WEBVTT

00:00:01.602 --> 00:00:08.339
- Let's go ahead and call the order of this meeting of the Committee on Council Processes for Monday,

00:00:08.339 --> 00:00:15.683
- September 28th, 2026. Let's just go around the table, see who's here. Start with my left. Jennifer Crossley,

00:00:15.683 --> 00:00:22.690
- Clerk's Office. And I'm Isabelle Piedmont-Smith, Chair of the Committee, City Council, District 1. Hopi

00:00:22.690 --> 00:00:29.630
- Stossberg, District 3. Courtney Daly, City Council, District 5. Sonya Zolik, City Council, District 5.

00:00:30.946 --> 00:00:40.233
- All right. So the agenda for today includes discussion of the possible expansion of the Bloomington

00:00:40.233 --> 00:00:49.521
- Public Transportation Board. Developing a process for removal of order Commission members. Improved

00:00:49.521 --> 00:00:57.694
- training on Roberts rules of order for boards and commissions, which that may be short,

00:00:58.498 --> 00:01:05.319
- Brought to my attention, that's not actually the purview of this committee, but we can touch on it.

00:01:05.319 --> 00:01:12.823
- And then we have our ongoing review of Title II. And we'll have public comment at the end to cover everything

00:01:12.823 --> 00:01:17.598
- in the meeting. Are there any additions or concerns about the agenda?

00:01:24.514 --> 00:01:31.133
- Let's move right into possible expansion of the Bloomington Public Transportation Board and Hopi, I

00:01:31.133 --> 00:01:37.819
- think you were gonna look into this. I have, our council fellow is doing some research for me on it.

00:01:37.819 --> 00:01:44.504
- So I have a sheet with pros and cons and interested parties and other Indiana cities and law and all

00:01:44.504 --> 00:01:51.123
- of that kind of stuff, which brought up a few questions. And then the Transit Board itself has also

00:01:51.123 --> 00:01:53.374
- been discussing this and so they,

00:01:53.538 --> 00:01:59.668
- assigned a couple of people to do research on that at their last meeting. And so I met with them on

00:01:59.668 --> 00:02:05.859
- Friday. And so I'm going to have it penciled in for me to go to their meeting to have a conversation

00:02:05.859 --> 00:02:12.602
- with them about it in October. And that's about where we're at with it. Like, there's not really a conclusion

00:02:12.602 --> 00:02:18.793
- or a memo or a proposal or anything like that at this point. It's just still in the research phases.

00:02:18.793 --> 00:02:19.774
- But it's going.

00:02:24.130 --> 00:02:33.458
- to the fellow who did that research, and then is continuing to follow up with some other questions that

00:02:33.458 --> 00:02:42.786
- I had about it. So Michael or Evan? Michael. They have names, you know. Thank you to Michael. OK. Next,

00:02:42.786 --> 00:02:51.934
- we have developing a process for removal of board and commission members. And this came up because of

00:02:52.322 --> 00:03:02.762
- the proposal to remove a member of the HPC. Sydney and I are both on that interview committee, so we

00:03:02.762 --> 00:03:13.409
- had a meeting last week about this. And with Larry as well. And Jennifer was there. Yeah, a lot of the

00:03:13.409 --> 00:03:20.542
- same folks. And my big takeaway from that is that we need a process.

00:03:22.690 --> 00:03:30.546
- because it was kind of, it came about in a way that not all council members understood why this was

00:03:30.546 --> 00:03:38.637
- coming about. And maybe Larry can just quickly summarize for those who weren't here last Thursday, how

00:03:38.637 --> 00:03:46.886
- it did come about that somebody was recommended for removal. Yeah, sure. So essentially this came about,

00:03:46.886 --> 00:03:52.542
- there was a, I'm gonna start at the beginning, there was a contentious,

00:03:53.410 --> 00:04:00.334
- the Historic Preservation Commission meeting that had a lot of public interest. Typically, for contentious

00:04:00.334 --> 00:04:06.934
- meetings, we expect people are very invested in that, and so you get very passionate about that. That

00:04:06.934 --> 00:04:13.663
- was actually, that happened in, was that June? That was in June of this year. There were two subsequent

00:04:13.663 --> 00:04:19.422
- meetings after that. So the item in question that was very controversial, which is about

00:04:19.554 --> 00:04:25.234
- housing related to the convention center and knocking down potential housing, the demolition, whether

00:04:25.234 --> 00:04:30.803
- the HPC could do a demolition delay. That was not on the agenda any further. They had opted. Nobody

00:04:30.803 --> 00:04:36.094
- had moved to do anything. That was a point of contention, both publicly and in the commission.

00:04:36.706 --> 00:04:43.909
- However, that decision was not the basis of any action in this regard. What happened at two subsequent

00:04:43.909 --> 00:04:50.972
- meetings is an advisory member, Mr. Cross, took issue with some of the procedural mechanisms. He did

00:04:50.972 --> 00:04:58.245
- make motions to the board, which were points of information, dubbed as points of information and points

00:04:58.245 --> 00:05:04.958
- of order. The chair had heard him out and made rulings on those. Mr. Cross continued to engage.

00:05:05.250 --> 00:05:11.674
- both delaying the meetings, but also getting heated, increasingly heated. The behavior became, it was

00:05:11.674 --> 00:05:18.161
- rude to the chair, also to other members, which violates our code of conduct that you all had put into

00:05:18.161 --> 00:05:24.962
- place within the code that's kept by the clerk. That happened at both of the, there was a July 9th meeting,

00:05:24.962 --> 00:05:31.386
- and I think it was July 24th meeting, is that right? 23rd. 23rd meeting. There were two meetings, and

00:05:31.386 --> 00:05:35.102
- essentially the conduct was very similar in both meetings.

00:05:35.394 --> 00:05:42.074
- There was a delay of I think it was closer to 40, 45 minutes during the July 9th meeting. At the end

00:05:42.074 --> 00:05:48.885
- of that discourse, Mr. Cross then packed up his stuff and left after he was not heard. A similar event

00:05:48.885 --> 00:05:55.565
- happened the following meeting. Again, there was nothing on the agenda for this. He stylized it as a

00:05:55.565 --> 00:06:02.311
- critique of the board. And very similarly, about 40 minutes of delay. There was a petitioner waiting.

00:06:02.311 --> 00:06:05.022
- There was official business on the board

00:06:05.218 --> 00:06:11.503
- the packet for the HBC to hear. They were not able to do that. And again, he packed up the stuff.

00:06:11.503 --> 00:06:18.365
- Before that, during those between those two meetings where those happen, I know the clerk had been alerted

00:06:18.365 --> 00:06:24.843
- by several staff members. I don't think it was just one and potentially board members. There was two

00:06:24.843 --> 00:06:31.641
- and you and Councilmember Zulek was as well. I was informed by the clerk's office that it was potentially

00:06:31.641 --> 00:06:33.950
- going. And so we did go and observe

00:06:34.050 --> 00:06:39.310
- the second meeting on July 23rd, just to see, to get a sense of what was happening. I mean, there's

00:06:39.310 --> 00:06:45.096
- one thing about getting, so we got a report in basically from a variety of sources. I think it was definitely

00:06:45.096 --> 00:06:50.356
- more than one just about the behavior, but then also seeing it in person to make sure like, is this

00:06:50.356 --> 00:06:55.826
- something that's in order? Is it just that tempers are kind of, you know, passionate or is it something

00:06:55.826 --> 00:06:56.510
- beyond that?

00:06:57.154 --> 00:07:02.453
- And so after looking at that, we agreed that a summary should be made and it should be presented to

00:07:02.453 --> 00:07:08.016
- council leadership. And at that time, we, the clerk deputy clerk cross Lee wrote a summary of everything

00:07:08.016 --> 00:07:13.527
- that happened, what we had observed and we had talked about that in terms of what we had observed. And,

00:07:13.527 --> 00:07:17.342
- and in the meantime, even while she was preparing that then there were.

00:07:17.506 --> 00:07:23.052
- potential violations of open door law, which is like an email asking for responses from every board

00:07:23.052 --> 00:07:28.709
- member, things like that, which at least in the city of Bloomington, we have said is a no-go zone for

00:07:28.709 --> 00:07:34.587
- open door law that is asking for official business to be taken outside of an official meeting when you're

00:07:34.587 --> 00:07:40.577
- asking for every member to respond to a particular email. So if it's not a notice meeting, that's improper,

00:07:40.577 --> 00:07:43.294
- improper business on behalf of a governing body.

00:07:45.058 --> 00:07:52.121
- Deputy Clerk Crosley presented her summary. We presented this to the council with two options. Potentially,

00:07:52.121 --> 00:07:58.792
- it could have been introduced at one of the council meetings as a motion or what we were happy to do.

00:07:58.792 --> 00:08:05.331
- Regardless, we needed to provide notice to Mr. Cross. If there were potential violations that would

00:08:05.331 --> 00:08:12.198
- have warranted his removal from the HPC, he was entitled to due process because he could only be removed

00:08:12.198 --> 00:08:14.814
- for cause. Sorry. No, no, no. Go ahead.

00:08:15.010 --> 00:08:20.491
- What led to the memo and who decided that a memo would be sent to Mr. Cross? It was a letter,

00:08:20.491 --> 00:08:26.321
- a notice letter. So we presented those options to the council leadership and the council leadership

00:08:26.321 --> 00:08:32.269
- advised that they would like the option of providing notice to him first before something happened in

00:08:32.269 --> 00:08:38.449
- a public meeting. And so that's what we did is I draft a letter based on Deputy Clerk Crosley's summaries

00:08:38.449 --> 00:08:43.230
- of those in our conversations with council leadership. I drafted a notice letter.

00:08:43.330 --> 00:08:49.216
- to make sure that we're complying with due process. There was notice of when a public hearing on the

00:08:49.216 --> 00:08:55.103
- matter would take place, and there had to be an opportunity for Mr. Cross to present his side of the

00:08:55.103 --> 00:09:01.223
- story to the council. And so we did it that way. Now, in that process, we reviewed prior recommendations

00:09:01.223 --> 00:09:07.051
- actually from this committee that were given to council in very similar but not same circumstances,

00:09:07.051 --> 00:09:09.790
- but dealing with the removal of board members.

00:09:09.922 --> 00:09:16.045
- Those were had been presented to council in the past as recommendations to follow in terms of a process

00:09:16.045 --> 00:09:21.992
- that was never formally adopted by council. And so there was no formal process by law because of all

00:09:21.992 --> 00:09:27.938
- council appointees can only be removed for cause. Indiana common law has established a series of due

00:09:27.938 --> 00:09:34.238
- process for that. And then there are different interrelated elements under the law for that. So there is a

00:09:34.562 --> 00:09:40.044
- process, a legal process that we have to follow, but in terms of what that looks like, nuts and bolts,

00:09:40.044 --> 00:09:45.739
- whether we're sending out a letter first or there's a motion being made at a meeting, there is no formally

00:09:45.739 --> 00:09:51.168
- adopted process by city council. And so in hearing this most recently, the recommendation was kind of

00:09:51.168 --> 00:09:56.543
- to bifurcate. We had the decision on this specific issue, that evidence was heard and evaluated so a

00:09:56.543 --> 00:10:02.398
- recommendation could be made to council, but also looking at what is the process that council's following and

00:10:02.530 --> 00:10:07.834
- Do we need to now present something to council where you all have an opportunity if you would like to

00:10:07.834 --> 00:10:13.294
- actually adopt a process so that everybody's on the same page about in the future, these are the avenues

00:10:13.294 --> 00:10:18.650
- and this is what it's gonna look like if we come up with similar issues. There may also be an interest

00:10:18.650 --> 00:10:23.954
- in a broader conversation about whether all members or all appointees of council really do need to be

00:10:23.954 --> 00:10:29.362
- only removed for cause. I think that that might also be a worthwhile conversation, but that's obviously

00:10:29.362 --> 00:10:30.142
- up to you all.

00:10:30.402 --> 00:10:36.880
- as well. There's no legal requirement for your own appointees to be only removed by cost. Under statute,

00:10:36.880 --> 00:10:42.803
- Indiana statute, there are some positions that have that protection under the General Assembly.

00:10:42.803 --> 00:10:49.034
- In this case, most of these positions, particularly where it's an advisory position that council has

00:10:49.034 --> 00:10:55.450
- typically added on to these boards, that has been completely a council creation as a for-cause removal.

00:10:55.450 --> 00:10:57.918
- The other option is you could also have

00:10:58.018 --> 00:11:04.420
- a tiered system where some advisory members that the council appoints serve at the pleasure of council

00:11:04.420 --> 00:11:10.698
- very similar to how they serve at the pleasure of the mayor. They can be removed for any reason that

00:11:10.698 --> 00:11:17.099
- council as a whole decides is appropriate. And then you could also have maybe you still have statutory

00:11:17.099 --> 00:11:23.750
- for cause members. So there are options for you. And as I said, regardless of whatever this this committee

00:11:23.750 --> 00:11:26.174
- decides to recommend or not recommend,

00:11:26.274 --> 00:11:32.115
- There is a legal process that has to be followed as long as you have four cause removals. And that does

00:11:32.115 --> 00:11:37.731
- require a notice and hearing provision where you do have to give notice of a very specific time and

00:11:37.731 --> 00:11:43.516
- date that somebody can be heard and an opportunity for them to be meaningfully heard before the board,

00:11:43.516 --> 00:11:49.413
- before any formal action is taken. So those are kind of your guardrails in terms of what has to be done.

00:11:49.413 --> 00:11:55.422
- And then in between what that looks like, there is flexibility for you. Sorry, that was a very long-winded

00:11:59.266 --> 00:12:05.734
- Any cases where, according to state law, we have to have for cause, we have to have cause, like Planning

00:12:05.734 --> 00:12:11.956
- Commission or some of these statutory ones? Yeah, BZA is a good example of that. Planning Commission

00:12:11.956 --> 00:12:18.177
- is a good example of that. And I could detail those for you. I don't have that right in front of me.

00:12:18.177 --> 00:12:24.830
- I think Attorney Lucas, Stephen Lucas had done that also before, had looked at some of those as comparison.

00:12:25.602 --> 00:12:32.409
- of what the statutory boards are and which have to be for cause. So I can make sure that that's up to

00:12:32.409 --> 00:12:39.150
- date and provide that to the committee. Do we currently have in our local code that any removal must

00:12:39.150 --> 00:12:45.824
- be for cause? That's correct. Any council appointee removal has to be for cause. Mayoral appointees

00:12:45.824 --> 00:12:48.894
- are still serve at the pleasure of the mayor.

00:12:57.026 --> 00:13:04.538
- Also, just to clarify, so last week at that committee meeting, there was a recommendation that's gonna

00:13:04.538 --> 00:13:12.049
- go to council. Correct. And so kind of like the process that's being maybe clumsily followed right now

00:13:12.049 --> 00:13:19.707
- is that Mr. Cross was notified of council hearings. Was he also notified of the committee meeting? There

00:13:19.707 --> 00:13:24.958
- wasn't separate written notice, so the way that notice works is because

00:13:25.090 --> 00:13:31.280
- There was a formal written notice about when council would continue to hear it. So council took up the

00:13:31.280 --> 00:13:37.350
- business in the meeting and at the meeting then there was a chosen and announced continuance of that

00:13:37.350 --> 00:13:43.420
- to the next meeting. And then at the next meeting it was announced in the meeting that they would do

00:13:43.420 --> 00:13:49.550
- this process. So he was he given notice of it. Yes. Because he was in attendance and heard that those

00:13:49.550 --> 00:13:54.718
- recommendations were made. And so it did satisfy that particular part. So in terms of

00:13:56.322 --> 00:14:03.178
- So in terms of a process, because we're supposed to be talking about a process, right, for like future

00:14:03.178 --> 00:14:09.967
- removal. Right now the process went, it came to the full council, council referred it to a committee,

00:14:09.967 --> 00:14:16.623
- and then the committee is gonna bring a recommendation back to the full council. But when it was in

00:14:16.623 --> 00:14:23.478
- front of the full council, Mr. Cross didn't have an opportunity to respond. Did he respond to anything

00:14:23.478 --> 00:14:25.342
- in the interview committee?

00:14:26.242 --> 00:14:31.339
- Right, he responded in writing, but the way that you made that sound, Larry, is that he needs to be

00:14:31.339 --> 00:14:36.538
- able to respond verbally. Just in writing satisfies that requirement. So there's not a guarantee that

00:14:36.538 --> 00:14:41.839
- you'll be able to orally present in front of council or comment. But what he did, what was done is that

00:14:41.839 --> 00:14:46.987
- you have to have a reasonable amount of time to submit your appeal or your version of the story. Mr.

00:14:46.987 --> 00:14:52.390
- Crust did that in writing and provided a substantial amount of materials that were passed to both council

00:14:52.390 --> 00:14:55.550
- and the committee. OK, so that response in writing satisfied.

00:14:55.810 --> 00:15:02.649
- that requirement, okay. Yeah, it doesn't have to be verbal. That could be something you bake in and

00:15:02.649 --> 00:15:09.488
- make very clear. And similar with the case law on how long that notice has to be. So that period of

00:15:09.488 --> 00:15:16.396
- time, five days is kind of the standard that cases have looked at in terms of a reasonable amount of

00:15:16.396 --> 00:15:23.303
- time. That can be extended as well. So those kind of matters are the details in which a policy could

00:15:23.303 --> 00:15:25.150
- certainly take up is like,

00:15:25.314 --> 00:15:35.354
- Once you give formal notice of, hey, you potentially are in violation. You could be considered for removal.

00:15:35.354 --> 00:15:44.742
- You have X number of days to provide your materials to counsel. Those kind of things would be really

00:15:44.742 --> 00:15:54.782
- ripe for having a very explicit policy. So is this something that committee members want to brainstorm now?

00:15:56.290 --> 00:16:04.739
- one or two of us to bring forward a proposal for a process, or how do you think is the best way to proceed?

00:16:04.739 --> 00:16:12.797
- Well, what else do you think we need to discuss about this? I mean, just the details. Like, what's the

00:16:12.797 --> 00:16:21.011
- policy gonna say? Right. Is it that anybody can bring a complaint or a concern to council staff? Council

00:16:21.011 --> 00:16:24.766
- staff will investigate, consult with the clerk,

00:16:26.370 --> 00:16:33.379
- I mean, do we just want to codify what happened here, or do we want to change anything about how it

00:16:33.379 --> 00:16:40.387
- came about? Well, and do we want to codify something, or do we want to have it? I'm sorry, that was

00:16:40.387 --> 00:16:47.816
- the wrong word. OK. I would put it in our rules of procedure. OK. Kind of like the way our public comment

00:16:47.816 --> 00:16:54.965
- rules of procedure are. Yeah. I mean, I think the way, except for the two city council meetings where

00:16:54.965 --> 00:16:55.806
- we ended up

00:16:55.906 --> 00:17:04.219
- Ultimately, right, the first one we punted to the next one, and then the next one we said actually referred

00:17:04.219 --> 00:17:12.224
- to interview committee, cutting those out. I think if we say basically the structure of how things went

00:17:12.224 --> 00:17:20.076
- down, you know, the notification, the chance for him to make a rebuttal or a defense, referring it to

00:17:20.076 --> 00:17:25.310
- interview committee, and then bringing those recommendations to the

00:17:25.538 --> 00:17:33.076
- Council, I think that process makes sense. I don't know what else we would do. Apart from switching

00:17:33.076 --> 00:17:40.689
- up the order, it might make more sense for Interview Committee to hear it first. Jennifer is nodding

00:17:40.689 --> 00:17:48.377
- her head. But that is what happened. I'm sorry, yeah, I was saying cut out the City Council. Yes. Oh,

00:17:48.377 --> 00:17:51.166
- I'm sorry. I didn't understand that.

00:17:52.738 --> 00:18:00.005
- But it's also helpful for the full city council to hear the back story. So I don't know at what point,

00:18:00.005 --> 00:18:07.131
- you know, um, I mean, that was why the first time it came to city council, we knew the story because

00:18:07.131 --> 00:18:14.186
- it had come before us here in our last, um, CCP committee meeting. That was really redundant that I

00:18:14.186 --> 00:18:20.606
- said, CCP committee, but, um, so we knew the story, but I realized, you know, when it was,

00:18:20.930 --> 00:18:28.529
- before city council that following week, most of the council, our colleagues did not know what was happening.

00:18:28.529 --> 00:18:35.437
- They didn't, hadn't heard. I mean, I had heard about it because of emails prior to the CCP meeting.

00:18:35.437 --> 00:18:42.414
- So that's a different sort of. Yeah. There were emails just to CCP members, but then later there was

00:18:42.414 --> 00:18:48.286
- an email to the full council. I don't know if it was to the full council or just us.

00:18:50.018 --> 00:18:56.978
- But my point is, at what point do we want the full council to know the full story to be prepared? Is

00:18:56.978 --> 00:19:03.937
- it just that night of where it's introduced or maybe a little bit in advance of, hey, heads up, this

00:19:03.937 --> 00:19:10.966
- is going to be coming? That's my question. Well, to improve transparency with all council members who

00:19:10.966 --> 00:19:18.270
- would have to vote on the removal, maybe it is important to have that step where it comes to the council.

00:19:20.130 --> 00:19:26.706
- Because then the council would have all the documentation and then the council can refer to interview

00:19:26.706 --> 00:19:33.410
- committee. Yeah. Unless it's so obvious that everybody's like, I want to vote now. Well, here's another

00:19:33.410 --> 00:19:40.050
- thought. It's almost like with council members, like I do agree. I think that the process first should

00:19:40.050 --> 00:19:41.662
- be the committee because

00:19:41.890 --> 00:19:49.052
- much like how you all are doing your recommendations for appointments and reappointments, that goes

00:19:49.052 --> 00:19:56.213
- to the interview committee first. You all make a memo, and then the council could chew on the memo,

00:19:56.213 --> 00:20:03.375
- because it was expressed beforehand that people wanted to see a memo to look at appointments before

00:20:03.375 --> 00:20:11.038
- deciding to vote on those appointments. So ideally, what you all could do is use that same kind of method.

00:20:11.426 --> 00:20:18.713
- have the discussion within the committee, and the committee makes that recommendation. Of course, our

00:20:18.713 --> 00:20:26.214
- office would put it in a memo to include it in the council packet, and from there, it could be discussed

00:20:26.214 --> 00:20:33.573
- if there's a motion and a second. It could be discussed upon the full council, and then whether or not

00:20:33.573 --> 00:20:40.574
- the full council would like to take a little bit more time to digest on some of that information,

00:20:40.994 --> 00:20:49.052
- that is a fair point, but at least it's already come through the committee instead of going to the full

00:20:49.052 --> 00:20:56.799
- council and then deciding let's kick it back to the interview committee for the interview committee

00:20:56.799 --> 00:21:04.779
- to discuss it and then push it back to the full council. It's like you cut out some of that meaty part

00:21:04.779 --> 00:21:10.590
- to speak. I'm also hungry. But I think that's something that you all could

00:21:11.522 --> 00:21:18.201
- And then, you know, in terms of what Councilman Priemont-Smith had said, like, who gets to make that

00:21:18.201 --> 00:21:24.946
- recommendation? Again, that could be the staff liaison or myself or somebody that knows the situation

00:21:24.946 --> 00:21:31.824
- that's happening, could mention that to the liaison that's a part of that interview committee, and then

00:21:31.824 --> 00:21:38.767
- that is brought to the attention of the full committee to kind of start that process to me to talk about

00:21:38.767 --> 00:21:41.214
- what has come about, just a thought.

00:21:42.210 --> 00:21:51.158
- issue is that while we have taken so long in this process, we've lost two historic preservation commissioners

00:21:51.158 --> 00:21:59.374
- who resigned as a direct product of this entire situation. Yes, including the chair. So, um, yeah, I

00:21:59.374 --> 00:22:07.509
- would suggest that we come up with some sort of process that doesn't need to go quickly, but can if

00:22:07.509 --> 00:22:11.902
- needed, because kicking it down the road is, could be

00:22:12.514 --> 00:22:20.004
- detrimental for some of these commissions, especially when HPC in particular already has quite a lot

00:22:20.004 --> 00:22:27.495
- of quorum issues. So I feel like what I heard about this incident way back in the beginning was that

00:22:27.495 --> 00:22:35.134
- council staff got the original complaint and then ran it through the executive, the council leadership

00:22:35.134 --> 00:22:39.806
- to determine whether or not to continue with notice and stuff.

00:22:39.938 --> 00:22:47.787
- what if that runs through the interview committee instead? And so then the interview committee decides

00:22:47.787 --> 00:22:55.637
- at that point whether or not it's worth investigating more. And then staff can give that notice that's

00:22:55.637 --> 00:23:03.410
- required and it goes to the full council. And then if necessary, it gets kicked back to the interview

00:23:03.410 --> 00:23:09.278
- committee. Because one of the things that I noticed when reading through the

00:23:09.858 --> 00:23:15.850
- the code of conduct is that, you know, you could consider the code of some pieces of the code of conduct

00:23:15.850 --> 00:23:21.727
- sort of discretionary, right. And like, you know, individual judgments. So if there seems to be debate

00:23:21.727 --> 00:23:27.548
- over whether or not it actually violated code of conduct, then maybe kicking it back to the interview

00:23:27.548 --> 00:23:33.368
- committee. Like, cause I mean, there might even be debate amongst the interview committee, but I also

00:23:33.368 --> 00:23:37.534
- wonder sometimes like how hard it might be for an interview committee to

00:23:37.698 --> 00:23:43.924
- be having that discussion about somebody that they themselves appointed. Like in some situations, I

00:23:43.924 --> 00:23:50.150
- wonder if that would be more challenging than others. So then maybe there might be value in kicking

00:23:50.150 --> 00:23:56.500
- it to a different interview committee to have that discussion too. So maybe part of the process is if

00:23:56.500 --> 00:24:02.726
- necessary, it gets kicked to an interview committee and then it gets decided in that moment. But if

00:24:02.726 --> 00:24:07.582
- it's clear cut and not necessary, then that maybe meets, if you know what I'm

00:24:08.098 --> 00:24:14.171
- You know what I'm trying to say? That might meet your need for if we can move it faster, then we wouldn't

00:24:14.171 --> 00:24:19.958
- have to kick it to the interview committee because it would be more clear cut and then council could

00:24:19.958 --> 00:24:25.687
- make a decision the first time they see it. Definitely. I would not suggest switching the interview

00:24:25.687 --> 00:24:31.646
- committees just because the liaisons know the most about what the individual boards and commissions do.

00:24:35.554 --> 00:24:41.692
- I think just in terms of information. Yeah, I guess I just want to like, in terms of the process that

00:24:41.692 --> 00:24:47.890
- we write, do we want to write the process as if it needs to go back to an interview committee, it goes

00:24:47.890 --> 00:24:53.968
- back to the same interview committee, or it goes back to an interview committee to be decided by the

00:24:53.968 --> 00:25:00.347
- full council. And that would kind of default to the same interview committee, but it wouldn't necessarily

00:25:00.347 --> 00:25:05.342
- require that. I don't understand. I guess more options can lead to more confusion.

00:25:06.242 --> 00:25:12.634
- and less accountability in a way. So I don't really understand what the problem is in sending it to

00:25:12.634 --> 00:25:19.154
- the interview committee that recommended appointment of this person. I mean, if the person is a buddy

00:25:19.154 --> 00:25:25.611
- of mine, I would recuse myself anyway. But then we have an interview committee, because we only have

00:25:25.611 --> 00:25:32.131
- interviews committees of three people. So that's why. Well, I'm also not appointing my buddies. Could

00:25:32.131 --> 00:25:36.222
- it be a buddy of mine who's appointed by interview committee A?

00:25:36.354 --> 00:25:43.098
- That could come up in any configuration that you know somebody or you work with somebody and then you

00:25:43.098 --> 00:25:50.304
- work with yourself and then you can say the House President can appoint somebody in their place or something

00:25:50.304 --> 00:25:56.982
- for this particular topic. I'm just trying to give enough flexibility for what the policy says to do

00:25:56.982 --> 00:26:03.858
- that we can think about like further down the road than the nine of us that are currently serving. Like

00:26:03.858 --> 00:26:05.246
- just in case there's

00:26:06.530 --> 00:26:15.743
- I mean, it's not going into code, so I think there is innately some degree of flexibility. So I think

00:26:15.743 --> 00:26:24.866
- I didn't understand one part of what Hopi and Sydney were saying. So it might not go to an interview

00:26:24.866 --> 00:26:31.550
- committee at all? Was that an option? I suggested that it go there first.

00:26:31.906 --> 00:26:41.176
- to get that initial kind of like discussion with staff about whether or not to even give a notice instead

00:26:41.176 --> 00:26:49.920
- of going to the leadership to go to the interview committee. That makes sense to me. So what I hear

00:26:49.920 --> 00:26:59.452
- you say is not even entertaining the idea of leadership, but once a problem has been notified to immediately

00:26:59.452 --> 00:27:01.726
- kick it to the interview.

00:27:04.834 --> 00:27:14.428
- that makes more sense than leadership. I mean, maybe leadership too, but in terms of making a decision

00:27:14.428 --> 00:27:23.742
- whether or not to give a notice. The only problem there is you have to schedule a meeting. It might

00:27:23.742 --> 00:27:33.150
- not be as fast. That was my thought. Could we say the chair of an interview committee? But the chair

00:27:34.050 --> 00:27:41.276
- Like, let's say it's one of the commissions where I'm the liaison, and Sydney, as chair, doesn't know

00:27:41.276 --> 00:27:48.714
- what's going on with them. But she can't talk to me because we're on a committee. So that doesn't really

00:27:48.714 --> 00:27:56.081
- help. Holden, should it be the liaison? Yeah, I think that's what I was saying. Like, the liaison could

00:27:56.081 --> 00:28:00.190
- bring it to the, like, a problem has been notified, boom.

00:28:00.770 --> 00:28:09.138
- you know whether it's something that has been told to me or staff knows immediately who the liaison

00:28:09.138 --> 00:28:17.590
- is and usually they'll you know notify that. I would also ask for the if it is staff liaison like to

00:28:17.590 --> 00:28:26.209
- keep me in the loop too so that in the event that something's unusually I am but yeah. So yeah I would

00:28:26.209 --> 00:28:30.142
- agree I think it could be the liaison. So then

00:28:31.426 --> 00:28:38.241
- Plan is reviewed by staff. It's communicated to the council staff liaison and the liaison decides, is

00:28:38.241 --> 00:28:45.323
- this valid enough to keep on pursuing it? And then they get notice and they get an opportunity to respond

00:28:45.323 --> 00:28:52.072
- with that notice, but then it still goes to the interview committee before going to council. So that

00:28:52.072 --> 00:28:59.354
- notice is, it's going to be discussed in the interview committee. I would think for the sake of transparency

00:28:59.354 --> 00:29:00.958
- that the liaison should

00:29:02.050 --> 00:29:09.696
- like in order not to make a quorum for like because I would think that we like we could work together

00:29:09.696 --> 00:29:17.418
- where we could schedule the meeting because my concern would be is that you know who's to say that the

00:29:17.418 --> 00:29:25.214
- liaisons like this isn't a problem and just kind of like go away with it. I think once for transparency

00:29:25.214 --> 00:29:27.838
- once a problem has been identified

00:29:28.098 --> 00:29:35.290
- it is up to the liaisons to express that there is an issue so that we can schedule the meeting. And

00:29:35.290 --> 00:29:42.843
- I would assume the interview committee could talk about that as a whole to express if there is. It could

00:29:42.843 --> 00:29:50.251
- be that one person might not think it's a big deal, but other two are, or vice versa. So I would think

00:29:50.251 --> 00:29:54.782
- that once something has been notified, just for you all not to

00:29:55.650 --> 00:30:04.367
- self-diagnose and just say, nope, not a big deal. Just go away. And then you guys get accused of not

00:30:04.367 --> 00:30:13.342
- being transparent and honest. Therefore, yeah, I think liaison notifies that automatically kind of jump

00:30:13.342 --> 00:30:19.038
- start something where committee has to be involved and discussed.

00:30:20.066 --> 00:30:26.355
- I think it's also protection from the opposite, right? So nobody has a vendetta against a particular

00:30:26.355 --> 00:30:32.706
- person or there's like a particular type of discrimination going on because it's, I think some of the

00:30:32.706 --> 00:30:39.120
- confusion here was about whether this is viewpoint discrimination, whether it had to do with the topic

00:30:39.120 --> 00:30:45.409
- or not, as opposed to just neutrally trying to apply the rules. So a complaint goes to council staff

00:30:45.409 --> 00:30:46.654
- or? Clerk's office.

00:30:47.938 --> 00:30:57.113
- Council staff still has the job of investigating. Would that be accurate? Since it's a council appointee.

00:30:57.113 --> 00:31:05.942
- Yeah, cause I think that that's like, that's where I'm stuck right now is that who gets to decide the

00:31:05.942 --> 00:31:15.204
- initial, like is this, I'll say legitimate or real or. I think council staff could investigate and collect

00:31:15.204 --> 00:31:17.022
- evidence and present

00:31:17.570 --> 00:31:23.696
- their findings to the liaison. Or to the interview committee. I was going to say just to the interview

00:31:23.696 --> 00:31:29.704
- committee. And it could be referred fairly early, so there's no quote unquote investigation. I mean,

00:31:29.704 --> 00:31:35.652
- when I say investigation, too, I mean, these are public meetings. And so you can go. That's kind of

00:31:35.652 --> 00:31:41.719
- the beauty of it, which is nice, because you go observe just as someone in the audience. And then you

00:31:41.719 --> 00:31:44.990
- want to make sure all avenues of information are open.

00:31:45.122 --> 00:31:50.490
- to you. So it doesn't matter where that's coming from as long as it's getting into this process. So

00:31:50.490 --> 00:31:56.126
- as long as it's getting to if it's going to be the liaison that takes it to the whole board or the whole

00:31:56.126 --> 00:32:01.494
- committee. I think you want to accept as many avenues as possible. The investigation or any kind of

00:32:01.494 --> 00:32:07.238
- fat gathering after that can happen after the recommendation. It can happen during that process of notice.

00:32:07.238 --> 00:32:12.821
- So because you're going to need to keep that open while you're accepting and fairly evaluating anything

00:32:12.821 --> 00:32:14.270
- that you get back from the

00:32:14.434 --> 00:32:21.855
- the individual who's the subject of the investigation or potential removal, right? It shouldn't seem

00:32:21.855 --> 00:32:29.202
- like it's a done deal before that because ultimately the council has to weigh the recommendation of

00:32:29.202 --> 00:32:36.916
- the committee even, or all the information before they vote to remove. Does that make sense? So a letter

00:32:36.916 --> 00:32:44.190
- would go out to the individual saying, interview committee C is going to review a possible removal

00:32:44.610 --> 00:32:50.321
- from this commission based on X, Y, and Z, you're welcome to attend and or give written feedback and

00:32:50.321 --> 00:32:55.975
- the committee will consider it, that kind of thing. It could happen like that. It could also happen

00:32:55.975 --> 00:33:01.743
- where the committee considers it and direct staff at that point. So the committee could just consider

00:33:01.743 --> 00:33:07.623
- what information they have and say, is this worth following up? Do we think this could be substantiated

00:33:07.623 --> 00:33:10.846
- and then direct staff on what to do next, whether that's

00:33:11.170 --> 00:33:17.471
- you can issue the notice and we want to hear this at a follow up committee meeting based on what's received

00:33:17.471 --> 00:33:23.481
- at the notice and then be referred to council ultimately or the committee could just say that. I think

00:33:23.481 --> 00:33:29.549
- that's what I suggested the first time I was concerned that sometimes it takes a while to get interview

00:33:29.549 --> 00:33:35.500
- committees together to meet. Yeah I've been convinced that we need to do it anyway. I was like I feel

00:33:35.500 --> 00:33:40.926
- like we just like circled around to what I proposed the first time and now I'm confused. OK.

00:33:44.226 --> 00:33:51.680
- subsequent meetings that we kicked it to. Well, and also maybe that there were two HPC meetings that,

00:33:51.680 --> 00:33:59.281
- you know. Also, things happened continuously, so there were things happening even after this, you know,

00:33:59.281 --> 00:34:06.589
- and so that was also part of it. If this is helpful, I don't know how long you all want to spend on

00:34:06.589 --> 00:34:10.974
- this, because I know you have limited time in your meeting.

00:34:11.842 --> 00:34:18.319
- This is also something if you wanted to direct staff to come up with a proposal for you all, that way

00:34:18.319 --> 00:34:24.797
- you can have something in writing and start picking it apart and like moving things around as you see

00:34:24.797 --> 00:34:31.338
- fit. We're happy to do that as well. I just kind of broke this down. So I can read what I have written

00:34:31.338 --> 00:34:37.688
- down and you all can tell me if this is what you're thinking that we all said. Do you want me to do

00:34:37.688 --> 00:34:41.054
- that? All right. One complaint is received by staff.

00:34:41.378 --> 00:34:47.223
- staff investigate and bring information to the relevant interview committee complaint. Um, if complaint

00:34:47.223 --> 00:34:53.011
- is substantiated by the interview committee, notice is given to the commission member and then there's

00:34:53.011 --> 00:34:58.743
- notice to the commission member opportunity for response by the commission member. And then you bring

00:34:58.743 --> 00:35:04.363
- it to full council and refer it back to the interview committee if necessary. If it's referred back

00:35:04.363 --> 00:35:09.758
- to the interview committee, then they review it and bring a recommendation to the full council.

00:35:10.082 --> 00:35:19.200
- If not, then the full council makes a decision. Well, I guess it just kind of depends on like the way

00:35:19.200 --> 00:35:28.585
- this is written right now is that notice is not given to the commission member until after the interview

00:35:28.585 --> 00:35:37.345
- committee meeting. And so that's where like, depending on the situation, the interview committee,

00:35:37.345 --> 00:35:38.686
- you know, and,

00:35:41.634 --> 00:35:47.712
- might not have a recommendation to bring. And that's where like, you know, it's like how much debate

00:35:47.712 --> 00:35:53.850
- might there be and the interview committee themselves, you know, could come to the meeting and all of

00:35:53.850 --> 00:36:00.409
- them say like, yeah, I think that we need to remove. But if there's dispute amongst the interview committee,

00:36:00.409 --> 00:36:06.728
- then the rest of council members might not feel clarity over the situation like in terms of the response

00:36:06.728 --> 00:36:07.390
- and all of

00:36:07.490 --> 00:36:15.551
- the stuff. And so that's why maybe it would have to get kicked back to the interview committee for the

00:36:15.551 --> 00:36:24.081
- interview committee to really suss out that debate and discussion. My concern with this is that's convening.

00:36:24.081 --> 00:36:32.298
- So if I understood correctly, the complaint goes to the interview committee, but this first notification

00:36:32.298 --> 00:36:37.150
- for the interview committee to convene them to talk about it,

00:36:37.826 --> 00:36:45.058
- the commission member has not been notified yet, has not had time to defend themselves. That's the way

00:36:45.058 --> 00:36:52.360
- it's written down right now. But then based on the finding of that interview committee, if they decide,

00:36:52.360 --> 00:36:59.591
- yes, this is something substantial here, then the commission member gets notified and the next meeting

00:36:59.591 --> 00:37:06.683
- it goes to the city council. Yeah. That's the way it's written right now. Yeah, I'm just making sure

00:37:06.683 --> 00:37:07.806
- that I'm clear.

00:37:07.970 --> 00:37:12.921
- Yeah, that's the way it's written right now because there was that whole discussion about, well, who

00:37:12.921 --> 00:37:17.824
- should decide if that letter of violation gets sent out at all. Right. And so then it was like, OK,

00:37:17.824 --> 00:37:22.775
- I guess the whole interview committee is going to decide, which means they've got to meet and decide

00:37:22.775 --> 00:37:27.825
- whether or not it's even worth talking about. So without like there wouldn't be a decision made by the

00:37:27.825 --> 00:37:32.727
- interview committee at that point in terms of a recommendation for removal or not. It would just be

00:37:32.727 --> 00:37:36.894
- like, yeah, send the notice and let's get the response and let's like talk about it.

00:37:37.314 --> 00:37:46.046
- So after the notification of possible removal is sent to the individual, that person has a chance to

00:37:46.046 --> 00:37:54.865
- respond. Does it then go to the interview committee again? What I have written down as it goes to the

00:37:54.865 --> 00:38:03.510
- full council, but it could go back to the interview committee next time. But then when we say it, I

00:38:03.510 --> 00:38:05.758
- think that should include

00:38:05.922 --> 00:38:12.973
- both a memo from the interview committee, why we sent this individual this letter and the rebuttal from

00:38:12.973 --> 00:38:19.821
- the individual. That would be in the packet for the council. I'm wondering the value of taking it to

00:38:19.821 --> 00:38:27.075
- the council. Yeah, or it could just go back to the individual. It feels like that just extends the process

00:38:27.075 --> 00:38:34.262
- by at least another week, if not more. So I think we should cut that step out. I think the liaison should

00:38:34.262 --> 00:38:35.550
- make the decision.

00:38:36.962 --> 00:38:43.964
- There is not one other council member that would have been able to make the same level of informed call

00:38:43.964 --> 00:38:50.832
- as me for HPC. Just because we all know our commissioners or we should. But you only got to make that

00:38:50.832 --> 00:38:57.565
- call because you're vice president of the council. That is true. That is the reason that I think it

00:38:57.565 --> 00:39:04.634
- would be worth having the liaison to make the decision. Maybe we should have the liaison and the council

00:39:04.634 --> 00:39:06.654
- president make that decision.

00:39:06.754 --> 00:39:14.509
- So then it's joint, but what if the liaison and the council president are on the same interview committee?

00:39:14.509 --> 00:39:21.901
- Do we kick it to vice president? I think that makes sense. We can't put on the president's hat. So as

00:39:21.901 --> 00:39:29.220
- a liaison, I would rather not make the decision. I would rather not. I would rather have a committee

00:39:29.220 --> 00:39:34.366
- do it. Well, I had agreed with the reasoning for not putting it all on

00:39:37.442 --> 00:39:44.781
- I understand your argument 100%. I mean, yeah, the liaison who hopefully knows the commission better

00:39:44.781 --> 00:39:52.121
- is on that team, but it's still a team, and it's not one person saying yes or no. I guess, like, how

00:39:52.121 --> 00:39:59.533
- much are we willing to hold up over process is my question. Because, like, we lost commission members

00:39:59.533 --> 00:40:06.654
- to process this time. So if we choose process, that's fine, but we're sacrificing something else.

00:40:08.290 --> 00:40:16.026
- Well, was it process, or was it that, I mean? Process and a decision. I mean, this was an exceptionally

00:40:16.026 --> 00:40:23.688
- long, exceptionally long process. Yeah, but it was exceptionally long, partly because of budget season

00:40:23.688 --> 00:40:31.425
- stuff, and so there weren't very many regular meetings, and that happens all the time. Right, and yeah.

00:40:31.425 --> 00:40:37.822
- Cutting out that city council in between, until the final, before the final decision,

00:40:38.530 --> 00:40:45.679
- that would help prevent that. I think we were bumbling, to be honest. We didn't know what we were doing

00:40:45.679 --> 00:40:52.760
- because we didn't have a process. And I, you know, that's fine. We were figuring it out, you know, but

00:40:52.760 --> 00:40:59.290
- unfortunately there were casualties along the way. So now that's what we're trying to prevent.

00:40:59.290 --> 00:41:06.646
- And I think, I just think the biggest stumbling block with what we have, are you kidding me? My computer's

00:41:06.646 --> 00:41:08.158
- about to die already?

00:41:09.826 --> 00:41:17.546
- That is a big stumbling block. Sorry, it was fully charged when I sat down. I just think the biggest

00:41:17.546 --> 00:41:25.266
- stumbling block will be getting the council, the interview committees together twice within. I think

00:41:25.266 --> 00:41:33.138
- when they get scheduled out, they have to be scheduled like at the same time. Be like this Tuesday and

00:41:33.138 --> 00:41:37.342
- next Tuesday, do it like a week apart from each other.

00:41:37.954 --> 00:41:45.006
- commit them now so that if at the first meeting the interview committee decides this is a nothing burger,

00:41:45.006 --> 00:41:51.992
- we can dismiss it, great, go ahead and cancel that meeting for a week from today, you know. I just think

00:41:51.992 --> 00:41:59.111
- you're putting too much on the interview committee with having those meetings like that. And to be honest,

00:41:59.111 --> 00:42:06.430
- it's already a little difficult to schedule and juggle like nine different schedules for interview committees

00:42:06.786 --> 00:42:13.948
- And so I think it's almost like you're working harder than you need to be. I just think that ideally,

00:42:13.948 --> 00:42:21.392
- like if I'm trying to think of it from a processes standpoint, because like the clerk's office and myself

00:42:21.392 --> 00:42:28.624
- will have to be involved. And so that's like times two. And then, you know, we're adding more meetings

00:42:28.624 --> 00:42:35.646
- to your already busy schedules to discuss something like that. And then if we're asking a volunteer

00:42:35.810 --> 00:42:42.444
- who's not getting paid to come in and defend themselves for, you know, that's more time that we are

00:42:42.444 --> 00:42:49.343
- kind of spending, and then eventually it will get kicked to the council for the vote. And I think that,

00:42:49.343 --> 00:42:56.242
- and I don't, maybe in my head, I just think it's just a little bit more simpler of it just really, just

00:42:56.242 --> 00:43:03.075
- having that conversation with the liaison, like, and when I hear you all say like, well, maybe you can

00:43:03.075 --> 00:43:05.662
- talk to, you know, council leadership,

00:43:06.210 --> 00:43:13.900
- My thought that I would give to you all is, if a council liaison and council leadership are at odds

00:43:13.900 --> 00:43:22.050
- with that decision, then who gets to say, I'm right, you're wrong, and vice versa? Like, does the council

00:43:22.050 --> 00:43:29.509
- president who isn't okay with this move, you know, Trump's, that's a really bad way to say that,

00:43:29.509 --> 00:43:34.046
- you know, goes over, or takes precedence over the liaison,

00:43:34.242 --> 00:43:42.926
- and then that ceases or do you just put it to the ownership of, you know, like the liaison and I can

00:43:42.926 --> 00:43:51.695
- have the conversation and then we schedule that meeting for the council committee to talk, to present

00:43:51.695 --> 00:44:00.465
- that and to, you know, have that as a discussion. I just think if we're adding, that's a little, with

00:44:00.465 --> 00:44:02.270
- your busy schedules,

00:44:02.626 --> 00:44:14.134
- That's a lot of meetings that you are putting yourselves up on. And not to mention all the other committee

00:44:14.134 --> 00:44:25.103
- things that you all are also responsible for too. Since he offered, I would be inclined to take Larry

00:44:25.103 --> 00:44:32.094
- up on the staff comes up with a proposal that we can look at and

00:44:32.322 --> 00:44:38.096
- comment on at our next meeting. Is that, are you sure you have bandwidth? Yeah, we can do that. I mean,

00:44:38.096 --> 00:44:43.869
- we have a new staff person coming in. Yeah, yeah, we can do it. When's your next meeting? It's in about

00:44:43.869 --> 00:44:49.532
- a month. Yeah, we can do that. This meeting on the 26th. Yeah. Yeah, so, and then at that point, Jake

00:44:49.532 --> 00:44:55.306
- will be on board, so I'll incorporate Jake into that process to make sure that he's up to speed so that

00:44:55.306 --> 00:45:01.246
- there's... Is that okay with you all? Because it seems like there are too many details to try to hash out.

00:45:01.922 --> 00:45:08.122
- And just hearing it orally, I also forget parts of what Obi said. I mean, that's fine. I mean, I think

00:45:08.122 --> 00:45:14.201
- that that is definitely the thing to do, is to put something on paper and then hash through it. It's

00:45:14.201 --> 00:45:20.401
- just a question, I guess, in terms of the order that we want, because I feel like the four of us right

00:45:20.401 --> 00:45:26.481
- now are having a real debate over just the basic order of presentation. And so I'm wondering if it's

00:45:26.481 --> 00:45:29.310
- actually going to help if we don't settle that

00:45:30.050 --> 00:45:39.275
- debate now, like I feel like we're just gonna have the same debate again. So what I'm hearing from Jennifer

00:45:39.275 --> 00:45:47.987
- is, and maybe from others as well, is that we wanna try to reduce, that there's value in reducing the

00:45:47.987 --> 00:45:56.528
- number of interview committee meetings to just one meeting if possible. So we could go back to say,

00:45:56.528 --> 00:45:59.518
- council president, vice president,

00:45:59.842 --> 00:46:06.127
- fields it to start with and decides or consults with the liaison, I don't know. I think I know what

00:46:06.127 --> 00:46:12.412
- kind of reaction this is going to get, but I'll just say, do we, why wouldn't we just automatically

00:46:12.412 --> 00:46:18.760
- take it to the interview committee rather than fielding it first and being like, hey, this has been,

00:46:18.760 --> 00:46:25.171
- this complaint has been lodged. Take every complaint and assume that it's a substantiated one instead

00:46:25.171 --> 00:46:28.062
- of. Not assume that it's a substantiated one,

00:46:28.226 --> 00:46:34.664
- in the same interview committee, have the evidence compiled, have the response from, you know, have

00:46:34.664 --> 00:46:41.166
- already informed the commissioner, have their response, talk about it and say, do we want to? What's

00:46:41.166 --> 00:46:47.668
- that call? Because they're the call of whether or not to inform the commissioner. Because that's the

00:46:47.668 --> 00:46:54.814
- call that like we're debating right now is whether or not to inform the commissioner and who gets to decide if

00:46:55.298 --> 00:47:04.135
- that initial right that's what I'm saying like we just automatically take it as so hey we're gonna hear

00:47:04.135 --> 00:47:12.716
- every complaint yeah yeah well that's what I'm that's what I'm asking like is this opening us up for

00:47:12.716 --> 00:47:21.298
- complaints like how petty do people on the commissions get do they lodge a lot of complaints okay so

00:47:21.298 --> 00:47:23.422
- yeah you could purposely

00:47:23.906 --> 00:47:29.707
- the way any of these systems are gonna go and processes you're gonna develop, there's gonna be a lot

00:47:29.707 --> 00:47:35.451
- of what I would think of as off ramps for no action. So it's kind of like, because you're depriving

00:47:35.451 --> 00:47:41.368
- somebody of something that's thus triggering the due process thing, there's a lot of opportunities for

00:47:41.368 --> 00:47:47.169
- the council not to take action. It actually has to be something fairly extraordinarily and goes down

00:47:47.169 --> 00:47:52.798
- the path that ends in removal of somebody. So maybe it's not gonna be a one size fits all because

00:47:52.930 --> 00:47:58.640
- you have things like the liaison's choice and information and dealing with information and what qualifies.

00:47:58.640 --> 00:48:04.297
- There's always going to be some discretion in that level. But once you get into an actual process, that's

00:48:04.297 --> 00:48:09.633
- where you're protecting the person and making sure that there's the touchstones of transparency and

00:48:09.633 --> 00:48:15.023
- action and everybody being on board are the main things. But there's still a lot of opportunities to

00:48:15.023 --> 00:48:20.413
- say, actually, we're not going to take action in this case. Yeah, I mean, what I was proposing, that

00:48:20.413 --> 00:48:22.334
- was the first step of that meeting.

00:48:22.434 --> 00:48:30.723
- Just kind of combining them since we're trying to cut down on meetings and who gets to make the decision.

00:48:30.723 --> 00:48:38.856
- So that was just one way of doing that. Kind of separating out those two actions in one meeting. I also

00:48:38.856 --> 00:48:47.067
- was hesitant to even say anything because I understand why that's not necessarily the best plan. I think

00:48:47.067 --> 00:48:49.726
- that that's where I was trying to

00:48:53.634 --> 00:49:01.582
- from the interview committee saying, yes, this is substantiated, send the notice, and then going straight

00:49:01.582 --> 00:49:09.305
- to counsel after that without necessarily a recommendation of action from the interview committee. How

00:49:09.305 --> 00:49:16.953
- would that be different than what we did? See, that's the thing. Like, it might not be different than

00:49:16.953 --> 00:49:23.326
- what we did, except that maybe because there would be a process. I mean, I feel like

00:49:23.714 --> 00:49:31.756
- part of what happened in that first meeting was that most council members hadn't read any of the things

00:49:31.756 --> 00:49:39.644
- that had been sent about this at all and didn't know what was going on. That was clear. That was more

00:49:39.644 --> 00:49:47.454
- of the problem than anything else. It's like, what do we need to have in the packet? What do we need

00:49:47.454 --> 00:49:53.022
- to have as expectation on ourselves to actually research the situation?

00:49:53.762 --> 00:49:59.662
- and understand the situation and read the details of the situation. And should we expect that all nine

00:49:59.662 --> 00:50:05.391
- members should do that for these situations? Or should we expect that our three interview committee

00:50:05.391 --> 00:50:11.349
- members should do that for these situations? And then the other six should just take the recommendation

00:50:11.349 --> 00:50:17.306
- of those three. And I would say, honestly, that all nine people should do that. Like, if we're removing

00:50:17.306 --> 00:50:22.462
- somebody, like... They should and they could, but I think it would be helpful for them to

00:50:24.098 --> 00:50:29.871
- for an interview committee to have this kind of dialogue, this kind of discussion, deliberation.

00:50:29.871 --> 00:50:36.298
- But yes, I mean, all of the facts of the matter, the rebuttal, everything should go to all council members.

00:50:36.298 --> 00:50:42.071
- And then they can take it or leave it as far as the recommendation from the interview committee.

00:50:42.071 --> 00:50:48.260
- They can say, well, I disagree. I don't think this person should be removed or whatever. By definition,

00:50:48.260 --> 00:50:53.438
- it has to. Yeah. No matter what. So by definition, all of council has to have all that

00:50:55.618 --> 00:51:05.734
- You can't, you can't abrogate your decision to a committee. So I agree with you, Hopi, that everybody

00:51:05.734 --> 00:51:15.949
- should, all nine of us should consider the matter with all the evidence. But you want a recommendation

00:51:15.949 --> 00:51:25.470
- from the IWU committee too. Yeah. I don't know how there's a way to like reconcile all of this.

00:51:25.602 --> 00:51:32.185
- all of those things in terms of like the interview committee is not having too many meetings, there

00:51:32.185 --> 00:51:38.767
- being like enough. Council members should do their research. That's the issue that we're struggling

00:51:38.767 --> 00:51:45.613
- with here is that we were unprepared to make a decision. We could cut down potentially on the interview

00:51:45.613 --> 00:51:52.261
- committee meeting if we leave it up to council leadership. So they don't have to schedule a meeting.

00:51:52.261 --> 00:51:54.302
- There's two of them to decide.

00:51:54.722 --> 00:52:01.302
- whether there is enough evidence of something, some cause for removal to send it so that they would

00:52:01.302 --> 00:52:08.475
- make the decision whether an interview committee even meets or whether to send the letter to the individual.

00:52:08.475 --> 00:52:15.253
- And then when the interview committee meets, they would have all the investigation about the complaint

00:52:15.253 --> 00:52:22.294
- and the rebuttal from the person and the person could also come so that there only have to be one meeting.

00:52:22.294 --> 00:52:23.742
- But then we take that

00:52:24.514 --> 00:52:31.288
- decision about whether to send the letter or not, and we leave it with the council president and vice

00:52:31.288 --> 00:52:37.996
- president. And they can consult a liaison. So maybe that would make it more efficient? Would we lose

00:52:37.996 --> 00:52:45.103
- anything with that? Well, we just circled around to something that we talked about again in the beginning,

00:52:45.103 --> 00:52:51.678
- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, right? Because then it's like we are considering the options.

00:52:55.010 --> 00:53:01.073
- figure out the one that's. I'm happy to draft that in like maybe a more formal way just to make sure

00:53:01.073 --> 00:53:07.197
- also we're out add in you know what due process requires and have those citations and so that way you

00:53:07.197 --> 00:53:13.260
- all can see because those are those are really and truly that was actually even in this process that

00:53:13.260 --> 00:53:19.263
- was the thing I was more concerned about is making sure that Mr. Cross had a fair opportunity to be

00:53:19.263 --> 00:53:24.606
- heard and understood as opposed to just trying to move something as quickly as possible.

00:53:25.730 --> 00:53:34.002
- I can draft that, where that landed and then we could react to it for next time. Is that what you'd

00:53:34.002 --> 00:53:42.605
- like? Is that something? Is that okay with everybody? Yes, thank you. And I was gonna say, we can also,

00:53:42.605 --> 00:53:51.043
- just much like I did with the code of conduct, I could work in tandem with you as well. I will be out

00:53:51.043 --> 00:53:55.262
- of the office for the next three weeks, but I know

00:53:55.490 --> 00:54:03.904
- and I discussed this at great length about all of this. So I will be out starting next Wednesday and

00:54:03.904 --> 00:54:12.485
- I won't possibly be back until this next meeting on the 26th of October. But in the meantime, I'm here

00:54:12.485 --> 00:54:20.982
- for this full week and then a couple of days next week. So I can gather all my thoughts in and get it

00:54:20.982 --> 00:54:22.398
- to Larry or also

00:54:22.818 --> 00:54:30.500
- I'll loop the clerk in as well, so she could be in the works, too. Congratulations. Enjoy your time

00:54:30.500 --> 00:54:38.260
- off. Oh, I don't know if it's enjoyable, but it's OK. Well, thank you. Thank you for volunteering to

00:54:38.260 --> 00:54:46.557
- help with that, though. That would be very helpful. OK. So the next item on the agenda is improved training

00:54:46.557 --> 00:54:50.782
- on Robert's Rules of Order for boards and commissions.

00:54:52.034 --> 00:55:00.981
- So Deputy Clerk Crosso did share with me the slides and the recording from the June training session.

00:55:00.981 --> 00:55:10.280
- And so I included the slides in here just for your information. And I did feel like there was no training

00:55:10.280 --> 00:55:19.140
- included about Robert's rules. I included in here, in our packet for today, the cheat sheet that was

00:55:19.140 --> 00:55:20.894
- in the city council

00:55:21.538 --> 00:55:31.409
- resources folder that Steve and Lucas shared way back at the start of this term. So I don't know, Jennifer,

00:55:31.409 --> 00:55:40.915
- if that might be something useful to adapt for the training, but as I said at the outset of the meeting

00:55:40.915 --> 00:55:49.598
- today, it's not really our purview to do training. I just, that was just my reaction to having

00:55:49.730 --> 00:56:02.212
- Watch the zoom video and and Reaction to what happened with HPC where people obviously didn't know Roberts

00:56:02.212 --> 00:56:14.110
- rules So I don't know What the committee members want to say about that As soon as they're accepted I

00:56:14.722 --> 00:56:22.040
- You can however and reading through the packet I would agree that I think I don't know if this is the

00:56:22.040 --> 00:56:29.429
- right source here for this committee to discuss I'm always willing to take suggestions not saying that

00:56:29.429 --> 00:56:35.742
- at all but. And read in the packet and looking at it some of the things weren't really.

00:56:37.634 --> 00:56:44.918
- It didn't really relate to some of the things related to boards and commissions, of course, so we could

00:56:44.918 --> 00:56:51.993
- kind of tailor that. But that's also something I'm more than happy to work with legal because that's

00:56:51.993 --> 00:56:59.417
- also like in council staff as well, too, because that's who I've been working with for training sessions.

00:56:59.417 --> 00:57:07.262
- So that is, you know, definitely something that could be done. Any other feedback? I generally thought that the

00:57:07.810 --> 00:57:16.739
- slides took care of things. I mean, I thought that it was pretty, pretty well done. I had a couple of

00:57:16.739 --> 00:57:25.755
- random questions on things, but yeah, I, but I also wasn't sure because there were these other Roberts

00:57:25.755 --> 00:57:34.596
- rules things that we put into our packet. Are those things that boarding commissions get or that was

00:57:34.596 --> 00:57:37.310
- all out of our, the stuff that

00:57:38.690 --> 00:57:46.686
- Cause yeah, I mean, putting that in might be good, but I think that there was also some mention of it

00:57:46.686 --> 00:57:54.838
- and yeah, it wasn't like covered in depth per se, but each boarding commission seems to have, like some

00:57:54.838 --> 00:58:02.834
- of them are very informal. And so it's like, we say that Robert's rules, but they're so informal that

00:58:02.834 --> 00:58:05.342
- like, it's not really relevant.

00:58:05.602 --> 00:58:14.913
- like Robert's rules are not really relevant. Until there's a problem. Until there's a problem. And that's

00:58:14.913 --> 00:58:23.873
- what, you know, when I was doing PTO stuff, our bylaws said something like in the event of a dispute,

00:58:23.873 --> 00:58:32.920
- then Robert's rules would govern the meetings. But other than that, it was all very casual. And that's

00:58:32.920 --> 00:58:34.238
- something that

00:58:35.074 --> 00:58:41.396
- is really individual, I think, with the different boards and commissions. So I think it would be hard

00:58:41.396 --> 00:58:47.717
- in some ways in a general training to go into Robert's rules too much, just because some people won't

00:58:47.717 --> 00:58:54.101
- necessarily need that. But like the role of the chair thing in here, I think, is relevant to everybody

00:58:54.101 --> 00:59:00.670
- and important and that gets covered. Yeah. But it doesn't say how the person maintains order and decorum.

00:59:02.466 --> 00:59:10.179
- doesn't say what the rules of procedure are that the person is supposed to enforce. Oh, well, I assume

00:59:10.179 --> 00:59:18.192
- that that's part of the discussion. It is. Well, and code also says meetings of all boards and commissions

00:59:18.192 --> 00:59:26.055
- and council shall be conducted according to procedure set forth in Robert's rules. So, yeah. So, I mean,

00:59:26.055 --> 00:59:30.174
- I would be, I don't know, it's not really our purview.

00:59:31.426 --> 00:59:39.971
- As somebody who's been on the council for a long time, I would be happy to make a few, like take what

00:59:39.971 --> 00:59:48.767
- the council has and maybe whittle it down to just some essential things and share it with you, Jennifer.

00:59:48.767 --> 00:59:57.982
- You can decide whether or not to use it. Just trying to be helpful. But yeah, I think that's hard for people.

00:59:59.106 --> 01:00:06.194
- I mean, it's hard for me. I've been doing this for a long time. But to have some kind of cheat sheet

01:00:06.194 --> 01:00:13.843
- could be helpful, especially for chairs. In between meetings one and two out of three, several commissioners

01:00:13.843 --> 01:00:21.211
- contacted me. I said to every single one of them, it feels to me like a better understanding of Robert's

01:00:21.211 --> 01:00:28.158
- rules would have helped you in that moment. And there were council commissioners who took me up on

01:00:28.322 --> 01:00:36.869
- talking about Robert's Rules and there were commissioners who did not. Yeah, and I guess that's where

01:00:36.869 --> 01:00:45.333
- like, and I've thought this for a while, I think that it would be super helpful if the city could do

01:00:45.333 --> 01:00:53.713
- like a specific Robert's Rules training for anybody involved in the meetings. But I think that what

01:00:53.713 --> 01:00:58.238
- is here, I mean, that's really requiring this, right?

01:00:59.842 --> 01:01:06.960
- And I think that this should definitely be required And that covers things that we need to be covered

01:01:06.960 --> 01:01:14.218
- but a Roberts rules one could maybe be more optional because I mean some of the Commission's just don't

01:01:14.218 --> 01:01:21.196
- use it as much some people already have to use it in a lot of different places like And have enough

01:01:21.196 --> 01:01:26.430
- familiarity like that. It wouldn't necessarily be required and I smile big

01:01:26.882 --> 01:01:34.658
- that's actually a thought that I've had. I think everybody, it's fair to say that everybody has learned

01:01:34.658 --> 01:01:42.210
- a lot from this experience. I know I definitely have. But that is actually something like, how do we

01:01:42.210 --> 01:01:50.360
- continuously educate our board members and commissioners on these types of things? And while maybe something

01:01:50.360 --> 01:01:54.846
- like that not required, however, give people an opportunity

01:01:55.010 --> 01:02:02.393
- to be able to have a chance to go to Robert's Rules like crash course, because I mean, all of us in

01:02:02.393 --> 01:02:09.702
- some regard, you know, think we know a lot about Robert's Rules until you don't. And so therefore,

01:02:09.702 --> 01:02:17.306
- you know, we still pick out, you know, the 12th edition of, I think that's the edition that we are all

01:02:17.306 --> 01:02:23.582
- on. And so, you know, it's a crash course that I learned in a lot of different ways.

01:02:23.714 --> 01:02:30.235
- You say that and I got like the Grinch and had a big smile because that is something I've been thinking

01:02:30.235 --> 01:02:36.630
- about for the next year is like in addition to quarterly trainings for board members and commissions,

01:02:36.630 --> 01:02:42.962
- like what are some other things to just keep it going? Because ultimately, you know, that could also

01:02:42.962 --> 01:02:49.295
- potentially keep somebody on a commission because they feel like they have had the training and they

01:02:49.295 --> 01:02:53.182
- stay on and things like that. So, yeah. Well, and I also like

01:02:53.954 --> 01:02:59.680
- think that we should expect you to recreate the wheel. I feel like this training is very, very specific

01:02:59.680 --> 01:03:05.405
- to our code of conduct and what we in Bloomington expect and need and state law and that kind of thing.

01:03:05.405 --> 01:03:10.966
- There's a ton of online resources about Robert's rules. I mean, like, like there's a ton. I mean, I,

01:03:10.966 --> 01:03:16.251
- Courtney, you've been parliamentarian now for a couple of years. I don't know how much of that,

01:03:16.251 --> 01:03:21.316
- like you did, but I mean, I went through a whole bunch of, I mean, there's a lot of videos.

01:03:21.316 --> 01:03:23.518
- There's a lot of, you know, and simply,

01:03:23.650 --> 01:03:32.724
- finding a good one that is already there might not necessarily be enough, but be a good start, especially

01:03:32.724 --> 01:03:41.284
- because thinking about you and your bandwidth and your ability to do all those things. And we don't

01:03:41.284 --> 01:03:50.015
- have to recreate what's already available, often free and quite good. Well, Clark Bolden mentioned at

01:03:50.015 --> 01:03:53.182
- the interview committee meeting that

01:03:53.346 --> 01:04:03.831
- She had a contact who is great at giving trainings and she was going to reach out to that person. He's

01:04:03.831 --> 01:04:14.214
- done the clerk conferences. I'm pretty sure that's who she's thinking about. Yeah. Okay. Well, let us

01:04:14.214 --> 01:04:21.950
- move on to the next agenda item, if that's okay. Which is title two review.

01:04:23.874 --> 01:04:31.891
- Starting with 2.04.225. Let me share my screen. Oh my gosh. Well, and I feel like we need to go back

01:04:31.891 --> 01:04:39.988
- to the beginning almost because like, I'm not sure that I was really prepared the first, I think that

01:04:39.988 --> 01:04:47.926
- this may have been like my first CCP meeting. I was like, can you let me share? I don't feel like I

01:04:47.926 --> 01:04:53.086
- responded to the first ones in the way that I would respond now.

01:04:54.530 --> 01:05:04.264
- Well, no. This is our first pass. We're going to have time for more passes. Perfect. This material.

01:05:04.264 --> 01:05:14.387
- That was so impressive. No. No. I do not want to start over today. Another day. No, it's a second pass,

01:05:14.387 --> 01:05:24.510
- not a starting over, please. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear enough before. All right.

01:05:25.282 --> 01:05:34.438
- Intentional display of firearms prohibited, I assume we just leave that. Hold on. This is under the

01:05:34.438 --> 01:05:43.503
- heading of committees. So we talked about standing committees, establishment, meetings of standing

01:05:43.503 --> 01:05:47.166
- committees. Sorry, am I going too fast?

01:05:47.522 --> 01:05:54.606
- No, I just have a question about the intentional display of firearms prohibited. Yes. Are we even allowed

01:05:54.606 --> 01:06:01.355
- to prohibit that? And what does intentional display mean? Because open carry is legal. Larry? That's

01:06:01.355 --> 01:06:08.372
- a good question. You definitely can't prohibit anyone from carrying the firearm into the building unless

01:06:08.372 --> 01:06:15.055
- there's, I think, a city court that exists here. Display is more of an action. I could take a look.

01:06:15.055 --> 01:06:16.926
- I can't give you, actually,

01:06:17.410 --> 01:06:29.563
- legitimate full answer. And similarly, why is this under committees? Like is, I mean, it says under

01:06:29.563 --> 01:06:42.444
- any public meeting of council, is it in other places too? I believe so. So I'm wondering if this actually

01:06:42.444 --> 01:06:45.118
- tracks. No, it's not.

01:06:45.346 --> 01:07:08.095
- under committees so that that is weird and so yeah like I don't know if I don't know that is strange

01:07:08.095 --> 01:07:13.726
- I mean it's referring to

01:07:14.178 --> 01:07:25.460
- Yeah, I mean, it's referring to our own ordinance, so. Yeah. Anyway. Might be worth. Part of our code

01:07:25.460 --> 01:07:35.747
- allows for the sergeant arms to ask any person carrying a firearm to relinquish the firearm.

01:07:35.747 --> 01:07:41.278
- Which is also. I thought it was any weapon except

01:07:43.906 --> 01:07:52.712
- So it says Bloomington Municipal Code section 2.04.030 allows for the sergeant at arms to ask any person

01:07:52.712 --> 01:08:01.433
- carrying a firearm at a council meeting to relinquish his or her firearm. Which also we can't actually.

01:08:01.433 --> 01:08:09.987
- That sounds unfortunate. What paragraph is that sending? I looked up ordinance 1115. Yeah, but in our

01:08:09.987 --> 01:08:13.342
- code 204.030 duties of sergeant at arms

01:08:14.018 --> 01:08:21.296
- It says, Sergeant at Arms may request any person in attendance at council meeting to surrender any dangerous

01:08:21.296 --> 01:08:28.373
- weapon other than a firearm. And it's probably been updated. It's probably because of Indiana code change

01:08:28.373 --> 01:08:35.117
- since the ordinance went through. This provision actually explicitly tracks Indiana code. So Indiana

01:08:35.117 --> 01:08:37.854
- code 354711.1-4, which is criminal code.

01:08:38.274 --> 01:08:43.888
- The enactment of enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting intentional display of a firearm

01:08:43.888 --> 01:08:49.287
- at a public meeting is an explicit exception. So even though we can't prohibit people from carrying

01:08:49.287 --> 01:08:54.793
- firearms into public buildings, that is an explicit exception. So we just mirrored the language here.

01:08:54.793 --> 01:09:00.192
- Right. But we did it under committees instead of under the whole thing. So maybe we could move that

01:09:00.192 --> 01:09:06.238
- under. Well, it's also only an intentional display ends up being defined somewhere in state code, I'm guessing.

01:09:07.234 --> 01:09:15.599
- Again, I'll look, but it's only about council. So this is only applicable to council, not any work meeting,

01:09:15.599 --> 01:09:23.654
- right? Right. But within Chapter 2.04, it's under the heading of Article 3 committees, which is I don't

01:09:23.654 --> 01:09:31.399
- even know why we have articles here. It just messes everything up. But anyway, yeah, we should look

01:09:31.399 --> 01:09:32.638
- at moving that.

01:09:39.202 --> 01:09:49.644
- into article two meetings and rules of procedure yeah yeah because that would cover all meetings including

01:09:49.644 --> 01:09:59.599
- the committee meetings but committee meetings don't feel like they necessarily cover regular meetings

01:09:59.599 --> 01:10:06.430
- oh rules of procedure but we're gonna put that in a separate document

01:10:11.106 --> 01:10:22.295
- We are going backwards, Hopi. I know, I was just teasing. Duties of President, duties. Yeah, so it is

01:10:22.295 --> 01:10:34.143
- Article 2, Meetings and Rules of Procedure. So maybe sticking the intentional display of firearms somewhere

01:10:34.143 --> 01:10:41.054
- under Meetings and Rules of Procedure. That makes sense. Okay.

01:10:41.250 --> 01:10:51.223
- The next part is about reports from standing committees. And when reviewing this with Christine Chang

01:10:51.223 --> 01:11:01.293
- last year, we said possible relocation to rules of procedure. Is there a benefit to having information

01:11:01.293 --> 01:11:11.070
- about standing committee reports in code? And again, it says reports shall be in writing and signed

01:11:12.194 --> 01:11:22.455
- Oh my gosh, we have not been doing that, have we? And documents referred to the committee shall be returned

01:11:22.455 --> 01:11:30.910
- with a report. That seems to reference a practice that we don't do, like what documents?

01:11:41.538 --> 01:11:50.827
- one of the reasons to have something about reports in code is to ensure that reports from committees

01:11:50.827 --> 01:12:00.484
- are happening. Yeah. And yeah. So maybe just having a minimum requirement, like once a year or something

01:12:00.484 --> 01:12:07.198
- like that, and then we could put the details and the rules of procedure.

01:12:09.186 --> 01:12:17.150
- twice a year, once before summer recess and after summer recess at minimum. Okay. Well, it depends when

01:12:17.150 --> 01:12:24.808
- the committee, you know, if it's a year-round committee. Yeah, that happens, there wouldn't be much

01:12:24.808 --> 01:12:32.849
- to report. Right, the first half of the year you can do the report, the second half of the year be like,

01:12:32.849 --> 01:12:35.070
- pass, you know. That's true.

01:12:38.882 --> 01:12:46.808
- Yeah, this is very much written with the understanding that legislation would be referred to committees.

01:12:46.808 --> 01:12:54.432
- Well, it's also kind of, it's also written with this, I mean, signed by a majority of the committee.

01:12:54.432 --> 01:13:02.131
- I absolutely know there have been times when I or committee chair have sent out a report to committee

01:13:02.131 --> 01:13:08.094
- members asking for input. And, you know, and like, like we didn't sign it, but

01:13:08.802 --> 01:13:21.801
- everybody kind of signed off on it in an unofficial sort of way that wasn't necessarily available in

01:13:21.801 --> 01:13:35.444
- 1979 when the last time was this. That's kind of archaic there. In 1979? Yeah, I mean this section refers

01:13:35.444 --> 01:13:37.246
- to ordinance.

01:13:38.434 --> 01:13:47.715
- They weren't in homes, however. Okay. So you think twice a year? Courtney has a point about the,

01:13:47.715 --> 01:13:57.857
- but honestly, I think twice a year could make sense even for something like Jack Hopkins, because there's

01:13:57.857 --> 01:14:08.094
- a very official once a year Jack Hopkins report, which is the recommendation. But I think that it would be

01:14:08.418 --> 01:14:16.004
- totally great to have an earlier Jack Hopkins report that's like, hey, here's the deadlines for submissions.

01:14:16.004 --> 01:14:23.102
- We've met, we're doing the thing. That's a fair point. It doesn't have to be six months apart. Right.

01:14:23.102 --> 01:14:30.270
- It could be at the beginning of the process and at the end of the process. Right. If it's just a short

01:14:30.270 --> 01:14:35.838
- period. Like next week we have our first CDBG meeting. So same thing with CDBG.

01:14:36.418 --> 01:14:45.551
- Well, especially if you don't have to have it written and you don't have to have it signed by everybody,

01:14:45.551 --> 01:14:54.684
- it would be easy to give an oral report. I would say one written report per year and more as appropriate

01:14:54.684 --> 01:14:55.902
- oral reports.

01:15:11.234 --> 01:15:19.022
- out all the stuff about things that refer things to committees. We just don't do that very much anymore.

01:15:19.022 --> 01:15:26.514
- No, we don't. I've actually gotten feedback that that might be why our council meetings last so long

01:15:26.514 --> 01:15:34.228
- because a lot of other councils across the state handle most things in committees, which, yep, in terms

01:15:34.228 --> 01:15:39.198
- of time commitments, I don't really know how that would shake out.

01:15:39.458 --> 01:15:49.794
- terms of adding committee meetings versus? We tried it during 2020, which was not an ideal year to try

01:15:49.794 --> 01:15:59.928
- anything. Okay, so anything else that we want to ensure is still in our code and not in the separate

01:15:59.928 --> 01:16:01.534
- rules document.

01:16:07.778 --> 01:16:16.881
- the stuff about reporting back, further time? Do we, I mean there's the whole minority report thing

01:16:16.881 --> 01:16:26.531
- which has the potential to happen if there's division on said committee but would that mostly only happen

01:16:26.531 --> 01:16:35.998
- when there's actually legislation that is like referred to the committee and then the committee makes a

01:16:36.738 --> 01:16:46.272
- I would imagine. I've never heard of a minority report in City Council context. Is it just like the

01:16:46.272 --> 01:16:56.284
- descent? Yeah. Okay. I would assume. Great movie with Tom Cruise. I smell a movie with Tom Cruise. 1979,

01:16:56.284 --> 01:17:05.246
- folks, 1979. Wasn't there, didn't happen. Even Minority Report is probably before Sydney was.

01:17:08.226 --> 01:17:21.593
- All right, let's try to do one more paragraph. It came out about four months before I did. Okay, special

01:17:21.593 --> 01:17:34.959
- committees. So here we did have some language changes proposed by yours truly. Any three council members

01:17:34.959 --> 01:17:38.142
- or the council president

01:17:40.034 --> 01:17:45.565
- Maybe we should say presiding officer, that was something we discussed earlier, may form a special committee

01:17:45.565 --> 01:17:50.741
- for any specific purpose proper for council deliberation or consideration. Special committee shall be

01:17:50.741 --> 01:17:56.069
- considered to be established at a regular session of council when it is either A, created by the council

01:17:56.069 --> 01:18:01.295
- president or B, proposed by a member with verbal support from at least two additional members. Special

01:18:01.295 --> 01:18:06.471
- committee shall continue to function until the following January organizational meeting at which time

01:18:06.471 --> 01:18:09.566
- the new council president may continue the special committee

01:18:10.242 --> 01:18:17.599
- for another calendar year. If the president does not continue the special committee, it shall be disbanded.

01:18:17.599 --> 01:18:24.480
- So I think I was just putting in words what our practice had been. Okay. I think that we should keep

01:18:24.480 --> 01:18:31.361
- the line in there about ceasing to function when it's completed duties. Just in case, like an either

01:18:31.361 --> 01:18:38.718
- or to the next year or if it is completed as function, thinking about things like hiring committee and then

01:18:39.778 --> 01:18:47.367
- hiring is done, then why keep meeting? Right, like why keep the committee and then it can disband before

01:18:47.367 --> 01:18:54.812
- that? What does it mean for a committee to disband? I mean, it just wouldn't meet if it was done. Does

01:18:54.812 --> 01:19:02.039
- it have to officially go away? I think a final report would be, I mean, it says when it's completed

01:19:02.039 --> 01:19:07.966
- its duties and made a report. Okay. So I would say like some sort of final report

01:19:13.794 --> 01:19:22.691
- be good. I mean, and then there's the whole like... Isabel, you can just reject the... I was trying,

01:19:22.691 --> 01:19:31.500
- but... If you click the X. Wouldn't that reject everything though? No, because I have all the stuff

01:19:31.500 --> 01:19:40.837
- in green here. Just maybe make a note. Keep the last line. Reply to yourself. Just change that to regular

01:19:40.837 --> 01:19:41.982
- text and not

01:19:42.370 --> 01:19:50.578
- and not struck through text. I can't, I'm in the suggestion mode. The struck through is because. So

01:19:50.578 --> 01:19:58.705
- you're gonna wanna copy all of the text that isn't crossed through. This one? No, everything else.

01:19:58.705 --> 01:20:07.241
- This one? Yeah, copy that. And then paste it immediately after the crossed outline. Oh, oh wait, I need

01:20:07.241 --> 01:20:11.838
- to be in editing. Okay, I am in editing mode now, okay.

01:20:13.506 --> 01:20:29.303
- Click after. Yeah. And make sure you're outside of that edit box. Okay. Now deny the suggestion.

01:20:29.303 --> 01:20:42.494
- There you go. And then just move that paragraph back in. There we go. Thank you.

01:20:47.778 --> 01:20:54.639
- And I mean, I don't love the way that that's phrased the committee. So she says, she'll cease to function

01:20:54.639 --> 01:21:01.306
- when it has completed its duties and made a report or recommendation to the council. I think that that

01:21:01.306 --> 01:21:08.167
- could be, you know, cause there needs to be an or in there, right? Like it needs to, so special committee

01:21:08.167 --> 01:21:15.870
- shall be considered. Special committees shall continue to function until the following January organizational meeting.

01:21:30.978 --> 01:21:43.771
- suggest you go to public comment? Yes. It shall give a final report to council. I don't think that we

01:21:43.771 --> 01:21:56.939
- can play this live. Could we just say the committee will conclude its duties after giving a final report

01:21:56.939 --> 01:22:00.702
- to council? Yes. In any case,

01:22:03.458 --> 01:22:14.622
- case. Because even with the hiring committee, we still had to give an explanation.

01:22:42.050 --> 01:22:47.763
- We can wordsmith that later. Let's go to public comment. If somebody would like to make a comment, please

01:22:47.763 --> 01:22:53.261
- come up to the table. Is there anybody online? There's a hand raised online. Okay. We'll go with here

01:22:53.261 --> 01:22:58.758
- in the room first. I'll be brief. Hello, everybody. Pardon the jacket. I'm freezing to death in here.

01:22:58.758 --> 01:23:04.148
- A couple very quick things. Good to see you all. Thank you for your important work. It's not really

01:23:04.148 --> 01:23:09.214
- a special committee. This is an especially important committee. Give yourself a special name.

01:23:09.762 --> 01:23:17.646
- May I say now in no particular order, I know I'm going up to the aim of celebrate Indiana municipalities

01:23:17.646 --> 01:23:24.478
- idea summit tomorrow. Some of you may be doing the same partly because there's a there's a

01:23:24.898 --> 01:23:30.181
- section or a meeting on building consensus and moving from ideas to action, which is interesting to

01:23:30.181 --> 01:23:35.517
- me. So I don't know if any of you are going, but it's somewhat relevant, it sounded like, to much of

01:23:35.517 --> 01:23:40.853
- what you've been involved in or doing. So I'll let you know or pass along anything relevant. Can you

01:23:40.853 --> 01:23:46.031
- give your name for the record? Terry Amsler. My wife and I live in Bloomington, in your district,

01:23:46.031 --> 01:23:51.420
- as you know. Robert's Rules is an interesting question. I'm not going to talk about it. We've talked,

01:23:51.420 --> 01:23:54.590
- you've talked other times about, other than Robert's Rules.

01:23:54.946 --> 01:24:04.231
- as a resource, which exists. I or others have forwarded you some ideas about that. There are a lot of

01:24:04.231 --> 01:24:13.606
- options there. But I think your attention to that is good. Thirdly, there is, having talked to Isabel,

01:24:13.606 --> 01:24:19.614
- Gretchen Knapp, Jennifer, Isaac, about a potential O'Neill School

01:24:20.098 --> 01:24:27.625
- capstone in service to boards and commission themes. There is support among all elements of local government

01:24:27.625 --> 01:24:35.013
- here for the idea, which is a good thing, I thought. And that's working now through the IU system. There's

01:24:35.013 --> 01:24:42.194
- a little bit of a problem, but IU has fewer in some level, some places bring very well in undergraduate

01:24:42.194 --> 01:24:49.790
- admissions, some of the graduate programs not as strong as others. And so when a capstone is going to happen,

01:24:50.082 --> 01:24:55.459
- maybe a little more challenging than it used to be. I was hoping to do it this spring. Maybe,

01:24:55.459 --> 01:25:01.352
- maybe not, because of how many capsules there can be, given how many students there are, and that sort

01:25:01.352 --> 01:25:07.244
- of thing. But I want to say, I think the boards of commission theme, of which I'm not going to go into

01:25:07.244 --> 01:25:13.193
- what everyone thought would be a good idea to look at, is directly relevant to some of what you've been

01:25:13.193 --> 01:25:19.486
- thinking and talking about from Novak forward. And I think it would be in good service, as spoken to by many,

01:25:20.034 --> 01:25:25.806
- at the table and beyond about that. So that's that. The Monroe County Health Equity Council, which some

01:25:25.806 --> 01:25:31.690
- of you know something of. It just changed its name at a retreat to Monroe County Health Equity Coalition.

01:25:31.690 --> 01:25:37.462
- Well, I'm not going to say anything more about that right now. I'm happy, kind of happy about the name.

01:25:37.462 --> 01:25:42.846
- I think it's more real in some way than council. It sounds like you have money and you're making

01:25:43.266 --> 01:25:49.211
- doing something important. But I think it's trying to do other sorts of things, but it is more of a

01:25:49.211 --> 01:25:55.215
- coalition. And I will want to come back at some point to talk with you relating to McKeck's interest

01:25:55.215 --> 01:26:01.160
- in speaking with and learning from boards and commissions about those members thinking about health

01:26:01.160 --> 01:26:07.224
- and wellness in the community and how it might inform what McKeck might do. Another question, another

01:26:07.224 --> 01:26:11.742
- time in the future. I'm not looking for any feedback tonight, not anything.

01:26:12.098 --> 01:26:25.123
- The only other thing I'd say, let's see. Then I'm done apparently. That's the main stuff. Thank you

01:26:25.123 --> 01:26:39.710
- very much. And online we have Eric. Eric, I think you can unmute yourself. Go ahead. Yes, can you hear me? Yes.

01:26:41.474 --> 01:26:48.737
- Good afternoon, my name is Eric Host, and I appreciate this opportunity to offer a public comment. I

01:26:48.737 --> 01:26:56.215
- will note that in prior meetings of this committee, public comment was accepted during items as opposed

01:26:56.215 --> 01:27:03.550
- to grouped at the end. So I'll try to be concise, but there are several things that I may not get to.

01:27:03.550 --> 01:27:09.374
- Categorizing and assigning the removal of appointed board and commission members

01:27:09.730 --> 01:27:17.028
- to a four-cause standard creates a constitutionally protected property interest under the 14th Amendment,

01:27:17.028 --> 01:27:24.258
- transforming removal from a discretionary act into a formal quasi-judicial proceeding. I think Mr. Allen

01:27:24.258 --> 01:27:31.488
- covered that in his opening remarks. A member cannot be stripped of their appointment without procedural

01:27:31.488 --> 01:27:35.550
- due process, thus subjective or indefinite draft provision

01:27:35.874 --> 01:27:42.080
- such as mandating that appointees be polite or barring speech detrimental to city operations, a field

01:27:42.080 --> 01:27:48.287
- appears to fail the constitutional void for vagueness standard and should not serve as lawful grounds

01:27:48.287 --> 01:27:54.432
- for dismissal. Rather than relying on self-executing or automatic administrative triggers, any claim

01:27:54.432 --> 01:28:00.639
- of cause needs to be treated as a formal evidentiary allegation requiring detailed written notice and

01:28:00.639 --> 01:28:03.742
- full disclosure of supporting claims and evidence.

01:28:04.002 --> 01:28:10.598
- To ensure lawful execution, the Code of Conduct established a deliberate multi-step hearing framework

01:28:10.598 --> 01:28:17.064
- for the full common counsel as the appointing authority. True new process requires that all council

01:28:17.064 --> 01:28:23.660
- members are fully informed through an assembled evidentiary record and that the member-facing removal

01:28:23.660 --> 01:28:28.510
- afford a timely, meaningful, fair opportunity to appear, present evidence,

01:28:29.314 --> 01:28:36.642
- and place their full statement directly before the council prior to the vote. The resignations from

01:28:36.642 --> 01:28:44.043
- the BHPC that have been referenced in this meeting arose due to the events and a sensible failure of

01:28:44.043 --> 01:28:51.958
- process that occurred at the June 25th, 2026 meeting. I must ask, was there a council liaison in attendance

01:28:51.958 --> 01:28:58.846
- at the June 25th, 26th BHPC meeting? Structuring the code around clear evidentiary thresholds

01:28:59.010 --> 01:29:06.366
- full council deliberation and statutory alignment protects both constitutional rights of volunteer appointees

01:29:06.366 --> 01:29:13.254
- and the city from procedural and First Amendment liability. In addition, any code of conduct and rules

01:29:13.254 --> 01:29:20.075
- should include codification of how a point of order can be raised during a meeting like the June 25th

01:29:20.075 --> 01:29:26.963
- meeting, who has standing to raise that point of order, and how should that point of order be assessed

01:29:26.963 --> 01:29:27.966
- and addressed.

01:29:28.482 --> 01:29:34.974
- As duly elected representatives of our community, you are currently afford afforded a challenging but

01:29:34.974 --> 01:29:41.784
- important opportunity in the facilitation and support of public participation in local governments through

01:29:41.784 --> 01:29:48.404
- service on boards and commissions. Please think carefully and clearly and make fully informed decisions

01:29:48.404 --> 01:29:55.087
- that are practicable, durable, respectful of individual rights and the process in which carry a complete

01:29:55.087 --> 01:29:58.078
- and confirmatory record. Thank you. Thank you.

01:29:58.370 --> 01:30:06.685
- Anybody else for public comment? All right, not seeing any. So we have our next meeting scheduled for

01:30:06.685 --> 01:30:15.489
- October 26th. So I think that's all we have unless there's any last minute comments from committee members.

01:30:15.489 --> 01:30:18.750
- All right, we are adjourned. Thank you.