All right, I will call this meeting to order as it is 4 o'clock and we have all of our members here.
I guess we'll do attendance first. I am Council Member Sydney Zulek, District 6, and I am here. Hope
East Osborne, District 3. And you're here? No, I'm not here. I'm like a disembodied presence or something.
Thank you for spending your cerebral self with us. It's like a clone of the action. Thank you for not
being here.
Courtney Daily District 5. And I'm mostly here. Great. I'm Jennifer Crossley, Quirk's office. Isabelle
Piefont-Smith, City Council District 1. Here!
Okay. And then we have agenda review and approval. So on number two on the agenda after agenda review
is updates from the office of the city clerk. Number three is council member sponsorships of all items
of legislation. Number four, allowing non-city residents to serve on boards and commissions.
Number five, consent agenda, and then all other business. Does anyone have anything that they would
like to add to this?
And then, I guess, do we need to vote on the agenda approval? Can we just? No. Okay. In that case, agenda
approved. Let's go to number two, updates from the office of the city clerk. Take it away. Thank you.
So I will give that the code of conduct and training for board and commission. Basically, we have it
ready to go for a code of conduct once you all
kind of gave it an overview as the full council and gave that overview. And so right now, the only thing
that we are needing to do is to simply implement it. And so in order for us to implement that, that's
going to be a part of the training for commissioners. And so I am very much pleased to report for training.
We want to do staff liaison training first.
And so staff liaison training for boards and commissions will happen sometime in May. So we're trying
to finalize that and get that together. And then that's going to be a requirement. We'll have a few
different dates for everybody to attend. And then the presentations, of course, will be accessible for
everybody. Of course, following accessible guidelines would be available for everybody as well. And
then once that training is done, then we'll move on to
commission training, and then that is when the board of commission training will go. And so to give
an overview of what training would look like, basically that would entail, like, what's your role as
a liaison? What's the mission of, like, knowing the mission of each board or commission, and how to,
you know, go about doing that, and to be able to bridge the gap. Of course, some guidelines as well,
but then in terms of what
board members and commissioners would go through is basically, you know, again, with the implementation
of the code of conduct, basically expressing, you know, here's what you can and cannot do in terms of,
you know, speaking without getting approval or speaking, you know, in terms of, you know, Jennifer and
I'm speaking on behalf of the commission of McCloskey room when nobody
authorized me to do that. And so it's just making sure that people know and understand and also the
basic fundamentals of Robert's Rules of Order and what to do in terms of like attendance policies and
guidelines and so forth. So that again will be afterwards. We don't really necessarily have a date for
that, but that's probably going to be the next phase, which is in June. And so that'll come. But that
is what we are doing right now.
Would it be helpful for counselors to attend about training, or would it be mostly redundant for us?
I think you're welcome to, of course. Yeah. So I think that would be completely fine to attend. We want
to notice that if they might attend, just to make sure that we're not bouncing up against any ODL issues.
But other than that, that's it. Thank you. That's fabulous. Questions?
It's been a long time coming. And so I know that was something that I've been working on for quite a
while. And accessibility just kind of slowed things down a little bit. But for the most part, it's coming
soon. And I cannot wait to have that checked off my list. Yay. Well, thank you very much for doing all
that. You're welcome. I know that was a lot of work and a lot of people that you had to work with. Yes.
Fun times. Yes. Well, thank you. You're welcome.
And then is there an update on electronic sign up? Yes, although I'm not sure that it's really much
more of an update than where we were before, which was we were prepared to move forward and then had
a pause in terms of timing and staffing because there was a certain point where we stopped.
My personal preference would be to continue to put it on hold until we are actually settled in terms
of getting all our accessibility updates in place. Um, and additionally have worked out staff loads
for council staff and clerk staff, because right now things are definitely in flux and I don't want
to move forward with the new process until we know who's doing what when. So I know that's not a great
update, but it is perhaps the most honest and fair update, which is,
And I'm the biggest fan of the idea of having electronic sign in for meetings and everything else. But
I also do not want to start a process and have it just flail for you all and not work. So if you all
are comfortable waiting until this fall or maybe something we implement at the turn of the new year,
I would be, I'm OK with that if you guys are OK with that. If not, we can push forward. But I want to
tell you that I think it's probably not the best move to move forward right now anymore.
Thank you. Thoughts? I don't see any reason to rush. We want to get it right. Okay. Councilmember
Piedmont-Smith, is that okay with you two? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. And you were nodding? Yeah. So I
figured that was... Sure. Okay. Thank you for making that case. You know, I pushed for it, but I also...
I want to do it right as opposed to just doing it. I think a lot of circumstances have changed since
that happened. Yeah, just saying the least. We were this close to actually doing it, and then I think
that meeting, I think I wasn't there. I think that's why we put it up, but we had the testing, but then
the first meeting that we were going to do it at, and I was like, I'm not going to be here because
Is that what it was? I think so. Like there was absence somewhere. Yeah. And, and, oh, I know I wasn't
going to be there. And I think that Isabelle was sponsoring some other piece of legislation. So then
you would have had to have the gavel as parliamentarian. And then for the public comment part, like
you were also managing
Right. Some piece of that. A new piece of tech. Right. So you would have been then doing two things
that you don't usually do at the same time. Yeah. Plus a bit of a window second time. And so then I
think that we both pwned it for another meeting and I don't know why. I don't know what happened after
that. I think then we had a few, I think there was always somebody who was key who was not able to be
there. Yeah. And I think it was just a momentum. The nature of a, not the right time to start something.
The nature of the beast. Yeah. Okay. So to speak. Thank you very much.
also member sponsorships. Isabel, do you, who is on that? Well, I wrote this legislation. I think it's
pretty simple. When we brought this idea to the full council, I think it was an 8-1 vote for us to pursue
this idea of having
uh, a sponsor for all legislation. Um, so I don't know if we want to share a screen or what, um, but
you can see in the packet that, uh, there's first, there's, um, actually, I don't know what order it's
in the packet, but there's an actual ordinance, 2026-XX to amount title two, et cetera. And then the
other document was just
Thank you. Does anyone have any questions or comments on this?
Should it be co-sponsored? Like, should we co-sponsor it with the department who's bringing it as opposed
to just being sponsored by a council member? Yeah, I remember you suggesting that at the council meeting
and just looking at, you know,
four or five other Indiana Class II cities. They don't talk about co-sponsorship. And also, since we
never had, like, it was never part of our conversation that this legislation is sponsored by David Hittle
in planning and transportation, or this legislation is sponsored by Adam Wason, the director of public
work. That's never been our terminology for legislation, so I don't,
see why we would use the term co-sponsor instead of sponsor. It's a new thing. It's understood that
most of this is coming from the administration. But the sponsorship is from among the members of the
body that are considering this legislation. That's how I think of a sponsor. And then the other thing was,
Congressman Burrell is the one who voted against this. Did anybody talk to him about why? I haven't
had a chance. No. OK, I guess I'm kind of curious as to his thoughts on that. There's been a lot going
on. I haven't talked to him about this thing. Yeah, I'd be happy to reach out to him and try to understand
his hesitation
I guess I'd love to get some feedback also on the whereas clauses. I think I kind of captured the reasoning
for why we're doing this, but I welcome your thoughts. And also the effective date of July 1st, I figured
that would be, that would put us after our council recess.
meeting before recess? June 10th. Okay. We do have quite a lot of legislation to get through over the
next two meetings, but we should be able to get that on the agenda before then. I like the part about
communication in the whereas clauses to answer your question.
part about the sufficient context and explanation. I think it might be worth adding a whereas clause
on, you know, saving time and city resources to not be scrambling to answer certain questions in the
middle of a meeting in a more professional way. But that's that's my only feedback. But it looks great.
Other than that, thanks for doing that work.
Comments? I think that I would just say I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I'm just going to say if we can't fit
this in as an item of legislation before our recess, obviously we could postpone the implementation
date, right? I think we should be able to. Well. I think we should be able to.
Do we want to now move on to the? Oh, I'm so sorry. Courtney, please go ahead. That's fine. It was not
important. I was just going to say that I agree. I like the whereas section. I think it gives good context.
I think it gives a nice background and explanation of why we're here. So I don't see any problem with
it. Great. Since you asked for feedback. Yeah, thank you very much. Well, and I'm wondering whether the
Whereas Claus about the sometimes not including sufficient context or explanation and the one that went
after that about clarifying language and context, I'm kind of wondering if those could almost be like
combined because I feel like they're kind of saying the same thing. But I don't know. I don't know how
much wordsmithing we want to try to do. So I think it's OK.
Do we want to move on to implementation logistics? Sure. Great. So we talked a little bit about this
at our last meeting. We want to make sure that the administration doesn't just always go to the same
same council member for each time, and that there's some logic between council members' other roles
and what they might, what departments they work with, and their other roles, and which legislation they
might bring forward. So I kind of started up doing a list of, you know, given the duties that are assigned to
council members this year, which departments, if they might bring legislation forward, what's the legislation
from? But it gets kind of hazy. I mean, there are some that are more obvious, like our planning commission
representative could bring things from mega transportation. Our utility service board member could bring
something from CBU. But not everybody has an assignment like that, and there are some departments
I think it might be worth it to send it out to all of council and say like are there three or four or
however many like subsections that you might be interested in sponsoring legislation for what do you
see as the
the primary sectors of the work that you do on council? Is there any work that you'd like to spend more
time on? I think those kinds of things. For example, I'm not technically on any boards or commissions
that works directly with economic and sustainable development, but I do a lot of work with the small
businesses in my district and so I just naturally do a lot of work with
that department. And so I'm sure that we all have certain things like that that might fit a little bit
better. It just also occurred to me. Do you think it would be? Go ahead as well. I'm just going to say,
do you think it should be for a term of office?
Well, I think it doesn't necessarily have to be just one council member. I think it can be a more fluid
list of like
Hey, these three council members indicated that they were interested in working with the planning and
transportation department, planning and transportation department. These are your first three calls.
If you're looking for a sponsor, I don't, I don't necessarily know if it has to be like as rigid as
planning and transportation. You reach out to council members Stasberg because she's on the planning
commission. It's planning and transportation.
Council member Stossberg has a lot of expertise because she's on the Planning Commission, she might
want to be your first call. If she's not willing or doesn't support this initiative, here are the other
people that you could call and potentially get something on the docket that way. If you're on item four,
did you do public comment on item three? Yes, we will do public comment. We're still on three? We're
still on three. Good to talk. Thank you. Yeah, that makes sense.
And I think that makes sense to help keep it flowing with getting a variety of council members in the
mix. And I think it doesn't even have to be necessarily a one, two, three. It can just be a here, here
is the group. Pick your favorite. That's right.
If you pick the one that emails you back first, because here's, I mean, they can email like, like all
the people and just be like, Hey, I have this thing that I need sponsorship. Will one of you do it?
Which one of you wants to do it? Um, and yeah, so that it's whoever emails first, whoever responds.
Um, but the thing, the other thing that I wanted to ask that I was thinking about suddenly when Isabel
was talking about making the list,
was the budget legislation. Do we want to exempt the budget legislation from this? Because I think it's
a little weird to have a council member or do we want to exempt? And that would involve changing the
ordinance. But I mean, I think that we should think about that.
anything that comes out of the controller's office? Yeah. You mean like appropriations? Yeah. I think
that might make sense actually. I'm not opposed to that. Okay. I think that that would maybe be something
to talk with. I don't know. I feel like that that should be something to talk about with more experienced
legislators or the controller himself or I don't know if it makes sense to exempt all of the controller stuff.
or just all appropriation ordinances, or I don't know. Isabel, you're kind of frozen and we can't quite
get what you're saying. Oh dear, now you're gone. That's a tragedy.
Not even being facetious really is distracting. She was kind of deadly. She was the head of this one.
I know, right? Well, we need to take a recess. There she is! Yay! Eventually. There'll be video with
the... There she is! Yay! Welcome back! What were you saying about the controller's office?
She might be frozen again. At least we can see her. It doesn't matter, she's giving us a long hard stare.
All of a sudden I'm like, ooh, yeah. She's serious. It's very serious. Isabel, can you hear us?
It would be. Well, I know that she, I mean clearly she's driving, so she's probably in. No man's land.
Yeah, call it in a valley in a something. Yeah, can you can you all hear me now? Yes, you can hear me.
Yes, OK, I'm going to leave my video. I'm going to leave my video off and hopefully that will help.
Sorry about this problem. So.
that it would still be appropriate to have sponsors for additional appropriations throughout the year.
But I do agree that the budget legislation should be exempt or should have an assumption that it's sponsored
by the council president or something like that. I think that's a really good point that we need to
think about the budget legislation packet. OK.
We go to public comment, and then we can talk about final steps. Sounds good. OK, great. Would anyone
from the public like to speak on this? If you would, please come up. We have one hand raised on Zoom.
We're going to go in person first.
And if you would like to come up here so that you can get on the Zoom microphone. I think we have to.
If you could please introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes. And I'm going to put the timer right
here. Thank you, Terri Amsler. Very quickly, I think the proposed amendment to Title II is a good idea.
I just want to go on record. I think it's a good idea, I think, and timely in different ways. I will
say also that I think, and I'm not suggesting language changes, or I'm just commenting on language,
all fine. But I'm saying one of the things that's talked about is one of the improvements would be around
context, explanations, so on and so forth. I think it also may increase the effectiveness of legislation
and the effectiveness of implementation by having this
the council member involved directly as opposed to something directly from administration. So I think
there's several good reasons. The other thing, and this is a bit more of a preachment, I suppose, than
directly to the item exactly, but I think I fear, and I'll say in Bloomington even, the diminishment
of the legislative function in governance. I worry about this a little bit even trying to find
where the council is and signage and all. I mean, it's just, it's a vibe thing, I know, but it's a little
strange. And so I think this is in the right direction a bit. While understanding it could be made ridiculous
and done poorly. And I thought maybe whether a proposed ordinance should be considered and less sponsored
by, I wondered if co-sponsored, although in some cases, but you know best about where and when and for
what this is appropriate and I don't.
But I just wondered about what flexibility you want to build in language there that may help you out.
And that I don't really know what it would be. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
comments. And now to our Zoom commenter. You should be allowed to unmute. You will also have three minutes.
And as soon as you are unmuted and ready to go, you may start. OK. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
All right, good afternoon, everyone. My name's Eric Os. And I do have a few questions. I think just
to want to make a note, there's actually only two bodies. There's the legislative branch and the executive
branch. So I think that's an important observation to make here. With that said,
The proposal is for I think a partitioning of council members to be assigned or accept responsibility
for interfacing to departments. And of course there's only the executive branch, but departments.
Can any, so it's some questions which you may or may not be able to answer or want to answer at this
time. Can any council member sponsor any legislation regardless of these assignments?
does the sponsor, the sponsoring council member need to be present when the legislation is heard? How
is sponsorship ancillary or an enhancement to the fact that procedurally legislation needs to be introduced?
And is this actually going to solve the noted lack of context or explanatory information that's been
appointed consternation so I mean I understand I think I understand the intent for this but I just really
wonder how it's going to actually be helpful as opposed to perhaps just extra extra work but anyway
I think those are all my comments thank you yes
Thank you very much. I think the intended purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the legislation
has some level of council support. It also looks like Isabel's hand is up, so I'm sure that she would
like to respond as well. And as for council members being present, I anticipated yes. Council member
sponsors should in fact have to be present, and that was why we wanted to make it flexible on who can sponsor.
Anyone can sponsor anything. I just want to qualify. So if the council member who is appointed to be
liaison, and I'm using that word loosely here, does not want to, but another council member feels strongly,
or they've been lobbying to do this, can they do that? There was one opportunity for public comment.
Well, you weren't answering my question. It was not well formed. But continue, please. OK. Thank you.
Council member Smith, would you like? Council member Piedmont Smith, would you like to answer?
Yes, thank you. I think there's a misunderstanding here, and it may be because I phrased things poorly
at the outset of this topic, but this is not appointing liaisons to certain departments in the city.
This is just helping the administration define sponsors by saying, well, these three council members
have expressed interest,
in items that are coming from planning and transportation. And these two sponsors, these two council
members have shown an interest in items coming from the economic development department, for example.
It's helping the administration find sponsors so that they could have some direction as to where to
go rather than just contacting all nine of us.
So it's not, the sponsor is not going to become some kind of liaison to that department. The sponsor
is the, and there's not gonna be assignments. It's just, let's say CBU has a rate increase and they're
saying, we're thinking now, who should, who can we approach to be the sponsor of this rate increase?
Well, we've gotten this information from the council saying that
Councilmember Flaherty and Councilmember Rallo are both interested in the activities of CBU, so let's
go ask them if either of them could sponsor this. So I think that was kind of a misunderstanding on
the part of the members of public who spoke. The other thing, oh my gosh, now I've forgotten the other
part of his comments, but anyway.
I just want to clarify that part of it. Great. Thank you. I'll actually address the how is it going
to enhance. Maybe that's what Isabel had forgotten was how it was going to enhance the legislation and
the introduction. Like, why does it matter? And I'm going to.
remind us of the CBU legislation about the rate increases where we asked all of these questions that
kind of made them go like, oh yeah, like we don't quite think about it like that because sometimes when
you're so enmeshed in the topic, you don't think about it from the outside. And so forcing that sponsorship
will, you know, they'll have that greater communication early on with a single council member.
and that person hopefully will ask some of those questions so that then whoever is presenting the legislation
can then present it from this viewpoint of here's some common questions that laypeople might have about
this and why we're doing it and hopefully that will help reduce some uncertainty at the council level.
That was my impression of
when we talked about this originally, why we thought it would be helpful. I agree. Thank you. In terms
of next steps, Isabel, do you need anything else from us? I know that you wanted to talk to Controller
McKim. Other than that, is there anything else that we need to discuss as this body to continue this
forward? Well, I would love to hear from
I hope you already brought this up as to whether there should be sponsorship appropriation ordinances
in general or only the ones that come out of the sequence of the annual budget, whether we should just
make an exception for the annual budget legislation. If the other committee members could give some
feedback on that, that would be helpful.
I mean, my gut reaction is to say I don't think we should have sponsors for appropriations, bills. I
think maybe we should have a carve out an exception for all controller issues coming forward.
I think I agree. Can you help me better understand the reasoning behind that?
of money is a little bit more complicated than policy choices. I don't necessarily know that council
wants to, that any individual council member would want to put themselves in a position where they have
to defend the administration's request to transfer money. I feel like there's a conflict of interest
there that could just
feel a little bit messy and awkward. So I just think it would give a better appearance, too, if there's
not a council member sponsor for it. OK, because we're the fiduciary body, and we have to be a check
and balance on the expenditure of taxpayer funds. Does that capture it? That's a good way to put it.
Yeah, I think so. And that's where I like I kind of
want to hear more from Controller McKim, maybe even past Controller. Look more carefully, I guess, at
what legislation comes from the Controller's office. Last year, we had a lot of really dry account creation
stuff coming from the Controller's office. They weren't appropriation ordinances, but it was bookkeeping
stuff. And so it's like, do we really need a council member sponsor for that bookkeeping stuff?
and I think I mean Cindy may have said it best when it was like it's not really policy stuff and so
yeah so I guess I'm not quite fixed about how that carve out should look or what it should like how
how specific it should be or whether it should exclude the department or exclude appropriation ordinances
or like um but it it should
exclude something and I don't feel experienced enough or like I've done enough immediate or recent research
about all the different types of things that came out of the controller's office or could potentially
come out of the controller's office, because that's the other piece too. It's like, would they ever
sponsor anything that wasn't in that kind of category? I don't know.
I think Controller McKim will be the most helpful in just offering what are all the options that they
have in terms of what they can introduce. Yeah. Okay. All right, I understand it better now, so I can
reach out to the Controller and also take a look at, you know, the past couple of years, what has been...
Thank you. ...what legislation has come forward from the Controller's office. So I'll do that and I'll
also talk to Councilmember Rallo
But do you feel like we should bring this back to this committee or one side? I mean, because
this legislation to require sponsorship is gonna be sponsored by me and not the committee. So I wonder,
do you like your energy provisions or do you think it's okay if I just go ahead, one side, clarify those
couple things? I think after
you talk with Controller McKim, it might be helpful just to bring it up during committee report to the
whole body, just to make sure that we're all on the same page on like, yes, we do want to do appropriations
or no, we don't. I think that'll make it a smoother first and second reading if we get that answer out
of the way prior to the legislation being, hitting the docket.
Whether we do that at the 22nd meeting or the sixth, I'm agnostic, but I think that would be helpful
as well. And I also, the controller's office would also bring forth bonds related legislation too, right?
No, not necessarily. It depends on who's bonding. I mean, if it's for utilities, it would come through CBU.
I'm also wondering I guess I'm wondering whether bond stuff would also be strange to have a council
member sponsor yeah yeah perhaps anyway I I trust you to move forward with this
I can also check with some of the other cities and see how they handle fiduciary or fiscal type ordinances.
Thank you. And of course, we do have a fiscal committee now. I mean, it's temporary, technically,
for ad hoc. But that might be able to play into it, too.
Maybe not necessarily for the budget legislation, but for bonds, certainly. Yeah, absolutely. OK, so
do we want, Isabel, is there any specific meeting you would like to introduce this at? I just want to
make sure that we fully round out this conversation before we move on. No, I haven't thought about it.
OK, no problem. Let us know when you are ready.
It's not urgent, so. Great. Thank you. In that case, let's move on to number four, allowing non-city
residents to serve on boards and commissions. A, does any committee member want to make a specific proposal?
I have a specific proposal that I want to make. Great. So one of the committees that are the commissions
that we talked about was Transportation Commission. And I've mentioned this to a couple of people, and I
I think I meant to talk to Matt about it and forgot, but one of the things about that commission when
we first created it was we wanted there to be an MCCSE person on there. And so within, I don't have
it brought up right now because I wasn't totally prepared for this, but we kind of have it written in
as a preference for one of our seats should, you know, preferential treatment be given to an MCCSE person and the
that my understanding from the MCCSE angle was they wanted somebody from their Department of Transportation
to be in that seat, but they were a county resident. And so they couldn't be in that seat. And that
that was part of what started this particular conversation about Transportation Commission and county
residents. And I would still say to not allow non-city residents to be on that board, but right now
there are four
appointed seats to council and to mayor and to take one of those seats and have it an MCCSE person and
we'd have to talk to MCCSE and see if they're down for that but there because there are other seats
that like for example somebody from the CCA needs to be on one of those seats somebody from BT you know
some a plan commission appointed person and none of those like appointees are specific they specifically
say that they need to be city residents
So any of those appointees could already be county residents because they just have to be part of the
specific group or appointed by that group is that responsibility. So my proposal would be to change
that. So instead of having four city residents appointed, we have three city residents appointed and
one person, I'm not quite sure how it would be phrased, but we'd have to,
get the superintendent to agree, essentially talk to Dr. Winston and be like, essentially allowing her
to identify somebody from her team, preferably in the transportation department that could serve. So
that's like my idea. Yeah, I support that. That was part of our, I'm on the interview committee that
covered transportation. Wonderful. And we, when we were interviewing,
had to turn some people down for the MCCSE role. I remember specifically one person because they were
county. And so when we were doing all the other interviews, we had nobody who was specifically associated
with MCCSE. And so we got to the point where we were like, well, this person has kids in MCCSE, so they're
a connection. That's the closest we can get. I mean, we liked them anyway. We didn't choose them. Right.
It wasn't.
Didn't sound as pitiful as that, but that was the closest we could get to a tie. Thank you. Isabel?
Yeah, I like this idea as well to allow just the MCCFCC or the seat where we prefer an MCCFC staff member
to be somebody who is outside city limits. I was a little confused by something else that Hopi said.
where you said, apparently, the other commission members have to be city residents, but isn't there
the overarching requirement of city residencies that would pertain to the Transportation Commission?
And maybe Deputy Clerk Crossley knows. So I'm looking at it now. And the appointments say,
The commission shall consist of the following nine members, none of whom may hold any employment, elected
or appointed position within the city unless specified specifically permitted as outlined in this section.
And then it goes on from the appointments from the CCA preferred for MCCSE.
But if it doesn't have it outlined in here, your code actually states that the overall mean is that
if it's not outlined specifically in a particular board of commission code, then that means that the
default is the person has to be a city resident. I think before this might have been mentioned before,
one way to kind of maybe get around this, and pulling up the code here,
There's something that says, like, residential requirement, all appointments to city boards, commissions,
and councils can be made from residents of the city except those positions that are direct to otherwise
or state law. If a city employee is appointed by virtue to a city board, commission, or council by virtue
of employment position, that the residency requirement may be waived. So one thing that you could possibly
do if you are wanting to still have somebody from MCCSE
by virtue of them working in MCCSC is to maybe have that particular disclaimer in where that allows
that person, because yes, you are correct. We had actually a couple of people that applied from MCCSC,
and we had to tell them that they didn't qualify because they were a county resident, but they were
hoping to do that because by virtue of them being employed by MCCSC. Great. Thank you.
Isabel, does that clear up any question that you had? Yeah, so they're covered by the kind of default
section in DMC that says you have to be a city resident. Correct. Yeah, well, and I mean, I was just
basing it on the Transportation Commission, like what we passed in code saying one member
Appointed by the mayor shall be a member from the CCA or a designated representative one member appointed
by Public Transportation Corporation Board of Directors shall be a member or a designated representative
so like It's like there's or the designated representative, but it doesn't say on any of those they
need to be city residents But when we get down to the council appointments and them and the
mayor appointments it's
Two members shall be appointed by the council and shall be residents living within the city limits.
And the other ones aren't necessarily. Well, isn't this in the section of code where we added all the
qualifications for all commissions? Yeah. So is what you read above that for all of them? Yeah. I didn't
see that one. Code is dense.
Oh, it is dance. Must be a man. Okay. What? Do we? So do you want me, so I, I mean, I feel like it's
a little bit weird to have it in there, like, as the MCCSE superintendent can select somebody for that. I mean,
but I would be happy to reach out to her and just be like we're trying to figure out a way to get great
you know somebody from your transportation staff on because I mean it's it's one of those things for
me it's like yeah I do want to prioritize city residents but
I also want to prioritize people that are going to care a whole lot about safety of our transportation
systems. And if anybody's going to care about safety of transportation systems, it's somebody in MCCSE's
transportation department in charge of transporting 12,000 students every day to our schools, most of
which are within city limits. So I can reach out to her and ask her what her thoughts are on that. But
what are, because the other, I mean,
a member appointed by public transportation commission, a member appointed by plan commission, appointed
by public works, appointed by the mayor. I mean, I suppose we could put it like, so one member appointed
by the mayor shall be a member from the council for community accessibility. Um, and they will submit
a list of at least three names to the mayor for consideration. So we want to do it kind of like that,
like mirror that language and then
The other thing is if we're taking one of the four, so of those four, three are appointed by council
and one is appointed by the mayor. And so I would then, would it be better if we mirror that language
to say that that person's gonna be appointed by council?
or appointed by the mayor. And of course, the mayor would have to agree to give up her other appointment,
or council would have to agree to give up one of our three appointments. So I'm happy to reach out to
whoever about that. But the other option is restructured similar to the Historic Preservation Commission
appointments, where it's a mayoral appointment subject to council approval. I know that's more complicated.
I'm not suggesting that's what we do. I just wanted to put it on the table. I don't want to do that.
OK? I just wanted to put it on the table as something we could do. Yes, you're right. OK. It is something
we could do. Yes. Yes. If you're on that committee, would you guys, as the committee, want to be able
to have that appointment? I don't mind it.
I mean I'm speaking for myself not on behalf of the committee or council, but I don't mind it coming
out of one of the council seats because it was meant to be originally. So I think I like that language
of you know we can have to mirror that language. Okay to basically receive the recommendations from
the superintendent and then not put any language in around
residency related to those three people, because then Clark Crosley will default to being okay for them
to not be, because by merit of employment, then they qualify, and then y'all can interview the three.
What we deemed we're interested in, the normal process, just these were in a different bucket, so to speak.
so that the mayor's appointment can be left alone. Isabel? Yeah, I think we would have to specify that
a person to fill that MCP, SEC is allowed to be a resident of the county outside of city limits. I think
we do need to specify that.
I think what Deputy Clerk Crossley had cited a few minutes ago was pertaining to city employees. Correct.
If it's part of their city employment and that's why they're serving. Gotcha. Okay. This is not by virtue
of their city employment. It's MCCSE employment. Right. So I think we would have to put that in there.
Okay. And we have to then also put in that they would qualify by virtue of their MCCSE employment.
So I'm kind of mirroring the language from the CCA appointment and mirroring the language from, can
you send me that code reference just so that then I can? Okay, great, thank you. And so I will reach
out to Dr. Winston and yeah, once I get, once she's good with that plan,
Then I'll try to reach out to other council members to or depending on the timeline of that that can
maybe be part of the same Committee report that Mentioned about the controllers. Yeah, definitely. Thank
you Okay Let's go to public comment. Is there anybody? Looks like there's nobody in the room. So would
anyone on zoom like to speak? Please raise your hand if so
Going once. Oh, look, we have a person. You'll be asked to unmute, and then you'll have three minutes.
Please go ahead when you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name's Eric Post, and I think this
is an interesting conversation. I'm wondering if there are any opportunities to interface with
the commissions that exist in the county
that are similarly focused, like the Transportation Commission planning, et cetera. I think that might
become increasingly important as we move forward, given fiscal constraints. The other thing I just want
to note is I thought I remembered and I looked up and confirmed is that the appointments to the Historic
Preservation Commission are
designated by the mayor and then approved by the council because that's specified in Indiana code. So
there's a constraint upstream in regards to that particular process. But otherwise, thank you for all
your work. Great. Thank you very much. Would anyone like to respond to anything that was said during
public comment?
In that case, next steps. Are there any other specific proposals related to this? No. Okay.
So next steps, I'll reach out to Dr. Winston. If she's interested in that, then I'll proceed with writing
something up for a report. Great. Thank you very much. Consent agendas, need for a review by legal counsel.
I dropped my pen. Does anyone have an update on that? Or was that our legal counsel? Was that the update?
Okay, well... That is the update. Our update is that we don't have... Fantastic. Okay. Great. I just
put it on the agenda just so that we wouldn't lose track of it. Great. Thank you very much. Now that
we have at least a temporary attorney, I can hopefully get an hour of his time or something.
Great, thank you so much. Okay, that concludes section five. Is there any other business that committee
members would like to raise? Speaking of our temporary attorney, are we as council members going to
get any kind of notification or when are we going to get notification about procedure related to that?
I will get back with you about that. Clerk Bolden, please.
Just a quick update, because we've been working pretty closely with leadership. Mr. Allen started officially
yesterday for you all. He still needs to get his city email set up. And he just got his key. And so
we went through and actually asked for them to set up his email with ITS and did all the onboarding
things that need to be done for new staff members this morning. He has a key to the council office now.
and access to the computers. And his plan is that as soon as he gets access to the emails that he needs,
he will be reaching out to council members and letting you know kind of when he'll be in the office,
when you can contact him, and what his basic kind of plan for work will be. The framework of his? Exactly.
Exactly. And that was really where I was right before I came in here. Great. Awesome. Thank you so much.
Yeah. Any other business?
In that case, we are adjourned. Thank you so much. It was. Please go ahead. I can't do it. I can.
Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just, I did want to ask you all to think of what other items we might put on
the agenda going forward since we've been checking things off and getting things done. So if you have
other things maybe that were left over from last year or
that we kind of would pick it in previously. Please just let me know and we can put those on the agenda.
Excellent. Great. Thank you. And now. Wait, I have something. Go ahead. Weren't there supposed to be
other Title II revisions? Isn't there some like grand big Title II revision thing going? Where did that
end with? Because I know that Lisa was working on that. And is that? It's on.
the schedule, but we've been pushing it back just because we've had so much urgent legislation. Yeah.
So it's actually written somewhere already? Well, it's no. Christine Chang was working on that when
she left. And so once we get some staff or other hired, potentially hers, then we can pick that up again.
I was going to also try to just access her files and see where she is with it. But yeah, that was a
big project, and I would estimate we were maybe a third of the way done with it. So it was just on hold
because of staffing. Okay. Great. Thank you. In that case, we are adjourned. Still before five? Nope,
we're adjourned.