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