[0:01] Welcome to the special meeting of the

[0:04] Springdale Town Council. It's a work

[0:06] meeting. Today is Friday, April 3rd,

[0:09] 2026, and we're at the Canyon Community

[0:11] Center in Springdale, Utah. From the

[0:13] town, we have April Radits, Robin

[0:17] Romero, Tom Danzy, and Kendall Sagers.

[0:21] And on the dis from council, we have

[0:23] Kylo Tapam, Randy Eton, me, Barbara

[0:26] Bruno, Jack Burns, and Pat Campbell. And

[0:29] I'll entertain a motion to approve the work meeting agenda.

[0:36] >> I move we approve the work meeting

[0:38] agenda.

[0:38] >> Second.

[0:39] >> Got a motion by Randy and a second by

[0:41] Pat.

[0:42] >> Are we starting with me?

[0:43] >> Yes. Start with you tonight.

[0:45] >> I Randy.

[0:46] >> Barbara.

[0:47] >> I hat I.

[0:48] >> Okay. And we have one item on the

[0:51] agenda. It's a review and possible

[0:53] direction to staff regarding the town

[0:55] council meeting procedures and protocols

[0:58] and the contact is Tom Denzy.

[1:01] Thank you, mayor. Um, as the council is

[1:05] aware, the state law requires um all

[1:08] public bodies to adopt rules of

[1:11] procedure for the operation of their

[1:13] meetings. The purpose of those rules of

[1:15] procedure are to um ensure compliance

[1:18] with the Utah Open and Public Meetings

[1:20] Act um and to establish general um

[1:25] policies for how meetings are operated

[1:27] such that meetings are efficient um

[1:29] effective, transparent, civil, um all those things. Um, pursuant to that

[1:37] direction in the state law, the town has

[1:40] adopted rules of procedure and codes of

[1:43] and a code of contact, code of conduct

[1:47] for public bodies. Originally, um, these

[1:50] were adopted in 2012.

[1:52] Um, and then subsequently in 2023,

[1:57] the rules of procedure for operation of

[2:00] public meetings um, was updated and

[2:03] revised.

[2:05] Um but that that 2023

[2:08] um revision only only impacted the rules

[2:12] of procedure for meetings, not the

[2:15] general rest of the code of contact code

[2:17] of conduct for public bodies.

[2:22] Um in the the recent public officials

[2:25] training heard earlier earlier this year

[2:29] um there was a lot of emphasis put on

[2:31] the fact that um public bodies need to

[2:34] have these these rules procedure for the

[2:37] governed public meetings. And in

[2:39] response to that, the council in a

[2:40] preview in a in a recent meeting asked

[2:42] some questions about our current uh code

[2:44] of conduct and rules of procedure and

[2:47] also expressed a desire to um look at

[2:50] what our current policies are. So that's

[2:53] the purpose of today's meeting um is to

[2:56] look at where what we have now and to

[2:58] discuss if there are if there is a need

[3:00] for revisions or updates or changes to

[3:04] our current policies um and if so what

[3:06] those changes could be.

[3:08] Um there today is a is a work meeting.

[3:11] So you won't be taking any final action

[3:13] today. You won't be adopting a new

[3:15] policy or resolution or new specific

[3:18] codes. Um this is a work meeting. So

[3:20] this is your opportunity as a council,

[3:22] as a group, talk to one another, discuss

[3:24] what you think um would be the best

[3:27] policy for the town. Um and then you're

[3:30] welcome to give staff direction on any

[3:33] changes or revisions that you would like

[3:35] to see and we can uh incorporate those.

[3:37] and then bring back a a a revised copy

[3:41] or revised policy for you to act on.

[3:45] Um so that's that's kind of the purpose

[3:47] of today's meeting is just a just a

[3:49] discussion on those on on those topics.

[3:52] Um, just by way of a little bit of of

[3:55] more introduction, the state law that

[3:59] governs or or that that requires us to

[4:02] have these rules of procedure, as I

[4:05] mentioned, is is pretty um

[4:09] pretty pretty

[4:11] generic.

[4:13] Generics may be the right word. It's not

[4:15] real detailed. It doesn't go into into

[4:17] strict detail on you must do this, you

[4:19] must do that, you must do that. Um so

[4:21] there's a lot of discretion up to you as

[4:23] a public as as a council to determine

[4:26] what you think the the appropriate um

[4:28] operation for public bodies should be.

[4:31] Again the the underlying factors are

[4:33] that you um want to ensure compliance

[4:35] with the open and public meetings act

[4:37] meaning that all of your decisions and

[4:39] deliberations are taken in public. Um

[4:42] you want to have an effective and

[4:44] efficient meeting process. Nobody wants

[4:47] to be here till midnight. Um, and you

[4:49] want to have policies or or rules that

[4:52] govern, you know, just civil discourse

[4:54] to make sure that you as a council and

[4:57] other public bodies in Springdale are

[4:59] able to accomplish their work um in a in

[5:02] a manner that is respectful and and

[5:05] civil. So, that's what the state says

[5:08] needs to be need to be in your rules of

[5:10] procedure. Other than that, you can you

[5:12] can make them as as detailed or as

[5:14] non-detailed as you want. And in fact,

[5:16] um, I included a document from the Utah

[5:18] League of Cities and Towns that has

[5:20] examples of three other communities. And

[5:22] they go from pretty pretty basic, pretty

[5:24] generic to like super detailed, super

[5:28] intense. Totally up to you how you want

[5:30] to handle that. If you want to get to

[5:32] that level of of detail, that's fine. We

[5:34] can do that. If you want to be more

[5:36] general, we can do that as well. Um, so

[5:40] that's a a big long introduction of of

[5:42] why we're here and and what the purpose

[5:43] of today's meeting is. And I um

[5:46] anticipate just the council having a

[5:47] discussion on these on these policies

[5:49] and giving staff direction.

[5:53] » Any questions for Tom before we get

[5:55] started?

[5:56] >> Uh I I do, Mayor. Uh Tom, as I

[5:59] understand it, this breaks it down into

[6:00] how we conduct ourselves in a meeting

[6:02] such as this and uh civil interactions

[6:07] between staff and officials and the

[6:10] public. So is that is everything I read

[6:13] here all there is in the in the handbook

[6:16] about how we treat each other, how we

[6:18] deal with each other. That it

[6:20] >> in terms of our current adopted policy.

[6:22] Yes, that is correct.

[6:23] >> So there's nothing in there about

[6:24] harassment or

[6:28] offensive language. I mean there's

[6:29] nothing in there like that. So So we

[6:31] need to make sure that's in there. I'm

[6:33] saying that we should consider putting

[6:35] that.

[6:35] >> That could be a great addition. Correct.

[6:39] I thought I saw something about that

[6:41] somewhere. Maybe it was in the Utah

[6:43] League. So, um I think that we'll talk

[6:48] we'll we'll talk through Tom's staff

[6:50] report and we'll look at our current our

[6:52] current uh procedures, current rules.

[6:56] But just up front, I thought I'd ask a

[6:58] question. I assume that everybody looked

[6:59] at the examples from the Utah League of

[7:01] Cities and Towns, the three different

[7:04] types.

[7:06] Is anyone inclined to adopt one of these

[7:09] three

[7:10] um as a starting point which we could

[7:14] then alter a little bit or should we

[7:16] just go through our own and make

[7:17] alterations to that? Give me some

[7:20] feedback on that.

[7:23] >> Well, I think the short and formal is

[7:25] too short not formal enough. And I think

[7:28] the third example

[7:31] seems to almost follow Robert's rules of

[7:33] order. Not that we shouldn't adopt some

[7:35] of what Roberts had. So for me, I like

[7:38] the what?

[7:41] Short and uh what did you call it?

[7:43] >> You called it short.

[7:44] >> Short informal.

[7:46] >> Yeah, I like that one the best as a

[7:49] starting point. That's just me.

[7:53] >> I

[7:55] think all three have their merits. The

[7:58] for the third one. Um, I did appreciate

[8:02] like it how it spelled out all the the

[8:05] different ways that you might call for a

[8:08] motion and and then I started thinking,

[8:11] you know, as a council member, that is

[8:12] good information to have. However,

[8:16] I think we need to say what we mean and

[8:18] mean what we say. And if we were to

[8:20] adopt something that

[8:23] intense and that detailed, we are more

[8:25] likely to be breaking our own rules more

[8:28] often than not, which I'm I'm not a fan

[8:32] of. I would rather have something that

[8:34] is like more of a general framework that

[8:38] gives everybody a good basic

[8:40] understanding of how the meeting should

[8:44] run and then the details

[8:48] as of this council they flow really well

[8:51] and we've um come to kind of a good

[8:55] basic understanding of the way we like

[8:57] to do business at the table and I think

[8:59] that could shift as councils and mayors

[9:01] change.

[9:03] I would be reluctant to make something

[9:06] so detailed and formal that it ends up

[9:09] that you just end up breaking all of the

[9:11] rules you made for yourself.

[9:13] >> But I think the the the what is it the

[9:16] long and business casual I did like rule

[9:20] six and seven because pretty much that's

[9:22] how the mayor conducts the business now.

[9:24] No,

[9:27] » rules six and seven. You said

[9:29] >> six and seven. I mean, the mayor calls

[9:31] for a motion. We go back and forth. The

[9:34] only thing we don't have is a substitute

[9:35] motion, which is process I like.

[9:38] Um, and then when you get to rule,

[9:57] I'm sorry, rule six where it talks about

[9:59] u substitute motion.

[10:03] that one. And where is the one where it

[10:06] talks about

[10:09] rule one? I like rule one, which which

[10:11] we we seem to already follow.

[10:15] I mean, the the mayor announces the the

[10:18] agenda. The appropriate person makes the

[10:20] presentation. We get to ask technical

[10:23] questions about it. The motion is made,

[10:25] seconded. The mayor asks for discussion

[10:28] on the motion. Mayor asks for a vote. uh

[10:31] tall as a vote. I mean, we already do

[10:34] that, right?

[10:36] >> Rule number one.

[10:38] >> Yeah.

[10:41] » So, Pat, are you in the short and

[10:44] formal? Short and informal.

[10:46] >> Well, um um

[10:48] >> you're in the longest one. Okay. So,

[10:50] >> I like the short and informal to as a

[10:52] framework, but I do like some parts of

[10:54] the the uh long and business casual.

[11:02] So, are we inclined to go through what

[11:04] we have now and and talk?

[11:07] Well, let me do this.

[11:11] Let's start with the staff report

[11:14] because some of that is not even in the

[11:16] rules. This is this is sort of some of

[11:18] this is outside of the meeting even

[11:20] because it's meeting preparation, it's interactions with staff, that kind

[11:25] of thing. So, um,

[11:29] let's let's start with public

[11:31] participation portion of the agenda

[11:35] and some of the questions that were

[11:36] raised. What is the council's position

[11:38] regarding the expectation that public

[11:40] officials andor staff will respond to

[11:43] and answer questions from residents on

[11:45] the spot during the meeting?

[11:49] >> Feedback on that.

[11:51] >> I say no.

[11:52] >> You'd say what?

[11:53] >> I say no.

[11:55] >> Yeah. And and I really think it's um

[11:59] it's situational on that. I I think

[12:02] there's uh there's times when I would

[12:04] definitely say no. There's other times

[12:06] where I would say, you know, maybe maybe

[12:08] it's a good thing to to

[12:12] answer the question. I don't personally

[12:15] don't feel like there should be a we're

[12:18] never going to do this or we're

[12:22] uh we're always going to do this. I I

[12:24] think it's situational

[12:26] depending on the question. Um, you know,

[12:29] there's some things where um

[12:35] yeah, I I think there's just

[12:39] there's maybe too much information

[12:42] or it would make a meeting go too long

[12:44] or uh is it is not the appropriate time

[12:47] to to answer that question.

[12:49] >> Well, or or as long as it doesn't become

[12:52] a debate.

[12:52] >> Yeah. And and that's the other thing is

[12:55] that can exactly can

[12:58] >> Yes.

[12:58] >> get our meeting to

[13:00] >> Yeah. It's midnight and we're not quite

[13:02] finished yet.

[13:04] >> I'm less worried about that than I am

[13:06] about the fact that the questions we

[13:07] tend to get in that question comment

[13:09] period are gotcha questions. And so

[13:13] often they are meant to catch somebody off guard. and the

[13:20] person asking the questions has had a

[13:22] lot of time to think about the question

[13:24] and we are supposed to answer it on the

[13:26] spot and I seem to recall that um in the

[13:31] past and maybe Tom you could tell me if

[13:33] my my memory is accurate. I thought it

[13:35] used to be comments

[13:38] and questions of staff that the

[13:40] questions were only asked of staff and

[13:41] they were only questions about you know

[13:43] what's happening on Lion Boulevard,

[13:45] what's that kind of thing. Is that is my

[13:48] memory accurate or was that when I was

[13:50] on planning commission?

[13:52] >> Um yeah, I we there's been various

[13:56] permutations and I don't know that we

[14:00] that the the policy was ever that formal

[14:04] like you can make a comment to the

[14:05] public body but you can only ask

[14:06] questions of the staff. I don't know

[14:08] that was ever formally a policy as much

[14:11] as it was maybe a practice. Um, but

[14:13] regardless, this these are these are

[14:15] topics, you know, for the council to

[14:18] consider what you think is appropriate.

[14:19] So, you you can go however you want on

[14:21] that on that topic.

[14:23] >> I tend to agree with you, mayor. If if Riley comes to the microphone and she

[14:28] says, I think we should do that. And I

[14:31] agree with her and I go, you know,

[14:32] you're absolutely right. We should do

[14:33] that. That's a problem because the staff

[14:36] hasn't a chance to look at whatever the issue of complaint might be. It may

[14:40] be different than four of the people on

[14:42] the deis want. I wouldn't want somebody

[14:45] like me to say something like that and like now we own it.

[14:49] >> Well, and essentially when that happens,

[14:51] we're deliberating on something that

[14:53] wasn't noticed. If we're if we're

[14:55] answering a question, I think it's and that's like Randy when you say some

[15:00] it's it's situational.

[15:03] Yeah. Sometimes it'd be fine if if it

[15:05] were a question like what's happening on

[15:06] Lion Boulevard. Which of us answers

[15:09] that? Sometimes it's a question to a

[15:11] specific person. I feel

[15:16] personally more comfortable making it a

[15:18] comment period

[15:21] because if somebody in the community has

[15:23] a question, they certainly have the

[15:25] opportunity to contact staff anytime

[15:26] with that question if it's a a

[15:29] legitimate question about something h

[15:31] and not just a gotcha or something like

[15:34] that. So tell me how you feel about what

[15:37] I just said.

[15:39] I think questions can be really

[15:43] productive, but I also agree with the

[15:47] issue of questions

[15:50] imply an answer which imply a back and

[15:55] forth and I think it is very

[15:59] uh we should proceed with a lot of

[16:01] caution in getting into a back and forth

[16:04] or a debate or which easily turns into

[16:06] an argument between somebody at the

[16:10] podium and people on the diet and or

[16:13] staff. Like I don't think that that is

[16:16] absolutely ever a productive

[16:19] relationship to be having five of us and

[16:24] one commenter. It I think it gets

[16:26] chaotic really quickly. Could get

[16:29] chaotic really quickly. So um I think

[16:32] how do you how do you allow simple

[16:35] questions? what's happening on Lion

[16:36] Boulevard or

[16:41] something like that

[16:43] and not allow something that could end

[16:46] up

[16:50] a back and forth

[16:51] >> or a deliberation that ends up in a

[16:54] decision because at first

[16:58] that reaction a lot of times as a

[17:00] council member you think oh that sounds

[17:02] like a good idea and then you look into

[17:03] it more and you're like actually I did

[17:05] not consider all of these e um external

[17:09] factors and now that I have more

[17:10] information, my opinion has changed. And

[17:13] very rarely if ever since I've served

[17:17] have I had to make a split-second

[17:19] decision without having time to

[17:23] thoroughly consider my answer. Um I tend

[17:27] to not want to do business like that.

[17:30] So, I would think that we would not want

[17:31] to be inviting split-second decisions or

[17:35] representations of the entire council

[17:37] without being able to consider the

[17:40] problem completely.

[17:43] But I also think that there is a lot of

[17:46] uh

[17:49] for somebody to come in front of the

[17:50] room and make a comment about something

[17:52] that maybe we haven't considered. That's

[17:53] a great way to put a pin in something

[17:55] and say, "Okay, yes, actually we all

[17:58] heard that. Maybe we do think we need to

[18:00] follow up on it or consider that issue

[18:02] more completely. So I think comment

[18:04] periods are very valid. I don't want to

[18:06] see that uh diminished but maybe we do

[18:09] limit questions

[18:11] >> or maybe it's a hybrid and you know

[18:13] comments three minutes or less continue.

[18:16] Obviously, we want to hear the comments

[18:18] and we can choose to act on them or not.

[18:20] But maybe if it's a question

[18:23] that isn't something

[18:26] answered by staff because staff can

[18:28] answer a question without seeming to

[18:30] deliberate, maybe then the response is I will think about that and get back to

[18:36] you if it's for one of us specifically.

[18:38] That's another kind of a hybrid way to

[18:40] >> I think so that I also think that

[18:43] >> in thinking of me recent meetings um and

[18:46] someone comes to the podium and they

[18:48] have a problem and we aren't responding

[18:51] it it does appear as if we

[18:57] aren't following up on the issue when

[18:59] really I'm doing my very best to not

[19:02] turn that comment period into a back and

[19:04] forth. So I I wonder kind of what the

[19:07] public perception is when somebody comes

[19:10] up with a genuine issue and we all are

[19:12] just sitting there.

[19:14] >> But would wouldn't it I think as the

[19:16] mayor suggested we'll get back to you or

[19:20] the contact person might be Tom or Nile

[19:22] on that issue to give them somebody to

[19:25] go to. But I think you're right. If we sit there like five lumps in a log

[19:29] that's not good.

[19:30] >> But at least give them somebody to talk

[19:32] to.

[19:32] >> But we're sitting there with intention,

[19:34] right? It's not that we don't care and

[19:36] that we didn't hear. It's that we are

[19:38] not going to turn this into a back and

[19:41] forth.

[19:43] >> So, it's simple enough to to make it a

[19:45] comment period only because it's not

[19:47] like we it's not like we don't respond

[19:52] and staff doesn't respond to questions

[19:53] that are about things. You know, if if

[19:57] the question is why do you why do you

[19:59] treat your husband that way or something

[20:01] like that, then that's not a legitimate

[20:03] question. and we get things that

[20:05] ridiculous sometimes. So, I I think

[20:09] legitimate questions can be asked

[20:10] outside of our council meeting and

[20:12] comments should be allowed. Anything

[20:14] anybody wants to say in a council

[20:16] meeting personally?

[20:17] >> Well, and I think that we have to be

[20:18] really careful. I mean, I think we're

[20:20] talking about um you know, innocent

[20:23] questions being asked. I think we have

[20:25] to remind ourselves that sometimes we

[20:27] don't want to create a venue where

[20:30] questions can be asked, where answers

[20:33] are expected that have legal

[20:35] ramifications.

[20:37] And um so I think we have to be really

[20:40] cautious about that. You know I I I

[20:43] think that it in a a certain in one way

[20:46] I think it is situational and I think it

[20:48] can be entertained on a case by case but

[20:51] I think our protocol should be that we

[20:55] are seeking public.

[20:58] So that's this particular question

[21:02] is what I'm hearing from everybody is

[21:05] really uh when we when we put our agenda

[21:08] out

[21:11] we are specifically saying this is a

[21:13] time for public comments

[21:16] >> only and not questions. And you know my response originally was

[21:25] I agree that I would not

[21:28] respond to a question from somebody that

[21:31] I thought was

[21:33] uh at all a gotcha question number one

[21:37] or a question that should have staff

[21:41] uh looking at this or or andor attorney

[21:46] looking at something. I think that's

[21:48] obviously something we didn't want. I uh

[21:52] I agree that that comment period should

[21:54] be a I mean that that

[21:57] agenda item should be a comment

[22:01] opportunity. The one thing I I I kind of

[22:05] think about when I think about this

[22:07] particular item is

[22:10] we um

[22:12] we have certain items on our agendas

[22:15] that are public have or are are for

[22:20] public comment and and

[22:21] >> public hearing. public public hearing

[22:24] and we have other items that are not and

[22:27] uh I sometimes wonder if uh

[22:34] some of our residents, you know, are

[22:38] feel a little stifled in that there's

[22:41] one of these items that are not a,

[22:45] you know, a public comment

[22:48] or a a public hearing, but it's an it's

[22:51] a

[22:52] item where they want some more

[22:54] information and how do they

[22:58] um you know are we saying in the meeting

[23:01] you can't do that and in the meeting

[23:04] you've got beforehand you've got to ask

[23:07] your question beforehand

[23:09] and that's that's where I get a little

[23:12] bit concerned about

[23:14] um

[23:16] the perception from our residents and

[23:19] businesses that

[23:21] uh you know this public meeting or that

[23:24] this meeting we're having of the town

[23:26] council there's some items on there

[23:27] where the public just doesn't get to say

[23:29] anything.

[23:31] They just listen to what we have to say

[23:33] and then we vote on it. Boom. That's it.

[23:36] >> Well, we haven't we haven't been So the

[23:39] question that's coming up, should

[23:41] comments be accepted for all topics or

[23:43] only topics not on the current agenda?

[23:45] So that's kind of where you're going

[23:47] here.

[23:48] >> Yeah. And we have not had a policy that

[23:50] you can't comment on things on the

[23:52] agenda. Now, I can tell you that most

[23:54] other municipalities I know of don't

[23:58] allow comments on topics on the agenda

[24:00] because then you turn a non-public

[24:02] hearing into a deacto public hearing. I

[24:05] don't know if we're worried about that

[24:07] or not. I think I think, you know,

[24:11] somebody could certainly submit a letter

[24:13] in advance and tell us how they feel

[24:14] about something. Um but maybe maybe what

[24:19] we do is we do a compromise here where

[24:21] we we do limit it to comments only but

[24:24] we don't limit it to comments or topics

[24:27] not on the agenda. I mean we we don't

[24:30] need to it doesn't have to be all or

[24:33] nothing but I can tell you that like in

[24:35] Rockville I think that's on here. um

[24:38] Rockville, you can't comment on items on

[24:40] the agenda and you can't comment at all

[24:42] if you're not a resident or a or a

[24:45] property owner in Rockville.

[24:47] >> And Tom and I have had a conversation

[24:50] about that. And he feels like the more

[24:52] open we are, the better. And it's

[24:54] someone who's not a member of the

[24:55] community. Maybe that's okay.

[24:58] >> I Yeah. And I do actually have strong

[25:00] feelings about that. I it um has always

[25:06] gotten under my skin a little bit when

[25:08] somebody comes up and feels like they

[25:10] have to tell us their address.

[25:12] Honestly, you you cared enough to show

[25:14] up and make a comment. I don't care if

[25:17] you rent, live, have a business,

[25:20] if you, know, teach yoga here. It doesn't

[25:25] matter to me. the fact that you cared

[25:28] enough to show up. I think that that um

[25:32] says a lot and we should be open to we

[25:34] have a very unique community in the

[25:36] sense that many people who who are here

[25:39] and live a vast majority of their life

[25:41] here do not actually live here and we

[25:43] should be open to hearing from those

[25:46] people who participate in the community

[25:50] um have skin in the game. I don't think

[25:52] that it should be tied to property

[25:55] ownership. I think

[25:57] >> I don't feel like I need to know their

[25:58] address, but I think it's helpful to

[26:00] know if they're a resident or not.

[26:02] >> I agree.

[26:03] >> I I I really value third party

[26:06] perspective. So, it helps me know if

[26:08] somebody is commenting on something

[26:11] that's

[26:13] >> Did you guys just lose me?

[26:15] >> Um

[26:16] uh but that um

[26:20] uh they may or may not part of our

[26:22] community.

[26:22] >> But you do you want to do you want to

[26:24] limit it to residents only like or

[26:27] >> No.

[26:28] >> All right. So I don't either. I agree

[26:29] with K.

[26:31] >> They're all everybody that works,

[26:33] visits, lives in, owns property in

[26:37] >> the town are stakeholders.

[26:39] >> So I mean we our our council meetings

[26:44] unless we have something really

[26:45] controversial, there's rarely people out

[26:47] here. And I agree with Kyla. I want more

[26:49] people to come,

[26:50] >> but I understand that,

[26:52] >> but I do want to know where they're

[26:53] from.

[26:53] >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's fine.

[26:56] >> Especially when they're I think I think

[26:59] when it's relevant to us to know whether

[27:02] they're a resident or not is when we're

[27:04] talking about

[27:06] spending town funds or that kind of

[27:08] thing. I think that a resident has more

[27:11] validity than I mean we had we had a a

[27:15] meeting a few years ago where we were

[27:17] talking about buying a building and

[27:19] people from Virgin were yelling at us

[27:22] about what we should be doing. You all

[27:24] remember that and I'm not sure that I

[27:26] mean they they have the right to say so

[27:28] but I certainly value what our residents

[27:30] say more than I value someone who is not

[27:32] a resident.

[27:33] >> No. And I'm fine with that if they

[27:34] identify but I don't think we should

[27:36] limit it.

[27:39] Alison said we should open it to

[27:41] >> and I also think that let's say in the

[27:43] next year we have like this explosion of

[27:46] we have so many public comments we

[27:48] aren't going to get out of here at a

[27:50] reasonable time and our meetings are

[27:52] running over and it's really diluting

[27:54] the process for our residents. Obviously

[27:57] at that point we address that issue of

[27:59] saying okay this has gotten out of hand.

[28:02] Um

[28:02] >> yeah we can change this too.

[28:04] >> Yes. So, I don't foresee that issue

[28:06] happening, but I'm not saying like we

[28:09] want everything all the time. Let's be

[28:11] here for hours and hours. Let's just um

[28:14] at this point

[28:16] commenting is not out of hand as far as

[28:19] like how many people are lined up at the

[28:21] podium.

[28:22] >> Yeah, especially with the three minute

[28:23] limit.

[28:24] >> So, in interest of time, should we try

[28:27] and just follow this answer these

[28:30] questions and

[28:31] >> Well, we kind of are. So,

[28:32] >> seems like we're jumping around.

[28:33] >> The only one that we It's all one thing

[28:35] though. So, let me let me nut this out

[28:38] here. The only question we haven't yet

[28:40] answered is whether the the comment

[28:43] period should continue to be at the

[28:44] beginning of the meeting or should it be

[28:45] at the end? In Leverkin, they put it at

[28:48] the end because they feel like the

[28:51] questions might have been answered by

[28:52] then and and then you don't end up with

[28:54] a deacto public hearing. But I think

[28:57] that

[28:59] I think personally that it should be at

[29:01] the beginning. How does everybody else

[29:03] feel about that?

[29:04] >> I think it should be at the beginning

[29:05] because someone may say something that

[29:07] I'm not aware of.

[29:09] >> Um and and and just and I don't want to

[29:11] get this off track again, but in terms

[29:13] of the comments, is there any appetite

[29:16] for uh because I know you're talking

[29:19] here about uh you can only comment on

[29:21] non-aggenda items. any appetite for if

[29:24] it's a public hearing, your comment

[29:26] needs to occur then and not during the

[29:28] general comment period so there's no

[29:30] repetition.

[29:31] >> Yeah. And that is our current rule is

[29:33] that you if somebody gets up to comment

[29:36] about something that has a public

[29:37] hearing later, we usually would say in

[29:40] fact we could say that up front.

[29:42] >> Do you have comments that are not about

[29:44] something on a public hearing? So the

[29:46] last question we have in this list is

[29:50] what is so so here's where I think we

[29:52] are now. It's it's continues to be at

[29:54] the front first of the meeting. It

[29:56] continues to be anyone who wants to make

[29:59] a comment. It continues to be three

[30:01] minutes and it's a comment period only.

[30:05] Is that accurate to say?

[30:06] >> Well, yeah. And then just this one

[30:08] middle thing. It should comments be

[30:11] accepted for all topics. And I think we

[30:13] decided all topics. We would take

[30:15] comments on all topics and if it's for a

[30:17] public hearing, we'll ask them to wait

[30:19] for that. So the last one is what is the

[30:22] responsibility of the town to add

[30:24] information submitted by members of the

[30:26] public during the public participation

[30:28] portion of the meeting to the many

[30:30] meeting minutes. We've been getting more

[30:32] of that as you know and one particular

[30:34] resident has submitted the same thing

[30:36] for three meetings in a row that become

[30:39] an issue in the minutes you know lengthy

[30:42] things.

[30:44] Um the council always has the option of

[30:47] asking that something be put in the

[30:49] minutes should the public be allowed to

[30:52] ask that something be put in the

[30:54] minutes. And I have personal experience

[30:57] with this where it's problematic in my

[31:00] opinion because anybody can write

[31:02] anything down whether it's true or not

[31:05] and put it in the minute minutes and

[31:07] it's a permanent record

[31:10] that I have a problem with and that's

[31:12] happened.

[31:14] So let's let's discuss that last issue.

[31:17] Do we want to do we want people in the

[31:20] audience to be able to add a document to

[31:22] the minutes or should they just be able

[31:24] to say it to us and

[31:27] leave it at that unless one of us asks

[31:29] that it be put in the minutes.

[31:30] >> Well, if there's a concern about a

[31:32] public record, it's already recorded.

[31:34] Yes. What they say is recorded.

[31:36] >> It is recorded.

[31:37] >> So, if the issue is I want to make a

[31:39] public record, it's recorded.

[31:41] But someone is more likely to go back

[31:43] and read the minutes than they are to go

[31:45] listen years later to a public record.

[31:49] Well,

[31:50] >> I just think in the interest of of of

[31:52] workload

[31:53] um if um I I I understand the rationale

[31:57] for I want what I say to be in in the in

[31:59] the minutes,

[32:02] but we would act on it in council if it

[32:05] was an issue. Then it would become part

[32:07] of the minutes. But if somebody comes in

[32:09] with some hairbrain stuff and that could

[32:10] happen.

[32:11] >> It has happened.

[32:12] >> Yeah. And then Robin has got to reduce

[32:14] all this stuff to writing. I just think

[32:17] it's it's I think it's more than we

[32:20] should.

[32:21] >> So if one of So if somebody has

[32:24] something in writing, a bunch of photo

[32:27] copies or something like we've seen

[32:28] before, but anything in writing and

[32:30] they're not on council and they say, "I

[32:32] want this in the minutes." I think that

[32:35] one of us should sponsor that to go into

[32:38] the minutes and not just anybody should

[32:40] be able Does that make sense?

[32:42] >> Do we have to do it in that moment? Like

[32:46] they get up and they read a statement

[32:48] and they're like and I want this in the

[32:51] minutes and then at that moment we say

[32:56] I agree I would like to have this in the

[32:59] minutes. I don't I don't know that

[33:00] that's

[33:01] >> I think we have to

[33:02] >> but I think we have to say it at some

[33:03] point. No.

[33:04] >> Yeah.

[33:05] >> It should be done in the meeting. It

[33:06] doesn't have to be like immediately.

[33:09] >> Okay.

[33:09] >> Oh yes, in the minutes. Boom. But at

[33:12] some point during that meeting, you

[33:13] could go back and say, "Hey, you know

[33:15] what? So and so made this comment at the

[33:17] beginning of the of the meeting and I

[33:20] thought that was really important and I

[33:21] would like that to be added to the

[33:23] minutes." As the mayor mentioned, as

[33:25] council members, you all have that

[33:26] privilege. you have the right to to

[33:29] request anything that you want to be

[33:30] added to the minutes.

[33:33] >> If I can add something, um just to be

[33:36] clear, anytime somebody makes a public

[33:38] comment, it is it is part of the

[33:39] minutes. It's I think you're talking

[33:41] about mayor when they provide documents

[33:44] and like you said pictures. It's it's

[33:45] the question of whether you want what

[33:48] they are handing out to all of you to be

[33:51] included because their comments are

[33:53] already going to be included, right?

[33:54] That's just part of the record. Yeah,

[33:56] >> but yeah, I just want to make sure that

[33:57] everybody's clear that that's what we're

[33:59] talking about. Their comments are always

[34:00] going to be included. It's whether or

[34:02] not any additional supplemental

[34:04] information you want to be included,

[34:07] right?

[34:09] >> Yeah, this is an

[34:12] Yeah, I've felt split between this. I

[34:15] see the importance of like the minutes

[34:17] being a complete reflection, but then I

[34:20] also know there have been times we have

[34:23] had things passed out to us that really

[34:26] are fairly off topic and maybe even

[34:29] weren't commented on. Um, I'm just

[34:32] thinking of times we've shown up and

[34:33] there have been things on our desks and

[34:36] they're

[34:40] I mean obviously relevant to something

[34:42] but maybe not relevant to that meeting.

[34:44] >> I just like what Tom said. You know, I I

[34:46] think that it should be our call

[34:48] >> as to whether or not we think it should

[34:52] >> as a written document in the minutes

[34:54] >> as a a written document. Yeah, we've

[34:56] already said anybody can make comments,

[34:58] but do we really, you know, do does that

[35:01] mean that anybody has the right to write

[35:03] something down and have it become a

[35:05] matter of permanent record? And it

[35:07] sounds like where we're going here is

[35:09] that one of us must ask that that be put

[35:12] in permanent record, the written

[35:14] document. We all good with that?

[35:16] >> Yes.

[35:17] >> Okay. So, I think we're done with this

[35:19] first part, public participation. So,

[35:21] the comment period is a comment period

[35:23] only. It's still a three minute max and

[35:27] that's fair to everybody. We can't we

[35:28] can't eb and flow on that. Um it can be

[35:32] about any topic including things in the

[35:35] meeting and if it's a public hearing

[35:37] we'll ask them to wait and comment at

[35:39] that time and any document that that

[35:43] they have one of us must sponsor so to

[35:47] speak to put in the permanent written

[35:49] record of the meeting. Did I miss

[35:51] anything? Just a quick question on a on

[35:53] a threem minute limit. What um there are

[35:56] times not frequently but there are times

[35:58] when somebody makes a comment interested

[36:00] about maybe a perspective.

[36:03] Would we be able to ask council people

[36:05] ask questions about parts of their

[36:08] comment or should we just leave that

[36:09] alone?

[36:10] >> I think we'd leave it alone because if

[36:11] it's comments only. Got it.

[36:13] >> Um and I think you could follow up if

[36:16] you wanted to. We could follow up with

[36:18] that person. Any of us.

[36:20] >> So

[36:20] >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I think we need

[36:22] to if it's comments only, then it's

[36:25] comments only.

[36:28] Okay. So, the next item on the staff

[36:32] report is meeting preparation, meeting

[36:34] packets, other public body

[36:35] communications.

[36:37] Um,

[36:40] so

[36:43] we did have a situation recently where

[36:45] there was a contract put in front of the

[36:47] council that that had a lot of a lot of

[36:51] corrections that needed to be made. Um,

[36:57] it those in fact need to be made. Um, so

[37:00] Pat, I'm I'm not you you made a lot of

[37:03] good corrections that needed to be made,

[37:05] but we did it in the meeting,

[37:07] >> right?

[37:08] >> If there's that much to go through, just

[37:10] in the interest of time,

[37:13] that would be

[37:15] I think let's talk about this. It would

[37:17] be better if you called Garen ahead of

[37:19] time and said, I see a lot of issues.

[37:21] Let's talk about this. And potentially

[37:23] pull that until it's cleaned up a little

[37:25] bit rather than take so much time at the

[37:27] meeting.

[37:27] >> I agree.

[37:28] >> Okay. So, I think that hadn't happened

[37:31] before and you didn't know that was that

[37:32] was something you could or but

[37:35] >> my impression was that you had to do it

[37:37] in the meeting or at least ask for it to

[37:39] be done in the meeting. But knowing that

[37:41] we could do it ahead of time and say,

[37:42] "Listen, here's what I suggest. What do

[37:44] you think?" And the vision come to us

[37:47] beforehand.

[37:48] >> Yeah. When when there's a lot I think if

[37:50] it's one or two things, that's fine.

[37:52] >> I guess I'm kind of wondering though is

[37:54] what if Pat is is suggesting changes to

[38:01] That's not what we're talking about

[38:03] here. We're talking about there were

[38:06] >> will shall grammatical punctuation

[38:10] >> those kinds of things. I think if it's

[38:12] substantive substantial issues, we

[38:14] should talk about it as a group. But if

[38:16] it's just, you know, I see this typo, I

[38:19] >> those kinds of things could be cleared

[38:21] up in advance.

[38:22] >> Right. Technical versus substantive.

[38:24] Yeah. Right. Like I I totally agree that

[38:26] if somebody is going to change the the

[38:30] meaning of the document, that's why

[38:31] we're in council, but if somebody sees a

[38:35] typo, a misnumbering,

[38:38] um then yeah, I think it would be even

[38:41] much easier for me to digest a document

[38:45] if those grammatical things are cleared

[38:48] up. And let's so let's just you know if

[38:51] you see them on Tuesday maybe that does

[38:54] need to just be taken off the agenda and

[38:56] telling technically cleaned up and then

[38:59] we talk about the substance at the next meeting. So I guess that's kind

[39:04] of actually relying on staff a little

[39:05] bit to say if a council member is coming

[39:07] to you and you feel like that the

[39:09] changes are you know dealing with the

[39:12] substance then that's kind of a

[39:15] well let's have council look at it and

[39:19] Yeah, I really I think here we're just

[39:21] talking about when there are quite a few

[39:24] technical items to clear up and not when

[39:27] it's something that we have to talk

[39:28] about our our thoughts about the

[39:31] substance.

[39:34] Um, and if it's just I see a typo on

[39:37] page five, that could be done in the

[39:38] meeting.

[39:42] But if when when there's a lot, I think

[39:44] that that maybe could be done before and um we could get the new version

[39:49] before that meeting or otherwise we

[39:52] could push it to the next meeting.

[39:54] Agreed on that. Okay.

[39:58] And then so what is the most effective

[40:01] and appropriate time and method for

[40:03] contacting staff with questions about

[40:05] meeting agenda items? So, so the

[40:07] community development

[40:09] um department has opened up Thursday

[40:11] afternoons as a time that they are open

[40:14] for conversations with council members.

[40:17] Is there a time you would not want us to

[40:22] contact you? Is there a best time? Is

[40:24] there a worst time? I think that's

[40:26] something you could answer.

[40:32] Is this is this question related to

[40:35] council or public

[40:38] >> council?

[40:39] >> Well, I I I think

[40:41] >> any Yes.

[40:41] >> Yeah. I I I I mean obviously your

[40:44] experience is as council members, but

[40:46] this the policy that you're discussing

[40:48] applies to all public bodies.

[40:49] >> Okay.

[40:50] >> So, I think the question is um as as

[40:52] staff absolutely that's our job to be a

[40:54] resource for all of the public bodies in

[40:56] the town and to um support you in doing

[40:59] the most effective job possible. Um

[41:02] question is

[41:04] um what's the most effective way to to

[41:07] have that happen? Is that to get a phone

[41:10] call on Sunday afternoon saying, "Hey,

[41:13] I've got a question about this contract

[41:15] or is it maybe wait till Monday

[41:18] morning?" Um, similarly like if the

[41:21] meeting is Wednesday night and we get a email from a public body member at

[41:28] 3:30 on Wednesday afternoon saying,

[41:30] "Hey, I've got all these issues with

[41:33] this item that

[41:36] doesn't give us a lot of time to to

[41:38] prepare and respond." So So that that's

[41:40] just the the idea. how can we best

[41:42] support you and um the the timing of

[41:47] when those questions come to us helps us

[41:49] better support you. Does that make

[41:51] sense?

[41:52] >> Yeah. And and I think barring like major

[41:55] manager emergencies, obviously I'm not

[41:58] talking about that. I would not expect

[42:00] staff to be answering after hours or on

[42:03] the weekend

[42:04] >> if I thanks for taking my call this

[42:06] weekend.

[42:10] » Um

[42:11] We'll classify that as as as

[42:13] emergencies.

[42:14] >> Yeah. I mean,

[42:16] in general practice, right? Like if I'm

[42:19] emailing on Friday evening, because

[42:21] that's when I've read the packet, I

[42:22] really am not expecting, me personally,

[42:25] I'm not expecting your answer until you

[42:27] get back into the office. Um, and I

[42:31] think that that's reasonable to expect

[42:34] that our staff gets to have evenings and

[42:36] weekends barring any emergency.

[42:40] Thank you, Kaylin. And I think that's

[42:42] kind of at the heart of the question is

[42:44] knowing that yeah, you know, for your

[42:46] convenience, you may be reviewing

[42:47] something on a Friday night or a

[42:49] Saturday afternoon and it's fresh on

[42:51] your mind and you send an email. When a

[42:52] staff member gets that on the weekends,

[42:55] they feel like, "Oh my goodness, this is pressing. I've got to respond to

[42:59] that." and and just having some some

[43:03] um mutual understanding about yes, it's

[43:06] convenient for you to send that email on

[43:08] the weekend, but you're not necessarily

[43:11] demanding a response

[43:13] as soon as you send it or within a

[43:15] certain amount of time after after you

[43:16] spend it. Just just having that

[43:17] understanding I think is what that that

[43:19] >> just because I don't have a life doesn't

[43:21] mean I think

[43:26] » I guess for me I just don't want to feel

[43:27] like I'm limited like if I missed my

[43:29] Thursday slot I missed my opportunity. I

[43:32] don't want to feel like that.

[43:33] >> Absolutely. Yeah. And and mayor, just

[43:35] one minor clarification on the on the

[43:38] office hours that so this this um thing

[43:42] that the community development

[43:43] department has done is is on Thursday

[43:47] afternoons is actually the the last

[43:49] Thursday of the month. That's just like,

[43:52] hey, come talk to us about big items,

[43:54] big issues in the town that you see

[43:57] going on.

[43:59] Don't feel like every single question

[44:01] that you have has to wait until that

[44:02] Thursday afternoon of the last month to

[44:04] be answered. That's just a dedicated

[44:06] time that community development has set

[44:08] aside to talk about big community

[44:09] development issues. But absolutely, like

[44:12] I said, staff is here to support and to be a resource for the for the

[44:15] town. And as much as possible, we make

[44:18] ourselves available during business

[44:20] hours to to treat or to answer questions

[44:23] from council and commission on a

[44:24] priority basis. I think the the real

[44:27] question is just an understanding on

[44:29] what the expectation from the council

[44:31] and the commission is in our in our

[44:32] response particularly on off hours

[44:35] questions.

[44:36] >> So a couple things, one is that that

[44:37] Thursday that you've set aside for us to

[44:40] talk with you, we should make an

[44:42] appointment so that we make sure there

[44:43] aren't more than two of us there at the

[44:45] same time. And then the other thing is

[44:48] maybe we just agree here that, you know,

[44:51] we're all retired. This is our only job.

[44:54] And so we often there's no difference

[44:57] between Tuesday and Sunday for us. So if

[45:00] we are looking at something on a Sunday

[45:02] and we

[45:03] >> Sunday

[45:06] >> and and we we're just, you know, getting

[45:10] our stuff done and we send it to you on

[45:12] a Sunday, do not feel obligated to

[45:14] answer it on a Sunday. I think if it's

[45:16] urgent, we'll text you instead. Is that

[45:19] fair enough? We'll text instead or we'll

[45:21] put in the subject urgent. But I think I

[45:24] think

[45:25] You know, like I don't think we have to

[45:27] lose sleep Sunday night because we're

[45:29] thinking, "Oh, I got to remember to ask

[45:31] that question tomorrow." We could ask it

[45:32] now, but we don't need to expect an

[45:34] answer now. Is that fair?

[45:37] >> And I think for the public facing side,

[45:39] we need to kind of say the same thing to

[45:41] the to the public and the residents.

[45:44] Like staff gets evenings and weekends to

[45:48] not answer your your emails. Um, and you

[45:53] can expect have an answer during

[45:56] business hours. Um, and and I think

[45:58] that, you know, I'm a big quality of

[46:01] life person that helps our staff have

[46:04] quality of life that they are not having

[46:06] to check their email or feel bad that an

[46:08] email has been sent Friday and they

[46:11] didn't get into it until Monday. I think

[46:13] that's very reasonable.

[46:15] And though this is not exactly on point,

[46:19] if if an email comes to us, town council

[46:22] in general, uh I want to talk about

[46:25] this. I want an answer on this. I have a

[46:27] complaint about that.

[46:29] Um and a response comes from staff at

[46:32] some point. Do do

[46:35] can we get what that response is so we

[46:37] know what it was? Does that happen as a

[46:40] routine basis? I'm thinking about the

[46:42] most recent email that we got.

[46:45] Oh, okay. Yeah, good good point. So, so

[46:48] some somebody in the community emails

[46:50] the council with a with a concern and

[46:53] staff may be included or it's forwarded

[46:55] on to staff. Either way, um then you as

[46:59] a council would like to be aware of

[47:01] whatever response goes back from staff

[47:03] to that to that person who asked the

[47:05] question or express or raise the

[47:08] >> I would, but I don't know how the rest

[47:09] of people feel. I think that would be

[47:11] really nice actually to know what staff

[47:13] said.

[47:16] >> Absolutely. Great great uh addition.

[47:21] » Well, I just I want to say that uh

[47:26] recently in the last couple weeks when

[47:28] Rick was still town manager something

[47:31] and he called me from his cruise.

[47:35] >> So I expect that kind of dedication from

[47:38] this state. Tom doesn't cruise.

[47:41] >> However,

[47:43] that being said, uh I do not expect the

[47:47] staff. I'm I'm like everybody else here

[47:50] retired. I will send you stuff whenever

[47:53] I'm thinking about it because that's

[47:54] what I need to do. Uh but I don't expect

[47:57] a response until working hires.

[48:00] >> Yes.

[48:01] >> And and thank you. and and and let me

[48:03] just also clarify that in in many

[48:06] instances the town manager is exempt

[48:08] from a lot of things and I think this is

[48:09] one of those areas. Um so absolutely if

[48:13] there's if there's an emergency if

[48:14] there's a need urgent request um that the council needs to to communicate

[48:19] with the manager absolutely that's

[48:21] anticipated and expected. I think this

[48:23] is just for like normal routine uh town

[48:27] operations, town business types of

[48:28] communications.

[48:29] >> Yeah.

[48:31] So, I think we've probably said enough

[48:33] about that. Uh, the next question, what

[48:35] are the responsibilities of members of

[48:36] public bodies relative to documents and

[48:39] records that are classified as town

[48:40] records, which is closely tied to the

[48:44] next one. What are responsibilities of

[48:46] staff members to protect confidentiality

[48:49] when information is proprietary or not

[48:51] publicly available?

[48:54] Um, I think we all learned at the

[48:56] training that

[49:01] the a lot of information that comes to

[49:05] council only can only be released upon a

[49:09] grammar request. Robin, clarify this for

[49:11] me because we talked about it. So, so if

[49:14] it's something say our our council

[49:17] reports, our manager reports that are in

[49:19] the council packet, those can be

[49:21] grammar, but only a certified document

[49:24] handler can hand those out legally.

[49:26] Right.

[49:27] >> Correct. Okay. So, um, your records

[49:30] information management team, um, we all

[49:33] go through annual training. We have to

[49:36] test every year. It's it's an ongoing

[49:39] thing. Um, as you're aware, in the

[49:40] legislature, uh, legislative session,

[49:43] this this uh, recent one, they made some

[49:46] changes to grammar. We don't expect you

[49:48] guys to know all those things, but they

[49:49] do expect us to know those things

[49:51] because that's our job. So our

[49:53] responsibility is to make sure that we

[49:55] are sharing the information as it's

[49:57] requested, redacting information that is

[49:59] protected and you know any any other

[50:03] things that if there's documents that

[50:05] have been classified a certain way that

[50:07] we're following Utah State code.

[50:10] >> Okay.

[50:11] >> So um if anybody wants information,

[50:13] they're more than welcome to submit a

[50:15] grammar request and we'll provide the

[50:17] information that we're allowed to

[50:18] provide. It's it's actually pretty easy

[50:22] to do and make requests. We've had

[50:24] plenty of members of the community that

[50:25] have done it. Um but we would ask that

[50:30] um you know people that are certified in records management be the ones to

[50:35] release that. Um not only that, there's

[50:37] also the requirement that when there is

[50:40] a grammar request, that also creates

[50:41] another record. So, we have to keep a

[50:44] record of requests and um that's not

[50:47] something that we would expect you guys

[50:48] to do um you know to retain something

[50:52] for 3 years until you know the retention

[50:55] schedule allows us to to get rid of it.

[50:57] So, that's kind of why we have

[50:59] everything and most municipalities as

[51:01] far as I'm aware also follow that. They

[51:03] have very specific people that handle

[51:05] those records requests.

[51:09] >> Okay. And

[51:11] I don't I don't know if this is the

[51:14] right place to ask this question, but I saw recently a pretty hefty legal

[51:19] bill for a grammar request. When do we

[51:22] have to get our attorney involved in

[51:23] that?

[51:26] Um if it it so

[51:30] we typically don't include our attorney

[51:33] unless it is things uh that have been

[51:36] requested about specific

[51:38] um you know legal things. So, if

[51:42] somebody say just because it's at the

[51:44] top of my mind, hey, I want to know

[51:46] about how that whole subway thing went,

[51:49] then we would probably include our

[51:51] attorney and say, you know, are there

[51:53] any legal documents that are attorney

[51:55] client privileged because they would be

[51:57] the subject matter expert on that. I

[52:00] would not be. Um, and that's kind of

[52:02] when we would include them. uh sometimes

[52:05] they have records that um we may not

[52:09] because they're talking with the other

[52:10] attorneys. There could be a lot of

[52:13] additional information that we don't

[52:14] necessarily have that our attorney um

[52:18] because of that client privilege would have that. So that's kind of when

[52:23] we start to involve them. So, you make

[52:26] that decision based on what someone is

[52:28] asking for and and sort of whether it

[52:30] was a a legal matter or just a Okay.

[52:34] >> Right. Um, there might be some other

[52:35] times that we would reach out to them

[52:37] and ask them, you know, like, hey, how

[52:40] should this be classified? Um, the state

[52:42] of Utah allows us to classify records

[52:44] when they're requested. We don't have to

[52:46] classify every record once it's

[52:48] requested. So, sometimes we'll reach out

[52:50] and ask them, you know, is this a record

[52:52] that should be classified this way? um

[52:55] you know and kind of get their their

[52:56] legal expertise on that. But most of the

[52:58] time, I mean, state code is is pretty

[53:01] straightforward when it comes to grammar

[53:02] and and how we classify records.

[53:05] >> Okay.

[53:05] >> So, Robin, doesn't grandma though say

[53:08] you only have to provide what you have

[53:10] on hand? Like you just referenced, the

[53:13] attorney may have additional. I mean,

[53:15] you're not required to see that.

[53:19] >> Uh that might be a little bit of a

[53:21] slippery slope because that's an

[53:23] attorney question. It probably is. Um,

[53:25] if they're asking for something

[53:26] specifically and we know that the record

[53:29] exists, it's a record and we have to

[53:31] provide it if it's not classified as

[53:34] protected or private, right? So, um, you

[53:37] know, there there would be situations

[53:39] where they do have those records. I

[53:42] think the thing that you're thinking of

[53:43] is if somebody says, "Hey, I want this

[53:45] record." record if that record doesn't

[53:47] exist, we as a municipality are not

[53:50] required to create a record to service

[53:53] that request. So if we don't maintain

[53:56] that record, then we we don't keep it.

[53:59] But we also have to site the reason why

[54:01] we can't produce the requested record.

[54:04] So usually when we're responding to

[54:06] grammar, we're also citing codes, which

[54:08] again is why we don't u you know ask

[54:11] that you guys respond because we have to

[54:13] site a lot of Utah codes explaining what

[54:16] the record is, if there was any

[54:17] redaction, what state code requires us

[54:20] to redact, a lot of things like that. So

[54:23] um yeah, if if it's not a record that we

[54:26] maintain, then obviously we we're not

[54:29] going to create a record. The state does

[54:31] not require us to create a record in

[54:34] order to provide a requested record.

[54:39] Thank you. Welcome. So maybe next we can

[54:42] look at the um the rules of order and

[54:45] procedures. It's at the end of our

[54:47] packet. It's we did adopt this in March

[54:50] of 2023 and it's the one that's on the

[54:53] back of our agenda every month that

[54:55] talks about um procedures and also shows

[54:58] the public hearing format.

[55:01] Pat, you made a comment earlier in the

[55:03] meeting that maybe we should prohibit

[55:06] profanity. I don't think that is on

[55:08] here. So, is that something you'd like

[55:11] to have added?

[55:12] >> No, I was looking at when it goes down

[55:14] to

[55:17] some of the examples that were given

[55:19] >> in the from the league.

[55:22] >> Wasn't really there was in the conduct

[55:24] section and this had to do with the

[55:27] thing in 2012.

[55:29] So, I'm not quite sure. That's why I

[55:31] asked the question initially. Are we

[55:33] talking about the code of conduct as one

[55:36] issue and then procedures in town

[55:38] council differently? Correct.

[55:41] >> Yeah. Really good distinction. So, the

[55:45] state law actually refers to your rules

[55:47] of procedure, how you operate your

[55:49] meetings. Code of conduct is something

[55:52] that that can be a a part of. The the

[55:55] rules of procedure can be a subset of

[55:57] your code of conduct. Um, but the code

[55:59] of conduct can be much bigger and it and

[56:00] it it talks about things other than just

[56:03] meetings, but it could reference like

[56:06] >> to answer civil question. Uh, mayor,

[56:09] >> the harassment, profanity, all that

[56:12] stuff. I was thinking that that should

[56:14] be something that's included in the in

[56:16] the code of conduct part.

[56:17] >> Okay.

[56:18] >> Not not in the the procedural part.

[56:20] >> And we'll get to that next. So,

[56:21] >> exactly. So on the on the sheet that I

[56:23] referred to that's on the back of our

[56:25] agenda, is there anything there knowing

[56:28] that we changed it only two years ago

[56:29] and we we for example, one of the things

[56:32] we added was after the after we closed

[56:35] the public hearing, we're giving the

[56:37] applicant another opportunity to talk to

[56:39] us to clarify anything that they heard

[56:42] during the public hearing. Um, is there

[56:45] anything else

[56:47] in the public hearing format that that

[56:50] you think ought to be changed?

[56:55] And also, is there anything in the rules

[56:57] of order that you think is inappropriate

[57:01] or anything that should be added?

[57:08] » No questions.

[57:09] >> Okay, thanks for that. Anybody?

[57:13] stands out for me.

[57:14] >> Okay.

[57:15] >> I I I think it I think things could be

[57:17] added to it, but I like it the way it

[57:19] stands now.

[57:20] >> Okay.

[57:20] >> Yeah,

[57:23] >> I think it's fine. I think it's serving

[57:25] us well and the changes that were made a

[57:27] couple years back have done, you know,

[57:29] what we needed them to do.

[57:31] >> Okay. So, I think what remains is our

[57:36] conduct policy.

[57:38] And I said at the first meeting that we

[57:40] had these examples from the league and I

[57:42] wondered if we wanted to simply adopt

[57:44] any of those and it seemed to me that we

[57:48] didn't want to exactly adopt any of

[57:50] those. But is there one of those that

[57:52] might be a good starting point or do we

[57:55] want to look at our current conduct

[57:56] policy and word smmith and make changes

[58:00] to that?

[58:02] You know, the one thing that I picked up

[58:04] um in a couple of these is that

[58:07] um the council should only speak after

[58:11] they're recognized by the mayor.

[58:16] » That's pretty formal.

[58:18] >> I think it's really formal.

[58:19] >> I don't

[58:20] >> Yeah, I I agree.

[58:24] >> You're okay if we don't do that.

[58:25] >> Oh, of course. Yeah. I know.

[58:28] >> Well, I I you know, when I was looking

[58:30] through all of these these three

[58:33] different scenarios,

[58:36] um

[58:39] I thought that we we do a lot of them

[58:40] anyway. our our rules,

[58:43] our procedures set up that way. But I

[58:46] think some of these are are way too

[58:48] formal for

[58:51] >> for what we're we've been doing in the

[58:54] past and for our meetings.

[58:57] >> I kind of like our procedures the way

[59:00] they are right now.

[59:01] >> And that's kind of what I was saying in

[59:03] the beginning is I think all three have

[59:06] their merits. However, I would like to

[59:08] see us mean what we say and say what we

[59:11] mean. And if we we need I don't think we

[59:15] could adopt any of those three and have

[59:18] it honestly be a good reflection of how

[59:20] we currently run our meetings. And I

[59:22] think we currently run our meetings

[59:25] like councilwise. I don't expect Barbara

[59:28] to acknowledge me before I speak. And I

[59:31] don't I don't Yeah, I don't know that I

[59:32] could be on board with that. But I would

[59:34] hate for that. That's just an example of

[59:36] something all three or all five, sorry,

[59:40] all five of us

[59:43] wouldn't support. And I think there are

[59:44] many other things in the documents that

[59:46] that's just not how this particular

[59:48] council runs. We have a nice flow. Um,

[59:52] now if council changes and the mayor

[59:54] changes, I can see how maybe the dynamic

[59:57] changes and

[59:59] uh maybe these rules would apply. But I

[1:00:02] think whatever we need to set forth

[1:00:04] needs to be open enough to let the

[1:00:07] natural flow of or the dynamic of the

[1:00:10] group shine. And I think that's what we

[1:00:12] do now.

[1:00:13] >> I think we do pretty well. I think we're

[1:00:15] respectful of each other and and um

[1:00:18] yeah, even when we disagree, nobody's out of line or anything like

[1:00:22] that. So, let's just let's just assume

[1:00:24] we're going to we're going to look at

[1:00:26] our current conduct policy, which is

[1:00:28] which says exhibit up on on the top of

[1:00:30] it there.

[1:00:31] And let's just we don't have to go

[1:00:33] through every item but so for example

[1:00:36] the first item is general conduct what

[1:00:38] officials shall do. Is there anything

[1:00:40] there that anyone wants to talk about?

[1:00:43] >> I think the first thing just as an

[1:00:45] overview this thing is

[1:00:47] I went through this and cut it in half

[1:00:50] because it's highly repetitive. It talks

[1:00:53] about the staff should do this. The town

[1:00:55] council should do this instead of saying

[1:00:57] a category that's town council and

[1:01:00] staff. This is what we do. Staff does

[1:01:02] this, which is different than council.

[1:01:04] does this, which is different

[1:01:05] than staff.

[1:01:07] Literally, I cut this from 2,000 words

[1:01:10] to to 1100 words by just eliminating the

[1:01:13] repetition.

[1:01:14] >> And you know that there were two copies

[1:01:16] of the same thing, right?

[1:01:18] >> Right.

[1:01:18] >> Yeah. So, it wasn't that you just Okay.

[1:01:21] So, for example, Pat, so in the what's

[1:01:23] up on the screen, what did you cut out

[1:01:25] of there?

[1:01:27] >> See, here we are.

[1:01:39] One thing that Kyler was just saying,

[1:01:40] wait to be acknowledged by the chair

[1:01:43] before speaking.

[1:01:44] >> Oh, we're going to take that out. Yeah.

[1:01:47] Where was that?

[1:01:49] >> It's not so much that I cut things out.

[1:01:51] I said I consolidated them.

[1:01:53] >> I think might be a better way to

[1:01:55] describe it.

[1:01:56] >> Um, let's take C out. Wait. wait to be

[1:01:59] acknowledged by the chair before

[1:02:00] speaking.

[1:02:05] I think where that might apply is the

[1:02:07] public maybe um you know we've had it in

[1:02:12] the past where

[1:02:14] somebody says

[1:02:16] can I say something

[1:02:19] and I think at that point yes they do

[1:02:21] need to wait for the chair to say

[1:02:24] >> yeah and in fact it's my prerogative

[1:02:26] whether I let them or not but um this is

[1:02:29] officials this is so in this in item. I

[1:02:33] think we do want to take that out.

[1:02:36] What about D? Is that redundant? I mean,

[1:02:38] move to require the chair to enforce

[1:02:40] these rules.

[1:02:47] What about

[1:02:53] » I don't have an issue with much of this

[1:02:54] until we get to the electronic equipment

[1:02:56] part.

[1:02:58] >> So, I I had a question about number

[1:03:00] eight, protect the public good. public

[1:03:02] officials do not represent a specific

[1:03:04] neighborhood, business, individual or

[1:03:06] interest. And I wanted to talk about

[1:03:08] that a little bit because three of us in

[1:03:11] on the council live on the Anastasia

[1:03:13] Plateau and that comes up way too much.

[1:03:18] Does anybody else agree that that that's

[1:03:20] brought up much?

[1:03:22] >> That's brought up by others

[1:03:24] >> by Yeah. others. because I feel like

[1:03:29] we still represent the whole community

[1:03:31] and we're not making decisions just

[1:03:32] because of our own neighborhood.

[1:03:35] >> So yeah, I think it's different in

[1:03:38] because we aren't a lot of bigger

[1:03:40] municipalities, right? They have a

[1:03:42] district and that's your person is

[1:03:44] representing your district and they

[1:03:47] and and that's not how we run.

[1:03:50] >> Yeah. We're at large so to speak. But I

[1:03:52] also think that it is a good statement

[1:03:54] because I think the it's inevitable that

[1:03:59] you know your neighborhood the very

[1:04:01] best, right? You live there, you're

[1:04:04] there the most. You see your

[1:04:05] neighborhood. It's inevitable that Randy

[1:04:08] knows Valley View Drive better than I

[1:04:09] do.

[1:04:11] >> I hope.

[1:04:11] >> Yes, I do.

[1:04:14] >> So, I think that I mean I see what you

[1:04:17] mean that some

[1:04:21] Having three of you living up there, it

[1:04:24] feels it feels like Anastasia is is well

[1:04:27] represented because three of you know it

[1:04:29] better. I'm not up there very often.

[1:04:31] >> I guess what I'm where where I want to

[1:04:34] go with this is I just want to state

[1:04:37] publicly that just because I live on the

[1:04:39] Anastasia plateau does not mean that

[1:04:42] when I make decisions it's just to

[1:04:44] protect my own neighborhood. I'm making

[1:04:45] decisions I think are good for the whole

[1:04:47] town. And I think it's a good idea for

[1:04:50] us to never say, "Well,

[1:04:53] I wouldn't want this in my neighborhood,

[1:04:55] so I'm voting against it." And I don't

[1:04:56] think we would anyway, but I just want

[1:04:58] us to be kind of aware of the fact that

[1:05:02] we do represent the whole town and we

[1:05:05] need to to speak that way. Does that

[1:05:08] make sense?

[1:05:08] >> Yeah. And I think this is

[1:05:12] personally I think this is what this is

[1:05:13] basically saying.

[1:05:15] >> Yeah, it's a good reminder.

[1:05:16] >> It's telling it's telling the residents

[1:05:18] and businesses and anybody else public

[1:05:21] officials do not represent a specific

[1:05:23] neighborhood business or individual.

[1:05:25] When they're speaking, they are speaking

[1:05:28] for the public and for the town in

[1:05:31] general. So, I like the statement where

[1:05:34] it is. I think it's fine. Um,

[1:05:38] and I think that's the statement is

[1:05:41] speaking to everybody else. Here's the way public officials will be

[1:05:47] conducting themselves.

[1:05:48] >> Okay. Can you scroll that down to the

[1:05:51] rest of this section?

[1:05:55] I think we all turn our electronics off.

[1:05:58] I've never heard one of our phones ring.

[1:06:00] Let's see. except my security camera but

[1:06:03] keeps going off.

[1:06:05] >> But I do

[1:06:05] >> but we don't see that.

[1:06:06] >> I do have a question about uh if we text

[1:06:10] during a meeting if if I if this is

[1:06:13] something that comes up and I don't know

[1:06:15] what the answer is and I go, you know, I

[1:06:17] wonder what so and so thinks about this.

[1:06:19] It would be highly inappropriate, yes, a

[1:06:22] violation of the open meetings act if I

[1:06:24] were to text somebody and say, "Hey,

[1:06:26] what do you think?" Right? What if I

[1:06:28] text an attorney or uh not Mr. Harden,

[1:06:31] but somebody else? What's the legal

[1:06:32] issue on that? I shouldn't be permitted

[1:06:35] to do that unless I

[1:06:38] openly say it. Correct.

[1:06:41] In other words, I I wonder what the

[1:06:43] legal opinion is on this.

[1:06:46] >> We're all looking at you, Tom.

[1:06:47] >> I think there should be a prohibition of

[1:06:50] me texting somebody outside that

[1:06:53] meeting.

[1:06:53] >> So, you can certainly put that in your

[1:06:55] rules. Absolutely. Um whether or not

[1:06:58] it's it's it's it's exactly prohibited

[1:07:00] by the Open and Public Meetings Act. Um

[1:07:02] I'll let Robin weigh in if I say this

[1:07:05] incorrectly, but um I Pat, I I think

[1:07:09] you're right. I think if you were having

[1:07:11] a a private side conversation with

[1:07:12] someone outside of the meeting, that

[1:07:14] flies in the face of an open and public

[1:07:16] meeting, right? because you're privy to

[1:07:17] information and you're you're you're

[1:07:20] then

[1:07:21] uh acting on or conveying or making

[1:07:24] decisions on that information that the

[1:07:25] rest of the council does not have.

[1:07:28] If you were to if if you were to

[1:07:30] disclose it and say, "Hey, I just texted

[1:07:31] my personal attorney and here's what he

[1:07:33] said about this."

[1:07:35] Maybe. But but again, I think you could

[1:07:38] by policy say, "We're just not going to

[1:07:40] do that." Robin, do you have a different

[1:07:42] opinion? I I think the only thing that I

[1:07:44] would really want to add is that um I

[1:07:47] think it's more of the public perception

[1:07:49] when you're on your phone because they

[1:07:52] don't know what conversation whether

[1:07:53] it's you know hey what's for dinner you

[1:07:57] know are you having a conversation about

[1:07:59] the the current topic or are you

[1:08:01] thinking about you know when is this

[1:08:03] meeting going to end what am I coming

[1:08:05] home to you know things like that so I I

[1:08:08] think for perception purposes it's you

[1:08:11] know it it would be good to not do that

[1:08:14] to just say, you know, we're just not

[1:08:16] going to do that. But that's that's kind

[1:08:18] of my my personal feeling on that. So So

[1:08:24] >> on the other hand, if if we were talking

[1:08:26] about something and and somebody said,

[1:08:30] "I'm not sure if there are 10 or 20 of

[1:08:33] those in town." And we could quick text

[1:08:35] somebody and find out and say, "I just

[1:08:37] checked and there are 20." That could be

[1:08:39] useful information

[1:08:41] >> which is real different than us sitting

[1:08:42] there texting throughout a meeting,

[1:08:44] >> right?

[1:08:45] >> Which would be poor poor conduct. I

[1:08:49] agree. But

[1:08:49] >> and again, I think that speaks to

[1:08:51] perception

[1:08:52] >> that so I think just at our just use

[1:08:54] discretion. I think all of us are good

[1:08:56] at being present in the meeting and

[1:08:58] >> absolutely.

[1:08:59] >> Yeah.

[1:09:00] And I'll say for the record that

[1:09:02] there are times I'm on the phone, but

[1:09:03] that's because my phone actually has

[1:09:05] better access to some of our documents

[1:09:07] than my iPad as far as accessibility

[1:09:13] just because it's newer. So, there are

[1:09:16] times that and I I should be aware of

[1:09:18] the public perception that people don't

[1:09:19] actually know what I'm doing on my phone

[1:09:21] and that I'm reading packet material and

[1:09:23] not reading text messages about what's

[1:09:27] for dinner. I try to ignore those.

[1:09:31] Um I I this is a great uh discussion.

[1:09:34] You may I I think it may be as a

[1:09:37] suggestion um if you want to keep that

[1:09:40] flexibility and not have a blanket rule

[1:09:41] of we're never going to text ever and

[1:09:43] that's that's that's good. I think for

[1:09:45] the reasons that you mentioned, mayor, I

[1:09:46] think having a policy also that states

[1:09:48] if we do that, we are going to disclose,

[1:09:51] hey, I just texted so and so for this

[1:09:54] answer and it's 20, not 10. Again, just

[1:09:57] so that everybody on the council and who

[1:09:59] is attending the meeting understands

[1:10:02] the the information that the council is

[1:10:04] acting on. Again, that's the whole point

[1:10:05] of the open and public meetings act is

[1:10:07] that meetings are conducted in public.

[1:10:10] >> Yeah. But I do think that switching it

[1:10:13] to silent is is important and I think we

[1:10:16] all do that. Uh what about that number

[1:10:18] K? Is that let's see shell immediately.

[1:10:22] >> Did you say number K?

[1:10:24] >> Okay. Number K. Letter K.

[1:10:28] >> K-shaped economy.

[1:10:30] >> Yeah.

[1:10:32] >> You say number, I say letter.

[1:10:34] >> It's okay. I just was uh making sure I

[1:10:36] heard you right.

[1:10:38] >> You always hear me right. Okay. So I

[1:10:41] guess that should stay, huh? Okay. So

[1:10:45] let's look at conduct conduct with coic

[1:10:48] officials. That second one there.

[1:10:53] » Pat, is there anything on there you took

[1:10:55] out?

[1:10:57] >> No, I I trimmed it down a bit, but I

[1:11:00] everything in there is

[1:11:04] » good with me.

[1:11:06] >> So were you an editor in a previous

[1:11:08] life?

[1:11:08] >> I read police reports. until I was sick

[1:11:10] to my stomach.

[1:11:13] >> So, you just shortened the stuff. Is

[1:11:14] that what you're saying? You rewrote

[1:11:16] them.

[1:11:17] >> You didn't strike them out. You just

[1:11:19] kind of shorten them.

[1:11:20] >> Just kind of trimmed them down. And I'd

[1:11:22] be happy to send

[1:11:24] >> I was just going to ask

[1:11:25] >> version or if it's all there

[1:11:29] >> draft.

[1:11:30] >> Um Pat, why don't you send your draft to

[1:11:35] Robin?

[1:11:36] >> I can send it all to you now.

[1:11:41] And as they're reworking this to bring

[1:11:43] back to us, they can take a look at your

[1:11:46] suggestions.

[1:11:46] >> I'll do that.

[1:11:47] >> Because as long as you're not changing

[1:11:48] the the point and the gist,

[1:11:52] >> if you like the language better, I don't

[1:11:57] know who's going to write this, if it's

[1:11:59] Tom or Robin or April or whatever, but

[1:12:02] maybe just let them have those and if

[1:12:04] they see something that makes complete

[1:12:06] sense that you give them, they can

[1:12:07] change that. I'll do that

[1:12:08] >> because we'll we'll be the final um

[1:12:10] we'll do the final vote on this anyway.

[1:12:13] So um so one question I had avoid

[1:12:16] offensive negative comments and practice

[1:12:18] civility.

[1:12:20] That kind of covers not using profanity,

[1:12:22] right? We don't need to specifically say

[1:12:24] not to use profanity.

[1:12:27] Plus Kylo wouldn't be able to make her

[1:12:29] point without it. So

[1:12:37] Okay,

[1:12:38] >> thanks for the check. I needed that.

[1:12:41] >> Okay, contact with city staff. What

[1:12:44] about that? Anything in there that

[1:12:46] anybody wants to talk about?

[1:12:49] We talked about when to contact them. We

[1:12:51] talked about um weekends and evenings,

[1:12:54] so we don't need to redisuss that.

[1:12:57] >> I I can't believe Randy doesn't have a

[1:12:59] comment about the the heading there.

[1:13:04] conduct with city staff,

[1:13:07] >> not town step.

[1:13:09] >> Let's change that.

[1:13:10] >> In our own document.

[1:13:12] >> Our own document. How

[1:13:13] >> embarrassing. Um

[1:13:17] >> I wanted to ask just a little bit about

[1:13:20] um D

[1:13:22] conduct with town staff. Um recognizing

[1:13:25] that we each have you know our own

[1:13:28] assignment per department.

[1:13:30] >> Which part is this? Uh

[1:13:31] >> D. Okay.

[1:13:34] refrain from giving direction to staff

[1:13:36] on behalf of the public body without

[1:13:38] having received the express authority of

[1:13:40] the public body to do so. Um is is that

[1:13:44] in concert with us

[1:13:47] uh working independently you know with

[1:13:51] uh each department

[1:13:58] I have you know I I'm glad we're talking

[1:14:01] about this. I was going to bring this

[1:14:02] up. So, so we all have we all as council

[1:14:07] members have our own responsibilities

[1:14:09] and some of us have departments and some

[1:14:11] of us have people and some of us have

[1:14:13] functions.

[1:14:15] Do we as a body feel that if we want to

[1:14:18] for example talk to Ryan Gooler about

[1:14:21] how he's doing something should we talk

[1:14:24] to to Jack and involve him in that

[1:14:26] conversation or should we feel free to

[1:14:29] go directly to Ryan? And that's is that

[1:14:31] the question you're asking?

[1:14:32] >> And I think it's a good conversation to

[1:14:34] have. Um, so so there's that. There's

[1:14:38] the council piece and the the

[1:14:39] responsibility council. There's also the town staff piece. And that's that.

[1:14:47] So if someone reports, so Robin reports

[1:14:50] to Tom. If we want to talk to Robin

[1:14:53] about something, should we go through

[1:14:56] Tom? And so let's have conversations

[1:14:58] about both of that. the the the staff

[1:15:01] reporting and the council responsibility

[1:15:04] and how

[1:15:06] I mean we don't have to change anything

[1:15:08] but let's at least have a conversation

[1:15:09] about that.

[1:15:10] >> Well, it's just following chain of

[1:15:12] command. So, it's not creating anything

[1:15:14] new

[1:15:15] >> in the private sector. You would

[1:15:16] definitely follow chain of command.

[1:15:19] >> Oh, wait. Are we talking about like

[1:15:25] » I am trying to think of a Robin specific

[1:15:27] question which I have like have had

[1:15:30] clumps of them in the past.

[1:15:33] Hey Robin, I noticed that when I call

[1:15:35] the phone tree,

[1:15:37] you're still listed as deputy clerk.

[1:15:39] That was something I had a long time

[1:15:40] ago. Do I really have to go to Tom?

[1:15:43] >> Well, that's what we're talking about.

[1:15:44] Like I feel like burdening Tom with that

[1:15:46] when Tom's got a million other manager

[1:15:49] fires. Like

[1:15:51] if I have a big issue,

[1:15:56] gosh,

[1:15:56] >> I think we're talking about performance

[1:15:58] or conduct.

[1:15:59] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Because if I'm

[1:16:01] having an issue, then I could say I

[1:16:05] don't want to go over Robin's head and I

[1:16:08] don't want to go around Tom. like these

[1:16:11] I this would be really hard to put in

[1:16:13] black and white I think

[1:16:15] >> but these are bigger things than that

[1:16:17] Kyla the these are

[1:16:20] so one of the questions I have if I if I

[1:16:23] went directly to Jameson's the wrong

[1:16:26] example if I went directly to Christian

[1:16:28] about something I think he'd be pretty

[1:16:31] intimidated and and

[1:16:34] I I think I think maybe we should be at least working

[1:16:40] through the managers and Robin you're a

[1:16:44] manager too so you're you know so so

[1:16:46] maybe

[1:16:48] or Tom give us some rules of thumb

[1:16:51] >> yeah so um in in terms of like

[1:16:53] performance and and things I think

[1:16:55] that's already covered in C says discuss

[1:16:59] directly with the town manager or DCD we

[1:17:02] may want to change that I don't know why

[1:17:04] the DCD was included in 2012 but anyway

[1:17:07] discuss directly with the town manager

[1:17:09] any displeasure with or concerns about a

[1:17:11] department member or staff. So like if you say gosh I've really got an issue

[1:17:15] with the way that so and so is doing

[1:17:17] stuff rather than going to them directly

[1:17:19] or even to their supervisor probably

[1:17:20] first to come to the town manager and

[1:17:22] say let's talk about this and then we

[1:17:23] can come up with the appropriate um way

[1:17:25] to handle the situation. So that's

[1:17:28] >> so let's cross off for DC.

[1:17:30] >> Yeah.

[1:17:31] >> Well actually but we are going to the

[1:17:34] DCD.

[1:17:36] Look at his name thing.

[1:17:37] >> Yeah. For a minute.

[1:17:40] I don't know. Every order. So

[1:17:42] >> So Tom, you're saying C really is saying

[1:17:46] don't go to the council person over the

[1:17:49] department. Go to the town manager.

[1:17:51] Well, if if it's like a if it's like a a

[1:17:55] performance issue, if it's hey, so and

[1:17:56] so is not pulling their weight or um so

[1:17:59] and so did did this which is um you know

[1:18:03] counter to town policy or you know some

[1:18:04] something that that would require some

[1:18:06] kind of coaching or or things like that

[1:18:09] then yeah I think it's appropriate to

[1:18:10] come to the town manager first. Um so

[1:18:13] that's that's that's C. Um, I love the

[1:18:16] way that we have things set up with

[1:18:17] council members having um responsibility

[1:18:20] for different departments and there's a

[1:18:22] council liaison. If it's something um

[1:18:25] like a project that the council is

[1:18:28] working, excuse me, a specific

[1:18:30] department is working on like say you

[1:18:31] have a question about the Russian olive

[1:18:33] and tamarisk removal project. Um then

[1:18:37] yeah, you don't have to come to the town

[1:18:38] manager for that. Um, you could say to

[1:18:41] Kyla, "Hey, Kyla. Um, I I want to talk

[1:18:44] to Kendall or Nile about the Russian olive removal project, right?"

[1:18:50] And and you can just go straight to to

[1:18:52] that department through the council

[1:18:54] liaison, right? I I think that's we've

[1:18:56] got that all set up. It doesn't require

[1:18:57] the whole council to say, "Can Jack go

[1:19:01] talk to Nile about invasive species

[1:19:03] removal?" You don't need to do that. You

[1:19:04] don't need to come to the town council.

[1:19:06] I think looping in the council liaison

[1:19:08] for that department would be appropriate

[1:19:10] >> and it may it may save having to go to

[1:19:14] Nyall and let him do his other work too

[1:19:16] because Kyle Kyla is likely to be able

[1:19:19] to answer that question. So do we agree

[1:19:23] then that if we have a question about

[1:19:25] something going on with the department,

[1:19:27] we start with the council member

[1:19:28] responsible for that department?

[1:19:31] Does that make sense?

[1:19:34] >> Does I also feel like

[1:19:37] I

[1:19:38] am not the gatekeeper and I'm never

[1:19:40] going to tell another council member

[1:19:43] don't go ask staff.

[1:19:45] >> Right. But if you can answer

[1:19:46] >> blanket approval to talk to Nyall. So

[1:19:48] >> yeah like I don't want that to be the

[1:19:50] perception

[1:19:52] >> that I that any one of us has to say

[1:19:55] like if I have a question for Garen that

[1:19:57] I have to go through Barbara. I don't

[1:19:58] know. Yeah. Well, I mean this thing is

[1:20:00] saying uh refrain from giving directions

[1:20:04] and and so I think questions our

[1:20:07] directions are are very different.

[1:20:09] >> Yeah. I think if you have a question, I

[1:20:12] think it's appropriate

[1:20:14] for me to go to Ryan asking,

[1:20:16] >> you know, a manager,

[1:20:18] >> but if I'm going to give directions, I

[1:20:20] think I should go through.

[1:20:22] >> Yes, I like that distinction and thanks

[1:20:24] for rereading that because I

[1:20:27] >> I feel like that is like absolutely we I

[1:20:30] should not be giving direction to

[1:20:32] >> Absolutely not. Right. Well, and and it

[1:20:34] says giving direction, but I think the

[1:20:35] conversation we're having, we are

[1:20:37] talking about even asking questions. So,

[1:20:42] again, if if I want to know

[1:20:47] the status of the Tamaris project,

[1:20:51] Kylo, should I should I come to you and

[1:20:53] say, "What's the status of the Tamaris

[1:20:55] project?" And you might say, "Talk to

[1:20:57] Nyall," or you might just tell me

[1:20:58] because you probably know. Which which

[1:21:01] should we do first?

[1:21:03] Should I go to Nile or should I go to

[1:21:05] you? We just want to we just want to set

[1:21:07] a protocol.

[1:21:08] >> Yeah. And and I don't I don't know that

[1:21:10] it's

[1:21:12] I wonder if it's black and white because

[1:21:14] there are times when maybe I am less

[1:21:15] busy, right? And so maybe I could but I

[1:21:18] also as much as I know I do not know a

[1:21:22] lot of the intricate moving details that

[1:21:24] council members

[1:21:27] uh might want to get into with a staff

[1:21:29] member.

[1:21:30] >> Yeah. And I the way I would answer that

[1:21:33] you asked Kyle the way I would answer it

[1:21:35] if you ask me is I would say it's more

[1:21:38] appropriate

[1:21:40] to go to the

[1:21:42] if it's a question go to the manager

[1:21:45] >> and ask that question but I this item D

[1:21:49] is talking about specifically

[1:21:51] giving directions.

[1:21:52] >> Yeah that's I think that's

[1:21:54] straightforward.

[1:21:54] >> I think that one's straightforward. If

[1:21:56] you're if we're going to expand this

[1:21:58] into questions,

[1:22:00] u you know, if you have a question about

[1:22:04] the sewer,

[1:22:06] you don't necessarily have to come to me

[1:22:09] before going to Rob because Rob's going

[1:22:11] to be able to answer that detail or

[1:22:14] streets much better than I could. So,

[1:22:18] I'm very comfortable with anybody going

[1:22:21] and asking them that question.

[1:22:23] >> Okay.

[1:22:23] >> Not having to go through me on that. So

[1:22:25] use your discretion. You can go directly

[1:22:29] to the manager. I would just say be

[1:22:32] careful about going to and don't give

[1:22:35] direction without, you know, do that

[1:22:36] through the manager, but be careful

[1:22:38] about there are people on our staff that

[1:22:41] would would be very intimidated by us

[1:22:44] going directly to them. So let's just

[1:22:46] use our best judgment. Is that fair?

[1:22:48] >> Yeah. And and definitely Yeah. Start

[1:22:50] with the manager. I think if the person

[1:22:52] is listed next to an item as the staff

[1:22:55] contact, they should be comfortable and

[1:22:58] confident in dealing with that item and otherwise like you said the people

[1:23:04] maybe that we aren't dealing with very

[1:23:05] often like some of the streets crew or

[1:23:07] parks people absolutely that is not a

[1:23:10] common connection that I have with many

[1:23:14] of those people and so I would not

[1:23:17] specifically

[1:23:19] uh be cornering them and asking them

[1:23:21] questions and I also think that the the

[1:23:24] road can you know communication needs to

[1:23:26] be open from staff's perspective too if

[1:23:29] they are having like beingounded by or

[1:23:33] inappropriately

[1:23:35] asked questions and they're not

[1:23:36] comfortable like then we obviously I

[1:23:39] think I'm open to hearing that feedback

[1:23:42] and saying you know Robin really wants

[1:23:43] you to lay off on um asking her about

[1:23:46] the phone tree she doesn't know

[1:23:50] So like

[1:23:52] um

[1:23:54] I think it's kind of like we should open

[1:23:56] up the communication to say if

[1:23:58] something's not working on the staff

[1:23:59] side too, we I would like to know about

[1:24:02] that.

[1:24:03] >> Okay.

[1:24:04] >> Now,

[1:24:05] sorry, can I just say something really

[1:24:07] quick? So as you know, we have the staff

[1:24:10] report from the community development

[1:24:11] side every month and within that we have

[1:24:14] our special projects. We've started

[1:24:16] listing who the staff contact is. And

[1:24:18] the reason for that is so that you can

[1:24:20] come to us directly and ask about the

[1:24:22] invasive species project or America 250

[1:24:25] and items like that because we are kind

[1:24:27] of the experts on that project.

[1:24:30] >> Thank you for pointing that out.

[1:24:33] >> I mean, we all see the report, but it

[1:24:35] didn't it wouldn't necessarily we

[1:24:37] wouldn't necessarily connect that to

[1:24:38] that's who you should talk to. So So

[1:24:40] we've probably talked enough about that.

[1:24:42] What about this next conduct with the

[1:24:43] public? Anything that we

[1:24:46] want to

[1:24:47] >> change? It seems really straightforward.

[1:24:49] Yeah.

[1:24:50] >> How about

[1:24:51] >> I have a question on the next one.

[1:24:52] >> Okay.

[1:24:53] >> Anybody? Anybody on the public?

[1:24:56] >> Okay.

[1:24:56] >> Uh this one uh conduct with our other

[1:24:59] agencies. Do we need anything about

[1:25:02] dealing with the press?

[1:25:07] Well, that's that's an interesting

[1:25:09] conversation because I am technically

[1:25:12] one of my responsibilities, not

[1:25:14] technically, one of my responsibilities

[1:25:16] is being the media contact. And when the

[1:25:19] media contacts me, if it's your project,

[1:25:21] I might refer them to you,

[1:25:24] >> but but they come through me to be

[1:25:26] referred to.

[1:25:27] I it' probably be good to at least have

[1:25:29] something in writing so that you know we

[1:25:31] state who the initial contact is and you

[1:25:35] can designate as you decide.

[1:25:37] >> Could we add a a section that talks

[1:25:40] about inquiries from the media and

[1:25:43] specifically say that that Tom is the

[1:25:48] staff member that's the point of contact

[1:25:50] and I'm the council member that's the

[1:25:52] point of contact and we can we can refer

[1:25:54] them out to other people. Is that

[1:25:55] appropriate? Does everybody think that's

[1:25:57] appropriate?

[1:25:59] >> Okay.

[1:26:01] >> Or do you want to be Robin? you're look

[1:26:03] like maybe you want to

[1:26:08] » you know one

[1:26:14] » one item I'll bring up in regards to

[1:26:16] this is I've uh

[1:26:20] NPR reporter that contacted me and said

[1:26:23] he wanted to talk to me about the the

[1:26:26] Utah Renewable

[1:26:28] Communities Act and Um,

[1:26:33] you know, and he hasn't contacted me yet

[1:26:35] on that, but

[1:26:38] I know a lot more than you do.

[1:26:40] >> I would refer him to you. I would

[1:26:42] >> Yeah. And I know I believe more than Tom

[1:26:46] about that. So,

[1:26:48] >> you were also mentioned in that press

[1:26:49] release. Yeah.

[1:26:50] >> Randy, like your name specific in that

[1:26:53] press release, which is maybe why he

[1:26:55] >> Yeah, it might have been why. But I

[1:26:57] think he was contacting he is contacting

[1:26:59] you as a board member of that.

[1:27:02] >> Yeah, he is. Not as a spring council

[1:27:04] member. You're right. I think that's

[1:27:06] >> that's a good point. That's so that's a

[1:27:08] very good point.

[1:27:09] >> I think it's probably wise to have

[1:27:13] something in writing in that I've been

[1:27:16] interviewed for

[1:27:18] a couple different things. part of it,

[1:27:21] you know, being a council but also being

[1:27:24] next park service employee and

[1:27:28] something that I do on a regular basis

[1:27:31] is just whoever's interviewing me to

[1:27:33] tell them this is my personal opinion.

[1:27:35] I'm not representing the town or the

[1:27:37] park. You know, it's

[1:27:39] >> Yeah. And that's that's a good point.

[1:27:46] So, yeah, I think you know, typically

[1:27:49] when someone come someone from the media

[1:27:52] comes to me,

[1:27:54] they're often asking the town's position

[1:27:56] on it. They're not they're not coming to

[1:27:58] me as an expert in in anyone field. And

[1:28:01] I think that's different. So I think

[1:28:04] again use your destruct your discretion

[1:28:06] but but I think we should identify who

[1:28:10] the prime point of contacts are on both

[1:28:12] staff and council.

[1:28:16] Did we answer your question because you

[1:28:19] that was about the media really which is kind of other agencies and kind

[1:28:22] of its own animal.

[1:28:24] >> Yeah. And then maybe this is a little

[1:28:26] bit off topic, but do we and unless we

[1:28:29] have it in here, do we need to say

[1:28:31] anything about um that you know

[1:28:34] politically were neutral and that we

[1:28:37] don't represent any political

[1:28:39] affiliation as a as a

[1:28:44] » or not?

[1:28:45] >> Well, it's a nonpartisan position

[1:28:47] >> and we just assume that people know

[1:28:49] that. Um,

[1:28:50] >> yeah. I don't think any of us run as

[1:28:53] independent, Republican, Democrat when

[1:28:56] we run

[1:28:58] like in the state legislature or

[1:29:03] etc. So,

[1:29:05] >> so I don't I don't know that in this

[1:29:08] code is is I don't know that there's any

[1:29:10] need to say it in this code.

[1:29:13] If you think we should, we could say

[1:29:15] we're politically neutral and represent

[1:29:17] only the town's best interests, but this

[1:29:20] is something that's for us internally

[1:29:22] and not for residents necessarily to

[1:29:25] read. They can read it if they want to,

[1:29:27] but

[1:29:29] >> Well, can I can I make a comment on

[1:29:30] that?

[1:29:30] >> Yeah.

[1:29:31] >> Yes, it is. This is a a document that's

[1:29:33] going to guide you as a as a public

[1:29:35] body, you and the planning commission,

[1:29:36] and and that way it is kind of

[1:29:38] internally facing. However, once it's

[1:29:41] adopted, it's your policy. And if you

[1:29:45] violate, this is the point that Kylo was

[1:29:47] making earlier. If you if you violate

[1:29:48] your policy, whether it's not it's

[1:29:51] intended for the the public or not,

[1:29:55] you do open yourself up to some exposure

[1:29:58] there, right? And I I I don't know

[1:30:01] exactly. It's hard to say what that

[1:30:03] liability is without having a specific

[1:30:05] situation, but if you say, "Hey, this is our internal policy." So it's to guide us, but we can kind of do

[1:30:11] whatever we want and and you kind of

[1:30:14] knowingly or willfully violate that that

[1:30:17] could expose you to some risk. So all I'm saying is

[1:30:23] treat treat it treat it as an official

[1:30:25] policy that that should be binding on on

[1:30:28] what you do. Does that make sense? So

[1:30:30] Tom, given given what you just said, do

[1:30:33] should we go back to

[1:30:36] where we talked about not representing

[1:30:38] anyone neighborhood?

[1:30:41] Should we say something about

[1:30:44] we don't represent anyone political?

[1:30:49] >> No, that I'm not saying that that should

[1:30:51] policy. I'm just saying that

[1:30:53] >> if you do adopt that as your policy,

[1:30:56] >> say we are we are non-political. we

[1:30:58] don't represent any political ideology

[1:31:00] or point of view or yada yada yada but

[1:31:03] then there's something that you unitedly

[1:31:06] as a town feel really strongly about and

[1:31:08] you want to make a statement about

[1:31:11] >> then you can't

[1:31:12] >> okay so let's leave it alone

[1:31:14] >> okay

[1:31:16] >> I do have a question about if we if we

[1:31:19] attend another town's

[1:31:23] town council or planning commission

[1:31:27] and we want to influence their decision

[1:31:28] for some reason. We could do that. Do we

[1:31:32] need to disclose who we are before we do

[1:31:34] that?

[1:31:36] >> Are you speaking as a resident of

[1:31:37] Springdale or a

[1:31:38] >> resident of Springdale and I don't like

[1:31:40] what Rockville is doing?

[1:31:41] >> So, so if if you're saying, "Hey, I'm a

[1:31:44] resident of Springdale and I don't like

[1:31:46] what you're doing and this is, you know,

[1:31:48] that that's

[1:31:50] >> then you're fine. If you're saying the

[1:31:52] town of Springdale does not like what

[1:31:54] Rockville is doing, no, that would be

[1:31:56] inappropriate without first coming and

[1:31:59] discussing that policy position with the

[1:32:01] rest of the council.

[1:32:02] >> But I think he's also asking so if so if

[1:32:05] he went to the to the Leverkin council

[1:32:09] meeting and stood up and spoke and said,

[1:32:11] "I'm a resident of Springdale and I have

[1:32:14] an opinion about this." Does Pat, are

[1:32:16] you asking if you should disclose that

[1:32:18] you're not just a resident, but you're a

[1:32:19] council member? That's was the point of

[1:32:21] my question because somebody may know,

[1:32:23] not that they would, but somebody may

[1:32:24] know who I am and they may think, well,

[1:32:25] he's speaking for

[1:32:27] >> the town and and you don't want to make

[1:32:29] they don't want to give that impression,

[1:32:30] but that's the impression they have.

[1:32:32] Should at least put that on the record.

[1:32:33] I'm speaking as a resident of

[1:32:35] Springdale. I don't like this or I do

[1:32:36] like that or whatever.

[1:32:37] >> Yeah, I I I think I think that's wise.

[1:32:39] You know, just in case someone does know

[1:32:40] that you are a council member, you say,

[1:32:42] "Hey, I'm from Springdale. Um I serve on

[1:32:46] the town council, but I'm not speaking

[1:32:47] as a town council member. I'm speaking

[1:32:48] as a resident of Springdale. Just to

[1:32:50] make it clear that that's your personal

[1:32:51] opinion and you're not representing the

[1:32:53] rest of the council.

[1:32:56] » And we probably don't need to put that

[1:32:58] in here. It's a good discussion, but we

[1:33:00] >> we had a discussion about this.

[1:33:03] When is it a year, two years ago,

[1:33:07] about um like signing letters of support

[1:33:10] or or making letters um you know, did

[1:33:13] the the town supports this or doesn't

[1:33:14] support that? And you came to a very

[1:33:16] similar position that you as an

[1:33:18] individual can support or not support

[1:33:21] whatever you want. But if you are saying

[1:33:24] this the town of Springdale supports

[1:33:26] this, you cannot do that in your

[1:33:29] capacity as a town council member

[1:33:30] without first getting the um majority

[1:33:34] support of the rest of the council. It

[1:33:36] would be I think it would be a very

[1:33:37] similar situation.

[1:33:38] >> So question I got a couple days ago I

[1:33:40] got a letter from Forever Project. This stuff happens a lot. They wanted me

[1:33:46] to sign a letter of support for their

[1:33:48] grant application to finish the sewer in

[1:33:50] Z National Park and I signed that as

[1:33:53] mayor of Springdale. Is that okay? Or

[1:33:56] should I be getting council's opinion on

[1:33:58] whether it's okay for me to sign that? I

[1:34:01] don't sign at Springdale council or town

[1:34:04] of Springdale. I signed it Barbara Bruno

[1:34:05] mayor. But

[1:34:09] >> yeah, do you remember what if we I can't

[1:34:12] remember if we adopted an official

[1:34:13] policy or if it was just kind of a an

[1:34:15] informal decision.

[1:34:16] >> I believe it was an

[1:34:19] >> I don't Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, I I think

[1:34:22] that was kind of the

[1:34:25] if I'm remembering correctly, the gist

[1:34:26] of the conversation was that if if you

[1:34:30] were going to be providing your support

[1:34:32] that it would be a a a conversation

[1:34:34] amongst the council members. Um, but if

[1:34:38] it was just an individual, yeah, I

[1:34:40] support this, then it's just you as an

[1:34:43] individual, right?

[1:34:44] >> And it doesn't obligate Springdale in

[1:34:46] any way. I think if there was something

[1:34:48] that obligated Springdale, that's an

[1:34:50] easy answer that the council needs to

[1:34:52] talk about it. But something we should

[1:34:55] decide here because I get these all the

[1:34:57] time and it's it's always sorry for the

[1:34:59] late notice. I need this tomorrow.

[1:35:02] So when when should I not sign that as

[1:35:06] mayor? Sign something like that as mayor

[1:35:08] of Springdale?

[1:35:14] Other council members, how do you feel

[1:35:16] about this?

[1:35:18] >> I I kind of think if you're signing

[1:35:20] something as mayor, that's your opinion

[1:35:24] and your title. If you're signing it as

[1:35:28] town of Springdale,

[1:35:31] then that implies you're representing

[1:35:33] everybody. I mean, I guess that does

[1:35:34] imply that you're representing us. Well,

[1:35:36] I I kind of feel like when when

[1:35:41] people are asked to do something like

[1:35:43] this, um it does add a little emphasis

[1:35:48] to you're not just Barbara Bruno, but

[1:35:50] you're a mayor.

[1:35:52] But I don't think

[1:35:55] anybody reading it is going to

[1:35:56] necessarily say, well, the town of

[1:35:59] Springdale has an official

[1:36:02] uh view of this,

[1:36:04] >> you know. So, I don't I don't see that

[1:36:06] as a problem. I think that just is

[1:36:10] what maybe adds a little bit of extra

[1:36:13] credibility to this person signing this

[1:36:16] document. And and you know, I I see this

[1:36:20] on in a lot of different documents of

[1:36:22] people will sign on and say, I support

[1:36:24] this and I'm actually on the council and

[1:36:27] you know,

[1:36:29] >> but we do that all the time when it

[1:36:31] comes to like political endorsements,

[1:36:33] right? What's that?

[1:36:34] >> I mean, when you when you uh sign or or

[1:36:37] give a political endorsement, you say,

[1:36:39] you know, I'm I'm the mayor of

[1:36:40] Springdale and I endorse so and so, you

[1:36:42] don't need to get do that. So, I don't

[1:36:44] see a problem with that.

[1:36:45] >> Yeah. And I don't do that.

[1:36:48] >> I think that's a slippery slope. But I

[1:36:50] could I could as an individual

[1:36:53] >> because like Randy says, that adds a

[1:36:55] little bit of weight to

[1:36:57] >> what you're trying to say. That's why

[1:36:58] they're asking, you know, like so there

[1:37:00] is a there are two county commissioners

[1:37:02] that are

[1:37:04] >> running for office and they both asked

[1:37:06] for an endorsement. So, you know,

[1:37:10] certainly

[1:37:13] um if if I were saying, "Oh, yeah,

[1:37:15] Springdale endorses you," then I have no

[1:37:17] right to do that as mayor.

[1:37:19] >> I could say, "I, Barbara Bruno, endorse

[1:37:21] you if I did."

[1:37:22] >> But do you sign it as mayor?

[1:37:24] >> I don't sign it.

[1:37:26] >> No, I mean for those political

[1:37:28] endorsements.

[1:37:28] >> I don't sign political endorsements.

[1:37:30] >> Yeah.

[1:37:30] >> Um and they haven't asked me to put

[1:37:32] anything in writing. Well, I shouldn't

[1:37:34] say that. I did.

[1:37:43] » But but this gets back to the letter of

[1:37:44] support thing, right? So you're signing

[1:37:46] it as mayor Barbara Bruno mayor town of

[1:37:49] Springdale but you're not signing it bar

[1:37:53] mayor Barbara Bruno on behalf of the

[1:37:55] town council or on behalf of the town of

[1:37:58] Springdale and you're not saying this is

[1:37:59] the town's position right

[1:38:01] >> so I think what the council is saying is

[1:38:03] that's okay if you say I want to I'm

[1:38:06] signing this as a mayor as a council

[1:38:07] member because that adds some kind of of

[1:38:10] weight to my opinion that's that's fine

[1:38:13] as long as what's contained in the

[1:38:15] document that you're signing is clear

[1:38:17] that it is your opinion and is not the

[1:38:19] official policy of the town. Is that is

[1:38:22] that what I'm understanding?

[1:38:24] >> Yeah.

[1:38:24] >> So, how about if I get something where

[1:38:26] there's any question that I run it

[1:38:29] through the clerk

[1:38:31] >> or or Tom and they get a quick if if

[1:38:35] time is important, they get a quick

[1:38:37] message out saying mayor's planning to

[1:38:39] sign this unless unless you object by

[1:38:42] tomorrow or something. Is that fair? Did

[1:38:44] didn't we do that one other time? Mayor,

[1:38:45] >> we did have something that came. I'm

[1:38:47] trying to think of what it was and I was

[1:38:48] I know. I couldn't

[1:38:50] >> government shutdown stuff. There was

[1:38:52] something.

[1:38:52] >> No, it was on the other side of the park

[1:38:54] for some reason,

[1:38:55] >> but we did do something like that. And I

[1:38:57] can't remember what for the likely what

[1:38:58] it was.

[1:39:01] >> I guess for me it was the way it was

[1:39:02] worded. I couldn't support it. I can't

[1:39:05] remember what it was.

[1:39:06] >> Yeah. Rick came out to us and um

[1:39:10] >> who wins the prize? Who comes up with

[1:39:12] it? Come on.

[1:39:14] I thought it was during

[1:39:17] beginning of last year.

[1:39:20] There were several things that kept

[1:39:22] coming up

[1:39:23] >> and one of them

[1:39:28] » was it that joint letter that was with

[1:39:31] several other communities about about

[1:39:34] the

[1:39:35] >> state taking

[1:39:37] state

[1:39:38] right

[1:39:39] >> of public lands.

[1:39:40] >> Yeah. We we didn't Yeah. And I would

[1:39:43] never sign on to something like that

[1:39:45] without the council weighing in.

[1:39:47] >> That was an example where where the

[1:39:48] mayor came to us and said, "What do you

[1:39:49] guys think?" Right. So,

[1:39:53] >> okay. So, what So, what what we've got

[1:39:56] is you're absolutely free to speak as

[1:39:58] individuals.

[1:40:00] You should probably disclose that you

[1:40:02] are a council member and that you're not

[1:40:04] speaking on behalf of the council.

[1:40:07] It's okay to sign a letter of support or

[1:40:12] whatever you want

[1:40:14] with your um credential as a council

[1:40:17] member or a mayor. If whatever you're

[1:40:20] signing is clear that it is your

[1:40:22] opinion, you're not speaking on behalf

[1:40:24] of the town. If you are asked to sign

[1:40:28] something on behalf of the town, and

[1:40:29] this probably would most likely um

[1:40:32] pertain to the mayor. If you're asked to

[1:40:34] sign something that is on behalf of the

[1:40:36] town, we'll distribute that to the rest

[1:40:38] of the council and just make sure you

[1:40:40] don't have a problem with it before

[1:40:41] mayor you sign.

[1:40:42] >> Sounds good.

[1:40:43] >> Perfect. Okay.

[1:40:44] >> Agree.

[1:40:48] » And then contact with other town bodies.

[1:40:50] That's, you know, I think that's

[1:40:53] straightforward, too.

[1:40:57] » And then the ethical conduct

[1:41:00] straightforward, right? No, I think

[1:41:02] we're missing two things there. I

[1:41:06] » unless it's unless it's documented

[1:41:08] elsewhere. Nothing in here about uh

[1:41:11] required annual training, ethics,

[1:41:14] conflicts of interest, open meetings,

[1:41:15] public records, laws, harassment,

[1:41:17] discrimination. Is that is that where

[1:41:19] that should be that we should require

[1:41:21] training for staff and officials there?

[1:41:25] And and the second question I have is

[1:41:28] the last time we looked at this was 14

[1:41:30] years ago. Should we put a clock on it

[1:41:32] and say that town council should review

[1:41:34] this like every four years and and and

[1:41:39] compare it with current state law or

[1:41:41] current practice? I mean there's there's

[1:41:43] no time there's no clock on this. That's

[1:41:44] why it lasted 14 years.

[1:41:47] >> Yeah. So to to answer your first

[1:41:49] question, I the that number one under

[1:41:52] ethical conduct talks about the two

[1:41:55] hours of training

[1:41:56] >> that covers it then. Okay.

[1:41:58] >> You're saying you want you want that to

[1:41:59] be more detailed or precise.

[1:42:01] >> Well, it says shall receive, but it

[1:42:03] doesn't. No, it says every year. Okay,

[1:42:04] never mind. It's annual. It's in there.

[1:42:05] Disregard.

[1:42:08] >> So, so your first that's okay for your

[1:42:09] >> That's good then. Yes.

[1:42:10] >> Okay. So, then the second concern is how

[1:42:12] often are they updated? How

[1:42:14] >> Oh, how often do you review this whole

[1:42:15] thing?

[1:42:16] >> Yeah. And you can put something in

[1:42:17] there. That's fine. Um we, you know, we

[1:42:20] have kind of those kind of same kind of

[1:42:21] shot clocks like on our general plan. We

[1:42:23] say we're going to update that every

[1:42:24] five years. So, we can do that. That's just one more thing that we put

[1:42:29] on our on our tickler calendar to make

[1:42:32] sure that we get done. But I think it's

[1:42:33] a good idea.

[1:42:34] >> Yeah. And and

[1:42:36] if I can say my opinion on that. um

[1:42:44] unless there's a something that comes

[1:42:46] out in in the state code uh that we

[1:42:50] really need to look at and look at our

[1:42:52] procedures because then we would be in

[1:42:55] conflict with what a state statute says.

[1:42:58] I'm not sure that we need to do this

[1:43:00] every four years or five years or

[1:43:03] anything like that. I think I think what

[1:43:05] we've uh we we've seen with this that

[1:43:09] has kind of withtood the test of time

[1:43:11] and

[1:43:13] we're still okay with what was was put

[1:43:17] in place several years ago,

[1:43:20] >> 14 years ago.

[1:43:20] >> Yeah.

[1:43:21] >> And I don't really feel like we need to

[1:43:23] have a time clock that says we need to

[1:43:26] look at this every so often. I think uh

[1:43:29] when there's something that does come up

[1:43:32] that triggers well you know that goes

[1:43:35] against the way we've been operating uh

[1:43:38] that the state passes for instance or

[1:43:40] the federal government passes then we

[1:43:42] need to come back and look at it but I

[1:43:45] think it's it's those sort of things

[1:43:47] that would trigger us to go back and

[1:43:50] look at these procedures

[1:43:52] >> because if if it ain't broke

[1:43:56] >> don't fix That I guess my philosophy

[1:43:59] >> kind of view that a little different,

[1:44:01] you know, and it it's a little bit of

[1:44:03] the appearance of of not only compliance

[1:44:07] with your codes of conduct or whatever,

[1:44:11] but it's showing your due diligence to

[1:44:14] it. And that um you know, kind of on the

[1:44:18] surface, yeah, I didn't look at this for

[1:44:20] 14 years. You know, the appearance of

[1:44:23] that to me isn't all that great.

[1:44:26] versus Robin brought up something a

[1:44:29] little bit earlier on a recent change

[1:44:31] with grandma in the recent uh

[1:44:35] legislation sess session legislature

[1:44:39] session. Um it's that's the very thing

[1:44:42] that kind of triggers

[1:44:45] the importance of revisiting this. I

[1:44:48] mean it's it's a it's kind of an easy

[1:44:50] thing to do. I don't think it has to be

[1:44:52] a a council work session to update it

[1:44:57] necessarily if they're minor changes but

[1:45:01] yeah I think every 14 years is a bit

[1:45:03] much I I think it's uh five years you

[1:45:07] know is

[1:45:08] >> well what if when a new council comes in

[1:45:10] every four years

[1:45:12] >> they are given this document and asked

[1:45:14] to sign that they've read it and if

[1:45:17] there was something that were blurringly

[1:45:19] out of

[1:45:22] or something like that. They would say,

[1:45:23] "Well,

[1:45:24] >> what about that?"

[1:45:27] >> Well, and and Jack, I I think I'm

[1:45:30] hearing you correctly. You know that um

[1:45:33] and I think we agree on this. something

[1:45:36] comes up like on grandma or something

[1:45:40] then yeah I think it's appropriate for

[1:45:42] us to look at or if the state as I said

[1:45:44] if the state statute changes that is u

[1:45:50] contradiction to what our procedures are

[1:45:54] but

[1:45:57] if we don't have a trigger like that I'm

[1:45:59] not sure that we need to to look at this

[1:46:02] every so many years it's those golden

[1:46:06] rule stuff where it doesn't change much

[1:46:08] or doesn't change.

[1:46:09] >> Yeah. But it's, you know, I think it's

[1:46:11] always just kind of fine-tuning. It's a

[1:46:13] work in progress. We've we've in, you

[1:46:15] know, we've added some things we didn't

[1:46:17] have before dealing, you know, with the

[1:46:19] media, stuff like that.

[1:46:21] >> Yeah.

[1:46:22] >> So, it doesn't hurt to just fine-tune

[1:46:24] it.

[1:46:25] >> Yeah. And and despite what we have or

[1:46:27] haven't changed, we've had some very

[1:46:30] good, productive conversations today

[1:46:35] concerning a lot of topics that are of

[1:46:38] importance to the public and just

[1:46:42] general council procedure.

[1:46:46] Um, so whether or not we've changed the

[1:46:48] document a lot, I feel like

[1:46:51] the check-in and the work session has

[1:46:54] been really productive. Um,

[1:46:58] so I'm not I don't know that like saying

[1:46:59] it needs a time clock on it so that that

[1:47:02] you meet and sit down, but um

[1:47:07] I don't know. I have found this very

[1:47:09] valuable and I feel like we've all been

[1:47:10] able to kind of say kind of get on the

[1:47:14] same page about the way we operate. Not

[1:47:16] that we weren't, but just to sit down

[1:47:18] and say it out loud. I think it's been

[1:47:19] really nice.

[1:47:21] >> I think it's been a really good robust

[1:47:23] conversation. I guess the question is

[1:47:25] how often, you know, maybe it maybe it's

[1:47:28] 10 years.

[1:47:30] >> I was thinking eight. I mean, two, if

[1:47:32] we're changing seats every two years

[1:47:36] essentially, right? Somebody's up on the block every two

[1:47:41] years.

[1:47:41] >> Um,

[1:47:43] if you did eight, I mean, you could you

[1:47:45] could have a completely new council in

[1:47:47] eight years.

[1:47:49] >> You could also have a strikingly similar

[1:47:52] council in eight years. Well, what

[1:47:54] occurs to me is that we come in, we come

[1:47:56] into these positions,

[1:48:00] and I don't know about you, I didn't see

[1:48:01] this for a long time. I mean, a lot of

[1:48:03] this is intuitive anyway, and you you

[1:48:06] come in and you pick up on how it's

[1:48:07] already being done and how people are

[1:48:09] already treating each other, but I think

[1:48:12] at a minimum, when someone comes into

[1:48:14] the office new, they ought to be given a

[1:48:16] copy of this.

[1:48:17] >> And and I think that's a really good

[1:48:19] idea.

[1:48:21] and every council can decide when it's

[1:48:23] time to update it. I think I don't I

[1:48:25] don't know that we need a trigger, but I

[1:48:27] think it should be given out and I think

[1:48:29] in some ways it'll selfcorrect because

[1:48:31] people who are new on council and get it

[1:48:34] will be like, well, wait a minute, we

[1:48:36] should talk about this.

[1:48:38] And I mean, maybe this is silly or not silly. I

[1:48:45] don't know. Uh some of it or lots of it

[1:48:48] could apply to commission which

[1:48:52] >> I think it does.

[1:48:53] >> It all applies to the commission. Yeah.

[1:48:54] These are rules of procedure and and

[1:48:56] codes of conduct not just for the

[1:48:57] council but the commission, the historic

[1:48:59] preservation commission, art review

[1:49:01] board, all of our public

[1:49:03] >> any specifically. Kyla says elected and

[1:49:06] appointed.

[1:49:07] >> It does say appointed. Okay. Um, I I

[1:49:10] will say that reading as many versions

[1:49:13] as we were given, I liked the um I liked

[1:49:17] having all of the versions because I

[1:49:19] would have had questions, but in the end

[1:49:22] I was like, wait, which what did ours

[1:49:24] specifically say and which version was

[1:49:26] that? Um, anyway, so I think we've been

[1:49:29] coming at it from a very council

[1:49:33] perspective.

[1:49:35] >> Yeah. Um,

[1:49:37] >> but knowing that we do have quite a bit

[1:49:40] of turnover on all of the other public

[1:49:42] bodies that this is important

[1:49:43] information for everybody to have and

[1:49:46] for us to keep up on. And I'll say for a

[1:49:50] third time, I fully believe in in

[1:49:53] everything we do, we should mean what we

[1:49:55] say and say what we mean. And I think

[1:49:58] that's really important that we are

[1:50:00] willing to create and make and follow

[1:50:03] our our rules and we should only be

[1:50:07] willing to put on the books what we can

[1:50:10] uh follow and enforce. So yeah, and I

[1:50:12] like that there were a few things we

[1:50:14] talked about and decided not to write

[1:50:16] down. That gives us some flexibility.

[1:50:18] And in the final section, conduct of

[1:50:21] town staff, I thought everything was

[1:50:23] okay there. Pat, did you see anything

[1:50:25] glaring there?

[1:50:26] >> Yeah. Um,

[1:50:29] if I'm reading this correctly,

[1:50:31] treat everyone with courtesy, civility,

[1:50:33] and refrain from inappropriate behavior

[1:50:35] and drugs. Is that does that cover

[1:50:38] harassment and and bullying and

[1:50:41] discrimination? Does that cover all that

[1:50:43] or that spelled out elsewhere in the

[1:50:45] code of conduct? Do we need to talk

[1:50:47] about that at all?

[1:50:49] >> Um, I realize is that there's a there's

[1:50:51] a federal umbrella, so regardless, we

[1:50:53] have to follow it. Yeah, there there are

[1:50:54] a number of policies that that that that

[1:50:58] address that. It it wouldn't hurt to be

[1:51:00] more um specific there if you wanted to.

[1:51:01] I mean, our our town personnel policy

[1:51:04] addresses that and as you mentioned,

[1:51:06] there's there's federal statutes about

[1:51:08] harassment, but I don't think it would

[1:51:10] hurt to just reiterate it there as well.

[1:51:12] >> Well, it reference, you know, town

[1:51:14] personnel policy.

[1:51:18] >> Yeah. And you have mandatory training on

[1:51:20] harassment and that kind of thing,

[1:51:21] right? So, so maybe maybe as Jack said

[1:51:25] even in this just re refer to shall take training as as laid out in

[1:51:31] the policy manual or something like

[1:51:33] that.

[1:51:36] >> That would that cover it for

[1:51:37] >> I think so. Sure.

[1:51:43] » There anything else before we adjourn?

[1:51:48] I I thought it was cute that David

[1:51:51] Church said, "I'm not proud of it, but I

[1:51:53] wrote it."

[1:51:55] >> But, you know, I I instantly went in

[1:51:59] with a filter then and being like,

[1:52:01] >> "Okay, what's bad about this? What is it

[1:52:04] that is not

[1:52:06] >> is not worthy of me adopting?" Like,

[1:52:10] >> what am Yeah, it totally changed the way

[1:52:13] I reviewed the documents.

[1:52:14] >> Yeah, I thought that was interesting

[1:52:15] because I felt the same way as, oh, this

[1:52:17] is flawed. I need to I need to see

[1:52:18] what's flawed about it. But

[1:52:20] >> was it not bad?

[1:52:21] >> It wasn't. No, I think he was saying it

[1:52:23] was overdone. I think that's really what

[1:52:25] he was saying.

[1:52:25] >> He didn't leave many stones unturned.

[1:52:27] >> No. Do

[1:52:28] >> you have you all had the chance to meet

[1:52:30] David Church and spend time with him?

[1:52:33] >> I have.

[1:52:35] >> That's his personality. is extremely

[1:52:38] smart,

[1:52:38] >> super intelligent, excellent attorney

[1:52:41] and also very

[1:52:44] self- aacing,

[1:52:46] down to earth, humble kind of guy. So,

[1:52:49] >> and if you saw him, if you've been to

[1:52:50] any of the league conferences, you'd

[1:52:52] know he is because he's always there. He

[1:52:54] He's still going. He uses a cane and he

[1:52:57] he's a funny guy. Funny, I mean,

[1:52:58] humorous, enjoyable.

[1:53:01] >> One of his sons following in his

[1:53:03] footsteps. Is this the same guy?

[1:53:07] Yes.

[1:53:07] >> Is he an attorney, too?

[1:53:09] >> Oh, I didn't know who's he with He's not

[1:53:11] with the league,

[1:53:12] >> is he?

[1:53:13] >> Oh, he is.

[1:53:14] >> Well, so Church Blazedale is David

[1:53:16] Church's

[1:53:18] uh firm, and I think Matt Church is also

[1:53:20] with Church Blazedale.

[1:53:21] >> Oh, okay.

[1:53:22] >> If I if I remember,

[1:53:24] >> because I think their attorney they use

[1:53:26] now is Todd.

[1:53:28] >> Yeah.

[1:53:30] But but the firm they use is probably

[1:53:33] that firm. Anyway, um

[1:53:36] we ready for a motion to adjourn?

[1:53:39] >> We'll second. Motion by Randy, second by

[1:53:42] Kyla.

[1:53:43] >> Randy Barbry

[1:53:44] >> had I

[1:53:47] church is actually with Manning, Curtis,

[1:53:49] Bradshaw, and Bedar,

[1:53:52] not with Church Blaze.

[1:53:54] My bad.

04/03/2026 Town Council Work Meeting

Transcript