Must be the color there.

Good evening.

My name's Peter Bazade, and as the president of the council, I'm just gonna call the council conferees to order as being present pursuant to the notice.

And I'm gonna take attendance of the city council members who are here.

We will not take a vote as council members here at this because it's a conference under the statute.

Councilman Coello.

Here Councilman Flanagan.

Here.

Councilman Hawley.

Here.

Councilwoman LePine.

Here.

Councilman Salvatore.

Here.

Councilman Bazid.

Councilman Gardner.

Present.

Councilwoman Faye.

Councilman Henry.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Here.

Councilman Giordano is a he told me would not be attended.

Councilwoman Jabbar, she told me she'd be late.

Councilman Rotello.

Sure.

Councilman Chinese.

Councilman Wayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

He's present but not really participating as a councilman.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

Councilman Dennis Perkins.

Thank you.

Um you want to take your time?

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'm gonna call the Commission Charter Revision Commission part to order.

I'm gonna ask Madam Secretary if you can do the roll call for Commission please.

My pleasure.

Uh Commissioner Britton.

Present.

Commissioner Sopranic.

Present.

Commissioner Armstrong.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Yes, sir.

Commissioner Jowdy.

Present.

Commissioner McCarry.

Here.

Commissioner Putnam.

And Commissioner Rivero.

Six present and three.

We should have some more people trickling in.

Um thank you very much, Madam Secretary.

Uh, just for the Commission, um, without objection, uh, for the purposes of the conference, is the commission okay with having President Busade moderate or preside over the joint conference?

No objection.

No objection.

Thank you.

Okay.

So thank you.

And I believe the council's same way for this.

Is that correct by consensus?

Thank you.

Thank you.

So if I may, and I'm sorry for standing up, I'm gonna stand up over here.

Um this is a conference that's required by Connecticut General Statute Section 7-191.

Its purpose and scope is clearly defined by that statute.

The statute states in pertinent part, which is in subsection C, the second sentence, if you're gonna follow along.

If the appointing authority makes recommendations for changes in the draft report to the commission, the commission shall confer with the appointing authority concerning any such recommendations.

We are here for that purpose for the commission to confer with us on the 14 items where we made recommendations.

The statute's very clear in this statutorily mandated conference, we don't go beyond those 14 items, and that's written clearly in section 7-191 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

It's my intent to uh request of the commissioners, since this is a conference with them uh for them, uh, to ask them as we go through the 14 recommendations if they have any questions of the council.

Uh it would be my intent looking at the people present from the council in the room to direct those questions to the council people who participated in the debate or made the motion which led to the recommendation.

So I'm gonna try to facilitate that in terms of the responses to any inquiries or requests for information or even request for our rationale in making these recommendations.

Once we've concluded that and gone through the 14 different recommendations, as as um specified under the statute, we are done with our conference, and we will um our part of this will end in terms of the city council uh in terms of this conference.

The conference will conclude.

Okay, those those I believe are the ground rules and um attorney of mortaletti.

Do you agree with that summation of the I do agree?

Yes, okay.

That's a good summary thing.

All right, excuse me.

Sorry, right there, sir.

Okay.

Do you mind if I add one thing to discuss?

Go right ahead if you want to add something to the commission.

So Mr.

Chairman like to make notice for the record that uh commissioner puffman is answered.

It's ordered, thank you.

No, no, late to number necessary.

Um, just so the commission is aware of our role in this, we wouldn't be voting on anything in the conference section.

So when we actually deliberate and discuss the recommendations, that would be when the commission meets after this in a separate meeting of the commission itself.

Just wanted to just so we're all on the same pages to the conference system.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Sure.

If I may proceed, there were if you have materials that were downloaded or given to you, it's the it's two pages basically of what what motions passed, what recommendations were made.

Um, and I will go through this.

I'll go through this in order.

Uh the first the first recommendation to the commission was um to amend the preamble of part one, chapter one.

It's public speaking.

There is no public speaking, sir.

It's on the agenda.

Not the agenda for the conference, sir.

It's right here.

It's not on the agenda for the conference, sir.

Conference portion.

That's not correct, sir.

But I ask you to refrain from making any more comments of this portion of the meeting.

Thank you.

Um before I was interrupted, I was I was discussing the first recommendation to the commission uh from the council, and that's to amend the preamble part one, chapter one uh of the report uh to include the word taxpayer.

And uh, I'll ask any members of the commission if they have any inquiry or would like to know the rationale that the council adopted uh this recommendation.

Now I'm gonna move so not I might go over here.

Okay.

Is there any member of the commission who uh would like any further information from the council regarding that recommendation regarding the word uh usually when I'm at the council meetings I I call three times, so that's the first time.

And I'll ask one more time.

Is there anybody who would like to know or would like to discuss the rationale for rec that recommendation of a change to your report, your initial report, and for the final time, uh is there anyone present on the commission who would wishes to make an inquiry or discuss with the council members uh that recommended change.

Okay, hearing none.

We move on to the second recommended change.

This concern um language throughout throughout the charter regarding uh the word the use of the current use of the word appointed in your report, changing that word appointed to nominated I guess I have one clarifying question for that one.

So the the recommendation as it was made, is it exclusive to that one chapter?

I believe that it's it's it's throughout it's throughout the entire um charter.

So this is something that um you know it came up in that particular section, but the belief of the motion uh is is through nominated, and I will direct the question to uh councilman Rotello who seconded the motion.

I did Claire Tabor really should be speaking on this, but since she's not here, I'll take it from her.

But she was pretty adamant that the change be made throughout the document.

As a matter of fact, there was another issue where somebody had been appointed and was going to be reappointed, and she wanted a change to nominated, and I said to her, listen, if we if they're already appointed, it makes more sense to just simply reappoint them.

So we actually did discuss the pros and cons of leaving appointments in and taking it out.

What whenever you see this, it should be fairly consistent, except for that one item where somebody is going to be somebody has been appointed and they're now going to be reappointed.

We left that in as appointed.

I guess one follow-up to that.

Is it only for positions that would require council confirmation?

Where it's nominated nominated and because some positions that wouldn't require council approval, it would just in theory be appointed.

That's my yeah, I don't see how if it's not council business, we would have a say over that, but it is a it is a city document, so she probably would have won.

It's on maybe you could follow this up with her when she's you know offline when she's back.

I'd be more comfortable if the commission does that.

Through you to the council, is there any legal uh difference between the two, or is it perfunctory for the most part?

I mean, when we looked at this issue, we thought it was appropriate uh to make that adjustment.

Um obviously the qualifications that attorney uh at Kimber and Anthony Brennan uh mentioned you know would make sense here, so we'll look at that.

Um, but we didn't see any and it was 20 to one, so you guys were really behind us.

So you guys 20 to one.

Well, yeah, we were really behind it.

Yeah, we were.

I mean, this was something that we we thought was fairly important because uh a nomination is not an appointment.

The council's charged to take this nomination and turn it really into an appointment.

Whereas if we start off with an appointment to begin with, where our position is somewhat superfluous.

It's language, but in this case, the council considered the language to be important.

Is there are there any other questions regarding the second recommendation, which was the changing the word appointed to nominated?

No, last time.

Any other questions that any commissioner may have or inquiry that a commissioner may have regarding that change?

Hearing none, I'll move on to the third recommend recommendation to the Charter Revision Commission from the Council, and that would be um to remove language regarding staggered terms.

Leave this applied to the uh Board of Education.

And so does the commission have any questions regarding uh the council's rationale behind that or any information any commission members would like to inquire of the council regarding that change.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um the question I have is the we we all understand the implication of staggered terms and what it does to an election and so forth.

Four people or five people may be running.

Um, what was the the driving rationale for 13 to 8 uh in favor of having staggered given the totality of all the implications?

Okay, the moving the moving member uh who made that motion was Councilman Chinese, and and he is not here, so I'll turn to Councilman Coello.

I know he had a reason, but everybody's reason was slightly different.

There wasn't one specific okay.

Councilman Quell.

I think part of it was uh Commissioner Safronic after talking to members of the board of ed is the people the reason it's staggered and it's worked so well over the years is that you've got some experience and wisdom and knowledge that you would lose by having a whole new board of med come in potentially, and we wanted to make sure they overlapped so when the new members of the board came in, they were able to rely on some members that had you know years of experience potentially that might not be there.

Okay, so the crux then would be the concern with a completely new eleven, so to speak, and not having having a brain drain, if you will, or uh there's a lot that goes into the can I use brain drain as possible.

Those are your words, yes.

Okay, it's there's a lot that the board of ed members have to digest, but they have to come up for speed, and um it's an incredibly important part of ours.

I know where you lose all 11 would be a catastrophic problem.

Thank you.

So is there any other commissioner who has a question regarding that particular section?

Uh Commissioner Elmita.

Um, so my question is did the council discuss or take into consideration that if this change is made along with the other recommended changes um to the charter, that we would be holding an election for a very small number of people every two years, and the cost implications.

Okay, so so that did come up in our debate.

Um Councilman Sheenese spoke a little bit about that.

Um I'm gonna call in uh councilwoman Robinson uh regarding that if she wishes to respond to that specific question.

Well, I think that the one of the big motions that we talked about was the staggering or the two-year terms for city council members as well instead of um the four years presented.

So that would put us back because actually we're we're just talking about the one recommendation.

I know that we're regarding the staggered terms for the board of ed.

Okay.

Well, I I back to I think uh councilman's Coelho's position is that the small amount that we would have up for election during those terms um would allow people to focus more on the board of ed.

Um, and again, the board of ed does uh disciplinary hearings, um, and they have hearings for uh expulsions, and I think having that consistency where you have somebody to to Mike's point, um having a whole new board up there, I think it's worth the having the election uh staggered, even though it's a small amount.

Is that the question?

Yes, Saturday.

Thank you.

Sorry, thank you.

Um actually no, I'm just gonna end with that.

We're gonna move on.

Is there any other member of the commission who has a question for the council regarding that particular change?

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

President, I guess this is more of a general question and that's where you would direct it to, but what did anybody do the research?

Has there ever been an elected body in Danbury that's ever of the ones that are elected, you know, on mass all at the same time that has 100% been brand new in history?

Because that happened.

Does anybody know?

I I don't know the answer to that.

I don't believe that came up at our council meeting.

If I could, that's the point exactly right.

It's never happened because they're staggered, right?

We've never come across this.

I'm talking, I'm talking about like the city council's elected in one shot.

Zoning commission is elected in one shot.

Has that ever happened?

The entire city council turned over.

Not for the optional minority representation, the entire city council would have been replaced.

That's not true.

That's not true at all.

Paul, you're right.

I tell you, sorry, sorry.

Sorry, I think we kind of exhausted that.

I don't believe there were that was serious, that part of this wasn't really discussed in the council deliberations.

If that answers that question, it does.

I I was just curious as to the practical, you know, if we're talking about like the chances of something happening.

Thank you.

So uh I think we've kind of exhausted our discussion on that particular point.

So the fourth point would recommend uh was was a record recommendation to repeat replace the word designated in section two-four with the word uh I'm sorry, to replace the word appointed again.

I mean I misspoke to replace the word designated with appointed in section two-four of the charter.

Does any commissioner have any question with for the council regarding that recommended change?

Second time.

Does anyone have a question for the council regarding that recommended change?

And for the final time, does anyone from the commission have any question or inquiry of the council regarding that?

We're gonna move on to what is the fifth um recommendation to the Charter Revision Commission, and that would be um uh a recommendation that the commission considers striking out all revisions uh in section two eight that uh refer to the language uh of what is required in this in the state statute.

I'm sorry, striking out all the revisions to section two eight, and have the commission either refer to the language as to what is required in the state statute or include the language of both options that is again in section two-eight can you elaborate on that one?

So section two-eight concerns the administration of oaths in the city of Danbury to elective office, and I believe the council, uh and if I I and if I speak incorrectly, I will call on somebody, but I believe the council's point is that state statute allows either an oath or an affirmation, uh the choice being of the person who is who is taking it, and and are the way it's rewritten, would not allow either option uh to be used.

Is the option the individuals?

That's correct, or is it the is the the f it's the affirmance option?

I believe that's that's that's correct.

So for for those of us who are lawyers, this is a very common thing to see that either either or and um it was believed it was it was felt on the by the council members who proposed this that that option should be available to anyone taking the oath.

So can I ask a further up?

So if if 21 members of the council are being sworn in, some can say under penalty of perjury, others can say it's will help me God if they choose, it's their choice.

So normally am I wrong?

So so normally there isn't a mass swearing in, it's each person takes an individual oath of office.

Okay, and and and so it would be the option at that time.

Or it'll have me God or an off and you want that.

I would like the affirmation, or I would like the oath.

And you want that back to the that's correct.

Okay.

I believe I if I misspoke, I apologize.

I think in the end people say both all the time.

There are mass swearing in the zoning commissioner.

Right, but but it could be either way.

Okay.

Are there any further questions regarding that particular recommendation to the council, which is the section two eight?

For the final time, any other further inquiry regarding uh oaths as required under section two-eight.

Any other further inquiry regarding uh oaths as required under section two-eight.

Hearing none, I'll move on to the next recommendation by the council to the commission.

And if that would regard uh removing the word elected from section three-six of the proposed changes to the charter.

So I I direct that to uh uh councilwoman Lapine.

Um I was thinking was that most places it says uh the membership um here it says elected city council.

Sometimes people are appointed, so not really technically elected.

Uh so I thought that was just that leaving people out, possibly, and that we should go back to entire membership for the member.

There are any further questions regarding that proposed recommendation from the commission to the council.

Any any further questions regarding that proposed recommendation?

Hearing none, I'll move on.

Um this is another motion um which applies to the entire uh this is another recommendation.

This implies to the applies to the entire charter, and it regards references to either state statutes um and and any reference to statutes in general.

Um the the recommendation is that they uniformly be changed to uh the legally the legally correct term general statutes.

Uh so and that would conform our charter with state law and how the state refers to its uh its statutes, they're referred to as the general statutes, yes.

So that means that's um state statutes and general statutes, they really mean the same thing.

Well, they do, but the the correct way of saying referring to them would be the general statutes.

Does anyone have any questions on the uh charter revision from from the charter revision commission to the council about that?

Last time anyone have any other questions regarding that recommendation.

Hearing none, we'll move on.

Uh we're following along on our sheets.

We're now on the second page of recommended recommended changes.

Um this is a change to section three-thirteen of the charter, and it's uh change that would recommend to include um ad hoc the language ad hoc, standing, or committees of the whole to that section.

This one, if I remember correctly, this was just a tweaking in how the sentence reads, it wasn't really a substantive change.

I believe I believe the language committees of the whole were was added in the recommendation.

Maybe it's kind of your own, but there were six no votes.

What was the argument against there?

Well, actually, actually, it's more interesting to know from your purposes why was the recommendation made.

Oh, okay.

Well, sorry, we'll go with that.

That is a question though by commissioner.

I think it deserves an answer.

Oh why was there a no vote?

I mean, we're talking the actual statute requires that we discuss the recommendations only, and the council made recommendations, so it it may deserve an answer, but not in this venue.

Yeah, but we are talking about what was approved, and that's one of the items.

But he asked why the people voted no.

That's that's more or less irrelevant to this.

I apologize.

Okay, I could could we add to that or no?

Uh no, because it's it's it's about recommendations that we made affirmatively.

Um so any other questions regarding uh that particular section, section three-13 hearing none, we'll move on.

This regards uh uh change the language to section four-one to include a requirement that gifts made to the city be reported to the council.

So we're again we're looking at um section four-one, and um the recommendation to the charter revision commission is that we include language that would require a report to the city council of any and all gifts.

So there was a sentence that was struck out um that required the mayor when he received a donation to report it to the city council.

So I think we're just looking to reinstitute that practice thank you.

Like a report as a community.

Oh, I'm sorry.

It'd be a report to the council communication or like a list.

Yes, okay.

Does it already go to finance again?

Monetary, to like it should that be a finance communication report or I believe it, I believe it goes to finance, but it should we would like it reported to the council separate directly that's correct as of okay well as written it, there's no reporting requirement at all.

Not even the finance, I'm looking at your draft in the charter.

Okay, okay.

Okay, thank you.

If there are no further questions from the commission to the to the council members regarding section 4-1, we will move on.

We're now on the third recommendation of the second page of recommendations, and this concerns um uh the change regarding the town clerk uh to keep the to reject making the town clerk's position appointed and keeping it as elected.

So any questions from the commission to the council regarding that proposed change.

Is there a question?

Um I think uh if I could direct this to um councilman Hawley, because I believe I will direct it to councilman.

That he spoke, I think it would just be beneficial to the commission to maybe hear a couple points from council.

Councilman Hawley, if you could uh respond.

So I basically made the motion to remove the appointed language because I believe the appointment structure that was presented in this revision um draft, it's it's incomplete.

And I'm specifically referring to kind of what happens after the town clerk is appointed.

And uh the best way to kind of just uh laid out were some of the questions I asked during the meeting, which were uh which appointment model is being present uh proposed because other towns they have uh specific fixed terms with their appointments, some of them have at will, which it seems like this one might be, and then also there's indefinite appointments where there's no time frame uh referenced, and all those uh towns that do different appointments usually have um one of the models chosen.

Then also um there was some question about how the clerk can be removed, and is there any kind of appeal process?

Um if uh if uh a mayor is removing a clerk, is there any kind of council confirmation?

What's like basically the council's role in that afterwards?

And then also um, are there any specific qualifications that might be needed?

And then what if somebody doesn't have the qualifications?

Is there a certain kind of time frame that can be considered?

And uh the last part was kind of most specific, which is relating to any of the safeguards that could be added to the office.

The town clerk's office handles a crucial component of the election process.

It is um protected right now by the accountability of the voters.

So if you put this into the executive branch and have the mayor overseeing that office, that can open up some serious risks to our community in the future, especially since what we're seeing around nationwide election officers are being targeted and attacked at different angles.

So I think it's important to have these things um added to the the um the charter.

Yeah, that's kind of the overall gist.

I give a good speech though, five minutes if you want to watch it.

Okay, Commissioner Shafran, if you have a further question of condense it.

Um so the the first four points you hit on was terms, removal, qualifications.

Um if those were addressed, then you'd be okay with it being like a civil service or something.

Um I think civil service will be separate from from the appointment.

Because I think then you would have to define it.

But then you'll you're okay with removing it as an elected position then.

Yeah, I'm fine.

I'm fine with any kind of proposal that is in its entirety.

Like any other department is hired or something along those lines.

Yeah, yeah, that could work.

It just needs to be defined um adequately, I think, with some protections addressed.

But just so we're clear, the recommendation of the council was that it remain an elected position.

Correct.

But as a motion maker, I just want to know what these five, six key points were as with the you know the put safeguards in the okay.

Right.

Is there any other question from the commission to the council members uh or to the council regarding um the change to the uh elected town clerk?

Last time any any other further inquiry from from the commission to the members to the council regarding the town clerk.

Hearing none, we're gonna move on.

Um and there are two in a row that are sort of related.

So uh there was there is a recommendation that all of um section six-18 be referred back to the charter revision commission.

And again, this is section six-eighteen, which concerns requirements of on the board of education closely related to that was was um so there were two parts to this.

One uh I believe it's fair for me to say that the council that made this recommendation was unhappy.

Happy with the entirety of 6-18.

And then there was a second one regarding that the commission considered, depending on what the commission does with chapter 618, um uh some some definition, some changes and further defining of of words uh regarding among other things financial information specifying what it was required.

Um, there was a great concern by members of the council, and I don't mean to steal anyone's thunder, um, that uh they were very concerned about personal uh human uh information that might inadvertently or whatever be disclosed inappropriately because of this requirement in the charter, and there are other words.

So if you have questions, I can direct them.

Um does anyone on the commission have questions regarding the referrals, and we're doing two at once because they are directly related.

Uh uh referring all of section 618 back to you.

Um to further refine section 618.

I think it was particularly in the first three paragraphs regarding what information was being sought.

Any other inquiry?

So, changing from shall to maybe I I believe we asked legal about that when we reviewed that if you can comment on um why we we put in shall instead of may.

So um, yes, uh through uh president.

So yeah, we we wanted CHAL language to ensure that there was transparency between the Board of Ed and the City of Danbury.

Um obviously we had a lot of discussion about you know uh uh privacy statute and other laws that would come into effect.

Um we didn't want the shall language to gloss over those legal um those legal issues, right?

And so we did have language that carved out that carved out um any sort of legal provisions against disclosure, but other than that, we did want transparency as far as documents being shared.

Uh so that's all we opt for the SHAL language.

Um Shaw would mean if I'm incorrect, yeah.

That would mean be consistent.

May is maybe yes, maybe not.

Shall is a well shall is a term of requirement.

Uh may is discretionary optional question.

So we didn't uh the commission wasn't looking for the board of ed to have um the latitude to not disclose, unless of course there's a law that prevents disclosure.

Um so that's all we opt for the SHA language.

Thank you.

Uh if I could, Mr.

President.

Um, just for purposes of the conversation, um, commission there was a lot of um I would say comments made about the protection of uh protected student information, which is obviously governed by FERPA, and there's a lot of state law that protects um student information.

I'm just curious as to the rationale, um, and and maybe this is directed to councilwoman Robinson, but we do have the language in there in that fourth paragraph.

Um financial management system of the board of education subject to safeguards, including student data privacy agreements to assure compliance with state and federal law.

So when we were drafting this language, I know we wanted to make the student data paramount.

I'm just curious um if it's the opinion of um the council on this particular section that that didn't go far enough, or if maybe just I'm curious your thoughts.

So I will direct that question to councilwoman Robinson, who did speak uh in quite some detail regarding that particular section, along with other members of the council, but she did deep dive.

Yes, thank you.

So I mean, I know we're all walking that line between what you know under state statute, what the city council or the city of Danbury can do regarding any oversight of the Board of Education or the public school system.

So I think that initially my thoughts started with the full access um definition.

I think there should be, even though we don't have a defined term section in the city charter, I think that full access um I'm worried about creep, right?

Once we start allowing certain information to go back and forth, the whole point is that somebody, a designated person in the finance department at City Hall has full access or at least access to what's necessary for the two finance departments to speak.

I don't think it the city council needs full access.

So I think I just wanted to be clear that this is a you know kind of a smaller thing.

Um and I think honestly, even though we already talk about FERPA, I think that having a direct, maybe even a data use agreement between the city of Danbury and the Board of Ed, um, that's that specifically says this is the information that'll be given, it'll be reports, it'll be certain read-only information.

Um, that both parties will will do, you know.

I'm sorry, I'm in healthcare, so I mean we use the wrong terminology, but um the minimum required um to be shared and just have a data use agreement between the two that I feel is is clearer of the intent than what is spoken in there.

Um so that's kind of what I just I just wanted us to be very careful that we don't nor should at any point in time the city council receive full access to the information as it's stated in there.

Um and I'm happy to go into more details as to you know actual language, but I think I'll leave that to the commission.

Is that make sense?

Commissioner, is that okay?

Uh Commissioner Schafranic, do you have a should we remove full access in that sense?

Would that quell anybody's worry about mission creep or so forth?

I I think I would probably put a term in there that says what it's not.

So basically saying that you know, any any full access or any access specifically excludes you know, decision making over line item data or allocation or things like that.

Um, maybe instead of defining full access, it's defining what access excludes as a potential that excluded the personal information, which would not normally be disclosed under FOI or something.

I'll be honest, I was the one that that was adamant, not adamant, but putting that in there because of what happened from 19 to 24.

We had six financial officers, the audits weren't done, the city couldn't close our books, um, and it was a mess.

We were only put on probation because of all this happening.

My concern was that without with without this type of agreement in the charter, that that could happen over and over and over again.

And I remember, you know, Councilman Levy, Councilman Chanice saying over and over again, why aren't the audits being done on the board of ed side?

And that's what my concern was, having been you know, through that, if you will.

Um, but if we can remove that part of it, I think is that amenable?

Well, do you want like a more memorandum of agreement or understanding with that also, or just that removal?

I don't think you need a memorandum of understanding.

I think though, that the commission might want to consider some type of cadence for reporting, like a cadence for reporting, like quarterly reports or or monthly reports or something like that.

So that so what you're concerned about is addressed, but also that we're staying within the fine.

So just so we're clear, the statute currently requires that the board of members of the city um leave courtly education statutes do.

Mr.

Chairman, uh Mr.

President, I just want to add one thing.

Um, for everybody's knowledge, attorney Moralini and I had fairly extensive discussions with council to the Board of Education and with the superintendent on this language, and they agreed with all of the language except the the SHA language.

They wanted it to be laid.

But everything else that's in the draft was agreed to by the Board of Education's council.

And that SHA language is it's the term in the beginning of paragraph four, right before we say full access.

Um council for the board of ed was satisfied that the other language in here wasn't going to infringe on or or dilute any of the board of ed statutory rights and the rights afford to them under FERPA and applicable law.

So we had that representation from the attorney, uh, which led to why we drafted section 618 this way.

I'm just giving that, and Dan's giving that for context only.

Um like the distinction between when from the legal standpoint between the board of education, which is the elected body versus the administration of the school.

You know, we're using the board of education, and sometimes it's convoluted.

What is the board of education?

The elected body, because they're not providing the reports, are they?

Or is the administration of the school providing the reports?

I don't know, it sounds like semantics, but there are two different bodies.

Well, the superintendent is the basically the executive director of the board of education.

Then what's the elected board of education?

What's their term title?

I'm not sure I understand.

Well, like the chairman of the board of ed is not the superintendent.

There are two different entities.

One is the elected body, and one is the the actual governing or usage body.

Well, the way the language is written.

I'm just kind of confused with the line.

The language is the way it's written, it's the board of education that's required to give the quarterly reports.

I think that's consistent with the state statute of requirements.

And that's why we wrote it.

We use it a lot of times.

We'll say, oh, the board of ed did this report of it that but they mean some superintendents division, not the elected body.

Yeah.

Okay.

That doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.

I don't think so.

Okay.

Any other questions from the commission to the council regarding uh the recommendations as to uh section six-18 of the charter?

Excuse me.

If I may, it's not a question.

I don't believe you brought up the part about financial information.

I I believe I did you I did, yes.

I did mention financial.

We did at the very beginning when I stated that I did state that financial information.

Are there any other um questions from the commission regarding uh section six-eighteen and those two recommendations regarding that particular section?

Hearing none, I will move on.

Um this is uh uh regarding uh uh section six-four of the charter, and and it's a recommendation that that section now require a two-thirds confirmation vote of the city council.

So if you look again at section six-four of the proposed changes to the charter, um the recommendation back to the commission uh would require a two-thirds confirmation vote by the by the city council.

I'd like to hear some of the reasoning behind my recommendation, please.

Um council councilmember Hawley.

That was your motion.

Yeah, that's my motion.

I will say though it was kind of a piggybacked off of a motion that uh did not pass from Councilman Chinese.

So I give my thoughts, then would I be able to defer to Councilman Chinazi?

I I will direct it to Councilman Chinese.

That's good, thank you.

So my main uh concern was this was pairing with my appointment model for the town clerk, uh, because under the appointment model of the town clerk, that would essentially make the town clerk a department head.

So this language right here of the two-thirds was going to be put in there to ensure that the town clerk if appointed is getting two-thirds approval.

And that was uh built off of the logic that was carried on by uh carried by councilman Chenezi related to consistency across the department heads and getting some more um just information on which ones need council approval, which ones don't, and for the ones that do need council approval to keep it kind of uniform.

So that's kind of the genesis of the motion itself.

But um, yeah.

I'll move that I'll move that response related to this particular recommendation only to Councilman Chinese, if he has anything else to uh add to the response.

If you read section six-four, there's inconsistencies with the way the way the chart that section is stated.

There are some department heads that are just appointed by the mayor, and there are some departments where we approve.

Like for example, and it's not really stated clearly, and I'll just use an example of the tax collector office, for example.

When the written the one Scott Ferguson, we appointed we confirmed his appointment.

The current tax collector, we did not.

He was just pointing, we did not uh we did not confirm the appointment.

Um the planning director, for example, has never been confirmed by this council, and it's not clearly stated in the charter.

The whole purpose of what councilman Hawley wanted to be consistency.

Do we need it?

Don't we need it?

I know it's stated in the first line of the paragraph that all department heads shall be confirmed, but if you read throughout the charter, some is like the chief of police does not need to be confirmed by the council.

Fire chief does not need to be confirmed by the council.

If you read the charter.

Now I know people thinking, wait, we always done so, but it's not in the charter.

So the whole purpose of the motion by Councilman Hawley is to be consistent.

You know, his motion is two-thirds for every position, but which could be kind of harsh, I get it, but it just needs to state instead of putting it in line one, just stated within the chapter, the tax collector shall be appointed and confirmed.

The tax collector shall be appointed and confirmed.

Simple.

Or not.

So that's what we're asking.

Just to take a look at it to make it confirmed.

That's it.

My first question would be is if the town clerk is removed from the equation, you're not married to the two-thirds then.

But we're leaving it up to you to figure out.

Well, I'm thinking, but that is your position in the center.

We'll be in the two thirds.

Well, my position on the clerk is that's what the recommendation is.

Because it follows the recommendation that was voted on.

Gotcha for that section.

And I okay.

Okay.

I mean, that the only reason why it comes to my mind that eight people can stop a firefighter, a police officer from being hired or being appointed.

And that's a very low threshold to bring the hiring process of all these to a grinding halt in a sense.

That's right, the recommendation.

I'm sorry?

That's why it's a recommendation.

Got it.

Okay.

Right.

Like, for example, the finance director is uh is a merit system, it's the only one.

Okay.

Thank you.

So are there any other questions regarding this particular recommendation?

We've now reached the final recommendation to the commission from the council.

And and that's a recommendation that uh the language of section eight two of the proposed changes to the charter be reinstated for one big deletion of the entire section.

Are there any questions from the commission to the council regarding that recommendation?

Oh sorry, Mr.

President.

Um I don't know if there's a mob out.

Why was that such a close vote?

Was there so it's the recommendation we're talking about not to vote?

Okay.

Mr.

President.

Commissioner Britton.

Um so for this particular section, um, if you could direct us to the movers, um, if the position of the town clerk were to stay elected, is this is the recommendation?

I guess is the appetite to still reinstate this section of the charter.

So that I'll direct that question to uh councilman Chinese, whose motion it was.

Thank you.

Again, it was a two-fold.

It was the town clerk was one, but it was also the IT director.

So since you are reclassifying it to another type of a department head in itself, the way the charter is was proposed that he would have to be reappointed again and go through the whole motions of being reappointed because the charter did not protect his current position.

And I think we talked to corporation council, and he kind of alluded to that is in the greens too.

That's why it doesn't have to be as long as it is, but it does still should say something that if I have a job today, I'll have a job tomorrow.

And the way it's currently stated, he would have to go through the whole reappointment position.

That's why it would state it.

Answers my question.

Any any other inquiries?

This is the final recommendation from the from the city council uh back to the Charter Revision Commission.

Any other questions?

Council, thank you.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Sefrani.

Um, so I saw the extent of the amount of time you guys took.

You went line by line, and I know it's forever.

This was the only recommendations that was on the entire document, line by line, in the entire thing you guys went through all the 10, 12, 13, 14 hours.

These were the recommendations that were approved by the body.

So everything else.

That's correct.

Okay.

I just want to thank the council for all the hours and going through it literally line by line, page by page.

That was uh monumental task.

You guys did a great job.

And thank you for all your recommendations and and your input and such.

Okay.

And thank you to Lisa for an amazing job she did compiling all this as fast as she did.

It was really, really involved.

So I just before this this we are at the conclusion of the conference for for terms of the participation of the council.

And I just want to uh reiterate the council spent an awful lot of time on this, and there was some spirited conversation at the ad hocs.

Those minutes are all attached.

Um, and and I would urge you, because there's a lot of people who didn't speak here who spoke uh during the during those conversations that you consider uh consider that.

Um the clerk did a really good job trying to get it all in there in the right place um as we went through the the recommended changes to the charter and they're attached to the materials and please if you have the opportunity refer to them uh when you're making your deliberations.

Um that said, at this point, I'll uh I'll ask for a motion uh that concludes the conference, but I would ask for a motion uh to uh adjourn uh the council from from the conference.

Huh?

There are no this is we can now you asked for I we went through each one three times.

Yes, one two I want to make sure yes.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor in terms of the council members present, say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

So we the council are adjourned from the conference.

I thank the commission for your indulgence of me.

I thank you for your service.

Uh and well, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

For purposes of our side of it too, we're gonna also adjourn to the conference because then we're gonna take a break and go into our meeting.

So is there a motion to adjourn?

Second, too deeply.

You are gonna start today.

No voice.

Okay, we are adjourned.

Yeah, we're gonna take five minutes.

Do we ask for you, Ms.