WEBVTT 00:00:00.226 --> 00:00:09.146 - Well, I'll go ahead and talk to order this meeting of the Committee on Council Processes for Thursday, 00:00:09.146 --> 00:00:18.152 - July 23rd. Yeah, I'll just do introductions around the table. Starting to moderate. Courtney Daly, City 00:00:18.152 --> 00:00:27.245 - Council. Isabel DeMott-Smith, Chair. Obie Stosser, Co-Chair, Reading. Jennifer Crossley, Clerk's Office. 00:00:27.245 --> 00:00:29.150 - All right, thank you. 00:00:30.082 --> 00:00:37.298 - We have our agenda today is that we'll first have any updates from committee members or the office of 00:00:37.298 --> 00:00:44.797 - clerk. Then we will talk about legislation regarding enforcement conditions that council member Stossberg 00:00:44.797 --> 00:00:52.154 - has prepared regarding the transportation commission and the environmental commission. And we will have 00:00:52.154 --> 00:00:59.582 - a public comment on those items before we vote. Then we'll just touch base briefly on incentive agendas. 00:01:00.098 --> 00:01:10.217 - which we agreed last time that we would not address until later this year or next year. And then we 00:01:10.217 --> 00:01:20.640 - will use the remainder of the time to continue our review of Title II, and we will have public comment 00:01:20.640 --> 00:01:26.206 - on that as well. Any concerns about the agenda to add? 00:01:30.658 --> 00:01:39.631 - Then we can move on. Are there any updates from members of the committee? Kota Crossley, do you have 00:01:39.631 --> 00:01:48.605 - any updates? Since you all had your last meeting back in May, I believe, we have gone through boards 00:01:48.605 --> 00:01:57.667 - and commission training for both staff liaisons as well as the first round of training for members of 00:01:57.667 --> 00:02:00.510 - various boards and commissions. 00:02:00.770 --> 00:02:08.067 - I was hoping that we would have a little bit more turnout for our members of origin commission training. 00:02:08.067 --> 00:02:15.156 - I think because of summertime, we offered both a couple of dates, both in person and virtual options. 00:02:15.156 --> 00:02:22.106 - And I don't think that a lot of people were able to attend. So we are trying to look at to see like 00:02:22.106 --> 00:02:29.473 - if we, some other dates that we can arrange after the school year as kicked off so we can get more people 00:02:29.473 --> 00:02:30.238 - to attend. 00:02:30.370 --> 00:02:39.209 - So other than that, that's pretty much it. I know after here, I'm planning on going to the HBC meeting 00:02:39.209 --> 00:02:47.790 - to observe some of the things that have been happening there. But other than that, that's it. Okay. 00:02:47.790 --> 00:02:56.886 - Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Well, then we can move on to legislation in regard to a couple 00:02:56.886 --> 00:03:00.318 - of our commissions. Awesome. Thank you. 00:03:00.930 --> 00:03:07.302 - I do want to make clear that this is a draft and it doesn't say draft on anywhere, but it also doesn't 00:03:07.302 --> 00:03:13.798 - have a number on it. So that's probably maybe assumed. And so there are a couple of things that I wanted 00:03:13.798 --> 00:03:20.171 - to be sure to mention that are kind of like in the works. I was hoping to actually have this for first 00:03:20.171 --> 00:03:26.667 - regain this last week, but first of all, I was told that we had more legislation that ended up happening 00:03:26.667 --> 00:03:28.894 - for our agenda last week, but also, 00:03:29.378 --> 00:03:36.589 - Once they started sending the stuff to people for feedback, it was like, oh, I do have things to say 00:03:36.589 --> 00:03:43.942 - about that. Oh, I do have things to say about that. So this is really technically like the third draft 00:03:43.942 --> 00:03:51.153 - of this at this point. So the first thing that I wanted to recognize is the last whereas clause that 00:03:51.153 --> 00:03:55.294 - mentioned the Novak report. And there's some stars there. 00:03:55.458 --> 00:04:01.319 - because I needed additional information and a link in citation because the lead ups lead upsides no 00:04:01.319 --> 00:04:07.298 - back report was actually broken. And so that is now like I have that link now and I just haven't like 00:04:07.298 --> 00:04:13.159 - updated all of that. So that just needs some slight amending. Thank you to for possibly for helping 00:04:13.159 --> 00:04:17.790 - out with some of that feedback in terms of the no back report of trust us like 00:04:17.954 --> 00:04:24.011 - Addressing this issue. And so I wanted to go to the original report itself to get the exact language 00:04:24.011 --> 00:04:30.368 - that it says in there. So that's going to be That's for both commission. No, that's for the environmental 00:04:30.368 --> 00:04:36.606 - commission in terms of reducing seats that have long standing vacancies. So the Novak report recommends 00:04:36.606 --> 00:04:42.603 - that And so I was going to kind of try to pull out exactly where the Novak report says that and put 00:04:42.603 --> 00:04:44.702 - the link into the Novak report and 00:04:45.762 --> 00:04:53.609 - like mirror, whatever, that language, the mail record report actually says in the warehouse clause. 00:04:53.609 --> 00:05:01.692 - And so I have to look that up and do that. Any questions about that one? Council Member Beethon-Smith, 00:05:01.692 --> 00:05:09.618 - when she read the draft, noted like in number four of the appointments and I'm in section one, which 00:05:09.618 --> 00:05:12.286 - I didn't change that number four, 00:05:12.418 --> 00:05:19.369 - But Board of Public Works is not in capital. And so I was like, oh, do we want to change some of these, 00:05:19.369 --> 00:05:26.386 - we could call them sturdiness type errors to fix capitals or not because none of that stuff was changing 00:05:26.386 --> 00:05:33.069 - before. And so I guess that's kind of an outstanding question is do we want to do that? Was there a 00:05:33.069 --> 00:05:40.153 - reason why we didn't do that? Was it just like overlooked last time that Board of Public Works is usually 00:05:40.153 --> 00:05:41.022 - capitalized? 00:05:47.682 --> 00:05:54.691 - I guess what I was thinking is I was looking elsewhere in city code to see if these like plant direction, 00:05:54.691 --> 00:06:01.303 - public transportation corporations, which ones were capitalized and border public works is the one. 00:06:01.303 --> 00:06:08.179 - The only one I found that is capitalized elsewhere in the code. Okay. So we might as well fix it. Okay. 00:06:08.179 --> 00:06:14.923 - That was my view, but I think it's a big deal. Do you know why border public works is capitalized but 00:06:14.923 --> 00:06:17.502 - the other things aren't in code? Okay. 00:06:17.794 --> 00:06:27.380 - Cause that's like weird to me that they're capitalized. And then it's kind of like, Oh, look, they're 00:06:27.380 --> 00:06:37.060 - turning out and just walked in and maybe we can ask them. Maybe it's in state court. The others should 00:06:37.060 --> 00:06:46.646 - not. I don't know. Absolutely. Well, I'm not the chair. So we have a council interim attorney, Larry, 00:06:46.646 --> 00:06:47.774 - joining us. 00:06:47.970 --> 00:06:55.110 - Yes. So the question, Larry, that you can think about while you're getting your jump out is we're looking 00:06:55.110 --> 00:07:02.250 - at the Board of Commission. We're men's that I've worked on. And the current language has Board of Public 00:07:02.250 --> 00:07:09.188 - Works lowercase, but elsewhere in code, it is capital. And other things are not capital, but elsewhere 00:07:09.188 --> 00:07:13.566 - in code and are also not capital here. And the question is like, 00:07:13.922 --> 00:07:18.666 - Should we make Board of Public Works capital to make it the same as the rest of the code? And why is 00:07:18.666 --> 00:07:23.458 - Board of Public Works the only thing that's capital-related? That's a good question. Why does he only 00:07:23.458 --> 00:07:28.296 - say capital-related? I don't know if there's a legal reason for it. It is obviously a statutory board, 00:07:28.296 --> 00:07:32.993 - as you kind of just mentioned. I think, you know, just writing convention is that if you're talking 00:07:32.993 --> 00:07:37.737 - about a very specific board, then it's probably not. So in this case, Board of Public Works, because 00:07:37.737 --> 00:07:41.918 - it's the Bloomington Board of Public Works, so you know what the public works are that's 00:07:42.306 --> 00:07:48.189 - referred to, there's no board, therefore it gets capitalized. So why is planned commission not capitalized? 00:07:48.189 --> 00:07:53.363 - It should be. I mean, that's what I would say. OK. I would argue. Because also these would be, 00:07:53.363 --> 00:07:59.028 - end up being, in legal drafting, I would capitalize them if they're defined words. And since these have 00:07:59.028 --> 00:08:04.747 - their own individual sections of code, I would consider these defined terms. So the planning commission, 00:08:04.747 --> 00:08:10.194 - again, is very specific to the buildings and planning commission, advisory commission for planning. 00:08:10.194 --> 00:08:11.774 - So therefore, I would agree. 00:08:11.906 --> 00:08:18.237 - I think I should have that one. That would be fine. So you would say then also capitalize like council 00:08:18.237 --> 00:08:24.199 - for community accessibility and public transportation corporation. Right. Board. Yes. And, okay. 00:08:24.199 --> 00:08:30.099 - All right. I'll go through that. No. If there was some generic reference to types of boards or, 00:08:30.099 --> 00:08:36.000 - you know, that I don't know what it is. Oh, the land commission is capitalized elsewhere. Okay. 00:08:36.000 --> 00:08:41.470 - All right. I'll go through it. And so like common council should be capitalized to them. 00:08:42.210 --> 00:08:49.999 - Okay. Because what do you mean this? Yeah. Yeah. It's not every. Yeah, exactly. All right. I will go 00:08:49.999 --> 00:08:57.788 - through and I will amend all that. So in terms of the actual changes that we're going to make to the 00:08:57.788 --> 00:09:05.654 - Transportation Commission, in terms of shifting in one of those seats, so to remind people, there are 00:09:05.654 --> 00:09:10.590 - currently four appointed seats from the community, two of them, 00:09:10.690 --> 00:09:17.110 - are actually, and this is written, the exact wording is written in the whereas clause. Two members, 00:09:17.110 --> 00:09:23.787 - one by the mayor and one by the council, and a preference for those appointments will be given to board 00:09:23.787 --> 00:09:30.207 - members, employees, or other formal volunteers with MCCSC, especially as involved in Safe Routes to 00:09:30.207 --> 00:09:36.627 - School, et cetera, and members of community organizations dedicated to serving marginalized groups, 00:09:36.627 --> 00:09:40.030 - especially safety marginalized transportation users. 00:09:40.418 --> 00:09:46.284 - And so it's one of those seats that then was being shifted. Now, originally if the mayor said that she 00:09:46.284 --> 00:09:52.093 - would prefer that the council, and we at the last meeting were like, we'll take the council seat from 00:09:52.093 --> 00:09:57.845 - that and that'll be fine. And the four of us agreed to that. And the mayor initially was like, yeah, 00:09:57.845 --> 00:10:03.824 - if that's on three, that she still gets another appointment, a general appointment, but then she changed 00:10:03.824 --> 00:10:09.918 - her mind and decided that she would like to keep the NCCSC appointment and that was fine with her. And so, 00:10:10.018 --> 00:10:18.695 - this one. And it has the superintendent of MCCSE recommending up to three applicants to the mayor. And 00:10:18.695 --> 00:10:27.203 - I could be up to three in there because I originally had three to mirror the CCA recommendation. But 00:10:27.203 --> 00:10:30.910 - Superintendent Winston said that she really 00:10:31.330 --> 00:10:38.591 - had one person in terms of her cabinet that she would generally recommend for that and so wanted a little 00:10:38.591 --> 00:10:45.853 - bit more flexibility in language so that she didn't have to, like it wasn't required for her to do three. 00:10:45.853 --> 00:10:52.840 - And so I put in the R2 requirement for that, but otherwise no residency requirements just by merit of 00:10:52.840 --> 00:10:58.046 - their employment. And so that leaves three appointments for common council. 00:10:58.338 --> 00:11:08.248 - I didn't particularly change. I don't think at all what's listed as number seven. Yeah, I don't think 00:11:08.248 --> 00:11:18.255 - I changed that at all. We can go down to the red line. Oh, I kind of switched numbers. I didn't change 00:11:18.255 --> 00:11:24.862 - the content of that. I just switched from numbering around with it. 00:11:25.218 --> 00:11:31.643 - to still keep the preference for appointments to those experiencing experienced by using forms of travel 00:11:31.643 --> 00:11:38.068 - other than personal vehicles as their primary member of transportation. And then I kept the third person 00:11:38.068 --> 00:11:44.249 - as a preference for appointment as being a member of the community organization dedicated to serving 00:11:44.249 --> 00:11:49.022 - marginalized groups, especially safety and personalized transportation users. 00:11:49.378 --> 00:11:57.628 - And so that language is basically taken directly from the original language that was grouped in with 00:11:57.628 --> 00:12:06.204 - the MCCSE appointment or those two appointments. Yeah, so that is what I did with this. And so the other 00:12:06.204 --> 00:12:14.454 - considerations that people have brought up to me have been, there was a concern cited by the current 00:12:14.454 --> 00:12:16.414 - chair of transportation 00:12:16.866 --> 00:12:26.691 - commission sitting over there as a member of the public today about the idea of instead of just shifting 00:12:26.691 --> 00:12:36.422 - one of those seats to a more specifically assigned seat to do that, but then also expand the commission 00:12:36.422 --> 00:12:44.094 - size to potentially 11 to allow more resident appointments still. I floated that. 00:12:44.450 --> 00:12:52.375 - through Andrew Seymour and the administration, and neither of them were interested in that. They have 00:12:52.375 --> 00:13:00.221 - concerns about filling the seats. And I don't know if, Claire Crossley, if your role with boards and 00:13:00.221 --> 00:13:08.146 - commissions has a take on that. And the other thing that I also wanted to know was that right now all 00:13:08.146 --> 00:13:14.206 - of these terms for these folks expire at the same time. So all four of these, 00:13:14.434 --> 00:13:21.251 - So for CMCCSCC, you know, it was by itself, but then these other three resident appointments all expire 00:13:21.251 --> 00:13:27.872 - at the same time. And whether there was merit in staggering those exploration dates. And so that was 00:13:27.872 --> 00:13:34.493 - also mentioned by Commissioner Boland. Director Seaborg also said that he didn't think that that was 00:13:34.493 --> 00:13:41.310 - necessary, but I was interested in Fort Crosley's opinion on that as well. And he also, again, on that. 00:13:41.634 --> 00:13:54.432 - So those are the two outstanding things. I'll stay up for discussion and consideration to make sure 00:13:54.432 --> 00:14:08.382 - to bring before you guys about transportation. Don't everybody talk at once. No, I was just laughing. Sorry. 00:14:10.146 --> 00:14:17.784 - Currently, all of the seats aspire to set times up. Yeah. The resident appointments, too. And when I 00:14:17.784 --> 00:14:25.422 - look at other permissions, some of them do that and some of them don't, I think. And it might depend 00:14:25.422 --> 00:14:33.136 - on how many, I'll say, of those appointments there are. Because even if those three residents' seats, 00:14:33.136 --> 00:14:39.262 - like even if all three of them go off at the same time, there's six other people 00:14:39.682 --> 00:14:47.774 - that are on the commission that wouldn't necessarily hold off at the same time. So what does it say? 00:14:47.774 --> 00:14:56.187 - So terms, it says, members appointed from the membership of the public transportation corporation board, 00:14:56.187 --> 00:15:04.440 - land commission, board of public works, and common council shall serve a term or extensive of the term 00:15:04.440 --> 00:15:08.606 - on the body. Okay, I see. So that would probably be 00:15:09.250 --> 00:15:18.281 - different term and dates for those possibly. Right. So right now, if we look, we have Rick Poppock, 00:15:18.281 --> 00:15:27.311 - who's appointed by the Board of Public Works, and he does not have an expiration date. We have John 00:15:27.311 --> 00:15:36.793 - Connell, who has an expiration date of March of 2027 as the BTC. That, of course, will be a shift pretty 00:15:36.793 --> 00:15:38.238 - soon, I expect. 00:15:38.786 --> 00:15:49.272 - And then we have three council seats that are all 131-27. And then we have Councilmember Flaherty, who's 00:15:49.272 --> 00:15:59.360 - the end of this term currently. So he's three. Right. And then Leslie Davis, who is appointed by the 00:15:59.360 --> 00:16:06.750 - mayor from the CCA and her term might also end on 131-27. And then Sasha, 00:16:07.426 --> 00:16:16.789 - whose full name I'm trying to pronounce, which also expires 2037. And so that's the second fair seat. 00:16:16.789 --> 00:16:26.060 - So that's the seat that's actually gonna transition to the same CCS, is the M2. And then we have the 00:16:26.060 --> 00:16:34.046 - planning commission seat, which expires right now in May of 2027. I wonder what it is. 00:16:35.010 --> 00:16:42.622 - When did that expire in May of 2027? My guess is that it was counted in May of 25. I think that that's 00:16:42.622 --> 00:16:50.234 - what I remember is when that actually got appointed because, yeah, just in terms of when that actually 00:16:50.234 --> 00:16:58.364 - happened. So, okay, and because the appointee from the Planning Commission is not on the Planning Commission, 00:16:58.364 --> 00:17:01.246 - it's the Constituent General. Correct. 00:17:05.794 --> 00:17:16.574 - I don't know, I'll look over at the Committee for Community Accessibility, or the Council for Community 00:17:16.574 --> 00:17:27.251 - Accessibility, which Leslie Davis is on from there, and she doesn't have an entity. And that committee 00:17:27.251 --> 00:17:31.294 - doesn't. Okay. That's more of an open, 00:17:31.970 --> 00:17:41.843 - I think that's the one where you can literally visit like 3 towns and become a member. So, and you're 00:17:41.843 --> 00:17:52.007 - on there for a while until a person. Is the law or no longer wishes to be a participant. Is on the board 00:17:52.007 --> 00:17:58.686 - of public works. No, he's I guess we're normally in 2 years as well. 00:18:01.890 --> 00:18:13.875 - and the Board of Public Works, they don't have end dates either. Oh, interesting. If I can, with respect 00:18:13.875 --> 00:18:25.517 - to what Councilmember Stossberg was saying with the staggering, I know I've read the Novak report and 00:18:25.517 --> 00:18:29.854 - it's mentioned a few different times, 00:18:30.722 --> 00:18:40.507 - overall their general, like, consensus of expiration dates that they do think that it would be helpful 00:18:40.507 --> 00:18:49.626 - to stab her. Because in essence, for example, if everybody is ending on 27 or at the end of 24, 00:18:49.626 --> 00:18:58.366 - January 31st, 2027, and there's some crazy major revolt, and everybody just has to go away. 00:18:58.754 --> 00:19:05.973 - then the business of the commission doesn't happen because you don't have anybody. I guess instead, 00:19:05.973 --> 00:19:13.191 - if you do have some type of staggered terms, you don't have to do everything all at once. Because I 00:19:13.191 --> 00:19:20.482 - know with interview committees, if you have a lot of people that don't, like if you have to fill all 00:19:20.482 --> 00:19:28.062 - of these spaces, that's a lot of interview time and scheduling to get people in and to fill those seats. 00:19:28.418 --> 00:19:37.822 - and to have to wait to another regular session to vote on approval and things as well. So I think that's 00:19:37.822 --> 00:19:47.137 - something to keep in mind. I think it would be helpful to ask. Yeah. So Larry, in terms of that, should 00:19:47.137 --> 00:19:55.198 - I add like a new section three ordinance then that specifically addresses the term lines? 00:19:58.722 --> 00:20:12.982 - Yeah, there's a paragraph in the work in the COVID system. Yeah. So I'll just give, let's see, numbers 00:20:12.982 --> 00:20:27.934 - depended from, or always. So I may have to modify the same way because the MCC, I see numbers depended from 00:20:38.754 --> 00:20:59.368 - So I will need to modify the terms here, which is section C in 2.02-100 to address the terms, to address 00:20:59.368 --> 00:21:07.614 - the MCCSC site expiration, and to stagger 00:21:08.226 --> 00:21:16.020 - three council seats. So I'll just have two. It's like, I'll have two of them that maybe have one year 00:21:16.020 --> 00:21:23.737 - terms and then one that has a two year term. And then after such time, then the single year terms go 00:21:23.737 --> 00:21:31.455 - to two year terms. Yeah. That makes sense. Or should I do us like one three year term and then. I've 00:21:31.455 --> 00:21:36.574 - seen that. Two year term. Well, there are better practices matter. 00:21:36.674 --> 00:21:43.409 - as long as we end up staggering in the end. Yeah, I think for staggering, what I would suggest is not, 00:21:43.409 --> 00:21:50.602 - so the reference in the code section in that subsection C, right, say that the first term of each appointment 00:21:50.602 --> 00:21:57.206 - would be the following, you can use the table or whatever. I guess we have to do that is repeat, and 00:21:57.206 --> 00:22:04.006 - thereafter, shall comply with the terms. Okay, but we can hear it. There are staggers if you have that. 00:22:04.006 --> 00:22:06.622 - Okay. You don't have to enter the code. 00:22:07.938 --> 00:22:20.685 - All right. All right. All right, I will look at that. OK, we just, OK, and what about the commission 00:22:20.685 --> 00:22:33.812 - size expanding to 11 as opposed to leaving it at nine and just moving, making the MCCSCC separate? Does 00:22:33.812 --> 00:22:37.598 - anybody have strong feelings? 00:22:40.002 --> 00:22:48.119 - I don't. I mean, I like the change that we're making to the MCCSE seat, since we have trouble filling 00:22:48.119 --> 00:22:56.476 - it, or hopefully this will now make it possible. But I think having the 11, I think it's a good padding, 00:22:56.476 --> 00:23:04.673 - but that's just my guess. I'll do it having the nine. I'm bumping it up to the 11 to make room for the 00:23:04.673 --> 00:23:08.254 - MCCSE seat. Am I understanding it correctly? 00:23:09.410 --> 00:23:15.948 - Well, yeah. I mean, so there are nine people on it right now. Right. And then adding two more seats. 00:23:15.948 --> 00:23:22.421 - And adding two more seats and having 11 total seats. Right. And so maybe it's actually easier to go 00:23:22.421 --> 00:23:29.154 - back and say right now there are four people who are being appointed from the community. And that would 00:23:29.154 --> 00:23:35.886 - go to three people being appointed from the community because one would be a designated MCC STC. Right. 00:23:35.886 --> 00:23:37.310 - So instead of cutting 00:23:37.410 --> 00:23:46.586 - the four down to three, it would be increasing the four to five from the community. And then adding 00:23:46.586 --> 00:23:56.036 - the MCCSCC onto that to still have, yeah, to still kind of make lots of space for freshmen input. That 00:23:56.036 --> 00:24:04.478 - was my long, what I was trying to say. Yeah. That was an eloquent way of saying we're still 00:24:05.698 --> 00:24:19.553 - giving the community representation. I mean, is that something that we might ask the whole transportation 00:24:19.553 --> 00:24:32.755 - commission to weigh in on? Or, I don't know, that's kind of awkward. Maybe it should be the decision 00:24:32.755 --> 00:24:34.846 - that comes from 00:24:36.258 --> 00:24:43.162 - For us, as to how many people would not have been put down and how likely we think it'll be 00:24:43.162 --> 00:24:50.967 - to get applicants. Yeah. I think that that's what, you know, Andrew Seaborg was concerned about filling 00:24:50.967 --> 00:24:58.696 - those seats and writing those, but it doesn't always work well to just add more people. Fairly, do you 00:24:58.696 --> 00:25:05.150 - have any thoughts on that as somebody who handles applicants to boards of commission? 00:25:06.018 --> 00:25:15.333 - The only, I'm always concerned about like when you're expanding, like for corn issues, like that would 00:25:15.333 --> 00:25:25.009 - be the biggest thing because in essence, like that's why we're looking at trying to convince environmental 00:25:25.009 --> 00:25:34.686 - because of corn issues. So my only hesitation is like in the future, are you all setting yourselves up for 00:25:35.682 --> 00:25:42.976 - you're trying to expand it to have more community involvement, which is great. And of course that's 00:25:42.976 --> 00:25:50.708 - what we want. But at the same time, are we setting ourselves up in which you might run into quorum issues 00:25:50.708 --> 00:25:58.003 - down the line. And so that's the only thing that I would say that we should really be mindful of is 00:25:58.003 --> 00:25:58.878 - making sure 00:25:59.874 --> 00:26:11.746 - that we don't do that because we could be in another year, six months from now, coming back going, and 00:26:11.746 --> 00:26:23.964 - second thought, we might have to take these seats back down. Yeah, I guess I share that. Are you thinking 00:26:23.964 --> 00:26:27.422 - to implement the MCCS's seat? 00:26:28.962 --> 00:26:37.233 - February 1st of next year so that we're not kicking anything out. Yeah, we're not kicking anything out. 00:26:37.233 --> 00:26:45.743 - It says that in the current section four, which will be on section five. Transportation efficiency changes 00:26:45.743 --> 00:26:54.174 - will take effect on January 31st unless C3, oh, I need to alter that too. So this should be changed to C. 00:26:59.458 --> 00:27:11.859 - because now that's not a council seat, that's a mayor's seat. So yeah, they will take place when that 00:27:11.859 --> 00:27:24.261 - seat expires unless if vacates briars with it and that just would be good. What did you say about the 00:27:24.261 --> 00:27:26.206 - nine versus 11? 00:27:29.314 --> 00:27:40.143 - I think that there was always the intention to have someone from MCC on it as one of the papers are 00:27:40.143 --> 00:27:51.189 - online. So I don't see that as being necessary. And we could always wait and see what happens and see 00:27:51.189 --> 00:27:57.470 - how many, you know, are there any on that committee? Yes. 00:27:58.178 --> 00:28:10.186 - in January and if there are just a buffer of applicants that seem to all be very qualified and diverse. 00:28:10.186 --> 00:28:22.079 - One of the things that was mentioned through this is that language of using forms of travel other than 00:28:22.079 --> 00:28:27.390 - personal motor vehicles that it tends to just 00:28:27.714 --> 00:28:34.645 - end up being very bike focused as opposed to, you know, any of the other pieces of transportation that 00:28:34.645 --> 00:28:41.442 - are not motor vehicle. And so it's, you know, making sure that, um, I mean, when we, when we did the 00:28:41.442 --> 00:28:48.306 - interviews for these seats, we had a lot of applicants and they were really good and really broad and 00:28:48.306 --> 00:28:55.170 - we had a hard time narrowing it down. Yeah. So I, I don't know if that was just a business because it 00:28:55.170 --> 00:28:57.054 - was a new formation. Right. 00:28:57.378 --> 00:29:04.779 - Or if we'll still have that same enthusiasm, but if we do, I mean, we wouldn't have a hard time. Yeah. 00:29:04.779 --> 00:29:12.036 - So yeah, I guess that's what I would say is maybe we should just wait and see what happens. And then 00:29:12.036 --> 00:29:19.364 - we can make adjustments as needed. I feel like it would be a better look to adjust it up when we know 00:29:19.364 --> 00:29:26.334 - there's a lot of need then to adjust it up now on a maybe and then have to adjust it down later. 00:29:27.074 --> 00:29:36.424 - And you all were actually, Team B, which was a former committee member on, I think they did a really 00:29:36.424 --> 00:29:46.051 - good job in trying to make sure that different modes of transportation was represented and that instead 00:29:46.051 --> 00:29:55.678 - of just picking all the cars or all bicycle or all pedestrian. And so parents, there was a nice diverse 00:29:56.194 --> 00:30:04.625 - trying to ensure that all avenues of modes of transportation were vetting. And I do wonder about this 00:30:04.625 --> 00:30:13.634 - new number eight in terms of preference for appointment to be a member of a community organization dedicated 00:30:13.634 --> 00:30:22.065 - to serving marginalized groups because we don't have somebody like that right now. And that was like, 00:30:22.065 --> 00:30:24.958 - I wonder if we're going to have to 00:30:25.314 --> 00:30:33.304 - do some deliberate reach out for outreach to organizations that fit that profile. I mean, I think it's 00:30:33.304 --> 00:30:41.372 - good to keep it. The Office of the Mayor indicated that they wanted to keep that qualification in terms 00:30:41.372 --> 00:30:49.362 - of it being important to have that kind of representation. I just wonder if we're gonna have some more 00:30:49.362 --> 00:30:52.542 - deliberate outreach to make that happen. 00:30:56.834 --> 00:31:08.532 - and also just as a member of a community organization, doesn't have to be an employee. All right, any 00:31:08.532 --> 00:31:20.344 - other last words? Okay, cool. Moving on to the environmental commission piece is a little bit simpler. 00:31:20.344 --> 00:31:26.078 - It has reduced it from, it's currently 12 members 00:31:26.274 --> 00:31:33.762 - six appointed by council, six appointed by the mayor. Currently, there are eight members, five appointed 00:31:33.762 --> 00:31:40.964 - by council, and three by the mayor. My proposal moves it to nine members, five appointed by council, 00:31:40.964 --> 00:31:48.452 - so none of the current folks who are on it would lose their seats, and then four appointed by the mayor. 00:31:48.452 --> 00:31:54.014 - That would still leave one vacant seat on that commission. The mayor and her, 00:31:54.210 --> 00:32:00.070 - message back to me preferred to move it to eight people to keep appointments and even split at four 00:32:00.070 --> 00:32:06.048 - and four between the mayor and council. I don't really want to do that because there's currently five 00:32:06.048 --> 00:32:11.967 - council appointments and I don't want to eliminate any of them. I don't think that that's right. And 00:32:11.967 --> 00:32:17.827 - so I am fine with keeping it five and four. I would also, you know, wanted to keep it five and five 00:32:17.827 --> 00:32:22.398 - to keep it even. I'm not sure how much it matters and I feel like every other 00:32:22.658 --> 00:32:29.204 - For a commission that we have is an odd number for voting purposes. So I would advocate keeping that 00:32:29.204 --> 00:32:35.880 - as five and four. And then I also realized when I was looking through some of those details, if it was 00:32:35.880 --> 00:32:42.685 - seated right now, that there are term expiration dates there that are different. And so I was wondering, 00:32:42.685 --> 00:32:45.278 - and this might be a question for either 00:32:45.634 --> 00:32:55.833 - Do I need to specify which seats are going to be eliminated in this at all so that I can make sure of, 00:32:55.833 --> 00:33:06.033 - like, yeah, I do. Okay. So I will need to add that. And I'll say eliminated or changed because I can't 00:33:06.033 --> 00:33:14.846 - remember which seats are vacant right now. I have a feeling that like seat M1 is vacant. 00:33:15.746 --> 00:33:25.272 - And so I don't really want to eliminate M1, because then we start M2, and that's just stupid. So I will 00:33:25.272 --> 00:33:34.798 - figure that out, and then I will put that in. Larry, how am I going to put that in the section? So it's 00:33:34.798 --> 00:33:43.774 - being replaced in its entirety with, and then how do I just describe that, like the seats will be 00:33:45.570 --> 00:33:52.862 - Do I need? Do you know what I mean? I don't think I do. I'm sorry. Let me. So if right now we have, 00:33:52.862 --> 00:34:00.154 - let me find it on board. You mean how do you add, sorry, how do you add the specific elimination of 00:34:00.154 --> 00:34:08.102 - a particular seed onto the language of this? OK. Yeah. You're creating a new. I would create a new sentence. 00:34:08.102 --> 00:34:13.790 - So it's the sketch that you have for everything. I'm sorry. My brain's stuck. 00:34:15.778 --> 00:34:22.206 - Yeah, since you have this as an amendment to the language, then you would add a different clause to 00:34:22.206 --> 00:34:28.698 - the ordinance just to say, you know, for clarity, the seat that's being eliminated is, it looks like 00:34:28.698 --> 00:34:35.384 - N5 and N6 are vacant. And one is vacant. And C4. C4. Yeah, yeah. All right, so I will add a new section 00:34:35.384 --> 00:34:42.133 - that clarifies which seats are being eliminated. Should I add a new whereas clause that says which seats 00:34:42.133 --> 00:34:44.190 - are currently occupied as well? 00:34:45.218 --> 00:34:54.026 - Yeah, if you want. I mean, the clarity of that's changeable. So as long as we've reasonably certain 00:34:54.026 --> 00:35:02.833 - that that's going to be the case up until the time this is considered. And in preparation for this, 00:35:02.833 --> 00:35:08.030 - I actually have been actually putting in something for ICS 00:35:08.418 --> 00:35:17.679 - because there's a vacancy report that I can pull and onboard to show of all vacancies. However, it doesn't 00:35:17.679 --> 00:35:26.335 - tell me specifically when that seat was vacated and I literally have to go in to every single seat. 00:35:26.335 --> 00:35:35.163 - So I did. And so to put that into context, C4 has been vacant since May 21st of this year and one has 00:35:35.163 --> 00:35:38.366 - been vacant since 1-21 of this year. 00:35:39.682 --> 00:35:54.624 - M5. M1 has been vacant since when? Yep. M1 has been vacant since January 21st of 26. Okay. M5 has been 00:35:54.624 --> 00:36:09.566 - vacant since 10-23-2024. Wow. 10-23-2024. And M6 has been vacant since 1-31-2026. 26. Oh, interesting. 00:36:09.986 --> 00:36:18.782 - And the back of those, the M6 had also been vacant for a long time, I thought I saw. Yeah. And we still 00:36:18.782 --> 00:36:27.325 - don't have any applicants for environmental commission, right? Yeah, because that's the other thing, 00:36:27.325 --> 00:36:35.191 - is there are absolutely no applicants at all for that. And I did speak with, OK, so first of 00:36:35.191 --> 00:36:39.166 - all, Transportation Commission is going to see 00:36:39.522 --> 00:36:47.541 - Not quite this draft, I don't think, but maybe on Monday at their meeting. Yeah, that was next Monday. 00:36:47.541 --> 00:36:55.560 - I told them that I would be there to discuss this with them. And I thought that Jacqueline Spannin was 00:36:55.560 --> 00:37:03.346 - going to discuss it with the Environmental Commission last week. But I guess since there wasn't the 00:37:03.346 --> 00:37:07.550 - proposal in front of her, she was told not to. I did. 00:37:08.162 --> 00:37:17.651 - give back all the recall who's chair of environmental commission. And he thought that it was too bad 00:37:17.651 --> 00:37:27.328 - because he values that commission so much, but also understands that there's been vacancies and a lack 00:37:27.328 --> 00:37:36.254 - of vacancies. And the administration is supportive of the environmental commission as a staff. 00:37:36.802 --> 00:37:46.479 - Yeah. I mean, they're having trouble making the forum. Although forum is based on how many people are 00:37:46.479 --> 00:37:56.441 - appointed not have a seat. So yeah, that was the current legal department interpretation. The city legal 00:37:56.441 --> 00:38:06.782 - department. So you have to go out and go to the environmental mission. I don't remember when that came over. 00:38:07.362 --> 00:38:15.221 - It's a matter of time. Well, and I guess the other thing, the other indication that was given to me 00:38:15.221 --> 00:38:23.316 - that it's council led, so maybe because I was out of town last week and could not attend that meeting, 00:38:23.316 --> 00:38:31.332 - maybe if I could attend that meeting, then we could have discussed it then. I'm not sure. I was under 00:38:31.332 --> 00:38:35.262 - the impression that it was going to be discussed. 00:38:35.458 --> 00:38:45.986 - Maybe there since I have discussed it with the chair and with Jack, but that's not the way it wound 00:38:45.986 --> 00:38:57.041 - up. And the EC meets every third Thursday at 6 p.m. That weekday? Some of the, they met last week. Yeah. 00:38:57.041 --> 00:39:03.358 - Oh yeah, it's the third Thursday. Oh, right, it's July 1st. 00:39:12.962 --> 00:39:21.245 - favor of this? I would not want to go down to 80. Yeah, I mean, the only other thing I'd say is to go 00:39:21.245 --> 00:39:29.366 - up to 10, but like, everything else is fine. I think we need to keep it odd. Yeah. I feel like it's 00:39:29.366 --> 00:39:36.919 - that way for a reason. Well, it's currently not an odd number, right? It's currently 12. Oh, 00:39:36.919 --> 00:39:38.462 - that's true. Yeah. 00:39:38.850 --> 00:39:48.376 - And so I'm not sure if that's ever like created issues. I'm not sure. Okay. Ask somebody why it was 00:39:48.376 --> 00:39:57.901 - 12 to begin with. So it was one of the first commissions. So maybe that just didn't fit in. Yeah. I 00:39:57.901 --> 00:40:08.094 - don't know. The other ones learned from then. Do you have thoughts on that at all? Honestly, odd is always 00:40:08.514 --> 00:40:19.703 - better in terms of voting. I think like case in point, about a year plus ago, this committee decided 00:40:19.703 --> 00:40:30.893 - to take down caps. They were at 12 and they're at nine. So that's also something like to be used for 00:40:30.893 --> 00:40:32.222 - an example. 00:40:36.738 --> 00:40:51.111 - Any other thoughts on this? I guess the other thing to ask right now is, I know that you put a vote 00:40:51.111 --> 00:41:04.190 - on there. I'm not sure whether this is for us to vote on. There are several things that we 00:41:04.354 --> 00:41:11.418 - have some amendments made to it before it's ready to go before council. I'm not sure if, I think what 00:41:11.418 --> 00:41:18.481 - we did in May was essentially say, here, how do we write this and bring it to council under this like 00:41:18.481 --> 00:41:25.614 - theoretical concept of what we're doing, right? And pretty sure that that's what we did in May, right? 00:41:25.614 --> 00:41:30.046 - You want me to remember that part back? That's a long time ago. 00:41:30.434 --> 00:41:35.392 - I'm pretty sure that's what we did because I was kind of like, okay, I'm going to work on this and I'm 00:41:35.392 --> 00:41:40.397 - going to get it ready for the July 22nd meeting because that was what was mentally in my head. But then 00:41:40.397 --> 00:41:45.307 - when I realized, okay, July 22nd, like that's not going to happen. And then there were several pieces 00:41:45.307 --> 00:41:50.457 - that weren't necessarily disagreements, but were like faces that there could be discussion. And I thought, 00:41:50.457 --> 00:41:52.382 - well, it's not going to be on the 22nd. 00:41:52.642 --> 00:41:58.884 - at the meeting and we have this meeting on the 23rd, we may as well discuss it here and discuss some 00:41:58.884 --> 00:42:05.374 - of these little details and that's fine. So I don't know at this point if you wanna say fix these things 00:42:05.374 --> 00:42:11.554 - and bring it back to us as another draft in our August meeting and then we'll specifically vote and 00:42:11.554 --> 00:42:17.982 - recommend it to the full council or if I get all of these things ironed out before that, then we should 00:42:17.982 --> 00:42:22.494 - just go ahead and put it before the full council. That's up to you guys. 00:42:25.666 --> 00:42:35.503 - feel like it necessarily doesn't come back to us directly before. Yeah, I think we discussed the changes. 00:42:35.503 --> 00:42:45.432 - We're not going to surprise us with anything. If you do. I don't think so. I guess there's some unexpected 00:42:45.432 --> 00:42:54.526 - surprise from any commission members in any way. Well, and I think if that happens, then we don't 00:42:54.722 --> 00:43:01.405 - for council and you say, all right, we got to bring it back, even though we voted on it, because we 00:43:01.405 --> 00:43:08.289 - can do that. I think. Yeah, we don't need to vote today. I think. Right. I think the same. And I mean, 00:43:08.289 --> 00:43:15.040 - I could bring it before the full council and just be like, this is how we discussed it in CCP. Yeah. 00:43:15.040 --> 00:43:21.790 - They saw it as a draft before I brought it to these bodies. And this is what happened in those days. 00:43:23.266 --> 00:43:30.469 - And then there's like no action taken here today with regard to it, really. Let's go to public comment 00:43:30.469 --> 00:43:37.672 - and revisit this. All right. Is there any member of the public who would like to make a comment on the 00:43:37.672 --> 00:43:44.525 - proposed changes to the transportation commission and the advantage? Yeah, I was like, of course. 00:43:44.525 --> 00:43:51.518 - Commissioner Boland. Would you like to come to the table so that you're on the video, please? Sure. 00:43:53.634 --> 00:44:01.517 - Do we set up a tree or are you okay? I'll just look at my mark. Okay. You have three minutes. 00:44:01.517 --> 00:44:10.154 - Thank you. Steve Volner, Chair of the Commissioner Commission. Multiple thoughts. First of all, I just 00:44:10.154 --> 00:44:18.791 - wanted to read article two, section A of the commission bylaws forum says, no action of the commission 00:44:18.791 --> 00:44:21.726 - shall be official without approval 00:44:22.050 --> 00:44:28.684 - by the majority of the full commission irrespective of their vacancies, unless otherwise specified in 00:44:28.684 --> 00:44:35.447 - the Spokoe or Perlman's Bylaws. So we already have that. For a nine-member commission, it's an absolute 00:44:35.447 --> 00:44:42.016 - five, but we don't have relative approval based on the number of actual occupancies. In other words, 00:44:42.016 --> 00:44:48.974 - we debated that whether, in creating our Bylaw, whether we should be able to, if we only had seven members 00:44:48.974 --> 00:44:49.950 - and only four, 00:44:50.306 --> 00:44:57.068 - could approve it, and we decided against that in creating our dialogues. Now, I don't know if that is 00:44:57.068 --> 00:45:04.162 - informative to other commissions or to the council as a whole, but I think it's instructive. I did suggest 00:45:04.162 --> 00:45:10.792 - that we expand to 11 for a couple of reasons. At transportation, one is it was the consolidation of 00:45:10.792 --> 00:45:16.030 - three commissions, all of which had some significance at one point or another. 00:45:16.354 --> 00:45:23.603 - And there is an awful lot of work that the commission is being asked to consider. It's also one of the 00:45:23.603 --> 00:45:30.781 - only commissions that is staffed by two different departments, depending on what we're talking about. 00:45:30.781 --> 00:45:38.170 - We had to evolve a complex set of rules that I think may even be more complex than planning commission's 00:45:38.170 --> 00:45:45.278 - rules, which they were raised on. If there were two more seats there before council and two mayoral, 00:45:45.474 --> 00:45:52.992 - You can split them up in staggering terms. It shouldn't be too much more of a burden. But I think that 00:45:52.992 --> 00:46:00.364 - the diversity of viewpoints would be good. Sasha Suturochko is the most recent appointee. We haven't 00:46:00.364 --> 00:46:07.810 - really had much chance to work with her. But the commission as a whole has been in existence for just 00:46:07.810 --> 00:46:14.014 - over a year. And it's taken most of that time just to figure out how it should work. 00:46:14.178 --> 00:46:21.326 - But one thing I feel comfortable in saying as an individual member is that I think we will be on the 00:46:21.326 --> 00:46:28.545 - whole slightly better off if we were 11 members. But I don't think it's the end of the world if we're 00:46:28.545 --> 00:46:35.622 - not. But that's why I suggested it. I also strongly recommend staggering those seats. I don't think 00:46:35.622 --> 00:46:42.558 - it's a good idea for everybody to, I mean, it makes it less predictable who's not gonna be there. 00:46:42.754 --> 00:46:52.111 - Also the 11 means that there's a majority of seats that are appointed by Councilor Mayer as opposed 00:46:52.111 --> 00:47:01.562 - to ex officio, which is not to say that, for example, Leslie Davis of the CCA is the de facto choice 00:47:01.562 --> 00:47:11.200 - of CCA. She's an excellent representative, just that this would make it a majority of general citizens 00:47:11.200 --> 00:47:12.510 - as opposed to 00:47:12.802 --> 00:47:21.591 - people thereby did of an apartment firm and another commission. Again, these are not strong, really 00:47:21.591 --> 00:47:30.731 - big problems, but you want to pitch those ideas. I do think that the day is a couple of 11 people. It's 00:47:30.731 --> 00:47:40.574 - not likely MPO where there's 13 people and they have to expand off to at best to one side. We were able to have 00:47:40.834 --> 00:47:54.444 - The the the room. We saw that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from. And I see my friends. 00:47:54.444 --> 00:48:09.278 - All right, well, coming back to vote or no vote. What's the will of the committee? Our general approval and. 00:48:11.554 --> 00:48:18.752 - indicate that we'd like to hear back if there are substantive major changes discussed? I think so. 00:48:18.752 --> 00:48:26.023 - I think. I'm indifferent, honestly. I'll do whatever you two are interested in doing at this point. 00:48:26.023 --> 00:48:33.367 - I don't have numbers to look at right now. I want to know if she might want to see it before it goes 00:48:33.367 --> 00:48:40.638 - before the full council. I mean, I could also talk to her about it separately, because I don't know 00:48:40.638 --> 00:48:41.438 - about her. 00:48:42.562 --> 00:48:49.217 - In terms of the transportation commission changes that was going to back until after the first year 00:48:49.217 --> 00:48:56.072 - anyway, and I don't think the EC has been the way that it has been for obviously quite a while I think 00:48:56.072 --> 00:48:57.470 - that there's a rush. 00:48:57.730 --> 00:49:03.507 - In any way, I also just don't want it lingering too long because things that like, you know, it's just 00:49:03.507 --> 00:49:09.508 - like obnoxious not to be able to check themselves your checklist. But I don't even think we have a meeting 00:49:09.508 --> 00:49:15.341 - schedule right now yet for this committee. So it also, you know, we're gonna meet again in three weeks. 00:49:15.341 --> 00:49:20.949 - And so it's like, I'm a different, y'all just kind of want me to be on good. I was just thinking in 00:49:20.949 --> 00:49:26.558 - terms of efficiency, like we don't need to keep, but you're right. Council member Zulek isn't here. 00:49:26.658 --> 00:49:35.216 - And if, I mean, obviously, of course, I think that's why you specified that there are substantial changes 00:49:35.216 --> 00:49:43.532 - obviously should come back to us. So I can see either way. I guess I don't have faith field any second 00:49:43.532 --> 00:49:51.767 - way either. Maybe since council members are like, it's not here. And there doesn't seem to be a rush. 00:49:51.767 --> 00:49:54.270 - Go ahead and write back to us. 00:49:54.434 --> 00:50:05.010 - No, we're trying to schedule a meeting, you know, for a hospital now. Does that work for you? Oh yeah. 00:50:05.010 --> 00:50:15.791 - Yeah. Well, I also like, you know, if you have too much string, then you just like wait until the string 00:50:15.791 --> 00:50:23.902 - runs out before you do anything. I'm like, but hopefully just get it all done. 00:50:26.466 --> 00:50:36.858 - Thank you very much. Super. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next item is just touching base on 00:50:36.858 --> 00:50:47.458 - the consent agenda that we put a pin in last time and decided that we wanted to shelve that potential 00:50:47.458 --> 00:50:52.862 - legislation to add consent agendas until next year. 00:50:55.586 --> 00:51:03.763 - talk about maybe we could track legislation for the rest of this year and kind of see what legislation 00:51:03.763 --> 00:51:11.782 - would fall under a consent agenda, whether there's any that is maybe controversial, like some people 00:51:11.782 --> 00:51:19.879 - would put it on consent agenda, some people wouldn't. So but then attorney Allen cautioned us against 00:51:19.879 --> 00:51:25.278 - like creating a Google Docs where we would keep track of things. So 00:51:26.082 --> 00:51:37.974 - Do we want to have, how do we, do we want to keep track? Is that still beneficial? And if so, how do 00:51:37.974 --> 00:51:49.748 - we do that? I'm stunned. Well, I mean, I think that any minutes would end up on consumption, right? 00:51:49.748 --> 00:51:52.574 - Yeah, I would think so. 00:51:54.402 --> 00:52:00.083 - one of the stuff is in the packet. Talking about not being able to remember May, I think in May it was 00:52:00.083 --> 00:52:06.039 - like a list of possibilities that might go on consensual agenda, right? That's what I'm trying to remember. 00:52:06.039 --> 00:52:11.885 - That's right, yeah, you're right. Well, the tricky part is legislation. We can put appointments on there, 00:52:11.885 --> 00:52:17.566 - we can put minutes on there. Right, minutes can go on there, minutes can go on there. But appointments 00:52:17.566 --> 00:52:23.081 - are sometimes faster. And that's when we can pull them out, right? Because we can pull anything out 00:52:23.081 --> 00:52:24.350 - of the consent agenda. 00:52:24.674 --> 00:52:34.601 - For the most part, appointments aren't. What's the point of being on such agendas to make things faster? 00:52:34.601 --> 00:52:44.150 - I didn't want to pre-argue the consent agenda, because last time we said we're going to wait. But we 00:52:44.150 --> 00:52:53.982 - also mentioned there is some kind of tracking. So that's why I wanted to talk about that. How would you 00:52:54.306 --> 00:53:00.518 - to refresh or how would you like to keep track? Well, that's the thing. We're not allowed to have a 00:53:00.518 --> 00:53:06.854 - Google Doc. So what if each of us just keep track individually? And so then if we can all acknowledge 00:53:06.854 --> 00:53:13.376 - right now that most appointments would go on and minutes would go on, then all we're really individually 00:53:13.376 --> 00:53:19.774 - keeping track of is pieces of legislation. So when we're reading through our agendas, we're going, oh, 00:53:20.002 --> 00:53:26.706 - this looks like it should be easy enough to be on a consent agenda. And we're kind of taking note of 00:53:26.706 --> 00:53:33.543 - that somewhere in whatever our own personal filing systems are with that kind of thing. And then maybe 00:53:33.543 --> 00:53:40.314 - we're bringing that back to this meeting to compare. And I would then also think about assessing that 00:53:40.314 --> 00:53:46.686 - before the meetings. And then going like, oh, okay, I thought that resolution whatever would be 00:53:47.042 --> 00:53:55.899 - Easy peasy, lemon squeezy, and it turned out it wasn't. And then see how many times we're right or wrong. 00:53:55.899 --> 00:54:04.588 - And if we just say, I will keep track of that to the best of my ability and take a little pinky promise 00:54:04.588 --> 00:54:11.774 - here, then we're not sharing data that isn't appropriate and we could not discuss it. 00:54:11.906 --> 00:54:17.914 - just a wrinkle in terms of the Google Doc thing. The real concern is just being able to edit it together 00:54:17.914 --> 00:54:23.692 - in real time. And so one of the ways that even the public access counselor has knowledge that we can 00:54:23.692 --> 00:54:29.528 - do this is to create essentially a way where if you all want to submit, we can build basically Google 00:54:29.528 --> 00:54:35.250 - Form, just a really simple Google Form. And you could basically what to do is you're using staff to 00:54:35.250 --> 00:54:41.086 - submit for each of you. It's like keeping your own records, except we'll keep a central record of it. 00:54:41.346 --> 00:54:46.813 - They will go on a read-only Google Doc, so it can't be edited together in real-time, so you can't basically 00:54:46.813 --> 00:54:52.077 - have a deliberation through it. And then you can just access that every time a meeting. I would suggest 00:54:52.077 --> 00:54:57.240 - posting and say, hey, let's just review what's been put on, what do we think, or when the time comes. 00:54:57.240 --> 00:55:02.302 - It'll be in one central location. You all have contributed to it, but it's not a deliberation. It's 00:55:02.302 --> 00:55:07.364 - not particularly receiving information until the public meeting. So a meeting's kind of what public 00:55:07.364 --> 00:55:11.262 - access counselors said, which is you just can't edit it at the exact second. 00:55:11.810 --> 00:55:20.359 - Okay. So it's a Google form. Yeah. And I create that very, very, very quickly because it would literally 00:55:20.359 --> 00:55:28.908 - be just like, what escalation number, date discussed and about via, or like, you know, like what meaning 00:55:28.908 --> 00:55:37.131 - it's on. And that's all we would really need to know for, for, for this purpose. Each of us would go 00:55:37.131 --> 00:55:40.062 - in there and say, it's that agenda. 00:55:41.954 --> 00:55:47.938 - Definitely not in session. And then have another space for after the meeting. I wasn't even thinking 00:55:47.938 --> 00:55:53.862 - of it that complicated. That we could literally, like, if there's an item that we're like, oh, this 00:55:53.862 --> 00:55:59.964 - item could be on the consent agenda, then we would go and fill out the form. This item could be on the 00:55:59.964 --> 00:56:06.007 - consent agenda. And that's done. And then that would just generate a list that then we could discuss. 00:56:06.007 --> 00:56:11.102 - But do we throw it out before or after the meeting? Because I think that's important. 00:56:11.298 --> 00:56:16.780 - does things that may seem like, oh, that's easy. Like I said, got to fill in the consent agenda. But 00:56:16.780 --> 00:56:22.262 - then after the meeting, you realize, oh, there were problems with that. And that shouldn't have gone 00:56:22.262 --> 00:56:27.799 - poorly if it had been on the consent agenda. I think we fill it out before the meeting. But then when 00:56:27.799 --> 00:56:33.552 - we discuss it as this sort of thing, then that rises. Because we should be able to remember these things, 00:56:33.552 --> 00:56:37.406 - right? Like if we have slides in the form for ordinance number, title, 00:56:38.018 --> 00:56:45.617 - or main topic or something like that, and dates, like meeting dates. That should give us enough of a 00:56:45.617 --> 00:56:53.443 - prompt, because it's not like we're trying to remember things from a year and a half ago. It would just 00:56:53.443 --> 00:57:01.268 - be like five months. Yeah. And we could even look at it before that, too, if we wanted to. I feel like, 00:57:01.268 --> 00:57:05.406 - though, to play devil's advocate, now that we're doing 00:57:06.242 --> 00:57:12.619 - discussion on first readings, we're muddying the waters now. We're saying, you know, first readings 00:57:12.619 --> 00:57:19.123 - would be most likely where, you know, any legislation would go under the consent agenda. So now we're 00:57:19.123 --> 00:57:25.691 - saying it's either going to go consent agenda or we're now going to discuss it. Like we now have these 00:57:25.691 --> 00:57:32.260 - two very opposite directions we can take where we used to have neither of those options. So this might 00:57:32.260 --> 00:57:33.790 - get a little confusing. 00:57:35.650 --> 00:57:42.763 - Can we put a first reading of an ordinance on our consent agenda at its first reading? What it would 00:57:42.763 --> 00:57:50.016 - be is it would be deemed a waiver of the rules and then have a unanimous consent. So essentially you'd 00:57:50.016 --> 00:57:57.058 - be waiving your rules and procedure and then by unanimous consent. That's a little messy in the way 00:57:57.058 --> 00:58:04.734 - that you have your structure. So I don't know that that would really be the way your computer would respond. 00:58:04.994 --> 00:58:12.164 - Good advice is best practice. You could keep, I mean, we, I think it's not across the board. There's 00:58:12.164 --> 00:58:19.475 - some comparisons out there. Some cities are very general, but they allow things. I pretend to have any 00:58:19.475 --> 00:58:26.574 - board exists, resolutions, whatever, as long as- Yeah, that's a, another thing I have on our agenda 00:58:26.574 --> 00:58:33.886 - today is that, just a reminder that Larry offered that comparison chart for December. Oh, okay, sorry. 00:58:35.170 --> 00:58:45.272 - last meeting, you said, oh, staff and forward together comparison chart. Yeah, but we, um, I don't want 00:58:45.272 --> 00:58:55.277 - you to recreate the video because we do some work has already been done on this. Yeah. So, yeah, I see 00:58:55.277 --> 00:59:02.174 - what Courtney means about putting any legislation on a consent agenda. 00:59:05.410 --> 00:59:16.838 - certain events or decisions were made about discussion. It also circum, I mean, this allows public comment. 00:59:16.838 --> 00:59:28.478 - So that was my other question. Is there any comment on the consent agenda or public? I don't think so, right? 00:59:35.650 --> 00:59:43.519 - Like there are certainly things that like the public doesn't have much on, but once again, I think once 00:59:43.519 --> 00:59:51.237 - in a while you get somebody coming out with work or something random. I'll be upfront. I love, I'm in 00:59:51.237 --> 00:59:58.803 - love with the idea of a consistent agenda, you know, to put some time down from our epic hours long 00:59:58.803 --> 01:00:05.310 - meetings. I love the idea of one and I think we should try to make it work if we can. 01:00:05.410 --> 01:00:11.707 - I'm just coming up. I think it's actually going to come down at the time. Because I think the things 01:00:11.707 --> 01:00:18.128 - that take the time are the things that are going to take the time. To think about it practically, too, 01:00:18.128 --> 01:00:24.736 - where the consent agenda would fall on the current agenda. It would likely fall on after the first public 01:00:24.736 --> 01:00:31.282 - comment period. And so while, technically, consent agendas are not debatable in that way, because that's 01:00:31.282 --> 01:00:34.462 - the whole purpose of the consent agenda, you could 01:00:34.658 --> 01:00:41.355 - alter, you can make sure that your public comment rules allow for just explicitly comment on the agenda. 01:00:41.355 --> 01:00:48.116 - Therefore, you do get feedback from members of the public during that first comment period. And I believe 01:00:48.116 --> 01:00:54.813 - this should be on that council member, anyone council member, they were swayed by that to sort of ignore 01:00:54.813 --> 01:01:01.318 - that. I think that's a very transparent kind of way to make it look like that. Yeah, I like that. Are 01:01:01.318 --> 01:01:03.678 - you ready down that idea? Thank you. 01:01:10.466 --> 01:01:20.353 - Do we think it's worthwhile to have a Google form with our thoughts on legislative or agenda items for 01:01:20.353 --> 01:01:30.047 - the next few months that we think could go on in the session? I do. Yeah. All right. Larry, you said 01:01:30.047 --> 01:01:39.070 - you couldn't easily create such a thing. Yes. Or Michael Harvey couldn't do it. It's created. 01:01:39.650 --> 01:01:52.793 - Now, since this is going to be such a basic Google form like this, is it worth sharing with all counselors? 01:01:52.793 --> 01:02:05.084 - Or do you want to keep it in terms of that kind of wider? I think I would keep it because I think it 01:02:05.084 --> 01:02:07.518 - would generate more 01:02:07.970 --> 01:02:17.999 - Questions and then serves them. I would really like it. That sounds fine. Ready? I was. Or do you do. 01:02:17.999 --> 01:02:28.422 - I do. I think this is. Committee of lane for now. All right. I didn't have on our agenda. Public comment. 01:02:28.422 --> 01:02:37.566 - On consent agendas. But since we could get into it in more detail than I expected, is there. 01:02:46.434 --> 01:02:54.720 - to respond to that. All right, Mr. Goer. Hello. I hope I heard Larry correctly when he's talked about 01:02:54.720 --> 01:03:03.006 - comment. I think I agree with the way to people share the public comment so that the council may move 01:03:03.006 --> 01:03:11.698 - to take something off of some agenda, whether or not that's special public comment designed to be happened 01:03:11.698 --> 01:03:15.678 - merely after the consent agenda is on the table. 01:03:16.002 --> 01:03:22.352 - or you just use that first period over the public comment. I would think that one was elegant enough. 01:03:22.352 --> 01:03:28.640 - Just make sure that the instructions say that people who are speaking over the public comment cannot 01:03:28.640 --> 01:03:35.302 - speak to an item that's not on the agenda, but they may speak to an item that's not on the consent agenda. 01:03:35.302 --> 01:03:41.777 - As long as that's at, we don't think you can do it. But otherwise, I'm a big fan of the consent agenda, 01:03:41.777 --> 01:03:45.886 - and I'm so glad you all are thinking about doing it, and I agree. 01:03:45.986 --> 01:03:53.108 - The perfect example of something that I was actually going to consent agenda was JAG grants. There's 01:03:53.108 --> 01:04:00.512 - always a $20,000 JAG grant that we hear once a year or so, and it's never controversial, perfect example 01:04:00.512 --> 01:04:07.775 - of that. If we had a consent agenda, we would make our meetings faster. That's how I used to have been 01:04:07.775 --> 01:04:15.038 - back then. So please, yes, make your meetings faster. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments? 01:04:15.650 --> 01:04:28.497 - All right, let's move on to Title II review. Claire Crossley, am I able to share my screen? 01:04:28.497 --> 01:04:42.462 - Are you able to? I'm going to make you a course, so you can do that. And you should be able to now. 01:04:42.462 --> 01:04:45.534 - All right, thank you. 01:05:00.066 --> 01:05:13.907 - after conflict of interest. So keeping this in there. So just in case people weren't here in May, we 01:05:13.907 --> 01:05:29.118 - are doing Congress's review of Title II, which is part of our municipal code that is about the common council. 01:05:30.562 --> 01:05:41.439 - We agreed that a lot of these items could be moved into a document that would become rules or procedure 01:05:41.439 --> 01:05:51.898 - for the council. It would be an administrative document in the code itself. So anything on conflict 01:05:51.898 --> 01:05:59.742 - of interest? We had talked about, I initially thought we should move this. 01:06:00.610 --> 01:06:12.515 - out of code and integral procedure, but I think it was persuasively argued last time that we should 01:06:12.515 --> 01:06:25.014 - move it. So then we have several paragraphs after that that I think could be moved to rules of procedure 01:06:25.014 --> 01:06:27.038 - because they are 01:06:28.258 --> 01:06:38.512 - more procedural things like expressing dissent. Every member has the right to express dissent, okay, 01:06:38.512 --> 01:06:48.664 - yes. That is part of our rules that is more specifically outlined for the current council, but that 01:06:48.664 --> 01:06:57.598 - I think should go in the rules document. Stop me at any time. Violation of rules, same. 01:07:00.770 --> 01:07:17.662 - personal privilege. Same. I didn't propose any changes to this. 01:07:31.010 --> 01:07:38.991 - Any feedback on that? I wonder if this has ever been used. I was just wondering that. Uh-huh. So members 01:07:38.991 --> 01:07:46.820 - can be removed. The council shall have the power to expel any of its members for violation of official 01:07:46.820 --> 01:07:54.574 - duty, including gross neglect, that may declare the seat of any member vacant by reason of disability 01:07:54.574 --> 01:07:56.702 - to perform official duties. 01:08:01.378 --> 01:08:14.888 - impeachment in this case. So impeachment and then a special session, there'd be a trial. Please go to 01:08:14.888 --> 01:08:28.133 - two thirds members, have it required. Okay, we'll move that in. Then we go to investigatory powers. 01:08:28.133 --> 01:08:30.782 - So this is, I just, 01:08:30.946 --> 01:08:46.005 - side of Indiana code here. I don't have, I think that should stay in. That's the important power. We 01:08:46.005 --> 01:09:00.766 - don't use it that much, but I think that's good to know. Okay, to move on to article three. Minis. 01:09:06.114 --> 01:09:13.365 - This is from Christine Chang. She made a note that adding committee member term language or with that 01:09:13.365 --> 01:09:20.545 - of the rules of procedure. That's true. We don't have terms currently. To facilitate the transaction 01:09:20.545 --> 01:09:27.298 - of business, the council may by resolution establish standing committees and define the duties 01:09:27.298 --> 01:09:30.142 - and responsibilities of each committee. 01:09:31.234 --> 01:09:36.480 - Such committees are established that presiding officer shall appoint at least three council members 01:09:36.480 --> 01:09:41.779 - to each committee, observing the preference of each member as closely as possible, and shall appoint 01:09:41.779 --> 01:09:47.288 - a chairperson regionally. Legislation and questions before the council may be referred for investigation 01:09:47.288 --> 01:09:52.114 - and report to the standing committee, and the committees may investigate other areas within 01:09:52.114 --> 01:09:57.570 - their jurisdiction. The council may create or abolish standing committees by adoption of steps in front 01:09:57.570 --> 01:09:58.462 - of the president 01:10:09.282 --> 01:10:17.422 - And so then the suggestion by Christina to put the terms. I just specify one year or two, you know, 01:10:17.422 --> 01:10:25.561 - if it's more than that. Mm-hmm. Yeah, probably for two years or just in years. Currently, there are 01:10:25.561 --> 01:10:33.782 - people like you. Aren't there some, though, that are, there are not many, but I said one or two that 01:10:33.782 --> 01:10:38.910 - are appointed. There are appointments to boards or commissions 01:10:39.266 --> 01:10:50.258 - which are different, right, or committees. Okay. What do you mean? Like, the main question, for example, 01:10:50.258 --> 01:11:01.774 - there's concurrent. Oh, right, right, right, yeah. And the MPO is present. Those are not standard committees, 01:11:01.774 --> 01:11:06.590 - okay. Those are good. So, let me also look at 01:11:10.338 --> 01:11:18.294 - So I guess that, I think that that would belong in code if we wanted to explicitly say that. And I'm 01:11:18.294 --> 01:11:26.092 - good with explicitly saying that committee membership is a default to a year term for the, I mean. 01:11:26.092 --> 01:11:34.048 - So yeah, so I said add that here. This is the procedure list of things that should be included. So I 01:11:34.048 --> 01:11:39.326 - did put that here. Unless we think it should stay together in code 01:11:40.162 --> 01:11:49.929 - I mean, it's not much more detail, but could add to it. So it doesn't actually say that the duty of 01:11:49.929 --> 01:11:59.794 - the president is to appoint members to committees under the duties of the president. Ah, yeah. True. 01:11:59.794 --> 01:12:07.998 - It shouldn't be the duties of the president. And doesn't it say somewhere that that 01:12:12.322 --> 01:12:24.860 - You could certainly add that. I feel like it says somewhere. President, what is that? Maybe it says 01:12:24.860 --> 01:12:38.151 - it. I don't know anymore. We were just starting the committee session, so maybe. Yeah. Special committees 01:12:38.151 --> 01:12:41.662 - provides for the president. 01:12:43.234 --> 01:12:52.362 - So it's any three council members or the presiding officer of any form of special committee working 01:12:52.362 --> 01:13:01.489 - for those. Right, and there I actually proposed to change presiding officer to council president. I 01:13:01.489 --> 01:13:10.617 - think that's more specific. Presiding officers. Oh no, yeah. In a presiding, okay, it does say that 01:13:10.617 --> 01:13:12.990 - in the presiding officer. 01:13:14.434 --> 01:13:40.254 - Under yeah. Oh, I thought you meant in the previous section of code where Does anybody mind if we 01:13:42.082 --> 01:14:01.253 - Change presiding officer to president here, council president. And then if we go back up here, if you 01:14:01.253 --> 01:14:11.966 - add something about, yeah. You may just want to consider 01:14:12.098 --> 01:14:18.564 - in terms of just, you're limiting it by naming the president specifically as long or really explicitly 01:14:18.564 --> 01:14:25.029 - that you're limiting it to if the president is absent or in the case of it's a new year, the president 01:14:25.029 --> 01:14:31.370 - hasn't been really likely to be providing officer to someone different than the president, then they 01:14:31.370 --> 01:14:37.647 - would be limited in their powers to a plus. So it's long since it existed. Yes, I'm fine with that. 01:14:37.647 --> 01:14:40.158 - I actually prefer that level of detail. 01:14:42.274 --> 01:14:50.654 - I don't think it's, yeah. I don't think anybody should take advantage of the week when we don't have 01:14:50.654 --> 01:14:59.034 - a precedent to try to point people out. Yeah, I think the most recent instance, just as an instance, 01:14:59.034 --> 01:15:06.668 - is when there was the joint session of the county council and the city council, they formed 01:15:06.668 --> 01:15:09.406 - a jail subcommittee on the spot. 01:15:09.538 --> 01:15:15.143 - The president was an independent, the vice president was, and under the rules of the presiding officer, 01:15:15.143 --> 01:15:20.639 - since the presiding officer was the head of the council, she was then able to appoint members to that 01:15:20.639 --> 01:15:25.759 - subcommittee. Having those two, it would have had to either just provide a different mechanism 01:15:25.759 --> 01:15:31.310 - for appointment. So if you're looking for a check and balance, it's just something to consider. If you 01:15:31.310 --> 01:15:35.998 - want to have it by at least three members of council, you can vote to appoint somebody 01:15:36.482 --> 01:15:41.519 - or the president, you know, something like that, or if you want to leave the president, or if we're 01:15:41.519 --> 01:15:46.605 - trying to help. Well, does the matter in that case that you brought up, that in under duty, the vice 01:15:46.605 --> 01:15:51.743 - president, it's the vice president shall assume the duties and responsibilities of president whenever 01:15:51.743 --> 01:15:56.829 - the president acts, and there are otherwise people to act. So in that situation, we could argue that 01:15:56.829 --> 01:16:02.017 - that's true. I mean, the president and officers is wrong in that. So then you're actually going to get 01:16:02.017 --> 01:16:02.974 - to the two people. 01:16:03.234 --> 01:16:09.985 - Right. Never. It could never be a person who's not president, vice president. Well, in the case that 01:16:09.985 --> 01:16:16.870 - you cite, though, was the vice president really the presiding officer with it? I mean, for the council 01:16:16.870 --> 01:16:23.622 - meeting, yes. OK, because that was a there was a quorum. It was a special meeting of the council. It 01:16:23.622 --> 01:16:28.702 - wasn't a joint meeting, but basically the county council had their meeting. 01:16:29.090 --> 01:16:38.454 - At the same time, the city council had to have a meeting. And they had to have a quorum. Yes. Well, 01:16:38.454 --> 01:16:48.006 - what do you all think? Should we leave it as presiding officer? Sorry, I apologize to people on Zoom, 01:16:48.006 --> 01:16:57.464 - but I keep scrolling. I hope you're not getting dizzy. I think then it does make sense to stick with 01:16:57.464 --> 01:16:58.494 - presiding. 01:17:15.618 --> 01:17:23.425 - standing committees meetings. Wait, let's go back to that for just a second. Yes. Because you were then 01:17:23.425 --> 01:17:31.006 - going to add that to the president's responsibility. I did. Yes, but should it say something like as 01:17:31.006 --> 01:17:38.813 - a regular presiding officer, we're not responsible for that. Right. Just to kind of match that language 01:17:38.813 --> 01:17:40.990 - so that it's clear that some 01:17:45.186 --> 01:17:52.615 - I mean, I said, like, as the regular presiding officer, I'm not sure if that's, or as maybe as presiding 01:17:52.615 --> 01:17:59.761 - officer, the president shall make appointments to council standing committees. I was going to say to 01:17:59.761 --> 01:18:06.837 - standing council committees. Yeah. I just said to council committees as described in, and then I'll 01:18:06.837 --> 01:18:11.294 - get that recognized. Okay. Okay. So maybe standing committees. 01:18:14.370 --> 01:18:23.813 - standing and special, right? The presiding officer also reports to specialty. Yeah, but it's specifically, 01:18:23.813 --> 01:18:32.903 - oh, you actually did change over special, maybe it's changed regarding officer. Yeah, I need to change 01:18:32.903 --> 01:18:42.081 - that back. I mean, we're reviewing things that I put in there a long time ago, so. Larry, is this under 01:18:42.081 --> 01:18:43.934 - duties of precedent? 01:18:44.834 --> 01:18:54.380 - Well, last sentence I added, who think this is? As presiding officer, the president shall make a point 01:18:54.380 --> 01:19:04.574 - of us to council committees as described in paragraphs. Or maybe article three committee. Council committees. 01:19:04.574 --> 01:19:11.710 - I think you could do, I would say that or you could just also say, you know, 01:19:15.522 --> 01:19:21.573 - The president shall be the presiding officer over common council meetings generally. I mean, you can 01:19:21.573 --> 01:19:27.804 - do that either way. You're looking to define essentially presiding officer. I think that's used broadly 01:19:27.804 --> 01:19:34.215 - and because they still have the language from the committee, the whole of the committee, there's different 01:19:34.215 --> 01:19:40.446 - languages in there and there might be some worthwhile fighting up to the match with your general rules. 01:19:44.514 --> 01:20:04.479 - Let's leave it as this for now. This is a first run through anyway. It was 5.5. It is. All right. We'll 01:20:04.479 --> 01:20:11.582 - stop sharing. We didn't get too far. 01:20:12.162 --> 01:20:18.477 - We free a little bit out. Yeah. We're off standing committees and furnace. Well, I also feel when I 01:20:18.477 --> 01:20:24.918 - looked through this again, I started having, and we had some numbers of public comments on this after 01:20:24.918 --> 01:20:31.360 - we discussed it last time. And so then I went back and looked at some of these things. It's like, oh, 01:20:31.360 --> 01:20:37.738 - thinking about this in different ways now. So this was definitely quite a work in progress. Yeah. Is 01:20:37.738 --> 01:20:41.022 - there any public comment on our review of Title II? 01:20:42.370 --> 01:20:48.364 - I have a question, a clarifying question. Is there an opportunity? My comments would be items 01:20:48.364 --> 01:20:54.995 - not specifically out of Virginia. Is there an opportunity for that? Why don't you just do it now? Well, 01:20:54.995 --> 01:21:01.435 - I could agree, but you're right in the middle of something. I don't want to finish your business. If 01:21:01.435 --> 01:21:07.875 - you're like me, I'll forget. Well, we have a few minutes left. Well, I can tell you what to do about 01:21:07.875 --> 01:21:09.342 - it. I have one minute. 01:21:09.538 --> 01:21:16.333 - So is there a public comment on the Title II review? Yes, I think so, right? Yes. Okay. We'll do two 01:21:16.333 --> 01:21:23.330 - minutes considering we're almost out of time. Please go ahead. Steve Olin, I agree completely with what 01:21:23.330 --> 01:21:30.193 - I said about the presiding officer. I think the word president and presiding are in the same room, so 01:21:30.193 --> 01:21:36.988 - I'm not sure if it needs to be defined, but I just wanted to say that part. Also, you've just got to 01:21:36.988 --> 01:21:39.006 - get to committee of the whole 01:21:39.106 --> 01:21:48.061 - I don't know if the, where it was, where the council used to, the form itself and committee of the world 01:21:48.061 --> 01:21:56.676 - by default. I don't know if that's still in code or not. I mean, if I, I'm the Vance Hussing here to 01:21:56.676 --> 01:22:05.887 - try to put a stake into the heart of the committee of the world, which was all but abused by prior councils 01:22:05.887 --> 01:22:08.190 - as the wrong way to handle 01:22:08.290 --> 01:22:18.022 - legislative business. I do remember, and I'm not sure where it is in code, where the council would go 01:22:18.022 --> 01:22:27.659 - first reading, create a whole second reading, whereas sending to a standing committee would give the 01:22:27.659 --> 01:22:34.910 - committee two off weeks to consider making the default provision one month. 01:22:35.170 --> 01:22:42.070 - I don't know if that's, I haven't had a chance to know if this is gonna be on the agenda today, but 01:22:42.070 --> 01:22:48.970 - I just wanted, I can't say enough bad things about Committee of the Whole as a regular way of doing 01:22:48.970 --> 01:22:55.939 - business. Whatever new methods you all have been developing this term are definitely better than the 01:22:55.939 --> 01:23:03.115 - way we do Committee of the Whole. I'd love to say more about it in a few minutes. Thank you. Thank you. 01:23:03.115 --> 01:23:04.702 - Any other comments on, 01:23:04.802 --> 01:23:13.532 - Title II review. All right, I think the next steps are just to continue this review next time, right? 01:23:13.532 --> 01:23:22.263 - Yes. So open public comment. Mr. Answer. Very briefly. Thank you, Paul. It's always a pleasure to see 01:23:22.263 --> 01:23:31.678 - you and listen to your work. A couple of things, if I may. One, one of the things I do is teach for our meal. 01:23:32.034 --> 01:23:38.991 - And there's a capstone going to be proposed. I'm talking, I talked to Gretchen now about this idea of 01:23:38.991 --> 01:23:45.811 - a city-serving or neo-capstone to look at boards and commissions. Now the research questions in the 01:23:45.811 --> 01:23:52.972 - city would be interested, it might form the basis of a capstone research project. And she was generally, 01:23:52.972 --> 01:23:56.382 - I don't know what words are in her mouth, but she 01:23:56.802 --> 01:24:02.975 - encouraged me and said that I should talk to Jennifer and Isabelle and suggested that anyway. 01:24:02.975 --> 01:24:09.674 - And I said, yes, of course, I will be doing that. But I want to put it in your heads, others as well. 01:24:09.674 --> 01:24:16.373 - The question capstones are a client-serving piece of work. I mean, the client has to identify what it 01:24:16.373 --> 01:24:23.138 - wants to know. It's not just professors saying, let's look at this. So I mean, for this to happen, and 01:24:23.138 --> 01:24:25.502 - it may happen this year, next year, 01:24:25.698 --> 01:24:31.873 - O'Neill has its own issues right now. They're an old and progressive long story. But, so we'll see where 01:24:31.873 --> 01:24:38.224 - we get to it, but I think it'll happen. I've done five capstones, three for Accelerated Indian, Accelerated 01:24:38.224 --> 01:24:44.516 - Indian, one for Oprah and one for a recent woman cat. So we've done a number of these and I love capstone. 01:24:44.516 --> 01:24:51.102 - So this is in the works, interesting. I think it ties into some of the boards and commissions related interest, 01:24:51.554 --> 01:24:58.584 - that the committee and the council has expressed interest and work for it. So we'll look forward to 01:24:58.584 --> 01:25:05.684 - being educated by y'all about what others might be actually, honestly, authentically useful. Second, 01:25:05.684 --> 01:25:12.784 - the CAT, Monroe County Health Equity Council, which you may or may not know developed a great report 01:25:12.784 --> 01:25:19.814 - from its first porch project, which there'll be more. Looking through here, the voices of all those 01:25:19.814 --> 01:25:20.798 - may be brass, 01:25:20.962 --> 01:25:28.529 - often less heard in the health industry discussions, follow-up discussions. That hasn't gone out very 01:25:28.529 --> 01:25:36.244 - much. You have one copy. I'm going to pass a copy back today in your office, at your time, to the other 01:25:36.244 --> 01:25:43.737 - members of the committee, because I think it's the first of what will be more porch parties. You can 01:25:43.737 --> 01:25:49.598 - get out of here. And so I think I urge you to look at it. McKenna has promised 01:25:49.858 --> 01:25:58.131 - We're just about to do some extensive fundraising, actually, which has benefits for the city and the 01:25:58.131 --> 01:26:06.403 - county. So take a look. Lastly, the city I know no longer has a public stage of direction. I tracked 01:26:06.403 --> 01:26:14.594 - this for some years for Mary Katherine Ahn and talked to everyone there, except the last human that 01:26:14.594 --> 01:26:16.478 - said she was on board. 01:26:16.770 --> 01:26:23.803 - trying to be backwards from there anymore. But so I, I know this and I, my understanding, which is the 01:26:23.803 --> 01:26:30.837 - only way I understand it, there's no immediate interest in building that position. My interest is, and 01:26:30.837 --> 01:26:37.938 - it ties back to your own conversations, I think about boards of commissions, membership, participation, 01:26:37.938 --> 01:26:42.718 - it ties back to the conference plan, the conference plan of the city. 01:26:43.042 --> 01:26:49.785 - in terms of its own language there about public engagement and participation. But nobody's, 01:26:49.785 --> 01:26:57.114 - I'm not sure, paying attention right now. There's a gap that's happened in this arena. And it comes 01:26:57.114 --> 01:27:04.664 - up in your own discussion. But it's not considered. So I'm saying, I think it'd be interesting at some 01:27:04.664 --> 01:27:12.286 - point to take a look at this from here, from the council's point of view. That is your time. That's it. 01:27:12.418 --> 01:27:22.234 - Oh, thank you. Thank you. Any other follow-up comments? All right. I'm sorry for a little past lecture, 01:27:22.234 --> 01:27:31.862 - but we do need to schedule our next meeting. Is this still a good time for folks on Thursdays? That's 01:27:31.862 --> 01:27:40.734 - the work. I don't know, schools about to start asking. One thing to remember is that you have 01:27:41.186 --> 01:27:51.102 - budget you're starting to 7 feet, so 7 feet, the 19th, the 24th, and the 26th. Is that right? Do you 01:27:51.102 --> 01:28:01.018 - want to do it just before the budget starts? I have a waste reduction district board meeting before. 01:28:01.018 --> 01:28:05.534 - What are you doing in the middle of the 20th? 01:28:06.658 --> 01:28:18.995 - Do we have regular session meetings on the 19th and the 26th? No. Those are on the 20th. Oh, it's Monday. 01:28:18.995 --> 01:28:30.866 - Wednesday, Monday. So it's August 20th, okay, for? Yeah. I haven't put any of my schedule stickers to 01:28:30.866 --> 01:28:34.590 - be on my calendar, so probably. 01:28:35.458 --> 01:28:48.668 - Let's tentatively say August 20th from four to 530. Is that, I'm sorry. Caps has a meeting that day. 01:28:48.668 --> 01:29:02.139 - We'll poop. And I have to be there. All right. Should we try it for another day of the week? Was there 01:29:02.139 --> 01:29:05.278 - a reason why? Tuesdays. 01:29:05.474 --> 01:29:29.694 - are typically good for me. So Claire Crossley, Tuesday the 18th at four. Let me see. 01:29:34.018 --> 01:29:42.705 - tentatively I can check with clerk Bolvin and make sure like that would be a date so I can I can check 01:29:42.705 --> 01:29:51.393 - with her and that's fine yeah let's let's shoot for that it's that work for make sure this room we can 01:29:51.393 --> 01:29:59.996 - have a whole room is not a little bit yeah okay honestly I prefer at least we need some smaller rooms 01:29:59.996 --> 01:30:03.454 - because it feels like we're building our 01:30:03.938 --> 01:30:19.038 - All right. Let's answer that and we'll confirm. All right. We are here.