Let's go ahead and call the order of this meeting of the Committee on Council Processes for Monday,
September 28th, 2026. Let's just go around the table, see who's here. Start with my left. Jennifer Crossley,
Clerk's Office. And I'm Isabelle Piedmont-Smith, Chair of the Committee, City Council, District 1. Hopi
Stossberg, District 3. Courtney Daly, City Council, District 5. Sonya Zolik, City Council, District 5.
All right. So the agenda for today includes discussion of the possible expansion of the Bloomington
Public Transportation Board. Developing a process for removal of order Commission members. Improved
training on Roberts rules of order for boards and commissions, which that may be short,
Brought to my attention, that's not actually the purview of this committee, but we can touch on it.
And then we have our ongoing review of Title II. And we'll have public comment at the end to cover everything
in the meeting. Are there any additions or concerns about the agenda?
Let's move right into possible expansion of the Bloomington Public Transportation Board and Hopi, I
think you were gonna look into this. I have, our council fellow is doing some research for me on it.
So I have a sheet with pros and cons and interested parties and other Indiana cities and law and all
of that kind of stuff, which brought up a few questions. And then the Transit Board itself has also
been discussing this and so they,
assigned a couple of people to do research on that at their last meeting. And so I met with them on
Friday. And so I'm going to have it penciled in for me to go to their meeting to have a conversation
with them about it in October. And that's about where we're at with it. Like, there's not really a conclusion
or a memo or a proposal or anything like that at this point. It's just still in the research phases.
But it's going.
to the fellow who did that research, and then is continuing to follow up with some other questions that
I had about it. So Michael or Evan? Michael. They have names, you know. Thank you to Michael. OK. Next,
we have developing a process for removal of board and commission members. And this came up because of
the proposal to remove a member of the HPC. Sydney and I are both on that interview committee, so we
had a meeting last week about this. And with Larry as well. And Jennifer was there. Yeah, a lot of the
same folks. And my big takeaway from that is that we need a process.
because it was kind of, it came about in a way that not all council members understood why this was
coming about. And maybe Larry can just quickly summarize for those who weren't here last Thursday, how
it did come about that somebody was recommended for removal. Yeah, sure. So essentially this came about,
there was a, I'm gonna start at the beginning, there was a contentious,
the Historic Preservation Commission meeting that had a lot of public interest. Typically, for contentious
meetings, we expect people are very invested in that, and so you get very passionate about that. That
was actually, that happened in, was that June? That was in June of this year. There were two subsequent
meetings after that. So the item in question that was very controversial, which is about
housing related to the convention center and knocking down potential housing, the demolition, whether
the HPC could do a demolition delay. That was not on the agenda any further. They had opted. Nobody
had moved to do anything. That was a point of contention, both publicly and in the commission.
However, that decision was not the basis of any action in this regard. What happened at two subsequent
meetings is an advisory member, Mr. Cross, took issue with some of the procedural mechanisms. He did
make motions to the board, which were points of information, dubbed as points of information and points
of order. The chair had heard him out and made rulings on those. Mr. Cross continued to engage.
both delaying the meetings, but also getting heated, increasingly heated. The behavior became, it was
rude to the chair, also to other members, which violates our code of conduct that you all had put into
place within the code that's kept by the clerk. That happened at both of the, there was a July 9th meeting,
and I think it was July 24th meeting, is that right? 23rd. 23rd meeting. There were two meetings, and
essentially the conduct was very similar in both meetings.
There was a delay of I think it was closer to 40, 45 minutes during the July 9th meeting. At the end
of that discourse, Mr. Cross then packed up his stuff and left after he was not heard. A similar event
happened the following meeting. Again, there was nothing on the agenda for this. He stylized it as a
critique of the board. And very similarly, about 40 minutes of delay. There was a petitioner waiting.
There was official business on the board
the packet for the HBC to hear. They were not able to do that. And again, he packed up the stuff.
Before that, during those between those two meetings where those happen, I know the clerk had been alerted
by several staff members. I don't think it was just one and potentially board members. There was two
and you and Councilmember Zulek was as well. I was informed by the clerk's office that it was potentially
going. And so we did go and observe
the second meeting on July 23rd, just to see, to get a sense of what was happening. I mean, there's
one thing about getting, so we got a report in basically from a variety of sources. I think it was definitely
more than one just about the behavior, but then also seeing it in person to make sure like, is this
something that's in order? Is it just that tempers are kind of, you know, passionate or is it something
beyond that?
And so after looking at that, we agreed that a summary should be made and it should be presented to
council leadership. And at that time, we, the clerk deputy clerk cross Lee wrote a summary of everything
that happened, what we had observed and we had talked about that in terms of what we had observed. And,
and in the meantime, even while she was preparing that then there were.
potential violations of open door law, which is like an email asking for responses from every board
member, things like that, which at least in the city of Bloomington, we have said is a no-go zone for
open door law that is asking for official business to be taken outside of an official meeting when you're
asking for every member to respond to a particular email. So if it's not a notice meeting, that's improper,
improper business on behalf of a governing body.
Deputy Clerk Crosley presented her summary. We presented this to the council with two options. Potentially,
it could have been introduced at one of the council meetings as a motion or what we were happy to do.
Regardless, we needed to provide notice to Mr. Cross. If there were potential violations that would
have warranted his removal from the HPC, he was entitled to due process because he could only be removed
for cause. Sorry. No, no, no. Go ahead.
What led to the memo and who decided that a memo would be sent to Mr. Cross? It was a letter,
a notice letter. So we presented those options to the council leadership and the council leadership
advised that they would like the option of providing notice to him first before something happened in
a public meeting. And so that's what we did is I draft a letter based on Deputy Clerk Crosley's summaries
of those in our conversations with council leadership. I drafted a notice letter.
to make sure that we're complying with due process. There was notice of when a public hearing on the
matter would take place, and there had to be an opportunity for Mr. Cross to present his side of the
story to the council. And so we did it that way. Now, in that process, we reviewed prior recommendations
actually from this committee that were given to council in very similar but not same circumstances,
but dealing with the removal of board members.
Those were had been presented to council in the past as recommendations to follow in terms of a process
that was never formally adopted by council. And so there was no formal process by law because of all
council appointees can only be removed for cause. Indiana common law has established a series of due
process for that. And then there are different interrelated elements under the law for that. So there is a
process, a legal process that we have to follow, but in terms of what that looks like, nuts and bolts,
whether we're sending out a letter first or there's a motion being made at a meeting, there is no formally
adopted process by city council. And so in hearing this most recently, the recommendation was kind of
to bifurcate. We had the decision on this specific issue, that evidence was heard and evaluated so a
recommendation could be made to council, but also looking at what is the process that council's following and
Do we need to now present something to council where you all have an opportunity if you would like to
actually adopt a process so that everybody's on the same page about in the future, these are the avenues
and this is what it's gonna look like if we come up with similar issues. There may also be an interest
in a broader conversation about whether all members or all appointees of council really do need to be
only removed for cause. I think that that might also be a worthwhile conversation, but that's obviously
up to you all.
as well. There's no legal requirement for your own appointees to be only removed by cost. Under statute,
Indiana statute, there are some positions that have that protection under the General Assembly.
In this case, most of these positions, particularly where it's an advisory position that council has
typically added on to these boards, that has been completely a council creation as a for-cause removal.
The other option is you could also have
a tiered system where some advisory members that the council appoints serve at the pleasure of council
very similar to how they serve at the pleasure of the mayor. They can be removed for any reason that
council as a whole decides is appropriate. And then you could also have maybe you still have statutory
for cause members. So there are options for you. And as I said, regardless of whatever this this committee
decides to recommend or not recommend,
There is a legal process that has to be followed as long as you have four cause removals. And that does
require a notice and hearing provision where you do have to give notice of a very specific time and
date that somebody can be heard and an opportunity for them to be meaningfully heard before the board,
before any formal action is taken. So those are kind of your guardrails in terms of what has to be done.
And then in between what that looks like, there is flexibility for you. Sorry, that was a very long-winded
Any cases where, according to state law, we have to have for cause, we have to have cause, like Planning
Commission or some of these statutory ones? Yeah, BZA is a good example of that. Planning Commission
is a good example of that. And I could detail those for you. I don't have that right in front of me.
I think Attorney Lucas, Stephen Lucas had done that also before, had looked at some of those as comparison.
of what the statutory boards are and which have to be for cause. So I can make sure that that's up to
date and provide that to the committee. Do we currently have in our local code that any removal must
be for cause? That's correct. Any council appointee removal has to be for cause. Mayoral appointees
are still serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
Also, just to clarify, so last week at that committee meeting, there was a recommendation that's gonna
go to council. Correct. And so kind of like the process that's being maybe clumsily followed right now
is that Mr. Cross was notified of council hearings. Was he also notified of the committee meeting? There
wasn't separate written notice, so the way that notice works is because
There was a formal written notice about when council would continue to hear it. So council took up the
business in the meeting and at the meeting then there was a chosen and announced continuance of that
to the next meeting. And then at the next meeting it was announced in the meeting that they would do
this process. So he was he given notice of it. Yes. Because he was in attendance and heard that those
recommendations were made. And so it did satisfy that particular part. So in terms of
So in terms of a process, because we're supposed to be talking about a process, right, for like future
removal. Right now the process went, it came to the full council, council referred it to a committee,
and then the committee is gonna bring a recommendation back to the full council. But when it was in
front of the full council, Mr. Cross didn't have an opportunity to respond. Did he respond to anything
in the interview committee?
Right, he responded in writing, but the way that you made that sound, Larry, is that he needs to be
able to respond verbally. Just in writing satisfies that requirement. So there's not a guarantee that
you'll be able to orally present in front of council or comment. But what he did, what was done is that
you have to have a reasonable amount of time to submit your appeal or your version of the story. Mr.
Crust did that in writing and provided a substantial amount of materials that were passed to both council
and the committee. OK, so that response in writing satisfied.
that requirement, okay. Yeah, it doesn't have to be verbal. That could be something you bake in and
make very clear. And similar with the case law on how long that notice has to be. So that period of
time, five days is kind of the standard that cases have looked at in terms of a reasonable amount of
time. That can be extended as well. So those kind of matters are the details in which a policy could
certainly take up is like,
Once you give formal notice of, hey, you potentially are in violation. You could be considered for removal.
You have X number of days to provide your materials to counsel. Those kind of things would be really
ripe for having a very explicit policy. So is this something that committee members want to brainstorm now?
one or two of us to bring forward a proposal for a process, or how do you think is the best way to proceed?
Well, what else do you think we need to discuss about this? I mean, just the details. Like, what's the
policy gonna say? Right. Is it that anybody can bring a complaint or a concern to council staff? Council
staff will investigate, consult with the clerk,
I mean, do we just want to codify what happened here, or do we want to change anything about how it
came about? Well, and do we want to codify something, or do we want to have it? I'm sorry, that was
the wrong word. OK. I would put it in our rules of procedure. OK. Kind of like the way our public comment
rules of procedure are. Yeah. I mean, I think the way, except for the two city council meetings where
we ended up
Ultimately, right, the first one we punted to the next one, and then the next one we said actually referred
to interview committee, cutting those out. I think if we say basically the structure of how things went
down, you know, the notification, the chance for him to make a rebuttal or a defense, referring it to
interview committee, and then bringing those recommendations to the
Council, I think that process makes sense. I don't know what else we would do. Apart from switching
up the order, it might make more sense for Interview Committee to hear it first. Jennifer is nodding
her head. But that is what happened. I'm sorry, yeah, I was saying cut out the City Council. Yes. Oh,
I'm sorry. I didn't understand that.
But it's also helpful for the full city council to hear the back story. So I don't know at what point,
you know, um, I mean, that was why the first time it came to city council, we knew the story because
it had come before us here in our last, um, CCP committee meeting. That was really redundant that I
said, CCP committee, but, um, so we knew the story, but I realized, you know, when it was,
before city council that following week, most of the council, our colleagues did not know what was happening.
They didn't, hadn't heard. I mean, I had heard about it because of emails prior to the CCP meeting.
So that's a different sort of. Yeah. There were emails just to CCP members, but then later there was
an email to the full council. I don't know if it was to the full council or just us.
But my point is, at what point do we want the full council to know the full story to be prepared? Is
it just that night of where it's introduced or maybe a little bit in advance of, hey, heads up, this
is going to be coming? That's my question. Well, to improve transparency with all council members who
would have to vote on the removal, maybe it is important to have that step where it comes to the council.
Because then the council would have all the documentation and then the council can refer to interview
committee. Yeah. Unless it's so obvious that everybody's like, I want to vote now. Well, here's another
thought. It's almost like with council members, like I do agree. I think that the process first should
be the committee because
much like how you all are doing your recommendations for appointments and reappointments, that goes
to the interview committee first. You all make a memo, and then the council could chew on the memo,
because it was expressed beforehand that people wanted to see a memo to look at appointments before
deciding to vote on those appointments. So ideally, what you all could do is use that same kind of method.
have the discussion within the committee, and the committee makes that recommendation. Of course, our
office would put it in a memo to include it in the council packet, and from there, it could be discussed
if there's a motion and a second. It could be discussed upon the full council, and then whether or not
the full council would like to take a little bit more time to digest on some of that information,
that is a fair point, but at least it's already come through the committee instead of going to the full
council and then deciding let's kick it back to the interview committee for the interview committee
to discuss it and then push it back to the full council. It's like you cut out some of that meaty part
to speak. I'm also hungry. But I think that's something that you all could
And then, you know, in terms of what Councilman Priemont-Smith had said, like, who gets to make that
recommendation? Again, that could be the staff liaison or myself or somebody that knows the situation
that's happening, could mention that to the liaison that's a part of that interview committee, and then
that is brought to the attention of the full committee to kind of start that process to me to talk about
what has come about, just a thought.
issue is that while we have taken so long in this process, we've lost two historic preservation commissioners
who resigned as a direct product of this entire situation. Yes, including the chair. So, um, yeah, I
would suggest that we come up with some sort of process that doesn't need to go quickly, but can if
needed, because kicking it down the road is, could be
detrimental for some of these commissions, especially when HPC in particular already has quite a lot
of quorum issues. So I feel like what I heard about this incident way back in the beginning was that
council staff got the original complaint and then ran it through the executive, the council leadership
to determine whether or not to continue with notice and stuff.
what if that runs through the interview committee instead? And so then the interview committee decides
at that point whether or not it's worth investigating more. And then staff can give that notice that's
required and it goes to the full council. And then if necessary, it gets kicked back to the interview
committee. Because one of the things that I noticed when reading through the
the code of conduct is that, you know, you could consider the code of some pieces of the code of conduct
sort of discretionary, right. And like, you know, individual judgments. So if there seems to be debate
over whether or not it actually violated code of conduct, then maybe kicking it back to the interview
committee. Like, cause I mean, there might even be debate amongst the interview committee, but I also
wonder sometimes like how hard it might be for an interview committee to
be having that discussion about somebody that they themselves appointed. Like in some situations, I
wonder if that would be more challenging than others. So then maybe there might be value in kicking
it to a different interview committee to have that discussion too. So maybe part of the process is if
necessary, it gets kicked to an interview committee and then it gets decided in that moment. But if
it's clear cut and not necessary, then that maybe meets, if you know what I'm
You know what I'm trying to say? That might meet your need for if we can move it faster, then we wouldn't
have to kick it to the interview committee because it would be more clear cut and then council could
make a decision the first time they see it. Definitely. I would not suggest switching the interview
committees just because the liaisons know the most about what the individual boards and commissions do.
I think just in terms of information. Yeah, I guess I just want to like, in terms of the process that
we write, do we want to write the process as if it needs to go back to an interview committee, it goes
back to the same interview committee, or it goes back to an interview committee to be decided by the
full council. And that would kind of default to the same interview committee, but it wouldn't necessarily
require that. I don't understand. I guess more options can lead to more confusion.
and less accountability in a way. So I don't really understand what the problem is in sending it to
the interview committee that recommended appointment of this person. I mean, if the person is a buddy
of mine, I would recuse myself anyway. But then we have an interview committee, because we only have
interviews committees of three people. So that's why. Well, I'm also not appointing my buddies. Could
it be a buddy of mine who's appointed by interview committee A?
That could come up in any configuration that you know somebody or you work with somebody and then you
work with yourself and then you can say the House President can appoint somebody in their place or something
for this particular topic. I'm just trying to give enough flexibility for what the policy says to do
that we can think about like further down the road than the nine of us that are currently serving. Like
just in case there's
I mean, it's not going into code, so I think there is innately some degree of flexibility. So I think
I didn't understand one part of what Hopi and Sydney were saying. So it might not go to an interview
committee at all? Was that an option? I suggested that it go there first.
to get that initial kind of like discussion with staff about whether or not to even give a notice instead
of going to the leadership to go to the interview committee. That makes sense to me. So what I hear
you say is not even entertaining the idea of leadership, but once a problem has been notified to immediately
kick it to the interview.
that makes more sense than leadership. I mean, maybe leadership too, but in terms of making a decision
whether or not to give a notice. The only problem there is you have to schedule a meeting. It might
not be as fast. That was my thought. Could we say the chair of an interview committee? But the chair
Like, let's say it's one of the commissions where I'm the liaison, and Sydney, as chair, doesn't know
what's going on with them. But she can't talk to me because we're on a committee. So that doesn't really
help. Holden, should it be the liaison? Yeah, I think that's what I was saying. Like, the liaison could
bring it to the, like, a problem has been notified, boom.
you know whether it's something that has been told to me or staff knows immediately who the liaison
is and usually they'll you know notify that. I would also ask for the if it is staff liaison like to
keep me in the loop too so that in the event that something's unusually I am but yeah. So yeah I would
agree I think it could be the liaison. So then
Plan is reviewed by staff. It's communicated to the council staff liaison and the liaison decides, is
this valid enough to keep on pursuing it? And then they get notice and they get an opportunity to respond
with that notice, but then it still goes to the interview committee before going to council. So that
notice is, it's going to be discussed in the interview committee. I would think for the sake of transparency
that the liaison should
like in order not to make a quorum for like because I would think that we like we could work together
where we could schedule the meeting because my concern would be is that you know who's to say that the
liaisons like this isn't a problem and just kind of like go away with it. I think once for transparency
once a problem has been identified
it is up to the liaisons to express that there is an issue so that we can schedule the meeting. And
I would assume the interview committee could talk about that as a whole to express if there is. It could
be that one person might not think it's a big deal, but other two are, or vice versa. So I would think
that once something has been notified, just for you all not to
self-diagnose and just say, nope, not a big deal. Just go away. And then you guys get accused of not
being transparent and honest. Therefore, yeah, I think liaison notifies that automatically kind of jump
start something where committee has to be involved and discussed.
I think it's also protection from the opposite, right? So nobody has a vendetta against a particular
person or there's like a particular type of discrimination going on because it's, I think some of the
confusion here was about whether this is viewpoint discrimination, whether it had to do with the topic
or not, as opposed to just neutrally trying to apply the rules. So a complaint goes to council staff
or? Clerk's office.
Council staff still has the job of investigating. Would that be accurate? Since it's a council appointee.
Yeah, cause I think that that's like, that's where I'm stuck right now is that who gets to decide the
initial, like is this, I'll say legitimate or real or. I think council staff could investigate and collect
evidence and present
their findings to the liaison. Or to the interview committee. I was going to say just to the interview
committee. And it could be referred fairly early, so there's no quote unquote investigation. I mean,
when I say investigation, too, I mean, these are public meetings. And so you can go. That's kind of
the beauty of it, which is nice, because you go observe just as someone in the audience. And then you
want to make sure all avenues of information are open.
to you. So it doesn't matter where that's coming from as long as it's getting into this process. So
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
committee. I think you want to accept as many avenues as possible. The investigation or any kind of
fat gathering after that can happen after the recommendation. It can happen during that process of notice.
So because you're going to need to keep that open while you're accepting and fairly evaluating anything
that you get back from the
the individual who's the subject of the investigation or potential removal, right? It shouldn't seem
like it's a done deal before that because ultimately the council has to weigh the recommendation of
the committee even, or all the information before they vote to remove. Does that make sense? So a letter
would go out to the individual saying, interview committee C is going to review a possible removal
from this commission based on X, Y, and Z, you're welcome to attend and or give written feedback and
the committee will consider it, that kind of thing. It could happen like that. It could also happen
where the committee considers it and direct staff at that point. So the committee could just consider
what information they have and say, is this worth following up? Do we think this could be substantiated
and then direct staff on what to do next, whether that's
you can issue the notice and we want to hear this at a follow up committee meeting based on what's received
at the notice and then be referred to council ultimately or the committee could just say that. I think
that's what I suggested the first time I was concerned that sometimes it takes a while to get interview
committees together to meet. Yeah I've been convinced that we need to do it anyway. I was like I feel
like we just like circled around to what I proposed the first time and now I'm confused. OK.
subsequent meetings that we kicked it to. Well, and also maybe that there were two HPC meetings that,
you know. Also, things happened continuously, so there were things happening even after this, you know,
and so that was also part of it. If this is helpful, I don't know how long you all want to spend on
this, because I know you have limited time in your meeting.
This is also something if you wanted to direct staff to come up with a proposal for you all, that way
you can have something in writing and start picking it apart and like moving things around as you see
fit. We're happy to do that as well. I just kind of broke this down. So I can read what I have written
down and you all can tell me if this is what you're thinking that we all said. Do you want me to do
that? All right. One complaint is received by staff.
staff investigate and bring information to the relevant interview committee complaint. Um, if complaint
is substantiated by the interview committee, notice is given to the commission member and then there's
notice to the commission member opportunity for response by the commission member. And then you bring
it to full council and refer it back to the interview committee if necessary. If it's referred back
to the interview committee, then they review it and bring a recommendation to the full council.
If not, then the full council makes a decision. Well, I guess it just kind of depends on like the way
this is written right now is that notice is not given to the commission member until after the interview
committee meeting. And so that's where like, depending on the situation, the interview committee,
you know, and,
might not have a recommendation to bring. And that's where like, you know, it's like how much debate
might there be and the interview committee themselves, you know, could come to the meeting and all of
them say like, yeah, I think that we need to remove. But if there's dispute amongst the interview committee,
then the rest of council members might not feel clarity over the situation like in terms of the response
and all of
the stuff. And so that's why maybe it would have to get kicked back to the interview committee for the
interview committee to really suss out that debate and discussion. My concern with this is that's convening.
So if I understood correctly, the complaint goes to the interview committee, but this first notification
for the interview committee to convene them to talk about it,
the commission member has not been notified yet, has not had time to defend themselves. That's the way
it's written down right now. But then based on the finding of that interview committee, if they decide,
yes, this is something substantial here, then the commission member gets notified and the next meeting
it goes to the city council. Yeah. That's the way it's written right now. Yeah, I'm just making sure
that I'm clear.
Yeah, that's the way it's written right now because there was that whole discussion about, well, who
should decide if that letter of violation gets sent out at all. Right. And so then it was like, OK,
I guess the whole interview committee is going to decide, which means they've got to meet and decide
whether or not it's even worth talking about. So without like there wouldn't be a decision made by the
interview committee at that point in terms of a recommendation for removal or not. It would just be
like, yeah, send the notice and let's get the response and let's like talk about it.
So after the notification of possible removal is sent to the individual, that person has a chance to
respond. Does it then go to the interview committee again? What I have written down as it goes to the
full council, but it could go back to the interview committee next time. But then when we say it, I
think that should include
both a memo from the interview committee, why we sent this individual this letter and the rebuttal from
the individual. That would be in the packet for the council. I'm wondering the value of taking it to
the council. Yeah, or it could just go back to the individual. It feels like that just extends the process
by at least another week, if not more. So I think we should cut that step out. I think the liaison should
make the decision.
There is not one other council member that would have been able to make the same level of informed call
as me for HPC. Just because we all know our commissioners or we should. But you only got to make that
call because you're vice president of the council. That is true. That is the reason that I think it
would be worth having the liaison to make the decision. Maybe we should have the liaison and the council
president make that decision.
So then it's joint, but what if the liaison and the council president are on the same interview committee?
Do we kick it to vice president? I think that makes sense. We can't put on the president's hat. So as
a liaison, I would rather not make the decision. I would rather not. I would rather have a committee
do it. Well, I had agreed with the reasoning for not putting it all on
I understand your argument 100%. I mean, yeah, the liaison who hopefully knows the commission better
is on that team, but it's still a team, and it's not one person saying yes or no. I guess, like, how
much are we willing to hold up over process is my question. Because, like, we lost commission members
to process this time. So if we choose process, that's fine, but we're sacrificing something else.
Well, was it process, or was it that, I mean? Process and a decision. I mean, this was an exceptionally
long, exceptionally long process. Yeah, but it was exceptionally long, partly because of budget season
stuff, and so there weren't very many regular meetings, and that happens all the time. Right, and yeah.
Cutting out that city council in between, until the final, before the final decision,
that would help prevent that. I think we were bumbling, to be honest. We didn't know what we were doing
because we didn't have a process. And I, you know, that's fine. We were figuring it out, you know, but
unfortunately there were casualties along the way. So now that's what we're trying to prevent.
And I think, I just think the biggest stumbling block with what we have, are you kidding me? My computer's
about to die already?
That is a big stumbling block. Sorry, it was fully charged when I sat down. I just think the biggest
stumbling block will be getting the council, the interview committees together twice within. I think
when they get scheduled out, they have to be scheduled like at the same time. Be like this Tuesday and
next Tuesday, do it like a week apart from each other.
commit them now so that if at the first meeting the interview committee decides this is a nothing burger,
we can dismiss it, great, go ahead and cancel that meeting for a week from today, you know. I just think
you're putting too much on the interview committee with having those meetings like that. And to be honest,
it's already a little difficult to schedule and juggle like nine different schedules for interview committees
And so I think it's almost like you're working harder than you need to be. I just think that ideally,
like if I'm trying to think of it from a processes standpoint, because like the clerk's office and myself
will have to be involved. And so that's like times two. And then, you know, we're adding more meetings
to your already busy schedules to discuss something like that. And then if we're asking a volunteer
who's not getting paid to come in and defend themselves for, you know, that's more time that we are
kind of spending, and then eventually it will get kicked to the council for the vote. And I think that,
and I don't, maybe in my head, I just think it's just a little bit more simpler of it just really, just
having that conversation with the liaison, like, and when I hear you all say like, well, maybe you can
talk to, you know, council leadership,
My thought that I would give to you all is, if a council liaison and council leadership are at odds
with that decision, then who gets to say, I'm right, you're wrong, and vice versa? Like, does the council
president who isn't okay with this move, you know, Trump's, that's a really bad way to say that,
you know, goes over, or takes precedence over the liaison,
and then that ceases or do you just put it to the ownership of, you know, like the liaison and I can
have the conversation and then we schedule that meeting for the council committee to talk, to present
that and to, you know, have that as a discussion. I just think if we're adding, that's a little, with
your busy schedules,
That's a lot of meetings that you are putting yourselves up on. And not to mention all the other committee
things that you all are also responsible for too. Since he offered, I would be inclined to take Larry
up on the staff comes up with a proposal that we can look at and
comment on at our next meeting. Is that, are you sure you have bandwidth? Yeah, we can do that. I mean,
we have a new staff person coming in. Yeah, yeah, we can do it. When's your next meeting? It's in about
a month. Yeah, we can do that. This meeting on the 26th. Yeah. Yeah, so, and then at that point, Jake
will be on board, so I'll incorporate Jake into that process to make sure that he's up to speed so that
there's... Is that okay with you all? Because it seems like there are too many details to try to hash out.
And just hearing it orally, I also forget parts of what Obi said. I mean, that's fine. I mean, I think
that that is definitely the thing to do, is to put something on paper and then hash through it. It's
just a question, I guess, in terms of the order that we want, because I feel like the four of us right
now are having a real debate over just the basic order of presentation. And so I'm wondering if it's
actually going to help if we don't settle that
debate now, like I feel like we're just gonna have the same debate again. So what I'm hearing from Jennifer
is, and maybe from others as well, is that we wanna try to reduce, that there's value in reducing the
number of interview committee meetings to just one meeting if possible. So we could go back to say,
council president, vice president,
fields it to start with and decides or consults with the liaison, I don't know. I think I know what
kind of reaction this is going to get, but I'll just say, do we, why wouldn't we just automatically
take it to the interview committee rather than fielding it first and being like, hey, this has been,
this complaint has been lodged. Take every complaint and assume that it's a substantiated one instead
of. Not assume that it's a substantiated one,
in the same interview committee, have the evidence compiled, have the response from, you know, have
already informed the commissioner, have their response, talk about it and say, do we want to? What's
that call? Because they're the call of whether or not to inform the commissioner. Because that's the
call that like we're debating right now is whether or not to inform the commissioner and who gets to decide if
that initial right that's what I'm saying like we just automatically take it as so hey we're gonna hear
every complaint yeah yeah well that's what I'm that's what I'm asking like is this opening us up for
complaints like how petty do people on the commissions get do they lodge a lot of complaints okay so
yeah you could purposely
the way any of these systems are gonna go and processes you're gonna develop, there's gonna be a lot
of what I would think of as off ramps for no action. So it's kind of like, because you're depriving
somebody of something that's thus triggering the due process thing, there's a lot of opportunities for
the council not to take action. It actually has to be something fairly extraordinarily and goes down
the path that ends in removal of somebody. So maybe it's not gonna be a one size fits all because
you have things like the liaison's choice and information and dealing with information and what qualifies.
There's always going to be some discretion in that level. But once you get into an actual process, that's
where you're protecting the person and making sure that there's the touchstones of transparency and
action and everybody being on board are the main things. But there's still a lot of opportunities to
say, actually, we're not going to take action in this case. Yeah, I mean, what I was proposing, that
was the first step of that meeting.
Just kind of combining them since we're trying to cut down on meetings and who gets to make the decision.
So that was just one way of doing that. Kind of separating out those two actions in one meeting. I also
was hesitant to even say anything because I understand why that's not necessarily the best plan. I think
that that's where I was trying to
from the interview committee saying, yes, this is substantiated, send the notice, and then going straight
to counsel after that without necessarily a recommendation of action from the interview committee. How
would that be different than what we did? See, that's the thing. Like, it might not be different than
what we did, except that maybe because there would be a process. I mean, I feel like
part of what happened in that first meeting was that most council members hadn't read any of the things
that had been sent about this at all and didn't know what was going on. That was clear. That was more
of the problem than anything else. It's like, what do we need to have in the packet? What do we need
to have as expectation on ourselves to actually research the situation?
and understand the situation and read the details of the situation. And should we expect that all nine
members should do that for these situations? Or should we expect that our three interview committee
members should do that for these situations? And then the other six should just take the recommendation
of those three. And I would say, honestly, that all nine people should do that. Like, if we're removing
somebody, like... They should and they could, but I think it would be helpful for them to
for an interview committee to have this kind of dialogue, this kind of discussion, deliberation.
But yes, I mean, all of the facts of the matter, the rebuttal, everything should go to all council members.
And then they can take it or leave it as far as the recommendation from the interview committee.
They can say, well, I disagree. I don't think this person should be removed or whatever. By definition,
it has to. Yeah. No matter what. So by definition, all of council has to have all that
You can't, you can't abrogate your decision to a committee. So I agree with you, Hopi, that everybody
should, all nine of us should consider the matter with all the evidence. But you want a recommendation
from the IWU committee too. Yeah. I don't know how there's a way to like reconcile all of this.
all of those things in terms of like the interview committee is not having too many meetings, there
being like enough. Council members should do their research. That's the issue that we're struggling
with here is that we were unprepared to make a decision. We could cut down potentially on the interview
committee meeting if we leave it up to council leadership. So they don't have to schedule a meeting.
There's two of them to decide.
whether there is enough evidence of something, some cause for removal to send it so that they would
make the decision whether an interview committee even meets or whether to send the letter to the individual.
And then when the interview committee meets, they would have all the investigation about the complaint
and the rebuttal from the person and the person could also come so that there only have to be one meeting.
But then we take that
decision about whether to send the letter or not, and we leave it with the council president and vice
president. And they can consult a liaison. So maybe that would make it more efficient? Would we lose
anything with that? Well, we just circled around to something that we talked about again in the beginning,
which isn't necessarily a bad thing, right? Because then it's like we are considering the options.
figure out the one that's. I'm happy to draft that in like maybe a more formal way just to make sure
also we're out add in you know what due process requires and have those citations and so that way you
all can see because those are those are really and truly that was actually even in this process that
was the thing I was more concerned about is making sure that Mr. Cross had a fair opportunity to be
heard and understood as opposed to just trying to move something as quickly as possible.
I can draft that, where that landed and then we could react to it for next time. Is that what you'd
like? Is that something? Is that okay with everybody? Yes, thank you. And I was gonna say, we can also,
just much like I did with the code of conduct, I could work in tandem with you as well. I will be out
of the office for the next three weeks, but I know
and I discussed this at great length about all of this. So I will be out starting next Wednesday and
I won't possibly be back until this next meeting on the 26th of October. But in the meantime, I'm here
for this full week and then a couple of days next week. So I can gather all my thoughts in and get it
to Larry or also
I'll loop the clerk in as well, so she could be in the works, too. Congratulations. Enjoy your time
off. Oh, I don't know if it's enjoyable, but it's OK. Well, thank you. Thank you for volunteering to
help with that, though. That would be very helpful. OK. So the next item on the agenda is improved training
on Robert's Rules of Order for boards and commissions.
So Deputy Clerk Crosso did share with me the slides and the recording from the June training session.
And so I included the slides in here just for your information. And I did feel like there was no training
included about Robert's rules. I included in here, in our packet for today, the cheat sheet that was
in the city council
resources folder that Steve and Lucas shared way back at the start of this term. So I don't know, Jennifer,
if that might be something useful to adapt for the training, but as I said at the outset of the meeting
today, it's not really our purview to do training. I just, that was just my reaction to having
Watch the zoom video and and Reaction to what happened with HPC where people obviously didn't know Roberts
rules So I don't know What the committee members want to say about that As soon as they're accepted I
You can however and reading through the packet I would agree that I think I don't know if this is the
right source here for this committee to discuss I'm always willing to take suggestions not saying that
at all but. And read in the packet and looking at it some of the things weren't really.
It didn't really relate to some of the things related to boards and commissions, of course, so we could
kind of tailor that. But that's also something I'm more than happy to work with legal because that's
also like in council staff as well, too, because that's who I've been working with for training sessions.
So that is, you know, definitely something that could be done. Any other feedback? I generally thought that the
slides took care of things. I mean, I thought that it was pretty, pretty well done. I had a couple of
random questions on things, but yeah, I, but I also wasn't sure because there were these other Roberts
rules things that we put into our packet. Are those things that boarding commissions get or that was
all out of our, the stuff that
Cause yeah, I mean, putting that in might be good, but I think that there was also some mention of it
and yeah, it wasn't like covered in depth per se, but each boarding commission seems to have, like some
of them are very informal. And so it's like, we say that Robert's rules, but they're so informal that
like, it's not really relevant.
like Robert's rules are not really relevant. Until there's a problem. Until there's a problem. And that's
what, you know, when I was doing PTO stuff, our bylaws said something like in the event of a dispute,
then Robert's rules would govern the meetings. But other than that, it was all very casual. And that's
something that
is really individual, I think, with the different boards and commissions. So I think it would be hard
in some ways in a general training to go into Robert's rules too much, just because some people won't
necessarily need that. But like the role of the chair thing in here, I think, is relevant to everybody
and important and that gets covered. Yeah. But it doesn't say how the person maintains order and decorum.
doesn't say what the rules of procedure are that the person is supposed to enforce. Oh, well, I assume
that that's part of the discussion. It is. Well, and code also says meetings of all boards and commissions
and council shall be conducted according to procedure set forth in Robert's rules. So, yeah. So, I mean,
I would be, I don't know, it's not really our purview.
As somebody who's been on the council for a long time, I would be happy to make a few, like take what
the council has and maybe whittle it down to just some essential things and share it with you, Jennifer.
You can decide whether or not to use it. Just trying to be helpful. But yeah, I think that's hard for people.
I mean, it's hard for me. I've been doing this for a long time. But to have some kind of cheat sheet
could be helpful, especially for chairs. In between meetings one and two out of three, several commissioners
contacted me. I said to every single one of them, it feels to me like a better understanding of Robert's
rules would have helped you in that moment. And there were council commissioners who took me up on
talking about Robert's Rules and there were commissioners who did not. Yeah, and I guess that's where
like, and I've thought this for a while, I think that it would be super helpful if the city could do
like a specific Robert's Rules training for anybody involved in the meetings. But I think that what
is here, I mean, that's really requiring this, right?
And I think that this should definitely be required And that covers things that we need to be covered
but a Roberts rules one could maybe be more optional because I mean some of the Commission's just don't
use it as much some people already have to use it in a lot of different places like And have enough
familiarity like that. It wouldn't necessarily be required and I smile big
that's actually a thought that I've had. I think everybody, it's fair to say that everybody has learned
a lot from this experience. I know I definitely have. But that is actually something like, how do we
continuously educate our board members and commissioners on these types of things? And while maybe something
like that not required, however, give people an opportunity
to be able to have a chance to go to Robert's Rules like crash course, because I mean, all of us in
some regard, you know, think we know a lot about Robert's Rules until you don't. And so therefore,
you know, we still pick out, you know, the 12th edition of, I think that's the edition that we are all
on. And so, you know, it's a crash course that I learned in a lot of different ways.
You say that and I got like the Grinch and had a big smile because that is something I've been thinking
about for the next year is like in addition to quarterly trainings for board members and commissions,
like what are some other things to just keep it going? Because ultimately, you know, that could also
potentially keep somebody on a commission because they feel like they have had the training and they
stay on and things like that. So, yeah. Well, and I also like
think that we should expect you to recreate the wheel. I feel like this training is very, very specific
to our code of conduct and what we in Bloomington expect and need and state law and that kind of thing.
There's a ton of online resources about Robert's rules. I mean, like, like there's a ton. I mean, I,
Courtney, you've been parliamentarian now for a couple of years. I don't know how much of that,
like you did, but I mean, I went through a whole bunch of, I mean, there's a lot of videos.
There's a lot of, you know, and simply,
finding a good one that is already there might not necessarily be enough, but be a good start, especially
because thinking about you and your bandwidth and your ability to do all those things. And we don't
have to recreate what's already available, often free and quite good. Well, Clark Bolden mentioned at
the interview committee meeting that
She had a contact who is great at giving trainings and she was going to reach out to that person. He's
done the clerk conferences. I'm pretty sure that's who she's thinking about. Yeah. Okay. Well, let us
move on to the next agenda item, if that's okay. Which is title two review.
Starting with 2.04.225. Let me share my screen. Oh my gosh. Well, and I feel like we need to go back
to the beginning almost because like, I'm not sure that I was really prepared the first, I think that
this may have been like my first CCP meeting. I was like, can you let me share? I don't feel like I
responded to the first ones in the way that I would respond now.
Well, no. This is our first pass. We're going to have time for more passes. Perfect. This material.
That was so impressive. No. No. I do not want to start over today. Another day. No, it's a second pass,
not a starting over, please. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear enough before. All right.
Intentional display of firearms prohibited, I assume we just leave that. Hold on. This is under the
heading of committees. So we talked about standing committees, establishment, meetings of standing
committees. Sorry, am I going too fast?
No, I just have a question about the intentional display of firearms prohibited. Yes. Are we even allowed
to prohibit that? And what does intentional display mean? Because open carry is legal. Larry? That's
a good question. You definitely can't prohibit anyone from carrying the firearm into the building unless
there's, I think, a city court that exists here. Display is more of an action. I could take a look.
I can't give you, actually,
legitimate full answer. And similarly, why is this under committees? Like is, I mean, it says under
any public meeting of council, is it in other places too? I believe so. So I'm wondering if this actually
tracks. No, it's not.
under committees so that that is weird and so yeah like I don't know if I don't know that is strange
I mean it's referring to
Yeah, I mean, it's referring to our own ordinance, so. Yeah. Anyway. Might be worth. Part of our code
allows for the sergeant arms to ask any person carrying a firearm to relinquish the firearm.
Which is also. I thought it was any weapon except
So it says Bloomington Municipal Code section 2.04.030 allows for the sergeant at arms to ask any person
carrying a firearm at a council meeting to relinquish his or her firearm. Which also we can't actually.
That sounds unfortunate. What paragraph is that sending? I looked up ordinance 1115. Yeah, but in our
code 204.030 duties of sergeant at arms
It says, Sergeant at Arms may request any person in attendance at council meeting to surrender any dangerous
weapon other than a firearm. And it's probably been updated. It's probably because of Indiana code change
since the ordinance went through. This provision actually explicitly tracks Indiana code. So Indiana
code 354711.1-4, which is criminal code.
The enactment of enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting intentional display of a firearm
at a public meeting is an explicit exception. So even though we can't prohibit people from carrying
firearms into public buildings, that is an explicit exception. So we just mirrored the language here.
Right. But we did it under committees instead of under the whole thing. So maybe we could move that
under. Well, it's also only an intentional display ends up being defined somewhere in state code, I'm guessing.
Again, I'll look, but it's only about council. So this is only applicable to council, not any work meeting,
right? Right. But within Chapter 2.04, it's under the heading of Article 3 committees, which is I don't
even know why we have articles here. It just messes everything up. But anyway, yeah, we should look
at moving that.
into article two meetings and rules of procedure yeah yeah because that would cover all meetings including
the committee meetings but committee meetings don't feel like they necessarily cover regular meetings
oh rules of procedure but we're gonna put that in a separate document
We are going backwards, Hopi. I know, I was just teasing. Duties of President, duties. Yeah, so it is
Article 2, Meetings and Rules of Procedure. So maybe sticking the intentional display of firearms somewhere
under Meetings and Rules of Procedure. That makes sense. Okay.
The next part is about reports from standing committees. And when reviewing this with Christine Chang
last year, we said possible relocation to rules of procedure. Is there a benefit to having information
about standing committee reports in code? And again, it says reports shall be in writing and signed
Oh my gosh, we have not been doing that, have we? And documents referred to the committee shall be returned
with a report. That seems to reference a practice that we don't do, like what documents?
one of the reasons to have something about reports in code is to ensure that reports from committees
are happening. Yeah. And yeah. So maybe just having a minimum requirement, like once a year or something
like that, and then we could put the details and the rules of procedure.
twice a year, once before summer recess and after summer recess at minimum. Okay. Well, it depends when
the committee, you know, if it's a year-round committee. Yeah, that happens, there wouldn't be much
to report. Right, the first half of the year you can do the report, the second half of the year be like,
pass, you know. That's true.
Yeah, this is very much written with the understanding that legislation would be referred to committees.
Well, it's also kind of, it's also written with this, I mean, signed by a majority of the committee.
I absolutely know there have been times when I or committee chair have sent out a report to committee
members asking for input. And, you know, and like, like we didn't sign it, but
everybody kind of signed off on it in an unofficial sort of way that wasn't necessarily available in
1979 when the last time was this. That's kind of archaic there. In 1979? Yeah, I mean this section refers
to ordinance.
They weren't in homes, however. Okay. So you think twice a year? Courtney has a point about the,
but honestly, I think twice a year could make sense even for something like Jack Hopkins, because there's
a very official once a year Jack Hopkins report, which is the recommendation. But I think that it would be
totally great to have an earlier Jack Hopkins report that's like, hey, here's the deadlines for submissions.
We've met, we're doing the thing. That's a fair point. It doesn't have to be six months apart. Right.
It could be at the beginning of the process and at the end of the process. Right. If it's just a short
period. Like next week we have our first CDBG meeting. So same thing with CDBG.
Well, especially if you don't have to have it written and you don't have to have it signed by everybody,
it would be easy to give an oral report. I would say one written report per year and more as appropriate
oral reports.
out all the stuff about things that refer things to committees. We just don't do that very much anymore.
No, we don't. I've actually gotten feedback that that might be why our council meetings last so long
because a lot of other councils across the state handle most things in committees, which, yep, in terms
of time commitments, I don't really know how that would shake out.
terms of adding committee meetings versus? We tried it during 2020, which was not an ideal year to try
anything. Okay, so anything else that we want to ensure is still in our code and not in the separate
rules document.
the stuff about reporting back, further time? Do we, I mean there's the whole minority report thing
which has the potential to happen if there's division on said committee but would that mostly only happen
when there's actually legislation that is like referred to the committee and then the committee makes a
I would imagine. I've never heard of a minority report in City Council context. Is it just like the
descent? Yeah. Okay. I would assume. Great movie with Tom Cruise. I smell a movie with Tom Cruise. 1979,
folks, 1979. Wasn't there, didn't happen. Even Minority Report is probably before Sydney was.
All right, let's try to do one more paragraph. It came out about four months before I did. Okay, special
committees. So here we did have some language changes proposed by yours truly. Any three council members
or the council president
Maybe we should say presiding officer, that was something we discussed earlier, may form a special committee
for any specific purpose proper for council deliberation or consideration. Special committee shall be
considered to be established at a regular session of council when it is either A, created by the council
president or B, proposed by a member with verbal support from at least two additional members. Special
committee shall continue to function until the following January organizational meeting at which time
the new council president may continue the special committee
for another calendar year. If the president does not continue the special committee, it shall be disbanded.
So I think I was just putting in words what our practice had been. Okay. I think that we should keep
the line in there about ceasing to function when it's completed duties. Just in case, like an either
or to the next year or if it is completed as function, thinking about things like hiring committee and then
hiring is done, then why keep meeting? Right, like why keep the committee and then it can disband before
that? What does it mean for a committee to disband? I mean, it just wouldn't meet if it was done. Does
it have to officially go away? I think a final report would be, I mean, it says when it's completed
its duties and made a report. Okay. So I would say like some sort of final report
be good. I mean, and then there's the whole like... Isabel, you can just reject the... I was trying,
but... If you click the X. Wouldn't that reject everything though? No, because I have all the stuff
in green here. Just maybe make a note. Keep the last line. Reply to yourself. Just change that to regular
text and not
and not struck through text. I can't, I'm in the suggestion mode. The struck through is because. So
you're gonna wanna copy all of the text that isn't crossed through. This one? No, everything else.
This one? Yeah, copy that. And then paste it immediately after the crossed outline. Oh, oh wait, I need
to be in editing. Okay, I am in editing mode now, okay.
Click after. Yeah. And make sure you're outside of that edit box. Okay. Now deny the suggestion.
There you go. And then just move that paragraph back in. There we go. Thank you.
And I mean, I don't love the way that that's phrased the committee. So she says, she'll cease to function
when it has completed its duties and made a report or recommendation to the council. I think that that
could be, you know, cause there needs to be an or in there, right? Like it needs to, so special committee
shall be considered. Special committees shall continue to function until the following January organizational meeting.
suggest you go to public comment? Yes. It shall give a final report to council. I don't think that we
can play this live. Could we just say the committee will conclude its duties after giving a final report
to council? Yes. In any case,
case. Because even with the hiring committee, we still had to give an explanation.
We can wordsmith that later. Let's go to public comment. If somebody would like to make a comment, please
come up to the table. Is there anybody online? There's a hand raised online. Okay. We'll go with here
in the room first. I'll be brief. Hello, everybody. Pardon the jacket. I'm freezing to death in here.
A couple very quick things. Good to see you all. Thank you for your important work. It's not really
a special committee. This is an especially important committee. Give yourself a special name.
May I say now in no particular order, I know I'm going up to the aim of celebrate Indiana municipalities
idea summit tomorrow. Some of you may be doing the same partly because there's a there's a
section or a meeting on building consensus and moving from ideas to action, which is interesting to
me. So I don't know if any of you are going, but it's somewhat relevant, it sounded like, to much of
what you've been involved in or doing. So I'll let you know or pass along anything relevant. Can you
give your name for the record? Terry Amsler. My wife and I live in Bloomington, in your district,
as you know. Robert's Rules is an interesting question. I'm not going to talk about it. We've talked,
you've talked other times about, other than Robert's Rules.
as a resource, which exists. I or others have forwarded you some ideas about that. There are a lot of
options there. But I think your attention to that is good. Thirdly, there is, having talked to Isabel,
Gretchen Knapp, Jennifer, Isaac, about a potential O'Neill School
capstone in service to boards and commission themes. There is support among all elements of local government
here for the idea, which is a good thing, I thought. And that's working now through the IU system. There's
a little bit of a problem, but IU has fewer in some level, some places bring very well in undergraduate
admissions, some of the graduate programs not as strong as others. And so when a capstone is going to happen,
maybe a little more challenging than it used to be. I was hoping to do it this spring. Maybe,
maybe not, because of how many capsules there can be, given how many students there are, and that sort
of thing. But I want to say, I think the boards of commission theme, of which I'm not going to go into
what everyone thought would be a good idea to look at, is directly relevant to some of what you've been
thinking and talking about from Novak forward. And I think it would be in good service, as spoken to by many,
at the table and beyond about that. So that's that. The Monroe County Health Equity Council, which some
of you know something of. It just changed its name at a retreat to Monroe County Health Equity Coalition.
Well, I'm not going to say anything more about that right now. I'm happy, kind of happy about the name.
I think it's more real in some way than council. It sounds like you have money and you're making
doing something important. But I think it's trying to do other sorts of things, but it is more of a
coalition. And I will want to come back at some point to talk with you relating to McKeck's interest
in speaking with and learning from boards and commissions about those members thinking about health
and wellness in the community and how it might inform what McKeck might do. Another question, another
time in the future. I'm not looking for any feedback tonight, not anything.
The only other thing I'd say, let's see. Then I'm done apparently. That's the main stuff. Thank you
very much. And online we have Eric. Eric, I think you can unmute yourself. Go ahead. Yes, can you hear me? Yes.
Good afternoon, my name is Eric Host, and I appreciate this opportunity to offer a public comment. I
will note that in prior meetings of this committee, public comment was accepted during items as opposed
to grouped at the end. So I'll try to be concise, but there are several things that I may not get to.
Categorizing and assigning the removal of appointed board and commission members
to a four-cause standard creates a constitutionally protected property interest under the 14th Amendment,
transforming removal from a discretionary act into a formal quasi-judicial proceeding. I think Mr. Allen
covered that in his opening remarks. A member cannot be stripped of their appointment without procedural
due process, thus subjective or indefinite draft provision
such as mandating that appointees be polite or barring speech detrimental to city operations, a field
appears to fail the constitutional void for vagueness standard and should not serve as lawful grounds
for dismissal. Rather than relying on self-executing or automatic administrative triggers, any claim
of cause needs to be treated as a formal evidentiary allegation requiring detailed written notice and
full disclosure of supporting claims and evidence.
To ensure lawful execution, the Code of Conduct established a deliberate multi-step hearing framework
for the full common counsel as the appointing authority. True new process requires that all council
members are fully informed through an assembled evidentiary record and that the member-facing removal
afford a timely, meaningful, fair opportunity to appear, present evidence,
and place their full statement directly before the council prior to the vote. The resignations from
the BHPC that have been referenced in this meeting arose due to the events and a sensible failure of
process that occurred at the June 25th, 2026 meeting. I must ask, was there a council liaison in attendance
at the June 25th, 26th BHPC meeting? Structuring the code around clear evidentiary thresholds
full council deliberation and statutory alignment protects both constitutional rights of volunteer appointees
and the city from procedural and First Amendment liability. In addition, any code of conduct and rules
should include codification of how a point of order can be raised during a meeting like the June 25th
meeting, who has standing to raise that point of order, and how should that point of order be assessed
and addressed.
As duly elected representatives of our community, you are currently afford afforded a challenging but
important opportunity in the facilitation and support of public participation in local governments through
service on boards and commissions. Please think carefully and clearly and make fully informed decisions
that are practicable, durable, respectful of individual rights and the process in which carry a complete
and confirmatory record. Thank you. Thank you.
Anybody else for public comment? All right, not seeing any. So we have our next meeting scheduled for
October 26th. So I think that's all we have unless there's any last minute comments from committee members.
All right, we are adjourned. Thank you.