30.502
- have problems with it going forward, then we can add. We can also run around in like a six-month revisit

00:14:30.502 --> 00:14:39.401
- for CCD. Yeah. And say like after six months after effective baby. Yeah. CCD will reconsider this to

00:14:39.401 --> 00:14:48.300
- ensure that all processes are going smoothly. Yeah. That's great. OK. Anything else I should revise?

00:14:48.300 --> 00:14:49.534
- Most of them.

00:14:58.402 --> 00:15:09.150
- Do we need a vote on moving this into a memo as a recommendation for the full council? Move to recommend

00:15:09.150 --> 00:15:19.489
- the memo as updated in this meeting to the full council. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'm

00:15:19.489 --> 00:15:27.678
- thinking imaginary people in the room. Oh, wait a minute. Was I supposed to go?

00:15:28.898 --> 00:15:35.139
- I had seen now that it's not one packet. I get confused. I think I was supposed to go to public. Oh,

00:15:35.139 --> 00:15:41.443
- we know. We should have gotten public comment. Well, we've already voted. But is there public comment

00:15:41.443 --> 00:15:48.055
- on implementing the discussion at first reading? It says the very bad lines. I think, wait. No, it doesn't

00:15:48.055 --> 00:15:53.987
- look like it. OK. No, yeah, yeah. You can say your name for the record. Terry. I never read it.

00:15:53.987 --> 00:15:56.830
- Terry Amsler, my wife's not an English woman.

00:15:57.506 --> 00:16:04.026
- I went to look online for everything for this meeting, and the agenda's there, but there was no other

00:16:04.026 --> 00:16:10.674
- documents listed anywhere. Should there be grounds for this kind of stuff? I didn't look at everything,

00:16:10.674 --> 00:16:17.129
- but I looked at the readings thing, and I went to your webpage for the committee, and I went through

00:16:17.129 --> 00:16:23.777
- the agenda, I did a packet, but I didn't see anything. Well, to clarify, so the new process for council

00:16:23.777 --> 00:16:26.270
- and council committees, and also other

00:16:26.434 --> 00:16:51.390
- And that's, that's accessibility. Because of that changes and accessibility requirements.

00:16:51.938 --> 00:17:04.147
- easier to make things accessible in certain types of documents than others. So, yeah, yeah. It just

00:17:04.147 --> 00:17:16.478
- feels wrong to be of this way because we've been doing it the other way for like how many years now?

00:17:17.090 --> 00:17:26.139
- Sure, aesthetic sensibilities. No, they have. This is the only respond. OK. All right, so no other public.

00:17:26.139 --> 00:17:35.187
- Oh, Eric raised his hand. Here from him. Hi. I actually, since you mentioned the new format for documents,

00:17:35.187 --> 00:17:43.306
- and I believe, Hopi, you said that it's to make things easier, to make them accessible. I mean,

00:17:43.306 --> 00:17:44.574
- how does that?

00:17:45.058 --> 00:17:54.314
- How does that work? My understanding of Section 508 standards is that linking to other documents does

00:17:54.314 --> 00:18:03.661
- not relieve the requirement to make those other documents be accessible. So I'm curious as to how that

00:18:03.661 --> 00:18:11.646
- makes it easier. It's not that the link is linking to a document that's not accessible.

00:18:11.810 --> 00:18:18.971
- It's that it might be linked, say, to a Google Doc, and then it's easier to make a Google Doc, like,

00:18:18.971 --> 00:18:26.203
- fulfill the accessibility requirements versus a PDF. So, like, PDFs, I guess, just are really... I am

00:18:26.203 --> 00:18:33.435
- not the expert on this. I'm just repeating what Sava told me. Okay. Yeah. Like, this is, I think, the

00:18:33.435 --> 00:18:41.022
- recommendation from IT, just because of the links mean that not everything has to be, say, a PDF document.

00:18:41.410 --> 00:18:49.135
- And so then the PDSs have more complexity in making them accessible so they can link to another type

00:18:49.135 --> 00:18:57.166
- of document. Yeah. So I've looked into this a bit since various boards and commissioners have been doing

00:18:57.166 --> 00:19:04.968
- that. And I just want to make you as being on the council process as committee aware, I'm not so sure

00:19:04.968 --> 00:19:10.398
- that that's true. And there's accessibility for folks who are visually

00:19:11.010 --> 00:19:18.267
- have visual impairment or whatever. And then there's also just the general accessibility. And having

00:19:18.267 --> 00:19:25.524
- extra links, as opposed to a single unified PDF, makes them less accessible. And I think you can see

00:19:25.524 --> 00:19:32.852
- this if you tried to navigate some of these documents, like the Board of Public Works document, which

00:19:32.852 --> 00:19:39.678
- actually is of a few minutes ago. They still had not published a packet for the meeting today.

00:19:39.810 --> 00:19:48.893
- but you can look at the HPC, other redevelopment commission. And I think what you'll find is that they're

00:19:48.893 --> 00:19:57.463
- less accessible because you got to click back and forth. And I'm sure that that's probably going to

00:19:57.463 --> 00:20:06.032
- be true for folks who are using like screen readers and things like that. And in fact, the city has

00:20:06.032 --> 00:20:09.374
- a license for Grackle Docs, I believe.

00:20:10.114 --> 00:20:18.969
- that makes it quite straightforward to create a unified PDF. And I just, I'm hoping that maybe the council

00:20:18.969 --> 00:20:27.659
- can being, and you're the legislative body, you might, you look into this and see if this is not perhaps

00:20:27.659 --> 00:20:36.514
- making things less accessible and not relieving any burden of making things accessible in terms of section

00:20:36.514 --> 00:20:39.742
- 508. But anyway, thanks for listening.

00:20:39.842 --> 00:20:50.327
- Um, I am concerned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We can check with our IT department about that.

00:20:50.327 --> 00:21:00.917
- All right. Next, we have the matter of consent agendas. And we have a draft legislation that was also

00:21:00.917 --> 00:21:09.118
- shared last month that I'd like us to review. And if it's okay with us, we can

00:21:09.698 --> 00:21:18.293
- Get that on the calendar to add a consent agenda. Yes. And then I had on our agenda for this meeting.

00:21:18.293 --> 00:21:26.889
- I had a few questions. I think we need to think through. My comments was the same, I think, as it was

00:21:26.889 --> 00:21:31.102
- the last time was the down the order of business.

00:21:31.554 --> 00:21:37.398
- like we have a consent agenda and then the approval of minutes if they were removed from our consent

00:21:37.398 --> 00:21:43.184
- agenda. And then two things later, approval of boards and commissions if they were removed from the

00:21:43.184 --> 00:21:49.085
- consent agenda. And I think that we need to scrap both of those and replace them with something right

00:21:49.085 --> 00:21:54.871
- after the consent agenda and something like consideration of items removed from the consent agenda.

00:21:54.871 --> 00:21:59.326
- What? If you look at the back of the bill, I know. I know. I am there. Yeah.

00:21:59.426 --> 00:22:06.145
- under 5A and I wasn't quite sure what that meant or where it should go. That was my note from last time.

00:22:06.145 --> 00:22:12.672
- Okay. So it would go after the reports. So do you think it should go after the reports or right after

00:22:12.672 --> 00:22:19.071
- the consent agenda? It doesn't matter to me. So what do you think? Like if we remove something from

00:22:19.071 --> 00:22:25.662
- the consent agenda, do you think it should be like, so we handle the consent agenda and then we handle

00:22:25.662 --> 00:22:28.094
- the thing that we removed right away?

00:22:28.322 --> 00:22:38.110
- or do you think that we should wait and then handle it? I think it might make sense to handle it immediately,

00:22:38.110 --> 00:22:47.009
- just because from a public's perspective, or we've already brought these things up, this is kind of

00:22:47.009 --> 00:22:56.174
- like semi-introduced, probably not what we discussed, but it is on the mind. Yeah. And so I think that

00:22:56.174 --> 00:22:57.598
- just for, well,

00:22:58.210 --> 00:23:06.615
- community members' ability to have a meeting, it might make more sense to put it immediately after.

00:23:06.615 --> 00:23:15.104
- So then it would become 3A. Would it become 3A or would it become a school? I'm just saying it would

00:23:15.104 --> 00:23:23.677
- go between three and four. It would go between three and the reports and the current approval finance

00:23:23.677 --> 00:23:25.022
- would distract.

00:23:27.010 --> 00:23:41.134
- Oh, that's because the approval of sense would go on to the consent agenda. And then six would be scrapped

00:23:41.134 --> 00:23:55.390
- because the appointment supports and commissions would go on the consent agenda. I think otherwise, I mean,

00:23:55.554 --> 00:24:03.378
- I personally thought that the list of things that we would put on the consent agenda made sense, and

00:24:03.378 --> 00:24:11.202
- the procedure for taking something off the consent agenda seems easy enough to accomplish if anybody

00:24:11.202 --> 00:24:12.286
- has concerns.

00:24:24.450 --> 00:24:33.524
- So if we put items of legislation on the consent agenda, should the staff assume that we might pull

00:24:33.524 --> 00:24:42.961
- it off and be present to present it? Talk about it. Yes. So the staff will always have a plan B at that

00:24:42.961 --> 00:24:53.214
- meeting. Which I think they will need. Which doesn't suggest they need it because they wouldn't expect it to be.

00:24:54.178 --> 00:25:01.199
- Well, what a nice treat to be able to go home after me. Especially like, I mean, especially some of

00:25:01.199 --> 00:25:08.291
- the ordinances that we got last year from the controller's office. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and they might,

00:25:08.291 --> 00:25:15.453
- and since they have to have two readings and we would have had questions that we're treating probably

00:25:15.453 --> 00:25:22.334
- enough to know, like, like that kind of stuff would maybe go on. It's not the agenda in terms of,

00:25:22.946 --> 00:25:30.687
- Are we allowed to put appropriation orders on consensus in this? I don't think so. Hold on, Ben.

00:25:30.687 --> 00:25:37.950
- I think also, oh, but we can vote on appropriations that are best in our theory. What? Any

00:25:37.950 --> 00:25:45.931
- vote on appropriations I have? It would be the same, I think, as voting at first reading, right? So

00:25:45.931 --> 00:25:51.198
- it would have to be unanimous consent and then two-thirds. Right.

00:25:52.482 --> 00:25:59.572
- I mean, some of the corporation ordinances are definitely like new money, but other ones are just kind

00:25:59.572 --> 00:26:06.662
- of moving money and then like we created funds last year to like, where to funnel things. I don't know

00:26:06.662 --> 00:26:13.545
- if there's a legal difference in terms of money. I think I was just saying some of those things are

00:26:13.545 --> 00:26:16.574
- not. Yeah, I agree in terms of legislation.

00:26:17.154 --> 00:26:23.332
- I can't imagine very much legislation being considered not controversial, to be honest. Okay, well,

00:26:23.332 --> 00:26:29.818
- AI tells me that yes, in Indiana City's appropriation ordinances typically require two separate readings

00:26:29.818 --> 00:26:36.243
- at different meetings as they are considered formal ordinances. Per count. Per count, well. Except that

00:26:36.243 --> 00:26:43.038
- that's not. Oh, the County Council can unanimously vote to suspend the rules to pass the single fee. Perfect.

00:26:43.682 --> 00:26:50.956
- So it's a very similar process. Right. But then if we put it on a consent agenda, we have to have unanimous

00:26:50.956 --> 00:26:57.893
- approval to vote on that. Yeah. So I don't think that we could. Yeah. That's true. So I think we would

00:26:57.893 --> 00:27:04.696
- only be able to put second rate side consent agenda. Yeah. But the other thing is, like, because one

00:27:04.696 --> 00:27:11.498
- council member can pull anything off a consent agenda, is that not already even in this quote? Like,

00:27:11.498 --> 00:27:13.182
- if nobody says anything.

00:27:13.954 --> 00:27:23.313
- I mean, yeah, yeah, I guess I would prefer to just kind of move forward with us in the beginning, not

00:27:23.313 --> 00:27:32.763
- putting legislation agenda and sticking with minutes and appointments and acceptance of reports, which

00:27:32.763 --> 00:27:34.782
- it doesn't seem like.

00:27:34.946 --> 00:27:41.190
- We don't usually have to vote on acceptance of reports, but we did a little bit last year because there

00:27:41.190 --> 00:27:46.773
- were, there were sometimes there were statutory deadlines about when we can receive reports.

00:27:46.773 --> 00:27:52.957
- And so we had to, yeah, specifically like say we received the thing, even though they couldn't present

00:27:52.957 --> 00:27:59.440
- the thing to us at the time. So, yeah, I think the other thing is like when we're talking about efficiency,

00:27:59.440 --> 00:28:02.142
- like we're trying to get to the legislation.

00:28:02.306 --> 00:28:08.615
- Well, that's the intent by which they can sign it. So I think it does make sense to do it. Everything

00:28:08.615 --> 00:28:14.861
- that's not legislation. Yeah. Anything that's not off it. It actually doesn't say in the description

00:28:14.861 --> 00:28:21.046
- that you made, Isabel, that legislation, you don't want to know. It says other non-controversial or

00:28:21.046 --> 00:28:27.355
- administrative actions designated by the Council President. This was written by one of our attorneys.

00:28:27.355 --> 00:28:31.870
- Yeah, I would say that legislation is not an administrative action. But.

00:28:32.098 --> 00:28:40.407
- I wanted to actually include some legislation, like we do the resolution for continuing our interlocal

00:28:40.407 --> 00:28:48.636
- agreement about the animal shelter once a year. We have done JAG grants in the past. We're just like,

00:28:48.636 --> 00:28:56.945
- yeah, we're getting this money. We're accepting it. We have done the building code authority extending

00:28:56.945 --> 00:29:00.414
- that another year. There are very routine,

00:29:00.802 --> 00:29:08.951
- resolutions and ordinances that could be on consent agenda, I think. And I thought that in the fall,

00:29:08.951 --> 00:29:17.261
- when we talked about consent agendas to start with, I thought that was, I'm looking at so many people.

00:29:17.261 --> 00:29:25.410
- Well, I certainly don't mind either way. But I think that in terms of clarity for the code, it might

00:29:25.410 --> 00:29:30.654
- make sense to leave legislation off until we at least understand

00:29:30.754 --> 00:29:36.458
- and have gone through the consent agenda process, it might be another thing that we'd bring up again

00:29:36.458 --> 00:29:42.501
- in six months. Okay. Do we know for sure that legislation doesn't need an administrative question? Because

00:29:42.501 --> 00:29:48.148
- I wouldn't necessarily assume that once you pass our attorneys back with your... No. So see, that's

00:29:48.148 --> 00:29:54.021
- like an attorney question to me. Didn't think that much, so... Yeah, and I would assume that it doesn't

00:29:54.021 --> 00:29:58.878
- include it. So we would need to have, I think, an attorney of us to define that term.

00:30:01.762 --> 00:30:12.705
- So maybe not bring this until we have legal counsel to review it. Maybe. Yeah, at least I mean to review

00:30:12.705 --> 00:30:22.814
- it and so so that we all know as counselors what type of things fall under administrative shows.

00:30:24.994 --> 00:30:31.493
- I mean, and maybe it does because, I mean, it's non-controversial or administrative action.

00:30:31.493 --> 00:30:38.770
- So a non-controversial action might be one of those resolutions that you talked about because they are

00:30:38.770 --> 00:30:46.047
- actions. But I would say that we definitely need to have a really clear understanding of that. And the

00:30:46.047 --> 00:30:53.182
- best person to get that from is the attorney that's looking at council's best interests. Okay. Well,

00:30:53.986 --> 00:31:04.984
- So we did clarify a few things. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda. But it sounds

00:31:04.984 --> 00:31:16.414
- like the consensus is to hold this for a little longer until we can get it legal. That makes sense. Yeah.

00:31:17.058 --> 00:31:25.851
- Although you guys have discussed contract attorney at all. We did mention it. I think that's probably

00:31:25.851 --> 00:31:34.644
- in the works. Yeah. This could be something. I can go without checking the reading tab. And then this

00:31:34.644 --> 00:31:43.265
- note at the bottom about considering deleting the second period of protocol. That came from council

00:31:43.265 --> 00:31:46.110
- staff that is no longer with us.

00:31:47.042 --> 00:31:55.157
- Um, they were trying to suggest things that were short meetings and of course consented down that was

00:31:55.157 --> 00:32:03.669
- one of them. And then they also said, there's no reason really to have two periods of open public comment.

00:32:03.669 --> 00:32:11.943
- So we could cut one. Which is totally true. I don't really think it would make a big difference because

00:32:11.943 --> 00:32:16.478
- we hardly ever have anybody at that second period. Yeah.

00:32:17.218 --> 00:32:25.732
- Oh, I just looked for general, for general public comment. That would be, you know, we have, sometimes

00:32:25.732 --> 00:32:34.081
- Mr. M.G. even voices. Yeah. Just because, you know, he's the only one still there at that point. But

00:32:34.081 --> 00:32:42.678
- usually people speak at the beginning. So it was just, you know, I actually, when I, when I shared this

00:32:42.678 --> 00:32:46.398
- document with Michael, our intern to put it,

00:32:46.786 --> 00:32:54.549
- into a packet, I didn't realize my little notes would show up. So that's kind of a, just for some note

00:32:54.549 --> 00:33:02.312
- for myself. So we don't need to deal with that. I will say for the record though, that I do think that

00:33:02.312 --> 00:33:10.075
- sometimes having that additional period at the end, like something that we do during the meeting might

00:33:10.075 --> 00:33:12.638
- make somebody think of something.

00:33:13.186 --> 00:33:21.618
- And so it might not be somebody that was on the agenda side. So I don't have a problem keeping that.

00:33:21.618 --> 00:33:30.468
- I do feel like there's some potential purpose for it. I do wonder why it's 25 minutes in the first place.

00:33:30.468 --> 00:33:39.484
- It's not your full time. We don't usually run up against it. But I also feel like that's sort of a separate

00:33:39.484 --> 00:33:41.822
- issue from consent agendas.

00:33:42.274 --> 00:33:51.211
- and maybe what should require a different change. So going back to the agenda for today's meeting. Do

00:33:51.211 --> 00:34:00.236
- we need a whole comment? No. Let me finish. Hold on. The third item under consent agenda that I wanted

00:34:00.236 --> 00:34:09.348
- to talk about was how we would communicate with the public about this concept of consent agenda so that

00:34:09.348 --> 00:34:10.750
- they would know

00:34:11.074 --> 00:34:18.308
- If they have comment on something that's on our consent agenda, they probably aren't going to have about

00:34:18.308 --> 00:34:25.404
- too many to say anything, right? Or does consent agenda have comment? Sorry, I meant to watch a county

00:34:25.404 --> 00:34:32.087
- council meeting to see how they do it. Does anybody know? Please say, here's the consent agenda.

00:34:32.087 --> 00:34:39.321
- Any comment, public comments? Or do we just say, don't vote on it? I don't think there's public comment.

00:34:39.321 --> 00:34:40.286
- I'm not sure.

00:34:40.642 --> 00:34:47.598
- The interesting piece of that, though, is that if we just have, say, minutes and appointments to boards

00:34:47.598 --> 00:34:54.286
- and commissions on our consent agenda, which are our most frequent things that we would have on it,

00:34:54.286 --> 00:35:01.109
- we don't have public comment on that anyway. That's true. It is most of the things that we don't have

00:35:01.109 --> 00:35:07.262
- public comment on. So I would say, I would say no public comment, but the communication is,

00:35:07.650 --> 00:35:14.120
- If you are a member of the public very interested in making a public comment on one of these things,

00:35:14.120 --> 00:35:20.719
- then, you know, ask, get a council member to pull it off the consent agenda, because that would be the

00:35:20.719 --> 00:35:27.125
- way to actually discuss it, to pull it off the consent agenda. Yeah, that's true. Right, because if

00:35:27.125 --> 00:35:34.044
- we just say, but here's the consent agenda, and then go to public comment, probably something that somebody

00:35:34.044 --> 00:35:36.350
- says, to us to want to pull it off.

00:35:37.154 --> 00:35:42.966
- Right. So then, you know, so it's kind of like, okay, here's the consent agenda. Council member says,

00:35:42.966 --> 00:35:48.834
- I want to pull off the consent agenda because I heard from the public that they want to make a comment

00:35:48.834 --> 00:35:54.760
- on it. And then you pull it off, you're through to the consent agenda, you go on to the next, you know,

00:35:54.760 --> 00:36:00.458
- consideration of things, pull off the consent agenda. And then is there discussion? Is there public

00:36:00.458 --> 00:36:04.446
- comment? And then we go. Are any of these things, even things that we

00:36:04.546 --> 00:36:13.000
- I put public comments on it in the first place, only if we put legislation on it. But if we put legislation

00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:20.828
- on it, which I think it would be... Remains to be cut to not, but... Well, we can put a pin in that

00:36:20.828 --> 00:36:29.126
- too, since we're waiting for legal counsel to see it. They would recommend allowing us to put legislation

00:36:29.126 --> 00:36:32.414
- on it. Which, for me, that was the point.

00:36:32.610 --> 00:36:39.963
- Some of the legislation, I think, requires the public comment, like requires an opportunity for the

00:36:39.963 --> 00:36:47.390
- public hearing. Yes, if it's an item, I think appropriation ordinance is among them, that requires a

00:36:47.390 --> 00:36:54.964
- public hearing, then we would have to take public comment. It couldn't be on the consent agenda. Well,

00:36:54.964 --> 00:37:01.214
- and some reports also require a public hearing. I don't remember which ones anymore.

00:37:01.378 --> 00:37:07.426
- But I remember last year when I was president, there were several that I had to say, like, this is a

00:37:07.426 --> 00:37:13.474
- statutorily required public hearing for this thing, even if it wasn't. Like, it wasn't necessarily a

00:37:13.474 --> 00:37:19.523
- piece of legislation. But I think it was, yeah. It might be coordinated with an exemption clause and

00:37:19.523 --> 00:37:25.571
- be like, unless for a study by Indiana or something else. Unless legally required. There would be no

00:37:25.571 --> 00:37:27.966
- public comment unless legally required.

00:37:30.082 --> 00:37:36.801
- With whatever special words attorneys want to use for legally required because usually well. So we want,

00:37:36.801 --> 00:37:43.840
- or do we want to just say those items and not be on percentage. For example, you want those non controversial

00:37:43.840 --> 00:37:50.494
- appropriation ordinances or those resolutions on the consent agenda, but if you want to put legislation

00:37:50.494 --> 00:37:53.310
- on the consent agenda or leave that option.

00:37:54.882 --> 00:38:01.998
- and some of those things might, or even reports for that matter, like some of those reports that we

00:38:01.998 --> 00:38:09.328
- got last year, I would probably, if we wanna, because like there often wasn't public comment to those.

00:38:09.328 --> 00:38:16.515
- That's true, but we still have to author it. Right, yeah. I don't know, we're spending a lot of time

00:38:16.515 --> 00:38:24.414
- here to make our meeting shorter. So if we're legally required to have public comment, then of course we will.

00:38:24.738 --> 00:38:35.247
- Yeah. Either by not having the item on the subject of, or by allowing other comments on the consent

00:38:35.247 --> 00:38:45.967
- agenda. Or on specific items that are on the subject of that. All right. Well, I think we need to put

00:38:45.967 --> 00:38:52.798
- a pin in all of this. There's a chance of an error up there. OK.

00:38:55.170 --> 00:39:02.445
- prior to the meeting. So we have a comment via Zoom. When and how would the public request the agenda

00:39:02.445 --> 00:39:09.648
- change? Would that for prior to the meeting or during the meeting? So at this point we're not making

00:39:09.648 --> 00:39:16.923
- any final decisions on this but I think whoever recommended it would be prior to the meeting. I would

00:39:16.923 --> 00:39:24.127
- think so. Because when people come to the meetings they usually come to the meetings with a specific

00:39:24.127 --> 00:39:25.054
- kind of like

00:39:25.314 --> 00:39:33.132
- I'm coming to the meeting because of this thing. So there's something on our consent agenda that somebody

00:39:33.132 --> 00:39:40.582
- knows, like, that they have a question on, or they have a problem with, or they have a concern with.

00:39:40.582 --> 00:39:48.031
- They've probably done that. Yes. OK. Let us go to public comment on this item. And keep in mind that

00:39:48.031 --> 00:39:55.038
- we are not moving this forward as legislation at this time. We still need some legal guidance.

00:39:55.714 --> 00:40:01.883
- Anybody in the public want to comment? Yes. Briefly, I've been asking over 50 times. Please pull it.

00:40:01.883 --> 00:40:08.236
- I'm sorry, I'm doing multi-sharing today. I'm trying to speak for the last one or two. Anyway, briefly,

00:40:08.236 --> 00:40:14.527
- it's a very important thing. Thank you all for your work. Part of this goes, of course, to how you see

00:40:14.527 --> 00:40:21.063
- the value of public comment. We won't go into this moment, but I think this does inform what we're looking

00:40:21.063 --> 00:40:25.278
- for. We're looking for public comment or public comment or whatever.

00:40:25.474 --> 00:40:32.806
- What's the word? Instrumental issue is, I don't want to see the council to be tying itself up. We're

00:40:32.806 --> 00:40:40.283
- not able to respond to what's going on at the time. I like choice in a council meeting. You'd say, oh,

00:40:40.283 --> 00:40:47.615
- there's 73 people here. I'm exaggerating for a fact. It's not anything here you can talk about. What

00:40:47.615 --> 00:40:54.366
- is the protocol? What I think you're heading is what are the options you can do at the time?

00:40:55.106 --> 00:41:02.202
- where it might go here, it might go there. And I think it is generally for process, and I don't care

00:41:02.202 --> 00:41:09.439
- about the venue, having an ability to say, to make appropriate within the law, staff that's responsive

00:41:09.439 --> 00:41:16.606
- to the challenges of the moment, as opposed to saying, well, we can't do anything. So I like the idea

00:41:16.606 --> 00:41:23.070
- of this protocol for a choice, or what do people think. So you don't get the council member

00:41:23.906 --> 00:41:31.139
- people hating him or her right away just because the people are here and he can't or she can't do anything

00:41:31.139 --> 00:41:38.102
- about it. And, you know, so choice somehow in this, you know, some options to take stock of the moment

00:41:38.102 --> 00:41:44.997
- without meaning the moment should rule either balance at all things. But still, I'm thinking, I think

00:41:44.997 --> 00:41:51.486
- one thing I don't understand, you're only talking about it as my question is a public question.

00:41:51.778 --> 00:41:59.147
- I am still confused, and this is why I was hoping, Lord, that'd be simpler. Something I haven't done.

00:41:59.147 --> 00:42:06.587
- No? Crossly. Oh, no, not crossly. The president's here because I talked to her at this meeting, I want

00:42:06.587 --> 00:42:13.956
- to get my paperwork clear, what's happening with that whole process option for not just cross council

00:42:13.956 --> 00:42:21.758
- member deliberation, but public incentive, you know, that whole thing. So I don't understand to some extent

00:42:21.922 --> 00:42:28.301
- The choice-making around these things been in this larger, what I think, protocol established choice-making

00:42:28.301 --> 00:42:34.384
- for the council for where things go. And I'm not clear, tell me, and I'll try to clear it up, and then

00:42:34.384 --> 00:42:40.408
- go out and sit back there and quiet for a little bit. But there was a process. And I forget, I always

00:42:40.408 --> 00:42:46.846
- forget what it's called, because I do other things and teach and things, I get hearing, oh yeah, that stuff.

00:42:47.266 --> 00:42:54.662
- But there's that consensus process. We've had some meetings around what that says. I forget what the

00:42:54.662 --> 00:43:02.132
- title of that is. Deliberation sessions. It is deliberation sessions. Thank you. So this goes back to

00:43:02.132 --> 00:43:09.528
- the question, think about what's controversial or non-controversial or administrative or appropriate

00:43:09.528 --> 00:43:14.654
- for deliberation. Where, how, and who that's getting thought through.

00:43:15.074 --> 00:43:21.450
- I don't need to talk about it. I know there were communities, but I want to go on Sunday. So I'm just

00:43:21.450 --> 00:43:28.264
- saying, that's just confusing to me. Simply as a quasi-informed member of the public who pays some attention

00:43:28.264 --> 00:43:34.703
- when I can, that I admit I'm not paying all the attention all the time, even though I love this thing.

00:43:34.703 --> 00:43:41.204
- But I pay more attention when I've got nothing else to do. But so that's all. That's all. Those things,

00:43:41.204 --> 00:43:44.830
- I think, don't diminish the public engagement, obviously,

00:43:44.962 --> 00:43:52.174
- is trying to use it well and wisely. And it's a way, not only for informed participation, but to inform

00:43:52.174 --> 00:43:59.109
- decision makers. So we're trying, it's not just the same way I was concerned about the Novak report

00:43:59.109 --> 00:44:06.113
- being too instrumental in its what it was looking at and trying to solve. I hope you'll look at this

00:44:06.113 --> 00:44:13.048
- issue or public comment and relate it in its broadest sense of purposes and what it can do, and not

00:44:13.048 --> 00:44:14.782
- simply we never go home.

00:44:15.362 --> 00:44:23.979
- I mean, the council can never get out of Dodge because you never leave the room because they're there

00:44:23.979 --> 00:44:32.681
- forever. All real stuff. But I am concerned about how we make it look best over comments and processes

00:44:32.681 --> 00:44:40.876
- we can have. Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. Let us know. I have my hand raised.

00:44:40.876 --> 00:44:43.326
- I'm sorry. I did not see it.

00:44:43.458 --> 00:44:53.291
- Sorry, now. So in terms of the consentage, my name's Eric Oost and I want to express appreciation for

00:44:53.291 --> 00:45:03.414
- all your work because this is very important. The process is important. So the details of consent agenda

00:45:03.414 --> 00:45:12.862
- items will still be published in the packet, correct? Yes. And so if a member of the public reads

00:45:13.058 --> 00:45:22.347
- the packet, and you had suggested earlier is one possibility is that if they would like to have an agenda

00:45:22.347 --> 00:45:31.198
- item taken off the consent agenda, that they make that request before the meeting. So how would they

00:45:31.198 --> 00:45:36.894
- know to do so? And also, how would that request be communicated?

00:45:37.730 --> 00:45:46.420
- in a reliable way, to whom would it go? To any council member, to the council email address, phone call

00:45:46.420 --> 00:45:55.194
- to the council, staff, clerk, mayor. And then if somebody read the packet and saw an item on the consent

00:45:55.194 --> 00:46:03.884
- agenda and they were not aware of that protocol, and let's say there's 30 people in the room, how would

00:46:03.884 --> 00:46:05.054
- you determine

00:46:05.730 --> 00:46:13.047
- what those people are there for, and would that influence the decision to take things off the consent

00:46:13.047 --> 00:46:20.292
- agenda? I think understanding the desire for efficiency is important, and there are some things that

00:46:20.292 --> 00:46:27.466
- are perfunctory and probably could be handled in a consent agenda, but perfunctory things typically

00:46:27.466 --> 00:46:28.542
- can be handled

00:46:30.018 --> 00:46:37.511
- quickly anyway under the current process. But I think as Mr. Ansler was saying, you know, the opportunity

00:46:37.511 --> 00:46:44.650
- that we have here in Bloomington and in Monroe County government too, but to offer public comment, I

00:46:44.650 --> 00:46:52.142
- think is really incredibly valuable. And it helps the public feel like they have agency and are involved.

00:46:52.142 --> 00:46:56.030
- And I think it's important to maintain that while also

00:46:57.634 --> 00:47:05.271
- respecting the need for efficiency. So those are my questions, is what happens when 30 people show up,

00:47:05.271 --> 00:47:12.241
- and there's a Consent Agenda item that is of interest to them. How do you determine that? OK.

00:47:12.241 --> 00:47:19.879
- Thank you. I have noted your questions, and we can raise those when we get more legal feedback on this

00:47:19.879 --> 00:47:22.622
- item next time, hopefully next time.

00:47:23.042 --> 00:47:35.366
- Okay. Next item is whether we want to recommend to the full council that each item of legislation needs

00:47:35.366 --> 00:47:47.572
- a council sponsor. And this is a thing in some other cities. Actually, I talked with somebody from the

00:47:47.572 --> 00:47:51.838
- city court from Hattiesville today.

00:47:52.514 --> 00:48:01.562
- Um, and she said for resolutions, they need three council members as sponsors and for legislation or

00:48:01.562 --> 00:48:10.521
- ordinances, they need one. So I thought that was an interesting distinction. Um, but, uh, what, uh,

00:48:10.521 --> 00:48:20.286
- noted here on our agenda is, you know, what, how would this work logistically? Does the administration does,

00:48:20.642 --> 00:48:28.022
- reach out to a council member and ask them to sponsor something. Or do they bring items of legislation

00:48:28.022 --> 00:48:35.546
- to our council attorney or administrator and say, help me match this with somebody or county's referral.

00:48:35.546 --> 00:48:42.712
- So I guess I open it up to other committee members, whether you like the idea and then how it might

00:48:42.712 --> 00:48:49.662
- be implemented. I do like the idea. We could do it similar to bringing in the state house visit.

00:48:49.954 --> 00:48:57.546
- in which every legislator is allowed to bring so many resolutions and ordinances forward. It's not referred

00:48:57.546 --> 00:49:04.646
- to as ordinances at the State House, but whatever piece of legislation they have, each member of the

00:49:04.646 --> 00:49:11.887
- body is allowed to bring so many forward. And so that I know in one of our previous discussions, there

00:49:11.887 --> 00:49:19.198
- was concern that maybe one or two council members might be relied on to sponsor all of the legislation.

00:49:19.842 --> 00:49:26.833
- putting limits on, you know, putting some working stops at a bit of a year would circumvent that, but

00:49:26.833 --> 00:49:33.892
- I also acknowledge that they would probably raise some other issues. So we don't need to do it exactly

00:49:33.892 --> 00:49:40.883
- like the State House, but that is another, I guess, sponsoring form of government that we can come to

00:49:40.883 --> 00:49:47.326
- as an example of. It's a different line. I think that it's a good idea as well. I especially,

00:49:47.746 --> 00:49:52.973
- When I was thinking about this, I think it's, there have been many times I feel like where we've gotten

00:49:52.973 --> 00:49:58.100
- things from the administration and I've kind of been like, I have a really obvious question right now

00:49:58.100 --> 00:50:03.277
- that is confusing to me because I am not the professional in the field. And it's like, I didn't bother

00:50:03.277 --> 00:50:08.655
- with that. So I think that that's at least one valuable reason to have somebody who's not the professional

00:50:08.655 --> 00:50:14.184
- in the field, like get eyes on it just to be like, I want some understanding of this and from the perspective

00:50:14.184 --> 00:50:15.038
- of a legislator.

00:50:15.618 --> 00:50:27.271
- asking the questions. So I think that that's a good way to kind of preview for the department what they

00:50:27.271 --> 00:50:38.588
- need. So I like that. I appreciate that idea of trying to like spread around the responsibility. I'm

00:50:38.588 --> 00:50:43.966
- wondering if it could be done almost with like,

00:50:44.130 --> 00:50:51.727
- kind of aligning with what other appointments we have or like whenever you're going to be board of commission

00:50:51.727 --> 00:50:58.909
- kind of stuff in terms of thinking about like some of the brain commissions. So things related to video

00:50:58.909 --> 00:51:06.367
- planning would make sense to have me as the sponsor for that. And then the ROLO is on because so everything

00:51:06.367 --> 00:51:13.342
- that's sustainably ended maybe like it should go ahead and like, you know, like something like that,

00:51:13.826 --> 00:51:21.068
- of coincides them or, you know, in the same way that, like, we did the, um, the board mission, the interview

00:51:21.068 --> 00:51:27.977
- committee process, the liaison stuff, it's that kind of idea, like, okay, I'm, I'm liaisoning the Human

00:51:27.977 --> 00:51:34.953
- Rights Commission right now, so if they have something they want to bring forward, they should logically

00:51:34.953 --> 00:51:41.065
- come to me, right? And so a similar kind of process only with departments or, I don't know,

00:51:41.065 --> 00:51:43.390
- in terms of, like, first choice of

00:51:44.546 --> 00:51:53.542
- council member, because I also don't want it to get stalled on the administrative end because they can't.

00:51:53.542 --> 00:52:02.454
- You could put like a one, two, three. This is like council member Stoutford's first choice, but if she's

00:52:02.454 --> 00:52:10.941
- not available, council members will look at that next. I like what I've heard from both of you, but

00:52:10.941 --> 00:52:12.638
- what do you mean if

00:52:13.282 --> 00:52:18.944
- We go to this customer first if they're not really willing to distance well like departments, like for

00:52:18.944 --> 00:52:24.990
- example, planning and transportation. If that's number software is not available, or the other two councilors

00:52:24.990 --> 00:52:30.542
- they didn't contact for issues not responsible for the other options that they have because we don't

00:52:30.542 --> 00:52:33.950
- want to solve it because one number is willing to sponsor it.

00:52:34.146 --> 00:52:40.383
- Right, because I also have under the responsibilities of the sponsor while they should be able to support

00:52:40.383 --> 00:52:46.326
- the legislation. So it's like they go to the first choice and the first choice is like, I think that

00:52:46.326 --> 00:52:52.210
- I would vote no on that. But that doesn't mean, you know, if the majority vote no. Yeah, so I think

00:52:52.210 --> 00:52:58.505
- that having some options would preserve the council as a bodies economy while also allowing the individual

00:52:58.505 --> 00:53:01.918
- council members to be able to pick what they do or don't.

00:53:02.370 --> 00:53:08.752
- So yes, because I don't want you to feel like you have to sponsor every single piece of orchestration

00:53:08.752 --> 00:53:15.009
- about planning a transportation. But that doesn't mean that nobody else will be going to, so. Yeah,

00:53:15.009 --> 00:53:21.453
- I think that there are some types of ordinances where it's much more obvious what council member would

00:53:21.453 --> 00:53:27.835
- be the most appropriate. And we also, if there's something from utilities, it would be council member

00:53:27.835 --> 00:53:31.902
- Flaherty to ex officio on the utility service. That makes sense.

00:53:32.066 --> 00:53:38.555
- you know, what if we get something for radio ordinance, you know, a chair of the fiscal committee and

00:53:38.555 --> 00:53:45.044
- what I think the fiscal committee would need to identify something to sponsor that. Or maybe somebody

00:53:45.044 --> 00:53:51.915
- on the fiscal committee. Maybe it doesn't always have to be the chair. Maybe it's brought to the committee.

00:53:51.915 --> 00:53:58.531
- Right. Yeah, yeah. Interim committees assess legislation that is passed by boards of commissions, which

00:53:58.531 --> 00:53:59.422
- is very rare.

00:53:59.650 --> 00:54:07.847
- Which is very fair. We still have a process for it. We now theoretically have a process. I don't know

00:54:07.847 --> 00:54:16.125
- if we've had to do that yet. Yeah, and I mean, I guess I'm trying to think like what legislation would

00:54:16.125 --> 00:54:24.724
- I sponsor according to this kind of framework when I'm on the waste reduction board. So I guess sanitation

00:54:24.724 --> 00:54:26.814
- and recycling type thing.

00:54:27.650 --> 00:54:36.805
- Yeah, so when you were in council there, you might need if there's two people on like anything brought

00:54:36.805 --> 00:54:45.872
- out of turrets. Well, I don't know. Sanitation is public works. But there's like, there's an overlap.

00:54:45.872 --> 00:54:55.294
- Yeah, but it's like what else is under public works? So it's odd ideas. Right. And I'm not the liaison to

00:54:55.426 --> 00:55:05.018
- So there's seven sub-departments. It might make sense to divvy that amongst council members as well.

00:55:05.018 --> 00:55:14.515
- But I think it could be a similar structure to affiliate council members. So among council members,

00:55:14.515 --> 00:55:22.302
- we would develop a list. Yeah. Or like a broad framework. Like I don't want to...

00:55:22.594 --> 00:55:29.465
- I don't want to feel like we need to develop something so specific before we put it into place with

00:55:29.465 --> 00:55:36.748
- this, because, I mean, under the, how does the administration seek a sponsor? I wrote, we're gonna really

00:55:36.748 --> 00:55:43.825
- ask. Like, I mean, I think probably most of the time with most department heads, they're gonna be able

00:55:43.825 --> 00:55:51.040
- to pretty easily identify a council member that would make sense either with the legislation or somebody

00:55:51.040 --> 00:55:52.414
- who's already like,

00:55:52.546 --> 00:55:58.557
- Yeah, we're, you know, involved in one way or another. And so if we, I mean, what we're concerned that

00:55:58.557 --> 00:56:04.802
- we just don't want to be told to have the right to do all the work, essentially, like, is that the concern

00:56:04.802 --> 00:56:10.931
- that got brought up last fall? Well, or just like, that there are two, we're getting to the last numbers

00:56:10.931 --> 00:56:16.884
- that maybe like the administration would continue to go to the line of thousands of concerns that was

00:56:16.884 --> 00:56:22.078
- raised. And so to inspire more collaborations, I guess the body as a whole, it might be,

00:56:22.818 --> 00:56:29.540
- more productive to maybe say council is going to indicate interests in various departments, something

00:56:29.540 --> 00:56:36.328
- like that. Yeah. Yeah. There wasn't a concern that they just always go to the council president. Yeah.

00:56:36.328 --> 00:56:43.116
- That would make sense. Because then the council president always has to pass the gavel every time it's

00:56:43.116 --> 00:56:49.772
- president. That's true. It's true. Yeah. It's totally not worth going to the vice president. Yeah. I

00:56:49.772 --> 00:56:52.606
- think it would make a lot of sense to just

00:56:53.026 --> 00:56:59.159
- to be up somehow because what I don't want to see is frustrations between us because one of us is being

00:56:59.159 --> 00:57:05.232
- asked to sponsor a lot. And I don't want to see frustrations with staff who actually want to get stuff

00:57:05.232 --> 00:57:11.247
- done and accomplish things and then they get solidifying sponsors. So, you know, having a fallback in

00:57:11.247 --> 00:57:17.143
- there of, you know, contacting council staff to be like, hey, I'm having a hard time with this. Can

00:57:17.143 --> 00:57:21.566
- you help me? Or contacting the vice president or the president or whoever.

00:57:21.890 --> 00:57:29.995
- You know, in terms of that procedure, like if you're not finding. Yeah. Okay, let's go to public comment

00:57:29.995 --> 00:57:38.100
- and then we can talk about next steps. Okay. Is there any number of the public who would like to comment

00:57:38.100 --> 00:57:41.342
- Councilmember sponsorship of legislation.

00:57:53.410 --> 00:58:01.929
- So what do you think would be a good next step? I mean, I could draft a memo, I think that we would

00:58:01.929 --> 00:58:10.703
- have to change code to require a sponsor. If we're going to contact a lawyer about some contract work,

00:58:10.703 --> 00:58:19.392
- that might be another thing to ask about, which I will make a note to ask about that as well later at

00:58:19.392 --> 00:58:20.414
- the hiring.

00:58:20.610 --> 00:58:29.239
- maybe we should bring this to the full council for a vote before we work on legislation. What if a majority

00:58:29.239 --> 00:58:37.309
- of council says now we don't have to do this? Do we need to bring that before the rest of council as

00:58:37.309 --> 00:58:45.299
- part of our report from this committee? Yeah, I think it also might be worth presenting some of the

00:58:45.299 --> 00:58:49.694
- different options that we discussed just to get like a

00:58:51.394 --> 00:58:58.801
- I don't know, a little water test of how we strategize with people like. Right. Like in terms of about

00:58:58.801 --> 00:59:06.207
- how staff would contact council members. Yeah, yeah. Cause kind of, I mean, we basically discussed two

00:59:06.207 --> 00:59:13.470
- strategies, right? Like I've heard in Hopping and council members kind of have like sign up for what

00:59:13.470 --> 00:59:19.870
- departments or types of things that they want to be contacted with or like an automatic,

00:59:21.026 --> 00:59:28.449
- you play this role on this commission, therefore, you're the first person. I do think there's also the

00:59:28.449 --> 00:59:35.944
- question of, did we want to limit the amount of legislation that an individual cast member can sponsor?

00:59:35.944 --> 00:59:43.223
- That could be yearly, that could be monthly, that could be quarterly. It doesn't need to be like the

00:59:43.223 --> 00:59:50.718
- exact same as the state house does it. I'm not even advocating for that. I'm just putting it out there.

00:59:50.914 --> 00:59:59.082
- us a option that we have available. I don't know. I don't know that I would want to do that. Okay. Just

00:59:59.082 --> 01:00:07.013
- because I don't know. Like I don't want to stall legislation in there somewhere, right? So there's a

01:00:07.013 --> 01:00:14.867
- certain department or certain, you know, like category of things where just like there's a bunch of

01:00:14.867 --> 01:00:18.558
- legislation, you know, maybe it's all similar.

01:00:18.946 --> 01:00:26.512
- right, but there's still several different pieces. I don't want to cap on that. And I wouldn't want

01:00:26.512 --> 01:00:34.153
- to artificially make a department have to work with more than one council member if they were having

01:00:34.153 --> 01:00:42.248
- similar things. And I think probably because we all are for our time, I think that it's going to naturally

01:00:42.248 --> 01:00:47.166
- sort of distribute in some ways, especially if we have a list of

01:00:47.394 --> 01:00:57.008
- opt-ins or a list of first, second, thirds. I mean, it's natural in the fall, you know, like you were

01:00:57.008 --> 01:01:06.528
- going on vacation or two weeks or more on the day when all of the crap has to be in, you know. Yeah,

01:01:06.528 --> 01:01:15.294
- I was not put a limit on it. We could add that later if it seems like it's falling too hard.

01:01:15.426 --> 01:01:24.883
- I just wanted to bring it up. You know, it's interesting. Okay, so I work on a memo. Maybe I'll put

01:01:24.883 --> 01:01:34.434
- it all in the same memo. Thank you so much. Yeah, probably that would be. So should we ask this full

01:01:34.434 --> 01:01:45.214
- council to also vote on the idea of consent agendas? I think I think we have a decent amount of support for that.

01:01:45.442 --> 01:01:54.164
- We have mentioned it, I think, in level four. I think so. Or number four. And there were some questions,

01:01:54.164 --> 01:02:02.554
- but I don't think there was any strong opposition. I remember having some serious concerns that have

01:02:02.554 --> 01:02:11.774
- been alleviated based on the list of things. That's why I remember. Which we have not quite clarified yet. No.

01:02:12.162 --> 01:02:20.685
- legal council, so. Right, yeah. Okay, so we don't need to go on that. I can draft a memo and send it

01:02:20.685 --> 01:02:29.123
- to each committee member individually to see if we have feedback prior to putting it in the packet.

01:02:29.123 --> 01:02:37.815
- Okay. So for April 1st, I'd have to do that. Based on that, well, there is a chance that we don't have

01:02:37.815 --> 01:02:41.950
- a meeting on April 1st, because we're not saying

01:02:42.050 --> 01:02:48.011
- unless like something's supposed to fall off when it's dead. But it is likely, well, I don't want to

01:02:48.011 --> 01:02:54.148
- say it's likely. We don't have a lot of stuff just that's going to be running for April 1st, especially

01:02:54.148 --> 01:03:00.050
- because it's one week after our most recent meeting. So there's a chance that we will not be having

01:03:00.050 --> 01:03:06.010
- a regular scheduled session. It's going to work into something else. But I just want you to be aware

01:03:06.010 --> 01:03:12.030
- of that so that we're not, like you don't need to struggle. It's all in our hands. I appreciate that.

01:03:13.090 --> 01:03:22.550
- All right, we already did public comment on this. So let us go to agenda item five, allowing non-city

01:03:22.550 --> 01:03:32.195
- residents to serve on boards and commissions. So just going in the order that's on the agenda. And this

01:03:32.195 --> 01:03:40.542
- is something that we started in 2025. So council member Flaherty did report back to me on

01:03:41.410 --> 01:03:49.976
- the Environmental Commission where we find his name. So just for some background, so this came about

01:03:49.976 --> 01:03:58.711
- largely because the Bloomington Arts Commission had a member who was within city limits but then moved

01:03:58.711 --> 01:04:07.191
- outside of city limits and then thus was removed from the commission because that was a requirement

01:04:07.191 --> 01:04:09.566
- to live within city limits.

01:04:10.274 --> 01:04:16.835
- And this kind of opened the question as to, is it really necessary for people serving on some of our

01:04:16.835 --> 01:04:23.657
- commissions to live with good signals? And some of the commissions already allow people that are outside

01:04:23.657 --> 01:04:29.698
- city limits. Sorry, I'm trying to find it. Here it is, okay. So, from Councilman O'Flaherty,

01:04:29.698 --> 01:04:36.260
- the environmental commission is generally agnostic, maybe with a slight meaning in favor of allowing

01:04:36.260 --> 01:04:38.014
- the county seat to reopen.

01:04:38.786 --> 01:04:45.921
- Number one, environmental boundaries are different than city boundaries. Number two, the Monroe County

01:04:45.921 --> 01:04:52.987
- Environmental Commission has largely retooled focus on resilience, meaning there may be less focus on

01:04:52.987 --> 01:05:00.260
- other environmental issues via county commission for now. So that is the feedback from them. So we might

01:05:00.260 --> 01:05:07.326
- consider letting one seat on the Environmental Commission, be somebody who lives outside city limits.

01:05:08.322 --> 01:05:19.135
- The transportation commission, I think, I'm trying to remember, that was also Matt and he serves on

01:05:19.135 --> 01:05:30.165
- it. I think the main reason that we put that mission on the list is that they have one seat that says

01:05:30.165 --> 01:05:37.950
- we would like to have somebody from MCCST on here, the school district.

01:05:38.562 --> 01:05:45.301
- And the person recommended by the school district did not leave the city limits. I think, but I think

01:05:45.301 --> 01:05:52.171
- that detail was lost when he talked to the transportation commissioner. So he was going to talk to them

01:05:52.171 --> 01:05:58.910
- again. Well, with the transportation commissioner in particular, with, you know, ET, there are routes

01:05:58.910 --> 01:06:05.583
- that go outside of city limits and, you know, county does work with ET to fund those routes. So I do

01:06:05.583 --> 01:06:07.102
- think that it would be

01:06:08.226 --> 01:06:15.244
- worth having one person and that's not even saying this has to be reserved for a county resident but

01:06:15.244 --> 01:06:22.401
- to say up to this many seats can be county especially because transportation is truly an accessibility

01:06:22.401 --> 01:06:29.559
- issue and like there are quite a lot of people who live in the county you can't afford to live in city

01:06:29.559 --> 01:06:36.716
- don't this but that doesn't mean that their dedication for investment is willing to this future is any

01:06:36.716 --> 01:06:37.758
- less they just

01:06:38.338 --> 01:06:46.296
- when we got half the same tax rate, which, awesome. I would argue that the transportation commission

01:06:46.296 --> 01:06:54.175
- doesn't really care. Okay, I think like, because I don't think that that's, I would have to go back

01:06:54.175 --> 01:07:02.054
- to the language. But if we created it as a joining of parking and traffic and bike pen, and BT is a

01:07:02.054 --> 01:07:07.806
- separate. Yeah, that's fair. It was just an example, but I do think that

01:07:08.098 --> 01:07:18.088
- You know, when we talk about transportation, like that doesn't stop when we get to city limits, especially

01:07:18.088 --> 01:07:27.798
- since we have, I think the number is 16,000 people who live outside of the rural county but work inside

01:07:27.798 --> 01:07:37.694
- of it. And so I do think that it would be fruitful to have other representation. As you recall, the thing

01:07:38.434 --> 01:07:46.249
- question that guided our thoughts on this last fall was, does this commission make funding decisions

01:07:46.249 --> 01:07:53.986
- or advise on funding, city funding for projects? And the transportation commission does. And so the

01:07:53.986 --> 01:08:02.033
- mayor's position is if they deal with city money, they need to live in the city. Just to remind us all.

01:08:02.033 --> 01:08:07.294
- Well, I guess my question would be, when we think about the county,

01:08:07.938 --> 01:08:16.469
- Are we considering them a partner or an adversary? And I would like to say partner. And I do think that

01:08:16.469 --> 01:08:24.754
- the residents of Monroe County, I would hope they would like to say partner as well, but it's pretty

01:08:24.754 --> 01:08:33.613
- hard to be like a partner if you're shut out of all of it. So thank you. Okay, moving on with my recording.

01:08:33.613 --> 01:08:36.894
- The Farmer's Market Advisory Commission

01:08:37.986 --> 01:08:46.183
- already has county membership. It is actually a commission that is not in our city code. So the general

01:08:46.183 --> 01:08:54.143
- rule about having to be a city resident doesn't apply to them anyway. The NLK birthday commission. I

01:08:54.143 --> 01:09:02.182
- spoke with Dr. Gloria Howland who has a really good accessibility issue and there are a lot of people

01:09:02.182 --> 01:09:04.862
- who are invested in that specific

01:09:05.442 --> 01:09:14.693
- Commission who live outside of city limits, but would still like to participate. I have not had a chance

01:09:14.693 --> 01:09:23.504
- to actually go to the commission, but Dr. Howell, I believe, is the chair. So she would be in favor

01:09:23.504 --> 01:09:32.667
- of allowing somebody outside city limits. I would say it was more like diagnostic, but definitely there

01:09:32.667 --> 01:09:34.782
- was not any opposition.

01:09:37.666 --> 01:09:50.111
- then the Digital Underground Advisory Commission was also fine, but I haven't gotten a chance to visit

01:09:50.111 --> 01:10:02.194
- them, so I instead might send their chair and staff liaison a meeting. Okay. The CAS Commission has

01:10:02.194 --> 01:10:07.390
- had trouble having a forum to meet. I have

01:10:08.162 --> 01:10:17.197
- gone to their meetings several times in the last year and they're really still just trying to get their

01:10:17.197 --> 01:10:26.232
- bearings because they had a lot of turnover. So I have not asked them. I personally from observing them

01:10:26.232 --> 01:10:35.266
- think they would benefit from having more dedicated members and if there was somebody who was otherwise

01:10:35.266 --> 01:10:36.222
- qualified,

01:10:36.802 --> 01:10:46.326
- who interviewed or who applied. I personally would be inclined to let them serve. You know, police also,

01:10:46.326 --> 01:10:55.578
- it's just part of public safety and it's, you know, it doesn't change when you leave there sitting on

01:10:55.578 --> 01:11:04.830
- us, whether you are, you feel safe or, what's word for jurisdictions, at least, yeah, in this county.

01:11:13.090 --> 01:11:21.106
- Now, Cindy and I are on the same interview committee. I hope he's on a different one. Have any of you

01:11:21.106 --> 01:11:29.514
- seen applicants in recent weeks that were from outside city limits that you were disappointed you couldn't

01:11:29.514 --> 01:11:38.159
- consider or any feedback on that? Well, we had a post call with someone who applied for Historic Preservation

01:11:38.159 --> 01:11:39.102
- Commission.

01:11:39.266 --> 01:11:47.451
- who's had a decent application but did not specify their address. But we followed up with Berth, and

01:11:47.451 --> 01:11:55.880
- I say again Berth, across the week. But we, she reached out to, we gave a great role who confirmed that

01:11:55.880 --> 01:12:04.309
- they did limit city limits. But if she had not, that would have contributed to our inability to afford.

01:12:04.309 --> 01:12:08.766
- We are drastically short on applicants for not voting.

01:12:08.994 --> 01:12:36.862
- So what should we do next? And I'm trying to remember where

01:12:38.562 --> 01:12:46.061
- The Arts Commission was left off this list, not because we wouldn't consider them, but because we already

01:12:46.061 --> 01:12:53.347
- heard from them that they weren't included. Somebody outside said, is that right? Yes. And I will just

01:12:53.347 --> 01:13:00.422
- raise that there are liaisoners off. Not a field position right now. The city is still hiring for a

01:13:00.422 --> 01:13:06.718
- couple of council. Oh, the staff liaison. And who's the council liaison? I'll be honest.

01:13:07.298 --> 01:13:15.966
- But yes, I have had extensive conversations with multiple commission members about this, and they are

01:13:15.966 --> 01:13:24.464
- in favor. And the mayor's office was opposed because they do recommend funding. I believe they also

01:13:24.464 --> 01:13:31.262
- said they'll administer it further. Yeah, I couldn't understand that. They did.

01:13:37.794 --> 01:13:48.241
- So thoughts on, where are we going from here? That seems to be probably a muscle-asshole discussion

01:13:48.241 --> 01:13:59.107
- before we write down the dissociation. Yeah, let's have, so how are we going to have, I think it should

01:13:59.107 --> 01:14:06.942
- be a recommendation from this committee. Okay. Is it recommended and then,

01:14:07.042 --> 01:14:19.487
- or say conditional on the approval of the whole body. And that now, yeah, we won't recommend the allowing

01:14:19.487 --> 01:14:32.049
- of counties to be taught exercising emissions. Yeah, so. So I guess consider the environmental commission,

01:14:32.049 --> 01:14:36.510
- arts commission, the arts commission.

01:14:38.626 --> 01:14:45.856
- I mean, I would limit in each case, I would limit it to one seat. Sure. Transportation Commission, I

01:14:45.856 --> 01:14:53.230
- would personally limit it to the seat that CCSE is asked to fill. So I actually just like read through

01:14:53.230 --> 01:15:00.961
- that again, and it says two members shall be appointed, one by the mayor and one by the council. Preference

01:15:00.961 --> 01:15:08.478
- for appointments will be given to board members and board members or other formal volunteers within CCS.

01:15:09.506 --> 01:15:19.729
- So it's just preference. Right. It's not a requirement. And I'm reading through the rest of this. I'm

01:15:19.729 --> 01:15:29.751
- probably pretty uncomfortable with it being generally open to counting. Or just the transportation.

01:15:29.751 --> 01:15:38.270
- Just having like reading through the responsibilities and thinking about how they're

01:15:39.042 --> 01:15:45.660
- what they're potentially weighing in on, which is essentially city plans and city master plans. And

01:15:45.660 --> 01:15:52.409
- I can absolutely appreciate wanting to be a partner with the county, but I mean, you kind of said it.

01:15:52.409 --> 01:15:59.358
- So if you live within city limits, you're paying a few more taxes and shouldn't you be getting something

01:15:59.358 --> 01:16:06.174
- more for that? I think that you should be. And so I guess I'm kind of to some degree in alignment with

01:16:06.498 --> 01:16:13.439
- the administration line, like if you're handling a lot of city resources, then you should be a city

01:16:13.439 --> 01:16:20.450
- resident doing that. And I don't think the Transportation Commission is necessarily approving dollar

01:16:20.450 --> 01:16:27.461
- amount funding than the way that Arts Commission is. Though they may have some small grants in there

01:16:27.461 --> 01:16:31.070
- somewhere, but they're potentially approving plans.

01:16:31.458 --> 01:16:38.537
- like street plans and design plans, and then that impacts staffing and staff time. And so I think that

01:16:38.537 --> 01:16:45.754
- that's also kind of like having an impact on city resources. And I have a conflict about having somebody

01:16:45.754 --> 01:16:52.627
- in the county, I mean, our commissioners as well are part of the financial thing, but also it's not

01:16:52.627 --> 01:16:57.438
- as though there's a shortage of qualified candidates for those seats.

01:16:57.986 --> 01:17:05.415
- Because there are lots and lots of qualified candidates for those seats that live within the city limits.

01:17:05.415 --> 01:17:12.773
- And so once again, especially since they're dealing with some measure of, because don't they have, don't

01:17:12.773 --> 01:17:19.852
- they make decisions also about public art projects and things like that? Isn't that also, they don't

01:17:19.852 --> 01:17:27.070
- just give those grants, but they also do public art projects, especially because we have that funding.

01:17:27.298 --> 01:17:34.578
- One is for public art, one is for grants. One percent of the, at least to the convention center, I know

01:17:34.578 --> 01:17:41.718
- that has a different body to kind of govern that, but I don't know the answer to that, which time you

01:17:41.718 --> 01:17:48.998
- were getting. I do want to know three or nine minutes until our next meeting. You have to be downstairs

01:17:48.998 --> 01:17:53.758
- on the road for that. Yeah, anyway, that's my general view on that.

01:17:54.594 --> 01:18:03.960
- Okay, well, let's, um, I don't know, but we're almost to the open public comment. So, um, I will try

01:18:03.960 --> 01:18:14.068
- to get the cast commission and see what they think. Um, and hopefully we will have, uh, our fourth committee

01:18:14.068 --> 01:18:22.878
- member here at our next meeting, and then we can, um, decide how to move forward on this item.

01:18:24.418 --> 01:18:31.931
- So now let us move to a period of open general comments on the work of the Committee on House of Processes.

01:18:31.931 --> 01:18:39.166
- And I think everybody here. Very briefly, I'm not going to keep you from anything. Just on this, I will

01:18:39.166 --> 01:18:46.401
- briefly say it because there was one here. On the non-city residence question, that's a very bifurcated

01:18:46.401 --> 01:18:51.966
- view. You just narrowed this whole question, which goes to a much larger issue.

01:18:52.450 --> 01:18:58.543
- about city-county cross-jurisdictional stuff to solve and address issues that are issues that affect

01:18:58.543 --> 01:19:04.937
- people across jurisdictions. There are other ways. Think about this beyond just either non-city residents

01:19:04.937 --> 01:19:10.970
- out of border conditions. I encourage the committee to think about this. Open it up a little bit at

01:19:10.970 --> 01:19:17.184
- some point and think about, well, there's such things as they're designed for a little bit of parallel

01:19:17.184 --> 01:19:19.838
- architecture. There's non-official members.

01:19:19.938 --> 01:19:25.435
- that's official members kind of thing. There's different ways you can do things that may fit something

01:19:25.435 --> 01:19:30.771
- without getting into some of the real problem of the money thing, if I may say, you know, there's a

01:19:30.771 --> 01:19:36.161
- real stuff like that. So I think that could be a little bigger. The only other thing, the non item I

01:19:36.161 --> 01:19:41.765
- was going to mention as I made, is I understand, I've tracked for 10 years, I've looked here, the public

01:19:41.765 --> 01:19:47.315
- engagement stuff, including the public engagement director roles, which have been infused, talking with

01:19:47.315 --> 01:19:48.222
- Larry Catherine,

01:19:48.322 --> 01:19:54.661
- and I tracked the job descriptions thereof throughout. And interestingly, since I couldn't meet with

01:19:54.661 --> 01:20:00.937
- a new person because they were on board for a while, and then when I asked, finally, I thought they

01:20:00.937 --> 01:20:07.402
- weren't there anymore. And I understand from Bruce's conversation, there is no plan to retire. So this

01:20:07.402 --> 01:20:13.992
- is interesting to me, having watched this a little bit over time, and it just only comments here because

01:20:13.992 --> 01:20:17.758
- you're such an interesting commitment in terms of, I think,

01:20:17.986 --> 01:20:25.687
- the reach for good governance, if you will, and public engagement, if you will, and trust in governance,

01:20:25.687 --> 01:20:33.168
- if you will, that circulates about what you're supposed to do. I think NUSA takes stock a little bit.

01:20:33.168 --> 01:20:40.649
- Okay, what's happening with the city's attention? It doesn't underlay, to this whole question of even

01:20:40.649 --> 01:20:41.822
- public comment.

01:20:42.338 --> 01:20:48.161
- and how you inform people about what's going on. That's what I think a lot of people know. Some of them

01:20:48.161 --> 01:20:54.152
- are all the same, get to the root of it. I just think, take a look at this maybe sometime, because somehow

01:20:54.152 --> 01:20:59.975
- somebody should, it doesn't fit just in administration, it doesn't fit just in legislation, the little,

01:20:59.975 --> 01:21:05.631
- one of those big stuff things. And I think it might be time, if indeed I'm right on, what do I know?

01:21:05.631 --> 01:21:10.110
- I just talked random things, that there's no immediate higher thing that works.

01:21:10.402 --> 01:21:16.542
- That's for the public engagement director. I don't know why the person is there, nor do I need to know

01:21:16.542 --> 01:21:22.802
- or take your time, but all I know is there isn't a human. And the position as I read the job description

01:21:22.802 --> 01:21:28.883
- has never been fully attentive to the job description by anybody. And I know some of them, right? No,

01:21:28.883 --> 01:21:34.845
- not big time, close to nothing, but I know that they have had pretty good conversations and because

01:21:34.845 --> 01:21:39.614
- they clicked, different administration, right? So anyway, any kind of religious

01:21:40.002 --> 01:21:50.624
- You live to trust in government. There's a lot of money to be raised by the city. If you ever want to

01:21:50.624 --> 01:22:01.559
- pay attention to that side of it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. All right. Well,

01:22:01.559 --> 01:22:06.558
- we are next meeting the third Thursday at four.

01:22:08.322 --> 01:22:17.984
- Is that already posted? I don't see all of those on there. Yes, it's on the 16th. It's already posted

01:22:17.984 --> 01:22:27.552
- then? Yes. All right. Maybe I didn't get an official invite to it. So you are blocked out. You're on

01:22:27.552 --> 01:22:37.214
- it? Yes. I'm sorry, not April 16th? Yes. Oh, that is not third Tuesdays. Third Thursdays. Oh my gosh.

01:22:38.050 --> 01:22:47.044
- I didn't even register. That's a Thursday. I saw the T and it's Tuesday today. Am I carrying on? Seven

01:22:47.044 --> 01:22:55.777
- days of relief. And there's only like four Starbursts. We've got to spread it out. All right. So we

01:22:55.777 --> 01:23:04.509
- will reconvene on April 16th. In the meantime, I will work on the memo. All right. We're adjourned.

01:23:04.509 --> 01:23:05.470
- Thank you.