Well it's five o'clock.

Um and thanks for everybody for coming.

Um this uh as a special meeting of the um uh civil rights commission and the Davenport City Council.

Um the discussion today is uh the open civil rights positions, um and I'm gonna answer our turn enough to please lead off.

Uh thank you, Owen Guinness.

Um my hope uh is by the end of this meeting we can we have a clear path forward that every uh everyone can agree um with for how to best get these positions filled in the most timely uh manner possible.

So just to kind of back up to kind of where we're at um or where I feel like this is at um is the commission passed uh several new uh I guess positions within the commission for employment um at least last month and then asked um for those to be posted with uh various salary ranges for each one, and those positions are the part-time civil rights mediator, the civil rights intake specialist, the part-time civil rights uh analysts or senior civil rights analyst, the full-time senior rights civil rights analyst, and then a civil rights uh legal intern.

Um the reason so far that these would not uh have been posted is uh I received a question after the city's HR department was in receipt of these about whether or not these could be posted or whether they would potentially run afoul of the current uh CBA agreement with ASME union and chapter 20.

So that's where my kind of legal analysis began.

Um what I'd like to discuss here going forward is um the the path we want to take to best get the commission's uh positions filled at the salaries they wish to have them filled at uh and while still maintaining the relationship with the union uh as the city will continue to negotiate with them on any position within the union um going forward.

So in my research, I felt uh that the new positions tendered were um well, they have different uh breakdowns of responsibilities in terms of this position is responsible for these topics.

Um I felt that there was genuinely uh material overlap with what had previously been approved as positions within the ASV union, and therefore moving forward with these positions with different salaries and not talking to the union would run us a foul of chapter 20 and also uh potentially put us in a grievance uh process with the union over these positions, which could result in if we move forward and fill up the positions, you know, extra positions.

Salaries having to be brought back down to negotiate and rates or um there could be other fines or penalties assessed to against the public employer for violations.

So, in order to try and prevent that, um I would like to know whether I I'm trying to figure out I guess what the commission's position is on whether or not they wish these positions to remain in the union and be part of the union, or and then have to be negotiate salaries having to be negotiated over through either collective bargaining or selling letters in the future going forward in the future, or if the commission wishes because of uh kind of the recent employment clarification that the resolution over the summer did, if they would wish for us to do a unit clarification with the union and seek stipulation to have these positions kind of moved out of the union and therefore no longer be uh bargained positions.

Um that's kind of the the dialogue that the rest director Lacey and I have been having over the past months.

Um I feel like maybe I've not been as super clear, and maybe that's led to some of the breakdown here.

So what I'm trying to do with this meeting is kind of get everybody's opinion or trying to seek the body's opinion on what path forward we can take to get these positions filled in the least risky uh way possible.

Um therefore uh you know getting permission back from the staff so that they can afford their vision.

So I'm happy to answer questions about the current positions or kind of my analysis uh on these things, uh but procedurally.

Um my legal advice here is that we need to work with the union to either seek um these salaries to be changed within the current marketing structure, or to have these to seek stipulation or potentially move even without stipulation for unit clarification so that the and seek them to no longer be within the union.

Um part of council's directions to me have been in this process is to make sure that the commission is kept the breast of this and that they're included in this process and not to act unilaterally, as these positions are their positions, and therefore we need to make sure that they're comfortable with how best to proceed forward.

So that's I guess my kind of opening presentation on this issue.

I'm happy to speak with any of the commission if they have questions, or council would have questions on these issues.

Um I think autumn and cutting.

So when was our last meeting?

Can I real quick just one thing?

I understand that it's being recorded, but perhaps everybody may not be in the recording.

So for clarity of a record, I would like to document who is here from the commission, who is here from the city, both as an elected official and or as an employee.

We can go around the table.

I just want to make sure that that is clearly documented.

I'll start Jasmine Newton, Alder Woman at large.

Right down first of all.

Sam Huff Corporation Council for the City.

Oh, Frank Holly.

Tim Down second rolling.

Tim Galling, Fifth War Alderman.

Etheline Boy.

Jane Burkholder, fourth four dollar woman.

Thank you.

Back to you all the mentality.

That should have been done to begin with, Phil.

I just sorry for the I roll.

But um, when was our last meeting?

I mean the summer.

So June.

So I is it okay, Automar Burkholder, that I say that me and we conversated because from the conversation that me and Audor Warmer Burkholder had the other day.

We were under the impression this is what you said.

You said that you left and um uh director Fleming.

Okay, we're having a conversation with the union.

So my question to you is you keep saying the union, the union, you what did you do as far as your homework from Zoom to now, what kind of conversations did the union have that you feel that this is a question that we shouldn't just be having these ongoing conversations with the union.

So that's why I'm just borrowed steel here.

So I I guess my my position is um that I had was meeting with the union on on several, not really union on several different topics, but when this was kind of brought to our attention, um then the positions at issue were not these, right?

So that's one thing, these positions have changed.

The set first thing, and then the the other thing that changed was the the resolution clarifying compensation being part of the duties and responsibilities of the commission per their employees, and what I felt was very strong uh direction from council that um when it came to positions within the union, the the or we came to this positions in the commission that um even though this if the city had acted in the past um with some input or no input, but going forward, make sure there's always input from the commission and their staff about things that involve their employees.

So that's I guess I did I answer the homework question?

Okay, no, you didn't.

So what I'm asking you is even though these are new positions, yeah.

What kind of communications did you already have with the union that you could have you could have now inserted these new positions?

The only conversation I had with the union is that um I the that potentially there was uh gonna be a request coming from the city uh regarding uh a salary change, and that um I still needed to converse with the commission about that more, and that we and that I would open up that in that conversation once I moved out of the direction.

So that's that's the conversation that I had.

And then I you know, I believe Director Lacy and I had a conversation in maybe late June where I indicated this to her that I had kind of just a preliminary put it on to the union to have them think about just us like salary changes for the current positions at that time, and that when we kind of had a the firm numbers that we wanted that we come back and present those, and then we have moved from those to new positions, and so that's we're I would clarify.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Hollywood.

I had a question because I'm unclear last conversation we had.

I thought we were trying to establish the authority of the city to negotiate civil rights commissions uh employees because it's been that was not okay.

So somebody please clarify that.

So I I guess I I would I guess do a kind of historical look here.

So I as part of my uh research in this, I went back and I looked, okay, when's the first time that a civil rights position appeared in the ASME union?

The first time that it appeared was at union certification in 1983.

So when the union was first formed, civil rights investigator role was placed in there, and then throughout time, it has always been in there.

It had a job title change to investigate a paralegal for a time and then came back to civil rights investigator, and then there's been a civil rights housing, I believe, analyst position that's been added.

Uh there's been a civil rights investigator to position at times uh within the union contract, but every contract from 1983 to the current one, uh a civil rights position has been in there, and so um because of that, uh, and I can't speak to 1983 what people's decisions or discussions were, um, but it has always been there, and that's why I felt that because it's in there, we have to either move to see to get a clarification of the unit whether it should still be in there to this date, or uh we would still have to then continue to negotiate with the union over this position.

I just need to mention you said 83.

Yes.

Uh I was on the commission in 76.

Uh so the union had not formed until 1982.

The first union certification was in 1982.

Um, and then the first collective bargaining agreement with that union was in 1983.

So can I say this five?

Yes.

So where I was going with that was when you're talking about all these negotiations.

So isn't it something you said on and off?

So then did you not say that or am I confused?

You said it has been on the ASME, and there's been position.

What is who who can justify taking a position off of a union position?

Yeah.

So uh you when you um do not wish to include certain positions within a union that's already established and maybe have had those positions in the past, you have to do a union clarification.

Um there's been two of those with the city union over time.

Uh, one was the clarification that uh police officers versus uh civilian administrative staff, um, and where administrative staff were left with the ASME union and the uniformed officers were placed in a police union.

Uh the other one was when IT uh professional position were removed from the ASME union in 2013.

So I believe the uh police officer one was like in 87.

Those have been the two clarifications that I could find within the state records on this issue, so with the state body.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

And I guess I would like to so I got an email from uh fam on June 9th, 2025 that said that there was a plan to meet with the union to determine if they would agree to change the salary range.

Um, and then if they didn't that the next steps were going to be moving forward with the city so that they can determine other options to get the commission desired salary rank is set.

We had a meeting on June 13th, so we discussed this further.

I said we're fine with you meeting with the union.

Let's figure out what the process is going to be to change the commission salary so that we can establish that process first with us talking about a specific number because once the commission votes to implement a salary, that is the salary that the person is going to be expected to be paid.

And if we're not paying that, we're putting the commission in a position to be sued for withholding someone's wages.

I went on vacation, came back in July, that had not been done.

I have sent a bazillion emails in the interim asking whether that has been done when we're going to establish the process.

That was sent over.

Those salary changes were never implemented.

So from June to August, I was told that they were waiting on us to give them the specific numbers, then they get the specific number, and that number still has not been changed.

It sounds like there's been no meeting with the union to establish the process for changing the salaries.

And nothing has happened.

We had a staff member quit because they were exhausted from having to perform the duties of two or three different positions.

And so at that point, we decided to reorganize because that position was no longer there.

So figuring out what we can do to kind of shuffle things around to address the backlog that's been created by this ongoing issue because as you recall, this has been going on for over a year now.

That the new positions were approved at the commission meeting in September.

The information was sent over in the pre-recruitment, it had the number of hours.

Then I got an email a week later asking me to answer questions that are answered within the document between the job description and the pre-recruitment.

I think another week later, I got the same email asking for answers to the same questions which are answered within the documents.

So from the commission's perspective, it seems like this is just an effort to not fulfill positions.

Because nothing has been done between June and now we're at October.

We finished out the fiscal year last fiscal year with positions unfilled for similar reasons, and then the salaries for those positions was just rolled up into the general fund, not given the opportunity to hold on to that funding so that we could temporarily backfill to have some additional staffing there to catch up on the backlog that's created by not having staff.

And then it just keeps going.

So it seems to be an ongoing issue.

Everybody seems to be in agreement that the commission positions are supposed to be being decided by the commission, yet they're not being that's not being done.

The council has passed a resolution in July stating the same thing, and stating that if there was a concern about commission issues, we had this discussion when we were discussing the resolution that that's supposed to go to city council and city council does make a decision, and then what do we have?

The decision making of the commission is continuing to be blocked, and we're being told that it's at Sam's direction, which I don't think Sam has the authority to override the decision making of the city council.

So if the city council has passed this resolution which reaffirms the direct statements that are within the ordinance and state law, I don't understand how staff is continuing to be allowed to usurp that authority.

If these positions were included in the union in 1983, when the ordinance was changed in 2005 to say that the commission's employees are employees of the commission, that process should have changed at that point.

The commission shouldn't be held up because city staff is allowed to go rogue and do whatever they want.

That should not be the solution there.

And it is incredibly frustrating for me and for the remaining two staff members to have to do all of this work while also repeatedly following up on the same issues that shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

So I guess what I'm hearing from you, and please if I'm mischaracterizing it or misstating it, is commission's okay if I move forward.

What I'm asking for is the commission okay if we move for unit clarification, or you wish me to uh move forward uh and negotiate and see if the union is willing to take these new positions in their salary ranges and incorporate them.

I'm asking for counsel to take action at this point because I authorized that on June 13th.

So October 14th and nothing has been done.

So I'm seeking for counsel to take action because this is the question.

When we ended the meeting on June 13th, I said, I'm fine with that.

You can go ahead and do that, and you can give me that information.

That does not happen.

I repeatedly asked for the information in writing, and I think some of you received it.

This is ridiculous.

So now we're here at the meeting, and now it's oh here's the solution that was proposed in June.

So I think if I hear correctly and correctly if I'm wrong, your direction from council is you are not to make decisions regarding the commission.

That's your understanding, correct?

Without trying to get input from the commission, yes.

Okay.

And if I understand correctly, you're indicating that as you sit here right now, you don't have direct input from the commission as to what they want with these positions.

Correct?

They what I feel like I have direction from the commission on is they want these positions at this salary.

What I'm asking is do they have a preference on how I attempt to achieve this?

Got it.

Because you're basically telling us you can't just change it, otherwise the city is gonna have issues because these positions are within the union.

Correct.

And we have a contract.

Correct.

And violation of that contract would open the city up to liability or possible issues with the union.

Correct.

Okay.

So you want that direction.

Okay.

Can the commission provide direction?

If the question is how do you want him to move forward?

Do you wish for these positions?

I think all the moment code, you ask if the commission wanted the positions within the union, yes or no?

And I agree.

2005 or whenever things should have been done, but obviously they weren't but I've already given an answer to this question in June.

It was answered in June.

Okay, just so that we're all on the same page.

I'm just trying to make sure everyone hears it council's lawyer, what the commission is wanting so that he can get direct direction from counsel of this is what the commission wants, go execute without putting the city in any position of incurring liability.

So what's the direction direct?

The direction at that time was to speak with the union to see if they would agree to just change the salaries, which it seems like that very easy step has not happened.

So there's been no conversation with the union.

That was what I said we wanted to have done, and then if that didn't work out, the next step was to seek a union clarification because the positions aren't supposed to be in the union in the first place.

So that was done.

The union asked me, do you have specific numbers?

When I directed a question to you about what is the specific, what is the range?

Is it are you looking for job classification 31, 34?

Um so there was that.

And the answer was what was the answer?

I do not have that email in front of me, please.

Okay, so my answer to you was if the commission has to decide this, the commission has to vote on it, and once they vote on it, that is the salary.

Okay, so you voted on it in July then or in August?

August, because what I asked for, the commission asked for, was for you to establish the process for changing the salary.

That way they wouldn't have to formally vote on an actual salary because once they vote on it, that is the salary.

So we asked, would the union be okay with changing the salary?

And can we establish a process as it relates to the commission positions?

Since the commission is supposed to be setting those salaries.

Okay.

There has been no meeting to my knowledge that has occurred with the union to establish this process.

And what you were telling me was that the union needed the specific salary number.

They have requested it, yes.

Right.

And so you got it in August.

Okay.

And did you meet with them?

Did I meet with them?

No, because then you changed the positions in who you were.

That was in September.

But that's also after the council said, please do not move forward.

And so I think I believe I reached out to you and said, would you like to be a part of that meeting?

And I don't want to get into this.

I just like direction forward.

We are not the public employer pursuant to the union agreement.

Why would we be meeting with the union on it if we are not the employer?

If the city is the employer according to you, then that would be you.

I think it would be important.

I think it would be us to be involved in a legal disagreement without legal counsel because I repeatedly asked for you to provide legal for legal counsel for the commission to advise the commission on this issue because I was concerned that what you were saying was incorrect.

So that didn't happen.

Just ignore the request and meet with the union.

And then now we're here.

Oh well, yeah, it could be just resolved by doing the thing that we said in June.

Did you did I not send you an email around the end of August specifically laying out all of the um I guess case law around this issue?

But it was incorrect.

Okay, that I guess that's your opinion, and you would disagree with the law.

It's not disagreeing with the law.

You misquoted the law in very playfully.

Again, I said it correctly.

Okay, so I would just like to move the issue with it.

I think we need to get back to what we're we can dig through history if we wish, but the question the question before us today is the going forward and and and does the commission give attorney Huff the right to go and do the the formal process needed to separate these uh positions from the union.

So are you are you is the commission is the commission giving us permission today or giving him permission?

Is that what you're asking for?

And then I would ask from counsel are you comfortable with this process?

Do you have questions about this process as well?

Because I heard within this discussion there is that there is potential for um uh litigation from the union.

Um, and I'm not you know, and there's and then it so I guess again I guess my question would I guess my question changes since Director Lacey feels she's given that direction and and my question would be do you wish to be part of the meeting in order to answer any questions from the union about the justification for the salary moving in case they have questions about that, or provide me with any other information if you do not wish to attend, and that way I can be fully equipped with your presentation.

I answered that question for you as well.

So is the answer to share that with us?

Um my answer is that I'm asking for counsel to take action regarding your staff engaging in harassment because this doesn't make any sense.

Do you want to be part of the meeting when you I answered him when he asked me in June, and I said no.

Okay.

I have already met with the union, I've already spoken to the union, I've explained that the salaries were too low.

I've explained that that has prevented us from hiring and recruitment.

I requested that the salary changes be included in negotiations, and that was done back in 2014, but I requested that, and it just was ignored.

So these conversations have occurred, and I know that I appear frustrated, and that's because I am because I'm having to do the work of two or three staff members, and so are each of my staff members, and then we are here in the meeting that it's presented as oh well.

We're trying to problem solve, but you're not if this is harassing.

I'm sorry, I but I am Trump.

What I'm saying is, okay, so can I finish the sentence that I was so this is your staff member who you have tasked with this?

So at the June meeting, I said I don't want to leave here without resolution because this is gonna end up being a month-long process, and we're not gonna have a resolution.

We left the June meeting, you instructed City Attorney Huff to work with the commission and the union to get this resolved.

I met with them, I gave the commission's perspective on it.

I was told that that's what was going to happen, and here we are, October 14th, and we're having the exact same conversation that we had on June 13th.

So, from my perspective, this seems like uh someone just thumbing their no about the process because if we're all in agreement that this is something that is within the commission's decision-making authority, why are we having this conversation?

If the city is the public employer, then the commission cannot authorize the city attorney to take action on behalf of the city.

They don't have legal authority to do that because that's the city council's authority, so and this double speak is confusing people, and I think it might be, I don't know if it's confusing the council members as well, but we wouldn't have authority to direct the city attorney to do something on behalf of the city, and that's what he's asking for.

So the commission is saying we don't have authority to do that.

That's that's direction that has to come from the city council.

So if he was able to negotiate these positions to include them in the union in the first place, why would he need the commission's authority now or permission now to negotiate not including them?

I think because of the resolution we passed that made it clear, like we want to make it clear the commission, you guys are making your own decisions, and I think that's where the confusion comes into play.

And I agree with what you're saying.

Like I think it's it's confusing in the sense of the council is telling directing our staff that the commission is separate, and we passed the resolution and we wanted that.

And he's saying he's not necessarily understanding whether what the commission wants.

I guess that's what I'm hearing from from our council.

But this has been in writing conversations.

Well, let's sit here today and let's move forward and let's walk out of here with very action taken based on that.

Hold on, hold on.

So if I'm not a legal ego, and you are a lawyer, you're a lawyer, there's several of them.

I can catch on to this.

So I look at some of the faces of some of my colleagues.

Are you guys following this?

Be honest, because I'm telling you, I'm looking at some of your faces, and the confusion is I understand that we're not stepping up to say this is what we want this to happen because they're not in a position because they're not the city employer.

So are we not following that?

Or beyond us.

Help me because I'm seriously looking at some of you guys, and we're we're like, we're not following what is being asked.

And I'm not on this argument back and forth.

I'm just trying to figure out because I've said this from day one, kicking the can.

And here we are, we're kicking the can.

But if you don't understand what's being said, just be honest and say you don't understand it.

You know what I mean?

So I guess I'll chime in.

I guess my simple direction to my employee as a city council member is corporate councilhoff, will you please find out from the commission their direction for how they want to proceed to get these jobs filled so that the city does not incur liability for being sued for any uh conflict with current contract negotiations guess and I don't know if I'm saying that perfectly correctly, and so how are we gonna do that?

So if he's gonna get information from the commission or from Director Lacey, however that that goes, I think that's what we're trying to do.

That's that's my personal direction as a council member to him.

So we turn around here for a moment.

I want the position for you.

And uh 100% you you you you I mean you you've had the positions in the union, and I think she's been very clear about where our stand is uh we don't have standing to go in and represent uh with the union.

So if you're gonna make that requirement, then uh target off, you need to go and do it and get the positions filled.

We set the positions, the salary ranges uh the the salary that uh we believe that the uh position require.

And so we know that those positions uh fit the uh salary of like um attorneys and other positions uh throughout the area, and so whether the union thinks it's okay or whatever, the facts are there, and so we need that to happen.

Uh we have a backlog uh in our organization, and it needs to be taken care of, and so I don't want to come down to another meeting.

Some of y'all get paid.

I'm not, and uh, so I want the position to be on it.

I don't want I I don't want uh I don't even want to see another email about this until we get a position uh in the uh civil rights division.

I'm tired of the message traffic, and so uh that's your position that you need to go and negotiate with the uh union because you guys got them in there, and you you can take and do what you need to do to get the uh salary changed and make that happen.

So I've got a question.

What happens if the union says no?

They're not willing to negotiate.

And then we're confronted with a situation where you've got a job with a salary requirement that you want, the union is saying no way we can't.

What do we do now?

And that is my we haven't got there yet.

No, that was my direction.

I think that's what he's wanting to know.

He's I think he's saying commission tell us what you want done.

And I think the council is saying the city shouldn't be deciding for the commission.

Like, I think the council made that clear that the commission is independent, you guys 100% you're gonna set your salary and stuff.

I think the concern is you guys change the positions in salary August and then again in September.

And what I'm hearing, and correct me, Council Hoffman wrong, you can't just do that without the union approving the same, correct?

Okay, some of you can't are not even qualified to be included in the union.

Those positions haven't been acted on either.

So there's no explanation for that.

So uh an internship is that should be posted in standard.

If it's not a position that has any, if the if there's not an actual issue here where we can't take action without going through the union because we don't want to risk any issues with our violation of our contract per Iowa code, that should actually absolutely be posted.

And I think that's a direction council has already provided.

And that's a lot of heads nodding, that should just be done.

That's the answer.

My question would be do you do you wish me to seek negotiations first?

If and then report back if you're unsuccessful at the salary arrangements, you've approved, or do you have to and then make a decision about what direction you like to take at that point, or do you want me to go forward and your position is we want these paid at this rate, and please take every effort to make that happen?

Don't you have to go?

But you have to.

I mean, these are just this is simply this is just simply so I understand.

Do I do I need to come back and say and and ask whether or not um if the union presents a reasonable uh what they believe is a reasonable other range than what you've approved?

Is that worth do you wish to consider that or do you is your position solid that these are these are the um these are the ranges we want if the union is not willing to come to those, then we'd like you to move forward if there's other alternatives for getting the other alternatives to get on the law and all options.

Okay, right.

Okay, I because we left June with that question, and that question was answered in June by by me.

Well, I would like to point out we are worried about violating the law as it relates to the union contract, but you're not worried about violating the city's ordinance or the state law as it relates to the inclusion of the commission's positions in the union in the first place because you're in violation of the law.

That is a violation of the law.

Do not have authority to negotiate on behalf of the commission.

Everybody in the room seems to be in agreement on that because the commission, the committee, I would say that we should not we should not be negotiating that the commission has made it clear, right?

And in 20 in in 2005, I think absolutely they they could have been looked at the issue has now been raised.

Well, the issue will be addressed before next the next time these come along for negotiation if they remain in the union.

The commission had been included in negotiations.

You and Alice and Fleming excluded us.

No, do not no, we're not gonna be able to.

I'm not involved in any negotiation.

I got the direction.

Okay.

So I I'm good.

We were not included.

We've already given directions.

The commission is of the position that the positions are not supposed to be in the union agreement at all because there was no authority to negotiate on behalf of the commission.

The state law says that the commission employees are employees of the commission, officials have control over, which includes the salary.

The city's ordinance says the same.

The council's resolution says the same.

So there's based on those three different things, there is no authority for the positions to even be in the union act at all.

So then should have happened.

I we had this conversation in June.

I said, go ahead and talk to the union about if they are in agreement with changing the salaries if we can establish a process.

If we can't do that, then we'll come back together and figure out what the next steps are.

He gave me three options.

I told him in the order in which I wanted to take the three, the commission wanted to take the three options.

This has not happened.

So there is no confusion on the direction from the commission because it's already been given.

Well, then, well, then the the direction for the commission is, as I understand, and because we can't we do direct our employees, correct?

We don't direct the commission, but what I'm hearing is that you would like uh Mr.

Hoff to go and seek permission from the union to um to to move these out of the union?

Is that correct?

I mean directing director at least brings up a right point if they're not supposed to be there in the first place.

Should that be the direction that we should be in going towards in the first place?

If your director is saying these positions were not supposed to be in the union in the first place, then I don't understand why we would waste time seeing if the union is going to agree to the different salary range.

The direction sounds like it should be they're not supposed to be there in the first place.

You want them out of the union then?

And that was obvious that that was said.

Oh okay, okay.

Cool.

Okay, got it?

Are we done?

I think the direction is like yesterday.

Yep.

I mean, with all does it.

I mean, union steward said I can call today.

So is there anything else?

I believe that was the agenda is dealing with the correct.

I just wanted to make sure because I did hear something about any any follow-up.

I know our our council has direction and this is a good action to be taken about how this is handled because that's not true that there was no direction recommendation.

This is just intentional delays, and I think it's a furtherance of the harassment that has been going on, and you all have not taken action against staff, which is why they do these things.

So when you take make an exasperate sign, that again co-signs what your staff is doing.

If your staff knows that they don't have authority to negotiate on behalf of the commission, why then are they negotiating on behalf of the commission?

That doesn't make sense.

And if we can't tell staff to implement our decisions, how the heck can we sell tell staff what to do with stuff that's within the council's decision making?

It doesn't make sense.

Absolutely understands the concern, but I don't know if that's an agenda item that we can discuss since it wasn't provided to the public, like in advance.

I think it relates directly to the salary issue because it goes back to we disapproved new positions.

They clearly are not union positions, and that hasn't nothing has happened with them.

They're just sitting.

What would be the explanation for that?

I think the direction was clear for the council those need to be posted.

I don't think anybody in council is not agreeing that that should be posted.

Well, do we want a follow-up?

I I know some say no, but I'm just from my perspective.

I felt like the last meeting we left, there was still like it wasn't crystal clear of this is the next step.

I I'm just bringing it up to see what the group both counseling.

Why don't we find why don't we see what happens with the negotiations?

Let's get some negotiations.

No, the direction was out.

Yep, so our direction is to take civil rights out of the union.

But he but he's had he he will have I obviously have to discuss that with the union.

Correct.

Okay, but so let's see, maybe see what happens there.

Um, and hopefully that can he said I agree.

But when I'm saying follow-up, I mean like two weeks and we have a report of here's where we are because I don't want it to be three months.

Right.

I that's what I meant by follow-up.

I I yeah, I don't want this to be put off any any longer than it has, but it can't be.

So that's all I was saying is so so.

I mean, if we're gonna do something, we need to have a plan uh of what are the expectations.

Are we expecting something?

And then if it's to do a follow-up, we need to be able to uh have an expectation of what we're looking for.

Are we expecting response from the the council or I would hope that we would have that's what I mean by to me is like a status, right?

Like status hearing, where are we at as of right now?

We know where we're at today, two weeks from now, what movement has been made.

But except to you, I'm just throwing it up as like as a suggestion to ensure that it doesn't fall off because I hear that that is one of the concerns which I wholeheartedly agree with that you know obviously it's taking longer than it should.

Well, that's so I want to make sure that let's go with that.

Let's go with that.

Let's go very quickly.

But can we really have a status update without the legal counsel?

I mean, how does it mean how has there been no meetings about it at all?

That's we've seen we have certainly had emails, you know, we can't had emails and responses back and forth, and we can do sent out and all I assume all your status receiving hopefully in two weeks.

Sam's responses as well.

Uh that all the entire council is receiving the communications, is all your commission, all your commission members also receiving the case.

The issue is that your staff member is not doing what you have instructed them to do.

And that should be the focus of your concern is that your staff member is not doing what you have instructed them to do, and no one is holding them accountable because what we left the meeting with was that your staff member who's under your direct supervision was supposed to contact the union, meet with them, and figure out how to move that issue forward.

I think we've got that hasn't happened.

I think we've been a meeting.

I gave the commission's opinion of what we wanted to have happen.

There was supposed to be a meeting with the union.

That hasn't happened.

I was asked if I wanted to participate in the meeting, I said no.

That didn't work.

Are you adjourning the meeting?

Um I am the pro top.

So during the meeting, yep, I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

All in favor?