[0:23] I I think we're good to go, aren't we?
[0:27] » Yep.
[0:28] » Yeah.
[0:31] » Any objections, director?
[0:36] » Um, no, chair. and the recording is on
[0:39] for you.
[0:40] » Okay.
[0:41] All right. It's 9:00 um
[0:46] 22nd of a 26th of August
[0:50] and we're going to commence um
[0:54] with the monthly board meeting for the
[0:57] division of real estates appraisal
[0:59] board.
[1:01] Uh, first item on the agenda is to
[1:04] consider and approve the meeting minutes
[1:06] from the July 29th,
[1:08] 2026 meeting.
[1:14] If the board members have had a chance
[1:16] to review it,
[1:18] I'm open to a motion.
[1:24] » [clears throat]
[1:24] » Chair, I have uh reviewed the minutes
[1:28] and uh make a motion that we approve as
[1:31] drafted.
[1:34] » Is that a motion to approve as drafted?
[1:37] And there was a second.
[1:40] » Uh all in favor say I.
[1:42] » I.
[1:42] » I.
[1:44] » I.
[1:45] » I.
[1:46] » Any nays?
[1:49] Okay. Passes. Uh we're going to move on
[1:53] to agenda item number two, the public
[1:56] comment. We'll now open it up for any
[1:58] com public comment.
[2:15] I don't know how much sufficient time is
[2:18] defined as, but I think we're pretty
[2:20] close. Um,
[2:23] seeing that there's no uh public comment
[2:26] at this point, we'll close the public
[2:28] comment portion of this meeting and move
[2:31] on to agenda item number three, the
[2:34] division section report. So, we'll begin
[2:36] with the director's report. Uh, director
[2:39] of VA.
[2:42] » Thank you, chair, and good morning board
[2:44] members. So good to see you all. Um
[2:48] [clears throat] the first thing I wanted
[2:49] to touch on is with your um meeting
[2:52] materials. I circulated some proposed
[2:55] 2027 meeting dates. Um and I know that
[2:58] that um seems kind of uh crazy that
[3:02] we're already planning 2027, but um I
[3:06] find the more lead time we can give you
[3:08] all with your schedules probably the
[3:10] better. Um, and so I'm just looking to
[3:14] to make sure that kind of tenatively
[3:16] these dates look good and then I can set
[3:18] up uh calendar invites that I can add
[3:21] you all to. Um, now we've had with some
[3:24] of our other public bodies, maybe um, a
[3:27] professional organization has an event
[3:29] that a lot of board members are going
[3:30] to, things like that. as things come up,
[3:33] we are free to kind of reschedu, but I
[3:35] think it's good to kind of get a
[3:37] schedule down um that we can work with.
[3:40] the administrative law judges um which
[3:45] act as the judge when there's a formal
[3:48] hearing before you. Um, they use our
[3:53] schedule and they typically will use
[3:56] that to set their hearings because they
[3:59] not only hear cases that come before the
[4:02] appraiser board, but they also hear
[4:04] cases that come before our other public
[4:06] bodies, but then cases that come before
[4:09] all of the other divisions and offices
[4:11] in commerce. So, um, when we can set a
[4:14] schedule, it gives them kind of a
[4:15] framework. um some of these if a
[4:18] proceeding is formal rather than
[4:20] informal um you're going to have a full
[4:22] discovery process and things like that.
[4:24] So they actually plan those hearings
[4:26] pretty far out. Um so do any board
[4:30] members just at a glance with with these
[4:32] dates um see any issues as of right now?
[4:39] Yeah, director. Um there there was um
[4:46] uh one one particular that I thought u
[4:51] might cause might cause a a challenge.
[4:54] » Okay.
[4:55] » Um
[4:57] I'm I'm looking at my notes. Sorry, I
[4:59] did this earlier and I should have had
[5:01] my notes um I should have had my notes
[5:03] pulled up.
[5:04] » No, no, you're totally fine. Um
[5:08] » Here I'll share the date. April the
[5:11] April 20 the April 28th
[5:15] um
[5:17] date conflicts with
[5:21] um the appraisal institute national
[5:23] conference
[5:25] and so that there may be some of us that
[5:28] are planning to go to that and I think
[5:31] it also the
[5:33] arrow conference
[5:37] um was a was a conflict ICT or or
[5:40] potentially had a conflict in the
[5:43] September
[5:45] um
[5:47] the September uh time time frame. And
[5:50] then the other one that I was wondering
[5:53] about
[5:54] um March is listed as the 24th,
[6:00] but your note said that we met the last
[6:04] Wednesday of the month, which would
[6:06] actually be March 31st.
[6:08] So, I I don't know if that if that was
[6:12] um
[6:14] » Just it's the fourth I think it's the
[6:16] fourth Wednesday of the month, but the
[6:19] last Monday actually or the last
[6:20] Wednesday actually happens to be the
[6:22] 31st. So, those were those were just
[6:24] ones to look to look at there.
[6:28] » Thank you so much, Vice Chair. I'll get
[6:30] these a second look. Um, and if
[6:33] [clears throat] they conflict, I'll um
[6:36] I'll propose some alternate dates and
[6:38] circulate um a new schedule to y'all.
[6:42] Um, board member Davidson.
[6:44] » Yeah. So, I this actually reminds me of
[6:48] and I remember you had mentioned that we
[6:50] had to meet in person at least once a
[6:52] year and I I don't has that been done
[6:55] this year? Is that something that we
[6:57] need to add for this year? Just based on
[7:00] my traveling, being able to travel, I
[7:03] just wanted to make sure to plan ahead
[7:04] for that one.
[7:06] » Absolutely. Thank you so much for
[7:08] bringing that up. Yes. So, that is a
[7:10] Department of Commerce policy that all
[7:12] of the public bodies that meet um within
[7:16] the department um we we like them to
[7:19] meet in person at least once a year. Um,
[7:21] and so y'all have not, unless I'm
[7:25] remembering incorrectly, met in person
[7:27] yet this year. So, if y'all wanted to uh
[7:30] think about or um if you have ideas
[7:32] about what month out of the remaining
[7:34] months of the year um feel like a good
[7:37] fit. And board member Davidson, I think
[7:39] you might be the one traveling the
[7:41] farthest
[7:42] up here, correct?
[7:44] » I would assume so. Yeah. And I I'm okay
[7:47] proposing for um September 30th or
[7:50] October 28th of this of this year. I'm
[7:53] I'm open to either of those dates.
[7:56] » Okay. Other board members, how do you
[7:58] all feel about that?
[8:00] » I was thinking in December we should go
[8:02] to St. George.
[8:04] » Oh, okay. [laughter]
[8:06] Now, now you're thinking, Vice Chair,
[8:08] because I I don't uh know of anything in
[8:11] in the requirement that says it has to
[8:13] be at Hebrew Wells. So, [laughter]
[8:16] I would say the sooner we meet the
[8:18] better for this year. If we have to do
[8:19] one this year, it's got to be pretty
[8:21] soon. We just don't want to get running
[8:23] up into the holiday season when
[8:24] everybody's jaming their schedules and
[8:27] weather, you know, for traveling. It's
[8:29] just easier.
[8:30] » So, I would just say this September
[8:32] meeting would be a great one to do.
[8:34] » Okay. And board member Brumble,
[8:38] » I was just going to say um that I have a
[8:42] probably a conflict. I mean, I'm fine to
[8:44] meet on September 30th, but I'll be
[8:46] doing so remotely from Washington DC.
[8:48] So,
[8:49] » Okay.
[8:50] » Um, so, however that works, I if
[8:54] » Yeah, for the in-person meeting, we will
[8:56] still have a virtual option um for the
[8:59] public. I mean, the public is free to
[9:01] meet in person, but usually it's easier.
[9:03] And so, um, assuming we go with
[9:06] September, um, we will make sure that
[9:08] you're able to join us remotely, board
[9:10] member Rumble, so that you we can
[9:11] accommodate that.
[9:12] » Thank you.
[9:14] » Um, okay. So, we Let's go ahead and plan
[9:16] on September. And how that will work is
[9:19] um my assistant Lori um can help
[9:22] coordinate any travels. So,
[9:24] [clears throat]
[9:25] she's been working with you all on
[9:26] getting your PDM payments set up for
[9:30] your meeting. um as you've discussed
[9:32] with her, I'm sure, it requires us
[9:34] setting you up as if you were an
[9:35] employee in the state system to get an
[9:38] employee identification number. Um but
[9:40] we are also able under the law to um pay
[9:44] travel expenses. So um for most of you
[9:47] that's probably going to be things like
[9:49] mileage. Um we will send you kind of
[9:52] parking logistics as well because we can
[9:55] um give you parking validation. Um, but
[9:58] especially for you, board member
[9:59] Davidson, Lori can coordinate with you
[10:01] to make sure that we um get you um
[10:04] whatever you need in terms of lodging,
[10:07] anything like that.
[10:09] » Yeah, no problem. Thank you.
[10:11] » All right.
[10:12] » One one question I would have to um if
[10:15] we're going to do it at the Heber
[10:16] building,
[10:18] uh the last time I was there, there was
[10:19] some special um I think security type
[10:24] things for getting through the building.
[10:25] Is there anything that we should be
[10:27] aware of? Is there a list that is posted
[10:31] of who's who's uh accessible? I I just
[10:35] was wondering if that might be and you
[10:37] could send it to us in an email. Um
[10:39] » Yeah,
[10:40] » At a later date, but um I don't I don't
[10:42] know what the protocol is. It's been a
[10:44] long time, maybe even COVID since I was
[10:46] in the building. So
[10:47] » Um
[10:50] that would be a question.
[10:51] » No, I'm glad you asked that question.
[10:53] So, typically to get past uh or to the
[10:56] upper floors of the building, folks have
[10:58] to um show a governmentisssued ID and
[11:01] typically we would let security know
[11:03] ahead of time, but we have a conference
[11:05] room and a hearing room now on the first
[11:07] floor. So, I might see if we could
[11:09] schedule our meeting there just so if we
[11:11] have members of the public, they don't
[11:13] have to um go through too much trouble
[11:16] to be able to attend the meeting in
[11:18] person if they would like to. So, I will
[11:20] um I'm glad you brought that up, uh,
[11:22] Vice Chair Pryer, and I will um I will
[11:25] uh talk about those logistics with Lori
[11:27] so that we can get that all all set up.
[11:30] » I would also assume that if there's
[11:32] anybody that is appealing, they would
[11:34] also meet in person. Is that correct?
[11:36] » They have the option to, but um
[11:39] typically we allow them to appear
[11:40] remotely if it's more convenient for
[11:42] them. Um we um postcoid it seems like um
[11:48] it we have robust as you know virtual
[11:51] meeting tools and so it can be good for
[11:53] folks um who are maybe appealing or
[11:56] having a hearing um we're able to
[11:58] accommodate them a little bit more and
[12:00] and make things easier for them but they
[12:03] are certainly welcome to attend in
[12:04] person.
[12:09] Okay.
[12:12] All right.
[12:14] And then as far as other items, um
[12:17] [clears throat]
[12:18] so last time we spoke a little bit about
[12:21] um replacing board member Jensen's AMC
[12:25] representative seat, which we are very
[12:27] sad to see board member Jensen leave us,
[12:30] but um we got some amazing applications.
[12:34] And so the next step will be setting up
[12:36] interviews with applicants with um
[12:40] division management. And following those
[12:42] interviews, the division will make a
[12:45] recommendation to the commissioner of
[12:47] the department. Um this past legislative
[12:50] session, just as as a point to note, um
[12:54] the law changed and what we previously
[12:57] referred to as our executive director of
[12:59] the department is now referred to as a
[13:02] commissioner. So, if you hear me say
[13:03] that, I'm referring to Commissioner
[13:05] Margaret Woolly Busy. So, same person,
[13:07] just a different title now. Um, and so
[13:10] we make a recommendation and then it
[13:11] goes up through her to the governor who
[13:14] then makes a recommendation to the
[13:16] Senate and then that person goes before
[13:18] a Senate confirmation committee and then
[13:21] if uh assuming they're recommended
[13:23] favorably to the entire Senate for
[13:25] confirmation. So, I know that sounds
[13:28] kind of like an overwhelming process,
[13:29] but the governor's office um obviously
[13:32] you all have recently gone through that
[13:33] process. So, you know how that works
[13:35] obviously. Um but um the governor's
[13:38] office does a good job of trying to
[13:40] shepherd folks through the process and
[13:41] we are also here as a resource for any
[13:44] folks who are going through the process.
[13:46] Um I'm always happy if if any of our
[13:50] nominees need to to go with them to the
[13:52] capitol or just be at the meeting if
[13:54] they're appearing remotely. So, more to
[13:56] come on that. A big thank you to board
[13:58] member Jensen for continuing his service
[14:00] while we find a replacement. And I just
[14:03] want to shout out my Jenko for helping
[14:06] me um get a communication out to the
[14:08] AMC's and helping us coordinate the
[14:10] process. So, um other than that, um I am
[14:15] still working on proposed rule language
[14:18] for you on the topic of the instructor
[14:20] development workshop. Um, I just want to
[14:22] thank you all. Um, you all and also
[14:25] educators and and stakeholders in the
[14:28] space gave us some amazing feedback and
[14:30] things to consider to make sure that we
[14:32] get um, some great language here to make
[14:36] what we think will be a really positive
[14:38] change um, in terms of the instructor
[14:41] development workshop requirement. So, I
[14:43] just want to thank you all um, for for
[14:46] spending the time to really help us get
[14:48] it right. Um, and I believe that that is
[14:52] all I have for you today, but I'm happy
[14:54] to answer any questions that board
[14:56] members may have.
[15:03] » All right, I'll turn it back over to
[15:05] you, Chair Pollson.
[15:07] » Thank you. Um,
[15:10] where's a re review and approve on the
[15:13] agenda? Do we need to take action on
[15:16] that or does it automatically no action
[15:19] we we'll just move forward?
[15:22] » Yes, I think it's okay. And Elliot, feel
[15:24] free to chime in if if you feel
[15:25] differently, but on those dates kind of
[15:27] just seeking a tenative like this looks
[15:30] good to us, so I don't think a vote is
[15:31] necessary.
[15:33] » All right.
[15:35] Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Elliot.
[15:37] » No, just gonna say that's fine. Um,
[15:38] director is right. As long as there's
[15:40] some tentative agreement, I think we're
[15:42] good.
[15:43] All right. I didn't know if we needed to
[15:45] continue it or not. So anyway,
[15:49] um moving on to uh the next item,
[15:52] licensing and education. Laurel North.
[15:55] » Hi. Thanks, Chair Pollson. Um,
[16:02] as the director stated, uh, we met with
[16:05] some people to go over these ideas for,
[16:10] um, switch up to IDW and we met with
[16:14] board member Pricer, who I just want to
[16:16] thank personally for his time. Um, I
[16:19] think we got some the best options on
[16:22] more flexible
[16:24] um, IDW options. So, uh, our director is
[16:29] writing those up for us, so we will
[16:30] consider those. While we were talking to
[16:32] him, something came up. Uh, we had, you
[16:36] know, we look at experience hours all
[16:37] the time, and it kind of crossed my mind
[16:40] that, uh, why don't we look at practicum
[16:45] as a possibility for 100% acceptance
[16:47] rather than the 50% that we do now? So,
[16:49] I kind of tossed that out to a board
[16:53] member, Chrysler, and I think he thought
[16:55] it was a good idea. He can speak for
[16:57] himself, but I I can do a more full
[17:01] presentation, but I want a couple things
[17:02] to be in your mind, whether you say
[17:05] something today or in a future meeting.
[17:07] Um,
[17:09] so the traditional practicum is
[17:11] classroom based, kind of like Perea, but
[17:14] they have live or virtual site visits.
[17:17] Um there are nine states currently that
[17:19] accept 100% practicum.
[17:22] Uh Arizona, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan,
[17:24] Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New
[17:27] Jersey, and Oklahoma. And then sitting
[17:29] with us at 50% are California and
[17:31] Kansas. I looked at the pass rates real
[17:34] quick and the pass rates are good. 62%
[17:38] national pass rate um the first time
[17:41] around and then 15% this the second
[17:44] time. And that is uh equal if not better
[17:47] than our you know traditional experience
[17:50] pathway. Pereia is very high. Um it's
[17:53] even higher than that. So just kind of
[17:56] think about that if you would or if
[17:58] anyone wants to say any if they have any
[18:00] thoughts about it and they want to say
[18:02] it. I'm thinking we can throw this in
[18:04] with the IDW stuff if if it's something
[18:06] that lowers barriers and is practical.
[18:09] We don't have to do it. Just thinking
[18:11] about it.
[18:15] Jared, you you had your hand up.
[18:19] » Yeah, it it was it was a a really good
[18:22] meeting that we had um talking about
[18:24] education in general and IDW and and uh
[18:28] and so I really appreciate the
[18:30] opportunity to be able to to visit and
[18:32] and talk about some of these ideas.
[18:35] When it comes to the practicum,
[18:37] uh I think that there's the way that we
[18:40] learn today, the tools that we have um
[18:43] have all um changed it dra you know
[18:47] dramatically since co and um and there's
[18:51] no reason why as a board we shouldn't
[18:54] recognize uh those opportunities those
[18:57] those new changes in and and I I
[19:01] interact with a lot of the uh students
[19:04] students who have been going through a
[19:06] PA practicum type uh education or para
[19:10] and are finding that that they are
[19:12] understanding the concepts and applying
[19:14] them in a real world scenario in these
[19:17] in these cases and and I think in our
[19:20] profession uh you know we ought to be
[19:23] looking at we ought to be looking at
[19:24] those as alternate tracks um lowering
[19:27] the barrier to entry um into into the
[19:31] industry. I don't see any reason why as
[19:33] a board we couldn't um review and and um
[19:37] look at seriously a proposal from from
[19:40] the division on amending amending our
[19:43] rules to be able to accept those. So,
[19:47] um, and I I think certainly, you know,
[19:49] if we had someone who was licensed in
[19:52] Minnesota, just picking the state
[19:53] because I spent a couple years there, my
[19:55] dad's from there and and I love
[19:57] Minnesota. if they had someone become a
[20:01] licensed appraiser through practicum
[20:04] and they applied for reciprocity or or a
[20:07] reciprocal license with us, I don't
[20:10] think we'd have an issue accepting that
[20:12] license um from from that state. And and
[20:17] so to me, you know, that that even
[20:20] further would um you know, would
[20:23] encourage us to to look at um adopting,
[20:27] you know, some some alternative or or
[20:29] making a change to our current policy.
[20:31] So,
[20:37] » Um thank you. Anyone else?
[20:39] » Yeah. Um okay. Oh, I'm not done. I'll
[20:43] I'll tell you when it's when my part's
[20:45] done, but thanks. Um, I just wanted to
[20:48] let you know in my mind from last
[20:50] meeting. I'm still thinking about the
[20:52] exam question. Should applicants take
[20:54] the exam before they start their
[20:56] experience hours. So, I kind of want to
[20:58] discuss that at some point as well, so I
[21:00] haven't forgotten about it. It's on the
[21:02] table for me. And then the experience
[21:05] review reports. Um, I thought this was a
[21:07] great idea from uh Chairman Pollson.
[21:11] Uh,
[21:13] I like the idea of submitting reports
[21:16] just by the applicant, not with the
[21:19] supervisor. So, I want to talk about
[21:21] that at some point, too. So, all these
[21:24] three things will come up. Again, if you
[21:26] have any thoughts, just shoot me an
[21:28] email or give me a call. I'd love to
[21:30] discuss it. Um, so to the regular
[21:34] reports, a request to sit for appraiser
[21:36] exams. We had one that would like to sit
[21:40] for the licensed appraiser exam. That's
[21:42] James Grub. We didn't have any denials
[21:45] on the yes answer spreadsheet. That's a
[21:47] clean sweep, too. We didn't have any
[21:50] affirmative disclosures
[21:52] for applicants on that sheet. Uh we have
[21:54] a couple uh coming up for next week,
[21:57] next month. Uh the stats between June
[22:00] and July. Uh the total number of
[22:02] licences experienced just a minor
[22:04] contraction dropped by six. uh
[22:07] credentials overall uh individual
[22:11] licences decreased by three. The largest
[22:13] decline was among certified residential
[22:16] appraisers which was five along with
[22:19] minor losses in licensed appraisers.
[22:21] They could have moved up of course and
[22:23] then pre-licicensed instructors. We lost
[22:25] one. These were partially offset by
[22:27] small gains in certified general
[22:29] appraisers. So that could have taken our
[22:31] uh certified res up and continuing
[22:34] education instructors we added to
[22:37] appraiser trainees remained completely
[22:39] stable. Our entities decreased by three.
[22:43] Uh this decline was driven by the
[22:45] appraisal management companies which
[22:47] fell from 103 to 100. Pre-licensed
[22:50] schools and continuing education
[22:51] providers remain unchanged. So overall,
[22:54] the board data shows high month-to-month
[22:57] stability with slight dips in
[23:00] residential appraisers and AMC's
[23:02] representing the primary shifts. We
[23:05] don't have any experience reviews for
[23:07] you today. Next, September, we have a
[23:10] couple things that could come up. So, I
[23:13] just wanted to um
[23:16] put in your mind that we might have a
[23:17] little extra time in September. In in
[23:21] for September, we did have a denial in
[23:23] August. So that could come up for
[23:24] review, but it's not currently
[23:26] scheduled. And then we also have a
[23:27] candidate uh that the board
[23:31] uh returned to samples. So that'll need
[23:34] to be discussed. That could also hit our
[23:36] September um meeting. And that's all I
[23:40] have for you today. If there are any
[23:41] questions, I'm open.
[23:54] I don't see any questions. So, thank
[23:56] you. Um, we'll we'll move on. Board and
[24:00] industry issues. Uh, Justin Baring.
[24:04] » Yes. Thank you for your time. It's good
[24:06] to be with you all today.
[24:10] » Excuse me. Director Veette mentioned
[24:12] about possible rule amendment uh with
[24:16] regard to IDW. We'll be looking at that.
[24:19] We've also talked about maybe uh some
[24:23] policy or rule or some some
[24:27] clarification to the role of the
[24:29] alternate board member. We appreciate
[24:32] um Joel Frost being here today as a an
[24:36] alternate member of the board. And uh so
[24:40] so we'll be looking at those things, but
[24:42] I don't have anything to propose here
[24:44] for your consideration today, but I am
[24:47] happy to um answer any questions or
[24:50] respond to any any issues that uh you
[24:53] would like to address.
[24:58] » Go ahead, Jere.
[25:02] » Yeah. Um
[25:04] I I when I was reviewing back through my
[25:07] notes, I had a note that I was um I had
[25:10] taken on a task of preparing a
[25:14] um a proposal for that alternate uh
[25:16] member participation
[25:18] um policy. I uh Justin, I have that and
[25:24] I'll forward it to you in an email. I I
[25:27] did it uh a little bit later it just in
[25:30] the last couple of days and so didn't
[25:33] have time to get it in this agenda but I
[25:35] will send it to you and then you can
[25:36] look at it and get the ideas from it and
[25:39] and I don't know if that will help but
[25:41] um I think in the notes I actually had
[25:44] taken on that assignment um and then
[25:47] failed to to execute earlier in the
[25:49] month to to give that to you but I do
[25:52] have I do have a document kind of
[25:54] prepped for you
[25:55] » That's Wonderful. I appreciate that,
[25:57] Jared. We'll be happy to look at that
[25:58] and uh we can get that on the agenda and
[26:02] consider make that consideration board
[26:04] policy.
[26:06] » Yeah, it's just a starting point. Like
[26:07] I'm not a I'm not an attorney. I don't
[26:10] even play one on TV. Um I am uh but it's
[26:14] a starting point with some ideas that um
[26:17] that have some some code attached to it
[26:20] and stuff. So anyway,
[26:22] » No, that's great.
[26:22] » Take it for what it's worth. For what
[26:24] it's worth. Okay, thank you. I'll look
[26:27] for that email.
[26:28] » Thank you.
[26:32] » Any other uh comments or questions for
[26:35] me?
[26:38] » All right. Well, thank you.
[26:40] » All right. Seeing none, thank you,
[26:42] Justin. Um we'll go on to enforcement.
[26:45] Bring Kaylin.
[26:47] » Thank you, chair. For the month of July,
[26:50] uh the DRE managed a total of 11
[26:52] appraisal cases. We've made solid
[26:55] progress by resolving and closing four
[26:57] of those cases. And while two are
[27:00] currently pending legal action, we are
[27:03] doing really great on the enforcement
[27:05] cases. Uh we have remained clear on AMC
[27:11] cases. Uh we did not receive any
[27:13] additional AMC cases during this
[27:15] reporting period. We don't have any
[27:17] stipulations to present today. Uh, but I
[27:21] did want to offer for the board's
[27:24] consideration a board training
[27:26] opportunity that Elliot Clark and Kevin
[27:29] Ule uh have offered their services for
[27:32] to be a resource and maybe provide
[27:36] guidance, training, and answer questions
[27:38] that you all in this new role might
[27:41] have. So, I wanted to gauge interest and
[27:44] then depending on how many board
[27:46] attendees uh are interested and in
[27:49] attendance, we could schedule this for a
[27:51] public meeting or a private meeting um
[27:54] hopefully before the next board meeting.
[28:00] » Just as a clarification on that. So, uh
[28:03] if if there is a quorum of board
[28:06] members, then it is required to be a
[28:08] public meeting. If it's if it's less
[28:10] than a quorum, then we can just get
[28:12] together on everybody's schedule and and
[28:15] go from there.
[28:18] What would you Brent anticipate the
[28:21] topics to be um training for the board
[28:24] members right in terms of like how how
[28:27] we uh like procedural things that we do
[28:30] as a board or or review how to appro how
[28:33] to review others of work or what do you
[28:36] » I see it as an informationational
[28:39] session. It could answer all of the
[28:42] above um procedures um just kind of the
[28:46] more technical aspects of executive
[28:49] session and public session. It could go
[28:51] over some of the experience review items
[28:55] and um just general guidance from a past
[29:00] board member and then Elliot as your
[29:02] legal representative just offering to
[29:06] again answer questions, provide guidance
[29:09] on any of those topics.
[29:12] » Well, I'd be interested in attending
[29:14] that.
[29:16] » Okay. one who's not, you know,
[29:20] very experienced with board procedures
[29:22] and I mean somewhat but not to the
[29:25] extent I feel like I ought to be.
[29:27] » So, it would be good for me.
[29:29] » Fantastic.
[29:32] » Yeah, it sounds like Kevin's been on the
[29:34] board for a long time. Learning from his
[29:37] experience would be great. I have no
[29:38] problem with that either.
[29:41] » Okay.
[29:45] I I guess the question is do you want it
[29:47] during a typical meeting like this or do
[29:49] you want a separate meeting?
[29:52] » So again that depending on if we have a
[29:55] quorum or not if if we don't have a
[29:58] quorum I could see it just uh according
[30:01] to Elliot Kevin and right now Chris and
[30:04] Steve's schedules. So something in
[30:07] between this uh board meeting and next
[30:10] board meeting.
[30:12] » All right. And I'm assuming it can be
[30:14] recorded so that future board members
[30:16] could review it.
[30:19] » I I think that's a great idea.
[30:21] » Okay.
[30:22] » I I would like to participate. I think
[30:25] um it would be good.
[30:27] » It would be good training. I' I'd love
[30:28] to be involved. So I don't know if that
[30:30] makes us a quorum, but
[30:34] » Okay.
[30:35] » I wonder if we could uh propose that it
[30:37] happens on uh September 30th while we're
[30:40] all together in person.
[30:43] Okay.
[30:44] » So, why would a why would a training
[30:46] meeting like that be a public meeting? I
[30:48] don't understand that.
[30:51] » Go ahead.
[30:53] » Default [clears throat] to Mr. Clark on
[30:55] this one.
[30:56] » Yeah. No, that's that's a good question.
[30:58] Um, anytime, so because you guys are a
[31:01] public meeting or a public meeting, a
[31:03] public board created under statute,
[31:05] anytime you guys have a quorum
[31:07] discussing board business, it has to be
[31:09] noticed publicly for the public to be
[31:11] able to attend. That doesn't mean you
[31:13] would have to allow things like public
[31:15] comment or things like that, but when
[31:18] you've got four or more of you convened
[31:21] discussing board business, that's that's
[31:23] a public meeting. So, that's why it
[31:24] would need to be open to the public. Um,
[31:27] one way
[31:29] to tackle that, I mean, we can certainly
[31:31] do it in a public meeting. Um, if you'd
[31:34] rather not, we can just keep, as Bren
[31:36] said, we can just Brenn and Justin have
[31:38] said, we can just keep, um, attendees to
[31:42] three current board members um, and and
[31:45] just do two separate meetings if we need
[31:47] to. I mean, that doubles some people's
[31:49] time and effort, but it's it's an
[31:51] option. And it also allows
[31:54] uh for you know if you want to get into
[31:56] really detailed attorney client
[31:58] communications. I mean you're not doing
[32:00] it in a public meeting. So really up to
[32:03] you guys. Um I sort of envision this as
[32:06] just a general introduction of here's
[32:08] what the public meetings act is. Here's
[32:11] um here's how you conduct board meetings
[32:14] and you know things like that. So, I'm
[32:16] I'm fine doing it in a public board
[32:18] meeting, but I I'm certainly not opposed
[32:20] to just doubling up and doing two
[32:22] separate meetings with three of you guys
[32:25] or fewer. So, and we can discuss all
[32:29] that. I mean, I I'll get the contact
[32:31] information from Bren after the meeting
[32:33] and then I can touch base with uh the
[32:36] the former board member who's offered to
[32:38] help and we can sort of talk through
[32:40] those things. So,
[32:46] Oh, go ahead, Bren.
[32:48] » I was just gonna say I think Justin has
[32:49] his hand up.
[32:50] » Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing.
[32:52] » Okay, thanks. Um, so the um we've done
[32:57] this before. [clears throat] It's been
[32:59] several years and uh the in the past we
[33:03] have selected an alternate day rather
[33:06] than a a a regular meeting day for the
[33:10] the board. it is a public meeting and
[33:12] and but nobody was interested in coming
[33:15] to it. Uh but uh as as Elliot said,
[33:20] there's no public comment, but it is
[33:22] open to the public. So So we could set
[33:26] aside some time uh either before or
[33:29] after the regular business of a meeting
[33:32] and do it that way or just on a separate
[33:34] day that's convenient for you. We just
[33:37] have to make sure that it gets noticed
[33:38] up in advance. I think it's
[33:42] makes more sense to do it as a public
[33:44] meeting because
[33:47] um it is the public's business and and
[33:50] we hope that more than three would be
[33:52] interested in in participating in the
[33:55] training particularly because we have so
[33:56] many new members of the board. So that
[33:59] would be my recommendation, but uh
[34:02] certainly uh Director Veette should
[34:05] weigh in on that and and you as a board
[34:07] can make that decision,
[34:13] but it's not a new thing. What I'm
[34:15] saying is we've done this before, but
[34:17] it's been a number of years.
[34:20] » At this point, we're just looking for
[34:22] feedback back to uh Bren because we
[34:25] can't take action on it. Okay, that
[34:28] concludes the enforcement report. I
[34:30] appreciate your time.
[34:32] » Thank you.
[34:33] » Thank you.
[34:35] » Is there any other items anyone members
[34:38] of the board want to bring up?
[34:43] » If not, uh we're to item number four for
[34:47] adjournment. So, if there is a motion to
[34:50] adjurnn,
[34:54] » Uh, I'll present a or make a motion to
[34:57] adjurnn.
[34:59] » We have a motion and a second.
[35:02] There's a second. All in favor say I.
[35:06] » I.
[35:07] » I.
[35:08] » And we are ajourned. Thank you.
[35:12] » Thank you.
[35:13] » Thank you guys. Bye.