[0:02] Okay.

[0:06] Hello, it is Monday, June 8th, 6:00. I'd like to welcome everyone to the City of

[0:12] Juneau Joint Common Council Utility Commission agenda.

[0:17] Um Would you like to take roll call,

[0:19] please? Chapman?

[0:21] » Here. >> Seyfried?

[0:22] » Here. >> Justin?

[0:23] » Here. >> Lee?

[0:24] » Here. >> Schoenauer?

[0:27] Wagner? >> Here.

[0:30] » Uh Utility Commission members, Apple? >> Here.

[0:33] » Coons? >> Here.

[0:34] » And Cannon?

[0:38] Okay. So, with roll call being taken, training presentation by Brian Goodman,

[0:45] attorney with Boardman Clark. And I think I will just let you Does

[0:49] everyone have one of these? >> Yes.

[0:52] » Okay. >> I have some extras on that chair in case

[0:54] people come late. >> I'll let you take it away.

[0:57] » All right. Well, hello everyone. It's It's nice to meet you in person. I've

[1:00] been uh over the phone and emailing with with

[1:04] other people in in the in the city. Uh and it's my pleasure to be here

[1:08] tonight to kind of talk proactively about some issues. Um I'm kind of

[1:12] calling this governance training, sort of how the city needs to operate. Um

[1:18] those of you who um have been in uh leadership positions or elected

[1:22] officials um in the last uh few years, you may know

[1:25] my uh former colleague Steve Zaugg. Steve Zaugg has retired. He officially

[1:30] has. As far as I know, he is actually retiring and not and not hanging on. Um

[1:35] so, it was my pleasure to to do uh transition and and help out the city uh

[1:40] once he has retired. So, I've been doing this for

[1:43] a couple years and uh this is just I guess it's an opportunity

[1:47] for me to come out, meet everyone, talk about some things before I'm coming out

[1:51] for like a whole thing, right? So, it's good It's good to do that. Um you know,

[1:56] as was putting together the materials I was um

[1:59] you know, just kind of think through the kinds of stuff that come up on a

[2:02] day-to-day basis so we can set a good foundation. Um, I know some of you are

[2:08] are newer members and obviously we just had an election and so it's just a

[2:12] perfect time to to kind of start start with some education. I also think this

[2:17] is the first of a two-part series I'll be doing. So, this one is broadly

[2:22] governance and then I think I'm coming back to do it a very specific employment

[2:26] one because that's just a topic in and of itself. So, if you're like, "How come

[2:30] we're not talking about employment?" That's next.

[2:33] Um, I'm happy to take questions as we go. Feel free to raise your hand or just

[2:36] shout them out. You're not going to throw me. I used to be a middle school

[2:39] teacher. I get it. All right.

[2:42] So, I like to start with with the oath of office because it's it's the thing

[2:46] that that we all do and sometimes we do it without thinking about it, right? We

[2:51] just say the words. Um also a little twist.

[2:55] The word I'm quoting is actually the oral version of the oath. The written

[3:00] oath that you sign actually has different words in it. I don't know why

[3:03] the legislature has two different versions of the oath, but they do. Uh,

[3:08] and the oral version includes that you will faithfully and

[3:13] impartially discharge the duties of your office. Uh, that impartiality is only

[3:19] referenced in the oral oath, >> [clears throat]

[3:21] » uh, but I think it's important to highlight that because impartiality is

[3:24] one of the most important concepts for any elected or appointed official. Uh,

[3:29] you have to see the problem from the lens of the community as a whole and not

[3:35] as your personal um objectives. And that's that's hard to

[3:39] do, uh, especially if it's something that is personal to you, something that

[3:43] you're passionate about. Uh, it's hard to set to create some space and think of

[3:48] the big picture. And that's one of the things I'm going to be talking about

[3:51] today is how do we remain impartial? How do we avoid having a conflict of

[3:56] interest or a bias in a way that would affect our ability to do our jobs. And

[4:01] at at the most extreme, you there's certain situations where you cannot have

[4:06] bias. And if you have bias, you would have to recuse yourself from the

[4:11] discussion and the vote. Um an example might be let's say

[4:16] there was a termination hearing. Well, start termination recommendation was

[4:21] that the personnel committee, they would have to be impartial to make that

[4:24] decision. Then let's say there was a grievance filed and it went through the

[4:27] process, then the council would have to be the final decision-maker on the

[4:32] termination grievance. And you would have to be impartial in order to hear

[4:36] that grievance and decide what the outcome's going to be. If you do not

[4:42] recuse yourself, the risk is high because the the remedy is that the

[4:46] employee that that was terminated could potentially raise a due process this

[4:50] claim. And said that I had the right to an impartial hearing on this matter and

[4:54] I that wasn't the case. They knew you know, they were heavily involved

[4:58] with the situation from the inception. Uh and that can then lead to, aside from

[5:04] monetary damages, the decision being overturned. So, the more important the

[5:08] decision, the more important it is that you remain free from bias so you can

[5:12] make those high-stakes, really important decisions. And and hopefully you're

[5:17] going oh, well, that never that's never going to happen. I don't have to worry

[5:19] about that. I hope that's true. But one of the challenges is you don't

[5:25] get to know which which situation might escalate to the

[5:29] point of an appeal before the council or an appeal before a committee. And that's

[5:35] why I start the conversation right here and right now because you you frame it

[5:40] the way that's way from the beginning and it

[5:44] doesn't matter how high-stakes or how far the matter goes, you will remain

[5:49] impartial. One of the things to keep in mind about

[5:53] elected officials, especially but also um appointed officials, is that you're a

[5:57] trustee of taxpayer money, right? With that comes what we call a fiduciary

[6:02] responsibility. A fiduciary duty is like the highest duty you can have under the

[6:06] law. It's the same kind of duty that your stockbroker might have over what

[6:11] investments you make, right? And they can't just

[6:14] take any of your money, right? That's not legal. Sim- Similarly here, you're

[6:18] in charge of the city's money and you have to make sure that you're always

[6:23] ensuring that it is spent in the way that is best for the community. Now, you

[6:28] get to bring your personal beliefs in how that money should be spent, right?

[6:33] That's part of the democratic process, but there's a difference between I have

[6:38] um uh

[6:39] if you want to call it a a platform, right? That you might have

[6:43] run on a certain issues that I was told to raise. That's okay.

[6:47] What's not okay is when you have a bias of oh, I was involved in that, or oh,

[6:52] that was my kid that uh you know, got hit by the snowplow. I'm just making

[6:56] things up, right? But you have to know those those potential areas. And then in

[7:01] a small community like this, where I know there's a lot of family members, a

[7:05] lot of relatives, a lot of people that go back a lot of years, the potential

[7:08] for bias is just higher and you have to be more careful about that. Um I love uh

[7:14] some of my smaller municipal clients. I I think that they have something really

[7:17] special. But when it comes to bias, it's really hard cuz they're like, oh yep,

[7:21] that was my great uncle and we've been at it ever since they put a fence over

[7:25] our yard and took an extra 500 ft of our territory.

[7:29] That's that's a thing that I've actually had someone have a

[7:33] complete bias over and they're like, okay, well, maybe I shouldn't be voting

[7:36] on their termination. Um when we talk about your obligations

[7:42] to the community, it's important to also talk about your authority. What power do

[7:46] you have? And when it comes to

[7:50] the commissioners or it comes to the council members, you don't have any

[7:56] power as an individual. So one of you can't do anything. There's

[8:03] slight nuances if you might happen to be a

[8:06] committee chair or something like that, but in your role as a as a council

[8:11] member, you don't have the authority to do anything. You're just a person who

[8:15] has ideas. When you come together in a full council

[8:19] meeting, that is where the authority comes

[8:22] together. You can come together and vote on certain

[8:25] actions, and those actions carry the force of of law. They are what will be

[8:30] done. And that is powerful.

[8:33] Uh similarly, the utility commission works the same way. We come together and

[8:36] when we vote, we can do things. As individuals, we can't really do things.

[8:41] Um and that's just really important to know. And and

[8:44] when we talk about council members and and commission members, obviously the

[8:47] mayor has slightly different powers. The mayor does have the authority to do

[8:51] certain things on her own. Um but that does not apply to to just

[8:57] aldermen, right? Similarly, the the the chair of the commission has some

[9:01] authorities that that rest just with the chair.

[9:04] So, what does that mean, right? It means

[9:08] that you have to come together in a properly noticed meeting. And a properly

[9:12] noticed meeting means it's going to say what you're talking about, right? Not

[9:15] just new business, old business, but rather what are we talking about

[9:18] tonight? And then you act on that, right? You talk about it, you act on it.

[9:23] Your actions become the voice of the council.

[9:26] And that's how the council speaks. Otherwise, there's seven different

[9:30] people saying slightly different things. You can't actually really speak on

[9:35] behalf of the council. Now, the mayor can speak on behalf of of the city as a

[9:40] whole. Even the in the clerk sometimes has the opportunity to speak and

[9:45] from the city as a whole, but not as on behalf of the council.

[9:48] That no one has that authority individually to do that.

[9:53] Unless you give them that power, right? You decide, "Okay, we're going to do

[9:57] this and we're going to designate this person to talk about it." You can do

[10:01] that. Um so,

[10:04] what happens if you as an individual commissioner, an individual councilor,

[10:09] gets a complaint from the public, right? Could be about anything. They forgot to

[10:14] plow my street. Um I

[10:17] you know, they my my garbage is is picked up late or they forgot. Uh

[10:23] they get these all the time. As a council member,

[10:26] you don't solve that problem. You direct You either call the person

[10:32] who has the authority to fix the problem or you connect the citizen to the person

[10:36] who can solve the problem. Um rather than

[10:40] jumping in and just doing it yourself. And you might be going, "Well, it's

[10:43] simple. It's one phone call, right?" I don't have any problem with any

[10:47] individual phone call. The the problem that sometimes happens though is there

[10:51] are thousands of phone calls throughout the course of your term of office. And

[10:55] if you are addressing each one, all of a sudden,

[10:59] it's like you're administering the functions of the city rather than

[11:04] governing. And and that temptation is all the

[11:07] greater in a small community. You know what I mean? Of course they came to me.

[11:09] I was their neighbor. Why would I call someone else?

[11:13] But that's how the government is designed to work is that

[11:19] Yeah, I mean you are the voice of the community and you should hear their

[11:22] concerns and then direct them to the person who can help. And you can follow

[11:26] up, too. "Hey, did that did you ever get up to fix the garbage issue?" If they

[11:29] did, great. If they didn't, then go right back to the person who's supposed

[11:33] to fix it and say they didn't fix it. And if they still didn't fix it, well,

[11:36] now we've got a performance problem, right? And and that would get referred,

[11:40] most likely, to personnel or the next supervisor if there's a couple layers of

[11:47] employment in there. But that's a rare situation. Most of the

[11:51] time, they will they will handle the issue.

[11:54] Um the other problem that can happen with

[11:57] even these smaller issues, smaller issues can become big issues, right? If

[12:01] If one day it's my my road didn't get plowed, the next day it could be road

[12:05] didn't get plowed and I swerved out on the ice that formed underneath the snow,

[12:10] and now I've got a claim, right? And I'm going to seek liability. All of a

[12:14] sudden, you are now in the mix of something that

[12:17] is turned high-stakes.

[12:20] And if you get too involved on the front end, you may be biased at the end of the

[12:25] process, and that's where things can get sticky. So, let's say that turned into a

[12:29] suit against the city, and they the council had a vote on whether or not to

[12:34] pay a settlement based on that. You have to be able to look at that

[12:38] impartially on behalf of the city as a whole, not I'm going to look really bad

[12:42] if if we if we don't pay this, or we can't pay this. I don't want to look bad

[12:47] cuz I handled it to start. That all ties into that idea of your

[12:52] fiduciary responsibility to the community as a whole. And I'm trying to

[12:56] put it in terms of of hands-on things that could create that bias. I can give

[13:01] you all sorts of crazy hypotheticals, but I I want to ground it in what you're

[13:05] likely to get, which isn't going to be a lot of really heavy stuff. It's going to

[13:10] be occasional concern, and that's we want to follow this process for the

[13:14] lowest possible stakes, so that when we do the highest possible stakes, we can

[13:19] credibly say, "We followed our process." And if you don't do that in something

[13:23] high-stakes, that's a problem, right? We have to follow the process. And so, part

[13:27] of what I'm doing today is talking about the process.

[13:31] Um I want to talk about other forms of of

[13:35] complaints that you may get. At the beginning of council meetings, you have

[13:40] a public comment period. You guys call it public appearances, right?

[13:45] Great opportunity to hear from community members who have concerns.

[13:50] But they're just that. They're listening sessions. They're not designed for you

[13:54] to then immediately take on that cause. There's a couple reasons you don't

[13:58] immediately take on that cause. One, you didn't notice it on the meeting. So, the

[14:03] open meetings law won't let you address it that night.

[14:05] And two, that person may be going around the

[14:10] chain of command. The person might say, "Ah, that department head doesn't like

[14:15] me." Or that um um committee

[14:18] chair doesn't like me. So, I'm going straight to the to the council.

[14:23] If the word gets out in the community that the way to get things done is to

[14:27] come to the public appearances and tell the council

[14:30] your problem, you guys will be running this town one meeting at a time and all

[14:34] of a sudden you'll have 4-hour meetings three times a week, right? And that's

[14:38] not an exaggeration, that's what happens. The meetings get longer or they

[14:42] get more frequent because all these problems are coming to you.

[14:46] One of the most important things that the council does is set up a system so

[14:50] that they get the right people to solve these problems for you. And if they

[14:54] don't do it right, that's where you have a performance improvement system and

[14:57] evaluation system to hold those people that you've in charged with that

[15:02] authority accountable. Again, this is so much easier to say in

[15:06] theory than in practice. Cuz in practice, when someone doesn't do what

[15:10] you think they should do, it's going to feel a certain way. And you're going to

[15:14] want to um

[15:16] make sure it gets done. And you have to commit to the process or again,

[15:23] you're going to be involved in every minor decision within the city, and

[15:27] that's going to be tedious and inefficient. Not to mention, very much

[15:30] just not your job. So,

[15:34] let's talk about how you approach

[15:37] issues, right? Starts with with a council agenda or commission agenda,

[15:42] right? And that agenda has to outline what you're going to talk about and act

[15:47] on at that meeting. So, usually it is set up between the

[15:53] clerk and the mayor, with input from others as appropriate,

[15:57] but once that the agenda is set or 24 hours before the meeting hits, and you

[16:03] can't change it anymore. And so, it's important that we recognize

[16:06] that one of the biggest process points we have is the agenda itself. The agenda

[16:11] needs to represent the things that we need to deal with. If this issue you're

[16:14] passionate about is not on the agenda, you can't talk about it. Not at a

[16:19] meeting. You The only thing you could talk about is, "I want to get this on

[16:23] the meeting." Right? As opposed to getting into what that actual substance

[16:27] is. It's really important that you keep that in mind cuz again, that's that's

[16:31] the process, and and it's not only is it an orderly process designed for good

[16:35] governance, it's the law. The open meetings law requires you to post public

[16:39] meeting notices with enough specificity that a member of the public can come in,

[16:44] look at the agenda, and go, "Oh, I know what you guys are going to be talking

[16:47] about." What I sometimes see is

[16:51] template agendas that have certain things that are just kind of always

[16:54] there. If you have certain things that are just

[16:57] kind of always there, you got to question yourself. Because

[17:00] what is it that we're talking about? Things like,

[17:04] "Committee report." Right? Well, what does that mean? You have an ordinance

[17:08] that tells you what it means, and I'm going to talk about it.

[17:11] If you have other standing items like new business,

[17:14] well, that doesn't tell me anything, right? New business, what is that new

[17:17] business? Put it on the agenda. If not, it can't Only new business that's going

[17:23] to come before you is, "Hey, I want to put this on the next meeting."

[17:26] And I think that's just important to keep in mind. That's That's the process

[17:30] by which this works. Members of the public who um may have

[17:35] items that they want addressed, again, they don't have the authority to demand

[17:40] that it be on a council agenda. Um they can talk about their issue to

[17:45] the council during public appearances. But other than that, they have no

[17:49] authority to make you do anything. There'll be times where you'll want to

[17:52] take what they say very seriously and and address it. There'll be times where

[17:56] you've already done that three times and they're just not getting it. You aren't

[17:59] obligated to continue to engage in a in a dialogue over that. You've done what

[18:04] is going to be done. The answer is resolved. There's nothing further to

[18:07] discuss. Thank you for your time. You can't actually stop them from coming

[18:11] and talking, but you can don't have to do anything more than that.

[18:15] Um so And when they're speaking uh and members of the public at uh public

[18:20] appearances, they can only um address the body as a whole.

[18:25] So if if someone uh is coming to personal appearances or public

[18:29] appearances and they just start trashing an individual person,

[18:33] they're out they're out of order and they have to direct it to the council.

[18:38] Council members, I wish to lodge this concern. If instead they go, "Mayor,

[18:43] you're doing everything wrong." That's incorrect. Or they turn and face someone

[18:48] in the audience, right? You know, like department head, this is you. That's

[18:50] wrong. That's not the process. Public

[18:53] appearances is a public appearance before the council. And And that again,

[18:58] it's easy to kind of let that slip over time, but it's important because it's a

[19:02] way to kind of diffuse some of the tension that comes from a public

[19:07] scorning of an individual. And so, enforcing that requirement of

[19:12] attention attention, you know, I need you to address the body as a whole, is

[19:16] is just one of several subtle things you can do to kind of lower the temperature

[19:21] on on passionate members of the public speaking public appearances.

[19:25] So, one of the other questions I often get

[19:30] about setting the agenda and setting the stuff that wants to be done, is there

[19:34] people who are like, "Hey, put put basketball on the agenda."

[19:38] What basketball? Wreck it in? Okay, so you were saying restrooms of wreck it

[19:41] in. What about it? You have to, in order to get something on the agenda, have

[19:46] enough specifics that we can write it on the agenda sufficiently under the law.

[19:51] The public meetings law, the open meetings law, requires you to state the

[19:57] agenda items with sufficient specificity. You might be going, "Well,

[20:00] what is that?" Well, there's various factors

[20:04] that establish it. There was a Supreme Court case that that really helped

[20:07] establish them. But the basic elements of it are, the more important the issue,

[20:13] the more detail you need to have in the notice. So, if you were just talking

[20:17] about the need for volunteers for a basketball tournament on Friday, you

[20:21] probably don't have to say all that in the agenda. If it's, "We're going to

[20:25] eliminate the basketball program, and this is one of our most beloved

[20:28] programs," probably need to notice it not just basketball program, but

[20:33] action and possible discussion about the elimination of the basketball team.

[20:37] Which you're going to be like, "But then

[20:39] they're going to lose their minds." And my answer to that is, that's the point

[20:42] of the open meetings law, right? So that they can see it, and if

[20:46] they feel a certain way about the topics, they can come to public

[20:49] appearances, or they can just come and watch and hear what you have to say.

[20:54] And that's why you need to have those those specifics. So, it's one of those

[20:58] issues that can get over time a little bit watered down. And some of you might

[21:02] be like, "Well, I don't It's not my job to write the agendas, right? That's

[21:05] Megan's job, you know, with consultation the mayor. But you have to get the

[21:09] information to her that it gets drafted correctly. And again,

[21:14] sometimes that means you have to provide more detail.

[21:18] Um [clears throat] I noticed that you guys have a in your

[21:21] ordinances kind of a standard layout for for meeting structure. One of those is

[21:25] new business, old business. Uh that's a traditional way of holding a

[21:30] meeting that that goes back many years. It's the way it's always been done.

[21:34] But the open meetings law doesn't require that at all. The only thing open

[21:38] meetings law requires is that you say what we're going to be doing, whether

[21:41] that's old business or new business, it's what you're doing. And that's all

[21:45] that it needs to clarify. If there isn't something specifically noticed as old

[21:50] business or specifically noticed as new business, you can't talk about it

[21:53] anyway. So it's a way of organizing your agenda, but you may find

[21:58] that actually it's more complicated than than it would appear. Um you could

[22:03] still, for example, eliminate old business, new business

[22:07] just to have a standard agenda. And things that are follow-ups, old business

[22:12] if you will, they can go first. There's nothing wrong with that. But you don't

[22:16] under law have to separate it into old business and new business. That's just a

[22:20] tradition. Some traditions are good. Some other traditions are, you know

[22:23] what? Let's think about why we're doing that anymore. And maybe that's just

[22:27] something we can we could eliminate when we change our potential ordinances.

[22:31] Um some of the other things that are in your ordinances is you do have an

[22:34] ordinance on public appearances. Um one of the things I I have seen over the

[22:39] past few years, uh frankly it's been since COVID where there's been a lot of

[22:44] passion about um of various parts of government reopening, um that people

[22:48] realized, "Hey, we might need a framework for this public appearances so

[22:52] that we're not just listening to public appearances all night." Um you cannot

[22:56] discriminate based on what the viewpoint is of the speaker. But you can establish

[23:01] ground rules like every speaker gets no more than two minutes, and they can't

[23:06] give their time to someone else. Right? And you could say each speaker gets two

[23:11] minutes, but under no circumstances will the public appearances last longer than

[23:15] 30 minutes. Which will give you about 15 speakers. That's a good amount of

[23:19] speakers. Uh but if

[23:22] uh you actually count it out, you're probably not going to get people turning

[23:27] right on two minutes, and so 30 minutes might not get you the full 15. Um but

[23:32] that's a neutral way of regulating. It's a balance. We want to hear from you, but

[23:35] we have other business to do as well. And I've I've heard from enough

[23:39] municipal clients that are like, "We just had a two-hour public comment

[23:42] period. That was not fun." Um and and again, it's just get repetitive after a

[23:47] time, too. It's like, "Okay, I get it. Let's talk about it, right? Let's Let's

[23:50] actually get into it." But I do recommend, even if the public is

[23:54] speaking on an issue that's on the agenda, that you wait until you get to

[23:58] that part of the agenda to discuss it. Here's why.

[24:01] The council discusses matters with the council. It

[24:06] doesn't get into a debate with a member of the public, whether they're public

[24:09] appearances, whether they're just people who are attending the meeting. There's

[24:13] There's no debate. You You can listen to it. You can acknowledge their concerns.

[24:18] But But you can't get into a discussion if it's not on the agenda. And if it is

[24:23] on the agenda, when it gets there, you're supposed to be talking about it

[24:26] to the council. In in this little That's why there's a tables are the way they

[24:30] are, right? Cuz we can look at each other and have these discussions. Again,

[24:35] so much easier to say in theory than in practice, which is why I encourage you

[24:38] to do it now when there isn't something really heated uh

[24:42] coming up. Establishing new norms would be a good thing.

[24:46] Um Another thing about complaints uh and

[24:50] agenda language and all of that. The reality is not everything is a

[24:54] council-level decision. Not everything is a committee level

[24:58] decision. Not everything is even a supervisor

[25:01] level decision. Some decisions are just from the person whose job that is,

[25:05] subject to the person above them keeping an eye to make sure they're doing it

[25:09] correctly. Right? Every employee, every appointed official has a certain role to

[25:15] play, and they all have a certain amount of authority. Whether that's a roads

[25:18] crew who's going to decide, "Okay, which side of the street do I want to plow

[25:23] first?" Right? They might have that authority. Um to really big things like,

[25:28] "Hey, we need to buy a new plow." Right? That is going to be a council member

[25:32] from the council. This is going to be expensive, right? It's probably going to

[25:35] go through the public works committee and then up to

[25:38] a council level decision. So, you've got to recognize that the goal of a

[25:44] governance framework is to resolve problems as low on the totem pole as

[25:48] possible. That's a good thing. If it's

[25:52] resolved at the lowest possible level, then great. Everyone's happy, we can

[25:55] move on. We have to be careful that there isn't this unspoken appeal. That

[26:01] is, if I talk to this person and I like their answer, I can go to their boss. If

[26:04] I don't like that, I'll go to their boss. If I don't like that, I'll go to

[26:07] the committee. If I don't like that, I'll go to the council.

[26:09] If you do that, uh

[26:11] decisions will get dragged on and on. Some things won't even get resolved for

[26:15] a month or more. Uh not to mention, it defeats the purpose of why you've

[26:20] hired and appointed people to address those matters. Their job is to solve

[26:24] that. And if you don't like the way they solved it, that's your ability to have a

[26:30] performance session with that individual, right? All right, we got to

[26:33] talk about this. Maybe it starts with the the the committee, right? This is

[26:37] the person who's in charge of of running the city. That's my committee. And then

[26:42] we're going to have that conversation, right? If if it's

[26:45] let's take police for example, like that's going to go through the chief. It

[26:49] just is. And there's are things you're not going to intercede on as a council

[26:54] until you're allowed to do it. But it I I had I intentionally picked police

[27:00] because there's a very specific amount of authority for that and we generally

[27:03] understand that like that's a police thing. It should sort of be like that

[27:07] for every uh part of the city's operations, which

[27:12] is okay, who's in charge of that? Who's supervises that? And then who oversees

[27:17] that person? Notice I used the word oversee,

[27:20] not supervise, cuz that's what a governing body would do, again,

[27:24] committee, council. We oversee, we make sure that that the big picture is

[27:28] getting met and that um they're doing the job that that we asked them to do

[27:33] when we hired them. Uh and it and to kind of build off of

[27:38] what I'm saying about bias, you have to address these issues

[27:41] uh eventually if they turn into something like an employment grievance,

[27:45] right? This is just an example where there is defined ordinance and state law

[27:50] that requires you to do certain things. In the employment grievance, it has to

[27:54] be related to discipline, termination, or workplace safety. But let's say that

[27:59] a a supervisor, you know, suspended someone for a day.

[28:03] Hey, if you're going to um if you're going to recklessly drive the plow like

[28:07] that, we're going to need you to um to take a day off, unpaid suspension.

[28:12] All right? That's a discipline. So, they could then grieve that discipline starts

[28:16] by saying to the supervisor that, "Hey, I don't agree with your decision. I'm

[28:20] grieving that." Then it goes to the the committee head.

[28:24] And then it's going to go to an impartial hearing officer, which is

[28:28] another attorney, can't be me. Um an independent uh attorney is hired to hear

[28:32] that grievance and decide, "Hey, was that a valid uh discipline?" And then

[28:38] ultimately, the final decision is at the council level.

[28:41] That's how it works. And so sometimes you guys don't even get to get involved

[28:45] until the very end. And that's intentionally. So that when it gets to

[28:49] you, you've got you've got um clean hands, right? And you're looking at it

[28:53] objectively still. Now, you're going to hear rumors, right? Small town. But you

[28:58] need to remember that you might have to distance yourself, right? And the same

[29:02] thing can happen at at various, you know, department level matters where

[29:06] you're like, "Yeah, I'm the front line. I'm the first person who's going to get

[29:09] that complaint." And we want to have those department heads feel empowered to

[29:13] address those issues when they come up. >> [clears throat]

[29:16] » It's really easy for the council to tiptoe across that line. And it can have

[29:22] the the effect of those department heads

[29:25] going, "I don't know if I can do this cuz I don't know if the council's going

[29:28] to approve." And then they get it just starts to spin. It's like paranoid. They

[29:32] don't know how to run the city. It's their job to know how to run the

[29:36] city, and you need to give them the tools to do it. And then if they don't

[29:38] do it right, we hold them accountable, right? I'm an employment lawyer lawyer

[29:42] first and foremost. I I'm very comfortable with we need to address this

[29:47] person's performance, right? Um but I think that's just important because it's

[29:52] easy to jump skip steps. And statutorily, you're at the end of the

[29:56] process. So you don't want to get ahead of yourself.

[30:00] Questions about kind of structure of governance and kind of structure of how

[30:04] we put those agendas together?

[30:08] I'm either boring you or you're perfectly understanding this.

[30:11] » [clears throat] >> Well, you talked about old business and

[30:13] new business, and you shouldn't really have it on unless you have a specific

[30:16] item that you want to list for old business or new business. Otherwise, it

[30:19] should probably be taken off. >> Yeah, cuz there's nothing you can talk

[30:22] about because there's nothing noticed to talk about. The only thing you could do

[30:26] is propose topics for future, but that's not new business, that's future

[30:29] business. >> And then the other thing is our

[30:32] ordinance reads right now for all public appearances 15 minutes. What's your

[30:36] recommendation? >> 15 Somewhere between 15 and 30 generally

[30:40] makes sense. Usually I if I recall, your policy is 15 unless approval is given.

[30:45] So, if there's a hot topic and you want to let people uh talk more, you can set

[30:50] it higher or lower. So, if you know going in, "Mhm, this is going to get

[30:53] some people." You might say right before the public appearances, "Let's go with

[30:57] 30." You can also do it after 15 minutes is

[31:01] up on the clock. The risk there though is am I stopping it because 15 minutes

[31:07] are up or am I stopping it because I don't like what they're saying? Right?

[31:11] You don't want it to be based on viewpoint. So, that's why I usually

[31:14] recommend deciding on the front end how long we're going to let this go.

[31:17] Um there is some gray area there. So, if

[31:19] it's been 15 minutes and and you thought everyone would be done, but they're not,

[31:24] um you you might consider extending it at

[31:27] that point. One of the things I don't believe you have though is an individual

[31:30] speaker time limit. Is that right? >> That's what I was going to ask you is if

[31:33] you recommend all or having an individual time.

[31:36] » I recommend having both because you don't want any one person to eat up

[31:40] all the time. So, if you have 30 minutes and as many people as have time to

[31:44] speak, speak. You could get someone who comes in and speaks for 30 minutes

[31:48] straight just to eat up the whole time. Filibuster, if you will.

[31:53] So, I would recommend having for both. Two to three minutes is common.

[31:58] Uh you'd be surprised how much you can get said in two minutes. Uh but three is

[32:02] fine, too. And that would be if you keep 15 minutes, it'd be five five speakers

[32:07] taking the entire time. It's a good amount of speakers because they aren't

[32:11] going to take all day. >> Would public appearances would be this

[32:16] dedicated towards the posted agenda items or cart blanche?

[32:20] » You can Yes, good question. So, should public appearances be only on agenda

[32:24] items or should it be about anything? That is uh a council-level decision.

[32:29] The I I find that things tend to work better

[32:33] when it is based on the agenda so that people don't just bring in extraneous

[32:36] things that maybe have nothing to do with the city at all, right? And I

[32:40] certainly seen those individuals um they might not even be community members. Um

[32:46] so I I've seen people that say, you know, yes, we're only going to talk with

[32:48] the agenda items. We're not going to talk with this other theoretical thing,

[32:51] this other rumor that may be going on. Let's stick to the agenda. That that has

[32:54] worked well for some some municipal clients. The other one I have seen is is

[32:59] we're all limiting public appearances only to

[33:02] residents of the city. Um because we don't necessarily care

[33:08] what someone outside of the city thinks about what we're doing. Again,

[33:11] uh which one of those things where you know, yeah, but is it really a big deal?

[33:15] Ultimately, I'd say it's a big deal because the first time it happens,

[33:19] you're going to want to know the answer to it. It's better to set the rules in

[33:22] play first rather than uh quickly realize that hey, this is a coalition of

[33:27] people from across this the city border that are objecting to something we're

[33:31] doing and we want to focus on on what our community members want to say on an

[33:35] issue. So those are the three I see most commonly put in place as as regulations.

[33:41] Um again, it's a balancing act. There's there's not a right or wrong way to do

[33:45] it. >> The other question that was brought up

[33:47] is on how should you at the beginning of the agenda when you approve your

[33:51] minutes, and it should it be review and approve or should it be

[33:54] » Good question. And I think I have a comment on that. I do I do have a I I'm

[33:59] going to get there. Um but I yeah. Let's let's hold it cuz I've got to go in my

[34:04] head. And I that way we're on the same page. Good question.

[34:07] So I'll keep going cuz I know I want to get to that topic. Um

[34:11] one of the things that I want I think it's really important for elected

[34:14] officials and and appointed officials to understand is is yes, the open meetings

[34:18] law which I've kind of alluded to, but also the public records law. These are

[34:22] tools that Wisconsin state law has given citizens to hold their

[34:28] um elected officials and appointed officials accountable.

[34:33] So it's called sunshine laws, right? Because the sunshine is the best

[34:36] disinfectant. It's the everyone's above board. Um these are these laws

[34:41] are very helpful. But I'll be honest, for administrative

[34:45] leaders, like yourselves, it can be really frustrating at times.

[34:49] So, one of the things I want to talk about is open meetings law.

[34:53] Open meetings law applies anytime there are enough people in a room to decide an

[34:58] action that is for the city. Obvious example would be well, if you

[35:03] get the four of the seven council members in a room together, that's a

[35:08] quorum that can do business. So, if they're in a room together, we

[35:12] have we know we have to take a pause on talking about anything related to the

[35:16] city. Um

[35:19] gets squishier from there though, right? What if it's a committee? Well,

[35:22] committee, there's only two of us on there from the council, so that's okay.

[35:27] But then, how many other members are there in your committee?

[35:30] Do the math. If you have a quorum of a committee, you also are subject to the

[35:34] open meetings law. And if you're going to conduct official business, you have

[35:37] to do it on a noticed agenda, just like the council.

[35:41] It it's hard sometimes to do that because it's like, well, well, yeah, but

[35:45] we're the people that are at all the things, right? We we just sort of talk

[35:48] to each other. That's okay as long as you're not

[35:51] talking about it together. So, an example,

[35:54] let's say right now, there is a a quorum of the commission here. Right?

[36:00] And this quorum of the council here. What does that mean? That means we had

[36:03] noticed it as a joint meeting. Then we're fine, right? It's not that you

[36:07] can't do certain things, it's that you have to give notice of those certain

[36:11] things. Another wrinkle that can come in is what

[36:13] we call a negative quorum. A negative quorum means I can't have enough as many

[36:18] people in a room together talking about city business as could stop something

[36:23] from happening. So, think about something that needs two-thirds of of

[36:28] the the council, eight start looking at how many votes is that? Is that only

[36:32] three votes to vote against something? If it is, then three of you are all of a

[36:37] sudden triggering a potential negative quorum.

[36:39] And you better not be talking about anything that requires two-thirds.

[36:43] Um so yes, there is math and I'm sorry for that, but you got to keep track of

[36:47] it, um the negative quorum. This one involves no math, but it's also

[36:52] the one I see broken the most often, and that's a walking quorum.

[36:56] A walking quorum is when you talk to one other person in your governing body, in

[37:00] your commission, in your council, in your committee. What does that mean?

[37:04] That means one member talks to another member,

[37:08] totally fine. That member then talks to another

[37:11] member, still probably fine, who talks to another member. Oh, you've just

[37:16] gotten four. You've hit a quorum and you shouldn't be doing that, because if you

[37:20] guys all align yourselves outside of a meeting on what to do, you've broken the

[37:25] open meetings So, be careful of straw polls or hit you

[37:30] know, send it shooting out a text chain to a

[37:34] group or a subgroup of the council, because that can be a walking quorum. If

[37:39] you just kind of figure out what do you Where do you lay on this? Where do you

[37:42] lay on this? Where do you lay on this? Before you know it, you've got a walking

[37:45] quorum. Um a lot of times there's not a record

[37:48] of it. Maybe you did it, you know, um in person over a series of meetings. That

[37:53] doesn't change the fact that it's not legal, and people have been caught um

[37:56] doing walking quorums even without paper.

[37:59] Um the most common one though is the

[38:01] classic reply all to an email chain, which is someone shares something with

[38:07] the whole council and one of you

[38:10] is is um wants to express your point about it.

[38:14] Well intended, you hit reply all and you share your feelings about that issue.

[38:18] Well, we've got a problem because you just

[38:21] shared your feelings about that issue with the quorum of the board, cuz they

[38:24] weren't copied on that email. Right? Got to be careful about that. We

[38:28] don't want to be hitting reply all discussing city business outside of

[38:32] these meetings. That can be a form of walking quorum. And technology has done

[38:36] wonderful things. It's allowing us to record and broadcast today's

[38:40] meeting, but it also means that you've got a world full of of

[38:44] evidence on your personal electronic devices in the form of texts, the form

[38:49] of emails, all there and at a moment's notice. So, that means it's your

[38:53] obligation to maintain public records that are on your personal

[38:58] devices. Right? If you get a city provided device, fantastic. Make sure

[39:03] you keep your city provided device solely dedicated to city business.

[39:08] Because it can very easily become that you have to disclose everything that's

[39:13] on that phone. And I will never forget this.

[39:16] Um I was a new associate, Steve Zack asked me to

[39:20] for help on a public records request. What was the issue? A municipality had

[39:24] got a public records request for the contents of everyone's phones on the

[39:29] line crew. And I was like, "Okay. Hey, wait a

[39:33] minute. How are we going to get all their text messages?"

[39:36] And Steve's like, "That's why I asked you to do it. Figure it out." And what

[39:40] did I have to do? I had to go down to uh to city hall and collect a baggy full of

[39:46] cell phones. And then I talked to the IT department of my firm and said, "We've

[39:50] got to get the text messages out of this." And then they loaded them all up

[39:53] onto a a sheet. They ended up doing it as a spreadsheet. And then I had to go

[39:57] through every single text message to determine if it was disclosable to this

[40:02] public records request. Spoiler alert. A lot Spoiler alert. It

[40:07] It You didn't want me to see it, let alone someone else to see it, right?

[40:11] They had concerns that there were inappropriate images on there, and they

[40:13] were right. There were inappropriate images on there. Fortunately, that

[40:17] public records request got pushed through before I had to disclose any of

[40:21] those um potential issues. But, I use this as an

[40:24] extreme example of a thing that actually happens, right? If you use your personal

[40:29] device to talk about city business, your personal device has public records on it

[40:33] that can be requested, and you would have to turn them over. Does that mean

[40:37] the only way is a baggy full of cell phones? Not necessarily, but you would

[40:41] have to turn those over to the clerk who's processing the public records

[40:45] request. If you don't, the city could get sued for violating the um

[40:50] public records law, and that's bad. But, it's even worse. You could be sued

[40:53] individually because you're the the um official and the records custodian for

[40:58] your own records that hasn't done it. And what that court process is called

[41:02] when someone files it and says, "You need to give me those records." It's

[41:06] actually called a writ of mandamus, and it is essentially an order by the court

[41:10] that the government do something. And if you then don't listen to that order, and

[41:15] then we should go, "No, it's my personal phone. I'm not giving you anything

[41:17] that's on it." Well, that's contempt. And that can be jail time and serious

[41:22] fines. So, we don't play around with it, right?

[41:25] We want to keep our personal devices personal. And our work devices work. If

[41:29] people are using your personal devices to talk about city business, redirect

[41:33] them to your official email accounts. That way you have a record of it. Um if

[41:38] you are you can use your phone if it syncs with the city's official um

[41:44] communication channels, right? And so, if you have like um [clears throat]

[41:48] Do you guys have email that you guys can log in separately? Uh you could have an

[41:52] app for that on your phone, that'd be fine. Use the app. That way there's a

[41:55] record of it, it's being retained, and it can easily be found by

[41:58] um by city hall without having to ask you to screenshot a bunch of text

[42:02] messages, right? So, it's really important to keep that in mind. It will

[42:06] make everyone's life easier. Fortunately, there is an exception in

[42:09] the public records law that records that are purely personal

[42:14] are not discloseable under the public records law.

[42:17] But, in order to determine that they're purely personal, an attorney like me is

[42:21] going to have to look at them all. And you don't want to share all of your

[42:24] deepest private secrets with me, either. Um

[42:28] it's just important to recognize that. That is where the line is, and it's not

[42:32] always clear what personal and private is. So, to do separate them, so you have

[42:37] clear um separation in your own mind, right?

[42:40] Your personal Facebook account is not the account I use for city business.

[42:45] Um I don't use Facebook Messenger to talk about city business because there's

[42:48] no record of it, and I don't have a good way to preserve it. And I don't want my

[42:52] friends exchanging official emails right before we talk about the football game

[42:57] on Sunday and how much we're going to have to drink, right? Cuz again, then

[43:01] that all comes to an attorney to decide if it's discloseable if you should get

[43:04] that request. So, again, not trying to scare you. I think the public records

[43:08] law is great, but we just don't want to be ambushed by it. We need to be aware

[43:12] of it so that we can avoid uh avoid trouble in that. And one of the things

[43:16] that that that is that I really want to highlight is is that walking quorum

[43:20] issue where you hit reply all and talk about thing that that uh the mayor

[43:25] shared with you. Uh that creates a public record showing you violated the

[43:30] open records law. Right? I said the open meetings law. So, it's a record that

[43:34] shows you that you broke another law. That's double problematic, right? It's

[43:37] just that easy. So, do be careful. There are specific statutory consequences for

[43:42] violating the open meetings law. Biggest scariest one is it can void the action.

[43:48] So, let's say we didn't post tonight's meeting. You would not be able to take

[43:51] any action whatsoever tonight if it wasn't properly posted. Um and if you

[43:56] did, it would be void upon someone correctly calling out that you didn't

[44:01] pop properly post it. Good news, you did properly posted it. I checked.

[44:06] Um but again, that's like the highest um example. And if someone's like if it's a

[44:11] controversial decision and someone doesn't like it, it's really low-hanging

[44:14] fruit to uh challenge it under the Open Meetings Law. Cuz then I just undid the

[44:19] thing that you didn't like. So be careful about that. There's also

[44:23] individual fines. Um, it's three three between $25 and $30

[44:29] for each violation that is your fine individually as a person.

[44:34] The city by law cannot reimburse you for that. No way it's covered by insurance.

[44:38] Do you have a fine? So you it's like yeah, it's standard bucks. It's bad, but

[44:43] that's like a bad parking ticket, right? Um, there's also potential for

[44:47] attorney's fees in there which all of a sudden it's like oh, that's going to

[44:51] equal a thousand times, right? That's like an hour of talking to an attorney.

[44:56] Um, so be careful about that. Um, it is uh a pretty significant penalty. Also,

[45:01] when I find that someone breaks one aspect of the public record, I find that

[45:05] they do it more than once, right? Let's say you never turned over your phone.

[45:09] Each text that is a public record that you didn't turn over is a separate

[45:13] violation. So there's a hundred messages, times that by 300, that's your

[45:17] fine. So it's not it's not as toothless as it might sound at first glance.

[45:23] Um, when we're talking about public records, we are talking about the

[45:28] subject matter of the record, not just um where you store it. So the fact that

[45:34] it's on your official city email doesn't mean it's a public record. If it's an

[45:37] email to your wife saying you're going to be home late, that's not a public

[45:40] record. It's purely personal. Similarly, if it's your personal email

[45:44] and you're talking about how you're going to vote tonight's meeting, it's

[45:48] absolutely a public record regardless of where um it's stored. So that's again

[45:52] really important. And you each as elected officials, appointed officials,

[45:57] uh and and public servants in general have a duty to retain those those

[46:01] records. And if you alter, falsify, destroy, or conceal those public

[46:05] records, uh there's it's class H felony.

[46:09] So, do not the old adage uh the cover-up is worse than the crime. Please do not

[46:14] shred your public records. Um that's that's bad. Um you do also

[46:19] have a records retention um or obligation under uh state law and under

[46:23] your ordinances. Um

[46:26] your emails, your blogs, your Facebook groups, if you get I know everyone's got

[46:30] them, right? These community groups that you're in, the informal, you just talk

[46:34] about things. If you're in those groups and you're talking about public

[46:37] business, that means that the contents of that Facebook group are at least in

[46:42] part public records. And all of a sudden this private community group is now a

[46:46] public community group. So, be careful about that. And that there's a um

[46:51] Attorney General opinion right on that on that point. So, be cautious.

[46:57] All right, that's what I wanted to say about open government uh and whether

[47:01] we're talking about public records or open meetings. Aside from scaring you a

[47:05] little bit, any thoughts, questions? >> Well, it sounds like on your email you

[47:09] should have a disclaimer so do not reply all and maybe informational only.

[47:14] » I I I like that. You either you One of the things I've done is yes, I've

[47:18] seen just don't hit reply all. Do not hit reply all. Or reminder do not hit

[47:22] reply all. Another thing I've seen is people put the council members in at the

[47:27] BCC, then you can't hit reply all. It won't let you or it will just go back to

[47:31] the sender because you're BCC. That also works. It kind of just forces someone to

[47:35] then go in and add everyone individually, which will usually mean,

[47:40] "Oh wait, I shouldn't do that. Public meeting right violation." But yeah, I do

[47:44] like that disclaimer, especially if someone's like, "Hey,

[47:47] let's let's say you wanted to pass out this agenda, right? My packet cuz I gave

[47:51] it to you on Friday. You could have sent it to the council and said, "Here's the

[47:54] packet for Monday so So, can look at it in advance. Do not hit reply all the

[47:57] comments about it, right? And

[48:00] that's how we could do it. One-way receipt of information rather than a

[48:04] discussion. You can do that, yeah.

[48:08] Other questions? All right, let's dive into some of your

[48:12] ordinances, right? I'm going to start with committees.

[48:15] Um and I I just pulled your ordinances straight up, 2.08.040,

[48:19] right? At the organizational meeting, the mayor

[48:23] shall appoint three aldermen to each of the following committees. There they

[48:27] are. So, now there's three of you on each one of these committees, which

[48:30] means any two of you can decide the business of those committees. That's a

[48:35] really small walking uh walk um sorry um negative quorum.

[48:40] So, just be careful about that. It also is the mayor shall appoint, which means

[48:43] the mayor gets to pick um whether you like it or not, the ordinances say

[48:48] that's who it is. And there's no appeal process, no challenge, you just

[48:53] it's just how it works. Um

[48:55] then there are specific duties for each of those committees.

[49:00] It's important that each committee understands its scope and doesn't step

[49:04] over the scope of their committee. Um one of the committees I work with the

[49:09] most often is is the personnel committee, right? Cuz they're

[49:12] making employment decisions. And they also are hiring new new

[49:18] candidates, and sometimes they are terminating candidates. But they are not

[49:24] replacing the administration of the city, right? We have employees and

[49:29] specific elected officials that do the boots-on-the-ground work. The personnel

[49:33] committee is in oversight of that work. So, for instance, the personnel

[49:40] committee would review um an employment handbook. And then if there were changes

[49:45] made, made recommendations to the council, and then the council would

[49:48] approve it, right? Big-picture governance stuff in terms of the

[49:51] personnel committee. Then in certain cases, yeah, the

[49:54] personnel committee is going to be the hiring committee for that position or be

[49:58] part of the hiring process. And by according to that handbook, there are

[50:03] certain times when the personnel committee is the

[50:06] the committee that votes on whether or not someone's going to keep your job

[50:09] their job. And that's tough. It's a hard place to

[50:12] be. But that's that's a specific job.

[50:16] One of the things that can get blurry quick

[50:21] is let's say you're on the public works committee and someone in the public

[50:25] works department isn't doing their job. Is that public works problem or is that

[50:30] a personnel committee problem?

[50:34] See, it's gray. The answer to that is it starts with the the top employee in

[50:39] public works. And if that person is the subject of the

[50:43] complaint, then it could rightfully go either to

[50:46] the chair of the public works committee or the personnel committee.

[50:50] But the public works committee chair, when

[50:53] they get that complaint, should turn it over to personnel.

[50:57] Cuz personnel has to be the one to implement. There may be opportunities

[51:01] for the to get information from members of the public works cuz maybe there's a

[51:05] you know, a whole thing that's going on that's really you know, about

[51:10] how public works operates. That can be appropriate. But at the end of the day,

[51:14] it is personnel that's going to do the employment aspects of that.

[51:18] Similarly, the personnel committee doesn't just

[51:21] take up every single complaint that involves an employee because everything

[51:24] involves an employee, right? That's just how it works. Someone is hired to do

[51:28] everything. Um

[51:31] then you the you similarly and the personnel committee have to recognize,

[51:34] well, wait. Has this gotten to us yet? Or or should this be handled at a lower

[51:39] level? Or is this not really a personnel complaint, it's a structural complaint

[51:43] about how we organize part of our city. Structural complaint

[51:48] goes right back to that committee, right? The proper committee, finance,

[51:51] public safety, public works. So that the they can deal with the

[51:55] systemic problem. Uh it's it is your obligation to keep

[51:59] them straight. Sometimes you may have to have a a meeting to simply decide that

[52:04] this is not our meeting, right? It's like we meet we met, this isn't us. Um

[52:09] and it it moves on. But that's part of why I was really emphasizing the need to

[52:13] get the complaint to the employee overseeing that work as soon as possible

[52:19] so that they can funnel it to the correct person. A lot of times what will

[52:23] happen if if the system's working properly is the the head of that of that

[52:28] department will um decide yes, this is going to be high stakes and I'm going to

[52:32] need to make a recommendation of of termination to the personnel committee.

[52:36] They contact the chair of the personnel committee and they copy

[52:40] the chair of their department so that they know what's going on.

[52:44] The um the

[52:46] specific committee isn't getting involved, but they now know that this is

[52:50] going to have a ripple effect on your committee, right? That's the ideal way

[52:53] to resolve it. In practice, what happens is the chair uh or anyone else on the on

[52:59] the specific committee is going to get really excited about it. Oh, wow, this

[53:04] is happening in the department I oversee, my committee, I need to get

[53:07] involved in that. That's a perfect example where bias can

[53:10] creep in, right? It needs to go to personnel because personnel has that

[53:15] general oversight over employment matters. If it goes through a public

[53:19] works debate first, all of a sudden those three council members that are in

[53:23] that committee have probably predetermined their answer by the time

[53:26] it gets up to the council. Not to mention, it's now two meetings instead

[53:30] of one, which slows everything down. Um so again, that's important to

[53:35] understand. The structure is still a governance structure, right? It's the

[53:39] business of the council that's is done by committees so that you can really get

[53:44] down and dirty in specific areas. But, out That still doesn't mean that

[53:50] you are the factor running that department. And again, lines get blurred

[53:56] very quickly. But, I like to think of it as you're overseeing the head of your

[54:00] department. And if that person isn't doing their job, then you hold them

[54:03] accountable with a performance evaluation. That you don't you might do

[54:07] the initial performance evaluation of the head of but you're not going to do

[54:10] the final or any decision, right? That arises from

[54:14] that. That's going to personnel. So, you also have a recreation

[54:19] committee, which is different than all your other committees. And so, it's

[54:22] important to note that that is a thing that exists. And you have chosen to

[54:25] allow it to be four members of the committee. First of all, why four,

[54:29] right? You're begging for a tie. And they shall be appointed by the mayor

[54:34] and approved by the common council. They have to be residents, but they don't

[54:37] have to all be council members, right? One alder shall be on the committee.

[54:41] Everyone else can be community members. Notice that this is very different than

[54:44] every other structure I just set up. Do the people from the public who have

[54:48] signed on to that committee know that they are signing on to a public

[54:52] committee that subjects them to public records requests, open meetings laws?

[54:56] Has someone invited them to a meeting like this, right? It's easier

[55:01] to say yes than to really recognize what you're saying yes to. So, I I put that

[55:05] as a caution. I know that there's some discussion about where where things are

[55:09] going to go with respective rep. But, ultimately, I just wanted to

[55:13] identify it as as an outlier. It's different than everything else. Doesn't

[55:17] necessarily mean that's bad, but it does mean you have to be aware of it.

[55:21] In the policy, it says that committee or say in the ordinance, it says that

[55:27] you must make a committee report at each regularly scheduled council meeting.

[55:33] That's what the ordinance is saying. So, yes, at every meeting, you'll chair of

[55:36] this committee, all right, is there is there a report?

[55:41] But, if you read it, I put it in italics, so you can all see it on page

[55:45] five here. Submit an oral or written report. Which means you do not have to

[55:51] submit the report um verbally. You don't have to read everything that was done,

[55:56] you don't have to say everything that was said. You just can say

[56:00] the written report says and all, just drawing your attention to, "Hey, we just

[56:03] had a vote on this and the basketball team will be playing on May 15th."

[56:07] Right? Real short and simple. What is the thing they need to know? Because the

[56:10] report is the the real document that says what the committee

[56:14] was doing. And the report probably looks a lot like the minutes of that committee

[56:18] meeting um

[56:20] it meetings will start and will continue to

[56:23] be long if every committee person reads out everything that was discussed

[56:28] at the committee. Here's why. You set up a committee to do all of that.

[56:32] And if you have that then report to the entire body in detail, you haven't

[56:36] benefited from the efficiency that the committee system can bring to you. You

[56:41] intentionally, by forming committees, said, "We're going to delegate that to

[56:44] them." Now, we want oversight as a body, that's why we have a

[56:49] written report. But, if no alder has a question on the

[56:52] written report, it doesn't have to be a discussion item at the meeting. You can

[56:56] just say Any questions? No questions? Okay, we'll

[56:59] move on. And again, that's just a way of running

[57:03] an efficient meeting. And if people are are hesitant to say, "Well, people want

[57:08] to know what's going on." I would say they can know, right? We've got the

[57:12] committee report and they could have been at the committee meeting.

[57:16] There were plenty of opportunities for people to hear.

[57:19] Um you have to balance that with the efficiency that would come from um the

[57:23] meetings being longer uh if you do that. Um

[57:28] and then you'll notice that the the ordinance on the agenda does say

[57:32] uh will always be reports of committees and officials." Yeah, reports. That

[57:36] could be oral or written. You would satisfy your ordinances with written

[57:40] reports and not talking about it at all. In the balance is probably the ideal way

[57:45] way to do it. So, I do not think that they have to be read aloud.

[57:51] Questions about committees cuz I I know how important committees can be to

[57:55] running.

[57:58] » Well, I remember that I knew it was an annual

[58:01] meeting where the appointments I had were questioned and switched around

[58:06] because >> Appointments for committees?

[58:08] » Yeah, okay. Because the council as a whole has to approve them.

[58:13] So, that is you know, just as because I appoint people or any mayor appoints

[58:19] people, that isn't necessarily where people end up if they want to move

[58:23] around. >> Where in the ordinances does it say it's

[58:26] approved by the council? It says it for record.

[58:31] » I'm pretty sure that it's part of the law.

[58:33] I don't have the ordinance with >> I I copied it right out of the

[58:36] ordinance. So,

[58:39] it could be that that is a long-standing practice, but it might not actually be

[58:43] what your ordinance is requiring. Just something to kind of flag as a,

[58:47] "Hey, are we doing this cuz we have to or because that's the way we've

[58:50] historically done it and we've tried to reach consensus?"

[58:53] Sometimes disagreement might be okay. >> And maybe that's the way the resolution

[58:57] was written. >> It could be, yeah. I would I would look

[58:59] at the ordinance and I'd look at the resolution and I'd I'd decide what we

[59:02] have to do versus what we are choosing to do.

[59:05] » Okay. >> One of the big things I hate as a lawyer

[59:07] is when people say, "That's the way we've always done it." It's a terrible

[59:10] reason to do anything, right? If it's this is tradition, okay, tradition for

[59:15] what? Like, what why is this a tradition? Ask yourself the why and the

[59:19] answer to the why is then probably a much better reason than just because

[59:22] it's what we do. Um it's just very difficult to govern

[59:27] based on unspoken tradition, right? We want to rely on the structure given to

[59:32] us by our ordinances, by our policy manuals, etc.

[59:37] A question. Are there questions about committees?

[59:40] » So, what you're saying with two of our committee reports is basically the

[59:43] minutes are the committee reports. So, you can just say, are there any

[59:46] questions regarding the minutes? And then, if there's action,

[59:50] that's what the committee chairperson can present with

[59:53] the action taken from >> Yes, you don't have to

[59:58] you can I would say you base the report on the minutes. You may add a little

[1:00:01] extra commentary just so that people understand what's going on a little bit

[1:00:05] more cuz the minutes are really just, you know, there was this action taken,

[1:00:09] there was a vote, yay, yes, it passed. That's all that a minute has to be. It's

[1:00:14] minutes, right? Minute. Um but

[1:00:18] you could add a little more information as background to the to the report.

[1:00:21] Then, when you come to the council, yeah, it don't have to be, "Hey, my

[1:00:24] report says it all, but I need action from the council on this agenda item."

[1:00:29] And then, advance that. And then, discuss that that agenda item,

[1:00:33] right? That's it's the fully appropriate thing to do.

[1:00:38] Are there questions about committees? >> Just comment about minutes, they're only

[1:00:43] as good as the person taking them. >> That's absolutely true, and I have seen

[1:00:46] some terrible minutes in my day. Which, by the way, I've seen them

[1:00:50] terrible in both directions. I've seen people say, "Wait, did this pass? How

[1:00:53] many people were there? How many people voted?" Hey, it's too too little. I've

[1:00:57] also seen the bad minutes that are too much, and it's like a transcription of a

[1:01:01] court reporter. I was like, "How did you type that fast?" So, really minutes are

[1:01:06] who's there, what actions did we take, right? And cuz

[1:01:10] if the the agenda item says discussion on whatever the topic is, well, then

[1:01:14] then we know that that was discussed. We don't need to know what every person

[1:01:17] thinks about it. We need to go, "Okay, the the was or the consensus was

[1:01:23] this is and and again putting too much in just actually confuses the issue is

[1:01:29] then people are like okay so what what happened?

[1:01:32] Trying to keep the the difference between the minutes and the

[1:01:34] transcription and frankly that's why a lot of people are recording everything

[1:01:37] now. Makes it a lot easier to have simple minutes.

[1:01:42] Yeah. >> Um with our question

[1:01:46] um meetings we have the department heads give their project updates

[1:01:51] » [clears throat] >> and how much of that information needs

[1:01:54] to be detailed?

[1:01:56] » It's a good question and I would say I would function a lot like the committees

[1:02:00] that we were just discussing. I think what needs to be reported out verbally

[1:02:04] maybe less than what is is provided perhaps in in a documentation.

[1:02:09] Um and it part of it is is everyone have

[1:02:12] something you know a project going on at the same time.

[1:02:15] Uh sometimes there often is like someone's doing something right? But is

[1:02:19] it important enough that the commission needs to know about?

[1:02:22] Uh I find that a lot of time when you just kind of a standing agenda item of

[1:02:25] report people tend [laughter] to use that to cram in a lot of stuff that is

[1:02:29] not really a report it's more of a discussion at that point in which case

[1:02:33] it should have been a separate agenda item. So um I do think that that I would

[1:02:38] say there should be some level of reporting out or certain actions that

[1:02:41] might need to be taken but it doesn't have to be a comprehensive summary of of

[1:02:46] what they're doing. If it's a minute or two that's not so bad but I have seen

[1:02:50] reports that get really long and I have open meeting law questions about long

[1:02:54] reports like that. If it was important enough that we're talking about it for

[1:02:56] 20 minutes why isn't it an agenda item? >> Question could they like the department

[1:03:02] head submit their report in advance?

[1:03:06] Like when they get their packet for the meeting like you could read it all and

[1:03:09] then at the meeting the department head could give their

[1:03:13] summary. >> Absolutely which is

[1:03:15] pretty much what the what the committees are asked to do.

[1:03:18] » Yeah. >> I think that's efficient. Um certainly

[1:03:20] something for the commission to consider because again,

[1:03:22] we've got a lot of things going on. Let's get to the items we need to know

[1:03:26] what's at council level for us to discuss, what's the background that we

[1:03:30] might need for future decisions. Keep it efficient and I think reports are a good

[1:03:33] way to do that.

[1:03:37] Excellent question. I'm hoping that that you're already getting Oh, let's get

[1:03:40] let's get efficient in here cuz that's that's what it's about, right? Um to

[1:03:44] let's talk about parliamentary procedures and running an efficient and

[1:03:47] effective meeting. I set that up intentionally as my transition. Um

[1:03:52] Robert's Rules of Order are what you've adopted to generally govern

[1:03:57] how meetings are run. I usually pull out my Robert's Rules and

[1:04:01] set it on the table rather dramatically. It's about this thick. Um

[1:04:05] it it there's a lot in there, a lot in there. And half of it is just for like

[1:04:09] giant bodies like Congress kind of level. But there's still a good amount,

[1:04:13] 3 400 pages of how to run a meeting with parliamentary procedure.

[1:04:18] I don't think you need to be an expert on that book, but I do think you need to

[1:04:22] understand the basic principles. So, without Robert's Rules in front of me,

[1:04:27] and at a very high level, what is parliamentary procedure? It's simply the

[1:04:31] the way in which you call for discussion, debate, vote, and move on.

[1:04:37] But it's also how you might challenge that discussion. So, I'm going to give

[1:04:40] you an example. In order for anyone to to to do anything, right? To have the

[1:04:46] body do anything, you have to make a motion.

[1:04:49] There is an infinite amount of motions. You can motion for anything.

[1:04:54] But certain things are are certain kinds of actions. Um so, for instance, let's

[1:04:58] say I I mo- motion to approve the minutes as presented. Excellent. You've

[1:05:04] just asked for something to be done. You need to have a second.

[1:05:07] If you don't have a second, goes away. It fails for want of a

[1:05:11] second. That's the formal term for it, which means and you might be going,

[1:05:15] "Well, if we just uh fail to to approve minutes,

[1:05:20] how those minutes ever going to get approved?" Well, they're going to stay

[1:05:23] on the agenda for next month. It it went away, but you still have to approve

[1:05:26] them. So, we're going to have to deal with it in the future. Um

[1:05:31] Most of the time there'll be a motion, there'll be a second, then it'll be any

[1:05:34] discussion. You can discuss about the item. If there's already a motion on the

[1:05:39] table, sometimes I've seen um

[1:05:42] the governmental bodies that literally will say, "Here's the motion we're

[1:05:45] looking for because this is the thing we need the council to do."

[1:05:49] And if the then someone makes that motion, right?

[1:05:52] Traditionally, the chair is uh the mayor, and the chair doesn't make the

[1:05:58] motions. It's traditional, it's not necessarily the law. So, if everyone

[1:06:04] just stares at the mayor that call for the motion, that might that is not the

[1:06:07] way it should be done. So, someone else makes the motion, second, discussion.

[1:06:12] Let's say that this is a divisive issue and we got a we've got a 3-3 tie, and

[1:06:17] the mayor's staying out of it because the mayor knows the mayor has to break

[1:06:19] this tie, right? Um how do we how do we break tie? Well, eventually, it's going

[1:06:25] to be a motion to close debate, call the vote, right?

[1:06:28] Um and a motion to close debate requires um 2/3

[1:06:32] vote. So, it allows for someone to talk uh about and if they're in the the

[1:06:39] minority position, but at some point, the majority can say, "I'm I'm calling

[1:06:45] the question." Or moving to close debate. They all mean kind of the same

[1:06:48] thing. It basically means, "Can we vote on this?"

[1:06:51] Um and if that motion passes, then you proceed to the vote.

[1:06:55] Otherwise, you kind of let them the conversation die down naturally, and

[1:06:59] then you would call for the vote. Um it is important that you recognize that um

[1:07:06] once you're discussing a motion, you cannot go outside the scope of that

[1:07:09] motion. You can't start talking about something else and coming back to it.

[1:07:12] You got to stay on the action item in front of us. If the consensus is that

[1:07:18] the motion is going to fail, right? There's going to be a

[1:07:21] vote and it's not going to pass. Then that motion fails. There could be a

[1:07:26] motion that is made after that that's something different.

[1:07:30] And related to it, right? Then you can make the motion and maybe

[1:07:34] that one passes, right? So then you voted down one action and voted up the

[1:07:39] other action. That's kind of how it works. But the big reason I talk about

[1:07:43] parliamentary procedures is because it provides structure to the meeting so

[1:07:47] that when things get potentially heated, they don't get to the point where

[1:07:52] everyone's just screaming and talking and no one's um

[1:07:56] uh getting to the message, right? Getting

[1:07:59] to the point. Because there is a point at which there's no reason for

[1:08:02] additional debate, right? At this point, everyone knows that person doesn't agree

[1:08:07] with us. So let's call the vote and move on.

[1:08:10] Once the action item is approved, it should be done.

[1:08:16] And even if you voted against the motion,

[1:08:20] you should stand behind the motion. Now, what does that mean? That's not to

[1:08:24] say that you have to say that you agree with it, but it does mean you have to

[1:08:27] say the council's decided that issue, right? I wasn't in favor of it, but now

[1:08:32] that is the rule of the city. It's really important because I've seen

[1:08:37] a lot of governing bodies that I'll call it um holding onto a grudge, right? That

[1:08:43] agenda item that didn't pass that was really important to you and it just it

[1:08:46] just sticks with you. And it sticks with you as a as a potential

[1:08:51] uh hostility. You can't move on to govern the city if

[1:08:56] you're still holding onto old business. For one thing, it's done with. You don't

[1:09:00] even have the votes to bring it back up if you wanted to. But then secondly, it

[1:09:04] goes against the principle of governance governing that we're talking about here,

[1:09:07] which is we debate, we discuss, we come to an answer, and then that's what the

[1:09:11] council says. You can say I disagree with it, but it's it's the official

[1:09:15] stance of the council. In very rare situations, there is the

[1:09:20] opportunity to reopen the discussion, but they are very very slim. Um one of

[1:09:26] them, for example, is if there was a mistake in the You can before the end of

[1:09:31] the meeting, you could call it again to change the vote. Every so often I get

[1:09:34] that question. But you can't reconsider the vote the

[1:09:39] next meeting. You just can't unless you have uh a specific basis for doing so as

[1:09:45] outlined in Robert's Rules. Because Robert's Rules is designed to be

[1:09:48] efficient way of coming to a resolution. Not to bind you forever. There are ways

[1:09:53] to get through it. But it does bring finality. And I think finality is a

[1:09:57] really important concept in in democratic governance, because you

[1:10:03] you have to agree to disagree sometimes and move on.

[1:10:07] The end move on, I think, is missing a lot for

[1:10:11] the history of political politics, right? People have a hard time with that

[1:10:15] one forever. But it is necessary in order for the

[1:10:21] machine to work, the machine that is our our system of governance here in the

[1:10:25] city. Um so let's talk about the procedures in

[1:10:30] your own ordinances about running your meetings.

[1:10:34] As we've got

[1:10:36] um the we've got a whole bunch of things on pages five and six that are straight

[1:10:40] out of your ordinances, right? The first bullet point is all about

[1:10:44] public appearances, but it also is

[1:10:48] um discussion of the council itself, right?

[1:10:52] When two or more members simultaneously seek recognition, the presiding officer

[1:10:56] shall name the member who is to speak first. It's common sense, but that's

[1:11:00] actually the ordinance, right? If two people chime in, you don't the mayor

[1:11:04] gets to say first, second, right? And then they get to talk, and then they get

[1:11:08] to talk. A lot of times we're like, "Hey, we

[1:11:10] don't do that, right? We just talk to each other." That's fine. Until it's not

[1:11:14] fine, right? And so what this is is giving you the tools to when it's not

[1:11:18] working for the mayor or the presiding officer, cuz if the mayor's gone,

[1:11:22] there's a different person who'd step in, and they would just say, "Okay.

[1:11:26] That's how this is going to go, right?" Um same thing with the commission, by

[1:11:30] the way, it's not council exclusive. Um there is a presiding officer for the

[1:11:34] commission as well. When the member is called to order, he

[1:11:39] shall take his seat and shall not proceed until the question of order is

[1:11:42] decided. That's a hint for if you don't get the message, you need to sit down

[1:11:47] and be quiet now, right? It's fancy lawyer words, and that's what it means.

[1:11:51] Then when it's made seconded, it shall be stated by the mayor or read by the

[1:11:55] clerk treasurer, right? That's again, motion second, what is the question?

[1:12:00] Then any discussion? But that's fine. So what I just said was basic Robert's

[1:12:04] Rules, but it's actually what your ordinance has adopted, and that's not a

[1:12:08] coincidence, right? They they've adopted traditional Robert's Rules parliamentary

[1:12:13] procedure. Five. Okay, so now we're under

[1:12:16] discussion. It says, "No action shall be in order except This is basically

[1:12:20] whittling the field of possible Robert's Rules motions from infinite to A through

[1:12:25] G. Those are the only motions you can make during the discussion, and some of

[1:12:29] them um are more extreme than others. One of the

[1:12:33] things I like to say uh is clarifying what a motion to lay on the table is.

[1:12:38] Everyone thinks to table something is to put it on the next agenda for the next

[1:12:42] meeting. That's not what it means. That's what D, to postpone to a certain

[1:12:46] date, is. So the motion to put it on the table is

[1:12:50] a totally different thing. It requires you to take it up in a certain amount of

[1:12:53] time and with a certain amount of thing. Laying on the table is not the motion

[1:12:56] you want. You want postpone to a certain day. That's just one of my little

[1:13:00] Robert's Rules pet peeves. Um but notice postpone to certain day is

[1:13:04] different than postpone indefinitely. Right? If you If it's I want to talk

[1:13:08] about it at the next meeting, I propose I recommend postponing this motion until

[1:13:12] the next meeting on name of the day. Or you can make the motion of a postpone

[1:13:16] this indefinitely. I don't want to see it again until, right? Something

[1:13:20] happens. Which could be in a week, could be in a

[1:13:24] month, or it could be never. And they even have established which

[1:13:29] motions take precedence over the other in case you get motions on motions on

[1:13:32] motions. You go in order top down. We're getting a little in the weeds on that

[1:13:36] now.

[1:13:38] If you want debate to end, but it says right there, "A move the previous

[1:13:42] question." It's calling the question, moving the previous question, also the

[1:13:46] same thing as close debate. There's like three different words for the same

[1:13:49] thing. I would say you have the most old-fashioned one with move.

[1:13:53] Uh remove the previous question. But anyway, it says

[1:13:56] "Then the presiding officer announces the question. And then if a majority

[1:13:59] members vote in the affirmative, the main question shall be taken without

[1:14:03] further debate." The effect is such end to the debate,

[1:14:06] bring it to a vote. You first deal with the amendments, blah blah blah, and then

[1:14:10] you get it done. So, there is a process to bring the

[1:14:13] debate to a close. Um debates should not be ongoing and

[1:14:17] frankly sometimes it can't be until it reaches its logical starting stopping

[1:14:21] point. Cuz I can see it, right? Two aldermen or two commission members that

[1:14:25] are just passionately disagreeing and they will take all night to express

[1:14:30] their passionate disagreement. That's the motion. Call the previous

[1:14:33] question, call the question, motion to close debate, whatever it is. And then

[1:14:38] if that motion passes, we go to the final vote. Don't forget

[1:14:42] though that motion to close debate is its own motion. So, it needs a motion,

[1:14:45] it needs a second, it needs a vote. You cannot debate a motion to close

[1:14:50] debate. One fact, right? Cuz then you'd have a motion to close the debate of

[1:14:55] motion to close the debate. So, you can't do that infinitely.

[1:14:59] You can just call it, no discussion, does it pass or does it fail? If it

[1:15:02] fails, back to the discussion. If it passes, on to the vote. And those votes

[1:15:08] can change, right? As as the night grows long and the sun sets, we want I can

[1:15:13] easily see someone flipping their vote to move on.

[1:15:16] Including, by the way, the people that are still debating. They might be like,

[1:15:18] all right, I'm done, you too. All right.

[1:15:21] » What's your >> Yes.

[1:15:22] » So, you can't make a motion to make the big debate or end the

[1:15:27] the discussion and the debate and proceed to vote.

[1:15:30] » You can't. Yeah, that's called move the previous question. Yeah.

[1:15:34] So, that's number six. What you can't do, so you get a motion to close the

[1:15:38] debate, all right? That's on the table, get a second.

[1:15:41] You can't discuss it. Can't debate the motion to close the

[1:15:44] debate. >> What if the action is taken to close the

[1:15:47] discussion and proceed to vote? >> Yeah, you're good.

[1:15:50] » You don't have to put that extra step. >> No, you don't have to. I'm saying you

[1:15:55] can't. So, we're saying the same thing. A motion to close the debate, you can't

[1:15:59] debate whether or not we're going to talk about about closing it. Which I

[1:16:02] absolutely have seen happen. We can't stop talking about this. This is too

[1:16:06] important, right? >> I was hearing an extra vote at the end

[1:16:10] of the debate. >> Yeah.

[1:16:11] » Another motion has to be made to proceed to vote.

[1:16:14] » See the picture of this taking its own tail? That's what it is, right? We can't

[1:16:17] just keep debating whether we should still be debating this. It's a It's

[1:16:20] designed to be a quick motion to bring it to a resolution. And if the if the

[1:16:25] debate isn't done, then the motion fails, onward you go. But that's a

[1:16:28] motion I think is probably one of the most useful motions, cuz we've all been

[1:16:32] at that meeting where you're like, are we

[1:16:34] still talking about this, right? And it's not representing a majority of the

[1:16:38] commission of the council. Notice you have a um

[1:16:43] a requirement that a roll call vote be taken on every question. Robert's Rules

[1:16:47] does not require roll call vote for every question, but your ordinance does,

[1:16:49] which means every time you vote, you got to go name the person and name the way

[1:16:53] they vote. Nothing wrong with that. It's just a formality that that you've made

[1:16:57] you've chosen. Um in other um if it weren't for this

[1:17:01] ordinance, you could do certain things by consensus. Um you can One example of

[1:17:05] you have to have a roll call vote by law would be going into closed session.

[1:17:10] You're going to go into closed session, you must do a roll call vote because if

[1:17:13] you go into an improper closed session and you voted for it, you can be sued.

[1:17:17] So, they need to know who you are. Um most of the time though it's not it's

[1:17:22] not necessary. It's just a formality that you know, people like so that if

[1:17:25] there's controversy, they know what people stand on the issues.

[1:17:28] » But what about the question? >> Yeah.

[1:17:29] » Does that go for all committees, resolutions, and so on?

[1:17:33] » That's a good question. I do believe technically this is just about the

[1:17:36] council, but I do think there is a It wouldn't be the worst framework to

[1:17:42] use for for committees as well. But if you normally don't collect the eyes and

[1:17:46] nays, right, the votes, you don't necessarily have to. But the rule about

[1:17:50] if you're going to go into closed session,

[1:17:52] uh that always has to be a roll call by law.

[1:17:55] Good question. >> Our best practice is all the time it's a

[1:17:58] roll call vote for a resolution. >> Mhm.

[1:18:00] » Or for something finance. >> Yeah. Or and you should add to go into

[1:18:05] closed session, too, because the law would require that.

[1:18:07] » Right. That would but in the day and day committee any votes that

[1:18:10] are at the level we don't do a roll call vote.

[1:18:13] » I I think at the committee level that's okay, but the council

[1:18:16] should per this ordinance >> Council level, too.

[1:18:18] » Well, >> we don't when we approve minutes of

[1:18:20] previous meetings, we don't take a roll call vote. We

[1:18:24] the mayor calls for for the eye and everybody

[1:18:27] » Then I would recommend changing your ordinance because I don't think there's

[1:18:30] a problem with doing that. That's the way most people do it. But this says a

[1:18:33] roll call shall be taken on every question. So, if you're like, "Well, we

[1:18:37] don't want to need to do that." Right? You could say, "Well, just strike it." I

[1:18:40] mean, just take it out entirely. Then, the law and Robert's Rules would take an

[1:18:44] effect. Cuz you're right, financing, you need to know votes, resolutions. That's

[1:18:47] why they're more formal and and close sessions. So, like I said, the the law

[1:18:51] doesn't require you to Your own ordinances require you to, and you

[1:18:54] control the ordinances. So, if you don't like it, you vote to change it. Just

[1:18:57] make sure you change it with a roll call vote cuz it said you had to. One last

[1:19:01] time. Um and then, a motion to adjourn is

[1:19:04] always in order, which means that if this is you just always do it, right? Um

[1:19:08] and once you have a motion to adjourn, uh you if it passes, you all get to go

[1:19:12] home. So, it's an extreme version of a motion to close debate. Um but notice it

[1:19:17] is the first thing on the order of priorities, which means it controls over

[1:19:21] everything. That avoids the filibuster of, "Oh, no, we're going to stay here

[1:19:25] all night until you do what I want." Nope, we adjourn. See you.

[1:19:29] And then, it's going to be another 24 hours before you can meet cuz you have

[1:19:31] to post the meeting. >> So, you're saying no roll call for

[1:19:33] adjourn. >> You don't You don't have to roll call

[1:19:36] for adjourn. >> say roll call for every question.

[1:19:38] » Oh, sorry. Your ordinance says yes, you would technically have to do so. But if

[1:19:42] you got rid of that, the law doesn't require you to. Yeah.

[1:19:46] So, again, it's it's a formality, right? And I'm sure when these were written,

[1:19:49] there was a perfectly good reason why they wanted that, right? There's no

[1:19:52] video, they wanted a little more documentation, but the law doesn't

[1:19:56] require that. So, you can get some efficiency there if you'd like.

[1:20:00] Um all right. Notice I talked about reconsideration.

[1:20:03] There's a reason for that. It's called council. That's basically um where you

[1:20:08] want a more formal vote. I want to talk a little bit about the

[1:20:11] sergeants-at-arms and disorderly conduct, right? Um

[1:20:14] if you're debating something passionately and there's a bunch of

[1:20:17] people in the office that in the audience, which

[1:20:20] uh not to pick on you guys, but but they have a a and you know, they really don't

[1:20:25] want you to pass this thing, right? And they just start interrupting you while

[1:20:28] you're while you're trying to to Um

[1:20:32] the chair usually knocks their theoretical gavel. We don't have gavels,

[1:20:36] right? Order, right? I'm calling for order.

[1:20:40] Um if that doesn't work, you can name the offender, which is

[1:20:45] order, I instruct you to sit down and stop interrupting the meeting.

[1:20:49] They don't stop. You're out of order. What does it say?

[1:20:53] You can do in extreme, the mayor can cause the room room to be cleared, which

[1:20:58] is you need to leave now. If they don't,

[1:21:02] the mayor or presiding officer may order the chief of police to come and take

[1:21:08] them into custody. So, Chief Field, that's you. You're going to have to do

[1:21:11] it all personally. Uh-huh. >> [laughter]

[1:21:14] » But in seriousness, you that's the level of authority you have in controlling

[1:21:18] your meetings, right? 99.9% of the time you're not going to have to

[1:21:22] haul someone out, but sometimes you might have to explain to someone that

[1:21:26] you could in order for them to realize I better sit down.

[1:21:30] Um I I It's It's been since COVID since

[1:21:33] I've actually seen anyone arrested. Uh it's a good way to make the front page

[1:21:36] for your city, by the way, if you haul someone out of it. So, be careful about

[1:21:40] it. But then is it's important to know what what the

[1:21:43] framework is so that we can resolve the dispute well before it reaches that

[1:21:47] level. What you can't do, by the way, is throw

[1:21:50] an alder out of your meeting. So, no matter how frustrating you get, you

[1:21:54] can't throw out an alder and you can't throw out a commission member, either.

[1:21:58] They, by law, have the right to be at the meeting. Um if they're being unruly,

[1:22:02] there's a lot of other things you can do to them. Let's go to the back of this

[1:22:05] outline. But you can't kick them out. All right. Questions about how to run

[1:22:11] official meetings, some of that basic parliamentary stuff?

[1:22:16] Yeah. >> So, explain to me stuff like I take

[1:22:19] table something and put it table in a second and pass it. Who can bring it

[1:22:23] back off the table? >> That's why I would recommend not tabling

[1:22:26] it. I would recommend making it a motion.

[1:22:29] » Who's going to bring it back live? >> Right.

[1:22:32] » People that made the motion >> If you table it, only the people that

[1:22:35] made the motion. If you postpone it, then it can be on the regular agenda for

[1:22:39] the next meeting. And that's where I find people use them

[1:22:43] interchangeably. And so, if you're going to lay it on the table, you're going to

[1:22:47] say, "Until this person brings it back up." And you may not actually have

[1:22:51] intended it to give them that level of authority over the issue. That's where I

[1:22:55] think motion to postpone is what most people intend when they make that

[1:22:59] motion, which is let's talk about it next meeting when so-and-so is here.

[1:23:02] That's what I see most common. Good question.

[1:23:07] All right. Let's talk about confidentiality briefly. It's a very

[1:23:10] important thing of what we do, and it's the little opposite of everything we

[1:23:13] were talking about before this, right? Everything else is about how do we do

[1:23:16] this openly without any secrets, right? The people have a right to know.

[1:23:20] There are times where you have a right to do things privately.

[1:23:26] And it is really important that if you're going to go into a closed

[1:23:28] session, that you have a specific reason for doing so, and

[1:23:33] that specific reason is noted on the agenda.

[1:23:35] And that there's a motion to go into closed session, and there's a second,

[1:23:39] and there's a roll call vote, then you go in to the closed session.

[1:23:43] Once you're in the closed session, you need to stay within the discussion noted

[1:23:47] on the agenda. You can't just say, "Ooh, we have a closed session at the next

[1:23:51] meeting. I'm going to throw this in there so that they know." That is a

[1:23:54] violation of the open meetings law. You might be now thinking to yourself,

[1:23:58] "Well, if I turn the camera off, and it's just us, how is anyone going to

[1:24:02] find out that we exceeded the the scope of that closed session?" There is

[1:24:07] two ways. One would be a deposition, right? There's a lawsuit, and a lawyer's

[1:24:12] going to sit you down and under oath say, "Did you talk about this?" And if

[1:24:16] you lie under oath, that comes with the penalty of contempt.

[1:24:19] Um, but the other um way in which this resolves itself is perhaps even a little

[1:24:25] bit snarkier, which is you can sue yourselves.

[1:24:29] I have seen a very big public records case. It was a year and a half ago. Went

[1:24:35] all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and it was an alder suing the

[1:24:38] council for exceeding the limits of closed session and that council member

[1:24:42] won. Why you would sue yourself is a totally

[1:24:45] other question. There was obviously much bigger concerns

[1:24:49] there. But I say that to say your obligation is to regulate

[1:24:54] as a team and you would say if someone's getting outside of scope you'd say

[1:24:57] that's outside the scope. You can also do a motion to close debate to save

[1:25:01] yourself from discussing something that's outside the meeting because again

[1:25:05] each one of you has a separate obligation to comply with that with the

[1:25:10] scope of this closed session. Most of the time a simple reminder gets it done.

[1:25:15] We're not noticed for that. Save it for the next meeting or

[1:25:18] I'll consider for future closed session meeting.

[1:25:22] I people skirt that closed sessions and there's a reason for it, right? The

[1:25:26] public has a right to know. Except in the limited cases when they don't have a

[1:25:29] right to know. And you know, one of the

[1:25:32] obvious examples is this 19.85 sub one sub C to discuss employment matters.

[1:25:38] Closed session. But you have to say which employees you're talking about.

[1:25:42] Not names, but like categories, right? If you're going to talk about

[1:25:47] um uh your department head, right? You

[1:25:50] probably have to say to discuss a department head because it's important

[1:25:54] as opposed to just an employee, right? It shouldn't even necessarily be an

[1:25:58] employee. Maybe the most appropriate thing to do would be to say an hourly

[1:26:01] employee or um

[1:26:03] an employee from this department or a member of the police department,

[1:26:07] something like that. Um but you have to then stay within that

[1:26:11] framework because if you've noticed it's talk about let's use um, a fire

[1:26:15] official, right? Okay, we can talk about that fire official. And sometimes that

[1:26:20] means talking about another employee because maybe they're, you know, having

[1:26:24] a disagreement. But once you start talking about the

[1:26:27] other person and not talking about the first person, you can see that the scope

[1:26:30] of your closed session. It is so much harder in in practice. And I just urge

[1:26:35] you to find that line and stay on the safe side of it because it's not a

[1:26:40] problem until it is, right? And then you call me and you're like, do we have a

[1:26:43] problem here? And I'm like, yeah, we have a problem here. And I can't fix it

[1:26:46] because you already did it, right? So, be cautious on that. Um,

[1:26:51] along the same lines, anything that happens in closed session should stay in

[1:26:55] closed session, period. Don't tell your wife, don't tell your department heads,

[1:26:59] don't tell the committee that you're on, don't tell the citizens that elected

[1:27:03] you. Closed session means no one talks about it except for the people in that

[1:27:07] meeting. The body that's meeting in closed

[1:27:10] session decides if anyone else gets to come to that, right? So, you may have a

[1:27:14] closed session discussion on an employment matter, maybe the department

[1:27:17] head does come to that meeting in order to explain what's going on with their

[1:27:20] employee. That's fine. The governing body decides

[1:27:24] that though. And if the governing body says, "Nope, we're going to need you to

[1:27:26] leave." then they have to leave. And you can discuss it among yourselves. So,

[1:27:31] it's really is important to know that you have that authority over who can be

[1:27:35] here. The only thing you can't do is is kick each other out, as I said. You have

[1:27:39] the the right to be here if you're on that governmental body.

[1:27:42] Um, as a general rule, the public has a

[1:27:45] right to record. They probably wouldn't cuz you're recording automatically, but

[1:27:48] they can record. Uh, they can't record closed session.

[1:27:52] Um, so sometimes when there's a closed session, we encourage people to take all

[1:27:56] their things with them so there isn't, uh, a cell phone in a bag that's still

[1:28:01] recording. I've had that happen, right? Just keep in mind they that

[1:28:07] just like uh, the the default is everything is open. When things are

[1:28:10] closed, they are closed tightly. But there's a difference in closed

[1:28:14] tightly and it's never going to come out.

[1:28:16] Because something that happens in a closed session can come out. How what's

[1:28:20] the most common way? Well, maybe there's a public record that was created that

[1:28:23] discussed what what happened. And that public record might end up being

[1:28:27] published at some point. Another thing that could happen is it could be a

[1:28:30] lawsuit where what you discussed in confident in closed session needs to

[1:28:34] come out. Let's say if you there was closed session you all talked about how

[1:28:37] you didn't want to hire this individual because they were were a man and you

[1:28:40] wanted to have a female input, right? That that statement is discriminatory

[1:28:45] and will get you sued. And they can ask you that in a deposition. Did you say

[1:28:50] that? And you would have to say yes and therefore it's coming out. So, I I want

[1:28:54] to say that that there's a big difference between I can't I can't talk

[1:28:57] about it and it's never going to come out. No one is going to let it out, but

[1:29:01] there are certain mechanisms to force it out. So, don't be too confident in

[1:29:07] closed sessions, right? It's not privileged. You can't say you I don't

[1:29:10] have to talk about that it was closed session. That's not always how it's

[1:29:13] going to work if you get a subpoena. So, just again

[1:29:17] you want to be thoughtful, stay within the confines of closed session, and um

[1:29:22] make sure you recognize that still whatever I say may come back and be read

[1:29:26] in court one day. So, just uh just a good caution.

[1:29:31] This is where I um I I emphasize on under B here. The contents of closed

[1:29:35] session remain confidential until the council determines that they're no

[1:29:38] longer confidential, right? Here's an example, you're going to um

[1:29:42] vote to approve a development, right? It's very very um closed session while

[1:29:47] you're debating and negotiating the terms. Because if it comes out what

[1:29:51] you're doing, then they'll know exactly how much you're willing to pay and you

[1:29:54] lose your ability to negotiate, right? But once the deal is signed, who cares,

[1:29:59] right? Then the need for confidentiality would end.

[1:30:03] Um so, that's just an example of when it may no longer be necessary to keep it

[1:30:09] confidential. There's a a lot of problems with with

[1:30:14] leaking closed session business.

[1:30:17] One, if you the moment someone leaks closed session business, no one else is

[1:30:22] going to trust closed sessions anymore. You might as well do it all in open

[1:30:25] because they're all going to be too afraid to talk openly with each other

[1:30:28] and voice your opinions. It was nothing will erode the trust of the of the board

[1:30:34] and itself than people leaking closed session

[1:30:38] things. Right?

[1:30:41] It also can lead to legal liability, right? There's a catch-all statute for

[1:30:45] misconduct in public office. And if you engage in misconduct in public office,

[1:30:49] that can be a potential felony and that can include publicly disclosing

[1:30:53] sensitive information from a closed session. I'm not saying it's

[1:30:56] automatically a felony, I'm saying it could be. And you don't want to be the

[1:31:01] person that was like, "I didn't think that one was going to be a felony."

[1:31:04] Um it's just it's it is essential. And and

[1:31:08] the other thing about leaking is it can just it can prevent you from doing what

[1:31:11] you're trying to do, right? Well, now that everyone knows that we're

[1:31:14] negotiating with Biggly Wiggly, now it doesn't even matter. We're going to

[1:31:19] have to cancel the deal because it's, you know, our negotiating language has

[1:31:22] been has been blown or the developer didn't want to

[1:31:27] this to come out. Now that it is, they pulled the deal, right? And that's

[1:31:29] that's bad in its own way. Closed sessions are the most common form

[1:31:34] of confidential information that you're going to run into, but it's not the only

[1:31:37] one. Any employment records and information, any medical records of

[1:31:41] employees, those are protected by law from

[1:31:44] disclosure. Most of the time, you as aldermen shouldn't even know it, right?

[1:31:49] It should never even come to you. In the rarest situation where someone's medical

[1:31:54] status is rightfully before yours, you cannot share that information onward.

[1:32:00] Example when it might come into issue is perhaps someone needs to take an

[1:32:03] extended leave of absence for a medical condition and you want to inform the

[1:32:07] board um that that's going to happen, right? That this person's going to be

[1:32:10] out. Okay. >> [clears throat]

[1:32:11] » But now you don't get to share why that person is out, right? That needs to stay

[1:32:15] confidential. And I still think to some extent you might not even need to know

[1:32:18] why they're out. A medical condition might be enough or a family member's

[1:32:22] medical condition may be enough. Um there's also Wisconsin privacy

[1:32:26] statute which basically just says you can't make someone's private business

[1:32:29] public without their permission, you could be sued for that. And that's an

[1:32:33] individual cause of action they have against you. So, uh be careful about

[1:32:37] that, too. If you breach confidentiality, I've

[1:32:40] scared you about class I felony for misconduct in public office, 3 and 1/2

[1:32:44] years, $10,000 fine. Not They're not kidding around with that. The other

[1:32:49] thing to keep in mind about criminal statutes is that the council has no

[1:32:53] legal obligation to defend you from criminal charges. So, you'd be paying

[1:32:58] for your own attorney and you'd be paying your own fines. Um not only would

[1:33:01] the council not do it, but your insurance carrier won't do it if you're

[1:33:04] outside the scope of your official duties, which you probably are if you're

[1:33:08] leaking confidential information, right? Cuz you were not supposed to do that.

[1:33:12] And this this applies to commissions as well and it and it does

[1:33:16] um apply to employees to the extent that they're getting um

[1:33:19] this information and maybe being part of the dissemination of the information. Be

[1:33:23] careful with that. So, the last topics I'm going to go over

[1:33:28] pretty quickly. This is the scary stuff, right? That I don't like to emphasize in

[1:33:31] things like this, but what happens, right? What happens if we just blow this

[1:33:34] all off? >> Yeah. I have a quick question before we

[1:33:36] go into closed session. It's not I guess in regards to

[1:33:41] the Robert's Rules of the Meeting itself, but we tape film our

[1:33:46] meetings when we go into closed session obviously recording them.

[1:33:51] When you come back and reconvene to open session, are you required to then

[1:33:56] start recording again? >> Really good question.

[1:33:59] I believe that the law does require you to go back into open session and turn

[1:34:04] the camera back on for live streaming purposes. And so that

[1:34:09] there's a record of what happened at the end of the meeting. Because otherwise,

[1:34:13] in theory, right, you could have a long closed session, everyone's left city

[1:34:16] hall because they don't want to stick around for it, and then you do something

[1:34:19] surprising in the at the end of the meeting there's

[1:34:22] no record of it, right? >> still be sufficient in the minutes to

[1:34:26] solve that. >> Yes, but I will say it's sufficient

[1:34:30] until someone says, "Well, why didn't you turn the camera back on?"

[1:34:33] And so, I general practice is that is the safer course of action. I'm not

[1:34:37] saying that the law absolutely requires it, but I I I do recommend it. It's it's

[1:34:42] the more transparent approach.

[1:34:45] Um, cuz you're right, as long as the minutes reflect that all we did was

[1:34:47] adjourn, it's fine. But that isn't always what happens, right? If this was

[1:34:51] a Let's use an extreme example. This was a termination here, right? And the board

[1:34:55] is deliberating on whether or not to terminate someone. They're probably not

[1:34:58] terminating them in closed session. They probably have to come out into open to

[1:35:02] terminate them. Which is the only thing the public wants to know, right? They

[1:35:06] want to hear that motion. I find that or not that that employee is terminated.

[1:35:10] Um, certainly if it's something like that, you got to get that camera back

[1:35:13] on. If it's just we're we're just adjourning right afterwards,

[1:35:17] less of a concern. That makes sense.

[1:35:21] Good question. Really good question. Um, so I just want to kind of talk to

[1:35:24] you about the bad stuff that can happen, right? So there are some ethics rules

[1:35:27] you need to keep in mind, right? You can't accept anything because of your

[1:35:31] official city position. In other words, no bribes,

[1:35:34] right? You also can't ask for a bribe, right? That's one. You can't ask for a

[1:35:38] bribe. Two, you can't accept a bribe. Um, but three is one that sometimes

[1:35:42] people miss, which is you can't accept items that could influence your vote on

[1:35:46] official actions or reasonably be considered a reward for any official

[1:35:51] action. This is the Maybe it wasn't technically a bribe, right? Maybe that

[1:35:56] city developer just wanted to take you out to a steak and lobster dinner,

[1:35:59] right? That would catch you. It would violate the code of ethics if the only

[1:36:03] reason the developer is taking you out because he wants your wants your

[1:36:06] favorable vote. So, it's something to be cautious of and it can slip in

[1:36:11] accidentally. I find that the public or the private sector just doesn't

[1:36:14] understand these laws and they're like, "Well, yeah, of course I'm buying you

[1:36:16] dinner. I'm a vendor for the for the city. We're we're buds." I'm a vendor

[1:36:20] for the city. I can't take you out to lunch because of this rule.

[1:36:24] So, it's just something you got to be careful of, right? And one of the things

[1:36:28] I say is, "It doesn't matter if you actually did it because of influence,

[1:36:32] it's going to look like it." So, you want don't do anything that carries the

[1:36:36] appearance of of of impropriety. Public private interest in public

[1:36:41] contracts is a criminal statute. If you have a business that does

[1:36:48] business for the city, contract with the city.

[1:36:51] If that contract totals more than $15,000

[1:36:55] in in a rolling calendar year, that is a class I felony.

[1:37:00] $10,000, 3 and 1/2 years in jail.

[1:37:05] Don't get anywhere near that $15,000 limit, right? I sometimes see people

[1:37:09] that are like, "Well, we'll just write down this invoice and now it's $14,999."

[1:37:14] Um that's a real harsh line. It's a strict liability

[1:37:18] statute. The moment you do it, boom, you could be uh criminally prosecuted. I'm

[1:37:23] not saying that the first time you do it, they're going to throw the absolute

[1:37:26] book at you, but it's going to potentially get district attorneys

[1:37:30] interested. Um so, you want to be real careful about that.

[1:37:33] The other thing to keep in mind is it it's a prohibition in your official

[1:37:36] capacity and in your private capacity. So, not only can you not vote on your

[1:37:41] own contract, I think people understand that one. You can't negotiate as a

[1:37:47] private citizen the contract with the city. The moment you do that, you are

[1:37:52] breaking the statute as well. And I get it. You're like, "Well, I'm

[1:37:56] the only business in town." Strict liability. Law does not care.

[1:38:01] They don't create an exception for that. So, you've got to make sure it's under

[1:38:04] 15,000 if you're going to do something like that. Very tricky. I have had um

[1:38:09] school board members and and older persons that have had to resign once the

[1:38:14] statute was pointed out to them. Most common one I've seen is the IT vendor.

[1:38:18] Um the IT vendor is like, "Yeah, I love working with the schools, right? I mean,

[1:38:21] we do all the software. Um I want to be on the board.

[1:38:23] Fantastic." But, you can't negotiate that contract

[1:38:27] anymore, right? You're going to have to give it to someone else uh in your

[1:38:31] organization. You have to wall yourself out. And by the time they're done with

[1:38:34] that, they're like, "No, I want to bid on the work, right? I want to get that

[1:38:37] work." Well, you can't have it both ways. So, it's definitely something to

[1:38:40] keep in mind. It is a very strict law. Um

[1:38:45] So, let's talk broadly about consequences. If you don't listen to

[1:38:48] anything I said tonight, what's the worst thing that's going to happen?

[1:38:51] Well, the first thing that's going to happen is I'm going to have to come out

[1:38:52] and talk to you. So, that's punishment one.

[1:38:55] Punishment two, right? Misconduct in public office, it could be a crime,

[1:38:59] right? If you're breaking the rules, it could be misconduct. And the the law has

[1:39:03] said that your ordinances and conduct procedures

[1:39:07] can be the basis for a misconduct violation. In other words, you didn't

[1:39:10] break the law, but you broke what the the rules of the body itself has

[1:39:15] established for itself. Could be potential criminal charges.

[1:39:19] Uh censure is basically a written document that a majority of the of the

[1:39:24] body would put together, and it basically says, "I'm saying that this

[1:39:28] person broke the rules, and they did bad." And then you can add the finger

[1:39:32] shaking. But, that's what a censure is. It's a formal record calling the person

[1:39:36] out for for being for breaking the rules.

[1:39:39] It is not enforceable beyond that. It's not like they have to leave, but it can

[1:39:43] be a really helpful political tool, right? And then the community is like,

[1:39:46] "Yeah, that guy keeps getting in trouble and keeps getting censured. That's a

[1:39:49] problem." Um it does have um persuasive value. And it By the way, it does not

[1:39:55] violate the First Amendment for um people to get censured based on what

[1:40:01] they say. It is was a Supreme Court case, the US Supreme Court case, where

[1:40:04] they said, "They censured me because of what I said." And the Supreme Court

[1:40:08] said, "They're allowed to censure you. It's their speech. The censure itself is

[1:40:13] a form of the council speaking, and you are allowed to speak on behalf of the

[1:40:17] council through this formal action. So, it's not a First Amendment issue."

[1:40:21] Um I had long thought that to be the case, but when this case came down a

[1:40:24] couple years ago, I was like, "Yes, I was right." Um so, it's now very clear.

[1:40:28] It's not a First Amendment issue. Common Council can remove Can remove

[1:40:32] holders with 3/4 of the vote for cause, defined as inefficiency, neglect of

[1:40:37] duty, official misconduct, or malfeasance. Uh I found that in

[1:40:41] practice, before that vote ever occurs, the person will likely resign by the

[1:40:45] time they found out that the votes are going to realize they're going to lose.

[1:40:47] Um hopefully that doesn't happen. Um the removal process can be instigated by

[1:40:53] anyone. Um so, uh sorry, any resident taxpayer. So, it doesn't have to be the

[1:40:58] council bringing the charges. Resident taxpayer uh can can bring the charges

[1:41:03] against a public official. They would be before the board could terminate, there

[1:41:08] would have to be a chance for that person to defend themselves.

[1:41:11] » [cough] >> Notice, though, that is before you

[1:41:14] terminate. If you get a complaint and you just dismiss it, you you don't have

[1:41:18] to go through all these steps. Certain complaints don't rise to the level of a

[1:41:22] general board member or council agenda. That happens, you just let it die. But

[1:41:27] if you're going to keep and make this an issue, then there is a process there,

[1:41:31] and it's all established by act. It's also um

[1:41:34] a process for a judge uh to uh re- remove someone, but that doesn't

[1:41:40] happen. I mean, that actually never happened. And then, recall, right?

[1:41:44] Recall got a lot harder about Oh, I used to say a few years ago, and

[1:41:47] now I'm realizing it's like 20. Um it was back when Governor Walker faced a

[1:41:51] recall election. They then changed the number of signatures, increased them. Um

[1:41:55] so, you now need 25% of the vote cast for governor within the city.

[1:42:00] Um so, whoever voted in the office for governor, figure that out. 25% of them

[1:42:05] need to sign your petition in order to even get a recall election scheduled.

[1:42:10] And then, you have to pass the recall election. It's a very complicated

[1:42:14] process, but it is one of those things that usually is combined with a censure

[1:42:19] in order to get someone to resign rather than go out kicking and screaming.

[1:42:24] The most obvious consequence is if you break all these rules, you run the risk

[1:42:28] of the community not wanting to vote for you anymore because you're

[1:42:31] you're considered a disruption and not part of the team.

[1:42:35] Um cuz you can't get anything done if all you're doing is screaming, right?

[1:42:38] You need to work within the system to achieve your objectives.

[1:42:43] Other issues that can happen is liability. You can get sued as an

[1:42:45] individual. One of the things you can be sued for is defamation. You're in a

[1:42:49] public meeting and you say some horrible thing about someone, and it's not an

[1:42:53] opinion, right? You're just You're just saying that they did this,

[1:42:57] and you know that's wrong, you could be sued for that. That could

[1:43:00] be liable for defamation. However, it is not defamation to give someone your

[1:43:05] opinion or to tell the truth.

[1:43:08] Those are Those are absolute defenses to defamation.

[1:43:11] But, it is definitely something to be concerned of. I see it most often during

[1:43:15] public appearances where someone is going to call out someone, and you're

[1:43:19] worried that they might be engaging in defamation in public comment. I usually

[1:43:24] say when that happens is after the person's done speaking, uh the mayor can

[1:43:28] say, or whoever is the presiding officer can say,

[1:43:31] "This represents the the views of an individual and do not represent the

[1:43:35] council as a whole. Moving on. Right, if you just want to just claim that it's

[1:43:38] not us engaging in potential defamation. I sometimes that that write a little

[1:43:43] blurb that they read to the public before and it says you get the 2

[1:43:45] minutes, 15 minutes total, and you're not protected from from liability for

[1:43:50] what you say. Just FYI. And sometimes it helps diffuse tension.

[1:43:56] Talk about invasion of privacy. Um

[1:43:59] Where does this all go? Well, if you get sued, you have insurance, which is good.

[1:44:03] This that means you're only out your deductible.

[1:44:06] But, the insurance policy isn't unlimited. There's always exclusions to

[1:44:10] an insurance policy. And it is an exclusion if you're acting outside of

[1:44:15] the scope of your job. If you're doing things that you're not supposed to be

[1:44:18] doing, this they you their insurance company's

[1:44:21] not going to cover you. And I just spent all this time telling you what it is

[1:44:24] you're allowed to do and not do. So, you don't want to fall outside of that

[1:44:27] coverage cuz then you're paying for your own attorney and you're paying for your

[1:44:29] own damages. Um if you're not cooperating with the

[1:44:33] insurance company when they're trying to defend you, they can deny the claim and

[1:44:37] deny your coverage of it. So, if they're like, "Hey, I you're getting sued for

[1:44:40] public records. I need your phone. I need those records." and you refuse to

[1:44:43] do it, insurance company may say,

[1:44:46] "No, we no longer have to defend you because you're not cooperating."

[1:44:50] Um Similarly, the city has an obligation to

[1:44:53] defend as long as you're in your official capacity. There's also an

[1:44:57] immunity statute that covers you from your official actions if they're

[1:45:00] discretionary. But,

[1:45:03] notice there are exceptions to it, right? And and at the end of the day,

[1:45:09] the standard is don't do anything stupid, right? Don't invade someone's

[1:45:14] rights. Don't exceed your authority. Cuz if you do, a lawyer's going to find five

[1:45:19] or six ways to bring claims against you, right? They're not just going to put all

[1:45:22] their eggs in one basket. They're going to put a couple different causes of

[1:45:25] action in there. So, try to stay on the up and up, and hopefully you won't ever

[1:45:29] have to deal with that. So, I was able to get through what I

[1:45:32] wanted to, uh but I'd love to answer any last-minute questions you have.

[1:45:38] » We were going to cover the title [clears throat] list on the

[1:45:41] agenda, the approval of the minutes.

[1:45:44] You may have covered it, but >> Oh, yeah. We we we we talked about that

[1:45:48] being an agenda item. So, your ordinance says that you have to read the minutes,

[1:45:54] and then approve them. Because that's what your ordinance says,

[1:45:58] that's what you're supposed to do. Please stop doing that, right? You don't

[1:46:02] need to read the minutes out loud. So, you could change your ordinance to

[1:46:05] simply say minutes will will be approved, um and

[1:46:09] you can say that they will be submitted in writing or something like that.

[1:46:12] Because, again, you can just read them. They shouldn't be all that complicated,

[1:46:16] because really they're just a record of votes. Um and then, you can just approve

[1:46:20] them and move on. It can be a simple motion. And if, by the way, simple

[1:46:24] motion, but you have a question about it, then ask the question during the

[1:46:26] discussion. Hey, I noticed it says this, or I didn't vote that way. Let's make a

[1:46:31] correction. That can all happen, even though you're not actually reading the

[1:46:35] the minutes out loud. I I I get the spirit of it, but again, now

[1:46:40] that you're recording and archiving this, you don't need to recap the last

[1:46:44] meeting. Someone can go find the minutes online. They can find the recordings.

[1:46:47] Just just a fish. >> Yep. Just approve them. That's what most

[1:46:51] people do. >> So, the item on the agenda should be

[1:46:56] approved minutes as presented. >> It should just say approve minutes. It

[1:47:00] doesn't It shouldn't say as read, but it should say approve minutes.

[1:47:04] » Ours have never said as read. >> Right, but your ordinance says it.

[1:47:07] » And all our ordinances >> That's why you're doing it. So, so

[1:47:10] don't, you know, just just change your ordinance. And my guess is after this

[1:47:13] presentation, there'll be a few things you're like, why are we doing it this

[1:47:16] way? And you might go, okay, just tweak some of your ordinances to be a little

[1:47:19] more efficient. Cuz I I was trying to give you the the balance between what

[1:47:22] the law requires and what your past practices require. And that's just one I

[1:47:27] think you can definitely change without a lot of public scrutiny. You're not

[1:47:32] hiding anything. There's a camera now. >> So in other words, our ordinances are

[1:47:35] maybe a little outdated. >> Yeah, I think that's true.

[1:47:38] And I I I think what I was saying when calling the question was was

[1:47:42] worded as previous previous question. I was like, "Ooh, haven't seen that one in

[1:47:46] quite a bit." So, yeah. They all need a refresh from time to

[1:47:50] time. >> [snorts]

[1:47:51] » And I primarily work with the city on on labor and employment matters, but I do

[1:47:55] have other counsel that helps you on general matters that can help you with

[1:47:58] the getting your muni code updates in place.

[1:48:03] » I have a question about having a meeting about potential hiring of new

[1:48:06] candidates. >> Mhm.

[1:48:08] » Um when you're discussing candidates, are we allowed or

[1:48:13] I guess up to this point we've always did candidate one, two, three, give it a

[1:48:17] number because we want to protect that person. They're obviously seeking a

[1:48:22] job from a different employer, possibly. Are we allowed to do that? Or are we

[1:48:26] supposed to be disclosing names with >> Good good good question. Um

[1:48:32] if you're talking about a committee level and they're considering a

[1:48:34] candidate for hire, on the agenda you can just say discuss candidates for

[1:48:38] exposition. Then in the closed session you you can use the names.

[1:48:43] Um they're not supposed to leave that room, right? That's what part of that

[1:48:47] the emphasis on closed session is. So, if the everyone is following the rules,

[1:48:52] you can use the names. If you're nervous someone isn't going to

[1:48:55] follow the rules, then candidate A, you know, A, B, C, and D, and E could be an

[1:49:00] option. But,

[1:49:03] um that may not be the best answer because

[1:49:06] you sometimes just know the person, right? You might know something

[1:49:10] some context. Or frankly, you might not know that it's someone that you

[1:49:13] shouldn't be talking about, right? That's really close to you. So, I think

[1:49:17] that I get the point of it, but I think it's going to be a little bit more of a

[1:49:21] hindrance than a help. Um the other thing is there is a law under the public

[1:49:25] records law that they have to you have to

[1:49:28] um disclose the names of final candidates.

[1:49:31] » Yeah. >> Um and so you always have to balance the

[1:49:34] well, is this the final candidates? All right, the statute says it's less than

[1:49:38] five, but it can be fewer than that if you know, you depending on how you start

[1:49:41] it. I think in practice most people are talking about they're having like one

[1:49:46] meeting that talks about everyone like A, B, and C. Those are probably your

[1:49:50] final candidates. So, you're not even going to be able to keep them

[1:49:52] confidential if there's a public records request. Um so again, a little bit of a

[1:49:57] balance. I think ultimately the thing to do is respect them and go, "Hey,

[1:50:01] we are going to have to disclose your name, but it's confidential in closed

[1:50:04] session and and hopefully that's the end of it."

[1:50:07] Yeah, that's always a tough balance. Good question.

[1:50:11] » But we don't make any decisions in closed session. We wait till we come out

[1:50:15] of the closed session and then post the findings, which would [clears throat] be

[1:50:18] open to the public. >> But you wouldn't then give up everyone's

[1:50:21] name, just the person you offered. >> The final candidate.

[1:50:24] » Just the final candidate. >> Yeah. At that point, here are the names

[1:50:27] that we've discussed. Here's the person who got the job. They're going to all

[1:50:30] focus on the who who got the job. That's what you talk about in open. In open you

[1:50:34] won't talk about the candidates you didn't hire.

[1:50:37] » I think he is referring to the the point the guy might not accept it.

[1:50:42] » It it was both, right? Both there's potential multiple candidates, but in

[1:50:46] the end you're making an offer to someone that could turn around and say

[1:50:49] no. >> You you can in closed session do a

[1:50:53] motion to negotiate with a specific candidate.

[1:50:56] » Okay. >> And you would designate like motion have

[1:50:59] the chair or the department head negotiate for the hiring of this

[1:51:02] candidate. Um and kind of give them authority, right? Up to $75,000, right?

[1:51:08] And then they go in and they negotiate it. That would then stay in closed up

[1:51:12] until the point of of the hiring. Once they're hired, then that's no longer

[1:51:16] confidential. But that can happen, especially if it's a particularly

[1:51:19] sensitive hire. >> So, after you left closed session, how

[1:51:22] would you record your findings then? >> You You wouldn't. Uh that would be a

[1:51:27] motion you could take in closed session and approve in closed session.

[1:51:30] » It's like your findings would be no action.

[1:51:32] » No, cuz that would be a lie. It You would have You would have closed session

[1:51:37] You'd have minutes for the closed session. Cuz you'd have to record that

[1:51:39] agenda. So, then you leave closed session, what do you put for findings?

[1:51:43] You would have to reconvene in the closed session the next meeting,

[1:51:46] correct? Well, if you're going to

[1:51:48] If you're going to discuss it further, yes. Otherwise, you can just have those

[1:51:51] minutes be approved in open session and no one talks about them. Right? It's

[1:51:54] just routine. But yeah, you wouldn't have to have You

[1:51:57] don't have to have findings in closed session. You just come out of closed

[1:52:00] session. Yeah. It was It was What happened in

[1:52:04] closed session, you don't get to know. It was closed session.

[1:52:07] Yeah. Well, and it's cuz it's rare, right? I mean, I can only think of like

[1:52:10] one example of an employment matter you do in closed. Um negotiating it It's

[1:52:14] under sub E of the closed. >> It would be the same thing like you

[1:52:17] said, negotiation with a developer. Something

[1:52:20] like that would be the same thing. You're kind of, yeah, leaving it out

[1:52:23] there for the >> the rule is not no action in closed

[1:52:26] session. The rule is um

[1:52:28] if you're going to take action in closed session, it has to be because if you

[1:52:32] didn't, it would undermine the purpose of everything.

[1:52:35] And that's where negotiation is is the best example. So, in practice, it's

[1:52:39] almost all the time. But there's an important exception that that we were

[1:52:43] just discussing. Yeah.

[1:52:44] » So, just to reiterate, when we are in closed

[1:52:47] session it's just a discussion

[1:52:50] to decide to hire an employee or give away something or whatever it

[1:52:54] is. And when we come out of closed session,

[1:52:56] we've always had on our agendas to school staff or something.

[1:53:00] » I Yes, I absolutely would as a routine action, I would. I would do the open

[1:53:05] session. But if it's someone that you're not sure

[1:53:08] is going to take the job and you're not sure you can meet their offer and their

[1:53:12] expectation, this is a motion to have that discussion. That's not going to be

[1:53:17] the end of it then. Yeah, once that person is hired then it will be it will

[1:53:21] become public. So, routine you don't have to do it.

[1:53:24] » So then should the

[1:53:28] commission council keep records of closed session minutes?

[1:53:32] » Yes. >> If so

[1:53:34] » Yes. >> I assume you got to keep them but then

[1:53:35] the findings will come out. >> Yeah, you would keep the closed session

[1:53:38] minutes and they would be approved like any other minutes.

[1:53:41] Um there may be a time at which they become a public record subject to

[1:53:45] disclosure because once you hired the person there's no reason to keep it

[1:53:49] secret. Um so it it's kind of one of those things

[1:53:52] where it's confidential until all of a sudden it's not.

[1:53:55] Yeah, [snorts] good question.

[1:53:59] Yeah. >> So when you go into closed session in a

[1:54:04] committee meeting >> Mhm.

[1:54:05] » [clears throat] >> does that require roll call?

[1:54:07] » Yes. Everybody has to do a roll call vote in

[1:54:10] to close. >> And out?

[1:54:12] » Yeah, um technically not out but a lot of people

[1:54:15] do it. >> Yeah, where do we get all this wrong

[1:54:16] wrong information? >> It's the way it's always done in the

[1:54:19] past. >> that for

[1:54:20] well before I got here. >> This is something that we've just been

[1:54:23] doing in the last couple of years. >> From roll call vote out?

[1:54:27] » Do you recommend in and out? >> No, I in I definitely I mean that you

[1:54:31] have to. Out doesn't really matter. I I've never actually heard of someone

[1:54:35] fighting out of open out of closed so it's usually always unanimous anyway.

[1:54:41] So, that makes it easier. It's a roll call vote by default.

[1:54:50] It's a great question. Anything else?

[1:54:54] Tired of me and want to move on to the other agenda item that has something to

[1:54:57] do with something that isn't me?

[1:55:01] » [laughter] >> So I think it's wages.

[1:55:03] » [clears throat]

[1:55:06] » Thank you guys so much for having me. You want me to stick around for the this

[1:55:08] vote or Yeah, I'm going to marry wine. All right. I will take off and I will

[1:55:12] leave you with the extra copies if someone couldn't be here.

[1:55:16] Thank you guys so much. I'll be back at some point.

[1:55:23] » Go ahead, Jane. So, we are on number three,

[1:55:27] resolution 35 2025 to approve city wage scale.

[1:55:32] Uh we have those attached here. And [clears throat]

[1:55:37] we have a motion to approve the city wage scale

[1:55:43] as amended.

[1:56:08] I. Troy.

[1:56:12] I'll second. Who second by Lee?

[1:56:16] Any discussion on approving the city wage scale?

[1:56:22] It is amended. It's amended. Well, we have to amend the existing wage scale.

[1:56:31] There was a previous wage increase for an employee

[1:56:35] and that wage was not on the wage scale. So, the wage scale had to be amended to

[1:56:43] » accommodate that. >> accommodate

[1:56:46] uh the wage increase that was received.

[1:56:52] » This one is utility.

[1:57:04] » So, since the city wage scale is approved by council every year,

[1:57:08] um it was mandatory that this happened.

[1:57:12] Um typically it's you know, for once for

[1:57:18] the coming year, but since she or there was a wage that was increased mid-year,

[1:57:24] um that has had to be addressed. >> And for those members that are not on

[1:57:28] Utility Commission, it's specifically the Utility Billing

[1:57:32] Clerk. >> Correct.

[1:57:35] » So, if you want to look at that line, that's

[1:57:41] as there's an amount recommended by the by the Utility Commissioner.

[1:57:45] » Mhm.

[1:57:49] » Does anybody have have any more discussion on this?

[1:57:53] Any questions?

[1:57:57] Okay. Then we'll take a roll call vote.

[1:58:01] » Justin? >> Aye.

[1:58:03] » Lee? >> Aye.

[1:58:04] » Chapman? >> Aye.

[1:58:06] » Seibert? >> Aye.

[1:58:07] » Uh Wagner? >> Aye.

[1:58:12] » Okay, so motion has carried to approve the

[1:58:15] wage scale. And then we're to number four to adjourn

[1:58:18] the meeting. Is there a motion? So, Chapman?

[1:58:23] » Second. >> Who was the second?

[1:58:26] Okay. Seibert?

[1:58:29] Okay, roll call vote.

[1:58:32] Uh Chapman? >> Aye.

[1:58:34] » Seibert? >> Aye.

[1:58:35] » Justin? >> Aye.

[1:58:36] » Lee? >> Aye.

[1:58:37] » Wagner? Okay, this meeting is adjourned at 7:59.

[1:58:44] Roll call vote.

City of Juneau Special Common Council Meeting 6-8-26

Transcript