May 7th, 2026 at 6 31 p.m.

I will have roll call.

Is Alderman Frank Thorpe present?

Present.

All right.

Alderman Shandemeyer is on the way.

And myself, I am also here.

We have the agenda.

Is there a motion to approve of the agenda?

So moved.

All right.

A second.

All in favor of that approval.

Thank you.

Moving forward, we have the approval of the minutes.

Is there a motion to approve of those minutes from our meeting on April 2nd, 2026?

So moved.

All right.

If there are no objections, we're going to move on that motion.

Thank you.

Today we have on the agenda AP 2026, a reappointment of Thomas to the Planning Commission.

Now and looking at the resume, this is someone who is appointed to the planning commission.

They've served since 2022.

I believe they may be award two resident.

So the question would be: is there a motion to have recommendation for this appointment to the planning commission?

I will share that myself, I will not be uh supporting or opposing this reappointment.

But is there a motion to do so?

Um Mr.

Chairman, I've never met this individual, nor do I know if there's a recommendation.

We appoint him.

Um we can move to postpone and I know we've invited him because I think moving forward, one that will be transparent moving forward, especially when it comes to appointments, we are going to be inviting or at least we're recommending that we invite the members who would like to be appointed to these commissions and task force or boards, especially as we begin to iron out a more um clear process for our commission's boards and task force.

So uh I would like to uh request again that we invite him if possible to our next meeting.

Um the question that I do have if this is uh appropriate, when we postpone uh any appointments, do these members still serve?

Because I believe that this person has been serving on the commission currently.

So how does that work just for clarity of the people?

Yeah, I mean, generally they they remain and they're voting pending the reappointment, or if there is no reappointment, then they would no longer serve, but they still act as a yeah, through their term in sometimes beyond the term, too, if it the term runs out and there's quorum issues, and their term ends on the 30th of June.

So we still have uh the new term would be the 30th of June 2020.

So when is this current term uh end for for do we have that at all?

When the current term will end for Thomas, I know we can get that quickly.

Um let's try to get that information just out of the chairman.

Yes, I do notice that there is a letter from the mayor recommending um Mr.

Safiana this to the so uh purposes of respect and um continuity and keeping everything going.

Uh I I'm in total agreement with you that uh it would be good to have the appointee appear here and answer a couple questions, like especially when we're talking about the planning commission, I would like to hear their commitment to the code.

Right.

And uh in this case, you know, we do have two choices.

The mayor has uh reappoint, would like to have recommended reappointing him.

So we do have the mayor's appointment.

Um, we also his term doesn't end till June.

So we could to your point, we could bring him in in June.

Um, and just and you know, maybe working with with Laura.

Yeah, so looking on the website, yeah.

It doesn't end until June 30th, 2027.

So I think we even probably need some clarification from the mayor's office as to why they're moving forward with this free appointment a year before his term expires.

Exactly.

Yeah, I was looking at that and I said and also um one of the reasons why um I do want to make sure we're uh looking at this is there are three current members from Ward 2 on the planning commission.

And you know, I'd I I would like us to kind of broaden that range out a little bit more if possible.

There is there is representation though, um, which is great from ward one, five, six, and eight.

So um that is equitable there.

Um, but I think we do want that clarification.

So maybe we are gonna move to postpone this until we get some clarification.

I would agree with that, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, great.

Great.

Uh I'll take that as a motion um to postpone.

Um if there are no opposition uh persons for that, we'll move forward on it.

Thank you.

Uh so the first piece of legislation.

Oh, excuse me.

Oh, yes, yes.

We do you mind?

Um, is there so I will second that with the motion that he made?

So all in favor.

Aye.

So thank you very much.

Um, we have legislation CA 126 updating requirements for publication of the charter and code of the city of Annapolis.

This is first reader that's been shared with us.

Um, looking at this, I think it's really important.

Can maybe we can have some uh clarification or some background.

Um, if our city attorney, do you mind just giving us a little bit of overview of what this is?

We know, of course, but just the desire was to sort of uh modernize the language and remove the physical copy requirements of of the publication of ordinances, so making it more accessible online, but still there is an amendment that was I believe that's sponsored by Alderman Savage to still require some physical copies, and and that is the current practice.

So it's not really um a change in terms of what we currently do and how we receive and update the code um and charter, but it's just really uh modernizing the language that's in the charter to reflect current practice.

I think uh maybe we can get some word from Alderman Shannonier on what he what he believes is best.

Is there a rush for this or any um expediency necessary?

We could maybe just hold off for a little bit on this uh matter, or is this super pertinent?

Do you mind sharing?

Not aware of any urgency, but I think this would be great to maybe get a little bit uh more time on um to hear from uh Alderman Shannemeyer, and maybe we could take a little deeper look at this.

Uh, but just from first looks, it makes sense if you're saying modernizing uh this, so thank you.

Um let's see here.

So we are going to we don't I wouldn't think we need to postpone this.

We're just gonna, yeah, we're just gonna, we're just gonna go to the next item on the agenda.

And so uh thank you for that uh update.

Um, but just so that the people know this is for the purposes of removing outdated provisions of the city's charter, rewriting requirements for compiling and publishing the charter and code of the city of Annapolis, allowing for publishing paper or electronic versions of the charter and code of the city of Annapolis, and generally related to the codification of charter amendments and ordinances.

Um the next uh piece of legislation we have is 0626 oversight of the city's firing range.

Do you mind if you don't do you all mind coming forth if you all have any uh input or feedback on this?

This is for the purpose of allowing the police chief along with the mayor to approve who uses the city's police firing range located within the Annapolis police department.

Uh thank you to uh Deputy Chief Brantford as well as to our um guests uh if you don't mind introducing yourself, it's a pleasure for you both to be here.

Um, Deputy uh Chief Stan Brantford.

Acting Captain Hill O'Reilly.

Um now this legislation seems uh to be pretty straightforward.

It literally adds three words to to the document.

Um do you mind sharing with us what this means, like what this may hinder currently that this is so necessary?

So currently we do have a fire range.

We spent a lot of time uh getting that up because it was down for quite uh some time.

Uh acting Captain O'Hurley, he um was responsible for a lot of that, and he pretty much knows the uh ins and out of our policies when it comes to the range.

However, when it comes to I've gone to um acting Captain O'Harley on behalf of Maryland Capitol Police at one point in time.

They wanted to qualify someone uh at the range, and when we looked into it, we found or or Hurley found that the only person that can authorize someone to use that range outside of Annapolis personnel uh had to be authorized by the mayor.

And we thought it with communication with the acting chief Miguez and the mayor that was prudent that that decision could go to um the chief of police also because the chief of police would have more knowledge, they would have um a better understanding of what agency uh would be best served by using that.

The range is used by um our officers for training.

We don't have to send them out for that type of training.

We also do qualification for uh um which is a Liosa, which is a federal law, is um law enforcement officers who are retired or um I think it's just retired, and what it that does is allow them to come in and get qualification, which they have to do each year, and they can carry a concealed weapon across the United States.

It is a federal law, so we also do some aspects of that, so it was the easy thing to do to look at the police chief and said she should have the authority to uh say who can use that range.

Anything to add, Bill.

No, I mean we also have um crime scene techs who will go downstairs to fire guns for testing for uh criminal cases, which they have not been doing because they can't anymore.

Um, but that would help them do that.

They just do a test fire to make sure the gun actually fires.

Um other agencies have come to help.

We also used to have um when we have TFOs with ATF, they would come over sometimes borrow the range.

Um, but it would allow us to just say, okay, we can use, for example, Maryland Capitol Police approached us again about doing their red dot conversion with their instructors because we're instructors, so we can instruct their instructors so they can teach their entire department.

They would come over to our range and use that.

Again, that would have to go through the mayor to okay that uh those two officers shooting down there.

We don't let anybody shoot down there without one of our range instructors down there ever, regardless.

And the other thing that might come up too is we wanted to start a citizen's academy again, and one of that one of those days was gonna go downstairs to the range and actually do some live fire.

Again, that would have to go through the mayor before we could approve that as well.

So it's just it just seems that the way it's written, uh, the mayor would be burdened with that, but also not have knowledge of who these people are or what they're doing versus the chief who can say, Yes, I know who they are, they've come to me, and also know that she can trust us to be there when it happens.

Again, we don't let anybody shoot there without one range instructor down there.

Is there do you mind sharing?

Is there an official documentation process if someone needs to to shoot?

Is it just an oh literally an okay?

You may go and use it.

Like how is that work?

Well, there's a request that would come in if it's outside agency.

Um that request probably would be directed to the chief.

The chief would then pass it down probably to myself, which eventually would go uh to the acting captain, um, and he will go through a series.

We have a standard operating procedure, uh, certain rules and regs that have to be followed.

As he said before, um we do have safety rules down there.

Um it would not be operated without one of our guys being uh there and having responsibility.

So I don't think beyond that process, there's no other process for that.

Yeah, we don't let just anybody come and shoot down there, so there's no sort of fill out a form to come shoot.

Um civilians just don't shoot down there.

The only civilians would ever shoot down there would be again if we do a citizen's academy.

Um, and other than that, I don't know that we well, and Leo retired law enforcement officers.

Because so for Liosa, we they have to go back to the agency where they retired from.

So we're it's we're the only ones that can actually certify them.

And if we don't use that range, we have to go up to Sykesville.

Alright.

Um, thank you for that.

Uh, do we have any questions here at all?

Yes, Ottoman Thorpe.

I do.

Um, Major, I I'm I'm less concerned about the authority going from the mayor down to the chief than I am to get it to the lowest appropriate authority.

You're a I was gonna set a former marine.

You're a marine.

Yes.

Um is this go far enough?

Does in other words, I don't I don't understand I don't want to understand the importance and the safety of a fire and range and all that, but we do have a pretty responsible deputy chief.

Is this delegation of this authority go far enough?

Would it make sense to go to the deputy deputy chief?

Um to authorize this.

Well, the initial uh request probably would for respect purposes always go to the chief.

She can delegate it uh to me.

Um we have not had uh that situation with the current chief and the previous chief.

I would get those requests, which was the reason why I went to um acting captain of Harley He before the pass, and he was able to shift sift through to figure out exactly who had authorization.

That's how we got here today.

So yes, I am part of that uh process.

I'm confused.

I don't know if that answers your question.

I don't I don't think it did, or maybe maybe I'm more confused now.

If if in the code right now it restricts the authorization to approve who can use it to the mayor, I would challenge whether that's that authority is whether it's able to be delegated, and so by this proposal we are looking at today, it appears to me that I'm looking over at the lawyer here too, that what we're doing as a city council is what we'll vote to authorize the the chief to uh issue that authorization.

But if it's in the code like this, I don't I wouldn't be real comfortable, or I wouldn't think that the chief could then delegate it because it's in the code.

Am I correct?

I I would I would read that the same way that this I think what I'm hearing in your question is should this actually um have more of a or designee or specifically lists the next rank, um, but right now the language the sort of the plain language is it's either the mayor or it's the police chief, and nobody else gets to make that call.

That's how I read it.

Yeah, um, the way it's read.

And so if in that content, yes, it should be the chief or design.

Alderman Shannon, did you have a thought?

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh drilling down on this point here that my uh colleague brought up.

Um, how I interpreted it as currently written is while it's the chief whose signature is formally done, they're allowed to pass it off to do the actual grunt work onto um a subordinate position, similar to when uh the planning and zoning director makes a decision, but they're not the one usually looking at every single I and T, etc.

They pass it to a subordinate employee.

Um I interpreting that correctly because I've been known to misunderstand a thing or two.

Yeah, I would say that you are, and I think another thing to keep in mind is that the firing range, everything within the police department is the police chief's responsibility.

So that's probably why that that um authority granted is to the mayor and the police chief only.

It's not intended to be exclusive, but it is intended to um assign responsibility and oversight of something like the firing range or everything else within the building to the appointing authority, and in this instance it's the police chief or uh the mayor.

It doesn't include the city manager, so you know, there's speci a specific reason for that it could be argued.

What are you showing?

Sorry, she's showing me something.

Sorry.

No, just don't like it unless it's suppressed permission.

So I guess part of the question that I have for you, Walderman Thorpe, if you don't mind, is your question related to delegation of authority to give that permission or delegation of authority to ensure that uh the group that is given permission is utilizing the range appropriately?

So the way it's written now, the only two people that can sign the authorization for somebody to use it is the mayor and the chief of police.

And my question is, should we add or their designee or the deputy chief, so that the mayor is is this an issue that we believe the chief of police personally needs to authorize?

Because it's more than just a signature.

So liability purposes I would say yes.

Yeah, the way it's written now, I don't believe that the deputy chief can walk into the chief and say, Hey, sign this, will you?

Because only you can authorize it.

The chief would then have to ask all the right questions.

Whereas if it says or their designee or their deputy chief or the deputy chief, it would clearly delegate that authority to somebody else, and then to your where you were going.

If something did go wrong, the chief would not be in a position.

I mean, chief would, because if something goes wrong, the chief is always gonna the way it's written now, the chief's always gonna ask questions, and I just don't know that it has to go to that level.

I mean, I'm not a police law enforcement officer to have a uh feel for how low it should go, but the way it's written now, the chief's gonna the chief should be asking five questions as to whether these people should be authorized to do it.

And and since we're amending it, we ought to make it say what we want it to say.

To that point, if I may, uh as well.

Of course we may, but um uh the question earlier, I brought it up because what is the process?

If I'm one of those police department agencies or responsible group who would like to use the range, and I've given a call to the chief and saying, Hey, may I use the range today, and they say yes, and like what is what does that look like for them?

Uh, or do I call the deputy and say, hey, may I use the range?

Call the mayor, may I use the range today?

And I'm saying, yes, you may use the range today, go go follow up with this person.

Like, how does that look for these agencies who want to use the range?

Um, generally, first of all, it's not it's not a lot of agencies, it's usually Maryland Capitol Police, um, and then our federal partners, ATF or uh not even the FBI.

Um, they will come to us, they'll usually come to me and ask if they want to say qualify or they want to get someone in to qualify.

I will then go up to up the chain up to the chief, who will then go to the mayor.

So no one just comes in, like I said, no one just comes in and says, Hey, I want to use the range.

We don't and even agencies that would come to us like that.

We say, Well, why would you want to use our range?

Um, we just got it fixed, so I'm a little protective of it because it's been down for so long.

I don't want people coming in there shooting the walls and everything else.

Um, so I also don't want them to overuse the range because then it has to be repaired on a uh more quicker basis.

So uh, like I said, it's it's Maryland Capital Police has reached out to us a couple times.

Um, what the last time that the major was talking about they were trying to hire someone and get them qualified real quick so they could get them hired, and their range is in Sykesville, so it's much more convenient for them.

And generally they use Sykesville.

Uh, and then like I said, other than that, it's we do Lioso qualifications is the mainly we do it, and other than that, it's not a whole lot of people that do it, and usually it's not an emergency, but we just don't want to we want to make sure we follow the law.

Major, can I go back to my question?

Yes.

Where what's your comfort level on who should be authorizing this?

Well, my comfort level, I don't um, I like it the way it is if you just include the chief, the chief always gonna designate anyway, and there's nothing that's gonna be done without the chief knowing.

My concern would be if the chief is on vacation, do we have to then wait a couple weeks to the chief get back?

So, you know, I don't know what the law is or what the ramifications are.

Uh we have a lot of um policies in there that already states the chief would designate and things are designated to me that I don't have to go to chief.

I do keep the chief inform of it but if the chief's on vacation unavailable um what what then so that's my concern.

I can probably answer I mean so if the if the chief goes on vacation and designates you as acting chief then you would have that authority as acting chief to to grant permission so all that would take would just be the PO that comes out that that has you as acting chief.

But the chief would always know that there's a request in for the use of the range.

Would you be comfortable with the line the chief or their designee I would be comfortable with it.

I would not so if you're gonna do if you're gonna make an amendment or request an amendment I would strongly urge that you specifically provide a title instead of or their designee so that it it keeps that can keep in mind this is a firing range guys so you want to keep that control with specific titles versus or their designee because then that allows for Vicky me you know someone to do it that should not be granting that authority so I would recommend keeping it Caitlin up there could be the design.

So giving it to that I mean we we pay the chief of police a significant we give the we give the chief of police a significant amount of responsibility author authority and accountability to do a lot of things with weapons and and that if our chief of police were to designate an unqualified person to do this we would fire them the mayor would fire them.

So I mean I I don't I don't question the seriousness and the gravity of this but it just seems to me of all the things that the police do with weapons um ammunition and all that is since we're addressing this that I'm I'm a I'm a fan of of pushing things down to the lowest appropriate authority and if the lowest appropriate authority is the chief I I'm okay with that I but I challenge it because we ask the chief to do a whole lot more serious and significant and dangerous things than signing off for somebody to use the firing range and so I mean I don't mean to make a uh Supreme Court issue out of this but but I mean I could totally see the chief saying I'm not gonna delegate it okay or I'm gonna delegate it to Major Brantford or I'm gonna delegate it to uh the person out there running it because for whatever reason but we pay her to do that so uh I just again I you know I'm looking for you know not unanimity here but concurrence of everybody I don't I don't you know I don't want to go against the acting city attorney's recommendation here but but I think the example is she's assistant now she's assistant oh well then let's just see this but you see my point I mean yeah I see your point but but the concern that I have you're expecting something to happen a certain way that may not necessarily do it.

Let's say 10 years from has a designee but it's not in writing anywhere or in and you have an issue expectation that design is clearly defined the time and that's not a guarantee.

And so when you're putting someone in charge of even approving something as you know vital as the firing range it's not just that people are shooting firearms in there but it's also maintaining the firing range in good working condition and making sure that these groups presumably they wouldn't be you know shooting up the place or breaking it but making sure that that is all sort of being maintained well you want to maintain those controls too in that authority and that's why I'm saying as opposed to designee because right very clear picture what 10 years from the or the counsel, whoever may not have such a clear picture, may not designate that person in writing, which is what you would want to have.

That's not always the case.

But we put designee in writing.

I mean we'll talk about the actual designation.

Like the chief saying, I chief so and so designate the individual to permission to use the fire.

Specific person, not a group of people that I can choose from at any point in time.

Right.

That's my that is my concern with using the word designee as opposed to if you're gonna amend the legislation to your chief or or the um chief or the name.

The question would also come is does this designee have to have firing range experience or experience handling guns?

Uh, because obviously you wouldn't want someone who don't even know anything about guns, just saying you can go ahead and use the fire range.

That's a question that may come about.

I don't think anybody will ever be in a deputy position that didn't have the experience.

Maybe not as proficient as the firearm instructor, but sure, but surely they had some experience with firearms.

Or had the knowledge of what it would take for you know, qualification, safety, and those things that's all involved.

And we were thinking of like just designee in general.

If there's any type of designee, yes, the deputy, of course, uh should have the expert, but if they chose a designee that had no experience, that would be concerning, I'm sure uh Alderman Shandemeyer.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I think this comes down to not the core idea of the legislation.

I think we're all pretty on board, but where do we want the bureaucratic delay to come from?

I understand not wanting the chief of police to get weighed down by the minutiae of this.

They have a very important job, they need to make big decisions.

For me, I think our law office confirmed that they can delegate the grunt work of this as long as they themselves put their signature on that.

I for one am personally comfortable with the chief being the final authority on signing off on this.

I think that the firing range is very dangerous location, it's a very dangerous uh tool piece of equipment.

I don't know the what the proper term is, weapon, a place where weapons are being used.

And we need someone high up signing off on that, where if something goes wrong, immediate political accountability can happen, and when we put it down to lower levels, we have do not have that ability to give immediate political accountability, uh, because those are more in the civil service protected role.

So I am going to use the I like the term what is the lowest position to make the decision.

Um I am going to start using that because I do like the flexibility that that provides, but in this case, I think the argument has been made why we should keep this as is for the chief being the final decision maker.

Is there documentation of who allows now?

Would there be documentation?

Because obviously it's just the mayor at this point, but would there be documentation of who allows uh whether it was the mayor or the police chief that allowed to use the fire range at the time, and if we did open it or expand it out to it being a designee or the deputy, would there be documentation to prove uh that hey, it was this person, so we can always have someone who's accountable for what took place there?

Uh yeah, that's something we could easily do.

Um we have everyone signs in all uh a waiver, everyone, everyone that goes and shoots down there unless they're already certified police officers, they get a background check, and we check everybody.

Um so what we could have a form as well.

We have a form right now for Leo, so they sign off on it.

Um answers a bunch of questions and waivers and everything else.

Um, but we could have another form that says, hey, this is the form that's signed by the chief, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

Is this something that we need to have done immediately?

Is it could could we take uh one month or so whenever we have our next meeting so that we can look for a different language that could update this to allow for design or deputy?

What is your guidance on that before we move forward on making some I believe we can wait on it?

Uh we have not run into this situation.

Um, this is the first time since I've been here that we have um where we had where we've found out this was um the case.

So um maybe you can have the chief weigh in on this um next time she wasn't able to be here so maybe you can wait so she can weigh in on it and take a look at it.

Alderman Thorpe do you think that would provide enough time for us to maybe look at a different language just to maybe make an amendment from our committee that could provide an update to it.

Yeah I think that's exactly right we need to look at this what's the legal ramifications what are the leadership ramifications what are the management ramifications of this and I mean it whatever the right thing to do is I mean we can't you can't delegate all the authorities.

There are some authorities that we should look to delegate and this is definitely one that should be discussed.

So I Mr.

Chairman I'd be very comfortable and I think Mr.

exactly right I would love to get the chiefs uh because I'll put you in an awkward position should we delegate to to you?

Um so yeah I think that's a great idea.

Okay great we appreciate you all coming today and you're more than welcome to come again and whenever we have our next meeting.

I know June's gonna be a tight one so we'll talk about that in a bit but um if you have any other questions or thoughts feel free to share if you want to share anything else today we appreciate all that you do to serve us in our city.

Nope thanks for uh taking this serious enough um we are looking at making sure that we're covered um wanna thank uh acting captain O'Harley he did who discovered this so it's something that we need to get done and we'll we'll get there.

You for doing that too just coming right in as an acting yeah just the um the the range was down for a long time so we weren't really using it much for uh I think about two over two years.

Uh so I would just like to get everything in line not not rushing anybody but that we get it set up so that moving forward is an easier call to get in another outside agency if they have an emergency.

They don't always do but they did have the one from Capitol Police was like hey we need to get this guy we have to do it this week.

So that's usually the the fastest we have for emergency is like that week.

But that's all thank you.

Yes absolutely thank you.

Um it looks um to be that that's all that we had on the agenda today um though yes so we are gonna uh move to postpone until next meeting uh this ordinance uh so is there a motion to uh postpone this uh till our next meeting to discuss a little further so moved awesome is there a second for that okay all in favor um thank you uh so that's all we have on our agenda today I will ask if there's anything that anyone would like to share from um our committee I will um emphasize that we have some bills coming to us soon uh most likely uh one that's about expanding the board of supervisor elections and the other reducing the human relations commission membership uh to be on the lookout for and I'm sure there'll be others to come as well.

Uh anything that you all would like to share yeah Alvin Shannon I think Mr.

Chair.

So I understand we postponed action on an appointment for the planning commission.

I don't know if we're willing to reconsider that I know it was a reappointment traditionally reappointments have not come in for these meetings.

It's not really a thing that I'm gonna make too big of a deal over if we wish to postpone it one more meeting it occasionally happens but I just do want to know what traditionally we've done.

So the and please correct me if I'm if I'm what the basis for the postponement is the term of that particular person is not ending until June of twenty twenty seven.

So to try to determine why this appointment is is getting pushed through the cycle um a year early or it's possible that it's wrong on the website but trying to figure out what's going on here.

That's what I get trying to understand uh postponement while on the bus reading emails.

No no no but we appreciate that because it is important that we um it's it shouldn't be a requirement that people come before us before we agree to a reappointment appointment.

Though I think in moving forward, especially since we have so much work that's gonna go into updating uh how we go about these map our membership on commissions, boards, and task force, that we just kind of put in place maybe some um openness to be able to actually see who these people are and engage them in conversation as to why they're so passionate or even interested in being a part of what our city uh needs, which is proper representation on boards, commissions, and task force.

How we've traditionally done it is for first time appointments.

Uh we have wanted them to come in for exactly that reason.

Uh, because we do think that for the initial appointment, they we want to hear directly from them along with going over their resume, ask them any hard questions uh about the reappointments.

Usually it's we've seen them in action, we know what they're about, we know what they do and why they're passionate about this.

But um hearing that there's greater reasons for the postponement as well.

Uh I will withdraw my issue.

Uh all of the door.

I hear what we've done traditionally, but as we reorganize the board's and commission's effort, I see real value in when we reappoint somebody to bring them in here and go through a process where we ask them why they want to do it.

So Roger, the tradition, but I'm not married to it.

Um and so I I, you know, this is probably a Laura Richards uh discussion too, but I think that's her intent is to to bring people in.

I don't want to speak for, but um, I think there's real value in making these appointments a little more uh noteworthy in their milestones.

Thank you for that.

Both of both of our women.

Um okay.

We have reached the end.

Is there a motion if there's nothing left to be shared?

Thank you.

Um as well, is there a motion to adjourn today?

So moved.

Okay, is there a second for this?

Second.

All right, seven eleven PM five seven twenty twenty six.

We adjourned.