WEBVTT 00:00:00.898 --> 00:00:08.726 - I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Wilmington City Council Committee on Council Processes 00:00:08.726 --> 00:00:16.555 - for Monday, October 26, 2026. In lieu of calling roll, let's just go around the table starting to my 00:00:16.555 --> 00:00:24.616 - far left. Courtney Daly. Hope Stossberg, District 3. And I'm Isabelle Piedmont-Smith, District 1. Cindy 00:00:24.616 --> 00:00:28.414 - Zoellick, District 6. Nicole Bolden, City Clerk. 00:00:29.250 --> 00:00:37.173 - Jake Rossman, council attorney. Sophia McDowell, chief deputy clerk. All right, welcome everybody. Today's 00:00:37.173 --> 00:00:44.577 - agenda includes an update on a possible expansion of Bloomington public transportation board. There 00:00:44.577 --> 00:00:52.130 - may or may not be an update there, but we'll touch on it. Then we'll discuss a process for removal of 00:00:52.130 --> 00:00:56.350 - border commission members that are appointed by council. 00:00:57.314 --> 00:01:04.674 - Then if we have time, we will continue on to an, oh, and I should add, I would like to add public comment 00:01:04.674 --> 00:01:11.617 - for that last item, the process of removal. So we'll have public comment after our discussion. Then 00:01:11.617 --> 00:01:18.560 - if we have time, we will continue our review of title two, which is the part in city code having to 00:01:18.560 --> 00:01:25.086 - do with the city council processes. Then we will have general public comment if there is any, 00:01:25.186 --> 00:01:32.284 - and if there's any time left and then we shall adjourn. We do have only an hour today because there's 00:01:32.284 --> 00:01:39.312 - been a special session of council called for 630. So let's be mindful of that as we move through our 00:01:39.312 --> 00:01:46.757 - agenda. Any updates to the agenda or is it, can we by consensus say it's okay? Okay. Seeing no objections. 00:01:46.757 --> 00:01:53.507 - Council Member Stotsberg, is there an update on the possible expansion of the Bloomington Public 00:01:53.507 --> 00:01:55.038 - Transportation Board? 00:01:55.298 --> 00:02:02.125 - There's not really an update on that right now. I still have some research to review that staff gave 00:02:02.125 --> 00:02:09.493 - me and I wasn't able to get in the agenda for October for BT Board for pros and cons from their perspective. 00:02:09.493 --> 00:02:16.321 - Yeah, so we don't need to talk about it anymore right now because we have other things that are more 00:02:16.321 --> 00:02:17.470 - important. Okay. 00:02:18.306 --> 00:02:29.643 - Moving on to the proposed process for removal of a border commission member. So we had a memo from our 00:02:29.643 --> 00:02:41.310 - attorney Jake Rossman with a proposed process. Jake, do you want to just kind of run through that process 00:02:41.310 --> 00:02:44.062 - for us? I'd be happy to. 00:02:47.330 --> 00:02:57.195 - In trying to come up with a possible process for the council to remove a board or committee member that 00:02:57.195 --> 00:03:07.628 - it has appointed, I came up with a nine or ten step process. Our current ordinance, 20250, says commissioners 00:03:07.628 --> 00:03:14.078 - can be removed for cause but does not prescribe a specific process. 00:03:20.290 --> 00:03:31.451 - So this committee's report from March of 2023 did outline some good language and considerations that 00:03:31.451 --> 00:03:42.943 - were used in the construction of this potential process. As a first step, an informal complaint to city 00:03:42.943 --> 00:03:46.590 - clerk or council office, contact 00:03:47.330 --> 00:03:54.547 - can be provided with a link to a complaint form. Should we want to build a complaint form? A formal 00:03:54.547 --> 00:04:02.125 - complaint is then submitted to the clerk or council staff with attachments. This doesn't specify whether 00:04:02.125 --> 00:04:09.341 - it should be a complete submission or not at this point. But at this point, that complaint would be 00:04:09.341 --> 00:04:16.414 - automatically sent to the clerk and council staff and the date and time of the complaint would be 00:04:18.210 --> 00:04:26.579 - The next step, council staff and legal would initiate a review and verification of the claims, looking 00:04:26.579 --> 00:04:34.785 - at the meeting recordings, minutes, and other evidence. If those claims are substantiated, a council 00:04:34.785 --> 00:04:42.991 - leadership and interview committee can conduct staff screenings to decide what the allegations might 00:04:42.991 --> 00:04:43.966 - be, if any, 00:04:47.042 --> 00:04:56.276 - and whether to issue formal notice. What is a staff screening? That means speaking with the people involved, 00:04:56.276 --> 00:05:04.832 - talking to the people who have knowledge and evidence of the potential behavior that's at issue. The 00:05:04.832 --> 00:05:13.304 - city employees who have knowledge? Potentially, yes. Or would it include anyone like members of the 00:05:13.304 --> 00:05:16.862 - commission or the individual who has been 00:05:17.794 --> 00:05:30.338 - I'll have to look into that specifically. Certainly city staff, potentially members of those bodies 00:05:30.338 --> 00:05:43.258 - as well, yes. If council leadership decides that formal allegations are warranted and provides notice, 00:05:43.258 --> 00:05:44.638 - this point 00:05:45.186 --> 00:05:54.470 - recusal of any involved council members might come up. If allegations are brought at this point, a floor 00:05:54.470 --> 00:06:03.665 - motion can be brought to initiate it during a regular session under the standard boards and commissions 00:06:03.665 --> 00:06:13.214 - agenda item. This would be for due process and notice purposes, not to take a vote on it that session. Once 00:06:13.410 --> 00:06:24.085 - It becomes an agenda item. Constructive written notice can be provided stating which particular provisions 00:06:24.085 --> 00:06:34.759 - of the Code of Conduct or statutes or rules were violated, specific facts, statements, and quotes. There's 00:06:34.759 --> 00:06:40.446 - been emphasis in the past when considering this issue on 00:06:41.538 --> 00:06:50.620 - the notice providing an explicit statement of the logical nexus between the name conduct and their violations 00:06:50.620 --> 00:06:59.289 - of the code of conduct. Now that we have one before and still applicable is how the behavior might apply 00:06:59.289 --> 00:07:07.876 - to the diminished ability of them to perform their assigned duties or whether the processes of the body 00:07:07.876 --> 00:07:10.270 - are disrupted. Those are the 00:07:10.562 --> 00:07:21.472 - common law standards. Is it and or and slash or? Which one? So 5C, explicit statement on logical nexus 00:07:21.472 --> 00:07:32.276 - between conduct and diminished ability to perform assigned duties and how proceedings were disrupted. 00:07:32.276 --> 00:07:38.526 - My understanding of that is that would be an or statement. 00:07:39.650 --> 00:07:49.249 - I don't want to make a definitive statement on the state of common law in Indiana at this time. But 00:07:49.249 --> 00:07:58.943 - my understanding is that there's a line of cases that deals with removal for a diminished ability of 00:07:58.943 --> 00:08:08.734 - the appointee to perform their specific duties. And there are also cases involving removal for cause. 00:08:09.090 --> 00:08:18.282 - due to the proceedings of the body being disrupted. So that on C should be an and or instead of just 00:08:18.282 --> 00:08:27.656 - an and. It could be an or. An or can be inclusive, in my opinion. Do you have something to add? I have 00:08:27.656 --> 00:08:37.395 - something to say, but I will wait until the appropriate moment. But I do want to, you know what? Actually, 00:08:37.395 --> 00:08:38.942 - let me not wait. 00:08:40.002 --> 00:08:45.931 - If I recall correctly, the last time you discussed actually writing down the complaint process, you 00:08:45.931 --> 00:08:51.978 - were going to do so in conjunction with the clerk's office. This committee had discussed that and had 00:08:51.978 --> 00:08:57.966 - agreed to it. I think Larry and Jennifer were going to get together and actually go through this and 00:08:57.966 --> 00:09:04.191 - actually draw something out. The problem with what I see proposed here is that one, it's almost entirely 00:09:04.191 --> 00:09:08.222 - the process that has been followed even most recently with the HPC. 00:09:08.386 --> 00:09:14.554 - but it actually inserts council staff into places that you specifically hired somebody to do all of 00:09:14.554 --> 00:09:21.214 - these steps. You actually hired somebody to administer your boards and commissions process for the council, 00:09:21.214 --> 00:09:27.567 - which would cover everything from taking in complaints, any attachments that would be done. The review 00:09:27.567 --> 00:09:33.796 - and verification of claims actually tends to happen before it even gets to the point of elevating it 00:09:33.796 --> 00:09:36.510 - to council leadership or committee members. 00:09:36.834 --> 00:09:42.856 - Initiating the fuller process was done. Documenting everything that was done was actually done and sent 00:09:42.856 --> 00:09:48.821 - to the council repeatedly. So I'm looking at this and seeing that you actually have a process in place 00:09:48.821 --> 00:09:54.959 - that has been followed, but it is actually initiated through the position that you hired for, or actually 00:09:54.959 --> 00:10:00.749 - requested somebody to be hired for, since I know it's not under your office. So I'm kind of looking 00:10:00.749 --> 00:10:06.366 - at this, and it feels like you're shifting a great deal of work back onto your very small staff. 00:10:07.234 --> 00:10:13.273 - without a lot of free time that have a ton of other duties when there's actually a position in place 00:10:13.273 --> 00:10:19.253 - with a process in place. So from my perspective, since that position does fall under my office, I'm 00:10:19.253 --> 00:10:25.651 - wondering if your intent is to give them a position and then continually tell them how to do that position 00:10:25.651 --> 00:10:31.750 - when they're already doing it. I think there's a difference between documenting it and then doing it. 00:10:31.750 --> 00:10:36.414 - And offering that feedback and collaboration would make more sense to me than 00:10:36.578 --> 00:10:45.477 - having to create a different process all together and then saying, oh, by the way, this is kind of where 00:10:45.477 --> 00:10:54.206 - it is. I think I may have misstated part of that, but I think you got the gist of it. So was there any 00:10:54.206 --> 00:11:03.189 - collaboration on creating these rules? No. Mr. Russell. Oh, sorry. I haven't run it by the clerk's office 00:11:03.189 --> 00:11:05.054 - yet. So I think that, 00:11:05.954 --> 00:11:12.020 - Clerk Bolden is right that we thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, other members, I did think it was 00:11:12.020 --> 00:11:18.324 - gonna be a collaboration. I know Mr. Osmond wasn't here. Yeah, that's the thing is that Mr. Osmond wasn't 00:11:18.324 --> 00:11:24.390 - here and I think that we actually kind of wrote these steps which look very much like this during the 00:11:24.390 --> 00:11:30.337 - meeting last time. This is what we talked about. That was when Clerk Crosley was here and Larry was 00:11:30.337 --> 00:11:33.310 - here and between the two of them, they were gonna 00:11:33.762 --> 00:11:41.018 - put it on paper, and so I don't know if Mr. Rosman has started with that, but I don't think that it's 00:11:41.018 --> 00:11:48.132 - worth belaboring because I think that it's partly an issue with having new staff. But it's probably 00:11:48.132 --> 00:11:55.459 - just information. This is not a criticism of Jacob in any way, shape, or form. It is much more to say, 00:11:55.459 --> 00:11:59.870 - before you start workshopping something that's on paper here, 00:12:00.002 --> 00:12:07.893 - it might be worth having staff actually go back and clean it up and then have you come back to it, because 00:12:07.893 --> 00:12:15.709 - otherwise you're just going to kind of keep on going in a circle. Staff meeting, clerk, the deputy clerk, 00:12:15.709 --> 00:12:23.157 - I see she's online. Hello. Oh, yes. Deputy Clerk Crossley, welcome. Yeah, we can do that. I guess, I 00:12:23.157 --> 00:12:29.278 - don't know, and I'm going back and forth between calling you Jake and Mr. Rossman. 00:12:29.410 --> 00:12:36.799 - What do you want? Which do you prefer? I was fine. OK. Well, Jake, do you want to go through the rest 00:12:36.799 --> 00:12:44.116 - of this? Or is it basically, I mean, if you're just going to read it, then we probably don't need to 00:12:44.116 --> 00:12:51.433 - go through the rest of it. But was there any other clarifying things? And then we can see if there's 00:12:51.433 --> 00:12:58.750 - input and then send it back to work with the clerk for next time. No. No, it's basically as written. 00:12:59.490 --> 00:13:06.717 - Yes, it is. But for the record, it was probably something that just got lost before it got communicated 00:13:06.717 --> 00:13:14.014 - to you. So yeah, it's definitely not audio. So I just want to make sure that the public record maintains 00:13:14.014 --> 00:13:21.241 - that this was counsel's responsibility to communicate. And it looks like Jennifer has something to say. 00:13:21.241 --> 00:13:28.190 - Sorry, Deputy Claire Crossley. Yes, please go ahead. Hello. Hey. No, I'm going to be good. Yes. OK. 00:13:28.738 --> 00:13:37.079 - are actually not today in person, but here you've got me in a dangerous room, so here you go. I was 00:13:37.079 --> 00:13:45.670 - looking at this and kind of mulling over it, and so I know Leary and I were supposed to, and of course 00:13:45.670 --> 00:13:54.177 - me being bond on leave kind of pushed that away. But not to say that I wouldn't, willing to work with 00:13:54.177 --> 00:13:58.014 - staff on this, however, Court Bowman is right 00:13:58.146 --> 00:14:06.189 - with respect to a lot of the things that I do and in this particular situation have already done. I 00:14:06.189 --> 00:14:14.394 - think it's worth mentioning a couple of things since you asked for input briefly. Points number three 00:14:14.394 --> 00:14:23.161 - and points number seven where points three say council leadership or energy committee can conduct screenings 00:14:23.161 --> 00:14:24.126 - and decide. 00:14:24.418 --> 00:14:31.577 - and then 27 kind of pushes it back to the energy committee to do things and then formally send that 00:14:31.577 --> 00:14:39.166 - on to the full council. I think both of those are a little bit counterproductive for a couple of reasons. 00:14:39.166 --> 00:14:46.541 - Like we need to choose and figure out is council leadership doing this or is the committee doing this? 00:14:46.541 --> 00:14:53.342 - And I tend to think that you all would be setting yourselves up for a little bit of a conflict 00:14:53.762 --> 00:15:01.039 - if council leadership does this, because if and when there is an issue where council leadership says 00:15:01.039 --> 00:15:08.460 - no, and the energy committee, I'm focused on that energy committee, are saying yes, then there is that 00:15:08.460 --> 00:15:15.881 - conflict. And so much like, you know, there have been conflicts with the executive legislative branch, 00:15:15.881 --> 00:15:22.366 - I think you can kind of put that, or pick, you know, leadership and the energy committees 00:15:22.946 --> 00:15:31.969 - could particularly do that. So I would think that he would strike number three. And just, again, it's 00:15:31.969 --> 00:15:40.815 - to keep it simple. Because again, there's already somewhat of a process that's there. It just needs 00:15:40.815 --> 00:15:49.926 - to be outlined for you all. And so that's the point that I wanted to make with that. And again, number 00:15:49.926 --> 00:15:51.518 - seven already has 00:15:52.386 --> 00:16:00.221 - in going to the energy committee in the first place. So once that complaint has been, or officially 00:16:00.221 --> 00:16:08.370 - rather, said, then we bring that to, of course you can bring that to the attorney, our office can bring 00:16:08.370 --> 00:16:16.283 - that to the attorney, just much like I did with Larry and go from there. But the other question that 00:16:16.283 --> 00:16:19.966 - I had with this is who creates the Google Doc? 00:16:20.386 --> 00:16:29.512 - is that even necessary? And I tend to think that, again, how this all came about is me watching the 00:16:29.512 --> 00:16:38.730 - meetings, attending the meetings along with Mr. Allen, and listening to staff as well. So that's how 00:16:38.730 --> 00:16:47.582 - that all came about. But a simple email could also kickstart a lot of this. Again, it's more of, 00:16:48.162 --> 00:16:59.452 - you know, just trying to streamline this process and not make it too much harder for everybody involved. 00:16:59.452 --> 00:17:10.742 - Thank you. Yeah, looking at item three. I mean, there's a decision point here. I think that it's a valid 00:17:10.742 --> 00:17:14.398 - option just to strike item three. 00:17:15.650 --> 00:17:22.172 - Or we need to be clear, which is it, the council leadership or the interview committee that conducts 00:17:22.172 --> 00:17:28.887 - the screenings? I tend to think it should be staff, and we can work out later whether that's the deputy 00:17:28.887 --> 00:17:35.344 - clerk, whether that's the council attorney, whether that's both of them together. But what do other 00:17:35.344 --> 00:17:41.930 - committee members think about number three? Can we just combine number three with number two and just 00:17:41.930 --> 00:17:44.190 - put the staff screenings in there? 00:17:44.322 --> 00:17:52.546 - kind of in the other evidence category and just have, you know, verification of claims using meeting 00:17:52.546 --> 00:18:01.014 - recordings, minutes, staff screenings, and then other evidence. And adding in clerk personnel in there, 00:18:01.014 --> 00:18:09.319 - not just council staff and legal, but also clerk staff. And that would maybe give maximal flexibility 00:18:09.319 --> 00:18:10.622 - in terms of who 00:18:11.906 --> 00:18:20.709 - can look into that based on who is actually, like, here. But if everybody's available, we don't want, 00:18:20.709 --> 00:18:29.167 - I mean, we want it to be clear, like, whose job is it? And I think Clerk Bolden had a point that, 00:18:29.167 --> 00:18:37.970 - I mean, we ask that this job in the clerk's office be created. I think certainly the legal input from 00:18:37.970 --> 00:18:41.854 - our attorney is important as well, but maybe 00:18:41.954 --> 00:18:48.784 - It should be spearheaded by the deputy clerk. Sorry, I should shut up. No, no, no, no, no. That was 00:18:48.784 --> 00:18:55.683 - valuable and helpful. And I'm just wondering if we just, at this point, because it would be the bulk 00:18:55.683 --> 00:19:03.060 - of it through the clerk's office if we want to just say, I don't want to give the clerk's office extraneous 00:19:03.060 --> 00:19:09.890 - work, but at the same time, I wonder if you would prefer to just kind of shape it and take it first 00:19:09.890 --> 00:19:10.846 - before we do. 00:19:11.874 --> 00:19:17.640 - more input and maybe lead it astray too far from how your office would want to handle this. I would 00:19:17.640 --> 00:19:23.521 - much prefer that. Yeah. I feel like that makes the most sense. I feel like it's going to live in your 00:19:23.521 --> 00:19:29.287 - office. It's going to be, I think, Debbie Clark crosses. My thought, just in terms of processes and 00:19:29.287 --> 00:19:35.283 - everything else that's potentially being created, it makes more sense to actually create it there, even 00:19:35.283 --> 00:19:39.838 - if you have a formal complaint form with a Google form or something like that. 00:19:40.002 --> 00:19:47.004 - who would actually own that document is a question that should be addressed right off the bat. So actually 00:19:47.004 --> 00:19:53.809 - having it drawn out before you get into it makes far more sense than workshopping it. I'm not proposing 00:19:53.809 --> 00:20:00.352 - in any way, shape, or form that some process get initiated without council feedback. That has never 00:20:00.352 --> 00:20:07.550 - been my thought process, particularly with this role. But I do think that letting people do the jobs that you 00:20:07.714 --> 00:20:17.096 - ask them to do is also important. And I think there's a lot of duplication of work that was questioned 00:20:17.096 --> 00:20:26.570 - during our last budget cycle. So I think avoiding it is a good thing. I guess I just have, I think that 00:20:26.570 --> 00:20:29.758 - it's a big deal to remove somebody 00:20:30.050 --> 00:20:35.790 - And I want to make sure that our council staff and especially our council attorney is very involved 00:20:35.790 --> 00:20:41.529 - in that. So I feel like this conversation right now is cutting out a council attorney in a way that 00:20:41.529 --> 00:20:47.384 - is disturbing to me. So I don't think you are capturing what I'm saying, which is I think the process 00:20:47.384 --> 00:20:53.181 - should be drafted in conjunction with the council attorney, which is what was actually agreed to the 00:20:53.181 --> 00:20:56.510 - last time and what was planned on and just didn't happen. 00:20:56.706 --> 00:21:02.377 - And through no fault, and there was a transition, and I don't think you can expect somebody to come 00:21:02.377 --> 00:21:08.105 - in in two weeks and actually know all the bits and pieces that are floating out there. So that's not 00:21:08.105 --> 00:21:14.059 - what I'm saying. I want to be very, very clear that I'm not saying cut out the council attorney. I think 00:21:14.059 --> 00:21:19.844 - this office works very closely with the council attorneys, interim and otherwise, to get these things 00:21:19.844 --> 00:21:23.870 - done. I'm seeing Jennifer Nata out of the corner of my eye. So even in 00:21:24.354 --> 00:21:29.423 - Proposing the process last time, it was discussed multiple times with your interim attorney to make 00:21:29.423 --> 00:21:34.797 - sure they were actually following the processes and drafting letters correctly. And I don't think anybody 00:21:34.797 --> 00:21:39.867 - would be doing it in a vacuum. So when you're saying you're hearing a proposal to cut out or not do 00:21:39.867 --> 00:21:45.088 - something in conjunction with the council attorney or legal staff, I think what you're missing in that 00:21:45.088 --> 00:21:50.360 - statement is having ownership over it and directing it is not the same thing as doing something without 00:21:50.360 --> 00:21:51.070 - legal advice. 00:21:52.802 --> 00:22:00.855 - And I'm not suggesting we do anything without legal advice. The other thing I was going to add too is, 00:22:00.855 --> 00:22:08.829 - in every time that you had any type of removal situation, even with previous counsel attorneys, we've 00:22:08.829 --> 00:22:16.960 - always worked with the counsel attorney. And we never just kind of boxed out anybody else and just kind 00:22:16.960 --> 00:22:21.182 - of took ownership of that at all. So again, it's not. 00:22:21.442 --> 00:22:29.082 - saying that we're not, that I don't want to basically just co-sign on what quick folding just is, but 00:22:29.082 --> 00:22:36.571 - I think that I am. But in this instance, even with the removal process that we've been working with 00:22:36.571 --> 00:22:44.211 - since July, it has been the intention that I've worked with Mr. Larry Allen this entire time and will 00:22:44.211 --> 00:22:47.806 - continue to do so. I think the biggest thing is 00:22:48.066 --> 00:22:54.577 - You know, just like I did with the code of conduct, where I took that online and worked with people 00:22:54.577 --> 00:23:00.828 - and brought it to you all several times. In this process, I think that's what we're getting at. 00:23:00.828 --> 00:23:07.340 - But again, not saying that we won't work with Mr. Ruskin or I won't work with him at all. I'll look 00:23:07.340 --> 00:23:13.917 - forward to you whenever I get back into the building. But it's just, you know, it's my job. And so I 00:23:13.917 --> 00:23:15.870 - just would like to be able to 00:23:16.034 --> 00:23:24.510 - you know, do that as well and work in tandem with council staff like we've been doing this entire time. 00:23:24.510 --> 00:23:32.659 - So what I'm hearing is that the committee, it seems like the committee would like the clerk and the 00:23:32.659 --> 00:23:41.053 - council attorney to work together on a second draft of this and bring it to our next meeting. Is this? 00:23:41.053 --> 00:23:42.846 - That would be lovely. 00:23:47.298 --> 00:23:56.731 - Do we need to vote on that or is that cool? I have a question in general. So one of the reasons why 00:23:56.731 --> 00:24:06.352 - we're creating this process right now is because we have before us removal or a possible removal. And 00:24:06.352 --> 00:24:14.558 - that removal has already started to some degree in terms of what has already happened. 00:24:14.690 --> 00:24:21.526 - And yeah, like, I think a lot of this already has been done, right, to Claire Crosley's point. But I 00:24:21.526 --> 00:24:28.362 - guess I just want to make clear, like, there's not an expectation that this needs to be finished and 00:24:28.362 --> 00:24:35.334 - then started from scratch with our current removal process, that the current removal that is happening 00:24:35.334 --> 00:24:42.238 - right now just needs to continue moving forward, even if there's not a formal process attached to it. 00:24:43.234 --> 00:24:50.241 - The understanding? That's my understanding. Okay, I just want to make sure that that's everybody's 00:24:50.241 --> 00:24:57.389 - understanding in terms of like kind of pushing off this formal, you know, from here on out procedure 00:24:57.389 --> 00:25:04.466 - because I don't want to, that possible removal has already been kind of up in the air for everybody 00:25:04.466 --> 00:25:10.270 - for like far too many weeks and it just needs to continue without any more delay. 00:25:14.562 --> 00:25:24.735 - So before we go to public comment, there is a note here at the end of Jake's memo about formal censure. 00:25:24.735 --> 00:25:34.811 - And the note says it would be a formal resolution from counsel. There is, of course, in Robert's rules 00:25:34.811 --> 00:25:41.854 - also the possibility of censure by the body on which the person serves. 00:25:42.114 --> 00:25:53.723 - Any committee members want to explore that as an option or? What are the circumstances that we would 00:25:53.723 --> 00:26:05.217 - need to do that in particular? I'm happy to brainstorm on that. I don't know. I think I can imagine 00:26:05.217 --> 00:26:11.998 - that there might be a different set of circumstances where 00:26:12.674 --> 00:26:22.354 - a commission itself would want to reprimand one of its members. And that may be a lower level of concerns 00:26:22.354 --> 00:26:31.852 - that lead to that than actual removal. But the actual removal that we've been talking about is not done 00:26:31.852 --> 00:26:39.614 - by the commission itself. It's done by us, the people who appoint that commissioner. 00:26:40.674 --> 00:26:47.746 - So I really wish that our attorney would be focusing on this because this is an attorney question. Have 00:26:47.746 --> 00:26:55.022 - you been following what we're saying? The removal is not on the current agenda. Yes, I know. We're talking 00:26:55.022 --> 00:27:02.026 - about censure. So if a commission decides that due to some behavior of one of their members, they want 00:27:02.026 --> 00:27:08.894 - to censure that person, that's in Robert's rules, right? That a commission could do that without any 00:27:08.894 --> 00:27:10.526 - involvement of counsel. 00:27:10.754 --> 00:27:18.143 - correct? I can look that up. Okay. We might want, I don't mean to put you on the spot, so we might just 00:27:18.143 --> 00:27:25.604 - want some more information about that for next time. I'll get that for the committee. Okay. Do any other 00:27:25.604 --> 00:27:32.922 - committee members want more? Is it just me who wants more information on this option or? Well, I think 00:27:32.922 --> 00:27:40.382 - it would be helpful just to know under what circumstances that might be necessary, one way or the other. 00:27:42.306 --> 00:27:52.143 - for a formal censure. And I have to admit, I don't know exactly what that requires for a formal censure. 00:27:52.143 --> 00:28:01.700 - Yeah, and I doubt that most members of commissions know about that. But it's been raised by more than 00:28:01.700 --> 00:28:05.822 - one person to me that this could have been. 00:28:08.098 --> 00:28:15.912 - I guess there's also, I mean, this isn't necessarily the formal censure part, but I mean, on all of 00:28:15.912 --> 00:28:23.961 - our boards and commissions, there's a staff liaison there, right? And in theory, staff liaisons should 00:28:23.961 --> 00:28:31.932 - be able to, after a meeting, pull somebody aside and say like, hey, you were kind of edging up on the 00:28:31.932 --> 00:28:36.542 - code of conduct and not being as whatever as you could or, 00:28:37.570 --> 00:28:45.809 - potentially pointing out issues with their understanding of Robert's rules. Is that something that our 00:28:45.809 --> 00:28:53.808 - staff liaisons like at all would feel comfortable doing? Because that's almost like an intermediary 00:28:53.808 --> 00:29:01.807 - measure that's not quite a warning, but just a hey, let's bring this to your awareness that there's 00:29:01.807 --> 00:29:06.526 - this thing. And I know from talking to Claire Crosley that 00:29:07.170 --> 00:29:15.009 - not everybody has gone through that mandatory training. And I don't know how much we can force people 00:29:15.009 --> 00:29:22.772 - to go through that, or how y'all are handling that at the staff and clerk end, knowing that somebody 00:29:22.772 --> 00:29:30.919 - hasn't gone through it and needs to go through it. Now, wait a minute. You're asking two separate things, 00:29:30.919 --> 00:29:36.222 - because I think the question you had about censure is something that 00:29:36.450 --> 00:29:43.859 - Clerk Crossley might be able to address somewhat because she has so much contact with the staff liaisons. 00:29:43.859 --> 00:29:51.337 - Do you think it would be appropriate, you know, in lieu of official censure that we'd rather not publicize 00:29:51.337 --> 00:29:59.026 - and, you know, rile up everybody? I think Hopee had a good point, like the staff liaison could say something. 00:29:59.026 --> 00:30:05.246 - And it may have sounded like two questions, but really, like, if there's somebody who is 00:30:05.602 --> 00:30:13.377 - maybe butting up against the code of conduct or parliamentary procedures who hasn't gotten to the mandatory 00:30:13.377 --> 00:30:20.864 - training. Like how much sway does then the staff have in terms of that intermediary measure? Like, hey, 00:30:20.864 --> 00:30:28.279 - you really need to do this thing. Well, again, this particular issue that is in question, D. Stephanie 00:30:28.279 --> 00:30:32.094 - is on what is clear back in June about the training. 00:30:32.194 --> 00:30:38.696 - and individuals thought that it was a game or childish or whatever, and we found this event. Also, that 00:30:38.696 --> 00:30:45.073 - individual in question, we had another center training right before I went on leave in September, and 00:30:45.073 --> 00:30:51.700 - that individual's skill has not gone through training. So take that as you will. But if folks are serious 00:30:51.700 --> 00:30:58.078 - about continuing and doing their jobs, as for numbers of paint commissioners, I would think that they 00:30:58.078 --> 00:31:00.766 - would listen to staff liaison to have work 00:31:00.898 --> 00:31:08.280 - you know, really close with all the staff liaison. And they are very much involved in making sure that 00:31:08.280 --> 00:31:15.663 - they know that they need to have their folks sign up for training, explain what training means and why 00:31:15.663 --> 00:31:22.973 - it's very much important. And also that it's mandatory. So they definitely have done that. But to the 00:31:22.973 --> 00:31:28.062 - point of, you know, does the staff liaison feel comfortable, you know, 00:31:28.386 --> 00:31:35.926 - doing the censure part of what I'd like and making that initial contact. I think yes and no. I think 00:31:35.926 --> 00:31:43.317 - it would depend on the particular situation. I don't know if this particular situation would help, 00:31:43.317 --> 00:31:50.857 - you know, with that. But, you know, again, I think it just depends on the staff it is on. And that's 00:31:50.857 --> 00:31:52.350 - where, if there are 00:31:52.642 --> 00:31:59.817 - Personally, I would prefer the staff liaison if there is an issue before it becomes a mountain of uh-oh 00:31:59.817 --> 00:32:06.784 - moments that they reach out to me first and explain the situation. And I can be able to talk through 00:32:06.784 --> 00:32:13.959 - with the staff liaison, hey, this is what you could do, or you can let me know how it goes, or you want 00:32:13.959 --> 00:32:20.030 - me to get involved in talking indirectly with the person. I think that would be better. 00:32:20.450 --> 00:32:27.414 - But I think it depends because if there is a moment, not saying that, you know, this individual question 00:32:27.414 --> 00:32:34.311 - could be hostile, but I'm saying there could be some moments where you do have, you know, board members 00:32:34.311 --> 00:32:41.075 - and commissioners that might feel a little touchy with the staff, not physical touchy, but, you know, 00:32:41.075 --> 00:32:47.906 - get a little round up with people. And that might put somebody at odds with, you know, that particular 00:32:47.906 --> 00:32:48.702 - individual. 00:32:51.842 --> 00:32:59.118 - Well, I appreciate you being willing to be a resource for a staff liaison if a situation gets tricky. 00:32:59.118 --> 00:33:06.680 - Oh, yeah. Yes. There are a lot of other things that are happening right now where I've had staff liaisons 00:33:06.680 --> 00:33:14.028 - contacting me on various issues related to a whole rainbow coalition of a lot of different things. And 00:33:14.028 --> 00:33:19.806 - so I have made it abundantly clear to staff liaisons since having this position. 00:33:20.130 --> 00:33:28.303 - Back in December of 24 that, you know, I am like their ear to whatever they need and they can come in 00:33:28.303 --> 00:33:36.556 - the office, they can email, you know, visit, call, do whatever. And I, you know, will always tell them 00:33:36.556 --> 00:33:44.568 - that I will take whatever it is that they are telling me and bring that to the powers that be. So I 00:33:44.568 --> 00:33:48.094 - take it serious. And I also like what I do. 00:33:50.402 --> 00:33:58.993 - Any other committee member comments before we go to the public? All right. Does anybody want to get 00:33:58.993 --> 00:34:07.756 - public comment on the potential process for removal of a Board of Commission member? You can approach 00:34:07.756 --> 00:34:11.966 - the table and you will have up to three minutes. 00:34:34.882 --> 00:34:42.225 - Go ahead. I'm Rene O'Cross, an advisor member of the HPC, and I support, in general, acknowledging, 00:34:42.225 --> 00:34:49.641 - in general, the points brought out in this memo, acknowledging that it does adopt the standard. This 00:34:49.641 --> 00:34:57.497 - counts as set in 2023 with the Alexander matter. However, I have a number of changes that I would suggest. 00:34:57.497 --> 00:35:03.518 - Firstly, to make, I want to comment on the issue of central. I have in my packet, 00:35:04.258 --> 00:35:11.910 - responding to the Notice for Removal attached several documents, one of which was a pretty thorough 00:35:11.910 --> 00:35:19.715 - report on the actions of the chair recommending sent you based on Robert's rules. So this council has 00:35:19.715 --> 00:35:27.597 - in its possession that document and I resend that document in my memo to the council the Sunday before 00:35:27.597 --> 00:35:31.806 - the last meeting. So it lays out all of the precedents 00:35:32.386 --> 00:35:40.390 - adheres to all the rules and forms that nexus between conduct and ability to continue to serve. So it 00:35:40.390 --> 00:35:49.022 - is there in great detail, but three minutes I have to get on. So steps three and seven needs to be separated. 00:35:49.022 --> 00:35:57.027 - One, detailing the allegations and issuing a notice is the role of a prosecutor. And to hear the case 00:35:57.027 --> 00:35:58.910 - is the role of a judge. 00:35:59.298 --> 00:36:07.351 - I don't believe that any member of the council should be serving any role other than that of a judge. 00:36:07.351 --> 00:36:15.562 - You can't lay out the charges, then write or recommend action and then sit objectively in a matter that 00:36:15.562 --> 00:36:23.695 - you've just expressed an opinion in by preferring those charges. Make the hearing real, provide access 00:36:23.695 --> 00:36:24.958 - to all involved 00:36:25.538 --> 00:36:33.371 - The full file and all information being relied on. The right to question the people making the allegations 00:36:33.371 --> 00:36:40.691 - and the right to counsel. Appearance speak is not a hearing. Fill the gaps. State of vote threshold 00:36:40.691 --> 00:36:48.743 - and quorum for such a vote. I believe it should be the full counsel, less those persons who recuse themselves 00:36:48.743 --> 00:36:54.014 - because they're involved in the issue in another way. Any removal began 00:36:54.114 --> 00:37:02.226 - before this process exists should be dismissed and restarted under it. The reason being, the information 00:37:02.226 --> 00:37:10.260 - was there. This committee wrote a report outlining what the standards should be, so there was knowledge 00:37:10.260 --> 00:37:17.367 - of the standards. This committee had the option, as pointed out here, to state the process. 00:37:17.367 --> 00:37:23.934 - It chose not to. Now that we're recognizing that the process isn't what it should be 00:37:24.034 --> 00:37:31.032 - The standards being applied is not it should be. Should not disadvantage somebody who is already in 00:37:31.032 --> 00:37:38.101 - the process to a lesser standard because of actions this committee knew about, documented, but chose 00:37:38.101 --> 00:37:45.099 - not to. And that is your time, sir. Well, I have a lot more to say. Unfortunately, being the person 00:37:45.099 --> 00:37:51.678 - involved in such a manner, this is the first opportunity I've ever had to speak on it because 00:37:53.122 --> 00:38:00.996 - every hearing and in every meeting, everybody else was heard except me. It's unfortunate that I only 00:38:00.996 --> 00:38:08.948 - get three minutes to speak. Do we have other members of the public who would like to comment on this? 00:38:08.948 --> 00:38:16.822 - There's one online. OK. Please state your name, and you'll have up to three minutes. Good afternoon. 00:38:16.822 --> 00:38:20.798 - Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. My name is Derek Oates. 00:38:20.898 --> 00:38:29.654 - and I appreciate this opportunity to offer comment. The removal for cause process should be formal, 00:38:29.654 --> 00:38:38.497 - precise, and cautious because it's not a trivial matter as you all are approaching this with obvious 00:38:38.497 --> 00:38:47.515 - seriousness. And the process should not be easy. The process should be rigorous and aligned with legal 00:38:47.515 --> 00:38:50.142 - and constitutional authority. 00:38:50.914 --> 00:38:59.693 - Appointments to board and commissions are made and approved with due diligence by the legislative branch 00:38:59.693 --> 00:39:08.138 - and the executive branch. Of course, the legislative branch is the common council. Not all executive 00:39:08.138 --> 00:39:16.666 - branch appointments are, they don't carry the same for cause removal process. Some of them are at the 00:39:16.666 --> 00:39:20.094 - pleasure of, but there are ones that do. 00:39:20.962 --> 00:39:29.892 - Ownership of the removal process is rightfully and legally driven and should be housed in the branch 00:39:29.892 --> 00:39:39.000 - who appointed the member. In the context of working commissions, the clerk's office role is supportive 00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:47.841 - and non-authoritative. I think the clerk's office does a marvelous job, but I want to bring forward 00:39:47.841 --> 00:39:50.494 - the legal fact that it is the 00:39:51.394 --> 00:39:59.532 - legislative and executive branch that are responsible for making these appointments and ultimately for 00:39:59.532 --> 00:40:07.987 - making the decision to possibly remove. There currently exists an informal and precise process for removal 00:40:07.987 --> 00:40:16.126 - for cause, and that's part of the dilemma. And that's what you're working through. So therefore, there 00:40:16.126 --> 00:40:18.654 - should be a uniform, I believe, 00:40:18.754 --> 00:40:26.869 - And I'm suggesting there should be a uniform removal for cause process in the city of Lund. So therefore, 00:40:26.869 --> 00:40:34.984 - I would suggest that this draft process move forward, but also in collaboration with the executive branch 00:40:34.984 --> 00:40:43.175 - so that there can be a process that everyone can look to, both branches and the clerk's office and members 00:40:43.175 --> 00:40:47.998 - of the public, that is coherent and precise and legally sound. 00:40:48.738 --> 00:41:00.499 - Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else for public comment on this item? All right. So at our next meeting 00:41:00.499 --> 00:41:13.182 - in November, we will hear a second draft of the removal process and a little bit more information on censure. 00:41:18.498 --> 00:41:30.568 - That is a good question. Have we set it? That's such a nice way to say it. I don't hear any audio from 00:41:30.568 --> 00:41:42.404 - the room right now. Oh, we're muted. Yeah, this is muted. The other one is too. Can you hear us now? 00:41:42.404 --> 00:41:47.326 - I can hear you now. That was an accident. 00:41:48.898 --> 00:41:58.023 - Actually, if I may take a moment of privilege and go ahead and try to schedule our next meeting before 00:41:58.023 --> 00:42:07.147 - we do anything else so that we can be sure to do that. Since we're all four committee members are here 00:42:07.147 --> 00:42:17.246 - right now. So I don't know if people are gone for Thanksgiving. Normally it would be the 23rd of November, right? 00:42:18.466 --> 00:42:31.633 - Yes. I think about last Monday. Or the 30th. But either of those might conflict with people's travels, 00:42:31.633 --> 00:42:44.416 - such as mine. You can be more direct. So what about the 16th? Would that work for people? November, 00:42:44.416 --> 00:42:46.078 - right? Yeah. 00:42:47.490 --> 00:42:59.141 - At 5.30 in the evening? At 5.30. Yeah, I can do that. I can make that work. Does that work for the clerk's 00:42:59.141 --> 00:43:10.247 - office? I'm checking. And Jake? Absolutely. Yep. Great. I will have spent all day in a conference, so 00:43:10.247 --> 00:43:14.494 - I may be a little bit tired of people. 00:43:14.786 --> 00:43:23.275 - I think that I might be a little tired of people. You might be a little misanthropic by that time, is 00:43:23.275 --> 00:43:32.014 - that what you're saying? So that's Monday, November 16th at 5.30 p.m.? Yes, please. Thank you in advance 00:43:32.014 --> 00:43:40.586 - for noticing that and getting us a room. No problem. Dear clerk staff, dear clerks. All right, ongoing 00:43:40.586 --> 00:43:43.998 - Title II review. Let me share my screen. 00:43:52.738 --> 00:44:01.467 - We are on Committee of the Whole 2.04.250. Yes, the agenda was a little bit off. It had last month's. 00:44:01.467 --> 00:44:10.111 - We actually covered two paragraphs last month. Two little paragraphs, ma'am. We're doing good. Well, 00:44:10.111 --> 00:44:18.670 - I think Committee of the Whole is a big one because it's not, in the last five years, six years, it 00:44:18.670 --> 00:44:20.638 - hasn't been used as it 00:44:20.930 --> 00:44:32.100 - was when this code was written. So you see that I have proposed some deletions. So with exceptions noted 00:44:32.100 --> 00:44:42.738 - in this section, the council may resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider ordinances, 00:44:42.738 --> 00:44:50.398 - resolutions, or other matters with the freedom of committee procedures. 00:44:54.626 --> 00:45:01.649 - Of course, please. What technically are the freedom of committee procedures and how are those different 00:45:01.649 --> 00:45:08.402 - from our council meeting procedures? I mean, I know committees we tend to be like a little bit more 00:45:08.402 --> 00:45:15.560 - casual, but I don't feel like in committee of the halls, which we've had basically only for budget stuff, 00:45:15.560 --> 00:45:22.516 - we're particularly more casual. So we may be considering things without voting on them, but like, what 00:45:22.516 --> 00:45:24.542 - is this really freeing us of? 00:45:25.186 --> 00:45:34.505 - And do we want to be more? Well, I think the Committee of the Whole comes from Robert's Rules, I believe. 00:45:34.505 --> 00:45:43.649 - It's not in state code anywhere, so we don't have to have it. Jake, do you know offhand what these more 00:45:43.649 --> 00:45:52.792 - relaxed rules may be for Committee of the Whole? Not offhand. I'm not even sure that the Robert's Rules 00:45:52.792 --> 00:45:55.166 - Committee of the Whole are 00:45:57.378 --> 00:46:03.281 - relaxed, but when I read the Roberts Rules Committee of the Whole thing, I was just like, this is not 00:46:03.281 --> 00:46:09.242 - the way that, like, this does not make sense at all in terms of the body that we have. Yeah, I thought 00:46:09.242 --> 00:46:15.029 - in Roberts- And I don't remember the details anymore of that. I was just like, that's just like the 00:46:15.029 --> 00:46:21.106 - impression that I left with going, wow, Committee of the Whole is just not, that's not what we're doing. 00:46:21.106 --> 00:46:26.430 - I seem to remember that in Roberts Rules, and we have another parliamentarian sitting here, 00:46:26.562 --> 00:46:36.085 - Committee of the Whole is more for larger bodies. I do not pay much attention, honestly, to it because 00:46:36.085 --> 00:46:45.330 - I was like, we don't do that. Yeah. Well, let's see what else it says. So, skipping over to part B, 00:46:45.330 --> 00:46:55.038 - whenever council resolves itself in the Committee of the Whole, presiding officer shall leave the chair. 00:46:55.618 --> 00:47:02.987 - and the chair of the committee meetings shall rotate among members. Then part C, when we're in committee 00:47:02.987 --> 00:47:10.145 - of the whole, the rules shall govern except that committee of the whole may consider only matters and 00:47:10.145 --> 00:47:17.374 - questions referred to it. No limit shall be placed on frequency of speaking. I think this goes to some 00:47:17.374 --> 00:47:23.550 - of the relaxation of rules. So no limits on speaking except for five minutes at a time. 00:47:24.386 --> 00:47:31.797 - Interested residents may be heard on questions under consideration. Previous question may not be moved. 00:47:31.797 --> 00:47:38.922 - Clerk shall keep memorandum. And then D, when the committee of the whole rises, again, this kind of 00:47:38.922 --> 00:47:46.262 - arcane language, the presiding officer shall resume the chair. So this, again, it kind of implies that 00:47:46.262 --> 00:47:53.886 - a committee of the whole happens within a regular session, which has never been the case in my experience. 00:47:56.866 --> 00:48:04.564 - So I don't know. I mean, we could just delete all of this and just say, I mean, when do we use it now? 00:48:04.564 --> 00:48:12.337 - We use it. For the budget discussions. For budget discussions, which could be special sessions. I mean. 00:48:12.337 --> 00:48:20.110 - I think the difference is that in Committee of the Whole, everybody knows you're not voting on a thing. 00:48:20.110 --> 00:48:26.014 - There's no final action in Committee of the Whole. And I think that that's why 00:48:26.530 --> 00:48:34.720 - the way that we're using it. I'm gonna play teacher here and say if you're passing notes, if it has 00:48:34.720 --> 00:48:43.320 - relevance, could you please bring it to the whole group? And if it doesn't have relevance, can we please 00:48:43.320 --> 00:48:51.838 - focus, because we only have a few minutes left. So, I'm sorry, I got distracted, Hopi, you were saying. 00:48:54.946 --> 00:49:02.430 - I got distracted too. I was saying that we do it for budget now and... Oh, it's clear that we don't 00:49:02.430 --> 00:49:09.989 - vote. Yes, and to be clear that we don't vote. And I think probably it's worth, especially given the 00:49:09.989 --> 00:49:17.848 - time, to just kind of like skip this one over and carefully read the Committee of the Whole and Robert's 00:49:17.848 --> 00:49:20.542 - Rules. And maybe it's that we don't 00:49:21.570 --> 00:49:27.889 - I mean, maybe we should just scrap Committee of the Whole and maybe we should have some kind of different 00:49:27.889 --> 00:49:33.553 - thing for thinking about the budget meeting or maybe we should just call it a special session. 00:49:33.553 --> 00:49:39.634 - And we can, the thing, this was before, so what, right now for budget we have a special session where 00:49:39.634 --> 00:49:45.596 - they get introduced for first reading and we don't talk about them and then we go into Committee of 00:49:45.596 --> 00:49:47.742 - the Whole where we talk about them. 00:49:47.842 --> 00:49:54.156 - but we specifically changed title to it to allow us to discuss matters at first reading. So is there 00:49:54.156 --> 00:50:00.283 - something, and we don't usually have public comment at Committee of the Whole either, do we? Yes, 00:50:00.283 --> 00:50:06.660 - we do. We do. But is there something stopping us from simply having that special session, and this is 00:50:06.660 --> 00:50:13.662 - maybe something to research and look into, having that special session to introduce them and then discuss them. 00:50:15.362 --> 00:50:22.160 - as we are discussing other matters of first reading in terms of introducing them and then motioning 00:50:22.160 --> 00:50:29.230 - to discuss and then having the discussion and then like. Maybe Jake you could look into that if there's 00:50:29.230 --> 00:50:36.368 - any reason why we couldn't do that as far as and why is it that we have a special session for the budget 00:50:36.368 --> 00:50:41.534 - and not just a regular session? Is that in state code it has to be special? 00:50:43.906 --> 00:50:53.510 - Probably because it's just that. Oh, it's because we want nothing else. No, it's because code dictates 00:50:53.510 --> 00:51:03.114 - what our regular session agendas have to be. And so if we want anything other than our regular session 00:51:03.114 --> 00:51:13.278 - agenda, then we have a special session and then our agenda can be whatever we want. That's why. Right. Yeah. 00:51:13.602 --> 00:51:20.647 - That's another part of the context in which to consider this is that we used to not have discussion 00:51:20.647 --> 00:51:27.904 - at first reading, and now we do. Yeah. And I know that some proponents of Committee of the Whole, like 00:51:27.904 --> 00:51:35.653 - Councilmember Rallo, liked having the Committee of the Whole because it provided a way to have the discussion 00:51:35.653 --> 00:51:43.262 - before the day of the vote. Right. Which I think is super important. Which is sort of what we now have with 00:51:43.746 --> 00:51:56.126 - Discussion at first rate. Sidney or Courtney, do you have any thoughts on this? I keep thinking of former 00:51:56.126 --> 00:52:07.805 - council member Steve Bolin. Yes, he's in the next room actually. I feel like we should bring him in 00:52:07.805 --> 00:52:09.790 - as a consultant. 00:52:10.178 --> 00:52:17.107 - Subject matter expert. Subject matter expert, there you go, yes. Because otherwise I just, yeah. 00:52:17.107 --> 00:52:24.249 - I think also, because I know of his penchant for committees of the whole, but I also have been very 00:52:24.249 --> 00:52:31.607 - mindful of public comment he gave the first time we were going through the redlining and going through 00:52:31.607 --> 00:52:38.749 - this where he said, these are written this way for a reason, so be mindful before you make too many 00:52:38.749 --> 00:52:39.678 - big changes. 00:52:39.778 --> 00:52:47.180 - So that's what I'm thinking of right now as we're talking about this. I'll echo that, if I may, because 00:52:47.180 --> 00:52:54.510 - after he made that comment, that's one of the reasons why I want to look at the beginning stuff again, 00:52:54.510 --> 00:53:01.627 - because we kind of go, yeah, maybe that should be left in there, things like our day of meeting and 00:53:01.627 --> 00:53:04.830 - that kind of thing, because of that comment. 00:53:07.714 --> 00:53:18.599 - So shall we circle back to this? Yeah. And we can all kind of check Robert's rules for where Committee 00:53:18.599 --> 00:53:29.378 - of the Whole came from. And kind of the previous text prior to this particular section. And it's good 00:53:29.378 --> 00:53:36.670 - to see you put it all in context. Is there a public comment on this? 00:53:37.410 --> 00:53:46.093 - Yes, we will have public comment. Let's give us two more minutes and then we'll go to public comment. 00:53:46.093 --> 00:53:54.861 - The next section is about scheduling committee meetings and Christine Chang and I had recommended that 00:53:54.861 --> 00:54:03.885 - all of that section go into the rules of procedure rather than being in code because it's kind of details 00:54:03.885 --> 00:54:05.758 - that don't need to be 00:54:06.850 --> 00:54:15.105 - code in our view but I'm not sure that some of it even needs to go into rules and procedures because 00:54:15.105 --> 00:54:23.443 - we aren't tending to refer legislation to committees anymore and so we want to leave that open in the 00:54:23.443 --> 00:54:29.246 - future if we do want to refer things well right but do we have to have 00:54:29.954 --> 00:54:36.802 - Do we have to have it strictly about like, so if something is referred, then it has to be discussed 00:54:36.802 --> 00:54:43.855 - at this certain time. And especially because like everything is recorded now and everything is virtual 00:54:43.855 --> 00:54:50.839 - now. And so if people want to see that discussion, if it happens, there are ways that they can see it 00:54:50.839 --> 00:54:57.756 - afterwards. There are ways that. Well, I think because we don't regularly refer legislative items to 00:54:57.756 --> 00:54:59.262 - committees, if we do, 00:55:00.002 --> 00:55:11.312 - out of the ordinary, refer something to a committee, we could say, you know, and that committee should 00:55:11.312 --> 00:55:22.622 - meet and report back by, you know, February 23rd or whatever. So, is it okay to remove that from code? 00:55:22.622 --> 00:55:28.222 - Can we get one thing done today? Yes, we can. Yes. 00:55:29.090 --> 00:55:36.765 - Move it to procedures? Yeah. Is that all right? Sure. We should go to public comments. Yes. 00:55:36.765 --> 00:55:45.358 - Article 3, done. Yes. So what? Two paragraphs. Well, but that was Article 3. See, now we're on Article 00:55:45.358 --> 00:55:54.201 - 4. OK. Let us go to public comment. Is there anybody who would like to comment on? This is general public 00:55:54.201 --> 00:55:58.622 - comment on the Committee on Council Processes stuff. 00:55:59.106 --> 00:56:05.858 - Yes, come right up. Thank you. You have up to three minutes. Yes, thank you very much for allowing me 00:56:05.858 --> 00:56:12.477 - to speak. My name is Jeff Richardson. I'm just going to build on what Hopi said. She kind of took a 00:56:12.477 --> 00:56:19.295 - little bit of what I was going to say. She used the word casual, more casual conversation. I would use 00:56:19.295 --> 00:56:25.980 - the same term, but just take it at the next level, more welcoming. I think we need more time to have 00:56:25.980 --> 00:56:27.966 - a dialogue and to think about 00:56:28.098 --> 00:56:34.317 - How do we get things discussed in a way, not just committee at the whole, but also at the council itself? 00:56:34.317 --> 00:56:40.477 - I understand the three-minute rule. You know, I was on the council and I know how busy and loaded things 00:56:40.477 --> 00:56:46.344 - are, but there are some issues that I think merit a discussion. One of the ideas would be to have a 00:56:46.344 --> 00:56:52.211 - panel with three or four people and to take a deeper dive into some very substantive issues and not 00:56:52.211 --> 00:56:55.262 - have the three-minute rule or the five-minute rule. 00:56:55.458 --> 00:57:04.077 - I would defer to the Council on what those issues are and how it would work. I think we'd get more done 00:57:04.077 --> 00:57:12.531 - in a more thoughtful and thorough way, but I also think the other overlying push for me on this is to 00:57:12.531 --> 00:57:21.150 - dial down the tension. I think a lot of times there's a tendency from everyone involved to have a quick 00:57:21.474 --> 00:57:28.160 - I wouldn't say intentionally sound, but a quick comment and a quick comment back, and we don't have 00:57:28.160 --> 00:57:34.846 - really a discussion that's welcoming and connecting. So I think it would be more substantive in the 00:57:34.846 --> 00:57:41.532 - decisions we make, more informed, more data-driven, more thoughtful, but also it would have people, 00:57:41.532 --> 00:57:48.820 - going back to what Hopi said, having a conversation with people that's not necessarily casual, but certainly 00:57:48.820 --> 00:57:51.294 - more connected. And right now I feel 00:57:51.554 --> 00:57:58.385 - It's almost by design, it's set up to one up each other and who's on top, who's made the most important 00:57:58.385 --> 00:58:05.020 - comment. And not just with each other, but with the public and even sometimes with staff, it's not a 00:58:05.020 --> 00:58:11.917 - process that's welcoming. And I think it diminishes all of us. It doesn't diminish any particular person 00:58:11.917 --> 00:58:18.945 - on council or in the public or on staff, but all of us are diminished when we don't have these thoughtful, 00:58:18.945 --> 00:58:21.310 - data-driven, welcoming discussions. 00:58:21.826 --> 00:58:31.627 - Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. Looks like that's enough. Oh, yes. Please. 00:58:31.627 --> 00:58:41.525 - This is both. We only have two minutes left, but please. Sorry. Sentimental. So briefly. Terry Ansler. 00:58:41.525 --> 00:58:50.846 - Terry Ansler. One thought. I hadn't thought about this. The Council, the Committee of the Whole, 00:58:50.946 --> 00:58:57.501 - I thought about this, I have no strong opinion. I wonder, I like flexibility, the council having flexibility, 00:58:57.501 --> 00:59:03.817 - I like that idea, generally. And I wonder if there's anything more on the public comment side for meeting 00:59:03.817 --> 00:59:10.193 - to the whole, you want additional room to move and change and things as seems appropriate to that meeting. 00:59:10.193 --> 00:59:16.391 - Maybe you have all the room you need, I don't know, that's just a random thought. The reason I'm really 00:59:16.391 --> 00:59:18.238 - here tonight, I wanted to say, 00:59:18.402 --> 00:59:24.498 - I think the council should be recognized for the deliberative sessions they've been trying out and that 00:59:24.498 --> 00:59:30.828 - you've done the last two times in the last month and a half or so. And I think you should be congratulated. 00:59:30.828 --> 00:59:36.924 - I think because, quickly, it's a benefit to innovative democratic governance. It gives you information, 00:59:36.924 --> 00:59:43.255 - perhaps, hopefully, with public decision making and what I have to make. And it's good public participation 00:59:43.255 --> 00:59:47.006 - encouragement, generally, in democracy and trust in government. 00:59:47.554 --> 00:59:54.138 - Turn your head. You learned this years ago. Look around. My wife hollers at me for not doing that in 00:59:54.138 --> 01:00:00.722 - class when I teach. Anyway, so I just think it's a good thing. I am curious, not now, about what the 01:00:00.722 --> 01:00:07.436 - plans are for the council to learn from this work, to benefit, to positively critique what's been done 01:00:07.436 --> 01:00:14.411 - and think, well, that was good. Let's get a bit of room. I'm curious what the process is for that, because 01:00:14.411 --> 01:00:17.214 - it's interesting, especially in this time. 01:00:17.570 --> 01:00:23.822 - I'm mentioning back that basically the city does not have a public engagement director any longer. It 01:00:23.822 --> 01:00:29.951 - was a rough road for a number of years. That position still exists and I believe the mayor's office 01:00:29.951 --> 01:00:36.264 - intends to hire somebody into that position. I was told informally from somebody who may not ever know 01:00:36.264 --> 01:00:39.390 - anything that that probably wasn't to be the case. 01:00:39.618 --> 01:00:45.772 - So that's interesting. That's not what I heard. I say that in part because, is this because of time? 01:00:45.772 --> 01:00:51.926 - No, no, we should not be going back and forth, please. This is your time. But we are at time, Terry. 01:00:51.926 --> 01:00:58.201 - I'm sorry. I'm done. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I think that's it. We have our next meeting. Oh, 01:00:58.201 --> 01:01:04.477 - yes, Sydney. For the public, I guess, the record, this is why we should stop before five minutes prior 01:01:04.477 --> 01:01:09.534 - to the end so that we can hear more than one public comment. Yeah. You were right. 01:01:10.786 --> 01:01:16.508 - We normally have an hour and a half, so it was a little bit condensed tonight. But our next meeting 01:01:16.508 --> 01:01:19.198 - is November 16th at 530, and we are adjourned.