Meeting of the Citizens Police Review Board to um order.

Um we usually start with I don't know that I see it on the agenda, but we uh we will assume that we're gonna start with uh introductions as we so often do.

So uh we'll start down at uh Stephanie's end of the room.

Shake it up a little bit, right?

Stephanie Brown, City Manager's office, Staff Liaison.

Uh Payne Oliver, City Manager Fellow.

Stephanie Colman, board member.

Denise Flazek, board member.

Lynn Bergen, board member.

Steve Jeffery, board member.

Doug Hunt, board chair.

Charles Zug, board member.

Ed Robinson, board member.

Harry Castellow board member.

Steph Yochum, human rights liaison.

And Richard Hurrell, Columbia Police Department.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the uh agenda.

All those in favor say aye.

Any corrections that people see necessary.

The minutes of the January 14th meeting.

So where are we on this?

Um in the past, we've submitted the annual report to council before that was included, and then we can do a supplement if need be.

Um but the annual report was presented to council on February 2nd during the council meeting.

I'll I was uh at the meeting, uh made comments at the beginning and then saw how the council responded, and I did want to say something about that.

I have actually been concerned for some time uh several years really, uh, and especially since the council voted on September 3, 2024 to limit our powers, which was the subject of the discussion at the council meeting.

Um I've had some concerns about how the board is designed and how the ordinance direct its operations.

It was interesting at the meeting on uh February 2 that some of the members, including the mayor, expressed a willingness to revisit and perhaps revise those ordinances.

So we now seem to have an opportunity for a robust community discussion of how the CPRB system might be improved.

I had hopes that the CPRB might be able to take the lead in that discussion since several of us have had years of experience dealing with this nuts and bolts of the system and what seems to work well and what doesn't seem to work well.

Umfortunately, for reasons that Earl can articulate more fully than I, the CPRB is not allowed to take up the matter in an official way or have any substantive discussion of it during our meetings.

So what I think we might do at this point is first listen to Earl's explanation of the ground rules we're operating under, after we hear from Earl, we can discuss the best way forward.

So thanks, Doug.

Yeah, the I I think the key part of that is taking it up at this time.

Uh of course, the board has duties set out uh in city ordinance in section 21-49 of City Code, you know, as passed by City Council that sets out the very the duties of the board, you know, which as you know includes reviewing appeals, jurisdictional reviews, reviewing complaints of alleged misconduct, and your annual report.

And that's the sum total of the duties as directed by City Council through uh City Code.

Uh or of course, if the City Council asks you to do something.

Um they did express interest in some of the members in taking this up again at some point in the future.

They didn't specify when or how they were going to do that, um, but they did express interest in doing that.

So I think if in the future uh city council asks the board to provide advice or feedback on this topic, then you could take it up.

Um or if they have some other kind of directive or request for the board, that would then come to the board, and we can put it on the agenda.

You can have discussion and proceed as appropriate.

We haven't gotten that yet, though.

Um so I don't think uh I don't see what we would point to at this time to say here's how the board is taking this on when it's not in your duties.

To clarify that, I I I thought when we were exchanging some emails about this earlier, it was necessary both for the um ordinance to be changed so that we can discuss such things and for the city council to ask us to discuss such things.

Is that is it just their asking would be enough?

I think if the board if the city council took a vote that they would like to ask the board or direct the board to do something, then I think you can do it.

Yeah.

Meanwhile, however, um, and this is kind of what I meant about ground rules.

I think, Earl, um, I would love to have a robust community discussion of limitations that we've been under, both in terms of the limitations that were imposed on September 3rd.

But we have had discussions at other times about imp imperfections in the design of other sorts, you know.

So, with some interest on the city council in considering what the ordinances should be, it would be a tremendous time for a community discussion what citizens and the police would like to see in terms of our regulation.

But if I understand it right, here's what we need to talk about the sunshine law uh limitation.

If I were to sit here tonight and say, I think we should change the things this way, what do you think?

I think we were not allowed to do that.

Is that right?

I think that's right, because to the extent you are discussing it as a board, then you are subject to the restrictions that you have with your duties.

So that's the dilemma that we need to talk about.

And I think it would be useful if we just thought about that for a little bit and see whether we have some notions about how we can proceed.

How do we encourage a public discussion of the duties of the board under these limitations?

As I understand it it would be uh if if five of us decided to sit down and have a beer and talk about what we want to recommend to City Council, that's illegal.

Yeah, that I mean that would be a quorum of the board, that would be a meeting, and you'd have to comply with all the requirements of posting a meeting and public access and those kinds of things, yeah.

But if four of us sat down and had a cup of coffee, I'll change my choice there.

Liquid.

The sunshine law doesn't address the beer versus coffee.

Doesn't address the bigger question whether we're 21 or not either.

Would that be possible?

If there's less than a quorum, then that's not a meeting, and those requirements wouldn't apply.

I want you to think about that for a minute and about where that leaves us.

Yeah, and you had mentioned too about well, what about just going and talking with members of the public individually?

Of course you can do that all you want.

That's less than a quorum of the board present, and so you can do that all you choose.

And while we cannot host meetings.

So if, for instance, the League of Women Voters were to have a meeting where they wanted somebody from the Columbia Police Office.

What not board members could attend such a meeting, or would only four board members be allowed to attend such a meeting?

Yeah, that's a great question.

If a quorum of this board were attending that meeting and you discussed business of this board, that would be a meeting of this board.

Because you would be you would have a quorum and you're talking board business.

So yes, that can become a meeting if you have a quorum of your members there talking citizens' police review board business.

Now I know what some boards will do is they'll they'll plan for that.

I I don't know that you would want to do this necessarily because of the situation, but they'll plan for that, and they'll they'll also post a meeting, and they'll have a joint meeting essentially of the two boards.

Oh, I see.

So then it would be then you're complying with the requirements, but it's clearly a meeting then at that point, which is a good thing.

Right.

So I wouldn't recommend that.

I'm just I'm just saying that's how other boards address joint meetings.

Four or fewer.

Four or fewer.

And we are safe, is what he's saying.

Yes, that's right.

And and also you have to be careful of you can't have four or fewer, and then go have another four or fewer, and then those four mixed together and there four or fewer, thereby having more than five all together, because that counts also.

That was in my thought.

Yeah.

I tried to look up the population of Columbia at this point.

Somebody may have a better sense on it.

It's about 170,000 or something like that, right?

So if we had a meeting with 170,000 people to talk about this, we would have to make sure that at least five board members did not attend that meeting.

I think in any gathering, if you have a quorum and you talk board business, that can be a meeting.

So that's that's our situation.

Um, I I don't want to not give other people a chance to weigh in with their thoughts about how to handle the situation.

I could propose a way of dealing with it, but I really want to hear how other people are thinking before I jump in there and start yakking about.

Um and I I will say to the extent you want to talk tonight about process and what you can and can't do and getting an understanding of the sunshine law and how that fits into this, that's all okay discussion to have.

Yeah.

So it's we should have to do that.

Discuss what you can do and how you can do it.

Right.

Exactly.

I think I understand that.

Um we just go to the council then and ask them to ask us to do something, like what we want to do?

Just say.

I mean, there was interest expressed as from what I saw the of taking this up again at some point in the near future.

They didn't specify when.

Um one of them mentioned putting a pen in it.

I don't know how long that means for.

I believe they said like 60 to 90 days, so it was vague.

60 to 90 days.

Well, I yeah, I think that's a good thing.

That would be for for city council's staff, like you have staff here.

City council has staff for DeCarlin or staff to bring it back to City Council in coordination with the mayor and design into coming up with an agenda is typically how those things come back before a board.

If I if I heard the discussion right, it will take longer than that because what I think I heard the, in fact, what I'm sure I heard the members of the um council say and um the city manager say is there's pending legislation in the legislature which could change this, so let's not discuss it until there is, that's and that's an excellent point, and it's another moving part, is there's at least two, if not more bills pending that would affect this directly.

I was gonna ask about that.

I mean how much of the 2024 City Council action was in response to state legislation that had been passed.

And then how would that, even if council were so inclined to affect our responsibilities, would it still counter that state legislation?

I mean, it that's my understanding it was directly related to legislation that had passed.

Right.

And and certainly if new legislation is passed, I I would totally expect City Council to take this up again.

Um I guess so I just wanted to confirm our even if we wanted to try to lobby City Council to take some kind of action, it wouldn't they couldn't do anything, right?

Because they're constrained by state law.

Is that or is there room for I think that's the argument?

I think that's the discussion.

Oh, that's that's what we're trying to figure out.

Oh, I see.

And the the council was had a divided vote about whether to uh table that motion when it came up because there seemed to be uncertainty about whether they were bound by the state law on the part of the side.

It was it was more a interpretation.

Interpretation and they went more extreme, not extreme, that's really not the word I want to do.

Conservative, but a little bit more conservative.

Proactively conservative.

There we go.

There we go.

So that's the direction they took.

The the the politics of this are obviously very complicated in many respects.

Uh here's my concern.

And I will uh I will say in the process of doing something that I said in an email exchange to earl, I did decide to check the life expectancy of American males and discovered that uh I am now two months past my expiration date.

Congratulations.

Um a certain impatience begins to take over about something that you think needs to be done that might be kicked down the road.

So I may be overreacting to this, but my my concern is that um the city council uh might consider restoring the um ordinances to what they were prior to September 3rd, 2024.

Discussions on this board have indicated to me that people are not entirely content with the way they were before September 3rd, 2024.

So I'm looking at this period of reconsideration as a golden opportunity to broaden the discussion.

Right.

I just hate to pass that up, because I don't want to be 85 when we finally get around to do it.

So I'd like to get the discussion going.

And that and and uh one of the things that occurs to me, but this is really a weird thought.

So get ready for weirdness, okay.

Um if only four members of this board can get into a serious discussion of what we would like to see in the ordinances.

Five people have to agree they're gonna sit aside and not participate in such a discussion.

Four people have to weigh in, right?

And and argue with each other or say who should we invite to do the discussion, or what forum should we be using and should we consider this?

Others have to say, well, I'm willing to sit that one out.

That's what occurs to me.

That is that group could try to convene other people and say, can we meet at the library in the fringe room and have a discussion?

Can we do an OSHA course?

Can we do something that gets a public discussion of this going?

But it but it it puts us in a very weird position of some people saying, I promise I won't go to the meeting in the friends' room at the library.

You know, I mean it's just it makes me want to tear my hair out.

But I think that's right, Earl, right?

You would we we would have to have some people who just are not going to participate in the discussion.

I mean, if if you have four or less, that's not a quorum, and you just be individual folks talking.

No more than four at a time.

But but I think you told me before about the sunshine law that there's a suspicion that if you have overlapping groups, you're getting around the sunshine law.

Exactly right.

Yeah, that's what he was just saying a little bit ago.

It seems like there would have to be no more than four of us who are staying engaged in the discussion, and the other ones having to say, I won't show up if there's a discussion of that.

Now, something else you can do going back to the the individual contact.

Of course, you are all board members and part of this board.

Um you're also citizens individually, and you each have a city council person.

You live in their ward, and as a citizen, you can talk to those members as you want.

That's not the board doing it.

But you you can still talk to those folks and express concerns.

This is close to how I had envisioned it, a working group or a subcommittee when I thought the sky was the limit, and Earl was like, hold on.

I don't look at it as people being forced to bow out or making a difficult decision like that.

I just look at it as the board saying, who do we nominate whose four judgments we trust the most to be the most judicious with this process and to bring then to meet, come to a consensus and then bring that back to us.

Now that that raises another point is if you couldn't, they couldn't report back, could they, until they were requested?

It's even worse.

Oh, great.

Well, that's okay.

I don't really care about the law anymore.

I shouldn't say worse.

To comply with the sunshine law.

If if this board appoints, directs, organizes, asks requests a group to get together and do board business, that's a work group or a subgroup of this board, and all the same rules of sunshine law apply.

And you'd be acting at the direction of the board and can only function within the parameters of the board, still.

So you're you're kind of in the same place.

So it must be informal.

We must not call it a subcommittee or a working group.

It's four PALs.

Well, I mean, if you're actively planning to get around the sunshine law, that's also noncompliant.

Well, then that's why like I don't want I want to do it like in proper faith, good faith.

That's why I didn't know under exactly what verbiage could the group of four potentially choose to meet properly.

Could we ask the council to make one of our duties to recommend what the ordinance for the board be?

So that the working group we want to do, we should just ask the council if that could could become one of our duties, right?

That they assign on our list that you mentioned at the beginning.

I guess I guess that goes back to the city council asking you to take this up, right?

Yeah.

And it sounds like they might do that, but they have not done that yet.

And so that's kind of where you're where you are.

And to then in order to take it up as a board to suggest uh recommend draft changes to ordinance or with regard to your duties or your authority or any of those things, you need the ask from City Council to do that.

The communication that's gone to City Council at this point has been in the form of part of the annual report, which is within your duties.

That's been submitted.

Um as a board, we cannot ask them for the next step, but as public citizens, we could ask them.

Yes.

Okay.

I hear what you're saying.

Two minute waits to see if he has an answer.

It's hard to officially ask questions and try to problem solve something that we're not technically supposed to problem.

So if some people don't call it showed up at a at a location and had some coffee.

And if more than four showed up, somebody left.

Yes.

I'm not feeling coffee today.

See you guys later.

And let me ask a very pointed version of that question.

If when this meeting adjourns, we go to the lobby.

Is that a possibility?

Hypothetical.

Come on, Earl.

It's fine.

I'll say that.

If any of you happen to meet spontaneously and talk about things and there's less than a quorum, that's just normal people talking about stuff.

If instead there's a coordinated effort to avoid the requirements of the sunshine law, that'll get you in trouble.

Right.

Now maybe that's the end of that, except I will make uh a single comment.

Well, I'll wait till the general comments from members and staff.

But unless somebody else has something to add, I think we know generally where we are on that.

Okay.

All right.

Um we have no item under uh new business.

I'll I'll ask a question which is kind of odd place in the agenda ask it, but I just wanted to think when when you know we have ordinarily done audits or sometimes we call them reviews of past cases.

And I think we've always worked from the uh CPD's report on complaints and chosen which complaints we were going to review.

So I just I'm saying this partly for the sake of new members who uh haven't been through this process.

That it it it creates this odd situation where in the early months of the year, while we're waiting to get that uh that report, it's hard for us to sort of divide up things and do that sort of audit thing.

But we ought to be watching for the moment when we when we have the report and can look at it and see what the complaints are about and see what one are gonna audit.

I just that's gonna be some new business at some point.

Uh where but it's it's not, I think we we're not ready to do that yet because we don't have that report.

So there's only five logged complaints so far on the dashboard, and one of them is a compliment, so only really four anyway to examine.

Okay.

Um we'll we'll let that build up a little bit.

Uh and uh actually I should save that technically again.

I'll go I'll wait until we get to general comments for for that.

So next item then is human rights commission report.

Um nothing super exciting, but we do have a fun event next month that we hope everyone interested in public accommodation might join us.

Um we've just invited the Missouri Commission on Human Rights to our meeting in March is all for the March 3rd meeting.

And it will be in whatever those rooms are, and then they take out the divider.

So a member from the state human rights commission will be there giving a presentation on public accommodation.

So cool.

Yeah, we just wanted to have it be an educational one-hour question in QA, just an interactive monthly meeting is all.

On the third.

Yeah.

We uh the human rights commission always meets on the first Tuesday of every month at 5 30 in that room.

Okay.

And then this month we'll just have someone extra in.

Um here.

Um my term is done over there.

I will actually be there in March anyway, just because I do hope uh someday to be back if you will have me.

Um but I have my own health problems and stuff that I'm in the middle of right now, and my three years came to an end.

And rather than continuing to try and juggle that, I'm gonna focus on that for a while, and then I guarantee if an opening comes up, if you will have me, I would be glad to give my opinion again.

And and meanwhile, Steph, as I understand the the procedure, it will be up to the human rights commissioner.

It will they nominate someone to come over.

Yes.

Yes.

Do they have any volunteers or do you are you aware?

No, not right now, and we are losing, losing is a very negative word.

But yeah, we're cycling through three people, and I am the least senior of those three people who are stepping down.

But I'm also excited.

I'm tired of seeing middle-aged white ladies everywhere, you know, like we need more different faces and voices on the board.

Um like I said, I like to, you know, I'm not exactly built for structure.

But I do enjoy doing it, and I've learned a lot, and it has been an absolute pleasure and a total learning experience.

Um so I will watch the city boards and commissions openings.

I plan on being back to one of them and very possibly this one in the future.

I've enjoyed it.

Um I just won't be taking a break for a while.

Well deserved.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Working with you.

All right.

Um, are we sure?

Okay, yeah.

That's what it's for.

Um guys are talking about.

Oh no.

Yeah.

Put you on the timer here.

Yeah, I would make you real official.

Right.

Um y'all were talking about like your Would you want to state your name so we put it in the minutes?

Thank you.

Uh my name is Micah Shulman.

I'm a reporter with the Columbia Missourian.

Um I was wondering about your guys' kind of duties and activities before your um I guess powers were restricted, you said on September 3rd, 2024.

So can you tell me like what you all did before then and what you can't do now?

I I think uh I want to review the rules on the questions and we usually don't do I I will I'll be glad to comment on that during during general comments, but in instead of having a series of questions and we answer one at a time, could you maybe tell us what your questions are going to be, and then we'll take comments from the board on those questions.

Okay.

So one is clearly about one.

Yeah.

Yeah, that was like the only question that I think.

Okay, that's good.

Yeah, we'd be yeah, we'd be glad to discuss.

Umate bill 641.

Well that's 741.

741.

Yeah.

Are we ready to answer?

Sure.

Yeah, now for now I think we're at now we're at general comments by members.

So members well, the members will answer as well as they can that question, I think.

So they narrowed down what we're allowed to um wording.

See, I can't even come up with it right now.

We're allowed to visit as far as complaints go.

They narrowed it to four categories.

And in the past it was whatever, whatever came out.

Right.

Any anything that was a violation of uh regulation, law, or uh procedure of the department, right?

So that was a big deal to to narrow it down to the to the four that they did.

Public public.

No uh could no longer host public meetings.

So just as how correct me though if I am wrong, just as how the human rights commission has chosen to have a speaker and hold an open extra public educational event.

The police review board though can no longer do that.

That was exactly the example I had in mind when I um like two years ago when we were discussing it, because I was trying to think of the people they had zoom in to review boards years ago.

Um but yes, it took away our ability to maybe host and hold informational sessions.

And from my point of view, the most damaging was we lost our ability to comment on police policies, procedures, and training.

Um, which again uh you know, to be put in a situation where you can examine alleged misconduct by an individual officer seems an oddly judicial function.

We're citizens, we're not experts on law or on law enforcement, but we are kind of experts on what the public would like to see.

In a democracy, I will repeat over and over again, it's crucial that the citizens have the ultimate say, not only what the law is, but how the law is enforced.

And so I think at our healthiest, we would be commenting on what we think good police policies, procedures, and training would look like, but that we're not to do now.

Citizens Police Review Board with the small hour on the review.

Citizens Police Review Board with the small hour on the review is really not allowed, you know, to do much to function as the public might think that the Citizens Police Review Board is functioning.

And we're not allowed to really do anything about that.

It's a catch-22 all the way around, really.

There's a lot of strong feelings.

It's very heavily politicized.

Some people may feel that some boards are out for punitive measures, punishment, getting, you know, discipline on the record.

Others, and I truly feel in good faith, ours is is simply to always keep examining policy and make better policy processes and procedures.

So I guess I I would also add, which is mitigates the situation to some degree, that while we can no longer make those public statements about policies, procedures uh and training, we sometimes do attach notes to an appeal that we've heard about concerns that we may have about policies, procedures or training.

So it's not a question of entire silence, but it's it's not being able to speak publicly and seeing how the public is receiving these um these things.

It's uh a little frustrating.

Maybe so I can understand as the new board member, and then maybe you want to hear this too.

In what way did the city council's um implementation of the state law go further than the minimum that was required by the state law?

Because that's what we were talking about earlier, right?

Was that implementation was more s more stringent, and that's what we want to talk about.

I'll try first.

I don't think it was more stringent than the state law required.

The straight state law was um fairly extremely stated in terms of what boards would allow to do.

The question was whether it applied to us at all.

Uh if you apply the law as written to us, we're we're we're severely restricted, and it's not exaggerating what the law says.

But you know, when I talked to the City Council at the time back on September 3rd, I was noting that if if we didn't do if we didn't follow the restrictions of that state law, everything we did would be void and without power of law.

Well, everything we do is without power of law.

We're in an advisory body.

So I wondered why it applied.

Nancy Thompson presented the verbiage to us and presented what was no longer congruent with state law, basically, um, and showed us the revisions that would need to be made.

And then that's what was given to City Council and voted on.

But lawyers could argue for a long time about whether the government is a very important thing.

Other municipalities simply saw the state law and fell in line or chose to file in line.

Ours is the only municipality that had a board and then chose to what would you say aggressively conservatively preemptively go in and adjust our verbiage on our city code to be in line with what they felt was new state law.

Yeah, and and I I am not sure because I don't have a comprehensive view of how many review bodies there are in the state.

Right.

I would guess less than half a dozen, so also the sample is not that big.

Yeah, there aren't that many.

So what we what we know is concretely is that um the Kansas City Board and the Ferguson Board said we didn't have to make any changes.

It didn't seem to apply to us.

So now they may there may be reasons for that.

I mean, I again you could get into a complicated legal argument.

Not every board operates the same way.

So it's not, I'm not saying it's an open and shut case, but there was at least some question about whether the law applied.

I don't think they exaggerated the meaning of the law.

The real question is whether the law applies everything you needed.

I was gonna add just for reference, the September third, 2024 ordinance.

Uh is ordinance number 02575.

And of course, that was taken up by City Council on September 3rd, 2024.

It was Council Bill B 192-24.

And if you go into the City's website, you can find the materials from that meeting and see what all was included in reference.

And the minutes are there too from that meeting.

So there.

And I should say it's very easy to find this too, because when the City Council took it up on we a week ago, Monday, that material was attached again.

If you really like being a nerd and going back and watching old city council videos, sometimes it's fun.

You will find, though, that there was some confusion and much discussion on this ordinance.

And some have indicated since then that they may have potentially considered changing their vote at the time if they had understood something differently.

So there was a bit of confusion during that discussion.

So the vote ultimately could be re-examined.

And there's new council members now, too.

And new council members.

That's true.

So it could just be not unreasonable.

Like basically like we're giving context because we feel what we're asking is not unreasonable.

Flexibility.

That's what we're looking for.

Right.

That was a lot.

You see, we had this very quiet agenda and everything like that, but it turns out we had a great deal to talk about.

Other comments by members first.

I will make a single comment by members, which is I will be in the lobby uh for a little while after I leave.

And any other comments by members.

Okay.

Any Actually, I think Earl, you had referenced a couple of bills.

Oh.

Yes.

Do you have any insights?

We know more about the bills, it would be great.

Have they even made it out of like committee, though?

Not to put you on the spot.

Let me see if I can pull those up here.

Gold.

I I know that at one point David Tyson Smith had filed a bill, and I don't know whether it's still alive or not.

Right.

If it's just sitting in a subcommittee and it's never going to come out, that's one thing.

Right.

But if it's made it through 18 of the 27 steps, you know, then maybe.

Yeah, I I don't think any of them have gotten that far.

No, it is it is early February or almost mid-February.

And you know, it's a long way to go.

Uh it ends in August.

Uh May.

Oh, and the session ends.

And then they reconvene in the United States.

And then the governor has a period of time to sign bills that takes them into early late June, early July.

And then things would normally be effective in at the end of August.

Uh unless there's uh an emergency provision in the bill.

But if you want to stall for a minute, I can see if I can find these.

I I know that David Tyson Smith bill, and I don't know its present status in the legislature, but uh it described, I think in legislative terms as a carve out.

Uh it in effect was saying that for cities of a certain size, this bill would not apply in Columbia fell in that size.

But I don't know what other thing bills were brought up.

So HB 2569 is one of them.

That's the one from David Tyson Smith.

Okay.

Hearing not currently scheduled, but it's been pre-filed, read, but we'll see what happens.

It's still early in the session.

That presumably gives us more flexibility like we had previous.

Is that Yes?

Um also he's pretty reachable, David Tyson's.

Like we could if this goes further, I'm confident he would be happy to talk to us.

Yeah, his bill 2569.

Uh 2024 that says the provisions of subsection two of the section shall not apply to any city within with more than 125,000 but fewer than 160,000 inhabitants essentially exempting Columbia.

Wow, I think we need to check the figures, by the way, on the 16th.

I think that would be according to official census record.

Yeah, I was officially the last census that we have to do.

I know it's a lot higher than that.

And there is at least one other bill out there.

I'm not it's not popping up for me right now.

But so something could happen.

Yeah.

Uh I mean part part of my 2237.

2237.

All right, let me find that.

I'll say while Earl is um looking at that, uh, that the after-midnight discussion of our report uh with the comments from the council is sort of interesting.

I've had a couple of discussions with uh Carlin uh about things.

I was very impressed by how knowledgeable he was and and forthcoming he was.

So I mean he's he's gonna understand the discussion that we're that we're having here, because it's front of mind with him.

Okay, so this uh twenty two thirty-seven is uh file that sponsors Marty Murray.

It also has been read a second time, not yet assigned to committee.

This looks like he's trying to reinvent the wheel.

It's a lot more involved, yeah.

There's a lot more to it.

Oh okay.

I was like very confused.

Yeah, it's almost it's more than half a page just on the summary.

Let's stick with David Tyson Smith, our own local rep anyway.

And we'll we'll hope we'll watch both.

Because Representative Smith's also still that's not a holistic solution to the actual problem anyway.

Right.

But I I feel that too.

Yeah, right.

Um other comments by members.

I don't believe we need a motion to go into closed sessions.

I see no reason for one.

Uh we do not have an appeal to hear tonight.

Um, twenty twenty-six.

No further comments.

Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion.

I'll second.

Moved and seconded, and I believe this uh Stephanie is a roll call vote, is it not?

No, or is it not?

No, okay.

It's not a requirement.

Okay.

All those in favor of adjourning say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Done.

Okay, we stand adjourned.