WEBVTT 00:00:00.450 --> 00:00:08.979 - I think I will go ahead and call to order this meeting of the Committee on Council Processes for Monday, 00:00:08.979 --> 00:00:17.264 - August 31st, 2026. Let's go around the table and do roll call slash introductions. We'll start. Yeah, 00:00:17.264 --> 00:00:25.711 - sure. City Zulek, Bloomington City Council District 6, present. Courtney Daly, Bloomington City Council 00:00:25.711 --> 00:00:29.854 - District 5. Larry Allen, Midland Council Attorney. 00:00:30.402 --> 00:00:39.108 - It's about Piedmont Smith City Council District 1. Hopi Stossberg District 3. Jennifer Crossley, Clerk's 00:00:39.108 --> 00:00:47.565 - Office. Thank you. We have all four committee members here. Are there any? Oh, well, let's review the 00:00:47.565 --> 00:00:56.023 - agenda first. So I have committee member and clerk updates in case there are any. Then there are some 00:00:56.023 --> 00:00:59.422 - items related to boards and commissions. 00:00:59.842 --> 00:01:06.566 - The old business is something we talked about at our July meeting, the revisions to Transportation Commission 00:01:06.566 --> 00:01:13.107 - and Environmental Commission, and then the new business is regarding the Historic Preservation Commission, 00:01:13.107 --> 00:01:19.404 - which may have some relevance to other commissions, and possibly the Bloomington Public Transportation 00:01:19.404 --> 00:01:26.006 - Board. Council Member Stosser, did you want to talk about that briefly? Yeah, I'll talk about that briefly. 00:01:26.006 --> 00:01:29.246 - Then we will move on to our ongoing Title II review. 00:01:29.666 --> 00:01:43.565 - and then we will adjourn. Any revisions to the agenda? So we can approve that by consent. All right, 00:01:43.565 --> 00:01:49.758 - so legislation about boards and commissions. 00:01:52.354 --> 00:02:01.135 - Stossberg if you'd like to share. Stossberg, yep. So I'm going to share my screen because that got into 00:02:01.135 --> 00:02:10.000 - 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 00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:18.528 - seen this before, we've talked about it a bunch in terms of this legislation and it is just a little 00:02:18.528 --> 00:02:19.710 - bit more in a 00:02:19.938 --> 00:02:26.522 - final form at this point. I went before the Transportation Commission and talked to them about it. And 00:02:26.522 --> 00:02:32.914 - Councilmember Flaherty and Commissioner Boland had some comments to make that I thought I needed to 00:02:32.914 --> 00:02:39.434 - bring here. And also, Sydney, you weren't here last time when we talked about it. So I wanted to make 00:02:39.434 --> 00:02:46.082 - sure that you were kind of updated on it. So first off, the thing that was definitely different is that 00:02:46.082 --> 00:02:49.214 - Councilmember Flaherty pointed out that we can't 00:02:49.346 --> 00:02:57.607 - that we can't really tell the superintendent what to do of schools, which of course is a good point. 00:02:57.607 --> 00:03:06.113 - Then instead put in this Mayor shall request line, the superintendent recommend up to three applicants, 00:03:06.113 --> 00:03:11.102 - and then in the event no qualifying applicant is identified. 00:03:11.778 --> 00:03:17.916 - So basically that's if the superintendent at some point in the future declines to put forth 00:03:17.916 --> 00:03:24.588 - any recommendations. And so then I defaulted that to the mayor shall just appoint somebody who is a 00:03:24.588 --> 00:03:31.326 - resident of the city and then preference for appointment to somebody related to MCCSE, which is kind 00:03:31.326 --> 00:03:37.598 - of how the language currently reads in terms of that preference for appointment. I'm not sure 00:03:37.698 --> 00:03:45.648 - if we should put any kind of a timeline in here of in the event of no qualifying applicant. But I guess 00:03:45.648 --> 00:03:53.369 - I'd kind of like to keep it simple unless it becomes problematic. I will once again mention this two 00:03:53.369 --> 00:04:01.854 - members is highlighted because Commissioner Volin is concerned about wanting to make sure that there are still 00:04:02.018 --> 00:04:08.752 - several resident appointments on here. He is not in the room today. But he mentioned the idea of leaving 00:04:08.752 --> 00:04:15.230 - flexibility with this to expand the language that says two to three members or one to two members in 00:04:15.230 --> 00:04:21.771 - these two different things to allow the potential of having a board of up to 11 or a commission of up 00:04:21.771 --> 00:04:28.377 - to 11 total if there were lots of applicants. If you recall in the last meeting, Courtney, I think you 00:04:28.377 --> 00:04:30.686 - said like, well, if there's lots of 00:04:30.850 --> 00:04:39.040 - really qualified applicants that would fill different types of roles. That was his thought during the 00:04:39.040 --> 00:04:47.149 - transportation commission meeting on how to handle that. I certainly wanted to bring that up to this 00:04:47.149 --> 00:04:55.660 - group in terms of do we want to write in basically a commission of between nine and 11 members as opposed 00:04:55.660 --> 00:05:00.478 - to a strict number of members. I don't know how that works. 00:05:01.026 --> 00:05:09.382 - I think that it could be messy, but I wanted to make sure to mention that. I think, Jennifer, if I'm 00:05:09.382 --> 00:05:17.903 - remembering correctly, you wanted this clarity in terms of which seats because of the commission terms 00:05:17.903 --> 00:05:26.507 - with entering the staggering. And so I added the section two. So Larry, you should tell me whether this 00:05:26.507 --> 00:05:30.974 - is the best way to do this. I added this section two. 00:05:31.106 --> 00:05:41.800 - corresponding the defining which seats and onboard are with which appointments up above. And so then 00:05:41.800 --> 00:05:52.811 - in section three terms, I could say which seats then are going to have those single year terms in order 00:05:52.811 --> 00:06:00.222 - to result in staggering. Does that seem like the best way to do that? 00:06:01.762 --> 00:06:13.023 - legally I think so yeah I would have to think about I'm sorry that's okay think about that so this would 00:06:13.023 --> 00:06:20.638 - be added to code or this is just text it's just text of this ordinance 00:06:20.770 --> 00:06:26.473 - I think it's good to put it in the text of the ordinance to clarify which seats you're talking about. 00:06:26.473 --> 00:06:32.232 - And then the text of the ordinance itself can have the seat references. Is that what you're basically, 00:06:32.232 --> 00:06:37.823 - the structure here is actually that? Yes. So section two is not in code. Yeah. It just defines. But 00:06:37.823 --> 00:06:43.582 - it's informing the ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. And then C1 and C3 and M1 would be in code in terms of those 00:06:43.582 --> 00:06:48.446 - staggered seats. And that's the part where it's kind of like, do we want that in code? 00:06:50.402 --> 00:06:56.993 - Yeah. I mean, usually when you're starting a board, that's exactly how you do it. You'd have it in the 00:06:56.993 --> 00:07:03.840 - official, either if you're organizing documents or a code. I mean, with Section 2, you could also probably 00:07:03.840 --> 00:07:10.303 - do that as part of the preamble. Since it's a definitional, right? Oh, so put it as a whereas? Yeah, 00:07:10.303 --> 00:07:17.022 - put it as a whereas clause. Because since those seats, if they already exist, you're creating new seats, 00:07:17.022 --> 00:07:18.238 - though, right? No. 00:07:18.530 --> 00:07:24.256 - Yeah, so if those seats already exist, I would put that as a whereas clause then. That way, it doesn't 00:07:24.256 --> 00:07:29.815 - need to be part of the operative if you're just defining which seats you're talking about. And then 00:07:29.815 --> 00:07:35.541 - you could reference it below. So it's kind of same effect. It puts the reader on notice, these are the 00:07:35.541 --> 00:07:41.212 - seats you're talking about. This is the intent of counsel to do this. And then your operative part is 00:07:41.212 --> 00:07:44.158 - cleaner because it's just the text of the ordinance. 00:07:47.170 --> 00:07:54.373 - That doesn't mean your way is wrong. It's just different ways of getting it the same. I wasn't sure 00:07:54.373 --> 00:08:01.720 - whether I should do that. But then similarly, I also needed to mess with the environmental commission 00:08:01.720 --> 00:08:09.355 - seats because if we remove three seats, because there are some full ones. And so then just kind of picked 00:08:09.355 --> 00:08:16.702 - what to be removed. And so should that be in the section? In this case, because you're removing them, 00:08:16.994 --> 00:08:24.340 - That should be in the operative section, if that makes sense. Because that's an affirmative action. 00:08:24.340 --> 00:08:31.980 - OK. So that should stay in the section. Correct. And so that's good as it is. Yeah. OK. All right. Then 00:08:31.980 --> 00:08:39.693 - those are the only things that are different from the last time that we talked about this. Sydney, there 00:08:39.693 --> 00:08:45.790 - might be a couple other things different from the last time you talked about this. 00:08:46.914 --> 00:08:55.805 - questions, concerns. Well, as far as the two to three members, I am opposed to not clearly having a 00:08:55.805 --> 00:09:04.785 - number of members on this commission, because all our other commissions, we clearly have a number of 00:09:04.785 --> 00:09:13.054 - members. And I think last time we talked about, well, let's leave it at this number and then 00:09:13.698 --> 00:09:21.849 - In the future, if we have a lot of good applicants consistently for these, we could change to increase 00:09:21.849 --> 00:09:30.316 - the number later, which is easier to increase than to decrease public participation. So I'm still inclined 00:09:30.316 --> 00:09:38.942 - towards that and leaving it with the total number that we have now. I'm torn because I really love the idea. 00:09:41.314 --> 00:09:49.635 - We did, sitting in on those interviews, we did have quite a handful of very well-qualified people who 00:09:49.635 --> 00:09:58.037 - were interested that I think would be of value. But like I said, it could get messy. And I don't think 00:09:58.037 --> 00:10:06.358 - we want to create a headache for the commission or the clerk's office or the interview team. I'm open 00:10:06.358 --> 00:10:10.110 - to the idea of moving it up to three members. 00:10:12.962 --> 00:10:19.775 - Oh, so just expanding it. Just expanding it right now and saying three members instead of two. That 00:10:19.775 --> 00:10:26.587 - would make more sense for consistency. Then we'd have ten members. Yeah, I mean we'd have to expand 00:10:26.587 --> 00:10:33.468 - it by two members. Oh, then we'd have to. Yeah. Yeah. I just put the note on one of those as opposed 00:10:33.468 --> 00:10:38.782 - to both of them. Would it not make more sense to have an uneven number? Yeah. 00:10:39.234 --> 00:10:48.148 - Yeah, that's why. I put this note on here so that I would remember to mention it as feedback from the 00:10:48.148 --> 00:10:57.325 - commission, not necessarily as the most descriptive thing for other people. Got it. Yeah, I didn't think 00:10:57.325 --> 00:11:06.152 - about the fact that that would then create an even number, which makes voting tricky possibly. Maybe 00:11:06.152 --> 00:11:07.550 - then we go with 00:11:08.482 --> 00:11:15.608 - your suggestion of we leave it at two for now, and it's easier to add. That's what we decided. That's 00:11:15.608 --> 00:11:22.873 - what the three of us decided in the last meeting. That is. Sydney, does that work for you, just leaving 00:11:22.873 --> 00:11:29.859 - it at nine for now, and then if there's a plethora of qualified applicants? Great. All right. Well, 00:11:29.859 --> 00:11:36.286 - and I like that we're opening up the MCCSE. I'm sorry, I just remembered my other feedback. 00:11:36.866 --> 00:11:43.469 - in the event of no qualifying applicant can be identified. I know we want to keep it simple, but I think 00:11:43.469 --> 00:11:50.073 - maybe we do need a timeline so it doesn't sit open and forgotten about for a while where it's just like, 00:11:50.073 --> 00:11:56.865 - oh, we haven't had one. How long have we been waiting for one? If no qualifying applicant can be identified 00:11:56.865 --> 00:12:02.462 - within three months? Three months. We're on the same page there with that. Look at that. 00:12:04.898 --> 00:12:14.452 - if no qualified applicant can be identified within three months from the Monroe County School Corporation, 00:12:14.452 --> 00:12:23.650 - the Marshall Point resident living within city limits. All right. Does that work for others too? Which 00:12:23.650 --> 00:12:32.222 - would you prefer? I mean, that's up to you all. What is better? I was seeing things throughout. 00:12:32.610 --> 00:12:42.157 - code that says 90 days. Because I know, for example, once a term has set to expire, folks have up until 00:12:42.157 --> 00:12:51.429 - 90 days to continue. So it might be best to do it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments 00:12:51.429 --> 00:12:56.478 - like that? Not right now. OK. Any other comments from? 00:12:59.490 --> 00:13:06.457 - The only other thing about this is I've not been able to make an environmental commission to ask the 00:13:06.457 --> 00:13:13.355 - whole commission about or to have that conversation because they have failed to have quorum for the 00:13:13.355 --> 00:13:20.597 - last meeting for sure, maybe the last two. Oh, no, it was just the last one, two meetings ago. I thought 00:13:20.597 --> 00:13:28.254 - that it was going to be brought up. I was unable to attend and it was not brought up. What you had spoken with 00:13:28.578 --> 00:13:37.051 - I spoke with the chair and the staff liaison and one of the other members as well came to one of my 00:13:37.051 --> 00:13:46.117 - constituent meetings and I talked to him about it. And I think previously when we had been kind of serving 00:13:46.117 --> 00:13:54.759 - commissions, I don't know in what context, but they had said, and maybe it was just the staff liaison 00:13:54.759 --> 00:13:56.030 - had said that, 00:13:56.194 --> 00:14:04.443 - producing the number would help them. They currently have five vacancies. Yeah. Yeah, I think a new 00:14:04.443 --> 00:14:12.691 - vacancy came so I had to change the whereas close to five. Yeah. And I think there's seats actually 00:14:12.691 --> 00:14:21.022 - have been able to work with ITS because I wanted to have counsel be able like discussions like this. 00:14:21.250 --> 00:14:30.268 - I wanted you all to be able to see like seats that have been vacant. So in onboard, when you go to seats, 00:14:30.268 --> 00:14:38.776 - it should show you field and vacant, and it should show you the length of time that a seat has been 00:14:38.776 --> 00:14:47.284 - vacant. And so that just happened within the recent weeks. And so if I'm scrolling to environmental 00:14:47.284 --> 00:14:50.942 - commission, one seat has been vacant since 00:14:51.106 --> 00:14:59.126 - October 23rd, 2024. Is that under Holy cow. You see that? That's in the whereas clause. You all didn't 00:14:59.126 --> 00:15:07.225 - you read the whereas clauses? So you got your seats. Your seats tab. Oh, seats. I never even go to that 00:15:07.225 --> 00:15:15.167 - tab. Oh, oh wow. Yeah, so you can see you're opening whole new horizons for us. Where is seats at the 00:15:15.167 --> 00:15:19.294 - top or they do? It's up at the top on the like with. 00:15:19.682 --> 00:15:26.955 - with like boards and commissions, meeting files, people. Yeah, right. So you can see what's been filled 00:15:26.955 --> 00:15:33.949 - and term ending soon and vacancies. So that gives you, I keep a spreadsheet of it, but I would like 00:15:33.949 --> 00:15:41.152 - to have a public basin way for people to see that. And so I was able to work with ITS so that they can 00:15:41.152 --> 00:15:47.166 - see which seats. And so that is an actual mayoral seat that's been vacant since 2024. 00:15:47.394 --> 00:15:56.941 - Thank you. That's really helpful. That's great. Yeah. Then part of it is, if we look at applicants, 00:15:56.941 --> 00:16:06.489 - I think there's only three applicants right now for that commission. All right. Anything else about 00:16:06.489 --> 00:16:16.036 - this or I will just firm it up. I'll switch that section about the seat definitions into what we're 00:16:16.036 --> 00:16:17.086 - as clause. 00:16:18.050 --> 00:16:27.061 - And then for both commissions? No, just for transportation commissions. Oh, because environmental work. 00:16:27.061 --> 00:16:35.899 - Because environmental is an action related to removing, as opposed to just defining which seats align 00:16:35.899 --> 00:16:44.651 - to which. Yeah. All right. So that legislation can move ahead then, in my view, right? Are there any 00:16:44.651 --> 00:16:48.030 - other concerns from committee members? 00:16:48.226 --> 00:16:59.250 - Would you like a motion? Oh, do we need a motion? I move for approval. Or I move to recommend this to 00:16:59.250 --> 00:17:10.275 - the full council. I would love a second. Oh, second. Sorry. I was reading. Yeah, I was going to bring 00:17:10.275 --> 00:17:14.814 - that. I came through the chat. Excuse me. 00:17:23.010 --> 00:17:30.215 - We have a motion on the table, but what is this chat? Is this referring to the EC? Now, Indiana code. 00:17:30.215 --> 00:17:37.702 - Yeah, I think that that's where it's probably looking up to see what counts as a board. But environmental 00:17:37.702 --> 00:17:44.765 - commission doesn't have to do with Indiana code. Right. So sorry about transportation commission. I 00:17:44.765 --> 00:17:50.910 - don't think transportation commission counts either because it's not statutory. Right. 00:17:52.482 --> 00:18:00.355 - But I would have to look up the Indiana code to know for sure. Or maybe Larry can look up the Indiana 00:18:00.355 --> 00:18:08.074 - codes. It's like he's actually the expert in the realm. It's the BT Transit Board statue. Yeah. Get 00:18:08.074 --> 00:18:15.175 - to that later. Thank you. All right. So let's do a roll call vote. Councilmember Stossberg? 00:18:15.175 --> 00:18:21.118 - Yes. Councilmember Zulek? Yes. Councilmember Daly? Yes. And I also vote yes. 00:18:21.282 --> 00:18:30.442 - Great, thank you. Thank you. We did have public comment on this previously, so that's why I didn't put 00:18:30.442 --> 00:18:39.602 - that in there. New business. OK, so we had communication from Reynard Cross, who is an advisory member 00:18:39.602 --> 00:18:48.584 - of the Historic Preservation Commission. And his full briefing is in the packet. And then I tried to 00:18:48.584 --> 00:18:49.918 - summarize what 00:18:50.210 --> 00:18:59.271 - concerns may relate to the purview of this commission in another document that's also in your packet. 00:18:59.271 --> 00:19:08.687 - So I can just go to that. I know you have it in your packets, but I think when I was reading his briefing 00:19:08.687 --> 00:19:18.814 - from July, what I was trying to focus on is what portions are relevant to multiple wars and commissions, and then 00:19:19.330 --> 00:19:28.405 - Does our committee want to take any action to avoid problems in the future similar to the ones the HPC 00:19:28.405 --> 00:19:37.656 - had or this member had with the HPC? So the first issue I think that came up was that HPC commissioners, 00:19:37.656 --> 00:19:46.731 - a subset of them, wanted to postpone a vote on releasing a demolition delay but did not think they had 00:19:46.731 --> 00:19:49.022 - the opportunity to do so. 00:19:49.890 --> 00:19:57.373 - And then the second issue was that there was a motion to limit commissioner comments to three minutes. 00:19:57.373 --> 00:20:04.783 - It was adopted without meeting the two-third majority that's actually required by Robert's rules. And 00:20:04.783 --> 00:20:12.338 - then the third issue was that the chair limited a commissioner speaking time without a motion or a vote 00:20:12.338 --> 00:20:17.278 - by the commissioner, which actually is required per Robert's rules. 00:20:19.938 --> 00:20:31.411 - So I think that taking the first item, while all of these items, I think, reflect a lack of familiarity 00:20:31.411 --> 00:20:42.552 - with Robertsville's order. And I wonder if Deputy Clerk Crossley wants to tell us a little bit about 00:20:42.552 --> 00:20:49.502 - the staff training. And were all of the commissioners? No. OK. 00:20:49.666 --> 00:20:58.812 - So I'll speak to that. I'm sorry, the commissioner. Yes. So we so and I'll briefly speak to staff training. 00:20:58.812 --> 00:21:07.450 - Staff went first with training and they got something similar to what board or members of commissions 00:21:07.450 --> 00:21:16.003 - went through as well. And so in June, there were a couple of training sessions in which folks had an 00:21:16.003 --> 00:21:19.390 - opportunity to come to whether a person 00:21:19.522 --> 00:21:28.811 - or it was hybrid, so to speak. And so because I don't know why, but folks chose, some people didn't 00:21:28.811 --> 00:21:38.379 - decide to attend. And I guess we need to make sure and reiterate that training is mandatory. It is not 00:21:38.379 --> 00:21:47.390 - something that is to be thought of as, oh, you can attend if you want to or if you feel like it. 00:21:47.522 --> 00:21:53.843 - Is that staff training that you said was available in June or that was commissioner training? Commissioner 00:21:53.843 --> 00:21:59.750 - training. Because all of our staff have gone through. Yes, absolutely. Every last one of them, even 00:21:59.750 --> 00:22:05.716 - the staff liaisons for the HPC went through. So they went through in May and then commission members 00:22:05.716 --> 00:22:10.206 - went through in June. I will say that I did watch the HPC meeting from June 00:22:10.562 --> 00:22:17.477 - where the staff liaison made the comment to commissioners to let them know that folks had yet to attend 00:22:17.477 --> 00:22:24.192 - to training. And it was kind of brought up as like a, in my opinion, I'll just say it that way, that 00:22:24.192 --> 00:22:30.841 - some folks maybe didn't feel like it was worth the time. There were comments that were made to feel 00:22:30.841 --> 00:22:36.094 - like if you want to be treated like children, they'll treat you like children. 00:22:36.482 --> 00:22:43.661 - But nonetheless, you know, it is what it is. And you can go back and watch it. It's towards the end 00:22:43.661 --> 00:22:50.769 - of the meeting. Okay, I didn't watch the end. I just watched the discussion of this. Oh, yeah. So, 00:22:50.769 --> 00:22:58.235 - you know, people were thinking, oh, it's for this or it's for that. None of that is the case. You know, 00:22:58.235 --> 00:23:02.686 - we're diligently with our staff. I've worked with you all for 00:23:02.978 --> 00:23:09.307 - with the CCP to come up with the code of conduct. Because in addition to training, whether we went over 00:23:09.307 --> 00:23:15.636 - Robert's Rules, if folks had comments or questions related to Robert's Rules, training was also a thing 00:23:15.636 --> 00:23:22.025 - where people could have attended. At the same time, we also went over the code of conduct as well, where 00:23:22.025 --> 00:23:28.232 - we talk about that. You sign it. You give it back to us. Or if you have questions, there were members 00:23:28.232 --> 00:23:30.910 - of legal staff that was there. I was there. 00:23:31.106 --> 00:23:38.445 - And people had the opportunity to make questions, comments, concerns, whatever the case is. And again, 00:23:38.445 --> 00:23:45.713 - that was done twice in June. And so, you know, again, I don't know why folks didn't go. There is more 00:23:45.713 --> 00:23:52.839 - training that we just decided to have. I just met with staff today so that we can have a little bit 00:23:52.839 --> 00:24:00.606 - more training that's coming up. I think we scheduled it tentatively for the end of September, early October. 00:24:00.770 --> 00:24:08.520 - So I'll make sure everybody knows that there is training and I will reiterate to folks that it is mandatory 00:24:08.520 --> 00:24:15.911 - because of the things that we go over in training. I also personally offered to go over Robert's rules 00:24:15.911 --> 00:24:23.303 - with all of the commissioners that called me. I was not taken up on that. Thank you for those updates. 00:24:23.303 --> 00:24:28.254 - So I do want to ask specifically, like it says on the summary sheet, 00:24:28.546 --> 00:24:38.496 - Can a noted non-voting member of a commission make a motion? They can't. Well, or a deputy clerk. No. 00:24:38.496 --> 00:24:48.348 - No. No. An advisory member literally advises and make recommendations. They don't have the authority 00:24:48.348 --> 00:24:56.542 - to make a vote or have a vote. I think you only. Or initiate a vote, you're saying. 00:24:56.642 --> 00:25:02.231 - Yeah, that's typically how we've treated that. I'll just add, there's a little bit of, and I don't disagree 00:25:02.231 --> 00:25:07.405 - with the clerk at all, the nuance there is there's an argument about what constitutes a member, how 00:25:07.405 --> 00:25:12.787 - it's defined in Robert's Rules. Robert's Rules really doesn't deal with this advisory member issue very 00:25:12.787 --> 00:25:18.065 - much, so it deals with members and not members, right? And so it's very binary in that way, and so in 00:25:18.065 --> 00:25:23.343 - this case, because we've created this additional category of advisory non-voting members, essentially 00:25:23.343 --> 00:25:25.982 - under the definition they're probably not members, 00:25:26.146 --> 00:25:32.008 - But that's an active debate that happens among Robert Schruel's nerds, certainly all over the place. 00:25:32.008 --> 00:25:37.812 - And so it's something that could be more fleshed out, I think, if council wanted to do that. But in 00:25:37.812 --> 00:25:43.615 - the way that we've treated it under strict, they can't, which makes sense. If they're not voting on 00:25:43.615 --> 00:25:47.678 - the substance of the matter, then you can't make substantive motions. 00:25:48.674 --> 00:25:54.768 - Okay, then my other question relevant to this, is it the chair's responsibility to render a concern 00:25:54.768 --> 00:26:00.983 - expressed by one or more commissioners into a motion? And I tried to look up Robert's rules and I was 00:26:00.983 --> 00:26:07.564 - not clear on that. Have we ever expected our council president to do that? Yeah, see, I knew that question. 00:26:07.564 --> 00:26:13.658 - I was just like, no, that's not the chair's responsibility, but that's- My review of the rules kind 00:26:13.658 --> 00:26:16.766 - of agrees with that. No, the chair doesn't have to 00:26:17.858 --> 00:26:23.558 - form into a motion. So the chair, there is parts of Robert's Rules, Section 4 talks about, there are 00:26:23.558 --> 00:26:29.484 - instances where the chair needs to clarify language. But that is typically after a motion has been made. 00:26:29.484 --> 00:26:35.353 - So that form, and I think that in reviewing the June meeting, this is the key here. There are opinions. 00:26:35.353 --> 00:26:41.279 - There is no question an opinion is expressed in that meeting. A two week delay would be nice, or I would 00:26:41.279 --> 00:26:46.302 - like a delay, or I'd like more time to consider this. So there's no question about that. 00:26:46.594 --> 00:26:53.753 - What is not said is I move for a two week delay or I move for anything after that that would have intervened 00:26:53.753 --> 00:27:00.781 - in the main motion. And so that that's problematic. So my interpretation of that or my reading of Robert's 00:27:00.781 --> 00:27:05.182 - was I'm happy to be corrected by anybody who knows better. Is that 00:27:06.018 --> 00:27:11.975 - The chair is not obligated to form that into a motion. However, after a motion has been made and seconded 00:27:11.975 --> 00:27:17.650 - and is technically on the floor, if it is unclear what the intent of that motion is, in other words, 00:27:17.650 --> 00:27:23.438 - that the person who's recording the minutes or the member random of that meeting may be unable to tell 00:27:23.438 --> 00:27:29.057 - what that motion is, then the chair can intervene and kind of massage or rework that wording of the 00:27:29.057 --> 00:27:35.070 - motion to reflect the intent of the members and kind of have a back and forth with the members to clarify. 00:27:35.202 --> 00:27:45.248 - but that does not back up to making that main motion in the first place. That matches my experience 00:27:45.248 --> 00:27:55.495 - on council too, yeah. I have another question about this, that particular vote, if we can move beyond 00:27:55.495 --> 00:28:03.230 - this question. Yes, of course. Okay. So there were six voting members there. 00:28:03.842 --> 00:28:09.876 - and this vote passed 4-2, but there are eight total members. So if there were six members of council 00:28:09.876 --> 00:28:16.029 - present and we had a 4-2 vote, that would have failed because it might have been the majority of those 00:28:16.029 --> 00:28:22.301 - present, but we actually need the majority of the body in order to pass something. Is the HPC different? 00:28:22.301 --> 00:28:28.395 - Do they just need the majority of those present, not the majority of the body? I think this goes back 00:28:28.395 --> 00:28:30.366 - to needing better Roberts rules. 00:28:31.010 --> 00:28:37.954 - understanding. I think that's a body thing. I think it's the majority of those seats that are filled. 00:28:37.954 --> 00:28:45.035 - How many seats were filled? Eight. Eight. So they needed... I mean, it doesn't matter. Either way, they 00:28:45.035 --> 00:28:51.979 - need five. And I identify that as a bigger problem. Which vote are you referring to? Both of them. On 00:28:51.979 --> 00:28:59.128 - the demolition. On the demolition, both of them were four-two. So on June 25th, when the vote was taken, 00:28:59.128 --> 00:29:00.830 - those are both four-two. 00:29:02.466 --> 00:29:10.360 - So that's the part that I identified as much more problematic. But only if, per virtue of the body, 00:29:10.360 --> 00:29:18.491 - they need a majority of members of the body. I know council is like that, but I don't know which other 00:29:18.491 --> 00:29:25.438 - bodies. Actually, planning commission is like that too, but I don't know about the HPC. 00:29:32.418 --> 00:29:39.536 - of voting members shall constitute a quorum. A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. 00:29:39.536 --> 00:29:46.796 - Which means that that vote failed. So wait, is a quorum the same as the number of votes needed to pass 00:29:46.796 --> 00:29:53.914 - something? No. Not necessarily, but I don't know that it's in their rules either. It says a majority 00:29:53.914 --> 00:29:57.086 - of voting members shall constitute a quorum. 00:29:57.250 --> 00:30:06.072 - So there's no question. I had a court. I had six members. But the question is about the vote. Yeah. 00:30:06.072 --> 00:30:14.895 - Oh, but that's not about voting. That just says all decisions, votes, recommendations, motions, and 00:30:14.895 --> 00:30:23.894 - communications shall be roll call. Who was the lawyer that was present? There are different attorneys 00:30:23.894 --> 00:30:27.070 - in the legal department. I'm sorry. 00:30:27.362 --> 00:30:34.156 - I appreciate that you might know something about it. There may have been a lawyer on LISO. There are 00:30:34.156 --> 00:30:41.016 - two attorneys that have been involved in this process, Anna Holmes from the legal department and Dana 00:30:41.016 --> 00:30:47.810 - Kerr as well. I don't believe any other lawyer has been involved until this point. I attended one of 00:30:47.810 --> 00:30:50.366 - the meetings in July just to observe. 00:30:51.170 --> 00:30:58.544 - It is clear to me that this commission consistently needs a lawyer present. I think that they always 00:30:58.544 --> 00:31:06.064 - do have a lawyer present. Typically. Well, a lawyer who knows Robert's rules. Yes. That isn't a fright 00:31:06.064 --> 00:31:13.730 - to me. I more mean a lawyer who's willing to serve as a parliamentarian. Yeah. And is capable of serving 00:31:13.730 --> 00:31:15.774 - as a parliamentarian. Yeah. 00:31:22.850 --> 00:31:29.966 - You guys want to move on? I don't know. I mean, that's the thing that I was like, is that actually accurate? 00:31:29.966 --> 00:31:36.822 - There's no question. I have no idea. But that was the part that I think is much more problematic because 00:31:36.822 --> 00:31:43.481 - I don't think that, I mean, I think that it probably would have been nice if the chair in that moment 00:31:43.481 --> 00:31:50.206 - when that concern was raised said something like, do you want to move something? Do you have a motion? 00:31:51.970 --> 00:31:58.587 - It also, I don't think that's necessarily a required part of the chair's responsibility. Was the 4-2 00:31:58.587 --> 00:32:05.270 - vote brought up by Mr. Cross in his briefing? No. It does raise a question that was brought up in the 00:32:05.270 --> 00:32:11.822 - briefing. And this is the interpretation of the Monroe County BZA case, the Bedford Recycling Plant 00:32:11.822 --> 00:32:18.636 - case, and whether the board would be able to then, on a mistake of law, go back and revisit their vote, 00:32:18.636 --> 00:32:20.798 - essentially, and what was bound. 00:32:21.250 --> 00:32:26.928 - Which we were told they weren't allowed to do. Right. And that's probably accurate based on the Indiana 00:32:26.928 --> 00:32:32.660 - Supreme Court ruling. There's a question, there are a couple of questions like if it's a clerical error, 00:32:32.660 --> 00:32:38.283 - right, you can maybe go back. If it's an actual substantive question of law, it looks like the Indiana 00:32:38.283 --> 00:32:43.742 - Supreme Court has decided you cannot go back unless expressly authorized by statute. Again, there's 00:32:44.386 --> 00:32:50.397 - smaller nuances, but I don't know that this rises to a small clerical error that you could go and fix 00:32:50.397 --> 00:32:56.467 - as much as it might be substantive. And particularly now that, and Mr. Cross pointed this out as well, 00:32:56.467 --> 00:33:02.537 - the 30 day deadline for challenging this in the local Monroe County Circuit Court has also passed. And 00:33:02.537 --> 00:33:08.490 - so there are some issues here, which I think are worth for sure. Oh, I'm sorry. You can't close that 00:33:08.490 --> 00:33:14.206 - door. We have an open door policy. You have to say it. We have to keep the door open. Thank you. 00:33:15.554 --> 00:33:21.807 - And that does raise questions. And I'm happy to look into that further, to be honest with you. I looked 00:33:21.807 --> 00:33:27.940 - at the case. I looked at the briefing. I'm kind of looking at it initially. So that's just my initial 00:33:27.940 --> 00:33:34.194 - reaction. I'm happy to dive into that a little bit deeper and get a better sense of it, or get a second 00:33:34.194 --> 00:33:40.327 - opinion, honestly. I think the only question that really remains is, did the 4-2 vote stand? And what 00:33:40.327 --> 00:33:41.950 - are we supposed to do now? 00:33:42.082 --> 00:33:48.300 - Well, that's what I mean. Even if it didn't stand, so even if it's theoretically to fail, then it's 00:33:48.300 --> 00:33:54.891 - a mistake of law, essentially. A mistake of law being that a 4-2 vote is sufficient to be able to release 00:33:54.891 --> 00:34:01.295 - them from the demolition to delay. And then can you go back and correct that later? It looks like, and 00:34:01.295 --> 00:34:07.637 - I'm just telling you from my initial reading of that case, again, all the caveats I've given, is that 00:34:07.637 --> 00:34:10.622 - probably not. It's probably not of those minor, 00:34:10.754 --> 00:34:16.662 - exceptions that they've listed. But again, this is a fairly new case. It does apply to the planning 00:34:16.662 --> 00:34:22.688 - code. So in that case, it dealt with the Board of Zoning Appeals. But that's also where you find some 00:34:22.688 --> 00:34:28.714 - of the authority that goes into the Historic Preservation Commission, what they can do, the timelines 00:34:28.714 --> 00:34:34.681 - for what they can do. So it is directly applicable, it looks like, to a commission like the Historic 00:34:34.681 --> 00:34:36.158 - Preservation Commission. 00:34:36.802 --> 00:34:43.245 - But I can I'm happy also to outline like here's the exceptions spring where I mean Mr. Cross named some 00:34:43.245 --> 00:34:49.502 - of them in the footnote that the Supreme Court list there's there is a dissent on that but again the 00:34:49.502 --> 00:34:55.820 - Supreme Court opinion at this point is certified it is binding law there's not much that we can do to 00:34:55.820 --> 00:35:02.139 - go around that particular part of it. Thank you. So I think relevant for this committee is how do we. 00:35:02.139 --> 00:35:05.918 - In the future because I think there were mistakes made. And. 00:35:06.594 --> 00:35:14.378 - we want to avoid those mistakes in the future. I also wonder, and I put this down here, should there 00:35:14.378 --> 00:35:22.316 - be accountability for the mistakes that were made? And even if we can't change what happened according 00:35:22.316 --> 00:35:30.254 - to the Supreme Court precedent, should there be some acknowledgement of what happened? So I don't know 00:35:30.254 --> 00:35:36.574 - if we want to go to the public and then come back to discuss, or if you'd like to 00:35:36.674 --> 00:35:44.543 - Raise some points first. We obviously have some relevant members in our public today. I'm fine with 00:35:44.543 --> 00:35:52.412 - public comment. All right, members of the public have up to three minutes to comment. And if you're 00:35:52.412 --> 00:36:00.439 - here in the room, then if you would come up here so that the microphone can soon catch you. Yeah, can 00:36:00.439 --> 00:36:02.878 - you get a timer on the screen? 00:36:07.586 --> 00:36:19.886 - 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 00:36:19.886 --> 00:36:31.717 - usually have very much public comments on the screen. There's a three-minute thing down below. I see 00:36:31.717 --> 00:36:36.286 - that after. Okay. All right, go ahead. 00:36:36.386 --> 00:36:43.541 - I run across HPC, the man of the moment. I wrote that memorandum, and I'm going to speak really quickly 00:36:43.541 --> 00:36:50.971 - because I only have three minutes. My aim here is to add some information for context and clarity. Firstly, 00:36:50.971 --> 00:36:57.851 - I fully accept that I'm an advisor. Remember, I do not make motions. I do not second motions. There 00:36:57.851 --> 00:37:04.318 - were two other commissioners that expressed a desire, voting members. One was council member. 00:37:04.514 --> 00:37:12.456 - Butler and the other one was Schlegel. I too expressed one, but I accepted my capacity. It really didn't 00:37:12.456 --> 00:37:20.399 - amount to much in terms of making a motion. They expressed a clear desire to have additional time. Staff 00:37:20.399 --> 00:37:28.341 - said that time was available, having heard what the time was being requested for. There was also members 00:37:28.341 --> 00:37:33.182 - of the public that said that because this was the first hearing 00:37:33.570 --> 00:37:42.640 - since the demolition delay was approved, which was between meetings, so they had less time. They would 00:37:42.640 --> 00:37:51.533 - also like time to come back. Now, with regards to Robert's rules, this is just paraphrasing for some 00:37:51.533 --> 00:37:52.766 - reason, Mike. 00:37:53.346 --> 00:37:58.823 - copy will not come up but it says here it is an affirmative duty on the chair not merely a 00:37:58.823 --> 00:38:05.023 - passive expectation on members when a commissioners intent is clear but has not been phrased in formal 00:38:05.023 --> 00:38:11.041 - as a formal motion the chair is required to help put it into a form and bring it to the body rather 00:38:11.041 --> 00:38:17.301 - than to let it lapse because it was not announced in the right words and that's in section four there's 00:38:17.301 --> 00:38:20.190 - also a section in our guidelines which speak to 00:38:22.402 --> 00:38:32.681 - Section J, which speaks to requests and gives three options, grant, deny, or continue, which means that 00:38:32.681 --> 00:38:42.564 - for a request made for additional time should have been presented to the full body for them to vote 00:38:42.564 --> 00:38:51.262 - on it. That wasn't done. Objections were made, and they were just shut down, summarily. 00:38:51.490 --> 00:39:00.958 - buildings that had demolition permits. And so on two occasions, objections were raised. Not only that, 00:39:00.958 --> 00:39:10.151 - but none of these objections were recorded in minutes, which is another issue. Let me see if I have 00:39:10.151 --> 00:39:19.343 - everything correct. With regards to the opinion that was raised, again, all of my issues are issues 00:39:19.343 --> 00:39:20.446 - of process. 00:39:21.218 --> 00:39:33.569 - I made it clear in a memorandum that I intended to request that this matter be reconsidered a week and 00:39:33.569 --> 00:39:45.560 - a half before. Commissioner Butler sent a memorandum stating that he was going to propose a motion. 00:39:45.560 --> 00:39:48.798 - Any other public comments? 00:39:54.210 --> 00:40:01.936 - 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 00:40:01.936 --> 00:40:09.090 - or add to the record. As per our training that we received, we did receive training. It was like an 00:40:09.090 --> 00:40:17.246 - hour long, I think, or a little over an hour. But it covered such a range of topics that Robert's Rules was maybe 00:40:17.954 --> 00:40:24.569 - minutes and if you know Robert's rules that's not enough time to really understand especially if you're 00:40:24.569 --> 00:40:31.247 - a new member because we also covered like open door law and you know respect and how to treat each other 00:40:31.247 --> 00:40:37.798 - as commissioners so we you know I would urge you to to consider more training because I certainly felt 00:40:37.798 --> 00:40:39.006 - under training I I 00:40:39.234 --> 00:40:46.999 - to whether or not a lawyer was present there were no lawyers present because at the same time city legal 00:40:46.999 --> 00:40:54.542 - was holding a training session and so all the city attorneys were at that and there were there was no 00:40:54.542 --> 00:41:02.307 - attorney president online or in person for that meeting we also did not have a parliamentarian our chair 00:41:02.307 --> 00:41:07.262 - does not understand Robert's rules in a way in it deeply enough to 00:41:07.970 --> 00:41:18.384 - fully instruct the members of how we're supposed to run the meetings. For instance, the 4-2 thing, I 00:41:18.384 --> 00:41:29.211 - don't even know. So we need more training. And then for Commissioner Cross to be the person who's facing 00:41:29.211 --> 00:41:32.510 - some sanction for attempting to 00:41:33.218 --> 00:41:40.228 - get us to do a better job of following Robert's rules, I think is sort of sad. I think really, 00:41:40.228 --> 00:41:48.124 - as a body, we need to do better. And so I think the failure lies with all of us. And myself in particular, 00:41:48.124 --> 00:41:55.577 - I did not make the motion in the proper language, and that is on me. I also didn't understand when I 00:41:55.577 --> 00:42:02.366 - was allowed to make the motion. And prior to that, when Commissioner DeSolar was the chair, 00:42:02.562 --> 00:42:09.661 - tradition in the HPC was a person would phrase the you know I would like more time and then the solar 00:42:09.661 --> 00:42:16.899 - would say am I hearing a motion to delay and then we would say yes and so since that did not occur that 00:42:16.899 --> 00:42:24.485 - evening I didn't know when I was allowed to bring it forward and so unfortunately since this is a subsidiary 00:42:24.485 --> 00:42:26.782 - action the vote if we release it 00:42:26.946 --> 00:42:34.165 - for demolition, we can't delay it. So the delay vote has to take place before we release it, obviously. 00:42:34.165 --> 00:42:41.106 - And that didn't occur. So then once we'd released it, I couldn't get my vote forward at that point, 00:42:41.106 --> 00:42:48.117 - even though that was my intention. So I apologize for messing the whole thing up. But I feel like we 00:42:48.117 --> 00:42:55.058 - really could have and should have handled it better. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go online. I think 00:42:55.058 --> 00:42:56.030 - we have Eric. 00:42:56.962 --> 00:43:03.875 - You could state your name and you have up to three minutes. Good evening, can you hear me? Yes. My name 00:43:03.875 --> 00:43:10.988 - is Eric votes and thank you for this opportunity to offer comment. I'd like to highlight what the evidence 00:43:10.988 --> 00:43:17.702 - for this committee establishes. And also to note that this committee has been the venue where Google 00:43:17.702 --> 00:43:24.549 - Commission numbers has been referred and that fact highlights the duty and responsibility of this body 00:43:24.549 --> 00:43:26.942 - to influence and affect next steps. 00:43:27.714 --> 00:43:35.746 - The record presented by Commissioner Rayner-Cross identifies serious procedural problems in the Historic 00:43:35.746 --> 00:43:43.624 - Preservation Commission's handling of matters extending across three consecutive meetings. On June 26, 00:43:43.624 --> 00:43:51.656 - voting members expressed, voting members of the BHPC expressed support for continuing the Seminary Point 00:43:51.656 --> 00:43:55.710 - Demolition to Light petition to get more information 00:43:56.258 --> 00:44:02.907 - and staff confirmed that request was feasible. The continuance question was never presented to the commission 00:44:02.907 --> 00:44:09.193 - for a vote, and the commission proceeded directly to votes releasing the demolition delay. On July 9th, 00:44:09.193 --> 00:44:15.660 - a motion limiting commissioner comments for three minutes received five votes out of eight. Under Robert's 00:44:15.660 --> 00:44:21.765 - rule, if I understand it correctly, suspending the HBC's regular rules and limiting a member's right 00:44:21.765 --> 00:44:24.062 - to debate required a two-thirds vote. 00:44:24.770 --> 00:44:30.613 - that would be six votes, not five. Nevertheless, the description was treated as adopted. On July 23rd, 00:44:30.613 --> 00:44:36.286 - an effort to raise these procedural questions through points of information and points of order was 00:44:36.286 --> 00:44:41.959 - itself detailed. These events raised legitimate questions about whether the commission followed its 00:44:41.959 --> 00:44:47.973 - own rules, whether city departments, commissioners, and staff knew better ways on parliamentary training, 00:44:47.973 --> 00:44:53.022 - and where responsibility lies when procedural safeguards fail. There's also an important 00:44:53.826 --> 00:45:01.011 - unresolved legal question. The city attorney concluded the commission could not rescind its new 25th 00:45:01.011 --> 00:45:08.267 - decision. But the briefing submitted by Mr. Cross argues that the cited Indian Supreme Court decision 00:45:08.267 --> 00:45:15.736 - addresses reconsideration of a valid final agency decision and does not necessarily resolve what happens 00:45:15.736 --> 00:45:21.854 - when the original decision itself may have been reached through defective procedures. 00:45:23.458 --> 00:45:30.592 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith's summary identifies productive questions this committee could pursue. 00:45:30.592 --> 00:45:37.869 - Those are precisely the issues revealed by this record. Notably, removal of Commissioner Cross is not 00:45:37.869 --> 00:45:45.360 - among the issues and corrective measures identified in Councilmember Piedmont Smith's list. I compliment 00:45:45.360 --> 00:45:51.710 - the saliency and focus of that list because this is a very important matter. I will just 00:45:51.906 --> 00:45:58.848 - by saying I respectfully request that the motion removed, Commissioner Frost be removed from the common 00:45:58.848 --> 00:46:05.791 - council agenda and that the committee move forward promptly to address the procedural reforms suggested 00:46:05.791 --> 00:46:12.466 - by Council Member Jim Oaksmith. Thank you. Thank you. Next person here. Anybody else in person want 00:46:12.466 --> 00:46:19.742 - to speak? Come on up. There is another hand that was raised, don't want it to. Yes, we'll come back to that. 00:46:22.754 --> 00:46:29.463 - Hi, my name is Amy Butler. Clearly, I'm married to my husband, but I'm not here because of any kind 00:46:29.463 --> 00:46:36.307 - of weirdness. I mostly am just really disappointed that it's even considered to remove Renard. I have 00:46:36.307 --> 00:46:43.217 - been to multiple meetings to the HBC, none of them before August of 2025. So I have no idea how it was 00:46:43.217 --> 00:46:49.054 - run before that. But that meeting on the 25th or whatever date it was, was ridiculous. 00:46:49.538 --> 00:46:56.170 - And there were many things that were wrong. In every meeting that I had been before, like when commissioner 00:46:56.170 --> 00:47:02.618 - members and members of the public had asked for more time, when more time was in the time frame allowed, 00:47:02.618 --> 00:47:05.566 - it was granted. And this was blatantly ignored. 00:47:06.146 --> 00:47:11.192 - And Sam who had been the previous chair, you know as far as precedence if a commission member was asking 00:47:11.192 --> 00:47:16.046 - for more time He would say do I hear a motion and then it would be brought and that was not the case 00:47:16.046 --> 00:47:20.900 - that day I don't know what happened but it seemed to me like decisions were already made before that 00:47:20.900 --> 00:47:25.850 - meeting happened like people's minds were already made up and that they were gonna let those buildings 00:47:25.850 --> 00:47:29.406 - go down and that really upsets me that bernard is going to be bullied and 00:47:29.826 --> 00:47:36.623 - and try to be kicked off the commission for trying to make things right. Because he is speaking truths, 00:47:36.623 --> 00:47:43.290 - and I am here to speak truth, that Renard knows Robert's rules better than anyone else. You guys need 00:47:43.290 --> 00:47:50.088 - to have more training on that for sure. And if you have a head chair of a commission, they need to know 00:47:50.088 --> 00:47:55.774 - what their job is. And they need to put what is right above what they personally feel. 00:47:56.226 --> 00:48:01.395 - And I think that there was errors made in that. And also, there was a commission member who I think 00:48:01.395 --> 00:48:06.666 - in the time of like you were allowed to ask, I think commission members were allowed to ask questions 00:48:06.666 --> 00:48:11.835 - or maybe make comments. And he said for one of his comments, I want this person to say more things. 00:48:11.835 --> 00:48:17.210 - And that is wrong. There is no way that a commission member should ask a member of the, or request that 00:48:17.210 --> 00:48:22.586 - a member of a public be able to say more things. That was wrong. So there were so many things that were 00:48:22.586 --> 00:48:25.790 - done wrong in that meeting. And I think it's ridiculous that, 00:48:25.986 --> 00:48:31.200 - you know, it's not able to be revisited. You know, that it's swept under a big rug, and then Renard 00:48:31.200 --> 00:48:36.101 - gets kicked off. I think it, you know, the request to remove him should not even be voted on. 00:48:36.101 --> 00:48:41.524 - It's ridiculous. And I'm sorry if I'm a little bit fiery about this, but I think Renard is the smartest 00:48:41.524 --> 00:48:46.790 - man on the commission, and it will be an absolute travesty if he is kicked off the commission. And I 00:48:46.790 --> 00:48:52.213 - also think he should be a voting member, because they are lacking voting members. And they already have 00:48:52.213 --> 00:48:55.550 - a couple members, Melody, who is leaving. They have open seats. 00:48:56.258 --> 00:49:03.368 - You know, he is smart and the things that he has to say are important and should not be ignored whether 00:49:03.368 --> 00:49:10.204 - or not he is a voting member or a non-voting member. So thank you for your time. I apologize if I'm 00:49:10.204 --> 00:49:17.040 - a little excited. Thank you. All right, let's go back online. I think Paul Rousseau is next. Hello, 00:49:17.040 --> 00:49:24.286 - this is Paul Rousseau. I'm very concerned that we now have two examples of the governmental process being 00:49:24.514 --> 00:49:31.536 - manipulated to gentrify three acres by removing poor people from the proximity of the Smite Hotel. First 00:49:31.536 --> 00:49:38.492 - it was HPC procedural irregularities and then it was the Capitalist Improvement Board operating outside 00:49:38.492 --> 00:49:45.381 - of purpose by planning to tear down affordable housing when it is not a necessary part of its mission. 00:49:45.381 --> 00:49:52.202 - Now with regard to Mr. Cross, I'm understanding that this is not the time to speak about that because 00:49:52.202 --> 00:49:54.142 - you're going to have another 00:49:54.306 --> 00:50:02.163 - or should I speak about that now? I'm confused. The removal of Mr. Krauss from this commission is not 00:50:02.163 --> 00:50:10.020 - 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 00:50:10.020 --> 00:50:17.723 - if there will be public comment on Wednesday on that or not. I'll just say I think it's a situation 00:50:17.723 --> 00:50:23.038 - of a political difference being disguised as a violation of conduct. 00:50:24.034 --> 00:50:34.865 - That's all I'll say for now. Thank you. Is there anybody else here in person who would like to speak? 00:50:34.865 --> 00:50:45.483 - OK. Oh, all right. Come on up. Hi, Steve. Well, I'm here. I was here as chair of the Transportation 00:50:45.483 --> 00:50:50.686 - Commission to listen about those sort of things. 00:50:50.914 --> 00:50:58.868 - Several members will know that I submitted some recommendations inspired by Councilman Stosberg's legislation 00:50:58.868 --> 00:51:06.244 - because there is a need for greater clarity, if not reform, of the way that we think about boards and 00:51:06.244 --> 00:51:13.982 - commissions and this incident illustrates it. I think the word advisory, for example, is being misapplied. 00:51:14.402 --> 00:51:21.187 - Every board short of the council itself is technically advisory, even if there's some statute that requires 00:51:21.187 --> 00:51:27.533 - that body to deliberate and make a recommendation beforehand. So regardless of how we define them in 00:51:27.533 --> 00:51:34.192 - code, I mean, non-voting is a more accurate way to describe somebody who, I mean, either they're a member 00:51:34.192 --> 00:51:38.590 - of the body or they're not. They're allowed to attend or they're not. 00:51:39.330 --> 00:51:47.838 - But that's a matter of another time. The simple fact is boards and commissions also conduct oversight. 00:51:47.838 --> 00:51:56.181 - They act as a watchdog. They may not necessarily have the ability to rule, but it's clear that their 00:51:56.181 --> 00:52:04.441 - decisions are important. There's a need for more consistent rules for advisory bodies. I think that 00:52:04.441 --> 00:52:08.158 - if we had uniform bylaws called for by code, 00:52:08.418 --> 00:52:15.114 - For all boards and commissions, that would be a step in the right direction. It's never been clear, 00:52:15.114 --> 00:52:21.811 - even as somebody who's familiar with Robert's rules, how a chair should deal with competing motions 00:52:21.811 --> 00:52:28.708 - when two people are trying to make a motion at the same time, let alone how to deal with a motion that 00:52:28.708 --> 00:52:35.806 - where nobody in the room is clear about the rules. So certainly there's more training called for as well. 00:52:35.938 --> 00:52:43.976 - But most importantly, I think it's important to note that Robert says that a chair is supposed to serve 00:52:43.976 --> 00:52:51.782 - the body. That's why when all members are debating, the chair goes last. It's why a chair passes the 00:52:51.782 --> 00:52:59.743 - gavel when they make a proposal. And I don't know that that's a principle that's being observed in our 00:52:59.743 --> 00:53:01.598 - boards and commissions. 00:53:01.762 --> 00:53:09.772 - But the idea that the chair is a servant of the body is something that sounds like it was lacking from 00:53:09.772 --> 00:53:18.248 - the debate over the HPC. All in all, there's no emergency appeal for something that happened at a commission 00:53:18.248 --> 00:53:26.180 - like this, as is clear from what you're hearing. And that too, that's a thing even new for me. I feel 00:53:26.180 --> 00:53:31.390 - like it deserves being addressed sometime in the immediate future. 00:53:31.522 --> 00:53:42.330 - I had other thoughts, but this situation is proven to be of the most importance. Thank you. Thank you. 00:53:42.330 --> 00:53:53.032 - Is there anybody else who would like to comment on HPC processes that have ensued? Good evening. Dave 00:53:53.032 --> 00:53:58.174 - Askins with the BSCAR Bulletin. I'm not sure why 00:53:59.234 --> 00:54:07.763 - It's considered an open question as to whether the four to vote was a valid vote. Because your city 00:54:07.763 --> 00:54:16.719 - code is crystal clear. It finds majority vote. Majority vote means a majority of the members of a board, 00:54:16.719 --> 00:54:25.248 - commission, or council who are present and voting. That's it. It's not an open question. That was a 00:54:25.248 --> 00:54:29.086 - valid vote. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else? 00:54:32.930 --> 00:54:42.526 - Okay, we'll come back to the committee then. I have a question right away. It seems to me that two things 00:54:42.526 --> 00:54:51.578 - that are definitely related but they're being conflated and that is the proposal to remove a member 00:54:51.578 --> 00:55:00.812 - of the HPC and the issues with actions of the HPC. In my view, those are two separate and I don't see 00:55:00.812 --> 00:55:02.622 - that this committee 00:55:02.882 --> 00:55:09.891 - Has anything to do with the removal of somebody is that am I. Not until it's assigned to you if you 00:55:09.891 --> 00:55:17.111 - all vote that way on Wednesday it has to be taken by the full council regardless okay all right so you 00:55:17.111 --> 00:55:24.260 - have options on Wednesday as the full council to have a variety of things to do. As of right now this 00:55:24.260 --> 00:55:28.606 - committee has no purview okay that's why thank you. Secondly. 00:55:31.138 --> 00:55:39.759 - Can we check the reference that Mr. Askin's just made to Bloomington Municipal Code and whether that 00:55:39.759 --> 00:55:48.891 - applies to all the commissions, including this one? Sure. Because certainly at the Common Council, whether 00:55:48.891 --> 00:55:58.024 - we have six members present or nine members present, we still need five votes to pass anything. Plankton's 00:55:58.024 --> 00:55:59.646 - right back to you. 00:56:01.026 --> 00:56:10.256 - Yeah. So I'm a little puzzled by this. And it could have something to do with the state versus city, 00:56:10.256 --> 00:56:19.851 - like whether or not there's statutory authority. Could the Planning Commission have statutory authority? 00:56:19.851 --> 00:56:28.990 - But HPC also. HPC there is too. So I don't know. Right. So there may be state rules that supersede. 00:56:30.626 --> 00:56:36.258 - there are some times there there is a I think the stress is exactly right. There's not a statue that 00:56:36.258 --> 00:56:41.890 - limits the voting on historic preservation commissions so that's what I was looking for earlier just 00:56:41.890 --> 00:56:47.521 - to see if very similar to a real public pressure plant commission if there's any other state statute 00:56:47.521 --> 00:56:53.320 - that might limit that. Under general provisions of the Bloomington municipal code which and Mr ask this 00:56:53.320 --> 00:56:59.454 - is here so you can you can confirm that this is what he's looking at two point zero two point zero five zero. 00:57:00.098 --> 00:57:06.984 - majority vote subsection six majority vote majority vote means a majority of the members of the board 00:57:06.984 --> 00:57:14.073 - commission or council who are present and voting that's that's what it says that that's what's generally 00:57:14.073 --> 00:57:20.824 - applicable to every unless there is a specific other requirement. So in that case before to vote is 00:57:20.824 --> 00:57:28.318 - legitimate it would be because there's nothing there's no other statute that looks like it applies to the HPC. 00:57:29.634 --> 00:57:41.550 - That would require a different threshold. OK. So. What are the thoughts of committee members as far 00:57:41.550 --> 00:57:53.584 - as where to go from here on this? I think. Perhaps we should think about how to put together a more. 00:57:53.584 --> 00:57:57.278 - Useful guide to Roberts rules. 00:57:58.306 --> 00:58:09.271 - because that is a very long book. And I'm not sure that it's fair to ask volunteers to know everything 00:58:09.271 --> 00:58:20.343 - in it, even chairs. But we should have a more condensed version that is available to chairs. Yeah. Yes. 00:58:20.343 --> 00:58:27.902 - Because I think there are a lot of questions that Commissioner Hackard 00:58:28.290 --> 00:58:34.559 - did not know the answer to, that I'm not sure that most council members would know the answer to, and 00:58:34.559 --> 00:58:40.766 - so to what extent is that a fair expectation to have for our chairs when we haven't made that clear? 00:58:40.766 --> 00:58:47.034 - But it is clear that- Staff liaisons too. Yes, staff liaison and also there should have been a lawyer 00:58:47.034 --> 00:58:53.242 - in that room. Yes, there absolutely should have been a lawyer in that room. So, I mean, which one of 00:58:53.242 --> 00:58:55.454 - us at this table is emailing legal? 00:58:55.554 --> 00:59:07.630 - And saying, that is the last time that HPC meets without you. I can. OK, I will. OK, so need more useful 00:59:07.630 --> 00:59:19.476 - guide on Robert's rules. Yes. They are mine. Yes. Yes. And are there any Robert's rules summaries that 00:59:19.476 --> 00:59:24.766 - boards and commissions get at this point? No. 00:59:25.378 --> 00:59:33.795 - 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 00:59:33.795 --> 00:59:42.638 - one-man-ban you're doing boards and commissions so I'm trying and I can only do so much but I do excuse 00:59:42.638 --> 00:59:49.950 - me I do think that folks could benefit for boards and commissions I will say though I 00:59:50.242 --> 00:59:56.758 - To respect there are a lot of things that were happening in that meeting and a lot of things can get 00:59:56.758 --> 01:00:03.532 - bluster So I'm not going to speak ill for people like we're talking about a chair who's not here, right? 01:00:03.532 --> 01:00:10.047 - Um, so I just want to like also express that too. There's like three sides to every story And I just 01:00:10.047 --> 01:00:17.015 - want to reiterate the fact that you know, could things be better? Yes the behavior from other commissioners 01:00:17.015 --> 01:00:17.918 - be better and 01:00:18.082 --> 01:00:24.508 - all of those meetings? Absolutely, yes. There are a lot of things that I witnessed in those meetings. 01:00:24.508 --> 01:00:31.376 - I've had lots of conversations, long conversations. And I do think that that chair might have been flustered 01:00:31.376 --> 01:00:37.298 - at the time. Not saying that that doesn't negate the fact that things might have been missed. 01:00:37.298 --> 01:00:43.662 - We're all human. We're all not perfect. But I think with extra training, yes, as long as people show 01:00:43.662 --> 01:00:46.686 - up for those and attend those, then absolutely. 01:00:48.322 --> 01:00:56.550 - Can we make the training mandatory? I think mandatory. Yes. And technically, it is. But I mean, I would 01:00:56.550 --> 01:01:04.857 - defer to Larry on that. Have all of our HPC commissioners attended? OK. They're still bound by the rules 01:01:04.857 --> 01:01:11.582 - of conduct, whether or not they attend the training, which puts you in a problematic 01:01:14.946 --> 01:01:22.954 - of the rules of conduct a requirement that they attend the training? Should we add that? Well, they 01:01:22.954 --> 01:01:31.123 - don't get this code of conduct and sign it outside the training, right? They keep it at the training. 01:01:31.123 --> 01:01:39.612 - So I don't think adding it unless we start handing out the code of conduct independently of the training, 01:01:39.612 --> 01:01:41.854 - which is an option perhaps. 01:01:42.978 --> 01:01:50.097 - But we usually do the training as like the idea and the thought process for training is you come in, 01:01:50.097 --> 01:01:57.145 - you get trained on your different roles and whatnot, and then you get that code of conduct. Because 01:01:57.145 --> 01:02:04.264 - then we're asking volunteers again to come back and possibly do something again when we already have 01:02:04.264 --> 01:02:12.158 - them right then and there. We can just do that one thing all at once. Overall, what was the participation rate? 01:02:12.802 --> 01:02:20.024 - I would say it's low. I would say it would be under 50. But then we also started at a time where summer 01:02:20.024 --> 01:02:27.107 - was starting to take off. So again, it was just trying to, you know, initially start that with saying 01:02:27.107 --> 01:02:34.051 - that more training would be to or would come later. And so again, as it was mentioned, and the June 01:02:34.051 --> 01:02:37.662 - meeting of the HPC, the staff liaison had mentioned 01:02:38.594 --> 01:02:46.458 - And he actually said in that conversation, because originally I had mentioned that I could come to boards 01:02:46.458 --> 01:02:54.025 - and commissions to train them. And he mentioned in that meeting that we probably need to handle their 01:02:54.025 --> 01:03:01.666 - business and not take up the time of things that could be done without that. So yeah. What is the plan 01:03:01.666 --> 01:03:03.966 - for the frequency of training? 01:03:04.226 --> 01:03:11.210 - like offering. So annually or quarterly? Starting next year in 2027. So not to say that you know a current 01:03:11.210 --> 01:03:18.063 - existing board member or commissioner has to attend every single one quarterly. That's to have quarterly 01:03:18.063 --> 01:03:24.786 - because throughout the year you all and the mayor's office will be appointing people and so if we have 01:03:24.786 --> 01:03:31.509 - somebody that comes in you know in quarter one I'm not going to individually like stop and be like hey 01:03:31.509 --> 01:03:33.598 - we need to schedule you ideally 01:03:33.794 --> 01:03:41.484 - look at right before their quarter ends, look at who's been appointed, and set up that time frame where 01:03:41.484 --> 01:03:49.101 - we can have quarterly meetings, quarterly trainings with people. Would it throw an entire grenade into 01:03:49.101 --> 01:03:56.495 - everything if we stipulated that when an appointment is made to a board and commission, you may not 01:03:56.495 --> 01:04:03.742 - assume your seat until you have received training? I think that would be difficult. As suspected. 01:04:04.130 --> 01:04:11.819 - especially for Quorum. That was my main question, but I kind of wonder like if we can send the code 01:04:11.819 --> 01:04:19.816 - of conduct out and ask them to sign it and give it back to us before the training because I mean people 01:04:19.816 --> 01:04:27.505 - can read and they can understand and they can get like the big things and then they can come to the 01:04:27.505 --> 01:04:33.118 - training for like the additional kind of details. Is there an onboarding 01:04:33.506 --> 01:04:41.359 - like packet or package or anything that commissioners receive in there. That's with the whole training. 01:04:41.359 --> 01:04:49.137 - That's with the whole training. Yeah. OK. We do have 25 minutes left of the notice meeting. And I know 01:04:49.137 --> 01:04:56.764 - we have a lot of other stuff. What are the decisions that we'd like to make on this? I think we kind 01:04:56.764 --> 01:05:02.654 - of all agree that more training is needed. People need to go to the training. 01:05:03.810 --> 01:05:12.011 - If could Deputy Clerk Crossley, could you look into providing that code of conduct separately to the 01:05:12.011 --> 01:05:20.212 - staff liaisons to pass along? And I will just have to stay on top of it because we have people where 01:05:20.212 --> 01:05:28.657 - we send things out and I don't get anything back. And it's almost like when towards the end of the year 01:05:28.657 --> 01:05:32.798 - when I'm asking people to apply for reappointment, 01:05:32.962 --> 01:05:39.439 - 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 01:05:39.439 --> 01:05:45.789 - the things that I can do. I can do all the things. But yeah. Maybe you should be responsible. Yeah, 01:05:45.789 --> 01:05:52.203 - and I can work in content. Or I can work in tandem with them, of course. I'm on staff liaisons, too. 01:05:52.203 --> 01:05:58.680 - I don't have a few CC staff liaisons. Oh, yeah. So usually what happens when somebody is appointed to 01:05:58.680 --> 01:06:02.046 - a board or commission, either a mayoral appointment, 01:06:02.338 --> 01:06:09.497 - I usually will copy that staff liaison, as well as Julius from the mayor's office will copy that liaison. 01:06:09.497 --> 01:06:16.386 - And it's the warm handoff for everybody. So yeah, absolutely. I'm not saying that anything is perfect 01:06:16.386 --> 01:06:23.207 - by any means. And so I'm willing to finesse and fine tune things as we go along the way. Again, this 01:06:23.207 --> 01:06:29.623 - is the first time that we've had my type of position. And so we're learning as we go. Is there 01:06:29.623 --> 01:06:31.582 - the possibility that you can 01:06:32.098 --> 01:06:39.456 - schedule like pre-schedule all of your quarterly trainings for next year So then as part of that initial 01:06:39.456 --> 01:06:47.024 - like welcome email and that warm handoff It's an attachment of the code of conduct a list of when trainings 01:06:47.024 --> 01:06:54.171 - are this year, please attend at your earliest convenience either send the code of conduct back signed 01:06:54.171 --> 01:07:00.478 - or sign it at your first training, but then at least like you've provided it for them and 01:07:00.898 --> 01:07:08.960 - and given them all that information up front. And then if all of those are scheduled for certain dates, 01:07:08.960 --> 01:07:16.944 - then... I can look into it. The only reason why, in terms of scheduling, it's myself plus we also have 01:07:16.944 --> 01:07:25.005 - a legal that's also involved in that too. So we just have to make sure all schedules collide. But yeah, 01:07:25.005 --> 01:07:27.486 - I'm more than happy to do that. 01:07:27.618 --> 01:07:33.944 - OK. I mean, honestly, if I had to be in one of those, then I would probably prefer to get them all on 01:07:33.944 --> 01:07:40.456 - my calendar in January than have to do it as we go along. But that's just me. But I wonder if that would 01:07:40.456 --> 01:07:47.093 - almost ease some of that, because then instead of having to send people multiple emails, like, oh, there's 01:07:47.093 --> 01:07:53.357 - a training coming up, or keeping track of who might have been onboarded, it's like, they've all been 01:07:53.357 --> 01:07:56.830 - told. And then try to leave it up to the staff liaisons 01:07:58.210 --> 01:08:08.445 - I can do that bowl. I'm making a note. While you're making a note, some kind of Robert's Rules summary. 01:08:08.445 --> 01:08:18.384 - I got that. Okay. I know that there's a couple of those things in that council welcome packet that's 01:08:18.384 --> 01:08:20.254 - in a Google Drive. 01:08:20.578 --> 01:08:25.746 - from like three years ago, they can share with me and I can find those if you want me to, would you 01:08:25.746 --> 01:08:30.966 - like me to? We have them, I can work with the clerk and provide those because they do exist already. 01:08:30.966 --> 01:08:36.289 - I mean, it's still a short form, so there's going to be difficult questions that aren't covered in the 01:08:36.289 --> 01:08:41.457 - short form, but I can certainly work with them and get that out as well. Create a welcome packet, I 01:08:41.457 --> 01:08:47.038 - think legal would be interested in that as well, I imagine. Yeah, I mean, there were some issues related to 01:08:47.810 --> 01:08:55.136 - lack of clarity on robert's rules of planning commission meeting last time too and so i don't know if 01:08:55.136 --> 01:09:02.677 - we can communicate with the administration around staff needing to also have a better handle on robert's 01:09:02.677 --> 01:09:10.003 - rules because i mean and and maybe also thinking long term a handbook for chairs specifically like if 01:09:10.003 --> 01:09:15.390 - you're chairing a boarding commission like this is the expectation and i i 01:09:15.682 --> 01:09:23.433 - I feel like in the plan commission instance that I'm thinking of, there wasn't good communication between 01:09:23.433 --> 01:09:30.891 - the chair and staff. I was kind of waiting for the chair to ask staff for a recommendation on what to 01:09:30.891 --> 01:09:38.496 - do, and then they weren't. And so then I was sort of like, I'm not sure. There needs to be advice given 01:09:38.496 --> 01:09:45.150 - right now. And it just took a while to get there. As far as this committee, do we want to? 01:09:45.890 --> 01:09:55.732 - draft a message to the mayor asking that staff liaisons get better trained in Robert's rules and I don't 01:09:55.732 --> 01:10:05.199 - know how we would phrase it but some express our concern. It should have been lawyers. Well yeah but 01:10:05.199 --> 01:10:15.134 - even lawyers I don't know if they automatically know Robert's rules back in front. I don't think they do. 01:10:16.034 --> 01:10:23.360 - I wonder if that's something proactive this committee could do, is just express our concern to the mayor's 01:10:23.360 --> 01:10:30.275 - administration in some way. Or we could, once we have like the Robert's rules, like cheat sheet kind 01:10:30.275 --> 01:10:37.328 - of that we're talking about putting together for the committees, also forward it to the administration 01:10:37.328 --> 01:10:44.448 - and liaisons and say this is really important. You know, just like at that time when we're distributing 01:10:44.448 --> 01:10:45.886 - it to the commission 01:10:46.050 --> 01:10:54.202 - I think that's better. I also think, not speaking for the administration, but because my role is primarily 01:10:54.202 --> 01:10:59.230 - boards and commissions that they probably would point back to me. 01:10:59.842 --> 01:11:06.618 - Well, but they work for me. Just a friendly suggestion. One of the things we do for new chairs and certain 01:11:06.618 --> 01:11:13.014 - boards, not every board, is also put together a folder which includes a script of how meetings go. I 01:11:13.014 --> 01:11:19.473 - actually think that that would be wonderful for this committee to potentially consider working on for 01:11:19.473 --> 01:11:24.222 - distribution because you all are far more versed in it as council members. 01:11:24.354 --> 01:11:29.463 - of how your meetings operate and how functioning meetings can operate that would be amazing thing that 01:11:29.463 --> 01:11:34.423 - I've received and then that way also you don't have to worry about kicking it's potentially the one 01:11:34.423 --> 01:11:39.532 - staff member I the clerk is amazing so I'm not gonna that's not a dispersion but council has a certain 01:11:39.532 --> 01:11:44.691 - insight into that in terms of the formality of how it operates and I think that would be really helpful 01:11:44.691 --> 01:11:46.526 - for chairs to have and then that way 01:11:46.754 --> 01:11:52.039 - particularly for a new chair if they're inexperienced they have kind of a script that they can follow 01:11:52.039 --> 01:11:57.325 - open it'll have that robert's rules it'll have like the normal motion procedures and then that way it 01:11:57.325 --> 01:12:02.714 - also helps keep them on task uh that is something we've provided to certain boards but it would be nice 01:12:02.714 --> 01:12:08.051 - to have a more formalized version of that's just my friend so do you know which boards and commissions 01:12:08.051 --> 01:12:11.678 - have that i did for the redevelopment commission at times in terms of 01:12:12.098 --> 01:12:18.917 - But the other ones. The other ones I'm not aware of. I don't remember if we may have had them at one 01:12:18.917 --> 01:12:25.870 - point in time for the BCA, but I don't think they do now. I'm going off memory, so I apologize. Should 01:12:25.870 --> 01:12:33.229 - we move on to the public transportation group? That could be pretty quick. That doesn't need to be anything. 01:12:33.229 --> 01:12:39.102 - I don't want to lose sight. It's going to have to be quick because we have 17 minutes. 01:12:40.194 --> 01:12:49.666 - But I don't want to leave this topic before we address or decide whether we need to address 01:12:49.666 --> 01:13:00.271 - the accountability problem. So I mean, mistakes happened. And at least one member of the HPC is saying 01:13:00.271 --> 01:13:09.022 - that he can't move on unless these mistakes are somehow addressed. So I'm wondering. 01:13:09.186 --> 01:13:16.385 - how they could be addressed. I mean, if legally we can't change anything, I mean, I think admitting 01:13:16.385 --> 01:13:23.800 - that there was a mistake and working to avoid mistake, that mistake in the future goes a long way. But 01:13:23.800 --> 01:13:31.719 - I don't think anybody has. I thought that they did. I thought there was an acknowledgement at the immediately 01:13:31.719 --> 01:13:39.134 - proceeding meeting that they, no, OK. It was. There was. There was a conversation that they went over. 01:13:39.618 --> 01:13:48.381 - Whether or not people agreed with what legal had mentioned, that's also probably something that people 01:13:48.381 --> 01:13:56.974 - could argue for days. But I think there was an attempt to do that with respect to going through. And 01:13:56.974 --> 01:14:05.226 - if anybody disagrees, that's fine. But you can also go back and watch the meetings as well, too. 01:14:05.226 --> 01:14:09.310 - But I mean, further accountability, sure. Yeah. 01:14:09.954 --> 01:14:18.933 - I think you can do that. I will say I have spoken at length with Mr. Hackert about this and have let 01:14:18.933 --> 01:14:28.000 - him know what Robert's rules were violated, and he is aware of that. And I will also offer to go over 01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:36.890 - any potential cases arising in the future. I don't know what else, other than that, what else would 01:14:36.890 --> 01:14:38.846 - you like to see done? 01:14:39.778 --> 01:14:46.379 - I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. I don't know that it's our purview to oversee accountability. 01:14:46.379 --> 01:14:52.491 - I don't know whose it is. I think that it's appropriate for Sydney to talk about it as the liaison. 01:14:52.491 --> 01:14:58.725 - 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 01:14:58.725 --> 01:15:04.959 - that would end up being, I feel like that makes sense because you're already involved to some degree. 01:15:04.959 --> 01:15:09.726 - I had 20 hours of conversation about this with different commissioners. Yeah. 01:15:09.858 --> 01:15:19.965 - Making sure that there is an attorney there and speaking with people about it. And maybe Noah too, in 01:15:19.965 --> 01:15:30.072 - terms of staff liaison, to make sure he feels comfortable. I've spoken with Noah as well. Yeah. Yeah. 01:15:30.072 --> 01:15:38.494 - Because HPC stuff is so emotional for so many people anyway. I think that that adds. 01:15:39.298 --> 01:15:48.036 - to this whole thing that is just a commission that brings out the big feelings, as Courtney would say. 01:15:48.036 --> 01:15:56.690 - Big feelings. Big feelings. OK, well, I'm happy to, and I appreciate Sydney's offer, and I appreciate 01:15:56.690 --> 01:16:05.174 - the 20 hours she's already spent. So I think that that's satisfying to me as far as moving forward. 01:16:05.174 --> 01:16:09.246 - I mean, if the chair understands what happened, 01:16:09.794 --> 01:16:20.078 - the staff liaison and, um, that seems like all we can do at this point. Okay. Anything else before we 01:16:20.078 --> 01:16:30.664 - move to the next agenda item? All right. Uh, Bloomington Public Transportation Board of Directors. Hopi, 01:16:30.664 --> 01:16:37.822 - you want to talk about this one? Okay. Yeah. So this is partly like a, 01:16:38.050 --> 01:16:46.010 - How much do you all think that I should pursue this kind of conversation? So the backdrop is, so I'm 01:16:46.010 --> 01:16:53.891 - on interview committee A, right? And that does the interviews for Bloomington Public Transportation 01:16:53.891 --> 01:16:58.462 - Board. And so I said that I would bring this up with CCP. 01:17:00.386 --> 01:17:08.241 - It has come to our attention through those interviews, which have been well publicized. We've had the 01:17:08.241 --> 01:17:15.941 - most public at any interview committee meeting ever, I think, because there's such interest in them 01:17:15.941 --> 01:17:22.718 - that by state statute, we could have a board of five or a board of seven for that body. 01:17:23.170 --> 01:17:30.021 - So we have a board of five right now and I have done about this much research into five versus seven 01:17:30.021 --> 01:17:37.143 - Because I don't want to necessarily Dive into that with a ton of time and a ton of energy if more people 01:17:37.143 --> 01:17:44.197 - you know, I Just want to talk about a little bit more first because we didn't really talk about it very 01:17:44.197 --> 01:17:50.981 - much during the committee because we were doing other things so One of the state guidelines is that 01:17:50.981 --> 01:17:51.998 - you can't have 01:17:52.194 --> 01:17:59.207 - more than a one-person difference between primary parties. So right now, there's five people. I think 01:17:59.207 --> 01:18:06.221 - there's three Democrats, two Republicans. If there were seven, it would have to be four and three. Or 01:18:06.221 --> 01:18:13.096 - if there was an independent on there or something like that, there still could not be more than one 01:18:13.096 --> 01:18:19.422 - difference between the Democrat and the Republican. So I think that one of the other things 01:18:21.026 --> 01:18:28.644 - boards that we have, it impossible. There's always an empty seat, basically, because we cannot find 01:18:28.644 --> 01:18:36.794 - a Republican to fill it. So I have a little bit of concern about making sure to keep that balance, because 01:18:36.794 --> 01:18:44.793 - sometimes that is such a challenging thing to find in this town. And other than that, five, seven, maybe 01:18:44.793 --> 01:18:50.430 - seven would be better. I looked real quick at, let's see, Indy has seven. 01:18:51.490 --> 01:18:57.781 - Oh boy, I was going to try to remember these. West Lafayette has seven. I tried to look up a bunch of 01:18:57.781 --> 01:19:04.072 - second class cities and basically everyone that I found, just a real quick look, they all have seven. 01:19:04.072 --> 01:19:10.240 - Except for the ones that don't actually have a public transportation board and instead their public 01:19:10.240 --> 01:19:13.694 - transportation is run by their public works department. 01:19:14.274 --> 01:19:23.496 - So it's not like a separate entity in the way that BT is. But all the ones that I found that are separate 01:19:23.496 --> 01:19:32.370 - entities, second class cities, have the seven. In code, it references an ordinance from, I think it's 01:19:32.370 --> 01:19:36.894 - 1982. So since 1982, we've had a five-person board. 01:19:37.442 --> 01:19:44.397 - and I have not gotten to the text of that. I don't know if there was an option to have seven at that 01:19:44.397 --> 01:19:51.420 - time or not in terms of state code and we just decided to have or think that we had five because that 01:19:51.420 --> 01:19:58.306 - was the only thing. I don't know if there's a reason listed in that ordinance that there were five. 01:19:58.306 --> 01:20:05.191 - I don't know if there are other cons besides the challenge of keeping that balance. But I guess the 01:20:05.191 --> 01:20:07.326 - question out there is how much 01:20:07.490 --> 01:20:16.278 - Do we want to pursue the potential of changing this in our code from five to seven? What is the reason 01:20:16.278 --> 01:20:25.066 - in favor of doing it? Well, the reason in favor of doing it is to get just a little bit more diversity 01:20:25.066 --> 01:20:33.086 - of opinion on that board that they manage a lot of things and then there's only five of them. 01:20:33.538 --> 01:20:43.018 - the folks that we interviewed for that position, like the ones that have any experience whatsoever in 01:20:43.018 --> 01:20:52.869 - terms of either they're on that board currently or they've been watching meetings a lot, they all thought 01:20:52.869 --> 01:21:02.814 - that seven might be a good idea just in terms of being able to maintain more balance, if that makes sense. 01:21:03.170 --> 01:21:12.217 - That was, yeah. Well, yeah, another thing is that a few members have served for like decades. Yeah. 01:21:12.217 --> 01:21:21.625 - So seven- Only live here half the time? What? I said, and only live here half the time? Well, and seven 01:21:21.625 --> 01:21:31.486 - would allow for both new blood and some continuity. Right. Right. So- Yeah. What do committee members think? 01:21:32.162 --> 01:21:40.134 - Yes. Worth pursuing? Yes. OK. Worth looking into, yeah. I mean, I don't want to ask you to do a ton 01:21:40.134 --> 01:21:48.186 - of work and then have us go, eh. Well, I mean, it does make sense. I think the additional work would 01:21:48.186 --> 01:21:56.716 - be, I guess I would be interested in hearing more from you and what you think about the trying to maintain 01:21:56.716 --> 01:22:00.702 - that political balance as required by state code. 01:22:03.554 --> 01:22:12.952 - We do have four applicants right now. And see, that's the other thing why we started talking about it 01:22:12.952 --> 01:22:22.534 - is that we are having a really hard time, to be honest, because there are multiple very good applicants 01:22:22.534 --> 01:22:31.748 - for this one seat that is up. And so that is also part of it in terms of potential voices, but then 01:22:31.748 --> 01:22:33.406 - I'm not sure that 01:22:33.634 --> 01:22:42.229 - You know, because of the political need to keep political balance, I'm not sure that any of them necessarily 01:22:42.229 --> 01:22:49.798 - fall into the category of being able to be appointed anyway. Well, can I find three Republicans 01:22:49.798 --> 01:22:57.368 - in Bloomington? I know they're out there. Yeah. I've seen the voting records. Yeah, they exist. 01:22:57.368 --> 01:23:03.518 - They exist. I think that I agree with my colleagues. It's worth pursuing. OK. 01:23:03.778 --> 01:23:12.065 - Um, but yeah, so it's really, you know, it's partly, I do kind of want to look up a little bit more, 01:23:12.065 --> 01:23:20.679 - a few more other second-class cities just to be like, what is it that they do? Um, cause it was a pretty 01:23:20.679 --> 01:23:29.212 - quick search that I did, um, of just a few different ones. Um, and just see if there's any, any minuses 01:23:29.212 --> 01:23:33.150 - to it, I guess, you know, contact those places. 01:23:33.634 --> 01:23:40.956 - Just to be like hey you have seven not five Tell me about that. I do want to go back to which because 01:23:40.956 --> 01:23:48.709 - it's so old it involves Making a very specific request to the clerk's office to get that and then similarly 01:23:48.709 --> 01:23:55.888 - looking at some of those other places it's like West Lafayette always had seven I think it was West 01:23:55.888 --> 01:24:01.918 - Lafayette Gary was one that I looked up that has seven I lost track of which cities 01:24:02.402 --> 01:24:10.298 - operate their public transit underneath their public works department and which ones have a separate 01:24:10.298 --> 01:24:17.882 - corporation. But okay, well, I will look into all that stuff. And I will report back. Thank you. 01:24:17.882 --> 01:24:26.013 - Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this topic? No. Okay. So then 01:24:26.013 --> 01:24:30.782 - we have review of title two, but we have seven minutes left. 01:24:31.394 --> 01:24:51.412 - Maybe we can get one paragraph reviewed. Let me pull up this and share my screen. All right. Standing 01:24:51.412 --> 01:24:56.318 - committee dash meetings. 01:25:05.954 --> 01:25:12.723 - So a committee shall meet on the call of its chairperson or any two of its members. Notice shall be 01:25:12.723 --> 01:25:19.967 - communicated by the city clerk and shall keep records. Majority of the membership shall constitute quorum. 01:25:19.967 --> 01:25:26.872 - Chairperson may act as secretary or the committee may appoint a secretary who shall keep a memorandum 01:25:26.872 --> 01:25:33.709 - of the proceedings. Should we clarify how many people are needed to pass a vote? This is for council 01:25:33.709 --> 01:25:35.198 - committees, isn't it? 01:25:36.130 --> 01:25:41.937 - But would the voting process be the same, or is that something that we should clarify so that either 01:25:41.937 --> 01:25:47.858 - all present members or the majority of all present members or? We just ran into this, so I just wanted 01:25:47.858 --> 01:25:53.608 - to bring it up. Wait, we have voting in here. Well, council is exempted from that part in city code 01:25:53.608 --> 01:25:59.702 - that Larry read earlier. Right. It says everything except for council. But what about council committees? 01:25:59.702 --> 01:26:05.566 - Yes. I guess the question is, does that apply to council committees? And if it doesn't, is it opaque? 01:26:06.402 --> 01:26:14.740 - Or should we clarify? I'm looking for the there is a section on voting. I guess we haven't gotten to 01:26:14.740 --> 01:26:22.995 - it yet. Scheduling or is this resolution? I would say that it says with the exception of the Common 01:26:22.995 --> 01:26:31.497 - Council. So I would say any committee of Common Council like. Yeah, I had to bring it up like anything 01:26:31.497 --> 01:26:33.726 - related to Common Council. 01:26:36.194 --> 01:26:46.177 - So the portion of code you cited earlier, Hopi? Or that, yeah, that Larry did. It just specifically 01:26:46.177 --> 01:26:56.459 - exempts the Common Council. Yeah. OK. So did you? Sorry, I am scrolling. OK. So the one question I had 01:26:56.459 --> 01:27:06.142 - on this is the committee shall keep a memorandum of the proceedings. And in the past, the clerk. 01:27:06.626 --> 01:27:17.096 - has done that. The clerk's office has done the memorandum, which I love. So I wonder if we should revise 01:27:17.096 --> 01:27:27.067 - this. Yeah. Because currently, it's the job of the secretary or the chair of the committee. What do 01:27:27.067 --> 01:27:35.742 - you mean currently? In this code right here. Oh. The chairperson may act as secretary. 01:27:36.418 --> 01:27:44.602 - or the committee may appoint a secretary who shall keep a memorandum of the proceedings and 01:27:44.602 --> 01:27:53.410 - the recommendations made at committee meeting. And I think actually, the clerk is not on the call, 01:27:53.410 --> 01:28:02.395 - is she? No. But I did ask her. And I believe she said that we should keep this, wait a minute. No, I 01:28:02.395 --> 01:28:06.398 - think I was asking her about something else. 01:28:07.618 --> 01:28:18.430 - Oh, if I click over here, you can see my email. 01:28:19.138 --> 01:28:27.803 - When I share my screen as a tip as well, I always pull out the tab that I want to share and make it 01:28:27.803 --> 01:28:36.555 - a new window. Then that doesn't happen to me because I'm terrified that I'm going to share the wrong 01:28:36.555 --> 01:28:44.094 - thing on the screen every time. Is it the right thing? What am I going to share? Okay. 01:28:48.770 --> 01:28:58.216 - No, I asked her about Committee of the Whole, where it says the clerk shall keep a memorandum of proceedings. 01:28:58.216 --> 01:29:07.147 - And she said, yes, keep that in there. I did not ask her about this. Deputy Clerk Crossley, do you have 01:29:07.147 --> 01:29:15.734 - any opinion on this? I mean, we already do it, such as right now. That's what I'm doing, and I will 01:29:15.734 --> 01:29:17.022 - have it ready. 01:29:17.154 --> 01:29:25.101 - But I mean, you can check with her, of course. But I mean, that's already something that we do. Yeah. 01:29:25.101 --> 01:29:33.126 - OK, so I would suggest. I feel like there needs to be something. I mean, when I hear secretary, I hear 01:29:33.126 --> 01:29:41.307 - who's taking minutes, or who's taking notes of the committee meetings. And that's not the responsibility 01:29:41.307 --> 01:29:45.982 - of the clerk. And that's not what the memorandum is. Right. 01:29:46.146 --> 01:29:53.137 - And so I kind of feel like this has to be split between, well, we can have somebody who's an official 01:29:53.137 --> 01:29:59.991 - note taker, and then the clerk is keeping a memorandum. And I mean. I think that I would prefer not 01:29:59.991 --> 01:30:06.913 - to add a level of detail into municipal code so that if a committee wants to designate a note taker, 01:30:06.913 --> 01:30:14.110 - they can do that. But I don't want to put that detail in here. The official record is kept by the clerk. 01:30:14.466 --> 01:30:21.696 - So we can just say, the clerk's office shall keep a memorandum. And just skip the whole secretary stuff. 01:30:21.696 --> 01:30:28.581 - Yeah, that's what I put in here. The city clerk shall keep a memorandum of the proceedings. And the 01:30:28.581 --> 01:30:34.916 - recommendations made at the committee be named. Right. Exactly. Does the memorandum include 01:30:34.916 --> 01:30:41.870 - the recommendations? So for example, is it going to include that they all said, yes, go and research 01:30:41.870 --> 01:30:43.454 - the seven-member board 01:30:43.714 --> 01:30:53.685 - So it's not in action. So usually our memo captures who's here, our topics, which is all on the agenda, 01:30:53.685 --> 01:31:03.463 - and if there's action. So for example, what you did earlier with the transportation committee one. So 01:31:03.463 --> 01:31:10.462 - maybe change that instead of proceedings and recommendations to actions. 01:31:12.194 --> 01:31:21.402 - Yes, is there any public comment on this extensive review we've just done? Do you have any thoughts? 01:31:21.402 --> 01:31:30.520 - Okay, seeing none. We need to schedule our next meeting. Before we leave this room. Yes, please. It 01:31:30.520 --> 01:31:39.728 - was so hard to schedule this one. I thought we had set some standing ones. I was wrong. I think that 01:31:39.728 --> 01:31:41.278 - was only for the 01:31:41.474 --> 01:31:49.028 - first few months or the first half of the year. I bought October 5th, Monday at 530. Shouldn't we do 01:31:49.028 --> 01:31:56.508 - it? Shouldn't we have a meeting in September? I guess I was thinking like today is kind of the last 01:31:56.508 --> 01:32:04.063 - day of August. Right, so it's not September. So what about September 28th? At 530. Sure. Oh my gosh, 01:32:04.063 --> 01:32:09.822 - I'm on 2025. I was like, that is a Sunday. Why is my calendar on 2025? Yeah. 01:32:10.018 --> 01:32:20.880 - That's so weird. Thank you. 28th we're saying. Yeah, oh wait, 28th or 29th. Monday, that's a Monday. 01:32:20.880 --> 01:32:31.742 - Yeah, that's. Crossley does that work? I think so. I'll check, but usually me doing it on, but I can 01:32:31.742 --> 01:32:35.614 - double checking comparing tomorrow. 01:32:38.082 --> 01:32:47.477 - Thank you. All right, and let's try to keep that last Monday of the month free. In October and November 01:32:47.477 --> 01:32:56.601 - as well. OK, so should we just like post those now? Last Monday or last Monday in November. It's the 01:32:56.601 --> 01:33:06.718 - 30th week. Oh, the 30th. I missed that I have some somewhere I have to be on the 30th. I could do December 1st. 01:33:07.874 --> 01:33:17.185 - which is the Tuesday. What about October 26? This is for November. Right. I'm just checking other days. 01:33:17.185 --> 01:33:26.406 - Yeah, I can do October 26. So let's set the September 28 and October 26. OK, so I'll double check just 01:33:26.406 --> 01:33:36.702 - 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. 01:33:36.994 --> 01:33:48.378 - I'll check, and we can confirm who would be available for that one. Thank you. You're welcome. And that's 01:33:48.378 --> 01:33:59.654 - at 530, right? Yes. OK. 530 to 7. OK. OK. Well, thank you all. We will continue Title II as we are able. 01:33:59.654 --> 01:34:03.198 - Yay. We'll get there eventually.