Let's go ahead and call the order of this meeting. The video counts of processes on Thursday, May 21st,
2026. Let's just go around the table and do a call-in roll. We'll start each by left. I hope he stops
for district three. Yes, about Piedmont Smith, district one. Sidney Zola, district six. Larry Allen,
attorney. Sophia McDowell, clerk's office. Thank you all. So our agenda includes first,
Any updates from the clerk's office or committee members? Then we'll talk about council member sponsorship
of legislation, consent agendas, and then any time we have left, I thought we could start the Title
II review, which has already been reviewed, but many comments and suggestions for changes are already
in the red line. And then we can adjourn. Is there, and the adjournment is scheduled for 530. Any,
Comments or changes for the agenda? Oh, yeah. All right. So are there any updates? First from the clerk's
office. No. Hi. So sorry. Deputy Clint Crossley, I think, will be sharing some information, but she
can't be here until about 4.30. OK. So I don't know about that.
Any member of updates from committee members? I have one at the meeting last time. I discussed
the transportation commission and dates to membership because of the challenge of getting somebody from
CCSC on the lived within the city limits. And I managed to get a hold of Dr. Houston, CCSC.
Superintendent and so the idea that I proposed for her was to take one of the council seats and make
an MCCSCC and have her recommend three options and then have the interview committee interview the three
options and then decide and have that be a council seat. I need to talk with the mayor and see if the
mayor would be willing to give up a mayor seat instead because then that might be easier in terms of
communication between the superintendent position and the seat. But Dr. Winston was super excited to
be able to have somebody from her cabinet on it. And she thought that it was basically out of branch
of possibility because of the residency. So she thought about doing something to remove that residency
that's being blockage. So my next step is to talk to the mayor
And also if you guys have any opinions on how we want to write that in, in terms of taking a recommendation
from the superintendent. And the reason why I proposed the three is that's basically it's a CCAC, which
is like recommend three and then the mayor has to choose which one she wants. So that recommending three
and then the council being able to choose which one is kind of the same concept as that, but I'm,
open to whatever and it's not been like from her perspective, as long as somebody from her staff get
on, she's a different how we do. Any thoughts or opinions on that? I'll contact the Mayor's office.
My goal would be, I was looking and actually all those seats are filled right now, but they all look
like they expire, at least those four expire 131.7.
My goal would be to get this change sometime in the fall or the next cycle when I think it is. So.
Thank you. Absolutely. Okay. Does anybody have any like reference about whether it's accountancy, whether
it's their seat, whether it's the pick three recommendations, like how. I'm, I'm not. Opposed to it
being accounts to seat.
as it was supposed to be a capsule seed. So that's fine with me. I like the idea of the PEC-3 Foundation.
I think that where some I trust, you know, I'm also Mayor Winston. So if we send to Winston to recommend,
obviously, for top researchers, you know, we'll be good. So I'm in favor. Thank you, sure, very much.
Anybody else have any preferences around this?
Any of them? I think it sounds good. Right now the MCCSCC, that's like this list of like preference
will be given to and one of those is a council recommendation and one of those is a mayoral recommendation.
But it's the only mayoral seat that's like a resident application. The only other mayoral appointment
is the CCA. Okay. And so that's why it's like, I don't want to- Yeah, I'm just wondering when we were-
Take that from the mayor's
hot of recommendations unless the current mayor doesn't care, because it might be easier procedurally
for it to be in the PIC 3 scenario. It might be easier procedurally for the PIC 3 to go to the mayor
as opposed to the PIC 3 to go to the mayor to then go to council.
Has the Transportation Commission been asked about this? I tried to mark about it. I have talked about
it too. That one seat on the Transportation Commission, specifically the one from the MCCSC, is be allowed
to be subject to this outside sublimits.
So right now, there's something for people. We have the chair of the transportation commission happens
to be here. So we're not talking about the seat. Yeah. So last, when we created this transportation
commission, we have one. Actually, technically, there's two seats, a council seat and a marriage seat
that has a list of preferences about their qualifications. And one of those preferences is somebody
involved with MCCSE. And so the superintendent of MCCSE actually
recommended and pointed, I think, her director of transportation toward applying for that, but they
were not eligible for that position because they lived outside of the city limits. And so they could,
she couldn't find anybody in that kind of a position within her staff that lived inside the city limits
that would be appropriate for the commission. And so that's kind of been a challenge that
We've thought all along that somebody very involved with MCCSE transportation would be really important
to have on the transportation commission. The commission is full. I know. So all of the seats expire
on January 1st of 2027. January 1st of 2027 is when the current seats expire. So it would be kind of
like new membership. My proposal would be
new membership list that would start with the seats next year. I guess I'm having trouble with who is
the current member whose seat you're talking about. I'm not technically sure. It's either, let me find.
There are two mayoral seats. One is the CCA and one is. It would be C1, C2, or C3. Or M2.
Okay. But I thought we had kind of agreed it would be a. I'm going to ask the mayor and see if she cares.
Okay. We've just got that seat filled. Yeah. So when like I started talking about this, I think that
there was still an empty seat and that's just taken a bit, but all C1, C2, C3 and Bound 2 all expire
131-27. So it would be something that would take effect starting for the next cycle.
of appointments so that nobody who is currently assigned would get kid prof. But that would stay effective
in January. Yeah. OK. Yeah. February 1st. Right. Sure. Does that make sense? Yeah. Do you have any questions
about that? I don't. OK. I'll go back to my sit-up. OK. Well. Yeah. And I'm happy to have that.
It's funny that you're here right now because it was one of those things I first wanted to talk to the
committee about it. And then when the committee was like, yeah, sure, go ahead and do it. And then I
wanted to talk to the superintendent about it. And so the superintendent was like, go ahead and do it.
And then it's like reporting back to all of the other trickle downs of who that needs to. Because I
also need to communicate with staff liaisons for Transportation Management too about that.
And that's all kind of in the next step category. All right, thank you for that update. Now that Deputy
Clerk Crossley is here, do you have an update from the supplies as well? I do, actually. So my apologies
for being a little tardy. Today's the last day, and I had to go pick up the last kid on their last day.
Oh, I'm so old. And yeah, so I'm here.
Update that I have for you all is 1 just completed the staff liaison training. So we had 2 sessions
1 just ended. We had 1 last Monday. We had another 1 on Wednesday feedback that we've received is pretty
great. Actually, and we have 1 person come by the office today and said they couldn't understand how
we all existed.
Um, this entire time with boards and commissions and not having anybody be over that. So I, I agree.
Uh, so, you know, so, yeah, so that that's it there. And then we have two dates that are coming up in
June for board members and commissioners as well. Um,
I would like to give a little bit of an update. I know council members had gave a. In the meeting yesterday,
an update about staff or council member liaisons and just kind of wanted to remind everybody like. It's
it's a really good role if we just really use those to the.
Like, advantage of what they can be. So I just encourage you all to keep encouraging everybody that
hasn't had a chance to reach out or if you have, and it's been a while. To reach out in particular,
I think it would be handy for. Council member daily, especially like. We have.
I know you're the liaison for CAPS. And so I know you got the email that, or you might not have had
a chance to look at it, because you've also been busy. So there was an email that I sent, and I think
Council Member Pimot-Smith was attached to it as well. There's just a communication issue with one of
the commissions. And so that you have staff liaison. I keep calling it staff liaison. That you are the
liaison too. And so that's just on your radar.
The last thing that I kind of wanted to bring to the attention of you all, I know we've talked about
this before, but I want to bring it up again because we just had another, I just got word today that
another council appointment for the environmental commission, they have their meeting tonight and that
individual is also going to be resigning after tonight. So the mayor's office already has one, two, three,
Can you share who the individual is? It's Shannon Gake, and she just got reappointed this year. So I
am reaching out to her tomorrow once I send out her thank you letter after everything is gone, because
I don't want to do a prenatal or in case she decides to change her mind. But in the event that she doesn't,
what I'm going to start doing is kind of like an exit interview. And people would like to or feel comfortable
in giving that information to us, because I'd like to know
what's happening with people if they are willing to give that information to us as to why, you know,
they're deciding to resign and she just got reappointed. So I'm curious to know like what that's all
about, if there's anything that we can do on our end to make anything better, a smooth process for people
with boards and commissions related, that kind of thing. But that means that this commission as of tomorrow
will have,
for vacancies. And I bring that up because I think the NOVAC report had mentioned probably condensing
the EC with B cost there. And I'm not saying that anybody should condense it or merge the two together.
However, what I am saying is because this could affect their core room, which ultimately could affect
the business that they're doing. I think this committee should start thinking about possibly making
this commission a little bit smaller with the vacancies. I think the mayor's office, I think ideally
would be okay with that. As of right now, we don't have any applications for this. The press release
went out earlier this week to highlight the mayor's vacancies before we knew Shannon is resigning, but
we don't have it.
So I just wanted to, you know, bring that to your attention as well. How many is it right now? 12. Yeah.
Yeah. It's, it's a pretty big, um, commission. Yeah. Yeah. Do you happen to know why there were 12 seats
on them? No, not at all.
I mean, it was created in 1971, so who knows? Maybe an hour barrier? Maybe 12. Maybe there were nine
and then there were 12, and then who knows how many times it fluctuated or changed for whatever reason.
Yeah, but it just looks like this commission, and I've been here almost a little over four years now,
has never really seen full occupancy.
when it comes to all the seats being filled. Okay, well that's something to consider then to maybe decrease
the number of spots then. It's, what is the breakdown? It just looks like six. Mayor, there was six.
But it makes sense for it to be,
an odd number of people. Most commissions are. Yeah. I would think that maybe reduce it to 90. You think
that that might. That too. Yeah. I think that could be a good number because remember that's also something
that you all did as a committee for CAPS. Because remember CAPS was in a similar situation where they
would have people resign and it was hard to backfill, which ultimately made corn issues for them.
As a result, it was condensed, I think from like 12 to nine. Oh, which committee has going to transit
board, not the transportation, but the transit board. That's a thank you. When I tell you, I already
know that is all in my memory. It is all over here to have some comments.
Okay, because those there are some seats that will be up and July. Yeah. Yep. Okay. So. Sure, we put
a pin on the in this for the next time to perhaps have a proposal to reduce the number of seats on the
seat or something that you feel we should do right away.
Well, is there even time to divert right away in terms of having those meetings we have left, but also
in the sense of sitting together? No. I mean, we would, the legislation would need to be ready, like,
correct ready by next Friday to vote on it before the break. Cause we would need, unless we wanted to
do a, to try to get it all through on a first reading on June 10th, but I've got, I don't think that
It's a big enough deal that this is not the first thing that we should use. I first vote on first training
for especially how bad is the quorum issue? Are we gonna stop them from meeting all summer if we don't
do this before? See, it depends because with summer people go on summer break and
I think there's another liaison that will step in for the current liaison. She's out, but it depends,
because I think I see a lot of people during the summer that travel and they either will attend virtually
or they won't come at all. So if those seated people don't show up, then ultimately that could affect horror.
I think we've brought this up before, but I believe the mayor's administration and council, past council
attorneys have had a different interpretation of what or it's. So the council attorneys have said it's
a majority plus one of members appointed. Whereas I've heard people in the mayor's administration say,
no, it's a majority plus one of the seats
So if it's of the ones appointed, they wouldn't have as much trouble before. And I think that has changed.
I think everybody has now settled on it being a majority plus one of appointed and not the number of
seats. I think literally the agreement between the attorneys shifted. So there was a former agreement
that was number of seats, and now it's the number of appointed. Is that what you understand?
Yes, then we're slightly concerned about making. Yeah, so they would just, if they have 8 members. They
would be 5 in that case. I said that maybe it does not need to happen. So, why don't we just put this
to our next meeting? We'll have legislation that we go over that review. Is this somebody want to reach
out to that you see.
Well, do you want to piggyback that with the transportation commission change and how does that change
in board and commission membership stuff? Yeah, that sounds great. Because especially if there's no
rush on the alarm out kind of thing, then like, you know, my goal for that was to, especially now that
like the January thing, to send it through like July, August. So whenever we come back to the break,
having that be in the first time sometime.
If you prepare so as long as we're good at that time. If you could possibly do any issue with doing
it after the break. Okay, anything else from the clerk's office. No, that's it. I think the only of
it. Well, there is the only other addition that I would say with the boards and commission leaves on
training for board members.
and commissioners is I'm actually a little bit more excited than I was with the staff liaisons because
just kind of given some of the circumstances that we've kind of seen recently with quite a few, I think
they will definitely benefit from the training, especially when it comes to, I know there's been a question
of does the chair set the agenda or does the staff liaison set the agenda? The answer is,
Chair Sensi, but that person is also in works with the staff liaison and the staff liaison should not
just be taking it all. So I think as we're open this past training session with staff, and I think the
goal for me is hopefully the intent is people will all know now what is expected of them. And then that's
also when we will roll out the code of conduct as well.
So that is it. Wonderful. Thank you so much. You're welcome. All right. Let's move on to council member
sponsorship of legislation. So I did a meet with Deputy Mayor Gretchen Knapp to talk about this proposal
that we discussed at our last meeting. She is concerned that this will add to more work for staff.
But, you know, she was kind of resigned. This is what we think will be better for council. This is what
we're going to do and they'll deal with it. But she was concerned that having to get a sponsor, that
person may, you know, ask for changes or ask for meetings and that will add some more staff time.
She was, on the other hand, she was not at all concerned about finding sponsors. This whole idea that
we had, like, oh, we'll make a list of who is most interested in sponsoring what. She was like, the
department heads know who was interested and who they would reach out to. It didn't sound like she thought
that would be necessary at all. So, it takes less staff time to find a council sponsorship than it does
to present to council and have it failed. They didn't talk to anybody.
Or on it, I mean, I feel like that that would be less stressful than having like, I mean, sometimes
there's a million questions that kind of like almost like contention Russian asking like, or the whole
like, didn't you think of this? And then they look stupid sort of thing. Like, I mean, I feel like I've
heard that concern with staff before after presentations and feeling like, wow, that was really tough.
And they weren't anticipating that kind of reaction and that that didn't
Like that made me feel kind of hopeful. This would be, we can kind of paint it as like a, this is actually
meant to increase communication, not make your life harder. Yeah. To increase communication upfront.
Instead of in front of a camera. It's the whole community. Yeah.
If we look at the actual legislation in the packet, I did combine two whereas clauses as was recommended
in our last meeting. And then I did put an exception sentence. So now it says, no proposed ordinance
or resolution shall be considered by the council unless sponsored by a member of the council. Exceptions,
no council member sponsorship shall be required for annual budget related legislation
nor for appropriation ordinances brought forward outside the annual budget process. Do you all think
that covers what we discussed last night? And I'm also looking at, Larry, if that language meets the
legalese standards. I mean, I think it's the way you have it, and it's clear enough that at least we
know what you want to accept it out of the rules. And we could.
If we're concerned about what does annual budget related legislation mean, because that is the rules
and procedure. Oh, sure. Yeah. Thanks for joining us. And thanks for changing it in the synopsis too.
I think that will make it clearer. So, is this okay to move this forward? I mean, given scheduling it.
May or may not come forward for recess. Sure. I move that we, the CCP, recommend, well, I guess it's
not an ordinance yet. Disordinance. To be considered by the full council. Second. All right, let's go.
We both second. Okay. Courtney can take it. It's fine. Okay. I'm the second second.
Okay, we all like it. Give it to bolden. All right, let's do a roll call those council members like,
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I will vote yes. Yeah, thank you very much. You're an ideal Oh my goodness,
we're supposed to go to public comment first.
Darn it. I apologize. A retroactive public public online public. All right. Moving on to consent agendas.
So, um, I did ask, um,
Larry Allen to look at the legislation that we talked about previously. Do you have any feedback for
us, Larry? Yes, a little bit. So in terms of the legislation as it's currently written, I think there
are two questions posed to me. One was about the language of the catch-all language in consent agendas.
So the other non-controversial and administrative actions is what it reads right now. That language
is basically trying to mirror Robert's rules, which is the entire genesis of consent agendas. They are
commonly used for boards and commissions. Under Robert's rules, they refer to this as a consent calendar
instead of a consent agenda, but it's the exact same idea. It does that thing. We don't know what happened.
Oh, OK. We'll find out in 25 seconds. All right.
I got distracted with that. Sorry. No, it's fine. So under Robert's rules, the way that that portion
reads, I'll just read it to you so you have a sense of how it's mirroring it, if that's OK. Legislature,
city, town, or county councils, or other assemblies which have a heavy workload, including a large number
of routine or non-controversial matters, may find a consent calendar or agenda useful tool, a useful
tool for disposing of such items or business.
the rules behind it. So I think in terms of a catch-all language, I think that's a good idea. Not because
the list that you all have already have in there is a prescriptive view of consent agendas is faulty,
but it does give you some flexibility if you have a project where you end up having to contract with
somebody directly.
Or if you have decided to do some sort of personnel thing that you've already discussed, you know everybody
is on the same page and you just want to move it through on the agenda. It's really anything in there
that is clearly agreed upon everybody it just takes a quick vote.
The other thing to keep in mind, I'm sure you heard this before key to consent agendas is any 1 council
member who wants to have something removed from the consent agenda. And so you just request for that
item to be removed from the consent agenda. And then it gets, it just gets placed in its normal part
of the agenda. So, I, if it's if it's an ordinance or a resolution.
potentially, if you did something like that. If it was a resolution, it would go to whatever reading
it is in the agenda, and that's where it falls in the type of agenda. If it's a report, it's going to
go into the report section right after you do the consent agenda, that kind of thing. An exciting feature.
I don't think we knew about that. No, we didn't. So, at this point, it changed the order of business.
to do approval of consent agenda and then consideration of items from the consent agenda right after
it. Yeah, I think that that's unnecessary, that consideration of items removed from consent agenda,
unless they really don't fall within something of your calendar or that agenda order as it is, but that
probably isn't necessary to have in there unless you really, you can of course, these are your rules,
so if you want to have a special
area and everybody's up front about that's the rules, that's how we do this. Is there any special designated
section of the agenda for items removed from the consent agenda? Yes, we can do that. If you want to
simplify it and just have a consent agenda, period, then anything that's removed from that would just
go out to the normal agenda portion. That's typically how it works with others. I'd prefer that. That
it just reverts back to where it would go. That makes sense. So then.
So then we reinstate approval of minutes. Yeah, I guess I. Appointments to boards and commissions. Just
to include anything in the consent agenda. Right. So I guess then I prefer the way that we had it. So
then we could get rid of the approval of minutes and get rid of the appointments to boards and commissions.
But those would come after immediately anyway. No, but they come after.
Yes, all the support we have reports in the middle and then sometimes there's that weird thing like
when we have to accept reports specifically, especially when like it gets funky sometimes. Oh, sorry.
Well, my only question, and this is actually maybe I should hold off. This is opening the new can of
worms. So God. Well, I was going to totally open the can of worms because
I am actually having second thoughts about this whole thing, because if we have something, if we, first
of all, I overall in the scope of our work, I just don't think it's that important to institute and
such. Secondly, I think it could be very obnoxious for staff who have to be there in case the item on
the consent agenda is pulled from the consent agenda.
I just think it's going to be confusing. Who decides whether something is not controversial? Even though
I put in here routine interlocal agreements, well, what if we don't like the way that Monroe County
Building Department has done the building inspections even though we've had them do it for 20 years.
In the hierarchy of
What is important to me to change in Title II? This is pretty fun. I think it would help us save some
time, but I definitely do think that those are other questions that need to be answered before we do
this, which is, how are we still going to manage to respect staff time? Because we have kind of introduced
this, now staff has to be in first and second reading, we've increased staff time already. And so,
If we're gonna do this, we need to make sure that it actually decreases staff time in a meaningful way.
Well, it decreases meeting time in a meaningful way. I don't necessarily think decrease meeting time
in a meaningful way. I mean, they're already like approval of minutes and boards and commissions are
pretty fast. Yes. And everything else that's kind of on this list, the SWARF routine, does seldom, like
we just don't have them very often.
And it almost might be, I can just imagine things being pulled off the consent agenda because somebody's
also like, wait a minute, what is that again? And then, cause if it's not a consent agenda, then we
can't talk about it at all, right? Is that right? There's no debate. Yeah, there's like no debate or
discussion on consent agenda items. And so then like, if anybody has any questions about what anything
is and like, can't you imagine somebody having a question about an inter-local agreement that's like,
super small and light and then we have to move to take it off the consent agenda and then we have to
put it in somewhere else and then it's like making a bigger deal and like I could just imagine it taking
more time as much as I can imagine at the saving time. Yeah and my can of worms was I guess kind of
related to the question asking but like public comment time. Yeah right. Public wants to comment on
do we just then say they're allowed to do it during
Hearing a public comment, you know, at what point do they get to, right? When do they get to make comment
on anything on there? Well, and then, and then like some of those funky things are actually like in
terms of acceptance of certain types of reports and things like that. Some of those are required by
the state to have a public comment time. So we can't put them on the consent agenda item anyway, because
we have to have the public comment and we don't have a good space on our agenda for things like that.
Like it's funky. Well, why don't we revisit this in like six months and see if we're still feeling the
same way. And then at that point, we cannot. I think we have some stuff coming up that maybe this isn't
a priority, but we can, yeah, we could re-discuss it maybe in November or as a new CCP next year. Right.
Between now and then, could we, like, kind of highlight things on, like, each agenda going, you know,
like, how many things on this agenda would go on a consent agenda? And maybe take a note of, like, well,
these are all of the things that we expected to be non-controversial. Like, right, yeah, go. In advance.
Exactly. I say we actually table this until the December, until our last meeting of the year.
For the rest of the year, we'll pay attention, do a very unscientific survey between the four of us.
There's a reason I said unscientific. Okay, so I moved to table this until our December
Uh, CCP meeting second. All right. Uh, let's vote on that council members. Yes. That's a member daily.
Yes. Council member Stossberg. Yes. I will vote. Yes. Okay. Um, to be slightly out of order. I apologize.
Uh, did you all. Yeah, we just, you did, but.
One question is, did you receive a comparative analysis of what other municipalities are doing? Did
you actually get that? I do have something like that. Can you share with me and then what I would suggest?
I can find that it actually exists.
it together for you in a more concrete. So when you take it back up in December, you can have
some comparators as well. Because some places do it differently where they consider ordinances
and resolutions of all their consent agenda, not just these types of limits. The other thing that I
was going to kind of pass Larry about, and that if anybody else is interested,
Would we be allowed to have a shared Google Doc where the four of us kind of write notes around that?
No. OK. I mean, yes and no. So here's the way it could work. We could set up a system where you all
can write. And this is actually something, just a spoiler, that we're actively working on. It's something
you could submit.
The issue with Google Docs is because the potential of you could all simultaneously edit it, that the
violation of open door law. However, if it's a locked document, so you submit it to your portal, it's
one way and you can read it on a document, but not live edit it together, that complies. So if one of
us created it and made the others commenters? No, because you're still receiving information that way.
But if one of you,
create it, there might be a way, let us, I think you'll find that the way we're working is that there
would be a submission portal through like a survey that automatically uploads to a doctor that you can
read. Unfortunately, it's not Indiana, you know, just because we want to have this done in the open
doesn't allow us to take a stand. So I know that that's the modern way of working, but it's not Indiana's way.
Like, I just hate to think like, oh, like Sydney analyzed whatever, and she came to this conclusion,
and then Isabelle did the exact same thing. Well, and that's what we're trying to combat as well is
because I think that's why I know it sounds more complicated, but to have a place where you all can
look and see what everybody else has asked and questions, I think that that's okay as long as it's not
why that didn't break the public answers counselor piece. Okay, so just let us know if that. It is coming
imminently. It is built.
We are in the testing phase. And so we hope to be rolling it out in the next couple of weeks. So I apologize,
it's time a little bit time. My purpose of that is just to maximize our collective time so that we're
not too creating. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you. Nobody wants to. Is there any member of the public
who would like to give their opinion on consented at this? Please join us. It just needs to be on the owl.
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. Great. Steve Wolf. I think Consentogen is a good idea. It's
a tool that is useful. You don't have to use them. You just can have them. Like, if you don't have them
now, why not have it? My favorite example of what's good for Consentogen is the Jag Grant.
It's never been controversial in the history of the council, but every year it comes up for reauthorization.
No one ever comments on it. It's as anodyne as it gets. It's a good example of legislation that can
be done through consent agenda. I think the biggest issue is just that like many other tools in Roberts,
this council just long had a habit of doing things in a sort of a bespoke way with a limited
portion of Roberts, and it's a pleasure to see you all rediscovering, you know, Roberts. I'm grateful
for it. But, you know, I think maybe the committee might be a little overly worried about, like, the
consent agenda would require
members, as a courtesy to other members, to let their concerns be known before a meeting, say, I'm planning
on taking this off the consent agenda. I am going to just confess here that as a member, I, in my early
days, did not always read the packet and would be reactive to issues during the meeting, only when it
came up. And that's a kind of
approach as a council member that I want to discourage in my successors. You know, like if you do your
homework, you won't have any train wrecks in the meeting. And I confess here, I didn't always do my
homework. I just wanted to seek kind of absolutions for giving this near for my homework. But that's
really what this is about. The consent agenda would call out members who aren't doing their homework.
And that's really, I think, what
you know, might affect its use. So I wouldn't be afraid of it. I don't think it's what you've done is
the motion to table is fine, but it's nothing to be afraid of. It's just an extra tool, but it does
sort of expose the collaborative habits of the various members of council. So I don't want you to, I
want to encourage you not to be afraid of the idea. Like it's just an extra tool. Thanks. Thank you.
Thank you.
and we don't have any other public. So we shall move along to Title II review. So this is something
that was initiated by Council Member Asare in February of last year. He wrote up a whole big item of
legislation and sent it to the council staff and said, here are my revisions for Title II.
they were not in a red line version. I put them into a red line version a couple of months later. Then
last summer, I did meet with council staff and clerk staff, I think twice, to talk about some of the
recommended changes. What we did instead of just relying on the changes that
Isak brought forward, we kind of just started at the top of the chapter on Common Council in code and
started going down the list and looking at his changes, but also considering other changes. And so that
is what you have here in the packet with a lot of red line and comments. And of course, this was mainly
done by Christine Chang, who
of who's no longer with the council office, but we have a good start here, I think. I figured since
we've knocked out some agenda items this year for this committee, we could just come back to the committee
and take a look and see which we might want to go ahead and proceed with. Accompanying this red line,
Chapter 2.04,
is another document, rules of procedure. So here we took things out of Title IV and put them into,
or 2.04, and put them to a separate document. So the idea is we don't need all the detail of how we
administrate if we do things in code. And we want to be a little more flexible and put them into just
a document that guides our procedures that's separate, that can be reviewed.
Yeah, it's been referenced in code. So yes, preliminary questions, please. So in this red line document,
there's a couple of different colors. What do they mean? Well, I'm not sure since Christine is here
to explain it. I think that where it's not
a suggested change. Oh, you can't see that. Okay. I think the, the red bold, the bright red bold is
from ESOCK. And then the darker red is something that's things that we subsequently. Like the staff.
There's also a purple. Yeah. Well, I think that purple is what's being counted as the darker.
Do you want to share it on the screen at all? I think that's because she was compiling one document
from a couple different ones. And I know that like Lisa had these changes like on paper, like she had
a paper copy of code that she had been making notes on.
But the color differences that you're seeing are more dates of when they're added as opposed to persons.
I believe you that these are different changes for different people. It's not, I'm sorry, I'm not trying
to. I'm just looking at the original Google Docs. So like, purple's in October, bright red is in November.
You know, it's kind of. I found the purple setting. I thought that. Oh yes, it's like a line down there.
Yeah. I thought that you were thinking of the purple as kind of like a purpley red.
The maroon, maroon, maroon. There's some in green that I did. So if we go through here, the duties of
president, that first change, the bright, bold red color, I believe, is Hermeson. Because it's not
It's not a suggestion, right? You click on it in, okay, you guys have a PDF. I'm in the Google Doc,
and you click on it, and it doesn't reflect any, that anybody made a change. So I think that was- So
that would have been your original document. That was I, I was trying to find the link to join. You
created for us. I didn't see when you counted them, right? Really? Yeah.
That's why I was trying to find the email. First, I was checking the document. It is on the forward-facing
one, just on the internal one. I will send the beginning. Is that OK? So one thing I do want to go back and do
is compare this to what Isaka originally sent. But I just think if memory serves, I think his changes
are in here in one way or another. I think, I mean, what I remember of that is that it was mostly crossing
a whole lot of things out. Yes. Yes. And did you create then the start of this administrative manual
at the end?
No, Christine did an IAS. Okay, so Christine is the one that started that. The PDF didn't include any
comments, did it? Correct.
The workaround for that is you have to download it to a Word document and then convert it to a PDF.
Oh, it's complicated. It's very niche knowledge. I'm impressed that you know that. I know everything.
So is somebody going to share this or should I? I think Larry's going to share his screen. OK, and can
you share the Google Doc, Larry? OK, perfect.
Oh, no. Are you blocked? Sun City computers allow and others do not. OK, yeah, you're good. Well, that
is helpful with the comments, actually. Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the comments didn't come through.
Okay. So is it okay if we just start going through this? I'm good with it. All right. So delete and
employees because this section doesn't talk about employees of council. That's pretty evident. Then
duties of the president. It said it shall preserve
Order and decorum. We strike that out and say, ensure that council goals and procedures are followed.
That's more specific. And then that last phrase, in the absence of the president, the vice president
shall preside. We took that out because we created a new paragraph duties of vice president. Now the
sergeant at arms,
Yeah, why did all that get deleted? Because we do not follow it. So it says, the chief police or his
designee shall act as sergeant at arms, shall be the duty of sergeant at arms to preserve order in the
council chambers under the direction of presiding officer, to act as a messenger of the council under
the direction of the city clerk by serving notices of special meetings.
upon council members and to procure the attendance of absent council members when the board is not present.
Procure the attendance. I've told my kids before, if they're like, don't go to city council tonight,
don't go. I'll be like, oh man, the police will show up and drag me. I gotta go. That is true.
I said that I don't want to strike that thing though because we are doing part of it and that we do
have a designee survey in the chamber as security and that if if there was a problem with actually last
year the year before I mean the sergeant of arms that has had to remove unruly public from the chamber
under direction of the president but does it work and and it's it's
extraordinarily rare, but they're having cases where the sergeant in arms, we just haven't had one.
So would that make it a problem if we have it codified about a sergeant in arms and there isn't one
available for us? Well, we do have it codified. Well, yeah, there isn't. So should we have? Well,
I mean, say the meeting cannot proceed if there is no sergeant in arms. The last sentence is the craziest
to me. To surrender any dangerous weapon
Other than a firearm. Well, that's because they can't do that. I know. I know. I just like the way that
it's well, but it does say further down that a gun cannot be intentioned with this blade. Yeah. Is there
any state code that does say as to, oh, that's firearm. Yeah. Is this?
I mean, I assume it's not in state code that we have to have a slide committee on this, because else
Christine wouldn't have crossed that out. But I know, I understand what you're saying, Hopi, that we
do like to have a police officer there. And the only reason why they're there is because- To preserve
order, we could just keep the first part. We can take out the part where they have to act as messenger
and go cure the attendance of absent members.
When a quorum is not present. I do actually remember what in 2023, when there was a certain member who
was delayed because of something about bicycle parking and a scooter that like lost power or something.
Then the quorum was not reached and the meetings had to start like 20 minutes late. Yes. I don't know
if the Sargent of Art is in for keyword check or not.
They also don't serve notices. Right. Yeah. Under the direction of a city clerk. And if we keep the
first sentence, most of the second sentence, and I suppose the last sentence we should leave in for
safety. Absolutely. I mean, the fact is, I don't feel safe if there's not a search. Yeah. And I mean,
there was, I can't remember why anymore, but there,
was at least one meeting when I was president that there wasn't a sergeant in arms and I messaged the
chief was like, why isn't there anybody here? And it was because the usual person was out. And so it
was just a coordination issue and so he came at late, but. Yeah, there was an issue recently where we
had like a big crowd of people there and we didn't have one. I got up and I moved a little bit and I
said, yeah, I don't, we can't do this. They're not okay. And she called them and got somebody to go
right away. Yeah.
So what if we just keep the chief of police or his designee, or their designee, I don't need to close
my mask. Yes. Shall act as sergeant at arms. It shall be the duty of the sergeant at arms to preserve
order in the council chambers and to the direction of the presiding officer. The sergeant at arms may
request any person at attendance at a council meeting to surrender any dangerous weapon other than a
firearm is to find at any unknown. Perfect. Yes, I think that's it. Now, do we need
to keep employees then in the title because Sergeant Adams is an employee of the city. But they're not
one of ours. Not an employee of council though. This is the chapter that has common council. Member
of council either though. Isn't that an officer? There you go. Officer? I don't know, but the officer
here is an
Is implied that it's a president vice president. Yeah. Maybe we just need to put a little star by there
and rethink this whole title. The title is not binding on anything in terms of the interpretation. So,
whether it says employees or not, it doesn't really, it's not going to, no one's going to be like, oh,
this entire title is legally invalid because it didn't say employees. It actually does not matter.
I don't get it. If I saw employees, I would assume it would have our counsel attorney in there. Oh,
I know. I agree. I'm just wondering because it has that sergeant at arms as if we keep the sergeant
arms in there and change that title or maybe have maybe move the sergeant arms into a different article.
I don't know.
If we put it under meetings and rules of procedure, then the sergeant at arms shall be present at all
regular and special meetings of the full council. Because if we move it under meetings and rules of
procedure, then we would have to, I think, specify that the sergeant at arms is only expected for full
meetings of council. If we put it under the language that we required to
not have a meeting there. If one is not, if we have another scenario where they're outside, are we required
to shut the meeting? I would just leave the bird is. All right. But we can, I mean, maybe play with
this. This is the first pass. I'm sure that when we get a clean up bird, we can say something. All right.
There's just a lot of stuff in here. I want to make sure that we don't get caught up in that stuff,
but it's not super legally binding.
Okay, so then we decided to delete all this duties of city clerk, basically because it's under common
council. City clerk is not under the common council. And then I guess we, you know, we can invite the
city clerk to tell us if any of this needs to be in our code. And then we put it in a new chapter, our
city clerk. So I welcome the clerk.
Yeah, we'll defer to Cliff Holden, but I think so much is already codified in the state code that there
may not be a reason to duplicate it. So it would be things outside of state code, perhaps. That's my
suspicion. Is there any way that it makes sense to have our code refer to state code? Possibly. Because
of the responsibilities of this. But I think maybe this is a question, but if code is silent, then it
does default to state code anyway.
So it might not be necessary to say less is more, maybe. First pass. OK. You do have to have a problem.
There's no catch-all. So state code's updated. Then this becomes, if this stuff's deferred to state
code, state code's going to control it. But then this is going to be out of date. It creates updating
problems. That happens. Yeah, for sure. You did a lot of it again. Yes.
Okay, then we added duties of the parliamentarian. I like that. I think it makes sense. There's no vice
president duties. I didn't have a problem with the text. Okay, and then we go to article two. Another
thing about this whole session is that it has articles. No other part of municipal code has articles.
And so I find it rather strange. So we have 2.04. And then we have 2.0. It just continues 2.04. Yeah.
I mean, I don't know if we want to think about relabeling some of these numbers. But anyway, that's.
Could I add one piece of information to you? So we will be working on making the online code accessible
So a lot of that numbering system is going to be updated. Timeline, there's three phases in my head,
one year, two year, and three year. I think it'll be done in three years if it's done well. So that's
the goal. But some of the not using them in numerals, a lot of the accessibility stuff that our codifier
is not doing, we will be doing. If you wanted to mirror the rest of code, we'll just call these chapters.
And it will be like,
chapter 2.04, chapter 2.04. Right, but even, see, it's all 2.04. I think a lot of this is under logistics,
which maybe would be better suited for a second pass through. Yeah. Okay. So regular meetings. I have
a hard time with 531. Okay.
So this is a little strange. Yeah, I had a little note on this, that this seems sparse and no longer
seems to make sense in context. The only sentence in A is the council made by majority vote dispense
with any regular session or to change the date of the meeting, but at least one meeting is healthy.
Maybe it doesn't give any context about
what it is that we're talking about. I don't know, it's weird. We maybe change it to at least one meeting
is held, at least one regular session meeting is held each month, generally at 6.30 on, I don't know,
the first Wednesday to third Wednesday, or if we want to say that, and then say,
The council may by majority vote dispense any regular sessions or to change the date of a meeting. Yeah,
that makes no sense. The council will need at least. I mean, sure. And we'll adopt an annual schedule.
Yeah. Yeah. Is like, should we?
Should we put in code that we will adopt an annual schedule? Yes, by December 31st of the previous year.
And then. Basically, we can change it as we want. If you already have this, this is kind of if you could
have a, I mean, you should definitely have the floor for what's required.
Yeah, and see, that's because in E, it started out by saying that we can schedule a summer recess. Like,
E was specific to summer recess and then on the edit to it, it changed. So we can probably actually
strike all of E as long as we put in the annual schedule approval, but the.
Um, so it will be something like the council will meet at least once per month and will adopt an annual
schedule prior to the start of each calendar year. Council may by majority vote dispense with any regular
session or change the date of the meeting provided. Yeah, no, period. Yeah, and then see 1st pass, right?
1st pass council should not be down the holidays.
Well, and then if the schedule meeting falls on a legal holiday, the council may majority vote reschedule
the meeting. Is that kind of a move point? Because if we do the annual schedule, we look for that. Yeah.
And we already have an A that we can change the set of the date if we need to. So we just need to keep
the council shall not be on legal holidays as defined in Indiana code. Yeah. And maybe do we want to
keep that specific code reference?
Is that code runtime still all applicable? I think that's just a mistake. It's just that you should
because it's where the legal holidays are listed. OK. And then
The current PD, oh, yeah, we can get rid of that. Okay, so then see. The year following its election,
the council shall hold its 1st, regular meeting. No later than the 2nd of January. So here we're. The
goal was to try to be less specific in case we decide we're going to start meeting Thursday. You things
are going to start meeting at 7 or, you know.
You'd have to plan that like two years in advance. That would like the trickle-down effect of like changing
Harvey V. United would change every county council screwed and then. Well, yeah, but even other folks
that use council chambers like ECA meets on Thursday nights and Plain Commission meets on Monday nights.
Like, oh my gosh, the trickle-down effect. Well, anyway. Yeah.
We're trying to remove specificity so that it's not as hard to change if we. Yeah. Like that, that makes
sense. Okay. So here it tries to address the situation we had in January of 2024 when the Council President
of the biggest year was not a member. Right. My question here was,
Why shouldn't it first be the VP from the year before? Because there may not be a member either. And
so it's best as a catch-all to say whoever has the greatest number of total years of service. I mean,
I don't think any VP is going to be offended if it goes to somebody who's been there long enough.
I mean, it's like 10 minutes of the first meeting.
It's also just like presiding over an election, and like really any of us could do it. I think that
just needs someone. Just a way to make it a fair designation without any debate. The longest tenure,
like there's always an answer. Unless, and I'm seven for this. Christine did put it in the notes somewhere.
What if everybody on the council is new?
But I think we can cross that bridge when and if we ever get there. Oh my God. This is all just extra
nice to do from India state code. So the state code says you shall elect your officers. It doesn't say
the mayor, but you have to do it. So yeah. OK. All right. Then we can just make it. Well, do we need
to define at all who's going to preside over this? That's what I was going to say. We can just make
it so vague that by tradition, the president does. Do we just scratch it?
No, because I think what Courtney said is important unless we just put it into the rules of procedure.
But I think it is important to designate who will do this so that it's not like, oh, my buddy here is
going to preside and give me more time. I mean, we want to make it impartial. OK. Yes, I hear you. Well,
good, because I thought I was saying the same thing you were saying. No, actually, I was trying to say
in your spirit of keeping it vague, like updates, I was like, why can't we keep this vague? So that's
not a huge, I was actually saying the opposite, but I understand your argument. Yeah, but I would say
that too. I would say, well, if we just scratch it out entirely and don't define it, then it's kind
of assumed that it would be the president from the prior year or the vice president from the prior year
and like going down. Well, I would rather not have those assumptions, but I wouldn't mind putting that
in the rules of procedure around the code.
I think we just need to say it somewhere, just so that like, that's fine. Whenever there's a new council
body, like, you know, what's expected. Yeah. Yeah. I don't feel precious about the topic. It's okay.
Okay. D, in subsequent years, the council shall hold its first meeting no later than the second. We
continue to elect officers, the council president. Okay. E, we decided
We don't need to eat because it's been covered. Right. Because it's just the holidays and gee, I'm so
thankful to get rid of G because that nearly created a problem.
In terms of the potential of vetoes and the lab to over a resource. So. Yeah, I like getting rid of
the members residents to. Do not show up at my house. But in the emergency meetings, I like the cost
off. Oh, I notice left in the members. Yeah, that's.
But I was actually like wondering if we should put. Personal notification on there or something to allow
for. Oh, no, I guess it's in person.
Yeah, I don't know. I guess I was wondering if we should have snail mail in there. That was the thing.
It was like, what if, I mean, we're not actually going to write snail mail, but like a paper document,
like handing somebody a paper document, like if we should keep that in there as a possibility, or like
mailing a paper document or, I don't know, because what if all the technology dies and the only thing
that's worth it?
So just adding writing. Yeah, so we could change email to by writing either written communication. So
we can say written communication instead of for email right because couldn't that be
a paper document or an email, if you just say written communication? Yeah, I mean, if I'm contract drafting,
I'm going to say in writing electronically or, you know, like I'm going to cover both. OK.
But. Electronically or physically? Yeah. Yeah. So in person, in writing, which makes it clunky. Right.
Or by telephone. And does that imply it could be text or code? I think you're covered by both the writing
and the telephone. Yeah. Oh, true. That's what I was saying. Yeah.
Yes, text messages are in writing. Unless you do a voice. Unless you do a voice now, which also is.
Oh, I see when you were voicemail though. Yeah. But I guess we're going to send a voicemail message
over the telephone, sort of. I don't know. So keeping us on track. Yeah, and we still have public comment.
All right. So
Budget meetings, deleted. Because it's in state code, that's what we do. And the details of how we do
it can be a little smaller. First procedure. The council shall perform its duties. No, really? Yes.
Yes, we should. Should we specify that in any way in terms of the annual meeting?
schedule that's going to get referenced up in A of the 2.0405 to say something like the annual meeting
schedule includes the regular meetings, no special sessions, and budget meetings. I could go into rules
of procedure. Let's see. Yeah. Budget meetings. See, we put this, if you look at the rules for a major
document. I mean, putting it in here where you modified A,
the 2.04050A to add in that note about approving the annals of medical meetings, that the annals of
medical meetings will include regular meetings, non-special session. Yeah, I don't think we need to
add that there. Okay. But if you feel- I just want to make sure that it's there somewhere so that there's
an understanding that this is something that council is responsible for. Well, if you look at,
most for rules of procedure page 27 of the packet. Right. I have under council meetings, adoption of
annual schedule. Yeah. Meetings generally first and third Wednesday, no legislation for first reading
and the last session of the year. Right. So I think there we could put the details of the schedule shall
include budget meetings. I guess I'm wondering where are these rules of procedure going to be kept and
so like for a community member,
They would be on this website, I think. They posted it, yeah. But if they're reading BMC, is they going
to be able to know where to go from there? We can add, at the very start of this chapter, a paragraph
that says, more specific rules, a procedure can be found here.
are in a separate document that can be requested from the council office or I don't know how, but can
we allow it to link in GMC Sophia? I'm sorry, say that again. Are we allowed to link within GMC? Yeah.
I would just say refer to them so people can ask. It's also behavior change. I think they'll know to
not look at code after a certain point. You can make the announcement at each meetings.
the rules for procedure here. Yeah. I think what I would say is I would add a specific reference to
it. Like this may be found as the rules and proceedings as adopted by so they know like you can have
multiple forms and then it's on your front facing webpage kind of pie rules and procedure council meetings.
And that's probably sufficient. Links and code, links get broken too often. Site changes all that stuff.
And it's also
You'd have to have the full URL or otherwise to code. Well, speaking of which look 2.04.075 and council
rules procedure. Council shall adopt and maintain a council rules procedure document. So there we go.
I don't know if you think
Y'all think we should put that higher up? I think probably we should put it higher up, but this is the
first pass. Right. So I mean, for my like personal processing, it would be helpful.
to like for changing the order of things to not have a red line version where you're doing that. So
then it's like, so it can be read without all the cross-throughs and then go, okay, like this makes
sense up here and like these two things relate to each other, but they're far away. Yeah. So we'll get
us to hash out once we've hashed out all of the. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Then we have parliamentary authority,
which crossed out and put into the rules of procedure.
Oh, is that where, is that a note on the side that it's crossed out and then move to rules and procedure?
Yes. Okay. Yeah, it's hard because it really would benefit to have the notes on your screen at the same
time so you'd see that, yes, move to rules and procedure. And the same with amendment and suspension
of rules. Then we have forum.
The presiding officer shall take the chair, the hour designated, that thought was not necessary to put
in code. Do we need to keep that the city clerk needs to call a roll though? No, that'll be in rules
of procedure as part of it. It's already in our agenda. Or if it's a section, if there's a new- There's
a collection of the clerk, yeah. Then we have majority members, the council constitute,
Again, delete, the sergeant at arms procures the attendance. That was really strict. And then seating
up members, limits on debate, a move to annul the procedure. Asks us for meeting, I added that the city
clerk should also be informed. I thought that was actually a rule. I'm surprised it wasn't there. Yeah.
Sorry, Weary.
At the end of this paragraph on absence from meeting, there's two. Yeah, they're a little. Well, we
crossed out. We skipped a whole page there. Yeah, we crossed out CDF members. Yeah, because that's going
to go into the.
Rules and procedures and the limits on debate is going to go into rules and procedures. Correct. Then
we're at absence from meeting. Then we have- There's two periods that they don't apply right now. Yes.
It's gone. My God, people. Nobody's criticizing. I'm helping. There's two periods that they don't apply
right now. Okay.
Conflict of interest, orderliness of members, is that move too? Yes. How about orderliness of CCP members?
That's not required. This is true. Wait a minute, orderliness of members. I don't think we put that.
No, we did. We did put that in there. Okay. All right. And then,
We should probably go to public comment. Wait, where did we leave off? Is everything that's crossed
out in entirety moved into the rules and procedures document? Unfortunately, I can't say that for sure.
I looked and no. No. Some of them are just covered up. We need to do a comparison then. Yeah. Where
did we leave off? Conflict of interest. 150. Okay.
Well, let's leave off there and go to public comment. Is there anybody in the public who would like
to comment on the Title II revisions? Is this why you're here today? Yes. We're happy to actually get
it. Well, we'll have up to three minutes. Excuse me if I'm bothering you. Alice, the conference room
is. So fair. Thank you. Of course.
Hi, Steve Wolin. I have quite a few things to say, but they could all be summarized by maybe don't be
so. There's a lot of wisdom in the code. I'm going to hear you speak for the code, that a lot of it
was there for a reason. There's clearly plenty of it that needs to be cut. But for example, I'm just
stunned that you would cut the sergeant at arms.
Like, um, uh, I know, but, but just the, you know, to take the sergeant arms out of the text when you
need it, you need it, even if you never, I mean, and I'll also point out that, uh, uh, when it came
to the question of who should preside 1971, there was a wholesale turnover of the council. Charles,
it was elected president of the council when she had no experience.
You can may have that. What happens to this body? Look how long these rules have lasted and through
how many different types of councils and philosophies. If it's a wholesale turnover of council, what
kind of rules will they have? Shacking structure rules of procedure is a good idea, but I'd be hesitant
to offload as much as you all are thinking about doing.
I always thought that the clerk was the clerk of the common council and that's why their official duties
were listed in that section. I don't know that necessarily binds the clerk inappropriately to note that.
I do agree about the end of the year and veto overrides that rule can go. I've got a lot of opinions
and I'm going to be following you all this with interest, but the specificity of these rules was the point.
The council isn't supposed to be flexible. You all just noticed that everybody else bases their schedule
on council meetings. Why do you want to be more flexible for your own convenience? Or, I mean, the point
is that you're a deliberative body. You're deliberating. The rules are supposed to be literally deliberate.
The word has those two meanings, but they're in the same word for a reason. So how's my time doing?
What time do I have left? 45 seconds. All right.
It's impossible for me to comment on everything that's going on. It's all going so fast, I'm going to
have to read and maybe submit something in writing. But just one last thing, I'll point out the conflict
of interest section. If you take it out of what it rules of procedure, it says to the public, maybe
it's not as important to you all. Maybe there's a reason it's in code that it sends a message that this
is what the council is willing to put into the law.
you get my message. I don't know, just take things a little, nevermind, I'll stop. Thank you.
Thank you. So next steps with code revisions, was this helpful or was this too many cooks in the kitchen
here today? Because we could have another session like this and just keep it. I think it was helpful.
I think it was helpful. I do kind of echo Steve. I did run this question out, what's the benefit to
having this in a separate document versus the code?
And I think that we should really ask ourselves that in terms of which things we should keep in code
versus remove from code. And I think that question of why are we trying to give ourselves flexibility
is good. Like, what's the purpose of the flexibility? And if we want to do something that I can't do
now, then allowing that specific thing
are might be a better path to follow. If there's something specific, like for example, the defining
exactly when summer recesses and exactly when you can't meet over recesses, exactly when winter recesses,
to make that more flexible, there's a really good solid reason for that. It's a just in case. Is there
anything else that we need to do?
I don't think so. When is our next meeting? I think we already have scheduled after recess, right? The
clerk's office, no offhand. Let me check. I don't believe so. I think that one is scheduled. Okay. Well,
this time of the week is still good for people. Yes. Come back after recess.
Yeah. So that's the third. So we're not having another meeting until after recess. And would that be
August? If you could send it to the first email, we can get it noticed and scheduled. Okay, fine.
Thank you. Thank you. Are we usually meeting on the third Wednesday? Is that what we're asking now?
This is the third Wednesday. Third? Thursday. Oh, my God. Yeah. Okay.
Thursday, it would be the 16th of July, but there are five Thursdays in July. Let's try for the 23rd
of July. So that will work for people. Yeah, because I'll be on vacation the 16th. Yeah, it's the day
after a regular session.
And that is also the day before our first fiscal committee meeting after recess. And 4 to 5.30. Yeah,
that's the preference of crates. And it's also the day after quote one registration for Kelly Direct.
So, you know, be fragile with me.
All right, thank you all.