I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Wilmington City Council Committee on Council Processes
for Monday, October 26, 2026. In lieu of calling roll, let's just go around the table starting to my
far left. Courtney Daly. Hope Stossberg, District 3. And I'm Isabelle Piedmont-Smith, District 1. Cindy
Zoellick, District 6. Nicole Bolden, City Clerk.
Jake Rossman, council attorney. Sophia McDowell, chief deputy clerk. All right, welcome everybody. Today's
agenda includes an update on a possible expansion of Bloomington public transportation board. There
may or may not be an update there, but we'll touch on it. Then we'll discuss a process for removal of
border commission members that are appointed by council.
Then if we have time, we will continue on to an, oh, and I should add, I would like to add public comment
for that last item, the process of removal. So we'll have public comment after our discussion. Then
if we have time, we will continue our review of title two, which is the part in city code having to
do with the city council processes. Then we will have general public comment if there is any,
and if there's any time left and then we shall adjourn. We do have only an hour today because there's
been a special session of council called for 630. So let's be mindful of that as we move through our
agenda. Any updates to the agenda or is it, can we by consensus say it's okay? Okay. Seeing no objections.
Council Member Stotsberg, is there an update on the possible expansion of the Bloomington Public
Transportation Board?
There's not really an update on that right now. I still have some research to review that staff gave
me and I wasn't able to get in the agenda for October for BT Board for pros and cons from their perspective.
Yeah, so we don't need to talk about it anymore right now because we have other things that are more
important. Okay.
Moving on to the proposed process for removal of a border commission member. So we had a memo from our
attorney Jake Rossman with a proposed process. Jake, do you want to just kind of run through that process
for us? I'd be happy to.
In trying to come up with a possible process for the council to remove a board or committee member that
it has appointed, I came up with a nine or ten step process. Our current ordinance, 20250, says commissioners
can be removed for cause but does not prescribe a specific process.
So this committee's report from March of 2023 did outline some good language and considerations that
were used in the construction of this potential process. As a first step, an informal complaint to city
clerk or council office, contact
can be provided with a link to a complaint form. Should we want to build a complaint form? A formal
complaint is then submitted to the clerk or council staff with attachments. This doesn't specify whether
it should be a complete submission or not at this point. But at this point, that complaint would be
automatically sent to the clerk and council staff and the date and time of the complaint would be
The next step, council staff and legal would initiate a review and verification of the claims, looking
at the meeting recordings, minutes, and other evidence. If those claims are substantiated, a council
leadership and interview committee can conduct staff screenings to decide what the allegations might
be, if any,
and whether to issue formal notice. What is a staff screening? That means speaking with the people involved,
talking to the people who have knowledge and evidence of the potential behavior that's at issue. The
city employees who have knowledge? Potentially, yes. Or would it include anyone like members of the
commission or the individual who has been
I'll have to look into that specifically. Certainly city staff, potentially members of those bodies
as well, yes. If council leadership decides that formal allegations are warranted and provides notice,
this point
recusal of any involved council members might come up. If allegations are brought at this point, a floor
motion can be brought to initiate it during a regular session under the standard boards and commissions
agenda item. This would be for due process and notice purposes, not to take a vote on it that session. Once
It becomes an agenda item. Constructive written notice can be provided stating which particular provisions
of the Code of Conduct or statutes or rules were violated, specific facts, statements, and quotes. There's
been emphasis in the past when considering this issue on
the notice providing an explicit statement of the logical nexus between the name conduct and their violations
of the code of conduct. Now that we have one before and still applicable is how the behavior might apply
to the diminished ability of them to perform their assigned duties or whether the processes of the body
are disrupted. Those are the
common law standards. Is it and or and slash or? Which one? So 5C, explicit statement on logical nexus
between conduct and diminished ability to perform assigned duties and how proceedings were disrupted.
My understanding of that is that would be an or statement.
I don't want to make a definitive statement on the state of common law in Indiana at this time. But
my understanding is that there's a line of cases that deals with removal for a diminished ability of
the appointee to perform their specific duties. And there are also cases involving removal for cause.
due to the proceedings of the body being disrupted. So that on C should be an and or instead of just
an and. It could be an or. An or can be inclusive, in my opinion. Do you have something to add? I have
something to say, but I will wait until the appropriate moment. But I do want to, you know what? Actually,
let me not wait.
If I recall correctly, the last time you discussed actually writing down the complaint process, you
were going to do so in conjunction with the clerk's office. This committee had discussed that and had
agreed to it. I think Larry and Jennifer were going to get together and actually go through this and
actually draw something out. The problem with what I see proposed here is that one, it's almost entirely
the process that has been followed even most recently with the HPC.
but it actually inserts council staff into places that you specifically hired somebody to do all of
these steps. You actually hired somebody to administer your boards and commissions process for the council,
which would cover everything from taking in complaints, any attachments that would be done. The review
and verification of claims actually tends to happen before it even gets to the point of elevating it
to council leadership or committee members.
Initiating the fuller process was done. Documenting everything that was done was actually done and sent
to the council repeatedly. So I'm looking at this and seeing that you actually have a process in place
that has been followed, but it is actually initiated through the position that you hired for, or actually
requested somebody to be hired for, since I know it's not under your office. So I'm kind of looking
at this, and it feels like you're shifting a great deal of work back onto your very small staff.
without a lot of free time that have a ton of other duties when there's actually a position in place
with a process in place. So from my perspective, since that position does fall under my office, I'm
wondering if your intent is to give them a position and then continually tell them how to do that position
when they're already doing it. I think there's a difference between documenting it and then doing it.
And offering that feedback and collaboration would make more sense to me than
having to create a different process all together and then saying, oh, by the way, this is kind of where
it is. I think I may have misstated part of that, but I think you got the gist of it. So was there any
collaboration on creating these rules? No. Mr. Russell. Oh, sorry. I haven't run it by the clerk's office
yet. So I think that,
Clerk Bolden is right that we thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, other members, I did think it was
gonna be a collaboration. I know Mr. Osmond wasn't here. Yeah, that's the thing is that Mr. Osmond wasn't
here and I think that we actually kind of wrote these steps which look very much like this during the
meeting last time. This is what we talked about. That was when Clerk Crosley was here and Larry was
here and between the two of them, they were gonna
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
worth belaboring because I think that it's partly an issue with having new staff. But it's probably
just information. This is not a criticism of Jacob in any way, shape, or form. It is much more to say,
before you start workshopping something that's on paper here,
it might be worth having staff actually go back and clean it up and then have you come back to it, because
otherwise you're just going to kind of keep on going in a circle. Staff meeting, clerk, the deputy clerk,
I see she's online. Hello. Oh, yes. Deputy Clerk Crossley, welcome. Yeah, we can do that. I guess, I
don't know, and I'm going back and forth between calling you Jake and Mr. Rossman.
What do you want? Which do you prefer? I was fine. OK. Well, Jake, do you want to go through the rest
of this? Or is it basically, I mean, if you're just going to read it, then we probably don't need to
go through the rest of it. But was there any other clarifying things? And then we can see if there's
input and then send it back to work with the clerk for next time. No. No, it's basically as written.
Yes, it is. But for the record, it was probably something that just got lost before it got communicated
to you. So yeah, it's definitely not audio. So I just want to make sure that the public record maintains
that this was counsel's responsibility to communicate. And it looks like Jennifer has something to say.
Sorry, Deputy Claire Crossley. Yes, please go ahead. Hello. Hey. No, I'm going to be good. Yes. OK.
are actually not today in person, but here you've got me in a dangerous room, so here you go. I was
looking at this and kind of mulling over it, and so I know Leary and I were supposed to, and of course
me being bond on leave kind of pushed that away. But not to say that I wouldn't, willing to work with
staff on this, however, Court Bowman is right
with respect to a lot of the things that I do and in this particular situation have already done. I
think it's worth mentioning a couple of things since you asked for input briefly. Points number three
and points number seven where points three say council leadership or energy committee can conduct screenings
and decide.
and then 27 kind of pushes it back to the energy committee to do things and then formally send that
on to the full council. I think both of those are a little bit counterproductive for a couple of reasons.
Like we need to choose and figure out is council leadership doing this or is the committee doing this?
And I tend to think that you all would be setting yourselves up for a little bit of a conflict
if council leadership does this, because if and when there is an issue where council leadership says
no, and the energy committee, I'm focused on that energy committee, are saying yes, then there is that
conflict. And so much like, you know, there have been conflicts with the executive legislative branch,
I think you can kind of put that, or pick, you know, leadership and the energy committees
could particularly do that. So I would think that he would strike number three. And just, again, it's
to keep it simple. Because again, there's already somewhat of a process that's there. It just needs
to be outlined for you all. And so that's the point that I wanted to make with that. And again, number
seven already has
in going to the energy committee in the first place. So once that complaint has been, or officially
rather, said, then we bring that to, of course you can bring that to the attorney, our office can bring
that to the attorney, just much like I did with Larry and go from there. But the other question that
I had with this is who creates the Google Doc?
is that even necessary? And I tend to think that, again, how this all came about is me watching the
meetings, attending the meetings along with Mr. Allen, and listening to staff as well. So that's how
that all came about. But a simple email could also kickstart a lot of this. Again, it's more of,
you know, just trying to streamline this process and not make it too much harder for everybody involved.
Thank you. Yeah, looking at item three. I mean, there's a decision point here. I think that it's a valid
option just to strike item three.
Or we need to be clear, which is it, the council leadership or the interview committee that conducts
the screenings? I tend to think it should be staff, and we can work out later whether that's the deputy
clerk, whether that's the council attorney, whether that's both of them together. But what do other
committee members think about number three? Can we just combine number three with number two and just
put the staff screenings in there?
kind of in the other evidence category and just have, you know, verification of claims using meeting
recordings, minutes, staff screenings, and then other evidence. And adding in clerk personnel in there,
not just council staff and legal, but also clerk staff. And that would maybe give maximal flexibility
in terms of who
can look into that based on who is actually, like, here. But if everybody's available, we don't want,
I mean, we want it to be clear, like, whose job is it? And I think Clerk Bolden had a point that,
I mean, we ask that this job in the clerk's office be created. I think certainly the legal input from
our attorney is important as well, but maybe
It should be spearheaded by the deputy clerk. Sorry, I should shut up. No, no, no, no, no. That was
valuable and helpful. And I'm just wondering if we just, at this point, because it would be the bulk
of it through the clerk's office if we want to just say, I don't want to give the clerk's office extraneous
work, but at the same time, I wonder if you would prefer to just kind of shape it and take it first
before we do.
more input and maybe lead it astray too far from how your office would want to handle this. I would
much prefer that. Yeah. I feel like that makes the most sense. I feel like it's going to live in your
office. It's going to be, I think, Debbie Clark crosses. My thought, just in terms of processes and
everything else that's potentially being created, it makes more sense to actually create it there, even
if you have a formal complaint form with a Google form or something like that.
who would actually own that document is a question that should be addressed right off the bat. So actually
having it drawn out before you get into it makes far more sense than workshopping it. I'm not proposing
in any way, shape, or form that some process get initiated without council feedback. That has never
been my thought process, particularly with this role. But I do think that letting people do the jobs that you
ask them to do is also important. And I think there's a lot of duplication of work that was questioned
during our last budget cycle. So I think avoiding it is a good thing. I guess I just have, I think that
it's a big deal to remove somebody
And I want to make sure that our council staff and especially our council attorney is very involved
in that. So I feel like this conversation right now is cutting out a council attorney in a way that
is disturbing to me. So I don't think you are capturing what I'm saying, which is I think the process
should be drafted in conjunction with the council attorney, which is what was actually agreed to the
last time and what was planned on and just didn't happen.
And through no fault, and there was a transition, and I don't think you can expect somebody to come
in in two weeks and actually know all the bits and pieces that are floating out there. So that's not
what I'm saying. I want to be very, very clear that I'm not saying cut out the council attorney. I think
this office works very closely with the council attorneys, interim and otherwise, to get these things
done. I'm seeing Jennifer Nata out of the corner of my eye. So even in
Proposing the process last time, it was discussed multiple times with your interim attorney to make
sure they were actually following the processes and drafting letters correctly. And I don't think anybody
would be doing it in a vacuum. So when you're saying you're hearing a proposal to cut out or not do
something in conjunction with the council attorney or legal staff, I think what you're missing in that
statement is having ownership over it and directing it is not the same thing as doing something without
legal advice.
And I'm not suggesting we do anything without legal advice. The other thing I was going to add too is,
in every time that you had any type of removal situation, even with previous counsel attorneys, we've
always worked with the counsel attorney. And we never just kind of boxed out anybody else and just kind
of took ownership of that at all. So again, it's not.
saying that we're not, that I don't want to basically just co-sign on what quick folding just is, but
I think that I am. But in this instance, even with the removal process that we've been working with
since July, it has been the intention that I've worked with Mr. Larry Allen this entire time and will
continue to do so. I think the biggest thing is
You know, just like I did with the code of conduct, where I took that online and worked with people
and brought it to you all several times. In this process, I think that's what we're getting at.
But again, not saying that we won't work with Mr. Ruskin or I won't work with him at all. I'll look
forward to you whenever I get back into the building. But it's just, you know, it's my job. And so I
just would like to be able to
you know, do that as well and work in tandem with council staff like we've been doing this entire time.
So what I'm hearing is that the committee, it seems like the committee would like the clerk and the
council attorney to work together on a second draft of this and bring it to our next meeting. Is this?
That would be lovely.
Do we need to vote on that or is that cool? I have a question in general. So one of the reasons why
we're creating this process right now is because we have before us removal or a possible removal. And
that removal has already started to some degree in terms of what has already happened.
And yeah, like, I think a lot of this already has been done, right, to Claire Crosley's point. But I
guess I just want to make clear, like, there's not an expectation that this needs to be finished and
then started from scratch with our current removal process, that the current removal that is happening
right now just needs to continue moving forward, even if there's not a formal process attached to it.
The understanding? That's my understanding. Okay, I just want to make sure that that's everybody's
understanding in terms of like kind of pushing off this formal, you know, from here on out procedure
because I don't want to, that possible removal has already been kind of up in the air for everybody
for like far too many weeks and it just needs to continue without any more delay.
So before we go to public comment, there is a note here at the end of Jake's memo about formal censure.
And the note says it would be a formal resolution from counsel. There is, of course, in Robert's rules
also the possibility of censure by the body on which the person serves.
Any committee members want to explore that as an option or? What are the circumstances that we would
need to do that in particular? I'm happy to brainstorm on that. I don't know. I think I can imagine
that there might be a different set of circumstances where
a commission itself would want to reprimand one of its members. And that may be a lower level of concerns
that lead to that than actual removal. But the actual removal that we've been talking about is not done
by the commission itself. It's done by us, the people who appoint that commissioner.
So I really wish that our attorney would be focusing on this because this is an attorney question. Have
you been following what we're saying? The removal is not on the current agenda. Yes, I know. We're talking
about censure. So if a commission decides that due to some behavior of one of their members, they want
to censure that person, that's in Robert's rules, right? That a commission could do that without any
involvement of counsel.
correct? I can look that up. Okay. We might want, I don't mean to put you on the spot, so we might just
want some more information about that for next time. I'll get that for the committee. Okay. Do any other
committee members want more? Is it just me who wants more information on this option or? Well, I think
it would be helpful just to know under what circumstances that might be necessary, one way or the other.
for a formal censure. And I have to admit, I don't know exactly what that requires for a formal censure.
Yeah, and I doubt that most members of commissions know about that. But it's been raised by more than
one person to me that this could have been.
I guess there's also, I mean, this isn't necessarily the formal censure part, but I mean, on all of
our boards and commissions, there's a staff liaison there, right? And in theory, staff liaisons should
be able to, after a meeting, pull somebody aside and say like, hey, you were kind of edging up on the
code of conduct and not being as whatever as you could or,
potentially pointing out issues with their understanding of Robert's rules. Is that something that our
staff liaisons like at all would feel comfortable doing? Because that's almost like an intermediary
measure that's not quite a warning, but just a hey, let's bring this to your awareness that there's
this thing. And I know from talking to Claire Crosley that
not everybody has gone through that mandatory training. And I don't know how much we can force people
to go through that, or how y'all are handling that at the staff and clerk end, knowing that somebody
hasn't gone through it and needs to go through it. Now, wait a minute. You're asking two separate things,
because I think the question you had about censure is something that
Clerk Crossley might be able to address somewhat because she has so much contact with the staff liaisons.
Do you think it would be appropriate, you know, in lieu of official censure that we'd rather not publicize
and, you know, rile up everybody? I think Hopee had a good point, like the staff liaison could say something.
And it may have sounded like two questions, but really, like, if there's somebody who is
maybe butting up against the code of conduct or parliamentary procedures who hasn't gotten to the mandatory
training. Like how much sway does then the staff have in terms of that intermediary measure? Like, hey,
you really need to do this thing. Well, again, this particular issue that is in question, D. Stephanie
is on what is clear back in June about the training.
and individuals thought that it was a game or childish or whatever, and we found this event. Also, that
individual in question, we had another center training right before I went on leave in September, and
that individual's skill has not gone through training. So take that as you will. But if folks are serious
about continuing and doing their jobs, as for numbers of paint commissioners, I would think that they
would listen to staff liaison to have work
you know, really close with all the staff liaison. And they are very much involved in making sure that
they know that they need to have their folks sign up for training, explain what training means and why
it's very much important. And also that it's mandatory. So they definitely have done that. But to the
point of, you know, does the staff liaison feel comfortable, you know,
doing the censure part of what I'd like and making that initial contact. I think yes and no. I think
it would depend on the particular situation. I don't know if this particular situation would help,
you know, with that. But, you know, again, I think it just depends on the staff it is on. And that's
where, if there are
Personally, I would prefer the staff liaison if there is an issue before it becomes a mountain of uh-oh
moments that they reach out to me first and explain the situation. And I can be able to talk through
with the staff liaison, hey, this is what you could do, or you can let me know how it goes, or you want
me to get involved in talking indirectly with the person. I think that would be better.
But I think it depends because if there is a moment, not saying that, you know, this individual question
could be hostile, but I'm saying there could be some moments where you do have, you know, board members
and commissioners that might feel a little touchy with the staff, not physical touchy, but, you know,
get a little round up with people. And that might put somebody at odds with, you know, that particular
individual.
Well, I appreciate you being willing to be a resource for a staff liaison if a situation gets tricky.
Oh, yeah. Yes. There are a lot of other things that are happening right now where I've had staff liaisons
contacting me on various issues related to a whole rainbow coalition of a lot of different things. And
so I have made it abundantly clear to staff liaisons since having this position.
Back in December of 24 that, you know, I am like their ear to whatever they need and they can come in
the office, they can email, you know, visit, call, do whatever. And I, you know, will always tell them
that I will take whatever it is that they are telling me and bring that to the powers that be. So I
take it serious. And I also like what I do.
Any other committee member comments before we go to the public? All right. Does anybody want to get
public comment on the potential process for removal of a Board of Commission member? You can approach
the table and you will have up to three minutes.
Go ahead. I'm Rene O'Cross, an advisor member of the HPC, and I support, in general, acknowledging,
in general, the points brought out in this memo, acknowledging that it does adopt the standard. This
counts as set in 2023 with the Alexander matter. However, I have a number of changes that I would suggest.
Firstly, to make, I want to comment on the issue of central. I have in my packet,
responding to the Notice for Removal attached several documents, one of which was a pretty thorough
report on the actions of the chair recommending sent you based on Robert's rules. So this council has
in its possession that document and I resend that document in my memo to the council the Sunday before
the last meeting. So it lays out all of the precedents
adheres to all the rules and forms that nexus between conduct and ability to continue to serve. So it
is there in great detail, but three minutes I have to get on. So steps three and seven needs to be separated.
One, detailing the allegations and issuing a notice is the role of a prosecutor. And to hear the case
is the role of a judge.
I don't believe that any member of the council should be serving any role other than that of a judge.
You can't lay out the charges, then write or recommend action and then sit objectively in a matter that
you've just expressed an opinion in by preferring those charges. Make the hearing real, provide access
to all involved
The full file and all information being relied on. The right to question the people making the allegations
and the right to counsel. Appearance speak is not a hearing. Fill the gaps. State of vote threshold
and quorum for such a vote. I believe it should be the full counsel, less those persons who recuse themselves
because they're involved in the issue in another way. Any removal began
before this process exists should be dismissed and restarted under it. The reason being, the information
was there. This committee wrote a report outlining what the standards should be, so there was knowledge
of the standards. This committee had the option, as pointed out here, to state the process.
It chose not to. Now that we're recognizing that the process isn't what it should be
The standards being applied is not it should be. Should not disadvantage somebody who is already in
the process to a lesser standard because of actions this committee knew about, documented, but chose
not to. And that is your time, sir. Well, I have a lot more to say. Unfortunately, being the person
involved in such a manner, this is the first opportunity I've ever had to speak on it because
every hearing and in every meeting, everybody else was heard except me. It's unfortunate that I only
get three minutes to speak. Do we have other members of the public who would like to comment on this?
There's one online. OK. Please state your name, and you'll have up to three minutes. Good afternoon.
Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. My name is Derek Oates.
and I appreciate this opportunity to offer comment. The removal for cause process should be formal,
precise, and cautious because it's not a trivial matter as you all are approaching this with obvious
seriousness. And the process should not be easy. The process should be rigorous and aligned with legal
and constitutional authority.
Appointments to board and commissions are made and approved with due diligence by the legislative branch
and the executive branch. Of course, the legislative branch is the common council. Not all executive
branch appointments are, they don't carry the same for cause removal process. Some of them are at the
pleasure of, but there are ones that do.
Ownership of the removal process is rightfully and legally driven and should be housed in the branch
who appointed the member. In the context of working commissions, the clerk's office role is supportive
and non-authoritative. I think the clerk's office does a marvelous job, but I want to bring forward
the legal fact that it is the
legislative and executive branch that are responsible for making these appointments and ultimately for
making the decision to possibly remove. There currently exists an informal and precise process for removal
for cause, and that's part of the dilemma. And that's what you're working through. So therefore, there
should be a uniform, I believe,
And I'm suggesting there should be a uniform removal for cause process in the city of Lund. So therefore,
I would suggest that this draft process move forward, but also in collaboration with the executive branch
so that there can be a process that everyone can look to, both branches and the clerk's office and members
of the public, that is coherent and precise and legally sound.
Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else for public comment on this item? All right. So at our next meeting
in November, we will hear a second draft of the removal process and a little bit more information on censure.
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
the room right now. Oh, we're muted. Yeah, this is muted. The other one is too. Can you hear us now?
I can hear you now. That was an accident.
Actually, if I may take a moment of privilege and go ahead and try to schedule our next meeting before
we do anything else so that we can be sure to do that. Since we're all four committee members are here
right now. So I don't know if people are gone for Thanksgiving. Normally it would be the 23rd of November, right?
Yes. I think about last Monday. Or the 30th. But either of those might conflict with people's travels,
such as mine. You can be more direct. So what about the 16th? Would that work for people? November,
right? Yeah.
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
office? I'm checking. And Jake? Absolutely. Yep. Great. I will have spent all day in a conference, so
I may be a little bit tired of people.
I think that I might be a little tired of people. You might be a little misanthropic by that time, is
that what you're saying? So that's Monday, November 16th at 5.30 p.m.? Yes, please. Thank you in advance
for noticing that and getting us a room. No problem. Dear clerk staff, dear clerks. All right, ongoing
Title II review. Let me share my screen.
We are on Committee of the Whole 2.04.250. Yes, the agenda was a little bit off. It had last month's.
We actually covered two paragraphs last month. Two little paragraphs, ma'am. We're doing good. Well,
I think Committee of the Whole is a big one because it's not, in the last five years, six years, it
hasn't been used as it
was when this code was written. So you see that I have proposed some deletions. So with exceptions noted
in this section, the council may resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider ordinances,
resolutions, or other matters with the freedom of committee procedures.
Of course, please. What technically are the freedom of committee procedures and how are those different
from our council meeting procedures? I mean, I know committees we tend to be like a little bit more
casual, but I don't feel like in committee of the halls, which we've had basically only for budget stuff,
we're particularly more casual. So we may be considering things without voting on them, but like, what
is this really freeing us of?
And do we want to be more? Well, I think the Committee of the Whole comes from Robert's Rules, I believe.
It's not in state code anywhere, so we don't have to have it. Jake, do you know offhand what these more
relaxed rules may be for Committee of the Whole? Not offhand. I'm not even sure that the Robert's Rules
Committee of the Whole are
relaxed, but when I read the Roberts Rules Committee of the Whole thing, I was just like, this is not
the way that, like, this does not make sense at all in terms of the body that we have. Yeah, I thought
in Roberts- And I don't remember the details anymore of that. I was just like, that's just like the
impression that I left with going, wow, Committee of the Whole is just not, that's not what we're doing.
I seem to remember that in Roberts Rules, and we have another parliamentarian sitting here,
Committee of the Whole is more for larger bodies. I do not pay much attention, honestly, to it because
I was like, we don't do that. Yeah. Well, let's see what else it says. So, skipping over to part B,
whenever council resolves itself in the Committee of the Whole, presiding officer shall leave the chair.
and the chair of the committee meetings shall rotate among members. Then part C, when we're in committee
of the whole, the rules shall govern except that committee of the whole may consider only matters and
questions referred to it. No limit shall be placed on frequency of speaking. I think this goes to some
of the relaxation of rules. So no limits on speaking except for five minutes at a time.
Interested residents may be heard on questions under consideration. Previous question may not be moved.
Clerk shall keep memorandum. And then D, when the committee of the whole rises, again, this kind of
arcane language, the presiding officer shall resume the chair. So this, again, it kind of implies that
a committee of the whole happens within a regular session, which has never been the case in my experience.
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?
We use it. For the budget discussions. For budget discussions, which could be special sessions. I mean.
I think the difference is that in Committee of the Whole, everybody knows you're not voting on a thing.
There's no final action in Committee of the Whole. And I think that that's why
the way that we're using it. I'm gonna play teacher here and say if you're passing notes, if it has
relevance, could you please bring it to the whole group? And if it doesn't have relevance, can we please
focus, because we only have a few minutes left. So, I'm sorry, I got distracted, Hopi, you were saying.
I got distracted too. I was saying that we do it for budget now and... Oh, it's clear that we don't
vote. Yes, and to be clear that we don't vote. And I think probably it's worth, especially given the
time, to just kind of like skip this one over and carefully read the Committee of the Whole and Robert's
Rules. And maybe it's that we don't
I mean, maybe we should just scrap Committee of the Whole and maybe we should have some kind of different
thing for thinking about the budget meeting or maybe we should just call it a special session.
And we can, the thing, this was before, so what, right now for budget we have a special session where
they get introduced for first reading and we don't talk about them and then we go into Committee of
the Whole where we talk about them.
but we specifically changed title to it to allow us to discuss matters at first reading. So is there
something, and we don't usually have public comment at Committee of the Whole either, do we? Yes,
we do. We do. But is there something stopping us from simply having that special session, and this is
maybe something to research and look into, having that special session to introduce them and then discuss them.
as we are discussing other matters of first reading in terms of introducing them and then motioning
to discuss and then having the discussion and then like. Maybe Jake you could look into that if there's
any reason why we couldn't do that as far as and why is it that we have a special session for the budget
and not just a regular session? Is that in state code it has to be special?
Probably because it's just that. Oh, it's because we want nothing else. No, it's because code dictates
what our regular session agendas have to be. And so if we want anything other than our regular session
agenda, then we have a special session and then our agenda can be whatever we want. That's why. Right. Yeah.
That's another part of the context in which to consider this is that we used to not have discussion
at first reading, and now we do. Yeah. And I know that some proponents of Committee of the Whole, like
Councilmember Rallo, liked having the Committee of the Whole because it provided a way to have the discussion
before the day of the vote. Right. Which I think is super important. Which is sort of what we now have with
Discussion at first rate. Sidney or Courtney, do you have any thoughts on this? I keep thinking of former
council member Steve Bolin. Yes, he's in the next room actually. I feel like we should bring him in
as a consultant.
Subject matter expert. Subject matter expert, there you go, yes. Because otherwise I just, yeah.
I think also, because I know of his penchant for committees of the whole, but I also have been very
mindful of public comment he gave the first time we were going through the redlining and going through
this where he said, these are written this way for a reason, so be mindful before you make too many
big changes.
So that's what I'm thinking of right now as we're talking about this. I'll echo that, if I may, because
after he made that comment, that's one of the reasons why I want to look at the beginning stuff again,
because we kind of go, yeah, maybe that should be left in there, things like our day of meeting and
that kind of thing, because of that comment.
So shall we circle back to this? Yeah. And we can all kind of check Robert's rules for where Committee
of the Whole came from. And kind of the previous text prior to this particular section. And it's good
to see you put it all in context. Is there a public comment on this?
Yes, we will have public comment. Let's give us two more minutes and then we'll go to public comment.
The next section is about scheduling committee meetings and Christine Chang and I had recommended that
all of that section go into the rules of procedure rather than being in code because it's kind of details
that don't need to be
code in our view but I'm not sure that some of it even needs to go into rules and procedures because
we aren't tending to refer legislation to committees anymore and so we want to leave that open in the
future if we do want to refer things well right but do we have to have
Do we have to have it strictly about like, so if something is referred, then it has to be discussed
at this certain time. And especially because like everything is recorded now and everything is virtual
now. And so if people want to see that discussion, if it happens, there are ways that they can see it
afterwards. There are ways that. Well, I think because we don't regularly refer legislative items to
committees, if we do,
out of the ordinary, refer something to a committee, we could say, you know, and that committee should
meet and report back by, you know, February 23rd or whatever. So, is it okay to remove that from code?
Can we get one thing done today? Yes, we can. Yes.
Move it to procedures? Yeah. Is that all right? Sure. We should go to public comments. Yes.
Article 3, done. Yes. So what? Two paragraphs. Well, but that was Article 3. See, now we're on Article
4. OK. Let us go to public comment. Is there anybody who would like to comment on? This is general public
comment on the Committee on Council Processes stuff.
Yes, come right up. Thank you. You have up to three minutes. Yes, thank you very much for allowing me
to speak. My name is Jeff Richardson. I'm just going to build on what Hopi said. She kind of took a
little bit of what I was going to say. She used the word casual, more casual conversation. I would use
the same term, but just take it at the next level, more welcoming. I think we need more time to have
a dialogue and to think about
How do we get things discussed in a way, not just committee at the whole, but also at the council itself?
I understand the three-minute rule. You know, I was on the council and I know how busy and loaded things
are, but there are some issues that I think merit a discussion. One of the ideas would be to have a
panel with three or four people and to take a deeper dive into some very substantive issues and not
have the three-minute rule or the five-minute rule.
I would defer to the Council on what those issues are and how it would work. I think we'd get more done
in a more thoughtful and thorough way, but I also think the other overlying push for me on this is to
dial down the tension. I think a lot of times there's a tendency from everyone involved to have a quick
I wouldn't say intentionally sound, but a quick comment and a quick comment back, and we don't have
really a discussion that's welcoming and connecting. So I think it would be more substantive in the
decisions we make, more informed, more data-driven, more thoughtful, but also it would have people,
going back to what Hopi said, having a conversation with people that's not necessarily casual, but certainly
more connected. And right now I feel
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
comment. And not just with each other, but with the public and even sometimes with staff, it's not a
process that's welcoming. And I think it diminishes all of us. It doesn't diminish any particular person
on council or in the public or on staff, but all of us are diminished when we don't have these thoughtful,
data-driven, welcoming discussions.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. Looks like that's enough. Oh, yes. Please.
This is both. We only have two minutes left, but please. Sorry. Sentimental. So briefly. Terry Ansler.
Terry Ansler. One thought. I hadn't thought about this. The Council, the Committee of the Whole,
I thought about this, I have no strong opinion. I wonder, I like flexibility, the council having flexibility,
I like that idea, generally. And I wonder if there's anything more on the public comment side for meeting
to the whole, you want additional room to move and change and things as seems appropriate to that meeting.
Maybe you have all the room you need, I don't know, that's just a random thought. The reason I'm really
here tonight, I wanted to say,
I think the council should be recognized for the deliberative sessions they've been trying out and that
you've done the last two times in the last month and a half or so. And I think you should be congratulated.
I think because, quickly, it's a benefit to innovative democratic governance. It gives you information,
perhaps, hopefully, with public decision making and what I have to make. And it's good public participation
encouragement, generally, in democracy and trust in government.
Turn your head. You learned this years ago. Look around. My wife hollers at me for not doing that in
class when I teach. Anyway, so I just think it's a good thing. I am curious, not now, about what the
plans are for the council to learn from this work, to benefit, to positively critique what's been done
and think, well, that was good. Let's get a bit of room. I'm curious what the process is for that, because
it's interesting, especially in this time.
I'm mentioning back that basically the city does not have a public engagement director any longer. It
was a rough road for a number of years. That position still exists and I believe the mayor's office
intends to hire somebody into that position. I was told informally from somebody who may not ever know
anything that that probably wasn't to be the case.
So that's interesting. That's not what I heard. I say that in part because, is this because of time?
No, no, we should not be going back and forth, please. This is your time. But we are at time, Terry.
I'm sorry. I'm done. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I think that's it. We have our next meeting. Oh,
yes, Sydney. For the public, I guess, the record, this is why we should stop before five minutes prior
to the end so that we can hear more than one public comment. Yeah. You were right.
We normally have an hour and a half, so it was a little bit condensed tonight. But our next meeting
is November 16th at 530, and we are adjourned.