Patrick that's walking in now and so we um uh we have um commissioner Lone Spears present and us today welcome we um and um from there um I'm gonna ask the committee members have you all had an opportunity to read a review the minutes of the April 21st, 2026 um ops committee uh motion to approve 2026-0796 second okay all in favor aye aye okay those minutes are approved the next thing we have on the agenda I have one thank you I have one new agenda item is that it uh I mean really uh that's innovation and technology that's right two of them was facilities and uh PWI items all right has been moved out of my committee so we have a change order number two to contract number one one nine two six oh nine Tyler Cloud hosting services migration for the for the as world software sole source for use by the Department of Innovation and Technology to obtain three year cloud SAS hosting uh service to assess and collect property taxes seek an increase in contract funds and terms through December the thirty first twenty twenty nine awarded to Tyler Technologies amount not to exceed four million ninety four thousand eight hundred and seven dollars and eighty-eight cents good afternoon madam chair and commissioners we are requesting to extend the contract for three years for Tyler this is the IAS World product this is software as a service uh the the departments that use IAS World are the tax commissioner's office uh property appraisal as well as GIS so the tax commissioner they use this uh software to do tax billing and collection and property appraisal this is what they use for camera their computer aided uh system to to appraise property okay and has this um been sent to audit i it's not bad it's not bad it's not bad thank you it is not it's okay well do we have a motion to defer this item to our next uh committee the hope with a stop at our next committee of the whole uh motion to defer for two weeks second all in favor aye all right okay thank you since we have no further um agenda items new agenda items then we will now uh talk about the um focus on the charter review commission and um let me see we have uh about almost an hour and a half left so let's take about 35 minutes for the charter review and the rest of the time let's do 35 minutes for the charter review the rest of the time we will give it to the um rules committee already and we're starting that 35 minute timer now um per charter review recommendations we last ended off on page nine talking about section nine powers and duties of the commissions um page page nine of the law memo okay excuse me uh demetrius can you bring my charter review book yes we stop okay so this is

Yes.

Okay.

So this is okay.

Okay.

Okay, thank you, Shannon.

Absolutely.

And just to reiterate now that we are all situated, uh we ended with section nine power is of duties and commissions.

So uh with your approval, we can move forward with section 12 that's outlined here on page nine, which is the presiding officer.

Uh let's see, recommendation.

Let's see.

The recommendation from the charter review was to eliminate subsection A relating to the CEO's voting rights at the BOC meetings.

This would change section 12 changes would be removal of this provision removes an executive power and presents a practical problem as there would be no method to resolve a tie for a BOC vote.

Um at 15 years out of the Charter Review Commission, and Madam CEO does not support this recommendation due to identified practical concerns.

Agreed.

Yeah, I I agree with that recommendation because the only time that the CEO would have the opportunity to vote would be in the event of a tie.

And so um I'm for um keeping the charter as it is here.

Uh other committee members.

I agree.

Yeah, I agree as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I would be in support of removing the CEO's voting rights on the board of commissioners.

I think we have discussed several other provisions where the CEO has in essence cautioned us to not get into her business, and then now this provision, which is really a holdover from when the CEO was on the board of commissioners, will be getting into our business.

And I do believe that the possibility of a tie ever happening is very, very unlikely, particularly because the vacancy rules and stipulations in terms of law now allow that vacancy on a commission seat to be filled rather quickly as opposed to waiting for eight or nine months.

And so I just I really don't see a scenario where um there wouldn't be seven sitting commissioners and there would be a tie.

I guess someone could recuse themselves, but you know, again, the the the basic point is the CEO used to sit on the board of commissioners as the chair of the commission meetings.

It was removed, but I guess this voting uh provision has has remained has remained.

Um so I would just suggest that we're gonna either pick two branches of government, executive legislative, um, or we're gonna try to bring them together.

But this sort of this kind of hybrid approach where the CEO can dip into our business, but we're not allowed to dip into her business, um, just strikes me as an actual in balance of power towards an already powerful CEO form of government.

Okay.

And um just to comment on a couple of things that you stated, this is not a tit for tat, and I will uh, you know, this is governance, it's not tit for tech.

And of course, we get into the CEO's business and administration's business every day for the benefit of the people of the county when we have a concern.

Uh we have the right to question the administration, and we do that.

We have the right to set over sight for the administration, and we do that, but this is not a tick for tack situation.

This is a situation where, and then the um the presiding officer set the agenda for the board of commissioners.

That was removed.

On one hand, you say that you never see a scenario where you would need a and and and and usually you won't, because I don't think that it has happened.

And I don't think it happened the year before.

So it's really gonna be rare situations where it would happen.

So I um think it's a good um, I think that is something good if we get a tie for the CEO to be able to break that tie, and as I stated, is not a on-gone scenario where she's voting with the board, but for the county to be successful, we have to work together.

And so um I'm like I said earlier, I'm for what I saw question.

Yeah, after and my my understanding of this is that it's similar to the president's vice president in the Senate, whereas of course, you know, Congress and the Senate voted votes often, but if there is a tie in the Senate, then the vice president has an opportunity to vote.

We don't have a vice CEO.

So to me, this is this mirrors the federal government, and and I think it's fine.

Like you said, it rarely occurs.

We are usually pretty good about sticking to our votes.

It's usually seven of us that make the vote, so I think it's fine.

Um did you have anything?

Okay.

Yeah, I just want to clarify.

So it looks like the Charter Review Commission voted 15 to zero to remove that section.

And so we're we're not in this case, we're not accepting the recommendations from the charter commission.

Well, I don't accept the recommendations sometimes from um because this is what they have.

I'm saying I don't charter with the recommendation from my committee members.

Yes or no.

No.

Yeah, we're not accepting that particular.

I'm just asking a question, yes or no.

Is it not no?

We are not accepting the recommend that particular recommendation.

I asked that the charter review commission recommend removing this section, because it says 15 ayes.

I think the answer is yes.

They don't have to remove it.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

Okay, we're gonna we're gonna move on.

And so um based on the committee's recommendation, we will uphold it.

Okay.

Okay, great.

You said you're removing it.

You said withholding it.

What is what is what is the committee's recommendation to withhold it?

No, the community recommendation is to not accept that recommendation from the charter review commission.

Okay.

From the charter review commission understood.

So we're moving forward to page 10 section 14 powers and duties of the chief executive.

Substantive changes, CEO shall promote and improve the county government and economic growth.

BOC request for information necessary to establish policy or action shall be responded to by the CEO promptly.

The CEO's power to create change, consolidate or abolish departments, agencies or offices are subject to BOC approval via resolution.

A synopsis of the annual report detailing the county's financial affairs will be made available on the county website.

These are the recommended changes for section 14.

Amendment to require a written response from the CEO upon failure to respond to the BOC.

Amend clarity for a written response to language provided.

Each of these changes alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches as previously established by the general assembly.

Um 11 voting yes, zero nays and four abstains.

And then we have another.

I'm sorry zero, what did you say?

Um 11 yes, zero nays, and four abstentions.

Okay.

In total, the CEO, madam CEO does not support these changes as they alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches as previously established by the General Assembly.

Further bullet point four is otherwise addressed in section 11.

Okay.

Any comments.

Okay.

If there's um no comments.

Yes, I have a comment.

I'm in to come up on the committee.

And then do you have a comment?

Okay.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Terry.

Okay.

Um I'm not exactly clear what the CEO is saying that she's against because there's four different bullet points here.

Um, but I'll just uh raise the point that there were it looks like 15 eyes for the first bullet point.

That just says the CEO shall promote and improve the county government encourage growth.

I guess that's then don't see a problem with that one.

Um it looks like maybe 11 eyes for abstentions, zero nays for the BOC request for information necessary to establish policy or action shall be responded to by the CEO promptly.

And I think this is very similar to the subpoena power issue.

So you know, is the same situation if we're not gonna include a subpoena power, and if at some point in the future the CEO did not respond to BOC request for information, then it seems very appropriate that the a resolution could be passed by the Board of Commissioners, the legislative branch to ask the executive branch to respond.

I think that's a very common practice in executive legislative branch situations.

Um Commissioner Bolton brought up the the U.S.

Senate earlier.

Um the U.S.

Senate does subpoena uh administration officials, but they also pass resolutions asking for information as well when they they don't get it.

So that one seems very um straightforward.

Okay, thank you.

Um thank you, Commissioner Davis Johnson.

Um not certain if my question should be directed to Ms.

McGraw, uh Chief of Staff May or the law department, but it has to do with um Madam CEO's note related to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Could you could one of y'all, whoever can best respond?

The law department would be best equipped to answer that.

Sure.

If the law department would like to come forward, if you could talk to me about all four of these bullets and how that will impact the balance of power if she's referring to all four.

Well, as I read these bullets, Commissioner, um it it seems that these bullets describe what the CEO would be able to do, and in changing anything in our organizational act about the CEO's power to take action on any level in any way, it's a change in the balance of power between the commission and this CEO or any CEO as constructed in the org act today.

The very nature of this section of the Charter Review Commission's activity in your review as a commission is such that there's a change in balance of power for all of these items.

That's why they're in this section.

It would require the General Assembly to make these changes.

So I I cannot speak to the CEO's point other than what I understand them to be as written here, which you're reading as well.

Um but taking these powers, changing these powers in any way changes the power, the structure of the balance of power that currently exists.

All right.

Um so let me ask this question in a different way.

First bullet CEO shall promote and improve the county government and encourage growth.

How does that impact the balance of power between the two branches?

Well, if you're taking that out, any time she would point to that provision as why she's doing something, or the express organizational act basis for something she's doing, should no longer have it because it's been removed.

All right, but as it reads right now, I don't see how that would impact a balance of power.

Just as just in the nature of what it says here.

Number two, um, I I do understand how that would um potentially impact the balance of power.

BOC requests for information necessary to establish policy or action shall be responded to by the CEO promptly, and that does sound a lot like subpoena power.

The third item, the CEO's power to create change, consolidate, or abolish departments, agencies, or offices is subject to BOC approval via resolution.

Um, I certainly understand that as well, because that is an exclusive um right of hers in the org act currently.

Then on to bullet four, a synopsis of the annual report detailing the county's financial affairs will be made available on the county website.

I don't understand how that would impact the balance of powers.

And furthermore, um to the far right, it says bullet four is otherwise addressed in section eleven, and I don't see any references to Section 11 in our packets.

I was hoping that someone could tell me what section well I do actually see a portion of Section 11 related to the independent internal audit on page five.

So anywho, um go ahead.

Well, you've told me your view, and and it seems that the bigger question is whether or not the reference in Section 11 is enough, and the fact that it exists both in Section 11 and Kier, currently, taking it out of one reduces it to just that one mere section and placement matters.

Um a synopsis of the report is what's listed.

The question is whether or not you as a body think that that should be removed.

The numbers of voting don't list for the Charter Review Commission, but their recommendation is clear.

It's your decision if you want to ask the General Assembly to remove it or not.

Okay, so um I was searching for it in this second packet, which I didn't realize I had while you were talking.

I'm just trying to understand again why placing the annual report on our website would impact the balance of power.

I don't get that.

I think it's it's you know really kind of lead lends itself to absolutely you're shaking your head.

Yes.

Well, no, I'm I'm gonna do that.

Just being open and your position.

Transparent.

But any time you change anything that there could be unforeseen consequences, and I don't want to speculate about how this could impact things, but the fact of the matter is when you change these provisions, it impacts what could or could not be done, and it's a matter of time before that manifests in a given circumstance in front of us.

I'm not gonna speak to a hyperfat, but that's the circumstance we face.

Well, I just want to state for the record, I don't believe that bullet one or four impact the balance of power.

Thank you.

Um I yield back.

I I'd like to comment and then I'm gonna turn it on to uh any um comment on what commissioner spears uh states, and that is um Long Spears.

And that is the CEO shall promote and improve the county government and encourage growth.

Anytime that you say shall, you know, I mean I have a concern with that strong language.

And when you say shall um improve something that you use in general language from the question is who does the interpretation?

And also uh how is that enforced?

So I can see where that's a change of power, because you're telling the CEO that they shall do this, which is to improve county government and encourage growth based upon your definition or any of our definitions of what is improving county government and encouraging growth.

And so I see whether that can impede upon the balance of power.

Now you talk about the last one, and and you say no, but when you use the word that's a strong word, shale, you know, there's uh no discretion in the word shale is meant to be must, you know, and then when you talk about uh financial disclosure on annual report is not saying that it's not done, but is very general.

Do you do it every month?

Do you do it every six months?

Do you do it every day?

Do you do so?

Yeah, I mean, that's also directing or impeding or affecting the balance of power between the CEO's discretion and uh the board's demand.

I think when people make recommendations, when we empower a group to make recommendations, I think they do the best that they can come up with the best recommendations that they feel is in the benefit of the county.

But that's what they are, their recommendations.

And usually many people do not understand, including myself in a many ways, and that's reasonable to ask the possible consequences behind the recommendations of the positions that they take.

And so that's the reason that recommendations they come in before us as an elected body to review those recommendations to ask questions about what could be the consequences behind.

So it's not taking anything away from the charter review committee.

I appreciate what they've done, but as I was stating earlier, just like with my community council, my planning person, any other committee that I've been bought, their recommendations.

And it's up to me to look at those recommendations to analyze those recommendations to determine whether or not they benefit my constituents and the fair.

Now, when we talk about the charter review, we're looking at the whole county.

And so I deeply appreciate what the county, I mean, what the charter review committee has done.

But they are recommendations.

We are the elected body, and we have to ask questions as we see fit that will benefit the county as a whole.

So Commissioner Bolton and then Commissioner Patrick, then I'll come back to you.

Okay.

With, and I think this is the second bullet.

I'm uh just read really briefly from page 32, the language that was suggested, it says such requests shall be responded to by the chief executive or chief operating officer or his or her designee in a timely fashion.

If the chief executive denies or fails to respond to a commissioner's request, the chief executive shall provide the requesting commissioner with a written explanation for his or her response or lack thereof.

However, the vagueness of this is concerning.

If this is something we're considering, I think we need to iron it out a bit more because in a timely fashion may mean different things to each of the seven district commissioners, but also depending on what the request is, that time frame may vary as well.

And so we don't want to put the chief executive officer in a position to where they he or she is jumping through hoops to meet requests based on our what we define as a in a timely fashion without consideration for the effort that it may take to respond for said request.

So I think that at least needs to be reconsidered, but I don't want it to hold us up in some of the other decisions that we will be making.

So I I think for the time, unless we have a suggestion or are clear on how we can move forward, this piece in particular, item B on page 32 should be held.

And then, and this is minor, but I'm just thinking about um on page 33.

I think this is with respect to the last bullet.

It was I, but I is crossed out.

Well, I guess it's a part of H now.

Yeah, I guess it's a part of H now.

But in any case, the addition was that uh the reports, the annual reports, the language that was added is and on the county website.

So it was already the official organ of DeCab County, which is not named.

The official organ of DeCab County and what was added is and on the county website.

At the time that the charter was written and then many updates thereafter, there was no website, it didn't exist.

So I'm just thinking we may need to consider language that just may say the county's official online platform in the event that technology changes, and we don't use websites anymore.

Maybe we use a an app or something or some technology that doesn't exist as of yet, so that this doesn't have to be updated so frequently just for those five words.

And I yield back with that.

Okay.

Commissioner Patrick.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Yeah, you know, reading through some of the original language as well as what is um proposed or recommended by the Charter Review Commission.

Uh, at times it looks like this is just uh an attempt to clean up and maybe modernize some components of the language.

Uh you'll note throughout here it says executive assistant, and then that's been replaced by chief operating officer.

Um I'm not sure that there's a measurable improvement in in how the government will run uh from what's been proposed to be changed versus what is already there.

Uh I I guess for the sake of modernization adding and on the county website to me doesn't seem like a huge shift in power.

Uh it just increases the number of places that it can be um that information can be accessed by the public.

Um then listening to our county attorney on the sort of the rule of unintended consequences.

I guess I would say perhaps we're wiser keeping what is here otherwise in the existing language.

Again, I acknowledge that this is efforts to clarify and clean up some things, um, but I I think maybe the the wisdom of what's there is is it works, and we've not really had that many issues with what has been, at least during my time.

I haven't noticed a lot of the issues uh that this seems to be trying to address or reasons for uh updating the language.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, my follow-up relates to bullet four, a synopsis of the annual report detailing the county's financial affairs will be made available on the county website, and it states here on the far right column that bullet four is otherwise addressed in section 11.

It's also addressed in the previous section 19 and the proposed section 21, if we adopt the changes, which is the Department of Finance section.

If you go down to B, it does in fact dictate that the finance director shall certify to the chief executive and to the commission on March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year a statement of county finances, which shall reflect the overall county financial position.

Blah blah blah.

The chief executive shall cause the June 30th and December 31 statements to be published in the official organ of DeCab County one time, and a copy posted on the county courthouse bulletin board and on the county website within 30 days of each date.

This was uh, and this is currently in the org act.

It was addressed in the FAB committee a couple months ago when we realized that actually wasn't happening.

And um director McNabb stated that section.

Sure, absolutely.

Um, it is on page 38 of our document.

It is the current section 19, the proposed section 21, Department of Finance, Bullet B.

If you'll read that whole section, and so we discovered in the FAB meeting a couple months ago that this was indeed in the org Act, and uh our director McNabb has agreed to try to shoot for these deadlines, and she pointed out almost in jest that the document is several hundred pages, and so what I suggested is that instead just put a QR code twice a year in the champion, our legal organ.

Um, it does state here the county courthouse bulletin boards, and so one of you guys mentioned needing to maybe it was you, Commissioner Patrick needing to modernize.

I think that is an old phrase, right?

On bulletin boards.

Um, and it's suggesting though, um, and on the county website.

If you flip through this, I just did a cursory review, and they the charter review folks looks like on several items did state and on the website.

So perhaps, you know, maybe there's a different way that you guys, as committee members would like to suggest that be read.

But I just wanted to point out is that this bullet point really does speak to what's already in the org act, and that is already a requirement of our director of finance.

I yield back.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes, um, real quick on the the question of shall being included in some of these, because there's a lot more shalls, attorney Phillips.

Um when there's a dispute between what someone believes the shall says has to happen and whether it did happen or didn't happen.

Is is that like how does that get resolved?

Is that basically a lawsuit?

Like how can you resolve the question of whether the shall was achieved or not?

Commissioner, it's very hard to answer hypothetics, but I will speak to the use of the term shall as a technical legal term.

Wherever that term appears, it is an affirmative confirmation that the sentence must happen.

Whatever action is being described must happen.

That's the connotation of shall, and it's maybe an oversimplification, and I'm not trying to be rude to you, but the context beyond that would dictate how any disputes about it get resolved.

And again, I I don't want to deal with the hypothetic, but if party A says they did it and party B says you didn't, well, what exactly did you do and did that constitute what was necessary?

Right.

How you resolved that depends on the context, Commissioner.

Understood.

Um I guess that I were kind of getting at is if there is a vagueness that follows the shall.

Is it should we, and this is maybe you're just this is you rec giving us recommendations on what's the best way to be articulate on what we're trying to achieve is should our goal be to try to c to clarify and be more precise in the words we use if it's if the concern is that the words that follow shall are too uh general.

Again, it depends on the context.

Sometimes you use words that give you enough flexibility to cover a range of things.

Sometimes you are very specific, and the detail and specificity is necessary to nail down a very narrow circumstance.

It depends on what we're dealing with.

Okay, and the the drafting can be challenging in that context.

The the one thing that's really important for the questions you're posing in this exchange that you and I are having, Commissioner Terry, is the overall document, the entire organizational act is how we would read any section.

We have to read it within the context of the full document.

Okay, understood.

Um and then just last point I'll make um so the this section, the next three.

Um they have the big red blocks that says Madam CEO does not support these changes, um, as they alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches previously established by the General Assembly.

So I think we're at a little bit of a disadvantage commissioners because we're sort of left speculating what the CEO was referring to because this comment is just a blanket response, more in, you know, in principle, less about the individual sections.

So I'm just wondering if it might be prudent to skip the portions where we don't, because there's no one here from the CEO's office to speak about what her intent was.

We just all we have is just the comment that it just affects the bounce powers, and then we don't really know why.

So I'm just wondering, Madam Chair, um, madam chair, if it's possible.

Madam Chair, is it possible that we could just skip the items where the CEO has mentioned because we don't really know specifically what she was referring to.

We just have a general statement on these sections.

And would it make sense to just invite someone from her office to I don't know, just give us more detail.

Well, I know Zach was at all the charter review meanings.

Uh oh, there's your time.

Could we hear from the chief executive officer right quick?

And then we'll determine what we'll do from there.

Yes, ma'am, from the COO.

Um so uh when when going through the each of the recommendations with the CEO, I mean um in many instances the discussion uh led to exactly what Commissioner Terry is um stating.

Uh you know, we're in the CEO's eyes, and based on the discussion, um there seemed to be a shift in balance of power, or or um the CEO was not supportive of uh making certain changes.

I don't know that we went into great length, not that the CEO could not provide more discussion if if that were appropriate, but I think the CEO um, you know, with her review basically stated here's how I feel about these various items.

So I think really what you have before you, you know, it does articulate the CEO's position.

Okay, thank you.

And uh you had something that you wanted to uh oh commissioner spears, before you leave, I just want to acknowledge your idea about uh maybe putting the QR code in the paper or uh at the at the reader board, perhaps the reader board is uh is a digital screen and it can have that uh QR code there where people can read it at the at the Maloof building or here at the 178 Sam Street.

So one acknowledge that I think that's probably a good way to approach it.

Um again when I read this section here, it it it just seems to me like they're sort of restating and trying to reclarify things in a in a different way, but they've already been stated.

So I'm not sure uh aside from the and add the website.

Um I'm sort of comfortable with the language as it is, our original language as it is.

Yeah, I just um we had discovered that section of the org act in the Fab Committee, and I just wanted this committee to know that that has already been addressed and discussed with our director of finance, who does acknowledge that it is in the org act, it hasn't happened, and I don't know when it stopped happening, to be honest.

It was probably before my time, but she was funny.

She says, you know, this is reports to stick, we can't put it in the champion.

What about you know, um, a QR code or something?

I thought that was a lot of wisdom in that.

So thank you very much for acknowledging, and I'll be right back.

Okay, thank you, madam chair.

Well good.

Okay, so I I think that consensus consensus on that uh we would add the QR code.

And the add the website, and then staff can put the QR code in the paper or however it addresses it and put it at the Maloof building uh on the on the reader board.

But otherwise, generally speaking, I think the language is already covered there.

Is that your consensus?

And that's mine as well.

Okay, so did you get that Shannon?

Yes, ma'am.

Does he need to repeat it?

No, okay.

It's also recorded, so I can back up.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

He was very self-spoken on that.

Okay, so how much time we have left?

So the timer for uh the 35 minutes did ring.

One to give you all right.

Okay.

I just want to add one thing in the same section before you move on.

Um, there is one of the bullet points uh of the four bullet points that uh speaks to um the CEO's power to change to create change, consolidate, or abolish departments, agencies, or offices.

That's the third bullet point.

If you look on page 32, um, I think out of all the things that you have discussed, I think this is probably the most practical change.

Um it's uh in um the new section would be subsection C on page 32.

It's um in red with the under C underlined.

It and it reads subject to the approval of the commission, and they've just added by resolution, the chief executive shall have the power to change, consolidate, or abolish.

So what they're adding um is just these two words by resolution, and I think what the um Charter Review Commission is just trying to do is give you the how it would happen.

So because it says before that that by approval of the commission, by resolution is just a simple way to do it.

There would be a resolution that you will vote upon.

It just gives you the practical thing.

So I think that I thought that was just low-hanging fruit that you look at if if that under if it makes sense what I'm saying.

It's one of the cleanups, I think Commissioner Patrick was alluding to.

So yeah, we're agreeable with that.

Okay, Shannon.

Uh we're ready for the um ruse committees.

Okay, commissioners, we will spend the remaining of committee time talking about standard procedural rules.

We have roughly 30 minutes or so.

Um, but we'll and we'll keep track of that by timer.

Um, and I can let you know when it's close to 215.

So you what you're getting passed out right now is is two documents.

First is um the kind of updated tracker that central staff has been working on through the direction of COS May, breaking down each section section by section of the standing procedural rule and summarizing the status of your odds of review thus far, any next steps as needed and any comments that were provided.

Um at the last ops meeting, it was the directive of this committee for staff to review all comments, documentation materials that have been used so far in these discussions and go back and highlight what still needs to be discussed and if what has not had any concerns.

If you see it grayed out, that means that there were no concerns recorded in the materials available to central staff status-wise, you will also see a couple of options either in process or complete.

Um if it's complete, the next steps will be either a non-available, meaning that there's no change, or um that the language change is pending and that you all have approved that language as a committee.

Um the in process next step or status and law review is a reference to this document that was provided by John Manson.

Items for review by the law department.

From my review of these materials, you all would have just received a copy of this as well from Jessica.

In my review of these materials, there was not consensus in this document.

I did double check the other documents that were provided to me where consensus was provided in that language.

However, I do not have consensus here.

So my recommendation would be moving forward, if it is of the will of the committee, would be to go through the law department's document corresponding with this tracker, and walk through the items as needed.

Yeah, Shannon, you know, it was my understanding, and I'd have to go back through my documents that we were just about completed on this um on this on the standing procedure rule, but I see quite a number of items are still in process.

Could you explain that?

Um there were two documents that were provided to me by Mr.

Manson before his uh um temporary departure.

One was items to be reviewed by the committee, and the other one was the item for review by the law department.

This item that says items were reviewed by the law department has is similar to the other one, but it doesn't provide any recommendations in this in this language.

So I'm not frankly sure if the committee has gone through all of it, if there has been recommendations made, but as far as the materials that were given to me in this handoff, my suspect is that it has not had a recommendation.

Okay.

So let me ask law this law, the items that are in letter in in yellow saying law review.

Have the law had an opportunity to review these items.

Commissioner, I just received this document in the last two minutes.

Let me offer this comment to you.

There are two different types of um provisions on your standing procedural rules that we have reviewed.

One is where there was robust discussion about the precise language that would be changed and what the change would be.

And oftentimes that happened in the committee.

Those are the two distinctions that I would make.

Sometimes the language came right out of our dialogue, where by the time the committee finished this discussion, you'd identify language the committee was happy with.

Other times you were asking the law department to bring language back.

Okay.

So Shannon, if you could do this, if you could give us what John gave you when you initially started, let's let us review that.

Then let us review this.

Okay.

And then we can have discussions.

We had just about completed this.

And now I'm seeing a lot of in progress.

So I just need to see exactly, and I have my copy too, but I want to make sure that my copy comports to what you had, what you were given, so that we can see what we've been through and where we are now.

Absolutely.

And I understand, Commissioner, um.

I am aware that I'm coming in on the tail end of this process.

Um, however, I can I'm happy to provide you with what I have been given thus far to work with.

Well, I want to what I want.

If you have documentation, what I want is what John originally gave you when you took over.

Yes.

That's what I want because I want to compare that with what I have.

Okay.

And then we can discuss it from there.

Absolutely.

I'll make sure that you and your staff have that today.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Um I think the last meeting was at the fifth floor meeting room.

Sorry, I think I zoomed into that.

Um, do we know where we left off at the moment?

I'm sorry.

Do we remember where we left off at that meeting?

Well, I'm saying this for the first time.

I'm talking about this.

Okay.

Well, uh you know, I don't want to discuss this with out having an understanding of this because I don't want to repeat I said.

I just don't think we I know I know we didn't go over the working groups.

Okay.

Well, let us we'll we'll come back.

I will say, madam, uh, madam chair, just to add, this document that says items for review by the law department was one of the two documents given to me by Mr.

Manson.

I will forward you over both for your review offline.

I'm happy to.

The other document that was provided by me by Mr.

Manson was the um was the document that the committee recently completed.

Well, I tell you this.

Send me everything John gave you when you came aboard.

Happy to.

And then I can look at them.

Happy to.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So if there's um nothing further.

Y'all have anything?

Go ahead.

Okay.

Would it be possible at the next review of the rules that we could um plan to speak about the working group section?

I'm sorry.

The the working group section of the rules.

Um, that was personally speaking, that was my main request.

Um, so is that something we could talk about at the next okay.

I'd like to see what we what we left off on the working group.

But I don't have any problems with that.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I don't have any problems with that.

Okay.

Good.

Yeah.

I'm good.

You good.

Okay.

Uh motion to adjourn.

Uh, is there a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.