[3:19] because I had a
[3:21] >> Okay, I'm going to call the meeting to
[3:22] order. Thank you all for coming to the
[3:24] uh May 28th Charter Review Committee.
[3:28] It's our final meeting in person here.
[3:30] Anyways, took roll call. Brady begin
[3:33] >> here.
[3:34] >> Randy Boulderjack. Hello. Leland Dart
[3:37] >> here. Grant Harrington, please believe
[3:40] he's online.
[3:41] >> I'm here.
[3:42] >> Here.
[3:44] >> Sherryon.
[3:48] » Tom Norcco
[3:49] >> here.
[3:50] >> Sophia Pastor
[3:51] >> here.
[3:53] >> Alan Rubio
[3:54] >> here.
[3:55] >> Mason Rutled
[3:57] >> here.
[3:58] >> Liz Stenhouse
[3:59] >> here.
[4:00] >> John Trainer.
[4:04] » La Vasquez
[4:05] >> here.
[4:06] >> And Deb Williams
[4:07] >> here. Great. Thank you all.
[4:13] Everybody had a chance to review the
[4:14] minutes that we posted, albeit late this
[4:16] week uh for tonight's meeting, which is
[4:18] we know is it was a brief agenda,
[4:20] although it's pretty packed what we're
[4:22] going to talk about. Um if anybody has
[4:25] questions or comments about today's
[4:27] agenda, please bring them up. Otherwise,
[4:28] I entertain a motion to approve
[4:31] uh I'll start with the minutes from the
[4:33] previous meeting.
[4:34] >> Have any minutes?
[4:35] >> Second. A motion and second to approve
[4:37] the minutes from the previous meeting.
[4:39] All in favor say I.
[4:40] >> I.
[4:41] >> Oppose same sign.
[4:43] >> Chair votes I. Okay. Now let's approve
[4:45] the agenda for tonight's meeting. Uh any
[4:48] questions or comments or changes
[4:49] necessary for the agenda?
[4:53] Seeing none, entertain a motion to
[4:55] approve the agenda for tonight.
[4:56] >> I move the agenda.
[4:57] >> Seconded.
[4:59] >> Moved and seconded to approve the agenda
[5:00] for tonight. All in favor say I.
[5:02] >> I. I.
[5:03] >> Oppose. Same sign. Chair votes I agenda
[5:06] has been approved
[5:09] being. So the first item of business
[5:11] we're going to talk about is our
[5:12] modernization proposal. Jennifer, do you
[5:15] want to give us a brief?
[5:16] >> Yes. Um
[5:18] so this is the language we talked about
[5:22] at the end of the meeting last week. Um
[5:26] okay,
[5:28] you're going to miss something in the
[5:29] chat. Uh, and it reflects the desire to
[5:33] remove or to I guess augment the
[5:35] references to newspaper notification
[5:37] with um the addition of the opportunity
[5:40] to post in on the city website as an
[5:43] alternative. Um, I'll share that out of
[5:48] the draft report. I didn't do a separate
[5:50] cover sheet, but it's been there to
[5:53] >> You're looking at the draft. We're on
[5:54] page 19.
[5:55] >> Yes. Um uh so there's four sections
[5:59] where that appears. Um so 13.9 we added
[6:04] instead of just four weeks in the city
[6:06] official newspaper, we added or for four
[6:08] weeks on the city website. Um 15.5 has
[6:12] to do with um noticing appointments of
[6:15] police officers. So we added the or on
[6:18] the city website there. There's language
[6:20] in um
[6:22] 16.2 two about amendments proposed by
[6:25] petition. So again just or on the city
[6:28] website and then I think the last one is
[6:30] on the next page
[6:32] um which is um amendments to the charter
[6:36] um which um have to be published uh well
[6:40] this year they'll have to be published
[6:41] once a week for two weeks in the city
[6:43] official newspaper um alternatively this
[6:46] would add or for two successive weeks on
[6:49] the city uh website.
[6:52] So,
[6:52] >> so Jennifer, can I ask a question?
[6:54] >> Oh, I'm sorry.
[6:56] >> I mean,
[6:57] >> so we're here to discuss. You want us to
[6:59] ask a question? You want to discuss?
[7:00] >> It's on this particular just on this
[7:02] very top one on the ordinances. That's
[7:04] the only question.
[7:05] >> Okay.
[7:06] >> So, it says for four weeks on the
[7:08] ordinances, but ordinances are three
[7:10] readings. So, does the clerk just
[7:12] publish it for an extra week or
[7:15] >> um
[7:17] I think that this implies that um
[7:21] franchise ordinances have to be
[7:24] published
[7:26] currently for four weeks before the
[7:28] first reading
[7:29] >> this.
[7:30] >> And it's just for franchises though.
[7:32] >> Okay.
[7:33] >> Yeah.
[7:33] >> Thank you.
[7:34] >> Yeah.
[7:36] So, not like every ordinance wouldn't
[7:38] this just applies to that kind. So,
[7:42] >> so where we're at on this? Go ahead.
[7:44] >> What's an example of a franchise
[7:46] ordinance?
[7:48] >> Um, an agreement with Comcast to let
[7:50] them be a cable provider in the city or
[7:53] with We don't have a franchise for
[7:55] garbage service, but other cities do.
[7:57] So, those are or like a utility company
[7:59] could have a franchise.
[8:01] >> Yeah, we don't very many of them.
[8:04] >> Yeah.
[8:06] >> So, where I see we're at as a committee
[8:08] with this topic, we've discussed this.
[8:09] We asked for this language to be brought
[8:11] forward and so this is the proposed
[8:13] language that we move forward with. So
[8:16] we need somebody to make a motion that
[8:17] we adopt this as one of our
[8:18] recommendations.
[8:19] >> I move that we adopt this language
[8:22] >> and you want to second that.
[8:24] >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded that
[8:26] we take language that was provided to us
[8:29] uh for the changes as we just talked
[8:31] about. Is there any discussion on this
[8:32] at all? We need to talk about it
[8:34] anymore. And you know this is one of the
[8:36] topics that came up early early on when
[8:39] we first met because we talked about how
[8:40] antiquated the document was. This is one
[8:42] of the examples that we used. So it's u
[8:46] refreshing that we actually got to this
[8:49] and came up with language that is going
[8:52] to quote unquote modernize the the
[8:55] charter. So
[8:58] no discussion, no further discussion. Uh
[9:00] entertain a well we'll call for the
[9:03] vote. Everybody in favor of this uh
[9:07] proposal to be added as one of
[9:09] recommendations or say I
[9:11] >> I
[9:15] oppose same sign.
[9:18] >> Okay. Passes unanimously.
[9:20] >> Cool. All right. Thank you all for that.
[9:23] >> Yes. Grant voted no. Okay.
[9:25] >> No, I voted yes.
[9:29] » Okay. I I just You gotta actually lower
[9:33] You got to lower the hand, I guess.
[9:37] I raised it and then I didn't lower it.
[9:40] >> Okay.
[9:41] >> All right. We got you. Thank you.
[9:44] >> Okay.
[9:45] >> All right. Next up is the review of the
[9:48] final draft submitt that submitted. Did
[9:50] everybody get a copy of this and a
[9:52] chance to review it?
[9:58] » Very good. I uh
[10:01] as well I got the uh preliminary draft
[10:03] and I took uh a lot of time. I won't
[10:05] tell you how much time, but it was a
[10:06] lot. It may have ever um and went
[10:08] through it and just found that um
[10:10] whatever AI bot they use was a little
[10:12] bit behind on some things and there was
[10:14] some errors in there. So, I just went
[10:15] ahead and took the time to edit it a
[10:17] little bit. And uh I hope you all got
[10:19] this the one that had my comments in it
[10:22] or edits and that I didn't miss
[10:24] anything. I don't know or was pretty off
[10:25] at all. Yeah. So, the version that um I
[10:28] distributed and
[10:31] um and sent out to everyone who's
[10:34] commented on the charter uh and the
[10:36] media included all of your edits. And I
[10:40] also added some kind of mostly similar
[10:44] vein edits from our um superstar
[10:47] non-tarter review committee member but
[10:48] honorary resident or honorary member who
[10:51] is a resident um Brandon Islib who did
[10:54] that analysis that I shared with you
[10:56] guys at the beginning of the process. So
[10:58] he went through and found like four or
[10:59] five more things that were mostly kind
[11:02] of went with track changes. You know you
[11:04] miss a space or period. I don't that's
[11:06] very impressive that he found all that
[11:08] stuff and a couple a couple other small
[11:10] changes. So those are in there as well.
[11:12] Um and then I also in the email which I
[11:16] maybe I could pull that up if we if you
[11:18] want to walk through there were changes
[11:20] that the attorney proposed especially on
[11:23] things that we discussed at the last
[11:25] meeting two weeks ago. So
[11:27] >> I think we need to do that.
[11:28] >> Yeah. Um,
[11:31] so I'll pull up what I sent you guys. Here
[11:36] we go.
[11:41] Uh, okay. So, there were I This is one
[11:45] without track changes anymore, but um
[11:47] but it has the things that you submitted
[11:50] um that you guys all got in an email.
[11:52] >> Do we say our edits,
[11:55] like if we notice something?
[11:57] >> Oh, yeah, sure. Okay. So, Ramsay is
[12:00] deputy city attorney.
[12:01] >> Oh, yeah. Thank you.
[12:06] » Administrative
[12:07] stuff, but I'm legally
[12:09] >> Did I put Did I call you the wrong
[12:11] >> No, you're fine. Thank you. But it's
[12:14] still legal.
[12:17] >> Um,
[12:19] okay.
[12:22] Yeah, we don't want to promote him quite
[12:24] yet.
[12:26] >> Um, okay. So that so this is the
[12:28] introductory stuff and I'll just scroll
[12:30] past it but if there is something that
[12:31] someone wanted to catch I would
[12:34] appreciate it. I do have one edit Tom
[12:36] caught a date that I had Ron good eye.
[12:38] So that's in here now too. Um the and we
[12:42] can talk about this too, but the things
[12:44] that you've voted on once the attorney
[12:47] drafted all of them, he had this is sort
[12:49] of the new piece of this I guess is that
[12:51] six through nine are all the initiative
[12:56] amendments. So um they're all they're
[13:00] separated. They were I I had been
[13:02] thinking they'd be one because I think
[13:03] we had combined a couple of them. Um,
[13:07] and I I think after today I also will
[13:10] ask him like for instance 11.3 and 11.2
[13:14] they both have to do with the threshold.
[13:15] Is there any way to push all of those
[13:17] guys together? Um, but they're separated
[13:21] at this point. Um,
[13:23] >> yeah, initially it was 112 113 together
[13:25] and one five were missing and five six
[13:27] were missing I think. Yeah.
[13:28] >> Right. So issues. Okay. I'm hoping that
[13:31] there is a way to consolidate those so
[13:33] that it's one proposition instead of
[13:35] four separate ones. Um although if
[13:38] there's different guidance from you guys
[13:40] because we did talk about gosh if we
[13:42] make so many changes is that also
[13:45] confusing to voters maybe there is some
[13:47] value that there's some ones that are
[13:49] different but um I think what I would in
[13:53] particular point out that part of the
[13:55] 112 and 113 change were like kind of
[13:57] like a a compromise together. So you you
[14:00] moved up the threshold for initiatives
[14:02] and you dropped this were the I guess
[14:04] referendums or or did you drop the
[14:06] referendum so they matched, right? So
[14:08] they kind of went together as a concept.
[14:10] So get a pen,
[14:12] >> right?
[14:12] >> Um I'd like to just suggest to maybe ask
[14:15] because there's I I see the value and
[14:17] the efficiency particularly as whatever
[14:19] ends up on the ballot. Um but given that
[14:22] the council has the real authority here,
[14:26] uh maybe suggesting as if there are 11
[14:29] items depending on which ones they may
[14:31] maybe don't like. Um you know suggesting
[14:34] that hey we've got all these. If you can
[14:37] consolidate them obviously so much the
[14:38] better. But if we preconolidate it might
[14:41] make it trickier for them to identify
[14:44] things and they might scrap the whole
[14:46] thing as opposed to scrapping one part
[14:48] of it.
[14:49] >> Okay. is I'm playing the
[14:51] >> preventive defense.
[14:53] >> That's that's kind of my feedback, too.
[14:54] I think of it as like, you know, um like
[14:57] corporate limit bill, right? Right. If
[14:58] they don't like something, there's a lot
[15:00] of things that are going to get lost.
[15:01] So, if we lumping it all together and
[15:03] they decide that changes to 11 aren't
[15:05] what they want, they'll they scrap that
[15:06] whole idea, we're going to miss some
[15:08] important pieces. By leaving them all
[15:09] separately, they can cherrypick that.
[15:11] And then, yeah,
[15:12] >> what they decide to take to the vote to
[15:13] ballot, they can certainly do that. So,
[15:17] >> okay.
[15:19] Um, okay. Well, this is just a list of
[15:20] them, so let's keep moving. Uh, so first
[15:23] one, we talked about this guy, you know,
[15:25] feels like a lifetime ago, like two
[15:26] months ago. Um, eligibility to hold
[15:29] office. So that's the year um yeah, as a
[15:32] district or district council seats and
[15:37] can't have a second um elected office.
[15:40] Um the county charter commission would
[15:43] not did not get that that one over the
[15:45] finish line, so that won't be on the
[15:47] county ballot.
[15:49] Yes.
[15:49] >> I just want to confirm. I think the
[15:51] feedback that we got was that precinct
[15:53] committee officer is fine and this does
[15:56] not exclude that.
[15:57] >> Yes.
[15:58] >> Um okay.
[15:58] >> I can put that though like even in the
[16:00] text because I think that um like the
[16:04] understanding is that that um is not
[16:07] included or that's not um an issue.
[16:11] >> Yeah. I also think um that it's possible
[16:14] in their discussion that they might talk
[16:16] about the idea of the charter review uh
[16:20] commission over at the county because
[16:23] this would not allow an Everett city
[16:25] council member or the mayor to serve on
[16:27] the charter review commission which is
[16:29] populated with a lot of elected
[16:31] officials this year. Um so I don't think
[16:35] we you guys we don't need to get into
[16:36] that but that's something that I think
[16:38] they might talk about. Maybe they want
[16:39] to exclude bulls or whatever.
[16:43] Uh although it's debatable whether it's
[16:46] useful to have a lot of elected
[16:47] officials on a coming although I was one
[16:50] 10 years ago but uh okay so this
[16:52] language is the same and you guys have
[16:53] seen it previously.
[16:56] Okay. So that's the number one guy. I
[16:58] want to scroll down to the number of
[17:00] council meetings proposal a little bit
[17:01] newer one you actually finalized and I
[17:04] we'll make sure all the little init
[17:06] minutes links are updated. Um,
[17:09] uh, yeah, lot going on the last couple
[17:11] weeks, but, uh, I'll make sure that's
[17:13] updated in the final draft that goes to
[17:15] the council.
[17:17] Uh, this is, you voted on this two weeks
[17:19] ago, so you saw the final language then.
[17:21] It's the 36 times a year.
[17:23] >> Okay.
[17:25] Um,
[17:27] this is kind of came to you as
[17:30] modernization. Um, although it wasn't
[17:32] the newspaper piece, we just talked
[17:34] about that. That's in those four
[17:35] sections that are at the end. So on this
[17:38] page which is page four I think of the
[17:40] or no page
[17:43] >> um again talked about it two weeks ago.
[17:45] So it's uh publishing the or the uh
[17:48] ordinances all ordinances on the city
[17:50] website um and instead of in a book and
[17:55] um available in print or electronic copy
[17:58] uh with the clerk with codes for the
[18:01] like the ever municipal code. So there's
[18:03] that. The oath of office we also voted
[18:06] on last week and this is the one that I think I kind of might have talked
[18:09] about this is this was police officer
[18:11] but really it is this like specific
[18:12] thing around elected officials and it's
[18:14] clarifying that that's what that means.
[18:16] So
[18:17] >> been interpreted as police officer for
[18:19] years but yes a city official elected
[18:22] official. Yeah, kind of more of a state
[18:23] law
[18:25] then. Yeah.
[18:27] Um, okay. Although there I think there's
[18:30] another chapter that actually talks
[18:31] about the off the officers being you
[18:34] know approved by the council. So that
[18:35] process was is not touched by changing
[18:38] 4.10. Yeah.
[18:40] The civil service one was an early um
[18:43] item and so there's that guy that uh
[18:49] that's Proposition five to amend the
[18:51] civil service piece to match more of
[18:53] state law.
[18:55] >> Good.
[18:58] >> Sorry.
[18:59] >> It was on
[19:01] your appropriately scrolling to what I
[19:03] was going for. Um the second bullet
[19:06] under uh the petition procedures um
[19:09] piece notes permitting digital
[19:11] signatures when consistent with state
[19:13] law and I don't believe that we approved
[19:16] that. Um and I would stick opposed to
[19:19] doing that. Yeah.
[19:20] >> Okay.
[19:21] Gonna do
[19:24] >> Mason has
[19:25] >> I'm going to mark it down. I'm not gonna
[19:26] do it in here because I feel like I'll
[19:28] not save this thing. So
[19:31] >> um there it is. Yeah. And yeah, Mason
[19:33] can
[19:34] >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I'm sorry, I'm
[19:37] going back a little bit. Section 2.2,
[19:39] the eligibility to hold elective office.
[19:41] >> Oh, probably.
[19:42] >> Um, I know we talked about this and
[19:43] worked on this a lot. I I just heard
[19:45] this week that this is being challenged
[19:47] in another
[19:48] >> part of the state, not this, but a
[19:51] similar type of rule. Um, so it just
[19:54] might be something we want to keep an
[19:55] eye on between now and when
[19:58] um
[20:00] the council addresses this or it goes to
[20:02] a ballot.
[20:03] >> Is it the um the residency eligibility
[20:07] or the two offices part?
[20:09] >> Residency. Resident residency. Yeah. Um
[20:14] and I don't know. I just I just read
[20:16] about it recently and it triggered my
[20:18] attention because we had talked so much
[20:20] about it.
[20:23] All right, thanks for pointing that out.
[20:26] >> Okay.
[20:27] >> Um,
[20:29] we were hereish. Close enough.
[20:33] >> Okay. So, well, I guess I can I'm not
[20:35] sure
[20:35] >> on that same section.
[20:38] >> Sorry. That was fourth bullet, now third
[20:41] bullet.
[20:42] >> Yeah,
[20:42] >> I actually don't think that one passed.
[20:44] That's the one that we were we So this
[20:47] digital signatures I took out of the
[20:49] second recommendation completely. So we
[20:52] didn't even talk about it last time. But
[20:54] this fourth bullet, this is the one that
[20:57] we did not approve. This went that
[20:59] >> Oh, you're right. We didn't. Yeah.
[21:01] >> Yeah. So just remove that one.
[21:04] >> Yeah. Good. Good call.
[21:09] » Okay. Um,
[21:17] » can you get can you give me a page
[21:18] number you're on or a section number
[21:19] there? I see it now. Thank you.
[21:21] >> Yeah, page 13. Uh, so this this is one
[21:26] of the areas that the attorney suggested
[21:29] we cut this last sentence about
[21:31] self-executing.
[21:33] It's not language that appears
[21:34] elsewhere. And he said, you know, we
[21:37] like they are all they all do happen. I
[21:40] think it made sense when we had the more
[21:43] of the reference to like the council
[21:44] shall do this and this was the kind of
[21:46] like a hey instead of that this is what
[21:49] you just have to do automatically. So um
[21:53] that's what that is.
[21:54] >> Okay.
[21:54] >> Does it have the same effect?
[21:56] >> Yes.
[21:56] >> Okay.
[21:57] >> Yeah.
[21:57] >> There's two by
[22:00] two.
[22:02] >> April correct.
[22:02] >> Oh yeah. Buy the initiative and approve
[22:05] >> by initiative and ordinances. Oh yeah.
[22:08] This one is a bye-bye. Got it.
[22:12] Thank you.
[22:14] Okay.
[22:16] Um, okay.
[22:18] Let's see.
[22:21] This also had some I would say not like
[22:25] uh like lots of edits but achieving the
[22:28] spirit of the what you guys voted on.
[22:31] So, um you had the designation of the
[22:34] committee. He asked that they include a
[22:37] notice address for the committee. That's
[22:39] in like a smart thing because we don't
[22:41] always want their names. Um and then he
[22:44] added this sentence about upon filing
[22:46] the petition is deemed final. No
[22:48] additional signatures may be added
[22:50] except as provided in subsection C. So
[22:52] this is what we talked about a lot about
[22:54] curing fixing the signatures. So we come
[22:56] down to C for this purpose. Um so if
[23:00] it's not certified as validly signed by
[23:03] so less than 10%, right?
[23:05] Then the clerk gives that written notice
[23:08] with copies of documents so that the
[23:10] sponsor committee can determine which
[23:12] aren't valid. Then they have 10 calendar
[23:15] days upon of the delivery to obtain new
[23:18] signatures from those individuals
[23:21] and then they send them back to the
[23:23] clerk who then certifies that they were
[23:25] all valid and that they reached that 10%
[23:28] threshold.
[23:31] odd.
[23:34] >> Sounds like a lot of work on somebody's
[23:35] part. I'd say it's going on. But is it
[23:38] the county that does this, right?
[23:40] >> Yeah.
[23:40] >> So, the county would submit the report
[23:42] to the proposers and they would get a
[23:43] list of let's say
[23:45] >> the county gives it to our city clerk.
[23:46] The city clerk gives it to the propos
[23:49] Yeah. They'll have to
[23:50] >> Well, they say they get a list of 100
[23:51] names. They got to go to those specific
[23:52] people and ask for a reignature and then
[23:55] bring it back.
[23:55] >> Okay.
[23:56] >> Yeah.
[23:57] >> Just
[23:58] >> Yeah. I think it's not I mean
[24:00] >> I think that's more valid than like I
[24:02] think I remember Randy talking a couple
[24:04] meetings ago is like then saying no
[24:06] you're you're low by 100 signatures so
[24:08] you go out and find 100 people you know
[24:10] in two or three days and bring new
[24:11] signatures okay use these instead
[24:13] >> right
[24:13] >> that's what we trying to avoid
[24:16] >> um and to the point of who does it the
[24:22] attorney also added this determination
[24:25] maybe completed by the auditor instead
[24:27] of the clerk So it's I guess
[24:30] theoretically the clerk could do it but
[24:31] the practice and probably how it would
[24:33] continue as an auditor does that they
[24:35] have the voter voter role as it were. So
[24:38] we don't
[24:41] um Okay. So that's that section.
[24:46] I I don't I'm I I want to flag because
[24:49] we only got a couple we just had a few
[24:52] comments when I sent out the report. Um,
[24:54] most folks said that you guys did a
[24:56] great job and they appreciated receiving
[24:58] it. Um, Abby Ledwig did send and I sent
[25:01] it to you guys. Um, but she did send in
[25:03] comments about the timing of like these
[25:07] the 30 days and the 10 days and sort of
[25:09] how the calendar works. So, I don't I
[25:11] just want to flag it because it was one
[25:13] of it was a substantive comment you
[25:15] received, but if you don't have to talk
[25:17] about it, it's just I wanted to note it,
[25:19] I guess, so you didn't forget if you did
[25:21] want to talk about it. Does everybody
[25:23] get a chance to read that from Abby and
[25:25] how it applied to this section?
[25:26] >> Does anybody find anything in there that
[25:28] we didn't discuss? And go ahead.
[25:29] >> I guess my only question with it is it
[25:31] sounds like she wanted to have set
[25:34] timing and guidelines in here, but it
[25:37] all of her notes were based on the
[25:39] November election, but it could
[25:41] technically be any election and they
[25:44] would have different time frames for the
[25:47] like county.
[25:49] >> That's true. you you this is set up so
[25:51] that um what I would envision signature
[25:55] gatherer would do or a petition a
[25:57] petitioner would do is that they would
[25:59] say they would choose an election that
[26:01] they want to work towards. So they would
[26:04] say like I I think it's going to be the
[26:06] November one. That's whatever for
[26:09] whatever reason they pick November and
[26:11] then they walk back the dates which are
[26:13] now much more clear than they used to
[26:15] be. Or they say like we want August so
[26:20] we're going to try for the primary date
[26:21] and the kind of similarly like you know
[26:23] 30 days back and then another 10 and
[26:25] another 30 in the whole timeline. Um
[26:30] I guess the only thing that was unclear
[26:31] in that is it was pointing out issues
[26:33] but I didn't see the solution in there.
[26:36] >> Um which
[26:38] >> um
[26:39] >> I don't know
[26:40] >> maybe relevant to this as well is that
[26:43] the attorney also because our part of
[26:45] our language said down here on page 13
[26:48] kind of towards the top voters so submit
[26:50] it to the council after they get this
[26:52] petition all that process has happened.
[26:55] The council submits it to voters at the
[26:57] next regular, which is normally
[27:00] considered like the November regular
[27:02] municipal election occurring at least 90
[27:05] days after certification
[27:08] >> um or at an earlier special election.
[27:10] So, I think he added the or at an
[27:12] earlier special election, which um
[27:15] wasn't in the copy that um I you know
[27:18] that we submitted because it's new for
[27:20] basically tonight. So, so then you could
[27:23] have it at another um another date.
[27:26] >> February, April, August.
[27:27] >> Yeah, those two. Yeah.
[27:32] Okay. Um,
[27:36] good.
[27:38] So, the rest those rest that's crossed
[27:39] out is similar to what you guys had
[27:41] before. Um, and the rest of Proposition
[27:44] 6, I hadn't updated it yet to reflect
[27:46] the two weeks ago. So that's the new
[27:48] language about the
[27:50] timing and the streamlining in process
[27:52] which makes me think you really could
[27:53] combine the referendum into this
[27:55] proposition six but um uh so referendum
[28:00] the next section is the same other than
[28:03] uh
[28:05] it's just the um
[28:11] I guess it kept it at the 10%.
[28:15] There's a sort of an errant like wait
[28:17] something get deleted out of this.
[28:19] >> There's there was there is a whole
[28:21] section that was recommended that we had
[28:23] approved on the things that are
[28:27] exceptions to referendum.
[28:29] >> Oh yes. That's why I have this space cuz
[28:31] I cut it so I can pull it back up. Um,
[28:36] the attorney pointed out that pull up
[28:39] exactly what he wrote, but I summarized
[28:41] it that the list was not like exhaustive
[28:46] and he felt like if you have these
[28:48] things, it could create confusion about
[28:50] what isn't listed but is also not
[28:52] eligible for referendum either like
[28:54] under state law. Well, probably mostly
[28:56] under state law. It referenced like I
[28:59] think fiscal ordinances or something
[29:01] like that.
[29:01] >> Emergency ordinance calling elections,
[29:04] annual budget appropriations and
[29:06] ordinances required by state or federal
[29:08] law. This
[29:10] >> we don't use ordinances to call
[29:12] elections. We usually use resolutions,
[29:14] but we could that's a word change. And
[29:17] then annual budget appropriations. We
[29:19] also have budget amendments that are
[29:21] through the year. So like are those
[29:22] included or are other fiscal items? It
[29:25] just seems like there are exceptions and
[29:27] we should
[29:28] >> lay them out. I don't I guess I don't
[29:30] understand why it was corrupted.
[29:33] >> Probably have to take actions. That
[29:34] seems substantive.
[29:36] Even if there's legal counsel, don't we
[29:38] as a body need to act on that
[29:41] >> to to take it out?
[29:43] >> We can make a recommendation with bad
[29:45] language and that would just be well
[29:47] bad. But it's still the we have to take
[29:51] an action to do that or undo it, right?
[29:53] I think we have action that's already
[29:55] >> been approved to have that.
[29:58] >> You are right. It can stay. Yeah,
[30:00] >> it can stay without doing action. Just
[30:02] the final report needs to reflect it.
[30:04] >> Okay.
[30:04] >> Yeah.
[30:05] >> Perfect.
[30:06] >> I mean, we should change the words that
[30:08] are wrong like the ordinance for
[30:10] elections, what whatever we call that.
[30:12] Um, but that was sort of the biggest
[30:15] change in this section was adding that
[30:18] exception. The exception.
[30:19] >> Mason, you have your hand up. Go ahead.
[30:21] >> Yeah. And I apologize uh for this
[30:24] question. Proposition 7 and Proposition
[30:28] Six, why they seem awfully similar to
[30:32] me. What am I missing?
[30:34] Well, I agree with you on I am I think
[30:38] when I had the city attorney draft all
[30:41] of the different initiative language,
[30:43] for some reason he dis he separated the
[30:48] changes to that you see in seven from
[30:50] what had been six. So I can I think we
[30:55] talked a little bit earlier about maybe
[30:57] not combining everything right now so
[30:59] that it's a little easier to track like
[31:01] all the separate issues
[31:03] >> but six and seven probably should just
[31:05] be combined because they are
[31:08] >> effectively the same thing. One changes
[31:10] the initiative and one changes
[31:12] referendum. So
[31:13] >> okay that's the difference. Okay. And
[31:15] then because six I read and I go, "Okay,
[31:18] I get it." And seven I read and I go,
[31:21] "Okay, let me read it again. Let me read it again." And I
[31:25] just think I we've talked about this
[31:27] before. I just think that's a loser with
[31:30] voters. And not so much that they won't
[31:31] vote for it other than I just think we
[31:33] look like uh bureaucrats or other people
[31:36] are dealing with real issues in real
[31:37] time because I it's it's a lot of words
[31:39] there. But I understand legal all that
[31:41] stuff. But that's my thought. I'll
[31:43] probably say I probably have that
[31:44] thought a few times as I read through
[31:45] some of this.
[31:48] >> Yeah. I mean, I agree. We we talked
[31:50] about them collectively, too.
[31:52] >> Yeah.
[31:56] » Um well, I
[31:59] >> I don't have a proposal on that. I'm
[32:00] just noting it. And
[32:03] >> yeah,
[32:04] >> great.
[32:08] » I won't type anymore. We'll just leave
[32:09] it at that. At least I was able to copy
[32:11] paste to this. So, this is the language
[32:15] >> that we voted on
[32:16] >> that you guys approved and that you we
[32:18] can we'll just leave it in and um
[32:25] » Okay.
[32:28] >> Oh, man. You're
[32:31] really want us to
[32:34] Oh,
[32:38] » all right. Um, let me write that down
[32:41] here. Although this is saved and I know
[32:44] that I don't think this was the exact
[32:46] place of it. So, I'll make sure that it
[32:48] um returns to the version that you saw
[32:51] two weeks ago
[32:53] um with the at least with the list and
[32:56] like wherever it was supposed to live
[32:58] whatever extra language that you guys
[33:00] had that you voted on. So,
[33:04] um
[33:05] okay.
[33:07] So, yeah, try to combine
[33:09] by so
[33:11] >> and could that take the form of I
[33:14] suppose you telling the hey this was a
[33:16] thought that if you combine those
[33:19] >> I can separate and then say like we we
[33:21] really do think six7 could be the same
[33:24] >> when they go to the ballot say
[33:26] >> okay I have a question
[33:28] >> um so I'm sure this is a stupid question
[33:32] >> um because I've read it so many times
[33:34] that I've now confused myself but why is
[33:37] it that it's talking about um 10% total
[33:41] number. I'm on page 14 and it talks
[33:44] about um the mayoral election and then
[33:46] it goes on to talk about the next
[33:49] regular municipal election. How how does
[33:52] the August fall into that as well?
[33:55] >> Oh, there two two election references.
[34:00] this part that says at the last
[34:02] preceding mayoral election
[34:05] um is how many vote like what's your
[34:09] target for how many signatures you need
[34:11] on your ballot or on your petition.
[34:13] >> Yeah.
[34:13] >> Your initiative or whatever.
[34:15] >> So you no matter which date you pick as
[34:18] a as a petitioner like a special
[34:21] election, August, November, whatever,
[34:22] you're always looking back to the last
[34:25] mayor's race to say, "Okay, that's how
[34:27] many people voted. I got to get 2,000
[34:29] whatever.
[34:32] >> Um,
[34:32] >> that makes sense.
[34:34] >> Great. Okay. Okay. I'm just scrolling on
[34:37] back down to
[34:40] uh we just talked about this adding back
[34:43] in the stuff that's that is that is not
[34:46] eligible for referendum in the right
[34:49] place. We'll fix that later. And we're
[34:51] moving on. I added a whole page because
[34:54] I but it doesn't affect the
[34:57] >> Actually, I might do this while we're
[34:58] here for
[35:00] >> Yeah.
[35:03] No.
[35:05] >> Okay. Well, that's fine.
[35:08] >> Yeah.
[35:11] >> To accept changes for it to bounce back.
[35:13] >> Yeah.
[35:13] >> It's not doing it for you.
[35:14] >> No, I'm not going to I don't want to
[35:15] mess with it. Um Okay. So, the next
[35:17] one's Proposition 8. This is the voter
[35:20] information paragraph. This one I
[35:23] welcome your conversation on as well.
[35:25] So, um your what you voted on um was to
[35:31] ask for
[35:33] a city finance director written
[35:36] financial impact statement and that it
[35:38] be either on the ballot or in the
[35:40] voters's guide in the in the voters's
[35:43] pamphlet. I guess um we the city is
[35:46] allowed 200 words
[35:49] and so we could use some of those words
[35:53] to fold in the city finance director
[35:56] financial impact statement. The city
[35:58] attorney said, "Dang, the 200 words are
[36:01] not a lot and we sometimes have trouble
[36:04] explaining a whole ballot measure in
[36:06] only 200 words. Could
[36:09] we have the fiscal impact statement live
[36:12] on the city website? And inside the 200
[36:14] words, we'll use some of those to say
[36:17] find a fight a fiscal impact statement
[36:19] at, you know, everw.gov
[36:23] petition or prop one or whatever it is.
[36:27] But you don't have to accept that. You
[36:29] could say we want that to be in the most
[36:31] likely place for people to see it, you
[36:33] know, inside the voters's panel
[36:34] statement.
[36:35] >> I'm fine with it being there. Oh, sorry.
[36:38] >> Me too. I mean, anytime we can provide a
[36:41] link somewhere else, it
[36:44] makes it less words to try to digest and the person has the right to do
[36:50] whatever they want.
[36:52] >> So, okay with it just being a link out to
[36:54] the yes to find it. They're okay with
[36:57] that.
[36:59] >> I have a similar point of view, but
[37:01] slightly different. That doesn't mean
[37:03] there will be no explanation and only
[37:06] link. It means there will be a
[37:09] substantive 200 words as best we can do
[37:12] and a link. I what I what I'm not okay
[37:14] with is just a link.
[37:16] >> Oh, so what what um and Mason has hand
[37:19] up too. So, uh in the voters's pamphlet,
[37:22] the city attorney submits a statement to
[37:25] the auditor that gets printed. Mhm.
[37:27] >> The concept is that um we the city
[37:31] attorney writes this and says like this
[37:33] initiative does these things. This is
[37:35] the impact. This is how it would work.
[37:38] You can find the financial impact of
[37:41] this statement at everyqua.gov/prop
[37:45] 2.
[37:45] >> Okay. So no fiscal impact on the thing
[37:48] necessarily.
[37:50] I mean, unless unless the attorney
[37:52] chooses to include like
[37:56] a sentence of it or
[37:57] >> can a sentence be something like the
[37:59] fiscal impact of this is believed to be
[38:03] $1 million and the next sentence behind
[38:06] that is for detailed explanation of that
[38:09] figure go to this link.
[38:12] >> I guess I'm just like
[38:13] >> well there's no impact. They could say
[38:14] that in there.
[38:15] >> It absolutely could. Yeah. But the
[38:17] intent here is to, you know,
[38:19] >> there just a simple sentence
[38:21] >> big numbers on the
[38:22] >> if there is
[38:23] >> vote for it
[38:24] >> and then and then add the link.
[38:27] >> I just Yeah, I'm a little hesitant to be
[38:30] to support just a link out
[38:33] >> when it doesn't, you know,
[38:35] >> it sort of this is the intent of having
[38:37] it.
[38:39] Jason
[38:40] >> uh affirming as well the link as soon as
[38:43] you add the link my in-laws are not
[38:47] going to be happy and them and their
[38:50] friends write letters and they do not
[38:53] like anything like that. Um plus not
[38:57] everybody has access easy access to um
[39:00] the internet and even in this day and
[39:03] age. So I just think it's uh dangerous
[39:06] to add that in there. I I don't know
[39:08] what the solution is as far as a lot of
[39:10] words, but that's tough. The link is
[39:13] gonna is going to create issues. It's
[39:15] going to kick up dust.
[39:16] >> Yeah. I like Leland's like you must at
[39:18] least have this sentence
[39:20] with blank um kind of filled in at a
[39:24] minimum.
[39:25] >> Fiscal impact is X or detail CX,
[39:28] >> right?
[39:29] >> Bigger than a bread box, smaller than a
[39:30] car.
[39:31] >> Yes.
[39:33] >> Yeah.
[39:33] >> Do we need a vote on that to add it?
[39:36] because that's new.
[39:38] >> Yeah. Do you So would you I don't really
[39:41] know what process we decided on this for
[39:42] this, but would you want to make a
[39:44] motion to ask that the language say that
[39:48] the the explanatory statement on the
[39:49] ballot or voters's guide shall contain a
[39:54] brief
[39:55] >> explanation of the fiscal impact?
[39:57] >> Yeah. What we what we had originally was
[40:00] for each measure, the city's finance
[40:03] director shall prepare a fiscal impact
[40:05] statement of not more than 100 words
[40:08] estimating the measures financial effect
[40:10] on the city, which is
[40:14] >> I would just take out the not more than
[40:16] 100 words just that it's an impact
[40:17] statement.
[40:18] >> Yeah.
[40:20] So, I guess my I guess I'm saying I feel
[40:22] like we that's what we already approved
[40:25] and this is a a change that we're being
[40:28] asked to accept, right?
[40:30] >> Got it.
[40:31] >> I'll just follow.
[40:32] >> So, but I I mean I don't know if
[40:34] everyone else feels the same. Emily,
[40:36] >> I guess my only concern with that is 200
[40:39] words is just not a lot and we're taking
[40:41] away valuable space to explain what it
[40:43] is and then all they see is a very small
[40:46] explanation and then the fiscal impact
[40:48] is this is going to be $10 million.
[40:50] They're like vote no even though they
[40:52] don't realize
[40:53] >> that's what I
[40:53] >> what the ex like what they're actually
[40:55] voting on because we're prioritizing the
[40:57] fiscal impact. I understand the no
[41:00] links, but we have to in the middle and
[41:04] you know if they want
[41:07] >> email the city council and say hey can I
[41:08] have that or not city council email the
[41:10] city and say hey can I have that
[41:11] physical impact
[41:13] >> you know they could get it that way or
[41:15] they can walk in if they're in person
[41:17] type of person. So the pro the problem
[41:19] is they have 200 words total right now
[41:22] and we're saying you must use some of
[41:24] those words to explain the fiscal impact
[41:26] >> right
[41:27] >> and and we're not describing how like
[41:29] what they have to put in there the
[41:31] fiscal impact because the fiscal impact
[41:32] is going to be way more than 200 words
[41:34] it's going to be
[41:35] >> it doesn't have to be it can just be the
[41:36] five words of the fiscal the estimated
[41:39] fiscal impact is
[41:40] >> time frame what's going into that I
[41:42] think that there has to be more
[41:44] >> and that's what the link solves is
[41:46] >> it gives them it gives them There's it's
[41:48] not a perfect.
[41:49] >> Yeah,
[41:49] >> this is this is We're not going to get
[41:51] perfect on
[41:52] >> Yeah,
[41:53] >> I definitely think we can't take up a
[41:54] hundred words.
[41:55] >> No, I It says no more than I don't want
[41:58] to take up 100 words, but um I also
[42:01] think it's important to put a fiscal
[42:04] max.
[42:05] >> So really what you're looking at is just
[42:07] uh the fiscal impact of this could um
[42:10] amount to $10 million and then see
[42:13] fiscal impact statement.
[42:14] >> Yes. a number.
[42:15] >> It's just a statement um basically
[42:18] summarizing that one one line that
[42:21] summarizes the impact
[42:23] >> the fiscal impact.
[42:24] >> So the fiscal impact number needs to be
[42:26] listed.
[42:31] » One more follow-up question. Are those
[42:33] fiscal impact statements always over the
[42:36] same time frame or could it be over
[42:37] different time frames by different
[42:39] ballots? Like do we need to specify that
[42:42] the time frame has to be in there
[42:43] because it could be one mill they could
[42:44] say the physical impact is $1 million
[42:46] over the course of one year or is that1
[42:49] million
[42:49] >> typically they would put a time frame.
[42:51] >> Okay.
[42:52] >> I've only seen them with the time frame.
[42:54] It's sort of
[42:55] >> misleading I think just to put a number
[42:57] with it.
[42:58] >> Right.
[42:58] >> So I think if we'reing that dollar
[43:00] amount in that statement it should also
[43:02] have the time frame.
[43:06] Let's take out more words.
[43:08] >> Yeah. a legal question. Um
[43:13] I'm concerned about lawsuits if it's so
[43:16] truncated that um you know, hey, this
[43:19] will cost $10 million but doesn't
[43:23] >> then it's like not it's still but it's
[43:25] not
[43:27] >> disagreements from folks. Is that
[43:30] inviting
[43:32] more litigation over well that's not how
[43:35] I'd frame it and I think you're doing
[43:36] such a bad job of it. It's so
[43:39] disingenuous that I need to sue to get
[43:42] this statement changed in in court.
[43:47] >> I actually
[43:49] because it's
[43:50] >> I mean I think it's been I think there's
[43:52] a probably a risk there. There's I mean
[43:56] >> every
[43:58] and it's it needs they people need to
[44:00] know that it's it's a fiscal impact
[44:03] statement but it's also an estimate
[44:04] because we don't have exact numbers
[44:06] until the process starts because a whole
[44:08] bunch of stuff comes up along the way
[44:10] that we can't foresee or else you know
[44:12] >> so
[44:14] is it a risk? Absolutely. Saying an
[44:17] attorney is going to write the report is
[44:18] a risk. Saying the city's finance
[44:20] director is writing this is a risk. You
[44:23] know, people may not like that word
[44:24] either because it's they work for the
[44:26] city. So,
[44:28] >> is a 200word um cap etched in stone?
[44:33] >> It's in state law.
[44:37] » I asked the auditor about like, you
[44:40] know,
[44:42] >> change that.
[44:42] >> Can you make can you make it happen for
[44:43] us? And he was like, absolutely. You get
[44:45] 200 words.
[44:49] But also, what page are we on in this
[44:51] big?
[44:53] >> No, not this, but like in the pamphlet
[44:54] because once people like are voting,
[44:56] they're going to end up stop reading
[44:58] >> because a lot of the voters
[45:01] >> are in a different generation or the
[45:03] more voters that we're trying to get are
[45:04] in a different generation and they're
[45:07] not going to be reading pamphlets.
[45:11] We want them to to be educated, but
[45:14] >> a combination of people that really
[45:16] meticulous, right, that it just glazes
[45:18] over.
[45:18] >> Yeah. and they're like, "Sure. Who's
[45:20] that?" I like that they have
[45:23] >> Yeah. I just um you know, listening to
[45:25] this discussion, which I think is a
[45:26] really good discussion. Um one of the
[45:28] things and the stadium immediately came
[45:30] to my mind and I thought about all the
[45:32] meetings that we had where we couldn't
[45:33] say the amount, not because we didn't
[45:35] have an amount, but because it was just
[45:37] like could be $10 to $10 million. And um
[45:41] some of the response back that we got
[45:43] from constituents was um well we saw
[45:46] this meeting and this is where you said
[45:47] it's going to cost $10 million so we're
[45:49] holding it to you that to the $10
[45:50] million. So to the points that have been
[45:53] brought up that is a concern that I too
[45:55] share is that once you put a number in
[45:57] there um it doesn't matter if you say
[46:00] that it's a fiscal impact statement.
[46:02] means invoice like it's real
[46:04] like that's it what it's going to be.
[46:06] That's how it can be perceived to be.
[46:08] And I'm a little concerned that we will
[46:10] lock everything that we've got down to
[46:12] or folks will feel like that's what it
[46:15] has to be and it can't be anything else.
[46:17] So I'm a little nervous about how um
[46:20] exact in that words the 200 words that
[46:23] we would want to put something like it
[46:24] would be $10 million etc.
[46:29] >> So you can just keep the language that
[46:30] you all voted on
[46:32] >> which is up on the screen right now. But
[46:33] >> yeah I
[46:34] >> we can get rid of the attorneys from the
[46:36] previous one. Yeah, we can say this was
[46:39] what the group um what you approved. Um
[46:43] this
[46:45] >> staff has a chance when it goes to the
[46:46] council to explain I mean the attorney
[46:48] has his chance to talk to the council
[46:50] and explain like their concerns. Um I
[46:53] think we can definitely explain
[46:55] >> this conversation and like the idea of
[46:58] wanting more voter information. Um,
[47:02] another path could be that um, it's
[47:05] better if it's in the charter, but if
[47:07] this is complicated because of those
[47:09] limitations on the voters's pamphlet,
[47:12] the council could, you know, pass an
[47:14] ordinance that has the finance director
[47:16] prepare this and then maybe we're not
[47:19] limited to 100 words. It could be a
[47:21] little more substantive um, as part of
[47:24] um, ballot measures.
[47:28] Yeah,
[47:28] >> I do I would say that there like of the three ballot measures that we had
[47:33] most recently um the minimum wage one
[47:38] the fiscal impact like to the city was
[47:40] like relatively minimal because our the
[47:44] employees that are that are closest to
[47:46] that wage are already generally above
[47:48] that. Um I don't know that the director
[47:52] would estimate like a re you know
[47:55] citywide impact what that would look
[47:57] like. The watershed one I it would have
[48:01] been it might have been really
[48:03] complicated because there were there are
[48:06] lots of thoughts about what the cost
[48:09] could be to
[48:11] future development on kind of all sides
[48:13] of that. So certainly
[48:17] >> I think I'm going to note my two cents
[48:19] on this is that in the battle of
[48:23] logistics within those 200 words versus
[48:26] the value statement of transparency that
[48:29] we were going for that I I lean toward
[48:32] that transparency and asking for the
[48:35] statement and recognizing that we are
[48:38] that in that advisory role that the
[48:40] statement to the council be that there
[48:43] is something missing in this process and
[48:45] uh this is us saying that transparency
[48:48] is what is missing. Um and we've got to
[48:52] figure out those logistics.
[48:54] >> We we're going to I'd rather vote for
[48:56] the value than picking apart the
[48:58] logistics.
[48:59] >> I agree.
[49:00] >> Okay. Well,
[49:02] >> we can just leave it. I'll fix it so
[49:03] that it's the way that you voted on two
[49:05] weeks ago. And if that's
[49:07] >> that's kind of what we're all talking
[49:09] about. Exactly. Yeah. Go back to the way
[49:11] it was.
[49:11] >> Great. Great. that will I will make it
[49:13] happen. Um, fix. Great. Uh, okay. Moving
[49:17] on to what which should be your page.
[49:20] Oh, now I got another random page in
[49:22] there. You you just tell the pages
[49:23] because they're not going to be right on
[49:24] screen because I've added all this text.
[49:26] >> We're on page 17.
[49:28] >> Yes.
[49:28] >> 116.
[49:29] >> Okay. So, this one uh this should be
[49:34] fine. This is the just kind of a
[49:37] modernization thing, but it relates to
[49:39] the um posting and adding in the website
[49:42] language and the using the website or if
[49:46] none exists the newspaper of general
[49:48] circulation and doing the things that
[49:51] Right. He didn't make any changes to
[49:52] this one, did he?
[49:54] >> I think so. I think that's what we voted
[49:55] on.
[49:56] >> Okay.
[49:57] >> Yeah.
[49:57] Okay.
[49:59] >> Yeah.
[50:00] >> He might Oh, you know what? What's
[50:01] different? He put the ABCs. They're not
[50:03] like they're all in a paragraph form.
[50:06] That's what's different. Which is nice.
[50:08] >> I If we wanted to though, I was gonna
[50:11] say if we wanted to cut down
[50:14] propositions, this might fit in that
[50:16] modernization one rather than
[50:20] >> Yeah, that was just one recommendation.
[50:23] >> Yeah,
[50:25] >> it is pretty well the same.
[50:28] Okay, that's Yeah, I think it's like I
[50:32] mean we did add these a couple little
[50:34] things but dates and stuff but
[50:38] >> is that
[50:38] >> Oh, yeah. N
[50:40] >> Yeah. Yeah. The um Proposition Nine.
[50:45] It's good as we said. It is this what
[50:47] would show up on a ballot?
[50:52] >> The
[50:52] >> basically
[50:53] >> the shall ever charter part. Yes.
[50:55] >> Yeah. It's our suggestion. Yeah.
[50:57] >> So if I read that I'd be I they don't in
[51:01] this they don't know we're solving a
[51:02] problem.
[51:03] >> Yeah.
[51:03] >> Like you're saying as oo it currently
[51:06] states that this is to be placed in a
[51:07] newspaper
[51:09] because if I was like well why are they
[51:11] putting that on the website? I don't
[51:12] want I don't even know what it is. I
[51:13] don't know why it's on a website. I
[51:14] don't want to look at the city website.
[51:16] But if you say this currently is in the
[51:18] newspaper everybody will go well duh.
[51:20] This needs to be changed.
[51:22] >> Yeah.
[51:26] Thank you.
[51:28] >> Um
[51:29] >> I that that totally throws things off. I
[51:31] know. But right now, if I read this, I
[51:33] would vote probably against this because
[51:34] I'd like I don't want this on a website
[51:35] and I don't want it on a and I I don't I
[51:38] don't want to go to the website. I I
[51:40] wouldn't even know what it's talking
[51:41] about really.
[51:43] >> I will I'll I can pass that on to the
[51:47] Yeah. Thanks. As soon as you say
[51:49] newspaper, I go, "Oh, yeah. I see those
[51:51] in the Herald." And I've always wondered
[51:52] what those things are.
[51:56] I think um Mason, to the point you just
[51:58] made, if you look at page 20, this is
[52:00] why I think we should put it. This is
[52:02] another reason why it should probably be
[52:04] with this Proposition 11
[52:06] >> because it just in here it says
[52:08] published on the city's website instead
[52:10] of allowing notices in a newspaper.
[52:13] >> It's more clear on that one.
[52:15] >> There it is. Thank you. Good job. That's
[52:17] it.
[52:18] >> Okay, great. I won't I'll
[52:22] uh
[52:22] >> Yeah, we put that
[52:23] >> combine.
[52:24] >> Are we combining it with 16.3?
[52:27] >> We're gonna do Do you want to like
[52:31] I don't know like 100% affirmatively or
[52:34] just ask that it be combined or
[52:38] >> uh we're just going to do this add this
[52:40] one to
[52:42] >> section 163, right?
[52:43] >> Yeah.
[52:43] >> And it's just another modernization
[52:44] language.
[52:45] >> Okay. You know what? I think it makes
[52:46] sense. We'll just
[52:47] >> It's proposition 11, right? We just add
[52:50] it to
[52:50] >> Yeah. So,
[52:51] >> I don't think it works against us under
[52:53] our other theory of having too many.
[52:55] >> Correct. It's very simp.
[52:56] >> Yeah.
[52:58] >> Okay. I will make that change in the
[53:00] report. Got it.
[53:03] That we only have like kind of one left.
[53:06] We already talked about the other ones.
[53:07] So, okay. Uh this this is the relatively
[53:10] simple periodic review changing this so
[53:13] that not later than February 15, 2031 in
[53:17] five years and at least once each 10 or
[53:21] each 5year period after 2026. This is
[53:25] what the attorney wrote. Um
[53:28] uh we we do this again. So this was the
[53:31] we talked about this right at the end of
[53:33] last meeting and this is the language.
[53:39] So
[53:41] good enough to all right get a chance to
[53:44] read this because this is something that
[53:45] we voted on without proposal language at
[53:47] the last reading and this first time you
[53:49] get a chance to see it. So if you have
[53:50] anything to add or discuss on this,
[53:52] please pick up.
[53:53] >> Is is there any way to make it larger? I
[53:56] can't I can't read it. Yes, I can do two
[54:00] things to make it larger. I can do this.
[54:05] And
[54:06] >> there we go.
[54:08] >> Oh,
[54:14] that work for you, Grand
[54:18] 250%.
[54:20] Yes. Okay. Okay, good. Sorry about that.
[54:23] Thank you for asking to make it larger.
[54:24] Appreciate it.
[54:31] So I guess that what this does is say
[54:34] that in five years and at least once
[54:38] every five years after this year we
[54:41] convene the charter review committee.
[54:44] >> The current format is on the 10th year
[54:47] each thereafter. Right.
[54:49] >> Yes. So if we
[54:50] >> within each you could do it in 31 and 32
[54:52] and then not do it again for nine years.
[54:55] Um
[54:56] >> I I I Is there any way we can get it so
[54:59] the mayor is not appointing 10 members?
[55:06] Um
[55:07] just I I just think that Yeah. Is there
[55:10] any way that um we can get it? So let's
[55:14] see the mayor where where is it? The
[55:16] committee shall be composed of not less
[55:18] than seven no more than 10 members
[55:21] appointed by the mayor. I think we
[55:24] should keep that number to I don't know
[55:27] the is I think that number needs to be
[55:30] less.
[55:32] I mean if we're to if the charter is
[55:35] supposedly supposed to be like a totally
[55:39] hands-off thing um which it wasn't this
[55:42] year um I think that number should be
[55:45] less but I mean
[55:49] that's just my opinion. How many did she
[55:51] appoint this year?
[55:53] >> Seven. She appoints seven. So she's
[55:55] seven council members. She appointed
[55:56] seven and then each council member
[55:58] appointed one this year.
[55:59] >> Exactly. And then the committee
[56:01] >> right
[56:04] >> the 10 in case there's like a
[56:06] resignation.
[56:08] >> Um
[56:09] >> what's the world in which American
[56:14] looked at it was that it was a little it
[56:15] was just like a little more
[56:16] straightforward for council. If she
[56:18] picked seven, there's seven of them.
[56:20] They each pick one versus you guys, the
[56:24] seven of you fight it out and find nine
[56:27] people that you couldn't, you know, like
[56:28] how did how do you pick the last two?
[56:30] Like
[56:31] >> I think his qu your question is um why
[56:34] up to 10 instead of just seven?
[56:36] >> Yeah. I don't know.
[56:38] >> I mean I don't
[56:40] it's effectively up to the mayor. She
[56:42] could pick seven, eight, nine or 10 and
[56:44] then the council picks they get the same
[56:47] amount.
[56:49] >> Yeah.
[56:50] The council gets to pick the same.
[56:52] The council could pick 10 as well.
[56:54] Right.
[56:54] >> Right. If she picked 10, they pick 10.
[56:57] >> Mason.
[56:59] Go ahead, Mason.
[56:59] >> Yeah. I do think that is the key is that
[57:02] if the mayor picks if we lower the mayor
[57:04] to four,
[57:05] >> then the council gets four. If it's
[57:08] seven, it's seven. If it's 10, it's 10.
[57:10] So there should be a balance between a
[57:13] hope for for a balance between the
[57:14] council and the mayor. This is something
[57:16] to think about because it is with with
[57:19] our strong mayor system, there should be
[57:22] a balance of power between the mayor and
[57:24] the city council. And so it's it's
[57:28] important to talk about it. But I like
[57:31] that it's seven and seven or 10 and 10
[57:33] or one and one. Doesn't matter. It's
[57:35] just the same between the two branches.
[57:38] >> Yeah. Listen,
[57:40] >> I was going to say similar to what Mason
[57:42] said, but also just add that all these
[57:44] recommendations then also go through the
[57:46] city council. And so I I I think there's
[57:50] a little bit of additional balance there
[57:53] as well.
[57:55] >> Okay.
[57:56] >> That's what you were going to say.
[57:58] >> No,
[58:00] I mean what I was going to say has to do
[58:02] with, you know, the end of a sentence
[58:04] where it says a like number appointed by
[58:07] city council. So, so that makes people
[58:10] probably feel like it's not rigged.
[58:12] >> Yeah. Right.
[58:13] >> Go ahead, Grant.
[58:15] >> Well, and one of the other issues was
[58:17] this year for some reason they did it
[58:19] privately behind like closed doors
[58:22] instead of more publicly. So there
[58:26] wasn't there could have been
[58:32] there there could have been ones where
[58:36] um
[58:38] oh it's hard I'm I'm I'm sorry I'm in
[58:41] the middle of doing 10 different things
[58:43] but basically
[58:45] also how they're chosen
[58:48] um for some reason it was different this
[58:51] year and how they did it versus how they
[58:54] did it 10 years ago.
[58:56] Um and um I was just having this
[59:00] conversation with somebody that was on
[59:02] the charter 10 years ago and they said
[59:04] well the they were they were saying like
[59:07] it was more open versus this year it was
[59:10] like private or closed. Um, and there
[59:15] could have been circumstances where like
[59:19] the mayor could have chosen
[59:21] eight, but since they didn't know who
[59:24] everybody was being chosen, then like
[59:29] the like somebody else could have chosen
[59:31] somebody that, you know, the mayor also
[59:34] chose making it a larger number. But I I
[59:37] don't I don't know. I I'm just not in a
[59:41] place to where I can like clearly think
[59:43] or back to it. So, um I think it was
[59:47] John that was on the charter review 10
[59:49] years ago. I don't know if he would be
[59:51] able to better explain the differences
[59:54] of how they chose 10 years ago versus
[59:56] this last year.
[59:59] >> I was there 10 years ago, but I'd be
[1:00:01] damned if I can.
[1:00:05] » So, I don't know. I just at the end of
[1:00:07] the day um
[1:00:11] you know that's just just my thoughts
[1:00:13] are that and my experience level was to
[1:00:17] this was we're still in a situation
[1:00:20] where if the mayor wants something to be
[1:00:22] passed then it's probably going to get
[1:00:24] passed and if the mayor does not want
[1:00:25] something to get passed um they're
[1:00:27] probably not going to get it passed um
[1:00:31] because they're already you know you got
[1:00:34] to it's you you know, 8 to 8 and if you
[1:00:38] got to get to a threshold of 10 that the
[1:00:42] mayor can pass through whatever they
[1:00:44] want and um you know I just don't I I
[1:00:50] don't think that that is
[1:00:53] you know um I I I don't think that that
[1:00:56] is hands off enough for me. So um
[1:01:00] thanks.
[1:01:02] >> I have my hand up if that's okay.
[1:01:03] >> Yeah, go ahead. Uh this this aligns what
[1:01:07] Grant's talking about aligns with what I
[1:01:09] brought at the end of last week's
[1:01:10] meeting. Grant exactly what you talked
[1:01:12] about. I mean a lot of these things
[1:01:13] you're talking about I can't say exactly
[1:01:15] but and there's some alignment here and
[1:01:17] we had a really good discussion about
[1:01:19] this about do it does the council
[1:01:22] approve everybody is it done in the city
[1:01:24] council meeting and it was a really good
[1:01:27] discussion and at the end of it I
[1:01:29] withdrew my proposal because I really
[1:01:31] felt like it wasn't going anywhere. I
[1:01:33] don't I don't think it lost. So, we kind
[1:01:35] of went down this road and had I thought
[1:01:36] we had a really good discussion in our
[1:01:38] last meeting about it and I I don't you
[1:01:42] know your your your concerns are are um
[1:01:46] are real and
[1:01:49] at this point I don't think there's
[1:01:50] energy to change anything about how it's
[1:01:52] done as far as being public or in or or
[1:01:55] approved in a city council meeting
[1:01:57] generally.
[1:01:58] >> Well, that's because the mayor has eight
[1:02:00] people on there. So,
[1:02:03] >> well, I was the one that I was the one
[1:02:04] that brought the proposal and and I was
[1:02:06] not appointed by the mayor. So,
[1:02:08] >> well, that's what I'm saying, though.
[1:02:09] So, like Mason, if it's if it's not good
[1:02:13] for the mayor, there's already eight
[1:02:15] people there that aren't are are going
[1:02:17] to vote it down or they're going to play
[1:02:19] games and do whatever. You know, I also
[1:02:22] there's a lot of people in that room
[1:02:24] that have significant conflicts of
[1:02:25] interest that probably shouldn't be on
[1:02:28] the board anyways. But
[1:02:30] >> this room Yeah.
[1:02:33] >> Are you talking about this room, Grant?
[1:02:35] >> Yeah, I am. There I there there are
[1:02:37] people in that room that have conflicts
[1:02:39] of interest that probably
[1:02:42] >> I think this is inappropriate, too. All
[1:02:43] right. I definitely
[1:02:44] >> Thanks for your feedback, Grant. We're
[1:02:46] gonna move on. Okay.
[1:02:48] >> Go ahead. Oh, this is
[1:02:50] >> I'm just going to say that um I um was
[1:02:54] not appointed by the mayor. Um I have
[1:02:57] been through the last three charter
[1:02:59] reviews with the city and I saw no
[1:03:02] difference this time and I worked for 29
[1:03:05] council members and so I definitely saw
[1:03:08] different council members and how they
[1:03:10] selected the charter members and I saw
[1:03:11] no different and my I am not in favor of
[1:03:14] changing the number for the mayor to be
[1:03:16] less than the council. I think the
[1:03:18] process the way it is um would be
[1:03:20] something that I would be in favor of
[1:03:22] now. So,
[1:03:25] >> so we're still on uh page 18 and anyone
[1:03:28] going to change this to a 5-year period?
[1:03:30] That's what we voted on last meeting.
[1:03:31] >> Mhm.
[1:03:32] >> Any other discussion on this?
[1:03:36] No motion.
[1:03:38] Okay. On to page 19.
[1:03:41] >> All right. Um Oh, right. This is the
[1:03:43] website piece. So I walked through this
[1:03:46] earlier.
[1:03:48] Um
[1:03:49] it's the
[1:03:52] this and then we want to add the
[1:03:54] prop 9 the yeah 11.6 stuff and Mason has
[1:03:58] >> yeah these are all simply adding
[1:04:01] something other than a newspaper I think
[1:04:02] and which wanted to include that last
[1:04:04] point to this
[1:04:06] >> it's makes it a newspaper or website
[1:04:08] >> right
[1:04:09] Mason go ahead. Grant is just asking a
[1:04:12] question in the chat. I could see it
[1:04:13] because I'm online, so it's easier for
[1:04:14] me. Do we need him for a quorum?
[1:04:18] >> Um,
[1:04:19] >> hang on. We'll bring it up in a second.
[1:04:22] >> Well, one, two, three, four, five, six,
[1:04:24] seven, 13, nine, 10, 11. No, we don't.
[1:04:27] So, Grant, you're
[1:04:28] >> We do not need Grant for a quorum. We're
[1:04:30] okay. Grant,
[1:04:31] >> if you need to head out for whatever
[1:04:33] reason,
[1:04:34] >> I've got to go. Get I got I got child
[1:04:36] duties. Okay. Bye. Yeah.
[1:04:42] And as a reminder, we did have a motion
[1:04:44] and a second and a vote on this one
[1:04:45] already,
[1:04:46] >> right? To to get it here sort of to move
[1:04:49] it to the same phase as all the other
[1:04:50] ones that we've been walking through.
[1:04:52] So,
[1:04:52] >> and it was a versioning vote, too.
[1:04:54] >> Is that right?
[1:04:55] >> Yeah, I think we have two that are
[1:04:57] absent.
[1:04:59] Can
[1:04:59] >> I just make a quick question on here?
[1:05:01] Um, do we think that there's any concern
[1:05:04] over the or because know this is an if.
[1:05:09] Could it be like for one thing it's
[1:05:11] posted in the newspaper and then for
[1:05:13] another thing it's posted on the website
[1:05:14] where there's not a consistent spot
[1:05:16] where it's going to be where the
[1:05:18] constituents know I always go here or
[1:05:20] this information
[1:05:23] now that there's two potential places
[1:05:24] where it's a or is that an issue or can
[1:05:28] you put and or
[1:05:29] >> with with a changing media landscape I
[1:05:31] think I just leave the flexibility of
[1:05:34] the or we don't know if a newspaper
[1:05:36] record will close
[1:05:38] >> because we The city is going to maintain
[1:05:40] its website.
[1:05:41] >> I I I I don't think it's an issue. I
[1:05:43] guess is is my short answer to to
[1:05:46] >> Well, so you're saying we have to post
[1:05:48] it in the newspaper right now.
[1:05:49] >> Right now, yeah.
[1:05:50] >> Oh, the official option, but once it
[1:05:53] prickles out and it goes away, Ben,
[1:05:56] um the study's website is the backup and
[1:05:59] that's why it's built in.
[1:06:00] >> Okay. But the goal of this is still to
[1:06:02] use the newspaper as the primary and
[1:06:04] then if it were to go away then it would
[1:06:06] go on the website. But we're not
[1:06:07] choosing it to go on the website from
[1:06:09] here forward. Well, for instance reason,
[1:06:11] >> good question. This doesn't do that.
[1:06:13] This just says
[1:06:16] >> either one. So like after this passes in
[1:06:19] January, we could just
[1:06:21] >> not post in the newspaper even though
[1:06:23] the Herald is amazing and going strong
[1:06:25] and
[1:06:26] >> and still read widely.
[1:06:28] >> It won't be happy
[1:06:31] right now.
[1:06:32] >> Yeah. I I mean that's I would presume
[1:06:35] that the city would probably do both
[1:06:38] until such time as either the city
[1:06:40] website disappears or the Herald goes
[1:06:42] away. I know that was kind of the
[1:06:44] initial concern was what happens if
[1:06:46] there's not a city newspaper. I'd
[1:06:47] presume the city is going to do both
[1:06:49] until as long as it exists.
[1:06:52] >> Can that explanation be covered and kind
[1:06:55] of noted for the council
[1:06:59] >> that we are hoping for?
[1:07:01] >> Yeah.
[1:07:03] just asing that the Herald is here and
[1:07:06] you're using it.
[1:07:07] >> Yeah.
[1:07:09] >> We don't want to make you in violation
[1:07:11] of the charter by saying you have to
[1:07:12] publish it somewhere that doesn't exist.
[1:07:14] >> And ordinances are already on the
[1:07:16] website. They post them like right as we
[1:07:18] get them in and signed. So that's
[1:07:20] already being done anyway. So I
[1:07:22] >> I do actually think everything that's
[1:07:24] listed is already on the website. There
[1:07:27] might be,
[1:07:28] you know, like maybe this petition
[1:07:30] thing, which is not as common. Like
[1:07:32] there might be a couple instances in
[1:07:34] here that are less likely to be like
[1:07:36] really obviously on the website. So,
[1:07:38] this might um
[1:07:40] encourage that. But I I could definitely
[1:07:43] note that your intent was not to just
[1:07:45] >> not to eliminate the newspaper,
[1:07:46] >> get rid of the newspaper posting, but to
[1:07:49] allow for flexibility and in fact maybe
[1:07:51] even encourage it to also be on the
[1:07:53] website because that's another good
[1:07:54] access point.
[1:07:56] Okay.
[1:07:57] >> Yeah. I think our conversation was not
[1:07:59] everybody gets a newspaper anymore.
[1:08:00] Having another
[1:08:02] >> having another way. Yeah,
[1:08:04] >> I was thinking.
[1:08:06] >> Okay.
[1:08:08] Uh, okay. That's that guy.
[1:08:11] And
[1:08:13] >> right,
[1:08:14] >> those are all the propositions. There's
[1:08:16] the table at the back. I sent you guys
[1:08:18] the source of this which had everybody's
[1:08:20] like who submitted. I could put the the
[1:08:24] full table in here. Um, I don't know why
[1:08:26] I didn't. I can't remember anymore. Um,
[1:08:31] they're all here because so a few of
[1:08:34] them at the back were
[1:08:37] there may be redundancies.
[1:08:39] >> Yeah,
[1:08:40] >> was like, "Hey, can you combine some
[1:08:42] stuff?" And I started to go in, but then
[1:08:43] I was like, "But these were this was a
[1:08:46] specific thing that a individual
[1:08:48] submitted even though their name isn't
[1:08:50] there anymore. So, I didn't feel like I
[1:08:52] could edit it out, but I'm I'm happy to
[1:08:54] talk about if there's a way to combine
[1:08:55] and make it cleaner.
[1:08:58] >> Yeah.
[1:08:59] So, this is a public report, too, in
[1:09:02] addition to going, you know, so my
[1:09:05] concern is about the office of the
[1:09:07] report that
[1:09:09] what the hell are we doing if all this
[1:09:11] stuff has no response?
[1:09:15] I don't know how you how you get around
[1:09:17] that. Um, it's just my own personal
[1:09:20] observation.
[1:09:30] » Was it included in the last report? A
[1:09:33] similar table?
[1:09:34] >> Yes, they had a similar table. Um,
[1:09:40] I have it in here. Let me find it in
[1:09:42] there.
[1:09:47] So everything that's in the inventory is
[1:09:49] including your Jennifer. Is that true?
[1:09:52] >> Yes. Just not all the columns.
[1:09:56] The column the columns might kind of
[1:09:59] make it clearer. So their table they had
[1:10:05] um
[1:10:08] they did have more explanatory language.
[1:10:11] Um they've got like one, two,
[1:10:17] three.
[1:10:21] » Yeah,
[1:10:25] » I'm not suggesting changing this thing.
[1:10:27] This would be good for the next charter
[1:10:29] review,
[1:10:30] >> the starting point.
[1:10:31] >> And so the
[1:10:32] >> that's the we use too, right?
[1:10:34] >> But just a question on this. These are any public comment suggestion
[1:10:40] or anything that we brought up when we
[1:10:42] first started. Remember everyone was
[1:10:44] >> and then the
[1:10:46] >> and council input, right?
[1:10:47] >> Yeah. Was she from council?
[1:10:49] >> But council member Ryan said like I
[1:10:51] think some of these were her list. Um
[1:10:54] >> maybe this is a better wording. So they
[1:10:56] used instead of not discussed they put
[1:10:58] no motion.
[1:10:59] >> That's what I like.
[1:11:00] >> Maybe it's
[1:11:00] >> I like that we got a lot of stuff. I
[1:11:05] actually think you there's some of these
[1:11:07] that you kind of I mean like we kind of
[1:11:08] did talk about I might have mentioned at
[1:11:10] some point about the translating
[1:11:12] documents being
[1:11:13] >> and franchise renewal modernization.
[1:11:15] >> We actually did that. I'm going to
[1:11:16] update that. So I'm like wasn't that
[1:11:18] didn't he ask about franch
[1:11:21] that one there. I think that was from
[1:11:25] Commissioner Rubio.
[1:11:30] » No motion
[1:11:31] >> or no action. Yeah. No motion. So what the language that's in the 2016
[1:11:36] report is no motion and then there is
[1:11:39] some other like most of them have an
[1:11:41] explanation of
[1:11:44] um not all of them but
[1:11:47] >> yeah I like that just yeah there's no
[1:11:49] motions brought forward on the topic
[1:11:52] >> I can yeah
[1:11:54] >> because we talked about everything yeah
[1:11:57] >> well then couldn't we put discussion
[1:11:58] comma no motion since we did I mean we
[1:12:01] did talk about everything we just didn't
[1:12:03] We only have so much time, but at least
[1:12:04] we discussed it. We didn't ignore it all
[1:12:06] together. So maybe if we put something
[1:12:08] like that so that they at least know we
[1:12:10] addressed it.
[1:12:12] >> Yeah, we can hopefully you guys feel
[1:12:15] like that's accurate. So
[1:12:17] >> I don't think we talked about everything
[1:12:18] on here.
[1:12:19] >> Yeah, I was think
[1:12:20] >> not everything like
[1:12:21] >> ran out of time.
[1:12:22] >> Equity lens reports and commissions. I
[1:12:23] don't think we
[1:12:25] >> we didn't discuss that. We didn't
[1:12:27] discuss
[1:12:27] >> Yeah, that's true. We did not.
[1:12:29] >> I would just say yeah. No motion.
[1:12:31] >> Okay.
[1:12:33] We're going to fight the keyboard, but
[1:12:34] no motion.
[1:12:37] >> I don't know why I even cry.
[1:12:41] Um, and I'll So, I will also look
[1:12:44] through these and if there I'll catch if
[1:12:46] there's any others. We definitely did
[1:12:47] this 13.5. You actually voted on that
[1:12:51] tonight. Um, we we might have done this
[1:12:54] 14 one. I don't remember, but I'll go
[1:12:56] look I'll go take another look. And um
[1:13:00] so I'll catch if there's any duplication
[1:13:02] that way that we might have missed
[1:13:03] earlier. Um
[1:13:07] and then just change the not discussed
[1:13:08] to no motion.
[1:13:11] >> I think that's fair.
[1:13:12] >> Okay.
[1:13:16] Yeah.
[1:13:19] Um Oh, okay. Yeah. So the I put some
[1:13:23] language here at the back for things
[1:13:24] that we did talk about. So, the this
[1:13:28] conflict in petition language, like I
[1:13:30] said, was in there, and here's where I
[1:13:31] said it wasn't.
[1:13:33] I tried to put a bit more together on
[1:13:35] the Office of Neighborhoods because we
[1:13:37] did talk quite a bit about that. And um
[1:13:43] uh and so there's a blurb from the code
[1:13:47] which was what um Holly James kind of
[1:13:49] spoke to when she came to your public
[1:13:51] hearings and then some language about
[1:13:53] like the neighborhoods are important.
[1:13:55] There's loss of funding. These are you
[1:13:58] guys raised concerns about that. You you
[1:14:00] think that we could um should do better
[1:14:02] to reach residences and yeah residents.
[1:14:08] Uh and then um I hope committee member
[1:14:12] Harrington is happy to see that debt
[1:14:14] transparency is in the report back here
[1:14:15] with um some discussion of of that issue
[1:14:19] too and your discussion about it. Um and
[1:14:25] I think
[1:14:27] I guess at the end also noting that you
[1:14:30] know future consideration outside this
[1:14:32] cycle um
[1:14:35] and the desire you know your general
[1:14:37] desire for transparency I think is kind
[1:14:39] of my part of the theme of your work.
[1:14:42] though.
[1:14:44] Okay,
[1:14:46] >> that the end kind of basically. Yes,
[1:14:49] please.
[1:14:51] >> Is it worth putting in a small thing of
[1:14:54] discussion in here about how because we
[1:14:56] discussed at length of numerous
[1:14:58] different avenues how we're building a
[1:15:00] bench and encouraging
[1:15:02] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:15:03] >> in the neighborhoods part um or just
[1:15:06] >> could be in there, but I think a lot of
[1:15:07] it is even outside of the neighborhoods.
[1:15:10] There was just a lot of discussion of
[1:15:13] >> we talked about part-time counsel.
[1:15:14] >> Yeah, we talked about full time.
[1:15:16] >> I remember that.
[1:15:17] >> How can we build a bench and get more
[1:15:19] people engaged and you know we talked
[1:15:21] about it with term limits too. Like if
[1:15:23] we put in term limits does it then
[1:15:24] encourage building a bench. So some some
[1:15:26] language about that to push that that we
[1:15:29] really want to see.
[1:15:31] >> So I know we have some junior boards and
[1:15:33] council. I don't know. I've seen
[1:15:35] something about that, but like
[1:15:36] >> yeah, boards and commissions are
[1:15:38] opportunities for folks to get engaged
[1:15:40] and there's other places.
[1:15:44] >> Something about that.
[1:15:46] >> When you say bench, you're talking about
[1:15:49] city council.
[1:15:50] >> Yeah. For the city council specifically
[1:15:52] because we're we're to get more turnout
[1:15:54] um and more engagement with that
[1:15:58] some succession planning. I know you
[1:15:59] can't force the council members to pick
[1:16:01] a successor or mentor someone, but I
[1:16:04] think that that should be strongly
[1:16:05] encouraged that they're out in the
[1:16:07] community thinking about who could be a
[1:16:10] good candidate.
[1:16:12] >> That's true. I probably should have put
[1:16:14] the um
[1:16:17] I term I think these are just like the
[1:16:19] last things we talked about, but so from
[1:16:20] earlier when we talked about the term
[1:16:22] limits and full-time counsel and
[1:16:24] >> and then the salary too and the salary
[1:16:26] >> pay that shifts.
[1:16:27] >> Yeah. Yes.
[1:16:28] And and um
[1:16:32] yeah,
[1:16:33] >> we forgot about it.
[1:16:36] >> What we got first?
[1:16:37] >> Um yeah, I was say I don't necessarily
[1:16:38] want to add like a ton more text to the
[1:16:41] report, but um the second paragraph of
[1:16:43] the introduction does say the committee
[1:16:45] show dedication in public. So maybe it's
[1:16:48] just something that be expanded a little
[1:16:50] bit in there. Stephen,
[1:16:53] >> yeah, good place for it.
[1:16:56] >> It does. It would highlight it if we
[1:16:58] kind of flesh out the like
[1:17:01] >> on engagement and transparency and that
[1:17:05] >> covered all of these item these
[1:17:07] >> areas including
[1:17:10] >> um what you just said that I wrote down
[1:17:12] term limits and full-time counsel and
[1:17:14] the salary commission all of those other
[1:17:16] things too. So, um,
[1:17:22] » I think we need to make a motion on the
[1:17:23] final report, don't we? Your hand.
[1:17:27] >> Go ahead, Randy.
[1:17:28] >> Uh, move I
[1:17:30] move acceptance of this report with the
[1:17:33] edits to be made by city staff before
[1:17:36] June 1.
[1:17:37] >> I second. Yeah,
[1:17:39] >> June.
[1:17:40] >> I got to get it done for the council
[1:17:42] packet. Don't worry. I have an earlier deadline than that.
[1:17:46] So, okay.
[1:17:47] >> Yeah. I think we have to be done by
[1:17:49] that.
[1:17:50] >> Nothing alive, you know.
[1:17:52] >> No pressure here.
[1:17:53] >> Fair enough.
[1:17:54] >> Wow.
[1:17:54] >> That's wonderful.
[1:17:55] >> Cool.
[1:17:56] >> And that'll not be a long email chain.
[1:17:59] >> Just an overall report. So, I'm not
[1:18:00] going to go into specifics because
[1:18:04] from this and a little bit of what was
[1:18:05] discussed in the two things that were
[1:18:07] passed, but it's not going to be like
[1:18:09] any other minutes because there's no one
[1:18:10] to approve them. So, yeah. Okay.
[1:18:13] >> So, it's moved and second that we
[1:18:14] approve the final report that we
[1:18:15] discussed tonight with including all the
[1:18:17] edits and changes that you all have
[1:18:18] made. Is there any other discussion on
[1:18:20] this at all?
[1:18:22] >> Online any? Seeing none, take the vote.
[1:18:25] All in favor of approving the final
[1:18:27] report of the 2026 charter review
[1:18:29] committee. Raise your hand. Say I.
[1:18:31] >> I.
[1:18:34] >> All oppose. Same side.
[1:18:36] >> Zero.
[1:18:39] you guys.
[1:18:43] Good job.
[1:18:45] >> Photo or something.
[1:18:47] >> Zoom high five.
[1:18:51] » I'd like to thank the people that are on
[1:18:53] that took the time to serve on this
[1:18:55] thing you've been especially you
[1:18:56] Jennifer and Rod for your leadership.
[1:18:59] Thank you.
[1:18:59] >> Thanks.
[1:19:00] >> Ashley, too.
[1:19:01] >> Ashley as well. Yeah, it's been a it's
[1:19:03] been a little bit of a truck. It's been
[1:19:04] fun. Uh I'm not quite done yet. Just
[1:19:07] what's happening once Jennifer finishes
[1:19:09] the final report. I will get that copy.
[1:19:11] I'm going to draft my own statement and
[1:19:13] then I will do the presentation on June
[1:19:14] 10th in front of council. Uh we're on
[1:19:16] the agenda, right?
[1:19:17] >> Yeah.
[1:19:17] >> I made the part sheet.
[1:19:18] >> Yeah. Okay. Great.
[1:19:19] >> Last night we'll sit behind you.
[1:19:21] >> So I want to encourage anybody who wants
[1:19:22] to come to the June 10th council
[1:19:24] meeting. It's a 6:30 council meeting
[1:19:25] downstairs. Feel free to show up
[1:19:27] >> or watch on YouTube.
[1:19:29] >> I'm going to just I'm not going to read this thing at all.
[1:19:32] Then you all go and get a copy of it.
[1:19:33] I'm just going to briefly talk about us
[1:19:35] as a group and how we made decisions and
[1:19:37] how we all collectively worked together
[1:19:39] and uh put a lot of hard work and a lot
[1:19:41] of great thought into moving our city
[1:19:43] forward. I think is great. So, thanks
[1:19:44] everybody.
[1:19:46] >> Thank you.
[1:19:47] >> You're welcome.
[1:19:48] >> Maybe we'll see you guys again in five
[1:19:49] years.
[1:19:51] >> Bye.
[1:19:57] » Motion to adjourn. Anybody
[1:20:00] >> motion
[1:20:03] second? All in favor say I.
[1:20:05] >> I.
[1:20:06] >> Meeting is adjourned.
[1:20:09] >> Thank you.
[1:20:09] >> Thanks everybody. There was three of
[1:20:11] them.