Good afternoon.

I'm Marita Davis Johnson.

I'm chair of the OPS Committee, the Operations Committee, the County Operations Committee, and the Commissioners that serve on the committee with me, or Commissioner Robert Patrick and Commissioner Ladina Bowden.

This is a special call meeting today.

Do we have any eye clerks here?

Do we need our clubs?

This is a special call meeting today.

And we're first going to talk about, we're going to sort of take it out of order because we're first going to discuss the standard procedure rules.

Do we need our clerk here?

Oh, we don't.

Okay, you got you got a back, huh?

Okay, we good.

Okay.

Dion always has a back.

So we're good.

Okay.

So we don't have one of the things that we do not have and our standard procedure and rules, standard procedure and rules, are the time limits that each commissioner have to speak.

And so we have used the Roberts rules.

We have 10 minutes to originally speak, and then we can come back and speak for an additional 10 minutes.

And so that's 20 minutes for each commissioner.

And so therefore, if all of us decide to speak once or twice, that'll take up half of the day.

And so one of the we've had several um, we have uh we've had several uh admissions to uh the the rule book, and I think that it's time for us to put time limits within the rule book.

And so the last recommendation for those time limits was five minutes for the original presentation of the discussion and three minutes for any rebuttal thereafter.

And that is that would be a total of eight minutes for commissioners to speak.

And based upon the committees, uh that's what committees are for to discuss agenda items in committees.

And I think uh Commissioner Chair, you reminded me that at my last ops meeting when I was trying to set a time limit on, and you stated that I stated that you should ask questions in committee meetings, and he was right.

And um, unlike many others up here, when I'm wrong, I will admit I'm wrong, and I admit it to Commissioner Terry at that meeting, I was wrong, because the time to discuss Pacific agenda items is in committee meetings, not at the board meetings.

I would like to have time to uh for each one of us to give a recap if we like of what had happened or what has happened in our particular district during the last two weeks, but we have not had time for that in a while.

So with that, uh my recommendation for the rules book is that we uh five minutes originally, three minutes for rebuttal.

And with that, I'll open it up to comments first from committee members.

Members.

Members I I would just say I'm comfortable with the suggestion and we'll we'll see how that works.

Thank you.

Okay.

I just wanted to review for everyone from the February 3rd ops meeting, the discussion on time limits.

If you have the packet, it's on page seven.

And it was a discussion where attorney Phillips kind of talked us through it where we got the the 10 minutes from out of Robert Rules, and essentially noted comments from Commissioner Masaya was no issue with the 5-3 from Commissioner Long Spears.

It shows here that she supported the 5-3 as well.

Commissioner Shakira Johnson, our deputy presiding officer, was also in favor of the 5-3.

Five minutes for the first time and then three minutes for the second time on speaking.

So just to reiterate that for those uh who may not have an opportunity to review the notes from the previous meeting.

I yield back.

Okay.

Are there any other comments?

Um yes, I am in support of amending the rules uh with the five-minute, three minutes um amendments long spears.

Thank you, madam chair.

Yes, I'm also in support of that as well.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

So we'll move on to the next.

I'm in support.

So let's move on to the next.

Um Shannon.

Okay, I really we haven't talked to you about the procedure, but John usually stand right there.

And uh should I put Lee on the hot seat?

Yes.

Okay.

Hey.

Okay.

Yeah, John usually stand there and let us know what the next one is.

And I think the next one is committee.

What is I can't read that red?

It's on six.

A committee chair does not have the right to exclude items from a committee agenda.

Okay.

Okay, is the committee chair does not have the right to exclude items from a committee agenda.

Committee agenda.

Okay.

And so yeah, I mean, I'm page six.

Yeah, I know.

I I don't like to read my step didn't change my red to yellow, but they didn't have much time today.

But um, yeah, I mean, I'm in agreement with that.

I don't think that the committee chair should be able to exclude um something off of the agenda unless y'all can change my mind.

I'm fine with it.

Umb y'all have anything to say about it.

Uh just for curiosity, has there been an incident?

Situation where that happened where someone just said it can't be on the agenda.

Okay.

Um, yes.

In my first term, there has been an incident where some items were kept off the agenda for almost nine months.

Off the agenda?

Off of the committee agenda.

Okay.

So when it's deferred to a committee, it's then the responsibility of the committee chair to establish that agenda.

And some, you know, you can't take everything that comes at you at once.

Right.

Because sometimes there's just so many deferrals.

So it really is kind of subject to um the wishes of the chair to do it.

Now, one thing I would point out is that I'm okay leaving this in here.

If Madam Opp's chair would like to.

However, um, the section prior to that.

Uh and any agenda item assigned to a committee shall be heard by the committee when 30 days of its assignment.

And I believe Commissioner Davis Johnson, you said 90 days on that.

So if the committee would rather eliminate this section, that previous section of 90 days does I think take care of that issue.

Because that would be three months.

So a committee chair gets it, they could I can't wait more than 90 days to put it on a committee agenda.

Does that make sense?

I I think the conversation we had.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, I think the conversation we had at that time though, and uh the county attorney was gonna look into this was the notion of um every quarter, 90 days, yeah.

There will be a special call for anything that has not yet been heard, and they were coming back to us with a time frame, a way of scheduling uh that.

That's fine with me.

My again, the whole point is you just have to hear the IOP committee.

No, agreed, agreed.

Right.

Can we have that added in the notes?

Because I don't think that that is that on the notes.

I don't think it made it to the notes, either.

Yes, Commissioner, I will review the tape and ensure that that is in the notes for the next discussion.

Okay.

Because I think that was the critical conversation point was.

Yeah, it really was.

It was after 90 days, it would have to we would have to have a special call meeting on that.

Because some things, I think it was discussed that some things may not be able to come within the 90 days, because it's dependent upon what the Paci item is.

But if it does not come within the 90 days, then there's either I I don't know the exact language.

Can you have on that?

Uh it's already in the well, okay.

So on page six, if we look where it says RP for Commissioner Patrick, the third sentence there says he prefers to see a quarterly special call meeting, and any item not heard would be heard there.

Some committees require more discussion, and if you go uh down to TGP or attorney Phillips, he reiterates as I understood what you described, Commissioner Patrick, there would be a mandatory uh special called meeting every quarter, and the agenda for that meeting would be those items that have been on the agenda for a full quarter.

So it is in the notes, and those are things that we're gonna take heed to moving forward.

So Shannon, you don't need to add those, um, but maybe highlighted.

Do you need it highlighted so we can make sure those are not forgotten moving forward?

Okay.

And also, um, as Commissioner Long Spears just suggested about removing the section thereafter in the committee section, it does say that we will remove where it says a committee chair does not have the right to exclude items from a committee agenda because as you stated, it's already addressed in the statement that I just read aloud.

Right.

Well, thank you.

Um after he's reads Commissioner Terry.

And Dr.

Bolton, this is really a portion of what I thought Commissioner Patrick led us through before.

If you have the item come back up on the 90-day cycle, and there is the justification, which is I think part of what uh Commissioner Marita Davis Johnson was pointing to, then the sponsoring commissioner would explain why it needs to be deferred, and then the body could make that decision at that time.

But I understood Commissioner Patrick to say the automatic cycle would be necessary to make sure nothing falls through the cracks and just sits there.

Right.

If I'm not remembering this accurately, that didn't that part didn't get in the notes, but that's a part of what I understood from our earlier discussion.

Agreed, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, Commissioner Terry.

Thank you.

Um attorney Phillips, in terms of the rules and then you know, Robert's rules, that so anything we don't have in the blue book, Robert's rules, sort of, I think is the rule.

Um, is there anything about a majority of a committee adding an item to an agenda?

It seems like there's a power for the committee itself as a body to actually change their own agenda regardless of the chairs.

Well, I I can research that from Robert's rules, but you have to remember your blue book standing procedural rules come before Robert's rules.

So Robert's rules is a foundational piece governing how both the entire board and each committee functions, but then you have more particular rules that are adopted by the body as the standing procedural rules.

Right.

And in that sense, you have rules for how items are added.

And those are more particular than just Robert's rules.

Right now, as I read your rules, it takes one commissioner to add an item to an agenda, and then you move to committee assignment rules for how that item then gets to a committee, and that governs how that would work.

Okay.

Well, research just not at the main BOC, but at the committee level, and this is more just like a circuit breaker.

If a chair isn't wanting to hear an item, but the majority of the committee wants to hear that item, can the committee vote to add that item to the agenda?

For the for the committee to a review.

I want to understand what you're asking me to do.

When you say hear an item, I just went over how an item is added to the committee's agenda.

Now the order in which things are entertained by that committee is a different discussion for the committee to take up.

So are you referring to the order or how something would be placed on the agenda?

Well, this is just in the context of what Commissioner Longspeakers pointed out about if there was an agenda item at the Board of Commissioners, it was deferred to a certain committee and it comes back to the BOC within that time frame in theory, the committee will hear that item.

But if it's not being heard within that window, can the committee as the body, so the three members, or I guess two, say, well, we actually would like to hear it before it comes back to the VOC.

Well, based on the cycle that Commissioner Patrick is asking for, that would be a part of the discussion at the 90-minute cycle.

90 day cycle, excuse me.

If before you get to the 90 days, if I'm following you, Commissioner Terry, two members of the committee, right now you have a committee system with three members.

Two members of the committee could vote to entertain an item and entertain the item, but you have to respect the chair governing over how the committee functions.

And I will not go down the rabbit hole of all the possibilities on how you get to the 90-day cycle.

I think the motion would be for any commissioner that that item remain with the committee at the 90-day cycle with their explanation as to why.

And quite frankly, yours would be we haven't had a chance to discuss that.

It would be that simple.

And that fits the system that you've described, Commissioner Patrick.

And that still replies on coming through the I guess the committee process as well as relying on the Cal to introduce your legislation.

Board of Commissioners sends it on to whatever direction it needs to, and then comes back.

And I I want to remind you all, just as something that may become a nuance for you.

Items can go to more than one committee, and occasionally that happens as well.

Okay.

But I would think that it would only be able to go to a different committee if it has relevance to that committee.

That's right.

Okay.

The assignment process for committees is set by you guys as a body, and your assignment is based on subject matter.

And that's how this has gone.

And I haven't heard a single motion to change that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

So it would be this.

We had a lot of discussion on the unanimous consent.

Okay.

And that unanimous consent.

We need to.

Okay.

That's what we're getting ready to discuss now.

Um Lee is unanimous consent.

And then some page seven.

And that's otherwise otherwise uh required by law and a preliminary item may be acted upon as an action item as if at its first reading with unanimous uh consent of the commission to be acted upon after the reading of his of his uh subject by the presiding officer, a motion for action on a preliminary item must be made by a member who has obtained the floor and properly second.

If the chair hears no objection prior to a call for discussion on the item, then the item should automatically become ready for the action.

So you will elaborate.

I'm sorry.

You want to get yeah, you can from what I recall on this item in particular, it was to address um walk-on items, because normally you guys know we try not to vote on walk-ons or items that have only been read or in the preliminary once or in the preliminary state.

However, we know there are some items that are there's a sense of urgency behind it, and so this was to address how we would respond to those under unanimous consent, but there were some concerns, and previously, as the notes showed, there were some that were wanted us to consider where there would be some unintended consequences to doing that if we were to put maybe a two-third vote to it or some other vote, but it was specifically to address items that had only been read once, were walk-ons or some urgent item.

Uh how would we move forward with those?

And if there was the consensus at the time was if there was unanimous consent, then those items can be take action can be taken on those items.

Otherwise, they should go through the regular committee process.

And I don't think I missed anything with that, but um if there was something else, please do share.

And I see that Commissioner Long Spears had a suggestion for that as well.

Yeah, I think that um rather than uh unanimous consent.

I think that I'd suggest that a two-third uh vote on it, because it may be something that is urgent that we may need to move forward on.

And um, I think that that was my position, two-thirds, which would mean five of the commissioners.

Um, so yes, um, I did make the recommendation, and please remember um when I made these recommendations, that was about almost a year and a half ago.

So these these have been going on for quite some time.

But my thinking on this was um that because the law department so strongly discourages us from acting on in any item brought forward the same time that it would be unanimous consent, all seven of us would agree to it.

However, if the ops committee feels that two-thirds is better, meaning that would be five commissioners in agreement, two opposed, then um I'll accept that as well.

And can I get from law?

Um, I mean, because this would only be um this would only be urgent matters.

Is that that would not be the general rule.

The way I'm receiving your discussion, Commissioner Davis Johnson is you would want at least five of seven commissioners to be convinced from the discussion of the item that it's urgent enough to go ahead and vote on it that day, as opposed to the full unanimous seven that Commissioner Spears had on the table.

Right.

There's no pro express legal prohibition against that that I see.

The the key from our perspective in the law department is that the commissioners will be very, very careful to only do this when absolutely necessary, and we have a proper justification for doing it.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with that.

Um again, five out of seven.

I guess that probably gets us as close as we might get on something.

I I just want to say just before I get myself in trouble with you guys, our focus will be the reason for doing it, not the number of commissioners who agree.

Right.

Okay.

I mean, the reason is something that quite frankly, we would have to defend.

So that will always be our focal point.

Okay.

I have a recommendation for this.

Okay.

Oh, I would suggest that we add either the word urgent or language that indicates this is specifically for urgent items, because right now it reads for any item, as long as there is unanimous consent, we could move forward.

So if we could update that.

If you were gonna qu may I if you were gonna qualify it, I would in I would recommend the use of the term necessary as opposed to urgent.

Okay.

Any number of circumstances may make it necessary to do this in the mind of five five commissioners.

Okay.

Urgent has a different connotation.

I like that necessary with five votes or two-thirds is how it's written here.

So when you say five votes are two-thirds, would that mean two-thirds of the people present, or would it mean at least five votes?

I'm sorry, repeat that question.

Two-thirds.

Yeah, I'm saying so you want to say five, because if it's four of us here, and you say two-thirds.

Right.

You know, uh, would we just say five votes?

Well, going back to the time when we only had five commissioners, so even when we only had five commissioners, we still required that two-third vote.

Four minutes.

Well, two-thirds is five.

But remember when um the seats three and seven were vacated, we had five commissioners.

I believe that our previous county attorney did require like of the of the body of seven that it still be five votes.

Okay, that's what I was remembering.

Maybe it.

Yeah.

So maybe it does need to just say five for clarity purposes.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, we're good with that.

Uh just a quick question.

Uh um attorney Phillips.

Um.

So you have a follow- let her do a follow-up.

Oh, um, I apologize.

Okay.

Um, I'm just reading the comments on unintended consequences.

I believe that you um added this note here.

Are there any suggestions that you want to make?

Well, I I had spoken to beware of unintended consequences.

Okay, you don't want to.

So the commission I got you suggested that we're just careful about that.

I understand.

And and listening to your discussion, I told you what our dominant concern is.

We have to have the right reasons.

Thank you.

All right, yield back.

Okay.

Okay, so getting to the real reasons.

If one of us has a food distribution coming up, and we need to get a food distribution coming up, and we need to get funding for that food distribution, and we it at it gets added on uh at the BOC meeting.

Um you guys are still gonna review that, and you're gonna make a determination on necessity or urgency.

Yes, we we will review whether or not an item meets the requisite urgency or necessity, and I would prefer necessity over urgency um to warrant putting it on the agenda and voting.

I would hope in the scenario you gave, and commissioners I want to be very clear, I do not want to answer hypothetically.

Okay, but know that if you have a food distribution that should require planning, which allows you to put this on through the normal process, and if there is an amendment last minute because money's being added by your colleagues or something like that, it's already on the agenda.

That's a substitute, not a walk-um.

Not a walk-up.

Okay.

And you know, the bottom line, commissioners, to be very frank with you, is adding items in voting is susceptible to abuse in the form of I failed to prepare.

So my failure to prepare is gonna be couched as an emergency for the body, and we'll just pass it because I really wanted it to go by today.

And Commissioner Phillips from the 8th district shouldn't be allowed to do that, okay, because it could pose a problem.

Okay, thank you.

So you all got it.

If it's y'all's failure to prepare is not uh emergency or necessity.

Okay.

Well, that's what attorney Phillips is saying.

He did just say that.

Uh and I guess uh uh to that point, I I sort of feel like Commissioner Spears' original idea of the seven votes might be appropriate.

Like if it's that if it's that urgent, you need all seven of us to say yeah, it's that urgent.

Well, I mean, it's necessary.

He said not urgent, but necessary.

Right.

And it may not be seven may not find it necessary, but two-thirds may find it necessary.

Agreed.

And I guess the as I think this out, the concern I have is is again going back to that that uh hypothetical, this is district money, and there is the perception that we should be able to use our district.

That's not district money for a food for for a food distribution.

If if one of the districts wanted to put together a food distribution on short notice, then that brings up the question that we've sort of at least acknowledged uh if it's within your district funds and you're spending within your district, there has been this general courtesy of acknowledging it's it's within your committee or within your jurisdiction to to be able to spend that money, and so then this puts sort of a five-two vote where it could turn around.

Um I'm trying to say basically it could make politics very very sharp up here, even sharper than it already is.

And if it's a unanimous vote, we're all in it together.

We all acknowledge it.

If it's the five-two, then it it's I don't know, it adds a little more space that I don't know if we necessarily need to add to the five.

I think that you have to look at it and based upon what we I think you have to look at it on an individual basis.

You know, um, to just categorically say we need seven votes.

Yeah, you know, that may not ring true for everything.

Hopefully, we can have seven votes.

If somebody feels necessary, and if it's your own district money, and you give a reasonable explanation, like I had to do, like Commissioner Long Spears made me explain why I had to walk something on, and I explained that the money was running out, and they talked to me about it.

And that's the reason it got on.

You know, but your explanation may not be good for all seven members, but it may be good for five.

It's your money.

Okay.

Okay.

I I do want to just clarify a couple things because when we say unanimous, if only five people showed up, then it still will be a vote of five.

It could be a vote of six, it could be a vote of seven.

So um that that is so I know we've been saying seven, so it either it's seven or unanimous, unanimous is a broader term.

It just depends on the number of commissioners that are present.

If we do use the term unanimous, so it could still be five in any given vote.

But the other thing is if we're using our operational funds, then those things don't necessarily have to come as an agenda item.

So not everything that we use our funds for requires to be um voted on by the board.

It has it would have to be brought on the agenda for us to vote on it, even if it's not discretionary funds.

I mean it's it's brought up.

And so that's the reason I say it should be five rather than seven um to make that determination.

Because I may not want to approve something that Terry won't approve in his well, we were having this discussion before.

Zach, remember in the agenda setting meeting, we were discussing that there are some buckets that don't necessarily have to come before the board.

We're just choosing to put everything on an agenda item for transparency.

And so can you speak to that?

Because to address one of the concerns Commissioner Patrick have, if we're pulling from that bucket, then you don't have to worry about getting a unanimous, getting a five, getting a seven.

So if I may, um, and commissioner is as I recall really with the implementation of ARP funding, that's when uh, well, really, the CARES Act funding is when the board seemed to begin um bringing more items to the board for approval.

It was really twofold.

You had CARES funding and you had discretionary funding that um then uh the administration at that time began to recommend in the budget and the board approve.

I don't know that there was any policy prior to that that required board approval on certain dollars amount dollar amounts.

Um you know, but I I think it was twofold, wanting to have full visibility on how the CARES Act funding was spent, and because the discretionary funding at that time was relative was new, wanting to have full visibility on that.

But I think that's a board decision in terms of um amounts under 100,000 or so.

Don't quote me on the exact dollar amounts, but uh I would imagine if the board wanted to revisit that as to what items should be brought before the board, um, that's something we could probably look at and make a recommendation in the context of how other spending is done throughout the county.

And is our are we using operational and discretionary interchangeably, or are those two different things?

Well historically the board had received an operating budget, and then we added in a discretionary budget that was not embedded, if you will, into the department to to the commission budgets, and you would pull out of that pot, which is why in the term is still used, these are my discretionary funds.

I believe this year we put them all together into one account uh for the first time, and the thinking behind that is to get to the point where we're operating in a way that it's all you know, when the board approves a budget at the end of February, it's your budget.

Um the term discretionary is not necessary.

Um, so then you would have funds related to cares and an ARP is gone, so there's splossed funds that you have discretion over, right?

A million dollars each, and then the rest of the your budget.

So those would be the two buckets.

So it essentially, if there are some things that we deem to be emergency, they don't necessarily have to come as an agenda item before the board, depending on the bucket that it comes from.

That we're we're just we we do that out of transparency.

Right, right.

Probably for the past 10 years or two.

Yeah, but even if we don't have to vote on it, we bring it before the board to uh so that we can account from which fund it is and how much is being spent.

So even if we don't vote on it, uh we do bring it before the board, and what do we do on that?

We're gonna bring it before the board to record it.

Because what it does is record where your money is coming from and how much it's being spent.

So we do record it, and to record it, we put it on the agenda prior to the meeting as an item to be recorded.

Yeah.

You're madam chair.

I I would have to go back and check.

I don't recall instances of motion to record an allocation.

Uh it may well be something that is done, it just doesn't come to mind immediately.

I know that the board records certain actions to include um appointments and things like that, but typically, I'll just say typically, that the board, when you put items on, you're seeking approval, even if it's a very informal approval because you know it's almost a I'm gonna use the term ward court courtesy.

I've not seen instances that I can think of where a commissioner wants to allocate their budget to something, and there's much debate.

Yeah, there is.

I mean, we do it all the time.

I was see how you miss it.

Uh when we want to allocate our money, we record it.

Now, what we have not you're talking about.

No, it's record how much money that we're getting.

I mean, one of the things that I objected to that came up on Commissioner Spears was when she allocated money from her appropriation, and we had not voted on the appropriation, and that was only for recording purposes only.

Now, what we don't vote on is what comes out of our operating budget.

That's discretionary with us, but we've always voted on uh not voted, but we've always recorded uh monies coming from our discretionary funds, and um you'll tell me if I'm wrong.

I gotta get fab started.

And is it anyone that disagree with that?

We have always recorded on our discretionary funds.

That was the consent agenda.

We automatically put those on consent.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Madam Chair, you're exactly right.

The reserve appropriation is a reserve.

In order for it to be appropriated, the board has to take action.

So it's simply a placeholder that we have to fill in the gaps on.

And we put it on prior to the meeting.

Now, if we want to change that, we'll talk about it next time, because I'm one minute over from what uh commissioner Territari gave me.

So I appreciate you giving me those that extra time.

So with that, is there a motion to adjourn?

And Shannon, you caught what we need to come back to.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you.