All right, it is nine o'clock. I will call the August 12th meeting of the election board to order. Are
you guys up top? Are you guys good up top with the sound? You need a little bit? Okay. My understanding
is there was a power surge and they're trying to get everything back up. So we will sit here and smile
till you tell us we're good.
I hope other five minutes just go that quickly. Okay, then we will first thing is we need to adopt our
agenda which we have and it's posted. I will move to adopt the agenda as we have been given it. Second.
Any discussion? We can do those in favor. Aye. Opposed? All right. Now we have to decide how we're going
to address the complaints that we have.
I'm going to leave that. You tell us what we need to do, sir. Well, I think you've got a couple of choices,
right? I think looking through all the complaints, they all seem to be the same complaint from five
different people, which is that there is a violation of Indiana Code 3815.5, which is entitled Ineligibility
of a Person Defeated in Primary Convention or Caucus.
that the allegation is that Mr. Davis is one who was defeated in a primary convention or caucus, and
therefore he is ineligible to be on the ballot for this fall. I think there is one with a second complaint
of history of disruptive behavior at voting locations. I'm not sure how that fits into where we're at
in today's process.
Um, but I guess those are kind of the, I think the primarily one that all of them complained about was
the violation of Indiana code 3815.5. So if you wanted to have a hearing on that and then potentially
a hearing on, uh, the failed, uh, the history of destructive behavior, voting locations. But my understanding
is that that kind of hearings already happened.
And so I'm not, I think that's kind of moot at this point. So I think the one issue before you is the
violation of the 3815.5. I think you could probably combine all the complaints into one complaint. Let
them either all come up and utilize the 10 minutes as a group. And then if, of course, if they need
more time and you wish to give it to them, you can. And then Mr. Davis would have the opportunity to
rebut that. And then he would get that same 10 minute guidelines
Of course, you guys can give him additional time, or you could treat each individual one as, I mean,
I hesitate to give that as an option, because once you decide the first one, you've kind of decided
them all. If it's all the same code and all that, I don't think the information, it would be much more
judicial economy if you had all of them give you why they think this is a violation, and then let him
respond, because it's all the same code section. Thank you. Go ahead.
Mr. Chair, I concur with the county attorney in that the complaints are similar. It does not seem to
be the best use of our time to address them individually. And I would make a motion that we hear them
as a combination of one complaint or that we hear it. We put them all together and hear them. Um, and
I also agree that the behavior issue was addressed in a separate hearing and
I am not interested in entertaining that piece today. I'll second that. Before we vote, do the- Excuse
me. It's not your turn yet. It's not your turn yet. When it's your turn, sir, I will call on you. This
is not your turn. Okay. I just want- What part of this is not your turn? Do you not understand? I would
like to make some specific requests before the hearing begins here. If I may please.
I think we're not to the point where the hearing is actually being conducted or start yet. We're determining
how operationally it's going to occur, whether it's going to be one complaint versus five complaints.
And I think that's the question before the board at this point. Where I was going to go before I was
interrupted was to ask the petitioners if they have issues with combining all five of them into one.
Mr. Tilford, yours is listed first. Can you find out for us and give us an answer from the other petitioners
if they have an issue with that? Yeah. Well, the ones that are here. OK, so then I will call for the
question then. Yes, ma'am. I would like to add that if
As a group, they need more than 10 minutes. I would like to, at that point, address the additional time.
OK. Thank you. OK. So the motion is to combine the five complaints into one. Those in favor, aye. Aye.
Excuse me. I would like to ask for some specific request before this motion is passed, because my specific
request affect the passing of this motion.
Sir, I'm kind of going to look toward you on this. I guess I would ask Mr. Davis if his comments are
concerning whether he believes there are separate questions before it, because essentially what the
board is voting on is whether there's really just one question before, i.e. whether this is a violation
of Indiana Code 3815.5, or do you think there is another question
that is the complainants are asking, because the complainants have indicated that this is what they're
asking. Yes, Councillor Cockerill, I do wish to clarify some issues surrounding the five challenges.
Before the presentation begins, I respectfully request clarification of the five can one filings
will be treated as separate filings presenting substantially the same legal issue rather than as five
cumulative presentations on the same issue. I also would like to request equal presentation time. The
board's resolution establishes its hearing procedure
including the order of presentation and opportunity for the candidates to respond. Because there are
five challengers, I respectfully request clarification concerning the amount of time of each time each
challenger will receive and the amount of time available to me to respond. If the challengers collectively
receive more than the time allocated to myself, the candidate, I respectfully request comparable additional
time so that I have a fair opportunity to address each challenge. I also, because the challengers will
present first,
I respectfully request a brief rebuttal opportunity after all five challengers have completed their
presentations limited to new factual or legal matters raised during their presentations. And I also
request that any factual assertion offered as testimony be made under oath consistent with the board's
adopted procedures
and that the documentary evidence offered by any party be identified and made a part of the record.
Because this matter concerns ballot eligibility and presents constitutional issues, I respectfully request
that the board issue a written decision setting forth its findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and reasons for its disposition. Also, I respectfully request that the minutes reflect that I have expressly
raised potential objections under the first and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution in
Article 2, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution. Thank you.
And I guess my response to that is, at least for the first part, that's kind of what we're trying to
decide. I think what the motion is, is that the complainants as a group will have 10 minutes and pursue
it. And we will swear everybody in before they give testimony. That is clearly is going to happen. But
they will have 10 minutes, and then you will have 10 minutes to respond. I think what you're questioning
is, if they request from the board additional time after that, will you
also get that additional time, and that would be a board's decision. I mean, I would recommend to the
board that you do, right? I would have no issue with that. Right. And so I think. But what I want to
clarify is if they have 10 minutes that one person makes their presentation, you will get 10 minutes.
And then the following. And if we go beyond the 10, then you could have the same additional time. But
you don't get 50 because they have five of them.
If they use 10, you get 10. And I would like to clarify. So all five together, their total cumulative
time has to be within 10 minutes. Unless it is extended by the election board, which is part of the
procedures. Am I understanding this correctly, then if there are
If there are five challengers, they will all have two minutes each to make their presentation. I do
not believe that we are allocating amongst them their time. So if one of them wants to be their spokesperson
and talk for the full 10 minutes, I think that is fully appropriate.
But we do want to make sure that each of them gets the opportunity to make sure what their complaint
about is said. And if that requires more time, they can ask the election board and the election board
can choose to allow it or not, additional time. But as a group, they will have 10 minutes to, it's not,
we're not going to say you get two, you get two, you get two. They as a group have 10, just like your
response, you get the 10 minutes. And again, absent a request for additional time.
And where does this stand with my request for rebuttal should some new evidence be provided that is
not already a part of the packet record that? I guess that's part of your time, right, because a rebuttal occurs
after the other group had made a statement. So really, if there is a first rebuttal period, it will
begin with the complainants and then you will have an opportunity. I guess at this point in time,
if you have, if you listen to what they say and you have concerns about it and you run out of your 10
minutes, then you ask the election board, hey, can I have, I need to, I have some more information I
want to give, can I have another couple minutes or another X amount of time to give that information,
right? So since you go second, the,
the complaintants would have the ability, would have the need to do a rebuttal because they would not
have heard what you said when they were speaking. Does that make sense? I'm just trying to understand
where I'm able to address any new factual information that might be presented as
It seems more logical to me that I should be able to rebut that before I start my 10 minutes presentation.
And that is not how this is set up. So we'll just have to disagree on that. I actually think we have
a motion from the board. Do you guys need any more information to vote on that motion? Go ahead. The
only thing I wonder is,
Since we took the poll about them agreeing to the 10 minutes, is it possible to pull them to say, are
you planning to present any new evidence? Or are you sticking to this? Because if there is new evidence,
that may change how we feel. Well, I think if there's new evidence, I think that would be part of the
contemplation of, do we give Mr. Davis more time, right? I think if they bring in a bunch of new evidence,
then I think you should
listen to him and determine whether he needs more time. I think why don't we get to the point where
we're actually receiving evidence to determine if there's any new one. I would totally concur.
I would concur. I'm surmising the evidence. It's not going to be surprising. Correct. And if it is,
then we have to react, right? I just don't expect a whole lot of new stuff here. And that was exactly my point.
that I don't believe we're gonna have anything other than what they listed or they would have submitted
it for consideration. What could have changed from the time that these? And I guess from my stance,
if we have a conversation about whether there's any new evidence and then we get the evidence, then
are we just having the same conversation twice, right? And I think from a process perspective, that
is not efficient. If we allow additional time for the complainants, we will allow additional time
from Mr. Davis. So the motion is to combine all five. Should I actually call the roll? Clerk Brown?
Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Giddens? Yes. All right. So again, I asked Mr. Tilford, but whoever you
guys would choose to have to speak, please sign in and you would have 10 minutes if you want to allocate
that amongst different people.
We don't have a problem with that. Bear with me while I sign in. Haven't started yet.
before you begin, can I have anybody who is going to give any testimony or information today raise their
right hand? Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the information you will give
at this hearing today is the truth to the best of your knowledge? I so swear. Yes, I so swear. I noticed
four people swear.
Ms. Moore, who's sitting next to you? Yes. D. Owens. Okay. I'm just making sure I have for the record
who all had their hands raised and swore. So it was D. Owens, Regina Moore, Mr. Tilford, and Mr. Davis.
Oh, and? Roberta Robbins. Are we ready? Are we good?
Mr. Selfert, at your convenience. Thank you, Mr. Shields, staff, and also Mr. Taylor. Do we need to
officially open the hearing? I believe you do. And I believe, TSD, can we make sure we have the 10 minute
clock on the screen so people can see it? Thank you. OK, then I will officially open the hearing. Now
start his 10 minutes. Go ahead, sir. Thank you.
As far as evidence, I, believe it or not, once in a while look through the CATS recordings of prior
meetings. I stumbled across the June 4th meeting in this room, and I still shudder at that. I empathize
with those people who had to be here at that time and some other times because of Mr. Taylor. When I
first heard
Davis, excuse me, Davis. When I first heard that he was, in spite of losing the earlier portion of the
election, considering or attempting to follow up and still be considered in the fall, I thought, what
can I do? I've been through elections before and failed. Democratic primary for the U.S. House, Indiana
Ninth District, when Shelley beat everybody, I came in like fourth out of five.
at a common courtesy of anything else, try to fight that. You can have some courtesy, some consideration
for others, and accept defeat. For me, to further this is a disservice not only to the individuals involved
here, not only within the voters here, but against the whole election process upon which this country
is founded. Again, my evidence is that meeting, which is on record and people can look at it,
The behavior exhibited during that, which was disruptive, is too mild a term. He interfered with the
process, and I want to put a stop to it if at all possible. Do I have any questions? So you're referring
to the fact that you feel like he was told about the sore loser law? I'm referring back primarily that
one meeting was recorded over and over and over again. They're trying to enforce normal decorum and timing.
And we had to wait for him to appear, had to wait for the show and tell, which is an embarrassment.
All these things were under the heading of disruptive, time consuming, and needless. You're trying to
be courteous. And again, I'm trying to project something here. But courtesy wasn't working during those
meetings. We have to do something else, more blunt. That's basically all I had to say.
Thank you. We still have eight minutes if someone wants to use it. Go ahead, just come up and sign in.
Hello, my name's Dee Owens, and I'll be very fast as I was on my piece of paper. I think allowing a
write-in candidate at this point who was a previous candidate is clearly in opposition to the law. We
just have to follow the law. That's all there is. Mr. Davis already lost. That's the law of the state
of Indiana. We need to follow the law. I think it's quite simple. That's all I have. Do you have questions?
Thank you. Any others? Well, no. OK, why don't we pause and there's seven minutes and 51 seconds left
if we need it. So then I guess we'll, Mr. Davis?
Davis, you have 10 minutes now for your presentation or rebuttal as whatever you wish to call it. May
I ask a question regarding the presentation of evidence during my rebuttal exhibits that I wish to be
introduced into the record? When I hand these items to
Mr. Cockerill or to you all the election board, I would like that time where I'm standing up and physically
handing items not to count against my 10 minutes. Are there things we're going to have to see at that
time? Yes. Or can we see them at the end of your presentation?
Because your presentations, we're not going to act on anything until your presentation is finished.
So is there any reason you couldn't give us your whatever at that point in time and we just deal with
it then before we vote? Yes. If I'm allowed to hand over my evidence or my exhibits following my 10 minutes,
That would work. I just want to make sure that my response, my proposed order, my candidate filing,
my reference to the packet materials, and my requested election results for the primary, for the clerk,
for the race of clerk to the Circuit Court of Monroe,
be able to be entered as exhibits and that you all, as board members, are able to take an appropriate
amount of time to consider all of these items as evidence in the whole. Again, you're the attorney,
Jeff. I think that the question is, can this election board rewrite Indiana state law?
And the answer is, no, we can't. I'm sure there are state laws that all three of us would like to rewrite.
We can't. That's what the legislature does. And you know that. And the question here is, this is what,
and we've reached out to the state election board. This is what they say Indiana codes states. And we
really have no desire to change what that law states.
So you have 10 minutes, make your presentation why, and I guess for lack of a better term, why we shouldn't
apply state law when it applies to you to the election. So you have 10 minutes to do that, sir. Respectfully,
I am not in any way saying that state law does not exist. His clock should be running right now. Restart. OK.
start your 10 minutes right now. And it was restarted for you. Okay, I need to be able to see the time
on my monitor. It's on the screen in front of you. It's the blue bar at the top of the screen. In the
upper left hand corner of your screen. It's right across the entire top. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay.
Good morning members of the board. I appreciate the opportunity to address the five challenges to my
candidacy. I want to begin by making one thing clear. I accept the result of the May Democratic primary.
I participated in that primary and I did not receive the Democratic nomination. I am not asking this
board to overturn that result.
and I am not asking to be recognized as the Democratic nominee. I subsequently filed an independent
write-in candidate, candidacy for Monroe County Clerk in the November general election. The issue before
the board is therefore whether Indiana's sore loser statute may constitutionally be applied
to prevent me from participating in the general election altogether. The statute, I recognize the language
of Indiana code 3-8-1-5.5. It says that a person defeated in a primary is not eligible to become a candidate
for the same office
in the next general election. I also recognize that Indiana's 2026 Election Administrator's Manual says
that the statute applies to a defeated candidate who wants to run as a writing candidate. So I'm not
asking the board to pretend that the statute does not exist. My position
is that the board must consider whether applying that statute to my independent write-in candidacy is
consistent with the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution. The Democratic primary
and the November general election serve different functions. The primary determined who would represent
the Democratic party. I accept that determination.
But I am not seeking to represent the Democratic Party. I am seeking to participate in independently,
to participate independently in the general election. The Democratic Party's nominee remains the Democratic
Party's nominee. Nothing I'm asking this board to do changes that. The Supreme Court has held in Anderson v.
Celebreze or Celebreze, and Burdick v. Telushi, that election restrictions affecting political association
must be evaluated by considering the character and the magnitude of the burden on the candidates and
voters, and voters, and that the precise... Can we stop the clock, please?
Okay, that's only one bill. Okay, all right. Let's see. Let me begin again. The election restrictions
affecting political association must be evaluated by considering the character and magnitude of the
burden on candidates and voters and the precise governmental interest asserted to justify that burden.
That matters here because the burden imposed by Indiana code section 3-8-1-5.5 is not simply a filing
requirement. If the statute is applied to me, I cannot be a candidate for Monroe County Clerk in the
November general election at all. That affects my political association.
but it also affects voters who may wish to support an independent candidacy. I anticipate that the board
may consider Hero v. Lake County Election Board a Seventh Circuit decision. Hero is important, but the
factual distinction is critical. In Hero, the candidate was removed from the Republican primary ballot,
but he still had alternative routes to the general election.
The Seventh Circuit therefore characterized the burden as minor. Here, the challenged statute does something
different. It eliminates the general election candidacy itself. There's no alternative independent or
right in route left for me if
Indiana Code Section 3-8-1-5.5 is applied. That distinction is reinforced by the Indiana Supreme Court's
later discussion of Hero in Morales v. Rust. The Indiana Supreme Court emphasized the availability of
alternative routes to the general election ballot in conducting that a restriction was minor. Those
alternative routes are precisely what
Indiana Code Section 3-8-1-5.5 removes in this case. I recognize the state's legitimate interests. Indiana
has an interest in the integrity and finality of primary elections, but I accept the primary result.
Indiana has an interest in protecting political parties' ability to choose their nominees.
But I am not asking to be the Democratic nominee. Indiana has an interest in avoiding voter confusion.
But I am running as an independent write-in candidate, not as the Democratic nominee. Indiana has an
interest in orderly elections. But Indiana already has a statutory
statutory procedure governing right-end candidates. The question is therefore whether those interests
require the additional step of completely prohibiting my participation in the general election. Members
of the board, I respectfully ask that you deny the five challenges and allow my independent right-end
candidacy to proceed.
If the board concludes that Indiana Code 3-8-1-5.5 nevertheless requires my removal,
I respectfully request a written decision identifying the factual and legal basis for that conclusion.
I also respectfully request that the record expressly reflect that I have raised objections under the
first and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II and Section 1 of the Indiana
Constitution. I am not asking for this board to overturn
the Democratic primary. I am asking for the opportunity to participate independently in the November
general election. Thank you. Thank you. Again, I'm not the attorney. I think what you need to do now is I
is close the hearing and then deliberate amongst yourselves on what you wish to rule on. And then if
you can make that decision today, fine. I think if you want to acknowledge Mr. Davis's request of including
the, that he raise objections to the First and Fourth Amendment and under, was it Article 22 of the
Indiana Constitution?
Uh, Article two, section one of the Indiana Constitution and also what would would be the appropriate
time for me to turn in my exhibits? I think you could turn those in, although I guess. They were necessary
for the for the board's consideration, obviously, so would. I think if you if you handed them to me,
I would mark them.
that would be as exhibit one to how many are there? Well, I have I would like to make sure that everything
that is in the packet for this hearing be made part of the official record. I have a proposed I have
a response, a formal written response to the
To the challenges and I also have a proposed order. I also am submitting a copy of my actual independent
write-in filing and I have requested that the official results of the primary race for Monroe County
for clerk to the Circuit Court be introduced as a
evidence were an exhibit as well and my understanding is that Ms. Ferris has been able to locate that
and she can submit it to Mr. Councilor Cockerill. Those are certified results right? Yeah they've already
also been emailed to Cockerill as well. We could we can include the certified results of the election
as as an exhibit. All right then I can I again may I am I allowed to
in the hearing and then we deliberate. Is that what you suggest? I think you add the testimony.
I think Mr. Davis should hand me whatever exhibits he wants to be included. That's fine with me. So
that I can mark them and hand them to you so you can look at them before you make your decision. So
if you have those exhibits, I do. Just a point of clarification. I won't need to
The already in the official record will be the packet information, the letter from the for the hearing,
the complaints and also to the policies and procedures for this hearing. Those are also all of those
will be included in the record. Is that correct? I will have to see what's in the packet and we'll have
to see what the election board
But I guess what I need you to do is any new information I need to have, because then I have to go talk
to the complainants to make sure that they don't have any objections to these being entered as exhibits
to this hearing. And if they do, then we've got to talk about something. But if not, you'll get to see
them first. But I don't have them, so I can't show them to you.
You still have two minutes and 51 seconds. Seven minutes. Seven minutes. I'm sorry. You know, sometimes
you get arthritis. You can't read your own handwriting. Kylie will tell you mine wasn't good, but I
didn't have arthritis. They still have seven minutes and 51 seconds. And he has two minutes and, I think,
15, if I remember correctly. Yeah, that's fine.
Go ahead. This is a conversation amongst the board. This is not talking right now to petitioners. It
seems to me that the issues raised are not issues for the election board to deal with.
The issues raised are whether or not this is the Indiana Code is a violation of the Constitution. That's
not our job to determine. Our job is to determine whether or not the statute applies. I'll let him finish.
Okay, so. Bonds, proposed order, and then why. I'm going to go short tonight. Thank you very much. Okay.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm okay with you, with the petitioners, having a little bit of time to look at this
before they respond. I assume you guys are. Yeah, I will declare the meeting in recess while they do
that. All right.
seen the exhibits, and I'm going to call the meeting back to order. Do any of the complaints want to
use any more of your seven minutes? You're free to head up there.
Hi, D. Owens again. Having heard the presentations and having reviewed the exhibits, I would like to
kindly say that this is the wrong venue for this argument, that this board has no authority over the
United States Constitution. And therefore, you can only rule, of course, on what's in front of you,
the law that's in front of you, and the evidence that's in front of you.
Anyone else? Well, ma'am, that is exactly the thought that I had that if we don't write the law, we
read the law and make decisions based upon what it says. It seems to me that if Mr. Davis wants to be
on the ballot as a write-in candidate,
He needs to seek injunctive relief that we can't offer. And if you wish to try, if you wish to file
suit somewhere to be put on the ballot, that same constitution you're talking about gives you that right.
But I'm going to make a motion to honor the challenges and
declare that Mr. Davis is not eligible to be a write-in candidate in the November general election.
Second. Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt, but I do have rebuttal time left. Two minutes. The hearing has
it, well. We just heard a rebuttal. You have two minutes. Two minutes and how many seconds?
What was that? Just give him three minutes.
Okay, again, I reserve the right to seek injunctive relief through the courts such that my candidacy
remains intact as a write-in candidate.
it sounds like your motion that is upcoming would need to specifically address that issue that I do
have the possibility to seek relief from the courts and that also the constitutional issues both federally
and the Indiana State Constitution
allow me to present those evidence and those facts. And I wish that everything that has, I wish to request
that findings of fact with your decision, written formal findings of fact be included in the record
such that I will have as full of record as possible to proceed with my court request for relief.
It's very, very important that my ability to present challenges is recognized by the board and that
these are preserved such that
One, such that I might be able to simplify and expedite my lawsuit, because time is of the essence.
The ballot is soon to be printed. I need to move this through the courts as soon as possible, starting
with the lower court, and then if necessary, appealing to the appellate level, and if necessary, appealing
to the Indiana
Supreme Court. Therefore, I request that your findings of fact be formally written expressing your objections
to my candidacy as write-in for the position of clerk to the Circuit Court of Monroe. Thank you. Mr.
Counselor.
Does the televised meeting not serve as evidence? I think it may or may not. I think the real easy solution
was when we create the order, we will add language that says, Mr. Davis was in the primary. Mr. Davis,
for clerk, Mr. Davis lost the primary, was not the leading vote getter from the primary, something in
the primary.
That is the factual basis for you to make the decision that he can't be on the ballot in November, right?
I mean, I think what Mr. Davis needs to show the court is it's clearly this is the issue that the decision
was based upon, and that would give him the ability to show, hey, this was kind of a cut and dry issue
from the election board's perspective. His perspective is that the statute's wrong, right? So that should
give him what he needs to proceed.
Precisely what he asked for is what I said, is that if you want to seek injunctive relief, go ahead,
but we're going to follow Indiana State law. And you cannot deny him the ability to do it? None of us
wish to do that. None of us have any desire to do that. And there will be minutes of the meeting will
also be available very quickly.
Were his three minutes up or did he have? Yes, yes, his three minutes were up. I had 10 seconds, actually.
And with that, I would like to say that formally reasoned out findings of fact and conclusions of law
be included in whatever order that you might propose today.
Okay, go ahead. I'm just saying we had a motion and a second on the table. Are you Mr. Chair?
Call the roll, please. Clerk Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Giddens? Yes. And I'm going to maybe
ask you something at the end. Sure. At the end of this meeting is that when we're done with this meeting,
if we could recess for maybe 20 minutes to half hour, I want to
get him the documentation he needs to move forward. And I think I'll just need a little bit of time
to get the order clear. You need us for that part of it? Well, I think you guys need to come back and
actually approve the final document. That's fine. I have no problem. I think it'll be quick. I think
I'm just going to need a few minutes. It looks like our next thing on the list is a resolution to approve
the absentee board workers. I believe that's absentee board workers for that one.
I will restart our board meeting. Thank you, officially. Ms. Kiley, do we have the workers we need to
appoint? Yes, so I actually emailed them to Mr. Cockrell as well. I am going to forward them on to you.
I know, Chrissy, you did CC Ms. Githens on the update to hers, but the one from Corey is the same as
the one that was presented at the last meeting. That has been seen, yes.
Then I'll make a motion that we approve and appoint those workers. I will second that motion. Discussion?
No discussion. Those in favor aye. I really please that so many are returning to work in the primary.
That was really. It's that fancy new room. All right then. All right then I will adjourn, excuse me,
not adjourn. I will recess the meeting to give Mr. Cockrell the time he needs
Ms. Kiley has a smile. Yes, ma'am. I was going to say, do you want to do roll call on the appointments?
If we need to, then we will. Go ahead. Just to make sure it's clear. That's fine. That's fine.
Clark Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Givens? Yes. OK, now I will recess the meeting while Mr.
Cockerill gets his paperwork that he needs. OK, so I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
We have a couple of corrections to this we would like. In the second paragraph at the bottom, there's
a unnecessary space between M and E in member. And number five on the one, two, three, fourth paragraph,
Nancy Goswami did not attend. Other than that, I think we're good with this.
So I think what you guys can do is go ahead and move to to exit to authorize the execution of that document
as your formal decision from this hearing. Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I believe that I should
have the right to read the document and point out any inaccuracies before it's approved so that I can so that
so that it's recorded officially, those objections. So when I'm in court, it'll be easy for the courts
to have access to everything. This is our document, correct? Correct. So we decide what happens with
this document, correct? Correct. So if we make a motion to accept this document as written, that's within
our program, correct? Correct. I'm making that motion at this time. Second.
Would you call, well, she's not here right now. Kylie, would you call the roll? Nicole Brown. Yes. Danny
Shields. Yes. Penny Githens. Yes. Okay, then. I'll get those. Corrections. Two corrections made and
I'll bring you up something. And we'll sign those, yes. The signature page. Yeah, the signature page.
Excuse me, Councilor Cockerill, can you please bring up the copy of the corrected document for me as well?
Okay, I'd like it to be known that I haven't been able to review this document to check for any inaccuracies
that might limit my right to appeal. I'll make a motion. Will you adjourn? Second. Those in favor, aye.
Okay, we will see you. Do we have anything we have to do before the September meeting? No, next meeting
will be September. Thank you very much. Thank you.