[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.