- I think I will go ahead and call to order this meeting of the Committee on Council Processes for Monday,
- August 31st, 2026. Let's go around the table and do roll call slash introductions. We'll start. Yeah,
- sure. City Zulek, Bloomington City Council District 6, present. Courtney Daly, Bloomington City Council
- District 5. Larry Allen, Midland Council Attorney.
- It's about Piedmont Smith City Council District 1. Hopi Stossberg District 3. Jennifer Crossley, Clerk's
- Office. Thank you. We have all four committee members here. Are there any? Oh, well, let's review the
- agenda first. So I have committee member and clerk updates in case there are any. Then there are some
- items related to boards and commissions.
- The old business is something we talked about at our July meeting, the revisions to Transportation Commission
- and Environmental Commission, and then the new business is regarding the Historic Preservation Commission,
- which may have some relevance to other commissions, and possibly the Bloomington Public Transportation
- Board. Council Member Stosser, did you want to talk about that briefly? Yeah, I'll talk about that briefly.
- Then we will move on to our ongoing Title II review.
- and then we will adjourn. Any revisions to the agenda? So we can approve that by consent. All right,
- so legislation about boards and commissions.
- Stossberg if you'd like to share. Stossberg, yep. So I'm going to share my screen because that got into
- a packet of dindim and I want to make sure that we all know what we're looking at. There it is. So we've
- seen this before, we've talked about it a bunch in terms of this legislation and it is just a little
- bit more in a
- final form at this point. I went before the Transportation Commission and talked to them about it. And
- Councilmember Flaherty and Commissioner Boland had some comments to make that I thought I needed to
- bring here. And also, Sydney, you weren't here last time when we talked about it. So I wanted to make
- sure that you were kind of updated on it. So first off, the thing that was definitely different is that
- Councilmember Flaherty pointed out that we can't
- that we can't really tell the superintendent what to do of schools, which of course is a good point.
- Then instead put in this Mayor shall request line, the superintendent recommend up to three applicants,
- and then in the event no qualifying applicant is identified.
- So basically that's if the superintendent at some point in the future declines to put forth
- any recommendations. And so then I defaulted that to the mayor shall just appoint somebody who is a
- resident of the city and then preference for appointment to somebody related to MCCSE, which is kind
- of how the language currently reads in terms of that preference for appointment. I'm not sure
- if we should put any kind of a timeline in here of in the event of no qualifying applicant. But I guess
- I'd kind of like to keep it simple unless it becomes problematic. I will once again mention this two
- members is highlighted because Commissioner Volin is concerned about wanting to make sure that there are still
- several resident appointments on here. He is not in the room today. But he mentioned the idea of leaving
- flexibility with this to expand the language that says two to three members or one to two members in
- these two different things to allow the potential of having a board of up to 11 or a commission of up
- to 11 total if there were lots of applicants. If you recall in the last meeting, Courtney, I think you
- said like, well, if there's lots of
- really qualified applicants that would fill different types of roles. That was his thought during the
- transportation commission meeting on how to handle that. I certainly wanted to bring that up to this
- group in terms of do we want to write in basically a commission of between nine and 11 members as opposed
- to a strict number of members. I don't know how that works.
- I think that it could be messy, but I wanted to make sure to mention that. I think, Jennifer, if I'm
- remembering correctly, you wanted this clarity in terms of which seats because of the commission terms
- with entering the staggering. And so I added the section two. So Larry, you should tell me whether this
- is the best way to do this. I added this section two.
- corresponding the defining which seats and onboard are with which appointments up above. And so then
- in section three terms, I could say which seats then are going to have those single year terms in order
- to result in staggering. Does that seem like the best way to do that?
- legally I think so yeah I would have to think about I'm sorry that's okay think about that so this would
- be added to code or this is just text it's just text of this ordinance
- I think it's good to put it in the text of the ordinance to clarify which seats you're talking about.
- And then the text of the ordinance itself can have the seat references. Is that what you're basically,
- the structure here is actually that? Yes. So section two is not in code. Yeah. It just defines. But
- it's informing the ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. And then C1 and C3 and M1 would be in code in terms of those
- staggered seats. And that's the part where it's kind of like, do we want that in code?
- Yeah. I mean, usually when you're starting a board, that's exactly how you do it. You'd have it in the
- official, either if you're organizing documents or a code. I mean, with Section 2, you could also probably
- do that as part of the preamble. Since it's a definitional, right? Oh, so put it as a whereas? Yeah,
- put it as a whereas clause. Because since those seats, if they already exist, you're creating new seats,
- though, right? No.
- Yeah, so if those seats already exist, I would put that as a whereas clause then. That way, it doesn't
- need to be part of the operative if you're just defining which seats you're talking about. And then
- you could reference it below. So it's kind of same effect. It puts the reader on notice, these are the
- seats you're talking about. This is the intent of counsel to do this. And then your operative part is
- cleaner because it's just the text of the ordinance.
- That doesn't mean your way is wrong. It's just different ways of getting it the same. I wasn't sure
- whether I should do that. But then similarly, I also needed to mess with the environmental commission
- seats because if we remove three seats, because there are some full ones. And so then just kind of picked
- what to be removed. And so should that be in the section? In this case, because you're removing them,
- That should be in the operative section, if that makes sense. Because that's an affirmative action.
- OK. So that should stay in the section. Correct. And so that's good as it is. Yeah. OK. All right. Then
- those are the only things that are different from the last time that we talked about this. Sydney, there
- might be a couple other things different from the last time you talked about this.
- questions, concerns. Well, as far as the two to three members, I am opposed to not clearly having a
- number of members on this commission, because all our other commissions, we clearly have a number of
- members. And I think last time we talked about, well, let's leave it at this number and then
- In the future, if we have a lot of good applicants consistently for these, we could change to increase
- the number later, which is easier to increase than to decrease public participation. So I'm still inclined
- towards that and leaving it with the total number that we have now. I'm torn because I really love the idea.
- We did, sitting in on those interviews, we did have quite a handful of very well-qualified people who
- were interested that I think would be of value. But like I said, it could get messy. And I don't think
- we want to create a headache for the commission or the clerk's office or the interview team. I'm open
- to the idea of moving it up to three members.
- Oh, so just expanding it. Just expanding it right now and saying three members instead of two. That
- would make more sense for consistency. Then we'd have ten members. Yeah, I mean we'd have to expand
- it by two members. Oh, then we'd have to. Yeah. Yeah. I just put the note on one of those as opposed
- to both of them. Would it not make more sense to have an uneven number? Yeah.
- Yeah, that's why. I put this note on here so that I would remember to mention it as feedback from the
- commission, not necessarily as the most descriptive thing for other people. Got it. Yeah, I didn't think
- about the fact that that would then create an even number, which makes voting tricky possibly. Maybe
- then we go with
- your suggestion of we leave it at two for now, and it's easier to add. That's what we decided. That's
- what the three of us decided in the last meeting. That is. Sydney, does that work for you, just leaving
- it at nine for now, and then if there's a plethora of qualified applicants? Great. All right. Well,
- and I like that we're opening up the MCCSE. I'm sorry, I just remembered my other feedback.
- in the event of no qualifying applicant can be identified. I know we want to keep it simple, but I think
- maybe we do need a timeline so it doesn't sit open and forgotten about for a while where it's just like,
- oh, we haven't had one. How long have we been waiting for one? If no qualifying applicant can be identified
- within three months? Three months. We're on the same page there with that. Look at that.
- if no qualified applicant can be identified within three months from the Monroe County School Corporation,
- the Marshall Point resident living within city limits. All right. Does that work for others too? Which
- would you prefer? I mean, that's up to you all. What is better? I was seeing things throughout.
- code that says 90 days. Because I know, for example, once a term has set to expire, folks have up until
- 90 days to continue. So it might be best to do it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments
- like that? Not right now. OK. Any other comments from?
- The only other thing about this is I've not been able to make an environmental commission to ask the
- whole commission about or to have that conversation because they have failed to have quorum for the
- last meeting for sure, maybe the last two. Oh, no, it was just the last one, two meetings ago. I thought
- that it was going to be brought up. I was unable to attend and it was not brought up. What you had spoken with
- I spoke with the chair and the staff liaison and one of the other members as well came to one of my
- constituent meetings and I talked to him about it. And I think previously when we had been kind of serving
- commissions, I don't know in what context, but they had said, and maybe it was just the staff liaison
- had said that,
- producing the number would help them. They currently have five vacancies. Yeah. Yeah, I think a new
- vacancy came so I had to change the whereas close to five. Yeah. And I think there's seats actually
- have been able to work with ITS because I wanted to have counsel be able like discussions like this.
- I wanted you all to be able to see like seats that have been vacant. So in onboard, when you go to seats,
- it should show you field and vacant, and it should show you the length of time that a seat has been
- vacant. And so that just happened within the recent weeks. And so if I'm scrolling to environmental
- commission, one seat has been vacant since
- October 23rd, 2024. Is that under Holy cow. You see that? That's in the whereas clause. You all didn't
- you read the whereas clauses? So you got your seats. Your seats tab. Oh, seats. I never even go to that
- tab. Oh, oh wow. Yeah, so you can see you're opening whole new horizons for us. Where is seats at the
- top or they do? It's up at the top on the like with.
- with like boards and commissions, meeting files, people. Yeah, right. So you can see what's been filled
- and term ending soon and vacancies. So that gives you, I keep a spreadsheet of it, but I would like
- to have a public basin way for people to see that. And so I was able to work with ITS so that they can
- see which seats. And so that is an actual mayoral seat that's been vacant since 2024.
- Thank you. That's really helpful. That's great. Yeah. Then part of it is, if we look at applicants,
- I think there's only three applicants right now for that commission. All right. Anything else about
- this or I will just firm it up. I'll switch that section about the seat definitions into what we're
- as clause.
- And then for both commissions? No, just for transportation commissions. Oh, because environmental work.
- Because environmental is an action related to removing, as opposed to just defining which seats align
- to which. Yeah. All right. So that legislation can move ahead then, in my view, right? Are there any
- other concerns from committee members?
- Would you like a motion? Oh, do we need a motion? I move for approval. Or I move to recommend this to
- the full council. I would love a second. Oh, second. Sorry. I was reading. Yeah, I was going to bring
- that. I came through the chat. Excuse me.
- We have a motion on the table, but what is this chat? Is this referring to the EC? Now, Indiana code.
- Yeah, I think that that's where it's probably looking up to see what counts as a board. But environmental
- commission doesn't have to do with Indiana code. Right. So sorry about transportation commission. I
- don't think transportation commission counts either because it's not statutory. Right.
- But I would have to look up the Indiana code to know for sure. Or maybe Larry can look up the Indiana
- codes. It's like he's actually the expert in the realm. It's the BT Transit Board statue. Yeah. Get
- to that later. Thank you. All right. So let's do a roll call vote. Councilmember Stossberg?
- Yes. Councilmember Zulek? Yes. Councilmember Daly? Yes. And I also vote yes.
- Great, thank you. Thank you. We did have public comment on this previously, so that's why I didn't put
- that in there. New business. OK, so we had communication from Reynard Cross, who is an advisory member
- of the Historic Preservation Commission. And his full briefing is in the packet. And then I tried to
- summarize what
- concerns may relate to the purview of this commission in another document that's also in your packet.
- So I can just go to that. I know you have it in your packets, but I think when I was reading his briefing
- from July, what I was trying to focus on is what portions are relevant to multiple wars and commissions, and then
- Does our committee want to take any action to avoid problems in the future similar to the ones the HPC
- had or this member had with the HPC? So the first issue I think that came up was that HPC commissioners,
- a subset of them, wanted to postpone a vote on releasing a demolition delay but did not think they had
- the opportunity to do so.
- And then the second issue was that there was a motion to limit commissioner comments to three minutes.
- It was adopted without meeting the two-third majority that's actually required by Robert's rules. And
- then the third issue was that the chair limited a commissioner speaking time without a motion or a vote
- by the commissioner, which actually is required per Robert's rules.
- So I think that taking the first item, while all of these items, I think, reflect a lack of familiarity
- with Robertsville's order. And I wonder if Deputy Clerk Crossley wants to tell us a little bit about
- the staff training. And were all of the commissioners? No. OK.
- So I'll speak to that. I'm sorry, the commissioner. Yes. So we so and I'll briefly speak to staff training.
- Staff went first with training and they got something similar to what board or members of commissions
- went through as well. And so in June, there were a couple of training sessions in which folks had an
- opportunity to come to whether a person
- or it was hybrid, so to speak. And so because I don't know why, but folks chose, some people didn't
- decide to attend. And I guess we need to make sure and reiterate that training is mandatory. It is not
- something that is to be thought of as, oh, you can attend if you want to or if you feel like it.
- Is that staff training that you said was available in June or that was commissioner training? Commissioner
- training. Because all of our staff have gone through. Yes, absolutely. Every last one of them, even
- the staff liaisons for the HPC went through. So they went through in May and then commission members
- went through in June. I will say that I did watch the HPC meeting from June
- where the staff liaison made the comment to commissioners to let them know that folks had yet to attend
- to training. And it was kind of brought up as like a, in my opinion, I'll just say it that way, that
- some folks maybe didn't feel like it was worth the time. There were comments that were made to feel
- like if you want to be treated like children, they'll treat you like children.
- But nonetheless, you know, it is what it is. And you can go back and watch it. It's towards the end
- of the meeting. Okay, I didn't watch the end. I just watched the discussion of this. Oh, yeah. So,
- you know, people were thinking, oh, it's for this or it's for that. None of that is the case. You know,
- we're diligently with our staff. I've worked with you all for
- with the CCP to come up with the code of conduct. Because in addition to training, whether we went over
- Robert's Rules, if folks had comments or questions related to Robert's Rules, training was also a thing
- where people could have attended. At the same time, we also went over the code of conduct as well, where
- we talk about that. You sign it. You give it back to us. Or if you have questions, there were members
- of legal staff that was there. I was there.
- And people had the opportunity to make questions, comments, concerns, whatever the case is. And again,
- that was done twice in June. And so, you know, again, I don't know why folks didn't go. There is more
- training that we just decided to have. I just met with staff today so that we can have a little bit
- more training that's coming up. I think we scheduled it tentatively for the end of September, early October.
- So I'll make sure everybody knows that there is training and I will reiterate to folks that it is mandatory
- because of the things that we go over in training. I also personally offered to go over Robert's rules
- with all of the commissioners that called me. I was not taken up on that. Thank you for those updates.
- So I do want to ask specifically, like it says on the summary sheet,
- Can a noted non-voting member of a commission make a motion? They can't. Well, or a deputy clerk. No.
- No. No. An advisory member literally advises and make recommendations. They don't have the authority
- to make a vote or have a vote. I think you only. Or initiate a vote, you're saying.
- Yeah, that's typically how we've treated that. I'll just add, there's a little bit of, and I don't disagree
- with the clerk at all, the nuance there is there's an argument about what constitutes a member, how
- it's defined in Robert's Rules. Robert's Rules really doesn't deal with this advisory member issue very
- much, so it deals with members and not members, right? And so it's very binary in that way, and so in
- this case, because we've created this additional category of advisory non-voting members, essentially
- under the definition they're probably not members,
- But that's an active debate that happens among Robert Schruel's nerds, certainly all over the place.
- And so it's something that could be more fleshed out, I think, if council wanted to do that. But in
- the way that we've treated it under strict, they can't, which makes sense. If they're not voting on
- the substance of the matter, then you can't make substantive motions.
- Okay, then my other question relevant to this, is it the chair's responsibility to render a concern
- expressed by one or more commissioners into a motion? And I tried to look up Robert's rules and I was
- not clear on that. Have we ever expected our council president to do that? Yeah, see, I knew that question.
- I was just like, no, that's not the chair's responsibility, but that's- My review of the rules kind
- of agrees with that. No, the chair doesn't have to
- form into a motion. So the chair, there is parts of Robert's Rules, Section 4 talks about, there are
- instances where the chair needs to clarify language. But that is typically after a motion has been made.
- So that form, and I think that in reviewing the June meeting, this is the key here. There are opinions.
- There is no question an opinion is expressed in that meeting. A two week delay would be nice, or I would
- like a delay, or I'd like more time to consider this. So there's no question about that.
- What is not said is I move for a two week delay or I move for anything after that that would have intervened
- in the main motion. And so that that's problematic. So my interpretation of that or my reading of Robert's
- was I'm happy to be corrected by anybody who knows better. Is that
- The chair is not obligated to form that into a motion. However, after a motion has been made and seconded
- and is technically on the floor, if it is unclear what the intent of that motion is, in other words,
- that the person who's recording the minutes or the member random of that meeting may be unable to tell
- what that motion is, then the chair can intervene and kind of massage or rework that wording of the
- motion to reflect the intent of the members and kind of have a back and forth with the members to clarify.
- but that does not back up to making that main motion in the first place. That matches my experience
- on council too, yeah. I have another question about this, that particular vote, if we can move beyond
- this question. Yes, of course. Okay. So there were six voting members there.
- and this vote passed 4-2, but there are eight total members. So if there were six members of council
- present and we had a 4-2 vote, that would have failed because it might have been the majority of those
- present, but we actually need the majority of the body in order to pass something. Is the HPC different?
- Do they just need the majority of those present, not the majority of the body? I think this goes back
- to needing better Roberts rules.
- understanding. I think that's a body thing. I think it's the majority of those seats that are filled.
- How many seats were filled? Eight. Eight. So they needed... I mean, it doesn't matter. Either way, they
- need five. And I identify that as a bigger problem. Which vote are you referring to? Both of them. On
- the demolition. On the demolition, both of them were four-two. So on June 25th, when the vote was taken,
- those are both four-two.
- So that's the part that I identified as much more problematic. But only if, per virtue of the body,
- they need a majority of members of the body. I know council is like that, but I don't know which other
- bodies. Actually, planning commission is like that too, but I don't know about the HPC.
- of voting members shall constitute a quorum. A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum.
- Which means that that vote failed. So wait, is a quorum the same as the number of votes needed to pass
- something? No. Not necessarily, but I don't know that it's in their rules either. It says a majority
- of voting members shall constitute a quorum.
- So there's no question. I had a court. I had six members. But the question is about the vote. Yeah.
- Oh, but that's not about voting. That just says all decisions, votes, recommendations, motions, and
- communications shall be roll call. Who was the lawyer that was present? There are different attorneys
- in the legal department. I'm sorry.
- I appreciate that you might know something about it. There may have been a lawyer on LISO. There are
- two attorneys that have been involved in this process, Anna Holmes from the legal department and Dana
- Kerr as well. I don't believe any other lawyer has been involved until this point. I attended one of
- the meetings in July just to observe.
- It is clear to me that this commission consistently needs a lawyer present. I think that they always
- do have a lawyer present. Typically. Well, a lawyer who knows Robert's rules. Yes. That isn't a fright
- to me. I more mean a lawyer who's willing to serve as a parliamentarian. Yeah. And is capable of serving
- as a parliamentarian. Yeah.
- You guys want to move on? I don't know. I mean, that's the thing that I was like, is that actually accurate?
- There's no question. I have no idea. But that was the part that I think is much more problematic because
- I don't think that, I mean, I think that it probably would have been nice if the chair in that moment
- when that concern was raised said something like, do you want to move something? Do you have a motion?
- It also, I don't think that's necessarily a required part of the chair's responsibility. Was the 4-2
- vote brought up by Mr. Cross in his briefing? No. It does raise a question that was brought up in the
- briefing. And this is the interpretation of the Monroe County BZA case, the Bedford Recycling Plant
- case, and whether the board would be able to then, on a mistake of law, go back and revisit their vote,
- essentially, and what was bound.
- Which we were told they weren't allowed to do. Right. And that's probably accurate based on the Indiana
- Supreme Court ruling. There's a question, there are a couple of questions like if it's a clerical error,
- right, you can maybe go back. If it's an actual substantive question of law, it looks like the Indiana
- Supreme Court has decided you cannot go back unless expressly authorized by statute. Again, there's
- smaller nuances, but I don't know that this rises to a small clerical error that you could go and fix
- as much as it might be substantive. And particularly now that, and Mr. Cross pointed this out as well,
- the 30 day deadline for challenging this in the local Monroe County Circuit Court has also passed. And
- so there are some issues here, which I think are worth for sure. Oh, I'm sorry. You can't close that
- door. We have an open door policy. You have to say it. We have to keep the door open. Thank you.
- And that does raise questions. And I'm happy to look into that further, to be honest with you. I looked
- at the case. I looked at the briefing. I'm kind of looking at it initially. So that's just my initial
- reaction. I'm happy to dive into that a little bit deeper and get a better sense of it, or get a second
- opinion, honestly. I think the only question that really remains is, did the 4-2 vote stand? And what
- are we supposed to do now?
- Well, that's what I mean. Even if it didn't stand, so even if it's theoretically to fail, then it's
- a mistake of law, essentially. A mistake of law being that a 4-2 vote is sufficient to be able to release
- them from the demolition to delay. And then can you go back and correct that later? It looks like, and
- I'm just telling you from my initial reading of that case, again, all the caveats I've given, is that
- probably not. It's probably not of those minor,
- exceptions that they've listed. But again, this is a fairly new case. It does apply to the planning
- code. So in that case, it dealt with the Board of Zoning Appeals. But that's also where you find some
- of the authority that goes into the Historic Preservation Commission, what they can do, the timelines
- for what they can do. So it is directly applicable, it looks like, to a commission like the Historic
- Preservation Commission.
- But I can I'm happy also to outline like here's the exceptions spring where I mean Mr. Cross named some
- of them in the footnote that the Supreme Court list there's there is a dissent on that but again the
- Supreme Court opinion at this point is certified it is binding law there's not much that we can do to
- go around that particular part of it. Thank you. So I think relevant for this committee is how do we.
- In the future because I think there were mistakes made. And.
- we want to avoid those mistakes in the future. I also wonder, and I put this down here, should there
- be accountability for the mistakes that were made? And even if we can't change what happened according
- to the Supreme Court precedent, should there be some acknowledgement of what happened? So I don't know
- if we want to go to the public and then come back to discuss, or if you'd like to
- Raise some points first. We obviously have some relevant members in our public today. I'm fine with
- public comment. All right, members of the public have up to three minutes to comment. And if you're
- here in the room, then if you would come up here so that the microphone can soon catch you. Yeah, can
- you get a timer on the screen?
- I can have a timer on my phone as well. If you go to apps, you can find it. Sorry. Here you go. We don't
- usually have very much public comments on the screen. There's a three-minute thing down below. I see
- that after. Okay. All right, go ahead.
- I run across HPC, the man of the moment. I wrote that memorandum, and I'm going to speak really quickly
- because I only have three minutes. My aim here is to add some information for context and clarity. Firstly,
- I fully accept that I'm an advisor. Remember, I do not make motions. I do not second motions. There
- were two other commissioners that expressed a desire, voting members. One was council member.
- Butler and the other one was Schlegel. I too expressed one, but I accepted my capacity. It really didn't
- amount to much in terms of making a motion. They expressed a clear desire to have additional time. Staff
- said that time was available, having heard what the time was being requested for. There was also members
- of the public that said that because this was the first hearing
- since the demolition delay was approved, which was between meetings, so they had less time. They would
- also like time to come back. Now, with regards to Robert's rules, this is just paraphrasing for some
- reason, Mike.
- copy will not come up but it says here it is an affirmative duty on the chair not merely a
- passive expectation on members when a commissioners intent is clear but has not been phrased in formal
- as a formal motion the chair is required to help put it into a form and bring it to the body rather
- than to let it lapse because it was not announced in the right words and that's in section four there's
- also a section in our guidelines which speak to
- Section J, which speaks to requests and gives three options, grant, deny, or continue, which means that
- for a request made for additional time should have been presented to the full body for them to vote
- on it. That wasn't done. Objections were made, and they were just shut down, summarily.
- buildings that had demolition permits. And so on two occasions, objections were raised. Not only that,
- but none of these objections were recorded in minutes, which is another issue. Let me see if I have
- everything correct. With regards to the opinion that was raised, again, all of my issues are issues
- of process.
- I made it clear in a memorandum that I intended to request that this matter be reconsidered a week and
- a half before. Commissioner Butler sent a memorandum stating that he was going to propose a motion.
- Any other public comments?
- I am Dr. John Butler. I'm also a member of the HPC. I just want to bring up a couple of sort of corrections
- or add to the record. As per our training that we received, we did receive training. It was like an
- hour long, I think, or a little over an hour. But it covered such a range of topics that Robert's Rules was maybe
- minutes and if you know Robert's rules that's not enough time to really understand especially if you're
- a new member because we also covered like open door law and you know respect and how to treat each other
- as commissioners so we you know I would urge you to to consider more training because I certainly felt
- under training I I
- to whether or not a lawyer was present there were no lawyers present because at the same time city legal
- was holding a training session and so all the city attorneys were at that and there were there was no
- attorney president online or in person for that meeting we also did not have a parliamentarian our chair
- does not understand Robert's rules in a way in it deeply enough to
- fully instruct the members of how we're supposed to run the meetings. For instance, the 4-2 thing, I
- don't even know. So we need more training. And then for Commissioner Cross to be the person who's facing
- some sanction for attempting to
- get us to do a better job of following Robert's rules, I think is sort of sad. I think really,
- as a body, we need to do better. And so I think the failure lies with all of us. And myself in particular,
- I did not make the motion in the proper language, and that is on me. I also didn't understand when I
- was allowed to make the motion. And prior to that, when Commissioner DeSolar was the chair,
- tradition in the HPC was a person would phrase the you know I would like more time and then the solar
- would say am I hearing a motion to delay and then we would say yes and so since that did not occur that
- evening I didn't know when I was allowed to bring it forward and so unfortunately since this is a subsidiary
- action the vote if we release it
- for demolition, we can't delay it. So the delay vote has to take place before we release it, obviously.
- And that didn't occur. So then once we'd released it, I couldn't get my vote forward at that point,
- even though that was my intention. So I apologize for messing the whole thing up. But I feel like we
- really could have and should have handled it better. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go online. I think
- we have Eric.
- You could state your name and you have up to three minutes. Good evening, can you hear me? Yes. My name
- is Eric votes and thank you for this opportunity to offer comment. I'd like to highlight what the evidence
- for this committee establishes. And also to note that this committee has been the venue where Google
- Commission numbers has been referred and that fact highlights the duty and responsibility of this body
- to influence and affect next steps.
- The record presented by Commissioner Rayner-Cross identifies serious procedural problems in the Historic
- Preservation Commission's handling of matters extending across three consecutive meetings. On June 26,
- voting members expressed, voting members of the BHPC expressed support for continuing the Seminary Point
- Demolition to Light petition to get more information
- and staff confirmed that request was feasible. The continuance question was never presented to the commission
- for a vote, and the commission proceeded directly to votes releasing the demolition delay. On July 9th,
- a motion limiting commissioner comments for three minutes received five votes out of eight. Under Robert's
- rule, if I understand it correctly, suspending the HBC's regular rules and limiting a member's right
- to debate required a two-thirds vote.
- that would be six votes, not five. Nevertheless, the description was treated as adopted. On July 23rd,
- an effort to raise these procedural questions through points of information and points of order was
- itself detailed. These events raised legitimate questions about whether the commission followed its
- own rules, whether city departments, commissioners, and staff knew better ways on parliamentary training,
- and where responsibility lies when procedural safeguards fail. There's also an important
- unresolved legal question. The city attorney concluded the commission could not rescind its new 25th
- decision. But the briefing submitted by Mr. Cross argues that the cited Indian Supreme Court decision
- addresses reconsideration of a valid final agency decision and does not necessarily resolve what happens
- when the original decision itself may have been reached through defective procedures.
- Councilmember Piedmont Smith's summary identifies productive questions this committee could pursue.
- Those are precisely the issues revealed by this record. Notably, removal of Commissioner Cross is not
- among the issues and corrective measures identified in Councilmember Piedmont Smith's list. I compliment
- the saliency and focus of that list because this is a very important matter. I will just
- by saying I respectfully request that the motion removed, Commissioner Frost be removed from the common
- council agenda and that the committee move forward promptly to address the procedural reforms suggested
- by Council Member Jim Oaksmith. Thank you. Thank you. Next person here. Anybody else in person want
- to speak? Come on up. There is another hand that was raised, don't want it to. Yes, we'll come back to that.
- Hi, my name is Amy Butler. Clearly, I'm married to my husband, but I'm not here because of any kind
- of weirdness. I mostly am just really disappointed that it's even considered to remove Renard. I have
- been to multiple meetings to the HBC, none of them before August of 2025. So I have no idea how it was
- run before that. But that meeting on the 25th or whatever date it was, was ridiculous.
- And there were many things that were wrong. In every meeting that I had been before, like when commissioner
- members and members of the public had asked for more time, when more time was in the time frame allowed,
- it was granted. And this was blatantly ignored.
- And Sam who had been the previous chair, you know as far as precedence if a commission member was asking
- for more time He would say do I hear a motion and then it would be brought and that was not the case
- that day I don't know what happened but it seemed to me like decisions were already made before that
- meeting happened like people's minds were already made up and that they were gonna let those buildings
- go down and that really upsets me that bernard is going to be bullied and
- and try to be kicked off the commission for trying to make things right. Because he is speaking truths,
- and I am here to speak truth, that Renard knows Robert's rules better than anyone else. You guys need
- to have more training on that for sure. And if you have a head chair of a commission, they need to know
- what their job is. And they need to put what is right above what they personally feel.
- And I think that there was errors made in that. And also, there was a commission member who I think
- in the time of like you were allowed to ask, I think commission members were allowed to ask questions
- or maybe make comments. And he said for one of his comments, I want this person to say more things.
- And that is wrong. There is no way that a commission member should ask a member of the, or request that
- a member of a public be able to say more things. That was wrong. So there were so many things that were
- done wrong in that meeting. And I think it's ridiculous that,
- you know, it's not able to be revisited. You know, that it's swept under a big rug, and then Renard
- gets kicked off. I think it, you know, the request to remove him should not even be voted on.
- It's ridiculous. And I'm sorry if I'm a little bit fiery about this, but I think Renard is the smartest
- man on the commission, and it will be an absolute travesty if he is kicked off the commission. And I
- also think he should be a voting member, because they are lacking voting members. And they already have
- a couple members, Melody, who is leaving. They have open seats.
- You know, he is smart and the things that he has to say are important and should not be ignored whether
- or not he is a voting member or a non-voting member. So thank you for your time. I apologize if I'm
- a little excited. Thank you. All right, let's go back online. I think Paul Rousseau is next. Hello,
- this is Paul Rousseau. I'm very concerned that we now have two examples of the governmental process being
- manipulated to gentrify three acres by removing poor people from the proximity of the Smite Hotel. First
- it was HPC procedural irregularities and then it was the Capitalist Improvement Board operating outside
- of purpose by planning to tear down affordable housing when it is not a necessary part of its mission.
- Now with regard to Mr. Cross, I'm understanding that this is not the time to speak about that because
- you're going to have another
- or should I speak about that now? I'm confused. The removal of Mr. Krauss from this commission is not
- on our agenda, and it's not in our purview, I don't think. If you want to speak to that, I don't know
- if there will be public comment on Wednesday on that or not. I'll just say I think it's a situation
- of a political difference being disguised as a violation of conduct.
- That's all I'll say for now. Thank you. Is there anybody else here in person who would like to speak?
- OK. Oh, all right. Come on up. Hi, Steve. Well, I'm here. I was here as chair of the Transportation
- Commission to listen about those sort of things.
- Several members will know that I submitted some recommendations inspired by Councilman Stosberg's legislation
- because there is a need for greater clarity, if not reform, of the way that we think about boards and
- commissions and this incident illustrates it. I think the word advisory, for example, is being misapplied.
- Every board short of the council itself is technically advisory, even if there's some statute that requires
- that body to deliberate and make a recommendation beforehand. So regardless of how we define them in
- code, I mean, non-voting is a more accurate way to describe somebody who, I mean, either they're a member
- of the body or they're not. They're allowed to attend or they're not.
- But that's a matter of another time. The simple fact is boards and commissions also conduct oversight.
- They act as a watchdog. They may not necessarily have the ability to rule, but it's clear that their
- decisions are important. There's a need for more consistent rules for advisory bodies. I think that
- if we had uniform bylaws called for by code,
- For all boards and commissions, that would be a step in the right direction. It's never been clear,
- even as somebody who's familiar with Robert's rules, how a chair should deal with competing motions
- when two people are trying to make a motion at the same time, let alone how to deal with a motion that
- where nobody in the room is clear about the rules. So certainly there's more training called for as well.
- But most importantly, I think it's important to note that Robert says that a chair is supposed to serve
- the body. That's why when all members are debating, the chair goes last. It's why a chair passes the
- gavel when they make a proposal. And I don't know that that's a principle that's being observed in our
- boards and commissions.
- But the idea that the chair is a servant of the body is something that sounds like it was lacking from
- the debate over the HPC. All in all, there's no emergency appeal for something that happened at a commission
- like this, as is clear from what you're hearing. And that too, that's a thing even new for me. I feel
- like it deserves being addressed sometime in the immediate future.
- I had other thoughts, but this situation is proven to be of the most importance. Thank you. Thank you.
- Is there anybody else who would like to comment on HPC processes that have ensued? Good evening. Dave
- Askins with the BSCAR Bulletin. I'm not sure why
- It's considered an open question as to whether the four to vote was a valid vote. Because your city
- code is crystal clear. It finds majority vote. Majority vote means a majority of the members of a board,
- commission, or council who are present and voting. That's it. It's not an open question. That was a
- valid vote. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else?
- Okay, we'll come back to the committee then. I have a question right away. It seems to me that two things
- that are definitely related but they're being conflated and that is the proposal to remove a member
- of the HPC and the issues with actions of the HPC. In my view, those are two separate and I don't see
- that this committee
- Has anything to do with the removal of somebody is that am I. Not until it's assigned to you if you
- all vote that way on Wednesday it has to be taken by the full council regardless okay all right so you
- have options on Wednesday as the full council to have a variety of things to do. As of right now this
- committee has no purview okay that's why thank you. Secondly.
- Can we check the reference that Mr. Askin's just made to Bloomington Municipal Code and whether that
- applies to all the commissions, including this one? Sure. Because certainly at the Common Council, whether
- we have six members present or nine members present, we still need five votes to pass anything. Plankton's
- right back to you.
- Yeah. So I'm a little puzzled by this. And it could have something to do with the state versus city,
- like whether or not there's statutory authority. Could the Planning Commission have statutory authority?
- But HPC also. HPC there is too. So I don't know. Right. So there may be state rules that supersede.
- there are some times there there is a I think the stress is exactly right. There's not a statue that
- limits the voting on historic preservation commissions so that's what I was looking for earlier just
- to see if very similar to a real public pressure plant commission if there's any other state statute
- that might limit that. Under general provisions of the Bloomington municipal code which and Mr ask this
- is here so you can you can confirm that this is what he's looking at two point zero two point zero five zero.
- majority vote subsection six majority vote majority vote means a majority of the members of the board
- commission or council who are present and voting that's that's what it says that that's what's generally
- applicable to every unless there is a specific other requirement. So in that case before to vote is
- legitimate it would be because there's nothing there's no other statute that looks like it applies to the HPC.
- That would require a different threshold. OK. So. What are the thoughts of committee members as far
- as where to go from here on this? I think. Perhaps we should think about how to put together a more.
- Useful guide to Roberts rules.
- because that is a very long book. And I'm not sure that it's fair to ask volunteers to know everything
- in it, even chairs. But we should have a more condensed version that is available to chairs. Yeah. Yes.
- Because I think there are a lot of questions that Commissioner Hackard
- did not know the answer to, that I'm not sure that most council members would know the answer to, and
- so to what extent is that a fair expectation to have for our chairs when we haven't made that clear?
- But it is clear that- Staff liaisons too. Yes, staff liaison and also there should have been a lawyer
- in that room. Yes, there absolutely should have been a lawyer in that room. So, I mean, which one of
- us at this table is emailing legal?
- And saying, that is the last time that HPC meets without you. I can. OK, I will. OK, so need more useful
- guide on Robert's rules. Yes. They are mine. Yes. Yes. And are there any Robert's rules summaries that
- boards and commissions get at this point? No.
- And to be fair and to be honest none of this like I'm also there now you're a person a one-man-ban
- one-man-ban you're doing boards and commissions so I'm trying and I can only do so much but I do excuse
- me I do think that folks could benefit for boards and commissions I will say though I
- To respect there are a lot of things that were happening in that meeting and a lot of things can get
- bluster So I'm not going to speak ill for people like we're talking about a chair who's not here, right?
- Um, so I just want to like also express that too. There's like three sides to every story And I just
- want to reiterate the fact that you know, could things be better? Yes the behavior from other commissioners
- be better and
- all of those meetings? Absolutely, yes. There are a lot of things that I witnessed in those meetings.
- I've had lots of conversations, long conversations. And I do think that that chair might have been flustered
- at the time. Not saying that that doesn't negate the fact that things might have been missed.
- We're all human. We're all not perfect. But I think with extra training, yes, as long as people show
- up for those and attend those, then absolutely.
- Can we make the training mandatory? I think mandatory. Yes. And technically, it is. But I mean, I would
- defer to Larry on that. Have all of our HPC commissioners attended? OK. They're still bound by the rules
- of conduct, whether or not they attend the training, which puts you in a problematic
- of the rules of conduct a requirement that they attend the training? Should we add that? Well, they
- don't get this code of conduct and sign it outside the training, right? They keep it at the training.
- So I don't think adding it unless we start handing out the code of conduct independently of the training,
- which is an option perhaps.
- But we usually do the training as like the idea and the thought process for training is you come in,
- you get trained on your different roles and whatnot, and then you get that code of conduct. Because
- then we're asking volunteers again to come back and possibly do something again when we already have
- them right then and there. We can just do that one thing all at once. Overall, what was the participation rate?
- I would say it's low. I would say it would be under 50. But then we also started at a time where summer
- was starting to take off. So again, it was just trying to, you know, initially start that with saying
- that more training would be to or would come later. And so again, as it was mentioned, and the June
- meeting of the HPC, the staff liaison had mentioned
- And he actually said in that conversation, because originally I had mentioned that I could come to boards
- and commissions to train them. And he mentioned in that meeting that we probably need to handle their
- business and not take up the time of things that could be done without that. So yeah. What is the plan
- for the frequency of training?
- like offering. So annually or quarterly? Starting next year in 2027. So not to say that you know a current
- existing board member or commissioner has to attend every single one quarterly. That's to have quarterly
- because throughout the year you all and the mayor's office will be appointing people and so if we have
- somebody that comes in you know in quarter one I'm not going to individually like stop and be like hey
- we need to schedule you ideally
- look at right before their quarter ends, look at who's been appointed, and set up that time frame where
- we can have quarterly meetings, quarterly trainings with people. Would it throw an entire grenade into
- everything if we stipulated that when an appointment is made to a board and commission, you may not
- assume your seat until you have received training? I think that would be difficult. As suspected.
- especially for Quorum. That was my main question, but I kind of wonder like if we can send the code
- of conduct out and ask them to sign it and give it back to us before the training because I mean people
- can read and they can understand and they can get like the big things and then they can come to the
- training for like the additional kind of details. Is there an onboarding
- like packet or package or anything that commissioners receive in there. That's with the whole training.
- That's with the whole training. Yeah. OK. We do have 25 minutes left of the notice meeting. And I know
- we have a lot of other stuff. What are the decisions that we'd like to make on this? I think we kind
- of all agree that more training is needed. People need to go to the training.
- If could Deputy Clerk Crossley, could you look into providing that code of conduct separately to the
- staff liaisons to pass along? And I will just have to stay on top of it because we have people where
- we send things out and I don't get anything back. And it's almost like when towards the end of the year
- when I'm asking people to apply for reappointment,
- It's a constant, like, I'm the nagger. I have no problem in doing that. I'm a mom of three. I got all
- the things that I can do. I can do all the things. But yeah. Maybe you should be responsible. Yeah,
- and I can work in content. Or I can work in tandem with them, of course. I'm on staff liaisons, too.
- I don't have a few CC staff liaisons. Oh, yeah. So usually what happens when somebody is appointed to
- a board or commission, either a mayoral appointment,
- I usually will copy that staff liaison, as well as Julius from the mayor's office will copy that liaison.
- And it's the warm handoff for everybody. So yeah, absolutely. I'm not saying that anything is perfect
- by any means. And so I'm willing to finesse and fine tune things as we go along the way. Again, this
- is the first time that we've had my type of position. And so we're learning as we go. Is there
- the possibility that you can
- schedule like pre-schedule all of your quarterly trainings for next year So then as part of that initial
- like welcome email and that warm handoff It's an attachment of the code of conduct a list of when trainings
- are this year, please attend at your earliest convenience either send the code of conduct back signed
- or sign it at your first training, but then at least like you've provided it for them and
- and given them all that information up front. And then if all of those are scheduled for certain dates,
- then... I can look into it. The only reason why, in terms of scheduling, it's myself plus we also have
- a legal that's also involved in that too. So we just have to make sure all schedules collide. But yeah,
- I'm more than happy to do that.
- OK. I mean, honestly, if I had to be in one of those, then I would probably prefer to get them all on
- my calendar in January than have to do it as we go along. But that's just me. But I wonder if that would
- almost ease some of that, because then instead of having to send people multiple emails, like, oh, there's
- a training coming up, or keeping track of who might have been onboarded, it's like, they've all been
- told. And then try to leave it up to the staff liaisons
- I can do that bowl. I'm making a note. While you're making a note, some kind of Robert's Rules summary.
- I got that. Okay. I know that there's a couple of those things in that council welcome packet that's
- in a Google Drive.
- from like three years ago, they can share with me and I can find those if you want me to, would you
- like me to? We have them, I can work with the clerk and provide those because they do exist already.
- I mean, it's still a short form, so there's going to be difficult questions that aren't covered in the
- short form, but I can certainly work with them and get that out as well. Create a welcome packet, I
- think legal would be interested in that as well, I imagine. Yeah, I mean, there were some issues related to
- lack of clarity on robert's rules of planning commission meeting last time too and so i don't know if
- we can communicate with the administration around staff needing to also have a better handle on robert's
- rules because i mean and and maybe also thinking long term a handbook for chairs specifically like if
- you're chairing a boarding commission like this is the expectation and i i
- I feel like in the plan commission instance that I'm thinking of, there wasn't good communication between
- the chair and staff. I was kind of waiting for the chair to ask staff for a recommendation on what to
- do, and then they weren't. And so then I was sort of like, I'm not sure. There needs to be advice given
- right now. And it just took a while to get there. As far as this committee, do we want to?
- draft a message to the mayor asking that staff liaisons get better trained in Robert's rules and I don't
- know how we would phrase it but some express our concern. It should have been lawyers. Well yeah but
- even lawyers I don't know if they automatically know Robert's rules back in front. I don't think they do.
- I wonder if that's something proactive this committee could do, is just express our concern to the mayor's
- administration in some way. Or we could, once we have like the Robert's rules, like cheat sheet kind
- of that we're talking about putting together for the committees, also forward it to the administration
- and liaisons and say this is really important. You know, just like at that time when we're distributing
- it to the commission
- I think that's better. I also think, not speaking for the administration, but because my role is primarily
- boards and commissions that they probably would point back to me.
- Well, but they work for me. Just a friendly suggestion. One of the things we do for new chairs and certain
- boards, not every board, is also put together a folder which includes a script of how meetings go. I
- actually think that that would be wonderful for this committee to potentially consider working on for
- distribution because you all are far more versed in it as council members.
- of how your meetings operate and how functioning meetings can operate that would be amazing thing that
- I've received and then that way also you don't have to worry about kicking it's potentially the one
- staff member I the clerk is amazing so I'm not gonna that's not a dispersion but council has a certain
- insight into that in terms of the formality of how it operates and I think that would be really helpful
- for chairs to have and then that way
- particularly for a new chair if they're inexperienced they have kind of a script that they can follow
- open it'll have that robert's rules it'll have like the normal motion procedures and then that way it
- also helps keep them on task uh that is something we've provided to certain boards but it would be nice
- to have a more formalized version of that's just my friend so do you know which boards and commissions
- have that i did for the redevelopment commission at times in terms of
- But the other ones. The other ones I'm not aware of. I don't remember if we may have had them at one
- point in time for the BCA, but I don't think they do now. I'm going off memory, so I apologize. Should
- we move on to the public transportation group? That could be pretty quick. That doesn't need to be anything.
- I don't want to lose sight. It's going to have to be quick because we have 17 minutes.
- But I don't want to leave this topic before we address or decide whether we need to address
- the accountability problem. So I mean, mistakes happened. And at least one member of the HPC is saying
- that he can't move on unless these mistakes are somehow addressed. So I'm wondering.
- how they could be addressed. I mean, if legally we can't change anything, I mean, I think admitting
- that there was a mistake and working to avoid mistake, that mistake in the future goes a long way. But
- I don't think anybody has. I thought that they did. I thought there was an acknowledgement at the immediately
- proceeding meeting that they, no, OK. It was. There was. There was a conversation that they went over.
- Whether or not people agreed with what legal had mentioned, that's also probably something that people
- could argue for days. But I think there was an attempt to do that with respect to going through. And
- if anybody disagrees, that's fine. But you can also go back and watch the meetings as well, too.
- But I mean, further accountability, sure. Yeah.
- I think you can do that. I will say I have spoken at length with Mr. Hackert about this and have let
- him know what Robert's rules were violated, and he is aware of that. And I will also offer to go over
- any potential cases arising in the future. I don't know what else, other than that, what else would
- you like to see done?
- I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. I don't know that it's our purview to oversee accountability.
- I don't know whose it is. I think that it's appropriate for Sydney to talk about it as the liaison.
- I'm sorry. I feel like this puts so much on you. But if it was a board that I was liaison to, I think
- that would end up being, I feel like that makes sense because you're already involved to some degree.
- I had 20 hours of conversation about this with different commissioners. Yeah.
- Making sure that there is an attorney there and speaking with people about it. And maybe Noah too, in
- terms of staff liaison, to make sure he feels comfortable. I've spoken with Noah as well. Yeah. Yeah.
- Because HPC stuff is so emotional for so many people anyway. I think that that adds.
- to this whole thing that is just a commission that brings out the big feelings, as Courtney would say.
- Big feelings. Big feelings. OK, well, I'm happy to, and I appreciate Sydney's offer, and I appreciate
- the 20 hours she's already spent. So I think that that's satisfying to me as far as moving forward.
- I mean, if the chair understands what happened,
- the staff liaison and, um, that seems like all we can do at this point. Okay. Anything else before we
- move to the next agenda item? All right. Uh, Bloomington Public Transportation Board of Directors. Hopi,
- you want to talk about this one? Okay. Yeah. So this is partly like a,
- How much do you all think that I should pursue this kind of conversation? So the backdrop is, so I'm
- on interview committee A, right? And that does the interviews for Bloomington Public Transportation
- Board. And so I said that I would bring this up with CCP.
- It has come to our attention through those interviews, which have been well publicized. We've had the
- most public at any interview committee meeting ever, I think, because there's such interest in them
- that by state statute, we could have a board of five or a board of seven for that body.
- So we have a board of five right now and I have done about this much research into five versus seven
- Because I don't want to necessarily Dive into that with a ton of time and a ton of energy if more people
- you know, I Just want to talk about a little bit more first because we didn't really talk about it very
- much during the committee because we were doing other things so One of the state guidelines is that
- you can't have
- more than a one-person difference between primary parties. So right now, there's five people. I think
- there's three Democrats, two Republicans. If there were seven, it would have to be four and three. Or
- if there was an independent on there or something like that, there still could not be more than one
- difference between the Democrat and the Republican. So I think that one of the other things
- boards that we have, it impossible. There's always an empty seat, basically, because we cannot find
- a Republican to fill it. So I have a little bit of concern about making sure to keep that balance, because
- sometimes that is such a challenging thing to find in this town. And other than that, five, seven, maybe
- seven would be better. I looked real quick at, let's see, Indy has seven.
- Oh boy, I was going to try to remember these. West Lafayette has seven. I tried to look up a bunch of
- second class cities and basically everyone that I found, just a real quick look, they all have seven.
- Except for the ones that don't actually have a public transportation board and instead their public
- transportation is run by their public works department.
- So it's not like a separate entity in the way that BT is. But all the ones that I found that are separate
- entities, second class cities, have the seven. In code, it references an ordinance from, I think it's
- 1982. So since 1982, we've had a five-person board.
- and I have not gotten to the text of that. I don't know if there was an option to have seven at that
- time or not in terms of state code and we just decided to have or think that we had five because that
- was the only thing. I don't know if there's a reason listed in that ordinance that there were five.
- I don't know if there are other cons besides the challenge of keeping that balance. But I guess the
- question out there is how much
- Do we want to pursue the potential of changing this in our code from five to seven? What is the reason
- in favor of doing it? Well, the reason in favor of doing it is to get just a little bit more diversity
- of opinion on that board that they manage a lot of things and then there's only five of them.
- the folks that we interviewed for that position, like the ones that have any experience whatsoever in
- terms of either they're on that board currently or they've been watching meetings a lot, they all thought
- that seven might be a good idea just in terms of being able to maintain more balance, if that makes sense.
- That was, yeah. Well, yeah, another thing is that a few members have served for like decades. Yeah.
- So seven- Only live here half the time? What? I said, and only live here half the time? Well, and seven
- would allow for both new blood and some continuity. Right. Right. So- Yeah. What do committee members think?
- Yes. Worth pursuing? Yes. OK. Worth looking into, yeah. I mean, I don't want to ask you to do a ton
- of work and then have us go, eh. Well, I mean, it does make sense. I think the additional work would
- be, I guess I would be interested in hearing more from you and what you think about the trying to maintain
- that political balance as required by state code.
- We do have four applicants right now. And see, that's the other thing why we started talking about it
- is that we are having a really hard time, to be honest, because there are multiple very good applicants
- for this one seat that is up. And so that is also part of it in terms of potential voices, but then
- I'm not sure that
- You know, because of the political need to keep political balance, I'm not sure that any of them necessarily
- fall into the category of being able to be appointed anyway. Well, can I find three Republicans
- in Bloomington? I know they're out there. Yeah. I've seen the voting records. Yeah, they exist.
- They exist. I think that I agree with my colleagues. It's worth pursuing. OK.
- Um, but yeah, so it's really, you know, it's partly, I do kind of want to look up a little bit more,
- a few more other second-class cities just to be like, what is it that they do? Um, cause it was a pretty
- quick search that I did, um, of just a few different ones. Um, and just see if there's any, any minuses
- to it, I guess, you know, contact those places.
- Just to be like hey you have seven not five Tell me about that. I do want to go back to which because
- it's so old it involves Making a very specific request to the clerk's office to get that and then similarly
- looking at some of those other places it's like West Lafayette always had seven I think it was West
- Lafayette Gary was one that I looked up that has seven I lost track of which cities
- operate their public transit underneath their public works department and which ones have a separate
- corporation. But okay, well, I will look into all that stuff. And I will report back. Thank you.
- Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this topic? No. Okay. So then
- we have review of title two, but we have seven minutes left.
- Maybe we can get one paragraph reviewed. Let me pull up this and share my screen. All right. Standing
- committee dash meetings.
- So a committee shall meet on the call of its chairperson or any two of its members. Notice shall be
- communicated by the city clerk and shall keep records. Majority of the membership shall constitute quorum.
- Chairperson may act as secretary or the committee may appoint a secretary who shall keep a memorandum
- of the proceedings. Should we clarify how many people are needed to pass a vote? This is for council
- committees, isn't it?
- But would the voting process be the same, or is that something that we should clarify so that either
- all present members or the majority of all present members or? We just ran into this, so I just wanted
- to bring it up. Wait, we have voting in here. Well, council is exempted from that part in city code
- that Larry read earlier. Right. It says everything except for council. But what about council committees?
- Yes. I guess the question is, does that apply to council committees? And if it doesn't, is it opaque?
- Or should we clarify? I'm looking for the there is a section on voting. I guess we haven't gotten to
- it yet. Scheduling or is this resolution? I would say that it says with the exception of the Common
- Council. So I would say any committee of Common Council like. Yeah, I had to bring it up like anything
- related to Common Council.
- So the portion of code you cited earlier, Hopi? Or that, yeah, that Larry did. It just specifically
- exempts the Common Council. Yeah. OK. So did you? Sorry, I am scrolling. OK. So the one question I had
- on this is the committee shall keep a memorandum of the proceedings. And in the past, the clerk.
- has done that. The clerk's office has done the memorandum, which I love. So I wonder if we should revise
- this. Yeah. Because currently, it's the job of the secretary or the chair of the committee. What do
- you mean currently? In this code right here. Oh. The chairperson may act as secretary.
- or the committee may appoint a secretary who shall keep a memorandum of the proceedings and
- the recommendations made at committee meeting. And I think actually, the clerk is not on the call,
- is she? No. But I did ask her. And I believe she said that we should keep this, wait a minute. No, I
- think I was asking her about something else.
- Oh, if I click over here, you can see my email.
- When I share my screen as a tip as well, I always pull out the tab that I want to share and make it
- a new window. Then that doesn't happen to me because I'm terrified that I'm going to share the wrong
- thing on the screen every time. Is it the right thing? What am I going to share? Okay.
- No, I asked her about Committee of the Whole, where it says the clerk shall keep a memorandum of proceedings.
- And she said, yes, keep that in there. I did not ask her about this. Deputy Clerk Crossley, do you have
- any opinion on this? I mean, we already do it, such as right now. That's what I'm doing, and I will
- have it ready.
- But I mean, you can check with her, of course. But I mean, that's already something that we do. Yeah.
- OK, so I would suggest. I feel like there needs to be something. I mean, when I hear secretary, I hear
- who's taking minutes, or who's taking notes of the committee meetings. And that's not the responsibility
- of the clerk. And that's not what the memorandum is. Right.
- And so I kind of feel like this has to be split between, well, we can have somebody who's an official
- note taker, and then the clerk is keeping a memorandum. And I mean. I think that I would prefer not
- to add a level of detail into municipal code so that if a committee wants to designate a note taker,
- they can do that. But I don't want to put that detail in here. The official record is kept by the clerk.
- So we can just say, the clerk's office shall keep a memorandum. And just skip the whole secretary stuff.
- Yeah, that's what I put in here. The city clerk shall keep a memorandum of the proceedings. And the
- recommendations made at the committee be named. Right. Exactly. Does the memorandum include
- the recommendations? So for example, is it going to include that they all said, yes, go and research
- the seven-member board
- So it's not in action. So usually our memo captures who's here, our topics, which is all on the agenda,
- and if there's action. So for example, what you did earlier with the transportation committee one. So
- maybe change that instead of proceedings and recommendations to actions.
- Yes, is there any public comment on this extensive review we've just done? Do you have any thoughts?
- Okay, seeing none. We need to schedule our next meeting. Before we leave this room. Yes, please. It
- was so hard to schedule this one. I thought we had set some standing ones. I was wrong. I think that
- was only for the
- first few months or the first half of the year. I bought October 5th, Monday at 530. Shouldn't we do
- it? Shouldn't we have a meeting in September? I guess I was thinking like today is kind of the last
- day of August. Right, so it's not September. So what about September 28th? At 530. Sure. Oh my gosh,
- I'm on 2025. I was like, that is a Sunday. Why is my calendar on 2025? Yeah.
- That's so weird. Thank you. 28th we're saying. Yeah, oh wait, 28th or 29th. Monday, that's a Monday.
- Yeah, that's. Crossley does that work? I think so. I'll check, but usually me doing it on, but I can
- double checking comparing tomorrow.
- Thank you. All right, and let's try to keep that last Monday of the month free. In October and November
- as well. OK, so should we just like post those now? Last Monday or last Monday in November. It's the
- 30th week. Oh, the 30th. I missed that I have some somewhere I have to be on the 30th. I could do December 1st.
- which is the Tuesday. What about October 26? This is for November. Right. I'm just checking other days.
- Yeah, I can do October 26. So let's set the September 28 and October 26. OK, so I'll double check just
- to make sure. That might be my first day back in the office on the 26th, but I will check with the clerk's office.
- I'll check, and we can confirm who would be available for that one. Thank you. You're welcome. And that's
- at 530, right? Yes. OK. 530 to 7. OK. OK. Well, thank you all. We will continue Title II as we are able.
- Yay. We'll get there eventually.